Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Unidirectional motion of topological defects mediating continuous rotation processes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic dislocations move unidirectionally in an unpatterned film and drive continuous stripe rotation.

desk verdict The experimental discovery is strong and the 3D imaging is impressive, but the model's θ-dynamics does not descend from the stated free energy, so the universality claim needs a fix before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05112 v1 pith:EMYZROOY submitted 2025-01-09 cond-mat.mes-hall

Marisel Di Pietro Martínez , Luke Alexander Turnbull , Jeffrey Neethirajan , Max Birch , Simone Finizio , Jörg Raabe , Edouard Lesne , Anastasios Markou
show 4 more authors
María Vélez Aurelio Hierro-Rodríguez Marco Salvalaglio Claire Donnelly
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords topologicaldefectsmagneticdislocationsstripedomainsrotationunidirectionalmotion3DvectorialimagingX-raylaminographySwift-Hohenbergmodel
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

Topological defects in unconfined systems usually have no defined route, so their motion is hard to control. This paper shows that magnetic dislocations in a weak stripe pattern of a permalloy film move along well-defined one-dimensional paths when an in-plane magnetic field is applied, even though the film is not patterned. That motion is what rotates the stripe pattern continuously, and the rotation rate tracks the number of dislocations. By imaging the three-dimensional magnetization while a field is applied, the authors find an in-plane magnetization envelope that expels the Bloch cores toward the surface and selects which branch of a dislocation breaks, setting the direction of motion. A minimal Swift-Hohenberg-type model reproduces the unidirectional motion and the rotation, indicating the effect is not specific to this material.

What carries the argument

The central objects are magnetic dislocations in a stripe pattern, locations where one stripe bifurcates into left and right branches carrying opposite signs of a Burgers-like vector. The mechanism that moves them is the field-induced in-plane magnetization envelope: an undulating tilting of the magnetization that forms along the domain walls when a field is applied, expels the Bloch cores toward the film surface, and makes the less field-aligned branch of a dislocation energetically unfavorable to break. Each branch-breaking event shifts the dislocation, and the repeated events combine climbing and gliding to trace a diagonal path. The model adds to the Swift-Hohenberg free energy a unit vector field $\tau$ for the in-plane magnetization direction, with a Zeeman term $-\frac{1}{2}|\nabla\psi|^2 \tau \cdot \mathbf{B}$, a Bloch-wall term $\frac{\gamma}{2}(\tau \cdot \nabla\psi)^2$, and an exchange-like term $\sigma|\nabla\theta|^2$, and relaxes the coupled gradient flow for $\psi$ and $\theta$.

