Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Analysis of the linear relationship between asymmetry and magnetic moment at the M-edge of 3d transition metals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper challenges the standard assumption that measured magnetic asymmetry tracks magnetization linearly, showing that Fe's asymmetry ratio varies with photon energy and pump-probe delay while Ni's stays nearly flat, and that…

desk verdict Useful, honest paper that gives the field a new diagnostic and a caution, but the experimental piece needs to rule out transient reflectivity changes before the Fe result is taken as proof. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02872 v1 pith:N4ZWSVYP submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.optics

Somnath Jana , R. S. Malik , Yaroslav O. Kvashnin , Inka L. M. Locht , R. Knut , R. Stefanuik , Igor Di Marco , A. N. Yaresko
show 6 more authors
Martina Ahlberg Raghuveer Chimata Marco Battiato Johan Söderström Olle Eriksson Olof Karis
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.optics
keywords ultrafastdemagnetizationtransversemagneto-opticalKerreffectT-MOKEmagneticasymmetryM-edge3dtransitionmetalsdensityfunctionaltheoryStonerexcitations
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 test whether the magnetic asymmetry measured in transverse magneto-optical Kerr effect (T-MOKE) pump-probe experiments is proportional to the instantaneous magnetization. For Fe and Ni probed at the M-absorption edges between 40 and 72 eV, it compares measured asymmetry ratios at several photon energies with density-functional-theory calculations for three classes of magnetic excitations. It finds that Fe's asymmetry–magnetization relation is strongly nonlinear and energy-dependent during demagnetization, while Ni's is nearly linear. The authors conclude that a direct linear relationship between asymmetry and magnetization cannot be assumed in general, and that the type of magnetic excitation determines the coupling. The stakes are practical: ultrafast demagnetization studies routinely convert asymmetry into a magnetization trace, and this conversion needs material- and energy-specific justification.

What carries the argument

The key diagnostic is the magnetisation-asymmetry test ratio (MAT ratio): the ratio of T-MOKE asymmetries at two photon energies plotted against pump-probe delay, which should be time-independent if asymmetry is proportional to magnetization. The supporting machinery is a quasi-static constrained-moment DFT scheme in which the sample's magnetization is fixed at a reduced value in three distinct ways: collinearly shrunk moments for Stoner-like excitations, uniformly tilted moments averaged over azimuth for long-wavelength magnons, and randomly tilted moments in 16-atom supercells for short-wavelength magnons. The dielectric tensor from each constrained state is put through Fresnel equations with a constant background term to produce theoretical asymmetry spectra, and those spectra are compared with the measured MAT-ratio behaviour to identify which excitation family is active.

