REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 64 references
Microscopic origin of magnetoferroelectricity in monolayer NiBr$_{2}$ and NiI$_{2}$
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read In a single layer of the magnet NiI2, the electric polarization induced by spiral spin order combines two distinct mechanisms that scale differently with spin-orbit coupling, while single-layer NiBr2 is described by one mechanism.
desk verdict NiBr2 half is solid; the NiI2 'quantitative separation' is a two-parameter fit without microscopic anchors. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The central machinery is the gKNB magnetoelectric tensor, a $3\times3$ matrix $M_{ij}$ assigned to each Ni-Ni dimer so that the pair contributes $M_{ij}(\mathbf{S}_i\times\mathbf{S}_j)$ to the polarization; the paper computes these matrices from density-functional calculations for first-, second-, and third-neighbor dimers and applies the sum to the spiral spin configurations. The complementary piece is the p-d hybridization mechanism, in which the covalency of each metal-ligand bond is modulated by the two neighboring bonds sharing the same ligand; extended from the proper-screw case $\boldsymbol{Q}=(q,q,0)$ to NiI2's $\boldsymbol{Q}=(q,0,0)$, it gives $P_{pd}=C\sin(\theta_1-\theta_2)\sin(4\pi q)$ on a Ni2I4 cluster. The two mechanisms are separated by their signatures: the gKNB term is proportional to $\sin(2\pi q)$ and linear in the spin-orbit coupling $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}$, while the p-d term is proportional to $\sin(4\pi q)$ and quadratic in $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}$.
What would settle it
Compute the polarization of monolayer NiI2 at fixed $\boldsymbol{Q}=(0.2,0,0)$ for a series of spin-orbit strengths from $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}=0$ to 2 and plot $P/\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}$ against $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}$; if the ratio is flat within numerical error, the claimed quadratic p-d term is absent, and fitting $P(q)$ over many $q$ values should likewise return $B$ consistent with zero.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that the electric polarization of the NiI2 monolayer is a sum of two spin-orbit-mediated mechanisms with different wave-vector and spin-orbit dependence. In NiBr2, the cycloidal state's polarization is fully explained by the gKNB spin-current model once first-, second-, and third-neighbor Ni dimers are included; the sum reproduces the density-functional result as $(0.00, -2.76, 0.07)\times10^{-13}\ \mathrm{C/m}$, and the polarization is strictly linear in $\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}$. In NiI2, a proper-screw state with $\boldsymbol{Q}=(q,0,0)$ gives a total polarization that deviates from the gKNB-only prediction, so the authors extend the p-d hybridization mechanism to this propagation direction and obtain $P_{pd}=C\sin(\theta_1-\theta_2)\sin(4\pi q)$. Combining the mechanisms yields $P_{\mathrm{total}}(q)=A\sin(2\pi q)+B\sin(4\pi q)$ with $A=1.14\times10^{-13}\ \mathrm{C/m}$ and $B=3.15\times10^{-14}\ \mathrm{C/m}$, and a spin-orbit dependence $P'_{\mathrm{total}}(\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}})=A\sin(2\pi q)\,\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}+B\sin(4\pi q)\,\lambda_{\mathrm{SOC}}^2$ that the authors report reproduces the direct density-functional data.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the p-d hybridization formula extended to the $\boldsymbol{Q}=(q,0,0)$ propagation direction is correct, since its amplitude is fixed by fitting the residual density-functional polarization rather than derived from a microscopic Hamiltonian.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Measurements of electric polarization versus spiral wave vector in monolayer NiI2 should show a two-harmonic profile, $\sin(2\pi q)$ plus $\sin(4\pi q)$, rather than a single harmonic.
- The quadratic-in-spin-orbit part of NiI2's polarization grows relative to the linear part as $q$ moves toward 0.25, so the balance between the two mechanisms is tunable through the magnetic period.
- Because the halogen spin-orbit coupling dominates in both compounds, substituting Br for I changes not only the magnitude but also the ratio of the two NiI2-style contributions.
- The same decomposition is claimed to carry over to bulk NiI2 and NiBr2, so a $\sin(4\pi q)$ component should appear in the polarization of bulk NiI2 as its spiral wave vector is varied.
Reading between the lines
- Inference: because the amplitude $B$ of the p-d term is set by fitting the residual density-functional polarization rather than derived, the model's robust prediction is the functional form; computing $C$ independently from a cluster or Wannier model would test whether the fitted $B$ is physically reasonable.
