Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Maximizing the spin-orbit torque efficiency of Pt/Ti multilayers by optimization of the tradeoff between the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity and carrier lifetime

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes a practical upper bound near 0.8 on the spin Hall ratio achievable in platinum by shortening carrier lifetime, and shows that a Pt/Ti multilayer reaches it at 90 μΩ cm.

desk verdict Solid materials result with a directly measured efficiency-resistivity improvement; the θSH≈0.8 and 'upper bound' claims are model-dependent and overstated but not fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06528 v1 pith:PVH6ENJE submitted 2019-08-18 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Lijun Zhu , R. A. Buhrman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spin-orbittorquespinHalleffectconductivityratioPt/Timultilayerscarrierlifetimeinterfacialtransparencydirty-metalregime
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

The paper tries to establish that there is a practical upper bound, at least about 0.8, on how much the spin Hall ratio of platinum can be increased by making the metal more resistive. It shows that inserting sub-monolayer titanium layers into Pt raises the resistivity through interfacial scattering while leaving the face-centered-cubic structure of platinum largely intact, and that the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity survives strain and moderate disorder but falls rapidly once carrier lifetime shortens enough to enter the dirty-metal regime. The optimum film, $[\mathrm{Pt}\,0.75\ \mathrm{nm}/\mathrm{Ti}\,0.2\ \mathrm{nm}]_7/\mathrm{Pt}\,0.75\ \mathrm{nm}$, reaches $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}\approx 0.8$ and a dampinglike torque efficiency per unit current density $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}^{j}\approx 0.35$ at a resistivity of 90 μΩ cm. The authors argue that this sets an upper bound near 0.8 for any heterogeneous Pt-based material whose resistivity is raised by shortening carrier lifetime, and that the multilayer is a strong candidate for energy-efficient spin-orbit-torque memory and logic.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the identity $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}^{j}=(2e/\hbar)\,T_{\mathrm{int}}\,\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}\,\rho_{xx}$, which connects the measured torque efficiency to the bulk spin Hall ratio through the interfacial spin transparency $T_{\mathrm{int}}$, together with $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}=\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}/\sigma_{xx}$. The experimental mechanism is the $[\mathrm{Pt}\,d/\mathrm{Ti}\,0.2]_m/\mathrm{Pt}\,d$ multilayer, where each sub-monolayer Ti insertion acts as a strong interfacial scatterer that raises $\rho_{xx}$ while leaving the fcc order of Pt mostly intact, and where the spin diffusion length is connected to resistivity through an Elliot-Yafet assumption. The argument then rests on the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity of Pt being robust against strain and moderate disorder but sensitive to carrier lifetime, so the scaling of $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$ with $\sigma_{xx}$ identifies the dirty-metal regime as the limiting factor.

What would settle it

Measure the dampinglike torque on the same $[\mathrm{Pt}\,0.75/\mathrm{Ti}\,0.2]_7/\mathrm{Pt}\,0.75$ stack with a technique that does not assume the interfacial spin transparency, for example a thickness-series spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance analysis that extracts the bulk $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$; if the resulting $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}$ is near 0.35 rather than 0.8, the $T_{\mathrm{int}}$ model used for the headline number is the limiting assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}=\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}/\sigma_{xx}$ for Pt-based spin Hall materials cannot be pushed much beyond roughly 0.8 by resistivity engineering, because the same carrier-lifetime shortening that raises $\rho_{xx}$ eventually degrades the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$. The paper supports this with a series of Pt/Ti multilayers: increasing the number of 0.2 nm Ti insertions raises $\rho_{xx}$ from 26.5 to 192 μΩ cm while the measured dampinglike torque efficiency per applied field falls by more than a factor of two. Converting those data through an assumed interfacial spin transparency yields an internal $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}$ that rises from about 0.46 for pure Pt to about 0.8 at the optimum and then declines. The decline of $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$ tracks the decline of electrical conductivity on the same curve for both Ti and Hf insertions, which the authors take as evidence that shortened carrier lifetime, rather than strain or disrupted crystal order, is the dominant degradation mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

