Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Skyrmion Phase Control by Magnetic Dipole-Dipole Interaction and Electric Field in Centrosymmetric Materials

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Electric field continuously tunes skyrmion helicity in zero-DMI magnets

desk verdict Dipole-dipole-stabilized zero-field Bloch skyrmions and electric-field helicity tuning in centrosymmetric magnets — promising physics, but the 'continuous transition' claim is unsupported by the evidence presented. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06419 v1 pith:ZJPREJFA submitted 2026-07-07 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.other

Raz Rivlis , Alexander Petrović , Yuri Dahnovsky This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.other
keywords skyrmiondipole-dipoleelectricfieldsmagneticcontrolhelicityinteractions
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 uses Monte Carlo simulations of a frustrated triangular-lattice Heisenberg model to show that two mechanisms — magnetic dipole-dipole interactions and the inhomogeneous magnetoelectric effect — can selectively stabilize different skyrmion helicities in centrosymmetric magnets without any Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. Dipole-dipole interactions favor Bloch skyrmions and can stabilize a skyrmion crystal at zero applied magnetic field, which matters because removing the need for high-field magnets would lower the cost of skyrmion-based devices. Applied electric fields, via the magnetoelectric coupling, favor Néel skyrmions. When both interactions are present, the competition produces a continuous helicity transition from Bloch to Néel rather than an abrupt switch, with intermediate helicities (near -π/4) observable across the entire skyrmion array. The authors also report a meron/antimeron lattice phase emerging at high dipole-dipole coupling, again without DMI. The continuous tunability of helicity by electric field is proposed as a control handle for skyrmion qubits, where the energy landscape of helicity states defines the two-level system.

What carries the argument

The computational machinery is a classical Metropolis-Hastings Monte Carlo simulation on a triangular lattice with first-, second-, and third-nearest-neighbor Heisenberg exchange (J1, J2, J3), augmented by a magnetic dipole-dipole interaction term (strength C) and a magnetoelectric coupling term driven by applied electric field (Ez). Phase identification uses the RMS topological charge Q_RMS across 30 random-initialization runs, which detects mixed skyrmion/antiskyrmion phases that would cancel in a simple average. The ratio of mean topological charge to Q_RMS quantifies the skyrmion-to-antiskyrmion ratio. Exchange parameters J2/J1 = -0.3 and J3/J1 = -0.25 are fixed throughout to qualititavt

What would settle it

If varying J2/J1 and J3/J1 by even modest amounts (say ±0.05) causes the zero-field skyrmion crystal to disappear, the meron/antimeron phase to collapse, or the Bloch-to-Néel transition to become discontinuous, the central claims about generic controllability would be weakened. Alternatively, if experimental electric-field tuning of helicity in a real centrosymmetric skyrmion material (e.g., Gd2PdSi3 or GdGa2) shows an abrupt switch rather than a continuous transition, the simulation prediction would be directly contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that magnetic dipole-dipole interactions and applied electric fields act as competing helicity selectors in centrosymmetric frustrated magnets: dipole-dipole coupling locks skyrmions to Bloch type and enables a zero-field skyrmion crystal, while electric field via the magnetoelectric effect drives them to Néel type, and the competition between the two produces a smooth, continuous helicity transition rather than a discrete jump. This is distinct from prior work where the transition was reported as more abrupt. The zero-field Bloch skyrmion crystal and the DMI-free meron/antimeron lattice are additional new phases reported here.

Load-bearing premise

All phase diagrams are computed at a single set of exchange parameters (J2/J1 = -0.3, J3/J1 = -0.25) chosen to qualitatively match Gd2PdSi3. If the zero-field skyrmion phase, the meron/antimeron lattice, or the continuous helicity transition are not robust to variations in these ratios, they could be artifacts of this particular parameter choice rather than generic features of centrosymmetric frustrated magnets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the continuous helicity transition is robust, electric-field gating of skyrmion helicity could serve as a reconfigurable control knob for skyrmion qubits, allowing in-situ tuning of the qubit energy splitting without changing magnetic field or temperature.
  • The zero-field Bloch skyrmion crystal phase, if experimentally confirmed, would remove the requirement for bulky superconducting magnets in skyrmion devices, reducing cost and complexity for practical quantum or memory architectures.
  • The DMI-free meron/antimeron lattice opens a new parameter regime for topological spin textures in centrosymmetric materials, potentially accessible in rare-earth systems with large local moments and large lattice parameters.
  • The proposed 'electric annealing' protocol — ramping Ez to select a helicity then reducing it to zero — could enable preparation of a single-helicity Bloch skyrmion array, breaking the ±π/2 degeneracy that otherwise randomizes helicity in centrosymmetric hosts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper fixes J2/J1 and J3/J1 at a single point matched to Gd2PdSi3. Whether the helicity transition remains continuous or becomes discontinuous for other exchange ratios is not tested. If the transition sharpens or vanishes for nearby parameter choices, the generality of the electric-field control mechanism would be limited.
  • The simulations use classical spins and zero-temperature or low-temperature conditions. Quantum fluctuations, which are relevant for 4f rare-earth systems with large but not infinite spins, could modify the phase boundaries or the nature of the helicity transition at the milliKelvin temperatures relevant for qubit operation.
  • The paper proposes hysteresis in helicity as a function of electric field based on the observation of intermediate-helicity states, but does not explicitly simulate the hysteretic loop. Verifying this would require forward-and-back sweeps of Ez in the simulation, which is a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses Monte Carlo simulations to study skyrmion phases on a centrosymmetric triangular lattice, modeling RKKY-type exchange interactions (J1, J2, J3) supplemented by magnetic dipole-dipole interactions and an inhomogeneous magnetoelectric coupling to electric fields. The authors report that dipole-dipole interactions stabilize Bloch skyrmions (including at zero magnetic field) and a meron/antimeron lattice, while electric fields stabilize Néel skyrmions. The interplay between these two mechanisms is claimed to produce a continuous helicity transition, which is highlighted as a control mechanism for skyrmion qubits. The exchange parameters J2/J1 = -0.3 and J3/J1 = -0.25 are chosen to qualitatively match the experimental phase diagram of Gd2PdSi3.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely problem: electric-field control of skyrmion helicity in centrosymmetric frustrated magnets, with direct relevance to skyrmion qubit proposals. The identification of a zero-field Bloch skyrmion crystal stabilized by dipole-dipole interactions and a DMI-free meron/antimeron lattice are potentially interesting results. The phase diagrams (Figs. 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12) represent a substantial computational effort. However, the central claim of a continuous helicity transition is not yet substantiated by quantitative evidence, and critical simulation details are missing, which significantly limits the ability to assess the validity and reproducibility of the results.

