Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Dynamics of spin spirals in a voltage biased 1D conductor

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A voltage bias across a one-dimensional conductor can set an equilibrium spin spiral into rigid rotation, then quasi-periodic wobbling, then chaos, with the rotation freezing in the thermodynamic limit.

desk verdict Real new phase diagram and L^-3 spin precession freeze in voltage-biased spirals, but the 'arbitrarily long times' conical state rests on frozen occupation steps that the authors concede should drift. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12517 v1 pith:34KIBVPT submitted 2024-12-17 cond-mat.mes-hall

Xiaohu Han , Pedro Ribeiro , Stefano Chesi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spinspiralvoltagebiasadiabaticapproximationnonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionstorquedynamicspumpingchaoticone-dimensionalconductor
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 studies a one-dimensional chain of classical localized spins exchange-coupled to itinerant electrons and connected to two reservoirs held at different chemical potentials. It claims that a finite voltage bias alone, without any external oscillating field, destabilizes the equilibrium spiral order and produces collective spin dynamics: at small bias the whole spiral rotates rigidly, at larger bias it wobbles quasi-periodically, and at still larger bias it evolves chaotically. The three regimes are distinguishable in transport, and the rigidly rotating state pumps spin polarization out of the reservoirs. The authors further argue that the rotation frequency vanishes as the chain length grows, so in the thermodynamic limit a static conical spin state persists for arbitrarily long times. If correct, this is a minimal setting in which a DC voltage alone drives spontaneous time-dependent order from an equilibrium symmetry-broken state.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a Landau-Lifshitz-type torque equation (Eq. 4) in which the instantaneous electronic spin polarization $\langle\mathbf s_i\rangle$ is computed by the nonequilibrium Green's function formula (Eq. 3) for the frozen spin configuration, so the spins evolve under a self-consistent, highly nonlinear torque. Two auxiliary devices carry the argument: a rigid-rotation ansatz $\partial\mathbf m_i/\partial t = \boldsymbol\Omega\times \mathbf m_i$ that reduces the small-bias dynamics to a linear-response eigenvalue problem (Eq. 7), and a gauge transformation to a uniform spin frame that lets the authors treat the infinite system as a single-site dynamics with a double-step occupation function. The damping parameter $\eta$ is what selects the three orientation regimes of $\boldsymbol\Omega$ and controls the crossover scales $\eta\sim J$ and $\eta\sim L^{-2}$.

