Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 81 references

Quasiparticle interference in altermagnets

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Spin-resolved quasiparticle interference can image the d-wave spin-split Fermi surface of altermagnets and can tell Zeeman splitting apart from Rashba spin-orbit coupling.

desk verdict A careful, honest model-level QPI calculation for altermagnets whose central diagnostic—imaginary FT-LDOS as a clean SOC-vs-Zeeman discriminator—holds up, with one heuristic stability argument worth tightening before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17185 v2 pith:NTZVEKZX submitted 2024-11-26 cond-mat.str-el

Hao-Ran Hu , Xiangang Wan , Wei Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords altermagnetismquasiparticleinterferencespin-resolvedscanningtunnelingspectroscopyT-matrixformalismFermisurfacespintextureRashbaspin-orbitcouplingZeemansplittinglocaldensityofstates
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

This paper claims that impurity-induced quasiparticle interference in metallic altermagnets carries enough information to reconstruct both the geometry and the spin texture of the altermagnetic Fermi surface. Working with a two-dimensional d-wave altermagnet, with and without Zeeman splitting or Rashba spin-orbit coupling, the authors calculate the Fourier-transformed local density of states around point impurities using the T-matrix formalism and identify which scattering and spin-probe channels highlight which features. The central diagnostic is a clear division of labor: some channels reproduce the two-ellipse, opposite-spin Fermi surface of the pristine altermagnet, while other channels reveal a petal-shaped Lifshitz transition when splittings are added, and the presence of imaginary parts of the FT-LDOS in specific channels distinguishes Rashba spin-orbit coupling from Zeeman splitting. If the predictions hold, spin-resolved scanning tunneling spectroscopy becomes a direct probe of altermagnetic order and of the mechanism behind its spin splitting.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the response function $\Lambda_{\alpha\beta}(q,\omega)$ for the FT-LDOS, decomposed through the Lehmann representation into products of spectral functions labelled AA, AB, BA, and BB. Singular scattering vectors are fixed by the joint-density-of-states condition $\omega^s_{k+q}=\omega=\omega^{s'}_{k}$ with parallel gradients $\nabla\omega^s_{k+q}\times\nabla\omega^{s'}_{k}=0$, and the spin-coherent factor $F^{ss'}_{\alpha\beta}=\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma_\alpha |s,k+q\rangle\langle s,k+q|\sigma_\beta |s',k\rangle\langle s',k|]$ then modulates which of these vectors survive in a given probe and scattering channel. The machinery also imposes a stability criterion: AA- and BB-type singularities stay sharp for finite-lifetime quasiparticles, whereas AB- and BA-type singularities are argued to wash out on flat or nested sections of the Fermi surface.