What would settle it

In the same pump-probe geometry, record the total reflected intensity at 51, 54, 60 and 63 eV as a function of delay without magnetic analysis, and compare the transient change in the denominator of Eq. 4 with the constant-background assumption. A measurable time-dependent diagonal reflectivity during the first picosecond would mean the Fe MAT-ratio drift could stem from the denominator, not from a nonlinear asymmetry–magnetization relation; a flat diagonal response would strengthen the authors' reading. A second check would be to compare the Fe MAT ratio with an independent magnetization probe, such as time-resolved X-ray magnetic circular dichroism or spin-resolved photoemission, at the same delays.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that A(E)=K(E)M, the working equation behind most T-MOKE demagnetization studies, fails for Fe but holds approximately for Ni at the M-edge. The evidence is the magnetisation-asymmetry test ratio: if the linear relation held, the ratio A(E)/A(E') would be constant in time. In Fe the measured ratio drifts markedly with delay during the first sub-picosecond, especially near 51, 57, 60 and 63 eV relative to 54 eV, while in Ni the ratios stay nearly flat. Constrained-moment DFT reproduces this difference: Fe's calculated asymmetry depends strongly on whether magnetization is reduced by Stoner-like moment collapse, long-wavelength magnons, or short-wavelength magnons, whereas Ni's asymmetry is similar across all three. The modelling also separates two sources of nonlinearity in Ni, a nearly linear off-diagonal dielectric tensor versus magnetization but a nonlinear asymmetry versus that tensor near the main peak, and shows that Fe's remagnetization is consistent with magnon-dominated response.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that non-magnetic transient changes in the refractive index caused by the hot-electron distribution are negligible in the experimental geometry; if those changes are not negligible, the Fe MAT-ratio drift could come from a time-dependent denominator in Eq. 4 instead of from an intrinsically nonlinear asymmetry–magnetization relation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For Fe, single-energy asymmetry curves cannot be read directly as magnetization traces during demagnetization; the time- and energy-dependent MAT ratio shows the out-of-equilibrium state has a more complex magneto-optical response.
  • For Fe at delays beyond about 2 ps, the near-constant MAT ratios indicate magnons dominate remagnetization, with only small Stoner-like contributions.
  • For Ni, the asymmetry–magnetization relation at the M-edge is close to linear for all modelled excitations, so single-energy Ni traces are more trustworthy; the residual nonlinearity between asymmetry and the off-diagonal dielectric tensor near 65 eV is a Fresnel-level effect, not a band-structure change.
  • Any T-MOKE demagnetization study should record at least two probe energies to verify the proportionality before converting asymmetry to magnetization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Fe result holds generally for M-edge probing, previously published single-harmonic demagnetization curves for Fe may have folded energy-dependent optical artefacts into the magnetization dynamics; a multi-energy re-analysis could shift reported demagnetization time constants.
  • The clean separation between nonlinearity in the off-diagonal dielectric tensor versus magnetization and nonlinearity in asymmetry versus that tensor suggests an experimental route: measuring a broadband asymmetry spectrum at each delay would allow one to invert the Fresnel expression and extract both diagonal and off-diagonal dielectric response, separating electronic-structure dynamics from geom
  • Extending the constrained-moment comparison to Co and to alloys across a range of pump fluences could turn the three excitation families into a phase diagram for which microscopic mechanism controls the asymmetry–magnetization relationship.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the relationship between the T-MOKE magnetic asymmetry and the magnetization in Fe and Ni across the M-edges between 40 and 72 eV, using pump-probe high-harmonic experiments and DFT-based modeling. The authors introduce the magnetisation-asymmetry test (MAT) ratio, A(E,t)/A(E_ref,t), which should be time-independent if A(E) is proportional to M(t). For Fe they observe strong energy- and time-dependent MAT ratios during demagnetization, whereas for Ni the ratios are nearly constant. DFT calculations with constrained magnetic configurations representing Stoner excitations, long-wavelength magnons, and short-wavelength magnons qualitatively reproduce this difference: Fe shows marked nonlinearity for Stoner and short-wavelength excitations, while Ni shows a more linear response. The paper concludes that a direct linear relationship between asymmetry and magnetization cannot be assumed in general, and that the MAT ratio can help identify the dominant excitation mechanism.

Significance. If the conclusions stand, the MAT ratio provides a parameter-free diagnostic of whether a measured T-MOKE asymmetry is proportional to the instantaneous magnetization, which is directly useful for interpreting ultrafast pump-probe experiments. The DFT modeling systematically compares three classes of magnetic excitations and identifies material-specific differences between Fe and Ni, including a nonlinearity between asymmetry and the off-diagonal dielectric tensor that is not of electronic-structure origin. The paper also gives credit for using constrained-moment DFT with fixed parameters (Γ, energy shift, Gaussian broadening) rather than tuning them per magnetization state. However, the experimental demonstration of the central claim currently rests on a stated but unsupported assumption about the negligibility of transient non-magnetic reflectivity changes.