The headline $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}\approx 0.8$ rests on the model's interfacial spin transparency of roughly 0.5; if the true transparency were perfect, the same torque data would give only about $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}\approx 0.35$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raising the resistivity of a Pt-based spin Hall material by shortening carrier lifetime has diminishing returns: past the optimal insertion density, $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}^{j}$ falls because $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$ drops faster than $\rho_{xx}$ rises.
  • A device built on $[\mathrm{Pt}\,0.75/\mathrm{Ti}\,0.2]_7/\mathrm{Pt}\,0.75$ can deliver torque efficiency comparable to $\beta$-W while operating at lower resistivity, which lowers write energy, device impedance, and Joule-heating endurance problems.
  • The collapse of the Ti and Hf insertion data onto one $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$-versus-$\sigma_{xx}$ curve means the mechanism and the ceiling are not specific to titanium; other Pt-based multilayers should obey the same scaling.
  • Adding more scattering layers beyond the optimum is counterproductive: it continues to raise $\rho_{xx}$ but lowers $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}^{j}$, so the optimum is a genuine maximum of torque per current density.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test is to extract $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$ with an interface-independent method, such as a thickness-series spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance analysis, to check whether $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}\approx 0.8$ survives without the assumed $T_{\mathrm{int}}$.
  • If the carrier-lifetime ceiling is universal for intrinsic spin Hall metals, beating $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}\approx 0.8$ would require a different lever: raising $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$ itself through band-structure engineering or a different crystal phase, not adding more resistivity.
  • Because the paper estimates spin-memory loss reduces the interface transmission by at most about 15%, an interface engineered to weaken interfacial spin-orbit coupling could raise $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}^{j}$ by roughly that fraction without changing the bulk bound.
  • The same tradeoff should appear in other intrinsic spin Hall metals, so measuring $\sigma_{\mathrm{SH}}$ as a function of $\sigma_{xx}$ in Pd-based or other 5d alloys would test whether their practical ceilings follow the same curve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 reports harmonic Hall measurements of the dampinglike spin-orbit torque in [Pt d/Ti 0.2]m/Pt d/Co stacks with sub-monolayer Ti insertions. The directly measured torque efficiency per applied field, ξDL^E, decreases monotonically with insertion number m, while the torque efficiency per unit current density, ξDL^j, increases from about 0.16 at m=0 to a peak of about 0.35 at m=7 (ρxx≈90 μΩ cm) and then declines slightly. Using a spin-transparency model Tint = Tint^SBF × Tint^SML, the authors convert these measured efficiencies into the spin Hall ratio θSH and spin Hall conductivity σSH, obtaining θSH≈0.8 for [Pt 0.75/Ti 0.2]7/Pt 0.75. They attribute the decrease of σSH with increasing resistivity to shortening of the carrier lifetime, rather than to strain or loss of crystalline order, and they conclude that this trade-off sets a practical upper bound of θSH≥0.8 for Pt-based spin Hall materials.

Significance. If the quantitative claim θSH≈0.8 is accepted, the paper provides both a practically useful spin Hall metal and an important limit for the design of Pt-based spin-torque devices. The paper has notable strengths: the harmonic Hall data are direct and internally consistent; the non-monotonic evolution of ξDL^j and the σSH-versus-σxx scaling are robust to the spin-transparency model because Tint is nearly constant for m≥3 in the bulk limit; and the demonstration of ξDL^j≈0.35 at a moderate resistivity of 90 μΩ cm is a valuable materials result independent of the absolute θSH calibration. The main caveat is that the headline θSH≈0.8 and the upper-bound statement rest on model parameters taken from earlier work, with no uncertainty propagation. The paper would be substantially strengthened by a quantitative sensitivity analysis and by tempering the upper-bound language.

