Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Investigating the Interplay between Spin-Polarization and Magnetic Damping in $\mathrm{Co}_{x}\mathrm{Fe}_{80-x}\mathrm{B}_{20}$ for Magnonics Applications

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Across amorphous CoFeB alloys, spin polarization and magnetic damping move in opposite directions along one inverse curve, which the authors attribute to interband s-d scattering controlling both.

desk verdict Solid room-temperature joint measurement of P and alpha in CoFeB, with a genuine inverse trend across five compositions; the training step is the main caveat, but the paper deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15954 v1 pith:UZDTC4H6 submitted 2024-12-20 physics.app-ph

Lorenzo Gnoatto , Thomas Molier , Jelte J. Lamberts , Artim L. Bassant , Casper F. Schippers , Rembert A. Duine , Reinoud Lavrijsen This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph PACS 75.70.-i75.78.-n76.50.+g85.75.-d
keywords CoFeBspinpolarizationGilbertdampingspin-waveDopplershiftpropagatingwavespectroscopymagnonicsferromagneticresonanceinterbandscattering
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 tries to establish that in the amorphous alloy series $\mathrm{Co}_x\mathrm{Fe}_{80-x}\mathrm{B}_{20}$, the spin polarization $P$ of a transport current and the magnetic damping $\alpha$ are inversely related properties of the same electronic scattering physics. Across five compositions, $P$ rises from $0.18 \pm 0.05$ to $0.39 \pm 0.05$ while $\alpha$ drops from $(9.7 \pm 0.6)\times 10^{-3}$ to $(4.0 \pm 0.2)\times 10^{-3}$, and the authors read this anticorrelation as evidence that interband $s$--$d$ scattering dominates in these films. Both quantities are measured at room temperature in the same propagating-spin-wave devices, with damping cross-checked by ferromagnetic resonance on unpatterned films. If the correlation is intrinsic, composition becomes a single knob that controls both spin-torque efficiency and spin-wave energy loss, which matters for spintronic switching and magnonic logic.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two relations. The polarization readout is the spin-wave Doppler shift: a spin-polarized current $I_{\mathrm{FM}}$ through the ferromagnetic strip shifts the spin-wave frequency by an amount proportional to $P$, $\Delta f_{\mathrm{dop}} = -[g\mu_B P/(4\pi M_s |e|)]\,(I_{\mathrm{FM}}/w t)\,k$, so isolating the non-reciprocal (spin-transfer-torque) part of the counter-propagating frequency shifts gives $P$ directly. The damping readout is the spin-wave relaxation rate: the transmitted amplitude decays as $A_{21} = \exp[-D/L_{\mathrm{att}}]$ over antenna spacing $D$, and the resulting relaxation rate $\Gamma$ converts to damping through $\Gamma = \alpha_{\mathrm{PSWS}}(\omega_0 + \omega_M/2)$ for in-plane magnetized films. Supporting the extraction are a parallel-conductor model that corrects the applied current for shunting through the tantalum layers (correction factors between 0.77 and 0.95) and a published Oersted-field compensation that separates the true Doppler shift from spurious non-reciprocal effects; a permalloy control device ($P = 0.67 \pm 0.08$) validates the whole protocol against earlier reports.