What would settle it

Reimage the same film with the field applied in the opposite direction: the envelope mechanism predicts that both the dislocation path direction and the sense of stripe rotation should reverse, so a measurement that sees the same motion under reversed field would disprove the claim. A second check is to compare rotation in a film with very few dislocations: if the stripe pattern still rotates continuously, dislocations are not the mediator.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Dislocations in the weak stripe domains behave as charged particles: a dislocation whose two branches extend downward moves diagonally with a horizontal component parallel to the field, one with branches extending upward moves antiparallel, and pairs are created and annihilated as the field changes. Difference images between consecutive field steps show narrow lines of contrast marking the one-dimensional paths, and the orientation of those lines is set by the field direction relative to the stripes, not by the stripe orientation itself. The three-dimensional vectorial reconstruction shows that the field tilts the in-plane magnetization into an envelope that passes over and under the Bloch cores, pushing them toward the surface; near a dislocation the envelope makes one branch higher in energy, so that branch breaks and the dislocation shifts. Repeated branch breaking drives the diagonal motion, and that motion locally rotates the stripes, producing the continuous global rotation. The authors conclude that the one-dimensional motion of the defects is a direct consequence of the three-dimensional magnetic structure, and that the same mechanism appears in a simple model with an order parameter and an in-plane magnetization direction.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the stackable permanent magnets in the sample holder produce the calibrated field (about 5 mT per magnet) at the sample throughout the 30-projection laminography measurement, so the reconstructed 3D configuration is the same equilibrium state shown in the 2D images.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The orientation angle $\alpha$ of the stripe pattern becomes a continuously tunable, non-volatile analogue quantity: it rotates smoothly with field and remains stable after the field is removed, so intermediate values can store information.
  • Because the propagation direction is set by the field direction rather than by the stripe orientation, defects could in principle be steered along arbitrary paths in the plane by changing the field azimuth, without patterning the film.
  • The rotation rate is controlled by the dislocation population: creating dislocations speeds up the rotation and annihilating them slows it down, so defect density acts as a handle on the transition.
  • The same Swift-Hohenberg dynamics with an in-plane direction field should apply to other stripe-forming systems such as wrinkles, block-copolymer lamellae, and polycrystalline grain boundaries, so dislocation-mediated reorientation should be observable in those contexts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable design rule follows: films with a stronger net in-plane magnetization in their domain walls should show faster or more anisotropic dislocation motion, since the envelope's energy asymmetry scales with that polarization.
  • If the field azimuth is rotated during the sweep, the model suggests the dislocation path angle should continuously follow the field; this could be checked by imaging the same film with the field applied at several intermediate angles.
  • The fracton-like restriction to one-dimensional motion in an unconfined two-dimensional film suggests that this system could serve as a tunable laboratory for fractionalized-excitation dynamics, with the propagation angle set by growth parameters rather than by geometry.
  • Because the minimal model works in two dimensions without the Bloch-core structure, the essential physics may be the in-plane polarization of the walls; the 3D configuration may set the energy asymmetry but not the topological requirement for dislocation-mediated rotation.
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 paper reports an experimental and modeling study of magnetic dislocations in weak stripe domains of a 400 nm permalloy film. Using STXM imaging, the authors show that an in-plane magnetic field rotates the stripe orientation continuously, that the rotation rate and dislocation density peak at the same field, and that difference images reveal dislocations moving along a well-defined diagonal direction, behaving as positive or negative particles. Combining 2D imaging with 3D X-ray magnetic laminography under an in-situ field, they observe an in-plane magnetization 'envelope' that expels Bloch cores toward the surface and propose that this envelope selects which branch of a dislocation breaks, setting the direction of defect motion. A minimal Swift-Hohenberg-type model with an additional field θ for the in-plane magnetization is claimed to reproduce the unidirectional motion and stripe rotation, supporting the universality of the phenomenon.

