Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Spin Polarization of a Two-Dimensional Electron Liquid

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Longitudinal resistance itself provides a direct, parameter-free measure of spin polarization in a strongly correlated two-dimensional electron liquid.

desk verdict Careful experiment, but the 'parameter-free' polarization relation rests on an underdetermined assumption; deserves serious review, not the claim as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09533 v2 pith:GRJF57PP submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

G. A. Nikolaev , M. E. Sergeev , I. V. Kukushkin , A. V. Shchepetilnikov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spinpolarizationtwo-dimensionalelectronliquidlongitudinalresistanceelectricallydetectedresonanceZnO/MgOheterostructuresinteractingsystemparallelmagneticfield
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 sets out to show that the longitudinal resistance of a strongly correlated two-dimensional electron liquid is itself a quantitative measure of its spin polarization. The central object is Eq. (7), the parameter-free quotient $\xi(B) = [R(B,T)-R_0(T)]/[R_1(T)-R_0(T)]$, which turns a magnetoresistance curve into a polarization curve. The authors validate this relation with electrically detected electron spin resonance, whose integrated amplitude is proportional to $\xi$ times the spin sensitivity of the resistance and therefore serves as an independent calibration of the magnetic state. Once validated, the relation means that conventional transport measurements alone can map the electron liquid's evolution from a partially polarized paramagnetic Fermi liquid to a fully spin-polarized one across densities and fields. This matters because spin polarization is otherwise hard to access directly, and a transport-only probe makes the magnetic state of interacting two-dimensional systems routinely measurable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (7), the resistance quotient $\xi(B) = (R(B,T)-R_0(T))/(R_1(T)-R_0(T))$, obtained by integrating the spin sensitivity $\partial R/\partial \xi$ across polarization under the assumption that this sensitivity is field-independent and depends only on temperature. The complementary experimental machinery is electrically detected electron spin resonance with an intensity-normalization and background-subtraction protocol, yielding the integrated ESR amplitude $A(B,T) \propto I \, \xi(B) \, \partial R/\partial \xi(T)$. The observed collapse of $A/\xi$ onto a single temperature curve at several fields is what licenses the field-independence assumption. A second compact object is the empirical relation $\xi(B,n) = 1 - \exp[-a (B/B_c(n))^k]$, which parameterizes the reconstructed polarization and is shown to fit published magnetoresistance data across multiple material families.