What would settle it

Re-measure $P$ and $\alpha$ on both virgin (untrained) and trained devices for every composition, since the paper states without showing the traces that the ~10 MHz training-induced frequency shift is the same for all compositions; a quantitative check that the shift is composition-independent, and that the trained-state Doppler response and linewidth reproduce the virgin-state $P$ and $\alpha$ up to a constant offset, would confirm the correlation is intrinsic. A complementary calculation is a first-principles computation of both $\alpha$ and $P$ from one electronic structure per composition, in the spirit of the cited unified transport theory; if computed damping does not decrease as computed polarization increases across the series, the interband-scattering interpretation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central finding is a systematic inverse relationship between spin polarization and Gilbert damping across the $\mathrm{Co}_x\mathrm{Fe}_{80-x}\mathrm{B}_{20}$ series ($x = 12, 20, 48, 60, 80$): the highest measured $P$ ($0.39 \pm 0.05$) coincides with the lowest measured $\alpha$ ($(4.0 \pm 0.2)\times 10^{-3}$), and the lowest measured $P$ ($0.18 \pm 0.05$) coincides with the highest measured $\alpha$ ($(9.7 \pm 0.6)\times 10^{-3}$). $P$ is extracted from the non-reciprocal part of the current-induced Doppler shift of propagating spin waves in 2-\textmu m-wide microstrips, after correcting for Oersted fields and for current shunting through the tantalum layers; $\alpha$ is extracted from the exponential decay of the transmitted spin-wave amplitude with propagation time, with the values reproduced by broadband ferromagnetic resonance on blanket films. The authors state the inverse correlation as an indication that interband scattering dominates in amorphous CoFeB: the same $s$--$d$ scattering processes that produce a spin-polarized current also dissipate spin-wave energy, so a strongly polarizing alloy is naturally a weakly damped one. They further note that the measurement probes the bulk of a 20-nm film at room temperature, unlike earlier tunneling-based determinations of $P$ that probe interface states at millikelvin temperatures.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that the pre-measurement 'training' step, running 5 mA through each microstrip for 45 minutes, which shifts the zero-current spin-wave frequency by about 10 MHz, only stabilizes the samples and does not change the spin polarization or damping differently for different compositions; if the training effect scales with cobalt content, the inverse correlation could be an artifact of the measurement protocol rather than a property of the amorphous alloy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Composition becomes a design knob: within $\mathrm{Co}_x\mathrm{Fe}_{80-x}\mathrm{B}_{20}$, choosing the cobalt fraction selects a point on the inverse $P$--$\alpha$ curve, so an alloy can be chosen that is simultaneously strongly polarizing and weakly damped.
  • Patterning does not degrade the trade-off: $\alpha_{\mathrm{PSWS}}$ extracted from the 2-\textmu m microstrips agrees with $\alpha_{\mathrm{FMR}}$ from blanket films within measurement accuracy, so the inverse correlation is a property of the alloy rather than a fabrication artifact.
  • The inverse trend gives experimental support to the theoretical picture in which interband $s$--$d$ scattering controls both spin-current polarization and damping, extending that picture to amorphous CoFeB.
  • The Doppler-shift protocol yields a room-temperature, bulk-sensitive measurement of $P$ in 20-nm films, complementing low-temperature tunneling measurements that probe only interface states.
  • The permalloy validation ($P = 0.67 \pm 0.08$ against $0.63 \pm 0.4$ in the literature) indicates that the polarization values produced by this method are quantitatively reliable when applied to a new material family.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if interband scattering really sets both quantities, then engineering the Fermi-level density of states, for instance by changing the boron fraction or adding a dopant, should move $P$ and $\alpha$ together along the same inverse curve, which is a testable prediction beyond the five compositions measured here.
  • A natural next test, extending the same method: apply the Doppler-shift polarization and relaxation-rate damping pair to other amorphous 3d transition-metal--metalloid alloys such as Co--Fe--Ge or Co--Fe--Si--B; finding the same inverse correlation there would show the $P$--$\alpha$ link is a generic property of disordered ferromagnets rather than a CoFeB-specific coincidence.
  • A design heuristic that follows but is not developed in the paper: the composition at the high-$P$, low-$\alpha$ corner of the measured series is the natural single-material choice for metal magnonics, pairing efficient spin-transfer torque with long spin-wave propagation lengths.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of the spin polarization P of the transport current and the Gilbert damping α in a series of amorphous CoxFe80−xB20 (x = 12, 20, 48, 60, 80) films and microstrips, using propagating spin-wave spectroscopy (PSWS) and broadband ferromagnetic resonance (FMR). The central claim is that P and α are inversely correlated: as P increases from 0.18±0.05 to 0.39±0.05, α decreases from (9.7±0.6)×10−3 to (4.0±0.2)×10−3. The authors interpret this as evidence for the dominance of interband scattering in CoFeB. The method is validated with a permalloy control device, yielding P = 0.67±0.08, consistent with earlier reports. The manuscript includes a detailed supplementary section describing sample growth, FMR analysis, the PSWS Doppler-shift extraction, a parallel-conductor current-shunting correction, and an empirical electrical 'training' procedure applied before measurements.

