Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Giant nonlinear Hall effect in a Pt/ferrimagnetic insulator bilayer under Zeeman-exchange frustration

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In a Pt/ferrimagnet bilayer with a compensation gradient, Joule heating acts as a parametric drive: it periodically flips the interface magnetization across a spin-flip boundary, creating third-, fifth-, and seventh-harmonic Hall voltages c

desk verdict A striking, well-characterized observation of up to 37th-harmonic Hall voltages in a compensated ferrimagnet, with a plausible but under-supported Joule-heating parametric-switching mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27848 v1 pith:PKQK3FRZ submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Takayuki Shiino , Matteo Fettizio , Weronika Janus , Can Onur Avci This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.70.-i72.20.My75.50.Gg
keywords nonlinearHalleffectharmonicvoltagesJouleheatingferrimagnetmagneticcompensationZeeman-exchangefrustrationspin-flipspinmagnetoresistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports third-, fifth-, and seventh-harmonic Hall voltages in a Pt/Al-substituted TbIG bilayer that rival the first harmonic, but only in a narrow field window between two transition fields. The authors identify the source as Zeeman–exchange frustration created by a compositional gradient: the interfacial region prefers Fe-dominated alignment while the bulk prefers Tb-dominated, so an external field produces an unstable spin-flip state. They argue that Joule heating from the alternating current modulates the temperature at twice the driving frequency, repeatedly pushing the magnetization across this instability and generating large odd harmonics by threshold crossing. Their macrospin-chain simulations reproduce the harmonic amplitudes, phase diagram, and frequency dependence, and show that spin–orbit torque alone cannot account for the signal. The broader claim is that a weak thermal perturbation can be converted into a large nonlinear transport response when magnetic frustration makes the system bistable.

What carries the argument

The key element is the spin-flip transition in the topmost (interfacial) spin of a one-dimensional macrospin chain with depth-dependent compensation temperatures. Exchange coupling between Fe-dominated and Tb-dominated regions makes the field-induced transition occur at a threshold field H*(T); the Zeeman and exchange energies compete in the window H*–H**, where the lowest-energy state is frustrated. Joule heating enters as a temperature modulation at 2ω (because heating ∝ I²(t)), shifting H* cyclically. When the instantaneous H* crosses the applied field, the top spin switches, producing an anharmonic m_z(t) waveform whose odd harmonics are detected through the transverse spin Hall magnetor

What would settle it

Measure the 2ω temperature oscillation at the Pt/garnet interface (e.g., by frequency-resolved thermoreflectance or by using a second harmonic of a thin-film resistive thermometer) and compare its amplitude with the static ΔT calibration; if at 337 Hz the dynamic swing is below the threshold required by the simulation, the parametric-drive claim fails. Alternatively, suppress thermal coupling to the substrate by thinning it or changing the device geometry: if the odd harmonics persist while the 2ω thermal modulation is reduced, the mechanism is not Joule heating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Joule-heating-induced thermal modulation, not perturbative current-induced torques, periodically drives the interfacial Fe magnetization between exchange-dominated and Zeeman-dominated states across the spin-flip instability, and that this repeated threshold crossing produces the unusually large odd-harmonic Hall voltages. The authors establish this by showing the harmonics appear only within the H*–H** frustrated window, grow with current density, shift with temperature and frequency, are absent in a Pt/TbIG reference, and are reproduced by a macrospin-chain simulation with a compensation-temperature gradient and a 2ω temperature modulation. The same simulation wit

