Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 28 references

High-fidelity magnonic gates for surface spin waves

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a static electric field can selectively switch surface spin-wave propagation in one of two dipolarly coupled YIG waveguides, enabling a reconfigurable magnonic gate.

desk verdict A simulation-based proposal for E-field-controlled magnonic gates in coupled YIG waveguides that is genuinely new in its device concept, but the quantitative case rests on a single magneto-electric coupling value and 'high fidelity' is never actually quantified. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00162 v1 pith:DKEBGCSL submitted 2019-08-31 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Xi-guang Wang , L. Chotorlishvili , Guang-hua Guo , J. Berakdar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords magnonicsmagnetostaticsurfacewavesspin-wavedirectionalcouplermagneto-electriccouplingDzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteractionyttriumirongarnetspin-orbittorquemicromagneticsimulation
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 proposes that a static electric field can serve as the control knob of a magnonic gate built from two dipolarly coupled thin-film waveguides carrying magnetostatic surface spin waves. The load-bearing effect is the magneto-electric coupling in yttrium iron garnet: a spin-driven electric polarization that mimics a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, so an external field shifts the spin-wave dispersion in a chosen layer. Because the two waveguides are coupled, shifting one layer's band gap changes the coupling length and can permit or block spin-wave propagation in that layer at a fixed operating frequency. The authors support the proposal with micromagnetic simulations and an analytical model, and show how spin-orbit torque can set the magnetization configurations needed for reconfigurable operation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magneto-electric polarization $P = c_E[(\mathbf{m}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{m} - \mathbf{m}(\nabla\cdot\mathbf{m})]$ added to the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation; it functions as an effective dynamic Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya term that couples an external electric field to the spin-wave dispersion. Its key effect is to add a linear-in-$k_x$ frequency shift $\omega_E = 2(\mathbf{m}_0\cdot\mathbf{e}_y)\gamma c_E E_z k_x/(\mu_0 M_s)$, which produces the nonreciprocal asymmetry $\Delta\omega = 4\gamma c_E E_z k_x/(\mu_0 M_s)$ between counter-propagating waves. In the two-layer model the same term enters the coupled dispersion relations, so it controls both the band-gap position and the acoustic-optical splitting that determines the coupling length.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetostatic surface-wave dispersion of an 80-nm YIG film under out-of-plane electric fields of $+3.4$ and $-3.4\,\mathrm{MV/cm}$: the central claim predicts that the frequency difference between counter-propagating modes reverses sign and scales linearly with $E_z$. A null or much smaller shift would falsify the gate mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the chiral dispersion of magnetostatic surface waves in a YIG thin film is sensitive to a static electric field through the magneto-electric polarization $P = c_E[(\mathbf{m}\cdot\nabla)\mathbf{m} - \mathbf{m}(\nabla\cdot\mathbf{m})]$, which acts as a dynamical Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya term. In a single film an out-of-plane field $E_z$ shifts the dispersion asymmetrically in $k_x$; in two dipolarly coupled films, applying the field to only one film shifts that film's band gap while leaving the other intact, so at a fixed frequency spin waves propagate in the selected waveguide and are forbidden in the other. The same shift tunes the coupling length $L = \pi/\Delta k_x$ between acoustic and optical modes, turning an antiparallel pair of films from a decoupled state ($L \approx \infty$) into a coupled state with $L \approx 100\,\mathrm{nm}$. Combining this with spin-orbit-torque switching of the magnetization between parallel and antiparallel configurations yields a reconfigurable nanoscale spin-wave directional coupler with four output ports.

