Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 56 references

RF field characterization and rectification effects in spin pumping and spin-torque FMR for spin-orbitronics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A DC-bias protocol determines the RF magnetic field that drives ferromagnetic resonance, and reveals that an AMR rectification signal can perfectly mimic spin-pumping and spin-torque FMR voltages.

desk verdict A practical and mostly sound h_RF calibration protocol, but Eq. 19 as printed is dimensionally wrong and the central numbers need recomputation. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14429 v1 pith:74RBP22R submitted 2026-02-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Melissa Yactayo , Michel Hehn , J.-C. Rojas-Sánchez , Sébastien Petit-Watelot This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 72.25.Ba75.70.-i76.50.+g
keywords spin-pumpingFMRspin-torqueRFfieldcalibrationanisotropicmagnetoresistancerectificationeffectsinversespinHalleffectspin-to-chargeconversioncoplanarwaveguideantennas
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

The paper tries to establish that the RF magnetic field amplitude h_RF, a key parameter in spin-pumping and spin-torque FMR experiments, can be measured directly on each device by applying a DC bias current and tracking the change in the symmetric rectified voltage. The authors derive an explicit formula (Eq. 19) connecting h_RF to the ratio ΔV_sym/Δi_DC and the anisotropic magnetoresistance ΔR_AMR, and validate it by showing that the normalized charge current I_c/h_RF² becomes independent of antenna geometry in NiFe(6)/Pt bilayers. The same analysis reveals that an odd-symmetric Lorentzian voltage—indistinguishable by lineshape from genuine spin-pumping or spin-torque signals—can arise purely from AMR rectification when the RF field lies in the film plane. For 10-nm layers, Ni and NiFe produce strong rectified artifacts while Fe and CoFeB show minimal ones; for FM thicknesses ≤6 nm the artifacts become negligible. If correct, this provides both a calibration protocol and a design rule that should resolve many discrepancies in reported spin-charge conversion efficiencies.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is anisotropic-magnetoresistance (AMR) rectification: the RF-induced magnetization precession, combined with RF or DC currents, produces a DC voltage whose symmetric part changes linearly with an applied DC bias. The key identity is Eq. 19, which expresses h_RF as a function of α, the resonance field H_r, the effective magnetization M_eff, and the measured ratio (ΔV_sym/Δi_DC)/(2ΔR_AMR). The derivation hinges on equating the spin-pumping spin-current formula (Eq. 2) with the AMR-derived spin current (Eq. 17), using the susceptibility-matrix relation ⟨m×dm/dt⟩ = 2ω√(H/(H+M_eff))⟨δm_y²⟩ at resonance. Also important is the symmetry bookkeeping of the susceptibility matrix:

What would settle it

Two checks would settle it. (1) Verify the dimensions of Eq. 19 against its derivation from Eqs. 17 and 2: if an M_s factor is missing, the numerical h_RF values will be wrong by a constant factor for all geometries. (2) Measure h_RF on the same antenna at fixed power with an independent method—for example, a calibrated YIG sphere or a small inductive pickup loop—and compare with Eq. 19 values across frequencies and materials; any systematic dependence on damping, magnetization, or ΔR_AMR would disprove the AMR-only calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the RF magnetic field amplitude h_RF—the parameter that determines how much spin current is injected in spin-pumping FMR and how large the torque is in spin-torque FMR—can be extracted experimentally from the change in the symmetric rectified voltage when a DC bias current is added. The extraction formula (Eq. 19) combines the standard spin-pumping spin-current expression with an AMR-rectification expression for the spin current, yielding h_RF proportional to α(2H_r+M_eff)√(H_r/(H_r+M_eff)) and to the square root of (ΔV_sym/Δi_DC)/(2ΔR_AMR). The authors validate this protocol on a NiFe(6)/Pt bilayer by showing that the normalized charge current I_c/h_RF² is independent

