Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Creation of domain-wall skyrmions in chiral magnets with Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert dynamics and demagnetization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An unstable domain wall can act as a one-dimensional Kibble-Zurek source that creates skyrmion–antiskyrmion pairs while absorbing, repelling, or annihilating an incoming bulk skyrmion.

desk verdict The qualitative LLG story — capture, annihilation, repulsion, and Kibble-line pair creation — is credible and worth referee time, but the quantitative phase diagram is not established: one run per point on one box, with the authors' own box-size caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.21880 v2 pith:KHXC3IBP submitted 2025-12-26 cond-mat.mes-hall hep-th

Sven Bjarke Gudnason , Yuki Amari , Muneto Nitta This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallhep-th
keywords magneticskyrmiondomainwallLandau-Lifshitz-GilbertequationDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractiondemagnetizationfieldKibble-ZurekmechanismThielechiralmagnet
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 uses the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, with and without demagnetization, to map what happens when an isolated magnetic skyrmion approaches an empty domain wall in a chiral ferromagnet. It claims the outcome—capture into a wall-bound 'domain-wall skyrmion', repulsion, or annihilation—is determined by the wall's phase and the initial separation, and it charts these outcome regions for Bloch- and Néel-type Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya couplings. The striking case is an unstable wall phase at which the wall's relaxation triggers a one-dimensional Kibble-Zurek mechanism, producing skyrmion–antiskyrmion pairs that survive as bound objects on the wall. If true, this gives a controlled route to creating skyrmion pairs and wall-bound solitons relevant for racetrack-style spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, reduced to dimensionless form with three parameters (DMI coupling κ, demagnetization coupling η, Gilbert damping α_G), is integrated numerically with a conjugate-gradient solver for the magnetostatic Poisson equation at every step. The central analytical objects are Thiele (moduli-space) equations for the domain wall's collective coordinates—the phase α and the wall position X0—which describe how the wall drifts while relaxing to its ground state. The 'Kibble line' is the unstable fixed point of the phase dynamics; its existence turns a single wall into a source of skyrmion–antiskyrmion pairs.

What would settle it

A micromagnetic experiment or simulation that includes the time-dependent switching of the external field, preparing a Bloch wall at α=3π/2 (or a Néel wall at α=π) with a skyrmion at distance |X0|≈4, and checking whether domain-wall-skyrmion/anti-skyrmion pairs appear; if the wall never reaches the unstable phase, the Kibble-line predictions would be absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a set of complete phase diagrams—for Bloch and Néel DMI, with and without demagnetization—showing which initial wall phase α and skyrmion-to-wall distance |X0| lead to (i) absorption into a domain-wall skyrmion, (ii) repulsion of the bulk skyrmion, or (iii) annihilation via the skyrmion's shrinking instability. When the wall is prepared at its unstable fixed point (α=3π/2 for Bloch DMI, α=π for Néel DMI), the wall's phase relaxation is unstable to perturbations and drives a one-dimensional Kibble-Zurek process: cusps nucleate on the wall and develop into domain-wall-skyrmion/anti-domain-wall-skyrmion pairs, most of which annihilate but some of which survive. The demagne

