Perspective
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-018-0049-4
Antiferromagnetic spin textures and dynamics
O. Gomonay1,2*, V. Baltz3, A. Brataas4 and Y. Tserkovnyak5
Antiferromagnets provide greater stability than their ferromagnetic counterparts, but antiferromagnetic spin textures and
nanostructures also exhibit more complex, and often faster, dynamics, offering new functionalities for spintronics devices.
A
n important drive in antiferromagnetic spintronics is the
active manipulation of the antiferromagnetic state and its
magnetic spin textures via spin and charge currents, exempli-
fied by the recently demonstrated1 switching of antiferromagnetic
domains by the current-induced Néel spin–orbit torque (NSOT).
However, the dynamics of the antiferromagnetic textures are yet to
be fully understood.
A key aspect is the fundamental qualitative difference in the
dynamics of antiferromagnets (AFs) and ferromagnets (FMs). The
exchange coupling between the sublattices in an AF creates a more
complex and in general faster dynamics than that in FMs. Hence, a
large part of the intuitive thinking arising from FMs has to be re-
examined in AFs. In addition, the possibilities of different types of
current-induced spin torques are also expanded beyond the FMs.
Excitations of antiferromagnetic structures — domain walls
(DWs), skyrmions and spin waves — also demonstrate a number
of peculiar features that can endow new functionalities to antiferro-
magnet-based devices, as compared to ferromagnetic ones. Here we
focus on the stark differences between AFs and FMs, and the new
possibilities that AFs offer.
General features of antiferromagnetic dynamics
The simplest AFs are collinear, consisting of anti-aligned magnetic
moments M1 and M2 belonging to two magnetic sublattices. The
description of the antiferromagnetic dynamics is based on equations
of motion for the magnetic sublattice moments similar to those that
are used for FMs but coupled via an inter-sublattice exchange field,
Hex (ref. 2). Although it might be natural to think that such a system
behaves like two interpenetrating FMs, due to this inter-sublattice
exchange, the dynamics of AFs is richer.
In FMs, the zero-momentum resonance excitation (FMR) is
determined by the energy scales of the anisotropy fields, Han, whose
order of magnitude is typically GHz. Any involvement of exchange
energies in FMs requires finite momentum magnon excitations
that demagnetize the system. In contrast, in AFs, in the presence
of crystalline anisotropies, the inter-sublattice exchange allows for
optical-mode zero-momentum excitations that involve Hex. These
antiferromagnetic resonance (AFR) excitations have typically an
enhancement factor of Hex ∕Han relative to the FMR, which brings
them to THz frequencies2,3. In addition, the high value of the spin-
flop field4, compared to its analogue in FMs (the coercive field), also
has this exchange enhancement factor.
Exchange enhancement also appears in the dynamics of antifer-
romagnetic spin textures. In a FM, the velocity of a DW is limited
by the Walker breakdown. On the other hand, in an AF, the limit is
set by the magnon velocity5,6, which is much larger than the typical
magnon velocity in a FM. In addition, the internal exchange torques
(Fig. 1a) in an AF are several orders of magnitude larger than any
1
Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 2National Technical University of Ukraine (KPI), Kyiv, Ukraine. 3SPINTEC,
Univ. Grenoble Alpes/CNRS/INAC-CEA, Grenoble, France. 4Center for Quantum Spintronics, Departments of Physics, Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. 5Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
*e-mail: ogomonay@uni-mainz.de
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
driving torque, which leads to a stiff DW with low effective mass
and shifts the point of the Walker breakdown to an unreachable
driving field value5,7.
A further distinct aspect in AFs is the issue of which torques
are more efficient in exciting and manipulating the state of the AF
and its magnetic textures. In a FM, one can use, apart from a uni-
form magnetic field, the spin-transfer or spin–orbit torques. For
example, for one direction of the applied spin current the spin-
transfer torque can compensate the internal damping and induce
switching. After switching, however, the same current stabilizes the
reoriented magnetization by adding to its damping. This leads to a
well-controlled switching that is robust with respect to fluctuations
of the driving current.