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes that the symmetric voltage change induced by the DC bias is entirely due to AMR rectification, and that this AMR-derived spin current matches the standard spin-pumping formula; if other symmetric-odd contributions (thermal, anomalous Hall, or capacitive/inductive phase shifts) contaminate that voltage, the extracted h_RF values and the geometry-independence check would be compromised.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If Eq. 19 is correct, spin-pumping and ST-FMR experiments can determine h_RF on the exact device under test, removing a major systematic error in converting measured voltages into spin-to-charge conversion efficiencies.
  • The geometry-independence of I_c/h_RF² becomes a practical test for whether a measured signal is a true spin current or a rectification artifact, since AMR-induced signals vary with antenna geometry.
  • Reported spin-orbit torque enhancements in Ni-based heterostructures likely need re-examination, as part of the signal shown here is a material-specific rectification background, not a genuine torque.
  • The material/thickness guidelines (prefer Fe or CoFeB, or FM layers ≤6 nm) give heterostructure designers a concrete rule for suppressing spurious contributions in future spin-orbitronic devices.
  • The protocol's applicability to systems with orbital angular momentum contributions means it can be used to separate true orbital-to-charge conversion from rectification artifacts in orbitronics measurements.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to use the same DC-bias protocol as a transfer standard: once h_RF is known for a given antenna, it can be cross-checked against cavity or nanowire setups, making efficiency values comparable across different experimental platforms.
  • The observed thickness trend suggests a quantitative testable rule: rectification magnitude likely scales with the volume-integrated ΔR_AMR; a systematic NiFe thickness series from 3 to 15 nm would map where the artifact becomes non-negligible and test the 6-nm guideline for other FM materials.
  • If the odd-symmetric AMR signal is as ubiquitous as claimed, other electrical FMR detection schemes that do not control h_RF orientation—such as those on coplanar waveguides in cavities—may suffer the same artifact, implying that many published spin-pumping voltages on NiFe-based samples could be partially rectification-dominated.
  • The derivation of Eq. 19 depends on an identity linking spin current to ⟨δm_y²⟩; if this can be measured independently (e.g., by time-resolved magneto-optics), it would provide a direct check of the AMR-based spin-current equivalence without needing to rely on the standard spin-pumping formula.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a model and experimental protocol for quantifying the RF magnetic field strength h_RF in spin-pumping and spin-torque FMR experiments. It derives a rectification model based on AMR and AHE susceptibilities, proposes a calibration of h_RF via the DC-bias-current slope of the symmetric voltage (Eq. 19), and validates the result on NiFe/Pt bilayers over three CPW antenna geometries and on several ferromagnetic stacks. It also shows that odd-symmetric Lorentzian signals, which mimic spin-pumping or ST-FMR signals, can arise from AMR rectification when the RF field is in-plane, and gives material- and thickness-dependent guidance for minimizing such artifacts.

