Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Interface-resolved structural properties of epitaxial Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$/ Gd$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$ bilayers grown on GGG(111) by pulsed laser deposition

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In epitaxial YIG/GdIG bilayers on GGG(111), the stacking sequence—YIG first, GdIG second—is the decisive factor for structural quality.

desk verdict Useful stacking-order comparison for garnet growers, but the key strain table is internally inconsistent and the defect-density claim leans on a single lamella. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19979 v1 pith:ZJQLBXGQ submitted 2026-07-22 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Kshitij Singh Rathore , Abhisek Mishra , Swayang Priya Mahanta , Shubhransu Sahoo , Anupama Swain , Pushpendra Gupta , Kapil Gupta , Jose M. Caicedo-Roque
show 5 more authors
Jessica Padilla-Pantoja Francisco J. Belarre Belen Ballesteros Jose Santiso Subhankar Bedanta
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords YIG/GdIGbilayersgarnetheterostructurespulsedlaserdepositionreciprocalspacemappingepitaxialstrainantiphaseboundariesGGG(111)substratetransmissionelectronmicroscopy
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 tries to establish that the order in which two epitaxial garnet layers are deposited—YIG on GGG first, then GdIG, versus the reverse—controls the structural quality of the bilayer. Using X-ray diffraction, reciprocal space mapping, and cross-sectional TEM, the authors find that GGG/YIG/GdIG displays sharp interfaces, a nearly defect-free initial YIG region, and only localized strain contrast, whereas GGG/GdIG/YIG shows a higher density of interfacial defects and antiphase boundaries that propagate into the overlayer. On this evidence they conclude that the YIG-first sequence is structurally superior and preferable for spintronic and magnonic devices. The claim matters because all-insulating YIG/GdIG bilayers are a platform for studying exchange coupling and spin dynamics, and structural coherence is the assumed precondition for clean magnetic behavior.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the RSM strain analysis around the asymmetric (486) reflection, which gives out-of-plane (d444) and in-plane (d20-2) spacings, combined with the biaxial elastic relation ε⊥ = -2ν/(1-ν) ε∥ for extracting Poisson's ratio. The key reference choice is internal: the relaxed YIG and GdIG reflections measured in the SYG bilayer serve as the zero-strain standards for all strain calculations, rather than nominal bulk lattice parameters. At the microstructural level, the mechanism is antiphase boundary formation—a half-lattice-spacing translation between coalesced growth domains—which locally disrupts Fe–O–Fe exchange; TEM shows these APBs in the GdIG-first sample but not in t

What would settle it

Measure the (486) RSM of thick, intentionally relaxed single-layer YIG and GdIG films grown under the same conditions and compare their lattice parameters with the internal references used here; if the single-layer relaxed parameters differ from the SYG references by more than the strain differences separating the two stacks, the paper's comparative strain conclusions are not anchored. Alternatively, survey multiple TEM lamellae of the SYG sample: finding antiphase boundaries at comparable density would erase the claimed microstructural superiority.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that growth-sequence alone—not composition or deposition parameters—determines whether the bilayer relaxes coherently or through defects. In the YIG-first sample (SYG), YIG grows fully strained on GGG up to roughly 50–60 nm and then develops a columnar microstructure; the RSM resolves both a strained YIG component and a relaxed YIG component along with a predominantly relaxed GdIG layer. The relaxed YIG and GdIG reflections from this sample are used as internal zero-strain references for every other sample in the paper. In the GdIG-first sample (SGY), GdIG deposited directly on GGG relaxes substantially despite the expected −1.8% compressive mismatch, and the overlyi

