Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Exchange spin-wave propagation in Ga:YIG nanowaveguides

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gallium-substituted YIG nanowaveguides carry exchange-dominated spin waves at up to 600 m/s, several times faster than pure YIG, with speed nearly independent of waveguide width.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of fast exchange-dominated spin waves in Ga:YIG nanowires, with a genuine calibration caveat in the adjusted Ms that should be fixed but doesn't sink the main time-of-flight result. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05050 v2 pith:IXN2LZKK submitted 2025-09-05 cond-mat.other

Andrey A. Voronov , Khrystyna O. Levchenko , Roman Verba , Kristýna Davídková , Carsten Dubs , Michal Urbánek , Qi Wang , Dieter Suess
show 2 more authors
Claas Abert Andrii V. Chumak
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.other
keywords magnonicsGa:YIGgallium-substitutedyttriumirongarnetspin-wavepropagationexchange-dominatedspinwavesgroupvelocitynanowaveguidesBrillouinlightscattering
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 argues that gallium-substituted yttrium iron garnet (Ga:YIG) solves a scaling problem in magnonic devices: as waveguides shrink, conventional YIG spin waves slow down and decay quickly, but Ga:YIG's reduced saturation magnetization makes exchange interactions dominate even at long wavelengths. That turns the dispersion into a nearly parabolic curve, so the group velocity grows almost linearly with wavevector and barely changes with waveguide width. Combining micro-focused Brillouin light scattering on fabricated nanowaveguides (145–530 nm wide, 73 nm thick) with analytical dispersion calculations and finite-element micromagnetic simulations, the paper reports group velocities up to 600 m/s and decay lengths of several micrometers, several times better than comparable pure-YIG conduits. The practical stake: if true, Ga:YIG offers a path to nanoscale spin-wave circuits with predictable, geometry-tolerant transport.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the exchange-dominated dispersion relation for the fundamental mode in backward-volume geometry (magnetic field parallel to propagation), built from dynamic demagnetization factors for a rectangular waveguide plus an exchange term and the material's uniaxial anisotropy. With the reduced Ms of Ga:YIG, the exchange term dominates, making the dispersion near-parabolic in kx and giving group velocity proportional to kx regardless of width. The same model, using an adjusted Ms of 17.51 kA/m, matches both finite-element micromagnetic simulations and the measured BLS group velocities.

What would settle it

Measure the saturation magnetization or FMR spectrum of the actual patterned 145-nm Ga:YIG waveguide rather than the unpatterned film. If Ms comes out near 22.76 kA/m instead of 17.51 kA/m, recompute the dispersion: the wavevector assignments in the measured group-velocity plot move, and the reported 600 m/s value and width-independence likely fail to match simulation. Alternatively, measure group velocity at two well-separated wavevectors and check whether it stays linear through the origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Ga:YIG waveguides host exchange-dominated spin waves whose dispersion stays nearly parabolic in wavevector even at long wavelengths, because gallium substitution cuts the saturation magnetization by about an order of magnitude relative to YIG. As a result, group velocity grows almost linearly with kx and barely changes with waveguide width, reaching about 600 m/s at kx≈11.25 rad/µm in a 145 nm × 73 nm guide. The paper reports at least a fivefold advantage over pure YIG at the same wavevector and dimensions, with decay lengths of 7.43 µm in the narrowest guide and up to 10.2 µm in wider ones.

