Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 41 references

The dipolar Aleppo lattice: Ground state ordering and ergodic dynamics in the absence of vertex frustration

T0 review · 4 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 The dipolar Aleppo lattice, a decimated square ice geometry without vertex frustration, orders into long-range Type I/Type A ground states and relaxes ergodically, confirming that vertex frustration drives ergodicity-breaking dynamics.

desk verdict New decimated square-ice geometry with clean ordering and ergodic dynamics; the central claim is plausible, but the ground-state interpretation rests on an unverified equilibration assumption and the dynamics analysis is quantitatively thin. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03375 v2 pith:2QQOB6AO submitted 2025-01-06 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech

Gopi Mahato , Davis Crater , Christian Hoyt , Duncan Miertschin , Balaram Regmi , Kevin Hofhuis , Scott Dhuey , Barat Achinuq
show 2 more authors
Francesco Caravelli Alan Farhan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mech
keywords artificialspinicedipolarAleppolatticevertexfrustrationgroundstateorderingergodicityThirumalai-MountainmetricXMCDimagingthermalannealing
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

This paper introduces the dipolar Aleppo lattice, a nanomagnet array built from a square grid with a periodic subset of magnets removed, which is geometrically similar to previously studied 'vertex-frustrated' spin ice systems but lacks the topological competition between vertex types that those systems exhibit. Using X-ray magnetic circular dichroism imaging, the authors show that after three weeks of room-temperature annealing the lattice settles into long-range ordered patterns dominated by the low-energy Type I vertices at four-magnet sites and Type A vertices at three-magnet sites. They then track moment fluctuations from 210 K to 260 K and find that a fluctuation metric decays smoothly with time at every temperature, the signature of ergodic, diffusive relaxation. The paper's claim is that the absence of vertex frustration is what makes this conventional ordering and dynamics possible, thereby confirming that vertex frustration, not just geometric complexity, drives the ergodicity-breaking behavior seen in related lattices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Aleppo lattice geometry: a periodic arrangement of four-, three-, and two-nanomagnet vertices with L-shaped plaquettes linked through squares. The geometry makes the lowest-energy vertex types at each site mutually compatible, so Type I at four-nanomagnet vertices and Type A at three-nanomagnet vertices can tile the lattice into long-range order. The dynamics are quantified by the Thirumalai-Mountain (TM) metric, a time-averaged variance over the system's degrees of freedom whose monotonic decay is read as the signature of ergodic, diffusive relaxation; directional variants of the metric isolate relaxation along the two principal lattice axes.

What would settle it

A micromagnetic or dipolar computation of the ground state for the Aleppo lattice parameters would settle it: if a configuration with substantially lower energy than the observed Type I/Type A pattern exists, then the annealed state is not the ground state and the absence-of-frustration claim loses its footing. Alternatively, annealing identical samples for different durations and observing whether vertex populations keep evolving would test whether equilibrium is actually reached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a decimated square ice geometry with a periodic mixture of four-, three-, and two-nanomagnet vertices can be constructed without vertex frustration, and that this geometry settles into a long-range-ordered ground state. After room-temperature annealing, the four-nanomagnet vertices are overwhelmingly Type I and the three-nanomagnet vertices are overwhelmingly Type A, and these two vertex types combine into extended ordered tiles; the order is strongest at smaller lattice parameters where dipolar coupling is stronger, and weakens as the lattice parameter grows. Temperature-dependent imaging shows no sign of freezing: the Thirumalai-Mountain stress metric decays over time at all temperatures studied, with a relaxation exponent that decreases with increasing temperature, and staggered versions of the metric reveal anisotropic relaxation along the lattice axes. The authors conclude that this ergodic, diffusive behavior, contrasted with the non-ergodic dynamics of vertex-frustrated lattices, confirms that vertex frustration is a key criterion for ergodicity transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The three-week room-temperature anneal is assumed to bring the nanomagnet array to its true low-energy ground state, so the observed Type I/Type A patterns are an equilibrium state rather than a long-lived metastable configuration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Aleppo lattice provides a direct control sample for isolating the effect of vertex frustration in artificial spin ice: systems that differ only by that frustration can now be compared within the same experimental protocol.
  • The observed dominance of Type I and Type A vertices after annealing gives a clear observable fingerprint for evaluating whether a given decimated square ice geometry is free of vertex frustration.
  • Because the lattice parameter tunes the dipolar coupling, the measured crossover from ordered to disordered states with increasing lattice parameter maps part of the ground-state stability boundary.
  • The power-law decay of the TM metric with a temperature-dependent exponent offers a quantitative benchmark that future models of relaxation in non-frustrated spin ice should reproduce.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An untested corollary is that gradually reintroducing vertex frustration into the Aleppo geometry, for instance by rotating a subset of islands, should interpolate between the ergodic behavior seen here and the non-ergodic dynamics of frustrated lattices; measuring such a series would directly test the proposed causal link.
  • The decrease of the relaxation exponent alpha with increasing temperature suggests that at even higher temperatures the dynamics should approach free-spin behavior; extending the measurements beyond 260 K could check whether this trend continues or saturates.
  • The long-range order observed in a finite array may be a precursor to a true thermodynamic phase transition in the infinite-size limit, but the present samples cannot distinguish that from a mosaic of large ordered domains; simulations of larger arrays could clarify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the dipolar Aleppo lattice, a decimated square ice geometry containing four-, three-, and two-nanomagnet vertices, and reports XMCD imaging of configurations after three weeks of room-temperature annealing and during temperature-dependent fluctuations. The authors find dominance of Type I and Type A vertices, long-range antiferromagnetic-type spin correlations, and a decaying Thirumalai-Mountain metric at all studied temperatures, which they interpret as evidence for an ordered ground state, absence of vertex frustration, and ergodic/diffusive relaxation. They contrast this behavior with the non-ergodic dynamics reported for the vertex-frustrated Apamea lattice and conclude that vertex frustration is an important criterion for the emergence of ergodicity transitions.