Significance. If the reported inverse P–α correlation is intrinsic to amorphous CoFeB, the result would provide a useful room-temperature, bulk-sensitive dataset connecting two technologically important parameters, with implications for spin-torque devices and magnonics. The measurement strategy is non-circular: P is extracted from the slope of Doppler shift versus current and α from spin-wave decay, neither of which is preset by the model. The permalloy control is a genuine positive control, and the simultaneous deposition of films for FMR and PSWS is a strength. However, the central claim currently rests on only five compositions with no statistical test, and the empirical training protocol introduces a potentially composition-dependent systematic effect that could mimic an intrinsic inverse correlation. The theoretical interpretation in terms of interband scattering is plausible but not directly tested.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary Section III.C (Training procedure)] The manuscript states that 'the magnetic and electric properties changed during subsequent Doppler shift measurements' and shows a ~10 MHz zero-current frequency shift after applying 5 mA for 45 minutes, yet all P and α values are measured only after this empirical training step. The training-induced shift is shown for one composition only (Co48Fe32B20), and no before-training P or αPSWS values are reported for any composition. If the training-induced changes (e.g., B out-diffusion, interface modification, or structural relaxation) are composition-dependent, the central inverse correlation in Fig. 3(c) could be an artifact of the measurement protocol rather than an intrinsic property of the as-grown CoxFe80−xB20 alloy. The authors should provide before/after training measurements of P and α for all five compositions, or otherwise demonstrate that training does not alter Ms, the current-shunting correction Ccorr, and the s–d scattering that determines α in a composition-dependent way.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 3(c) and Abstract] The claimed 'systematic drop' in α with increasing P is based on five compositions with no statistical test and no quantitative measure of the correlation. The uncertainties in P (±0.05) are comparable to the total P range (0.18 to 0.39), and the intermediate compositions are not shown to follow a monotonic trend beyond visual inspection. The extreme compositions differ by roughly three combined standard deviations in P, which is suggestive but does not by itself establish a correlation across the series. A weighted correlation coefficient, a fit with confidence intervals, or at least a table listing all P and αPSWS values with their uncertainties is needed to support the central claim made in the abstract.
  3. [Eq. (3) and Supplementary Section III.B] The extraction of P relies on the parallel-conductor correction Ccorr, which for CoFeB is as large as 0.77 (i.e., 23% of the current is shunted through Ta). The model assumes that the two 4-nm Ta layers can be represented by a single 8-nm Ta film and that interface scattering does not alter the shunting ratio. These assumptions are not quantified, and the permalloy control has only a 5% correction, so it does not validate the model in the regime where this correction is large. An estimate of the systematic uncertainty in Ccorr and its propagation into the extracted P values is necessary, especially because a composition-dependent error in the current-shunting correction could directly produce an artificial inverse trend between P and α.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, paragraph before Fig. 2(f)] The sentence 'In Fig. 3(e) we evaluate the group delay time (τ) for each distance D' appears to refer to Fig. 2(e), not Fig. 3(e); please correct the figure reference.
  2. [Supplementary Section III.A] The permalloy validation reports P = '0.67 ± 0.8', which is inconsistent with the main text value of 0.67 ± 0.08; this is presumably a typographical error and should be corrected.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 1(c) discussion] The phrase 'this behavior has been reported for CoFe10 alloys' lacks a citation; a reference should be added to support the comparison.
  4. [Main text, Eq. (2)] The notation 'MsMeff' would be clearer as 'Ms Meff' (product of two quantities) to avoid any ambiguity with a single symbol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: P and α are extracted from distinct observables, with the Doppler-shift method validated against an external Py reference.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an inverse empirical correlation between spin polarization P and Gilbert damping α across CoxFe80−xB20 compositions. Walking the derivation chain: P is obtained from the slope of the current-induced Doppler shift Δf_dop versus I_FM using Eq. (3), which depends on independently measured quantities (Ms from SQUID, g from γ extracted from FMR, w=2 μm, t=20 nm, k=5.4 μm⁻¹). α_PSWS is obtained from Eq. (1) using the spin-wave relaxation rate Γ determined from the decay of transmitted amplitude A21 versus group delay, with ω0 and ωM built from FMR/SQUID parameters. α_FMR comes from linewidth versus frequency in blanket films. These are separate fits to separate datasets; neither P nor α is preset or used as an input for the other. The Oersted-field compensation follows Haidar and Bailleul's published method and is externally validated by reproducing the known Permalloy polarization (P = 0.67 ± 0.08 versus 0.63 ± 0.4 from Haidar). The self-citations present (Paluskar et al. 2009, Lucassen et al. 2019, Kools et al. 2023) serve as background and methods references only; they do not supply the measured P or α values, nor are they invoked as a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that forces the conclusion. The 'training' procedure in Supplementary Section III.C is disclosed and is a possible systematic-bias source, but it is a measurement-protocol concern rather than a logical circularity: P and α are still measured after conditioning, and the inverse correlation is not obtained by construction from the training shift. The interpretation that interband scattering dominates is an external theoretical suggestion (Starikov et al.), not a fitted parameter. No step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and no free parameters beyond the measured quantities; all input material parameters are measured independently. The central claim rests on standard spin-wave and STT formulas from prior work, plus two unverified modeling choices: the Ta-layer equivalence in the parallel-conductor model and the relevance of the trained sample state.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spin-wave dispersion relation (Eq. 2) applies to the 2 µm wide in-plane magnetized strips.
    Used to extract Ms and gamma from the PSWS center frequency versus field; standard magnetostatic surface wave dispersion.
  • domain assumption The Doppler shift is described by Eq. 3 with adiabatic spin-transfer torque as the only spin-current contribution after Oersted-field compensation.
    Central to the P extraction; formula from Vlaminck and Bailleul, Haidar et al., Zhu et al.
  • domain assumption The spin-wave relaxation rate is related to Gilbert damping by Eq. 1 (Gamma = alpha_PSWS (omega0 + omega_M / 2)).
    Used to convert attenuation length and group delay into alpha_PSWS; from Gladii et al.
  • domain assumption The two 4 nm Ta layers can be modeled as a single 8 nm Ta film, ignoring CoFeB/Ta interface scattering, to compute current shunting.
    Supplementary Section III.B; the correction is 15-23 percent for CoFeB, and this assumption directly affects I_FM in Eq. 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical 'training' protocol (5 mA for 45 minutes) stabilizes the samples without changing the intrinsic properties relevant to P and alpha.
    Supplementary Section III.C; the observed ~10 MHz zero-current shift before and after training shows the sample changes, and the paper assumes the trained state is representative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigating the Interplay between Spin-Polarization and Magnetic Damping in $\mathrm{Co}_{x}\mathrm{Fe}_{80-x}\mathrm{B}_{20}$ for Magnonics Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZDTC4H6

