Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Magnetic twisting in an artificial ferrimagnet: Anisotropic magnetoresistance on Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py/SiNx multilayers

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Anisotropic magnetoresistance resolves two distinct twisted states in a Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py artificial ferrimagnet, assigning them to surface twisting and bulk twisting.

desk verdict Solid experimental paper: AMR resolves two distinct twisted states in a Py/Gd artificial ferrimagnet; quantitative claims need more support but the central finding holds up. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01178 v1 pith:XMMCVIHK submitted 2024-12-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Kai Zhang , Y. X. Niu , Yang Meng , Hong-Wu Zhao , J. Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords anisotropicmagnetoresistanceartificialferrimagnettwistedmagneticstatesurfacetwistingbulkPy/Gdmultilayermicromagneticsimulationnon-collinearmagnetism
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 argues that anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) can serve as a quantitative electrical probe of the non-collinear magnetic texture in artificial ferrimagnets. The specific claim is that in a Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py multilayer, where Py is permalloy (a nickel-iron alloy) and Gd is gadolinium, AMR measurements at low temperature resolve two distinct twisted states, surface twisting and bulk twisting, that conventional magnetization-curve measurements cannot separate. If true, a simple four-terminal resistance measurement could replace off-chip magnetometry for characterizing magnetic winding in such multilayers. The resulting phase diagram, with separate surface- and bulk-twisting regimes, would also give a concrete framework for studying chiral magnon modes and skyrmion profiles.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twisted state: a depth-dependent, non-collinear winding of the magnetization along the film normal that forms when the Zeeman energy of the applied field overcomes the antiferromagnetic interfacial coupling. The measurement identity is the differential anisotropic magnetoresistance $R_{\mathrm{diff}}(H)=R_{H\parallel I}(H)-R_{H\perp I}(H)$, which removes GMR-type spin-dependent scattering because AMR depends on angle through $\rho(\alpha)=\rho_\perp+\Delta\rho\cos^2\alpha$. Combining the parallel-circuit resistivity integral $1/R=\int dz/\rho(z)$ with a uniform-twist assumption gives an analytic relation, Eqn. (2), that converts the measured $R_{\mathrm{diff}}$ into the winding angle $\alpha_{\mathrm{Gd}}$; at 10 K, simulation-based rotation angles of the outer and center Py layers feed the same integral and reproduce the two-drop AMR curve.

What would settle it

A depth-resolved magnetic measurement on the same multilayer at 10 K, such as polarized neutron reflectometry or element-selective X-ray magnetic linear dichroism, should show the outer Py layer rotating near $H_{\mathrm{twist1}}$ and the center Py layer near $H_{\mathrm{twist2}}$; if the measured onset fields do not match the two drops in $R_{\mathrm{diff}}(H)$, the assignment fails. Replacing one outer Py layer with a nonmagnetic spacer should eliminate the first drop while leaving the second.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At 10 K, where the gadolinium moment dominates, the differential AMR curve $R_{\mathrm{diff}}(H)$ displays two sequential drops at $H_{\mathrm{twist1}}$ and $H_{\mathrm{twist2}}$, whereas the second derivative of the magnetization curve shows only $H_{\mathrm{twist1}}$. The paper assigns the first drop to rotation of the outer Py layer and the second to rotation of the center Py layer, surface twisting and bulk twisting respectively, and reproduces both thresholds and the full AMR trajectory with micromagnetic simulation. At 90 K, where Py dominates, a single drop at $H_{\mathrm{twist}}$ appears, and the winding angle $\alpha_{\mathrm{Gd}}$ extracted from the resistance data through Eqns. (2) and (3) agrees with the simulated angle. The paper concludes that AMR is an ideal probe of non-collinear magnetic structure in artificial ferrimagnets.

