Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Inferring Magnetic Material Parameters from Statistical Measures in Strongly Fluctuating Magnetization Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-30 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Latent entropy from hot, fluctuating magnetization dynamics recovers exchange stiffness and anisotropy better than the temporal mean, and can map grain boundaries.

desk verdict Solid simulation methods paper: latent entropy beats the mean for recovering Aex/Ku from hot |mz| dynamics and for grain-edge contrast, but every reported accuracy assumes the other parameter is already known. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26833 v1 pith:GBYVRBGJ submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.otherphysics.comp-ph

Kübra Kalkan , Atreya Majumdar , Ross Knapman , Omer Fetai , Franziska Scheibel , Sabrina Disch , Illia Horenko , Karin Everschor-Sitte This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.otherphysics.comp-ph
keywords latententropymicromagneticsexchangestiffnessmagneticanisotropythermalfluctuationsparameterinferencegrainboundariesmagnetizationdynamics
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

Magnetic materials are controlled by local parameters such as exchange stiffness and anisotropy, but those parameters are hard to read out when thermal noise washes out domain walls and other textures. This paper shows that you can still recover them from magnetization time series alone by computing simple statistical descriptors—especially latent entropy, which measures how unpredictably the magnetization jumps between coarse-grained states—and inverting fitted models that link those descriptors to the material constants. In micromagnetic simulations at 700 K, latent entropy yields substantially smaller reconstruction errors than the ordinary time average, both on uniform films and on a polycrystalline Voronoi sample where the same maps also locate grain boundaries. A sympathetic reader cares because the method needs only dynamical magnetization data, works where texture-based recipes fail, and points toward local parameter mapping in real high-temperature experiments.

What carries the argument

Latent entropy: a scalar that quantifies the stochasticity of transitions among a fixed set of discretized |mz| bins along each pixel’s time series. It carries dynamical transition structure that remains informative even when the mean magnetization saturates, and is the descriptor whose forward model is inverted for material parameters.

What would settle it

On a uniform film with independently known exchange and anisotropy, measure time-resolved |mz| at high temperature, compute latent entropy with the paper’s fixed binning, invert the published S-model, and check whether the recovered parameter falls outside the reported few-percent error bands; systematic failure would refute the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

From thermally driven out-of-plane magnetization trajectories the authors extract pixel-wise latent entropy and temporal mean, fit empirical forward models of each descriptor versus exchange stiffness and uniaxial anisotropy, and invert those models to recover one parameter when the other is known. Latent entropy systematically outperforms the temporal mean (average absolute relative errors of roughly 0.66% versus 4.79% for exchange and 4.32% versus 20.48% for anisotropy on the uniform grid) and, on a heterogeneous Voronoi film, also supplies spatial gradients that detect grain boundaries so that interior parameters can be predicted grain by grain.

Load-bearing premise

One of the two material parameters must already be known so the other can be read off by inverting a single scalar descriptor; if both are unknown, or if unmodeled interactions shift the descriptors, the inversion is not uniquely identified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Local exchange and anisotropy can be mapped from time-resolved magnetization imaging without relying on domain-wall width or other textures.
  • Grain boundaries in polycrystalline magnets become visible as spatial gradients of latent entropy or temporal mean.
  • The same descriptors remain usable at elevated temperature where conventional texture methods break down.
  • Joint use of latent entropy and temporal mean, or physics-informed forward models, is expected to tighten predictions further.
  • Extension to three-dimensional and multiphase microstructures is natural because the method never needs a projected wall profile.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If experimental noise floors still preserve transition statistics among a few |mz| bins, laboratory TR-MOKE or STXM movies could feed the same inversion without new theory.
  • Treating temperature or damping as additional unknown parameters would require multi-descriptor or multi-temperature measurements to restore uniqueness.
  • The 19 nm exclusion zone around boundaries sets a practical lower grain-size limit; smaller grains would need thinner masks or joint multi-pixel models.
  • Dipolar or Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya terms, once included in the training simulations, could turn the same pipeline into a local probe of interfacial chirality.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a magnetization-only pipeline for recovering local magnetic material parameters from thermally driven dynamics in regimes where texture-based methods fail. Using MuMax3 LLG simulations with a fluctuation–dissipation thermal field at T = 700 K, the authors extract pixel-wise latent entropy S and temporal mean μ of |mz(t)|, fit empirical forward surfaces S(Ku, Aex) and μ(Ku, Aex) (Eqs. 3–4), and invert them under the assumption that one of {Aex, Ku} is known (Eqs. 5a–5b). They report that S yields substantially lower relative errors than μ on a uniform parameter grid (Fig. 3; App. C) and on a Voronoi-heterogeneous film, where spatial gradients of the descriptors are also used to mask grain boundaries before interior-averaged inversion (Fig. 4; App. D). The work is carefully documented (fit metrics, sensitivity maps, error distributions, masking pipeline) and framed toward high-temperature experimental parameter mapping.

