Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

A frequency tunable low-noise YIG-GGG based oscillator with strong magneto-elastic coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thinning YIG to 1.08 µm strengthens magneto-elastic coupling enough to simplify and quiet a microwave oscillator.

desk verdict A useful two-port YIG-GGG oscillator with a directly measured 30 dB phase-noise improvement, but its own Q-factor arithmetic doesn't explain that improvement. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19646 v2 pith:RKXMA2LL submitted 2024-11-29 physics.app-ph

Paolo Sgarro , Roman Ovcharov , Roman Khymyn , Sambit Ghosh , Ahmad A. Awad , Johan {AA}kerman , Artem Litvinenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph
keywords magneto-acousticoscillatorYIG-GGGresonatormagneto-elasticcouplingHBARmodesphasenoisefrequencytunabilityferromagneticresonancetwo-port
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that cutting the YIG layer in a YIG-GGG composite to 1.08 µm raises the magneto-elastic coupling between the ferromagnetic resonance and the acoustic thickness modes to about 1 MHz in the 1-2 GHz band. That strong coupling makes the acoustic resonances large and asymmetric enough that a two-port oscillator loop can lock onto them without a circulator or an extra YIG preselector. Depending on the loop gain, the oscillator locks either to high-Q acoustic modes, where phase noise drops by about 30 dB, or to both acoustic and ferromagnetic modes, where tuning becomes continuous. The practical payoff would be a compact, field-tunable oscillator whose frequency step and noise floor are set by acoustic rather than magnetic modes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the composite magneto-acoustic resonator (MAR), a 1.08 µm YIG film on a 543 µm GGG substrate, whose coupling strength is governed by $\kappa^2 = \frac{\gamma b^2}{8\pi^3 M_s \lambda d \sqrt{c_{44}\rho}}\left(1-\cos\frac{\pi\lambda d}{L}\right)^2$. The mechanism is the thickness-dependent mode overlap: the uniform FMR mode couples to the $\lambda$-th acoustic mode through the factor $\left(1-\cos\frac{\pi\lambda d}{L}\right)^2$, so thinning YIG pushes strong coupling into the 1-2 GHz range where GGG acoustic losses are still acceptable. This coupling reshapes the S21 response into asymmetric, phase-steep resonances, and it is the phase steepness that lets a two-port loop satisfy the Barkhausen criterion at selected HBAR frequencies.

What would settle it

Measure the phase-noise difference on the same oscillator between an FMR-locked state and an adjacent HBAR-locked state at equal output power and compare it with $20\log_{10}(9018/446) \approx 26$ dB predicted from the quoted Q-factors; a difference far from 30 dB, or Q-factors re-measured by an independent method that disagree, would overturn the claimed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that reducing the YIG film thickness from 9.75 µm to 1.08 µm increases the overlap between the uniform FMR profile and the standing acoustic modes, raising the coupling constant $\kappa$ from 0.47 MHz to 1.0 MHz. In the two-port resonator this appears as pronounced avoided crossings and strongly asymmetric S21 resonances. The authors show that this permits a simplified ring oscillator in which the Barkhausen amplitude and phase conditions can be satisfied around HBAR modes alone. In the low-phase-noise regime the oscillator emits only at discrete fields, producing steps of 3.281 MHz between adjacent acoustic modes; in the higher-gain regime it oscillates at any field, locking to the FMR or to HBAR modes depending on field. Phase noise at 1 kHz offset is about -35 dBrad²/Hz when locked to FMR and about -65 dBrad²/Hz when locked to an HBAR, a 30 dB improvement the authors attribute to the measured Q-factors, 446 for FMR and 9018 for the 385th HBAR mode.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the 30 dB phase-noise difference is actually caused by the resonator Q-factors extracted from Smith-chart resonance loops (446 and 9018), through ordinary Leeson scaling, and that those Q values remain valid for strongly asymmetric magneto-acoustic resonances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A two-port magneto-acoustic oscillator can be built without a circulator or preselector, shrinking the footprint relative to the earlier one-port design.
  • Low-phase-noise operation comes with discrete frequency tuning in 3.281 MHz steps matching the HBAR mode spacing, which suits channelized frequency synthesis.
  • Switching the loop gain into the complex regime gives continuous field tuning while the phase noise varies by up to 30 dB depending on which mode is locked.
  • The in-plane magnetization geometry lowers the required field from roughly 220 mT to about 10 mT and doubles the tuning slope to 55.65 MHz/mT.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: because the 3.281 MHz step is set by the GGG substrate thickness, choosing a different substrate thickness should allow the channel spacing of the discrete tuning regime to be engineered.
  • Beyond the paper: the same asymmetric-resonance condition could be exploited as a magnetically reconfigurable filter or switch, since the Barkhausen phase condition selects one acoustic mode at a time.
  • Beyond the paper: an independent test is to sweep the field at fixed attenuation in the low-noise regime and verify that the oscillator's discrete locking windows coincide exactly with the avoided-crossing centers in the S21 spectrogram; any offset would indicate the locking is not purely mode-determined.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-port magneto-acoustic oscillator (MAO) based on a YIG-GGG composite resonator with reduced YIG thickness (1.08 µm) that achieves ~1 MHz magneto-elastic coupling in the 1-2 GHz range. The simplified design eliminates the circulator and preselector required in the authors' previous work. Two operational regimes are demonstrated: a low-phase-noise regime locking only to high-Q HBAR modes with discrete frequency tunability in ~3.281 MHz steps, and a complex regime locking to both HBAR and FMR modes with continuous tunability and variable phase noise. The authors claim a 30 dB phase-noise improvement when locking to HBAR modes relative to FMR locking, stated to be in agreement with measured Q factors (Q_HBAR ≈ 9018, Q_FMR ≈ 446).