What would settle it

Measure, on a single sample at fields where orbital magnetoresistance is negligible, both the longitudinal resistance and an independent spin polarization - for example the integrated ESR absorption intensity - over a range of temperatures and fields. If the quotient $[R(B,T)-R_0(T)]/[R_1(T)-R_0(T)]$ does not track the independently measured $\xi(B,T)$, Eq. (7) is falsified; a second check is that the normalized ESR amplitude $A/\xi$ would show different temperature dependences at two such fields if the central field-independence assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Equation (7) is the central discovery: $\xi(B) = [R(B,T)-R_0(T)]/[R_1(T)-R_0(T)]$, a direct, parameter-free relation between longitudinal resistance and equilibrium spin polarization. The derivation integrates the spin sensitivity $\partial R/\partial \xi$ from the unpolarized state to full polarization, using the experimentally observed factorization that $\partial R/\partial \xi$ depends on temperature but not on magnetic field. The paper validates the relation by comparing the polarization reconstructed from transport against the independently measured electrically detected ESR amplitude, obtaining quantitative agreement over two orders of magnitude of signal where orbital effects are weak. It also reports that the reconstructed polarization follows $\xi(B) = 1 - \exp[-a (B/B_c)^k]$ with $a \simeq 2.2$ and $k \simeq 2.4$ for the ZnO/MgZnO samples, and that the same formula describes published magnetotransport data from Si MOSFETs, SiGe/Si, AlAs/AlGaAs, MoTe2, and MoSe2. The strongly nonlinear field dependence is the paper's evidence that electron-electron interactions, not a non-interacting Fermi-gas redistribution, govern the magnetic response.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the resistance response per unit change in spin polarization does not depend on magnetic field, only on temperature, so the same sensitivity factor $\partial R/\partial \xi$ works at every field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin polarization can be extracted from ordinary longitudinal resistance measurements with no adjustable parameters, making the magnetic state of a two-dimensional electron liquid accessible to any lab with magnetotransport capability.
  • The reconstructed polarization quantitatively accounts for the field and temperature dependence of the electrically detected ESR signal, confirming that in this regime the ESR response is governed by spin polarization rather than resonant heating.
  • The spin polarization rises nonlinearly with magnetic field and is captured by $\xi(B)=1-\exp[-a(B/B_c)^k]$; the same functional form fits published data from several semiconductor and van der Waals systems, suggesting a common interaction-driven response.
  • The apparent temperature dependence of the magnetoresistance is fully absorbed by $R_0(T)$, $R_1(T)$, and the spin sensitivity, while $\xi(B)$ itself is temperature independent in the studied regime, as shown by the collapse of polarization curves at different temperatures.
  • Deviations above $B_c$ identify orbital magnetoresistance from the finite layer thickness, with a strength that grows with electron density, so the spin-only relation cleanly separates spin and orbital contributions at lower fields.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to use the same resistance quotient as a model-free spin-polarization probe in van der Waals heterostructures, where electron spin resonance is difficult; if Eq. (7) is generic, it would remove the main obstacle to spin-state mapping in those materials.
  • The universal form of Eq. (8) suggests that the parameters $a$ and $k$ encode the interaction strength; a quantitative theory connecting them to $r_s$ or the enhanced spin susceptibility would turn the empirical fit into a measurement of interaction effects.
  • Since $R_1$ is read at about $1.2B_c$ where orbital magnetoresistance is already present, a field-dependent correction for the orbital background could sharpen the reconstructed polarization near saturation and extend the method to higher fields.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper claims to establish a parameter-free relation between the longitudinal resistance of a two-dimensional electron liquid and its spin polarization, given by Eq. (7): ξ(B) = [R(B,T) - R0(T)]/[R1(T) - R0(T)]. The relation is derived from a proposed field-independence of the spin sensitivity of the resistance, ∂R/∂ξ (Supplementary Eq. 14), which is inferred from the collapse of the temperature dependence of the ESR amplitude normalized by the spin polarization at three magnetic fields. The authors validate Eq. (7) by comparing the reconstructed polarization with the measured ESR amplitude and by demonstrating a temperature-independent collapse of the reconstructed ξ in Fig. 2b. They then fit the field dependence to an empirical universal form Eq. (8) and construct a spin-polarization map over density and magnetic field. The central claim is that magnetotransport alone can quantitatively determine the spin polarization of strongly correlated 2D electron systems.

