Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Anisotropic domain wall velocity profiles in the creep regime: the interplay of chiral damping, stiffness and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Angular creep-regime velocity profiles of expanding magnetic bubbles cannot be reproduced with domain-wall energy alone; reproducing them with independently measured DMI requires adding wall stiffness and chiral damping.

desk verdict A careful angular creep model that fixes DMI from independent measurements, but the mechanism claim leans on two per-sample fit parameters the paper itself admits are unconstrained. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25470 v1 pith:3FAPREHS submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Adriano Di Pietro , Alessandro Magni , Stefania Pizzini , Frowin Dörr , Yasser Shokr , Gianfranco Durin , Silvia Tacchi , Marco Madami
show 6 more authors
Giovanni Carlotti Emily Darwin Alexandra J. Huxtable Christopher H. Marrows Bryan J. Hickey Michaela Kuepferling
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Dzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteractioncreepregimedomain-wallstiffnesschiraldampingbubbleexpansionangularvelocityprofileperpendicularmagneticanisotropyracetrackmemory
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

In the thermally activated creep regime, where wall velocity depends exponentially on elastic energy, the paper claims that the angular velocity profile of an expanding magnetic bubble cannot be described by the orientation-dependent wall energy alone. It extends the angular creep model with two added physical ingredients: a relaxed, dispersive wall stiffness and a chirality-dependent damping term in the velocity prefactor. With these terms, measured profiles are reproduced using DMI values taken independently from flow-regime and Brillouin light scattering measurements, whereas an energy-only model overestimates the velocity asymmetry. If correct, this means DMI metrology from creep-regime bubble expansion must separate energetic, elastic, and dissipative contributions, and single-image v(θ) data alone are not an unambiguous measure of DMI.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the logarithmic decomposition of the normalized creep velocity, Eq. (7): ln[v(θ)/v(θ_ref)] = ln[α_eff(θ_ref)/α_eff(θ)] + β ln[σ̃(θ)/σ̃(θ_ref)] − χ0 |Hz|^{-1/4}(r(θ)^{1/4} − r(θ_ref)^{1/4}), with r(θ) = σ̃(θ,Hx)/σ̃(θ,0). The relaxed stiffness σ̃ = σ + σ_θθ − ζ(L/2Λ) σ_θϕ²/σ_ϕϕ adds the angular-curvature term and the internal-magnetization relaxation term to the equilibrium wall energy; the effective damping α_eff = α_G(1 + α_CD cos(φ_eq − θ)) injects the chiral contribution. These two extensions—a finite relaxation length L and a chiral-damping strength α_CD—are what allow the model to fit the measured profiles while keeping DMI fixed to independent values.

What would settle it

Measure L and α_CD independently (for example, by directly measuring the creep-relevant wall stiffness and extracting chiral damping from asymmetric Stokes/anti-Stokes broadening) for the same samples; then compute v(θ) with the full model and no free parameters. If the predicted angular profiles systematically miss the measured ones while the energy-only model does not, the paper's central claim would be falsified. Alternatively, the predicted sharp kinks at the Bloch–Néel crossover—if observable in low-disorder samples—would test the stiffness term directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that reproducing creep-regime angular velocity profiles of expanding bubbles with independently measured DMI fields requires more than the wall-energy-only description. The model replaces the wall energy σ by a relaxed stiffness σ̃ that includes the angular curvature of the energy and the relaxation of the internal wall magnetization over a finite length L, and it adds a chiral-damping-modulated prefactor α_eff. With both terms, the full model matches measured profiles for the two Pt/Co samples while keeping the DMI field at the independently determined values from flow-regime experiments and Brillouin light scattering; an energy-only model predicts a much stronger asymmetry