Load-bearing premise

The assignment of the two resistance drops to rotation of the outer versus the center magnetic layer rests on a computer model whose assumed coupling strengths and their temperature dependence are taken from literature; if those values are wrong for this particular film, the two-state interpretation is not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A four-terminal resistance measurement can detect twisted states that magnetization-curve measurements miss, specifically the bulk twisting that leaves no bump in $d^2M/dH^2$.
  • The updated phase diagram, with separate surface-twisting and bulk-twisting regimes below the compensation temperature, provides a framework for interpreting chiral magnon modes and skyrmion profiles in artificial ferrimagnets.
  • Both twisting fields decrease monotonically as the temperature approaches the compensation temperature, and this behavior is explained quantitatively by the temperature dependence of the Gd magnetization through the linear scaling of Gd exchange stiffness.
  • The same AMR procedure predicts two twisted states for the inverted Gd/Py/Gd/Py/Gd multilayer above its compensation temperature, with the outer Gd layer twisting at the lower field.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the sign change in $R_{\mathrm{diff}}(H)$ near 45 kOe could serve as a device-relevant electrical fingerprint that distinguishes the surface-twisted regime from the bulk-twisted regime.
  • The repetition-number calculation implies a design rule for future samples: if too many repeats are added, the AMR drop from surface twisting becomes invisible, so layer-resolved twist studies should keep the repeat count low or engineer the slave layer at the surface.
  • Because AMR is quadratic in the magnetization angle while the net moment is linear, the method may transfer to other compensated ferrimagnets or antiferromagnets with interfacial canting, where bulk twisting would otherwise be completely hidden.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports anisotropic magnetoresistance (AMR) measurements on a Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py/SiNx artificial ferrimagnetic multilayer. The authors identify a twisted magnetic state above a threshold field at T = 90 K and extract a winding angle α_Gd from the AMR signal using a uniform-twist model (Eqs. 2–3). At T = 10 K they resolve two sequential drops in the differential resistance R_diff(H), which they assign to surface twisting (outer Py layer rotation) and bulk twisting (center Py layer rotation) based on micromagnetic (OOMMF) simulations. They propose an updated phase diagram for artificial ferrimagnets and argue that AMR is a sensitive electrical probe of non-collinear magnetic profiles.

