Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Dynamic interfacial effects in ultrathin ferromagnetic bilayers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In an ultrathin Co/Py bilayer, femtosecond demagnetization treats the two layers as decoupled while nanosecond precession couples them into one mode.

desk verdict A careful TR-MOKE study of an ultrathin Co/Py bilayer with a plausible timescale-dependent coupling picture, but the fs decoupling claim rests on an uncalibrated MOKE weight that needs an independent derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08490 v1 pith:2PJZVIU7 submitted 2025-05-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Anulekha De , Christopher Seibel , Sanjay Ashok , Paul Herrgen , Akira Lentfert , Laura Scheuer , Georg von Freymann , Philipp Pirro
show 2 more authors
Baerbel Rethfeld Martin Aeschlimann
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords ultrafastdemagnetizationferromagneticbilayerexchangecouplingtime-resolvedmagneto-opticalKerreffectmu-TmodelprecessionaldampingElliott-Yafetspin-flipscatteringCo/Py
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 establish that the interfacial exchange coupling in an ultrathin Co(1.5 nm)/Py(1.5 nm) bilayer is not a fixed property but a timescale-dependent one. On femtosecond timescales, immediately after a laser pulse drives the system far from equilibrium, the two layers' demagnetization traces are intermediate between those of the individual layers and are reproduced by treating the layers as nearly independent. On nanosecond timescales, after the system has returned close to equilibrium, the bilayer precesses with a single magnon mode, meaning the layers behave as one coupled magnetic layer. The paper also claims a direct proportionality between demagnetization time and effective damping as pump fluence is varied, which it reads as evidence that local Elliott-Yafet spin-flip scattering dominates both the ultrafast loss and the longer-timescale dissipation. If correct, the result would give spintronic device design a simple rule: the same interface can be engineered as two independent channels during the write step and one effective medium during readout.

What carries the argument

The femtosecond claim is carried by the temperature-based $\mu T$ model for magnetic bilayers, which tracks separate spin-up and spin-down electron temperatures and chemical potentials in each layer and includes spin-resolved particle and energy transfer across the Co/Py interface; its layer-resolved magnetization curves are superposed with a 3:1 Co:Py weight to compare with the measured Kerr signal. The nanosecond claim is carried by the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation, specifically the damped-sinusoid fit and the Kittel formula $f=(1/2\pi)\sqrt{\omega_H(\omega_H+\omega_M)}$, which convert the single observed precession frequency into an effective magnetization and a damping coefficient. The unifying object is the correlation between demagnetization time $\tau_M$ and effective damping $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ under varying pump fluence; its direct proportionality is the bridge between the two regimes and the evidence for Elliott-Yafet spin-flip scattering as the common microscopic channel.

What would settle it

Calibrate the magneto-optical depth profile of the Co(1.5 nm)/Py(1.5 nm) stack, or use element-specific X-ray detection, to fix the layer weighting independently; if the strongly coupled $\mu T$ simulation then fits the femtosecond demagnetization trace at least as well as the weakly coupled one, the claimed ultrafast decoupling is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in a 1.5 nm Co / 1.5 nm Py epitaxial bilayer, the interface coupling is dynamically switched by the excitation state. Time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements show that the bilayer's ultrafast demagnetization curve sits between the $\mu T$-model curves of the individual Co and Py layers, and a 3:1 weighted superposition of the decoupled Co and Py simulations reproduces the measured trace while a strongly coupled simulation does not. The paper concludes that in the highly non-equilibrium femtosecond regime the layers evolve nearly independently. In the nanosecond regime, however, background-subtracted Kerr oscillations at several fields and fluences contain only one precessional frequency, fitted by the Kittel formula with $M_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx 690\pm 20$ kA m$^{-1}$, and the damping extracted from these fits rises from $0.010$ to $0.035$ as fluence rises from $2.7$ to $10.1$ mJ cm$^{-2}$. Plotting demagnetization time against this effective damping gives a direct proportionality, which the paper attributes to Elliott-Yafet spin-flip scattering transferring angular momentum from electrons to the lattice on both timescales.

