Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Distinct element-specific nanoscale magnetization dynamics following ultrafast laser excitation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in a [Co/Ni/Pt] multilayer, the Ni sublattice's magnetic scattering pattern shifts and broadens 10-40 times more than Co's after an ultrafast laser pulse, revealing a three-dimensional distortion of labyrinthine…

desk verdict An interesting first element-resolved view of ultrafast domain-texture dynamics in a multilayer, but the Ni/Co comparison is confounded by the measurements being taken 1 mm apart with visibly different domain morphologies. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21473 v2 pith:JAI2L6CO submitted 2025-06-26 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Emma Bernard , Rahul Jangid , Nanna Zhou Hagström , Meera Madhavi , Jeffrey A. Brock , Matteo Pancaldi , Dario De Angelis , Flavio Capotondi
show 8 more authors
Emanuele Pedersoli Kyle Rockwell Mark W. Keller Stefano Bonetti Eric E. Fullerton Ezio Iacocca Thomas J. Silva Roopali Kukreja
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 82D40 PACS 75.70.Kw75.78.Jp
keywords ultrafastmagnetizationdynamicselement-specificmagnetodynamicsresonantmagneticscatteringlabyrinthinedomainsdomainwallcurvatureperpendicularanisotropyCo/Ni/Ptmultilayer
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 is trying to establish that the cobalt and nickel subsystems of a [Co/Ni/Pt] multilayer do not share the same ultrafast magnetic response when a femtosecond laser pulse excites the sample. Using time-resolved extreme-ultraviolet magnetic scattering tuned separately to the Co and Ni M3 edges, the authors find that the nickel scattering ring shifts and broadens roughly 10 to 40 times more than the cobalt ring for the same magnetization quench. Because the ring position and width track real-space changes in the labyrinthine domain texture, the authors infer that domain walls bend differently at different depths in the film, an explicit three-dimensional deformation of the domain pattern in the far-from-equilibrium regime. The significance is that element-specific, layer-resolved behavior must be part of any description of ultrafast mesoscale magnetism, and it opens a material-design route to controlling domain-pattern distortion for laser-driven spintronics.

What carries the argument

The central observable is the radial peak position $q$ and width $\Gamma$ of the resonant magnetic small-angle scattering pattern at the Co and Ni M3 edges (59.5 eV and 66.2 eV, respectively). The paper fits each two-dimensional scattering pattern with a phenomenological model that separates the isotropic ring (labyrinthine domains) from anisotropic lobes (stripe domains), then tracks the normalized changes $\Delta A/A$, $\Delta q/q$, and $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$ versus pump-probe delay and fluence. The $q$-shift and broadening are read as real-space changes in domain-wall curvature and correlation length; element-specific differences are interpreted through laser-modified interfacial exchange, estimated as a transient canting angle of about 18 degrees between Co and Ni spins, and through magnon lifetimes of order 200 fs at the multilayer's short periodicity.

