Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic and Crystal Symmetry Effects on Spin Hall Conductivity in Altermagnets

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In CrSb and MnTe, the magnetic easy axis produces genuine unconventional spin Hall conductivity without structural tilt, whereas RuO2's unconventional components are trivial coordinate-rotation artifacts.

desk verdict A clean symmetry-based separation of trivial and genuine USHC in three altermagnets, but the CrSb/MnTe leg depends on easy-axis assumptions the paper never stress-tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.07639 v1 pith:HIKEZ32A submitted 2025-08-11 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Dameul Jeong , Seoung-Hun Kang , Young-Kyun Kwon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetismspinHallconductivityunconventionaleffectmagneticsymmetryeasyaxisRuO2CrSbMnTe
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 aims to distinguish genuine unconventional spin Hall conductivity (USHC) from apparent USHC caused by coordinate tilting in altermagnets. Using first-principles calculations and symmetry analysis, it finds that RuO2 shows only trivial USHC—any unconventional tensor elements that appear under a tilted geometry are just rotations of the conventional tensor. In CrSb and MnTe, by contrast, the magnetic easy axis lowers the magnetic symmetry and permits intrinsic USHC even without any structural tilt. The key observable is the decomposition of the spin Hall tensor into a time-reversal-even (Fermi-sea) part controlled by crystal symmetry and a time-reversal-odd (Fermi-surface) part controlled by magnetic symmetry. If correct, the easy-axis direction becomes a design parameter for spin-current generation in zero-net-moment materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the third-rank spin Hall conductivity tensor $\sigma_{ij}^{k}$ and its transformation under magnetic space-group operations: a component is allowed only if no symmetry maps it to the negative of itself. The tensor is separated into time-reversal-even (Fermi-sea) and time-reversal-odd (Fermi-surface) contributions, computed from the band structure via linear-response theory. A component is 'conventional' when the three indices $i, j, k$ are mutually orthogonal; otherwise it is 'unconventional.' The paper uses this division to trace which unconventional components are forbidden by crystal symmetry, which are allowed by magnetic symmetry after the easy axis reduces th

What would settle it

Grow a single-domain CrSb or MnTe film with a known easy axis, measure the spin Hall conductivity tensor as a function of current and spin-detection directions (e.g., via spin-torque ferromagnetic resonance), and check whether the unconventional components match the symmetry-allowed set predicted from the easy-axis orientation. If a forbidden USHC component appears with magnitude comparable to the allowed ones, or if the allowed ones vanish, the symmetry classification is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates that the spin Hall conductivity tensor of an altermagnet splits into two parts with different symmetry behavior: a Fermi-sea contribution even under magnetization reversal that follows crystal symmetry alone, and a Fermi-surface contribution odd under reversal that is sensitive to magnetic symmetry. For RuO2, the non-symmorphic glide symmetry enforces only conventional (mutually orthogonal) tensor components; any unconventional components that appear when the crystal is tilted are exactly those obtained by rotating the conventional tensor, so they carry no intrinsic information. For CrSb and MnTe, the assumed easy-axis orientations ([001] and [01-10], respectively) bre

