Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in $g$-wave and $i$-wave altermagnets, and perfectly nonreciprocal spin-current in $f$-wave magnets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnets with $\ell+1$ Fermi-surface nodes generate only the $\ell$-th order nonlinear spin Drude conductivity, giving linear spin current in d-wave, second-order in f-wave, third-order in g-wave, and fifth-order in i-wave magnets.

desk verdict Clean per-model calculations with a neat f-wave rectification result, but the nodes-to-order selection rule is only proven for the minimal monomials, not for the wave-symmetry classes. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16036 v2 pith:EIS7JQXG submitted 2024-11-25 cond-mat.mes-hall

Motohiko Ezawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetismspincurrentnonlinearDrudeconductivityhigher-wavemagnetsnonreciprocalg-wavealtermagneti-wavef-wavemagnet
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

Using two-band models in which the magnetic term is the simplest monomial harmonic with a given symmetry, this paper tries to establish a node-count selection rule: when the spin-split Fermi surface has $\ell+1$ nodes, only the $\ell$-th order nonlinear transverse spin Drude conductivity is generated, so no lower or higher orders appear. This would matter because it ties spin-current generation to crystal symmetry alone: d-wave altermagnets keep only the linear spin current, g-wave altermagnets only the third-order term, and i-wave altermagnets only the fifth-order term. In f-wave magnets, with three nodes, only the second-order term survives, so the spin current is perfectly nonreciprocal, flowing in the same direction regardless of the applied-field direction. The paper also predicts no spin current in s-wave and p-wave magnets, and gives an arbitrary-order nonlinear Drude formula that remains valid outside the static limit.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the spin-Drude conductivity formula, Eq. (21), obtained by solving the semiclassical Boltzmann equation iteratively in the relaxation-time approximation: the $(\ell_1+\ell_2)$-th order spin-Drude conductivity equals $(-e/\hbar)^{\ell_1+\ell_2+1}(i\omega+1/\tau)^{-(\ell_1+\ell_2)}\int d^Dk\, f^{(0)}_s\, \partial^{\ell_1+\ell_2+1}\varepsilon_s/\partial k_x^{\ell_1}\partial k_y^{\ell_2}\partial k_b$, with $f^{(0)}_s$ the equilibrium Fermi function. Because the Hamiltonian is spin-diagonal, there are no Berry-curvature or quantum-metric contributions, so this Drude term is the whole spin conductivity. For each higher-wave Hamiltonian the magnetic term is a single monomial harmonic whose polynomial degree equals the number of Fermi-surface nodes, and angular integration over the Fermi surface kills every lower derivative in Eq. (22); only the derivative of order $\ell_1+\ell_2+1 = \ell+1$ survives, producing the selection rule.

What would settle it

In a tight-binding model of the g-wave altermagnet, add a small $k_x k_y \sigma_z$ term and compute the second-order spin conductivity: if it is nonzero, the 'only third-order' rule is not robust to symmetry-allowed lower harmonics. Experimentally, measure the transverse spin current in a g-wave candidate as a function of electric-field amplitude and look for a linear or quadratic component at low fields.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the polynomial degree of the magnetic spin-splitting term fixes the order of the only nonvanishing spin conductivity. For a magnet described by $H = \hbar^2 k^2/2m + sJ\, h(\mathbf{k})\sigma_z$ with $h$ the minimal harmonic, the condition in Eq. (22) shows that all spin-Drude conductivities of order below the degree of $h$ vanish after angular integration, while the one of order $\ell = \deg h - 1$ is proportional to the Fermi volume times $J$. Concretely, the paper finds: s-wave (0 nodes) and p-wave (1 node) magnets produce no spin current; d-wave (2 nodes) produce only the linear transverse spin conductivity; f-wave (3 nodes) produce only the second-order nonlinear spin conductivity; g-wave (4 nodes) produce only the third-order; i-wave (6 nodes) produce only the fifth-order. In f-wave magnets the second-order term being the only one makes the spin current perfectly nonreciprocal: reversing the electric field does not reverse the current direction. The same counting applies in three dimensions with other tensor components, such as $\sigma_{zy;x}^{\rm spin}$ for the f-wave magnet.