Significance. The experimental core is significant: it demonstrates deterministic, field-tunable 1D motion of topological defects in a laterally unconfined 2D film, with direct imaging evidence from STXM difference images and local stripe-orientation analysis. The development of in-situ 3D vectorial magnetic imaging with applied fields is a valuable technical advance. The conceptual claim that the 3D magnetic structure (the in-plane envelope) determines the branch-breaking and thus the direction of dislocation motion is mechanistically appealing and partially supported by the 3D data. If the modeling is corrected, the paper would offer a minimal framework applicable to stripe-forming systems beyond magnetism. However, the model as written contains a sign inconsistency that undermines the stated derivation of the dynamics, and the 3D field calibration is not fully verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [V.C, Eq. (3)] The printed θ-dynamics are not the negative gradient flow of the free energy in Eq. (2). For the Zeeman term −(1/2)|∇ψ|²τ·B, the variation with respect to θ gives −(1/2)|∇ψ|²n·B, so relaxation requires ∂tθ = +(1/2)n·B|∇ψ|², whereas Eq. (3) has a minus sign. For the Bloch-type term (γ/2)(τ·∇ψ)², the gradient-flow contribution is −γ(n·∇ψ)(τ·∇ψ), whereas Eq. (3) has a plus sign. The exchange term should also be 2σ∇²θ unless σ is redefined. As written, the numerical results in Fig. 5(f,g) cannot be attributed to minimization of the stated free energy F. The manuscript must correct the signs (and rerun the simulations) or explicitly state that the dynamics are not gradient flow and justify the chosen form. This is load-bearing for the universality claim, though not for the direct imaging evidence, which is independent of the model.
  2. [II and V.B] The in-situ 3D laminography relies on the stackable permanent magnets producing a known, homogeneous field at the sample for all 30 projections. The calibration described in V.B is performed without the sample, and the text does not report verification that the field at the sample is unperturbed by the rotating holder, sample tilt, or the presence of the sample itself. Since the envelope/Bloch-core-expulsion mechanism in Fig. 4 is inferred from a single field value and a single dislocation, the 3D imaging evidence for the proposed branch-breaking mechanism would be strengthened by (i) a direct measurement of the field at the sample position during rotation, and (ii) corroborating observations on additional dislocations or field values. Without this, the 3D mechanism remains plausible but not fully established.
  3. [III, Fig. 5] The claim that the minimal model 'reproduces' the experimental observations is only qualitative. The model parameters are hand-picked, no quantitative comparison is made between the simulated dislocation path angle and the experimentally measured values in Fig. 2(b), and no robustness check is reported for variations of ϵ, γ, σ, or B. While a minimal model need not be fitted, a statement of how the reported parameters were chosen and how sensitive the unidirectional motion is to them would place the universality claim on firmer footing, especially given the sign issue at Eq. (3).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1(f)] The comparison of ∂α/∂B with the number of dislocations lacks error bars and a statistical measure of correlation; since the derivative is computed from discrete field steps, a propagation of uncertainty or a bootstrap estimate would help support the claim that the two quantities peak at the same field.
  2. [V.C, Eq. (3)] Even apart from the sign issue, the exchange-like term in Eq. (3) is written as σ∇²θ, whereas the variation of σ|∇θ|² in Eq. (2) would produce 2σ∇²θ in the gradient-flow equation; the definitions of σ and of the gradient flow should be reconciled.
  3. [III, paragraph 3] The phrase 'the lack perturbations in the system hinders the rotation' should read 'the lack of perturbations in the system hinders the rotation'.
  4. [III, final paragraph] The statement that the simulated difference-image path angle differs from experiment 'may be due to the more complex 3D magnetic configuration' is a reasonable caveat, but providing a quantitative value for the discrepancy would make the comparison informative.
  5. [I, last paragraph] The priority claim that this is 'the first time that such combined motion has been observed following a deterministic well-defined 1D trajectory' is strong and should be tempered or explicitly qualified relative to the deterministic propagation along stripe directions reported in Refs. [15–17].
  6. [Methods V.C] The notation n(θ)=τ(θ)′ is introduced without a coordinate expression; writing n = [−cosθ, −sinθ] would clarify the subsequent variational calculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the imaging and the minimal model are independent, and the Eq. (3) sign flaw is a correctness issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central experimental claim, that magnetic dislocations move unidirectionally along a field-dependent 1D path and mediate continuous stripe rotation, rests on direct STXM difference images (Fig. 2) and on 3D laminographic reconstructions (Fig. 4); these are independent measurements, not outputs of the model. The Swift-Hohenberg/PFC model is a separate phenomenological framework: its parameters (q0=1, epsilon=0.5, kappa=1, gamma=2, sigma=0.1, B=0.5) are hand-picked rather than fitted to the experimental data, and the dislocation displacement fields are standard elasticity solutions. Self-citations ([34,35,36,50,51]) concern measurement methodology and PFC technical background, none of which is load-bearing for the claimed phenomenon. The Zeeman term in Eq. (2) does encode the field direction by construction, but the emergent outputs—1D defect paths, charge-dependent left/right motion, and dislocation-mediated global rotation—are nontrivial dynamical consequences, not restatements of the input. One internal issue should be noted: as printed, the theta-flow in Eq. (3) has both non-diffusive signs opposite to those obtained from -delta F/delta theta of Eq. (2), so the stated gradient-flow derivation is inconsistent; however, this is a correctness/consistency problem, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its inputs, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The model introduces no fitted parameters; all simulation coefficients are hand-picked and the experimental field values are calibrated rather than fit. The central experimental claim is independent of the model. One named structure, the in-plane magnetization envelope, is observed in 3D images but only in a limited field of view, so it carries independent but limited support. The main circularity risk is that the Zeeman-like term in Eq. (2) encodes the symmetry breaking that the model then reproduces.

