pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.02256 · v1 · pith:Y5F3RVRVnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.str-el

From Bloch to N\'eel: Anisotropy-dependent Domain-Wall Character in FePd Thin Films

Annika Stellhorn , Alicia Backs , Ekaterina Klyushina , Connie Bednarski-Meinke , Steffen Tober , Denis Vasiukov , Oskar Stepancic , V\'itor Alexandre de Oliveira Lima
show 6 more authors
Lukas Aniansson Paul Steadman Manuel Valvidares J\"org Schwenke Claudiu Bulbucan Elizabeth Blackburn
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 09:22 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el
keywords domain wall chiralityFePd thin filmsNéel wallsBloch wallsX-ray resonant magnetic scatteringperpendicular magnetic anisotropyL10 structural ordermagnetic thin films
0
0 comments X

The pith

FePd thin films with high perpendicular anisotropy exhibit a depth-dependent change in domain wall character from hybrid Bloch-Néel to purely Néel.

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

The paper sets out to show that domain wall chirality in L10-FePd films varies with depth and depends on both magnetocrystalline anisotropy strength and long-range atomic order. Angular-dependent circular dichroism X-ray resonant magnetic scattering maps this variation by changing the X-ray incidence angle to probe different depths. The higher-anisotropy sample displays a gradual shift from mixed Bloch-Néel walls near the top surface to pure Néel walls at the bottom interface. The lower-anisotropy sample shows only pure Néel walls at all depths. A reader would care because the type of domain wall governs how magnetic information can be written, stored, or transported in thin-film devices.

Core claim

Angular-dependent CD-XRMS directly reveals a smooth transition from a hybrid Bloch-Néel chirality within the upper FePd layer towards a purely Néel-type structure at the lower FePd interface in the Q_PMA=1.8 sample, while the Q_PMA=1.45 sample shows purely Néel walls throughout, linked to differences in long-range L10 structural order.

What carries the argument

Angular-dependent circular dichroism X-ray resonant magnetic scattering, which supplies a depth profile of domain-wall chirality through variation of the incident angle.

If this is right

  • Long-range L10 structural order, not anisotropy strength alone, controls whether domain walls remain purely Néel or develop a Bloch component.
  • Even films with Q_PMA above 1.4 can host hybrid walls when structural order is high.
  • Pure Néel walls can appear throughout a film at moderate anisotropy when long-range order is reduced.
  • Combining angular CD-XRMS with STXM and ptychography connects magnetic depth profiles to structural characterization.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Growth conditions that tune L10 order could be used to engineer intentional chirality gradients along the film thickness for device applications.
  • The same angular-scattering approach may uncover similar hidden depth transitions in other perpendicular-anisotropy materials.
  • Micromagnetic models of these films would need to incorporate position-dependent anisotropy or exchange parameters to reproduce the observed wall evolution.

Load-bearing premise

The angular dependence of the CD-XRMS signal can be read as a direct depth profile of domain-wall chirality without significant contributions from surface morphology or interface roughness.

What would settle it

An independent layer-resolved measurement such as polarized neutron reflectometry on the same samples that fails to show the reported chirality transition would falsify the depth interpretation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02256 by Alicia Backs, Annika Stellhorn, Claudiu Bulbucan, Connie Bednarski-Meinke, Denis Vasiukov, Ekaterina Klyushina, Elizabeth Blackburn, J\"org Schwenke, Lukas Aniansson, Manuel Valvidares, Oskar Stepancic, Paul Steadman, Steffen Tober, V\'itor Alexandre de Oliveira Lima.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematics of the geometrical considerations for (a-c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Magnetic and structural characteristics of samples [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. 3x3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. 2D CD-XRMS patterns (left) and extracted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: This corresponds to the orientation of surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Data analysis steps (from left to right): (i) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We report an experimental investigation of the depth-dependent domain wall formation in L1$_0$-FePd thin films with high perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. Using circular dichroism X-ray resonant magnetic scattering (CD-XRMS) as a function of the incident X-ray angle, we explore the depth evolution of chiral spin textures in two samples with different strengths of magnetocrystalline anisotropy. Combined with CD-STXM, CD-ptychography, and macroscopic characterization of the structural order, magnetic properties, and surface morphology, we relate these observations to differences in the long-range order of the L1$_0$ phase of FePd. One FePd thin film with very high magnetocrystalline anisotropy, characterized by $Q_{PMA}=1.8$, exhibits an unexpectedly large N\'eel contribution. Angular-dependent CD-XRMS directly reveals a smooth transition from a hybrid Bloch-N\'eel chirality within the upper FePd layer towards a purely N\'eel-type structure at the lower FePd interface. In the second FePd sample, despite a still relatively large $Q_{PMA}=1.45$, the domain walls were found to be purely N\'eel type. These results indicate a crucial role of the long-range structural order in determining the formation of the magnetic structure.