What would settle it

A direct numerical integration of the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation for the electrons (no adiabatic freeze) on a chain of $L\approx 50$–$100$ at $\delta V/w\approx 0.03$–$0.08$ would settle it: if the RR→QP→CP sequence and the $|\boldsymbol\Omega|\propto L^{-3}$ scaling do not survive, the adiabatic separation is the load-bearing approximation. On the experimental side, the spin-current noise spectrum of an engineered atomic chain under bias should show a single sharp precession peak in the RR regime whose frequency drops as the chain length grows; its absence would falsify the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within an adiabatic approximation—electrons reach their steady state for each instantaneous spin configuration via the nonequilibrium Green's function formalism—and with a phenomenological damping term $\eta$, the classical spins evolve by $\partial \mathbf m_i/\partial t = J\langle \mathbf s_i\rangle\times \mathbf m_i + \eta(\langle \mathbf s_i\rangle\times \mathbf m_i)\times \mathbf m_i$. The paper shows that the planar spiral is not stable under bias: electron polarization develops a perpendicular component that exerts a torque, and feedback from the deformed spin texture yields three dynamical phases—rigid rotation (RR), quasi-periodic (QP), and chaotic (CP)—with re-entrant RR regions in the damping-vs-bias phase diagram. A rotating-frame ansatz $\partial \mathbf m_i/\partial t = \boldsymbol\Omega\times\mathbf m_i$ captures the small-bias states and yields the angular velocity $\boldsymbol\Omega$ as a function of damping and system size; in the linear-response regime the precession vector lies perpendicular to the spiral plane for weak damping, parallel to it for strong damping, and tilted in between. The central quantitative claim is the finite-size scaling $|\boldsymbol\Omega|/\delta V \propto L^{-3}$ in regions II and III, which implies $\boldsymbol\Omega\to 0$ in the thermodynamic limit and hence a metastable conical state with diverging lifetime.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the electrons reach their steady state for each instantaneous spin configuration much faster than the spins move, so the torques are computed from a frozen spin texture; if precession is fast enough to drag the electron distribution out of equilibrium, both the torques and the phase boundaries could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At small bias the RR state is a voltage-controlled spin-current source: the rotating spiral transfers spin polarization along the precession axis, measurable as a finite time-averaged $\bar J^z_{sL}\propto\Omega$.
  • The RR, QP, and CP phases are distinguishable in transport: charge current is constant in RR, oscillates with incommensurate frequencies in QP, and fluctuates irregularly in CP.
  • Because $|\boldsymbol\Omega|\propto L^{-3}$ in regions II and III, longer chains precess more slowly; for $L\to\infty$ before $t\to\infty$, the system freezes into a static conical state whose lifetime diverges with system size.
  • The qualitative phase sequence and the $\boldsymbol\Omega$ orientation regimes persist for generic spiral parameters, so the phenomenon is a property of spiral order under bias rather than a fine-tuned point.
  • The results imply that a DC bias can act directly on the Goldstone mode of a symmetry-broken magnetic state, without oscillating drives, which the authors propose as a general route to nonequilibrium dynamical phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: the same bias-induced torque mechanism should operate on any collective mode with a chiral or spiral character—helical magnetic chains, and possibly spin-density waves or superconducting phase textures—so voltage alone might drive nonequilibrium dynamics in those orders too.
  • The $L^{-3}$ freezing suggests a practical probe: in finite chains the crossover from precession to frozen conical order could be observed as a sharp length dependence of spin-current noise, which would also test the adiabatic assumption.
  • One could engineer a two-terminal device in which the RR state acts as a DC-voltage-driven spin battery; coupling two such chains with opposite chirality would produce a pure spin current with no moving parts.
  • The reported re-entrant RR region at $\eta/w \sim 0.15$ implies that damping does not simply destroy the rotating phase; tuning dissipation—for instance by coupling to a substrate—could switch the chain between chaos and rigid rotation at fixed bias.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies a one-dimensional chain of classical Heisenberg spins exchange-coupled to itinerant electrons, driven out of equilibrium by a voltage bias between two reservoirs. Using the non-equilibrium Green's function formalism for the electron steady state and a Landau-Lifshitz-type equation with a phenomenological damping term for the spins, the authors report three dynamical regimes as the bias increases: a rigidly rotating (RR) spiral, a quasi-periodic (QP) phase, and a chaotic phase (CP). They further show that the RR phase produces a finite average spin current, analyze the linear-response precession vector Omega via Eq. (7), and derive the asymptotic scalings |Omega|/deltaV ~ L^-1 in region I and |Omega|/deltaV ~ eta^{-1} L^-3 and eta L^-3 in regions II and III. Based on this scaling and on a finite-size/infinite-system comparison, the paper claims that in the thermodynamic limit the spin texture freezes into a static conical state that persists to arbitrarily long times.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper demonstrates a new mechanism by which a voltage bias alone can destabilize spiral magnetic order and generate collective spin dynamics, including a time-crystalline-like rigid rotation and eventual chaos, with experimentally accessible spin-current signatures. The qualitative three-regime picture is supported by direct numerical integration of Eq. (4), and the phase classification is made explicit through criteria such as Eq. (S19) and transport fingerprints. The linear-response analysis leading to Eq. (8) involves no fitted constants. However, the two strongest claims - the L^-3 scaling and the infinite-lifetime conical state - rest on a linearized equation that is not derived in the manuscript or the Supplemental Material, and on an infinite-system calculation with frozen occupation steps. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the quantitative conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Linear response regime, Eq. (7)] The central scaling law (8) is obtained from Eq. (7), but Eq. (7) is stated without a derivation. The text says that the partial derivatives in Eq. (6) can be computed explicitly, but the actual linearization of Eq. (4) around the equilibrium spiral, the explicit form of A, the definition of the vector or scalar omega, and the treatment of the constraint |m_i|=1 are not given. The Supplemental Material does not contain this derivation either; it jumps to the infinite-system calculation. Since Eq. (8) is one of the main quantitative results, the full derivation of Eq. (7) must be provided, including how the numerical derivatives with respect to m_j and deltaV are evaluated and how the resulting linear system is solved without introducing additional approximations.
