Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

In f-wave magnets, a temperature gradient generates a spin current proportional to the square of the gradient, so reversing the heat flow does not reverse the spin current.

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

2026-08-02 21:47 UTC pith:GRJ2MQII

load-bearing objection The symmetry story is credible, but the central analytic formula has a sign error that needs fixing before the quantitative claims can be used. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.19034 v1 pith:GRJ2MQII submitted 2026-02-22 cond-mat.mes-hall

Nonlinear spin-Seebeck diode in f-wave magnets, third-order spin-Nernst effects in g-wave magnets and spin-Nernst effects in i-wave altermagnets

Motohiko Ezawa This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords spin-Seebeck diodealtermagnetsf-wave magnetsspin-Nernst effectnonlinear thermal transportBoltzmann equationspin caloritronicsmirror symmetry
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.

Using the Boltzmann equation in two dimensions, the paper shows that applying a temperature gradient to an f-wave magnet generates a spin current proportional to the square of the gradient, not the gradient itself. Because (∇T)² is even, the spin current flows in the same direction whether the sample is heated on the left or right, which the author calls a spin-Seebeck diode. The same symmetry-based calculation predicts that g-wave altermagnets produce a third-order spin-Nernst current, i-wave altermagnets produce an ordinary linear spin-Nernst current, and p-wave magnets produce none. All these effects require no spin-orbit interaction. If the calculation is right, heat fluctuations alone can drive a directional spin current in f-wave materials.

Core claim

The paper derives a recursive Boltzmann-equation formula for the ℓ-th order spin current in powers of ∂xT and analyzes X-wave magnets (X=p,d,f,g,i) whose spin-split Fermi surfaces have 0,1,2,3,4,6 nodes. Its central discovery is that in f-wave magnets, where the kx→-kx mirror symmetry is broken, the second-order spin-Seebeck current j_spin^{(x²;x)} is proportional to (∂xT)² (Eq. 16). Since this is even in the gradient, the current does not reverse when ∇T reverses, producing a spin-current diode. The paper also finds analytic formulas for a third-order spin-Nernst current in g-wave altermagnets and a linear spin-Nernst current in i-wave altermagnets, all without spin-orbit coupling, and show

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the Boltzmann equation (Eq. 1) with a single relaxation time τ and a local Fermi-Dirac distribution, expanded recursively in powers of the temperature gradient ∂xT (Eq. 3). The key symmetry selection rule is mirror symmetry: if the band energy is even in kx, the diagonal (Seebeck-type) current vanishes for even orders; if it lacks kx→-kx symmetry, the even-order diagonal current survives. The f-wave Hamiltonian f(k)=kx(kx²-3ky²) breaks kx→-kx symmetry while keeping ky mirror symmetry, so only the second-order spin-Seebeck current survives; the g-wave and i-wave Hamiltonians allow the third-order and linear spin-Nernst currents.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Boltzmann equation with a single relaxation time and a locally thermalized Fermi-Dirac distribution fully describes the nonlinear response; if inelastic scattering, energy-dependent relaxation, or interband Berry-phase terms contribute at the same order, the predicted quadratic diode effect and the other scalings could change.

What would settle it

Measure the spin current along x in an f-wave magnet while applying ∇T in +x and then in -x. The diode prediction is j ∝ (∂xT)², so the spin current must be identical in magnitude and direction for both signs; observing a reversal, or a linear term in ∇T, would contradict the central claim. Equivalently, cooling one end and heating the other should produce the same spin current as the reverse arrangement.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • In f-wave magnets, reversing the heat gradient does not reverse the spin current; a time-fluctuating temperature produces a net directional spin current.
  • Because the diode effect does not need spin-orbit coupling, it may appear in materials with only collinear antiferromagnetic order and appropriate Fermi-surface symmetry.
  • g-wave and i-wave altermagnets offer distinct thermal signatures: third-order spin-Nernst and linear spin-Nernst currents, respectively, which could be used to identify the wave symmetry.
  • No thermal spin current is expected in p-wave magnets, so a null measurement in a p-wave candidate would be consistent with the symmetry analysis.
  • Analytic formulas for the leading-order spin currents allow quantitative comparison with numerical Boltzmann results shown in the figures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry logic suggests that the diode property is not specific to f-wave: any band structure with the same mirror breaking could show a second-order spin-Seebeck response, opening a search among other unconventional magnets.
  • A practical consequence the author leaves implicit: because no spin-orbit coupling is needed and the effect scales as (∇T)², pulsed or modulated heat sources could generate spin currents for spintronic devices without electric contacts.
  • The analytic formulas invite a material-specific estimate: using candidate f-wave compounds' exchange splitting J ~ 100 meV, one could predict the magnitude of the diode signal and design an experiment to detect it.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript uses the Boltzmann equation in the relaxation-time approximation to compute spin and charge currents induced by a temperature gradient to arbitrary order in X-wave magnets (X = p, d, f, g, i). The central claims are: (i) an f-wave magnet with broken kx → -kx mirror symmetry gives a spin-Seebeck current quadratic in ∇T, enabling a spin-current diode; (ii) a g-wave altermagnet gives a third-order spin-Nernst current; (iii) an i-wave altermagnet gives a linear spin-Nernst current; and (iv) p-wave magnets produce no such thermal spin current. Analytic formulas are presented from a high-temperature expansion of the Fermi function, with numerical curves for comparison.

