Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect and Orbital Relaxation in Mesoscopic Devices

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that scalar disorder can enhance the orbital Hall response in mesoscopic square devices, with a $\langle J_{L_z}\rangle \propto 1/(U+U_0)$ scaling indicating skew scattering in the diffusive regime, and that in rectangular…

desk verdict Solid mesoscopic orbitronics numerics with a real, fixable flaw: the diffusive-regime claim is backed by a mis-cited supplementary figure. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01941 v2 pith:ICYDRJPZ submitted 2025-07-02 cond-mat.mes-hall

Anderson L. R. Barbosa , Hyun-Woo Lee , Tatiana G. Rappoport This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords orbitalHalleffectorbitronicsAndersondisorderskewscatteringrelaxationlengthmesoscopictransporttight-bindingmodelangularmomentum
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 asks how random disorder, rather than pristine crystal structure, controls orbital angular momentum currents in small devices. Using a real-space tight-binding model with $s$ and $p$ orbitals on a square lattice, it shows that moderate disorder can enhance the orbital Hall current and even reverse its sign, and that in an intermediate disorder range the current density follows $\langle J_{L_z}\rangle \propto 1/(U+U_0)$ with $U_0 \approx 0.78$ eV while the orbital Hall angle grows linearly with $U$ --- the signature of skew scattering. In longer rectangular devices the orbital current falls exponentially with width, giving a directly measured orbital relaxation length $\lambda_L$ that depends on disorder and Fermi energy. The broader point is that disorder is not just a nuisance for orbitronics: it is a controllable source of orbital Hall response, and mesoscopic multi-terminal geometries can measure the relaxation length that determines how far orbital information travels.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a nearest-neighbor tight-binding Hamiltonian with one $s$ and three $p$ orbitals per site, scalar Anderson disorder $U$, and an $sp$-hopping $t_{sp}$ whose $k$-dependent hybridization creates the momentum-space orbital texture needed for the intrinsic orbital Hall effect. Transport is computed from the Landauer-Büttiker scattering matrix, with orbital-resolved transmissions obtained by inserting projectors $P^{L_z} = l_z \otimes \sigma_0$ into the transmission trace. The same model produces the extrinsic effect: scalar disorder scatters the orbitally textured Bloch states and, in the diffusive regime, yields the $1/(U+U_0)$ current scaling that identifies skew scattering; the $p_z$ decoupling is what protects long orbital relaxation lengths.

