Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Gate-tunable spin Hall effect in trilayer graphene/group-IV monochalcogenide van der Waals heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · 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 the first experimental observation of a gate-tunable spin Hall effect in trilayer graphene proximitized with SnS, a group-IV monochalcogenide, with the spin Hall angle peaking near the charge neutrality point and…

desk verdict First experimental SHE in graphene/SnS looks real, but the quoted theta_SH and lambda_SCI are hostage to an untested D_s equality assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09785 v1 pith:XXYBKWA4 submitted 2024-12-13 cond-mat.mes-hall

Haozhe Yang , Zhendong Chi , Garen Avedissian , Eoin Dolan , Muthumalai Karuppasamy , Beatriz Martín-García , Marco Gobbi , Zdenek Sofer
show 2 more authors
Luis E. Hueso Fèlix Casanova
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spinHalleffectgraphenetinsulfidegroup-IVmonochalcogenideproximity-inducedspin-orbitcouplingspin-chargeinterconversionHanleprecessionvanderWaalsheterostructure
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

Spin-based electronics needs a material that can both carry spins over long distances and convert them into charge signals. This paper reports that placing trilayer graphene under a flake of tin sulfide (SnS), a layered group-IV monochalcogenide, imprints enough spin-orbit coupling on the graphene to produce a spin Hall effect that is electrically tunable and survives up to 300 K. Spin Hall angles extracted from nonlocal spin-precession measurements reach about 0.47% at 100 K near the charge neutrality point, and the spin-charge interconversion efficiency reaches about 0.97 nm at 100 K. If correct, the result adds a new family of materials to the short list of proximity sources that can functionalize graphene for spintronics.

What carries the argument

The experimental workhorse is the nonlocal spin-precession (Hanle) measurement in a lateral spin valve: a ferromagnetic injector sends a spin current down a pristine graphene arm into a SnS-covered Hall cross, where out-of-plane spin components generated by precession in an in-plane magnetic field are converted into a transverse charge voltage. The antisymmetric part of the Hanle signal, obtained by reversing the injector magnetization and antisymmetrizing in field, isolates the (inverse) spin Hall effect from Rashba-Edelstein and magnetoresistance contributions. Fitting the signal to the one-dimensional Bloch equation with boundary conditions for spin injection, backflow, and contact-resistance pulling yields the spin Hall angle and the spin lifetime of the proximitized region.

What would settle it

A control experiment with a non-spin-orbit spacer between graphene and SnS should kill the antisymmetric Hanle signal; more quantitatively, placing two ferromagnetic electrodes entirely on the SnS-covered region to measure Hanle precession only there would give a direct value of the spin diffusion coefficient $D_s$, checking the equality assumption and re-deriving the spin Hall angle without it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a van der Waals heterostructure of trilayer graphene and tin sulfide exhibits the spin Hall effect as a result of proximity-induced spin-orbit coupling, demonstrated for the first time in a group-IV monochalcogenide/graphene system. Using nonlocal Hanle spin-precession measurements, the authors isolate an antisymmetric spin signal that is the signature of spin-to-charge conversion by the inverse spin Hall effect, and they quantify a spin Hall angle that decreases from $0.47\pm 0.05\%$ at 100 K to $0.10\pm 0.01\%$ at 300 K at zero gate voltage, with a maximum near the charge neutrality point. The spin diffusion length of the proximitized graphene is shortened by the added spin-orbit coupling, and the spin-charge interconversion efficiency $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}\lambda_s^{\mathrm{prox}}$ reaches $0.97\pm 0.16$ nm at 100 K, comparable to graphene/metal-oxide systems and larger than typical heavy-metal values.