Load-bearing premise

The femtosecond decoupling claim stands on an uncalibrated 3:1 Co:Py Kerr weighting that was chosen to match the data rather than computed from the stack's optics; if the true magneto-optical weighting is different, the strongly coupled simulation could fit the measured trace just as well.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In an ultrathin Co/Py bilayer, ultrafast demagnetization can be modeled layer-by-layer without invoking strong interfacial coupling, so the femtosecond response is set mostly by each layer's intrinsic parameters.
  • On nanosecond timescales the same bilayer behaves as a single effective magnetic layer with one precessional mode, so radio-frequency response can be described by collective parameters such as the fitted $M_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx 690$ kA m$^{-1}$.
  • The direct proportionality between demagnetization time and effective damping means that fluence-tuned measurements of one parameter predict the other, and it points to Elliott-Yafet spin-flip scattering as the shared angular-momentum transfer channel.
  • The single-mode precession seen in this 1.5 nm/1.5 nm stack contrasts with the two-mode response reported for thicker Co/Py bilayers, implying that ultrathin ferromagnetic/ferromagnetic stacks suppress the higher-order modes.
  • Because both demagnetization time and effective damping rise with pump fluence, operating an ultrathin bilayer at lower fluence should yield both faster demagnetization and lower damping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not stated in the paper: the same stack could be engineered as two independent channels on the femtosecond write step and one effective medium on the nanosecond readout, so ultrafast device design gets two different coupling rules from one interface.
  • A testable extension of the direct proportionality is that a single fixed-fluence TR-MOKE demagnetization measurement could rank the damping of candidate ultrathin stacks before full precession analysis, if the proportionality survives across compositions and thicknesses.
  • An independent test of the femtosecond decoupling, beyond the paper's MOKE weighting, is element-specific detection at the Co and Ni edges, which would show whether the layer-resolved signals really follow the weakly coupled $\mu T$ simulations.
  • A natural thickness-series experiment would probe the crossover from the single coupled mode seen here to the two magnon modes reported in thicker exchange-spring bilayers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports pump-probe TR-MOKE measurements on an epitaxial Co(1.5 nm)/Py(1.5 nm) bilayer from femtosecond to nanosecond timescales. On the femtosecond timescale, the demagnetization trace of the bilayer is intermediate between the simulated demagnetization of the individual Co and Py layers, and a 3:1 weighted superposition of the layer-resolved µT-model simulations reproduces the experimental trace, leading the authors to conclude that the layers demagnetize in a weakly coupled or decoupled manner. On the nanosecond timescale, a single precessional mode is observed whose field dependence is fit with the Kittel formula, and the authors interpret this as evidence that the layers precess together as one coupled effective layer. Finally, the authors report a direct proportionality between the 3TM demagnetization time τ_M and the effective Gilbert damping α_eff extracted from fluence-dependent precession measurements, and they argue that this proportionality supports Elliott-Yafet spin-flip scattering as the dominant microscopic mechanism. The central claim is that interfacial exchange coupling in the bilayer is timescale-dependent, with decoupled ultrafast demagnetization but coupled nanosecond precession.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides one of the few direct experimental demonstrations that interfacial coupling in an ultrathin FM/FM bilayer is not a fixed property but manifests differently in highly non-equilibrium versus close-to-equilibrium dynamics. The experimental data appear carefully acquired, with fluence- and field-dependent measurements, a rectangular static hysteresis loop, and a modern µT-model framework for the bilayer that explicitly includes interfacial spin-resolved particle and energy transfer. The single precessional mode and the τ_M–α_eff correlation are useful additions to the ongoing discussion connecting ultrafast demagnetization to damping. The main weakness is that the femtosecond decoupling conclusion rests on a post hoc 3:1 superposition weight for the two layers' MOKE contributions, which is not independently calibrated; because the strong-coupling scenario is excluded only under that assumed weighting, the central timescale-dependent claim is not yet fully secured. With an independent optical/magneto-optical calibration or a sensitivity analysis over the weighting, the manuscript could become a strong contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III A, Fig. 2(b)] The load-bearing inference that the bilayer demagnetizes in a decoupled manner rests on a 3:1 weighted superposition of the simulated Co and Py layer magnetizations, but the paper does not derive this weighting from the optical and magneto-optical