Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

A finite-difference micromagnetic solver can now advance magnetization and elastic displacement together, with jump-corrected derivatives at interfaces, reproducing non-reciprocal surface-acoustic-wave attenuation in magnetic films.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A finite-difference simulation scheme for coupled magnetic and elastic wave dynamics was implemented, including interface jump conditions for stress and strain in magnetic heterostructures.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid, genuinely useful finite-difference magnetoelastic solver with clean analytic validations, but the abstract's 'correctly incorporating' claim outruns the method; the paper's own §3.5.1 shows the FM/NM interface force-density jump is not handled exactly. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06007 v1 pith:XGYZCGGY submitted 2025-09-07 physics.comp-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Modeling Magnetoelastic Wave Interactions in Magnetic Films and Heterostructures: A finite-difference approach

Peter Flauger , Matthias K\"u{\ss} , Michael Karl Steinbauer , Florian Bruckner , Bernhard Emhofer , Emeline Nysten , Matthias Wei{\ss} , Dieter Suess
show 3 more authors
Hubert J. Krenner Manfred Albrecht Claas Abert
This is my paper
classification physics.comp-ph cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 75.80.+q
keywords magnetoelastic dynamicsfinite-difference micromagnetismLandau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equationsurface acoustic wavesmagnon-phonon interactioninterface jump conditionsnonreciprocal attenuationmagnetostriction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 aims to show that a finite-difference micromagnetic solver can simulate magnetoelastic dynamics self-consistently—advancing the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with a strain-induced field while the elastic equation of motion is advanced at the same time—provided the discretization accounts for stress and strain jumps at material interfaces. The authors derive jump-corrected first-derivative stencils for the displacement, build the elastic force density from them, and implement open-boundary conditions either with boundary-value formulas or by adding a zero-stiffness 'air' layer. They demonstrate the need for these stencils in a static Ni/Al stack, in bulk shear-wave energy accounting, and in two surface-acoustic-wave settings, where the computed attenuation shows the experimentally expected non-reciprocity under field reversal. The paper's own limitation is acknowledged: at a ferromagnet/nonmagnet interface, the force density from the second-derivative formula does not enforce continuity of acceleration, leaving a small interface error.

Core claim

The central claim is that the coupled system of magnetization direction, displacement, and momentum density can be integrated in time on a regular finite-difference grid if the spatial derivatives of the displacement are replaced by stencils that explicitly impose the interface conditions: displacement continuity and traction continuity. The paper derives one-sided differences, Eqs. (40)-(41), whose jump parameters C and B encode the stiffness tensor and the magnetic stress; since B depends on gradient components parallel to the interface, the strain and force density are computed iteratively. The method is validated against a static analytic solution for a Ni/Al bilayer, against an energy-b

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the jump-corrected first-derivative stencil family for displacement gradients—one-sided forward and backward differences, Eqs. (40)-(41), averaged into Eq. (42), whose offset parameters (Table 1) are built from the stiffness tensor and the magnetically induced stress. These stencils turn the interface condition that the traction be continuous into usable finite-difference formulas, and they supply the second-derivative approximation (45) that produces the force density f = ∇·(σ−σ_m). Because the jump parameters depend on other gradient components and on the magnetization at the interface, the gradients are assembled iteratively; open boundaries are handled either b

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that enforcing continuity of displacement and traction at an interface, through the modified first-derivative stencils, is enough to compute the force density ∇·(σ−σ_m); the paper's own Fig. 17 shows that this leaves a residual at a ferromagnet/nonmagnet interface because continuity of acceleration is not enforced, so the claim of correct interface handling stands only if that residual is small at the resolutions and materials used.

