Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Separating terahertz spin and charge contributions from ultrathin antiferromagnetic heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Pith's one-line read Terahertz emission from Pt/NiO heterostructures has two separable components: nonmagnetic difference-frequency generation and radiation from laser-quenched, field-canted NiO moments.

desk verdict Strong experimental separation of field-dependent and field-independent THz emission in Pt/NiO, but the symmetry argument contradicts itself: the same centrosymmetric NiO is used to forbid electric-dipole Ey while allowing electric-dipole DFG for Ex. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13870 v1 pith:KRSCUGAB submitted 2024-12-18 cond-mat.mes-hall

classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords antiferromagneticspintronicsterahertzemissionspectroscopyNiO/Ptheterostructuresultrafastdemagnetizationdifferencefrequencygenerationpolarimetryspincanting
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

Using magnetic fields up to 7 T and polarization-resolved detection of the emitted terahertz field, the paper separates two contributions from Pt/NiO(111). The field-independent component $E_x$ is assigned to optical difference-frequency generation, a nonmagnetic process. The field-dependent component $E_y$ appears only when the field cants the antiparallel NiO sublattices, changes sign with field reversal, and is assigned to ultrafast laser-induced demagnetization of the resulting net moment, with $\Delta E_y \propto M_x \propto \mu_0 H_x$. The authors emphasize that spin transport and coherent magnons contribute no measurable signal. If this reading is right, it resolves the dispute about the microscopic origin of terahertz emission from heavy-metal/antiferromagnet heterostructures by pointing to a local magnetic-dipole mechanism rather than spin current injection.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-component decomposition $E_\mathrm{THz}=E_x\mathbf{e}_x+E_y\mathbf{e}_y$, separated by terahertz polarimetry in a cryostat at fields up to 7 T, with sample rotation $\varphi$ and pump polarization $\alpha$ as controlled symmetry probes. The identity that carries the magnetic claim is $\Delta E_y \propto M_x \propto \mu_0 H_x$: the field-induced net moment from sublattice canting radiates as a magnetic dipole, and because NiO is centrosymmetric the alternative electric-dipole channel $\mathbf{P}\cdot\mathbf{E}$ is symmetry-forbidden. The same symmetry apparatus assigns $E_x$ to the $\chi_{yyx}$ difference-frequency generation tensor element under the crystal's $3m$ symmetry, and the platinum layer is the enabling mediator that couples the laser energy into the NiO spins.

