Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Nonreciprocal spin-wave dispersion in magnetic bilayers

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic bilayer design predicts spin-wave frequency splitting of 5.2 GHz, verified against laser-scattering measurements.

desk verdict A solid simulation-backed study of bilayer spin-wave nonreciprocity whose headline 5.2 GHz optimum is a credible but unmeasured extrapolation—worth refereeing, with a request for sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09704 v2 pith:XY454YTJ submitted 2024-12-12 cond-mat.mes-hall

C. Heins , V. Iurchuk , O. Gladii , L. Körber , A. Kákay , J. Fassbender , K. Schultheiss , H. Schultheiss This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 75.30.Ds75.70.Cn
keywords spinwavesmagnonicsnonreciprocitymagneticbilayerBrillouinlightscatteringTETRAXMSSWPSSWhybridization
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 establishes that the nonreciprocity of spin-wave dispersion in a bilayer of two different ferromagnets can be predicted and deliberately engineered by choosing layer thicknesses and saturation magnetizations. The authors verify the open-source finite-element package TETRAX against Brillouin light scattering measurements on three NiFe/CoFeB bilayers, finding excellent agreement between simulated and measured dispersions. Using the validated model, they sweep the parameter space and show that counter-propagating spin waves can differ in frequency by several gigahertz, with a maximum predicted splitting of 5.2 GHz for a 50 nm bilayer with 23 nm NiFe and 27 nm CoFeB. The origin of the effect is the hybridization of the Damon–Eshbach surface mode with the first perpendicular standing spin-wave mode. The result provides a concrete design rule for unidirectional spin-wave devices.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is the TETRAX finite-element dynamic-matrix solver, which computes spin-wave eigenmodes directly from a one-dimensional line trace across the film thickness, so a full dispersion takes seconds on a laptop. The physical mechanism it exposes is the hybridization of the asymmetric Damon–Eshbach surface wave with the first perpendicular standing spin wave; this hybridization creates regions of anti-Larmor precession and makes the mode localization shift between the two layers for opposite propagation directions, producing the frequency splitting.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-wave dispersion of a 23 nm NiFe / 27 nm CoFeB bilayer at a wave vector of 40.5 rad/µm (for example with propagating spin-wave spectroscopy in a narrow waveguide or grating-assisted BLS) and check whether the u = 1 mode frequencies for opposite propagation directions differ by 5.2 GHz at 30 mT, as the simulation predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a NiFe/CoFeB bilayer the nonreciprocal spin-wave dispersion is primarily produced by the magnetostatic surface wave (MSSW) and its hybridization with the first perpendicular standing spin wave (PSSW), and that this nonreciprocity is tunable through the layer thicknesses and the saturation magnetization difference. The paper shows that the simulated dispersions match the measured ones for three bilayer thicknesses, and that the same simulation, extended to wave vectors beyond the experimental range, predicts a maximum counter-propagation frequency difference of 5.2 GHz for the u = 1 mode at k = 40.5 rad/µm in a 23 nm NiFe / 27 nm CoFeB stack. It further finds that the nonreciprocity saturates near 5 GHz once the total thickness exceeds about 40 nm, while the wave vector of the maximum splitting decreases with thickness, which is why the thickest measured film shows the strongest effect in the accessible wave-vector range.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations keep the same literature values of saturation magnetization and exchange constant for NiFe and CoFeB at every thickness and assume a one-dimensional line trace across the thickness captures the physics at all wave vectors up to 100 rad/µm; if the sputtered films differ from these parameters or the one-dimensional approximation fails at large wave vectors, the predicted optimum and the 5.2 GHz value would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A designer can select layer thicknesses and materials for a target nonreciprocity before fabrication, rather than tuning by trial and error.
  • The optimum wave vector for maximum splitting moves from about 40 rad/µm down into the measurable range as total thickness grows beyond 40 nm, explaining why thick films are the best candidates for BLS-verifiable devices.
  • Higher magnetization contrast, such as CoFe instead of CoFeB, increases the splitting, while too large a contrast (as with YIG) suppresses it, so moderate contrast is the design sweet spot.
  • Because the splitting saturates with thickness, further gains beyond roughly 5 GHz would require changing the material system or adding other asymmetries.
  • The hybridized modes carry negative group velocity for one propagation direction, which could be used to create frequency-selective directional filtering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same MSSW–PSSW hybridization mechanism suggests that tuning the crossing point of these modes via exchange constant, anisotropy, or an applied field gradient could shift the optimum to lower wave vectors or higher frequencies, a testable extension the paper does not explore.
  • The predicted 5.2 GHz optimum at k ≈ 40 rad/µm sits beyond the momentum transfer of conventional BLS, so a direct check would require propagating spin-wave spectroscopy or grating-assisted BLS; a successful measurement would close the loop between prediction and experiment.
  • Since fixed literature parameters are used for all thicknesses, the real optimum in sputtered films could shift if interface intermixing or strain changes Ms or A; measuring the dispersion of a 23/27 nm bilayer is the cleanest way to test this.
  • The saturation of the splitting with thickness hints that dipolar mechanisms alone cap the nonreciprocity for this material pair, suggesting that reaching larger splittings will require combining thickness asymmetry with interfacial Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper investigates nonreciprocal spin-wave propagation in NiFe/CoFeB bilayer ferromagnetic films, combining Brillouin light scattering (BLS) measurements with eigenmode simulations from the finite-element package TETRAX. The authors measure dispersions for three bilayer thickness combinations and a field-dependent spectrum, report good visual agreement with TETRAX simulations, and then use the validated model to sweep saturation magnetization, layer thickness ratio, and total thickness. They identify the hybridization of the magnetostatic surface wave (MSSW) with the first perpendicular standing spin wave (PSSW) as the origin of large nonreciprocity, and report a maximum frequency splitting of Δfmax = 5.2 GHz for the u = 1 mode at k = 40.5 rad/µm for tNiFe = 23 nm and tCoFeB = 27 nm, with similar magnitudes for u = 0. The paper also discusses mode profiles, anti-Larmor precession, and a comparison with CoFe/YIG-based bilayers.

