Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 80 references

Tunable multi-magnon Floquet topological edge states

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Periodically modulating the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction turns a square-lattice XXZ magnet into a Floquet topological magnon insulator with counter-propagating hybrid one- and two-magnon edge states; a drive phase sets their direction.

desk verdict A solid, careful Floquet-magnon topology paper whose central claim rests on an RWA that is not directly checked against the full time-dependent Hamiltonian; ask for that check. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20049 v2 pith:27JZXQM3 submitted 2025-08-27 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.other

Ivan Martinez-Berumen , T. Pereg-Barnea , W. A. Coish This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.other
keywords FloquettopologicalmagnonsDzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteractiontwo-magnonboundstatesChernnumbersXXZHeisenbergmodeledgespin-wavetransportperiodicallydrivenquantummagnets
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 tries to establish that a periodically modulated Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI, an antisymmetric coupling between neighboring spins) is enough to turn a two-dimensional magnon insulator topological, even without the long-range exchange couplings that earlier constructions required. In a square-lattice spin-1/2 XXZ magnet with ferromagnetic longitudinal and antiferromagnetic transverse couplings, the drive resonantly couples the single-magnon band to the lower two-magnon bound-state band. That coupling inverts the bands and opens a quasienergy gap, and the ribbon then supports counter-propagating edge modes made of hybrid one- and two-magnon excitations. A relative phase between the drive on x- and y-directed bonds reverses the Chern numbers and therefore the edge-mode direction. If the claim holds, electrical or mechanical modulation of the DMI becomes a practical switch for spin-wave transport in existing materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rotating-frame effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 23), a 3x3 Floquet Hamiltonian in the basis of a single magnon, an x-bond two-magnon bound state, and a y-bond two-magnon bound state. It is derived by rotating at the drive frequency, dropping counter-rotating terms (rotating-wave approximation), and applying second-order perturbation theory in the transverse exchange and the DMI. This single matrix carries all three needed effects: it lowers the single-magnon band by ω so it can cross the bound-state band; it includes d² corrections from virtual three-magnon states that reshape the bound-state dispersion; and its complex DMI matrix elements break effective time-revers

What would settle it

Numerically solve the full time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a small ribbon over one drive period (no rotating-wave approximation) at the parameters of Fig. 6 and look for counter-propagating in-gap modes; their absence would falsify the claim. Experimentally, drive the DMI in a candidate magnet and test whether spin-wave transmission direction flips when the x/y drive phase changes by π.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At its center is a topological phase transition in a driven spin system. The static version of their model already has nontrivial bands—Chern numbers (0,1,-1)—but the upper bands overlap in energy, so no edge states are protected. Driving the DMI at frequency ω and moving to a rotating frame shifts the single-magnon band by ω relative to the two-magnon bound-state bands; above a threshold frequency the single-magnon band and the lower bound-state band invert and reopen, leaving a gapped spectrum with Chern numbers (1,0,-1). In a ribbon, this gap is crossed by counter-propagating edge modes. Because the DMI couples the one- and two-magnon sectors with complex amplitudes, effective time-revers

