Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

This paper claims that in Rashba-coupled altermagnets, a dc electric field induces a Berry curvature dipole from the quantum metric, producing a strong, switchable second-order anomalous Hall current that can electrically distinguish d_xy f

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 09:28 UTC pith:KOHRR3MI

load-bearing objection A solid model calculation showing that field-induced Berry curvature dipole can give a second-order Hall signal in C4T altermagnets and distinguish dxy from dx2-y2, but the quantitative λ-dependence is undercut by an unregularized BCP singularity. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.14899 v1 pith:KOHRR3MI submitted 2025-10-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

Electric field controlled second-order anomalous Hall effect in altermagnets

Arnob Mukherjee , Biplab Sanyal , Annica M. Black-Schaffer , Ankita Bhattacharya This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetsecond-order anomalous Hall effectBerry curvature dipolequantum metricBerry connection polarizabilitynonlinear Hall effectRashba spin-orbit couplingspintronics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Altermagnets, with zero net magnetization but momentum-dependent spin splitting, carry a C4T symmetry that forbids both the linear anomalous Hall effect and the conventional second-order effect driven by a Berry curvature dipole. This paper shows that the quantum metric (Berry connection polarizability) of the occupied Bloch states still permits a field-induced Berry curvature dipole when a dc electric field is applied, producing a strong second-order anomalous Hall current. The magnitude and direction of this current can be controlled by rotating the dc field relative to the ac probe field, effectively switching the effect on and off. In a particular doping range, the response sharply differs between pure d_xy and d_{x^2-y^2} altermagnetic order, offering an all-electrical fingerprint of the order.

Core claim

The central claim is that the nontrivial quantum metric of the occupied Bloch states in a Rashba-coupled altermagnet allows an external dc electric field to induce a finite Berry curvature dipole, even though C4T symmetry forbids the intrinsic BCD-driven second-order anomalous Hall effect. This field-induced dipole generates a second-order Hall current j^{2ω} = -(e³τ/(2(1+iωτ)ℏ²)) (ẑ × E^ω)[D^E(θ)·E^ω], whose angular dependence gives full external control: the effect vanishes when the ac probe field is perpendicular to the induced dipole and is maximal when parallel. Remarkably, for doping −t < μ < t, the response is large for pure d_xy (B2g) order and nearly vanishes for pure d_{x^2-y^2} (B

What carries the argument

The Berry connection polarizability (BCP) tensor Gⁿ_{ab}(k) = 2 Re Σ_{m≠n} A^{nm}_a(k) A^{mn}_b(k)/(ε_n(k) − ε_m(k)), a measure of the quantum metric of the Bloch bands, is the central object. A dc electric field E_dc couples to it to create a field-induced Berry curvature Ω^E_n = ∇_k × (Gⁿ·E_dc); taking its Fermi-surface dipole yields a field-induced Berry curvature dipole D^E(θ) and, through the semi-classical Boltzmann formula, the second-order Hall conductivity. The directional dependence of D^E(θ) on the dc field angle θ and the probe angle φ is what makes the effect electrically switchable.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that lowest-order perturbation theory for the field-induced Berry curvature (Eqs. 6–7) remains valid and integrable even as the Rashba coupling tends to zero, because the BCP denominator ε_n − ε_m vanishes at band touching and no cutoff (temperature, disorder, or lifetime) is included in the reported integrals.