@misc{pith2026241215954,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigating the Interplay between Spin-Polarization and Magnetic Damping in $\mathrmCo_x\mathrmFe_80-x\mathrmB_20$ for Magnonics Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZDTC4H6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15954}
}
abstract

For magnonics and spintronics applications, the spin polarization ($P$) of a transport current and the magnetic damping ($\alpha$) play a crucial role, e.g. for magnetization dynamics and magnetization switching applications. In particular, $P$ in a glassy (amorphous) 3d transition ferromagnet such as CoFeB and $\alpha$ are both strongly affected by $s-d$ scattering mechanisms. Hence, a correlation can be expected which is a priori difficult to predict. In this work, $P$ and $\alpha$ are measured using current-induced Doppler shifts using propagating spin-wave spectroscopy and broadband ferromagnetic resonance techniques in blanket films and current-carrying $Co_{\rm x}Fe_{\rm {80-x}}B_{\rm 20}$ alloy microstrips. The measured $P$ ranges from 0.18 $\pm$ 0.05 to 0.39 $\pm$ 0.05 and $\alpha$ ranges from $(4.0\pm 0.2)\cdot10^{-3}$ to $(9.7\pm 0.6)\cdot10^{-3}$. We find that for increasing $P$ a systematic drop in $\alpha$ is observed, indicating an interplay between magnetic damping and the spin polarization of the transport current which suggests that interband scattering dominates in $Co_{\rm x}Fe_{\rm {80-x}}B_{\rm 20}$. Our results may guide future experiments, theory, and applications in advancing spintronics and metal magnonics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15954 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Frequency as a function of resonance field for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. a) Optical microscope image of the PSWS device. b) Scan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. a) Magnetic damping as a function of composition from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aapmrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  2. [2]

    merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipauth4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translat...

    2010

  3. [3]

    merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs aipnum4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  4. [4]

    merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrev4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  5. [5]

    merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked

    FUNCTION id.bst "merlin.mbs apsrmp4-1.bst 2010-07-25 4.21a (PWD, AO, DPC) hacked" ENTRY address archive archivePrefix author bookaddress booktitle chapter collaboration doi edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn issn journal key language month note number organization pages primaryClass publisher school SLACcitation series title translati...

