Magnon Accumulation in Chirally Coupled Magnets

Gerrit E. W. Bauer; Sanchar Sharma; Tao Yu; Yaroslav M. Blanter; Yu-Xiang Zhang

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Magnon Accumulation in Chirally Coupled Magnets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Putting magnets on a chiral line in a waveguide piles magnons at one edge.

desk verdict A concrete chiral-magnon proposal whose headline 100-fold edge enhancement is quoted at a singular limit where the paper's own eigenmode expansion no longer applies; still worth refereeing for the new physics. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00953 v1 pith:2NRT7453 submitted 2019-09-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Tao Yu , Yu-Xiang Zhang , Sanchar Sharma , Yaroslav M. Blanter , Gerrit E. W. Bauer This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall

keywords chiralmagnon-photoncouplingmagnonedgestatesnon-HermitianHamiltoniansuperradianceandsubradiancemicrowavewaveguidemagnonicsyttriumirongarnetphasedantennaarrayaccumulation

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 predicts that a row of small magnets placed inside a microwave waveguide can couple almost exclusively to photons traveling in one direction, by sitting on a special transverse line where the photon magnetic field's rotation is locked to the wave vector. With that chiral coupling, the photon-mediated interaction between magnets makes the most superradiant eigenstate of the chain localize at one boundary. The paper shows that a phased antenna array driving the magnets at the phase of that edge state produces a magnon population at the edge more than a hundred times larger than in the symmetric coupling case, as the leftward decay rate Γ_L goes to zero. A curious reader should care because this is a low-power route to strong edge magnon signals, an alternative to parametric pumping, and a step toward quantum magnonic devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian $\tilde H_{\rm eff}=\tilde\omega+\Sigma$ obtained by integrating out waveguide photons. The self-energy $\Sigma$ is $-i(\Gamma_L+\Gamma_R)/2$ on the diagonal, $-i\Gamma_R e^{ik_0(j-l)d}$ for $j>l$, and $-i\Gamma_L e^{ik_0(l-j)d}$ for $j<l$; $\Gamma_L$ and $\Gamma_R$ are the single-magnet decay rates into left- and right-moving photons, and the chiral position $\cot(\pi x/a)=-\sqrt{k_0 a/\pi}$ makes $\Gamma_L$ vanish. The analysis uses a generalized Bloch ansatz with complex crystal momentum $\kappa$, producing the dispersion $\omega_\kappa$, the degeneracy condition $g_\kappa h_{\kappa'}=g_{\kappa'} h_\kappa$, and the extremal wave number $\kappa_{*}$; these yield superradiant boundary-localized states and subradiant delocalized standing waves. The phased antenna array then selectively excites the boundary state by matching its phase.

What would settle it

Using a single YIG sphere on the predicted chiral line in a TE10 waveguide, measure the transmitted microwave power in the +z and −z directions: the claim requires a strongly asymmetric ratio favoring +z. Alternatively, drive a 20-sphere chain with the phased antenna array and plot the right-edge magnon accumulation versus the chain's transverse position; if the edge enhancement does not rise sharply as the line $\cot(\pi x/a)=-\sqrt{k_0 a/\pi}$ is approached and does not approach the predicted >100-fold value at $\Gamma_L/\Gamma_R\to0$, the central prediction fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chiral coupling between magnons and waveguide photons—arranged by positioning magnets where the TE10 mode's magnetic field vanishes for left-moving photons (Eq. (6))—turns a magnet chain into a directional system in which each magnet effectively only affects magnets on one side. After integrating out the photons, the chain is governed by a non-Hermitian effective Hamiltonian whose off-diagonal couplings carry the left/right asymmetry through two rates, Γ_R and Γ_L. As Γ_L/Γ_R is reduced, the superradiant (short-lived) edge state shifts from both boundaries to a single boundary and, when driven by a local phased antenna array with phase φ→k0d, the coherent magnon amplitude at that edge is enhanced by more than 100-fold. The effect is worked out for a chain of 20 yttrium-iron-garnet spheres in a 16.2 GHz rectangular waveguide and is argued to remain prominent for shorter chains.

