Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Optimizing spin-based terahertz emission from magnetic heterostructures

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A superdiffusive spin-transport model with an energy-dependent spin Hall effect reproduces spintronic THz emission spectra and yields design rules: thin Pt layers (5–6 nm) maximize bandwidth, peak frequency depends only on emitter geometry,

desk verdict Useful parameter maps for spintronic THz emitters, but the abstract overstates pulse-width independence and the Eq. (5) source-term assumption carries the whole spectral analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.22797 v2 pith:XJNKJJL5 submitted 2026-01-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Francesco Foggetti , Francesco Cosco , Peter M. Oppeneer , Henri Jaffrés , Niloufar Nilforoushan , Juliette Mangeney , Sukhdeep Dhillon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords spintronicterahertzemittersuperdiffusivespintransportinverseHalleffectenergy-dependentconductivityTHzbandwidthCo/Ptbilayerdouble-pulseexcitationoptimization
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 tries to turn spintronic terahertz emission from a phenomenon into a designable technology. Using a superdiffusive spin-transport model that includes the energy dependence of the spin Hall effect in platinum, the authors reproduce the measured emission spectrum of a Co(2 nm)/Pt(4 nm) bilayer, then vary layer thicknesses, interface reflectivities, boundary conditions, and pump-pulse duration to map out how the peak frequency and bandwidth of the emitted pulse respond. They find that a thin nonmagnetic layer around 5–6 nm gives the largest bandwidth for Co/Pt, and that the peak frequency is set by the emitter's geometry rather than the laser pulse width, while bandwidth depends on pulse width, thicknesses, and interface properties. The practical payoff is a set of optimization guidelines for spintronic THz sources, plus a double-pulse trilayer design that could produce broader bandwidth.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the superdiffusive spin-transport model — a semiclassical description in which laser-excited hot electrons in two spin channels propagate with energy- and spin-dependent velocities and lifetimes through layered materials, with interfacial transmission and reflection — combined with the energy dependence of the spin Hall effect, which makes the spin-to-charge conversion efficient only for hot electrons within about 0.5 eV of the Fermi level in Pt. The detected THz field is then computed as proportional to the spatially integrated charge current, E(ν) ∝ ∫ dz Jc(z,ν), a relation the authors take from their earlier work. The figures of merit are the peak frequency and th

What would settle it

Record THz emission spectra from identical Co/Pt bilayers with pump-pulse widths differing by an order of magnitude: the paper predicts a nearly unchanged peak frequency, whereas a source proportional to ∂Jc/∂t would shift it; also, replacing the averaged Co/Pt interface reflectivities with ab initio values should not move the predicted peak beyond the experimental uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the superdiffusive spin-transport model, augmented with an energy-dependent spin Hall conductivity for Pt, can quantitatively account for the THz emission spectrum of a Co(2 nm)/Pt(4 nm) spintronic emitter, reproducing both the peak frequency and the bandwidth. From that benchmark, the authors show that the spectral shape is governed by the geometry of the emitter: the peak frequency shifts only with layer thicknesses and interface reflection properties, not with the pump-pulse duration, whereas the bandwidth is controlled by pulse width, layer thicknesses, and interface and boundary reflectivity. The optimal bandwidth for Co/Pt bilayers occurs for ferromagnetic la

Load-bearing premise

That the detected THz field is proportional to the spatially integrated charge current rather than its time derivative, and that Co/Pt interface reflectivities can be approximated by averaging Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Co/Pt bilayers, largest THz bandwidth is obtained with FM layer 2–3 nm and Pt layer 5–6 nm; thicker layers shift the peak to lower frequencies and shrink bandwidth.
  • The peak frequency of the THz emission is essentially independent of pump-pulse duration, so it can serve as a direct readout of emitter geometry.
  • Shorter pump pulses yield broader bandwidth; laser intensity affects only amplitude, not spectral shape, in the linear regime.
  • Interface engineering that reflects left-moving electrons back into the NM layer while transmitting right-moving electrons into it enhances bandwidth, but with a modest reduction in integrated power.
  • A Co(2)/Pt(8)/Co(2) trilayer excited by two time-delayed pulses can exceed the bandwidth of the best bilayer when the delay is near the pulse FWHM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If peak frequency is truly geometry-only, a calibrated THz spectrum could serve as a non-destructive thickness or interface probe of metal heterostructures.
  • The bandwidth-vs-efficiency trade-off suggests that applications needing high field amplitude (e.g., nonlinear spectroscopy) should favor thicker, more reflective structures, while broadband spectroscopy favors thinner, more transparent ones.
  • The double-pulse protocol could be generalized to pulse trains or shaped pulses to synthesize arbitrary THz waveforms, an extension the paper does not pursue.
  • Because the model uses reflectivities averaged from Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt for the Co/Pt interface, direct ab initio Co/Pt reflectivities would be a natural test of the quantitative predictions.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents numerical simulations of THz emission from FM/NM bilayers driven by femtosecond laser pulses, using the superdiffusive spin-transport model augmented by an energy-dependent spin Hall effect. After benchmarking against a measured Co(2)/Pt(4) spectrum (Fig. 2), it systematically varies pump-pulse duration, layer thicknesses, FM/NM interface reflectivities, and outer-boundary reflectivities, extracting peak frequency, bandwidth, and integrated power. The main conclusions are that Co/Pt bandwidth is optimized for L_FM ≈ 2–3 nm and L_NM ≈ 5–6 nm, that the peak frequency depends only on emitter geometry and not on laser pulse width, and that a FM/NM/FM trilayer excited by two time-delayed pump pulses can provide larger bandwidth. The transport model and the source-to-field relation E(ν) ∝ ∫ dz J_c(z,ν) are taken largely from the authors' prior work [64].

