Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Decoding the Micromagnetic Hamiltonian from Magnetic Fingerprints

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Convolutional networks can extract the full micromagnetic Hamiltonian directly from First-Order Reversal Curve fingerprints.

desk verdict Solid extension of their DMI-FORC CNN to a full Hamiltonian inverse map, with honest closed-loop checks and a useful no-GT uncertainty net; experimental half is weaker than the abstract. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27430 v1 pith:FQ2I6TD6 submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Bradley J. Fugetta , Anqi Liu , Kai Liu , Amy Y. Liu , Gen Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords micromagneticHamiltonianFirst-OrderReversalCurvesconvolutionalneuralnetworksDzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteractionmagnetometryuncertaintyquantificationclosed-loopverification
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

Macroscopic magnetometry averages over every spin, so recovering the underlying micromagnetic Hamiltonian has long looked underdetermined. This paper shows that the detailed shapes of First-Order Reversal Curves still carry enough independent fingerprints of exchange, anisotropy, Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction and pinning density that a set of convolutional networks can invert them. The networks are trained only on simulated FORCs; when their predicted parameters are fed back into the same micromagnetic simulator, the original curves are recovered for held-out simulations and, to a useful degree, for an experimental Co/Pd multilayer. A second parallel network estimates how trustworthy each prediction is from the FORC shape alone, without ever seeing ground-truth labels. If the approach holds, routine vibrating-sample-magnetometer data can replace slow trial-and-error fitting and specialized spectroscopies when modeling complex magnetic materials.

What carries the argument

Independently trained CNNs that invert FORC images into each Hamiltonian parameter, verified by closed-loop mumax3 re-simulation and accompanied by an Alice–Bob dual network that predicts the quantile of Alice’s error without ground-truth labels.

What would settle it

Measure FORCs on a film whose exchange, anisotropy and DMI are already known by independent techniques (Brillouin light scattering, ferromagnetic resonance, domain-wall creep); if the networks return values far outside those bounds and the re-simulated FORC fails to match the measured one, the claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A collection of independently trained convolutional neural networks maps 64-by-64 FORC images (plus the measured saturation magnetization) onto the full phenomenological micromagnetic Hamiltonian—exchange stiffness, uniaxial anisotropy, Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction and pinning-site density—while a parallel “Alice–Bob” network quantifies prediction uncertainty from the same FORC input alone. Closed-loop re-simulation with the predicted parameters recreates the input magnetometry for both synthetic validation samples and an experimental Co/Pd film.

Load-bearing premise

The simplified zero-temperature micromagnetic model with artificial high-anisotropy pinning cells and polycrystalline patches is rich enough that a network trained only on it can correctly invert real experimental FORCs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Routine VSM FORC measurements can supply quantitative Hamiltonian parameters without specialized spectroscopies.
  • Prediction confidence can be scored from the FORC shape alone, flagging featureless or ambiguous samples before any further work.
  • Closed-loop re-simulation becomes a standard check that extracted parameters actually reproduce the observed magnetometry.
  • The same workflow extends immediately to richer Hamiltonians once training sets include higher-order interactions and realistic microstructure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The visibly poorer experimental match versus the best simulated closed-loops implies that residual microstructure still leaves identifiable fingerprints that larger, more realistic training sets could capture.
  • Because each parameter is predicted by a strictly independent network, the method can test which energy terms remain separately observable after ensemble averaging.
  • Alice–Bob uncertainty maps offer a practical pre-filter for high-throughput materials libraries: only high-confidence FORCs need expensive follow-up characterization.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript trains a set of independent CNNs to invert First-Order Reversal Curve (FORC) images for the phenomenological micromagnetic parameters Aex, Ku, D, and Npin (with Ms injected as a known macroscopic input). Training and primary validation use zero-temperature mumax3 simulations that include ad-hoc high-Ku pinning cells and polycrystalline anisotropy patches. Performance is reported via Pearson correlations and mean absolute errors on a held-out validation set, a closed-loop re-simulation of ten validation FORCs, an Alice–Bob dual network that predicts Alice’s error quantile from FORC features alone, and a qualitative comparison to experimental Co/Pd multilayer FORCs after an Ms sweep and ensemble averaging over pinning realizations.

