Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Synthetic Altermagnets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two ferromagnetic layers with opposite magnetizations and mutually rotated anisotropic hopping form a synthetic altermagnet, showing d-wave spin splitting, spin-polarized currents, and a nonzero anomalous Hall effect.

desk verdict A clean synthetic-altermagnet proposal with solid band-structure and spin-current results, but the anomalous Hall claim relies on an inter-layer Rashba term whose physical origin also introduces a finite magnetization that the paper never includes or controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02473 v1 pith:MZSEV7RP submitted 2024-12-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.othercond-mat.supr-con

Ali Asgharpour , Bert Koopmans , Rembert A. Duine This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.othercond-mat.supr-con
keywords syntheticaltermagnetsferromagneticbilayerd-wavespinsplittinganomalousHalleffectRashbaspin-orbitcouplingcurrenttight-bindingmodelBerrycurvature
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

The paper proposes that a stack of two ferromagnetic layers, with equal and opposite out-of-plane magnetization and with the in-plane hopping anisotropy of one layer rotated by 90 degrees relative to the other, behaves as a synthetic altermagnet. In a minimal tight-binding model the combined system has zero net magnetization, yet its electron bands split by spin with a d-wave pattern, and it supports spin-polarized currents when an electric field is applied. The same model, augmented with an inter-layer Rashba spin-orbit coupling, produces a nonzero anomalous Hall conductivity of order 0.1–5% of the conductance quantum. The authors argue that this bilayer construction offers a practical route to altermagnetic behavior using well-understood ferromagnetic materials.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-layer tight-binding Hamiltonian with anisotropic nearest-neighbor hoppings $t_1$ and $t_2$ (swapped between the layers), opposite exchange fields $\pm J_{sd}$, an inter-layer coupling $t_3$, and optional Rashba spin-orbit coupling. The model's defining identity is the spin-splitting magnitude of Eq. (3), which vanishes when $t_1 = t_2$, showing that the anisotropy between hopping directions is what generates the altermagnetic band structure. For the anomalous Hall effect, the key mechanism is the inter-layer Rashba term induced by a tilted in-plane electric field, which mixes spins across layers and produces nonzero Berry curvature; the Hall conductivity is computed from this curvature via Eq. (10).

What would settle it

Measure the anomalous Hall conductivity of the bilayer while sweeping the in-plane electric field that produces the inter-layer Rashba coupling, and compare it with a control structure in which the two layers have isotropic hopping so that all altermagnetic spin splitting is absent; if the Hall signal does not vanish or does not track the hopping anisotropy, the effect is not altermagnetic in origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a bilayer of two ferromagnets with antiparallel out-of-plane magnetizations and anisotropic hopping amplitudes, one layer rotated by $\pi/2$ in-plane relative to the other, reproduces the defining electronic properties of an altermagnet. The bands exhibit momentum-dependent spin splitting with d-wave symmetry, the Fermi surfaces have spin-degenerate nodes along $k_x = \pm k_y$, and the system carries a spin-polarized current under an electric field. When inter-layer Rashba coupling is added, the model yields a nonzero Berry curvature and an anomalous Hall conductivity of a few percent of the conductance quantum, turning the compensated bilayer into an electrically readable magnetic state.

