Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ultra-large mutually synchronized networks of 10 nm spin Hall nano-oscillators

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mutually synchronized networks of 105,000 10-nm spin Hall nano-oscillators are demonstrated, with microwave power and quality factor scaling linearly with oscillator number.

desk verdict Record-scale SHNO synchronization is real and important, but the 'all N participate' claim needs stronger evidence than ensemble spectra. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18321 v1 pith:WK5YA5WZ submitted 2025-01-30 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.app-ph

Nilamani Behera , Avinash Kumar Chaurasiya , Akash Kumar , Roman Khymyn , Artem Litvinenko , Lakhan Bainsla , Ahmad A. Awad , Johan {AA}kerman This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph
keywords spinHallnano-oscillatormutualsynchronizationnano-constrictionarraymagnonexchangewavemicrowavepowerscalingqualityfactorBrillouinlightscatteringmicroscopy
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 reports that spin Hall nano-oscillators—tiny constrictions that convert a direct current into a microwave signal through spin-orbit torque—can be mutually synchronized in dense arrays of up to 105,000 oscillators, three orders of magnitude beyond the previous limit of 64. Across every array tested, the emitted microwave power and the signal quality factor grow linearly with the number of oscillators, reaching 9 nW and $1.04 \times 10^{6}$, respectively. The authors also find that the frequency-current tunability becomes stronger and more nonlinear as arrays grow, and they trace this to a balance between coherent magnon exchange inside the array and magnon loss at the array edges. If these claims hold, the result would make large-scale oscillator networks practical for wireless communication, neuromorphic computing, and Ising machines, and it suggests the method may scale to even larger arrays.

What carries the argument

The central object is the nano-constriction SHNO array: electron-beam-patterned constrictions in W-Ta/CoFeB/MgO on Si with an Al$_2$O$_3$ thermal and electrical buffer, spaced closely enough (24 or 40 nm) for spin-wave coupling. The load-bearing mechanism is mutual synchronization through exchange of coherent propagating magnons between constrictions, whose strength grows with array size because interior oscillators receive coherent spin waves from many neighbors while edge oscillators lose magnons into unpatterned mesa areas. The quantitative signatures are the scaling laws $\Delta f \propto 1/N$, $P \propto N$, and $Q \propto N$, plus the model prediction that collective radiative-loss reduction makes the frequency-current response increasingly quadratic for larger arrays.

