Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Interaction-Driven Altermagnetic Magnon Chiral Splitting

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Three-magnon interactions driven by Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya coupling split the energies of opposite-chirality magnons in a bilayer antiferromagnet, creating altermagnetic chiral splitting in three symmetry-protected classes.

desk verdict A plausible new mechanism for interaction-driven magnon chiral splitting, but the key derivations and the two load-bearing approximation checks live in a supplement the arXiv posting does not include. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21717 v1 pith:NVH5AD6N submitted 2025-07-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Zhejunyu Jin , Zhaozhuo Zeng , Jie Liu , Tianci Gong , Ying Su , Kai Chang , Peng Yan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismchiralsplittingthree-magnoninteractionDzyaloshinskii-Moriyamagnonspectrumrenormalizationmany-bodyperturbationtheoryantiferromagneticbilayerbosonicnonlinearity
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 argues that the cubic (three-magnon) interactions generated by Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya coupling in a bilayer antiferromagnet make opposite-chirality magnons have different energies, a chiral splitting that is absent in linear spin-wave theory. The splitting is quadrupole-like in momentum and comes in three symmetry-protected classes, fixed by $C_4T$, $\sigma_v T$, or both. Because magnons are bosons whose particle number is not conserved, this mechanism cannot occur for low-energy electrons, and it extends altermagnetic splitting from the nonrelativistic to the spin-orbit-coupled regime. A reader should care because it identifies a fresh, tunable route to chiral magnon bands in ordinary compensated magnets, with predicted splittings up to about 2% of the renormalized magnon energy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cubic three-magnon interaction $H_3$, which arises from the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya vectors and allows a single magnon to split into two or two magnons to coalesce into one, processes forbidden at low energy for fermions. In the Bogoliubov basis this term yields decay and source vertices whose contribution to the single-particle Green's function is evaluated at second order, producing three Feynman diagrams (forward, backward, and circle bubbles) and the self-energies $\Sigma_{11}$ and $\Sigma_{22}$. The chiral splitting is the difference $\Sigma_{11}-\Sigma_{22}$, and its momentum-space form is determined by the symmetry class of the DMI configuration, so the same formula yields $k_x k_y$ for the M-type and $k_x^2-k_y^2$ for the CM-type DMI.

