Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Comparing the Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect in Centrosymmetric and Noncentrosymmetric Systems: Insights from Bilayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Broken inversion symmetry sharply enhances the extrinsic orbital Hall effect in bilayer MoS2, which disorder-driven contributions dominate at high doping.

desk verdict First extrinsic OHE calculation for bilayer TMDs with a sound symmetry mechanism, but the headline 10x enhancement number sits in a regime the authors themselves disclaim. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02996 v3 pith:EWUNJBKE submitted 2025-01-06 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Azadeh Faridi , Reza Asgari This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords orbitalHalleffectbilayertransitionmetaldichalcogenidesinversionsymmetrybreakingextrinsictransportquantumkinetictheoryside-jumpskewscatteringMoS2
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 sets out to show that in bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, the orbital Hall effect (a transverse flow of orbital angular momentum) is largely controlled by disorder-driven extrinsic mechanisms once the Fermi energy moves away from the band gap, and that breaking inversion symmetry with a gate voltage strongly magnifies these extrinsic contributions. Using a quantum kinetic theory of the density matrix with short-range impurities, the authors compare the centrosymmetric unbiased bilayer with the noncentrosymmetric biased bilayer. They find that in both cases the extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity overtakes the intrinsic one at higher Fermi energies, and that the ratio can exceed ten in the biased system for a small gate voltage of 0.2 eV at epsilon_F = 4 eV. The central mechanism is the vanishing of intraband orbital angular momentum in the centrosymmetric case, which restricts extrinsic contributions to interband (off-diagonal) channels, whereas the biased system activates both diagonal and off-diagonal channels. If correct, the result identifies disorder and symmetry breaking as decisive for observing orbital Hall currents in doped TMD bilayers.

What carries the argument

The central object is the orbital angular momentum (OAM) operator built from the modern theory of orbital magnetic moments, along with the quantum kinetic equation for the disorder-averaged density matrix. In the centrosymmetric bilayer the OAM operator is forced to be purely off-diagonal (non-Abelian structure), while in the biased bilayer it acquires diagonal intraband elements of the massive Dirac form. The argument proceeds by decomposing the density-matrix correction into diagonal and off-diagonal parts and identifying three extrinsic mechanisms: a Fermi-surface side-jump from the anomalous driving term, a second side-jump from the electric-field correction to the collision integral, and a skew-scattering term. The paper derives analytical formulas for the intrinsic, side-jump, and skew-scattering orbital Hall conductivities in the biased case, showing that side-jump and skew scale relative to the intrinsic term as 12/alpha_kF and 3/$alpha_kF^{2}$, respectively.

