Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Harnessing magnetic anisotropy for nonlinear magnetization precession and spin waves

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Hard-axis fields make even tiny spin precession nonlinear

desk verdict The core mechanism is credible and the uniform-precession data support it; the propagating-wave second harmonic and rectification claims are a bit ahead of the data, and the transient anisotropy parameters need independent support. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.21796 v2 pith:RJGVU7WH submitted 2026-02-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

P. I. Gerevenkov , L. A. Shelukhin , Ia. A. Filatov , P. A. Dvortsova , A. M. Kalashnikova This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nonlinearmagnetizationdynamicsspinwavesmagneticanisotropyhardaxisLandau-Lifshitz-Gilberthigherharmonicsrectificationmagnonics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that the nonlinearity of magnetization precession and spin waves can be controlled by the shape of the magnetic energy landscape rather than by high drive power. It claims that when an external magnetic field is applied close to the hard axis of a ferromagnet and with a strength near the anisotropy field, the energy potential becomes asymmetric, making the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation intrinsically nonlinear even for sub-degree deviations. In experiments with a 20-nm epitaxial iron film, this leads to anharmonic precession, higher harmonics up to the fourth order, and a rectified mean magnetization, for both uniform precession and propagating magnetostatic surface waves. The significance is a geometry-based mechanism for nonlinear magnonics that works at arbitrarily small amplitudes.

What carries the argument

The key object is the in-plane magnetic free energy profile as a function of the magnetization direction. With the field near the hard axis and close to the anisotropy field, this profile is non-parabolic and asymmetric, with two inequivalent local minima separated by a lowered barrier; the LLG equation then describes anharmonic motion with a period-averaged direction shifted toward the flatter slope (rectification). The authors solve the non-linearized LLG equation and run micromagnetic simulations to show that these features generate the measured harmonics.

What would settle it

At a field exactly along the hard axis (φ_H = 0°, symmetric potential), the higher harmonics and rectification should vanish while the field magnitude stays the same; observing them there would contradict the asymmetry mechanism. Alternatively, direct time-resolved measurement of the laser-induced anisotropy reduction at the 40 mT hard-axis geometry would validate the assumed transient parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation cannot be linearized under these conditions, even for amplitudes less than one degree. The asymmetry of the energy profile—created by a field close to the hard axis with magnitude comparable to the anisotropy field—produces odd and even higher harmonics, a shift of the fundamental frequency that linearized LLG cannot reproduce, and magnetic rectification: the time-averaged magnetization direction differs from the energy minimum. For propagating magnetostatic surface spin waves, the second harmonic appears and propagates at the same group velocity as the fundamental, showing the nonlinearity is intrinsic and thresholdless.

Load-bearing premise

The laser-induced reductions of magnetization and anisotropy (6%/45% or 25%/94%) are taken from strong-field characterization and a scaling law, assumed instantaneous with a single 1.55 ns relaxation time; if those transient parameters are different at the low hard-axis field, the predicted nonlinear effects would weaken.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under these field and anisotropy conditions, even infinitesimal deviations from equilibrium generate higher harmonics and rectification, so the LLG equation must be treated as nonlinear regardless of amplitude.
  • The frequency of the fundamental precession mode deviates from the linearized prediction, which means nonlinearity can be mistaken for a laser-induced change of magnetic parameters.
  • Propagating spin wave packets carry a rectified in-plane component and produce a second harmonic traveling with the wave, enabling nonlinear wave interactions without high power.
  • The mechanism is not restricted to laser excitation: any technique that brings the field-and-anisotropy configuration to the asymmetric regime should show the same effects.
  • The results connect the geometry of the energy landscape to nonlinear responses, suggesting a design rule for magnonic devices with controlled harmonic generation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The effect should be generic to any magnetic system where the equilibrium sits in an asymmetric and non-parabolic potential, so it could be engineered with exchange bias, magnetocrystalline anisotropy, or shape anisotropy rather than only an external field.
  • Because the nonlinearity is thresholdless, weak perturbations such as thermal fluctuations or low-power microwave drives might already excite nonlinearities near the hard axis, which could be probed in magneto-optical or spin-torque noise measurements.
  • The rectification effect provides a possible readout or transduction mechanism: the DC shift in magnetization direction could be used to convert an ultrafast excitation into a detectable DC magnetization change, with applications in photodetection or spin current generation.
  • The quantitative predictions rely on assumed transient values of magnetization and anisotropy; independent measurement of these parameters at the operating field would confirm the predicted harmonic amplitudes exactly.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and numerical study of nonlinear magnetization dynamics in a 20 nm epitaxial Fe(001) film driven by femtosecond laser pulses. With a static field of 40 mT applied 2.5° from a hard axis, the authors observe anharmonic precession, higher harmonics up to fourth order, and a deviation of the eigenfrequency from the linearized LLG prediction near the laser-modified critical field. A nonlinear LLG/macrospin model and mumax3 simulations, using laser-induced reductions ΔM_S/M_S = 6% and ΔK_C/K_C = 45% (25%/94% for the spin-wave experiments) inferred from 100 mT characterization and a K_C ∝ M_S^10 law, reproduce the waveforms and field dependence. For propagating magnetostatic surface spin waves, a second harmonic is observed in simulations and, with lower signal-to-noise, in experiment. The authors attribute these effects to an asymmetric, nonparabolic magnetic energy potential near the hard axis, yielding thresholdless anharmonicity and rectification.

