Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Phenomenology of orbital torque, pumping and mixing conductance in metallic bilayers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that orbital torque in normal-metal/ferromagnet bilayers is governed by a factorized efficiency combining orbital current injection, orbit-to-spin conversion, and spin current backflow, with a clear material design rule.

desk verdict Clear closed forms for orbital torque as injection/backflow compromise, with a load-bearing simplification in Eq. (7) that needs an explicit validity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08340 v1 pith:GZICKSP4 submitted 2024-12-11 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xiaobai Ning , Henri Jaffrès , Weisheng Zhao , Aurélien Manchon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords orbitaltorqueHalleffectdrift-diffusionmodelspin-orbitconversionmixingconductancepumpingspincurrentbackflowmetallicbilayers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a phenomenological drift-diffusion model for the orbital torque in normal-metal/ferromagnet bilayers. It claims that the torque is not set by the orbital current alone, but by a compromise between orbital current injection from the light-metal source into the ferromagnet and spin current backflow from the ferromagnet to the source. The central result is a compact efficiency formula, $\eta_o = P_{os}\left(1 + \tilde{G}^{F}_{s}/\tilde{G}^{N}_{s}\right)^{-1}\left(1 + \tilde{G}^{N}_{o}/\tilde{G}^{F}_{o}\right)^{-1}$, which identifies the design rule: maximize the spin conductance of the source and the orbital conductance of the ferromagnet. The same framework yields orbital versions of the mixing conductance and an Onsager partner, orbital pumping. If correct, it gives device designers a transparent criterion for choosing materials for orbital-torque devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective (spin or orbital) conductance $\tilde{G}^{N(F)}_{s(o)} = \sigma^{N(F)}_{s(o)}/\tilde{\lambda}^{N(F)}_{s(o)}$, which measures how well a metal absorbs a spin or orbital current. The argument is carried by the factorization of the orbital transmission efficiency, $\eta_o = P_{os}\left(1 + \tilde{G}^{F}_{s}/\tilde{G}^{N}_{s}\right)^{-1}\left(1 + \tilde{G}^{N}_{o}/\tilde{G}^{F}_{o}\right)^{-1}$, where the first factor is orbital injection from N into F, the second is orbit-to-spin conversion inside F, and the third is spin current backflow from F to N. Around this formula the paper builds two-channel drift-diffusion equations that couple spin and orbital currents in F, interfacial boundary conditions with spin conductance and spin-orbit transfer conductances, and the resulting definitions of spin-mixing, orbit-spin-mixing, and spin-orbit-mixing conductances.

