Critical slowing of the spin and charge density wave order in thin film Cr following photoexcitation: Supplemental Information

1 Thermal evolution due to heating from the laser

Figure S1 shows the shift of the Bragg peak and fringes on the 2D detector for each of the three laser fluences used. Data were averaged for all data sets measured. The corresponding change in temperature for the lattice was determined in previous work.

Figure S1: The shift in pixels of the Bragg peak and fringes and the associated lattice temperature following photoexcitation with three different laser fluences.

2 Fringe intensities at all temperatures and fluences

Figure S2 compares the response of the 7 and 8 fringes to different laser fluences at initial sample temperatures of 150 K, 170 K, and 190 K. The magnitude of the change of the fringes in each case is consistent with what would be expected from heating the sample by 75 K, 125 K, and 160 K for laser fluences of 4.2 mJ/cm${}^{2}$, 7.4 mJ/cm${}^{2}$, and 9.2 mJ/cm${}^{2}$, respectively. In particular, the magnitude of the decrease in intensity of the 8 fringe with the initial laser pulse is comparable for the medium and high laser fluence, where it is expected that the satellite peak will completely disappear from the 8 fringe and appear on the 7 fringe. For the lowest fluence, the drop is much lower, as the sample is not heated to a temperature above the transition to 7.5 CDW wavelengths. At 190 K (see Fig. S2(c)), the increase in intensity of the 7 fringe is initially lower for the highest fluence than for the medium and lowest fluence, consistent with heating the film above the Néel temperature where the satellite peak disappears. We note, however, that the time scales for recovery are independent of the laser fluence, changing only with the sample temperature. The recovery at all three fluences for an initial temperature of 150 K occurs on the order of 1 ns. This is increased by an order of magnitude at 170 K, and the reorientation has not occurred by 400 ns at any of the fluence at 190 K. Thus, the critical slowing depends on the initial sample temperature but not on the strength of the photoexcitation.

Figure S2: Normalized intensities of (a, b, c) fringe 7 and (d, e, f) fringe 8 following photoexcitation with three different laser fluences from (a, d) 150 K, (b, e) 170 K, and (c, f) 190 K. Fringe intensities are normalized to their initial intensity prior to photoexcitation.

Figures S3-S5 show the complete set of responses of the 9, 8, 7, and 6 fringes for the three laser fluences at all measured temperatures.

Figure S3: Normalized intensities of (a), fringe 9, (b) fringe 8, (c) fringe 7, and (d) fringe 6 following photoexcitation with fluence 9.2 mJ/cm${}^{2}$ from different temperatures. Fringe intensities are normalized to their initial intensity prior to photoexcitation.

Figure S4: Normalized intensities of (a), fringe 9, (b) fringe 8, (c) fringe 7, and (d) fringe 6 following photoexcitation with fluence 7.4 mJ/cm${}^{2}$ from different temperatures. Fringe intensities are normalized to their initial intensity prior to photoexcitation.

Figure S5: Normalized intensities of (a), fringe 9, (b) fringe 8, (c) fringe 7, and (d) fringe 6 following photoexcitation with fluence 4.2 mJ/cm${}^{2}$ from different temperatures. Fringe intensities are normalized to their initial intensity prior to photoexcitation.

3 Energy analysis of the data

Table S1: Parameters determined from fits of the recovery of the charge density wave amplitude following photoexcitation to Eq. S1. The initial sample temperature is $T$. Fitted fringe refers to which fringe amplitudes that was used for the fit. These amplitudes were the fringe intensities as a function of delay time normalized to their initial intensity prior to photoexcitation. $E_{b}$ is the energy barrier calculated from $\tau_{\text{slow}}$ assuming an attempt time of $\tau_{0}=250$ ps.