Significance. If the results hold under the stated one-parameter-known protocol, the paper offers a practical route to local Aex or Ku inference and grain-boundary localization precisely where conventional domain-wall-width methods break down—strongly fluctuating, polycrystalline, or multiphase magnets at elevated temperature. The systematic comparison of latent entropy against the temporal mean, with transparent sensitivity and residual analyses (App. B–C), is a genuine methodological contribution: S remains informative where μ saturates at high Aex. The Voronoi demonstration that descriptor gradients can both segment grains and support interior parameter recovery is relevant to real microstructures. Strengths include reproducible simulation choices, closed-form/numerical inverses, and full error bookkeeping. The main scientific value is conditional on clearer validation hygiene and on not overstating unconditional joint recovery of (Aex, Ku).

major comments (3)
  1. [§III, Eqs. (5a–5b); abstract; §V] §III, Eqs. (5a–5b) and the abstract/§V framing: all reported reconstructions treat one of {Aex, Ku} as known and invert a single scalar descriptor for the other. Level sets of S(Ku, Aex) (Fig. 2 left; weaker ∂S/∂K*u in Fig. B2) are nontrivial curves, so a lone Sobs (or μobs) does not identify a unique pair. The sub-percent/few-percent errors in Fig. 3 and the Voronoi results in Fig. 4 are therefore conditional accuracies under an oracle companion parameter. This scope is stated in §III but is easy to miss in the abstract and outlook, which speak of “material-parameter inference” and experimental readiness more broadly. Please (i) state the one-known-parameter protocol prominently in the abstract and conclusions, and (ii) either demonstrate a joint (Aex, Ku) inversion using both S and μ together (as §V itself suggests) or quantify non-uniqueness (e.g., level-set widths / condition numbers
  2. [§IV.A, Fig. 3; App. B–C] §IV.A and Fig. 3: the uniform-sample relative-error maps appear to invert the fitted surfaces on the same (Ku, Aex) campaign used to build Eqs. (3)–(4). In that case the quoted average |rel. err.| values (0.66% vs 4.79% for Aex; 4.32% vs 20.48% for Ku) largely restate forward-fit fidelity and local conditioning rather than out-of-sample predictive accuracy. Please reserve a held-out grid (or an independent dense sampling) never used in the fit, report reconstruction errors on that set, and keep training-set residuals in App. B. The Voronoi test is closer to a transfer check but still uses the same forward models and known companion parameters; it does not replace a held-out uniform benchmark.
  3. [§II.A, Eq. (1); §V] §II.A / Hamiltonian (1) and §V: the forward models are trained in a micromagnetic world containing only exchange, uniaxial anisotropy, and the thermal field—no dipolar fields, DMI, Ms(T), or α variation. Descriptor shifts from any of these will bias the inverted Aex or Ku under the current maps. For the central claim of experimental applicability at high T, at least a limited robustness check is needed (e.g., freeze the fitted S/μ models and resimulate a few grid points with demagnetization on, or with modest Ms or α offsets) and the failure modes should be stated quantitatively next to the error maps. Without that, the path from simulation inversion to “experimental parameter extraction” remains an untested extrapolation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1; §II.A] Fig. 1 workflow caption and main text: specify explicitly that the observable is |mz| (magnitude), and why the sign is discarded—readers may wonder about up/down domain information.
  2. [§III, Eqs. (3)–(4)] Eqs. (3)–(4): the empirical forms are flexible but unmotivated. A short remark on why this exponential/saturation structure was chosen (vs. a simpler interpolant or a scaling-inspired ansatz) would help, even if full physics-informed models are left to future work.
  3. [Appendix D] App. D masking: the hysteresis thresholds (0.28, 0.85) for |∇S| and (0.04, 0.18) for |∇μ| and the 19 nm exclusion width are central free parameters. Please note how they were chosen and whether results are stable under modest threshold changes.
  4. [Fig. 4; Table D1; Fig. D2] Table D1 and Fig. 4: merged regions (footnotes *, †) make some “region-averaged” errors hard to interpret. Mark merged regions graphically in Fig. 4 or in the pixel-wise panels of Fig. D2.
  5. [§II.B] Nbins = 9 and fixed global bin edges are stated but not motivated. A one-sentence sensitivity note (or pointer that empty-bin avoidance drove the choice at 700 K) would suffice.
  6. [§III–IV headings; Table B1] Minor typography: “INFERENCE STRA TEGY” and “INFERENCE OF MA TERIAL P ARAMETERS” in the section headings appear to contain stray spaces; “T emporal” in Table B1 likewise.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Uniform-grid “reconstruction” largely restates fidelity of the fitted forward surfaces; heterogeneous Voronoi tests and S-vs-μ comparison still supply independent content.

