Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Ultrasonic spin pumping in the antiferromagnetic acoustic resonator $\alpha-\text{Fe}_2\text{O}_3$

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Acoustic resonance in antiferromagnetic hematite generates spin currents at room temperature.

desk verdict First claim of acoustic spin pumping from an antiferromagnet, plausible but needs controls and parameter cleanup before quantitative claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22263 v1 pith:LGOTBIYZ submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.other physics.app-ph

David A. Gabrielyan , Dmitry A. Volkov , Tatyana V. Bogdanova , Kristina D. Samoylenko , Anton V. Matasov , Ansar R. Safin , Dmitry V. Kalyabin , Alexey A. Klimov
show 3 more authors
Leonid M. Krutyansky Vladimir L. Preobrazhensky Sergey A. Nikitov
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.otherphysics.app-ph
keywords spinpumpinginverseHalleffectmagnetoelasticresonanceacousticresonatorantiferromagnethematiteultrasonicmagnon-phononcoupling
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 demonstrates that driving a magnetoacoustic resonance in a single-crystal disk of hematite ($\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$) covered with a thin platinum layer produces a spin current into the platinum, detected as an inverse spin Hall voltage at room temperature. This is the first acoustic spin pumping reported for an antiferromagnet; earlier acoustic spin pumping used ferromagnetic garnets, while antiferromagnetic spin pumping had used gigahertz-to-terahertz magnetic resonances. The measured voltage follows the squared acoustic resonance line and reverses sign when the external magnetic field is reversed, as expected for the inverse spin Hall effect. The significance is that spin-current generation becomes available at hundreds of kilohertz, where acoustic resonators have very high quality factors and field-tunable frequencies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled magnetoelastic dynamics of the easy-plane antiferromagnet, described by the Neel vector $\mathbf{l}$ and the ferromagnetic vector $\mathbf{m}$, with the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction producing weak ferromagnetism. At frequencies far below the antiferromagnetic resonance, $\mathbf{m}$ is slaved to $\mathbf{l}$ by the exchange field, and acoustic strain drives $\mathbf{l}$ through the magnetostrictive field while renormalizing the elastic moduli. The key identity is Eq. (9), $I_s = g_r \gamma(H_0+H_D)\omega^2/(\gamma H_E)^2\, \overline{|\chi_n|^2 |h_{\rm ac}|^2}$, in which the susceptibility $\chi_n$ contains the acoustic Lorentzian with quality factor $Q_n$. This is what transfers the resonator's high $Q$ and field tunability to the spin current.