Load-bearing premise

The counting rule rests on the assumption that the only spin-splitting term present is the minimal monomial harmonic for that symmetry, so a real higher-wave magnet containing an additional lower-degree harmonic could generate lower-order spin currents; the derivation also assumes a single relaxation time and zero temperature throughout.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the selection rule holds, a d-wave altermagnet's transverse spin current is linear in the field, while a g-wave altermagnet's is cubic and an i-wave altermagnet's is quintic; in the latter two the effect is weak at small fields and becomes significant only when $E/(\hbar k/e\tau)$ is of order one.
  • For f-wave magnets, the second-order-only response means the spin current is a rectified current that does not change direction when the field is reversed, which the paper calls perfect nonreciprocity.
  • In p-wave magnets, the shift of the Fermi surfaces for opposite spins does not by itself produce a persistent spin current: the velocity cancellation makes all spin-Drude conductivities vanish.
  • The analytic continuum results agree with tight-binding numerics near the band bottom, so the order selection is not an artifact of the parabolic dispersion in that regime.
  • Because the model is spin-diagonal and single-band, the results are insensitive to quantum-metric and Berry-curvature-dipole effects that dominate other nonlinear transport phenomena.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the 'only one order' statement is derived for the minimal monomial harmonic; if a real material's symmetry allows a second, lower-degree harmonic or a strongly non-parabolic dispersion, lower-order spin currents could appear, so the practical prediction would be 'leading order' rather than 'only order'.
  • Beyond the paper: the perfect nonreciprocity of the f-wave magnet suggests a device application as a spin-current rectifier with no spin-orbit coupling; a two-terminal measurement reversing the bias should leave the spin-current sign unchanged, which is a testable signature.
  • Beyond the paper: the same derivative-counting argument would apply to any dispersion whose magnetic term is the lowest-degree harmonic, but the paper does not prove this generalization; a check with a next-nearest-neighbor tight-binding model would reveal how robust the rule is.
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. This paper derives, from the semiclassical Boltzmann equation in the relaxation-time approximation, closed-form expressions for spin-Drude conductivities of arbitrary order in two-band Hamiltonians consisting of free-electron kinetic energy plus a spin-splitting term of s-, p-, d-, f-, g-, or i-wave momentum dependence. The central result is the selection rule that, when the Fermi surface has ℓ+1 nodes, only the ℓ-th order transverse spin current proportional to E^ℓ is generated; in particular, d-wave gives only the linear spin conductivity, f-wave only the second-order (perfectly nonreciprocal) spin current, g-wave only the third-order, and i-wave only the fifth-order, while s- and p-wave magnets give none. The analytic results are compared with numerical tight-binding calculations near the band bottom.

