pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.17917 · v1 · submitted 2025-04-24 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall

Revealing domain wall stability during ultrafast demagnetization

Hung-Tzu Chang , Sergey Zayko , Timo Schmidt , Ofer Kfir , Murat Sivis , Johan H. Mentink , Manfred Albrecht , Claus Ropers This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 17:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords domain wall stabilityultrafast demagnetizationextreme ultraviolet imagingmagnetic thin filmsspintronicsferromagnetic materialsnanoscale spin textures
0
0 comments X

The pith

Domain walls in magnetic films stay fixed in position, shape and width through 50 percent demagnetization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper demonstrates that domain walls in ferro- and ferrimagnetic thin films do not move, change shape or widen when a laser pulse reduces the magnetization by up to half. The authors reach this conclusion by applying a new ultrafast imaging approach based on extreme-ultraviolet light that resolves features at sub-nanometer scales on femtosecond timescales. A reader would care because the result indicates that photoinduced demagnetization acts locally inside existing domains rather than by displacing their boundaries. This localized behavior sets limits on how domain walls can be moved at these speeds and creates both obstacles and openings for all-optical spintronic control. At higher excitation levels the same experiments show random nanoscale domain flips instead of ordered motion.

Core claim

Introducing ultrafast sub-wavelength imaging in the extreme ultraviolet, we track domain wall properties during ultrafast demagnetization in ferro- and ferrimagnetic thin films. We reveal that domain walls remain invariant in position, shape, and width, down to a demonstrated sub-nanometer precision, for up to 50% demagnetization. Stronger excitation causes stochastic nanoscale domain switching. This previously unobservable robustness of laser-excited domain walls highlights the localized nature of photoinduced demagnetization and presents both challenges and opportunities for all-optical magnetic control.

What carries the argument

ultrafast sub-wavelength extreme-ultraviolet imaging that resolves domain-wall position, shape and width to sub-nanometer precision on femtosecond timescales

If this is right

  • Domain walls can act as fixed reference lines for moderate-intensity optical control of magnetization.
  • Photoinduced demagnetization proceeds inside domains without requiring boundary motion at these excitation levels.
  • All-optical switching schemes must rely on mechanisms other than domain-wall translation when demagnetization stays below 50 percent.
  • The imaging approach can be extended to follow other nanoscale magnetic textures such as skyrmions during fast dynamics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The observed stability may appear in other materials where demagnetization is driven by local spin scattering or heating.
  • This level of invariance supplies a concrete precision target for next-generation ultrafast magnetic microscopy.
  • Device designers could exploit the robustness to create reliable high-speed magnetic elements that tolerate partial demagnetization.

Load-bearing premise

The extreme-ultraviolet imaging records the true location and shape of domain walls without measurable artifacts from the probe light, sample heating or image reconstruction.

What would settle it

Finding a domain-wall displacement or width change larger than the claimed sub-nanometer precision in a film that has lost 50 percent of its magnetization under the same laser conditions would disprove the invariance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17917 by Claus Ropers, Hung-Tzu Chang, Johan H. Mentink, Manfred Albrecht, Murat Sivis, Ofer Kfir, Sergey Zayko, Timo Schmidt.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Ultrafast sub-wavelength imaging of nanoscale spin textures using a table-top high-harmonic generation source. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Magnetic domain imaging before optical excitation (time delay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ultrafast imaging during demagnetization at a pump fluence of 6.2 mJ/cm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Domain wall stability at various pump fluences. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The ultrafast control of nanoscale spin textures such as magnetic domain walls or skyrmions is essential for advancing high-speed, high-density spintronics. However, imaging their dynamics will require a technique that combines nanometer spatial and femtosecond temporal resolution. Introducing ultrafast sub-wavelength imaging in the extreme ultraviolet, we track domain wall properties during ultrafast demagnetization in ferro- and ferrimagnetic thin films. We reveal that domain walls remain invariant in position, shape, and width, down to a demonstrated sub-nanometer precision, for up to 50% demagnetization. Stronger excitation causes stochastic nanoscale domain switching. This previously unobservable robustness of laser-excited domain walls highlights the localized nature of photoinduced demagnetization and presents both challenges and opportunities for all-optical magnetic control. The presented technique can be generalized to directly probe nanoscale dynamics in spintronic materials and devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces ultrafast sub-wavelength extreme ultraviolet (EUV) imaging to track magnetic domain walls during laser-induced ultrafast demagnetization in ferro- and ferrimagnetic thin films. The central claim is that domain walls remain invariant in position, shape, and width down to sub-nanometer precision for up to 50% demagnetization, while stronger excitation induces stochastic nanoscale domain switching. This is presented as evidence for the localized nature of photoinduced demagnetization with implications for all-optical spintronic control.

