Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Current-induced Dynamics of Bloch Domain-wall Bimerons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Bloch domain wall converts the bimeron Hall effect into a drive that moves bimerons along the wall, with current direction controlling the Hall angle.

desk verdict Solid spintronics paper with credible micromagnetic simulations; the Thiele analysis is useful but the high-current SOT curves are not yet fully reproducible because the tensor deformation rule is missing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00959 v1 pith:LY2M75FU submitted 2025-05-02 cond-mat.mes-hall

Jiwen Chen , Laichuan Shen , Yan Zhou , Oleg A. Tretiakov , Xiaoguang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords domain-wallbimeronsbimeronHalleffectspin-transfertorquespin-orbitThielecollective-coordinateapproachchiralmagnetracetrackmemoryCo-Zn-Mnthinfilm
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 sets out to show that embedding a bimeron inside a Bloch domain wall turns the bimeron Hall effect from a nuisance into a directed drive. It argues that, in a Co-Zn-Mn chiral magnet film, a spin current injected or polarized perpendicular to the wall moves the bimeron quickly along the wall with a small Hall angle, while a current parallel to the wall suppresses sideways motion. The same anisotropy holds for spin-transfer torque and spin-orbit torque, with the latter producing about an order of magnitude higher velocity at the same nominal current. The paper also shows that a chain of bimerons in one wall moves coherently, that adding bimerons lowers the common mobility, and that spacing between them hardly matters. If these claims are right, racetrack memory can use wall-confined bimerons as bits that travel without being lost at the device edges.

What carries the argument

The central object is the domain-wall bimeron, a unit-topological-charge spin texture confined inside a Bloch wall of an in-plane magnet; the machinery is Thiele's collective-coordinate approach, which treats the texture as a rigid particle. The paper reduces the coupled equations of motion for the wall and the bimeron, Eqs. (B1)--(B2), to a single equation, Eq. (B3), by imposing rigid coupling: the bimeron and the wall share the velocity component along the wall, and the wall has no transverse velocity. Steady motion is then the balance of four forces: the gyrotropic (Magnus) force $\mathbf{G}\times\mathbf{v}$, the damping force $-\alpha\mathbf{D}\mathbf{v}$, the STT or SOT driving force, and the wall's constraining force. The anisotropy that produces the paper's results lives in the diagonal tensors $D_{xx}\gg D_{yy}$ and $C_{xx}\gg C_{yy}$, so whether the current points along or across the wall changes the balance between Magnus and damping forces.

What would settle it

Run the STT simulation with damping set equal to the non-adiabatic coefficient ($\alpha=\beta$, for instance 0.3): the Thiele reduction predicts the transverse velocity $v_y$ for current injected along $x$ vanishes exactly because Eqs. (5) and (10) contain the factor $\alpha-\beta$, so any significant measured transverse velocity at that point would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a bimeron of topological charge $Q=+1$ trapped in a Bloch domain wall in a Co-Zn-Mn thin film moves under current in a way that is controlled by the wall's orientation. For spin-transfer torque, a current injected along the $x$-direction gives velocities $v_x^{j\parallel x}=(Q^2+\alpha\beta D_{xx}D_{yy})/(Q^2+\alpha^2 D_{xx}D_{yy})\,v_s$ and $v_y^{j\parallel x}=(\alpha-\beta)QD_{xx}/(Q^2+\alpha^2 D_{xx}D_{yy})\,v_s$, while a current injected along $y$ swaps the roles according to $v_y^{j\parallel y}=v_x^{j\parallel x}$ and $v_x^{j\parallel y}=-(D_{yy}/D_{xx})v_y^{j\parallel x}$. The spin-orbit-torque case is described by the corresponding formulas (12)--(15) with the driving tensor $C$. With the numerically evaluated tensors $D_{xx}=23.88$, $D_{yy}=1.32$, $C_{xx}=-7.85$, $C_{yy}=-0.38$, these Thiele solutions reproduce the micromagnetic velocities. The conclusion the authors draw is that the domain wall 'not only effectively suppresses the bimeron Hall effect but also allows the Magnus force to serve as the dominant driving mechanism.'

