Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Large strain contribution to the laser-driven magnetization response of magnetostrictive TbFe$_{2}$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that strain, not instantaneous optical changes, drives the laser-induced magnetization response in magnetostrictive TbFe2 films, with quasi-static thermal expansion dominating the signal at late delays.

desk verdict A solid ultrafast magnetoacoustics dataset with a clever sample design, but the headline delay argument leaves a depth-sensitivity loophole that needs closing before the interpretation is accepted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21211 v2 pith:DU2343JO submitted 2025-05-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

C. Walz , F.-C. Weber , S.-P. Zeuschner , K. Dumesnil , A. von Reppert , M. Bargheer This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords terfenolTbFe2magnetoelasticcouplinginversemagnetostrictiontransientmagneto-opticalKerreffectpicosecondstrainpulsesLandau-Lifshitz-Gilbertmodelquasi-staticthermalultrafastmagnetizationdynamics
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 settle what causes the laser-induced magnetization signal in magnetostrictive TbFe2 films: real motion of the magnetization, or a laser-induced change in the optical constants. The authors measure the transient Kerr rotation and the reflectivity change on the same sample, at the same spot, under identical excitation. They find that the magnetization response lags the arrival of a picosecond strain pulse by about 5 ps, which an instantaneous optical-constant change could not produce. Through a strain-wave simulation combined with a strongly damped Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert macrospin model, they show that both propagating strain pulses and quasi-static thermal expansion drive the magnetization via the shear magnetoelastic coupling parameter $b_2$, and that this magnetoelastic contribution dominates the observed signal at delays beyond 100 ps. The practical point is that magnetostrictive materials cannot be analyzed by treating laser-induced magnetization dynamics as purely magnetic; lattice strain must be included.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetoelastic field in the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation, computed from a simulated strain profile. A purely longitudinal out-of-plane strain $\eta_{zz}$ in the laboratory frame becomes, after rotation into the cubic crystallographic frame of a (110)-oriented film, a strain tensor with equal normal and shear components; since $|b_2| \gg |b_1|$ in TbFe2, the shear components drive the magnetization through the $b_2$ term. The resulting field is approximately $\vec{H}_{\mathrm{me}} \approx -(1/\sqrt{2})(b_2 \eta_{zz})(-m_x, 0, m_z)$ in the sample frame, producing a transient torque that, with the large damping $\alpha = 2$, turns a sharp strain pulse into a delayed, strongly damped magnetization response. The strain itself comes from a one-dimensional elastic wave-equation simulation weighted by the 400 nm probe penetration depth (~18 nm), and the sharp strain echoes in the glass-capped samples provide calibration points for the model parameters.