properties of the Al2O3/Au/Py/Co/MgO stack. The text states that the 3:1 superposition 'is found to agree with the experiment,' which makes the comparison against the 'strong coupling' (500×) scenario a test of the model only under a weight that is itself fitted to the very data being explained. A degeneracy therefore remains: for a different plausible MOKE weighting, the strong-coupling simulation might also reproduce the experimental trace, and the conclusion that the layers are decoupled on femtosecond timescales would not be uniquely supported. To secure the claim, the authors should calibrate the MOKE sensitivity of each layer from the known optical constants and layer stack, or at minimum show a sensitivity analysis in which the strong-coupling simulation is compared with the data over the physically plausible range of weighting factors.
  2. [Section III A, Fig. 2(b) and accompanying text] The manuscript itself notes that the 'no coupling' and 'weak coupling' simulated traces are nearly indistinguishable, which means that the experiment is not sensitive to small or moderate interfacial coupling in the µT model. As written, the text concludes that the layers 'behave nearly independently in a decoupled way,' but the only scenario actually excluded is an arbitrarily strong 500× coupling under one assumed superposition weight. This is an overstatement. The conclusion should be reformulated as consistency with weak or vanishing coupling, with a quantitative statement of the upper bound on the interfacial coupling parameter that is compatible with the data.
  3. [Section III C, Fig. 5(d)] The claimed direct proportionality between demagnetization time τ_M and effective damping α_eff uses fitted quantities on both axes: τ_M is obtained from 3TM fits to the ultrafast traces and α_eff from the precession relaxation time via Eq. (3), with both parameters varied by the same pump fluence. Because both parameters are extracted from the same set of fluence-dependent measurements, a common cause (e.g., a fluence-dependent transient temperature that affects both the 3TM fit and the precession damping) could produce a correlation without a direct microscopic link. The paper should provide explicit error bars on τ_M and α_eff, show the correlation with the fit uncertainty, and discuss how the common-fluence dependence is separated from an intrinsic τ_M–α_eff relation. This is not fatal to the paper's broader message, but the correlation claim needs more quantitative support than a single apparent trend.
  4. [Section III A and IV] The interpretation of 'dynamic interfacial effects' would be strengthened by a more explicit statement of what it means for the coupling to be timescale-dependent within the model. The µT model uses a fixed interfacial coupling parameter; the fs result is 'weak coupling' and the ns result is 'coupled precession.' These two observations could also be reconciled by a static, weakly coupled bilayer in which the precessional mode is essentially uniform across the two layers because the layers are only 1.5 nm each and exchange dominates the magnon spectrum. The paper should address whether the timescale dependence is an intrinsic change in the effective interfacial coupling or simply the natural consequence of probing different dynamic regimes of the same static coupling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The abstract uses hedged language ('appear to remain decoupled', 'we attempt to bridge') while the conclusion states the findings more definitively; the authors should align the level of certainty across the abstract, results, and conclusion.
  2. [Section III B] The heading 'Dynamics in the close-to-equillibrium regime' contains a typo ('equillibrium'); the same spelling appears later in the text.
  3. [References [31] and [39]] References [31] and [39] are the same paper by Mueller and Rethfeld; they should be consolidated into a single reference to avoid duplicate citation.
  4. [Figure 2(c) caption] The caption phrase 'The time of minima vs. quenching determined by the fluence' is awkward and should be rephrased for clarity, e.g., 'Time to reach the demagnetization minimum as a function of quenching, which is set by the pump fluence.'
  5. [Eq. (1)] The damped sinusoid is written as M(t)=M(0)e^{-t/τ_d} sin(2πft); for clarity the multiplication should be typeset explicitly, and the definition of M(0) as 'initial amplitude' should be distinguished from the equilibrium magnetization.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The fs decoupling claim is partially enforced by a 3:1 MOKE superposition chosen to match the experimental trace, while the ns coupling evidence remains independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III A, Fig. 2(b)]
    "In Fig. 2(b) we combine the numerically simulated demagnetization of the individual Co and Py layers to obtain the demagnetization dynamics of the entire bilayer. This is further compared to the experimentally measured data of the entire bilayer. We find good agreement with the experiment for a 3:1 superposition of layer-dependent contributions from the simulations. ... We conclude that the experimental demagnetization of the bilayer is best described by weakly coupled or decoupled Co and Py layers within the bilayer."