Load-bearing premise

The design depends on yttrium iron garnet responding to a static electric field through the assumed magneto-electric coefficient $c_E = 0.9\,\mathrm{pC/m}$ with fields up to $3.4\,\mathrm{MV/cm}$; if the real coupling is weaker, or the film breaks down before those fields, the band-gap shift and the resulting gate action will not occur at the proposed frequencies.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a fixed operating frequency, applying the electric field to only one of two coupled YIG films shifts that film's dispersion so that surface spin waves propagate in it while being blocked in the other, giving an electrically switchable channel.
  • The coupling length between the two waveguides is frequency- and magnetization-dependent; in antiparallel films it becomes strongly direction-dependent, so energy transfer from one guide to the other can be switched on or off by reversing one magnetization.
  • Spin waves whose frequency lies in the backscattering-immune band gap pass surface defects with transmission near 1, and the electric field moves that protected frequency window, preserving high-fidelity transport.
  • Combining electric-field control with spin-orbit-torque switching of the magnetization between parallel, antiparallel, and domain-wall states yields a four-port directional coupler whose output distribution is reconfigurable.
  • Because the electric-field shift scales linearly with $E_z$, reversing the field direction reverses the asymmetry, providing a second control knob beyond simply turning the field on and off.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension is to substitute a garnet or multiferroic heterostructure with a larger magneto-electric coefficient; the same mechanism would then operate at much lower voltages than the assumed 3.4 MV/cm.
  • The same electric-field-induced dynamic DMI should also shift the dispersion of other chiral magnonic modes, such as edge modes in magnonic crystals, suggesting the gate concept may transfer beyond surface waves.
  • The authors' mapping of narrow coupled waveguides to a PT-symmetric photonic system hints that adding gain or loss engineering could extend the directional coupler into non-Hermitian switching regimes, though this is not explored in the paper.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies magnetostatic surface spin waves (MSSWs) in two dipolarly coupled YIG waveguides, with a magneto-electric coupling term added to the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation. It reports that an external electric field shifts the spin-wave dispersion in a direction-dependent way, that antiparallel magnetizations make the coupled-waveguide dispersion nonreciprocal, and that these effects can be used to switch propagation in selected waveguides and to build a reconfigurable directional coupler. The authors support these claims with micromagnetic simulations of single and coupled films, an analytic dispersion model, transport simulations through defects, and spin-Hall-torque switching simulations for realizing the required magnetic configurations.

Significance. If the magneto-electric coupling magnitude and the assumed electric-field strengths are correct, the proposed mechanism would provide a new electrical control knob for magnonic waveguides and could be a useful step toward electrically reconfigurable magnonic logic. The paper contains genuine technical work: micromagnetic simulations are used throughout, the analytic model reproduces the numerics well for the parallel-film case and for the single film, the backscattering-immune regime is quantified through a transmission coefficient, and the proposed magnetization switching by spin-orbit torque is simulated explicitly. However, the central device claim depends on a material parameter and field strength that are taken from a single experimental estimate without independent validation, and the antiparallel analytic dispersion is obtained by fitting a direction-dependent localization thickness, which weakens the explanatory power of that part of the model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (8) and Fig. 7(c)] The claimed agreement between the analytic model and numerics for antiparallel films is partly circular: the text states that for antiparallel magnetization 'the localization thickness hs is smaller when the MSSW propagates in the +x direction' and that 'using different hs for different propagation directions, we obtain distinct MSSW dispersions.' Because hs is chosen to reproduce the numerical dispersion, Fig. 7(c) is a fit rather than an independent prediction. The authors should either derive hs from the mode profiles (for example from the computed spatial amplitude decays in Figs. 4 and 5) or present the antiparallel comparison as a fit with the fitted hs values explicitly reported, and then validate the model on a separate observable such as the frequency dependence of the coupling length L.
  2. [Section I and Eq. (6)] The gate mechanism scales linearly with the product c_E E_z: for example Eq. (6) gives a counter-propagating frequency difference Δω = 4γ c_E E_z k_x/(μ0 M_s), and all dispersion shifts and switching demonstrations in Figs. 1, 12, 16, and 21 inherit this dependence. The values c_E = 0.9 pC/m and E_z = 3.4 MV/cm are taken from Refs. [12] and [19] without a quantitative justification that the linear magneto-electric model remains valid at such fields in YIG or that such fields can be applied across an 80 nm film without dielectric breakdown. The authors should provide the derivation or measurement basis for c_E, discuss the linear-response range, and estimate the breakdown margin; otherwise the reported bandwidth for switching may be an order of magnitude too optimistic.
  3. [Abstract and Section VI, Figs. 16-23] The central claim of a 'high fidelity surface wave magnonic gate' and of permitting or banning propagation in a selected waveguide is not quantified. The output profiles in Figs. 16-23 show continuous amplitude oscillations and gradual changes with frequency and field, but no fidelity metric, no bit-error rate, no contrast ratio, and no on/off threshold are defined. A demonstration of selective propagation requires a quantitative criterion, for example a ratio of output amplitudes between the active and inactive ports or an extinction ratio as a function of frequency and electric field, evaluated at the proposed operating points.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption reads 'the electric field is zero Ez = 3.4 MV/cm,' which is contradictory; it should read 'the applied electric field is Ez = 3.4 MV/cm.'
  2. [Section III, Eq. (5)] The ansatz m(z) ∼ cos(k_z z) with k_z = 0 for the fundamental mode is introduced without justification; the authors should state why the fundamental surface mode is approximated by a uniform profile and how the localization thickness hs relates to the numerically observed decay length.
  3. [Section VI, last paragraph] The proposed scheme for short-wavelength excitation uses a metallic cap to shield part of the film, which creates a nonuniform electric field; the micromagnetic simulations, however, appear to use a uniform applied field, so the effect of the field discontinuity and the metallic boundary on the device should be discussed or modeled.
  4. [Section VI] The phrase 'non-hermetian optics' contains a typo and should read 'non-Hermitian optics.'
  5. [Section III, Eqs. (6)-(8)] The notation Ω_{xx}, Ω_{zz}, F_{xx}, F_{zz} is used without a compact definition; a short summary of which components enter the tensor F̂(d_pq) would help the reader verify the secular equations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

