Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 83 references

Light-induced Orbital and Spin Magnetism in $3d$, $4d$, and $5d$ Transition Metals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By mapping the inverse Faraday effect across 3d, 4d, and 5d transition metals from first principles, this paper establishes that the laser-induced orbital magnetic moment is generally one to two orders of magnitude larger than the spin…

desk verdict A worthwhile systematic IFE reference map whose central numbers hang on one unexplained factor-of-2 in the orbital prefactor. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18815 v1 pith:C4C6AUPL submitted 2024-11-27 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Theodoros Adamantopoulos , Dongwook Go , Peter M. Oppeneer , Yuriy Mokrousov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords inverseFaradayeffectorbitalmagnetismspintransitionmetalsfirst-principlescalculationspin-orbitcouplingultrafastorbitronics
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

The paper sets out to provide the first complete first-principles account of the inverse Faraday effect—the magnetization that a laser pulse induces in a metal—separated into its orbital and spin parts, across the $3d$, $4d$, and $5d$ transition metals of groups IV–XI. Its central claim is that in non-magnetic metals the light-induced orbital moment $\delta L$ is one to two orders of magnitude larger than the spin moment $\delta S$, while in ferromagnets the two are comparable. The paper traces this difference to distinct mechanisms: the orbital response is an intrinsic, non-relativistic effect tied to crystal-field splitting, whereas the spin response is generated through spin-orbit coupling. It also shows that both moments depend strongly on light frequency and polarization, and that the crystal structure and the direction of ferromagnetic magnetization create pronounced anisotropies, including helicity-dependent signs. If the calculations are right, the result is a reference map of optical magnetism that directly informs ultrafast switching, THz emission, and orbitronics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Keldysh linear-response formula, Eq. (1) of the paper, computing the second-order response of the density matrix to the electric field of the pulse: $\delta O = -\frac{\hbar a_0^3 I}{2 c E_H (\hbar\omega)^2} \operatorname{Im}\sum_{jk}\epsilon_j \epsilon_k^* \varphi_{ijk}$, with $O$ standing for either the orbital angular momentum operator $L$ or the spin operator $S$. The tensor $\varphi_{ijk}$, whose full form is given in Ref. [21], carries the material-specific band-structure information and is evaluated on a $128^3$ k-mesh from Wannier-interpolated first-principles wavefunctions. The operator distinction is the essential point: the orbital response survives without spin-orbit coupling, while the spin response does not; correspondingly, the paper states that the orbital prefactor carries an additional factor of 2. The reciprocal-space anatomy of $\varphi_{ijk}$ explains the material trends—flat bands near the A point in hcp Hf integrate to a large orbital moment, while the band edges of d-states near X and L in fcc Pt give strong, sign-correlated hotspots for both channels.

What would settle it

Compute the orbital IFE for a representative metal (for instance fcc Pt or hcp Co) with an independent method that does not rely on the ad hoc factor of 2—such as a time-dependent or Kubo-derived implementation—and compare magnitudes at both $\hbar\omega = 0.25$ eV and $1.55$ eV. A direct experimental route would be to measure the helicity-dependent magnetization of a non-magnetic $5d$ metal under a circularly polarized pump with a probe that separates orbital from spin angular momentum, e.g., X-ray magnetic circular dichroism, and check whether the reported $\delta L/\delta S$ ratio holds. If the factor is not exactly 2 across materials and frequencies, the map must be re-scaled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the discovery is that the spin and orbital channels of the inverse Faraday effect in elemental transition metals are two different phenomena. In non-relativistic calculations, only an orbital moment appears, aligned with the light propagation axis and odd under reversal of the light helicity; the spin response emerges only when spin-orbit coupling is switched on, making it a relativistic correction to the orbital effect. Across the 21 non-magnetic metals studied here, $\delta L$ exceeds $\delta S$ by one to two orders of magnitude, and the orbital moment varies smoothly with band filling in the $5d$ series—showing plateaus for Hf, Ta, W, Ir, and Pt—while the spin moment is erratic. In ferromagnetic Fe, Co, and Ni the two moments are of the same order, and their signs and magnitudes can reverse when the light helicity or the polarization plane is changed. The paper also reports a strong lifetime dependence: at a scattering broadening of $\Gamma = 1$ meV the induced moments in Co grow to about $40\times 10^{-3}\,\mu_B$ for $\delta L$ and $70\times 10^{-3}\,\mu_B$ for $\delta S$, an order of magnitude larger than at the room-temperature value $\Gamma = 25$ meV used throughout the main map. The complete set of computed values is presented as a benchmark for experimental and theoretical studies of light-induced magnetism.