Load-bearing premise

The nonzero anomalous Hall effect rests on an inter-layer Rashba coupling that the paper generates by applying an in-plane electric field, but the paper itself notes that such a field induces a finite magnetization; if that magnetization is appreciable, the Hall signal could originate from ordinary ferromagnetic charge imbalance rather than from the altermagnetic band structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A bilayer architecture lets experimentalists use familiar ferromagnetic films, with their well-controlled domains, to realize altermagnetic transport signatures without requiring a specific crystal structure.
  • The spin polarization of the current can be tuned by the applied field direction and by the chemical potential, making the structure a candidate spin valve for spintronics.
  • A nonzero anomalous Hall conductivity in a net-zero-magnetization stack provides an electronic readout of the magnetic state, relevant for memory and logic devices.
  • The model's magnon spectra also show d-wave symmetry, extending the altermagnetic signatures to spin-wave transport.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the in-plane electric field's induced magnetization stays small, the inter-layer Rashba route to the anomalous Hall effect could be tested by rotating the field angle $\phi$: the Hall response should follow the Rashba term's symmetry rather than the direction of any net moment.
  • A control calculation with isotropic hopping ($t_1 = t_2$) under the same inter-layer Rashba field would isolate the altermagnetic contribution to the Hall conductivity; the paper does not report this baseline.
  • The same bilayer geometry could be extended to other relative rotation angles, potentially engineering higher-angular-momentum spin splitting than the d-wave case studied here.
  • Spin transport measurements in a bilayer of a common ferromagnet with artificially anisotropic hopping could test the predicted spin-polarized current without needing a natural altermagnetic crystal.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a synthetic altermagnet consisting of two ferromagnetic layers with opposite out-of-plane magnetizations and mutually π/2-rotated anisotropic hopping parameters. A tight-binding model is developed and analyzed in several stages: without spin-orbit coupling, the band structure shows d-wave-like spin splitting with spin-degenerate nodal lines; with an electric field, the Boltzmann transport equation predicts spin-polarized currents; and with intra-layer and inter-layer Rashba spin-orbit coupling, the Berry curvature and anomalous Hall conductivity are computed. The authors conclude that these systems realize altermagnetic behavior, including a nonzero anomalous Hall effect that distinguishes them from conventional antiferromagnets, and they discuss magnon properties in an appendix. The central model of the d-wave spin splitting and spin current is straightforward and largely self-contained, but the anomalous Hall result relies on an inter-layer Rashba term whose physical motivation is in tension with the paper's own statement that the generating electric field also produces a finite magnetization, and no control calculation isolates the altermagnetic anisotropy as the cause of the Hall signal.

Significance. If the AHE claim were properly tied to the altermagnetic band structure, the paper would offer a simple, experimentally suggestive platform for synthetic altermagnets in ferromagnetic bilayers, with clean analytic results for spin splitting, spin conductivity, and Berry curvature. The proposal is appealing because it leverages well-understood ferromagnetic layers and anisotropic hopping, and the appendix on anisotropic magnon spectra adds useful context. However, the significance is currently limited by the unresolved causal attribution of the anomalous Hall effect: the nonzero AHC in Fig. 7 is generated by adding an inter-layer Rashba term, and the paper does not demonstrate that this term produces a Hall effect only because of the d-wave anisotropy. Without a conventional-antiferromagnet or isotropic-hopping baseline, the headline distinction from antiferromagnets is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, text before Eq. (12)] The paper states that applying an in-plane electric field, which is the physical agent invoked to generate the inter-layer Rashba coupling in Eq. (12), 'result[s] in a finite magnetization' [55]. However, the Hamiltonian used for the Berry curvature and AHC calculations, including Fig. 7, does not include any such magnetization or field-induced canting. This is a load-bearing omission: the computed nonzero σxy could be the anomalous Hall effect of a weakly ferromagnetic or field-canted state rather than of the compensated synthetic altermagnet. The authors should either quantify the induced magnetization and show it is negligible in the parameter regime used, or include it explicitly in the model and assess its contribution to σxy.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 7] The paper does not provide a control calculation with t1 = t2, i.e., with isotropic intra-layer hopping and hence no d-wave altermagnetic splitting, while keeping the same Rashba couplings λ1, λ2, λ3. Such a baseline is essential to attribute the nonzero AHC to the altermagnetic band structure. Without it, a conventional antiferromagnet with the same inter-layer and intra-layer Rashba terms could plausibly produce a comparable σxy, and the claim that AHE distinguishes synthetic altermagnets from antiferromagnets is unsupported.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (12) and Fig. 7] The nonzero AHC is obtained by introducing the inter-layer Rashba term H_inter^R specifically for that purpose, as the text acknowledges. Because this term is an added model ingredient rather than a derived or symmetry-required consequence of the altermagnetic order, the paper should clarify what observable or material design principle fixes its magnitude and sign, and should show that σxy is not simply a property of the Rashba term acting on two antiparallel ferromagnetic layers. The current presentation makes the AHE result a model choice rather than a prediction of the synthetic altermagnet proposal.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3)] The phrase 'minimum magnitude of the unconventional spin-splitting' is unclear; the expression in Eq. (3) appears to be the magnitude of the spin splitting itself, not a minimum over momenta or parameters. Please rephrase.
  2. [Section IV, Fig. 7] The text states the AHC is 'in the range of 0.1-5% of the conductance quantum', but the plotted data in Fig. 7 show values only up to about 3% on the displayed axis. Please specify the parameter range that yields the 5% value or adjust the statement to match the shown results.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (11)] The notation ∓(±) in Eq. (11) is confusing; please spell out the sign correspondence for layer 1 and layer 2 and for the two bands.
  4. [References] Several references are arXiv preprints (e.g., [25], [49], [53]) and some may have since appeared in peer-reviewed journals; please update the citations where possible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the band-structure, spin-current, and anomalous Hall conductivity results are computed from an explicitly stated tight-binding model rather than fitted or defined by their outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central results—d-wave spin splitting (Sec. II, Fig. 2, Eq. 3), spin-polarized current (Sec. III, Fig. 5), and anomalous Hall conductivity (Sec. IV, Fig. 7)—are all obtained by explicit diagonalization or numerical evaluation of the stated tight-binding Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) plus the intra-layer and inter-layer Rashba terms (Eqs. 4 and 12). No parameter is fitted to the quantities being predicted: the d-wave splitting is an algebraic consequence of t1 != t2 with opposite layer magnetizations, and the spin current follows directly from the Boltzmann transport equation (Eqs. 5–7). The nonzero AHC requires the inter-layer Rashba term (Eq. 12), which is introduced deliberately to generate a nonzero sigma_xy; this is a model-design choice rather than a circular reduction, and the AHC is computed from the Berry curvature, not fitted. The paper itself notes that the in-plane electric field motivating Eq. 12 'result[s] in a finite magnetization' (Sec. IV, immediately before Eq. 12), which is a potential physical inconsistency or missing baseline (no t1=t2 control for the AHC), but this is a correctness and attribution concern, not a circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness arguments imported from the authors' prior work, or renaming of known empirical patterns presented as derivation. The derivation chain is self-contained for what it computes, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a small set of hand-chosen model parameters and on symmetry assumptions about the spin group of the bilayer. The most fragile entries are the assumption that a π/2 lattice rotation with opposite out-of-plane moments gives altermagnetic symmetry, and the assumption that an inter-layer Rashba term can produce a nonzero AHE without creating a finite magnetization.

