Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Reversal of Spin-torque Polarity with Inverting Current Vorticity in Composition-graded Layer at the Ti/W Interface

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports that reversing the Ti/W stacking order flips the sign of the spin torque produced by a compositionally graded interface, so the polarity of the compositional gradient controls the spin-current direction.

desk verdict A clean, novel sign-reversal observation in the W/Ti CGI system, but the central vorticity claim is entangled with a deposition-condition change between the two sample series. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16806 v1 pith:TSV4VN52 submitted 2025-01-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Hayato Nakayama , Taisuke Horaguchi , Jun Uzuhashi , Cong He , Hiroaki Sukegawa , Tadakatsu Ohkubo , Seiji Mitani , Kazuto Yamanoi
show 1 more author
Yukio Nozaki
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spintronicsspin-vorticitycouplingspintorquecompositionalgradientspin-torqueferromagneticresonanceTi/WinterfaceorbitalHalleffect
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 tries to establish that a nanoscale compositional gradient by itself can generate a spin current, and that the sign of the resulting spin torque is set by the polarity of the gradient rather than by the bulk spin Hall or orbital Hall effects of the constituent metals. The authors build W/Ti/Ni-Cu stacks in which an ultrathin Ti/W bilayer is inserted at the W/Ti interface to form a compositionally graded interface, and they measure the damping-like torque by spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance. They find that inserting the W/Ti CGI produces a negative change in torque efficiency (about -0.008 at $t_i = 1.5$ nm), opposite to the positive change (about +0.011) reported earlier for the Ti/W CGI. This matters because it would give device designers a simple structural knob, stacking order, for choosing the sign of spin torque without using rare or strongly spin-orbit-coupled metals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is spin-vorticity coupling (SVC), expressed by the Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{SVC}} = -\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{S}\cdot\boldsymbol{\omega}$, where $\boldsymbol{\omega} = \nabla \times \mathbf{v}$ is the vorticity of the electron velocity field. In a film with a conductivity gradient along its thickness, the electron drift velocity varies across the film, creating a nonzero vorticity and an effective magnetic field aligned with it; the gradient of that field exerts a spin-dependent force that produces a spin current flowing out of the plane into the adjacent ferromagnet. The experiment realizes this by inserting an ultrathin Ti/W bilayer (thickness $t_i$ from 0 to 2.0 nm) at the W(10 nm)/Ti(10 nm) interface so that atomic diffusion forms a compositionally graded interface, and ST-FMR reads out the damping-like torque efficiency $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}$ from the amplitude ratio of Lorentzian to anti-Lorentzian components. The same machinery explains why reversing the stacking order reverses the torque sign: the Ti–W resistivity changes monotonically with composition, so the vorticity direction is set by whether low-conductivity Ti or high-conductivity W sits next to the ferromagnet.

What would settle it

Measure the saturation magnetization and the sheet conductances of every $t_i$ sample and recompute $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}$ with those per-sample values; if the $\Delta\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}(t_i)$ curve keeps its sign and shape, the CGI-polarity claim stands, whereas a drifting magnetization or current split would show the assignment to SVC is contaminated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the polarity of the spin current generated in a compositionally graded layer is dictated by the direction of the electric-current vorticity. In the W/Ti/Ni-Cu series, the W/Ti CGI creates a region where the electrical conductivity decreases toward the Ni-Cu layer, producing a vorticity whose sign is opposite to that in the previously studied Ti/W/Ni-Cu series, where the conductivity increases toward the Ni-Cu layer. The measured damping-like torque efficiency decreases with $t_i$ up to 1.5 nm ($\Delta\xi_{\mathrm{DL}} \approx -0.008$), while the earlier Ti/W series increased ($\Delta\xi_{\mathrm{DL}} \approx +0.011$ at 0.5 nm). The authors argue that the $t_i = 0$ value (+0.031) matches a Ti/Ni-Cu reference, so the bulk W spin Hall and Ti orbital Hall contributions approximately cancel, and that the sharpest W/Ti interface and the Ti/Ni-Cu interface produce no $t_i$-dependent torque, ruling out Rashba–Edelstein and orbital Rashba–Edelstein effects. They conclude that spin-vorticity coupling is the most likely source and that its sign follows the vorticity orientation.