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the small, rapidly oscillating parts of the driven interaction can be ignored without changing the topology; no calculation on the full time-dependent model checks this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only nearest-neighbor couplings are needed; the previously required long-range exchange interactions are replaced by a time-dependent DMI, widening the material search space.
  • The topological edge channels are genuinely interacting excitations—hybrids of one magnon and two-magnon bound states—so magnon-magnon interactions are part of the topological response, not a correction.
  • The edge-mode direction is set by the phase difference between x and y drive components, giving an in-situ knob (strain or electric field) to flip spin-wave propagation.
  • The allowed drive frequency lies between the static gap and the three-magnon resonance; within that window the quasienergy gap scales with drive amplitude d, and a Zeeman field can detune unwanted resonances.
  • Since the drive frequency exceeds the bandwidths, no anomalous Floquet edge states appear, and the standard Chern-number bulk-boundary count applies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the rotating-wave effective model survives an exact Floquet calculation, the same DMI-driving strategy should generalize to other lattices and to spin S>1/2, where single-ion bound states could play the role of the two-magnon bound states; the paper notes the possibility but does not compute it.
  • A clean experimental falsifier is the φ-dependence: nonlocal spin-wave transmission or thermal Hall response through a ribbon should reverse sign when φ passes through π, and vanish when the drive frequency leaves the allowed window.
  • The Zeeman-field handle shown in Fig. 5 suggests a practical protocol for real materials: if the mechanism used to modulate the DMI also modulates J⊥, choose B to push the two-magnon continuum away from the relevant resonance and protect the topological gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a spin-1/2 square-lattice XXZ model with ferromagnetic longitudinal coupling, antiferromagnetic transverse coupling, and a time-periodically modulated Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI). The authors derive an effective time-independent Hamiltonian in a rotating frame using the rotating-wave approximation and second-order perturbation theory [Eq. (23)], identify a drive-frequency window in which the single-magnon band and the two-magnon bound-state bands invert [Eqs. (27)-(30)], compute Chern numbers of the resulting three bands, and study a ribbon geometry. They find counter-propagating topological edge modes traversing the gap between the lowest and middle band (Fig. 6) and show that a relative phase between the drives on x and y bonds controls the chirality of these modes (Fig. 7). The edge states are coherent superpositions of single-magnon and two-magnon bound-state excitations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper proposes a practical mechanism for realizing Floquet topological magnon bands with hybrid single-magnon/two-magnon character without requiring long-range exchange couplings, and with a route to switchable chirality via the drive phase. The manuscript is clearly written, the perturbative derivation is explicit, and the paper provides analytical validity windows and numerical diagonalization of the effective model. The main strength is the concrete and falsifiable prediction of drive-induced topological edge modes in a simple nearest-neighbor spin model. However, all topological results are obtained from an approximate effective Hamiltonian, so the significance depends on whether that approximation faithfully represents the full time-periodic Floquet system.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV A and Figs. 4, 6, 7] The topological phase diagram, Chern numbers, and edge-state spectra are computed entirely from the approximate effective Hamiltonian Eq. (23), obtained by RWA and second-order perturbation theory. No comparison is made with the full time-periodic H(t). For the parameters used (B=2Jz, J⊥=Jz/5, ω=2.5Jz, d=Jz/15), the detuning from the three-magnon resonance is Δ=B+Jz−J⊥−ω=0.3Jz, so d/Δ≈0.22; the neglected counter-rotating terms D0e^{-iωt} and de^{-2iωt} in Eq. (B7) and higher-order processes are only moderately suppressed. Since Floquet topology can differ from RWA predictions (e.g., when bands touch at the quasienergy zone boundary), I request a direct check: Floquet exact diagonalization of the one-period evolution U(T,0) [Eq. (21)] for bulk and ribbon, with quasienergy spectra, Chern numbers, and edge-state localization compared with Figs. 4, 6, and 7. Without this, the central claim a
  2. [Sec. III C, after Eq. (15)] The text states: "The ferromagnetic ground state |0⟩ remains an eigenstate, even in the presence of DMI as HDM(t)|0⟩=0." This is inconsistent with the in-plane DMI defined in Eq. (3). For example, (S_r × S_{r+e_x})_y = S_r^z S_{r+e_x}^x − S_r^x S_{r+e_x}^z, which acting on |0⟩ gives a single-magnon state localized on the bond, e.g., (1/4)(|↑↓⟩−|↓↑⟩). Thus H_DM(t) couples the ground state to the k=0 one-magnon sector. The low-energy projection used to derive Eq. (23) omits this (weakly coupled) state. Please correct the statement or explain why the coupling can be neglected for the topological quantities (e.g., because it is off-resonant and affects only a measure-zero set in momentum space).
  3. [Eqs. (24)-(26) and (28)] The validity condition uses the detuning Δ=B+Jz−J⊥−ω, with the three-magnon bound-state energy including the first-order −J⊥ correction (Appendix D). However, the second-order denominators in Eqs. (24)-(26) and in the ribbon matrices (E4)-(E8) are written as B+Jz−ω, without the J⊥ correction. At the quoted parameters, this changes the size of the d^2 corrections from d^2/Δ≈0.0148Jz to d^2/(B+Jz−ω)≈0.0089Jz, about 40%. Please clarify which denominator the perturbation theory actually yields and justify the approximation, or adjust the effective Hamiltonian accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. V] The concluding section promises a discussion of limitations and scope, but the text only summarizes the results. A short paragraph on the RWA/perturbation validity and the absence of full-Floquet verification would be appropriate.
  2. [Eq. (31)] The parentheses in the definition of |ψ_k⟩ appear unbalanced; please check the notation.
  3. [Fig. 6(c)] The caption does not describe what is plotted in panel (c) (wavefunctions at which kx points) nor how the localization is quantified. Please expand the caption.
  4. [Eq. (3)] The notation D_x(t) for the coefficient multiplying the y-component of the DMI cross product is confusing; consider labelling the coefficient by the bond direction and clearly stating the DMI vector orientation.
  5. [Fig. 7] Please state the numerical details for the Chern-number calculation (k-grid size, convergence) and confirm that the same gauge convention is used as in Fig. 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, and the topological edge states are genuine outputs of the stated model Hamiltonian.

