Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 54 references

A relationship between nonunitary mixed parity superconductivity and magnetism with spin-orbit coupling

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 The paper claims that every nonunitary mixed-parity superconductor behaves like a magnet with spin-orbit coupling, because pairing alone generates an effective spin-orbit field $\mathbf{a}(k)$ and an effective exchange field…

desk verdict A correct Schrieffer-Wolff mapping to a normal-state magnet with spin-orbit coupling in the weak-coupling limit, plus useful response calculations; the claim that the equivalence is exact for all gap amplitudes overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10336 v2 pith:5KWWZ6S4 submitted 2025-05-15 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

Takehito Yokoyama This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall
keywords nonunitarysuperconductivitymixedparitypairingSchrieffer-Wolfftransformationeffectivespin-orbitcouplingEdelsteineffectsupercurrent-inducedspincurrentaltermagnetismDzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteraction
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 claims that a superconductor carrying both even-parity (singlet) and odd-parity (triplet) pairing, with the triplet part in a nonunitary configuration ($d\times d^*\neq 0$), is secretly the same kind of object as an ordinary metal with both magnetism and spin-orbit coupling. Using a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, the pairing terms are folded into an effective normal-state Hamiltonian whose two new fields are $\mathbf{a}(k)=\mathrm{Re}(\Delta_s^*\mathbf{d})/\xi$, odd in momentum and therefore spin-orbit-like, and $\mathbf{b}(k)=i\,\mathbf{d}\times\mathbf{d}^*/(2\xi)$, even in momentum and therefore exchange-field-like. Because these fields come entirely from the superconducting condensate, all the phenomena they produce — Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya-type interactions, Edelstein-type spin polarization, supercurrent-induced spin currents, and altermagnetic spin textures — would occur in materials that contain no actual magnetism and no spin-orbit coupling. The paper also shows the same two fields appear in the exact Green function, suggesting the mapping is not an artifact of the perturbative derivation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Schrieffer-Wolff generator $S=(1/2\xi)(\tau_+\Delta-\tau_-\Delta^\dagger)$, which block-diagonalizes the BCS Hamiltonian to leading order and produces the effective normal-state form in Eq. (4). The pairing-induced fields $\mathbf{a}(k)$ and $\mathbf{b}(k)$ carry the argument: their parity and reality properties, rather than any material-specific detail, force the interpretation as spin-orbit coupling and exchange field. The paper backs this with the exact Green function, whose particle block contains $f_\pm=\mathbf{g}\pm\mathbf{h}$ with $\mathbf{g}=2\mathrm{Re}(\Delta_s^*\mathbf{d})$ and $\mathbf{h}=i\mathbf{d}\times\mathbf{d}^*$, showing that the same two vectors survive beyond perturbation theory; these vectors then enter the Kubo formulas for spin polarization, spin current, and momentum-resolved spin texture.