Load-bearing premise

The whole reading assumes that inserting the ultrathin Ti/W bilayer changes only the CGI spin current, leaving the bulk W spin Hall effect, bulk Ti orbital Hall effect, interface torques, current shunting, and the Ni-Cu magnetic properties unchanged with $t_i$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SVC is the source, then any material pair with a conductivity contrast can act as a spin-current source, with the sign chosen by stacking order rather than by the sign of bulk spin-orbit coupling.
  • The torque magnitude can be engineered by the width of the gradient: in the W/Ti series the effect grows to $t_i = 1.5$ nm and weakens at 2.0 nm, while in the Ti/W series it peaks at 0.5 nm.
  • Since the sharpest W/Ti interface and the Ti/Ni-Cu interface produce no $t_i$-dependent torque, the Rashba–Edelstein and orbital Rashba–Edelstein mechanisms are not the controlling ones in this system.
  • Materials with weak spin-orbit coupling could still give large torques if the CGI is built from a pair with a large conductivity contrast, as the Si/Al example with $\xi_{\mathrm{DL}} = 0.67$ indicates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the same vorticity-based conversion should operate in any graded conductor carrying a steady current, so SVC could become a general route to spin-current generation in light-element and even non-metallic systems.
  • The two series are not directly matched: the W/Ti effect peaks at $t_i = 1.5$ nm while the Ti/W effect peaks at 0.5 nm, and the deposition rates differed, so a matched-gradient experiment is needed to test whether the sign reversal is quantitatively symmetric.
  • A decisive control would be to measure the per-sample saturation magnetization and the W/Ti current split and recompute the torque efficiency; only if the $\Delta\xi_{\mathrm{DL}}(t_i)$ curve survives those corrections can the polarity claim be isolated from hidden $t_i$-dependent backgrounds.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance measurements on W/Ti/Ni95Cu5 microstrips with a compositionally graded interface formed by an ultrathin Ti/W insertion layer of thickness t_i. The authors find that the damping-like torque efficiency decreases monotonically with t_i up to 1.5 nm, opposite in sign to the increase reported earlier for the Ti/W/Ni-Cu stacking order, and they attribute the opposite sign to the opposite electric-current vorticity produced by the reversed conductivity gradient. The manuscript includes structural characterization (2D-XRD, AFM, STEM-EDS) showing a compositional gradient, and it evaluates alternative mechanisms (bulk spin Hall effect, orbital Hall effect, Rashba–Edelstein and orbital Rashba–Edelstein effects, a Ti-W alloy control) before concluding that spin-vorticity coupling with a polarity determined by the gradient direction is the most likely source.

