---
abstract: 'Single femtosecond pulse switching of ferrimagnetic alloys is an essential building block for ultrafast spintronics. However the most promising class of material for ultrafast spintronics showing switching capabilities, Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga Heusler alloys, has barely been investigated theoretically from an atomistic perspective. Here, we propose an atomistic spin model for the simulation of single pulse toggle switching of the Heusler alloy Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga for a range of Ru concentrations. The magnetic parameters entering the spin Hamiltonian are obtained by mapping our computer results to previous experimental results. We investigate the Ru-concentration dependence of single pulse toggle switching and find that it is restricted to a range of concentrations, similar to experimental findings. We expect that our atomistic model serve to further investigate toggle switching in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga Heusler alloys for ultrafast spintronics applications.'
author:
- 'F. Jakobs'
- 'U. Atxitia'
bibliography:
- 'libFJ.bib'
title: 'Atomistic spin model of single pulse toggle switching in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga Heusler alloys'
---

Single femtosecond pulse toggle switching in ferrimagnets has attracted a lot of attention as a promising solution for low energy, faster memory applications. @OstlerNatComm2012 [@Kimel2019; @El-Ghazaly2020; @Barker2021]. Its physical origin is still a matter of debate, despite this, toggle switching in GdFeCo has already been demonstrated in micro and nanostructures @LeGuyaderNatComm2015 [@El-Ghazaly2019], to switch magnetic tunnel junctions @Chen2017, as passive component to induce switching in ferromagnets @Gorchon2017 and even using picosecond electric pulses @YangSciAdv2016. However, for integration into spintronics applications, Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga alloys, the second class of material showing toggle switching, is better suited @banerjee2019. While for GdFeCo intense research has provided a large amount of data to validate models, for Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga there only exist a few works showing ultrafast magnetization dynamics and switching @banerjee2019 [@Banerjee2021]. Moreover, since the two antiferromagnetically coupled distinct Mn sites are of the same kind, it is unclear how much of our previous understanding of GdFeCo alloys translates to these Heusler alloys. The atomic magnetic moments of both sublattices in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga are similar, whereas other parameters like the exchange interaction could differ strongly in comparison to GdFeCo @Betto2015. Differently to GdFeCo, in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga, none of the Mn-sites can be considered as polarised by the other. Theses differences raises the question of whether or not the same underlying atomistic spin model can describe switching in both classes of ferrimagnetic materials. In the present work we model Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga Heusler alloys with an atomistic spin model. The parameters of the classical Heisenberg Hamiltonian are obtained by mapping the model results to experimental observations. We use this model as base for atomistic spin dynamics simulations (ASD) @Evans2014. We investigate both the possibility and the conditions for ultrafast single-shot switching in these alloys. Our results agree well to previous experimental results.

We model Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga Heusler alloys based on the Heisenberg spin Hamiltonian: $$\mathcal{H}= - \sum_{i \neq j} J_{ij} \mathbf{S}_i \cdot \mathbf{S}_j - \sum_{i} d_z S_z^2.
\label{eq:Ham}$$ Here $\mathbf{S}_i = \boldsymbol{\mu}_i/\mu_{s,i}$ represents a classical, normalized spin vector at site $i$. $\mathbf{S}_i$, couples to its neighboring spin $\mathbf{S}_j$ via the coupling constant $J_{ij}$, and $d_z$ represents the on-site anisotropy with easy-axis along the $z$ axis. The spin dynamics of this system are described by using the atomistic stochastic-Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation (sLLG) @Nowak2007 $$\frac{(1+\alpha_i^2)\mu_{s,i}}{\gamma}\frac{\partial \mathbf{S}_i}{\partial t} = - \left( \mathbf{S}_i \times \mathbf{H}_i \right) - \alpha_i  \left( \mathbf{S}_i \times \left(\mathbf{S}_i \times \mathbf{H}_i \right) \right).
\label{eq:llg}$$ Where $\gamma$ represents the gyromagnetic ratio and $\alpha_i$ is a site-specific atomic damping parameter. The temperature dynamics are described using the two-temperature model (TTM) that describes the electron temperature $T_\text{el}$ and the phonon temperature $T_\text{ph}$ via a pair of two coupled differential equations @Kaganov1957 [@Chen2006]: $$\begin{aligned}
C_{\rm{el}} \frac{\partial T_{\rm{el}}}{\partial t} &= -g_{\rm{ep}}\left( T_{\rm{el}} - T_{\rm{ph}} \right) + P_{l}(t) \\
C_{\rm{ph}} \frac{\partial T_{\rm{ph}}}{\partial t} &= +g_{\rm{ep}}\left( T_{\rm{el}} - T_{\rm{ph}} \right).
\label{eq:2TM}\end{aligned}$$ $C_\text{el}$ and $C_\text{ph}$ represent the specific heat of the electron- and phonon system and $P_l(t)$ describes the absorbed energy of the electron system, coming from the laser. The used material parameters are listed in table \[table:Parameters\]. The laser pulse is assumed to be Gaussian shaped with a FWHM of 100 fs. The electron temperature $T_{\rm{el}}$ yielding from the TTM is used to scale the temperature effects in the spin system. This is done by including a Langevin thermostat, which adds an effective field-like stochastic term $ \boldsymbol{\zeta}_i$ to the effective field $\mathbf{H}_i= \boldsymbol{\zeta}_i(t) - \frac{\partial \mathcal{H}}{\partial \mathbf{S}_i}$ with white noise properties @Atxitia2009: $$\langle \boldsymbol{\zeta}_i(t) \rangle = 0 \quad \text{and} \quad \langle \boldsymbol{\zeta}_i(0) \boldsymbol{\zeta}_j(t) \rangle = 2 \alpha_i k_\text{B} T_{\rm{el}} \mu_{s,i} \delta_{ij}\delta(t)/\gamma.
\label{eq:noise-correlator}$$

