Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Spin-valve effect for spin-polarized surface states in topological semimetals

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single GeTe–nickel junction shows room-temperature spin-valve hysteresis that the authors trace to spin-dependent scattering between topological surface states and the ferromagnetic nickel electrode.

desk verdict Room-temperature hysteresis in GeTe-Ni junctions is likely real, but the topological surface-state spin-valve mechanism is not established by the present data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.04244 v1 pith:CS4CD5RZ submitted 2025-05-07 cond-mat.mes-hall

A.A. Avakyants , V.D. Esin , D.Yu. Kazmin , N.N. Orlova , A.V. Timonina , N.N. Kolesnikov , E.V. Deviatov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spin-valveeffecttopologicalsemimetalsurfacestatesspin-momentumlockingRashbasplittingmagnetoresistancespin-to-chargeconversionGeTe-Nijunction
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 reports that a single junction between the nonmagnetic topological semimetal $\alpha$-GeTe and a thick nickel film behaves like a spin valve: in an in-plane magnetic field, the differential resistance $dV/dI(H)$ shows mirrored hysteresis with peaks centered at $\pm 0.5$ kOe even at room temperature. The authors attribute this to spin-dependent scattering between the spin-textured topological surface states of $\alpha$-GeTe and the ferromagnetic nickel electrode. Supporting observations are the flat magnetoresistance of a GeTe–Au reference junction, a similar spin-valve response in Cd$_3$As$_2$–Ni junctions, and the strong anisotropy between in-plane and out-of-plane fields. If the interpretation is right, a nonmagnetic topological semimetal can give efficient spin-to-charge conversion at ambient conditions using only one ferromagnetic contact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the spin-valve effect: resistance depends on the relative alignment of two spin-polarized layers, here the ferromagnetic nickel film and the spin-momentum-locked surface states of the topological semimetal. The second layer is not a conventional magnet but a spin texture with in-plane spin orientation, reoriented by low in-plane fields around $\pm 0.5$ kOe; out-of-plane reorientation requires larger fields near $\pm 2$ kOe, matching the observed anisotropy. The mirrored $dV/dI(H)$ peaks for opposite sweep directions are the signature that the two spin systems reverse at different fields, with antiparallel orientation in between.

