Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Unified Magnetoelectric Mechanism for Spin Splitting in Magnets

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a magnetoelectric correction from the Dirac equation that explains altermagnetic, spin-Zeeman, and Γ-point spin splitting as one mechanism.

desk verdict A useful symmetry classification of spin splitting in terms of electric multipoles, but the central claim that a Dirac-derived magnetoelectric term is a third fundamental mechanism does not survive contact with the numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22227 v3 pith:XN2XQP7W submitted 2025-05-28 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.other

Carlos Mera Acosta This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.other
keywords spinsplittingmagnetoelectriccouplingaltermagnetismcompensatedmagnetsDiracequationelectricmultipolesspin-orbitZeemaneffect
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 sets out to establish that spin splitting in magnetic materials is governed by a previously missing relativistic correction, not only by the Zeeman term and spin-orbit coupling. Starting from the Dirac equation and treating the electric potential as an operator rather than a constant, the author derives a magnetoelectric Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ME}} = \mu_B \eta_0 (E - V(\mathbf{r}))\,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{m}$ that couples each local magnetic moment to the scalar electric potential at its site. In a compensated magnet with two symmetry-inequivalent magnetic motifs — distinct local environments — this reduces to $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ME}} = -\mu_B \eta_0 (\mathcal{V}_1 - \mathcal{V}_2)\,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{m}$, which is nonzero precisely when both $\mathcal{S}\mathcal{T}$ and $\mathcal{T}\mathcal{P}$ symmetries are broken. If the claim is right, altermagnetic quadratic splitting, linear-in-$k$ spin Zeeman splitting, and $k$-independent splitting at $\Gamma$ are not separate phenomena but the quadrupole, dipole, and monopole moments of one mechanism. The payoff is a predictive rule: the symmetry of the electric potential around each magnetic motif, together with how crystal operations connect motifs, tells you whether spin splitting occurs and what its $k$-dependence will be.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the operator identity behind the first-order Dirac expansion: with $\eta_0 = 1/2mc^2$ and $\eta_1 = -\eta_0^2(E - V(\mathbf{r}))$, the identity $(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\pi})(E - V) = (E - V)(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\pi}) - i\hbar\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\nabla V$ separates the familiar spin-orbit and Darwin terms from a potential-weighted Zeeman term $(E - V)(\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\boldsymbol{\pi})^2$, producing $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ME}}$. The classification is carried by the electric multipole expansion of each motif potential $V_n(\mathbf{r}) = \lambda_0 Q_n + \lambda_1 \sum_i d_{n i}\hat{r}_i + \lambda_2 \sum_{ij} Q_{n ij}\hat{r}_i\hat{r}_j + \cdots$, together with the connectivity rule $Q_2 = U Q_1 U^\dagger$ and $\mathbf{d}_2 = U\mathbf{d}_1$ for a crystal operation $U$; whether $U$ commutes with the motif tensors decides whether the magnetoelectric difference vanishes.