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes an external magnetic field from electromagnets and nanowires (Eq. 48) can prepare the domain wall at any phase α, including the unstable values that trigger the Kibble mechanism, and that switching that field off at t=0 leaves exactly the free-evolution initial state used in the simulations; this preparation dynamics is not modeled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A bulk skyrmion can be captured onto a domain wall and converted into a one-dimensional bound soliton whose motion is confined to the wall, provided the initial wall phase and separation fall in the creation window of the phase diagram.
  • Outside the creation window the skyrmion is repelled or collapses—the latter occurring when its DMI energy ceases to be negative—so the diagrams give concrete operating margins for controlled absorption.
  • The unstable wall (Kibble line) produces multiple skyrmion–antiskyrmion pairs in a one-dimensional analogue of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism; many pairs annihilate but a few survive, yielding a simple route to multi-soliton states on a single wall.
  • The Thiele/moduli-space equations quantitatively predict the wall's motion during relaxation, explaining why LLG dynamics gives capture windows about twice as wide as static energy-minimization.
  • For Néel DMI, demagnetization acts like an increased anisotropy, shrinking all solitons by roughly 12% at η=0.3 and possibly shifting the wall's ground-state phase at small DMI; in the Bloch case it leaves isolated solitons untouched but changes the composite wall-bound skyrmion and the Kibble process.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical testable extension is to simulate the full time-dependent Zeeman-field preparation (Eq. 48) rather than instant switch-off; if the wall does not land exactly on the unstable phase, the Kibble-line bands in the phase diagrams would smear or shift, an effect an experiment could detect.
  • The one-dimensional Kibble mechanism on a domain wall provides a miniature testbed for cosmological defect-formation statistics; measuring how the number of surviving pairs scales with the quench rate could be compared with Kibble-Zurek scaling predictions.
  • Adding currents to the LLG evolution, which the authors list as future work, could selectively drive the wall or skyrmion and make absorption efficient without needing an unstable initial phase, or could be used to separate the created pairs once formed.
  • The same moduli-space treatment likely applies to recently proposed three-dimensional composites—skyrmion strings attached to Néel walls—allowing prediction of their dynamical formation from LLG flows with demagnetization, an open direction the authors flag.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies, by numerical LLG dynamics, the capture, annihilation, or repulsion of an isolated bulk skyrmion incident on an empty chiral domain wall, for Bloch- and Néel-type DMI, with and without demagnetization. It also examines the unstable-domain-wall configuration, where a one-dimensional Kibble-Zurek mechanism can create domain-wall skyrmion pairs. The authors provide analytic Thiele/moduli equations for the motion of a perturbed DW and compare them with full LLG simulations. The main deliverable is a set of phase diagrams in the (α, X0) plane for the four DMI/demagnetization cases, plus a discussion of the 'Kibble line' and its outcomes.