Significance. If the inverse map is reliable inside and near the training distribution, the work offers a practical, data-driven alternative to iterative trial-and-error fitting of micromagnetic Hamiltonians from readily measured FORCs. Strengths that should be credited include: (i) decoupled per-parameter CNNs, which make the claim that each term leaves an independent fingerprint more stringent; (ii) explicit closed-loop re-simulation on feature-rich synthetic FORCs (Fig. 4); and (iii) the Alice–Bob construction, which estimates uncertainty without ground-truth parameters. These elements are concrete and falsifiable within the stated model class. The experimental half of the claim and the generality beyond the simplified disorder model are weaker and currently limit the impact relative to the abstract’s wording.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. III.C; Fig. 5(d)] Abstract and Sec. III.C claim closed-loop recreation of experimental FORCs by the CNN-predicted Hamiltonian. The actual protocol (i) treats Ms as a free parameter swept over [470, 1400] kA/m, (ii) averages mumax3 FORCs over 20 random pinning profiles at the predicted Npin, and (iii) selects the Ms (1307 kA/m) by best visual match. That procedure introduces free parameters and post-hoc selection outside the trained map F_CNN. Fig. 5(d) therefore shows that some nearby parameter set can roughly recover coercivity/squareness, not that the CNNs alone decode the experimental Hamiltonian from the FORC image. The abstract and experimental-validation claims should be revised to state this protocol explicitly and to qualify the experimental result as qualitative consistency under Ms/pinning post-processing, not pure closed-loop inversion.
  2. [Sec. II.B; Sec. III.A; Sec. III.C; Conclusion] Primary training and closed-loop checks (Fig. 4) use the same mumax3 forward model and the same simplified disorder (Npin cells with Ku = 50 MJ/m³ plus polycrystalline patches). The paper itself notes that experimental agreement is poorer than the best simulated cases and that higher-order terms and microstructural detail are missing (Sec. III.C, Conclusion). This is a mild self-consistency loop for the synthetic half of the claim. To keep the central claim load-bearing, the manuscript should either (a) quantify how far experimental FORCs lie from the training distribution (e.g., via Bob’s uncertainty or a domain-shift metric) or (b) add at least one held-out synthetic test with a disorder model not used in training (different pin strength, grain-size distribution, or finite-T nucleation) so that generalization beyond the training Hamiltonian class is demonstrated rather than asserted.
  3. [Sec. III.A; Fig. 4; Abstract; Conclusion] Fig. 4 and the accompanying text show that featureless FORCs (IDs 768, 1503, 2529)—those that collapse onto the major loop—are poorly reconstructed. The text correctly attributes information content to minor-loop structure, but the abstract and conclusion still present the method as extracting the “full” Hamiltonian from FORCs in general. The applicability domain should be stated up front (feature-rich minor loops required) and, if possible, Bob’s predicted uncertainty should be shown to flag precisely these featureless cases on the validation set, turning the acknowledged failure mode into a usable rejection criterion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. II.B–C] Total number of simulated samples that passed screening and entered the 80/20 split is never stated; only a ~20% success rate is given. Report N_train and N_val explicitly.
  2. [Table I] Table I lists D max = 0.005 J/m²; units and physical range should be cross-checked against typical interfacial DMI values and the cell size used.
  3. [Sec. II.A; Fig. 1] Fig. 1(b) and the 64×64 rearrangement are clear, but the precise field-sampling and quantization procedure (byte scaling of mz) should be stated so that experimental FORCs can be mapped identically.
  4. [Introduction; Sec. III.A; Fig. 4 caption] Typos / wording: “microsctuctures” (Introduction); “decoupled parameter prediction” is used without defining the training independence earlier; “close-loop” vs “closed-loop” inconsistency in figure captions.
  5. [Sec. III.B; Fig. 5(a)] Alice–Bob: state Bob’s architecture (same CNN backbone or different), loss for quantile regression, and whether Bob is trained on the validation-set error distribution or a nested split, to avoid leakage into the uncertainty calibration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity in the inverse map; only a mild post-hoc Ms/pinning selection weakens the experimental closed-loop claim.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III.C (Experimental Validation), Fig. 5(d)]
    "To account for this ambiguity, we swept MS across the range of [470,1400] kA/m, generating a distinct set of CNN parameter predictions for each MS input. To suppress the extra degree of freedom introduced by the distribution of the pinning sites, we averaged the simulated FORCs over 20 different profiles of pinning sites within the fixed value of Npin predicted by the CNN. The optimal agreement occurs at MS =1307 kA/m, as illustrated in Fig. 5(d)."