What would settle it

Compute the disorder-averaged conductance or elastic mean free path as a function of $U$ in the same square device: genuine diffusive transport at $U \approx 1$--$4$ eV requires metallic scaling with system size and a mean free path well below $L$, whereas exponential size dependence would signal localization. If localization or ballistic effects are present, the $\langle J_{L_z}\rangle \propto 1/(U+U_0)$ fit would not uniquely establish skew scattering. Alternatively, a direct Boltzmann calculation of the skew-scattering contribution for the same Hamiltonian could be compared quantitatively with the fitted $U_0 \approx 0.78$ eV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a centrosymmetric two-dimensional square lattice with $s$, $p_x$, $p_y$, $p_z$ orbitals, scalar Anderson disorder generates an extrinsic orbital Hall response that dominates in the diffusive regime. The disorder-averaged orbital Hall current density follows $\langle J_{L_z}\rangle \propto 1/(U+U_0)$ with $U_0 \approx 0.78$ eV for $U$ between about 1 and 4 eV, and the orbital Hall angle is linear in $U$; both behaviors match the skew-scattering prediction. At larger $U$ the response saturates, which the authors read as a crossover toward side-jump or intrinsic-dominated transport. In rectangular devices, the orbital current decays as $\exp(-L/\lambda_L)$ with device width, and the extracted relaxation lengths are long because the $p_z$ orbital remains dynamically decoupled in the strictly two-dimensional model, suppressing the $L_\pm$-mediated orbital-flip channels that would relax $L_z$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the range $1 \text{ eV} \lesssim U \lesssim 4 \text{ eV}$ is genuinely diffusive transport; the paper cites supplementary Fig. S2 for this, but that figure plots orbital current and angle versus device size rather than a charge-diffusion or localization diagnostic, so the skew-scattering interpretation of the $1/(U+U_0)$ scaling rests on that regime being diffusive rather than already localized or ballistic.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Moderate disorder can be used as a tuning knob: it enhances the orbital Hall response and can reverse its sign, so impurity engineering becomes a design tool for orbitronic devices.
  • The observed $1/(U+U_0)$ scaling and linear orbital Hall angle single out skew scattering as the dominant extrinsic mechanism in the diffusive regime, with a side-jump or intrinsic crossover at higher $U$.
  • The exponential decay of orbital current with device width provides a direct, geometry-based route to measuring orbital relaxation lengths $\lambda_L$ in mesoscopic samples.
  • Long relaxation lengths are tied to the two-dimensional decoupling of $p_z$; systems with out-of-plane hopping or orbital-off-diagonal disorder should show much shorter $\lambda_L$.
  • Near band degeneracy the orbital Hall angle becomes width-dependent, meaning orbital and charge currents can decay at different rates; relaxation is not a single universal rate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling survives in other geometries, the orbital Hall angle could serve as a quantitative impurity-strength probe in orbitronic devices, analogous to skew-scattering resistivity in spintronics.
  • A direct test of the $p_z$-decoupling explanation: add a small interlayer hopping or an off-diagonal disorder term that couples $p_x/p_y$ to $p_z$, and check whether $\lambda_L$ drops by orders of magnitude.
  • The sign reversal between clean and disordered limits implies opposing intrinsic and extrinsic contributions; a two-sample experiment (clean vs doped, same band structure) could separate them.
  • Because the rectangular setup separates generation and detection regions, the same exponential-decay measurement could be adapted to nonlocal transport in light-metal films where orbital currents propagate over microns.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a numerical tight-binding study, implemented with Kwant, of the orbital Hall effect (OHE) in disordered mesoscopic square and rectangular devices. In square geometries, it reports that the orbital Hall current follows a 1/(U+U0) scaling for intermediate disorder, which the authors attribute to skew scattering, and that the orbital Hall angle becomes linear in disorder. In rectangular geometries, it reports an exponential decay of the orbital current with device width and extracts orbital relaxation lengths λ_L for several disorder strengths and Fermi energies. The manuscript also discusses the suppression of orbital-flip scattering by the two-dimensional character of the model.