Load-bearing premise

The numbers for the spin Hall angle and spin diffusion length in the SnS-covered graphene are extracted assuming the spin diffusion coefficient is unchanged by the SnS proximity and that the charge neutrality point is identical in pristine and covered regions, a simplification adopted to keep the fitting manageable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Group-IV monochalcogenides become a viable second family of two-dimensional materials, alongside transition-metal dichalcogenides and metal oxides, for proximity-inducing spin-orbit coupling in graphene.
  • Spin-to-charge conversion in the SnS/graphene system remains measurable at 300 K, so room-temperature spintronic devices based on proximity-functionalized graphene are within reach.
  • The spin Hall angle peaks near the charge neutrality point and is tuned by the back gate, giving an electrical knob for spin-charge interconversion efficiency in a single device.
  • Even with the added spin-orbit coupling, the proximitized channel keeps a spin diffusion length of hundreds of nanometers, so the system retains long-distance spin transport while gaining spin manipulation.
  • The measured spin-charge interconversion efficiency around 0.97 nm at 100 K is higher than in heavy metals such as Pt and W, suggesting the heterostructure could serve as an efficient spin-charge converter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is the same intrinsic spin Hall conductivity that theory predicts for graphene/TMD systems, then varying the chalcogen or metal in the group-IV monochalcogenide layer (e.g., SnSe, GeS) should systematically change the spin Hall angle with atomic spin-orbit strength; this is a testable prediction not made in the paper.
  • Because SnS is also ferroelectric, a natural extension is to ask whether switching the SnS polarization reconfigures the proximity spin-orbit coupling and therefore the spin Hall angle; the present data do not address this.
  • The quantitative values of $\theta_{\mathrm{SH}}$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{SCI}}$ rest on the assumption that the spin diffusion coefficient is unchanged by proximity; if a future measurement contradicts that, the reported magnitudes will shift even though the existence and gate dependence of the antisymmetric Hanle signal should survive.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first experimental observation of the spin Hall effect in trilayer graphene proximitized with SnS, a group-IV monochalcogenide. The authors fabricate a lateral spin-valve device with a graphene Hall bar partially covered by SnS, measure nonlocal spin precession, and extract a gate-tunable spin Hall angle that peaks near the charge neutrality point and persists up to 300 K. The reported values include theta_SH = 0.47±0.05% at 100 K and 0.10±0.01% at 300 K (Vg = 0 V), and an SCI efficiency lambda_SCI of 0.97±0.16 nm at 100 K (Vg = 10 V). The quantitative extraction uses a standard Bloch-equation model of the antisymmetric Hanle signal, with the spin diffusion coefficient in the SnS-covered region assumed equal to that in pristine graphene.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this work expands the family of materials that can induce strong spin-orbit coupling in graphene to group-IV monochalcogenides, a new and potentially tunable class. The observation of a gate-tunable SHE up to room temperature, with a competitive spin-charge interconversion efficiency, is of clear interest for graphene-based spintronics. The paper includes two devices (one as a reproducibility check), temperature-dependent and gate-dependent data, and a transparent description of the fitting model. The antisymmetric Hanle signal is a standard and reliable signature of spin-to-charge conversion. However, the central quantitative results (theta_SH, lambda_s^prox, lambda_SCI) rest on an explicit assumption about equal spin diffusion coefficients in pristine and proximitized regions, and the reported error bars only reflect fitting uncertainty, not this model uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (10) and Fig. 5(c)] The assumption that D_s is equal in pristine and SnS-proximitized trilayer graphene, introduced to reduce the number of fitting parameters, is load-bearing for all quantitative results reported in Figs. 5(b)-(d). The justification given is that the CNP is the same in both regions, but Fig. 2(d) shows a temperature-dependent CNP shift attributed to charge transfer between SnS and graphene, indicating that the local carrier density in the proximitized region need not match that in the pristine arms. Since D_s depends on carrier density, the equality is questionable. Because lambda_s_prox is fitted to be roughly 330 nm versus 2190 nm in pristine graphene, the spin-current profile is dominated by the proximitized segment, and the extracted theta_SH and tau_s_prox are partially degenerate if D_s_prox is allowed to vary. The authors should either provide an independent measurement or estimate of D_s_prox, or perform a sensitivity analysis showing how theta_SH and lambda_SCI change under a plausible range of D_s_prox values. Without this, the quoted values and their gate/temperature trends carry an unquantified systematic error that could be comparable to the reported differences.