What would settle it

Compute the second-order Schrieffer-Wolff commutator $[S,[S,H_\Delta]]$ or the full vertex-corrected Kubo response for a concrete mixed-parity model with finite $\Delta_s$ and $\mathbf{d}$: if any spin-dependent term beyond $\tau_3\mathbf{a}(k)\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}+\tau_0\mathbf{b}(k)\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$ appears, the claim that the state is exactly equivalent to a magnet with spin-orbit coupling fails, and the predicted transport coefficients would change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Writing the BCS Hamiltonian as $H=H_0+H_\Delta$ with $H_\Delta=\sum_k (\tau_+\Delta+\tau_-\Delta^\dagger)$ and $\Delta=\Delta_s(k)\sigma_0+\mathbf{d}(k)\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$, the paper derives an effective Hamiltonian $$H'=H_0+\tau_3(\varepsilon_k\sigma_0+\mathbf{a}(k)\cdot\boldsymbol{\$\sigma$})+\tau_0\mathbf{b}(k)\cdot\boldsymbol{\$\sigma$},$$ with $\varepsilon_k=(|\Delta_s|^2+|\mathbf{d}|^2)/(2\xi)$, $\mathbf{a}(k)=\mathrm{Re}(\Delta_s^*\mathbf{d})/\xi$, and $\mathbf{b}(k)=i\,\mathbf{d}\times\mathbf{d}^*/(2\xi)$. Since $\Delta_s$ is even and $\mathbf{d}$ is odd in $k$, $\mathbf{a}$ is odd (it breaks inversion symmetry, playing the role of spin-orbit coupling) and $\mathbf{b}$ is even (it breaks time reversal, playing the role of a magnetic field). The central claim is that this effective Hamiltonian can be regarded as that for a magnet with spin-orbit coupling in the normal state, and the paper demonstrates the identification through four effects: Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya-type spin-spin interactions set by $\mathbf{g}=2\mathrm{Re}(\Delta_s^*\mathbf{d})$, a supercurrent-induced Edelstein effect whose coefficient is proportional to $\Delta_s\Delta_t$, a supercurrent-induced spin current controlled by $\mathbf{h}=i\mathbf{d}\times\mathbf{d}^*$, and a $d$-wave altermagnetic spin texture arising from $\mathbf{g}$ and $\mathbf{h}$.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the clean two-field effective Hamiltonian is perturbative in the ratio of gap size to kinetic energy $\xi$, but the paper's applications use the exact Green function and claim the identification holds for all gap sizes; the paper does not prove that higher-order Schrieffer-Wolff terms or Kubo vertex corrections introduce no additional momentum-dependent spin couplings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nonunitary mixed-parity superconductor should exhibit a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya-type interaction set by $\mathbf{g}(k)=2\mathrm{Re}(\Delta_s^*\mathbf{d})$, and this contribution vanishes at the superconducting transition temperature, distinguishing it from intrinsic spin-orbit mechanisms.
  • A supercurrent should induce a bulk spin polarization even in a centrosymmetric superconductor, with the low-temperature coefficient $\chi_{xy}\simeq -7e k_F \Delta_s\Delta_t \zeta(3)/(2\hbar T^2)$ for a Rashba-like $\mathbf{d}$-vector.
  • Quasiparticle charge current should also generate spin polarization, with coefficient $\chi'_{xy}\simeq e k_F \Delta_s\Delta_t/(8\pi\gamma^3)$ in the $\varepsilon_F\gg\gamma$ limit.
  • When the triplet pairing is nonunitary ($\mathbf{h}\neq 0$), a supercurrent drives a spin current whose direction is set by $\mathbf{h}$, with magnitude scaling as $|\Delta_t|^2/T^2$ near $T_c$.
  • Momentum-resolved spin polarization in these superconductors develops the $d$-wave texture characteristic of altermagnetism, for example $\propto k_x k_y$ for $\mathbf{d}=\Delta_t(k_x,ik_y,0)$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the two-field identification survives higher-order corrections, it becomes a design principle: any nonunitary mixed-parity superconductor, regardless of crystal inversion symmetry, should show spin-orbit-like transport with an energy scale $\sqrt{|\Delta_s\Delta_t|}$, typically of the order of 1 meV and comparable to Rashba splittings.
  • The same algebra with orbital-space matrices in place of spin Pauli matrices suggests orbital analogues of these effects in multiband superconductors, an extension the paper only sketches; one could look for orbital Edelstein responses in centrosymmetric multiband systems.
  • Because $\mathbf{g}$ enters the quasiparticle Edelstein response while $\mathbf{h}$ enters the supercurrent spin-current response, a combined measurement of both responses on the same material could cleanly separate the two pairing-generated fields without needing magnetic probes.
  • The temperature dependence near $T_c$ offers a direct experimental discriminant: pairing-generated effects die out at $T_c$, whereas intrinsic spin-orbit effects persist, so a sign of the mechanism is the simultaneous disappearance of spin polarization and superconductivity.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes a correspondence between nonunitary mixed parity superconductivity and a normal-state magnet with spin-orbit coupling. After defining a BdG Hamiltonian with simultaneous singlet Δs and triplet d-vector pairing, the author performs a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation to obtain the effective Hamiltonian H' in Eq. (4) with momentum-dependent a(k)=Re(Δs* d)/ξ and b(k)=i d×d*/(2ξ). The paper interprets a(k) as a pairing-induced spin-orbit field and b(k) as a pairing-induced exchange field, and then claims, on the basis of the exact Green function (6), that this identification is valid for arbitrary gap magnitudes. Four applications are presented: Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya-type interactions, supercurrent-induced Edelstein spin polarization, supercurrent-induced spin current, and momentum-dependent spin polarization resembling altermagnetism. All effects are claimed to arise purely from superconductivity without intrinsic magnetism or spin-orbit coupling.