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the bimeron and domain wall stay rigidly locked together, with the wall never moving sideways, so the two-body Thiele equations collapse into one for a single rigid object, and that the damping and SOT tensors keep their relaxed-texture values, since the deformation corrections at high current are described only as 'incorporated into the analytical calculations.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Racetrack lines can be built from one Bloch wall carrying bimeron bits, because a current perpendicular to the wall moves the whole texture along the wall with a small Hall angle.
  • By setting damping equal to the non-adiabatic STT parameter ($\alpha=\beta$), the transverse STT velocity vanishes exactly, giving a direct way to eliminate sideways drift.
  • Spin-orbit torque drives the same wall-bimeron texture roughly ten times faster than spin-transfer torque at equal nominal current density and polarization, favoring heavy-metal-underlayer geometries for high speed.
  • Adding more bimerons to a wall lowers the collective mobility and raises the Hall angle, so information density and operating speed trade off against each other.
  • The analytical Thiele formulas with numerically evaluated tensors can serve as a fast design guide for choosing damping, DMI, and anisotropy in wall-bimeron devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not tested in the paper, is that the same wall-induced Hall suppression should apply to other wall-confined topological textures, such as domain-wall skyrmions in perpendicular-anisotropy films, because the mechanism rests on the constraining force and a single topological charge.
  • The exact $\alpha=\beta$ null for transverse STT motion suggests that matching these two parameters could suppress Hall drift even for free bimerons, though the wall additionally collimates the motion.
  • The paper says tensor deformation at high current is 'incorporated into the analytical calculations' without giving the procedure; a self-consistent derivation of $D$ and $C$ under deformation would turn the model into a true predictor of the maximum drive current.
  • The chain result implies that increasing bit density in one wall increases the effective Hall angle; compensating with alternating wall orientations or pulsed current schemes is an unexplored design option.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies current-driven dynamics of Bloch domain-wall bimerons in Co-Zn-Mn films using Mumax3 micromagnetic simulations and Thiele collective-coordinate analysis. It claims that when the spin current is injected or polarized perpendicular to the domain wall, the bimeron Hall effect facilitates efficient motion along the wall; when the current is parallel to the wall, transverse motion is suppressed and the Hall angle is reduced. This anisotropic response is reported for both spin-transfer torque (STT) and spin-orbit torque (SOT). The paper also studies bimeron chains and reports reduced collective mobility as the number of bimerons increases, with negligible dependence on inter-bimeron spacing. Analytical velocity and Hall-angle formulas in Eqs. (4)-(17) and (9)-(10), (16)-(17) are compared with numerical simulations, using damping and SOT tensors evaluated from the relaxed micromagnetic state.