  1. fitted input called prediction [§III (dataset + Eqs. 3–5); §IV.A Fig. 3; App. B Tables B1–B2; App. C]
    "To construct the reference dataset used to fit the empirical models, we simulate a 64 nm×64 nm×1 nm sample in which the exchange stiffness and uniaxial anisotropy are spatially uniform. ... We repeat this procedure while systematically varying the exchange stiffness and anisotropy over the parameter ranges [8.2×10−12, 35×10−12] J/m and [2.6×105, 9×105] J/m3 ... To assess the inference accuracy in spatially uniform systems, we reconstruct Aex and Ku values across the full parameter range using the inversion scheme introduced in Section III. The resulting relative error maps are shown in Fig. 3"

    The uniform-sample “reconstruction” inverts the empirical surfaces S(Ku,Aex) and μ(Ku,Aex) on the same (Ku,Aex) campaign used to fit those surfaces. With R² = 0.9997 (S) and 0.9962 (μ), the reported relative errors are essentially fit residuals divided by local sensitivity, not out-of-sample predictions. Calling this parameter inference accuracy overstates independence: once the forward fit and monotonic inverse are fixed, percent errors on the training grid are statistically forced to be small wherever sensitivity is adequate.

full rationale

The pipeline is an explicit calibrate-then-invert scheme, not a first-principles derivation: micromagnetic runs on a (Ku, Aex) grid produce descriptors S and μ, empirical surfaces (Eqs. 3–4) are fitted to those descriptors, and material parameters are recovered by inverting the same surfaces with one parameter treated as known (Eqs. 5a–5b). On the spatially uniform grid this is close to “fitted input called prediction”: Section IV.A reconstructs Aex and Ku “across the full parameter range” used to build the reference dataset in Section III, so the sub-percent / few-percent relative errors in Fig. 3 and App. C largely propagate the already-reported fit residuals (R² = 0.9997 for S, 0.9962 for μ) through a smooth inverse, rather than testing an independent hold-out. That is real but partial circularity of the reporting, not definitional collapse—S and μ are still computed from LLG trajectories, not defined as functions of the target parameters. The Voronoi heterogeneous sample (Fig. 4, App. D) reuses the same fitted surfaces and the one-known-parameter hinge, yet it is a distinct simulation campaign with spatial structure, grain-boundary masking, and region-wise errors, so it is not forced by the fit alone. Self-citations to latent entropy (Horenko/Everschor-Sitte prior work) supply the descriptor, not a uniqueness theorem that forbids alternatives. The skeptic’s one-known-parameter identification gap is a correctness/identifiability issue, not circularity by construction. Overall score 4: one clear fitted-input-as-prediction step on the uniform grid; central empirical claims retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard finite-T micromagnetics plus an imported latent-entropy descriptor, then on heavily parameterized empirical surfaces and several hand-chosen analysis cutoffs. No new physical entity is postulated; the free-parameter burden sits in the six-plus-seven fit coefficients and preprocessing knobs that make inversion work inside the simulated window.

