magnet-anisotropy-screening / data /validation_table.md
willgbryan13's picture
Sync refreshed validation table
3f6f229 verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
4.05 kB

Benchmark Validation: computed vs literature K1

Comparison of our computed magnetocrystalline anisotropy (TB2J/ABACUS, Dojo-NC-FR) for canonical hard magnets against published experimental and DFT K1. Production = kspacing 0.16 / ecutwfc 65; refined = kspacing 0.10 / ecutwfc 80 (all rows recomputed July 2026; raw values in benchmark_hiacc.json). Fe3Pt failed at the relaxation stage on the rerun and has no refined value.

Compound phase easy (prod → refined) K1 prod K1 refined K1 lit (exp, RT) K1 lit (DFT) note
FePt L1₀ 001 → 001 ✓ 15.9 10.6 ~6.6 7–11 refined lands in the DFT range
FeCoPt₂ L1₀-der. 001 → 001 20.5 10.0 ~10–20 (DFT) halves under refinement, like FePt
CoPt L1₀ 001 ✓ → 100 ✗ 8.9 2.5 ~4.9 5–8 the exception: refined run flips against experiment
FePd L1₀ 010 ✗ → 001 ✓ 1.5 1.8 ~1.8 2–3 refinement corrects the axis and matches experiment
Fe₂B CuAl₂ 001 → plane ✓ 1.4 0.56 −0.8 (easy-plane) ≈0, near boundary refined matches experiment; the earlier version of this table misread the experimental sign
Co₂B CuAl₂ — → plane ✓ 0.42 easy-plane matches experiment
CoPt₃ L1₂ 001 → 001 2.6 4.5 no firm literature anchor
FePd₃ L1₂ 001 → 001 1.1 1.3
CrPt 010 → 100 10.4 17.7 AFM antiferromagnet; non-001 at both settings
MnPt 100 → 100 6.7 8.4 AFM antiferromagnet; non-001 at both settings

Key validation findings

  1. Our values are DFT-scale. The refined hard-magnet values land inside the published DFT ranges (FePt 10.6, FeCoPt₂ 10.0) but remain above room-temperature experiment (FePt ~6.6), the well-documented gap between zero-temperature density-functional anisotropy and measurement. Users should treat these as DFT-level upper estimates.

  2. The convergence overestimate is κ-dependent and largest at the hard end. FePt drops ×0.67 and FeCoPt₂ ×0.49 in K1 under refinement, far more than the ~2% stratified-average bias. The per-band correction covers the bulk of the dataset; for κ > 3 the refined values are the ones to trust.

  3. Refinement corrects the marginal easy-axis errors. FePd moves from in-plane to the known 001 axis with K1 = 1.8 MJ/m³, matching experiment, and Fe₂B moves from 001 to the easy plane, matching its measured K1 of −0.8 MJ/m³ at room temperature. Co₂B likewise comes out easy-plane, in agreement with experiment. The Fe₂B result also anchors the dataset's boride story in the literature: the parent compound is easy-plane, and hardening it requires substitution, the role Mn plays in Fe₁₅MnB₈ as Co does in (Fe,Co)₂B alloys.

  4. CoPt is the exception. The refined run flips it to in-plane with K1 = 2.5 MJ/m³, against the known 001 easy axis. Single calculations carry the per-label variance of the calibration study at either setting, and near-boundary compositions can flip in either direction.

  5. The antiferromagnet controls (CrPt, MnPt) do not present as easy-axis ferromagnets at either setting. Their large anisotropy energies are spin–orbit scales, not usable permanent-magnet constants.

Takeaway for the dataset

The pipeline reproduces the correct hardness ordering (FePt > CoPt > FePd) and, at refined settings, the correct easy axis for four of five well-characterized benchmarks, at DFT-scale magnitudes. The refined column confirms the calibration study's error model: small average bias, large per-label scatter, and axis flips concentrated near the easy-axis/easy-plane boundary. The labels ship as a screening and machine-learning dataset with a documented κ-dependent correction and a quantified noise floor.