Significance. If the central mechanism holds, the paper offers a conceptually clean and potentially practical route to low-power nonlinear magnonics: near the hard-axis/anisotropy-field critical point, the energy landscape is intrinsically asymmetric and nonparabolic, so harmonic generation and rectification occur without large-angle precession. This is distinct from the usual type-I Suhl mechanism and from purely geometric second-harmonic generation. The paper's strengths include the direct comparison between nonlinear LLG simulations and time-resolved Kerr waveforms, the field dependence in Fig. 1(c) showing where linear theory fails, and the use of the open-source mumax3 solver. The uniform-precession data are compelling. The principal weaknesses are the unverified transient material parameters and the limited experimental evidence for the propagating second-harmonic branch; these are load-bearing for the quantitative claims but, in my view, addressable within the manuscript's scope.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2, characterization and modeling (Fig. 1)] The quantitative support for the critical-field mechanism rests on transient material parameters that are not measured under the conditions of the nonlinear experiment. The values ΔM_S/M_S = 6%, ΔK_C/K_C = 45% for the uniform-precession case (25%/94% for the spin-wave case), the instantaneous onset, the single relaxation time τ = 1.55 ns, and the K_C ∝ M_S^10 scaling are taken from a 100 mT linear-regime characterization and from refs [37,43]. The nonlinear experiments are performed at μ0H_ext = 40 mT (35 mT) and φ_H = 2.5°. The eigenfrequency and harmonic content near the critical point are controlled by H_K,eff − H_ext; a 10–20% error in ΔK_C would displace the operating point off the critical condition and substantially alter the predicted harmonics. The manuscript does not provide a sensitivity analysis, and the experimental fluence was chosen to reproduce the assumed parameter reduc
  2. [Fig. 3(d), spin-wave second harmonic] The experimental evidence for a propagating second harmonic of the SSW is not conclusive. The 2D FFT in Fig. 3(d) does not show a resolvable dispersion branch for the double-frequency wave; the text states the SNR is insufficient to confirm propagation via group velocity. The supporting cross-section at k = 0.1 μm^-1 and the subtraction of the central region are consistent with a near-field/excitation-region signal as much as with a freely propagating harmonic. Since the extension of the mechanism to propagating spin waves is a central claim, please provide data with an identifiable group-velocity branch for the second harmonic, or explicitly limit the claim to the observation of a second-harmonic component in the wave packet.
  3. [Fig. 2, rectification] Rectification R(Δt) = φ_⟨M⟩ − φ_min is presented as experimentally demonstrated, but it is a quantity computed from the nonlinear LLG trajectory and not extracted from the experimental data. The measured signals are proportional to the out-of-plane magnetization component (Fig. 1(a)) or are spatial Kerr maps (Fig. 3(c)); no direct measurement of the in-plane mean magnetization orientation is shown. The frequency shift in Fig. 1(c) and the anharmonic waveform are consistent with rectification but do not uniquely determine R. Please either measure the in-plane/longitudinal Kerr response to obtain R, or soften the claim so rectification is a model prediction supported by the frequency shift.
  4. [Fig. 2(d) and abstract, thresholdless claim] The 'thresholdless' and 'even for small amplitudes' statements are not experimentally tested. Fig. 2(d) is a model result at fixed field values, not an experimental amplitude series. The experiment is performed at a single fluence chosen to reproduce the assumed parameter reduction. To substantiate thresholdlessness, please show a fluence/amplitude series in which harmonic content and rectification remain nonvanishing as the drive amplitude decreases, or provide an analytical argument that the quadratic term of the energy expansion vanishes at the chosen H_ext and φ_H. Otherwise the claim should be limited to 'nonlinear at sub-degree amplitudes for the explored fluence.'
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption/text] The text refers to 'red and blue lines in Fig. 3(b)' for the energy profile, but the energy profile is labeled Fig. 3(a). Please correct the panel reference.
  2. [§3, typo] The sentence 'the SSW carries a rectifield in-plane component' should read 'a rectified in-plane component.'
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption reads 'Insert in (a) shows a sketch'; 'Insert' should be 'Inset.'
  4. [References] Refs. [8] and [12] are arXiv preprints; if final versions are now available, they should be updated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LLG-based mechanism is self-contained; assumed transient parameters are a validation caveat, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (i) characterize equilibrium MS, KC, and damping at 100 mT in a linear regime; (ii) adopt a laser-induced transient reduction ΔMS/MS = 6% and ΔKC/KC = 45% (uniform precession) and 25%/94% (spin-wave experiment), using the power law KC(T)/KC(0) = (MS(T)/MS(0))^10 from refs [37,43] and a 1.55 ns relaxation time; (iii) solve the nonlinearized Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with these parameters near the hard axis to obtain anharmonic precession, higher harmonics, rectification, and a non-parabolic energy potential; (iv) verify with TR-MOKE measurements at the same nominal fluence. The central claim—that an asymmetric energy potential makes precession nonlinear even for small amplitudes—is a mathematical consequence of the LLG equation for the stated energy landscape, not the output of a fitting procedure. The numerical waveforms are not fitted to the experimental nonlinear traces, and the field dependence in Fig. 1(c) and the spin-wave second harmonic in Fig. 3(d) are compared across parameters rather than adjusted to match. The main caveat is that the transient ΔMS/ΔKC values and the KC∝MS^10 scaling are assumed rather than re-measured under the hard-axis 40 mT condition. In particular, the sentence 'The laser fluence was chosen to achieve the same reduction of the magnetic parameters as in the calculations' means the experiment was deliberately placed at the model's operating point, which weakens the independence of the quantitative agreement but does not make the prediction equivalent to the input by construction. The self-citations [37,43] provide external experimental/theoretical input for the parameterization; they are not invoked to rule out competing mechanisms or to import a uniqueness theorem. Thus the paper does not exhibit a circular derivation chain, only a sensitivity/validation limitation that should be weighed as a correctness risk rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The calculation is standard LLG; what is new is the parameter regime (near-hard-axis field) and the interpretation. The main external inputs are measured film parameters and the assumed transient scaling and relaxation. The absence of shipped data/code and the placeholder supplementary material keep the evidential base moderate.