![The material parameters of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga. a) Crystal structure of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga with the Mn-sublattices in blue and red being ordered antiparallel to each other. b) Schematic of the in the model included exchange constants $J_\text{4a-4a}$, $J_\text{4a-4c}$ and $J_\text{4a-4c}$. c) The experimentally measured atomic magnetic moments of the $4a$ sublattice as red crosses and of the $4c$ sublattice as blue dots @Betto2015. Lines correspond to the values used in the atomistic spin model.<span data-label="fig:MaterialProperties"></span>](Intro_hor){width="1.0\columnwidth"}

The alloy crystallises in the cubic space group F$\overline{4}3m$ with the Mn atoms on the $4a$ and $4c$ sites that couple antiferromagnetically to each other, whereas the respective Mn $4a$- and $4c$ sublattices couple ferromagnetically @Fowley2018. The Ga atoms appear at the $4b$ sites and Ru atoms at the $4d$ sites of the lattice. The unit cell of Mn$_2$RuGa is depicted in Fig. \[fig:MaterialProperties\] a). It has been found experimentally using x-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD), that one important characteristic of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga is the dependence of the site-specific Mn atomic magnetic moments on the Ru-concentration $x$ @Betto2015. These observations indicate that increasing $x$ yields a growth of the $4c$ Mn atomic magnetic moment, $\mu_{s,4c}$, while the atomic magnetic moment of the $4a$ Mn, $\mu_{s,4a}$, stays constant as depicted in Fig. \[fig:MaterialProperties\] c) @Betto2015. In our model, the Ru-concentration dependence of the site-specific atomic magnetic moments are obtained from comparison to the experimental results (lines in Fig. \[fig:MaterialProperties\] c). We note that a direct linear fitting yields $\mu_{s,4c}^\prime(x)=6.1(11)$ $\mu_\text{B} \cdot x -0.82(96) \ \mu_\text{B}$ for values of $x>0.5$ and thus a value of $\mu_{s,4c}^\prime(0.5) = 2.23$ $\mu_\text{B}$ and $\mu_{s,4c}^\prime(0.9) = 4.67$ $\mu_\text{B}$ while $\mu_{s,4a}= 2.88$ $\mu_\text{B}$ is kept constant. However, by using these values in the model we find that the temperature dependence of the magnetization compensation temperature, $T_{\rm{comp}}$, as function of $x$ is shifted by about  100 K too high in comparison to the experimental values @banerjee2019. The magnetization compensation temperature $T_{\text{comp}}$ specifies the temperature, at which the magnetization of both sublattices of the ferrimagnet compensates one another. Instead, our model uses a slightly decreased atomic magnetic moment for the $4c$ sublattice, shown in Fig. \[fig:MaterialProperties\] c) as a blue line of $\mu_{s,4c}(x)=4.71$ $\mu_\text{B} \cdot x $ while keeping the original $4a$ values.

