Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Self-induced inverse spin Hall effect in ferromagnets: demonstration through non-monotonous temperature-dependence in permalloy

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 In a single permalloy film, the self-induced inverse spin Hall voltage peaks near 95 K and is governed by the bulk spin Hall conductivity.

desk verdict Solid experimental paper with a real non-monotonic temperature dependence in permalloy self-induced ISHE, but the comparison to bulk spin Hall conductivity is underdetermined because J_s(T) is not calibrated; still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00976 v1 pith:VJ3HXP2Z submitted 2019-09-03 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

O. Gladii , L. Frangou , A. Hallal , R. L. Seeger , P. Noel , G. Forestier , S. Auffret , M. Rubio-Roy
show 7 more authors
P. Warin L. Vila S. Wimmer H. Ebert S. Gambarelli M. Chshiev V. Baltz
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords inversespinHalleffectpumpingferromagneticresonancepermalloyconductivityskewscatteringsidejumptemperaturedependence
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

Plain permalloy films, with no attached spin-sink layer, convert their own precessing magnetization into a transverse charge current under ferromagnetic resonance. The paper shows that this self-induced inverse spin Hall voltage is non-monotonous in temperature: it grows as the film cools, reaches a maximum near 95 K, and then falls. The same non-monotonous profile appears whatever material is in contact with the permalloy, and the current grows with film thickness, so the spin-to-charge conversion is argued to take place throughout the bulk of the ferromagnet. First-principles calculations reproduce the profile and trace it to two bulk contributions to the spin Hall conductivity—skew scattering and side-jump-plus-intrinsic—that are comparable in size and opposite in sign. The authors conclude that ferromagnets contribute to their own spin-charge conversion, so measurements of spin Hall effects in adjacent non-magnetic layers must subtract that contribution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the temperature-dependent bulk spin Hall conductivity of permalloy, $\sigma^z_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}}(T)$, computed with a fully relativistic multiple-scattering Kubo Green-function method and decomposed through the scaling relation $\sigma^z_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}} = \sigma_{xx,\mathrm{NiFe}} S + \sigma^{sj+intr}_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}}$, where $S$ is the skewness factor extracted from alloy-composition variations. This decomposition carries the argument: the measured non-monotonous voltage is explained by the two terms having opposite signs and similar amplitudes, so their sum changes non-monotonically with temperature. On the experimental side, the central machinery is the standard symmetric/antisymmetric decomposition of the resonance voltage together with the angular-dependent ISHE expression that relates $V_\mathrm{sym}$ to the magnetization tilt angle $\theta_M$, which selects the ISHE contribution from the anisotropic magnetoresistance and the anomalous Nernst effect.

