Large enhancement of spin-flip scattering efficiency at Y3Fe5O12/Pt interfaces due to vertical confinement

Haripriya Madathil; Paul N\"oel; Pranav Pradeep; Sa\"ul V\'elez

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 38 references

Large enhancement of spin-flip scattering efficiency at Y3Fe5O12/Pt interfaces due to vertical confinement

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 The interfacial spin conductance of YIG/Pt is not a constant: subthermal magnons make it a strong function of magnetic field and film thickness.

desk verdict A clear and reproducible experimental trend—huge thickness- and field-dependent 2nd-harmonic SMR in YIG/Pt—but the quantitative claims (factor 30, exponential field suppression) rest on a decomposition whose assumptions are deferred to the Supplemental Material. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19247 v1 pith:ACVXTTA3 submitted 2024-12-26 cond-mat.mes-hall

Haripriya Madathil , Pranav Pradeep , Paul Nöel , Saül Vélez This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords spinconductancesubthermalmagnonsharmonicHallmagnetoresistancemagnoncreationandannihilationYIG/Ptinterfacesverticalconfinementdampingcompensation

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

The paper argues that the interfacial spin conductance $g_s$ of YIG/Pt, usually treated as a constant set by thermal magnons, is instead dominated by deep subthermal magnons at room temperature and depends strongly on magnetic field and YIG thickness. It supports this with second-harmonic Hall measurements on YIG films from 10 to 100 nm thick: reducing thickness from 100 to 10 nm raises the extracted spin-flip efficiency by a factor of about 30, and the magnon generation efficiency falls exponentially with field. If correct, this changes how electrically driven magnon generation is modeled and suggests that thin-film confinement can substantially lower the current needed for damping compensation and magnon condensation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin conductance $g_s$, which sets the interfacial efficiency of spin-flip scattering. The measurement machinery is the angular dependence of the second-harmonic Hall resistance $R_{xy}^{2\omega}(\phi)$, decomposed into spin Hall magnetoresistance, field-like torque, and spin Seebeck contributions with distinct field dependences, leaving $R_{xy,\mathrm{SMR}}^{2\omega}$ as the magnon-creation signal. The model for the magnon spectral density $n(\omega,I)=n_0/(1-I/I_c)$ connects $\Delta M/M_s$ to $I/I_c$, where $I_c$ is the critical current for damping compensation. Thickness enters through a factor $g_s/t$ and through vertical confinement: for subthermal magnons the number of occupied bands $n = 1 + \mathrm{int}\left(\frac{t}{\pi}\sqrt{\frac{k_B T_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\hbar \gamma_m D}}\right)$ drops to a few, with the three-dimensional-to-two-dimensional crossover length $\lambda_{T_{\mathrm{eff}}} \sim 10\,\mathrm{nm}$ for $T_{\mathrm{eff}} \sim 10\,\mathrm{K}$.

What would settle it

Measure $\Delta$ M/M_s in the same YIG/Pt films using an independent probe that does not require the spin Seebeck and field-like torque subtraction, for example nonlocal magnon transport or spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance, and compare its field and thickness dependence with the harmonic-Hall g_s(B,t). Alternatively, repeat the harmonic-Hall measurement with the Pt layer on a nonmagnetic control film such as GGG/Pt to characterize the spin Seebeck and Oersted-field baselines directly; if the extracted magnon signal does not vanish in a geometry where no magnons exist, the exponential field dependence is called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the authors' terms, the central discovery is that current-driven spin-flip scattering at the YIG/Pt interface is not governed by the thermal magnon bath but by a small population of deep subthermal magnons (GHz frequencies, effective temperatures of order Kelvin) whose occupation is easily altered by field and confinement. The extracted spin conductance $g_s(B,t)$ therefore becomes a tunable quantity: magnetic field exponentially suppresses it, and reducing YIG thickness from 100 nm to 10 nm increases it by roughly a factor 30. The authors attribute the thickness dependence to vertical confinement, which leaves only a few occupied magnon bands in films thinner than about 10 nm; their estimates relate the transition to the subthermal magnon wavelength. They further report that in 10 nm films the critical current for damping compensation is reached in continuous films, and that the field dependence of $g_s$ tracks the field dependence of the transverse magnetization fluctuations $\langle M_\perp^2 \rangle$ inferred from the first-harmonic spin Hall magnetoresistance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the decomposition of the second-harmonic Hall signal: the spin Seebeck part is assumed to follow the same field dependence as the first-harmonic spin Hall magnetoresistance, and the field-like torque is assumed to fall as 1/B, so every remaining field dependence in the extracted magnon signal is assigned to g_s(B). If those two background contributions have different field dependences, the apparent exponential suppression of magnon generation could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because nonlocal magnon transport signals depend on $g_s^2$, their measured amplitudes should show the same exponential field suppression and thickness enhancement as the harmonic-Hall data.
Damping compensation in continuous 10-nm YIG/Pt films occurs at accessible currents, so spin-orbit-torque nano-oscillators may not require patterned magnetic structures in this thickness range.
Magnon Bose-Einstein condensation thresholds should drop when the YIG thickness approaches the subthermal-magnon confinement length, making nanoscale condensate experiments realistic.
Models that treat $g_s$ as a thermal-only constant will overestimate magnon generation at high fields and underestimate it in thin films; $g_s(B,t)$ should be treated as a material parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