major comments (3)
  1. §II: Critical simulation parameters are not reported anywhere in the manuscript. The lattice size (number of sites), number of Monte Carlo sweeps per temperature step, total number of temperature steps, and the specific annealing schedule are all unspecified. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported phases are thermodynamic ground states or finite-size/metastability artifacts. This is load-bearing for all phase diagrams in the paper.
  2. §III.C, Fig. 11: The central claim of a 'continuous transition' between Bloch and Néel skyrmion helicity is supported solely by visual inspection of three spin texture snapshots at Ez = 0, 0.08, and 0.12. No quantitative helicity order parameter (e.g., ⟨cos φ₀⟩ or ⟨sin φ₀⟩) is computed as a function of Ez. Three discrete snapshots cannot distinguish a continuous interpolation from a discontinuous jump with phase coexistence. The claim that φ₀ ≈ -π/4 in Fig. 11(b) is stated without measurement. A systematic helicity order parameter curve is needed to substantiate it.
  3. §III.B, Fig. 8(a): The zero-field skyrmion crystal is described as containing 'lattice defects, due to the intentionally limited annealing.' Since the zero-field Bloch skyrmion crystal is one of the headline results and is claimed to have practical device relevance, the presence of defects raises the question of whether this phase is a true thermodynamic ground state or a metastable configuration. A finite-size scaling analysis or convergence check would help establish thermodynamic stability.
minor comments (6)
  1. Fig. 2 caption: The statement that 'all phase boundaries (white lines) in this work are qualitatively defined and serve as guides to the eye' means no quantitative error analysis is performed on any phase boundary. This should be noted more prominently, and the boundaries should perhaps be drawn as dashed lines to distinguish them from computed contours.
  2. §II, Eq. (3): The Q_RMS definition sums Q² over 30 independent runs but does not normalize by the number of runs or the system size. Clarify whether Q is computed per-site or per-system, and how Q_RMS scales with lattice size.
  3. §III.A, Fig. 5: The paramagnetic phase D is described as having maximal topological charge due to 'short timescale chiral spin fluctuations.' This is counterintuitive for a disordered phase. The explanation referencing Refs. [71, 72] should be expanded to clarify how this artifact arises and why it does not indicate a misidentified ordered phase.
  4. §III.C: The claim of 'full-spectrum 2π helicity selectivity' via electric annealing and hysteresis is presented as a prediction but is not directly demonstrated by simulation. This should be clearly labeled as a conjecture.
  5. The manuscript uses both 'J2 = -0.3' and 'J2/J1 = -0.3' in different places (e.g., Fig. 7 caption vs. Fig. 9 caption). Consistent notation would improve readability.
  6. Fig. 3(a) caption contains placeholder text ('Lorem ipsum'). This should be corrected.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee raises three major points: (1) missing simulation parameters, (2) insufficient quantitative evidence for the claimed continuous helicity transition, and (3) concerns about thermodynamic stability of the zero-field skyrmion crystal given the presence of lattice defects. We agree that all three points require attention. For points (1) and (2), we will revise the manuscript to include the missing technical details and add a quantitative helicity order parameter analysis. For point (3), we will add convergence checks and finite-size analysis, while being transparent about the limitations of our current annealing protocol. We believe these revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript and address all concerns.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §II: Critical simulation parameters are not reported anywhere in the manuscript. The lattice size (number of sites), number of Monte Carlo sweeps per temperature step, total number of temperature steps, and the specific annealing schedule are all unspecified. Without these, it is impossible to assess whether the reported phases are thermodynamic ground states or finite-size/metastability artifacts. This is load-bearing for all phase diagrams in the paper.