Significance. If the central calibration equation is correct, the protocol would be genuinely useful: it offers a self-contained way to obtain h_RF from electrical measurements, tests its own consistency through geometry independence of I_c/h_RF^2, and provides practical guidelines for choosing FM thickness and antenna geometry. The systematic comparison of Fe, Ni, NiFe, and CoFeB, and the explicit discussion of AMR/AHE/thermal spurious signals, addresses a real source of scatter in spin-to-charge conversion reports. The susceptibility derivation in Appendix A is a useful contribution. However, the printed Eq. 19 is dimensionally inconsistent, and since every h_RF value and the validations in Figs. 3–5 depend on it, the quantitative claims are not usable in their present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B, Eq. (19)] The printed equation is dimensionally inconsistent. Since ΔV_sym/Δi_DC has units of resistance, the quantity (ΔV_sym/Δi_DC)^2 / ΔR_AMR has units of resistance, so its square root cannot be a field strength. Every h_RF value and the validations in Figs. 3–5 flow from this expression. The natural correction is sqrt((ΔV_sym/Δi_DC)/ΔR_AMR), which is also what matching Eqs. (17)–(18) with Eq. (2) at resonance gives. The equation must be corrected and all h_RF values and I_c/h_RF^2 ratios recomputed and re-plotted.
  2. [Section II.B, Eqs. (17)–(18)] The factor 1/M_s^2 appears in Eq. (17) but is dropped without comment in Eq. (18), which is described as a simplification of Eq. (17) under resonance conditions. Substituting ω = γ0 sqrt(H(H+M_eff)) into Eq. (17) removes the frequency and part of the square-root factor, but not 1/M_s^2. Either this factor cancels when Eq. (18) is combined with Eq. (2) to derive Eq. (19), or the spin-current/h_RF expressions contain an unstated M_s dependence. The authors should explicitly show where M_s enters and why it does or does not appear in Eq. (19).
  3. [Section III, Fig. 5] The sample-independence validation is stated but not sufficiently documented. The text lists total ΔR_AMR values of 38, 23, 12.4, and 10.4 Ω for four stacks and claims identical h_RF. With the printed Eq. (19), equal h_RF would require R_slope to scale as sqrt(ΔR_AMR), which is not demonstrated; with the corrected dimensionless formula, it requires R_slope/ΔR_AMR to be stack-independent. The paper should show the measured R_slope values or the ratio R_slope/ΔR_AMR for the tested stacks, and plot h_RF for each sample, so that the central validation is reproducible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Global] Typos: 'Strenght' (Fig. 3 caption), 'Combinig' (Section III), 'he rectifying' (Section III), 'Rigied Leduc' (Section IV), 'anomalus' (Table I).
  2. [Section II] The reference 'Eq. A A1' should be 'Eq. (A1)'.
  3. [Section IV / Table I] The text says NiFe V_odd_sym reaches 'up to 20 mV/m' in the SHORT geometry, while Table I lists V_odd_sym/L_S = 3.720 mV/m for NiFe. Please reconcile the units and normalization.
  4. [Section II / III] Eq. (19) is introduced without specifying whether ΔR_AMR is the total stack value or the isolated-FM value; the choice is stated only later in Section III. Since the authors argue the total ΔR_AMR is correct, this choice should be made explicit at the definition of Eq. (19).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the h_RF calibration equates two independently derived spin-current expressions and is validated by nontrivial consistency checks; the noted Eq. 19 unit issue is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central calibration chain is not circular. The paper derives Eq. 17 from a time-averaged AMR response together with susceptibility relations (Eqs. 14-16 and Appendix A), giving an AMR-based expression for the spin current. This is then equated with the standard spin-pumping formula, Eq. 2, which is an independent, external result (Ando et al.; Tserkovnyak et al.). The unknown spin-mixing conductance cancels in the comparison, and solving for h_RF yields Eq. 19. The target quantity h_RF is not an input of Eq. 17; rather, Eq. 17 is written in terms of the measured quantities ΔV_sym/Δi_DC and ΔR_AMR. The validations are also nontrivial: the geometry-independence of I_c/h_RF^2 and the sample-independence of h_RF are not enforced by fitting; they are consistency checks that could fail if the model or the measured inputs were wrong. The paper's self-citations, including Refs. [11, 29, 30, 46], are not load-bearing in a circular way: Eq. 2 and the susceptibility framework are standard and are also attributed to multiple external sources, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The claim about AMR-induced odd-symmetric Lorentzian voltages is explicitly presented as consistent with earlier reports (Refs. [32-34, 36]), not as a renaming of a known result into new coordinates. A separate issue is that Eq. 19 as printed appears dimensionally inconsistent, since (ΔV_sym/Δi_DC)^2/ΔR_AMR has resistance units and the printed formula would not yield the sample-independent h_RF claimed in Fig. 5; however, that is a derivation/typographical consistency problem, not a circularity in the sense of the target result being assumed by construction. The manuscript's own equations and external benchmarks are sufficient to test the central claim, so no circular step should be scored.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses standard linear-response spin dynamics plus a set of clearly stated domain assumptions about geometry, phase, and AMR purity. No new physical entities are postulated. The main burden is carried by the phase assumption and by the identification of the measured symmetric voltage change with pure AMR rectification.

