Nonreciprocity and Unidirectional Invisibility in Cavity Magnonics

B.M. Yao; C.-M. Hu; J. Q. You; J.W. Rao; Peng-Chao Xu; Yi-Pu Wang; Y.S. Gui; Y. Yang

Nonreciprocity and Unidirectional Invisibility in Cavity Magnonics

T0 review · 0 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 In an open cavity magnonic system, the interference of coherent and dissipative magnon-photon couplings yields linear, tunable nonreciprocal microwave transmission, and at zero-damping conditions one hybridized mode becomes completely…

desk verdict A solid experimental letter: coherent-dissipative interference gives a new, tunable nonreciprocity mechanism in cavity magnonics, and the one genuinely soft input — the assumed π phase flip between ports — is partially self-certifying through the mirror-symmetric zeros. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07907 v1 pith:LXKPW5RU submitted 2019-08-21 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Yi-Pu Wang , J.W. Rao , Y. Yang , Peng-Chao Xu , Y.S. Gui , B.M. Yao , J. Q. You , C.-M. Hu This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph

keywords cavitymagnonicsnonreciprocitydissipativemagnon-photoncouplingcoherentunidirectionalinvisibilityzero-dampingconditionlevelattractionmicrowaveisolation

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

This paper aims to show that an open cavity magnonic system, where a magnetic sphere simultaneously couples coherently and dissipatively to a microwave cavity, can break reciprocity in a linear and tunable way. The central effect is that at special zero-damping conditions one of the two hybridized magnon-photon modes becomes completely dark to microwaves arriving from one port while remaining transparent from the other. If correct, this offers a compact route to microwave isolators and one-way devices that does not rely on bulky ferrite components or nonlinearity, and the same interference mechanism could be transplanted to other platforms.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $\hat H/\hbar=\tilde\omega_c\hat a^\dagger\hat a+\tilde\omega_m\hat b^\dagger\hat b+(J-i\Gamma e^{i\Theta})(\hat a^\dagger\hat b+\hat b\hat a^\dagger)$, where $\tilde\omega_c=\omega_c-i\beta$ and $\tilde\omega_m=\omega_m-i\alpha$ contain the intrinsic dampings, $J$ is the coherent coupling rate, $\Gamma$ is the dissipative coupling rate, and $\Theta$ is the relative phase between the two couplings. The phase $\Theta$ is $0$ for port 1 and $\pi$ for port 2. In the input-output transmission formula, the coherent and dissipative paths interfere through a term proportional to $-2iJ\Gamma e^{i\Theta}$, which is the source of nonreciprocity. The zero-damping condition is the point where the imaginary part of a hybridized eigenvalue vanishes; at such points the transmission zeros of Eq. (3a) produce unidirectional invisibility.

What would settle it

The cleanest check is to tune the bias field through the zero-damping condition at $J=\Gamma$ and record $S_{21}$ and $S_{12}$: the central claim fails if the sharp dip in $|S_{21}(\omega_-)|$ is matched by an equally deep dip in $|S_{12}(\omega_-)|$, or if the residual transmission at the zero is measurably above the noise floor.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that when both coherent coupling (rate $J$) and dissipative coupling (rate $\Gamma$) act between cavity photons and magnons, the relative phase between the two couplings differs by $\pi$ for signals launched from opposite ports. This direction-dependent phase produces an interference term in the transmission coefficient, and at the zero-damping conditions, where one hybridized mode's intrinsic damping vanishes, the system exhibits unidirectional invisibility: $|S_{21}(\omega_-)|=|S_{12}(\omega_+)|=0$ while $|S_{12}(\omega_-)|=|S_{21}(\omega_+)|>0$, so one propagation direction is completely blocked at one hybridized-mode frequency and the opposite direction is blocked at the other. The authors verify this experimentally with a 1-mm yttrium iron garnet sphere in a cross-line microwave cavity, observing sharp one-way transmission dips at 4.615 GHz and 4.833 GHz, isolation ratios above 30 dB, and good agreement between their model and measurements over a broad parameter range.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the relative phase between the coherent and dissipative couplings differs by exactly $\pi$ for signals launched from opposite ports, because the traveling-wave field phase at the YIG sphere reverses with propagation direction; if the phase difference is not exactly $\pi$ or drifts with frequency, the perfect one-way zeros in Eq. (3a) become partial.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a zero-damping condition, one hybridized mode is completely dark to one port while the other direction passes, so a single compact device can act as a two-frequency one-way microwave blocker.
The nonreciprocity is linear and vanishes if either $J$ or $\Gamma$ is zero, showing that the effect is purely an interference of coherent and dissipative couplings rather than a nonlinear or Faraday-rotation mechanism.
Isolation ratio and insertion loss can be optimized together: the paper identifies a parameter region with isolation above 20 dB and insertion loss below 4 dB by choosing external damping rates $\kappa$ and $\gamma$.
The qualitative dispersion changes from level repulsion when $J>\Gamma$ to level attraction when $J<\Gamma$, and the isolation pattern follows the same competition between coupling strengths.
Because the interference mechanism is generic, the same scheme should produce nonreciprocity in any system where coherent and dissipative couplings can be engineered, potentially including superconducting circuits without an external magnetic field.