Significance. If the central correspondence were exact, it would unify two active fields and provide a new route to spin-orbit-like physics from pairing alone. The paper's strengths are its compact algebraic derivation of a(k) and b(k), the correct symmetry assignment of these fields, and several concrete, checkable response formulas. The proposed temperature dependence near Tc is a useful experimental discriminator between pairing-induced and intrinsic-SOC mechanisms. However, the exactness claim is overstated, and two of the four demonstration calculations contain algebra that does not follow from the preceding equations, so the quantitative predictions require revision before the significance can be assessed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Paragraph after Eq. (8)] The claim that the identification 'is valid for all (not necessarily small) g(k) and h(k)' is not supported by the exact Green function. The Green function (6) has denominator A^2 - |f|^2 with A = -ω_n^2 - ξ^2 - |Δs|^2 - |d|^2, which is not the denominator of a static normal-state Hamiltonian with spin-orbit and exchange fields, namely (iω - ξ - ε)^2 - |a+b|^2. For the explicit nonunitary state Δs=0, d=Δt(1,i,0)/√2, the BdG eigenvalues squared are ξ^2 and ξ^2+2|Δt|^2, while the H' eigenvalues squared from Eq. (4) are ξ^2 and (ξ+|Δt|^2/ξ)^2; the two disagree at order |Δt|^4/ξ^2. The Schrieffer-Wolff mapping is therefore only a leading-order equivalence, and the all-g,h statement overreaches.
  2. [Eqs. (16)-(20), quasiparticle Edelstein response] The current-induced spin polarization coefficient χ'_xy is claimed to scale as 1/γ^3, where γ is an unmeasured damping rate. This makes the result diverge as γ→0 and renders the prediction controlled by the ad hoc lifetime rather than by the pairing scale. There is also an algebraic inconsistency: from Eq. (18), ∫_{-εF}^{∞} dξ/(γ^2+ξ^2)^2 = π/(2γ^3) + O(1/εF), which yields χ'_xy ≈ e k_F Δs Δt/(4π γ^3), not the printed 8π γ^3. Additionally, Eq. (19) as written has a prefactor 1/γ^2 multiplying a dimensionless bracket, which scales as 1/γ^2 in the εF≫γ limit, not 1/γ^3. These expressions need to be rederived and stated with their validity conditions.
  3. [Eqs. (28)-(29), altermagnetism] Equation (28) does not follow from the exact Green function (6) for the stated d-vector d = Δt(kx, i ky, 0)^t. Substituting h = 2kxky|Δt|^2 \hat z into Eq. (26) gives the denominator (ω_n^2+ξ^2+|Δt|^2(kx^2+ky^2))^2 - 4|Δt|^4 kx^2 ky^2, not (ω_n^2+ξ^2)(ω_n^2+ξ^2-2|Δt|^2). Consequently Eq. (29) and the claim of d-wave spin polarization are not derived from the stated model; please provide the corrected expression or specify the additional approximation used to arrive at Eq. (28).
minor comments (5)
  1. [After Eq. (5)] The sentence stating that a(k) and b(k) are 'respectively, even and odd in k' is reversed: from Eq. (5), a(k) is odd in k and b(k) is even in k.
  2. [Eq. (15)] Please check the numerical factor in Eq. (15): evaluating the integral in Eq. (14) gives χxy = -7 e k_F Δs Δt ζ(3)/(4 ħ T^2), a factor of 2 smaller than printed. If a different convention is used, the derivation should state it explicitly.
  3. [Text before Eq. (9) and before Eq. (17)] There are typos: 'supercondutor' before Eq. (9) and 'd-vactor' before Eq. (17) should be 'superconductor' and 'd-vector'.
  4. [Eqs. (10)-(12) and (28)] The notation (kx ky 0)^t is introduced as a unit vector along k, but later equations such as (11), (12), and (28) appear to treat kx and ky as full momentum components. Please clarify whether these are unit-vector components or dimensionful momenta, since the denominators in Eqs. (11)-(12) and (28)-(29) depend on this distinction.
  5. [Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya subsection] The Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya result is quoted from Ref. [30]; the text should clearly indicate that this subsection is a consistency check rather than a new derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the mapping is derived from the starting Hamiltonian, and the cited prior work is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) is obtained by an explicit Schrieffer-Wolff transformation with the generator defined in Eq. (3), and the coefficients in Eq. (5), namely epsilon_k, a(k), and b(k), are direct functions of the input gap functions Delta_s(k) and d(k). No parameter is fitted to the quantities that are later predicted, and the Kubo-formula results are computed from the exact BdG Green function of Eq. (6), not from an assumed normal-state Hamiltonian. The only self-citation in a demonstration is Ref. [30] for DM-type interactions, which is prior work by one of the same authors; it is used as a consistency check and is not the basis for the paper's central equivalence. One scope concern should be flagged: the text moves from "This perturbative treatment is justified when the gap functions are smaller than xi" to "this identification is valid for all (not necessarily small) g(k) and h(k) vectors" (after Eq. (8)). That overreach concerns the accuracy of the normal-state equivalence at large pairing strength, but it is a correctness/scope issue rather than a circular step, because the exact-Green-function calculations do not assume the result they are used to support. No circular reduction is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the BCS mean-field model, the parity assignments of Δs and d, the Schrieffer-Wolff perturbative step, Kubo linear response, and near-Tc momentum-integral approximations. The numerical estimates use illustrative gap, temperature, and kF values, plus an unspecified damping rate gamma; none of these are fitted to experimental data.