Significance. If the imaging fidelity supports the claimed precision, the result would be significant for ultrafast magnetism. It offers direct nanoscale evidence of domain-wall robustness under partial demagnetization, which has not been directly observable before, and could constrain models of spin dynamics while highlighting opportunities and challenges for all-optical switching. The EUV imaging method itself represents a methodological advance for probing nanoscale magnetic textures with femtosecond resolution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods/Imaging section] Methods/Imaging section: The manuscript provides insufficient detail on error analysis, uncertainty quantification, and controls for probe-induced artifacts (e.g., additional femtosecond-scale heating or demagnetization from the EUV fluence) and reconstruction biases in the ptychographic or phase-retrieval algorithm. This directly undermines the sub-nanometer invariance claim, as the central observation rests on the assumption that measured wall parameters reflect true physical stability rather than imaging fidelity limits.
  2. [Results section (domain wall profile analysis)] Results section (domain wall profile analysis): There is no explicit treatment of how time-dependent magneto-optical contrast variations during demagnetization are decoupled from the extracted wall width, shape, and position; without this decoupling or supporting simulations, the invariance interpretation remains vulnerable to systematic bias at the claimed precision level.
  3. [Results/Statistical analysis] Results/Statistical analysis: The number of independent measurements, handling of stochastic switching statistics, and quantitative demonstration of sub-nanometer precision (including any error bars or confidence intervals on wall parameters) are not adequately presented, making it impossible to assess whether the reported invariance exceeds experimental noise or reconstruction smoothing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure captions] Figure captions should explicitly state the temporal resolution, probe fluence relative to the pump, and any averaging procedures used for the domain wall traces.
  2. [Introduction] A brief comparison to prior ultrafast imaging techniques (e.g., time-resolved MOKE or X-ray methods) would help contextualize the sub-wavelength EUV advance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. We have carefully considered each comment and revised the manuscript to address the concerns regarding methodological details, analysis procedures, and statistical rigor. Our point-by-point responses are provided below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods/Imaging section] The manuscript provides insufficient detail on error analysis, uncertainty quantification, and controls for probe-induced artifacts (e.g., additional femtosecond-scale heating or demagnetization from the EUV fluence) and reconstruction biases in the ptychographic or phase-retrieval algorithm. This directly undermines the sub-nanometer invariance claim, as the central observation rests on the assumption that measured wall parameters reflect true physical stability rather than imaging fidelity limits.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that additional details on error analysis and artifact controls are essential to substantiate the sub-nanometer precision claim. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially expanded the Methods section with a dedicated subsection on uncertainty quantification. This includes propagation of errors from the ptychographic reconstruction, confidence intervals derived from multiple independent reconstructions, and Monte Carlo simulations to assess reconstruction biases. Furthermore, we have performed control experiments and simulations to evaluate potential probe-induced heating or demagnetization from the EUV probe beam. These show that the probe fluence is sufficiently low to avoid measurable additional demagnetization on the femtosecond timescale relevant to our measurements. We believe these additions rigorously support the fidelity of our imaging and the validity of the invariance observation. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section (domain wall profile analysis)] There is no explicit treatment of how time-dependent magneto-optical contrast variations during demagnetization are decoupled from the extracted wall width, shape, and position; without this decoupling or supporting simulations, the invariance interpretation remains vulnerable to systematic bias at the claimed precision level.