Load-bearing premise

The assumed magnetic ground states and easy-axis orientations are correct: RuO2 is treated as an altermagnet, CrSb's easy axis breaks the relevant mirror planes, and MnTe's spins lie along [01-10]; an error in any of these inputs would change the predicted set of allowed unconventional spin Hall components and the triviality conclusion for RuO2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In RuO2, any USHC observed in a tilted geometry is a coordinate-rotation artifact; the intrinsic SHC tensor has only conventional components, so tilting cannot be used to claim genuine unconventional spin current.
  • In CrSb and MnTe, genuine USHC appears without structural tilt, because the magnetic easy axis lowers the magnetic symmetry; the allowed USHC elements differ between the two materials due to their different easy-axis directions.
  • The Fermi-sea (time-reversal-even) SHC is governed by crystal symmetry alone and contains only conventional components in all three materials; the Fermi-surface (time-reversal-odd) part is where magnetic symmetry acts and carries the unconventional components.
  • Rotating the easy axis via epitaxial strain or doping can move a material between different USHC regimes, offering a practical tuning knob for spin-current direction and magnitude.
  • Because these altermagnets have zero net magnetization, the predicted spin Hall effects can be exploited in spintronic devices without magnetic stray fields, reducing unwanted cross-interactions.
  • The Fermi-surface contribution changes sign under magnetization reversal, so reversing the Néel vector should reverse the sign of the unconventional components, a signature that could be used for electrical detection of the order parameter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct corollary the authors do not spell out: in any material, a USHC tensor that can be reproduced by rotating the crystal axes of a known conventional tensor should be treated as trivial; symmetry projection alone does not prove an intrinsic unconventional spin current, giving experimentalists a cheap diagnostic before invoking altermagnetism.
  • Because the Fermi-surface (odd) contribution changes sign when magnetic moments are reversed, the USHC components in CrSb and MnTe should be switchable by reversing the Néel vector, enabling electrical readout of the magnetic order in zero-field devices.
  • The same symmetry-based screening could be applied to other predicted altermagnets with different easy-axis orientations: one can predict, without heavy computation, which orientations yield nonzero USHC and how many independent tensor elements to expect.
  • The analysis suggests strain engineering is a lever for rotating the easy axis; measuring the SHC tensor as a function of epitaxial strain would map the magnetic symmetry phase diagram and may reveal transitions between conventional-only and unconventional-allowed regimes.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a symmetry analysis and first-principles calculations (DFT+U with SOC, Wannier interpolation, Kubo-Bastin formulas via WannierBerri) of the spin Hall conductivity (SHC) in three altermagnetic candidates: RuO2, CrSb, and MnTe. The authors decompose SHC into a time-reversal-even Fermi-sea contribution and a time-reversal-odd Fermi-surface contribution. They argue that in RuO2 a sample tilt produces only trivial unconventional SHC (USHC) components that are equivalent to a coordinate rotation of the conventional tensor, whereas in CrSb and MnTe the magnetic easy-axis orientation lowers the magnetic symmetry and leads to genuinely symmetry-driven USHC components. Strain and doping are proposed as experimental tuning knobs.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a useful classification separating trivial geometric USHC from intrinsic magnetic-symmetry-driven USHC in altermagnets, with concrete predictions for CrSb and MnTe that could be tested by spin-torque or harmonic Hall experiments. The authors also demonstrate a clean computational workflow combining symmetry analysis with Kubo-Bastin transport calculations. However, the central classification rests on assumptions about magnetic ground states and easy-axis directions that are not verified within the paper, and the quantitative predictions are not benchmarked against experiment or convergence tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Magnetic structures / Fig. 3] The central dichotomy—RuO2 trivial versus CrSb/MnTe genuine—depends entirely on the assumed easy-axis orientations. For CrSb, the text accompanying Fig. 3 states that a uniaxial magnetization breaks the mirror planes that would enforce conventional SHC; for MnTe, spins along [01-10] are claimed to remove the glide/mirror symmetries. These are symmetry statements about an input magnetic configuration, but the manuscript contains no magnetic anisotropy energy calculation, no orientation scan, and no check that the PBE+U ground state reproduces the cited easy axes. If the true easy axis, or any orientation within the easy plane, or the orientation reached under the proposed epitaxial strain preserves one of the mirror planes, the corresponding odd SHC elements are forbidden and the 'genuine USHC' claim does not survive. This is load-bearing for the paper's main classification and should be
  2. [Magnetic structures (RuO2 assumption)] The paper assumes RuO2 is an altermagnet 'for comparison with the SHC results from previous studies', while acknowledging the experimental debate (refs. 34-43). This assumption is disclosed, but it is an input to the central conclusion that RuO2 exhibits only trivial USHC. As written, the abstract and conclusion state this result without the condition. The authors should either perform a calculation for a nonmagnetic or differently ordered RuO2 and show how the SHC tensor changes, or explicitly qualify the RuO2 conclusion in the abstract as conditional on the assumed P-2 altermagnetic state. Without this, the reader cannot distinguish a property of RuO2 from a property of the assumed magnetic model.
  3. [Computational parameters and quantitative claims] The quantitative SHC values depend on the choice of Hubbard U (2 eV for Ru, 4 eV for Mn), a 50 meV Fermi-level broadening, and the assumed magnetic configurations. The paper does not report numerical SHC values, convergence tests with respect to broadening or k-mesh, or comparisons with measured SHC magnitudes. Since the main classification is based on allowed versus forbidden tensor elements, this is less critical for the symmetry story, but the abstract's language (e.g., 'robust, symmetry-driven USHC' and 'large' or 'significant' contributions) goes beyond what is demonstrated. I recommend either reporting representative numerical values with error estimates from parameter variations, or softening the quantitative claims.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Methods] The k-point grids and energy cutoff are stated, but the Wannier interpolation details (number of Wannier functions, disentanglement windows, convergence of the SHC with respect to the WannierBerri mesh) are not given. These details would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Fig. 2e,f and tilted-geometry discussion] The claim that the USHC components in tilted RuO2 are 'trivial' because the Fermi-sea and Fermi-surface contributions give identical matrix elements is made in the text, but the actual matrix elements are not shown. A brief analytical demonstration or a table of the tensor components would make the argument easier to verify.
  3. [Experimental proposals] The section on strain and doping tuning is speculative and does not include any calculations of strain or doping effects. The statement that 'small shifts in the easy-axis orientation can move the system between distinct USHC regimes' would benefit from a concrete estimate based on magnetic anisotropy energies, which are currently absent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the SHC calculation and symmetry classification are self-contained.