  2. The reported large reduction of the spin diffusion length in the proximitized region (from 2190±20 nm to 330±90 nm at 100 K) is a central result, but it is obtained under the same equal-D_s assumption. The value of D_s is taken from fits to pristine graphene, and the spin lifetime in the proximitized region is then adjusted to match the antisymmetric Hanle amplitude and line shape. If the true D_s in the SnS-covered region is smaller (e.g., due to enhanced disorder or charge inhomogeneity), the fitted lambda_s_prox would change, and so would the spin Hall angle via the normalization in Eq. (10). The error bars in Fig. 5(c) and (d) are fitting errors only. I recommend the authors explicitly state the systematic uncertainty from this assumption, or, ideally, fit the antisymmetric Hanle data with D_s_prox as a free parameter using a dedicated experiment or a degenerate-branch analysis to bound the impact on theta_SH and lambda_SCI.
  3. The claim that the gate dependence of theta_SH peaks near the CNP is a key physics statement, but the peak position and even its existence could be affected by the D_s assumption if D_s_prox varies with gate voltage differently than D_s of the pristine region. The pristine spin transport data in Fig. 3(d) show that lambda_s is nearly gate-independent, but the local carrier density in the proximitized region is shifted relative to the pristine arms due to charge transfer (Fig. 2(d)). Since D_s is related to the carrier density, using the pristine D_s at each applied Vg for the proximitized region maps the gate axis incorrectly if the CNPs differ. The authors should discuss this offset or analyze the data using the local density calibration from the proximitized-region resistance (Fig. 2(d)).
minor comments (4)
  1. In the caption of Fig. S4, the antiparallel configuration is labeled as R_NL^P in both instances; the red line should presumably be R_NL^AP.
  2. The authors state that the SCI signal amplitude decreases with temperature and attribute this to weakening of the proximity effect. However, spin injection and detection efficiencies also vary with temperature, and the model does not separate these contributions. A sentence noting that the temperature trend of the raw amplitude is not solely a proximity-effect measure would improve clarity.
  3. The 300 K value of lambda_SCI, 0.35±0.41 nm, is consistent with zero within error. The text should explicitly acknowledge this large relative uncertainty when comparing to literature values.
  4. The device fabrication section mentions that the SnS flake is stamped onto graphene before nanopatterning. The possibility that the Hall-bar etching or subsequent processing modifies the SnS/graphene interface is not discussed; a comment about the cleanliness of the interface would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: theta_SH and lambda_SCI are extracted from measured antisymmetric Hanle signals through an explicit Bloch-equation model, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. The spin Hall angle and proximitized spin diffusion length are obtained by fitting Eq. (10) of SI Note 5 to the measured antisymmetric nonlocal Hanle signal, using boundary conditions and independently measured inputs (sample geometry, contact resistance, pristine-graphene spin parameters). Neither theta_SH nor lambda_SCI is defined in terms of the other or in terms of the final claim. The stated assumption that the spin diffusion coefficient is equal in pristine and SnS-proximitized graphene is an identifiability/parameter-reduction choice, not a circular reduction: D_s is an input measured from pristine-graphene Hanle fits, while theta_SH and tau_s_prox remain free parameters returned by the fit. If D_s differs in the proximitized region, the quoted values would shift, but that is a systematic-uncertainty concern, not circularity. Self-citations appear only as methodological references to established Hanle and spin-charge-interconversion protocols and to prior comparable experiments; they do not carry the argument's conclusion. No prediction is forced by construction, and no load-bearing self-citation chain supplies the result.

