Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dynamic control of photon-magnon interactions via secondary magnon excitation

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a planar ring resonator's photon mode can mediate measurable coupling between spatially separated YIG and permalloy thin films, visible as a permalloy–resonator coupling that grows with YIG thickness and as a linear…

desk verdict A simulation study mislabeled as experimental whose central g1(g2) relation is a fit-to-fit correlation, not a validated physical discovery. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02463 v3 pith:3JUQPKQ3 submitted 2025-06-03 quant-ph

Fizaan Khan , Sachin Verma , Biswanath Bhoi , Rajeev Singh This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords photon-magnoncouplingmagnon-magnonindirecthybridquantumdevicesYIGthinfilmpermalloyhexagonalringresonatorinput-outputformalism
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 two magnetic films placed on opposite arms of a planar microwave ring resonator can interact indirectly through the resonator's photon mode, even though the films are thin and separated enough that their direct magnetic (dipolar) coupling should be negligible. The evidence comes from full-wave simulations in which the YIG film thickness is varied from 5 to 100 micrometres while the permalloy film is left untouched: the fitted coupling of the permalloy mode to the resonator rises steadily, and the two fitted couplings (permalloy and YIG) fall on a straight line. The paper builds a three-oscillator input–output model that reproduces the simulated transmission spectra without any direct magnon–magnon coupling term, and reads that as a photon-mediated magnon–magnon interaction. If the claim is right, it matters for hybrid magnonic circuits because it means spatially separated magnetic elements can still talk to each other through a shared photonic bus, a channel that device design must either exploit or suppress.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is a three-oscillator Heisenberg–Langevin model of one photonic resonator mode (r) and two magnon modes (1 permalloy, 2 YIG), coupled only through the resonator. The microstrip field enters through mode decay rates $\beta_j = 2\pi \lambda_j^2$, and the transmission is $S_{21} = B^T M^{-1} B$, where $B$ carries the square-root decay rates and $M = i(\omega I - H_{coupling})$ is built from an effective coupling Hamiltonian with off-diagonal $g_1$ and $g_2$ but no direct 1–2 term. Fitting this model to the simulated avoided-crossing spectra at each applied field yields $g_1$ and $g_2$, and the absence of a direct magnon–magnon term is the assumption under which the linear $g_1(g_2)$ relation is interpreted as photon-mediated interaction.