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 reports an experimental study of depth-dependent domain-wall chirality in L1₀-FePd thin films with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. Using angle-dependent circular dichroism X-ray resonant magnetic scattering (CD-XRMS) together with CD-STXM, CD-ptychography, and macroscopic structural/magnetic characterization, the authors claim that the Q_PMA=1.8 sample exhibits a smooth transition from hybrid Bloch-Néel chirality in the upper layer to purely Néel-type walls at the lower interface, while the Q_PMA=1.45 sample shows purely Néel walls throughout; these differences are attributed to variations in long-range L1₀ structural order.

Significance. If the angular CD-XRMS data can be shown to isolate magnetic depth profiles without significant non-magnetic artifacts, the work would provide direct experimental evidence connecting long-range chemical order to domain-wall character in high-PMA materials. Such a link is relevant for spintronic applications where wall type influences dynamics, pinning, and stability. The multi-technique approach is a strength, but the central depth-resolved claim requires further validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [CD-XRMS analysis and discussion of angular dependence] The central claim that angular-dependent CD-XRMS directly maps a depth-resolved transition from hybrid Bloch-Néel to pure Néel walls (abstract; results on CD-XRMS angle dependence) rests on the assumption that the observed angular variation arises solely from the magnetic structure factor. The manuscript does not report quantitative forward modeling (DWBA or Born-approximation simulations) that incorporates the measured surface morphology and roughness parameters to isolate the magnetic contribution and test robustness against possible charge-scattering artifacts.
  2. [Discussion] The attribution of the difference in wall character between the two samples to long-range L1₀ order (discussion section) is based on samples that also differ in Q_PMA; without additional control samples or a quantitative correlation between order parameter and wall type across a series, the causal link remains suggestive rather than definitive.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the CD-XRMS angular scans should explicitly state the fitting model or simulation used to extract the depth profile.
  2. [Methods or CD-XRMS section] The manuscript would benefit from a brief statement of the penetration-depth calculation or effective probing depth as a function of incidence angle.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review. The comments highlight important aspects of the CD-XRMS interpretation and the attribution of domain-wall character to structural order. We address each point below and indicate where revisions will be made to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [CD-XRMS analysis and discussion of angular dependence] The central claim that angular-dependent CD-XRMS directly maps a depth-resolved transition from hybrid Bloch-Néel to pure Néel walls (abstract; results on CD-XRMS angle dependence) rests on the assumption that the observed angular variation arises solely from the magnetic structure factor. The manuscript does not report quantitative forward modeling (DWBA or Born-approximation simulations) that incorporates the measured surface morphology and roughness parameters to isolate the magnetic contribution and test robustness against possible charge-scattering artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that explicit DWBA or Born-approximation simulations incorporating the AFM-measured roughness would provide additional rigor in separating magnetic and charge contributions. The original analysis relied on the resonant enhancement at the Fe L3 edge, the known penetration depth variation with angle, and consistency with CD-STXM and ptychography results obtained at different depths. In the revised manuscript we will add quantitative forward modeling using the measured surface morphology parameters to confirm that charge-scattering artifacts do not account for the observed angular dependence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] The attribution of the difference in wall character between the two samples to long-range L1₀ order (discussion section) is based on samples that also differ in Q_PMA; without additional control samples or a quantitative correlation between order parameter and wall type across a series, the causal link remains suggestive rather than definitive.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the two samples differ in both Q_PMA and the L1₀ order parameter, and that a larger series with independent variation of order at fixed Q_PMA would be ideal. Q_PMA itself is determined by the magnetocrystalline anisotropy, which scales directly with the long-range chemical order in L1₀-FePd; the structural characterization (XRD order parameter, lattice parameters) shows a clear correlation between higher order and higher Q_PMA. The discussion will be revised to present the link as correlative rather than strictly causal and to note the limitation of having only two samples. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental observations with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper reports experimental measurements using angular-dependent CD-XRMS, CD-STXM, CD-ptychography and structural/magnetic characterization on two FePd samples. No equations, parameter fitting, predictions, or self-referential derivations appear in the abstract or described content. The central claim is an observational link between Q_PMA, L1₀ order and domain-wall character extracted directly from angle-dependent dichroic signals. This is self-contained against external benchmarks (measured roughness, order parameters) and carries no load-bearing self-citation or ansatz. Score 0 is the expected outcome for such work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is experimental; no free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are introduced in the abstract. Standard assumptions of X-ray magnetic scattering are implicit but not novel to this work.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions in X-ray resonant magnetic scattering allow circular dichroism signals to be interpreted as magnetic chirality and depth profiles via angular variation.
    Implicit in the use of angular-dependent CD-XRMS to extract depth-dependent domain wall character.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5832 in / 1352 out tokens · 44171 ms · 2026-07-03T09:22:26.851770+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Growth of FePd thin films L10-ordered FePd thin films with point group sym- metry P4/mmm were grown following the proto- col described in Ref.[21–23]. Two samples,F ePd- highandF ePd-midwith different magnetocrystalline anisotropies, controlled by different FePd growth modes and thicknesses, were prepared using a state-of-the-art molecular beam epitaxy sy...