If the confinement picture is right, $g_s$ could be tuned by engineering the magnon band bottom (strain, anisotropy, or thickness) rather than only by interface quality, because shifting the band edge changes the number of occupied subthermal bands and hence the net spin-flip efficiency.
The model implies a specific temperature signature: cooling should alter the effective magnon temperature and the number of occupied bands, so $g_s(B,t)$ in ultrathin films should deviate from the usual thermal-magnon scaling; the paper does not report temperature dependence.
A decisive independent check would be comparing the field exponent $\gamma$ from harmonic Hall with the field dependence of nonlocal magnon transport in identical films; the paper notes nonlocal signals scale as $g_s^2$ but does not perform this comparison.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing you should know: this is a real experimental effect. The 2nd-harmonic SMR in YIG/Pt grows by roughly two orders of magnitude when the YIG thickness drops from 100 to 10 nm, and it is strongly suppressed by fields of a few hundred mT. That is surprising and worth taking seriously. The paper's interpretation—that spin-flip scattering is dominated by deep subthermal magnons, making g_s a function of field and thickness—is plausible and consistent with earlier work on subthermal magnon transport.

What is new: the thickness series itself and the explicit claim that g_s is enhanced by vertical confinement. The authors connect their data to a previous model (Eq. 4) and provide a scaling relation (Eq. 5) to isolate the g_s contribution. The harmonic measurements look careful: they fit the angular dependence, check the FL torque against the Oersted field, and cite consistent longitudinal analysis. The paper is honest about what is assumed.

Where it gets soft: the extraction of R_xy,SMR^2ω(B) depends on subtracting SSE and FL contributions using assumed field dependences—SSE following R_SMR^1ω(B) and FL following 1/B. If the SSE's true field dependence is different, the apparent power-law suppression of the magnon signal could be an artifact. The stress-test note is correct that the headline 'exponential suppression' is actually a power law B^{-γ} (γ≈0.7–0.83), and the abstract's wording is sloppy. The key supporting analyses (field-dependent SSE measurements, longitudinal cross-check, ΔR_SMR^1ω(B) analysis) are all deferred to a Supplemental Material not included in the arXiv version. That makes it impossible to fully verify the central quantitative claim from the preprint alone. The factor-30 increase in g_s also assumes α*t is roughly constant and that κ and n0 do not vary with thickness; the paper argues for this but again the details are in the supplement.