Load-bearing premise

The entire wavevector-versus-velocity interpretation rests on the choice of saturation magnetization Ms = 17.51 kA/m, adjusted downward from the measured film value 22.76 kA/m to account for nanofabrication, without an independent measurement of the patterned film; if the true Ms differs, the dispersion curves, extracted wavevectors, and claimed agreements shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At equal wavevector (≈11.25 rad/µm) and comparable dimensions, Ga:YIG nanowaveguides give measured group velocities of 529–600 m/s versus simulated 97–106 m/s for pure YIG: at least a fivefold gain.
  • Group velocity stays essentially flat across widths from 145 nm to 530 nm (529±56 m/s and 524±41 m/s at the same kx), so transport speed can be set by excitation frequency rather than lithography.
  • Decay lengths of 7.43 µm (145 nm wide) up to 10.2 µm (530 nm wide) exceed those reported for non-substituted YIG nanowaveguides of similar size.
  • The exchange-dominated, monotonically rising dispersion excites a single wavevector per frequency with well-separated width modes over 6.45–8.14 GHz, enabling selective single-mode operation.
  • Numerical predictions for 50×50 nm cross-sections (613 m/s Ga:YIG vs 70 m/s YIG) indicate the advantage persists at smaller scales.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adjusted Ms is close to the true patterned-film value, the width-independence means designers can fix spin-wave velocity by frequency or wavevector rather than by controlling waveguide width, simplifying inverse design of magnonic circuits.
  • A direct test of the exchange-dominated picture would be to measure vg over a wider kx range and check strict linearity; any downward bend would signal the return of dipolar effects at long wavelengths.
  • Because the reduced Ms also changes the demagnetizing-field landscape, the width-independence may not survive in Damon–Eshbach (transverse-field) geometry; measuring group velocity under transverse fields would map the boundaries of the claimed isotropy.
  • The same mechanism suggests a material-design lever: tuning gallium content tunes Ms and hence the exchange length, so even faster or slower waves could be engineered for impedance matching between waveguide sections.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved micro-focused Brillouin light scattering (µBLS) measurements of spin-wave group velocities and decay lengths in Ga:YIG nanowaveguides with widths of 145, 240, and 530 nm and thickness 73 nm, in backward-volume geometry. The experimental data are compared with an analytical dispersion relation (Eq. (3)) and finite-element micromagnetic simulations (TetraX). The central claim is that, because of the reduced saturation magnetization of Ga:YIG, the waveguides support exchange-dominated spin waves with group velocities up to 600 m/s, scaling almost linearly with wavevector and showing little dependence on waveguide width, in contrast to non-substituted YIG. The paper additionally reports decay lengths up to about 10 µm and argues that Ga:YIG enables faster and longer-range spin-wave transport in nanoscale magnonic devices.

Significance. If the quantitative comparisons are valid, the result is significant for nanoscale magnonics: it identifies a material route to high group velocities and long propagation distances in deeply scaled waveguides, with direct relevance to magnonic logic and interconnect concepts. The paper's main strengths are the direct time-of-flight measurement of group velocity (which is independent of the dispersion model), the combination of experiment, analytical theory, and full micromagnetic simulation, and the demonstration of propagation in waveguides as narrow as 145 nm. The principal weakness is that the wavevector axis used to compare experiment with theory relies on a single free parameter, the adjusted saturation magnetization, which is not independently validated for the patterned structures.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II.C, Eq. (3), Fig. 2(b)] The paper adjusts the saturation magnetization from the VSM film value of 22.76 kA/m to Ms = 17.51 kA/m "to account for potential modifications during the nanofabrication process," but no measurement on the patterned film or waveguides is provided. Ms enters Eq. (3) both through ωM = γ μ0 Ms and through the exchange length λex = sqrt(2Aex/(μ0 Ms^2)); the 23% reduction increases the exchange contribution by about 30%. The same dispersion is then used to assign the experimental frequencies to wavevectors ("the specific wavevectors corresponding to the excited frequencies were calculated from the numerically obtained dispersion curve"). Consequently, the agreement between the measured group velocities and the model curves in Fig. 2(b) is partly endogenous, and the quantitative claims—the linear vg(k) behavior, the 600 m/s value at a specific k, and the comparison with YIG at kx = 11.25 rad/
  2. [Section III, Fig. 3 and text after Fig. 2] The claim of width-independent group velocity is based on two measurements at 240 nm and 530 nm, reported only as numbers (529 ± 56 m/s and 524 ± 41 m/s) with no plotted data or table. The text states that these waves were "excited at the same wavevector of kx = 11.25 rad/µm which roughly corresponds to the frequency of 6.95 GHz." However, Eq. (3) depends on waveguide width through the demagnetizing factors Fy and Fz, so the same frequency does not automatically correspond to the same wavevector in different widths. The manuscript does not show the dispersion curves for the 240 nm and 530 nm waveguides or the kx values actually used. Since width-independence is a central conclusion and the basis for the comparison with YIG, the data and the kx-assignment procedure must be presented explicitly for each width.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Conclusion] Typo: "Ga:YIG as an suitable platform" should be "Ga:YIG as a suitable platform."
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] In the caption, "1 st width mode" should be "1st width mode" for consistency with the text.
  3. [Section II.C] Equation (3) is said to be "implemented" to analyze the fundamental mode; it may be clearer to state that the dispersion relation was solved or evaluated. Also, please ensure all symbols in Eqs. (4) and (5) are defined in the text (e.g., the integration variable ky is used without being explicitly introduced).
  4. [Fig. 2(b) and Section III] The individual experimental group-velocity values for the 145 nm waveguide are not listed with uncertainties in the text or figure caption; only the 240/530 nm values are given with error bars. Please provide a table of the measured vg, excitation frequency, and assigned kx for all waveguides so the reader can assess the scatter and the agreement with theory.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Wavevector calibration uses the same adjusted-Ms model that is being validated; direct v_g measurements remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section II.C (Numerical and analytical calculations) and Section III (Results and Discussion, Fig. 2)]
    "The material parameters used in the calculations were those determined from VSM and FMR measurements of the Ga:YIG film, with the exception of the saturation magnetization, which was adjusted to M_s = 17.51 kA m−1 to account for potential modifications during the nanofabrication process. ... The specific wavevectors corresponding to the excited frequencies were calculated from the numerically obtained dispersion curve for the investigated waveguide (Fig. 2(a))."