What would settle it

Make an identical three-point measurement on a GeTe–Pt junction: platinum has comparable spin-orbit coupling but no topological surface states, so if the same mirrored $dV/dI(H)$ hysteresis appears there, the topological-surface-state explanation fails; alternatively, insert a 1–2 nm insulating barrier between the nickel and GeTe and check whether the spin-valve signal survives decoupling of the direct interface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the spin-valve hysteresis observed in GeTe–Ni junctions originates from spin-dependent scattering between the spin textures of the topological surface states and the ferromagnetic nickel electrode. The bulk of $\alpha$-GeTe is diamagnetic and the GeTe–Au reference is flat, so the authors conclude that the nickel electrode is essential but not sufficient: the semimetal's spin-momentum-locked surface states act as a second spin-polarized layer whose orientation relative to nickel can be switched by magnetic field. The same behavior in Cd$_3$As$_2$–Ni junctions indicates that the effect is not specific to GeTe's bulk spin textures, pointing to the surface states as the common element. Room-temperature operation in in-plane fields follows from the giant Rashba splitting and finite Berry curvature of $\alpha$-GeTe at 300 K.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the flat GeTe–Au reference junction rules out every nickel-related magnetoresistance mechanism, leaving scattering between the topological surface states and the nickel electrode as the only source, but the Au reference contains no nickel and therefore cannot exclude effects that require nickel but not the surface states, such as nickel-driven interface magnetoresistance or stray-field effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single ferromagnetic contact suffices: no second ferromagnetic layer or exchange-biased reference layer is needed for a spin-valve-like response.
  • Room-temperature spin-to-charge conversion becomes possible at ambient conditions in $\alpha$-GeTe–Ni junctions, with switching fields near $\pm 0.5$ kOe for in-plane fields.
  • The effect appears generic to ferromagnet–topological-semimetal junctions, since both GeTe and Cd$_3$As$_2$ show similar hysteresis, so other spin-textured semimetals should behave likewise.
  • The flat GeTe–Au reference shows that the hysteretic signal is not an intrinsic property of the semimetal or its contacts to normal metals, but requires the ferromagnetic electrode.
  • The insensitivity of the peaks to dc bias current indicates that the effect is not driven by current-induced torques, supporting an equilibrium spin-texture mechanism.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper is right, the surface-state spin texture is effectively acting as a magnetic layer with no net magnetization; a direct test would be to tune the surface-state spin polarization by doping or electrostatic gating and check that the hysteresis amplitude tracks it.
  • The same mechanism suggests that other nonmagnetic topological materials with strongly spin-polarized surface states could replace GeTe and offer switching fields set by their own spin-texture anisotropy.
  • A control with a heavy nonmagnetic metal such as Pt (strong spin-orbit coupling but no topological surface states) would isolate the topological contribution; if Pt shows the same hysteresis, the surface-state explanation would need revision.
  • The paper does not directly measure the relative orientation of the nickel and surface-state spins; a spin-sensitive probe, such as tunneling magnetoresistance through a barrier or magneto-optical imaging of the nickel electrode, could verify the assumed antiparallel configuration.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports differential resistance dV/dI(H) measurements of single GeTe-Ni and Cd3As2-Ni junctions at room temperature and 4.2 K. For magnetic fields parallel to the junction plane, the authors observe hysteretic dV/dI(H) curves with mirrored peaks centered at about ±0.5 kOe at room temperature; for normal fields, similar features appear only at low temperatures. A reference GeTe-Au junction shows flat dV/dI(H). On this basis, the authors attribute the effect to spin-valve-like spin-dependent scattering between the spin textures of topological surface states in the semimetal and the ferromagnetic nickel electrode, and claim that this enables room-temperature spin-to-charge conversion in α-GeTe.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is correct, the observation would be significant: a single ferromagnetic contact on a nonmagnetic topological semimetal could provide a spin-valve response and efficient spin-to-charge conversion at ambient conditions. The paper has clear experimental strengths: it reports measurements on multiple junctions, includes a Cd3As2 comparison and a GeTe-Au reference, verifies sample phase purity by XRD and EDX, checks sweep-rate independence, and shows that the peak positions are insensitive to dc bias current. However, the central mechanistic claim rests on assumptions that are not directly tested, and at least one of these assumptions is in tension with the known physics of spin-momentum-locked surface states in nonmagnetic semimetals. The empirical observation may be valuable, but the paper's interpretation as a surface-state spin valve is not established by the presented data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, paragraphs 1-4] The load-bearing assumption is that the spin texture of the nonmagnetic topological semimetal acts as a second switchable magnetic layer whose orientation relative to the Ni electrode changes the junction resistance. However, spin-momentum-locked surface states in a time-reversal-invariant nonmagnetic material carry no net equilibrium magnetization; their spin direction is locked to crystal momentum and cannot be hysteretically reoriented by an external magnetic field as if it were a ferromagnet. No magnetization measurement, spin-resolved transport, Hanle measurement, or spin-torque experiment is presented to demonstrate a switchable surface-state magnetization. The observed hysteresis can therefore not be uniquely attributed to the proposed spin-valve mechanism.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3(b)] The GeTe-Au reference junction is flat, but this control removes the nickel electrode entirely and thus cannot exclude mechanisms that require nickel but do not involve topological surface states, such as Ni-driven interface magnetoresistance, stray-field effects, or anisotropic magnetoresistance of the Ni film. To support the claim that the effect is specific to spin-texture scattering, the authors need a control with Ni on a non-topological semimetal or a nonmagnetic metal, or a direct comparison of Ni-only structures.
  3. [Section IV, paragraph 5] The argument that the effect cannot be solely ascribed to Ni reorientation relies on the temperature dependence of the normal-field response and on the different reorientation fields in Cd3As2-Ni versus GeTe-Ni. However, the hysteresis loop of the Ni film itself is never measured. If the observed resistance changes simply track the magnetization reversal of the Ni electrode or of a Ni-related interfacial magnetic layer, then the different coercivity-like fields could reflect differences in the local magnetic environment rather than an intrinsic property of the topological surface states. A direct magnetization or anomalous Hall measurement on the same Ni film, or a control junction with Ni on a trivial semimetal, is needed.
  4. [Section III, Fig. 2(a) and (c)] The sign of the in-plane magnetoresistance is positive in one GeTe-Ni junction and negative in the other, attributed to device-to-device variation. In a conventional spin valve, the sign of the resistance change depends on the equilibrium relative orientation of the two magnetic layers. If the surface-state spin texture is the second layer, the sign should be reproducible or its variation should be explained by a concrete mechanism such as different crystallographic orientation or interface quality. Without such an explanation, the sign variability weakens the spin-valve interpretation and suggests that spurious contributions may be present.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Fig. 1 caption and text] The inset of Fig. 1 mentions '10 µm separated thick Ni ferromagnetic leads,' while the text says '10 µm wide ferromagnetic Ni leads'; please clarify whether 10 µm is the width, the separation, or both.
  2. [Section III, paragraph 2] There is a typo: 'CeTe-Ni' should be 'GeTe-Ni'.
  3. [Section II, paragraph 3] The word 'nichel' appears in the description of thermal evaporation; it should be 'nickel'.
  4. [Reference 39] The author list in reference 39 contains the garbled string 'J. S/suppress lawińska'; this reference needs to be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central mechanism is partly loaded into the label 'spin-valve'.

