Regimes of optical transparency and instabilities of collinear dielectric ferromagnetic materials in the presence of the dynamic magnetoelectric effect

Pavel A. Andreev

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Regimes of optical transparency and instabilities of collinear dielectric ferromagnetic materials in the presence of the dynamic magnetoelectric effect

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A collinear dielectric ferromagnet is unstable to a linearly polarized wave across its spins, while one circular polarization becomes transparent at $\Omega_s = |\gamma| c/(\sigma S_0)$.

desk verdict Two genuinely new predictions, but the perpendicular-propagating dispersion has a missing magnetic-dipole term and a factor-two slip; the instability is not yet established from the paper's own model. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07107 v1 pith:OHYFRMP6 submitted 2025-05-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Pavel A. Andreev This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.85.+t75.30.Ds78.20.Ci

keywords multiferroicsmagnetoelectriceffectLandau-Lifshitz-Gilbertequationcollinearferromagnetdielectricpermeabilityopticaltransparencyspininstabilityspin-currentpolarization

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 the dynamic magnetoelectric effect alone can destabilize the collinear (parallel-spin) equilibrium of a dielectric ferromagnet and can also make it transparent to one circular polarization. For a linearly polarized wave propagating perpendicular to the spin direction, the magnetoelectric torque gives the perturbation frequency a positive imaginary part $\mathrm{Im}\,\omega_+ > 0$ even in the presence of Gilbert damping (eq. 30), so small spin deviations grow toward a noncollinear structure. For a circularly polarized wave propagating parallel to the spins, the refractive index of one polarization reaches exactly 1 at the characteristic frequency $\Omega_s = |\gamma| c/(\sigma S_0)$ (eq. 34), defining a transparency window that sits near $10^{17}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ for typical parameter estimates. Both effects come from the same $\sigma$-proportional spin–electric-field coupling, with no Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction required. If the paper is right, light provides an optical route to writing and probing noncollinear magnetic order in multiferroic dielectrics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the effective magnetoelectric torque added to the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation, eq. (9), with all terms proportional to $\sigma > 0$, together with the linearized spin-origin polarization $\delta\mathbf{P} = \sigma[\mathbf{S}_0(\nabla\cdot\delta\mathbf{S}) - (\mathbf{S}_0\cdot\nabla)\delta\mathbf{S}]$, eq. (14). This torque is the only place where the electric field of the wave enters the spin dynamics, and through it the dielectric permeability acquires $\sigma$-dependent terms: $\varepsilon_{zz}$ in eq. (22) for perpendicular propagation and $n^2_\pm$ in eqs. (34)–(36) for parallel propagation. The important scales are the usual magnon frequency $\Omega = \gamma B_0 + Ak^2 S_0 + \kappa S_0$ and the new magnetoelectric frequency $\Omega_s = |\gamma| c/(\sigma S_0)$, at which the polarization correction in $n^2_-$ vanishes. The dimensionless strength $\varepsilon = 8\pi\sigma S_0^2 |\gamma|/c$ controls both the instability growth rate and the size of the transparency correction.

What would settle it

Measure the refractive index of a collinear dielectric ferromagnet for circularly polarized light along the spin direction near $\Omega_s \approx 10^{17}$ s$^{-1}$ (with $\sigma \approx 4\times10^4$ CGS); the model says one polarization is exactly transparent there while the other is not. Separately, launch a linearly polarized wave perpendicular to the spins and monitor the spin-deviation amplitude: the model predicts exponential growth with rate $\mathrm{Im}\,\omega_+$ from eq. (30) despite Gilbert damping, so observing ordinary decay would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the effective magnetoelectric interaction alone—without any Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya term—can both destabilize the collinear spin configuration and create a transparency window. Working from a Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation augmented by the $\sigma$-proportional torque in eq. (9), the paper linearizes about parallel spins $\mathbf{S}_0$ with zero equilibrium polarization. For $\mathbf{k} \perp \mathbf{S}_0$, the dispersion branch $\omega_+$ has $\mathrm{Im}\,\omega_+ > 0$ (eq. 30), so spin-field perturbations grow despite the Gilbert damping $a<0$, signalling an instability toward a noncollinear spin texture; correspondingly $\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{zz}) < 0$ and $\mathrm{Im}(n^2) < 0$. For $\mathbf{k} \parallel \mathbf{S}_0$, the circular eigenmodes decouple, and the $n^2_-$ mode loses its magnetoelectric correction at $\omega = \Omega_s$, so the refractive index becomes exactly 1 and the medium is transparent to that polarization. One sign of the dielectric response therefore marks an instability, the other a transparency.

