Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Investigation of Fe-Ag and Ag-Fe Interfaces in Ag-57Fe-Ag trilayer Using Nuclear Resonance Scattering under X-ray Standing Wave Conditions

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read X-ray standing waves let the two interfaces of a single iron layer in an Ag/Fe/Ag trilayer be read separately, showing the Fe-on-Ag interface is rougher (10 Å) than the Ag-on-Fe interface (6 Å) and that the interfaces carry distinct…

desk verdict Clever XSW-NRS scheme that delivers a new interface-resolved look at Fe/Ag, but the headline 10 Å/6 Å roughness split rests on a model assignment that needs stronger validation before the numbers are quoted. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06223 v1 pith:65VE2YBQ submitted 2025-02-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Manisha Priyadarsini , Sharanjeet Singh , Ilya Sergeev , Olaf Leupold , Ajay Gupta , Dileep Kumar This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 68.35.Ct75.70.Cn76.80.+y
keywords x-raystandingwavesnuclearresonancescattering57FeMössbauerspectroscopyinterfaceroughnesshyperfinefieldFe/Agmultilayerthermalannealingironnanoparticles
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 aims to solve a long-standing problem in magnetic multilayer research: how to characterize the two interfaces of a single magnetic layer independently within the same sample. By generating X-ray standing waves with an underlying tungsten/silicon multilayer and tuning the incidence angle, the authors place the field antinodes first on the bottom Fe-on-Ag interface and then on the top Ag-on-Fe interface. X-ray fluorescence then gives interface roughness, while 57Fe nuclear resonance scattering gives interface-specific hyperfine fields. The central finding is that the two interfaces are not equivalent: the Fe-on-Ag interface has rms roughness 10 Å and the Ag-on-Fe interface 6 Å, and the hyperfine fields differ accordingly. Annealing at 325 °C wipes out the distinction as Fe diffuses into Ag and the trilayer becomes paramagnetic, attributed to Fe nanoparticles in the Ag matrix.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the X-ray standing wave (XSW) generated by Bragg reflection from the underlying [W/Si]10 multilayer, whose antinode positions shift with incidence angle across the multilayer Bragg peak. At q = 0.121 Å⁻¹ the field maximum overlaps the bottom Fe-on-Ag interface, and at q = 0.132 Å⁻¹ it overlaps the top Ag-on-Fe interface, giving interface-selective X-ray fluorescence and nuclear resonance signals; the resonant nuclear reflectivity is enhanced by the fourth power of the standing-wave amplitude, which strengthens the depth selectivity. Fitting the XRF and nuclear resonance time spectra with reflectivity and time-spectrum fitting software yields the interface roughness values and the depth-dependent hyperfine-field distribution.

What would settle it

Measure the same trilayer with a model-independent structural probe, such as cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy or atom probe tomography, and compare the directly imaged interface widths with the fitted 10 Å and 6 Å values; if the bottom interface is not clearly rougher than the top, the standing-wave assignment is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors establish that the two interfaces of a single 57Fe layer in an Ag/57Fe/Ag trilayer can be addressed separately by tuning the X-ray standing wave across the Bragg peak of the underlying W/Si multilayer. They report rms roughness values of 10 ± 1.0 Å for the Fe-on-Ag interface and 6 ± 1.0 Å for the Ag-on-Fe interface, and show that the hyperfine fields at the two interfaces are distinct, consistent with the structural asymmetry. They further show that annealing at 225 °C retains the two-peak interface signature, whereas annealing at 325 °C produces a single broad fluorescence peak, a paramagnetic CEMS singlet, and negligible coercivity, which they attribute to 57Fe diffusion and the formation of Fe nanoparticles within the Ag matrix.