- Inference: the $\sin(4\pi q)$ form follows from three metal-ligand bonds sharing one ligand, so similar higher-harmonic polarization terms should appear in other triangular-lattice helimagnets whose proper-screw order runs along a nearest-neighbor direction.
- Inference: a quadratic-in-spin-orbit polarization could in principle also be produced by higher-order spin interactions in an effective spin model; distinguishing that description from the p-d hybridization picture would require independent calculation of the four-spin exchange constants.
- Inference: the paper's symmetry argument that anisotropic symmetric exchange cannot contribute to the polarization implies a sharp selection rule that could be tested by reversing the spiral helicity and checking that the polarization flips sign through the gKNB channel.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper investigates the microscopic origin of magnetoelectric polarization in monolayer NiBr2 and NiI2 using first-principles DFT calculations. For NiBr2, the authors predict a cycloidal magnetic ground state, show that the total electric polarization is linear in the spin-orbit coupling strength λSOC, and demonstrate that the generalized Katsura-Nagaosa-Balatsky (gKNB) model, including first through third nearest-neighbor spin dimers, quantitatively reproduces the DFT polarization (Eq. 8). For NiI2, they adopt a proper-screw helical state with Q=(q,0,0), find that the gKNB model alone cannot describe the q- and λSOC-dependence of the polarization, and propose an extension of Arima's higher-order p-d hybridization mechanism. The total polarization is written as P_total(q) = A sin(2πq) + B sin(4πq) (Eq. 13), with A and B determined by fitting the DFT data, and the λSOC dependence is described by P'_total(λSOC) = (A sin 2πq)λSOC + (B sin 4πq)λSOC² (Eq. 14).
Significance. If the claims were fully established, the paper would provide a valuable validation of the gKNB model in a two-dimensional material and a quantitative decomposition of two spin-driven ferroelectric mechanisms. The NiBr2 result is a genuine quantitative success: the gKNB model with first through third nearest-neighbor dimers reproduces the DFT polarization within a few percent and captures the observed linear λSOC scaling. The NiI2 analysis, however, is not on the same footing. The central quantitative separation of the 'PKM' and 'p-d' contributions rests on a two-parameter fit whose amplitudes are not tied to the independently calculated gKNB matrix elements or to a microscopic derivation of the p-d term. The paper is therefore significant mainly for the NiBr2 case and as a qualitative suggestion that an additional q-dependent mechanism operates in NiI2.
major comments (3)
- [§IIID, Eq. (13)] The fitted amplitude A in Eq. (13) is inconsistent with the gKNB amplitude that the same paper calculates from the first-nearest-neighbor M matrix. From Eq. (10) and the expression P_i^tot = (√3/2 A, −3/2 A, 0) with A = (M11 − M22) sin(2πq), the reported value |P(M1)| ≈ 1.32×10^−13 C/m at q = 0.2 implies A_KNB ≈ 1.32×10^−13 / (√3 sin 72°) ≈ 0.80×10^−13 C/m. The fitted A = 1.14×10^−13 C/m is roughly 40% larger. Since the paper does not compute second- or third-neighbor M matrices for NiI2, the sin(2πq) term cannot be identified with the microscopic gKNB contribution; the fitted A absorbs part of whatever additional physics is present. Consequently, the paper's quantitative separation of PKM and Ppd is not microscopically anchored.
- [§IIID, Eq. (14)] The λSOC-dependence test in Eq. (14) uses the same fitted A and B obtained from the q-dependence fit in Eq. (13). The agreement with the DFT data in Fig. 4 is therefore a self-consistency check of the two-parameter representation, not an independent verification that the linear term is the gKNB/Kaplan-Mahanti mechanism and the quadratic term is p-d hybridization. In particular, any mechanism contributing a sin(2πq) shape would be absorbed into A, and any mechanism with a sin(4πq) shape would be absorbed into B, so the λSOC scaling test does not discriminate between microscopic origins.