In an AF, a uniform static field generates torques that have oppo-
site sign on the opposite sublattices (Fig. 1b). These torques almost
compensate each other at the macroscopic scale and are relatively
inefficient at switching AFs. On the other hand, the spin-transfer
torque (STT) in an AF is an efficient generator of oscillations of
the staggered magnetization L ≡ M 1−M 2. In a configuration where
the polarization of the spin current is perpendicular to L (Fig. 1c),
it generates parallel torques on the opposite magnetic sublattices.
Above a threshold these torques can induce a stable precession of L
within the plane perpendicular to the spin-current polarization8,9.
If the spin polarization is parallel to L, the spin current can
induce an instability of the initial state. However, unlike in a FM,
the spin polarization in an AF is always antiparallel to one of the
magnetic sublattices. This means that in this configuration the STT
in an AF always competes with the internal damping on one of the
spin sublattices and the L tends to rotate towards the plane perpen-
dicular to the spin polarization. The final state in this case also cor-
responds to a stable precession.
Thus, while the FM driven by a magnetic field or a spin-polar-
ized current tends to switch between different static states, an AF
is a natural spin-torque oscillator10,11. Typical frequency of such
an oscillator falls into the THz range, making AFs attractive for
applications. In particular, as the precession of L creates a non-zero
dynamic magnetization (Fig. 1a), such spin-torque oscillator can
pump spin current into the neighbouring non-magnetic layer10–12,
similar to a FM. In addition, the time-dependent component of
the dynamic magnetization can be a source of a THz signal either
through the direct emission of electromagnetic waves or due to
pumping of THz spin current into the electrodes.
There is also a distinct type of torque that is not relevant in FMs.
This is the NSOT1,13, which can be generated in certain AFs where
a staggered field BN with opposite signs on opposite sublattices is
induced by a global uniform current. The staggered field in AFs
plays an analogous role to the uniform magnetic field in a FM. The
staggered field generates torques on the antiferromagnetic spin sub-
Perspective
a b
Tex
H and FMs in terms of the directional order parameter, mapping L
M2
T1
M2
M1 M1
Tex
c d
B1N
M2
T2
s M2
M1 M1
T1 T1
B2N
Fig. 1 | Torques and dynamics of antiferromagnets. a, Sublattice
magnetizations M1 and M2 are antiparallel in equilibrium. The difference,
L ≡ M 1−M 2, called the staggered magnetization or the Néel vector, is
interpreted as an order parameter of an AF. Any excitation followed by a
small tilt of M1 and M2 triggers oppositely directed large exchange torques
Tex ∝ Hex, which induce fast rotation of the magnetic moments. Oppositely,
due to the tilting, any rotation of M1 and M2 is associated with appearance
of non-zero dynamic magnetization. b, Magnetic field H generates the
antiparallel torques T1/2, which compensate each other and, thus, hamper
magnetization dynamics. c,d, The current with spin polarization s (c) and
the staggered Néel field B1N/2N, introduced in an analogous way to the
staggered magnetization (d) generate the parallel torques T1/2, which cant
sublattice magnetizations M1/2 forward and, thus, create internal exchange
torques Tex, which cause rotation of magnetic sublattices.
lattices which sum up on the macroscopic level (Fig. 1d). Thus, the
NSOT induces fast and deterministic switching in an AF.
The concept of the magnetic sublattices and corresponding
torques is applicable to macrospin models of AFs. However, elec-
trical current allows also for the manipulation of antiferromagnetic
nanostructures (Fig. 2a) that include a small number of magnetic
atoms. For example, with the use of a spin-polarized tip, heating
combined potentially with the STT was applied to a particular
atom in a one-dimensional chain of antiferromagnetically ordered
Fe moments14. Reorientation of the whole magnetic nanostructure
was then mediated by strong exchange coupling between the mag-
netic atoms.
Domain walls and skyrmions
Antiferromagnetic textures, such as DWs and skyrmions, could
play an important role in information coding and have intriguing
physical properties.
Domain walls give the simplest example of a magnetic texture
in which L varies along one spatial direction (Fig. 2b), separating
regions with different orientations of L. Similar to FMs, the thick-
ness of the antiferromagnetic DW is defined by the competition