  2. [2]

    Figure 2(e) shows XRD mea- surements of the FePd (001) and (002) Bragg peaks with θ2(FePd-high)=49.8◦ andθ 2(FePd-mid)=49.25◦

    X-ray diffraction The structural quality of grown thin films was veri- fied with X-ray diffraction measurements using a Bruker AXS D8 Advance system. Figure 2(e) shows XRD mea- surements of the FePd (001) and (002) Bragg peaks with θ2(FePd-high)=49.8◦ andθ 2(FePd-mid)=49.25◦. These (002) Bragg peak positions correspond to out-of-plane lattice constants of...

  3. [3]

    Magnetization measurements TABLE I.Magnetic and structural parameters of FePd-high and FePd-mid. Ku(M erg cm3 )Q P M A D(nm)S c ⊥ F ePd-high14.43±0.05 1.8±0.05 70±2 0.63±0.02 3.66 ˚A F ePd-mid12.77±0.05 1.45±0.03 58±2 0.31±0.04 3.7 ˚A L10-FePd[21] 10.3 1.55≈60 0.79 3.714 ˚A[25] disordered[21] 0.7 0.11 — 0 3.807 ˚A[25] FePd AFMMFM (FePd-mid) xy MFM (FePd-h...

  4. [4]

    =12°dFePd= 14nm 𝜃!

    in Germany. Figure 1 (a,b) shows the magnetization curves measured at room temperature applied in the di- rections along (Hext,||) and perpendicular (Hext,⊥) to the thin film surface. By the ratio of integratedM(H ext,⊥) andM(H ext,||) hysteresis loops, the magnetocrystalline anisotropy constantK u can be extracted following equa- tion 1, based on [22]: Z...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033/ 2020

  5. [5]

    Foerster, O

    M. Foerster, O. Boulle, S. Esefelder, R. Mattheis, and M. Kl¨ aui, Domain wall memory device, inHandbook of Spintronics, edited by Y. Xu, D. D. Awschalom, and J. Nitta (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2016) pp. 1387–1441

    2016

  6. [6]

    Yang, Applied Physics Letters116, 120502 (2020)

    S.-H. Yang, Applied Physics Letters116, 120502 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Navas, C

    D. Navas, C. Redondo, G. A. Badini Confalonieri, F. Batallan, A. Devishvili, O. Iglesias-Freire, A. Asenjo, C. A. Ross, and B. P. Toperverg, Phys. Rev. B90, 054425 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Emori, U

    S. Emori, U. Bauer, S.-M. Ahn, E. Martinez, and G. S. D. Beach, Nature Mater12, 611 (2013)

    2013

  9. [9]

    Grytsiuk, J

    S. Grytsiuk, J. P. Hanke, M. Hoffmann, J. Bouaziz, O. Gomonay, G. Bihlmayer, S. Lounis, Y. Mokrousov, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Nature Communications11, 511 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Skoropata, J

    E. Skoropata, J. Nichols, J. M. Ok, R. V. Chopdekar, E. S. Choi, A. Rastogi, C. Sohn, X. Gao, S. Yoon, T. Farmer, R. D. Desautels, Y. Choi, D. Haskel, J. W. Freeland, S. Okamoto, M. Brahlek, and H. N. Lee, Sci- ence Advances6, eaaz3902 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    J. W. A. Robinson, J. D. S. Witt, and M. G. Blamire, Science329, 59 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    Jiang, G

    W. Jiang, G. Chen, K. Liu, J. Zang, S. G. te Velthuis, and A. Hoffmann, Physics Reports704, 1 (2017)

    2017

  13. [13]

    Blundell,Magnetism in Condensed Matter(Oxford University Press, 2001)

    S. Blundell,Magnetism in Condensed Matter(Oxford University Press, 2001)

    2001

  14. [14]

    A. V. Davydenko, A. G. Kozlov, N. N. Chernousov, A. A. Turpak, A. S. Pashenko, V. A. Antonov, M. V. Rautskii, A. S. Tarasov, A. V. Ognev, C. H. Wan, X. F. Han, and A. S. Samardak, Phys. Rev. B112, 224402 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    A. K. S. Kevin J. A. Franke, Colin Ophus and C. H. Marrows, PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS127, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.127203 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.127203 2021

  16. [16]

    Kittel, Phys

    C. Kittel, Phys. Rev.70, 965 (1946)

    1946

  17. [17]