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

The paper's quantitative claims rest on a standard spin transport model plus several fitted parameters and one explicit simplifying assumption. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Spin Hall angle theta_SH = 0.47% at 100 K, Vg=0 V; 0.10% at 300 K, Vg=0 V
    Extracted by fitting the antisymmetric Hanle signal to the Bloch equation model; it is the central reported quantity, not independently derived.
  • Spin lifetime tau_s^prox / spin diffusion length lambda_s^prox of proximitized graphene = lambda_s^prox ~ 330 nm at 100 K, Vg=10 V
    Fitted simultaneously with theta_SH; used to compute the SCI efficiency lambda_SCI = theta_SH * lambda_s^prox.
  • Spin polarization P of Co electrodes = Not stated explicitly
    Fitted from the symmetric Hanle precession on pristine graphene; enters the spin current boundary conditions and thus affects all extracted spin parameters.
  • Contact pulling angle beta = Not stated explicitly
    Fitted from R_sum versus B_x data as described in SI Note 5; enters Eqs. (8)-(10) for both symmetric and antisymmetric fits.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bloch equation spin transport model with spin diffusion, relaxation, and Larmor precession (SI Note 5, Eq. 1)
    Standard model for spin transport in graphene nonlocal devices; assumed valid in both pristine and proximitized regions.
  • domain assumption Boundary conditions including spin injection, spin backflow at contacts, and zero spin current at sample ends (SI Note 5)
    Needed to solve the Bloch equations; standard but not directly verified for this specific device.
  • ad hoc to paper D_s(pristine) = D_s(prox) and CNP is the same in pristine and proximitized regions (SI Note 5, final paragraph)
    Explicitly introduced to reduce the number of fitting parameters; if false, the quantitative theta_SH values change.
  • domain assumption The antisymmetric Hanle signal after subtracting the two magnetization directions and antisymmetrizing is solely due to the (inverse) spin Hall effect in the proximitized region
    Relies on established symmetry arguments that remove local magnetoresistance, ordinary Hall, and Rashba-Edelstein contributions, as cited in Refs. 6, 12, 17, and 30.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gate-tunable spin Hall effect in trilayer graphene/group-IV monochalcogenide van der Waals heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XXYBKWA4

@misc{pith2026241209785,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gate-tunable spin Hall effect in trilayer graphene/group-IV monochalcogenide van der Waals heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XXYBKWA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09785}
}
read the original abstract

Spintronic devices require materials that facilitate effective spin transport, generation, and detection. In this regard, graphene emerges as an ideal candidate for long-distance spin transport owing to its minimal spin-orbit coupling, which, however, limits its capacity for effective spin manipulation. This problem can be overcome by putting spin-orbit coupling materials in close contact to graphene leading to spin-orbit proximity and, consequently, efficient spin-to-charge conversion through mechanisms such as the spin Hall effect. Here, we report and quantify the gate-dependent spin Hall effect in trilayer graphene proximitized with tin sulfide (SnS), a group-IV monochalcogenide which has recently been predicted to be a viable alternative to transition-metal dichalcogenides for inducing strong spin-orbit coupling in graphene. The spin Hall angle exhibits a maximum around the charge neutrality point of graphene up to room temperature. Our findings expand the library of materials that induce spin-orbit coupling in graphene to a new class, group-IV monochalcogenides, thereby highlighting the potential of two-dimensional materials to pave the way for the development of innovative spin-based devices and future technological applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. K. Geim, I. V. Grigorieva, Nature 2013, 499, 419

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. Mishchenko, A. Carvalho, A. H. Castro Neto, Science (80-. ). 2016, 353, DOI 10.1126/science.aac9439

    doi:10.1126/science.aac9439 2016

  3. [3]

    J. F. Sierra, J. Fabian, R. K. Kawakami, S. Roche, S. O. Valenzuela, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 856

    2021

  4. [4]

    Ingla-Ayné s, R

    J. Ingla-Ayné s, R. J. Meijerink, B. J. V. Wees, Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 4825

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Drö geler, C

    M. Drö geler, C. Franzen, F. Volmer, T. Pohlmann, L. Banszerus, M. Wolter, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Stampfer, B. Beschoten, Nano Lett. 2016, 16, 3533

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Ontoso, C

    N. Ontoso, C. K. Safeer, F. Herling, J. Ingla-Ayné s, H. Yang, Z. Chi, B. Martin-Garcia, I. Robredo, M. G. Vergniory, F. de Juan, M. Reyes Calvo, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2023, 19, 014053

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    C. K. Safeer, F. Herling, W. Y. Choi, N. Ontoso, J. Ingla-Ayné s, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, 2D Mater. 2022, 9, 015024