Significance. If Eq. (7) is valid, the paper delivers a simple, transport-only probe of the magnetic state of strongly correlated two-dimensional electron systems, which would be of wide interest in condensed-matter physics. The experimental effort is substantial: broadband electrically detected ESR over four densities, careful intensity normalization, and a self-consistent reconstruction scheme. The paper also makes an explicit, falsifiable prediction (Eq. 8) and tests it against published data, though the latter is not documented in the manuscript. However, the significance is conditional on the validity of the central assumption and on the independence of the ESR calibration; both are currently subject to serious underdetermination. The strengths are the clear presentation of the experimental protocol and the honesty in labelling Supplementary Eq. (14) as the central assumption.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Eq. (14) and Fig. 2a] The inference of Supplementary Eq. (14), ∂R/∂ξ(B,T) = ∂R/∂ξ(T), from the collapse of A/ξ is logically insufficient. The observed near-identical temperature dependences at B/Bc = 0.3, 0.5, and 1.2 establish only the factorization A/ξ = f1(B)f2(T) (Supplementary Eq. 13), and the claim that f1(B) = 1 is not tested at intermediate fields. Since A ∝ ξ ∂R/∂ξ, the data are equally compatible with ∂R/∂ξ = h(B)k(T) for arbitrary h(B) as long as h(B) is the same at the three sampled fields. Under that alternative, integrating Eq. (5) gives (R - R0)/(R1 - R0) = ξ(B)h(B)/h(B1), so Eq. (7) does not measure the true polarization unless h(B) is constant over the whole field range. The self-consistent replacement of the initial ξ = B/Bc by the reconstructed ξ does not resolve this degeneracy, because the factorized form survives the rescaling. This is the load-bearing point: Eq. (7) is derived from Eq. (14), and the derivation as presented does not exclude the h(B) contamination.
  2. [Supplementary Eq. (10) and Fig. 1f] The claimed independent calibration of the spin state by ESR is not fully independent. Supplementary Eq. (10), A(B) ∝ ξ(B), is taken from previous work of the same group (refs. 23 and 38), not established here. Consequently, the validation in Fig. 1f, which compares the ESR amplitude with the reconstructed ξ, is sensitive only to the product ξ(B)h(B) that also enters Eq. (7) under the factorized alternative, and cannot distinguish ξ(B) from ξ(B)h(B)/h(B1). The agreement between A and the reconstructed ξ is therefore a consistency check, not an independent calibration of the polarization scale. An absolute calibration of the ESR amplitude against a known spin system, or an independent measurement of ξ (e.g., capacitance or NMR), is required to fix h(B).
  3. [Eq. (7), R1 at B1 ≈ 1.2Bc] The reference resistance R1 in Eq. (7) is measured at B1 ≈ 1.2Bc, a field where the paper itself reports orbital magnetoresistance: Fig. 1d shows a suppression of the ESR amplitude above Bc, and the text attributes values of ξ formally exceeding unity to 'additional orbital magnetoresistance that lies outside the spin-only description'. The denominator R1 - R0 therefore contains a non-spin contribution, shifting the polarization scale. The low-field estimate of ∂R/∂ξ shown as the black curve in Fig. 2a, using R(0.2Bc) - R(0), is not the same quantity used in Eq. (7); the two definitions are consistent only if orbital effects are negligible at B1, which the paper's own discussion contradicts. This is a quantitative issue for the 'parameter-free' claim, not merely a cosmetic choice of B1.
  4. [Eq. (8) and Fig. 3] The claim that Eq. (8) 'universally describes' the spin polarization reconstructed from published magnetotransport data for Si MOSFETs, SiGe/Si, AlAs/AlGaAs, ZnO/MgZnO, MoTe2, and MoSe2 is not substantiated in the manuscript. No data, fits, or fit parameters for the other material systems are shown, so the reader cannot assess the universality claim. Moreover, the phase map in Fig. 3 is constructed using Eq. (8) with the best-fit parameters a ≈ 2.2 and k ≈ 2.4 from the present ZnO samples, not directly from Eq. (7). Thus the final map depends on an empirical two-parameter fit and on an undocumented generalization to other materials, which weakens the claim that the spin polarization can be obtained from transport alone without adjustable parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The phrase 'Land´ egfactor' in the line following Eq. (2) should read 'Landé g-factor'.
  2. [Main text, page 2] The sentence 'the equilibrium spin polarization effectively temperature independent' is missing the verb 'is'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The notation for the normalized magnetic field is inconsistent: B||/Bc appears in the text, while the caption of Fig. 2 uses 'B ∥ = 0.5Bc' without the division by Bc. Please standardize the notation.
  4. [Fig. 2a] The black curve is described as showing ΔR ∝ Rxx(0.2Bc, T) - Rxx(0, T), but the text does not explicitly state that this quantity is proportional to ∂R/∂ξ under the low-field approximation and the linear-response assumption; adding that clarification would help the reader.
  5. [Figs. 1f and 2a] The stated measurement error of approximately 10% in the integrated ESR amplitude is not shown as error bars in the figures, which makes the claimed collapse at the three fields more difficult to assess quantitatively.
  6. [References] Reference [5] is an arXiv preprint; if it has been published or updated, please provide the journal reference. Please also check for consistency of reference formatting throughout.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central relation Eq. (7) rests on an assumed B-independent spin sensitivity whose evidential test is self-referential: the ESR amplitude is assumed proportional to ξ from same-group prior work, and the collapse of A/ξ is consistent with any factorized dR/dξ(B,T).

