Co-existence of Bloch and Neel walls in a collinear antiferromagnet

C. L. Degen; M. Fiebig; M. Giraldo; M. S. Wornle; P. Gambardella; P. Welter; T. Lottermoser

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 74 references

Co-existence of Bloch and Neel walls in a collinear antiferromagnet

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-27 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nanoscale magnetometry resolves antiferromagnetic Cr2O3 domain walls, finding predominantly Bloch-like walls and chiral Néel walls where in-plane anisotropy is strong.

desk verdict First measurement of the internal wall structure in a bulk antiferromagnet; the result is likely right, but 'Néel' is a generous label and the straight-wall fit deserves a robustness test. read the letter →

arxiv 2009.09015 v2 pith:RIRYJROJ submitted 2020-09-18 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph

M. S. Wornle , P. Welter , M. Giraldo , T. Lottermoser , M. Fiebig , P. Gambardella , C. L. Degen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph PACS 75.60.Ch75.50.Ee

keywords antiferromagneticdomainwallsBlochwallNéelCr2O3scanningNVmagnetometrysecond-harmonicgenerationdomain-wallchiralityin-planemagneticanisotropy

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 resolves the internal spin structure of 180° domain walls in the model antiferromagnet Cr2O3, a quantity that had never been measured in a bulk intrinsic antiferromagnet. Using NV scanning diamond magnetometry combined with second-harmonic-generation microscopy, it finds that walls in two low-anisotropy crystals are predominantly Bloch-like, with widths of about 34–65 nm. In a third crystal with unusually strong in-plane anisotropy, Bloch and Néel walls coexist: walls running perpendicular to an in-plane easy axis become Néel-like with a well-defined left chirality, while walls at larger tilt angles remain Bloch-like. The interpretation is that a weak residual demagnetizing field from the wall favors Bloch walls, and that sufficiently strong in-plane anisotropy can overturn this preference. If correct, the same measurement strategy can be applied to other antiferromagnets, and the wall type—which controls how efficiently current can move the wall—becomes a designable material property.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-dimensional static domain-wall profile of a collinear antiferromagnet, parametrized by the wall width Δ and the twist angle χ between the wall magnetization and the wall normal. The model starts from the exchange–anisotropy energy, whose minimizer is θ(x) = ±2 arctan exp(x/Δ) with χ constant, making Bloch and Néel walls degenerate. The paper then adds two weak symmetry-breaking terms—a residual demagnetizing field µ0M that favors Bloch walls (χ = ±π/2) and an in-plane anisotropy K_ip that favors spins along an in-plane easy axis, i.e., Néel or mixed walls—and uses the resulting energy to predict how χ and Δ depend on wall orientation. The experimental machinery is scanning NV diamond magnetometry: the sensor measures one projection of the stray field at a height of about 65 nm, the expected field from the model is computed by Fourier-space forward propagation, and a least-squares fit to each line scan extracts σ0_z, Δ, and χ. This fit procedure applied to roughly a thousand line scans per sample is what converts a stray-field image into an assignment of wall type and chirality.

What would settle it

Measure a single isolated domain wall with the NV sensor at two different heights (for example 50 nm and 100 nm) and compare the fitted twist angle and width: a true uniform one-dimensional wall must give the same (χ, Δ) at both heights within error, while a systematic shift would prove the 1D profile assumption is biasing the wall-type assignment. Alternatively, image the same wall with a probe that has direct in-plane magnetization sensitivity, such as spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy or Lorentz transmission electron microscopy, and check that the walls labeled Néel have their in-plane magnetization parallel to the wall normal while Bloch walls have it perpendicular.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the internal spin structure of 180° domain walls in the intrinsic antiferromagnet Cr2O3 is not fixed by the strong exchange and uniaxial anisotropy alone, but by a balance of weak energies: the residual demagnetizing field of the wall, the in-plane magnetocrystalline anisotropy, and possibly wall-localized chiral interactions. Quantitatively, the wall magnetization profile follows the one-dimensional static solution with a uniform twist angle χ and width Δ; fits to thousands of NV stray-field line scans yield χ close to 90°–117° and Δ ≈ 34–65 nm. In the high-in-plane-anisotropy crystal, walls oriented within about 9° of the direction perpendicular to an in-plane easy axis twist to χ ≈ 143°, i.e., they are Néel-like with left chirality, whereas other orientations stay Bloch-like; the corresponding wall width shrinks from about 65 nm to 42 nm, consistent with the demagnetizing-field model. The paper also reports a surface magnetization σ0_z of 1.6–2.3 µB/nm², only 15–21% of the ideal value for a perfectly ordered Cr3+ surface, which it attributes to partial disorder in the topmost layer.