free parameters (3)
  • Gap amplitudes Δs and Δt = 1 meV (illustrative, not fitted)
    Used for numerical estimates of the Edelstein coefficient and spin supercurrent; the formal mapping does not require these values.
  • Fermi wavenumber kF = 1 Å^-1 (illustrative)
    Used in numerical estimates; the central claim is independent of the chosen value.
  • Damping rate gamma
    Phenomenological broadening in the quasiparticle Edelstein response, Eqs (16)-(20); the coefficient scales as 1/gamma^3, so an unmeasured value controls the claimed magnitude.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Mean-field Nambu Hamiltonian H = H0 + H∆ with singlet and triplet pairing, Eq (1)
    All results derive from this model; the pairing itself is not derived from a microscopic interaction.
  • domain assumption Parity assignments: Δs even in k, d odd in k, producing mixed parity
    Used to conclude that a(k) is odd and b(k) is even, which underpins the spin-orbit/magnet separation.
  • domain assumption Schrieffer-Wolff generator S = (1/2ξ)(τ+Δ - τ-Δ†), valid for gaps smaller than ξ
    Eq (3) is the perturbative step for the central mapping, with the later Green-function analysis presented as exact.
  • standard math Kubo formula for linear response coefficients
    Basis for the Edelstein and spin-current response calculations in Eqs (9), (16), and (21).
  • domain assumption Approximations k ≈ kF and εF → ∞ near Tc
    Used to convert momentum integrals into closed forms in Eqs (15) and (25); this discards material-specific band dispersion.
  • domain assumption Nonunitary condition d × d* nonzero for h and b effects
    Required for the supercurrent-induced spin current and altermagnetism examples; not all triplet superconductors are nonunitary.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A relationship between nonunitary mixed parity superconductivity and magnetism with spin-orbit coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5KWWZ6S4