Load-bearing premise

Strain values for all samples are computed relative to the relaxed YIG and GdIG reflections in the SYG bilayer; if those references are themselves strained, off-stoichiometric, or affected by the bilayer environment, every strain and Poisson ratio in the paper shifts, including the comparison between stacking sequences.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For functional YIG/GdIG devices, the GGG/YIG/GdIG stacking should be the default architecture: it gives sharper interfaces and fewer extended defects.
  • The strain state of each layer cannot be read from bulk mismatch alone; growth order creates coexisting strained and relaxed regions, so magnetic anisotropy and exchange-coupling studies must be interpreted with this two-component structure in mind.
  • Antiphase boundaries in the GdIG-first stack may reduce the local magnetic moment and modify exchange pathways in the YIG layer, making that sequence less suitable for clean spin-transport measurements.
  • Differences between Pt-capped and uncapped samples are negligible, so the observed structural differences are intrinsic to growth order, not to capping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the internal relaxed references (a = 12.536 Å for YIG, 12.613 Å for GdIG, ~1% larger than bulk) represent off-stoichiometry rather than true relaxation, then the reported strains are self-consistent but not absolute; an independent measurement of the relaxed lattice parameter of PLD-grown single films—e.g., via high-temperature annealing or thicker films—would anchor the strain scale.
  • A direct magnetic consequence is testable: if the YIG-first sequence is structurally superior, it should exhibit lower ferromagnetic resonance linewidth and more homogeneous magnetization than the GdIG-first sample; a frequency-swept FMR or Brillouin light scattering measurement on these exact samples would test this.
  • The sign anomaly in SGY's YIG (compressive strain where tensile is expected) suggests composition shifts dominate over elasticity in that layer; spatially resolved EDX or X-ray absorption across the interface could quantify whether Fe/Gd antisite disorder is the cause.
  • The columnar tilted domains in SYG imply an in-plane anisotropy direction within the film; polarized neutron or magneto-optical Kerr measurements could look for a corresponding uniaxial in-plane magnetic anisotropy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a structural study of epitaxial YIG and GdIG single layers and YIG/GdIG bilayers grown by PLD on GGG(111), with the two stacking sequences named SYG (YIG first) and SGY (GdIG first). Using XRD θ–2θ scans, reciprocal space mapping around the (486) reflection, and cross-sectional TEM/EDX, the authors find that all layers are epitaxial and crystalline, and that strain/relaxation behavior depends on stacking order. The central comparative claim is that the YIG-first sequence (SYG) gives improved structural quality and reduced defect density relative to the GdIG-first sequence (SGY). The evidence includes RSM strain analysis and TEM imaging showing columnar microstructure, APBs in SGY, and apparent absence of such extended planar defects in SYG.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would be a useful contribution to garnet heterostructure growth, since growth-order-dependent strain and defect control is relevant for insulating magnonic/spintronic devices. The manuscript has several strengths: the RSM method and TEM images are internally consistent in general terms, EDX confirms chemically distinct layers with no obvious interdiffusion, and the observation of APBs in SGY with a clear IFFT analysis is a specific and valuable microstructural result. However, the quantitative strain analysis is currently the weakest load-bearing component: the reference zero-strain points are taken from the same SYG sample being characterized, and Table III contains an internal numerical inconsistency for the SYG YIG strained component. Because the stacking-sequence comparison is argued partly on strain/relaxation grounds, these issues must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Table III] The SYG YIG strained component is listed as d220 = 4.4364 Å and d444 = 1.8244 Å, with ε∥ = −0.96% and ε⊥ = +1.22%, while the relaxed YIG reference is d220* = 4.4364 Å and d444* = 1.8094 Å. With the strain definition implied by the text, ε∥ = (d220 − d220*)/d220* = 0 for the strained component, not −0.96%; the listed d220 cannot produce that strain. Likewise, ε⊥ = +0.83%, not +1.22%. This is not a minor rounding issue: the pair is used to derive ν ≈ 0.39 and to support the coexistence of strained and relaxed YIG. The strain values need to be recomputed from the RSM peak coordinates, and the definition of strain and the reference values must be stated explicitly.
  2. [§3.1, paragraphs after Eq. (1)] The zero-strain references are the 'relaxed' YIG and GdIG reflections measured in the SYG bilayer itself. The claim that SYG contains both strained and relaxed YIG components is therefore partly definitional: those components are assigned zero strain by construction. If the chosen reflections are themselves strained, off-stoichiometric, or affected by the bilayer environment, every strain value and every Poisson ratio in the paper shifts, including the comparison between SYG and SGY. The authors should provide an independent justification that these reflections are truly strain-free—for example, comparison with thick single-layer films of directly measured composition, or a separate measurement of the bulk lattice parameter of the same PLD targets—and should quantify how the conclusions change for a plausible range of reference lattice parameters.