What would settle it

Measure the self-induced transverse voltage versus temperature for permalloy films across a composition span (for instance Ni85Fe15 to Ni70Fe30). In the paper's decomposition the skew-scattering contribution is proportional to $\sigma_{xx,\mathrm{NiFe}}$ while the side-jump-plus-intrinsic contribution is not, so the temperature of the extremum should shift with composition; a composition-independent extremum would rule out the proposed cancellation mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under ferromagnetic resonance at 9.6 GHz, a single Ni81Fe19 film produces a transverse voltage whose symmetric part $V_\mathrm{sym}$ changes sign when the applied field is reversed and follows the angular dependence of the inverse spin Hall effect. Measured between 50 and 300 K, $V_\mathrm{sym}$ is non-monotonous: its magnitude peaks near 95 K, while the resonance linewidth varies monotonically over the same range, and separate AMR and angular checks rule out magnetoresistance and anomalous Nernst artifacts. The extracted charge current $I_C$ is compared with first-principles calculations of the bulk spin Hall conductivity $\sigma^z_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}}(T)$, which show a non-monotonous profile with an extremum near 100 K. By separating $\sigma^z_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}}$ into a skew-scattering term $\sigma^{sk}_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}} = \sigma_{xx,\mathrm{NiFe}} S$ and a combined side-jump-plus-intrinsic term $\sigma^{sj+intr}_{xy,\mathrm{NiFe}}$, the authors show that the non-monotonicity comes from two terms of opposite sign and nearly equal magnitude, with the intrinsic contribution appearing negligible in permalloy. Control stacks with different oxides, metals, and growth orders give the same temperature profile, and the signal grows with NiFe thickness, supporting a bulk origin; comparison with Pt reference layers shows that near 95 K the self-induced conversion in NiFe can be as efficient as platinum's.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that the spin current feeding the effect is generated by asymmetric spin-dependent scattering at the two surfaces of the permalloy film; if the spin current actually comes from another source, the bulk spin Hall explanation of the temperature dependence does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Near 95 K, permalloy's self-induced spin-to-charge conversion is comparable in strength to platinum's, so spin Hall angles extracted from ferromagnet/Pt bilayers without a correction for the ferromagnet's own contribution carry a systematic error.
  • Because the temperature profile is independent of the material in contact with the permalloy, the conversion cannot be blamed on interface effects such as the anomalous Nernst effect; it is a property of the ferromagnet's bulk.
  • The non-monotonous temperature dependence means a single-temperature measurement can miss the effect almost entirely; temperature series are needed to characterize a ferromagnet's spin-charge conversion.
  • The skew-scattering contribution scales with the longitudinal conductivity $\sigma_{xx,\mathrm{NiFe}}$, so alloy composition and disorder offer a practical lever to tune the sign and magnitude of the self-induced voltage.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The decomposition suggests that shifting the alloy composition should move the temperature of the extremum, since the skew-scattering term is tied to $\sigma_{xx,\mathrm{NiFe}}$; a composition series would test this prediction directly.
  • The experiments go down to 50 K; because the two opposing terms have different temperature slopes, extending measurements to lower temperatures would show whether the signal continues to fall, flattens, or changes sign.
  • The conclusion that the intrinsic spin Hall contribution is negligible in permalloy rests on identifying the combined side-jump-plus-intrinsic term; isolating the intrinsic part computationally is a direct way to check that inference.
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 paper reports ferromagnetic-resonance spin-pumping measurements on single permalloy (NiFe) films with various capping and buffer layers. The symmetric transverse voltage V_sym is measured as a function of temperature, magnetic-field angle, NiFe thickness, and adjacent material, and converted to a charge current I_C. The data show a non-monotonic I_C(T) with a maximum near 95 K, independence of the adjacent material, and an increase of I_C with NiFe thickness. The authors compare I_C(T) with first-principles SPR-KKR calculations of the bulk spin Hall conductivity of NiFe and decompose the calculated sigma_xy into skew-scattering and side-jump-plus-intrinsic contributions, finding opposite signs and similar magnitudes, which they propose as the origin of the non-monotonic T-dependence. Pt buffer/capping experiments are used to determine the sign of the self-induced spin current and to estimate the Pt spin Hall angle.