Significance. If the findings hold, the paper offers a useful design rule for engineering large nonreciprocal spin-wave responses in all-metallic bilayers, with the measured data providing an independent validation of the TETRAX eigenmode approach. The experimental validation over three thickness combinations and a field range, together with the open data and scripts, is a concrete strength. The mechanistic explanation in terms of MSSW/PSSW hybridization is plausible and consistent with the measured dispersions. However, the headline quantitative result, the 5.2 GHz maximum, is a simulation prediction at wave vectors outside the BLS-accessible range, and the manuscript does not quantify the sensitivity of this prediction to the assumed material parameters. The central qualitative mechanism is well supported, but the precise numerical headline requires additional uncertainty analysis before it becomes load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, 'Changing layer thickness' (Fig. 7)] The headline quantitative claim, Δfmax = 5.2 GHz for the u = 1 mode at kmax = 40.5 rad/µm, is obtained from simulations at wave vectors beyond the measured range (the BLS data in Fig. 2 cover only up to 20 rad/µm). The paper does not provide error bars, a parameter sensitivity study, or a quantitative comparison with experiment in that regime. Since this number is the central 'optimized conditions' result of the abstract, the authors should either measure at larger wave vectors (e.g., using a different technique or a higher-index BLS setup) or provide a sensitivity analysis showing how Δfmax and kmax vary under reasonable uncertainties in Ms and A. Without this, the quantitative headline is an unverified extrapolation.
  2. [Methods, 'Theory and simulation'] The simulations fix the material parameters to literature values (Ni81Fe19: Ms = 830 kA/m, A = 13 pJ/m; Co40Fe40B20: Ms = 1260 kA/m, A = 16 pJ/m) for all thicknesses and wave vectors, with the statement 'we keep the same parameters for all simulations.' The PSSW frequency, and hence the MSSW/PSSW hybridization that drives the nonreciprocity, depends strongly on A and Ms. Sputtered films can deviate from nominal composition and bulk values by tens of percent. The paper should justify these values for the actual films (for example by independent FMR or SQUID characterization of the same samples) or quantitatively demonstrate that the predicted Δfmax and kmax are robust to within the expected parameter spread.
  3. [Results, 'Experimental verification of the simulation model' and Fig. 3] The agreement between BLS data and TETRAX is described as 'excellent' and 'agree well,' but no quantitative metric is provided. The dispersions in Fig. 2 and the field dependence in Fig. 3 are overlaid as lines on color maps without extracted peak positions, residuals, or confidence intervals. A quantitative comparison (e.g., extracted BLS mode frequencies versus simulated curves, with residuals and a measure of scatter) would strengthen the validation claim and would also provide a baseline for assessing the uncertainty of the extrapolated predictions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The software name is inconsistently rendered as 'TETRAX' and 'TETRA X'; please use a single consistent spelling.
  2. [Author contributions / contact] The corresponding author email contains a typo: 'h.schutheiss@hzdr.de' should be 'h.schultheiss@hzdr.de'.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The penetration-depth formula in Eq. (1) uses ω and Im{εxx} without defining them in the text; please state that ω is the laser angular frequency and specify the source and value of the permittivity used.
  4. [Results, 'Changing layer thickness'] In the text near Fig. 7, 'fmax = −4.8 GHz' for the u = 0 mode should read 'Δfmax = 4.8 GHz' (with the sign convention for the splitting) to avoid confusion with a frequency value.
  5. [Fig. 7 caption] The caption phrase 'second to lowest' is awkward; consider 'second-lowest mode' or 'u = 1 mode'.
