Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 54 references

Near- and mid-infrared excitation of ultrafast demagnetization in a cobalt multilayer system

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Co/Pt multilayer demagnetizes about equally for pump wavelengths from 0.8 to 8.7 µm, with the pump pulse's temporal shape—not the photon energy—accounting for the variations.

desk verdict A useful spectral extension showing mid-IR demagnetization is real, but the quantitative wavelength trend rests on fits of a model the authors themselves call invalid for the key data. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.04892 v1 pith:BM47XS6S submitted 2024-12-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Katherine Légaré , Guillaume Barrette , Laurent Giroux , Jean-Michel Parent , Elissa Haddad , Heide Ibrahim , Philippe Lassonde , Emmanuelle Jal (LCPMR)
show 5 more authors
Boris Vodungbo (LCPMR) Jan Lüning Fabio Boschini Nicolas Jaouen François Légaré
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 78.20.Ls75.78.Jp
keywords ultrafastdemagnetizationCo/Ptmultilayermid-infraredpumpmagneto-opticalKerreffectwavelengthdependencepulseshapetime-resolvedMOKEphotonenergy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether the color of an ultrafast pump pulse controls how efficiently a magnetic metal loses its magnetization, and it pushes that question from the near-infrared into the mid-infrared for the first time. Time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr measurements on a Co/Pt multilayer show that pump pulses from 0.8 µm to 8.7 µm (photon energies from 1.55 eV down to 0.14 eV) all induce ultrafast demagnetization with roughly the same efficiency. The characteristic demagnetization time stays near 110 fs for every wavelength. Where the maximum quenching does vary, the variation is non-monotonic and lines up with the different pulse-generation schemes, so the temporal profile of the pump pulse, not the wavelength, is the important parameter. If correct, this means that photon energy in this broad range is not a controlling input for demagnetization in this sample, and that pulse-shape artifacts can masquerade as wavelength effects.

What carries the argument

The measurement is time-resolved polar magneto-optical Kerr effect (P-MOKE), tracking magnetization through the Kerr rotation of a 400 nm probe. The analysis rests on a bi-exponential fit whose parameters B and C represent the maximum quenching and the remaining quenching a few picoseconds after excitation; following an earlier study, the paper uses C as a wavelength-independent gauge of absorbed pump energy, so that B can be compared across wavelengths at equal deposited energy. The pump chain—an optical parametric amplifier for 1.2–2.1 µm and difference-frequency generation in GaSe for longer wavelengths—is what makes the 0.8 to 8.7 µm sweep possible, and the width of the Gaussian instrument response from the fits serves as a diagnostic of the pump pulse's temporal quality.