Significance. If the claims hold, the work is a useful step toward practical tunable low-phase-noise oscillators, replacing bulky external components with a single composite resonator. The qualitative evidence—avoided crossings in S-parameters, spectrograms, and phase-noise maps—is direct and compelling. The thickness optimization is grounded in a parameter-free coupling model from prior literature, which strengthens the design rationale. However, the quantitative link between the 30 dB phase-noise improvement and the measured Q factors is not supported by the numbers presented, and the missing Leeson-model details prevent verification of the central quantitative claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B3)] The HBAR Q-factor is inconsistent with the quoted edge frequencies. The text gives fA1 = 1.26264 GHz and fA2 = 1.26282 GHz, i.e., a linewidth of 180 kHz. With f0 ≈ 1.26273 GHz, Eq. (B3) yields Q ≈ 7015, not 9018. Even if the stated 9018 were correct, the expected phase-noise improvement from the Q ratio alone is 20 log10(9018/446) ≈ 26 dB, and with Q ≈ 7015 it is ≈ 24 dB. The abstract and Section V claim a 30 dB improvement 'in agreement with the measured FMR and HBAR Q-factors'; this agreement is not justified. The authors must correct the Q value or the edge frequencies and must account for the remaining 4-6 dB, for instance by specifying different noise figures or signal-power levels in the two regimes.
  2. [Section V] The Leeson-model comparison is not reproducible. The text refers to 'Leeson's equation (??)' without displaying the expression, and the dashed lines are said to be in 'Fig. 6(b)' although the phase-noise plots appear in Fig. 5(b). The caption states that the output power (-26 dBm) and the power at the resonator output (-51 dBm) were used, but the actual equation and the parameter values for both regimes are not given. Without these, the claimed correspondence between the measured 30 dB improvement and the Leeson estimates cannot be checked. Please provide the Leeson equation used and the numerical values of the noise figure and power for the FMR-locked and HBAR-locked cases.
  3. [Appendix B / Section III] The Darko Kajfez Smith-chart extraction is applied to the strongly asymmetric HBAR resonance shown in Fig. 6(b,d). This method assumes a circular resonance loop, and the strongly asymmetric line shape raises questions about the validity of the extracted Q-factor. The choice of the 'blue points' at the intersection of the auxiliary diameter line with the S21 curve is subjective for a non-circular loop. The authors should provide an uncertainty estimate for the extracted Q and demonstrate that the result is robust against reasonable variations in the auxiliary-line placement, because the Q ratio is the central basis for the claimed phase-noise improvement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V] The text states that the 6 dB attenuator setting corresponds to 'a green horizontal line in Fig. 4(b,c)', but no green line appears in those panels; the relevant reference is likely Fig. 3(b)-(e), and the line color should be specified in the figure or caption.
  2. [Fig. 3(a) caption] The caption says 'applied magnetic field between 10.29 and 10.52 MHz'; the units should be mT, not MHz.
  3. [Section II] The theoretical slope from Eq. (3) is 62.84 MHz/mT, while the measured value is 55.65 MHz/mT. The text calls these 'close', but an 11% deviation may merit a brief comment, for example on demagnetizing effects or the approximate nature of the Taylor expansion.
  4. [Reference [48]] The DOI listed for reference [48] appears to belong to a Physical Review B article rather than the Journal of Physics D article cited; please verify and correct the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the claimed improvements rest on measured S21, Q-factors, and phase noise, with only a quantitative consistency gap in the Q-based explanation.