Significance. If the quantitative results are robust, this is a useful contribution to the mesoscopic magnetism literature: it extends earlier arrested-Newton-flow work of the same group to physically realistic LLG dynamics, includes the demagnetization field in a nontrivial way, and identifies a concrete mechanism for creating skyrmion-anti-skyrmion pairs on domain walls. The analytic Thiele equations are a genuine addition, and the model parameters κ=0.4, η=0.3, α_G=0.3 are taken from material constants rather than fitted to the phase diagrams. The claim of a 1D Kibble-Zurek line is interesting and falsifiable. However, the central quantitative claim -- a 'full phase diagram' for capture/annihilation/repulsion -- is not yet supported by the evidence presented, because the numerical phase diagrams are single-trajectory points in one simulation box with no convergence checks, and the authors themselves identify box-size-dependent artifacts.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. VII C, Figs. 10-12] The phase diagrams are the quantitative core of the paper, but each (α, X0) point is a single LLG trajectory on a single 682^2 lattice with no box-size or boundary-condition study. The authors state in Sec. VII A that 'the minute details of which final states appear... depend on the size of the magnetic material... as well as on the boundary conditions,' and in Sec. VII C they explicitly identify the red region 1.2π≲α<3π/2, X0≲3 as an artifact of the DW-skyrmion leaving the finite simulation box. Because the claimed 'full phase diagram' therefore contains at least one known finite-box artifact and no demonstrated robustness of the other phase boundaries, the quantitative determination of capture/annihilation/repulsion windows is not established. A convergence study with two or more box sizes, boundary-condition variations, and ideally a small ensemble of trajectories per point is needed
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (48)] The initial condition u_composite = u_sk + u_DW assumes the DW can be prepared at an arbitrary phase α, including the unstable values α=3π/2 (Bloch) or α=π (Néel), and that switching off the proposed Zeeman field at t=0 leaves exactly this free-LLG initial state. The actual preparation protocol is only sketched with hand-waving ('We trust our friends in the engineering department'), and the paper does not model the ramp-down dynamics or the back-action of the localized field on the skyrmion and DW position. Since the entire Kibble-line scenario and parts of the phase diagrams depend on this initial condition, the experimental route to those outcomes is not yet demonstrated. A concrete treatment of the pulse shape and its switching-off, or an explicit argument that the composite state is reached in the adiabatic limit, is required.
  3. [Sec. VII D, Kibble line] The Kibble-line outcomes are described as 'most likely chaotic' and highly box-size-dependent. The paper presents selected representative trajectories (Figs. 13-16) and states that many pairs annihilate, but it does not provide any statistical characterization: no probability distribution of final states, no number of produced pairs as a function of distance or noise, and no comparison across realizations. Given the chaotic nature admitted in the text, the claim that this provides a controllable 'theoretical possibility' of creating skyrmion-anti-skyrmion pairs would be strengthened significantly by either an ensemble analysis or at least a demonstration that the number of surviving pairs is reproducible within controlled perturbations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, Sec. I] The phrase 'magnetization effect' appears where 'demagnetization effect' is meant; please check the wording in the introductory paragraph.
  2. [Appendix A] The Kibble-Zurek mechanism is consistently misspelled as 'Kibble-Zurich' in the appendix heading and text; this should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. VI] The numerical section gives lattice size, time step, and spatial step, but no test of numerical convergence in time or space, nor a conservation check (e.g., energy decay rate or topological-charge evolution). A brief convergence statement would increase confidence in the reported phase boundaries.
  4. [Fig. 17] The random-noise simulation in the appendix is described only qualitatively; the noise amplitude and the exact realizations used are not specified, making the figure hard to reproduce. This is presentation-level but should be fixed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagrams are outputs of LLG simulations with material-constant parameters, and the self-citations to the authors' prior work are supporting analytic results, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative content—the capture/annihilation/repulsion phase diagrams, the demagnetization rescaling, and the Kibble-line dynamics—is produced by LLG evolution from a specified composite initial state, not by fitting outputs back into inputs. The model parameters (κ = 0.4, η = 0.3, α_G = 0.3) are fixed from physical constants close to Pt/Co/Ta (Eq. 12) and are not tuned to reproduce any final-state pattern. The demagnetization effects are derived analytically: integrating the Poisson equation gives ∂rΦ = sin f and ∂xΦ = sin f (Eqs. 36, 40), leading to the effective mass rescaling and κ → κ/√(1+η); the critical κcrit in Eq. (46) follows from an energy comparison. The Thiele equations (51–56) are derived by promoting α and X0 in the sine-Gordon DW solution and integrating the LLG equation, and the paper checks them against full numerics. The repeated citations to the authors' own Ref. [55] supply the analytic asymptotic repulsion between a ground-state skyrmion and a ground-state DW and motivate why α must be perturbed; that prior result is parameter-free and not equivalent to the LLG phase diagrams, so it is supporting evidence rather than a circular reduction. The paper explicitly flags finite-box-size and boundary-condition dependence of the fine details and admits that the red region for 1.2π ≲ α < 3π/2 is a simulation-box artifact; these are robustness limitations, not circularity, and they do not make any prediction reduce to an input by construction. Overall, no load-bearing step equates a predicted quantity to a fitted or self-cited input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model depends on three material parameters fixed from prior literature (κ=0.4, η=0.3, α_G=0.3) and one hand-chosen noise amplitude in the appendix. The central burden is the physical realizability of the initial conditions (unstable DW phase prepared by external magnets) and the representativeness of the finite simulation box. No new physical entities are postulated; the DW-skyrmion-anti-DW-skyrmion pairs and the 'Kibble line' are names for configurations/regions, not new entity postulations.