full rationale

The central claim is that a periodically modulated DMI induces a topological phase transition and robust edge states. The input Hamiltonian H(t) is fully specified in Eqs. (1)-(4). The effective Floquet Hamiltonian Eq. (23) is derived, rather than assumed, through a rotating-frame transformation Eq. (22), an RWA that drops counter-rotating terms Eqs. (B7)-(B8), and second-order perturbation theory Eq. (B2). All parameters (Jz, J⊥, B, d, ω, φ) are fixed inputs; the Chern numbers, the gap condition Eq. (27), and the ribbon edge modes in Fig. 6 are calculated outputs. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction; no quantity is defined in terms of the target result. The only self-referential aspect is that the same effective Hamiltonian Eq. (23) is used for both the bulk topology and the edge-state calculation, which is internal consistency, not circularity. Reference [31] (Mook et al.) is an external source providing the static-DMI Lieb-lattice construction and effective TRS; it is background to the driven result and is not load-bearing for the Floquet derivation. The paper explicitly acknowledges the validity regime Δ ≫ d for the perturbative treatment, so the RWA/truncation concern is a correctness or approximation issue, not a circular-input issue. A full-Floquet check would test accuracy, but its absence does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a controlled perturbation expansion in J_perp/Jz and d/Jz, an assumed driving scheme for the DMI, and the standard machinery of Floquet theory. No fitted constants or invented entities enter; the listed parameters are chosen to satisfy the stated validity windows.

free parameters (6)
  • J_perp / Jz = 0.2
    Chosen to satisfy the regime Jz >> J_perp, D0, d and to allow TMBSs; not fitted to data.
  • B / Jz = 2
    Zeeman field chosen large enough to avoid unwanted resonances with the two-magnon continuum (Sec. IV A, Fig. 5).
  • D0 / Jz = 1/15
    Static DMI amplitude chosen small compared to Jz and J_perp; not fitted.
  • d / Jz = 1/15
    Drive amplitude chosen to satisfy J_perp >> d and Delta >> d; not fitted.
  • omega / Jz = 2.5
    Drive frequency chosen to satisfy the resonance condition Eq. (27) and the upper bound Eq. (29) for the example plots.
  • phi (relative phase) = varied 0 to 2pi
    Phase for x-bond DMI modulation relative to y-bond; varied to demonstrate chirality control.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Second-order perturbation theory and the rotating-wave approximation are valid for the chosen parameters (Jz >> J_perp, D0, d; J_perp >> d).
    Used to derive the effective Hamiltonians in Eqs. (14), (17), and (23); standard toolset in Floquet physics.
  • domain assumption The model Hamiltonian Eq. (1)-(4) with spin-1/2 and strong Ising anisotropy has a ferromagnetic ground state, and two-magnon bound states exist and are separated from the continuum.
    Core physical picture underlying the low-energy subspace; justified in Sec. II and III for Jz >> J_perp and B > 0.
  • ad hoc to paper The DMI can be time-modulated independently along x and y bonds with a controllable relative phase, without modifying other couplings.
    Introduced in Sec. II and used for the chirality result (Eqs. 32-34); motivated by experiments on strain/electric-field control of DMI but not demonstrated for this specific phase control.
  • domain assumption Anomalous Floquet edge modes are absent because the drive frequency is larger than the bandwidths, so the standard static bulk-boundary correspondence applies to the RWA bands.
    Assumed in Sec. IV B (paragraph on anomalous edge modes) to justify interpreting Chern numbers of the effective Hamiltonian as determining edge-mode count in the quasienergy gap.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable multi-magnon Floquet topological edge states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27JZXQM3