full rationale

Section II's coupling estimate (Eq. 1) is a parameter-free expression from prior theory, using literature constants for YIG/GGG; although [15] is cited, Eq. (1) is also attributed to independent references [29–31], so no load-bearing self-citation is involved. The thickness optimization is a calculation, not a fit to the oscillator's phase noise. Section III's Q-factors are extracted from VNA S21 data via the Kajfez method [53,54], and Section V's phase noise plots are measured via Hilbert transform; these are independent measurements, not consequences of the claimed 30 dB improvement. The dashed Leeson lines are a consistency check using the measured Q-factors and powers, not a prediction derived from the phase-noise data. Self-citations to [15,22,23,50,51] are contextual or methodological and do not by themselves support any central claim. One quantitative inconsistency should be flagged as a correctness issue, not circularity: Appendix B lists fA1 = 1.26264 GHz and fA2 = 1.26282 GHz, giving, for f0 ≈ 1.26273 GHz, Q ≈ 7015, not the stated 9018; the FMR values give Q ≈ 446 as stated. The resulting Q-ratio phase-noise expectation is roughly 23.9 dB rather than 26 dB, so the claimed '30 dB agreement' with measured Q-factors is not fully supported by the numbers given. Additionally, the text has 'Leeson's equation (??)' and the notation f21 − f11 in Eq. (B3), but these editorial issues do not constitute circularity. The central chain—thickness reduction to stronger coupling, two-port oscillation via Barkhausen criteria, and measured phase noise improvement—does not reduce to its own inputs by definition.

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

The central claims rest on measured device parameters and standard oscillator models. No fitted physical constants are introduced beyond the unstated Leeson noise figure, and the operating regime is selected by hand-tuned attenuator settings. All coupling and material constants are taken from prior literature, not fit to the data. The reported Q-factors are measurements, not fitted values, but their extraction involves subjective geometric operations.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective noise figure in Leeson's equation = not reported
    The dashed Leeson lines in Fig. 5(b) are said to account for output power and resonator output power, but the noise figure used to match the measured phase noise is not stated. This parameter affects the claimed agreement between the 30 dB improvement and the Q-factor ratio.
  • Loop attenuation setting = 8 dB for low-noise regime, 6 dB for complex regime
    The two oscillation regimes are selected by manually tuning a variable attenuator. The threshold between regimes is not derived from a model, so this is a hand-chosen operating parameter rather than a fitted physical constant.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetoelastic coupling model Eq. (1): κ^2 = γb^2/(8π^3 M_s λ d sqrt(c44 ρ)) (1 - cos(πλd/L))^2, with material constants b, M_s, c44, ρ from literature
    The coupling model is cited to [15,29-31] and not derived in this paper. The thickness optimization argument relies on this model being accurate for the YIG-GGG geometry.
  • domain assumption In-plane FMR dispersion f_FMR = γ sqrt(H(H + M_s)) and its slope Eq. (3)
    Used to compute the expected tunability slope and compare with the measured 55.65 MHz/mT. The measured value differs from the theoretical 62.84 MHz/mT by about 11%, which is not explained.
  • standard math Barkhausen oscillation criteria βA = 1 and ∠βA = 2πn
    Standard necessary conditions for steady-state oscillation in a feedback loop, used to select the frequencies at which the MAO can lock.
  • domain assumption Leeson's equation correctly predicts phase noise from loaded Q, power, and noise figure
    Used to compare measured phase noise with expectations from Q_FMR=446 and Q_HBAR=9018. The Q ratio alone predicts only about 26 dB of improvement, not the stated 30 dB.
  • domain assumption Kajfez Smith-chart Q-factor extraction is valid for strongly asymmetric magneto-acoustic resonances
    The method requires identifying loop self-crossing points and auxiliary diameter lines on Smith charts. For asymmetric, strongly coupled resonances these geometric choices are subjective, and no uncertainty is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A frequency tunable low-noise YIG-GGG based oscillator with strong magneto-elastic coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RKXMA2LL