What would settle it

Probe Co and Ni M-edge scattering from the same illuminated spot of the same membrane, or vary the local stripe fraction, and check whether the 10-40x difference in $\Delta q/q$ and $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$ follows the element or the local domain pattern; if it follows the pattern, the element-specific claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Ni and Co layers of a [Co/Ni/Pt] multilayer exhibit distinct ultrafast dynamics of the magnetic scattering pattern, with Ni's modification much stronger than Co's. Specifically, the ultrafast change of the scattering pattern's radial q-position, which relates to domain-wall curvature, is an order of magnitude higher in Ni than in Co; the slope of $\Delta q/q$ versus demagnetization is 41 times larger for Ni, and the slope of $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$ is 9 times larger. This difference appears despite similar magnetization quenches in the two elements. The authors conclude that the labyrinthine domain walls are not homogeneous through the film thickness and that the measured distortions evidence a 3D deformation of the domain pattern, with recovery on a 300-800 fs timescale consistent with modified interfacial exchange interactions or short-wavelength magnon damping.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison assumes that the Ni and Co measurements sample dynamically equivalent labyrinthine domain regions, even though they were taken 1 mm apart on the same membrane and the Co-edge pattern lacked the stripe-domain lobes present at the Ni edge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ultrafast models of magnetic multilayers must treat the Co and Ni sublattices separately: a single homogeneous domain-wall profile through the film thickness does not describe the measured response.
  • The Ni sublattice dominates the transient distortion of the labyrinthine pattern even though Ni and Co demagnetize by similar amounts, making layer identity a control parameter for mesoscale texture dynamics.
  • The 300-800 fs recovery of the pattern distortion ties the dynamics to interfacial exchange modification or magnon relaxation, so interface engineering can in principle set the recovery speed.
  • Including Pt enhances the efficiency of the spin-texture distortion: a comparable $q$-shift is reached at roughly one quarter of the magnetization quench of a Pt-free [CoFe/Ni] multilayer, pointing to Pt interfaces as amplifiers of laser-driven wall motion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the element-specific interpretation would reverse the growth order of the Co and Ni layers: if the stronger distortion tracks proximity to Pt rather than the Ni identity, the interfacial-exchange picture would be supported.
  • The Ni and Co data were taken 1 mm apart on the same membrane and the Co spot lacked the stripe-domain lobes; a measurement of both edges at a single shared location would tell whether the 10-40x difference is elemental or partly spatial.
  • If the 18-degree transient canting angle is real, time-resolved magnetic circular dichroism or spin-resolved probes should detect a transient non-collinear alignment between Co and Ni moments on the 500 fs scale.
  • The linear slopes relating $\Delta q/q$ and $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$ to $\Delta A/A$ could serve as a compact benchmark for atomistic or micromagnetic simulations of laser-excited multilayers.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-resolved resonant EUV small-angle scattering measurements of labyrinthine and stripe magnetic domains in a [Co/Ni/Pt] multilayer, resonantly probing the Co and Ni M3 edges. The central claim is that the ultrafast modification of the scattering pattern—specifically the radial q-position and width of the labyrinthine ring—is much larger for Ni than for Co at comparable magnetization quench, with slope ratios of about 41 and 9 in Fig. 4, and that this indicates element-specific, heterogeneous 3D distortion of the domain walls. The authors also report recovery times of a few hundred femtoseconds and attribute the difference to exchange modification or magnon generation, supported by a canting-angle estimate.

