Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Tunable Topological Superconductivity by Fully Compensated Ferrimagnets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fully compensated ferrimagnets, with zero net magnetization, can host Majorana zero modes, chiral edge states, and tunable corner modes across one, two, and higher dimensions, all controlled by electric fields and Néel-vector orientation.

desk verdict Solid transfer of standard Majorana machinery to fFIMs, but the central claim that zero net magnetization preserves superconductivity rests on an uncalculated uniform-Δ0 assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19844 v1 pith:FQNRESZU submitted 2025-04-28 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yu-Xuan Li , Yicheng Liu , Cheng-Cheng Liu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords fullycompensatedferrimagnetMajoranazeromodestopologicalsuperconductivitychiraledgestateshigher-ordersuperconductorselectric-fieldcontrolNéelvectorproximity-inducedpairing
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 argues that heterostructures built from a fully compensated ferrimagnet (fFIM)—a magnet whose opposite sublattice moments cancel to zero net magnetization—can support topological superconductivity in one, two, and higher dimensions. Because the fFIM has no net moment, the proximity-induced superconductivity is not weakened by stray fields, while an electric field tunes the spin splitting and drives transitions between trivial and topological phases. A rotating Néel vector is claimed to control the chirality of Majorana edge states and the spatial position of Majorana corner modes. If correct, this gives a magnetic-field-free, voltage-controlled route to Majorana bound states for quantum devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the low-energy fFIM Hamiltonian $H_{\text{eff}}(k) = 2t_0(\cos k_x + \cos k_y) - \mu + (V_0 + V_1(\cos k_x - \cos k_y))\,s\cdot\hat{n}$, where $V_0$ is an electric-field-controllable sublattice-staggered potential that converts the Fermi-surface spin splitting from d-wave symmetry at $V_0=0$ to s-wave symmetry at finite $V_0$. Placing this spin-splitting term into three BdG Hamiltonians—a nanowire, a Rashba electron gas, and a topological-insulator sandwich—each model admits a conserved quantity $s_x\gamma_x$ that block-diagonalizes it. Each block maps onto a Kitaev chain or a chiral $p\pm ip$ superconductor, so standard invariants (BDI winding number, class-D Chern number, and the Dirac masses of the edge theory) locate the Majorana modes and the phase boundaries where they appear.

What would settle it

Compute the proximity pairing self-consistently in the fFIM–superconductor geometry; if the staggered exchange field suppresses or spatially modulates the induced pairing amplitude, the phase boundaries shift or the zero modes vanish. Experimentally, a nanowire on an fFIM at the predicted parameters should show a $2e^2/h$ zero-bias conductance peak only inside the computed $V_0$ windows, and its absence would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an fFIM-based heterostructure is a tunable topological superconductor in three distinct geometries. In the 1D nanowire, the BdG Hamiltonian decomposes at $\mu = 0$ into two Kitaev chains, giving a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ invariant $\nu_{\text{tot}} = \nu_+ + \nu_-$ and regions with two or four zero-energy Majorana end modes; the phase is controlled by gate voltage $V_0$ and by the Néel-vector orientation. In the 2D fFIM–Rashba–superconductor stack, the Chern number takes values $C\in\{-2,-1,0,1,2\}$; nonzero Chern numbers give chiral Majorana edge modes, while in a zero-Chern region two counter-propagating chiral modes survive because the two conserved sectors carry opposite Chern numbers $C_+ = -C_-$. In the topological-insulator sandwich, edge theory gives Dirac masses whose sign changes across adjacent edges bind Majorana corner modes, and rotating the Néel vector by 90 degrees moves those corner modes between edges. The unifying claim is that zero net magnetization preserves the superconducting pairing while the sublattice-staggered potential $V_0$ provides all-electric control of the topological phase.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the proximity-induced superconducting pairing has a uniform amplitude $\Delta_0$ that is unaffected by the opposite exchange fields on the two fFIM sublattices; if those local exchange fields suppress or distort the pairing, the predicted topological phases could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A one-dimensional nanowire on an fFIM substrate should exhibit zero-energy Majorana end modes that can be switched on and off by a gate voltage, with the topological phase boundary given by the predicted $V_0$–$V_1$ diagram.
  • A two-dimensional fFIM–Rashba–superconductor stack should show chiral Majorana edge modes whose direction reverses when the Néel vector develops an out-of-plane component or when $V_0$ crosses a Chern-number boundary.
  • In the topological-insulator sandwich, Majorana corner modes should appear at corners where the edge Dirac mass changes sign, and rotating the Néel vector by 90 degrees should move them between distinct corners.
  • Because the fFIM has zero net magnetization, the superconducting proximity effect is not weakened by stray fields, so the platform avoids the usual trade-off between magnetic tunability and superconducting coherence.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A self-consistent calculation of the proximity pairing, letting the superconducting order parameter respond to the opposite sublattice exchange fields, would reveal how robust the predicted phases are to realistic pair-breaking; this is a natural next step beyond the paper's fixed-$\Delta_0$ models.
  • The $V_0$ mechanism should transfer to fFIMs with other crystal potentials, such as g-wave and i-wave, though the phase diagrams for those cases are not derived in this paper.
  • The zero-Chern two-dimensional region, with counter-propagating chiral modes, offers a natural setting for phase-biased Josephson interferometry that probes non-Abelian statistics without requiring a net Chern number.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using fully compensated ferrimagnets (fFIMs) as a platform for topological superconductivity in three geometries: a 1D nanowire hosting Majorana zero modes, a 2D Rashba electron gas hosting chiral Majorana edge states, and a topological-insulator sandwich hosting higher-order Majorana corner modes. The authors introduce minimal BdG models, derive effective low-energy descriptions, compute winding numbers, Chern numbers, and edge-theory masses, and corroborate with numerical spectra. The central claim is that fFIMs' zero net magnetization avoids the usual pair-breaking trade-off while allowing electric-field (V0) and Néel-vector control of the topological phases.