What would settle it

Measure the maximum quenching B at a fixed C using a mid-infrared pump compressed to the same ~50 fs duration as the near-infrared pump and with a characterized single-pulse temporal profile; if B at 8.7 µm then differs from the near-IR value, the wavelength-independence claim fails, whereas if it matches, the temporal-profile explanation is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that ultrafast demagnetization of a Co/Pt multilayer can be efficiently induced across the full excitation spectrum from 0.8 µm to 8.7 µm, with at most a weak, non-monotonic dependence on pump wavelength. When the maximum magnetization quenching (fit parameter B) is compared at a fixed absorbed-energy gauge (parameter C, the remaining quenching at long delays), the near-infrared trend of increasing efficiency with wavelength is not continued into the mid-infrared: the quenching at 8.7 µm is comparable to that at 2.1 µm and to the near-IR values. The three apparent regimes in the wavelength dependence coincide with the three optical setups used to generate the pump pulses, and the inferred width of the instrument response changes in the same way, indicating that pulses in the intermediate regime are longer or contain pedestals and post-pulses. The conclusion is that the ultrafast demagnetization dynamics depend only weakly on photon energy up to 1.55 eV, while the temporal profile of the excitation pulse is an important factor influencing the measured dynamics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that C, the residual demagnetization after partial recovery, scales with absorbed energy in the same way for every pump wavelength; if the excitation pathway changes this scaling in the mid-infrared, the central comparison breaks down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mid-infrared pulses are a usable tool for ultrafast demagnetization experiments on metallic multilayers, not a special regime with qualitatively different behavior.
  • The characteristic demagnetization time of Co/Pt stays near 110 fs for all wavelengths, so models of the demagnetization rate do not need a photon-energy input over this range.
  • Any wavelength-scaling study of demagnetization must characterize and account for the pump pulse's temporal profile before assigning trends to photon energy.
  • The apparent near-infrared enhancement of quenching efficiency reported for Co/Pt does not extrapolate to the mid-infrared; at 8.7 µm the efficiency is comparable to near-IR values.
  • Future extensions toward longer wavelengths with controlled pulse shapes can test whether a change from interband to intraband excitation alters the dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the temporal-profile explanation is right, some previously reported wavelength dependences in multilayers and bulk materials may need re-examination with pulse-characterization controls.
  • A natural extension is to hold the pump-pulse duration fixed with a mid-infrared compressor and remeasure B versus C; a flat curve would confirm that photon energy is irrelevant, while a residual slope would reveal a true electronic-structure effect.
  • The C-as-energy-gauge assumption could be tested directly by measuring absorbed fluence at a few wavelengths, which would strengthen or revise the central comparison.
  • Extending the paper's concluding observation, samples with strong non-local spin transport may show wavelength effects mainly because the spatial absorption profile changes, not because the photon energy itself matters.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper reports time-resolved polar magneto-optical Kerr effect measurements of ultrafast demagnetization in a Co/Pt multilayer excited by femtosecond pump pulses at eight wavelengths between 0.8 and 8.7 μm. The authors fit the transient MOKE signals with a bi-exponential model [Eq. (1)] to extract the maximum quenching amplitude B, the long-delay quenching amplitude C, and the demagnetization time τ_M. They observe efficient demagnetization at every wavelength and find that τ_M is essentially wavelength-independent. Using C as a gauge of absorbed pump energy, they compare B at a fixed value of C across wavelengths and report a non-monotonic trend, with lower B in the 3.15–5.9 μm range. They attribute this dip to the temporal profile of the pump pulses, specifically to the likely presence of pedestals or post-pulses in the intermediate-wavelength pulses, as inferred from an increased width of the Gaussian resolution function G(t) in the fits. The central claims are that ultrafast demagnetization can be efficiently induced over the whole spectral range with minimal intrinsic wavelength dependence, and that the pulse temporal profile is an important factor in the dynamics.