Load-bearing premise

The whole effect rests on placing every magnet at the transverse line where it couples to right-moving photons but not left-moving ones (Eq. (6)); if finite magnet size, waveguide losses, or higher modes break that cancellation, Γ_L is not actually zero and the hundredfold edge enhancement is lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A weak local drive can create edge magnon populations more than 100 times larger than in the symmetric configuration, so nonlinear magnon effects become accessible at input powers far below parametric pumping thresholds.
Which edge accumulates magnons is set by the sign of the chirality (whether Γ_R or Γ_L is smaller), giving a controllable direction for magnon concentration in a single chain.
Magnets in the center of the chain stay weakly excited, so the scheme concentrates energy at the edge without strongly heating the bulk.
In the quantum regime the same chiral channel provides a candidate setting for quantum state transfer between distant magnets, analogous to chiral quantum optics with atoms.
Because the mechanism only needs a chiral bosonic mediator, the same edge-accumulation physics should appear when the role of photons is played by other magnons, electron spins, or phonons.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the underlying single-magnet chirality, which the paper does not report, would be to measure the left/right emission asymmetry of one sphere; the predicted asymmetry should track how close the sphere is to the Eq. (6) position.
The paper does not quantify tolerance to positional disorder; I infer that deviations in the transverse coordinate or sphere size will raise Γ_L and suppress the edge enhancement roughly linearly in Γ_L/Γ_R, so a good experiment would map the enhancement as that ratio is varied.
The non-Hermitian Bloch-state structure is the same family as the non-Hermitian skin effect; if that analogy is taken literally, a ring-shaped waveguide should show circulating chiral magnon currents rather than edge localization.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read the Yu et al. Letter on chiral magnon coupling in a waveguide. The genuinely new piece is the specific device: YIG spheres placed at the TE10 'magic' position, where H_{-k0,-}=0, so photons only couple in one direction. The paper then shows that a phased antenna array drives a large edge population—up to 100-fold over the symmetric case. That is a new function in magnonics, distinct from parametric pumping, and it is experimentally testable.

What is done well: the coupling constants Γ_R, Γ_L are explicit from waveguide mode fields, no fitting to target data. The analytic treatment captures superradiant/subradiant structure, and the edge concentration follows from solving the eigenproblem, not from tuned parameters. The numbers are transparent (20 YIG spheres, ~16 GHz, d≈0.2 cm), and the effect is falsifiable.

The soft spots, in order of severity.

First, the effective equation of motion (7) and self-energy (9) are deferred to companion Ref. [48]. So the core derivation is not checkable in this manuscript. That is a standard Letter problem, but it matters here because the whole non-Hermitian structure relies on those equations.

Second, and more specific: the 100-fold enhancement in Fig. 3(b) is the value as Γ_L/Γ_R→0. In that limit Σ in Eq. (9) becomes upper-triangular with equal diagonal entries—a defective Jordan block. The biorthogonal eigenmode expansion (18), used to compute the response, presumes non-degenerate eigenvalues. The paper asserts 'individual modes can still be accessed by the phased array' but gives no argument. So the advertised factor 100 is a singular-limit number; the finite-chirality enhancement is not quantified. If the real device can only reach Γ_L/Γ_R~0.1, the factor might be much smaller. The authors should either compute the steady state by direct inversion of (7) near the degeneracy, or state the minimum chirality at which the expansion is valid.

Third, the perfect chiral condition (6) is an ideal point; finite sphere size, off-resonant photons, and higher waveguide modes will spoil it. No tolerance estimate is given. That is minor relative to the degeneracy issue, but still worth one sentence.

Overall: the central idea is sound and new. The math is mostly consistent, but the headline number is not robustly defined. The paper deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

Who reads it: magnonics and chiral quantum optics people. I would bring it to a reading group.

Recommendation: send to peer review, with a request that the authors clarify the Γ_L=0 limit and provide a finite-chirality calculation.