Significance. If the interpretation survives the requested analysis, the paper establishes a previously underappreciated contribution: ferromagnet self-induced spin-charge conversion can be as efficient as Pt at low temperature and should be included in spin-pumping analyses. The experimental dataset is unusually complete, comprising temperature dependence, a thickness series, angular dependence, and a set of capping and buffer materials including Pt reference samples; the sweep-rate and heat-sinking checks address the main thermal artifacts. The SPR-KKR first-principles calculations are a genuine strength: they are not fitted to the data, and they provide an independent qualitative microscopic scenario with a decomposition into skew and side-jump plus intrinsic contributions. The main weakness is that the central comparison between I_C(T) and sigma_SH(T) is not yet a direct comparison, because the temperature dependence of the spin-current source term is not calibrated or removed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4 and surrounding text] The central microscopic claim is supported by a qualitative side-by-side comparison between the measured charge current I_C(T) and the calculated bulk spin Hall conductivity sigma_xy(T), but I_C is not a direct probe of sigma_SH. In the self-induced geometry I_C is proportional to the spin-current source J_s(T) times a conversion factor that itself contains l_sf(T) and the spin-pumping efficiency. The paper reports alpha(T) in Fig. 2(c), infers l_sf(T) from sigma_xx(T), and shows t*/alpha^2(T) in the inset of Fig. 6(b), yet I_C(T) in Fig. 4(a) is not normalized by any of these T-dependent prefactors before comparison with sigma_xy(T). Since the SPR-KKR calculation models only the bulk sigma_xy(T) and contains no model for the generation of J_s,self(T), the observed maximum near 95 K could be produced by a monotonic sigma_xy(T) combined with a non-monotonic J_s(T) or l_sf(T). Please re-analyze the data with the measured T-dependent prefactors removed, for example by dividing I_C by t*/alpha^2, or provide an explicit model of J_s(T), and state the resulting uncertainty.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Pt-reference analysis] The Pt buffer/capping experiment is used to assign the sign and direction of the self-induced spin current, but the quantitative analysis assumes a temperature-independent behavior that is not established. The spin mixing conductance g_r^updown is calculated only at 300 K from linewidth broadening, and its T-dependence is not measured; the mechanism of asymmetric spin-dependent scattering at the two NiFe interfaces is inherited from ref. [13] and is not independently tested here. Thus the bulk-origin interpretation of the non-monotonic T-dependence, which is the paper's main claim, relies on an unquantified source term. Please either measure or bound the T-dependence of the spin-current source, for example through a temperature- and thickness-dependent linewidth analysis, or narrow the claim to consistency rather than demonstration.
  3. [Fig. 4(c) and scaling decomposition] The decomposition of sigma_xy into skew-scattering and side-jump-plus-intrinsic contributions is performed by varying the alloy composition at each temperature and using sigma_xy = S sigma_xx + sigma_sj+intr, but no uncertainty is reported for the slope S or the intercept, and the number of compositions used is not given. Because the conclusion that the two contributions are nearly equal and opposite is the microscopic explanation of the non-monotonic T-dependence, the robustness of S and of the intercept to the composition set should be documented, together with an estimate of the error on the ratio sigma_sk / sigma_sj+intr quoted as about -1.2.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Experimental details] The phrase 'where ΔHpp is the the peak-to-peak line width' contains a duplicated article; please fix the typo.
  2. [Throughout] The word 'non-monotonous' should be replaced by 'non-monotonic' for consistency with standard usage.
  3. [Fig. 4] Error bars are absent for I_C(T); given that I_C is an extracted quantity involving two V_sym measurements, a statement of run-to-run reproducibility or an error estimate would strengthen the comparison.
  4. [Page 7, discussion of intrinsic contribution] The sentence 'This finding also seems to infer that the intrinsic contribution to the ISHE is negligible' uses 'infer' where 'imply' is intended; please rephrase.
  5. [Page 9, l_sf estimation] The relation l_sf,NiFe = 0.91 sigma_xx x 10^-12 is taken from ref. [40] and applied to 8-32 nm films without discussing its range of validity; please add a sentence justifying its use for these thicknesses.
  6. [Supplemental material, Fig. S1(g)] The absence of the effect in CoFeB is reported without comment; a brief explanation that this could reflect a different spin diffusion length or spin Hall angle would avoid overinterpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the first-principles spin Hall conductivity is an independent benchmark, and the paper does not fit its central claim to the measured temperature dependence.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between the measured self-induced charge current IC(T) and the bulk spin Hall conductivity sigma_xy^z(T) computed ab initio with the SPR-KKR code. These are independent quantities: the calculation is parameter-free in the sense that it models bulk NiFe transport with thermal disorder treated via the coherent-potential approximation, and it is not fitted to IC(T), Vsym(T), or any other measured quantity of this experiment. The decomposition of sigma_xy^z into skew-scattering and side-jump-plus-intrinsic contributions is performed theoretically by varying the alloy composition in the calculation and using a scaling relation (sigma_xy^z = sigma_xx S + sigma_xy^{sj+intr}); this is a standard analysis procedure and does not use the experimental IC(T) as an input. The paper explicitly limits its claim to 'satisfactory qualitative agreement,' and the observed non-monotonic behavior is corroborated by the computed sign-opposite, similar-amplitude contributions. No equation in the paper reduces the predicted sigma_xy^z(T) to the measured IC(T) by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Some cited works share authors with the present paper (e.g., refs. [20], [23], [32], [35]), but these citations provide background formalism, control measurements, or a resonant-scattering model used for interpretive context; they are not the load-bearing evidence for the central claim. The assumption that the self-induced spin current arises from asymmetric spin-dependent scattering at the interfaces is inherited from ref. [13] (Tsukahara et al.) and is not validated by a self-citation chain; even if this assumption is debatable, that is a correctness or interpretation risk, not circularity. The thickness and capping-layer controls independently support the bulk-origin interpretation. Therefore the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to its first-principles benchmark, and the paper should receive a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities such as particles, fields, or conservation laws; the 'self-induced spin current' is an existing concept from prior work (ref [13]).

