Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 38 references

Spin-disorder-induced angular anisotropy in polarized magnetic neutron scattering

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts and experimentally verifies a spin-disorder-induced angular anisotropy in polarized magnetic small-angle neutron scattering, and shows that fitting it yields the exchange-stiffness constant of an inhomogeneous…

desk verdict Nice first observation of a predicted SANS anisotropy, but Eq. (4) is wrong as printed; the final result Eq. (5) is correct, so it is a fixable paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01666 v1 pith:LHY3CIZB submitted 2025-07-02 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

I. Titov , M. Bersweiler , M.P. Adams , E.P. Sinaga , V. Rai , S. Liscak , M. Lahr , T.L. Schmidt
show 9 more authors
V.M. Kuchkin A. Haller K. Suzuki N.-J. Steinke D. Alba Venero D. Honecker J. Kohlbrecher L.F. Barquin A. Michels
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords polarizedneutronscatteringsmall-angleangularanisotropyspindisorderexchange-stiffnessconstantmicromagneticsnanoporousironNanoperm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper predicts and experimentally verifies a new angular anisotropy in the difference between the spin-up and spin-down small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) cross sections of magnetically inhomogeneous ferromagnets. The effect is a field-dependent contribution $\Delta\Sigma_H = 2K e_N f_{Mz}\, p \sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta / (1 + p \sin^2\theta)$ that arises from the nuclear-magnetic interference term involving the transversal magnetization Fourier component. It is observed in nanoporous iron and in the nanocrystalline alloy Nanoperm, and a fit to the predicted angular dependence yields the exchange-stiffness constant of nanoporous iron as $A = (5.1 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-11}$ J/m. If correct, the result turns polarized SANS into a method for measuring the exchange constant of strongly inhomogeneous magnetic materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the micromagnetic formula for the transversal magnetization Fourier component, $f_{My} = p(e_{Hpy} - f_{Mz}\sin\theta\cos\theta)/(1+p\sin^2\theta)$, with $p(q,H_0)=M_0/[H_0(1+l_H^2 q^2)]$ and the field-dependent exchange length $l_H(H_0)=[2A/(\mu_0 M_0 H_0)]^{1/2}$. Inserting this into the nuclear-magnetic interference part of the polarized SANS cross section, and averaging over the random directions of the magnetic anisotropy field, produces Eq. (5), $\Delta\Sigma_H = 2K e_N f_{Mz}\, p \sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta/(1+p\sin^2\theta)$. The exchange-stiffness constant $A$ enters through $p$; the measured angular pattern of $\Delta\Sigma_H$ is fit with $A$ as a free parameter. The $\sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta$ dependence follows from the product of the two transversal factors $\sin\theta\cos\theta$ in the $e_N f_{My}$ interference term.