Significance. If the central comparison is valid, this is a valuable experimental result: it would be one of the first element-resolved observations of nanoscale domain-texture dynamics in a multilayer, with implications for ultrafast control of magnetic textures. The measurement approach—resonant M-edge scattering with a full 2D phenomenological fit separating labyrinthine and stripe components—is careful, and the paper reports fluence series, time-constant fits with propagated errors, and comparison with earlier work. However, the claim rests on an uncontrolled spatial comparison and on an interpretive calculation that is partly circular; these issues must be addressed before the result can be regarded as establishing element-specific 3D domain distortion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text (experimental setup) and Fig. 4] The Ni and Co data were acquired 1 mm apart on the same membrane, and the Ni-edge pattern contains anisotropic stripe lobes that are absent at the Co edge, which the authors attribute to different in-plane strain (main text near Fig. 1; Supplemental Sec. A). Because refs. [11,12] show that the symmetry and strain state of the domain pattern controls the ultrafast q and Γ response, the 41× and 9× slope differences in Figs. 4(b,c) could equally arise from spatial variation in local magnetic texture or strain rather than from elemental identity. This is a load-bearing confound for the central claim. The authors should either measure both edges at the same illuminated spot, or provide evidence—e.g., MFM characterization of both probed regions and/or Co-edge measurements at multiple positions including mixed stripe+labyrinth regions—that the labyrinthine-component dynamics are independent of the stripe fraction and local strain.
  2. [Supplemental Sec. C and main-text exchange discussion] The canting angle of 17.56° is not an independent consistency check: E_char is defined as h/(2τ_R) using the measured τ_R, so Eq. (16) of the Supplemental Material merely rewrites the measured recovery time as an angle. The sentence 'Thus, the variations in canting angle between Co and Ni are consistent with the fast recovery times observed here' is therefore circular, and the factor of two in E_char = h/(2τ_R) is not justified. I recommend reframing this section as a hypothesis-generating estimate, explicitly stating that E_char is derived from the same τ_R used in the comparison, and removing the implication that the calculation validates the exchange-modification mechanism.
  3. [Fig. 4(b,c) and Supplemental Sec. B] The quantitative claim of an order-of-magnitude difference is based on linear fits with intercepts constrained to zero: Ni slopes use three fluence points (0.8–3.3 mJ/cm²) and Co slopes use six points (3.3–11.7 mJ/cm²), with only one overlapping fluence. The use of ΔA/A as a common abscissa assumes that equal quench implies equal absorbed energy and electronic temperature at the two locations, which is part of the site-equivalence assumption raised above. The reported 1σ errors (e.g., Ni Δq/q slope -0.62 ± 0.30, Co -0.0148 ± 0.0030) imply a wide confidence interval for the 41× ratio; the authors should report confidence intervals for the ratios and show the fits without the constrained intercept.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text] The phrase 'approximately 10 to 40 times stronger' is not directly tied to the reported slope ratios of 41× (Δq/q) and 9× (ΔΓ/Γ); please clarify which ratio corresponds to which quantity.
  2. [Supplemental Eq. (7)] The piecewise fit is written with the condition t0 < t < |τm|; since τm is introduced as a negative parameter, the notation should state explicitly that τm < 0 and that |τm| is the quench duration.
  3. [References and main text] Ref. [32] is a study of epitaxial Ni1−xCox(001) films, not of [Co/Ni/Pt] multilayers; the attribution of the 'interfacial exchange energy of [Co/Ni/Pt]' to this reference needs verification and a more precise description.
  4. [Main text, time-constant comparison] The sentence 'the average slope for Ni fit parameters was found to be 2.5 and 2.9 times greater than the Co edge tmin and τR' is ambiguous; specify which slopes are being averaged and report the associated uncertainties.
  5. [Fig. 4(a)] The legend labels (e.g., 'AN i,L') contain typographical spacing; please ensure the mathematical notation is consistent with the text.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central Ni/Co measurement is empirical and independent; the only circular step is the 17.56-degree canting angle, which is back-calculated from the measured recovery time and then used to confirm that same recovery time.

  1. self definitional [Main text, paragraph beginning 'In order to explain the surprising difference...'; Supplemental Material Sec. C, Eqs. (11)-(16)]
    "The experimentally obtained average recovery time of∼500 fs for Ni implies that the recovery process has a characteristic energy of 4.14 meV. ... We utilized these two energies to calculate a canting angle of 18◦between neighboring spins across the Co and Ni interface ... Thus, the variations in canting angle between Co and Ni are consistent with the fast recovery times observed here."

    The canting angle is not independently determined: E_char is defined as h/(2τ) from the measured recovery time τ, and θ = sqrt(2E_char/E_int) solves for the angle that makes the model reproduce that same τ. The paper then presents this back-calculated angle as being 'consistent with the fast recovery times observed here.' That consistency is true by construction and confers no independent support. The empirical Ni/Co scattering comparison (Δq/q and ΔΓ/Γ versus ΔA/A) is unaffected, so the circularity is confined to the exchange-interaction interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's principal result—that the Ni-edge scattering ring shifts and broadens much more than the Co-edge ring at comparable magnetization quench—is a direct measurement, not a model output. No parameter was fitted to the Ni/Co difference and then renamed a prediction; the comparison is presented in raw normalized observables. The acknowledged 1 mm separation of the Ni and Co spots and the absence of stripe lobes at the Co spot is a real experimental confound (local strain/domain morphology could masquerade as element specificity), but a confound is a correctness risk, not circular reasoning, so I do not score it as circularity. The paper's use of refs. [11,12] (same group) for the fitting model and for the interpretation of q-shifts as domain-wall curvature is prior work being applied rather than a self-citation chain that forces the conclusion; the novel element-specific measurement is independent of those references. The one clear circular step is the 17.56° canting angle: it is computed from the measured recovery time via E_char = h/(2τ) and then invoked as 'consistent with' that same recovery time. This is a back-calculation rather than an independent prediction. Because this step is interpretive and the central empirical claim stands on its own, the appropriate score is moderate.

