Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Massively parallel atomistic simulation of ultrafast thermal spin dynamics of a permalloy vortex

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a permalloy vortex demagnetizes on the same sub-picosecond timescale as bulk permalloy, and that the vortex survives the laser pulse.

desk verdict First atomistic spin dynamics study of a laser-excited permalloy vortex, with a plausible but under-supported central claim about demagnetization time being independent of topology. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08885 v1 pith:Y5WRAK4T submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Daniel Meilak , Sarah Jenkins , Rory Pond , Richard F. L. Evans This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall PACS 75.78.Jp
keywords ultrafastdemagnetizationatomisticspindynamicsmagneticvortexpermalloyLandau-Lifshitz-Gilbertequationtwo-temperaturemodelwavestopologicalstructures
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 asks whether a topological magnetic texture—specifically a permalloy vortex—responds to an ultrafast laser pulse differently from a uniformly magnetized sample. Using massively parallel atomistic spin dynamics, it simulates a 70-nm permalloy nanodot containing a vortex and compares its demagnetization to a bulk-like sample. The central finding is that the normalized demagnetization curves of the Fe and Ni sublattices are almost exactly the same in both cases, so the characteristic demagnetization time is unaffected by the vortex. The paper concludes that demagnetization is governed by atomic-scale properties—chiefly the ratio of magnetic moment to damping—rather than by macroscopic magnetic texture. This matters because thermal laser control of domain walls, skyrmions, and other topological textures would operate on the same ultrafast timescales as in uniform material, and because the vortex itself survives the pulse.

What carries the argument

The central object is the atomistic spin model of permalloy: classical Heisenberg exchange between nearest-neighbor Fe and Ni spins on an fcc lattice, plus cubic anisotropy and a macrocell dipole field. The dynamics are integrated with the stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, with a Langevin thermal field whose temperature is rescaled by an exponent fitted to bulk permalloy to emulate quantum statistics, and with the electron temperature evolved by a two-temperature model. The decisive comparison is the normalized perpendicular magnetization as a function of time after a 50 fs pulse, plotted separately for the Fe and Ni sublattices in both the vortex nanodot and the bulk-like sample. The vortex itself is initialized by quenching a random spin configuration under critical damping, which relaxes into the vortex ground state in about 100 ps.