Load-bearing premise

The entire prediction rests on the extra torque that light's electric field exerts on the spins having exactly the form and positive sign assumed in eq. (9); if that torque were absent, weaker, or reversed, the transparency and instability would disappear or change sign.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Perpendicular propagation: a linearly polarized wave with electric field along the anisotropy axis will grow spin deviations with a rate given by eqs. (30) and (33), driving the collinear state toward a noncollinear equilibrium despite Gilbert damping.
Parallel propagation: at $\omega = \Omega_s$, the magnetic contribution to $n^2_-$ vanishes, so one circular polarization has refractive index exactly 1 while the other remains dispersive.
The signs $\mathrm{Im}(\varepsilon_{zz}) < 0$ and $\mathrm{Im}(n^2) < 0$ in the perpendicular geometry are directly observable signatures that distinguish this instability from ordinary absorption.
In the limit $\sigma \to 0$ both effects disappear and the dispersion reduces to the standard magnon and vacuum electromagnetic branches, confirming the magnetoelectric torque as the cause.
Because no Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction is needed, the mechanism offers an alternative pathway to noncollinear spin structures in easy-axis ferromagnets.

Reading between the lines

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

If the magnetoelectric constant $\sigma$ had the opposite sign in a given material, the perpendicular instability would become damping and the transparency would switch from the $n^2_-$ circular polarization to the $n^2_+$ one; measuring which circular polarization is transparent would test the sign of $\sigma$ directly.
The same torque structure should apply to two-sublattice magnets, where each sublattice feels its own electric-field torque; analogous transparency and instability windows may appear at lower frequencies and could be sought in antiferromagnetic multiferroics.
Since $\Omega_s = |\gamma| c/(\sigma S_0)$ depends on the spin density $S_0$, tuning the magnetization by an external field should tune the transparent frequency, suggesting a magnetically switchable optical window.
The calculation is linearized and therefore predicts only the onset of instability; the eventual noncollinear state and its optical response require a nonlinear treatment, which would connect these results to known spiral multiferroic phases.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things you should know. The paper identifies effects that are genuinely new: an explicit imaginary frequency for the collinear easy-axis ferromagnet driven by the magnetoelectric torque (eq. 30), and a transparency condition n=1 at omega=Omega_s (eq. 34). If the underlying model is right, the transparency point is a clean way to extract the magnetoelectric constant from optics. I re-derived the transverse wave equation from the paper's own eqs. (12)-(14) and Maxwell, and the perpendicular-propagating dispersion is not what the paper says. The full epsilon_zz contains a 4*pi*gamma^2*S0*Omega0/Lambda term from the standard magnetic-dipole coupling, plus a sigma^2 term; eq. (22) keeps only a sigma term, and with a different coefficient. That missing gamma^2 term is not small in the resonance region, so eqs. (24)-(30) are not established from the stated model. Even if you accept eq. (28) on faith, the quoted growth rate in eq. (30) is a factor of two too large: direct expansion of omega_+^2 around kc gives half the quoted value. The other soft spot is the torque itself: eqs. (5)-(7) come from the author's own QHD papers, and the sign sigma>0 is assumed. If that derivation is wrong, both flagship effects vanish. That is a legitimate caveat, not by itself a fatal flaw; self-citation is okay when the prior result is solid. But the missing gamma^2 term is fatal for the paper as written. The transparency point in the parallel-propagating formulas is a nice observation, though at the quoted sigma values Omega_s is around 10^17 s^-1, deep UV; pushing it to the visible needs sigma two orders of magnitude larger than standard estimates. This paper is for people working on magnetoelectric instabilities and multiferroic optics. The idea is concrete and the algebra is checkable; a serious referee could either kill it or force a corrected version. I would not cite the instability claim as it stands, but I would not desk-reject it either. Send it out with the expectation of major revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the dielectric permeability and linear stability of a collinear ferromagnetic dielectric in the presence of a dynamic magnetoelectric coupling. The model combines a Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert equation with a magnetoelectric torque imported from the author's prior quantum hydrodynamic work, Maxwell equations, and a spin-induced polarization. For waves propagating perpendicular to the anisotropy axis, the paper derives a dielectric tensor element and a dispersion relation, and claims that the linearly polarized electromagnetic wave triggers an instability of the collinear spin state, with positive imaginary frequency even in the presence of Gilbert damping (Eq. 30). For waves propagating parallel to the spins, one circular polarization has a refractive index that becomes exactly unity at a characteristic frequency Ω_s = |γ|c/(σS0) (Eq. 34), which the authors interpret as a transparency regime. The paper also estimates the relevant material parameters and identifies the magnetoelectric torque as the physical origin of both effects.