Load-bearing premise

The model's agreement rests on treating the wall-relaxation length L and the chiral-damping strength α_CD as adjustable, per-sample parameters that the angular profile alone cannot constrain, so the fit does not by itself prove that these two mechanisms are the physical origin of the discrepancy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energy-only fits of creep-regime bubble expansion will systematically distort extracted DMI values; in the samples studied, the energy-only model overestimates the velocity asymmetry and yields DMI values smaller than those from independent flow and Brillouin light scattering measurements.
  • The extended model reconciles creep-regime v(θ) with independently measured DMI, so creep-based DMI metrology should be combined with independent constraints on chiral damping and wall stiffness.
  • Chiral damping acts mainly as a prefactor and has no unique visual signature in the angular profile; it reshapes the curve quantitatively rather than creating a separate feature.
  • Wall stiffness is the more consequential term under standard creep conditions because it enters the exponential creep barrier, whereas prefactor effects become comparable only for small creep constants or strong chiral damping.
  • Sharp kinks are predicted in the angular profile near the crossover from mixed Bloch–Néel to saturated Néel walls; disorder and finite resolution are expected to round them off in experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this reconciliation holds, DMI values previously reported from creep-regime bubble expansion in similar Pt/Co stacks may be systematically low, and re-analysis with the full model using independent DMI constraints would be a direct check.
  • Because the chiral-damping term depends on the in-plane field direction through cos(φ_eq − θ), measuring v(θ) for opposite signs of Hx and comparing the mirrored profiles could isolate the chiral contribution even without separate damping measurements.
  • The predicted kinks at the Bloch–Néel crossover are a falsifiable fingerprint of the stiffness term: low-disorder or low-temperature samples should show sharper angular features if the stiffness picture is right.
  • The model implies that racetrack-type devices should treat the effective wall stiffness—through the relaxation length L—as a design parameter controlled by disorder, curvature, or annealing, not just as a fixed material property.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops an extended angular creep model for asymmetric magnetic bubble expansion, incorporating dispersive domain-wall stiffness (Eq. 3) and a chiral-damping-dependent prefactor (Eq. 4) into the normalized angular velocity profile (Eqs. 5–7). The authors apply this model to two Pt/Co samples, fixing the DMI field from independent flow-regime and BLS measurements. They show that an energy-only angular creep model overestimates the velocity asymmetry, while the full model with relaxed stiffness and chiral damping reproduces the measured angular profiles. The paper concludes that reliable DMI metrology from creep-regime angular profiles requires going beyond energy-only models and requires independent constraints on chiral damping and domain-wall stiffness.