What would settle it

Repeat the measurement with the field raised above ~2.1 T so the magnetization is fully saturated out of plane: if the ~230 ps strain echo still produces a delayed Kerr feature, the signal is not the predicted magnetization tilt and the photoelastic alternative returns. A complementary test is element-specific probing of the Tb and Fe sublattices at the same strain echoes; if the sublattice moments do not move as the single-macrospin LLG model predicts, the calibration is a fit artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the strain-driven trMOKE response in TbFe2 is genuine magnetization dynamics, not a photoelastic artifact, and that magnetoelastic coupling—not intrinsic magnetic relaxation—dominates the signal at late times. Experimentally, the polarization rotation that appears when a strain pulse returns to the probed near-surface region is delayed by about 5 ps relative to the reflectivity change recorded under identical conditions; because the two signals share the same strain excitation, the delay rules out a direct modulation of the optical constants, which would be instantaneous. The authors then model the time-dependent strain in the probed region and feed it into an LLG equation for a single macrospin with Gilbert damping $\alpha = 2$. The model reproduces the delayed, rounded shape of the pulsed response and, once calibrated on the strain echoes from glass-capped samples, accounts for the full late-delay signal as the sum of propagating strain pulses and quasi-static strain from thermal expansion. The residual between measurement and model is a fast initial drop and recovery within the first 200 ps, which they attribute to ultrafast demagnetization and related intrinsic dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative split rests on assuming that one macrospin with very strong damping, calibrated from the sharp strain-pulse echoes, can be extrapolated to the slow quasi-static strain and to delays beyond 100 ps, even though the model leaves out the Tb and Fe sublattice coupling, ultrafast demagnetization, two-temperature energy flow, and temperature-dependent anisotropy and magnetoelastic constants.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any analysis of ultrafast magnetization dynamics in strongly magnetostrictive films must include quasi-static thermal strain; at delays beyond ~100 ps this strain, not intrinsic relaxation, can dominate the Kerr signal.
  • Longitudinal acoustic strain launched along the film normal can efficiently excite magnetization precession in obliquely oriented crystals through shear strain components, so normal-incidence strain pulses are a usable control knob.
  • The 5 ps delay between reflectivity-detected strain arrival and the magnetization response is a diagnostic that distinguishes magnetic dynamics from photoelastic contributions in future experiments.
  • The difference between measured trMOKE and the strain-driven LLG response isolates the non-strain magnetization dynamics, giving a route to separate ultrafast demagnetization from magnetoelastic effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this interpretation holds, long-delay trMOKE signals in other rare-earth–iron alloys may need to be corrected for quasi-static magnetoelastic contributions before extracting relaxation times or anisotropy changes.
  • The same acoustic-delay-line sample design could be used to map how the b2 coefficient depends on temperature or composition, by measuring the strain echoes at different base temperatures and fluences.
  • A direct test could use element-specific X-ray magnetic circular dichroism at the same strain echoes: if the Tb and Fe sublattice moments do not reorient as the macrospin model predicts, the apparent agreement of the LLG curves would be a fit artifact rather than evidence for a single-spin response.
  • The success of a heavily damped single macrospin suggests that in TbFe2 the rare-earth 4f moments provide such strong spin-lattice coupling that coherent precession is suppressed; similar materials may be describable by the same overdamped limit.
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 time-resolved polar MOKE (trMOKE) and transient reflectivity measurements on (110)-oriented TbFe2 films, both uncapped and capped with SiO2 layers, under femtosecond 800 nm pump / 400 nm probe excitation. The key observations are: (i) in the uncapped sample the trMOKE response to a reflected picosecond strain pulse is delayed by approximately 5 ps relative to the transient reflectivity change; (ii) in SiO2-capped samples, multiple strain echoes appear in the trMOKE signal; and (iii) a single-macrospin LLG model with large Gilbert damping α = 2, cubic anisotropy, and magnetoelastic fields reproduces the delayed pulse response and yields a slow contribution attributed to quasi-static thermal strain. The authors conclude that the delay demonstrates a genuine magnetization response rather than an instantaneous photoelastic change of optical constants, and that quasi-static magnetoelastic effects dominate the trMOKE signal for delays beyond roughly 100 ps.

Significance. If the central inference holds, the work makes a valuable contribution to ultrafast magnetoacoustics by showing that in a giant magnetostrictive material both coherent strain pulses and quasi-static thermal expansion drive the magnetization response through the same b2 magnetoelastic coupling. The experimental design—using a transparent capping layer as an acoustic delay line and comparing reflectivity and trMOKE under identical pump-probe conditions—is a useful approach for separating strain-driven from thermal/demagnetization contributions. Strengths of the paper include the open availability of data and simulation scripts on Zenodo, the use of UXRD-validated strain simulations from previous work, and the explicit statement of model limitations in the supplementary material. However, the central inference that the observed delay excludes optical-constant changes is not yet established because the depth sensitivities of the two observables are not modeled, and the quasi-static-dominance conclusion rests on a model calibrated on the same data with parameters that deviate strongly from literature values.

