Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 69 references

Crystal tensor properties of magnetic materials with and without spin-orbit coupling. Application of spin point groups as approximate symmetries

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin point groups, not magnetic point groups, reveal which magnetic tensor properties can exist without spin-orbit coupling.

desk verdict A systematic, honest extension of Jahn-symbol tensor reduction to spin point groups; the SOC-free assumption is real but squarely acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.03934 v2 pith:F7JM3JZV submitted 2025-02-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other

Jesus Etxebarria , J. Manuel Perez-Mato , Emre S. Tasci , Luis Elcoro This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.other
keywords spinpointgroupsspacecrystaltensorsspin-orbitcouplingmagneticJahnsymbolsanomalousHalleffectanisotropy
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 establishes how to derive the symmetry-imposed shape of crystal tensor properties using spin point groups, the symmetry groups that describe magnetic structures when spin-orbit coupling (SOC) is negligible. Its central claim is that generalized Jahn symbols encode the transformation of any equilibrium, transport, optical, or nonlinear-optical tensor under a spin point group operation $\{U\parallel R\}$, where the spin rotation $U$ acts independently of the space operation $R$. Comparing the tensor form obtained under the spin point group with the form obtained under the ordinary magnetic point group separates components that survive without SOC from components whose very existence requires SOC. The authors work out the invariance equations for a wide range of tensors, compile the extra restrictions imposed by collinearity and coplanarity, and apply the scheme to known magnetic structures to show that effects such as weak ferromagnetism and the anomalous Hall effect can be diagnosed as SOC-driven when the spin point group forbids them.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Jahn symbol for a spin point group. A spin point group is a set of paired operations $\{U\parallel R\}$ in which the rotation $U$ applied to spins is independent of the point operation $R$ applied to the crystal lattice; this is the symmetry group of a magnetic structure with negligible SOC. The generalized Jahn symbol encodes, for each physical tensor, which indices transform with $U$, which with $R$, and whether time reversal enters through $\det(U)$, reducing the problem of finding symmetry-adapted tensor forms to solving linear invariance equations $\{U\parallel R\}A = A$. The machinery also separates the spin point group into a nontrivial part times a spin-only subgroup; collinear and coplanar structures have intrinsic spin-only groups $\infty n m 1$ and $m n 1$ that impose universal constraints, and orbital contributions are handled by an effective magnetic point group built from the space parts of the operations. This stepwise structure is what lets the tensor reduction under a spin point group be computed and compared with the reduction under the actual magnetic point group.