What would settle it

Measure the damping-like orbital torque as a function of ferromagnet thickness in a bilayer whose ferromagnet has a strong crystal-field splitting; if the torque-versus-thickness curve shows an oscillatory component or a sign change instead of the monotonic saturating form implied by $\eta_o$ in Eq. (17), the dropped orbital-precession term in Eq. (7) is load-bearing and the model's central scaling fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the orbital torque in an N/F bilayer is not controlled by orbital injection alone but by a two-step compromise. The orbital Hall current generated in N must be injected into F, converted there into a spin current with efficiency $P_{os}$, and that spin current must then be transmitted back into N, where it is measured as a torque on the magnetization. Equation (17) factorizes this as $\eta_o = P_{os}\left(1 + \tilde{G}^{F}_{s}/\tilde{G}^{N}_{s}\right)^{-1}\left(1 + \tilde{G}^{N}_{o}/\tilde{G}^{F}_{o}\right)^{-1}$, and the same structure survives when the conversion is moved to the N/F interface. The model predicts that the torque increases with F thickness and decreases with the orbital relaxation length in F, because long orbital diffusion in F allows backflow into N. It also defines orbit-spin- and spin-orbit-mixing conductances and uses Onsager reciprocity to predict an orbital pumping current alongside the usual spin pumping.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that inside the ferromagnet the orbital density only relaxes without precessing around the local crystal field, so if that precession is significant the orbital current profile, the thickness dependence, and the claimed scaling with the orbital relaxation length would all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Design rule: to maximize orbital torque, choose the source metal with large spin conductance and small orbital conductance relative to the ferromagnet, i.e. $\tilde{G}^{N}_{s} \gg \tilde{G}^{F}_{s}$ and $\tilde{G}^{F}_{o} \gg \tilde{G}^{N}_{o}$.
  • A longer orbital relaxation length in the ferromagnet weakens the torque for a fixed thickness, because the orbital current can flow back into the source instead of being converted.
  • When orbit-to-spin conversion is interfacial rather than bulk, the same compromise is controlled by the interfacial conductances $G_{os}$, $G_{s}$, $G_{o}$ and the spin precession and dephasing in F, so inserting a strong-SOC interface layer changes the prefactor but not the physics.
  • The Onsager reciprocal of the orbital torque is orbital pumping: a precessing magnetization pumps an orbital current into the adjacent metal with strength set by the spin-orbit-mixing conductance $G^{m}_{so}$.
  • The perpendicular component of the orbital current, generated by successive orbit-to-spin and spin-to-orbit conversion, is much smaller than the in-plane component, which can serve as a fingerprint of the conversion chain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not stated in the paper, the same injection/backflow compromise should reappear in interfacial orbital Rashba-Edelstein systems, where the source is an interface rather than a diffusive bulk layer; replacing the bulk conductances with interfacial orbital conductances would give a direct test of the factorization.
  • If the neglected orbital precession is real, the orbital current inside F should acquire an oscillating component; a fine thickness-series measurement of the orbital torque near the orbital relaxation length would reveal whether the monotonic Eq. (17) or an oscillating correction controls the signal.
  • The model separates bulk and interfacial orbit-to-spin conversion into two different efficiency formulas; inserting a heavy-metal spacer of variable thickness between the light-metal source and the magnet and checking which formula the torque follows would identify the dominant conversion site in real devices.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a drift-diffusion phenomenology for orbital torque in normal-metal/ferromagnet (N/F) bilayers, treating spin and orbital currents as coupled channels in the ferromagnet and at the interface. The central result is Eq. (17), which expresses the orbital-torque efficiency as a product of orbital-current injection from N, orbit-to-spin conversion in F, and spin-current backflow from F to N. The paper also discusses the thickness dependence of the torque, introduces orbit-spin and spin-orbit mixing conductances, and uses Onsager reciprocity to connect the torque to orbital pumping.

Significance. If correct, Eq. (17) provides a transparent design rule for orbital torque and extends the mixing-conductance framework from spin to orbital transport. The model is internally coherent, reproduces the known SHE limit in Eq. (16), and produces qualitative thickness dependences consistent with reported orbital-torque experiments. It also has the virtue of not fitting the torque target: the polarization parameters Pos and Pso are taken from the authors' microscopic calculations. However, the central quantitative claim rests on a scalar orbital diffusion equation whose validity is not established, and the derivation of the central efficiency formula is not shown.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (7)] The orbital diffusion equation in the ferromagnet is scalar, ∂_z^2 μ_F_o = μ_F_o / λ_F_o^2, while Refs. [32,33] predict that the orbital moment precesses around the local crystal field, which would make the orbital chemical potential and current vectorial and oscillatory in space. The text explicitly acknowledges this neglect, but the simplification is load-bearing because Eq. (17) and the thickness/design conclusions in Section IV.B follow from the exponential profile obtained from Eq. (7). If the orbital precession length is comparable to or smaller than λ_F_o, the orbital injection and spin-backflow factors in Eq. (17) become coupled tensors and the design rule ㄢ1G_F_o ≫ ㄢ1G_N_o is modified. Please provide an estimate of the precession length or extend the model to include this term.
  2. [Section III.C, Eqs. (17)-(18)] The central efficiency formulas are introduced with 'we obtain' but no derivation is shown. Because Eq. (17) is the main quantitative claim of the paper, the derivation should be provided in an appendix, including the boundary conditions, the sign conventions for the spin backflow, and the approximations (thick F, weak SOC) under which the product structure is exact. The same applies to Eq. (18) for interfacial orbit-to-spin conversion.
  3. [Section IV.C, Eq. (22)] The orbital pumping response is fixed by invoking Onsager reciprocity, but the spin-orbit mixing conductance Gm_so is neither derived nor computed, and the reciprocal relation is stated without justification. Since orbital angular momentum is not a conserved quantity even in the absence of SOC, the Onsager relation between the torque and orbital pumping requires a derivation or at least an explicit statement of the assumptions under which it holds in this two-channel diffusive model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'compare with [Fig. 2(a,c)]' appears to be a typo and should be 'compare with panels (a,c)'.
  2. [Section III.A, Eqs. (13)-(14)] The notation cosh^{-1}(d_N/λ) is used for the factor usually written as sech(d_N/λ); defining this once would avoid confusion.
  3. [Section IV.B, Fig. 3] It would be helpful to state explicitly whether the plotted damping-like torque is the real part of the complex efficiency η or a magnitude, since the efficiencies are complex.
  4. [Section II.B, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The statement that the factor 2 in the original spin-mixing conductance is absorbed into G_s^{↑↓} appears only in passing; it should be stated clearly where G_s^{↑↓} is first introduced.
  5. [References] Reference [33] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if it has been published, the published reference should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (17) is an analytic consequence of the assumed transport equations, with no fitted parameter renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The central orbital-torque efficiency, Eq. (17), is derived by solving the stated spin and orbital drift-diffusion equations, Eqs. (1)-(4) and (7), together with the interfacial boundary conditions, Eqs. (8)-(11). Pos and the conductances enter as free parameters; in the illustrative calculations Pos and Pso are assigned values (0.5 in Fig. 3), not extracted from the torque that the paper aims to predict. The orbital-pumping response, Eq. (22), is connected to the torque conductances through Onsager reciprocity, which is a standard consistency relation rather than an independent prediction obtained from the same data. The only notable self-citation, Ref. [33], supplies microscopic estimates of orbital polarizations and precession, but the torque formula does not depend on the specific numerical values from that reference, and the precession is explicitly neglected in Eq. (7). Consequently, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input. The acknowledged neglect of orbital precession around the crystal field is an important modeling limitation and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical degrees of freedom are introduced; the orbit-spin and spin-orbit mixing conductances are derived combinations of existing transport parameters. No parameters are fitted to experimental data, and the numerical values used in figures are illustrative.