Significance. If the predictions hold, this work would provide a quantitative design tool for spintronic THz emitters and introduce a concrete double-pulse protocol for bandwidth engineering. Strengths include a parameter set mostly derived from first principles, a benchmark against a measured Co/Pt spectrum with the ZnTe detector response and mirror tilt included, and systematic maps of bandwidth/peak frequency versus thickness and interface parameters. The paper does not fit free parameters to the experimental spectrum, which adds credibility. However, the quantitative content depends on Eq. (5), which is not derived in this manuscript, and the headline claim of pulse-width-independent peak frequency is internally inconsistent. These issues must be resolved before the design guidelines can be considered robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (5)] The central spectral relation E(ν) ∝ ∫ dz J_c(z,ν) is imported from Ref. [64] and not re-derived. Maxwell's equations give far-field emission proportional to ∂J_c/∂t; Eq. (5) is justified only by a mirror-integration argument that is not reproduced. Every frequency-domain quantity in the paper—νmax, bandwidth, the 5–6 nm optimum, and the double-pulse bandwidth gain—is computed under Eq. (5). If the correct source term is ∂J_c/∂t, each spectrum is multiplied by roughly 2πν, which shifts νmax and changes the claimed trends. The single benchmark in Fig. 2 cannot discriminate because the ZnTe response and 15° mirror correction from Ref. [64] are folded into the calculation. Please derive Eq. (5) explicitly, or validate it against E(t)/absolute spectra, and show the sensitivity of the main conclusions to the E ∝ ∂J_c/∂t alternative.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. III C; Sec. IV] The manuscript is internally inconsistent about the pulse-width dependence of the peak frequency. The abstract states that the peak frequency 'depends only on the geometry of the emitter and not on the laser pulse width,' but Sec. III C says it is 'nearly not affected' and shows a 'minor dependence,' and the Discussion states that 'shorter excitation pulses ... [lead to] higher values of the peak emission frequency.' These statements cannot all be correct. This is not a cosmetic issue because pulse-width independence is presented as a main result. Please quantify the 'minor dependence' numerically, specify the range of pulse widths over which it is negligible, and adjust the abstract and Discussion to a single consistent claim.
  3. [Sec. II; Appendix C] The quantitative benchmark and the Co/Pt-specific optimization rely on material parameters that are not fully specified here. In particular, the Co/Pt interface reflection coefficients are approximated as the average of Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt values from Ref. [58], and the energy-dependent spin Hall conductivity, ZnTe detector response, and mirror correction are all taken from Ref. [64] without giving the functional form of θ_SH(ϵ). This limits reproducibility and means the Co/Pt predictions rest on an unvalidated average. Please provide the θ_SH(ϵ) function (or an explicit table/equation) and test how much the 5–6 nm optimum shifts when R(E) is varied between the Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt limits.
  4. [Sec. III A, Fig. 2] The experimental validation is a single normalized spectrum, and the theoretical curve includes detector/mirror response functions from the same prior work that supplies Eq. (5). A normalized spectral shape comparison does not test absolute amplitude or the phase of the emitted field, and it cannot distinguish E ∝ J_c from E ∝ ∂J_c/∂t. To support the quantitative design claims, the benchmark should be extended: for example, using the raw time-domain waveform, absolute emission amplitude, or spectra for more than one layer thickness. As it stands, the agreement in Fig. 2 is encouraging but insufficient to anchor the central quantitative results.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A] Appendix A states 'As in Fig. 4, we set the boundary reflection coefficients at 0.95 when computing the peak frequency,' whereas Sec. III A and the following text say completely reflective boundaries (R = 1) are used. Please clarify which value was used for Fig. 4 and whether 0.95 is a typo.
  2. [Sec. III B] The text says the detector crystal is not included in the following parameter study, but Fig. 2 includes the ZnTe response. This is not wrong, but the distinction between 'emission before detection' and 'comparison with experiment including detection' should be stated more explicitly to avoid confusion.
  3. [General] Typos and wording: 'adsorbed laser fluence' should be 'absorbed laser fluence'; 'an Co(2)/Pt(4)' should be 'a Co(2)/Pt(4)' (also in Sec. III E/III G and Appendix B); 'renders the spin and charge currents to be disproportional' should be 'not simply proportional.'
  4. [Sec. III G] The double-pulse proposal uses a Taylor expansion J_s(t) − J_s(t+Δt) ≈ −Δt dJ_s/dt to argue for destructive interference, but the optimal delays in Fig. 7 are of order the FWHM, where the expansion is not obviously accurate. Please report the actual bandwidth values and amplitude trade-off numerically so the gain over the best bilayer can be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No demonstrated circular reduction; main caveat is assumption-dependence on self-cited Eq. (5), not a fit.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular in the reduction sense. The superdiffusive transport equations (1)-(4), the energy-dependent spin Hall conductivity, and Eq. (5) are stated model inputs; Eq. (5) is explicitly imported from the authors' prior work [64] with a physical rationale ('the parabolic mirror used in the focusing optics of the THz detection leads to an effective time integration so that, in the frequency domain, one obtains [64] E(ν)∝∫ dz Jc(z,ν)'), not fitted to the experimental spectrum. The Fig. 2 benchmark is an external Co(2)/Pt(4) measurement, and the Co/Pt reflectivities are an averaged estimate from Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt [58] rather than a fit; no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the data. The optimization claims (thickness scans, interface/boundary sweeps, double-pulse protocol) are computed outputs of this stated model and are not equivalent by construction to Eq. (5) or to any fitted value. The main load-bearing assumption is indeed Eq. (5)'s E(ν) ∝ ∫ Jc(z,ν) dz, and the paper itself lists the competing ∂Jc/∂t source; because the mirror-integration argument is not re-derived here, this is a genuine assumption-dependence/correctness risk, not a demonstrated circular step. Also, the abstract's 'peak frequency ... not on the laser pulse width' is internally softened in Sec. III C ('nearly not affected', 'minor dependence') and contradicted in the Discussion ('shorter excitation pulses ... higher values of the peak emission frequency'); that is a consistency issue, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its main assumptions are the established superdiffusive transport model, the energy-dependent spin Hall effect, Eq. (5) taken from prior author work, and approximated Co/Pt interface reflectivities. The parameter sweeps are extensive but depend on these modeling choices.