  3. [§3.1, samples SG and SGY] The unphysical Poisson ratios (ν ≈ −0.37 for SG, and an arbitrarily large value for SGY YIG) are attributed to compositional variation, but no quantitative composition measurement is presented; the EDX data are used only to confirm layer separation. Attributing strain anomalies to off-stoichiometry without a quantitative test is speculative in a paper whose central quantitative tool is strain analysis. Either provide independent composition/strain separation (e.g., EDX quantification or Rutherford backscattering) or reframe these anomalies as limitations of the biaxial-strain model rather than as evidence for a specific physical origin.
  4. [§3.2, Figures 4–6] The central claim of 'reduced defect density' and 'absence of extended planar defects' in SYG rests on qualitative inspection of a single TEM lamella per stacking sequence, and the defect density is never counted or measured. The phrase 'does not show evidence' in one field of view is an argument from absence. The authors should quantify defect densities (for example, by counting APB segments or defect intersections per unit area over multiple lamellae or several regions of each sample) or explicitly temper the claim to a qualitative, single-lamella observation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table III] No uncertainties are given for any d-spacing or strain value. Given that several strains are at the level of 0.1% or less (e.g., SGY GdIG ε∥ = −0.08%), error bars or at least an instrument resolution estimate are needed for the reader to judge which strain values are meaningful.
  2. [§3.2, Figures 4 and 5] The FFT insets in Figs. 4(a) and 5(c) are stated to confirm crystallographic alignment, but the patterns are not indexed or labeled. Since the text makes a claim about epitaxial alignment from these FFTs, the relevant reflections should be identified.
  3. [§3.2, second paragraph] The sentence 'the identical crystallographic orientation but different translational [8]' appears incomplete; the missing word is presumably 'translational phase.'
  4. [§2, last paragraph] The sentence about the Pt layer 'which will predominantly be discussed in our work' is vague and does not connect to any later quantitative discussion. Please clarify or delete.
  5. [§3.1, sample SY] The text says d220 = 4.3783 Å for SY YIG. Since the GGG substrate d220 is listed as 4.3766 Å in Table I, the in-plane mismatch is about +0.04%, not −1.31%; the quoted ε∥ appears to be referenced to the film's relaxed lattice parameter rather than to the substrate. The strain convention should be stated explicitly and applied consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: strain reference choice is openly stated and the central stacking-quality claim rests on TEM, not on the reference definition.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental characterization study, not a derivation from first principles. The only explicit definitional element is the strain reference: 'we take the relaxed YIG and GdIG components measured in the SYG bilayer ... as the reference structures' (Section 3.1) and later 'are, by construction, taken as the reference structures ... ε⊥=ε∥=0.' This is a transparent calibration convention, and the 'relaxed' identification is independently supported by the reflections lying close to the cubic guide line. Strain values for the other layers are empirical differences from that reference; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The abstract/conclusion claim about improved structural quality of the YIG-first stacking sequence is supported by direct TEM observations (APBs in SGY, their absence noted in SYG) and interface sharpness, not by the strain definitions. Self-citations ([14], [20], [30]) are background or are accompanied by external citations and are not load-bearing. Correctness concerns remain—single-lamella TEM sampling, and the internal inconsistency in Table III (same d220 for strained and relaxed SYG YIG despite ε∥=−0.96%)—but these affect evidence quality, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central strain quantification rests on an internal reference chosen from one sample, plus the standard biaxial-strain relation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Reference lattice parameters for YIG and GdIG = a_YIG = 12.536 Å, a_GdIG = 12.613 Å
    Taken from the relaxed reflections of the SYG bilayer itself, used as zero-strain references for all strain calculations; this is an internal calibration.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The 'relaxed' YIG and GdIG reflections in SYG correspond to strain-free films.
    Zero-strain reference is set to these measured reflections, so all relative strains inherit this assumption (§3.1, Table III).
  • domain assumption Biaxial strain relation Eq. (1) with a single Poisson ratio applies to (111)-oriented cubic garnets.
    Used to extract ν; deviations are interpreted as composition effects, but the relation is assumed valid for the strained components.
  • domain assumption The grown films have composition identical to stoichiometric YIG/GdIG except where compositional variation is invoked.
    XRD is indexed to garnet phases, but no quantitative composition analysis is provided; compositional variation is invoked ad hoc to explain unphysical strains.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interface-resolved structural properties of epitaxial Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$/ Gd$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$ bilayers grown on GGG(111) by pulsed laser deposition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJQLBXGQ

@misc{pith2026260719979,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interface-resolved structural properties of epitaxial Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_12$/ Gd$_3$Fe$_5$O$_12$ bilayers grown on GGG(111) by pulsed laser deposition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJQLBXGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19979}
}
abstract

Epitaxial Y$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$ (YIG) and Gd$_3$Fe$_5$O$_{12}$ (GdIG) thin films, along with their bilayer heterostructures, were grown on Gd$_3$Ga$_5$O$_{12}$(GGG)(111) substrates using pulsed laser deposition. Structural properties were investigated using X-ray diffraction, reciprocal space mapping, and cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy. The results confirm high crystalline quality and coherent epitaxial growth, with RSM revealing a coexistence of strained and partially relaxed regions governed by layer sequence. TEM analysis shows sharp interfaces, columnar microstructures, and antiphase boundaries that facilitate strain relaxation. A comparative study indicates that the GGG/YIG/GdIG stacking sequence exhibits improved structural quality with reduced defect density, attributed to the superior epitaxial growth of YIG on the substrate. These findings highlight the critical role of growth sequence in controlling strain and interfacial structure in garnet heterostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19979 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the sample structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. XRD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Reciprocal space maps around the asymmetric (486) reflection for (a) SY, (b) SG, (c) SYG, and (d) SGY. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Cross-sectional TEM images of sample SYG. (a) GGG/YIG interface with the corresponding FFT pat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Cross-sectional TEM images of sample SGY. (a) GGG/GdIG interface. (b) GdIG/YIG interface. (c) YIG/Pt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. TEM analysis of antiphase boundaries (APBs) in the sample SGY. (a) HRTEM image showing APBs. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    INTRODUCTION Ferrimagnetic iron garnets constitute a central materials platform for insulating spintronics and magnonics due to their exceptionally low mag- netic damping, long magnon propagation lengths, and compatibility with oxide heterostructures [1– 3]. Among them, yttrium iron garnet (Y 3Fe5O12, YIG) has emerged as the prototypical system, serv- ing...

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Prior to deposition, the growth cham- ber was evacuated to a base pressure of∼3×10 −5 Pa

    EXPERIMENT AL PROCEDURE Epitaxial YIG (∼150 nm) and GdIG (∼90 nm) thin films were grown on (111)-oriented single- crystal Gd 3Ga5O12 (GGG) substrates using pulsed laser deposition (PLD) with a KrF excimer laser (λ= 248 nm). Prior to deposition, the growth cham- ber was evacuated to a base pressure of∼3×10 −5 Pa. Stoichiometric targets of YIG and GdIG were...

  3. [3]

    RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 . Structural analysis: X-ray diffraction (XRD) and Reciprocal space mapping (RSM) Figure 2 shows theθ–2θXRD scans of sam- ples (a) SY, (b) SG, (c) SYG, and (d) SGY, and Figure 3 shows the corresponding RSMs, recorded around the asymmetric (486) reflection of the GGG substrate. All samples exhibit a clear diffraction peak corres...

  4. [4]

    The films ex- hibit high crystalline quality with well-defined and coherent interfaces, as confirmed by XRD, RSM, and TEM analyses

    CONCLUSION In summary, we demonstrate the successful real- ization of epitaxial YIG/GdIG bilayer heterostruc- tures on GGG(111) substrates and systematically in- vestigate their structural properties. The films ex- hibit high crystalline quality with well-defined and coherent interfaces, as confirmed by XRD, RSM, and TEM analyses. The strain state of the ...

  5. [5]

    thank the Department of Atomic Energy (No

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S.B., A.S., K.S.R., P.G., S.P.M, S.S., and A.M. thank the Department of Atomic Energy (No. 0803/2/2020/NISER/R&D-II/8149), De- partment of Science and Technology, Science and Engineering Research Board (Grant No. CRG/2021/001245) for providing financial support. S.B., A.M. also acknowledges funding support for Chanakya Postdoctoral fellows...