- [§IIID, Eq. (12) and surrounding text] The extension of Arima's p-d hybridization model from a proper-screw state with Q=(q,q,0) to the present case Q=(q,0,0) is asserted rather than derived. Equation (12), P_pd = C sin(θ1 − θ2) sin(4πq), is introduced without a microscopic Hamiltonian or a symmetry analysis specific to the NiI2 structure, and the constant C is never computed or constrained. Thus the 'extended p-d hybridization mechanism' is not independently tested; only its functional form sin(4πq) is borrowed, and its amplitude B is fixed by fitting the residual DFT polarization. The existence and magnitude of the p-d contribution therefore remain unverified.
minor comments (4)
- [§IIID, Fig. 3 caption] The caption refers to a 'red dashed green line' which appears to be a typo; presumably one line is red dashed and another is green.
- [§II, 'no-substitution method'] The term 'no-substitution method' used for the gKNB matrix element calculation is not defined or referenced; please provide a citation or a brief explanation.
- [Table II caption] The word 'repectively' is misspelled; it should be 'respectively'.
- [§IIIC, Eq. (9)] In Eq. (9), the Taylor expansion expression is written with 'O(q)^4' but it should be 'O(q^4)' or 'O(q)^4' is unconventional; please clarify the order symbol.
Circularity Check
The NiI2 PKM/Ppd decomposition in Eq. 13 is a two-parameter fit to DFT, and Eq. 14 reuses those fitted amplitudes as a 'prediction'; the quantitative separation is not microscopically anchored.
-
fitted input called prediction
[Section III D (monolayer NiI2), Eqs. (12)-(13) and fitting discussion, Fig. 3(a)]
"However, as shown in Fig. 3(a), the total polarization from direct DFT calculations deviates significantly from the calculated gKNB polarization, suggesting that additional mechanisms are required to fully describe the polarization. ... Taking Ppd into account, the polarization can now be expressed in terms of its dependence on q as follows: P total(q) = PKM + Ppd = A sin 2πq + B sin 4πq. By fitting Eq. 13 to the data from direct DFT calculations, we obtain A = 1.14 × 10−13 Cm−1 and B = 3.15 × 10−14 Cm−1."
The two amplitudes A and B are obtained by least-squares fitting the assumed two-harmonic form to the DFT P(q) data, so the subsequent statement that PKM + Ppd reproduces the total polarization is true by construction. The labels PKM and Ppd are assigned to these fitted Fourier coefficients rather than to independently computed microscopic quantities: the gKNB M-matrix calculation was already reported to deviate significantly from DFT as q varies, and the constant C in the p-d expression Eq. 12 is never calculated. B is the residual sin(4πq) amplitude needed to match the data, and the quoted 17% ratio is a fit output, not a first-principles evaluation of the two mechanisms.
-
fitted input called prediction
[Section III D (monolayer NiI2), Eq. (14) and Fig. 4]
"P′total(λSOC) = PKM(λSOC) + Ppd(λSOC) = (A sin 2πq)λSOC + (B sin 4πq)λ2SOC. As shown in Fig. 4, for Q = (0.2, 0, 0), the overall λSOC dependence predicted by Eq. 14 agrees well with the data from direct DFT calculations."
Eq. 14 contains no new parameters: A and B are the same values fitted to the q-dependence at λSOC = 1. Therefore the λSOC curve at λSOC = 1 is forced to pass through the fitted value by construction, and the linear-plus-quadratic scaling is assumed from the same mechanisms whose quantitative separation is being tested. The agreement in Fig. 4 is an internal consistency check of the assumed functional forms, not an independent confirmation of the PKM/Ppd magnitudes.
full rationale
The NiBr2 analysis is self-contained: the M matrices are computed independently by the four-state/no-substitution method and inserted into Eq. 5, and Eq. 8 reproduces the direct DFT polarization as an external check. No circularity is present there. The central NiI2 claim is different. In Eq. 13 the paper explicitly fits A sin(2πq) + B sin(4πq) to the DFT P(q) data, then interprets the fitted A as PKM and the fitted B as Ppd. This is a decomposition by curve fitting rather than by the microscopic models: the computed gKNB curve is shown to deviate from DFT, and the p-d constant C in Eq. 12 is never evaluated, so B is just the residual Fourier amplitude needed to match the data. The reported 17% ratio is therefore a fit output. Eq. 14 then reuses the same fitted A and B with assumed λSOC and λSOC^2 scalings, so the Fig. 4 agreement is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. These features make the quantitative PKM/Ppd separation for NiI2 partially circular (score 6), while the paper retains independent content in the NiBr2 calculation and in the qualitative identification of a sin(4πq) component. The self-citation to Ref. [19] for the HM condition and easy-axis analysis is minor and not load-bearing, since it is supported by the paper's own DFT and MC results.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (6)
- A (sin(2πq) amplitude, labeled PKM) =
1.14 x 10^-13 C/m
- B (sin(4πq) amplitude, labeled Ppd) =
3.15 x 10^-14 C/m
- Hubbard U and J for NiI2, Ueff for NiBr2 =
U = 4 eV, J = 1 eV; Ueff = 1 eV
- Exchange couplings J1, J2, J3 for NiBr2 =
-5.88, 0.19, 3.18 meV
- Modulation vector q for NiI2 =
0.2 (approximation of experimental 0.2203)
- Magnetic anisotropy constant D for NiBr2 =
0.20 meV
assumptions (7)
- domain assumption GGA+U DFT with the chosen U and J captures the magnetic exchange, spin-orbit coupling, and Berry-phase polarization of these Mott insulators.
- domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian truncated to J1, J2, J3 plus single-ion anisotropy is sufficient for the magnetic ground state.
- domain assumption Ionic contributions to polarization are negligible because lattice relaxations have negligible effect.
- ad hoc to paper Arima's p-d hybridization model can be extended from proper-screw Q = (q, q, 0) to Q = (q, 0, 0) with the same charge-transfer balance argument.
- standard math The polarization from a spin pair transforms as P = -S_i M^α S_j with M^α antisymmetric under inversion at the bond midpoint.
- domain assumption The no-substitution four-state method yields the magnetoelectric matrix M.
- domain assumption The Kaplan-Mahanti term is linear in λSOC and the p-d term is quadratic in λSOC.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic origin of magnetoferroelectricity in monolayer NiBr$_{2}$ and NiI$_{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPOQL2XG
@misc{pith2026250105025,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Microscopic origin of magnetoferroelectricity in monolayer NiBr$_2$ and NiI$_2$},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPOQL2XG}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05025}
}
abstract
We investigate the magnetoelectric properties of the monolayer NiX$_{2}$ (X = Br, I) through first-principles calculations. Our calculations predict that the NiBr$_{2}$ monolayer exhibits a cycloidal magnetic ground state. For the NiI$_{2}$ monolayer, a proper-screw helical magnetic ground state with modulation vector \(\boldsymbol{Q} = (q, 0, 0)\) is adopted, approximated based on experimental observations. The electric polarization in NiBr$_{2}$ shows a linear dependence on the spin-orbit coupling strength \(\lambda_{\text{SOC}}\), which can be adequately described by the generalized Katsura-Nagaosa-Balatsky (gKNB) model, considering contributions from up to the third nearest-neighbor spin pairs. In contrast, the electric polarization in NiI$_{2}$ exhibits a distinct dependence on \(q\) and \(\lambda_{\text{SOC}}\), which cannot be fully explained by the gKNB mechanism alone. To address this, the \(p\)-\(d\) hybridization mechanism is extended to NiI$_{2}$ to explain the observed behavior. The respective contributions from the \(p\)-\(d\) hybridization and the gKNB mechanism in NiI$_{2}$ are then quantitatively evaluated. Overall, our work elucidates the microscopic mechanisms underlying multiferroicity in NiBr$_{2}$ and NiI$_{2}$ monolayers, with the conclusions readily applicable to their bulk forms.