Significance. If the rule holds for the intended class of models, it would provide a strikingly simple node-count principle for nonlinear spin transport in collinear magnets without spin-orbit coupling, and the f-wave 'perfect nonreciprocal spin current' is a falsifiable prediction. The paper has real strengths: the derivation is parameter-free in the sense that no quantity is fitted to the conclusion; the derivative-order condition (22) is correct; and the tight-binding comparisons in Figs. 2-4 are verifications rather than fits. The main limitation is that the rule is demonstrated only for the minimal monomial Hamiltonians and depends on unproved angular cancellations; this restricts the generality of the abstract's 'only' statements until those points are addressed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section XV; Eqs. (3)-(10), (67)] The central claim that 'only the ℓ-th order nonlinear spin current is generated in higher-wave symmetric magnets when the number of nodes is ℓ+1' is established only for the particular monomial Hamiltonians listed in Eqs. (3)-(10), not for all Hamiltonians carrying the stated symmetry label. For example, adding a d-wave term λ kx ky σz to the g-wave Hamiltonian of Eq. (5) immediately produces a linear transverse spin conductivity of the form of Eq. (67), σ_{y;x}^{spin} = (e/ℏ)^2 V_F λ/(iω+1/τ), alongside the third-order g-wave term. Unless the authors prove that lower harmonics are forbidden by the assumed lattice and magnetic symmetries, the abstract and Section XV should be restricted to the minimal models, or the admixture case should be analyzed explicitly. The same fragility affects the 'perfect nonreciprocal spin current' claim for f-wave magnets in Section IX: a d-wave admixture generates a linear spin current and destroys the exclusivity that defines 'perfect' nonreciprocity.
  2. [Sections IX-XIV] The vanishing of all lower-order spin conductivities is asserted rather than demonstrated. Phrases such as 'It is straightforward to see that there is no spin conductivity for ℓ=0,1' in Section IX (before Eq. (84)) and the analogous statements in Sections X-XIV are load-bearing because the paper's conclusion is an exclusivity statement. The authors should either write out the angular integrals showing that each lower-order derivative term integrates to zero after weighting by f^{(0)}_s, or provide a general argument for a single angular harmonic J k^n cos(nφ) or sin(nφ): all derivatives of order m+1 with m<n produce angular integrands that vanish by orthogonality of cos(mφ) against the expanded distribution function. Without such a demonstration, the reader cannot verify that, for instance, the terms in Eq. (83) with ℓ=0,1 do not give a nonzero spin conductivity after the full angular integration.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (18) and (19)] The second field factor in Eq. (18) and the corresponding factor in Eq. (19) are written as (Ex)^ℓ1 (Ex)^ℓ2; they should read (Ex)^ℓ1 (Ey)^ℓ2.
  2. [Section XIII, after Eq. (115)] The text says 'The J dependence of the σyyyyy;z spin is shown in Fig.4(e)', but the computed quantity in this two-dimensional i-wave section is σyyyyy;x (or σxxxxx;y), so the subscript z appears to be a typo.
  3. [Section XIV, tight-binding paragraph] The sentence 'The tight-binding model corresponding to the continuum model (87) is given by...' appears in the i-wave 3D section; it should refer to the continuum i-wave model of Eq. (118)/(119), not to the f-wave model of Eq. (87).
  4. [Section II and Table 1] The term 'nodes' should be defined explicitly, since the central rule is stated in terms of a node count. In two dimensions the examples in Eqs. (3)-(6) have nodal lines through the origin, and in three dimensions Eqs. (7)-(10) have nodal planes; stating this convention would remove ambiguity.
  5. [Eqs. (63)-(64), (71)-(72) and Section XV] The units of J and m are not stated even though J multiplies different powers of k in different wave classes; introducing a fixed dimensionless expansion parameter (for example, Jm or J times the appropriate power of the lattice constant) would make the perturbative expansions and the condition |Jm|<1 easier to interpret. In addition, the high-field estimate at the end of Section XV uses E/(ℏk/eτ)>1, where the perturbative series in Eq. (18) is not obviously controlled; a comment on the expected convergence regime would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the node-count rule is an analytic consequence of the stated minimal Hamiltonians, not a fit or self-citation artifact.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is derived, not assumed: for each minimal two-band Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)-(10), the recursive Boltzmann solution Eq. (18) and the spin-Drude formula Eq. (21) are used to compute the first nonvanishing transverse spin conductivity explicitly. For example, the f-wave result follows from the listed derivatives ∂³εs/∂kx∂ky² = -6sJ and ∂³εs/∂kx³ = 6sJ (Eq. (83)), and the g-wave result from ∂⁴εs/∂kx∂ky³ = -6sJ and ∂⁴εs/∂kx³∂ky = 6sJ (Eq. (99)); the claimed order is then obtained by direct integration. No parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no quantity is defined in terms of the conductivity it is said to predict. The tight-binding calculations are verification checks against the continuum analytics, not fits. The repeated phrase 'It is straightforward to see' marks omitted angular-integral arguments for the vanishing of lower-order contributions; this is a proof gap and a robustness concern, but it is not circularity, because those vanishings are not assumed in defining the Hamiltonians or the conductivity formula. The caveat that admixing a lower-degree harmonic such as λkxkyσz would regenerate a linear spin current is a model-robustness limitation of the exclusive 'only ℓ-th order' statement, not a circular reduction, since the paper restricts its explicit derivation to the listed monomials. Self-citations [37] and [39] concern p-wave magnets and are background; the load-bearing references for the altermagnet Hamiltonians and the Boltzmann recursion are external ([12,13,34]). No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The derivation is self-contained for the stated models, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim depends on no fitted numbers: J, m, µ, τ are input model parameters with arbitrary values in the figures. The structural assumptions are the Boltzmann equation with a constant relaxation time, zero-temperature Fermi functions, the minimal-degree magnetic monomials for each wave symmetry, and the absence of pseudospin/Berry curvature/quantum metric. These are documented in the ledger.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The semi-classical Boltzmann equation with momentum-independent relaxation time τ describes the response to all orders in the electric field (Eq. 15).
    Used to derive the recursive distribution function (Eq. 18); assumes τ is constant in k, spin and field, which is uncontrolled for high-order nonlinear response.
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature Fermi step distribution and vanishing boundary terms in integration by parts (Eq. 20).
    Fermi volumes are computed at T=0; finite temperature would smear the Fermi surface and could alter strict 'only order ℓ' statements.
  • domain assumption The magnetic exchange term for each wave symmetry is the minimal-degree monomial listed in Eqs. (1)-(10); no lower-degree symmetry-allowed terms exist.
    The central node-count rule is only verified for these specific Hamiltonians; additional symmetry-allowed lower-degree harmonics would generate lower-order spin currents.
  • domain assumption The system is a single-band (spin-diagonal) model with no pseudospin, so Berry curvature and quantum metric contributions vanish (Section III).
    This is exact for the spin-diagonal Hamiltonian, but the paper's conclusions do not automatically extend to multi-band or pseudospin models; the paper acknowledges this in Section XV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in $g$-wave and $i$-wave altermagnets, and perfectly nonreciprocal spin-current in $f$-wave magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EIS7JQXG