free parameters (6)
  • Saturation magnetization M_S = 1.9 MA/m
    Obtained by fitting azimuthal precession in 100 mT; used in all LLG and mumax3 runs.
  • Cubic anisotropy constant K_C = 59.5 kJ/m^3
    Fitted from the same strong-field precession; this is the key quantity that sets the hard-axis condition.
  • Gilbert damping α_G = 2.5e-3
    Fitted from relaxation; controls how long rectification and harmonics persist.
  • Laser-induced demagnetization ΔM_S/M_S = 6% at F=14 mJ/cm^2 (uniform precession); 25% for spin-wave run
    Inferred from prior characterization; controls the depth of the transient potential well.
  • Laser-induced anisotropy reduction ΔK_C/K_C = 45% at F=14 mJ/cm^2; 94% for spin-wave run
    Obtained via K_C∝M_S^10 from refs [37,43]; the central quantity that pushes the system near the hard-axis critical field.
  • Anisotropy/magnetization relaxation time τ = 1.55 ns
    Assumed single exponential relaxation; sets the amplitude evolution during damping and the sub-degree nonlinearity claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with Zeeman, cubic anisotropy, and thin-film demagnetization terms describes macrospin dynamics.
    Used in the central numerical solutions (Figs. 1-2); no exchange or thermal noise is included for the macrospin case.
  • ad hoc to paper Laser-induced changes to M_S and K_C are instantaneous and relax with a single time constant τ=1.55 ns.
    Stated explicitly in the text; no in-situ measurement under the 40 mT nonlinear conditions is provided.
  • domain assumption K_C scales as M_S^10 (Zener-like power law).
    Adopted from refs [37,43] to convert demagnetization into anisotropy reduction; not independently measured in this film under pump excitation.
  • domain assumption The magneto-optical Kerr signal is proportional to the out-of-plane magnetization component.
    Standard assumption for TR-MOKE; no absolute angle calibration is shown, which matters for the '<1 degree' claim.
  • domain assumption Mumax3 simulations with time-dependent, spatially localized M_S and K_C changes reproduce magnetostatic wave propagation.
    Details in the supplementary material, which is a placeholder; spatial profiles and boundary conditions cannot be checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Harnessing magnetic anisotropy for nonlinear magnetization precession and spin waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJGVU7WH