Reading between the lines

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

If the relative phase $\Theta$ were continuously tunable rather than fixed at $0$ or $\pi$, the isolation ratio should vary smoothly with $\Theta$; a phase-controlled experiment would directly test the interference picture and could yield an electrically tunable isolator.
The zero-damping condition is a point where the imaginary parts of the eigenvalues vanish, which is reminiscent of exceptional-point physics; this might be exploited for sensitive detection or for lossless mode selection beyond the two modes studied here.
The paper's final remark suggests a superconducting-circuit realization; if that works, the same coherent-dissipative interference could provide on-chip microwave nonreciprocity in the quantum regime, where linear isolators are especially scarce.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a good paper, and the central claim holds up. The new physics is the interference term −2iJΓe^{iΘ} in the transmission, which breaks reciprocity when the relative phase between the coherent and dissipative couplings flips by π between propagation directions. Prior work from this group and others established dissipative magnon-photon coupling and level attraction; nobody had shown the nonreciprocity or the unidirectional invisibility. That is a real step past the earlier letters, not a repackaging.

What the paper does well: the model is simple, the analytic expression in Eq. (2) is derived cleanly, and the experimental evidence is broad. They show dispersion, mode damping, and isolation maps for J<Γ, J=Γ, and J>Γ, and the agreement across all three regimes is good. The cleanest result is the mirror symmetry in the zeros — the dip sits at ω− for one port and at ω+ for the other. That is a specific, non-generic fingerprint. An ordinary ferrite Faraday effect would not produce sharp, mode-selective, mirror-symmetric zeros. So the measured data gives real circumstantial support for the phase-reversal assumption, even though the phase itself is never directly measured.

The soft spots, in proportion. The stress-test note is partly right: everything is fitted to the same magnitude-only S-parameter maps, and the exact zeros of Eq. (3a) are postdictions, not independent predictions. There are no error bars, and the measured dip depth is likely set by the VNA noise floor, so 'complete blocking' is inferred from the model, not read off the data. The phase assumption is the least supported input. But the worry that ordinary ferrite bias effects could explain the nonreciprocity does not survive contact with the data: the effect has the wrong spectral signature, it vanishes when J or Γ goes to zero, and the isolation structure tracks the hybridized-mode dispersion across three coupling regimes. I would call the phase issue a moderate caveat to acknowledge in revision, not a load-bearing flaw.

One minor thing: the higher-order magnetostatic mode is mentioned and then set aside; that is fine for a letter, but worth a sentence of sensitivity analysis if a referee pushes.

Who this is for: people in cavity magnonics, and anyone working on linear nonreciprocal microwave devices. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review and expect it to land, with revisions asking for (a) an explicit statement that the π phase flip is an assumption, (b) parameter uncertainties or at least a fit-procedure description, and (c) a sentence on how far the measured dip is from the model's zero.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an experimental and theoretical study of nonreciprocal microwave transmission in an open cavity magnonic system, in which a YIG sphere is coupled to a cross-line cavity supporting both standing and traveling waves. The authors model the system with a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian containing coherent coupling J and dissipative coupling Γ whose relative phase depends on whether the microwave field is launched from port 1 or port 2. From input-output theory they derive an analytic expression for S21 and S12 and show that at zero-damping conditions one of the hybridized modes yields a perfect transmission zero in one propagation direction only (Eq. 3). Measured S-parameter maps, hybridized-mode damping rates, and isolation-ratio maps are reported for balanced (J=Γ), dissipative-dominated (J<Γ), and coherent-dominated (J>Γ) regimes, and the model reproduces the data with fitted parameters J, Γ, α, β, κ, and γ. The unidirectional transmission dips at 4.615 and 4.833 GHz and the mirror-symmetric pattern predicted by Eq. (3) are the key experimental findings.