What would settle it

Repeat the transmission simulation with the hexagonal resonator's photon mode detuned far from both magnon resonances (or with the resonator removed between the two films): if the fitted permalloy coupling still grows with YIG thickness, the effect is not photon-mediated, and the central claim falls.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the resonator photon acts as a quantum bus between two spatially separated magnon modes, producing measurable magnon–magnon coupling with no direct dipolar overlap. In the combined resonator–YIG–permalloy system the fitted couplings are $g_1 = 0.2$ for permalloy and $g_2 = 0.21$ for YIG, compared with $0.11$ and $0.25$ in the isolated two-mode systems, so the permalloy coupling is enhanced while the YIG coupling is slightly reduced. Varying the YIG thickness at fixed permalloy thickness makes the permalloy coupling increase with YIG thickness, and the two fitted couplings obey a linear relation $g_1(g_2)$. The theoretical model, which deliberately contains only resonator–magnon couplings $g_1$ and $g_2$ and no direct magnon–magnon coupling term, reproduces the observed transmission spectra across the thickness series, which the authors take as evidence that the interaction is mediated by the resonator photons.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the fitted coupling constants $g_1$ and $g_2$ are unique and physically meaningful, so the growth of the permalloy coupling with YIG thickness and the linear $g_1(g_2)$ relation are real photon-mediated effects rather than artifacts of fitting a three-oscillator model to the simulated spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two magnonic elements in a planar device can exchange information coherently through a shared resonator mode even when they are physically separated and never overlap.
  • The coupling of one magnetic film to a resonator is not fixed; it changes with the properties of other films sharing the same resonator, as seen in the YIG-thickness dependence of the permalloy coupling.
  • A linear relation between the two couplings $g_1$ and $g_2$ is a quantitative fingerprint of the photon-mediated channel, and can serve as a diagnostic for indirect magnon–magnon coupling.
  • Designers of magnonic integrated circuits cannot assume that spatially separated elements are isolated; photon-mediated crosstalk must be included even when each photon–magnon coupling is below the ultrastrong regime.
  • The planar, millimeter-scale, room-temperature design offers a low-cost route to studying mediated coupling in hybrid quantum devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: fabricating the same two-film hexagonal-ring structure and measuring $S_{21}$ with a vector network analyzer would turn the simulated photon-bus effect into a direct experimental claim.
  • Beyond the paper: varying the ring resonator's resonant frequency and checking whether the slope of the $g_1(g_2)$ line follows the photon mode's coupling would separate photon mediation from residual direct coupling.
  • Beyond the paper: the same three-oscillator model predicts a similar coupling trade-off for any bus-mediated three-mode system, so the linear relation could serve as a general diagnostic for hidden indirect couplings.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports a CST Studio Suite numerical study of a planar hexagonal ring resonator coupled to two spatially separated magnetic films: YIG and permalloy. The authors fit a three-oscillator input-output model to simulated S21 spectra for different YIG thicknesses, extract the resonator-magnon coupling constants g1 (permalloy) and g2 (YIG), and find that both couplings increase with YIG thickness. They plot a linear relationship g1(g2) and interpret it as evidence of photon-mediated magnon-magnon coupling between the two films in the absence of direct dipolar overlap. The paper also presents a derivation of the input-output transmission formula and a set of calculated spectra that reproduce the simulated ones.

