Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 59 references

Coherent coupling between YBCO superconducting resonators and sub-micrometer-thick YIG films

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 104-nm-thick YIG film on a YBCO resonator shows coherent magnon-photon coupling of about 230 MHz, with the temperature evolution following the superconductor's penetration depth.

desk verdict A useful new experimental data point—104-nm YIG coupled to a YBCO resonator at 230 MHz—but the quantitative modeling claim is undercut by an arithmetic slip in the spin number and a free geometric factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22240 v2 pith:FIUGUZLH submitted 2025-06-27 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Alberto Ghirri , Mattia Cavani , Claudio Bonizzoni , Marco Affronte This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords YIGYBCOcavitymagnonicsmagnon-photonhybridizationstrongcouplingsuperconductingresonatorpenetrationdepthpolaritons
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 reports coherent coupling between a 104-nm-thick yttrium-iron-garnet (YIG) film and a microwave resonator patterned from a high-temperature superconducting YBCO film. A polariton splitting of about 460 MHz, corresponding to a collective coupling $g/2\pi \approx 230$ MHz, is observed at low temperature, and the two hybrid branches persist down to 10 K. The authors show that the temperature evolution of both branches is reproduced by a model in which the temperature-dependent penetration depth of YBCO shifts the resonator frequency and, through Meissner currents, the magnon frequency. The result matters because it shows that sub-micrometer magnetic films, not only millimeter spheres or multi-micrometer slabs, can reach the strong-coupling regime in superconducting magnonic circuits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the hybrid polariton dispersion $\Omega_\pm = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\omega_c^2+\omega_b^2\pm\sqrt{(\omega_c^2-\omega_b^2)^2+16\omega_c\omega_b g^2}}$, where $\omega_c(T)$ is the resonator mode and $\omega_b=\omega_0+\delta_{\mathrm{sc}}$ is the magnon mode shifted by the superconductor. The temperature enters through a two-fluid penetration depth $\lambda_L(T)=\lambda_L(0)\sqrt{1-(T/T_c)^p}$ with $p=4/3$, which determines the resonator inductance in Eq. (9) and the Meissner-current shift in Eq. (7). The magnon frequencies $\omega_0$ and $\omega_1$ come from the dipole-exchange spin-wave dispersion with the 104-nm film thickness setting the perpendicular standing-wave quantization. The collective coupling is written as $g=g_s\sqrt{2 s_{\mathrm{Fe}} N_s}$ with $s_{\mathrm{Fe}}=5/2$ and a spin number $N_s=1.49\times10^{13}$ that, together with a geometric factor $r=0.45$, sets the absolute size of the splitting.

What would settle it

Measure the YIG film's participating volume and the resonator mode volume independently, for instance by varying the film area or mapping the microwave field, and compute $g$ from the coupling formula without fitting $N_s$ or $r$; if the predicted polariton splitting deviates from roughly 460 MHz by more than the linewidth, the claim that penetration depth alone controls the temperature evolution would be contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a 104-nm-thick YIG film in direct contact with a YBCO coplanar-waveguide resonator forms coherent magnon-photon polaritons with collective coupling $g/2\pi\approx 230$ MHz. The same experiment shows only two well-separated spin-wave resonances, the uniform mode and the first perpendicular standing spin-wave mode, in contrast with the many closely spaced modes of thicker films. The authors account for the full temperature evolution of the polariton branches between 10 and 85 K with a simple model: the two-fluid penetration depth $\lambda_L(T)$ enters the resonator frequency through its inductance and enters the magnon frequency through a spin-wave-induced Meissner-current shift $\delta_{\mathrm{sc}}$, and this single temperature dependence reproduces the observed spectra. Above $T_c$ the anticrossing disappears, which the authors attribute to the loss of superconducting screening.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative reproduction of the split spectra depends on assuming exactly $N_s=1.49\times10^{13}$ participating spins and on a free geometric factor $r=0.45$; neither number is measured independently, so if they are wrong the model's fit to the 230 MHz coupling is forced rather than predicted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sub-micrometer YIG films can be used for strong magnon-photon coupling on high-$T_c$ superconducting circuits, extending the approach beyond the 5-$\mu$m films used previously.
  • The temperature drift of the polariton branches below $T_c$ can be tracked with a single physical input, the YBCO penetration depth, instead of separate temperature-dependent fitting of the coupling.
  • Above $T_c$ the anticrossing disappears, so the hybridized response is tied to the superconducting state and vanishes with the Meissner screening.
  • Reducing the YIG thickness from 5 $\mu$m to 104 nm (a factor of 50) lowers the coupling only from about 1.1 GHz to 0.23 GHz (a factor of about 5), indicating that the near-surface region of the film dominates the coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the absolute normalization rests on $N_s$ and $r$, the measured 230 MHz should be treated as a calibration-dependent estimate until the participating spin number is measured independently; the shape of the temperature dependence is the robust part of the claim.
  • A direct test would vary the YIG film area while keeping the resonator fixed: a true collective coupling should grow as the square root of area, while a fixed-$N_s$ fit would not.
  • The same penetration-depth mechanism could be exploited to tune or switch hybrid devices thermally near $T_c$, since both the cavity pull and the magnon shift respond to $\lambda_L$.
  • The reduced mode density of a 104-nm film could make it a cleaner testbed for quantum magnonics at liquid-nitrogen temperatures than thicker slabs with many closely spaced modes.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports microwave transmission measurements of a 104-nm-thick YIG film placed on a YBCO coplanar waveguide and on a half-wavelength resonator. The authors observe a polariton splitting of about 460 MHz (g/2π ≈ 230 MHz) below 50 K and track the temperature evolution of the polariton branches between 10 and 85 K. They interpret the temperature dependence using a model in which the YBCO penetration depth (Eq. 8) enters both the resonator frequency shift (Eq. 7) and the collective coupling (Eq. 10), and they compare the extracted coupling with previous results on thicker YIG films.

