Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Magnetoelastic coupling in stripe-domain states of yttrium iron garnet

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In stripe-domain YIG, strong local magnon-phonon coupling hides behind 99% coherent cancellation.

desk verdict Solid experimental observation of a phonon comb in stripe-domain YIG, with a plausible but not yet quantitatively secured cancellation mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08353 v1 pith:E75ILKKS submitted 2026-08-08 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph

Nimisha Arora , Daniel Prestwood , Takashi Kikkawa , Eiji Saitoh , Jack Gartside , Will Branford , Hidekazu Kurebayashi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords magnetoelasticcouplingstripedomainsyttriumirongarnetmagnon-phononferromagneticresonancefinite-elementsimulationphononcombmagnetictexture
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 seeks to explain why magnon-phonon coupling in stripe-domain yttrium iron garnet (YIG) films on GGG substrates is so weak, and argues that the weakness is an interference effect rather than a small local interaction. Broadband ferromagnetic resonance reveals a field-independent phonon comb with a free spectral range of about 3.5 MHz, matching confined thickness-shear modes of the GGG substrate, and fitting the peak-dip features gives coupling rates of 0.33–0.54 MHz with cooperativities of order $10^{-1}$, placing the system firmly in the weak-coupling regime. Finite-element overlap calculations show that the local magnetoelastic coupling is sizable, but more than 99% of the coherent overlap cancels across the stripe texture through phase variation and domain-sign reversal. Fully coupled YIG/GGG/YIG simulations further show that phonon-mediated excitation of a remote YIG layer is possible, and that efficient propagating-phonon generation requires spatially asymmetric magnon modes. If correct, the work establishes magnetic texture as a control parameter for magnon-phonon coupling, not just a fixed property of the material.