Significance. The idea of using a planar resonator as a quantum bus to mediate coupling between distant magnon modes is timely and relevant for on-chip hybrid magnonic circuits. The use of input-output theory to fit transmission spectra is standard, and the appendix derivation is clear. However, the paper's central quantitative result, the linear g1(g2) relation, is extracted from fits rather than derived or independently predicted, and alternative electromagnetic-loading explanations are not excluded. If the claim were secured by an identifiability analysis and control simulations, the work would be a useful contribution; as presented, the evidence does not support the strong conclusion of photon-mediated magnon-magnon coupling.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 4c] The central relation g1(g2) is obtained by fitting the three-oscillator model in Eq. (6) to each simulated spectrum. The model contains many free parameters (the frequencies, dampings, and external couplings of all three oscillators, plus g1 and g2), and the off-diagonal entries mix coherent terms g_j with dissipative terms -i*sqrt(beta_i beta_j). The manuscript does not report a fitting procedure, parameter uncertainties, or a synthetic-data recovery test. Without an identifiability analysis, the fitted g1 and g2 may trade off against the damping and external-coupling parameters, so the linear g1(g2) relation in Figure 4c could be an artifact of the fitting procedure rather than a physical relationship. This is load-bearing because the paper's conclusion is read directly from these fitted values.
  2. [Section 4, Figures 3 and 4] Even if the fits are unique, the observed increase of g1 with YIG thickness does not by itself establish photon-mediated magnon-magnon coupling. Thickening the YIG film changes the dielectric and magnetic loading of the hexagonal resonator, which can modify the microwave field amplitude and profile at the permalloy film and thereby change the single-magnon coupling g1 without any coherent coupling between the two magnon modes. The Hamiltonian (3) treats g1 and g2 as independent constants and contains no mechanism that predicts a linear interdependence, so the relation shown in Figure 4c is an empirical fit result, not a theoretical prediction. The authors should either compute g1 from the simulated RF field at the permalloy film as a function of YIG thickness, or perform a control simulation with the YIG film replaced by a nonmagnetic dielectric of the same permittivity and thickness.
  3. [Section 2, Figure 2c] The claimed magnon-magnon coupling is never observed directly. In Figure 2c, the two magnon modes each cross the resonator at different fields (crossings P1 and P2), so the spectra do not show a simultaneous resonance of both magnon modes, a two-magnon avoided crossing, or a dispersive shift of one magnon mode caused by the other. The conclusion of 'measurable magnon-magnon coupling' therefore rests entirely on an indirect inference from fitted single-magnon couplings. The authors should present a field range or configuration in which both magnon modes are simultaneously near resonance and analyze the resulting mode hybridization, which would provide a direct observable of magnon-magnon coupling.
  4. [Equation (6)] Equation (6) contains an off-diagonal dissipative term -i*sqrt(beta_1 beta_2) coupling modes 1 and 2 through the common traveling-wave bath, in addition to the resonator-mediated coherent couplings g1 and g2. This term already provides an indirect channel between the two magnons, and the paper does not separate coherent from dissipative contributions in the analysis. The linear g1(g2) correlation may partly reflect this dissipative bath coupling rather than the coherent photon bus invoked in the conclusions. The authors should discuss the role of this term and identify an observable that distinguishes coherent from dissipative coupling.
  5. [Sections 2 and 5] The manuscript presents CST Studio Suite simulations (Section 2) but repeatedly refers to the resulting spectra as 'observations' and in Section 5 calls them 'experimental results.' This mislabeling is misleading and should be corrected throughout; if the study is purely numerical, the claims should be framed as computational predictions, and the 'experimental' evidence for photon-mediated coupling should be downgraded accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The first sentence of the abstract has a grammatical error: '...shows clear signatures of magnon-magnon interaction are observed...' should be rephrased for clarity.
  2. [Section 4] The sentence 'Both linear.' is an incomplete fragment; the text would also benefit from reporting the fitted slopes and their uncertainties for the lines in Figure 4.
  3. [Figure 3] The agreement between the top and bottom rows is described as 'closely match' but no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric is provided; report e.g., the normalized root-mean-square deviation or the fit residuals for each spectrum.
  4. [Section 3] The statement 'The parameters g1 and g2 can be obtained by fitting the model to observations at each H' should specify the optimization routine, the cost function, the initial guesses, and any constraints used, and should report the number of data points and the fit quality per spectrum.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's central quantitative claim, the linear g1(g2) relation, is read off fitted coupling constants and then described as 'confirmed' by the model, which makes the headline finding partly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, Figure 4c; Section 5 (Conclusions)]
    "In (c), we plot the linear relationship between the two coupling strengths, g1(g2). ... We can ascribe to the resonator-permalloy coupling a dependence on the resonator-YIG coupling, g1(g2), which we observe in this work to be linear (Figure 4c). ... The model confirms a linear relationship between the coupling strengths of the YIG and permalloy films to the resonator, quantitatively capturing the indirect influence one magnon has on the other."

    The Hamiltonian (Eq. 3) and its matrix form (Eq. 6) treat g1 and g2 as independent free constants, and Section 3 states 'The parameters g1 and g2 can be obtained by fitting the model to observations at each H.' Thus g1 and g2 are both extracted from the same fitted spectra. The 'linear relationship' in Fig. 4c is a correlation of two fitted outputs, not a prediction or constraint of the model. Asserting that 'the model confirms' this relationship is circular: there is no independent dynamical equation linking g1 and g2, and the fit can always reproduce the data it was fitted to. No synthetic-data identifiability test or error bars are given, so the reported relation may be an artifact of fitting trade-offs rather than evidence of photon-mediated magnon-magnon coupling.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Theoretical Formalism) and Section 4 (Discussion), Figure 3]
    "The parameters g1 and g2 can be obtained by fitting the model to observations at each H. ... To validate these observations, we used a theoretical model to compute the transmission spectrum (S21) under identical conditions. The bottom row of Figure 3 presents the calculated spectra, which closely match the corresponding observed results in the top row."

