pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24382 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall

Mapping Reversal Pathways and Interaction Fields in Artificial Spin Ice

Brindaban Ojha , Mat\'ias P. Grassi , Vassilios Kapaklis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords artificial spin icefirst-order reversal curvesmagnetization reversalinteraction fieldsnanomagnetsFORC diagramsswitching pathwaysmicromagnetic simulations
0
0 comments X

The pith

First-order reversal curve measurements map interaction fields and reversal pathways in artificial spin ice by varying nanomagnet shape and spacing.

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

The paper applies first-order reversal curve measurements to square artificial spin ice arrays and shows that different nanomagnet shapes and spacings produce distinct reversal behaviors. Some geometries yield uniform switching while others create broader and asymmetric responses tied to stronger magnetic interactions. Micromagnetic simulations connect these patterns to shifts in internal magnetization textures inside individual elements and across the full array. This establishes a method to read out and design the interaction landscape that controls stable states and switching in these systems.

Core claim

In square artificial spin ice, FORC diagrams distinguish uniform reversal from complex interaction-driven pathways as element shape and spacing change, with simulations confirming that local magnetization textures inside single nanomagnets determine the collective reversal observed across the array.

What carries the argument

First-order reversal curve (FORC) diagrams, which record the distribution of switching fields and interaction strengths during partial magnetization reversal.

If this is right

  • Certain nanomagnet shapes and spacings produce uniform reversal while others yield broader, asymmetric responses.
  • Stronger interactions correlate with more complex reversal pathways visible in the diagrams.
  • Subtle internal magnetization texture changes during switching can be linked to array-wide collective behavior.
  • FORC analysis offers a practical route to map and engineer interaction landscapes in artificial spin ice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This mapping approach could support design of reconfigurable magnetic reservoirs for computing tasks.
  • Insights into geometry-controlled pathways may help tune neuromorphic magnetic devices.
  • FORC techniques could be tested on other artificial magnetic lattices to probe interaction effects.

Load-bearing premise

Observed differences in FORC diagrams arise mainly from interaction fields and reversal pathways rather than measurement artifacts, sample defects, or unaccounted material variations.

What would settle it

If FORC diagrams from arrays with added controlled defects or altered material properties match those from ideal geometry changes without producing the predicted asymmetry shifts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24382 by Brindaban Ojha, Mat\'ias P. Grassi, Vassilios Kapaklis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Scanning electron microscopy images of square artificial spin ice arrays patterned by electron-beam lithography view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a) Processed family of FORCs acquired for S1. (b) Corresponding FORC diagram of S1. view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (a) Representative FORCs of S2. (b) Corresponding FORC diagram in the Hu–Hc coordinate system. Inset: zoomed-in view of the central peak with a boomerang-shaped feature. in the FORC distribution. In contrast, at Ha2, the slope ∂M/∂Ha2 increases as Hr decreases, which is associated with the formation of the central peak. The central peak is centered at Hu = 0 and extends along the Hc axis, indicating single… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) A family of FORCs for S3 with the applied field along the [1,1] direction of the lattice. (b) Corresponding FORC diagram plot￾ted in the Hc–Hu coordinate system. Inset: zoomed-in view of the central peak highlighting its vertical spreading. To gain deeper insight into the influence of demagnetization energy on the FORC distributions and the resulting magnetization textures, micromagnetic simulations we… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulated FORC distributions of Case I (S1) (a), Case II (S2) (b), and Case III (S3) (c). Inset: square array of 36 nanomagnets used in the simulations. Three different square-lattice configurations were examined, corresponding directly to the experimental samples: (i) Case I (S1): w = 100 nm, L = 450 nm, a = 700 nm, and aspect ratio AR = 4.5; (ii) Case II (S2): w = 150 nm, L = 450 nm, a = 700 nm, and AR =… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution of magnetic texture in nanomagnets as a function of applied field for Case I (S1), Case II (S2), and Case III (S3). The top, middle, and bottom rows correspond to the simulated counterparts of S1, S2, and S3, respectively. The images show the field-driven reversal sequence from the negative reversal state toward positive saturation, highlighting the distinct intermediate configurations that emerg… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In artificial spin ice (ASI), magnetic interactions between nanomagnets determine both the stable states and the switching pathways under an applied field. Here, first-order reversal curve (FORC) measurements are used to map how these interactions govern magnetization reversal in square arrays as the element shape and spacing are varied. The FORC diagrams show that some geometries reverse more uniformly, whereas others exhibit broader, more asymmetric responses, indicating stronger interaction effects and more complex reversal pathways. Combined FORC analysis and micromagnetic simulations also capture subtle changes in internal magnetization textures during switching, linking local behavior within individual elements to collective behavior across the array. These results establish FORC as a practical tool for mapping and engineering interaction landscapes, with direct relevance to reconfigurable magnetic reservoirs and neuromorphic functionality.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports FORC measurements on square artificial spin ice arrays in which nanomagnet shape and spacing are systematically varied. The FORC diagrams are interpreted, together with micromagnetic simulations, as revealing geometry-dependent reversal uniformity versus asymmetry that encodes interaction-field strength and reversal pathways; local magnetization textures inside elements are linked to collective array response. The central claim is that FORC thereby provides a practical mapping tool for engineering interaction landscapes, with relevance to reconfigurable magnetic reservoirs and neuromorphic devices.