    The same dispersion model that is supposed to be validated is used to convert the measured excitation frequencies into wavevectors. This dispersion depends on the adjusted M_s through ω_M = γμ0 M_s and λ_ex = sqrt(2Aex/(μ0 M_s^2)) in Eq. (3). Lowering M_s from the VSM film value 22.76 kA/m to 17.51 kA/m changes the exchange contribution and therefore the k assigned to every experimental v_g point in Fig. 2(b). The experimental points are then compared with the same model's v_g(k) curve. A different M_s would place the same measured v_g values at different k positions, so the claimed linear v_g(k) agreement and the 'same wavevector' k_x = 11.25 rad/µm used for the width comparison are partly endogenous to the chosen value of M_s. The time-of-flight v_g values are direct measurements, but th

full rationale

Most of the paper is not circular: the group velocities are obtained by time-resolved µBLS from the slope of the falling-edge position versus distance, and the decay lengths are fitted to direct intensity profiles. The comparison of Ga:YIG to non-substituted YIG is largely a numerical simulation using independently known YIG parameters, and the statement that Ga:YIG reaches ~600 m/s does not require the model to be true. The circularity is confined to the wavevector axis: Section II.C adjusts M_s without an independent measurement on patterned films, and Section III assigns the measured frequencies to k using the same numerically obtained dispersion curve that is later compared with the measured v_g. Because M_s enters the dispersion and exchange length, the k-position of every measured point moves with this free parameter. This makes the apparent agreement between the measured points and the model curve, as well as the width-independence claim at fixed k, partly self-consistent rather than independently validated. It is a validation gap/endogenous calibration, not a logical tautology: the raw v_g values remain physical measurements. The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation chain for its central result, so the score is moderate rather than high.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on one free parameter (adjusted saturation magnetization) and several domain assumptions about material parameters and boundary conditions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Adjusted saturation magnetization M_s = 17.51 kA m^{-1} (adjusted from 22.76 kA m^{-1} film value)
    Used in all analytical and numerical dispersion calculations after being adjusted from the VSM film value to account for assumed nanofabrication modifications. No independent measurement of the patterned film is shown; this value sets the dispersion curves and the wavevector axis for experimental group velocities.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Spin-wave dispersion in the nanowaveguide is described by Eq. (3) using dynamic demagnetization factors for a rectangular cross section with unpinned surface spins (unpinned boundary condition).
    Invoked in Section II.C: 'for narrow waveguides, the system can be considered in the unpinned state.' This simplifies the analytical dispersion but is an approximation that may not hold at 145 nm width; it is borrowed from prior work [40].
  • domain assumption The exchange stiffness Aex = 1.37 pJ/m measured on similar Ga:YIG films [27] applies to this 73 nm-thick film and to the patterned nanowaveguides.
    Stated in Section II.C: 'The exchange stiffness Aex = 1.37 pJ m−1 was adopted from previous studies on similar Ga:YIG films.' The central dispersion and group velocity calculations depend on this value.
  • domain assumption Material parameters determined on the unpatterned film (gamma, alpha, H_an) remain valid in the patterned nanowaveguides, and only M_s is adjusted.
    Used throughout; the paper adjusts only M_s for fabrication effects but assumes other parameters do not change.
  • standard math Micro-focused BLS intensity is proportional to the square of the spin-wave amplitude, leading to the factor 2 in the exponential decay fit (Eq. 2).
    Standard for BLS; not central to the main group velocity claim, but used for decay length analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exchange spin-wave propagation in Ga:YIG nanowaveguides." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IXN2LZKK