What would settle it

Measure or compute the spin splitting of a compensated magnet while continuously tuning the electric potential difference $\mathcal{V}_1 - \mathcal{V}_2$ between its two magnetic motifs, for example by an electrostatic gate or isovalent chemical substitution that does not change the moments or the spin-orbit strength. Equation (11) predicts the splitting must vanish as the potential difference goes to zero; if an appreciable splitting survives at $\mathcal{V}_1 = \mathcal{V}_2$, the magnetoelectric term is not the controlling mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the magnetoelectric term $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ME}} = \mu_B \eta_0 (E - V(\mathbf{r}))\,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{m}$, obtained from the first-order relativistic correction to the Dirac equation when the potential factor $(E - V)$ is kept inside the Pauli product instead of being pulled out as a constant. The author shows that in a compensated two-motif magnet the term becomes $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ME}} = -\mu_B \eta_0 (\mathcal{V}_1 - \mathcal{V}_2)\,\boldsymbol{\sigma}\cdot\mathbf{m}$, so spin splitting emerges from a difference in local electric potentials between motifs even when spin-orbit coupling is absent. Expanding each site potential in electric multipoles, the paper maps the multipole rank to the observed momentum dependence: quadrupoles give quadratic forms such as $k_x k_y$ for $d$-wave altermagnets, dipoles give linear-in-$k$ forms such as $\mathbf{d}\cdot\mathbf{k}$ for the spin Zeeman effect, and monopoles give $k$-independent splitting at $\Gamma$ for fully compensated ferrimagnets and related systems. The claim is that these previously separated effects are unified by this single correction over all 32 point groups through motif symmetry and connectivity, with the quadrupole example worked out explicitly for MnF$_2$. The paper also notes that the potential-difference term generally underestimates the magnitude of observed exchange-like splitting, so an effective exchange field beyond the bare magnetization is still needed for quantitative energies.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the magnetic field entering the Dirac vector potential is strictly proportional to the local magnetic moment at each site; if other magnetic sources such as orbital currents, itinerant responses, or nonlocal dipoles contribute substantially, the magnetoelectric term is not simply an on-site, potential-weighted Zeeman term and the multipole classification built on it loses its microscopic foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Spin splitting in compensated magnets does not require spin-orbit coupling; a difference in electric potential between symmetry-inequivalent magnetic motifs is enough.
  • The $k$-dependence of a material's spin splitting reveals which electric multipole dominates its local electrostatic environment: constant for monopole, linear in $k$ for dipole, and quadratic in $k$ for quadrupole.
  • Altermagnetic, spin Zeeman, and $\Gamma$-point spin splittings are the same magnetoelectric mechanism viewed in different multipolar regimes.
  • In ferromagnets the magnetoelectric term adds $k$-dependent structure on top of the constant Zeeman splitting, so ferromagnetic spin textures can be anisotropic without inversion-breaking spin-orbit coupling.
  • Motif connectivity is decisive: a crystal operation $U$ that commutes with the site quadrupole tensor suppresses spin splitting, while non-commuting rotations or improper rotations switch it on.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{ME}}$ scales with $E - V(\mathbf{r})$, the same mechanism suggests a practical lever the paper does not develop: applied electric fields, gates, or heterostructure-induced potential offsets should continuously control spin splitting in compensated magnets, which is testable by transport or spin-resolved photoemission.
  • The dipole sector implies that switching a ferroelectric polarization reverses the relative sign of $\mathbf{d}_1 - \mathbf{d}_2$; a natural extension is that linear-in-$k$ spin splitting should be electrically switchable in the dipole-dominated subclass, a prediction not explicitly demonstrated in the paper.
  • The constraint that equal potentials suppress splitting suggests that compounds with chemically identical, symmetrically equivalent magnetic sites cannot show this magnetoelectric effect, so material search should focus on inequivalent-site magnets; this selection rule is a direct but unstated corollary of Eq. (11).
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives, from a Foldy-Wouthuysen-type expansion of the Dirac equation, a 'magnetoelectric' correction H_ME = μ_B η_0 (E - V) σ·m (Eq. 5) and promotes it to a third fundamental spin-splitting mechanism alongside the Zeeman and spin-orbit terms. In compensated magnets with two symmetry-inequivalent motifs, the term is written as H_ME = - μ_B η_0 (V_1 - V_2) σ·m (Eq. 11), and a multipole expansion of the electric potential is used to classify the resulting k-dependence: quadrupoles for altermagnets, dipoles for the spin Zeeman effect, and monopoles for k-independent splitting at Γ. The paper provides symmetry tables for the 32 point groups and illustrative examples (MnF2, ferroelectric and antiferroelectric altermagnets, fully compensated ferrimagnets) but no quantitative calculation of the proposed term against DFT or experiment.