@misc{pith2026250510336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A relationship between nonunitary mixed parity superconductivity and magnetism with spin-orbit coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5KWWZ6S4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10336}
}
read the original abstract

We show that Hamiltonian for nonunitary mixed parity superconductivity can be recast into that for magnetism with spin-orbit coupling by the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, indicating that nonunitary mixed parity superconductivity and magnetism with spin-orbit coupling can share the same physics. As demonstrations, we discuss the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya type interactions, magnetoelectric effect, supercurrent-induced spin current, and altermagnetism in nonunitary mixed parity superconductors. All these effects originate purely from superconductivity, without any magnetism and spin-orbit coupling.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Topological properties and dynamics of magnetic skyrmions, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 899 (2013)

    2013

  2. [2]

    Manchon, H

    A. Manchon, H. Koo, J. Nitta, S. Frolov, R. Duine, New perspectives for Rashba spin-orbit coupling, Nature Mater. 14, 871 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Zhai, Degenerate quantum gases with spin-orbit coupling: a review, Rep

    H. Zhai, Degenerate quantum gases with spin-orbit coupling: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 78, 026001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Soumyanarayanan, N

    A. Soumyanarayanan, N. Reyren, A. Fert, C. Panagopoulos, Emergent phenomena induced by spin-orbit coupling at surfaces and interfaces, Nature 539, 509 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal responses from non-centrosymmetric quantum materials, Nat. Commun. 9, 3740 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    A. N. Bogdanov and C. Panagopoulos, Physical foundations and basic properties of magnetic skyrmions, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 492 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    D. I. Khomskii, S. V. Streltsov, Orbital Effects in Solids: Basics, Recent Progress, and Opportunities, Chem. Rev. 121, 2992-3030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Nonreciprocal Transport and Optical Phenomena in Quantum Materials, Ann. Rev. Cond. Mat. Phys. 15, 63 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

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

    2010

  2. [10]

    X. L. Qi and S. C. Zhang, Topological insulators and superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057-1110 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    X.-L. Qi, T. L. Hughes, and S.-C. Zhang, Topological field theory of time-reversal invariant insulators, Phys. Rev. B 78, 195424 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. Z elezn\' y , I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    C. Song, R. Zhang, L. Liao, Y. Zhou, X. Zhou, R. Chen, Y. You, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Spin-orbit torques: Materials, mechanisms, performances, and potential applications, Prog. Mater. Sci. 118, 100761 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Amundsen, J

    M. Amundsen, J. Linder, J. W. A. Robinson, I. Z uti\' c , N. Banerjee, Colloquium: Spin-orbit effects in superconducting hybrid structures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 021003 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Bauer and M

    E. Bauer and M. Sigrist, Non-centrosymmetric superconductors: introduction and overview, Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Yip, Noncentrosymmetric Superconductors, Annu

    S. Yip, Noncentrosymmetric Superconductors, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 5, 15 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    K. V. Samokhin, Symmetry and topology of noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Ann. Phys. 359, 385 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Smidman, M

    M. Smidman, M. B. Salamon, H. Q. Yuan, D. F. Agterberg, Superconductivity and spin-orbit coupling in non-centrosymmetric materials: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 036501 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    S. R. Elliott and M. Franz, Colloquium: Majorana fermions in nuclear, particle, and solid-state physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 137 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    D. A. Ivanov and Ya. V. Fominov, Minigap in superconductor-ferromagnet junctions with inhomogeneous magnetization, Phys. Rev. B 73, 214524 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Yokoyama and Y

    T. Yokoyama and Y. Tserkovnyak, Tuning odd triplet superconductivity by spin pumping, Phys. Rev. B 80, 104416 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Relation between the Anderson and Kondo Hamiltonians, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966)

    1966

  16. [24]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. DiVincenzo, and D. Loss, Schrieffer-Wolff transformation for quantum many-body systems, Ann. Phys. 326, 2793 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    G. T. Landi, Eigenoperator approach to Schrieffer-Wolff perturbation theory and dispersive interactions, arXiv:2409.10656