free parameters (3)
  • Pos (orbit-to-spin polarization in F) = 0.5 (illustrative)
    Assigned in Sec. IV for the current and torque profiles. Enters Eq. (17) linearly and sets the magnitude of the orbital torque. Not fitted to data.
  • Pso (spin-to-orbit polarization in F) = 0.5 (illustrative)
    Used with Pos in Eqs. (3)-(4) to couple spin and orbital channels in F. The value is representative; the qualitative results do not depend on it.
  • Interfacial conductances Gs, Go, Gos, Gso = Gs = 1x10^15 Ohm^-1 m^-2, Gos = 5x10^14 Ohm^-1 m^-2 in Fig. 4
    Chosen to illustrate the mixing conductance dependence in Fig. 4; magnitudes of the derived conductances scale with these values, but the functional forms do not.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Spin and orbital currents in N obey independent drift-diffusion equations with SHE and OHE sources, Eqs. (1)-(2).
    Basis of the two-channel model; coupling between spin and orbital channels in N is disregarded as a renormalization, stated in Sec. II A.
  • domain assumption Spin chemical potential in F obeys the precession and dephasing equation, Eq. (5).
    Standard result for transverse spin diffusion in ferromagnets, invoked from Refs. [36,37,42].
  • domain assumption Orbital chemical potential in F only relaxes, with no precession around the crystal field, Eq. (7).
    Explicitly stated as the simplest phenomenological form; neglects orbital precession predicted in Refs. [32,33].
  • domain assumption Torque on the magnetization is due only to transfer of spin angular momentum; orbital current does not directly torque the magnet, Eq. (12).
    Assumed in Sec. III A, citing Ref. [44]. If orbital angular momentum transfers directly, the torque formula changes.
  • domain assumption Interfacial boundary conditions are linear Ohm's-law conductances, Eqs. (8)-(9).
    Defines Gs, Go, Gos, Gso and the mixing conductance formalism. Tensorial nature is deferred to future ab initio work.
  • standard math Onsager reciprocity connects torque and pumping coefficients, Eq. (22).
    Standard nonequilibrium thermodynamic relation, used to define Gm_so from Gm_os.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenology of orbital torque, pumping and mixing conductance in metallic bilayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZICKSP4

@misc{pith2026241208340,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenology of orbital torque, pumping and mixing conductance in metallic bilayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZICKSP4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08340}
}
abstract

