Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 106 references

Engineering micro-disorder for macro-performance in magnetic nanoparticles

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that internal spin disorder in magnetic nanoparticles can be engineered as a tunable design variable via micromagnetic simulations and polarized neutron scattering.

desk verdict A worthwhile, honest Perspective on disorder engineering in magnetic nanoparticles, with one concrete experimental-accessibility flaw in its illustrative P-SANS example that should be fixed before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28812 v1 pith:5QG3KXL6 submitted 2026-07-30 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jonathan Leliaert , Elizabeth M Jefremovas This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords disorderengineeringmagneticnanoparticlesmicromagneticsimulationpolarizedsmall-angleneutronscatteringcoercivityintergrainexchangecouplingvortextexturesironoxidenanoflowers
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 authors argue that the misalignment of magnetic moments inside nanoparticles, usually seen as a defect to eliminate, can instead be a deliberately engineered resource for better performance. They propose replacing the common macrospin picture with micromagnetic simulations that resolve the full magnetisation texture inside each particle, then testing those textures with polarized small-angle neutron scattering. If the argument holds, synthesis can tune structural disorder—grain size, crystallographic orientation, voids, and grain-boundary coupling—to control coercivity, heating efficiency, and other macroscopic behaviour. The paper demonstrates the idea on iron-oxide nanoflowers, where simulated coercivity varies non-monotonically with intergrain exchange coupling and where vortex-like remanent states leave distinctive scattering signatures.

What carries the argument

The central object is the micromagnetic model of a nanoflower: a Voronoi-tessellated particle with randomly oriented uniaxial anisotropy axes, non-magnetic voids, and a dimensionless intergrain exchange factor k that scales the exchange stiffness across grain boundaries. The argument runs through k: weak coupling lets grains reverse nearly independently, intermediate coupling promotes collective reversal, and strong coupling restores nearly continuous magnetic behaviour with a large vortex core. On the measurement side, the key identity is the spin-flip SANS cross-section written in terms of the Fourier transform of the magnetisation field; its azimuthal average and pair-distance transform y

What would settle it

Synthesize a matched series of nanoflowers that differ only in grain size or grain-boundary chemistry, measure coercivity and spin-flip SANS, and test the predicted non-monotonic coercivity-vs-k curve and vortex signatures (low-q suppression, p(r) sign change at half-diameter). Absence of those signatures, or failure of the same effective k to reproduce across samples, would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that microstructural disorder in magnetic nanoparticles—grain boundaries, random easy axes, voids, and reduced intergrain exchange—produces reproducible internal magnetisation textures that govern macroscopic observables, and that this structure–texture–property link can be made quantitative by coupling micromagnetic simulations with polarized small-angle neutron scattering. The paper supports the claim with two illustrative simulations: a 100 nm nanoflower whose coercivity first decreases then increases as the intergrain exchange factor k varies, and a 400 nm nanoflower whose remanent vortex texture produces three identifiable spin-flip SANS signatures—a ring-like two-d

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated nanoflower—Voronoi grains with random axes, voids, and one intergrain exchange factor k—really represents the disorder in real particles, rather than merely absorbing structural unknowns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coercivity of a nanoflower becomes a fingerprint of internal disorder rather than a fixed material constant, so matched particle series varying one structural parameter at a time should show predictable coercivity shifts.
  • Spin-flip polarized SANS channels, which isolate magnetic scattering from components transverse to the neutron polarization, can statistically detect vortex-like textures in large ensembles when combined with independent priors.
  • The non-monotonic coercivity-vs-k curve implies that tuning grain-boundary coupling alone can move a particle between high- and low-coercivity regimes without changing size or composition.
  • Inverse design becomes plausible: instead of predicting behaviour from a known structure, one can ask which grain structure, defect density, or disorder landscape produces a desired hysteresis loop or heating response.
  • Ensemble averaging over structural realizations becomes mandatory; single-particle simulations are not predictive for macroscopic behaviour.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: an immediate test of whether k is a real material property would be a matched series of nanoflowers with identical grain size but different grain-boundary chemistry, checking whether the simulated coercivity minimum appears at the same effective k.
  • Beyond the paper: one could compute the spin-flip SANS response of a purely random-anisotropy particle with no vortex and ask whether the low-q suppression and p(r) sign change persist, which would determine how unique those signatures really are.
  • Beyond the paper: extending the scalar k to a spatially correlated grain-boundary weakening field would give synthesis more handles and could produce coercivity maps with richer structure than the three-regime curve.
  • Beyond the paper: if the inverse-design loop closes, the same simulation-plus-scattering pipeline could be used to optimize magnetic nanoparticles for hyperthermia or magnetic particle imaging by selecting disorder landscapes rather than hunting for defect-free particles.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This Perspective argues that intra-particle spin disorder in magnetic nanoparticles should be reframed from a defect to be eliminated into an engineerable design parameter. The authors propose micromagnetics as the natural theoretical framework beyond the macrospin approximation, since it can represent grain-resolved anisotropy, intergrain exchange, and non-uniform textures such as vortices, and can be linked quantitatively to polarized small-angle neutron scattering (P-SANS). The paper presents two illustrative simulation examples: a 100 nm nanoflower showing non-monotonic coercivity as a function of the intergrain exchange factor k, and a 400 nm nanoflower whose vortex-like remanent state is claimed to produce characteristic P-SANS signatures (a ring in the 2D spin-flip cross-section, a low-q suppression in I_sf(q), and a sign change in p(r)). It also reviews GPU-accelerated micromagnetic performance trends and outlines a roadmap for inverse design, uncertainty-aware inference, and experimental validation.