major comments (3)
  1. [Spin transparency model and Fig. 3(b)] The conversion from the directly measured torque efficiency ξDL^j to the headline θSH≈0.8 relies entirely on the model Tint = Tint^SBF × Tint^SML, with Tint^SBF given by Eq. (1) using λs obtained by assuming a dominant Elliott-Yafet mechanism and G_Pt/Co^↑↓ = 0.59×10^15 Ω^-1 m^-2, and Tint^SML from the linear relation of Ref. [30]. No uncertainty or sensitivity analysis is provided for these interface parameters. If G_Pt/Co^↑↓ were doubled, Tint would increase and θSH would drop to approximately 0.6; in the limiting case Tint=1, θSH would equal the directly measured ξDL^j≈0.35. Because the central quantitative claim and the abstract's upper bound inherit this model dependence, the authors should provide a sensitivity analysis over G^↑↓, λs, and Ks, or an independent experimental determination of Tint for this specific Pt/Ti/Co interface, before claiming θSH≈0.8.
  2. [Mechanistic discussion and Fig. 4(d)] The attribution of the σSH decrease to carrier lifetime is stated as 'unambiguous,' but the supporting comparison between Pt/Ti and Pt/Hf multilayers is not controlled: the two series differ in total Pt thickness (6 nm versus 4 nm), insertion-layer density, and degree of structural disorder. The dashed line in Fig. 4(d) is a guide to the eye rather than a quantitative fit to the predicted dirty-metal σSH(σxx) scaling. The data are consistent with the carrier-lifetime mechanism, but the wording overstates the evidence; a quantitative comparison with the theoretical σSH(σxx) curve, or additional samples that vary disorder independently of resistivity, would strengthen the mechanistic conclusion.
  3. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'upper bound of θSH ≥ 0.8' is internally inconsistent, as is the conclusion's 'effective upper bound of ξDL^j ≥ 0.4 (θSH ≥ 0.8)': an achieved maximum at m=7 is evidence for a lower bound on the attainable maximum, not for an upper bound. The text also acknowledges that 'the exact theoretical limit of θSH and the corresponding resistivity have remained unsettled.' A discrete scan of m values cannot establish a practical upper bound unless the authors argue, or demonstrate, that no other insertion density, layer sequence, or microstructure can improve on m=7. Please revise the claim to 'maximum measured value' or provide the missing argument for why this is a true upper bound.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption labels the last two panels both as '(d)'; the panel showing spin transparency should be labeled '(e)'.
  2. [Main text, Section 4] The word 'Unambigous' should be corrected to 'Unambiguous'.
  3. [Main text, Section 2] The phrase 'the the derivative' should be corrected to 'the derivative'.
  4. [Spin transparency model] The Ks values used to estimate Tint^SML are not reported in the main text; the authors should give the measured Ks values and their uncertainties for each m, since this is a central input to the absolute θSH calibration.
  5. [Measurement uncertainty] The statement that the uncertainty of ξDL^E is 'less than 2%' appears to refer to statistical fitting precision; please clarify whether systematic uncertainties from the harmonic-analysis model, such as the neglect of fieldlike torque contributions or the macrospin assumption, are included in this estimate.
  6. [Abstract] The wording 'practical upper bound of θSH ≥ 0.8' should be harmonized with the actual data and with the conclusion; as written, 'upper bound' and '≥' are contradictory.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; θSH≈0.8 is model-dependent but not constructionally equivalent to its measured inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim (θSH≈0.8) is obtained by dividing the directly measured torque efficiency ξ_DL^j≈0.35 by an interface transparency Tint = Tint^SBF × Tint^SML. The transparency parameters (G_Pt, G_Pt/Co↑↓, and the SML coefficient 0.23) come from prior publications, some by the same group (Refs. 24, 30, 35). However, none of these parameters is fitted to the present dataset, and the paper's main trend — σSH degrading as σxx decreases — is essentially the directly measured ξ_DL^E trend because Tint is roughly constant for the m≥3 multilayers. The 'practical upper bound' is an empirical maximum, and the paper explicitly notes that 'the exact theoretical limit of θSH ... [has] remained unsettled.' No equation in the paper reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation; the Elliot-Yafet assumption and the SML relation are stated assumptions from independent, externally falsifiable prior work. Therefore the derivation is not circular, though the absolute value of θSH is model-dependent and would shift if the interface transparency parameters were revised.

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

The quantitative spin Hall ratio θSH ≈ 0.8 is obtained by dividing the directly measured torque efficiency ξDL^j ≈ 0.35 by a spin transparency Tint that is itself model-dependent, built from the authors' prior spin-backflow and spin-memory-loss results. The trend of σSH with σxx would survive a constant Tint error, but the absolute claim of a giant θSH is not a raw measurement.