Load-bearing premise

The entire orbital response is multiplied by an extra factor of 2 in Eq. (1), stated in the Methods without derivation or citation; if that factor is wrong or material-dependent, every reported $\delta L$ value—and the conclusion that orbital IFE dominates in non-magnetic metals—would be off by that factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In non-magnetic transition metals, the leading laser-induced magnetic response is orbital, not spin; experiments on light-induced magnetization in such metals should target the orbital channel.
  • The spin response is a spin-orbit-generated second-order effect, so tuning SOC (e.g., by choosing $5d$ vs $3d$ metals or by alloying) changes $\delta S$ and $\delta L$ in different ways.
  • The induced moments grow by roughly an order of magnitude as the lifetime broadening drops from 25 meV to 1 meV, implying that sample disorder directly sets the observable size of the IFE and that calculations must state their broadening.
  • Crystal anisotropy and magnetization direction produce helicity-dependent asymmetries—including components even in helicity—that should appear as anisotropic optical torques and helicity-dependent THz emission.
  • The tabulated values for all 24 metals at two frequencies constitute a direct reference for interpreting all-optical switching, THz spintronics, and orbitronics experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the orbital response is the primary non-relativistic one, then light-element metals and oxides with weak spin-orbit coupling should still exhibit sizable orbital IFE; this suggests a route to generating orbital moments and orbital currents in light materials without heavy elements, extending the orbital-Hall logic to optics.
  • The smooth band-filling plateaus in $\delta L$ resemble the plateaus seen in orbital Hall and orbital Rashba systems, hinting that the same orbital texture governs both; a direct test would be to compute the orbital IFE spectrum of a single material and compare it with its orbital Berry curvature distribution.
  • The underexplained factor of 2 in the orbital prefactor could be settled by an analytic non-relativistic two-level or free-electron calculation; if it holds, it is a universal constant of the Keldysh operator matrix elements, and if not, the reported magnitudes require revision.
  • Extending the calculations to alloys and multilayers (e.g., CoPt, FePt) could reveal whether orbital dominance survives interface hybridization; this matters because THz emission experiments often use such heterostructures and their orbital currents are already known to be long-ranged.
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 paper reports first-principles calculations of the inverse Faraday effect in 24 transition metals of groups IV-XI across the 3d, 4d, and 5d series, using the Keldysh formalism with Wannier-interpolated band structures. It gives spin and orbital contributions to the light-induced magnetic moment for circular polarization in the xy and yz planes at photon energies 0.25 eV and 1.55 eV, with a fixed lifetime broadening of 25 meV. The central claims are that orbital and spin responses can differ by one to two orders of magnitude in nonmagnetic metals, that crystal-field splitting and spin-orbit coupling control the relative size and sign of the two channels, and that the resulting material map provides a reference for optical magnetism.