    The 3:1 mixing weight is not derived from the optical or magneto-optical properties of the stack; it is selected because it makes the summed simulated magnetization overlap the experimental TR-MOKE trace. The subsequent statement that the bilayer demagnetization is best described by weakly coupled or decoupled layers is therefore not an independent prediction—the agreement of the weak-coupling simulation with the data is enforced by the fitted weighting. The strong-coupling comparison uses the same fitted 3:1 weighting, and without an independent calibration of the MOKE depth sensitivity the comparison cannot uniquely exclude strong interfacial coupling.

full rationale

The strongest independent evidence is the ns-regime single precessional mode and the rectangular static hysteresis loop, which support coupled long-timescale behavior without any fitted superposition. The fs decoupling claim, however, relies on Fig. 2(b), where the layer contributions are combined as a 3:1 superposition chosen to match the experimental demagnetization trace. That choice makes the 'good agreement' of the weak-coupling simulation partly a construction, and the comparison against the strong-coupling simulation is degenerate unless the MOKE weighting is independently calibrated. This is a genuine but partial circularity: the conclusion is not wholly forced, because the experimental trace's intermediate position and the strong-coupling mismatch provide some independent content, yet the central fs claim is not as cleanly predicted as presented. The tau_M versus alpha_eff correlation is not circular by the same standard: the two quantities are extracted from separate timescales of the same measurements, and the proportionality is presented as a phenomenological observation with a common dependence on fluence, not as a derivation from the fitted parameters. The µT model self-citations are legitimate prior model development and are not themselves the circular step. Overall, one fitted input weakens half of the central claim, warranting a moderate score of 4.

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

The central claim rests on a fitted MOKE weighting, a hand-set coupling strength, and fitted kinetic parameters (tau_M, tau_E, Meff, alpha_eff). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • 3:1 superposition weight (Co:Py) = 3:1
    Chosen post hoc to match the experimental demagnetization trace in Fig. 2(b); used to conclude weak interlayer coupling. The actual magneto-optical weighting is not independently calibrated.
  • Interfacial coupling strength in µT model = weak (not quantified in main text)
    The simulation is run with a small coupling value (showing small deviations from no-coupling) and a strong coupling value (500 times larger). The actual 'weak' coupling parameter is not given in the main text, so it is effectively hand-set.
  • Demagnetization time tau_M and remagnetization time tau_E = Vary with fluence; numerical values not tabulated in main text
    Extracted from 3TM fits to each fluence trace (Fig. 3). These fitted parameters are used to establish the tau_M-alpha_eff correlation, so they are free parameters in the central correlation claim.
  • Effective magnetization Meff = 690 ± 20 kA/m
    Extracted by fitting the Kittel formula (Eq. 2) to the frequency-field data (Fig. 4c). Used to compute alpha_eff via Eq. (3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The TR-MOKE signal is a linear superposition of the magneto-optical responses of the Co and Py layers.
    The 3:1 weighting in Fig. 2(b) assumes linear superposition and constant weighting across the measured timescales; if the MOKE sensitivity to each layer is time-dependent, the inference of decoupling could be affected.
  • domain assumption The µT model accurately represents the individual Co and Py layer magnetization dynamics.
    The model's internal parameters are taken from previous experimental measurements (Refs. 33, 34), and the conclusion of weak coupling depends on the model's description of the individual layers.
  • domain assumption A single precession mode in the FFT implies the layers precess together at the same frequency.
    The absence of a second resolved peak is interpreted as coupled precession, but could also be due to unresolved modes within the frequency resolution of the finite time window.
  • standard math The Kittel formula with g=2 applies to the bilayer.
    Used to extract Meff from the frequency-field data (Eq. 2).
  • standard math The formula for alpha_eff (Eq. 3) is taken from the cited literature and is dimensionally consistent in that context.
    The printed formula is ambiguous and appears dimensionally inconsistent if read literally; it is likely a shorthand for the standard expression used in Refs. 10, 16, 34.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic interfacial effects in ultrathin ferromagnetic bilayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2PJZVIU7