    2010

  6. [6]

    Manipatruni , author D

    author author S. Manipatruni , author D. E. \ Nikonov , \ and\ author I. A. \ Young ,\ title title Beyond cmos computing with spin and polarization , \ @noop journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 14 ,\ pages 338--343 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Mahmoud , author F

    author author A. Mahmoud , author F. Ciubotaru , author F. Vanderveken , author A. V. \ Chumak , author S. Hamdioui , author C. Adelmann , \ and\ author S. Cotofana ,\ title title Introduction to spin wave computing , \ @noop journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 128 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Vlaminck \ and\ author M

    author author V. Vlaminck \ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ title title Current-induced spin-wave doppler shift , \ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 322 ,\ pages 410--413 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page 2008

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Haidar \ and\ author M

    author author M. Haidar \ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ title title Thickness dependence of degree of spin polarization of electrical current in permalloy thin films , \ @noop journal journal Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics \ volume 88 ,\ pages 054417 ( y...

    2013

  2. [10]

    Gladii , author M

    author author O. Gladii , author M. Collet , author K. Garcia-Hernandez , author C. Cheng , author S. Xavier , author P. Bortolotti , author V. Cros , author Y. Henry , author J.-V. \ Kim , author A. Anane , et al. ,\ title title Spin wave amplification using the spin hall eff...

    2016

  3. [11]

    An , author D

    author author K. An , author D. R. \ Birt , author C.-F. \ Pai , author K. Olsson , author D. C. \ Ralph , author R. A. \ Buhrman , \ and\ author X. Li ,\ title title Control of propagating spin waves via spin transfer torque in a metallic bilayer waveguide , \ @noop journal j...

    2014

  4. [12]

    Zhu , author B

    author author M. Zhu , author B. D. \ Soe , author R. D. \ McMichael , author M. Carey , author S. Maat , \ and\ author J. R. \ Childress ,\ title title Enhanced magnetization drift velocity and current polarization in (cofe) 1- xgex alloys , \ @noop journal journal Applied Ph...

    2011

  5. [13]

    author author R. L. \ Thomas , author M. Zhu , author C. L. \ Dennis , author V. Misra , \ and\ author R. McMichael ,\ title title Impact of gd dopants on current polarization and the resulting effect on spin transfer velocity in permalloy wires , \ @noop journal journal Journ...

    2011

  6. [14]

    Paluskar , author R

    author author P. Paluskar , author R. Lavrijsen , author M. Sicot , author J. Kohlhepp , author H. Swagten , \ and\ author B. Koopmans ,\ title title Correlation between magnetism and spin-dependent transport in cofeb alloys , \ @noop journal journal Physical review letters \ ...

    2009

  7. [15]

    author author M. A. \ Schoen , author D. Thonig , author M. L. \ Schneider , author T. Silva , author H. T. \ Nembach , author O. Eriksson , author O. Karis , \ and\ author J. M. \ Shaw ,\ title title Ultra-low magnetic damping of a metallic ferromagnet , \ @noop journal journ...

    2016

  8. [16]

    author author A. A. \ Starikov , author P. J. \ Kelly , author A. Brataas , author Y. Tserkovnyak , \ and\ author G. E. \ Bauer ,\ title title Unified first-principles study of gilbert damping, spin-flip diffusion, and<? format?> resistivity in transition metal alloys , \ @noo...

    2010

  9. [17]

    Lucassen , author C

    author author J. Lucassen , author C. F. \ Schippers , author L. Rutten , author R. A. \ Duine , author H. J. \ Swagten , author B. Koopmans , \ and\ author R. Lavrijsen ,\ title title Optimizing propagating spin wave spectroscopy , \ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Lett...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Ikeda , author K

    author author S. Ikeda , author K. Miura , author H. Yamamoto , author K. Mizunuma , author H. Gan , author M. Endo , author S. Kanai , author J. Hayakawa , author F. Matsukura , \ and\ author H. Ohno ,\ title title A perpendicular-anisotropy cofeb--mgo magnetic tunnel junctio...

    2010

  11. [19]

    Morgunov , author G

    author author R. Morgunov , author G. L'vova , author A. Talantsev , author Y. Lu , author X. Devaux , author S. Migot , author O. Koplak , author O. Dmitriev , \ and\ author S. Mangin ,\ title title Ferromagnetic resonance of cofeb/ta/cofeb spin valves versus cofeb film , \ @...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Zahedinejad , author H

    author author M. Zahedinejad , author H. Mazraati , author H. Fulara , author J. Yue , author S. Jiang , author A. Awad , \ and\ author J. kerman ,\ title title Cmos compatible w/cofeb/mgo spin hall nano-oscillators with wide frequency tunability , \ @noop journal journal Appl...