@misc{pith2026250820049,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable multi-magnon Floquet topological edge states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27JZXQM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20049}
}
read the original abstract

We show that periodically time-modulating the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) in a two-dimensional magnon insulator may induce a topological phase transition that results in the presence of robust edge modes. To this end, we study a square lattice of spins interacting via an XXZ Heisenberg model with a ferromagnetic longitudinal coupling and antiferromagnetic transverse coupling, as well as the aforementioned time-modulated DMI. The topologically protected edge states of this system are composed of coherent superpositions of single-magnon excitations and two magnon bound states. Furthermore, we show that the chirality of the edge states can be controlled by adjusting the relative phase for the drive on the DMI associated with nearest neighbors in the x and y directions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20049 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Square lattice of spins with nearest-neighbor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) States with two spin flips and their associated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Some second-order processes contributing to ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Band structure with static DMI. In the undriven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Exact diagonalization of the static Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Chern numbers as a function of the relative phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The matrix elements of this effective Hamiltonian, up to second-order corrections in V , are given by (see, for example, complement BI of Ref

    Perturbation theory For a time-independent Hamiltonian given by H = H0 + V, H 0 |α⟩ = εα |α⟩ , (B1) where the eigenvalues εα and eigenstates |α⟩ of H0 are known, an effective Hamiltonian describing the low- energy subspace can be obtained using perturbation the- ory. The matrix elements of this effective Hamiltonian, up to second-order corrections in V , ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    We take the Ising part ofH(t) as the unperturbed Hamil- tonian and the transverse exchange interactions and the DMI as perturbations

    Effective Hamiltonian in the static case To obtain the Hamiltonians (14) and (17) correspond- ing, respectively, to the case of vanishing DMI ( D = 0, d= 0) and the case of time-independent DMI ( d = 0). We take the Ising part ofH(t) as the unperturbed Hamil- tonian and the transverse exchange interactions and the DMI as perturbations. In the the case of ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Effective Hamiltonian with time-dependent DMI To obtain the effective Hamiltonian in the case of the time-modulated DMI, we go into a rotating frame given by |ψ(t)⟩ = U (t) | ˜ψ(t)⟩ where U (t) = e−iωSsf t, S sf = N 2 − X r Sz r, (B5) where Ssf counts the number of spin flips. The Hamilto- nian dictating the time-evolution of the states | ˜ψ(t)⟩ in the ro...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Let us consider the Hamiltonian ˆH (in this appendix we follow Ref

    Berry curvature The topology of a two-dimensional system without symmetry restrictions, other than translation symmetry, is characterized by the Chern of its energy bands [3]. Let us consider the Hamiltonian ˆH (in this appendix we follow Ref. [3] and use the hat notation ˆO to explicitly distinguish operators/operator vectors from vectors and matrices wh...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Effective TRS The system described by the Hamiltonian ˆH [Eq. (C1)] has an effective time-reversal symmetry if there is a uni- tary matrix U acting on the internal degrees of freedom and an orthonormal 3 × 3 matrix O such that U †Hk′U = H∗ k, k′ = Ok, (C5) is satisfied. If this symmetry is present, the system is topologically trivial in the sense that its...