major comments (3)
  1. [Introduction, Eq. (3) and Fig. 3] The MAT-ratio test is the key experimental evidence that Fe's asymmetry is nonlinear in the magnetization. This test is valid only if the denominator I+(E)+I−(E) in Eq. (1) (or Eq. (4) with the constant Γ) is time-independent or, at least, changes in an energy-independent way. The paper states in the Introduction that non-magnetic contributions from the transient variation of the refractive index are negligible for the chosen geometry, citing Ref. [30], but no measurement or calculation for Fe and Ni in the 40–72 eV range is presented to support this. Because δ(E) and β(E) vary steeply across the M-edge, a delay-dependent refractive index would produce energy-dependent changes in the denominator; since each harmonic is independently normalized to its t=0 value, such changes would generate exactly the time- and energy-dependent MAT ratios reported for Fe. The authors should either provide an experimental or theoretical demonstration that the diagonal reflectivity is time-independent at these energies, or explicitly soften the conclusion that the measured Fe response is nonlinear during demagnetization.
  2. [Experimental results, Fig. 3] The MAT-ratio data in Fig. 3 are presented without error bars or any estimate of the noise level. The Fe curves deviate from unity by a few percent, and some energy channels appear to deviate more than others. Without a quantitative uncertainty estimate, the reader cannot assess whether the observed time dependence is statistically significant or whether, for instance, the apparent early onset of the 54 eV curve in Fig. 2(a) is a real effect or a result of harmonic intensity normalization. Since the entire experimental case for nonlinearity rests on these deviations, the manuscript should include error bars or a noise analysis for the MAT ratios.
  3. [Theory, quasi-static approximation] The theoretical modeling maps the time-dependent demagnetization onto static DFT configurations through the quasi-static approximation of Ref. [31]. While this is a reasonable framework, its validity for the dielectric response at femtosecond timescales is not tested in the present work. In particular, the Stoner-like configuration is modeled as a collinear reduction of all magnetic moments, which is a highly constrained representation of the transient electronic state; the paper does not demonstrate that this captures the relevant transient modification of the band structure. This does not invalidate the model-based counterexample to a general linear relation, but it limits the strength of the conclusions drawn about the experimental data, especially the assignment of the remagnetization phase of Fe to magnons. A discussion of the expected size of corrections to the quasi-static approximation, or a comparison with a time-dependent calculation for at least one case, would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption labels the Ni asymmetry panel as '(b)', which duplicates the Fe panel label; the Ni asymmetry panel should be labeled '(d)'.
  2. [Experimental results] The sentence 'If the asymmetry were proportional to the magnetization, we would expect the asymmetry to be independent of the photon energy of the probe pulse during the demagnetization and remagnetization process' is imprecise: the asymmetry itself is energy-dependent in general; what is expected to be time-independent is the ratio of asymmetries at two fixed photon energies. The subsequent MAT-ratio discussion correctly implements the intended test, but the wording should be revised.
  3. [Theory, computational details] The paper states that the dielectric tensor is convoluted with a Gaussian of 1.2 eV, but it does not specify whether the convolution is applied separately to the real and imaginary parts of each tensor component or to the resulting asymmetry; this should be clarified, as it affects the comparison with experiment.
  4. [Experimental results, Fig. 2] The procedure for normalizing each harmonic curve to its t=0 value is described in words but not shown quantitatively; providing the normalization factor for each harmonic would allow the reader to assess possible systematic offsets in the MAT ratios.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction: Γ and energy shifts are ground-state calibrations held fixed for demagnetized states; MAT-ratio and DFT excitation spectra are forward predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The theoretical spectra are anchored to the measured ground-state data by two global calibration constants only: the denominator background Γ (0.0052 for Fe, 0.004 for Ni) chosen to match the peak asymmetry, and rigid energy shifts (2.0 eV for Fe, 2.2 eV for Ni) to align the spectra; the paper explicitly states the same Γ values were then used for the partially demagnetized configurations, so the demagnetization curves are forward predictions, not refits. The MAT-ratio test follows directly from Eq. 3 and is applied to actual time-resolved data; Fe's time- and energy-dependent ratios are measured, not imposed. The DFT excitation-type calculations are forward calculations of A(M) from constrained or tilted spin configurations, and the only self-citation (Ref. 31) contributes the quasi-static method and the long-wavelength magnon tensor transformation; this method has stated assumptions and does not contain the Fe/Ni asymmetry results, so it is independent evidence under the rubric, though it is not re-benchmarked here. The experiment does rely on an explicit assumption—that transient non-magnetic refractive-index changes are negligible for the chosen geometry [30]—which is a robustness caveat, not a circularity, since the assumption is external and could be tested by diagonal reflectivity measurements. No prediction reduces to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation by construction, so score 2 reflects the presence of self-citation while the central claim remains independently supported.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central comparison rests on three fitted parameters (Gamma, energy shift, broadening) and on the quasi-static DFT modeling premise carried over from the authors' prior work (Ref [31]). No new physical entities are introduced. These parameters are fixed on the ground state and then reused, which limits circularity but leaves the quantitative A(M) curves dependent on them.