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Gmitra, D

    M. Gmitra, D. Kochan, J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2013, 110, 246602

    work page 2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Weeks, J

    C. Weeks, J. Hu, J. Alicea, M. Franz, R. Wu, Phys. Rev. X 2011, 1, 021001

    2011

  2. [10]

    Gmitra, D

    M. Gmitra, D. Kochan, P. Hö gl, J. Fabian, Phys. Rev. B 2016, 93, 155104

    2016

  3. [11]

    Ferreira, T

    A. Ferreira, T. G. Rappoport, M. A. Cazalilla, A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 112, 066601

    2014

  4. [12]

    Ingla-Ayné s, I

    J. Ingla-Ayné s, I. Groen, F. Herling, N. Ontoso, C. K. Safeer, F. de Juan, L. E. Hueso, M. Gobbi, F. Casanova, 2D Mater. 2022, 9, 045001

    2022

  5. [13]

    Ingla-Ayné s, F

    J. Ingla-Ayné s, F. Herling, J. Fabian, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2021, 127, 047202

    2021

  6. [14]

    Herling, C

    F. Herling, C. K. Safeer, J. Ingla-Ayné s, N. Ontoso, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, APL Mater. 2020, 8, 071103

    2020

  7. [15]

    C. K. Safeer, J. Ingla-Ayné s, N. Ontoso, F. Herling, W. Yan, L. E. Hueso, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, Nano Lett. 2020, 20, 4573

    2020

  8. [16]

    C. K. Safeer, J. Ingla-Ayné s, F. Herling, J. H. Garcia, M. Vila, N. Ontoso, M. R. Calvo, S. Roche, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 1074

    2019

  9. [17]

    C. K. Safeer, N. Ontoso, J. Ingla-Ayné s, F. Herling, V. T. Pham, A. Kurzmann, K. Ensslin, A. Chuvilin, I. Robredo, M. G. Vergniory, F. De Juan, L. E. Hueso, M. R. Calvo, F. Casanova, Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 8758

    2019

  10. [18]

    L. A. Bení tez, W. S. Torres, J. F. Sierra, M. Timmermans, J. H. Garcia, S. Roche, M. V. Costache, S. O. Valenzuela, Nat. Mater. 2019, 19, 170

    2019

  11. [19]

    T. S. Ghiasi, A. A. Kaverzin, P. J. Blah, B. J. Van Wees, Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 5959. 16

    2019

  12. [20]

    Rojas-Sá nchez, A

    J.-C. Rojas-Sá nchez, A. Fert, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2019, 11, 054049

    2019

  13. [21]

    V. T. Pham, I. Groen, S. Manipatruni, W. Y. Choi, D. E. Nikonov, E. Sagasta, C. C. Lin, T. A. Gosavi, A. Marty, L. E. Hueso, I. A. Young, F. Casanova, Nat. Electron. 2020, 3, 309

    2020

  14. [22]

    D. C. Vaz, C.-C. Lin, J. J. Plombon, W. Y. Choi, I. Groen, I. C. Arango, A. Chuvilin, L. E. Hueso, D. E. Nikonov, H. Li, P. Debashis, S. B. Clendenning, T. A. Gosavi, Y.-L. Huang, B. Prasad, R. Ramesh, A. Vecchiola, M. Bibes, K. Bouzehouane, S. Fusil, V. Garcia, I. A. Young, F...

    2024

  15. [23]

    H. Yang, S. O. Valenzuela, M. Chshiev, S. Couet, B. Dieny, B. Dlubak, A. Fert, K. Garello, M. Jamet, D. E. Jeong, K. Lee, T. Lee, M. B. Martin, G. S. Kar, P. Sé né or, H. J. Shin, S. Roche, Nature 2022, 606, 663

    2022

  16. [24]

    C. C. Lin, A. V. Penumatcha, Y. Gao, V. Q. Diep, J. Appenzeller, Z. Chen, Nano Lett. 2013, 13, 5177

    2013

  17. [25]

    J. H. Garcia, A. W. Cummings, S. Roche, Nano Lett. 2017, 17, 5078

    2017

  18. [26]