  1. self definitional [Main text Eq. (7); Supplementary Eq. (10)]
    "Previous studies established experimentally that the resonant electrically detected ESR amplitude is proportional to the equilibrium spin polarization in strongly correlated two-dimensional electron systems [2, 3], A(B)∝ξ(B)."

    Equation (7) defines ξ as (R−R0)/(R1−R0). The paper's independent validation compares A with this reconstructed ξ, but A was assumed from the outset to be proportional to the true ξ (Supp. Eq. 10, refs. 23, 38, same group). The comparison therefore checks the shape of a quantity already assumed proportional to ξ against a normalized resistance; it cannot independently certify that the normalized resistance equals the physical spin polarization. The 'parameter-free' status is inherited from an assumed calibration rather than demonstrated by an external polarization measurement.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Supplementary Section II, Eqs. (13)-(14)]
    "Experimentally, the normalized ESR amplitude, A(B,T)/ξ(B), exhibits nearly identical temperature dependences at all investigated magnetic fields ... This observation implies that the factor f1(B) is approximately unity ... Comparison with Eq. (12) therefore shows that, to an excellent approximation, ∂R/∂ξ(B,T) = ∂R/∂ξ(T). (14) which is the central assumption used in deriving Eq. (7) of the main text."

    The data collapse establishes only the factorization A/ξ=f1(B)f2(T), as the paper itself writes in Eq. (13). It does not force f1=1; dR/dξ=h(B)k(T) is equally compatible, and after the self-consistent replacement of ξ by the Eq. (7) output the factorization survives any rescaling. Thus the B-independence of dR/dξ is an imposed input, not a measured consequence. Integrating with h(B)≠1 would yield ξ_eq7 = F(B)/F(B1) with F=∫h ξ' dB, not ξ(B), so Eq. (7) is not a parameter-free prediction forced by the data.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Supplementary Eq. (10), refs [2,3] = main-text refs [23,38]]
    "Previous studies established experimentally that the resonant electrically detected ESR amplitude is proportional to the equilibrium spin polarization in strongly correlated two-dimensional electron systems [2, 3]."

    The calibration A∝ξ is load-bearing: it justifies the A/ξ normalization from which Eq. (14) is inferred and the 'independent validation' of Eq. (7). The cited studies are by the present authors (Shchepetilnikov, Nikolaev, Kukushkin et al., PRL 133, 096301 (2024); JETP Lett. 119, 873 (2024)). No measurement of ξ independent of this same-group calibration is presented, so the validation loop closes within the authors' own prior work.