What would settle it

A spin-resolved STS experiment on a metallic altermagnet with a well-defined magnetic impurity could settle the claim: in the Rashba-SOC scenario the imaginary part of the FT-LDOS should be nonzero in the $(0,x)$, $(0,y)$, $(x,z)$, and $(y,z)$ channels with sign changes as $q_x$ or $q_y$ crosses zero, while the Zeeman scenario predicts these channels vanish; additionally, observing peaks at the nominally unstable vectors $q_4$, $q_8$, or $q_9$ would contradict the stability cutoff used to select the predicted patterns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that the QPI patterns are governed by a small set of singular scattering vectors connecting points on the isoenergy surfaces with parallel normals, with the spin-coherent factor per probe and scattering channel deciding which vectors appear and with what sign. For the pristine $d$-wave altermagnet, the $(0,z)$ and $(z,0)$ channels show the altermagnetic Fermi surface as two orthogonal ellipses with opposite spin at a doubled momentum scale, while the $(x,x)$ and $(y,y)$ channels expose inter-band scattering between opposite-spin bands. A Zeeman field deforms the isoenergy surfaces into petal shapes through a Lifshitz transition and opens new scattering vectors, but all FT-LDOS patterns remain real. Rashba spin-orbit coupling produces the same Fermi-surface geometry with different spin winding, and it generates nonzero imaginary parts of the FT-LDOS in the $(0,x)$, $(0,y)$, $(x,z)$, and $(y,z)$ channels, which the paper proposes as an unambiguous way to distinguish the two origins of spin splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted QPI maps depend on the assumption that only AA- and BB-type singularities stay sharp for finite-lifetime quasiparticles, so the unstable scattering vectors q4, q8, and q9 can be dropped from the patterns.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin-resolved STS can map an altermagnetic Fermi surface without relying on spin-resolved photoemission, using the $(0,z)$ and $(z,0)$ channels to see the two-ellipse structure directly.
  • A petal-shaped contour in the backscattering-dominated QPI marks a Lifshitz transition of the altermagnetic Fermi surface induced by either Zeeman or Rashba splittings.
  • Observing real FT-LDOS everywhere is consistent with Zeeman-like splitting, while nonzero imaginary parts in the $(0,x)$, $(0,y)$, $(x,z)$, or $(y,z)$ channels indicate Rashba spin-orbit coupling.
  • Enhancement and suppression across different impurity-spin and probe-spin combinations encode the local spin direction on the Fermi surface, not just its geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The channel-selection logic likely extends to other spin-momentum coupling forms; one could derive symmetry rules for which $(\alpha,\beta)$ pairs carry imaginary FT-LDOS, making the Zeeman-versus-SOC test systematic.
  • Because the predicted maps are dominated by backscattering, a simple inversion may be possible in practice: the bright contours are roughly a doubled copy of the Fermi surface, so geometry extraction could be model-free.
  • The finite-lifetime stability of AB/BA singularities is argued from a schematic picture; a quantitative treatment of disorder or electron-electron scattering would test whether the dropped vectors $q_4$, $q_8$, and $q_9$ can ever contribute observable weight.
  • In three-dimensional altermagnets, flat isoenergy sheets are common and may alter the stability dichotomy, so the same decomposition would need to be re-examined before applying the predictions to surface-sensitive probes.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theory of quasiparticle interference (QPI) for point impurities in a two-dimensional d-wave altermagnet, with optional Zeeman splitting and Rashba spin-orbit coupling. Using the T-matrix/Born formalism and a reduced-response decomposition into spin-coherent factors and AA/BB/AB/BA term types, it derives selection rules for the singular scattering vectors and computes the FT-LDOS for many probe/scattering channels. It predicts that pristine altermagnets show doubled elliptical contours with spin-specific intensities, that Zeeman and SOC cases develop petal-shaped backscattering contours associated with a Lifshitz transition, and, most distinctively, that the SOC case produces imaginary FT-LDOS components in certain channels while the Zeeman case does not.