free parameters (8)
  • epsilon (order parameter scale) = 0.5
    Chosen to represent fully out-of-plane magnetization in the SH model; not fitted to experiment.
  • kappa (stripe stiffness) = 1
    Sets the energy scale of the Swift-Hohenberg stripe term; hand-picked.
  • gamma (Bloch wall coupling) = 2
    Sets the strength of the Bloch-type domain wall term in Eq. (2); hand-picked.
  • sigma (tau gradient penalty) = 0.1
    Controls the stiffness of the in-plane magnetization orientation field; hand-picked.
  • B (model field strength) = 0.5
    Artificial field magnitude in the model; not calibrated to the experimental mT values.
  • q0 (stripe wave number) = 1
    Sets the stripe periodicity; chosen for convenience in the simulations.
  • nu (Poisson ratio) = 1/3
    Used in the elastic dislocation displacement field, Eq. (5); chosen from standard elasticity.
  • b (Burgers vector magnitude) = ±2π
    Selected to seed dislocations in the model; not fitted.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The Swift-Hohenberg free energy and its non-conservative gradient flow are an appropriate phenomenological description of stripe phases.
    This is the backbone of the minimal model in Section III and Methods V.C; it is not derived from micromagnetics in this paper.
  • domain assumption Weak magnetic stripes contain Bloch-type domain walls with in-plane magnetization tangent to the stripe direction.
    Used in Sections I and II, and encoded in the third term of Eq. (2); supported by prior literature and by the 3D images shown here.
  • ad hoc to paper The external magnetic field couples to the in-plane magnetization through the Zeeman-like term -1/2 |∇ψ|² τ·B.
    This term is introduced in Eq. (2) to encode the symmetry breaking; it is physically motivated but not derived from a micromagnetic Hamiltonian, and it is the main mechanism driving the observed model behavior.
  • domain assumption Non-conservative gradient flow dynamics of Eq. (3) represent the quasi-static field-step evolution of the real system.
    The simulations relax to local minima of the free energy; the paper does not model actual magnetization dynamics or field ramp rates.
  • domain assumption X-ray laminography reconstruction provides an accurate 3D vectorial magnetization under the in-situ field.
    The mechanism in Section II relies on this reconstruction; the holder is calibrated without the sample and the field is assumed to follow the sample during rotation.
  • standard math The elastic dislocation displacement field, Eq. (5), describes stripe-pattern dislocations.
    Standard dislocation theory is used to seed dislocations in the model, following refs. [50,51].
invented entities (1)
  • Envelope: a sheet-like rotation of in-plane magnetization passing over and under Bloch cores independent evidence
    purpose: Explains preferential branch breaking and thus the unidirectional motion of dislocations
    The 3D vectorial images show the envelope forming across the right branch of a negative dislocation (Fig. 4g), so it is not purely postulated; however, it is documented primarily in a single field of view.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unidirectional motion of topological defects mediating continuous rotation processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMYZROOY

@misc{pith2026250105112,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unidirectional motion of topological defects mediating continuous rotation processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMYZROOY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05112}
}
read the original abstract

Topological defects play a critical role across many fields, mediating phase transitions and macroscopic behaviors as they move through space. Their role as robust information carriers has also generated much attention. However, controlling their motion remains challenging, especially towards achieving motion along well-defined paths which typically require predefined structural patterning. Here we demonstrate the tunable, unidirectional motion of topological defects, specifically magnetic dislocations in a weak magnetic stripe pattern, induced by external magnetic field in a laterally unconfined thin film. This motion is shown to mediate the overall continuous rotation of the stripe pattern. We determine the connection between the unidirectional motion of dislocations and the underlying three-dimensional (3D) magnetic structure by performing 3D magnetic vectorial imaging with in situ magnetic fields. A minimal model for dislocations in stripe patterns that encodes the symmetry breaking induced by the external magnetic field reproduces the motion of dislocations that facilitate the 2D rotation of the stripes, highlighting the universality of the phenomenon. This work establishes a framework for studying the field-driven behavior of topological textures and designing materials that enable well defined, controlled motion of defects in unconfined systems, paving the way to manipulate information carriers in higher-dimensional systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05112 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetic stripes and dislocations: (a,c,d) The projection of the out-of-plane magnetization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Propagation of the defects with magnetic field: (a) The path taken by the defects can [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 3D vectorial magnetic imaging with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effect of the magnetic field on the 3D magnetic configuration of the stripe domains [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Modeling unidirectional motion and continuous stripe rotation: (a) Stripe pattern de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    N. D. Mermin, The topological theory of defects in ordered media, Reviews of Modern Physics 51, 591 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    J. S. Langer and V. Ambegaokar, Intrinsic resistive transition in narrow superconducting channels, Physical Review 164, 498 (1967)

    work page 1967

  3. [3]

    Anderson, J

    P. Anderson, J. Hirth, and J. Lothe, Theory of Dislocations (Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Harrison, D

    C. Harrison, D. H. Adamson, Z. Cheng, J. M. Sebastian, S. Sethuraman, D. A. Huse, R. A. Register, and P. Chaikin, Mechanisms of ordering in striped patterns, Science 290, 1558 (2000)