What would settle it

Compute the Section 3.5.1 shear-horizontal mode on a Ni/GaAs stack at successively refined meshes and compare the finite-difference force density f_y at the interface with the analytic eigenmode (Eqs. 73-77) and with the acceleration-jump condition (Eq. 78). If the interface error fails to converge to zero with mesh refinement, or if an experimental measurement of the angular loss contrast in a 300 nm Ni film disagrees with the predicted φ=90° versus φ=-90° non-reciprocity beyond the estimated discretization error, the central claim is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A finite-difference micromagnetic code can now treat magnon-phonon coupling without precomputed or measured stress fields, opening rectangular, periodically repeated device geometries to self-consistent study.
  • Static magnetostriction in ferromagnet/nonmagnet stacks is reproduced only by the jump-corrected stencils; ordinary 3-point gradients give qualitatively wrong interfacial stress.
  • In bulk shear-wave simulations, the energy lost through Gilbert damping exactly equals the energy injected by the traction boundary condition, confirming that the coupled solver conserves energy apart from the intended damping.
  • The Rayleigh-mode and shear-horizontal-mode simulations both yield the expected non-reciprocity of surface-acoustic-wave attenuation with respect to field direction, the signature effect used in experimental magnon-phonon devices.
  • The air-box implementation of open boundaries is the most accurate of the tested variants, reaching relative errors below 1e-2 at 200-300 nodes per wavelength.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the residual acceleration-continuity error at ferromagnet/nonmagnet interfaces could be removed by extending the iterative B-parameter scheme to the force density, as the authors sketch for the shear-horizontal mode; a general formulation would make the method exact at the same order as the underlying stencils.
  • Beyond the paper: the same solver could be applied to composite multiferroic or SAW sensor stacks, where interface traction matching determines how efficiently a piezoelectric strain is transferred to a magnetic layer; the static Ni/Al test is the simplest version of that transfer.
  • Beyond the paper: because the non-reciprocal loss pattern is computed without any unidirectional anisotropy, matching measured angular loss curves could be used to extract magnetoelastic coupling constants b1 and b2 from transmission data, avoiding the amplitude-calibration ambiguity noted in the paper.
  • Beyond the paper: the restriction to stiffness tensors of the form (28) excludes materials like trigonal LiTaO3, so the authors fit an effective isotropic Rayleigh profile; generalizing Table 1 to full elastic anisotropy is the evident next step for exploring true substrate-film combinations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a finite-difference time-domain scheme for self-consistent magnetoelastic dynamics, implemented as an extension of the magnum.np micromagnetic library. The method couples the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation to an elastodynamic equation of motion, and derives jump-corrected first-derivative stencils at material interfaces (Eqs. 40-42) together with a second-derivative approximation for the force density (Eq. 45). Neumann boundary conditions are handled through boundary-value formulas (Eqs. 49-51) or an airbox approach. The scheme is validated against analytic solutions for a static FM/NM stack (Eq. 56), bulk shear-wave damping with an energy balance (Eq. 65), and Rayleigh-wave boundary convergence (Eqs. 67-68). The paper then applies the solver to Rayleigh SAW attenuation in a thin Ni film on LiTaO3 and to SH-SAW attenuation in a thick Ni film on GaAs, reproducing the experimentally expected non-reciprocity. The abstract claims that the implementation 'correctly incorporat[es] stress and strain discontinuities at material interfaces.'