Is the central observation broken? No. The raw data show a large, field-dependent, thickness-dependent 2nd-harmonic SMR. But the quantitative conclusions—factor 30, exponential g_s(B)—are model-dependent and not independently verified here. The gamma exponent is fitted, not predicted, and the g_s(B) attribution is a consistency argument, not a direct measurement.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. The experimental trend is likely real and important for the magnonics community. The referee should insist on seeing the Supplemental Material and a frank discussion of the SSE subtraction. I would cite the raw trend in my own work, but hesitate to cite the factor-30 number until it survives review. For a reading group, it's a good paper to discuss because the gap between the data and the interpretation is instructive.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports harmonic Hall measurements on Pt/YIG bilayers with YIG thickness 10-100 nm and interprets the second-harmonic transverse response as arising from magnon creation/annihilation processes, parametrized by the interfacial spin conductance g_s. The authors claim that decreasing the YIG thickness from 100 to 10 nm increases g_s by a factor ~30 and that the magnon generation efficiency is exponentially (actually power-law B^{-\gamma}) suppressed with magnetic field, which they attribute to the dominant role of deep subthermal magnons at room temperature. They also report that the critical current for damping compensation is reached in 10-nm continuous YIG films and increases roughly linearly with field up to ~40 mT. The central modeling elements are: (i) decomposition of the 2nd-harmonic Hall signal into SMR, field-like torque (1/B), and SSE components via angular dependence of Eq. (3); (ii) extraction of Delta M/M_s = R_xy,SMR^2w/(2 R_xy,SMR^1w); (iii) a relaxation-time model leading to Eq. (4) for Delta M/M_s(I) with critical current I_c; and (iv) a scaling argument Eq. (5) attributing the thickness dependence of Delta M to the ratio S_12 ≈ g_{s,1}/g_{s,2}, assuming kappa and n0 are thickness-independent.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the work would establish that the interfacial spin-flip conductance in YIG/Pt is not a thermal-equilibrium constant but is strongly field- and thickness-dependent, with practical implications for spin-orbit-torque devices and magnon condensation in thin films. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction-like statement: the field suppression exponent gamma increases with decreasing thickness and increasing current, consistent with trends in unidirectional spin Hall magnetoresistance. Strengths: the manuscript presents a relatively simple closed-form model for the current dependence (Eq. 4) that yields fits with physically sensible critical currents, an independent check via the longitudinal 2nd harmonic is mentioned (though deferred to Supplemental Material), and the Oersted-field consistency check for the field-like torque (B_FL = 0.22±0.03 mT vs 0.25 mT) is a nice internal calibration. The significance is potentially high, but the load-bearing decomposition currently rests on assumptions deferred to the Supplemental Material, which is not included in the preprint.

major comments (4)

[Harmonic Hall measurements; Eq. (3) and Fig. 2] The extraction of R_xy,SMR^2w(B) is underdetermined unless R_xy,FL^2w(B) ∝ 1/B and R_xy,SSE^2w(B) ∝ R_xy,SMR^1w(B) are assumed; the headline B^{-gamma} decay and the vanishing of R_xy,SMR^2w above ~400 mT are precisely the residual field dependences left after subtracting these modeled backgrounds. A mis-specification of the SSE(B) or FL(B) functional form could convert a background into the apparent subthermal-magnon signal. The manuscript states that the SSE form is "further confirmed by independent measurements" and that the longitudinal analysis gives consistent results, but both are deferred to the Supplemental Material and are not verifiable in this preprint. This is the most load-bearing assumption and needs to be either fully documented (data and fit residuals) in the main text or the key conclusions should be relaxed.
[Eqs. (2)-(4) and Fig. 3] The identification of the nonlinear SMR term with magnon creation/annihilation and the extraction of I_c from Delta M/M_s(I) fits assumes that the second-harmonic signal at the first harmonic frequency is entirely due to the current-induced change in the static magnetization M(I) = M_s + Delta M(I) sin(phi), with Delta M linear in I. However, Eq. (4) itself yields Delta M ∝ I/[1-(I/I_c)^2], i.e., a nonlinear-in-I magnetization change that then enters the SMR expression; the manuscript does not show that higher-order terms in the expansion of cos(phi) sin[phi + Delta M(I) sin(phi)] do not contribute to the 2nd-harmonic angular decomposition at the same order. The angular decomposition Eq. (3) is written for a generic second-harmonic response, but the mapping from Delta M/M_s in Fig. 3 to a current-dependent R_xy,SMR^2w via Eq. (2) assumes the second-harmonic SMR term is linear in the current-induced magnetization change; this should be stated explicitly and justified with the truncation order.
[Modelling Delta M/M_s; Eq. (5)] The claim that g_s increases by a factor ~30 when thickness decreases from 100 to 10 nm relies on the assumption that alpha*t and (1-kappa) n0 are approximately thickness-independent. The text gives arguments that kappa and n0 are weakly thickness-dependent, but the ratio S_12 is then entirely attributed to g_s; given that the extracted gamma and the empirical Delta R_xy,SMR^1w(B) are used to infer g_s(B) in the penultimate paragraph before Conclusions, the thickness dependence of g_s is not independently measured but inferred from the same nonlinear SMR data. This is internally consistent but should be flagged as a model-dependent rather than direct measurement, and the sensitivity of the factor-30 estimate to the assumed alpha*t, kappa, and n0 variations should be quantified.
[Abstract; Figs. 2-4] The abstract and several passages state that the magnetic field "exponentially suppresses the magnon generation efficiency", but the data are fitted to a power law B^{-gamma} with gamma ≈ 0.70-0.83 (Fig. 2a) and Delta M/M_s ∝ B^{-gamma} (Figs. 2b, 4). A power law is not an exponential decay; the terminology should be corrected consistently, or the functional form should be analyzed as an exponential (e.g., exp(-B/B0)) and shown to be inferior, before the current claim is stated.