Significance. If the sign reversal were established, the paper would identify a practical control parameter (stacking order of a compositionally graded interface) for the sign of current-induced spin torque without relying on strong spin-orbit materials. The work's strengths include the clean use of a standard ST-FMR analysis, a systematic t_i series with error bars, and direct structural evidence of the gradient and of a Ti-W alloy at larger t_i. The exclusion of the bulk Ti-W alloy contribution using a separate periodic stack is a useful falsifiable control. However, the central comparison between the two stacking orders is not yet controlled, because the W/Ti and Ti/W series were grown under different Ti sputtering rates, and the paper itself demonstrates that the W/Ti CGI effect disappears when the Ti rate is matched to the earlier work. This makes the headline claim of a vorticity-polarity reversal currently unproven, although the underlying SVC hypothesis remains plausible and testable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, paragraph on sputtering condition dependence] The reported control experiment, in which reducing the Ti deposition rate from 0.039 nm/s to 0.022 nm/s makes the W/Ti CGI effect vanish (ξ stays near +0.031 to +0.034 over t_i), directly undermines the attribution of the sign reversal in Fig. 7b to vorticity polarity, because the Ti/W reference series (Ref. [22]) was grown at 0.022 nm/s for Ti; a controlled side-by-side comparison with identical deposition conditions is needed to separate the stacking-order effect from the growth-condition effect.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (3) and Fig. 7] The extraction of ξ_DL assumes the bulk SHE/OHE, Oersted field, and interface torques are independent of t_i, but the paper does not report per-sample saturation magnetization μ0Ms (used in Eq. (3)) or current-shunting/resistivity data; if μ0Ms or the conductivity distribution changes with t_i, the monotonic trend in Fig. 7a could be an artifact of the extraction rather than CGI spin-current generation. Please provide the Kittel-fit values and layer-resistance estimates for each t_i.
  3. [Section 2.4, paragraph discussing the Ti-W nanoalloy] The negative-spin-torque control using Sub./[Ti(0.5 nm)/W(0.5 nm)]10/Ni-Cu(10 nm) reports ξ=+0.026, but this is a periodically repeated stack rather than the actual CGI formed in the device series; the argument that bulk alloy effects are negligible would be stronger if the alloy composition and thickness of the CGI were directly correlated with the measured ξ_DL trend.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (3) and Section 2.3] The thickness d_NM used in Eq. (3) is not defined; since the stack contains Ti(3 nm)/W(10 nm)/Ti(t_i/2)/W(t_i/2)/Ti(10 nm), it is unclear whether d_NM is a constant (23 nm) or includes t_i, and this choice affects the reported ξ_DL values.
  2. [Figure 7 caption] The yellow triangle representing the Ti(10 nm)/Ni-Cu reference sample is not described in the caption; please add a sentence identifying it and explaining its significance.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract states that reversing the Ti/W stacking order 'suppresses positive spin torque from the orbital Hall effect in Ti'; given the deposition-rate confound discussed in Section 2.4, a more cautious formulation such as 'is accompanied by' would be more appropriate.
  4. [Reference [3]] Reference [3] is cited as a preprint with a submission date of Oct 2021; if it has been published or updated in the intervening time, please provide the final citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sign-reversal is a new experimental comparison, not an input-derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that inverting the Ti/W stacking order reverses the sign of the spin torque generated at the compositionally graded interface. This is supported by ST-FMR measurements on W/Ti/Ni-Cu samples reported here, compared with Ti/W/Ni-Cu samples from the authors' prior work. The spin-torque efficiency is extracted from the standard ST-FMR line-shape analysis (Eqs. 2 and 3), and the t_i-dependent change is a directly measured quantity rather than a fitted parameter. No model constant is fitted to the sign of the reversal, and no equation in the paper reduces the observed sign to a definition or to an input assumption. References to the authors' prior work are used as background for the SVC model and as a source of the resistivity-composition monotonicity of the Ti-W system, but the sign of the spin torque in the reversed stacking is a new experimental result, not a consequence of those prior fits. The paper also includes control arguments (positive spin-torque efficiency for the Ti-W nanoalloy multilayer; negligible REE/OREE contribution at the sharpest W/Ti interface) that are independent of the SVC model. The sputtering-rate difference between the two compared series is a potential validity concern about whether the comparison is clean, but it is not circularity: it does not make the claim true by construction. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the central observation is an empirical sign comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central interpretation rests on the spin-vorticity coupling model and on prior resistivity measurements of the Ti-W system, both from the same research group. No new physical entities are introduced. The ST-FMR efficiency extraction uses the standard formula with no adjustable parameters other than measured magnetic quantities.

free parameters (1)
  • Saturation magnetization μ0Ms = Not reported per sample
    Derived from the Kittel formula (Eq. 4) from the resonance field vs frequency. Used in Eq. 3 to convert the ST-FMR voltage ratio into a spin-torque efficiency. The paper does not report per-sample values or their t_i-dependence; if μ0Ms varies with t_i, the extracted ξ_DL values would shift in magnitude, though the sign trend is unlikely to be affected.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The SVC Hamiltonian H_SVC = -1/2 S·ω (Eq. 1) describes the interaction between electron spin and electric current vorticity.
    The paper adopts this model from prior theory (refs 10, 11, 17) to interpret the direction of spin-current generation at the CGI. The model is not derived or independently verified in this work.
  • domain assumption Electric current vorticity emerges from the spatial variation of electrical conductivity along the film thickness, with drift velocity proportional to local conductivity.
    The paper infers the polarity of vorticity from the Ti-W resistivity gradient reported in their prior work (ref 22) and assumes the same behavior in these samples. No direct vorticity measurement is made.
  • domain assumption The bulk spin Hall effect of W and orbital Hall effect of Ti are independent of the insertion layer thickness t_i.
    Used to isolate the CGI contribution to the t_i-dependence of ξ_DL. The paper cites consistent XRD spectra and AFM roughness, but does not measure the bulk SHE/OHE independently across t_i.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reversal of Spin-torque Polarity with Inverting Current Vorticity in Composition-graded Layer at the Ti/W Interface." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TSV4VN52

@misc{pith2026250116806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reversal of Spin-torque Polarity with Inverting Current Vorticity in Composition-graded Layer at the Ti/W Interface},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TSV4VN52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16806}
}
read the original abstract