Significance. If the ground-state and ergodicity claims hold, the Aleppo lattice is a valuable control geometry: it shares the coexistence of four- and three-nanomagnet vertices with vertex-frustrated systems but is argued to lack the topological competition, providing a direct experimental test of the role of vertex frustration in ergodicity breaking. The paper's strengths are the direct XMCD visualization of individual moments, the introduction of a new lattice geometry, and the use of established annealing and TM-metric analysis tools. The main risk is that the central interpretation rests on an unverified equilibration assumption and on quantitative comparisons without reported uncertainties.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III.A] The identification of the annealed configurations with ground states is load-bearing but rests solely on the assumption that three weeks at room temperature equilibrated the array. No energy minimization, simulated-annealing comparison, cooling-rate dependence, or initialization dependence is reported, so the observed Type I/Type A order could in principle be an ordered metastable state. Please add an independent thermodynamic check, for example a comparison of the measured vertex populations with the ground-state populations of a point-dipole model, or evidence that different thermal histories converge to the same configurations.
  2. [Section III.B, Figs. 3 and 4] The quantitative statements that Type I populations 'dominate and remain robust' and that spin correlations extend periodically over long distances are not supported by error bars or statistical uncertainties. Please report the number of vertices analyzed, the number of XMCD frames averaged, and standard deviations or confidence intervals for each population and correlation value. Without these, the claimed robustness to temperature cannot be assessed.
  3. [Section III.C, Eq. (4), Figs. 5 and 6] The power-law fits used to support the ergodic/diffusive conclusion are undocumented: fit ranges, uncertainties in alpha, and goodness-of-fit are missing, and the angular thresholds that define the staggered TM metrics are never specified. Please provide these details, or the central quantitative claim that alpha decreases with increasing temperature is not testable.
  4. [Section III.A and Conclusions] The inference from Type I/Type A dominance to the 'absence of vertex frustration' is not logically entailed; a vertex-frustrated lattice could in principle also be dominated by its low-energy vertex types. Because the broader claim is that vertex frustration controls ergodicity, the manuscript should state a falsifiable criterion for the absence of frustration and, ideally, include a quantitative side-by-side comparison with the Apamea lattice under matched lattice parameters and analysis protocols rather than a qualitative contrast with Ref. [17].
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.B] The blocking temperature is given as 210 K in Section II.A and as 'around 200 K' in Section III.B; please make these values consistent.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states a = 660 nm, while Section II.A lists patterned lattice parameters of 500, 550, 600, and 650 nm; please check the actual value.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption writes Omega(t) approximately t^alpha, but the text and Eq. (4) describe a power-law decay t^{-alpha}; the minus sign should be included.
  4. [Section headings] The headings 'F abrication' and 'RESUL TS' contain spacing or typing errors, and 'T emperature' appears in the text; these should be corrected.
  5. [Section III.B] The correlation measure C is defined only verbally as 'minimize' or 'maximize dipolar interactions'; please state the exact assignment rule or cite the precise algorithm used to produce Fig. 4.
  6. [Throughout] The terms 'stress metric' and 'TM fluctuating metric' are used interchangeably; please standardize the terminology to match Eqs. (1)-(3) and Refs. [38,39].