Significance. The central claim is significant: if confirmed, it identifies a concrete disorder-based enhancement mechanism for the orbital Hall response and proposes a mesoscopic route to measuring orbital relaxation lengths, connecting to recent experimental efforts in orbitronics. The manuscript benefits from a transparent model, standard numerical methods (Kwant), and substantial disorder averaging. However, the key physical interpretation — dominance of skew scattering in the diffusive regime — depends critically on identifying the intermediate disorder range as diffusive, and this identification is currently unsupported by the data and supplementary figures. The quantitative extraction of relaxation lengths also lacks uncertainty estimates. These issues make the central conclusions not yet fully supported, although they are likely addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 3 discussion] The sentence 'For intermediate disorder (1 eV≲U≲4 eV), where charge transport is diffusive (see Fig. S2 in SM)' is not supported by the cited supplementary figure. Fig. S2 plots the orbital Hall current density and Hall angle versus device size L, not any charge-transport observable as a function of U. Fig. S3 shows only that ⟨I⟩ decreases monotonically with U, which is equally compatible with diffusive, quasiballistic, or localized transport. Unless direct evidence of diffusive transport in this window is provided (e.g., conductance scaling with L, or a mean free path estimate), the attribution of the 1/(U+U0) dependence to skew scattering following Ref. [40] is not established. The same miscitation for the localized regime ('see Fig. S2 in SM') further indicates that the transport-regime classification is asserted rather than demonstrated. This issue is load-bearing for the paper's central claim.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 4(c)] The exponential fits yield relaxation lengths λ_L = 224a, 130a, and 76a, but no uncertainty estimates or goodness-of-fit measures are reported, and the data points are shown without error bars. Since the text itself acknowledges that for U=0.5 and 1.0 eV the decay can be described by either a power law or an exponential, the quantitative extraction of λ_L for U=2.0 and 3.0 eV requires confidence intervals (or at least bootstrap estimates) to support the claim that the decay is exponential and to justify the reported dependence of λ_L on disorder and Fermi energy.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 3(a)] The fit ⟨J_Lz⟩ ∝ 1/(U+U0) with U0≈0.78 is presented for a single curve (tsp=0.7 eV), while the text implies that this scaling is a general feature of the diffusive regime. No uncertainty on U0 is given, and it is not demonstrated that the functional form holds for the other tsp values or device sizes. Since U0 is a fitted parameter, the authors should clarify the fitting procedure (e.g., the U range used, the number of points, and a goodness-of-fit metric) so that the claimed scaling can be evaluated independently.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Equation (2) and surrounding text] The notation P Lη η and P Sη η uses a doubled subscript that is confusing; it should be corrected to, for example, P^L_η and P^S_η.
  2. [Figure 2] The dashed lines for panels (c,f) are stated to overlap with the left vertical axes and are not visible; the authors should adjust the plotting range or use a different linestyle so that the reference parameter (λ_SOC = 0.1 eV) can be identified.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The disorder-averaged currents are presented without error bars; adding them (or explicitly stating that they are smaller than the symbol size) would strengthen the reliability of the reported trends.
  4. [Main text, references to Supplementary Material] The main text refers to 'Fig. S2 in SM' for both the diffusive and localized regimes, but the relevant supplementary figure appears to be Fig. S3 (charge current versus U). Please update the cross-references accordingly.
  5. [Main text, transport regime definitions] The manuscript does not define a quantitative criterion for 'diffusive' transport; a precise definition (e.g., sample size L much larger than the elastic mean free path, or a scaling law of conductance with L) would make the regime classification testable and strengthen the interpretation.
  6. [Main text, discussion of Fig. 4(a)] The statement that the orbital current 'decays exponentially with increasing device width' is supported only for U=2.0 and 3.0 eV; for U=0.5 and 1.0 eV the text allows a power-law decay. Please rephrase to avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the disorder enhancement, sign reversal, and exponential width decay are numerical outputs, and the skew-scattering interpretation is checked against a separately published co-authored benchmark; fitted U0 and λ_L are descriptive outputs, not inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is simulation-first: the tight-binding Hamiltonian with Anderson disorder is defined independently, the Landauer-Büttiker current formula is standard, and the quantities ⟨J_Lz⟩, Θ_OHE, and λ_L are computed from the scattering matrix and then fitted. The 1/(U+U0) scaling with U0≈0.78 and the exponential decay lengths λ_L are least-squares descriptors of already-computed data, so they cannot be self-definitional or fitted-inputs-called-predictions. The claim that this scaling indicates skew scattering is an interpretation benchmarked against Ref. [40]; that reference shares an author (Rappoport), but it is a separately published theoretical result used as a functional-form comparator rather than an assumed input, and the present data provide an independent test of that comparator. Refs. [36] and [37] are prior methodology/background citations, not load-bearing derivations. I therefore find no step where an output is equivalent by construction to an input. One non-circular evidentiary concern should be weighed separately: the text says 'For intermediate disorder (1 eV≲U≲4 eV), where charge transport is diffusive (see Fig. S2 in SM)', but the cited Fig. S2 plots OH current density and Hall angle versus device size, not a charge-transport observable versus U; this makes the diffusive-regime classification under-supported, but it is a correctness/verification weakness, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central claims rest on a small set of model assumptions (orbital-diagonal scalar disorder, 2D decoupling of p_z, Landauer-Büttiker transport) and on two fitted descriptors, U0 and λ_L, which are outputs of the data analysis rather than inputs to a derivation.