Significance. If the magnetoelectric term were a genuine, quantitatively relevant mechanism, the paper would unify several symmetry-based classifications of spin splitting in compensated magnets and provide a useful predictive framework; the point-group tables and the connection between multipole tensors and k-dependence are valuable as symmetry bookkeeping. The derivation is self-contained and parameter-free, and the MnF2 quadrupole values are taken from independent Bader calculations rather than fitted. However, the central physical claim is not supported: H_ME is an order-η0(E-V) correction to the Zeeman term, numerically about 10^-5 smaller for valence states, and the manuscript itself concedes (§V) that the Zeeman term already underestimates exchange splittings by two orders of magnitude. The paper also leaves the energy eigenvalue E inside the effective operator, so Eq. (5) is not shown to be a legitimate energy-independent Hamiltonian. These issues bear directly on the claim that a third 'fundamental mechanism' has been identified.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eq. (5)] The operator H_ME = μ_B η_0 (E - V(r)) σ·m contains the total energy eigenvalue E (called E after the nonrelativistic shift). As written, Eq. (5) is not an energy-independent effective Hamiltonian: the eigenvalue appears in the operator that is supposed to generate eigenvalues. A proper Foldy-Wouthuysen elimination must eliminate E by iteration, replacing it with the lower-order Hamiltonian. The manuscript does not perform this step, yet Eqs. (8), (9), and (11) and all subsequent uses treat H_ME as an ordinary Hamiltonian. This is load-bearing because the k-independent monopole term at Γ, Eq. (17), depends critically on keeping (E - V) rather than a kinetic-energy replacement.
  2. [§II, Eq. (5) and §V] The quantitative scale of H_ME is fatal to the claim that it is a fundamental mechanism. For valence states, (E - V) is of order 10 eV while 2mc^2 is about 1.022 MeV, so η_0(E - V) ≈ 10^-5. Thus H_ME is about five orders of magnitude smaller than the Zeeman term μ_B σ·m. Section V concedes that the Zeeman term produces only a few meV of splitting and is two orders of magnitude smaller than observed exchange splittings in ferromagnets. Therefore H_ME is orders of magnitude too small to explain the ~0.1-1 eV splittings reported in altermagnets or at Γ. The paper provides no calculation showing that H_ME reproduces any DFT or measured splitting, so the central claim of a third fundamental mechanism is not quantitatively credible.
  3. [§II, text after Eq. (7)] The derivation assumes that the magnetic field entering the Dirac vector potential is linearly proportional to the local magnetic moment m_n, and the manuscript acknowledges this approximation. This assumption is not microscopically justified for solids, where the relevant exchange splitting arises from many-body exchange-correlation effects rather than from the classical magnetic field of local moments. The multipole classification built on Eq. (10) is therefore a symmetry classification of a model operator, not a derivation of the microscopic mechanism. The paper should either provide a concrete microscopic model connecting V_n to the actual spin-dependent potential or explicitly reframe the contribution as a symmetry indicator rather than a mechanism.
  4. [§V, monopolar splitting] The treatment of Γ-point splitting in compensated magnets reveals a tension with the derived form of H_ME. In the monopolar case, Eq. (17) gives a k-independent splitting proportional to Q_0, but if the energy eigenvalue E in Eq. (5) were properly eliminated in favor of the kinetic energy operator, the resulting term would vanish at k = 0 for a homogeneous potential. The k-independence of the Γ splitting is an artifact of keeping E in the operator. No resolution of this issue is presented, and it directly affects the paper's claim to explain nonrelativistic spin splitting at the zone center.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains several typographical errors, including 'explaning' (§II), 'consider as a constant' (§II), and inconsistent figure references ('Figure II' vs. 'Figure 2').
  2. [§II, Eq. (1)] The notation E is used both for the total relativistic energy and for the shifted energy E - mc^2; this makes the derivation harder to follow and should be clarified.
  3. [§II, Eq. (9)] Eq. (9) combines the Zeeman, SOC, and magnetoelectric terms into a single expression for Δ_ss, but the terms are written as if they were simple numbers; in particular, the SOC term contains an operator π_n, so the expression is not a transparent scalar formula. The meaning of Δ_ss as a band splitting should be stated more carefully.
  4. [§V, last paragraph] The statement that the magnetoelectric term 'fails to determine the energetic scale of the SS' is in direct tension with the abstract and introduction, which describe the term as the mechanism governing spin splitting. This tension should be addressed explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the magnetoelectric term is derived from the Dirac equation without fitted parameters, and the multipole moments in the MnF2 example come from an independent Bader calculation; Section V admits the term does not set the energy scale, which is a quantitative weakness rather than circularity.

full rationale

I walked the claimed derivation chain. H_ME in Eq. (5) is obtained from a fixed c^-2 expansion of the Dirac equation under the explicitly stated assumption that the magnetic field is linearly proportional to the local moment; this is an assumption, not a circular input. Eq. (11) is algebra for antiparallel moments, and Eq. (14) uses Bader quadrupole values from Bhowal & Spaldin (ref [40]), an independent source, so the k_x k_y form is not fitted to the target spin splitting. The symmetry conditions (broken ST and TP) are consistent with external classifications [7,10,18,19]; the self-citations [6,18,30,31,32] are not load-bearing because the symmetry conditions are established by external group-theory work and by the transformation of H_ME itself. The multipole mapping (quadrupole to quadratic, dipole to linear, monopole to constant) is a mathematical consequence of Eq. (10) and the Fourier transform of the potential, so it reorganizes known symmetry forms rather than reducing to a fitted prediction. The key limitation is in Section V, where the paper concedes that 'similar to the Zeeman effect, it fails to determine the energetic scale of the SS' and that both terms 'substantially underestimate the splitting magnitude'; this is a quantitative/evidentiary gap, not a circularity. Eq. (5) also retains the energy eigenvalue E in the operator, indicating an omitted proper Foldy-Wouthuysen elimination, but again that is an incompleteness, not a circular reduction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is imported from the author's own prior work. Score 2 reflects minor self-citation with an otherwise self-contained derivation.

