Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Electronic and magnetic ground states of {112} grain boundary in graphene in the extended Hubbard model

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the half-filled extended Hubbard model on a 5/7 skewed ladder—the topology of a {112} grain boundary in graphene—has a ground-state phase with compensated ferrimagnetic order, spin-split bands, and finite…

desk verdict A well-organized mean-field phase diagram for a 5/7 skewed ladder, but the headline spin-split ferrimagnetic phase and multiferroicity claim are not established without benchmarking against quasi-exact methods. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.09502 v1 pith:B5QYB345 submitted 2025-07-13 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sishir Jana , Dayasindhu Dey , Manoranjan Kumar , S. Ramasesha , Rajamani Raghunathan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords extendedHubbardmodel5/7skewedladder{112}grainboundarygraphenecompensatedferrimagnetspin-splitbandsBerryphasepolarizationmultiferroicity
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 asks what happens when electrons on a 5/7 skewed ladder—a two-legged ladder of pentagon and heptagon rings that models the {112} grain boundary in graphene—interact through both on-site and nearest-neighbor Coulomb repulsion. Solving the half-filled extended Hubbard model by an unrestricted mean-field method, it maps out a phase diagram in the U–V plane. The central claim is that a partially charge-ordered, spin-split compensated ferrimagnetic (PCO+SS CFiM) phase appears, in which site moments are unequal and opposite so the net magnetization is zero, yet the up- and down-spin bands are split by broken inversion symmetry. The paper further shows that this phase carries a finite Berry-phase electric polarization, so the same carbon-only ladder would simultaneously host magnetic order and electric polarization—a multiferroic response relevant for spintronics. A sympathetic reader would care because it predicts a concrete, carbon-based low-dimensional platform where charge, spin, and polarization coexist.

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the extended Hubbard Hamiltonian on an eight-site unit cell: nearest-neighbor hopping $t$ on legs and rungs, on-site repulsion $U$, and inter-site repulsion $V$ between neighboring sites, solved self-consistently in $k$-space by unrestricted Hartree-Fock mean-field theory. The 5/7 skewed ladder is a two-leg ladder whose connectivity forms alternating five- and seven-membered rings; this is the same topology as the {112} grain boundary in graphene. Phases are classified from converged site charge and spin densities, and the electronic structure is read from spin-resolved bands. The Berry-phase machinery—a discretized, multi-band overlap calculation of the Zak phase—turns the Bloch wave functions into a value of electric polarization $P = \gamma/(2\pi) \pmod e$, which is nonzero exactly when inversion symmetry is broken and the system is gapped.