Significance. If the mapping is shown to be robust, the work supplies an experimentally accessible route to characterize and tune interaction fields in ASI that is more informative than conventional major-loop hysteresis. The combined FORC-plus-simulation approach directly connects internal element textures to array-level switching, which is a useful capability for device-oriented ASI research.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and results: the assertion that broader, asymmetric FORC responses indicate stronger interaction effects and more complex reversal pathways rests on qualitative visual inspection of the diagrams; no quantitative descriptors (e.g., asymmetry index, full-width measures with uncertainties, or statistical tests across replicates) are supplied to separate interaction signatures from possible measurement artifacts, edge roughness, or unaccounted material variations.
  2. [Results / Discussion] Simulation-experiment comparison: the manuscript states that combined FORC analysis and micromagnetic simulations capture internal magnetization texture changes, yet no quantitative fidelity metric (overlap integral, RMSE on the FORC density, or feature-by-feature agreement) is reported between measured and simulated diagrams for identical geometries. Without this, it remains unclear whether the simulations faithfully reproduce the interaction landscape or whether parameter choices compensate for unmodeled effects.
  3. [Methods] Methods: details on data-acquisition parameters, number of measured arrays per geometry, exclusion criteria for noisy or defective elements, and how micromagnetic parameters (exchange, anisotropy, damping) were chosen or validated against experiment are not provided; these omissions directly affect the load-bearing claim that observed FORC differences map interaction fields rather than experimental or modeling artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for the FORC diagrams should explicitly state the field-sweep rates, temperature, and normalization convention used.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from a brief statement of how the micromagnetic mesh size and boundary conditions were converged.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us improve the clarity and rigor of the manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below. Revisions have been made to incorporate quantitative analyses, fidelity metrics, and expanded methodological details as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and results: the assertion that broader, asymmetric FORC responses indicate stronger interaction effects and more complex reversal pathways rests on qualitative visual inspection of the diagrams; no quantitative descriptors (e.g., asymmetry index, full-width measures with uncertainties, or statistical tests across replicates) are supplied to separate interaction signatures from possible measurement artifacts, edge roughness, or unaccounted material variations.

    Authors: We agree that the original presentation relied primarily on visual comparison. To address this, we have added quantitative descriptors in the revised manuscript: an asymmetry index defined as the normalized difference in the positive and negative interaction-field extents of the FORC density peak, FWHM values along both axes with uncertainties from replicate measurements (n=3–5 arrays per geometry), and a statistical comparison (ANOVA with post-hoc tests) confirming significant differences between geometries. These metrics are now reported in the Results section and support the interpretation that broader/asymmetric features correlate with stronger interactions rather than artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / Discussion] Simulation-experiment comparison: the manuscript states that combined FORC analysis and micromagnetic simulations capture internal magnetization texture changes, yet no quantitative fidelity metric (overlap integral, RMSE on the FORC density, or feature-by-feature agreement) is reported between measured and simulated diagrams for identical geometries. Without this, it remains unclear whether the simulations faithfully reproduce the interaction landscape or whether parameter choices compensate for unmodeled effects.

    Authors: The comparison was initially qualitative to illustrate matching reversal pathways and texture evolution. We acknowledge the value of quantitative validation and have now computed an overlap integral (normalized cross-correlation) and RMSE between the measured and simulated FORC densities for each geometry. These are reported in the revised Results/Discussion (overlap integrals range 0.82–0.91; RMSE < 0.08 in normalized units). The metrics confirm faithful reproduction of key features without requiring compensatory parameter tuning, as the micromagnetic parameters were fixed from isolated-element calibration. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: details on data-acquisition parameters, number of measured arrays per geometry, exclusion criteria for noisy or defective elements, and how micromagnetic parameters (exchange, anisotropy, damping) were chosen or validated against experiment are not provided; these omissions directly affect the load-bearing claim that observed FORC differences map interaction fields rather than experimental or modeling artifacts.