Load-bearing premise

The interface-specific readout rests on the simulated standing-wave field profile built from X-ray reflectivity fitting, which the paper itself says cannot give accurate Fe/Ag thickness and roughness values, so a wrong field profile would invalidate the 10 Å/6 Å split and the interface assignment of the hyperfine fields.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, a single Ag/57Fe/Ag trilayer is enough to correlate each interface's structure directly with its magnetism, without building separate samples for the two interfaces.
  • The measured 10 Å versus 6 Å asymmetry means Fe/Ag interface quality depends on growth order, a factor that should be included in models of giant magnetoresistance, perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, and interlayer coupling in Fe/Ag multilayers.
  • The technique provides a template for interface-resolved studies of other trilayer systems where top and bottom interface properties need to be separated in the same stack.
  • The annealing result ties the loss of ferromagnetism to Fe–Ag intermixing, indicating that the thermal stability of Fe/Ag-based spintronic stacks is limited by the same diffusion process that produces the paramagnetic Fe nanoparticles at 325 °C.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper does not carry out is to compare the 10 Å and 6 Å roughness values with a model-independent structural probe, such as cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy, on the same trilayer; disagreement would require revising the standing-wave-based assignment.
  • The asymmetry may reflect a more general growth rule for immiscible metal pairs: the layer deposited first can roughen more than the capping layer, a hypothesis that could be tested on other immiscible pairs such as Fe/Au or Co/Cu.
  • The paramagnetic state at 325 °C is attributed to Fe nanoparticles in Ag; a direct test would be field-cooled and zero-field-cooled magnetization or Mössbauer spectra in an applied field to distinguish superparamagnetic blocking from true paramagnetism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a depth-resolved study of the two interfaces of a single 57Fe layer in an Ag/57Fe/Ag trilayer grown on a [W/Si]10 multilayer. By tuning the x-ray incidence angle across the multilayer Bragg peak, the authors generate x-ray standing waves whose antinodes overlap preferentially with the bottom (Fe-on-Ag) and top (Ag-on-Fe) interfaces. They measure Fe Kα fluorescence as a function of q and nuclear resonant scattering time spectra at two q positions, fitting the data with models that yield rms roughness values of 10 Å and 6 Å for the Fe-on-Ag and Ag-on-Fe interfaces, respectively. Hyperfine fields extracted from the nuclear resonance data are reported to differ between the two interfaces. After annealing at 225 °C and 325 °C, the fluorescence and Mössbauer data are interpreted as interdiffusion and eventual formation of paramagnetic Fe nanoparticles in the Ag matrix. The central claim is that the two interfaces in the same sample exhibit different roughness and distinct magnetic properties.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper demonstrates a valuable capability: simultaneous, interface-selective characterization of both interfaces of a single magnetic layer in one sample, using x-ray standing waves and nuclear resonance scattering. This goes beyond averaged interface measurements and could inform understanding of asymmetric intermixing in Fe/Ag and related systems. The method is a combination of established techniques, but its application to the specific Fe/Ag trilayer and the quantitative 10 Å versus 6 Å roughness asymmetry is new. The strength of the work lies in the combination of XRF and NRS under XSW conditions and the consistency of the qualitative asymmetry (rougher Fe-on-Ag, smoother Ag-on-Fe) with prior literature. However, the quantitative roughness split and the interface-resolved hyperfine fields rest on a model whose structural input has acknowledged limitations, and the uncertainty analysis is currently insufficient to fully secure the headline numbers.