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ground-state and ergodicity claims rest on direct XMCD measurements and standard diagnostics, with the only overlapping-author citation being independent comparative evidence.

full rationale

The paper's core results are direct experimental observations, not outputs of a fitted model. The ground-state ordering claim is based on XMCD imaging of annealed arrays, with vertex populations and spin-spin correlations read off the images; no parameter is fitted to produce these populations. The only fit, the power-law exponent alpha in Eq. (4), is a descriptive characterization of the measured TM-metric decay and is not used to generate the claimed low-energy configurations. The ergodicity conclusion is drawn from the time decay of the Thirumalai-Mountain metric, a standard diagnostic, and the decay curves are raw data products. The comparison to the Apamea lattice relies on Ref. [17], which shares authors with the present paper, but that reference is an independent experimental study of a different lattice, externally falsifiable and not an input to the present analysis; per the review rules it is real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. The statement that the Aleppo lattice 'lacks vertex frustration' appears both as a design hypothesis and as a conclusion from the observed Type-I/Type-A ordering, but this is an inductive confirmation of a geometric hypothesis rather than a definitional reduction: vertex frustration is defined by topological competition of vertex ordering patterns, not by the measured vertex population itself. The annealing-based identification of low-energy states rests on an equilibration assumption that is plausible but unverified; that is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces a new lattice geometry but no new physical entities. The analysis introduces one fitted parameter (alpha) and one unspecified analysis threshold. The central interpretive steps rest on standard micromagnetic assumptions, the equilibration assumption for annealing, the TM metric as an ergodicity probe, and the validity of the prior Apamea study as a control.

free parameters (2)
  • Relaxation exponent alpha = Decreases with temperature from about 0.9 to 0.5 over 210 K to 260 K (Fig. 6, approximate values)
    Fit of the TM metric Omega(t) to a power law t^{-alpha} in Eq. (4), used to characterize relaxation dynamics; no uncertainty is reported.
  • Angular threshold for x/y staggered TM metric = Not specified
    The staggered metrics Omega_x and Omega_y restrict summation to moments within angular thresholds (Section III.C); the threshold values are never stated, making the directional decomposition non-reproducible.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ising-like single-domain nanomagnets with dipolar interactions
    Used throughout; the fabricated 400x100x2.7 nm permalloy islands are assumed to behave as Ising spins with magnetostatic interactions, as is standard in artificial spin ice.
  • domain assumption Three weeks of room-temperature annealing equilibrates the system to low-energy states
    Section III.A: 'the sample was kept at room temperature for more than three weeks... This allows for frozen magnetic moment configurations to be imaged after the three-weeks-long annealing.' The identification of observed states as ground states depends on this equilibration.
  • domain assumption Decay of the Thirumalai-Mountain metric indicates ergodic convergence
    Section III.C: 'A consistent Omega(t_k) decline is observed across all temperatures, indicating ergodic convergence as the system approaches equilibrium.' The inference from Omega decay to ergodicity is an established but non-trivial criterion.
  • domain assumption The Apamea lattice (ref 17) serves as a valid control for the dynamics comparison
    Section III.C and Conclusions compare Aleppo dynamics to the vertex-frustrated Apamea lattice from prior work, assuming the only relevant difference is vertex frustration; this is not tested in the present experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The dipolar Aleppo lattice: Ground state ordering and ergodic dynamics in the absence of vertex frustration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QQOB6AO

@misc{pith2026250103375,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The dipolar Aleppo lattice: Ground state ordering and ergodic dynamics in the absence of vertex frustration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QQOB6AO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03375}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce the Aleppo spin ice geometry, another variation of decimated square ice patterns, which in contrast to similar systems previously studied, does not exhibit vertex frustration. Using synchrotron-based photoemission electron microscopy, we directly visualize low-energy states achieved after thermal annealing, in addition to temperature-dependent moment fluctuations. The results reveal the observation of ground state patterns and the absence of ergodicity-breaking dynamics. Our observations further confirm vertex frustration to be an important criterion for the emergence of ergodicity transitions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03375 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Dipolar Aleppo lattice consisting of a mixture of four- and three-nanomagnet vertices (highlighted with red and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. XMCD images of low-energy states achieved in the dipolar Aleppo lattices with lattice parameters (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Spin-spin correlations plotted as a function of dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Four-nanomagnet vertex type populations plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Exponent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. TM stress metric decay as a function of time in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Saccone, F

