Photon-assisted electron transmission resonance through a quantum well with spin-orbit coupling

Cun-Xi Zhang; J.-Q. Liang; Y.-H. Nie

REVIEW

Photon-assisted electron transmission resonance through a quantum well with spin-orbit coupling

Cun-Xi Zhang, Y.-H. Nie, J.-Q. Liang

Mesoscale and Nanoscale Physics · Submitted 28 Feb 2006 · 27 references

Pith's verdict: A modest but solid Floquet-scattering calculation showing that Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling splits photon-assisted Fano resonances into spin-dependent peaks, with the main caveat being an unchecked approximation.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 4 major objections · 5 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0602658 (version 1)

Pith IDRSWPIC2E, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationCun-Xi Zhang, J.-Q. Liang, Y.-H. Nie. "Photon-assisted electron transmission resonance through a quantum well with spin-orbit coupling." arXiv:cond-mat/0602658 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/RSWPIC2E

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a straightforward Floquet mode-matching study of a driven quantum well with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling. The new result is the prediction that the spin-dependent effective mass from the Dresselhaus term splits the photon-assisted Fano resonance into two peaks, producing a spin-polarized current that can be tuned by the oscillation frequency and amplitude. The calculation is standard and internally consistent. The resonance energies match E_z = ℏω + E_b, which is a good consistency check. No parameters are fitted, so there is no circularity here.

The paper's main weakness is the reduction of the Dresselhaus Hamiltonian. The replacement of the full Eq. (4) by Eq. (5) is justified by saying the incident kinetic energy is much smaller than V0, but that is not the real small parameter. The dropped terms are in-plane cubic terms and a σ_z term, which are actually smaller by roughly k_∥²/k_z². For the parameters used in Fig. 1, that ratio is about 3%, so the approximation is probably safe. However, the paper gives no estimate of the error, and because the entire spin-filtering mechanism comes from this spin-dependent effective-mass term, a reader cannot tell whether the omitted terms would shift the predicted peaks by more than the 2.76 meV splitting. The stress-test note suggests the effect survives, and I tend to agree, but the paper should have said so.

Two other things are missing. There is no convergence check on the Floquet sideband truncation; the statement that N > V1/ℏω is a rule of thumb, not a check, and the results use n = ±5 without showing that larger n does not change the peaks. There is also no comparison with a full-Hamiltonian calculation or any existing benchmark, and no code or data are provided. These are not fatal, but they are the kind of thing a referee would want.

There is a minor notation issue: the eigenstates are called spin-up and spin-down, but they are actually in-plane states along directions that depend on the wave vector. The effective-mass expression is also just stated, not derived, though it's easy enough to reproduce.

Overall, the paper is modest but plausible. It would not be a landmark, but it is a concrete addition to the spintronics toolkit and a reasonable example of Floquet scattering with spin-orbit coupling. I would send it to a serious referee; with the approximation and convergence questions addressed, it could be accepted. For my own work, I probably would not cite it, but I might bring it up in a reading group if we were looking at Floquet spin filters.

Referee report

Significance

If the predicted effect survives closer scrutiny, the paper offers a conceptually clear and potentially useful mechanism for an electrically tunable spin filter based on spin-dependent Fano resonance splitting. The calculation uses literature parameters and introduces no fitted free parameters; the internal consistency of the resonance condition with the bound-state energies is a concrete strength. The main caveats are that the central spin-filtering mechanism rests on an unquantified reduction of the Dresselhaus term, that the conductance is evaluated at a single in-plane wave vector, and that the Floquet truncation is not verified for convergence. These issues are addressable and do not by themselves invalidate the central claim, but they must be resolved before the quantitative predictions can be considered reliable.

Major objections (4)