![Simulated material properties of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga. a) The equilibrium magnetization for a Mn$_2$Ru$_{68}$Ga alloy as function of temperature of the Mn$_{4a}$ sublattice in red, the Mn$_{4c}$ sublattice in blue and the total magnetization $\text{Mn}_{4a+4c} = \text{Mn}_{4a} + \text{Mn}_{4c}$. b) displays the magnetization compensation temperature $T_\text{comp}$ as function of $x$. Black dots correspond to experimental measurements  @banerjee2019. Red crosses represent the results obtained from the simulations of the atomistic model using parameters from Table \[table:Parameters\]. The red line is a linear fit of the simulated results and is guidance to the eye.<span data-label="fig:eqProperties"></span>](MaterialParamters){width="1\columnwidth"}

The considered Heisenberg exchange parameters are the ferromagnetic exchange couplings $J_\text{4a-4a}$ and $J_\text{4c-4c}$ as well as the antiferromagnetic $J_\text{4a-4c}$ as illustrated in Fig. \[fig:MaterialProperties\] b). The values of the exchange and the uniaxial anisotropy for Mn$_2$Ru$_{68}$Ga are based on the values of a molecular field model @Smart1966 derived in Ref. . The exchange parameters are fitted to yield a Curie temperature of about 630 K which is at the upper end of reported Curie temperatures, for instance, it is close to the value reported in Ref.  of $T_c = 625$ K for $x=0.68$. Additional experiments find an approximately constant Curie temperature of 450 K for $x>0.5$  @Kurt2014, whereas Ref.  reports $T_c = 550 $ K for $x=0.7$. Furthermore the T$_c$ measured in Ref.  features a peak around $x=0.4$ which could explain why our parameters only reproduce reproduce $T_{\text{comp}}$ for $x > 0.68$. Thus, a dependence of the exchange parameters on Ru concentration may therefore be possible for lower values of $x$. Since we are mostly interested in Ru concentration for which switching has been experimentally demonstrated ($x>0.7$), we restrict our study to Ru concentrations of $x=0.6-1.0$. The uniaxial anisotropy is also considered to be site-specific, in particular, K$_{4c} = 216$ kJm$^{-3}$ from Ref.  and assuming a unit cell size of ($\approx 0.6$ nm)$^3$ (@Thiyagarajah2015) we obtain $d_{z,4c} = 1.1664 \cdot 10^{-23}$ J as on-site anisotropy and $d_{z,4a} = 0$. All used parameters are summarized in table \[table:Parameters\].

<span> l |lllll||l|ll</span> $\mathcal{H}$& &&Value&& Units &TTM & &Units\
$J_\text{4a-4a}$ & &&$1.28 $&$\times 10^{-21}$ &\[J\]& C$_{\rm{ph}}$& $3\times 10^{6}$&\[J/Km$^3]$\
$J_\text{4c-4c}$ & &&$4.0 $&$\times 10^{-21}$ &\[J\]& C$_{\rm{el}}$ &$\gamma_\text{el} \cdot T_{\rm{e}}$&\[J/Km$^3]$\
$J_\text{4a-4c}$ & &$-$&$4.85 $&$\times 10^{-22}$ &\[J\]& $\gamma_\text{el}$& 700& \[J/Km$^3$\]\
$\gamma$ & &&$1.76$&$\times 10^{-21}$&$[\frac{1}{\text{Ts}}]$&g$_{\rm{ep}}$&$6\times 10^{17}$&\[J/sKm$^3]$\
$d_z$ & &&$1.17$&$\times 10^{-23}$&\[J\]&\
$\mu_{\rm{s,4a}}$& && 2.88 &&$[\mu_{\rm{B}}]$&&\
$\mu_{\rm{s,4c}}$& && varied&&$[\mu_{\rm{B}}]$&&\
$\alpha_{4a}$& & &$0.013$&&&&\
$\alpha_{4c}$& & &$0.01$&&&&\

Experimentally measured magnetic properties in Mn$_2$Ru$_{x}$Ga can be reproduced by using these parameters (Table I) as input into the atomistic spin model. For instance, the model is able to reproduce the increasing of $T_\text{comp}$ of the alloy measured in Ref.  for $x>0.68$ as shown in Fig. \[fig:eqProperties\] b). The figure shows the experimental measurements as black points and the simulation results as crosses. The red line is guidance to the eye. For $x>0.68$ our simulations are able to reproduce the increasing $T_{\text{comp}}$, for $x<0.68$ however the simulated $T_{\text{comp}}$ drops quickly and is no longer able to reproduce the experimental observations.