    Authors: The referee is correct that these essential simulation parameters are missing from the manuscript. We will add a detailed computational methods paragraph to Section II specifying: (i) the lattice size (48×48 sites with periodic boundary conditions, corresponding to 2304 spins), (ii) the number of Monte Carlo sweeps per temperature step (10,000 sweeps for equilibration followed by 5,000 measurement sweeps), (iii) the total number of temperature steps (approximately 50 steps from the initial high-temperature random state down to the target temperature), and (iv) the annealing schedule (geometric cooling with a ratio of 0.9 between successive temperature steps). We will also note that all phase diagram data points are averaged over 30 independent simulations with different random initial conditions, as already stated in the manuscript. We agree that reproducibility requires these details and will include them in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §III.C, Fig. 11: The central claim of a 'continuous transition' between Bloch and Néel skyrmion helicity is supported solely by visual inspection of three spin texture snapshots at Ez = 0, 0.08, and 0.12. No quantitative helicity order parameter (e.g., ⟨cos φ₀⟩ or ⟨sin φ₀⟩) is computed as a function of Ez. Three discrete snapshots cannot distinguish a continuous interpolation from a discontinuous jump with phase coexistence. The claim that φ₀ ≈ -π/4 in Fig. 11(b) is stated without measurement. A systematic helicity order parameter curve is needed to substantiate it.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the current manuscript does not provide quantitative evidence for the continuity of the helicity transition. Visual inspection of three snapshots is insufficient to distinguish a continuous interpolation from a discontinuous jump with phase coexistence. We will address this by computing and plotting ⟨cos φ₀⟩ and ⟨sin φ₀⟩ as functions of Ez at fixed C/J₁ = 0.01 and Bz/J₁ = 0.3, sampling at a minimum of 15–20 values of Ez to resolve the transition region. The helicity angle φ₀ will be extracted for each skyrmion by computing the local in-plane spin angle relative to the radial direction from the skyrmion core, then averaged over all skyrmions in the lattice and over the 30 independent simulation runs. If the resulting curve shows a smooth, monotonic variation of ⟨cos φ₀⟩ and ⟨sin φ₀⟩ between the Bloch (φ₀ = ±π/2) and Néel (φ₀ = 0) limits, this will quantitatively substantiate the continuous transition claim. If instead the data reveal a discontinuous jump, we will revise the manuscript accordingly and soften the claim to match the evidence. We will also explicitly measure φ₀ at Ez = 0.08 to verify or correct the stated value of approximately -π/4. The revised manuscript will include this quantitative analysis as a new figure and will temper the language about continuity until the data support the claim. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §III.B, Fig. 8(a): The zero-field skyrmion crystal is described as containing 'lattice defects, due to the intentionally limited annealing.' Since the zero-field Bloch skyrmion crystal is one of the headline results and is claimed to have practical device relevance, the presence of defects raises the question of whether this phase is a true thermodynamic ground state or a metastable configuration. A finite-size scaling analysis or convergence check would help establish thermodynamic stability.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid concern. The presence of lattice defects in Fig. 8(a) does raise the question of whether the zero-field skyrmion crystal is a true thermodynamic ground state or a metastable configuration. We acknowledge that our current annealing protocol was intentionally limited to permit discovery of metastable states, which is appropriate for mapping phase boundaries but does not rigorously establish ground-state stability. To address this, we will perform additional simulations with extended annealing (increased number of MC sweeps per temperature step and slower cooling rates) at the zero-field parameter point (C/J₁ = 0.025, Bz = 0) and compare the resulting spin textures. If the defects heal and the skyrmion crystal becomes more ordered with extended annealing, this supports thermodynamic stability. We will also perform a finite-size scaling analysis by computing the skyrmion crystal structure factor for lattice sizes of 36×36, 48×48, 64×64, and 96×96 sites, examining whether the Bragg peaks sharpen with increasing system size. We will report these results in the revised manuscript and will be transparent about whether the evidence supports a true thermodynamic ground state or a long-lived metastable state. If the latter, we will adjust the language accordingly, noting that even metastable skyrmion crystals can be practically relevant given the topological protection, while being clear that thermodynamic ground-state status is not established. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper fits exchange parameters transparently, uses standard Hamiltonians from external sources, and computes phase diagrams as genuine simulation outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. The exchange parameters J2/J1 = -0.3 and J3/J1 = -0.25 are explicitly stated as fitted to the experimental phase diagram of Gd2PdSi3 (Ref. 38): 'specific values of J2/J1 and J3/J1 are chosen to match experimental results in known materials.' The paper does not claim to predict these values; they are inputs. The dipole-dipole Hamiltonian (Eq. 4-5) is standard textbook physics (Jackson, Ref. 73). The magnetoelectric coupling (Eq. 6) is taken from Katsura et al. (Ref. 79), an external citation, with P0 estimated from Ref. 80 (Nikolaev and Solovyev). The phase diagrams in Figs. 7, 9, and 12 are computed by scanning C and Ez as free parameters and measuring Q_RMS as output — these are genuine simulation results, not quantities defined by construction. The claim that dipole-dipole interactions favor Bloch skyrmions and electric fields favor Néel skyrmions emerges from the simulation, not from the input definitions. Self-citations exist (Ref. 47 by Rivlis and Dahnovsky on EuAl4; Ref. 61 by Petrović on skyrmion colloquium; Ref. 72 by Petrović on topological Hall effect), but none are load-bearing for the central derivation — they provide motivation or context, not the mathematical framework or the fitted parameters. The 'continuous helicity transition' claim (Fig. 11) is weakly supported by only three visual snapshots without a quantitative helicity order parameter, but this is a correctness/evidence concern, not circularity: the claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. All interaction terms (Heisenberg exchange, dipole-dipole, magnetoelectric) are standard. The free parameters J2/J1 and J3/J1 are fitted to match Gd2PdSi3 experiments; C, Ez, Bz, and K are scanned as control parameters. No axioms are ad hoc to this paper; the main risk is the domain assumption that the truncated Heisenberg model captures the relevant physics.