Significance. If correct, this is a useful systematic map: the work covers a uniform set of elements, separates spin and orbital channels, and connects the response to k-space anatomy and broadening dependence. Strengths include the consistent Wannier construction, the reproduction of previous spin-channel values for magnetic metals, and explicit analysis of polarization and crystal-structure anisotropy. The quantitative value of the map is currently constrained by one unexplained prefactor in the orbital channel and by the lack of a systematic uncertainty assessment, so the significance as a 'key reference point' depends on resolving those points.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, after Eq. (1)] The sentence immediately after Eq. (1) in Methods — 'For the orbital response, the prefactor in Eq. (1) must be multiplied by an additional factor of 2' — is the single most load-bearing step in the paper, yet it comes with no derivation, no citation, and no statement of operator convention. Eq. (1) is written for either O_i = L_i or S_i, so a reader cannot tell whether the factor of 2 is a property of the orbital operator, a consequence of the spin operator being defined as σ/2, or a normalization choice in φ_{ijk} of Ref. [21]. This factor multiplies every δL value in Figs. 1-3, 6-7 and Tables II-III, including the conclusion that orbital IFE dominates spin IFE by one to two orders of magnitude in nonmagnetic metals. Please justify the factor by deriving it from the operator definitions or by citing the exact convention, and state what normalization is used for the spin operator. If the factor is a convention artifact, demonstrate that the same convention was applied to the comparison with Ref. [20] in Table I.
  2. [Results, 'Light-induced magnetism in transition metals'; Table I] Validation of the method is restricted to the spin channel. The text reports that δSz and δSx for Fe, Co, Ni with yz polarization reproduce Ref. [21], but no equivalent check is given for δL. Table I compares total moments (δLz + δSz) with Ref. [20] at 1.55 eV; this comparison cannot separate errors in the spin and orbital channels, and the two notable disagreements (Au, left-handed Co) are attributed to 'difference in the computational methods' without analysis. Given that the factor of 2 in the orbital channel is unresolved and the orbital response is the paper's principal new content, an independent material-by-material comparison of δL, or at least a decomposition of the Table I comparison into spin and orbital parts, is needed before the map can serve as a quantitative reference.
  3. [Results, 'Anisotropy of light-induced magnetism'; Figs. 4-5] All entries in the main map (Figs. 1-2 and Tables II-III) are computed at Γ = 25 meV, but the paper's own Figs. 4 and 5 demonstrate a strong, non-monotonic dependence on Γ — for example, δLz and δSz in Co reach about 40×10^-3 μB and 70×10^-3 μB at Γ = 1 meV, respectively. The choice Γ = 25 meV is motivated by room temperature, yet no error bars or sensitivity tests are reported for the full set of elements. Since the abstract presents the material map as a 'key reference point,' the quantitative ranking of materials may depend on the chosen broadening. Please either provide a Γ-sensitivity analysis for representative elements from each group or explicitly state the range of Γ over which the map entries are stable.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'transitional metals' in the paragraph above Table I and 'spin-obit interaction' in the 'K-space anatomy' section; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 5 and SM Fig. 11] The caption of Fig. 5 states '(a-b) Light-induced orbital δL (a) and spin δS (c)' and the caption of SM Fig. 11 similarly refers to a panel (c) that is not clearly present; the panel labels and caption text should be reconciled.
  3. [Methods] The statement 'A 128×128×128 interpolation k-mesh is sufficient to obtain well-converged results' is not accompanied by any convergence data; adding a short convergence test would help substantiate this important numerical claim.
  4. [Data availability] The sentence 'The data presented in this work can be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request' should be rephrased as 'are available upon reasonable request.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained aside from an unexplained prefactor; no circular reduction found.

full rationale

No load-bearing circular step is present. The paper applies the Keldysh response formula of Ref. [21] (same group) to a new set of transition metals; the computed values of delta-Lz and delta-Sz are first-principles outputs from that fixed formula, not fitted to the plotted values, and the map is not defined in terms of its own conclusions. The validation against Ref. [21] is an exact same-method cross-check, and the comparison with Ref. [20] is order-of-magnitude benchmarking, not parameter re-use. The only notable unverified ingredient is the statement in Methods that 'For the orbital response, the prefactor in Eq. (1) must be multiplied by an additional factor of 2'; this is an unsupported convention or prefactor concern that scales all orbital moments, but it is an input assumption rather than a retrofitted output, so it is a correctness risk, not circularity. Self-citations to Refs. [21], [29], [39], and [60] are present, but none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of a forbidden alternative. The central claim, namely the frequency-, polarization-, and material-dependent map of the inverse Faraday effect, has independent computational content.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the Keldysh response formula from Ref. [21], the PBE+SOC electronic structure, and a chosen lifetime broadening. No free parameters are fitted to experimental data, but the lifetime broadening and the unexplained factor of 2 in the orbital response act as adjustable inputs that affect the reported values.

free parameters (1)
  • Lifetime broadening Γ = 25 meV
    Chosen to represent disorder at room temperature; results are strongly dependent on this parameter (Figs. 4-5) and it is not derived from material-specific data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Keldysh response tensor φijk from Ref. [21] correctly describes light-induced magnetization in the studied metals.
    Equation (1) uses φijk from Eq. (14) of Ref. [21]; the validity for orbital and spin operators is assumed from prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper The orbital response requires an additional factor of 2 in the prefactor of Eq. (1).
    Stated without derivation in the Methods section; directly scales all δL values.
  • domain assumption The PBE functional with second-variational SOC treatment accurately describes the electronic structure for IFE.
    Standard DFT approximation, but its accuracy for IFE magnitudes is not quantified.
  • domain assumption A constant lifetime broadening Γ=25 meV corresponds to room temperature.
    Used to set the broadening; the mapping from temperature to Γ is not justified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-induced Orbital and Spin Magnetism in $3d$, $4d$, and $5d$ Transition Metals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4C6AUPL

