Strong temperature dependence of antiferromagnetic coupling in CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB

G. Reiss; J. Nogues; J. Sort; J. Wecker; M. R\"uhrig; N. Wiese; T. Dimopoulos

REVIEW

Strong temperature dependence of antiferromagnetic coupling in CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB

N. Wiese, T. Dimopoulos, M. Rührig, J. Wecker, G. Reiss, J. Nogues, J. Sort

Materials Science · Submitted 26 Feb 2006 · 17 references

Pith's verdict: Useful material-specific temperature-dependent coupling data for CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB, but the reported T0 and vF are fit-dependent and should be treated as approximate given the neglected Ms(T) correction.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 6 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcond-mat/0602609 (version 2)

Pith ID5AKOJF2H, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationG. Reiss, J. Nogues, J. Sort, J. Wecker, M. R\"uhrig, N. Wiese, T. Dimopoulos. "Strong temperature dependence of antiferromagnetic coupling in CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB." arXiv:cond-mat/0602609 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/5AKOJF2H

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. First, it gives the first temperature-dependent study of antiferromagnetic coupling in CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB artificial ferrimagnets, and that is genuinely useful for people working on spin-flop MRAM or heat-assisted switching in this stack. Second, the paper's central quantitative output — T0 ≈ 150 K and vF ≈ 1.15×10^5 m/s — is less secure than the abstract implies, because it comes from fitting Hsat(T) directly with the quantum-well form J(T) = J0 (T/T0)/sinh(T/T0) while absorbing the temperature-dependent magnetization prefactor into a constant H0. The paper itself gives no Ms(T) data and no discussion of the correction. For amorphous CoFeB with TC near 650–700 K, Ms drops noticeably between 80 K and 600 K, and since Hsat = |J|(m1+m2)/(μ0 m1 m2), a decreasing Ms makes Hsat decay more slowly than J(T). That would bias T0 high and vF high by an order of 10–20%, which is comparable to the scatter in the fits. The stress-test note is right on this point; it is not a manufactured flaw.

What the paper does well: the Hsat(T) trend is consistent across seven samples spanning two series, and the fits to the sinh form look reasonable by eye. The qualitative conclusion — that the strong temperature variation of coupling in Ru-spaced AFi extends to CoFeB — is solid, and the material-specific numbers (T0 around 150 K, vF around 10^5 m/s) are consistent with the established Co/Ru/Co results. The room-temperature coupling values from AGM and the Ru-thickness dependence around the second AF maximum are useful anchors. The anisotropy estimate (Ku ≈ 2000 J/m^3) is presented as a rough simulation match with no uncertainties, but the qualitative finding — strong uniaxial anisotropy with a small angular dispersion, relevant for spin-flop operation — is credible.

Soft spots, in proportion: (1) no error bars on the fitted H0, T0, or vF, and the fits are two-parameter without a stated covariance; (2) the vF values are algebraic restatements of T0 via T0 = ħvF/(2π kB tNM), so the claim that vF “explains” the strong temperature dependence is overstatement — the functional form is the explanation, and vF is an inferred parameter; (3) the neglect of Ms(T) is a real systematic, as discussed; (4) the simulation-based Ku has no quantified uncertainty and the model is simplified, but it is clearly labeled as such. None of these invalidate the central observation that Hsat follows the same temperature trend as the quantum-well model predicts for Ru spacers. The paper is a competent applied magnetics contribution, not a theoretical breakthrough.

Who this is for: experimentalists modeling or designing CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB-based MRAM or spin-flop devices who need temperature-dependent coupling estimates. It deserves a serious referee — the data are reproducible in the sense that the samples and measurement protocols are described, and the results are material-relevant — but the referee should ask for a discussion of the Ms(T) correction and error bars on the fit parameters before acceptance. I would bring it to a reading group focused on magnetic multilayer physics, and I would cite it for the CoFeB-specific T0 and vF values with appropriate caution.

Referee report

Significance

If the quantitative claims hold, the paper provides a useful demonstration that the quantum-well model for interlayer exchange, previously verified in Co/Ru/Co, also applies to amorphous CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB artificial ferrimagnets, and it identifies a practical operational constraint for spin-flop MRAM: the Hsat/Hp margin shrinks with increasing temperature. The study's strengths include consistent data across two sample series (seven samples), a functional form taken from independent theory rather than an ad-hoc fit, and a direct comparison of simulated and measured loops for the anisotropy estimate. The extracted T0 and vF are falsifiable predictions that can be checked by independent measurements. However, the quantitative accuracy of T0 and vF is not yet established because the analysis neglects the temperature dependence of the CoFeB layer magnetizations and because no uncertainties are reported for the fit parameters.