minor comments (8)

[Fig. 2(a) caption] The blue line is described as a fit to B^{-gamma} with gamma = 1.00, but the text earlier states R_xy,FL^2w follows 1/B; using the same notation B^{-gamma} with gamma = 1.00 for the FL torque is fine but the caption should explicitly distinguish this from the extracted SMR gamma values.
[Penultimate paragraph before Conclusions] The term "exponential" is also used for Delta R_xy,SMR^1w(B) of the form B^{-eta}; the authors should use "power-law" throughout.
[Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) has no explicit proportionality constant or definition of the prefactor relating Delta M/M_s to n0 I/I_c; the text states "proportional" but the fits in Fig. 3(a) use an amplitude prefactor that is not specified. Adding the prefactor expression (e.g., in terms of g_s, alpha, and magnon density) would make the scaling argument in Eq. (5) more transparent.
[Fig. 3(b)] The open symbols for B >= 100 mT are described as unreliable estimates because Delta M/M_s(I) is flat; these points appear to be included in the claim of a linear increase with field, which should be clarified or removed.
[Samples preparation] The GGG substrate formula is written as Ga5Gd3O12, which is likely a typo for Gd3Ga5O12.
[Bibliography] The companion work by Nöel et al. is mentioned as arXiv:2411.07991 but is not cited as a numbered reference; the reference numbering should be checked.
[Supplemental Material reference [21]] The Supplemental Material is referenced as [21] but is not included in the arXiv version; the authors should either include it as ancillary material or clearly state which key measurements are deferred.
[Magnon band occupation paragraph] The estimate of the number of occupied magnon bands n = 1 + int(t/pi sqrt(k_B T_eff/(hbar gamma_m D))) uses a formula without derivation or reference; give a citation or derivation in the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central g_s(B,t) trends are direct observed harmonics; the SSE/FL subtraction assumptions and deferred SI checks are robustness concerns, not circular steps.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The raw observations are the angular coefficients of R_xy^2ω(φ) (Eq. 3); the field dependence of R_xy,SMR^2ω is obtained by subtracting assumed SSE(B) and FL(B) backgrounds, not by feeding g_s back into the data. The relation ΔM/M_s = R2/(2R1) (Eq. 2) uses the measured first harmonic as denominator, but the B^-γ dependence of ΔM is dominated by R2 and is an empirical fit, not a parameter-free prediction. The later inference of g_s(B) from ΔR_xy,SMR^1ω(B) is presented as a cross-check ("This suggests..."), not as the origin of the fitted exponent. Eq. (5) defines S12 in terms of the g_s ratio, so the thickness trend in g_s is model-dependent labeling of the measured ΔM ratio, but the paper states the auxiliary assumptions (αt≈const, κ, n0 nearly constant) and does not use g_s(t) to generate the thickness data. The main robustness concerns, which are not circularity, are: (i) the SSE(B) model R_xy,SSE^2ω(B)∝R_xy,SMR^1ω(B) is an untested-in-main-text assumption, and a mis-specified SSE field dependence could shift the extracted R_SMR^2ω(B); (ii) the independent checks (field-dependent SSE, longitudinal analysis, ΔR1(B)) are deferred to the Supplemental Material [21], which is not included in the arXiv version; (iii) the text calls B^-γ an "exponential dependence", although it is a power law. These are correctness risks, not evidence that any prediction is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a phenomenological magnon-creation model (Eqs. 1-4) taken from prior literature, plus several unmeasured assumptions about the thickness independence of kappa, n0, and alpha*t that convert amplitude ratios into a gs enhancement factor. The exponential field dependence is an empirical fit, not a derived consequence. No new entities are postulated; the subthermal magnons invoked are a population of existing magnon modes.