Significance. If the predictions hold, spin-resolved scanning tunneling spectroscopy can directly image the d-wave spin-split Fermi surface of an altermagnet and distinguish altermagnetic, Zeeman, and Rashba-SOC origins of the spin splitting. The analytic decomposition into spin-coherent factors and the explicit formulas in Eqs. (26)-(35) are a useful toolkit, and the numerical parameters are stated transparently. The central falsifiable prediction, that imaginary FT-LDOS appears only in the SOC case, is clearly formulated and experimentally testable. However, the load-bearing stability claim that certain scattering vectors are suppressed by finite quasiparticle lifetime is only argued heuristically, so the completeness of the predicted patterns is conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III (after Eq. (20)) and Appendix (Fig. A1)] The rule that AA- and BB-type singularities are 'always stable' while AB- and BA-type singularities are not is presented as a schematic argument, not a derivation. This rule is load-bearing because it is used to discard q4 in the pristine case and q8/q9 in the Zeeman/SOC cases, and because the imaginary FT-LDOS in the (0,x) and (0,y) SOC channels is proportional to a purely imaginary antisymmetric spin-coherent factor (Eq. (34)) and therefore enters Im[delta_rho] exclusively through AB+BA combinations. Please provide either (i) an asymptotic analysis of the four term types for finite eta, giving the precise geometric conditions under which AB/BA contributions cancel, or (ii) a direct numerical demonstration at the eta=0.013 used in Figs. 2-4 that the discarded vectors have negligible weight while the retained peaks, including the imaginary peaks in Fig. 4(a,b), survive. Without this, the predicted QPI patterns are conditional on an unproven assertion.
  2. [Sec. IV A (after Table I)] The real-part FT-LDOS in the pristine channels (0,0), (0,z), (z,0), and (z,z) is stated to be carried entirely by AB- and BA-type terms, and these real patterns are among the paper's main predictions. The Appendix's stability language therefore cannot be a global statement that AB/BA singularities are unstable; it must be a precise geometric criterion depending on the scattering vector. Please state the criterion explicitly and verify it for each retained vector (q1-q3) and each discarded vector (q4 and q8/q9). This is also needed for the SOC imaginary channel (0,x), where Im[delta_rho] is proportional to AB+BA: if those terms are broadly suppressed, the central Zeeman-versus-SOC discriminator in that channel would vanish.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III] The text contains a typo: 'alwayls' should be 'always'.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'altermagnet with Zeeman splitting' but the parameters are lambda=0.075 and Delta=0, and the text describes these panels as the SOC case; please correct the caption.
  3. [Introduction and Eq. (5)] There are minor typos: 'presense' should be 'presence' and 'spacial' should be 'spatial'.
  4. [Appendix, Eq. (A1)] The notation in Eq. (A1) and the surrounding text is dense; please clarify that the line integral is taken along the isoenergy contour omega_{s'}(k)=omega and that the parameter t runs over the full contour.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: QPI patterns are computed directly from the model Hamiltonian without fitting any output; self-citations are peripheral.

full rationale

The paper computes FT-LDOS directly from the model Hamiltonian H0(k) in Eq. (1) via the T-matrix and Born expression Eq. (15), with no parameter fitted to any QPI output. The central claims, that stable singular scattering vectors lie on isoenergy contours with parallel normals (Eq. (20)) and that imaginary FT-LDOS appears only in the SOC case (Eqs. (34)-(35)), follow from the analytic spin-coherent factor decomposition and Lehmann representation, not from an input/output equivalence. Self-citations [30] and [77] are peripheral: [30] is used for the Zeeman-induced Lifshitz transition and spin configuration description, while [77] is a note-added related-work reference; neither supplies a fitted constant nor imports a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. The heuristic stability argument for excluding AB/BA-type singularities (Sec. III, step (iii); Fig. A1) is not derived in full and could affect the completeness of the predicted patterns, but that is a correctness or robustness caveat, not circularity: the prediction is conditional on the stated finite-lifetime assumption, and no quantity is re-identified as its own input. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its central QPI predictions.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on six hand-chosen model parameters (J, Delta, lambda, omega, eta, V0) used for numerical illustration; none are fitted to experimental data. The calculation assumes a 2D two-band d-wave altermagnet Hamiltonian, delta-function impurities, the Born approximation, and single-channel scattering. One ad hoc criterion, the stability of AA/BB versus AB/BA singularities under finite lifetime, is invoked without a rigorous derivation and controls which q vectors appear in the predicted patterns. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • J = 1
    Strength of altermagnetic spin splitting in H0 Eq. (1); set to 1 for all numerical figures; choice does not affect qualitative selection rules.
  • Delta (Zeeman splitting) = 0.04
    In-plane Zeeman field along x for Section IV.B; chosen for numerical illustration of Fermi surface deformation.
  • lambda (Rashba SOC) = 0.075
    Rashba SOC strength for Section IV.C; chosen to match scale of Zeeman splitting for comparison.
  • omega (energy) = 0.3
    Isoenergy level at which QPI patterns are computed; arbitrary Fermi energy.
  • eta (lifetime broadening) = 0.013
    Finite quasiparticle lifetime introduced in Green's functions to regularize singularities; choice affects stability of AB/BA singularities.
  • V0 (impurity strength) = 0.05
    Amplitude of delta-function impurity potential in Born approximation; weak potential regime.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-band effective Hamiltonian H0(k) = k^2 + J kx ky sigma_z + Delta sigma_x + lambda(ky sigma_x - kx sigma_y) describes a 2D d-wave altermagnet.
    Adopted from earlier altermagnet literature; all results are computed for this model, not for a specific material.
  • domain assumption The impurity potential is a delta function and the Born approximation T approximately V is valid in the weak-potential regime V0=0.05.
    Section III; enables factorization of response functions into spin-coherent factors times bare Green's functions.
  • ad hoc to paper Only AA- and BB-type singularities are stable under finite lifetime eta; AB- and BA-type singularities are suppressed.
    Sec. III and Fig. A1 provide a physical argument, not a rigorous proof; this determines which q-vectors are included in the predicted patterns.
  • domain assumption Single scattering channel assumption: only one type of impurity (nonmagnetic or magnetic along a fixed direction) is present at a time.
    Sec. III; avoids T-matrix mixing of channels.
  • standard math Lehmann representation with eigenstates of H0 and the standard T-matrix formalism holds.
    Sec. II; standard linear response.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiparticle interference in altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTZVEKZX

@misc{pith2026241117185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiparticle interference in altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTZVEKZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17185}
}
read the original abstract

A novel collinear magnetic phase, termed ``altermagnetism,'' has recently been uncovered, characterized by zero net magnetization and momentum-dependent collinear spin-splitting. To understand the intriguing physical effects of altermagnets and explore their potential applications, it is crucial to analyze both the geometric and spin configurations of altermagnetic Fermi surfaces. Here, we conduct a comprehensive study of the quasiparticle interference (QPI) effects induced by both nonmagnetic and magnetic impurities in metallic altermagnets, incorporating the influence of Zeeman splitting and spin-orbit coupling. By examining the QPI patterns for various spin polarizations of magnetic impurities and different spin-probe channels, we identify a series of distinctive signatures that can be used to characterize altermagnetic Fermi surfaces. These predicted signatures can be directly compared with experimental results obtained through spin-resolved scanning tunneling spectroscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Isoenergy surfaces for various altermagnet cases, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The real parts of FT-LDOS (Re FT-LDOS) are shown for different altermagnet cases and channels. Representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The real parts of FT-LDOS (Re FT-LDOS) of al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The imaginary parts of FT-LDOS (Im FT-LDOS) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A10) Here ˆRα is a π-rotation about the α = x, y, zaxis and ˆR0 = ˆI

    When α = β, F ss′ αα (k, k + q) = 1 2 (1 + ss′ ˆdk+q · ˆRα ˆdk). (A10) Here ˆRα is a π-rotation about the α = x, y, zaxis and ˆR0 = ˆI

  2. [2]

    When α = 0,β ̸= 0, F ss′ 0β (k, k + q) = 1 2 (sˆdβ k+q + s′ ˆdβ k + iss′ X ij ϵβji ˆdi k+q ˆdj k) = 1 2 [sˆdβ k+q + s′ ˆdβ k + iss′(ˆdk × ˆdk+q)β]. (A11)

    work page

  3. [3]

    When β = 0,α ̸= 0, F ss′ α0 (k, k + q) = 1 2 (sˆdα k+q + s′ ˆdα k + iss′ X ij ϵαij ˆdi k+q ˆdj k) = 1 2 [sˆdα k+q + s′ ˆdα k + iss′(ˆdk+q × ˆdk)α]. (A12)

    work page

  4. [4]

    (A13) Finally, we consider the stability of singularities in the response functions when accounting for the finite lifetime of quasiparticles [67]

    When α ̸= 0, β ̸= 0, α ̸= β, F ss′ αβ (k, k + q) = 1 2 [is X i ϵαiβ ˆdi k+q + is′ X i ϵαβi ˆdi k +ss′(ˆdα k+q ˆdβ k + ˆdβ k+q ˆdα k)]. (A13) Finally, we consider the stability of singularities in the response functions when accounting for the finite lifetime of quasiparticles [67]. In the Green’s functions, we re- place the infinitesimal term 0+ with a po...

    work page

  5. [5]

    N´ eel, Magnetism and local molecular field, Science 174, 985 (1971)