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper provides the first systematic study of ultrafast demagnetization in a metallic multilayer across the near- to mid-infrared range, and it highlights the role of the excitation pulse temporal shape in interpreting wavelength-dependent demagnetization experiments. The direct observation that mid-IR photons (down to 0.14 eV) efficiently demagnetize a Co/Pt multilayer is an important experimental result that extends the parameter space of ultrafast magnetism. The dataset is potentially valuable for models of laser-induced spin dynamics. However, the quantitative claim of minimal wavelength dependence and the specific non-monotonic trend rest on fit parameters extracted from a model that the authors themselves state is invalid when post-pulses are present; this undermines the main quantitative comparison and needs to be addressed before the central conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (1)] The authors explicitly state that in the presence of post-pulses 'equation (1) is not a valid representation of the demagnetization dynamics' (Section 3.2, final paragraph). Nevertheless, all points in Fig. 4(a,c,d), including the intermediate-wavelength points (3.15, 3.7, 5.9 μm) that produce the non-monotonic dip, are obtained by fitting those traces with Eq. (1). If the pulses indeed contain post-pulses, the extracted B and C are not well-defined physical amplitudes, and a comparison of B at fixed C across wavelengths is not a comparison at fixed absorbed energy. The robust qualitative observation of efficient demagnetization at every wavelength remains, but the quantitative claim of minimal wavelength dependence and the identification of three regimes in Fig. 4(c) are not supported by the data as analyzed. Please refit the intermediate-wavelength traces using a model that incorporates the measured or estimated pump temporal profile (e.g., convolution with a double-pulse or pedestal shape), or restrict quantitative B(C) comparisons to the wavelengths where G(t) is narrow and treat the intermediate regime only qualitatively.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, C as energy gauge] The strategy of using the fitted parameter C as a wavelength-independent gauge of absorbed pump energy is adopted from Cardin et al. [38] without independent validation in the mid-IR. The authors correctly note that τ_2 is affected by the temporal profile of the pump pulse, but the same concern applies to C: if post-pulses alter the long-delay demagnetization amplitude, then fixing C does not guarantee that the absorbed energy is fixed across wavelengths. Since the intermediate-wavelength pulses are precisely the ones suspected of having complex temporal profiles, the B(C) comparison at those wavelengths may be biased. Please provide evidence, for each wavelength, that C scales monotonically and consistently with the incident fluence, and discuss how a change in pulse shape would affect the C(B) relation.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4(c)] The extrapolated value of B at C = 0.3 is obtained from a linear regression of B versus C for C > 0.15, but the number of points, the regression uncertainties, and the linearity assumption are not documented. No error bars are shown in Fig. 4(c), despite the fact that the fit parameters carry uncertainties that are acknowledged elsewhere (e.g., Fig. 3). Please include confidence intervals (e.g., from the covariance of the fits or from bootstrap resampling) for the extrapolated B values, and report the goodness of fit or the residuals for each wavelength.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1 heading] The heading 'Deagnetization time' contains a typo and should read 'Demagnetization time.'
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'that aim to better understand' should be 'that aims to better understand' or 'that aim at better understanding' for grammatical agreement with 'a large body of work.'
  3. [Sec. 3.2] The sentence 'but this it is not the case' should be corrected to 'but this is not the case.'
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The vertical dashed lines that separate the three regimes in Fig. 4(c) and (d) are not defined in the caption; please clarify what criteria define these regimes.
  5. [Sec. 2] The sample description 'Si/Ta3nm/Pt2nm/[Co0.6nm/Pt0.8nm]x20/Al3nm' would be easier to read with spaces (e.g., 'Si / Ta 3 nm / Pt 2 nm / [Co 0.6 nm / Pt 0.8 nm] × 20 / Al 3 nm').
  6. [Sec. 3.2] The pulse duration of 140 ± 60 fs measured with FROSt is not associated with a specific wavelength; please state which pump wavelength this characterization corresponds to and whether similar characterization was attempted for other wavelengths.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports direct time-resolved MOKE measurements, and the central wavelength-dependence claim is a controlled comparison of fit parameters, not a prediction derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no derived prediction or first-principles claim; its central conclusion, efficient demagnetization from 0.8 to 8.7 µm with weak, non-monotonic wavelength dependence, is a direct report of measured demagnetization curves. The analysis compares the fitted parameters B and C from Eq. (1), using C as an absorbed-energy gauge following Ref. [38]. This is a calibration adopted from prior work, not a quantity re-predicted by the present paper. Although Refs. [38] and [39] are same-group citations, the cited C-gauge strategy is an externally published empirical result, and the paper also gives a physical rationale with the external Ref. [50]. The internal concern that Eq. (1) may be invalid for pump pulses containing post-pulses, stated as 'it should be noted that equation (1) is not a valid representation of the demagnetization dynamics,' affects the quantitative interpretation of B and C in the intermediate-wavelength regime, but it is a data-analysis validity issue rather than circularity: the fitted parameters are not equivalent by construction to the wavelength-dependence claim. No equation in the manuscript reduces to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The paper is therefore self-contained as an experimental study, with no circular derivation chain.