What would settle it

A clear disproof would be the observation of a comparable $\sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta$ term in a homogeneous ferromagnet with constant saturation magnetization, where the theory predicts it vanishes, or an independent measurement of the exchange-stiffness constant of the same nanoporous Fe sample that disagrees with the fitted $A=(5.1 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-11}$ J/m beyond the reported uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the difference cross section $\Delta\Sigma$ of polarized SANS contains, beyond the well-known $\sin^2\theta$ term, a spin-disorder-induced term with $\sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta$ angular anisotropy that is observable in the approach-to-saturation regime of materials with nanoscale jumps in the saturation magnetization. Using the micromagnetic expression for the transversal magnetization Fourier component, the paper derives the closed-form result $\Delta\Sigma_H = 2K e_N f_{Mz}\, p \sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta/(1+p\sin^2\theta)$ and shows that it matches the measured angular pattern in nanoporous Fe and Nanoperm. The field dependence of $p$ shifts the maximum of $\Delta\Sigma_H(\theta)$ from about 45° at high fields to about 30° at low fields, and a fit returns the exchange-stiffness constant $A$. The paper therefore establishes the $\sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta$ interference term as a real physical effect and as a quantitative probe of the exchange interaction.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the linearized micromagnetic equations holding in the approach-to-saturation regime, and on the nuclear amplitude and longitudinal magnetization Fourier component being isotropic and real-valued so that the $\sin^2\theta$ term can be subtracted using data at $\theta=90^\circ$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The exchange-stiffness constant of a magnetically inhomogeneous material can be extracted from a two-parameter fit to the angular dependence of the field-dependent cross-section difference $\Delta\Sigma_H$.
  • The $\sin^2\theta\cos^2\theta$ anisotropy is expected to be observable in any strongly inhomogeneous ferromagnet with nanoscale jumps in saturation magnetization, such as nanocomposites, porous magnets, and steels.
  • The angular position of the maxima of $\Delta\Sigma_H$ shifts from about 45° at high fields to about 30° at low fields, providing a diagnostic signature for identifying the effect in experimental data.
  • Because the nuclear-magnetic interference term proportional to $e_N f_{My}$ is generically present in polarized neutron scattering, the effect may also appear in other neutron techniques such as polarized neutron diffraction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extending the approach beyond elastic SANS, the same interference term could be used in polarized neutron reflectometry or off-specular scattering to measure local exchange stiffness near internal interfaces.
  • If the assumption of isotropic, real-valued $e_N$ and $f_{Mz}$ fails at lower fields, the extraction of $A$ may need to be corrected by simultaneous fitting of the full two-dimensional pattern rather than a $\theta=90^\circ$ extrapolation.
  • The method could be combined with conventional unpolarized SANS or magnetometry to cross-check the fitted $A$ against independent estimates, for example from spin-wave stiffness measurements.
  • The sensitivity of the angular anisotropy to the magnetization jump $\Delta M$ at internal interfaces suggests the effect could serve as a direct probe of interfacial magnetization profiles in heterogeneous magnets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the prediction and experimental observation of a spin-disorder-induced angular anisotropy in the polarized small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) cross section of strongly inhomogeneous ferromagnets. Starting from the standard nuclear-magnetic interference expression for the spin-resolved difference cross section and from a micromagnetic expression for the transverse magnetization Fourier component, the authors derive a field-dependent term proportional to p sin^2θ cos^2θ/(1+p sin^2θ). They present two-dimensional polarized SANS maps for nanoporous Fe and for Nanoperm that show a four-lobed residual pattern after subtracting the usual sin^2θ term, and they fit the angular dependence at one q and field to extract the exchange-stiffness constant A = (5.1 ± 0.2) × 10^-11 J/m for nanoporous Fe.