@misc{pith2026241118815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-induced Orbital and Spin Magnetism in $3d$, $4d$, and $5d$ Transition Metals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4C6AUPL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18815}
}
abstract

Understanding the coherent interplay of light with the magnetization in metals has been a long-standing problem in ultrafast magnetism. While it is known that when laser light acts on a metal it can induce magnetization via the process known as the inverse Faraday effect (IFE), the most basic ingredients of this phenomenon are still largely unexplored. In particular, given a strong recent interest in orbital non-equilibrium dynamics and its role in mediating THz emission in transition metals, the exploration of distinct features in spin and orbital IFE is pertinent. Here, we present a first complete study of the spin and orbital IFE in $3d$, $4d$ and $5d$ transition metals of groups IV$-$XI from first-principles. By examining the dependence on the light polarization and frequency, we show that the laser-induced spin and orbital moments may vary significantly both in magnitude and sign. We underpin the interplay between the crystal field splitting and spin-orbit interaction as the key factor which determines the magnitude and key differences between the spin and orbital response. Additionally, we highlight the anisotropy of the effect with respect to the ferromagnetic magnetization and to the crystal structure. The provided complete map of IFE in transition metals is a key reference point in the field of optical magnetism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a-d) Light-induced orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a-d) Light-induced orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a-i) Cartesian components of the light-induced orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a-i) Cartesian components of the light-induced orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a-b) Light-induced orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a-b) Light-induced orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Freimuth, S

    F. Freimuth, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, Laser-induced torques in metallic ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 94, 144432 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [20]

    Berritta, R

    M. Berritta, R. Mondal, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Ab Ini- tio Theory of Coherent Laser-Induced Magnetization in Metals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 137203 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [1]

    Beaurepaire, J.-C

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

    1996

  4. [2]

    A. V . Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, P. A. Usachev, R. V . Pisarev, A. M. Balbashov, and T. Rasing, Ultrafast non-thermal control of magnetization by instantaneous photomagnetic pulses, Nature 435, 655 (2005)

    2005

  5. [3]

    C. D. Stanciu, F. Hansteen, A. V . Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, and T. Rasing, All-optical magnetic recording with circularly polarized light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 047601 (2007)

    2007

  6. [4]

    Vahaplar, A

    K. Vahaplar, A. M. Kalashnikova, A. V . Kimel, D. Hinzke, U. Nowak, R. Chantrell, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, A. Kirilyuk, and T. Rasing, Ultrafast path for optical magnetization rever- sal via a strongly nonequilibrium state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 117201 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [5]

    Kirilyuk, A

    A. Kirilyuk, A. V . Kimel, and T. Rasing, Ultrafast optical ma- nipulation of magnetic order, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 2731 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [6]

    Steil, S

    D. Steil, S. Alebrand, A. Hassdenteufel, M. Cinchetti, and M. Aeschlimann, All-optical magnetization recording by tai- loring optical excitation parameters, Phys. Rev. B 84, 224408 (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 83 references
  1. [7]

    A. R. Khorsand, M. Savoini, A. Kirilyuk, A. V . Kimel, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, and T. Rasing, Role of magnetic cir- cular dichroism in all-optical magnetic recording, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 127205 (2012)

    2012

  2. [8]

    Alebrand, M

    S. Alebrand, M. Gottwald, M. Hehn, D. Steil, M. Cinchetti, D. Lacour, E. E. Fullerton, M. Aeschlimann, and S. Mangin, Light-induced magnetization reversal of high-anisotropy TbCo alloy films, Applied Physics Letters 101, 162408 (2012)

    2012

  3. [9]

    Mangin, M

    S. Mangin, M. Gottwald, C.-H. Lambert, D. Steil, V . Uhl ´ıˇr, L. Pang, M. Hehn, S. Alebrand, M. Cinchetti, G. Malinowski, 8 Y . Fainman, M. Aeschlimann, and E. E. Fullerton, Engineered materials for all-optical helicity-dependent magnetic switching, Nature Materials 13, 286 (2014)

    2014

  4. [10]

    R. John, M. Berritta, D. Hinzke, C. M ¨uller, T. Santos, H. Ul- richs, P. Nieves, J. Walowski, R. Mondal, O. Chubykalo- Fesenko, J. McCord, P. M. Oppeneer, U. Nowak, and M. M ¨unzenberg, Magnetisation switching of FePt nanoparti- cle recording medium by femtosecond laser pulse...