  1. self definitional [Section IV (Discussion), paragraph on spin-valve explanation; echoed in Abstract and Section III.]
    "Spin-valve behavior is usually explained by spin-dependent scattering between two spin-polarized layers. ... Since nickel is a conventional ferromagnet, the observed spin-valve effect requires some magnetic ordering for the GeTe and Cd3As2 topological semimetals."

    The observation is a resistance hysteresis in dV/dI(H); the paper labels it 'spin-valve effect'. A spin valve, by the paper's own gloss, is a device whose resistance depends on the relative orientation of two spin-polarized layers. The inference that the nonmagnetic semimetal must possess magnetic ordering, or a switchable surface spin texture, is therefore not an independent experimental finding but a consequence of applying the label. The GeTe-Au reference only shows that Ni is necessary; it does not demonstrate that the semimetal surface constitutes a second switchable magnetic layer. Thus the central mechanism claim is partly contained in the terminology rather than derived from direct magnetization or spin-resolved measurements.

full rationale

The measured dV/dI(H) hysteresis, field-anisotropy behavior, and the GeTe-Au and Cd3As2-Ni controls are new empirical data, and the paper does not fit parameters or derive quantitative predictions from its own assumptions. However, the key inference that the nonmagnetic semimetal supplies a second switchable spin-polarized layer follows from the paper's own definition of spin-valve behavior rather than from a direct measurement of that layer. The GeTe-Au reference and Cd3As2 comparison support Ni involvement and universality, but they do not isolate a switchable surface-state magnetization; Ni-only magnetoresistance mechanisms, such as interface magnetoresistance or stray-field effects, are not excluded. Self-citations (refs 31, 32, 41, 48, 54, 56) support crystal growth, junction fabrication, susceptibility characterization, and prior transport, but they are not load-bearing for the original hysteresis observation. The circularity is thus limited to the interpretational step where the phenomenon name supplies the mechanism; the empirical content is otherwise self-contained.