Significance. If the predictions hold, this would be an important proposal for magnetic-field-free, electrically tunable topological superconductivity. The exact reduction of the 1D model to two Kitaev chains at μ=0, the mutual consistency between Chern numbers, Wilson loops, and edge spectra in 2D, and the edge-theory explanation of corner modes are all strengths. The proposed dual control (by V0 and by Néel vector orientation) is clearly formulated and experimentally testable. The main moderating factor is that the key advantage—that zero net magnetization preserves the proximity-induced superconductivity—is asserted rather than derived; the validity of the uniform-Δ0 assumption directly affects whether the phase diagrams of Figs. 2–4 are physical predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction; Eqs. (2), (5), (6)] The central claim that zero net magnetization in the fFIM 'preserves superconductivity' is not demonstrated. In all three models, the proximity-induced pairing Δ0 is a fixed, uniform, momentum-independent input. The fFIM substrate is described by a two-sublattice Hamiltonian with opposite exchange fields; how this staggered exchange modifies the induced pairing in the nanowire, 2DEG, or TI surface is not analyzed. If the effective Δ0 were suppressed, k-dependent, or altered in the parameter regions where V0 and V1 generate the topological phases, the phase boundaries in Figs. 2–4 would shift and the topological regimes could disappear. Please provide a microscopic justification or at least a quantitative estimate of the pair-breaking effect of the fFIM's staggered exchange (e.g., by considering a simple proximity model), or clearly state the conditions under which the uniform-Δ0 assumption holds.
  2. [Effective model and 1D/2D models; Eq. (1) vs. Eqs. (2) and (5)] The paper assumes that the fFIM's low-energy spin-splitting term (V0 + V1(coskx − cosky)) s·n translates directly into an effective exchange term in an adjacent nonmagnetic layer. This step is not derived; it is an ansatz about the interfacial coupling. The text repeatedly refers to Supplemental Material validations against the full fFIM Hamiltonian, but no representative full-model result is shown in the main text. Please include at least one quantitative comparison between the effective-model and full-model phase diagrams (e.g., the 1D winding number or 2D Chern number), or summarize the full-model results in enough detail for the reader to judge whether the effective models faithfully capture the fFIM-induced spin splitting.
  3. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 2] The exact Kitaev-chain mapping is demonstrated at μ=0, and the winding-number calculation in Fig. 2(b) is said to support the finite-μ results, but the text does not specify the value of μ used in Fig. 2(b) nor show how the topological phase boundaries evolve with μ. The phrase in the text, 'Introducing a finite chemical potential induces hybridization among two MZMs at the same end, leading to an energy splitting δE, that signals the transition to a trivial phase,' suggests that the νtot=2 regime is destroyed by arbitrarily small μ; it is unclear whether any other region of the parameter space remains topological at realistic μ. Please state the parameter values used for Fig. 2(b), and provide a representative μ-dependence of the winding number or of the topological gap so the practical applicability of the 1D proposal can be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (6)] There appears to be a typo in the fFIM term: '(V0 + V1(coskx − cosky)) s·n γz(0)' should likely be 'γz' without the '(0)'.
  2. [Introduction, first paragraph] The phrase 'magnetic fields to induced the required spin splitting' should read 'to induce the required spin splitting.'
  3. [2D TSC section] Abbreviations 'MEM' (Majorana edge mode) and 'MES' (Majorana edge state) are used interchangeably; please define the preferred abbreviation and use it consistently.
  4. [Figure captions (Figs. 2 and 3)] The captions do not specify the values of μ and Δ0 used in the numerical spectra; for reproducibility, please list the parameter values in the captions or note that they are given in the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all topological phase diagrams and invariants are computed from explicitly stated BdG Hamiltonians; the only external inputs are standard proximity-effect ingredients and a separately published fFIM model, neither of which is equivalent to the claimed results.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained once the model Hamiltonians in Eqs. (2), (5), and (6) are stated. Each topological claim (1D winding number and Pfaffian, 2D Chern number, HOTSC corner modes) is obtained by direct invariant or edge-theory calculation from those Hamiltonians, with no parameter fitted to any output quantity. The 'predicted' phase boundaries are literal gap-closing conditions in the same equations, and the Majorana mode assignments follow from standard bulk-boundary correspondence; this is model analysis, not an empirical prediction whose outcome is forced by a fit. The fFIM band-splitting term is taken from Ref. [35], a prior publication by overlapping authors, but that prior work is an external input (a lattice/band model for fFIMs) and the present manuscript does not claim to derive it, nor does any claimed topological result reduce to a parameter fitted in this paper. Refs. [53] and [54] are cited only as background for Néel-vector control in altermagnet contexts, not as the justification for the present phase diagrams. The uniform-Δ0 proximity assumption flagged by the skeptical reader is a physical validity concern about whether the model describes a real interface; it is not a circularity, because the BdG derivation takes Δ0 as an input rather than obtaining it from the output. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central claim rests on model parameters (V0, V1, lambda_R, Delta0) and on domain assumptions about fFIM materials and the coexistence of spin splitting with induced s-wave pairing.