What would settle it

Deposit the same platinum layer on a nonmagnetic acoustic resonator with similar mode structure and drive it identically; if a resonant, field-polarity-reversing voltage of comparable size appears, the signal is not spin pumping from hematite. Alternatively, vary the platinum thickness and verify the $\tanh(d_{\rm Pt}/2\lambda)$ thickness scaling of Eq. (10), or check that the voltage rises linearly with driving power as Eq. (9) requires.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that strong magnetoelastic coupling in an easy-plane antiferromagnet converts ultrasonic acoustic vibrations into oscillations of the ferromagnetic moment, and those oscillations pump a spin current across the $\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$/Pt interface. The measured ISHE voltage is resonant in frequency, its resonance-frequency-versus-field dependence coincides with the bare magnetoacoustic resonance, and its sign flips with the magnetizing-field polarity. The governing relation, Eq. (9), writes the time-averaged spin current as proportional to $|\chi_n|^2 |h_{\rm ac}|^2$, where $\chi_n$ is the effective magnetoelastic susceptibility of the acoustic mode; consequently the ISHE voltage traces the squared acoustic resonance line. The authors take this as evidence that acoustically driven magnon-phonon dynamics is a viable low-frequency route to spin-current generation in antiferromagnets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the voltage measured across the platinum is an inverse spin Hall voltage produced by spins pumped across the hematite/platinum interface; the paper offers no control sample without platinum or on a nonmagnetic substrate, so a non-spin artifact that shares the resonance and field-reversal signatures is not fully excluded.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Acoustic spin pumping works in antiferromagnets, not only in ferromagnetic garnets, extending spin-current generation down to hundreds of kilohertz.
  • The ISHE voltage in the $\alpha$-Fe$_2$O$_3$/Pt structure tracks the squared magnetoacoustic resonance line, so the same resonator used for sensing or filtering can double as a spin-current source.
  • Because the acoustic resonance frequency shifts strongly with the applied magnetic field, the spin pumping can be tuned over several hundred kilohertz by adjusting the field.
  • The high quality factor of the acoustic mode, orders of magnitude above the magnetic resonance, yields large magnetization-oscillation amplitudes and correspondingly strong spin currents at modest driving fields.
  • The standard ISHE detection methodology from microwave spin pumping carries over directly to ultrasonically pumped antiferromagnets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A platinum-thickness series would be a direct test: Eq. (10) predicts a $\tanh(d_{\rm Pt}/2\lambda)$ growth of the voltage, so a failure of that scaling would point to non-spin artifacts.
  • The same magnetoelastic mechanism should transfer to other easy-plane antiferromagnets with strong magnetoelastic coupling, such as FeBO$_3$, giving each material its own field-tunable acoustic spin-pumping window.
  • At high drive amplitudes the magnetoacoustic resonator is nonlinear, so the spin current should inherit bistability and hysteresis from the acoustic mode.
  • A control measurement with a non-spin-orbit metal or an insulating interlayer would isolate genuine interfacial spin pumping from bulk or heating effects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and theoretical study claiming the first demonstration of acoustic spin pumping from an antiferromagnet into a heavy-metal layer at room temperature. A Pt film is deposited on a single-crystal hematite (α-Fe2O3) disk, magnetoelastic contour-shear modes are excited in the 400–600 kHz range with an amplitude-modulated AC magnetic field, and the lock-in voltage across the Pt layer is attributed to the inverse spin Hall effect (ISHE) produced by spin pumping. The authors develop an easy-plane antiferromagnet model in which the acoustically driven oscillation of the Néel vector generates a spin current proportional to the squared magnetic susceptibility, and they compare the calculated ISHE voltage with the measured frequency and field dependences. The two main experimental observations are that the voltage peaks coincide with the magnetoelastic resonance frequencies and that the voltage changes sign when the external magnetic field polarity is reversed.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the result would extend spin pumping from microwave-frequency magnon resonances to ultrasonic-frequency acoustic resonances in an antiferromagnet, potentially offering much higher quality factors and a new route to AFM spintronics devices at room temperature. The manuscript has genuine strengths: it combines an established theoretical framework for easy-plane antiferromagnets with independent characterization of the magnetoelastic resonance, XRD confirmation of crystal orientation, field-polarity reversal as a check, COMSOL simulations of the mode structure, and explicit parameter tables for the quantitative model. However, the central interpretation of the measured voltage as a pure ISHE signal currently rests on two necessary but not sufficient observations, and the quantitative theory curve is partly calibrated with the same sample's fitted parameters. The significance of the claimed first demonstration therefore cannot be assessed until the ISHE origin is secured by control experiments and the parameter sensitivity of the model is characterized.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2 and §4, Figs. 3–4] The identification of the measured voltage as an inverse spin Hall signal is not yet established. The two supporting observations—resonance-frequency coincidence with the magnetoelastic mode (Fig. 3) and sign reversal with field polarity (Fig. 4)—are necessary but not sufficient to exclude non-spin artifacts. Any rectified lock-in signal whose sign follows magnetization reversal, such as an anisotropic magnetoresistance contribution, a planar or anomalous Nernst voltage from modulated acoustic heating, or a field-dependent contact rectification, would reproduce both observations. The paper reports no control experiment on a Pt-on-insulator blank, a bare hematite sample without Pt, or a normal metal with opposite spin Hall angle. This gap is load-bearing because Eq. (10) converts the entire measured voltage into a spin current; if a non-spin fraction contributes, the claimed magnitude and the first-demonstration claim are both affected.
  2. [§3, Appendix B, Table B1, Fig. 2 inset] The quantitative agreement presented in the Fig. 2 inset is partly a fit rather than an independent prediction. The theoretical curve uses the sample's own fitted resonance parameters (Ω_n0, H_n^(1), H_n^(2), δ, obtained from the Fig. B2 data), an assumed driving field amplitude h_ac = 3×10^-2 Oe, and an assumed spin-mixing conductance g_r = 6.9×10^18 m^-2 from Table B1. No sensitivity analysis is given, no error bars are reported for the measured voltages, and no independent calibration of h_ac or g_r is described. The authors should state explicitly which parameters are fixed, which are fitted, and how the theoretical curve changes over the plausible ranges of h_ac and g_r. In addition, Table B1 lists H_D as 22×10^-3 Oe while the text states H_D = 22 kOe; if the table value is used in Eqs. (5)–(9), the computed spin current changes by orders of magnitude, so this inconsistency must be corrected and propagated into the numerical comparison.
  3. [§4, Fig. 4] The statement that the difference in the resonance voltage moduli for opposite field polarities is 'typical of such experiments and is associated with a number of side effects' is too vague to be testable. Since the polarity-reversal test is the principal discriminator for ISHE in this manuscript, the authors should quantify the asymmetry (for example, the ratio of absolute voltage amplitudes across repeated field cycles) and identify the proposed side effects with rough estimates of their expected contributions. Without this, the reader cannot determine whether the asymmetry is consistent with a spin-pumping background or whether it signals a substantial non-ISHE contribution to the signal.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3 and Appendix B] The notation is inconsistent between the main text and appendix: λ_y(t), φ, and the dynamic component of the Néel vector are used interchangeably without explicit identification, and σ_n(r) appears in Eq. (8) without a definition until Appendix B. Please unify notation and define every symbol at first use.
  2. [Abstract and §2] The abstract claims that acoustic resonance in hematite is 'significantly more pronounced (by hundreds or even thousands of times)' than in other quasiferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic systems, but no quantitative comparison or citation supporting this claim is provided in the main text.
  3. [Fig. 2 inset] The inset of Fig. 2 lacks axis labels, a legend, and a description of which curve is experimental data and which is the theoretical expression; it should also specify the parameter set used for the calculation.
  4. [References] References [27] and [41] are the same paper (Khymyn et al., AIP Adv. 7, 055931) cited twice under different numbers; please merge the citations.
  5. [§2] For reproducibility, the paper should state the lock-in time constant, integration time, and the noise floor of the voltage measurement, and it should show a representative raw lock-in trace rather than only processed frequency scans.
  6. [Appendix B] The text contains several typos and grammatical errors, including 'precessifies' instead of 'precesses', inconsistent spelling of 'Néel', and the phrase 'the antiferromagnets, which retains antiferromagnetic ordering'; these should be corrected throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central experimental claim is independent of the theoretical fitting, and the theoretical curves are explicitly labeled approximations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the experimental observation of an inverse spin Hall voltage at acoustic resonance frequencies in a Pt-coated hematite sample, supported by two independent experimental facts: the voltage peaks coincide with the magnetoelastically tuned acoustic resonance (Fig. 3), and the voltage reverses with reversal of the external field polarity (Fig. 4). Neither observation is derived from the theory being tested. The theoretical expressions in Eqs. (3)-(9) are standard spin-pumping and magnetoacoustic relations adapted from earlier published work, and the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or forbid alternative mechanisms by citing its own prior work. The inset of Fig. 2 is explicitly described as a 'theoretical approximation' of the measured voltage at one field value, using resonator parameters (H_n1, H_n2, Omega_n0) obtained from independent magnetoelastic resonance frequency-field measurements and an assumed drive amplitude h_ac. This is a fit rather than an independent prediction, but the paper does not present that inset as a first-principles prediction or as the primary evidence for the effect. The measured field-reversal dependence is a separate experimental test. The absence of blank or control samples is a legitimate experimental-control concern about alternative non-spin rectification mechanisms, but it is not a circularity of the derivation. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an assumed driving field amplitude, fitted acoustic-mode parameters, and several domain assumptions inherited from prior AFEP theory and ferromagnetic spin-pumping phenomenology. No genuinely new physical entities are introduced. The qualitative experimental result does not depend on the fitted parameters, but the quantitative theoretical comparison does.