Load-bearing premise

The fits assume that each measured wall is exactly the one-dimensional static solution of the exchange-anisotropy model, with a single uniform twist angle and width along the whole wall, so any curvature, fluctuation, or sensor-height error in the real wall gets folded into the fitted twist angle and could misclassify a wall.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Antiferromagnetic domain walls in uniaxial crystals with negligible in-plane anisotropy will generally be Bloch-like, because the residual demagnetizing field of the wall breaks the Bloch/Néel degeneracy.
In crystals with appreciable in-plane anisotropy, Néel walls appear when the wall runs perpendicular to an in-plane easy axis, so the wall type can be selected by the wall's orientation relative to the crystal axes.
The measured wall widths (34–65 nm) and the narrower Néel-to-Bloch width ratio of about 0.65 provide a quantitative calibration of the exchange, anisotropy, and wall-moment energy scales in Cr2O3.
The left-chiral preference of the Néel walls indicates a broken chiral symmetry at the wall, most plausibly a wall-localized Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya or higher-order chiral interaction that theory will need to identify.
Current-driven domain-wall motion in antiferromagnets is predicted to be far more efficient for Néel walls, so this work identifies which materials and wall orientations will actually host the motion-friendly wall type.

Reading between the lines

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

If the residual demagnetizing field is what selects Bloch walls, then reducing sample thickness or introducing an in-plane easy axis could deliberately engineer Néel-wall racetracks in antiferromagnetic insulators; this is a design rule the paper does not state but its model directly suggests.
The fitted twist angle assumes a single uniform χ along each wall; re-analyzing the same data with a model that allows χ to vary along the wall would show whether the observed scatter in χ is intrinsic wall curvature or a fitting artifact.
The strong deficit of the surface magnetization (≈20% of ideal) could be tested with a genuinely surface-sensitive probe such as spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy or X-ray magnetic circular dichroism, which would detect the predicted disorder in the topmost Cr3+ layer directly.
The sharp 9° threshold between Néel and Bloch behavior offers a quantitative anisotropy sensor: mapping wall type against orientation in strained or doped Cr2O3 samples should make the threshold angle track the in-plane anisotropy strength in a predictable way.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Request a human review

A listed scientist reviews the paper for a fee and the review publishes here regardless of verdict. See the reviewers or get listed.

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 the first measurement of the internal wall spin structure in a bulk intrinsic antiferromagnet, and the central claim is probably correct. The paper does a lot of things right: thousands of line scans, two independent analysis routes, explicit checks on the stand-off distance, and a sensible explanation for why Cr2O3 shows Bloch walls while sample C with stronger in-plane anisotropy shows mixed Néel-type walls.

What's new: the coexistence of Bloch and Néel-type walls and the chirality bias is new; the theoretical framework is standard, but applying it with NV magnetometry to Cr2O3 is a real step. The width ratio comparison with Eq. (6) is a nice independent-ish check. Citations look fair, and previous work is properly credited.

Soft spots, in order of seriousness: - Calling the χ≈143° walls 'Néel' overstates the case; 143° is 37° from pure Néel, so they're mixed with a substantial Bloch component. The text sometimes says 'Néel-type or mixed,' so this is more a labeling problem than a conceptual one, but the abstract and Figure 5 use 'Néel' without qualification. - The stress-test about the 1D straight-wall profile: yes, for a straight wall along y the field is insensitive to σy, and a curved wall could in principle bias the inferred χ. I don't think it's fatal though. To push χ from, say, 0 to 90° you'd need curvature of order 90° over the scan, which isn't visible. And the fact that χ shows no correlation with wall orientation α for samples A and B is evidence against a systematic tilt effect. Still, a simulation with a slightly curved wall would close the loop. - The predicted width ratio 0.85 vs observed 0.65±0.10 isn't great; it's about 2 standard deviations off. They call it 'reasonable,' but the discrepancy hints that the model's assumptions about the anisotropy or demagnetizing field are approximate. - The chirality asymmetry is conspicuous but unexplained; the authors are honest about that and point to future theory.

Who should read this: anyone in antiferromagnetic spintronics or domain-wall physics, and NV magnetometry people. It's a solid experimental paper. I'd send it to peer review, with a request that the authors qualify the 'Néel' wording and ideally test the straight-wall assumption.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports nanoscale scanning diamond magnetometry (NSDM) and second-harmonic-generation microscopy measurements of 180° domain walls in three bulk single crystals of the collinear antiferromagnet Cr2O3. The authors fit the stray-field cross-sections to a one-dimensional domain-wall model, extracting the twist angle χ, the wall width Δ, and the effective surface magnetization σ0_z. They find that in two crystals (samples A and B) the walls are predominantly Bloch-like, while in a third crystal (sample C) with unusually strong in-plane anisotropy both Néel and Bloch walls coexist, with Néel walls appearing when the wall runs nearly perpendicular to an in-plane easy axis and acquiring a preferred (left) chirality. The measured width ratio Δ_Néel/Δ_Bloch = 0.65 ± 0.10 is compared with a simple theoretical estimate. The paper claims the first quantitative measurement of the internal spin structure of domain walls in a bulk intrinsic antiferromagnet.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial advance: it provides the first nanoscale, quantitative measurement of the internal spin structure of domain walls in a bulk antiferromagnet, a quantity that has remained experimentally inaccessible despite its importance for antiferromagnetic spintronics and for understanding domain-wall energetics. The study has notable strengths: a large statistical sample (2,512, 726, and 1,012 line scans for samples A, B, and C), two independent analysis routes (least-squares and maximum-likelihood), explicit robustness checks against standoff distance uncertainty, and a physically motivated correlation between wall orientation and wall type. The forward-model fitting is clearly described and reproducible from the supplement. These strengths make the central classification credible, but the interpretation depends on an assumption that is not fully tested.