What would settle it

Inelastic neutron scattering on a candidate material such as a noncentrosymmetric Heusler compound or epitaxial Au/Co/W(110) should show the predicted quadrupole chiral splitting, about 2% of the renormalized magnon energy, with the $C_4T$/ $\sigma_v T$ patterns of Figs. 1(b,d,f); observing no such splitting at low temperature would disprove the mechanism. A direct numerical evaluation of the four-magnon self-energy showing it comparable to the three-magnon one would also falsify the central assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with a bilayer compensated magnet whose interlayer coupling is antiferromagnetic, the authors show that Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interactions on the two sublattices generate a cubic magnon Hamiltonian $H_3$ whose three-wave processes renormalize the two chirality branches unequally. Second-order many-body perturbation theory gives diagonal self-energies whose difference, for the C-type DMI, is $\Sigma_{11}-\Sigma_{22}\approx w_1(D_{A,x}^2-D_{A,y}^2)(k_x^2-k_y^2)+4w_1 D_{A,x}\cdot D_{A,y}k_x k_y$, a d-wave (quadrupole) pattern in momentum. Three DMI configurations produce three symmetry-protected classes of splitting, governed by $C_4T$, $\sigma_v T$, or their combination; these splittings survive despite the degeneracy of the linear spin-wave bands. The authors further report that the splitting scales as $T^8$ at low temperatures, grows as $S^{-3/2}$ so that small-spin systems are favored, and should be detectable by inelastic neutron scattering at roughly $0.02\varepsilon'$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation hinges on the premise that the quartic (four-magnon) term barely shifts the magnon energies and that only the diagonal self-energy components matter; the paper offers a symmetry argument and a two-orders-of-magnitude estimate rather than a full quantitative check of these two assumptions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Three symmetry classes of chiral splitting exist, fixed by $C_4T$, $\sigma_v T$, or both, so the shape of the splitting in momentum space advertises the underlying DMI symmetry.
  • The splitting is a genuine many-body effect: it vanishes in linear spin-wave theory and emerges only from three-magnon processes, so anharmonicity is essential even at zero temperature.
  • Because the splitting grows as $(k_B T/JS)^8$ at low temperature, it stays robust against thermal fluctuations and offers a distinctive experimental signature.
  • Small-spin materials ($S\lesssim 5$) show the largest effect, while large-spin systems return to the linear spin-wave prediction.
  • The predicted splitting of about $0.02\varepsilon'$ is within reach of inelastic neutron scattering, as demonstrated in altermagnetic MnTe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same bosonic mechanism is not limited to DMI: any number-nonconserving interaction with the right symmetry, such as certain magnetostrictive or dipolar couplings, could produce analogous chiral splitting in other compensated magnets.
  • The $T^8$ scaling could serve as a fingerprint distinguishing interaction-driven splitting from single-particle altermagnetic splitting, which should have a different temperature dependence.
  • One testable extension is to look for the predicted quadrupole splitting pattern in candidate materials with anisotropic DMI rather than only at specific high-symmetry momentum points.
  • If the off-diagonal self-energy $\Sigma_{12}$ were amplified by stronger DMI or reduced anisotropy, the small spin-flip mixing neglected here could open gaps or topological features on top of the splitting.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies a bilayer compensated antiferromagnet with intralayer ferromagnetic exchange, interlayer antiferromagnetic exchange, on-site anisotropy, and sublattice-dependent Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions (DMI). The authors use Holstein-Primakoff bosons and linear spin-wave theory to obtain degenerate two-branch magnon spectra, then include the cubic (three-magnon) DMI term and apply second-order many-body perturbation theory to derive a renormalized 2x2 self-energy matrix. Their central claim is that the diagonal self-energy difference, Eq. (13), produces a d-wave chiral splitting between the two magnon chiralities, with three symmetry-protected classes corresponding to C4T, sigma_v T, and their combination. They further claim that the off-diagonal self-energy is two orders of magnitude smaller than the splitting, that the quartic term H4 does not significantly renormalize the spectrum, and that the splitting grows as (k_B T/JS)^8 at elevated temperatures. The predicted splitting, up to about 0.02 of the renormalized energy, is suggested to be observable by inelastic neutron scattering.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the result is significant: it identifies a bosonic, interaction-driven route to chiral magnon splitting that is distinct from single-particle DMI or anisotropic-exchange mechanisms, and it provides a clean symmetry classification of three splitting patterns. The paper makes quantitative, falsifiable predictions — the d-wave k-dependence of Eq. (13), the T^8 temperature power law, and the S^{-3/2} enhancement at small spin — and the self-energy magnitude is computed rather than fitted. These strengths are real. However, the central technical content is not currently verifiable: Eq. (12), the interaction vertices, the coefficients n_i and w_1, the M-type and CM-type splitting forms, and the T^8 scaling are all delegated to a Supplemental Material that is not included in the arXiv submission, and two load-bearing approximations (small off-diagonal self-energy, negligible H4) are asserted rather than demonstrated. The significance is therefore conditional on the missing derivation and on the numerical support for those approximations being supplied.