Significance. If the observation stands, this is a useful and non-obvious extension of polarized SANS: it identifies a previously unreported angular anisotropy in the nuclear-magnetic interference terms and proposes a route to measuring the exchange-stiffness constant in magnetically inhomogeneous materials. The angular form of Eq. (5) is derived from micromagnetic theory rather than chosen empirically, and the experimental maps are visually consistent with the predicted sin^2θ cos^2θ pattern. The quantitative basis is currently narrow, however: the central derivation contains an algebraic error as printed, and the extracted A rests on a single fit at one wave vector and one field. The paper is a promising contribution but needs correction and additional validation before it can be fully accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Micromagnetic SANS theory, Eq. (4)] Substituting Eq. (3) into Eq. (1) with real eN, fMz, and fMy gives ΔΣ = 2K eN fMz sin^2θ (1+p)/(1+p sin^2θ), not the printed factor (1+p cos^2θ)/(1+p sin^2θ). At θ = 90° the printed expression yields 2K eN fMz/(1+p), which contradicts the text's statement that ΔΣ_{θ=90°} = 2K eN fMz and the subtraction protocol in Fig. 2(d). With the correct numerator, subtracting the saturated term 2K eN fMz sin^2θ gives Eq. (5); with the printed numerator, the subtraction would produce an entirely different p sin^2θ cos2θ term. Please correct Eq. (4), ideally by writing it as the sum of the saturated sin^2θ term and the field-dependent term, and re-state the subtraction procedure accordingly.
  2. [Experimental Results and Discussion, Fig. 3(c)] The quantitative support for the central claim rests on a single fit to Eq. (5) at one scattering vector (q = 0.22 nm^-1) and one magnetic field (μ0H0 = 0.1 T) for nanoporous Fe. This is too narrow a basis for a method that is claimed to determine the exchange-stiffness constant. Please show fits at additional q values and field values, and ideally a quantitative fit for Nanoperm as well, to demonstrate that the extracted A is not dependent on the particular fitting window. If the 0.1 T data are used specifically because the anisotropy is most visible there, state this and provide a consistency check at higher fields.
  3. [Experimental Results and Discussion, Fig. 2(d) / Eq. (4)] The subtraction procedure assumes that eN and fMz are isotropic in the detector plane. This assumption is asserted but not tested. In a nanoporous material, fMz in the approach-to-saturation regime could carry angular structure from the pore-matrix magnetization profile or from residual domain contrast, and such structure would contaminate the residual ΔΣH. Please justify the assumption with data, for example by comparing the extrapolated sin^2θ pattern with the measured ΔΣ over the full angular range, or by testing how the fitted A changes under alternative subtraction schemes.
  4. [Experimental Results and Discussion / Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is derived in the linearized approach-to-saturation regime, but the main quantitative fit is performed at μ0H0 = 0.1 T for Fe, whose saturation magnetization is about 2.15 T. The claim that both samples are within the approach-to-saturation regime at the studied fields is delegated to the Supplemental Material and is not evident from the main text. Please provide the supporting magnetization or field-dependent SANS data, or restrict the quantitative analysis to fields where the linearization is clearly justified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Micromagnetic SANS theory, Eq. (4)] The text refers to a 'second term in Eq. (4)', but Eq. (4) as printed is a single combined expression. If the two-term representation is intended, please write it explicitly or refer to the corresponding terms in the corrected expression.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says that panel (d) 'corresponds to the first term in Eq. (4)'. This is ambiguous because Eq. (4) as printed is a single term; please rephrase as 'the saturated sin^2θ term of Eq. (4)'.
  3. [Introduction] There is a typo in 'todays three-dimensional cryogenic polarization-analysis device (CRYOPAD)': it should read 'today's'.
  4. [Supplemental Material reference] Reference [24] contains the placeholder '[URL]'; please replace it with the actual link to the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angular-anisotropy prediction is derived from independent micromagnetic theory, and the exchange stiffness is a fitted material parameter rather than a predicted output.