While compositional gradient-induced spin-current generation has been explored, its microscopic mechanisms remain poorly understood. Here, the contribution of polarity of compositional gradient on spin-current generation is explored. A nanoscale compositional gradient, formed by in-situ atomic diffusion of ultrathin Ti and W layers, is introduced between 10-nm-thick W and Ti layers. Spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance in ferromagnetic Ni95Cu5 deposited on this gradient reveals that a moderate compositional gradient suppresses negative spin torque from the spin Hall effect in W. In contrast, reversing the Ti/W stacking order, which inverts the gradient, suppresses positive spin torque from the orbital Hall effect in Ti. These findings suggest that the sign of spin torque is governed by the polarity of compositional gradient, providing a novel strategy for efficient spin-torque generation without relying on materials with strong spin or orbital Hall effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16806 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Charge-to-spin conversion in compositionally graded materials. Yellow arrows indicate the electric current, which varies along the film thickness due to the spatial distribution of electrical conductivity, resulting in electric current vorticity. Green arrows depict the effective magnetic field induced by this vorticity through gyromagnetic SVC. The spin current is generated along the gradient of the vorticity. a) I… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materials. Illustration of the designed (left) and actual (right) structures of the W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materials, along with the coordinate system used in this paper. The ultrathin Ti/W bilayer undergoes spontaneous mixing, forming a W/Ti CGI. Two-dimensional X-ray diffraction (2D-XRD) measurements were conducted to analyze the crystal structure of the W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. 2D-XRD spectra for W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materials with 𝑡୧ = 0 nm (red), 0.5 nm (blue), 1.0 nm (green), 1.5 nm (magenta), and 2.0 nm (yellow). All measurements were performed using Cu Kα radiation (wavelength = 1.54 Å). Note that a diffraction peak appearing at around 2𝜃 = 69 deg. is caused by the thermally oxidized Si substrate. Surface roughness was assessed using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Figure 4a shows a 25 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AFM images and quantitative roughness analysis for W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materials. a,b) AFM images of the W/Ti/Ni-Cu samples with 𝑡୧ = 1.0 nm, showing scan size of (a) 25 × 25 µm2 and (b) 5 × 5 µm2 . c,d) (c) RMSR and (d) 𝑅୮୴ for W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materials. RMSR and …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BF-STEM images and EDS profiles of W/Ti/Ni-Cu gradient materials: 𝑡୧ ൌ 0 (a,d,g), 𝑡୧ ൌ 1.0 nm (b,e,h), and 𝑡୧ ൌ 1.5 nm (c,f,i). The orange dashed box in (d) highlights the EDS integration area. 2.2. Spin-torque Efficiency Measurement and Analysis We conducted ST-FMR me…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance measurement setup and results. a) Schematic of experimental setup for ST-FMR measurement. The microstrip dimensions were 100 ൈ 5 µm2 , and the external magnetic field 𝑩 was applied in the 𝑥-𝑦 plane at a 45-degree-angle relative to th…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a) Dependence of spin-torque efficiency on insertion layer thickness. Spin-torque efficiency 𝜉୊୑ୖ as a function of insertion layer thickness 𝑡୧ , derived from ST-FMR measurement at 20 GHz (green circle plots). Each error bar represents standard deviation of 𝜉୊୑ୖ for up…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Nakayama, T

    H. Nakayama, T. Horaguchi, C. He, H. Sukegawa, T. Ohkubo, S. Mitani, K. Yamanoi, Y. Nozaki, Phys. Rev. B 2023, 107, 174416

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    H. An, Y. Kageyama, Y. Kanno, N. Enishi, K. Ando, Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13069

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Okano, M

    G. Okano, M. Matsuo, Y. Ohnuma, S. Maekawa, Y. Nozaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 217701

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    Horaguchi, C

    T. Horaguchi, C. He, Z. Wen, T. Ohkubo, K. Hono, S. Mitani, H. Sukegawa, J. Fujimoto, K. Yamanoi, M. Matsuo, Y. Nozaki, (Preprint) 10.21203/rs.3.rs-955888, v1, submitted: Oct 2021

    work page doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-955888 2021

  5. [4]

    V. M. Edelstein, Solid State Commun. 1990, 73, 233

    work page 1990

  6. [5]

    J. C. R. Sánchez, L. Vila, G. Desfonds, S. Gambarelli, J. P. Attané, J. M. De Teresa, C. Magén, A. Fert, Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2944

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Manchon, H

    A. Manchon, H. C. Koo, J. Nitta, S. M. Frolov, R. A. Duine, Nat. Mater. 2015, 14, 871

    2015

  8. [7]

    I. M. Miron, G. Gaudin, S. Auffret, B. Rodm acq, A. Schuhl, S. Pizzini, J. Vogel, P. Gambardella, Nat. Mater. 2010, 9, 230

    work page 2010

Show all 35 references
  1. [8]