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Harrison, Z

    C. Harrison, Z. Cheng, S. Sethuraman, D. A. Huse, P. M. Chaikin, D. A. Vega, J. M. Sebastian, R. A. Register, and D. H. Adamson, Dynamics of pattern coarsening in a two-dimensional smectic system, Physical review E 66, 011706 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Shankar, A

    S. Shankar, A. Souslov, M. J. Bowick, M. C. Marchetti, and V. Vitelli, Topological active matter, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 380 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Ardaˇ seva and A

    A. Ardaˇ seva and A. Doostmohammadi, Topological defects in biological matter, Nature Re- views Physics 4, 354 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    S. S. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Magnetic domain-wall racetrack memory, Science 320, 190 (2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Dussaux, P

    A. Dussaux, P. Sch¨ onherr, K. Koumpouras, J. Chico, K. Chang, L. Lorenzelli, N. Kanazawa, Y. Tokura, M. Garst, A. Bergman, et al., Local dynamics of topological magnetic defects in the itinerant helimagnet fege, Nature Communications 7, 12430 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Y. Jia, Y. Wu, S. Zhao, S. Zuo, K. P. Skokov, O. Gutfleisch, C. Jiang, and H. Xu, L 1 0 rare- earth-free permanent magnets: The effects of twinning versus dislocations in mn-al magnets, Physical Review Materials 4, 094402 (2020). 15

    2020

  3. [11]

    X. Yu, M. Mostovoy, Y. Tokunaga, W. Zhang, K. Kimoto, Y. Matsui, Y. Kaneko, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Magnetic stripes and skyrmions with helicity reversals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 8856 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    K. Raab, M. A. Brems, G. Beneke, T. Dohi, J. Roth¨ orl, F. Kammerbauer, J. H. Mentink, and M. Kl¨ aui, Brownian reservoir computing realized using geometrically confined skyrmion dynamics, Nature Communications 13, 6982 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Litzius, I

    K. Litzius, I. Lemesh, B. Kr¨ uger, P. Bassirian, L. Caretta, K. Richter, F. B¨ uttner, K. Sato, O. A. Tretiakov, J. F¨ orster,et al., Skyrmion hall effect revealed by direct time-resolved x-ray microscopy, Nature Physics 13, 170 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Jiang, X

    W. Jiang, X. Zhang, G. Yu, W. Zhang, X. Wang, M. Benjamin Jungfleisch, J. E. Pearson, X. Cheng, O. Heinonen, K. L. Wang, et al., Direct observation of the skyrmion hall effect, Nature Physics 13, 162 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Hierro-Rodriguez, C

    A. Hierro-Rodriguez, C. Quir´ os, A. Sorrentino, R. Valc´ arcel, I. Est´ ebanez, L. M. Alvarez- Prado, J. I. Mart ´ ın, J. Alameda, E. Pereiro, M. V´ elez,et al., Deterministic propagation of vortex-antivortex pairs in magnetic trilayers, Applied Physics Letters 110 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    V. V. Fern´ andez, A. E. Herguedas-Alonso, J. Hermosa, L. Aballe, A. Sorrentino, R. Valcar- cel, C. Quiros, J. I. Mart ´ ın, E. Pereiro, S. Ferrer, et al., Memory effects on the current in- duced propagation of spin textures in NdCo5 Ni8 Fe2 bilayers, arXiv preprint arXiv:2406...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Z. He, Z. Li, Z. Chen, Z. Wang, J. Shen, S. Wang, C. Song, T. Zhao, J. Cai, S.-Z. Lin, et al., Experimental observation of current-driven antiskyrmion sliding in stripe domains, Nature Materials , 1 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Ohzono and M

    T. Ohzono and M. Shimomura, Defect-mediated stripe reordering in wrinkles upon gradual changes in compression direction, Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics 73, 040601 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    S.-M. Hur, V. Thapar, A. Ram ´ ırez-Hern´ andez, P. F. Nealey, and J. J. de Pablo, Defect anni- hilation pathways in directed assembly of lamellar block copolymer thin films, ACS nano 12, 9974 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Saito, H

    N. Saito, H. Fujiwara, and Y. Sugita, A new type of magnetic domain in thin ni–fe films, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 19, 421 (1964)

    1964

  13. [21]