What carries the argument

The central object is the projected two-dimensional magnetoelastic overlap integrand $I^{2D}_{xy,i}(x,y)=\epsilon_{xy,n}(x,y)[m^0_x\,\delta m^*_{y,i}+m^0_y\,\delta m^*_{x,i}]$, integrated over the YIG cross-section to form the coherent projected overlap $I^{2D}_{xy,i}=\int_{A_\mathrm{YIG}} I^{2D}_{xy,i}\,\mathrm{d}A$, with the absolute value taken only after integration so that destructive interference survives. The cancellation is quantified by $\eta_i = |\int I^{2D}_{xy,i}\,\mathrm{d}A|/\int |I^{2D}_{xy,i}|\,\mathrm{d}A$, the fraction of absolute local overlap that remains coherent. This overlap metric is combined with a coupled harmonic-oscillator model for the magnon-phonon response and a fully coupled finite-element model of the YIG/GGG/YIG heterostructure, and together they explain both the weak experimental coupling and the mode-selective launching of propagating shear phonons.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional finite-element overlap calculation that includes all shear-strain channels and a realistically relaxed stripe texture, using the same material parameters and drive, would settle the claim: if the coherent survival fraction for the lowest three modes comes out near unity rather than $10^{-3}$, the cancellation mechanism is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that weak magnetoelastic coupling in the stripe-domain state is a cancellation phenomenon. The local magnetoelastic interaction, carried by the shear magnetoelastic constant $B_2$ and the $\epsilon_{xy}$ strain channel, is strong throughout the YIG film, but the overlap integrand changes sign between neighboring domains and oscillates in phase across domain-wall regions, so the net coherent integral collapses. Quantitatively, the survival fraction $\eta_i$ (the ratio of the coherent integral to the integral of the absolute local overlap) is $1.49\times10^{-3}$, $5.37\times10^{-3}$, and $3.09\times10^{-3}$ for the three lowest modes, meaning more than 99% of the local overlap is canceled. The measured coupling rates and sub-unity cooperativities follow from this cancellation, and the fully coupled simulations confirm that the net interfacial strain launched into the substrate is governed by the spatial symmetry of the dynamic magnetization, not by the local coupling strength.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the two-dimensional finite-element overlap calculation, which keeps only the $\epsilon_{xy}$ shear channel and assumes ideal translationally invariant stripe domains, captures the full three-dimensional magnetoelastic overlap; the paper itself notes that it reproduces the overall scale and mode dependence but not the detailed mode-by-mode ordering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The weak-coupling regime ($C\sim10^{-1}$) means the observable signature of magnon-phonon interaction in stripe-domain YIG is a phonon-comb modulation rather than a resolved avoided crossing.
  • Because the interaction is limited by the broad magnon linewidths (5.8–9.0 MHz) rather than by the narrow phonon linewidth (0.14 MHz), reducing magnon inhomogeneous broadening is a direct route toward stronger effective coupling.
  • If cancellation is tied to the stripe texture, then altering the texture through field history, strain, or lateral patterning should tune the net magnetoelastic coupling.
  • The simulated remote excitation of a second YIG layer, at $10^{-4}$–$10^{-3}$ of the driven amplitude, shows that long-lived GGG shear phonons can transfer dynamics across the substrate even in the weak-coupling regime.
  • Only magnon modes with spatially asymmetric dynamic displacement produce net interfacial strain and launch propagating phonons; spatially symmetric modes cancel and remain dark to the phonon field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable consequence is that deliberately breaking the stripe symmetry—by tilting the field, patterning the film, or writing domain walls—should recover a large fraction of the hidden coupling, effectively switching magnon-phonon coupling on and off.
  • If the mechanism is generic, the same cancellation argument should apply to other nonuniform magnetic textures such as vortex cores, bubble lattices, and labyrinth domains, giving a design rule: net coupling is controlled by the Fourier content of the texture that matches the phonon strain profile.
  • The 2D projected calculation omits the $\epsilon_{yz}$ and $\epsilon_{zx}$ shear channels; a full 3D overlap calculation with a realistic relaxed texture could either confirm the $10^{-3}$ survival fraction or correct the mode ordering.
  • Because the cancellation is coherence-limited rather than dissipation-limited, placing the YIG/GGG structure in a high-Q acoustic cavity or a periodic array might turn the suppressed coupling into an enhanced, resonant transduction channel.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports broadband FMR measurements on a 3-µm YIG film on a GGG substrate in a low-field stripe-domain state. A field-independent periodic modulation with spacing 3.54 MHz is observed and identified as a comb of confined thickness-shear phonon modes, with a predicted free spectral range of 3.51 MHz. The authors fit the peak–dip features with a coupled harmonic-oscillator model, extracting coupling rates g = 0.33–0.54 MHz and cooperativities C = 0.08–0.35. To explain the weak coupling, they perform 2D finite-element/micromagnetic overlap calculations and introduce a projected overlap metric η, concluding that more than 99% of the local magnetoelastic overlap cancels across the stripe texture. Fully coupled YIG/GGG/YIG simulations show phonon-mediated remote excitation of a second YIG layer and suggest that propagating-phonon generation requires spatially asymmetric magnon modes.