What would settle it

Measure the auto-oscillation frequency of many individually addressed constrictions from the same fabrication run; if the spread of their free-running frequencies is much larger than the 25-kHz linewidth seen in the arrays, the single-peak reading would demand an extremely strong coupling, while a spread comparable to the linewidth would mean the narrow peak could arise without true synchronization. A second check: fabricate arrays with a deliberate gradient in constriction width so the natural frequencies differ, and observe whether a single synchronized peak still survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that mutual synchronization in spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays is not limited to small groups but persists in dense arrays of up to 105,000 nano-constrictions (10 nm wide with 24 nm center-to-center spacing, and 20 nm wide with 40 nm spacing). The evidence is a single ultranarrow microwave peak in every array, with linewidth decreasing as $1/N$ and output power increasing as $N$; the best observed linewidth is 25.3 kHz at 26.2 GHz, giving $Q = 1.04 \times 10^{6}$, and the highest output power is 9 nW. The paper explains the unexpected array-size dependence of frequency-current tunability through a model in which coherent propagating magnons are constructively exchanged among interior oscillators while magnons are lost to unpatterned magnetic material at the short edges, a picture supported by micro-Brillouin light scattering maps and micromagnetic simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the 105,000 constrictions are nearly identical in their magnetic behavior, so that a single narrow microwave peak can be read as collective locking rather than as a narrow distribution of independent frequencies; the paper's evidence for this uniformity is indirect, based on resistance scaling and SEM images rather than on measuring each oscillator's frequency separately.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any SHNO-based application needing output power or spectral purity, such as wireless transmission or ultrafast spectrum analysis, can now use arrays of $10^5$ oscillators instead of 64, directly improving signal strength and coherence.
  • Neuromorphic and reservoir computing schemes requiring many phase-locked nonlinear oscillators become feasible at array sizes where the network itself, not the oscillator count, sets the computational capability.
  • Sparse Ising machines, which need very large numbers of interacting bistable oscillators for combinatorial problems, can in principle be built from these arrays.
  • The demonstrated absence of an upper size limit at 105,000 suggests that further reducing spacing or increasing the magnetization and thickness of the ferromagnet could push synchronization beyond one million oscillators.
  • The size-dependent current tunability and nonlinearity provide a controllable, task-adaptive parameter for physical reservoir computing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the synchronization claim would be to pattern isolated single constrictions with the same process and measure their free-running frequency spread; if the spread is much smaller than the observed linewidth, part of the sharp peak could be statistical, whereas a large spread would strengthen the synchronization interpretation.
  • The model's prediction that the quadratic current-frequency dependence saturates beyond one magnon decay length could be checked by fabricating arrays with different aspect ratios at fixed $N$ and comparing tunability slopes.
  • The BLS intensity is proportional to the square of the dynamic magnetization amplitude, so the edge fall-off serves as a diagnostic of coupling strength; measuring it as a function of spacing would map the effective coupling length.
  • The same array geometry could be extended to non-square network topologies, such as random or small-world connectivity, by positioning constrictions accordingly, connecting directly to network science.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays with 10- and 20-nm constrictions, up to N = 105,000 oscillators, and claims robust mutual synchronization of all oscillators in each array. The evidence presented includes single narrow microwave peaks, linewidth scaling as N^-1, power scaling as N, record values of 9 nW output power and Q = 1.04e6, micro-BLS intensity maps, and micromagnetic simulations. The paper also proposes a model in which coherent magnon exchange within the array and magnon losses at the array edges explain the unexpectedly strong array-size dependence of frequency-current tunability.