    For the experimental claim, Ms (a required CNN input) is treated as free and scanned until the forward-simulated FORC best matches the measured curve; pinning is further ensemble-averaged. The reported ‘recreation’ therefore includes post-hoc selection of Ms and disorder realizations against the target magnetometry, so Fig. 5(d) does not isolate a pure F_CNN inversion of the experimental Hamiltonian. This is a mild fitted-input issue confined to the experimental half of the closed-loop claim, not a definitional collapse of the simulated inverse.

full rationale

The core pipeline trains independent CNNs on mumax3-generated FORCs with known (Aex, Ku, D, Npin), then evaluates the learned inverse by re-simulating F_sim(F_CNN(y)) against held-out synthetic y and against one experimental Co/Pd FORC. Success of that reconstruction is empirical, not forced by construction: the networks could (and sometimes do) fail on featureless loops, and scalar metrics (MAE, Pearson r) plus visual closed-loops are ordinary out-of-sample checks inside the training model class. Alice–Bob likewise calibrates error quantiles on a withheld validation distribution and at inference uses only FORC features, which is standard uncertainty quantification rather than a self-definitional loop. The sole mild circularity-adjacent step is experimental Sec. III.C, where Ms is swept as a free input and pinning realizations are ensemble-averaged before the Ms that best matches the measured FORC is reported—adding post-hoc selection outside the trained inverse. That weakens the experimental half of the abstract’s closed-loop claim but does not make the simulated inverse or the Hamiltonian extraction definitional. No uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation; prior author work [27] is motivational only. Overall circularity is low and non-load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of a classical zero-temperature micromagnetic model, on a hand-crafted disorder representation, on a constrained sampling distribution for material parameters, and on the architectural choice to predict each parameter with an independent CNN that receives Ms as a free input. No new physical entities are postulated; the free parameters are the usual micromagnetic coefficients plus the disorder knobs used to generate training data.

free parameters (8)
  • Ms sampling range = 200–1400 kA/m
    Drawn uniformly from 200–1400 kA/m to cover technologically relevant materials; directly injected into every CNN.
  • Aex / lex constraint = lex ~ N(10 nm,1 nm), Aex 1–35 pJ/m
    Target exchange length ~10 nm (σ=1 nm) with hard floor 5 nm and Aex bounds 1–35 pJ/m to guarantee multi-domain states inside the 512 nm box.
  • Ku distribution = 10^3–1.5×10^6 J/m³
    ln(Ku) drawn from a triangular distribution between ln(10^3) and ln(1.5×10^6) J/m³.
  • DMI upper bound = 0–0.005 J/m²
    Uniform draw up to 0.005 J/m².
  • Npin and pinning Ku = Npin 0–255, Ku_pin=50 MJ/m³
    Number of pinning cells 0–255, each given artificial Ku=50 MJ/m³ to nucleate and pin domains in lieu of thermal fluctuations.
  • Polycrystal disorder (σθ, σK) = σθ≤10°, σK≤20 %
    Angular and magnitude spreads of local anisotropy axes, up to 10° and 20 %.
  • Slew-rate safety factor and update thresholds = 0.05×τ/χ; Δμ0H=0.02 T or Δmz=0.05
    Ad-hoc 0.05 safety factor, 0.02 T / 0.05 mz update triggers, and effective damping α' chosen so that the simulated FORC remains adiabatic.
  • Experimental effective Ms = 1307 kA/m (selected)
    Swept over 470–1400 kA/m; best visual match reported at 1307 kA/m for the Co/Pd stack.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature LLG micromagnetics (mumax3) with the standard phenomenological Hamiltonian is sufficient to capture room-temperature FORC fingerprints of high-Tc materials.
    Stated in Sec. II.A; thermal fluctuations are replaced by explicit pinning and polycrystal disorder.
  • domain assumption Ensemble-averaged FORC images still retain independently decodable fingerprints of each Hamiltonian term.
    Core premise of the introduction and of the decision to train strictly independent CNNs (Sec. III.A).
  • ad hoc to paper Localized high-Ku defect cells plus polycrystalline anisotropy patches adequately emulate experimental disorder and domain-wall pinning.
    Introduced in Sec. II.B as a surrogate for thermal nucleation and microstructural randomness.
  • domain assumption Ms is macroscopically known and can be injected as a privileged input that constrains the remaining inverse problem.
    Explicitly used in the CNN architecture (Fig. 2d) and in the experimental Ms sweep.
invented entities (1)
  • Alice–Bob parallel uncertainty network
    purpose: Map the same FORC image to the quantile of Alice’s prediction error so that uncertainty can be reported without ground-truth parameters.
    Architectural construct trained on Alice’s validation-set error distribution; not a physical entity but a new methodological object introduced by the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding the Micromagnetic Hamiltonian from Magnetic Fingerprints." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQ2I6TD6