major comments (3)
  1. [Analysis of the trMOKE response in uncapped TbFe2 (around Fig. 2(b))] The statement that the ~5 ps delay 'excludes a modulation of the optical constants as the origin of the strain-driven trMOKE signal because that mechanism would produce an instantaneous response' is not justified without modeling the different depth sensitivities of the two observables. For the uncapped sample the 400 nm probe penetration depth is 18 nm and the longitudinal sound velocity is 4.07 nm/ps, so a strain front takes ~4.4 ps to traverse the probed region. A surface-weighted reflectivity signal and a depth-integrated polar MOKE signal would show a delay comparable to the observed ~5 ps even if the local magneto-optical response were instantaneous. The authors weight the simulated strain by the probe penetration profile for the LLG input, but no equivalent calculation is shown for the transient reflectivity signal. Please simulate ΔR/R using the same strain profile and an appropriate photoelastic depth weighting and demonstrate that the delay vanishes in that case; alternatively, provide evidence that the reflectivity and MOKE depth-weighting functions are identical. Until this is done, the flagship claim of the paper is not established.
  2. [Fig. 3 and the paragraph beginning 'Again, we calculate the weighted strain response…'] The claim that quasi-static magnetoelastic effects dominate the trMOKE signal for delays beyond 100 ps is not an independent prediction because the parameters α, K1,2, and b1,2 are calibrated using the same trMOKE strain-pulse peaks and then applied to the quasi-static strain. This circularity is compounded by Table S2, which shows fitted b2 values (-30 and -44 MJ/m3) an order of magnitude smaller than the literature value (-360 MJ/m3), and by the acknowledged neglect of temperature-dependent K1,2 and b1,2 in Supplementary Section S3. Since the quasi-static strain is a thermal expansion occurring at elevated lattice temperature, the constant-parameter model may be inadequate. Please show the sensitivity of the long-delay difference signal to parameter variations and to a temperature-dependent b2, or restrict the conclusion to the qualitative statement that strain-related contributions are present in the long-delay signal.
  3. [Fig. 2(b) and experimental methods] The 'approximately 5 ps' delay is presented as an experimental fact, but the paper does not describe how the delay was quantified (onset, peak, cross-correlation), nor does it provide error bars or repeated-measurement statistics. Given that the delay is close to the acoustic transit time through the probe region (4.4 ps), an uncertainty estimate is essential to distinguish the proposed magnetization dynamics from a depth-integration artifact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Fig. S7 caption] The phrase 'indicated by the indicated by the' appears to be a typographical error; please correct it.
  2. [Supplementary Fig. S8 caption] 'exaplained' should read 'explained'.
  3. [Table S2 and main text calibration] The extracted values for K1, K2, b1, and b2 are quoted without uncertainties; given their large deviations from literature values, a brief discussion of the fit sensitivity and the resulting uncertainty of the quasi-static decomposition would be helpful.
  4. [Main text, discussion of optical constants] The sentence 'because that mechanism would produce an instantaneous response' should be qualified to refer to the identical depth-weighting assumption; otherwise it is misleading in light of the transit-time argument.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Quasi-static dominance claim is a self-consistent fit, but the 5 ps delay observation and externally validated strain simulation give the central claim independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text, 'Analysis of the trMOKE response in glass-capped TbFe2' (paragraph after Fig. 3)]
    "Since the peaks in the trMOKE response arise solely from the magnetoelastic contribution, they can be used to calibrate the α, K1,2 and b1,2 parameters in the LLG. This calibration enables us to model the magnetoelastic contribution to the trMOKE signal over the full delay range, including the quasi-static component."

    The quasi-static component is computed by the same LLG whose magnetoelastic scale b2 and anisotropy constants are calibrated from the trMOKE echo peaks in the same measured trace. In the linear-response regime, the modeled quasi-static magnetization amplitude is proportional to b2 times the simulated quasi-static strain, and b2 is fixed so that the simulated peak amplitude matches the measured echo. Hence the quasi-static contribution is essentially a rescaled version of the peak calibration times the simulated strain ratio, not an independent measurement.