    D. Go, D. Jo, T. Gao, K. Ando, S. Blügel, H.-W. Lee, Y. Mokrousov, Phys. Rev. B 2021, 103, L121113. 17

    2021

  2. [9]

    Johansson, B

    A. Johansson, B. Göbel, J. Henk, M. Bibes, I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. Res. 2021, 3, 013275

    2021

  3. [10]

    Matsuo, J

    M. Matsuo, J. Ieda, K. Harii, E. Saitoh, S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. B 2013, 87, 180402(R)

    2013

  4. [11]

    Matsuo, Y

    M. Matsuo, Y. Ohnuma, S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. B 2017, 96, 020401(R)

    2017

  5. [12]

    Kobayashi, T

    D. Kobayashi, T. Yoshikawa, M. Matsuo, R. Iguchi, S. Maekawa, E. Saitoh, Y. Nozaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 077202

    2017

  6. [13]

    Takahashi, M

    R. Takahashi, M. Matsuo, M. Ono, K. Harii, H. Chudo, S. Okayasu, J. Ieda, S. Takahashi, S. Maekawa, E. Saitoh, Nat. Phys. 2016, 12, 52

    2016

  7. [14]

    Kurimune, M

    Y. Kurimune, M. Matsuo, S. Maekawa, Y. Nozaki, Phys. Rev. B 2020, 102, 174413

    2020

  8. [15]

    Tateno, G

    S. Tateno, G. Okano, M. Matsuo, Y. Nozaki, Phys. Rev. B 2020, 102, 104406

    2020

  9. [16]

    Takahashi, H

    R. Takahashi, H. Chudo, M. Matsuo, K. Ha rii, Y. Ohnuma, S. Maekawa, E. Saitoh, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3009

    2020

  10. [17]

    J. Ieda, M. Matsuo, S. Maekawa, Solid State Commun. 2014, 198, 52

    2014

  11. [18]

    Funato, H

    T. Funato, H. Kohno, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 2018, 87, 073706

    2018

  12. [19]

    Funato, M

    T. Funato, M. Matsuo, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 2021, 540, 168436

    2021

  13. [20]

    Fujimoto, H

    J. Fujimoto, H. Funaki, W. Koshibae, M. Matsuo, S. Maekawa, IEEE Trans. Magn. 2022, 58, 1

    2022

  14. [21]

    X. Z. Yu, D. Morikawa, K. Nakajima, K. Shibata, N. Kanazawa, T. Arima, N. Nagaosa, Y. Tokura, Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaaz9744

    2020

  15. [23]

    I. A. Weerasekera, S. I. Shah, D. V. Baxter, K. M. Unruh, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1994, 64, 3231

    1994

  16. [24]

    C.-F. Pai, L. Liu, Y. Li, H. W. Tseng, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2012, 101, 122404

    2012

  17. [25]

    J.-S. Lee, J. Cho, C.-Y. You, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2016, 34, 021502

    2016

  18. [26]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2011, 106, 036601

    2011

  19. [27]

    Liu, C.-F

    L. Liu, C.-F. Pai, Y. Li, H. W. Tseng, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Science 2012, 336, 555

    2012

  20. [28]

    Mosendz, V

    O. Mosendz, V. Vlaminck, J. E. Pearson, F. Y. Fradin, G. E. W. Bauer, S. D. Bader, A. Hoffmann, Phys. Rev. B 2010, 82, 214403

    2010

  21. [29]

    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, Nature 2014, 511, 449

    2014

  22. [30]

    C.-F. Pai, Y. Ou, L. H. Vilela-Leão, D. C. Ralph, R. A. Buhrman, Phys. Rev. B 2015, 92, 064426

    2015

  23. [31]

    Karimeddiny, J

    S. Karimeddiny, J. A. Mittelstaedt, R. A. Buhrman, D. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2020, 14, 024024

    2020

  24. [32]

    Go, H.-W

    D. Go, H.-W. Lee, Phys. Rev. Res. 2020, 2, 013177

    2020

  25. [33]

    P. M. Haney, H.-W. Lee, K.-J. Lee, A. Manchon, M. D. Stiles, Phys. Rev. B 2013, 87, 174411

    2013

  26. [34]

    Tsurusawa, J

    H. Tsurusawa, J. Uzuhashi, Y. Kozuka, K. Kimoto, T. Ohkubo, Small Methods 2024, 8, 2301425

    2024

  27. [35]

    Uzuhashi, T

    J. Uzuhashi, T. Ohkubo, Ultramicroscopy 2024, 262, 113980

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.