free parameters (3)
  • Ti insertion thickness = 0.2 nm
    Chosen to create strong interfacial scattering while preserving fcc Pt order; not scanned, so the optimality of 0.2 nm is not demonstrated.
  • Co thickness t = 1.3 nm for m≥1, 1.9 nm for m=0
    Chosen to ensure fully in-plane magnetization and strong harmonic signal; the different t for m=0 could introduce a small systematic offset in comparison across series.
  • Reference spin diffusion length λs of pure Pt = 2.9 nm at ρxx ~ 26.5 μΩ cm (from Ref. [35])
    Imported from prior work and scaled with resistivity via the Elliot-Yafet assumption; central to computing Tint^SBF.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Elliot-Yafet spin relaxation dominates, so λs is inversely proportional to resistivity
    Used to compute λs and Tint^SBF for each sample (Section 2, Fig. 3d); if spin relaxation were not EY, the inferred Tint values would change.
  • standard math Tint^SBF formula from drift-diffusion (Eq. 1) with spin mixing conductance GPt/Co^↑↓ = 0.59×10^15 Ω^-1 m^-2
    Standard drift-diffusion result; the mixing conductance value is taken from theory [27].
  • domain assumption Tint^SML ≈ 1 - 0.23 Ks from Ref. [30]
    The linear SML model from the authors' own PRL is applied to these Pt/Co interfaces; the Ks values (0.36 to 0.65 erg/cm^2) are from supplementary measurements.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic spin Hall theory of dirty metals predicting σSH degradation with carrier lifetime
    Cited from Refs. [19,21,23] to interpret the observed σSH-σxx scaling; not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maximizing the spin-orbit torque efficiency of Pt/Ti multilayers by optimization of the tradeoff between the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity and carrier lifetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PVH6ENJE

@misc{pith2026190806528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maximizing the spin-orbit torque efficiency of Pt/Ti multilayers by optimization of the tradeoff between the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity and carrier lifetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PVH6ENJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06528}
}
read the original abstract

We report a comprehensive study of the maximization of the spin Hall ratio ({\theta}SH) in Pt thin films by the insertion of sub-monolayer layers of Ti to decrease carrier lifetime while minimizing the concurrent reduction in the spin Hall conductivity. We establish that the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity of Pt, while robust against the strain and the moderate interruption of crystal order caused by these insertions, begins to decrease rapidly at high resistivity level because of the shortening carrier lifetime. The unavoidable trade-off between the intrinsic spin Hall conductivity and carrier lifetime sets a practical upper bound of {\theta}SH >=0.8 for heterogeneous materials where the crystalline Pt component is the source of the spin Hall effect and the resistivity is increased by shortening carrier lifetime. This work also establishes a very promising spin-Hall metal of [Pt 0.75 nm/Ti 0.2 nm]7/Pt 0.75 nm for energy-efficient, high-endurance spin-orbit torque technologies (e.g., memories, oscillators, and logic) due to its combination of a giant {\theta}SH of 0.8, or equivalently a dampinglike spin torque efficiency per unit current density of 0.35, with a relatively low resistivity (90 uOhm cm) and high suitability for practical technology integration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06528 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Schematic of the “in-plane” harmonic response measurement. (b) In-plane field (Hin) dependence of dVAH/dHz, (c) In-plane field angle dependence of the second harmonic voltages (V2ω)(Hin = 3 kOe), and (d) Va versus – VAH/2(Hin+Hk) for [Pt 0.6/Ti 0.2]9/Pt 0.6/Co 1.3. The solid lines in (b)-(d) refer to the best fits of the data to dVAH/dHz =VAH/(Hin+Hk), V2ω=Vacosφ+Vpcosφcos2φ, and Va= – HDLVAH/2(Hin+Hk) +VANE, re… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) The dampinglike SOT efficiency per applied electric field 𝜉DL E and the spin Hall conductivity σSH, (b) the dampinglike SOT efficiency per unit bias current density 𝜉DL j and the spin Hall ratio θSH, (c) the resistivity ρxx, (d) the spin diffusion length λs, and (d) the spin transparency for Pt/Ti multilayers with different m. The possible mechanisms for the decrease of σSH with decreasing d (increasing m) are t… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) X-ray diffraction θ-2θ patterns for [Pt d/Ti 0.2]m/Pt d. (b) The integrated intensity of Pt (111) peak I(111) and (c) Lattice plane spacing of Pt (111) for [Pt d/Ti 0.2]m/Pt d and for [Pt d/Hf 0.2]n/Pt d, with total Pt thickness d(m+1)≈ 6 nm for Pt/Ti multilayers and d(n+1) ≈ 4 nm for Pt/Hf multilayers. (d) Scaling of the spin Hall conductivity with electrical conductivity for [Pt d/Ti 0.2]m/Pt d (solid, black) … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    L. Zhu, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Spin-Orbit Torques in Heavy -Metal–Ferromagnet Bilayers with Varying Strengths of Interfacial Spin -Orbit Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 077201(2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    C. O. Avci, A. Quindeau, C.-F. Pai, M. Mann, L. Caretta, A. S. Tang, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, G. S. D. Beach , Current-induced switching in a magnetic insulator, Nat. Mater. 16, 309–314 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Liu，C.-F