Significance. If the program outlined here is borne out, it would shift nanoparticle engineering from minimizing disorder to deliberately exploiting it, with potential impact on magnetic hyperthermia, magnetic particle imaging, and other applications where intra-particle texture controls performance. The manuscript is honest about its own limitations: the simulations are labelled illustrative, k is explicitly described as an effective and not directly measurable parameter, the non-uniqueness of SANS inversion is acknowledged, and the need for matched experimental series is emphasized. Concrete strengths include the public availability of the mumax3 benchmark data, the use of standard SANS relations (Eqs. 1–3), and a balanced discussion of complementary techniques. The central proposal is defensible, but one load-bearing example in Section III needs repair before publication.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 3 and Challenges paragraph] The three P-SANS signatures presented as 'reliably obtained from experimental measurements' for the 400 nm nanoflower include a low-q suppression in I_sf(q) and a p(r) sign change at r≈200 nm. For a 400 nm particle, the low-q suppression is governed by correlations at q≲2π/d≈0.016 nm−1, which is below the qmin≈0.03 nm−1 that the authors themselves state in the Challenges paragraph is 'insufficient for fully sampling magnetic correlations in particles or aggregates several hundred nanometres in size.' Likewise, r≈200 nm sits at the real-space scale 2π/qmin≈200 nm, at the resolution edge. Since Eq. (3) requires an integral over all q, truncation at qmin can create or destroy the sign change in p(r) depending on unmeasured low-q content. The claim that these metrics can be reliably obtained experimentally is therefore not supportable for the showcased 400 nm particle. Please either use a sm
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 3 reference] The text says 'the NF texture displayed in Figure 3(B)', but the texture is shown in Figure 3(A), right panel. The figure callouts for panels (B)–(D) should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] Several typos and spacing errors: 'i.e.below' (Section II), 'examinated' (Fig. 1 caption), 'nanoflowers[29]' and 'Rubik-like nanocubes cubes' (Section II GPU subsection), 'Adamset al.' (Section III), and inconsistent capitalization of MuMax3/mumax3.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (1) notation] The definition of θ as the angle between H and q, followed by 'q∼= q{0,sinθ,cosθ}', is slightly confusing because q is used both as the magnitude and the vector. This is standard but could be clarified by writing q = q(sinθ e_y + cosθ e_z).
  4. [Section III, p(r) normalization] Eq. (3) defines p(r) without an explicit normalization constant; for a quantitative comparison with experiment, the normalization convention used by NuMagSANS should be stated briefly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Fig. 3 SANS observables are forward-computed from an external textbook cross-section formula with no parameter fitted to the interpreted scattering data.

full rationale

The paper's central demonstration is a forward micromagnetic computation feeding a standard SANS cross-section formula. The spin-flip cross-section in Eq. (1) is quoted from an external textbook (Michels, Ref. [72]), and the p(r) transform in Eq. (3) is a standard Fourier relation. The inter-grain exchange factor k is an input assigned from prior studies, not an output inferred from the Isf(q) or p(r) data being interpreted; the text explicitly asks whether k is a reproducible material property or merely compensates for unresolved structural complexity, which is the opposite of presenting it as a fitted prediction. The vortex signatures in Fig. 3 are described as consistent, not as a unique inversion, and the non-uniqueness of SANS reconstruction is acknowledged with a citation to an independent analytical/numerical study. Many self-citations ([18], [19], [56], [80]) are lineage or prior forward calculations, not the sole load-bearing justification for the Perspective's thesis. The reviewer's qmin concern is a legitimate experimental-accessibility limitation for the 400 nm case, but it is not a derivation-equals-input circularity. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on effective-parameter modelling. The intergrain exchange factor k and the Voronoi/void structural model are chosen by hand, and the iron-oxide material constants used in the simulations are not enumerated in the text. No new physical entities are proposed. The axioms are standard micromagnetic and small-angle-scattering assumptions; the most fragile is that k is a reproducible materials property rather than a fit parameter.