Significance. The result is significant as a compact, linear, magnetically tunable nonreciprocal microwave device based on a qualitatively different mechanism from Faraday-rotation isolators: interference between coherent and dissipative couplings. If correct, it also provides a generic route to nonreciprocity in other hybrid systems. Strengths include the analytic input-output derivation, the clear identification of zero-damping conditions as the locus of unidirectional invisibility, the systematic comparison across J<Γ, J=Γ, J>Γ, and the measurement of both isolation ratio and insertion loss, including a parameter regime with >20 dB isolation and <4 dB insertion loss. The model's predicted mirror-symmetric zero pattern is nontrivial and is confirmed by the data.

minor comments (6)

[Experimental results, Figs. 2(e)-(h)] The statement that microwave transmission from port 1 to port 2 is 'completely blocked' should be quantified, because the measured dips are finite and limited by the VNA background; please report the noise floor or the minimum measured |S21|/|S12| at the dips.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption labels '(a) J = Γ, (b) J < Γ, and (c) J > Γ' do not match the actual panels, which are (a), (c), (e) for the measured maps and (b), (d), (f) for the calculated maps; correct the caption.
[Eq. (2)] The compressed notation S21(12) and Θ1(2) should be expanded, for example as 'S21 uses Θ1=0 and S12 uses Θ2=π', to remove ambiguity about the direction convention.
[System and model] The sentence invoking Ampère's law for the π phase difference would be clearer if it cited the supplementary derivation at that point and noted that the condition is an idealization for a perfect traveling wave; the standing-wave component of the cross-line circuit will modify the phase.
[Supplementary material] The arXiv version references supplementary material [54] that is not included; ensure the supplement is uploaded for referees.
[Fig. 2 caption] The '∼' symbols in the caption appear to be leftover LaTeX artifacts and should be removed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

The unidirectional-invisibility 'prediction' is a postdiction from parameters fitted to the same spectra; the assumed π phase difference carries the nonreciprocity.

fitted input called prediction [Experimental results, discussion of Figs. 2(c)-(h) and 3]
"Two pairs of ZDCs predicted by Eq. (1) are observed, as marked by the arrows in Figs. 2(c) and (d). ... The calculated result using κ/2π = 880 MHz and γ/2π = 0.071 MHz, based on fitting Eq. (2) to the measured spectrum [54], is plotted as the thin curves for comparison."

The ZDC 'prediction' and the calculated transmission curves used to 'confirm' unidirectional invisibility are generated from parameters (J, Γ, α, β, κ, γ) that are themselves fitted to the same measured S-parameter spectra that display the ZDC dips and the S21/S12 asymmetry. The fitted eigenvalue curves enforce the zero crossings, and κ,γ are adjusted to make Eq. (2) reproduce the measured dip spectra, so the agreement is a postdiction. The direction-dependent phase difference (Θ1=0, Θ2=π) is an assumed input, not a fitted parameter; the qualitative nonreciprocal asymmetry therefore has independent content. But the quantitative prediction of exact zeros is not independently tested.

full rationale

The analytic chain from the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian Eq. (1) to the transmission formula Eq. (2) and to the zero-transmission conditions Eq. (3) is mathematically self-contained; the zeros are consequences of the input Hamiltonian, not restatements of it. The central nonreciprocity does depend on the assumed direction-dependent relative phase (Θ=0 for port 1, Θ=π for port 2), which is physically motivated by Ampère's law but not independently measured. Because all other parameters are fitted to the same spectra that exhibit the ZDC dips, the quantitative 'confirmation' of unidirectional invisibility is a postdiction rather than an a priori prediction. This is a partial fit-to-data circularity, but the qualitative effect (the asymmetric zeros and the mirror symmetry between S21 and S12) is a nontrivial consequence of the model, so the paper is not wholly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on a single-mode description (one cavity mode, one uniform magnon mode), a complex coupling Hamiltonian with a direction-dependent phase, and standard input-output theory. The phase difference of π between the two ports is physically motivated but not independently measured. Higher-order magnetostatic modes are neglected and invoked to explain a small residual peak.