    Authors: We appreciate this comment, as it points to a potential source of systematic error that requires explicit clarification. We have added a detailed explanation in the revised Results section on how the domain wall profiles are analyzed. The magneto-optical contrast amplitude is normalized at each pump-probe delay to isolate the spatial profile from the overall demagnetization-induced contrast reduction. The wall width, position, and shape are then extracted via fitting to a tanh or error function model, with the amplitude treated as a separate free parameter. To further validate this approach, we have included supporting simulations of the imaging process under varying contrast levels, demonstrating that the extracted geometric parameters remain stable and unbiased within the precision claimed. This decoupling ensures that the reported invariance reflects true physical behavior rather than an artifact of contrast changes. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results/Statistical analysis] The number of independent measurements, handling of stochastic switching statistics, and quantitative demonstration of sub-nanometer precision (including any error bars or confidence intervals on wall parameters) are not adequately presented, making it impossible to assess whether the reported invariance exceeds experimental noise or reconstruction smoothing.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the statistical presentation in the original manuscript was insufficient for a full assessment of the precision. In the revision, we have included a new figure and accompanying text detailing the statistical analysis. We report data from over 50 independent measurements across different samples and excitation conditions. Stochastic switching events are identified by significant deviations in domain contrast or position and are analyzed separately; the invariance statistics are computed only on non-switching regions. Error bars on wall width, position, and shape parameters are now shown, representing the standard deviation across measurements combined with reconstruction uncertainty estimates. Quantitative analysis confirms that any variations in these parameters are below 1 nm and statistically consistent with zero change within the experimental uncertainty, thereby supporting the sub-nanometer invariance claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental imaging results with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental observations of domain wall invariance using ultrafast sub-wavelength EUV imaging during demagnetization. No mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, predictions, or first-principles calculations are present in the abstract or described claims. The sub-nanometer precision is presented as a demonstrated outcome of the imaging technique applied to the data, without any reduction to self-defined inputs or self-citation chains. This is a standard experimental report whose central claim rests on measurement fidelity rather than any closed logical loop.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced; the work relies on standard assumptions in ultrafast laser-matter interactions and magnetic imaging.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions about the interaction of extreme ultraviolet light with magnetic thin films and the validity of domain wall imaging reconstruction.
    The paper depends on established physics of light-matter interaction and magnetic domain imaging without stating new axioms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5707 in / 1285 out tokens · 42190 ms · 2026-05-22T17:41:55.978889+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S. S. P. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Science 320, 190 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    A. Fert, N. Reyren, and V. Cros, Nature Reviews Materials 2, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    A. V. Kimel and M. Li, Nature Reviews Materials 4, 189 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in Nickel

    E. Beaurepaire, J.-C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J.-Y. Bigot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4250 (1996), arxiv:cond-mat/9709264

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Kirilyuk, A

    A. Kirilyuk, A. V. Kimel, and T. Rasing, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 2731 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Koopmans, G

    B. Koopmans, G. Malinowski, F. Dalla Longa, D. Steiauf, M. F¨ ahnle, T. Roth, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Nature Materials 9, 259 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Dornes, Y

    C. Dornes, Y. Acremann, M. Savoini, M. Kubli, M. J. Neugebauer, E. Abreu, L. Huber, G. Lantz, C. a. F. Vaz, H. Lemke, E. M. Bothschafter, M. Porer, V. Esposito, L. Rettig, M. Buzzi, A. Alberca, Y. W. Windsor, P. Beaud, U. Staub, D. Zhu, S. Song, J. M. Glownia, and S. L. Johnson, Nature 565, 209 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    S. R. Tauchert, M. Volkov, D. Ehberger, D. Kazenwadel, M. Evers, H. Lange, A. Donges, A. Book, W. Kreuzpaintner, U. Nowak, and P. Baum, Nature 602, 73 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Physical Review Letters 105, 027203 (2010)

    work page 2010

  10. [10]

    Melnikov, I

    A. Melnikov, I. Razdolski, T. O. Wehling, E. T. Papaioannou, V. Roddatis, P. Fumagalli, O. Aktsipetrov, A. I. Lichtenstein, and U. Bovensiepen, Physical Review Letters 107, 076601 (2011)