free parameters (4)
  • κ (effective DMI coupling) = 0.4
    Fixed from material constants D≈1.55×10⁻³ J/m², A≈10⁻¹¹ J/m, K≈3.75×10⁵ J/m³ (close to Pt/Co/Ta, Ref. 62). Not fitted to the phase-diagram output, but all phase diagrams are computed only at this single value.
  • η (demagnetization coupling) = 0.3
    From μ0 M_sat²/(4K) with M_sat≈6×10⁵ A/m; a material-constant input, not a fit.
  • α_G (Gilbert damping) = 0.3
    Chosen as a 'physically reasonable' value (Eq. 12). The phase diagrams depend on it, but no scan over α_G is made.
  • Noise amplitude δX0 = [-0.01, 0.01]
    Random position noise applied in Appendix A to trigger the Kibble-Zurek mechanism; the amplitude is chosen by hand and its effect is not systematically explored.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation without currents (Eqs. 5-8) governs the magnetization dynamics.
    The model for all dynamics; no validation against experimental time traces.
  • domain assumption Magnetostatic scalar-potential approximation: ∇·H_demag = -∇·m, with induced currents neglected.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); the authors state in Sec. VIII that this assumes adiabatic soliton motion and small induced currents.
  • domain assumption Thin-film limit ∂₃n = 0, i.e. no dependence on the third spatial coordinate.
    Sec. II; the system is treated as strictly two-dimensional.
  • ad hoc to paper The superposition ansatz u_composite = u_sk + u_DW (Eq. 47) is a valid initial condition.
    The superposed field is not a solution of the equations of motion; every simulation starts from this non-solution, and the initial dynamics may depend on this arbitrary ansatz.
  • ad hoc to paper A localized external Zeeman field (electromagnets/nanowires, Eq. 48) can prepare the DW at a chosen phase α, including the unstable values, and switching it off at t=0 leaves the free-LLG initial state unchanged.
    Sec. V; preparation dynamics are not modeled; the authors defer the design to engineers. This assumption is load-bearing for the 'realizable' part of the central claim.
  • domain assumption The finite simulation box (682², h=0.0587; Dirichlet left/right, Neumann top/bottom) is representative of the unbounded thin film.
    Sec. VI; the authors admit quantitative outcomes, especially on the Kibble line, depend on box size and boundary conditions (Sec. VII.A).
  • standard math Principle of symmetric criticality for reducing the variational equations to radial or x-dependent ODEs.
    Sec. IV; cited to Palais [63].
  • domain assumption Harmonic solutions Φ=0 are the energy-minimizing choices for the unsourced Poisson equations in the Bloch case.
    Sec. IV.A; used to conclude the isolated Bloch skyrmion and DW are unaffected by demagnetization. The argument relies on the chosen BCs and energy minimization of a harmonic field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Creation of domain-wall skyrmions in chiral magnets with Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert dynamics and demagnetization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KHXC3IBP

@misc{pith2026251221880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Creation of domain-wall skyrmions in chiral magnets with Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert dynamics and demagnetization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KHXC3IBP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.21880}
}
read the original abstract

Absorption of an isolated bulk magnetic skyrmion into an empty domain wall in a chiral ferromagnetic system is studied using the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with and without the demagnetization effect taken into account. The full phase diagram of creation versus repulsion or annihilation is mapped out in case of both Bloch-type and N\'eel-type DMI, with and without demagnetization. Finally, the unstable domain wall, realizable with a setup of several external magnets, contains the theoretical possibility of producing a 1-dimensional version of the Kibble-Zurek mechanism, which in turn can create a number of skyrmion-anti-skyrmion pairs engulfed in the domain wall: We denote them domain-wall-skyrmion-anti-domain-wall-skyrmion pairs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.21880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) profile, (b) energy density, (c) topological charge density and (d) demagnetization energy density the magnetic (N´eel) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Bloch without demag., (b) N´eel without demag., (c) Bloch with demag. and (d) N´eel with demag. The arrows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Setup of DW and isolated skyrmion as initial condition. This figure is taken from Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sketch of a setup that could give rise to the magnetic fields described in Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Final states of evolution of the LLG equation from the initial condition ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Final states of evolution of the LLG equation from the initial condition ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Final states of evolution of the LLG equation from the initial condition ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Thiele equation dynamics of the DW with a Bloch DMI. (a) The Thiele equation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Thiele equation dynamics of the DW with a N´eel DMI. (a) The Thiele equation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Phase diagram for Bloch DMI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Phase diagram for Bloch DMI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Phase diagram for N´eel DMI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. LLG flow of initial configuration D1 in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. LLG flow of initial configuration G1 in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. LLG flow of initial configuration F2 in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. LLG flow of initial configuration E1 in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. LLG flow of the unstable DW with random noise introduced to the DW position variable, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_17.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. N. Bogdanov and D. A. Yablonskii, JETP68, 101 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    Bogdanov, JETP Letters62, 247 (1995)

    A. Bogdanov, JETP Letters62, 247 (1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    mass term

    +ηn· e∇Φ d2 ˜x, eE= Z Ed 2 ˜x,(7) with the LLG and Poisson equations ∂˜tn=n× δ eE δn −α G δ eE δn ,(8) e∇2Φ = e∇ ·n,(9) where we have fixed the length and time units as λ= r A K , τ= Msat(1 +α 2 G) 2T Aγ ,(10) 4 as well as the model parameters κ= D 2 √ AK , η= µ0M 2 sat 4K .(11) The model depends only on three parameters, the effective DMI couplingκ, the ...