Regards.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that placing a chain of small YIG spheres at a special transverse position in a rectangular microwave waveguide realizes chiral magnon-photon coupling, in which each sphere radiates preferentially in one direction along the waveguide. The authors derive an effective non-Hermitian equation of motion for the magnetization vector (Eq. (7)) with a photon-mediated self-energy (Eq. (9)) whose off-diagonal couplings are directional and long-ranged. Using a generalized Bloch ansatz with a finite-chain boundary condition (Eq. (13)), they obtain superradiant edge-localized states whose decay and spatial profile depend on the chirality ratio Γ_L/Γ_R, and subradiant standing-wave states. They then show, in Fig. 3, that a phased antenna array tuned to the edge-state phase can produce an edge magnon accumulation that is enhanced more than 100-fold as Γ_L/Γ_R→0, proposing this as an alternative to parametric pumping for low-power nonlinear magnonics.

Significance. If the central prediction holds, the paper identifies a new and potentially practical mechanism for strong local magnon amplification without parametric pumping, with relevance to quantum magnonics and chiral quantum optics in solid-state systems. The work is commendably explicit: Γ_R and Γ_L enter as coupling constants fixed by the waveguide mode field rather than as fit parameters, and the analytic eigenmode treatment, including the superradiant/subradiant classification and explicit wave-function forms, is concrete and reproducible. The main significance, however, rests on the behavior near Γ_L/Γ_R→0, and that limit is exactly where the theoretical justification is weakest, so the practical and conceptual payoff depends on the resolution of the issue raised below.

major comments (2)

[Magnon accumulation, Eq. (18) and Fig. 3(b)] The response formula of Eq. (18) is based on an expansion in biorthogonal right and left eigenvectors, which presupposes that the non-Hermitian matrix in Eq. (9) is diagonalizable. At Γ_L=0, the self-energy Σ becomes an upper-triangular matrix with identical diagonal entries and nonzero upper off-diagonal entries, which is defective: it has fewer than N linearly independent eigenvectors and cannot be expanded in the biorthogonal basis used to derive Eq. (18). The statement in the text that 'in this limit the frequencies become degenerate, but individual modes can still be accessed by the phased array' is asserted without proof. Because Fig. 3(b) explicitly plots the enhancement as Γ_L/Γ_R→0, the headline 100-fold accumulation is a singular-limit prediction whose value is not justified by the given eigenmode expansion. To make the claim robust, the authors should either (i) compute the coherent response ⟨M(t)⟩ by direct inversion of the linear system in Eq. (7) for finite, small Γ_L/Γ_R and show that it converges to the plotted curve as Γ_L/Γ_R→0, or (ii) re-express the claim as a finite-chirality result and quantify the achievable minimum Γ_L/Γ_R.
[Formalism, Eq. (6), and Fig. 3(b)] The chiral condition underlying the whole effect is that the magnet sits at a transverse position where H_{-k0,-}=0 while H_{k0,-} remains finite, giving Γ_L=0 in Eq. (9). In a realistic waveguide, finite sphere size, higher-order modes, finite waveguide losses, and deviations from the ideal position in Eq. (6) will all produce a nonzero Γ_L, and the paper does not quantify how small Γ_L/Γ_R must be to retain a significant fraction of the predicted 100-fold enhancement. Since the enhancement in Fig. 3(b) is a steep function near Γ_L/Γ_R=0, a quantitative tolerance analysis, e.g., a plot of |M_N|^2 versus small Γ_L/Γ_R or versus positional offset δx from Eq. (6), is needed to establish that the effect is experimentally accessible rather than confined to the exact ideal geometry.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 3 caption] The caption contains typos: 'cureve' should be 'curve' and 'contribtuion' should be 'contribution'; these should be corrected.
[Formalism, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The sentence 'The direct coupling between any two magnets does not depend on distance' is misleading, since the self-energy in Eq. (9) carries distance-dependent phases e^{ik0(j-l)d}; presumably the authors mean that the coupling magnitude is independent of distance, and the wording should be clarified.
[Eq. (16)] The expression for δζ is typeset ambiguously; adding parentheses to make the denominator structure explicit (e.g., δζ = ζπ/(Nd) [1 - (i/N) sin(k0d)/(cos(κ*d)-cos(k0d))]) would improve readability.
[Eq. (10)] The 2×2 matrix in Eq. (10) is difficult to parse because the entries run together; adding explicit matrix brackets or spacing would help the reader verify the eigenmode structure.
[References] Ref. [48] is the companion paper containing the derivation of Eqs. (7)-(9); since these equations are load-bearing, the authors should indicate the status of that manuscript (e.g., preprint number, submitted/in press) so that readers can consult the derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No by-construction circularity; the prediction follows from an explicit non-Hermitian eigenproblem with independently stated coupling constants, with only a minor self-citation dependency on companion Ref. [48].