Significance. If the experimental result and its interpretation are sound, the paper provides a useful data point showing that sub-micrometer YIG films can achieve strong magnon-photon coupling with high-Tc superconducting resonators, extending the thickness-dependence comparison in Refs. [9, 30]. The broadband spin-wave spectroscopy, including the identification of ω0 and the first PSSW mode ω1 using the Kalinikos-Slavin model, is careful and the temperature dependence of ω0 is consistent with the known YIG magnetization. However, the quantitative success of the coupling model is not an independent test: it depends on two adjustable parameters (r in Eq. 7 and N_s in Section 4), one of which is internally inconsistent with the stated mode volume in Section 5. The central experimental observation of an avoided crossing is solid, but the modeling claim that the penetration depth quantitatively accounts for the polariton spectrum requires substantial clarification and correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5 (Discussion), mode volume statement] The text states V_m = N_s/ρ = 7×10^-14 m^3 with N_s = 1.49×10^13 and ρ = 2.1×10^28 m^-3. These numbers are mutually inconsistent: the quotient N_s/ρ equals 7.1×10^-16 m^3, a factor of 100 smaller than the quoted V_m. Since the collective coupling scales as sqrt(N_s) (Section 4), a factor of 100 in N_s changes the predicted coupling by a factor of 10. This is a load-bearing inconsistency because the claimed reproduction of the 230 MHz splitting in Fig. 3 relies on the numerical value of N_s. The authors must correct the typo, or if N_s is deliberately chosen as an effective spin number, they must justify the factor-of-100 reduction relative to the mode-volume estimate.
  2. [Section 4 and Discussion, free parameters r and N_s] The model reproduction of the polariton branches is not parameter-free. The geometric factor r = 0.45 in Eq. 7 is explicitly described in the Discussion as a free fitting parameter used to adjust the absolute value of δ_sc. Likewise, N_s = 1.49×10^13 is introduced without derivation and is assumed constant over temperature. With both r and N_s adjustable, the absolute magnitude of the computed splitting can be tuned to match the observed 230 MHz, so the agreement in Fig. 3 does not constitute an independent confirmation of the penetration-depth mechanism. An independent estimate of the participating spin number, for example from the overlap volume of the resonator mode and the YIG film, is needed to make the quantitative claim meaningful.
  3. [Section 4, temperature dependence and model circularity] The temperature dependence of the model is partly generated from the same data it is meant to reproduce. ω_c(T) is fitted at each temperature as a free parameter in Eq. 5; the same ω_c(T) values are then used in Eq. 10 to compute g(T), and Eq. 9 is fitted to ω_c(T) to obtain λ_L(0) and T_c. Consequently, the statement that the penetration-depth model 'accounts for the evolution of the polaritonic spectrum' is not a prediction tested against independent data but a re-description of the fitted resonator frequency. To support the claim, the authors should clearly state which quantities are independently measured (e.g., a separate measurement of the bare resonator frequency as a function of T, or a direct λ_L(T) measurement) and which are fitted.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (10)] The symbol h appears in the equation for g_s but is not defined; the text mentions b_vac as the vacuum magnetic field. Please clarify the notation and check the dimensional consistency of the expression.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (2) discussion] The sentence 'Being d = 104 nm and k_y d = 0.03' could be more explicit: the authors should state the value of k_y used in the calculation (they mention k_y ≈ 3×10^5 rad/m in the preceding paragraph, which gives k_y d ≈ 0.031) and clarify that this justifies the proximity to ω_FMR.
  3. [General, error bars] The reported coupling g/2π ≈ 230 MHz and the polariton splitting of approximately 460 MHz are given without uncertainty estimates; adding error bars (e.g., from the fit of Eq. 5) would strengthen the quantitative comparison with the model.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The polariton spectrum is reproduced using ωc(T) as a free parameter at each temperature, r as an admitted free fit, and Ns as an assumed input, so the 230 MHz coupling is not an independent, parameter-free prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, paragraph after Eq. 10 and Fig. 4]
    "By means of Eq. 5 we have fitted the evolution of polaritons in Fig. 3. The frequency of the resonator, ωc(T), is used at each temperature as a free parameter; ... From the fitted values of ωc(T) and using the values of δsc(T) and g(T) calculated with r=0.45 and Ns=1.49×10^13, we can reproduce the evolution of the transmission spectra shown in Fig. 3 for temperatures between 10 and 85 K."