free parameters (5)
  • Co/Pt interface reflection coefficients R(E) = average of Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt values from Ref. [58]
    Used in all Co/Pt simulations, including the experimental benchmark. Not measured for Co/Pt; chosen by hand as an arithmetic average.
  • Interface reflection coefficients RLeft, RRight, RUp, RDown = swept 0–1
    Vary the FM/NM interface transmission/reflection properties in Sec. III E and Appendix B; central to bandwidth and power predictions.
  • External boundary reflection coefficients RFM, RNM = swept 0–1 (0.95 in Fig. 4 per Appendix A)
    Control whether outer boundaries act as perfect mirrors or spin sinks; central to bandwidth and integrated power maps.
  • Perturbation parameters α, β in Eq. (B1) = swept 0–1
    Ad hoc scaling parameters used to increase or decrease energy-dependent reflectivity while keeping values in [0,1].
  • Discretization steps δz, δt, δϵ = 1 nm, 1 fs, 0.125 eV
    Numerical resolution choices stated in Sec. II; chosen by hand and not verified to be converged.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Validity of the superdiffusive spin-transport model for laser-induced spin currents in FM/NM heterostructures
    The entire paper assumes this model (Refs. [41,44,45,47]) describes ultrafast demagnetization and spin injection in Co/Pt, Fe/Pt, and Ni/Pt on femto-to-picosecond timescales.
  • domain assumption Detected THz field is proportional to ∫ dz Jc(z,ν) (Eq. 5), not ∂Jc/∂t
    Imported from the authors' Ref. [64]; used to convert simulated charge currents into THz spectra. The paper notes the Maxwell far-field form would suggest ∂Jc/∂t, but the mirror integration is asserted to yield Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption Energy-dependent spin Hall conductivity of Pt, large near the Fermi energy and dropping above ~0.5 eV
    Taken from first-principles calculations [60] and implemented as in [64]. Determines which hot electrons contribute to THz emission.
  • domain assumption Outer boundaries are completely reflective (R=1) in the main simulations
    Justified for the capped/substrate sample in Sec. III A, but contradicts Appendix A where Fig. 4 uses R=0.95.
  • ad hoc to paper Co/Pt interface reflection coefficients approximated by averaging Fe/Pt and Ni/Pt values
    Explicitly stated in Sec. III A and Appendix C: no Co/Pt values are available, so the average of two other materials is used for all Co/Pt results, including the experimental benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing spin-based terahertz emission from magnetic heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XJNKJJL5

@misc{pith2026260122797,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing spin-based terahertz emission from magnetic heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XJNKJJL5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.22797}
}
read the original abstract