free parameters (5)

gamma = 0.70 (1 mA) to 0.83 (4 mA) for 10 nm; other values in Fig. 4c
Empirical exponent fitted to the field dependence of the nonlinear SMR amplitude; central to the claim that field exponentially suppresses magnon generation.
Ic (critical current) = linear increase with B up to about 40 mT; larger-field estimates marked as open dots in Fig. 3b
Extracted from fits of Delta M/Ms(I) to Eq. (4); used to argue for subthermal magnons and to normalize Eq. (5).
Amplitude prefactor in Eq. (4) = not reported numerically
Fitted per field and per thickness; ratios of these amplitudes across thicknesses are converted into S_{1,2} and then into the reported gs enhancement factor.
Teff (subthermal magnon effective temperature) = about 10 K
Chosen to estimate lambda_Teff about 10 nm and match the observed steep onset of gs enhancement; not independently measured.
eta = not reported in the main text
Fitted exponent in the B^{-eta} decay of Delta R_xy,SMR^1w, analyzed in the supplemental material; the consistency between eta and gamma is used to associate gs(B) with the magnon suppression.

assumptions (9)

domain assumption Relaxation-time-approximation magnon dynamics with interfacial source term eps*(Delta mu_updown - Delta mu_m)*n, where eps is proportional to gs/t.
Invoked to derive Eq. (4) and the definition of Ic; adopted from Refs. [16,17] of the paper.
domain assumption Angular form M(I)=Ms+Delta M(I) sin(phi) and SMR anisotropy Delta rho_xy proportional to Ms^2 cos(phi) sin(phi).
Basis of Eqs. (1) and (2); from SMR theory [14,15] and the magnon-creation model of Ref. [13].
domain assumption Second harmonic Hall response is a sum of SMR, field-like torque, and spin Seebeck terms with the angular structure of Eq. (3).
Used to extract each contribution from angular scans; the separation is critical for the field dependence claim.
ad hoc to paper SSE contribution has a field dependence following R_xy,SMR^1w(B), and FL contribution follows 1/B.
These assumed field dependences determine what is left as R_xy,SMR^2w(B); a mis-specified SSE would produce an artificial B^{-gamma}. The SSE choice is deferred to supplemental Ref. [21].
domain assumption gs at k=0 is proportional to <M_perp^2>, the average squared transverse magnetization.
Connects gs(B) to first-harmonic SMR via Ref. [15]; used to argue the suppression of Delta M mirrors gs(B).
ad hoc to paper kappa=Delta mu_m/Delta mu_updown and the equilibrium magnon density n0 are approximately independent of YIG thickness.
Required to convert measured amplitude ratios into a gs ratio through Eq. (5); not measured directly in the paper.
domain assumption alpha*t is approximately constant across the thickness series.
Used to simplify Eq. (5) with support from Refs. [21,30]; if false, the inferred gs enhancement is not a pure gs effect.
domain assumption Magnon stiffness D=5e-17 Tm^2 and the magnon band occupation formula n=1+int(t/pi*sqrt(kB Teff/(hbar gamma_m D))).
Used to estimate lambda_Teff about 10 nm and argue vertical confinement; D from Ref. [31].
ad hoc to paper The empirical power law Delta M proportional to B^{-gamma} is the correct functional form.
Chosen because the alternative 1/(1+xi B) from stiffness-driven relaxation gives poor fits; no microscopic derivation of the exponential form is supplied.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large enhancement of spin-flip scattering efficiency at Y3Fe5O12/Pt interfaces due to vertical confinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACVXTTA3

@misc{pith2026241219247,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large enhancement of spin-flip scattering efficiency at Y3Fe5O12/Pt interfaces due to vertical confinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACVXTTA3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19247}
}

read the original abstract

Magnons, the quanta of spin angular momentum, can be excited in magnetic insulators by spin-flip scattering processes originated from currents applied to a heavy metal overlayer. The efficiency to generate non-equilibrium magnons across interfaces is parametrized by the spin conductance gs, a phenomenological constant that is considered to be dependent on thermal magnons. Here, we investigate non-linear magnetoresistance phenomena originated in Pt due to current-driven nonequilibrium magnons in Y3Fe5O12 (YIG). Remarkably, we find that spin-flip scattering processes are dominated by subthermal magnons at room temperature, resulting in a large modulation of gs with the magnetic field and YIG thickness. Concretely, we find that decreasing the YIG thickness from 100 to 10 nm increases gs by a factor 30 and observe that the magnetic field exponentially suppresses the magnon generation efficiency. These findings challenge current understanding on gs and indicate that electrically-driven magnonic effects such as damping compensation and magnon condensation can be largely boosted by device miniaturization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19247 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