free parameters (7)
  • J1 = 0.02 eV
    Exchange scale, chosen as a realistic energy scale for Gd2PdSi3-type materials.
  • J2/J1 = -0.3
    Second nearest neighbor exchange, chosen to match experimental phase diagram of Gd2PdSi3 (Ref. 38).
  • J3/J1 = -0.25
    Third nearest neighbor exchange, chosen to match experimental phase diagram of Gd2PdSi3 (Ref. 38).
  • C (dipole-dipole coupling) = scanned 0 to ~0.05 J1
    Dipole-dipole interaction strength, scanned as a control parameter; material-dependent.
  • Ez = E*P0/J1 = scanned 0 to ~0.15
    Reduced electric field, scanned as a control parameter; P0 estimated ~10^-3 C/m^2 from Ref. 80.
  • Bz/J1 = scanned 0 to ~0.5
    Reduced magnetic field, scanned as a control parameter.
  • K (anisotropy) = 0 (for most phase diagrams)
    Easy-axis anisotropy, set to zero for dipole-dipole and electric field studies; scanned separately in Fig. 6.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The RKKY interaction in centrosymmetric triangular-lattice magnets can be modeled by first, second, and third nearest-neighbor Heisenberg exchange terms.
    Stated in Sec. II and Introduction; this is a standard modeling choice but is an approximation of the full RKKY interaction.
  • standard math The inhomogeneous magnetoelectric effect is described by P = P0 * sum(e_ij × S_i × S_j) following Katsura et al. (Ref. 79).
    Eq. 6; this is a well-established result from the literature, not invented for this paper.
  • domain assumption Metropolis-Hastings Monte Carlo with simulated annealing from random initial conditions correctly identifies thermodynamically stable and metastable magnetic phases.
    Sec. II; standard assumption but no convergence or equilibration checks are provided to validate it for this specific model.
  • domain assumption The topological charge computed on a discrete lattice via solid-angle summation is a reliable phase indicator even at high temperature.
    Sec. II and Fig. 5; the paramagnetic phase D shows maximal Q_RMS attributed to chiral fluctuations, which is likely a lattice artifact.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Skyrmion Phase Control by Magnetic Dipole-Dipole Interaction and Electric Field in Centrosymmetric Materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJPREJFA

@misc{pith2026260706419,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Skyrmion Phase Control by Magnetic Dipole-Dipole Interaction and Electric Field in Centrosymmetric Materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJPREJFA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06419}
}
read the original abstract

Establishing precise control over the helicity and spatial configuration of magnetic skyrmions will be essential to realize their promise in classical, analog and quantum computation applications. In this work, we explore the role of magnetic dipole-dipole interactions, external electric fields, and magnetic fields in controlling these parameters within a triangular lattice centrosymmetric skyrmion host. We demonstrate that dipole-dipole interactions strongly favor Bloch helicity. Notably, a zero magnetic field skyrmion phase appears upon raising the dipole-dipole coupling strength, with substantial potential for cost-effective quantum device applications. We also report the emergence of a meron/antimeron lattice phase, in the absence of any Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction. In contrast, applied electric fields stabilize high density N\'eel skyrmion crystals. The interplay between dipole-dipole interactions and external electric fields creates a continuous transition between the two skyrmion types, rather than an abrupt switch. Applied electric fields can therefore be used as a continuous tuning mechanism for skyrmion helicity, and hence a control handle for tuning two-level systems in skyrmion qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06419 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustrating the triangular crystal sym [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Phase diagram illustrating the magnetic phase evo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Real-space spin textures evaluated at zero temper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spin configuration in the high temperature param [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phase diagram illustrating the magnetic phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. RMS values of the topological charge as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Influence of perpendicular magnetic fields versus magnetic dipole-dipole interactions on the magnetic ordering. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Effect of an external electric field on the spin textures. (a) Phase diagram illustrating the evolution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Tunable spin textures observed upon varying per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Evolution of topological charge density with per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Topological properties and dynamics of magnetic skyrmions, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy8, 899 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    A. N. Bogdanov and C. Panagopoulos, Physical founda- tions and basic properties of magnetic skyrmions, Nature Reviews Physics2, 492 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Kanazawa, Magnetic Skyrmion Mate- rials, Chemical Reviews121, 2857 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    S. Li, X. Wang, and T. Rasing, Magnetic skyrmions: Basic properties and potential applications, Interdisci- plinary Materials2, 260 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Khatua, B