  2. [Infinite system and Supplemental Material, Eq. (S25)] The conclusion that a static conical state persists to arbitrarily long times in the thermodynamic limit relies on the infinite-system calculation in which the occupation steps b+ and b- are extracted once at t = 500 w^{-1} from a finite-size simulation and then held fixed while integrating Eq. (S24). The Supplemental Material explicitly acknowledges that 'in principle, since the spin texture changes in time, the values b± should also be taken as time-dependent.' This is not a minor caveat: b± are determined by contact scattering, which depends on the instantaneous spin texture and on mz. If b± drift on timescales comparable to t1, the torque in Eq. (S24) changes and the conical state could slowly evolve rather than remain stationary. The finite-size result t1 ~ L^1.75 shows that the metastable state survives until the RR instability in finite chains, but it does not prove that the exact infinite-system fixed point is stable in the fully self-consistent dynamics. Moreover, the red dashed curve in Fig. 6 is generated with b± extracted from the same L=1000 simulation, so the agreement in Fig. 6 is partly a consistency check of the tilted-spiral ansatz, not an independent validation of infinite-time persistence. The authors should either compute b± self-consistently as a function of the instantaneous spin configuration, or provide a quantitative bound on their time dependence and a stability argument for the frozen-occupation fixed point.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S2(b) and Fig. 5(b)] The finite-size scaling underlying Eq. (8) uses system sizes selected at the centers of the beating-period intervals (the red dots in Fig. S2(b)). The Supplemental Material states that this selection is made to obtain smoother dependence because physical properties jump when two additional beating periods fit into the chain. Since Fig. 5(b) uses the same selected values of L, the apparent L^-3 collapse could be partly an artifact of the commensuration selection. The authors should present the scaling for generic values of L, or at least quantify the spread around the selected centers, in order to establish that the L^-3 law is not a consequence of choosing special system sizes.
  4. [Methodology and phase diagram] The entire numerical scheme assumes the adiabatic separation tau_e << tau_m for the electron and spin timescales. The paper argues a posteriori that tau_m grows as L^3 in the RR phase, which justifies the approximation for large L. However, the QP and CP phases are studied at finite L and finite bias, and no estimate of tau_m in those regimes is given. Since the three-regime phase diagram and the corresponding transport predictions are central claims, the authors should provide a quantitative check of the adiabatic condition (for example, a comparison of the largest spin-precession frequency with the electron relaxation or dwell time) or state clearly where the approximation is expected to break down.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S18)] The expression for Omega_i in Eq. (S18) appears to be a scalar, while the text refers to it as the common rotating vector Omega_i. Please provide the correct vector form; this is important because the criterion Eq. (S19) compares these quantities.
  2. [Linear response regime, Eqs. (5) and (7)] The notation for the precession vector is inconsistent: Eq. (5) uses Omega, while Eq. (7) uses omega. It should be made explicit whether omega is a scalar precession frequency or the vector Omega, and the algebra in Eq. (7) should be written with unambiguous vector notation.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Fig. S4(b)] The claim that Fig. 3 is representative of the thermodynamic limit is based on the convergence of deltaVc1 for three selected values of eta. It would be useful to comment on the convergence of the other phase boundaries, especially the RR-QP boundary in the small-eta region where the authors state that the asymptotic behavior is difficult to characterize.
  4. [Phase diagram, Fig. 3] The re-entrant behavior of the RR phase near eta/w ~ 0.15 is mentioned but not discussed. A brief explanation, or at least a statement of whether this feature persists in the thermodynamic limit, would help the reader interpret the phase diagram.
  5. [Conclusion] The statement that 'even an infinitesimal bias can induce non-trivial dynamics' should be reconciled with the thermodynamic-limit result that the conical state is static. The order of limits (L -> infinity before t -> infinity) is clear in the main text, but the conclusion would benefit from repeating this order-of-limits caveat explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Infinite-system conical-state validation is partly circular: b± are read from the same finite simulation used for comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Supplemental Material, 'INFINITE SYSTEM EVOLUTION', Eqs. (S25)-(S26), Fig. S7; main-text Fig. 6.]
    "To extract the occupation function we rely on Eq. (S26), which can be easily obtained from the expression of the eigenmodes: ... and we perform finite-size simulations (with large L), to compute χ using Eq. (3). We show in Fig. S7 the occupation function obtained in this manner, corresponding to the L = 1000 simulation of Fig. 6. ... In principle, since the spin texture changes in time, the values b± should also be taken as time-dependent. Instead, we have extracted n+ at a fixed time, t = 500 w−1, corresponding to the metastable tilted spiral state."