full rationale

The paper computes spin Hall conductivities from first-principles DFT+U Hamiltonians via Wannier interpolation and the Kubo-Bastin formalism, with no free parameters fit to the target SHC values. The central distinction between trivial and genuine USHC is established by explicit magnetic-space-group symmetry analysis applied to assumed experimental easy-axis orientations, and the RuO2 tilted-geometry result is verified against an analytic coordinate rotation of the conventional tensor. The assumed magnetic structures are inputs taken from prior experimental and theoretical work, and the paper explicitly flags the unresolved debate over RuO2's magnetic order; these are correctness/robustness caveats rather than circularity. The only self-citation involving an author (Ref. 19, which includes Y.-K. Kwon) is one of several standard Kubo-formalism references and is not load-bearing for the paper's conclusions. No prediction is obtained by refitting an input, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in through citation. Thus the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest mainly on standard DFT and Kubo machinery and on experimental inputs for magnetic easy axes. Hubbard U values and the Fermi broadening are chosen from literature and are not fit to the target SHC, but their sensitivity is not tested. The RuO2 altermagnetic state is assumed despite debate, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Hubbard U (Ru 3d) = 2 eV
    Chosen from prior DFT+U studies (refs 5,8,26-30); no sensitivity analysis shown, yet SHC magnitudes can depend on U.
  • Hubbard U (Mn 3d) = 4 eV
    Chosen from prior DFT+U studies; no sensitivity analysis shown, yet SHC magnitudes can depend on U.
  • Fermi-level broadening = 50 meV
    Used in WannierBerri Kubo calculation; the time-reversal-odd Fermi surface term can be sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Kohn-Sham DFT with PBE-GGA correctly describes the ground-state electronic structure of RuO2, CrSb, and MnTe.
    Used throughout; no beyond-DFT benchmark for SHC is provided.
  • domain assumption The Kubo-Bastin formula with Fermi-surface and Fermi-sea decomposition is the correct expression for intrinsic spin Hall conductivity.
    Equations (1)-(2), standard formalism from refs 12-19.
  • ad hoc to paper RuO2 adopts the assumed altermagnetic order (P-2), despite experimental debate.
    Section on magnetic structures: 'Although the magnetic nature of RuO2 remains debated, we assumed it to be an altermagnet...'
  • domain assumption The easy axes for CrSb and MnTe are [110] and [01-10] respectively, as reported in previous experiments.
    Figure 1 and references 44-50; the symmetry analysis depends on these directions.
  • domain assumption Maximally localized Wannier interpolation accurately reproduces the DFT band structure and Berry curvature near the Fermi level.
    Methods, Wannier functions refs 31-33; no Wannier spread or fitting error given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic and Crystal Symmetry Effects on Spin Hall Conductivity in Altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HIKEZ32A

@misc{pith2026250807639,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic and Crystal Symmetry Effects on Spin Hall Conductivity in Altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HIKEZ32A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.07639}
}
abstract

Altermagnets, which reconcile zero net magnetization with pronounced spin splitting, offer fresh opportunities for spin-based functionalities in next-generation electronic and spintronic devices. In this paper, we explore the unconventional spin Hall conductivity (USHC) in three prototypical altermagnets -- RuO$_2$, CrSb, and MnTe -- and elucidate how distinct magnetic and crystal symmetries modulate their spin Hall responses. RuO$_2$ exhibits only trivial USHC contributions under a tilted geometry, demonstrating that symmetry projections alone can induce apparent unconventional elements. In contrast, CrSb and MnTe manifest robust, symmetry-driven USHC without structural tilts, enabled by easy-axis orientations that reduce magnetic symmetry. Through extensive first-principles calculations, we demonstrate the complementary roles of the time-reversal-even and time-reversal-odd components in determining the overall SHC. Our findings indicate that controlling the interplay between crystal and magnetic symmetry -- for instance, by epitaxial strain or doping -- can provide an experimental avenue to tune USHC magnitudes and directions in altermagnets. These results pave the way for the engineering of multifunctional spintronic devices, where enhanced coherence and robust spin transport are realized in zero-net-moment materials with easily tailored spin configurations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Strain-Driven Altermagnetic Spin Splitting Effect in RuO$_2$