@misc{pith2026241119646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A frequency tunable low-noise YIG-GGG based oscillator with strong magneto-elastic coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RKXMA2LL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19646}
}
read the original abstract

We present a frequency tunable magneto-acoustic oscillator (MAO) operating in low-phase-noise and complex dynamical regimes based on a single composite YIG-GGG resonator. The magneto-acoustic resonator (MAR) is based on a YIG (yttrium iron garnet) layer epitaxially grown on a GGG (gadolinium gallium garnet) substrate. By optimizing the YIG thickness, we obtain a high magneto-elastic coupling of around 1 MHz between the ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) in YIG and high overtone acoustic resonances (HBARs) in the YIG-GGG structure in the 1-2 GHz frequency range. It allows to eliminate the need for pre-selectors and bulky circulators, thus simplifying the MAO design while maintaining the possibility to lock to HBAR YIG-GGG modes. With an adjustment in the loop over-amplification parameter, the MAO can be locked either only to high-Q magneto-acoustic HBARs or to both types of resonance including HBARs and the FMR mode of the YIG film. In a low-phase-noise regime, MAO generates only at certain values of the applied field and exhibits discrete frequency tunability with a 3.281 MHz step corresponding to the frequency separation between the adjacent HBAR modes in a YIG-GGG structure. In a complex regime where oscillation conditions expand to include both HBAR and FMR modes, MAO demonstrates continuous generation as the function of the applied field with variable phase noise parameters. Moreover, in low-phase-noise regime, MAO phase noise plot improves by 30 dB compared to the operational regime locked to the pure FMR in YIG which is in agreement with the measured FMR and HBAR Q-factors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematics of YIG-GGG magneto-acoustic oscillators. (a) A previous MAO design presented in [15] comprises a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The thickness profiles of the magnetic FMR mode (red) and the standing acoustic mode (blue) in the YIG-GGG bilayer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Characterization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Characterization of MAO output signal. The amplitude of the spectrogram and individual spectra is corrected by a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Phase noise characterization of the MAR. (a) The phase noise spectrogram as a function of the applied magnetic field. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Frequency response and Smith chart representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. S. Vaucher, Architectures for RF frequency synthesiz- ers, Vol. 693 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Stegner, M

    J. Stegner, M. Fischer, S. Gropp, U. Stehr, J. M¨ uller, M. Hoffmann, and M. A. Hein, A multi-frequency mems- based rf oscillator covering the range from 11.7 mhz to 1.9 ghz, in 2018 IEEE/MTT-S International Microwave Symposium-IMS (IEEE, 2018) pp. 575–578

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Chenakin, Frequency synthesis: Current status and future projections., Microwave Journal 60 (2017)

    A. Chenakin, Frequency synthesis: Current status and future projections., Microwave Journal 60 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Park and B

    C.-H. Park and B. Kim, A low-noise, 900-mhz vco in 0.6- /spl mu/m cmos, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 34, 586 (1999)

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Van Delden, N

    M. Van Delden, N. Pohl, K. Aufinger, C. Baer, and T. Musch, A low-noise transmission-type yttrium iron garnet tuned oscillator based on a sige mmic and bond- coupling operating up to 48 ghz, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 67, 3973 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Volkovskii, L

    A. Volkovskii, L. S. Tsimring, N. Rulkov, and I. Lang- more, Spread spectrum communication system with chaotic frequency modulation, Chaos: An Interdisci- plinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 15 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    N.-T. Phan, N. Prasad, A. Hakam, A. S. E. Valli, L. Anghel, L. Benetti, A. Madhavan, A. S. Jenkins, R. Ferreira, M. D. Stiles, et al. , Unbiased random bitstream generation using injection-locked spin-torque nano-oscillators, Physical Review Applied 21, 034063 9 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Dmitriev, E