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

No free parameters are fit in this experimental paper. The central interpretation rests on literature-based assumptions about topological surface-state spin textures and on the unverified premise that a nonmagnetic semimetal's surface spin texture behaves as a switchable magnetic layer. No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption alpha-GeTe has topological surface states with giant Rashba splitting and nearly complete spin polarization.
    Invoked in the Discussion as the source of spin textures in GeTe, based on refs 45 and 47 rather than on measurements in this paper.
  • domain assumption Cd3As2 has helical topological surface states that can produce a similar spin-valve effect.
    Used to argue universality of the effect across topological semimetals; the surface-state properties are taken from prior literature, not verified in these junctions.
  • domain assumption The bulk of GeTe and Cd3As2 is diamagnetic, so bulk magnetic ordering cannot explain the spin-valve behavior.
    Stated in the Discussion and supported by a susceptibility reference; this rules out one class of explanations but does not address interface-induced magnetism.
  • ad hoc to paper The spin texture of a nonmagnetic topological semimetal can act as a switchable magnetic layer whose orientation relative to Ni changes the junction resistance.
    This is the key unproven premise of the spin-valve interpretation: the paper assumes the surface-state spin texture can be reoriented by magnetic fields as if it were a ferromagnetic layer, with no direct magnetization or spin-texture measurement.
  • domain assumption The three-point resistance measurement is dominated by the GeTe-Ni interface rather than by the Ni lead or GeTe bulk.
    Justified in Section III by comparing the 130-150 ohm resistance to the sub-ohm estimated lead and bulk contributions; reasonable but not independently verified for every device.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-valve effect for spin-polarized surface states in topological semimetals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CS4CD5RZ

@misc{pith2026250504244,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-valve effect for spin-polarized surface states in topological semimetals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CS4CD5RZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.04244}
}
abstract

We experimentally investigate magnetoresistance of a single GeTe-Ni junction between the $\alpha$-GeTe topological semimetal and thick nickel film at room and liquid helium temperatures. For the magnetic field parallel to the junction plane, we demonstrate characteristic spin-valve hysteresis with mirrored differential resistance $dV/dI$ peaks even at room temperature. In contrast, for normal magnetic fields spin-valve effect appears only at low temperatures. From the magnetic field anisotropy, observation of the similar effect for another topological semimetal Cd$_3$As$_2$, and strictly flat $dV/dI(H)$ magnetoresistance curves for the reference GeTe-Au junction, we connect the observed spin-valve effect with the spin-dependent scattering between the spin textures in the topological surface states and the ferromagnetic nickel electrode. For the topological semimetal $\alpha$-GeTe, room-temperature spin-valve effect allows efficient spin-to-charge conversion even at ambient conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.04244 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) X-ray powder diffraction pattern (Cu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) Magnetoresistance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows dV /dI(H) hysteresis for another, high￾resistive, GeTe-Ni junction at low temperature. The curves are obtained at different dc currents I for two, parallel and normal, orientations of the magnetic field in (a) and (b) respectively. The relative amplitude of the spin-valve effect is smaller for this resistive junction. As it should be expected from current-voltage dV /dI(I) curves, the overall resistance level … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Armitage, E.J

    N.P. Armitage, E.J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    D. A. Pshenay-Severin, Y. V. Ivanov, A. A. Burkov, A. T. Burkov, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 135501 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    Das, D.D

    P.K. Das, D.D. Sante, I. Vobornik, J. Fujii, T. Okuda, E. Bruyer, A. Gyenis, B.E. Feldman, J. Tao, R. Ciancio, G. Rossi, M.N. Ali, S. Picozzi, A. Yadzani, G. Panaccione, and R.J. Cava, Nature Comm. 7, 10847 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Feng, Y.-H

    B. Feng, Y.-H. Chan, Y. Feng, R.-Y. Liu,1 M.-Y. Chou, K. Kuroda, K. Yaji, A. Harasawa, P. Moras, A. Barinov, W. Malaeb, C. Bareille, T. Kondo, S. Shin, F. Komori, T.-C. Chiang, Y. Shi, and I. Matsuda, Phys Rev B 94, 195134 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    B.Q. Lv, S. Muff, T. Qian, Z.D. Song, S.M. Nie, N. Xu, P. Richard, C.E. Matt, N.C. Plumb, L.X. Zhao, G.F. Chen, Z. Fang, X. Dai, J.H. Dil, J. Mesot, M. Shi, H.M. Weng, and H. Ding, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 217601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    S.-Y. Xu, I. Belopolski, D.S. Sanchez, M. Neupane, G. Chang, K. Yaji, Z. Yuan, C. Zhang, K. Kuroda, G. Bian, C. Guo, H. Lu, T.-R. Chang, N. Alidoust, H. Zheng, C.-C. Lee, S.-M. Huang, C.-H. Hsu, H.-T. Jeng, A. Bansil, T. Neupert, F. Komori, T. Kondo, S. Shin, H. Lin, S. Jia, and M.Z. Hasan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 096801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Jiang, F