Significance. If the quantitative extraction is valid, the paper offers an on-chip electrical method to characterize magnetic winding in multilayer ferrimagnets, complementing conventional magnetization-curve measurements. The strongest point is that the simulation is not fitted to the AMR data: the magnetization values are taken from SQUID measurements, the exchange parameters from literature, and the forward calculation reproduces the main features of the measured AMR trajectory (Fig. 6e), which gives credibility to the qualitative assignment. The paper also includes a prediction for repetition-number dependence (Supplementary S1) and for an inverted multilayer (Gd/Py/Gd/Py/Gd), showing that the ideas are falsifiable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eqns. (2)–(3), Figs. 3(e)/4(e)] The extraction of α_Gd from R_diff(H) at T = 90 K assumes a uniform (linear) twist of the Gd moments. The validation of this extraction is the agreement between the recovered α_Gd and the simulated center-Gd angle (Fig. 3(e) vs Fig. 4(e)). However, the simulation returns a full depth-dependent profile, and this comparison is only meaningful if the simulated profile is close to linear with rotation maximum at the layer center and near-zero rotation at the interfaces. The paper never shows the simulated depth profile nor performs a synthetic-inversion test, i.e., generating R_diff from the simulated non-uniform profile and inverting it using Eqn. (2) to check whether the recovered angle matches the center moment. Without such a check, the quantitative characterization claim in the abstract is not fully supported.
  2. [§III, Fig. 6; §IV] The assignment of the two AMR drops at T = 10 K to surface twisting (outer Py layer) and bulk twisting (center Py layer) is based on OOMMF simulations that assume a linear scaling A_Gd(T) ∝ M_Gd(T) and use M_Gd(T) inferred from bulk magnetization and a Py reference sample. These are load-bearing inputs: a different scaling law or a different interfacial exchange stiffness A_int could plausibly change the relative threshold fields and hence the interpretation. The authors themselves note that the simulations 'oversimplify the interfacial antiferromagnetic coupling' (Sec. III). A sensitivity analysis varying A_Gd, A_int, and M_Gd within plausible ranges is needed to demonstrate that the two-state identification is robust.
  3. [§III, Fig. 7(c)] The temperature-dependent H_twist1 and H_twist2 are said to be in 'good agreement' with calculations based on M_Gd(T), but no quantitative measure is provided (e.g., residuals, error bars, or a chi-squared metric). The listed curves show a monotonic trend, which is a qualitative match. This is acceptable as an auxiliary check, but it does not by itself validate the quantitative inversion scheme; the authors should either provide a quantitative comparison or soften the claim of 'explicit evidence.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [§III, Fig. 5] The threshold fields H_twist1 and H_twist2 are introduced in the text and figure but never defined operationally; a precise criterion (e.g., the field at which the first derivative of R_diff peaks or where the drop begins) should be stated.
  2. [§III, Fig. 5(c)] The sign change in R_diff(H) at H ~ 45 kOe is attributed to a 'horizontal shift of the harmonic AMR signals' with reference [19]; this is vague, and an explicit expression for the expected R_diff in terms of the magnetization angles would help the reader understand the crossover.
  3. [§II, Eqn. (1)] The parallel-circuit model in Eqn. (1) neglects interface resistances and possible shunting across the multilayer; given the very thin layers, these effects are likely small, but a sentence justifying the approximation would improve rigor.
  4. [§III, Eqn. (2) and Fig. 3(b)] The symbol α_Gd is used both for the local depth-dependent angle (Fig. 3(b)) and for the angle of the center Gd moment (Fig. 3(e)); this dual use is confusing and should be clarified, for example by denoting the local angle α_Gd(z).
  5. [§III, Fig. 6(e)] The phrase 'perfectly reproduces the trajectory' is too strong given the approximations in the model; 'captures the main trajectory' or 'reproduces the trajectory within the model uncertainties' would be more appropriate.
  6. [§III, simulation parameters] A sentence justifying the linear scaling A(T) ∝ M(T) for Gd, with reference to the cited works, would be helpful, since this assumption is used to set A_Gd at T = 10 K.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AMR results are compared against a forward micromagnetic model whose inputs are magnetization data and literature parameters, not fitted to the AMR signals.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce any prediction to its inputs by construction. At T = 90 K, the AMR-derived winding angle alpha_Gd is obtained by inverting Eqs. (2) and (3), which explicitly assume a uniform twist of Gd moments; the assumption is stated openly and cited to prior work [12], not disguised as a derivation. The subsequent comparison with the OOMMF simulation is a genuine forward-model check: the simulation uses magnetization values retrieved from SQUID data and a Py reference sample, exchange stiffness values from the literature and prior work [13, 19], and no AMR data as input. At T = 10 K, the two AMR drops are assigned to surface and bulk twisting by simulating alpha_Py-top and alpha_Py-center with fixed parameters (A_Py, A_Gd, A_int, M_Py, M_Gd), then computing the AMR curve from the simulated spin profiles using Eq. (1); this calculation reproduces the trajectory of the measured AMR without fitting the AMR data. The temperature dependence of H_twist1 and H_twist2 is likewise predicted from the independently deduced M_Gd(T) and the stated linear scaling A_Gd proportional to M_Gd, and is then compared with experiment. The paper's own limitation note that the simulations 'oversimplify the interfacial antiferromagnetic coupling' is a fidelity caveat, not evidence of circularity. The self-citations [12] and [13] are present, but they are not load-bearing in the sense of forcing the central result: [13] supplies background on the twisted state in the same material family, and [12] is the source of an explicit modeling ansatz whose validity is checked against an independent micromagnetic calculation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to an input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on measured magnetizations, literature exchange parameters, and the assumption that a 1D spin-chain model with linear A-M scaling captures the multilayer physics. No new physical entities are introduced. The two free parameters listed are inherited from the modeling chain, not fitted to the AMR data.