    M. Saccone, F. Caravelli, K. Hofhuis, S. Dhuey, A. Scholl, C. Nisoli, and A. Farhan, Nature Communica- tions 14, 5674 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    S. H. Skjærvø, C. H. Marrows, R. L. Stamps, and L. J. Heyderman, Nature Reviews Physics 2¯, 13 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Perrin, B

    Y. Perrin, B. Canals, and N. Rougemaille, Nature 540, 410–413 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Farhan, M

    A. Farhan, M. Saccone, C. F Petersen, S. Dhuey, R. V Chopdekar, Y.-L. Huang, N. Kent, Z. Chen, M. J Alava, T. Lippert, A. Scholl, S. Van Dijken, Science Advances 5, eaav638 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [4]

    Ladak, D

    S. Ladak, D. E. Read, G. K. Perkins, L. F. Cohen, and W. R. Branford, Nature Physics 6, 359–363 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [5]

    ¨Ostman, H

    E. ¨Ostman, H. Stopfel, I.-A. Chioar, U. B. Arnalds, A. Stein, V. Kapaklis, and B. Hj¨ orvarsson, Nature Physics 14, 375–379 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [6]

    Farhan, M

    A. Farhan, M. Saccone, C. F. Petersen, S. Dhuey, K. Hofhuis, R. Mansell, R. V. Chopdekar, A. Scholl, T. Lip- pert, and S. van Dijken, Physical Review Letters 125, 267203 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [7]

    Saccone, K

    M. Saccone, K. Hofhuis, D. Bracher, A. Kleibert, S. van Dijken, and A. Farhan, Nanoscale 12, 189-194 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    Saccone, F

    M. Saccone, F. Caravelli, K. Hofhuis, S. Parchenko, Y. A. Birkh¨ olzer, S. Dhuey, A. Kleibert, S. van Dijken, C. Nisoli, and A. Farhan, Nature Physics 18, 517–521 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Hofhuis, S

    K. Hofhuis, S. H. Skjærvø, S. Parchenko, H. Arava, Z. Luo, A. Kleibert, P. M. Derlet, and L. J. Heyderman, Nature Physics 18, 699–705 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Sch´ anilec, B

    V. Sch´ anilec, B. Canals, V. Uhl ´ ıˇ r, L. Flajˇ sman, J. Sad ´ ılek, T.ˇSikola, and N. Rougemaille, Physical Review Letters 125, 057203 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    N. Leo, S. Holenstein, D. Schildknecht, O. Sendetskyi, H. Luetkens, P. M. Derlet, V.Scagnoli, D. Lan¸ con, J. R. L. Mardegan, T. Prokscha, A. Suter, Z. Salman, S. Lee, L. J. Heyderman, Nature Communications 9, 2850 (2018). 7

    2018

  5. [12]

    Gliga, E

    S. Gliga, E. Iacocca, and O. G. Heinonen, APL Materials 8, 040911 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Iacocca, S

    E. Iacocca, S. Gliga, and O. G. Heinonen, Physical Re- view Applied 13, 044047 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    M. B. Jungfleisch, W. Zhang, E. Iacocca, J. Sklenar, J. Ding, W. Jiang, S. Zhang, J. E. Pearson, V. Novosad, J. B. Ketterson, O. Heinonen, and A. Hoffmann, Physical Review B 93, 100401(R) (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Gilbert, G.-W

    I. Gilbert, G.-W. Chern, S. Zhang, L. O’Brien, B. Fore, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Nature Physics 10, 670–675 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Gilbert, Y

    I. Gilbert, Y. Lao, I. Carrasquillo, L. O’Brien, J. D. Watts, M. Manno, C. Leighton, A. Scholl, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Nature Physics 12, 162–165 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Y. Lao, F. Caravelli, M. Sheikh, J. Sklenar, D. Gardeaz- abal, J. D. Watts, A. M. Albrecht, A. Scholl, K. Dahmen, C. Nisoli, P. Schiffer, Nature Physics 14, 7 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Zhang, G

    X. Zhang, G. Fitez, S. Subzwari, N. S. Bingham, I.-A. Chioar, H. Saglam, J. Ramberger, C. Leighton, C. Nisoli, and P. Schiffer, Science 380, 526-531 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Stopfel, E