major comments (1)
  1. [Introduction (claim of first direct measurement)] The introduction asserts that "To date, the direct measurement of both interfaces (A-on-B and B-on-A) independently in the same multilayered sample remains unachievable." This is contradicted by prior work by the same group and others using XSW-based methods, including refs. [18], [29], [31], and [34], which already report interface-resolved measurements in similar trilayer systems. The claim should be softened to note that the present work extends the approach to the Fe/Ag system, or the authors should define precisely what distinguishes this measurement from earlier ones.
minor comments (6)
  1. [General] The manuscript contains several figure-numbering errors. In particular, there are two different figures both labelled "Figure. 3" (one for Fe fluorescence, one for GINRS/NRR), and the text refers to "Fig. 4(c)" for the hyperfine-field depth distribution while that figure is not clearly the one containing that panel. The captions should be renumbered consistently.
  2. [Figure 2] The figure caption states q2 = 0.135 Å⁻¹ while the text and the plot label say q2 = 0.132 Å⁻¹. Please correct the inconsistency.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract uses "10 Angstrom" and "6 Angstrom" instead of the Å symbol; the notation "57Fe-on-Ag" and "Ag-on-57Fe" is used inconsistently with the body text, which also uses "Fe-on-Ag" and "Ag-on-Fe".
  4. [Theoretical background] The acronym GINRS is introduced without definition; it appears to mean grazing-incidence nuclear resonance scattering. Also, equations (2)-(5) are not clearly connected to the subsequent data analysis, and equation (2) contains a possible typo (E(z)^2 inside the modulus sign).
  5. [References] Reference [43] is incomplete (journal, volume, and pages are missing), and references [11] and [21] are duplicated entries for the same paper. Please check all reference formatting.
  6. [Table 1] The text says the CEMS spectra were fitted with a hyperfine-field distribution plus a sharp sextet, but Table 1 lists two sextets (sharp and broad). Please clarify whether the broad component includes a distribution and report the corresponding fitting details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 10 Angstrom/6 Angstrom roughness asymmetry is a fit result with a model-based interface assignment, not a prediction identical to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim (10 Angstrom vs 6 Angstrom rms roughness) is obtained by fitting the Fe fluorescence q-scan with a model that convolves the Fe density profile with the X-ray standing wave field. The paper explicitly states that the XSW contour plot was simulated using parameters obtained from the fitting of the XRR data, and the two fluorescence peaks are then assigned to the Fe-on-Ag and Ag-on-Fe interfaces using that simulated field. The roughness values are fit outputs, not inputs. The paper compares to a simulated equal-roughness (8 Angstrom) fluorescence curve, showing a distinct difference from the data, which gives the fit discriminating power. No equation defines the claimed roughness or hyperfine-field asymmetry in terms of the same fitted quantity; XRF, NRR, CEMS, and MOKE are separate observables. The paper's self-citations (e.g., refs. 18 and 34) establish the XSW/NRS methodology and prior applications, but the present result does not reduce to those citations: the standing-wave antinode positions, the two fluorescence peaks, and the annealing transformation are presented as measured or forward-simulated, not imported as conclusions. The admitted limitation that XRR alone cannot reliably determine Ag/Fe thicknesses affects the robustness of the interface assignment, but this is a model-dependence and correctness concern, not circularity, because the final asymmetry is not forced by construction. Though the Discussion mentions simultaneous fitting of reflectivity and fluorescence, the stated values are extracted parameters, not predetermined inputs. Therefore no circular step meeting the required quoted-evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on fitted structural parameters (roughness, thicknesses, hyperfine fields) and on standard XSW/NRS theory. No new physical entity is proposed; the Fe-nanoparticle interpretation is an inference, not an added postulate. The free parameters above are not derived from first principles; they are outputs of a fitting pipeline (GenX for XRR/XRF, REFTIM for NRS time spectra).

free parameters (6)
  • Fe-on-Ag (bottom) interface roughness = 10 +/- 1.0 Å (as-prepared)
    Fitted to normalized Fe fluorescence (Fig. 3a); key structural asymmetry claim.
  • Ag-on-Fe (top) interface roughness = 6 +/- 1.0 Å (as-prepared)
    Same fit as above; used to claim the top interface is smoother.
  • Layer thicknesses (bottom Ag, 57Fe, top Ag, Si cap) = 24 Å, 38 Å, 25 Å, 98 Å
    From XRR fitting; used in XSW field simulation. The paper says XRR cannot reliably fix Fe/Ag thicknesses and roughness.
  • Interface hyperfine field components = 32.8 T, 29.7 T, 25.0 T, doublet (REFTIM fit)
    From simultaneous fitting of NRR and time spectra; no uncertainties reported for these components.
  • CEMS broad-sextet hyperfine field = 16.3 T (pristine), 10.7 T (225 C), 26.01 T (325 C)
    From CEMS fits; supports the interface-volume fraction and paramagnetic transition interpretation.
  • W/Si interface roughness after 325 C annealing = 8.5 Å vs 6.5 Å before annealing
    From XRR fit; used to argue the W/Si multilayer remains stable enough for XSW measurements.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption X-ray standing wave intensity and fluorescence yield are described by the optical model in Eqs. (1)-(5), including the fourth-power enhancement for nuclear resonant reflectivity.
    Standard XSW theory from refs [18,35,39], used throughout; not independently verified in this work.
  • domain assumption The W/Si multilayer structure and thickness profile derived from XRR fitting are accurate enough to compute the standing-wave positions of antinodes inside the Ag/57Fe/Ag trilayer.
    The text admits XRR is dominated by the W/Si reflectivity and cannot reliably fix the Fe/Ag layer parameters; the XSW contour in Fig. 2 is built on these fitted values.
  • domain assumption The two peaks in Fe fluorescence and NRR at q=0.121 and q=0.132 Å^-1 map one-to-one to the Fe-on-Ag and Ag-on-Fe interfaces, with negligible central-layer contribution.
    This is the key interface-selectivity premise; stated in Results and used to assign the roughnesses and hyperfine fields.
  • domain assumption Interface profiles can be represented by a single rms roughness parameter in the GenX/REFTIM models, and the fitted roughness values reflect physical interface width rather than model artifacts.
    The 10 Å and 6 Å values are parameters of a fitted model, not directly measured quantities.
  • domain assumption The Fe-Ag system has positive heat of mixing, so annealing-induced Fe in Ag forms nanoparticles that are paramagnetic/superparamagnetic.
    Used to interpret the 325 °C CEMS singlet and MOKE collapse; no electron microscopy or direct nanoparticle evidence is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Investigation of Fe-Ag and Ag-Fe Interfaces in Ag-57Fe-Ag trilayer Using Nuclear Resonance Scattering under X-ray Standing Wave Conditions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/65VE2YBQ