So far, single pulse toggle switching in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga has been demonstrated in only two works @banerjee2019 [@Banerjee2021]. In these publications observations indicate, that switching only occurs when the Ru concentrations raises $T_\text{comp}$ above room temperature which is the case for a Ru-concentration larger than $x=0.9$ @banerjee2019. Within our model, this finding is reproduced and our model shows switching for Ru-concentration larger than $x=0.9$ ( $T_\text{comp}(x=0.9) \approx 300$ K see Fig. \[fig:eqProperties\]b)). Fig. \[fig:SwitchingSimulations\] shows an example of three different simulations of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga for $x=0.76$ (a), $x=0.86$ (b) and $x=0.96$ (c) representing alloys below/at/above the threshold of $x=0.9$, while keeping the total laser energy and all other parameters constant.

![Site-specific magnetization dynamics of the $4a$ and $4c$ Mn sites (red, blue) after a 100 fs laser pulse excitation at $t=0$ (Gaussian pulse peak) for an increasing Ruthenium concentration ($\alpha_{4c} = 0.01$, $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$). The total magnetization ($M_{\rm{total}} = m_{z,4a} + m_{z,4c}$) is shown as a black dotted line. The total laser energy was kept constant for all three simulations. a) shows the no-switching scenario for a Mn$_2$Ru$_{0.76}$Ga alloy. b) shows the non-deterministic scenario for a Mn$_2$Ru$_{0.86}$Ga alloy, with a prolonged demagnetization state. c) shows the switching scenario for a Mn$_2$Ru$_{0.96}$Ga alloy. <span data-label="fig:SwitchingSimulations"></span>](Switching){width="1\columnwidth"}

Since the magnetic compensation temperature of these alloys depends on the Rutherium concentration the shown example also correspond to alloys with a compensation temperature below/at/above room temperature. One of the key factors for the agreement with the experiment is the site-specific damping of each sublattices set to $\alpha_{4c}=0.01$ and $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$ which further moderate the speed of each sublattice. The details on the site-specific damping will be discussed later. Experiments using laser induced time-resolved precession demonstrated that the Gilbert damping in these alloys is less than 0.02 @Bonfiglio2019, making it a very attractive candidate for various spintronic applications. Moreover, using those damping values, the model describes the demagnetization time scales well and they are similar to the ones observed in experiments of only a few hundred femtoseconds @Bonfiglio_2021 [@Banerjee2021]. We note that, the only magnetic property changing with $x$ in our model is the increasing magnetic moment $\mu_{s,4c}$ (Fig. \[fig:MaterialProperties\]c). The value of the site-specific atomic magnetic moment modifies both the total magnetization and the demagnetization time, which scales linearly with $\mu_s$. This is one of the reasons why in GdFeCo alloys, the Gd-sublattice with $\mu_{s,\rm{Gd}} \approx 7.65 \ \mu_\text{B}$ is much slower than the Fe-sublattice $\mu_{s,\rm{Fe}} \approx 2 \ \mu_\text{B}$ @RaduNature2011 [@Radu2015]. Indicating, that the sublattices' magnetic moment plays a key role in the demagnetization and switching behaviours. Differently to GdFeCo, in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga the change in the demagnetization time is not apparent for the three cases considered in Fig. \[fig:SwitchingSimulations\]. This can be seen by noting that the total magnetization, $M_{\rm{total}}$ slightly varies during the whole process (Fig. \[fig:SwitchingSimulations\], black dotted line). The atomic moment of the 4c-sublattice for $x=0.76$ is $\mu_s=3.5$ $\mu_{\rm{B}}$ whereas for $x=0.96$ it is $\mu_s=4.5$ $\mu_{\rm{B}}$. This small increase in the atomic magnetic moment increases $T_{\rm{comp}}$ so it lies above room temperature. To further demonstrate the dependence of the switching behaviour on the Ruthenium concentration we have conducted extensive simulations of single pulse toggle switching for a range of Ru concentrations, laser pulse energies and different site-specific damping parameters. By modifying the damping $\alpha_{4a}$ of the Mn$_{4a}$ sites while keeping $\alpha_{4c}=0.01$ constant, the demagnetization time of the Mn$_{4a}$ sublattice is changed. Increasing $\alpha_{4a}$ from $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$ to $\alpha_{4a}=0.015$ yields a speed up of the Mn$_{4a}$ sublattice demagnetization time, whereas decreasing $\alpha_{4a}$ slows it down (compare sLLG Eq. \[eq:llg\]). In case distinct demagnetization dynamics would play a role in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga to induce switching, the speed up/slow down of the $4a$ Mn site would increase/decrease the ability to switch. Figure \[fig:SwitchingMap\] shows the switching behavior of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga alloys as function of the Ruthenium concentration $x$ and the absorbed laser energy for different dampings $\alpha_{4a}$.