major comments (3)

[IV.B and Supplement Eq. (5)] The fitted twist angle χ is the sole observable that distinguishes Bloch from Néel walls, yet the line-scan stray field depends only on σx = σ0 cos χ and σz; the component σy = σ0 sin χ is invisible to the NV projection. The model assumes a straight, one-dimensional wall with a single χ and Δ along the entire line scan. Within a 4×4 µm scan, wall curvature or meandering would rotate the local wall-normal direction and can bias the fitted χ. The existing robustness checks (z±10 nm, starting values) do not test this assumption, and the maximum-likelihood analysis in the Supplement uses the same model, so it does not provide an independent validation. I request a quantitative test of the straight-wall assumption, such as a spatially resolved χ map along the wall or a fit with a local wall-orientation parameter, to bound the systematic error on the Bloch/Néel classification.
[V, Eq. (6)] The theoretical width ratio Δ_Néel/Δ_Bloch = 0.85 is obtained by setting M = s σ0_z, identifying the volume magnetization that enters the demagnetizing energy of Eq. (4) with the surface-layer magnetization. This identification is not derived, and the model of Eq. (4) is originally formulated for homogeneously magnetized ferromagnets. The measured ratio 0.65 ± 0.10 differs from the prediction by about 20%, and the paper calls this 'reasonable agreement' without discussing the sensitivity of the prediction to the M identification. Please clarify the connection between σ0_z and the effective volume magnetization and provide an uncertainty estimate for the predicted ratio.
[IV.D and Fig. 5c] The coexistence claim for sample C rests on classifying walls with α < 9° as Néel and α > 9° as Bloch, but the threshold is chosen post hoc and the mean χ for the Néel-like group is 143 ± 12°, which is not close to the left-Néel limit of 180°. The two groups appear to overlap when standard errors are considered, and no statistical test is given for the separation. Please provide a quantitative definition of the Bloch/Néel classification and a test (e.g., a two-sample test or a regression of χ on α) demonstrating that the two populations are significantly different.

minor comments (3)

[Supplement, Eq. (7)] The reconstruction of σ_z from the stray field assumes σx = σy = 0, which is not valid inside a Néel wall where σx is nonzero. The authors state that the reconstruction still accurately reproduces the domain pattern and σ0_z, but no justification or test is provided; a comment on the magnitude of the resulting error in the step height would be useful.
[Abstract and Sec. IV.D] The statement that 'Néel walls that run perpendicular to a magnetic easy axis acquire a well-defined chirality' is supported by the data, but the paper does not explicitly report the distribution of left versus right chirality for individual walls; a more direct display of the chirality statistics would make the claim easier to evaluate.
[Sec. II] The suggestion that a wall-induced DMI might emerge in Cr2O3 despite zero bulk DMI is presented as a hypothesis without discussion of its plausibility in the context of the measured chirality; the paper could state more clearly that this is speculative and not directly tested by the present experiment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wall-structure parameters are fitted to stray-field data using a standard model, and the width-ratio check uses independent magnetization and literature anisotropy.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities—the twist angle χ, the domain-wall width Δ, and the surface magnetization σ0_z—are obtained by fitting the stray field computed from the standard one-dimensional domain-wall model (Eq. 3) to measured NV magnetometry line scans (Sec. IV.B and Supplement Sec. 2.4). This is a parameter-estimation procedure applied to independent experimental data, not a quantity defined in terms of the paper's conclusion. The starting values for χ and Δ were varied without significantly altering the fits, and σ0_z is cross-checked by complementary methods that do not depend on the domain-wall profile (step height and integrated Bx). The width-ratio comparison uses Eq. (6) with M = s σ0_z, where σ0_z is measured and the anisotropy K is a literature value; the authors explicitly report a mismatch between the predicted ratio (0.85) and the measured ratio (0.65), showing the comparison is not forced by construction. The model equations themselves (Eqs. 1–6) are standard results from the literature, and the Bloch/Néel classification is an interpretation of the fitted χ, not a premise built into the model. The only notable self-citation is Ref. [47], used to assert that sample C has unusually strong in-plane anisotropy from a spontaneously occurring spin-flop transition at 150 K; this is a prior experimental observation that is independent of the present domain-wall measurement and is externally falsifiable, so it does not constitute load-bearing circularity. No derivation step reduces by definition to its own inputs, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is a direct fit of stray-field profiles to a standard 1D wall model; the model and material parameters are all taken from prior literature, and no new free parameters are introduced beyond the measured quantities. The main extras are the empirical temperature scaling for σ0_z and the prior assignment of strong in-plane anisotropy to sample C.

free parameters (3)