Significance. If the claims were fully established, the results would be of noticeable interest: they propose a mechanism for destabilizing collinear spin order without Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, and they predict a specific high-frequency transparency condition that is in principle falsifiable. The analytical treatment is transparent and the parameter estimates are useful. However, the central instability claim rests on an incomplete dielectric-tensor derivation, and both flagship results depend on the sign and magnitude of the magnetoelectric constant σ, which is imported from prior work rather than re-derived here. The transparency result at ω = Ω_s is a simple, robust consequence of Eq. (34) within the stated model, but its physical relevance depends on the same σ>0 assumption. The paper would benefit from a corrected derivation and a clearer statement of the domain of validity.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III–IV, Eq. (22)] Recomputing ε_zz from Eqs. (12)–(14) and (19)–(20) for k = {k_x,0,0} gives ε_zz = 1 − 8π|γ|σS0^2 c k_x^2(ω−Σ)/(ωΛ) + 4πσ^2S0^3 k_x^2 Ω0/Λ + 4π|γ|^2S0 c^2 k_x^2 Ω0/(ω^2Λ), with Λ = Ω0^2−(ω−Σ)^2. Equation (22) instead contains only the first term plus an Ω0/Ω_s term whose coefficient is 8πσ^2S0^3 k_x^2/Λ, a factor of two larger than the correct σ^2S0^3 term in the expression above, and it omits the |γ|^2S0 c^2 Ω0/(ω^2) term. The omitted term is not negligible near resonance ω≈Ω0, where it is of order (Ω_s/ω) times the leading term. Since Eqs. (23)–(29) and the instability (30) are all based on Eq. (22), the perpendicular-propagation instability is not yet established from the stated model. Please re-derive Eq. (22) keeping all terms in Eq. (20) and re-examine the stability analysis.
[Sec. IV A, Eq. (30)] The growth rate Imω_+ is quoted without derivation. Expanding Eq. (28) to first order in the Gilbert damping using Ω0^2 ≈ Ω^2 + 2iaS0ωΩ yields Imω_+ ≈ −a S0 ε Ω k_x^4 c^4 / |Ω0^2−k_x^2c^2|^2 when ω_+ ≈ k_xc, a factor of two smaller than the numerator −2aS0εΩk_x^4c^4 in Eq. (30). Please provide the derivation of Eq. (30) and resolve this factor-of-two discrepancy.
[Sec. II, Eqs. (5)–(9) and Sec. II A] Both main results are linear in σ: Ω_s = |γ|c/(σS0) in Eq. (34) changes sign if σ changes sign, and the growth rate in Eq. (30) is proportional to ε ∝ σ through Eq. (24). The magnetoelectric torque (5)–(9) is imported from Refs. [8–12], and the sign σ>0 is assumed without an independent derivation or benchmark in this paper. The order-of-magnitude estimates in Sec. II A vary by two orders of magnitude (0.4×10^2 to 4×10^4 CGS), so the sign is not pinned down by the numbers given. Please add a more direct justification of the sign and structure of the torque, or explicitly state that the predictions hold only for σ>0 and quantify the sensitivity.