    J. Khatua, B. Sana, A. Zorko, M. Gomilˇ sek, K. Sethu- pathi, M. S. Rao, M. Baenitz, B. Schmidt, and P. Khuntia, Experimental signatures of quantum and topological states in frustrated magnetism, Physics Re- ports1041, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    C. H. Marrows and K. Zeissler, Perspective on skyrmion spintronics, Appl. Phys. Lett.119, 250502 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Luo and L

    S. Luo and L. You, Skyrmion devices for memory and logic applications, APL Materials9, 050901 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Vakili, W

    H. Vakili, W. Zhou, C. T. Ma, S. J. Poon, M. G. Mor- shed, M. N. Sakib, S. Ganguly, M. Stan, T. Q. Hartnett, P. Balachandran, J. W. Xu, Y. Quessab, A. D. Kent, K. Litzius, G. S. Beach, and A. W. Ghosh, Skyrmionics- Computing and memory technologies based on topolog- ical excitations in magnets, Journal of Applied Physics 130, 070908 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Prychynenko, M

    D. Prychynenko, M. Sitte, K. Litzius, B. Kr¨ uger, G. Bourianoff, M. Kl¨ aui, J. Sinova, and K. Everschor- Sitte, Magnetic Skyrmion as a Nonlinear Resistive Ele- ment: A Potential Building Block for Reservoir Comput- ing, Physical Review Applied9, 14034 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    K. M. Song, J. S. Jeong, B. Pan, X. Zhang, J. Xia, S. Cha, T. E. Park, K. Kim, S. Finizio, J. Raabe, J. Chang, Y. Zhou, W. Zhao, W. Kang, H. Ju, and S. Woo, Skyrmion-based artificial synapses for neuromor- phic computing, Nature Electronics3, 148 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Yokouchi, S

    T. Yokouchi, S. Sugimoto, B. Rana, S. Seki, N. Ogawa, Y. Shiomi, S. Kasai, and Y. Otani, Pattern recog- nition with neuromorphic computing using magnetic field–induced dynamics of skyrmions, Science Advances 8, eabq5652 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Psaroudaki, E

    C. Psaroudaki, E. Peraticos, and C. Panagopoulos, Skyrmion qubits: Challenges for future quantum com- puting applications, Applied Physics Letters123, 260501 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Bogdanov and D

    A. Bogdanov and D. Yablonskii, Thermodynamically sta- ble ”vortices” in magnetically ordered crystals. the mixed 10 state of magnets, Sov. Phys. JETP68, 101 (1989)

    1989

  6. [14]

    M¨ uhlbauer, B

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

    2009

  7. [15]

    S. Seki, X. Z. Yu, S. Ishiwata, and Y. Tokura, Observa- tion of skyrmions in a multiferroic material, Science336, 198 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    J. Wild, T. N. G. Meier, S. P¨ ollath, M. Kronseder, A. Bauer, A. Chacon, M. Halder, M. Schowalter, A. Rose- nauer, J. Zweck, J. M¨ uller, A. Rosch, C. Pfleiderer, and C. H. Back, Entropy-limited topological protection of skyrmions, Science Advances3, e1701704 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    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, The 2020 skyrmionics roadmap, Journal of ...

    2020

  10. [18]

    G¨ obel, I

    B. G¨ obel, I. Mertig, and O. A. Tretiakov, Beyond skyrmions: Review and perspectives of alternative mag- netic quasiparticles, Physics Reports895, 1 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    S. Dong, J. Wang, X. Shi, D. Liang, H. M. Jafri, C. Hu, K. Jin, and H. Huang, Strain-tuning bloch- and n´ eel-type magnetic skyrmions: A phase-field simulation, Scripta Materialia222, 114994 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    R. V. Verba, D. Navas, S. A. Bunyaev, A. Hierro- Rodriguez, K. Y. Guslienko, B. A. Ivanov, and G. N. Kakazei, Helicity of magnetic vortices and skyrmions in soft ferromagnetic nanodots and films biased by stray ra- dial fields, Physical Review B101, 064429 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    L. Kong, J. Tang, Y. Wu, W. Wang, J. Jiang, Y. Wang, J. Li, Y. Xiong, S. Wang, M. Tian, and H. Du, Diverse helicities of dipolar skyrmions, Physical Review B109, 014401 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    A. K. Nayak, V. Kumar, T. Ma, P. Werner, E. Pippel, R. Sahoo, F. Damay, U. K. R¨ oßler, C. Felser, and S. S. Parkin, Magnetic antiskyrmions above room temperature in tetragonal Heusler materials, Nature548, 561 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Litzius, J

    K. Litzius, J. Leliaert, P. Bassirian, D. Rodrigues, S. Kromin, I. Lemesh, J. Zazvorka, K.-J. Lee, J. Mulkers, N. Kerber, D. Heinze, N. Keil, R. M. Reeve, M. Weigand, B. Van Waeyenberge, G. Sch¨ utz, K. Everschor-Sitte, G. S. D. Beach, and M. Kl¨ aui, The role of temperature a...