χ (domain-wall twist angle) = 106(6)° (A), 113(11)° (B), 143(12)° (C, α<9°), 117(7)° (C, α>9°)
Extracted by least-squares fit of the 1D model to NV stray-field line scans; the central Bloch/Néel classification rests on these values.
Δ (domain-wall width) = 34(5) nm (A), 45(8) nm (B), 42(6) nm (C, α<9°), 65(4) nm (C, α>9°)
Second free parameter in the fit; the width change between Néel-like and Bloch-like walls is a key observation.
σ0_z (effective surface magnetization) = 1.6(2) (C) to 2.3(2) μB/nm² (A)
Third free parameter in the fit; reported as a quantitative result and used in the width-ratio model comparison.

assumptions (6)

standard math The 1D micromagnetic energy functional e = A[(∂θ/∂x)² + sin²θ(∂φ/∂x)²] + K sin²θ with the static solution φ=const, θ=2 arctan[exp(x/Δ)] (Eqs. 1-3).
Used to model the domain wall and fit the stray field. Standard result from Malozemoff/Slonczewski and Papanicolaou (Refs. 23,25,26).
domain assumption The residual demagnetizing field energy is μ0M² cos²χ and in-plane anisotropy contributes 2Kip sin²(χ−ψip) (Eq. 4).
Taken from prior wall-energy literature; used to interpret the Bloch/Néel preference and width ratio.
domain assumption Cr2O3 has an effective surface magnetization σ0_z = n m s / V = 10.9 μB/nm² at T=0, with moment 2.8 μB per Cr³⁺ (Supplement Eq. 3).
Used to normalize the measured surface magnetization; the moment and lattice parameters are from literature.
domain assumption The temperature dependence of the surface magnetization is σ0_z(T)/σ0_z(0) = [1−T/TN]^0.35 (from Ref. 29).
Used to argue the measured σ0_z is only partially explained by thermal decay; the remaining deficit is unexplained.
domain assumption Sample C has unusually strong in-plane anisotropy because it shows a spontaneous spin-flop at 150 K (from previous study, Ref. 47); the easy axes coincide with crystal a, a', b axes.
Basis for interpreting the orientation-dependent Néel walls in sample C; not directly measured in this work.
domain assumption The magnetization of the polarized surface layer is M = s σ0_z (used in Eq. 6).
Needed to compute the predicted width ratio; mixes measured σ0_z with the layer thickness s.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Co-existence of Bloch and Neel walls in a collinear antiferromagnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIRYJROJ

@misc{pith2026200909015,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Co-existence of Bloch and Neel walls in a collinear antiferromagnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIRYJROJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2009.09015}
}

abstract

We resolve the domain-wall structure of the model antiferromagnet $\text{Cr}_2\text{O}_3$ using nanoscale scanning diamond magnetometry and second-harmonic-generation microscopy. We find that the 180$^\circ$ domain walls are predominantly Bloch-like, and can co-exist with N\'eel walls in crystals with significant in-plane anisotropy. In the latter case, N\'eel walls that run perpendicular to a magnetic easy axis acquire a well-defined chirality. We further report quantitative measurement of the domain-wall width and surface magnetization. Our results provide fundamental input and an experimental methodology for the understanding of domain walls in pure, intrinsic antiferromagnets, which is relevant to achieve electrical control of domain-wall motion in antiferromagnetic compounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2009.09015 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Cr2O3 crystal structure and experimental arrangement. (a) Side view of the hexagonal unit cell. Blue and green arrows symbolize Cr3+ moments of opposite magnetic polarization, red atoms are O2− ions. (b) Lateral cut through the c-oriented Cr2O3 sample surface. Strong magnetic stray fields (black field lines) are expected at antiferromagnetic domain walls and weak fields at monolayer topographic steps. Blue and green… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Antiferromagnetic domain pattern in c-oriented Cr2O3. (a) SHG image revealing bright and dark domains of opposite order parameter in sample C; corresponding images for samples A and B are given in Figs. S1 and S2 in Ref. 49. The order parameter (L + and L −) is assigned based on the magnetization map in panel c. The image is acquired with right-handed circularly-polarized illumination. The twofold axes a, a’ and b … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Quantitative measurement of domain-wall structure and surface magnetization. (a) Two-dimensional magnetometry [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Observation of Bloch and N´eel walls. (a-c) Twist [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages

[1]

Shpyrko, E

O. Shpyrko, E. Isaacs, J. Logan, Y. Feng, G. Aep- pli, R. Jaramillo, H. Kim, T. Rosenbaum, P. Zschack, M. Sprung, et al. , Direct measurement of antiferromag- netic domain ﬂuctuations, Nature 447, 68 (2007)

work page 2007
[2]

Radu and H

F. Radu and H. Zabel, Exchange bias eﬀect of ferro- /antiferromagnetic heterostructures, in Magnetic het- erostructures (Springer, 2008) pp. 97–184

work page 2008
[3]