Significance. The qualitative message of the paper is significant for bimeron-based racetrack devices: it identifies a geometry in which a confining Bloch domain wall suppresses the bimeron Hall effect and in which the Magnus force can serve as the main driving mechanism. The paper includes direct LLG simulations, a stability phase diagram in Appendix A, a thermal-stability check, and explicit Thiele formulas. The direct simulation results in Figs. 3, 5, and 6 support the qualitative anisotropy and Hall-suppression claims. The low-current STT comparison in Figs. 3(a)-(d) is internally consistent because no adjustable parameters enter beyond the numerically evaluated D tensor. The principal quantitative weakness is that the high-current SOT comparison in Fig. 5 relies on an unspecified deformation of the D and C tensors, so the analytical curves are not reproducible from the text as written.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV and Fig. 5] The central quantitative claim for SOT dynamics is not reproducible as written. The text says that at high current density 'local deformation of the domain wall occurs, leading to modifications in both the damping tensor D and the SOT driving tensor C,' and that 'in Fig. 5, these tensor deformation are incorporated into the analytical calculations.' The Fig. 5 caption similarly says 'The deformation tensors D and C are used,' but the procedure for obtaining the current- or damping-dependent tensors is never given. Equations (12)-(17) are derived with constant D and C from the relaxed state; without the deformation rule, the analytical curves in Fig. 5 could be consistent with post hoc adjustment. Please specify how D and C are updated as functions of j and alpha (for example, by re-evaluating the tensors from separate simulations at each state), report the numerical values used, and state explicitly whether the curves are predictions or fits.
  2. [Appendix B and Section IV] The reduction to Eq. (B3) assumes a rigid domain wall and the kinematic constraints v_BM_x = v_DW_x and v_DW_y = 0. The paper explicitly invokes domain-wall deformation at high current density in Section IV, but it does not explain whether the two-body Thiele equations (B1)-(B2) remain valid when the wall bends. If the constraint is relaxed, Eqs. (12)-(17) no longer follow from the same derivation. Please state whether the reduced single-equation form remains valid under wall deformation, and if so, derive the modified equations; if not, provide the generalized equations used for the analytical curves in Fig. 5.
  3. [Section V and Fig. 6] The chain calculation is incomplete. The text states that the topological charge Q and the tensor elements Dyy and Cyy are proportional to the number of bimerons N, but it does not specify the scaling or numerical values of Dxx, Cxx, or the domain-wall contribution D_DW_xx. Since Eqs. (4)-(17) depend on products like Dxx Dyy and on Q, knowing Dyy and Cyy alone is insufficient to reproduce the analytical lines in Fig. 6. For example, the STT velocities depend explicitly on Dxx Dyy, so the reported mobility decrease with N cannot be checked without Dxx(N). Please provide the tensor values for each N or state the full scaling relation, and clarify whether D and C in the main text are total tensors including the domain-wall contribution as implied by Eq. (B3).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] The sentence 'The simulated temperature is set to zero; however, the simulation results, which account for thermal effects, indicate a thermal stability of up to 100 K' is confusing because the finite-temperature simulations are described only later in Appendix A. Please rephrase to distinguish the zero-temperature deterministic simulations from the finite-temperature stochastic simulations.
  2. [Section II and Fig. 1] The statement that a bimeron emerges 'after 10 fs of relaxation' likely involves an incorrect time unit; 10 fs is too short for the described micromagnetic relaxation. Please verify whether 'fs' should be 'ns' or some other unit.
  3. [Section IV] The phrase 'The bending is negligible, as shown in Fig. 5(d)' appears to reference the wrong panel: Fig. 5(d) plots velocity versus current density, while the damping dependence is shown in Fig. 5(c). Please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Throughout] Please correct typographical errors, including 'miscromagnetic' (Section VI), 'domian wall' (Section IV), 'anistropy' (Fig. 7 caption), 'spin orbital torque' (Fig. 5 caption), and 'intrigues' (should likely be 'induces') in the discussion of Fig. 4.
  5. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption statement 'The deformation tensors D and C are used' should be expanded to describe how those tensors are obtained; as written it simply restates the missing procedure identified in the major comments.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

High-current SOT agreement relies on an unspecified deformation of the D and C tensors, so the analytical curves in Fig. 5 are not reproducible predictions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (SOT), paragraph after Eq. (13); Fig. 5 caption]
    ""As a result, local deformation of the domain wall occurs, leading to modifications in both the damping tensor D and the SOT driving tensor C. In Fig. 5, these tensor deformation are incorporated into the analytical calculations, yielding good agreement with the numerical results." (Fig. 5 caption: "The deformation tensorsD andC are used.")"