    Eq. 5 recombines ωc(T), ωb(T), and g(T). The resonator frequency that dominates the polariton branches is not predicted: it is a free parameter at every temperature, taken from the same device whose spectra are then 'reproduced.' The coupling g(T) is computed from this same fitted ωc(T) through Eq. 10, and δsc(T) is scaled by r=0.45. The resulting branch evolution is therefore a consistency check built from fitted inputs, not an independent test of the penetration-depth model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4, after Eq. 10; Section 5, mode-volume estimate]
    "Finally, the collective coupling g=gs sqrt(2 sFe Ns), where sFe=5/2 is the single-ion spin of Fe^3+, is calculated assuming that the number of spins is Ns=1.49×10^13 in the entire temperature range. ... Considering the estimated mode volume of the resonator Vm=Ns/ρ=7×10^-14 m^3, being ρ=2.1×10^28 m^-3 ..."

    Ns fixes the absolute scale of g through the square-root factor, yet it is introduced only as an assumption, with no derivation from sample volume or field profile. The paper's own relation Vm=Ns/ρ is internally inconsistent: 1.49×10^13 / 2.1×10^28 = 7.1×10^-16 m^3, not 7×10^-14 m^3, and the stated ρ would require Ns≈1.5×10^15, changing g by a factor of 10. Since Ns is not independently pinned down, it acts as a calibration knob that forces the quoted 230 MHz splitting.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Discussion]
    "We note that in Eq. 7 the geometric parameter r has been used as a free fitting parameter to adjust the absolute value of δsc; to better quantify its magnitude, a more systematic study that involves variations in the size and thickness of the YIG film would be required."

    r multiplies the entire δsc expression in Eq. 7, and δsc enters the polariton frequencies through Eq. 5. The paper explicitly concedes that r is a free fitting parameter used to adjust the absolute magnitude of the shift. Thus the reproduced polariton spectra are partly adjusted by hand at the level of the frequency shift, rather than being a parameter-free consequence of the temperature-dependent penetration depth alone.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the temperature evolution of the hybrid magnon-photon spectrum is reproduced by a simple model where the YBCO penetration depth (Eq. 8) controls both the resonator shift and the coupling. Inspection of the derivation chain shows that the 'reproduction' is assembled from inputs that are themselves fitted to, or assumed for, the same data: ωc(T) is a free parameter at each temperature; λL(0) and Tc are fit to ωc(T); g(T) is computed from that same fitted ωc(T) and from an assumed Ns; and r is explicitly a free fitting parameter for δsc. No step is a parameter-free prediction of the polariton splitting. The internal inconsistency between Ns=1.49×10^13 and Vm=Ns/ρ=7×10^-14 m^3 (a factor of 100 in spin number, i.e., a factor of 10 in g) further shows that Ns is not an independently measured quantity; it is effectively calibrated to produce the observed coupling. The avoided crossing itself is an experimental observation and is not in question, and the self-citations to the authors' prior work [9,30] are methodology rather than a uniqueness theorem, so this is not a self-citation-chain circularity. The circularity is instead a fitted-input-called-prediction pattern: the quantitative success of the model is substantially forced by the free parameters and assumptions used to generate the curves.