V Chumak, V

A. V Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon Spintronics, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, G. de Loubens, O. Klein, V. Cros, A. Anane, and S. O. Demokritov, Magnetization Oscillations and Waves Driven by Pure Spin Currents, Phys. Rep. 673, 1 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

Althammer, Pure Spin Currents in Magnetically Ordered Insulator/Normal Metal Heterostructures, J

M. Althammer, Pure Spin Currents in Magnetically Ordered Insulator/Normal Metal Heterostructures, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 51, 313001 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

L. J. Cornelissen, K. J. H. Peters, G. E. W. Bauer, R. A. Duine, and B. J. Van Wees, Magnon Spin Transport Driven by the Magnon Chemical Potential in a Magnetic Insulator, Phys. Rev. B 94, 014412 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Kajiwara, K

Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K. Takanashi, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Transmission of Electrical Signals by Spin- Wave Interconversion in a Magnetic Insulator, Nature 464, 262 (2010)

work page 2010
[6]

L. J. Cornelissen, J. Liu, R. A. Duine, J. Ben Youssef, and B. J. van Wees, Long-Distance Transport of Magnon Spin Information in a Magnetic Insulator at Room Temperature, Nat. Phys. 11, 1022 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Lebrun, A

R. Lebrun, A. Ross, S. A. Bender, A. Qaiumzadeh, L. Baldrati, J. Cramer, A. Brataas, R. A. Duine, and M. Kläui, Tunable Long-Distance Spin Transport in a Crystalline Antiferromagnetic Iron Oxide, Nature 561, 222 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

L. J. Cornelissen, K. Oyanagi, T. Kikkawa, Z. Qiu, T. Kuschel, G. E. W. Bauer, B. J. Van Wees, and E. Saitoh, Nonlocal Magnon-Polaron Transport in Yttrium Iron Garnet, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104441 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 38 references

[9]

Wimmer, A

T. Wimmer, A. Kamra, J. Gückelhorn, M. Opel, S. Geprägs, R. Gross, H. Huebl, and M. Althammer, Observation of Antiferromagnetic Magnon Pseudospin Dynamics and the Hanle Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 247204 (2020)

2020
[10]

Schlitz, S

R. Schlitz, S. Vélez, A. Kamra, C.-H. Lambert, M. Lammel, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and P. Gambardella, Control of Nonlocal Magnon Spin Transport via Magnon Drift Currents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 257201 (2021)

2021
[11]

X. Y. Wei, O. A. Santos, C. H. S. Lusero, G. E. W. Bauer, J. Ben Youssef, and B. J. van Wees, Giant Magnon Spin Conductivity in Ultrathin Yttrium Iron Garnet Films, Nat. Mater. 21, 1352 (2022)

2022
[12]

G. Liu, X. G. Wang, Z. Z. Luan, L. F. Zhou, S. Y. Xia, B. Yang, Y. Z. Tian, G. H. Guo, J. Du, and D. Wu, Magnonic Unidirectional Spin Hall Magnetoresistance in a Heavy-Metal-Ferromagnetic- Insulator Bilayer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 207206 (2021)

2021
[13]

P. Noel, R. Schlitz, E. Karadza, C.-H. Lambert, L. Nessi, F. Binda, and P. Gambardella, Nonlinear Longitudinal and Transverse Magnetoresistances Due to Magnon Creation-Annihilation Processes, arXiv:2411.07991 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[14]

Nakayama, M

H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, Y.-T. Chen, K. Uchida, Y. Kajiwara, D. Kikuchi, T. Ohtani, S. 12 Geprägs, M. Opel, S. Takahashi, R. Gross, G. E. W. Bauer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and E. Saitoh, Spin Hall Magnetoresistance Induced by a Non-Equilibrium Proximity Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett...

