Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Decoding magnetic texture

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A single magneto-optical image of magnetic maze domains can reconstruct field, temperature, and magnetic history at once.

desk verdict Clean experimental demo that one quantitative Bi:YIG maze map encodes field, temperature, and hysteresis branch, recovered by both CNN and interpretable features with quantified residuals. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07685 v1 pith:DTPYMSNQ submitted 2026-07-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Michael P. Path , Jeffrey McCord , Michael Vogel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.70.Kw78.20.Ls07.05.Mh75.60.Ch
keywords magnetictexturesdomainsmagneto-opticsmachinelearningdeepperpendicularanisotropymultiparametricsensingBi:YIG
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 domain patterns are not just pretty pictures of magnetization. They are fingerprints of the energy landscape that formed them: applied field, temperature, and the path the material took through its hysteresis loop all leave distinct morphological marks. The authors show that a single quantitative polarization map of maze domains in a high-contrast Bi:YIG film contains enough information to recover all three parameters simultaneously. They do this both with a convolutional network that reads the full image and with a simpler network fed only twenty hand-crafted, physically interpretable features such as domain period, endpoint counts, and magneto-optical contrast. On held-out data the convolutional model reaches roughly 3.8 µT and 0.12 K residual accuracy while perfectly classifying the history branch. The feature-based model is only modestly worse, proving that most of the usable signal is already carried by a few measurable morphological quantities. The result turns magnetic texture into a multiparametric sensor and supplies a concrete list of which domain properties encode which external conditions.

What carries the argument

Dual inference pipeline: a seven-layer CNN operating on tiled, augmented polarization maps, paired with a multilayer perceptron that receives a 20-dimensional hand-crafted feature vector (mean and variance of magneto-optical rotation, Fourier-derived domain period, endpoint and branch counts of positive and negative domains, fractal dimension, Sobel gradients, etc.). The feature vector both enables accurate regression and identifies which morphological descriptors carry field, temperature, and history information.

What would settle it

Train and test the same CNN and feature-vector models on an independent set of quantitative domain images taken from a different PMA film (different composition, thickness, or defect density) under the same field and temperature ranges; if residual field and temperature errors rise by more than a factor of a few and history classification fails, the claimed generality of the fingerprint collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A single fine-scale, high-contrast magneto-optical polarization map of maze domains in epitaxial Bi:YIG encodes magnetic field, temperature, and hysteresis-branch history so completely that both a convolutional neural network and a 20-feature multilayer perceptron can reconstruct all three parameters from that one image, with the CNN reaching µ₀ΔH ≈ 3.8 µT and ΔT ≈ 0.12 K residual accuracy and perfect history classification.

Load-bearing premise

The high information density and the learned mappings demonstrated on this single low-defect commercial Bi:YIG film under quasi-static laboratory conditions will transfer to other materials, defect densities, or dynamic states without large loss of accuracy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Magnetic domain images become single-shot multiparametric sensors for simultaneous field, temperature, and magnetic history.
  • Hand-crafted descriptors already capture most of the usable signal, so lighter, interpretable models can replace black-box networks for many sensing tasks.
  • Endpoint density of one polarity relative to domain period encodes hysteresis branch even when average magnetization is identical.
  • Normalized residual sensitivities reach ~1.9 µT Hz^{-1/2} and ~0.06 K Hz^{-1/2}, competitive with dedicated multiparametric magneto-optical methods while adding history readout.
  • The same framework can be expanded to recover additional material parameters once they are varied systematically in the training data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the CNN residual is only modestly better than the feature vector, further gains may come more from richer physics-informed features than from deeper networks.
  • The observed decrease of normalized endpoint density with temperature suggests domain patterns become more crystalline at higher T; that entropy measure itself could become a diagnostic for anisotropy temperature dependence.
  • If history can be read so cleanly, multi-step field protocols should allow reconstruction of a coarser magnetic timeline rather than only the last branch.
  • The method supplies a practical benchmark dataset for testing whether inverse-inference networks trained on simulated Turing-type patterns transfer to real magnetic images.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript demonstrates that a single quantitative magneto-optical polarization map of maze domains in an epitaxial Bi:YIG film with perpendicular anisotropy encodes sufficient information to reconstruct applied out-of-plane field, temperature, and magnetic-history branch. Using a Stokes-polarization camera, the authors acquire 11 372 high-contrast maps over µ0H ∈ [−1, +1] mT and T ∈ [21, 72] °C on both branches of the hysteresis loop. Two complementary inference routes are trained: a 20-dimensional hand-crafted feature vector (mean and higher moments of βM, Fourier domain period, skeletonized endpoint/branch counts, etc.) fed to a multilayer perceptron, and a seven-layer CNN operating on tiled, augmented maps. On a held-out 10 % validation set both models achieve near-zero systematic bias, with CNN residuals µ0∆H ≈ 3.8 µT and ∆T ≈ 0.12 K and perfect history classification; the feature-vector model is only modestly worse. Learning curves versus training-set size and physical interpretation of the most informative descriptors (contrast, period, endpoint density) are provided.