[Eq. (4)-(5)] The reduction of the Dresselhaus term from Eq. (4) to Eq. (5) is not quantitatively justified. The text states that the kinetic energy of the incidence electron is much smaller than the well depth V0, but the omitted terms are γ(σ_x k_x k_y² − σ_y k_y k_x²) and γσ_z k_z(k_x²−k_y²), and their relative size to the retained term γ(σ_x k_x − σ_y k_y)∂²/∂z² is controlled by k∥²/k_z², not by the incident kinetic energy relative to V0. For the Fig. 1 parameters (k∥ = 0.01 Å⁻¹, k_z ≈ 0.056 Å⁻¹ inside the well), this ratio is about 3%. Since the entire spin splitting (≈2.76 meV) enters through the reduced term, a 3% omission could shift resonance positions by a significant fraction of the splitting. Please provide a quantitative error estimate for the chosen parameters and, ideally, benchmark the peak positions against a calculation retaining the full Eq. (4).
[Eq. (6)-(8)] The spin-dependent effective mass μ± = μ(1 ± 2γ μ k∥/ħ²)⁻¹ is introduced without derivation. Since this is the central mechanism of the paper, please show the diagonalization of the 2×2 Hamiltonian in Eq. (6) in the χ± basis, including the sign convention that maps the ± solution to the spin eigenstates used in Fig. 1.
[Eq. (26)-(27) and Fig. 4] The geometry underlying the conductance calculation is underspecified. The calculation fixes a single k∥ = 10^6 cm⁻¹, which is appropriate for a quasi-1D wire with one occupied transverse mode, but not for a planar 2DEG, where the measurable conductance requires an integral over k∥. Because μ± (and hence the resonance energies) depends on k∥, the 80% polarization shown in Fig. 4 may be substantially reduced after k∥ averaging. Please state the assumed device geometry and, if a 2DEG is intended, provide the k∥-averaged conductance and polarization.
[Numerical section, after Eq. (27)] The Floquet sideband truncation is not tested for convergence. The calculation uses n = 0, ±1, …, ±5 with the rule N > V1/ℏω (Ref. [27]), but no convergence data are shown. For Fig. 4, V1 = 30 meV and ℏω = 10 meV, so N = 5 is only marginally above the estimated minimum; please show that the positions and heights of the resonances, and the polarization P, are stable when N is increased (e.g., N = 7, 9).

Minor objections (5)

[Eq. (15)] The symbol f±(z,t) in Eq. (15) should be f±(t), since the function f does not depend on z.
[text after Eq. (8)] The printed expression for μ± is ambiguous: "µ± = µ(1 ±γ2µk‖/ℏ2) −1" should be written as μ± = μ[1 ± 2γ μ k∥/ħ²]⁻¹, and the mapping of the ± sign to the spin states χ± should be stated explicitly.
[text after Eq. (27)] There is a typo in "herostructures" (should be "heterostructures").
[Eq. (18)] The notation E±_∥ should clarify whether the in-plane effective mass is μ or μ1; the current printed form "2µ 1" is ambiguous.
[Fig. 4 caption and text] The description of Fig. 4 is unclear: the text mentions dominance of spin "−", while the caption and axis labels use "IPI", "P>0", and "P<0". Please clarify the sign convention and specify exactly which quantity is plotted.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A driven quantum well with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling splits its photon-assisted Fano resonances into two spin peaks, and the paper argues this makes a tunable spin filter.

The reading

This paper tries to show that a quantum well driven by an oscillating field, in a semiconductor with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling, transmits spin-up and spin-down electrons differently because the spin-orbit interaction changes the effective mass for each spin. In the calculated conductance, the characteristic asymmetric transmission resonances known as Fano resonances split into two peaks, one per spin orientation, and the splitting produces a spin-polarized current that can exceed 80% spin polarization over an energy window. Because the resonance positions and line shapes shift with the oscillation frequency and amplitude, the paper argues the structure can serve as a tunable spin filter. If true, this provides a practical basis for spin-filter devices in semiconductor heterostructures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Floquet scattering amplitude matrix for a one-dimensional time-periodic potential well. The well is driven by $V(z,t) = -V_0 + V_1 \cos(\omega t)$, and the electron wavefunction inside is expanded in Floquet sidebands with Bessel-function weights $J_n(V_1/\hbar\omega)$; matching the wavefunction and its derivative at the two interfaces gives a matrix equation whose solution yields the transmission amplitudes for each spin. Two ingredients make the spin effect appear: the simplified Dresselhaus term, which produces a spin-dependent effective mass, and the Fano condition, which requires the incident energy to line up with a well bound state plus or minus an integer number of photons, $E_z^\pm = \hbar\omega + E_b^\pm$. The sideband sum is truncated at $N > V_1/\hbar\omega$ in the numerics.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Inside the time-periodic quantum well, the Dresselhaus spin-orbit term is approximated as $\gamma(\sigma_x k_x - \sigma_y k_y)\partial^2/\partial z^2$, valid when the incident kinetic energy is much smaller than the well depth. This term diagonalizes in two spin eigenstates whose quantization axes lie in the well plane, and it renormalizes the effective electron mass differently for the two spin states ($\mu_\pm$). Floquet theory turns the oscillating well into a ladder of photon sidebands, so an electron can absorb or emit photons and resonantly couple to a bound state of the well; this creates the discrete-plus-continuum two-channel interference that produces asymmetric Fano resonances. Because the two spin species have slightly different masses, their Fano peaks appear at different incident energies—numerically about 5.2 meV and 2.44 meV for the stated GaSb/InP parameters—and the transmission is strongly spin dependent. The paper concludes that Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling eliminates the spin degeneracy of the Fano resonances and that the splitting yields a spin-polarization-dependent current whose resonance energy and width are controlled by the driving frequency and amplitude.