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

The central claims rest on standard pump-probe data analysis plus two assumptions specific to this experiment: C as a fluence gauge and the validity of Eq. (1). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • B (maximum quenching amplitude)
    Fitted from Eq. (1) for every curve; used in Fig. 4 to compare maximum demagnetization efficiency across wavelengths.
  • C (long-delay quenching amplitude)
    Fitted from Eq. (1); used as the gauge of absorbed pump energy in Section 3.2 and as the x-axis for the B-vs-C comparison.
  • tau_1 (demagnetization time)
    Fitted from Eq. (1); reported as tau_M after conversion in Section 3.1 and compared across wavelengths.
  • tau_2 (recovery time)
    Fitted from Eq. (1); mentioned as an alternate energy gauge but not used because it depends on the pulse temporal profile.
  • G(t) width (Gaussian temporal resolution)
    Left free in the numerical fit (Section 2); its FWHM in Fig. 4(d) is used to infer differences in pump pulse temporal profile across wavelengths.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Polar MOKE rotation is proportional to magnetization: theta(t)/theta0 = M(t)/M0.
    Invoked in Section 2 to convert measured Kerr rotation into magnetization dynamics; the authors cite controversy about this relation but rely on it.
  • domain assumption The fitted parameter C is proportional to absorbed pump energy.
    Adopted in Section 3.2 as the experimental strategy for comparing different wavelengths; if C is not a clean energy gauge, the B-vs-wavelength comparison collapses.
  • domain assumption Equation (1) with Gaussian convolution adequately represents the demagnetization dynamics for all pump conditions.
    Used to extract B, C, tau_1, and tau_2; the authors note it is invalid when pump pulses contain post-pulses (Section 3.2), yet still use it to define B and C.
  • domain assumption The IMD multilayer optical model correctly estimates wavelength-dependent absorption, 25 percent at 0.8 micrometers versus 6 percent at 8.7 micrometers.
    Section 3 uses IMD modeling to estimate absorbed fluence; any wavelength-dependent errors propagate into fluence comparisons.
  • domain assumption The 400 nanometer probe penetrates less deeply than the pump at every wavelength, so the probed region is fully excited.
    Section 2 states this condition; if violated at some wavelength, measured dynamics mix unexcited layers.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near- and mid-infrared excitation of ultrafast demagnetization in a cobalt multilayer system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BM47XS6S

@misc{pith2026241204892,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near- and mid-infrared excitation of ultrafast demagnetization in a cobalt multilayer system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BM47XS6S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.04892}
}
abstract

In the last few decades, ultrafast demagnetization elicited by ultrashort laser pulses has been the subject of a large body of work that aims to better understand and control this phenomenon. Although specific magnetic materials' properties play a key role in defining ultrafast demagnetization dynamics, features of the driving laser pulse such as its duration and photon energy might also contribute. Here, we report ultrafast demagnetization of a cobalt/platinum multilayer in a broad spectral range spanning from the near-infrared (near-IR) to the mid-infrared (mid-IR), with wavelengths between 0.8 and 8.7 $\mu$m. The ultrafast dynamics of the macroscopic magnetization is tracked via the time-resolved magneto-optical Kerr effect. We show that the ultrafast demagnetization of the sample can be efficiently induced over that entire excitation spectrum with minimal dependence on the excitation wavelength. Instead, we confirm that the temporal profile of the pump excitation pulse is an important factor influencing ultrafast demagnetization dynamics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    Cardin et al., Wavelength Scaling of Ultrafast Demagnetization in Co/Pt Multilayers, Phys

    V. Cardin et al., Wavelength Scaling of Ultrafast Demagnetization in Co/Pt Multilayers, Phys. Rev. B 101, 054430 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [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

  3. [2]

    A. V. Kimel and M. Li, Writing Magnetic Memory with Ultrashort Light Pulses , Nat Rev Mater 4, 3 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [3]

    T. A. Ostler et al., Ultrafast Heating as a Sufficient Stimulus for Magnetization Reversal in a Ferrimagnet, Nat. Commun. 3, (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    C. D. Stanciu, F. Hansteen, A. V. Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, and Th. Rasing, All-Optical Magnetic R ecording with Circularly Polarized Light , Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [5]

    Strungaru, M

    M. Strungaru, M. Augustin, and E. J. G. Santos, Ultrafast Laser-Driven Topological Spin Textures on a 2D Magnet, Npj Comput Mater 8, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    Finazzi, M

    M. Finazzi, M. Savoini, A. R. Khor sand, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, L. Duò, A. Kirilyuk, Th. Rasing, and M. Ezawa, Laser-Induced Magnetic Nanostructures with Tunable Topological Properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 177205 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    El-Ghazaly, J

    A. El-Ghazaly, J. Gorchon, R. B. Wilson, A. Pattabi, and J. Bokor, Progress towards Ultrafast Spintronics Applications, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 502, 166478 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    Scheid, Q

    P. Scheid, Q. Remy, S. Lebègue, G. Malinowski, and S. Mangin, Light Induced Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in Metallic Compounds , J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 560, 169596 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Malinowski, F