What would settle it

Switch off spin-orbit coupling in a first-principles calculation of a collinear or coplanar magnetic material that has been assigned its collinear or coplanar spin point group. If the antisymmetric part of the resistivity, meaning the anomalous Hall conductivity, or the antisymmetric part of the optical dielectric tensor, meaning the spontaneous Faraday rotation, remains nonzero in that non-relativistic calculation, the paper's symmetry rule is violated; if measurement shows such a component in a material whose assigned spin point group forbids it, the assigned group is not the SOC-free symmetry of the actual arrangement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the spin point group, not the magnetic point group, is the symmetry that governs tensor properties in the SOC-free limit, and that the difference between the two symmetry-adapted forms is a systematic SOC detector. Each operation $\{U\parallel R\}$ of a spin point group leaves a tensor invariant; the paper assigns each tensor a generalized Jahn symbol, built from the four basic ferroic transformation types $V$, $eV$, $M$, and $T$, that specifies exactly which indices are acted on by $U$ and which by $R$, with possible time-reversal signs. Collinearity and coplanarity manifest as intrinsic spin-only subgroups $\infty n m 1$ and $m n 1$, and these alone force many tensors into very restricted forms; for example, in collinear and coplanar structures the spin part of the antisymmetric resistivity vanishes, and time-odd orbital tensors vanish. Applied to specific structures such as Mn$_3$Ge and DyVO$_3$, the method shows that the observed weak ferromagnetism of Mn$_3$Ge and its reported giant anomalous Hall effect are SOC effects, while parts of the anomalous Hall effect in a non-coplanar material can survive without SOC. The conclusion states the core claim directly: SOC-free tensor properties permitted by the spin point group symmetry can be systematically distinguished from those having necessarily SOC as their ultimate cause.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on identifying the spin point group from the observed spin arrangement as it would be without spin-orbit coupling; if the real arrangement contains canting, orbital moments, or orientation features caused by SOC, the assigned spin point group is wrong and the tensor comparison no longer isolates SOC-free effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In collinear and coplanar magnetic structures, the spin-only subgroup forbids the spin part of the anomalous Hall effect, the spontaneous Nernst and Ettingshausen effects, and the spontaneous Faraday and Kerr effects; observing them implies SOC is at work.
  • For the roughly three quarters of commensurate magnetic structures whose spin and magnetic groups share the same space operations, the spin point group adds only the collinearity or coplanarity restrictions on top of the magnetic point group tensor form, making application straightforward.
  • In non-coplanar structures the spin point group can be a supergroup of the magnetic point group through extra space operations, so even SOC-free tensor forms can require less-than-full magnetic symmetry; the comparison isolates which allowed components are geometric and which are SOC-assisted.
  • Spin and orbital contributions to the same tensor transform differently under a spin point group; in collinear and coplanar cases time-odd orbital tensors vanish, so any such property must have spin origin.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could use the method as a screening tool: for each known magnetic structure, compute the spin-point-group-allowed tensor skeleton, run a SOC-free electronic-structure calculation for those components, and treat any additional measured component as a direct measure of SOC strength.
  • The paper's orientation-independent description, in which spin indices refer to a spin frame and lattice indices to the crystal frame, implies that a single scalar coefficient can encode a tensor property for all global spin orientations; this could be exploited as a compact descriptor in materials databases.
  • The same comparison logic could be applied to candidate multiferroic or altermagnetic materials: a magnetically induced polarization or spin splitting allowed by the magnetic point group but forbidden by the spin point group is diagnosed as SOC-driven, suggesting that heavy-element substitution should control its size.
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

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a general formalism for deriving the symmetry-adapted form of crystal tensor properties under spin point groups (SpPGs), which describe the symmetry of magnetic structures in the limit of negligible spin-orbit coupling. It generalizes the Jahn-symbol approach of Gallego et al. by assigning separate transformation laws for spin and orbital contributions under operations {U||R}, and tabulates constraints for equilibrium, transport, optical, and second-order nonlinear optical tensors. The method is applied to representative commensurate magnetic structures from MAGNDATA (DyB4, MnF2, CoSO4, Mn3Ge, DyVO3, CaFe3Ti4O12, UCr2Si2C), comparing tensor forms under SpPGs and ordinary magnetic point groups. The central claim is that this comparison separates tensor components that are allowed even without spin-orbit coupling from those whose very existence requires SOC.