What would settle it

Heat the Pt/NiO sample above its magnetic ordering temperature and repeat the field-dependent terahertz polarimetry: if the linearly field-induced $E_y$ component persists above the Néel temperature, the claim that it is radiation from canted antiferromagnetic sublattices is wrong. The nonmagnetic $E_x$ difference-frequency component should survive the transition, whereas the demagnetization component should vanish with the ordered moments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the two orthogonal components of the emitted terahertz field carry different physics. At zero field, only $E_x$ is present; its 120° dependence on sample rotation matches the $3m$ crystallographic symmetry of NiO and its 180° dependence on pump polarization is assigned to the rhombohedral distortion, so the paper concludes that this component is pure difference-frequency generation originating in the NiO layer itself, and that it does not reverse when the opposite side of the sample is pumped. In an in-plane magnetic field, a second component $E_y$ appears that is linear in fluence, temperature, and field, changes sign when the field is reversed, and vanishes when the field is parallel to the spins. The paper identifies this component with magnetic-dipole radiation from the net moment created by field-induced canting of the two NiO sublattices and describes the process as picosecond demagnetization of canted spins, with platinum acting as the hot-electron mediator that delivers energy to the NiO spin system. It explicitly states the absence of spin transport effects and of coherent magnon signatures.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on NiO being centrosymmetric: that forbids the electric-dipole route for the field-dependent emission and forces the magnetic-dipole interpretation, while the same crystal is still credited with an electric-dipole difference-frequency process for the field-independent component.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Terahertz emission from heavy-metal/antiferromagnet stacks does not require ultrafast spin transport: a local demagnetization of field-canted moments can produce the magnetic component.
  • The 2.3 THz oscillatory tail, previously attributed to coherent magnons in similar Pt/NiO samples, is reinterpreted as nonmagnetic because it matches no NiO magnon eigenfrequency.
  • The field-induced $E_y$ component gives a linear, background-free readout of laser-induced demagnetization, scaling with fluence, temperature, and applied field.
  • The platinum layer is not merely a spin-current detector but an active energy-transfer mediator; without it, no magnetic terahertz signal is observed.
  • High-field terahertz polarimetry offers a general procedure for identifying genuine magnetic terahertz responses against purely optical nonlinearities in other heterostructures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to other centrosymmetric antiferromagnets with non-collinear sublattices, the same high-field polarimetry should yield a linear $E_y \propto H$ component only when the field cants the moments; the selection rule could serve as a fingerprint of magnetic-dipole terahertz emission.
  • Because the nonmagnetic component persists in bare NiO at about half the amplitude, a systematic NiO-thickness series could separate the NiO bulk difference-frequency contribution from interface or platinum contributions, refining background subtraction for future spin-transport searches.
  • The proportionality between emitted field and canting angle suggests the technique could act as an all-optical probe of the sublattice canting angle and of the spin-flop threshold in antiferromagnetic thin films.
  • If the same two-component decomposition holds above and below the Néel temperature, the temperature dependence of $E_y$ could be used to locate the magnetic ordering transition in buried antiferromagnetic layers.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports terahertz emission spectroscopy on Pt/NiO(111) heterostructures with applied in-plane magnetic fields up to 7 T and polarization-resolved detection. It separates the emitted THz field into a zero-field x-polarized component that is independent of the magnetic field and a field-induced y-polarized component that is linear in the applied field and appears only when the field is perpendicular to the NiO spin direction. Through front/back illumination, fluence dependence, and rotation scans, the authors rule out spin-transport and coherent-magnon origins for the zero-field component and assign it to electric-dipole difference-frequency generation. The field-induced component is assigned to picosecond demagnetization of canted NiO sublattices, with ΔEy ∝ Mx ∝ μ0Hx, and the role of the Pt layer as a mediator is emphasized.

Significance. The high-field THz polarimetry methodology is a genuine advance: the zero-field symmetry scans, front/back pumping control, and linear-fluence tests are well-designed and provide strong evidence that the zero-field Ex component is non-magnetic. If the identification of Ey as magnetic-dipole emission from canted-spin demagnetization is correct, the paper would resolve a longstanding controversy and provide a general protocol for separating charge and spin channels in heavy-metal/antiferromagnet heterostructures. However, the symmetry argument supporting the magnetic assignment contains an internal contradiction that must be repaired before the central claim is secure.