Significance. If the scheme performs as stated, this is a useful contribution: it extends finite-difference micromagnetism to self-consistent magnetoelastic wave problems, provides analytic benchmarks for the coupled system, and is shipped in an open-source package (magnum.np ≥ 2.1.0), which supports reproducibility. The bulk-wave energy-balance test and the boundary-convergence study are particularly valuable. The application sections demonstrate qualitative agreement with experimental non-reciprocity, but the central interface-discontinuity claim is weakened by the paper's own admission in Sec. 3.5.1 that the force density does not enforce the continuous-acceleration jump condition, and no convergence study is supplied for this interface-local error. The experimental agreement also depends on fitted and roughly estimated parameters. With the interface treatment clarified and quantified, the paper would be a solid contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.5.1, Eq. (45), Eq. (78)] The paper states that the force density built from Eq. (45) does not reproduce the continuous-acceleration jump condition (78) at the FM/NM interface; Fig. 17 shows the mismatch in f_y at z=0. The authors call the corrected scheme 'not a proper solution' and retain (45) because 'the error in f_y appears to be small,' but no grid-convergence study is given for this interface-local error. The R-SAW and SH-SAW simulations use the same (45)-based force density, so the abstract's claim that the implementation 'correctly incorporat[es] stress and strain discontinuities at material interfaces' is not supported as stated. Please quantify the error as a function of Δx and either correct the interface treatment or reformulate the claim to the jump conditions that are actually enforced.
  2. [§3.4.1, Fig. 11] The in-plane anisotropy field H_k is varied to match the experimental resonance h_ext = 46.5 mT, and the magnetoelastic constants are set to a rough estimate (b1 = b2 = 12 T). Consequently, the angular non-reciprocity shown in Figs. 13-14 is not a parameter-free prediction. The paper should separate fitted from predicted parameters and discuss sensitivity to H_k and b; without this, the experimental agreement is suggestive but not a strong quantitative validation.
  3. [§2.2, Table 1 and paragraph after Eq. (47)] The construction of the B-parameters in the jump stencils (40)-(42) requires an iterative update of parallel gradients and magnetic stress. The paper asserts that further iteration steps provide no benefits (§3.3), but gives no convergence criterion or residual measure. Since the scheme is advertised as self-consistent, please provide convergence data for the iteration for at least the validation problems, or state a formal stopping rule.
  4. [§3.3 vs §3.4.1] The Rayleigh speed is fitted as c ≈ 3104 m/s in §3.3, but Fig. 11 and §3.4.1 use c = 3014 m/s for the dispersion intersection and the H_k fit. This 90 m/s discrepancy is not explained; the resonance condition depends on c. Please clarify which value is correct and ensure consistency throughout.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] Typo: 'torch.gardient' should be 'torch.gradient'.
  2. [§1, §3.4.2] Minor language: 'an 200 mT external field' should be 'a 200 mT external field'; 'Therefor' should be 'Therefore'.
  3. [Eq. (17)] The magnetoelastic field H_magEl_i is written in index notation but the vector form is not displayed; please define the field vector explicitly for readability.
  4. [Fig. 9 and §2.3] The 'Boundary Value Error' used in Fig. 9 is not defined in the text or caption. Please define the error measure and specify the exact discretizations corresponding to Nbc = 1, 2, 3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the core solver is validated against independent analytic benchmarks, though the Rayleigh demonstration is partly calibrated and the interface handling has an acknowledged limitation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the finite-difference jump stencils (Eqs. 40-42) are derived from displacement and traction continuity, and the solver is checked against analytic solutions (Eqs. 56, 65, 67-71) that do not depend on fitted parameters. Self-citations (e.g., [14], [23], [27]) are auxiliary and do not constitute a load-bearing uniqueness chain; [27] supplies the exchange jump stencil analog, but the elastic jump conditions are re-derived in detail here. Two flagged passages temper the strength of the claims but are not circularity. First, §3.5.1 admits that Eq. (45) does not enforce the continuous-acceleration jump (Eq. 78), calls a corrected scheme "not a proper solution", and retains the approximate scheme because "the error in f_y appears to be small" without a convergence study. This limits the abstract's phrase "correctly incorporating stress and strain discontinuities" and is a correctness/evidence gap, not a derivation loop. Second, §3.4.1 states "The value of the in-plane surface anisotropy H_k was varied to achieve the resonant field of h_ext = 46.5 mT that was observed in the experiment," and §3.4.2 sets the magnetoelastic constants to b1=b2=12 T from a rough estimate from the same reference system. Thus the Rayleigh attenuation agreement is a calibrated reproduction rather than an independent prediction. These caveats lower confidence in the application demonstrations but do not make the numerical method itself self-referential.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on standard linear elasticity and micromagnetics, plus a domain-specific assumption that displacement and traction are continuous across interfaces. The only ad hoc element is the iterative B-parameter procedure, whose convergence is asserted rather than proven. The application demos introduce fitted parameters (Hk and the magnetoelastic strength) that are not part of the core derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • in-plane surface anisotropy field H_k = 93.1 kA/m
    Varied in Section 3.4.1 so that the spin-wave dispersion intersects the SAW line at the experimentally observed resonance field of 46.5 mT.
  • magnetoelastic coupling constants lambda_100 = lambda_111 = -1.89e-5
    Chosen in Section 3.4.2 so that b1=b2=12 T, described as a rough estimate because the actual b1 in reference [10] cannot be determined.
  • isotropic substrate eigenmode parameters = c=3104 m/s, c_t=3405 m/s, c_l=5587 m/s
    Fitted in Section 3.3 to the COMSOL eigenmode of LiTaO3 with the Rayleigh dispersion relation (71), used because trigonal LiTaO3 is outside the stiffness class (28).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Stiffness tensors restricted to the class (28), covering isotropic, cubic, (4/mmm), hexagonal, orthorhombic materials.
    Section 2.2: the jump condition table is built only for matrices of this form; LiTaO3 is excluded, hence the surrogate isotropic fit.
  • domain assumption Displacement u is continuous across material interfaces and traction (sigma - sigma_m) dot n is continuous (Eq. 32).
    Section 2.2: these are the physical interface conditions used to derive the difference stencils.
  • domain assumption Magnetization is continuous across interfaces and A grad(m) dot n is continuous (from exchange energy variation).
    Section 2.2, following reference [27].
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative update of the B-parameters (parallel gradients and magnetic stress) converges after one or two passes.
    Section 2.2: 'the procedure is repeated'; Section 3.3 asserts 'further iteration steps do not provide any benefits' without proof.
  • standard math Linear elasticity with the magnetostrictive strain (8) and total energy decomposition (3)-(5).
    Section 2.1: constitutive model, standard in the field.
  • domain assumption LLG equation (1) governs magnetization dynamics.
    Section 2.1, standard micromagnetism.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Magnetoelastic Wave Interactions in Magnetic Films and Heterostructures: A finite-difference approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XGYZCGGY