2013
[15]

Vélez, V

S. Vélez, V. N. Golovach, J. M. Gomez-Perez, A. Chuvilin, C. T. Bui, F. Rivadulla, L. E. Hueso, F. S. Bergeret, and F. Casanova, Spin Hall Magnetoresistance in a Low-Dimensional Heisenberg Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 100, 180401 (2019)

2019
[16]

Von Kim, V

J. Von Kim, V. Tiberkevich, and A. N. Slavin, Generation Linewidth of an Auto-Oscillator with a Nonlinear Frequency Shift: Spin-Torque Nano-Oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 017207 (2008)

2008
[17]

I. V. Borisenko, V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, A. B. Rinkevich, and S. O. Demokritov, Relation between Unidirectional Spin Hall Magnetoresistance and Spin Current-Driven Magnon Generation, Appl. Phys. Lett. 113, 062403 (2018)

2018
[18]

Manchon, I

A. Manchon, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, J. Zelezny, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-Induced Spin-Orbit Torques in Ferromagnetic and Antiferromagnetic Systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

2019
[19]

Mendil, M

J. Mendil, M. Trassin, Q. Bu, M. Fiebig, and P. Gambardella, Current-Induced Switching of YIG/Pt Bilayers with in-Plane Magnetization Due to Oersted Fields, Appl. Phys. Lett. 114, 172404 (2019)

2019
[20]

Ritzmann, D

U. Ritzmann, D. Hinzke, A. Kehlberger, E. J. Guo, M. Kläui, and U. Nowak, Magnetic Field Control of the Spin Seebeck Effect, Phys. Rev. B 92, 174411 (2015)

2015
[21]

The Supplementary Material includes Refs

See Supplemental Material at link to be included by the editorial for field dependent SSE measurements, longitudinal non-linear SMR analysis, discussion on the role of stiffness on M(H), field dependence of ΔRxy,SMR 1ω analysis, Gilbert damping of YIG(t)/Pt films, and magnon ...
[22]

Collet, X

M. Collet, X. De Milly, O. D’Allivy Kelly, V. V. Naletov, R. Bernard, P. Bortolotti, J. Ben Youssef, V. E. Demidov, S. O. Demokritov, J. L. Prieto, M. Muñoz, V. Cros, A. Anane, G. De Loubens, and O. Klein, Generation of Coherent Spin-Wave Modes in Yttrium Iron Garnet Microdisc...

2016
[23]

J. Gao, C. H. Lambert, R. Schlitz, M. Fiebig, P. Gambardella, and S. Vélez, Magnon Transport and Thermoelectric Effects in Ultrathin Tm3Fe5O12/Pt Nonlocal Devices, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 043214 (2022)

2022
[24]

L. J. Cornelissen and B. J. van Wees, Magnetic Field Dependence of the Magnon Spin Diffusion Length in the Magnetic Insulator Yttrium Iron Garnet, Phys. Rev. B 93, 020403 (2016)

2016
[25]

J. M. Gomez-Perez, S. Vélez, L. E. Hueso, and F. Casanova, Differences in the Magnon Diffusion Length for Electrically and Thermally Driven Magnon Currents in Y3Fe5O12, Phys. Rev. B 101, 184420 (2020)

2020
[26]

Thiery, A

N. Thiery, A. Draveny, V. V. Naletov, L. Vila, J. P. Attané, C. Beigné, G. De Loubens, M. Viret, N. Beaulieu, J. Ben Youssef, V. E. Demidov, S. O. Demokritov, A. N. Slavin, V. S. Tiberkevich, A. Anane, P. Bortolotti, V. Cros, and O. Klein, Nonlinear Spin Conductance of Yttrium...

2018
[27]

Wimmer, M

T. Wimmer, M. Althammer, L. Liensberger, N. Vlietstra, S. Geprägs, M. Weiler, R. Gross, and H. Huebl, Spin Transport in a Magnetic Insulator with Zero Effective Damping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 257201 (2019)

2019
[28]

C. O. Avci, J. Mendil, G. S. D. Beach, and P. Gambardella, Origins of the Unidirectional Spin Hall Magnetoresistance in Metallic Bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 087207 (2018)

2018
[29]

S. T. B. Goennenwein, R. Schlitz, M. Pernpeintner, K. Ganzhorn, M. Althammer, R. Gross, and H. Huebl, Non-Local Magnetoresistance in YIG/Pt Nanostructures, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 172405 (2015). 13

2015
[30]

M. B. Jungfleisch, A. V. Chumak, A. Kehlberger, V. Lauer, D. H. Kim, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, M. Kläui, and B. Hillebrands, Thickness and Power Dependence of the Spin-Pumping Effect in Y3Fe5 O12 /Pt Heterostructures Measured by the Inverse Spin Hall Effect, Phys. Rev. B 91, ...