full rationale

The paper's primary evidence for genuine magnetization dynamics is the experimentally observed delay of the trMOKE response relative to reflectivity; this is a direct measurement and is not circular. The LLG model with damping α=2 (motivated by literature) reproduces the delay, and the strain simulation is validated against prior UXRD measurements on the same sample, which is independent support. The main circularity resides in the decomposition of the long-delay trMOKE signal: the model parameters (α, K1,2, b1,2) are calibrated from the strain-pulse peaks in the same trMOKE trace, and the same model is then used to assert that quasi-static magnetoelastic effects dominate the late signal and that the residual approximates intrinsic demagnetization. This makes the quasi-static dominance claim a self-consistent fit rather than a standalone prediction, though it is not fully circular because the ratio of quasi-static to pulsed strain comes from an external simulation. The transit-time alternative explanation for the 5 ps delay is a correctness risk, not a circularity, and the paper explicitly lists the model's limitations in Supplementary S3. Overall, the central claim retains independent experimental content, so a moderate score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism uses standard magnetoelastic theory, but every quantitative magnetic parameter entering the LLG (α, K1, K2, b1, b2) is fitted to the same trMOKE data whose late-time signal is then explained by quasi-static strain. No new physical entity is postulated; the new content is experimental separation and a modeling consistency check.

free parameters (4)
  • Gilbert damping constant α = 2.0 (chosen)
    Chosen large to overdamp the precession; the modeled 5 ps delay depends on this value. The authors cite strong spin-orbit coupling but do not measure α independently.
  • cubic anisotropy constants K1, K2 = K1 = -1.06, K2 = 0.17 MJ/m3 (uncapped); K1 = -1.55, K2 = 0.25 MJ/m3 (capped)
    Fitted to reproduce trMOKE strain-pulse signatures; literature values for TbFe2 are K1 = -12.7 and K2 = 2.08 MJ/m3, about an order of magnitude larger.
  • magnetoelastic constants b1, b2 = b1 = -2.8, b2 = -30 MJ/m3 (uncapped); b1 = -4.2, b2 = -44 MJ/m3 (capped)
    Fitted in the same calibration; literature values are b1 = -34 and b2 = -360 MJ/m3. The factor of about 8 difference is attributed to temperature and crystallinity but is not independently determined.
  • trMOKE amplitude scaling = arbitrary units
    The modeled mz trace is compared to experimental traces in arbitrary units, so a global scale factor is effectively free and prevents quantitative amplitude checks.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Single-macrospin LLG equation (Eq. 1) describes the average magnetization response of the probed region.
    Adopted in Supplementary Section S3; explicitly neglects Tb/Fe sublattice dynamics, demagnetization, two-temperature effects, and temperature-dependent K and b.
  • domain assumption One-temperature linear-chain model in udkm1Dsim describes the laser-induced strain response.
    Main text and Table S1; prior validation on the same sample via UXRD in ref 24, but still a modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption Transient reflectivity changes track strain arrival instantaneously.
    Used to argue that the 5 ps trMOKE delay excludes optical-constant changes; no independent calibration of the reflectivity-strain coupling time is provided.
  • domain assumption The strain tensor in the probed region equals the simulated ηzz weighted by the optical penetration profile.
    Weighting by the 18 nm penetration depth is used to compute the magnetoelastic field; this assumes the simulated strain fields and penetration profile are accurate.
  • domain assumption The cubic anisotropy and magnetoelastic field forms, with only K1, K2, b1, b2 as parameters, capture the relevant torques.
    Eqs. 2b and 2c use the standard phenomenological forms; possible higher-order or temperature-dependent terms are not included.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large strain contribution to the laser-driven magnetization response of magnetostrictive TbFe$_{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DU2343JO

@misc{pith2026250521211,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large strain contribution to the laser-driven magnetization response of magnetostrictive TbFe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DU2343JO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21211}
}
abstract