    L. N´ eel, Magnetism and local molecular field, Science 174, 985 (1971)

    1971

  6. [6]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Physical Review X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Mazin, Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamental magnetism, Physical Review X 12, 040002 (2022)

    I. Mazin, Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamental magnetism, Physical Review X 12, 040002 (2022). 12

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Physical Review X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum- dependent spin splitting by collinear antiferromagnetic ordering, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 10.7566/jpsj.88.123702 (2019)

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Giant and tunneling magne- toresistance in unconventional collinear antiferromagnets with nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling, Physical Review X 12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Feng, G.-Y

    W. Feng, G.-Y. Guo, J. Zhou, Y. Yao, and Q. Niu, Large magneto-optical kerr effect in noncollinear anti- ferromagnetsmn3x(x=rh,ir,pt), Physical Review B 92, 144426 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Spin-neutral currents for spintronics, Nature Communications 12, 10.1038/s41467-021-26915- 3 (2021)

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Ef- ficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Physical Review Letters 126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-F. Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. G. Schlom, and D. C. Ralph, Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferromagnet ruthenium dioxide, Na- ture Electronics 5, 267 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Anomalous hall effect, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    T. Sato, S. Haddad, I. C. Fulga, F. F. Assaad, and J. van den Brink, Altermagnetic anomalous hall effect emerging from electronic correlations, Physical Review Letters 133, 086503 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hayami and H

    S. Hayami and H. Kusunose, Essential role of the anisotropic magnetic dipole in the anomalous hall effect, Physical Review B 103, l180407 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    H. Bai, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, P. Chen, C. Wan, L. Han, W. Zhu, S. Liang, Y. Su, X. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Efficient spin-to-charge conversion via altermagnetic spin splitting effect in antiferromagnet ruo2, Physical Review Letters 130, 216701 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan, X. Fan, and C. Song, Observation of spin splitting torque in a collinear anti- ferromagnet ruo2, Physical Review Letters 128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Observation of spin-splitter torque in collinear antiferromagnetic ruo2, Physical Re- view Letters 129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, dc joseph- son effect in altermagnets, Physical Review Letters 131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    C. Sun, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Andreev reflection in altermagnets, Physical Review B 108, 054511 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Savitsky, Researchers discover new kind of magnetism, Science 383, 574 (2024)

    Z. Savitsky, Researchers discover new kind of magnetism, Science 383, 574 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Bottom-up de- sign of spin-split and reshaped electronic band structures in antiferromagnets without spin-orbit coupling: Proce- dure on the basis of augmented multipoles, Physical Re- view B 102, 144441 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    I. I. Mazin, Altermagnetism in mnte: Origin, predicted manifestations, and routes to detwinning, Physical Re- view B 107, l100418 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    P. E. Faria Junior, K. A. de Mare, K. Zollner, K.-h. Ahn, S. I. Erlingsson, M. van Schilfgaarde, and K. V´ yborn´ y, Sensitivity of the mnte valence band to the orientation of magnetic moments, Physical Review B 107, l100417 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Chiral magnons in altermagnetic ruo2, Physical Review Letters 131, 256703 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Milivojevi´ c, M

    M. Milivojevi´ c, M. Orozovi´ c, S. Picozzi, M. Gmitra, and S. Stavri´ c, Interplay of altermagnetism and weak ferro- magnetism in two-dimensional ruf4, 2D Materials 11, 035025 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Multifunctional antiferromagnetic materials with giant piezomagnetism and noncollinear spin current, Nature Communications 12, 10.1038/s41467-021-23127- 7 (2021)

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    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 alter- magnetic mnte, Physical Review B 109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Z. Lin, D. Chen, W. Lu, X. Liang, S. Feng, K. Yamagami, J. Osiecki, M. Leandersson, B. Thiagarajan, J. Liu, C. Felser, and J. Ma, Observation of giant spin splitting and d-wave spin texture in room temperature altermag- net ruo2 (2024), arXiv:2402.04995 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hiraishi, H