full rationale

The derivation of Eq. (7) is formally correct if Eq. (14) holds: then R−R0 = ξ(R1−R0). The paper is transparent that Eq. (14) is the central assumption. However, the evidence offered for Eq. (14) is a collapse of A/ξ that is compatible with any factorized ∂R/∂ξ(B,T)=h(B)k(T); the self-consistent update of ξ by the reconstructed quantity cannot break this degeneracy. In addition, the ESR 'calibration' A∝ξ is imported from same-group prior work and then used to validate the relation, making the validation partially circular. The temperature collapse of ξ extracted at 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 K (Fig. 2b) is a genuine internal consistency check, and the relation would be a real result if an external polarization measurement fixed the calibration; but as presented, the central claim reduces in part to an assumed proportionality and an imposed B-independence. The reference resistance R1 taken at B1≈1.2Bc also contains a possible orbital magnetoresistance contribution noted by the authors, further shifting the polarization scale, though that is a correctness concern rather than a circularity. Score 6 reflects this partial, not total, circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central relation Eq. 7 depends on the empirical linearity of R in xi, the imported ESR proportionality, and the choice of R1 at 1.2 Bc. Eq. 8 adds two fitted parameters a and k. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • a (Eq. 8) = 2.2
    Empirical prefactor in the universal polarization curve xi = 1 - exp(-a (B/Bc)^k); fitted to the ZnO/MgZnO data with no independent derivation.
  • k (Eq. 8) = 2.4
    Empirical exponent in Eq. 8; fitted jointly with a to the ZnO/MgZnO data and then used to generate the Fig. 3 map.
  • B1 = 1.2 Bc (chosen)
    Field defining the fully polarized resistance R1; chosen as 'immediately beyond the magnetoresistance kink', but at this field orbital magnetoresistance is already visible, so R1 may include a non-spin contribution.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The electrically detected ESR amplitude is proportional to the equilibrium spin polarization, A proportional to xi.
    Supplementary Eq. (10) attributes this to prior same-group studies (refs 23 and 38) and a two-level absorption argument; no in-paper measurement against an external polarization scale is provided.
  • domain assumption The spin sensitivity of the resistance is independent of magnetic field, dR/dxi = dR/dxi(T).
    Supplementary Eq. (14), explicitly called the central assumption; inferred from the collapse of A/xi temperature dependences, which itself depends on the assumed xi(B).
  • domain assumption Resonant heating contributes negligibly to the electrically detected ESR signal (alpha approximately 0).
    Inferred from the persistence of the ESR signal at the metal-insulator transition where dR/dT = 0; this excludes bolometric dominance at that point but does not quantify residual contributions elsewhere.
  • domain assumption Orbital magnetoresistance is negligible in the field range used to validate Eq. (7).
    The paper uses R1 at 1.2 Bc while acknowledging orbital effects above Bc; the assumption that R1 is still spin-dominated is not separately tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Polarization of a Two-Dimensional Electron Liquid." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRJF57PP

@misc{pith2026260809533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Polarization of a Two-Dimensional Electron Liquid},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRJF57PP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09533}
}
read the original abstract

We show experimentally that the longitudinal resistance of a strongly correlated two-dimensional electron system provides a direct quantitative measure of its spin polarization. Using electrically detected electron spin resonance as an independent calibration of the spin state, we establish a parameter-free relation between magnetotransport and spin polarization, enabling spin polarization to be reconstructed from transport measurements alone. The extracted spin polarization quantitatively explains the magnetic field and temperature dependence of the electrically detected spin-resonance signal and allows the magnetic state of the electron liquid to be mapped over a broad range of carrier densities and magnetic fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09533 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tokura, M

    Y. Tokura, M. Kawasaki, and N. Nagaosa, Nature Physics 13, 1056 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    E.-M. Shih, Q. Shi, D. Rhodes, B. Kim, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Yang, J. Hone, and C. R. Dean, Nature Physics21, 1231 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Boddison-Chouinard, M

    J. Boddison-Chouinard, M. Korkusinski, A. Bogan, P. Barrios, P. Waldron, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, 6 J. Paw lowski, D. Miravet, P. Hawrylak,et al., Science Ad- vances11, eadu4696 (2025)

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Falson, I

    J. Falson, I. Sodemann, B. Skinner, D. Tabrea, Y. Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, K. von Klitzing, and J. H. Smet, Nature Materials21, 311 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Zhang, Z

    M. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y. Jiang, Y. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Liu, S. Lei, Y. Li, and Y. Xu, Transport evidence for wigner crystals in monolayer mote2 (2025), arXiv:2506.20392 [cond-mat.str-el]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    S. A. Vitkalov, H. Zheng, K. M. Mertes, M. P. Sarachik, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 2164 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Okamoto, K

    T. Okamoto, K. Hosoya, S. Kawaji, and A. Yagi, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 3875 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    Dolgopolov and A

    V. Dolgopolov and A. Gold, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters71, 27 (2000)

    work page 2000

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Spivak, S

    B. Spivak, S. V. Kravchenko, S. A. Kivelson, and X. P. A. Gao, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1743 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Tutuc, S