What would settle it

Time-resolved X-ray magnetic circular dichroism or another absolute magnetometry probe could measure the total magnetization of a vortex nanodot and a uniformly magnetized film under identical 50 fs pulses; if the vortex's absolute demagnetization depth or recovery time differs from the film's, the claim that topological structure has no effect on demagnetization would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that a topologically nontrivial magnetic structure does not change the ultrafast demagnetization of a ferromagnet. Simulating a 70-nm permalloy nanodot containing a vortex and a bulk-like uniformly magnetized sample under identical 50 fs laser pulses, the authors find that the normalized demagnetization curves of the Fe and Ni sublattices are almost exactly the same in both geometries. Different sublattices demagnetize at different rates because of their different atomic moments, and this difference is identical in the vortex and bulk. The authors conclude that the demagnetization time is set by atomic-scale properties and that macroscopic magnetic textures play no perceptible role on the sub-picosecond timescale. They further find that the vortex survives the strong excitation, re-forming within about 5 ps, while edge spin waves persist and drive long-lived oscillations of the perpendicular magnetization for over a nanosecond.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison relies on normalizing demagnetization curves to the initial perpendicular magnetization, which is about 95% in the bulk-like sample but only 12.5% in the vortex nanodot, so differences in absolute magnetization loss or in-plane dynamics could be hidden by the normalization.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In permalloy, the characteristic demagnetization time of each sublattice is determined by its atomic magnetic moment and damping, and the same value applies with or without a vortex texture.
  • A permalloy vortex core survives a strong 50 fs laser pulse and re-forms within about 5 ps, while the surrounding structure continues to relax on longer timescales.
  • Strong edge spin waves launched by the pulse persist beyond a nanosecond and produce long-lived oscillations in the perpendicular magnetization.
  • Thermal laser manipulation of topological structures such as domain walls and skyrmions can be expected to act on the same sub-picosecond demagnetization timescale as in uniform material.
  • Atomistic spin dynamics can resolve ultrafast, high-temperature dynamics of nanoscale topological structures that continuum micromagnetics cannot.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the comparison uses normalized perpendicular magnetization, a more direct test would be to track the total magnetization magnitude; if the vortex redistributes angular momentum in-plane, normalized curves could agree while absolute demagnetization differs.
  • The texture independence of the demagnetization time suggests that atomistic simulations of demagnetization in patterned devices could, for short times, omit long-range dipole fields and rely on smaller simulation cells without changing the demagnetization dynamics.
  • A natural extension is to test the same question in materials with stronger anisotropy or with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, where the topological texture has a higher energy cost and could couple more strongly to the spin dynamics.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports massive parallel atomistic spin dynamics simulations of the ultrafast response of a permalloy (Ni80Fe20) magnetic vortex nanodot to a 50 fs laser pulse. The model uses a stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with a Heisenberg exchange Hamiltonian, cubic anisotropy, dipole fields, spin temperature rescaling, and a two-temperature electron bath. The authors first simulate a small bulk-like saturated sample, then a 70 nm diameter, 20 nm thick nanodot containing a vortex, and compare the perpendicular magnetization response of Fe and Ni sublattices. The central claim, stated in the conclusion, is that the characteristic demagnetization time is unaffected by topological magnetic structures, that the vortex recovers its structure within tens of picoseconds, and that long-lived edge spin waves persist beyond a nanosecond.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper makes a useful contribution by showing that atomistic simulations can address a question that continuum micromagnetics cannot, namely whether a non-collinear topological texture modifies the sub-picosecond demagnetization pathway. The paper is also valuable as a demonstration of large-scale atomistic spin dynamics on a realistic nanodot geometry, complementing recent ultrafast experiments on vortex structures. Its main strengths are the use of a well-defined atomistic Hamiltonian with explicit thermal fluctuations, the explicit construction of a relaxed vortex ground state, and the direct comparison of Fe and Ni sublattice dynamics. The manuscript does not, however, provide independent validation of several phenomenological ingredients, and the central comparison is based on a single stochastic trajectory and a normalization that may mix true demagnetization with spin reorientation and spin-wave dynamics.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV, Fig. 4] The conclusion that the characteristic demagnetization time is unaffected by topological structure rests on Fig. 4, which plots M_z normalized to its pre-pulse value. Because the bulk-like sample starts at about 95% of saturation while the vortex sample starts at about 12.5% (stated in Sec. IV), the comparison can mix true demagnetization with spin reorientation, vortex-core motion, and the edge-spin-wave tilting that the paper itself identifies. Two normalized curves from different baselines can coincide even when the absolute magnetization response differs. The paper should report the un-normalized sublattice magnetization or the total |M|, and ideally a spatially resolved local magnetization in the vortex core and edge regions, before claiming that the demagnetization curves are 'almost exactly the same.'
  2. [Sec. II and Sec. IV, Figs. 2-4] The simulations are stochastic Langevin dynamics, but all demagnetization curves appear to come from a single thermal seed with no ensemble averaging and no error bars. On the sub-picosecond timescale a single realization can differ noticeably from the mean, and the 'almost exact agreement' in Fig. 4 is therefore not yet quantified against run-to-run noise. The authors should provide averages over at least several independent seeds and state the spread, or otherwise justify that a single trajectory is representative for the comparison.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (4)] The spin-temperature rescaling exponent eta = 1.63 is fitted from experimental bulk permalloy magnetization (Ref. [22]), so the agreement in Fig. 1 and the bulk short-time demagnetization obtained with this parameter are not an independent validation of the model. The paper should state this explicitly and, more importantly, test the sensitivity of the vortex-versus-bulk comparison to eta and to the unspecified two-temperature model parameters, which are only said to be 'approximately the same as Nickel' as used in Ref. [13]. This sensitivity is relevant because the central claim concerns the demagnetization time, whose absolute value depends on these parameters.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (5)] The statement in Sec. IV that Eq. (5) applies 'only at the atomic scale' is not supported by any quantitative extraction of tau_demag from the curves in Fig. 4. The curves are visually similar, but no demagnetization time, fit, or confidence interval is given for either geometry or sublattice. The authors should quantify tau_demag, for example by fitting the initial decay over the first approximately 0.2-0.5 ps, and demonstrate that the difference between vortex and bulk is below the run-to-run uncertainty; otherwise the conclusion is stronger than the evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II] The two-temperature model parameters are not specified; 'approximately the same as Nickel as used in [13]' is too vague for reproducibility. Please list the electronic and lattice heat capacities, the electron-phonon coupling constant, and the laser fluence or pulse profile used in the simulations.
  2. [Fig. 3] The color scale for the spin configuration snapshots (panels b-m) is not defined in the caption. A color bar or a description of which spin component is shown would greatly improve interpretability of the edge spin wave and vortex recovery claims.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'sublatttices' should read 'sublattices.'
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The sentence in the abstract about simulations 'in the near future' providing 'unprecedented insight' is speculative and promotional; it would be better placed in a perspective or removed, since the paper already has a concrete scientific conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the vortex-versus-bulk demagnetization comparison is an emergent simulation output, and the fitted rescaling exponent is calibrated to external equilibrium data rather than to the demagnetization curves being compared.