minor comments (5)

[Eqs. (22) and (30)] The notation 'k2 xc2' and 'k4 xc4' in Eqs. (22) and (30) should be written as k_x^2 c^2 and k_x^4 c^4 for clarity.
[After Eq. (25)] The sentence 'Equation (25) shows the negative value of the square of the refractive index n2 = Ren2 + i Imn2, with Imn2 < 0' is ambiguous; please clarify whether the real part of n^2 is also negative and justify the subsequent expansion of the square root in that case.
[Throughout] The symbol ε is used both for the dimensionless parameter ǫ = 8πσS0^2|γ|/c and for the dielectric tensor; please use distinct symbols to avoid confusion.
[Throughout] The spelling 'Dzyloshinskii' should be 'Dzyaloshinskii' throughout the manuscript.
[Eqs. (31)–(33)] The notation for the dimensionless damping parameter is inconsistent: Eq. (31) introduces ~a, while Eq. (33) uses |a| and a; please define the combination once and use it consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the transparency and instability results are algebraic consequences of the assumed LLG magnetoelectric torque, not fitted predictions or restatements of inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is explicit: the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation with the magnetoelectric torque (Eq. 9) is linearized (Eqs. 12–13); the spin-current polarization (Eq. 14) is used with Maxwell's equations to construct the dielectric tensor (Eqs. 17–20); and the dispersion relations (Eqs. 26–36) are then solved algebraically. The two headline results are not fitted to any data nor reverse-engineered from the desired outcome: the perpendicular instability Imω+ > 0 (Eq. 30) follows from inserting the damped Ω0 with a<0 and the positive constant ǫ = 8πσS0²|γ|/c into the roots of the quadratic dispersion equation, and the parallel transparency n→1 at ω = Ωs (Eq. 34) is the vanishing of the coupling factor (1 − ω/Ωs)² at the parameter-defined frequency Ωs = |γ|c/(σS0). The magnetoelectric torque and polarization are inputs imported from prior work, including self-cited quantum-hydrodynamic papers [8]–[12], but they are model assumptions with independent literature roots ([4], [7], [13]–[15], [17]–[19]); they are not derived from, or fitted to, the transparency or instability that the paper predicts. The sign choice σ > 0 is an assumption, and the results are sensitive to it, but sensitivity to an input assumption is not circularity unless the input was constructed from the output. Any algebraic concern about Eq. (22) would be a correctness issue, not a circularity issue. No step in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to its own definition or to a fitted parameter, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on three load-bearing inputs: the magnetoelectric torque from the author's prior QHD works, the sign conventions of the model coefficients (σ>0, a<0), and the extrapolation of the continuum model to very high frequencies. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

sigma (magnetoelectric coupling constant) = 4e4 CGS (chosen from Ref [16]; literature range 4e2 to 4e4 CGS)
Sets the scale of Ωs = |γ|c/(σS0) ~ 1e17 s^-1 and ǫ ~ 2e-8. The paper uses the largest published value to estimate the transparency frequency; other estimates give Ωs up to 100x lower.
Gilbert damping parameter a = aS0 = 0.01 (chosen for numeric estimate of ξ)
In eq (33) the dimensionless growth rate ξ ~ 1e-6 is computed at the illustrative value aS0=0.01; the instability persists for a<0 but the rate depends on this choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The quantum hydrodynamic derivation of the polarization (4) and the magnetoelectric torque (5)-(7) is correct.
The paper cites Refs [8-12] (several by the same author) for the derivation, and the new results inherit this premise. Location: Sec II, eqs (4)-(7).
domain assumption The mean-field approximation used to obtain the effective torque (5)-(7) is valid.
The paper states in Sec II: 'Equations (5), (6), (7) are found in the mean-field approximation.'
domain assumption The sign conventions σ > 0, γ < 0, a < 0 hold.
The instability (Imω+>0) relies on σ>0 and a<0; if σ were negative the effect would reverse. Location: Sec III, after eq (9).
domain assumption The continuum Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert model remains valid at frequencies up to Ωs ~ 1e17 s^-1.
The transparency claim at ω=Ωs assumes the LLG equation and Maxwell equations remain valid at frequencies where the continuum spin model is usually not trusted. Location: Sec V, eq (34) discussion.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regimes of optical transparency and instabilities of collinear dielectric ferromagnetic materials in the presence of the dynamic magnetoelectric effect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHYFRMP6