    The 'calculated' spectra are generated by solving Eq. (6) with g1 and g2 fixed by fitting exactly the S21 spectra being compared. Hence the 'closely match' statement is a consistency check on the fit, not an independent validation. Calling the bottom row 'calculated' presents fitted outputs as model predictions, but the model shares the same data through its fitted constants, so agreement is built in rather than confirmed.

full rationale

The model Hamiltonian in Eq. (3)/(6) contains g1 and g2 as independent constants, and the paper explicitly says these parameters are obtained by fitting the model to the observed S21 at each H. Therefore the central quantitative claim, the linear g1(g2) relation shown in Fig. 4c and interpreted as photon-mediated magnon-magnon coupling, is a property of fitted parameters rather than a model prediction. The statement in Section 5 that 'the model confirms a linear relationship' is circular because the model has no equation linking g1 and g2 independently of the fitting procedure. Likewise, the 'calculated spectra' in Figure 3 are not independent predictions: they are produced with parameters fitted to the same spectra, so the agreement is a fit-consistency check. There is genuine independent empirical content in the raw avoided crossings, the Kittel dispersion of both magnon modes, and the thickness-dependent evolution of the spectra, and the input-output derivation in the Appendix is standard. However, the paper's headline finding reduces by construction to the fitted outputs, and no identifiability analysis is provided to show that g1 and g2 are uniquely determined. A moderate circularity score of 6 is therefore appropriate: partial, but not total, circularity.

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

The central claim rests on the standard three-oscillator input-output model plus the simulation-to-physics mapping. The couplings g1 and g2 are fitted to each spectrum; the model does not predict their interdependence. No new physical entity is introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • g1 (permalloy-resonator coupling) = 0.11 (single film), 0.2 (combined system), varies with YIG thickness
    Permalloy-resonator coupling; fit to S21 avoided-crossing spectra (Section 2, Figure 4b red dots).
  • g2 (YIG-resonator coupling) = 0.25 (single film), 0.21 (combined system), varies with YIG thickness
    YIG-resonator coupling; fit to S21 spectra (Section 2, Figure 4b blue crosses).
  • beta_j (stripline coupling rates, j = r,1,2)
    Required for the S21 expression in Eq. (5), but values are not reported in the text.
  • alpha_j (intrinsic damping rates, j = r,1,2)
    Appear in the diagonal of the coupling Hamiltonian (6) and determine linewidths, but values are not reported.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Three-oscillator model with no direct magnon-magnon coupling term
    Eq. (3) sets the only couplings as g1 and g2 to the resonator and excludes direct 1-2 coupling; Section 4 argues this from the planar geometry but provides no direct measurement.
  • standard math Rotating wave approximation
    Invoked in the Appendix before Eq. (7) to simplify the interaction Hamiltonian.
  • standard math Markov approximation for the microstrip reservoir
    Invoked in the Appendix after Eq. (9) to pull lambda_j out of the integral and define beta_j = 2*pi*lambda_j^2.
  • standard math Kittel relation for magnon field dependence
    Used in Section 2 to set the field-dependent magnon resonance frequencies.
  • domain assumption The resonator is a single-mode parallel-LC circuit
    Section 2 states the hexagonal ring 'functions as a parallel-LC circuit exhibiting quasi-static resonance'; higher modes are ignored.
  • domain assumption CST simulation accurately represents the physical hybrid system
    Section 2 relies on CST Studio Suite simulations as the source of 'observed' spectra; no experimental validation is reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic control of photon-magnon interactions via secondary magnon excitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JUQPKQ3

@misc{pith2026250602463,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic control of photon-magnon interactions via secondary magnon excitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JUQPKQ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02463}
}
read the original abstract

