Applying Machine Learning to Elucidate Ultrafast Demagnetization Dynamics in Ni and Ni<sub>80</sub>Fe<sub>20</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the correlation between fast and ultrafast demagnetization (UFD) processes is crucial for elucidating the microscopic mechanisms underlying UFD, which is pivotal for various applications in spintronics. Initial theoretical models attempt to establish this correlation but face challenges due to the complex interplay of physical phenomena. To address this, a variety of machine learning (ML) methods are employed, including supervised learning regression algorithms and symbolic regression (SR), to analyze limited experimental data and derive meaningful mathematical expressions between demagnetization time ( τ M ) and the Gilbert damping factor ( α ). The results reveal that polynomial regression and K‐nearest neighbors algorithms perform best in predicting τ M . Additionally, variable‐selection sure‐independence‐screening‐and‐sparsifying‐operator (VS‐SISSO) as a SR method suggests a direct correlation between τ M and α for Ni and Ni 80 Fe 20 , indicating spin‐flip scattering predominantly influences the UFD mechanism. The developed models demonstrate promising predictive capabilities, validated against independent experimental data. Comparative analysis between different materials underscores the significant impact of material properties on UFD behavior. This study underscores the potential of ML in unraveling complex physical phenomena and offers valuable insights for future research in ultrafast magnetism.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".