@misc{pith2026250206223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Investigation of Fe-Ag and Ag-Fe Interfaces in Ag-57Fe-Ag trilayer Using Nuclear Resonance Scattering under X-ray Standing Wave Conditions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/65VE2YBQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06223}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the interfaces of layered nanostructures is key to optimizing their structural and magnetic properties for the desired functionality. In the present work, the two interfaces of a few nm thick Fe layer in Ag-57Fe-Ag trilayers are studied with a depth resolution of a fraction of a nanometer using x-ray standing waves (XSWs) generated by an underlying [W-Si]x10 multilayer (MLT) at an x-ray incident angle around the Bragg peak of the MLT. Interface selectivity in Ag-57Fe-Ag trilayers was achieved by moving XSW antinodes across the interfaces by optimizing suitable incident angles and performing depth-resolved nuclear resonance scattering (NRS) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurements for magnetic and structural properties. The combined analysis revealed that the rms roughness of 57Fe-on-Ag and Ag-on-57Fe interfaces are not equal. The roughness of the 57Fe-on-Ag interface is 10 Angstrom, while that of the Ag-on-57Fe interface is 6 Angstrom. 57Fe isotope sensitive NRS revealed that hyperfine field (HFF) at both interfaces of 57Fe-on-Ag and Ag-on-57Fe interfaces are distinct, which is consistent with the difference in interface roughnesses measured as root mean square (RMS) roughness. Thermal annealing induces 57Fe diffusion into the Ag layer, and annealing at 325 C transforms the sample into a paramagnetic state. This behavior is attributed to forming 57Fe nanoparticles within the Ag matrix, exhibiting a paramagnetic nature. These findings provide deep insights into interface properties crucial for developing advanced nanostructures and spintronic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.06223 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. (b). This shows two different density profiles at the two interfaces [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. (a) and (b) Show the Reflectivity, (c) and (d) represent the normalized Fe fluorescence, and (e) and (f) represent the NRS time spectra for the samples annealed at 225 °C and 325 °C. The scattered curve represents the experimental data, and the continuous curve represents the best fit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. (a) and (b) Show the normalized Fe fluorescence, (c) and (d) represent the CEMS spectra, and (e) and (f) represent the hysteresis loops for the samples annealed at 225 °C and 325 °C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Gupta, D

    A. Gupta, D. Kumar, M.A. Andreeva, A.D. Gribova, R. Rüffer, Depth resolved hyperfine interactions with standing waves in [W/Si] 10/Si/Ag/57Fe/Ag/Si multilayer, J Phys Conf Ser 217 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/217/1/012116

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/217/1/012116 2010

  2. [29]

    Khanderao, I

    A.G. Khanderao, I. Sergueev, H.C. Wille, D. Kumar, Interface resolved magnetism at metal-organic (Fe/Alq3) interfaces under x-ray standing wave condition, Appl Phys Lett 116 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5135361

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5135361 2020

  3. [31]