Significance. If the reported residuals hold, the work supplies a carefully controlled experimental demonstration that magnetic domain morphology functions as a high-fidelity, multiparametric record of field, temperature and history. The dual CNN / physically interpretable feature-vector approach is a clear strength: it both quantifies the information content and links the decoded parameters to concrete material-dependent quantities (Ms(T), domain-wall energy balance, nucleation topology). The large, quantitative experimental dataset, residual plots with bias and RMS, and learning curves versus dataset size meet a high standard of reproducibility for the stated system. Within the scope of quasi-static, low-defect Bi:YIG the result is solid and opens a concrete route for single-image multiparametric magneto-optical sensing and data-driven studies of domain formation.

major comments (2)
  1. Discussion / Conclusion: the central claim is demonstrated on a single commercial epitaxial Bi:YIG MOIF under quasi-static laboratory conditions. While the manuscript correctly labels multi-material and dynamic generalization as future work, the abstract and final paragraph still frame the result as establishing magnetic texture as a general high-fidelity record. A short, explicit statement of the single-sample / single-material scope (and the consequent need for re-training) should be added so that the claim strength matches the evidence.
  2. §2.2 and Supporting Information (feature definitions): morphological descriptors (N±,ends, N±,branches, fractal dimension, etc.) rely on binarization and skeletonization whose thresholds are not stated. Because these features are used both for inference and for the physical interpretation of history encoding, the precise thresholding procedure (or a sensitivity analysis) must be reported so that the endpoint-density argument can be reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 3 caption and text: residual units are given as µ0∆H and ∆T; a brief note that the shaded bands are RMS (not standard error of the mean) would avoid ambiguity.
  2. Methods (Computing): training times and hardware are useful, but the exact tile size used for the CNN and the random-seed / split protocol for the 90/10 partition are not stated; adding them would improve reproducibility.
  3. Supporting Information feature list: several figures are labeled “Fig. S4” twice (aspect-ratio block); renumber for clarity.
  4. Introduction: the comparison “more than one order of magnitude” improvement over prior ML domain studies is asserted without a tabulated relative-error baseline; a short table or explicit citation of the numbers used would strengthen the claim.
  5. Abstract / keywords: “magnetic history” is central yet not listed among the keywords; consider adding it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: supervised regression from images/features to independently controlled labels; descriptors are standard image statistics, not defined from the targets.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental demonstration of multiparametric inference: quantitative magneto-optical polarization maps (or a 20-dimensional hand-crafted feature vector extracted from them) are mapped by a CNN or MLP to applied field, temperature, and magnetic-history branch. The labels are set by independent laboratory control (Helmholtz coil current source for µ0H, PID-controlled heater and thermistor for T, and explicit saturation protocol for history branch) and are not computed from the same images used as network inputs. Training is ordinary supervised MSE regression on a 90/10 train/validation split of 11,372 measured maps; residuals (Figs. 3–4) are therefore empirical performance metrics, not tautologies. The hand-crafted descriptors (mean and std of βM, Fourier domain period P, skeleton endpoint/branch counts, etc.) are standard image-processing quantities whose definitions do not involve the target residuals. Self-citations to the authors' prior MOIF sensing work supply experimental context and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems that force the present result. No fitted parameter is renamed a 'prediction,' no ansatz is smuggled in via citation, and no derivation reduces by construction to its inputs. Score 0 is therefore the correct outcome.