    M. Hiraishi, H. Okabe, A. Koda, R. Kadono, T. Muroi, D. Hirai, and Z. Hiroi, Nonmagnetic ground state in ruo2 revealed by muon spin rotation, Physical Review Letters 132, 166702 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Keßler, L

    P. Keßler, L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, I. I. Mazin, R. Valentı, and S. Moser, Absence of magnetic or- der in ruo 2: insights from µsr spectroscopy and neutron diffraction (2024), arXiv:2405.10820 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Z.-X. Li, X. Wan, and W. Chen, Diagnosing alter- magnetic phases through quantum oscillations (2024), arXiv:2406.04073 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Avraham, J

    N. Avraham, J. Reiner, A. Kumar-Nayak, N. Morali, R. Batabyal, B. Yan, and H. Beidenkopf, Quasiparticle interference studies of quantum materials, Advanced Ma- terials 30, 10.1002/adma.201707628 (2018)

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    M. F. Crommie, C. P. Lutz, and D. M. Eigler, Imaging standing waves in a two-dimensional electron gas, Nature 363, 524 (1993)

    1993

  29. [37]

    P. T. Sprunger, L. Petersen, E. W. Plummer, E. Lægs- gaard, and F. Besenbacher, Giant friedel oscillations on the beryllium(0001) surface, Science 275, 1764 (1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    Capriotti, D

    L. Capriotti, D. J. Scalapino, and R. D. Sedgewick, Wave- vector power spectrum of the local tunneling density of states: Ripples in ad-wave sea, Physical Review B 68, 014508 (2003)

    2003

  31. [39]

    Wang and D.-H

    Q.-H. Wang and D.-H. Lee, Quasiparticle scattering in- terference in high-temperature superconductors, Physical Review B 67, 020511 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    Hanaguri, Y

    T. Hanaguri, Y. Kohsaka, M. Ono, M. Maltseva, P. Cole- 13 man, I. Yamada, M. Azuma, M. Takano, K. Ohishi, and H. Takagi, Coherence factors in a high- t c cuprate probed by quasi-particle scattering off vortices, Science 323, 923 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    J. E. Hoffman, K. McElroy, D.-H. Lee, K. M. Lang, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Imaging quasipar- ticle interference in bi2sr2cacu2o9+delta, Science 297, 1148 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Pereg-Barnea and M

    T. Pereg-Barnea and M. Franz, Theory of quasiparti- cle interference patterns in the pseudogap phase of the cuprate superconductors, Physical Review B 68, 180506 (2003)

    2003

  35. [43]

    J. Lee, K. Fujita, A. R. Schmidt, C. K. Kim, H. Eisaki, S. Uchida, and J. C. Davis, Spectroscopic fingerprint of phase-incoherent superconductivity in the underdoped bi2sr2cacu2o9+delta, Science 325, 1099 (2009)

    2009

  36. [44]

    G. M. Rutter, J. N. Crain, N. P. Guisinger, T. Li, P. N. First, and J. A. Stroscio, Scattering and interference in epitaxial graphene, Science 317, 219 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Pereg-Barnea and A

    T. Pereg-Barnea and A. H. MacDonald, Chiral quasipar- ticle local density of states maps in graphene, Physical Review B 78, 014201 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    Brihuega, P

    I. Brihuega, P. Mallet, C. Bena, S. Bose, C. Michaelis, L. Vitali, F. Varchon, L. Magaud, K. Kern, and J. Y. Veuillen, Quasiparticle chirality in epitaxial graphene probed at the nanometer scale, Physical Review Letters 101, 206802 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Dombrowski, W

    D. Dombrowski, W. Jolie, M. Petrovi´ c, S. Runte, F. Craes, J. Klinkhammer, M. Kralj, P. Lazi´ c, E. Sela, and C. Busse, Energy-dependent chirality effects in quasifree-standing graphene, Physical Review Letters 118, 116401 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Jolie, J

    W. Jolie, J. Lux, M. P¨ ortner, D. Dombrowski, C. Her- big, T. Knispel, S. Simon, T. Michely, A. Rosch, and C. Busse, Suppression of quasiparticle scattering signals in bilayer graphene due to layer polarization and destruc- tive interference, Physical Review Letters 120, 1068...