free parameters (6)
  • Latent-entropy fit coefficients S0..S5 = S0=0.34, S1=2.86, S2=0.366, S3=0.102, S4=0.40, S5=0.90 (on rescaled A*,K*)
    Six coefficients in Eq. (3) fitted to the uniform-sample simulation grid; the inverted Aex/Ku estimates inherit these values.
  • Temporal-mean fit coefficients μ0..μ6 = μ0=0.890, μ1=1.01, μ2=1.31, μ3=0.113, μ4=0.988, μ5=0.125, μ6=1.24
    Seven coefficients in Eq. (4) fitted to the same grid; used for the μ-baseline inversions.
  • Nbins for |mz| discretization = 9
    Fixed to 9 discrete states for all latent-entropy calculations; changes transition statistics and thus S.
  • Hysteresis thresholds for boundary masks = |∇S|:(0.28,0.85); |∇μ|:(0.04,0.18)
    Hand-set (Δlow, Δhigh) pairs differ for |∇S| and |∇μ| and control which interfaces are detected.
  • Boundary exclusion half-width / dilation = 19 nm
    19 nm total exclusion (9 px dilation at 1 nm cells) chosen comparable to max exchange length; removes interfacial pixels before averaging.
  • Simulation temperature and Gilbert damping = T=700 K, α=0.1
    T=700 K and α=0.1 fix the fluctuation strength and dynamics; descriptors and fits are conditioned on these choices.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Magnetization obeys the stochastic LLG equation with effective field from the micromagnetic Hamiltonian (exchange + uniaxial anisotropy + thermal field) and white thermal noise set by the fluctuation–dissipation theorem.
    §II.A and Appendix A; standard MuMax3 finite-T micromagnetics, no dipolar or DMI terms in H.
  • ad hoc to paper Latent entropy computed from fixed-bin state-to-state transition probabilities of |mz(t)| is a sufficient, monotone-enough descriptor of Aex and Ku for stable scalar inversion when the other parameter is known.
    §II.B–III; sufficiency is empirical inside the scanned window, not derived from a uniqueness theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper Grain interiors after gradient masking behave as locally uniform media describable by the same forward models trained on fully uniform films.
    §IV.B and Appendix D; interfacial exchange coupling is handled only by spatial exclusion, not by a two-grain model.
  • domain assumption Continuum micromagnetic discretization at 1 nm cells with Ms=4e5 A/m remains valid at 700 K for the cited CoFe2O4 / L10-FeNi-like parameter ranges.
    Table A1 and introduction material motivation; Ms held temperature-independent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring Magnetic Material Parameters from Statistical Measures in Strongly Fluctuating Magnetization Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GBYVRBGJ

@misc{pith2026260726833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring Magnetic Material Parameters from Statistical Measures in Strongly Fluctuating Magnetization Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GBYVRBGJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26833}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetic material parameters such as the exchange stiffness and magnetic anisotropy govern the behavior and functionality of magnetic systems, yet their local inference from magnetization data remains challenging, particularly in strongly fluctuating regimes with polycrystalline or multiphase microstructure, where conventional texture-based methods become unreliable. We introduce a magnetization-only framework for inferring material parameters from thermally driven magnetization dynamics. Using micromagnetic simulations, we extract statistical quantities such as temporal mean and latent entropy from the magnetization dynamics, fit models to these descriptors, and invert the models to infer material parameters. We show that this framework enables material-parameter inference as well as grain-boundary detection in a heterogeneous sample. Among the descriptors considered, latent entropy yields more accurate parameter estimates than the temporal mean. Our results establish latent entropy as an efficient descriptor for inferring magnetic material parameters from dynamical magnetization data and point toward its use for experimental parameter extraction at high temperatures and, more broadly, under strongly fluctuating conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Workflow for inferring magnetic material parameters from thermally driven magnetization dynamics. Left: representa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Forward models relating the statistical descriptors to the magnetic material parameters. The left and right panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Relative reconstruction errors across the uniform-sample parameter grid. The error is defined as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Prediction of magnetic material parameters in the Voronoi-tessellated sample with each region having a uniform, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (3) and (4) are listed in Table B1

    Fitted Model Parameters The fit parameters entering Eqns. (3) and (4) are listed in Table B1. The parameter values are expressed in terms of the dimensionless rescaled variablesA∗ ex = Aex/(10−12 J/m) andK∗ u =Ku/(105 J/m3). The heatmap of residuals (fit – data) are shown in Fig. B1. The quality of the fitted models is assessed 8 TABLE B1. Fit parameters ...