    2020

  6. [6]

    Cherepanov, I

    V. Cherepanov, I. Kolokolov, and V. L’vov, The saga of YIG: Spectra, thermodynamics, interaction and relaxation of magnons, Phys. Rep.229, 81 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

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

    2010

  8. [8]

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

    2015

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    Hauser, T

    C. Hauser, T. Richter, N. Homonnay, C. Eisen- schmidt, M. Qaid, H. Deniz, D. Hesse, M. Sawicki, S. G. Ebbinghaus, and G. Schmidt, Yttrium iron garnet thin films with very low damping obtained by recrystallization of amorphous material, Scien- tific reports6, 20827 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    H. Wang, C. Du, Y. Pu, R. Adur, P. C. Hammel, and F. Yang, Scaling of spin hall angle in 3d, 4d, and 5d metals from y 3 fe 5 o 12/metal spin pumping, Physical review letters112, 197201 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Pauthenet, Magnetic properties of rare-earth iron garnets, J

    R. Pauthenet, Magnetic properties of rare-earth iron garnets, J. Appl. Phys.29, 253 (1958)

    1958

  4. [12]

    M. Roos, P. Quarterman, J. Ding, M. Wu, B. Kirby, and B. Zink, Magnetization and antiferromagnetic coupling at YIG/GGG interfaces, Physical Review Materials6, 034401 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Geller and M

    S. Geller and M. A. Gilleo, Structure and magnetic properties of garnets, Acta Crystallographica16, 407 (1963)

    1963

  6. [14]

    J. M. Gomez-Perez, S. V´ elez, L. McKenzie-Sell, M. Amado, J. Herrero-Mart ´ ın, J. L´ opez-L´ opez, S. Blanco-Canosa, L. E. Hueso, A. Chuvilin, J. W. Robinson,et al., Synthetic antiferromagnetic cou- pling between ultrathin insulating garnets, Physical Review Applied10, 044046 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Becker, Z

    S. Becker, Z. Ren, F. Fuhrmann, A. Ross, S. Lord, S. Ding, R. Wu, J. Yang, J. Miao, M. Kl¨ aui, et al., Reconfigurable spin current transmission in YIG/GdIG, Phys. Rev. Applied16, 014047 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Fuhrmann, S

    F. Fuhrmann, S. Becker, A. Akashdeep, G. Jakob, Q. Lan, N. Wang, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, R. Le- brun, M. Weiler, and M. Kl¨ aui, Temperature- dependent study of the spin dynamics of coupled Y3Fe5O12/Gd3Ga5O12/Pt trilayers, Physical Re- view B112, 064432 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Kumar, B

    R. Kumar, B. Samantaray, S. Das, K. Lal, D. Samal, and Z. Hossain, Damping in yttrium iron garnet films with interface, Physical Review B106, 054405 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Zhuang, Y

    W. Zhuang, Y. Chen, W. Sun, Z. Chen, X. Liu, R. Sun, R. Xu, X. Zhang, A. Song, Z. Li,et al., Effect of gdig interfacial layer on the spin pumping in YIG/Pt, Applied Physics Letters127(2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Swain, K

    A. Swain, K. S. Rathore, P. Gupta, A. Mishra, Y. H. Lee, J. Lim, A. Hoffmann, R. Mahendiran, and S. Bedanta, Enhanced spin pumping in het- erostructures of coupled ferrimagnetic garnets, Ap- plied Physics Letters125(2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Reyren, S

    N. Reyren, S. Thiel, A. Caviglia, L. F. Kourkoutis, G. Hammerl, C. Richter, C. W. Schneider, T. Kopp, A.-S. Ruetschi, D. Jaccard,et al., Superconducting interfaces between insulating oxides, Science317, 1196 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Sgarro, R

    P. Sgarro, R. Ovcharov, R. Khymyn, S. Ghosh, A. Awad, J. ˚Akerman, and A. Litvinenko, Frequency-tunable low-noise oscillator based on Y3Fe5O12/Gd3Ga5O12 structure with strong mag- netoelastic coupling, Physical Review Applied23, 064049 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Ohtomo and H

    A. Ohtomo and H. Hwang, A high-mobility electron gas at the LaAlO 3/SrTiO3 heterointerface, Nature 427, 423 (2004)

    2004

  15. [23]