free parameters (3)
  • magnetic damping α
    Extracted from FMR linewidth vs frequency (Section III step 1), used directly in Eq. 19.
  • effective magnetization M_eff
    Extracted from resonance field vs frequency, used in Eq. 19 and resonance conditions.
  • ΔR_AMR choice (total stack vs isolated FM) = total stack AMR
    The paper selects the total measured ΔR_AMR of the full stack; the choice is justified by consistency across samples, not derived from first principles.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Linear susceptibility response of magnetization with Hessian of free energy (Eqs. A6–A10)
    Used throughout to express δm and the rectified electric field in terms of χ(ω).
  • domain assumption Cross second derivative ε_θφ(θ_0,φ_0)=0 and low damping α≪1, so only first-order terms in α are kept
    Explicitly stated in Appendix A4 and used to derive the simplified susceptibility relations (A10)–(A13).
  • domain assumption Inductive and capacitive currents in the sample have a phase of −π/2 with respect to the RF magnetic field
    Introduced in Section II.A before Eq. 12; this phase determines which Lorentzian components are symmetric or antisymmetric.
  • domain assumption Equilibrium magnetization is along x with no in-plane anisotropy and cylindrical out-of-plane symmetry
    Used to evaluate ε_θθ and ε_φφ and reduce Eq. 17 to Eq. 18/19.
  • domain assumption The measured ΔV_sym under DC bias is purely AMR rectification and can be equated with the spin-pumping formula to solve for h_RF
    The central calibration step in Section II.B; if AHE or thermal symmetric-odd contributions are present in V_sym, the h_RF extraction is biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RF field characterization and rectification effects in spin pumping and spin-torque FMR for spin-orbitronics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74RBP22R

@misc{pith2026260214429,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RF field characterization and rectification effects in spin pumping and spin-torque FMR for spin-orbitronics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74RBP22R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14429}
}
abstract

Quantifying spin-orbital-to-charge conversion efficiency is crucial for spin-orbitronics. Two widely used methods for determining these efficiencies are based on ferromagnetic resonance (FMR), spin pumping FMR for the inverse effect, and spin-torque FMR for the direct effect. A key parameter to achieve accurate quantification, especially for spin-pumping FMR, is the RF field strength, $h_{\mathrm{RF}}$. We present a comprehensive theoretical model and experimental protocol that allow a correct quantification of $h_{\mathrm{RF}}$. It was validated by extensive experimental results and it was rigorously tested across various antennas geometries and ferromagnetic systems. We demonstrate that odd-symmetric Lorentzian voltages-which perfectly mimic spin-pumping or spin-torque FMR signals-can arise purely from rectification effects (due to anisotropic magnetoresistance) when $h_{\mathrm{RF}}$ orientation is parallel to the ferromagnetic surface. Through a systematic study of various 10-nm-thick ferromagnetic layers, such as Ni, NiFe, Fe, and CoFeB, we find that while Fe and CoFeB exhibit minimal rectification, Ni and NiFe generate strong rectified signals that must be corrected. We further demonstrate that these rectification effects become negligible for ferromagnetic thicknesses $\leq$ 6 nm, as validated in NiFe/Pt bilayers, providing an important guideline for the design of future heterostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14429 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a1–a3) 3D schematics of three GSG CPW geometries—GAP (a1), SHORT (a2), and FULL (a3)—commonly used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Experimental protocol to quantify [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The RF field strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Rectification effects in single FM layers measured on SP-FMR based devices. Voltage normalized by device length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. a) Schematic of the ST-FMR device. The 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In this antenna, the sample is located in one of the two GAP regions of our Grounded-Signal-Grounded (GSG) microwave an- tenna

    GAP (Fig.1 a1). In this antenna, the sample is located in one of the two GAP regions of our Grounded-Signal-Grounded (GSG) microwave an- tenna. In this geometry, the RF fieldh RF is per- pendicular to the FM/HM interface of the samples, as shown in the Fig.1 a1 by the green symbol

  2. [2]

    SHORT (Fig.1 a2). In this microdevice, the sample is oriented perpendicularly to the GSG antenna and situated specifically under the central S-track.The RF fieldh RF is now parallel to the long sample sur- face, as indicated in Fig.1 a2 with the green arrow

  3. [3]

    In this configuration, the sample geometry is similar to the SHORT design; however, it spans the entire width of the GSG antenna

    FULL (Fig.1 a3). In this configuration, the sample geometry is similar to the SHORT design; however, it spans the entire width of the GSG antenna. Con- sequently, the sample connects directly to the rect- angular measurement pads without requiring inter- mediate electrodes. In this geometry, theh RF field contains both parallel and perpendicular compo- ne...