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

The central modeling rests on a small set of fitted parameters (λL(0), Tc, r, Ns, A) and established spin-wave/cavity-QED models. No new physical entities are introduced. The most significant hidden input is Ns, which anchors the absolute coupling.

free parameters (5)
  • λL(0) = 97 nm
    London penetration depth at zero temperature; obtained by fitting the measured resonator frequency ωc(T) with Eq. 9 (Fig. 4).
  • Tc = 86.1 K
    Critical temperature from the same fit of ωc(T) with Eq. 9; enters the two-fluid penetration depth Eq. 8.
  • r = 0.45
    Dimensionless geometric factor in Eq. 7; the text states it is a free fitting parameter used to adjust the absolute value of δsc.
  • Ns = 1.49 × 10^13
    Number of spins assumed to participate in the collective coupling; stated without derivation and sets the absolute coupling g through Eq. 10.
  • A (exchange constant) = 5.2 pJ/m at 30 K, 5.5 pJ/m at 10 K
    Exchange stiffness fitted so that Eq. 4 reproduces the PSSW mode ω1 at two temperatures.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kalinikos-Slavin model (Eqs. 2 and 4) describes the spin-wave dispersion of the 104-nm YIG film in the Damon-Eshbach geometry.
    Used to assign ω0 and ω1 in broadband spectra; assumes only wavevectors up to ky ≈ 2π/s are excited.
  • domain assumption Two-fluid model for the YBCO penetration depth (Eq. 8, p = 4/3) is valid for this film in the 10-85 K range.
    Central to the claim that penetration depth governs the polaritonic spectrum.
  • domain assumption The resonator couples to a single magnetic mode (the lowest mode ωb = ω0 + δsc), and the polariton dispersion follows the two-mode Hamiltonian giving Eq. 5.
    Used to extract coupling from the anticrossing; assumes no additional magnon modes appreciably hybridize.
  • domain assumption The spin-photon coupling per spin gs follows Eq. 10 and the collective coupling scales as sqrt(Ns).
    Connects observed splitting to spin number; from cavity QED for spin ensembles.
  • ad hoc to paper Ns is constant over the entire temperature range.
    The paper assumes the number of participating spins does not change with T; no justification is given, though mode volume could change with penetration depth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent coupling between YBCO superconducting resonators and sub-micrometer-thick YIG films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FIUGUZLH

@misc{pith2026250622240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent coupling between YBCO superconducting resonators and sub-micrometer-thick YIG films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FIUGUZLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22240}
}
abstract

In cavity magnonics, magnon-photon hybridization has been widely investigated for both fundamental studies and applications. Planar superconducting resonators operating at microwave frequencies have demonstrated the possibility to achieve high couplings with magnons by exploiting the confinement of the microwave field in a reduced volume. Here we report a study of the coupling of high-$T_c$ YBCO superconducting waveguides with 104-nm-thick YIG magnetic films. We study the evolution of mode frequencies as a function of temperature and extract the coupling strength of hybrid magnon-photon modes. We show that the experimental results can be reproduced using a simple model in which the temperature dependence of the penetration depth accounts for the evolution of the polaritonic spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top view (a) and vertical section (b) of the CPW broadband line with the YIG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of spectral maps measured at different temperatures with the broad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evolution of transmission (∂S21/∂H0) spectra acquired as a function of temper￾ature using the CPW resonator . The calculated polaritonic modes Ω± are represented by red dashed lines; blue and yellow dashed lines show ω0 and ωb, respectively. where ω0 the frequency of the lowest YIG mode (Eq. 2) and δsc a temperature￾dependent change. The latter can be quantified by self-consistently includ￾ing the spin-wave induced … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Frequency of the resonator extracted from transmission maps acquired at dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zare Rameshti, S

    B. Zare Rameshti, S. Viola Kusminskiy, J. A. Haigh, K. Usami, D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Nakamura, C.-M. Hu, H. X. Tang, G. E. Bauer, Y. M. Blanter, Cavity magnonics, Physics Reports 979 (2022) 1–61. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0370157322002460

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, Y. Nakamura, Resolving quanta of collective spin excita- tions in a millimeter-sized ferromagnet, Science Advances 3 (7) (2017) 11 e1603150.doi:10.1126/sciadv.1603150. URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.1603150

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.1603150 2017

  3. [3]