@misc{pith2026250905050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exchange spin-wave propagation in Ga:YIG nanowaveguides},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IXN2LZKK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05050}
}
read the original abstract

Spin-wave-based computing has emerged as a promising approach to overcome the fundamental limitations of CMOS technologies. However, the increasing demand for device miniaturization down to a 100 nm scale presents significant challenges for long-distance spin-wave transport. Gallium-substituted yttrium iron garnet (Ga:YIG) offers a potential solution to these challenges due to its unique magnetic properties. The reduced saturation magnetization in Ga:YIG enables efficient excitation of exchange-dominated spin waves, which exhibit enhanced transport characteristics compared to dipolar-dominated modes in conventional materials. Here, we present the first comprehensive study combining experimental, analytical, and numerical investigations of spin-wave propagation in Ga:YIG waveguides down to 145 nm width and 73 nm thickness. Using micro-focused Brillouin light scattering spectroscopy, TetraX simulations, and analytical dispersion calculations, we demonstrate that Ga:YIG waveguides support spin waves with significantly higher group velocities up to 600 m/s. This value remains constant for structures with different widths, leading to longer spin-wave propagation lengths in nanowaveguides compared to non-substituted YIG. These results reveal that gallium substitution provides access to faster and longer-lived spin waves, opening new possibilities for implementing this material in nanoscale magnonic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Calculated dispersion relations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin-wave decay length measurements in Ga:YIG nanowaveguides with different widths: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. V. Chumak, P. Kabos, M. Wu, C. Abert, C. Adel- mann, A. O. Adeyeye, J. ˚Akerman, F. G. Aliev, A. Anane, A. Awad,et al., Advances in magnetics roadmap on spin-wave computing, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics58, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Barman, G

    A. Barman, G. Gubbiotti, S. Ladak, A. O. Adeyeye, M. Krawczyk, J. Gr¨ afe, C. Adelmann, S. Cotofana, A. Naeemi, V. I. Vasyuchka,et al., The 2021 magnon- ics roadmap, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter33, 413001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Dieny, I

    B. Dieny, I. L. Prejbeanu, K. Garello, P. Gambardella, P. Freitas, R. Lehndorff, W. Raberg, U. Ebels, S. O. Demokritov, J. Akerman,et al., Opportunities and chal- lenges for spintronics in the microelectronics industry, Nature Electronics3, 446 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Khitun, M

    A. Khitun, M. Bao, and K. L. Wang, Magnonic logic cir- cuits, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics43, 264005 (2010)

    2010

  5. [5]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon spintronics, Nature physics11, 453 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    K. O. Nikolaev, S. Lake, G. Schmidt, S. Demokritov, and V. Demidov, Resonant generation of propagating second- harmonic spin waves in nano-waveguides, Nature Com- munications15, 1827 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    A. A. Voronov, M. Cuervo Santos, F. Bruckner, D. Suess, A. V. Chumak, and C. Abert, Inverse-design topology optimization of magnonic devices using level-set method, npj Spintronics3, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Q. Wang, A. V. Chumak, and P. Pirro, Inverse-design magnonic devices, Nature communications12, 2636 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Zenbaa, C

    N. Zenbaa, C. Abert, F. Majcen, M. Kerber, R. O. Serha, S. Knauer, Q. Wang, T. Schrefl, D. Suess, and A. V. Chumak, Experimental realisation of a universal inverse- design magnonic device, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17724 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zenbaa, C

    N. Zenbaa, C. Abert, F. Majcen, M. Kerber, R. O. Serha, S. Knauer, Q. Wang, T. Schrefl, D. Suess, and A. V. Chu- mak, A universal inverse-design magnonic device, Nature Electronics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    ´A. Papp, W. Porod, and G. Csaba, Nanoscale neural network using non-linear spin-wave interference, Nature communications12, 6422 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Schneider, A

    T. Schneider, A. A. Serga, B. Leven, B. Hillebrands, R. L. Stamps, and M. P. Kostylev, Realization of spin-wave logic gates, Applied Physics Letters92(2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    Fischer, M