Major objections (3)

[Results and Discussion (Eq. (1) and the relation J = -μ0 Hsat m1m2/(m1+m2) in the Introduction)] The paper fits Hsat(T) directly with the form (T/T0)/sinh(T/T0), implicitly treating the prefactor (m1+m2)/(μ0 m1 m2) as temperature-independent. For amorphous CoFeB, whose Curie temperature is only several hundred kelvin above the measurement range, M_s(T) must decrease substantially between 80 K and 600 K. Since Hsat = |J| (m1+m2)/(μ0 m1 m2) and this prefactor scales roughly as 1/M_s for nearly equal layers, a decreasing M_s makes Hsat decay more slowly than J(T) itself, biasing T0 upward and consequently vF upward. The manuscript reports no magnetization-vs-temperature data and offers no argument that the correction is negligible. The authors should either measure M(T) for the single CoFeB layers, use published M_s(T) for Co60Fe20B20 to correct each Hsat(T) point before fitting, or at least quantify the resulting systematic error in T0 and vF. This is essential to the central quantitative claim.
[Results and Discussion, Fig. 2] No uncertainties are given for the fitted H0 and T0 values, and no goodness-of-fit criterion (e.g., χ² per degree of freedom or residual plot) is reported. The scatter visible in Fig. 2 is comparable to the claimed differences in T0 across samples, so the statement that T0 is 'almost constant' for series A is not yet supported. Please provide confidence intervals for T0 and vF and a residual analysis.
[Results and Discussion, Fig. 5(b)] The extracted Fermi velocity vF is found to vary with Ru spacer thickness, with a maximum at the second antiferromagnetic coupling maximum. In the quantum-well model, vF is a bulk property of the Ru spacer and should not depend on tRu; a thickness-dependent vF suggests that the simple expression T0 = ħvF/(2π kB tNM) is being used beyond its validity, or that the extracted T0 values contain systematic errors. The authors should discuss this variation and show whether it is consistent with the model or an artifact of the fitting procedure.

Minor objections (6)

[Title and text] The title contains 'coupl ing' with an inserted space, and the Results section contains the misspelling 'Fermi velocitiy'.
[Fig. 2] The plotted data points have no error bars; please state the measurement uncertainty in Hsat and Hp.
[Fig. 3] The smoothing described for Fig. 3 is not quantified; please clarify how averaging over adjacent points affects the reported Hsat/Hp ratios at high temperature.
[Fig. 4 and anisotropy extraction] The simulations in Fig. 4 and the extraction of Ku = 2000 J/m^3 are described only qualitatively; please specify the layer moments, coupling strengths, and anisotropy ranges used in the simulated loops, and how the 'best fit' was defined.
[Experimental definitions] The definitions of Hsat and Hp from the magnetization loops should be stated explicitly (e.g., the field at which the two magnetizations become parallel, and the onset of the spin-flop transition).
[Results and Discussion] When fitting Hsat(T) with Eq. (1), the text should explicitly state that H0 absorbs the (assumed constant) moment prefactor; this makes the implicit assumption visible to the reader.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB antiferromagnetic coupling follows the quantum-well law from 80 K to 600 K, with a characteristic temperature of about 150 K.