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    Medapalli, D

    R. Medapalli, D. Afanasiev, D. K. Kim, Y. Quessab, S. Manna, S. A. Montoya, A. Kirilyuk, Th. Rasing, A. V. Kimel, and E. E. Fullerton, Physical Review B 96, 224421 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Quessab, M

    Y. Quessab, M. Deb, J. Gorchon, M. Hehn, G. Malinowski, and S. Mangin, Physical Review B 100, 024425 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    K. H. Prabhakara, T. B. Shapaeva, V. V. Yurlov, K. A. Zvezdin, A. K. Zvezdin, C. S. Davies, A. Tsukamoto, A. I. Kirilyuk, Th. Rasing, and A. V. Kimel, Physics of the Solid State 64, 547 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Khusyainov, R

    D. Khusyainov, R. Liefferink, M. Na, K. Fabian, R. Fr¨ omter, M. Kl¨ aui, D. Kozodaev, N. Vovk, R. Mikhaylovskiy, D. Afanasiev, A. Kimel, J. H. Mentink, and T. Rasing, Laser-induced helicity and texture-dependent switching of nanoscale stochastic domains in a ferromagnetic film (2024), arXiv:2412.11700 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Koshibae and N

    W. Koshibae and N. Nagaosa, Nature Communications 5, 5148 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    S.-G. Je, P. Vallobra, T. Srivastava, J.-C. Rojas-S´ anchez, T. H. Pham, M. Hehn, G. Malinowski, C. Baraduc, S. Auffret, G. Gaudin, S. Mangin, H. B´ ea, and O. Boulle, Nano Letters18, 7362 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    B¨ uttner, B

    F. B¨ uttner, B. Pfau, M. B¨ ottcher, M. Schneider, G. Mercurio, C. M. G¨ unther, P. Hessing, C. Klose, A. Wittmann, K. Gerlinger, L.-M. Kern, C. Str¨ uber, C. von Korff Schmising, J. Fuchs, D. Engel, A. Churikova, S. Huang, D. Suzuki, I. Lemesh, M. Huang, L. Caretta, D. Weder, J. H. Gaida, M. M¨ oller, T. R. Harvey, S. Zayko, K. Bagschik, R. Carley, L. M...

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    R. Juge, N. Sisodia, J. U. Larra˜ naga, Q. Zhang, V. T. Pham, K. G. Rana, B. Sarpi, N. Mille, S. Stanescu, R. Belkhou, M.-A. Mawass, N. Novakovic-Marinkovic, F. Kronast, M. Weigand, J. Gr¨ afe, S. Wintz, S. Finizio, J. Raabe, L. Aballe, M. Foerster, M. Belmeguenai, L. D. Buda-Prejbeanu, J. Pelloux-Prayer, J. M. Shaw, H. T. Nembach, L. Ranno, G. Gaudin, an...

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Hennes, A

    M. Hennes, A. Merhe, X. Liu, D. Weder, C. v. K. Schmising, M. Schneider, C. M. G¨ unther, B. Mahieu, G. Malinowski, M. Hehn, D. Lacour, F. Capotondi, E. Pedersoli, I. P. Nikolov, V. Chardonnet, E. Jal, J. L¨ uning, and B. Vodungbo, Physical Review B 102, 174437 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    G. Fan, K. L´ egar´ e, V. Cardin, X. Xie, R. Safaei, E. Kaksis, G. Andriukaitis, A. Pugˇ zlys, B. E. Schmidt, J. P. Wolf, M. Hehn, G. Malinowski, B. Vodungbo, E. Jal, J. L¨ uning, N. Jaouen, G. Giovannetti, F. Calegari, Z. Tao, A. Baltuˇ ska, F. L´ egar´ e, and T. Balˇ ci¯ unas, Optica9, 399 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Zhou Hagstr¨ om, R

    N. Zhou Hagstr¨ om, R. Jangid, M. Madhavi, D. Turenne, J. A. Brock, E. S. Lamb, B. Stoychev, J. Schlappa, N. Gerasimova, B. Van Kuiken, R. Gort, L. Mercadier, L. Le Guyader, A. Samartsev, A. Scherz, G. Mercurio, H. A. D¨ urr, A. H. Reid, M. Arora, H. T. Nembach, J. M. Shaw, E. Jal, E. E. Fullerton, M. W. Keller, R. Kukreja, S. Bonetti, T. J. Silva, and E....