@misc{pith2026241116036,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in $g$-wave and $i$-wave altermagnets, and perfectly nonreciprocal spin-current in $f$-wave magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EIS7JQXG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16036}
}
abstract

A prominent feature of $d$-wave altermagnets is the pure spin current generated in the absence of spin-orbit interactions. In the context of symmetry, there are the $s$-wave, the $p$-wave, the $d$-wave, the $f$-wave, the $g$-wave and the $i$-wave magnets. In this paper, making an analytic study of two-band Hamiltonian systems coupled with electrons, we demonstrate unexpectedly that only the $\ell $-th order nonlinear transverse spin current proportional to $E^{\ell }$ is generated in higher-wave symmetric magnets when the number of the nodes is $\ell +1$. Here $E$ is applied electric field. The nonlinear spin current is essential provided the linear spin current is absent. Indeed, only the third-order nonlinear spin current is generated in $g$-wave altermagnets, while only the fifth-order spin current is generated in $i$-wave altermagnets. In particular, only the second-order nonlinear spin current is generated in $f$-wave magnets, which leads to a perfect nonreciprocal spin current. On the other hand, there is no spin-current generation in $p$-wave magnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16036 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Fermi surfaces in two and three dimensions. (a1), (a2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Dynamical Polarization from Hidden Spin and Orbital Textures in p-Wave Magnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optically driven p-wave magnets develop a resonantly enhanced ac spin polarization at the 2J_sd exchange gap and a rectified, polarization-controlled dc orbital polarization invisible to period-averaged treatments.