    G. Malinowski, F. Dalla Longa, J. H. H. Rietjens, P. V. Paluskar, R. Huijink, H. J. M. Swagten, and B. Koopmans, Control of Speed and Efficiency of Ultrafast Demagnetization by Direct Transfer of Spin Angular Momentum, Nat. Phys. 4, 855 (2008)

    2008

  3. [10]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Superdiffusive Spin Transport as a Mechanism of Ultrafast Demagnetization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010)

    2010

  4. [11]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Theory of Laser -Induced Ultrafast Superdiffusive Spin Transport in Layered Heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B 86, (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    Stamm et al., Femtosecond Modification of Electron Localization and Transfer of Angular Momentum in Nickel, Nat

    C. Stamm et al., Femtosecond Modification of Electron Localization and Transfer of Angular Momentum in Nickel, Nat. Mater. 6, 740 (2007)

    2007

  6. [13]

    Melni kov, I

    A. Melni kov, I. Razdolski, T. O. Wehling, E. Th. Papaioannou, V. Roddatis, P. Fumagalli, O. Aktsipetrov, A. I. Lichtenstein, and U. Bovensiepen, Ultrafast Transport of Laser-Excited Spin-Polarized Carriers in Au / Fe / MgO ( 001 ) , Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 076601 (2011)

    2011

  7. [14]

    Rudolf et al., Ultrafast Magnetization Enhancement in Metallic Multilayers Driven by Superdiffusive Spin Current, Nat

    D. Rudolf et al., Ultrafast Magnetization Enhancement in Metallic Multilayers Driven by Superdiffusive Spin Current, Nat. Commun. 3, 1037 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    Eschenlohr, M

    A. Eschenlohr, M. Battiato, P. Maldonado, N. Pontius, T. Kachel, K. Holldack, R. Mitzner, A. Fö hlisch, P. M. Oppeneer, and C. Stamm, Ultrafast Spin Transport as Key to Femtosecond Demagnetization, Nat. Mater. 12, 332 (2013)

    2013

  9. [16]

    M. Haag, C. Illg, and M. Fähnle, Role of Electron -Magnon Scatterings in Ultrafast Demagnetization, Phys. Rev. B 90, 014417 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Carpene, E

    E. Carpene, E. Mancini, C. Dallera, M. Brenna, E. Puppin, and S. De Silvestri, Dynamics of Electron-Magnon Interaction and Ultrafast Demagnetization in Thin Iron Films, Phys. Rev. B 78, (2008)

    2008

  11. [18]

    Frietsch et al., The Role of Ultrafast Magnon Generation in the Magnetization Dynamics of Rare-Earth Metals, Sci

    B. Frietsch et al., The Role of Ultrafast Magnon Generation in the Magnetization Dynamics of Rare-Earth Metals, Sci. Adv. 6, eabb1601 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Bigot, M

    J.-Y. Bigot, M. Vomir, and E. Beaurepaire, Coherent Ultrafast Magnetism Induced by Femtosecond Laser Pulses, Nat. Phys. 5, 515 (2009)

    2009

  13. [20]

    Koopmans, J

    B. Koopmans, J. J. M. Ruigrok, F. D. Longa, and W. J. M. de Jonge, Unifying Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 267207 (2005)

    2005

  14. [21]

    Koopmans, G

    B. Koopmans, G. Malinowski, F. Dalla Longa, D. Steiauf, M. Fähnle, T. Roth, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Explaining the Paradoxical Diversity of Ultrafast Laser-Induced Demagnetization, Nat. Mater. 9, 259 (2010)

    2010

  15. [22]

    Wang and Y

    C. Wang and Y. Liu, Ultrafast Optical Manipulation of Magnetic Order in Ferromagnetic Materials, Nano Convergence 7, 35 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Gort et al., Early Stages of Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in a 3 d Ferromagnet , Phys

    R. Gort et al., Early Stages of Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in a 3 d Ferromagnet , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Fähnle et al., Review of Ultrafast Demagnetization After Femtosecond Laser Pulses: A Complex Interaction of Light with Quantum Matter , Am

    M. Fähnle et al., Review of Ultrafast Demagnetization After Femtosecond Laser Pulses: A Complex Interaction of Light with Quantum Matter , Am. J. Mod. Phys. 7, 68 (2018)