major comments (3)
  1. The exclusion of the electric-dipole mechanism for Ey is internally inconsistent with the assignment of Ex to electric-dipole DFG. The text states that the electric-dipole contribution 'is not the case for NiO, as it is centrosymmetric', while in the same paragraph it assigns Ex to Py(ω_THz)=χyyx Ey(ω_NIR,1) Ex*(ω_NIR,2), states that 'the origin is of electric dipole nature', and attributes the 120° pattern to the '3m symmetry' of NiO. The point group 3m does not contain inversion, and the electric-dipole χ^(2) of a centrosymmetric point group vanishes; the two statements cannot both refer to the same bulk symmetry. The manuscript never specifies whether the operative symmetry is the crystallographic space group (centrosymmetric for NiO) or the magnetic point group of the antiferromagnetic phase, and it does not address the possibility that magnetic ordering lowers the symmetry enough to allow electric-dipole second-order processes. This matters directly for the field-induced term Py=Σχ^e_{yijx}EiEjHx: if the magnetic point group permits electric-dipole DFG, it may also permit this field-induced electric-dipole term, so the conclusion that Ey must be magnetic-dipole emission loses its only symmetry-based support. The authors should perform the tensor analysis in the explicit magnetic point group and, if they intend the crystallographic group, explain where inversion is broken.
  2. The controls that rule out a magnetic origin for Ex do not localize the DFG source. The front/back illumination experiment excludes the sign reversal expected for spin transport, but it does not distinguish bulk electric-dipole DFG, interface electric-dipole DFG, or electric-quadrupole DFG. This ambiguity becomes load-bearing once the symmetry argument is repaired: a source at the Pt/NiO interface, where inversion is certainly broken, would make both the zero-field Ex and the field-induced Ey electric-dipole processes, and the linear Ey(H) and linear-fluence observations would not discriminate. A thickness series of Pt and NiO, or a comparison with a nonmagnetic centrosymmetric control, would test the interface-to-bulk ratio.
  3. The assignment of Ey to magnetic-dipole radiation is not uniquely forced by the data, because the same signatures are expected from a spin-current channel. Ey is linear in the applied field, linear in fluence, and is observed only with the Pt cap; these are also the signatures of laser-induced demagnetization of the canted NiO moment followed by spin-current injection into Pt and inverse spin Hall conversion into a transverse charge current, which radiates as an electric dipole. The front/back and fluence controls were applied to the zero-field Ex component only, so the field-induced component is not tested against the inverse spin Hall mechanism. A Pt-thickness series or a comparison with a heavy metal of opposite spin Hall angle would provide a direct test.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] The phrase '3 m translational symmetry' should be replaced by the correct point-group or space-group designation; as written, '3m' (a point group without inversion) and 'centrosymmetric' are used for the same material without reconciliation, which is precisely the point that needs to be clarified in the major comments.
  2. [Main text, paragraph on spin canting] The sentence containing 'contrary to the the aforementioned spin canting' has a duplicated article and should read 'contrary to the aforementioned spin canting.'
  3. [End matter, paragraph on pure NiO] The spelling 'Neél temperature' should be 'Néel temperature.'
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The word 'unambiguously' in the abstract is stronger than the current analysis supports, given the unresolved symmetry issue; the wording should be rephrased after the major points are addressed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin/charge separation is grounded in measured field, fluence, illumination-side, and rotation symmetries, not in fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central assignments do not reduce to their inputs. The Ex component is identified as non-magnetic difference-frequency generation from the front/back illumination sign test, the linear fluence dependence, and the 120-degree and 180-degree rotation periodicities. The Ey component is identified as magnetic demagnetization from its linear dependence on the applied field, its sign reversal with field polarity, its absence at zero field and at phi = 0 degrees, and the Pt/NiO versus NiO control. None of these quantities is defined in terms of the conclusion it supports. The relation Delta-Ey proportional to Mx proportional to mu0-Hx is an interpretation of observed linearity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations include overlapping authors, but Ref. 14 only documents the experimental setup, Ref. 13 is a published external result, and Ref. 11 is used as corroboration after the paper's own Pt/NiO versus NiO measurement demonstrates the need for Pt. The internal tension over electric-dipole difference-frequency generation in a nominally centrosymmetric NiO crystal is a consistency or correctness concern, not circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on standard antiferromagnet physics (spin canting, magnetic dipole radiation) and symmetry arguments. One domain assumption is internally inconsistent with the paper's own DFG assignment: NiO is called centrosymmetric to forbid an electric-dipole Ey, while Ex is assigned to electric-dipole DFG. No fitted parameters are used to force the mechanism; the only fitted quantity is the descriptive slope of the field dependence.