Photon-mediated magnon-magnon coupling between spatially separated Yttrium Iron Garnet (YIG) and permalloy (NiFe) thin films on a planar hexagonal ring resonator shows clear signatures of magnon-magnon interaction are observed without direct dipolar interaction between the magnetic films. The coupling strength between the hexagonal ring resonator and the permalloy film increases with the thickness of the YIG film, despite a fixed permalloy film thickness. This suggests the presence of an indirect interaction channel mediated by resonator photons. A theoretical model is presented that accurately reproduces the observed transmission spectra and reveals a nontrivial interdependence between the individual coupling strengths of YIG and permalloy to the resonator. These results highlight the importance of indirect interactions and potential crosstalk pathways in designing hybrid magnonic systems and scalable quantum architectures, while demonstrating the feasibility of cost-effective, planar configurations for experimental implementation. These insights are valuable for advancing low-loss, coherent information transfer in hybrid quantum devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02463 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The setup includes the two magnonic films placed on a pair of opposing sides of a copper hexagon (the pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A comparison of the magnonic coupling strengths of the (a) permalloy, (b) YIG, and (c) both to the resonator in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The normal anticrossing behaviour is due to real coupling constants in the Hamiltonian [33, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Observed (top row) and calculated (bottom row) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The blue crosses in (a) and (b) represent the coupling strengths of the YIG film to the resonator. The coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Coupling phase interference effects in a multimode cavity magnonics system

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coupling phases—not just strengths—determine which cavity modes couple to magnons and can produce nonreciprocal transmission at antiresonances in a multimode cavity magnonics system.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    Indirect coupling be- tween two cavity modes via ferromagnetic resonance.Applied Physics Letters, 109(15):152405, 10

    Paul Hyde, Lihui Bai, Michael Harder, Christophe Match, and Can-Ming Hu. Indirect coupling be- tween two cavity modes via ferromagnetic resonance.Applied Physics Letters, 109(15):152405, 10

    work page

  2. [20]

    Grigoryan and Ke Xia

    Vahram L. Grigoryan and Ke Xia. Cavity-mediated dissipative spin-spin coupling.Phys. Rev. B, 100:014415, Jul 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.100.014415. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.100.014415

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.100.014415 2019

  3. [35]

    J. W. Rao, Y. P. Wang, Y. Yang, T. Yu, Y. S. Gui, X. L. Fan, D. S. Xue, and C.-M. Hu. Interac- tions between a magnon mode and a cavity photon mode mediated by traveling photons.Phys. Rev. B, 101:064404, Feb 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.064404. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.101.064404

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.101.064404 2020

  4. [1]

    Controlling magnon- photon coupling in a planar geometry.Journal of Physics: Materials, 7(2):025005, February 2024

    Dinesh Wagle, Anish Rai, Mojtaba T Kaffash, and M Benjamin Jungfleisch. Controlling magnon- photon coupling in a planar geometry.Journal of Physics: Materials, 7(2):025005, February 2024. ISSN 2515-7639. doi: 10.1088/2515-7639/ad2984. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2515-7639/ ad2984

    work page doi:10.1088/2515-7639/ad2984 2024

  5. [2]

    Non- reciprocal amplification in a cavity magnonics system.Phys

    Chengsong Zhao, Rui Peng, Zhen Yang, Shilei Chao, Chong Li, Zhihai Wang, and Ling Zhou. Non- reciprocal amplification in a cavity magnonics system.Phys. Rev. A, 105:023709, Feb 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.105.023709. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.105.023709

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.105.023709 2022

  6. [3]

    Na Zhu, Xu Han, Chang-Ling Zou, Mingrui Xu, and Hong X. Tang. Magnon-photon strong cou- pling for tunable microwave circulators.Phys. Rev. A, 101:043842, Apr 2020. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevA.101.043842. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.043842

    doi:10.1103/physreva.101.043842 2020

  7. [4]

    Chi Zhang, Chenglong Jia, Yongzhang Shi, Changjun Jiang, Desheng Xue, C. K. Ong, and Guozhi Chai. Nonreciprocal multimode and indirect couplings in cavity magnonics.Phys. Rev. B, 103: 184427, May 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.103.184427. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.103.184427. 8