@misc{pith2026260727430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding the Micromagnetic Hamiltonian from Magnetic Fingerprints},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQ2I6TD6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27430}
}
read the original abstract

Extracting intrinsic magnetic Hamiltonians directly from magnetometry is challenging due to the high dimensionality of the parameter space and the degeneracy induced by ensemble averaging. Here, we introduce a collection of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to extract the full phenomenological micromagnetic Hamiltonian directly from the magnetic fingerprints encoded within First-Order Reversal Curves (FORCs). We validate this approach via closed-loop verification, re-creating the input magnetometry for both simulated and experimental FORCs. To mitigate false positives, we deploy an `Alice--Bob' parallel network that quantifies prediction uncertainty based on solely the information in FORCs without any additional ground-truth knowledge. This framework provides a robust, machine-learning-assisted approach to unravel the underlying spin behaviors in complex magnetic systems

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, On the theory of the dispersion of magnetic permeability in ferromagnetic bodies, inPerspec- tives in Theoretical Physics, edited by L. P. Pitaevskii (Perga- mon, 1992) pp. 51–65

    1992

  2. [2]

    W. F. Brown, Jr., Micromagnetics, Domains, and Resonance, Journal of Applied Physics30, S62 (1959)

    1959

  3. [3]

    Abert, Micromagnetics and spintronics: models and numer- ical methods, The European Physical Journal B92, 120 (2019)

    C. Abert, Micromagnetics and spintronics: models and numer- ical methods, The European Physical Journal B92, 120 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y . Tokura, Topological properties and dy- namics of magnetic skyrmions, Nature Nanotechnology8, 899 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Finocchio, F

    G. Finocchio, F. B ¨uttner, R. Tomasello, M. Carpentieri, and M. Kl ¨aui, Magnetic skyrmions: from fundamental to applica- tions, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics49, 423001 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia- Sanchez, and B. V . Waeyenberge, The design and verification of MuMax3, AIP Advances4, 107133 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Abert, F

    C. Abert, F. Bruckner, A. V oronov, M. Lang, S. A. Pathak, S. Holt, R. Kraft, R. Allayarov, P. Flauger, S. Koraltan, T. Schrefl, A. Chumak, H. Fangohr, and D. Suess, NeuralMag: an open-source nodal finite-difference code for inverse micro- magnetics, npj Computational Materials11, 193 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Kronm ¨uller, R

    H. Kronm ¨uller, R. Fischer, M. Seeger, and A. Zern, Micromag- netism and microstructure of hard magnetic materials, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics29, 2274 (1996)

    1996

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Zhu and H

    J. Zhu and H. N. Bertram, Micromagnetic studies of thin metal- lic films (invited), Journal of Applied Physics63, 3248 (1988)

    1988

  2. [10]

    S. Woo, K. Litzius, B. Kr¨uger, M.-Y . Im, L. Caretta, K. Richter, M. Mann, A. Krone, R. M. Reeve, M. Weigand, P. Agrawal, I. Lemesh, M.-A. Mawass, P. Fischer, M. Kl ¨aui, and G. S. D. Beach, Observation of room-temperature magnetic skyrmions and their current-driven dynamics ...

    2016

  3. [11]

    Soucaille, M

    R. Soucaille, M. Belmeguenai, J. Torrejon, J.-V . Kim, T. De- volder, Y . Roussign ´e, S.-M. Ch ´erif, A. A. Stashkevich, M. Hayashi, and J.-P. Adam, Probing the Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interaction in CoFeB ultrathin films using domain wall creep and Brillouin light spectroscop...