Terahertz radiation pulses can be generated efficiently through femtosecond laser excitation of a ferromagnetic/nonmagnetic heterostructure, wherein an ultrafast laser-induced spin current results in an electromagnetic THz pulse due to spin-charge conversion. It is, however, still poorly understood how the THz emission amplitude and its bandwidth can be optimized. Here, we perform a systematic analysis of the THz emission from various magnetic heterostructures. The dynamics of the spin current is described by the semiclassical, superdiffusive spin-transport model and the energy dependence of the spin Hall effect of hot electrons is taken into account, leading to emission profiles for Co(2 nm)/Pt(4 nm) bilayer in good agreement with experiment. To identify the optimal {conditions} for THz emission, {we study} the properties of the emitted THz wave profile by systematically varying the layer thicknesses of metallic bilayers, their interfacial spin-current transmission properties, their materials' dependence, and influence of the pump laser-pulse width, allowing us to give optimization guidelines. We find that thin nonmagnetic layer thicknesses of 5-6 nm provide the largest bandwidth in the case of Co/Pt and that the peak frequency of the THz emission depends only on the geometry of the emitter and not on the laser pulse width. The THz bandwidth {is conversely found to} depend on several factors such as exciting laser pulse width, layers' thicknesses, and interface transmission-reflection properties, with the limitation that an increase in the bandwidth by tuning the interface properties comes with a trade-off in the energy efficiency of the emitter. Lastly, we propose a double pulse excitation protocol of a trilayer system that could provide broadband THz emission with a large bandwidth. {Our results contribute to establishing guidelines for optimizing spintronic THz generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22797 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Pictorial representation of a spin-based THz emitter. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of our modeling (red) and experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Results of THz emission calculations. (a) THz emis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Schematic representation of the variation of layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Schematic illustration of the interface transmis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Schematic illustration of the influence of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Schematic representation of the two pump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Calculated THz signal bandwidth (left), THz peak frequency (center), and total integrated power of the emitted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Simulated THz signal bandwidth, peak frequency, and total integrated THz power as a function of the interface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Calculated variation of the THz bandwidth of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Reflection coefficients taken from Ref. [58] for Fe/Pt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references

  1. [64]

    Zhang, Z

    S. Zhang, Z. Jin, Z. Zhu, W. Zhu, Z. Zhang, G. Ma, and J. Yao, Bursts of efficient terahertz radiation with satu- ration effect from metal-based ferromagnetic heterostruc- tures, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.51, 034001 (2017)

    2017

  2. [58]

    D. M. Nenno, B. Rethfeld, and H. C. Schneider, Particle- in-cell simulation of ultrafast hot-carrier transport in Fe/Au heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B98, 224416 (2018)

    2018

  3. [1]

    Lee,Principles of terahertz science and technology, Vol

    Y.-S. Lee,Principles of terahertz science and technology, Vol. 170 (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2009)

    2009

  4. [2]

    S. L. Dexheimer,Terahertz Spectroscopy: Principles and Applications(CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2017)

    2017

  5. [3]

    D. M. Mittleman, Perspective: Terahertz science and technology, J. Appl. Phys.122, 230901 (2017)

    2017

  6. [4]

    Ferguson and X.-C

    B. Ferguson and X.-C. Zhang, Materials for terahertz science and technology, Nat. Mater.1, 26 (2002)

    2002

  7. [5]

    Tonouchi, Cutting-edge terahertz technology, Nat

    M. Tonouchi, Cutting-edge terahertz technology, Nat. Photon.1, 97 (2007)

    2007

  8. [6]

    S. S. Dhillon, M. S. Vitiello, E. H. Linfield, A. G. Davies, M. C. Hoffmann, J. Booske, C. Paoloni, M. Gen- sch, P. Weightman, G. P. Williams, E. Castro-Camus, D. R. S. Cumming, F. Simoens, I. Escorcia-Carranza, J. Grant, S. Lucyszyn, M. Kuwata-Gonokami, K. Kon- ishi, M. Koch, C. A. Schmuttenmaer, T. L. Cocker, R. Huber, A. G. Markelz, Z. D. Taylor, V. P....

    2017

Show all 84 references
  1. [7]

    E. T. Papaioannou and R. Beigang, THz spintronic emit- ters: a review on achievements and future challenges, Nanophoton.10, 1243 (2020)

    2020

  2. [8]

    C. Bull, S. M. Hewett, R. Ji, C.-H. Lin, T. Thomson, D. M. Graham, and P. W. Nutter, Spintronic terahertz emitters: Status and prospects from a materials perspec- tive, APL Materials9, 090701 (2021)

    2021

  3. [9]

    Nahata, A

    A. Nahata, A. S. Weling, and T. F. Heinz, A wideband coherent terahertz spectroscopy system using optical rec- tification and electro-optic sampling, Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 2321 (1996)

    1996

  4. [10]

    We performed the calculations with Fe and Ni instead of Co and, aside from different bandwidth values, the qualitative behavior is the same

    do not depend strongly on the choice of FM metal. We performed the calculations with Fe and Ni instead of Co and, aside from different bandwidth values, the qualitative behavior is the same. Lastly, we return to the energy dependence of the re- flection/transmission at the FM/...

  5. [11]

    N. M. Burford and M. O. El-Shenawee, Review of ter- ahertz photoconductive antenna technology, Opt. Engi- neering56, 010901 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

    Seifert, S

    T. Seifert, S. Jaiswal, U. Martens, J. Hannegan, L. Braun, P. Maldonado, F. Freimuth, A. Kronenberg, J. Henrizi, I. Radu, E. Beaurepaire, Y. Mokrousov, P. M. Oppeneer, M. Jourdan, G. Jakob, D. Turchinovich, L. M. Hayden, M. Wolf, M. Münzenberg, M. Kläui, and T.Kampfrath,Effici...