free parameters (3)
  • Background constant Gamma = 0.0052 (Fe), 0.004 (Ni)
    Added to denominator of Eq. 4 to model extrinsic background; tuned so calculated ground-state peak asymmetry matches experiment.
  • Rigid energy shift of theoretical spectra = 2.0 eV (Fe), 2.2 eV (Ni)
    Applied to align calculated asymmetry peaks to experimental data; attributed to many-body and local-field effects beyond PBE.
  • Gaussian broadening = 1.2 eV
    Applied to convolute the calculated dielectric tensor to mimic experimental spectra; standard phenomenological broadening width.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE exchange-correlation functional adequately describes the ground-state electronic structure and dielectric tensor of Fe and Ni.
    All DFT calculations use PBE; deviations from experiment are handled by a rigid shift, so the functional's accuracy is assumed for magneto-optical properties.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static approximation: the dielectric tensor of a laser-excited state can be computed from equilibrium DFT with constrained magnetic moments, ignoring transient electronic excitations.
    Central modeling premise, established in Ref [31] by co-authors Locht, Di Marco, and Battiato; the present paper does not benchmark it against time-dependent methods.
  • domain assumption Non-magnetic transient changes of the refractive index are negligible in the chosen experimental geometry.
    Invoked in the Introduction and load-bearing for attributing MAT-ratio time dependence to magnetic nonlinearities rather than hot-electron effects.
  • standard math The off-diagonal dielectric tensor component is small compared with the Fresnel coefficients, justifying the linearized asymmetry expression Eq. 2.
    Used to set up the proportionality expectation; the paper later tests deviations from this linearization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of the linear relationship between asymmetry and magnetic moment at the M-edge of 3d transition metals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/N4ZWSVYP

@misc{pith2026190802872,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of the linear relationship between asymmetry and magnetic moment at the M-edge of 3d transition metals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/N4ZWSVYP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02872}
}
read the original abstract

The magneto-optical response of Fe and Ni during ultrafast demagnetization is studied experimentally and theoretically. We have performed pump-probe experiments in the transverse magneto-optical Kerr effect (T-MOKE) geometry using photon energies that cover the M-absorption edges of Fe and Ni between 40 to 72 eV. The asymmetry was detected by measuring the reflection of light for two different orientations of the sample magnetization. Density functional theory (DFT) wasused to calculate the magneto-optical response of different magnetic configurations, representing different types of excitations: long-wavelength magnons, short wavelength magnons, and Stoner excitations. In the case of Fe, we find that the calculated asymmetry is strongly dependent on the specific type of magnetic excitation. Our modelling also reveals that during remagnetization Fe is, to a reasonable approximation, described by magnons, even though small non-linear contributions could indicate some degree of Stoner excitations as well. In contrast, we find that the calculated asymmetry in Ni is rather insensitive to the type of magnetic excitations. However, there is a weak non-linearity in the relation between asymmetry and the off-diagonal component of the dielectric tensor, which does not originate from the modifications of the electronic structure. Our experimental and theoretical results thus emphasize the need of considering a coupling between asymmetry and magnetization that may be more complex that a simple linear relationship. This insight is crucial for the microscopic interpretation of ultrafast magnetization experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02872 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The reflected harmonic intensities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Measured asymmetry for the bcc Fe sample at different harmonic energies, as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The measured magnetisation-asymmetry test ratio (MAT ratio - for details see text) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Illustration of different microscopic states with decreased total magnetization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Theoretical asymmetries for three different types of magnetic excitations, namely, Stoner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As a matter of fact, such type of non-linearities between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Calculated real and imaginary parts of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Calculated magnetic asymmetry as a function of reduced magnetization M/M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    La-O-Vorakiat, E