What would settle it

A direct calculation of the orbital Hall conductivity in a biased bilayer MoS2 using a full tight-binding or ab initio band structure at Fermi energies around 3 to 4 eV would settle the claim: if the extrinsic side-jump and skew contributions do not exceed the intrinsic contribution by the predicted factors (up to 10 times for a 0.2 eV gate), the enhancement mechanism fails outside the low-energy model regime. Similarly, an experimental measurement of the orbital Hall angle in heavily doped biased bilayer MoS2 showing a response comparable to or below the intrinsic prediction would contradict the predicted extrinsic dominance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that inversion symmetry breaking leads to a substantial enhancement of the extrinsic orbital Hall effect in bilayer 2H-MoS2, and that in both unbiased and biased bilayers the extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity exceeds the intrinsic one as the Fermi energy moves away from the band gap. In the unbiased centrosymmetric bilayer, the orbital angular momentum operator has vanishing diagonal (intraband) elements, so only the off-diagonal part of the density matrix contributes; nevertheless the extrinsic anomalous side-jump term dominates at higher Fermi energies, even changing sign in the hole-doped case. In the biased bilayer, treated perturbatively with an interlayer gate voltage Vg, the intraband OAM becomes finite and both diagonal and off-diagonal density-matrix elements contribute, producing side-jump and skew-scattering terms that can exceed the intrinsic conductivity by over an order of magnitude at accessible doping. The authors state that for a gate voltage of 0.2 eV the extrinsic contribution can be more than ten times the intrinsic contribution at epsilon_F = 4 eV, and that the in-gap intrinsic plateau remains robust against these extrinsic Fermi-surface effects.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions of extrinsic dominance at higher Fermi energies assume the low-energy Dirac Hamiltonian remains accurate far from the K and K' valleys, which the authors themselves flag as questionable when hbar v_F k_F greatly exceeds the gap; the biased-bilayer enhancement also assumes the perturbative interlayer hopping treatment, which the appendix restricts to gate voltages of 0.2 eV or more.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In experimentally relevant highly doped bilayer TMDs, the orbital Hall effect is predominantly extrinsic in both centrosymmetric and noncentrosymmetric configurations, so impurity scattering cannot be neglected when predicting or interpreting orbital Hall signals.
  • Applying a modest gate voltage that even weakly breaks inversion symmetry dramatically increases the extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity, making biased bilayers a promising platform for direct observation of the orbital Hall effect.
  • In centrosymmetric bilayers, the total orbital Hall conductivity reverses sign with increasing Fermi energy in the hole-doped regime because the extrinsic contribution changes sign and dominates away from the gap.
  • The in-gap orbital Hall plateau is insensitive to extrinsic contributions, preserving a robust intrinsic response that could be used as a reference in experiments.
  • For each band in the biased bilayer, the side-jump term can reach about twelve times the intrinsic conductivity and the skew-scattering term about three times the intrinsic conductivity at large Fermi energies, within the model's stated validity range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the claim holds, sample-to-sample disorder details matter less than the generic presence of short-range impurities, meaning that the extrinsic dominance should be observable in standard doped bilayer samples rather than requiring specially clean ones.
  • The enhancement mechanism likely extends to other TMD bilayers and to similar centrosymmetric-to-noncentrosymmetric transitions, since it relies on the symmetry-imposed vanishing of intraband OAM rather than on the specific MoS2 parameters.
  • The authors' own remark that smooth Coulomb disorder suppresses skew scattering suggests a testable prediction: samples with charged-impurity-dominated scattering should show smaller extrinsic orbital Hall responses relative to samples with neutral short-range defects.
  • A natural extension is to check the claimed extrinsic dominance with a full tight-binding or ab initio band structure beyond the low-energy Dirac model, especially at the high Fermi energies where the dominance is predicted to be largest.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies intrinsic and extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity in bilayer 2H-MoS2 using an effective Dirac Hamiltonian and quantum kinetic theory. In the unbiased centrosymmetric case, the diagonal (intraband) orbital angular momentum is symmetry-forbidden, so only the off-diagonal density-matrix (anomalous side-jump) piece contributes to the extrinsic OHE; this contribution is computed numerically and found to dominate the intrinsic one away from the band edges. In the gated biased case, inversion symmetry is broken, and the authors derive analytic expressions for intrinsic, side-jump, and skew-scattering contributions; they find a strong enhancement of the extrinsic OHE, with the extrinsic/intrinsic ratio exceeding 10 at εF=4 eV for Vg=0.2 eV. The intrinsic result is benchmarked against prior Kubo calculations, and the biased-bilayer formulas reduce to the monolayer limit.