free parameters (1)
  • slope of ΔEy versus applied field = not reported (linear fit in Fig. 1(c))
    Fit characterizes the linear field dependence attributed to spin canting; the slope value is not used in any theoretical prediction, so it is a descriptive fit rather than a model parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption NiO is centrosymmetric below TN, so an electric-dipole contribution of the form P·E is symmetry-forbidden and the field-induced Ey must be magnetic-dipole emission.
    Used in the paragraph beginning 'We furthermore observe that the electric dipole contribution implies...' to exclude the χ^e term for Ey. The paper does not reconcile this with its own assignment of Ex to electric-dipole DFG in the same material.
  • domain assumption A magnetic field perpendicular to the NiO sublattices produces a linear spin canting M = M1 + M2, with about 1 degree of canting at 7 T.
    Invoked to connect ΔEy to Mx and to justify the estimate of the canting angle via kTN = BexM. No direct magnetization measurement is shown.
  • domain assumption The 2.3 THz damped oscillations in Ex are non-magnetic because no NiO magnon eigenfrequency equals 2.3 THz.
    Used to rule out coherent magnon signatures; relies on literature magnon frequencies rather than a mode assignment performed on this sample.
  • domain assumption If spin transport contributed to the THz emission, pumping the opposite side of the sample would reverse the sign of the emitted signal.
    This sign-reversal symmetry argument is the basis for excluding spin transport; it is standard but not independently verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption Magnetic dipole radiation from a time-varying magnetization can account for the amplitude of the observed THz emission.
    The paper assumes the magnetization quenching radiates as a magnetic dipole; the amplitude comparison with weak ferromagnets and Co/Pt emitters is plausibility evidence, not a derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Separating terahertz spin and charge contributions from ultrathin antiferromagnetic heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KRSCUGAB

@misc{pith2026241213870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Separating terahertz spin and charge contributions from ultrathin antiferromagnetic heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KRSCUGAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13870}
}
read the original abstract

Femtosecond laser excitation of nanometer thin heterostructures comprising a heavy metal and a magnetically ordered material is known to result in the emission of terahertz radiation. However, the nature of the emitted radiation from heavy metal~/~antiferromagnet heterostructures has sparked debates and controversies in the literature. Here, we unambiguously separate spin and charge contributions from Pt~/~NiO heterostructures by introducing an unprecedented methodology combining high external magnetic fields with a symmetry analysis of the emitted terahertz polarization. We observe two distinct mechanisms of terahertz emission which we identify as optical difference frequency generation and ultrafast laser-induced quenching of the magnetization. We emphasize the absence of spin transport effects and signatures of coherent magnons. Overall, our work provides a general experimental methodology to separate spin and charge contributions to the laser-induced terahertz emission from heterostructures comprising a magnetically ordered material thus holding great potential for advancing terahertz spintronics and establishing terahertz orbitronics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13870 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Separating spin and charge contributions by high magnetic field terahertz polarimetry. (a) Ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Separating spin and charge contributions by symmetry. Non-magnetic (a-b) and magnetic (c-d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The role of the Platinum for accessing the antiferromagnetic spin system. (a) Non-magnetic DFG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Němec , author M

    author author P. Němec , author M. Fiebig , author T. Kampfrath , \ and\ author A. V. \ Kimel ,\ title title Antiferromagnetic opto-spintronics , \ 10.1038/s41567-018-0051-x journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 14 ,\ pages 229--241 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

  2. [2]

    Jungwirth , author X

    author author T. Jungwirth , author X. Marti , author P. Wadley , \ and\ author J. Wunderlich ,\ title title Antiferromagnetic spintronics , \ 10.1038/nnano.2016.18 journal journal Nature Nanotechnology \ volume 11 ,\ pages 231--241 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

  3. [3]

    Baltz , author A

    author author V. Baltz , author A. Manchon , author M. Tsoi , author T. Moriyama , author T. Ono , \ and\ author Y. Tserkovnyak ,\ title title Antiferromagnetic spintronics , \ 10.1103/RevModPhys.90.015005 journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 90 ,\ pages 015005 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