full rationale

The central claimed result, Eq. (5), is a derived expression for the field-dependent part of the polarized SANS cross section, obtained by combining the standard polarized-SANS interference formula Eq. (1) with the micromagnetic expression Eq. (2) for the transversal magnetization Fourier component. Eq. (2) is imported from prior work (Refs. [23] and [35]) that has independent standing in the literature; it is a parameter-free theoretical result with stated assumptions (approach-to-saturation, linearized micromagnetics) and is externally falsifiable, so this self-citation does not make the argument circular. The angular shape sin^2(theta)cos^2(theta)/(1+p sin^2(theta)) is not adjusted to the data; only the amplitude 2K eN fMz and the exchange-stiffness constant A are fitted, which is standard parameter estimation rather than a prediction obtained from the data. The subtraction procedure that isolates DeltaSigma_H is a decomposition of the measured difference cross section into a saturated sin^2(theta) part and a residual, and the observation of a nonzero residual with the predicted angular dependence is an empirical finding, not an artifact of construction. A separate internal algebraic inconsistency exists: inserting Eq. (3) into Eq. (1) gives 2K eN fMz sin^2(theta) (1+p)/(1+p sin^2(theta)), not Eq. (4)'s factor (1+p cos^2(theta))/(1+p sin^2(theta)); Eq. (5) is consistent with the correct expression, so this is a correctness or typographical issue in the derivation chain, not a circularity. Overall, no step in the paper reduces a prediction to its own inputs by definition or by self-citation. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central analysis depends on two fitted parameters (A and the overall amplitude) and on the micromagnetic equation Eq. (2) inherited from the same group's prior work. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • A (exchange-stiffness constant) = (5.1 ± 0.2) × 10^-11 J/m
    Obtained by fitting the angular dependence of ΔΣH to Eq. (5) at q = 0.22 nm^-1 and μ0H0 = 0.1 T for nanoporous Fe.
  • 2K eN fMz (overall amplitude) = 39.9 ± 9.8 cm^-1
    Product of the cross-section prefactor and the nuclear and longitudinal magnetic Fourier amplitudes at fixed q, treated as a constant free parameter in the fit.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linearized micromagnetic equation Eq. (2) is valid in the approach-to-saturation regime.
    The paper invokes Eq. (2) from Ref. [35] and Ref. [23] (both by the first author) without independently verifying the linearization for the samples and fields used, especially at 0.1 T for Fe.
  • domain assumption The nuclear scattering amplitude eN and the longitudinal magnetization Fourier component fMz are isotropic in the detector plane and real-valued.
    This assumption underlies the extrapolation of the sin^2θ term from θ = 90° and the derivation of Eq. (3). It is stated before Eq. (3) but not justified with nuclear scattering data.
  • domain assumption The chiral function and nuclear spin-dependent scattering contributions to ΔΣ average to zero.
    Stated in the text as 'neglecting nuclear spin-dependent scattering and the chiral function, which is expected to average out for statistically-isotropic polycrystalline magnetic materials.' This is an assumption without direct experimental check.
  • domain assumption The expectation values of the two transversal components of the magnetic anisotropy field vanish.
    Footnote [37] argues this holds for statistically-isotropic polycrystalline material in a large applied field, but at 0.1 T the field may not be large enough for nanoporous Fe.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-disorder-induced angular anisotropy in polarized magnetic neutron scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LHY3CIZB

@misc{pith2026250701666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-disorder-induced angular anisotropy in polarized magnetic neutron scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LHY3CIZB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01666}
}
read the original abstract

We experimentally report a hitherto unseen angular anisotropy in the polarized small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) cross section of a magnetically strongly inhomogeneous material. Based on an analytical prediction using micromagnetic theory, the difference between the spin-up and spin-down SANS cross sections is expected to show a spin-disorder-induced anisotropy. The effect is particularly pronounced in inhomogeneous magnetic materials, such as nanoporous ferromagnets, magnetic nanocomposites, or steels, which exhibit large nanoscale jumps in the saturation magnetization at internal pore-matrix or particle-matrix interfaces. Analysis of the experimental neutron data constitutes a method for determining the exchange-stiffness constant. Our results are generic to the nuclear-magnetic interference terms contained in the polarized magnetic neutron scattering cross section and might also be of relevance to other neutron techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the neutron scattering geometry. The neu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Neutron data analysis procedure. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experimental polarized SANS results of inert-gas condensed (igc) nanoporous Fe and nanocrystalline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chatterji, ed.,Neutron Scattering from Magnetic Ma- terials (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006)

    T. Chatterji, ed.,Neutron Scattering from Magnetic Ma- terials (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    A. T. Boothroyd,Principles of Neutron Scattering from Condensed Matter (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Bloch, On the Magnetic Scattering of Neutrons, Phys

    F. Bloch, On the Magnetic Scattering of Neutrons, Phys. Rev. 50, 259 (1936)

    work page 1936

  4. [4]

    Bloch, On the Magnetic Scattering of Neutrons

    F. Bloch, On the Magnetic Scattering of Neutrons. II, Phys. Rev. 51, 994 (1937)

    work page 1937

  5. [5]

    J. S. Schwinger, On the Magnetic Scattering of Neutrons, Phys. Rev. 51, 544 (1937)

    work page 1937

  6. [6]