Significance. If the quantitative conclusions hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it identifies disorder-driven extrinsic orbital Hall mechanisms as dominant in doped bilayer TMDs and predicts that inversion-symmetry breaking strongly enhances them, with implications for orbitronic devices. The paper is transparent in several respects: the intrinsic term is checked against an independent Kubo calculation, the biased-case formulas are analytic and benchmarked in the monolayer limit, and the validity range of the perturbative interlayer hopping is tested in an appendix. The main caveat is that the headline ratios are evaluated in a high-doping regime in which the authors themselves state that the low-energy Dirac model may fail.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B and Fig. 5] The central claim that, for Vg=0.2 eV, the extrinsic orbital Hall conductivity exceeds the intrinsic one by more than 10 times at εF=4 eV is made in a regime that the authors themselves disclaim. Section IV.B states that the model 'may not be valid' when ℏv_F k_F ≫ 2m=1.766 eV; at εF=4 eV the model dispersion gives ℏv_F k_F ≈3.2 eV, nearly twice 2m. Since the extrinsic terms grow with Fermi momentum, neither the magnitude of the enhancement nor the crossover position is quantitatively supported at this energy. The authors should either repeat the calculation with a full-band or tight-binding model valid at these energies, or restrict the headline quantitative claims, including the abstract statement, to the range in which the Dirac model is controlled.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Sec. V, and Fig. 2] The unbiased centrosymmetric case is also presented with quantitative claims at high doping. Section V reports that the extrinsic contribution exceeds the intrinsic one at εF≈2.64 eV and reaches about 2.7 times the intrinsic value at εF=4 eV. Using the same low-energy dispersion, εF=2.64 eV already corresponds to ℏv_F k_F ≈1.5 eV, a non-negligible fraction of 2m, and the εF=4 eV point is far outside the low-energy window. The qualitative statement that extrinsic contributions eventually dominate may survive in a fuller band model, but the quoted crossover energy and ratios are not supported by the present calculation and should be re-established or removed.
  3. [Appendix B, Sec. V, and abstract] The 'weakly breaking' conclusion is not supported by the tested parameter range. Appendix B shows that the perturbative biased-bilayer treatment works well only for Vg ≥ 0.2 eV for t⊥=0.043 eV; the Vg=0.2 eV curve in Fig. 5 is the smallest allowed value, not a weak-breaking limit. The abstract and Sec. V infer a dramatic enhancement from 'even a weakly breaking' of inversion symmetry, but no calculation is presented for Vg < 0.2 eV, where the perturbative scheme is no longer validated. The authors should either validate smaller gate voltages with the exact Hamiltonian or rephrase the claim as enhancement for gate voltages down to 0.2 eV.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV.A and Fig. 2] The extrinsic conductivity of the unbiased bilayer is presented only as numerical curves, without information about the k-space grid, cutoff, or convergence; a brief numerical-convergence statement would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Eqs. (13)-(14)] The assignment of the ±Vg signs to layers 1 and 2 is not explicitly stated; please define which sign corresponds to which layer.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C2)] The sentence 'The eigenvalues are also given by |ψ±,τ⟩...' should read 'the eigenvectors are also given by...'.
  4. [Reference [71]] The publisher name is misspelled as 'Spinger'; it should be 'Springer'.
  5. [Sec. IV.B after Eq. (29)] The sentence 'the off-diagonal terms vanish (Eq. (29))' could mislead, because off-diagonal parts of the density matrix still contribute to the transport; clarify that it is the layer-off-diagonal block of the OAM operator that vanishes.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central OHE derivation is self-contained, and the self-citations are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The bilayer TMD model and its parameters are taken from independent prior work (Refs. 35, 69, 70), and the quantum kinetic equations are standard transport theory (Refs. 58, 71, 72). The intrinsic OHE is benchmarked against the independent Kubo-formalism result of Ref. 35, so this is an external check rather than a self-referential input. The extrinsic terms are obtained by solving the stated kinetic equations for the diagonal and off-diagonal density matrix (Eqs. 17-22) and are not fitted to the quantities they later predict. The centrosymmetric result follows from the symmetry-imposed vanishing of the diagonal OMM elements, while the biased-bilayer result follows from the decoupled-layer eigenstates under the stated perturbative condition. The few self-citations (Refs. 14, 73) are contextual or methodological and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper's own caveat that the Dirac model "may not be valid" for large Fermi energies (Sec. IV.B), and the Appendix B validity bound for Vg, are model-validity limitations, not circularity; they do not turn the prediction into an input. Overall, no target result is assumed in the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculations rest on standard kinetic theory and an effective model whose parameters are taken from earlier work; no free constants are fitted to the target conductivities and no new entities are introduced. The main assumptions concern model validity at high doping and the perturbative treatment of interlayer hopping in the biased case.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Quantum kinetic equation with first Born approximation and short-range disorder (Eqs. (15)-(22)) yields the density-matrix corrections used for all extrinsic conductivities.
    Invoked throughout Sec. III; the method is taken from Refs. [58,71] and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The effective four-band Dirac Hamiltonian, Eqs. (1) and (8), captures the low-energy K and K' bands of 2H-MoS2 bilayer with parameters from Refs. [35,69,70].
    Used throughout Secs. II and IV; accuracy away from the band edges is not benchmarked against ab initio bands.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling can be set to zero, lambda = 0, because OHE in doped TMDs is weakly affected by it (Sec. II).
    This simplifies the model to spin-degenerate bands; if spin-orbit coupling significantly modifies the OAM matrix elements, the results would change.
  • domain assumption In the centrosymmetric bilayer, the OMM operator is non-Abelian with vanishing diagonal and nonzero off-diagonal elements, Eq. (26), following Ref. [35].
    Central for concluding that only the off-diagonal density matrix contributes to extrinsic OHE in the unbiased case.
  • domain assumption Interlayer hopping t_perp is treated as a perturbation in the biased bilayer, stated to be valid for Vg >= 0.2 eV (Appendix B).
    Used to obtain eigenstates (9)-(12) and all biased-bilayer formulas; the paper does not compute below Vg = 0.2 eV.
  • domain assumption The standard OMM expression, Eq. (25), applies in the biased case and yields diagonal intraband OAM matrix elements.
    Underpins Eq. (29) and the claim that both diagonal and off-diagonal density-matrix parts contribute to the extrinsic OHE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparing the Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect in Centrosymmetric and Noncentrosymmetric Systems: Insights from Bilayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EWUNJBKE