free parameters (9)
  • t2/t1 = 0.5
    Hand-chosen anisotropy ratio in the electronic hoppings; controls the d-wave splitting.
  • t3/t1 = 0.5
    Hand-chosen inter-layer coupling; gaps the spin-degenerate nodes.
  • JsdS/t1 = 0.4
    Hand-chosen exchange splitting between spin-up and spin-down electrons.
  • lambda1/t1 = 0.2
    Hand-chosen intra-layer Rashba coupling along one direction.
  • lambda2/t1 = 0.1
    Hand-chosen intra-layer Rashba coupling along the other direction.
  • lambda3/t1 = 0.1
    Hand-chosen inter-layer Rashba coupling; this term is what produces the nonzero AHC.
  • phi = 0
    In-plane angle of the tilted electric field; only the phi=0 case is presented.
  • kBT/t1 = 0.01
    Thermal smearing temperature used in Fermi-Dirac distributions.
  • J2/J1 and J3/J1 = 0.5 and 1.0
    Hand-chosen exchange ratios in the magnon appendix (Figs. 8-9).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two layers with opposite out-of-plane magnetizations and π/2-rotated hopping anisotropy realize altermagnetic symmetry through the spin-group formalism, where lattice and spin rotations need not be the same operation.
    Sec. II states the layers are 'transformable into one another through a π/2 rotation' despite opposite magnetizations; no explicit spin-group symmetry analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Anisotropic hopping parameters t1 and t2 represent the microscopic effect of anisotropic orbital ordering or nonmagnetic atoms in each ferromagnetic layer.
    Sec. II: 'both of these are modelled by anisotropic hopping parameters.'
  • domain assumption The magnetic configuration remains collinear and fully compensated (zero net magnetization) when inter-layer hopping and Rashba terms are added.
    Needed for the altermagnetic interpretation; no self-consistent calculation of the magnetic moments is performed.
  • ad hoc to paper The inter-layer Rashba coupling generated by a tilted in-plane electric field yields a nonzero AHE without a significant net magnetization, despite the text stating that an in-plane electric field gives a finite magnetization.
    Sec. IV, before Eq. (12); the coexistence is asserted but not demonstrated.
  • standard math The Boltzmann transport equation with a constant relaxation time and the Berry curvature formula (Eq. 9) are valid for computing spin conductivity and AHC in this model.
    Standard transport and Berry phase formalism used in Secs. III and IV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Synthetic Altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZSEV7RP