Significance. If the formalism is correct, it provides a systematic and computationally useful extension of tensor-symmetry analysis to spin space groups, with direct relevance to altermagnets, anomalous Hall systems, magnetoelectrics, and multiferroics. The derivations are parameter-free and internally coherent, and the paper makes extensive use of publicly available magnetic structures and of the authors' earlier MTENSOR framework. A particular strength is the explicit and honest treatment of the main limitation: the assignment of an SpSG to an experimental structure assumes that the observed spin arrangement is the SOC-free one, with no SOC-induced canting and no significant orbital contribution. This caveat is clearly stated and appropriately constrains the practical conclusions.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] The Introduction contains an unresolved cross-reference to a glossary: "in section ?? we have included a glossary". This should be replaced with the correct section number.
  2. [Section IV C, Eq. (19)] Equation (19) combines two independent decoupling conditions into one expression using '±'. To avoid ambiguity, the two conditions should be written as two separate equations, each corresponding to the vanishing of the symmetric-to-antisymmetric and antisymmetric-to-symmetric cross terms.
  3. [Section IV E and Table S1] For the magnetic susceptibility, the spin contribution is written to transform as U U, while the orbital contribution is written to transform as R R. Since H is a single physical magnetic field, the manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of how H is transformed under {U||R} in each case, and whether the sum of the spin and orbital contributions is intended to be constrained as a single tensor or whether the two parts are defined with respect to different effective fields.
  4. [Section V A 1] In the DyB4 example, the numerical equality of the surviving magnetoelectric coefficient for the three spin orientations is asserted to follow from Eq. (28). This is correct for a single spin domain, but it would be clearer to state explicitly that the relation assumes the same domain and the same lattice reference frame.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the tensor reductions are derived from group actions and Onsager relations, and the SpSG-assignment caveat is a stated physical assumption, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The generalized Jahn symbols and transformation laws are defined from constitutive equations and Onsager relations (e.g., eqs. 15, 21, 33-36), and the symmetry-adapted tensor forms are obtained by imposing invariance {U||R}A = A under the generalized Neumann principle. No parameter is fitted to the tensor outputs that are then 'predicted'. The MPG forms used for comparison come from the standard, externally established Jahn-symbol/MTENSOR framework, so self-citations to Gallego et al. and MAGNDATA are independent computational and database support rather than load-bearing unverified premises. The only significant assumption is that an experimental magnetic structure's assigned SpSG is the symmetry of the SOC-free Hamiltonian; the paper explicitly flags this: 'these SpSG identifications were done with the implicit assumption that the spin arrangement does not have any feature caused by the SOC that would falsify the calculated SpSG.' That is an interpretive caveat limiting the physical conclusions, not a circular step in the mathematical derivation. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited with a specific equation reducing an output to an input, and the score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the SOC-free separation of spin and lattice dynamics, on the assumption that experimental magnetic structures can be assigned a SpSG from spin-only moments, and on the Neumann principle. No free parameters are fitted and no new physical entities are introduced; the formalism uses prior enumerations of spin groups and public magnetic structure data.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption In the SOC-free limit the spin subsystem can be rotated independently of the lattice, so operations {U||{R|t}} act separately on spin and space variables.
    Equations (3)-(6) in Section II A define the SpSG from this separation; the whole derivation assumes this idealization and the paper explicitly says it is exact only at null SOC.
  • domain assumption Atomic magnetic moments determined experimentally can be identified with the spin part M_s, with negligible orbital contribution in Eq. (6).
    Section II A notes this is 'usually assumed' for SpSG identification and can fail; orbital moments transform differently and, in collinear structures, are forbidden by the SpSG.
  • domain assumption The Neumann principle, {U||R} A = A, applies to tensor properties under SpPG operations.
    Stated at the opening of Section IV; an extension of the standard symmetry principle, not derived from more basic axioms.
  • standard math Time reversal acts on transport and optical tensors according to Onsager reciprocity, e.g., {−1||1}ρ = ρ^T and {−1||1}ε = ε^T.
    Equations (33) and (42) in Sections IV G and I; accepted statistical physics input.
  • domain assumption The enumeration of 598 nontrivial spin point groups by Litvin and the SpSG labels from Chen et al. are correct.
    Section II C and V depend on these external enumerations; no re-derivation is given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crystal tensor properties of magnetic materials with and without spin-orbit coupling. Application of spin point groups as approximate symmetries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7JM3JZV

@misc{pith2026250203934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crystal tensor properties of magnetic materials with and without spin-orbit coupling. Application of spin point groups as approximate symmetries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7JM3JZV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.03934}
}
read the original abstract