  2. Bulk photovoltaic effects in altermagnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-band model predicts that d-wave altermagnets with Rashba coupling generate a nearly frequency-independent injection photocurrent over a wide range of photon energies.

  3. Coexistence of $p$-wave magnetism and superconductivity

    cond-mat.supr-con 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    p-wave magnets can coexist with conventional s-wave superconductivity, and the superconducting state strongly enhances the transverse spin current these magnets generate.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. I. Dyakonov and V . I. Perel, Possibility of orientating elec- tron spins with current Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. 13: 467, (1971)

    work page 1971

  2. [2]

    M. I. Dyakonov and V . I. Perel, Current-induced spin orienta- tion of electrons in semiconductors. Phys. Lett. A 35 (6): 459 (1971)

    work page 1971

  3. [3]

    Valenzuela, J

    Jairo Sinova, Sergio O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin Hall effects Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1213 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Makoto Naka, Satoru Hayami, Hiroaki Kusunose, Yuki Yanagi, Yukitoshi Motome and Hitoshi Seo, Spin current generation in organic antiferromagnets, Nat. Com. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Rafael Gonzalez-Hernandez, Libor Šmejkal, Karel Vborn, Yuta Yahagi, Jairo Sinova, Tomš Jungwirth, and Jakub Železn, Effi- cient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126:127701, (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    M Naka, Y Motome, and H Seo, Perovskite as a spin current generator. Phys. Rev. B, 103, 125114, (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Schreiber, Rakshit Jain, Ding-Fu Shao, Hari P

    Arnab Bose, Nathaniel J. Schreiber, Rakshit Jain, Ding-Fu Shao, Hari P. Nair, Jiaxin Sun, Xiyue S. Zhang, David A. Muller, Evgeny Y . Tsymbal, Darrell G. Schlom & Daniel C. Ralph, Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferro- magnet ruthenium dioxide, Nature Electronics 5, 267 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Makoto Naka, Yukitoshi Motome and Hitoshi Seo, Altermag- netic Perovskites, arXiv:2411.11025

    work page Pith review arXiv

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y . Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum- Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Or- dering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Anna Birk Hellenes, Tomas Jungwirth, Jairo Sinova, Libor Šmejkal, Unconventional p-wave magnets, arXiv:2309.01607

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. MacDon- ald, J. Sinova, L. Smejkal, From supefluid 3He to altermagnets, arXiv:2411.00717

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Smejkal, J

    L. Smejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Non- relativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X, 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Libor Šmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Emerg- ing Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Y . Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Field induced positional shift of Bloch electrons and its dynamical implications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal invariant materials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Ideue, K

    T. Ideue, K. Hamamoto, S. Koshikawa, M. Ezawa, S. Shimizu, Y . Kaneko, Y . Tokura, N. Nagaosa, and Y . Iwasa, Bulk rectifica- tion effect in a polar semiconductor, Nat. Phys. 13, 578 (2017). 12

    2017

  9. [17]

    H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y .-X. Huang, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, and S. A. Yang, Intrinsic second-order anomalous Hall effect and its application in compensated antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 277202 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Michishita and N

    Y . Michishita and N. Nagaosa, Dissipation and geometry in nonlinear quantum transports of multiband electronic systems, Phys. Rev. B 106, 125114 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y . Yanase, Nonlinear electric transport in odd- parity magnetic multipole systems: Application to Mn-based compounds, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043081 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    C. Wang, Y . Gao, and D. Xiao, Intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect in antiferromagnetic tetragonal cumnas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 277201 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Oiwa and H

    R. Oiwa and H. Kusunose, Systematic analysis method for non- linear response tensors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 014701 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Gao, Y .-F