free parameters (3)
  • Driving field amplitude hac = 3e-2 Oe (Table B1)
    Assumed, not directly measured. It enters the absolute spin-current prediction in Eq. (9), so the theoretical curve in Fig. 2 is not an independent prediction of magnitude.
  • Acoustic mode parameters Omega_n0, Hn1, Hn2 = 602 kHz, 117 Oe, 164 Oe
    Fitted to the measured resonance frequency versus field data (Eq. B11, Fig. B2). These parameters are then used in the theoretical frequency dependence, making part of the agreement a fit.
  • Acoustic attenuation delta = 1e-3 (Table B1)
    Linewidth parameter that sets the resonance width in the model; no uncertainty or independent measurement is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Easy-plane antiferromagnet equations of motion from Ozhogin-Preobrazhenskii theory
    Equations (1) and (B1) adopt the closed two-sublattice AFEP model including exchange, DMI, anisotropy, and magnetoelastic terms. The spin-current derivation depends on this model, which is taken from the authors' prior work.
  • domain assumption Linear-response, single-mode, small-amplitude approximation
    Equations (4), (B3)-(B9) linearize in oscillation amplitudes and keep a single acoustic mode. The paper does not quantitatively justify this approximation for the pumping amplitudes used in the experiment.
  • domain assumption Spin-pumping formula Is = gr <[m x m_dot] + [l x l_dot]>_y, with neglect of the l x l_dot term
    Equation (3) generalizes ferromagnetic spin pumping to the AFM case. The neglect of the antiferromagnetic contribution at low frequencies is stated but not independently benchmarked against prior AFM spin-pumping experiments.
  • domain assumption Interface and material parameters (gr, Theta_SH, lambda_Pt, rho) taken from literature
    These parameters are not measured in this work. The absolute voltage predictions depend on them, and their values (especially gr) strongly affect the computed spin current.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrasonic spin pumping in the antiferromagnetic acoustic resonator $\alpha-\text{Fe}_2\text{O}_3$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGOTBIYZ

@misc{pith2026250522263,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrasonic spin pumping in the antiferromagnetic acoustic resonator $\alpha-\textFe_2\textO_3$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGOTBIYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22263}
}
abstract

Recent advances in magnon spintronics have ignited interest in the interactions between the spin and elastic subsystems of magnetic materials. These interactions suggest a dynamic connection between collective excitations of spins, quantized as magnons, and elastic waves generated by perturbations in the crystal lattice, quantized as phonons. Both magnons and their associated magnon-phonon excitations can act as sources of spin pumping from magnetic materials into non-magnetic metals. Although a considerable body of research has focused on spin pumping via elastic waves in ferromagnets, similar investigations involving antiferromagnets have yet to be undertaken. In this work, we experimentally demonstrate for the first time the feasibility of generating spin currents at ultrasonic frequencies of acoustic resonance in antiferromagnetic crystal hematite $\alpha-\text{Fe}_2\text{O}_3$ at room temperature. We provide both theoretical and experimental evidence that, due to strong magnetoelastic coupling, acoustic vibrations in hematite induce significant variable deviations in magnetization, resulting in spin accumulation at the antiferromagnet-normal metal interface, which in turn leads to the generation of spin and charge currents in the metal. Charge currents arising from the inverse spin Hall effect can be measured using the same methodology employed under high-frequency spin pumping conditions at the resonances of the magnetic subsystem itself. Moreover, the acoustic resonance in hematite is significantly more pronounced (by hundreds or even thousands of times) than in other quasiferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic systems, enabling the attainment of extremely large amplitudes of magnetic oscillations for spin pumping. This research highlights the new approach of utilizing acoustic spin pumping to manipulate spin currents in magnetic materials, particularly antiferromagnets.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baltz, V., Manchon, A., Tsoi, M., Moriyama, T., Ono, T., Tserkovnyak, Y.: Antiferromagnetic spintronics. Rev. Mod. Phys.90(1), 015005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Soviet Phys