between the magnetic anisotropy and the magnetic stiffness, which
arises from exchange. In contrast to a FM, the typical DWs in AFs
carry no macroscopic magnetization. An exception is provided by
the thin DW in a monolayer AF on a heavy-metal substrate that can
show a small net magnetization15.
A magnetic skyrmion is a localized, particle-like excitation in
which the magnetization (in a FM) or the staggered magnetization
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
NAture Physics
(in a collinear AF) is whirling and twisting in all directions (Fig. 2c).
Stability of the skyrmions is enhanced by their topological properties.
The topological charge of skyrmions is defined similarly for AFs
T2
in AFs to the magnetization of FMs, as described in detail in the
Review by Šmejkal and colleagues16 in this Focus. This definition is
based on the formal similarity of the equations describing the static
skyrmions. However, the properties of ferromagnetic and antifer-
romagnetic skyrmions are not identical.
For example, in FMs, skyrmions can be created and manipulated
by a magnetic field. In AFs, which are largely unresponsive to mag-
netic fields, an alternative way to create antiferromagnetic skyrmions
is to pump spin-polarized current17 or to introduce impurities18.
While the static properties of the textures in FMs and AFs have
many similarities, their dynamics is substantially different. The
T2 main differences appear from the analysis of the possible driving
forces and underlying mechanisms. The forces of one type (pon-
deromotive forces) remove the degeneracy between the domains
and push the DW toward the energetically less favourable domain,
in a similar way as, for example, the external magnetic field applied
to a FM parallel to the magnetization in one domain. In an AF, the
analogous force can be created by the uniform magnetic field that
splits degeneracy of 90° domains or by the staggered field BN origi-
nating from NSOT. In contrast to FM, the efficiency of the uniform
magnetic field in moving antiferromagnetic DWs is low because of
the low magnetic susceptibility of AFs. A much more efficient force
is generated by the staggered field5.
The forces of the other type (non-ponderomotive) can be gener-
ated by spin currents that transfer torque directly to the DW. In this
case the spin polarization should be directed perpendicular to the
plane in which L rotates within the DW. In FMs such forces can be
also generated by a charge current that is polarized while passing
through one of the domain. As they go through the DW, the spin-
polarized electrons experience a non-uniform magnetization and
generate a torque trying to align their spins with the local magnetic
moments via the STT mechanism. An analogous mechanism was
also predicted for AFs19,20 and peculiarities of the current-induced
DW motion have been described in ref. 21.
Another source of the forces of both types in AFs, as well as in
FMs, are temperature gradients7 that generate magnon fluxes. The
underlying mechanism can be related to the reflection of circularly
polarized magnons from the precessing DW22 or to the reduction of
the linear momentum of the transmitted magnons due to the inter-
action with the DW (so-called redshift)23.
In contrast to the DWs, skyrmions embedded within a homo-
genenous magnetic environment can be driven only by the non-
ponderomotive forces stemming, for example, from the STT. The
spin torques acting on an antiferromagnetic skyrmion do not create
a Magnus force17,24,25 and skyrmion mobility is strongly enhanced24
due to the absence of the gyrotropic force.
Spin waves, magnons and associated phenomena
Magnons (also known as spin waves) play an important role in the
transport properties of AFs. They can carry spin current26–34 and
contribute to heat flow20. They also show much richer physics com-
pared to FMs.
Here we consider the main differences between ferromagnetic
and antiferromagnetic spin waves. In FMs, spin waves always carry
a spin, so a magnon flux is equivalent to a d.c. spin current. In AFs,
in contrast, spin waves may or may not carry a spin, as oscillations
of two coupled sublattices are involved.
Spin waves can be either linearly or circularly polarized, depend-
ing on the magnetic symmetry of the AF. The average spin in
the linearly polarized waves is zero and thus is not transmitted.
However, the circularly polarized waves carry a spin. The spin ori-
entation is opposite for clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. In
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics
NAture Physics Perspective
a b
320