    2018

  18. [25]

    Krieger, P

    K. Krieger, P. Elliott, T. Müller, N. Singh, J. K. Dewhurst, E. K. U. Gross, and S. Sharma, Ultrafast Demagnetization in Bulk versus Thin Films: An Ab Initio Study, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 224001 (2017)

    2017

  19. [26]

    Ksenzov et al., Nanoscale Transient Magnetization Gratings Created and Probed by Femtosecond Extreme Ultraviolet Pulses, Nano Lett

    D. Ksenzov et al., Nanoscale Transient Magnetization Gratings Created and Probed by Femtosecond Extreme Ultraviolet Pulses, Nano Lett. 21, 2905 (2021)

    2021

  20. [27]

    Liu et al., Sub-15-Fs X-Ray Pump and X-Ray Probe Experiment for the Study of Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in Ferromagnetic Alloys, Opt

    X. Liu et al., Sub-15-Fs X-Ray Pump and X-Ray Probe Experiment for the Study of Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in Ferromagnetic Alloys, Opt. Express 29, 32388 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Shalaby, A

    M. Shalaby, A. Donges, K. Carva, R. Allenspach, P. M. Oppeneer, U. Nowak, and C. P. Hauri, Coherent and Incoherent Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in 3 d Ferromagnets Driven by Extreme Terahertz Fields, Phys. Rev. B 98, (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    Bonetti, M

    S. Bonetti, M. C. Hoffmann, M.-J. Sher, Z. Chen, S.-H. Yang, M. G. Samant, S. S. P. Parkin, and H. A. Dürr, THz-Driven Ultrafast Spin-Lattice Scattering in Amorphous Metallic Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    M. Hudl, M. d’Aquino, M. Pancaldi, S.-H. Yang, M. G. Samant, S. S. P. Parkin, H. A. Dürr, C. Serpico, M. C. Hoffmann, and S. Bonetti, Nonlinear Magnetization Dynamics Driven by Strong Terahertz Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 197204 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    A. L. Chekhov, Y. Behovits, J. J. F. Heitz, C. Denker, D. A. Reiss, M. Wolf, M. Weinelt, P. W. Brouwer, M. Münzenberg, and T. Kampfrath, Ultrafast Demagnetization of Iron Induced by Optical versus Terahertz Pulses, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041055 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    Polley, M

    D. Polley, M. Pancaldi, M. Hudl, P. Vavassori, S. Urazhdin, and S. Bonetti, THz- Driven Demagnetization with Perpendicular Magnetic Anisotropy: Towards Ultrafast Ballistic Switching, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51, 084001 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    Zagdoud, M

    A. Zagdoud, M. Vomir, M. Albrecht, M. Barthelemy, and J.-Y. Bigot, Spin Dynamics Excited with Mid-Infrared Femtosecond Laser Pulses, in International Conference on Ultrafast Phenomena (OSA, Snowmass, Colorado, 2010), p. TuE49

    2010

  27. [34]

    Stiehl, M

    M. Stiehl, M. Weber, C. Seibel, J. Hoefer, S. T. Weber, D. M. Nenno, H. C. Schneider, B. Rethfeld, B. Stadtmüller, and M. Aeschlimann, Role of Primary and Secondary Processes in the Ultrafast Spin Dynamics of Nickel , Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 062410 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    Bierbrauer, S

    U. Bierbrauer, S. T. Weber, D. Schummer, M. Barkowski, A. -K. Mahro, S. Mathias, H. Christian Schneider, B. Stadtmüller, M. Aeschlimann, and B. Rethfeld, Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in Nickel: Impact of Pump Photon Energy , J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 244002 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    Seibel, M

    C. Seibel, M. Weber, M. Stiehl, S. T. We ber, M. Aeschlimann, H. C. Schneider, B. Stadtmüller, and B. Rethfeld, Control of Transport Phenomena in Magnetic Heterostructures by Wavelength Modulation, Phys. Rev. B 106, L140405 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    Mertens, M