free parameters (6)
  • V0
    Electric-field-tunable sublattice-staggered potential; the primary control parameter for topological transitions in all three geometries. Scanned across phase diagrams in Figs. 2-4; assumed accessible by electrostatic gating following Ref. [35].
  • V1
    Amplitude of the d-wave crystal potential in the fFIM; scanned in phase diagrams and sets the bandwidth of the spin splitting term.
  • lambda_R = 1 (in figures)
    Rashba spin-orbit coupling strength; set to 1 in the plotted phase diagrams. The existence of topological phases requires nonzero lambda_R.
  • Delta0
    Proximity-induced s-wave pairing amplitude; assumed uniform and not suppressed by fFIM sublattice moments. Varies in Fig. 3(a).
  • mu = 0 for analytic results
    Chemical potential; set to zero for exact mappings (Kitaev chain, block diagonalization). Finite mu is only discussed qualitatively as introducing hybridization gaps.
  • m0, lambda (TI sandwich) = 1 (in figures)
    Mass and Dirac velocity of the topological insulator surface state in Eq. (6); set to 1 in the corner-mode calculations. The existence of MCMs relies on these parameters.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The low-energy fFIM model (Eq. (1)) with spin splitting (V0+V1(coskx−cosky))s·n accurately describes the band structure of a fully compensated ferrimagnet.
    Quoted from Ref. [35] (same group) and validated only in the SM; used as the starting point for all heterostructure models.
  • domain assumption Proximity-induced s-wave pairing with uniform amplitude Δ0 is not suppressed by the fFIM's sublattice exchange fields despite zero net magnetization.
    Central to the platform's advantage; asserted in the Introduction but no microscopic pair-breaking calculation is provided.
  • domain assumption Electric field V0 can tune the sublattice-staggered potential over a range sufficient to cross topological phase boundaries.
    Inherited from Ref. [35]; no experimental demonstration in this paper.
  • standard math Standard topological band theory (Kitaev chain, Chern numbers, bulk-boundary correspondence, edge Dirac theory) applies to the model Hamiltonians.
    Used to compute invariants and edge spectra; based on Refs. [12,51].
  • domain assumption The Néel vector of the fFIM can be reoriented by electrical or spin-orbit-torque means while maintaining near-zero net magnetization.
    Assumed from antiferromagnetic spintronics experiments [45-50]; needed for claimed dual control.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable Topological Superconductivity by Fully Compensated Ferrimagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQNRESZU

@misc{pith2026250419844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable Topological Superconductivity by Fully Compensated Ferrimagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQNRESZU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19844}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a platform based on a fully compensated ferrimagnet (fFIM) for realizing and controlling topological superconductivity with Majorana bound states across multiple dimensions. Through symmetry analysis and microscopic modeling, we demonstrate that fFIM-based heterostructures host (i) Majorana zero modes localized at the ends of one-dimensional nanowires, (ii) chiral Majorana edge states along two-dimensional boundaries, and (iii) tunable Majorana corner modes in higher-order topological phases. The unique properties of fFIMs enable an electric field to drive topological superconductivity phase transitions and N\'eel vector orientation to control the spatial distribution of Majorana modes, without external magnetic fields. Crucially, the absence of net magnetization in fFIM-based heterostructures preserves superconductivity, circumventing the usual trade-off between tunability and superconducting coherence in magnetized systems. Our results establish fFIM-based heterostructures as a versatile platform for tunable topological superconductivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Proposal for tunable topological superconductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Topological phase diagram in 1D TSCs. (a) The topo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Topological phase diagram in 2D TSCs. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Phase diagram and MCMs evolution in the higher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insulators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    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

  4. [4]

    T. D. Stanescu and S. Tewari, Majorana fermions in semi- conductor nanowires: Fundamentals, modeling, and ex- periment, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25, 233201 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Topological superconductors: A review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Superconducting proximity effect and Majorana fermions at the surface of a topological insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 096407 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Alicea, Majorana fermions in a tunable semiconductor device, Phys

    J. Alicea, Majorana fermions in a tunable semiconductor device, Phys. Rev. B 81, 125318 (2010)

    2010

  8. [8]

    Linder, Y

    J. Linder, Y. Tanaka, T. Yokoyama, A. Sudbø, and N. Nagaosa, Unconventional Superconductivity on a Topological Insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 067001 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. Sau, R. M. Lutchyn, S. Tewari, and S. Das Sarma, Generic New Platform for Topological Quantum Compu- tation Using Semiconductor Heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 040502 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

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

    2010

  3. [11]

    R. M. Lutchyn, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Majo- rana Fermions and a Topological Phase Transition in Semiconductor-Superconductor Heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 077001 (2010)

    2010

  4. [12]

    Tewari and J

    S. Tewari and J. D. Sau, Topological invariants for spin- orbit coupled superconductor nanowires, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150408 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Nakosai, Y

    S. Nakosai, Y. Tanaka, and N. Nagaosa, Topological su- perconductivity in bilayer Rashba system, Physical Re- view Letters 108, 147003 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Chiral topolog- ical superconductor from the quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B 82, 184516 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Alicea, Y

    J. Alicea, Y. Oreg, G. Refael, F. von Oppen, and M. P. A. Fisher, Non-Abelian statistics and topological quantum information processing in 1D wire networks, Nat. Phys. 7, 412 (2011)

    2011

  8. [16]

    A. C. Potter and P. A. Lee, Majorana end states in multi- band microstructures with Rashba spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 83, 094525 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    Liu, C.-C

    F. Liu, C.-C. Liu, K. Wu, F. Yang, and Y. Yao, d +id′ chiral superconductivity in bilayer silicene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 066804 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

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

    2017

  12. [20]

    Pientka, A

    F. Pientka, A. Keselman, E. Berg, A. Yacoby, A. Stern, and B. I. Halperin, Topological superconductivity in a planar Josephson junction, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021032 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Savary, J