    Borovik-Romanov, A.S., Rudashevskii, E.G.: Effect of spontaneous striction on antiferromagnetic resonance in hematite. Soviet Phys. JETP 20, 1407–1411 (1965)

    work page 1965

  3. [3]

    Solid State 6, 666 (1964)

    Savchenko, M.A.: Soviet Physics. Solid State 6, 666 (1964)

    work page 1964

  4. [4]

    Solid State Communications10, 219–223 (1972)

    Seavey, M.H.: Acoustic resonance in the easy-plane weak ferromagnets α-Fe2O3 and FeBO3. Solid State Communications10, 219–223 (1972)

    work page 1972

  5. [5]

    IEEE Transactions on Magnetics8(3), 645–645 (1972)

    Ozhogin, V., Maximenkov, P.: Easy plane antiferromagnets (AFEP) for applica- tions: Hematite. IEEE Transactions on Magnetics8(3), 645–645 (1972)

    work page 1972

  6. [6]

    Dikshtein, I.E., Tarasenko, V.V., Shavrov, V.G.: Effect of pressure on magne- toacoustic resonance in uniaxial antiferromagnets. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 67(2), 816–823 (1974)

    work page 1974

  7. [7]

    Ozhogin, V.I., Preobrazhenskii, V.L.: Effective anharmonicity of elastic subsystem of antiferromagnets. Sov. Phys. JETP46, 523–529 (1977)

    work page 1977

  8. [8]

    Physics-Uspekhi 40(7), 701 (1997)

    Gulyaev, Y.V., Dikshtein, I.E., Shavrov, V.G.: Magnetoacoustic surface waves in magnetic crystals near spin-reorientation phase transitions. Physics-Uspekhi 40(7), 701 (1997)

    work page 1997

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Strugatsky, M.B., Skibinsky, K.M.: Acoustic resonances in antiferromagnet FeBO3. J. Magn. Magn. Mater.309(1), 64–70 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Fetisov, Y.K., Preobrazhenskii, V.L., Pernod, P.: Bistability in a nonlinear magnetoacoustic resonator. J. Commun. Technol. Electron.51, 218–230 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Soviet Physics Uspekhi 31(8), 713– 728 (1988)

    Ozhogin, V.I., Preobrazhenskii, V.L.: Anharmonicity of mixed modes and giant acoustic nonlinearity of antiferromagnetics. Soviet Physics Uspekhi 31(8), 713– 728 (1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    Saitoh, E., Ueda, M., Miyajima, H., Tatara, G.: Conversion of spin current into charge current at room temperature: Inverse spin-Hall effect. Appl. Phys. Lett. 88(18) (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Azevedo, A., Le˜ ao, L.H.V., Rodriguez-Suarez, R.L., Oliveira, A.B., Rezende, S.M.: dc effect in ferromagnetic resonance: Evidence of the spin-pumping effect? J. Appl. Phys.97(10) (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    Heinrich, B., Burrowes, C., Montoya, E., Kardasz, B., Girt, E., Song, Y.-Y., Sun, Y., Wu, M.: Spin Pumping at the Magnetic Insulator (YIG)/Normal Metal (Au) 16 Interfaces. Phys. Rev. Lett.107(6), 066604 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Springer Publishing Company, New York (2016)