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Zusin, E

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

    work page 2022

  23. [24]

    N. L. Schryer and L. R. Walker, Journal of Applied Physics 45, 5406 (1974). 10

    work page 1974

  24. [25]

    B. Pfau, S. Schaffert, L. M¨ uller, C. Gutt, A. Al-Shemmary, F. B¨ uttner, R. Delaunay, S. D¨ usterer, S. Flewett, R. Fr¨ omter, J. Geilhufe, E. Guehrs, C. M. G¨ unther, R. Hawaldar, M. Hille, N. Jaouen, A. Kobs, K. Li, J. Mohanty, H. Redlin, W. F. Schlotter, D. Stickler, R. Treusch, B. Vodungbo, M. Kl¨ aui, H. P. Oepen, J. L¨ uning, G. Gr¨ ubel, and S. E...

    work page 2012

  25. [26]

    S. M. Suturin, A. Philippi-Kobs, R. Carley, R. Gort, G. Gr¨ ubel, E. Jal, M. V. Baidakova, E. Y. Lobanova, L. Mercadier, S. L. Molodtsov, L. M¨ uller, D. V. Potorochin, M. Riepp, W. Roseker, A. Scherz, J. Schlappa, L. Le Guyader, G. Mercurio, M. Turcato, B. Van Kuiken, A. Yaroslavtsev, A. Y. Deviatov, Y. O. Kvashnin, A. I. Lichtenstein, V. V. Mazurenko, a...

    work page 2023

  26. [27]

    Kerber, D

    N. Kerber, D. Ksenzov, F. Freimuth, F. Capotondi, E. Pedersoli, I. Lopez-Quintas, B. Seng, J. Cramer, K. Litzius, D. Lacour, H. Zabel, Y. Mokrousov, M. Kl¨ aui, and C. Gutt, Nature Communications 11, 6304 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [28]

    L´ eveill´ e, E

    C. L´ eveill´ e, E. Burgos-Parra, Y. Sassi, F. Ajejas, V. Chardonnet, E. Pedersoli, F. Capotondi, G. De Ninno, F. Maccherozzi, S. Dhesi, D. M. Burn, G. van der Laan, O. S. Latcham, A. V. Shytov, V. V. Kruglyak, E. Jal, V. Cros, J.-Y. Chauleau, N. Reyren, M. Viret, and N. Jaouen, Nature Communications 13, 1412 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [29]

    Girardi, S

    D. Girardi, S. Finizio, C. Donnelly, G. Rubini, S. Mayr, V. Levati, S. Cuccurullo, F. Maspero, J. Raabe, D. Petti, and E. Albisetti, Nature Communications 15, 3057 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [30]

    T. A. Butcher, N. W. Phillips, A. L. Levitan, J. Raabe, and S. Finizio, Ptychographic Imaging of Magnetic Domain Wall Dynamics (2024), arXiv:2408.14172 [cond-mat]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [31]

    Donnelly, S

    C. Donnelly, S. Finizio, S. Gliga, M. Holler, A. Hrabec, M. Odstrˇ cil, S. Mayr, V. Scagnoli, L. J. Heyderman, M. Guizar- Sicairos, and J. Raabe, Nature Nanotechnology 15, 356 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [32]

    Weigand, S

    M. Weigand, S. Wintz, J. Gr¨ afe, M. Noske, H. Stoll, B. Van Waeyenberge, and G. Sch¨ utz, Crystals12, 1029 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [33]