    H. Yuan, Y. Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science, Physics Reports 965 (2022) 1–74, quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum information science. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.03.002. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0370157322000977

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.03.002 2022

  4. [4]

    Wang, G.-Q

    Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, T.-F. Li, C.-M. Hu, J. Q. You, Bistability of cavity magnon polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) 057202.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.057202. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120. 057202

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.057202 2018

  5. [5]

    O. Lee, K. Yamamoto, M. Umeda, C. W. Zollitsch, M. Elyasi, T. Kikkawa, E. Saitoh, G. E. W. Bauer, H. Kurebayashi, Non- linear magnon polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 046703. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.046703. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130. 046703

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.046703 2023

  6. [6]

    M.-X. Bi, H. Fan, X.-H. Yan, Y.-C. Lai, Folding state within a hysteresis loop: Hidden multistability in nonlinear physical systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 137201.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.137201. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132. 137201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.137201 2024

  7. [7]

    Bourhill, N

    J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, D. L. Creedon, M. E. To- bar, Ultrahigh cooperativity interactions between magnons and reso- nant photons in a yig sphere, Phys. Rev. B 93 (2016) 144420.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.93.144420. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.144420

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.93.144420 2016

  8. [8]

    I. A. Golovchanskiy, N. N. Abramov, V. S. Stolyarov, A. A. Golubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, V. V. Ryazanov, A. V. Ustinov, Approaching deep-strong on-chip photon-to-magnon coupling, Phys. Rev. Applied 16 (2021) 034029.doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.16.034029. 12 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.16. 034029

    doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.16.034029 2021

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Ghirri, C

    A. Ghirri, C. Bonizzoni, M. Maksutoglu, A. Mercurio, O. Di Ste- fano, S. Savasta, M. Affronte, Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling achieved by magnetic films in contact with super- conducting resonators, Phys. Rev. Appl. 20 (2023) 024039. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.024039. U...

    2023 doi

  2. [10]

    Zhang, X.-Q

    D. Zhang, X.-Q. Luo, Y.-P. Wang, T.-F. Li, J. Q. You, Observation of the exceptional point in cavity magnon-polaritons, Nature Communica- tions 8 (1) (2017) 1368

    2017

  3. [11]

    T. Yu, J. Zou, B. Zeng, J. Rao, K. Xia, Non-hermitian topological magnonics, Physics Reports 1062 (2024) 1–86, non-Hermitian topologi- cal magnonics.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2024.01. 006. URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0370157324000309

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    J. Xu, C. Zhong, X. Han, D. Jin, L. Jiang, X. Zhang, Floquet cavity electromagnonics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) 237201. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.237201. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125. 237201

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    J. W. Rao, B. Yao, C. Y. Wang, C. Zhang, T. Yu, W. Lu, Unveiling a pump-induced magnon mode via its strong inter- action with walker modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 046705. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.046705. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130. 046705

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Appl. Phys. Express 12 (2019). 13

    2019

  7. [15]

    Y. Li, W. Zhang, V. Tyberkevych, W.-K. Kwok, A. Hoffmann, V. Novosad, Hybrid magnonics: Physics, circuits, and applications for coherent information processing, Journal of Applied Physics 128 (13) (2020) 130902.doi:10.1063/5.0020277. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0020277

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Pirro, V

    P. Pirro, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, B. Hillebrands, Advances in coherent magnonics, Nature Reviews Materials 6 (12) (2021) 1114–1135. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-021-00332-w

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    A. V. Chumak, P. Kabos, M. Wu, C. Abert, C. Adelmann, A. O. Adey- eye, J. Åkerman, F. G. Aliev, A. Anane, A. Awad, C. H. Back, A. Bar- man, G. E. W. Bauer, M. Becherer, E. N. Beginin, V. A. S. V. Bitten- court, Y. M. Blanter, P. Bortolotti, I. Boventer, D. A. Bozhko, S. A. Bun...

    2022

  10. [18]

    X. Han, H. Wu, T. Zhang, Magnonics: Materials, physics, and de- vices, Applied Physics Letters 125 (2) (2024) 020501.doi:10.1063/ 14 5.0216094. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/5.0216094

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    O. V. Dobrovolskiy, R. Sachser, T. Brächer, T. Böttcher, V. V. Kruglyak, R. V. Vovk, V. A. Shklovskij, M. Huth, B. Hillebrands, A. V. Chumak, Magnon–fluxon interaction in a ferromagnet/superconductor heterostructure, Nature Physics 15 (5) (2019) 477–482.doi:10.1038/ s41567-019...

