Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Magnetic aftereffect and Barkhausen effect in thin films of the altermagnetic candidate Mn5Si3

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Hall-voltage steps point to magnetic domains in an altermagnet.

desk verdict The aftereffect measurement is solid; the Barkhausen attribution is plausible but unproven until a non-magnetic control is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05926 v1 pith:D3YV6UED submitted 2025-06-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Gregor Skobjin , Javier Rial , Sebastian Beckert , Helena Reichlova , Vincent Baltz , Lisa Michez , Richard Schlitz , Michaela Lammel
show 1 more author
Sebastian T.B. Goennenwein
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismanomalousHalleffectMn5Si3Barkhausenmagneticaftereffectviscositydomainsbar
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 time-dependent Hall-effect measurements on micron-scale Hall bars patterned from thin films of Mn5Si3, a candidate altermagnet. At a fixed magnetic field, the anomalous Hall voltage relaxes over tens of minutes in a way that matches the magnetic-viscosity response of ferromagnetic films. Superimposed on that relaxation, the voltage traces show abrupt, unilateral steps that the authors interpret as Barkhausen steps, i.e., sudden reorientations of magnetic Hall-vector domains. If the interpretation holds, it establishes that altermagnets, like ferromagnets, exhibit magnetic aftereffect and Barkhausen-type domain dynamics, and it places an upper bound of about 18 nm on the size of the reversing domain in the narrowest devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the altermagnetic Hall vector $h_{Hall}$, which plays the role that magnetization plays in ferromagnets within the anomalous Hall response $V_{xy} = j_x w \mu_0 (R_O H_0 + R_A h_{Hall})$; it is what the Hall voltage measures and what supposedly reorients in the observed steps. The conversion of a measured voltage step into a physical domain size runs through the identity $Y_{Bark}/Y_{active} = \Delta V_{Bark}/\Delta V_{AHE} = L_{Bark}^2/w^2$, which assumes a square Barkhausen volume spanning the full 19.3 nm film thickness. The step-detection pipeline, consisting of a rolling median of 30 points, subtraction of a $\ln(1+t/t_0)$ relaxation fit, numerical differentiation, a rolling sum, and a three-$\sigma$ threshold on local maxima, is the mechanism by which the paper turns noisy relaxation traces into discrete Barkhausen events.

What would settle it

Run the identical relaxation protocol, 30 minutes at fixed field after saturation, on a Mn5Si3 film heated above its magnetic ordering temperature or on an identically patterned nonmagnetic metal film; if step-like jumps and logarithmic relaxation persist there, the Barkhausen and aftereffect interpretation collapses. A confirming observation would be direct real-space imaging of Hall-vector domains of the order of 10 to 20 nm in the same films.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the altermagnetic candidate Mn5Si3 exhibits both the magnetic aftereffect and the Barkhausen effect, two hallmarks of domain-mediated magnetization dynamics previously studied mainly in ferromagnets. Recording the anomalous Hall voltage $V_{AHE}(t)$ at fixed field after saturating the sample, the authors find a logarithmic relaxation quantitatively similar to ferromagnets with perpendicular anisotropy (normalized viscosity $S_n$ up to 6.4%, time constants of tens of seconds). On top of this relaxation, the time traces contain step-like jumps, which the authors attribute to abrupt reorientations of the altermagnetic Hall vector $h_{Hall}$ in a portion of the sample volume. From the step amplitudes and the relation $Y_{Bark}/Y_{active} = \Delta V_{Bark}/\Delta V_{AHE} = L_{Bark}^2/w^2$, they extract a Barkhausen length $L_{Bark} \approx 18\,\mathrm{nm}$ in 100 nm wide Hall bars, which they interpret as an upper bound on the size of Hall-vector domains. They further argue that the observation of multiple Barkhausen steps in devices known to contain only a single altermagnetic variant implies that more than one type of magnetic texture must be considered in altermagnetic thin films.