    E. Tutuc, S. Melinte, E. P. De Poortere, M. Shayegan, and R. Winkler, Phys. Rev. B67, 241309(R) (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov and I. V. Kukushkin, Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk195, 34 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Lazarova, S

    D. Lazarova, S. Semkova, G. Zlateva, H. Tatsuya, I. Aoki, and R. Bakalova, Analytical Chemistry93, 2828 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Zhang, G

    T. Zhang, G. Pramanik, K. Zhang, M. Gulka, L. Wang, J. Jing, F. Xu, Z. Li, Q. Wei, P. Cigler,et al., ACS sensors 6, 2077 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    L. R. Weiss, S. L. Bayliss, F. Kraffert, K. J. Thorley, J. E. Anthony, R. Bittl, R. H. Friend, A. Rao, N. C. Greenham, and J. Behrends, Nature Physics13, 176 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    M. M. H. Polash, A. I. Smirnov, and D. Vashaee, Applied Physics Reviews10(2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    K. K. Grigoryan and M. M. Glazov, Phys. Rev. B113, 179605 (2026)

    2026

  9. [17]

    J. S. Feder, B. S. Soloway, S. Verma, Z. Z. Geng, S. Wang, B. B. Kifle, E. G. Riendeau, Y. Tsaturyan, L. R. Weiss, M. Xie,et al., Nature645, 73 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Sellies, R

    L. Sellies, R. Spachtholz, S. Bleher, J. Eckrich, P. Scheuerer, and J. Repp, Nature624, 64 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    A. Mena, S. K. Mann, A. Cowley-Semple, E. Bryan, S. Heutz, D. R. McCamey, M. Attwood, and S. L. Bayliss, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 120801 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Zeisner, K

    J. Zeisner, K. Mehlawat, A. Alfonsov, M. Roslova, T. Do- ert, A. Isaeva, B. B¨ uchner, and V. Kataev, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 064406 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Senyk, J

    Y. Senyk, J. J. Abraham, Y. Shemerliuk, S. Selter, S. Aswartham, B. B¨ uchner, V. Kataev, and A. Alfonsov, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 014003 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Morissette, J.-X

    E. Morissette, J.-X. Lin, D. Sun, L. Zhang, S. Liu, D. Rhodes, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, J. Pol- lanen,et al., Nature Physics19, 1156 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov, A. R. Khisameeva, S. A. An- dreeva, G. A. Nikolaev, Y. V. Fedotova, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 096301 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Anlauf, M

    T. Anlauf, M. Prada, S. Freercks, B. Bosnjak, R. Fr¨ omter, J. Sichau, H. P. Oepen, L. Tiemann, and R. H. Blick, Physical Review Materials5, 034006 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Dinar, J

    K. Dinar, J. Delgado-Notario, C. Bray, K. Maussang, E. Perez-Martin, B. Benhamou-Bui, C. Consejo, S. Ruf- fenach, S. Krishtopenko, L. Bonnet, M. Paillet, J. Tor- res, Y. Meziani, I. Rozhansky, B. Jouault, S. Nanot, and F. Teppe, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 044043 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Tsukazaki, S

    A. Tsukazaki, S. Akasaka, K. Nakahara, Y. Ohno, H. Ohno, D. Maryenko, A. Ohtomo, and M. Kawasaki, Nature materials9, 889 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Falson, D

    J. Falson, D. Maryenko, B. Friess, D. Zhang, Y. Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, J. Smet, and M. Kawasaki, Nature Physics 11, 347 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Falson, D

    J. Falson, D. Tabrea, D. Zhang, I. Sodemann, Y. Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, K. Von Klitzing, and J. H. Smet, Science advances4, eaat8742 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Solovyev, A

    V. Solovyev, A. Van’Kov, I. Kukushkin, J. Falson, D. Zhang, D. Maryenko, Y. Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, J. Smet, and M. Kawasaki, Applied Physics Letters106 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Solovyev and I