  4. [4]

    By repeating the measurements at different microwave frequencies, we extract the dampingαand the effective magnetizationM ef f

    Measure the voltageV(H) as a function of the ap- plied DC magnetic field at fixed microwave power and frequency. By repeating the measurements at different microwave frequencies, we extract the dampingαand the effective magnetizationM ef f

  5. [5]

    MeasureV(H) and repeat for differenti DC values

    For a given frequency, apply a DC currenti DC to the spin pumping bar of the sample. MeasureV(H) and repeat for differenti DC values. The symmetric component will change linearly with the added DC bias current due to the AMR voltage, which is even with theHfield. This is illustrated in Fig. 2b for a 10 GHz MW frequency

  6. [6]

    Determine ∆Vsym ∆iDC , labeled asR slope in the Fig. 2c

  7. [7]

    Repeat the previous two steps for different mi- crowave frequencies

  8. [8]

    Lorraine Universit´ e d’Excellence

    The AMR-induced resistance variation, ∆RAM R, is obtained by measuring the longitudinal resistance with magnetic fields applied in-plane perpendicu- lar and parallel to the bar, as illustrated in Fig. 2d. Alternatively, it can be determined from the in- plane angular dependence of the resistance at a fixed magnetic field exceeding the saturation and reson...

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    J. C. Rojas-S´ anchez and A. Fert, Compared Efficien- cies of Conversions between Charge and Spin Current by Spin-Orbit Interactions in Two- and Three-Dimensional Systems, Physical Review Applied11, 054049 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Sinova, S

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

    2015

  3. [11]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. ˇZelezn´ y, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. Bauer, Enhanced Gilbert Damping in Thin Ferromagnetic Films, Physical Review Letters88, 117601 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    K. Ando, S. Takahashi, J. Ieda, Y. Kajiwara, H. Nakayama, T. Yoshino, K. Harii, Y. Fujikawa, M. Matsuo, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Inverse spin- 10 Hall effect induced by spin pumping in metallic system, Journal of Applied Physics109, 103913 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Azevedo, L

    A. Azevedo, L. H. Vilela-Le˜ ao, R. L. Rodr ´ ıguez-Su´ arez, A. F. Lacerda Santos, and S. M. Rezende, Spin pumping and anisotropic magnetoresistance voltages in magnetic bilayers: Theory and experiment, Physical Review B83, 144402 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Z. Feng, J. Hu, L. Sun, B. You, D. Wu, J. Du, W. Zhang, A. Hu, Y. Yang, D. M. Tang, B. S. Zhang, and H. F. Ding, Spin Hall angle quantification from spin pumping and microwave photoresistance, Physical Review B85, 214423 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Mosendz, V

    O. Mosendz, V. Vlaminck, J. E. Pearson, F. Y. Fradin, G. E. W. Bauer, S. D. Bader, and A. Hoffmann, Detection and quantification of inverse spin Hall effect from spin pumping in permalloy/normal metal bilayers, Physical Review B82, 214403 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Castel, N

    V. Castel, N. Vlietstra, J. Ben Youssef, and B. J. van Wees, Platinum thickness dependence of the inverse spin- Hall voltage from spin pumping in a hybrid yttrium iron garnet/platinum system, Applied Physics Letters101, 132414 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Rojas-S´ anchez, M

    J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, M. Cubukcu, a. Jain, C. Vergnaud, C. Portemont, C. Ducruet, a. Barski, a. Marty, L. Vila, J.-P. Attan´ e, E. Augendre, G. Desfonds, S. Gambarelli, H. Jaffr` es, J.-M. George, and M. Jamet, Spin pumping and inverse spin Hall effect in germanium, Physical ...