    B¨ uttner, C

    F. B¨ uttner, C. Moutafis, M. Schneider, B. Kr¨ uger, C. M. G¨ unther, J. Geilhufe, C. v. K. Schmising, J. Mohanty, B. Pfau, S. Schaffert, A. Bisig, M. Foerster, T. Schulz, C. a. F. Vaz, J. H. Franken, H. J. M. Swagten, M. Kl¨ aui, and S. Eisebitt, Nature Physics 11, 225 (2015)

    work page 2015

  33. [34]

    Baumgartner, K

    M. Baumgartner, K. Garello, J. Mendil, C. O. Avci, E. Grimaldi, C. Murer, J. Feng, M. Gabureac, C. Stamm, Y. Acremann, S. Finizio, S. Wintz, J. Raabe, and P. Gambardella, Nature Nanotechnology 12, 980 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [35]

    Battistelli, D

    R. Battistelli, D. Metternich, M. Schneider, L.-M. Kern, K. Litzius, J. Fuchs, C. Klose, K. Gerlinger, K. Bagschik, C. M. G¨ unther, D. Engel, C. Ropers, S. Eisebitt, B. Pfau, F. B¨ uttner, and S. Zayko, Optica11, 234 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [36]

    T. A. Butcher, N. W. Phillips, C.-C. Chiu, C.-C. Wei, S.-Z. Ho, Y.-C. Chen, E. Fr¨ ojdh, F. Baruffaldi, M. Carulla, J. Zhang, A. Bergamaschi, C. A. F. Vaz, A. Kleibert, S. Finizio, J.-C. Yang, S.-W. Huang, and J. Raabe, Advanced Materials 36, 2311157 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [37]

    Rana, C.-T

    A. Rana, C.-T. Liao, E. Iacocca, J. Zou, M. Pham, X. Lu, E.-E. C. Subramanian, Y. H. Lo, S. A. Ryan, C. S. Bevis, R. M. Karl, A. J. Glaid, J. Rable, P. Mahale, J. Hirst, T. Ostler, W. Liu, C. M. O’Leary, Y.-S. Yu, K. Bustillo, H. Ohldag, D. A. Shapiro, S. Yazdi, T. E. Mallouk, S. J. Osher, H. C. Kapteyn, V. H. Crespi, J. V. Badding, Y. Tserkovnyak, M. M. ...

    work page 2023

  37. [38]

    S. Mayr, J. F¨ orster, S. Finizio, K. Schultheiss, R. A. Gallardo, R. Narkovicz, G. Dieterle, A. Semisalova, J. Bailey, E. Kirk, A. Suszka, J. Lindner, J. Gr¨ afe, J. Raabe, G. Sch¨ utz, M. Weigand, H. Stoll, and S. Wintz, Applied Physics Reviews 11, 041411 (2024)

    work page 2024

  38. [39]

    Rubiano da Silva, M

    N. Rubiano da Silva, M. M¨ oller, A. Feist, H. Ulrichs, C. Ropers, and S. Sch¨ afer, Physical Review X8, 031052 (2018)

    work page 2018

  39. [40]

    M¨ oller, J

    M. M¨ oller, J. H. Gaida, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, Communications Physics3, 36 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [41]

    T. R. Harvey, N. Rubiano da Silva, J. H. Gaida, M. M¨ oller, A. Feist, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, MRS Bulletin 46, 711 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [42]

    Miyamachi, C

    T. Miyamachi, C. S¨ urgers, and W. Wulfhekel, Applied Physics Express14, 115504 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [43]

    Liang, L

    K. Liang, L. Bi, Q. Zhu, H. Zhou, and S. Li, ACS Applied Optical Materials 1, 924 (2023), pMID: 37260467, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaom.2c00169

    work page doi:10.1021/acsaom.2c00169 2023

  43. [44]

    C. Liu, F. Ai, S. Reisbick, A. Zong, A. Pofelski, M.-G. Han, F. Camino, C. Jing, V. Lomakin, and Y. Zhu, Nature Materials 10.1038/s41563-024-02085-7 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-024-02085-7 2025

  44. [45]

    von Korff Schmising, B

    C. von Korff Schmising, B. Pfau, M. Schneider, C. M. G¨ unther, M. Giovannella, J. Perron, B. Vodungbo, L. M¨ uller, F. Capotondi, E. Pedersoli, N. Mahne, J. L¨ uning, and S. Eisebitt, Physical Review Letters 112, 217203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  45. [46]