@misc{pith2026250508490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic interfacial effects in ultrathin ferromagnetic bilayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2PJZVIU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08490}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the magnetization dynamics of an ultrathin Co (1.5 nm) /Py (1.5 nm) bilayer system from femtosecond (fs) to nanosecond (ns) timescales. Magnetization dynamics in the fs timescales is characterized as a highly non-equilibrium regime due to an ultrafast reduction of magnetization by laser excitation. On the other hand, the dynamics in the ns timescales is characterized as a close-to-equilibrium regime involving the excitation of coherent magnons. We demonstrate that the interfacial interaction between the Co and Py layers in these two non-equilibrium regimes across the timescales is dynamic and simultaneously influences the magnetization loss in the fs timescales and the magnon dynamics in the ns timescales. On ultrafast (fs) timescales, comparison between time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect (TR-MOKE) measurements and temperature-based {\mu}T model simulations reveals that the bilayer exhibits demagnetization dynamics intermediate between those of its individual layers. When driven far from equilibrium by ultrashort laser pulse excitation, the magnetization dynamics of the individual Co and Py layers appear to remain decoupled and evolve independently in the initial stages of the ultrafast response. On the other hand, in the ns regime, the two individual layers of the bilayer precess together at the same frequency in a coupled manner as one effective single layer. Furthermore, by correlating the ultrafast demagnetization to precessional damping we attempt to bridge the two non-equilibrium regimes across fs to ns timescales. These results improve our understanding of magnetization dynamics across timescales in ultrathin exchanged-coupled ferromagnetic bilayers and provide valuable insights for the design of high-frequency and energy efficient spintronic device concepts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08490 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the pump-probe experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the experimental demagnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Ultrafast demagnetization traces of the Co/Py [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic field dependent precession dynamics: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pump fluence dependent precession dynamics: (a) Background-subtracted time-resolved Kerr rotation data for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Beaurepaire, J.-C

    E. Beaurepaire, J.-C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J.-Y. Bigot, Ultrafast spin dynamics in ferromagnetic nickel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4250 (1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Koopmans, M

    B. Koopmans, M. van Kampen, J. T. Kohlhepp, and W. J. M. de Jonge, Ultrafast magneto-optics in nickel: Magnetism or optics?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 844 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Bigot, M

    J.-Y. Bigot, M. Vomir, and E. Beaurepaire, Coherent ul- trafast magnetism induced by femtosecond laser pulses, Nat. Phys. 5, 515 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Krauß, T

    M. Krauß, T. Roth, S. Alebrand, D. Steil, M. Cinchetti, M. Aeschlimann, and H. C. Schneider, Ultrafast demag- netization of ferromagnetic transition metals: The role of the coulomb interaction, Phys. Rev. B80, 180407 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Koopmans, F

    B. Koopmans, F. D. Longa, G. Malinowski, D. Steiauf, M. F¨ ahnle, T. Roth, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Explaining the paradoxical diversity of ultrafast laser- induced demagnetization, Nat. Mat. 9, 259 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Malinowski, F