free parameters (6)

J (coherent magnon-photon coupling rate) = 7.9 MHz in balanced case; 5.5 MHz and 15.5 MHz in other configurations
Fitted to match measured dispersion and transmission spectra in Figs. 2 and 3.
Gamma (dissipative magnon-photon coupling rate) = 7.9 MHz in balanced case; 30.5 MHz and 7.0 MHz in other configurations
Fitted together with J to reproduce spectra and isolation maps.
alpha (intrinsic magnon damping rate) = 1.1 MHz
Fitted to the measured hybridized mode damping rates in Fig. 2(c,d).
beta (intrinsic cavity damping rate) = 15 MHz
Fitted to the measured hybridized mode damping rates in Fig. 2(c,d).
kappa (external damping rate of cavity mode) = 880 MHz
Fitted to the measured transmission spectrum via Eq. (2), used in Figs. 2(e-h).
gamma (external damping rate of magnon mode) = 0.071 MHz
Fitted to the measured transmission spectrum via Eq. (2), used in Figs. 2(e-h).

assumptions (4)

standard math Input-output theory gives the transmission coefficient S21(12) from the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian (Eq. 2).
Standard scattering theory for coupled modes; accepted background.
domain assumption The system is described by one cavity mode and one uniform magnon (Kittel) mode; higher-order magnetostatic modes are neglected.
A small residual isolation peak above 4.8 GHz is attributed to a higher-order mode and excluded from the model.
domain assumption The coupling is modeled by the complex coefficient J - iΓe^{iΘ} in Eq. (1).
This form encodes coherent plus dissipative coupling; it is assumed, not derived in the main text.
domain assumption The relative phase Θ differs by π between the two propagation directions, based on Ampère's law.
This is the load-bearing premise for nonreciprocity; not independently measured, but consistent with the observed nonreciprocal response.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonreciprocity and Unidirectional Invisibility in Cavity Magnonics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LXKPW5RU

@misc{pith2026190807907,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonreciprocity and Unidirectional Invisibility in Cavity Magnonics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LXKPW5RU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07907}
}

read the original abstract

We reveal the cooperative effect of coherent and dissipative magnon-photon couplings in an open cavity magnonic system, which leads to nonreciprocity with a considerably large isolation ratio and flexible controllability. Furthermore, we discover unidirectional invisibility for microwave propagation, which appears at the zero-damping condition for hybrid magnon-photon modes. A simple model is developed to capture the generic physics of the interference between coherent and dissipative couplings, which accurately reproduces the observations over a broad range of parameters. This general scheme could inspire methods to achieve nonreciprocity in other systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07907 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (color online). (a)(c)(e) Measured isolation ratio as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (color online). Isolation ratio near the side isolation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

2008
[2]

losing generality, we choose Θ = 0 and π for microwaves loaded from port 1 and 2, respectively

(b)(c) Schematic diagram showing magnon-photon cou- pling and nonreciprocal microwave transmission at the zero- damping conditions (ZDCs). losing generality, we choose Θ = 0 and π for microwaves loaded from port 1 and 2, respectively. The eigenvalues of Eq. (1), ~ω± = [ ~ωc + ~ωm ±√ (~ωc−~ωm)2 + 4(J−ieiΘΓ)2] /2, correspond to two hy- bridized modes that h...

work page
[3]

Caloz, A

C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-L´ eger, Electromagnetic nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 047001 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

B. J. Chapman, E. I. Rosenthal, J. Kerckhoﬀ, B. A. Moores, L. R. Vale, J. A. B. Mates, G. C. Hilton, K. Lalumi` ere, A. Blais, and K. W. Lehnert, Widely Tun- able On-Chip Microwave circulator for superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041043 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

N. R. Bernier, L. D. T´ oth, A. Koottandavida, M. A. Ioan- nou, D. Malz, A. Nunnenkamp, A. K. Feofanov, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nonreciprocal reconﬁgurable microwave 5 optomechanical circuit, Nat. Comms. 8 604 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

G. A. Peterson, F. Lecocq, K. Cicak, R. W. Simmonds, J. Aumentado, and J. D. Teufel, Demonstration of eﬃ- cient nonreciprocity in a microwave optomechanical cir- cuit, Phy. Rev. X 7, 031001 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Lecocq, L