Figures
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[10]
T. Kurumaji, Spiral spin structures and skyrmionsin mul- tiferroics, Physical Sciences Reviews5, 10.1515/psr-2019- 0016 (2020)
-
[1]
Fiebig, T
M. Fiebig, T. Lottermoser, D. Meier, and M. Trassin, The evolution of multiferroics, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 1 (2016)
2016
-
[2]
S.-W. Cheong and M. Mostovoy, Multiferroics: a mag- netic twist for ferroelectricity, Nature materials 6, 13 (2007)
work page 2007
-
[3]
Fiebig, Revival of the magnetoelectric effect, Journal of physics D: applied physics 38, R123 (2005)
M. Fiebig, Revival of the magnetoelectric effect, Journal of physics D: applied physics 38, R123 (2005)
2005
-
[4]
R. Ramesh and N. A. Spaldin, Multiferroics: progress and prospects in thin films, Nature materials6, 21 (2007)
work page 2007
-
[5]
N. A. Spaldin and R. Ramesh, Advances in magnetoelec- tric multiferroics, Nature materials 18, 203 (2019)
work page 2019
-
[6]
F. Matsukura, Y. Tokura, and H. Ohno, Control of mag- netism by electric fields, Nature nanotechnology 10, 209 (2015)
work page 2015
- [7]
Show all 64 references
-
[8]
Jiang, L
S. Jiang, L. Li, Z. Wang, K. F. Mak, and J. Shan, Con- trolling magnetism in 2D CrI 3 by electrostatic doping, Nature nanotechnology 13, 549 (2018)
2018
-
[9]
Kurumaji, S
T. Kurumaji, S. Seki, S. Ishiwata, H. Murakawa, Y. Kaneko, and Y. Tokura, Magnetoelectric responses induced by domain rearrangement and spin structural change in triangular-lattice helimagnets NiI 2 and CoI 2, Physical Review B 87, 014429 (2013)
2013
-
[11]
Amoroso, P
D. Amoroso, P. Barone, and S. Picozzi, Interplay between single-ion and two-ion anisotropies in frustrated 2D semi- conductors and tuning of magnetic structures topology, Nanomaterials 11, 1873 (2021)
2021
-
[12]
Webster and J.-A
L. Webster and J.-A. Yan, Strain-tunable magnetic anisotropy in monolayer CrCl 3, CrBr 3, and CrI 3, Physi- cal Review B 98, 144411 (2018)
2018
-
[13]
K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Magnetism in two-dimensional van der Waals materials, Nature 563, 47 (2018)
2018
-
[14]
K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and D. C. Ralph, Probing and con- trolling magnetic states in 2D layered magnetic materials, Nature Reviews Physics 1, 646 (2019)
2019
-
[15]
M. A. McGuire, Crystal and magnetic structures in lay- ered, transition metal dihalides and trihalides, Crystals 7, 121 (2017)
2017
-
[16]
S. Dong, H. Xiang, and E. Dagotto, Magnetoelectricity in multiferroics: a theoretical perspective, National Science Review 6, 629 (2019)
2019
-
[17]
P. Wang, X. Lu, X. Gong, and H. Xiang, Microscopic mechanism of spin-order induced improper ferroelectric polarization, Computational Materials Science 112, 448 (2016)
2016
-
[18]
Tokunaga, D
Y. Tokunaga, D. Okuyama, T. Kurumaji, T. Arima, H. Nakao, Y. Murakami, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, 9 Multiferroicity in NiBr 2 with long-wavelength cycloidal spin structure on a triangular lattice, Physical Review B 84, 060406 (2011)
2011
- [19]
-
[20]
H. Ju, Y. Lee, K.-T. Kim, I. H. Choi, C. J. Roh, S. Son, P. Park, J. H. Kim, T. S. Jung, J. H. Kim, et al., Possi- ble persistence of multiferroic order down to bilayer limit of van der Waals material NiI 2, Nano Letters 21, 5126 (2021)
2021
-
[21]
Q. Song, C. A. Occhialini, E. Erge¸ cen, B. Ilyas, D. Amoroso, P. Barone, J. Kapeghian, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. S. Botana, et al., Evidence for a single- layer van der waals multiferroic, Nature 602, 601 (2022)
2022
-
[22]
sin(2πq) [43]. Clearly, the total polar- ization P tot i of NiI 2 is determined by the difference be- tween the diagonal matrix elements M11 and M22, which reflects its origin in the mechanism P KM. The polarization calculated from the first NN M is |P (M 1)| ∼1.32 × 10−13 Cm−...