full rationale

The paper's central claim that the characteristic demagnetization time is unaffected by topological structure rests on a direct comparison of two atomistic spin dynamics simulations (Fig. 4). Both branches use the same Hamiltonian (Eq. 1), the same stochastic LLG integrator (Eqs. 2-3), and the same spin-temperature rescaling (Eq. 4), so the comparison is not shaped by any parameter fitted separately to the vortex or bulk demagnetization response. The rescaling exponent eta=1.63 is fitted to external equilibrium magnetization data for bulk Permalloy [22], not to the ultrafast demagnetization times or to the vortex result; this is a calibration of the thermal model, not a fit of the predicted quantity. The benchmark against Radu et al. [18] involves an overlapping author but is an experimental measurement, and it is used as a qualitative validation of the bulk dynamics rather than as an input to the vortex comparison. Citations to VAMPIRE [16] and to spin-temperature rescaling [21] are open method/code references, not uniqueness theorems or unverified self-citations that forbid alternative models. The reader's concern about normalizing M_z from a 12.5% vortex baseline is a legitimate question about whether the reported observable faithfully isolates demagnetization from spin reorientation and edge-mode tilting, but it is a validation/measurement-proxy issue, not a circularity: the paper does not define the demagnetization time in terms of the fitted data, and no equation reduces the conclusion to its inputs. No circular step can be exhibited from the text.

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

The central comparison depends on the spin Hamiltonian, the Langevin thermal bath with a bulk-fitted temperature rescaling, the two-temperature electron temperature profile, the dipole field approximation, and the vortex preparation protocol. None of these are independently derived in this paper, and the two-temperature model parameters are not stated.

free parameters (6)
  • Temperature rescaling exponent eta = 1.63
    Fitted from experimental bulk permalloy magnetization data (ref 22); used in Eq. 4 for both equilibrium and Langevin dynamics. This is the main calibration knob of the model.
  • Heisenberg exchange J_ij = 3.78 x 10^-21 J/link
    Nearest-neighbor exchange parameter from a prior atomistic permalloy model; it strongly controls the Curie temperature and the demagnetization timescale.
  • Cubic anisotropy kc = 3.355 x 10^-26 J/atom
    Input anisotropy from the prior model; small but affects vortex energetics and spin wave frequencies.
  • Gilbert damping lambda = 0.0064
    Microscopic damping parameter from a prior model; together with the spin moments it sets the demagnetization time through the tau_demag proportional to mu/alpha relation.
  • Atomic moments mu_Fe and mu_Ni = 2.9 mu_B and 0.62 mu_B
    Set from experimental alloy moments (ref 18); these directly determine the distinct sublattice demagnetization curves.
  • Two-temperature model parameters = not stated
    Electron-phonon coupling and heat capacities are 'assumed approximately the same as Nickel as used in [13]' but are never listed numerically. They set the entire electron temperature profile driving the demagnetization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Classical Heisenberg spin dynamics with spin temperature rescaling reproduces quantum-statistical equilibrium and ultrafast demagnetization of permalloy
    Invoked throughout Eqs. 1-4 and refs [16,21]; the central prediction inherits any systematic error from this approximation.
  • domain assumption The two-temperature model with nickel parameters describes the laser heating of permalloy
    Stated directly in the methods as 'parameters assumed approximately the same as Nickel as used in [13]'; no permalloy-specific values or sensitivity analysis are given.
  • domain assumption The quenched random-spin state followed by 1 ns relaxation yields the equilibrium vortex used as initial condition
    One cooling protocol for one system size is used; no evidence is provided that this prepared vortex is representative of experimental vortex states.
  • domain assumption The 10 nm periodic cube represents bulk permalloy
    Used for the bulk baseline in Fig. 2 and Fig. 4; periodic boundary conditions remove surfaces that exist in the nanodot and could affect the comparison.
  • domain assumption The macrocell dipole field approximation with 1 nm cells is accurate for vortex dynamics
    Dipole fields are crucial for vortex stability, but the approximation error is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Massively parallel atomistic simulation of ultrafast thermal spin dynamics of a permalloy vortex." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y5WRAK4T