    2019 doi

  12. [20]

    I. A. Golovchanskiy, N. N. Abramov, V. S. Stolyarov, P. S. Dzhumaev, O. V. Emelyanova, A. A. Golubov, V. V. Ryazanov, A. V. Ustinov, Ferromagnet/superconductor hybrid magnonic metamaterials, Advanced Science 6 (16) (2019) 1900435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.201900435. UR...

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Borst, P

    M. Borst, P. H. Vree, A. Lowther, A. Teepe, S. Kurdi, I. Bertelli, B. G. Simon, Y. M. Blanter, T. van der Sar, Observation and control of hybrid spin-wave–meissner-current transport modes, Science 382 (6669) (2023) 430–434.doi:10.1126/science.adj7576. URLhttps://www.science.or...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    C. G. L. Bøttcher, N. R. Poniatowski, A. Grankin, M. E. Wesson, Z. Yan, U. Vool, V. M. Galitski, A. Yacoby, Circuit quantum elec- trodynamics detection of induced two-fold anisotropic pairing in a hy- brid superconductor–ferromagnet bilayer, Nature Physics (2024).doi: 10.1038/...

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    Huebl, C

    H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifenstein, A. Marx, R. Gross, S. T. B. Goennenwein, High cooperativity in coupled mi- crowave resonator ferrimagnetic insulator hybrids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 127003.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.127003. URLhttps://link....

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    R. G. E. Morris, A. F. van Loo, S. Kosen, A. D. Karenowska, Strong coupling of magnons in a yig sphere to photons in a planar supercon- ducting resonator in the quantum limit, Scientific Reports 7 (1) (2017) 11511.doi:10.1038/s41598-017-11835-4. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s415...

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    J. T. Hou, L. Liu, Strong coupling between microwave photons and nanomagnet magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 107702. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123. 107702

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Y. Li, T. Polakovic, Y.-L. Wang, J. Xu, S. Lendinez, Z. Zhang, J. Ding, T. Khaire, H. Saglam, R. Divan, J. Pearson, W.-K. Kwok, Z. Xiao, V. Novosad, A. Hoffmann, W. Zhang, Strong coupling between magnons and microwave photons in on-chip ferromagnet- superconductor thin-film de...

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    I. A. Golovchanskiy, N. N. Abramov, V. S. Stolyarov, V. V. Ryazanov, A. A. Golubov, A. V. Ustinov, Modified dispersion law for spin waves coupled to a superconductor, Journal of Applied Physics 124 (23) (2018) 233903.doi:10.1063/1.5077086. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.5077086

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    I. A. Golovchanskiy, N. N. Abramov, V. S. Stolyarov, M. Weides, V. V. Ryazanov, A. A. Golubov, A. V. Ustinov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, Ultra- strong photon-to-magnon coupling in multilayered heterostructures in- volving superconducting coherence via ferromagnetic layers, Science Ad- ...

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    I. A. Golovchanskiy, N. N. Abramov, O. V. Emelyanova, I. V. Shchetinin, V. V. Ryazanov, A. A. Golubov, V. S. Stolyarov, Magnetization dynamics in proximity-coupled superconductor- ferromagnet-superconductor multilayers. ii. thickness dependence of the superconducting torque, P...

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Ghirri, C

    A. Ghirri, C. Bonizzoni, M. Maksutoglu, M. Affronte, Interplay between magnetism and superconductivity in a hybrid magnon- photon bilayer system, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22 (2024) 034004. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.034004. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22. 034004

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Xu, X.-K

    D. Xu, X.-K. Gu, H.-K. Li, Y.-C. Weng, Y.-P. Wang, J. Li, H. Wang, S.-Y. Zhu, J. Q. You, Quantum control of a single magnon in a macroscopic spin system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 (2023) 193603. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.193603. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130. 193603

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Ghirri, C

    A. Ghirri, C. Bonizzoni, D. Gerace, S. Sanna, A. Cassinese, M. Affronte, Yba2cu3o7 microwave resonators for strong collective coupling with spin ensembles, Applied Physics Letters 106 (18) (2015) 184101.doi:10. 1063/1.4920930. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4920930

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Bonizzoni, A

    C. Bonizzoni, A. Ghirri, M. Affronte, Coherent coupling of molecular spins with microwave photons in planar superconducting resonators, Advances in Physics: X 3 (1) (2018) 1435305.doi:10.1080/23746149. 2018.1435305. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1080/23746149.2018.1435305