    2018

  41. [49]

    X. Zhou, C. Fang, W.-F. Tsai, and J. Hu, Theory of quasiparticle scattering in a two-dimensional system of helical dirac fermions: Surface band structure of a three- dimensional topological insulator, Physical Review B 80, 245317 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    W.-C. Lee, C. Wu, D. P. Arovas, and S.-C. Zhang, Quasi- particle interference on the surface of the topological in- sulatorbi2te3, Physical Review B 80, 245439 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Beidenkopf, P

    H. Beidenkopf, P. Roushan, J. Seo, L. Gorman, I. Droz- dov, Y. S. Hor, R. J. Cava, and A. Yazdani, Spatial fluc- tuations of helical dirac fermions on the surface of topo- logical insulators, Nature Physics 7, 939 (2011)

    2011

  44. [52]

    Kohsaka, M

    Y. Kohsaka, M. Kanou, H. Takagi, T. Hanaguri, and T. Sasagawa, Imaging ambipolar two-dimensional carri- ers induced by the spontaneous electric polarization of a polar semiconductor bitei, Physical Review B 91, 245312 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Kohsaka, T

    Y. Kohsaka, T. Machida, K. Iwaya, M. Kanou, T. Hanaguri, and T. Sasagawa, Spin-orbit scattering vi- sualized in quasiparticle interference, Physical Review B 95, 115307 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Batabyal, N

    R. Batabyal, N. Morali, N. Avraham, Y. Sun, M. Schmidt, C. Felser, A. Stern, B. Yan, and H. Bei- denkopf, Visualizing weakly bound surface fermi arcs and their correspondence to bulk weyl fermions, Science Ad- vances 2, 10.1126/sciadv.1600709 (2016)

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Inoue, A

    H. Inoue, A. Gyenis, Z. Wang, J. Li, S. W. Oh, S. Jiang, N. Ni, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Quasiparticle in- terference of the fermi arcs and surface-bulk connectivity of a weyl semimetal, Science 351, 1184 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    A. K. Mitchell and L. Fritz, Signatures of weyl semimet- als in quasiparticle interference, Physical Review B 93, 035137 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Zheng and M

    H. Zheng and M. Zahid Hasan, Quasiparticle interference on type-i and type-ii weyl semimetal surfaces: a review, Advances in Physics: X 3, 1466661 (2018)

    2018

  50. [58]

    A. Topp, R. Queiroz, A. Gr¨ uneis, L. M¨ uchler, A. W. Rost, A. Varykhalov, D. Marchenko, M. Krivenkov, F. Rodolakis, J. L. McChesney, B. V. Lotsch, L. M. Schoop, and C. R. Ast, Surface floating 2d bands in lay- ered nonsymmorphic semimetals: Zrsis and related com- pounds, Phy...

    2017

  51. [59]

    Queiroz and A

    R. Queiroz and A. Stern, Selection rules for quasipar- ticle interference with internal nonsymmorphic symme- tries, Physical Review Letters 121, 176401 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Zhu, T.-R

    Z. Zhu, T.-R. Chang, C.-Y. Huang, H. Pan, X.-A. Nie, X.-Z. Wang, Z.-T. Jin, S.-Y. Xu, S.-M. Huang, D.-D. Guan, S. Wang, Y.-Y. Li, C. Liu, D. Qian, W. Ku, F. Song, H. Lin, H. Zheng, and J.-F. Jia, Quasiparti- cle interference and nonsymmorphic effect on a floating band surface ...