Significance. If confirmed, the paper's message is important: angular creep velocity profiles are sensitive to stiffness and chiral damping, not just the equilibrium wall energy, so energy-only DMI extraction can be systematically biased. The use of independently measured DMI fields (flow-regime and BLS) is a methodological strength and avoids the circularity that plagues many DMI extraction studies. The explicit decomposition of the velocity into chiral-damping, β-prefactor, and creep-exponential terms (Eq. 7) is useful for the community. However, the central quantitative claim rests on two per-sample free parameters that the authors themselves acknowledge are not independently constrained, which limits the strength of the mechanistic conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [III, Figs. 3–4 and Conclusion] The central demonstration that the full model reproduces the measured profiles relies on the per-sample adjustable parameters α_CD and L. The manuscript explicitly states (near Figs. 3–4) that these are 'not independently constrained by the angular profile' and that L is 'a phenomenological parameter.' With two free parameters, the good visual agreement in Figs. 3–4 is a fitting exercise, not a stringent validation of stiffness and chiral damping as the physical origin. A quantitative sensitivity analysis is missing: the authors do not report the acceptable range of (α_CD, L), the goodness-of-fit, or whether the fit is unique. To support the claim that going beyond energy-only models 'requires' these specific contributions, the authors should either provide independent measurements (e.g., chiral damping from BLS linewidth asymmetry, stiffness from depinning theory) or demonstrate that th
  2. [III, Figs. 3–4] The model comparison is performed for only one field condition per sample (H_x=60 mT, H_z=8.8 mT for a4; H_x=-80 mT, H_z=-21.21 mT for a5). A single angular profile per sample cannot distinguish the proposed mechanism from other possible beyond-energy-only corrections (e.g., field-dependent orientation of the reference angle, misalignment, or a different stiffness relaxation law). If the authors intend the conclusion to be general, they should show that the same (α_CD, L) values reproduce profiles at multiple H_x and H_z, or at least demonstrate that the energy-only model fails systematically across a range of fields.
  3. [II, Eq. (3)] The stiffness relaxation length L enters through the function ζ(L/(2Λ)) in Eq. (3). While Fig. 2 uses L=5 nm for sample a5, Fig. 4 uses L=50 nm for the same sample. This inconsistency is not explained. If L is a material parameter, it should be the same for a given sample; if it is varied for illustrative purposes, the figure captions should say so. More generally, the paper does not discuss how L relates to the disorder/pinning length scale, which is essential for interpreting L as a physical quantity rather than a pure fit parameter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the model provides 'improved sensitivity for quantitative extraction of DMI and chiral dynamical effects,' but Section III and the Conclusion explicitly warn that v(θ) alone cannot determine H_DMI without independent constraints. The wording 'improved sensitivity' is too optimistic and could be tempered.
  2. [II, Eq. (5)] The reference angle θ_ref is arbitrary, but its choice can affect the relative importance of the chiral damping and β-prefactor terms. The authors use θ_ref=π in all figures. A brief discussion of the sensitivity of the decomposition to θ_ref would help.
  3. [III, 'Sharp kinks'] The discussion of sharp kinks in the calculated velocity profiles is plausible, but the paper does not show any kink visibly in the figures (only says 'may appear'). Adding an inset or zoom in Fig. 3 would illustrate this feature and support the argument about rounding by disorder.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states 'the magnetic parameters used refer to sample a5' and 'a value of L=5 nm is chosen.' This choice is puzzling because L=50 nm is later used for a5 in Fig. 4. Please clarify whether L=5 nm is an arbitrary choice for the illustration, and whether the qualitative conclusions change when L is varied over the range 5–90 nm.
  5. [General] There are minor typographical issues: 'Universitè' should be 'Université', and 'αcd' in Eq. (4) is written as α_cd in text and αCD in Table II. Standardizing notation would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: DMI inputs are external (flow/BLS), and the adjustable chiral-damping/stiffness knobs are explicitly acknowledged as unconstrained, not disguised predictions.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that creep-regime angular velocity profiles, with DMI fixed by flow-regime and BLS measurements, cannot be reproduced by an energy-only model and require additional elastic/dissipative terms. This comparison is not circular: H_DMI is taken from asymmetric bubble expansion in the flow regime and cross-checked with Brillouin light scattering, both external to the creep v(θ) data used in the comparison. The full model's success is a demonstration that, at those fixed DMI values, the energy-only family fails to match the measured profiles. The parameters α_CD and L are adjustable, and the paper explicitly states that they are 'not independently constrained by the angular profile' and that L is 'a phenomenological parameter' absorbing disorder, pinning, and curvature. Because the paper does not claim these parameters are independently predicted by the angular data—and instead warns that v(θ) should not be viewed as a stand-alone route to determine H_DMI—the underdetermination is an acknowledged scientific limitation rather than a circular step. Self-citations to prior work by the same group (refs. 26, 30) provide material parameters, curvature corrections, and BLS measurements, but they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the central claim. No equation is shown to reduce to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no qualifying circularity pattern is present; the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entity. Its explanatory content rests on two adjustable parameters (α_CD, L) that are fitted per sample; all other inputs (M_s, K_eff, A, χ0, H_DMI) are taken from independent measurements in refs [30], flow-regime, and BLS work.