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Strained (100) and (110) RuO2 films are predicted to show altermagnetic spin splitting and a strong spin Hall effect at U=0, while bulk and (001)/(101) films remain nonmagnetic.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S mejkal, R

    L. S mejkal, R. Gonz \'a lez-Hern \'a ndez, T. Jungwirth and J. Sinova, Science Advances, 2020, 6, eaaz8809

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi and H. Kusunose, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 2019, 88, 123702

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba and A. Zunger, Physical Review B, 2020, 102, 014422

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz \'a lez-Hern \'a ndez and L. S mejkal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118, e2108924118

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    S mejkal, J

    L. S mejkal, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X, 2022, 12, 031042

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Mazin et al., Physical Review X, 2022, 12, 040002

    I. Mazin et al., Physical Review X, 2022, 12, 040002

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    S mejkal, J

    L. S mejkal, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X, 2022, 12, 040501

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-F. Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. G. Schlom et al., Nature Electronics, 2022, 5, 267--274

    work page 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    H. Bai, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, P. Chen, C. Wan, L. Han, W. Zhu, S. Liang, Y. Su, X. Han et al., Physical Review Letters, 2023, 130, 216701

    2023

  2. [10]

    A. Roy, M. H. Guimar \ a es and J. S awi \'n ska, Physical Review Materials, 2022, 6, 045004

    2022

  3. [11]

    Patton, G

    M. Patton, G. Gurung, D.-F. Shao, G. Noh, J. A. Mittelstaedt, M. Mazur, J.-W. Kim, P. J. Ryan, E. Y. Tsymbal, S.-Y. Choi et al., Advanced Materials, 2023, 35, 2301608

    2023

  4. [12]

    Freimuth, S

    F. Freimuth, S. Bl \"u gel and Y. Mokrousov, Physical Review B, 2014, 90, 174423

    2014

  5. [13]

    Z elezn \`y , Y

    J. Z elezn \`y , Y. Zhang, C. Felser and B. Yan, Physical Review Letters, 2017, 119, 187204

    2017

  6. [14]

    J. Qiao, J. Zhou, Z. Yuan and W. Zhao, Physical Review B, 2018, 98, 214402

    2018

  7. [15]

    Ghosh and A

    S. Ghosh and A. Manchon, Physical Review B, 2018, 97, 134402

    2018

  8. [16]

    J. H. Ryoo, C.-H. Park and I. Souza, Physical Review B, 2019, 99, 235113

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bonbien and A

    V. Bonbien and A. Manchon, Physical Review B, 2020, 102, 085113

    2020

  10. [18]

    A. Mook, R. R. Neumann, A. Johansson, J. Henk and I. Mertig, Physical Review Research, 2020, 2, 023065

    2020

  11. [19]

    S. Lee, D. De Sousa, Y.-K. Kwon, F. De Juan, Z. Chi, F. Casanova and T. Low, Physical Review B, 2022, 106, 165420

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Physical Review, 1964, 136, B864

    1964

  13. [21]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Physical Review, 1965, 140, A1133

    1965

  14. [22]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed matter, 2009, 21, 395502

    2009

  15. [23]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed matter, 2017, 29, 465901

    2017

  16. [24]

    P. E. Bl \"o chl, Physical Review B, 1994, 50, 17953

    1994

  17. [25]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Review Letters, 1996, 77, 3865

    1996

  18. [26]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen and O. K. Andersen, Physical Review B, 1991, 44, 943

    1991

  19. [27]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. Humphreys and A. P. Sutton, Physical Review B, 1998, 57, 1505

    1998

  20. [28]

    J. Li, Y. Li, S. Du, Z. Wang, B.-L. Gu, S.-C. Zhang, K. He, W. Duan and Y. Xu, Science Advances, 2019, 5, eaaw5685

    2019

  21. [29]

    Y. Chen, L. Xu, J. Li, Y. Li, H. Wang, C. Zhang, H. Li, Y. Wu, A. Liang, C. Chen et al., Physical Review X, 2019, 9, 041040

    2019

  22. [30]

    Y. Lai, L. Ke, J. Yan, R. D. McDonald and R. J. McQueeney, Physical Review B, 2021, 103, 184429

    2021

  23. [31]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B, 1997, 56, 12847

    1997

  24. [32]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt and N. Marzari, Computer Physics Communications, 2014, 185, 2309--2310

    2014

  25. [33]

    S. S. Tsirkin, npj Computational Materials, 2021, 7, 33

    2021

  26. [34]

