Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Fundamental inequalities in the Stoner-Wohlfarth model

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
C. A. Iglesias, J. C. R. de Araujo, E. F. Silva, M. Gamino, M. A. Correa, F. Bohn

Soft Condensed Matter · Submitted 31 Mar 2022

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim By means of a simple insight from a fundamental inequality for the magnetic susceptibility of an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system, we show its violation is a signature of the existence of exchange interactions between nanoparticles in an interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like system.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2203.17014 (version 2)
Pith ID243FWIRL, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationC. A. Iglesias, E. F. Silva, F. Bohn, J. C. R. de Araujo, M. A. Correa, M. Gamino. "Fundamental inequalities in the Stoner-Wohlfarth model." arXiv:2203.17014 (2022). https://pith.science/paper/243FWIRL
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 4,342 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.07 · states limitation 0.11 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.17 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.39 · compares with prior results 0.21 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We report two fundamental inequalities in the Stoner-Wohlfarth model. Specifically, we investigate the theoretical limit for the initial magnetic susceptibility in a system described by the Stoner-Wohlfarth approach. We also find analytical solutions for the magnetization in the low-field regime and obtain the borderline value for the uniaxial anisotropy constant in such an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system. We go beyond and introduce a general mean-field theory for interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like systems, thus estimating how the initial magnetic susceptibility is affected by the dipolar and exchange interactions inside the system. By means of a simple insight from a fundamental inequality for the magnetic susceptibility of an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system, we show its violation is a signature of the existence of exchange interactions between nanoparticles in an interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like system.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 We report two fundamental inequalities in the Stoner-Wohlfarth model. contribution 0.83 0.95 0.31 asserted 1.00
s1 Specifically, we investigate the theoretical limit for the initial magnetic susceptibility in a system described by the Stoner-Wohlfarth approach. contribution 0.97 0.82 0.08 asserted 0.59
s2 We also find analytical solutions for the magnetization in the low-field regime and obtain the borderline value for the uniaxial anisotropy constant in such an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system. result 0.96 0.96 0.13 asserted 1.00
s3 We go beyond and introduce a general mean-field theory for interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like systems, thus estimating how the initial magnetic susceptibility is affected by the dipolar and exchange interactions inside the system. contribution 0.93 0.94 0.14 asserted 0.98
s4 By means of a simple insight from a fundamental inequality for the magnetic susceptibility of an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system, we show its violation is a signature of the existence of exchange interactions between nanoparticles in an interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like system. interpretation 0.72 0.93 0.57 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

We report two fundamental inequalities in the Stoner-Wohlfarth model. Specifically, we investigate the theoretical limit for the initial magnetic susceptibility in a system described by the Stoner-Wohlfarth approach. We also find analytical solutions for the magnetization in the low-field regime and obtain the borderline value for the uniaxial anisotropy constant in such an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system. We go beyond and introduce a general mean-field theory for interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like systems, thus estimating how the initial magnetic susceptibility is affected by the dipolar and exchange interactions inside the system. By means of a simple insight from a fundamental inequality for the magnetic susceptibility of an ideal Stoner-Wohlfarth system, we show its violation is a signature of the existence of exchange interactions between nanoparticles in an interacting Stoner-Wohlfarth-like system.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

How the literature uses it

Papers whose main result relates to this one's

How each label was checked · JSON

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States the same result 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.