What would settle it

A density-matrix renormalization group or exact-diagonalization calculation of the same half-filled 5/7 ladder at representative parameters such as $U = 4t$ and $V = 0$ would settle the claim: if the exact ground state is a spin singlet with no site-moment pattern and no spin-split bands, then the compensated ferrimagnetic phase and its multiferroic signature do not survive beyond mean field.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the unrestricted Hartree-Fock mean-field solution of the half-filled extended Hubbard model on a 5/7 skewed ladder, the ground-state phase diagram contains a phase labeled PCO+SS CFiM: the upper and lower legs carry unequal, oppositely directed site moments that sum to zero, making it a compensated ferrimagnet, and the unit cell is partially charge ordered. Because the magnetic sublattices are not related by translation or rotation plus spin inversion, the up- and down-spin bands are not degenerate; the band structure shows spin splitting across the Brillouin zone even though the net moment vanishes. The same broken inversion symmetry yields a nonzero polarization computed from the Berry (Zak) phase in the gapped part of the parameter space. The paper's key conclusion is that this coexisting spin splitting and electric polarization constitutes a spin-split multiferroic phase, distinct from conventional antiferromagnets and from altermagnets in its symmetry requirements.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that the unrestricted Hartree-Fock mean-field solution represents the true ground state of this one-dimensional extended Hubbard model, even though quantum fluctuations in one dimension can destroy broken-symmetry magnetic order.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The {112} grain boundary of graphene is predicted to behave as a one-dimensional multiferroic wire, with ferrimagnetic order and electric polarization coexisting along the defect line.
  • In the PCO+SS CFiM phase, the material is magnetically ordered but has zero net magnetization, so it could produce spin-polarized currents with no stray magnetic field—an advantage for spintronics.
  • The spin splitting does not require the special rotational symmetries of altermagnets; it follows from explicit inversion-symmetry breaking, widening the class of candidate antiferromagnetic spintronic materials.
  • Because the phase is stable up to $T \approx 0.2\,t/k_B$, and $t$ is on the electron-volt scale for carbon systems, the predicted magnetic order could survive at practically relevant temperatures if the mean-field phase is real.
  • Berry-phase polarization changes abruptly at the charge-order boundaries, so measuring polarization as a function of doping or strain could mark the phase transitions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mean-field phase survives correlations, embedding such a grain boundary in a graphene sheet would create a one-dimensional magnetoelectric element switchable by an electric field, since electric polarization and magnetic order are coupled in the same phase.
  • The same mechanism of odd-membered rings and broken inversion symmetry should apply to other 5/7 line defects, not only in graphene but in other honeycomb and non-honeycomb two-dimensional materials, so the PCO+SS CFiM phase may be a generic feature of such grain boundaries.
  • A direct experimental test would be to look for a zero-net-moment magnet with spin-polarized detection at a graphene grain boundary; spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy could resolve the alternating unequal moments predicted by the phase.
  • Extending the calculation to include longer-range interactions or a different ladder width would show how robust the phase is, and whether the predicted multiferroicity persists when the inter-site repulsion is screened differently.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the half-filled extended Hubbard model on an eight-site 5/7 skewed ladder, which is topologically equivalent to a {112} grain boundary in graphene. The authors solve Eq. (1) in the unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) approximation, scan U from 0 to 6t and V from 0 to 3t, and construct a ground-state phase diagram in Fig. 3(b) that contains PCO+NM, PCO+SDW, PCO+SS CFiM, PCO+PAFM, and FCO+NM phases. They analyze band structures and site-projected spectral weights, study the temperature dependence of charge and spin densities, and compute the Berry-phase polarization. Their central conclusion is that the PCO+SS CFiM phase is a spin-split compensated ferrimagnet with coexisting electronic polarization, which they interpret as multiferroic behavior.