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

The central observation is experimental, but its interpretation depends on several unverified assumptions: the mapping from scattering ring parameters to real-space domain structure, the comparability of two different sample locations, and the adequacy of the phenomenological fits. The exchange and magnon estimates are consistency checks built on the measured recovery time and are not independent evidence.

free parameters (6)
  • Ni Δq/q vs ΔA/A slope = -0.62 ± 0.30
    Linear regression slope in Fig. 4(b); basis for the claim that Ni q-shift is roughly 40 times larger than Co. The large error reflects few fluence points.
  • Co Δq/q vs ΔA/A slope = -0.0148 ± 0.0030
    Linear regression slope in Fig. 4(b); used in the Ni versus Co comparison.
  • Ni ΔΓ/Γ vs ΔA/A slope = 1.65 ± 0.57
    Linear regression slope in Fig. 4(c); used to claim Ni width modification is about 9 times larger than Co.
  • Co ΔΓ/Γ vs ΔA/A slope = 0.182 ± 0.041
    Linear regression slope in Fig. 4(c); used in the Ni versus Co comparison.
  • Average Ni recovery time τ_R = 536 ± 65.5 fs
    Exponential recovery time constant from fits; used to infer a characteristic energy of 4.14 meV and a canting angle of 17.56 degrees.
  • Time-constant fit parameters (τ_m, τ_R, M_q, M_R) = Per delay curve, Eq. 7
    Phenomenological piecewise fit parameters used for every scattering parameter and fluence. They are standard data fits, but the recovery times feed into the explanatory estimates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The radial peak position q of the labyrinthine scattering ring is inversely related to average domain size, and ultrafast q-shifts correspond to domain-wall curvature distortions as established in Refs. [11,12].
    Used throughout to translate changes in scattering ring position and width into real-space domain texture dynamics.
  • ad hoc to paper The Co and Ni probed regions, 1 mm apart on the same membrane, are dynamically comparable for the labyrinthine component despite different domain states (stripe lobes absent at the Co edge).
    This comparability is necessary for the element-specific conclusion. The paper notes the different locations and domain states but does not quantify how much they affect the dynamics.
  • domain assumption The phenomenological 2D fit model (isotropic ring, anisotropic lobes, diffuse background) accurately separates the labyrinthine and stripe components.
    All extracted values of q, Gamma, and A depend on this fit model; the details are given in Supplement A.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetization quench ΔA/A is a valid common axis for comparing Co and Ni, so similar quench implies similar absorbed energy and electronic temperature.
    The paper compares elements using ΔA/A rather than fluence, assuming it normalizes for differences in resonant cross-sections and pump absorption.
  • ad hoc to paper The exchange and magnon interpretation can use a characteristic energy of 4.14 meV from the measured recovery time and a literature exchange stiffness of 0.5 eV Ų to estimate a Co-Ni canting angle.
    This is a back-calculation used as a consistency argument, not an independent prediction with external falsifiability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Distinct element-specific nanoscale magnetization dynamics following ultrafast laser excitation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JAI2L6CO

@misc{pith2026250621473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Distinct element-specific nanoscale magnetization dynamics following ultrafast laser excitation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JAI2L6CO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21473}
}
read the original abstract