$T$	Fitted	Fluence	$\tau_{\text{fast}}$	$\tau_{\text{slow}}$	C	$E_{b}$
[K]	Fringe	[mJ/cm${}^{2}$]	[ns]	[ns]		[meV]
130	8	7.4	$0.10\pm 0.04$	$0.43\pm 0.17$	$0.996\pm 0.002$	$6\pm 5$
140	8	7.4	$0.17\pm 0.04$	$0.76\pm 0.66$	$0.992\pm 0.004$	$14\pm 11$
150	8	4.2	$0.11\pm 0.02$	$0.80\pm 0.21$	$0.997\pm 0.001$	$15\pm 4$
150	8	7.4	$0.23\pm 0.02$	$1.8\pm 0.6$	$0.999\pm 0.002$	$25\pm 5$
150	8	9.2	$0.29\pm 0.01$	$3.7\pm 0.8$	$0.998\pm 0.001$	$35\pm 3$
170	8	4.2	$0.17\pm 0.02$	$2.2\pm 0.6$	$0.997\pm 0.001$	$32\pm 4$
170	8	7.4	$0.33\pm 0.02$	$3.8\pm 0.7$	$0.990\pm 0.001$	$40\pm 3$
170	8	9.2	$0.43\pm 0.02$	$7.4\pm 2.2$	$0.988\pm 0.002$	$50\pm 5$
190	8	4.2	$0.31\pm 0.02$	$17.1\pm 6.7$	$0.991\pm 0.002$	$69\pm 7$
190	8	7.4	$0.48\pm 0.04$	$9.0\pm 2.0$	$0.977\pm 0.002$	$59\pm 4$
190	8	9.2	$0.58\pm 0.06$	$10.5\pm 2.7$	$0.979\pm 0.003$	$61\pm 5$
200	8	4.2	$0.28\pm 0.03$	$22.8\pm 9.3$	$0.985\pm 0.003$	$78\pm 8$
200	8	7.4	$0.41\pm 0.05$	$9.5\pm 2.2$	$0.948\pm 0.003$	$63\pm 5$
205	8	7.4	$0.44\pm 0.06$	$16.0\pm 5.0$	$0.937\pm 0.004$	$73\pm 6$
210	8	4.2	$0.15\pm 0.03$	$2.7\pm 0.5$	$0.967\pm 0.002$	$43\pm 4$
210	8	7.4	$0.38\pm 0.04$	$18.3\pm 4.4$	$0.945\pm 0.003$	$78\pm 5$
215	8	7.4	$0.37\pm 0.04$	$20.5\pm 6.4$	$0.923\pm 0.003$	$82\pm 7$
220	8	7.4	$0.18\pm 0.05$	$4.2\pm 1.2$	$0.941\pm 0.003$	$54\pm 6$
225	8	7.4	$0.32\pm 0.06$	$58.0\pm 54.8$	$0.948\pm 0.007$	$106\pm 19$
230	8	4.2	$0.34\pm 0.06$	$7.2\pm 11.6$	$0.990\pm 0.002$	$67\pm 32$
230	8	7.4	$0.26\pm 0.05$	$9.7\pm 7.2$	$0.961\pm 0.003$	$73\pm 15$
240	7	7.4	$0.20\pm 0.02$	$2.1\pm 1.1$	$1.031\pm 0.002$	$44\pm 11$
260	7	4.2	$0.17\pm 0.02$	$4.1\pm 1.6$	$1.000\pm 0.002$	$63\pm 9$
260	7	7.4	$0.21\pm 0.03$	$2.2\pm 1.9$	$0.998\pm 0.003$	$48\pm 20$
300	7	7.4	$0.47\pm 0.03$	$10.6\pm 2.9$	$0.969\pm 0.002$	$8\pm 97$

Figure S6 shows example fits of the data to the exponential decay function with two time constants:

$$\Delta\text{CDW}\sim A_{1}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{t}{\tau_{\text{fast}}}}+A_{2}\,\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{t}{\tau_{\text{slow}}}}+C.$$ (S1)

As the temperature approaches the hysteretic regions, the time scales slow and we are limited by the maximum achievable delay of 400 ns. The quality of the fits suffers as a result. Table S1 provides the parameters derived from fits to the data at all fluences and temperatures.

Figure S6: Some example normalized fringe intensities following photoexcitation along with fits to the data. See text for details of fit.

Energy barriers were calculated from the slow time constant of the fits with an Arrhenius model:

$$\ln\frac{\tau_{\text{slow}}}{\tau_{0}}=\frac{E_{b}}{k_{B}T},$$ (S2)

where $\tau_{0}$ is the attempt time. The attempt time for magnetic systems varies widely from $10^{-11}$ to 10${}^{-8}$ s for different materials and is unknown for this system. Figure S7 shows the calculated energy barrier for the reorientation from 7.5 to 8.5 CDW wavelengths for fluence 7.4 mJ/cm${}^{2}$ for attempt times of 10 ps, 100 ps, 250 ps, and 1 ns. There is a small change in the temperature dependence associated with changing the attempt time, but the biggest difference we see in this range is a shift that changes the temperature at which the energy barrier goes to zero. For an attempt time of $\tau_{0}=1$ ns, a linear fit to the data shows the energy barrier goes to zero at about 135 K. For $\tau_{0}=250$ ps, the energy barrier would go to zero at 120 K, for $\tau_{0}=100$ ps at 100 K, and for $\tau_{0}=10$ ps at 80 K. We are unable to experimentally determine where the barrier goes to zero in this experiment because we cannot resolve a time constant smaller than the thermal time constant for recovery.

Figure S7: The calculated energy barrier for the reorientation from 7.5 to 8.5 CDW wavelengths for fluence 7.4 mJ/cm${}^{2}$ for attempt times of 10 ps, 100 ps, 250 ps, and 1 ns.