    A. Dmitriev, E. Efremova, M. Y. Gerasimov, and V. It- skov, Radio lighting based on ultrawideband dynamic chaos generators, Journal of Communications Technol- ogy and Electronics 61, 1259 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Dmitriev and E

    A. Dmitriev and E. Efremova, Radio-frequency illumi- nation sources based on ultrawideband microgenerators of chaotic oscillations, Technical Physics Letters 43, 42 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Y. Liu, Y. Cai, Y. Zhang, A. Tovstopyat, S. Liu, and C. Sun, Materials, design, and characteristics of bulk acoustic wave resonator: A review, Micromachines 11, 630 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    W. Zhao, M. J. Asadi, L. Li, R. Chaudhuri, K. Nomoto, H. G. Xing, J. Hwang, and D. Jena, X-band epi- baw resonators, Journal of Applied Physics 132, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0097458 (2022)

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Valle and K

    S. Valle and K. C. Balram, High-overtone bulk acoustic resonators (hbar) as cryogenic high-frequency acousto- optic modulators, in 2021 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Europe & European Quantum Electronics Conference (CLEO/Europe-EQEC)(2021) pp. 1–1

    2021

  5. [13]

    K. L. Aubin, M. Zalalutdinov, R. B. Reichenbach, B. H. Houston, A. T. Zehnder, J. M. Parpia, and H. G. Craig- head, Laser annealing for high-q mems resonators, in Smart Sensors, Actuators, and MEMS, Vol. 5116 (SPIE,

  6. [14]

    Stassi, I

    S. Stassi, I. Cooperstein, M. Tortello, C. F. Pirri, S. Mag- dassi, and C. Ricciardi, Reaching silicon-based nems per- formances with 3d printed nanomechanical resonators, Nature Communications 12, 6080 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Litvinenko, R

    A. Litvinenko, R. Khymyn, V. Tyberkevych, V. Tikhonov, A. Slavin, and S. Nikitov, Tunable magnetoacoustic oscillator with low phase noise, Physical Review Applied 15, 034057 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Bankowski, T

    E. Bankowski, T. Meitzler, R. S. Khymyn, V. S. Tiberke- vich, A. N. Slavin, and H. X. Tang, Magnonic crystal as a delay line for low-noise auto-oscillators, Applied Physics Letters 107, 122409 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    S. Dai, S. A. Bhave, and R. Wang, Octave-tunable mag- netostatic wave yig resonators on a chip, IEEE Transac- tions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Con- trol 67, 2454 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Gevorkyan, V

    V. Gevorkyan, V. Kochemasov, A. Safin, and A. Chenakin, Ferrite-based microwave oscillators, in 2021 Systems of Signal Synchronization, Generating and Processing in Telecommunications (SYNCHROINFO (IEEE, 2021) pp. 1–4

    2021

  11. [19]

    A. A. Nikitin, I. Y. Tatsenko, M. P. Kostylev, and A. B. Ustinov, Microwave magnonic micro-oscillator based on a nm-thick yig film, Journal of Applied Physics 135, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0200249 (2024)

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Serga, A

    A. Serga, A. Chumak, and B. Hillebrands, Yig magnon- ics, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 43, 264002 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    K. M. Lakin, G. R. Kline, and K. T. McCarron, High-q microwave acoustic resonators and filters, IEEE trans- actions on microwave theory and techniques 41, 2139 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    A. N. Litvinenko, A. V. Sadovnikov, V. V. Tikhonov, and S. A. Nikitov, Brillouin light scattering spectroscopy of magneto-acoustic resonances in a thin-film garnet res- onator, IEEE Magnetics Letters 6, 1 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Tikhonov, A

    V. Tikhonov, A. Litvinenko, A. Sadovnikov, and S. Niki- tov, Brillouin spectroscopy of nonlinear magnetoacoustic resonances in a layered yig/ggg structure, Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics 80, 1242 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Comstock, Magnetoelastic coupling constants of the ferrites and garnets, Proceedings of the IEEE 53, 1508 (1965)

    R. Comstock, Magnetoelastic coupling constants of the ferrites and garnets, Proceedings of the IEEE 53, 1508 (1965)

    1965

  17. [25]