Tip height (pm)

280

240

200

160
0 1 2 3 4 5
Position (nm)

c mz d
+1 4.8

0.6
–1
3.2

δgCu/IrMn/S (nm–2)
0.8
1
1.2
1.6 tIrMn (nm) = 1.5 (x3)

0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
T (K)

Fig. 2 | Antiferromagnetic bits. a, Spin polarized STM image of a nanostructure consisting of antiferromagnetically coupled eight Fe atoms assembled on a
Cu2N overlayer on Cu(100). b,c, Illustration of 90° AF DW (b) and AF skyrmion spin texture (c). Sublattice magnetizations M1 and M2 (shown in different
colours) smoothly rotate in space keeping mutual antiparallel orientation. d, Spin transmission. Enhanced spin transmission occurs during the magnetic
phase transition of AFs illustrating that a fluctuating magnetic order allows more spins to pass through an interface. Data deduced from spin pumping
experiments with NiFe/Cu/IrMn metallic multilayers in which the IrMn layer thickness (tIrMn) is varied. Thinner layers display smaller critical temperature for
the magnetic phase transition as a result of finite size effects. Credit: adapted from ref. 14, AAAS (a); ref. 17, Macmillan Publishers Ltd (b,c); and ref. 29, AIP (d).

addition, the modes with opposite spins have the same energy and
are equally represented in the equilibrium state. This explains why
the observation of the spin Seebeck effect in AFs (the generation
of a spin current by a temperature gradient) requires the presence
of an external magnetic field. It either splits the degeneracy of the
modes35 or induces a non-zero magnetization due to the canting of
the sublattice magnetizations36.
A spin current pumped into an AF modifies the distribu-
tion of magnons and can generate a magnon flux with non-zero
spin. The ability of AFs to convert electronic spin current into
magnonic spin current was demonstrated in the experiments
with antiferromagnetic insulators26,27,31,37. An antiferromag-
netic layer inserted between a spin emitter and a spin detec-
tor transmitted spin current32 and in some cases even resulted
in enhancement of the detected signal. This effect was inter-
preted as originating from magnons. Similar effects of spin
transmission28–30 were also observed in metallic AFs (Fig. 2d).
However, a microscopic interpretation of all the mentioned exper-
iments is still incomplete because of the large number of processes
involved in the formation of the detected signals. Theoretical
models attribute magnonic spin transport in AFs to magnon diffu-
sion33 or to the coherent propagation of the evanescent modes38,39.
To conclude, we have considered the key distinctions in
dynamics and magnetic textures between FMs and collinear AFs.
AFs can also have more complex structures, with non-collinear
spins and a larger number of magnetic sublattices. These systems
also show the exchange-enhanced dynamics. The current-induced
dynamics and the formation and manipulation of textures in non-
collinear AFs are open research areas that are likely to reveal new
exciting physics.
Received: 29 May 2017; Accepted: 17 January 2018;
Published: xx xx xxxx
References
1. Wadley, P. et al. Science 351, 587–590 (2016).
2. Keffer, F. & Kittel, C. Phys. Rev. 85, 329–337 (1952).
3. Ross, P. et al. J. Appl. Phys. 118, 233907 (2015).
4. Hagiwara, M. & Katsumata, K. Int. J. Infrared Millim. Waves 20,
617–622 (1999).
5. Gomonay, O., Jungwirth, T. & Sinova, J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117,
017202 (2016).
6. Shiino, T. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 087203 (2016).
7. Selzer, S., Atxitia, U., Ritzmann, U., Hinzke, D. & Nowak, U. Phys. Rev. Lett.
117, 107201 (2016).
8. Gomonay, H. & Loktev, V. J. Magn. Soc. Jpn 32, 535–539 (2008).
9. Cheng, R., Daniels, M. W., Zhu, J.-G. & Xiao, D. Phys. Rev. B 91,
064423 (2015).
10. Gomonay, E. V. & Loktev, V. M. Low Temp. Phys. 40, 17 (2014).
11. Cheng, R., Xiao, J., Niu, Q. & Brataas, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113,
057601 (2014).
12. Cheng, R., Xiao, D. & Brataas, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116,
207603 (2016).
13. Železný, J. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 157201 (2014).
14. Loth, S., Baumann, S., Lutz, C. P., Eigler, D. M. & Heinrich, A. J. Science 335,
196–199 (2012).
15. Bode, M. et al. Nat. Mater. 5, 477–481 (2006).
16. Šmejkal, L., Mokrousov, Y., Yan, B. & MacDonald, A. H. Nat. Phys.
https://doi.org/s41567-018-0064-5 (2018).
17. Zhang, X., Zhou, Y. & Ezawa, M. Sci. Rep 6, 24795 (2016).
18. Raičević, I. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 227206 (2011).
19. Hals, K. M. D., Tserkovnyak, Y. & Brataas, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106,
107206 (2011).
20. Brataas, A., Skarsvåg, H., Tveten, E. G. & Fjærbu, E. L. Phys. Rev. B 92,
180414(R) (2015).
21. Rodrigues, D. R., Everschor-Sitte, K., Tretiakov, O. A., Sinova, J. & Abanov, A.
Phys. Rev. B 95, 174408 (2017).
22. Tveten, E. G., Qaiumzadeh, A. & Brataas, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112,
147204 (2014).
23. Kim, S. K., Tserkovnyak, Y. & Tchernyshyov, O. Phys. Rev. B 90,
104406 (2014).
24. Barker, J. & Tretiakov, O. A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 147203 (2016).
25. Velkov, H. et al. New J. Phys. 18, 075016 (2016).

Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics

© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
Perspective
26. Wang, H., Du, C., Hammel, P. C. & Yang, F. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 097202 (2014).
27. Hahn, C. et al. Europhys. Lett. 108, 57005 (2014).
28. Moriyama, T. et al. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1411.4100 (2014).
29. Merodio, P. et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 032406 (2014).
30. Frangou, L. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 077203 (2016).
31. Moriyama, T. et al. Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 162406 (2015).
32. Lin, W., Chen, K., Zhang, S. & Chien, C. L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 186601 (2016).
33. Rezende, S. M., Rodríguez-Suárez, R. L. & Azevedo, A. Phys. Rev. B 93,
054412 (2016).
34. Saglam, H. et al. Phys. Rev. B 94, 140412(R) (2016).
35. Wu, S. M. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 097204 (2016).
36. Seki, S. et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 266601 (2015).
37. Qiu, Z. et al. Nat. Commun. 7, 12670 (2016).
38. Khymyn, R., Lisenkov, I., Tiberkevich, V. S., Slavin, A. N. & Ivanov, B. A.
Phys. Rev. B 93, 224421 (2016).
39. Takei, S., Moriyama, T., Ono, T. & Tserkovnyak, Y. Phys. Rev. B 92,
020409 (2015).
© 2018 Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature. All rights reserved.
NAture Physics
Acknowledgements
O.G. acknowledges the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the ERC Synergy
Grant SC2 (no. 610115), EU FET Open RIA Grant no. 766566, and the Transregional
Collaborative Research Center (SFB/TRR) 173 SPIN+​X. A.B. acknowledges the Research
Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding scheme, project number
262633 ‘QuSpin’ and the European Research Council via Advanced Grant no. 669442
‘Insulatronics’. V.B. acknowledges the financial support of ANR (ANR-15-CE24-0015-01)
and of KAUST (OSR-2015-CRG4-2626). Y.T. acknowledges FAME (an SRC STARnet
centre sponsored by MARCO and DARPA).
Additional information
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to O.G.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Nature Physics | www.nature.com/naturephysics