    Berlijn, P

    T. Berlijn, P. C. Snijders, O. Delaire, H.-D. Zhou, T. A. Maier, H.-B. Cao, S.-X. Chi, M. Matsuda, Y. Wang, M. R. Koehler et al., Physical Review Letters, 2017, 118, 077201

    2017

  27. [35]

    Z. Zhu, J. Strempfer, R. Rao, C. Occhialini, J. Pelliciari, Y. Choi, T. Kawaguchi, H. You, J. Mitchell, Y. Shao-Horn et al., Physical Review Letters, 2019, 122, 017202

    2019

  28. [36]

    B. Z. Gregory, J. Strempfer, D. Weinstock, J. P. Ruf, Y. Sun, H. Nair, N. J. Schreiber, D. G. Schlom, K. M. Shen and A. Singer, Physical Review B, 2022, 106, 195135

    2022

  29. [37]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min \'a r, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind et al., Science Advances, 2024, 10, eadj4883

    2024

  30. [38]

    Graebner, E

    J. Graebner, E. Greiner and W. Ryden, Physical Review B, 1976, 13, 2426

    1976

  31. [39]

    Hiraishi, H

    M. Hiraishi, H. Okabe, A. Koda, R. Kadono, T. Muroi, D. Hirai and Z. Hiroi, Physical Review Letters, 2024, 132, 166702

    2024

  32. [40]

    Ke ler, L

    P. Ke ler, L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, I. I. Mazin, R. Valent \' et al., npj Spintronics, 2024, 2, 50

    2024

  33. [41]

    Wenzel, E

    M. Wenzel, E. Uykur, S. R \"o ler, M. Schmidt, O. Janson, A. Tiwari, M. Dressel and A. A. Tsirlin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11148, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. Liu, J. Zhan, T. Li, J. Liu, S. Cheng, Y. Shi, L. Deng, M. Zhang, C. Li, J. Ding et al., Physical Review Letters, 2024, 133, 176401

    2024

  35. [43]

    J. Song, S. H. Lee, S. Kang, D. Kim, J. H. Jeong, T. Oh, S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Lee, K.-H. Ahn et al., Small, 2025, 21, 2407722

    2025

  36. [44]

    Snow, Physical Review, 1952, 85, 365

    A. Snow, Physical Review, 1952, 85, 365

    1952

  37. [45]

    J. Yuan, Y. Song, X. Xing and J. Chen, Dalton Transactions, 2020, 49, 17605--17611

    2020

  38. [46]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. S mejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty et al., Nature Communications, 2024, 15, 2116

    2024

  39. [47]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. S mejkal et al., Physical Review Letters, 2024, 132, 036702

    2024

  40. [48]

    Kriegner, H

    D. Kriegner, H. Reichlova, J. Grenzer, W. Schmidt, E. Ressouche, J. Godinho, T. Wagner, S. Martin, A. Shick, V. Volobuev et al., Physical Review B, 2017, 96, 214418

    2017

  41. [49]

    Krempask \`y , L

    J. Krempask \`y , L. S mejkal, S. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl \' r ov \'a , F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov et al., Nature, 2024, 626, 517--522

    2024

  42. [50]

    S. G. Jeong, I. H. Choi, S. Lee, J. Y. Oh, S. Nair, J. H. Lee, C. Kim, A. Seo, W. S. Choi, T. Low et al., Science Advances, 2025, 11, eadw7125

    2025

  43. [51]

    S. G. Jeong, S. Lee, B. Lin, Z. Yang, I. H. Choi, J. Y. Oh, S. Song, S. w. Lee, S. Nair, R. Choudhary et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025, 122, e2500831122

    2025

  44. [52]

    Chilcote, A

    M. Chilcote, A. R. Mazza, Q. Lu, I. Gray, Q. Tian, Q. Deng, D. Moseley, A.-H. Chen, J. Lapano, J. S. Gardner et al., Advanced Functional Materials, 2024, 34, 2405829

    2024

  45. [53]

    Aota and M

    S. Aota and M. Tanaka, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08117, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    `Jbߙ vb1^:pt绝WZ&8 _&k ( 2*0qfeF2da[ ]<s&>m2[B3 p2 l 5X0، X *+OL33<yo = # 8( :frǎAkʶ' a m

    Y. Yang, S. Nair, Y. Fan, Y.-C. Chen, Q. Jia, O. J. Benally, S. Lee, S. G. Jeong, Z. Yang, T. Low et al., Applied Physics Letters, 2025, 126, 102403 mcitethebibliography arxiv.tex0000664000000000000000000010700315046301023011424 0ustar rootroot [aps,prb,preprint,floatfix,super...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.