free parameters (3)
  • Intergrain exchange factor k = varied from 0 to 1 in Fig. 1B; fixed at 0.25 in Fig. 3A
    Effective grain-boundary coupling parameter introduced in Section II; not directly measurable; chosen by hand to probe pinning regimes and to define the illustrative SANS model.
  • Void fraction in 400 nm nanoflower model = 10%
    Chosen by hand in Section III (Fig. 3A) to mimic empty regions in polyol-synthesised aggregates; affects the relaxed magnetic texture and calculated scattering.
  • Iron-oxide material parameters (Ms, A, Ku magnitudes) = not stated in text
    The text specifies structural parameters and easy-axis orientations but does not enumerate the saturation magnetisation, exchange stiffness, or anisotropy magnitude used in the mumax3 runs; a reimplementation must guess or borrow these from the cited literature.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Micromagnetic continuum approximation: magnetisation is locally uniform on computational cells smaller than the exchange length, and equilibrium states are obtained by energy minimisation.
    Invoked throughout Section II to justify using mumax3 for intra-particle textures.
  • domain assumption Single-domain/macrospin threshold of roughly 50 nm for maghemite-rich particles; above it, the macrospin approximation fails.
    Section II states this threshold and uses it to motivate the need for micromagnetics.
  • standard math Spin-flip SANS cross-section formula Eq. (1) from Michels, with atomic form factor approximated as 1 and the chiral term neglected.
    Section III adopts this standard small-angle scattering result without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Voronoi grain tessellation with random uniaxial easy-axis directions represents the polycrystalline nanoflower architecture.
    Figures 1A and 3A use this representation to model nanoflowers; it is motivated by TEM observations but not quantitatively validated against a real particle.
  • ad hoc to paper A single effective intergrain exchange factor k captures the magnetic effect of grain boundaries.
    Section II introduces k from refs [18,49]; the paper itself questions whether k is a reproducible material property or a compensating fitting parameter.
  • domain assumption Ensemble-averaged SANS over approximately 0.1 g / 10^13 nanoparticles yields statistically representative magnetic correlations.
    Section III relies on this to justify SANS as an ensemble-level complement to single-particle imaging.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Engineering micro-disorder for macro-performance in magnetic nanoparticles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QG3KXL6

@misc{pith2026260728812,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Engineering micro-disorder for macro-performance in magnetic nanoparticles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QG3KXL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28812}
}
read the original abstract

Spin disorder, inherent to magnetic nanoparticles, has traditionally been regarded as a detrimental feature, with materials-engineering efforts largely focused on producing ''perfect particles'' containing as few defects as possible. Alongside this pursuit of perfection, however, an alternative framework has emerged in recent years that reframes intra-particle disorder as an ''ugly duckling'' whose functional potential remains to be unlocked. In this Perspective, we review the emerging concept of disorder engineering in magnetic nanoparticles, identify its current challenges, and outline promising future directions. From a theoretical standpoint, progress requires moving beyond the widely used macrospin approximation, which severely restricts the description of intra-particle degrees of freedom. Micromagnetic modelling, in contrast, treats magnetisation as a continuous vector field and thereby enables (i) the explicit representation of intra-particle degrees of freedom, linking microstructural features to internal magnetisation textures, and (ii) direct correspondence with polarized small-angle neutron scattering, an experimental technique that provides quantitative access to ensemble-averaged magnetic correlations on nanometre length scales. The field must now advance towards falsifiable and uncertainty-aware models with structurally motivated parameters and predictions that can be tested against independent experimental observables. The overarching goal is to establish quantitative relationships between particle structure, intra-particle magnetisation textures, and macroscopic functionality, thereby transforming spin disorder from an elusive hidden variable into an engineerable design parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28812 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of GPU throughput for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. Lak, S. Disch, and P. Bender, Advanced Science8, 2002682 (2021)

    2021

  2. [2]