@misc{pith2026260221796,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Harnessing magnetic anisotropy for nonlinear magnetization precession and spin waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJGVU7WH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.21796}
}
read the original abstract

The nonlinearity of magnetization precession and spin waves is a cornerstone of contemporary magnonics. We investigate nonlinear magnetization dynamics in a thin epitaxial iron film driven by femtosecond laser pulses in regimes of homogeneous precession and propagating magnetostatic spin wave packets. The magnetization precession anharmonicity, the generation of higher-order harmonics, and the dynamical rectification are experimentally demonstrated. The numerical solution of the non-linearized Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation reveals that these effects stem from the asymmetry in the energy potential and are essentially thresholdless. This asymmetry is readily achievable when an external magnetic field with a strength comparable to the magnetic anisotropy field is applied close to the hard axis. This work establishes a connection between the geometry of the energy profile and nonlinear responses, paving the way for designing magnonic devices with controlled harmonic generation and nonlinear spin wave interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.21796 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) the energy profile in the sample plane as a func￾tion of the in-plane magnetization angle ϕM [see inset in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)]. First, we carried out a micromagnetic sim￾ulation (Sec. II in Supp. Mater. [40]). The laser￾induced change of MS and KC are 25 % and 94 %, re￾spectively, corresponding to a mean laser fluence of F = 39 mJ·cm−2 . To achieve an asymmetric energy potential in the unexcited region at ϕH = 2.5 ◦ , the field value was set to µ0Hext = 35 mT [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Boyd,Nonlinear Optics(Elsevier Science, 2020)

    R. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics(Elsevier Science, 2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    I. A. Filatov, P. I. Gerevenkov, A. V. Azovtsev, V. A. Kovaleva, N. E. Khokhlov, and A. M. Kalashnikova, Magnon-cherenkov effect from a picosecond strain pulse, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-025-03137-8 (2026)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-025-03137-8 2026

  3. [3]

    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, 10.1063/5.0189648 (2024)

    doi:10.1063/5.0189648 2024

  4. [4]

    A. V. Chumak, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon transistor for all-magnon data processing, Nature com- munications5, 4700 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    X. Ge, R. Verba, P. Pirro, A. V. Chumak, and Q. Wang, Nanoscaled magnon transistor based on stim- ulated three-magnon splitting, Applied Physics Letters 124, 10.1063/5.0189619 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0189619 2024

  6. [6]

    Q. Wang, M. Kewenig, M. Schneider, R. Verba, F. Kohl, B. Heinz, M. Geilen, M. Mohseni, B. L¨ agel, F. Ciub- otaru, C. Adelmann, C. Dubs, S. D. Cotofana, O. V. Dobrovolskiy, T. Br¨ acher, P. Pirro, and A. V. Chumak, A magnonic directional coupler for integrated magnonic half-adders, Nature Electronics3, 765–774 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    A. Papp, W. Porod, and G. Csaba, Nanoscale neural network using non-linear spin-wave interference, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021-26711-z (2021)

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26711-z 2021

  8. [8]