Significance. If fully supported, this is a significant experimental advance: it extends the previous record of 64 synchronized SHNOs by more than three orders of magnitude, demonstrates record microwave power and quality factor, and provides a large systematic dataset across 146 arrays. The fabrication reproducibility, resistance scaling, and the qualitative agreement between BLS, micromagnetic simulation, and the edge-loss model are notable strengths. However, the evidence for 'complete' synchronization is indirect: the BLS spot size is ~300 nm while the constriction pitch is 24 nm, and the electrical spectra are global measurements. The paper's central 'all N oscillators participate' claim therefore needs either stronger quantitative support or more careful wording.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results: Auto-oscillations vs. array size (Fig. 2a-d)] The claim in the text that the single-peak spectra are 'consistent with complete mutual synchronization' and the conclusion that 'all our arrays exhibited robust mutual synchronization' are not reconciled with the statement that 'only a few arrays showing multiple signals just above auto-oscillation onset due to partial synchronization.' The manuscript does not state how many arrays showed such partial synchronization, whether those arrays were excluded from the scaling analyses in Fig. 2g,h, or whether they eventually locked at higher current. Since the scaling plots use the nominal N, inclusion or exclusion of partially synchronized devices directly affects the central claim; please report this information explicitly and either justify the inclusion or restrict the claim.
  2. [Results: Auto-oscillations vs. array size (Fig. 2g,h)] The scaling fits in Fig. 2g,h are constrained to the expected N^-1 and N exponents, with no error bars, no device-to-device scatter, and no free-exponent fits. Because a synchronized subset of size M = cN with a constant fraction c would produce the same functional dependence on nominal N, these plots as presented cannot exclude a synchronized subnetwork of constant fraction and do not establish that all 105,000 constrictions participate. Please provide per-device data, free-exponent fits with confidence intervals, and residual analysis, or soften the claim to 'large synchronized networks' with the participation fraction stated as an open question.
  3. [Brillouin light scattering microscopy (Fig. 3)] The BLS laser spot is ~300 nm in diameter while the constriction pitch is 24 nm, so the BLS maps are spatially averaged over many oscillators and cannot resolve individual constrictions or their relative phases. The intensity envelope is therefore consistent with, but does not directly prove, phase-locking or equal participation of every oscillator. The section's statement that BLS is used to 'directly visualize the auto-oscillations and the mutual synchronization' should be tempered, or supplemented with a phase-sensitive measurement, to avoid overstating the spatial evidence.
  4. [Micromagnetic simulations and model (Fig. 2f, Fig. 3h)] The model of coherent magnon exchange and edge losses is presented as explaining the N-dependent tunability, but no quantitative comparison is made between the model and the df/dI data in Fig. 2f. No calculated or fitted parameter values, uncertainties, or error bars are given for the BLS fits in Fig. 3h. Since this model is the basis for the 'unexpectedly strong array size dependence' claim, please specify the model equations, the parameter values used, and a direct comparison with both the measured tunability as a function of N and the measured edge fall-off.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods: Design and fabrication] The typo 'SHNOS' appears in the sentence describing the center-to-center separation; it should read 'SHNOs.'
  2. [Fig. 2h] Please state whether the 'highest generated microwave output power' for each array is taken at a common operating condition (field, current, and field angle) and how the power is integrated from the measured spectrum; otherwise the comparison may mix different operating points.
  3. [Fig. 2f inset] The extraction of the maximum tunability (df/dI)_max from the derivative plot should specify the fit range and the uncertainty of the derivative; currently no error estimate is given.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract and conclusion state 'mutually synchronized SHNO networks' and 'all our arrays exhibited robust mutual synchronization,' but the main text acknowledges partial synchronization in a few arrays. Please harmonize the wording so that the summary of results matches the detailed reporting of partial synchronization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are direct experimental measurements, and the N-scaling fits are consistency checks against independent theory, not predictions derived from fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's core claims—single-peak PSD, linewidth and power scaling with N, and BLS maps—are direct measurements. The fits to N and N^-1 in Figs. 2g–h are consistency checks against the theoretically expected scaling; the exponents are not free parameters extracted from the data and then renamed as predictions. The quality factor is the definitional ratio f/Δf, and reporting Q = 1.04×10^6 after measuring Δf = 25.3 kHz is a figure-of-merit calculation, not a derivation of a result from its own input. The tunability model is a post-hoc explanation supported by micromagnetic simulations, not a fit whose output is the claimed synchronization. Self-citations (refs 6, 11, 16–18, 49) provide prior experimental and material-stack results that are independent of the present dataset; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the present measurements. The acknowledged 'few arrays showing multiple signals just above auto-oscillation onset' and the lack of per-constriction frequency measurements are evidence concerns, not circularity. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, so no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central experimental result (synchronized 105,000-element arrays) is a measurement that relies on standard spectral interpretation and prior scaling theory; no new physical entities are introduced. Two proportionality constants are fit to data but do not affect the scaling exponents. The tunability model is an ad hoc qualitative explanation not quantitatively validated.

free parameters (2)
  • Linewidth scaling proportionality constant C_df = not reported
    Fit to the N^{-1} linewidth scaling in Fig. 2g.
  • Power scaling proportionality constant C_P = not reported
    Fit to the N power scaling in Fig. 2h.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Prior theory predicts linewidth scales as 1/N and power scales as N for mutually synchronized oscillators
    Invoked in Fig. 2g,h to interpret the data as evidence of synchronization; sourced from literature on coupled spin-torque oscillators (refs 17, 44-46).
  • domain assumption A single spectral peak indicates complete mutual phase synchronization
    Used throughout the Results section to claim synchronization from PSD measurements; not directly verified by phase-resolved measurement in this work.
  • ad hoc to paper Each nano-constriction emits and receives propagating spin waves, and edge constrictions lose magnons to the unpatterned mesa
    Core assumption of the model in 'Micromagnetic simulations and model' used to explain both BLS intensity gradients and the array-size-dependent tunability; the model is qualitative in the main text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultra-large mutually synchronized networks of 10 nm spin Hall nano-oscillators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WK5YA5WZ