    2017

  5. [11]

    Pitaevskii, Electric Forces in a Transparent Dispersive Medium , Sov

    L. Pitaevskii, Electric Forces in a Transparent Dispersive Medium , Sov. Phys. JETP 12, 1008 (1960)

    1960

  6. [12]

    J. P. van der Ziel, P. S. Pershan, and L. D. Malmstrom, Optically-induced magnetization resulting from the inverse faraday effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.15, 190 (1965)

    1965

  7. [13]

    P. S. Pershan, J. P. van der Ziel, and L. D. Malmstrom, Theoret- ical discussion of the inverse faraday effect, raman scattering, and related phenomena, Phys. Rev. 143, 574 (1966)

    1966

  8. [14]

    Hertel, Theory of the inverse faraday effect in metals, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 303, L1 (2006)

    R. Hertel, Theory of the inverse faraday effect in metals, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 303, L1 (2006)

    2006

  9. [15]

    Zhang, Y .-Z

    H.-L. Zhang, Y .-Z. Wang, and X.-J. Chen, A simple explanation for the inverse faraday effect in metals, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 321, L73 (2009)

    2009

  10. [16]

    Popova, A

    D. Popova, A. Bringer, and S. Bl ¨ugel, Theory of the inverse faraday effect in view of ultrafast magnetization experiments, Phys. Rev. B 84, 214421 (2011)

    2011

  11. [17]

    Popova, A

    D. Popova, A. Bringer, and S. Bl ¨ugel, Theoretical investigation of the inverse faraday effect via a stimulated raman scattering process, Phys. Rev. B 85, 094419 (2012)

    2012

  12. [18]

    Battiato, G

    M. Battiato, G. Barbalinardo, and P. M. Oppeneer, Quantum theory of the inverse Faraday effect, Phys. Rev. B 89, 014413 (2014)

    2014

  13. [19]

    Hertel and M

    R. Hertel and M. F ¨ahnle, Macroscopic drift current in the in- verse faraday effect, Phys. Rev. B91, 020411 (2015)

    2015

  14. [22]

    Qaiumzadeh and M

    A. Qaiumzadeh and M. Titov, Theory of light-induced effective magnetic field in rashba ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B94, 014425 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    S. V . Mironov, A. S. Mel’nikov, I. D. Tokman, V . Vadimov, B. Lounis, and A. I. Buzdin, Inverse faraday effect for super- conducting condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 137002 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Banerjee, U

    S. Banerjee, U. Kumar, and S.-Z. Lin, Inverse faraday effect in mott insulators, Phys. Rev. B 105, L180414 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Zhou, Photo-magnetization in two-dimensional sliding ferro- electrics, npj 2D Materials and Applications 6, 15 (2022)

    J. Zhou, Photo-magnetization in two-dimensional sliding ferro- electrics, npj 2D Materials and Applications 6, 15 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sharma and A

    P. Sharma and A. V . Balatsky, Light-induced orbital magnetism in metals via inverse faraday effect, Phys. Rev. B 110, 094302 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    P. J. Wong, I. M. Khaymovich, G. Aeppli, and A. V . Bal- atsky, Large inverse Faraday effect for Rydberg states of free atoms and isolated donors in semiconductors (2024), arXiv:2409.08088 [physics.atom-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dannegger, M

    T. Dannegger, M. Berritta, K. Carva, S. Selzer, U. Ritzmann, P. M. Oppeneer, and U. Nowak, Ultrafast coherent all-optical switching of an antiferromagnet with the inverse faraday effect, Phys. Rev. B 104, L060413 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Merte, F

    M. Merte, F. Freimuth, D. Go, T. Adamantopoulos, F. R. Lux, L. Plucinski, O. Gomonay, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, Photocurrents, inverse Faraday effect, and photospin Hall effect in Mn 2Au, APL Materials 11, 071106 (2023), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apm/article- pdf/doi/10.1...