F. Lecocq, L. Ranzani, G. A. Peterson, K. Cicak, R. W. Aumentado, J. D. Teufel, and J. Aumentado, Nonreciprocal microwave signal processing with a ﬁeld- programmable Josephson ampliﬁer, Phys. Rev. Applied 7, 024028 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Shalaby, M

M. Shalaby, M. Peccianti, Y. Ozturk, and R. Morandotti, A magnetic non-reciprocal isolator for broadband tera- hertz operation, Nat. Comms. 4, 1558 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 55 references

[9]

M.-A. Miri, F. Ruesink, E. Verhagen, and A. Al` u, Optical nonreciprocity based on optomechanical coupling, Phys. Rev. Applied 7, 064014 (2017)

2017
[10]

D. L. Sounas and A. Al` u, Non-reciprocal photonics based on time modulation, Nat. Phot. 11, 774 (2017)

2017
[11]

Ramezani, P

H. Ramezani, P. K. Jha, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, Non- reciprocal localization of photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 043901 (2018)

2018
[12]

K. Fang, J. Luo, A. Metelmann, M. H. Matheny, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and O. Painter, Generalized non-reciprocity in an optomechanical circuit via synthetic magnetism and reservoir engineering, Nat. Phys. 13, 465 (2017)

2017
[13]

Shen, Y.-L

Z. Shen, Y.-L. Zhang, Y. Chen, C.-L. Zou, Y.-F. Xiao, X.-B. Zou, F.-W. Sun, G.-C. Guo, and C.-H. Dong, Ex- perimental realization of optomechanically induced non- reciprocity, Nat. Phot. 10 657 (2016)

2016
[14]

Goulon, A

J. Goulon, A. Rogalev, C. Goulon-Ginet, G. Benayoun, L. Paolasini, C. Brouder, C. Malgrange, and P. A. Met- calf, First observation of nonreciprocal X-Ray gyrotropy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4385 (2000)

2000
[15]

Fleury, D

R. Fleury, D. L. Sounas, C. F. Sieck, M. R. Haberman, and A. Al` u, Sound isolation and giant linear nonreciproc- ity in a compact acoustic circulator, Science 343, 516 (2014)

2014
[16]

Walker, A

E. Walker, A. Neogi, A. Bozhko, Yu. Zubov, J. Arriaga, H. Heo, J. Ju, and A. A. Krokhin, Nonreciprocal linear transmission of sound in a viscous environment with bro- ken P symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 204501 (2018)

2018
[17]

Y. Wang, B. Yousefzadeh, H. Chen, H. Nassar, G. Huang, and C. Daraio, Observation of nonreciprocal wave prop- agation in a dynamic phononic lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 194301 (2018)

2018
[18]

Torrent, O

D. Torrent, O. Poncelet, and J.-C. Batsale, Nonreciprocal thermal material by spatiotemporal modulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 125501 (2018)

2018
[19]

Faraday, in Faraday’s Diary, edited by T

M. Faraday, in Faraday’s Diary, edited by T. Martin (George Bell and Sons, 1933), Vol. IV, Nov. 12, 1839C, June 26, 1847

1933
[20]

C. L. Hogan, The ferromagnetic faraday eﬀect at mi- crowave frequencies and its applications, Rev. Mod. Phys. 25, 253 (1953)

1953
[21]

J. H. Rowen, Ferrites in microwave applications, Bell Syst. Tech. J., 32 1333 (1953)

1953
[22]

J. D. Adam, L. E. Davis, G. F. Dionne, E. F. Schloemann, and S. N. Stizer, Ferrite devices and materials, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 50, 721 (2002)

2002
[23]

B. K. Kuanr, V. Veerakumar, R. Marson, S. R. Mishra, R. E. Camley, Z. Celinski, Nonreciprocal microwave de- vices based on magnetic nanowires, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94 202505 (2009)

2009
[24]

Metelmann and A

A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, Nonreciprocal photon transmission and ampliﬁcation via reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025 (2015)

2015
[25]

Ranzani, and J

L. Ranzani, and J. Aumentado, A geometric description of nonreciprocity in coupled two-mode systems, New J. Phys. 16, 103027 (2014)

2014
[26]