What would settle it

Compute or measure the second-harmonic Hall conductivity in a Rashba-coupled altermagnet with a finite quasiparticle lifetime η included in the BCP denominator: if the result diverges or its sign flips as η→0, or if the measured angular pattern of the second-harmonic signal does not show the predicted orthogonality between E_dc and E_ω (zero signal at E_ω ⊥ D^E and maximum at parallel), the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Second-order anomalous Hall transport becomes allowed in altermagnets despite C4T symmetry, with the field-induced Berry curvature dipole replacing the forbidden intrinsic one.
  • Rotating the dc field relative to the ac probe toggles the second-harmonic current on and off, giving an external tunability absent in intrinsic BCD systems.
  • In the doping window −t < μ < t, the magnitude of the response distinguishes pure d_xy from pure d_{x^2-y^2} altermagnetic order, providing a purely electrical probe of the order parameter symmetry.
  • The effect increases as Rashba coupling weakens (but does not vanish at λ=0 because inversion symmetry breaking disappears only at λ=0), correlating with the narrowing of the λ-induced gaps at band touching.
  • Candidate platforms include epitaxial RuO2 and MnTe thin films with interface-induced Rashba coupling, where the predicted angular signatures can be tested with existing second-harmonic Hall setups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same field-induced BCP mechanism is not limited to altermagnets: any compensated magnetic or even nonmagnetic system in which C_nT or mirror symmetries kill the intrinsic BCD, but which has a finite quantum metric and broken inversion, could show this electrically induced second-order Hall response.
  • If the BCP divergence near band touching is physically regularized by disorder or temperature, the predicted λ→0 enhancement suggests that low-disorder samples should show a strongly growing nonlinear signal—an experimentally testable trend.
  • The sensitivity to the form factor (d_xy vs d_{x^2-y^2}) might be used as a fast, contact-free diagnostic in materials where the altermagnetic order is contested, complementing spin-resolved ARPES or magnetometry.
  • The mechanism implies that the quantum metric, not the Berry curvature, is the operative geometric quantity in these systems; a direct measurement of the field-induced second-harmonic current as a function of θ and φ provides a route to extract the metric's momentum-space distribution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the second-order anomalous Hall effect (SAHE) in a two-dimensional Rashba-coupled hybrid altermagnet with C4T symmetry. The authors show that although the intrinsic Berry curvature dipole (BCD) is symmetry-forbidden in pure d-wave altermagnets, an external dc electric field can induce a field-induced Berry curvature through the Berry connection polarizability (quantum metric). This generates a field-induced BCD and hence a finite SAHE. The magnitude and sign of χ_AH depend on the relative orientation of the dc and ac fields, and at certain dopings χ_AH is much larger for the pure d_xy order than for the pure d_x2-y2 order, which the authors propose as an all-electrical probe of altermagnetic order.