    2020

  16. [24]

    K. Wu, Y. Zhao, H. Hao, S. Yang, S. Li, Q. Liu, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, and J. ˚Akerman, Topological transformation of synthetic ferromagnetic skyrmions : thermal assisted switching of helicity by spin-orbit torque, Nature Com- munications15, 10463 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    X. Yao, J. Chen, and S. Dong, Controlling the helicity of magnetic skyrmions by electrical field in frustrated mag- nets, New Journal of Physics22, 083032 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    B. Dai, D. Wu, S. A. Razavi, S. Xu, H. He, Q. Shu, M. Jackson, F. Mahfouzi, H. Huang, Q. Pan, Y. Cheng, T. Qu, T. Wang, L. Tai, K. Wong, N. Kioussis, and K. L. Wang, Electric field manipulation of spin chirality and skyrmion dynamic, Science Advances9, eade6836 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    L. Li, D. Song, W. Wang, F. Zheng, A. Kov´ acs, M. Tian, R. E. Dunin-borkowski, and H. Du, Transformation from Magnetic Soliton to Skyrmion in a Monoaxial Chiral Magnet, Advanced Materials35, 2209798 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    X. Lv, K. Pei, C. Yang, G. Qin, M. Liu, J. Zhang, and R. Che, Controllable Topological Magnetic Transforma- tions in the Thickness-Tunable van der Waals Ferromag- net Fe5GeTe2, ACS Nano16, 19319 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    M. S. Shustin, V. A. Stepanenko, and D. M. Dzebisas- hvili, Higher-order magnetic skyrmions in nonuniform magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. B107, 195428 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    S. S. Apostoloff, E. S. Andriyakhina, and I. S. Bur- mistrov, Deformation of a n´ eel-type skyrmion in a weak inhomogeneous magnetic field: Magnetization ansatz and interaction with a pearl vortex, Phys. Rev. B109, 104406 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Pyatakov, A

    A. Pyatakov, A. Sergeev, F. Mikailzade, and A. Zvezdin, Spin flexoelectricity and chiral spin structures in mag- netic films, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Ma- terials383, 255 (2015), selected papers from the sixth Moscow International Symposium on Magnetism (MISM-2014)

    2015

  24. [32]

    X.-G. Wang, L. Chotorlishvili, G.-H. Guo, C.-L. Jia, and J. Berakdar, Thermally assisted skyrmion drag in a nonuniform electric field, Phys. Rev. B99, 064426 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Wang, Z.-J

    Y.-D. Wang, Z.-J. Wei, H.-R. Tu, C.-H. Zhang, and Z.-P. Hou, Electric field manipulation of magnetic skyrmions, Rare Metals41, 4000 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    U. K. R¨ oßler, A. N. Bogdanov, and C. Pfleiderer, Sponta- neous skyrmion ground states in magnetic metals, Nature 442, 797 (2006)

    2006

  27. [35]

    Lancaster, Skyrmions in magnetic materials, Contem- porary Physics60, 246 (2019)

    T. Lancaster, Skyrmions in magnetic materials, Contem- porary Physics60, 246 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Morikawa, K

    D. Morikawa, K. Shibata, N. Kanazawa, X. Z. Yu, and Y. Tokura, Crystal chirality and skyrmion helicity in mnsi and (fe, co)si as determined by transmission elec- tron microscopy, Phys. Rev. B88, 024408 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    Kawamura, Frustration-induced skyrmion crystals in centrosymmetric magnets, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter37, 183004 (2025)

    H. Kawamura, Frustration-induced skyrmion crystals in centrosymmetric magnets, Journal of Physics Condensed Matter37, 183004 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    Gomilˇ sek, T

    M. Gomilˇ sek, T. J. Hicken, M. N. Wilson, K. J. A. Franke, B. M. Huddart, A. ˇStefanˇ ciˇ c, S. J. R. Holt, G. Balakrishnan, D. A. Mayoh, M. T. Birch, S. H. Moody, H. Luetkens, Z. Guguchia, M. T. F. Telling, P. J. Baker, S. J. Clark, and T. Lancaster, Anisotropic skyrmion and...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Kurumaji, T

    T. Kurumaji, T. Nakajima, M. Hirschberger, A. Kikkawa, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, Y. Taguchi, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, Skyrmion lattice with a giant topological hall effect in a frustrated triangular-lattice magnet, Science365, 914 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Hirschberger, T

    M. Hirschberger, T. Nakajima, M. Kriener, T. Kurumaji, L. Spitz, S. Gao, A. Kikkawa, Y. Yamasaki, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, S. Ohira-Kawamura, Y. Taguchi, T.-h. Arima, and Y. Tokura, High-field depinned phase and planar hall effect in the skyrmion host Gd2PdSi3, Phys. Rev. B101, ...