    2018

  26. [34]

    Bonizzoni, A

    C. Bonizzoni, A. Ghirri, F. Santanni, M. Atzori, L. Sorace, R. Sessoli, M. Affronte, Storage and retrieval of microwave pulses with molecular spin ensembles, npj Quantum Information 6 (1) (2020) 68.doi:10. 1038/s41534-020-00296-9. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-020-00296-9

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Bonizzoni, M

    C. Bonizzoni, M. Maksutoglu, A. Ghirri, J. van Tol, B. Rameev, M. Af- fronte, Coupling sub-nanoliter bdpa organic radical spin ensembles with ybco inverse anapole resonators, Applied Magnetic Resonance 54 (1) (2023) 143–164.doi:10.1007/s00723-022-01505-8. URLhttps://doi.org/10...

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Velluire-Pellat, E

    Z. Velluire-Pellat, E. Maréchal, N. Moulonguet, G. Saïz, G. C. Mé- nard, S. Kozlov, F. Couëdo, P. Amari, C. Medous, J. Paris, R. Hostein, J. Lesueur, C. Feuillet-Palma, N. Bergeal, Hybrid quantum systems with high-t$$_c$$superconducting resonators, Scientific Reports 13 (1) (2...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Bonizzoni, A

    C. Bonizzoni, A. Ghirri, F. Santanni, M. Affronte, Quantum sensing of magnetic fields with molecular spins, npj Quantum Information 10 (1) (2024) 41.doi:10.1038/s41534-024-00838-5. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00838-5

    2024 doi

  30. [38]

    Kinder, P

    H. Kinder, P. Berberich, W. Prusseit, S. Rieder-Zecha, R. Semerad, B. Utz, Ybco film deposition on very large areas up to 20x20 cm2, Physica C: Superconductivity 282-287 (1997) 107–110, materials and Mechanisms of Superconductivity High Temperature Superconductors V.doi:https:...

    1997 doi

  31. [39]

    Kim, D.-G

    J.-Y. Kim, D.-G. Lee, D.-S. Um, J. W. A. Robinson, M.-J. Jin, Impact of interface paramagnetism and local defects on low-temperature magnetic properties of yig thin films on ggg, Phys. Rev. Mater. 9 (2025) 084409. doi:10.1103/6sy6-tgs6. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/6sy6-tgs6

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    C. P. Poole, H. A. Farach, Lineshapes in electron spin resonance, Bull. Magn. Reson. 1 (1979) 162–194. URLhttps://ismar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/BMR_01_ 162-194_1979.pdf

    1979

  33. [41]

    I. S. Maksymov, M. Kostylev, Broadband stripline ferromag- netic resonance spectroscopy of ferromagnetic films, multi- layers and nanostructures, Physica E: Low-dimensional Sys- tems and Nanostructures 69 (2015) 253–293.doi:https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.physe.2014.12.027. URLhttp...

    2015 doi

  34. [42]

    B. A. Kalinikos, A. N. Slavin, Theory of dipole-exchange spin wave spectrum for ferromagnetic films with mixed exchange boundary con- ditions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 19 (35) (1986) 7013. doi:10.1088/0022-3719/19/35/014. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-371...

    1986 doi

  35. [43]

    281–346.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63210-6_ 6

    S.O.Demokritov, A.N.Slavin, SpinWaves, SpringerInternationalPub- lishing, Cham, 2021, pp. 281–346.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63210-6_ 6

    2021 doi

  36. [44]

    Solt, Irvin H., Temperature Dependence of YIG Magnetization, Jour- nal of Applied Physics 33 (3) (2004) 1189–1191.doi:10.1063/1

    J. Solt, Irvin H., Temperature Dependence of YIG Magnetization, Jour- nal of Applied Physics 33 (3) (2004) 1189–1191.doi:10.1063/1. 1728651. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.1728651

    2004 doi

  37. [45]

    Maier-Flaig, S

    H. Maier-Flaig, S. Klingler, C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Gross, M. Weiler, H. Huebl, S. T. B. Goennenwein, Temperature-dependent magnetic damping of yttrium iron garnet spheres, Phys. Rev. B 95 (2017) 214423. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.95.214423. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Ph...