full rationale

The central prediction -- chiral magnon-photon coupling leading to one-sided edge accumulation -- is obtained by writing down the photon-magnon coupling from the waveguide mode functions (Eqs. (4)-(6)), integrating out the photons to an explicit non-Hermitian self-energy matrix (Eq. (9)) with Gamma_R and Gamma_L set by the mode-field couplings, diagonalizing that matrix, and then solving the linear-response expression (Eq. (18)) for a phased-array drive. No parameter is fitted to the predicted accumulation; the 100-fold enhancement is a ratio of computed responses at different Gamma_L/Gamma_R. The derivation is therefore not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The main non-independence is that the effective equation of motion (7) is stated with the derivation delegated to companion manuscript Ref. [48] by the same five authors, and a robustness claim ("The predicted features do not depend strongly on the chain lengths and are still prominent for a small number of spheres [48]") is also deferred to [48]. This is a self-citation gap rather than a circular reduction: the effective Hamiltonian is written out explicitly in the letter, and the edge-state result is not defined by the citation. A separate concern -- outside circularity -- is that the advertised limit Gamma_L/Gamma_R -> 0 makes the matrix in Eq. (9) defective, so the eigenmode expansion (18) used for Fig. 3(b) is singular in that limit; this is a mathematical-validation issue, not an input-output equivalence.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction does not depend on fitted data; the main adjustable inputs are the chirality ratio and the drive phase, both explicit experimental controls. The theoretical framework relies on standard waveguide QED and linear magnon dynamics, with the finite-chain Bloch ansatz as the least externally grounded step. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (2)

chirality ratio Gamma_L/Gamma_R = Scanned values 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, and the limit to 0
Main control parameter of the effect. The paper varies it by hand rather than deriving it from a specific geometry, and the 100-fold edge enhancement is quoted as Gamma_L/Gamma_R approaches 0.
antenna phase phi = 0.44 pi for N=20; phi approaches k0 d for long chains
Chosen to maximize excitation of the target edge state. It enters the drive in Eq. (18) and is an experimentally controllable phase, not a predicted quantity.

assumptions (7)

standard math Maxwell equations with metallic boundary conditions for the lowest TE10 waveguide mode
Used to define the photon dispersion and mode functions in the Formalism section, including the field distribution behind Eq. (6).
domain assumption Point-dipole approximation for the YIG spheres
Sub-millimeter spheres are treated as point particles because they are much smaller than the photon wavelength, stated in the Formalism section.
domain assumption Linearized Landau-Lifshitz dynamics with uniform Kittel precession
The magnetization dynamics is reduced to a harmonic oscillator for each sphere in Eq. (3), with Gilbert damping added later in Eq. (7).
domain assumption Markov approximation and negligible retardation
Stated after Eq. (9): 'The direct coupling between any two magnets does not depend on distance because we may safely disregard retardation and assume sufficiently high quality of the waveguide and magnets.'
domain assumption Only the TE10 mode contributes; no higher modes or ohmic losses
The photon Hilbert space in Eq. (1) includes only the lowest transverse mode, and the self-energy in Eq. (9) is derived for that mode alone.
ad hoc to paper Finite-chain generalized Bloch ansatz with Eq. (13) boundary condition
Finite-chain eigenstates are constructed as superpositions of two generalized Bloch states with momenta kappa and kappa' satisfying Eq. (13); completeness of this ansatz is not proven in the Letter.
standard math White-noise thermal bath description for magnon noise
The noise correlators in the Formalism section follow standard input-output theory and are cited to Refs. [52,53].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnon Accumulation in Chirally Coupled Magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NRT7453