Significance. The experimental observation of the field-independent phonon comb, with a FSR matching the thickness-shear prediction to within about 1%, is solid and lends support to the identification of confined shear phonons. The proposed mechanism, if quantitatively established, would be conceptually interesting: magnetic texture would become a control parameter for magnon–phonon coupling, and the design rule for asymmetric magnon modes would guide future devices. The manuscript is clearly written and the combination of FMR, analytical fitting, and finite-element modelling is appropriate. However, the central quantitative claim of >99% cancellation is not yet supported by the calculation as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (9)–(12)] The central cancellation claim rests on the two-dimensional projected metric I^2D_xy,i, which retains only the ε_xy shear channel from the full linearized magnetoelastic energy density in Eq. (9). The omitted ε_yz and ε_zx terms have the same prefactor 2B2 and involve m0y δm_z + m0z δm_y and m0z δm_x + m0x δm_z; no bound is given to show that the xy projection dominates the signed overlap. Because η_i is a ratio of a signed integral to an absolute integral, a small numerator in the xy projection does not imply a small full overlap. The >99% cancellation statement in the abstract and conclusions therefore needs a 3D evaluation or a justified inequality.
  2. [Section III, Table I and Eq. (12)] The measured coupling rates order as g3 > g2 > g1, while the computed η values order as η2 > η3 > η1. The paper acknowledges in Section III that the 2D calculation 'reproduces the overall scale and mode dependence of the coupling, but not the detailed mode-by-mode ordering.' Since the mode dependence of the coupling is one of the main experimental results, a metric that fails to reproduce the ordering cannot quantitatively explain the measured weak coupling; at present it provides only qualitative support.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (7) and text following Eq. (11)] The text states that the absolute coupling strength is taken from the experimental peak–dip splitting and that I^2D_xy,i is used only as a relative projected overlap metric. There is no direct comparison between the computed overlap (or a 3D extension) and the extracted g_i,n values. Without such a comparison, the claim that the cancellation mechanism is responsible for the measured weak coupling is not quantitatively validated.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (5)] The 'sizable local magnetoelastic coupling' is supported by Eq. (5), which assumes a uniformly out-of-plane magnetized film. The actual film is in a stripe-domain state, and the authors note that Eq. (5) should be an upper bound. It would be helpful to state whether the local (non-cancelled) coupling is computed directly in the stripe state, e.g., from the absolute overlap denominator in Eq. (12), or whether it is only inferred from the uniform-film expression.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, after Fig. 5] The word 'YIg' appears in the sentence about phonon-mediated coupling between the two layers; it should be 'YIG'.
  2. [Section II, COMSOL description] 'COMSOL Multiphysicsv. 6.2' is missing a space; it should read 'COMSOL Multiphysics v. 6.2'.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The second line defines the phonon amplitude response to magnon mode i, but for multiple magnon modes a sum over i in the u_n equation would make the reciprocal coupling explicit; please clarify the notation.
  4. [Eq. (6) and Table I] Please state explicitly whether the fitted Γ corresponds to the κ_m used in Eq. (1) and Table I, since Γ is called a half-width parameter.
  5. [Fig. 2(d)] The color axis and units for the calculated coupling strength are not labelled; please add the axis label and scale.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the FSR prediction and the overlap-cancellation mechanism use independent inputs, not the measured coupling.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The phonon-comb spacing is predicted from the thickness-shear FSR formula, delta_f_ph = v_T/[2(d+s)], with a literature transverse sound velocity for GGG and known layer thicknesses, giving 3.51 MHz versus the measured 3.54 MHz; no measured coupling rate enters this prediction. The coupling rates g_i,n in Table I are extracted by fitting the peak-dip spectra, but they are not used as inputs to the overlap calculation. The cancellation metric eta in Eq. (12) is computed from finite-element solutions for the dynamic magnetization and strain using literature magnetoelastic constants and a micromagnetic equilibrium texture; the measured g values are used only for later comparison. The stripe-domain equilibrium is drawn from the authors' prior work (Ref. [41]), but the stripe state is also directly observed in the present spectrum and qualitatively reproduced by micromagnetic simulation, so this self-citation is not load-bearing and does not force the weak-coupling conclusion. The acknowledged limitations of the two-dimensional, epsilon_xy-only overlap and the imperfect mode-order match (eta_2 > eta_3 > eta_1 versus g_3 > g_2 > g_1) are quantitative accuracy concerns, not circular steps: a projected 2D metric can fail to reproduce mode ordering without the conclusion being equivalent to its inputs. No parameter fitted to the target claim is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the derivation does not reduce to its own inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. It fits coupling rates and linewidths to FMR spectra, uses standard magnetoelastic constants from prior work, and assumes the simulated stripe texture and 2D cross-section represent the experimental system. The main modelling assumptions are representativeness of the ideal stripe state and omission of two shear-strain channels.