  4. [4]

    author author M. B. \ Jungfleisch , author W. Zhang , \ and\ author A. Hoffmann ,\ title title Perspectives of antiferromagnetic spintronics , \ 10.1016/j.physleta.2018.01.008 journal journal Physics Letters A \ volume 382 ,\ pages 865--871 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

  5. [5]

    Walowski \ and\ author M

    author author J. Walowski \ and\ author M. Münzenberg ,\ title title Perspective: Ultrafast magnetism and THz spintronics , \ 10.1063/1.4958846 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 120 ,\ pages 140901 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

  6. [6]

    author author F. N. \ Kholid , author D. Hamara , author A. F. B. \ Hamdan , author G. N. \ Antonio , author R. Bowen , author D. Petit , author R. Cowburn , author R. V. \ Pisarev , author D. Bossini , \ and\ author C. Ciccarelli ,\ title title The importance of the interface for picosecond spin pumping in antiferromagnet-heavy metal heterostructures , \...

  7. [7]

    Schmoranzerová , author J

    author author E. Schmoranzerová , author J. Kimák , author R. Schlitz , author S. T. B. \ Goennenwein , author D. Kriegner , author H. Reichlová , author Z. Šobáň , author G. Jakob , author E.-J. \ Guo , author M. Kläui , author M. Münzenberg , author P. Němec , \ and\ author T. Ostatnický ,\ title title Thermally induced all-optical ferromagnetic resonan...

  8. [8]

    Qiu , author T

    author author H. Qiu , author T. S. \ Seifert , author L. Huang , author Y. Zhou , author Z. Kašpar , author C. Zhang , author J. Wu , author K. Fan , author Q. Zhang , author D. Wu , author T. Kampfrath , author C. Song , author B. Jin , author J. Chen , \ and\ author P. Wu ,\ title title Terahertz Spin Current Dynamics in Antiferromagnetic Hematite , \ ...

Show all 25 references
  1. [9]

    Qiu , author L

    author author H. Qiu , author L. Zhou , author C. Zhang , author J. Wu , author Y. Tian , author S. Cheng , author S. Mi , author H. Zhao , author Q. Zhang , author D. Wu , author B. Jin , author J. Chen , \ and\ author P. Wu ,\ title title Ultrafast spin current generated fro...

  2. [10]

    Rongione , author O

    author author E. Rongione , author O. Gueckstock , author M. Mattern , author O. Gomonay , author H. Meer , author C. Schmitt , author R. Ramos , author T. Kikkawa , author M. Mičica , author E. Saitoh , author J. Sinova , author H. Jaffrès , author J. Mangeney , author S. T. ...

  3. [11]

    Wust , author C

    author author S. Wust , author C. Seibel , author H. Meer , author P. Herrgen , author C. Schmitt , author L. Baldrati , author R. Ramos , author T. Kikkawa , author E. Saitoh , author O. Gomonay , author J. Sinova , author Y. Mokrousov , author H. C. \ Schneider , author M. K...

  4. [12]

    Higuchi , author N

    author author T. Higuchi , author N. Kanda , author H. Tamaru , \ and\ author M. Kuwata-Gonokami ,\ title title Selection Rules for Light - Induced Magnetization of a Crystal with Threefold Symmetry : The Case of Antiferromagnetic NiO , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.047401 journal...

  5. [13]

    Bossini , author M

    author author D. Bossini , author M. Pancaldi , author L. Soumah , author M. Basini , author F. Mertens , author M. Cinchetti , author T. Satoh , author O. Gomonay , \ and\ author S. Bonetti ,\ title title Ultrafast Amplification and Nonlinear Magnetoelastic Coupling of Cohere...