Time-resolved ultrafast extreme ultraviolet (EUV) magnetic scattering is used to study laser-driven ultrafast magnetization dynamics of labyrinthine domains in a [Co/Ni/Pt] multilayer. Our measurements at the Co and Ni M-edges reveal distinct ultrafast distortions of the scattering pattern position and width for Ni compared to Co. Ni shows a strong modification of the scattering pattern, approximately 10 to 40 times stronger than Co. As distortions of the labyrinthine pattern in reciprocal space relate to the modification of domain textures in real space, significant differences in Co and Ni highlight a 3D distortion of the domain pattern in the far-from-equilibrium regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Experimental schematic for time-resolved magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Ultrafast magnetization dynamics at the Ni M-edge: Delay curves for the isotropic ring and anisotropic lobe scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ultrafast magnetization dynamics at the Co M-edge: Delay curves for the isotropic ring scattering due to labyrinth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of magnetization dynamics in labyrinthine domains for Ni vs Co: (a) Fluence dependence of magneti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. S. P. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Magnetic domain-wall racetrack memory, Science320, 190 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    A.Fert, V.Cros,andJ.Sampaio,Skyrmionsonthetrack, Nature Nanotechnology8, 152 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Caretta, M

    L. Caretta, M. Mann, F. Büttner, K. Ueda, B. Pfau, C. M. Günther, P. Hessing, A. Churikova, C. Klose, M. Schneider, D. Engel, C. Marcus, D. Bono, K. Bagschik, S. Eisebitt, and G. S. D. Beach, Fast current-driven domain walls and small skyrmions in a compensated ferrimagnet, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 1154 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. Železný, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Beaurepaire, J.-C

    E. Beaurepaire, J.-C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J.-Y. Bigot, Ultrafast spin dynamics in ferromagnetic nickel, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 4250 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    B. Pfau, S. Schaffert, L. Müller, C. Gutt, A. Al- Shemmary, F. Büttner, R. Delaunay, S. Düsterer, S. Flewett, R. Frömter, J. Geilhufe, E. Guehrs, C. Gün- ther, R. Hawaldar, M. Hille, N. Jaouen, A. Kobs, K. Li, J. Mohanty, H. Redlin, W. Schlotter, D. Stickler, R.Treusch, B.Vodungbo, M.Kläui, H.Oepen, J.Lüning, G. Grübel, and S. Eisebitt, Ultrafast optical ...

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Vodungbo, J

    B. Vodungbo, J. Gautier, G. Lambert, A. B. Sardinha, M. Lozano, S. Sebban, M. Ducousso, W. Boutu, K. Li, B. Tudu, M. Tortarolo, R. Hawaldar, R. Delaunay, V. López-Flores, J. Arabski, C. Boeglin, H. Merdji, P. Zeitoun, and J. Lüning, Laser-induced ultrafast de- magnetization in the presence of a nanoscale magnetic domain network, Nature Communications3, 999 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Kerber, D

    N. Kerber, D. Ksenzov, F. Freimuth, F. Capotondi, E. Pedersoli, I. Lopez-Quintas, B. Seng, J. Cramer, K. Litzius, D. Lacour, H. Zabel, Y. Mokrousov, M. Kläui, and C. Gutt, Faster chiral versus collinear magnetic or- derrecoveryafteropticalexcitationrevealedbyfemtosec- ond XUV scattering, Nature Communications11, 6304 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Zusin, E

    D. Zusin, E. Iacocca, L. Le Guyader, A. H. Reid, W. F. Schlotter, T.-M. Liu, D. J. Higley, G. Coslovich, S. F. Wandel, P. M. Tengdin, S. K. K. Patel, A. Shabalin, N. Hua, S. B. Hrkac, H. T. Nembach, J. M. Shaw, S. A. Montoya, A. Blonsky, C. Gentry, M. A. Hoefer, M. M. Murnane,...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Hennes, A