    H. Stopfel, E. ¨Ostman, I.-A. Chioar, D. Greving, U. B. Arnalds, T. P. A. Hase, A. Stein, B. Hj¨ orvarsson, and V. Kapaklis, Physical Review B 98, 014435 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Saccone, K

    M. Saccone, K. Hofhuis, Y.-L. Huang, S. Dhuey, Z. Chen, A. Scholl, R. V. Chopdekar, S. Van Dijken, and A. Farhan, Physical Review Materials 3, 104402 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Arava, P

    H. Arava, P. M. Derlet, J. Vijayakumar, J. Cui, N. S. Bingham, A. Kleibert, L. J. Heyderman, Nanotechnol- ogy 29, 265205 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Gypens et al

    P. Gypens et al. Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 034004 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Caravelli, C

    F. Caravelli, C. Nisoli, New Journal Physics 22, 103052 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    J. H. Jensen, G. Tufte, Proceedings of the ALIFE 2020: The 2020 Conference on Artificial Life, pp. 376-383 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    J. C. Gartside, K. D. Stenning, A. Vanstone, H. H. Holder, D. M. Arroo, T. Dion, F. Caravelli, H. Kure- bayashi, W. R. Branford, Nature Nanotechnology 17, 460–469 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. D. Stenning, J. C. Gartside, L. Manneschi, C. T. S. Cheung, T. Chen, A. Vanstone, J. Love, H. Holder, F. Caravelli, H. Kurebayashi, K. Everschor-Sitte, E. Vasi- laki, W. R. Branford, Nature Communications 15, 7377 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Saccone, J

    M. Saccone, J. C. Gartside, K. D. Stenning, Will R. Branford, F. Caravelli, Physics of Fluids 35, 017101 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Caravelli, E

    F. Caravelli, E. Iacocca, G.-W. Chern, C. Nisoli, Clodoaldo I. L. de Araujo Communications Physics 5,166 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    W. Hu, Z. Zhang, Y. Liao, Q. Li, Y. Shi, H. Zhang, X. Zhang, C. Niu, Y. Wu, W. Yu, X. Zhou, H. Guo, W. Wang, J. Xiao, L. Yin, Q. Liu, J. Shen Nature Commu- nications 14, 2562 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    M. J. Morrison, T. R. Nelson, and C. Nisoli, New Journal of Physics 15, 045009 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Crater, A

    D. Crater, A. C. L¨ atti, M. Saccone, K. Hofhuis, D. Miertschin, B. Regmi, B. Achinuq, A. Kleibert, C. F. Petersen, and A. Farhan, Physical Review Research 6 L042064 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Farhan, P

    A. Farhan, P. M. Derlet, A. Kleibert, A. Balan, R. V. Chopdekar, M. Wyss, L. Anghinolfi, F. Nolting, and L. J. Heyderman, Nature Physics 9, 375–382 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Farhan, C

    A. Farhan, C. F. Petersen, S. Dhuey, L. Anghinolfi, Q.- H. Qin, M. Saccone, S. Velten, C. Wuth, S. Gliga, P. Mellado, M. J. Alava, A. Scholl, and S. van Dijken, Na- ture Communications 8, 995 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Doran, M

    A. Doran, M. Church, T. Miller, G. Morrison, A. T. Young, A. Scholl, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena 185, 340-346 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    St¨ ohr, Y

    J. St¨ ohr, Y. Wu, B. D. Hermeister, M. G. Samant, G. R. Harp, S. Koranda, D. Dunham, and B. P. Tonner, Science 259, 658-661 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    Farhan, P

    A. Farhan, P. M. Derlet, A. Kleibert, A. Balan, R. V. Chopdekar, M. Wyss, J. Perron, A. Scholl, and F. Nolting, L. J. Heyderman, Physical Review Letters 111, 057204 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    Baccetti, R

    V. Baccetti, R. Zhu, Z. Kuncic, F. Caravelli, Nano Ex- press 5, 015021 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    R. D. Mountain, D. Thirumalai, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 192, 543-549 (1993)

    1993

  32. [40]

    Supplementary Movie 1 and Supplementary Movie 2 show XMCD image sequences recorded at 220 K and 250 K, respectively

  33. [41]

    S¨ uzen, Effective ergodicity in single-spin-flip dynam- ics, Physical Review E 90, 032141 (2014)

    M. S¨ uzen, Effective ergodicity in single-spin-flip dynam- ics, Physical Review E 90, 032141 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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