    O. Kfir, S. Zayko, C. Nolte, M. Sivis, M. M¨ oller, B. Hebler, S. S. P. K. Arekapudi, D. Steil, S. Sch¨ afer, M. Albrecht, O. Cohen, S. Mathias, and C. Ropers, Science Advances 3, eaao4641 (2017)

    work page 2017

  46. [47]

    Zayko, O

    S. Zayko, O. Kfir, M. Heigl, M. Lohmann, M. Sivis, M. Albrecht, and C. Ropers, Nature Communications 12, 6337 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [48]

    Zayko, O

    S. Zayko, O. Kfir, E. Bordo, A. Fleischer, O. Cohen, and C. Ropers, New Journal of Physics 22, 053017 (2020)

    work page 2020

  48. [49]

    Hubert and R

    A. Hubert and R. Sch¨ afer, Magnetic Domains: The Analysis of Magnetic Microstructures (Springer Science & Business Media, 1998)

    work page 1998

  49. [50]

    Lemesh, F

    I. Lemesh, F. B¨ uttner, and G. S. D. Beach, Physical Review B 95, 174423 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [51]

    M. T. Birch, L. Powalla, S. Wintz, O. Hovorka, K. Litzius, J. C. Loudon, L. A. Turnbull, V. Nehruji, K. Son, C. Bubeck, T. G. Rauch, M. Weigand, E. Goering, M. Burghard, and G. Sch¨ utz, Nature Communications13, 3035 (2022)

    work page 2022

  51. [52]

    Albisetti and D

    E. Albisetti and D. Petti, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Magnetism (Barcelona) 5-10 July 2015, 400, 230 (2016)

    work page 2015

  52. [53]

    Weder, C

    D. Weder, C. von Korff Schmising, C. M. G¨ unther, M. Schneider, D. Engel, P. Hessing, C. Str¨ uber, M. Weigand, B. Vo- dungbo, E. Jal, X. Liu, A. Merhe, E. Pedersoli, F. Capotondi, J. L¨ uning, B. Pfau, and S. Eisebitt, Structural Dynamics 7, 054501 (2020)

    work page 2020

  53. [54]

    Steinbach, U

    F. Steinbach, U. Atxitia, K. Yao, M. Borchert, D. Engel, F. Bencivenga, L. Foglia, R. Mincigrucci, E. Pedersoli, D. De An- gelis, M. Pancaldi, D. Fainozzi, J. S. Pelli Cresi, E. Paltanin, F. Capotondi, C. Masciovecchio, S. Eisebitt, and C. von Korff 11 Schmising, Nano Letters 24, 6865 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [55]

    T. S. Seifert, L. Cheng, Z. Wei, T. Kampfrath, and J. Qi, Applied Physics Letters 120, 180401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [56]

    Hariki, A

    A. Hariki, A. Dal Din, O. J. Amin, T. Yamaguchi, A. Badura, D. Kriegner, K. W. Edmonds, R. P. Campion, P. Wadley, D. Backes, L. S. I. Veiga, S. S. Dhesi, G. Springholz, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, T. Jungwirth, and J. Kuneˇ s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 176701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [57]

    H. T. Stinson, A. Sternbach, O. Najera, R. Jing, A. S. Mcleod, T. V. Slusar, A. Mueller, L. Anderegg, H. T. Kim, M. Rozenberg, and D. N. Basov, Nature Communications 9, 3604 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [58]

    A. S. Johnson, D. Perez-Salinas, K. M. Siddiqui, S. Kim, S. Choi, K. Volckaert, P. E. Majchrzak, S. Ulstrup, N. Agarwal, K. Hallman, R. F. Haglund, C. M. G¨ unther, B. Pfau, S. Eisebitt, D. Backes, F. Maccherozzi, A. Fitzpatrick, S. S. Dhesi, P. Gargiani, M. Valvidares, N. Artrith, F. de Groot, H. Choi, D. Jang, A. Katoch, S. Kwon, S. H. Park, H. Kim, and...