    2016

  4. [12]

    Burkert, L

    T. Burkert, L. Nordstr ¨om, O. Eriksson, and O. Heinonen, Gi- ant Magnetic Anisotropy in Tetragonal FeCo Alloys, Physical Review Letters93, 027203 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    M. Bode, M. Heide, K. v. Bergmann, P. Ferriani, S. Heinze, G. Bihlmayer, A. Kubetzka, O. Pietzsch, S. Bl ¨ugel, and R. Wiesendanger, Chiral magnetic order at surfaces driven by inversion asymmetry, Nature447, 190 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Ferriani, K

    P. Ferriani, K. v. Bergmann, E. Y . Vedmedenko, S. Heinze, M. Bode, M. Heide, G. Bihlmayer, S. Bl ¨ugel, and R. Wiesen- danger, Atomic-Scale Spin Spiral with a Unique Rotational Sense: Mn Monolayer on W(001), Physical Review Letters 101, 027201 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Heide, G

    M. Heide, G. Bihlmayer, and S. Bl¨ugel, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction accounting for the orientation of magnetic domains in ultrathin films: Fe/W(110), Physical Review B78, 140403 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Torrejon, J

    J. Torrejon, J. Kim, J. Sinha, S. Mitani, M. Hayashi, M. Ya- manouchi, and H. Ohno, Interface control of the magnetic chi- rality in CoFeB/MgO heterostructures with heavy-metal under- layers, Nature Communications5, 4655 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Zakeri, Y

    K. Zakeri, Y . Zhang, J. Prokop, T.-H. Chuang, N. Sakr, W. X. Tang, and J. Kirschner, Asymmetric Spin-Wave Dispersion on Fe(110): Direct Evidence of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Inter- action, Physical Review Letters104, 137203 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    X. Ma, G. Yu, S. A. Razavi, S. S. Sasaki, X. Li, K. Hao, S. H. Tolbert, K. L. Wang, and X. Li, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Inter- action across an Antiferromagnet-Ferromagnet Interface, Phys- ical Review Letters119, 027202 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Kuepferling, A

    M. Kuepferling, A. Casiraghi, G. Soares, G. Durin, F. Garcia- Sanchez, L. Chen, C. Back, C. Marrows, S. Tacchi, and G. Car- lotti, Measuring interfacial Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction in ultrathin magnetic films, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 015003 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Hrabec, N

    A. Hrabec, N. A. Porter, A. Wells, M. J. Benitez, G. Burnell, S. McVitie, D. McGrouther, T. A. Moore, and C. H. Marrows, Measuring and tailoring the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction in perpendicularly magnetized thin films, Physical Review B 90, 020402 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Pinna, G

    D. Pinna, G. Bourianoff, and K. Everschor-Sitte, Reservoir Computing with Random Skyrmion Textures, Physical Review Applied14, 054020 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    C. R. Pike, A. P. Roberts, and K. L. Verosub, Characterizing interactions in fine magnetic particle systems using first order reversal curves, Journal of Applied Physics85, 6660 (1999)

    1999

  15. [23]

    I. D. Mayergoyz,Mathematical Models of Hysteresis(Springer New York, 1991)

    1991

  16. [24]