Load-bearing premise

The oscillatory 2ω temperature swing produced by Joule heating is assumed, not measured, to be large enough to push the interfacial magnetization across the spin-flip boundary at 337 Hz; the only calibration is a static temperature rise inferred from a sign change in the anomalous Hall effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Harmonic Hall measurements can now serve as a probe of magnetic compensation gradients and near-threshold instabilities in ferrimagnetic insulators.
  • Any material with a temperature-dependent switching field could exhibit giant odd harmonics when driven by ac Joule heating, extending the phenomenon beyond garnets.
  • The H*–H** window offers a direct experimental signature that a magnetic state is exchange–Zeeman frustrated, since harmonic voltages vanish outside it.
  • Because the mechanism relies on threshold crossing, the odd-harmonic amplitudes are predicted to be extremely sensitive to small changes in dc bias field, temperature, or current — a possible route to sensitive magnetothermal detectors.
  • Even harmonics should remain negligible, providing a clean way to fingerprint the 2ω thermal-drive mechanism against other nonlinearities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The static-only thermal calibration is the softest link: the simulation assumes the same Joule-heating coefficient holds at 2ω as in the static AHE sign-change estimate. A direct measurement of the oscillatory temperature amplitude would test whether the dynamics really cross the threshold at 337 Hz.
  • If the mechanism is generic, one could replace the compositional gradient with a lithographically defined exchange-bias or anisotropy gradient to engineer the frustration window, making the effect tunable.
  • The observation of harmonics up to ~37ω implies the switching waveform is nearly a step function; this suggests the system could be used to sense small temperature fluctuations by monitoring high harmonics, which are exponentially sensitive to the threshold position.
  • The frequency-dependent shift of H* indicates finite switching dynamics; comparing the harmonic phase lag with domain-wall speed estimates would connect this transport effect to microscopic nucleation and pinning.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a giant nonlinear Hall response in Pt/Al-substituted TbIG bilayers. Near the magnetic compensation temperature, the first harmonic Hall signal shows a spin-flip-like transition at H*, and large odd harmonic voltages (3ω, 5ω, 7ω, up to ~37ω) appear only in a field window between H* and H**, with amplitudes comparable to the first harmonic. These harmonics are absent in a Pt/TbIG reference sample and at low current, and are reproduced across several garnet thicknesses and interface terminations. The authors attribute the effect to a vertical compensation-temperature gradient that creates Zeeman–exchange frustration, and propose that Joule-heating-induced 2ω temperature modulation periodically drives the interfacial magnetization across the spin-flip instability, causing parametric switching between exchange- and Zeeman-dominated states. Macrospin-chain simulations with Joule heating reproduce the qualitative features, while simulations with spin–orbit torque alone do not produce large higher harmonics.