  6. [Discussion] The term 'hetero-symmetric spin-wave' is used with references 40 and 41 but is not defined in the text; a brief definition or a more explicit connection to the mode profiles would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dispersion calculation is validated against independent BLS data, material parameters are fixed literature values, and the parameter sweeps are genuine extrapolations rather than refits.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) fixed, literature-based material parameters for NiFe and CoFeB; (ii) TETRAX dynamic-matrix eigenmode calculation on a one-dimensional thickness mesh; (iii) comparison with independent k-resolved BLS dispersions for three bilayer thicknesses plus a field-dependent BLS measurement; and (iv) parameter sweeps over saturation magnetization, layer thickness ratio, and total thickness to locate maximum nonreciprocity. No step defines the predicted quantity in terms of a fitted output. The material parameters are stated as fixed inputs ('we keep the same parameters for all simulations involving Ni81Fe19 and Co40Fe40B20... Ms = 830 kA/m and A = 13 pJ/m... Ms = 1260 kA/m and A = 16 pJ/m') and are not adjusted to match the measured dispersions, so the 'excellent agreement' is a genuine external comparison rather than a refit. The authors cite their own prior work for TETRAX and the dynamic-matrix approach, but those citations are to an open-source numerical implementation and a standard solver formulation; the load-bearing validation is the BLS data, which are independent of the model's fitted values. The large- k parameter sweeps, including the claimed 5.2 GHz optimum at k = 40.5 rad/µm, are extrapolations beyond the measured wave-vector range, but extrapolation uncertainty is a correctness or sensitivity concern, not circularity, because the predicted optimum is not obtained by fitting to that target or by defining it into the model. No specific equation or construction reduces a prediction to an input, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The paper does not fit any parameter to the measured data; it uses literature material parameters as inputs. The main assumptions are the validity of the 1D line-trace dynamic-matrix simulation, the homogeneity of the sputtered layers, and the equivalence of field reversal and wave-vector reversal in BLS. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The propagating-wave dynamic matrix approach in TETRAX correctly solves the linearized Landau-Lifshitz equation for the eigenmodes of an infinitely long waveguide, using only a 1D line trace across the thickness.
    Invoked in Methods: 'The method does not rely on time integration... allows for direct calculation of the system's eigenmodes via a propagating-wave dynamic matrix approach' and 'it is sufficient to simulate only a one-dimensional line trace across the film thickness'.
  • domain assumption The sputtered NiFe and CoFeB layers are homogeneous, with literature saturation magnetizations (830 and 1260 kA/m) and exchange constants (13 and 16 pJ/m), and no interface interdiffusion or thickness-dependent property changes.
    Used in all simulations; stated in Methods: 'we keep the same parameters for all simulations involving Ni81Fe19 and Co40Fe40B20'.
  • domain assumption Reversing the external magnetic field direction is equivalent to reversing the spin-wave wave vector for a saturated, dissipation-free film, so BLS measurements with opposite fields map f(k) and f(-k).
    Used in the BLS measurement protocol: 'we refer to this third method and measure the spin-wave spectra for both field directions for each angle of incidence.' Requires saturation and no hysteresis.
  • domain assumption The BLS scattering cross-section is proportional to the spin-wave intensity at the probed surface, and the laser penetration depth is described by the single-layer NiFe formula.
    Used to explain missing modes in Fig. 2: 'the signal is acquired mainly at the top NiFe surface' and Eq. (1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonreciprocal spin-wave dispersion in magnetic bilayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XY454YTJ