    G. Malinowski, F. D. Longa, J. H. H. Rietjens, P. V. Paluskar, R. Huijink, H. J. M. Swagten, and B. Koop- mans, Control of speed and efficiency of ultrafast demag- netization by direct transfer of spin angular momentum, Nat. Phys. 4, 855 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Superdiffu- sive spin transport as a mechanism of ultrafast demag- netization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 027203 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    van Kampen, C

    M. van Kampen, C. Jozsa, J. T. Kohlhepp, P. LeClair, L. Lagae, W. J. M. de Jonge, and B. Koopmans, All- optical probe of coherent spin waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 227201 (2002)

    2002

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Koopmans, J

    B. Koopmans, J. J. M. Ruigrok, F. D. Longa, and W. J. M. de Jonge, Unifying ultrafast magnetization dy- namics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 267207 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Mukhopadhyay, S

    S. Mukhopadhyay, S. Majumder, S. N. Panda, and A. Barman, Investigation of ultrafast demagnetization and gilbert damping and their correlation in different fer- romagnetic thin films grown under identical conditions, Nanotechnol. 34, 235702 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    A. De, K. Dutta, S. Mondal, S. Barman, Y. Otani, and A. Barman, Magnonic crystals with complex geometry, Phys. Rev. B 103, 064402 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    A. De, S. S. P. K. Arekapudi, L. Koch, F. Samad, S. N. Panda, B. B¨ ohm, O. Hellwig, and A. Barman, Mag- netic configuration driven femtosecond spin dynamics in synthetic antiferromagnets, ACS Appl. Mat. Interf. 14, 13970 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    G. P. Zhang, W. H¨ ubner, G. Lefkidis, Y. Bai, and T. F. George, Paradigm of the time-resolved magneto-optical kerr effect for femtosecond magnetism, Nat. Phys. 5, 499 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Ashok, C

    S. Ashok, C. Seibel, S. T. Weber, J. Briones, and B. Reth- feld, Influence of diffusive transport on ultrafast magne- tization dynamics, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 142402 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    G. P. Zhang and W. H¨ ubner, Laser-induced ultrafast de- magnetization in ferromagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3025 (2000)

    2000

  8. [16]

    Walowski, G

    J. Walowski, G. M¨ uller, M. Djordjevic, M. M¨ unzenberg, M. Kl¨ aui, C. A. F. Vaz, and J. A. C. Bland, Energy equi- libration processes of electrons, magnons, and phonons at the femtosecond time scale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 237401 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Vomir, L

    M. Vomir, L. H. F. Andrade, L. Guidoni, E. Beaurepaire, and J.-Y. Bigot, Real space trajectory of the ultrafast magnetization dynamics in ferromagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 237601 (2005). 9

    2005

  10. [18]

    Dusabirane, K

    F. Dusabirane, K. Leckron, B. Rethfeld, and H. C. Schneider, Interplay of electron-magnon scattering and spin-orbit induced electronic spin-flip scattering in a two-band stoner model, arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14978 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    F¨ ahnle, J

    M. F¨ ahnle, J. Seib, and C. Illg, Relating gilbert damping and ultrafast laser-induced demagnetization, Phys. Rev. B 82, 144405 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    breathes

    and individual Co, Ni, and Permalloy thin films [10] were experimentally demonstrated. To study the corre- lation between ultrafast demagnetization time (τM) and effective damping (αeff) in a system, we have used the ex- citation fluence to systematically modulate both τM and ...