Load-bearing premise

The abrupt steps in the Hall voltage are assumed to be magnetic domain reorientations rather than electrical noise, contact instabilities, charge trapping, or other artifacts; the paper's detection pipeline selects every local maximum above three standard deviations, and no control measurements on nonmagnetic samples or above the magnetic ordering temperature are presented.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The magnetic aftereffect in Mn5Si3 is quantitatively comparable to ferromagnetic films with perpendicular anisotropy, with normalized viscosity up to 6.4%, so altermagnetic relaxation can be studied with the same Hall-probe toolbox used for ferromagnets.
  • Barkhausen steps in 100 nm wide Hall bars bound the reversing volume by a Barkhausen length of about 18 nm, a scale consistent with the strain-relief structural domains reported in Mn5Si3 growth studies.
  • The Barkhausen length grows with Hall bar width, from 18 nm at 0.1 µm to 455 nm at 10 µm, which the authors attribute to micropatterning altering the magnetic texture, an effect that must be accounted for when patterning altermagnetic devices.
  • Observing multiple Barkhausen steps in devices that host a single altermagnetic variant implies that several distinct Hall-vector textures coexist, so altermagnetic domain discussions should not be restricted to the known variants.
  • The narrowest devices offer the best sensitivity to Barkhausen events because the voltage-step resolution limit of about 100 nV scales favorably with width.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not report control measurements above the magnetic ordering temperature or on nonmagnetic reference devices; a natural extension is to run the identical 30-minute protocol on such controls and check that no step-like jumps appear.
  • If the 18 nm scale is confirmed, the elementary switching volume in Mn5Si3 is far smaller than device dimensions, which would matter for any memory or logic application that relies on deterministic reversal of altermagnetic domains.
  • The unilateral character of the steps and their distribution in time carry information about domain-wall pinning statistics; analyzing waiting times versus field could connect the discrete jumps to the same thermally activated barrier landscape that produces the logarithmic aftereffect.
  • Measuring the same films in unpatterned form with a spatially resolving probe could separate intrinsic Hall-vector domain size from patterning-induced effects, testing the paper's width-dependence explanation.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-dependent Hall voltage measurements on Mn5Si3 thin-film Hall bars with widths from 10 µm to 0.1 µm at 130 K. For the 10 µm bar, the anomalous Hall relaxation after field steps is fitted with a logarithmic law, yielding a magnetic viscosity S_n up to 6.4% and time constants of tens of seconds, comparable with ferromagnetic films. For narrower bars, the time traces contain abrupt unilateral voltage steps which the authors interpret as Barkhausen steps of altermagnetic Hall-vector domains. From the step amplitudes via Eq. (5) they estimate a Barkhausen length L_Bark of about 18 nm in the 100 nm wide device, with larger values for wider bars attributed to a detection sensitivity limit.

