Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Nonreciprocal magnons in layered antiferromagnets VPX3(X =S,Se,Te)

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that layered honeycomb antiferromagnets VPX3 (X=S, Se, Te) host nonreciprocal magnons, with a K/K′ splitting reaching 3.2 meV in VPTe3.

desk verdict Plausible prediction of large nonreciprocal magnons in VPX3, but the manuscript's internal sign and parameter inconsistencies leave the headline 3.2 meV unverified until corrected. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06538 v2 pith:2556XMI6 submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Quanchao Du , Zhenlong Zhang , Jinyang Ni , Zhijun Jiang , Laurent Bellaiche This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords nonreciprocalmagnonsDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractionlayeredantiferromagnetsVPX3Néelvectorhoneycomblatticemagnonspintronicsfirst-principlescalculations
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 predicts that the layered honeycomb antiferromagnets VPX3 (X=S, Se, Te) support nonreciprocal magnons: spin waves whose energy depends on propagation direction, with the largest splitting about 3.2 meV in VPTe3. The source is a second-nearest-neighbor Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction that breaks the effective time-reversal symmetry protecting symmetric magnon bands. The authors further show that the nonreciprocity is not a fixed property: it alternates odd/even with layer number, can be tuned by pressure through interlayer coupling, and depends asymmetrically on the orientation of the Néel vector. If correct, this makes VPX3 a practical platform for observing directional magnons in two-dimensional antiferromagnets and for reading out antiferromagnetic order in the 2D limit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the z-component Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction acting between second-nearest-neighbor V ions, D_z Σ ν_ij·(S_i×S_j). In the linear spin-wave Hamiltonian it enters through f_k = D_z Σ 2 sin(k·μ_i), which is odd under k→-k, while the symmetric Heisenberg and anisotropy terms are even; that parity mismatch is exactly what gives ε_r=-6√3 D_z at the honeycomb corners. The DMI also breaks the effective time-reversal symmetry T′=C_2x T, the symmetry that would otherwise enforce ϵ(k)=ϵ(-k). The paper's numerical mechanism is first-principles parameter extraction feeding this J-D-K spin model, solved by Holstein–Primakoff and Bogoliubov transformations.

What would settle it

Measure the magnon dispersion of monolayer or few-layer VPTe3 by inelastic neutron scattering or resonant inelastic X-ray scattering and compare the K and K′ energies; finding a splitting much smaller than ~3 meV, or zero, would contradict the central claim. A recomputation of D_z with independent density-functional choices and a stated Hubbard U would provide a cheaper check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the spin-wave spectrum of monolayer VPX3 acquires a k↔-k asymmetry proportional to the out-of-plane part of the 2NN DMI: ε_r = ε(K)-ε(K′) = -6√3 D_z, giving 3.2 meV for VPTe3, 2 meV for VPSe3, and 0.4 meV for VPS3. Because the in-plane DMI components are also sizeable, the splitting follows ε_r = 6√3 (D_x sinθ cosφ + D_y sinθ sinφ + D_z cosθ), an asymmetric periodic function of the Néel vector direction; the paper interprets this as a route to probe the AFM order parameter. In multilayers, the authors find that antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling restores inversion symmetry for even layer numbers, killing nonreciprocity, while odd layers