Jaramillo, T

R. Jaramillo, T. F. Rosenbaum, E. D. Isaacs, O. G. Sh- pyrko, P. G. Evans, G. Aeppli, and Z. Cai, Microscopic and macroscopic signatures of antiferromagnetic domain walls, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 117206 (2007)

work page 2007
[4]

Current-induced fragmentation of antiferromagnetic domains

M. W¨ ornle, P. Welter, Z. Kaˇ spar, K. Olejn´ ık, V. Nov´ ak, R. Campion, P. Wadley, T. Jungwirth, C. Degen, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced fragmentation of anti- ferromagnetic domains, arXiv:1912.05287 (2019)

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[5]

K. M. D. Hals, Y. Tserkovnyak, and A. Brataas, Phe- nomenology of current-induced dynamics in antiferro- magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 107206 (2011)

2011
[6]

Gomonay, T

O. Gomonay, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, High antifer- romagnetic domain wall velocity induced by N´ eel spin- orbit torques, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 017202 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

Shiino, S.-H

T. Shiino, S.-H. Oh, P. M. Haney, S.-W. Lee, G. Go, B.- G. Park, and K.-J. Lee, Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques, Physical review let- ters 117, 087203 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

Baldrati, O

L. Baldrati, O. Gomonay, A. Ross, M. Filianina, R. Le- brun, R. Ramos, C. Leveille, F. Fuhrmann, T. R. For- rest, F. Maccherozzi, S. Valencia, F. Kronast, E. Saitoh, J. Sinova, and M. Kl¨ aui, Mechanism of N´ eel order switch- ing in antiferromagnetic thin ﬁlms revealed by magne- totransport and direct imaging, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 177201 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 74 references

[9]

Jungwirth, X

T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 231 (2016)

2016
[10]

Baltz, A

V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015005 (2018)

2018
[11]

Manchon, J

A. Manchon, J. ˇZelezn´ y, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

2019
[12]

R. A. Duine, K. J. Lee, S. S. P. Parkin, and M. D. Stiles, Synthetic antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nature Physics 14, 10.1038/s41567-018-0050-y (2018)

2018 doi
[13]

Yang, K.-S

S.-H. Yang, K.-S. Ryu, and S. Parkin, Domain-wall ve- locities of up to 750 m/s driven by exchange-coupling 8 torque in synthetic antiferromagnets, Nature Nanotech- nology 10, 10.1038/nnano.2014.324 (2015)

2015 doi
[14]

Z. Luo, T. P. Dao, A. Hrabec, J. Vijayakumar, A. Kleib- ert, M. Baumgartner, E. Kirk, J. Cui, T. Savchenko, G. Krishnaswamy, L. J. Heyderman, and P. Gambardella, Chirally coupled nanomagnets, Science 363, 1435 (2019)

2019
[15]

Hrabec, Z

A. Hrabec, Z. Luo, L. J. Heyderman, and P. Gam- bardella, Synthetic chiral magnets promoted by the dzyaloshinskii–moriya interaction, Applied Physics Let- ters 117, 130503 (2020)

2020
[16]

Hubert and R

A. Hubert and R. Sch¨ afer,Magnetic Domains: The Anal- ysis of Magnetic Microstructures (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, 2008)

2008
[17]

Y. Geng, H. Das, A. L. Wysocki, X. Wang, S. W. Cheong, M. Mostovoy, C. J. Fennie, and W. Wu, Direct visualiza- tion of magnetoelectric domains, Nature Materials 13, 163 (2014)

2014
[18]

S. W. Cheong, M. Fiebig, W. Wu, L. Chapon, and V. Kiryukhin, Seeing is believing: visualization of an- tiferromagnetic domains, npj Quantum Materials 5, 10.1038/s41535-019-0204-x (2020)

2020 doi
[19]

Hellwig, A

O. Hellwig, A. Berger, and E. E. Fullerton, Domain walls in antiferromagnetically coupled multilayer ﬁlms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 197203 (2003)

2003
[20]

Weber, H

N. Weber, H. Ohldag, H. Gomonaj, and F. Hillebrecht, Magnetostrictive domain walls in antiferromagnetic NiO, Physical review letters 91, 237205 (2003)

2003
[21]

Ravli´ c, M

R. Ravli´ c, M. Bode, A. Kubetzka, and R. Wiesendan- ger, Correlation of dislocation and domain structure of Cr(001) investigated by spin-polarized scanning tunnel- ing microscopy, Physical Review B 67, 174411 (2003)

2003
[22]

M. Bode, E. Vedmedenko, K. Von Bergmann, A. Kubet- zka, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, and R. Wiesendanger, Atomic spin structure of antiferromagnetic domain walls, Nature materials 5, 477 (2006)

2006
[23]

Malozemoﬀ and J

A. Malozemoﬀ and J. Slonczewski, Magnetic Domain Walls in Bubble Materials: Advances in Materials and Device Research, Vol. 1 (Academic press, 2016)

2016
[24]

E. M. Gyorgy and F. B. Hagedorn, Analysis of domain-wall motion in canted antiferromag- nets, Journal of Applied Physics 39, 88 (1968), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1655786

1968 doi
[25]