    Tee Soh, N

    W. Tee Soh, N. N. Phuoc, C. Tan, and C. Ong, Magnetization dynamics in permalloy films with stripe domains, Journal of Applied Physics 114 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Barturen, B

    M. Barturen, B. Rache Salles, P. Schio, J. Milano, A. Butera, S. Bustingorry, C. Ramos, A. De Oliveira, M. Eddrief, E. Lacaze, et al., Crossover to striped magnetic domains in Fe 1−xGax magnetostrictive thin films, Applied Physics Letters 101, 092404 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Barturen, M

    M. Barturen, M. Sacchi, M. Eddrieff, J. Milano, S. Bustingorry, H. Popescu, N. Jaouen, F. Sirotti, and M. Marangolo, Rotatable anisotropy of epitaxial Fe 1−xGax thin films, The European Physical Journal B 86, 1 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    S. S. Lehrer, Rotatable anisotropy in negative magnetostriction ni–fe films, Journal of applied physics 34, 1207 (1963)

    1963

  17. [25]

    Tacchi, S

    S. Tacchi, S. Fin, G. Carlotti, G. Gubbiotti, M. Madami, M. Barturen, M. Marangolo, M. Ed- drief, D. Bisero, A. Rettori, et al., Rotatable magnetic anisotropy in a Fe 0.8Ga0.2 thin film with stripe domains: Dynamics versus statics, Physical Review B 89, 024411 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    S. Fin, R. Tomasello, D. Bisero, M. Marangolo, M. Sacchi, H. Popescu, M. Eddrief, C. Hep- burn, G. Finocchio, M. Carpentieri, et al., In-plane rotation of magnetic stripe domains in Fe1−xGax thin films, Physical Review B 92, 224411 (2015). 16

    2015

  19. [27]

    Co ¨ ısson, G

    M. Co ¨ ısson, G. Barrera, F. Celegato, and P. Tiberto, Rotatable magnetic anisotropy in Fe78Si9B13 thin films displaying stripe domains, Applied Surface Science 476, 402 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    E. S. Leva, R. Valente, F. M. Tabares, M. V. Mansilla, S. Roshdestwensky, and A. Butera, Magnetic domain crossover in fept thin films, Physical Review B 82, 144410 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Hierro-Rodriguez, C

    A. Hierro-Rodriguez, C. Quir´ os, A. Sorrentino, L. M. ´Alvarez-Prado, J. Mart ´ ın, J. M. Alameda, S. McVitie, E. Pereiro, M. Velez, and S. Ferrer, Revealing 3D magnetization of thin films with soft X-ray tomography: magnetic singularities and topological charges, Nature Comm...

    2020

  22. [30]

    Prosen, J

    R. Prosen, J. Holmen, and B. Gran, Rotatable anisotropy in thin permalloy films, Journal of Applied Physics 32, S91 (1961)

    1961

  23. [31]

    Lommel and C

    J. Lommel and C. Graham Jr, Rotatable anisotropy in composite films, Journal of Applied Physics 33, 1160 (1962)

    1962

  24. [32]

    Pamyatnykh, B

    L. Pamyatnykh, B. Filippov, L. Agafonov, and M. Lysov, Motion and interaction of magnetic dislocations in alternating magnetic field, Scientific reports 7, 18084 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    L. Wang, J. Teng, P. Liu, A. Hirata, E. Ma, Z. Zhang, M. Chen, and X. Han, Grain rotation mediated by grain boundary dislocations in nanocrystalline platinum, Nature Communications 5, 4402 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Donnelly, S

    C. Donnelly, S. Finizio, S. Gliga, M. Holler, A. Hrabec, M. Odstrˇ cil, S. Mayr, V. Scagnoli, L. J. Heyderman, M. Guizar-Sicairos, et al., Time-resolved imaging of three-dimensional nanoscale magnetization dynamics, Nature Nanotechnology 15, 356 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Witte, A

    K. Witte, A. Sp¨ ath, S. Finizio, C. Donnelly, B. Watts, B. Sarafimov, M. Odstrcil, M. Guizar- Sicairos, M. Holler, R. H. Fink, et al., From 2D STXM to 3D imaging: soft x-ray laminography of thin specimens, Nano letters 20, 1305 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Donnelly, M

