Analytical and numerical calculations of the magnetic force microscopy response: A comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the domain structure of submicrometer sized ferromagnetic stripes exhibiting in-plane and out-of-plane magnetized areas with magnetic force microscopy (MFM). Two simulation approaches are used to calculate the observed MFM response. The first relies on an analytical solution for the stray field of a bar magnet and the subsequent modeling of the sample as an arrangement of bar magnets. The MFM response is calculated for a realistic tip shape incorporating a distribution of magnetic dipoles. The second, numerical approach is based on a discretization scheme, breaking the tip-sample problem up into cells and then calculating the energy of the magnetic tip-sample interaction. The MFM responses obtained for the ferromagnetic stripe structure are compared. A discussion of the advantages and limitations of the two methods is given in terms of precision, computing time, and flexibility. The numerical method offers shorter computing times and greater flexibility, opening the door for realistic three-dimensional MFM response simulations. The advantage of the analytical method is the investigation of small structures, as its precision is higher for the comparable computational effort.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".