    Halpern and M

    O. Halpern and M. H. Johnson, On the Magnetic Scat- tering of Neutrons, Phys. Rev.55, 898 (1939)

    work page 1939

  7. [7]

    S. V. Maleev, V. G. Bar’yakhtar, and R. A. Suris, The scattering of slow neutrons by complex magnetic struc- tures, Sov. Phys. Solid State4, 2533 (1963)

    work page 1963

  8. [8]

    Blume, Polarization Effects in the Magnetic Elas- tic Scattering of Slow Neutrons, Phys

    M. Blume, Polarization Effects in the Magnetic Elas- tic Scattering of Slow Neutrons, Phys. Rev.130, 1670 (1963)

    work page 1963

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    C. G. Shull, E. O. Wollan, and W. C. Koehler, Neutron Scattering and Polarization by Ferromagnetic Materials, 5 Phys. Rev. 84, 912 (1951)

    1951

  2. [10]

    R. M. Moon, T. Riste, and W. C. Koehler, Polarization AnalysisofThermal-NeutronScattering,Phys.Rev. 181, 920 (1969)

    1969

  3. [11]

    M. Th. Rekveldt, Neutron Depolarisation as a Method to DeterminetheMagnetization, theMeanDomainSizeand theMeanSquareComponentsoftheInnerMagnetization of Ferromagnets, J. Phys. Colloq. C132, 579 (1971)

    1971

  4. [12]

    G. M. Drabkin, A. I. Okorokov, and V. V. Runov, Anisotroy of depolarization of a neutron beam, JETP Lett. 15, 324 (1972)

    1972

  5. [13]

    A. I. Okorokov, V. V. Runov, and A. G. Gukasov, Three- dimensional neutron polarimeter and spin dynamics in- vestigation, Nucl. Instrum. Methods157, 487 (1978)

    1978

  6. [14]

    Mezei, La nouvelle vague in polarized neutron scatter- ing, Physica 137B, 295 (1986)

    F. Mezei, La nouvelle vague in polarized neutron scatter- ing, Physica 137B, 295 (1986)

    1986

  7. [15]

    Schärpf and H

    O. Schärpf and H. Capellmann, The XY Z-Difference Method with Polarized Neutrons and the Separation of Coherent, Spin Incoherent, and Magnetic Scattering Cross Sections in a Multidetector, Phys. Status Solidi A 135, 359 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    Tasset, Zero field neutron polarimetry, Physica B156- 157, 627 (1989)

    F. Tasset, Zero field neutron polarimetry, Physica B156- 157, 627 (1989)

    1989

  9. [17]

    P. J. Brown, J. B. Forsyth, and F. Tasset, Neutron po- larimetry, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A442, 147 (1993)

    1993

  10. [18]

    Tasset, P

    F. Tasset, P. J. Brown, E. Lelièvre-Berna, T. Roberts, S.Pujol, J.Alibon,andE.Bourgeat-Lami,Sphericalneu- tron polarimetry with Cryopad-II, Physica B267-268, 69 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    A. I. Okorokov and V. V. Runov, Vector analysis of po- larization at small-angle neutron scattering, Physica B 297, 239 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    W. G. Williams, Polarized Neutrons (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988)

    1988

  13. [21]

    S. W. Lovesey,Theory of Neutron Scattering from Con- densed Matter, Vol. I and II (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1984)

    1984

  14. [22]

    S. V. Maleev, Polarized neutron scattering in magnets, Physics-Uspekhi 45, 569 (2002)

    2002

  15. [23]

    Michels, D

    A. Michels, D. Mettus, D. Honecker, and K. L. Met- lov, Effect of Dzyaloshinski-Moriya interaction on elastic small-angle neutron scattering, Phys. Rev. B94, 054424 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    See the Supplemental Material at [URL] for further de- tails on the analytical micromagnetic theory for the dif- ference SANS cross section and for magnetization data

  17. [25]