    H. A. D¨ urr, E. Dudzik, S. S. Dhesi, J. B. Goed- koop, G. van der Laan, M. Belakhovsky, C. Mocuta, A. Marty, and Y. Samson, Science284, 2166 (1999), [DOI: 10.1126/science.284.5423.2166]

    work page doi:10.1126/science.284.5423.2166 1999

  18. [18]

    Legrand, J.-Y

    W. Legrand, J.-Y. Chauleau, D. Maccariello, N. Reyren, S. Collin, K. Bouzehouane, N. Jaouen, V. Cros, and A. Fert, Science Advances4, eaat0415 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    P. C. Carvalho, I. P. Miranda, J. Brand˜ ao, A. Bergman, J. C. Cezar, A. B. Klautau, and H. M. Petrilli, Nano Letters23, 4854 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Disorder-induced chirality in superconductor-ferromagnet heterostructures revealed by neutron scattering and multiscale modeling

    A. Stellhorn, J. G. C. Palma, A. Backs, A. Bergman, A. B. Klautau, E. Kentzinger, C. Bednarski-Meinke, S. Tober, E. Blackburn, J. Barthel, H. M. Petrilli, and I. P. Miranda, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.02824 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Chauleau, W

    J.-Y. Chauleau, W. Legrand, N. Reyren, D. Mac- cariello, S. Collin, H. Popescu, K. Bouzehouane, V. Cros, N. Jaouen, and A. Fert, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 037202 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    D. E. Laughlin, K. Srinivasan, M. Tanase, and L. Wang, Scripta Materialia53, 383 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    van der Laan, K

    G. van der Laan, K. Chesnel, M. Belakhovsky, A. Marty, F. Livet, S. Collins, E. Dudzik, A. Haznar, and J. Attan´ e, Superlattices and Microstructures34, 107 (2003)

    2003

  24. [24]

    Dudzik, S

    E. Dudzik, S. S. Dhesi, H. A. D¨ urr, S. P. Collins, M. D. Roper, G. van der Laan, K. Chesnel, M. Belakhovsky, A. Marty, and Y. Samson, Phys. Rev. B62, 5779 (2000)

    2000

  25. [25]

    Gehanno,Perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of epi- taxial thin films ofFePd ordered alloys, Ph.D

    V. Gehanno,Perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of epi- taxial thin films ofFePd ordered alloys, Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versit´ e JoSeph-Fourier - Grenoble I (1997)

    1997

  26. [26]

    Gehanno, A

    V. Gehanno, A. Marty, B. Gilles, and Y. Samson, Phys- ical Review B55, 12552 (1997)

    1997

  27. [27]

    Gehanno, R

    V. Gehanno, R. Hoffmann, Y. Samsona, A. Marty, and S. Auffret, Eur. Phys. J. B10, 457 (1999)

    1999

  28. [28]

    Stellhorn, A

    A. Stellhorn, A. Sarkar, E. Kentzinger, M. Waschk, P. Sch¨ offmann, S. Schr¨ oder, G. Abuladze, Z. Fu, V. Pipich, and T. Br¨ uckel, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials476, 483 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Ichitsubo and K

    T. Ichitsubo and K. Tanaka, Journal of Applied Physics 96, 6220 (2004)

    2004

  30. [30]

    B. E. Warren, X-ray diffraction (Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1969)

    1969

  31. [31]

    J. M. D. Coey,Magnetism and Magnetic Materials(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  32. [32]

    Thibault and M

    P. Thibault and M. Guizar-Sicairos, New Journal of Physics14, 063004 (2012)

    2012

  33. [33]

    Enders and P

    B. Enders and P. Thibault, Proc. A472 (2196), 20160640 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    Barla, J

    A. Barla, J. Nicol´ as, D. Cocco, S. M. Valvidares, J. Herrero-Mart´ ın, P. Gargiani, J. Moldes, C. Ruget, E. Pellegrin, and S. Ferrer, Journal of Synchrotron Radi- ation23, 1507 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    E. G. B.L. Henke and J. Davis, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables54, 181 (1993). 10

    1993

  36. [36]

    J. P. Hill and D. F. McMorrow, Acta Crystallographica A52, 236 (1996)

    1996

  37. [37]

    J. P. Hannon, G. T. Trammell, M. Blume, and D. Gibbs, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1245 (1988)

    1988

  38. [38]

    S. L. Zhang, G. van der Laan, W. W. Wang, A. A. Haghighirad, and T. Hesjedal, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 227202 (2018)

    2018

  39. [39]

    Halley, Y

    D. Halley, Y. Samson, A. Marty, P. Bayle-Guillemaud, C. Beign´ e, B. Gilles, and J. E. Mazille, Phys. Rev. B65, 205408 (2002)

    2002