free parameters (5)
  • Magnon-phonon coupling rate g for mode m1 = 0.33 +/- 0.01 MHz
    Extracted from amplitude of fitted peak-dip feature relative to magnon background in FMR sweep at H_ext = 2.72 mT (Table I).
  • Magnon-phonon coupling rate g for mode m2 = 0.40 +/- 0.04 MHz
    Extracted from amplitude of fitted peak-dip feature relative to magnon background in FMR sweep at H_ext = 2.72 mT (Table I).
  • Magnon-phonon coupling rate g for mode m3 = 0.54 +/- 0.03 MHz
    Extracted from amplitude of fitted peak-dip feature relative to magnon background in FMR sweep at H_ext = 2.72 mT (Table I).
  • Effective magnon linewidth kappa_m for modes m1-m3 = 8.99, 8.39, 5.84 MHz
    Extracted from smoothed magnon resonances using Fano or mixed Lorentzian line shapes; authors note these are effective, not intrinsic, linewidths (Table I).
  • Phonon linewidth kappa_ph = 0.14 MHz
    Obtained by fitting isolated phonon resonances away from magnon resonance with a Lorentzian.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Coupled harmonic oscillator model (Eq. 1) with reciprocal coupling between magnon and phonon modes.
    Standard framework for hybrid magnon-phonon systems, cited to Refs. [4,42-44].
  • standard math Frequency-domain magnetoelastic field (Eq. 2) with cubic magnetoelastic constants B1, B2.
    Kittel-type linearized magnetoelastic coupling, used in COMSOL implementation.
  • domain assumption The stripe-domain equilibrium m0 from micromagnetic simulation is representative of the experimental state at H_ext = 2.72 mT.
    Used to compute dynamic modes and overlap integrand; the simulation uses parameters from prior work [41] and reproduces the qualitative spectrum (Supp. Fig. S1) but no direct imaging of the experimental stripe state.
  • domain assumption The 2D x-y cross-section, retaining only the epsilon_xy shear channel, captures the dominant magnetoelastic overlap.
    The paper states the 2D calculation omits epsilon_yz and epsilon_zx channels and assumes ideal, translationally invariant stripes, and does not reproduce the mode-by-mode ordering of the measured coupling.
  • domain assumption Transverse sound velocity v_T = 3.53e3 m/s for GGG along [111] from Ref. [48].
    Used to predict the phonon FSR; treated as a known material property from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetoelastic coupling in stripe-domain states of yttrium iron garnet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E75ILKKS

@misc{pith2026260808353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetoelastic coupling in stripe-domain states of yttrium iron garnet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E75ILKKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08353}
}
abstract

We study magnetoelastic coupling in stripe-domain magnetic states of $3\,\mathrm{\mu m}$-thick YIG thin films grown on a GGG substrate. Broadband ferromagnetic resonance reveals low-frequency stripe-domain magnon branches modulated by a field-independent phonon comb with a frequency spacing of $3.5\,\mathrm{MHz}$, matching the value predicted for confined thickness-shear modes of the GGG substrate. Analytical fitting yields coupling rates that vary between $0.33$--$0.54\,\mathrm{MHz}$ and cooperativities of order $10^{-1}$, indicating that the system is in the weak-coupling regime without resolvable avoided-crossing gaps. Magnon-phonon mode-overlap calculations using finite-element simulations show that the weak coupling arises from phase and domain-sign cancellation: the local magnetoelastic coupling is sizable, but more than $99\%$ of the coherent overlap cancels across the stripe texture. Fully coupled simulations further demonstrate phonon-mediated excitation of a remote YIG layer and show that efficient propagating-phonon generation requires spatially asymmetric magnon modes, establishing magnetic texture as a control parameter for magnon--phonon coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Field–frequency microwave transmission spectrum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Representative frequency sweep at fixed mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Finite-element and micromagnetic analysis of the projected magnetoelastic overlap in the stripe-domain YIG/GGG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fully coupled magnetoelastic simulation of phonon-mediated magnon transfer in a YIG/GGG/YIG structure. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    Prestwood, C

    D. Prestwood, C. E. A. Barker, K. D. Stenning, C. W. F. Freeman, T. Wei, T. Kikkawa, T. Dion, D. Stoeffler, Y. Henry, M. Bailleul, N. Naushad, W. Griggs, T. Thom- son, M. Cubukcu, J. C. Gartside, E. Saitoh, W. R. Bran- ford, and H. Kurebayashi, Phys. Rev. B113, 134410 (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    Flebus, D

    B. Flebus, D. Grundler, B. Rana, Y. Otani, I. Bar- sukov, A. Barman, G. Gubbiotti, P. Landeros, J. Aker- man, U. Ebels, P. Pirro, V. E. Demidov, K. Schultheiss, G.Csaba, Q.Wang, F.Ciubotaru, D.E.Nikonov, P.Che, R. Hertel, T. Ono, D. Afanasiev, J. Mentink, T. Rasing, B. Hillebrands, S. V. Kusminskiy, W. Zhang, C. R. Du, A. Finco, T. van der Sar, Y. K. Luo,...