    J. E. Davies, O. Hellwig, E. E. Fullerton, G. Denbeaux, J. B. Kortright, and K. Liu, Magnetization reversal of Co/Pt: Micro- scopic origin of high-field magnetic irreversibility, Physical Re- 8 view B70, 224434 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    R. K. Dumas, C.-P. Li, I. V . Roshchin, I. K. Schuller, and K. Liu, Magnetic fingerprints of sub-100 nm Fe dots, Physical Review B75, 134405 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    D. A. Gilbert, G. T. Zimanyi, R. K. Dumas, M. Winklhofer, A. Gomez, N. Eibagi, J. L. Vicent, and K. Liu, Quantitative Decoding of Interactions in Tunable Nanomagnet Arrays Using First Order Reversal Curves, Scientific Reports4, 4204 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    B. J. Fugetta, Z. Chen, D. Bhattacharya, K. Yue, K. Liu, A. Y . Liu, and G. Yin, Machine-learning recognition of Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction from magnetometry, Phys- ical Review Research5, 043012 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    B. J. Kirby, S. M. Watson, J. E. Davies, G. T. Zimanyi, K. Liu, R. D. Shull, and J. A. Borchers, Direct observation of magnetic gradient in Co/Pd pressure-graded media, Journal of Applied Physics105, 07C929 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    M. T. Rahman, R. K. Dumas, N. Eibagi, N. N. Shams, Y .-C. Wu, K. Liu, and C.-H. Lai, Controlling magnetization reversal in Co/Pt nanostructures with perpendicular anisotropy, Applied Physics Letters94, 042507 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    D. A. Gilbert, B. B. Maranville, A. L. Balk, B. J. Kirby, P. Fis- cher, D. T. Pierce, J. Unguris, J. A. Borchers, and K. Liu, Real- ization of ground-state artificial skyrmion lattices at room tem- perature, Nature Communications6, 8462 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    E. C. Burks, D. A. Gilbert, P. D. Murray, C. Flores, T. E. Felter, S. Charnvanichborikarn, S. O. Kucheyev, J. D. Colvin, G. Yin, and K. Liu, 3D Nanomagnetism in Low Density Interconnected Nanowire Networks, Nano Letters21, 716 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Grinstein and R

    G. Grinstein and R. H. Koch, Coarse Graining in Micromagnet- ics, Physical Review Letters90, 207201 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    M. B. Hahn, Temperature in micromagnetism: cell size and scaling effects of the stochastic Landau–Lifshitz equation, Jour- nal of Physics Communications3, 075009 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Sakurai, R

    M. Sakurai, R. Wang, T. Liao, C. Zhang, H. Sun, Y . Sun, H. Wang, X. Zhao, S. Wang, B. Balasubramanian, X. Xu, D. J. Sellmyer, V . Antropov, J. Zhang, C.-Z. Wang, K.-M. Ho, and J. R. Chelikowsky, Discovering rare-earth-free magnetic mate- rials through the development of a dat...

    2020

  27. [35]

    Balasubramanian, M

    B. Balasubramanian, M. Sakurai, C.-Z. Wang, X. Xu, K.-M. Ho, J. R. Chelikowsky, and D. J. Sellmyer, Synergistic compu- tational and experimental discovery of novel magnetic materi- als, Molecular Systems Design & Engineering5, 1098 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Jeudy, R

    V . Jeudy, R. D´ıaz Pardo, W. Savero Torres, S. Bustingorry, and A. B. Kolton, Pinning of domain walls in thin ferromagnetic films, Physical Review B98, 054406 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Kawaguchi, K

    M. Kawaguchi, K. Tanabe, K. Yamada, T. Sawa, S. Hasegawa, M. Hayashi, and Y . Nakatani, Determination of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction using pattern recogni- tion and machine learning, npj Computational Materials7, 20 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    V . K. Singh and J. H. Han, Application of machine learning to two-dimensional Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya ferromagnets, Physi- cal Review B99, 174426 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    H. Y . Kwon, H. G. Yoon, C. Lee, G. Chen, K. Liu, A. K. Schmid, Y . Z. Wu, J. W. Choi, and C. Won, Magnetic Hamilto- nian parameter estimation using deep learning techniques, Sci- ence Advances6, eabb0872 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    D. Wang, S. Wei, A. Yuan, F. Tian, K. Cao, Q. Zhao, Y . Zhang, C. Zhou, X. Song, D. Xue, and S. Yang, Machine Learning Magnetic Parameters from Spin Configurations, Advanced Sci- ence7, 2000566 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    M. D. Zeiler, ADADELTA: An Adaptive Learning Rate Method (2012), arXiv:1212.5701 [cs]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    B. J. Kirby, J. E. Davies, K. Liu, S. M. Watson, G. T. Zimanyi, R. D. Shull, P. A. Kienzle, and J. A. Borchers, Vertically graded anisotropy in Co/Pd multilayers, Physical Review B81, 100405 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    P. K. Greene, B. J. Kirby, J. W. Lau, J. A. Borchers, M. R. Fitzsimmons, and K. Liu, Deposition order dependent magneti- zation reversal in pressure graded Co/Pd films, Applied Physics Letters104, 152401 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.