free parameters (2)
  • Chiral damping strength α_CD = 0.8 (sample a4), 0.5 (sample a5)
    Adjusted to reproduce experimental v(θ); the paper states α_CD is not independently constrained by the angular profile (Section III).
  • Stiffness relaxation length L = 90 nm (sample a4), 50 nm (sample a5)
    Phenomenological parameter controlling stiffness relaxation in Eq. (3); not independently measured; absorbs disorder, pinning, and curvature effects (Section III).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Creep velocity has the normalized form v/v_ref = (α_ref/α)(σ~/σ~_ref)^β exp[-χ0 |Hz|^{-1/4}(r^{1/4}-r_ref^{1/4})]
    Takes the standard creep-scaling law from Lemerle/Chauve and Akosa et al. as applicable locally to each wall orientation θ; the numerical value of β is not given in the paper.
  • domain assumption Relaxed wall stiffness formula (Eq. 3), including the ζ(L/2Λ) interpolation, is valid for curved bubble segments
    Imported from Pellegren/Lau/Sokalski et al.; not re-derived for bubble geometry, and L is treated as a free phenomenological parameter.
  • domain assumption Chiral damping enters only through α_eff(θ) = α_G[1 + α_cd cos(ϕ_eq - θ)]
    Takes the chiral-damping model from Akosa et al.; no independent verification in these samples is provided.
  • domain assumption Curvature-induced effects on the bubble wall are negligible
    Stated in Section II following refs [26,28]; needed to justify using local planar wall formulas for the bubble edge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic domain wall velocity profiles in the creep regime: the interplay of chiral damping, stiffness and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FAPREHS

@misc{pith2026260725470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic domain wall velocity profiles in the creep regime: the interplay of chiral damping, stiffness and Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FAPREHS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25470}
}
abstract

The asymmetric expansion of magnetic bubble domains in ultrathin ferromagnets provides a powerful route to probe the interfacial Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI). While conventional analyses rely on domain wall velocities measured along selected directions as a function of in-plane field, recent approaches have highlighted the additional insight contained in the angular dependence of the velocity, $v(\theta)$. Here, we develop an extended angular creep model that incorporates both the dispersive domain wall stiffness and a chirality-dependent prefactor associated with chiral damping. This generalization captures the full anisotropic dynamics of domain wall motion around a bubble domain. We show that these contributions significantly modify the angular velocity profile and can lead to features not accessible within existing models. Our results establish a more complete framework for interpreting creep-driven domain expansion and provide improved sensitivity for the quantitative extraction of DMI and chiral dynamical effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Schematic picture of a magnetic bubble domain: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Logarithmic decomposition of the normalized angular velocity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Angular velocity profile for sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Angular velocity profile for sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Asymmetric bubble expansion measurements as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Domain-wall velocity measured as a function of out-of-plane field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Parkin, S.-H

    S. Parkin, S.-H. Yang,Nature Nanotechnology2015,10, 3 195

  2. [2]

    C. Song, C. Jin, J. Wang, H. Xia, J. Wang, Q. Liu,Applied Physics Letters2017,111, 19

  3. [3]

    Blasing, A

    R. Blasing, A. A. Khan, P. C. Filippou, C. Garg, F. Hameed, J. Castrillon, S. S. P. Parkin, Proceedings of the IEEE2020,108, 8 1303. 14

  4. [4]

    K. Gu, Y. Guan, B. K. Hazra, H. Deniz, A. Migliorini, W. Zhang, S. S. P. Parkin,Nature Nanotechnology2022,17, 10 1065

  5. [5]

    Thiaville, S

    A. Thiaville, S. Rohart, É. Jué, V. Cros, A. Fert,EPL (Europhysics Letters)2012,100, 5

    2012

  6. [6]

    E. Y. Vedmedenko, R. K. Kawakami, D. D. Sheka, P. Gambardella, A. Kirilyuk, A. Hirohata, C. Binek, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, S. Sanvito, B. J. Kirby, J. Grollier, K. Everschor-Sitte, T. Kampfrath, C. Y. You, A. Berger,Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics2020,53, 45

  7. [7]