The conversion between spin and orbital currents is at the origin of the orbital torque and its Onsager reciprocal, the orbital pumping. Here, we propose a phenomenological model to describe the orbital torque in magnetic bilayers composed of an orbital source (i.e., a light metal such as Ti, Ru, CuOx...) and a spin-orbit coupled magnet (i.e., typically Ni, (Co/Pt)$_n$, etc.). This approach accounts for spin-to-orbit and orbit-to-spin conversion in the ferromagnet and at the interface. We show that the orbital torque arises from a compromise between orbital current injection from the orbital source to the ferromagnet and spin current backflow from the ferromagnet back to the orbital source. We also discuss the concept of orbital-mixing conductance and introduce the "orbit-spin-" and "spin-orbit-mixing" conductances that govern the orbital torque and orbital pumping, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08340 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Current intensities and diffusion directions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) (a, c) Spin and (b, d) orbital current profiles induced by SHE (a, b, e, f) and OHE (c, d, g, h). The corresponding spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Damping-like SOT initiated by (a) SHE and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Color online) Spin-mixing conductance (red), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Identification of orbital pumping from spin pumping and rectification effects

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Orbital pumping is identified in Nb/Ni bilayers via a voltage sign reversal that cannot be explained by spin pumping alone.

  2. Quantitative analysis of vectorial torques in thin 3d Co ferromagnet using orbital-spin conversion

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In Co/Pt/Cu* stacks, damping-like torque has a spin channel from orbit-to-spin conversion in Pt at small Co thickness and a long-range orbital channel acting over several nanometers of Co at larger thickness.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Gambardella and I

    P. Gambardella and I. M. Miron, Current-induced spin–orbit torques, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369, 3175 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. ˇZelezn´y, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic sys- tems, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 035004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Dieny, I

    B. Dieny, I. L. Prejbeanu, K. Garello, P. Gambardella, P. Fre- itas, R. Lehndorff, W. Raberg, U. Ebels, S. O. Demokritov, J. Akerman, A. Deac, P. Pirro, C. Adelmann, A. Anane, A. V . Chumak, A. Hirohata, S. Mangin, S. O. Valenzuela, M. C. Onbas ¸lı, M. d’Aquino, G. Prenat, G. Finocchio, L. Lopez-Diaz, R. Chantrell, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, and P. Bortolotti,...

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Z. Guo, J. Yin, Y . Bai, D. Zhu, K. Shi, G. Wang, K. Cao, and W. Zhao, Spintronics for energy- efficient computing: An overview and outlook, Proceedings of the IEEE 109, 1398 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Hoffmann, Spin hall effects in metals, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 49, 5172 (2013)

    A. Hoffmann, Spin hall effects in metals, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 49, 5172 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin hall effects, Reviews of Modern Physics87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Manchon, H

    A. Manchon, H. C. Koo, J. Nitta, S. M. Frolov, and R. A. Duine, New perspectives for rashba spin–orbit coupling, Nature Mate- rials 14, 871 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Bihlmayer, P

    G. Bihlmayer, P. No ¨el, D. V . Vyalikh, E. V . Chulkov, and A. Manchon, Rashba-like physics in condensed matter, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 642 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang and Z

    S. Zhang and Z. Yang, Intrinsic spin and orbital angular mo- mentum hall effect, Physical Review Letters94, 066602 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H.-W. Lee, Intrinsic spin and orbital hall effects from orbital texture, Physical Review Letters 121, 086602 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Go, J.-P

    D. Go, J.-P. Hanke, P. M. Buhl, F. Freimuth, G. Bihlmayer, H.- W. Lee, Y . Mokrousov, and S. Bl¨ugel, Toward surface orbitron- ics: Giant orbital magnetism from the orbital rashba effect at the surface of sp-metals, Scientific Reports 7, 46742 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    D. Go, D. Jo, T. Gao, K. Ando, S. Bl ¨ugel, H.-W. Lee, and Y . Mokrousov, Orbital rashba effect in a surface-oxidized cu film, Physical Review B 103, L121113 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Go and H.-W