The reading

This paper measures the magnetic saturation field of CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB trilayers from 80 K to 600 K and claims its temperature dependence is quantitatively captured by the quantum-well model of interlayer exchange coupling. In that model the coupling strength falls as $J(T) = J_0 (T/T_0)/\sinh(T/T_0)$ with a single characteristic temperature $T_0$. Fitting the data gives $T_0 \approx 150\,\mathrm{K}$, from which the Ru spacer's Fermi velocity is inferred to be about $1.15\times 10^5\,\mathrm{m/s}$, an order of magnitude lower than in most nonmagnetic metals and consistent with earlier Co/Ru/Co studies. The paper also reports a strong uniaxial anisotropy $K_u \approx 2\times 10^3\,\mathrm{J/m^3}$ with a narrow angular distribution of anisotropy axes in the amorphous CoFeB layers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the quantum-well coupling law $J(T) = J_0 (T/T_0)/\sinh(T/T_0)$, with characteristic temperature $T_0 = \hbar v_F / (2\pi k_B t_{\mathrm{NM}})$. The paper fits its measured $H_{\mathrm{sat}}(T)$ curves directly to this form, extracting $H_0$ and $T_0$, and then converts $T_0$ into a Fermi velocity for Ru. A companion energy-minimization model of two coupled macrospins is used to translate the shape of the loops, specifically the ratio $H_{\mathrm{sat}}/H_p$, into the uniaxial anisotropy constant $K_u$.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The saturation field $H_{\mathrm{sat}}$ of antiferromagnetically coupled CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB stacks follows $H_{\mathrm{sat}} \propto H_0 (T/T_0)/\sinh(T/T_0)$ over the full measured range. Because $H_{\mathrm{sat}}$ is related to the coupling strength by $J = -\mu_0 H_{\mathrm{sat}} (m_1 m_2)/(m_1 + m_2)$, this identifies the temperature dependence of the coupling itself. Using the quantum-well relation $T_0 = \hbar v_F / (2\pi k_B t_{\mathrm{NM}})$ yields $v_F \approx 1.15\times 10^5\,\mathrm{m/s}$ for the Ru spacer, explaining why Ru-based artificial ferrimagnets show such a strong variation of coupling with temperature. In addition, comparison of measured and simulated magnetization loops implies a room-temperature uniaxial anisotropy of about $2000\,\mathrm{J/m^3}$ with a small angular spread, which the authors attribute to the amorphous nature of the CoFeB layers.

Load-bearing premise

The fits treat the product $m_1 m_2/(m_1 + m_2)$ of the two CoFeB layer magnetizations as constant, or fully absorbed into $H_0$, over 80–600 K, so the entire temperature shape of $H_{\mathrm{sat}}$ is attributed to the coupling law; if the CoFeB magnetization changes significantly with temperature, the extracted $T_0$ and $v_F$ are systematically biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ratio $H_{\mathrm{sat}}/H_p$ decreases with temperature in all samples, so the field window needed for spin-flop MRAM operation narrows at elevated temperatures and disappears for Ru spacers of 1.0 nm or more above roughly 425–510 K.
The inferred Ru Fermi velocity of about $1.15\times 10^5\,\mathrm{m/s}$ makes Ru-based artificial ferrimagnets intrinsically more temperature sensitive than spacers with higher Fermi velocities, since $T_0$ is proportional to $v_F$.
Because $T_0$ is inversely proportional to the nonmagnetic spacer thickness, thicker Ru layers should show a slower temperature falloff of the coupling, within the same antiferromagnetic oscillation branch.
Reducing the uniaxial anisotropy, here around $2\times 10^3\,\mathrm{J/m^3}$, would increase the $H_{\mathrm{sat}}/H_p$ separation and improve high-temperature spin-flop operation, as the paper's simulations demonstrate.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's fits absorb any temperature variation of the CoFeB layer magnetizations into $H_0$. A direct measurement of $m_1(T)$ and $m_2(T)$ over 80–600 K would allow $J(T)$ to be extracted alone and would test whether $T_0$ stays near 150 K once that correction is applied.
The model predicts $T_0 = \hbar v_F / (2\pi k_B t_{\mathrm{NM}})$, so a dedicated series stepping the Ru thickness across several antiferromagnetic maxima could check whether a single Fermi velocity reproduces all fitted $T_0$ values; the present three Ru thicknesses only begin to probe this relation.
If the strong uniaxial anisotropy with narrow dispersion is intrinsic to amorphous CoFeB, then changing the CoFeB composition or adding a buffer layer might lower $K_u$ and enlarge the spin-flop window. The paper does not test any such modification.

Original abstract

The temperature dependence of saturation and spin-flop fields for artificial ferrimagnets (AFi) based on antiparallel coupled CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB trilayers has been investigated in a temperature range between 80K and 600K. The results presented in this paper are relevant for magnetic devices using this system, e.g. magnetic-random access memory based on spin-flop switching. In good accordance to the theory, the saturation field Hsat behaves like Hsat ~ H_0 (T/T_0)/sinh(T/T_0) with a characteristic temperature of T_0 = 150K. Within this model, the Fermi velocity for the Ru layer is of the order of 10^5m/s, therefore, explaining the strong variation of the coupling strength with the temperature in Ru based AFi. Furthermore, a strong uniaxial anisotropy of K_u = 2x10^3 J/m^3 with a small angular distribution of the anisotropy axes is observed for the AFi trilayers based on amorphous CoFeB alloys.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,511 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.99 · compares with prior results 0.20 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