    T. Fischer, M. Kewenig, D. Bozhko, A. Serga, I. Syvorotka, F. Ciubotaru, C. Adelmann, B. Hillebrands, and A. V. Chumak, Experimental prototype of a spin- wave majority gate, Applied Physics Letters110(2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Lee and S.-K

    K.-S. Lee and S.-K. Kim, Conceptual design of spin wave logic gates based on a Mach–Zehnder-type spin wave in- terferometer for universal logic functions, Journal of Ap- plied Physics104(2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Q. Wang, P. Pirro, R. Verba, A. Slavin, B. Hillebrands, and A. V. Chumak, Reconfigurable nanoscale spin-wave directional coupler, Science advances4, e1701517 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Q. Wang, G. Csaba, R. Verba, A. V. Chumak, and P. Pirro, Nanoscale magnonic networks, Physical Review Applied21, 040503 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Y. V. Khivintsev, V. K. Sakharov, A. V. Kozhevnikov, G. M. Dudko, Y. Filimonov, and A. Khitun, Spin waves in YIG based magnonic networks: Design and technolog- ical aspects, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Mate- rials545, 168754 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Q. Wang, M. Kewenig, M. Schneider, R. Verba, F. Kohl, B. Heinz, M. Geilen, M. Mohseni, B. L¨ agel, F. Ciubo- 7 taru,et al., A magnonic directional coupler for integrated magnonic half-adders, Nature Electronics3, 765 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Heinz, T

    B. Heinz, T. Br¨ acher, M. Schneider, Q. Wang, B. L¨ agel, A. M. Friedel, D. Breitbach, S. Steinert, T. Meyer, M. Kewenig,et al., Propagation of spin-wave packets in individual nanosized yttrium iron garnet magnonic con- duits, Nano letters20, 4220 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Heinz, Q

    B. Heinz, Q. Wang, M. Schneider, E. Weiß, A. Lent- fert, B. L¨ agel, T. Br¨ acher, C. Dubs, O. V. Dobrovol- skiy, P. Pirro,et al., Long-range spin-wave propagation in transversely magnetized nano-scaled conduits, Applied Physics Letters118(2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Bhaskar, G

    U. Bhaskar, G. Talmelli, F. Ciubotaru, C. Adelmann, and T. Devolder, Backward volume vs Damon–Eshbach: A traveling spin wave spectroscopy comparison, Journal of Applied Physics127(2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Levchenko, K

    K. Levchenko, K. Dav ´ ıdkov´ a, R. Serha, M. Moalic, A. Voronov, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, M. Lindner, J. Panda, Q. Wang,et al., 1D YIG hole-based magnonic nanocrystal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10591 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Demidov, M

    V. Demidov, M. Kostylev, K. Rott, J. M¨ unchenberger, G. Reiss, and S. Demokritov, Excitation of short- wavelength spin waves in magnonic waveguides, Applied Physics Letters99(2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Schwarze and D

    T. Schwarze and D. Grundler, Magnonic crystal wave guide with large spin-wave propagation velocity in CoFeB, Applied Physics Letters102(2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Dubs and O

    C. Dubs and O. Surzhenko, Magnetically compen- sated nanometer-thin Ga-substituted yttrium iron gar- net (Ga:YIG) films with robust perpendicular mag- netic anisotropy, Advanced Electronic Materials , e00232 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Breitbach, M

    D. Breitbach, M. Bechberger, B. Heinz, A. Hamadeh, J. Maskill, K. O. Levchenko, B. L¨ agel, C. Dubs, Q. Wang, R. Verba,et al., Nonlinear erasing of propagating spin- wave pulses in thin-film Ga:YIG, Applied Physics Letters 124(2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    B¨ ottcher, M

    T. B¨ ottcher, M. Ruhwedel, K. O. Levchenko, Q. Wang, H. L. Chumak, M. A. Popov, I. V. Zavislyak, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, B. Hillebrands,et al., Fast long- wavelength exchange spin waves in partially compensated Ga:YIG, Applied Physics Letters120(2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Wojewoda, F

    O. Wojewoda, F. Ligmajer, M. Hrtoˇ n, J. Kl ´ ıma, M. Dhankhar, K. Dav ´ ıdkov´ a, M. Staˇ no, J. Holobr´ adek, J. Krˇ cma, J. Zl´ amal,et al., Observing high-k magnons with Mie-resonance-enhanced Brillouin light scattering, Communications Physics6, 94 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wintz, V