@misc{pith2026250118321,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultra-large mutually synchronized networks of 10 nm spin Hall nano-oscillators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WK5YA5WZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18321}
}
abstract

While mutually interacting spin Hall nano-oscillators (SHNOs) hold great promise for wireless communication, neural networks, neuromorphic computing, and Ising machines, the highest number of synchronized SHNOs remains limited to $N$ = 64. Using ultra-narrow 10 and 20-nm nano-constrictions in W-Ta/CoFeB/MgO trilayers, we demonstrate mutually synchronized SHNO networks of up to $N$ = 105,000. The microwave power and quality factor scale as $N$ with new record values of 9 nW and $1.04 \times 10^6$, respectively. An unexpectedly strong array size dependence of the frequency-current tunability is explained by magnon exchange between nano-constrictions and magnon losses at the array edges, further corroborated by micromagnetic simulations and Brillouin light scattering microscopy. Our results represent a significant step towards viable SHNO network applications in wireless communication and unconventional computing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bulk spin-orbit torque-driven spin Hall nano-oscillators using PtBi alloys

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PtBi alloys with a few percent Bi show a threefold larger spin Hall efficiency than pure Pt and 32-42% lower threshold current in spin Hall nano-oscillators.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    IEEE Trans

    Chumak, A.V., Kabos, P., Wu, M., Abert, C., Adelmann, C., Adeyeye, A., ˚Akerman, J., Aliev, F.G., Anane, A., Awad, A., et al.: Advances in magnetics roadmap on spin-wave computing. IEEE Trans. Magn. 58(6), 1–72 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Gonz´ alez, V.H., Litvinenko, A., Kumar, A., Khymyn, R.,˚Akerman, J.: Spintronic devices as next-generation computation accelerators. Curr. Opin. Solid State and Mater. Sci. 31, 101173 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Flebus, B., Grundler, D., Rana, B., Otani, Y., Barsukov, I., Barman, A., Gub- biotti, G., Landeros, P., Akerman, J., Ebels, U.S., et al.: The 2024 magnonics roadmap. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Nano Futures 8(1), 012001 (2024)

    Finocchio, G., Incorvia, J.A.C., Friedman, J.S., Yang, Q., Giordano, A., Grol- lier, J., Yang, H., Ciubotaru, F., Chumak, A.V., Naeemi, A.J., et al.: Roadmap for unconventional computing with nanotechnology. Nano Futures 8(1), 012001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Fulara, H., Zahedinejad, M., Khymyn, R., Awad, A.A., Muralidhar, S., Dvornik, M., ˚Akerman, J.: Spin-orbit torque–driven propagating spin waves. Sci. Adv.5(9), 8467 (2019) 11

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Kumar, A., Chaurasiya, A.K., Gonz´ alez, V.H., Behera, N., Alem´ an, A., Khymyn, R., Awad, A.A., ˚Akerman, J.: Spin-wave-mediated mutual synchronization and phase tuning in spin Hall nano-oscillators. Nat. Phys., 1–8 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Demidov, V.E., Urazhdin, S., Zholud, A., Sadovnikov, A.V., Demokritov, S.O.: Nanoconstriction-based spin-Hall nano-oscillator. Appl. Phys. Lett. 105(17), 172410 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Nanoscale 9(3), 1285–1291 (2017)