![Switching behavior as color of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga alloys as function of the Ruthenium concentration $x$ and the absorbed laser energy for different dampings $\alpha_{4a}$ of the $4a$-sublattice. Red areas indicate switching behavior, blue marks areas without switching and grey indicates a prolonged transient ferromagnetic state or a demagnetized state. The damping $\alpha_{4c}=0.01$ of the $4c$-sublattice was kept constant while $\alpha_{4a}$ was varied from $\alpha_{4a}=0.011$ (top) to $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$ (middle) to $\alpha_{4a}=0.015$ (bottom). <span data-label="fig:SwitchingMap"></span>](SwitchingColorMapAlpha){width="0.95\columnwidth"}

Red areas indicate switching behavior, blue marks non-switched simulations and grey areas indicate simulations with a prolonged transient ferromagnetic state or a demagnetized state. The simulation was counted as switched, when the $4a$-sublattice crossed $m_z=0$ and reached a threshold of $m_{z,4a} < -0.12$ after 15 ps (starting at positive $m_z$ values). Otherwise it was counted as demagnetized if $|m_{z,4a}| < 0.12$, or remagnetized if $m_{z,4a} >= 0.12$ (see Fig. \[fig:SwitchingSimulations\] for examples).

The damping $\alpha_{4c}=0.01$ was kept constant while $\alpha_{4a}$ was varied from $\alpha_{4a}=0.011$ (top) to $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$ (middle) to $\alpha_{4a}=0.015$ (bottom). Figure \[fig:SwitchingMap\], shows clearly distinguish behaviors for the simulated alloys depending on the rutherium concentration $x$. For low absorbed laser energies below $5.5 \cdot 10^8$ J/m$^3$ no switching occurs for all Ru concentrations considered here. This is due to the insufficient energy to temporarily demagnetize both sublattices. For all three cases, we find that for low Ruthenium concentrations below a damping-dependent threshold value the alloy does not switch, independent of the laser energy. Only above that threshold we find deterministic switching. In the top panel with $\alpha_{4c}=0.01$ and $\alpha_{4a}=0.011$, we find the threshold Ru concentration for switching to be around $x\approx 0.9-0.95$. When the damping of the $4a$ sublattice is increased to $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$ the threshold moves to $x\approx0.85-0.9$, which approximately corresponds to the switching threshold found in Ref. . Finally, for $\alpha_{4a}=0.015$ (bottom) the switching threshold decreases to $x\approx0.8$. Therefore we find, that by increasing the element specific damping discrepancy the switching threshold moves towards lower Ruthenium concentrations. Our results compare best to the experiments by Banerjee and co-workers (threshold around $x=0.8-0.9$) @banerjee2019 when choosing $\alpha_{4c}=0.01$ and $\alpha_{4a}=0.013$ (Fig. \[fig:SwitchingMap\] middle). We note that in our model the only parameter that directly depends on $x$ is $\mu_{s,4c}$, which impacts the speed of the $4c$-sublattice. Our model shows that by increasing $x$, $\mu_{s,4c}$ also increases and in turn the sublattice demagnetization speed continuously slows down, up to the point where the demagnetization speed difference in the $4a$- and $4c$-sublattice is large enough to enable switching behavior. The model also shows that this relatively different demagnetization speed can also be controlled by the intrinsic site-dependent damping parameters, which influences the $x$-dependent threshold between switching and non switching behavior. It is of interest to compare our results on switching to those in GdFeCo, the other class of material showing single pulse toggle switching. Comparing Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga to GdFeCo we see, that by increasing the magnetic moment $\mu_{s,4c}(x)$ of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga, the $4c$-sublattice demagnetization time slows down and eventually takes the role of the slow Gadolinium in GdFeCo. The found parameters for $\alpha_i$ describing experimental findings further emphasize this picture, as the used damping parameters promote a fast, Fe-like $4a$-sublattice and a slow Gd-like $4c$-sublattice with the speed difference increasing as $x$ increases. To summarize, we have presented an atomistic spin model to simulate single pulse toggle switching in Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga Heusler alloys. The parameters of the spin model are based on experimental measurements and can reproduce key material parameters such as Curie temperature, magnetization curves or the Ru-concentration dependence of the magnetization compensation temperature, at which both sublattices of the ferrimagnet compensate one another. The proposed model is able to reproduce the switching behavior of Mn$_2$Ru$_x$Ga for $x> 0.9$ in agreement with experimental measurements by C. Banerjee et. *al.* @banerjee2019.\

We gratefully acknowledge support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through SFB/TRR 227 "Ultrafast Spin Dynamics", Project A08.

Data Availability Statement {#data-availability-statement .unnumbered}
===========================

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/2106'}