    A. R. Mazza, J.-Q. Yan, S. Middey, J. Gardner, A.-H. Chen, M. Brahlek, and T. Z. Ward, Applied Physics Letters124(2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Simonov and A

    A. Simonov and A. L. Goodwin, Nature Reviews Chem- istry4, 657 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Ghorai, V

    S. Ghorai, V. Shtender, P. Ström, R. Skini, and P. Svedlindh, Journal of Alloys and Compounds895, 162714 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    N. Rama, M. Ramachandra Rao, V. Sankaranarayanan, P. Majewski, S. Gepraegs, M. Opel, and R. Gross, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics70, 224424 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Marcano, E

    N. Marcano, E. M. Jefremovas, I. Titov, A. Michels, N. J. Steinke, J. H. Belo, J. P. Araújo, P. A. Algarabel, and L. F. Barquín, Journal of Alloys and Compounds , 182787 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Physical Review Letters118, 087203 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Furukawa, K

    T. Furukawa, K. Miyagawa, T. Itou, M. Ito, H. Taniguchi, M. Saito, S. Iguchi, T. Sasaki, and K. Kanoda, Physical Review Letters115, 077001 (2015)

    2015

Show all 106 references
  1. [9]

    X. Hu, D. M. Pajerowski, D. Zhang, A. A. Podlesnyak, Y. Qiu, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, I. Klich, A. I. Kolesnikov, 14 M. B. Stone,et al., Physical Review Letters127, 017201 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Fabbris, G.-H

    A.DelaTorre, B.Zager, F.Bahrami, M.Upton, J.Kim, G. Fabbris, G.-H. Lee, W. Yang, D. Haskel, F. Tafti, et al., Nature Communications14, 5018 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Gruber, J

    R. Gruber, J. Rothörl, S. M. Frölich, M. A. Brems, F. Kammerbauer, M.-A. Syskaki, E. M. Jefremovas, S. Krishnia, A. Subdo, P. Virnau, and M. Kläui, Ap- plied Physics Letters127(2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    E. M. Jefremovas, K. Leutner, M. G. Fischer, J. Marqués-Marchán, T. B. Winkler, A. Asenjo, J. Sinova, R. Frömter, and M. Kläui, Newton1(2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    E. M. Jefremovas, N. Kent, J. Marqués-Marchán, M. G. Fischer, A. Asenjo, and M. Kläui, Applied Physics Let- ters125(2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    N. Kent, N. Reynolds, D. Raftrey, I. T. Campbell, S. Virasawmy, S. Dhuey, R. V. Chopdekar, A. Hierro- Rodriguez, A. Sorrentino, E. Pereiro,et al., Nature Communications12, 1562 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    D. M. Tran, E. Mangini, E. M. Jefremovas, F. Kam- merbauer, D. Meier, R. Frömter, and M. Kläui, Applied Physics Letters127(2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    M. A. Brems, T. Sparmann, S. M. Fröhlich, L.-C. Dany, J. Rothörl, F. Kammerbauer, E. M. Jefremovas, O. Farago, M. Kläui, and P. Virnau, Physical Review Letters134, 046701 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Tanaka and B

    T. Tanaka and B. Purunama, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials651, 174174 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    E. M. Jefremovas, L. Calus, and J. Leliaert, Small Sci- ence6, e202500490 (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    E. M. Jefremovas, M. P. Adams, L. Gandarias, L. Mar- cano, J. Alonso, A. Michels, and J. Leliaert, Nanoscale 17, 26203 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Zákutná, A

    D. Zákutná, A. Fischer, D. Dresen, D. Nižňansk` y, D. Honecker, and S. Disch, Applied Crystallography55, 1622 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Zákutná, D

    D. Zákutná, D. Nižňansk` y, L. C. Barnsley, E. Babcock, Z. Salhi, A. Feoktystov, D. Honecker, and S. Disch, Physical Review X10, 031019 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Zákutná, J

    D. Zákutná, J. Vlček, P. Fitl, K. Nemkovski, D. Ho- necker, D. Nižňansk` y, and S. Disch, Physical Review B 98, 064407 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    F. Vita, H. Gavilán, F. Rossi, C. de Julián Fernández, A. Secchi, A. Arduini, F. Albertini, and M. P. Morales, CrystEngComm18, 8591 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    G. Ali, Y. J. Park, A. Hussain, and S. O. Cho, Nan- otechnology30, 095601 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Salas, C

    G. Salas, C. Casado, F. J. Teran, R. Miranda, C. J. Serna, and M. P. Morales, Journal of Materials Chem- istry22, 21065 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Sugimoto and E