    D¨ urrenfeld, P., Awad, A.A., Houshang, A., Dumas, R.K.,˚A kerman, J.: A 20 nm spin Hall nano-oscillator. Nanoscale 9(3), 1285–1291 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Haidar, M., Awad, A.A., Dvornik, M., Khymyn, R., Houshang, A.,˚Akerman, J.: A single layer spin-orbit torque nano-oscillator. Nat. Commun. 10(1), 2362 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Awad, A.A., Houshang, A., Zahedinejad, M., Khymyn, R., ˚Akerman, J.: Width dependent auto-oscillating properties of constriction based spin Hall nano- oscillators. Appl. Phys. Lett. 116(23), 232401 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Behera, N., Chaurasiya, A.K., Gonz´ alez, V.H., Litvinenko, A., Bainsla, L., Kumar, A., Khymyn, R., Awad, A.A., Fulara, H., ˚Akerman, J.: Ultra-low current 10 nm spin Hall nano-oscillators. Adv. Mater. 36(5), 2305002 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Nanomag- nets as Dynamical Systems: Physics and Applications, 143–182 (2024)

    Kumar, A., Litvinenko, A., Behera, N., Awad, A.A., Khymyn, R., ˚Akerman, J.: Mutual synchronization in spin-torque and spin Hall nano-oscillators. Nanomag- nets as Dynamical Systems: Physics and Applications, 143–182 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Montoya, E.A., Pei, X., Krivorotov, I.N.: Anomalous Hall spin current drives self-generated spin–orbit torque in a ferromagnet. Nat. Nanotechnol., 1–7 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Ren, H., Zheng, X.Y., Channa, S., Wu, G., O’Mahoney, D.A., Suzuki, Y., Kent, A.D.: Hybrid spin Hall nano-oscillators based on ferromagnetic metal/ferrimag- netic insulator heterostructures. Nat. Commun. 14(1), 1406 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Nano Lett

    Hache, T., Anshu, A., Shalomayeva, T., St¨ ohr, R., Kern, K., Wrachtrup, J., Singha, A.: Nanoscale mapping of magnetic auto-oscillations with a single spin sensor. Nano Lett. (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Awad, A.A., D¨ urrenfeld, P., Houshang, A., Dvornik, M., Iacocca, E., Dumas, R.K., ˚Akerman, J.: Long-range mutual synchronization of spin Hall nano- oscillators. Nat. Phys. 13(November), 292–299 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Zahedinejad, M., Awad, A.A., Muralidhar, S., Khymyn, R., Fulara, H., Mazraati, H., Dvornik, M., ˚Akerman, J.: Two-dimensional mutually synchronized spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays for neuromorphic computing. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15(1), 47– 52 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Nano Lett.23(14), 6720– 6726 (2023)

    Kumar, A., Fulara, H., Khymyn, R., Litvinenko, A., Zahedinejad, M., Rajabali, 12 M., Zhao, X., Behera, N., Houshang, A., Awad, A.A., et al.: Robust mutual synchronization in long spin Hall nano-oscillator chains. Nano Lett.23(14), 6720– 6726 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fulara, H., Zahedinejad, M., Khymyn, R., Dvornik, M., Fukami, S., Kanai, S., Ohno, H., ˚Akerman, J.: Giant voltage-controlled modulation of spin Hall nano- oscillator damping. Nat. Commun. 11(1), 4006 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Nanoscale 14(4), 1432–1439 (2022)

    Kumar, A., Rajabali, M., Gonz´ alez, V.H., Zahedinejad, M., Houshang, A., ˚Akerman, J.: Fabrication of voltage-gated spin Hall nano-oscillators. Nanoscale 14(4), 1432–1439 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Choi, J.-G., Park, J., Kang, M.-G., Kim, D., Rieh, J.-S., Lee, K.-J., Kim, K.- J., Park, B.-G.: Voltage-driven gigahertz frequency tuning of spin Hall nano- oscillators. Nat. Commun. 13(1), 3783 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Zahedinejad, M., Fulara, H., Khymyn, R., Houshang, A., Dvornik, M., Fukami, S., Kanai, S., Ohno, H., ˚Akerman, J.: Memristive control of mutual spin Hall nano-oscillator synchronization for neuromorphic computing. Nat. Mater. 21(1), 81–87 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    IEEE Electron Device Lett