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.103.184427 2021

  8. [5]

    Nonreciprocal entanglement in cavity magnome- chanics exploiting chiral cavity-magnon coupling.Fundamental Research, 2025

    Zhiyuan Fan, Xuan Zuo, Haotian Li, and Jie Li. Nonreciprocal entanglement in cavity magnome- chanics exploiting chiral cavity-magnon coupling.Fundamental Research, 2025. ISSN 2667-3258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fmre.2025.02.012. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S2667325825000950

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2025.02.012 2025

Show all 41 references
  1. [6]

    Comstock, Yuzan Xiong, Md Azimul Haque, Elham Easy, Jiangchao Qian, Tomas Polakovic, John E

    Yi Li, Timothy Draher, Andrew H. Comstock, Yuzan Xiong, Md Azimul Haque, Elham Easy, Jiangchao Qian, Tomas Polakovic, John E. Pearson, Ralu Divan, Jian-Min Zuo, Xian Zhang, Ul- rich Welp, Wai-Kwong Kwok, Axel Hoffmann, Joseph M. Luther, Matthew C. Beard, Dali Sun, Wei Zhang, a...

    2023

  2. [7]

    Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling achieved by magnetic films in contact with superconducting resonators.Phys

    Alberto Ghirri, Claudio Bonizzoni, Maksut Maksutoglu, Alberto Mercurio, Omar Di Stefano, Sal- vatore Savasta, and Marco Affronte. Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling achieved by magnetic films in contact with superconducting resonators.Phys. Rev. Appl., 20:024039, Aug 2023. doi...

    2023 doi

  3. [8]

    Magnetic-field con- trolled on-off switchable non-reciprocal negative refractive index in non-hermitian photon-magnon hybrid systems

    Junyoung Kim, Bosung Kim, Bojong Kim, Haechan Jeon, and Sang-Koog Kim. Magnetic-field con- trolled on-off switchable non-reciprocal negative refractive index in non-hermitian photon-magnon hybrid systems. Nature Communications, 15(1):9014, Oct 2024. ISSN 2041-1723. doi: 10.103...

    2024 doi

  4. [9]

    Charlie W. F. Freeman, Harry Youel, Adam K. Budniak, Zekun Xue, Henry De Libero, Thomas Thomson, Michel Bosman, Goki Eda, Hidekazu Kurebayashi, and Murat Cubukcu. Tunable ul- trastrong magnon–magnon coupling approaching the deep-strong regime in a van der waals anti- ferromagn...

    2025 doi

  5. [10]

    Cosset-Chéneau, S

    M. Cosset-Chéneau, S. H. Tirion, X.-Y. Wei, J. Ben Youssef, and B. J. van Wees. Nonreciprocal transport of thermally generated magnons.Phys. Rev. B, 110:214418, Dec 2024. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevB.110.214418. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.214418

    2024 doi

  6. [11]

    Nonreciprocal magnon-photon-phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics

    Subhadeep Chakraborty and Camelia Das. Nonreciprocal magnon-photon-phonon entanglement in cavity magnomechanics. Phys. Rev. A, 108:063704, Dec 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.063704. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.063704

    2023 doi

  7. [12]

    Roson Nongthombam, Pooja Kumari Gupta, and Amarendra K. Sarma. Quantum transduction of a superconducting qubit in an electro-optomechanical and an electro-optomagnonical system.Phys. Rev. A, 108:043501, Oct 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.108.043501. URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/1...