    T. Sugimoto and E. Matijević, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science74, 227 (1980)

    1980

  19. [27]

    Vereda, M

    F. Vereda, M. del Puerto Morales, B. Rodriguez- Gonzalez, J. de Vicente, and R. Hidalgo-Alvarez, Crys- tEngComm15, 5236 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    M. Lin, H. R. Tan, J. P. Y. Tan, and S. Bai, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C117, 11242 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Gavilán, A

    H. Gavilán, A. Kowalski, D. Heinke, A. Sugunan, J. Sommertune, M. Varón, L. K. Bogart, O. Posth, L. Zeng, D. González-Alonso, C. Balceris, J. Fock, E. Wetterskog,et al., Particle & particle systems char- acterization34, 1700094 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Gavilán, S

    H. Gavilán, S. K. Avugadda, T. Fernández-Cabada, N. Soni, M. Cassani, B. T. Mai, R. Chantrell, and T. Pellegrino, Chemical Society Reviews , 11614 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Simeonidis, M

    K. Simeonidis, M. d. P. Morales, T. Damartzis, N. Man- iotis, and S. Veintemillas-Verdaguer, Industrial & Engi- neering Chemistry Research63, 20651 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Gavilán, A

    H. Gavilán, A. Gallo-Cordova, M. Rábade-Chediak, A. Páez-Rodríguez, M. d. P. Morales, and L. Gutiér- rez, Nanoscale17, 27734 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Gallo-Cordova, J

    A. Gallo-Cordova, J. G. Ovejero, A. M. Pablo-Sainz- Ezquerra, J. Cuya, B. Jeyadevan, S. Veintemillas- Verdaguer, P. Tartaj, and M. del Puerto Morales, Jour- nal of Colloid and Interface Science608, 1585 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Gallo-Cordova, B

    A. Gallo-Cordova, B. Corrales-Pérez, P. Cabrero, C. Force, S. Veintemillas-Verdaguer, J. G. Ovejero, and M. del Puerto Morales, Chemical Engineering Journal 490, 151725 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bender, J

    P. Bender, J. Fock, C. Frandsen, M. F. Hansen, C. Bal- ceris, F. Ludwig, O. Posth, E. Wetterskog, L. K. Bogart, P. Southern,et al., The Journal of Physical Chemistry C122, 3068 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, AIP Ad- vances4(2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    L.Moreels, I.Lateur, D.DeGusem, J.Mulkers, J.Maes, M. V. Milošević, J. Leliaert, and B. Van Waeyenberge, npj Computational Materials12, 71 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    Bruckner, S

    F. Bruckner, S. Koraltan, C. Abert, and D. Suess, Sci- entific Reports13, 12054 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Abert, F

    C. Abert, F. Bruckner, A. Voronov, M. Lang, S. A. Pathak, S. Holt, R. Kraft, R. Allayarov, P. Flauger, S. Koraltan,et al., npj Computational Materials11, 193 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Nowak, O

    U. Nowak, O. N. Mryasov, R. Wieser, K. Guslienko, and R. W. Chantrell, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72, 172410 (2005)

    2005

  33. [41]

    Tannous and J

    C. Tannous and J. Gieraltowski, European Journal of Physics29, 475 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    E. M. Jefremovas, L. Gandarias, I. Rodrigo, L. Mar- cano, C. Grüttner, J. A. García, E. Garayo, I. Orue, A. García-Prieto, A. Muela, M. L. Fdez-Gubierda, J. Alonso, and L. Fernández Barquín, IEEE Access9, 99552 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Marcano, I

    L. Marcano, I. Orue, D. Gandia, L. Gandarias, M. Weigand, R. M. Abrudan, A. García-Prieto, A. García-Arribas, A. Muela, M. L. Fdez-Gubieda, and S. Valencia, ACS Nano16, 7398 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Mostarac, A

    D. Mostarac, A. A. Kuznetsov, S. Helbig, C. Abert, P. A. Sánchez, D. Suess, and S. S. Kantorovich, Physical Review B111, 014438 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Mekseriwattana, N

    W. Mekseriwattana, N. Silvestri, R. Brescia, E. Tiryaki, J. Barman, F. G. Mohammadzadeh, N. Jarmouni, and T. Pellegrino, Advanced Functional Materials35, 2413514 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Bender, E

    P. Bender, E. Wetterskog, D. Honecker, J. Fock, C. Frandsen, C. Moerland, L. K. Bogart, O. Posth, W. Szczerba, H. Gavilán,et al., Physical Review B98, 224420 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    Lappas, G