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Dutoit, J

    M. Dutoit, J. Appl. Phys.45, 2836 (1974)

    work page 1974

  4. [3]

    Schlitz, B

    R. Schlitz, B. Flebus, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Phys. Rev. B102, 014306 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    K. An, A. N. Litvinenko, R. Kohno, A. A. Fuad, V. V. Naletov, L. Vila, U. Ebels, G. de Loubens, H. Hurd- equint, N. Beaulieu,et al., Phys. Rev. B101, 060407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Rückriegel and R

    A. Rückriegel and R. A. Duine, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 117201 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Cornelissen, J

    L. Cornelissen, J. Liu, R. Duine, J. B. Youssef, and B. Van Wees, Nat. Phys.11, 1022 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Us- ami, and Y. Nakamura, Appl. Phys. Express12, 070101 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    Bienfait, K

    A. Bienfait, K. J. Satzinger, Y. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, M.- H. Chou, C. R. Conner, É. Dumur, J. Grebel, G. A. Peairs, R. G. Povey,et al., Science364, 368 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Hioki, Y

    T. Hioki, Y. Hashimoto, and E. Saitoh, Commun. Phys. 5, 115 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

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

    2015

  4. [11]

    Spencer, R

    E. Spencer, R. LeCraw, and A. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 32 (1959). 9

    1959

  5. [12]

    Serga, A

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

    2010

  6. [13]

    Cherepanov, I

    V. Cherepanov, I. Kolokolov, and V. L’vov, Phys. Rep. 229, 81 (1993)

    1993

  7. [14]

    Kajiwara, K

    Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H. Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K. Takanashi, S. Maekawa, and E. Saitoh, Nature464, 262 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Kurebayashi, O

    H. Kurebayashi, O. Dzyapko, V. E. Demidov, D. Fang, A. J. Ferguson, and S. O. Demokritov, Nat. Mater.10, 660 (2011)

    2011

  9. [16]

    O. Lee, K. Yamamoto, M. Umeda, C. W. Zollitsch, M. Elyasi, T. Kikkawa, E. Saitoh, G. E. W. Bauer, and H. Kurebayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 046703 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Makiuchi, T

    T. Makiuchi, T. Hioki, H. Shimizu, K. Hoshi, M. Elyasi, K. Yamamoto, N. Yokoi, A. A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, G. E. W. Bauer, and E. Saitoh, Nat. Mater.23, 627 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Thomas, J. Osten, T. Schnei- der, K. Lenz, J. Grenzer, R. Hübner, and E. Wendler, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 024416 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Spencer, R

    E. Spencer, R. Denton, and R. Chambers, Phys. Rev. 125, 1950 (1962)

    1962

  13. [20]

    Polzikova, S

    N. Polzikova, S. Alekseev, V. Luzanov, and A. Raevskiy, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.479, 38 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Kittel, Phys

    C. Kittel, Phys. Rev.110, 836 (1958)

    1958

  15. [22]

    Bömmel and K

    H. Bömmel and K. Dransfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett.3, 83 (1959)

    1959

  16. [23]

    Dreher, M

    L. Dreher, M. Weiler, M. Pernpeintner, H. Huebl, R. Gross, M. S. Brandt, and S. T. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. B86, 134415 (2012)

    2012

  17. [24]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Sci. Adv. 2, e1501286 (2016)

    2016

  18. [25]

    Kikkawa, K

    T. Kikkawa, K. Shen, B. Flebus, R. A. Duine, K.-i. Uchida, Z. Qiu, G. E. W. Bauer, and E. Saitoh, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 207203 (2016)

    2016

  19. [26]