major comments (3)
  1. [Many-body perturbation theory, Eq. (12)] The central self-energy approximation and essentially all of the supporting derivation are deferred to the Supplemental Material, which is not included in the arXiv submission. Eq. (12) defines the diagonal self-energies only through coefficients n1, n2, n3 that are not given in the main text; the vertex coefficients M^{lambda mu <-- nu} in Eqs. (5)-(7) are unspecified; the eigenvalues of Eq. (11) are quoted as Eqs. (S33); the M-type and CM-type splitting forms appear only in SM Sec. V; and the T^8 scaling is supported only by SM Fig. S4. As the manuscript stands, the central claim cannot be checked by a reader. Please include the Supplemental Material with the resubmission (and on arXiv), or move enough of the derivation into the main text or an appendix that Eq. (13) and the T^8 result can be reproduced.
  2. [Altermagnetic chiral splitting effect, Eq. (11)] The reduction from the 2x2 Dyson matrix Eq. (11) to the scalar splitting Eq. (13) explicitly assumes that Sigma_12 and Sigma_21 are negligible. This is load-bearing: the eigenvalues of the full matrix contain sqrt(((Sigma_11 - Sigma_22)/2)^2 + |Sigma_12|^2), so even a modest off-diagonal self-energy changes both the magnitude and the momentum dependence of the splitting, and could alter the claimed d-wave classification. The Discussion asserts that the off-diagonal terms are 'two orders of magnitude smaller' than the chiral splitting, but no numerical evidence for this is given in the main text. Please provide a quantitative comparison of Sigma_12(21) with Sigma_11 - Sigma_22 over the Brillouin zone, and state explicitly how the three symmetry-protected classes are affected when the small off-diagonal terms are retained.
  3. [Many-body perturbation theory, second paragraph] The statement that H4 is negligible because it 'preserves the symmetries as the harmonic term H2 and thus does not significantly renormalize the magnon spectrum' is not a valid argument: symmetry preservation does not by itself bound the magnitude of a self-energy correction. Since H4 contains no DMI, it is plausible that its diagonal self-energies are equal for the two chiral branches and that its off-diagonal components vanish, in which case it would drop out of the splitting difference; but that should be stated and verified directly. As written, the dismissal of H4 is unsupported and should be replaced by an explicit estimate or by a symmetry-based argument showing that H4 cannot contribute to the chiral splitting.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Altermagnetic chiral splitting effect, Eq. (13)] The notation D_{A,x} is used both for a vector (e.g., D_{A,x} . D_{A,y} and D^2_{A,x}) and for components (e.g., D_{A,xx}); please define the two notations explicitly and state the bond-direction convention used in Eq. (13).
  2. [LSWT, Eq. (4)] Please define Delta_k explicitly as a positive dimensionless factor and state the sign convention for u_k and v_k; as written, the formula is easy to confuse with a determinant or a gap function.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption lists DMI parameters such as D_{A,x} = 0.3J(sqrt(2)/2, sqrt(2)/2) but does not state that the subscript refers to the bond direction; please specify this and clarify that all in-plane DMI components are in units of J.
  4. [Discussion] In the paragraph on realizing the DMI configurations, the sentence beginning 'For C4T symmetry only' is confusing because D1 and D2 appear to be both DMI strengths and in-plane vector components; please rephrase to separate the two roles.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity found: the chiral splitting is a computed self-energy consequence of the explicitly chosen DMI Hamiltonians, not a fitted or self-referential result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The model Hamiltonians in Eq. (1) specify DMI configurations with defined symmetry properties, and the three-magnon vertex H3 in Eq. (5) is derived from those DMIs via the Holstein-Primakoff expansion. The self-energy in Eq. (9) is obtained by standard second-order many-body perturbation theory with Wick's theorem, and Eq. (12) approximates its diagonal components. The central result, Eq. (13), is an explicit algebraic expression relating the chiral splitting to the input DMI vectors DA,x, DA,y and the computed coefficient w1 = n1 - n2; no parameter is fitted to the predicted quantity, and the result is not defined in terms of itself. The symmetry classes follow from the invariance of each Hamiltonian under C4T, sigma_vT, or both, which is a genuine group-theoretic consequence of the model, not a renamed observation or a self-citation. The paper does cite prior work, including some with overlapping authors (Refs. [7], [24], [30], [39]), but these citations are background or methodological references, not load-bearing justifications of the central claim, and the many-body framework is borrowed from the independent Ref. [27]. Two quantitative assumptions are flagged in the text but are not circularity: the neglect of H4 based on symmetry preservation (which is an incomplete argument, noted near the start of 'Many-body perturbation theory') and the assertion that off-diagonal self-energy terms are two orders of magnitude smaller than the diagonal difference (Discussion; details in the Supplemental Material). Both are approximations whose validity is a correctness concern, not a case of a prediction reducing to its input by construction. The central claim remains a derived, parameter-dependent result with independent content.