    Equations (12)-(15) give the SOT velocities exclusively in terms of Dxx, Dyy, Cxx, Cyy, Q, alpha, and j. The paper says that when the domain wall deforms, D and C change and that the deformed tensors are 'incorporated into the analytical calculations', but it never specifies how D or C depend on j or alpha, nor how the Appendix B rigid-coupling reduction (vBM_x=vDW_x, vDW_y=0) is repaired. With D and C free at each plotted point, the analytical curves can be adjusted to the numerical markers, so the agreement in Fig. 5 is not an independent prediction. The text itself acknowledges the missing deformation procedure, making the high-current SOT comparison at best a consistency check rather than a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper is largely self-contained. The STT analysis (Sec. III) evaluates Dxx and Dyy from the relaxed micromagnetic configuration via the damping-tensor integrals and then solves Thiele's equation (3) with no free parameters; the resulting alpha- and j-dependences in Eqs. (4)-(10) are independently tested against LLG simulations, so there is no fitted-input circularity in that section. The SOT section has the same structure at low current. The only serious problem is the high-current SOT comparison: the text states that when the domain wall deforms the tensors D and C are modified and that these deformations are 'incorporated into the analytical calculations', but no deformation law is supplied and the Appendix B rigid-coupling reduction is not repaired. Because Eqs. (12)-(15) depend entirely on D and C, the Fig. 5 analytical curves are not reproducible from the paper and could be made to match the markers by choosing the deformed tensors; this is an acknowledged missing procedure rather than a demonstrable tautology. Self-citations [26,27] about wall-confined motion are not load-bearing because this paper's own LLG simulations exhibit the same suppression. The qualitative conclusions - anisotropic response, Hall-angle suppression, chain mobility reduction - are supported directly by the micromagnetic simulations and do not depend on the problematic SOT curve fit. Overall, there is moderate partial circularity concentrated in the high-current SOT quantitative comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dynamics claims rest on a standard micromagnetic model and on Thiele's collective-coordinate reduction with a rigid wall-bimeron constraint. The analytical 'predictions' are not parameter-free: the damping and SOT tensors are measured from the same simulations that produce the numerical results, and the high-current deformation corrections are unspecified. No new entities are introduced; the paper's contribution is a set of semi-analytical formulas and direct LLG simulations.

free parameters (5)
  • Damping tensor diagonal elements Dxx, Dyy = Dxx = 23.88, Dyy = 1.32
    Evaluated numerically from the relaxed domain-wall bimeron state (Section III, D_mu_nu integral). These values set the velocity magnitudes in Thiele solutions (4)-(10) and are not derived from first principles; they are outputs of the same simulation that the 'numerical' results come from.
  • SOT driving tensor diagonal elements Cxx, Cyy = Cxx = -7.85, Cyy = -0.38
    Evaluated numerically from the relaxed state (Section IV, C_mu_nu integral) and used in Eqs. (12)-(17). Like D, these come from the micromagnetic equilibrium rather than an independent calculation.
  • Deformation corrections to D and C at high current density = Unquantified
    In Fig. 5 the paper states tensor deformation is 'incorporated into the analytical calculations' without giving the method or values. This is effectively an adjustable knob that can force the analytical lines to match simulations.
  • Chain scaling factors (Dyy, Cyy proportional to bimeron number N) = N times the single-bimeron value
    Section V states the chain tensors scale with the number of bimerons. The paper validates this for a few cases but does not derive it, so the chain analytics rest on an assumed scaling.
  • Spin polarization P, non-adiabaticity beta, spin Hall angle theta_SH = P = 0.1, beta = 0.3, theta_SH = 0.1
    Standard values chosen by hand; they scale the torque magnitudes but are not fitted to the observed dynamics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The free energy density in Eq. (1), including bulk DMI, cubic anisotropy, and dipolar field, describes the Co-Zn-Mn chiral magnet film.
    The entire simulation and statics rest on this model, with parameters from ref. [18]. If the model misses relevant physics, the dynamics results change.
  • domain assumption The LLG equation with STT (Eq. 2) and damping-like SOT (Section IV) correctly describes current-driven magnetization dynamics.
    Standard model, supported by refs. [30-32,36]. The simulations solve this equation; the Thiele equations are derived from it.
  • ad hoc to paper The domain wall and bimeron can be treated as rigid objects with the holonomic constraint v_BM_x = v_DW_x and v_DW_y = 0 (Appendix B), allowing reduction to Eq. (B3).
    This constraint is the key modeling step. It is not derived from the LLG equation, and the paper itself notes it fails at high current density, requiring unquantified tensor deformation corrections.
  • domain assumption For a chain of N bimerons, the total topological charge and the tensor elements Dyy and Cyy scale linearly with N, so the same Thiele equation captures the chain.
    Stated in Section V. It is checked numerically for the studied configurations but is not proven, and it drives the predicted reduction of chain mobility.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Current-induced Dynamics of Bloch Domain-wall Bimerons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LY2M75FU