We investigate strain-induced contributions to the transient polar magneto-optical Kerr effect response in laser-excited terfenol. The tr-MOKE signals obtained from TbFe$_{2}$ films with and without glass capping exhibit distinct signatures associated with transient strain. We experimentally observe the arrival of strain pulses via the reflectivity change. The tr-MOKE response measured without changing the pump-probe geometry is delayed by several picoseconds. This suggests a genuine magnetization response as opposed to instantaneous changes of optical constants as the origin of the signal. We model the propagation of longitudinal acoustic picosecond strain pulses and incorporate the inverse magnetostriction effect via a magnetoelastic term in the effective field of the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with large damping. This reproduces not only the delay of the pulsed response, but also unveils the dominant contribution of quasi-static strain to the magnetization dynamics due to the thermal expansion in the optically probed near-surface region. Our experiments exemplify that purely longitudinal strain along the out-of-plane direction of the thin film enables efficient magnetoelastic coupling via the shear strain components arising in the oblique crystallographic frame of reference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21211 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Representative trMOKE responses and reflectivity change in (110)-oriented TbFe2 films: (a) Schematic of an un￾capped TbFe2 sample structure and (b) corresponding measured tran￾sient signals. (c) Schematic of TbFe2 films capped with SiO2 layers of varying thicknesses and corresponding transient signals measured for (d) 530 nm and (e) 825 nm SiO2 capping layers. The presence and characteristics of picosecond strain pu… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b) presents a zoomed view of the trMOKE data alongside the time-resolved reflectivity changes of the un￾capped TbFe2 sample at 230 ps, when the reflection from the TbFe2/Nb interface reaches the surface. The slowly vary￾ing background is subtracted from both signals. The delay of the trMOKE response by approximately 5 ps relative to the reflectivity change is an experimental fact, since both sig￾nals were pumped an… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Analysis of the trMOKE response in glass-capped TbFe2: (a) Spatiotemporal evolution of strain induced by ultrafast excitation, simulated using the udkm1Dsim toolbox31. Clear acous￾tic reflections at the interfaces of the multilayer structure are visi￾ble. The probe sensitivity region within the TbFe2 layer is high￾lighted in dark blue. (b) Comparison of the measured trMOKE signal (solid blue) with the simulated magn… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author Beaurepaire , author Merle , author Daunois ,\ and\ author Bigot ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.76.4250 journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 76 ,\ pages 4250 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.76.4250 1996

  2. [2]

    B, Condensed matter \ volume 34 ,\ pages 4129 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    author author Thomsen , author Grahn , author Maris ,\ and\ author Tauc ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevb.34.4129 journal journal Physical review. B, Condensed matter \ volume 34 ,\ pages 4129 ( year 1986 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.34.4129 1986

  3. [3]

    author author A. V. \ Scherbakov , author A. S. \ Salasyuk , author A. V. \ Akimov , author X. Liu , author M. Bombeck , author C. Br \"u ggemann , author D. R. \ Yakovlev , author V. F. \ Sapega , author J. K. \ Furdyna ,\ and\ author M. Bayer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.117204 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 105 ,\ pages ...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.117204

  4. [4]

    \ Kim , author M

    author author J.-W. \ Kim , author M. Vomir ,\ and\ author J.-Y. \ Bigot ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.166601 journal journal Physical review letters \ volume 109 ,\ pages 166601 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.166601 2012

  5. [5]

    \ Yang \ and\ author H

    author author W.-G. \ Yang \ and\ author H. Schmidt ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0042138 journal journal Applied Physics Reviews \ volume 8 ,\ pages 021304 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1063/5.0042138 2021

  6. [6]

    Rettig , author C

    author author L. Rettig , author C. Dornes , author N. Thielemann-K \"u hn , author N. Pontius , author H. Zabel , author D. L. \ Schlagel , author T. A. \ Lograsso , author M. Chollet , author A. Robert , author M. Sikorski , author S. Song , author J. M. \ Glownia , author C. Sch \"u ler-Langeheine , author S. L. \ Johnson ,\ and\ author U. Staub ,\ htt...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.257202

  7. [7]

    von Reppert , author M

    author author A. von Reppert , author M. Mattern , author J.-E. \ Pudell , author S. P. \ Zeuschner , author K. Dumesnil ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5145315 journal journal Structural dynamics \ volume 7 ,\ pages 024303 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5145315

  8. [8]

    o hr , author P. M. \ Oppeneer , author X. J. \ Wang ,\ and\ author H. A. \ D \

    author author A. H. \ Reid , author X. Shen , author P. Maldonado , author T. Chase , author E. Jal , author P. W. \ Granitzka , author K. Carva , author R. K. \ Li , author J. Li , author L. Wu , author T. Vecchione , author T. Liu , author Z. Chen , author D. J. \ Higley , author N. Hartmann , author R. Coffee , author J. Wu , author G. L. \ Dakovski , ...