    D. Go and H.-W. Lee, Orbital torque: Torque generation by orbital current injection, Physical Review Research 2, 013177 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    S. Ding, A. Ross, D. Go, L. Baldrati, Z. Ren, F. Freimuth, S. Becker, F. Kammerbauer, J. Yang, G. Jakob, Y . Mokrousov, and M. Kl ¨aui, Harnessing orbital-to-spin conversion of inter- facial orbital currents for efficient spin-orbit torques, Physical Review Letters 125, 177201 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    D. Lee, D. Go, H.-J. Park, W. Jeong, H.-W. Ko, D. Yun, D. Jo, S. Lee, G. Go, J. H. Oh, K.-J. Kim, B.-G. Park, B.-C. Min, H. C. Koo, H.-W. Lee, O. Lee, and K.-J. Lee, Orbital torque in magnetic bilayers, Nature Communications 12, 6710 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Lee, M.-G

    S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, D. Go, D. Kim, J.-H. Kang, T. Lee, G.-H. Lee, J. Kang, N. J. Lee, Y . Mokrousov, S. Kim, K.-J. Kim, K.-J. Lee, and B.-G. Park, Efficient conversion of orbital hall current to spin current for spin-orbit torque switching, Communications Physics 4, 234 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    Krishnia, Y

    S. Krishnia, Y . Sassi, F. Ajejas, N. Sebe, N. Reyren, S. Collin, T. Denneulin, A. Kov´acs, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, A. Fert, J.- M. George, V . Cros, and H. Jaffr`es, Large interfacial rashba in- teraction generating strong spin-orbit torques in atomically thin metallic heteros...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Y . Yang, Z. Xie, Z. Zhao, N. Lei, J. Zhao, and D. Wei, Harnessing synergy of spin and orbital currents in heavy metal/ferromagnet multilayers, Communications Physics7, 336 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    D. Go, D. Jo, K.-W. Kim, S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, B.-G. Park, S. Bl ¨ugel, H.-W. Lee, and Y . Mokrousov, Long-range orbital torque by momentum-space hotspots, Physical Review Letters 130, 246701 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    S. Ding, P. No ¨el, G. K. Krishnaswamy, and P. Gam- bardella, Unidirectional orbital magnetoresistance in light- metal–ferromagnet bilayers, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, L032041 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    S. Ding, H. Wang, W. Legrand, P. No ¨el, and P. Gambardella, Mitigation of gilbert damping in the cofe/cuox orbital torque system, Nano Letters 24, 10251 (2024), pMID: 39133560, 8 https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c02613

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Jo, D. Go, T. Gao, S. Haku, Y . Mokrousov, H.-W. Lee, and K. Ando, Observation of long-range orbital transport and giant orbital torque, Communications Physics 6, 1 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    A. Bose, F. Kammerbauer, R. Gupta, D. Go, Y . Mokrousov, G. Jakob, and M. Kl ¨aui, Detection of long-range orbital-hall torques, Physical Review B 107, 134423 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y . Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, Spin pumping and magnetization dynamics in metallic multilayers, Physical Review B 66, 224403 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    P. M. Haney, H.-W. Lee, K.-J. Lee, A. Manchon, and M. D. Stiles, Current induced torques and interfacial spin-orbit cou- pling: Semiclassical modeling, Physical Review B 87, 174411 (2013)

    2013

  18. [26]

    Tanaka, H

    T. Tanaka, H. Kontani, M. Naito, T. Naito, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Intrinsic spin hall effect and orbital hall effect in 4d and 5d transition metals, Physical Review B 77, 165117 (2008)

    2008

  19. [27]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. In- oue, Giant orbital hall effect in transition metals: Origin of large spin and anomalous hall effects, Physical Review Letters 102, 016601 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Salemi and P

    L. Salemi and P. M. Oppeneer, First-principles theory of in- trinsic spin and orbital hall and nernst effects in metallic monoatomic crystals, Physical Review Materials 6, 095001 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    A. Pezo, D. Garc ´ıa Ovalle, and A. Manchon, Orbital hall ef- fect in crystals: Interatomic versus intra-atomic contributions, Physical Review B 106, 104414 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Go, H.-W

    D. Go, H.-W. Lee, P. M. Oppeneer, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, First-principles calculation of orbital hall effect by wannier interpolation: Role of orbital dependence of the anomalous position, Physical Review B 109, 174435 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Sala and P

    G. Sala and P. Gambardella, Giant orbital hall effect and orbital- to-spin conversion in 3d, 5d, and 4f metallic heterostructures, Physical Review Research 4, 033037 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    S. Han, H. W. Lee, and K. W. Kim, Orbital dynamics in centrosymmetric systems, Physical Review Letters 128, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.176601 (2022)