@misc{pith2026241202473,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Synthetic Altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZSEV7RP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02473}
}
read the original abstract

Altermagnets, a distinct class of antiferromagnets with electronic structures resembling those of d-wave superconductors, exhibit intriguing properties that have gained significant attention in recent research. In this article, we propose synthetic altermagnets, composed of two anisotropic ferromagnetic layers arranged such that the total net magnetization is zero. We investigate the properties of these synthetic altermagnets, focusing on their electronic band structures, spin current, Berry curvature, and anomalous Hall conductivity. By developing a minimal model for our synthetic altermagnets, we examine the influence of factors such as anisotropic coupling strengths and spin-orbit coupling on the physical phenomena altermagnets manifest. Our findings open a new path for the realization of altermagnetic materials experimentally and highlight their potential applications in magneto-electronics, magneto-optics, and spintronics devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02473 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) An illustration depicting two ferromagnetic lay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The Fermi surface at two distinct doping levels. Red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. FIG. 5. The spin polarization along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The band dispersion for our system with intra-layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The ratio of anomalous Hall conductivity to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The magnon modes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: shows split magnon bands with opposite chi￾rality and non-zero spin expectation values. However, the magnon dispersion of our model is not linear around the Γ point due to the lack of translational symme￾try in the z-direction. When stacking layers with al￾ternating ma…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [55]

    A. V. Kimel, Th. Rasing, and B. A. Ivanov, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 16, 172039 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  4. [3]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 256703 (2023)

    2023

  5. [4]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-Fu Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. G. Schlom, and D. C. Ralph, Nat. Electron. 5, 267–274 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Y. Feng, Y. J. Zhou, R. X. Su, Q. Wang, L. Y. Liao, W. X. Zhu, X. Z. Chen, F. Pan, X. L. Fan, and C. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    Karube, T

    ] S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 137201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    D. Zhu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

Show all 58 references
  1. [8]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 076003 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    C. Sun, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Phys. Rev. B 108, 054511 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Papaj, Phys

    M. Papaj, Phys. Rev. B 108, L060508 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, T. L. Hughes, and J. Cano, arXiv:2306.09413 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    X. Zhou, W. Feng, R.-W. Zhang, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 056701 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Zhang, L.-H

    S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and T. Neupert, Nat. Commun. 15, 1801 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nat. Commun. 12, 7061 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    Y. Noda, K. Ohno, and S. Nakamura, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 13294 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  12. [19]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, H. Kusunose, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019). 8

    2019

  13. [20]

    S. A. Egorov, D. B. Litvin, R. A. Evarestov, J. Phys. Chem. C, 125, 16147 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 014409 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, H. Kusunose, Phys. Rev. B, 102, 144441 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    L. D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J. W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B, 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    S. A. Egorov and R. A. Evarestov, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 12, 2363 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    Reichlov´ a, R

    H. Reichlov´ a, R. L. Seeger, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, I. Kounta, R. Schlitz, D. Kriegner, P. Ritzinger, M. Lam- mel, M. Leivisk¨ a, V. Petˇ riˇ cek, P. Doleˇ zal, E. Schmoranze- rova, A. Bad’ura, A. Thomas, V. Baltz, L. Michez, J. Sinova, S. T. B. Goennenwein, T. Jungwirth,...

    2021 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Z. Lin, D. Chen, W. Lu, X. Liang, S. Feng, K. Yamagami, J. Osiecki, M. Leandersson, B. Thiagarajan, J. Liu, C. Felser, J. Ma, arXiv:2402.04995 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Minar, A. Akashdeep, S. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Ross- nagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl¨ aui, G. Sch¨ onhense, G. Jakob, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, J....