    Michels, M

    A. Michels, M. Elmas, F. Döbrich, M. Ames, J. Mark- mann, M. Sharp, H. Eckerlebe, J. Kohlbrecher, and R. Birringer, Porosity-induced spin disorder in nanocrys- talline inert-gas-condensed iron, EPL (Europhysics Let- ters) 85, 47003 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Michels, R

    A. Michels, R. N. Viswanath, and J. Weissmüller, Do- main formation and long-range spin disorder in Vitrop- erm, EPL (Europhysics Letters)64, 43 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Michels, C

    A. Michels, C. Vecchini, O. Moze, K. Suzuki, P. K. Pran- zas, J. Kohlbrecher, and J. Weissmüller, Dipolar correla- tions in a nanocomposite: A neutron scattering study of Nanoperm Fe89Zr7B3Cu, Phys. Rev. B 74, 134407 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Z. Li, R. Parsons, B. Zang, H. Kishimoto, T. Shoji, A. Kato, J. Karel, and K. Suzuki, Dramatic grain refine- ment and magnetic softening induced by Ni addition in FeB based nanocrystalline soft magnetic alloys, Scripta Mater. 181, 82 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Bersweiler, M

    M. Bersweiler, M. P. Adams, I. Peral, J. Kohlbrecher, K. Suzuki, and A. Michels, Unraveling the magnetic soft- ness in Fe–Ni–B-based nanocrystalline material by mag- netic small-angle neutron scattering, IUCrJ9, 65 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    V. Rai, I. Titov, M. P. Adams, K. Suzuki, J. Kohlbrecher, and A. Michels, Magnetic microstructure of nanocrys- talline Fe-Nb-B alloys as seen by small-angle neutron and x-ray scattering, Phys. Rev. B110, 054437 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    C. D. Dewhurst, I. Grillo, D. Honecker, M. Bonnaud, M. Jacques, C. Amrouni, A. Perillo-Marcone, G. Manzin, andR.Cubitt,Thesmall-angleneutronscatteringinstru- ment D33 at the Institut Laue-Langevin, J. Appl. Cryst. 49, 1 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Bersweiler, M

    M. Bersweiler, M. P. Adams, D. Alba Venero, D. Ho- necker, A. Michels, S. Mühlbauer, E. Pratami Sinaga, N.-J. Steinke, and I. Titov, Novel angular anisotropy in polarized SANS, Proposal number: DIR-272, Institut Laue-Langevin (2023), https://doi.ill.fr/10.5291/ ILL-DATA.DIR-272

    2023

  25. [33]

    Bersweiler, M

    M. Bersweiler, M. P. Adams, E. Pratami Sinaga, I. Titov, D. Alba Venero, D. Honecker, and A. Michels, Novel an- gular anisotropy in polarized SANS, STFC ISIS Neutron and Muon Source, https://doi.org/10.5286/ISIS.E. RB2220057-1

    doi

  26. [34]

    C. D. Dewhurst, Graphical reduction and analysis small- angle neutron scattering program: GRASP, J. Appl. Cryst. 56, 1595 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Michels,Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron Scattering: A Probe for Mesoscale Magnetism Analysis (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2021)

    A. Michels,Magnetic Small-Angle Neutron Scattering: A Probe for Mesoscale Magnetism Analysis (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    For a detailed derivation, see Ref

    Equation (2) is valid in the approach-to-saturation regime, when the governing micromagnetic expressions can be linearized. For a detailed derivation, see Ref. [23], which considers the effect of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction on the elastic magnetic SANS cross section ...

  29. [37]

    In our experiment, a large external magnetic field is applied, which gives rise to a longitudinal (z) magnetization component that is close to the saturation value

    A statistically-isotropic polycrystalline magnetic mate- rial may be characterized by random variations of the magnitude and direction of the magnetic anisotropy field, e.g., from one crystallite to another. In our experiment, a large external magnetic field is applied, which ...

  30. [38]

    Kronmüller and M

    H. Kronmüller and M. Fähnle,Micromagnetism and the Microstructure of Ferromagnetic Solids (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.