    2013

  11. [19]

    Rojas-S´ anchez, N

    J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, N. Reyren, P. Laczkowski, W. Savero, J.-P. Attan´ e, C. Deranlot, M. Jamet, J.-M. George, and H. Jaffr` es, Spin pumping and inverse spin hall effect in platinum: the essential role of spin-memory loss at metallic interfaces, Physical Review Letters112, ...

    2014

  12. [20]

    Rojas-S´ anchez, S

    J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, S. Oyarz´ un, Y. Fu, A. Marty, C. Vergnaud, S. Gambarelli, L. Vila, M. Jamet, Y. Oht- subo, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, P. Le F` evre, F. Bertran, N. Reyren, J.-M. George, and A. Fert, Spin to charge conversion at room temperature by spin pumping into a new type ...

    2016

  13. [21]

    Lesne, Y

    E. Lesne, Y. Fu, S. Oyarz´ un, J. C. Rojas S´ anchez, D. C. Vaz, H. Naganuma, G. Siccoli, J.-P. Attan´ e, M. Jamet, J.-M. George, A. Barth´ el´ emy, H. Jaffr` es, A. Fert, M. Bibes, and L. Vila, Highly efficient and tun- able spin-to-charge conversion through Rashba coupling a...

    2016

  14. [22]

    X. Tao, Q. Liu, B. Miao, R. Yu, Z. Feng, L. Sun, B. You, J. Du, K. Chen, S. Zhang, L. Zhang, Z. Yuan, D. Wu, and H. Ding, Self-consistent determination of spin hall angle and spin diffusion length in pt and pd: The role of the interface spin loss, Science Advances4, eaat1670 (...

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    Fache, J

    T. Fache, J. C. Rojas-Sanchez, L. Badie, S. Mangin, and S. Petit-Watelot, Determination of spin Hall angle, spin mixing conductance, and spin diffusion length in CoFeB/Ir for spin-orbitronic devices, Physical Review B 102, 064425 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    I. C. Arango, A. Anad´ on, S. Novoa, V. T. Pham, W. Y. Choi, J. Alegre, L. Badie, A. Chuvilin, S. Petit-Watelot, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, and J. C. Rojas-S´ anchez, Spin- to-charge conversion by spin pumping in sputtered poly- crystalline BixSe1-x (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Gud ´ ın, A

    A. Gud ´ ın, A. Anad´ on, I. Arnay, R. Guerrero, J. Ca- marero, S. Petit-Watelot, P. Perna, and J.-C. Rojas- S´ anchez, Isotropic spin and inverse spin hall effect in epitaxial (111)-oriented pt/co bilayers, Physical Review Materials7, 124412 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    J. L. Ampuero, A. Anad´ on, H. Damas, J. Ghanbaja, S. Petit-Watelot, J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, D. Vel´ azquez Ro- driguez, J. G´ omez, A. Butera, and L. Avil´ es-F´ elix, Self- induced spin pumping and inverse spin hall effect in single fept thin films, ACS Applied Electronic Mat...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Anad´ on, A

    A. Anad´ on, A. Pezo, I. Arnay, R. Guerrero, A. Gud ´ ın, A. Guio, M. Yactayo, J. Ghanbaja, J. Camarero, A. Man- chon, S. Petit-Watelot, P. Perna, and J.-C. Rojas- S´ anchez, Giant and anisotropic enhancement of spin- charge conversion in graphene-based quantum system, Advance...

    2025

  20. [28]

    Sahoo, A

    B. Sahoo, A. K, K. Matthews, A. Pofelski, A. Fra˜ n´ o, E. E. Fullerton, S. Petit-Watelot, J.-C. R. Sanchez, and S. Das, Temperature dependent spin dynamics in La0.67Sr0.33MnO3/Pt bilayers, Advanced Materials In- terfaces12, 2401038 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Rojas-S´ anchez, L