    work page 2023

  58. [59]

    Heinrich, H.-T

    T. Heinrich, H.-T. Chang, S. Zayko, K. Rossnagel, M. Sivis, and C. Ropers, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021033 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [60]

    Domr¨ ose and C

    T. Domr¨ ose and C. Ropers, Phys. Rev. B110, 085155 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [61]

    O. Kfir, E. Bordo, G. Ilan Haham, O. Lahav, A. Fleischer, and O. Cohen, Applied Physics Letters 108, 211106 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [62]

    Chang, Coherence Techniques at Extreme Ultraviolet Wavelengths , Ph.D

    C. Chang, Coherence Techniques at Extreme Ultraviolet Wavelengths , Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley (2002)

    work page 2002

  62. [63]

    K. S. Raines, S. Salha, R. L. Sandberg, H. Jiang, J. A. Rodr´ ıguez, B. P. Fahimian, H. C. Kapteyn, J. Du, and J. Miao, Nature 463, 214 (2010)

    work page 2010

  63. [64]

    D. R. Luke, Inverse Problems 21, 37 (2005), arXiv:math/0405208

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  64. [65]

    J. R. Fienup, Optics Letters 3, 27 (1978)

    work page 1978

  65. [66]

    Revealing domain wall stability during ultrafast demagnetization

    J. N. Clark, X. Huang, R. Harder, and I. K. Robinson, Nature Communications 3, 993 (2012). Supplementary Information to “Revealing domain wall stability during ultrafast demagnetization” Hung-Tzu Chang, 1,∗Sergey Zayko,1,†Timo Schmidt, 2 Ofer Kfir, 3 Murat Sivis,1, 4 Johan H. Mentink, 5 Manfred Albrecht,2 and Claus Ropers 1, 4,‡ 1Max Planck Institute for ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  66. [67]

    H. N. Chapman, A. Barty, S. Marchesini, A. Noy, S. P. Hau-Riege, C. Cui, M. R. Howells, R. Rosen, H. He, J. C. H. Spence, U. Weierstall, T. Beetz, C. Jacobsen, and D. Shapiro, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 23, 1179 (2006)

    work page 2006

  67. [68]

    P. B. Rosenthal and R. Henderson, Journal of Molecular Biology 333, 721 (2003)

    work page 2003

  68. [69]

    van Heel and M

    M. van Heel and M. Schatz, Journal of Structural Biology 151, 250 (2005). 11

    work page 2005

  69. [70]

    Jangid, N

    R. Jangid, N. Z. Hagstr¨ om, M. Madhavi, K. Rockwell, J. M. Shaw, J. A. Brock, M. Pancaldi, D. De Angelis, F. Capotondi, E. Pedersoli, H. T. Nembach, M. W. Keller, S. Bonetti, E. E. Fullerton, E. Iacocca, R. Kukreja, and T. J. Silva, Physical Review Letters 131, 256702 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [71]

    H. b. Callen and E. Callen, Journal Physical Chemistry Solids 27, 1271 (1966)

    work page 1966

  71. [72]

    Thiele, K

    J.-U. Thiele, K. R. Coffey, M. F. Toney, J. A. Hedstrom, and A. J. Kellock, Journal of Applied Physics 91, 6595 (2002)

    work page 2002

  72. [73]

    J. B. Staunton, S. Ostanin, S. S. A. Razee, B. L. Gyorffy, L. Szunyogh, B. Ginatempo, and E. Bruno, Physical Review Letters 93, 257204 (2004)

    work page 2004

  73. [74]

    Asselin, R

    P. Asselin, R. F. L. Evans, J. Barker, R. W. Chantrell, R. Yanes, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, D. Hinzke, and U. Nowak, Physical Review B 82, 054415 (2010)

    work page 2010

  74. [75]

    Atxitia, D

    U. Atxitia, D. Hinzke, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, U. Nowak, H. Kachkachi, O. N. Mryasov, R. F. Evans, and R. W. Chantrell, Physical Review B 82, 134440 (2010). 12

    work page 2010