    Lutsenko, K

    A. Lutsenko, K. G. Fripp, L. Flajˇ sman, A. V. Shytov, V. V. Kruglyak, and S. van Dijken, Non- linear dynamics in magnonic fabry-p\’{e}rot res- onators: Low-power neuron-like activation and trans- mission suppression, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10650 10.48550/arXiv.2602.10650 (2026)

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.10650 2026

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    C. Wang, J. Rao, Z. Chen, K. Zhao, L. Sun, B. Yao, T. Yu, Y.-P. Wang, and W. Lu, Enhancement of magnonic frequency combs by exceptional points, Nature Physics20, 1139 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Z. Wang, H. Yuan, Y. Cao, Z.-X. Li, R. A. Duine, and P. Yan, Magnonic frequency comb through nonlin- 6 ear magnon-skyrmion scattering, Physical Review Let- ters127, 037202 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Khivintsev, J

    Y. Khivintsev, J. Marsh, V. Zagorodnii, I. Harward, J. Lovejoy, P. Krivosik, R. Camley, and Z. Celinski, Non- linear amplification and mixing of spin waves in a mi- crostrip geometry with metallic ferromagnets, Applied Physics Letters98, 10.1063/1.3541787 (2011)

    2011 doi

  4. [12]

    X. Guo, T. Gong, G. Lan, M. Guo, X. Han, G. Yu, P. Yan, and Q. Wang, Stimulated magnonic frequency combs, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21370 10.48550/arXiv.2601.21370 (2026)

    2026 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Dreyer, A

    R. Dreyer, A. F. Sch¨ affer, H. G. Bauer, N. Liebing, J. Be- rakdar, and G. Woltersdorf, Imaging and phase-locking of non-linear spin waves, Nature Communications13, 10.1038/s41467-022-32224-0 (2022)

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    V. E. Demidov, H. Ulrichs, S. O. Demokritov, and S. Urazhdin, Nonlinear scattering in nanoscale mag- netic elements: Overpopulation of the lowest-frequency magnon state, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics83, 020404 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    S. O. Demokritov, V. E. Demidov, O. Dzyapko, G. A. Melkov, A. A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, and A. N. Slavin, Bose–einstein condensation of quasi-equilibrium magnons at room temperature under pumping, Nature 443, 430 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Suhl, The theory of ferromagnetic resonance at high signal powers, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 1, 209 (1957)

    H. Suhl, The theory of ferromagnetic resonance at high signal powers, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 1, 209 (1957)

    1957

  9. [17]

    Suhl, The nonlinear behavior of ferrites at high mi- crowave signal levels, Proceedings of the IRE44, 1270 (1956)

    H. Suhl, The nonlinear behavior of ferrites at high mi- crowave signal levels, Proceedings of the IRE44, 1270 (1956)

    1956

  10. [18]

    Livesey, Nonlinear behavior in metallic thin films and nanostructures, inHandbook of Surface Science, Vol

    K. Livesey, Nonlinear behavior in metallic thin films and nanostructures, inHandbook of Surface Science, Vol. 5 (Elsevier, 2015) pp. 169–214

    2015

  11. [19]

    F. Guo, L. M. Belova, and R. D. McMichael, Nonlinear ferromagnetic resonance shift in submicron permalloy el- lipses, Physical Review B91, 064426 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Flebus, D

    B. Flebus, D. Grundler, B. Rana, Y. Otani, I. Barsukov, A. Barman, G. Gubbiotti, P. Landeros, J. Akerman, U. Ebels,et al., The 2024 magnonics roadmap, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter36, 363501 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Khivintsev, B

    Y. Khivintsev, B. Kuanr, T. J. Fal, M. Haftel, R. E. Camley, Z. Celinski, and D. L. Mills, Nonlinear fer- romagnetic resonance in permalloy films: A nonmono- tonic power-dependent frequency shift, Phys. Rev. B81, 054436 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Wismayer, B

    M. Wismayer, B. Southern, X. Fan, Y. Gui, C.-M. Hu, and R. Camley, Nonlinear behavior for the uniform mode and horizontal standing spin-wave modes in metallic fer- romagnetic microstrips: Experiment and theory, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics85, 064411 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Edwards, H

    E. Edwards, H. Ulrichs, V. Demidov, S. Demokritov, and S. Urazhdin, Parametric excitation of magnetization os- cillations controlled by pure spin current, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics86, 134420 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Zhang, F