@misc{pith2026250500959,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Current-induced Dynamics of Bloch Domain-wall Bimerons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LY2M75FU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00959}
}
read the original abstract

Domain-wall bimerons are composite topological structures formed by embedding bimerons within domain walls in ferromagnets with in-plane anisotropy. These hybrid textures have recently attracted significant attention due to their promise for racetrack memory applications. In this work, we systematically investigate the current-driven dynamics of single domain-wall bimerons and bimeron chains under spin-transfer torque (STT) and spin-orbit torque (SOT). We show that when the spin current is injected or polarized perpendicular to the domain wall, the bimeron Hall effect facilitates efficient motion along the wall. In contrast, spin currents injected or polarized parallel to the wall suppress transverse motion, leading to a significant reduction in the bimeron Hall angle. This anisotropic response is observed for both STT and SOT driving mechanisms. Furthermore, we find that increasing the number of bimerons within a domain wall diminishes their collective mobility. These results provide key insights into domain-wall bimeron dynamics and offer guidance for their integration into bimeron-based spintronic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00959 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Panel (a) illustrates the numerical formation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamics of domain-wall bimeron driven by spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Force diagrams for current injected in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Force diagrams for spin current polarized in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dynamics of domain wall bimeron driven by spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dynamics of the domain wall bimerons chain driven by spin transfer torque (a)-(c) and spin orbital torque (d)-(f). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Phase diagram as function of bulk DMI and external field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The topological charge as function of external field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The thermal stability of the domain wall bimeron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Creation of domain-wall skyrmions in chiral magnets with Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert dynamics and demagnetization

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    LLG simulations map creation, annihilation, and repulsion of domain-wall skyrmions from bulk skyrmions, and show unstable walls generate skyrmion-anti-skyrmion pairs via a 1D Kibble-Zurek mechanism.

  2. Magnetic Worms: Oscillatory Bimeron Pairing And Collective Transport In Patterned Stripes

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Periodic edge defects in a racetrack induce sustained relative oscillations between bimerons in a domain wall, creating a 'magnetic worm' collective transport state and stabilizing eight-bimeron trains.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [26]

    S. U. Han, W. Kim, S. K. Kim, and S.-G. Je, Tunable domain-wall skyrmion hall effect driven by a current and a magnetic field, Physical Review B 109, 014404 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Phase Diagram To explore the conditions for the existence of the do- main wall bimeron, we perform numerical simulations by varying the bulk DMI constant D and the external mag- netic field Bext, as shown in Fig. 7(a). At zero exter- nal field, merons appear as the ground state at small D. WhenD increases at around 0.3 mJ/m2, the domain wall bimeron begin...

    work page

  3. [2]

    DW” and “BM

    Effect of Temperature Figure 9 illustrates the thermal stability by implement- ing dynamics at finite temperature for the same param- eters as used in the main text. It is observed that the bimeron remains stable up to 100 K. When the temper- ature is 150 K, the bimeron deforms significantly. Appendix B: Thiele’s Equations Under the influence of STT and S...

    work page

  4. [3]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

    S. M¨ uhlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. B¨ oni, Skyrmion lattice in a chiral magnet, Science 323, 915 (2009)