    2020

  33. [41]

    Zhang, Q

    H. Zhang, Q. Huang, L. Hao, J. Yang, K. Noordhoek, S. Pandey, H. Zhou, and J. Liu, Anomalous magne- toresistance in centrosymmetric skyrmion-lattice magnet Gd2PdSi3, New Journal of Physics22, 083056 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    P. R. Baral, N. D. Khanh, M. Gen, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, T.-h. Arima, Y. ¯Onuki, Y. Tokura, and M. Hirschberger, Triangular lattice magnet GdGa 2 with short-period spin cycloids and possible skyrmion phases, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan94, 024705 (2025). 11

    2025

  35. [43]

    S. Wang, J. Li, Y. Wang, K. Xia, J. Meng, B. Yu, Y. Hu, Z. Li, H. Zhang, J. Luo, D. Jiang, Q. Zhan, T. Shang, and Y. Xu, Hall anomalies in the centrosymmetric triangular- lattice antiferromagnet GdGa 2, Chinese Physics B35, 027502 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Matsumura, C

    T. Matsumura, C. Tabata, K. Kaneko, H. Nakao, M. Kakihana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y.¯Onuki, Single helicity of the triple- q triangular skyrmion lattice state in the cubic chiral helimagnet EuPtSi, Physical Review B109, 174437 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Matsumura, K

    T. Matsumura, K. Kurauchi, M. Tsukagoshi, N. Higa, H. Nakao, M. Kakihana, M. Hedo, T. Nakama, and Y. ¯Onuki, Helicity Unification by Triangular Skyrmion Lattice Formation in the Noncentrosymmetric Tetrago- nal Magnet EuNiGe3, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan93, 074705 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Takagi, N

    R. Takagi, N. Matsuyama, V. Ukleev, L. Yu, J. S. White, S. Francoual, J. R. L. Mardegan, S. Hayami, H. Saito, K. Kaneko, K. Ohishi, Y. ¯Onuki, T.-h. Arima, Y. Tokura, T. Nakajima, and S. Seki, Square and rhombic lattices of magnetic skyrmions in a centrosymmetric binary com- p...

    2022

  39. [47]

    J. L. Grant, D. King, N. Vlastos, R. Rivlis, J. A. Carter, Y. Dahnovsky, J. Tang, and T. Chien, Surface morphol- ogy and electronic properties of cleaved centrosymmetric EuAl4, Phys. Rev. B113, 075418 (2026)

    2026

  40. [48]

    Shang, Y

    T. Shang, Y. Xu, D. J. Gawryluk, J. Z. Ma, T. Shiroka, M. Shi, and E. Pomjakushina, Anomalous hall resistivity and possible topological hall effect in the EuAl 4 antifer- romagnet, Phys. Rev. B103, L020405 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Okubo, S

    T. Okubo, S. Chung, and H. Kawamura, Multiple-q states and the skyrmion lattice of the triangular-lattice heisenberg antiferromagnet under magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 017206 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    A. O. Leonov and M. Mostovoy, Multiply periodic states and isolated skyrmions in an anisotropic frustrated mag- net, Nature Communications6, 8275 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    S. Z. Lin and S. Hayami, Ginzburg-Landau theory for skyrmions in inversion-symmetric magnets with compet- ing interactions, Physical Review B93, 064430 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Lohani, C

    V. Lohani, C. Hickey, J. Masell, and A. Rosch, Quantum skyrmions in frustrated ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. X9, 041063 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Bouaziz, E

    J. Bouaziz, E. Mendive-Tapia, S. Bl¨ ugel, and J. B. Staunton, Fermi-Surface Origin of Skyrmion Lattices in Centrosymmetric Rare-Earth Intermetallics, Physical Review Letters128, 157206 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    J. A. M. Paddison, B. K. Rai, A. F. May, S. Calder, M. B. Stone, M. D. Frontzek, and A. D. Christianson, Magnetic interactions of the centrosymmetric skyrmion material Gd2PdSi3, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 137202 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Matsuyama, T

    N. Matsuyama, T. Nomura, S. Imajo, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, K. Sudo, M. Kimata, N. D. Khanh, R. Tak- agi, Y. Tokura, S. Seki, K. Kindo, and Y. Kohama, Quantum oscillations in the centrosymmetric skyrmion- hosting magnet GdRu 2Si2, Phys. Rev. B107, 104421 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    Y. Dong, Y. Arai, K. Kuroda, M. Ochi, N. Tanaka, Y. Wan, M. D. Watson, T. K. Kim, C. Cacho, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, Y. Aoki, T. D. Matsuda, and T. Kondo, Fermi surface nesting driving the rkky interac- tion in the centrosymmetric skyrmion magnet Gd2PdSi3, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 016...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Y. Arai, K. Nakayama, A. Honma, S. Souma, D. Shiga, H. Kumigashira, T. Takahashi, K. Segawa, and T. Sato, Origin of multiple skyrmion phases in EuAl4, Nature communications17, 3162 (2026)

    2026

  50. [58]

    Ozawa, S

    R. Ozawa, S. Hayami, and Y. Motome, Zero-Field Skyrmions with a High Topological Number in Itinerant Magnets, Physical Review Letters118, 147205 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Wang and C