@misc{pith2026250906007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Magnetoelastic Wave Interactions in Magnetic Films and Heterostructures: A finite-difference approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XGYZCGGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06007}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The (inverse) magnetostrictive effect in ferromagnets couples the magnetic properties to the mechanical stress, allowing for an interaction between the magnetic and mechanical degrees of freedom. In this work, we present a time-integration scheme for the self-consistent simulation of coupled magnetoelastic dynamics within the framework of finite-difference micromagnetism. The proposed implementation extends the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation by a strain-induced effective field and concurrently solves the elastic equation of motion, while correctly incorporating stress and strain discontinuities at material interfaces. We then present a comprehensive set of examples, ranging from static stress configurations over material boundaries to simulations of surface acoustic wave attenuation in magnetically structured thin and thick films. These computational experiments both validate the implementation and underscore the importance of properly handling jump and boundary conditions in magnon-phonon interaction studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06007 by Bernhard Emhofer, Claas Abert, Dieter Suess, Emeline Nysten, Florian Bruckner, Hubert J. Krenner, Manfred Albrecht, Matthias K\"u{\ss}, Matthias Wei{\ss}, Michael Karl Steinbauer, Peter Flauger.

Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: figure 5. We can see that indeed, having the initial magnetization and the external field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: figure 21. The peak values where obtained after integrating the energy density along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Herzer.Magnetic materials for electronic article surveillance

    G. Herzer.Magnetic materials for electronic article surveillance. Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials,254-255, pp. 598, 2003. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0304-8853(02)00930-7. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Soft Magnetic Materials (SMM15)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Zheng, J

    H. Zheng, J. Wang, S. E. Lofland, Z. Ma, L. Mohaddes-Ardabili, T. Zhao, L. Salamanca-Riba, S. R. Shinde, S. B. Ogale, F. Bai, D. Viehland, Y. Jia, D. G. Schlom, M. Wuttig, A. Roytburd and R. Ramesh.Multiferroic BaTiO 3-CoFe2O4 Nanostructures. Science,303(5658), pp. 661, 2004. doi:10.1126/science.1094207

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1094207 2004

  3. [3]

    S. T. B. Goennenwein, M. Althammer, C. Bihler, A. Brandlmaier, S. Gepr¨ ags, M. Opel, W. Schoch, W. Limmer, R. Gross and M. S. Brandt.Piezo-voltage control of magnetization orientation in a ferromagnetic semiconductor. physica status solidi (RRL) – Rapid Research Letters,2(3), pp. 96, 2008. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/ pssr.200802011