    2009

  5. [4]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Topological properties and dynamics of magnetic skyrmions, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy 8, 899 (2013)

    2013

  6. [5]

    G¨ obel, I

    B. G¨ obel, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tretiakov, Beyond skyrmions: Review and perspectives of alternative mag- netic quasiparticles, Physics Reports 895, 1 (2021)

    2021

  7. [6]

    X. Yu, N. Kanazawa, W. Zhang, T. Nagai, T. Hara, K. Kimoto, Y. Matsui, Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura, Skyrmion flow near room temperature in an ultralow cur- rent density, Nature Communications 3, 988 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [7]

    G¨ obel, A

    B. G¨ obel, A. Mook, J. Henk, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tre- tiakov, Magnetic bimerons as skyrmion analogues in in- plane magnets, Physical Review B 99, 060407 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    L. Shen, J. Xia, Z. Chen, X. Li, X. Zhang, O. A. Treti- akov, Q. Shao, G. Zhao, X. Liu, M. Ezawa, et al. , Non- reciprocal dynamics of ferrimagnetic bimerons, Physical Review B 105, 014422 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Litzius, I

    K. Litzius, I. Lemesh, B. Kruger, P. Bassirian, L. Caretta, K. Richter, F. Buttner, K. Sato, O. A. Tretiakov, J. Forster, R. M. Reeve, M. Weigand, I. Bykova, H. Stoll, G. Schutz, G. S. D. Beach, and M. Klaui, Skyrmion Hall effect revealed by direct time-resolved X-ray microsco...

    2017

  3. [10]

    Barker and O

    J. Barker and O. A. Tretiakov, Static and dynamical properties of antiferromagnetic skyrmions in the pres- ence of applied current and temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 147203 (2016)

    2016

  4. [11]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, and M. Ezawa, Antiferromagnetic skyrmion: stability, creation and manipulation, Scientific Reports 6, 24795 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, and M. Ezawa, Magnetic bilayer- skyrmions without skyrmion hall effect, Nature Commu- nications 7, 10293 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    G¨ obel, A

    B. G¨ obel, A. F. Sch¨ affer, J. Berakdar, I. Mertig, and S. S. Parkin, Electrical writing, deleting, reading, and moving of magnetic skyrmioniums in a racetrack device, Scientific Reports 9, 12119 (2019)

    2019

  7. [14]

    P. Lai, G. Zhao, H. Tang, N. Ran, S. Wu, J. Xia, X. Zhang, and Y. Zhou, An improved racetrack struc- ture for transporting a skyrmion, Scientific Reports 7, 1 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    X. Xing, J. ˚Akerman, and Y. Zhou, Enhanced skyrmion motion via strip domain wall, Physical Review B 101, 214432 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Jennings and P

    P. Jennings and P. Sutcliffe, The dynamics of domain wall skyrmions, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 465401 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, Domain wall skyrmions, Physical Review D 89, 085022 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Cheng, M

    R. Cheng, M. Li, A. Sapkota, A. Rai, A. Pokhrel, T. Mewes, C. Mewes, D. Xiao, M. De Graef, and V. Sokalski, Magnetic domain wall skyrmions, Physical Review B 99, 184412 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Z. Li, J. Su, S.-Z. Lin, D. Liu, Y. Gao, S. Wang, H. Wei, T. Zhao, Y. Zhang, J. Cai, et al. , Field-free topological behavior in the magnetic domain wall of ferrimagnetic gdfeco, Nature Communications 12, 5604 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    Nagase, Y.-G

    T. Nagase, Y.-G. So, H. Yasui, T. Ishida, H. K. Yoshida, Y. Tanaka, K. Saitoh, N. Ikarashi, Y. Kawaguchi, M. Kuwahara, et al. , Observation of domain wall bimerons in chiral magnets, Nature Communications 12, 3490 (2021). 8

    2021

  14. [21]

