pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.02746 · v1 · pith:PC2KD4YLnew · submitted 2019-07-05 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Tunability of domain structure and magnonic spectra in antidot arrays of Heusler alloy

Sougata Mallick , Sucheta Mondal , Takeshi Seki , Sourav Sahoo , Thomas Forrest , Francesco Maccherozzi , Zhenchao Wen , Saswati Barman
show 3 more authors
Anjan Barman Koki Takanashi Subhankar Bedanta
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:25 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords antidot arraysHeusler alloymagnonic spectraspin wavesmagnetic anisotropydomain structureshape anisotropy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Changing the shape of holes in antidot arrays of a Heusler alloy tunes the spin-wave spectra through altered internal fields and anisotropy.

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

The paper shows that epitaxial Co2Fe0.4Mn0.6Si Heusler alloy thin films patterned into antidot arrays exhibit different domain structures and magnonic modes depending on the hole shape. Time-resolved measurements reveal that square, circular, and other hole geometries produce distinct internal field profiles, pinning barriers, and anisotropy contributions that shift the optically induced spin-wave spectra. This geometric control combines the film's cubic magnetocrystalline anisotropy with shape anisotropy to provide an extra tuning parameter. A sympathetic reader would care because the material already offers low damping, so shape-based design could enable practical magnonic devices without new compounds or external adjustments.

Core claim

Antidot arrays with different hole shapes in CFMS Heusler films display chain-like or correlated domain switching, and the optically induced spin-wave spectra change dramatically because the hole geometry modifies internal field profiles, pinning energy barriers, and anisotropy; combining magnetocrystalline anisotropy with shape anisotropy therefore supplies an additional degree of freedom for controlling magnonic modes.

What carries the argument

Antidot hole shape, which alters internal magnetic field profiles, pinning energy barriers, and effective anisotropy to modify domain switching and spin-wave spectra.

If this is right

  • Different hole shapes produce either chain-like switching or larger correlated domains.
  • The spin-wave spectra shift markedly across arrays with square, circular, or other hole geometries.
  • Shape anisotropy adds a controllable degree of freedom when combined with the material's magnetocrystalline anisotropy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Geometric patterning could be used to create frequency-selective channels in magnonic waveguides without external fields.
  • The same shape-tuning principle may apply to other low-damping Heusler or ferromagnetic films for device integration.
  • Domain imaging combined with time-resolved Kerr microscopy offers a direct way to map how local pinning varies with geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The differences in domains and magnonic modes between arrays are produced by the hole shape rather than by uncontrolled differences in film deposition, lithography, or measurement conditions.

What would settle it

Fabricating multiple arrays with identical hole shapes but deliberately varied film thickness or edge roughness and finding that the magnonic spectra remain unchanged would show that shape is not the dominant control parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.02746 by Anjan Barman, Francesco Maccherozzi, Koki Takanashi, Saswati Barman, Sougata Mallick, Sourav Sahoo, Subhankar Bedanta, Sucheta Mondal, Takeshi Seki, Thomas Forrest, Zhenchao Wen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) - (b) RHEED images for TF along CFMS [100] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) SEM image of CA (circular antidot). (b) - (f) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Hysteresis loops measured using micro-MOKE along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) - (d) Spin wave spectra obtained at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Simulated power maps for different precessional modes as shown in figure 4 (e) - (h) for circular (CA), square (SA), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a). Magnetostatic field distribution of different antidot lattices are shown. The line-scans of y-component (CFMS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Materials suitable for magnonic crystals demand low magnetic damping and long spin wave (SW) propagation distance. In this context Co based Heusler compounds are ideal candidates for magnonic based applications. In this work, antidot arrays (with different shapes) of epitaxial $\mathrm{Co}_2\mathrm{Fe}_{0.4}\mathrm{Mn}_{0.6}\mathrm{Si}$ (CFMS) Heusler alloy thin films have been prepared using e-beam lithography and sputtering technique. Magneto-optic Kerr effect and ferromagnetic resonance analysis have confirmed the presence of dominant cubic and moderate uniaxial magnetic anisotropies in the thin films. Domain imaging via x-ray photoemission electron microscopy on the antidot arrays reveals chain like switching or correlated bigger domains for different shape of the antidots. Time-resolved MOKE microscopy has been performed to study the precessional dynamics and magnonic modes of the antidots with different shapes. We show that the optically induced spin-wave spectra in such antidot arrays can be tuned by changing the shape of the holes. The variation in internal field profiles, pinning energy barrier, and anisotropy modifies the spin-wave spectra dramatically within the antidot arrays with different shapes. We further show that by combining the magnetocrystalline anisotropy with the shape anisotropy, an extra degree of freedom can be achieved to control the magnonic modes in such antidot lattices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an experimental study on antidot arrays fabricated from epitaxial Co2Fe0.4Mn0.6Si Heusler alloy thin films with varying hole shapes (via e-beam lithography). Magneto-optic Kerr effect (MOKE) and ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) confirm dominant cubic and moderate uniaxial anisotropies. X-ray photoemission electron microscopy (XPEEM) reveals shape-dependent domain structures, such as chain-like switching or correlated domains. Time-resolved MOKE microscopy shows differences in precessional dynamics and magnonic modes. The central claim is that changing the antidot shape tunes the optically induced spin-wave spectra through variations in internal field profiles, pinning energy barriers, and anisotropy, providing an extra degree of freedom when combined with magnetocrystalline anisotropy.