    2016

  7. [13]

    Yang, Current-Enhanced Broadband THz Emission from Spintronic Devices, Adv

    M.Chen, Y.Wu, Y.Liu, K.Lee, X.Qiu, P.He, J.Yu,and H. Yang, Current-Enhanced Broadband THz Emission from Spintronic Devices, Adv. Optical Mater.7, 1801608 (2019)

    2019

  8. [14]

    R. Adam, G. Chen, D. E. Bürgler, T. Shou, I. Komis- sarov, S. Heidtfeld, H. Hardtdegen, M. Mikulics, C. M. Schneider, and R. Sobolewski, Magnetically and optically tunable terahertz radiation from Ta/NiFe/Pt spintronic nanolayers generated by femtosecond laser pulses, Appl. Ph...

    2019

  9. [15]

    W. Wu, C. Yaw Ameyaw, M. F. Doty, and M. B. Jungfleisch, Principles of spintronic THz emitters, J. Appl. Phys.130, 091101 (2021)

    2021

  10. [16]

    Kampfrath, M

    T. Kampfrath, M. Battiato, P. Maldonado, G. Eil- ers, J. Nötzold, S. Mährlein, V. Zbarsky, F. Freimuth, Y. Mokrousov, S. Blügel, M. Wolf, I. Radu, P. M. Oppeneer, and M. Münzenberg, Terahertz spin cur- rent pulses controlled by magnetic heterostructures, Nat. Nanotechn.8, 256 (2013)

    2013

  11. [17]

    T. S. Seifert, L. Cheng, Z. Wei, T. Kampfrath, and J. Qi, Spintronic sources of ultrashort terahertz electro- magnetic pulses, Appl. Phys. Lett.120, 180401 (2022)

    2022

  12. [18]

    Panahi, B

    O. Panahi, B. Yahyaei, S. M. Mousavi, and A. M. Ghi- asabadi, High performance terahertz emitter based on in- verse spin Hall effect in metallic Fe/Au heterostructure, Laser Phys.30, 055001 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    M.Yang, K.Cai, H.Ju, K.W.Edmonds, G.Yang, S.Liu, B. Li, B. Zhang, Y. Sheng, S. Wang, Y. Ji, and K. Wang, Spin-orbit torque in Pt/CoNiCo/Pt symmetric devices, Sci. Rep.6, 20778 (2016)

    2016

  14. [20]

    T. H. Dang, J. Hawecker, E. Rongione, G. Baez Flores, D. Q. To, J. C. Rojas-Sanchez, H. Nong, J. Mangeney, J. Tignon, F. Godel, S. Collin, P. Seneor, M. Bibes, A. Fert, M. Anane, J.-M. George, L. Vila, M. Cosset- Cheneau, D. Dolfi, R. Lebrun, P. Bortolotti, K. Be- lashchenko, ...

    2020

  15. [21]

    Schmerber, E

    W.Zhang, P.Maldonado, Z.Jin, T.S.Seifert, J.Arabski, G. Schmerber, E. Beaurepaire, M. Bonn, T. Kampfrath, P.M.Oppeneer,andD.Turchinovich,Ultrafastterahertz magnetometry, Nat. Commun.11, 4247 (2020)

    2020

  16. [22]

    M. I. D’yakonov and V. I. Perel’, Possibility of orienting electron spins with current, JETP Lett13, 467 (1971)

    1971

  17. [23]

    J. E. Hirsch, Spin Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 1834 (1999)

    1999

  18. [24]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin Hall effects, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  19. [25]

    Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, Properties of a 2D elec- tron gas with lifted spectral degeneracy, JETP Lett.39, 78 (1984)

    1984

  20. [26]

    V. M. Edelstein, Spin polarization of conduction elec- trons induced by electric current in two-dimensional asymmetric electron systems, Solid State Commun.73, 233 (1990)

    1990

  21. [27]

    M. B. Jungfleisch, Q. Zhang, W. Zhang, J. E. Pearson, R. D. Schaller, H. Wen, and A. Hoffmann, Control of ter- ahertz emission by ultrafast spin-charge current conver- sion at Rashba interfaces, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 207207 (2018)

    2018

  22. [28]

    C. Zhou, Y. P. Liu, Z. Wang, S. J. Ma, M. W. Jia, R. Q. Wu, L. Zhou, W. Zhang, M. K. Liu, Y. Z. Wu, and J. Qi, Broadband Terahertz Generation via the In- terface Inverse Rashba-Edelstein Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086801 (2018)

    2018

  23. [29]

    Rongione, L

    E. Rongione, L. Baringthon, D. She, G. Patriarche, R. Lebrun, A. Lemaître, M. Morassi, N. Reyren, M. Mičica, J. Mangeney, J. Tignon, F. Bertran, S. Dhillon, P. Le Févre, H. Jaffrès, and J.-M. George, Spin-Momentum Locking and Ultrafast Spin-Charge Conversion in Ultrathin Epita...