    J. Jiang, F. Tang, X.C. Pan, H.M. Liu, X.H. Niu, Y.X. Wang, D.F. Xu, H.F. Yang, B.P. Xie, F.Q. Song, P. Dudin, T.K. Kim, M. Hoesch, P.K. Das, I. Vobornik, X.G. Wan, and D.L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 166601 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Rhodes, S

    D. Rhodes, S. Das, Q.R. Zhang, B. Zeng, N.R. Pradhan, N. Kikugawa, E. Manousakis, and L. Balicas, Phys. Rev. B 92, 125152 (2015)

    work page 2015

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Reutt-Robey, J

    Y.Wang, K.Wang, J. Reutt-Robey, J. Paglione, and M. S. Fuhrer, Phys. Rev. B 93, 121108 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Kushwaha, Raman Sankar, Jason W

    Su-Yang Xu, Chang Liu, Satya K. Kushwaha, Raman Sankar, Jason W. Krizan, Ilya Belopolski, Madhab Neupane, Guang Bian, Nasser Alidoust, Tay-Rong Chang, Horng-Tay Jeng, Cheng-Yi Huang, Wei-Feng Tsai, Hsin Lin, Pavel P. Shibayev, Fang-Cheng Chou, Robert J. Cava, and M. Zahid Hasa...

    doi

  3. [11]

    Garlow, Yu Liu, Huiqin Zhang, Jun Li, Donald DiMarzio, Mark W

    Myung-Geun Han, Joseph A. Garlow, Yu Liu, Huiqin Zhang, Jun Li, Donald DiMarzio, Mark W. Knight, Cedomir Petrovic, Deep Jariwala and Yimei Zhu, Nano Lett., 19, 11, 7859–7865 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bei Ding, Zefang Li, Guizhou Xu, Hang Li, Zhipeng Hou, Enke Liu, Xuekui Xi, Feng Xu, Yuan Yao, and Wenhong Wang, Nano Lett., 20, 868--873 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Nguyen, Jinhwan Lee, Tom Berlijn, Qiang Zou, Saban M

    Giang D. Nguyen, Jinhwan Lee, Tom Berlijn, Qiang Zou, Saban M. Hus, Jewook Park, Zheng Gai, Changgu Lee, and An-Ping Li, Physical Review B 97, 014425 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Yasufumi Araki, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 532, 1900287, 1 - 16 (2020). DOI: 10.1002/andp.201900287

    2020 doi

  7. [15]

    R o ler, Florin Radu, Radu Abrudan, Gungun Lin, Oliver G

    Robert Streubel, Luyang Han, Mi-Young Im, Florian Kronast, Ulrich K. R o ler, Florin Radu, Radu Abrudan, Gungun Lin, Oliver G. Schmidt, Peter Fischer and Denys Makarov, Scientific Reports, 5, 8787 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Chudnovsky and Xixiang Zhang, Communications Physics, 1, 36 (2018)

    Senfu Zhang, Junwei Zhang, Yan Wen, Eugene M. Chudnovsky and Xixiang Zhang, Communications Physics, 1, 36 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    You Ba, Shihao Zhuang, Yike Zhang, Yutong Wang, Yang Gao, Hengan Zhou, Mingfeng Chen, Weideng Sun, Quan Liu, Guozhi Chai, Jing Ma, Ying Zhang, Huanfang Tian, Haifeng Du, Wanjun Jiang, Cewen Nan, Jia-Mian Hu and Yonggang Zhao, Nature Communications, 12, 322 (2021); https://doi....