    L. Savary, J. Ruhman, J. W. F. Venderbos, L. Fu, and P. A. Lee, Superconductivity in three-dimensional spin-orbit coupled semimetals, Phys. Rev. B 96, 214514 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Fornieri, A

    A. Fornieri, A. M. Whiticar, F. Setiawan, E. Por- tol´ es, A. C. C. Drachmann, A. Keselman, S. Gronin, C. Thomas, T. Wang, R. Kallaher, G. C. Gardner, E. Berg, M. J. Manfra, A. Stern, C. M. Marcus, and F. Nichele, Evidence of topological superconductivity in planar Josephson j...

    2019

  15. [23]

    Ning, D.-S

    Z. Ning, D.-S. Ma, J. Zeng, D.-H. Xu, and R. Wang, 6 Flexible control of chiral superconductivity in optically driven nodal point superconductors with antiferromag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 246606 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Zhang, C

    F. Zhang, C. L. Kane, and E. J. Mele, Surface state mag- netization and chiral edge states on topological insula- tors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 046404 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Langbehn, Y

    J. Langbehn, Y. Peng, L. Trifunovic, F. von Oppen, and P. W. Brouwer, Reflection-symmetric second-order topo- logical insulators and superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246401 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, and T. L. Hughes, Electric multipole moments, topological multipole mo- ment pumping, and chiral hinge states in crystalline in- sulators, Phys. Rev. B 96, 245115 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Z. Song, Z. Fang, and C. Fang, ( d − 2)-dimensional edge states of rotation symmetry protected topological states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 246402 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Khalaf, Higher-order topological insulators and super- conductors protected by inversion symmetry, Phys

    E. Khalaf, Higher-order topological insulators and super- conductors protected by inversion symmetry, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205136 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    D. Zhu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Topological superconductivity in two-dimensional altermagnetic met- als, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, T. L. Hughes, and J. Cano, Altermag- netic routes to Majorana modes in zero net magnetiza- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    X.-H. Pan, L. Chen, D. E. Liu, F.-C. Zhang, and X. Liu, Majorana zero modes induced by the meissner effect at small magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036602 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    A. I. Buzdin, Proximity effects in superconductor- ferromagnet heterostructures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 935 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond Con- ventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Altermagnetism: Exploring New Frontiers in Magnetism and Spintronics, Adv. Funct. Mater. 34, 2409327 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Liu, S.-D

    Y. Liu, S.-D. Guo, Y. Li, and C.-C. Liu, Two-dimensional fully compensated ferrimagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 116703 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Semboshi, R

    S. Semboshi, R. Y. Umetsu, Y. Kawahito, and H. Akai, A new type of half-metallic fully compensated ferrimagnet, Sci. Rep. 12, 10687 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Kawamura, K

    T. Kawamura, K. Yoshimi, K. Hashimoto, A. Kobayashi, and T. Misawa, Compensated ferrimagnets with colossal spin splitting in organic compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 156502 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    L.-D. Yuan, A. B. Georgescu, and J. M. Rondinelli, Nonrelativistic spin splitting at the brillouin zone center in compensated magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 216701 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Wurmehl, H

    S. Wurmehl, H. C. Kandpal, G. H. Fecher, and C. Felser, Valence electron rules for prediction of half-metallic compensated-ferrimagnetic behaviour of Heusler com- pounds with complete spin polarization, J. Phys.: Con- dens. Matter 18, 6171 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Hu, Half-metallic antiferromagnet as a prospective material for spintronics, Adv

    X. Hu, Half-metallic antiferromagnet as a prospective material for spintronics, Adv. Mater. 24, 294 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    van Leuken and R

    H. van Leuken and R. A. de Groot, Half-metallic antifer- romagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1171 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    Mazin (The PRX Editors), Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamental magnetism, Phys

    I. Mazin (The PRX Editors), Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamental magnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Guo, X.-Y

    P.-J. Guo, X.-Y. Hou, Z.-F. Gao, H.-C. Yang, W. Ji, and Z.-Y. Lu, Luttinger compensated bipolarized mag- netic semiconductor, (2025), arXiv:2502.18136 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    [2, 3, 12, 35, 51–53]

    See Supplemental Material for more details on (I) pre- senting a minimal two-band model capturing fFIM band splitting characteristics, (II) develops dimensionally re- duced (1D/2D) models of topological superconducting phases with invariant calculations, (III) validates the ef...