Spin space groups, formed by operations where the rotation of the spins is independent of the accompanying operation acting on the crystal structure, are appropriate groups to describe the symmetry of magnetic structures with null spin-orbit coupling. Their corresponding spin point groups are the symmetry groups to be considered for deriving the symmetry constraints on the form of the crystal tensor properties of such idealized structures. These groups can also be taken as approximate symmetries (with some restrictions) of real magnetic structures, where spin-orbit and magnetic anisotropy are however present. Here we formalize the invariance transformation properties that must satisfy the most important crystal tensors under a spin point group. This is done using modified Jahn symbols, which generalize those applicable to ordinary magnetic point groups [Gallego et al., Acta Cryst. (2019) A75, 438-447]. The analysis includes not only equilibrium tensors, but also transport, optical and non-linear optical susceptibility tensors. The constraints imposed by spin collinearity and coplanarity within the spin group formalism on a series of representative tensors are discussed and compiled. As illustrative examples, the defined tensor invariance equations have been applied to some known magnetic structures, showing the differences of the symmetry-adapted form of some relevant tensors, when considered under the constraints of its spin point group or its magnetic point group. This comparison, with the spin point group implying additional constraints in the tensor form, can allow one to distinguish those magnetic-related properties that can be solely attributed to spin-orbit coupling from those that are expected even when spin-orbit coupling is negligible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.03934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Magnetic structure of DyB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magnetic structure of MnF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetic structure of CoSO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Magnetic structure of Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Magnetic structure of DyVO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    55) in its paramagnetic phase and below 21K exhibits a collinear magnetic structure [45], with propagation vector k = 0 and MSG P b′am (OG No

    Collinear DyB 4 (entry 0.22 in MAGNDATA) DyB4 has space group P bam(No. 55) in its paramagnetic phase and below 21K exhibits a collinear magnetic structure [45], with propagation vector k = 0 and MSG P b′am (OG No. 55.3.433), and therefore its MPG is m′mm. The spins are oriented along c. A scheme of the structure is displayed in Fig. 1. As the MSG keeps a...

    work page

  2. [2]

    136) in the paramagnetic parent phase

    Collinear MnF 2 (entry 0.15 in MAGNDATA) MnF2 has space group P 42/mnm (No. 136) in the paramagnetic parent phase. Upon cooling it undergoes a transition to a collinear magnetic phase with propagation vector k = 0 [46]. The structure of the magnetic phase is shown in Fig. 2. The spins are parallel to [001], with MSG P 4′ 2/mnm′ (OG No. 136.5.1156). Here a...

    work page

  3. [3]

    CoSO4 has a paramagnetic phase with space group Cmcm (No

    Coplanar CoSO 4 (entry 1.519 in MAGNDATA). CoSO4 has a paramagnetic phase with space group Cmcm (No. 63), and a magnetic phase below 15.5 K with propagation vector k = (1 , 0, 0) [49]. The material is coplanar, being mx the spin-only mirror plane (see Fig. 3). Its MSG is PCbcn in the BNS notation, with OG numerical index 63.16.52. The non-trivial SpSG is ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Coplanar Mn 3Ge (entry 0.377 in MAGNDATA) The paramagnetic phase of Mn 3Ge is hexagonal with space group P 63/mmc (No. 194). Below 380K the material undergoes a transition to a coplanar magnetic structure [50]. The plane of spins is perpendicular to the hexagonal axis (see Fig. 4(a)), and the MSG of the structure is Cm ′cm′ (OG No. 63.8.58). The correspon...

    work page

  5. [5]

    geometric

    Non-coplanar DyVO 3 (entry 0.106 in MAGNDATA) This material has space group P bnm(No. 62) in its paramagnetic phase. At low temperatures, both V and Dy atoms are magnetically ordered with a non-coplanar spin arrangement, which is depicted in Fig. 5 [52]. The MSG of this magnetic structure is P 112′ 1/m′ (OG N. 11.5.63). Being non-coplanar, the SpSG coinci...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Collinear DyB 4 (entry 0.22 in MAGNDATA) 18

    work page

  7. [7]