Papanicolaou, Antiferromagnetic domain walls, Phys- ical Review B 51, 15062 (1995)

N. Papanicolaou, Antiferromagnetic domain walls, Phys- ical Review B 51, 15062 (1995)

1995
[26]

Mitsumata and A

C. Mitsumata and A. Sakuma, Generalized model of an- tiferromagnetic domain wall, IEEE transactions on mag- netics 47, 3501 (2011)

2011
[27]

Z. Chen, Z. Yan, M. Qin, and J.-M. Liu, Landau-Lifshitz- Bloch equation for domain wall motion in antiferromag- nets, Physical Review B 99, 214436 (2019)

2019
[28]

Kosub, M

T. Kosub, M. Kopte, R. H¨ uhne, P. Appel, B. Shields, P. Maletinsky, R. H¨ ubner, M. O. Liedke, J. Fassbender, and O. G. Schmidt, Purely antiferromagnetic magneto- electric random access memory, Nature Communications 8, 1 (2017)

2017
[29]

Appel, B

P. Appel, B. J. Shields, T. Kosub, N. Hedrich, R. Hubner, J. Fassbender, D. Makarov, and P. Maletinsky, Nano- magnetism of magnetoelectric granular thin-ﬁlm antifer- romagnets, Nano Letters 19, 1682 (2019)

2019
[30]

Gross, W

I. Gross, W. Akhtar, V. Garcia, L. Mart´ ınez, S. Chouaieb, K. Garcia, C. Carr´ et´ ero, A. Barth´ el´ emy, P. Appel, P. Maletinsky, et al. , Real-space imaging of non-collinear antiferromagnetic order with a single-spin magnetometer, Nature 549, 252 (2017)

2017
[31]

Dussaux, P

A. Dussaux, P. Schoenherr, K. Koumpouras, J. Chico, K. Chang, L. Lorenzelli, N. Kanazawa, Y. Tokura, M. Garst, A. Bergman, C. L. Degen, and D. Meier, Local dynamics of topological magnetic defects in the itiner- ant helimagnet FeGe, Nature Communications 7, 12430 (2016)

2016
[32]

E. G. Tveten, T. M¨ uller, J. Linder, and A. Brataas, Intrinsic magnetization of antiferromagnetic textures, Physical Review B 93, 104408 (2016)

2016
[33]

Heide, G

M. Heide, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Dzyaloshinskii- moriya interaction accounting for the orientation of mag- netic domains in ultrathin ﬁlms: Fe/w (110), Physical Review B 78, 140403 (2008)

2008
[34]

Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” fer- romagnetism of antiferromagnetics, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 4, 241 (1958)

I. Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” fer- romagnetism of antiferromagnetics, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 4, 241 (1958)

1958
[35]

Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys

T. Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. 120, 91 (1960)

1960
[36]

Fiebig, D

M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, and H. J. Thiele, Determination of spin direction in the spin-ﬂop phase of Cr 2O3, Phys. Rev. B 54, R12681 (1996)

1996
[37]

G. T. Rado and V. J. Folen, Magnetoelectric eﬀects in antiferromagnetics, in Proceedings of the Seventh Con- ference on Magnetism and Magnetic Materials , edited by J. A. Osborn (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1962) pp. 1126– 1132

1962
[38]

B. N. Brockhouse, Antiferromagnetic structure in Cr2O3, The Journal of Chemical Physics 21, 961 (1953)

1953
[39]

Astrov, Magnetoelectric eﬀect in chromium oxide, Sov

D. Astrov, Magnetoelectric eﬀect in chromium oxide, Sov. Phys. JETP 13, 729 (1961)

1961
[40]

Martin and J

T. Martin and J. Anderson, Antiferromagnetic domain switching in Cr 2O3, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 2, 446 (1966)

1966
[41]

Mostovoy, A

M. Mostovoy, A. Scaramucci, N. A. Spaldin, and K. T. Delaney, Temperature-dependent magnetoelectric eﬀect from ﬁrst principles, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 087202 (2010)

2010
[42]

Borisov, A

P. Borisov, A. Hochstrat, X. Chen, W. Kleemann, and C. Binek, Magnetoelectric switching of exchange bias, Physical Review Letters 94, 117203 (2005)

2005
[43]

X. He, Y. Wang, N. Wu, A. N. Caruso, E. Vescovo, K. D. Belashchenko, P. A. Dowben, and C. Binek, Ro- bust isothermal electric control of exchange bias at room temperature, Nature Materials 9, 579 (2010)

2010
[44]

Z. Qiu, D. Hou, J. Barker, K. Yamamoto, O. Gomonay, and E. Saitoh, Spin colossal magnetoresistance in an anti- ferromagnetic insulator, Nature materials 17, 577 (2018)

2018
[45]

J. Li, C. B. Wilson, R. Cheng, M. Lohmann, M. Kavand, W. Yuan, M. Aldosary, N. Agladze, P. Wei, M. S. Sher- win, et al., Spin current from sub-terahertz-generated an- tiferromagnetic magnons, Nature 578, 70 (2020)