Significance. If the mechanism claim holds, the paper demonstrates a new regime in nonlinear magnetotransport: a weak thermal perturbation converted into a large harmonic response via frustration-assisted threshold crossing, rather than perturbative magnetization canting. The experimental phenomenology is striking and well characterized: the harmonic signals are confined to the H*–H** window, are reproducible across multiple samples, and are absent in the TbIG reference. The paper also provides a transparent parameter table for the simulations and explicitly separates the contributions of Joule heating and spin–orbit torque. These strengths make the observation itself credible and potentially influential for compensated-ferrimagnet spintronics. The central weakness is that the quantitative basis for the Joule-heating drive is not established, and the simulation is explicitly qualitative, so the mechanism attribution currently rests on plausible but incomplete evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM Sec. II F and SM Sec. III A] The load-bearing claim—that a 2ω temperature modulation drives threshold crossing—is not quantitatively supported. The only thermal calibration is static: SM Sec. II F infers ΔT ≈ 6 K at j0 = 1.81×10^11 A/m² from an AHE sign change, and the simulation (SM Sec. III A) uses the same coefficient dT/dj0² = 3.7×10^−22 K/(A/m²)² for both the static and oscillatory temperature parts. No measurement of the dynamic temperature component at f = 337 Hz is reported. If the thermal time constant of the probed magnetic volume exceeds ~1/(2ω) ≈ 0.24 ms, the oscillatory drive is attenuated and the mechanism cannot operate as described. The observed frequency dependence of H* (SM Sec. II E) is attributed to slow magnetization switching, not thermal response, so it does not resolve this gap.
  2. [SM Sec. III A (Model parameters)] The simulation is explicitly qualitative. The effective exchange energy density is reduced by a factor of six ('substantially better agreement... obtained by reducing the effective exchange constant J by a factor of six'), and even then the simulated H* and H** remain approximately one order of magnitude larger than measured. The manuscript acknowledges this and states only 'qualitative agreement.' Consequently, the simulations do not demonstrate quantitatively that Joule-heating-induced parametric modulation can produce harmonics of the observed amplitude at the experimental fields and currents. The main-text closing statement ('Joule-heating-induced thermal modulation periodically drives...') is stronger than what the simulation and thermal data can support.
  3. [SM Sec. III A (Model)] The core frustration mechanism is inserted into the model by construction. The Zeeman term H_Z,i = sign(M_i)(H_EXTu_Z + ...) flips sign depending on whether each spin is locally above or below its compensation temperature. This sign(M_i) prescription encodes the exact Zeeman–exchange competition that the paper claims to explain, so the simulation is not an independent test of that competition; it demonstrates that a spin chain with this built-in sign structure can produce large odd harmonics. The experimental observation is independent and supports the existence of such a structure, but the simulation's explanatory power regarding the physical origin of the gradient is weaker than presented. The paper should state this circularity explicitly and tone down the claim that the simulation 'reproduces the observed harmonic signals' as evidence for the specific frustration mechanism.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SM Sec. II C] Typo: 'Pt/Al (25 nm)' should read 'Pt/Al:TbIG (25 nm)'.
  2. [SM Sec. II D] The text refers to 'Fig. 3 in the main text' for the phase diagram, but the phase diagram is Fig. 2(c,d) in the main text.
  3. [Main text, Fig. 2(c) caption] The horizontal axis label 'j0–Hz' is confusing; it should be 'j0–μ0Hz' or 'j0–H' to match the field variable.
  4. [Main text, p. 3] The statement that higher harmonics beyond 7ω are observed is not quantified in the main text; adding a brief description or pointing to SM Fig. S3 in the main text would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 2ω Joule-heating drive — the paper's central mechanism — is an input to the simulation, calibrated statically from the same sample, so the 'reproduction' of the odd harmonics is largely a construction; the measured harmonic core and qualitative trends remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [SM Sec. III A ('Numerical implementation'); SM Sec. II F; main text Fig. 4 and closing paragraph]
    "Joule heating is modeled through a coefficient dT/dj0², extracted from the current required to reach Tcm at fixed external temperature. For example, at T = 309.2 K, j0 = 1.81×10^11 A/m² increases the temperature by approximately 6 K, yielding dT/dj0² = 3.7×10^-22 K/(A/m²)^2. ... For AC simulations, a sinusoidal current j0(t) = j0 sin(ωt) is applied, producing an SOT at frequency ω and a temperature oscillation at 2ω."

    The load-bearing premise — that a 2ω temperature swing at 337 Hz is large enough to cross the spin-flip boundary — is never measured. It is generated from a static coefficient fit to the same sample's AHE sign change (SM II F: ΔT ≈ 6 K at j0 = 1.81×10^11 A/m²) and imposed on the simulation as 'a temperature oscillation at 2ω'. The odd harmonics then emerge by construction: with V_H(t) = j0(t)·A·R_A0·m_z,1(t) and m_z switching at 2ω, mixing with the 1ω current produces 3ω/5ω/7ω — the paper states this identity explicitly ('Mixing these modulations with the 1ω component of the injected current then produces the observed odd-harmonic Hall voltages'). Presenting this as the identification of Joule heating as the parametric drive returns the assumption as a conclusion; the quantitative link is

  2. other [SM Sec. III A ('Model')]
    "the factor sign(Mi) changes the sign of the Zeeman term depending on whether the local temperature is above or below the local magnetic compensation temperature of each spin, thereby accounting for the compensation-temperature gradient across the film thickness and reproducing the Zeeman–exchange frustration mechanism discussed in the main text."