The temperature dependence of saturation and spin-flop fields for artificial ferrimagnets (AFi) based on antiparallel coupled CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB trilayers has been investigated in a temperature range between 80K and 600K. The results presented in this paper are relevant for magnetic devices using this system, e.g. magnetic-random access memory based on spin-flop switching. In good accordance to the theory, the saturation field Hsat behaves like Hsat ~ H_0 (T/T_0)/sinh(T/T_0) with a characteristic temperature of T_0 = 150K. Within this model, the Fermi velocity for the Ru layer is of the order of 10^5m/s, therefore, explaining the strong variation of the coupling strength with the temperature in Ru based AFi. Furthermore, a strong uniaxial anisotropy of K_u = 2x10^3 J/m^3 with a small angular distribution of the anisotropy axes is observed for the AFi trilayers based on amorphous CoFeB alloys.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	The temperature dependence of saturation and spin-flop fields for artificial ferrimagnets (AFi) based on antiparallel coupled CoFeB/Ru/CoFeB trilayers has been investigated in a temperature range between 80K and 600K.	contribution 0.92	0.94	0.07	asserted 0.98
s1	The results presented in this paper are relevant for magnetic devices using this system, e.g. magnetic-random access memory based on spin-flop switching.	interpretation 0.58	0.15	0.05	asserted 0.95
s2	In good accordance to the theory, the saturation field Hsat behaves like Hsat ~ H_0 (T/T_0)/sinh(T/T_0) with a characteristic temperature of T_0 = 150K.	result 0.98	0.84	0.50	asserted 0.90
s3	Within this model, the Fermi velocity for the Ru layer is of the order of 10^5m/s, therefore, explaining the strong variation of the coupling strength with the temperature in Ru based AFi.	interpretation 0.99	0.54	0.23	asserted 0.90
s4	Furthermore, a strong uniaxial anisotropy of K_u = 2x10^3 J/m^3 with a small angular distribution of the anisotropy axes is observed for the AFi trilayers based on amorphous CoFeB alloys.	result 1.00	0.92	0.08	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from observation or experiment 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v2

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Magnetization loops at various temperatures,

**Figure 3.** (Color online) Temperature dependence of

**Figure 5.** (a) Dependence of the room temperature coupling

Showing 3 of the paper's 5 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:cond-mat/0602609 by the authors.

References

Works cited (17)

[1]

H.A.M. van den Berg, J. Altmann, L. B¨ ar, G. Gieres, R. Kinder, G. Rupp, M. Vieth, and J. Wecker, IEEE Trans. Magn. 35, (1999) 2892

View on Pith 1999
[2]

W.J. Gallagher, S.S.P. Parkin, Y. Lu, X.P. Bian, A. Mar- ley, K.P. Roche, R.A. Altman, S.A. Rishton, C. Jahnes, T.M. Shaw, and G. Xiao, J. Appl. Phys. 81, ( 1997) 3741

View on Pith 1997
[3]

B.N. Engel, J. ˚Akerman, B. Butcher, R.W. Dave, M. De- Herrera, M. Durlam, G. Grynkewich, J. Janesky, S.V. Pietambaram, N.D. Rizzo, J.M. Slaughter, K. Smith, J.J. Sun, and S. Tehrani, IEEE Trans. Magn. 41, (2005) 132

View on Pith 2005
[4]

Z. Celinski, B. Heinrich, J.F. Cochran, W.B. Muir, A.S. Arrott, and J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, (1990) 1156

View on Pith 1990
[5]

H.A.M. van den Berg, W. Clemens, G.. Gieres, G. Rupp, M. Vieth, J. Wecker, and S. Zoll, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 165, (1997) 524

View on Pith 1997
[6]

D.M. Edwards, J. Mathon, R.B. Muniz, and M.S. Phan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, (1991) 493

View on Pith 1991
[7]

P. Bruno and C. Chappert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, (1991) 1602

View on Pith 1991
[8]

Z. Zhang, L. Zhou, P.E. Wigen, and K. Ounadjela, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, (1994) 336

View on Pith 1994
[9]

N. Persat and A. Dinia, Phys. Rev. B 56, (1997) 2676

View on Pith 1997
[10]

D. Wang, C. Nordman, J. Daughton, Z. Qian, and J. Fink, IEEE Trans Magn. 40, (2004) 2269

View on Pith 2004
[11]