  2. [2]

    Sensitivity Analysis To quantify how strongly the fitted observables re- spond to variations in the material parameters, we eval- uate the sensitivities: the absolute partial derivatives of the forward models with respect to the dimensionless variablesA∗ ex and K∗ u across the investigated parameter space. Fig. B2 presents the sensitivity ofS and µ to ex-...

  3. [3]

    D1, were followed

    Boundary Masking Procedure To localize the boundaries, the following four steps, shown in Fig. D1, were followed. Step 1: Gradient Magnitude CalculationStarting from the two spatial maps,S(x,y ) and µ(x,y ), we com- pute the magnitude of their spatial gradients|∇S(x,y )| and|∇µ(x,y )|. At each interface, the gradient magni- tude depends on the contrast in...

  4. [4]

    Prediction in Heterogeneous Sample Following the masking procedure described in the pre- vious part, the inference scheme is applied independently to each unmasked pixel of theS and µ maps. Fig. D2 presents the resulting pixel-wise predictions, which are subsequently averaged within each detected region to ob- tain the region-wise results shown in Fig. 4 ...

  5. [5]

    Bertotti, inHysteresis in Magnetism: For Physicists, Materials Scientists, and Engineers (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998) Chap

    G. Bertotti, inHysteresis in Magnetism: For Physicists, Materials Scientists, and Engineers (Academic Press, San Diego, 1998) Chap. 5

    1998

  6. [6]

    J.M.D.Coey, Magnetism and Magnetic Materials(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Hirohata, K

    A. Hirohata, K. Yamada, Y. Nakatani, I.-L. Prejbeanu, B. Diény, P. Pirro, and B. Hillebrands, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials509, 166711 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    A. M. Tishin and Y. I. Spichkin,The magnetocaloric ef- fect and its applications(Institute of Physics Publishing, 2003)

    2003

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Gutfleisch, T

    O. Gutfleisch, T. Gottschall, M. Fries, D. Benke, I. Radulov, K. P. Skokov, H. Wende, M. Gruner, M. Acet, P. Entel, and M. Farle, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- ing Sciences 374, 20150308 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    J. C. Slonczewski, Journal of Applied Physics44, 1759 (1973). 11 Step-1 Step-2 Step-3 Step-4 Thresholding Masking Skeletonization andGradient Magnitude Calculation Latent EntropyTemporal Mean Application of Masking and Identification of Regions FIG. D1. Four-step procedure use...

    1973

  3. [11]

    Cheng, Scientific Reports3, 2148 (2013)

    J.Ye, W.He, Q.Wu, H.-L.Liu, X.-Q.Zhang, Z.-Y.Chen, and Z.-H. Cheng, Scientific Reports3, 2148 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, A. Kovács, T. Kasama, M. R. McCartney, and D. J. Smith, in Springer Handbook of Microscopy, edited by P. W. Hawkes and J. C. H. Spence (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2019) pp. 767–818

    2019

  5. [13]

    R. H. Yu, S. Basu, Y. Zhang, A. Parvizi-Majidi, and J. Q. Xiao, Journal of Applied Physics85, 6655 (1999)

    1999

  6. [14]

    G. C. Hadjipanayis and A. Kim, Journal of Applied Physics 63, 3310 (1988)

    1988

  7. [15]

    Niitsu, X

    K. Niitsu, X. Xu, R. Y. Umetsu, R. Kainuma, and K. Harada, Physical Review B101, 014443 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    W. Kuch, K. Fukumoto, J. X. Wang, F. Nolting, C. Quit- mann, and T. Ramsvik, Physical Review B83, 172406 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Horenko, D

    I. Horenko, D. R. Rodrigues, T. O’Kane, and K. Everschor-Sitte, Communications in Applied Math- ematics and Computational Science16, 267 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    D. R. Rodrigues, K. Everschor-Sitte, S. Gerber, and I. Horenko, iScience24, 102171 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Eskandari, S

    F. Eskandari, S. B. Porter, M. Venkatesan, P. Kameli, K. Rode, and J. M. D. Coey, Physical Review Materials 1, 074413 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Suzuki, R

    Y. Suzuki, R. B. van Dover, E. M. Gyorgy, J. M. Phillips, and R. J. Felder, Physical Review B53, 14016 (1996)

    1996

  13. [21]

    Frisk, T

    A. Frisk, T. P. A. Hase, P. Svedlindh, E. Johansson, and G. Andersson, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics50, 085009 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Kovacs, J