  13. [21]

    Zhang, W

    W. Zhang, W. He, X.-Q. Zhang, Z.-H. Cheng, J. Teng, and M. F¨ ahnle, Unifying ultrafast demagnetization and intrinsic gilbert damping in co/ni bilayers with elec- tronic relaxation near the fermi surface, Phys. Rev. B 96, 220415 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Kneller and R

    E. Kneller and R. Hawig, The exchange-spring magnet: a new material principle for permanent magnets, IEEE Trans. Magn. 27, 3588 (1991)

    1991

  15. [23]

    E. E. Fullerton, J. S. Jiang, M. Grimsditch, C. H. Sow- ers, and S. D. Bader, Exchange-spring behavior in epitax- ial hard/soft magnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 58, 12193 (1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    D. C. Crew, K. J. Kennewell, M. J. Lwin, R. C. Wood- ward, S. Prasad, and R. L. Stamps, Optic and acoustic modes measured in a cobalt/permalloy exchange spring bilayer using inductive magnetometry, J. Appl. Phys.97, 10A707 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    K. J. Kennewell, M. Kostylev, N. Ross, R. Magaraggia, R. L. Stamps, M. Ali, A. A. Stashkevich, D. Greig, and B. J. Hickey, Magnetization pinning at a Py/Co interface measured using broadband inductive magnetometry, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 073917 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Deng, A.Tan, J.Li, C.Hwang, and Z.Q.Qiu, In-plane spinreorientationtransitioninco/pybilayersgrown epitaxi- allyonvicinalcu(001), J

    J. Deng, A.Tan, J.Li, C.Hwang, and Z.Q.Qiu, In-plane spinreorientationtransitioninco/pybilayersgrown epitaxi- allyonvicinalcu(001), J. Magn. Magn. Mat 408, 193 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Fraile Rodr´ ıguez, L

    A. Fraile Rodr´ ıguez, L. J. Heyderman, F. Nolting, A. Hoffmann, J. E. Pearson, L. M. Doeswijk, M. A. F. van den Boogaart, and J. Brugger, Permalloy thin films exchange coupled to arrays of cobalt islands, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 142508 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Haldar, C

    A. Haldar, C. Banerjee, P. Laha, and A. Barman, Bril- louin light scattering study of spin waves in NiFe/Co ex- change spring bilayer films, J. Appl. Phys. 115, 133901 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Salaheldeen, L

    M. Salaheldeen, L. Mart´ ınez-Goyeneche, P. Alvarez- Alonso, and A. Fern ´andez, Formation of n´ eel-type skyrmions in an antidot lattice with perpendicular mag- netic anisotropy, Nanotechnol. 31, 485708 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Feggeler, R

    T. Feggeler, R. Meckenstock, D. Spoddig, C. Sch¨ oppner, B. Zingsem, T. Schaffers, H. Ohldag, H. Wende, M. Farle, A. Ney, and K. Ollefs, Element-specific visualization of dynamic magnetic coupling in a co/py bilayer microstruc- ture, Sci. Rep. 12, 18724 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Time-resolved MOKE experi- ments, S2.µT model for bilayers, S3

    see Supplemental Materials at [URL to be inserted by publisher], Containing S1. Time-resolved MOKE experi- ments, S2.µT model for bilayers, S3. Three Temperature Model (3TM)

  24. [32]

    Seibel, M

    C. Seibel, M. Weber, M. Stiehl, S. T. Weber, M. Aeschli- mann, H. C. Schneider, B. Stadtm¨ uller, and B. Reth- feld, Control of transport phenomena in magnetic het- erostructures by wavelength modulation, Phys. Rev. B 106, L140405 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    B. Y. Mueller and B. Rethfeld, Thermodynamic µT model of ultrafast magnetization dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 90, 144420 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Zusin, P

    D. Zusin, P. M. Tengdin, M. Gopalakrishnan, C. Gentry, A. Blonsky, M. Gerrity, D. Legut, J. M. Shaw, H. T. Nem- bach, T. J. Silva, P. M. Oppeneer, H. C. Kapteyn, and M. M. Murnane, Direct measurement of the static and transient magneto-optical permittivity of cobalt across the...