Significance. The magnetic aftereffect observation is a solid, quantitative addition to the phenomenology of altermagnetic candidates and is well supported by high-R^2 fits for the 10 µm device. If the Barkhausen interpretation survives additional controls, the paper would provide the first report of domain-like dynamics in an altermagnet and a rare length-scale estimate for Hall-vector textures. However, the central claim currently rests on the assumption that every detected step is magnetic in origin, and the manuscript does not yet rule out instrumental sources of step-like voltages. The 18 nm value is model-dependent and an upper bound rather than a directly measured domain size. Credit is due for the careful fitting procedure and for the explicit acknowledgment of the surprising width dependence of L_Bark, which the authors attempt to rationalize through a sensitivity limit.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 3 and the paragraph beginning 'For a quantitative evaluation of L_Bark'] The step detection pipeline selects all local maxima above 3σ in the differentiated residual, but no control experiment is presented to distinguish magnetic Barkhausen steps from non-magnetic voltage steps. The subtraction V_AHE(t) = V_Δ−(t) − a·μ0H_meas − b uses the nominal field H_meas; any drift or discrete flux jump of the superconducting magnet of amplitude ΔH enters as a·ΔH. For the w = 0.1 µm device, |a| = 2.6 µV/T (Table 1), so a step at the stated 100 nV detection limit corresponds to only about 0.04 mT. Without simultaneous field monitoring, measurements above the magnetic ordering temperature, a nonmagnetic reference device, or a reversal-symmetry check, the unilateral steps cannot be assigned to magnetic domain reorientation. This directly undermines the Barkhausen effect claim and the derived 18 nm length.
  2. [Eq. (5), Fig. 3c] The conversion ΔV_Bark/ΔV_AHE = Y_Bark/Y_active assumes a volume-fraction linearity and a square Barkhausen volume spanning the full film thickness. The manuscript does not report the number of steps used for each average, the spread of individual L_Bark values, or error bars on the fit parameters in Eq. (2). The grey sensitivity line in Fig. 3c is based on an assumed 100 nV noise floor without a measured noise distribution. Consequently the headline value L_Bark = 18 nm is an upper bound under a specific geometrical and electrical model rather than a measured domain size. The authors should provide per-step statistics, detection thresholds, and a propagation of uncertainties.
  3. [Fig. 2 and the sentence beginning 'While our Mn5Si3 Hall bar devices with w < 10 µm'] The Barkhausen step extraction for w ≤ 1 µm relies on subtracting a fit to Eq. (2) from data for which the same fit has R^2 as low as 0.5. The manuscript does not demonstrate that the residual-based detection is robust to this poor baseline model. A sensitivity analysis with a different baseline (e.g., a local median without the logarithmic fit) or a quantification of the fit residual's influence on the detected step amplitudes is needed to support the step amplitudes extracted from the narrower devices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, 'M5Si3'] The phrase 'micropatterned into M5Si3 films' should read 'Mn5Si3 films'.
  2. [Experimental methods] The value j_x = 2.5 × 10^{−10} A/m^2 appears to be a typo; current densities of order 10^{10} A/m^2 are typical for such experiments.
  3. [Fig. 3c] The average L_Bark values are placed inside the data panel; labeling outside the panel or in the caption would improve readability.
  4. [Barkhausen detection paragraph] The sentence 'The time interval associated with the rolling sum and rolling median were chosen to be of the same size' has a subject-verb agreement error and should be revised.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the aftereffect fits and the Barkhausen-length extraction are independent of the claimed conclusions, and the only self-citations are not load-bearing for the central quantitative step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are not circular. The magnetic aftereffect is characterized by fitting V_AHE(t) to Eq.(2), an independently established logarithmic relaxation form; the fitted viscosity S_n is compared with literature values, not defined in terms of the claim. The Barkhausen length is obtained from Eq.(5), L_Bark^2/w^2 = DeltaV_Bark/DeltaV_AHE, using measured voltage-step amplitudes and the saturation swing. This is a geometric mapping of a measured voltage ratio, not a prediction that reduces to an input: DeltaV_Bark is an independently extracted (if threshold-selected) observable, and DeltaV_AHE is the measured 2V_sat. The sensitivity-limit argument is post hoc but internally consistent and does not force L_Bark = 18 nm by construction. There is no invocation of a uniqueness theorem and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Several references (e.g., [21], [23], [24], [25]) include overlapping authors, and [21] and [24] are used for the relaxation formula and for the prior identification of one altermagnetic variant in 100-nm bars; however, the central step-amplitude analysis and Eq.(5) do not depend on those citations for their mathematical content. The absence of nonmagnetic control measurements or temperature scans above the ordering transition is a serious experimental-support concern, but it is a validity/artifact issue, not a circularity of the derivation chain. Because the central quantitative claims are not constructed from their own outputs, the circularity score is low.

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

The central claim relies on standard AHE phenomenology and on three untested structural assumptions: logarithmic relaxation, volume-proportional voltage steps, and a square Barkhausen domain spanning the film thickness. All are plausible but none are independently verified in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • magnetic viscosity S_V and relaxation time t0 = S_n(max) = 6.4%, t0 on order of tens of seconds
    Fit parameters from Eq.(2) used to quantify magnetic aftereffect in the 10 µm bar; no uncertainties reported.
  • device-specific OHE coefficient a and offset b = listed in Table 1
    Subtracted to isolate AHE; fitted per device from hysteresis data.
  • Barkhausen detection threshold and rolling windows = 3× standard deviation of ΔV_n; rolling windows of 30 points
    Hand-chosen analysis parameters determine which steps are counted; no sensitivity analysis.
  • noise floor for voltage detection = ~100 nV
    Assumed sensitivity limit to derive the grey line in Fig.3c; not directly measured.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hall voltage response is Vxy = j_x w μ0(R_O H0 + R_A hHall) (Eq.1)
    Standard phenomenological model for AHE in altermagnets; invoked throughout.
  • domain assumption Logarithmic relaxation law V_AHE(t) = V0 - S_V ln(1 + t/t0) (Eq.2)
    Assumed functional form for magnetic viscosity; no microphysical derivation in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Voltage step amplitude is proportional to switched volume fraction: ΔV_Bark/ΔV_AHE = Y_Bark/Y_active (Eq.5)
    Assumes AHE is additive over domains and current density uniform; needed to convert steps to Barkhausen length.
  • ad hoc to paper Barkhausen volume is a square of side L_Bark extending over the whole film thickness d = 19.3 nm
    Defines the reported Barkhausen length; shape and full thickness not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Mn5Si3 is in the altermagnetic phase at 130 K with negligible net moment
    Borrowed from cited works [23,25]; if false, the material would be ferromagnetic and the claims lose novelty.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic aftereffect and Barkhausen effect in thin films of the altermagnetic candidate Mn5Si3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3YV6UED