    M. Hennes, A. Merhe, X. Liu, D. Weder, C. v. K. Schmis- ing, M. Schneider, C. M. Günther, B. Mahieu, G. Mali- nowski, M. Hehn, D. Lacour, F. Capotondi, E. Peder- soli, I. P. Nikolov, V. Chardonnet, E. Jal, J. Lüning, and B. Vodungbo, Laser-induced ultrafast demagnetiza- tion a...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Zhou Hagström, R

    N. Zhou Hagström, R. Jangid, M. Madhavi, D. Turenne, J. A. Brock, E. S. Lamb, B. Stoychev, J. Schlappa, N. Gerasimova, B. Van Kuiken, R. Gort, L. Mercadier, L. Le Guyader, A. Samartsev, A. Scherz, G. Mercurio, H. A. Dürr, A. H. Reid, M. Arora, H. T. Nembach, J. M. Shaw, E. Jal...

    2022

  4. [12]

    Jangid, N

    R. Jangid, N. Zhou Hagström, M. Madhavi, K. Rock- well, J. M. Shaw, J. A. Brock, M. Pancaldi, D. De An- gelis, F. Capotondi, E. Pedersoli, H. T. Nembach, M. W. Keller, S. Bonetti, E. E. Fullerton, E. Iacocca, R. Kukreja, and T. J. Silva, Extreme domain wall speeds under ultraf...

    2023

  5. [14]

    G. Fan, K. Légaré, V. Cardin, X. Xie, R. Safaei, E. Kak- sis, G. Andriukaitis, A. Pugžlys, B. E. Schmidt, J. P. Wolf, M. Hehn, G. Malinowski, B. Vodungbo, E. Jal, J. Lüning, N. Jaouen, G. Giovannetti, F. Calegari, Z. Tao, A. Baltuška, F. Légaré, and T. Balči¯ unas, Ul- trafast...

    2022

  6. [15]

    S. M. Suturin, A. Philippi-Kobs, R. Carley, R. Gort, G. Grübel, E. Jal, M. V. Baidakova, E. Y. Lobanova, L. Mercadier, S. L. Molodtsov, L. Müller, D. V. Po- torochin, M. Riepp, W. Roseker, A. Scherz, J. Schlappa, L. Le Guyader, G. Mercurio, M. Turcato, B. Van Kuiken, A. Yarosl...

    2023

  7. [16]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Superdiffu- sive spin transport as a mechanism of ultrafast demag- netization, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 027203 (2010). 7

    2010

  8. [17]

    Koopmans, J

    B. Koopmans, J. J. M. Ruigrok, F. D. Longa, and W. J. M. de Jonge, Unifying ultrafast magnetization dy- namics, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 267207 (2005)

    2005

  9. [18]

    N. L. Schryer and L. R. Walker, The motion of 180° do- main walls in uniform dc magnetic fields, Journal of Ap- plied Physics45, 5406 (1974)

    1974

  10. [19]

    Ferré, P

    J. Ferré, P. J. Metaxas, A. Mougin, J. Jamet, J. Gorchon, and V. Jeudy, Universal magnetic domain wall dynam- ics in the presence of weak disorder, Comptes Rendus. Physique 14, 651 (2013)

    2013

  11. [20]

    Baláž, K

    P. Baláž, K. Carva, U. Ritzmann, P. Maldonado, and P. M. Oppeneer, Domain wall dynamics due to femtosec- ond laser-induced superdiffusive spin transport, Phys. Rev. B101, 174418 (2020)

    2020

  12. [21]

    Hubert and R

    A. Hubert and R. Schäfer, Magnetic Domains: The Analysis of Magnetic Microstructures, Springer, Berlin (2009)

    2009

  13. [22]

    Yamamoto, Y

    K. Yamamoto, Y. Kubota, M. Suzuki, Y. Hirata, K. Carva, M. Berritta, K. Takubo, Y. Uemura, R. Fukaya, K. Tanaka, W. Nishimura, T. Ohkochi, T. Katayama, T. Togashi, K. Tamasaku, M. Yabashi, Y. Tanaka, T. Seki, K. Takanashi, P. M. Oppeneer, and H.Wadati,Ultrafastdemagnetizationo...