    J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, L. Vila, G. Desfonds, S. Gambarelli, J. Attan´ e, J. De Teresa, C. Mag´ en, and A. Fert, Spin- to-charge conversion using rashba coupling at the inter- face between non-magnetic materials, Nature Communi- cations4, 2944 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. C. Ralph, and R. A. Buhrman, Spin-Torque Ferromagnetic Resonance Induced by the Spin Hall Effect, Physical Review Letters106, 036601 (2011)

    2011

  23. [31]

    D. Fang, H. Kurebayashi, J. Wunderlich, K. V´ yborn´ y, L. P. Zˆ arbo, R. P. Campion, A. Casiraghi, B. L. Gal- lagher, T. Jungwirth, and A. J. Ferguson, Spin–orbit- driven ferromagnetic resonance, Nature Nanotechnology 6, 413 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Kondou, H

    K. Kondou, H. Sukegawa, S. Mitani, K. Tsukagoshi, and S. Kasai, Evaluation of Spin Hall Angle and Spin Diffusion Length by Using Spin Current-Induced Ferro- magnetic Resonance, Applied Physics Express5, 073002 (2012)

    2012

  25. [33]

    Saglam, J

    H. Saglam, J. C. Rojas-sanchez, S. Petit, M. Hehn, W. Zhang, J. E. Pearson, S. Mangin, and A. Hoffmann, Independence of spin-orbit torques from the exchange bias direction in Ni 81 Fe 19 / IrMn bilayers, Phys. Rev. B98, 094407 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Guillemard, S

    C. Guillemard, S. Petit-Watelot, S. Andrieu, and J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, Charge-spin current conversion in high quality epitaxial Fe/Pt systems: Isotropic spin Hall angle along different in-plane crystalline directions (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    E. Liu, T. Fache, D. Cespedes-Berrocal, Z. Zhang, S. Petit-Watelot, S. Mangin, F. Xu, and J.-C. Rojas- S´ anchez, Strain-Enhanced Charge-to-Spin Conversion in Ta / Fe / Pt Multilayers Grown on Flexible Mica Sub- strate, Physical Review Applied12, 044074 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    C´ espedes-Berrocal, H

    D. C´ espedes-Berrocal, H. Damas, S. Petit-Watelot, D. Maccariello, P. Tang, A. Arriola-C´ ordova, P. Vallo- bra, Y. Xu, J. Bello, E. Martin, S. Migot, J. Ghan- baja, S. Zhang, M. Hehn, S. Mangin, C. Panagopoulos, V. Cros, A. Fert, and J. Rojas-S´ anchez, Current-Induced Spin ...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Damas, spin-orbit torques by second harmonic and spin-torque ferromagnetic resonace revisited, to be sub- mitted (2022)

    H. Damas, spin-orbit torques by second harmonic and spin-torque ferromagnetic resonace revisited, to be sub- mitted (2022). 11

    2022

  30. [38]

    Damas, M

    H. Damas, M. Hehn, J.-C. Roj´ as-Sanchez, and S. Petit- Watelot, Spin current symmetries generated by GdFeCo ferrimagnet across its magnetisation compensation tem- perature (2025), arXiv:2511.20379 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Okada, Y

    A. Okada, Y. Takeuchi, K. Furuya, C. Zhang, H. Sato, S. Fukami, and H. Ohno, Spin-pumping-free determina- tion of spin-orbit torque efficiency from spin-torque ferro- magnetic resonance, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 014040 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Mecking, Y

    N. Mecking, Y. S. Gui, and C. M. Hu, Microwave photo- voltage and photoresistance effects in ferromagnetic mi- crostrips, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics76, 224430 (2007), arXiv:0710.1974

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Harder, Z

    M. Harder, Z. X. Cao, Y. S. Gui, X. L. Fan, and C.- M. Hu, Analysis of the line shape of electrically detected ferromagnetic resonance, Physical Review B84, 54423 (2011)

    2011

  34. [42]

    Harder, Y

    M. Harder, Y. Gui, and C.-m. Hu, Electrical detection of magnetization dynamics via spin rectification effects, Physics Reports661, 1 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Karimeddiny, J

    S. Karimeddiny, J. A. Mittelstaedt, R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Transverse and longitudinal spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance for improved measurement of spin-orbit torque, Physical Review Applied14, 1 (2020), arXiv:2007.02850