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Bihler, M

    C. Bihler, M. Althammer, A. Brandlmaier, S. Gepr¨ ags, M. Weiler, M. Opel, W. Schoch, W. Limmer, R. Gross, M. S. Brandt and S. T. B. Goennenwein. Ga1−xMnxAs/piezoelectric actuator hybrids: A model system for magnetoelastic magnetization manipulation. Phys. Rev. B,78, p. 045203, 2008. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.78.045203

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Weiler, A

    M. Weiler, A. Brandlmaier, S. Gepr¨ ags, M. Althammer, M. Opel, C. Bihler, H. Huebl, M. S. Brandt, R. Gross and S. T. B. Goennenwein.Voltage controlled 34 inversion of magnetic anisotropy in a ferromagnetic thin film at room tempera- ture. New Journal of Physics,11(1), p. 013021, 2009. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/ 1/013021

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/11/ 2009

  6. [6]

    Eerenstein, N

    W. Eerenstein, N. D. Mathur and J. F. Scott.Multiferroic and magnetoelectric materials. Nature,442(7104), pp. 759, 2006. doi:10.1038/nature05023

    doi:10.1038/nature05023 2006

  7. [7]

    Kittmann, P

    A. Kittmann, P. Durdaut, S. Zabel, J. Reermann, J. Schmalz, B. Spetzler, D. Meyn- ers, N. X. Sun, J. McCord, M. Gerken, G. Schmidt, M. H¨ oft, R. Kn¨ ochel, F. Faupel and E. Quandt.Wide Band Low Noise Love Wave Magnetic Field Sensor System. Scientific Reports,8(1), p. 278, 2018. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18441-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-18441-4 2018

  8. [8]

    Dreher, M

    L. Dreher, M. Weiler, M. Pernpeintner, H. Huebl, R. Gross, M. S. Brandt and S. T. B. Goennenwein.Surface acoustic wave driven ferromagnetic resonance in nickel thin films: Theory and experiment. Phys. Rev. B,86, p. 134415, 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.86.134415

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.86.134415 2012

  9. [9]

    K¨ uß, M

    M. K¨ uß, M. Heigl, L. Flacke, A. H¨ orner, M. Weiler, M. Albrecht and A. Wixforth. Nonreciprocal Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya Magnetoacoustic Waves. Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, p. 217203, 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.217203

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.217203 2020

  10. [10]

    K¨ uß, M

    M. K¨ uß, M. Heigl, L. Flacke, A. Hefele, A. H¨ orner, M. Weiler, M. Albrecht and A. Wixforth.Symmetry of the Magnetoelastic Interaction of Rayleigh and Shear Horizontal Magnetoacoustic Waves in Nickel Thin Films on LiTaO 3. Phys. Rev. Appl.,15, p. 034046, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.034046

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.15.034046 2021

  11. [11]

    Hwang, J

    Y. Hwang, J. Puebla, K. Kondou, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, H. Isshiki, C. S. Mu˜ noz, L. Liao, F. Chen, W. Luo, S. Maekawa and Y. Otani.Strongly Coupled Spin Waves and Surface Acoustic Waves at Room Temperature. Phys. Rev. Lett.,132, p. 056704, 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.056704

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.056704 2024

  12. [12]

    M. K. Steinbauer, P. Flauger, M. K¨ uß, S. Glamsch, E. D. S. Nysten, M. Weiß, D. Suess, H. J. Krenner, M. Albrecht and C. Abert.Magnetically Programmable Surface Acoustic Wave Filters: Device Concept and Predictive Modeling. arXiv [cond-mat.mes-hall], 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.23456

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.23456 2025

  13. [13]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga et al.Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems,32, 2019

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Bruckner, S

    F. Bruckner, S. Koraltan, C. Abert and D. Suess.magnum.np: a PyTorch based GPU enhanced finite difference micromagnetic simulation framework for high level development and inverse design. Scientific Reports,13(1), 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39192-5. [15]GitLab of magnum.np.https://gitlab.com/magnum.np, 2025. Accessed: 04.09.2025. 35

    doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39192-5 2023

  15. [16]