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. M. R. Brydon, D. F. Agterberg, H. Menke, and C. Timm, Bogoliubov Fermi surfaces: General theory, magnetic order, and topology, Phys. Rev. B 98, 224509 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    A. J. Leggett, A theoretical description of the new phases of liquid ^3 He, Rev. Mod. Phys. 47, 331 (1975)

    1975

  20. [28]

    Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of "weak" ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, J

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of "weak" ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  21. [29]

    Moriya, Anisotropic Superexchange Interaction and Weak Ferromagnetism, Phys

    T. Moriya, Anisotropic Superexchange Interaction and Weak Ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. 120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  22. [30]

    J. A. Ouassou, T. Yokoyama, J. Linder, Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya spin-spin interaction from mixed-parity superconductivity, arXiv:2407.07144

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    V. M. Edelstein, Magnetoelectric effect in polar superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2004 (1995)

    1995

  24. [32]

    W.-Y. He, K. T. Law, Magnetoelectric effects in gyrotropic superconductors, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 012073(R) (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, A. Koga, and M. Sigrist, Superconductivity without inversion symmetry: MnSi versus CePt _3 Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 097001 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Misawa, T

    T. Misawa, T. Yokoyama, and S. Murakami, Electromagnetic spin polarization on the surface of topological insulator, Phys. Rev. B 84, 165407 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    V. M. Edelstein, Spin polarization of conduction electrons induced by electric current in two-dimensional asymmetric electron systems, Solid State Commun. 73, 233 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    Ganichev, M

    S. Ganichev, M. Trushin, and J. Schliemann, Spin polarisation by current, arXiv:1606.02043

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Nakajima, D

    R. Nakajima, D. Hirobe, G. Kawaguchi, Y. Nabei, T. Sato, T. Narushima, H. Okamoto, and H. M. Yamamoto, Giant spin polarization and a pair of antiparallel spins in a chiral superconductor, Nature 613, 479 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Wakatsuki and N

    R. Wakatsuki and N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal current in noncentrosymmetric Rashba superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 026601 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Hoshino, R

    S. Hoshino, R. Wakatsuki, K. Hamamoto, and N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal charge transport in two-dimensional noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 98, 054510 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    I. A. Fomin, Spin currents in superfluid ^3 He, Physica B 169, 153 (1991)

    1991

  33. [41]

    Yu. M. Bunkov, Spin supercurrent and novel properties of NMR in ^3 He , in: W. Halperin (Ed.), Progress in Low Temperature Physics, vol. 14, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1995

    1995

  34. [42]

    Asano, Josephson spin current in triplet superconductor junctions, Phys

    Y. Asano, Josephson spin current in triplet superconductor junctions, Phys. Rev. B 74, 220501(R) (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    V. P. Amin, J. Li, M. D. Stiles, and P. M. Haney, Intrinsic spin currents in ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 99, 220405(R) (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kune s , Antiferromagnetism in RuO _2 as d -wave Pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Ordering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low-Z antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    S mejkal, R

    L. S mejkal, R. Gonz\' a lez-Hern\' a ndez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous Hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    S mejkal, J

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

    2022

  41. [49]

    S mejkal, J

    L. S mejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Odd triplet superconductivity and related phenomena in superconductor-ferromagnet structures, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 1321 (2005)

    2005

  43. [51]

    D. Go, D. Jo, H.-W. Lee, M. Kl\"aui, and Y. Mokrousov, Orbitronics: Orbital currents in solids, Europhys. Lett. 135, 37001 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    D. Jo, D. Go, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Spintronics meets orbitronics: Emergence of orbital angular momentum in solids, npj Spintronics 2, 19 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Chirolli, M

    L. Chirolli, M. T. Mercaldo, C. Guarcello, F. Giazotto, and M. Cuoco, Colossal orbital Edelstein effect in noncentrosymmetric superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 217703 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    M. T. Mercaldo, C. Ortix, and M. Cuoco, High orbital-moment Cooper pairs by crystalline symmetry breaking, Adv. Quantum Technol. 6, 2300081 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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