free parameters (4)
  • U0 = 0.78 eV
    Fit parameter in the skew-scattering scaling ⟨J_Lz⟩ ∝ 1/(U+U0) applied to the OHC data for t_sp=0.7 in the intermediate disorder range 1-4 eV.
  • lambda_L (U=2.0 eV, EF=-0.7 eV) = 224a
    Exponential decay fit exponent in the rectangular device width dependence.
  • lambda_L (U=3.0 eV, EF=-0.7 eV) = 130a
    Exponential decay fit exponent in the rectangular device width dependence.
  • lambda_L (U=3.0 eV, EF=-0.2 eV) = 76a
    Exponential decay fit exponent in the rectangular device width dependence.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Landauer-Büttiker scattering formalism with current conservation in four-terminal devices applies to orbital-projected currents.
    Used to compute OHC from transmission coefficients (Eq. 2 and following text).
  • domain assumption Anderson disorder potential is uniform in (-U/2, U/2) and diagonal in orbital and spin space.
    Central to the relaxation and skew-scattering conclusions; the absence of orbital-flip terms is what suppresses relaxation in the model.
  • domain assumption The p_z orbital remains dynamically decoupled because t_sp does not couple to out-of-plane orbitals in a strictly 2D lattice.
    Used to argue that orbital relaxation via L± is suppressed, yielding long λ_L.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect and Orbital Relaxation in Mesoscopic Devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICYDRJPZ

@misc{pith2026250701941,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect and Orbital Relaxation in Mesoscopic Devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICYDRJPZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01941}
}
read the original abstract

Despite recent advances in orbitronics, the influence of disorder on the orbital Hall effect and orbital relaxation mechanisms remains poorly understood. In this work, we numerically investigate the role of disorder in orbital transport within mesoscopic devices using a real-space tight-binding model on a two-dimensional square lattice that hosts atomic orbitals capable of carrying atomic orbital angular momentum. By considering devices with varying geometries--square and rectangular--and systematically tuning disorder strength, we examine the disorder effect on orbital Hall current (OHC) generation, and orbital relaxation. Our results reveal a strong dependence of the OHC and orbital Hall angle on disorder strength. In square devices, we demonstrate that the orbital Hall response can be strongly enhanced by disorder and its dependence on the disorder strength indicates the dominance of skew-scattering mechanism in the diffusive regime. In rectangular geometries, the orbital current decays exponentially with increasing device width, from which the orbital relaxation length is extracted. These findings provide critical insights into disorder-driven orbital transport phenomena and lay the foundation for designing next-generation orbitronic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01941 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Bulk energy bands of a 2D square lattice with four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a-c) Longitudinal charge current, (d-f) OHC and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) OHC, averaged over 600 disorder realizations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Coexistent multifractal mesoscopic fluctuations in Integer Quantum Hall Transition and in Orbital Hall Transition

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Charge and orbital transmission fluctuations at the integer quantum Hall transition are both multifractal and track each other in this tight-binding nanowire model.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    L. M. Canonico, J. H. Garcia, and S. Roche, Orbital hall responses in disordered topological materials, Phys. Rev. B110, L140201 (2024)

    2024

  2. [1]

    HWL acknowledges financial support from the National Re- search Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No

    TGR acknowledges FCT - Funda¸ c˜ ao para a Ciˆ encia e Tecnologia, project reference numbers UIDB/04650/2020, 2023.11755.PEX ( with DOI iden- tifier https://doi.org/10.54499/2023.11755.PEX) and 2022.07471.CEECIND/CP1718/CT0001 (with DOI identifier: 10.54499/2022.07471.CEECIND/CP1718/ CT0001) and acknowledges support from the EIC Pathfinder OPEN grant 1011...

    work page arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kl¨ aui, and Y. Mokrousov, Orbitronics: Orbital currents in solids, EPL (Europhysics Letters)135, 37001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Y.-G. Choi, D. Jo, K.-H. Ko, D. Go, K.-H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B.-C. Min, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Observation of the orbital hall effect in a light metal ti, Nature619, 52 (2023)

    2023

  5. [4]

    Lyalin, S

    I. Lyalin, S. Alikhah, M. Berritta, P. M. Oppeneer, and R. K. Kawakami, Magneto-optical detection of the orbital hall effect in chromium, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 156702 (2023)

    2023

  6. [5]