Load-bearing premise

The predicted splitting is exactly proportional to the second-nearest-neighbor DMI, so if the computed D_z values (-0.31 meV in VPTe3, -0.11 meV in VPSe3) are wrong by a large factor, the nonreciprocity shrinks or disappears; the paper gives no uncertainty or Hubbard-U specification for these numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monolayer VPTe3 should show a magnon energy difference of about 3.2 meV between K and K′; VPSe3 about 2 meV; VPS3 about 0.4 meV.
  • Even-layer stacks with antiferromagnetic interlayer coupling preserve inversion symmetry and therefore show no nonreciprocity; odd-layer stacks do, so magnon directionality can be switched by layer parity.
  • Pressure of a few GPa increases interlayer coupling and changes the nonreciprocity of each trilayer band, giving a mechanical tuning knob.
  • The asymmetrical dependence of ε_r on the Néel vector orientation (with sign change near θ≈115° for φ=0) provides a way to detect antiferromagnetic order in the 2D limit.
  • Magnon-magnon interactions strengthen nonreciprocity at elevated temperature rather than destroying it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 2NN DMI estimates hold, the nonreciprocity is large enough that a magnon diode effect could be demonstrated in exfoliated VPTe3 flakes: an even-layer flake would switch nonreciprocity off, an odd-layer flake on.
  • The ε_r ∝ 1/√l_n scaling for l_n>3, if confirmed, implies surface- or interface-dominated magnon modes in thicker flakes, making thickness itself a control knob.
  • Because ε_r depends on the Néel vector orientation through the DMI components, applying a modest in-plane magnetic field to rotate the sublattice moments should produce a measurable shift in the magnon band asymmetry, offering a non-electrical readout of antiferromagnetic order.
  • The paper's quantitative prediction rests on computed DMI values with no stated uncertainty or Hubbard-U specification; benchmarking D_z against measured magnon spectra or independent first-principles choices would test the magnitude.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports first-principles DFT+U calculations and linear spin-wave (LSW) analyses for monolayer and multilayer van der Waals antiferromagnets VPX3 (X = S, Se, Te). The authors claim that the intrinsic second-nearest-neighbor Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) produces robust nonreciprocal magnons, with a nonreciprocity of up to 3.2 meV in monolayer VPTe3. They further report that magnon nonreciprocity depends asymmetrically and periodically on the Néel vector, shows an odd-even layer dependence, can be tuned by pressure via interlayer coupling, and is preserved when magnon-magnon interactions are included. The central proposal is that VPX3 is a practical 2D platform for nonreciprocal magnon experiments and for probing antiferromagnetic order parameters.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the work is significant: it identifies a concrete material family where nonreciprocal magnons should be observable, and it introduces a Néel-vector-dependent magnon response that could serve as a probe of antiferromagnetic order in the 2D limit. The authors use first-principles parameters rather than fitting to magnon spectra, which strengthens the predictive character of the study. The inclusion of interlayer coupling, layer-number dependence, and temperature/magnon-magnon effects also adds useful physical scope. However, as written, the central quantitative prediction is not verifiable because of an inconsistency between Eq. (4) and the reported ε_r, missing DFT computational details, and undefined notation in the bilayer eigenvalue expression. These issues are load-bearing for the headline 3.2 meV result and for the Néel-vector dependence, so the paper needs substantial revision before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Monolayer VPX3, Eq. (4) and following text] The magnon energy in Eq. (4) is written as sqrt((λ+g_k)^2 - |γ_k|^2 + f_k). Since f_k is odd in k, this would give ε(K)-ε(K') = sqrt(A^2+f_K)-sqrt(A^2-f_K), which for f_K ≪ A is approximately f_K/A, not -6√3 D_z. The stated splitting -6√3 D_z corresponds to f_k entering linearly outside the square root. As written, the model in Eq. (4) is inconsistent with the reported 3.2 meV nonreciprocity. The authors should correct Eq. (4) (most likely to sqrt((λ+g)^2 - |γ|^2) + f_k) and re-derive the ε_r expression.
  2. [Monolayer VPX3, Eq. (5) and the example after it] There is a sign inconsistency: immediately before Eq. (5) the text states ε_r = -6√3 D_z for the z-aligned Néel vector, but Eq. (5) with θ=0 gives ε_r = +6√3 D_z. In addition, the illustrative example misstates the plane: for φ=0 the Néel vector lies in the xz-plane, not the yz-plane; the quoted zero at θ≈115° actually corresponds to φ=π/2 (yz-plane). The authors should correct the sign convention and the angle/plane identification, since this example is used to demonstrate the Néel-vector-dependent behavior.
  3. [Table I and computational details] Table I lists J1, D_x, D_y, D_z, and K, but omits J2 and J3, which enter the expressions for g_k and γ_k in Eq. (2). More importantly, the Hubbard U used in the DFT+U calculation is not stated. Since the headline ε_r is directly proportional to D_z, the absence of U and any uncertainty quantification makes the quantitative prediction unverifiable. The authors should provide the U value, report J2 and J3 (or explicitly cite the corresponding supplemental table), and ideally show the sensitivity of D_z to the chosen U.