    work page

  6. [6]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of modern physics 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    C.-K. Chiu, J. C. Teo, A. P. Schnyder, and S. Ryu, Re- views of Modern Physics 88, 035005 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Nature pho- tonics 8, 821 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zil- berberg, et al. , Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Goldman, J

    N. Goldman, J. C. Budich, and P. Zoller, Nature Physics 12, 639 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Cooper, J

    N. Cooper, J. Dalibard, and I. Spielman, Reviews of mod- ern physics 91, 015005 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Shindou, R

    R. Shindou, R. Matsumoto, S. Murakami, and J.-i. Ohe, Physical Review B 87, 174427 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Ren, J.-S. Wang, and B. Li, Physical Review B 87, 144101 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Malki and G

    M. Malki and G. Uhrig, Europhysics Letters 132, 20003 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Wang and X

    X. Wang and X. Wang, Journal of Applied Physics 129 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    P. A. McClarty, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 171 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    F. Zhuo, J. Kang, A. Manchon, and Z. Cheng, Advanced Physics Research , 2300054 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Katsura, N

    H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and P. A. Lee, Physical review letters 104, 066403 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Matsumoto and S

    R. Matsumoto and S. Murakami, Physical review letters 106, 197202 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    Matsumoto and S

    R. Matsumoto and S. Murakami, Physical Review B 84, 184406 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Onose, T

    Y. Onose, T. Ideue, H. Katsura, Y. Shiomi, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Science 329, 297 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Ideue, Y

    T. Ideue, Y. Onose, H. Katsura, Y. Shiomi, S. Ishi- wata, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85, 134411 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    K. v. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Physical review letters 45, 494 (1980)

    1980

  17. [25]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Physical review letters 49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  18. [26]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Physical review letters 61, 2015 (1988)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Physical Review 58, 1098 (1940)

    1940

  20. [28]

    A. Mook, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Physical Review B 90, 024412 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    X. Wang, Y. Su, and X. Wang, Physical Review B 95, 014435 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    X. Wang, H. Zhang, and X. Wang, Physical Review Ap- plied 9, 024029 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Het´ enyi, A

    B. Het´ enyi, A. Mook, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Physical Review B 106, 235409 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    A. Mook, K. Plekhanov, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Phys- ical Review X 11, 021061 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Habel, A

    J. Habel, A. Mook, J. Willsher, and J. Knolle, Physical Review B 109, 024441 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Hanus, Physical Review Letters 11, 336 (1963)

    J. Hanus, Physical Review Letters 11, 336 (1963)

    1963

  27. [35]

    Wortis, Physical Review 132, 85 (1963)

    M. Wortis, Physical Review 132, 85 (1963)

    1963

  28. [36]

    A. Mook, R. Hoyer, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Physical Review B 107, 064429 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Torrance Jr and M

    J. Torrance Jr and M. Tinkham, Physical Review 187, 595 (1969)

    1969

  30. [38]

    Petitgrand, A

    D. Petitgrand, A. Brun, and P. Meyer, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials 15, 381 (1980)

    1980

  31. [39]

    A. Fert, D. Bertrand, J. Leotin, J. Ousset, J. Magari˜ no, and J. Tuchendler, Solid State Communications 26, 693 (1978)

    1978

  32. [40]

    Fukuhara, P

    T. Fukuhara, P. Schauß, M. Endres, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature 502, 76 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    X. Qin, F. Mei, Y. Ke, L. Zhang, C. Lee, et al., Physical Review B 96, 195134 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    X. Qin, F. Mei, Y. Ke, L. Zhang, and C. Lee, New Journal of Physics 20, 013003 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Endoh, Y

    Y. Endoh, Y. Ajiro, H. Shiba, and H. Yoshizawa, Physical Review B 30, 4074 (1984)

    1984

  36. [44]

    Heilmann, J

    I. Heilmann, J. Kjems, Y. Endoh, G. Reiter, G. Shirane, and R. Birgeneau, Physical Review B 24, 3939 (1981)

    1981

  37. [45]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhang, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, F. Ye, C. D. Batista, et al. , Nature Physics 17, 467 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, H. Zhang, Z. Dun, W. A. Phelan, V. O. Garlea, M. Mourigal, and C. D. Batista, Nature Communications 14, 4199 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Dzyaloshinskii et al., Sov