    2024

  21. [28]

    Krempasky, L

    J. Krempasky, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhlirov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Con- stantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alezHern´ andez, A. B. Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Re- ichlov´ a, Z. Sob´ an, R. D. G. Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Si...

    2024

  22. [29]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. J. Ubiergo, W. H. Cam- pos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, T. Denneulin, W. Shi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, S. Das, M. Kl¨ aui, J. Sinova, M. Jourdan, Nat. Commun. 15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  23. [30]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal, C. J. Kang, C. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, T. Sato, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  26. [33]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin, X. Zhang, H. Wu, H. Chen, Z. Meng, Z. Xia, J. Sinova,T. Jungwirth, and Z. Liu, Nat. Electron. 5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    N. J. Ghimire, A. S. Botana, J. S. Jiang, J. J. Zhang, Y. S. Chen, J. F. Mitchell, Nat. Commun. 9, 3280 (2018)

    2018

  28. [35]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, H. Seo, Phys. Rev. B 102, 075112 (2020)

    2020

  29. [36]

    M. Naka, Y. Motome, H. Seo, Phys. Rev. B 106, 195149 (2022)

    2022

  30. [37]

    R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, J. Zub´ aˇ c, R. Gonzalez- Hernandez, K. Geishendorf, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, G. Springholz, K. Olejn ´ ık, L.ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, S. T. B. Goennenwein, A. Thomas, H. Reichlov´ a, J. ˇZelezn´ y, D. Kriegner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 036702 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    T. P. T. Nguyen, K. Yamauchi, Phys. Rev. B107, 155126 (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    X. Y. Hou, H. C. Yang, Z. X. Liu, P. J. Guo, Z. Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. B 107, L161109 (2023)

    2023

  33. [40]

    Fakhredine, R

    A. Fakhredine, R. M. Sattigeri, G. Cuono, C. Autieri, Phys. Rev. B 108, 115138 (2023)

    2023

  34. [41]

    M. Wang, K. Tanaka, S. Sakai, Z. Wang, K. Deng, Y. Lyu, C. Li, D. Tian, S. Shen, N. Ogawa, N. Kanazawa, P. Yu, R. Arita, F. Kagawa, Nat. Commun. 14, 8240 (2023)

    2023

  35. [42]

    Leivisk¨ a, J

    M. Leivisk¨ a, J. Rial, A. Bad’ura, R. Lopes Seeger, I. Kounta, S. Beckert, D. Kriegner, I. Joumard, E. Schmoranzerov´ a, J. Sinova, O. Gomonay, A. Thomas, S. T. B. Goennenwein, H. Reichlov´ a, L.ˇSmejkal, L. Michez, T. Jungwirth, V. Baltz, Phys. Rev. B109, 224430 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    L´ opez-Moreno, A

    S. L´ opez-Moreno, A. Romero, J. Mej ´ ıa-L´ opez, and A. Mu˜ noz, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.18, 33250 (2016)

    2016

  37. [44]

    Okugawa, K

    T. Okugawa, K. Ohno, Y. Noda, and S. Nakamura, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 30, 075502 (2018)

    2018

  38. [45]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz´ alezHern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    M. Naka, Y. Motome, and H. Seo, Phys. Rev. B 103, 125114 (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    Y. Guo, H. Liu, O. Janson, I. C. Fulga, J. van den Brink, and J. I. Facio, Mater. Today Phys. 32, 100991 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. B 108, 224421 (2023)

    2023

  42. [49]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y. Yu, B. M. Andersen, D. F. Agter- berg, arXiv:2402.15616 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [50]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Nat. Commun. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  44. [51]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B, 103, 224410 (2021)

    2021

  45. [52]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005)

    2005

  46. [53]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonza- lezHernandez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, arXiv:2211.13806 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1959 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Y. Liu, J. Yu, C. C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206702 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    B. Pan, P. Zhou, P. Lyu, H. Xiao, X. Yang, and L. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 166701 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Zeng and Y.-J

    S. Zeng and Y.-J. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B110, 174410 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.