Significance. If correct, the paper would establish an experimentally accessible nonlinear Hall response in altermagnets that is absent at linear order and at second order in the intrinsic BCD channel. The tunability via field orientations and the proposed sensitivity to the d_xy vs d_x2-y2 form factor are appealing and would be of broad interest to the altermagnet and nonlinear-transport communities. The use of the BCP/quantum metric formalism is well motivated and follows the authors' earlier peer-reviewed work, which is experimentally supported in other systems. However, the central quantitative claims are currently undermined by the lack of a physical regulator for BCP singularities at band-touching points, so the significance is conditional on fixing this issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, after Eq. (7) and near Fig. 4] The statement that 'for finite λ, RSOC opens gaps at the band-touching points' is not correct for Hamiltonian (1)-(3). At Γ=(0,0) and M=(π,π), the Rashba terms (∝ λ sin k_x, λ sin k_y) vanish and the altermagnetic term h_z also vanishes for all α, so the two bands remain exactly degenerate for any finite λ. Thus the BCP denominator in Eq. (6) vanishes exactly at these points, and the BCP tensor is singular there.
  2. [Eqs. (5)-(7) and Figs. 3-4] Because of the unremoved degeneracies at Γ and M, the field-induced Berry curvature Ω^E (Eq. 7) and its momentum derivatives entering the BCD integral (Eq. 5) are singular. In the two-band model the integrand f0 ∂_{k_j} Ω^E scales as ~ 1/(λ|k|^3) near such a touching point, which is non-integrable in two dimensions. The numerical values of χ_AH therefore depend on the k-grid cutoff unless a regulator is specified. The paper provides no temperature, disorder, finite-lifetime, or imaginary-broadening cutoff in Eq. (6), nor any convergence test. As χ_AH is reported to increase monotonically as λ decreases, this enhancement may be an artifact of the numerical cutoff. The authors should repeat the calculations with a finite broadening η (e.g., 1/(ε_n-ε_m) → 1/(ε_n-ε_m+iη)) and demonstrate convergence with grid density.
  3. [Supplementary Material, text after Fig. S6] There is an internal contradiction in the explanatory narrative. The text states that for α=1 the system has one electron and one hole pocket (opposite curvature), but then states that 'when both FSs have same types of curvature as in the case for α=1, their contributions add constructively.' The second clause presumably refers to α=0, not α=1. This inconsistency weakens the claimed Fermi-surface explanation of the α-dependence and must be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, §SAHE in altermagnets] The statement that for E_dc ∥ E_ω, χ_AH is 'vanishingly small' for both α=0 and α=1 is not fully supported by Fig. 4(b), where the α=0 value is about -0.8 on the scaled axis. Please clarify what 'vanishingly small' means quantitatively.
  2. [Eq. (7)] The derivation of Eq. (7) is taken from Ref. [27]. A brief self-contained justification or a summary of the underlying assumptions (e.g., clean limit, adiabatic approximation) would make the paper more accessible and reduce the load on that citation.
  3. [Eq. (6)] The BCP denominator in Eq. (6) is singular at band-touching points; including an infinitesimal iη or a principal-value prescription would clarify the intended regularization. This is related to the major issue above.
  4. [Supplementary Material, Fig. S6 caption] In the caption or adjacent text, 'same types of curvature as in the case for α=1' should read α=0 to match the preceding sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the field-induced SAHE is computed from standard BCP/BCD formulas applied to a new model, with no fitted parameters renamed as predictions and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central formulas—the BCD expression in Eq. (4), the BCP tensor in Eq. (6), the field-induced Berry curvature in Eq. (7), and the second-harmonic current in Eq. (8)—are standard results, and Eq. (7)–(8) are cited not only to the authors' own Ref. [27] but also to independent sources ([55,57] and [28]). The paper then evaluates these formulas for a model Hamiltonian in which t, t_am, λ, μ, and α are explicit inputs; no parameter is fitted to the response it later reports. The α-dependent magnitude difference at fixed doping is a computed property of the model, not a restatement of an input. The self-citations to Ref. [27] are present but not load-bearing in a circular sense: the cited result is independently supported in the peer-reviewed literature and by experiments in other systems. Likewise, the increase of χ_AH as λ decreases is explicitly tied to the narrowing of the Rashba gap in Eq. (6), rather than to any fitted or self-referential condition. The absence of a convergence cutoff near band-touching points is a legitimate scientific concern about the physical validity of the numerical integrals, but it is a correctness/regularization issue, not a circularity: the predictions do not reduce by construction to the inputs. The internal inconsistency in the Supplemental Material about whether α=1 has same- or opposite-curvature Fermi pockets weakens the explanatory narrative but does not constitute a circular derivation. Overall, no self-definitional step, fitted-input-as-prediction step, or uniqueness-from-self-citation step could be identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a model calculation; all inputs are hand-chosen model parameters rather than fitted to experimental data. The main non-trivial assumption is the unregularized use of the divergent BCP near band-touching points for small λ. No new particles or mediators are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • α (altermagnetic hybridization) = 0, 0.5, 1
    Interpolation parameter between B1g (α=1) and B2g (α=0) altermagnetic order; the central distinguishability result depends on comparing these values.
  • t_am (altermagnetic splitting) = 0.5t
    Hand-chosen magnitude of spin splitting; authors state results persist for smaller/larger t_am but present only 0.5t.
  • λ (Rashba SOC strength) = 0.08t, 0.1t, 0.15t
    Hand-chosen; the response is shown to grow as λ decreases, and λ→0 is the singular limit with P restored.
  • μ (chemical potential) = 0.3t in main text; -3t in SM
    The claim of strong sensitivity to α holds only in -t < μ < t; at μ=-3t the signal is finite for all α, so the central distinguishing claim is parameter-window dependent.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Semi-classical Boltzmann transport with constant relaxation time τ for second-order Hall response (Eq. 4)
    Standard framework; assumes τ independent of momentum and no interband coherence beyond the BCD.
  • domain assumption Field-induced Berry connection A^E = G·E^dc and resulting Ω^E formula (Eqs. 6-7) as derived in Refs. [17,27]
    The central mechanism rests on this published derivation; in this paper it is applied, not re-derived.
  • domain assumption C4T symmetry forbids inherent BCD-induced SAHE in pure d-wave altermagnets
    Quoted from Refs. [13,14,53,54]; this premise motivates why the field-induced route is needed.
  • domain assumption The two-band tight-binding model Eq. (1) captures the essential physics of hybrid altermagnets relevant to RuO2/MnTe
    Phenomenological model; no ab initio validation of the α-interpolation is provided.
  • domain assumption Finite λ ensures broken P and allows the BCD integral to be nonzero (P restored at λ=0)
    Standard symmetry argument; used to explain the λ-dependence of the response.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12832 in / 13649 out tokens · 110618 ms · 2026-08-04T09:28:13.975824+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric field controlled second-order anomalous Hall effect in altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOHRR3MI