One fitted input in the analytical antiparallel dispersion; the numerical E-field gate remains an independent simulation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (Analytical Model), paragraph after Eq. (8), discussion of Fig. 7(c)]
    "In the case of the films with antiparallel ground state magnetization (see Fig. 5), the thickness of the localized MSSW depends on the propagation direction, and the localization thickness hs is smaller when the MSSW propagates in the +x direction. Thus, using different hs for different propagation directions, we obtain distinct MSSW dispersions, as shown in Fig. 7(c)."

    The analytic model's asymmetric dispersion for the antiparallel case is not derived from the LLG and dipolar equations; the direction-dependent localization thickness hs is chosen after inspecting the simulated spatial profiles in Fig. 5. Inserting a different hs for +x and -x puts the nonreciprocity into the model by hand, so the resulting Fig. 7(c) 'agreement' with the micromagnetic calculation is a calibration rather than an independent prediction. The numerical gate simulations are separate and are not invalidated by this issue; the circularity is confined to the analytic-model explanation of the antiparallel dispersion.

full rationale

The paper's central gate effect is obtained from micromagnetic simulations of the LLG equation supplemented by the magnetoelectric term Eelec = -E·P, with P = cE[(m·∇)m - m(∇·m)]. The parameter cE = 0.9 pC/m is taken from prior work, including external Ref. 12, and is not fitted to the results being predicted; this is a legitimate model input. The numerical results, such as the dispersion shifts in Fig. 1 and the selective propagation in Figs. 16, 22, and 23, are self-contained simulations of that assumed model. The one identifiable circular element is in the analytic model for antiparallel films, where the direction-dependent localization thickness hs is chosen after seeing the simulated profiles, so the analytic 'distinct MSSW dispersions' inherit rather than independently explain the numerics. This does not reduce the central device claim, because the gate action is demonstrated directly by simulation. The large magnitude of E and the reliance on cE are external-parameter risks rather than circularity, and the self-citations (Refs. 19-20) are not load-bearing on their own because external evidence is also cited. Overall, the paper has one fitted auxiliary analytical step, but the main numerical prediction remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central device claim rests on the magneto-electric coupling input from prior experiments, on the LLG model, and on the standard dipolar formalism. The only parameter adjusted inside this paper is the localization thickness hs in the analytical model.

free parameters (1)
  • hs (localization thickness) = not stated; direction-dependent in antiparallel case
    In Section III, the analytical model uses a different localization thickness for waves propagating in +x versus -x in antiparallel coupled films to reproduce the numerically obtained dispersions (Fig. 7c). This is a fitted parameter, not a prediction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption LLG equation with magneto-electric coupling term (Eq. 1)
    The equation of motion is assumed to describe YIG magnetization dynamics; it is taken from Refs. 19 and 20.
  • domain assumption Ferroelectric polarization P = c_E[(m·∇)m - m(∇·m)] in YIG
    The form of the spin-driven polarization is adopted from prior work (Refs. 12, 13); no independent derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Magneto-electric constant c_E = 0.9 pC/m and field amplitude up to 3.4 MV/cm
    These values are based on earlier experiments (Ref. 12) and are critical for the predicted dispersion shift.
  • standard math Thin-film magnetostatic Green's function formalism (Eq. 5) with shape amplitude D_p(k_z)
    The dipole-dipole coupling tensor follows standard magnetostatic theory (Refs. 23, 24).
  • ad hoc to paper The ansatz m(z) ~ cos(kz z) with kz = 0 for the fundamental mode
    The analytical model assumes a particular transverse profile for surface waves; in the antiparallel case the profile (via hs) is adjusted to match simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-fidelity magnonic gates for surface spin waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DKEBGCSL