    M. Li, A. Rai, A. Pokhrel, A. Sapkota, C. Mewes, T. Mewes, D. Xiao, M. De Graef, and V. Sokalski, Mag- netic domain wall substructures in Pt/Co/Ni/Ir multi- layers, Journal of Applied Physics 130, 153903 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Lepadatu, Emergence of transient domain wall skyrmions after ultrafast demagnetization, Physical Re- view B 102, 094402 (2020)

    S. Lepadatu, Emergence of transient domain wall skyrmions after ultrafast demagnetization, Physical Re- view B 102, 094402 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Ross and M

    C. Ross and M. Nitta, Domain-wall skyrmions in chiral magnets, Physical Review B 107, 024422 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Amari, C

    Y. Amari, C. Ross, and M. Nitta, Domain-wall skyrmion chain and domain-wall bimerons in chiral magnets, Phys- ical Review B 109, 104426 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Guang, X

    Y. Guang, X. Zhang, Y. Liu, L. Peng, F. S. Yasin, K. Karube, D. Nakamura, N. Nagaosa, Y. Taguchi, M. Mochizuki, et al. , Confined antiskyrmion motion driven by electric current excitations, Nature Commu- nications 15, 7701 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    A.-P. Xiao, L. Xiong, C. Yang, J.-Y. Jiang, and B. Zheng, Domain-wall skyrmion dynamics driven by current and waveguide spin wave: Synergistic acceleration effect, Physical Review B 111, 024402 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    J. Chen, L. Shen, H. An, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Du, X. Li, and Y. Zhou, Magnetic bimeron traveling on the domain wall, Applied Physics Letters 126, 142402 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    H. Nie, Z. Li, X. Wang, and Z. Wang, Current-driven mo- tion of magnetic domain wall skyrmions, Applied Physics Letters 126, 132402 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    O. J. Amin, S. F. Poole, S. Reimers, L. X. Barton, A. Dal Din, F. Maccherozzi, S. S. Dhesi, V. Nov´ ak, F. Krizek, J. S. Chauhan, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rush- forth, T. Jungwirth, O. A. Tretiakov, K. W. Edmonds, and P. Wadley, Antiferromagnetic half-skyrmions electri- cally gene...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, The design and verification of MuMax3, AIP advances 4 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Zhang and Z

    S. Zhang and Z. Li, Roles of nonequilibrium conduction electrons on the magnetization dynamics of ferromag- nets, Physical Review Letters 93, 127204 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Iwasaki, M

    J. Iwasaki, M. Mochizuki, and N. Nagaosa, Current- induced skyrmion dynamics in constricted geometries, Nature Nanotechnology 8, 742 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Sampaio, V

    J. Sampaio, V. Cros, S. Rohart, A. Thiaville, and A. Fert, Nucleation, stability and current-induced motion of iso- lated magnetic skyrmions in nanostructures, Nature Nan- otechnology 8, 839 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Thiele, Steady-state motion of magnetic domains, Physical Review Letters 30, 230 (1973)

    A. Thiele, Steady-state motion of magnetic domains, Physical Review Letters 30, 230 (1973)

    1973

  28. [36]

    O. A. Tretiakov, D. Clarke, G.-W. Chern, Y. B. Bazaliy, and O. Tchernyshyov, Dynamics of domain walls in mag- netic nanostrips, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 127204 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    D. J. Clarke, O. A. Tretiakov, G.-W. Chern, Y. B. Baza- liy, and O. Tchernyshyov, Dynamics of a vortex do- main wall in a magnetic nanostrip: Application of the collective-coordinate approach, Phys. Rev. B 78, 134412 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. Ralph, and R. Buhrman, Spin- torque ferromagnetic resonance induced by the spin hall effect, Physical Review Letters 106, 036601 (2011). 9 FIG. 6. Dynamics of the domain wall bimerons chain driven by spin transfer torque (a)-(c) and spin orbital torque ...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.