    A. Lappas, G. Antonaropoulos, K. Brintakis, M. Vasi- lakaki, K. N. Trohidou, V. Iannotti, G. Ausanio, A. Kostopoulou, M. Abeykoon, I. K. Robinson,et al., Physical Review X9, 041044 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    M. P. Adams, A. Michels, and H. Kachkachi, Applied Crystallography55, 1475 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    C. Moya, M. Escoda-Torroella, J. Rodríguez-Álvarez, A. I. Figueroa, Í. García, I. B. Ferrer-Vidal, A. Gallo- 15 Cordova, M. P. Morales, L. Aballe, A. F. Rodríguez, et al., Nanoscale16, 1942 (2024)

    1942

  42. [50]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, AIP Ad- vances4, 107133 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Leliaert, B

    J. Leliaert, B. Van de Wiele, A. Vansteenkiste, L. Laur- son, G. Durin, L. Dupré, and B. Van Waeyenberge, Journal of Applied Physics115, 233903 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Gavilán, K

    H. Gavilán, K. Simeonidis, E. Myrovali, E. Mazarío, O.Chubykalo-Fesenko, R.Chantrell, L.Balcells, M.An- gelakeris, M. P. Morales, and D. Serantes, Nanoscale13, 15631 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    V. Rai, I. Titov, E. M. Jefremovas, Š. Liščák, S. Shan, N.-J. Steinke, J. Leliaert, Á. Gallo-Córdova, M. P. Morales, D. Peddis,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.18791 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gavilán, E

    H. Gavilán, E. H. Sánchez, M. E. Brollo, L. Asín, K. K. Moerner, C. Frandsen, F. J. Lázaro, C. J. Serna, S. Veintemillas-Verdaguer, M. P. Morales,et al., ACS omega2, 7172 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Storozhuk, M

    L. Storozhuk, M. O. Besenhard, S. Mourdikoudis, A. P. LaGrow, M. R. Lees, L. D. Tung, A. Gavriilidis, and N. T. K. Thanh, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13, 45870 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Leliaert and J

    J. Leliaert and J. Mulkers, Journal of Applied Physics 125(2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    G. M. Rizzo, N. Silvestri, N. Jarmouni, H. Gavilán, H. Yakubu, D. Arenas-Esteban, S. Bals, P. Parlanti, M. Gemmi, R. C. Prado,et al., Advanced Functional Materials36, e22732 (2026)

    2026

  50. [58]

    Leliaert, J

    J. Leliaert, J. Mulkers, J. De Clercq, A. Coene, M. Dvornik, and B. Van Waeyenberge, AIP Advances 7, 125010 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    Marqués-Marchán, M

    J. Marqués-Marchán, M. Jaafar, P. Ares, A. G. Gu- bieda, E. Berganza, A. Abad, M. L. Fdez-Gubieda, and A. Asenjo, Biomaterials advances163, 213969 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Campanini, R

    M. Campanini, R. Ciprian, E. Bedogni, A. Mega, V. Chiesi, F. Casoli, C. de Julián Fernández, E. Ro- tunno, F. Rossi, A. Secchi,et al., Nanoscale7, 7717 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Spaeth, S

    P. Spaeth, S. Adhikari, K. Lahabi, M. D. Baaske, Y. Wang, and M. Orrit, Nano letters22, 3645 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Adhikari, M

    S. Adhikari, M. V. Efremova, P. Spaeth, B. Koop- mans, R.Lavrijsen,andM.Orrit,NanoLetters24,5093 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Everaert, S

    K. Everaert, S. Satyajit, J. Tang, Z. Yin, X. Zheng, J. T. Oon, C.A.Hart, J.W.Blanchard,andR.L.Walsworth, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05471 (2025)

    2025

  56. [64]

    Finco and V

    A. Finco and V. Jacques, APL Materials11(2023)

    2023

  57. [65]

    Rickhaus, O

    P. Rickhaus, O. V. Pylypovskyi, G. Seniutinas, V. Bor- ras, P. Lehmann, K. Wagner, L. Zaper, P. J. Prusik, P. Makushko, I. Veremchuk,et al., Nano letters24, 13172 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    Celano, P

    U. Celano, P. Rickhaus, C. Bran, J. Marques-Marchan, V. J. Borràs, M. Korytov, A. Asenjo, and M. Vazquez, Nanoscale16, 16838 (2024)

    2024

  59. [67]