  4. [Multilayer VPX3, Eq. (7)] The bilayer eigenvalues in Eq. (7) contain an undefined quantity ε_0. Without a definition, the analytic result cannot be checked. Presumably ε_0 is the monolayer magnon energy sqrt((λ+g_k)^2 - |γ_k|^2), but this must be stated explicitly. The authors should also verify the dimensions of the terms under the square roots, since ϵ_c^2 has units of energy squared while (λ+g)^2 f_k^2 has units of energy to the fourth power.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The second and third Heisenberg terms use the notation S_i · S_j despite the sums being over 2NN and 3NN pairs; the label j is reused inconsistently. Please use distinct site indices (e.g., S_i · S_k and S_i · S_l) to match the text.
  2. [Monolayer VPX3, paragraph after Fig. 2] The sentence 'K can open a magnon gap at Γ point' should refer to the single-ion anisotropy K, not the high-symmetry point K. This is confusing because K also denotes a reciprocal-space point.
  3. [Multilayer VPX3, text near Fig. 4] The text refers to 'As shown in Fig. 4(a)' when describing trilayer magnon bands; the correct reference is likely Fig. 4(c), since Fig. 4(a) is the bilayer AFM-coupled case. Please correct the figure callouts.
  4. [Global] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, e.g., 'correspondes' in the Fig. 2 caption, 'trlayer' in Fig. 4 caption, and 'approximately linear relationship' instead of 'an approximately linear relationship'. These should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: DFT-derived spin parameters independently feed LSW magnon calculation; nonreciprocity is a derived output, not an input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The spin Hamiltonian parameters (J1, J2, J3, Dx, Dy, Dz, K) are obtained by DFT total-energy/energy-mapping calculations (Table I and Supplemental Material), not by fitting to magnon spectra or to the reported nonreciprocity. The central quantitative claim, ε_r = 3.2 meV for VPTe3, follows from the analytic expression ε_r = -6√3 D_z (equivalently Eq. (5) for general Néel-vector orientation) using the independently computed D_z = -0.31 meV. The predicted ε_r is never fed back into the parameter extraction, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction loop. The self-citations [29,70] support generic symmetry statements that are also backed by independent prior work ([45,69] and other refs.); they are not load-bearing for the central prediction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' other work to force the choice of model. The remaining concerns—omission of the Hubbard U and the internal tension between Eq. (4) (f_k inside the square root) and the linear ε_r = -6√3 D_z—are correctness/reproducibility issues rather than circularity, because either dispersion form is a derived consequence of the model, not an imposition of the target result. Hence the finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rely on DFT-computed spin Hamiltonian parameters that are independent of the magnon spectra. The paper does not introduce new particles or forces. The main concerns are under-specified model parameters (U, J2, J3) and the absence of error bars, which are reproducibility and soundness issues rather than circularity.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U for V 3d (DFT+U) = not stated in main text
    The exchange parameters, especially the DMI, depend on the chosen U value. Without it, the central quantitative result is not reproducible.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spin Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), with Heisenberg exchange up to 3NN, z-component 2NN DMI, and easy-axis SIA, captures the low-energy magnetic excitations of VPX3.
    Other interactions (Kitaev, symmetric anisotropic exchange, 3NN DMI) are argued to be small but are omitted from the model used to compute the central results.
  • domain assumption DFT+U with the chosen functional and Hubbard U produces quantitatively accurate exchange parameters.
    The entire quantitative claim (εr = 3.2 meV) rests on the DFT values in Table I; no U value or uncertainty is provided.
  • domain assumption The magnetic ground state is collinear easy-axis Neel order.
    The magnon calculation assumes this order; any canting or different order would change the nonreciprocity.
  • ad hoc to paper J2 and J3 are either negligible or specified in the supplemental material; they do not enter the nonreciprocity formula.
    Table I omits J2 and J3, although they appear in the model, and the figures require them; the reader cannot reproduce the bands without them.
  • domain assumption The magnon-magnon interaction treatment used for temperature dependence is valid.
    The letter cites refs [69,76-78] for the four-magnon approach but gives no details; the claim that nonreciprocity is enhanced at higher temperature depends on this treatment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonreciprocal magnons in layered antiferromagnets VPX3(X =S,Se,Te)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2556XMI6