    A. Kovacs, J. Fischbacher, M. Gusenbauer, H. Oezelt, H. C. Herper, O. Y. Vekilova, P. Nieves, S. Arapan, and T. Schrefl, Engineering6, 148 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    C. D. Woodgate, C. E. Patrick, L. H. Lewis, and J. B. Staunton, Journal of Applied Physics134, 163905 12 Latent Entropy Model Temporal Mean Model Latent Entropy Model Temporal Mean Model 25nm Region-wise Prediction Pixel-wise Prediction 25nm 25nm 5 13 7 8 4 10 21 6 11 12 9 3 2...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kronseder, T

    M. Kronseder, T. N. G. Meier, M. Zimmermann, M. Buchner, M. Vogel, and C. H. Back, Nature Com- munications 6, 6832 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Vansteenkiste, J

    A. Vansteenkiste, J. Leliaert, M. Dvornik, M. Helsen, F. Garcia-Sanchez, and B. Van Waeyenberge, AIP Ad- vances 4, 107133 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    W. F. Brown, Physical Review130, 1677 (1963)

    1963

  19. [27]

    Leliaert, J

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

    2017

  20. [28]

    Lyberatos, D

    A. Lyberatos, D. V. Berkov, and R. W. Chantrell, Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter5, 8911 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    T. L. Gilbert, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics40, 3443 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    R. P. Brent, Algorithms for Minimization Without Derivatives (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1973)

    1973

  23. [31]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, İ. Po- 13 (a) ...

    2020

  24. [32]

    R. B. Holländer, C. Müller, M. Lohmann, B. Mozooni, and J. McCord, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Ma- terials 432, 283 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Puzic, B

    A. Puzic, B. Van Waeyenberge, K. W. Chou, P. Fischer, H. Stoll, G. Schütz, T. Tyliszczak, K. Rott, H. Brückl, G. Reiss, I. Neudecker, T. Haug, M. Buess, and C. H. Back, Journal of Applied Physics97, 10.1063/1.1860971 (2005)

    2005 doi

  26. [34]

    Sebastian, K

    T. Sebastian, K. Schultheiss, B. Obry, B. Hillebrands, and H. Schultheiss, Frontiers in Physics3, 35 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Feggeler, A

    T. Feggeler, A. Levitan, M. A. Marcus, H. Ohldag, and D. A. Shapiro, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Re- lated Phenomena 267, 147381 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Bolte, G

    M. Bolte, G. Meier, B. Krüger, A. Drews, R. Eiselt, L. Bocklage, S. Bohlens, T. Tyliszczak, A. Vansteenkiste, B.VanWaeyenberge, K.W.Chou, A.Puzic,andH.Stoll, Physical Review Letters100, 176601 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Polin, S

    N. Polin, S. Shen, F. Maccari, A. Aubert, E. Adabi- firoozjaei, T. Smoliarova, Y. Yang, X. Chen, Y. Skourski, A. Saxena, A. Kovács, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, M. Farle, B.-X. Xu, L. Molina-Luna, O. Gutfleisch, B. Gault, and K. Skokov, Acta Materialia , 121906 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

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

    2021

  31. [39]

    Knapman, A

    R. Knapman, A. Majumdar, N. Bazazzadeh, K. Kalkan, K. Ollefs, O. Gutfleisch, and K. Everschor-Sitte, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07542 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    Canny, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence P AMI-8, 679 (1986)

    J. Canny, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence P AMI-8, 679 (1986)

    1986

  33. [41]

    van der Walt, J

    S. van der Walt, J. L. Schönberger, J. Nunez-Iglesias, F. Boulogne, J. D. Warner, N. Yager, E. Gouillart, and T. Yu, PeerJ2, e453 (2014)

    2014

  34. [42]

    T. Y. Zhang and C. Y. Suen, Communications of the ACM 27, 236 (1984). 14 Region ℓ ex (nm) Reference values (K u,A ex ) [10 5 J/m 3 , 10− 11 J/m] A vg. error ( S -model) A vg. error ( µ -model) Rel. (%) Abs. rel. (%) Rel. (%) Abs. rel. (%) 1∗ 6.86 (6.689, 3.151) (− 1.27,− 0.29)...

    1984

Pith tools

Reviewed July 30, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.