Significance. If the observed tunability is robustly attributable to the proposed mechanisms, this work would offer a practical geometric approach to control magnonic spectra in low-damping Heusler materials, which is relevant for magnonic crystal applications. The combination of multiple experimental techniques strengthens the observational basis, though quantitative validation of the mechanism would enhance impact.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion (or equivalent interpretation section)] The assertion that differences in magnonic modes arise specifically from shape-induced variations in internal field profiles, pinning energy barriers, and anisotropy is not supported by micromagnetic simulations, calculated demagnetizing fields, or pinning energy estimates for each geometry. This leaves open the possibility that fabrication inconsistencies (e.g., edge roughness or thickness variations) or measurement artifacts contribute to the observed spectral shifts.
  2. [TR-MOKE results] The paper lacks visible error bars, statistical details on mode frequencies, or raw data traces, making it difficult to assess the precision and reproducibility of the reported differences in spin-wave spectra across shapes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'chain like switching or correlated bigger domains' but does not specify which shape corresponds to which behavior.
  2. [Methods] Details on the exact dimensions, lattice parameters, and film thickness for each antidot shape would aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading of our manuscript and the constructive comments. We address the major points below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Discussion (or equivalent interpretation section)] The assertion that differences in magnonic modes arise specifically from shape-induced variations in internal field profiles, pinning energy barriers, and anisotropy is not supported by micromagnetic simulations, calculated demagnetizing fields, or pinning energy estimates for each geometry. This leaves open the possibility that fabrication inconsistencies (e.g., edge roughness or thickness variations) or measurement artifacts contribute to the observed spectral shifts.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative micromagnetic simulations or explicit demagnetizing field calculations for each geometry would strengthen the mechanistic interpretation. The current manuscript relies on the consistency between XPEEM-observed domain configurations and TR-MOKE spectral shifts across shapes, together with the known magnetocrystalline anisotropy from FMR. The epitaxial films show uniform thickness and low roughness by AFM and XRD, which argues against dominant fabrication artifacts. In revision we will add simple analytical estimates of the demagnetizing fields for the different antidot shapes to support the discussion. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [TR-MOKE results] The paper lacks visible error bars, statistical details on mode frequencies, or raw data traces, making it difficult to assess the precision and reproducibility of the reported differences in spin-wave spectra across shapes.

    Authors: We accept that the presentation of the TR-MOKE data can be improved. The revised manuscript will include error bars on the extracted mode frequencies (derived from multiple measurements), a brief description of the fitting procedure and number of averaged traces, and representative raw time traces or spectra in the supplementary material. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental study with direct measurements