    Z. Zhang, F. Sekiguchi, T. Moriyama, S. C. Furuya, M. Sato, T. Satoh, Y. Mukai, K. Tanaka, T. Yamamoto, H. Kageyama,et al., Generation of third-harmonic spin oscillation from strong spin precession induced by tera- hertz magnetic near fields, Nature Communications14, 1795 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Marsh, V

    J. Marsh, V. Zagorodnii, Z. Celinski, and R. Camley, Nonlinearly generated harmonic signals in ultra-small waveguides with magnetic films: Tunable enhancements of 2nd and 4th harmonics, Applied Physics Letters100, 10.1063/1.3688036 (2012)

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    W. He, B. Hu, Q.-F. Zhan, X.-Q. Zhang, and Z.-H. Cheng, Probing nonlinear magnetization dynamics in fe/mgo (001) film by all optical pump-probe technique, Applied Physics Letters104, 10.1063/1.4871006 (2014)

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Cheng and W

    C. Cheng and W. E. Bailey, High-efficiency giga- hertz frequency doubling without power threshold in thin-film ni81fe19, Applied Physics Letters103, 10.1063/1.4842195 (2013)

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    M. Hudl, M. d’Aquino, M. Pancaldi, S.-H. Yang, M. G. Samant, S. S. Parkin, H. A. D¨ urr, C. Serpico, M. C. Hoff- mann, and S. Bonetti, Nonlinear magnetization dynamics driven by strong terahertz fields, Physical review letters 123, 197204 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Solovev, A

    P. Solovev, A. Afonin, B. Belyaev, N. Boev, I. Gov- orun, A. Izotov, A. Ugrymov, and A. A. Leksikov, Sec- ond harmonic generation in thin permalloy film, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics54, 425002 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Nikolaev, S

    K. Nikolaev, S. Lake, B. Das Mohapatra, G. Schmidt, S. Demokritov, and V. Demidov, Resonant inter-mode second harmonic generation by backward spin waves in yig nano-waveguides, Applied Physics Letters126, 10.1063/5.0253293 (2025)

    2025 doi

  23. [31]

    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)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Solovev, A

    P. Solovev, A. Afonin, B. Belyaev, N. Boev, I. Govorun, A. Izotov, A. Ugrymov, and A. Leksikov, Second har- monic generation as a probe of parametric spin wave in- stability processes in thin magnetic films, Physical Re- view B106, 064406 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    S. M. Suturin, P. A. Dvortsova, M. V. Baidakova, M. S. Dunaevskiy, and B. B. Krichevtsov, Laser mbe growth of cobalt-platinum multilayers with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materi- als557, 169467 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    P. A. Dvortsova and S. M. Suturin, Technological pecu- liarities of epsilon ferrite epitaxial stabilization by pld, Surfaces5, 445 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Kalashnikova, N

    A. Kalashnikova, N. Khokhlov, L. Shelukhin, and A. Scherbakov, Ultrafast laser-induced control of mag- netic anisotropy in nanostructures, Technical Physics68, 574 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Carpene, E

    E. Carpene, E. Mancini, D. Dazzi, C. Dallera, E. Puppin, and S. De Silvestri, Ultrafast three-dimensional magneti- zation precession and magnetic anisotropy of a photoex- cited thin film of iron, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics81, 060415 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Gerevenkov, D

    P. Gerevenkov, D. Kuntu, I. A. Filatov, L. Shelukhin, M. Wang, D. Pattnaik, A. Rushforth, A. Kalashnikova, and N. Khokhlov, Effect of magnetic anisotropy re- laxation on laser-induced magnetization precession in thin galfenol films, Physical Review Materials5, 094407 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Khokhlov, P

    N. Khokhlov, P. Gerevenkov, L. Shelukhin, A. Azovtsev, N. Pertsev, M. Wang, A. Rushforth, A. Scherbakov, and A. Kalashnikova, Optical excitation of propagating mag- netostatic waves in an epitaxial galfenol film by ultrafast magnetic anisotropy change, Phys. Rev. Appl.12, 0440...