    2018

  27. [35]

    A. De, A. Lentfert, L. Scheuer, B. Stadtm¨ uller, G. von Freymann, M. Aeschlimann, and P. Pirro, Coherent and incoherent magnons induced by strong ultrafast demag- netization in thin permalloy films, Phys. Rev. B 109, 024422 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Batallan, I

    F. Batallan, I. Rosenman, and C. Sommers, Band struc- ture and fermi surface of hcp ferromagnetic cobalt, Phys. Rev. B 11, 545 (1975)

    1975

  29. [37]

    M. He, C. Wu, M. V. Shugaev, G. D. Samolyuk, and L. V. Zhigilei, Computational study of short-pulse laser- induced generation of crystal defects in ni-based single- phase binary solid–solution alloys, J. Phys. Chem. C123, 2202 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Unikandanunni, R

    V. Unikandanunni, R. Medapalli, E. E. Fullerton, K. Carva, P. M. Oppeneer, and S. Bonetti, Anisotropic ultrafast spin dynamics in epitaxial cobalt, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118, 232404 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    T. Roth, A. J. Schellekens, S. Alebrand, O. Schmitt, D. Steil, B. Koopmans, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschli- mann, Temperature Dependence of Laser-Induced De- magnetization in Ni: A Key for Identifying the Underly- ing Mechanism, Phys. Rev. X 2, 021006 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Mueller and B

    B. Mueller and B. Rethfeld, Thermodynamic µ t model of ultrafast magnetization dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 90, 144420 (2014)

    2014

  33. [41]

    Dalla Longa, J

    F. Dalla Longa, J. Kohlhepp, W. De Jonge, and B. Koop- mans, Influence of photon angular momentum on ultra- fast demagnetization in nickel, Phys. Rev. B 75, 224431 (2007)

    2007

  34. [42]

    Gilbert, A phenomenological theory of damping in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans

    T. Gilbert, A phenomenological theory of damping in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn. 40, 3443 (2004)

    2004

  35. [43]

    G. B. G. Stenning, L. R. Shelford, S. A. Cavill, F. Hoff- mann, M. Haertinger, T. Hesjedal, G. Woltersdorf, G. J. Bowden, S. A. Gregory, and C. H. Back, Magnetization dynamics in an exchange-coupled nife/cofe bilayer stud- ied by x-ray detected ferromagnetic resonance, New J. ...

    2015

  36. [44]

    Kittel, On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance ab- sorption, Phys

    C. Kittel, On the theory of ferromagnetic resonance ab- sorption, Phys. Rev. 73, 155 (1948)

    1948

  37. [45]

    Lentfert, A

    A. Lentfert, A. De, L. Scheuer, B. Stadtm¨ uller, G. von Freymann, M. Aeschlimann, and P. Pirro, Phase shift of coherent magnetization dynamics after ultrafast de- magnetization in strongly quenched nickel thin films, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. 36, 455801 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Gilmore, Y

    K. Gilmore, Y. U. Idzerda, and M. D. Stiles, Identifica- tion of the dominant precession-damping mechanism in fe, co, and ni by first-principles calculations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 027204 (2007)

    2007

  39. [47]

    Mondal and A

    S. Mondal and A. Barman, Laser controlled spin dy- namics of ferromagnetic thin film from femtosecond to nanosecond timescale, Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 054037 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Nieves, D

    P. Nieves, D. Serantes, U. Atxitia, and O. Chubykalo- Fesenko, Quantum landau-lifshitz-bloch equation and its comparison with the classical case, Phys. Rev. B 90, 104428 (2014). 10

    2014

  41. [49]

    B. Liu, X. Ruan, Z. Wu, H. Tu, J. Du, J. Wu, X. Lu, L. He, R. Zhang, and Y. Xu, Transient enhancement of magnetization damping in cofeb film via pulsed laser ex- citation, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 042401 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Atxitia, O

    U. Atxitia, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, J. Walowski, A. Mann, and M. M¨ unzenberg, Evidence for thermal mechanisms in laser-induced femtosecond spin dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 81, 174401 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    F¨ ahnle and C

    M. F¨ ahnle and C. Illg, Electron theory of fast and ultra- fast dissipative magnetization dynamics, J. Phys: Cond. Matter 23, 493201 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.