    Milletarì , M

    M. Milletarì , M. Offidani, A. Ferreira, R. Raimondi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 246801

    2017

  19. [27]

    J. H. Garcia, M. Vila, A. W. Cummings, S. Roche, Chem. Soc. Rev. 2018, 47, 3359

    2018

  20. [28]

    S. Lee, D. J. P. De Sousa, Y. K. Kwon, F. De Juan, Z. Chi, F. Casanova, T. Low, Phys. Rev. B 2022, 106, 165420

    2022

  21. [29]

    Offidani, M

    M. Offidani, M. Milletarì , R. Raimondi, A. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2017, 119, 196801

    2017

  22. [30]

    H. Yang, M. Ormaza, Z. Chi, E. Dolan, J. Ingla-Ayné s, C. K. Safeer, F. Herling, N. Ontoso, M. Gobbi, B. Martí n-Garcí a, F. Schiller, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, Nano Lett. 2023, 23, 4406

    2023

  23. [31]

    T. S. Ghiasi, A. A. Kaverzin, A. H. Dismukes, D. K. de Wal, X. Roy, B. J. van Wees, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2021, 16, 788

    2021

  24. [32]

    Y. Wang, X. Gao, K. Yang, P. Gu, X. Lu, S. Zhang, Y. Gao, N. Ren, B. Dong, Y. Jiang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Kang, W. Lou, J. Mao, J. Liu, Y. Ye, Z. Han, K. Chang, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, Nat. Nanotechnol. 2022, 17, 1272

    2022

  25. [33]

    Y. Wu, G. Yin, L. Pan, A. J. Grutter, Q. Pan, A. Lee, D. A. Gilbert, J. A. Borchers, W. Ratcliff, A. Li, X. dong Han, K. L. Wang, Nat. Electron. 2020, 3, 604

    2020

  26. [34]

    Ghazaryan, M

    D. Ghazaryan, M. T. Greenaway, Z. Wang, V. H. Guarochico-Moreira, I. J. Vera- Marun, J. Yin, Y. Liao, S. V. Morozov, O. Kristanovski, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. 17 Katsnelson, F. Withers, A. Mishchenko, L. Eaves, A. K. Geim, K. S. Novoselov, A. Misra, Nat. Electron. 2018, 1, 344

    2018

  27. [35]

    Offidani, A

    M. Offidani, A. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2018, 121, 126802

    2018

  28. [36]

    P. Z. Hanakata, A. Carvalho, D. K. Campbell, H. S. Park, Phys. Rev. B 2016, 94, 035304

    2016

  29. [37]

    Shen, W.-Y

    X.-W. Shen, W.-Y. Tong, S.-J. Gong, C.-G. Duan, 2D Mater. 2017, 5, 011001

    2017

  30. [38]

    A. S. Rodin, L. C. Gomes, A. Carvalho, A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. B 2016, 93, 045431

    2016

  31. [39]

    Chang, J

    K. Chang, J. Liu, H. Lin, N. Wang, K. Zhao, A. Zhang, F. Jin, Y. Zhong, X. Hu, W. Duan, Q. Zhang, L. Fu, Q. K. Xue, X. Chen, S. H. Ji, Science (80-. ). 2016, 353, 274

    2016

  32. [40]

    Y. Bao, P. Song, Y. Liu, Z. Chen, M. Zhu, I. Abdelwahab, J. Su, W. Fu, X. Chi, W. Yu, W. Liu, X. Zhao, Q. H. Xu, M. Yang, K. P. Loh, Nano Lett. 2019, 19, 5109

    2019

  33. [41]

    Higashitarumizu, H

    N. Higashitarumizu, H. Kawamoto, C. J. Lee, B. H. Lin, F. H. Chu, I. Yonemori, T. Nishimura, K. Wakabayashi, W. H. Chang, K. Nagashio, Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1

    2020

  34. [42]

    Schmidt, D

    G. Schmidt, D. Ferrand, L. Molenkamp, A. Filip, B. van Wees, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 2000, 62, R4790