@misc{pith2026250507107,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regimes of optical transparency and instabilities of collinear dielectric ferromagnetic materials in the presence of the dynamic magnetoelectric effect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHYFRMP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07107}
}

read the original abstract

The contribution of the polarization associated with the noncollinear parts of spins in the dielectric permeability tensor of multiferroic materials is considered. As the equilibrium state, we consider the systems of parallel spins, so we have zero equilibrium polarization. Dynamical polarization appears due to the spin evolution via the magnetoelectric coupling. The regime of frequencies, where the refractive index goes to 1 is found for the high (in comparison with the characteristic frequency of the anisotropic energy or the cyclotron frequency) left/right circularly polarized electromagnetic wave propagating parallel to the equilibrium spin direction. Moreover, the signs of the imaginary part of the dielectric permeability, the refractive index, and the frequency show the instability of the parallel spin configuration at the propagation of the linearly polarized electromagnetic wave due to the effective magnetoelectric interaction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Keffer-like form of the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral: Contribution to the Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert equation and spin wave dispersion dependence
cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A ligand-shift-induced odd anisotropy of symmetric Heisenberg exchange is proposed, producing first-derivative energy terms that alter antiferromagnetic spin-wave dispersions and multiferroic polarization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R. E. Camley, K. L. Livesey ”Consequences of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction”, Surface Science Re- ports 78, 100605 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

A. P. Pyatakov and A. K. Zvezdin, ”Magnetoelectric and multiferroic media”, Phys.-Usp. 55, 557 (2012)

work page 2012
[3]

D. I. Khomskii ”Multiferroics and Beyond: Electric Prop - erties of Diﬀerent Magnetic Textures”, Journal of Exper- imental and Theoretical Physics 132, 482 (2021)

work page 2021
[4]

Risinggard, I

V. Risinggard, I. Kulagina, J. Linder, ”Electric ﬁeld co n- trol of magnoninduced magnetization dynamics in mul- tiferroics”, Scientiﬁc Reports 6, 31800 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

A. K. Zvezdin, A. A. Mukhin, ”On the eﬀect of inhomoge- neous magnetoelectric (ﬂexomagnetoelectric) interactio n on the spectrum and properties of magnons in multifer- roics”, JETP Lett. 89, 328–332, (2009)

2009
[6]

Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: diﬀerent routes to magne- toelectric coupling”, npj Spintronics, 2:18 (2024)

M. Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: diﬀerent routes to magne- toelectric coupling”, npj Spintronics, 2:18 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Tokura, S

Y. Tokura, S. Seki, and N. Nagaosa, ”Multiferroics of spin origin”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 076501 (2014)

2014
[8]

P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Electric polariza- tion evolution equation for antiferromagnetic multifer- roics with the polarization proportional to the scalar product of the spins”, Phys. Scr. 99, 1059b2 (2024)

2024

Show all 21 references

[9]

P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Polarization evolu- tion equation for exchange-strictionally formed type II multiferroic materials”, Eur. Phys. J. B 97, 116 (2024)

2024
[10]

P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Equation of evolution of electric polarization of multiferroics proportional to the vector product of spins of ions of the cell under the inﬂuence of the Heisienberg Hamiltonian”, JETP, 2024, Vol. 166, Issue 5 (11), pp. 665–678, 2024 [in russian]

2024
[11]

P. A. Andreev, ”Hydrodynamic model of skyrmions and vorticities in the spin-1 Bose–Einstein condensate in fer- romagnetic phase at ﬁnite temperatures”, Physica B: Condensed Matter 695, 416470 (2024)

2024
[12]