    2023

  24. [30]

    Beaurepaire, G

    E. Beaurepaire, G. M. Turner, S. M. Harrel, M. C. Beard, J.-Y. Bigot, and C. A. Schmuttenmaer, Coherent tera- hertz emission from ferromagnetic films excited by fem- tosecond laser pulses, Appl. Phys. Lett.84, 3465 (2004)

    2004

  25. [31]

    D. J. Hilton, R. P. Prasankumar, S. A. Trugman, A. J. Taylor, and R. D. Averitt, On Photo-Induced Phenomena in Complex Materials: Probing Quasipar- ticle Dynamics using Infrared and Far-Infrared Pulses, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.75, 011006 (2006)

    2006

  26. [32]

    T. J. Huisman, R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, J. D. Costa, F. Freimuth, E. Paz, J. Ventura, P. P. Freitas, S. Blügel, Y. Mokrousov, T. Rasing,et al., Femtosecond control of electric currents in metallic ferromagnetic heterostruc- tures, Nat. Nanotechn.11, 455 (2016)

    2016

  27. [33]

    D. M. Nenno, R. Binder, and H. C. Schneider, Simulation of hot-carrier dynamics and terahertz emission in laser- excited metallic bilayers, Phys. Rev. Applied11, 054083 (2019)

    2019

  28. [34]

    Pettine, P

    J. Pettine, P. Padmanabhan, N. Sirica, R. P. Prasanku- mar, A. J. Taylor, and H.-T. Chen, Ultrafast tera- hertz emission from emerging symmetry-broken materi- als, Light: Science & Appl.12, 133 (2023)

    2023

  29. [35]

    Beens, R

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

    2020

  30. [36]

    Lichtenberg, M

    T. Lichtenberg, M. Beens, M. H. Jansen, B. Koopmans, and R. A. Duine, Probing optically induced spin currents using terahertz spin waves in noncollinear magnetic bi- layers, Phys. Rev. B105, 144416 (2022)

    2022

  31. [37]

    Schmidt, B

    G. Schmidt, B. Das-Mohapatra, and E. T. Papaioannou, Charge dynamics in spintronic terahertz emitters, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, L041001 (2023)

    2023

  32. [38]

    Rouzegar, L

    R. Rouzegar, L. Brandt, L. Nádvorník, D. A. Reiss, A. L. Chekhov, O. Gueckstock, C. In, M. Wolf, T. S. Seifert, P. W. Brouwer, G. Woltersdorf, and T. Kampfrath, Laser-induced terahertz spin transport in magnetic nanostructures arises from the same force as ultrafast demagnetiz...

    2022

  33. [39]

    Kefayati and B

    A. Kefayati and B. K. Nikolić, Origins of Electromag- netic Radiation from Spintronic Terahertz Emitters: A Time-Dependent Density Functional Theory plus Je- fimenko Equations Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 136704 (2024)

    2024

  34. [40]

    Song and T

    H.-J. Song and T. Nagatsuma,Handbook of terahertz technologies: devices and applications(CRC press, Boca Raton, 2015)

    2015

  35. [41]

    S.-C. Chen, Z. Feng, J. Li, W. Tan, L.-H. Du, J. Cai, Y. Ma, K. He, H. Ding, Z.-H. Zhai, Z.-R. Li, C.-W. Qiu, X.-C. Zhang, and L. Zhu, Ghost spintronic THz-emitter- array microscope, Light: Science & Applications9, 99 (2020)

    2020

  36. [42]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Theory of laser-induced ultrafast superdiffusive spin transport in layeredheterostructures,Phys.Rev.B86,024404(2012)

    2012

  37. [43]

    Eschenlohr, M

    A. Eschenlohr, M. Battiato, P. Maldonado, N. Pontius, T. Kachel, K. Holldack, R. Mitzner, A. Föhlisch, P. M. Oppeneer, and C. Stamm, Ultrafast spin transport as key to femtosecond demagnetization, Nature Mater.12, 332 (2013)

    2013

  38. [44]

    Melnikov, I

    A. Melnikov, I. Razdolski, T. O. Wehling, E. T. Papaioannou, V. Roddatis, P. Fumagalli, O. Akt- sipetrov, A. I. Lichtenstein, and U. Bovensiepen, Ultra- fast transport of laser-excited spin-polarized carriers in Au/Fe/MgO(001), Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 076601 (2011)

    2011

  39. [45]

    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)

    2010

  40. [46]

    Baláž, M

    P. Baláž, M. Žonda, K. Carva, P. Maldonado, and P. M. Oppeneer, Transport theory for femtosecond laser- induced spin-transfer torques, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 30, 115801 (2018)

    2018

  41. [47]

    Lu and Z

    W.-T. Lu and Z. Yuan, Spin accumulation and dissipa- tionexcitedby anultrafastlaserpulse,Phys.Rev.B104, 214404 (2021)

    2021

  42. [48]

    Baláž, M

    P. Baláž, M. Zwierzycki, F. Cosco, K. Carva, P. Maldon- ado, and P. M. Oppeneer, Theory of superdiffusive spin transport in noncollinear magnetic multilayers, Phys. Rev. B107, 174418 (2023)

    2023

  43. [49]

    Rudolf, C

    D. Rudolf, C. La-O-Vorakiat, M. Battiato, R. Adam, J. M. Shaw, E. Turgut, P. Maldonado, S. Mathias, P. Grychtol, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, M. Aeschli- mann, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, C. M. Schneider, and P. M. Oppeneer, Ultrafast magnetization enhance- ment in metallic m...