    C. La-O-Vorakiat, E. Turgut, C. A. Teale, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, S. Mathias, M. Aeschlimann, C. M. Schneider, J. M. Shaw, H. T. Nembach, and T. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. X 2, 011005 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [31]

    I. L. M. Locht, I. Di Marco, S. Garnerone, A. Delin, and M. Battiato, Phys. Rev. B 92, 064403 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [1]

    Beaurepaire, J.-C

    E. Beaurepaire, J.-C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J.-Y. Bigot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4250 (1996). 20

    work page 1996

  4. [2]

    Koopmans, J

    B. Koopmans, J. J. M. Ruigrok, F. Dalla Longa, and W. J. M. de Jonge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 267207 (2005)

    2005

  5. [3]

    Stamm, T

    C. Stamm, T. Kachel, N. Pontius, R. Mitzner, T. Quast, K. Holldack, S. Khan, C. Lupulescu, E. F. Aziz, M. Wietstruk, H. A. D¨ urr, and W. Eberhardt, Nature Mater. 6, 740 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [4]

    Krauss, T

    M. Krauss, T. Roth, S. Alebrand, D. Steil, M. Cinchetti, M. Aeschlimann, and H. C. Schnei- der, Phys. Rev. B 80, 180407(R) (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [5]

    Bigot, M

    J.-Y. Bigot, M. Vomir, and E. Beaurepaire, Nature Phys. 5, 515 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [6]

    Koopmans, G

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

    work page 2010

Show all 59 references
  1. [7]

    Carva, M

    K. Carva, M. Battiato, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 207201 (2011)

    2011

  2. [8]

    Rudolf, C

    D. Rudolf, C. La-O-Vorakiat, M. Battiato, R. Adam, J. M. Shaw, E. Turgut, P. Maldonado, S. Mathias, P. Grychtol, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, M. Aeschlimann, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, C. M. Schneider, and P. M. Oppeneer, Nature Commun. 3, 1037 (2012)

    2012

  3. [9]

    C. E. Graves, A. H. Reid, T. Wang, B. Wu, S. de Jong, K. Vahaplar, I. Radu, D. P. Bernstein, M. Messerschmidt, L. M¨ uller, R. Coffee, M. Bionta, S. W. Epp, R. Hartmann, N. Kimmel, G. Hauser, A. Hartmann, P. Holl, H. Gorke, J. H. Mentink, A. Tsukamoto, A. Fognini, J. J. Turner,...

    2013

  4. [10]

    Carva, M

    K. Carva, M. Battiato, D. Legut, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. B 87, 184425 (2013)

    2013

  5. [11]

    Battiato, P

    M. Battiato, P. Maldonado, and P. M. Oppeneer, J. Appl. Phys. 115, 172611 (2014)

    2014

  6. [12]

    A. J. Schellekens, K. C. Kuiper, R. R. J. C. de Wit, and B. Koopmans, Nat Commun 5, 4333 (2014)

    2014

  7. [13]

    Tows and G

    W. Tows and G. M. Pastor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 217204 (2015)

    2015

  8. [14]