@misc{pith2026241209704,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonreciprocal spin-wave dispersion in magnetic bilayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XY454YTJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09704}
}
read the original abstract

Nonreciprocal spin-wave propagation in bilayer ferromagnetic systems has attracted significant attention due to its potential to precisely quantify material parameters as well as for applications in magnonic logic and information processing. In this study we investigate the nonreciprocity of spin-wave dispersions in heterostructures consisting of two distinct ferromagnetic materials, focusing on the influence of saturation magnetization and thickness of the magnetic layers. We exploit Brillouin light scattering to confirm numerical calculations which are conducted with the finite element software TETRAX. An extensive numerical analysis reveals that the nonreciprocal behavior is strongly influenced by the changing material parameters, with asymmetry in the spin-wave propagation direction reaching several GHz under optimized conditions. Our findings demonstrate that tailoring the bilayer composition enables precise control over nonreciprocity, providing a pathway for engineering efficient unidirectional spin-wave devices. These results offer a deeper understanding of hybrid ferromagnetic systems and open avenues for designing advanced magnonic circuits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09704 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Thickness profiles for MSSW with opposite wave vec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a)-(c) Spin-wave dispersions of NiFe/CoFeB bilayer systems measured with conventional BLS and overlaid with simulated results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. External-field dependence of the two spin-wave modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The thicknesses of both layers are constant, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spin-wave dispersions of a 50 nm thick film for changing ratio between CoFeB and NiFe showing the transition from (a) a pure CoFeB film to (h) a pure NiFe film. (b)-(g) show asymmetric dispersions for the intermediate bilayer systems. (i),(j) Comparison of mode profile…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Largest frequency difference for two counter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analysis of the maximal nonreciprocity for NiFe/CoFeB bilayers with different total thicknesses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Origin of anti-Larmor precession. Precession of the (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Gray lines show the dispersion for a CoFeB/NiFe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author R. W. \ Damon \ and\ author J. R. \ Eshbach ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. Chem. Solids \ volume 19 ,\ pages 308 ( year 1961 ) NoStop

    work page 1961

  2. [2]

    Kostylev ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789962 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 113 ,\ pages 53907 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    author author M. Kostylev ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4789962 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 113 ,\ pages 53907 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/1.4789962 2013