    Khanderao, S

    A.G. Khanderao, S. Kaushik, A.S. Dev, V.R. Reddy, I. Sergueev, H.C. Wille, P. Pandit, S. V. Roth, D. Kumar, Interface magnetism in Fe/Alq3 bilayer; interface resolved nuclear resonance scattering studies, J Magn Magn Mater 560 (2022) 169663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2022.169663

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [34]

    Jamal, P

    M.S. Jamal, P. Gupta, I. Sergeev, O. Leupold, D. Kumar, Interface-resolved study of magnetism in MgO/FeCoB/MgO trilayers using x-ray standing wave techniques, Phys Rev B 107 (2023) 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.107.075416

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.075416 2023

  5. [1]

    Vieux-Rochaz, R

    L. Vieux-Rochaz, R. Cuchet, M.H. Vaudaine, A new GMR sensor based on NiFe/Ag multilayers, Sens Actuators A Phys 81 (2000) 53–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924- 4247(99)00115-6

    doi:10.1016/s0924- 2000

  6. [2]

    Spizzo, E

    F. Spizzo, E. Angeli, D. Bisero, F. Ronconi, P. Vavassori, P. Allia, V. Selvaggini, M. Coisson, P. Tiberto, F. Vinai, GMR as a function of temperature in FeAg granular samples: The effect of magnetic interactions, J Magn Magn Mater 262 (2003) 88–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-8853(03)00025-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0304-8853(03)00025-8 2003

  7. [3]

    Tamisari, F

    M. Tamisari, F. Spizzo, M. Sacerdoti, G. Battaglin, F. Ronconi, Correlation between structural and giant magnetoresistance properties of Fe-Ag nanogranular films, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13 (2011) 5203–5210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011- 0505-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11051-011- 2011

  8. [4]

    Hoffmann, D.E

    R. Hoffmann, D.E. Bürgler, P.J.A. Van Schendel, H.J. Hug, S. Martin, H.J. Güntherodt, Perpendicular magnetic domains of a thin Ag/Fe/Ag film observed by magnetic force microscopy at room temperature, J Magn Magn Mater 250 (2002) 32–

    work page 2002

Show all 44 references
  1. [5]

    Chang, K.P

    C.H. Chang, K.P. Dou, Y.C. Chen, T.M. Hong, C.C. Kaun, Engineering the interlayer exchange coupling in magnetic trilayers, Sci Rep 5 (2015) 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16844

    2015 doi

  2. [6]

    Y. Meng, J. Li, P.A. Glans, C.A. Jenkins, E. Arenholz, A. Tan, J. Gibbons, J.S. Park, C. Hwang, H.W. Zhao, Z.Q. Qiu, Magnetic interlayer coupling between antiferromagnetic CoO and ferromagnetic Fe across a Ag spacer layer in epitaxially grown CoO/Ag/Fe/Ag(001), Phys Rev B Cond...

    2012 doi

  3. [7]

    J. Wu, J. Choi, A. Scholl, A. Doran, E. Arenholz, Y.Z. Wu, C. Won, C. Hwang, Z.Q. Qiu, Element-specific study of the anomalous magnetic interlayer coupling across NiO spacer layer in Co/NiO/Fe/Ag(001) using XMCD and XMLD, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 80 (2009) 4–7. htt...

    2009 doi

  4. [8]

    Sharma, R

    G. Sharma, R. Gupta, D. Kumar, A. Gupta, Anomalous evolution of interfaces in Fe/Ag magnetic multilayer, J Phys D Appl Phys 46 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/46/50/505302

    2013 doi

  5. [9]

    Rumbolz, W

    C. Rumbolz, W. Bolse, S. Kumar, R.S. Chauhan, D. Kabiraj, D.K. Avasthi, Smoothing of Fe/Au and Fe/Ag multilayers by swift heavy ion bombardment, Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B 245 (2006) 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2005.11.163

    2006 doi

  6. [10]

    Schurer, Z

    P.J. Schurer, Z. Celinski, B. Heinrich, Mössbauer investigation of the growth of the Fe multilayer in Fe(100)/Ag(100) structures, Phys Rev B 51 (1995) 2506–2514. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.51.2506

    1995 doi

  7. [12]