    Khademi, M., Kumar, A., Rajabali, M., Dash, S.P., ˚Akerman, J.: Large non- volatile frequency tuning of spin Hall nano-oscillators using circular memristive nano-gates. IEEE Electron Device Lett. 45(2), 268–271 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Ramaswamy, B., Algarin, J., Weinberg, I., Chen, Y.-J., Krivorotov, I., Katine, J., Shapiro, B., Waks, E.: Wireless current sensing by near field induction from a spin transfer torque nano-oscillator. Appl. Phys. Lett. 108(24), 242403 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Sharma, R., Mishra, R., Ngo, T., Guo, Y.-X., Fukami, S., Sato, H., Ohno, H., Yang, H.: Electrically connected spin-torque oscillators array for 2.4 ghz wifi band transmission and energy harvesting. Nat. Commun. 12(1), 1–10 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Louis, S., Sulymenko, O., Tiberkevich, V., Li, J., Aloi, D., Prokopenko, O., Kriv- orotov, I., Bankowski, E., Meitzler, T., Slavin, A.: Ultra-fast wide band spectrum analyzer based on a rapidly tuned spin-torque nano-oscillator. Appl. Phys. Lett. 113(11), 112401 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Nano Lett

    Litvinenko, A., Sidi El Valli, A., Iurchuk, V., Louis, S., Tyberkevych, V., Dieny, B., Slavin, A.N., Ebels, U.: Ultrafast ghz-range swept-tuned spectrum analyzer with 20 ns temporal resolution based on a spin-torque nano-oscillator with a uniformly magnetized “free” layer. Nan...

    2022

  20. [28]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03870 (2024) 13

    Gupta, P., Litvinenko, A., Kumar, A., Muduli, P.K., ˚Akerman, J.: Ultra-fast spin Hall nano-oscillator based microwave spectral analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03870 (2024) 13

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)

    Barab´ asi, A.-L., Albert, R.: Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439), 509–512 (1999)

    1999

  22. [30]

    Science 359(6379), 0185 (2018)

    Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C.T., B¨ orner, K., Evans, J.A., Helbing, D., Milojevi´ c, S., Petersen, A.M., Radicchi, F., Sinatra, R., Uzzi, B., et al.: Science of science. Science 359(6379), 0185 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Nature 547(7664), 428–431 (2017)

    Torrejon, J., Riou, M., Araujo, F.A., Tsunegi, S., Khalsa, G., Querlioz, D., Bor- tolotti, P., Cros, V., Yakushiji, K., Fukushima, A., Kubota, H., Yuasa, S., Stiles, M.D., Grollier, J.: Neuromorphic computing with nanoscale spintronic oscillators. Nature 547(7664), 428–431 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Nature563(7730), 230 (2018)

    Romera, M., Talatchian, P., Tsunegi, S., Araujo, F.A., Cros, V., Bortolotti, P., Trastoy, J., Yakushiji, K., Fukushima, A., Kubota, H., Yuasa, S., Ernoult, M., Vodenicarevic, D., Hirtzlin, T., Locatelli, N., Querlioz, D., Grollier, J.: Vowel recognition with four coupled spin-...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering 3(3), 034004 (2023)