Load-bearing premise

The central calculation rests on replacing the full Dresselhaus term by $\gamma(\sigma_x k_x - \sigma_y k_y)\partial^2/\partial z^2$, justified only when the incident electron's kinetic energy is much smaller than the well depth; if that inequality fails, the spin-split peaks and the polarization could shift or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At fixed well parameters, the two spin channels conduct at different incident energies, so a beam spanning a few meV around the resonances emerges spin polarized; the paper's numerical example shows the spin-'-' component dominating by over 80% between 1 and 3.5 meV.
Because the resonances occur when the incident energy equals the photon energy plus a spin-split bound-state energy, measuring sharp Fano peaks at small driving amplitude recovers those bound-state energies, which can be used to infer well structure or the spin-orbit constant.
Increasing the driving amplitude broadens the Fano peaks, while increasing the oscillation frequency moves them to higher energy, giving two external knobs for tuning a spin filter without changing the heterostructure.
The one-photon process dominates, with two-photon sideband resonances much weaker, so the spin-polarization window is not spoiled by higher-order multiphoton transmission.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the splitting is set by the spin-orbit strength and in-plane momentum, so a material with larger spin-orbit constant or a larger in-plane wavevector should widen the separation between the two Fano peaks; this scaling is a testable prediction the paper does not optimize.
Beyond the paper, the spin-quantization axes rotate with the in-plane wavevector direction, so steering the in-plane momentum could rotate the output spin orientation, offering a way to switch a spin filter without changing the well.
Beyond the paper, the simplified Dresselhaus form drops cubic wavevector terms; repeating the calculation at higher incident energy or in a shallower well would test whether the 80% polarization survives when that approximation weakens.

Original abstract

Using the effective-mass approximation and Floquet theory, we study the electron transmission over a quantum well in semiconductor heterostructures with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling and an applied oscillation field. It is demonstrated by the numerical evaluations that Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling eliminates the spin degeneracy and leads to the splitting of asymmetric Fano-type resonance peaks in the conductivity. In turn, the splitting of Fano-type resonance induces the spin- polarization-dependent electron-current. The location and line shape of Fano-type resonance can be controlled by adjusting the oscillation frequency and the amplitude of external field as well. These interesting features may be a very useful basis for devising tunable spin filters.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,248 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.06 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.05 · compares with prior results 0.06 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Using the effective-mass approximation and Floquet theory, we study the electron transmission over a quantum well in semiconductor heterostructures with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling and an applied oscillation field. It is demonstrated by the numerical evaluations that Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling eliminates the spin degeneracy and leads to the splitting of asymmetric Fano-type resonance peaks in the conductivity. In turn, the splitting of Fano-type resonance induces the spin- polarization-dependent electron-current. The location and line shape of Fano-type resonance can be controlled by adjusting the oscillation frequency and the amplitude of external field as well. These interesting features may be a very useful basis for devising tunable spin filters.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Using the effective-mass approximation and Floquet theory, we study the electron transmission over a quantum well in semiconductor heterostructures with Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling and an applied oscillation field.	contribution 0.68	0.91	0.04	asserted 0.70
s1	It is demonstrated by the numerical evaluations that Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling eliminates the spin degeneracy and leads to the splitting of asymmetric Fano-type resonance peaks in the conductivity.	result 1.00	0.91	0.39	asserted 1.00
s2	In turn, the splitting of Fano-type resonance induces the spin- polarization-dependent electron-current.	result 0.79	0.80	0.25	asserted 1.00
s3	The location and line shape of Fano-type resonance can be controlled by adjusting the oscillation frequency and the amplitude of external field as well.	result 0.99	0.81	0.10	asserted 0.90
s4	These interesting features may be a very useful basis for devising tunable spin filters.	interpretation 0.93	0.27	0.57	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: simulation study 0.80 · evidence from simulation or computation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (27)

[27]

E. N. Bulgakov, and A. F. Sadreev, J. Phys.:Condens. Matter 8 , 8869(1996) 9 Figure captions Fig.1 Splitting of Fano-type resonance in ConductivityG± forV0 = 300meV, V1 = 10meV, a = 60 ˚A, k‖ = 10 6cm−1, ℏω = 10 meV, µ = 0.041me, µ1 = 0.081me, γ = 187eV ·˚A3, and γ1 = 0. The inset is a detail of the tiny resonance peaks resulting from electrons exchanging...