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

The central claim is an empirical supervised-learning result on one material system. It rests on standard domain-physics assumptions (PMA maze domains, Faraday rotation proportional to Mz, temperature dependence of Ms and wall energy) and on the experimental controllability of field, temperature, and history. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are ordinary ML hyperparameters and the usual material constants of the commercial film.

free parameters (4)
  • CNN learning rate / schedule (4e-6, gamma 0.65, step 4)
    Chosen for training stability; affects final residual but is not claimed as a physical constant.
  • MLP learning rate / weight decay / dropout
    Standard regularization hyperparameters for the 9-layer feature network.
  • Number of convolutional channels / pooling stages / tile size
    Architecture choices that determine capacity; not derived from first principles.
  • Binarization / skeletonization thresholds for morphological features
    Implicit preprocessing parameters that convert continuous βM maps into endpoint and branch counts.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Magneto-optical polarization rotation βM after reflection is proportional to the local out-of-plane magnetization component Mz.
    Standard Faraday/Kerr relation used throughout; stated in Introduction and Methods.
  • domain assumption Domain period is set by the balance of domain-wall energy (exchange + anisotropy) and demagnetizing energy, both temperature-dependent.
    Classic Kittel/Kooy–Enz scaling invoked to interpret P(T) (Introduction, Results 2.2).
  • domain assumption Stochastic nucleation plus hysteresis produces history-dependent topology (endpoint density) even at fixed average magnetization.
    Used to justify that history is encoded in morphology (Fig. 1, Fig. 2d,h).
  • ad hoc to paper Train/validation split of the 11 372 maps is representative; no strong sample-to-sample or day-to-day drift beyond the reported residuals.
    Implicit statistical assumption of the supervised experiment; not independently validated on a second film.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding magnetic texture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DTPYMSNQ

@misc{pith2026260707685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding magnetic texture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DTPYMSNQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07685}
}
read the original abstract

In magnetically ordered materials, magnetic field and temperature variations modify the magnetic texture through their coupling to the local energy landscape, imprinting distinct fingerprints in the resulting magnetic domain patterns. Retrieving these conditions from the pattern remains challenging, as stochastic nucleation and hysteresis produce a nonlinear, multivariate, and ambiguous relationship between magnetic domain morphology and external stimuli. To decode these fingerprints, we designed a controlled magneto-optical inference experiment that reconstructs magnetic field, temperature, and magnetic history from a single fine-scale, high-contrast, pixel-resolved optical polarization map of feature-rich magnetic domain textures in a bismuth-substituted yttrium iron garnet film. Deep convolutional neural networks are complemented by feature-based neural-network inference using hand-crafted, physically interpretable descriptors of measured magneto-optical image data, linking the decoded information to material-dependent features and exploring their contributions. Together, these results establish magnetic texture as a high-fidelity record of external conditions enabling accurate single image multiparametric sensing and paving the way for data-driven explorations of complex magnetic states. Uncovering the physically interpretable features that encode this record sheds new light on the physics of magnetic domain formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07685 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Magnetic hysteresis and domain pattern. (a) Magneto-optical rotation βM to applied out￾of-plane field µ0H showing the magnetization loop of the Bi:YIG sample at 25°C. The history is differentiated by the ascending (+) and descending (−) branch of the hysteresis. (b) Schematic domain structure with indicated domain period P, an endpoint of a domain with positive magnetization (+, end) and a branching point of a domai… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Selected feature vector. Exemplary extracted features from quantitative polarization maps to either (a)-(d) applied magnetic field or to (e)-(h) set temperature. (a),(e) Mean magneto-optical rotation 𝛽M ̅̅̅̅ proportional to the z-component of magnetization. (b),(f) Standard deviation or contrast within the map √〈𝛽M〉 2 of the magneto-optical rotation. (c),(g) Dominant domain period P of the magnetic maze domains. (d)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inference residuals to physical parameters. (a) Residual magnetic field prediction µ0ΔH as a function of the applied field µ0H for the machine learning models based on the global feature vector (FV) and on the full spatial magneto-optical map using a convolutional neural network (CNN). Solid lines represent the mean residual (systematic bias) while shaded regions indicate the root-mean-square accuracy. (b) Equivalen… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Inference residuals to training data. (a) Average residual magnetic field prediction Δµ0H to number of used training maps based on the global FV and using full maps (CNN). (b) Equivalent residual plot for the temperature T. (c) Average residual of the history regressio…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Theory of the Structure of Ferromagnetic Domains in Films and Small Particles,

    C. Kittel, “Theory of the Structure of Ferromagnetic Domains in Films and Small Particles,” Physical Review 70, no. 11 (1946): 965–971. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.70.965