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/19/8/R01

    R.Prozorov, R.W.Giannetta, Magneticpenetrationdepthinunconven- tional superconductors, Superconductor Science and Technology 19 (8) (2006) R41. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/19/8/R01

    2006 doi

  39. [47]

    Vendik, I

    O. Vendik, I. Vendik, D. Kaparkov, Empirical model of the microwave properties of high-temperature superconductors, IEEE Transactions on MicrowaveTheoryandTechniques46(5)(1998)469–478.doi:10.1109/ 22.668643

    1998

  40. [48]

    Ghigo, D

    G. Ghigo, D. Botta, A. Chiodoni, R. Gerbaldo, L. Gozzelino, F. La- viano, B. Minetti, E. Mezzetti, D. Andreone, Microwave dissipation in ybco coplanar resonators with uniform and non-uniform columnar de- fect distribution, Superconductor Science and Technology 17 (8) (2004) 97...

    2004 doi

  41. [49]

    A. M. Zyuzin, A. G. Bazhanov, Temperature dependence of the ex- change interaction constant in iron garnet films, Journal of Experi- mental and Theoretical Physics Letters 63 (7) (1996) 555–559.doi: 19 10.1134/1.567056. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1134/1.567056

    1996 doi

  42. [50]

    R. O. Serha, A. A. Voronov, D. Schmoll, R. Verba, K. O. Levchenko, S. Koraltan, K. Davídková, B. Budinská, Q. Wang, O. V. Dobrovol- skiy, M. Urbánek, M. Lindner, T. Reimann, C. Dubs, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, C. Abert, D. Suess, D. A. Bozhko, S. Knauer, A. V. Chu- mak, Magnetic...

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Schmoll, A

    D. Schmoll, A. A. Voronov, R. O. Serha, D. Slobodianiuk, K. O. Levchenko, C. Abert, S. Knauer, D. Suess, R. Verba, A. V. Chu- mak, Wavenumber-dependent magnetic losses in yttrium iron garnet– gadolinium gallium garnet heterostructures at millikelvin temperatures, Phys. Rev. B ...

    2025 doi

  44. [52]

    C. Dubs, O. Surzhenko, R. Linke, A. Danilewsky, U. Bruckner, J. Del- lith, Sub-micrometer yttrium iron garnet lpe films with low ferromag- netic resonance losses, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50 (20) (2017) 204005.doi:10.1088/1361-6463/aa6b1c. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10...

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Y. Rao, D. Zhang, H. Zhang, L. Jin, Q. Yang, Z. Zhong, M. Li, C. Hong, B. Ma, Thickness dependence of magnetic properties in submicron yt- trium iron garnet films, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 51 (43) (2018) 435001.doi:10.1088/1361-6463/aade43. URLhttps://dx.doi.org/1...

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    S. M. Rezende, R. L. Rodriguez-Suarez, M. M. Soares, L. H. Vilela-Leqo, D. Ley Dominguez, A. Azevedo, Enhanced spin pumping damping in yttrium iron garnet/pt bilayers, Applied Physics Letters 102 (1) (2013) 012402.doi:10.1063/1.4773993. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.4773993

    2013 doi

  47. [55]

    S. A. Bunyaev, R. O. Serha, H. Y. Musiienko-Shmarova, A. J. Kreil, P. Frey, D. A. Bozhko, V. I. Vasyuchka, R. V. Verba, M. Kostylev, B. Hillebrands, G. N. Kakazei, A. A. Serga, Spin-wave relaxation by 20 eddycurrentsiny 3fe5o12/Ptbilayersandawaytosuppressit, Phys.Rev. Appl. 14...

    2020 doi

  48. [56]

    Schmoll, R

    D. Schmoll, R. O. Serha, J. Panda, A. A. Voronov, C. Dubs, M. Ur- bánek, A. V. Chumak, Elimination of substrate-induced fmr linewidth broadening in the epitaxial system yig-ggg by microstructuring (2025). arXiv:2502.02978. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02978

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Yu, X.-H

    T. Yu, X.-H. Zhou, G. E. W. Bauer, I. Bobkova, Electromagnetic prox- imity effect: Superconducting magnonics and beyond (2025).arXiv: 2506.18502. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18502

    2025

  50. [58]

    Wang, G.-Q

    Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, X.-Q. Luo, W. Xiong, S.-P. Wang, T.-F. Li, C.-M. Hu, J. Q. You, Magnon kerr effect in a strongly coupled cavity-magnon system, Phys. Rev. B 94 (2016) 224410.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevB.94.224410. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.94.224410

    2016 doi

  51. [59]

    Zhang, Y

    G. Zhang, Y. Wang, J. You, Theory of the magnon kerr effect in cav- ity magnonics, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy 62 (8) (2019) 987511. 21

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.