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

The central claim rests on the Dirac equation expansion (standard), the assumption of local magnetic moments proportional to the field, and a local multipole expansion of the electric potential. No new particles or forces are introduced. No parameters are fitted to the target spin splitting; the MnF2 Bader moments are independent inputs.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The magnetic field associated with the vector potential is linearly proportional to the local magnetic moment m_n, allowing H_ME to be written as μ_B η_0 (E - V) σ·m.
    Stated in Section II after Eq. (7) as an approximation; if the real field is not proportional to the local moment, the on-site form of H_ME fails.
  • domain assumption The electric potential can be decomposed into a sum of local motif potentials V_n(r), each expandable in point multipoles as in Eq. (10), with λ_l = (1/4πε_0)⟨r^{-(l+1)}⟩.
    Eq. (10) assumes a well-defined local multipole expansion for each magnetic motif; the transformation of multipoles under crystal operations U is used to derive all k-dependence.
  • standard math The energy eigenvalue E in the expansion can be treated as part of the effective Hamiltonian without further renormalization.
    The expansion of (2mc^2 + E - V)^{-1} makes H_ME energy-dependent; the paper does not perform the usual elimination of E to obtain a Hermitian energy-independent Hamiltonian, but the E terms cancel in the compensated two-motif case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unified Magnetoelectric Mechanism for Spin Splitting in Magnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XN2XQP7W

@misc{pith2026250522227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unified Magnetoelectric Mechanism for Spin Splitting in Magnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XN2XQP7W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22227}
}
abstract

We identify a magnetoelectric correction that completes the theoretical description of spin splitting (SS) in magnetic systems. Derived from the Dirac equation, this term couples local magnetic moments to the scalar electric potential, providing a third fundamental mechanism, alongside Zeeman and spin-orbit coupling (SOC), that governs SS in ferromagnets, antiferromagnets, and altermagnets. In compensated magnets, the proposed relativistic correction depends on the difference in electric potential between symmetry-inequivalent motifs, $\mathcal{H}_{\text{ME}} = -\mu_{\text{B}}\eta_0(\mathcal{V}_1 - \mathcal{V}_2)\boldsymbol{\sigma} \cdot \boldsymbol{m}$, which explains how finite SS emerges in the absence of SOC and enables a complete classification of momentum dependence and motif connectivity across all 32 point groups. Through illustrative examples, we show that distinct SS behaviors - quadratic ($d$-wave altermagnets), linear ($p$-wave altermagnets or spin Zeeman effect), and $k$-independent (SS at $\Gamma$ or fully compensated ferrimagnets) - are specific manifestations of the proposed magnetoelectric relativistic mechanism, each governed by electric quadrupoles, dipoles, or monopoles, respectively. The formalism naturally extends to higher-order multipoles and more complex symmetries. This work establishes a unified framework for SS in magnets and provides a predictive tool for analyzing symmetry-allowed SS in magnetic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22227 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the three fundamental mechanisms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of magnetic motifs with antiparal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ZEEMAN, The effect of magnetisation on the nature of light emitted by a substance, Nature 55, 347–347 (1897)

    P. ZEEMAN, The effect of magnetisation on the nature of light emitted by a substance, Nature 55, 347–347 (1897)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Reiffers, Y

    M. Reiffers, Y. G. Naidyuk, A. G. M. Jansen, P. Wyder, I. K. Yanson, D. Gignoux, and D. P. Schmitt, Direct 8 measurement of the zeeman splitting of crystal-field levels in prni 5 by point-contact spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1560 (1989)

    work page 1989

  3. [3]

    Yafet and C

    Y. Yafet and C. Kittel, Antiferromagnetic arrangements in ferrites, Phys. Rev. 87, 290 (1952)

    work page 1952

  4. [4]

    Y. A. Bychkov and ´E. I. Rashba, Properties of a 2d elec- tron gas with lifted spectral degeneracy, JETP lett 39, 78 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [5]

    E. I. Rashba and V. I. Sheka, Electric-dipole spin reso- nances (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Mera Acosta, E