    A. Gao, Y .-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T.V . Trevisan, Y . On- ishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen et al., Quantum metric nonlinear Hall effect in a topological antiferromagnetic heterostructure, Science 381, eadf1506 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang et al., Quantum metric- induced nonlinear transport in a topological antiferromagnet, Nature 621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kamal Das, Shibalik Lahiri, Rhonald Burgos Atencia, Dimitrie Culcer, and Amit Agarwal, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivities induced by the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201405 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Daniel Kaplan, Tobias Holder and Binghai Yan, Unification of Nonlinear Anomalous Hall Effect and Nonreciprocal Magne- toresistance in Metals by the Quantum Geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 026301 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    YuanDong Wang, ZhiFan Zhang, Zhen-Gang Zhu, and Gang Su, Intrinsic nonlinear Ohmic current, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085419 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Longjun Xiang, Bin Wang, Yadong Wei, Zhenhua Qiao, and Jian Wang, Linear displacement current solely driven by the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115121 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Zhen-Hao Gong, Z. Z. Du, Hai-Peng Sun, Hai-Zhou Lu, X. C. Xie, Nonlinear transport theory at the order of quantum metric, arXiv:2410.04995v2

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Keita Hamamoto, Motohiko Ezawa, Kun Woo Kim, Takahiro Morimoto, and Naoto Nagaosa, Nonlinear spin current gener- ation in noncentrosymmetric spin-orbit coupled systems, Phys. Rev. B 95, 224430 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Mai Kameda Daichi Hirobe, Shunsuke Daimon, Yuki Shiomi, Saburo Takahashi, Eiji Saitoh, Microscopic formulation of non- linear spin current induced by spin pumping, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials 476, 459 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Satoru Hayami, Megumi Yatsushiro, and Hiroaki Kusunose, Nonlinear spin Hall effect in PT -symmetric collinear magnets, Phys. Rev. B 106, 024405 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Satoru Hayami, Linear and nonlinear spin-current generation in polar collinear antiferromagnets without relativistic spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214431 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Unifying semiclassics and quantum perturbation theory at nonlinear order, SciPost Phys. 14, 082 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Yuan Fang, Jennifer Cano, and Sayed Ali Akbar Ghorashi, Quantum Geometry Induced Nonlinear Transport in Altermag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 106701 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Shun Okumura, Takahiro Morimoto, Yasuyuki Kato, and Yuk- itoshi Motome, Quadratic optical responses in a chiral magnet, Phys. Rev. B 104, L180407 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Kazuki Maeda, Bo Lu, Keiji Yada, Yukio Tanaka, Theory of tunneling spectroscopy in p-wave altermagnet-superconductor hybrid structures, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 93, 114703 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ezawa, Topological insulators based on p-wave altermag- nets; Electrical control and detection of the altermagnetic do- main wall, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Topological insulators based on p-wave altermag- nets; Electrical control and detection of the altermagnetic do- main wall, Phys. Rev. B 110, 165429 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Bjonulf Brekke, Pavlo Sukhachov, Hans Glokner Giil, Arne Brataas, Jacob Linder, Minimal models and transport proper- ties of unconventional p-wave magnets, arXiv:2405.15823

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ezawa, Purely electrical detection of the Neel vector of p-wave magnets based on linear and nonlinear conductivities, arXiv:2410.21854

    M. Ezawa, Purely electrical detection of the Neel vector of p-wave magnets based on linear and nonlinear conductivities, arXiv:2410.21854

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Smejkal, A

    L. Smejkal, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, S. Nakatsuji and T. Jungwirth, Anomalous Hall antiferromagnets, Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 482 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Di Zhu, Zheng-Yang Zhuang, Zhigang Wu, and Zhongbo Yan, Topological superconductivity in two-dimensional altermag- netic metals, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Hughes, Jennifer Cano, Altermagnetic Routes to Majorana Modes in Zero Net Magne- tization, Phys