    work page

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Mattern , author J.-E

    author author M. Mattern , author J.-E. \ Pudell , author K. Dumesnil , author A. von Reppert ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ journal journal Photoacoustics \ volume 30 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacs.2023.100463 10.1016/j.pacs.2023.100463 ( year 2023 a ) NoStop

    2023

  2. [10]

    Engdahl ,\ @noop title Handbook of Giant Magnetostrictive Materials ,\ Electromagnetism\ ( publisher Academic Press ,\ address San Diego, CA ,\ year 2000 ) NoStop

    author author G. Engdahl ,\ @noop title Handbook of Giant Magnetostrictive Materials ,\ Electromagnetism\ ( publisher Academic Press ,\ address San Diego, CA ,\ year 2000 ) NoStop

    2000

  3. [11]

    author author A. E. \ Clark \ and\ author H. S. \ Belson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.5.3642 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 5 ,\ pages 3642 ( year 1972 ) NoStop

    1972 doi

  4. [12]

    author author M. A. \ Patil \ and\ author R. Kadoli ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snr.2024.100236 journal journal Sensors and Actuators Reports \ volume 8 ,\ pages 100236 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  5. [13]

    Kovalenko , author T

    author author O. Kovalenko , author T. Pezeril ,\ and\ author V. V. \ Temnov ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.266602 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 110 ,\ pages 266602 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    Bombeck , author A

    author author M. Bombeck , author A. S. \ Salasyuk , author B. A. \ Glavin , author A. V. \ Scherbakov , author C. Br \"u ggemann , author D. R. \ Yakovlev , author V. F. \ Sapega , author X. Liu , author J. K. \ Furdyna , author A. V. \ Akimov ,\ and\ author M. Bayer ,\ journ...

    doi

  7. [15]

    Deb , author E

    author author M. Deb , author E. Popova , author S. P. \ Zeuschner , author M. Hehn , author N. Keller , author S. Mangin , author G. Malinowski ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.024411 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 103 ,\ pages 02...

    doi

  8. [16]

    Pfaff , author T

    author author C. Pfaff , author T. Pezeril , author R. Arras , author L. Calmels , author V. Cherruault , author S. Andrieu , author K. Dumesnil , author J. Gorchon ,\ and\ author T. Hauet ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.064405 journal journal Physical Review B \ volum...

    doi

  9. [17]

    Filatov , author P

    author author I. Filatov , author P. Gerevenkov , author A. Azovtsev , author V. Kovaleva , author N. Khokhlov ,\ and\ author A. Kalashnikova ,\ https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5971617/v1 title Magnon- Cherenkov effect from a picosecond strain pulse ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    doi

  10. [18]

    Shin , author M

    author author Y. Shin , author M. Vomir , author D.-H. \ Kim , author P. C. \ Van , author J.-R. \ Jeong ,\ and\ author J.-W. \ Kim ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-022-00836-z journal journal Communications Physics \ volume 5 ,\ pages 1 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi

  11. [19]

    Shin , author S

    author author Y. Shin , author S. Yoon , author J.-I. \ Hong ,\ and\ author J.-W. \ Kim ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsamd.2023.100568 journal journal Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and Devices \ volume 8 ,\ pages 100568 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  12. [20]

    author author T. L. \ Linnik , author A. V. \ Scherbakov , author D. R. \ Yakovlev , author X. Liu , author J. K. \ Furdyna ,\ and\ author M. Bayer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.84.214432 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 84 ,\ pages 214432 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    doi

  13. [21]

    Mattern , author F.-C

    author author M. Mattern , author F.-C. \ Weber , author D. Engel , author C. von Korff Schmising ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 124 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0186855 10.1063/5.0186855 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    doi

  14. [22]

    Shin , author S.-H

    author author Y. Shin , author S.-H. \ Lee , author D.-H. \ Kim ,\ and\ author J.-W. \ Kim ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0254981 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 137 ,\ pages 113903 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Jarecki , author M

    author author J. Jarecki , author M. Mattern , author F.-C. \ Weber , author J.-E. \ Pudell , author X.-G. \ Wang , author J.-C. \ Rojas S \'a nchez , author M. Hehn , author A. von Reppert ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-024-01602-z journal journa...