full rationale

The paper reports sample fabrication via e-beam lithography, anisotropy characterization via MOKE/FMR, domain imaging via XMPEEM, and time-resolved dynamics via TR-MOKE. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. All claims rest on observed differences across independently prepared samples rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. This is the expected finding for an experimental materials paper without modeling.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is experimental and draws on standard interpretations of magnetic microscopy and resonance data; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced beyond routine domain assumptions in the field.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Dominant cubic and moderate uniaxial anisotropies are present in the epitaxial CFMS films as measured by MOKE and FMR.
    This background fact is invoked to interpret domain imaging and dynamics results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5827 in / 1301 out tokens · 23182 ms · 2026-05-25T02:25:39.907207+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. V. Chumak, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnonic crystals for data processing,J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 50, 244001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    S. A. Nikitov, Ph. Tailhades, and C. S. Tsai, Spin waves in periodic magnetic structures - magnonic crystals, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 236, 320 (2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    R. P. Cowburn, A. O. Adeyeye, and J. A. C. Bland, Mag- netic domain formation in lithographically defined anti- dot Permalloy arrays, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70, 2309 (1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Bedanta and W

    S. Bedanta and W. Kleemann, Supermagnetism,J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42, 013001 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Vavassori, G

    P. Vavassori, G. Gubbiotti, G. Zangari, C. T. Yu, H. Yin, H. Jiang, and G. J. Mankey, Lattice symmetry and magnetization reversal in micron-size antidot arrays in Permalloy film,J. Appl. Phys. 91, 7992 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    C. T. Yu, M. J. Pechan, and G. J. Mankey, Dipolar in- duced, spatially localized resonance in magnetic antidot arrays, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 3948 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    A. O. Adeyeye, J. A. C. Bland, and C. Daboo, Mag- netic properties of arrays of holes in Ni80Fe20 films, Appl. Phys. Lett. 70, 3164 (1997)

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    Mallick, and S

    S. Mallick, and S. Bedanta, Size and shape dependence study of magnetization reversal in magnetic antidot lat- tice arrays, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 382, 158 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Mallick, S

    S. Mallick, S. Mallik, and S. Bedanta, Effect of substrate rotation on domain structure and magnetic relaxation in magnetic antidot lattice arrays, J. Appl. Phys. 118, 083904 (2015)

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    F. J. Castano, K. Nielsch, C. A. Ross, J. W. A. Robin- son, R. Krishnan, Anisotropy and magnetotransport in ordered magnetic antidot arrays, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 2872 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    O. N. Martyanov, V. F. Yudanov, R. N. Lee, S. A. Nepi- jko, H. J. Elmers, R. Hertel, C. M. Schneider, and G. Schoenhense, Ferromagnetic resonance study of thin film antidot arrays: Experiment and micromagnetic simula- tions, Phys. Rev. B 75, 174429 (2007)

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    Ruiz-Feal, L

    I. Ruiz-Feal, L. Lopez-Diaz, A. Hirohata, J. Rothman, C. M. Guertler, J. A. C. Bland, L. M. Garcia, J. M. Tor- res, J. Bartolome, F. Bartolome, M. Natali, D. Decanini, and Y. Chen, Geometric coercivity scaling in magnetic thin film antidot arrays, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 242, 597 (2002)

    work page 2002

  13. [13]

    T. J. Meng, J. B. Laloe, S. N. Holmes, A. Husmann, and G. A. C. Jones, In-plane magnetoresistance and magne- tization reversal of cobalt antidot arrays, J. Appl. Phys. 106, 033901 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Vavassori, V

    P. Vavassori, V. Metlushko, R. M. Osgood, M. Grims- ditch, U. Welp, G. Crabtree, W. Fan, S. R. J. Brueck, B. Ilic, and P. J. Hesketh, Magnetic information in the light diffracted by a negative dot array of Fe, Phys. Rev. B 59, 6337 (1999)

    work page 1999

  15. [15]

    Guedes, N

    I. Guedes, N. J. Zaluzec, M. Grimsditch, V. Metlushko, P. Vavassori, B. Ilic, P. Neuzil, and R. Kumar, Magne- tization of negative magnetic arrays:Elliptical holes on a square lattice, Phys. Rev. B 62, 11719 (2000)

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    A. De, S. Mondal, S. Sahoo, S. Barman, Y. Otani, R. K. Mitra, and A. Barman, Field-controlled ultrafast mag- netization dynamics in two-dimensional nanoscale ferro- magnetic antidot arrays, Beil. J. Nano. 9, 1123 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Neusser, G