View on Pith 1996
[1]

U. Fano, Phys. Rev.1 24, 1866(1961)

View on Pith 1961
[2]

U. Fano and J.W. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A 137, 1364(1965)

View on Pith 1965
[3]

J.A. Simpson and U. Fano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 158 (1963)

View on Pith 1963
[4]

F. Cerdeira, T.A. Fjeldly, and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B 8, 4734( 1973)

View on Pith 1973
[5]

J. Feist, F. Capasso, C. Sirtori, K.W. West, and L.N. Pfeiﬀer, Nat ure (London) 390, 589(1997)

View on Pith 1997
[6]

H. Schmidt, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, and A. Imamoglu, Appl. P hys. Lett. 70, 3455 (1997)

View on Pith 1997
[7]

J. Gores, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, S. Heemeyer, and M. A. Kastn er, Phys. Rev. B62, 2188(2000)

View on Pith 2000
[8]

K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 265806 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[9]

R. Franco, M. S. Figueira and E. V. Anda, Phys. Rev. B 67, 15530 1 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[10]

K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, A. Sano, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, P hys. Rev. B 70, 35319 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[11]

Masahiro Sato, Hisashi Aikawa, Kensuke Kobayashi, Shingo Kat sumoto, and Yasuhiro Iye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 66801 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[12]

I. A. Shelykh and N. G. Galkin, Phys. Rev. B70, 205328(2004). 8

View on Pith 2004
[13]

S. Datta and B. Das, Appl. Phys. Lett., 56, 665(1990); K. C. H all, W. H. Lau, K. Gundogdu, M. E. Flatte and T. F. Boggess, Appl. Phys. Let t. 83, 2937(2003)

View on Pith 1990
[14]

I. P. Smorchkova and N. Samarth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3571 (1997); C. Bena and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B65, 11510(2002); J. P. McGuire, C. C iuti, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B69, 115339(2004); J. P. Morten, A. Bra taas and W. Belzig; Phys. Rev. B70, 212508 (2004); S. Urazhdin, R. Loloee, and W. P. Pratt, Jr., Phys. Rev. B71, 100401(2005); J. P. Morten, A. ...

View on Pith 1997
[15]

J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834 (1999); S. Zhang, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 85, 393(2000); S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, and S. Zhang, Science 3 01,1348 (2003); J. Sinova et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 126603 (2004). S.-Q . Shen, Phys. Rev. B 70, 081311 (2004); B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, P hys. Rev. Lett. 95, 016801 (2005); G.Y. Guo,Yugui Yao, and Qian Niu,...

View on Pith 1999
[16]

V. I. Perel, S. A. Tarasenko and I. N. Yassievich, Phys. Rev. B 67, 201304(2003); M. M. Glazov, P. S. Alekseev, M. A. Odnoblyudov, V . M. Chistyakov, S. A. Tarasenko and I. N. Yassievich, Phys. Rev. B 71, 155313(2005)

View on Pith 2003
[17]

W. Cai, P. Hu, T. F. Zheng, B. Yudanin, and M. Lax, Phys. Rev. B 41, 3513(1990)

View on Pith 1990
[18]

G. Dresselhaus,Phys. Rev. 100, 580(1955)

View on Pith 1955
[19]

J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev. 138, B979 (1965)

View on Pith 1965
[20]

M. Holthaus and D. Hne, Phys. Rev. B47, 6499(1993)

View on Pith 1993
[21]

T. Fromherz, Phys. Rev. B56, 4772(1997)

View on Pith 1997
[22]

G. Burmeister and K. Maschke, Phys. Rev. B57, 13050(1998)

View on Pith 1998
[23]

W. Li and L. E. Reichl, Phys. Rev. B60, 15732(1999)

View on Pith 1999
[24]

P. F. Bagwell and R. K. Lake, Phys. Rev. B46, 15329(1992)

View on Pith 1992
[25]

R. Landauer, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 1, 8099(1989)

View on Pith 1989
[26]

M. Buttike, Phys.Rev. Lett. 57, 1761(1986); T. Christen and M. Buttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 143(1996))

View on Pith 1986

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [27]

E. N. Bulgakov, and A. F. Sadreev, J. Phys.:Condens. Matter 8 , 8869(1996) 9 Figure captions Fig.1 Splitting of Fano-type resonance in ConductivityG± forV0 = 300meV, V1 = 10meV, a = 60 ˚A, k‖ = 10 6cm−1, ℏω = 10 meV, µ = 0.041me, µ1 = 0.081me, γ = 187eV ·˚A3, and γ1 = 0. The inset is a detail of the tiny resonance peaks resulting from electrons exchanging...