    Delacour, C., Carapezzi, S., Boschetto, G., Abernot, M., Gil, T., Azemard, N., Todri-Sanial, A.: A mixed-signal oscillatory neural network for scalable analog computations in phase domain. Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering 3(3), 034004 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Hoppensteadt, F.C., Izhikevich, E.M.: Oscillatory neurocomputers with dynamic connectivity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82(14), 2983 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    Houshang, A., Zahedinejad, M., Muralidhar, S., Khymyn, R., Rajabali, M., Fulara, H., Awad, A.A., ˚Akerman, J., Ch¸ eci´ nski, J., Dvornik, M.: Phase-binarized spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays: Towards spin Hall ising machines. Phys. Rev. Appl. 17(1), 014003 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Litvinenko, A., Khymyn, R., Gonz´ alez, V.H., Ovcharov, R., Awad, A.A., Tyberkevych, V., Slavin, A., ˚Akerman, J.: A spinwave ising machine. Commun. Phys. 6(1), 227 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Graber, M., Hofmann, K.: An integrated coupled oscillator network to solve optimization problems. Comms. Eng. 3(1), 116 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Albertsson, D.I., Zahedinejad, M., Houshang, A., Khymyn, R., ˚Akerman, J., Rusu, A.: Ultrafast ising machines using spin torque nano-oscillators. Appl. Phys. Lett. 118(11), 112404 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Grimaldi, A., Mazza, L., Raimondo, E., Tullo, P., Rodrigues, D., Camsari, K.Y., Crupi, V., Carpentieri, M., Puliafito, V., Finocchio, G.: Evaluating spintronics- compatible implementations of ising machines. Phys. Rev. Appl. 20, 024005 (2023) 14

    2023

  32. [40]

    IEEE Trans

    Albertsson, D.I., ˚Akerman, J., Rusu, A.: A magnetic field-to-digital converter employing a spin-torque nano-oscillator. IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 19, 565–570 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    IEEE Trans

    Slavin, A., Tiberkevich, V.: Nonlinear auto-oscillator theory of microwave gener- ation by spin-polarized current. IEEE Trans. Magn. 45(4), 1875–1918 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Erokhin, S., Berkov, D.: Robust synchronization of an arbitrary number of spin- torque-driven vortex nano-oscillators. Phys. Rev. B 89(14), 144421 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Lebrun, R., Tsunegi, S., Bortolotti, P., Kubota, H., Jenkins, A., Romera, M., Yakushiji, K., Fukushima, A., Grollier, J., Yuasa, S., et al.: Mutual synchroniza- tion of spin torque nano-oscillators through a long-range and tunable electrical coupling scheme. Nat. Commun. 8(1),...

    2017

  36. [44]

    Slavin, A., Tiberkevich, V.: Theory of mutual phase locking of spin-torque nanosized oscillators. Phys. Rev. B 74(10), 104401 (2006)

    2006

  37. [45]

    Chen, X., Victora, R.: Phase locking of spin-torque oscillators by spin-wave interactions. Phys. Rev. B 79(18), 180402 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Kendziorczyk, T., Kuhn, T.: Mutual synchronization of nanoconstriction-based spin Hall nano-oscillators through evanescent and propagating spin waves. Phys. Rev. B 93, 134413 (2016)

    2016

  39. [47]

    Physical Review B 90(5), 054414 (2014)

    Kendziorczyk, T., Demokritov, S., Kuhn, T.: Spin-wave-mediated mutual syn- chronization of spin-torque nano-oscillators: A micromagnetic study of multi- stable phase locking. Physical Review B 90(5), 054414 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Applied Physics Letters 122(22) (2023)

    Litvinenko, A., Kumar, A., Rajabali, M., Awad, A.A., Khymyn, R., ˚Akerman, J.: Phase noise analysis of mutually synchronized spin Hall nano-oscillators. Applied Physics Letters 122(22) (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Behera, N., Fulara, H., Bainsla, L., Kumar, A., Zahedinejad, M., Houshang, A., ˚Akerman, J.: Energy-efficient W 100−xTax/Co-Fe-B/MgO spin Hall nano- oscillators. Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024017 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Lee, O., Wei, T., Stenning, K.D., Gartside, J.C., Prestwood, D., Seki, S., Aqeel, A., Karube, K., Kanazawa, N., Taguchi, Y., et al.: Task-adaptive physical reservoir computing. Nat. Mater. 23(1), 79–87 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15558 (2024) 15

    Ng, W.K., Dranczewski, J., Fischer, A., Raziman, T., Saxena, D., Farchy, T., Sten- ning, K., Peters, J., Schmid, H., Branford, W.R., et al.: Retinomorphic machine vision in a network laser. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15558 (2024) 15

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.