@misc{pith2026251014899,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric field controlled second-order anomalous Hall effect in altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOHRR3MI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.14899}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Altermagnets are a recently discovered class of compensated magnets with momentum-dependent spin splittings and unusual transport properties, even without a net magnetization. In the presence of combined four-fold rotation and time-reversal ($C_4\mathcal{T}$) symmetry, linear and also second-order, driven by a Berry curvature dipole, anomalous Hall responses are forbidden in any pure $d$-wave altermagnet. Nevertheless, here we find that the nontrivial quantum metric of the occupied Bloch states allows for an electric field induced Berry curvature dipole, which generates a strong and tunable second-order Hall current, enabling it to be switched on or off by simply adjusting the relative orientation between the symmetry-reducing dc field and the ac probe field. Specifically, we investigate the electric field induced second-order anomalous Hall response in a two-dimensional Rashba-coupled hybrid altermagnet that interpolates between $d_{x^2-y^2}$ ($B_{1g}$) and $d_{xy}$ ($B_{2g}$) altermagnet symmetry, motivated by recent proposals for mixed-symmetry states. Crucially, the nonlinear signal is highly sensitive to the underlying symmetry of the altermagnetic order at specific doping levels, offering a purely electrical method to distinguish distinct altermagnetic orders. Our results position hybrid altermagnets as a promising platform for controllable nonlinear transport and spintronic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.14899 by Ankita Bhattacharya, Annica M. Black-Schaffer, Arnob Mukherjee, Biplab Sanyal.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Berry connection polarizability (BCP) tensor com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Momentum distribution of the Fermi-function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Second-order Hall conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Krempask` y, L

    J. Krempask` y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov,et al., Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  3. [3]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  4. [4]

    Tamang, S

    R. Tamang, S. Gurung, D. Rai, S. Brahimi, and S. Lou- nis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.05377 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Nature Reviews Materials , 1 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Gomonay, V

    O. Gomonay, V. Kravchuk, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, K. Yer- shov, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, J. v. d. Brink, and J. Sinova, npj Spintronics2, 35 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    P. A. McClarty and J. G. Rau, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 176702 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    Y. Yu, H. G. Suh, M. Roig, and D. F. Agterberg, Nature Communications16, 2950 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, J. Sinova, and L. Sme- jkal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10034 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    M. Naka, Y. Motome, and H. Seo, npj Spintronics3, 1 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    A. Bose, S. Vadnais, and A. Paramekanti, Phys. Rev. B 110, 205120 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, P. Wadley, D. Kriegner, H. Re- ichlova, F. Krizek, H. Ohno, and L. Smejkal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09748 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Y. Fang, J. Cano, and S. A. A. Ghorashi, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 106701 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Takahashi, C