    C. Mera Acosta, E. Ogoshi, A. Fazzio, G. M. Dalpian, and A. Zunger, The rashba scale: Emergence of band anti-crossing as a design principle for materials with large rashba coefficient, Matter 3, 145 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci- ence Advances 6, 10.1126/sciadv.aaz8809 (2020)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz8809 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum- dependent spin splitting by collinear antiferromagnetic ordering, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 10.7566/jpsj.88.123702 (2019)

    2019 doi

  2. [10]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Bottom-up de- sign of spin-split and reshaped electronic band structures in antiferromagnets without spin-orbit coupling: Proce- dure on the basis of augmented multipoles, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144441 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Spontaneous antisymmetric spin splitting in noncollinear antiferro- magnets without spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 101, 220403 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Suzuki, T

    M.-T. Suzuki, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, Y. Yanagi, S. Hayami, and H. Kusunose, Multipole expansion for magnetic structures: A generation scheme for a symmetry-adapted orthonormal basis set in the crystal- lographic point group, Phys. Rev. B 99, 174407 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Predic- tion of low-z collinear and noncollinear antiferromagnetic compounds having momentum-dependent spin splitting even without spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 014409 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Spin current generation in or- ganic antiferromagnets, Nature Communications 10, 10.1038/s41467-019-12229-y (2019)

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Strong influence of nonmagnetic ligands on the momentum- dependent spin splitting in antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 103, 224410 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, Prediction of unconventional magnetism in doped fesb 2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 10.1073/pnas.2108924118 (2021)

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    L.-D. Yuan, X. Zhang, C. M. Acosta, and A. Zunger, Uncovering spin-orbit coupling-independent hidden spin polarization of energy bands in antiferromagnets, Na- ture Communications 14, 10.1038/s41467-023-40877-8 (2023)

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Yuan and A

    L. Yuan and A. Zunger, Degeneracy removal of spin bands in collinear antiferromagnets with non- interconvertible spin-structure motif pair, Advanced Ma- terials 35, 10.1002/adma.202211966 (2023)

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Cheong and F.-T

    S.-W. Cheong and F.-T. Huang, Altermagnetism classifi- cation, npj Quantum Materials 10, 10.1038/s41535-025- 00756-5 (2025)

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    H. J. Zhao, X. Liu, Y. Wang, Y. Yang, L. Bellaiche, and Y. Ma, Zeeman effect in centrosymmetric antiferromag- netic semiconductors controlled by an electric field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 187602 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    van Leuken and R

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

    1995

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    Guo, Valley polarization in two-dimensional zero- net-magnetization magnets, Applied Physics Letters 126, 10.1063/5.0250823 (2025)

    S.-D. Guo, Valley polarization in two-dimensional zero- net-magnetization magnets, Applied Physics Letters 126, 10.1063/5.0250823 (2025)

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Y. Liu, Y. Liu, X. Wang, N. Xia, G. Xu, Y. Wang, H. Wang, W. Gao, and J. Zhao, Robust altermagnetism and compensated ferrimagnetism in mnpx 3-based (x = s or se) heterostructures (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Char- acter 117, 610–624 (1928)

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Char- acter 117, 610–624 (1928)

    1928

  21. [29]

    Zawadzki, Zitterbewegung and its effects on electrons in semiconductors, Phys

    W. Zawadzki, Zitterbewegung and its effects on electrons in semiconductors, Phys. Rev. B 72, 085217 (2005)

    2005

  22. [30]

    C. M. Acosta, A. Fazzio, G. M. Dalpian, and A. Zunger, Inverse design of compounds that have simultaneously ferroelectric and rashba cofunctionality, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144106 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Mera Acosta, O

    C. Mera Acosta, O. Babilonia, L. Abdalla, and A. Fazzio, Unconventional spin texture in a noncentrosymmetric quantum spin hall insulator, Phys. Rev. B 94, 041302 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    C. M. Acosta and A. Fazzio, Spin-polarization control driven by a rashba-type effect breaking the mirror sym- metry in two-dimensional dual topological insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 036401 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Group-theoretical classifi- cation of multipole order: Emergent responses and can- didate materials, Phys. Rev. B 98, 245129 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Hayami and H

    S. Hayami and H. Kusunose, Microscopic description of electric and magnetic toroidal multipoles in hybrid orbitals, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 87, 033709 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Hayami, M