Significance. If the identification is correct, the paper provides a plausible mean-field scenario for a carbon-based skewed ladder with spin-split antiferromagnetic bands and electric polarization, which would be interesting for spintronics and multiferroics. The systematic U-V scan, the use of multiple initial configurations to search for the lowest-energy state, and the application of the Berry-phase formalism are strengths. However, all quantitative claims are properties of broken-symmetry UHF states, and the absence of any DMRG, exact-diagonalization, or quantum Monte Carlo benchmark in a one-dimensional strongly correlated system leaves the ground-state identification and the multiferroicity claim unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II and Fig. 3(b)] The entire phase diagram is obtained from self-consistent UHF solutions of Eq. (1), and the paper provides no comparison with DMRG, exact diagonalization, or other quasi-exact methods. In one dimension, UHF can produce spurious magnetic order; for example, the exact half-filled Hubbard chain ground state is a singlet, while UHF breaks SU(2) symmetry. Since the authors cite Ref. [22], which reports size-dependent singlet-to-triplet transitions in the same 5/7 ladder, a direct benchmark at representative (U,V) points, including inside the PCO+SS CFiM region, is needed before the ground-state phase diagram can be accepted.
  2. [Section III F and Eqs. (6)-(7)] The finite polarization P used for the multiferroicity claim is computed from one self-consistent UHF determinant in a four-fold degenerate manifold (CFiM1 and CFiM2 are related by the combined sigma-P symmetry). If the exact ground state is a symmetry-restored superposition of these determinants, the physical polarization may vanish or differ substantially from the mean-field value; the manuscript does not address this. The multiferroicity conclusion therefore requires either a demonstration that the symmetry-broken state is the true ground state or a benchmark of P against a quasi-exact method.
  3. [Section III E and Fig. 4] The claim that the PCO+SS CFiM phase is stable up to high temperature and hence relevant for room-temperature applications is based on the same uncontrolled mean-field finite-temperature calculation, and no exact thermodynamics or finite-size scaling is provided. In one dimension, thermal and quantum fluctuations are known to destroy long-range order in ways that UHF cannot capture, so this stability claim should either be benchmarked or substantially softened.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The range of i in the V term and the boundary conditions are unclear: the V sum includes i=n, which appears to extend beyond an n-cell chain if sites are indexed as 8i+j. Please specify whether periodic or open boundary conditions are used.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption and Sec. III B] The Fig. 2 caption says there is a minor charge difference between sites 4 and 8 even at t=0, while Sec. III B states there is no such difference at t=0; please correct this inconsistency.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption and Sec. III E] The Fig. 4 caption states a temperature range of 0-2t, while Sec. III E states 0 <= T <= 0.2; the units and range should be made consistent.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'gaped' should be 'gapped', 'Block function' should be 'Bloch function', 'berry phase' should be 'Berry phase', and the subpanels in Fig. 5 all use the same '(a)' label.
  5. [Section V] The Conclusions state that the model captures 'the {112} boundary in silicon', but the abstract and introduction identify the {112} boundary in graphene; please correct this.
  6. [Data Availability] The data availability statement says the data are not publicly available but are available from the authors upon reasonable request; archiving the computed densities, band structures, or code would strengthen reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase diagram and polarization are computed outputs of a self-consistent mean-field solution with scanned model parameters, not fitted inputs or self-citation-loaded conclusions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that a PCO+SS CFiM phase with spin polarization and finite Berry-phase polarization exists in the extended Hubbard model on a 5/7 skewed ladder—is derived by solving Eq. (1) self-consistently in the U-V plane. The only model parameters are t, U, and V; t is fixed as the energy scale and U and V are scanned, not fit to the target observables. The site charge and spin densities, band structures, and Berry-phase polarization are all post-processing outputs of the converged mean-field wavefunctions, so they are not equivalent by construction to any input. The paper explicitly compares energies of different initial configurations to select the ground state, which is a standard self-consistent-field procedure rather than a circular fit. Citations to prior work, including the authors' own papers, provide context (e.g., known skewed-ladder phases) or external benchmarks (e.g., Ref. [22] for the V=0 polarization comparison), but none of these citations is load-bearing for the present derivation; the multiferroicity claim rests on the computed polarization and spin-split bands, not on a cited uniqueness theorem or on an imported ansatz. The main weakness—that the unrestricted Hartree-Fock approximation is uncontrolled in 1D and not benchmarked against DMRG or exact diagonalization—is a correctness/robustness concern, not circular reasoning. Under the given rules, an approximation being potentially unreliable does not constitute circularity, and the paper does not reduce any prediction to its inputs by definition or by a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the central claim rests on a small set of domain assumptions, the most important being the validity of the mean-field approximation for a 1D strongly correlated system. No new entities or mechanisms are postulated; the only free parameters are the model interactions U and V, which are scanned rather than fitted.

free parameters (2)
  • U (on-site Coulomb repulsion) = varied 0-6 t
    Model parameter scanned to construct the phase diagram; not fitted to any data.
  • V (inter-site Coulomb repulsion) = varied 0-3 t
    Model parameter scanned to construct the phase diagram; not fitted to any data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The unrestricted Hartree-Fock mean-field approximation yields the correct ground state of the extended Hubbard model on the 5/7 ladder.
    Used throughout Sec. II and III; not benchmarked against exact methods and is known to be unreliable in 1D where quantum fluctuations dominate.
  • domain assumption The 5/7 skewed ladder is a faithful model of the {112} grain boundary in graphene.
    Introduced in the Introduction and Fig. 1; the ladder is a 1D strip, while the real grain boundary is a 1D defect in a 2D sheet, so the correspondence is approximate.
  • domain assumption The system is at half-filling.
    Stated in Sec. III A; relevant for charge and spin ordering but not justified from the material context.
  • domain assumption Only nearest-neighbor hopping t and on-site/inter-site Coulomb repulsions U and V are relevant; longer-range interactions are neglected.
    Model definition in Eq. (1); realistic graphene grain boundaries have longer-range and screening effects.
  • ad hoc to paper In metallic phases, the Berry-phase polarization is zero and need not be computed.
    Sec. III F states 'the polarization of the system is expected to be zero' without calculation; this assumption avoids applying the polarization formalism to metallic states.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electronic and magnetic ground states of {112} grain boundary in graphene in the extended Hubbard model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5QYB345