-
[23]
Jiang, Y
Y. Jiang, Y. Wu, J. Zhang, J. Wei, B. Peng, and C.- W. Qiu, Dilemma in optical identification of single-layer multiferroics, Nature 619, E40 (2023)
2023
- [24]
-
[25]
B. K. Rai, A. D. Christianson, D. Mandrus, and A. F. May, Influence of cobalt substitution on the magnetism of NiBr2, Physical Review Materials 3, 034005 (2019)
2019
- [26]
-
[27]
Mushtaq, Y
M. Mushtaq, Y. Zhou, and X. Xiang, NiX 2 (X= Cl and Br) sheets as promising spin materials: a first-principles study, RSC advances 7, 22541 (2017)
2017
-
[28]
Amoroso, P
D. Amoroso, P. Barone, and S. Picozzi, Spontaneous skyrmionic lattice from anisotropic symmetric exchange in a Ni-halide monolayer, Nature communications 11, 5784 (2020)
2020
-
[29]
Bikaljevic, C
D. Bikaljevic, C. Gonzalez-Orellana, M. Pena-Diaz, D. Steiner, J. Dreiser, P. Gargiani, M. Foerster, M. A. Nino, L. Aballe, S. Ruiz-Gomez, et al., Noncollinear mag- netic order in two-dimensional NiBr 2 films grown on Au (111), ACS nano 15, 14985 (2021)
2021
-
[30]
M. Lu, Q. Yao, C. Xiao, C. Huang, and E. Kan, Mechan- ical, electronic, and magnetic properties of NiX2 (X= Cl, Br, I) layers, ACS omega 4, 5714 (2019)
2019
-
[31]
X. Li, C. Xu, B. Liu, X. Li, L. Bellaiche, and H. Xi- ang, Realistic Spin Model for Multiferroic NiI 2, Physical Review Letters 131, 036701 (2023)
2023
-
[32]
A. O. Fumega and J. Lado, Microscopic origin of multi- ferroic order in monolayer NiI 2, 2D Materials 9, 025010 (2022)
2022
-
[33]
Kresse and J
G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Physical review B 47, 558 (1993)
1993
-
[34]
Wu, Y.-B
D.-W. Wu, Y.-B. Yuan, S. Liu, M.-Q. Long, and Y.-P. Wang, First-principles study of spin-orbital coupling in- duced ferroelectricity in NiBr 2, Physical Review B 108, 054429 (2023)
2023
-
[35]
Liechtenstein, V
A. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Density- functional theory and strong interactions: Orbital order- ing in mott-hubbard insulators, Physical Review B 52, R5467 (1995)
1995
-
[36]
Kresse and J
G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Physical review B 54, 11169 (1996)
1996
-
[37]
Q. Cui, J. Liang, B. Yang, Z. Wang, P. Li, P. Cui, and H. Yang, Giant enhancement of perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and induced quantum anomalous hall effect in Graphene/NiI 2 heterostructures via tuning the van der Waals interlayer distance, Physical Review B 101, 214439 (2020)
2020
-
[38]
A. L. Chen, Y. Y. Peter, and R. D. Taylor, Closure of the charge-transfer energy gap and metallization of NiI 2 under pressure, Physical review letters 71, 4011 (1993)
1993
-
[39]
N. S. Fedorova, C. Ederer, N. A. Spaldin, and A. Scara- mucci, Biquadratic and ring exchange interactions in or- thorhombic perovskite manganites, Physical Review B 91, 165122 (2015)
2015
-
[40]
Morgan, B
D. Morgan, B. Wang, G. Ceder, and A. van de Walle, First-principles study of magnetism in spinel MnO 2, Physical Review B 67, 134404 (2003)
2003
-
[41]
King-Smith and D
R. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Theory of polarization of crystalline solids, Physical Review B 47, 1651 (1993)
1993
-
[42]
Liu, X.-S
Z. Liu, X.-S. Ni, L. Li, H. Sun, F. Liang, B. A. Frand- sen, A. D. Christianson, C. dela Cruz, Z. Xu, D.-X. Yao, et al., Effect of iron vacancies on magnetic order and spin dynamics of the spin ladder BaFe 2−δS1.5Se1.5, Physical Review B 105, 214303 (2022)
2022
-
[43]
Xiang, E
H. Xiang, E. Kan, Y. Zhang, M.-H. Whangbo, and X. Gong, General theory for the ferroelectric polariza- tion induced by spin-spiral order, Physical review letters 107, 157202 (2011)
2011
-
[44]
Cao, G.-C
K. Cao, G.-C. Guo, D. Vanderbilt, and L. He, First- Principles Modeling of Multiferroic RMn 2O5, Physical review letters 103, 257201 (2009)
2009
-
[45]
Lines, Magnetic Properties of CoCl2 and NiCl2, Phys- ical Review 131, 546 (1963)
M. Lines, Magnetic Properties of CoCl2 and NiCl2, Phys- ical Review 131, 546 (1963)
1963
-
[46]
P. Day, A. Dinsdale, E. Krausz, and D. Robbins, Optical and neutron diffraction study of the magnetic phase dia- gram of nibr2, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 9, 2481 (1976)