    The red-dashed infinite-system curve of Fig. 6 is not an independent prediction: its input, the double-step occupation n+(k) with amplitudes b±, is obtained from Eq. (S26) using the same L=1000 finite-size simulation whose mz(t) it is then compared with. The paper acknowledges that b± should in principle be time-dependent, but freezes them at t=500w^-1; this frozen input is what produces a stationary conical solution in Eq. (S24), so the agreement partly reflects the calibration rather than validating the infinite-time persistence. The finite-size scaling t1∝L^α (Fig. S7b) is an independent argument for a diverging lifetime, but the 'excellent agreement' of the infinite-system treatment is a consistency check on the ansatz, not independent confirmation.

full rationale

The RR/QP/CP phase classification and phase diagram come from direct numerical integration of Eq. (4), with no fitted parameters, and the linear-response result Eq. (7) is a self-consistent expansion whose derivatives are computed explicitly from Eq. (3); neither reduces to its inputs. The finite-size scalings |Ω|/δV∝L^-3 and t1∝L^α are empirical scalings from independent simulations. The single load-bearing circular element is the infinite-system calculation in the Supplemental Material, where the occupation steps b± are extracted from the same finite-size simulation used for the comparison in Fig. 6 and then held fixed despite the acknowledged time-dependence. Because the central thermodynamic-limit claim also rests on the t1 scaling, the circularity is partial rather than total; the main phase-diagram results remain self-contained. No uniqueness theorem or external result from the authors' prior work is invoked to force the conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the NEGF steady-state formalism (Eq. 3), the Landau-Lifshitz-like equation with phenomenological damping (Eq. 4), and the adiabatic separation of electron and spin timescales. Two parameters are effectively free: the damping rate eta and the occupation steps b+ and b- used in the infinite-system calculation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • eta (damping rate) = varied (0.003w, 0.2w, 200w)
    Phenomenological damping coefficient in Eq. (4), not derived from the model; the phase diagram and scaling depend on it.
  • b+ and b- (occupation step heights in n_+(k)) = extracted at t=500 w^-1 for L=1000
    Needed for the infinite-system calculation; cannot be computed from the infinite model alone and are fitted to the same finite-size simulation used for comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Electrons reach the steady state for each instantaneous spin configuration (tau_e << tau_m).
    Invoked in Methodology before Eq. (3); the entire torque calculation assumes the electron distribution adjusts instantly.
  • domain assumption Spin dynamics follows Eq. (4) with a scalar phenomenological damping rate eta.
    Explicitly stated as phenomenological; the phase diagram and scaling depend on this form of dissipation.
  • domain assumption Wide-band reservoirs with constant hybridization Gamma_L and Gamma_R.
    Used to derive the closed-form correlation function Eq. (3) and the Meir-Wingreen-like spin current formula.
  • domain assumption Localized magnetic moments are classical unit vectors obeying Landau-Lifshitz dynamics.
    The model treats mi as classical Heisenberg spins; quantum spin fluctuations are neglected.
  • domain assumption In the infinite system, n_+(k) has the double-step form of Eq. (S25) with time-independent b+ and b-.
    Used to simulate infinite-system dynamics; b+ and b- are extracted from finite-size data rather than derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of spin spirals in a voltage biased 1D conductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34KIBVPT