free parameters (2)
  • MGd(T) = 590 emu/cm3 at 90 K; 1500 emu/cm3 at 10 K
    Gd magnetization inferred from measured total magnetization minus Py reference sample; used as input to simulations that produce Htwist1/Htwist2. Not fitted to AMR data.
  • AGd(T) = 0.35e-7 erg/cm at 90 K; 0.9e-7 erg/cm at 10 K
    Gd exchange stiffness scaled linearly with MGd via A(T) proportional to M(T); literature value at 90 K, scaled to 10 K. This scaling is a model assumption, not a direct measurement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Interfacial Py/Gd exchange coupling is strongly antiferromagnetic with Aint = -8e-7 erg/cm from literature
    Basis for antiparallel alignment and twisted states; values quoted from refs [16,19].
  • domain assumption The twisted state is described by a 1D spin chain with linear rotation of Gd moments (uniform twist)
    Used to derive Eqn (2) and to interpret simulation spin profiles; stated in Section III near Fig. 3 and in the AMR analysis.
  • domain assumption Exchange stiffness scales linearly with magnetization, A(T) proportional to M(T)
    Invoked for Gd parameters at 10 K; linear scaling is a mean-field approximation, not directly measured for this sample.
  • standard math AMR angular dependence is rho(alpha) = rho_perp + Delta_rho cos^2(alpha) and layer conductances add in parallel (Eqn 1)
    Standard AMR model used to connect resistance to depth-dependent magnetization angle.
  • domain assumption At T = 90 K, MPy aligns firmly with H so the AMR variation of Py is negligible in the twisted state
    Assumed when extracting alpha_Gd from R_diff at 90 K; supported by simulation but not directly measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic twisting in an artificial ferrimagnet: Anisotropic magnetoresistance on Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py/SiNx multilayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XMMCVIHK

@misc{pith2026241201178,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic twisting in an artificial ferrimagnet: Anisotropic magnetoresistance on Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py/SiNx multilayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XMMCVIHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01178}
}
read the original abstract

The intensive study of non-collinear magnets promotes an urgent demand for the quantitative characterization of the non-collinear magnetic structures, which host numerous exotic phenomena. Here we systematically study the non-collinear magnetic structure of an artificial ferrimagnetic multilayer. The AMR measurements reveal two distinct twisted states whose magnetic structures can be quantitatively characterized with the assistance of micromagnetic simulations. Our results manifest AMR as an ideal probe of the non-collinear magnetic structure in artificial ferrimagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01178 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Elemental distributions in Py/Gd/Py/Gd/Py/SiNx multilayer sample measured by energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). EDS maps of (a) element Gd, (b) element Ni, (c) element Fe and (d) element Al. (e) Low￾angle x-ray reflectivity (XRR) scan of the multilayer sample. In order to examine the magnetization reversal mechanism of the multilayer sample, we reproduced the hysteresis loops at different temperatures by th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The positive half branches of the magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) Schematic of the AMR measurements. (b) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The longitudinal resistance for H // I and H  I at T = 10 K. (b) The AMR signals in a rotating H of various strengths at T = 10 K. (c) The H-dependent differential resistance 𝑅𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓(𝐻) and differential AMR results obtained from [𝐴𝑀𝑅(0°)- 𝐴𝑀𝑅(90°)]. (d) M-H and 𝑑 2𝑀…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Schematic of the Py/Gd multilayer for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) The AMR curves in the temperature range from 10 K to 60 K. Two dashed lines mark Htwist1 and Htwist2 in the AMR curves. (b) The temperature-dependent MPy and MGd. (c) Htwist1 and Htwist2 obtained in the AMR measurements and calculations. The good agreement between …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The updated phase diagram describes the comprehensive magnetic structure in the Py(2.5 nm)/Gd(3 nm)/Py(2.5 nm)/Gd(3 nm)/Py(2.5 nm) multilayer. Instead of a unitary twisted state, the updated phase diagram highlights two regimes of surface twisting and bulk twisting. Ac…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bader and S.S.P

    S.D. Bader and S.S.P. Parkin, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 1, 71 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909- 104123

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-070909- 2010

  2. [2]