    S. Neusser, G. Duerr, S. Tacchi, M. Madami, M. L. Sokolovskyy, G. Gubbiotti, M. Krawczyk, and D. Grundler, Magnonic minibands in antidot lattices with large spin-wave propagation velocities, Phys. Rev. B 84, 094454 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Neusser, G

    S. Neusser, G. Duerr, H. G. Bauer, S. Tacchi, M. Madami, G. Woltersdorf, G. Gubbiotti, C. H. Back, and D. Grundler, Anisotropic propagation and damping of spin waves in a nanopatterned antidot lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 067208 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    C. C. Wang, A. O. Adeyeye, and N. Singh, Magnetic antidot nanostructures: effect of lattice geometry, Nan- 9 otechnology 17, 1629 (2006)

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    McPhail, C

    S. McPhail, C. M. Gurtler, J. M. Shilton, N. J. Curson, and J. A. C. Bland, Coupling of spin-wave modes in ex- tended ferromagnetic thin film antidot arrays, Phys. Rev. B 72, 094414 (2005)

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    Ulrichs, B

    H. Ulrichs, B. Lenk, and M. Munzenberg, Magnonic spin- wave modes in CoFeB antidot lattices, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 092506 (2010)

    work page 2010

  22. [22]

    Tacchi, B

    S. Tacchi, B. Botters, M. Madami, J. W. Klos, M. L. Sokolovskyy, M. Krawczyk, G. Gubbiotti, G. Carlotti, A. O. Adeyeye, S. Neusser, and D. Grundler, Mode con- version from quantized to propagating spin waves in a rhombic antidot lattice supporting spin wave nanochan- nels, Phys. Rev. B 86, 014417 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Kumar, P

    D. Kumar, P. Sabareesan, W. Wang, H. Fangohr, and A. Barman, Effect of hole shape on spin-wave band structure in one-dimensional magnonic antidot waveguide, J. Appl. Phys. 114, 023910 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    Mandal, S

    R. Mandal, S. Barman, S. Saha, Y. Otani, and A. Barman, Tunable spin wave spectra in two-dimensional Ni80Fe20 antidot lattices with varying lattice symmetry, J. Appl. Phys. 118, 053910 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    Sebastian, Y

    T. Sebastian, Y. Ohdaira, T. Kubota, P. Pirro, T. Bracher, K. Vogt, A. A. Serga, H. Naganuma, M. Oogane, Y. Ando, B. Hillebrands, Low-damping spin-wave propagation in a micro-structured Co2Mn0.6Fe0.4Si Heusler waveguide, Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 112402 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Kubota, S

    T. Kubota, S. Tsunegi, M. Oogane, S. Mizukami, T. Miyazaki, H. Naganuma, and Y. Ando, Half-metallicity and Gilbert damping constant in Co2FexMn1-xSi Heusler alloys depending on the film composition, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 122504 (2009)

    work page 2009

  27. [27]

    Y. Liu, L. R. Shelford, V. V. Kruglyak, R. J. Hicken, Y. Sakuraba, M. Oogane, and Y. Ando, Optically induced magnetization dynamics and variation of damping pa- rameter in epitaxial Co2MnSi Heusler alloy films, Phys. Rev. B 81, 094402 (2010)

    work page 2010

  28. [28]

    S. Pan, S. Mondal, T. Seki, K. Takanashi, and A. Barman, Influence of thickness-dependent struc- tural evolution on ultrafast magnetization dynamics in Co2Fe0.4Mn0.6Si Heusler alloy thin films, Phys. Rev. B 94, 184417 (2016)

    work page 2016

  29. [29]

    Kambersk´ y, On the Landau - Lifshitz relaxation in ferromagnetic metals, C

    V. Kambersk´ y, On the Landau - Lifshitz relaxation in ferromagnetic metals, C. J. Phys. 48, 2906 (1970)

    work page 1970

  30. [30]

    S. Pan, T. Seki, K. Takanashi, and A. Barman, Role of the Cr Buffer Layer in the Thickness-Dependent Ultrafast Magnetization Dynamics of Co2Fe0.4Mn0.6Si Heusler Alloy Thin Films, Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 064012 (2017)

    work page 2017

  31. [31]