@misc{pith2026190900162,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-fidelity magnonic gates for surface spin waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DKEBGCSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00162}
}
read the original abstract

We study the propagation of surface spin waves in two wave guides coupled through the dipole-dipole interaction. Essential for the observations made here is the magneto-electric coupling between the spin waves and the effective ferroelectric polarization. This allows an external electric field to act on spin waves and to modify the band gaps of magnonic excitations in individual layers. By an on/off switching of the electric field and/or varying its strength or direction with respect to the equilibrium magnetization, it is possible to permit or ban the propagation of the spin waves in selected waveguide. We propose experimentally feasible nanoscale device operating as a high fidelity surface wave magnonic gate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00162 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The spin-wave dispersion relation simulated for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Spatial profiles of MSSWs amplitudes propagating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Spatial profiles of MSSWs amplitudes propagating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (16 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spatial profiles of MSSWs amplitudes propagating in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematics of the dipolar coupled SW waveguide. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The spin-wave dispersion relation, analytical result: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_7.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The positive electric field Ez shifts the dispersion relation towards the lower left side, while the negative Ez shifts it towards the lower right side. The dispersion relation of MSSW, (see Fig.1) calcu￾lated for the single film has a minimum in the point kx = 0. Prof…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Analytically obtained spin-wave dispersion relations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Pictorial representation of MSSW waveguide with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_9.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Spatial distributions of the normalized amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. At 4.5 GHz, spatial profiles of amplitudes of prop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_15.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. The coupling length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_14.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Spatial profiles of amplitudes of propagating SWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_17.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Spatial profiles of amplitudes of propagating SWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Spatial profiles of amplitudes of propagating SWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_20.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Spatial profiles of amplitudes of propagating SWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24. Spatial profiles of amplitudes of propagating SWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25. Spatial profiles of amplitudes of propagating SWs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Generation of the anti-parallel ground state. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_26.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Liu, M. E. Flatte, and H. X. Tang, Electric-Field Coupling to Spin Waves in a Centrosymmetric Ferrite, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 037202 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [19]

    X.-g. Wang, L. Chotorlishvili, G.-h. Guo, C. L. Jia, and J. Berakdar, Thermally assisted skyrmion drag in a nonuniform electric field, Phys. Rev. B 99, 064426 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [1]

    Shindou, R

    R. Shindou, R. Matsumoto, S. Murakami, and J. I. Ohe, Topological chiral magnonic edge mode in a magnonic crystal, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174427 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [2]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Ren, J. S. Wang, and B. Li, Topological magnon insulator in insulating ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B 87, 144101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [3]

    X. S. Wang, H. W. Zhang, and X. R. Wang, Topological Magnonics: A Paradigm for Spin-Wave Manipulation and Device Design, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 024029 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [4]

    Chisnell, J

    R. Chisnell, J. S. Helton, D. E. Freedman, D. K. Singh, R. I. Bewley, D. G. Nocera, and Y. S. Lee, Topological Magnon Bands in a Kagome Lattice Ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 147201 (2015)

    2015

  7. [5]

    Shindou, J

    R. Shindou, J. I. Ohe, R. Matsumoto, S. Murakami, and E. Saitoh, Chiral spin-wave edge modes in dipolar magnetic thin films, Phys. Rev. B 87, 174402 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [6]

    Iacocca and O

    E. Iacocca and O. Heinonen, Topologically Nontrivial Magnon Bands in Artificial Square Spin Ices with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Interaction, Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 034015 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 28 references
  1. [7]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon spintronics, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

    2015

  2. [8]

    Alexander, B

    K. Alexander, B. Mingqiang, and L. W. Kang, Magnonic logic circuits, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43, 264005 (2010)

    2010

  3. [9]