    Collinear MnF 2 (entry 0.15 in MAGNDATA) 20

    work page

  8. [8]

    Coplanar CoSO 4 (entry 1.519 in MAGNDATA). 21 B. Structures with a non-minimal SpSG 22

    work page

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Coplanar Mn 3Ge (entry 0.377 in MAGNDATA) 22

  2. [10]

    Conclusions 25 Acknowledgments 26 S1

    Non-coplanar DyVO 3 (entry 0.106 in MAGNDATA) 24 VI. Conclusions 25 Acknowledgments 26 S1. Tables (S1-S6) of tensor properties and constraints due to spin group symmetry 28 S1.1. Tensors of selected equilibrium properties 28 S1.2. Constraints imposed by collinearity and coplan...

  3. [11]

    W F Brinkman and R J Elliott, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. 294, 343–358 (1966)

    1966

  4. [12]

    Spin groups,

    D B Litvin and W Opechowski, “Spin groups,” Physica 76, 538–554 (1974)

    1974

  5. [13]

    Spin point groups,

    D B Litvin, “Spin point groups,” Acta Crystallogr. A 33, 279–287 (1977)

    1977

  6. [14]

    Pengfei Liu, Jiayu Li, Jingzhi Han, Xiangang Wan, and Qihang Liu, Phys. Rev. X. 12, 021016 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Lin-Ding Yuan, Zhi Wang, Jun-Wei Luo, Emmanuel I Rashba, and Alex Zunger, Phys. Rev. B. 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X. 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X. 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Igor Mazin, Phys. Rev. X. 12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Lin-Ding Yuan, Zhi Wang, Jun-Wei Luo, and Alex Zunger, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 014409 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    P-wave magnets,

    Anna Birk Hellenes, Tom´ aˇ s Jungwirth, Rodrigo Jaeschke-Ubiergo, Atasi Chakraborty, Jairo Sinova, and Libor ˇSmejkal, “P-wave magnets,” (2024), arXiv:2309.01607 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Xiaobing Chen, Jun Ren, Yanzhou Zhu, Yutong Yu, Ao Zhang, Pengfei Liu, Jiayu Li, Yuntian Liu, Caiheng Li, and Qihang Liu, Phys. Rev. X. 14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Yi Jiang, Ziyin Song, Tiannian Zhu, Zhong Fang, Hongming Weng, Zheng-Xin Liu, Jian Yang, and Chen Fang, Phys. Rev. X. 14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Zhenyu Xiao, Jianzhou Zhao, Yanqi Li, Ryuichi Shindou, and Zhi-Da Song, Phys. Rev. X. 14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hikaru Watanabe, Kohei Shinohara, Takuya Nomoto, Atsushi Togo, and Ryotaro Arita, Phys. Rev. B. 109, 094438 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Magnetic geometry to quantum geometry nonlinear transports,

    Haiyuan Zhu, Jiayu Li, Xiaobing Chen, Yutong Yu, and Qihang Liu, “Magnetic geometry to quantum geometry nonlinear transports,” (2024), 2406.03738

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Samuel V Gallego, Jesus Etxebarria, Luis Elcoro, Emre S Tasci, and J Manuel Perez-Mato, Acta Crystallogr. A Found. Adv. 75, 438–447 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Note on the Bhagavantam–Suranarayana method of enumerating the physical constants of crystals,

    H A Jahn, “Note on the Bhagavantam–Suranarayana method of enumerating the physical constants of crystals,” Acta Crystallogr. 2, 30–33 (1949)

    1949

  20. [28]

    C, 3rd ed.(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Nederland, 2004) pp

    T Janssen, A Janner, A Looijenga-Vos, and P M de Wolf, International Tables for Crystallography, Vol. C, 3rd ed.(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Nederland, 2004) pp. 907–955

    2004

  21. [29]

    Superspace groups and landau theory. a physical approach to superspace symmetry in incommensurate structures,