@misc{pith2026250102996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparing the Extrinsic Orbital Hall Effect in Centrosymmetric and Noncentrosymmetric Systems: Insights from Bilayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EWUNJBKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02996}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate both intrinsic and extrinsic orbital Hall effects (OHE) in bilayer transi tion metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) in the presence of short-range disorder using quan tum kinetic theory. Bilayer TMDs provide an ideal platform to study the effects of inversion symmetry breaking on transport properties due to their unique structural and electronic characteristics. While bilayer TMDs are naturally inversion symmetric, ap plying a finite gate voltage to create a bias between the layers effectively breaks this symmetry. Our findings reveal that slightly away from the band edges, the extrinsic OHE eventually becomes the dominant contribution in both inversion-symmetric and asymmetric cases, with its prominence increasing significantly as a function of Fermi energy. Furthermore, we demonstrate that breaking inversion symmetry greatly en hances the extrinsic OHE. This enhancement arises from the fundamentally distinct behavior of orbital angular momentum (OAM) in centrosymmetric systems, where in traband components vanish due to symmetry constraints. As a result, in centrosym metric systems, only the off-diagonal components of the density matrix contribute to the extrinsic OHE. In contrast, in noncentrosymmetric systems, both diagonal and off diagonal components play a role. Our study suggests that in experimentally relevant highly doped systems, the OHE becomes predominantly extrinsic in both centrosym metric and noncentrosymmetric although the contribution is much more pronounced in the latter. Importantly, we infer that even a weakly breaking of inversion symmetry can lead to a dramatic enhancement of the OHE, a finding with significant implications for experimental investigations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) The energy spectrum of the biased [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Color online) Intrinsic, extrinsic and the total or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (Color online) Intrinsic, side-jump, skew and the to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Color online) (a)-(d) The four components of the ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Real-space first-principles approach to orbitronic phenomena in metallic multilayers

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A real-space first-principles method for computing orbital Hall transport and orbital accumulation in metallic multilayers is developed, predicting substantial orbital accumulation even in centrosymmetric systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    ˇZuti´ c, J

    I. ˇZuti´ c, J. Fabian, and S. D. Sarma, Reviews of modern physics 76, 323 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Pulizzi, Nature materials 11, 367 (2012)

    F. Pulizzi, Nature materials 11, 367 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Han, Apl Materials 4 (2016), 10.1063/1.4941712

    W. Han, Apl Materials 4 (2016), 10.1063/1.4941712

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4941712 2016

  4. [4]

    The first one which is the intrinsic term, expresses the re- sponse of the Fermi sea and is given by Dmm′ Ek = ie ℏ E · Rmm′ k [f0(εm k ) −f0(εm′ k )]

    for SEk in zeroth order to ni takes the form S(0)mm′ Ek = ℏ(D +D′)mm′ Ek i(εm k −εm′ k −iη), (18) which is composed of two off-diagonal contributions. The first one which is the intrinsic term, expresses the re- sponse of the Fermi sea and is given by Dmm′ Ek = ie ℏ E · Rmm′ k [f0(εm k ) −f0(εm′ k )]. (19) The second term is an anomalous extrinsic driving t...