@misc{pith2026190808885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Massively parallel atomistic simulation of ultrafast thermal spin dynamics of a permalloy vortex},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y5WRAK4T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08885}
}
read the original abstract

Ultrafast magnetization dynamics probes the most fundamental properties of magnetic materials, exploring questions about the fundamental interactions responsible for magnetic phenomena. Thermal effects are known to be extremely important for laser-induced dynamics in metallic systems, but the dynamics of topological magnetic structures are little understood. Here we apply a massively parallel atomistic spin dynamics simulation to study the response of a permalloy vortex to a 50 fs laser pulse. We find that macroscopically the short timescale dynamics are indistinguishable from the bulk, but that strong edge spin waves lead to a complex time evolution of the magnetic structure and long-lived oscillations on the nanosecond timescale. In the near future such simulations will provide unprecedented insight into the dynamics of magnetic materials and devices beyond the approximations of continuum micromagnetics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08885 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Simulated temperature dependent magnetiza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Color online) (a) Simulated ultrafast demagnetization dynamics of the z-component of the magnetization for the Permalloy nanodot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (Color online) Comparative simulated demagnetization of Ni [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    C. Luo, Y . Fu, D. Zhang, S. Yuan, Y . Zhai, S. Dong, and H. Zhai, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 374, 711 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [13]

    Atxitia, O

    U. Atxitia, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, J. Walowski, A. Mann, and M. M¨unzenberg, Phys. Rev. B 81, 174401 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [1]

    Beaurepaire, J.-C

    E. Beaurepaire, J.-C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J.-Y . Bigot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4250 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [2]

    A. V . Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, P. A. Usachev, R. V . Pisarev, A. M. Balbashov, and T. Rasing, Nature 435, 655 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [3]

    C. D. Stanciu, F. Hansteen, A. V . Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, and T. Rasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 047601 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [4]

    Mangin, M

    S. Mangin, M. Gottwald, C.-H. Lambert, D. Steil, V . Uhl ´ır, L. Pang, M. Hehn, S. Alebrand, M. Cinchetti, G. Malinowski, Y . Fainman, M. Aeschlimann, and E. E. Fullerton, Nature Ma- terials 13, 286 EP (2014), article

    work page 2014

  7. [5]

    I. Radu, K. Vahaplar, C. Stamm, T. Kachel, N. Pontius, H. A. Durr, T. A. Ostler, J. Barker, R. F. L. Evans, R. W. Chantrell, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, A. Kirilyuk, T. Rasing, and A. V . Kimel, Nature 472, 205 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [6]

    T. A. Ostler, J. Barker, R. F. L. Evans, R. W. Chantrell, U. Atxi- tia, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, S. El Moussaoui, L. Le Guyader, E. Mengotti, L. J. Heyderman, F. Nolting, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, D. Afanasiev, B. A. Ivanov, A. M. Kalashnikova, K. Va- haplar, J. Mentink, A. Kirilyuk, T. Rasing, and A. V . Kimel, Nat. Commun. 3, 666 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    Le Guyader, S

    L. Le Guyader, S. El Moussaoui, M. Buzzi, R. V . Chopdekar, L. J. Heyderman, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, A. Kirilyuk, T. Ras- ing, A. V . Kimel, and F. Nolting, Applied Physics Letters 101, 022410 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4733965

    2012 doi

  2. [8]

    X. Fu, S. D. Pollard, B. Chen, B.-K. Yoo, H. Yang, and Y . Zhu, Science Advances 4 (2018), 10.1126/sciadv.aat3077, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/7/eaat3077.full.pdf

    2018 doi

  3. [9]

    Shinjo, T

    T. Shinjo, T. Okuno, R. Hassdorf, †. K. Shigeto, and T. Ono, Science 289, 930 (2000), https://science.sciencemag.org/content/289/5481/930.full.pdf

    2000

  4. [10]

    Scholz, J

    W. Scholz, J. Fidler, T. Schrefl, D. Suess, R. Dittrich, H. Forster, and V . Tsiantos, Comp. Mater. Sci.28, 366 (2003), proceedings of the Symposium on Software Development for Process and Materials Design

    2003

  5. [11]

    G. M. Wysin and W. Figueiredo, Phys. Rev. B 86, 104421 (2012)

    2012

  6. [12]

    Iacocca, T.-M

    E. Iacocca, T.-M. Liu, A. H. Reid, Z. Fu, S. Ruta, P. W. Gran- itzka, E. Jal, S. Bonetti, A. X. Gray, C. E. Graves, R. Kukreja, Z. Chen, D. J. Higley, T. Chase, L. Le Guyader, K. Hirsch, H. Ohldag, W. F. Schlotter, G. L. Dakovski, G. Coslovich, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Carron, A. Ts...