    J M Perez-Mato, G Madariaga, and M J Tello, “Superspace groups and landau theory. a physical approach to superspace symmetry in incommensurate structures,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 30, 1534–1543 (1984)

    1984

  22. [30]

    D B Litvin, International Tables for Crystallography(International Union of Crystallography, Chester, England, 2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    B Struct

    B J Campbell, H T Stokes, J M Perez-Mato, and J Rodriguez-Carvajal, Acta Crystallogr. B Struct. Sci. Cryst. Eng. Mater. 80, 401–408 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    M I Aroyo, International Tables for Crystallography(International Union of Crystallography, Chester, England, 2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Branton J Campbell, Harold T Stokes, J Manuel Perez-Mato, and Juan Rodr ´ ıguez-Carvajal, Acta Crystallogr. A Found. Adv. 78, 99–106 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    D B Litvin, Magnetic Group Tables: 1- 2- and 3-dimensional magnetic subperiodic groups and space groups.(International Union of Crystallography, Chester, England, 2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    MAGNDATA: towards a database of magnetic structures. i. the commensurate case,

    Samuel V Gallego, J Manuel Perez-Mato, Luis Elcoro, Emre S Tasci, Robert M Hanson, Koichi Momma, Mois I Aroyo, and Gotzon Madariaga, “ MAGNDATA: towards a database of magnetic structures. i. the commensurate case,” J. Appl. Crystallogr. 49, 1750–1776 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Macroscopic symmetry in space-time,

    R R Birss, “Macroscopic symmetry in space-time,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 26, 307–360 (1963)

    1963

  29. [37]

    General relations for transport properties in magnetically ordered crystals,

    H Grimmer, “General relations for transport properties in magnetically ordered crystals,” Acta Crystallogr. A 49, 763–771 (1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    H Grimmer, Ferroelectrics 161, 181–189 (1994)

    1994

  31. [39]

    Space-time symmetry of transport coefficients,

    W H Kleiner, “Space-time symmetry of transport coefficients,” Phys. Rev. 142, 318–326 (1966)

    1966

  32. [40]

    Symmetry properties of the transport coefficients of magnetic crystals,

    A P Cracknell, “Symmetry properties of the transport coefficients of magnetic crystals,” Phys. Rev. 7, 2145–2154 (1973)

    1973

  33. [41]

    3, 147–150 (1965)

    S Shtrikman and H Thomas, Solid State Commun. 3, 147–150 (1965)

    1965

  34. [42]

    Vojtˇ ech Kopsk´ y, Symmetry (Basel)7, 125–145 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    J F Nye, ”Physical properties of crystals”, Oxford science publications (Oxford University Press, London, England, 1985)

    1985

  36. [44]

    The toroidal moment in condensed-matter physics and its relation to the magnetoelectric effect,

    Nicola A Spaldin, Manfred Fiebig, and Maxim Mostovoy, “The toroidal moment in condensed-matter physics and its relation to the magnetoelectric effect,” J. Phys. Condens. Matter 20, 434203 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    H-D Butzal and R R Birss, Physica A 114, 518–521 (1982)

    1982

  38. [46]

    V V Eremenko, N F Kharchenko, Yu G Litvinenko, and V M Naumenko, Magneto-optics and spectroscopy of antiferro- magnets (Springer, New York, NY, 1992)

    1992

  39. [47]

    Thermoelectric transport properties in magnetically ordered crystals,

    Hans Grimmer, “Thermoelectric transport properties in magnetically ordered crystals,” Acta Crystallogr. A Found. Adv. 73, 333–345 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    Symmetry-imposed shape of linear response tensors,