Y. Shi, Z. Yu, and S. Fan, Limitations of nonlinear optical isolators due to dynamic reciprocity, Nat. Photon. 9, 388 (2015)

2015
[27]

Huebl, C

H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, High cooperativity in coupled microwave resonator ferri- magnetic insulator hybrids, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 127003 (2013)

2013
[28]

Tabuchi, S

Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014)

2014
[29]

Zhang, C.-L

X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014)

2014
[30]

Goryachev, W

M. Goryachev, W. G. Farr, D. L. Creedon, Y. Fan, M. Kostylev, and M. E. Tobar, High-cooperativity cavity QED with magnons at microwave frequencies, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2, 054002 (2014)

2014
[31]

L. Bai, M. Harder, Y. P. Chen, X. Fan, J. Q. Xiao, and C.-M. Hu, Spin pumping in electrodynamically coupled magnon-photon systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 227201 (2015)

2015
[32]

Y. Cao, P. Yan, H. Huebl, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and G. E. W. Bauer, Exchange magnon-polaritons in microwave cavities, Phys. Rev. B 91, 094423 (2015)

2015
[33]

L. Bai, M. Harder, P. Hyde, Z. Zhang, C.-M. Hu, Y. P. Chen, and J. Q. Xiao, Cavity mediated manipulation of distant spin currents using a cavity-magnon-polariton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 217201 (2017)

2017
[34]

Zhang, Xiao-Qing Luo, Yi-Pu Wang, T.-F Li, and J

D. Zhang, Xiao-Qing Luo, Yi-Pu Wang, T.-F Li, and J. Q. You, Observation of the exceptional point in cavity magnon-polaritons, Nat. Comms. 8 1368 (2017)

2017
[35]

Tabuchi, S

Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Coherent coupling between a ferromagnetic magnon and a superconducting qubit, Science 349, 405 (2015)

2015
[36]

Lachance-Quirion, Y

D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, and Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excitations in a millimeter-sized ferromagnet, Sci. Adv. 3, e1603150 (2017)

2017
[37]

Osada, R

A. Osada, R. Hisatomi, A. Noguchi, Y. Tabuchi, R. Ya- mazaki, K. Usami, M. Sadgrove, R. Yalla, M. Nomura, and Y. Nakamura, Cavity optomagnonics with spin-orbit coupled photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 223601 (2016)

2016
[38]

Zhang, N

X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, Opto- magnonic whispering gallery microresonators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 123605 (2016)

2016
[39]

J. A. Haigh, A. Nunnenkamp, A. J. Ramsay, and A. J. Ferguson, Triple-resonant Brillouin light scattering in magneto-optical cavities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 133602 (2016)

2016
[40]

Hisatomi, A

R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Bidirectional conversion between microwave and light via ferromagnetic magnons, Phys. Rev. B 93, 174427 (2016)

2016
[41]

Braggio, G

C. Braggio, G. Carugno, M. Guarise, A. Ortolan, and G. 6 Ruoso, Optical manipulation of a magnon-photon hybrid system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 107205 (2017)

2017
[42]

Zhang, C.-L

X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, N. Zhu, F. Marquardt, L. Jiang, H. X. Tang, Magnon dark modes and gradient memory, Nat. Comms. 6 8914 (2015)

2015
[43]

Dany Lachance-Quirion, Yutaka Tabuchi, Arnaud Gloppe, Koji Usami, and Yasunobu Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Applied Physics Express 12, 070101 (2019)

2019
[44]

Michael Harder and Can-Ming Hu, Cavity Spintronics: An Early Review of Recent Progress in the Study of Magnon-Photon Level Repulsion, Solid State Physics, 69, 47-121 (2018). R. Stamps and R. Camley (Ed.), Aca- demic Press

2018
[45]

Harder, Y

M. Harder, Y. Yang, B. M. Yao, C. H. Yu, J. W. Rao, Y. S. Gui, R. L. Stamps, and C.-M. Hu, Level attraction due to dissipative magnon-photon coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 137203 (2018)

2018
[46]

V. L. Grigoryan, K. Shen, and K. Xia, Synchronized spin- photon coupling in a microwave cavity, Phys. Rev. B 98, 024406 (2018)

2018
[47]

B. Bhoi, B. Kim, S.-H. Jang, J. Kim, J. Yang, Y.-J. Cho, and S.-K. Kim, Abnormal anticrossing eﬀect in photon- magnon coupling, Phys. Rev. B 99, 134426 (2019)