2020
[46]

Kota and H

Y. Kota and H. Imamura, Narrowing of antiferromag- netic domain wall in corundum-type Cr 2O3 by lattice strain, Applied Physics Express 10, 013002 (2016)

2016
[47]

R. V. Pisarev, M. Fiebig, and D. Fr¨ ohlich, Nonlinear op- tical spectroscopy of magnetoelectric and piezomagnetic crystals, Ferroelectrics 204, 1 (1997)

1997
[48]

B. B. Krichevtsov, V. V. Pavlov, and R. V. Pisarev, Non- reciprocal optical eﬀects in antiferromagnetic Cr2O3 sub- jected to electric and magnetic ﬁelds, Sov. Phys. JETP 67, 378 (1988)

1988
[49]

ASTERIQS

The order parameter ( L+ and L−) is assigned based on the magnetization map in panel c. The image is acquired with right-handed circularly-polarized illumination. The two- fold axes a, a’ and b (yellow vectors), determined by X-ray crystallography, coincide with the in-plane m...
[50]

See Supplemental Material accompanying this manuscript
[51]

Fiebig, D

M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, G. Sluyterman v. L., and R. V. Pisarev, Domain topography of antiferromagnetic Cr2O3 9 by second-harmonic generation, Applied Physics Letters 66, 2906 (1995)

1995
[52]

Hedrich, K

N. Hedrich, K. Wagner, O. V. Pylypovskyi, B. J. Shields, T. Kosub, D. D. Sheka, D. Makarov, and P. Maletinsky, Nanoscale mechanics of antiferromagnetic domain walls, submitted
[53]

J. P. T´ etienne, T. Hingant, L. J. Martinez, S. Rohart, A. Thiaville, L. H. Diez, K. Garcia, J. P. Adam, J. V. Kim, J. F. Roch, I. M. Miron, G. Gaudin, L. Vila, B. Ocker, D. Ravelosona, and V. Jacques, The nature of domain walls in ultrathin ferromagnets revealed by scan- nin...

2015
[54]

V´ elez, J

S. V´ elez, J. Schaab, M. S. W¨ ornle, M. M¨ uller, E. Gradauskaite, P. Welter, C. Gutgsell, C. Nistor, C. L. Degen, M. Trassin, M. Fiebig, and P. Gambardella, High- speed domain wall racetracks in a magnetic insulator, Nature Communications 10, 4750 (2019)

2019
[55]

D. N. Astrov, N. B. Ermakov, A. S. Borovik-Romanov, E. G. Kolevatov, and V. I. Nizhankovskii, External quadrupole magnetic ﬁeld of antiferromagnetic Cr 2O3, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 63, 745 (1996)

1996
[56]

Co-existence of Bloch and N´ eel walls in a collinear antiferromagnet

S. Mu and K. D. Belashchenko, Inﬂuence of strain and chemical substitution on the magnetic anisotropy of an- tiferromagnetic Cr 2O3: An ab-initio study, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 034405 (2019). 1 Supplemental Material for: “Co-existence of Bloch and N´ eel walls in a collinear a...

2019 arXiv
[57]

Sample preparation We study Cr2O3 domain walls on three bulk single crystals

MATERIALS AND METHODS 1.1. Sample preparation We study Cr2O3 domain walls on three bulk single crystals. Samples A and B (Refs. 1–3) are grown by the Verneuil method and oriented using a single-crystal X-ray diﬀractometer. The samples are cut perpendicular to thez-axis or (001...
[58]

DATA ANALYSIS 2.1. Eﬀective surface magnetization σ0 z Antiferromagnetic order in the form of vertically alternating layers of oppositely polarized ions leads to an eﬀective surface layer magnetization on the top and bottom surfaces of the crystal, in analogy to the bound surf...
[59]

SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURES Fig. S1. SHG microscopy images of sample A (left panels) and sample B (right panels). Upper panels used left-handed circular polarization, lower panels used right-handed circular polarization. 8 Fig. S2. SHG microscopy images of sample C. Upper panel used...
[60]

Fiebig, D

M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, G. Sluyterman v. L., and R. V. Pisarev, Domain topography of antiferromagnetic Cr2O3 by second-harmonic generation, Applied Physics Letters 66, 2906 (1995)

1995
[61]

Fiebig, D

M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, and H. J. Thiele, Determination of spin direction in the spin-ﬂop phase of Cr2O3, Phys. Rev. B 54, R12681 (1996)

1996
[62]

Fiebig, Nichtlineare spektroskopie und topograﬁe an antiferromagnetischen dom¨ anen, PhD Thesis (1996)

M. Fiebig, Nichtlineare spektroskopie und topograﬁe an antiferromagnetischen dom¨ anen, PhD Thesis (1996)

1996
[63]

B. B. Krichevtsov, V. V. Pavlov, and R. V. Pisarev, Nonreciprocal optical eﬀects in antiferromagnetic Cr2O3 subjected to electric and magnetic ﬁelds, Sov. Phys. JETP 67, 378 (1988)

1988
[64]