  3. [3]

    o ler , author M. Wolf ,\ and\ author K.-H. \ M \

    author author A. N. \ Bogdanov , author U. K. \ R \"o ler , author M. Wolf ,\ and\ author K.-H. \ M \"u ller ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.66.214410 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 66 ,\ pages 214410 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.66.214410

  4. [4]

    Dzyaloshinsky ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(58)90076-3 journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 4 ,\ pages 241 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    author author I. Dzyaloshinsky ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(58)90076-3 journal journal Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids \ volume 4 ,\ pages 241 ( year 1958 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1016/0022-3697(58)90076-3 1958

  5. [5]

    Moriya ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.228 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 4 ,\ pages 228 ( year 1960 ) NoStop

    author author T. Moriya ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.228 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 4 ,\ pages 228 ( year 1960 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.4.228 1960

  6. [6]

    author author H. T. \ Nembach , author J. M. \ Shaw , author M. Weiler , author E. Ju \'e ,\ and\ author T. J. \ Silva ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3418 journal journal Nat Phys \ volume 11 ,\ pages 825 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys3418 2015

  7. [7]

    Zakeri , author Y

    author author K. Zakeri , author Y. Zhang , author J. Prokop , author T.-H. \ Chuang , author N. Sakr , author W. X. \ Tang ,\ and\ author J. Kirschner ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.137203 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 104 ,\ pages 137203 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.137203

  8. [8]

    Cort \'e s-Ortu \ n o \ and\ author P

    author author D. Cort \'e s-Ortu \ n o \ and\ author P. Landeros ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/25/15/156001 journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 25 ,\ pages 156001 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1088/0953-8984/25/15/156001 2013

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Neusser \ and\ author D

    author author S. Neusser \ and\ author D. Grundler ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200900809 journal journal Advanced Materials \ volume 21 ,\ pages 2927 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    author author A. V. \ Chumak , author V. Vasyuchka , author A. Serga ,\ and\ author B. Hillebrands ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3347 journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 11 ,\ pages 453 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    author author A. V. \ Chumak , author P. Kabos , author M. Wu , author C. Abert , author C. Adelmann , author A. O. \ Adeyeye , author J. Akerman , author F. G. \ Aliev , author A. Anane , author A. Awad , author C. H. \ Back , author A. Barman , author G. E. W. \ Bauer , auth...

  4. [12]

    Flebus , author D

    author author B. Flebus , author D. Grundler , author B. Rana , author Y. Otani , author I. Barsukov , author A. Barman , author G. Gubbiotti , author P. Landeros , author J. Akerman , author U. Ebels , author P. Pirro , author V. E. \ Demidov , author K. Schultheiss , author ...

  5. [13]

    Hrabec , author M

    author author A. Hrabec , author M. Belmeguenai , author A. Stashkevich , author S. M. \ Ch \'e rif , author S. Rohart , author Y. Roussign \'e ,\ and\ author A. Thiaville ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4985649 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 110 ,\ pages 242402...

    doi

  6. [14]

    Zhang , author J

    author author Q. Zhang , author J. Liang , author K. Bi , author L. Zhao , author H. Bai , author Q. Cui , author H.-A. \ Zhou , author H. Bai , author H. Feng , author W. Song , author G. Chai , author O. Gladii , author H. Schultheiss , author T. Zhu , author J. Zhang , auth...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Khalili Amiri , author B

    author author P. Khalili Amiri , author B. Rejaei , author M. Vroubel ,\ and\ author Y. Zhuang ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2766842 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 91 ,\ pages 062502 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Haidar , author M

    author author M. Haidar , author M. Bailleul , author M. Kostylev ,\ and\ author Y. Lao ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.89.094426 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 89 ,\ pages 094426 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Gladii , author M

    author author O. Gladii , author M. Haidar , author Y. Henry , author M. Kostylev ,\ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.054430 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 93 ,\ pages 054430 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi

  10. [18]