    Y. Li, Z. Zhang, C. Liu, D. Zheng, B. Fang, C. Zhang, A. Chen, Y. Ma, C. Wang, H. Liu, et al., Reconfigurable spin current transmission and magnon–magnon coupling in hybrid ferrimag- netic insulators, Nature Communications15, 2234 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    J. Liu, Y. Xiong, J. Liang, X. Wu, C. Liu, S. K. Cheung, Z. Ren, R. Liu, A. Christy, Z. Chen,et al., Strong magnon-magnon coupling and low dissipa- tion rate in an all-magnetic-insulator heterostruc- ture, Physical Review Applied22, 034017 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    K. S. Rathore, A. Swain, J. Lim, A. Mishra, P. Gupta, L. Yong Heng, J. Luwen, R. Ma- hendiran, A. Hoffmann, and S. Bedanta, Magnon- magnon coupling in an all-oxide insulator gar- net Y 3Fe5O12/Tm3Fe5O12 heterostructure, Physi- cal Review Applied25, 024036 (2026)

    2026

  18. [26]

    Kim, D.-G

    J.-Y. Kim, D.-G. Lee, D.-S. Um, J. W. Robin- son, and M.-J. Jin, Impact of interface paramag- netism and local defects on low-temperature mag- netic properties of YIG thin films on GGG, Physical Review Materials9, 084409 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Keunecke, F

    M. Keunecke, F. Lyzwa, D. Schwarzbach, V. Rod- datis, N. Gauquelin, K. M¨ uller-Caspary, J. Ver- beeck, S. J. Callori, F. Klose, M. Jung- bauer,et al., High-tc interfacial ferromagnetism in SrMnO3/LaMnO3 superlattices, Advanced Func- tional Materials30, 1808270 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Ghising, B

    P. Ghising, B. Samantaray, and Z. Hossain, Spin in- homogeneities at the interface and inverted hystere- sis loop in La 0.7Sr0.3MnO3/SrTiO3, Physical Re- view B101, 024408 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Kumar, S

    R. Kumar, S. Sarangi, D. Samal, and Z. Hossain, Positive exchange bias and inverted hysteresis loop in Y 3Fe5O12/Gd3Ga5O12, Physical Review B103, 11 064421 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Popova, N

    E. Popova, N. Keller, F. Jomard, L. Thomas, M.-C. Brianso, F. Gendron, M. Guyot, and M. Tessier, Exchange coupling in ultrathin epitaxial yttrium iron garnet films, The European Physical Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems31, 69 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    E. L. Jakubisova, S. Visnovsky, H. Chang, and M. Wu, Interface effects in nanometer-thick yttrium iron garnet films studied by magneto-optical spec- troscopy, Applied Physics Letters108(2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Mitra, O

    A. Mitra, O. Cespedes, Q. Ramasse, M. Ali, S. Marmion, M. Ward, R. Brydson, C. Kinane, J. Cooper, S. Langridge,et al., Interfacial origin of the magnetisation suppression of thin film yttrium iron garnet, Scientific reports7, 11774 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Kubota, K

    M. Kubota, K. Shibuya, Y. Tokunaga, F. Kagawa, A. Tsukazaki, Y. Tokura, and M. Kawasaki, Sys- tematic control of stress-induced anisotropy in pseu- domorphic iron garnet thin films, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials339, 63 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    S. Ning, A. Kumar, K. Klyukin, E. Cho, J. H. Kim, T. Su, H.-S. Kim, J. M. LeBeau, B. Yildiz, and C. A. Ross, An antisite defect mechanism for room temperature ferroelectricity in orthoferrites, Nature communications12, 4298 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Santiso, C

    J. Santiso, C. Garc ´ ıa, C. Romanque, L. Henry, N. Bernier, N. Bagu´ es, J. M. Caicedo, M. Valvi- dares, and F. Sandiumenge, Antisite defects and chemical expansion in low-damping, high- magnetization yttrium iron garnet films, Chem- NanoMat9, e202200495 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    D. B. Williams and C. B. Carter,Transmission Elec- tron Microscopy: A Textbook for Materials Science (Springer, 2009)

    2009

  29. [37]

    S. M. Allen and J. W. Cahn, A microscopic theory for antiphase boundary motion and its application to antiphase domain coarsening, Acta metallurgica 27, 1085 (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    H. Wu, T. Aoki, A. B. Posadas, A. A. Demkov, and D. J. Smith, Anti-phase boundaries at the SrTiO 3/Si (001) interface studied using aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy, Applied Physics Letters108(2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Celotto, W

    S. Celotto, W. Eerenstein, and T. Hibma, Char- acterization of anti-phase boundaries in epitaxial magnetite films, The European Physical Journal B- Condensed Matter and Complex Systems36, 271 (2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.