    2019

  14. [23]

    Vaskivskyi, R

    I. Vaskivskyi, R. S. Malik, L. Salemi, D. Turenne, R. Knut, J. Brock, R. Stefanuik, J. Söderström, K. Carva, E. E. Fullerton, P. M. Oppeneer, O. Karis, and H. A. Dürr, Element-Specific Magnetization Dynamics in Co–Pt Alloys Induced by Strong Optical Excitation, The Journal of ...

    2021

  15. [24]

    Willems, C

    F. Willems, C. von Korff Schmising, C. Strüber, D. Schick, D. W. Engel, J. K. Dewhurst, P. Elliott, S.Sharma,andS.Eisebitt,Opticalinter-sitespintransfer probed by energy and spin-resolved transient absorption spectroscopy, Nature Communications11, 871 (2020)

    2020

  16. [25]

    Hofherr, S

    M. Hofherr, S. Moretti, J. Shim, S. Häuser, N. Y. Sa- fonova, M. Stiehl, A. Ali, S. Sakshath, J. W. Kim, D. H. Kim, H. J. Kim, J. I. Hong, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Mur- nane, M. Cinchetti, D. Steil, S. Mathias, B. Stadtmüller, M. Albrecht, D. E. Kim, U. Nowak, and M. Aeschli- mann...

    2018

  17. [26]

    Mathias, C

    S. Mathias, C. L. o vorakiat, J. M. Shaw, E. Turgut, P. Grychtol, R. Adam, D. Rudolf, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, M. Aeschlimann, C. M. Schneider, H. C. Kapteyn, and M. M. Murnane, Ultrafast element-specific magne- tization dynamics of complex magnetic materials on a table-top...

    2013

  18. [27]

    J. A. Brock, S. A. Montoya, M.-Y. Im, and E. E. Fuller- ton, Energy-efficient generation of skyrmion phases in Co/Ni/Pt-based multilayers using Joule heating, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 104409 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    Chang, S

    H. Chang, S. Zayko, T. Schmidt, O. Kfir, M. Sivis, J. H. Mentink, M. Albrecht, and C. Ropers, Revealing domain wall stability during ultrafast demagnetization, arXiv https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.17917

    arXiv

  20. [29]

    J. K. Dewhurst, S. Shallcross, E. K. U. Gross, and S. Sharma, Substrate-controlled ultrafast spin injec- tion and demagnetization, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 044065 (2018)

    2018

  21. [30]

    C. E. Graves, A. H. Reid, T. Wang, B. Wu, S. de Jong, K. Vahaplar, I. Radu, D. P. Bernstein, M. Messer- schmidt, L. Müller, R. Coffee, M. Bionta, S. W. Epp, R. Hartmann, N. Kimmel, G. Hauser, A. Hartmann, P. Holl, H. Gorke, J. H. Mentink, A. Tsukamoto, A. Fognini, J. J. Turner...

    2013

  22. [31]

    J.-H. Shim, A. A. Syed, Y. Shin, J.-W. Kim, H.-G. Piao, S.-H. Lee, K. M. Lee, J.-R. Jeong, D.-H. Kim, and D. E. Kim, Ultrafast dynamics of exchange stiffness in Co/Pt multilayer, Communications Physics3, 74 (2020)

    2020

  23. [32]

    Talagala, P

    P. Talagala, P. S. Fodor, D. Haddad, R. Naik, L. E. Wenger, P. P. Vaishnava, and V. M. Naik, Determination of magnetic exchange stiffness and surface anisotropy constants in epitaxial Ni1−xCox(001) films, Phys. Rev. B 66, 144426 (2002)

    2002

  24. [33]

    Léveillé, E

    C. Léveillé, E. Burgos-Parra, Y. Sassi, F. Ajejas, V. Chardonnet, E. Pedersoli, F. Capotondi, G. De Ninno, F. Maccherozzi, S. Dhesi, D. M. Burn, G. van der Laan, O. S. Latcham, A. V. Shytov, V. V. Kruglyak, E. Jal, V. Cros, J.-Y. Chauleau, N. Reyren, M. Viret, and N. Jaouen, U...