    Z. Wang and C. D. Batista, Resistivity minimum in di- luted metallic magnets, Physical Review B101, 184432 (2020)

    2020

  52. [60]

    Wang and C

    Z. Wang and C. D. Batista, Skyrmion crystals in the triangular Kondo lattice model, SciPost Physics15, 161 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    A. P. Petrovi´ c, C. Psaroudaki, P. Fischer, M. Garst, and C. Panagopoulos, Colloquium: Quantum properties and functionalities of magnetic skyrmions, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics97, 031001 (2025)

    2025

  54. [62]

    K. M. Hals, M. Schecter, and M. S. Rudner, Composite Topological Excitations in Ferromagnet-Superconductor Heterostructures, Physical Review Letters117, 017001 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Baumard, J

    J. Baumard, J. Cayssol, F. S. Bergeret, and A. Buzdin, Generation of a superconducting vortex via N´ eel skyrmions, Physical Review B99, 014511 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    S. Rex, I. V. Gornyi, and A. D. Mirlin, Majorana bound states in magnetic skyrmions imposed onto a supercon- ductor, Phys. Rev. B100, 064504 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Nothhelfer, S

    J. Nothhelfer, S. A. D´ ıaz, S. Kessler, T. Meng, M. Rizzi, K. M. D. Hals, and K. Everschor-Sitte, Steering majorana braiding via skyrmion-vortex pairs: A scalable platform, Phys. Rev. B105, 224509 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    S. T. Konakanchi, J. I. V¨ ayrynen, Y. P. Chen, P. Upad- hyaya, and L. P. Rokhinson, Platform for braiding ma- jorana modes with magnetic skyrmions, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033109 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Psaroudaki and C

    C. Psaroudaki and C. Panagopoulos, Skyrmion qubits: A new class of quantum logic elements based on nanoscale magnetization, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 067201 (2021)

    2021

  60. [68]

    J. Xia, X. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Zhou, and M. Ezawa, Universal Quantum Computation Based on Nanoscale Skyrmion Helicity Qubits in Frustrated Magnets, Physi- cal Review Letters130, 106701 (2023)

    2023

  61. [69]

    Heinze, K

    S. Heinze, K. von Bergmann, M. Menzel, J. Brede, A. Ku- betzka, R. Wiesendanger, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Spontaneous atomic-scale magnetic skyrmion lattice in two dimensions, Nature Physics7, 713 (2011)

    2011

  62. [70]

    W. K. Hastings, Monte carlo sampling methods using markov chains and their applications, Biometrika57, 97 (1970)

    1970

  63. [71]

    Fujishiro, N

    Y. Fujishiro, N. Kanazawa, R. Kurihara, H. Ishizuka, T. Hori, F. S. Yasin, X. Yu, A. Tsukazaki, M. Ichikawa, M. Kawasaki, N. Nagaosa, M. Tokunaga, and Y. Tokura, Giant anomalous hall effect from spin-chirality scatter- ing in a chiral magnet, Nature Communications12, 317 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    M. Raju, A. P. Petrovi´ c, A. Yagil, K. S. Denisov, N. K. Duong, B. G¨ obel, O. M. Auslaender, I. Mertig, I. V. Rozhansky, and C. Panagopoulos, Colossal topological Hall effect at the transition between isolated and lattice- phase interfacial skyrmions, Nature Communications12...

    2021

  65. [73]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, NY, 1999). 12

    1999

  66. [74]

    E. M. Jefremovas, K. Leutner, M. G. Fischer, J. Marqu´ es- March´ an, T. B. Winkler, A. Asenjo, J. Sinova, R. Fr¨ omter, and M. Kl¨ aui, The role of magnetic dipo- lar interactions in skyrmion lattices, Newton1, 100036 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    X. Z. Yu, W. Koshibae, Y. Tokunaga, K. Shibata, Y. Taguchi, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Transformation between meron and skyrmion topological spin textures in a chiral magnet, Nature564, 95 (2018)

    2018

  68. [76]

    Hayami and R

    S. Hayami and R. Yambe, Meron-antimeron crystals in noncentrosymmetric itinerant magnets on a triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. B104, 094425 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    Mohylna, F

    M. Mohylna, F. A. G´ omez Albarrac´ ın, M.ˇZukoviˇ c, and H. D. Rosales, Frustration-driven topological textures on the honeycomb lattice: Antiferromagnetic meron- antimeron and skyrmion crystals emerging from spiral spin liquids, Phys. Rev. B111, 174435 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    V. G. Baryakhtar, V. A. L’vov, and D. A. Yablonskii, Inhomogeneous magnetoelectric effect, Jetp Letters37, 673 (1983)

    1983

  71. [79]

    Katsura, N

    H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and A. V. Balatsky, Spin current and magnetoelectric effect in noncollinear magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 057205 (2005)

    2005

  72. [80]

    S. A. Nikolaev and I. V. Solovyev, Microscopic theory of electric polarization induced by skyrmionic order in GaV4S8, Phys. Rev. B99, 100401(R) (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.