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    M. V. Costache, S. M. Watts, C. H. van der Wal, and B. J. van Wees, Electrical detection of spin pumping: dc voltage generated by ferromagnetic resonance at fer- romagnet/nonmagnet contact, Physical Review B78, 64423 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    ichi Uchida, H

    K. ichi Uchida, H. Adachi, T. Kikkawa, A. Kirihara, M. Ishida, S. Yorozu, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Thermoelectric Generation Based on Spin Seebeck Ef- fects, Proceedings of the IEEE104, 1946 (2016), arXiv:1604.00477

    1946 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. M. Rezende, R. L. Rodr, R. O. Cunha, A. R. Ro- drigues, F. L. A. Machado, G. A. F. Guerra, J. C. L. Ortiz, and A. Azevedo, Magnon spin-current theory for the longitudinal spin-Seebeck effect, Phys. Rev. B89, 014416 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Anad´ on, E

    A. Anad´ on, E. Martin, S. Homkar, B. Meunier, M. Verges, H. Damas, J. Alegre, C. Lefevre, F. Roulland, C. Dubs, M. Lindner, L. Pasquier, O. Copie, K. Dumes- nil, R. Ramos, D. Preziosi, S. Petit-Watelot, N. Viart, and J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, Thermal spin current gener- ation in...

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Palin, A

    V. Palin, A. Anad´ on, S. Andrieu, Y. Fagot-Revurat, C. De Melo, J. Ghanbaja, O. Kurnosikov, S. Petit- Watelot, F. Bertran, and J. C. Rojas-S´ anchez, Testing the topological insulator behavior of half-Heusler PdYBi and PtYBi (111) epitaxial thin films, Physical Review Materia...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Tshitoyan, C

    V. Tshitoyan, C. Ciccarelli, A. P. Mihai, M. Ali, A. C. Irvine, T. A. Moore, T. Jungwirth, and A. J. Ferguson, Electrical manipulation of ferromagnetic NiFe by antifer- romagnetic IrMn, Physical Review B92, 214406 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    J. Dong, C. Cheng, J. Wei, H. Xu, Y. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Zhu, L. Li, H. Wu, G. Yu, and X. Han, Enhancement of interfacial spin transparency in Py/NiO/Pt heterostruc- ture, Applied Physics Letters122, 10.1063/5.0143295 (2023)

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    Iguchi and E

    R. Iguchi and E. Saitoh, Measurement of Spin Pump- ing Voltage Separated from Extrinsic Microwave Effects, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan86, 011003 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Omori, E

    Y. Omori, E. Sagasta, Y. Niimi, M. Gradhand, L. E. Hueso, F. Casanova, and Y. Otani, Relation between spin hall effect and anomalous hall effect in 3dferromagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B99, 014403 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Y. Q. Zhang, N. Y. Sun, R. Shan, J. W. Zhang, S. M. Zhou, Z. Shi, and G. Y. Guo, Anomalous hall effect in epitaxial permalloy thin films, Journal of Applied Physics 114, 163714 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Damas, Spin current generation and self-induced spin- orbit torque in quasi-isolated GdFeCo ferrimagnet, Uni- versit´ e de Lorraine, Ph.D

    H. Damas, Spin current generation and self-induced spin- orbit torque in quasi-isolated GdFeCo ferrimagnet, Uni- versit´ e de Lorraine, Ph.D. thesis (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Liu and L

    Q. Liu and L. Zhu, Absence of orbital current torque in Ta/ferromagnet bilayers, Nature Communications16, 8660 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    D. Lee, D. Go, H.-J. Park, W. Jeong, H.-W. Ko, D. Yun, D. Jo, S. Lee, G. Go, J. H. Oh, K.-J. Kim, B.-G. Park, B.-C. Min, H. C. Koo, H.-W. Lee, O. Lee, and K.-J. Lee, Orbital torque in magnetic bilayers, Nature Communica- tions12, 6710 (2021). 12 Appendix A: Supplementary A1. F...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.