    2023 doi

  8. [13]

    Hou and Luqiao Liu

    Justin T. Hou and Luqiao Liu. Strong coupling between microwave photons and nanomagnet magnons. Phys. Rev. Lett., 123:107702, Sep 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.107702. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.107702

    2019 doi

  9. [14]

    Strong coupling between magnons and microwave photons in on-chip ferromagnet-superconductor thin-film devices.Phys

    Yi Li, Tomas Polakovic, Yong-Lei Wang, Jing Xu, Sergi Lendinez, Zhizhi Zhang, Junjia Ding, Trupti Khaire, Hilal Saglam, Ralu Divan, John Pearson, Wai-Kwong Kwok, Zhili Xiao, Valen- tine Novosad, Axel Hoffmann, and Wei Zhang. Strong coupling between magnons and microwave photon...

    2019 doi

  10. [15]

    Cormode, Tharnier O

    Qin Xu, Hil Fung Harry Cheung, Donley S. Cormode, Tharnier O. Puel, Srishti Pal, Huma Yusuf, Michael Chilcote, Michael E. Flatté, Ezekiel Johnston-Halperin, and Gregory D. Fuchs. Strong 9 photon-magnon coupling using a lithographically defined organic ferrimagnet.Advanced Scie...

    2024 doi

  11. [16]

    Anomalous co- herent and dissipative coupling in dual photon-magnon hybrid resonators.Scientific Reports, 14(1): 13581, Jun 2024

    Haechan Jeon, Bojong Kim, Junyoung Kim, Biswanath Bhoi, and Sang-Koog Kim. Anomalous co- herent and dissipative coupling in dual photon-magnon hybrid resonators.Scientific Reports, 14(1): 13581, Jun 2024. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-64315-x. URL https://doi.org/10....

    2024 doi

  12. [17]

    Robust magnon- photon coupling in a planar-geometry hybrid of inverted split-ring resonator and yig film.Scientific Reports, 7(1):11930, Sep 2017

    Biswanath Bhoi, Bosung Kim, Junhoe Kim, Young-Jun Cho, and Sang-Koog Kim. Robust magnon- photon coupling in a planar-geometry hybrid of inverted split-ring resonator and yig film.Scientific Reports, 7(1):11930, Sep 2017. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-12215-8. URL htt...

    2017 doi

  13. [18]

    de las Casas, Xiaoying Liu, Hope L

    Paolo Andrich, Charles F. de las Casas, Xiaoying Liu, Hope L. Bretscher, Jonson R. Berman, F. Joseph Heremans, Paul F. Nealey, and David D. Awschalom. Long-range spin wave mediated control of defect qubits in nanodiamonds.npj Quantum Information, 3(1), July 2017. ISSN 2056-

    2017

  14. [21]

    R. G. E. Morris, A. F. van Loo, S. Kosen, and A. D. Karenowska. Strong coupling of magnons in a yig sphere to photons in a planar superconducting resonator in the quantum limit.Scien- tific Reports, 7(1):11511, Sep 2017. ISSN 2045-2322. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-11835-4. URL htt...

    2017 doi

  15. [22]

    Xufeng Zhang, Chang-Ling Zou, Liang Jiang, and Hong X. Tang. Cavity magnomechanics.Science Advances, 2(3):e1501286, 2016. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1501286. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/ abs/10.1126/sciadv.1501286

    2016 doi

  16. [23]

    Bourhill, N

    J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, D. L. Creedon, and M. E. Tobar. Ultrahigh cooperativity interactions between magnons and resonant photons in a yig sphere.Phys. Rev. B, 93:144420, Apr

  17. [24]

    Entangled atomic ensemble and an yttrium-iron- garnet sphere in coupled microwave cavities.Physical Review A, 109(4), April 2024

    Dilawaiz, Shahid Qamar, and Muhammad Irfan. Entangled atomic ensemble and an yttrium-iron- garnet sphere in coupled microwave cavities.Physical Review A, 109(4), April 2024. ISSN 2469-

    2024

  18. [25]

    Hybrid magnonics for short-wavelength spin waves facilitated by a magnetic heterostructure.Phys

    Jerad Inman, Yuzan Xiong, Rao Bidthanapally, Steven Louis, Vasyl Tyberkevych, Hongwei Qu, Joseph Sklenar, Valentine Novosad, Yi Li, Xufeng Zhang, and Wei Zhang. Hybrid magnonics for short-wavelength spin waves facilitated by a magnetic heterostructure.Phys. Rev. Appl., 17:0440...