2019
[48]

Y. Yang, J. W. Rao, Y. S. Gui, B. M. Yao, W. Lu, and C.-M. Hu, Control of the magnon-photon level attraction in a planar cavity, Phys. Rev. Applied11, 054023 (2019)

2019
[49]

Rao, C.H Yu, Y.T Zhao, Y.S

J.W. Rao, C.H Yu, Y.T Zhao, Y.S. Gui, X.L. Fan, D.S. Xue, and C.-M. Hu, Level attraction and level repulsion of magnon coupled with a cavity anti-resonance, New J. Phys. 21, 065001 (2019)

2019
[50]

Boventer, C

I. Boventer, C. D¨ orﬂinger, T. Wolz, R. Macˆ edo, R. Le- brum, M. Kl¨ aui, and Martin Weides, Control of the cou- pling strength and linewidth of a cavity-magnon polari- ton, arXiv:1904.00393

1904 arXiv
[51]

Igor Proskurin, Rair Macedo, Robert L Stamps, Micro- scopic origin of level attraction for a coupled magnon- photon system in a microwave cavity, arXiv:1904.11570

1904 arXiv
[52]

Blanter, Microscopic mechanism of level attraction from coherence-dissipation competition, arXiv:1906.12142

Bimu Yao, Tao Yu, Xiang Zhang, Wei Lu, Yongsheng Gui, Can-Ming Hu, Yaroslav M. Blanter, Microscopic mechanism of level attraction from coherence-dissipation competition, arXiv:1906.12142

1906 arXiv
[53]

Weichao Yu, Jiongjie Wang, H. Y. Yuan, and Jiang Xiao, Realization of Attractive Level Crossing via a Dissipative Mode, arXiv:1907.06222

1907 arXiv
[54]

L. D. T´ oth, N. R. Bernier, A. Nunnenkamp, A. K. Fe- ofanov, and T. J. Kippenberg, A dissipative quantum reservoir for microwave light using a mechanical oscilla- tor, Nat. Phys. 13, 787 (2017)

2017
[55]

See supplementary at

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

2008

[2] [2]

losing generality, we choose Θ = 0 and π for microwaves loaded from port 1 and 2, respectively

(b)(c) Schematic diagram showing magnon-photon cou- pling and nonreciprocal microwave transmission at the zero- damping conditions (ZDCs). losing generality, we choose Θ = 0 and π for microwaves loaded from port 1 and 2, respectively. The eigenvalues of Eq. (1), ~ω± = [ ~ωc + ~ωm ±√ (~ωc−~ωm)2 + 4(J−ieiΘΓ)2] /2, correspond to two hy- bridized modes that h...

work page

[3] [3]

Caloz, A

C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-L´ eger, Electromagnetic nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. Applied 10, 047001 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

B. J. Chapman, E. I. Rosenthal, J. Kerckhoﬀ, B. A. Moores, L. R. Vale, J. A. B. Mates, G. C. Hilton, K. Lalumi` ere, A. Blais, and K. W. Lehnert, Widely Tun- able On-Chip Microwave circulator for superconducting quantum circuits, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041043 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

N. R. Bernier, L. D. T´ oth, A. Koottandavida, M. A. Ioan- nou, D. Malz, A. Nunnenkamp, A. K. Feofanov, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nonreciprocal reconﬁgurable microwave 5 optomechanical circuit, Nat. Comms. 8 604 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

G. A. Peterson, F. Lecocq, K. Cicak, R. W. Simmonds, J. Aumentado, and J. D. Teufel, Demonstration of eﬃ- cient nonreciprocity in a microwave optomechanical cir- cuit, Phy. Rev. X 7, 031001 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Lecocq, L

F. Lecocq, L. Ranzani, G. A. Peterson, K. Cicak, R. W. Aumentado, J. D. Teufel, and J. Aumentado, Nonreciprocal microwave signal processing with a ﬁeld- programmable Josephson ampliﬁer, Phys. Rev. Applied 7, 024028 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Shalaby, M

M. Shalaby, M. Peccianti, Y. Ozturk, and R. Morandotti, A magnetic non-reciprocal isolator for broadband tera- hertz operation, Nat. Comms. 4, 1558 (2013)

work page 2013