    2018 doi

  53. [61]

    Biderang, M.-H

    M. Biderang, M.-H. Zare, and J. Sirker, Proximity-driven ferromagnetism and superconductivity in the triangular rashba-hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B105, 064504 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Biderang, A

    M. Biderang, A. Leonhardt, N. Raghuvanshi, A. P. Schnyder, and A. Akbari, Drumhead surface states and their signatures in quasiparticle scattering interference, Phys. Rev. B 98, 075115 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    P. J. Hirschfeld, D. Altenfeld, I. Eremin, and I. I. Mazin, Robust determination of the superconducting gap sign structure via quasiparticle interference, Phys. Rev. B 92, 184513 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Akbari and P

    A. Akbari and P. Thalmeier, Full t-matrix approach to quasiparticle interference in non-centrosymmetric su- perconductors, The European Physical Journal B 86, 10.1140/epjb/e2013-40859-6 (2013)

    2013 doi

  57. [65]

    Wiesendanger, Spin mapping at the nanoscale and atomic scale, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1495 (2009)

    R. Wiesendanger, Spin mapping at the nanoscale and atomic scale, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1495 (2009)

    2009

  58. [66]

    S. Jeon, Y. Xie, J. Li, Z. Wang, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Distinguishing a majorana zero mode using spin-resolved measurements, Science 358, 772 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Cornils, A

    L. Cornils, A. Kamlapure, L. Zhou, S. Pradhan, A. Kha- jetoorians, J. Fransson, J. Wiebe, and R. Wiesendanger, Spin-resolved spectroscopy of the yu-shiba-rusinov states of individual atoms, Physical Review Letters119, 197002 (2017)

    2017

  60. [68]

    Guo and M

    H.-M. Guo and M. Franz, Theory of quasiparticle inter- ference on the surface of a strong topological insulator, Physical Review B 81, 041102 (2010)

    2010

  61. [69]

    PEREG-BARNEA and M

    T. PEREG-BARNEA and M. FRANZ, Quasiparticle in- terference patterns as a test for the nature of the pseudo- gap phase in the cuprate superconductors, International Journal of Modern Physics B 19, 731 (2005)

    2005

  62. [70]

    E. N. Economou, Green ’s functions in quantum physics, Vol. 7 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2006)

    2006

  63. [71]

    Zhang, Q

    D.-B. Zhang, Q. Han, and Z. D. Wang, Local and global patterns in quasiparticle interference: A reduced response function approach, Physical Review B 100, 205112 (2019). 14

    2019

  64. [72]

    Dieny and M

    B. Dieny and M. Chshiev, Perpendicular magnetic anisotropy at transition metal/oxide interfaces and appli- cations, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 025008 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    S. E. Barnes, J. Ieda, and S. Maekawa, Rashba spin-orbit anisotropy and the electric field control of magnetism, Scientific Reports 4, 10.1038/srep04105 (2014)

    2014 doi

  66. [74]

    A. V. Balatsky, I. Vekhter, and J.-X. Zhu, Impurity- induced states in conventional and unconventional super- conductors, Reviews of Modern Physics 78, 373 (2006)

    2006

  67. [75]

    G. S. Diniz and E. Vernek, Suppressed kondo screening in two-dimensional altermagnets, Physical Review B 109, 155127 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    P. G. Derry, A. K. Mitchell, and D. E. Logan, Quasi- particle interference from magnetic impurities, Physical Review B 92, 035126 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    A. K. Mitchell, P. G. Derry, and D. E. Logan, Mul- tiple magnetic impurities on surfaces: Scattering and quasiparticle interference, Physical Review B 91, 235127 (2015)

    2015

  70. [78]

    A. K. Mitchell, D. Schuricht, M. Vojta, and L. Fritz, Kondo effect on the surface of three-dimensional topo- logical insulators: Signatures in scanning tunneling spec- troscopy, Physical Review B 87, 075430 (2013)

    2013

  71. [79]

    H. Oka, O. O. Brovko, M. Corbetta, V. S. Stepanyuk, D. Sander, and J. Kirschner, Spin-polarized quantum confinement in nanostructures: Scanning tunneling mi- croscopy, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 1127 (2014)

    2014

  72. [80]

    Sukhachov and J

    P. Sukhachov and J. Linder, Impurity-induced friedel os- cillations in altermagnets and p -wave magnets, Physical Review B 110, 205114 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    W. Chen, X. Zhou, D. Zhang, Y.-Q. Xu, and W.-K. Lou, Impurity scattering and friedel oscillations in altermag- nets, Physical Review B 110, 165413 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

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