    2012

  44. [50]

    Hofherr, P

    M. Hofherr, P. Maldonado, O. Schmitt, M. Berritta, U. Bierbrauer, S. Sadashivaiah, A. J. Schellekens, B. Koopmans, D. Steil, M. Cinchetti, B. Stadtmüller, P. M. Oppeneer, S. Mathias, and M. Aeschlimann, Speed and efficiency of femtosecond spin current injection into a nonmagne...

    2017

  45. [51]

    Ritzmann, P

    U. Ritzmann, P. Baláž, P. Maldonado, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, High-frequency magnon excitation due to femtosecond spin-transfer torques, Phys. Rev. B101, 174427 (2020)

    2020

  46. [52]

    Gupta, F

    R. Gupta, F. Cosco, R. S. Malik, X. Chen, S. Saha, A. Ghosh, T. Pohlmann, J. R. L. Mardegan, S. Fran- coual, R. Stefanuik, J. Söderström, B. Sanyal, O. Karis, P. Svedlindh, P. M. Oppeneer, and R. Knut, Element- resolved evidence of superdiffusive spin current arising from ultr...

    2023

  47. [53]

    V. P. Zhukov, E. V. Chulkov, and P. M. Echenique, GW+T theory of excited electron lifetimes in metals, Phys. Rev. B72, 155109 (2005)

    2005

  48. [54]

    V. P. Zhukov, E. V. Chulkov, and P. M. Echenique, Life- times and inelastic mean free path of low-energy excited electrons in Fe, Ni, Pt, and Au: Ab initio GW+T calcu- lations, Phys. Rev. B73, 125105 (2006)

    2006

  49. [55]

    I. A. Nechaev and E. V. Chulkov, Quasiparticle dynam- ics in ferromagnetic compounds of the Co–Fe and Ni–Fe systems, Eur. Phys. Jour. B77, 31 (2010)

    2010

  50. [56]

    Battiato, P

    M. Battiato, P. Maldonado, and P. M. Oppeneer, Treat- ing the effect of interface reflections on superdiffusive spin transport in multilayer samples, J. Appl. Phys.115, 172611 (2014)

    2014

  51. [57]

    D. M. Nenno, S. Kaltenborn, and H. C. Schneider, Boltz- mann transport calculation of collinear spin transport on short timescales, Phys. Rev. B94, 115102 (2016)

    2016

  52. [59]

    W.-T. Lu, Y. Zhao, M. Battiato, Y. Wu, and Z. Yuan, Interface reflectivity of a superdiffusive spin current in ultrafast demagnetization and terahertz emission, Phys. Rev. B101, 014435 (2020)

    2020

  53. [60]

    Stamm, C

    C. Stamm, C. Murer, M. Berritta, J. Feng, M. Gabureac, P. M. Oppeneer, and P. Gambardella, Magneto-Optical 16 DetectionoftheSpinHallEffectinPtandWThinFilms, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 087203 (2017)

    2017

  54. [61]

    Salemi and P

    L. Salemi and P. M. Oppeneer, First-principles theory of intrinsic spinand orbitalHall andNernsteffects inmetal- lic monoatomic crystals, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 095001 (2022)

    2022

  55. [62]

    Y. Wu, M. Elyasi, X. Qiu, M. Chen, Y. Liu, L. Ke, and H. Yang, High-performance thz emitters based on fer- romagnetic/nonmagnetic heterostructures, Adv. Mater. 29, 1603031 (2017)

    2017

  56. [63]

    T. S. Seifert, N. M. Tran, O. Gueckstock, S. M. Rouze- gar, L. Nadvornik, S. Jaiswal, G. Jakob, V. V. Temnov, M. Münzenberg, M. Wolf, M. Kläui, and T. Kampfrath, Terahertz spectroscopy for all-optical spintronic char- acterization of the spin-Hall-effect metals Pt, W and Cu80I...

    2018

  57. [65]

    Foggetti and P

    F. Foggetti and P. M. Oppeneer, Quantitative model- ing of spintronic terahertz emission due to ultrafast spin transport, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, 014067 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    T. J. Huisman, R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, A. Tsukamoto, T. Rasing, and A. V. Kimel, Simultaneous measure- ments of terahertz emission and magneto-optical kerr ef- fect for resolving ultrafast laser-induced demagnetization dynamics, Phys. Rev. B92, 104419 (2015)

    2015

  59. [67]

    Varela-Manjarres, A

    J. Varela-Manjarres, A. Kefayati, M. B. Jungfleisch, J. Q. Xiao, and B. K. Nikolić, Charge and spin current pump- ing by ultrafast demagnetization dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 110, L060410 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    O. D. Jefimenko, Solutions of Maxwell’s equations for electric and magnetic fields in arbitrary media, Am. J. Phys.60, 899 (1992)

    1992

  61. [69]

    P. J. Hale, J. Madeo, C. Chin, S. S. Dhillon, J. Mangeney, J.Tignon,andK.M.Dani,20THzbroadbandgeneration using semi-insulating GaAs interdigitated photoconduc- tive antennas, Opt. Express22, 26358 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    Nilforoushan, T

    N. Nilforoushan, T. Apretna, C. Song, T. Boulier, J. Tignon, S. Dhillon, M. Hanna, and J. Mangeney, Gen- eration of Ultra-broadband THz Pulses at a 200 kHz Repetition Rate with Peak Electric Field Above 100 kV/cm, in2022 47th International Conference on In- frared, Millimeter ...