    Elyasi and H

    M. Elyasi and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. B 94, 024417 (2016)

    2016

  9. [15]

    D. M. Nenno, S. Kaltenborn, and H. C. Schneider, Phys. Rev. B 94, 115102 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    C. D. Stanciu, F. Hansteen, A. V. Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, and T. Rasing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 047601 (2007)

    2007

  11. [17]

    Kirilyuk, A

    A. Kirilyuk, A. V. Kimel, and T. Rasing, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2731 (2010)

    2010

  12. [18]

    Malinowski, F

    G. Malinowski, F. Dalla Longa, J. H. H. Rietjens, P. V. Paluskar, R. Huijink, H. J. M. Swagten, and B. Koopmans, Nature Phys. 4, 855 (2008)

    2008

  13. [19]

    Battiato, K

    M. Battiato, K. Carva, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 027203 (2010). 21

    2010

  14. [20]

    Melnikov, I

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

    2011

  15. [21]

    Eschenlohr*, M

    A. Eschenlohr*, M. Battiato*, P. Maldonado, N. Pontius, T. Kachel, K. Holldack, R. Mitzner, A. F¨ ohlisch, P. M. Oppeneer, and C. Stamm, Nature Mater. 12, 332 (2013)

    2013

  16. [22]

    Battiato and K

    M. Battiato and K. Held, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 196601 (2016)

    2016

  17. [23]

    J. L. Erskine and E. A. Stern, Phys. Rev. B 12, 5016 (1975)

    1975

  18. [24]

    Koopmans, M

    B. Koopmans, M. van Kampen, J. T. Kohlhepp, and W. J. M. de Jonge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 844 (2000)

    2000

  19. [25]

    Guidoni, E

    L. Guidoni, E. Beaurepaire, and J.-Y. Bigot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 017401 (2002)

    2002

  20. [26]

    Bigot, L

    J.-Y. Bigot, L. Guidoni, E. Beaurepaire, and P. N. Saeta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 077401 (2004)

    2004

  21. [27]

    Carpene, E

    E. Carpene, E. Mancini, C. Dallera, M. Brenna, E. Puppin, and S. De Silvestri, Phys. Rev. B 78, 174422 (2008)

    2008

  22. [28]

    G. P. Zhang, W. H¨ ubner, G. Lefkidis, Y. Bai, and T. F. George, Nature Phys. 5, 499 (2009)

    2009

  23. [29]

    Carpene, H

    E. Carpene, H. Hedayat, F. Boschini, and C. Dallera, Phys. Rev. B 91, 174414 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    Mathias, C

    S. Mathias, C. La-O-Vorakiat, P. Grychtol, P. Granitzka, E. Turgut, J. M. Shaw, R. Adam, H. T. Nembach, M. E. Siemens, S. Eich, C. M. Schneider, T. J. Silva, M. Aeschlimann, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 4792 (2012), htt...

    2012

  25. [33]

    Mathias, C

    S. Mathias, C. La-O-Vorakiat, J. M. Shaw, E. Turgut, P. Grychtol, R. Adam, D. Rudolf, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, M. Aeschlimann, C. M. Schneider, H. C. Kapteyn, and M. M. Murnane, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 189, 164 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    K. H. J. Buschow, Handbook of magnetic materials. Vol. 13 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2001)

    2001

  27. [35]

    Turgut, D

    E. Turgut, D. Zusin, D. Legut, K. Carva, R. Knut, J. M. Shaw, C. Chen, Z. Tao, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, et al. , Physical Review B 94, 220408 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Zusin, P

    D. Zusin, P. M. Tengdin, M. Gopalakrishnan, C. Gentry, A. Blonsky, M. Gerrity, D. Legut, J. M. Shaw, H. T. Nembach, T. J. Silva, P. M. Oppeneer, H. C. Kapteyn, and M. M. Murnane, 22 Physical Review B 97, 24433 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    S. Eich, M. Pl¨ otzing, M. Rollinger, S. Emmerich, R. Adam, C. Chen, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, L. Plucinski, D. Steil, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Cinchetti, M. Aeschlimann, C. M. Schnei- der, and S. Mathias, Science Advances 3 (2017), 10.1126/sciadv.1602094