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.70.965 1946

  2. [2]

    Liquid phase epitaxy (LPE) grown Bi, Ga, Al substituted iron garnets with huge Faraday rotation for magneto-optic applications,

    P. Görnert, T. Aichele, A. Lorenz, R. Hergt, and J. Taubert “Liquid phase epitaxy (LPE) grown Bi, Ga, Al substituted iron garnets with huge Faraday rotation for magneto-optic applications,” physica status solidi (a) 201, no. 7 (2004): 1398–1402. https://doi.org/10.1002/pssa.200304410

    work page doi:10.1002/pssa.200304410 2004

  3. [3]

    Hubert, and R

    A. Hubert, and R. Schäfer 1998. Magnetic Domains: The Analysis of Magnetic Microstructures, Third Ed., Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-64108-7

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Experimental and theoretical study of the domain configuration in thin layers of BaFe12O19,

    C. Kooy, and U. Enz, “Experimental and theoretical study of the domain configuration in thin layers of BaFe12O19,” Philips Research Reports 15, no. 7 (1960): 7–29

    work page 1960

  5. [5]

    Physical Theory of Ferromagnetic Domains,

    C. Kittel, “Physical Theory of Ferromagnetic Domains,” Reviews of Modern Physics 21, no. 4 (1949): 541. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.21.541

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.21.541 1949

  6. [6]

    L. D. Landau and D. Ter-Haar 1965. Collected Papers of L.D. Landau, First Ed., Pergamon, 1965. ISBN 978-0-08-010586-4

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Real-time observation of domain fluctuations in a two-dimensional magnetic model system,

    M. Kronseder, T. N. Meier, M. Zimmermann, M. Buchner, M. Vogel, and C. H. Back, “Real-time observation of domain fluctuations in a two-dimensional magnetic model system,” Nature Communications 6 (2015): 6832. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7832

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms7832 2015

  8. [8]

    Domain shapes and patterns: The phenomenology of modulated phases,

    M. Seul, and D. Andelman, “Domain shapes and patterns: The phenomenology of modulated phases,” Science 267, no. 5197 (1995): 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.267.5197.476

    work page doi:10.1126/science.267.5197.476 1995

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    An inverse transition of magnetic domain patterns in ultrathin films,

    O. Portmann, A. Vaterlaus, and D. Pescia, “An inverse transition of magnetic domain patterns in ultrathin films,” Nature 422, no. 6933 (2003): 701–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01538

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Transition from a uniform state to hexagonal and striped Turing patterns,

    Q. Ouyang, and H. L. Swinney, “Transition from a uniform state to hexagonal and striped Turing patterns,” Nature 352, no. 6336 (1991): 610–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/352610a0

    1991 doi

  3. [11]

    Deep learning,

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature 521, no. 7553 (2015): 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14539

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence,

    H. Wang, T. Fu, Y. Du, et al., “Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence,” Nature 620, no. 6972 (2023): 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023- 06221-2 18

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics,

    NobelPrize.org, “Press release: The Nobel Prize in Physics,” 2024. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2024/press-release/

    2024

  6. [14]

    Goodfellow, Y

    I. Goodfellow, Y. Bengio, and A. Courville 2016. Deep Learning, First Ed., Cambridge: MIT Press. ISBN: 0262035618

    2016

  7. [15]

    Statistical Mechanics of Deep Learning,

    Y. Bahri, J. Kadmon, J. Pennington, S. S. Schoenholz, J. Sohl-Dickstein, and S. Ganguli, “Statistical Mechanics of Deep Learning,” Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11 (2020): 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031119-050745

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities,

    J. J. Hopfield, “Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79, no. 8 (1982) 2554–2558. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.79.8.2554

    1982 doi

  9. [17]

    Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks,

    G. E. Hinton, and R. R. Salakhutdinov, “Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural Networks,” Science 313, no. 5786 (2006): 504–507. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127647

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines,

    D. H. Ackley, G. E. Hinton, and T. J. Sejnowski, “A learning algorithm for boltzmann machines,” Cognitive Science 9 (1985): 147–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364- 0213(85)80012-4

    1985 doi

  11. [19]

    Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions,

    L. Alzubaidi, J. Zhang, A.J. Humaidi, et al., “Review of deep learning: concepts, CNN architectures, challenges, applications, future directions,” Journal of Big Data 8 (2021): 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00444-8

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification: A Comprehensive Review,