@misc{pith2026241212517,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of spin spirals in a voltage biased 1D conductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34KIBVPT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12517}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze the fate of spiral order in a one-dimensional system of localized magnetic moments coupled to itinerant electrons under a voltage bias. Within an adiabatic approximation for the dynamics of the localized spins, and in the presence of a phenomenological damping term, we demonstrate the occurrence of various dynamical regimes: At small bias a rigidly rotating non-coplanar magnetic structure is realized which, by increasing the applied voltage, transitions to a quasi-periodic and, finally, fully chaotic evolution. These phases can be identified by transport measurements. In particular, the rigidly rotating state results in an average transfer of spin polarization. We analyze in detail the dependence of the rotation axis and frequency on system's parameters and show that the spin dynamics slows down in the thermodynamic limit, when a static conical state persists to arbitrarily long times. Our results suggest the possibility of discovering non-trivial dynamics in other symmetry-broken quantum states under bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12517 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a): Lattice model of electrons coupled to two reser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Non-equilibrium phase diagram for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison between RR, QP and CP dynamics. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Classical spin configuration in a RR state with large [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dependence on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. ˇZelezn´ y, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    Zhang and Z

    S. Zhang and Z. Li, Roles of Nonequilibrium Conduction Electrons on the Magnetization Dynamics of Ferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 127204 (2004)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    D. A. Allwood, G. Xiong, C. Faulkner, D. Atkinson, D. Petit, and R. Cowburn, Magnetic domain-wall logic, Science 309, 1688 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    S. S. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Magnetic domain-wall racetrack memory, Science 320, 190 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Hayashi, L

    M. Hayashi, L. Thomas, R. Moriya, C. Rettner, and S. S. Parkin, Current-controlled magnetic domain-wall nanowire shift register, Science 320, 209 (2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Zhang, Y

    X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, M. Ezawa, G. Zhao, and W. Zhao, Magnetic skyrmion transistor: skyrmion motion in a voltage-gated nanotrack, Sci. Rep. 5, 11369 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    L. M. Sieberer, M. Buchhold, and S. Diehl, Keldysh field theory for driven open quantum systems, Rep. Prog. Phys 79, 096001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    de la Torre, D

    A. de la Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Colloquium: Nonther- mal pathways to ultrafast control in quantum materials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 041002 (2021)

    2021

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir` o, Many-Body Open Quantum Systems, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.10300 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Prosen and M

    T. Prosen and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Matrix product simulations of non-equilibrium steady states of quantum spin chains, J. Stat. Mech.: Theor. Exp. 2009, 02035 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    Benenti, G

    G. Benenti, G. Casati, T. c. v. Prosen, D. Rossini, and M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Charge and spin transport in strongly corre- lated one-dimensional quantum systems driven far from 6 equilibrium, Phys. Rev. B 80, 035110 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    ˇZnidariˇ c, Spin Transport in a One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Model, Phys

    M. ˇZnidariˇ c, Spin Transport in a One-Dimensional Anisotropic Heisenberg Model, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 220601 (2011)

    2011

  5. [13]

    J. J. Mendoza-Arenas, T. Grujic, D. Jaksch, and S. R. Clark, Dephasing enhanced transport in nonequilibrium strongly correlated quantum systems, Phys. Rev. B 87, 235130 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Prosen, Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of an Open Hubbard Chain, Phys

    T. Prosen, Exact Nonequilibrium Steady State of an Open Hubbard Chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 030603 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Ribeiro, A

    P. Ribeiro, A. E. Antipov, and A. N. Rubtsov, Nonequi- librium breakdown of a correlated insulator through pat- tern formation, Phys. Rev. B 93, 144305 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    T. O. Puel, S. Chesi, S. Kirchner, and P. Ribeiro, Mixed- Order Symmetry-Breaking Quantum Phase Transition Far from Equilibrium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 235701 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    T. O. Puel, S. Chesi, S. Kirchner, and P. Ribeiro, Nonequilibrium phases and phase transitions of the XY model, Phys. Rev. B 103, 035108 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    T. O. Puel, S. Chesi, S. Kirchner, and P. Ribeiro, Fate of the quasicondensed state for bias-driven hard-core bosons in one dimension, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125122 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    G. T. Landi, D. Poletti, and G. Schaller, Nonequilibrium boundary-driven quantum systems: Models, methods, and properties, Rev. Mod. Phys 94, 045006 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Daviet, C

    R. Daviet, C. P. Zelle, A. Rosch, and S. Diehl, Nonequi- librium Criticality at the Onset of Time-Crystalline Or- der, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 167102 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    C. P. Zelle, R. Daviet, A. Rosch, and S. Diehl, Uni- versal Phenomenology at Critical Exceptional Points of Nonequilibrium O(N ) Models, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021052 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    See Supplemental Material for additional details