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    G.-M. Choi, A. Schleife, and D. G. Cahill, Optical-helicity- driven magnetization dynamics in metallic ferromagnets, Na- ture Communications 8, 15085 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Iihama, K

    S. Iihama, K. Ishibashi, and S. Mizukami, Interface-induced field-like optical spin torque in a ferromagnet/heavy metal het- erostructure, Nanophotonics 10, 1169 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Iihama, K

    S. Iihama, K. Ishibashi, and S. Mizukami, Photon spin angular momentum driven magnetization dynamics in fer- romagnet/heavy metal bilayers, Journal of Applied Physics 131, 023901 (2022), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0073409/19808043/023901 1 online.pdf

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    T. J. Huisman, R. V . Mikhaylovskiy, J. D. Costa, F. Freimuth, E. Paz, J. Ventura, P. P. Freitas, S. Bl¨ugel, Y . Mokrousov, T. Ras- ing, and A. V . Kimel, Femtosecond control of electric currents in metallic ferromagnetic heterostructures, Nature Nanotech- nology 11, 455 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Freimuth, S

    F. Freimuth, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, Laser-induced torques in metallic antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B103, 174429 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Behovits, A

    Y . Behovits, A. L. Chekhov, S. Y . Bodnar, O. Gueckstock, S. Reimers, Y . Lytvynenko, Y . Skourski, M. Wolf, T. S. Seifert, O. Gomonay, M. Kl ¨aui, M. Jourdan, and T. Kampfrath, Tera- hertz N´eel spin-orbit torques drive nonlinear magnon dynamics in antiferromagnetic Mn2Au, N...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Huang, L

    L. Huang, L. Liao, H. Qiu, X. Chen, H. Bai, L. Han, Y . Zhou, Y . Su, Z. Zhou, F. Pan, B. Jin, and C. Song, Antiferromagnetic magnonic charge current generation via ultrafast optical excita- tion, Nature Communications 15, 4270 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    J. L. Ross, P.-I. Gavriloaea, F. Freimuth, T. Adamantopoulos, Y . Mokrousov, R. F. L. Evans, R. Chantrell, R. M. Otxoa, and O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, Ultrafast antiferromagnetic switching of Mn 2Au with laser-induced optical torques, npj Computa- tional Materials 10, 234 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Gavriloaea, J

    P.-I. Gavriloaea, J. L. Ross, F. Freimuth, Y . Mokrousov, R. F. L. Evans, R. Chantrell, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, and R. M. Otxoa, Efficient motion of 90○ domain walls in Mn2Au via pure optical torques (2024), arXiv:2405.09253 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Adamantopoulos, M

    T. Adamantopoulos, M. Merte, F. Freimuth, D. Go, L. Zhang, M. Leˇzai´c, W. Feng, Y . Yao, J. Sinova, L. ˇSmejkal, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, Spin and orbital magnetism by light in rutile altermagnets, npj Spintronics 2, 46 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    S. Ali, J. R. Davies, and J. T. Mendonca, Inverse faraday ef- fect with linearly polarized laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 035001 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    V . N. Gridnev, Optical spin pumping and magnetization switch- ing in ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 88, 014405 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    M. S. Mrudul and P. M. Oppeneer, Ab initio investigation of laser-induced ultrafast demagnetization of L10 FePt: Intensity dependence and importance of electron coherence, Phys. Rev. B 109, 144418 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kl ¨aui, and Y . Mokrousov, Or- bitronics: Orbital currents in solids, Europhysics Letters 135, 37001 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Go, Dongwook, Mokrousov, Yuriy, and Kl ¨aui, Mathias, Non- equilibrium orbital angular momentum for orbitronics, Euro- physics News 55, 28 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    D. Jo, D. Go, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Spintronics meets orbitronics: Emergence of orbital angular momentum in solids, npj Spintronics 2, 19 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tanaka, H

    T. Tanaka, H. Kontani, M. Naito, T. Naito, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. Inoue, Intrinsic spin Hall effect and orbital 9 Hall effect in 4d and 5d transition metals, Phys. Rev. B 77, 165117 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Kontani, T

    H. Kontani, T. Tanaka, D. S. Hirashima, K. Yamada, and J. In- oue, Giant Orbital Hall Effect in Transition Metals: Origin of Large Spin and Anomalous Hall Effects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 016601 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    D. Go, D. Jo, C. Kim, and H.-W. Lee, Intrinsic Spin and Orbital Hall Effects from Orbital Texture, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 086602 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Y .-G. Choi, D. Jo, K.-H. Ko, D. Go, K.-H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B.-C. Min, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Observation of the orbital Hall effect in a light metal Ti, Nature619, 52 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    D. Go, F. Freimuth, J.-P. Hanke, F. Xue, O. Gomonay, K.-J. Lee, S. Bl ¨ugel, P. M. Haney, H.-W. Lee, and Y . Mokrousov, Theory of current-induced angular momentum transfer dynam- ics in spin-orbit coupled systems, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 033401 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Go and H.-W