    Sayed Ali Akbar Ghorashi, Taylor L. Hughes, Jennifer Cano, Altermagnetic Routes to Majorana Modes in Zero Net Magne- tization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Yu-Xuan Li and Cheng-Cheng Liu, Majorana corner modes and tunable patterns in an altermagnet heterostructure, Phys. Rev. B 108, 205410 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    M. Ezawa. Detecting the Neel vector of altermagnets in het- erostructures with a topological insulator and a crystalline valley-edge insulator, Physical Review B 109 (24), 245306 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Ezawa, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivity induced by quantum geometry in altermagnets and measurement of the in-plane Neel vector, arXiv:2409.09241

    M. Ezawa, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivity induced by quantum geometry in altermagnets and measurement of the in-plane Neel vector, arXiv:2409.09241

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Yichen Liu, Junxi Yu, and Cheng-Cheng Liu, Twisted Magnetic Van der Waals Bilayers: An Ideal Platform for Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206702 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kunes, Antiferromag- netism in RuO2 as d-wave Pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Gonzalez-Hernandez, T.Jungwirth, and J

    L.Smejkal, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, T.Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and sponta- neous Hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets. Science Ad- vances 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    11, 101103 (2023)

    Teresa Tschirner, Philipp Keler, Ruben Dario Gonzalez Be- tancourt, Tommy Kotte, Dominik Kriegner, Bernd Buechner, Joseph Dufouleur, Martin Kamp, Vedran Jovic, Libor Smejkal, Jairo Sinova, Ralph Claessen, Tomas Jungwirth, Simon Moser, Helena Reichlova, Louis Veyrat, Saturation...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Minar, A. Akashdeep, S.W. D’Souza, D. Vasi- lyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q.L. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Rossnagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtmueller, M. Klaeui, G. Schoenhense, G. Jakob, T. Jungwirth, L. Smejkal, J. S...

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Zihan Lin, Dong Chen, Wenlong Lu, Xin Liang, Shiyu Feng, Kohei Yamagami, Jacek Osiecki, Mats Leandersson, Balasubramanian Thiagarajan, Junwei Liu, Claudia Felser, Junzhang Ma, Observation of Giant Spin Splitting and d- wave Spin Texture in Room Temperature Altermagnet RuO 2, a...

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Miina Leivisk Javier Rial, Anton Badura, Rafael Lopes Seeger, Ismaa Kounta, Sebastian Beckert, Dominik Kriegner, Isabelle Joumard, Eva Schmoranzerov Jairo Sinova, Olena Gomonay, 13 Andy Thomas, Sebastian T. B. Goennenwein, Helena Reichlov Libor Smejkal, Lisa Michez, Tom Jungwi...

    2024

  45. [53]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M.D. Johannes, Rafael Gonzalez- Herndez, Libor Šmejkal, Prediction of unconventional mag- netism in doped FeSb 2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Krempask, L

    J. Krempask, L. Šmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhlov F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V . Stro- cov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonzez-Herndez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov Z. Šob, R. D. Gonzalez Betan- court, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Kriegne...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Suyoung Lee, Sangjae Lee, Saegyeol Jung, Jiwon Jung, Dong- han Kim, Yeonjae Lee, Byeongjun Seok, Jaeyoung Kim, Byeong Gyu Park, Libor Šmejkal, Chang-Jong Kang, and Changyoung Kim, Broken Kramers Degeneracy in Altermag- netic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Observation of a giant band splitting in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Hajlaoui, S.W

    M. Hajlaoui, S.W. D’Souza, L. Šmejkal, D. Kriegner, G. Kriz- man, T. Zakusylo, N. Olszowska, O. Caha, J. Michali ˇcka, A. Marmodoro, K. Vyborny, A. Ernst, M. Cinchetti, J. Minar, T. Jungwirth, G. Springholz, Temperature Dependence of Rela- tivistic Valence Band Splitting Induc...