    I. Dzyaloshinskii et al., Sov. Phys. JETP 5, 1259 (1957)

    1957

  40. [48]

    Moriya, Physical review 120, 91 (1960)

    T. Moriya, Physical review 120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  41. [49]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Physical Review B 79, 081406 (2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, Nature Physics 7, 490 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    Kitagawa, E

    T. Kitagawa, E. Berg, M. Rudner, and E. Demler, Phys- ical Review B 82, 235114 (2010). 13

    2010

  44. [52]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Nature reviews physics 2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.08252 (2020)

    2003 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Owerre, Journal of Physics Communications 1, 021002 (2017)

    S. Owerre, Journal of Physics Communications 1, 021002 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Owerre, Scientific reports 8, 4431 (2018)

    S. Owerre, Scientific reports 8, 4431 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Zhang, W

    Z. Zhang, W. Feng, Y. Yao, and B. Tang, Physics Letters A 414, 127630 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Chen, F.-J

    Q.-H. Chen, F.-J. Huang, Y.-P. Fu, and H. Su, Physical Review B 111, 064426 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    Kammerbauer, F

    F. Kammerbauer, F. Freimuth, R. Fr¨ omter, Y. Mokrousov, and M. Kl¨ aui, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan 92, 081007 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Y. Meng, F. Meng, M. Hou, Q. Zheng, B. Wang, R. Zhu, C. Feng, and G. Yu, Journal of Physics: Condensed Mat- ter 36, 193001 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Deger, Scientific reports 10, 12314 (2020)

    C. Deger, Scientific reports 10, 12314 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Gusev, A

    N. Gusev, A. Sadovnikov, S. Nikitov, M. Sapozhnikov, and O. Udalov, Physical review letters 124, 157202 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    H. Yang, O. Boulle, V. Cros, A. Fert, and M. Chshiev, Scientific reports 8, 12356 (2018)

    2018

  56. [64]

    Zhang, H

    W. Zhang, H. Zhong, R. Zang, Y. Zhang, S. Yu, G. Han, G. Liu, S. Yan, S. Kang, and L. Mei, Applied Physics Letters 113 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Y. G. Semenov, X. Xu, J. A. Boulton, and K. W. Kim, Physical Review B 108, 134428 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Kammerbauer, W.-Y

    F. Kammerbauer, W.-Y. Choi, F. Freimuth, K. Lee, R. Fr¨ omter, D.-S. Han, R. Lavrijsen, H. J. Swagten, Y. Mokrousov, and M. Kl¨ aui, Nano Letters 23, 7070 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Fukui, Y

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 74, 1674 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    M. S. Rudner, N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, and M. Levin, Physical Review X 3, 031005 (2013)

    2013

  61. [69]

    Liang, W

    J. Liang, W. Wang, H. Du, A. Hallal, K. Garcia, M. Chshiev, A. Fert, and H. Yang, Physical Review B 101, 184401 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Nature 563, 47 (2018)

    2018

  63. [71]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, et al. , Nature 546, 270 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, et al. , Nature 546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    J. Chen, C. Gui, and S. Dong, Physical Review B 110, L060406 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Physical review letters 91, 090402 (2003)

    2003

  67. [75]

    M. Gong, Y. Qian, M. Yan, V. W. Scarola, and C. Zhang, Scientific Reports 5, 10050 (2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    Radi´ c, A

    J. Radi´ c, A. Di Ciolo, K. Sun, and V. Galitski, Physical review letters 109, 085303 (2012)

    2012

  69. [77]

    W. S. Cole, S. Zhang, A. Paramekanti, and N. Trivedi, Physical review letters 109, 085302 (2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-photon interactions: basic processes and applica- tions (John Wiley & Sons, 1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    J. K. Asb´ oth, L. Oroszl´ any, and A. P´ alyi,A short course on topological insulators, Vol. 919 (Springer, 2016) p. 166

    2016

  72. [80]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Reviews of modern physics 82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

Pith tools

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