    Mandal, P

    R. Mandal, P. Laha, K. Das, S. Saha, S. Barman, A. K. Raychaudhuri, and A. Barman, Effects of antidot shape on the spin wave spectra of two-dimensional Ni80Fe20 antidot lattices, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 262410 (2013)

    work page 2013

  32. [32]

    Mandal, S

    R. Mandal, S. Saha, D. Kumar, S. Barman, S. Pal, K. Das, A. K. Raychaudhuri, Y. Fukuma, Y. Otani, and A. Barman, Optically induced tunable magnetization dy- namics in nanoscale co antidot lattices, ACS Nano 6, 3397 (2012)

    work page 2012

  33. [33]

    Sakuraba, M

    Y. Sakuraba, M. Ueda, Y. Miura, K. Sato, S. Bosu, K. Saito, M. Shirai, T. J. Konno, and K. Takanashi, Exten- sive study of giant magnetoresistance properties in half- metallic Co2(Fe,Mn)Si-based devices, Appl. Phys. Lett. 101, 252408 (2012)

    work page 2012

  34. [34]

    Supplemental Material

    work page

  35. [35]

    Barman, and A

    A. Barman, and A. Haldar, Chapter One - Time-Domain Study of Magnetization Dynamics in Magnetic Thin Films and Micro- and Nanostructures, In Solid State Physics, R. E. Camley, R. L. Stamps, Eds. Academic Press: 2014; Vol. 65, pp 1-108

    work page 2014

  36. [36]

    L. J. Heyderman, F. Nolting, D. Backes, S. Czekaj, L. Lopez-Diaz, M. Klaui, U. Rudiger, C. A. F. Vaz, J. A. C. Bland, R. J. Matelon, U. G. Volkmann, and P. Fischer, Magnetization reversal in cobalt antidot arrays, Phys. Rev. B 73, 214429 (2006)

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    L. J. Heyderman, F. Nolting, and C. Quitmann, X-ray photoemission electron microscopy investigation of mag- netic thin film antidot arrays, Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 1797 (2003)

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    Guedes, M

    I. Guedes, M. Grimsditch, V. Metlushko, P. Vavassori, R. Camley, B. Ilic, P. Neuzil, and R. Kumar, Domain formation in arrays of square holes in an Fe film, Phys. Rev. B 66, 014434 (2002)

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    M. J. Donahue, and D. G. Porter, OOMMF: Object Ori- ented MicroMagnetic Framework (2016)

    work page 2016

  40. [40]

    Mondal, S

    S. Mondal, S. Choudhury, S. Barman, Y. Otani, and A. Barman, Transition from strongly collective to com- pletely isolated ultrafast magnetization dynamics in two- dimensional hexagonal arrays of nanodots with varying inter-dot separation, RSC Adv. 6, 110393 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    Kumar, O

    D. Kumar, O. Dmytriiev, S. Ponraj, A. Barman, Nu- merical calculation of spin wave dispersions in magnetic nanostructures, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 45, 015001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  42. [42]

    Y. B. Xu, D. J. Freeland, M. Tselepi, and J. A. C. Bland, Anisotropic lattice relaxation and uniaxial mag- netic anisotropy inFe/InAs(100)42, Phys. Rev. B 62, 1167 (2000)

    work page 2000

  43. [43]

    Q. F. Zhan, S. Vandezande, C. Van Haesendonck, and K. Temst, Manipulation of in-plane uniaxial anisotropy in Fe/MgO(001) films by ion sputtering, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 122510 (2007)

    work page 2007

  44. [44]

    Thomas, Q

    O. Thomas, Q. Shen, P. Schieffer, N. Tournerie, and B. Lepine, Interplay between anisotropic strain relaxation and uniaxial interface magnetic anisotropy in epitaxial Fe films on (001) GaAs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 017205 (2003)

    work page 2003

  45. [45]

    Mallick, S

    S. Mallick, S. Mallik, B. B. Singh, N. Chowdhury, R. Gienuisz, A. Maziewski, and S. Bedanta, Tuning the anisotropy and domain structure of Co films by vari- able growth conditions and seed layers, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 51, 275003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  46. [46]

    M. R. Scheinfein, LLG Micromagnetics Simulator, http://llgmicro.home.mindspring.com/

    work page