    2018

  13. [21]

    Gladii , author D

    author author O. Gladii , author D. Halley , author Y. Henry , \ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ title title Spin-wave propagation and spin-polarized electron transport in single-crystal iron films , \ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 96 ,\ pages 174420 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  14. [22]

    Br \"a cher , author O

    author author T. Br \"a cher , author O. Boulle , author G. Gaudin , \ and\ author P. Pirro ,\ title title Creation of unidirectional spin-wave emitters by utilizing interfacial dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction , \ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 95 ,\ pages ...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Joseph \ and\ author E

    author author R. Joseph \ and\ author E. Schl \"o mann ,\ title title Demagnetizing field in nonellipsoidal bodies , \ @noop journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 36 ,\ pages 1579--1593 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965

  16. [24]

    Vlaminck \ and\ author M

    author author V. Vlaminck \ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ title title Spin-wave transduction at the submicrometer scale: Experiment and modeling , \ @noop journal journal Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics \ volume 81 ,\ pages 014425 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  17. [25]

    author author C. S. \ Chang , author M. Kostylev , author E. Ivanov , author J. Ding , \ and\ author A. O. \ Adeyeye ,\ title title The phase accumulation and antenna near field of microscopic propagating spin wave devices , \ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ vo...

    2014

  18. [26]

    Haidar ,\ title Role of surfaces in magnetization dynamics and spin polarized transport: a spin wave study ,\ @noop Ph.D

    author author M. Haidar ,\ title Role of surfaces in magnetization dynamics and spin polarized transport: a spin wave study ,\ @noop Ph.D. thesis ,\ school Universite de Strasbourg ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  19. [27]

    author author T. J. \ Kools , author Y. L. \ van Hees , author K. Poissonnier , author P. Li , author B. Barcones Campo , author M. A. \ Verheijen , author B. Koopmans , \ and\ author R. Lavrijsen ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 123 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  20. [28]

    Beik Mohammadi , author J

    author author J. Beik Mohammadi , author J. M. \ Jones , author S. Paul , author B. Khodadadi , author C. K. \ Mewes , author T. Mewes , \ and\ author C. Kaiser ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 064414 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  21. [29]

    Haidar \ and\ author M

    author author M. Haidar \ and\ author M. Bailleul ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics \ volume 88 ,\ pages 054417 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  22. [30]

    Zhu , author B

    author author M. Zhu , author B. D. \ Soe , author R. D. \ McMichael , author M. Carey , author S. Maat , \ and\ author J. R. \ Childress ,\ @noop journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 98 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  23. [31]

    Aleksandrov , author C

    author author Y. Aleksandrov , author C. Fowley , author E. Kowalska , author V. Sluka , author O. Y ld r m , author J. Lindner , author B. Ocker , author J. Fassbender , \ and\ author A. M. \ Deac ,\ @noop journal journal AIP Advances \ volume 6 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  24. [32]

    Wang , author Z

    author author K. Wang , author Z. Xu , author Y. Huang , author Y. Qiu , \ and\ author S. Dong ,\ @noop journal journal Sci. China Mater \ volume 59 ,\ pages 639 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  25. [33]

    \ Kim , author G

    author author J.-S. \ Kim , author G. Kim , author J. Jung , author K. Jung , author J. Cho , author W.-Y. \ Kim , \ and\ author C.-Y. \ You ,\ @noop journal journal Scientific Reports \ volume 12 ,\ pages 4549 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    2022

  26. [34]

    Br \"a cher , author O

    author author T. Br \"a cher , author O. Boulle , author G. Gaudin , \ and\ author P. Pirro ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 95 ,\ pages 064429 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  27. [35]

    Joseph \ and\ author E

    author author R. Joseph \ and\ author E. Schl \"o mann ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 36 ,\ pages 1579 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965

  28. [36]

    Jen , author Y

    author author S. Jen , author Y. Yao , author Y. Chen , author J. Wu , author C. Lee , author T. Tsai , \ and\ author Y. Chang ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of applied physics \ volume 99 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  29. [37]

    \ Chen \ and\ author S

    author author Y.-T. \ Chen \ and\ author S. Xie ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Nanomaterials \ volume 2012 ,\ pages 486284 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012

  30. [38]

    Neudecker , author G

    author author I. Neudecker , author G. Woltersdorf , author B. Heinrich , author T. Okuno , author G. Gubbiotti , \ and\ author C. Back ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials \ volume 307 ,\ pages 148 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

Pith tools

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