    The frustrated two-region physics that the paper says the simulation 'reproduces' is written into the Hamiltonian: sign(M_i) and the ΔT_cm = 33.5 K offset (estimated from the authors' prior work, SM Ref. [1]) create the exchange- vs. Zeeman-dominated states, and Fig. 4(a)'s temperature-dependent spin-flip follows from these inputs. The model therefore re-derives its own construction; the independent anchor is only the observed double switching at 310 K (Fig. 1(c)) plus the EELS gradient. This is a consistency check — weaker than a quantitative confirmation — and contributes to, but is not the main, circular step.

full rationale

Partial circularity, not full: the experimental core is independent and credible — odd harmonics (3ω–7ω) comparable to the first harmonic, confined to the H*–H** window, absent in the Pt/TbIG reference (Fig. 2; Figs. S3/S4), with consistent j0-, T-, and f-trends. Those data are not model-generated. The circularity is in the mechanism identification. The load-bearing premise — a 2ω Joule-heating temperature swing at 337 Hz large enough to repeatedly cross the spin-flip boundary — is never measured. SM II F calibrates only a static ΔT ≈ 6 K at j0 = 1.81×10^11 A/m² from the same sample's AHE sign change; SM III A then imposes that parabolic coefficient on the oscillatory temperature ('a temperature oscillation at 2ω'), so the drive is an input. The simulated odd harmonics (Fig. 4(b)) are the algebraic consequence the paper itself spells out: V_H(t) = j0(t)·A·R_A0·m_z,1(t) with m_z switching at 2ω, mixed with the 1ω current, yields 3ω/5ω/7ω. The claim that Joule-heating-induced thermal modulation periodically drives the interfacial magnetization across the instability therefore returns the assumption as a conclusion, and the quantitative match is admittedly tuned (J reduced by a factor of six; simulated H*, H** still ~10× experiment; 'the agreement remains qualitative'). The authors also note the H*(f) shift 'likely reflects slow dynamics associated with magnetization switching' rather than thermal response, and no δT_2ω measurement at ~674 Hz (thermal time constant vs. 0.24 ms) is reported. Paper-flagged limitations (SM II G: 'a vertical compositional gradient is not the only possible origin'; SM III A: qualitative agreement) keep this below 8. Independent content keeping it above 2: the SOT-only simulation gives negligible harmonics (a discriminating check within the model), and the frustration picture has direct EELS evidence. Self-citations (Ref. [22]; SM Ref. [1]) supply sample provenance and parameters but are not the load-bearing confirmation, so self-citation is not scored separately. Overall: the central mechanism claim rests partly on an input-fitted simulation whose output is by construction, while the observation and qualitative trends remain independent — score 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central explanatory burden is carried by six fitted or assumed parameters (notably the 1/6 exchange reduction and the Joule-heating coefficient extracted from the same AHE data) and by model assumptions that encode the very mechanism under test (sign(M_i) frustration; quasistatic 2ω heating). No genuinely new physical entities such as particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced; the nominal contribution is a mechanism, whose parameters are calibrated on the target system.

free parameters (6)
  • Effective exchange energy density reduction J/J_est = 1/6
    SM Sec. III A: the room-temperature exchange stiffness is scaled down by a factor of six ('phenomenological adjustment') to bring simulated spin-flip fields closer to experiment; without it, H* and H** are about an order of magnitude larger than measured.
  • Joule-heating coefficient dT/dj0² = 3.7×10⁻²² K/(A/m²)²
    SM Secs. II F, III A: calibrated from the current density (1.81×10¹¹ A/m²) at which the AHE sign flips, interpreted as local temperature crossing T_M = 315 K (ΔT ≈ 6 K). It sets both the static temperature rise and the 2ω modulation amplitude used to generate the simulated harmonics.
  • Anomalous Hall-like SMR coefficient R_A0 = -0.48 mΩ
    SM Table I: 'extracted experimentally'; scales the absolute voltage level of the simulated harmonic spectra.
  • Compensation temperatures T_cm and ΔT_cm = 315 K; 33.5 K
    SM Sec. III A: T_cm from the low-current AHE sign change; ΔT_cm from the authors' prior AlOx-power calibration using an assumed linear Al-content mapping. These set where the sign(M_i) flips along the chain.
  • Thermal-field fluctuation amplitude σ_H = 10³ A/m
    SM Table I (labeled 'Assumed'): random transverse fields on each spin representing thermal fluctuations; destabilizes the collinear state in the switching simulations.
  • Gilbert damping parameter α = 0.01
    SM Table I (labeled 'Assumed'): determines the slow dynamics and the imaginary components of the simulated harmonics.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Zeeman field carries sign(M_i), flipping its direction relative to the applied field depending on whether each atomic layer is locally above or below its compensation temperature.
    SM Sec. III A. This construction installs the Zeeman–exchange frustration into the model; the paper's argument that the simulation 'reproduces the observed harmonic signals' therefore tests the consequences of an assumed mechanism rather than deriving it.
  • domain assumption The first-harmonic Hall voltage is an anomalous-Hall-like SMR response probing primarily the interfacial Fe magnetization.
    Main text 'Sample and measurements' and Fig. 3(a); standard SMR model cited from refs [23,24]. All inferences about spin-flip and frustration pass through this mapping.
  • domain assumption The local temperature in the probed magnetic region follows the instantaneous current: T(t) = T_base + (dT/dj0²) j0²(t), including a 2ω oscillation undiminished at f = 337 Hz.
    SM Secs. III A–B: the thermal model sets the 2ω drive that produces the harmonics; no measurement of the oscillatory thermal component exists, so the viability of the mechanism depends on this unverified quasistatic thermal response.
  • domain assumption Mean-field magnetization parametrization M(T) = M_Fe(0)(1−T/T_C)^β (T−T_cm)/(T−T_W), with β = 0.33, T_W = −7 K, T_C = 400 K.
    SM Sec. III A and Table I, imported from prior literature on Tb-based garnets [1,4]; not independently verified for this specific Al gradient.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Giant nonlinear Hall effect in a Pt/ferrimagnetic insulator bilayer under Zeeman-exchange frustration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKQK3FRZ