  37. [45]

    Meinert, D

    M. Meinert, D. Graulich, and T. Matalla-Wagner, Elec- trical Switching of Antiferromagnetic Mn 2 Au and the Role of Thermal Activation, Phys. Rev. Applied 9, 064040 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Godinho, H

    J. Godinho, H. Reichlov´ a, D. Kriegner, V. Nov´ ak, K. Olejn´ ık, Z. Kaˇ spar, Z.ˇSob´ aˇ n, P. Wadley, R. P. Cam- pion, R. M. Otxoa, P. E. Roy, J. ˇZelezn´ y, T. Jungwirth, and J. Wunderlich, Electrically induced and detected N´ eel vector reversal in a collinear antiferroma...

    2018

  39. [47]

    S. Yu. Bodnar, L. ˇSmejkal, I. Turek, T. Jungwirth, O. Gomonay, J. Sinova, A. A. Sapozhnik, H.-J. Elmers, M. Kl¨ aui, and M. Jourdan, Writing and reading anti- ferromagnetic Mn 2Au by N´ eel spin-orbit torques and large anisotropic magnetoresistance, Nat. Commun. 9, 348 (2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Mahmood, W

    A. Mahmood, W. Echtenkamp, M. Street, J.-L. Wang, S. Cao, T. Komesu, P. A. Dowben, P. Buragohain, H. Lu, A. Gruverman, A. Parthasarathy, S. Rakheja, and C. Binek, Voltage controlled N´ eel vector rotation in zero magnetic field, Nat. Commun. 12, 1674 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Zhang, C.-T

    P. Zhang, C.-T. Chou, H. Yun, B. C. McGoldrick, J. T. Hou, K. A. Mkhoyan, and L. Liu, Control of N´ eel Vector with Spin-Orbit Torques in an Antiferromagnetic Insula- tor with Tilted Easy Plane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 017203 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    A. P. Schnyder, S. Ryu, A. Furusaki, and A. W. W. Lud- wig, Classification of topological insulators and super- conductors in three spatial dimensions, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195125 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

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

    2001

  45. [53]

    Li and C.-C

    Y.-X. Li and C.-C. Liu, Majorana corner modes and tun- able patterns in an altermagnet heterostructure, Phys. Rev. B 108, 205410 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Y.-X. Li, Y. Liu, and C.-C. Liu, Creation and manipu- lation of higher-order topological states by altermagnets, Physical Review B 109, L201109 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    K. T. Law, P. A. Lee, and T. K. Ng, Majorana fermion in- duced resonant andreev reflection, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 237001 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Wimmer, A

    M. Wimmer, A. R. Akhmerov, J. P. Dahlhaus, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Quantum point contact as a probe of a topological superconductor, New J. Phys. 13, 053016 (2011). 7

    2011

  49. [57]

    A. Das, Y. Ronen, Y. Most, Y. Oreg, M. Heiblum, and H. Shtrikman, Zero-bias peaks and splitting in an Al– InAs nanowire topological superconductor as a signature of Majorana fermions, Nat. Phys. 8, 887 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    J¨ ack, Y

    B. J¨ ack, Y. Xie, J. Li, S. Jeon, B. A. Bernevig, and A. Yazdani, Observation of a Majorana zero mode in a topologically protected edge channel, Science 364, 1255 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Jezouin, F

    S. Jezouin, F. D. Parmentier, A. Anthore, U. Gennser, A. Cavanna, Y. Jin, and F. Pierre, Quantum limit of heat flow across a single electronic channel, Science 342, 601 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Banerjee, M

    M. Banerjee, M. Heiblum, V. Umansky, D. E. Feldman, Y. Oreg, and A. Stern, Observation of half-integer ther- mal Hall conductance, Nature 559, 205 (2018)

    2018

  53. [61]

    Fu and C

    L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Josephson current and noise at a superconductor/quantum-spin-hall- insulator/superconductor junction, Phys. Rev. B 79, 161408 (2009)

    2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.