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Anjan Soumyanarayanan, M. Raju, A. L. Gonzalez Oyarce, Anthony K. C. Tan, Mi-Young Im, A. P. Petrovi\'c, Pin Ho, K. H. Khoo, M. Tran, C. K. Gan, F. Ernult and C. Panagopoulos, Nature Mater, 16, 898–904 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4934

    2017 doi

  11. [19]

    Lena Wysocki, Sven Erik Ilse, Lin Yang, Eberhard Goering, Felix Gunkel, Regina Dittmann, Paul H. M. van Loosdrecht and Ionela Lindfors-Vrejoiu, Journal of Applied Physics 131, 133902 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0087098

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    Charilaou, C

    M. Charilaou, C. Bordel, and F. Hellman, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 212405 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    S. Maat, K. Takano, S.S.P. Parkin, and Eric E. Fullerton, Physical Review Letters, 87, 8 (2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Dieny, V

    B. Dieny, V. S. Speriosu, S. S. P. Parkin, B. A. Gurney, D. R. Wilhoit, and D. Mauri, Physical Review B, 43, 1297-1300 (1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    R. Q. Zhang, J. Su, J. W. Cai, G. Y. Shi, F. Li, L. Y. Liao, F. Pan, and C. Song, Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 092404 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    M. Tsoi, A. G. M. Jansen, J. Bass, W.-C. Chiang, M. Seck, V. Tsoi, and P. Wyder, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 4281 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Myers, D.C

    E.B. Myers, D.C. Ralph, J.A. Katine, R.N. Louie, R.A. Buhrman, Science, 285, 867 (1999)

    1999

  18. [26]

    M. Tsoi, A. G. M. Jansen, J. Bass, W.-C. Chiang, V. Tsoi and P. Wyder, Nature, 406, 46, (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    J. A. Katine, F. J. Albert, R. A. Buhrman, E. B. Myers and D. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 3149 (2000)

    2000

  20. [28]

    Y. Ji, C. L. Chien, and M. D. Stiles, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 106601 (2003)

    2003

  21. [29]

    O. P. Balkashin, V. V. Fisun, I. K. Yanson, L. Yu. Triputen, A. Konovalenko, and V. Korenivski, Phys. Rev. B, 79, 092419 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Balashov, A

    T. Balashov, A. F. Tak\'acs, M. D\"ane, A. Ernst, P. Bruno, and W. Wulfhekel, Phys. Rev. B, 78, 174404 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    V. D. Esin, D. N. Borisenko, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Phys. Rev. B 101, 155309 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    O. O. Shvetsov, V. D. Esin, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov, Europhys. Lett. 127, 57002 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    J. Tian, I. Miotkowski, S. Hong, Y. P. Chen, Sci. Rep. 5, 14293 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Hutasoit, Jiadong Zang, Radu Roiban, and Chao-Xing Liu, Phys

    Jimmy A. Hutasoit, Jiadong Zang, Radu Roiban, and Chao-Xing Liu, Phys. Rev. B 90, 134409 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Daichi Kurebayashi, Naoto Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 100, 134407 (2019); DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.134407

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    P. O. Sukhachov, M. V. Rakov, O. M. Teslyk, E. V. Gorbar, arXiv:1909.10587

    1909 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Araki and K

    Y. Araki and K. Nomura, Phys. Rev. B 93, 094438 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Wenxuan Sun, Yequan Chen, Ruijie Xu, Wenzhuo Zhuang, Di Wang, Long Liu, Anke Song, Guozhong Xing, Yongbing Xu, Rong Zhang, Cui-Zu Chang, Xuefeng Wang, arxiv:2502.19736, https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.19736

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Varotto, L

    S. Varotto, L. Nessi, S. Cecchi, J. S awi n ska, P. No e l, S. Petr o , F. Fagiani, A. Novati, M. Cantoni, D. Petti, E. Albisetti, M. Costa, R. Calarco, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, M. Bibes, S. Picozzi, J.-Ph. Attan e , L. Vila, R. Bertacco and Ch. Rinaldi, Nature Electronics, 4, ...