@misc{pith2026260727848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Giant nonlinear Hall effect in a Pt/ferrimagnetic insulator bilayer under Zeeman-exchange frustration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKQK3FRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27848}
}
read the original abstract

Competing magnetic interactions can create metastable or unstable states and render magnetic systems highly susceptible to external perturbations. Here we show that Zeeman-exchange frustration in an Al-substituted terbium iron garnet with a compositional gradient across its thickness gives rise to a giant nonlinear Hall response in an adjacent Pt layer. Near magnetic compensation, a field-induced spin-flip transition is accompanied by unusually large higher-order odd harmonic voltages, with the third, fifth, and seventh harmonics reaching amplitudes comparable to that of the first harmonic. The field, temperature, and current dependences collectively identify Joule heating as the parametric drive of the harmonic response. Macrospin-chain simulations further show that current-induced thermal modulation periodically switches the interfacial Fe magnetization between exchange- and Zeeman-dominated states and reproduces the observed harmonic signals. These results demonstrate how frustration can convert a weak thermal perturbation into a large nonlinear electrical response, providing a route to nonlinear magnetotransport in compensated ferrimagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Structural characterization of the Al:TbIG/Pt het [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Schematic magnetic configurations of the present [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Numerical simulation of parametric switching. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Zheng, Z

    S. Zheng, Z. Wang, Y. Wang, F. Sun, Q. He, P. Yan, and H. Yuan, Tutorial: nonlinear magnonics, Journal of Applied Physics134(2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    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

  3. [3]

    S. I. Kiselev, J. Sankey, I. Krivorotov, N. Emley, R. Schoelkopf, R. Buhrman, and D. Ralph, Microwave oscillations of a nanomagnet driven by a spin-polarized current, nature425, 380 (2003)

    2003

  4. [4]

    V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, H. Ulrichs, V. Tiberkevich, A. Slavin, D. Baither, G. Schmitz, and S. O. Demokri- tov, Magnetic nano-oscillator driven by pure spin current, Nature materials11, 1028 (2012)

    2012

  5. [5]

    Lerose, J

    A. Lerose, J. Marino, A. Gambassi, and A. Silva, Prether- mal quantum many-body kapitza phases of periodically driven spin systems, Physical Review B100, 104306 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Kulikov, D

    K. Kulikov, D. Anghel, A. Preda, M. Nashaat, M. Sameh, and Y. M. Shukrinov, Kapitza pendulum effects in a josephson junction coupled to a nanomagnet under ex- ternal periodic drive, Physical Review B105, 094421 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Kurebayashi, J