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Chimata, E

    R. Chimata, E. K. Delczeg-Czirjak, A. Szilva, R. Cardias, Y. O. Kvashnin, M. Pereiro, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, D. Thonig, B. Sanyal, A. B. Klautau, and O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. B 95, 214417 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Eriksson, A

    O. Eriksson, A. Bergman, L. Bergqvist, and J. Hellsvik, Atomistic Spin Dynamics: Founda- tions and Applications , 1st ed. (Oxford university press, 2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Chimata, A

    R. Chimata, A. Bergman, L. Bergqvist, B. Sanyal, and O. Eriksson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 157201 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Runge and E

    E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984)

    1984

  34. [42]

    Krieger, J

    K. Krieger, J. K. Dewhurst, P. Elliott, S. Sharma, and E. K. U. Gross, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 11, 4870 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    Shokeen, M

    V. Shokeen, M. Sanchez Piaia, J.-Y. Bigot, T. M¨ uller, P. Elliott, J. K. Dewhurst, S. Sharma, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 107203 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Krieger, P

    K. Krieger, P. Elliott, T. Mller, N. Singh, J. K. Dewhurst, E. K. U. Gross, and S. Sharma, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 29, 224001 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Plogmaker, J

    S. Plogmaker, J. A. Terschl¨ usen, N. Krebs, M. Svanqvist, J. Forsberg, U. B. Cappel, J.-E. Rubensson, H. Siegbahn, and J. S¨ oderstr¨ om, Review of Scientific Instruments 86, 123107 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Stefanuik, R

    R. Stefanuik, R. Knut, S. Jana, J. Terschl¨ usen, A. Sandell, and J. S¨ oderstr¨ om, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 224, 33 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    S. Jana, J. A. Terschl¨ usen, R. Stefanuik, S. Plogmaker, S. Troisi, R. S. Malik, M. Svanqvist, R. Knut, J. S¨ oderstr¨ om, and O. Karis, Review of Scientific Instruments88, 033113 (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4978907

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    X. He, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, R. Rakowski, C. M. Heyl, A. Persson, J. Mauritsson, and A. L’Huillier, Phys. Rev. A 82, 033410 (2010)

    2010

  41. [49]

    Holloway and J

    P. Holloway and J. Hudson, Surface Science 43, 123 (1974)

    1974

  42. [50]

    Tyuliev and K

    G. Tyuliev and K. Kostov, Physical Review B 60, 2900 (1999). 23

    1999

  43. [51]

    Valencia, A

    S. Valencia, A. Kleibert, A. Gaupp, J. Rusz, D. Legut, J. Bansmann, W. Gudat, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 187401 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Yeh, Surface Science 96, 41 (1980)

    P. Yeh, Surface Science 96, 41 (1980)

    1980

  45. [53]

    http://elk.sourceforge.net/

  46. [54]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  47. [55]

    Willems, S

    F. Willems, S. Sharma, C. v. Korff Schmising, J. K. Dewhurst, L. Salemi, D. Schick, P. Hessing, C. Str¨ uber, W. D. Engel, and S. Eisebitt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 217202 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    H.-S. Rhie, H. A. D¨ urr, and W. Eberhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 247201 (2003)

    2003

  49. [57]

    B. Y. Mueller, A. Baral, S. Vollmar, M. Cinchetti, M. Aeschlimann, H. C. Schneider, and B. Rethfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 167204 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    J. L. Erskine and E. A. Stern, Physical Review B 12, 5016 (1975)

    1975

  51. [59]

    F. Pan, J. Chico, A. Delin, A. Bergman, and L. Bergqvist, Phys. Rev. B 95, 184432 (2017). 24

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.