    W. Rawat, and Z. Wang, “Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classification: A Comprehensive Review,” Neural Computation 29, no. 29 (2017): 2352–

    2017

  13. [21]

    https://doi.org/10.1162/NECO_A_00990

    doi

  14. [22]

    Pooling Methods in Deep Neural Networks, a Review,

    H. Gholamalinezhad, and H. Khosravi, “Pooling Methods in Deep Neural Networks, a Review,” arXiv (2020): arXiv:2009.07485. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.07485

    2020 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks,

    A. Esteva, B. Kuprel, R.A. Novoa, et al., “Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks,” Nature 542, no. 7639 (2017): 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21056

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    CNN-TumorNet: leveraging explainability in deep learning for precise brain tumor diagnosis on MRI images,

    N. Rasool, N. A. Wani, J. I. Bhat, et al., “CNN-TumorNet: leveraging explainability in deep learning for precise brain tumor diagnosis on MRI images,” Frontiers in Oncology 15 (2025): 1554559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1554559

    2025 doi

  17. [25]

    Change Detection of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon Using Landsat Data and Convolutional Neural Networks,

    P. P. de Bem, O. A. de Carvalho, R. Fontes Guimarães, and R.A. Trancoso Gomes, “Change Detection of Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon Using Landsat Data and Convolutional Neural Networks,” Remote Sensing 12, no. 6 (2020): 901. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12060901 19

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Deep physical neural networks trained with backpropagation,

    L. G. Wright, T. Onodera, M. M. Stein, et al., “Deep physical neural networks trained with backpropagation,” Nature 601, no. 7894 (2022): 549–555. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04223-6

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    Magnetic Hamiltonian parameter estimation using deep learning techniques,

    H. Y. Kwon, H. G. Yoon, C. Lee, et al., “Magnetic Hamiltonian parameter estimation using deep learning techniques,” Science Advances 6, no. 39 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb0872

    2020 doi

  20. [28]

    Estimating the effective fields of spin configurations using a deep learning technique,

    D. B. Lee, H.G. Yoon, S. M. Park, J. W. Choi, H. Y. Kwon, and C. Won, “Estimating the effective fields of spin configurations using a deep learning technique,” Scientific Reports 11 (2021): 22937. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02374-0

    2021 doi

  21. [29]

    Obtaining Underlying Parameters from Magnetic Domain Patterns with Machine Learning,

    N. Mamada, M. Mizumaki, I. Akai, and T. Aonishi, “Obtaining Underlying Parameters from Magnetic Domain Patterns with Machine Learning,” Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 90 (2021): 14705. https://doi.org/10.7566/JPSJ.90.014705

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Machine learning estimation of magnetic parameters and classification of magnetic vortex states,

    N. Mehmood, J. Wang, and Q. Liu, “Machine learning estimation of magnetic parameters and classification of magnetic vortex states,” Journal of Applied Physics 132, no. 4 (2022): 043904. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0098244

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Image-based prediction and optimization of hysteresis properties of nanocrystalline permanent magnets using deep learning,

    A. Kovacs, L. Exl, A. Kornell, et al., “Image-based prediction and optimization of hysteresis properties of nanocrystalline permanent magnets using deep learning,” Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 596 (2024): 171937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmmm.2024.171937

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    Machine Learning Magnetic Parameters from Spin Configurations,

    D. Wang, S. Wei, A. Yuan, et al., “Machine Learning Magnetic Parameters from Spin Configurations,” Advanced Science 7, no. 16 (2020): 2000566. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202000566

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Understanding the Magnetic Microstructure through Experiments and Machine Learning Algorithms,

    A. Talapatra, U. Gajera, S.P. Prasad, J. Arout Chelvane, and J. R. Mohanty, “Understanding the Magnetic Microstructure through Experiments and Machine Learning Algorithms,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14, no 44 (2022): 50318–50330. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.2c12848

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Determination of the Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interaction using pattern recognition and machine learning,

    M. Kawaguchi, K. Tanabe, K. Yamada, et al., “Determination of the Dzyaloshinskii- Moriya interaction using pattern recognition and machine learning,” npj Computational Materials 7 (2021): 20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-020-00485-2

    2021 doi

  27. [35]

    Estimation of TbCo composition from local-minimum-energy magnetic images taken by magneto-optical Kerr effect microscope by using machine learning,

    S. Kuno, S. Deguchi, S. Sumi, H. Awano, and K. Tanabe, “Estimation of TbCo composition from local-minimum-energy magnetic images taken by magneto-optical Kerr effect microscope by using machine learning,” APL Machine Learning 1, no. 4 (2023): 046111. https://doi.org/10.1063/5....