  15. [23]

    Braunecker, G

    B. Braunecker, G. I. Japaridze, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Spin-selective Peierls transition in interacting one-dimensional conductors with spin-orbit interaction, Phys. Rev. B 82, 045127 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Martin and A

    I. Martin and A. F. Morpurgo, Majorana fermions in su- perconducting helical magnets, Phys. Rev. B 85, 144505 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Schecter, M

    M. Schecter, M. S. Rudner, and K. Flensberg, Spin- Lattice Order in One-Dimensional Conductors: Beyond the RKKY Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 247205 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    W. Hu, R. T. Scalettar, and R. R. Singh, Interplay of magnetic order, pairing, and phase separation in a one- dimensional spin-fermion model, Phys. Rev. B92, 115133 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Minami and H

    S. Minami and H. Kawamura, Low-temperature magnetic properties of the Kondo lattice model in one dimension, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 044702 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Neuhaus-Steinmetz, E

    J. Neuhaus-Steinmetz, E. Y. Vedmedenko, T. Posske, and R. Wiesendanger, Complex magnetic ground states and topological electronic phases of atomic spin chains on superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 105, 165415 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Braunecker, P

    B. Braunecker, P. Simon, and D. Loss, Nuclear mag- netism and electron order in interacting one-dimensional conductors, Phys. Rev. B 80, 165119 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Braunecker, P

    B. Braunecker, P. Simon, and D. Loss, Nuclear Mag- netism and Electronic Order in 13C Nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 116403 (2009)

    2009

  23. [31]

    J. H. Van Vleck, Note on the Interactions between the Spins of Magnetic Ions or Nuclei in Metals, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 681 (1962)

    1962

  24. [32]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect Exchange Cou- pling of Nuclear Magnetic Moments by Conduction Elec- trons, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954)

    1954

  25. [33]

    Kasuya, A Theory of Metallic Ferro- and Anti- ferromagnetism on Zener’s Model, Prog

    T. Kasuya, A Theory of Metallic Ferro- and Anti- ferromagnetism on Zener’s Model, Prog. Theor. Phys. 16, 45 (1956), https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/16/1/45/5266722/16-1-45.pdf

    1956

  26. [34]

    Yosida, Magnetic Properties of Cu-Mn Alloys, Phys

    K. Yosida, Magnetic Properties of Cu-Mn Alloys, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

    1957

  27. [35]

    Steinbrecher, R

    M. Steinbrecher, R. Rausch, K. T. That, J. Hermenau, A. A. Khajetoorians, M. Potthoff, R. Wiesendanger, and J. Wiebe, Non-collinear spin states in bottom-up fabri- cated atomic chains, Nat. Commun. 9, 2853 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    D.-J. Choi, N. Lorente, J. Wiebe, K. Von Bergmann, A. F. Otte, and A. J. Heinrich, Colloquium: Atomic spin chains on surfaces, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 041001 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Heimes, D

    A. Heimes, D. Mendler, and P. Kotetes, Interplay of topological phases in magnetic adatom-chains on top of a Rashba superconducting surface, New J. Phys. 17, 023051 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired Majorana fermions in quantum wires, Phys.-Usp. 44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    Alicea, New directions in the pursuit of Majorana fermions in solid state systems, Rep

    J. Alicea, New directions in the pursuit of Majorana fermions in solid state systems, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 076501 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Leijnse and K

    M. Leijnse and K. Flensberg, Introduction to topologi- cal superconductivity and Majorana fermions, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 27, 124003 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    Braunecker and P

    B. Braunecker and P. Simon, Interplay between classi- cal magnetic moments and superconductivity in quan- tum one-dimensional conductors: toward a self-sustained topological Majorana phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 147202 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Klinovaja, P

    J. Klinovaja, P. Stano, A. Yazdani, and D. Loss, Topolog- ical superconductivity and Majorana fermions in RKKY systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 186805 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Vazifeh and M

    M. Vazifeh and M. Franz, Self-organized topological state with Majorana fermions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 206802 (2013)

    2013

  36. [44]