    Kuepferling, A

    M. Kuepferling, A. Casiraghi, G. Soares, G. Durin, F. Garcia-Sanchez, L. Chen, C. H. Back, C. H. Marrows, S. Tacchi, G. CarlottiRev. Mod. Phys.2023,95,1,015003

    2023

  8. [8]

    Dzyaloshinsky,Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids1958,4, 4 241

    I. Dzyaloshinsky,Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids1958,4, 4 241

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Moriya,Physical Review1960,120, 1 91

    T. Moriya,Physical Review1960,120, 1 91

  2. [10]

    A. Fert, P. M. Levy,Physical Review Letters1980,44, 23 1538

  3. [11]

    Robertson, C

    M. Robertson, C. J. Agostino, G. Chen, S. P. Kang, A. Mascaraque, E. Garcia Michel, C. Won, Y. Wu, A. K. Schmid, K. Liu,Physical Review B2020,102, 2 024417

  4. [12]

    Ishikuro, M

    Y. Ishikuro, M. Kawaguchi, N. Kato, Y.-C. Lau, M. Hayashi,Physical Review B2019,99, 13 134421

  5. [13]

    Bhowmik, M

    D. Bhowmik, M. E. Nowakowski, L. You, O. Lee, D. Keating, M. Wong, J. Bokor, S. Salahud- din,Scientific Reports2015,5, 1 11823

  6. [14]

    S. G. Je, D. H. Kim, S. C. Yoo, B. C. Min, K. J. Lee, S. B. Choe,Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics2013,88, 21 1

  7. [15]

    Shahbazi, J

    K. Shahbazi, J. V. Kim, H. T. Nembach, J. M. Shaw, A. Bischof, M. D. Rossell, V. Jeudy, T. A. Moore, C. H. Marrows,Physical Review B2019,99

  8. [16]

    P. J. Metaxas, J. P. Jamet, A. Mougin, M. Cormier, J. Ferré, V. Baltz, B. Rodmacq, B. Dieny, R. L. Stamps,Physical Review Letters2007,99, 21 217208

  9. [17]

    Lemerle, J

    S. Lemerle, J. Ferré, C. Chappert, V. Mathet, T. Giamarchi, P. Le Doussal,Physical Review Letters1998,80, 4 849

  10. [18]

    Chauve, T

    P. Chauve, T. Giamarchi, P. Le Doussal,Physical Review B2000,62, 10 6241

  11. [19]

    D. Lau, J. P. Pellegren, H. T. Nembach, J. M. Shaw, V. Sokalski,Physical Review B2018, 98, 18 184410

  12. [20]

    Pellegren, D

    J. Pellegren, D. Lau, V. Sokalski,Physical Review Letters2017,119, 2 027203

  13. [21]

    D. M. Hartmann, R. A. Duine, M. J. Meijer, H. J. Swagten, R. Lavrijsen,Physical Review B 2019,100, 9 1. 15

    2019

  14. [22]

    E. Jué, C. Safeer, M. Drouard, A. Lopez, P. Balint, L. Buda-Prejbeanu, O. Boulle, S. Auffret, A. Schuhl, A. Manchon, I. M. Miron, G. Gaudin,Nature Materials2016,15, 3 272

  15. [23]

    C. A. Akosa, I. M. Miron, G. Gaudin, A. Manchon,Physical Review B2016,93, 21 214429

  16. [24]

    C. A. Akosa, G. Tatara, A. Manchon, M. Mochizuki,Physical Review B2024,110, 2 024420

  17. [25]

    Pakam, A

    T. Pakam, A. A. Adjanoh, S. D. M. Afenyiveh, J. Vogel, S. Pizzini, L. Ranno,Applied Physics Letters2024,124, 9 092403

  18. [26]

    Di Pietro, A

    A. Di Pietro, A. Magni, G. Durin, M. Kuepferling, G. Carlotti, M. Madami, C. Marrows, A. Huxtable, B. Hickey, S. Tacchi, E. Darwin,Physical Review Applied2025,24, 2 024044

  19. [27]