J. Hayakawa, S. Ikeda, Y.M. Lee, F. Matsukura, and H. Ohno, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, (2006) 232510

View on Pith 2006
[12]

N. Wiese, T. Dimopoulos, M. R¨ uhrig, J. Wecker, H. Br¨ uckl, and G. Reiss, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, (2004) 2020

View on Pith 2004
[13]

N. Wiese, T. Dimopoulos, M. R¨ uhrig, J. Wecker, H. Br¨ uckl, and G. Reiss, J. Magn. Magn. Mater 290-291, (2005) 1427

View on Pith 2005
[14]

A NanoMOKE2 TM magnetometer of DMO Ltd. was used, see http://durhammagnetooptics.com for detailed speci- ﬁcation

View on Pith
[15]

A. Hubert and G. Traeger, J. Magn. Magn. Mater 124, (1993) 185

View on Pith 1993
[16]

D.C. Worledge, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, (2004) 2847

View on Pith 2004
[17]

M.D. Stiles, ”Interlayer Exchange Coupling” in: ”Ultr a- thin Magnetic Structures III”, edited by B. Heinrich and J.A.C. Bland, Springer, 2004 p-4

View on Pith 2004

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

H.A.M. van den Berg, J. Altmann, L. B¨ ar, G. Gieres, R. Kinder, G. Rupp, M. Vieth, and J. Wecker, IEEE Trans. Magn. 35, (1999) 2892

View on Pith 1999

[2] [2]

W.J. Gallagher, S.S.P. Parkin, Y. Lu, X.P. Bian, A. Mar- ley, K.P. Roche, R.A. Altman, S.A. Rishton, C. Jahnes, T.M. Shaw, and G. Xiao, J. Appl. Phys. 81, ( 1997) 3741

View on Pith 1997

[3] [3]

B.N. Engel, J. ˚Akerman, B. Butcher, R.W. Dave, M. De- Herrera, M. Durlam, G. Grynkewich, J. Janesky, S.V. Pietambaram, N.D. Rizzo, J.M. Slaughter, K. Smith, J.J. Sun, and S. Tehrani, IEEE Trans. Magn. 41, (2005) 132

View on Pith 2005

[4] [4]

Z. Celinski, B. Heinrich, J.F. Cochran, W.B. Muir, A.S. Arrott, and J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, (1990) 1156

View on Pith 1990

[5] [5]

H.A.M. van den Berg, W. Clemens, G.. Gieres, G. Rupp, M. Vieth, J. Wecker, and S. Zoll, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 165, (1997) 524

View on Pith 1997

[6] [6]

D.M. Edwards, J. Mathon, R.B. Muniz, and M.S. Phan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, (1991) 493

View on Pith 1991

[7] [7]

P. Bruno and C. Chappert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, (1991) 1602

View on Pith 1991

[8] [8]

Z. Zhang, L. Zhou, P.E. Wigen, and K. Ounadjela, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, (1994) 336

View on Pith 1994

[9] [9]

N. Persat and A. Dinia, Phys. Rev. B 56, (1997) 2676

View on Pith 1997

[10] [10]

D. Wang, C. Nordman, J. Daughton, Z. Qian, and J. Fink, IEEE Trans Magn. 40, (2004) 2269

View on Pith 2004

[11] [11]

J. Hayakawa, S. Ikeda, Y.M. Lee, F. Matsukura, and H. Ohno, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, (2006) 232510

View on Pith 2006

[12] [12]

N. Wiese, T. Dimopoulos, M. R¨ uhrig, J. Wecker, H. Br¨ uckl, and G. Reiss, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, (2004) 2020

View on Pith 2004

[13] [13]

N. Wiese, T. Dimopoulos, M. R¨ uhrig, J. Wecker, H. Br¨ uckl, and G. Reiss, J. Magn. Magn. Mater 290-291, (2005) 1427

View on Pith 2005

[14] [14]

A NanoMOKE2 TM magnetometer of DMO Ltd. was used, see http://durhammagnetooptics.com for detailed speci- ﬁcation

View on Pith

[15] [15]

A. Hubert and G. Traeger, J. Magn. Magn. Mater 124, (1993) 185

View on Pith 1993

[16] [16]

D.C. Worledge, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, (2004) 2847

View on Pith 2004

[17] [17]

M.D. Stiles, ”Interlayer Exchange Coupling” in: ”Ultr a- thin Magnetic Structures III”, edited by B. Heinrich and J.A.C. Bland, Springer, 2004 p-4

View on Pith 2004