    2019

  7. [14]

    Hinzke, U

    D. Hinzke, U. Atxitia, K. Carva, P. Nieves, O. Chubykalo- Fesenko, P. M. Oppeneer, and U. Nowak, Phys. Rev. B 92, 054412 (2015)

    2015

  8. [15]

    K. M. Lebecki and U. Nowak, Phys. Rev. B 89, 014421 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    R. F. L. Evans, W. J. Fan, P. Chureemart, T. A. Ostler, M. O. A. Ellis, and R. W. Chantrell, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 26, 103202 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Skubic, J

    B. Skubic, J. Hellsvik, L. Nordstr ˜A¶m, and O. Eriksson, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 20, 315203 (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    I. Radu, C. Stamm, A. Eschenlohr, F. Radu, R. Abrudan, K. Vahaplar, T. Kachel, N. Pontius, R. Mitzner, K. Holl- dack, A. F ˜A¶hlisch, T. A. Ostler, J. H. Mentink, R. F. L. Evans, R. W. Chantrell, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, A. Kiri- lyuk, A. V . Kimel, and T. Rasing, SPIN 05, 15500...

    2015 doi

  12. [19]

    J. D. Alzate-Cardona, D. Sabogal-Su ´arez, R. F. L. Evans, and E. Restrepo-Parra, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 31, 095802 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    VAMPIRE software package, (2019), version 5.0 Available from https://vampire.york.ac.uk/

    2019

  14. [21]

    R. F. L. Evans, U. Atxitia, and R. W. Chantrell, Phys. Rev. B 91, 144425 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    M. O. A. Ellis, R. F. L. Evans, T. A. Ostler, J. Barker, U. Atxitia, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, and R. W. Chantrell, Low Temperature Physics 41, 705 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4930971

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    S. I. Anisimov, B. L. Kapeliovich, and T. L. Perelman, Zhurnal Eksperimentalnoi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki 66, 776 (1974)

    1974

  17. [25]

    G. J. Bowden, G. B. G. Stenning, and G. van der Laan, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 28, 066001 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Koopmans, G

    B. Koopmans, G. Malinowski, F. Dalla Longa, D. Steiauf, M. Fahnle, T. Roth, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Nat. Mater. 9, 259 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. He, L.-C. Peng, Y . Zhang, J.-W. Cai, R. F. L. Evans, X.-Q. Zhang, and Z.-H. Cheng, Nanotechnology 29, 275703 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    T. Roth, A. J. Schellekens, S. Alebrand, O. Schmitt, D. Steil, B. Koopmans, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Phys. Rev. X 2, 021006 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Atxitia, T

    U. Atxitia, T. Ostler, J. Barker, R. F. L. Evans, R. W. Chantrell, and O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, Phys. Rev. B 87, 224417 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    Y . Yang, R. B. Wilson, J. Gorchon, C.-H. Lambert, S. Salahuddin, and J. Bokor, Sci- ence Advances 3 (2017), 10.1126/sciadv.1603117, https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/11/e1603117.full.pdf

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    La-O-V orakiat, M

    C. La-O-V orakiat, M. Siemens, M. M. Murnane, H. C. Kapteyn, S. Mathias, M. Aeschlimann, P. Grychtol, R. Adam, C. M. Schneider, J. M. Shaw, H. Nembach, and T. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 257402 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Mathias, C

    S. Mathias, C. La-O-V orakiat, P. Grychtol, P. Granitzka, E. Turgut, J. M. Shaw, R. Adam, H. T. Nembach, M. E. Siemens, S. Eich, C. M. Schneider, T. J. Silva, M. Aeschli- mann, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 4792 (2012), ...

    2012

  25. [33]

    R. F. L. Evans, T. A. Ostler, R. W. Chantrell, I. Radu, and T. Rasing, Applied Physics Letters 104, 082410 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4867015

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Rubiano da Silva, M

    N. Rubiano da Silva, M. M¨oller, A. Feist, H. Ulrichs, C. Ropers, and S. Sch¨afer, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031052 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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