    Y. V. Gulyaev, P. Zilberman, G. Kazakov, B. Nam, V. Tikhonov, Y. Filimonov, and A. Khe, Observation of fast magnetoelastic waves in thin yttrium-iron garnet wafers and epitaxial films, JETP Let. 34, 477 (1981)

    1981

  18. [26]

    Kazakov, V

    G. Kazakov, V. Tikhonov, and P. E. Zil’berman, Magneto-dipole and elastic wave resonance interaction in yig plates and films, Fizika Tverdogo Tela 25, 2307 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    P. E. Zilberman, G. Kazakov, and V. V. Tikhonov, Self- modulation of fast magnetoelastic waves in yttrium iron garnet films, Pisma v Zhurnal Tekhnischeskoi Fiziki 11, 769 (1985)

    1985

  20. [28]

    Y. V. Gulyaev and P. Zil’Berman, Magnetoelastic waves in ferromagnet plates and films, Soviet Physics Journal 31, 860 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    Verba, I

    R. Verba, I. Lisenkov, I. Krivorotov, V. Tiberkevich, and A. Slavin, Nonreciprocal surface acoustic waves in multi- layers with magnetoelastic and interfacial dzyaloshinskii- moriya interactions, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 064014 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Lisenkov, A

    I. Lisenkov, A. Jander, and P. Dhagat, Magnetoelastic parametric instabilities of localized spin waves induced by traveling elastic waves, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184433 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Brataas, B

    A. Brataas, B. van Wees, O. Klein, G. de Loubens, and M. Viret, Spin insulatronics, Physics Reports 885, 1 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    K. An, A. N. Litvinenko, R. Kohno, A. A. Fuad, V. V. Naletov, L. Vila, U. Ebels, G. de Loubens, H. Hurd- equint, N. Beaulieu, J. Ben Youssef, N. Vukadinovic, G. E. W. Bauer, A. N. Slavin, V. S. Tiberkevich, and O. Klein, Coherent long-range transfer of angular mo- mentum betwe...

    2020

  25. [33]

    K. An, R. Kohno, A. N. Litvinenko, R. L. Seeger, V. V. Naletov, L. Vila, G. de Loubens, J. Ben Youssef, N. Vukadinovic, G. E. W. Bauer, A. N. Slavin, V. S. Tiberkevich, and O. Klein, Bright and dark states of two distant macrospins strongly coupled by phonons, Phys. Rev. X 12,...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Litvinenko, S

    A. Litvinenko, S. Grishin, Y. P. Sharaevskii, V. Tikhonov, and S. Nikitov, A chaotic magnetoa- coustic oscillator with delay and bistability, Technical Physics Letters 44, 263 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    A. B. Ustinov, B. A. Kalinikos, V. E. Demidov, and S. O. Demokritov, Generation of dense spin-wave soliton trains in active ring resonators, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 80, 052405 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    A. B. Ustinov, A. V. Kondrashov, A. A. Nikitin, and B. A. Kalinikos, Self-generation and management of spin- electromagnetic wave solitons and chaos, Applied Physics Letters 104, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4881889 (2014)

    2014 doi

  29. [37]

    A. S. Bir, S. V. Grishin, O. I. Moskalenko, A. N. Pavlov, M. O. Zhuravlev, and D. O. Ruiz, Experimental obser- vation of ultrashort hyperchaotic dark multisoliton com- plexes in a magnonic active ring resonator, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 083903 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    A. S. Bir, S. V. Grishin, A. A. Grachev, O. I. Moskalenko, A. N. Pavlov, D. V. Romanenko, V. N. Skorokhodov, and S. A. Nikitov, Direct electric current control of hyper- 10 chaotic packets of dissipative dark envelope solitons in a magnonic crystal active ring resonator, Physi...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Massouras, S

    M. Massouras, S. Perna, M. d’Aquino, C. Serpico, and J.-V. Kim, Mode-resolved micromagnetics study of para- metric spin wave excitation in thin-film disks, Physical Review B 110, 064435 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Srivastava, H

    T. Srivastava, H. Merbouche, I. Ngouagnia Yemeli, N. Beaulieu, J. Ben Youssef, M. Mu˜ noz, P. Che, P. Bor- tolotti, V. Cros, O. Klein, S. Sangiao, J. De Teresa, S. Demokritov, V. Demidov, A. Anane, C. Serpico, M. d’Aquino, and G. de Loubens, Identification of a large number of...