  4. [4]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 899 (2013). 26 FIG. 17. LLG flow of the unstable DW with random noise introduced to the DW position variable,X 0, in the case of Bloch DMIwithoutdemagnetization. For details of the figure, see the caption of Fig. 13. This particular Kibble line configuration ends up in the green final state, viz. a DW-skyrmion...

    2013

  5. [5]

    A. Fert, V. Cros, and J. Sampaio, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 152 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    C. Back, V. Cros, H. Ebert, K. Everschor-Sitte, A. Fert, M. Garst, T. Ma, S. Mankovsky, T. L. Monchesky, M. Mostovoy, N. Nagaosa, S. S. P. Parkin, C. Pfleiderer, N. Reyren, A. Rosch, Y. Taguchi, Y. Tokura, K. von Bergmann, and J. Zang, J. Phys. D53, 363001 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

    S. M¨ uhlbauer, B. Binz, F. Jonietz, C. Pfleiderer, A. Rosch, A. Neubauer, R. Georgii, and P. B¨ oni, Science323, 915 (2009)

    2009

  8. [8]

    X. Z. Yu, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa, J. H. Park, J. H. Han, Y. Matsui, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Nature465, 901 (2010)

    2010

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    S. S. P. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Science320, 190 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Kumar, T

    D. Kumar, T. Jin, R. Sbiaa, M. Kl¨ aui, S. Bedanta, S. Fukami, D. Ravelosona, S.-H. Yang, X. Liu, and S. Piramanayagam, Phys. Rep.958, 1 (2022), domain Wall Memory: Physics, Materials, and Devices

    2022

  3. [11]

    G. H. Derrick, J. Math. Phys.5, 1252 (1964)

    1964

  4. [12]

    Dzyaloshinsky, J

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, J. Phys. Chem. Solids4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  5. [13]

    Moriya, Phys

    T. Moriya, Phys. Rev.120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  6. [14]

    J. Zang, M. Mostovoy, J. H. Han, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 136804 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    Jiang, X

    W. Jiang, X. Zhang, G. Yu, W. Zhang, X. Wang, M. Benjamin Jungfleisch, J. E. Pearson, X. Cheng, O. Heinonen, K. L. Wang, Y. Zhou, A. Hoffmann, and S. G. E. Te Velthuis, Nat. Phys.13, 162 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Chen, Nat

    G. Chen, Nat. Phys.13, 112 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    S. K. Kim and Y. Tserkovnyak, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 047202 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Cheng, M

    R. Cheng, M. Li, A. Sapkota, A. Rai, A. Pokhrel, T. Mewes, C. Mewes, D. Xiao, M. De Graef, and V. Sokalski, Phys. Rev. B99, 184412 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Lepadatu, Phys

    S. Lepadatu, Phys. Rev. B102, 094402 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    V. M. Kuchkin, B. Barton-Singer, F. N. Rybakov, S. Bl¨ ugel, B. J. Schroers, and N. S. Kiselev, Phys. Rev. B102, 144422 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Ross and M

    C. Ross and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B107, 024422 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    S. Lee, K. Nakata, O. Tchernyshyov, and S. K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B107, 184432 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Amari and M

    Y. Amari and M. Nitta, JHEP11, 212 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Amari, C

    Y. Amari, C. Ross, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B109, 104426 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Nitta, Phys

    M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D86, 125004 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Kobayashi and M

    M. Kobayashi and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D87, 085003 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Jennings and P

    P. Jennings and P. Sutcliffe, J. Phys. A46, 465401 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Bychkov, M

    V. Bychkov, M. Kreshchuk, and E. Kurianovych, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33, 1850111 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Nitta, Phys

    M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D87, 025013 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Nitta, Nucl

    M. Nitta, Nucl. Phys. B872, 62 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D89, 085022 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D90, 085007 (2014)

    2014

  25. [33]

    Eto and M

    M. Eto and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D91, 085044 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Nitta, Phys

    M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. D105, 105006 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    M. Eto, K. Nishimura, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 181902 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    M. Eto, K. Nishimura, and M. Nitta, JHEP12, 032 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    M. Eto, K. Nishimura, and M. Nitta, JHEP03, 019 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Amari, M

    Y. Amari, M. Nitta, and R. Yokokura, JHEP02, 171 (2025), arXiv:2406.14419 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Amari, M