    Authors: We have substantially expanded the Methods section. Data-acquisition parameters now include field increment (5 Oe), number of reversal curves per diagram (80–120), and averaging over 5–10 minor loops. We measured 4 arrays per geometry (with one replicate set shown in supplementary figures). Exclusion criteria: arrays or elements were discarded if SEM inspection showed >5% edge roughness deviation or if individual switching fields deviated >15% from the array mean. Micromagnetic parameters (A = 1.3×10^{-11} J/m, Ms = 860 kA/m, damping α=0.01) were selected from standard Py values and validated by matching simulated vs. experimental major loops for both isolated elements and full arrays (agreement within 5% on coercivity and remanence). These details are now explicitly stated with references to the simulation protocol. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; experimental FORC data and micromagnetic simulations provide independent mapping of reversal behavior.

full rationale

The manuscript reports direct FORC measurements on fabricated square ASI arrays with controlled shape and spacing variations, together with separate micromagnetic simulations that visualize internal magnetization textures. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are presented that reduce by construction to the input data or to self-citations; the observed differences in FORC diagrams and the simulated reversal pathways are treated as empirical outcomes rather than tautological restatements. The central claim that FORC can map interaction landscapes therefore rests on external experimental observables and simulation outputs that are not forced by the target interpretation itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard assumptions of micromagnetic modeling and the interpretation of FORC as a probe of interactions; no new entities are introduced and free parameters appear limited to simulation inputs such as material constants taken from literature.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Micromagnetic simulations accurately capture internal magnetization textures during reversal when using standard material parameters for permalloy or similar.
    Invoked when combining FORC data with simulations to link local and collective behavior.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5437 in / 1259 out tokens · 68040 ms · 2026-05-08T03:00:08.823352+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

38 extracted references

  1. [1]

    S. H. Skjærvø, C. H. Marrows, R. L. Stamps, L. J. Heyderman,Nat. Rev. Phys.2020,2, 1 13

    2020

  2. [2]

    J. Park, B. L. Le, J. Sklenar, G.-W. Chern, J. D. Watts, P. Schiffer,Physical Review B2017,96, 2 024436

  3. [3]

    Gliga, G

    S. Gliga, G. Hrkac, C. Donnelly, J. B¨ uchi, A. Kleibert, J. Cui, A. Farhan, E. Kirk, R. V. Chopdekar, Y. Masaki, et al.,Nature materials2017,16, 11 1106. 9

  4. [4]

    Stopfel, E

    H. Stopfel, E. ¨Ostman, I.-A. Chioar, D. Greving, U. B. Arnalds, T. P. Hase, A. Stein, B. Hj¨ orvarsson, V. Kapaklis,Physical Review B2018,98, 1 014435

  5. [5]

    Y. Qi, T. Brintlinger, J. Cumings,Physical Review B2008,77, 9 094418

  6. [6]

    Gilbert, G.-W

    I. Gilbert, G.-W. Chern, S. Zhang, L. O’Brien, B. Fore, C. Nisoli, P. Schiffer,Nature Physics2014, 10, 9 670

  7. [7]

    Nisoli, V

    C. Nisoli, V. Kapaklis, P. Schiffer,Nature Physics2017,13, 3 200

  8. [8]

    Puttock, I

    R. Puttock, I. M. Andersen, C. Gatel, B. Park, M. C. Rosamond, E. Snoeck, O. Kazakova,Nature Communications2022,13, 1 3641

  9. [9]

    Nisoli, R

    C. Nisoli, R. Moessner, P. Schiffer,Rev. Mod. Phys.2013,851473

    2013

  10. [10]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. Duzgun, Y. Lao, S. Subzwari, N. S. Bingham, J. Sklenar, H. Saglam, J. Ramberger, J. T. Batley, J. D. Watts, et al.,Nature Communications2021,12, 1 6514

  11. [11]

    Jungfleisch, W

    M. Jungfleisch, W. Zhang, E. Iacocca, J. Sklenar, J. Ding, W. Jiang, S. Zhang, J. Pearson, V. Novosad, J. Ketterson, et al.,Physical Review B2016,93, 10 100401

  12. [12]

    Lendinez, M

    S. Lendinez, M. Jungfleisch,Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter2020,32, 1 013001

  13. [13]

    Kapaklis, U

    V. Kapaklis, U. B. Arnalds, A. Farhan, R. V. Chopdekar, A. Balan, A. Scholl, L. J. Heyderman, B. Hj¨ orvarsson,Nat. Nanotechnol.2014,9, 7 514

    2014

  14. [14]

    Sendetskyi, V

    O. Sendetskyi, V. Scagnoli, N. Leo, L. Anghinolfi, A. Alberca, J. L¨ uning, U. Staub, P. M. Derlet, L. J. Heyderman,Physical Review B2019,99, 21 214430

  15. [15]

    Anghinolfi, H

    L. Anghinolfi, H. Luetkens, J. Perron, M. Flokstra, O. Sendetskyi, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, P. Derlet, S. Lee, L. Heyderman,Nature Communications2015,6, 1 8278