    H. Kurebayashi, J. Barker, T. Yamazaki, V. K. Kush- waha, K. D. Stenning, H. Youel, X. Hou, T. Dion, D. Prestwood, G. E. Bauer,et al., Dynamical stability by spin transfer in nearly isotropic magnets, Nature Ma- terials , 1 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    Garello, I

    K. Garello, I. M. Miron, C. O. Avci, F. Freimuth, Y. Mokrousov, S. Bl¨ ugel, S. Auffret, O. Boulle, G. Gaudin, and P. Gambardella, Symmetry and magni- tude of spin–orbit torques in ferromagnetic heterostruc- tures, Nature nanotechnology8, 587 (2013)

    2013

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    C. O. Avci, K. Garello, A. Ghosh, M. Gabureac, S. F. Alvarado, and P. Gambardella, Unidirectional spin hall magnetoresistance in ferromagnet/normal metal bilayers, Nature Physics11, 570 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    P. He, S. S.-L. Zhang, D. Zhu, Y. Liu, Y. Wang, J. Yu, G. Vignale, and H. Yang, Bilinear magnetoelectric re- sistance as a probe of three-dimensional spin texture in topological surface states, Nature Physics14, 495 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cheng, E

    Y. Cheng, E. Cogulu, R. D. Resnick, J. J. Michel, N. N. Statuto, A. D. Kent, and F. Yang, Third harmonic char- acterization of antiferromagnetic heterostructures, Na- ture communications13, 3659 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    N´ eel, Magnetism and the local molecular field, Nobel Lectures Physics 1963-1970 (1972)

    L. N´ eel, Magnetism and the local molecular field, Nobel Lectures Physics 1963-1970 (1972)

    1963

  5. [13]

    G. F. Dionne, Magnetic oxides, Magnetic Oxides , 1 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Lahoubi, M

    M. Lahoubi, M. Guillot, A. Marchand, F. Tcheou, and E. Roudault, Double umbrella structure in terbium iron garnet, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics20, 1518 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Y. Li, Y. Duan, M. Wang, L. Lang, Y. Zhang, M. Yang, J. Li, W. Fan, K. Shen, Z. Shi,et al., Giant magnon- polaron anomalies in spin seebeck effect in double umbrella-structured tb 3 fe 5 o 12 films, Physical Review Letters132, 056702 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Kirilyuk, A

    A. Kirilyuk, A. V. Kimel, and T. Rasing, Ultrafast opti- cal manipulation of magnetic order, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2731 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    K.-J. Kim, S. K. Kim, Y. Hirata, S.-H. Oh, T. Tono, D.-H. Kim, T. Okuno, W. S. Ham, S. Kim, G. Go, Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Tsukamoto, T. Moriyama, K.-J. Lee, and T. Ono, Fast domain wall motion in the vicinity of the angular momentum compensation temperature of fer- 6 rimagnets, Na...

    2017

  10. [18]

    Caretta, M

    L. Caretta, M. Mann, F. B¨ uttner, K. Ueda, B. Pfau, C. M. G¨ unther, P. Hessing, A. Churikova, C. Klose, M. Schneider, D. Engel, C. Marcus, D. Bono, K. Bagschik, S. Eisebitt, and G. S. D. Beach, Fast current-driven domain walls and small skyrmions in a compensated ferrimagnet...

    2018

  11. [19]

    Liensberger, A

    L. Liensberger, A. Kamra, H. Maier-Flaig, S. Gepr¨ ags, A. Erb, S. T. Goennenwein, R. Gross, W. Belzig, H. Huebl, and M. Weiler, Exchange-enhanced ultrastrong magnon-magnon coupling in a compensated ferrimagnet, Physical review letters123, 117204 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    M. Deb, P. Molho, and B. Barbara, Tunable exchange- bias-like effect in bi-substituted gadolinium iron garnet film, Physical Review Applied15, 054064 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Y. Wang, X. Wang, A. T. Clark, H. Chen, X. M. Cheng, J. W. Freeland, and J. Q. Xiao, Probing exchange bias at the surface of a doped ferrimagnetic insulator, Physical Review Materials5, 074409 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Shiino, M

    T. Shiino, M. Fettizio, S. Estand ´ ıa, and C. O. Avci, Tunable magnetism and intrinsic exchange bias in al- substituted terbium iron garnet, Advanced Materials , e10669 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Nakayama, M

    H. Nakayama, M. Althammer, Y.-T. Chen, K. Uchida, Y. Kajiwara, D. Kikuchi, T. Ohtani, S. Gepr¨ ags, M. Opel, S. Takahashi, R. Gross, G. E. W. Bauer, S. T. B. Goennenwein, and E. Saitoh, Spin hall magnetoresistance induced by a nonequilibrium proximity effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.1...