@misc{pith2026250605926,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic aftereffect and Barkhausen effect in thin films of the altermagnetic candidate Mn5Si3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3YV6UED}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05926}
}
read the original abstract

Altermagnetism as a third distinct type of collinear magnetic ordering lately attracts vivid attention. We here study the Hall effect response of micron-scale Hall bars patterned into Mn5Si3 thin films, an altermagnet candidate material. Recording transport data as a function of time, at fixed magnetic field magnitude, we observe a time-dependent relaxation of the Hall voltage qualitatively and quantitatively similar to the magnetic viscosity response well established in ferromagnetic films. In addition, the Hall voltage time traces feature clear unilateral steps, which we interpret as Barkhausen steps, i.e., as experimental evidence for abrupt reorientations of magnetic (Hall vector) domains in the altermagnetic candidate material. A quantitative analysis yields a Barkhausen length of around 18nm in the Hall bar devices with the smallest width of 100 nm.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Šmejkal, J

    L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth. Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Šmejkal, R

    L. Šmejkal, R. González-Hernández, T. Jung- wirth and J. Sinova. Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. González-Hernández and L. Šmejkal. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci118, e2108924118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba and A. Zunger. Phys. Rev. B102, 014422 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi and H. Kusunose. J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 123702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    L. Néel. Ann. Phys.11, 232–279 (1936)

    work page 1936

  7. [7]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. Šmejkal et al. Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036702 (2024). 5

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    B. Chi, L. Jiang, Y. Zhu, G. Yu, C. Wan, J. Zhang and X. Han. Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 034038 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Šmejkal, A

    L. Šmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. González- Hernández, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth. Phys. Rev. X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    S. Xu, Z. Zhang, F. Mahfouzi, Y. Huang, H. Cheng, B. Dai, W. Cai, K. Shi, D. Zhu, Z. Guo et al. arXiv:2311.02458 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. Mac- Donald and N. P. Ong. Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1539–1592 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Leiviskä, J

    M. Leiviskä, J. Rial, A. Bad’ura, R. L. Seeger, I. Kounta, S. Beckert, D. Kriegner, I. Joumard, E. Schmoranzerová, J. Sinova et al. Phys. Rev. B109, 224430 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Jiang, X

    W. Jiang, X. Zhou and G. Williams. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys.82, 144424 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Renuka Balakrishna

    A. Renuka Balakrishna. MRS Commun.14, 835–845 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    C. Tang, P. Sellappan, Y. Liu, Y. Xu, J. E. Garay and J. Shi. Phys. Rev. B94, 140403 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Aronzon, V

    B. Aronzon, V. Rylkov, S. Nikolaev, V. Tugu- shev, S. Caprara, V. Podolskii, V. Lesnikov, A. Lashkul, R. Laiho, R. Gareev et al. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys.84, 075209 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Z. Diao, E. Nowak, G. Feng and J. Coey. Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 047202 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Nabben, G

    N. Nabben, G. Sala, U. Nowak, M. Krüger and S. T. B. Goennenwein. Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043283 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Barkhausen

    H. Barkhausen. Phys. Ztschr.20, 401–403 (1919)

    1919

  12. [20]

    Alessandro, C

    B. Alessandro, C. Beatrice, G. Bertotti and A. Montorsi. J. Appl. Phys68, 2901–2907 (1990)

    1990

  13. [21]

    Beckert, R

    S. Beckert, R. Schlitz, G. Skobjin, A. Badura, M. Leiviskä, D. Kriegner, D. Scheffler, G. Sala, N. Nabben, X.-Y. Ai et al. Phys. Rev. B111, 014441 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Xi, K.-Z

    H. Xi, K.-Z. Gao, J. Ouyang, Y. Shi and Y. Yang. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter20, 295220 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Kounta, H

    I. Kounta, H. Reichlova, D. Kriegner, R. L. Seeger, A. Badura, M. Leiviska, A. Boussadi, V. Heresanu, S. Bertaina, M. Petit et al. Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 024416 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    J. Rial, M. Leiviskä, G. Skobjin, A. Bad’Ura, G. Gaudin, F. Disdier, R. Schlitz, I. Kounta, S. Beckert, D. Kriegner et al. Phys. Rev. B110, L220411 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Reichlova, R

    H. Reichlova, R. Lopes Seeger, R. González- Hernández, I. Kounta, R. Schlitz, D. Kriegner, P. Ritzinger, M. Lammel, M. Leiviskä, A. Birk Hellenes et al. Nat. Commun.15, 4961 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    J. P. DeGrave, D. Liang and S. Jin. Nano Lett. 13, 2704–2709 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Badura, D