@misc{pith2026250709502,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electronic and magnetic ground states of 112 grain boundary in graphene in the extended Hubbard model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5QYB345}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.09502}
}
abstract

We study the ground state phase diagram of the extended Hubbard model in a half-filled 5/7 skewed ladder, which is topologically equivalent to a \{112\} grain boundary in graphene and related systems. Using the mean-field method, we identify various electronic and magnetic phases in the U-V plane, by calculating the site charge and spin densities. The electronic phases include partially charge-ordered metal or insulator, and fully charge-ordered insulator. The different magnetic phases of the model are non-magnet, spin density wave, spin split compensated ferrimagnet or partial antiferromagnet. Analysis of the electronic band structure reveals that the partially charge-ordered compensated ferrimagnetic phase exhibits spin polarisation, which can be quite interesting for spintronics applications. We also compute the polarisation as a function of $U$ using the Berry phase formalism and show that the system exhibits multiferroicity with coexisting compensated ferrimagnetic spin order alongside electronic polarisations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09502 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (Top) Unit cell of a 5-7 skewed ladder system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Variation of site charge (a-c) and spin (d-f) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Schematic of various electronic and magnetic phases of the model. The color scale from blue through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (Top row) Band structure in PCO+NM PCO+SDW, PCO+SS CFiM, PCO+PAFM and FCO+NM phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Site projected electronic band structure of the (a) PCO+NM and (b) PCO+SS CFiM phases from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation of Polarization as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    G. Giri, Y. A. Pati, and S. Ramasesha, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A 123, 5257 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Iemini, T

    F. Iemini, T. O. Maciel, and R. O. Vianna, Physical Re- view B 92, 075423 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Kumar, A

    M. Kumar, A. Parvej, and Z. G. Soos, Journal of Physics: 10 Condensed Matter 27, 316001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [3]

    Ogino, R

    T. Ogino, R. Kaneko, S. Morita, and S. Furukawa, Phys. Rev. B 106, 155106 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    altermagnets

    The temperatures are in units of t/kB, where kB is the Boltzmann’s constant. Both the charge and spin den- sities undergo a continuous or second-order phase tran- sition as a function of temperature. We observe that the charge and spin orderings of the PCO+PAFM and FCO+NM phases which occur at high value ofU or V are quite robust, and we do not observe an...

    work page

  6. [5]

    J. Paki, H. Terletska, S. Iskakov, and E. Gull, Physical Review B 99, 245146 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    Pudleiner, A

    P. Pudleiner, A. Kauch, K. Held, and G. Li, Physical Review B 100, 075108 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, 1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Hotta and N

    C. Hotta and N. Furukawa, Phys. Rev. B 74, 193107 (2006)

    2006

  2. [9]

    Lacroix, P

    C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila, Introduction to Frustrated Magnetism (Springer, 2011)

    2011

  3. [10]

    Sarkar, J

    S. Sarkar, J. Bhattacharya, P. Sadhukhan, D. Curcio, R. Dutt, V. K. Singh, M. Bianchi, A. Pariari, S. Roy, P. Mandal, et al. , Nature Communications 14, 3628 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Mazumdar, S

    S. Mazumdar, S. Ramasesha, R. T. Clay, and D. K. Campbell, Physical review letters 82, 1522 (1999)

    1999

  5. [12]

    Kumar, S

    M. Kumar, S. Ramasesha, and Z. Soos, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 79, 035102 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    S. R. White and I. Affleck, Phys. Rev. B 54, 9862 (1996)

    1996

  7. [14]