    D. Go and H.-W. Lee, Orbital torque: Torque generation by orbital current injection, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 013177 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    D. Lee, D. Go, H.-J. Park, W. Jeong, H.-W. Ko, D. Yun, D. Jo, S. Lee, G. Go, J. H. Oh, K.-J. Kim, B.-G. Park, B.-C. Min, H. C. Koo, H.-W. Lee, O. Lee, and K.-J. Lee, Orbital torque in magnetic bilayers, Nature Communications 12, 6710 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Go, J.-P

    D. Go, J.-P. Hanke, P. M. Buhl, F. Freimuth, G. Bihlmayer, H.- W. Lee, Y . Mokrousov, and S. Bl¨ugel, Toward surface orbitron- ics: giant orbital magnetism from the orbital Rashba effect at the surface of sp-metals, Scientific Reports 7, 46742 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Salemi, M

    L. Salemi, M. Berritta, A. K. Nandy, and P. M. Oppeneer, Orbitally dominated Rashba-Edelstein effect in noncentrosym- metric antiferromagnets, Nature Communications 10, 5381 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    D. Go, D. Jo, T. Gao, K. Ando, S. Bl ¨ugel, H.-W. Lee, and Y . Mokrousov, Orbital Rashba effect in a surface-oxidized Cu film, Phys. Rev. B 103, L121113 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Lyalin, S

    I. Lyalin, S. Alikhah, M. Berritta, P. M. Oppeneer, and R. K. Kawakami, Magneto-Optical Detection of the Orbital Hall Ef- fect in Chromium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 156702 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Hurst, P

    J. Hurst, P. M. Oppeneer, G. Manfredi, and P.-A. Hervieux, Magnetic moment generation in small gold nanoparticles via the plasmonic inverse Faraday effect, Phys. Rev. B 98, 134439 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    O. H.-C. Cheng, D. H. Son, and M. Sheldon, Light-induced magnetism in plasmonic gold nanoparticles, Nature Photonics 14, 365 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    D. Lian, Y . Yang, G. Manfredi, P.-A. Hervieux, and R. Sinha- Roy, Orbital magnetism through inverse Faraday effect in metal clusters, Nanophotonics 13, 4291 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Adamantopoulos, M

    T. Adamantopoulos, M. Merte, D. Go, F. Freimuth, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, Orbital Rashba Effect as a Platform for Robust Orbital Photocurrents, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 076901 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    L. M. Canonico, T. P. Cysne, A. Molina-Sanchez, R. B. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Orbital Hall insulating phase in transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers, Phys. Rev. B 101, 161409 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    T. P. Cysne, M. Costa, L. M. Canonico, M. B. Nardelli, R. B. Muniz, and T. G. Rappoport, Disentangling Orbital and Valley Hall Effects in Bilayers of Transition Metal Dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 056601 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    M. Zeer, D. Go, J. P. Carbone, T. G. Saunderson, M. Redies, M. Kl ¨aui, J. Ghabboun, W. Wulfhekel, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, Spin and orbital transport in rare-earth dichalco- genides: The case of EuS2, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 074004 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Nukui, S

    K. Nukui, S. Iihama, K. Ishibashi, S. Yamashita, A. Sakuma, P. Scheid, G. Malinowski, M. Hehn, S. Mangin, and S. Mizukami, Light-induced torque in ferromagnetic metals via orbital angular momentum generated by photon-helicity (2024), arXiv:2405.07405 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. Go, D. Jo, K.-W. Kim, S. Lee, M.-G. Kang, B.-G. Park, S. Bl ¨ugel, H.-W. Lee, and Y . Mokrousov, Long-range orbital torque by momentum-space hotspots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 246701 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    A. Bose, F. Kammerbauer, R. Gupta, D. Go, Y . Mokrousov, G. Jakob, and M. Kl ¨aui, Detection of long-range orbital-hall torques, Phys. Rev. B 107, 134423 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Hayashi, D

    H. Hayashi, D. Jo, D. Go, T. Gao, S. Haku, Y . Mokrousov, H.- W. Lee, and K. Ando, Observation of long-range orbital trans- port and giant orbital torque, Communications Physics 6, 32 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    T. S. Seifert, D. Go, H. Hayashi, R. Rouzegar, F. Freimuth, K. Ando, Y . Mokrousov, and T. Kampfrath, Time-domain ob- servation of ballistic orbital-angular-momentum currents with giant relaxation length in tungsten, Nature Nanotechnology 10.1038/s41565-023-01470-8 (2023)

    2023 doi

  61. [69]