    Chien, K.M

    C.L. Chien, K.M. Unruh, Magnetic properties and hyperfine interactions in concentrated Fe-Ag alloys, Phys Rev B 28 (1983) 1214–1218. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.28.1214

    1983 doi

  8. [13]

    Davies, J.A

    A. Davies, J.A. Stroscio, D.T. Pierce, R.J. Celotta, Atomic-scale observations of alloying at the Cr-Fe(001) interface, Phys Rev Lett 76 (1996) 4175–4178. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4175

    1996 doi

  9. [14]

    Singh, A.G

    S. Singh, A.G. Khanderao, M. Gupta, I. Sergeev, H.C. Wille, K. Schlage, M. Herlitschke, D. Kumar, Origin of exchange bias in [Co/Pt]ML/Fe multilayers with orthogonal magnetic anisotropies, Phys Rev B 108 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.075414

    2023 doi

  10. [15]

    Kumar, A

    D. Kumar, A. Gupta, Effects of interface roughness on interlayer coupling in Fe/Cr/Fe structure, in: Hyperfine Interact, 2005: pp. 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10751- 005-9160-x

    2005 doi

  11. [16]

    Rüffer, Nuclear resonance scattering, C R Phys 9 (2008) 595–607

    R. Rüffer, Nuclear resonance scattering, C R Phys 9 (2008) 595–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2007.06.003

    2008 doi

  12. [17]

    Gupta, M

    A. Gupta, M. Gupta, S. Chakravarty, R. Rüffer, H.C. Wille, O. Leupold, Fe diffusion in amorphous and nanocrystalline alloys studied using nuclear resonance reflectivity, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 72 (2005) 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.014207

    2005 doi

  13. [19]

    Kohn, A.I

    V.G. Kohn, A.I. Chumakov, R. Rüffer, Combined nuclear-molecular resonance inelastic scattering of X rays, Phys Rev Lett 92 (2004) 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.243001

    2004 doi

  14. [20]

    Andreeva, R.A

    M.A. Andreeva, R.A. Baulin, A.I. Chumakov, R. Rüffer, G. V. Smirnov, Y.A. Babanov, D.I. Devyaterikov, M.A. Milyaev, D.A. Ponomarev, L.N. Romashev, V. V. Ustinov, Nuclear resonance reflectivity from a [57Fe/Cr]30 multilayer with the Synchrotron Mössbauer Source, J Synchrotron R...

    2018 doi

  15. [21]

    Gupta, D

    A. Gupta, D. Kumar, V. Phatak, Asymmetric diffusion at the interfaces in Fe/Si multilayers, Phys Rev B 81 (2010) 155402

    2010

  16. [22]

    Jamal, P

    M.S. Jamal, P. Gupta, R. Raj, M. Gupta, V.R. Reddy, D. Kumar, Structural and magnetic asymmetry at the interfaces of MgO/FeCoB/MgO trilayer: Precise study under x-ray standing wave conditions, J Appl Phys 131 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0092977

    2022 doi

  17. [23]

    Kaushik, R

    S. Kaushik, R. Raj, I. Sergeev, P. Gupta, V.R. Reddy, D. Kumar, Depth Resolved Magnetic Studies of Fe/57Fe/C60 Bilayer Structure Under X-Ray Standing Wave Condition, J Supercond Nov Magn 37 (2024) 1181–1187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10948-024-06738-1

    2024 doi

  18. [24]

    Londhe, A

    V.P. Londhe, A. Gupta, N. Ponpandian, D. Kumar, V.R. Reddy, TiO2 as diffusion barrier at Co/Alq3 interface studied by x-ray standing wave technique, J Phys D Appl Phys 51 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6463/aabf7a

    2018 doi

  19. [25]

    Mondal, S

    K.P. Mondal, S. Bera, A. Gupta, D. Kumar, A. Gome, V. Reddy Raghavendra, N. Ito, Y. Yamada-Takamura, P. Pandit, S. V. Roth, Effect of growth rate on quality of Alq3 films and Co diffusion, J Phys D Appl Phys 54 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361- 6463/abd9eb

    2021 doi

  20. [26]

    Gupta, D

    A. Gupta, D. Kumar, C. Meneghini, Interface structure in magnetic multilayers using x-ray standing waves, (2007) 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.75.064424