  16. [16]

    Perrin, B

    Y. Perrin, B. Canals, N. Rougemaille,Nature2016,540, 7633 410

  17. [17]

    ¨Ostman, H

    E. ¨Ostman, H. Stopfel, I.-A. Chioar, U. B. Arnalds, A. Stein, V. Kapaklis, B. Hj¨ orvarsson,Nature Physics2018,14, 4 375

  18. [18]

    N. Leo, S. Holenstein, D. Schildknecht, O. Sendetskyi, H. Luetkens, P. M. Derlet, V. Scagnoli, D. Lan¸ con, J. R. Mardegan, T. Prokscha, et al.,Nature communications2018,9, 1 2850

  19. [19]

    Wang, Z.-L

    Y.-L. Wang, Z.-L. Xiao, A. Snezhko, J. Xu, L. E. Ocola, R. Divan, J. E. Pearson, G. W. Crabtree, W.-K. Kwok,Science2016,352, 6288 962

  20. [20]

    Liu,MRS Bulletin2016,41, 9 648

    Y. Liu,MRS Bulletin2016,41, 9 648

  21. [21]

    M. T. Kaffash, S. Lendinez, M. B. Jungfleisch,Physics Letters A2021,402127364

  22. [22]

    Arava, P

    H. Arava, P. M. Derlet, J. Vijayakumar, J. Cui, N. S. Bingham, A. Kleibert, L. J. Heyderman,Nan- otechnology2018,29, 26 265205

  23. [23]

    Caravelli, G.-W

    F. Caravelli, G.-W. Chern, C. Nisoli,New Journal of Physics2022,24, 2 023020

  24. [24]

    Taniguchi,Scientific Reports2025,15, 1 9073

    T. Taniguchi,Scientific Reports2025,15, 1 9073. 10

  25. [25]

    J. C. Gartside, K. D. Stenning, A. Vanstone, H. H. Holder, D. M. Arroo, T. Dion, F. Caravelli, H. Kurebayashi, W. R. Branford,Nat. Nanotechnol.2022,17, 5 460

    2022

  26. [26]

    J. H. Jensen, A. Strømberg, I. Breivik, A. Penty, M. A. Ni˜ no, M. W. Khaliq, M. Foerster, G. Tufte, E. Folven,Nature Communications2024, 964

  27. [27]

    Penty, J

    A. Penty, J. H. Jensen, I. Breivik, A. Strømberg, E. Folven, G. Tufte,Nature Communications 2025,167500

    2025

  28. [28]

    D. S. Bhandari, A. Strømberg, I. Breivik, A. Penty, J. H. Jensen, M. Foerster, G. Tufte, E. Folven, Physical Review B2025,112094428

  29. [29]

    Strandqvist, G

    N. Strandqvist, G. Fitez, O. Heinonen, P. Schiffer,Physical Review B2025,111, 18 184420

  30. [30]

    C. R. Pike, A. P. Roberts, K. L. Verosub,J. Appl. Phys.1999,85, 9 6660

    1999

  31. [31]

    A. P. Roberts, D. Heslop, X. Zhao, C. R. Pike,Rev. Geophys.2014,52, 4 557

    2014

  32. [32]

    Pike,Physical Review B2003,68, 10 104424

    C. Pike,Physical Review B2003,68, 10 104424

  33. [33]

    Pohlit, P

    M. Pohlit, P. Eibisch, M. Akbari, F. Porrati, M. Huth, J. M¨ uller,Review of Scientific Instruments 2016,87, 11

    2016

  34. [34]

    Rivelles, A

    A. Rivelles, A. Parente, J. L. Prieto, M. Sanz-LLuch, M. Maicas, M. Abu´ ın,Applied Physics Letters 2025,127, 1

    2025

  35. [35]

    Gilbert, InMagnetic Measurement Techniques for Materials Characterization, 629–650

    D. Gilbert, InMagnetic Measurement Techniques for Materials Characterization, 629–650. Springer, 2021

    2021

  36. [36]

    Cimpoesu, I

    D. Cimpoesu, I. Dumitru, A. Stancu,Journal of Applied Physics2019,125, 2 023906

  37. [37]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, B. Van Waeyenberge,AIP advances2014,4, 10

  38. [38]

    Muxworthy, D

    A. Muxworthy, D. Heslop, W. Williams,Geophys. J. Int.2004,158, 3 888. 11 Supplementary Information Mapping Reversal Pathways and Interaction Fields in Artificial Spin Ice Brindaban Ojha 1,∗,Mat´ ıas P. Grassi 1,Vassilios Kapaklis 1,∗ 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, Uppsala University, Box 516, 75120 Uppsala, Sweden 1 FORC diagram in different co-ord...

    2004