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Unraveling biochemical spatial patterns: Machine learning approaches to the inverse problem of stationary Turing patterns,

    A. Matas-Gil, and R. G. Endres, “Unraveling biochemical spatial patterns: Machine learning approaches to the inverse problem of stationary Turing patterns,” iScience 27, no. 6 (2024): 109822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2024.109822

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    Learning system parameters from turing patterns,

    D. Schnörr, and C. Schnörr, “Learning system parameters from turing patterns,” Machine Learning 112, (2021): 3151-3190 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-023-06334-9

    2021 doi

  30. [38]

    Progress in magnetic domain observation by advanced magneto-optical microscopy,

    J. McCord, “Progress in magnetic domain observation by advanced magneto-optical microscopy,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 48, no 33 (2015): 333001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0022-3727/48/33/333001

    2015 doi

  31. [39]

    3D magnetic field vector measurement by magneto-optical imaging,

    H. Sakaguchi, R. Oya, S. Wada, T. Matsumura, H. Saito, and T. Ishibashi, “3D magnetic field vector measurement by magneto-optical imaging,” Journal of the Magnetics Society of Japan 46, no 2 (2022): 37–41. https://doi.org/10.3379/msjmag.2203R002

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Quantitative magnetooptical analysis using indicator films for the detection of magnetic field distributions, temperature, and electrical currents,

    M. P. Path, and J. McCord, “Quantitative magnetooptical analysis using indicator films for the detection of magnetic field distributions, temperature, and electrical currents,” Scientific Reports 14 (2024): 25459. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-74684-y

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Garnet layers prepared by liquid phase epitaxy for microwave and magneto‐optical applications – a review,

    T. Aichele, A. Lorenz, R. Hergt, and P. Görnert, “Garnet layers prepared by liquid phase epitaxy for microwave and magneto‐optical applications – a review,” Crystal Research and Technology 38, no. 7–8 (2003): 575–587. https://doi.org/10.1002/crat.200310071

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    Bubble domain memory materials,

    J. Nielsen, “Bubble domain memory materials,” IEEE Transactions on Magnetics 12, no. 4 (1976): 327–345. https://doi.org/10.1109/TMAG.1976.1059044

    1976 doi

  35. [43]

    A. P. Malozemoff, and J. Slonczewski 1979. Magnetic Domain Walls in Bubble Materials, New York: Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-002951-0

    1979

  36. [44]

    Bubble memory module for spacecraft application,

    P. J. Hayes, K. T. Looney, and C. D. Nichols, “Bubble memory module for spacecraft application,” Nasa (1985): 19870011043. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19870011043

    1985

  37. [45]

    Magneto-Optical Indicator Films: Fabrication, Principles of Operation, Calibration, and Applications,

    L. Dorosinskiy, and S. Sievers, “Magneto-Optical Indicator Films: Fabrication, Principles of Operation, Calibration, and Applications,” Sensors 23, no. 8 (2023): 4048. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23084048

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Simultaneous imaging of magnetic field and temperature distributions by magneto optical indicator microscopy,

    H. Lee, S. Jeon, B. Friedman, and K. Lee, “Simultaneous imaging of magnetic field and temperature distributions by magneto optical indicator microscopy,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 43804. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43804

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    Vector magneto-optical sensor based on transparent magnetic films with cubic crystallographic symmetry,

    A. E. Rogachev, P. M. Vetoshko, N. A. Gusev, et al., “Vector magneto-optical sensor based on transparent magnetic films with cubic crystallographic symmetry,” Applied Physics Letters 109, no. 16 (2016): 162403. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4964887

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    Studies of HTSC crystal magnetization features using indicator 21 magnetooptic films with in-plane anisotropy,

    L. A. Dorosinskii, M. V. Indenbom, V. I. Nikitenko, Y. Ossip'yan, A. A. Polyanskii, and V. K. Vlasko-Vlasov, “Studies of HTSC crystal magnetization features using indicator 21 magnetooptic films with in-plane anisotropy,” Physica C: Superconductivity 203, no. 1–2 (1992): 149–1...