  5. [5]

    S.-H. Yang, R. Naaman, Y. Paltiel, and S. S. Parkin, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 328 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    V. T. Phong, Z. Addison, S. Ahn, H. Min, R. Agar- wal, and E. Mele, Physical Review Letters 123, 236403 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    The anomalous extrinsic contri- bution which is a Fermi surface contribution to the side- jump is also plotted in Fig

    and (20). The anomalous extrinsic contri- bution which is a Fermi surface contribution to the side- jump is also plotted in Fig. 2 as a function of Fermi en- ergy for both electron and hole-doped bilayer 2H-MoS 2. Although comparing to the intrinsic orbital Hall conduc- tivity, the extrinsic contribution is small near the band gap, but as we move away fro...

    work page

  8. [8]

    It can be seen from this formula that the intrinsic term has a finite value for the in-gap Fermi energy

    and ( 19), the intrinsic contribu- tion to orbital Hall conductivity is found as σ int OHE = − ∑ i gsgv 6ℏ2 eme 2π m2(ℏvF)2 λ 3 ki F (31) where the sum is over the bands intersecting the Fermi energy. It can be seen from this formula that the intrinsic term has a finite value for the in-gap Fermi energy. The side-jump term has two contributions one of whic...

    work page

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    and ( 20) for the first and Eq. ( 21) for the sec- ond term, the side-jump contribution to the orbital Hall conductivity is given by σ sj OHE = −2 ∑ i gsgv ℏ2 eme 2π m2ki F 2 (ℏvF)4 λ 3 ki F (λ 2 ki F + 3m2) (32) Note that although the second term is related to the scat- tering...

  2. [10]

    as a function of the wave vector k for Vg = 0. 01, 0. 1, 0. 2, 0. 3 and 0. 5 eV. Appendix C: OHE in monolayer MoS 2 For a monolayer MoS 2, the Hamiltonian is given by H (k) = ℏvF(τkxσx −kyσy) +mσz (C1) where τ = ± is the valley index, sz is the Pauli matrix in the spin space, ...

  3. [11]

    J. Shi, G. Vignale, D. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Physical review letters 99, 197202 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    H. Zhou, C. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Physical Review B 100, 041406 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Note that zero energy is defined at the valence band maximum when the gate voltage is absent

    and ( 14)) and the red arrows show the orbital magnetic moment in each band. Note that zero energy is defined at the valence band maximum when the gate voltage is absent. III. QUANTUM KINETIC EQUATION AND LINEAR RESPONSE The transport theory we employ here is based on a density...

  6. [14]

    Y. Liu, C. Zeng, J. Zhong, J. Ding, Z. M. Wang, and Z. Liu, Nano-Micro Letters 12, 1 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    The first term on the RHS of the Eq

    in crystal momentum representa- tion, we write fk instead of ⟨ρ⟩ as the density matrix of the system. The first term on the RHS of the Eq. ( 15) can also be written as eE ℏ · Dfk Dk in this representation where Dfk Dk = ∂f k ∂ k −i[Rk,f k] is the covariant derivative and Rk is ...

  8. [16]

    reduces to [ J0(n(−1) E )]m k = eE ℏ · ∂f 0(εm k ) ∂ k where the Born approximation collision integral is [ J0(nE)]m k = 2π ℏ ∑ m′,k ′ ⟨Umm′ kk′ Um′m k′k ⟩(nm Ek −nm′ Ek′ )δ(εm k −εm′ k′ ). For a system with isotropic band dispersions, the solution is nm(−1) Ek =τm p eE ℏ · ∂ε...

  9. [17]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kl¨ aui, and Y. Mokrousov, Europhysics Letters 135, 37001 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    On the other hand, the intrinsic orbital Hall conductivity is given by substituting Eq

    and ( 20). On the other hand, the intrinsic orbital Hall conductivity is given by substituting Eq. (

  11. [19]

    back in Eq. ( 18). We have nu- merically found the intrinsic orbital Hall conductivity for both hole-doped and electron-doped cases as can be seen in Fig. 2 which is exactly the same as previous calcu- lations [ 35]. We can also find an analytical expression for the intrinsic p...