    2022

  63. [71]

    E. T. Papaioannou, G. Torosyan, S. Keller, L. Scheuer, M. Battiato, V. K. Mag-Usara, J. L’huillier, M. Tani, and R. Beigang, Efficient Terahertz Generation Using Fe/Pt Spintronic Emitters Pumped at Different Wavelengths, IEEE Trans. Magnetics54, 1 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    G. Li, R. Medapalli, R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, F. E. Spada, T. Rasing, E. E. Fullerton, and A. V. Kimel, THz emis- sion from Co/Pt bilayers with varied roughness, crystal structure, and interface intermixing, Phys. Rev. Mater. 3, 084415 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Z. Feng, H. Qiu, D. Wang, C. Zhang, S. Sun, B. Jin, and W. Tan, Spintronic terahertz emitter, J. Appl. Phys. 129, 010901 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    H. S. Qiu, K. Kato, K. Hirota, N. Sarukura, M. Yoshimura, and M. Nakajima, Layer thickness depen- dence of the terahertz emission based on spin current in ferromagnetic heterostructures, Opt. Express26, 15247 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    Harii, Z

    K. Harii, Z. Qiu, T. Iwashita, Y. Kajiwara, K. Uchida, K. Ando, T. An, Y. Fujikawa, and E. Saitoh, Spin Pump- ing in a Ferromagnetic/Nonmagnetic/Spin-Sink Trilayer Film: Spin Current Termination, Key Engineering Ma- terials508, 266 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Hawecker, E

    J. Hawecker, E. Rongione, A. Markou, S. Krishnia, F. Godel, S. Collin, R. Lebrun, J. Tignon, J. Man- geney, T. Boulier, J.-M. George, C. Felser, H. Jaffrès, and S. Dhillon, Spintronic THz emitters based on transi- tion metals and semi-metals/Pt multilayers, Appl. Phys. Lett.12...

    2022

  69. [77]

    Koleják, G

    P. Koleják, G. Lezier, D. Vala, B. Mathmann, L. Ha- lagačka, Z. Gelnárová, Y. Dusch, J.-F. Lampin, N. Tiercelin, K. Postava, and M. Vanwolleghem, Max- imizing the electromagnetic efficiency of spintronic tera- hertz emitters, Adv. Photon. Res.5, 2400064 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Rouzegar, A

    R. Rouzegar, A. Chekhov, Y. Behovits, B. Serrano, M. Syskaki, C. Lambert, D. Engel, U. Martens, M. Münzenberg, M. Wolf, G. Jakob, M. Kläui, T. Seifert, and T. Kampfrath, Broadband spintronic terahertz source with peak electric fields exceeding 1.5 MV/cm, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 03...

    2023

  71. [79]

    Choi, C.-H

    G.-M. Choi, C.-H. Moon, B.-C. Min, K.-J. Lee, and D. G. Cahill, Thermal spin-transfer torque driven by the spin- dependent Seebeck effect in metallic spin-valves, Nat. Phys.11, 576 (2015)

    2015

  72. [80]

    Alekhin, I

    A. Alekhin, I. Razdolski, N. Ilin, J. P. Meyburg, D. Diesing, V. Roddatis, I. Rungger, M. Stamenova, S. Sanvito, U. Bovensiepen, and A. Melnikov, Femtosec- ond spin current pulses generated by the nonthermal spin-dependent Seebeck effect and interacting with fer- romagnets in ...

    2017

  73. [81]

    Beens, K

    M. Beens, K. A. de Mare, R. A. Duine, and B. Koop- mans, Spin-polarized hot electron transport versus spin pumping mediated by local heating, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter35, 035803 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Jechumtál, R

    J. Jechumtál, R. Rouzegar, O. Gueckstock, C. Denker, W. Hoppe, Q. Remy, T. S. Seifert, P. Kubaščík, G. Woltersdorf, P. W. Brouwer, M. Münzenberg, T. Kampfrath, and L. Nádvorník, Accessing ultrafast spin-transport dynamics in copper using broadband tera- hertz spectroscopy, Phy...

    2024

  75. [83]

    Tserkovnyak, A

    Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, En- hanced Gilbert Damping in Thin Ferromagnetic Films, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 117601 (2002)

    2002

  76. [84]

    Wieczorek, A

    J. Wieczorek, A. Eschenlohr, B. Weidtmann, M. Rös- ner, N. Bergeard, A. Tarasevitch, T. O. Wehling, and U. Bovensiepen, Separation of ultrafast spin currents and spin-flip scattering in Co/Cu(001) driven by femtosecond laser excitation employing the complex magneto-optical Ker...

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.