This result correspond to [13],

allows to ﬁnd the macroscopic polarization of the medium from the operator (3) P(r, t) = 1 3 g(α)[(S · ∇)S − S(∇ · S)], (4) where g(α) = ∫ ξ2α(ξ)dξ. This result correspond to [13],
[13]

Sparavigna, A

A. Sparavigna, A. Strigazzi, and A. Zvezdin, ”Electric - ﬁeld eﬀects on the spin-density wave in magnetic ferro- electrics”, Phys. Rev. B 50, 2953 (1994)

1994
[14]

and [15] (see p. 533). We ﬁnd the following contribution in the Landau– Lifshitz–Gilbert equation ∂tSα |E= −σεαβγ Sβ [ 2Eµ∂γSµ −2Eγ(∇ · S) + Sµ∂γEµ − (S · ∇)Eγ ] . (5) Derivation of the contribution of the magnetoelectric coupling in the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation (5) is...
[15]

M. I. Trukhanova, P. A. Andreev, Y. N. Obukhov, ”A new quantum hydrodynamic description of ferroelectric- ity in spiral magnets”, International Journal of Modern Physics B, 2550072 (2024)

2024
[16]

Mostovoy, ”Ferroelectricity in Spiral Magnets”, Ph ys

M. Mostovoy, ”Ferroelectricity in Spiral Magnets”, Ph ys. Rev. Lett. 96, 067601 (2006)

2006
[17]

Dong, J.-M

S. Dong, J.-M. Liu, S.-W. Cheong, Z. Ren, ”Multiferroic materials and magnetoelectric physics: symmetry, entan- glement, excitation, and topology”, Advances in Physics 64, 519 (2015)

2015
[18]

A. S. Logginov, G. A. Meshkov, A. V. Nikolaev, A. P. Pyatakov, ”Magnetoelectric control of domain walls in a ferrite garnet ﬁlm”, JETP Lett. 86, 115–118, (2007)

2007
[19]

I. A. Sergienko, C. Sen, and E. Dagotto, ”Ferroelectric ity in the Magnetic E-Phase of Orthorhombic Perovskites”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 227204 (2006)

2006
[20]

Katsura, N

H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and A. V. Balatsky, ”Spin Cur- rent and Magnetoelectric Eﬀect in Noncollinear Mag- nets”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 057205 (2005)

2005
[21]

I. A. Sergienko, E. Dagotto, ”Role of the Dzyaloshinski i- Moriya interaction in multiferroic perovskites”, Phys. Rev. B 73, 094434 (2006)

2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. E. Camley, K. L. Livesey ”Consequences of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction”, Surface Science Re- ports 78, 100605 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

A. P. Pyatakov and A. K. Zvezdin, ”Magnetoelectric and multiferroic media”, Phys.-Usp. 55, 557 (2012)

work page 2012

[3] [3]

D. I. Khomskii ”Multiferroics and Beyond: Electric Prop - erties of Diﬀerent Magnetic Textures”, Journal of Exper- imental and Theoretical Physics 132, 482 (2021)

work page 2021

[4] [4]

Risinggard, I

V. Risinggard, I. Kulagina, J. Linder, ”Electric ﬁeld co n- trol of magnoninduced magnetization dynamics in mul- tiferroics”, Scientiﬁc Reports 6, 31800 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

A. K. Zvezdin, A. A. Mukhin, ”On the eﬀect of inhomoge- neous magnetoelectric (ﬂexomagnetoelectric) interactio n on the spectrum and properties of magnons in multifer- roics”, JETP Lett. 89, 328–332, (2009)

2009

[6] [6]

Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: diﬀerent routes to magne- toelectric coupling”, npj Spintronics, 2:18 (2024)

M. Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: diﬀerent routes to magne- toelectric coupling”, npj Spintronics, 2:18 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Tokura, S

Y. Tokura, S. Seki, and N. Nagaosa, ”Multiferroics of spin origin”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 076501 (2014)

2014

[8] [8]

P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Electric polariza- tion evolution equation for antiferromagnetic multifer- roics with the polarization proportional to the scalar product of the spins”, Phys. Scr. 99, 1059b2 (2024)

2024