    Quessab , author J.-W

    author author Y. Quessab , author J.-W. \ Xu , author C. T. \ Ma , author W. Zhou , author G. A. \ Riley , author J. M. \ Shaw , author H. T. \ Nembach , author S. J. \ Poon ,\ and\ author A. D. \ Kent ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64427-0 journal journal Scientific Re...

    doi

  11. [19]

    author author J. A. \ Ot \'a lora , author M. Yan , author H. Schultheiss , author R. Hertel ,\ and\ author A. K \'a kay ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.227203 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 117 ,\ pages 227203 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi

  12. [20]

    author author J. A. \ Ot \'a lora , author M. Yan , author H. Schultheiss , author R. Hertel ,\ and\ author A. K \'a kay ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.95.184415 journal journal PHYSICAL REVIEW B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 184415 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  13. [21]

    author author M. M. \ Salazar-Cardona , author L. K \"o rber , author H. Schultheiss , author K. Lenz , author A. Thomas , author K. Nielsch , author A. K \'a kay ,\ and\ author J. A. \ Ot \'a lora ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0048692 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ ...

    doi

  14. [22]

    Cho , author N.-H

    author author J. Cho , author N.-H. \ Kim , author S. Lee , author J.-S. \ Kim , author R. Lavrijsen , author A. Solignac , author Y. Yin , author D.-S. \ Han , author N. J. J. \ van Hoof , author H. J. M. \ Swagten , author B. Koopmans ,\ and\ author C.-Y. \ You ,\ https://do...

    doi

  15. [23]

    a gel , author S. S. \ Arekapudi , author A. Rold \'a n-Molina , author R. H \

    author author R. A. \ Gallardo , author T. Schneider , author A. K. \ Chaurasiya , author A. Oelschl \"a gel , author S. S. \ Arekapudi , author A. Rold \'a n-Molina , author R. H \"u bner , author K. Lenz , author A. Barman , author J. Fassbender , author J. Lindner , author ...

    doi

  16. [24]

    author author R. A. \ Gallardo , author P. Alvarado-Seguel , author T. Schneider , author C. Gonzalez-Fuentes , author A. Rold \'a n-Molina , author K. Lenz , author J. Lindner ,\ and\ author P. Landeros ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab0449 journal journal New Journal o...

    doi

  17. [25]

    Henry , author O

    author author Y. Henry , author O. Gladii ,\ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:1611.06153 [cond-mat] \ ( year 2016 ) ,\ https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.06153 arXiv:1611.06153 [cond-mat] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Grassi , author M

    author author M. Grassi , author M. Geilen , author D. Louis , author M. Mohseni , author T. Br \"a cher , author M. Hehn , author D. Stoeffler , author M. Bailleul , author P. Pirro ,\ and\ author Y. Henry ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.024047 journal journal Ph...

    doi

  19. [27]

    Sluka , author T

    author author V. Sluka , author T. Schneider , author R. A. \ Gallardo , author A. K \'a kay , author M. Weigand , author T. Warnatz , author R. Mattheis , author A. Rold \'a n-Molina , author P. Landeros , author V. Tiberkevich , author A. Slavin , author G. Sch \"u tz , auth...

    doi

  20. [28]

    Shichi , author N

    author author S. Shichi , author N. Kanazawa , author K. Matsuda , author S. Okajima , author T. Hasegawa , author T. Okada , author T. Goto , author H. Takagi ,\ and\ author M. Inoue ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4915101 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 117 ...

    doi

  21. [29]

    Thiancourt , author S

    author author G. Thiancourt , author S. Ngom , author N. Bardou ,\ and\ author T. Devolder ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.034040 journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 22 ,\ pages 034040 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Wojewoda , author J

    author author O. Wojewoda , author J. Holobr \'a dek , author D. Pavelka , author E. Pribytova , author J. Kr c ma , author J. Kl \'i ma , author J. Panda , author J. Michali c ka , author T. Lednick \'y , author A. V. \ Chumak ,\ and\ author M. Urb \'a nek ,\ https://doi.org/...