    L. Liu，C.-F. Pai, Y . Li, H. W. Tseng, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Spin-torque switching with the giant spin Hall effect of tantalum, Science, 336, 555 (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [3]

    Yu et al

    G. Yu et al . Switching of perpendicular magnetization by spin-orbit torques in the absence of external magnetic fields, Nat. Nanotech. 9, 548 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, H. Ulrichs, V. Tiberkevich, A. Slavin, D. Baither, G. Schmitz, S. O. Demokritov, Magnetic nano -oscillator driven by pure spin current, Nat. Mater. 11, 1028 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    Emori, U

    S. Emori, U. Bauer, S.-M. Ahn, E. Martinez, G.S.D. Beach, Current -driven dynamics of chiral ferromagnetic domain walls, Nat. Mater. 12, 611–616 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Jiang, P

    W. Jiang, P. Upadhyaya, W. Zhang, G. Yu, M. B. Jungfleisch, F. Y. Fradin, J. E. Pearson, Y. Tserkovnyak, K. L. Wang, O. Heinonen, S. G. E. Velthuis, A. Hoffmann, Blowing magnetic skyrmion bubbles, Science 349, 283-286 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    S. V . Aradhya, G. E. Rowlands, J. Oh, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Nanosecond-timescale low energy switching of in-plane magnetic tunnel junctions through dynamic Oersted-field-assisted spin Hall effect, Nano. Lett. 16, 5987– 5992 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    S. Shi, Y. Ou, S.V . Aradhya, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Fast, low -current spin -orbit torque switching of magnetic tunnel junctions through atomic modifications of the free layer interfaces, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 011002 (2018)

    2018

  2. [9]

    Cubukcu et al., Ultra -fast perpendicular spin –orbit torque MRAM, IEEE Trans

    M. Cubukcu et al., Ultra -fast perpendicular spin –orbit torque MRAM, IEEE Trans. Magn. 54, 9300204 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Fukami, T

    S. Fukami, T. Anekawa, C. Zhang, H. Ohno, A spin– orbit torque switching scheme with collinear magnetic easy axis and current configuration, Nat. Nanotech. 11, 621–625 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    L. Zhu, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, E fficient spin current generation by the spin Hall effect in Au 1-xPtx, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 031001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    L. J. Zhu, K. Sobotkiewich, X. Ma, X. Li, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Strong damping -like spin -orbit torque and tunable Dzyaloshinskii -Moriya interaction generated by low-resistivity Pd 1−xPtx alloys, Adv. Fun ct. Mater . 29, 1805822 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    C.-F. Pai, L. Liu, Y. Li, H. W. Tseng, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Spin transfer torque devices utilizing the giant spin Hall effect of tungsten, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 122404 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Zhang, S

    C. Zhang, S. Fukami, K. Watanabe, A. Ohkawara, S. DuttaGupta, H. Sato, F. Matsukura, and H. Ohno, Critical role of W deposition condition on spin -orbit torque induced magnetization switching in nanoscale W/CoFeB/MgO, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 192405 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    A. R. Mellnik, J. S. Lee A. Richardella, J. L.Grab, P. J. Mintun, M. H. Fischer, A.Vaezi, A.Manchon, E. -A.Kim, N. Samarth, D. C. Ralph, Spin -transfer torque generated by a topological insulator, Nature 511, 449-451 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    M. DC. et al. Room-temperature high spin–orbit torque due to quantum confinement in sputtered Bi xSe(1–x) films, Nat. Mater. 17, 800–807 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    Shiokawa, E

    Y. Shiokawa, E. Komura, Y. Ishitani, A. Tsumita, K. Suda, Y. Kakinuma, and T. Sasaki, High write endurance up to 1012 cycles in a spin current-type magnetic memory array, AIP Adv. 9, 035236 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    D. S. Holmes, A. L. Ripple, and M. A. Manheimer, Energy Efficient superconducting computing —power budgets and requirements, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond. 23, 1701610 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    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 4 d and 5d transition metals, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165117 (2008)