  12. [20]

    T. G. Rappoport, Nature 619, 38 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    D. Jo, D. Go, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, npj Spintron- ics 2, 19 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Thonhauser, D

    T. Thonhauser, D. Ceresoli, D. Vanderbilt, and R. Resta, Physical review letters 95, 137205 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    Das and A

    K. Das and A. Agarwal, Physical Review B 103, 125432 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Faridi and R

    A. Faridi and R. Asgari, Physical Review B 107, 235417 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Knoll, C

    A. Knoll, C. Timm, and T. Meng, Physical Review B 101, 201402 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Sharma, S

    G. Sharma, S. Nandy, and S. Tewari, Physical Review B 102, 205107 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Ma and D

    J. Ma and D. Pesin, Physical Review B 92, 235205 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Hirsch, Physical review letters 83, 1834 (1999)

    J. Hirsch, Physical review letters 83, 1834 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Schliemann, International Journal of Modern Physics B 20, 1015 (2006)

    J. Schliemann, International Journal of Modern Physics B 20, 1015 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Niimi and Y

    Y. Niimi and Y. Otani, Reports on progress in physics 78, 124501 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Reviews of modern physics 87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Physical review letters 95, 066601 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    Kontani, M

    H. Kontani, M. Naito, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J.-i. Inoue, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 76, 103702 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Physical review letters 100, 096601 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Tanaka, H

    T. Tanaka, H. Kontani, M. Naito, T. Naito, D. S. Hi- rashima, K. Yamada, and J.-i. Inoue, Physical Review B 77, 165117 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Physical review letters 102, 016601 (2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    D. Jo, D. Go, and H.-W. Lee, Physical Review B 98, 214405 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H.-W. Lee, Physical review letters 121, 086602 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Bhowal and G

    S. Bhowal and G. Vignale, Physical Review B 103, 195309 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    A. Pezo, D. Garc ´ ıa Ovalle, and A. Manchon, Physical Review B 108, 075427 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    T. P. Cysne, W. Kort-Kamp, and T. G. Rappoport, Physical Review Research 6, 023271 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    T. P. Cysne, R. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.12072 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ghosh and B

    S. Ghosh and B. L. Chittari, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06447 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. P. Cysne, M. Costa, L. M. Canonico, M. B. Nardelli, R. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Physical review letters 126, 056601 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    T. P. Cysne, S. Bhowal, G. Vignale, and T. G. Rap- poport, Physical Review B 105, 195421 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    A. Pezo, D. Garc ´ ıa Ovalle, and A. Manchon, Physical Review B 106, 104414 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    A. L. Barbosa, L. M. Canonico, J. H. Garc ´ ıa, and T. G. Rappoport, Physical Review B 110, 085412 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    T. P. Cysne, M. Costa, M. B. Nardelli, R. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Physical Review B 108, 165415 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Z. Chen, R. Li, Y. Bai, N. Mao, M. Zeer, D. Go, Y. Dai, B. Huang, Y. Mokrousov, and C. Niu, Nano Letters 24, 4826 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Wang, Y.-C

    B. Wang, Y.-C. Hung, H. Lin, S. Li, R.-H. He, and A. Bansil, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.00315 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G¨ obel and I

    B. G¨ obel and I. Mertig, Physical Review Letters 133, 146301 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Santos, J

    E. Santos, J. Abr˜ ao, D. Go, L. De Assis, Y. Mokrousov, J. Mendes, and A. Azevedo, Physical Review Applied 19, 014069 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    D. Go, K. Ando, A. Pezo, S. Bl¨ ugel, A. Manchon, and Y. Mokrousov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14817 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Go, S. Haku, Y. Mokrousov, and K. Ando, Nature Electronics 7, 646 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    Zheng, Q

    Z. Zheng, Q. Guo, D. Jo, D. Go, L. Wang, H. Chen, W. Yin, X. Wang, G. Yu, W. He, et al. , Physical Review Research 2, 013127 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    S. Ding, A. Ross, D. Go, L. Baldrati, Z. Ren, F. Freimuth, S. Becker, F. Kammerbauer, J. Yang, G. Jakob, et al. , Physical review letters 125, 177201 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Go and H.-W