    doi

  23. [31]

    K\" o rber , author A

    author author L. K\" o rber , author A. Hempel , author A. Otto , author R. A. \ Gallardo , author Y. Henry , author J. Lindner ,\ and\ author A. Kákay ,\ journal journal AIP Advances \ volume 12 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0107457 10.1063/5.0107457 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi

  24. [32]

    K \"o rber , author G

    author author L. K \"o rber , author G. Quasebarth , author A. Hempel , author F. Zahn , author O. Andreas , author E. Westphal , author R. Hertel ,\ and\ author A. K \'a kay ,\ https://doi.org/10.14278/rodare.1418 title TetraX : Finite-Element Micromagnetic-Modeling Package (...

    doi

  25. [33]

    Tacchi , author R

    author author S. Tacchi , author R. Silvani , author G. Carlotti , author M. Marangolo , author M. Eddrief , author A. Rettori ,\ and\ author M. G. \ Pini ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.104406 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 104406 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  26. [34]

    Klingler , author V

    author author S. Klingler , author V. Amin , author S. Gepr \"a gs , author K. Ganzhorn , author H. Maier-Flaig , author M. Althammer , author H. Huebl , author R. Gross , author R. D. \ McMichael , author M. D. \ Stiles , author S. T. B. \ Goennenwein ,\ and\ author M. Weiler...

    2018

  27. [35]

    K \"o rber , author G

    author author L. K \"o rber , author G. Quasebarth , author A. Otto ,\ and\ author A. K \'a kay ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0054169 journal journal AIP Advances \ volume 11 ,\ pages 095006 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    author author S. O. \ Demokritov , author B. Hillebrands ,\ and\ author A. N. \ Slavin ,\ @noop journal journal Physics Reports \ volume 348 ,\ pages 441 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  29. [37]

    Sebastian , author K

    author author T. Sebastian , author K. Schultheiss , author B. Obry , author B. Hillebrands ,\ and\ author H. Schultheiss ,\ journal journal Frontiers in Physics \ volume 3 ,\ https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2015.00035 10.3389/fphy.2015.00035 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  30. [38]

    Mock , author B

    author author R. Mock , author B. Hillebrands ,\ and\ author R. Sandercock ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3735/20/6/017 journal journal Journal of Physics E: Scientific Instruments \ volume 20 ,\ pages 656 ( year 1987 ) NoStop

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    author author K. K. \ Tikui s is , author L. Beran , author P. Cejpek , author K. Uhl \' r ov \'a , author J. Hamrle , author M. Va n atka , author M. Urb \'a nek ,\ and\ author M. Veis ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2016.10.036 journal journal Materials & Design \ volume...

    doi

  32. [40]

    orster , author H. Stoll , author A. S. \ Semisalova , author S. Finizio , author A. Gangwar , author M. Weigand , author M. Noske , author M. F\

    author author G. Dieterle , author J. F\"orster , author H. Stoll , author A. S. \ Semisalova , author S. Finizio , author A. Gangwar , author M. Weigand , author M. Noske , author M. F\"ahnle , author I. Bykova , author J. Gr\"afe , author D. A. \ Bozhko , author H. Y. \ Musi...

    doi

  33. [41]

    Trevillian \ and\ author V

    author author C. Trevillian \ and\ author V. Tyberkevych ,\ journal journal npj Spintronics \ volume 2 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s44306-024-00026-3 10.1038/s44306-024-00026-3 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Heins , author V

    author author C. Heins , author V. Iurchuk , author O. Gladii , author L. Körber , author A. Kakay , author J. Faßbender , author K. Schultheiß ,\ and\ author H. Schultheiß ,\ https://doi.org/10.14278/rodare.3336 title Data publication: Nonreciprocal spin-wave dispersion in ma...

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.