    A. Bur, T. Wu, J. Hockel, C.-J. Hsu, H. K. D. Kim, T.-K. Chung, K. Wong, K. L. Wang and G. P. Carman.Strain-induced magnetization change in patterned ferro- magnetic nickel nanostructures. Journal of Applied Physics,109(12), p. 123903,

    work page

  16. [17]

    Bergmair, T

    B. Bergmair, T. Huber, F. Bruckner, C. Vogler, M. Fuger and D. Suess.Fully coupled, dynamic model of a magnetostrictive amorphous ribbon and its validation. Journal of Applied Physics,115(2), p. 023905, 2014. doi:10.1063/1.4861735

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4861735 2014

  17. [18]

    Liang, S

    C.-Y. Liang, S. M. Keller, A. E. Sepulveda, A. Bur, W.-Y. Sun, K. Wetzlar and G. P. Carman.Modeling of magnetoelastic nanostructures with a fully coupled mechanical-micromagnetic model. Nanotechnology,25(43), p. 435701, 2014. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/25/43/435701

    doi:10.1088/0957-4484/25/43/435701 2014

  18. [19]

    C. Chen, A. Barra, A. Mal, G. Carman and A. Sepulveda.Voltage induced mechan- ical/spin wave propagation over long distances. Applied Physics Letters,110(7), p. 072401, 2017. doi:10.1063/1.4975828

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4975828 2017

  19. [20]

    X. Li, D. Labanowski, S. Salahuddin and C. S. Lynch.Spin wave generation by surface acoustic waves. Journal of Applied Physics,122(4), p. 043904, 2017. doi: 10.1063/1.4996102

    doi:10.1063/1.4996102 2017

  20. [21]

    Moreels, I

    L. Moreels, I. Lateur, D. D. Gusem, J. Mulkers, J. Maes, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, J. Leliaert and B. V. Waeyenberge.mumax+: extensible GPU-accelerated micromagnetics and beyond. arXiv [cond-mat.mes-hall], 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.18194

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.18194 2025

  21. [22]

    Vanderveken, J

    F. Vanderveken, J. Mulkers, J. Leliaert et al.Finite difference magnetoelastic simu- lator. Open Research Europe,1, p. 35, 2021. doi:10.12688/openreseurope.13233.1

    work page doi:10.12688/openreseurope.13233.1 2021

  22. [23]

    Abert.Micromagnetics and spintronics: models and numerical methods

    C. Abert.Micromagnetics and spintronics: models and numerical methods. The European Physical Journal B,92(6), pp. 1, 2019

    work page 2019

  23. [24]

    Yamamoto, W

    K. Yamamoto, W. Yu, T. Yu, J. Puebla, M. Xu, S. Maekawa and G. Bauer.Non- reciprocal Pumping of Surface Acoustic Waves by Spin Wave Resonance. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan,89(11), p. 113702, 2020. doi:10.7566/JPSJ.89.113702

    work page doi:10.7566/jpsj.89.113702 2020

  24. [25]

    Y. Shu, M. Lin and K. Wu.Micromagnetic modeling of magnetostrictive materials under intrinsic stress. Mechanics of Materials,36(10), pp. 975, 2004. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2003.04.004

    doi:10.1016/j.mechmat.2003.04.004 2004

  25. [26]

    J. H. Mathews et al.Numerical Methods Using MATLAB, volume 4. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2004

    work page 2004

  26. [27]

    Heistracher, C

    P. Heistracher, C. Abert, F. Bruckner, T. Schrefl and D. Suess.Proposal for a micromagnetic standard problem: Domain wall pinning at phase boundaries. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials,548, p. 168875, 2022. doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2021.168875. 36

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [28]

    Mouhat and F

    F. Mouhat and F. m. c.-X. Coudert.Necessary and sufficient elastic stability conditions in various crystal systems. Phys. Rev. B,90, p. 224104, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.90.224104

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.90.224104 2014

  28. [29]

    H. M. Ledbetter and R. P. Reed.Elastic Properties of Metals and Alloys, I. Iron, Nickel, and Iron-Nickel Alloys. Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 2(3), pp. 531, 1973. doi:10.1063/1.3253127

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3253127 1973

  29. [30]