    D. Go and H.-W. Lee, Physical review research 2, 013177 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Lee, M.-G

    S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, D. Go, D. Kim, J.-H. Kang, T. Lee, G.-H. Lee, J. Kang, N. J. Lee, Y. Mokrousov, et al. , Communications Physics 4, 234 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    D. Lee, D. Go, H.-J. Park, W. Jeong, H.-W. Ko, D. Yun, D. Jo, S. Lee, G. Go, J. H. Oh, et al. , Nature communi- cations 12, 6710 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Y.-G. Choi, D. Jo, K.-H. Ko, D. Go, K.-H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B.-C. Min, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Nature 619, 52 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Lyalin, S

    I. Lyalin, S. Alikhah, M. Berritta, P. M. Oppeneer, and R. K. Kawakami, Physical Review Letters 131, 156702 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    P. Wang, Z. Feng, Y. Yang, D. Zhang, Q. Liu, Z. Xu, Z. Jia, Y. Wu, G. Yu, X. Xu, et al. , npj Quantum Mate- rials 8, 28 (2023)

    2023

  55. [63]

    Inoue, G

    J.-i. Inoue, G. E. Bauer, and L. W. Molenkamp, Physical Review B 70, 041303 (2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    Raimondi and P

    R. Raimondi and P. Schwab, Physical Review B 71, 033311 (2005)

    2005

  57. [65]

    Khaetskii, Physical review letters 96, 056602 (2006)

    A. Khaetskii, Physical review letters 96, 056602 (2006)

    2006

  58. [66]

    Inoue, T

    J.-i. Inoue, T. Kato, Y. Ishikawa, H. Itoh, G. E. Bauer, and L. W. Molenkamp, Physical review letters 97, 046604 (2006). 12

    2006

  59. [67]

    Milletar ` ı, M

    M. Milletar ` ı, M. Offidani, A. Ferreira, and R. Raimondi, Physical review letters 119, 246801 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Culcer, A

    D. Culcer, A. Sekine, and A. H. MacDonald, Physical Review B 96, 035106 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Liu and D

    H. Liu and D. Culcer, Physical Review Letters 132, 186302 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    L. M. Canonico, J. H. Garcia, and S. Roche, Physical Review B 110, L140201 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Veneri, T

    A. Veneri, T. G. Rappoport, and A. Ferreira, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04492 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Tang and G

    P. Tang and G. E. Bauer, Physical Review Letters 133, 186302 (2024)

    2024

  65. [73]

    Onoda, N

    S. Onoda, N. Sugimoto, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 126602 (2006)

    2006

  66. [74]

    L. M. Canonico, T. P. Cysne, T. G. Rappoport, and R. B. Muniz, Phys. Rev. B 101, 075429 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    P. Sahu, S. Bhowal, and S. Satpathy, Phys. Rev. B 103, 085113 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    Bhowal and S

    S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Physical Review B 101, 121112 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Bhowal and S

    S. Bhowal and S. Satpathy, Physical Review B 102, 035409 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    F. Xue, V. Amin, and P. M. Haney, Physical Review B 102, 161103 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Gong, G.-B

    Z. Gong, G.-B. Liu, H. Yu, D. Xiao, X. Cui, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Nature communications 4, 2053 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    Korm´ anyos, V

    A. Korm´ anyos, V. Z´ olyomi, V. I. Fal’ko, and G. Burkard, Physical Review B 98, 035408 (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    F. T. Vasko and O. E. Raichev, Quantum Kinetic Theory and Application (Spinger, 2005)

    2005

  74. [82]

    R. B. Atencia, Q. Niu, and D. Culcer, Physical Review Research 4, 013001 (2022)

    2022

  75. [83]

    Farokhnezhad, R

    M. Farokhnezhad, R. Asgari, and D. Culcer, Journal of Physics: Materials 6, 014002 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    Mehraeen, Physical Review B 110, 174423 (2024)

    M. Mehraeen, Physical Review B 110, 174423 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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