    A.Thiaville, J.García, J.Miltat,Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials2002,242-245 1061

  20. [28]

    Zhang, X

    Y. Zhang, X. Zhang, N. Vernier, Z. Zhang, G. Agnus, J.-R. Coudevylle, X. Lin, Y. Zhang, Y.-G. Zhang, W. Zhao, D. Ravelosona,Physical Review Applied2018,9, 6 064027

  21. [29]

    Magni, V

    A. Magni, V. Basso, A. Sola, G. Soares, N. Meggiato, M. Kuepferling, W. Skowronski, S. Lazarski, K. Grochot, M. V. Khanjani, J. Langer, B. Ocker,IEEE Transactions on Mag- netics2021,14, 8 0

  22. [30]

    A.Magni, G.Carlotti, A.Casiraghi, E.Darwin, G.Durin, L.H.Diez, B.J.Hickey, A.Huxtable, C. Y. Hwang, G. Jakob, C. Kim, M. Klaui, J. Langer, C. H. Marrows, H. T. Nembach, D. Rav- elosona, G. A. Riley, J. M. Shaw, V. Sokalski, S. Tacchi, M. Kuepferling,IEEE Transactions on Magnet...

  23. [31]

    Ha Pham, J

    T. Ha Pham, J. Vogel, J. Sampaio, M. Vaňatka, J.-C. Rojas-Sánchez, M. Bonfim, D. S. Chaves, F. Choueikani, P. Ohresser, E. Otero, A. Thiaville, S. Pizzini,EPL (Europhysics Letters)2016, 113, 6 67001

    2016

  24. [32]

    Magni, Datasets from INRIM and ULeeds for Round-Robin on DMI measurement from asymmetric bubble domain expansion,2022, URLhttps://zenodo.org/record/5844251

    A. Magni, Datasets from INRIM and ULeeds for Round-Robin on DMI measurement from asymmetric bubble domain expansion,2022, URLhttps://zenodo.org/record/5844251

    2022

  25. [33]

    Soucaille, M

    R. Soucaille, M. Belmeguenai, J. Torrejon, J.-V. Kim, T. Devolder, Y. Roussigné, S.-M. Chérif, A. A. Stashkevich, M. Hayashi, J.-P. Adam,Physical Review B2016,94, 10 104431

  26. [34]

    D.-Y. Kim, I. Berrai, T. Suraj, Y. Roussigné, S. Yang, M. Belmeguenai, F. Hu, G. Shi, H. R. Tan, J. Huang, A. Soumyanarayanan, K.-W. Kim, S. Mourad Cherif, H. Yang,Physical Review Letters2024,133, 15 156704

  27. [35]

    Krizakova, J

    V. Krizakova, J. P. Garcia, J. Vogel, N. Rougemaille, D. D. S. Chaves, S. Pizzini, A. Thiaville, Physical Review B2019,100, 21 214404. 16

  28. [36]

    J. P. Garcia, A. Fassatoui, M. Bonfim, J. Vogel, A. Thiaville, S. Pizzini,Physical Review B 2021,104, 1 014405

    2021

  29. [37]

    I. A. Yastremsky, O. M. Volkov, M. Kopte, T. Kosub, S. Stienen, K. Lenz, J. Lindner, J. Fass- bender, B. A. Ivanov, D. Makarov,Physical Review Applied2019,12, 6 064038

  30. [38]

    M. D. Kuz’min, K. P. Skokov, L. V. B. Diop, I. A. Radulov, O. Gutfleisch,The European Physical Journal Plus2020,135, 3 301

  31. [39]

    Devolder, J.-V

    T. Devolder, J.-V. Kim, L. Nistor, R. Sousa, B. Rodmacq, B. Dieny,Journal of Applied Physics 2016,120, 18 183902

    2016

  32. [40]

    H. J. Waring, Y. Li, N. A. B. Johansson, C. Moutafis, I. J. Vera-Marun, T. Thomson,Journal of Applied Physics2023,133, 6 063901. 17

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.