    P. Wang, Z. Feng, Y . Yang, D. Zhang, Q. Liu, Z. Xu, Z. Jia, Y . Wu, G. Yu, X. Xu, and Y . Jiang, Inverse orbital Hall effect and orbitronic terahertz emission observed in the materials with weak spin-orbit coupling, npj Quantum Materials 8, 28 (2023)

    2023

  62. [70]

    Y . Xu, F. Zhang, A. Fert, H.-Y . Jaffres, Y . Liu, R. Xu, Y . Jiang, H. Cheng, and W. Zhao, Orbitronics: light-induced orbital cur- rents in Ni studied by terahertz emission experiments, Nature Communications 15, 2043 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Y . Liu, Y . Xu, A. Fert, H.-Y . Jaffr`es, T. Nie, S. Eimer, X. Zhang, and W. Zhao, Efficient Orbitronic Terahertz Emission Based on CoPt Alloy, Advanced Materials 36, 2404174 (2024), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.202404174

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    A. A. Sirenko, P. Marsik, C. Bernhard, T. N. Stanislavchuk, V . Kiryukhin, and S.-W. Cheong, Terahertz V ortex Beam as a Spectroscopic Probe of Magnetic Excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 237401 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    Z. Ji, W. Liu, S. Krylyuk, X. Fan, Z. Zhang, A. Pan, L. Feng, A. Davydov, and R. Agarwal, Photocurrent detection of the orbital angular momentum of light, Science 368, 763 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aba9192

    2020 doi

  66. [74]

    Prinz, B

    E. Prinz, B. Stadtm ¨uller, and M. Aeschlimann, Twisted light affects ultrafast demagnetization (2022), arXiv:2206.07502 [physics.optics]

    2022 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Karakhanyan, C

    V . Karakhanyan, C. Eustache, Y . Lefier, and T. Grosjean, In- verse Faraday effect from the orbital angular momentum of light, Phys. Rev. B 105, 045406 (2022)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Siegrist, J

    F. Siegrist, J. A. Gessner, M. Ossiander, C. Denker, Y .-P. Chang, M. C. Schr ¨oder, A. Guggenmos, Y . Cui, J. Walowski, U. Martens, J. K. Dewhurst, U. Kleineberg, M. M ¨unzenberg, S. Sharma, and M. Schultze, Light-wave dynamic control of magnetism, Nature 571, 240 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Neufeld, N

    O. Neufeld, N. Tancogne-Dejean, U. De Giovannini, H. H ¨ubener, and A. Rubio, Attosecond magnetization dynam- ics in non-magnetic materials driven by intense femtosecond lasers, npj Computational Materials 9, 39 (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Wortmann, G

    D. Wortmann, G. Michalicek, N. Baadji, M. Betzinger, G. Bihlmayer, J. Br ¨oder, T. Burnus, J. Enkovaara, F. Freimuth, C. Friedrich, C.-R. Gerhorst, S. Granberg Cauchi, U. Gryt- siuk, A. Hanke, J.-P. Hanke, M. Heide, S. Heinze, R. Hilgers, H. Janssen, D. A. Kl¨uppelberg, R. Kov...

    2023

  71. [79]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient 10 Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  72. [80]

    C. Li, A. J. Freeman, H. J. F. Jansen, and C. L. Fu, Mag- netic anisotropy in low-dimensional ferromagnetic systems: Fe monolayers on Ag(001), Au(001), and Pd(001) substrates, Phys. Rev. B 42, 5433 (1990)

    1990

  73. [81]

    Go, H.-W

    D. Go, H.-W. Lee, P. M. Oppeneer, S. Bl ¨ugel, and Y . Mokrousov, First-principles calculation of orbital hall ef- fect by wannier interpolation: Role of orbital dependence of the anomalous position, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174435 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V . Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl ¨ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G ´eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koret- sune, J. Iba ˜nez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y . Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y . Nohara, Y . No- mura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc ´e, T. ...

    2020

  75. [83]

    DPB6pkhG5wC416/H1TTs4uT8dIc=

    F. Freimuth, Y . Mokrousov, D. Wortmann, S. Heinze, and S. Bl ¨ugel, Maximally localized Wannier functions within the FLAPW formalism, Phys. Rev. B 78, 035120 (2008). 11 Supplemental Material (a) (c) (b) TiZrHfVNbTaCrMoWMnTcReFeRuOsCoRhIrNiPdPtCuAgAu3d4d5d (d) TiZrHfVNbTaCrMoW...

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.