    2022

  25. [34]

    J. F. Cooke, J. A. Blackman, and T. Morgan, New in- terpretation of spin-wave behavior in nickel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 718 (1985)

    1985

  26. [35]

    H. A. Mook and D. M. Paul, Neutron-scattering mea- surement of the spin-wave spectra for nickel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 227 (1985)

    1985

  27. [36]

    Zhang, T.-H

    Y. Zhang, T.-H. Chuang, K. Zakeri, and J. Kirschner, Relaxation time of terahertz magnons excited at ferro- magnetic surfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 087203 (2012)

    2012

  28. [37]

    C. Liu, F. Ai, S. Reisbick, A. Zong, A. Pofelski, M.-G. Han, F. Camino, C. Jing, V. Lomakin, and Y. Zhu, Cor- related spin-wave generation and domain-wall oscillation in a topologically textured magnetic film, Nature Mate- rials 24, 406 (2025)

    2025

  29. [38]

    Zakeri, Elementary spin excitations in ultrathin itin- erant magnets, Physics Reports545, 47 (2014)

    K. Zakeri, Elementary spin excitations in ultrathin itin- erant magnets, Physics Reports545, 47 (2014)

    2014

  30. [39]

    M. F. Elhanoty, O. Eriksson, R. Knut, O. Karis, and O. Grånäs, Element-selective ultrafast magnetization dy- namics of hybrid Stoner-Heisenberg magnets, Phys. Rev. B 105, L100401 (2022)

    2022

  31. [40]

    Turgut, D

    E. Turgut, D. Zusin, D. Legut, K. Carva, R. Knut, J. M. Shaw, C. Chen, Z. Tao, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, S. Mathias, M. Aeschlimann, P. M. Oppeneer, H. C. Kapteyn, M.M.Murnane,andP.Grychtol,Stonerversus Heisenberg: Ultrafast exchange reduction and magnon generation during la...

    2016

  32. [41]

    Beens, R

    M. Beens, R. A. Duine, and B. Koopmans,s−d model for local and nonlocal spin dynamics in laser-excited mag- netic heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B102, 054442 (2020)

    2020

  33. [42]

    R. Knut, E. K. Delczeg-Czirjak, S. Jana, J. M. Shaw, H. T. Nembach, Y. Kvashnin, R. Stefaniuk, R. S. Ma- lik, P. Grychtol, D. Zusin, C. Gentry, R. Chimata, M. Pereiro, J. Söderström, E. Turgut, M. Ahlberg, J. Åkerman, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, D. A. 8 Arena, O. Eriksson, O...

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Choi, B.-C

    G.-M. Choi, B.-C. Min, K.-J. Lee, and D. G. Cahill, Spin current generated by thermally driven ultrafast demag- netization, Nature Communications5, 4334 (2014)

    2014

  35. [44]

    E. Liu, J. Swerts, T. Devolder, S. Couet, S. Mertens, T. Lin, V. Spampinato, A. Franquet, T. Conrad, S. Van Elshocht, A. Furnemont, J. De Boeck, and G. Kar, Seed layer impact on structural and magnetic proper- ties of [Co/Ni] multilayers with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy,...

    2017

  36. [45]

    This agrees with our fastest mea- sured recovery time (τR) of 300 fs for Co and Ni, where the dependence ofτR may be a manifestation of magnon fluctuation and dissipation

    and spin-polarized electron energy loss spectroscopy (SPEELS) indicate that the magnon lifetimes are on the order of 100 fs [36]. This agrees with our fastest mea- sured recovery time (τR) of 300 fs for Co and Ni, where the dependence ofτR may be a manifestation of magnon fluc...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.