    A. Badura, D. Kriegner, E. Schmoranzerová, K. V` yborn` y, M. Leiviskä, R. L. Seeger, V. Baltz, D. Scheffler, S. Beckert, I. Kounta et al. arXiv:2311.14498 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Neubauer, C

    A. Neubauer, C. Pfleiderer, B. Binz, A. Rosch, R. Ritz, P. Niklowitz and P. Böni. Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 186602 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Jiang, N

    W. Jiang, N. Smith, M. Williams, W. Weresin, K. Kuroki, Y. Ikeda, K. Takano, G. Khera and R. Wood. IEEE Trans. Magn.39, 1891–1896 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Morgunov, Y

    R. Morgunov, Y. Lu, M. Lavanant, T. Fache, X. Deveaux, S. Migot, O. Koplak, A. Talant- sev and S. Mangin. Phys. Rev. B96, 054421 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Pasko, A

    A. Pasko, A. Pecheux, M. Tyrman, L. Per- rière, I. Guillot, V. Etgens, M. Lobue and F. Mazaleyrat. IEEE Trans. Magn.57, 1–5 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    J. R. Lindemuth and B. C. Dodrill. J. Magn. Magn. Mater.272, 2324–2325 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Lottis, R

    D. Lottis, R. White and E. D. Dahlberg. Physical review letters67, 362 (1991)

    1991

  26. [34]

    Mustaghfiroh, A

    Q. Mustaghfiroh, A. Gayen, N. Le Thi, Y. Zhao, D.-T. Quach, D.-T. Ngo, E. Baek, C.-Y. You, Y. S. Choi, S.-Y. Park et al. Phys. Rev. B109, 144419 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Kirilyuk, J

    A. Kirilyuk, J. Giergiel, J. Shen and J. Kirschner. J. Magn. Magn. Mater.159, L27– L32 (1996)

    1996

  28. [36]

    Dugato, J

    D. Dugato, J. Brandão, R. Seeger, F. Béron, J. Cezar, L. Dorneles and T. Mori. Appl. Phys. Lett.115(2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    F. Ando, H. Kakizakai, T. Koyama, K. Yamada, M. Kawaguchi, S. Kim, K.-J. Kim, T. Moriyama, D. Chiba and T. Ono. Appl. Phys. Lett.109(2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Shiratsuchi, S

    Y. Shiratsuchi, S. Watanabe, H. Yoshida, N. Kishida, R. Nakatani, Y. Kotani, K. Toyoki and T. Nakamura. Appl. Phys. Lett.113 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Fitzsimmons, D

    M. Fitzsimmons, D. Lederman, M. Cheon, H. Shi, J. Olamit, I. V. Roshchin and I. K. Schuller. Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter Mater. Phys.77, 224406 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Cheong, M

    S.-W. Cheong, M. Fiebig, W. Wu, L. Chapon and V. Kiryukhin. npj Quantum Mater.5, 3 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Schwarz, M

    A. Schwarz, M. Liebmann, U. Kaiser, R. Wiesendanger, T. W. Noh and D. W. Kim. Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 077206 (2004)

    2004

  34. [42]

    Hubert and R

    A. Hubert and R. Schäfer. Magnetic domains: the analysis of magnetic microstruc- tures (Springer Science & Business Media, 2008)

    2008

  35. [43]

    Reimers, O

    S. Reimers, O. Gomonay, O. J. Amin, F. Krizek, L. X. Barton, Y. Lytvynenko, S. F. Poole, V. Novák, R. P. Campion, F. Mac- cherozzi et al. Physical Review Applied21, 064030 (2024). 6

    2024

  36. [44]

    Moritz, B

    J. Moritz, B. Dieny, J. Nozieres, S. Landis, A. Lebib and Y. Chen. J. Appl. Phys.91, 7314– 7316 (2002)

    2002

  37. [45]

    O. Amin, A. D. Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Zakharov, S. Fromage, C. Fields, S. Heywood, R. Cousins, J. Krempasky et al. arXiv:2405.02409 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Schwinge, C

    K. Schwinge, C. Müller, A. Mogilatenko, J. Paggel and P. Fumagalli. J. Appl. Phys.97 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Kumar, M

    A. Kumar, M. Tallarida, M. Hansmann, U. Starke and K. Horn. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 37, 1083 (2004). 7

    2004

Pith tools

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