    S. Wintz, V. Tiberkevich, M. Weigand, J. Raabe, J. Lind- ner, A. Erbe, A. Slavin, and J. Fassbender, Magnetic vortex cores as tunable spin-wave emitters, Nature nan- otechnology11, 948 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    H. Yu, O. d’Allivy Kelly, V. Cros, R. Bernard, P. Bortolotti, A. Anane, F. Brandl, F. Heimbach, and D. Grundler, Approaching soft X-ray wavelengths in nanomagnet-based microwave technology, Nature com- munications7, 11255 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    J. J. Carmiggelt, O. C. Dreijer, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, and T. Van Der Sar, Electrical spectroscopy of the spin- wave dispersion and bistability in gallium-doped yttrium iron garnet, Applied Physics Letters119(2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Linke, A. Danilewsky, U. Br¨ uckner, and J. Dellith, Sub-micrometer yttrium iron garnet LPE films with low ferromagnetic resonance losses, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics50, 204005 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Thomas, J. Osten, T. Schnei- der, K. Lenz, J. Grenzer, R. H¨ ubner, and E. Wendler, Low damping and microstructural perfection of sub- 40nm-thin yttrium iron garnet films grown by liquid phase epitaxy, Physical Review Materials4, 024416 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    S. M. Zanjani and M. C. Onba¸ slı, Predicting new iron garnet thin films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials499, 166108 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Y. Wang, M. Guo, K. Dav ´ ıdkov´ a, R. Verba, X. Guo, C. Dubs, A. V. Chumak, P. Pirro, and Q. Wang, Fast switchable unidirectional forward volume spin-wave emit- ter, Physical Review Applied23, 014066 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Kalinikos, Excitation of propagating spin waves in fer- romagnetic films, inIEE Proceedings H (Microwaves, Op- tics and Antennas), Vol

    B. Kalinikos, Excitation of propagating spin waves in fer- romagnetic films, inIEE Proceedings H (Microwaves, Op- tics and Antennas), Vol. 127 (IET, 1980) pp. 4–10

    1980

  29. [37]

    Sebastian, K

    T. Sebastian, K. Schultheiss, B. Obry, B. Hillebrands, and H. Schultheiss, Micro-focused Brillouin light scatter- ing: imaging spin waves at the nanoscale, Frontiers in Physics3, 35 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Jorzick, S

    J. Jorzick, S. Demokritov, C. Mathieu, B. Hillebrands, B. Bartenlian, C. Chappert, F. Rousseaux, and A. Slavin, Brillouin light scattering from quantized spin waves in micron-size magnetic wires, Physical Review B60, 15194 (1999)

    1999

  31. [39]

    B¨ uttner, M

    O. B¨ uttner, M. Bauer, S. Demokritov, B. Hillebrands, Y. S. Kivshar, V. Grimalsky, Y. Rapoport, and A. Slavin, Linear and nonlinear diffraction of dipolar spin waves in yttrium iron garnet films observed by space-and time- resolved Brillouin light scattering, Physical Review ...

    2000

  32. [40]

    Q. Wang, B. Heinz, R. Verba, M. Kewenig, P. Pirro, M. Schneider, T. Meyer, B. L¨ agel, C. Dubs, T. Br¨ acher, et al., Spin pinning and spin-wave dispersion in nanoscopic ferromagnetic waveguides, Physical review letters122, 247202 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Heinz, Q

    B. Heinz, Q. Wang, R. Verba, V. Vasyuchka, M. Kewenig, P. Pirro, M. Schneider, T. Meyer, B. L¨ agel, C. Dubs, and et al., Temperature dependence of spin pinning and spin- wave dispersion in nanoscopic ferromagnetic waveguides, Ukrainian Journal of Physics65, 1094 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    K¨ orber, G

    L. K¨ orber, G. Quasebarth, A. Hempel, F. Zahn, A. Otto, E. Westphal, R. Hertel, and A. Kakay, TetraX: Finite- Element Micromagnetic-Modeling Package (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    K¨ orber, G

    L. K¨ orber, G. Quasebarth, A. Otto, and A. K´ akay, Finite- element dynamic-matrix approach for spin-wave disper- sions in magnonic waveguides with arbitrary cross sec- tion, AIP Advances11(2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Klingler, P

    S. Klingler, P. Pirro, T. Br¨ acher, B. Leven, B. Hille- brands, and A. V. Chumak, Design of a spin-wave ma- jority gate employing mode selection, Applied Physics Letters105(2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.