  6. [14]

    author author T. W. J. \ Metzger , author K. A. \ Grishunin , author D. Afanasiev , author R. M. \ Dubrovin , author E. A. \ Mashkovich , author R. V. \ Pisarev , \ and\ author A. V. \ Kimel ,\ title title Effect of antiferromagnetic order on a propagating single-cycle THz pul...

  7. [15]

    Seifert , author S

    author author T. Seifert , author S. Jaiswal , author U. Martens , author J. Hannegan , author L. Braun , author P. Maldonado , author F. Freimuth , author A. Kronenberg , author J. Henrizi , author I. Radu , author E. Beaurepaire , author Y. Mokrousov , author P. M. \ Oppenee...

  8. [16]

    author author A. G. \ Gurevich \ and\ author G. A. \ Melkov ,\ title title Magnetization Oscillations and Waves , \ @noop journal journal CRC Press \ ( year 1996 ) NoStop

  9. [17]

    Nogués , author J

    author author J. Nogués , author J. Sort , author S. Suriñach , author J. S. \ Muñoz , author M. D. \ Baró , author J. F. \ Bobo , author U. Lüders , author E. Haanappel , author M. R. \ Fitzsimmons , author A. Hoffmann , \ and\ author J. W. \ Cai ,\ title title Isothermal tun...

  10. [18]

    author author M. G. \ Cottam \ and\ author A. L. \ Awang ,\ title title The effect of anisotropy on one-magnon light scattering from antiferromagnets. I . The antiferromagnetic region , \ 10.1088/0022-3719/12/1/021 journal journal Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics \ vo...

  11. [19]

    author author F. L. A. \ Machado , author P. R. T. \ Ribeiro , author J. Holanda , author R. L. \ Rodríguez-Suárez , author A. Azevedo , \ and\ author S. M. \ Rezende ,\ title title Spin-flop transition in the easy-plane antiferromagnet nickel oxide , \ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.104...

  12. [20]

    author author R. V. \ Mikhaylovskiy , author T. J. \ Huisman , author A. I. \ Popov , author A. K. \ Zvezdin , author T. Rasing , author R. V. \ Pisarev , \ and\ author A. V. \ Kimel ,\ title title Terahertz magnetization dynamics induced by femtosecond resonant pumping of Dy ...

  13. [21]

    Mikhaylovskiy , author T

    author author R. Mikhaylovskiy , author T. Huisman , author R. Pisarev , author T. Rasing , \ and\ author A. Kimel ,\ title title Selective Excitation of Terahertz Magnetic and Electric Dipoles in Er 3 + Ions by Femtosecond Laser Pulses in ErFeO 3 , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.0...

  14. [22]

    Li , author R

    author author G. Li , author R. Medapalli , author R. V. \ Mikhaylovskiy , author F. E. \ Spada , author T. Rasing , author E. E. \ Fullerton , \ and\ author A. Kimel ,\ title title THz emission from Co / Pt bilayers with varied roughness, crystal structure, and interface inte...

  15. [23]

    Alders , author L

    author author D. Alders , author L. H. \ Tjeng , author F. C. \ Voogt , author T. Hibma , author G. A. \ Sawatzky , author C. T. \ Chen , author J. Vogel , author M. Sacchi , \ and\ author S. Iacobucci ,\ title title Temperature and thickness dependence of magnetic moments in ...

  16. [24]

    Baldrati , author A

    author author L. Baldrati , author A. Ross , author T. Niizeki , author C. Schneider , author R. Ramos , author J. Cramer , author M. Filianina , author T. Savchenko , author D. Heinze , author A. Kleibert , author E. Saitoh , \ and\ author M. Kläui ,\ title title Full angular...

  17. [25]

    Krieger , author P

    author author K. Krieger , author P. Elliott , author T. Müller , author N. Singh , author J. K. \ Dewhurst , author E. K. U. \ Gross , \ and\ author S. Sharma ,\ title title Ultrafast demagnetization in bulk versus thin films: an ab initio study , \ 10.1088/1361-648X/aa66f2 j...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.