    G. Sala, H. Wang, W. Legrand, and P. Gambardella, Or- bital hanle magnetoresistance in a 3dtransition metal, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 156703 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    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 interfacial orbital currents for efficient spin- orbit torques, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 177201 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Sala and P

    G. Sala and P. Gambardella, Giant orbital hall effect and 6 orbital-to-spin conversion in 3d, 5d, and 4fmetallic het- erostructures, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033037 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    D. Jo, D. Go, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Spintron- ics meets orbitronics: Emergence of orbital angular mo- mentum in solids, npj Spintronics2, 10.1038/s44306-024- 00023-6 (2024)

    2024 doi

  2. [9]

    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 Communica- tions12, 6710 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Ding, M.-G

    S. Ding, M.-G. Kang, W. Legrand, and P. Gambardella, Orbital torque in rare-earth transition-metal ferrimag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236702 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Han, H.-W

    S. Han, H.-W. Lee, and K.-W. Kim, Orbital dynamics in centrosymmetric systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 176601 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Busch, F

    O. Busch, F. Ziolkowski, B. G¨ obel, I. Mertig, and J. Henk, Ultrafast orbital hall effect in metallic nanorib- bons, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 013208 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    T. S. Seifert, D. Go, H. Hayashi, R. Rouzegar, F. Freimuth, K. Ando, Y. Mokrousov, and T. Kampfrath, Time-domain observation of ballistic orbital-angular- momentum currents with giant relaxation length in tung- sten, Nature Nanotechnology18, 1132–1138 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    Kumar and S

    S. Kumar and S. Kumar, Ultrafast thz probing of nonlocal orbital current in transverse multilayer metallic heterostructures, Nature Communications14, 10.1038/s41467-023-43956-y (2023)

    2023 doi

  8. [15]

    Y. Xu, F. Zhang, A. Fert, H.-Y. Jaffres, Y. Liu, R. Xu, Y. Jiang, H. Cheng, and W. Zhao, Orbitron- ics: light-induced orbital currents in ni studied by tera- hertz emission experiments, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s41467-024-46405-6 (2024)

    2024 doi

  9. [16]

    D. Go, K. Ando, A. Pezo, S. Bl¨ ugel, A. Manchon, and Y. Mokrousov, Orbital pumping by magnetization dy- namics in ferromagnets (2024), arXiv:2309.14817 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [17]

    X. Ning, A. Pezo, K.-W. Kim, W. Zhao, K.-J. Lee, and A. Manchon, Orbital diffusion, polarization, and swap- ping in centrosymmetric metals, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 026303 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    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 momentum and position, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 036305 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. Abr˜ ao, D. Go, L. de Assis, Y. Mokrousov, J. Mendes, and A. Azevedo, Inverse orbital torque via spin-orbital intertwined states, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 014069 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. Abr˜ ao, J. Costa, J. Santos, G. Rodrigues- Junior, J. Mendes, and A. Azevedo, Negative orbital hall effect in germanium, Phys. Rev. Appl.22, 064071 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    J. E. Abr˜ ao, E. Santos, J. L. Costa, J. G. S. Santos, J. B. S. Mendes, and A. Azevedo, Anomalous spin and or- bital hall phenomena in antiferromagnetic systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 026702 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Go, S. Haku, Y. Mokrousov, and K. Ando, Observation of orbital pumping, Nature Elec- tronics 10.1038/s41928-024-01193-1 (2024)

    2024 doi

  16. [23]

    Johansson, B

    A. Johansson, B. G¨ obel, J. Henk, M. Bibes, and I. Mertig, Spin and orbital edelstein effects in a two-dimensional electron gas: Theory and application to srtio 3 interfaces, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013275 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    A. E. Hamdi, J.-Y. Chauleau, M. Boselli, C. Thibault, C. Gorini, A. Smogunov, C. Barreteau, S. Gariglio, J.-M. Triscone, and M. Viret, Observation of the orbital inverse rashba–edelstein effect, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567- 023-02121-4 (2023)

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    H. Liu, J. H. Cullen, D. P. Arovas, and D. Culcer, Quan- tum correction to the orbital hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 036304 (2025)