    Urazhdin, V

    S. Urazhdin, V. E. Demidov, H. Ulrichs, T. Kendziorczyk, T. Kuhn, J. Leuthold, G. Wilde, and S. O. Demokritov, Nanomagnonic devices based on the spin-transfer torque, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 509 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    Q. Wang, P. Pirro, R. Verba, A. Slavin, B. Hillebrands, and A. V. Chumak, Reconfigurable nanoscale spin-wave directional coupler, Sci. Adv. 4, e1701517 (2018)

    2018

  5. [11]

    A. V. Sadovnikov, C. S. Davies, S. V. Grishin, V. V. Kruglyak, D. V. Romanenko, Y. P. Sharaevskii, and S. A. Nikitov, Magnonic beam splitter: The building block of parallel magnonic circuitry, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 192406 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Liu and G

    T. Liu and G. Vignale, Electric Control of Spin Currents and Spin-Wave Logic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 247203 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    A. A. Serga, A. V. Chumak, and B. Hillebrands, YIG magnonics, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 43, 264002 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Mohseni, R

    M. Mohseni, R. Verba, T. Bracher, Q. Wang, D. A. Bozhko, B. Hillebrands, and P. Pirro, Backscattering-Immune Chiral Spin-Wave Modes for Protected Magnon Transport at the Nano-Scale, arXiv:1806.01554

    arXiv

  9. [16]

    T. An, V. I. Vasyuchka, K. Uchida, A. V. Chumak, K. Yamaguchi, K. Harii, J. Ohe, M. B. Jungfleisch, Y. Kajiwara, H. Adachi, B. Hillebrands, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Unidirectional spin-wave heat conveyer, Nat. Mater. 12, 549 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    Lisenkov, V

    I. Lisenkov, V. Tyberkevych, A. Slavin, P. Bondarenko, B. A. Ivanov, E. Bankowski, T. Meitzler, and S. Nikitov, Spin-wave edge modes in finite arrays of dipolarly coupled magnetic nanopillars, Phys. Rev. B 90, 104417 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    Kostylev, Non-reciprocity of dipole-exchange spin waves in thin ferromagnetic films, J

    M. Kostylev, Non-reciprocity of dipole-exchange spin waves in thin ferromagnetic films, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 053907 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    X.-g. Wang, L. Chotorlishvili, G.-h. Guo, and J. Berakdar, Electric field controlled spin waveguide phase shifter in YIG, J. Appl. Phys. 124, 073903 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Zivieri, L

    R. Zivieri, L. Giovannini, and F. Nizzoli, Acoustical and optical spin modes of multilayers with ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic coupling, Phys. Rev. B 62, 14950 (2000)

    2000

  14. [22]

    Konovalenko, E

    A. Konovalenko, E. Lindgren, S. S. Cherepov, V. Korenivski, and D. C. Worledge, Spin dynamics of two-coupled nanomagnets in spin-flop tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. B 80, 144425 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    Beleggia, S

    M. Beleggia, S. Tandon, Y. Zhu, and M. De Graef, On the magnetostatic interactions between nanoparticles of arbitrary shape, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 278, 270 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Verba, G

    R. Verba, G. Melkov, V. Tiberkevich, and A. Slavin, Collective spin-wave excitations in a two-dimensional array of coupled magnetic nanodots, Phys. Rev. B 85, 014427 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    K. Di, V. L. Zhang, H. S. Lim, S. C. Ng, M. H. Kuok, X. Qiu, and H. Yang, Asymmetric spin-wave dispersion due to Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction in an ultrathin Pt/CoFeB film, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 052403 (2015); J.-H. Moon, S.-M. Seo, K.-J. Lee, K.-W. Kim, J. Ryu, H.-W. Le...

    2015

  18. [26]

    C. E. R\"uter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Observation of parity–time symmetry in optics, Nat. Phys. 6, 192 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Z. Ren, S. Liu, L. Jin, T. Wen, Y. Liao, X. Tang, H. Zhang, and Z. Zhong, Reconfigurable nanoscale spin-wave directional coupler using spin-orbit torque, Sci. Rep. 9, 7093 (2019); L. Chotorlishvili, Z. Toklikishvili, X. G. Wang, V. K. Dugaev, J. Barnas, and J. Berakdar, Influe...

    2019

  20. [28]

    V. E. Demidov, M. P. Kostylev, K. Rott, J. M\"unchenberger, G. Reiss, and S. O. Demokritov, Excitation of short-wavelength spin waves in magnonic waveguides, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 082507 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.