    L. J. Cornelissen, K. Oyanagi, T. Kikkawa, Z. Qiu, T. Kuschel, G. E. W. Bauer, B. J. van Wees, and E. Saitoh, Phys. Rev. B96, 104441 (2017)

    2017

  20. [27]

    Pomerantz, Phys

    M. Pomerantz, Phys. Rev. Lett.7, 312 (1961)

    1961

  21. [28]

    T. M. Reeder and D. K. Winslow, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.17, 927 (1969)

    1969

  22. [29]

    Chowdhury, P

    P. Chowdhury, P. Dhagat, and A. Jander, IEEE Trans. Magn.51, 1 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Popa and S

    B.-I. Popa and S. A. Cummer, Nat. Commun.5, 3398 (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    Matthews and R

    H. Matthews and R. LeCraw, Phys. Rev. Lett.8, 397 (1962)

    1962

  25. [32]

    Comstock and R

    R. Comstock and R. LeCraw, J. Appl. Phys.34, 3022 (1963)

    1963

  26. [33]

    Garanin and E

    D. Garanin and E. Chudnovsky, Phys. Rev. B92, 024421 (2015)

    2015

  27. [34]

    Streib, H

    S. Streib, H. Keshtgar, and G. E. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 027202 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    Schlitz, L

    R. Schlitz, L. Siegl, T. Sato, W. Yu, G. E. Bauer, H. Huebl, and S. T. Goennenwein, Phys. Rev. B106, 014407 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    H. Man, Z. Shi, G. Xu, Y. Xu, X. Chen, S. Sullivan, J. Zhou, K. Xia, J. Shi, and P. Dai, Phys. Rev. B96, 100406 (2017)

    2017

  30. [37]

    T. Sato, W. Yu, S. Streib, and G. E. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B104, 014403 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    K. An, C. Kim, K.-W. Moon, R. Kohno, G. Olivetti, G. De Loubens, N. Vukadinovic, J. Ben Youssef, C. Hwang, and O. Klein, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014046 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    J. Xu, C. Zhong, X. Zhou, X. Han, D. Jin, S. K. Gray, L. Jiang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 024009 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    Hubert and R

    A. Hubert and R. Schäfer,Magnetic Domains: The Analysis of Magnetic Microstructures(Springer, Berlin, 1998)

    1998

  34. [42]

    P. F. Herskind, A. Dantan, J. P. Marler, M. Albert, and M. Drewsen, Nat. Phys.5, 494 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    S. Khan, O. Lee, T. Dion, C. W. Zollitsch, S. Seki, Y. Tokura, J. D. Breeze, and H. Kurebayashi, Phys. Rev. B104, L100402 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    C. W. Zollitsch, S. Khan, V. T. T. Nam, I. A. Verzh- bitskiy, D. Sagkovits, J. O’Sullivan, O. W. Kennedy, M. Strungaru, E. J. G. Santos, J. J. L. Morton, G. Eda, and H. Kurebayashi, Nat. Commun.14, 2619 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    6.2,https: //www.comsol.com(2023), Stockholm, Sweden

    COMSOL AB, COMSOL Multiphysics® v. 6.2,https: //www.comsol.com(2023), Stockholm, Sweden

    2023

  38. [46]

    Zhang, W

    J. Zhang, W. Yu, X. Chen, and J. Xiao, AIP Adv.13, 055108 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Yamamoto, W

    K. Yamamoto, W. Yu, T. Yu, J. Puebla, M. Xu, S. Maekawa, and G. Bauer, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.89, 113702 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Spencer, R

    E. Spencer, R. Denton, T. Bateman, W. Snow, and L. Van Uitert, J. Appl. Phys.34, 3059 (1963)

    1963

  41. [49]

    A. E. Miroshnichenko, S. Flach, and Y. S. Kivshar, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2257 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    Z. Li, X. Zhang, D. Zhang, B. Liu, H. Meng, J. Xu, Z. Zhong, X. Tang, H. Zhang, and L. Jin, APL Mater. 10, 021101 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Harder, Z

    M. Harder, Z. X. Cao, Y. S. Gui, X. L. Fan, and C.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. B84, 054423 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.