The original article includes several mistakes and typos. The corrections are as follows: 1) On lines 18-20, right column, page 3 of the original article, we described “Figure 3(d) shows that the Δ(Aodd/jc) [Δ(Aodd/E)] value for the Ni/Pt/YIG sample is 65% (79%) larger than that for the Pt/YIG sample”. However, we mistakenly showed the enhancement ratios of Aodd/jc and Aodd/E instead of those of Δ(Aodd/jc) and Δ(Aodd/E). The corrected sentence is “Figure 3(d) shows that the Δ(Aodd/jc) [Δ(Aodd/E)] value for the Ni/Pt/YIG sample is 56% (69%) larger than that for the Pt/YIG sample”. The enhancement ratio “65%” in the abstract (line 4 in the abstract) and conclusion (line 9, left column, page 4) and “79%” in the conclusion (line 9, left column, page 4) should also be replaced with 56% and 69%, respectively. These corrections do not change the discussion and conclusion of this article. 2) Figure 3 and its caption should be corrected because (1) the magnitude of the error bars in (c) and (d) was overestimated in the process of the error propagation, (2) the data in (c) and (d) were the average values between the areas L and R, and (3) “KmA−1” and “10−8 KmV−1” on the vertical axes of (c) and (d) should be replaced with “Km2A−1” and “10−7 KmV−1”, respectively. The corrected Fig. 3 and caption are shown above. 3) On lines 8-11, right column, page 3 of the original article, we described “note that, in the case of the SPE in conventional PM/FI systems, Aodd/jc and Aodd/E are proportional to the spin Hall angle and spin Hall conductivity, respectively28)”. In this sentence, the reference number 28) should be replaced with 23).
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Physics and Astronomy(all)