    Comte and J

    C. Comte and J. von Stebut.Microprobe-type measurement of Young’s modulus and Poisson coefficient by means of depth sensing indentation and acoustic microscopy. Surface and Coatings Technology,154(1), pp. 42, 2002. doi:https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0257-8972(01)01706-6. [31]torch.gradient.https://pytorch.org/docs/stable/generated/torch. gradient.html, 2025. A...

    work page 2002

  30. [32]

    Maekawa and M

    S. Maekawa and M. Tachiki.Surface acoustic attenuation due to surface spin wave in ferro- and antiferromagnets. AIP Conference Proceedings,29(1), pp. 542, 1976. doi:10.1063/1.30437

    work page doi:10.1063/1.30437 1976

  31. [33]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz.Theory of Elasticity. Course of Theoretical Physics, Volume 7. Pergamon Press, New York, 2nd edition, 1970

    work page 1970

  32. [34]

    COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden.COMSOL Multiphysics ® v5.4, 2022

    work page 2022

  33. [35]

    L. Ye, Z. Baoguo, Z. Li Haoran, W. Pengfei, W. Ye and X. Mengchen.Effect of Alkali Metal Ion on Chemical Mechanical Polishing of LiTaO3. ECS Journal of Solid State Science and Technology,11(3), p. 034003, 2022. doi:10.1149/2162-8777/ac5474

    work page doi:10.1149/2162-8777/ac5474 2022

  34. [36]

    Sasaki, Y

    R. Sasaki, Y. Nii, Y. Iguchi and Y. Onose.Nonreciprocal propagation of surface acoustic wave inNi/LiNbO 3. Phys. Rev. B,95, p. 020407, 2017. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.95.020407

    work page 2017

  35. [37]

    M. Xu, K. Yamamoto, J. Puebla, K. Baumgaertl, B. Rana, K. Miura, H. Taka- hashi, D. Grundler, S. Maekawa and Y. Otani.Nonreciprocal surface acoustic wave propagation via magneto-rotation coupling. Science Advances,6(32), p. eabb1724,

    work page

  36. [38]

    Venkat, D

    G. Venkat, D. Kumar, M. Franchin, O. Dmytriiev, M. Mruczkiewicz, H. Fangohr, A. Barman, M. Krawczyk and A. Prabhakar.Proposal for a Standard Micromag- netic Problem: Spin Wave Dispersion in a Magnonic Waveguide. IEEE Transac- tions on Magnetics,49(1), pp. 524, 2013. doi:10.1109/TMAG.2012.2206820

    work page arXiv 2013

  37. [39]

    B. A. Kalinikos and A. N. Slavin.Theory of dipole-exchange spin wave spectrum for ferromagnetic films with mixed exchange boundary conditions. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics,19(35), p. 7013, 1986. doi:10.1088/0022-3719/19/35/014. 37

    doi:10.1088/0022-3719/19/35/014 1986

  38. [40]

    Bruckner, A

    F. Bruckner, A. Ducevic, P. Heistracher, C. Abert and D. Suess.Strayfield cal- culation for micromagnetic simulations using true periodic boundary conditions. Scientific Reports,11(1), p. 9202, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88541-9

    doi:10.1038/s41598-021-88541-9 2021

  39. [41]

    A. V. Azovtsev, A. I. Nikitchenko and N. A. Pertsev.Energy-efficient spin injector into semiconductors driven by elastic waves. Phys. Rev. Mater.,5, p. 054601, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.5.054601

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevmaterials.5.054601 2021

  40. [42]

    Dieterle, J

    G. Dieterle, J. F¨ orster, H. Stoll, A. S. Semisalova, S. Finizio, A. Gangwar, M. Weigand, M. Noske, M. F¨ ahnle, I. Bykova, J. Gr¨ afe, D. A. Bozhko, H. Y. Musiienko-Shmarova, V. Tiberkevich, A. N. Slavin, C. H. Back, J. Raabe, G. Sch¨ utz and S. Wintz.Coherent Excitation of Heterosymmetric Spin Waves with Ultrashort Wavelengths. Phys. Rev. Lett.,122, p....

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2019

  41. [2011]

    doi:10.1063/1.3592344

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3592344

  42. [2020]

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb1724

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abb1724

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.