    V. M. Acosta, E. Bauch, M. P. Ledbetter, C. San- tori, K.-M. Fu, P. E. Barclay, R. G. Beausoleil, H. Linget, J. F. Roch, F. Treussart,et al., Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics80, 115202 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Wiekhorst, P

    N.Mathes, M.Comas, R.Bleul, K.Everaert, T.Hermle, F. Wiekhorst, P. Knittel, R. A. Sperling, and X. Vidal, Nanoscale advances6, 247 (2024)

    2024

  61. [69]

    B. A. Richards, N. Ristoff, J. Smits, A. J. Perez, I. Fes- cenko, M. D. Aiello, F. Hubert, Y. Silani, N. Mosavian, M. S. Ziabari,et al., ACS nano19, 10048 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Jefremovas, M

    E. Jefremovas, M. de la Fuente Rodríguez, F. Damay, B. Fåk, A. Michels, J. Blanco, and L. Barquín, Physical Review B104, 134404 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    E. M. Jefremovas, M. de la Fuente Rodríguez, D. Alba Venero, C. Echevarría-Bonet, P. Bender, B. Fåk, J. A. Blanco, and L. Fernández Barquín, Com- munications Materials4, 56 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

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

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

    2021

  65. [73]

    Mühlbauer, D

    S. Mühlbauer, D. Honecker, É. A. Périgo, F. Bergner, S. Disch, A. Heinemann, S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, C. Leighton, M. R. Eskildsen,et al., Reviews of Modern Physics91, 015004 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Jefremovas, P

    E. Jefremovas, P. Svedlindh, F. Damay, D. Alba Ven- ero, A. Michels, J. Blanco, and L. Fernández Barquín, Scientific Reports12, 9733 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

    Bender, D

    P. Bender, D. Honecker, and L. Fernández Barquín, Ap- plied Physics Letters115(2019)

    2019

  68. [76]

    L. G. Vivas, R. Yanes, D. Berkov, S. Erokhin, M. Ber- sweiler, D. Honecker, P. Bender, and A. Michels, Phys- ical Review Letters125, 117201 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    [72] for extended discussions andderivationsofthemathematicalscaffoldofpolarized SANS cross-sections

    We refer the reader to Ref. [72] for extended discussions andderivationsofthemathematicalscaffoldofpolarized SANS cross-sections

  70. [78]

    Dewhurst, I

    C. Dewhurst, I. Grillo, D. Honecker, M. Bon- naud, M. Jacques, C. Amrouni, A. Perillo-Marcone, G. Manzin, and R. Cubitt, Applied Crystallography49, 1 (2016)

    2016

  71. [79]

    M. P. Adams and A. Michels, J. Appl. Cryst.59, 943 (2026)

    2026

  72. [80]

    M. P. Adams, E. M. Jefremovas, and A. Michels, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 023328 (2026)

    2026

  73. [81]

    Barker, J

    J. Barker, J. Moyer, S. Kline, G. Jensen, J. Cook, C. Gagnon, E. Kelley, J. P. Chabot, N. Maliszewskyj, C. Parikh,et al., Applied Crystallography55, 271 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    D. W. Schaefer and M. M. Agamalian, Current Opinion in Solid State and Materials Science8, 39 (2004)

    2004

  75. [83]

    Li, N.-J

    F. Li, N.-J. Steinke, R. M. Dalgliesh, A. L. Washing- ton, J. Shen, R. Pynn, and S. R. Parnell, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1014, 165705 (2021)

    2021

  76. [84]

    Dewhurst, Applied Crystallography56, 1595 (2023)

    C. Dewhurst, Applied Crystallography56, 1595 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    Arnold, J.-C

    O. Arnold, J.-C. Bilheux, J. Borreguero, A. Buts, S. I. Campbell, L. Chapon, M. Doucet, N. Draper, R. F. Leal, M. Gigg,et al., Nuclear instruments and meth- ods in physics research section a: accelerators, spec- trometers, detectors and associated equipment764, 156 (2014)

    2014

  78. [86]

    Donnelly, M

    C. Donnelly, M. Guizar-Sicairos, V. Scagnoli, S. Gliga, M. Holler, J. Raabe, and L. J. Heyderman, Nature547, 328 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    J. J. Chiliquinga-Jacome, M. Grelier, R. Battistelli, W. Bouckaert, K. P. Joy, S. Collin, F. Godel, M. D. P. Martínez, C. Donnelly, F. Büttner,et al., Physical Re- view B113, 174435 (2026)

    2026

  80. [88]