    C. K. Majumdar and D. K. Ghosh, J. Math. Phys. 10, 1388 (1969)

    1969

  8. [15]

    Qu, B.-B

    D.-W. Qu, B.-B. Chen, H.-C. Jiang, Y. Wang, and W. Li, Communications Physics 5, 257 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    A. K. Bera, S. Yusuf, S. K. Saha, M. Kumar, D. Voneshen, Y. Skourski, and S. A. Zvyagin, Nature Communications 13, 6888 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Pandey and S

    B. Pandey and S. K. Pati, Phys. Rev. B 95, 085105 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    Z. Zhou, W. Ye, H.-G. Luo, J. Zhao, and J. Chang, Phys. Rev. B 108, 195136 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    S. Das, D. Dey, M. Kumar, and S. Ramasesha, Physical Review B 104, 125138 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    D. Dey, S. Das, M. Kumar, and S. Ramasesha, Physical Review B 101, 195110 (2020)

    2020

  14. [21]

    Thomas, S

    S. Thomas, S. Ramasesha, K. Hallberg, and D. Garcia, Phys. Rev. B 86, 180403 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    Valentim, D

    A. Valentim, D. J. Garc ´ ıa, and J. A. Plascak, Phys. Rev. B 105, 174426 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    K. Kim, Z. Lee, W. Regan, C. Kisielowski, M. Crommie, and A. Zettl, ACS nano 5, 2142 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    G. Giri, D. Dey, M. Kumar, S. Ramasesha, and Z. G. Soos, Phys. Rev. B 95, 224408 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    S. Das, D. Dey, S. Ramasesha, and M. Kumar, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal B 95, 147 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    S. Das, D. Dey, R. Raghunathan, Z. G. Soos, M. Kumar, and S. Ramasesha, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 26, 36 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    S. Das, D. Dey, S. Ramasesha, and M. Kumar, Journal of Applied Physics 129 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Hsieh, V

    K. Hsieh, V. Kochat, T. Biswas, C. S. Tiwary, A. Mishra, G. Ramalingam, A. Jayaraman, K. Chattopadhyay, S. Raghavan, M. Jain, and A. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 206803 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Raghunathan, E

    R. Raghunathan, E. Johlin, and J. C. Grossman, Nano Letters 14, 4943 (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Claveau, B

    Y. Claveau, B. Arnaud, and S. D. Matteo, European Journal of Physics 35, 035023 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Krempask` y, L

    J. Krempask` y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, et al. , Nature 626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Nature nanotechnology 11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Nagaosa, J

    N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, and N. P. Ong, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    ˇZelezn´ y, H

    J. ˇZelezn´ y, H. Gao, K. V´ yborn´ y, J. Zemen, J. Maˇ sek, A. Manchon, J. Wunderlich, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 157201 (2014)

    2014

  29. [37]

    R. Soni, N. Kaushal, S. Okamoto, and E. Dagotto, Phys. Rev. B 102, 045105 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    Zak, Phys

    J. Zak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2747 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    Resta, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 12, R107 (2000)

    R. Resta, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 12, R107 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Resta, Handbook of Materials Modeling: Methods: Theory and Modeling , 151 (2020)

    R. Resta, Handbook of Materials Modeling: Methods: Theory and Modeling , 151 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Vanderbilt, Berry phases in electronic structure the- ory: electric polarization, orbital magnetization and topo- logical insulators (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    D. Vanderbilt, Berry phases in electronic structure the- ory: electric polarization, orbital magnetization and topo- logical insulators (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Pekar and E

    S. Pekar and E. Rashba, Zh. Eksperim. i Teor. Fiz. 47 (1964)

    1964

  35. [43]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Nature communications 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Y. Feng, Y. J. Zhou, R. X. Su, Q. Wang, L. Y. Liao, W. X. Zhu, X. Z. Chen, F. Pan, X. L. Fan, and C. Song, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Science advances 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    J. Dong, K. Wu, M. Zhu, F. Zheng, X. Li, and J. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.02914 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  40. [48]

    L.-D. Yuan, A. B. Georgescu, and J. M. Rondinelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 216701 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.