@misc{pith2026250906538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonreciprocal magnons in layered antiferromagnets VPX3(X =S,Se,Te)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2556XMI6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06538}
}
read the original abstract

Nonreciprocal magnons, characterized by propagation with differing energies along the k and -k directions, are crucial for modern spintronics applications. However, their realization in van der Waals layered antiferromagnets remains elusive. In this letter, we report robust nonreciprocal magnon behavior in layered honeycomb antiferromagnets VPX3(X =S,Se,Te). Our results demonstrate that, in addition to their intrinsic Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI), the nonreciprocity of magnons is strongly influenced by the layer number, interlayer coupling, and magnon-magnon interactions. More importantly, in such layered antiferromagnets, the magnon nonreciprocity exhibits an asymmetric periodic dependence on the Neel vector, offering a novel route for experimentally probing antiferromagnetic order parameters in the 2D limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Top view of geometric structure of monolayer VP [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The magnon bands of monolayer VPTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Magnon bands of bilayer VPTe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The nonreciprocity of minor magnon band in lay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

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. Coupling phase interference effects in a multimode cavity magnonics system

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Coupling phases—not just strengths—determine which cavity modes couple to magnons and can produce nonreciprocal transmission at antiresonances in a multimode cavity magnonics system.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

  1. [1]

    L. Feng, M. Ayache, J. Huang, Y.-L. Xu, M.-H. Lu, Y.-F. Chen, Y. Fainman, and A. Scherer, Nonreciprocal light propagation in a silicon photonic circuit, Science333, 729 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Ramezani, P

    H. Ramezani, P. K. Jha, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, Non- reciprocal localization of photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 043901 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    M. Xu, K. Yamamoto, J. Puebla, K. Baumgaertl, B. Rana, K. Miura, H. Takahashi, D. Grundler, S. Maekawa, and Y. Otani, Nonreciprocal surface acous- tic wave propagation via magneto-rotation coupling, Sci. Adv.6, eabb1724 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Caloz, A

    C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-L´ eger, Electromagnetic nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 047001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Cheong, D

    S.-W. Cheong, D. Talbayev, V. Kiryukhin, and A. Sax- ena, Broken symmetries, non-reciprocity, and multifer- roicity, npj Quantum Mater.3, 19 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Y.-P. Wang, J. W. Rao, Y. Yang, P.-C. Xu, Y. S. Gui, B. M. Yao, J. Q. You, and C.-M. Hu, Nonreciprocity and unidirectional invisibility in cavity magnonics, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 127202 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Wakatsuki and N

    R. Wakatsuki and N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal current in noncentrosymmetric rashba superconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 026601 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Nonreciprocal transport and optical phenomena in quantum materials, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.15, 63 (2024)

    2024

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Wakatsuki, Y

    R. Wakatsuki, Y. Saito, S. Hoshino, Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, M. Ezawa, Y. Iwasa, and N. Nagaosa, Nonre- ciprocal charge transport in noncentrosymmetric super- conductors, Sci. Adv.3, e1602390 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Tokura and N

    Y. Tokura and N. Nagaosa, Nonreciprocal responses from non-centrosymmetric quantum materials, Nat. Commun. 9, 3740 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Y. M. Itahashi, T. Ideue, Y. Saito, S. Shimizu, T. Ouchi, T. Nojima, and Y. Iwasa, Nonreciprocal transport in gate-induced polar superconductor SrTiO 3, Sci. Adv.6, 6 eaay9120 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    E. I. Rashba, Spin-orbit coupling in condensed matter physics, Sov. Phys. Solid State2, 1109 (1960)

    1960

  5. [13]

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

    1984

  6. [14]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Cou- pled spin and valley physics in monolayers of MoS 2 and other group-VI dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Cornelissen, J

    L. Cornelissen, J. Liu, R. Duine, J. B. Youssef, and B. Van Wees, Long-distance transport of magnon spin in- formation in a magnetic insulator at room temperature, Nat. Phys.11, 1022 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    S. S.-L. Zhang and S. Zhang, Magnon mediated electric current drag across a ferromagnetic insulator layer, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 096603 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    J. Li, Y. Xu, M. Aldosary, C. Tang, Z. Lin, S. Zhang, R. Lake, and J. Shi, Observation of magnon-mediated current drag in Pt/yttrium iron garnet/Pt(Ta) trilayers, Nat. Commun.7, 10858 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    V´ elez, A