Fiebig, D

M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, B. B. Krichevtsov, and R. V. Pisarev, Second harmonic generation and magnetic- dipole-electric-dipole interference in antiferromagnetic Cr 2O3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2127 (1994)

1994
[65]

https://spin.ethz.ch/quantum-technology/nsdm.html, https://spin.ethz.ch/quantum- technology/nsdm.html, retrieved on 2020-08-20 (2020)

2020
[66]

Dr´ eau, M

A. Dr´ eau, M. Lesik, L. Rondin, P. Spinicelli, O. Arcizet, J. F. Roch, and V. Jacques, Avoiding power broadening in optically detected magnetic resonance of single NV defects for enhanced dc magnetic ﬁeld sensitivity, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195204 (2011)

2011
[67]

Schirhagl, K

R. Schirhagl, K. Chang, M. Loretz, and C. L. Degen, Nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond: Nanoscale sensors for physics and biology, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 65, 83 (2014)

2014
[68]

J. P. T´ etienne, T. Hingant, L. J. Martinez, S. Rohart, A. Thiaville, L. H. Diez, K. Garcia, J. P. Adam, J. V. Kim, J. F. Roch, I. M. Miron, G. Gaudin, L. Vila, B. Ocker, D. Ravelosona, and V. Jacques, The nature of domain walls in ultrathin ferromagnets revealed by scanning ...

2015
[69]

V´ elez, J

S. V´ elez, J. Schaab, M. S. W¨ ornle, M. M¨ uller, E. Gradauskaite, P. Welter, C. Gutgsell, C. Nistor, C. L. Degen, M. Trassin, M. Fiebig, and P. Gambardella, High-speed domain wall racetracks in a magnetic insulator, Nature Communications 10, 4750 (2019)

2019
[70]

K. D. Belashchenko, Equilibrium magnetization at the boundary of a magnetoelectric antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 147204 (2010)

2010
[71]

Andreev, Macroscopic magnetic ﬁelds of antiferromagnets, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 63, 758 (1996)

A. Andreev, Macroscopic magnetic ﬁelds of antiferromagnets, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 63, 758 (1996)

1996
[72]

X. He, Y. Wang, N. Wu, A. N. Caruso, E. Vescovo, K. D. Belashchenko, P. A. Dowben, and C. Binek, Robust isothermal electric control of exchange bias at room temperature, Nature Materials 9, 579 (2010)

2010
[73]

Madelung, U

O. Madelung, U. R¨ ossler, and M. S. (ed.), Chromium sesquioxide (Cr 2O3): magnetic properties, In: Non-Tetrahedrally Bonded Binary Compounds II (Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, 2000)

2000
[74]

I. A. Beardsley, Reconstruction of the magnetization in a thin ﬁlm by a combination of lorentz mi- croscopy and external ﬁeld measurements, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 25, 671 (1989)

1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 27, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Shpyrko, E

O. Shpyrko, E. Isaacs, J. Logan, Y. Feng, G. Aep- pli, R. Jaramillo, H. Kim, T. Rosenbaum, P. Zschack, M. Sprung, et al. , Direct measurement of antiferromag- netic domain ﬂuctuations, Nature 447, 68 (2007)

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Radu and H

F. Radu and H. Zabel, Exchange bias eﬀect of ferro- /antiferromagnetic heterostructures, in Magnetic het- erostructures (Springer, 2008) pp. 97–184

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Jaramillo, T

R. Jaramillo, T. F. Rosenbaum, E. D. Isaacs, O. G. Sh- pyrko, P. G. Evans, G. Aeppli, and Z. Cai, Microscopic and macroscopic signatures of antiferromagnetic domain walls, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 117206 (2007)

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Current-induced fragmentation of antiferromagnetic domains

M. W¨ ornle, P. Welter, Z. Kaˇ spar, K. Olejn´ ık, V. Nov´ ak, R. Campion, P. Wadley, T. Jungwirth, C. Degen, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced fragmentation of anti- ferromagnetic domains, arXiv:1912.05287 (2019)

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

K. M. D. Hals, Y. Tserkovnyak, and A. Brataas, Phe- nomenology of current-induced dynamics in antiferro- magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 107206 (2011)

2011

[6] [6]

Gomonay, T

O. Gomonay, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, High antifer- romagnetic domain wall velocity induced by N´ eel spin- orbit torques, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 017202 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Shiino, S.-H

T. Shiino, S.-H. Oh, P. M. Haney, S.-W. Lee, G. Go, B.- G. Park, and K.-J. Lee, Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques, Physical review let- ters 117, 087203 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Baldrati, O

L. Baldrati, O. Gomonay, A. Ross, M. Filianina, R. Le- brun, R. Ramos, C. Leveille, F. Fuhrmann, T. R. For- rest, F. Maccherozzi, S. Valencia, F. Kronast, E. Saitoh, J. Sinova, and M. Kl¨ aui, Mechanism of N´ eel order switch- ing in antiferromagnetic thin ﬁlms revealed by magne- totransport and direct imaging, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 177201 (2019)

work page 2019