    S. Hayami, M. Yatsushiro, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Classification of atomic-scale multipoles under crystallo- graphic point groups and application to linear response tensors, Phys. Rev. B 98, 165110 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    S. I. Pekar and E. I. Rashba, Combined resonance in crystals in inhomogeneous magnetic fields, Soviet Physics 9 JETP 20, 1295 (1965), english translation of ZhETF, Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 1927–1932 (1964)

    1965

  29. [38]

    Guo and Y

    S.-D. Guo and Y. S. Ang, Spontaneous spin splitting in electric potential difference antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180403 (2023)

    2023

  30. [39]

    V. Leeb, A. Mook, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Knolle, Sponta- neous formation of altermagnetism from orbital ordering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 236701 (2024)

    2024

  31. [40]

    Bhowal and N

    S. Bhowal and N. A. Spaldin, Ferroically ordered mag- netic octupoles in d-wave altermagnets, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011019 (2024)

    2024

  32. [41]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y. Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Minimal models for altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B 110, 144412 (2024)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Yanagisawa, H

    T. Yanagisawa, H. Matsumori, H. Saito, H. Hidaka, H. Amitsuka, S. Nakamura, S. Awaji, D. I. Gorbunov, S. Zherlitsyn, J. Wosnitza, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, M. Valiˇ ska, and V. Sechovsk´ y, Electric quadrupolar contributions in the magnetic phases of uni 4B, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 15...

    2021

  34. [43]

    Mostovoy, Ferroelectricity in spiral magnets, Phys

    M. Mostovoy, Ferroelectricity in spiral magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 067601 (2006)

    2006

  35. [44]

    Arima, A

    T. Arima, A. Tokunaga, T. Goto, H. Kimura, Y. Noda, and Y. Tokura, Collinear to spiral spin transformation without changing the modulation wavelength upon fer- roelectric transition in tb 1−xdyxmno3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 097202 (2006)

    2006

  36. [45]

    C. Jia, S. Onoda, N. Nagaosa, and J. H. Han, Microscopic theory of spin-polarization coupling in multiferroic tran- sition metal oxides, Phys. Rev. B 76, 144424 (2007)

    2007

  37. [46]

    Mostovoy, Multiferroics: different routes to magneto- electric coupling, npj Spintronics 2, 10.1038/s44306-024- 00021-8 (2024)

    M. Mostovoy, Multiferroics: different routes to magneto- electric coupling, npj Spintronics 2, 10.1038/s44306-024- 00021-8 (2024)

    2024 doi

  38. [47]

    Picozzi, Ferroelectric rashba semiconductors as a novel class of multifunctional materials, Frontiers in Physics V olume 2 - 2014, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00010 (2014)

    S. Picozzi, Ferroelectric rashba semiconductors as a novel class of multifunctional materials, Frontiers in Physics V olume 2 - 2014, 10.3389/fphy.2014.00010 (2014)

    2014

  39. [48]

    Rinaldi, S

    C. Rinaldi, S. Varotto, M. Asa, J. S lawi´ nska, J. Fujii, G. Vinai, S. Cecchi, D. Di Sante, R. Calarco, I. Vobornik, G. Panaccione, S. Picozzi, and R. Bertacco, Ferroelectric control of the spin texture in GeTe, Nano Lett. 18, 2751 (2018)

    2018

  40. [49]

    M. Gu, Y. Liu, H. Zhu, K. Yananose, X. Chen, Y. Hu, A. Stroppa, and Q. Liu, Ferroelectric switchable alter- magnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 106802 (2025)

    2025

  41. [50]

    X. Duan, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, I. ˇZuti´ c, and T. Zhou, Antiferroelectric altermagnets: Antiferro- electricity alters magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 106801 (2025)

    2025

  42. [51]

    N. Paul, Y. Zhang, and L. Fu, Giant proximity exchange and flat chern band in 2d magnet-semiconductor het- erostructures, Science Advances 9, eabn1401 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abn1401

    2023 doi

  43. [52]

    P. G. Steeneken, L. H. Tjeng, I. Elfimov, G. A. Sawatzky, G. Ghiringhelli, N. B. Brookes, and D.-J. Huang, Ex- change splitting and charge carrier spin polarization in euo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 047201 (2002)

    2002

  44. [53]

    Norden, C

    T. Norden, C. Zhao, P. Zhang, R. Sabirianov, A. Petrou, and H. Zeng, Giant valley splitting in monolayer ws2 by magnetic proximity effect, Nature Communications 10, 10.1038/s41467-019-11966-4 (2019)

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.