    S. V´ elez, A. Bedoya-Pinto, W. Yan, L. E. Hueso, and F. Casanova, Competing effects at Pt/YIG interfaces: Spin Hall magnetoresistance, magnon excitations, and magnetic frustration, Phys. Rev. B94, 174405 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    L. J. Cornelissen, K. J. Peters, G. E. Bauer, R. Duine, and B. J. van Wees, Magnon spin transport driven by the magnon chemical potential in a magnetic insulator, Phys. Rev. B94, 014412 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Lebrun, A

    R. Lebrun, A. Ross, S. Bender, A. Qaiumzadeh, L. Bal- drati, J. Cramer, A. Brataas, R. Duine, and M. Kl¨ aui, Tunable long-distance spin transport in a crystalline an- tiferromagnetic iron oxide, Nature561, 222 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    J. Han, P. Zhang, Z. Bi, Y. Fan, T. S. Safi, J. Xiang, J. Finley, L. Fu, R. Cheng, and L. Liu, Birefringence- like spin transport via linearly polarized antiferromag- netic magnons, Nat. Nanotechnol.15, 563 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Lebrun, A

    R. Lebrun, A. Ross, O. Gomonay, V. Baltz, U. Ebels, A.-L. Barra, A. Qaiumzadeh, A. Brataas, J. Sinova, and M. Kl¨ aui, Long-distance spin-transport across the Morin phase transition up to room temperature in ultra-low damping single crystals of the antiferromagnetα-Fe 2O3, Nat...

    2020

  15. [23]

    Schlitz, S

    R. Schlitz, S. V´ elez, A. Kamra, C.-H. Lambert, M. Lam- mel, S. T. Goennenwein, and P. Gambardella, Control of nonlocal magnon spin transport via magnon drift cur- rents, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 257201 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Zhang, T

    X. Zhang, T. Liu, M. E. Flatt´ e, and H. X. Tang, Electric- field coupling to spin waves in a centrosymmetric ferrite, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 037202 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Hayami, H

    S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, and Y. Motome, Asymmetric magnon excitation by spontaneous toroidal ordering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.85, 053705 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Gitgeatpong, Y

    G. Gitgeatpong, Y. Zhao, P. Piyawongwatthana, Y. Qiu, L. W. Harriger, N. P. Butch, T. Sato, and K. Matan, Non- reciprocal magnons and symmetry-breaking in the non- centrosymmetric antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 047201 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Iguchi, S

    Y. Iguchi, S. Uemura, K. Ueno, and Y. Onose, Nonre- ciprocal magnon propagation in a noncentrosymmetric ferromagnet LiFe5O8, Phys. Rev. B92, 184419 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Costa, N

    M. Costa, N. M. Peres, J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, and A. T. Costa, Nonreciprocal magnons in a two-dimensional crys- tal with out-of-plane magnetization, Phys. Rev. B102, 014450 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    J. Ni, Z. Zhang, J. Lu, Q. Du, Z. Jiang, and L. Bel- laiche, Nonvolatile magnonics in bilayer magnetic insula- tors, Nano Lett.25, 1207 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    T. J. Sato and K. Matan, Nonreciprocal magnons in non- centrosymmetric magnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 081007 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    G¨ uckelhorn, S

    J. G¨ uckelhorn, S. de-la Pe˜ na, M. Scheufele, M. Grammer, M. Opel, S. Gepr¨ ags, J. C. Cuevas, R. Gross, H. Huebl, A. Kamra, and M. Althammer, Observation of the non- reciprocal magnon Hanle effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 216703 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Onose, T

    Y. Onose, T. Ideue, H. Katsura, Y. Shiomi, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura, Observation of the magnon Hall effect, Science329, 297 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Hayami and T

    S. Hayami and T. Matsumoto, Essential model param- eters for nonreciprocal magnons in multisublattice sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B105, 014404 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Matsumoto and S

    T. Matsumoto and S. Hayami, Nonreciprocal magnons due to symmetric anisotropic exchange interaction in honeycomb antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B101, 224419 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, J

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, J. Phys. Chem. Solids4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  28. [36]

    Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys

    T. Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev.120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  29. [37]