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    X. Ning, A. Pezo, K.-W. Kim, W. Zhao, K.-J. Lee, and A. Man- chon, Orbital diffusion, polarization and swapping in cen- trosymmetric metals, arXiv.2310.04763 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Stiles and A

    M. Stiles and A. Zangwill, Anatomy of spin-transfer torque, Physical Review B 66, 014407 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Zhang, P

    S. Zhang, P. Levy, and A. Fert, Mechanisms of spin-polarized current-driven magnetization switching, Physical Review Let- ters 88, 236601 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Petitjean, D

    C. Petitjean, D. Luc, and X. Waintal, Unified drift-diffusion theory for transverse spin currents in spin valves, domain walls, and other textured magnets, Physical Review Letters109, 117204 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Y . Lim, B. Khodadadi, J.-F. Li, D. Viehland, A. Manchon, and S. Emori, Dephasing of transverse spin current in ferrimagnetic alloys, Phys. Rev. B 103, 024443 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    OBELIX” and by grant ANR-20-CE30-0022-01 “ORION

    (the factor ”2” appearing in the original definition is ab- sorbed in G↑↓ s ). In the next section, we solve this set of equa- tions to compute the orbital torque in N/F bilayers. III. ANATOMY OF ORBITAL TORQUE A. Definition of the SOT In the following, we assume that the torq...

  31. [39]

    Brataas, Y

    A. Brataas, Y . V . Nazarov, and G. E. W. Bauer, Spin-transport in multi-terminal normal metal-ferromagnet systems with non- collinear magnetizations, European Physical Journal B 110, 99 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Zwierzycki, Y

    M. Zwierzycki, Y . Tserkovnyak, P. J. Kelly, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, First-principles study of magnetization relax- ation enhancement and spin transfer in thin magnetic films, Physical Review B 71, 064420 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Brataas, G

    A. Brataas, G. E. W. Bauer, and P. Kelly, Non-collinear magne- toelectronics, Physics Reports 427, 157 (2006)

    2006

  34. [42]

    Shchelushkin and A

    R. Shchelushkin and A. Brataas, Spin hall effect, hall effect, and spin precession in diffusive normal metals, Physical Review B 72, 073110 (2005)

    2005

  35. [43]

    C. O. Pauyac, M. Chshiev, A. Manchon, and S. A. Nikolaev, Spin hall and spin swapping torques in diffusive ferromagnets, Physical Review Letters 120, 176802 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    J. Sohn, J. M. Lee, and H. W. Lee, Dyakonov-perel-like orbital and spin relaxations in centrosymmetric systems, Physical Re- view Letters 132, 246301 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    D. Go, F. Freimuth, J.-P. Hanke, F. Xue, O. Gomonay, K.-J. Lee, S. Bl ¨ugel, P. M. Haney, H.-W. Lee, and Y . Mokrousov, Theory of current-induced angular momentum transfer dynam- ics in spin-orbit coupled systems, Physical Review Research 2, 033401 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Krishnia, B

    S. Krishnia, B. Bony, E. Rongione, L. M. Vicente-Arche, T. Denneulin, A. Pezo, Y . Lu, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, S. Collin, A. Fert, J.-M. George, N. Reyren, V . Cros, and H. Jaffr `es, Quantifying the large contribution from orbital rashba–edelstein effect to the effective dampi...

    2024

  39. [47]

    Han, H.-W

    S. Han, H.-W. Ko, J. H. Oh, H.-W. Lee, K.-J. Lee, and K.-W. Kim, Orbital pumping incorporating both orbital angular mo- mentum and position, arXiv:2311.00362v1 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. Pezo, D. Go, Y . Mokrousov, H. Jaffr `es, and A. Manchon, Adiabatic spin and orbital pumping in metallic heterostructures, arXiv.2411.13319 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Go, S. Haku, Y . Mokrousov, and K. Ando, Ob- servation of orbital pumping, Nature Electronics 7, 646 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Brataas, Y

    A. Brataas, Y . Tserkovnyak, G. E. W. Bauer, and P. J. Kelly, Spin pumping and spin transfer, arXiv preprint arXiv:1108.0385v3 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.