@misc{pith2026190900953,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnon Accumulation in Chirally Coupled Magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NRT7453}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00953}
}

read the original abstract

We report strong chiral coupling between magnons and photons in microwave waveguides that contain chains of small magnets on special lines. Large magnon accumulations at one edge of the chain emerge when exciting the magnets by a phased antenna array. This mechanism holds the promise of new functionalities in non-linear and quantum magnonics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00953 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (Color online) Energy spectra and wave functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Color online) Magnon accumulation excited by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[48]

T. Yu, X. Zhang, S. Sharma, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, submitted to Physical Review B

work page
[1]

Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994)

A. Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994)

1994
[2]

M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954); T. Kasuya, Prog. Theor. Phys. 16, 45 (1956); K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

work page 1954
[3]

Suhl, Phys

H. Suhl, Phys. Rev. 109, 606 (1958)

work page 1958
[4]

Nakamura, Progr

T. Nakamura, Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 20, 542 (1958)

work page 1958
[5]

Mandel and E

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 1995)

work page 1995
[6]

¨O. O. Soykal, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Phy. Rev. Lett. 104, 077202 (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

Huebl, C

H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phy. Rev. Lett. 111, 127003 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 54 references

[8]

Tabuchi, S

Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Us- ami, and Y. Nakamura, Phy. Rev. Lett. 113, 083603 (2014)

2014
[9]

Zhang, C.-L

X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Phy. Rev. Lett. 113, 156401 (2014)

2014
[10]

Zhang, C.-L

X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, N. Zhu, F. Marquardt, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Nat. Comm. 6, 8914 (2015)

2015
[11]

N. J. Lambert, J. A. Haigh, S. Langenfeld, A. C. Doherty, and A. J. Ferguson, Phys. Rev. A 93, 021803(R) (2016)

2016
[12]

B. Z. Rameshti and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 97, 014419 (2018)

2018
[13]

Hatano and D

N. Hatano and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 570 (1996)

1996
[14]

C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and H. F. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270401 (2002)

2002
[15]

C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, H. F. Jones, and B. K. Meis- ter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 040403 (2007)

2007
[16]

Zhang, X.-Q

D. Zhang, X.-Q. Luo, Y.-P. Wang, T.-F. Li, and J. Q. You, Nat. Commun. 8, 1368 (2017)

2017
[17]

El-Ganainy, K

R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, Nat. Phys. 14, 11 (2018)

2018
[18]

S. Y. Yao and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086803 (2018)

2018
[19]

Z. Gong, Y. Ashida, K. Kawabata, K. Takasan, S. Hi- gashikawa, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. X.8, 031079 (2018)

2018
[20]

X. S. Yang, Y. Cao, and Y. Zhai, arXiv:1904.02492

1904 arXiv
[21]

S. Y. Yao, F. Song and Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 136802 (2018)

2018
[22]

Jiang, L

H. Jiang, L. J. Lang, C. Yang, S. L. Zhu, and S. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 100, 054301 (2019)

2019
[23]

Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

N. Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian Quantum Mechanics , (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011)

2011
[24]

Harder, Y

M. Harder, Y. Yang, B. M. Yao, C. H. Yu, J. W. Rao, Y. S. Gui, R. L. Stamps, and C.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 137203 (2018)

2018
[25]

B. M. Yao, T. Yu, X. Zhang, W. Lu, Y. S. Gui, C.-M. Hu, and Y. M. Blanter, arXiv:1906.12142

1906 arXiv
[26]

Asenjo-Garc´ ıa, M

A. Asenjo-Garc´ ıa, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031024 (2017)

2017
[27]

Zhang and K

Y.-X. Zhang and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 203605 (2019)

2019
[28]

M. M. Cardoner, D. Plankensteiner, L. Ostermann, D. E. Chang, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. A 100, 023806 (2019)

2019
[29]

Guimond, A

P.-O. Guimond, A. Grankin, D. V. Vasilyev, B. Vermer- sch, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 093601 (2019)