    M. Bode, M. Heide, K. von Bergmann, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, G. Bihlmayer, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, S. Blü gel and R. Wiesendanger, Nature 447, 190 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05802

    work page doi:10.1038/nature05802 2007

  3. [3]

    Lucassen, M

    J. Lucassen, M. J. Meijer, O. Kurnosikov, H. J. M. Swagten, B. Koopmans, R. Lavrijsen, F. Kloodt- Twesten, R. Frö mter and R. A. Duine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 157201 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.157201

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.157201 2019

  4. [4]

    J. Li, A. Tan, K.W. Moon, A. Doran, M.A. Marcus, A.T. Young, E. Arenholz, S. Ma, R.F. Yang, C. Hwang and Z.Q. Qiu, Nature Commun. 5, 4704 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5704

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms5704 2014

  5. [5]

    Morin, E

    M. Morin, E. Cané vet, A. Raynaud, M. Bartkowiak, D. Sheptyakov, V. Ban, M. Kenzelmann, E. Pomjakushina, K. Conder and M. Medarde, Nature Commun. 7, 13758 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13758

    doi:10.1038/ncomms13758 2016

  6. [6]

    Nakatsuji, N

    S. Nakatsuji, N. Kiyohara and T. Higo, Nature 527, 212 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15723

    doi:10.1038/nature15723 2015

  7. [7]

    Fujishiro, N

    Y. Fujishiro, N. Kanazawa, R. Kurihara, H. Ishizuka, T. Hori, F. S. Yasin, X. Yu, A. Tsukazaki, M. Ichikawa, M. Kawasaki et al., Nature Commun. 12, 317 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20384-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20384-w 2021

  8. [8]

    Zhou, Danru Qu, Ssu-Yen Huang and C

    Jinsong Xu, Jiaming He, J.-S. Zhou, Danru Qu, Ssu-Yen Huang and C. L. Chien, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 117202 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.117202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.117202 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    L. R. Shelford, Y. Liu, U. Al-Jarah, P. A. J. de Groot, G. J. Bowden, R. C. C. Ward, and R. J. Hicken, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 067601 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.067601

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    C. K. Safeer, Mohamed-Ali Nsibi, Jayshankar Nath, Mihai Sebastian Gabor, Haozhe Yang, Isabelle Joumard, Stephane Auffret, Gilles Gaudin and Ioan-Mihai Miron, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Nos. 2022YFA14051...

    2022

  3. [11]

    X. Z. Yu, Y. Onose, N. Kanazawa, J. H. Park, J. H. Han, Y. Matsui, N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nature 465, 901 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09124

    2010 doi

  4. [12]

    J. Li, A. Tan, S. Ma, R. F. Yang, E. Arenholz, C. Hwang and Z. Q. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 147207 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.147207

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Y. Liu, Z. Xu, L. Liu, K. Zhang, Y. Meng, Y. Sun, P. Gao, H.-W. Zhao, Q. Niu and J. Li, Nature Commun. 13, 1264 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28965- 7

    2022 doi

  6. [14]

    M. W. Daniels, R. Cheng, W. Yu, J. Xiao and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134450 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.98.134450

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    A. B. Drovosekov, A. O. Savitsky, D. I. Kholin, N. M. Kreines, V. V. Proglyado, M. V. Makarova, E. A. Kravtsov, V. V. Ustinov, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 475, 668 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2018.12.022

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    Haskel, G

    D. Haskel, G. Srajer, J. C. Lang, J. Pollmann, C. S. Nelson, J. S. Jiang, and S. D. Bader, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 207201 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.207201

    2001 doi

  9. [17]

    M. J. Donahue, & D. G. Porter, OOMMF User’s Guide Version 1.0 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 1999). The code is available at http://math.nist.gov/oommf

    1999

  10. [18]

    Ranchal, Y

    R. Ranchal, Y. Choi, M. Romera, J. W. Freeland, J. L. Prieto and D. Haskel, Phys. Rev. B 85, 024403 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.85.024403