    Xu, Y., Awschalom, D.D., Nitta, J.: Handbook of Spintronics. Springer Publishing Company, New York (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Nature 578(7793), 70–74 (2020)

    Li, J., Wilson, C.B., Cheng, R., Lohmann, M., Kavand, M., Yuan, W., Aldosary, M., Agladze, N., Wei, P., Sherwin, M.S., et al.: Spin current from sub-terahertz- generated antiferromagnetic magnons. Nature 578(7793), 70–74 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Science 368(6487), 160–165 (2020)

    Vaidya, P., Morley, S.A., van Tol, J., Liu, Y., Cheng, R., Brataas, A., Lederman, D., Del Barco, E.: Subterahertz spin pumping from an insulating antiferromagnet. Science 368(6487), 160–165 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Ross, P., Schreier, M., Lotze, J., Huebl, H., Gross, R., Goennenwein, S.T.B.: Anti- ferromagentic resonance detected by direct current voltages in MnF2/Pt bilayers. J. Appl. Phys.118(23) (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    Stremoukhov, P., Safin, A., Schippers, C.F., Lavrijsen, R., Bal, M., Zeitler, U., Sadovnikov, A., Kozlova, E., Ilkhchy, K.S., Nikitov, S., et al.: Strongly nonlinear antiferromagnetic dynamics in high magnetic fields.Results in Physics57, 107377 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Moriya, T.: New mechanism of anisotropic superexchange interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett. 4(5), 228 (1960)

    1960

  13. [21]

    Dzyaloshinsky, I.: A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antifer- romagnetics. J. Phys. Chem. Solids4(4), 241–255 (1958)

    1958

  14. [22]

    Morin, F.J.: Electrical properties of α-Fe2O3and α-Fe2O3 containing titanium. Phys. Rev.83(5), 1005 (1951)

    1951

  15. [23]

    Smith, T.T.: The Magnetic Properties of Hematite. Phys. Rev. 8(6), 721–737 (1916)

    1916

  16. [24]

    order-order

    Ozhogin, V.I., Preobrazhenskii, V.L.: Nonlinear dynamics of coupled systems near magnetic phase transitions of the “order-order” type. J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 100(1–3), 544–571 (1991)

    1991

  17. [25]

    Khymyn, R., Lisenkov, I., Tiberkevich, V., Ivanov, B.A., Slavin, A.: Antiferromag- netic THz-frequency Josephson-like oscillator driven by spin current. Sci. Rep.7, 43705 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Sulymenko, O.R., Prokopenko, O.V., Tiberkevich, V.S., Slavin, A.N., Ivanov, B.A., Khymyn, R.S.: Terahertz-frequency spin Hall auto-oscillator based on a canted antiferromagnet. Phys. Rev. Appl.8(6), 064007 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    AIP Adv.7(5), 055931 (2017) 17

    Khymyn, R., Tiberkevich, V., Slavin, A.: Antiferromagnetic spin current rectifier. AIP Adv.7(5), 055931 (2017) 17

    2017

  20. [28]

    Gomonay, O., Jungwirth, T., Sinova, J.: Narrow-band tunable terahertz detector in antiferromagnets via staggered-field and antidamping torques. Phys. Rev. B 98(10), 104430 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Khymyn, R., Lisenkov, I., Tiberkevich, V.S., Slavin, A.N., Ivanov, B.A.: Trans- formation of spin current by antiferromagnetic insulators. Phys. Rev. B93(22), 224421 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    AIP Adv.13(1) (2023)

    Bradley, H., Louis, S., Trevillian, C., Quach, L., Bankowski, E., Slavin, A., Tyberkevych, V.: Artificial neurons based on antiferromagnetic auto-oscillators as a platform for neuromorphic computing. AIP Adv.13(1) (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Sulymenko, O., Prokopenko, O., Lisenkov, I., ˚Akerman, J., Tyberkevych, V., Slavin, A.N., Khymyn, R.: Ultra-fast logic devices using artificial “neurons” based on antiferromagnetic pulse generators. J. Appl. Phys.124(15) (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Kosub, T., Kopte, M., H¨ uhne, R., Appel, P., Shields, B., Maletinsky, P., H¨ ubner, R., Liedke, M.O., Fassbender, J., Schmidt, O.G., et al.: Purely antiferromagnetic magnetoelectric random access memory. Nat. Commun. 8, 13985 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    ACS Appl