    F. Wang, T. A. Shifa, P. Yu, P. He, Y. Liu, F. Wang, Z. Wang, X. Zhan, X. Lou, F. Xia, and J. He, New frontiers on van der Waals layered metal phosphorous trichalcogenides, Adv. Funct. Mater.28, 1802151 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Z. Ni, H. Zhang, D. A. Hopper, A. V. Haglund, N. Huang, D. Jariwala, L. C. Bassett, D. G. Mandrus, E. J. Mele, C. L. Kane, and L. Wu, Direct imaging of antiferro- magnetic domains and anomalous layer-dependent mir- ror symmetry breaking in atomically thin MnPS 3, Phys. Rev. Le...

    2021

  31. [39]

    K. Kim, S. Y. Lim, J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, T. Y. Kim, K. Park, G. S. Jeon, C.-H. Park, J.-G. Park, and H. Cheong, Sup- pression of magnetic ordering in XXZ-type antiferromag- netic monolayer NiPS3, Nat. Commun.10, 345 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Klaproth, S

    T. Klaproth, S. Aswartham, Y. Shemerliuk, S. Selter, O. Janson, J. van den Brink, B. B¨ uchner, M. Knupfer, S. Pazek, D. Mikhailova, A. Efimenko, R. Hayn, A. Savoyant, V. Gubanov, and A. Koitzsch, Origin of the magnetic exciton in the van der Waals antiferromagnet NiPS3, Phys....

    2023

  33. [41]

    Z. Ni, A. Haglund, H. Wang, B. Xu, C. Bernhard, D. Mandrus, X. Qian, E. Mele, C. Kane, and L. Wu, Imaging the N´ eel vector switching in the monolayer anti- ferromagnet MnPSe 3 with strain-controlled Ising order, Nat. Nanotechnol.16, 782 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    C. Liu, Z. Li, J. Hu, H. Duan, C. Wang, L. Cai, S. Feng, Y. Wang, R. Liu, D. Hou, C. Liu, R. Zhang, L. Zhu, Y. Niu, A. A. Zakharov, Z. Sheng, and W. Yan, Prob- ing the N´ eel-type antiferromagnetic order and coherent magnon–exciton coupling in van der Waals VPS 3, Adv. Mater.3...

    2023

  35. [43]

    K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and D. C. Ralph, Probing and con- trolling magnetic states in 2D layered magnetic materials, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 646 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Pich and F

    C. Pich and F. Schwabl, Spin-wave dynamics of two- dimensional isotropic dipolar honeycomb antiferromag- nets, J. Magn. Magn. Mmater.148, 30 (1995). 7

    1995

  37. [45]

    Cheng, S

    R. Cheng, S. Okamoto, and D. Xiao, Spin Nernst effect of magnons in collinear antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 217202 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Wildes, S

    A. Wildes, S. Okamoto, and D. Xiao, Search for nonre- ciprocal magnons in MnPS 3, Phys. Rev. B103, 024424 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Matsuoka, H.-S

    T. Matsuoka, H.-S. Kim, S. Samanta, J. L. Musfeldt, and D. G. Mandrus, MPX 3 van der Waals magnets un- der pressure (M = Mn, Ni, V, Fe, Co, Cd;X= S, Se), Front. Mater.11, 1362744 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

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

    2015

  41. [49]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nat. Nanotechnol.11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    J. Li, C. B. Wilson, R. Cheng, M. Lohmann, M. Ka- vand, W. Yuan, M. Aldosary, N. Agladze, P. Wei, M. S. Sherwin, and J. Shi, Spin current from sub-terahertz- generated antiferromagnetic magnons, Nature578, 70 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    for more details about (I) computational details and (II) additional results for monolayer VPX3

    See Supplemental Material at ... for more details about (I) computational details and (II) additional results for monolayer VPX3

  45. [53]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  46. [54]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  47. [55]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Liechtenstein, V

    A. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Density- functional theory and strong interactions: Orbital order- ing in Mott-Hubbard insulators, Phys. Rev. B52, R5467 (1995)

    1995

  49. [57]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, A con- sistent and accurateabinitio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 ele- ments H-Pu, J. Chem. Phys.132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  50. [58]