    C. Donnelly, M. Guizar-Sicairos, V. Scagnoli, S. Gliga, M. Holler, J. Raabe, and L. J. Heyder- man, Three-dimensional magnetization structures revealed with x-ray vector nanotomography, Nature 547, 328 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Hierro-Rodriguez, D

    A. Hierro-Rodriguez, D. G¨ ursoy, C. Phatak, C. Quir´ os, A. Sorrentino, L. M. ´Alvarez-Prado, M. V´ elez, J. I. Mart ´ ın, J. M. Alameda, E. Pereiro,et al., 3d reconstruction of magnetization from dichroic soft x-ray transmission tomography, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation 2...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Di Pietro Mart ´ ınez, A

    M. Di Pietro Mart ´ ınez, A. Wartelle, C. Herrero Mart ´ ınez, F. Fettar, F. Blondelle, J.-F. Motte, C. Donnelly, L. Turnbull, F. Ogrin, G. Van Der Laan, et al., Three-dimensional tomographic imaging of the magnetization vector field using fourier transform holography, Physica...

    2023

  31. [39]

    Rana, C.-T

    A. Rana, C.-T. Liao, E. Iacocca, J. Zou, M. Pham, X. Lu, E.-E. C. Subramanian, Y. H. Lo, S. A. Ryan, C. S. Bevis, et al., Three-dimensional topological magnetic monopoles and their interactions in a ferromagnetic meta-lattice, Nature Nanotechnology , 1 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    S. Seki, M. Suzuki, M. Ishibashi, R. Takagi, N. Khanh, Y. Shiota, K. Shibata, W. Koshibae, Y. Tokura, and T. Ono, Direct visualization of the three-dimensional shape of skyrmion strings in a noncentrosymmetric magnet, Nature Materials 21, 181 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Swift and P

    J. Swift and P. C. Hohenberg, Hydrodynamic fluctuations at the convective instability, Phys- ical Review A 15, 319 (1977)

    1977

  34. [42]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Reviews of Modern Physics 49, 435 (1977)

    1977

  35. [43]

    K. R. Elder, M. Katakowski, M. Haataja, and M. Grant, Modeling Elasticity in Crystal Growth, Physical Review Letters 88, 245701 (2002). 17

    2002

  36. [44]

    Emmerich, H

    H. Emmerich, H. L¨ owen, R. Wittkowski, T. Gruhn, G. I. T´ oth, G. Tegze, and L. Gr´ an´ asy, Phase-field-crystal models for condensed matter dynamics on atomic length and diffusive time scales: an overview, Advances in Physics 61, 665 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1080/00018732....

    2012

  37. [45]

    Y. C. Kim, T. J. Shin, S.-M. Hur, S. J. Kwon, and S. Y. Kim, Shear-solvo defect annihilation of diblock copolymer thin films over a large area, Science Advances 5, eaaw3974 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Y. Tian, X. Gong, M. Xu, C. Qiu, Y. Han, Y. Bi, L. V. Estrada, E. Boltynjuk, H. Hahn, J. Han, et al., Grain rotation mechanisms in nanocrystalline materials: Multiscale observations in pt thin films, Science 386, 49 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    N. T. Bechler and J. Masell, Helitronics as a potential building block for classical and uncon- ventional computing, Neuromorphic Computing and Engineering 3, 034003 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Sander, S

    D. Sander, S. O. Valenzuela, D. Makarov, C. Marrows, E. Fullerton, P. Fischer, J. McCord, P. Vavassori, S. Mangin, P. Pirro, et al., The 2017 magnetism roadmap, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50, 363001 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Olejn ´ ık, V

    K. Olejn ´ ık, V. Schuler, X. Mart ´ ı, V. Nov´ ak, Z. Kaˇ spar, P. Wadley, R. P. Campion, K. W. Edmonds, B. L. Gallagher, J. Garc´ es, et al., Antiferromagnetic cumnas multi-level memory cell with microelectronic compatibility, Nature Communications 8, 15434 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Salvalaglio and K

    M. Salvalaglio and K. R. Elder, Coarse-grained modeling of crystals by the amplitude expan- sion of the phase-field crystal model: an overview, Model. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 30, 053001 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Benoit-Mar´ echal and M

    L. Benoit-Mar´ echal and M. Salvalaglio, Gradient elasticity in swift–hohenberg and phase-field crystal models, Modelling and Simulation in Materials Science and Engineering 32, 055005 (2024). 18

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.