    K. Takahashi, C. R. W. Steward, M. Ogata, R. M. Fer- nandes, and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. B111, 184408 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  16. [16]

    Ma, S.-Y

    Q. Ma, S.-Y. Xu, H. Shen, D. MacNeill, V. Fatemi, T.-R. Chang, A. M. Mier Valdivia, S. Wu, Z. Du, C.-H. Hsu, et al., Nature565, 337 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Y. Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y.-X. Huang, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 277202 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    C. Wang, Y. Gao, and D. Xiao, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 277201 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    Gao, Y.-F

    A. Gao, Y.-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T. V. Trevisan, Y. Onishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen,et al., Science381, 181 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang,et al., Nature621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Kaplan, T

    D. Kaplan, T. Holder, and B. Yan, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 026301 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    D. S. Antonenko, R. M. Fernandes, and J. W. F. Vender- bos, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 096703 (2025)

    2025

  24. [25]

    Sorn and A

    S. Sorn and A. S. Patri, Phys. Rev. B110, 125127 (2024)

    2024

  25. [26]

    Farajollahpour, R

    T. Farajollahpour, R. Ganesh, and K. Samokhin, npj Quantum Materials10, 29 (2025)

    2025

  26. [27]

    Bhattacharya and A

    A. Bhattacharya and A. M. Black-Schaffer, Phys. Rev. B 111, L041202 (2025)

    2025

  27. [28]

    X.-G. Ye, H. Liu, P.-F. Zhu, W.-Z. Xu, S. A. Yang, N. Shang, K. Liu, and Z.-M. Liao, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 016301 (2023)

    2023

  28. [29]

    J. Yang, L. Wei, Y. Li, L. Chen, W. Niu, J. Chen, J. Du, and Y. Pu, arXiv:2506.10657 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [30]

    T¨ orm¨ a, Phys

    P. T¨ orm¨ a, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 240001 (2023). 6

    2023

  30. [31]

    G. Sala, M. T. Mercaldo, K. Domi, S. Gariglio, M. Cuoco, C. Ortix, and A. D. Caviglia, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.06659 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind,et al., Science advances10, eadj4883 (2024)

    2024

  32. [33]

    D. T. Plouff, L. Scheuer, S. Shrestha, W. Wu, N. J. Parvez, S. Bhatt, X. Wang, L. Gundlach, M. B. Jungfleisch, and J. Q. Xiao, npj Spintronics3, 17 (2025)

    2025

  33. [34]

    Y. Guo, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y.-y. Jiang, L. Jiang, C. Wu, J. Dong, X. Xu, W. He, B. He,et al., Advanced Science 11, 2400967 (2024)

    2024

  34. [35]

    Yamamoto, L

    R. Yamamoto, L. A. Turnbull, M. Schmidt, J. C. Cor- saletti Filho, H. J. Binger, M. Di Pietro Mart ´ ınez, M. Weigand, S. Finizio, Y. Prots, G. M. Ferguson, U. Vool, S. Wintz, and C. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. Appl. 24, 034037 (2025)

    2025

  35. [36]

    O. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Zakharov, S. Fromage, C. Fields, S. Heywood, R. Cousins, F. Mac- cherozzi,et al., Nature636, 348 (2024)

    2024

  36. [37]

    Hariki, A

    A. Hariki, A. Dal Din, O. J. Amin, T. Yamaguchi, A. Badura, D. Kriegner, K. W. Edmonds, R. P. Cam- pion, P. Wadley, D. Backes, L. S. I. Veiga, S. S. Dhesi, G. Springholz, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, T. Jungwirth, and J. Kuneˇ s, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 176701 (2024)

    2024

  37. [38]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Science advances6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  38. [39]