    2023

  33. [41]

    S. O. Demokritov, B. Hillebrands, and A. N. Slavin, Bril- louin light scattering studies of confined spin waves: lin- ear and nonlinear confinement, Physics Reports 348, 441 (2001)

    2001

  34. [42]

    K. An, M. Xu, A. Mucchietto, C. Kim, K.-W. Moon, C. Hwang, and D. Grundler, Emergent coherent modes in nonlinear magnonic waveguides detected at ultrahigh frequency resolution, Nature Communications 15, 7302 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rubiola, The measurement of am noise of oscillators, in 2006 IEEE International Frequency Control Sympo- sium and Exposition(IEEE, 2006) pp

    E. Rubiola, The measurement of am noise of oscillators, in 2006 IEEE International Frequency Control Sympo- sium and Exposition(IEEE, 2006) pp. 750–758

    2006

  36. [44]

    Rubiola, Phase noise and frequency stability in oscil- lators (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    E. Rubiola, Phase noise and frequency stability in oscil- lators (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Devitt, R

    C. Devitt, R. Wang, S. Tiwari, and S. A. Bhave, An edge- coupled magnetostatic bandpass filter, Nature Commu- nications 15, 7764 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tikhonov and A

    V. Tikhonov and A. Litvinenko, Exchange spin waves and their application for diagnostics of the layered structure of epitaxial yig films, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 515, 167241 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Tikhonov, E

    V. Tikhonov, E. H. Lock, A. Ptashenko, and A. Sadovnikov, Excitation of exchange spin waves in the transition layer of the two-layer ferrite-ferrite struc- ture, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 587, 171251 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    V. V. Tikhonov, A. Ptashenko, and A. Sadovnikov, Interface mechanism of photon-magnon-phonon conver- sion in an epitaxial ferrite-dielectric structure, Jour- nal of Physics D: Applied Physics 10.1103/Phys- RevB.99.184433 (2024)

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    S. E. Sheshukova, E. N. Beginin, A. V. Sadovnikov, Y. P. Sharaevsky, and S. A. Nikitov, Multimode propagation of magnetostatic waves in a width-modulated yttrium-iron- garnet waveguide, IEEE Magnetics Letters 5, 1 (2014)

    2014

  42. [50]

    Litvinenko, P

    A. Litvinenko, P. Sethi, C. Murapaka, A. Jenkins, V. Cros, P. Bortolotti, R. Ferreira, B. Dieny, and U. Ebels, Analog and digital phase modulation and sig- nal transmission with spin-torque nano-oscillators, Phys. Rev. A 16, 024048 (2021)

    2021

  43. [51]

    Litvinenko, A

    A. Litvinenko, A. Kumar, M. Rajabali, A. A. Awad, R. Khymyn, and J. ˚Akerman, Phase noise analysis of mutually synchronized spin hall nano-oscillators, Appl. Phys. Lett. 122, https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0152381 (2023)

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Bianchini, S

    L. Bianchini, S. Cornelissen, J.-V. Kim, T. Devolder, W. van Roy, L. Lagae, and C. Chappert, Direct experi- mental measurement of phase-amplitude coupling in spin torque oscillators, Applied Physics Letters 97, 032502 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Kajfez and P

    D. Kajfez and P. Guillon, Dielectric resonators, Norwood https://doi.org/10.1109/8.250458 (1986)

    1986 doi

  46. [54]

    Kajfez and E

    D. Kajfez and E. J. Hwan, Q-factor measurement with network analyzer, IEEE transactions on microwave the- ory and techniques 32, 666 (1984)

    1984

  47. [446]

    TOPSPIN”, the ERC Proof of Concept Grant No. 101069424 “SPINTOP

    This allows us to expect a significant improvement in the phase noise figure if MAO switches locking from FMR mode to HBAR resonances of the YIG-GGG struc- ture. IV. MAO CIRCUIT DESIGN The asymmetric shape of acoustic resonances, together with a large deviation of phase due to...

Pith tools

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