    2025

  19. [26]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Orbi- tronics: The intrinsic orbital current inp-doped silicon, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 066601 (2005)

    2005

  20. [27]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Giant intrinsic spin and orbital hall effects in sr2mo4 (m= Ru, rh, mo), Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 096601 (2008)

    2008

  21. [28]

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

    2018

  22. [29]

    Salemi and P

    L. Salemi and P. M. Oppeneer, First-principles theory of intrinsic spin and orbital hall and nernst effects in metal- lic monoatomic crystals, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 095001 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    L. M. Canonico, T. P. Cysne, T. G. Rappoport, and R. B. Muniz, Two-dimensional orbital hall insulators, Phys. Rev. B101, 075429 (2020)

    2020

  24. [31]

    T. P. Cysne, M. Costa, L. M. Canonico, M. B. Nardelli, R. B. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Disentangling or- bital and valley hall effects in bilayers of transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 056601 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Costa, B

    M. Costa, B. Focassio, L. M. Canonico, T. P. Cysne, G. R. Schleder, R. B. Muniz, A. Fazzio, and T. G. Rappoport, Connecting higher-order topology with the orbital hall effect in monolayers of transition metal dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 116204 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin hall effects, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Fert and P

    A. Fert and P. M. Levy, Spin hall effect induced by reso- nant scattering on impurities in metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 157208 (2011)

    2011

  28. [35]

    A. Pezo, D. Garc ´ ıa Ovalle, and A. Manchon, Orbital hall physics in two-dimensional dirac materials, Phys. Rev. B 108, 075427 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    Liu and D

    H. Liu and D. Culcer, Dominance of extrinsic scattering mechanisms in the orbital hall effect: Graphene, transi- tion metal dichalcogenides, and topological antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 186302 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    D. B. Fonseca, L. L. A. Pereira, and A. L. R. Barbosa, Orbital hall effect in mesoscopic devices, Phys. Rev. B 108, 245105 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    A. L. R. Barbosa, L. M. Canonico, J. H. Garc ´ ıa, and T. G. Rappoport, Orbital hall effect and topology on a two-dimensional triangular lattice: From bulk to edge, Phys. Rev. B110, 085412 (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    Tang and G

    P. Tang and G. E. W. Bauer, Role of disorder in the intrinsic orbital hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 186302 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Veneri, T

    A. Veneri, T. G. Rappoport, and A. Ferreira, Extrinsic orbital hall effect: Orbital skew scattering and crossover between diffusive and intrinsic orbital transport, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 136201 (2025). 7

    2025

  34. [42]

    J. Sohn, J. M. Lee, and H.-W. Lee, Dyakonov-perel-like orbital and spin relaxations in centrosymmetric systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 246301 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rang and P

    M. Rang and P. J. Kelly, Orbital relaxation length from first-principles scattering calculations, Phys. Rev. B109, 214427 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    V. V. Kabanov and A. V. Shumilin, Impact of the impu- rity symmetry on orbital momentum relaxation and or- bital hall effect studied by the quantum boltzmann equa- tion, Phys. Rev. B110, 235161 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    P. Sahu, S. Bhowal, and S. Satpathy, Effect of the in- version symmetry breaking on the orbital hall effect: A model study, Phys. Rev. B103, 085113 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    C. W. Groth, M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, and X. Waintal, Kwant: a software package for quantum transport, New Journal of Physics16, 063065 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Supplementary material

  40. [48]

    B. K. Nikoli´ c, L. P. Zˆ arbo, and S. Souma, Mesoscopic spin hall effect in multiprobe ballistic spin-orbit-coupled semiconductor bridges, Phys. Rev. B72, 075361 (2005)

    2005

  41. [49]

    J. H. Bardarson, i. d. I. Adagideli, and P. Jacquod, Meso- scopic spin hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 196601 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect and Orbital Relaxation in Mesoscopic Devices

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous hall effect, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 1539–1592 (2010). 8 Supplementary material for “Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect and Orbital Relaxation in Mesoscopic Devices” To complement the analysis presented...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.