2015
[31]

Klingler, A

S. Klingler, A. Chumak, T. Mewes, B. Khodadadi, C. Mewes, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, B. Hillebrands, and A. Conca, Measurements of the Exchange Stiffness of YIG Films Using Broadband Ferromagnetic Resonance Techniques, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 48, 015001 (2015)

2015
[32]

J. Xiao, G. E. W. Bauer, K.-I. Uchida, E. Saitoh, and S. Maekawa, Theory of Magnon-Driven Spin Seebeck Effect, Phys. Rev. B 81, 214418 (2010)

2010
[33]

Weiler, M

M. Weiler, M. Althammer, M. Schreier, J. Lotze, S. Meyer, H. Huebl, R. Gross, A. Kamra, J. Xiao, Y. Chen, H. Jiao, G. E. W. Bauer, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Experimental Test of the Spin Mixing Interface Conductivity Concept, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 176601 (2013)

2013
[34]

Zhang, F

X.-P. Zhang, F. S. Bergeret, and V. N. Golovach, Theory of Spin Hall Magnetoresistance from a Microscopic Perspective, Nano Lett. 19, 6330 (2019)

2019
[35]

Mahmoud, F

A. Mahmoud, F. Ciubotaru, F. Vanderveken, A. V. Chumak, S. Hamdioui, C. Adelmann, and S. Cotofana, Introduction to Spin Wave Computing, J. Appl. Phys. 128, 161101 (2020)

2020
[36]

Gückelhorn, T

J. Gückelhorn, T. Wimmer, M. Müller, S. Geprägs, H. Hübl, R. Gross, and M. Althammer, Magnon Transport in Y3Fe5O12/Pt Nanostructures with Reduced Effective Magnetization, Phys. Rev. B 104, L180410 (2021)

2021
[37]

Oyanagi, J

K. Oyanagi, J. M. Gomez-Perez, X.-P. Zhang, T. Kikkawa, Y. Chen, E. Sagasta, A. Chuvilin, L. E. Hueso, V. N. Golovach, F. S. Bergeret, F. Casanova, and E. Saitoh, Paramagnetic Spin Hall Magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. B 104, 134428 (2021)

2021
[38]

Haertinger, C

M. Haertinger, C. H. Back, J. Lotze, M. Weiler, S. Geprägs, H. Huebl, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and G. Woltersdorf, Spin Pumping in YIG/Pt Bilayers as a Function of Layer Thickness, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054437 (2015)

2015

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

V Chumak, V

A. V Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon Spintronics, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, G. de Loubens, O. Klein, V. Cros, A. Anane, and S. O. Demokritov, Magnetization Oscillations and Waves Driven by Pure Spin Currents, Phys. Rep. 673, 1 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Althammer, Pure Spin Currents in Magnetically Ordered Insulator/Normal Metal Heterostructures, J

M. Althammer, Pure Spin Currents in Magnetically Ordered Insulator/Normal Metal Heterostructures, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys. 51, 313001 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

L. J. Cornelissen, K. J. H. Peters, G. E. W. Bauer, R. A. Duine, and B. J. Van Wees, Magnon Spin Transport Driven by the Magnon Chemical Potential in a Magnetic Insulator, Phys. Rev. B 94, 014412 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Kajiwara, K

Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K. Takanashi, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Transmission of Electrical Signals by Spin- Wave Interconversion in a Magnetic Insulator, Nature 464, 262 (2010)

work page 2010

[6] [6]

L. J. Cornelissen, J. Liu, R. A. Duine, J. Ben Youssef, and B. J. van Wees, Long-Distance Transport of Magnon Spin Information in a Magnetic Insulator at Room Temperature, Nat. Phys. 11, 1022 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Lebrun, A

R. Lebrun, A. Ross, S. A. Bender, A. Qaiumzadeh, L. Baldrati, J. Cramer, A. Brataas, R. A. Duine, and M. Kläui, Tunable Long-Distance Spin Transport in a Crystalline Antiferromagnetic Iron Oxide, Nature 561, 222 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

L. J. Cornelissen, K. Oyanagi, T. Kikkawa, Z. Qiu, T. Kuschel, G. E. W. Bauer, B. J. Van Wees, and E. Saitoh, Nonlocal Magnon-Polaron Transport in Yttrium Iron Garnet, Phys. Rev. B 96, 104441 (2017)

work page 2017