    1992 doi

  41. [49]

    Laviano, D

    F. Laviano, D. Botta, A. Chiodoni, et al., An improved method for quantitative magneto-optical analysis of superconductors,” Superconductor Science and Technology 16, no. 1 (2002): 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-2048/16/1/313

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    Magneto-optical indicator film observation of domain structure in magnetic multilayers,

    L. H. Bennett, R. D. McMichael, L. J. Swartzendruber, et al., “Magneto-optical indicator film observation of domain structure in magnetic multilayers,” Applied Physics Letters 66, no. 7 (1995): 888–890. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.113421

    1995 doi

  43. [51]

    Absence of magnetic domain wall motion during magnetic field induced twin boundary motion in bulk magnetic shape memory alloys,

    Y. W. Lai, N. Scheerbaum, D. Hinz, et al., “Absence of magnetic domain wall motion during magnetic field induced twin boundary motion in bulk magnetic shape memory alloys,” Applied Physics Letters 90, no. 19 (2007): 192504. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2737934

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    A Novel Scheme of Thermographic Microimaging Using Pyro-Magneto-Optical Indicator Films,

    M. Kustov, R. Grechishkin, M. Gusev, O. Gasanov, and J. McCord, “A Novel Scheme of Thermographic Microimaging Using Pyro-Magneto-Optical Indicator Films,” Advanced Materials 27, no. 34 (2015): 5017–5022. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201501859

    2015 doi

  45. [53]

    Sensing of temperature through magnetooptical domain wall susceptibility,

    F. Klingbeil, S. D. Stölting, and J. McCord, “Sensing of temperature through magnetooptical domain wall susceptibility,” Applied Physics Letters 118, no. 9 (2021): 092403. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037128

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    Robust magneto-optical temperature sensing using harmonics of magnetic loop characteristics,

    F. Klingbeil, M. P. Path, and J. McCord, “Robust magneto-optical temperature sensing using harmonics of magnetic loop characteristics,” Review of Scientific Instruments 97, no. 1 (2026): 14901. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0301082

    2026 doi

  47. [55]

    Quantitative 3D magnetic vector field imaging and thermal sensing with magneto-optical indicator films,

    M. P. Path, and J. McCord, “Quantitative 3D magnetic vector field imaging and thermal sensing with magneto-optical indicator films,” Journal of Applied Physics 138, no. 21 (2025): 214501. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0301604

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    Multiparametric robust sensing via readout of characteristic magnetization loops,

    M. P. Path, M. Vogel, and J. McCord, “Multiparametric robust sensing via readout of characteristic magnetization loops,” Scientific Reports 16 (2026): 8148. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-42763-x

    2026 doi

  49. [57]

    Theory of the domain strcuture in ferrimagnets,

    A. N. Bogdanov, and D.A. Yablonskii, “Theory of the domain strcuture in ferrimagnets,” Soviet Physics Solid State 22, no. 3 (1980): 399–403

    1980

  50. [58]

    Magnetic dislocations in a stripe domain structure,

    I. E. Dikshtein, F. V. Lisovskii, E. G. Mansvetova, and V. V. Tarasenko, “Magnetic dislocations in a stripe domain structure,” Soviet Physics JETP 71 (1990): 1213

    1990

  51. [59]

    How well does Turing's theory of Morphogenesis work?,

    J. Bard, and I. Lauder, “How well does Turing's theory of Morphogenesis work?,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 45 (1974): 501–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022- 5193(74)90128-3 22

    1974 doi

  52. [60]

    Magneto-optical sensors,

    matesy GmbH, “Magneto-optical sensors,” last accessed 03.07.2026 https://matesy.de/en/products/magneto-optical-sensors

    2026

  53. [61]

    Compact and robust linear Stokes polarization camera,

    M. Vedel, N. Lechocinski, and S. Breugnot, “Compact and robust linear Stokes polarization camera,” in EPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 5 (2010): 1005. https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/20100501005

    2010 doi

  54. [62]

    3.2-MP Back-Illuminated Polarization Image Sensor With Four-Directional Air-Gap Wire Grid and 2.5-µm Pixels,

    Y. Maruyama, T. Terada, T. Yamazaki, et al., “3.2-MP Back-Illuminated Polarization Image Sensor With Four-Directional Air-Gap Wire Grid and 2.5-µm Pixels,” IEEE Transactions on Electronic Devices 65, no. 6 (2018): 2544–2551. https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2018.2829190 23 Decoding...

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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