    2013

  16. [24]

    C. O. Avci, A. Quindeau, C.-F. Pai, M. Mann, L. Caretta, A. S. Tang, M. C. Onbasli, C. A. Ross, and G. S. Beach, Current-induced switching in a magnetic insulator, Nature materials16, 309 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    [22, 27, 29–32]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for experimental conditions, additional exper- imental data, simulation conditions, and supplementary simulation results, which includes Refs. [22, 27, 29–32]

  18. [26]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Vesta 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, Applied Crystallography44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  19. [28]

    Y. Feng, H. Chen, Y. Wu, T. Wu, L. Li, N. Jiang, and Y. Wu, Thermal anisotropy modulation as a ma- jor source of third harmonic magnetoresistance in ni thin films, Phys. Rev. B113, 224413 (2026)

    2026

  20. [29]

    Fedel, M

    S. Fedel, M. Villa, S. Damerio, E. Demiroglu, C. Deger, J. Gazquez, and C. O. Avci, Evidence of long-range dzyaloshinskii–moriya interaction at ferrimagnetic in- sulator/nonmagnetic metal interfaces, Advanced Func- tional Materials , 2418653 (2025)

    2025

  21. [30]

    L¨ ow, S

    U. L¨ ow, S. Zvyagin, M. Ozerov, U. Schaufuss, V. Kataev, B. Wolf, and B. L¨ uthi, Magnetization, magnetic suscep- tibility and ESR in Tb3Ga5O12, The European Physical Journal B86, 1 (2013)

    2013

  22. [31]

    A. P. Malozemoff and J. C. Slonczewski,Magnetic do- main walls in bubble materials: advances in materials and device research, Vol. 1 (Academic press, 2013)

    2013

  23. [32]

    Experiment

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. Ralph, and R. Buhrman, Spin- torque ferromagnetic resonance induced by the spin hall effect, Physical review letters106, 036601 (2011). Supplemental Material: Giant nonlinear Hall effect in a Pt/ferrimagnetic insulator bilayer under Zeeman–exchange frus...

    2011

  24. [33]

    Shiino, M

    T. Shiino, M. Fettizio, S. Estand ´ ıa, and C. O. Avci, Tunable magnetism and intrinsic exchange bias in al-substituted terbium iron garnet, Advanced Materials , e10669 (2025)

    2025

  25. [34]

    Fedel, M

    S. Fedel, M. Villa, S. Damerio, E. Demiroglu, C. Deger, J. Gazquez, and C. O. Avci, Evidence of long-range dzyaloshinskii– moriya interaction at ferrimagnetic insulator/nonmagnetic metal interfaces, Advanced Functional Materials , 2418653 (2025)

    2025

  26. [35]

    Y. Song, K. Lasinger, H. Tang, J. Li, G. S. Beach, and C. A. Ross, Temperature-dependent surface anisotropy in (110) epitaxial rare earth iron garnet films, Small20, 2407381 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    L¨ ow, S

    U. L¨ ow, S. Zvyagin, M. Ozerov, U. Schaufuss, V. Kataev, B. Wolf, and B. L¨ uthi, Magnetization, magnetic susceptibility and ESR in Tb3Ga5O12, The European Physical Journal B86, 1 (2013)

    2013

  28. [37]

    A. P. Malozemoff and J. C. Slonczewski,Magnetic domain walls in bubble materials: advances in materials and device research, Vol. 1 (Academic press, 2013)

    2013

  29. [38]

    L. Liu, T. Moriyama, D. Ralph, and R. Buhrman, Spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance induced by the spin hall effect, Physical review letters106, 036601 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.