    2024

  50. [58]

    Suyoung Lee, Sangjae Lee, Saegyeol Jung, Jiwon Jung, Dong- han Kim, Yeonjae Lee, Byeongjun Seok, Jaeyoung Kim, Byeong Gyu Park, Libor Šmejkal, Chang-Jong Kang, Changy- oung Kim, Broken Kramers Degeneracy in Altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Zheyuan Liu, Makoto Ozeki, Shinichiro Asai, Shinichi Itoh, and Takatsugu Masuda, Chiral Split Magnon in Altermagnetic MnTe Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156702 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Strocov, Procopios Constantinou, Anna B

    Sonka Reimers, Lukas Odenbreit, Libor Šmejkal, Vladimir N. Strocov, Procopios Constantinou, Anna B. Hellenes, Rodrigo Jaeschke Ubiergo, Warlley H. Campos, Venkata K. Bharad- waj, Atasi Chakraborty, Thibaud Denneulin, Wen Shi, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, Suvadip Das, Mathias Kli,...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Guowei Yang, Zhanghuan Li, Sai Yang, Jiyuan Li, Hao Zheng, Weifan Zhu, Ze Pan, Yifu Xu, Saizheng Cao, Wenxuan Zhao, Anupam Jana, Jiawen Zhang, Mao Ye, Yu Song, Lun- Hui Hu, Lexian Yang, Jun Fujii, Ivana V obornik, Ming Shi, Huiqiu Yuan, Yongjun Zhang, Yuanfeng Xu, Yang Liu, Th...

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Jianyang Ding, Zhicheng Jiang, Xiuhua Chen, Zicheng Tao, Zhengtai Liu, Jishan Liu, Tongrui Li, Jiayu Liu, Yichen Yang, Runfeng Zhang, Liwei Deng, Wenchuan Jing, Yu Huang, Yum- ing Shi, Shan Qiao, Yilin Wang, Yanfeng Guo, Donglai Feng, Dawei Shen, Large band-splitting in g-wave...

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Vergniory, Oleg Janson, Oscar Tjernberg, Jeroen van den Brink, Topolog- ical Weyl Altermagnetism in CrSb, arXiv:2405.14777

    Cong Li, Mengli Hu, Zhilin Li, Yang Wang, Wanyu Chen, Balasubramanian Thiagarajan, Mats Leandersson, Craig Pol- ley, Timur Kim, Hui Liu, Cosma Fulga, Maia G. Vergniory, Oleg Janson, Oscar Tjernberg, Jeroen van den Brink, Topolog- ical Weyl Altermagnetism in CrSb, arXiv:2405.14777

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Wenlong Lu, Shiyu Feng, Yuzhi Wang, Dong Chen, Zihan Lin, Xin Liang, Siyuan Liu, Wanxiang Feng, Kohei Yamagami, Jun- wei Liu, Claudia Felser, Quansheng Wu, Junzhang Ma, Obser- vation of surface Fermi arcs in altermagnetic Weyl semimetal CrSb, arXiv:2407.13497

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Mattia Trama, Vittorio Cataudella, Carmine Antonio Perroni, Francesco Romeo and Roberta Citro, Tunable Spin and Orbital Edelstein Effect at (111) LaAlO 3 /SrTiO 3 Interface, nanoma- terials 12, 2494 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Z. Z. Du, C. M. Wang, Shuai Li, Hai-Zhou Lu and X. C. Xie, Disorder-induced nonlinear Hall effect with time-reversal sym- metry, Nature Communications10, 3047 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Giacomo Sala, et.al., The quantum metric of electrons with spin-momentum locking, arXiv:2407.06659

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Pan He, Hiroki Isobe, Gavin Kok Wai Koon, Jun You Tan, Junx- iong Hu, Jingru Li, Naoto Nagaosa and Jian Shen, Third-order nonlinear Hall effect in a quantum Hall system, Nature Nan- otechnology 19, 1460 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.