free parameters (5)
  • Saturation magnetization M_S = 700 emu/cm^3
    Fitted by numerical minimization to the angular dependence of H_res at T=95 K using the Kittel equilibrium equations.
  • Gyromagnetic ratio gamma = 18.5 MHz/Oe (95 K); 18.8 MHz/Oe (300 K)
    Determined by fitting the field-frequency dependence of H_res at 300 K and angular fits at 95 K.
  • Gilbert damping alpha = 0.008
    Fitted to the angular dependence of the FMR linewidth at T=95 K using the Smit-Beljers linewidth expression.
  • Mosaic spread Delta_theta = 0.25 deg
    Fitted along with alpha to the angular linewidth data to account for inhomogeneous broadening.
  • Spin diffusion length l_sf,NiFe = 2.9-5.3 nm at T=100 K (for t=8-32 nm)
    Obtained from measured longitudinal conductivity via the empirical relation l_sf = 0.91 sigma_xx x 10^-12 from ref [40], used to compute t* for thickness scaling.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The standard spin-pumping/ISHE formalism for bilayers applies to a single ferromagnetic film with a self-induced spin current.
    Equations from refs [10] and [26] for V_sym and angular dependence are used without derivation for the single-layer case; no separate validation of this transfer is provided.
  • domain assumption Spin fluctuations are quenched by the applied magnetic field during FMR, so electron-phonon scattering dominates the T-dependence of the spin Hall conductivity.
    Explicitly stated in the first-principles calculation section; the SPR-KKR T-dependence and the cancellation explanation rely on this.
  • domain assumption The coherent-potential approximation (CPA) accurately represents NiFe alloy disorder in the KKR calculations.
    Used to compute T-dependent sigma_xy for NiFe; standard for disordered alloys but an approximation.
  • domain assumption Spin-charge conversion in NiFe is governed by the bulk spin Hall conductivity, and interface conversion contributions are negligible.
    The central comparison of I_C with bulk sigma_xy and the assignment to skew scattering and side-jump presume bulk-dominated conversion.
  • ad hoc to paper The self-induced spin current originates from asymmetric spin-dependent scattering at the two interfaces of the NiFe film.
    Mechanism inherited from ref [13], not directly measured; it is load-bearing for interpreting the measured voltage as a self-induced ISHE signal.
  • domain assumption In the skew-scattering decomposition, the side-jump plus intrinsic contribution is independent of alloy composition when varying NiFe composition.
    S is extracted from the slope of sigma_xy vs sigma_xx across NiFe compositions; this assumes the intercept term is constant.
  • domain assumption The empirical relation l_sf,NiFe = 0.91 sigma_xx x 10^-12 (m) is valid for permalloy.
    Taken from ref [40]; used to convert measured conductivities into spin diffusion lengths for the t* model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-induced inverse spin Hall effect in ferromagnets: demonstration through non-monotonous temperature-dependence in permalloy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJ3HXP2Z

@misc{pith2026190900976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-induced inverse spin Hall effect in ferromagnets: demonstration through non-monotonous temperature-dependence in permalloy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJ3HXP2Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00976}
}
read the original abstract