View on Pith 1996

[2] [1]

U. Fano, Phys. Rev.1 24, 1866(1961)

View on Pith 1961

[3] [2]

U. Fano and J.W. Cooper, Phys. Rev. A 137, 1364(1965)

View on Pith 1965

[4] [3]

J.A. Simpson and U. Fano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 158 (1963)

View on Pith 1963

[5] [4]

F. Cerdeira, T.A. Fjeldly, and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B 8, 4734( 1973)

View on Pith 1973

[6] [5]

J. Feist, F. Capasso, C. Sirtori, K.W. West, and L.N. Pfeiﬀer, Nat ure (London) 390, 589(1997)

View on Pith 1997

[7] [6]

H. Schmidt, K.L. Campman, A.C. Gossard, and A. Imamoglu, Appl. P hys. Lett. 70, 3455 (1997)

View on Pith 1997

[8] [7]

J. Gores, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, S. Heemeyer, and M. A. Kastn er, Phys. Rev. B62, 2188(2000)

View on Pith 2000

[9] [8]

K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 265806 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[10] [9]

R. Franco, M. S. Figueira and E. V. Anda, Phys. Rev. B 67, 15530 1 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[11] [10]

K. Kobayashi, H. Aikawa, A. Sano, S. Katsumoto, and Y. Iye, P hys. Rev. B 70, 35319 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[12] [11]

Masahiro Sato, Hisashi Aikawa, Kensuke Kobayashi, Shingo Kat sumoto, and Yasuhiro Iye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 66801 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[13] [12]

I. A. Shelykh and N. G. Galkin, Phys. Rev. B70, 205328(2004). 8

View on Pith 2004

[14] [13]

S. Datta and B. Das, Appl. Phys. Lett., 56, 665(1990); K. C. H all, W. H. Lau, K. Gundogdu, M. E. Flatte and T. F. Boggess, Appl. Phys. Let t. 83, 2937(2003)

View on Pith 1990

[15] [14]

I. P. Smorchkova and N. Samarth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3571 (1997); C. Bena and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. B65, 11510(2002); J. P. McGuire, C. C iuti, and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. B69, 115339(2004); J. P. Morten, A. Bra taas and W. Belzig; Phys. Rev. B70, 212508 (2004); S. Urazhdin, R. Loloee, and W. P. Pratt, Jr., Phys. Rev. B71, 100401(2005); J. P. Morten, A. ...

View on Pith 1997

[16] [15]

J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834 (1999); S. Zhang, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 85, 393(2000); S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, and S. Zhang, Science 3 01,1348 (2003); J. Sinova et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 126603 (2004). S.-Q . Shen, Phys. Rev. B 70, 081311 (2004); B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, P hys. Rev. Lett. 95, 016801 (2005); G.Y. Guo,Yugui Yao, and Qian Niu,...

View on Pith 1999

[17] [16]

V. I. Perel, S. A. Tarasenko and I. N. Yassievich, Phys. Rev. B 67, 201304(2003); M. M. Glazov, P. S. Alekseev, M. A. Odnoblyudov, V . M. Chistyakov, S. A. Tarasenko and I. N. Yassievich, Phys. Rev. B 71, 155313(2005)

View on Pith 2003

[18] [17]

W. Cai, P. Hu, T. F. Zheng, B. Yudanin, and M. Lax, Phys. Rev. B 41, 3513(1990)

View on Pith 1990

[19] [18]

G. Dresselhaus,Phys. Rev. 100, 580(1955)

View on Pith 1955

[20] [19]

J. H. Shirley, Phys. Rev. 138, B979 (1965)

View on Pith 1965

[21] [20]

M. Holthaus and D. Hne, Phys. Rev. B47, 6499(1993)

View on Pith 1993

[22] [21]

T. Fromherz, Phys. Rev. B56, 4772(1997)

View on Pith 1997

[23] [22]

G. Burmeister and K. Maschke, Phys. Rev. B57, 13050(1998)

View on Pith 1998

[24] [23]

W. Li and L. E. Reichl, Phys. Rev. B60, 15732(1999)

View on Pith 1999

[25] [24]

P. F. Bagwell and R. K. Lake, Phys. Rev. B46, 15329(1992)

View on Pith 1992

[26] [25]

R. Landauer, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 1, 8099(1989)

View on Pith 1989

[27] [26]

M. Buttike, Phys.Rev. Lett. 57, 1761(1986); T. Christen and M. Buttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 143(1996))

View on Pith 1986