    Fina, I., Dix, N., Menendez, E., Crespi, A., Foerster, M., Aballe, L., Sanchez, F., Fontcuberta, J.: Flexible antiferromagnetic FeRh tapes as memory elements. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces12(13), 15389–15395 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Artemchuk, P.Y., Sulymenko, O.R., Louis, S., Li, J., Khymyn, R.S., Bankowski, E., Meitzler, T., Tyberkevych, V.S., Slavin, A.N., Prokopenko, O.V.: Terahertz frequency spectrum analysis with a nanoscale antiferromagnetic tunnel junction. J. Appl. Phys.127(6), 063905 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Boventer, I., Simensen, H.T., Anane, A., Kl¨ aui, M., Brataas, A., Lebrun, R.: Room-temperature antiferromagnetic resonance and inverse spin-Hall voltage in canted antiferromagnets. Phys. Rev. Lett.126(18), 187201 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Wang, H., Xiao, Y., Guo, M., Lee-Wong, E., Yan, G.Q., Cheng, R., Du, C.R.: Spin pumping of an easy-plane antiferromagnet enhanced by Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction. Phys. Rev. Lett.127(11), 117202 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Lebrun, R., Ross, A., Gomonay, O., Baltz, V., Ebels, U., Barra, A.-L., Qaiumzadeh, A., Brataas, A., Sinova, J., Kl¨ aui, M.: Long-distance spin-transport across the Morin phase transition up to room temperature in ultra-low damping single crystals of the antiferromagnet α-Fe2O...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Gabrielyan, D., Volkov, D., Kozlova, E., Safin, A., Kalyabin, D., Nikitov, S.: Room-temperature spin pumping from canted antiferromagnet α-Fe2O3. J. Appl. Phys. 136(8) (2024) 18

    2024

  31. [39]

    Gabrielyan, D.A., Volkov, D.A., Kozlova, E.E., Safin, A.R., Kalyabin, D.V., Klimov, A.A., Preobrazhensky, V.L., Strugatsky, M.B., Yagupov, S.V., Moskal, I.E., et al.: Microwave spin-pumping from an antiferromagnet FeBO 3. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.57(30), 305003 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Crystallography 12(3), 539–540 (1967)

    Voskanian, R.L., Zheludev, I.S.: Obtaining monocrystalline rhombohedra and plates of hematite [in Russian]. Crystallography 12(3), 539–540 (1967)

    1967

  33. [41]

    AIP Adv.7(5), 055931 (2017)

    Khymyn, R., Tiberkevich, V., Slavin, A.: Antiferromagnetic spin current rectifier. AIP Adv.7(5), 055931 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    http://www

    ICDD, PDF-2, Software version 4.19.21, database version 2.1901. http://www. icdd.com/pdfsearch/ (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Preobrazhensky, V., Yevstafyev, O., Pernod, P., Berzhansky, V.: Explosive insta- bility of quasi-phonon triads in antiferromagnet under frequency modulated electromagnetic field. J. Magn. Magn. Mater.322(6), 585–588 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    COMSOL Multiphysics, Burlington, MA, 9, accessed Feb (1998)

    COMSOL Multiphysics: Introduction to COMSOL Multiphysics ®. COMSOL Multiphysics, Burlington, MA, 9, accessed Feb (1998)

    1998

  37. [45]

    IEEE Trans

    Moshkin, V., Preobrazhensky, V., Pernod, P.: Wide-range frequency control in magnetoacoustic resonator. IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 67(9), 1957–1959 (2020) 19

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.