    2008

  13. [20]

    G. Y. Guo, S. Murakami, T. -W. Chen, and N. Nagaosa, Intrinsic Spin Hall Effect in Platinum: First -Principles Calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096401(2008)

    2008

  14. [21]

    Vignale, Ten Years of Spin Hall Effect, J

    G. Vignale, Ten Years of Spin Hall Effect, J. Supercond. Nov. Magn. 23, 3–10 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    Nguyen, M

    M.-H. Nguyen, M. Zhao, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Enhanced spin Hall torque efficiency in Pt 100−xAlx and Pt100−xHfx alloys arising from the intrinsic spin Hall effect, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 242407 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    L. Zhu, L. Zhu, M. Sui, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Variation of the giant intrinsic spin Hall conductivity of Pt with carrier lifetime, Sci. Adv. 5, eaav8025 (2019)

    2019

  17. [24]

    L. Zhu, L. Zhu, S. Shi, M. L. Sui, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Enhancing spin -orbit torque by strong interface scattering from ultrathin insertion layers, Phys. Rev. Appl . 11, 061004 (2019)

    2019

  18. [25]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Spin-Torque Ferromagnetic Resonance Induced by the Spin Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 036601 (2011)

    2011

  19. [26]

    Y.-T. Chen, S. Takahashi, H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, E. Saitoh, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 87, 224401 (2013)

    2013

  20. [27]

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

    2013

  21. [28]

    P. M. Haney, H. W. Lee, K. J. Lee, A. Manchon, M. D. Stiles, Current -induced torques and interfacial spin -orbit Coupling, Phys. Rev. B 88, 214417 (2013)

    2013

  22. [29]

    C.-F. Pai, Y . Ou, L. H. Vilela-Leao, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Dependence of the efficiency of spin Hall torque on the transparency of Pt/ferromagnetic la yer interfaces, 6 Phys. Rev. B 92, 064426 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Rojas-Sánchez，N

    J.-C.N. Rojas-Sánchez，N. Reyren, P. Laczkowski, W. Savero, J.-P. Attané, C. Deranlot, M. Jamet, J.-M. George, L. Vila, and H. Jaffrès . Spin pumping and inverse spin Hall effect in platinum: the essential role of spin -memory loss at metallic interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, ...

    2014

  24. [32]

    L. J. Zhu, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Irrelevance of magnetic proximity effect to spin -orbit torques in heavy - metal/ferromagnet bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134406 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    R. J. Elliott, Theory of the effect of spin -orbit coupling on magnetic resonance in some semiconductors, Phys. Rev. 96, 266 (1954)

    1954

  26. [34]

    Yafet, g factors and spin -lattice relaxation of conduction electrons, Solid State Phys

    Y . Yafet, g factors and spin -lattice relaxation of conduction electrons, Solid State Phys. 14, 1 (1963)

    1963

  27. [35]

    N guyen, D

    M.-H. N guyen, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Spin torque study of the spin Hall conductivity and spin diffusion length in Platinum Thin Films with Varying Resistivity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 126601 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Nguyen, C

    M.-H. Nguyen, C. -F. Pai, K. X. Nguyen, D. A. Muller, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Enhancement of the anti - damping spin torque efficacy of platinum by interface modification, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 222402 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Zhu, D.C

    L. Zhu, D.C. Ralph, R.A. Buhrman, Effective Spin - Mixing Conductance of Heavy -Metal–Ferromagnet Interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 057203 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    See Supplementary Materials, which includes ref. [39], for more details on interfacial magnetic anisotropy energy density and x -ray diffraction patterns , and calculated power consumption for in-plane spin -orbit-torque MRAM devices based on various strong spin Hall materials

  31. [39]

    J. Han, A. Richardella, S . A. Siddiqui, J . Finley, N. Samarth, and L . Liu, Room-Temperature Spin-Orbit Torque Switching Induced by a Topological Insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 077702(2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Mahfouzi and N

    F. Mahfouzi and N. Kioussis, First-principles study of the angular dependence of the spin -orbit torque in Pt/Co and Pd/Co bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 97, 224426 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.