    Nadj-Perge, I

    S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Proposal for realizing Majorana fermions in chains of magnetic atoms on a superconductor, Phys. Rev. B 88, 020407 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    J. Li, H. Chen, I. K. Drozdov, A. Yazdani, B. A. Bernevig, and A. MacDonald, Topological superconduc- tivity induced by ferromagnetic metal chains, Phys. Rev. B 90, 235433 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Nadj-Perge, I

    S. Nadj-Perge, I. K. Drozdov, J. Li, H. Chen, S. Jeon, J. Seo, A. H. MacDonald, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yaz- dani, Observation of Majorana fermions in ferromagnetic atomic chains on a superconductor, Science 346, 602 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Y. Kim, M. Cheng, B. Bauer, R. M. Lutchyn, and S. D. Sarma, Helical order in one-dimensional magnetic atom chains and possible emergence of Majorana bound states, Phys. Rev. B 90, 060401 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    I. Reis, D. Marchand, and M. Franz, Self-organized topo- logical state in a magnetic chain on the surface of a su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. B 90, 085124 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Xiao and J

    J. Xiao and J. An, Chiral symmetries and Majorana fermions in coupled magnetic atomic chains on a super- conductor, New J. Phys. 17, 113034 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Pawlak, M

    R. Pawlak, M. Kisiel, J. Klinovaja, T. Meier, S. Kawai, T. Glatzel, D. Loss, and E. Meyer, Probing atomic struc- ture and Majorana wavefunctions in mono-atomic Fe chains on superconducting Pb surface, Npj Quantum Inf. 2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Gorczyca-Goraj, T

    A. Gorczyca-Goraj, T. Doma´ nski, and M. M. Ma´ ska, Topological superconductivity at finite temperatures in proximitized magnetic nanowires, Phys. Rev. B 99, 235430 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    Schecter, K

    M. Schecter, K. Flensberg, M. H. Christensen, B. M. Andersen, and J. Paaske, Self-organized topological su- perconductivity in a Yu-Shiba-Rusinov chain, Phys. Rev. B 93, 140503 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Pientka, L

    F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. Von Oppen, Topologi- cal superconducting phase in helical Shiba chains, Phys. Rev. B 88, 155420 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    M. H. Christensen, M. Schecter, K. Flensberg, B. M. An- dersen, and J. Paaske, Spiral magnetic order and topo- logical superconductivity in a chain of magnetic adatoms on a two-dimensional superconductor, Phys. Rev. B 94, 144509 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Pientka, L

    F. Pientka, L. I. Glazman, and F. von Oppen, Uncon- ventional topological phase transitions in helical Shiba chains, Phys. Rev. B 89, 180505 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Y. Oreg, G. Refael, and F. Von Oppen, Helical liquids and Majorana bound states in quantum wires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 177002 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    del Ser, L

    N. del Ser, L. Heinen, and A. Rosch, Archimedean screw in driven chiral magnets, SciPost Phys. 11, 009 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Kurebayashi, Y

    D. Kurebayashi, Y. Liu, J. Masell, and N. Nagaosa, The- ory of charge and spin pumping in atomic-scale spiral magnets, Phys. Rev. B 106, 205110 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    N. Bode, S. V. Kusminskiy, R. Egger, and F. von Oppen, Scattering Theory of Current-Induced Forces in Meso- scopic Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 036804 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    Bajpai and B

    U. Bajpai and B. K. Nikoli´ c, Time-retarded damping and magnetic inertia in the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation self-consistently coupled to electronic time-dependent nonequilibrium Green functions, Phys. Rev. B99, 134409 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, DifferentialEquations.jl–a per- formant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differen- tial equations in Julia, J. Open Res. Softw. 5 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Meir and N

    Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Landauer formula for the current through an interacting electron region, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2512 (1992)

    1992

  55. [63]

    Dynamics of spin spirals in a voltage biased 1D conductor

    P. Ribeiro, Steady-state properties of a nonequilibrium Fermi gas, Phys. Rev. B 96, 054302 (2017). 8 Supplemental Material for “Dynamics of spin spirals in a voltage biased 1D conductor” Xiaohu Han,1 Pedro Ribeiro,2,1 and Stefano Chesi 1,3 1Beijing Computational Science Resear...

    2017

Pith tools

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