    F. Mertens, M. Terschanski, D. Mönkebüscher, S. Ponzoni, D. Bossini, and M. Cinchetti, Wide Spectral Range Ultrafast Pump –Probe Magneto -Optical Spectrometer at Low Temperature, High -Magnetic and Electric Fields , Rev. Sci. Instrum. 91, 113001 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Légaré, V

    K. Légaré, V. Chardonnet, I. Bermúdez Macias, M. Hennes, R. Delaunay, P. Lassonde, F. Légaré, G. Lambert, E. Jal, and B. Vodungbo, Analytic Description and Optimization of Magneto-Optical Kerr Setups with Photoelastic Modulation, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 93, 073001 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    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)

    2000

  33. [41]

    Cinchetti, M

    M. Cinchetti, M. Sánchez Albaneda, D. Hoffmann, T. Roth, J. -P. Wüstenberg, M. Krauß, O. Andreyev, H. C. Schneider, M. Bauer, and M. Aeschlimann, Spin-Flip Processes and Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in Co : Unifying the Microscopic and Macroscopic View of Femtosecond Magne...

    2006

  34. [42]

    Carpene, F

    E. Carpene, F. Boschini, H. Hedayat, C. Piovera, C. Dallera, E. Puppin, M. Mansurova, M. Münzenberg, X. Zhang, and A. Gupta, Measurement of the Magneto- Optical Response of Fe and CrO 2 Epitaxial Films by Pump -Probe Spectroscopy: Evidence for Spin-Charge Separation, Phys. Rev...

    2013

  35. [43]

    Thiré, S

    N. Thiré, S. Beaulieu, V. Cardin, A. Laramée, V. Wanie, B. E. Schmidt, and F. Légaré, 10 mJ 5 -Cycle Pulses at 1.8 Μm through Optical Parametric Amplification , Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 091110 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    Haider, A Review of Magneto-Optic Effects and Its Application, Int

    T. Haider, A Review of Magneto-Optic Effects and Its Application, Int. J. Electromagn. Appl. 7, 17 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    G. P. Zhang, W. Hübner, 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

  38. [46]

    P. M. Oppeneer and A. Liebsch, Ultrafast Demagnetization in Ni: Theory of Magneto- Optics for Non-Equilibrium Electron Distributions, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 16, 5519 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Guidoni, E

    L. Guidoni, E. Beaurepaire, and J.-Y. Bigot, Magneto-Optics in the Ultrafast Regime: Thermalization of Spin Populations in Ferromagnetic Films , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 017401 (2002)

    2002

  40. [48]

    Vodungbo et al., Laser-Induced Ultrafast Demagnetization in the Presence of a Nanoscale Magnetic Domain Network, Nat

    B. Vodungbo et al., Laser-Induced Ultrafast Demagnetization in the Presence of a Nanoscale Magnetic Domain Network, Nat. Commun. 3, (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    D. L. Windt, IMD—Software for Modeling the Optical Properties of Multilayer Films , Comput. Phys. 12, 360 (1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    Fognini, G

    A. Fognini, G. Salvatella, R. Gort, T. Michlmayr, A. Vaterlaus, and Y. Acremann, The Influence of the Excitation Pulse Length on Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics in Nickel, Struct. Dyn. 2, 024501 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Vodungbo et al., Indirect Excitation of Ultrafast Demagnetization, Sci

    B. Vodungbo et al., Indirect Excitation of Ultrafast Demagnetization, Sci. Rep. 6, 18970 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    K. C. Kuiper, T. Roth, A. J. Schellekens, O. Schmitt, B. Koopmans, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, Spin-Orbit Enhanced Demagnetization Rate in Co/Pt -Multilayers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 202402 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Bühlmann, R

    K. Bühlmann, R. Gort, G. Salvatella, S. Däster, A. Fognini, T. Bähler, C. Dornes, C. a. F. Vaz, A. Vaterlaus, and Y. Acremann, Ultrafast Demagnetization in Iron: Separating Effects by Their Nonlinearity, Struct. Dyn. 5, 044502 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    L eblanc et al., Phase-Matching-Free Pulse Retrieval Based on Transient Absorption in Solids, Opt

    A. L eblanc et al., Phase-Matching-Free Pulse Retrieval Based on Transient Absorption in Solids, Opt. Express 27, 28998 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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