    doi

  16. [24]

    author author S. P. \ Zeuschner , author T. Parpiiev , author T. Pezeril , author A. Hillion , author K. Dumesnil , author A. Anane , author J. Pudell , author L. Willig , author M. R \"o ssle , author M. Herzog , author A. Von Reppert ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ https://doi...

    doi

  17. [25]

    Parpiiev , author A

    author author T. Parpiiev , author A. Hillion , author V. Vlasov , author V. Gusev , author K. Dumesnil , author T. Hauet , author S. Andrieu , author A. Anane ,\ and\ author T. Pezeril ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.104.224426 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 1...

    doi

  18. [26]

    Thevenard , author E

    author author L. Thevenard , author E. Peronne , author C. Gourdon , author C. Testelin , author M. Cubukcu , author E. Charron , author S. Vincent , author A. Lema \^i tre ,\ and\ author B. Perrin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.82.104422 journal journal Physical Review B...

    doi

  19. [27]

    Mougin , author C

    author author A. Mougin , author C. Dufour , author K. Dumesnil , author N. Maloufi , author Ph . Mangin ,\ and\ author G. Patrat ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.5950 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 59 ,\ pages 5950 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    doi

  20. [28]

    Mougin , author C

    author author A. Mougin , author C. Dufour , author K. Dumesnil ,\ and\ author Ph . Mangin ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.9517 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 62 ,\ pages 9517 ( year 2000 ) NoStop

    doi

  21. [29]

    Willig , author A

    author author L. Willig , author A. von Reppert , author M. Deb , author F. Ganss , author O. Hellwig ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.100.224408 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 100 ,\ pages 224408 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    doi

  22. [30]

    Deb , author E

    author author M. Deb , author E. Popova , author H.-Y. \ Jaffr \`e s , author N. Keller ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 18 ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.044001 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.18.044001 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    doi

  23. [31]

    Schick ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108031 journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 266 ,\ pages 108031 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    author author D. Schick ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2021.108031 journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 266 ,\ pages 108031 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  24. [32]

    Mattern , author A

    author author M. Mattern , author A. von Reppert , author S. P. \ Zeuschner , author M. Herzog , author J.-E. \ Pudell ,\ and\ author M. Bargheer ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacs.2023.100503 journal journal Photoacoustics \ volume 31 ,\ pages 100503 ( year 2023 b ) NoStop

    2023

  25. [33]

    He , author X

    author author P. He , author X. Ma , author J. W. \ Zhang , author H. B. \ Zhao , author G. L \"u pke , author Z. Shi ,\ and\ author S. M. \ Zhou ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.077203 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 110 ,\ pages 077203 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi

  26. [34]

    Deb , author E

    author author M. Deb , author E. Popova , author M. Hehn , author N. Keller , author S. Mangin ,\ and\ author G. Malinowski ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 98 ,\ pages 174407 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  27. [35]

    L \'e gar \'e , author V

    author author K. L \'e gar \'e , author V. Chardonnet , author I. Berm \'u dez Macias , author M. Hennes , author R. Delaunay , author P. Lassonde , author F. L \'e gar \'e , author G. Lambert , author E. Jal ,\ and\ author B. Vodungbo ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0088610 jour...

    doi

  28. [36]

    author author K. H. J. \ Buschow \ and\ author R. P. \ van Stapele ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1658412 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 41 ,\ pages 4066 ( year 1970 ) NoStop

    1970 doi

  29. [37]

    author author C. E. \ Patrick , author G. A. \ Marchant ,\ and\ author J. B. \ Staunton ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.14.014091 journal journal Physical Review Applied \ volume 14 ,\ pages 014091 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    author author J. M. D. \ Coey ,\ @noop title Magnetism and Magnetic Materials ,\ edition repr \ ed.\ ( publisher Cambridge Univ. Press ,\ address Cambridge ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  31. [39]

    Habashi ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1533-6_384 booktitle Encyclopedia of Metalloproteins ,\ editor edited by\ editor R

    author author F. Habashi ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1533-6_384 booktitle Encyclopedia of Metalloproteins ,\ editor edited by\ editor R. H. \ Kretsinger , editor V. N. \ Uversky ,\ and\ editor E. A. \ Permyakov \ ( publisher Springer ,\ address New York, NY ,\ ye...