    M Seemann, D K¨ odderitzsch, S Wimmer, and H Ebert, “Symmetry-imposed shape of linear response tensors,” Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 92, 155138 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Jakub ˇZelezn´ y, Yang Zhang, Claudia Felser, and Binghai Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 187204 (2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    B Andrei Bernevig, Taylor L Hughes, and Shou-Cheng Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 066601 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    Y Taguchi, Y Oohara, H Yoshizawa, N Nagaosa, and Y Tokura, Science 291, 2573–2576 (2001)

    2001

  44. [52]

    Naoto Nagaosa, Jairo Sinova, Shigeki Onoda, A H MacDonald, and N P Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539–1592 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Spin hall effect emerging from a 41 noncollinear magnetic lattice without spin–orbit coupling,

    Yang Zhang, Jakub ˇZelezn´ y, Yan Sun, Jeroen van den Brink, and Binghai Yan, “Spin hall effect emerging from a 41 noncollinear magnetic lattice without spin–orbit coupling,” New J. Phys. 20, 073028 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    L D Landau and E M Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of continuous media, Course of Theoretical Physics (Pergamon Press, London, England, 1960)

    1960

  47. [55]

    Less-common Met

    G Will and W Schafer, J. Less-common Met. 67, 31–39 (1979)

    1979

  48. [56]

    Z Yamani, Z Tun, and D H Ryan, Can. J. Phys. 88, 771–797 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Sayantika Bhowal and Nicola A Spaldin, Phys. Rev. X. 14, 011019 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Paolo G Radaelli, Phys. Rev. B. 110, 214428 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Antiferromagnetic structure of CrVO4and the anhydrous sulfates of divalent fe, ni, and co,

    B C Frazer and P J Brown, “Antiferromagnetic structure of CrVO4and the anhydrous sulfates of divalent fe, ni, and co,” Phys. Rev. 125, 1283–1291 (1962)

    1962

  52. [60]

    J-R Soh, F de Juan, N Qureshi, H Jacobsen, H-Y Wang, Y-F Guo, and A T Boothroyd, Phys. Rev. B. 101, 140411 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Naoki Kiyohara, Takahiro Tomita, and Satoru Nakatsuji, Phys. Rev. Appl. 5, 064009 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    M Reehuis, C Ulrich, K Prokeˇ s, S Mat’aˇ s, J Fujioka, S Miyasaka, Y Tokura, and B Keimer, Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 83, 064404 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    Nonlinear optical properties of solids: Energy considerations,

    P S Pershan, “Nonlinear optical properties of solids: Energy considerations,” Phys. Rev. 130, 919–929 (1963)

    1963

  56. [64]

    Popov, Y.P

    S.V. Popov, Y.P. Svirko, and N.I. Zheludev, Susceptibility Tensors for Nonlinear Optics, Series in Optics and Optoelec- tronics (Taylor & Francis, 1995)

    1995

  57. [65]

    Klyshko, Physical foundations of quantum electronics, edited by Maria Chekhova and Sergei Kulik (World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, Singapore, 2011)

    David N. Klyshko, Physical foundations of quantum electronics, edited by Maria Chekhova and Sergei Kulik (World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, Singapore, 2011)

    2011

  58. [66]

    Nonlinear dielectric polarization in optical media,

    D A Kleinman, “Nonlinear dielectric polarization in optical media,” Phys. Rev. 126, 1977–1979 (1962)

    1962

  59. [67]

    Tsirkin and Ivo Souza, SciPost Phys

    Stepan S. Tsirkin and Ivo Souza, SciPost Phys. Core 5, 039 (2022)

    2022

  60. [68]

    Midori Amano Patino, Fabio Denis Romero, Masato Goto, Takashi Saito, Fabio Orlandi, Pascal Manuel, Attila Szab´ o, Paula Kayser, Ka H Hong, Khalid N Alharbi, J Paul Attfield, and Yuichi Shimakawa, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043208 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Chem.57, 2546–2557 (2018)

    Pierric Lemoine, Anne Verni` ere, Mathieu Pasturel, G´ erard Venturini, and Bernard Malaman, Inorg. Chem.57, 2546–2557 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.