    Xiang, E

    H. Xiang, E. Kan, S.-H. Wei, M.-H. Whangbo, and X. Gong, Predicting the spin-lattice order of frustrated systems from first principles, Phys. Rev. B84, 224429 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Xiang, C

    H. Xiang, C. Lee, H.-J. Koo, X. Gong, and M.- H. Whangbo, Magnetic properties and energy-mapping analysis, Dalton Trans.42, 823 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Linear response approach to the calculation of the effective interaction parameters in the LDA+U method, Phys. Rev. B71, 035105 (2005)

    2005

  53. [61]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, HP–A code for the calculation of Hubbard parameters using density- functional perturbation theory, Comput. Phys. Commun. 279, 108455 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    A. I. Liechtenstein, M. Katsnelson, V. Antropov, and V. Gubanov, Local spin density functional approach to the theory of exchange interactions in ferromagnetic met- als and alloys, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.67, 65 (1987)

    1987

  55. [63]

    Grotheer, C

    O. Grotheer, C. Ederer, and M. F¨ ahnle, Fast ab initio methods for the calculation of adiabatic spin wave spec- tra in complex systems, Phys. Rev. B63, 100401 (2001)

    2001

  56. [64]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Van- derbilt, and N. Marzari, Wannier90: A tool for obtaining maximally-localised wannier functions, Comput. Phys. Commun.178, 685 (2008)

    2008

  57. [65]

    X. He, N. Helbig, M. J. Verstraete, and E. Bousquet, TB2J: A python package for computing magnetic in- teraction parameters, Comput. Phys. Commun.264, 107938 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and be- yond, Ann. Phys.321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  59. [67]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Interplay between Kitaev interaction and single ion anisotropy in ferromagnetic CrI 3 and CrGeTe3 monolayers, npj Com- put. Mater.4, 57 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    D. I. Khomskii,Transition metal compounds(Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    A. Mook, K. Plekhanov, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Interaction-stabilized topological magnon insulator in ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. X11, 021061 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    J. Ni, Y. Jin, Q. Du, and G. Chang, Magnon nonlinear Hall effect in two-dimensional antiferromagnetic insula- tors, Phys. Rev. B112, 054424 (2025)

    2025

  63. [71]

    Brinkman and R

    W. Brinkman and R. J. Elliott, Theory of spin-space groups, Proc. R. Soc. A294, 343 (1966)

    1966

  64. [72]

    Holstein and H

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

    1940

  65. [73]

    Valatin, Comments on the theory of superconductivity, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 843 (1958)

    J. Valatin, Comments on the theory of superconductivity, Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965)7, 843 (1958)

    1955

  66. [74]

    N. N. Bogoljubov, V. V. Tolmachov, and D. ˇSirkov, A new method in the theory of superconductivity, Fortschr. Phys.6, 605 (1958)

    1958

  67. [75]

    N. D. Mermin and H. Wagner, Absence of ferromag- netism or antiferromagnetism in one or two-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. Lett.17, 1133 (1966)

    1966

  68. [76]

    S. M. Rezende, A. Azevedo, and R. L. Rodr ´ ıguez-Su´ arez, Introduction to antiferromagnetic magnons, J. Appl. Phys.126(2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    Sourounis and A

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

    2024

  70. [78]

    Paischer, D

    S. Paischer, D. Eilmsteiner, I. Maznichenko, N. Buczek, K. Zakeri, A. Ernst, and P. A. Buczek, Correlations, dis- order, and multimagnon processes in terahertz spin dy- namics of magnetic nanostructures: A first-principles in- vestigation, Phys. Rev. B109, L220405 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    V. A. Zyuzin and A. A. Kovalev, Magnon spin Nernst effect in antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 217203 (2016)

    2016

  72. [80]

    Leb` egue, T

    S. Leb` egue, T. Bj¨ orkman, M. Klintenberg, R. M. Niem- inen, and O. Eriksson, Two-dimensional materials from data filtering and ab initio calculations, Phys. Rev. X3, 031002 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    A. Cole, A. Streeter, A. O. Fumega, X. Yao, Z.-C. Wang, E. Feng, H. Cao, J. L. Lado, S. E. Nagler, and F. Tafti, Extreme sensitivity of the magnetic ground state to halide composition in FeCl 3−xBrx, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 064401 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.