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

The paper contributes a model calculation: all inputs are standard spin-wave theory plus hand-picked DMI configurations. No parameters are fitted to data, but the effect is tied to the assumed DMI anisotropy. The main unstated load is the neglect of H4 and off-diagonal self-energy terms, which are asserted rather than derived in the main text.

free parameters (4)
  • DMI vector components for C-, M-, and CM-type configurations = Fig. 2 values, e.g. D_A,x=0.3J(sqrt(2)/2, sqrt(2)/2), D_A,y=0.15J(0,1), D_B,x=0.15J(1,0), D_B,y=0.3J(-sqrt(2)/2…
    Hand-picked to realize the required C4T/sigma_vT symmetric configurations; no material-specific values.
  • On-site anisotropy K = 2J
    Chosen to prevent overlap between the harmonic single-particle energy and the two-magnon continuum; not a fit.
  • Interlayer exchange J0 = -J
    Set to -J for the bilayer antiferromagnet; standard scale choice.
  • Spin length S = 1
    Chosen because three-magnon interactions scale as S^{-3/2}; larger spins suppress the effect.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Holstein-Primakoff transformation and Bogoliubov transformation are valid for the bilayer antiferromagnet at low temperature.
    Standard spin-wave machinery; cited refs [34] and [40].
  • domain assumption The assumed DMI configurations preserve the stated spin-space symmetries C4T and/or sigma_vT.
    Symmetry analysis summarized in Table I and detailed in SM Sec. I; no material-specific validation.
  • domain assumption The quartic term H4 is negligible at zero temperature because it preserves the same symmetries as H2.
    Asserted in the Many-body perturbation theory section without quantitative support in the main text.
  • domain assumption Off-diagonal self-energy components Sigma_12 and Sigma_21 are negligible compared with the diagonal components.
    Discussed in the Discussion; claimed two orders of magnitude smaller, with details in SM.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interaction-Driven Altermagnetic Magnon Chiral Splitting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVH5AD6N

@misc{pith2026250721717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interaction-Driven Altermagnetic Magnon Chiral Splitting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVH5AD6N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21717}
}
abstract

Nonrelativistic magnon chiral splitting in altermagnets has garnered significant recent attention. In this work, we demonstrate that nonlinear three-wave mixing -- where magnons split or coalesce -- extends this phenomenon into unprecedented relativistic regimes. Employing a bilayer antiferromagnet with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions, we identify three distinct classes of chiral splitting, each dictated by specific symmetries, such as $C_4T$, $\sigma_v T$, or their combination. This reveals a novel bosonic mechanism for symmetry-protected chiral splitting, capitalizing on the unique ability of magnons to violate particle-number conservation, a feature absent in low-energy fermionic systems. Our findings pave the way for engineering altermagnetic splitting, with potential applications in advanced magnonic devices and deeper insights into magnon dynamics in complex magnetic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustrations of DMI-induced altermagnetic chiral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Momentum-space distributions of self-energy components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nanoscale Imaging of Strain-Controlled Altermagnetic Domains in {\alpha}-MnTe

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In alpha-MnTe, compression makes magnetic domains grow by merging, and unloading leaves them fragmented in a different, metastable pattern, so the material remembers the strain history.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Hayami, Y

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

    2019

  2. [2]

    Hayami, Y

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

    2020

  3. [3]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  5. [5]

    P. A. McClarty and J. G. Rau, Landau Theory of Altermag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 176702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Gomonay, V