    2000

  35. [43]

    Ingla-Ayné s, M

    J. Ingla-Ayné s, M. H. D. Guimarã es, R. J. Meijerink, P. J. Zomer, B. J. Van Wees, Phys. Rev. B 2015, 92, 201410

    2015

  36. [44]

    Milivojević, M

    M. Milivojević, M. Gmitra, M. Kurpas, I. Štich, J. Fabian, arxiv.org/abs/2402.09045 2024, 1

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. A. Cavill, C. Huang, M. Offidani, Y. H. Lin, M. A. Cazalilla, M. A. Cazalilla, M. A. Cazalilla, A. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2020, 124, 236803

    2020

  38. [46]

    Z. Chi, S. Lee, H. Yang, E. Dolan, C. K. Safeer, J. Ingla-Ayné s, F. Herling, N. Ontoso, B. Martí n-Garcí a, M. Gobbi, T. Low, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, Adv. Mater. 2024, 2310768, 1

    2024

  39. [47]

    Maassen, F

    T. Maassen, F. K. Dejene, M. H. D. Guimarã es, C. Jó zsa, B. J. van Wees, Phys. Rev. B 2011, 83, 115410

    2011

  40. [48]

    L. M. Malard, M. A. Pimenta, G. Dresselhaus, M. S. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rep. 2009, 473, 51

    2009

  41. [49]

    L. Sun, Z. Wang, J. Jiang, Y. Kim, B. Joo, S. Zheng, S. Lee, W. J. Yu, B. S. Kong, H. Yang, Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, DOI 10.1126/sciadv.abg1455

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    H. Yang, B. Martí n-Garcí a, J. Kimá k, E. Schmoranzerová , E. Dolan, Z. Chi, M. Gobbi, P. Němec, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, arXiv:2312.10227 2023. 18

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Rojas-Sá nchez, N

    J.-C. Rojas-Sá nchez, N. Reyren, P. Laczkowski, W. Savero, J.-P. Attané , C. Deranlot, M. Jamet, J.-M. George, L. Vila, H. Jaffrè s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 112, 106602

    2014

  44. [52]

    J. Kim, P. Sheng, S. Takahashi, S. Mitani, M. Hayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 097201

    2016

  45. [53]

    J. C. R. Sá nchez, L. Vila, G. Desfonds, S. Gambarelli, J. P. Attané , J. M. De Teresa, C. Magé n, A. Fert, Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2944

    2013

  46. [54]

    V. T. Pham, H. Yang, W. Y. Choi, A. Marty, I. Groen, A. Chuvilin, F. S. Bergeret, L. E. Hueso, I. V. Tokatly, F. Casanova, Phys. Rev. B 2021, 104, 184410. 19 Supporting Information Note 1. Optical image of Sample 1 during the fabrication process. Figure S1 (a) Stamped SnS/tril...

    2021

  47. [55]

    Spin accumulation μ is continuous

  48. [56]

    At F1 with spin injection by the charge current, by Δ𝐼𝑠 = 𝐼𝑐 ⋅ 𝑃/2; b

    Spin current is continuous except: 25 a. At F1 with spin injection by the charge current, by Δ𝐼𝑠 = 𝐼𝑐 ⋅ 𝑃/2; b. At F1 and F2 due to the spin backflow effect because of the low contact resistance, by Δ𝐼𝑠 = −𝜇𝑠/(2𝑒𝑅𝑐), where 𝑅𝑐 is the contact resistance

  49. [57]

    Spin current is zero at the sample ends. We write these boundary conditions in a matrix 𝑋 which fulfills: 𝑀𝑋 = 𝑌, where 𝑀 contains the coefficients 𝑀 = 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝐶 … and 𝑌 = (0, … , 𝐼𝑐𝑃 2 , 0, … ) and use the Moore-Penrose inverse to invert 𝑋−1and obtain 𝑀 = 𝑌𝑋−1. Using the numeri...

  50. [58]

    E. C. Stoner, E. P. Wohlfarth, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London. Ser. A, Math. Phys. Sci. 1948, 240, 599

    1948

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.