We investigated the self-induced inverse spin Hall effect in ferromagnets. Temperature (T), thickness (t) and angular-dependent measurements of transverse voltage in spin pumping experiments were performed with permalloy films. Results revealed non-monotonous T-dependence of the self-induced transverse voltage. Qualitative agreement was found with first-principle calculations unravelling the skew scattering, side-jump, and intrinsic contributions to the T-dependent spin Hall conductivity. Experimental data were similar whatever the material in contact with permalloy (oxides or metals), and revealed an increase of produced current with t, demonstrating a bulk origin of the effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00976 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic representation of the experiment design. (b) Representative data showing H-dependence of V, as measured for a Si/SiO2//Cu(6)/NiFe(8)/Cu(3)/Al(2)Ox (nm) stack at 95 K, when  = + . (c) Corresponding differential absorption spectra (d ” /dH vs H). The lines in (b) and (c) were fitted to the data, see text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. (a) T-dependence of IC measured in Si/SiO2//Cu(6)/NiFe(tNiFe=8;12;16;24;32)/Cu(3)/Al(2)Ox (nm) stacks. (b) NiFe thickness￾dependence of IC measured at 95 and 300 K. Inset: corresponding thickness-dependences of t * / 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Tsukahara, Y

    A. Tsukahara, Y. Ando, Y. Kitamura, H. Emoto, E. Shikoh, M. P. Delmo, T. Shinjo, and M. Shiraishi, Phys. Rev. B 89, 235317 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [1]

    Maekawa, S

    S. Maekawa, S. O. Valenzuela, E. Saitoh, and T. Kimura (eds.), Ser. Semicond. Sci. Technol. Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [2]

    Otani, M

    Y. Otani, M. Shiraishi, A. Oiwa, E. Saitoh, and S. Murakami, Nat. Phys. 13, 829 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    A. V. Chumak, A. D. Karenowska, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Maekawa, H

    S. Maekawa, H. Adachi, K. Uchida, J. Ieda, and E. Saitoh, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 82, 102002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    Hellman, A

    F. Hellman, A. Hoffmann, Y. Tserkovnyak, G. Beach et al, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 25006 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Hoffmann, IEEE Trans

    A. Hoffmann, IEEE Trans. Magn. 49, 5172 (2013)

    2013

  8. [7]

    Sinova, S

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

    work page 2015

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, G. E. W. Bauer, and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1375 (2005)

    2005

  2. [9]

    Ando, Semicond

    K. Ando, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 29, 043002 (2014)

    2014

  3. [10]

    K. Ando, S. Takahashi, J. Ieda, Y. Kajiwara, H. Nakayama, T. Yoshino, K. Harii, Y. Fujikawa, M. Matsuo, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, J. Appl. Phys. 109, 103913 (2011)

    2011

  4. [11]

    B. F. Miao, S. Y. Huang, D. Qu, and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 66602 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Azevedo, O

    A. Azevedo, O. A. Santos, R. O. Cunha, R. Rodriguez-Suarez, and S. M. Rezende, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 152408 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Ciccarelli, K

    C. Ciccarelli, K. M. D. Hals, A. Irvine, V. Novak, Y. Tserkovnyak, H. Kurebayashi, A. Brataas, and A. Ferguson, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 50 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Kanagawa, Y

    K. Kanagawa, Y. Teki, and E. Shikoh, AIP Adv. 8, 055910 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Omori, E

    Y. Omori, E. Sagasta, Y. Niimi, M. Gradhand, and L. E. Hueso, Phys. Rev. B 99, 014403 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    W. Wang, T. Wang, V. P. Amin, Y. Wang, A. Radhakrishnan, A. Davidson, S. R. Allen, T. J. Silva, H. Ohldag, D. Balzar, B. L. Zink, P. M. Haney, J. Q. Xiao, D. G. Cahill, and V. O. Lorenz, arXiv:1902.05490 (2019). 12

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Klein, B

    K. Klein, B. Hauer, B. Stoib, M. Trautwein, S. Matich, H. Huebl, O. Astakhov, F. Finger, R. Bittl, M. Stutzmann, and M. S. Brandt, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 84, 103911 (2013)

    2013

  11. [19]

    Kim, M.-S

    S.-I. Kim, M.-S. Seo, and S. -y. Park, J. Appl. Phys. 115, 17C501 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Rojas-Sánchez, M