    Karpov, K

    D. Karpov, K. Djeghdi, M. Holler, S. N. Abdollahi, K. Godlewska, C. Donnelly, T. Yuasa, H. Sai, U. B. Wiesner, B. D. Wilts,et al., Nature Nanotechnology 16 19, 1499 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    De Andrade, V

    V. De Andrade, V. Nikitin, M. Wojcik, A. Deriy, S. Bean, D. Shu, T. Mooney, K. Peterson, P. Kc, K. Li, et al., Advanced Materials33, 2008653 (2021)

    2021

  82. [90]

    H. Wang, T. Fu, Y. Du, W. Gao, K. Huang, Z. Liu, P. Chandak, S. Liu, P. Van Katwyk, A. Deac,et al., Nature620, 47 (2023)

    2023

  83. [91]

    Q. Wang, A. V. Chumak, and P. Pirro, Nature Commu- nications12, 2636 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    A. A. Voronov, M. Cuervo Santos, F. Bruckner, D. Suess, A. V. Chumak, and C. Abert, npj Spintronics 3, 19 (2025)

    2025

  85. [93]

    Krenn, R

    M. Krenn, R. Pollice, S. Guo, M. Aldeghi, A. Cervera- Lierta, P. Friederich, G. Dos Passos Gomes, F. Häse, A. Jinich, A. Nigam,et al., Nature reviews. Physics4, 761 (2022)

    2022

  86. [94]

    Suess, A

    D. Suess, A. Setescak, J. Smith, F. Bruckner, H. J. Hug, and C. Abert, Scientific Reports15, 42867 (2025)

    2025

  87. [95]

    S. Ruta, D. Serantes, O. Hovorka, L. Gutierrez, and R. Chantrell, inMagnetic Sensors and Actuators in Medicine, Woodhead Publishing Series in Electronic andOpticalMaterials,editedbyH.ChiriacandN.Lupu (Woodhead Publishing, 2023) pp. 185–226

    2023

  88. [96]

    E. A. Perigo, G. Hemery, O. Sandre, D. Ortega, E. Garaio, F. Plazaola, and F. J. Teran, Applied Physics Reviews2(2015)

    2015

  89. [97]

    Mahmoudi, A

    K. Mahmoudi, A. Bouras, D. Bozec, R. Ivkov, and C. Hadjipanayis, International Journal of Hyperthermia 34, 1316 (2018)

    2018

  90. [98]

    Gleich and J

    B. Gleich and J. Weizenecker, Nature435, 1214 (2005)

    2005

  91. [99]

    A. C. Velazquez-Albino, E. D. Imhoff, and C. M. Rinaldi-Ramos, Science Advances11, eado7356 (2025), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ado7356

    2025 doi

  92. [100]

    D. P. Tabor, L. M. Roch, S. K. Saikin, C. Kreisbeck, D. Sheberla, J. H. Montoya, S. Dwaraknath, M. Aykol, C. Ortiz, H. Tribukait,et al., Nature reviews materials 3, 5 (2018)

    2018

  93. [101]

    Carlton, M

    H. Carlton, M. Salimi, N. Arepally, G. Bentolila, A. Sharma, A. Bibic, M. Newgren, P. Goodwill, A. At- taluri, P. Korangath,et al., Advanced Functional Mate- rials35, 2412321 (2025)

    2025

  94. [102]

    W. Shim, D. Natelson, J. Arbiol, E. Besley, J. A. Dionne, C. Herrmann, D. Jariwala, C. N. Lau, L.-J. Li, L. Manna,et al., Nano Letters25, 12789 (2025)

    2025

  95. [103]

    Wells, D

    J. Wells, D. Ortega, U. Steinhoff, S. Dutz, E. Garaio, O. Sandre, E. Natividad, M. M. Cruz, F. Brero, P. Southern, Q. A. Pankhurst, S. Spassov, and RA- DIOMAG consortium, International Journal of Hyper- thermia38, 447 (2021)

    2021

  96. [104]

    L. G. Hanson, D. Ortega, and C. Frandsen, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.06045 10.48550/arXiv.2606.06045 (2026), arXiv:2606.06045

    2026 doi arXiv

  97. [105]

    H. J. Good, O. C. Sehl, J. J. Gevaert, B. Yu, M. A. Berih, S. A. Montero, C. M. Rinaldi-Ramos, and P. J. Foster, Molecular Imaging and Biology25, 954 (2023)

    2023

  98. [106]

    Mumax3 website:,https://mumax.github.io/index. html. Benchmark problem and GPU-performance data: https://github.com/mumax/3/tree/master/bench. Accessed 29 July 2026

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.