    R. M. Fernandes, V. S. de Carvalho, T. Birol, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B109, 024404 (2024)

    2024

  39. [40]

    2022-06725 and at UPP- MAX (NAISS 2025/2-203)

    partially funded by the Swedish Research Council through grant agreement no. 2022-06725 and at UPP- MAX (NAISS 2025/2-203). B.S. also acknowledges the allocation of supercomputing hours granted by the Eu- roHPC JU Development Access call in LUMI-C super- computer (grant no. EHPC-DEV-2024D04-071) in Fin- land

    2022

  40. [41]

    Ramires, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19162 (2025)

    A. Ramires, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19162 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [42]

    Le´ on, C

    A. Le´ on, C. Autieri, T. Brumme, and J. W. Gonz´ alez, npj Quantum Materials10, 98 (2025)

    2025

  42. [43]

    Karetta, X

    B. Karetta, X. H. Verbeek, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Sinova, Phys. Rev. B112, 094454 (2025)

    2025

  43. [44]

    Khodas, S

    M. Khodas, S. Mu, I. Mazin, and K. Belashchenko, arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06257 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    S. Li, Y. Zhang, A. Bahri, X. Zhang, and C. Jia, npj Quantum Materials10, 83 (2025)

    2025

  45. [46]

    Tamang, S

    R. Tamang, S. Gurung, D. P. Rai, S. Brahimi, and S. Lou- nis, Magnetism5, 10.3390/magnetism5030017 (2025)

    doi:10.3390/magnetism5030017 2025

  46. [47]

    P. Rao, A. Mook, and J. Knolle, Phys. Rev. B110, 024425 (2024)

    2024

  47. [48]

    Amundsen, A

    M. Amundsen, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Phys. Rev. B 110, 054427 (2024)

    2024

  48. [49]

    Farajollahpour, R

    T. Farajollahpour, R. Ganesh, and K. Samokhin, npj Quantum Materials10, 77 (2025)

    2025

  49. [50]

    B. Lu, K. Maeda, H. Ito, K. Yada, and Y. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 226002 (2024)

    2024

  50. [51]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, T. L. Hughes, and J. Cano, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  51. [52]

    Ortix, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100056 (2021)

    C. Ortix, Advanced Quantum Technologies4, 2100056 (2021)

    2021

  52. [53]

    Nandy and I

    S. Nandy and I. Sodemann, Phys. Rev. B100, 195117 (2019)

    2019

  53. [54]

    Sankar, R

    S. Sankar, R. Liu, C.-P. Zhang, Q.-F. Li, C. Chen, X.-J. Gao, J. Zheng, Y.-H. Lin, K. Qian, R.-P. Yu, X. Zhang, Z. Y. Meng, K. T. Law, Q. Shao, and B. J¨ ack, Phys. Rev. X14, 021046 (2024)

    2024

  54. [55]

    Xiang, C

    L. Xiang, C. Zhang, L. Wang, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B107, 075411 (2023)

    2023

  55. [56]

    S. Lai, H. Liu, Z. Zhang, J. Zhao, X. Feng, N. Wang, C. Tang, Y. Liu, K. Novoselov, S. A. Yang,et al., Nature Nanotechnology16, 869 (2021)

    2021

  56. [57]

    H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y.-X. Huang, X. Feng, C. Xiao, W. Wu, S. Lai, W.-b. Gao, and S. A. Yang, Phys. Rev. B105, 045118 (2022)

    2022

  57. [58]

    Pal and T

    O. Pal and T. K. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. B109, 035202 (2024)

    2024

  58. [59]

    Electric-field-controlled second-order anomalous Hall effect in altermagnets

    See supplemental material for further details (2025). 7 Supplemental Material for “Electric-field-controlled second-order anomalous Hall effect in altermagnets” In this supplementary material, we present results for the pure altermagnetic orders. We also examine a doping regime in which both pure and hybrid altermagnetic orders feature Fermi pockets with ...

    2025