    2007 doi

  21. [27]

    Jamal, S

    M.S. Jamal, S. Singh, A.S. Dev, N. Gupta, P. Gupta, M. Gupta, O. Leupold, I. Sergueev, V.R. Reddy, D. Kumar, Atypical magnetism in Pt/MgO/FeCoB/Pt waveguide structure by exchanging the order of MgO and FeCoB layers, Acta Mater 257 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2023.119150

    2023

  22. [28]

    Kaushik, A.G

    S. Kaushik, A.G. Khanderao, M.S. Jamal, I. Sergeev, H.C. Wille, V.R. Reddy, D. Kumar, Study of obliquely deposited 57Fe layer on organic semiconductor (Alq3); interface resolved magnetism under x-ray standing wave, Hyperfine Interact 242 (2021) 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10...

    2021 doi

  23. [30]

    Gupta, D

    A. Gupta, D. Kumar, C. Meneghini, J. Zegenhagen, Depth resolved x-ray absorption fine structure study in magnetic multilayers using x-ray standing waves, J Appl Phys 101 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2711698

    2007 doi

  24. [32]

    Andreeva, B

    M.A. Andreeva, B. Lindgren, Standing waves and reflectivity from an ultrathin layer, JETP Lett 76 (2002) 704–706. https://doi.org/10.1134/1.1556209

    2002 doi

  25. [33]

    Gupta, M

    R. Gupta, M. Weisheit, H.U. Krebs, P. Schaaf, Interface structure of Fe/Ag multilayers prepared by pulsed laser deposition, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 67 (2003) 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.67.075402

    2003 doi

  26. [35]

    Andreeva, Surface and interface investigations by nuclear resonant scattering with standing waves, Hyperfine Interact 156–157 (2004) 595–606

    M.A. Andreeva, Surface and interface investigations by nuclear resonant scattering with standing waves, Hyperfine Interact 156–157 (2004) 595–606. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:hype.0000043281.88327.54

    2004

  27. [36]

    Ghose, B.N

    S.K. Ghose, B.N. Dev, A. Gupta, Resonance enhancement of x-rays and fluorescence yield from marker layers in thin films, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 64 (2001) 2334031–2334034. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.64.233403

    2001 doi

  28. [37]

    Kim, J.B

    S.K. Kim, J.B. Kortright, Modified magnetism at a buried Co/Pd interface resolved with X-ray standing waves, Phys Rev Lett 86 (2001) 1347–1350. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1347

    2001 doi

  29. [38]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-8853(02)00343-8

    doi

  30. [39]

    Gupta, P

    A. Gupta, P. Rajput, A. Saraiya, V.R. Reddy, M. Gupta, S. Bernstorff, H. Amenitsch, Depth profiling of marker layers using x-ray waveguide structures, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 72 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.075436

    2005 doi

  31. [40]

    Andreeva, B

    M.A. Andreeva, B. Lindgren, Nuclear resonant spectroscopy at Bragg reflections from periodic multilayers: Basic effects and applications, Phys Rev B Condens Matter Mater Phys 72 (2005) 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.125422

    2005 doi

  32. [41]

    Glavic, M

    A. Glavic, M. Björck, GenX 3: The latest generation of an established tool, J Appl Crystallogr 55 (2022) 1063–1071. https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600576722006653

    2022 doi

  33. [42]

    Andreeva, Nuclear resonant reflectivity data evaluation with the "rEFTIM" program, Hyperfine Interact 185 (2008) 17–21

    M.A. Andreeva, Nuclear resonant reflectivity data evaluation with the "rEFTIM" program, Hyperfine Interact 185 (2008) 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10751-008- 9806-6

    2008 doi

  34. [43]

    Sharma, R

    G. Sharma, R. Gupta, A. Gupta, Study of interfacial modification in Fe/Ag multilayer with thermal annealing using X ray standing wave, AIP Conf Proc 1349 (2011) 661–

    2011

  35. [45]

    Choi, I.C

    Y.J. Choi, I.C. Jeong, J. Park, S. Kahng, J. Lee, Y. Kuk, Surface alloy formation of Fe on Cr "100 … studied by scanning tunneling microscopy, 59 (1999) 918–922

    1999

  36. [662]

    https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3606031

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.