    doi

  32. [40]

    author author A. S. \ Cooper ,\ https://doi.org/10.1107/S0365110X62001474 journal journal Acta Crystallographica \ volume 15 ,\ pages 578 ( year 1962 ) NoStop

    1962 doi

  33. [41]

    Clark , author R

    author author A. Clark , author R. Abbundi ,\ and\ author W. Gillmor ,\ https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1978.1059879 journal journal IEEE Transactions on Magnetics \ volume 14 ,\ pages 542 ( year 1978 ) NoStop

    1978

  34. [42]

    Royer \ and\ author E

    author author D. Royer \ and\ author E. Dieulesaint ,\ @noop title Elastic Waves in Solids I : Free and Guided Propagation \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ year 1999 ) NoStop

    1999

  35. [43]

    author author E. B. \ Zaretsky \ and\ author G. I. \ Kanel ,\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4962509 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 120 ,\ pages 105901 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Burghartz \ and\ author B

    author author St . Burghartz \ and\ author B. Schulz ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3115(94)90996-2 journal journal Journal of Nuclear Materials \ series Fusion Reactor Materials ,\ volume 212--215 ,\ pages 1065 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994 doi

  37. [45]

    Winter ,\ @noop title Titanium ,\ howpublished https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/webelements/titanium/ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    author author M. Winter ,\ @noop title Titanium ,\ howpublished https://winter.group.shef.ac.uk/webelements/titanium/ ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  38. [46]

    Lide ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/ja0336372 journal journal Journal of the American Chemical Society \ volume 126 ,\ pages 1586 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    author author D. Lide ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/ja0336372 journal journal Journal of the American Chemical Society \ volume 126 ,\ pages 1586 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    author author D. J. \ Germano \ and\ author R. A. \ Butera ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.24.3912 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 24 ,\ pages 3912 ( year 1981 ) NoStop

    1981 doi

  40. [48]

    Andersson \ and\ author L

    author author S. Andersson \ and\ author L. Dzhavadov ,\ https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/4/29/005 journal journal Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter \ volume 4 ,\ pages 6209 ( year 1992 ) NoStop

    1992 doi

  41. [49]

    author author T. A. \ Hahn , author R. K. \ Kirby , author H. C. \ Wolfe , author M. G. \ Graham ,\ and\ author H. E. \ Hagy ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2948551 booktitle Proceedings of the 1971 Thermal Expansion Symposium \ ( address Corning, New York (USA) ,\ year 1972 ...

    1971 doi

  42. [50]

    author author T. A. \ Hahn ,\ in\ https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-9086-6_18 booktitle Thermal Expansion 6 ,\ editor edited by\ editor I. D. \ Peggs \ ( publisher Springer US ,\ address Boston, MA ,\ year 1978 )\ pp.\ pages 191--201 NoStop

    1978 doi

  43. [51]

    author author I. H. \ Malitson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.55.001205 journal journal JOSA \ volume 55 ,\ pages 1205 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965 doi

  44. [52]

    author author J. H. \ Weaver , author D. W. \ Lynch ,\ and\ author C. G. \ Olson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.7.4311 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 7 ,\ pages 4311 ( year 1973 ) NoStop

    1973 doi

  45. [53]

    author author I. H. \ Malitson ,\ https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSA.52.001377 journal journal JOSA \ volume 52 ,\ pages 1377 ( year 1962 ) NoStop

    1962 doi

  46. [54]

    author author K. J. \ Palm , author J. B. \ Murray , author T. C. \ Narayan ,\ and\ author J. N. \ Munday ,\ https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.8b01243 journal journal ACS Photonics \ volume 5 ,\ pages 4677 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  47. [55]

    Parpiiev ,\ title Ultrafast magnetoacoustics in magnetostrictive materials ,\ @noop type Phd thesis ,\ school Le Mans Universit \'e , address Le mans ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    author author T. Parpiiev ,\ title Ultrafast magnetoacoustics in magnetostrictive materials ,\ @noop type Phd thesis ,\ school Le Mans Universit \'e , address Le mans ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.