    2022 doi

  19. [26]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.144420. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 93.144420

    doi

  20. [27]

    Probing magnon–magnon coupling in exchange coupled Y3Fe5O12/Permalloy bilayers with magneto-optical effects

    Yuzan Xiong, Yi Li, Mouhamad Hammami, Rao Bidthanapally, Joseph Sklenar, Xufeng Zhang, Hongwei Qu, Gopalan Srinivasan, John Pearson, Axel Hoffmann, Valentine Novosad, and Wei Zhang. Probing magnon–magnon coupling in exchange coupled Y3Fe5O12/Permalloy bilayers with magneto-opt...

    2020 doi

  21. [28]

    Walls and Gerard J

    D.F. Walls and Gerard J. Milburn.Quantum Optics. Springer Science & Business Media, 12 2007

    2007

  22. [29]

    Unveiling photon- photon coupling induced transparency and absorption.Journal of Physics D Applied Physics, 57 (46):465305, 8 2024

    Kuldeep Kumar Shrivastava, Ansuman Sahu, Biswanath Bhoi, and Rajeev Singh. Unveiling photon- photon coupling induced transparency and absorption.Journal of Physics D Applied Physics, 57 (46):465305, 8 2024. doi: 10.1088/1361-6463/ad6613. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/ ad6613

    2024 doi

  23. [30]

    van Wees

    Obed Alves Santos and Bart J. van Wees. Magnon confinement in an all-on-chip yig cavity res- onator using hybrid yig/py magnon barriers.Nano Letters, 23(20):9303–9309, 2023. doi: 10.1021/ acs.nanolett.3c02388. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c02388. PMID: 37819876. 10

    2023 doi

  24. [31]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff. Relation between the anderson and kondo hamiltonians.Phys. Rev., 149:491–492, Sep 1966. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.149.491. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRev.149.491

    1966 doi

  25. [32]

    On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance absorption.Phys

    Charles Kittel. On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance absorption.Phys. Rev., 73:155–161, Jan

  26. [33]

    N. R. Bernier, L. D. Tóth, A. K. Feofanov, and T. J. Kippenberg. Level attraction in a microwave optomechanical circuit. Phys. Rev. A, 98:023841, Aug 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023841. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023841

    2018 doi

  27. [34]

    Dynamical spin-spin coupling of quantum dots.Europhysics Letters, 104(1):17008, oct 2013

    Vahram Grigoryan and Jiang Xiao. Dynamical spin-spin coupling of quantum dots.Europhysics Letters, 104(1):17008, oct 2013. doi: 10.1209/0295-5075/104/17008. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10. 1209/0295-5075/104/17008

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Emer- gence of coupling induced transparency by tuning purely dissipative couplings, 2024

    Kuldeep Kumar Shrivastava, Moulik Deviprasad Ketkar, Biswanath Bhoi, and Rajeev Singh. Emer- gence of coupling induced transparency by tuning purely dissipative couplings, 2024. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.12577. 11

    2024 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Metelmann and A

    A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk. Quantum-limited amplification via reservoir engineering.Phys. Rev. Lett., 112:133904, Apr 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.133904. URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.133904

    2014 doi

  30. [1948]

    URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.73.155

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.73.155. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.73.155

    doi

  31. [2016]

    doi: 10.1063/1.4964602

    ISSN 0003-6951. doi: 10.1063/1.4964602. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4964602

    doi

  32. [6387]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0029-z

    doi: 10.1038/s41534-017-0029-z. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0029-z

    doi

  33. [9934]

    URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109

    doi: 10.1103/physreva.109.043708. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109. 043708

    doi

Pith tools

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