    O. Gomonay, V . P. Kravchuk, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, K. V . Yer- shov, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, J. van den Brink, and J. Sinova, Structure, control, and dynamics of altermagnetic textures, npj Spintronics 2, 35 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Z. Jin, Z. Zeng, Y . Cao, and P. Yan, Skyrmion Hall E ffect in Altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 196701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    X. Duan, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y . Liu, Z. Zhang, Igor ˘Zuti´c, and T. Zhou, Antiferroelectric Altermagnets: Antiferroelectricity Al- ters Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 106801 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Observation of a giant band splitting in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei, Y . Sun, Y . Huang, X. Zheng, Y . Peng, L. He, S. Li, J. Luo, Z. Li, G. Chen, H. Li, H. Weng, and T. Qian, A metallic room-temperature d−wave altermagnet, Nat. Phys. 21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L ˘Smejkal, V . N. Strocov, P. Con- stantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. J. Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V . K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, T. Denneulin, W. Shi, R. E. Dunin- Borkowski, S. Das, M. Kl¨aui, J. Sinova, and M. Jourdan, Direct observation of altermagnet...

    2024

  4. [12]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y . Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˘Smejkal, C. Kang, and C. Kim, Broken Kramers Degeneracy in Altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    J. Ding, Z. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Tao, Z. Liu, T. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Liu, Y . Yang, R. Zhang, L. Deng, W. Jing, Y . Huang, Y . Shi, M. Ye, S. Qiao, Y . Wang, Y . Guo, D. Feng, and D. Shen, Large Band Splitting in g−Wave Altermagnet CrSb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206401 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Altermagnets as a new class of functional materials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 10, 473 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    T. Sato, S. Haddad, I. C. Fulga, F. F. Assaad, and J. van den Brink, Altermagnetic Anomalous Hall E ffect Emerging from Electronic Correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 086503 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    V . V . Kruglyak, S. O. Demokritov, and D. Grundler, Magnonics, J. Phys. D 43, 264001 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    A. V . Chumak, V . I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hille- brands, Magnon spintronics, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Pirro, V

    P. Pirro, V . I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Ad- vances in coherent magnonics, Nat. Rev. Mater.6, 1114 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    H. Y . Yuan, Y . Cao, A. Kamra, R. A. Duine, P. Yan, Quantum magnonics: When magnon spintronics meets quantum informa- tion science, Phys. Rep. 965, 1 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K. Ahn, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Chiral magnons in altermagnetic RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 256703 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Z. Liu, M. Ozeki, S. Asai, S. Itoh, and T. Masuda, Chiral Split Magnon in Altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156702 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hoyer, P

    R. Hoyer, P. P. Stavropoulos, A. Razpopov, R. Valent ´ı, L. ˘Smejkal, and A. Mook, Altermagnetic splitting of magnons in hematite (α-Fe2O3), arXiv:2503.11623 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. E. Zhitomirsky and A. L. Chernyshev, Colloquium: Sponta- neous Magnon Decays, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 219 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Z. Wang, H. Y . Yuan, Y . Cao, Z.-X. Li, R. A. Duine, and P. Yan, Magnonic Frequency Comb through Nonlinear Magnon- Skyrmion Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 037202 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    P. A. McClarty and J. G. Rau, Non-Hermitian topology of spon- taneous magnon decay, Phys. Rev. B100, 100405 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    A. L. Chernyshev and M. E. Zhitomirsky, Spin waves in a tri- angular lattice antiferromagnet: Decays, spectrum renormaliza- tion, and singularities, Phys. Rev. B 79, 144416 (2009)

    2009

  19. [27]

    A. Mook, K. Plekhanov, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Interaction- Stabilized Topological Magnon Insulator in Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021061 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Fujiwara and T

    K. Fujiwara and T. Morimoto, Interaction-induced nonlinear magnon transport in noncentrosymmetric magnets, Phys. Rev. B 111, 014408 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Gohlke, A

    M. Gohlke, A. Corticelli, R. Moessner, P. A. McClarty, and A. Mook, Spurious Symmetry Enhancement in Linear Spin Wave Theory and Interaction-Induced Topology in Magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 186702 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Zheng, Z