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Lapa, Junjia Ding, John E

    Pavel N. Lapa, Junjia Ding, John E. Pearson, Valentine Novosad, J. S. Jiang, and Axel Hoffmann, Phys. Rev. B 96, 024418 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.96.024418 11 / 11

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    R. E. Camley and R. L. Stamps, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 5, 3727 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953- 8984/5/23/003

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    S. P. M. Curley, B. M. Huddart, D. Kamenskyi, M. J. Coak, R. C. Williams, S. Ghannadzadeh, A. Schneider, S. Okubo, T. Sakurai, H. Ohta et al., Phys. Rev. B 104, 214435 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.214435

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    16, 1187 (2017)

    Kab-Jin Kim, Se Kwon Kim, Yuushou Hirata, Se- Hyeok Oh, Takayuki Tono, Duck-Ho Kim, Takaya Okuno, Woo Seung Ham, Sanghoon Kim, Gyoungchoon Go et al., Nature Mater. 16, 1187 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4990

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Haowen Wang, Chengliang Lu, Jun Chen, Yong Liu, S. L. Yuan, Sang-Wook Cheong, Shuai Dong and Jun- Ming Liu, Nature Commun. 10, 2280 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10299-6

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Levy and Shufeng Zhang, Phys

    Peter M. Levy and Shufeng Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5110 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.5110

    1997 doi

  17. [25]

    S. N. Gordeev, J.-M. L. Beaujour, G. J. Bowden, B. D. Rainford, P. A. J. de Groot, R. C. C. Ward, M. R. Wells, and A. G. M. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 186808 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.186808

    2001 doi

  18. [26]

    W. J. Xu, B. Zhang, Z. X. Liu, Z. Wang, W. Li, Z. B. Wu, R. H. Yu and X. X. Zhang, EPL, 90, 27004 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/90/27004

    2010 doi

  19. [27]

    Hauet, F

    T. Hauet, F. Montaigne, M. Hehn, Y. Henry, and S. Mangin, Phys. Rev. B 79, 224435 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.79.224435

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    J. Li, E. Jin, H. Son, A. Tan, W. N. Cao, Chanyong Hwang, and Z. Q. Qiu, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 033906 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3698297

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Montaigne, S

    F. Montaigne, S. Mangin, and Y. Henry, Phys. Rev. B 67, 144412 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.144412

    2003 doi

  22. [30]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for further details of AMR in the Py and Gd reference samples as well as the Gd/Py/Gd/Py/Gd multilayer, the effect of the repetition number of Py/Gd multilayer, depth-dependent αGd, high-field magnetization curve...

  23. [31]

    Kaiyuan Zhou, Xiang Zhan, Zishuang Li, Haotian Li, Chunjie Yan, Lina Chen, and Ronghua Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 122, 102403 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0138493

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    C. H. Marrows and B. C. Dalton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097206 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.097206

    2004 doi

  25. [33]

    Yuushou Hirata, Duck-Ho Kim, Takaya Okuno, Tomoe Nishimura, Dae-Yun Kim, Yasuhiro Futakawa, Hiroki Yoshikawa, Arata Tsukamoto, Kab-Jin Kim, Sug- Bong Choe et al., Phys. Rev. B 97, 220403(R) (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.220403

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    A. B. Drovosekov, N. M. Kreines, A. O. Savitsky, E. A. Kravtsov, M. V. Ryabukhina, V. V. Proglyado and V. V. Ustinov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 29, 115802 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-648X/aa54f1

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    M. H. Seaberg, B. Holladay, J. C. T. Lee, M. Sikorski, A. H. Reid, S. A. Montoya, G. L. Dakovski, J. D. Koralek, G. Coslovich, S. Moeller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 067403 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.067403

    2017 doi

  28. [36]

    Jaehyeon Park, Yuushou Hirata, Jun-Ho Kang, Soogil Lee, Sanghoon Kim, Cao Van Phuoc, Jong-Ryul Jeong, Jungmin Park, Seung-Young Park, Younghun Jo et al., Phys. Rev. B 103, 014421 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.014421

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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