    Y. Amari, M. Nitta, and Z. Qiu, JHEP10, 180 (2025), arXiv:2504.08379 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Nagaseet al., Nat

    T. Nagaseet al., Nat. Commun.12, 3490 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    M. Li, A. Rai, A. Pokhrel, A. Sapkota, C. Mewes, T. Mewes, D. Xiao, M. De Graef, and V. Sokalski, J. Appl. Phys.130, 153903 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    K. Yang, K. Nagase, Y. Hirayama, T. D. Mishima, M. B. Santos, and H. Liu, Nat. Commun.12, 6006 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    S. U. Han, W. Kim, S. K. Kim, and S.-G. Je, Phys. Rev. B109, 014404 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    J. Chen, L. Shen, H. An, X. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Du, X. Li, and Y. Zhou, Applied Physics Letters126(2025), 10.1063/5.0249927

    2025 doi

  37. [45]

    H. Nie, Z. Li, X. Wang, and Z. Wang, Applied Physics Letters126(2025), 10.1063/5.0250430

    2025 doi

  38. [46]

    A.-P. Xiao, L. Xiong, C. Yang, J.-Y. Jiang, and B. Zheng, Phys. Rev. B111, 024402 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    W. Kim, J. S. Seo, and S. K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B112, 014454 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Current-induced dynamics of bloch domain-wall bimerons,

    J. Chen, L. Shen, Y. Zhou, O. A. Tretiakov, and X. Li, “Current-induced dynamics of bloch domain-wall bimerons,” (2025), arXiv:2505.00959 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. Saji, E. Saavedra, R. E. Troncoso, M. A. Castro, S. Allende, and A. S. Nunez, Physical Review B111(2025), 10.1103/physrevb.111.174401

    2025 doi

  42. [50]

    Domain wall skyrmion-based magnonic crystal,

    Z. Wang, X. Zheng, Z. Li, Z. Zhang, and X. Wang, “Domain wall skyrmion-based magnonic crystal,” (2025), arXiv:2509.19741 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  43. [51]

    M¨ uller, J

    J. M¨ uller, J. Rajeswari, P. Huang, Y. Murooka, H. M. Rønnow, F. Carbone, and A. Rosch, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 137201 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Y. A. Kharkov, O. P. Sushkov, and M. Mostovoy, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 207201 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    G¨ obel, A

    B. G¨ obel, A. Mook, J. Henk, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tretiakov, Phys. Rev. B99, 060407 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Mukai and A

    N. Mukai and A. O. Leonov, Phys. Rev. B106, 224428 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    S. Lee, T. Fujimori, M. Nitta, and S. K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B112, 064422 (2025), arXiv:2407.04007 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  48. [56]

    S. B. Gudnason, Y. Amari, and M. Nitta, Nucl. Phys. B1019, 117106 (2025), arXiv:2406.19056 [cond-mat.mes-hall]. 28

    2025

  49. [57]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  50. [58]

    T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rept.67, 183 (1980)

    1980

  51. [59]

    W. H. Zurek, Nature317, 505 (1985)

    1985

  52. [60]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, 1999)

    1999

  53. [61]

    Qin and Y

    R. Qin and Y. Wang, New Journal of Physics20, 063029 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Leask and M

    P. Leask and M. Speight, (2025), arXiv:2504.17772 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  55. [63]

    S. Woo, K. Litzius, B. Kr¨ uger, M.-Y. Im, L. Caretta, K. Richter, M. Mann, A. Krone, R. M. Reeve, M. Weigand, P. Agrawal, I. Lemesh, M.-A. Mawass, P. Fischer, M. Kl¨ aui, and G. S. D. Beach, Nat. Mater.15, 501 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    R. S. Palais, Commun. Math. Phys.69, 19 (1979)

    1979

  57. [65]

    Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry(Cambridge University Press, 1985)

    S. Coleman,Aspects of Symmetry(Cambridge University Press, 1985)

    1985

  58. [66]

    S. B. Gudnason and J. M. Speight, JHEP07, 184 (2020), arXiv:2004.12862 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Harland, P

    D. Harland, P. Leask, and M. Speight, JHEP06, 116 (2024), arXiv:2404.11287 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    N. S. Manton, Phys. Lett. B110, 54 (1982)

    1982

  61. [69]

    S. B. Gudnason and M. Nitta, (2025), arXiv:2510.14689 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.