    S. Zheng, Z. Wang, Y . Wang, F. Sun, Q. He, P. Yan, and H. Y . Yuan, Tutorial: Nonlinear magnonics, J. Appl. Phys. 134, 151101 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    X. Chen, Y . Liu, P. Liu, Y . Yu, J. Ren, J. Li, A. Zhang, and Q. Liu, Unconventional magnons in collinear magnets dictated by spin space groups, Nature (London) 640, 349 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Corticelli, R

    A. Corticelli, R. Moessner, and P. A. McClarty, Spin-space groups and magnon band topology, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064430 6 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    I), the expression of high-order magnon Hamiltonian (Sec

    See Supplemental Material at http: //link.aps.org/supplemental/ for the symmetry analysis of chiral splitting e ffect induced by DMI (Sec. I), the expression of high-order magnon Hamiltonian (Sec. II), the anharmonic theory (Sec. III), the DMI-induced altermagnetic chiral spli...

  26. [34]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  27. [35]

    Hoyer, R

    R. Hoyer, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, K. Ahn, L. ˇSmejkal, and A. Mook, Spontaneous crystal thermal Hall effect in insulating al- termagnets, Phys. Rev. B 111, L020412 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    A. Mook, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Quantum damping of skyrmion crystal eigenmodes due to spontaneous quasiparticle decay, Phys. Rev. Research2, 033491 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Sourounis and A

    K. Sourounis and A. Manchon, Impact of magnon interactions on transport in honeycomb antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B110, 054429 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    S. S. Pershoguba, S. Banerjee, J. C. Lashley, J. Park, H. Ågren, G. Aeppli, and A. V . Balatsky, Dirac Magnons in Honeycomb Ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. X 8, 011010 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Z

    B. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y . Cao, P. Yan, and X. R. Wang, aves- dropping on spin waves inside the domain-wall nanochannel via three-magnon processes, Phys. Rev. B 97, 094421 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Shen, Magnon Spin Relaxation and Spin Hall E ffect Due to the Dipolar Interaction in Antiferromagnetic Insulators, Phys

    K. Shen, Magnon Spin Relaxation and Spin Hall E ffect Due to the Dipolar Interaction in Antiferromagnetic Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 077201 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    G. D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics , (Springer, New York, 2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    G ¨ung¨ord¨u, R

    U. G ¨ung¨ord¨u, R. Nepal, O. A. Tretiakov, K. Belashchenko, and A. A. Kovalev, Stability of skyrmion lattices and symme- tries of quasi-two-dimensional chiral magnets, Phys. Rev. B93, 064428 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    H. Niu, H. G. Yoon, H. Y . Kwon, Z. Cheng, S. Fu, H. Zhu, B. Miao, L. Sun, Y . Wu, A. K. Schmid, K. Liu, C. Won, H. Ding, and G. Chen, Magnetic skyrmionic structures with vari- able topological charges in engineered Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction systems, Nat. Commun. 16, 3...

    2025

  36. [44]

    Y . Li, Y . Duan, M. Wang, L. Lang, Y . Zhang, M. Yang, J. Li, W. Fan, K. Shen, Z. Shi, and S. Zhou, Giant Magnon- Polaron Anomalies in Spin Seebeck Effect in Double Umbrella- Structured Tb 3Fe5O12 Films, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 056702 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    L. Peng, R. Takagi, W. Koshibae, K. Shibata, K. Nakajima, T. Arima, N. Nagaosa, S. Seki, X. Yu, and Y . Tokura, Con- trolled transformation of skyrmions and antiskyrmions in a non- centrosymmetric magnet, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 181 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Camosi, S

    L. Camosi, S. Rohart, O. Fruchart, S. Pizzini, M. Belmeguenai, Y . Roussign´e, A. Stashkevich, S. Mourad Cherif, L. Ranno, M. de Santis, and J. V ogel, Anisotropic Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya in- teraction in ultrathin epitaxial Au/Co/W(110), Phys. Rev. B 95, 214422 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Dynamics of Solids and Liquids by Neutron Scattering , edited by S. W. Lovesey and T. Springer (Springer, Heidelberg, 1977)

    1977

Pith tools

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