    V. Solovyev and I. Kukushkin, Physical Review B96, 115131 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    A. B. Van’kov, A. S. Koreyev, P. S. Berezhnoy, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. B106, 245308 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    P. S. Berezhnoy, A. S. Koreyev, A. B. Van’kov, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. B110, 235306 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov, A. R. Khisameeva, Y. A. Nefy- odov, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. B100, 125425 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Kozlov, A

    V. Kozlov, A. Van’Kov, S. Gubarev, I. Kukushkin, V. Solovyev, J. Falson, D. Maryenko, Y. Kozuka, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki,et al., Physical Review B91, 085304 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Kozuka, S

    Y. Kozuka, S. Teraoka, J. Falson, A. Oiwa, A. Tsukazaki, S. Tarucha, and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. B87, 205411 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Shchepetilnikov, A

    A. Shchepetilnikov, A. Khisameeva, Y. A. Nefyodov, and I. Kukushkin, Physical Review B104, 075437 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov, A. R. Khisameeva, G. A. Niko- laev, S. A. Lopatina, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. B 107, 195415 (2023)

    2023

  30. [39]

    Falson and M

    J. Falson and M. Kawasaki, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 056501 (2018)

    2018

  31. [41]

    S. A. Vitkalov, H. Zheng, K. M. Mertes, M. P. Sarachik, and T. M. Klapwijk, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 086401 (2001)

    2001

  32. [42]

    Das Sarma and E

    S. Das Sarma and E. H. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 5596 (2000)

    2000

  33. [43]

    L. V. Kulik, I. V. Kukushkin, V. E. Kirpichev, K. v. Klitzing, and K. Eberl, Phys. Rev. B61, 1712 (2000)

    2000

  34. [44]

    A. A. Shashkin and S. V. Kravchenko, Applied Sciences 9, 1169 (2019)

    2019

  35. [45]

    Okamoto, M

    T. Okamoto, M. Ooya, K. Hosoya, and S. Kawaji, Phys. Rev. B69, 041202(R) (2004)

    2004

  36. [46]

    M. S. Hossain, M. Ma, K. V. Rosales, Y. Chung, L. Pfeif- fer, K. West, K. Baldwin, and M. Shayegan, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117, 32244 (2020)

    2020

  37. [47]

    Larentis, H

    S. Larentis, H. C. P. Movva, B. Fallahazad, K. Kim, A. Behroozi, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. K. Banerjee, and E. Tutuc, Phys. Rev. B97, 201407(R) (2018). 1 Supplementary information for ”Spin Polarization of a Two-Dimensional Electron Liquid” I. Illumination intensity normal...

    2018

  38. [48]

    G. A. Nikolaev, O. V. Orlov, S. A. Andreeva, Y. V. Fe- dotova, A. R. Khisameeva, A. V. Shchepetilnikov, D. V. Yurasov, A. V. Novikov, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. Appl.26, 014099 (2026)

    2026

  39. [49]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov, A. R. Khisameeva, S. A. Andreeva, G. A. Nikolaev, Y. V. Fedotova, C. Reichl, W. Wegschei- der, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 096301 (2024)

    2024

  40. [50]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov, G. A. Nikolaev, S. A. Andreeva, A. R. Khisameeva, Y. V. Fedotova, A. Dremin, and I. V. Kukushkin, JETP Letters119, 873 (2024)

    2024

  41. [51]

    A. V. Shchepetilnikov, A. R. Khisameeva, G. A. Nikolaev, S. A. Lopatina, and I. V. Kukushkin, Phys. Rev. B107, 195415 (2023)

    2023

  42. [52]

    Olshanetsky, J

    E. Olshanetsky, J. D. Caldwell, M. Pilla, S.-c. Liu, C. R. Bowers, J. A. Simmons, and J. L. Reno, Phys. Rev. B67, 165325 (2003)

    2003

  43. [53]

    Matsunami, M

    J. Matsunami, M. Ooya, and T. Okamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 066602 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

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