    J.-C. Rojas-Sánchez, M. Cubukcu, A. Jain, C. Vergnaud, C. Portemont, C. Ducruet, A. Barski, A. Marty, L. Vila, E. Augendre, G. Desfonds, S. Gambarelli, and M. Jamet, Phys. Rev. B 88, 064403 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Miccoli, F

    I. Miccoli, F. Edler, H. Pfnur, and C. Tegenkamp, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 27, 223201 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Gilmore, Y

    K. Gilmore, Y. U. Idzerda, and M. D. Stiles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 27204 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Frangou, S

    L. Frangou, S. Oyarzun, S. Auffret, L. Vila, S. Gambarelli, and V. Baltz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 077203 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    J. F. Sierra, V. V. Pryadun, F. G. Aliev, S. E. Russek, M. García-Hernández, E. Snoeck, and V. V. Metlushko, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 172510 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    Kittel, Phys

    C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 73, 155 (1948)

    1948

  18. [26]

    Smit and H

    J. Smit and H. G. Beljers, Philips Res. Rep. 10, 113 (1955)

    1955

  19. [27]

    Ebert, D

    H. Ebert, D. Ködderitzsch, and J. Minár, Reports Prog. Phys. 74, 96501 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Ebert, J

    H. Ebert, J. Braun, D. Ködderitzsch, and S. Mankovsky, Phys. Rev. B 93, 75145 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    The Munich SPR-KKR package, h ttp://olymp.cup.uni-muenchen.de/ak/ebert/SPRKKR version 6.3 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Y. Tian, L. Ye, and X. Jin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 087206 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    Fert and P

    A. Fert and P. M. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 157208 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    P. M. Levy, H. Yang, M. Chshiev, and A. Fert, Phys. Rev. B 88, 214432 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    S. Y. Huang, W. G. Wang, S. F. Lee, J. Kwo, and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 216604 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Weiler, M

    M. Weiler, M. Althammer, F. D. Czeschka, H. Huebl, M. S. Wagner, M. Opel, I. -M. Imort, G. Reiss, A. Thomas, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 106602 (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    P. Noël, M. Cosset-Cheneau, V. Haspot, V. Maurel, C. Lombard, A. Barthelemy, L. Vila, and J.-P. Attané, arXiv:1905.00771 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Isasa, E

    M. Isasa, E. Villamor, L. E. Hueso, M. Gradhand, and F. Casanova, Phys. Rev. B 91, 024402 (2015). 13

    2015

  29. [37]

    Y. Wang, P. Deorani, X. Qiu, J. H. Kwon, and H. Yang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 152412 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Rojas-Sánchez, N

    J.-C. Rojas-Sánchez, N. Reyren, P. Laczkowski, W. Savero, J. -P. Attané, C. Deranlot, M. Jamet, J.-M. George, L. Vila, and H. Jaffrès, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 106602 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    Ghosh, S

    A. Ghosh, S. Auffret, U. Ebels, and W. E. Bailey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 127202 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Sagasta, Y

    E. Sagasta, Y. Omori, M. Isasa, Y. Otani, L. E. Hueso, and F. Casanova, Appl. Phys. Lett. 111, 082407 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Zahnd, L

    G. Zahnd, L. Vila, V. T. Pham, M. Cosset-Cheneau, W. Lim, A. Brenac, P. Laczkowski, A. Marty, and J.-P. Attané, Phys. Rev. B 98, 174414 (2018). 14 Figure captions Fig. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the experiment design. (b) Representative data showing H-dependence of V, ...

    2018

  34. [42]

    When not specified, samples were grown in the same machine, by sputtering

    In this first part of supplemental material, we show that the non-monotonous T-dependence of spin-charge conversion was independent of the material in contact with the permalloy: SiO2, MgO, AlOx oxides, Cu, and Pt metals, further confirming the ‘bulk’ origin of the effect. Whe...

  35. [43]

    S2(a)), over the range accessible with our experimental setup

    In this second part of supplemental material , we present data that show that the non - monotonous T-dependence of spin-charge conversion is independent of the sweep rate used for the magnetic field (Fig. S2(a)), over the range accessible with our experimental setup. We note t...

Pith tools

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