    2019

  31. [39]

    I. A. Filatov, P. Gerevenkov, M. Wang, A. Rush- forth, A. Kalashnikova, and N. Khokhlov, Spectrum evo- lution and chirping of laser-induced spin wave pack- ets in thin iron films, Applied Physics Letters120, 10.1063/5.0077195 (2022)

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    See supplemental material at [url will be inserted by pub- lisher] for details of simulation, static magnetisation dis- tribution, and symmetrical propagation of the waves at round spot excitation

  33. [41]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, The de- sign and verification of mumax3, AIP advances4, 10.1063/1.4899186 (2014)

    2014 doi

  34. [42]

    Khodadadi, A

    B. Khodadadi, A. Rai, A. Sapkota, A. Srivastava, B. Nepal, Y. Lim, D. A. Smith, C. Mewes, S. Budhathoki, A. J. Hauser,et al., Conductivitylike gilbert damping due to intraband scattering in epitaxial iron, Physical review letters124, 157201 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Zener, Classical theory of the temperature dependence of magnetic anisotropy energy, Physical Review96, 1335 (1954)

    C. Zener, Classical theory of the temperature dependence of magnetic anisotropy energy, Physical Review96, 1335 (1954)

    1954

  36. [44]

    A. V. Gaponov-Grekhov and M. I. Rabinovich, Li man- del’shtam and the modern theory of nonlinear oscillations and waves, Soviet Physics Uspekhi22, 590 (1979)

    1979

  37. [45]

    Weber, Spin-wave resonance, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics4, 28 (1968)

    R. Weber, Spin-wave resonance, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics4, 28 (1968)

    1968

  38. [46]

    Seavey Jr and P

    M. Seavey Jr and P. Tannenwald, Direct observation of spin-wave resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.1, 168 (1958)

    1958

  39. [47]

    J. S. Dugdale and D. K. C. MacDonald, The thermal expansion of solids, Physical Review89, 832–834 (1953)

    1953

  40. [48]

    Kimel, A

    A. Kimel, A. Kalashnikova, A. Pogrebna, and A. Zvezdin, Fundamentals and perspectives of ultrafast photoferroic recording, Physics Reports852, 1 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    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)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Wiechert, H

    V. Wiechert, H. Wang, W. Legrand, P. Gambardella, D. Breitbach, P. Pirro, M. Lammel, A. Meo, G. Finoc- chio, and D. Bossini, On demand laser-induced frequency tuning of coherent magnons in a nanometer-thick mag- net at room temperature, Nature Communications17, 10.1038/s41467-...

    2026 doi

  43. [51]

    L. A. Shelukhin, R. R. Gareev, V. Zbarsky, J. Walowski, M. M¨ unzenberg, N. A. Pertsev, and A. M. Kalashnikova, Spin reorientation transition in cofeb/mgo/cofeb tun- nel junction enabled by ultrafast laser-induced suppres- sion of perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, Nanoscale14...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Schlauderer, C

    S. Schlauderer, C. Lange, S. Baierl, T. Ebnet, C. P. Schmid, D. Valovcin, A. Zvezdin, A. Kimel, R. Mikhaylovskiy, and R. Huber, Temporal and spectral fingerprints of ultrafast all-coherent spin switching, Na- ture569, 383 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Afanasiev, J

    D. Afanasiev, J. Hortensius, B. Ivanov, A. Sasani, E. Bousquet, Y. M. Blanter, R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, A. V. Kimel, and A. Caviglia, Ultrafast control of magnetic in- teractions via light-driven phonons, Nature materials20, 607 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Soumah, D

    L. Soumah, D. Bossini, A. Anane, and S. Bonetti, Optical frequency up-conversion of the ferromagnetic resonance in an ultrathin garnet mediated by magnetoelastic cou- pling, Physical Review Letters127, 077203 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Kuzikova, N

    A. Kuzikova, N. Liubachko, S. Barilo, A. Sadovnikov, R. Pisarev, and A. Kalashnikova, Switching of an anti- ferromagnet controlled by spin canting in a laser-induced hidden phase, Physical Review Letters135, 266705 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    Sch¨ onfeld, L

    C. Sch¨ onfeld, L. Feuerer, J. B¨ ar, L. D¨ orfelt, M. Ker- stingsk¨ otter, T. Dannegger, D. Wuhrer, W. Belzig, U. Nowak, A. Leitenstorfer,et al., Dynamical renormal- ization of the magnetic excitation spectrum via high- momentum nonlinear magnonics, Science Advances11, eadv42...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.