1976
-
[47]
X. Wu, Y. Cai, Q. Xie, H. Weng, H. Fan, and J. Hu, Magnetic ordering and multiferroicity in MnI 2, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 86, 134413 (2012)
2012
-
[48]
Y. An, H. Wang, J. Liao, Y. Gao, J. Chen, Y. Wu, Y. Li, G. Xu, and C. Ma, Spin transport properties and nan- odevice simulations of NiI 2 monolayer, Physica E: Low- dimensional Systems and Nanostructures 142, 115262 (2022)
2022
-
[49]
Yamauchi, P
K. Yamauchi, P. Barone, and S. Picozzi, Theoretical in- vestigation of magnetoelectric effects in Ba 2CoGe2O7, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 84, 165137 (2011)
2011
-
[50]
C. Jia, S. Onoda, N. Nagaosa, and J. H. Han, Micro- scopic theory of spin-polarization coupling in multiferroic transition metal oxides, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 76, 144424 (2007)
2007
-
[51]
C. Jia, S. Onoda, N. Nagaosa, and J. H. Han, Bond electronic polarization induced by spin, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 74, 224444 (2006)
2006
-
[52]
Murakawa, Y
H. Murakawa, Y. Onose, S. Miyahara, N. Furukawa, and Y. Tokura, Ferroelectricity induced by spin-dependent metal-ligand hybridization in Ba 2CoGe2O7, Physical re- view letters 105, 137202 (2010)
2010
-
[53]
Zhang, J
J. Zhang, J. Wang, X. Yang, W. Xia, X. Lu, and J. Zhu, Magnetic properties and spin-driven ferroelectricity in multiferroic skyrmion host GaV 4S8, Physical Review B 95, 085136 (2017)
2017
-
[54]
Zhang, C
J. Zhang, C. Ji, J. Wang, W. Xia, B. Guo, X. Lu, 10 and J. Zhu, Spin-induced ferroelectricity in a triangular- lattice antiferromagnet studied by magnetoelectric cou- pling tensors, Physical Review B 96, 235136 (2017)
2017
-
[55]
Feng and H
J. Feng and H. Xiang, Anisotropic symmetric exchange as a new mechanism for multiferroicity, Physical Review B 93, 174416 (2016)
2016
-
[56]
Xiang, P
H. Xiang, P. Wang, M.-H. Whangbo, and X. Gong, Uni- fied model of ferroelectricity induced by spin order, Phys- ical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 88, 054404 (2013)
2013
-
[57]
Albaalbaky, Y
A. Albaalbaky, Y. Kvashnin, D. Ledue, R. Patte, and R. Fr´ esard, Magnetoelectric properties of multiferroic CuCrO2 studied by means of ab initio calculations and Monte Carlo simulations, Physical Review B 96, 064431 (2017)
2017
-
[58]
Miyahara and N
S. Miyahara and N. Furukawa, Theory of antisymmetric spin-pair-dependent electric polarization in multiferroics, Physical Review B 93, 014445 (2016)
2016
-
[59]
Katsura, N
H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and A. V. Balatsky, Spin cur- rent and magnetoelectric effect in noncollinear magnets, Physical review letters 95, 057205 (2005)
2005
-
[60]
Bolens, Theory of electronic magnetoelectric coupling in d5 mott insulators, Physical Review B 98, 125135 (2018)
A. Bolens, Theory of electronic magnetoelectric coupling in d5 mott insulators, Physical Review B 98, 125135 (2018)
2018
-
[61]
Tokunaga, D
Y. Tokunaga, D. Okuyama, T. Kurumaji, T. Arima, H. Nakao, Y. Murakami, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, Multiferroicity in NiBr 2 with long-wavelength cycloidal spin structure on a triangular lattice, Physical Review B 84, 060406 (2011)
2011
-
[62]
T. A. Kaplan and S. D. Mahanti, Canted-spin-caused electric dipoles: A local symmetry theory, Physical Re- view B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 83, 174432 (2011)
2011
-
[64]
Arima, Ferroelectricity induced by proper-screw type magnetic order, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 76, 073702 (2007)
T.-h. Arima, Ferroelectricity induced by proper-screw type magnetic order, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 76, 073702 (2007)
2007
-
[110]
directions in real space (as shown in Fig. 1(b)). To distinguish between cycloidal and proper-screw orders, we perform direct DFT calculations, taking SOC into consideration. For simplicity, we focus on the case of Q1 = (0 .2, −0.1, 0) in the [100] direction, which can be simu...
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.