    2021

  32. [40]

    Picozzi, Frontiers in Physics

    S. Picozzi, Frontiers in Physics. Condensed Matter Physics, 2, 10 (2014). | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2014.00010

    2014

  33. [41]

    Orlova, A.V

    N.N. Orlova, A.V. Timonina, N.N. Kolesnikov, E.V. Deviatov, Physica B: Condensed Matter 647, 414358 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2022.414358

    2022

  34. [42]

    Mater., 25, 509--513 (2013)

    Domenico Di Sante , Paolo Barone , Riccardo Bertacco , and Silvia Picozzi, Adv. Mater., 25, 509--513 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Marcus Liebmann, Christian Rinaldi, Domenico Di Sante, Jens Kellner, Christian Pauly, Rui Ning Wang, Jos Emiel Boschker, Alessandro Giussani, Stefano Bertoli, Matteo Cantoni, Lorenzo Baldrati, Marco Asa, Ivana Vobornik, Giancarlo Panaccione, Dmitry Marchenko, Jaime S\'anchez-B...

    2016

  36. [44]

    Krempask\'y, H

    J. Krempask\'y, H. Volfov\'a, S. Muff, N. Pilet, G. Landolt, M. Radovi\'c, M. Shi, D. Kriegner, V. Hol\'y, J. Braun, H. Ebert, F. Bisti, V. A. Rogalev, V. N. Strocov, G. Springholz, J. Minár, and J. H. Dil, Phys. Rev. B 94, 205111 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Kremer, T

    G. Kremer, T. Jaouen, B. Salzmann, L. Nicola\"i, M. Rumo, C. W. Nicholson, B. Hildebrand, J. H. Dil, J. Min\'ar, G. Springholz, J. Krempask\'y, and C. Monney, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033115 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Lau and C

    A. Lau and C. Ortix, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 186801 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Guedes, Marco Caputo, Milan Radovi\'c, Valentine V

    Juraj Krempask\'y, Laurent Nicola\"i, Martin Gmitra, Houke Chen, Mauro Fanciulli, Eduardo B. Guedes, Marco Caputo, Milan Radovi\'c, Valentine V. Volobuev, Ondrej Caha, Gunther Springholz, Jan Min\'ar, and J. Hugo Dil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 206403 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    N. N. Orlova, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov Chinese Physics Letters 40, 077302 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/40/7/077302

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Inti Sodemann, Liang Fu., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    N. N. Kolesnikov, M. P. Kulakov, Yu. N. Ivanov, J. Cryst. Growth 125 , 576 (1992)

    1992

  43. [51]

    O. O. Shvetsov, V. D. Esin, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, and E. V. Deviatov Phys. Rev. B 99, 125305 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    V. D. Esin, D. Yu. Kazmin, Yu. S. Barash, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, E. V. Deviatov, JETP Letters, 118, 847 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364023603329

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    J. E. Lewis, Phys. Status Solidi 38, 131 (1970)

    1970

  46. [54]

    N. N. Orlova, N. S. Ryshkov, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov, E. V. Deviatov, Jetp Lett. 113, 389 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364021060011

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    Morpurgo, arxiv:2503.02462

    Fengrui Yao, Volodymyr Multian, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, Ignacio Gutierrez Lezama, Alberto F. Morpurgo, arxiv:2503.02462. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02462

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    A. A. Avakyants, N. N. Orlova, A. V. Timonina, N. N. Kolesnikov and E. V. Deviatov, JETP Lett. 119, 625 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0021364024600605

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    Constant and J.M

    F.W. Constant and J.M. Forwalt, Physical Review, 56, 373 (1939)

    1939

  50. [58]

    Edelstein, Solid State Communications, 73, 3, 233-235, (1990) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(90)90963-C

    V.M. Edelstein, Solid State Communications, 73, 3, 233-235, (1990) https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-1098(90)90963-C

    1990 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.