2019
[30]

Buonaiuto, R

G. Buonaiuto, R. Jones, B. Olmos, and I. Lesanovsky, arXiv:1902.08525

1902 arXiv
[31]

J. Li, S. Y. Zhu, and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203601 (2018)

2018
[32]

L. M. Sieberer, S. D. Huber, E. Altman, and S. Diehl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 195301 (2013)

2013
[33]

Diehl, A

S. Diehl, A. Micheli, A. Kantian, B. Kraus, H. P. B¨ uchler, and P. Zoller, Nat. Phys. 4, 878 (2008)

2008
[34]

Bernier, E

N. Bernier, E. Torre, and E. Demler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 065303 (2014)

2014
[35]

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, (Wiley, New York, 1998)

1998
[36]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature (London) 541, 473 (2017)

2017
[37]

Le Kien, S

F. Le Kien, S. D. Gupta, K. P. Nayak, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A 72, 063815 (2005)

2005
[38]

le Feber, N

B. le Feber, N. Rotenberg, and L. Kuipers, Nat. Com- mun. 6, 6695 (2015)

2015
[39]

Scheucher, A

M. Scheucher, A. Hilico, E. Will, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Science 354, 1577 (2016)

2016
[40]

Vermersch, P.-O

B. Vermersch, P.-O. Guimond, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 133601 (2017). 6

2017
[41]

A. G. Gurevich and G. A. Melkov, Magnetization Oscil- lations and Waves (CRC, New York, 1996)

1996
[42]

V. S. L’vov, Wave Turbulence under Parametric Ex- citations: Applications to Magnetics (Springer, Berlin, 1994)

1994
[43]

T. Yu, C. P. Liu, H. M. Yu, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 99, 134424 (2019)

2019
[44]

J. L. Chen, T. Yu, C. P. Liu, T. Liu, M. Madami, K. Shen, J. Y. Zhang, S. Tu, M. S. Alam, K. Xia, M. Z. Wu, G. Gubbiotti, Y. M. Blanter, G. E. W. Bauer, and H. M. Yu, arXiv:1903.00638

1903 arXiv
[45]

Tserkovnyak, A

Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, G. E. W. Bauer, and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys., 77, 1375 (2005)

2005
[46]

Kamra, H

A. Kamra, H. Keshtgar, P. Yan, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. B 91, 104409 (2015)

2015
[47]

Streib, H

S. Streib, H. Keshtgar, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 027202 (2018)

2018
[49]

Fano, Phys

U. Fano, Phys. Rev. 124, 1866 (1961)

1961
[50]

G. D. Mahan, Many Particle Physics (Plenum, New York, 1990)

1990
[51]

B. M. Yao, T. Yu, Y. S. Gui, J. W. Rao, Y. T. Zhao, W. Lu, and C.-M. Hu, arXiv: 1902.06795

1902 arXiv
[52]

C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

1985
[53]

A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

2010
[54]

V. E. Demidov, S. Urazhdin, G. de Loubens, O. Klein, V. Cros, A. Anane, and S. O. Demokritov, Phys. Rep. 673, 1 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [48]

T. Yu, X. Zhang, S. Sharma, Y. M. Blanter, and G. E. W. Bauer, submitted to Physical Review B

work page

[2] [1]

Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994)

A. Auerbach, Interacting Electrons and Quantum Mag- netism (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994)

1994

[3] [2]

M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954); T. Kasuya, Prog. Theor. Phys. 16, 45 (1956); K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

work page 1954

[4] [3]

Suhl, Phys

H. Suhl, Phys. Rev. 109, 606 (1958)

work page 1958

[5] [4]

Nakamura, Progr

T. Nakamura, Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 20, 542 (1958)

work page 1958

[6] [5]

Mandel and E

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 1995)

work page 1995

[7] [6]

¨O. O. Soykal, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Phy. Rev. Lett. 104, 077202 (2010)

work page 2010

[8] [7]

Huebl, C

H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, Phy. Rev. Lett. 111, 127003 (2013)

work page 2013