Significance. The proposed effects are physically interesting: they would extend the altermagnet spin-current phenomenology from electric fields to thermal gradients and would provide a nonrelativistic, spin-orbit-free spin-current diode. The symmetry selection rules in Table I are simple and, at the level of Fermi-surface integrals, plausible. However, the master formula is not derived in the main text and appears to contain sign/factor inconsistencies, and the high-temperature expansion in Eq. (4) is algebraically wrong for even orders. These issues make the quantitative formulas as printed unreliable, although the qualitative quadratic-scaling diode property may survive. The paper therefore needs substantial correction and verification before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4) and Eq. (16)] The high-temperature expansion in Eq. (4) is incorrect for even ℓ. From f0 = (e^{β(ε−μ)}+1)^{-1}, the leading term is ∂^ℓ f0/∂T^ℓ = (-1)^{ℓ+1} (ℓ!/4) β^{ℓ+1}(ε−μ). In particular, ∂²f0/∂T² ≈ −(1/2)β³(ε−μ), not +(1/2)β³(ε−μ). Eq. (16) is obtained by inserting ℓ=2 with this positive sign; its overall sign is therefore reversed. The quadratic scaling and the diode property survive, but the printed analytic formula is wrong. Please correct Eq. (4), Eq. (16), and any other even-ℓ results, and recheck the numerical curves in Fig. 2(b) against the exact second derivative.
  2. [Eq. (3) and missing Supplement I] The master formula (3) is not consistent with Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) as written. Iterating f = f0 − τ v·∇f gives f^(ℓ) = (−τ)^ℓ v_x^ℓ (∂_x T)^ℓ ∂^ℓ f0/∂T^ℓ, and hence j^(xℓ;b) = e (−1)^{ℓ+1} (τ/ℏ)^{ℓ+1} (∂_x T)^ℓ ∫ (∂_x ε)^ℓ (∂_b ε) ∂^ℓ f0/∂T^ℓ, whereas Eq. (3) has an extra overall minus sign and a missing factor 1/ℏ. This may be a sign convension or ℏ=1 convention issue, but as printed the formula does not follow from the stated equations. Since the derivation is delegated to a missing Supplement I, it is not possible to check whether a different convention is being used. The authors should either include the supplement or present the derivation in the main text, and correct Eq. (3) so that it agrees with the definitions in Eqs. (1)–(2).
  3. [p-wave and 3D claims; missing Supplements II–IV] The abstract and Table I state that no linear or nonlinear spin current is generated in p-wave magnets and that the three-dimensional cases are analyzed, but these claims are delegated to Supplementary Materials II–IV, which are not included in the manuscript under review. This is missing support for part of the abstract's claims. The authors should provide these supplements or remove the unsupported statements from the main text and abstract.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The notation ∂^ℓ f^(ℓ)/∂T^ℓ in Eq. (4) is confusing: the ℓ-th derivative should be applied to f0, not to f^(ℓ), which is already the ℓ-th-order correction. Please write ∂^ℓ f0/∂T^ℓ.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] Figure 2(b) is labeled j^(x2;y)_spin, but the text and Eq. (16) describe j^(x2;x)_spin, the second-order spin-Seebeck current. The caption should be corrected.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4 captions] Figure 3(b) is labeled j^(x;y)_spin/∂_x T, but the text discusses the third-order spin-Nernst current j^(x3;y)_spin/(∂_x T)^3. Figure 4(b) is called a spin-Seebeck current, while the text for i-wave magnets discusses a linear spin-Nernst current; the caption also uses /(∂_x T)^3. These captions and axis labels need to be made consistent with the quantities in Eqs. (21) and (25).
  4. [Table I] The columns of Table I are not separated clearly in the text; the headers 'My' and 'Mx' are undefined (they presumably mean mirror symmetries y→−y and x→−x). Please format the table with explicit column labels and define all entries.
  5. [General] The k-space measure in integrals such as Eq. (2) is omitted. State whether d^D k means d^D k/(2π)^D, and give the dimensions explicitly; this would help the reader check the factors in Eqs. (10)–(25).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the spin-current formulas are new Boltzmann-equation integrals; the self-cited Hamiltonians are explicit, parameter-free inputs, not repackaged outputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (3) is a recursive solution of the Boltzmann equation (Eq. 1), yielding the ℓ-th order response as an integral over velocity factors times ∂^ℓ f0/∂T^ℓ; this is a methodological input, not the target result. The f-wave, g-wave, and i-wave predictions (Eqs. 16, 21, 25) are obtained by inserting explicit Hamiltonians (Eqs. 13, 18, 23) and the high-T derivative approximation (Eq. 4). No parameter in these formulas is fitted to the current being 'predicted'; the numerical checks in Figs. 1-4 integrate the same model without the high-T expansion and thus provide independent-in-method confirmation. The self-citations [40,51,52,53] supply the lattice Hamiltonians and symmetry classification; those objects are stated in full in the present paper, are parameter-free, and do not themselves assert the thermal-response formulas, so under the 'real evidence' rule they do not make the argument circular. The skeptic's objection about the sign in Eq. (4) is an algebraic correctness issue, not an input-output equivalence: even if Eq. (16) has the wrong sign, it is still a derived consequence, not a repackaged input. The only deferred item, the proof of Eq. (3) in Supplementary Material I, is an omitted calculation rather than a circular step.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; m, J, a, μ, and τ are model inputs. The derivation relies on the relaxation-time Boltzmann equation, the local Fermi-Dirac distribution, a spin-diagonal Hamiltonian, and the X-wave tight-binding models of prior work. No new entities are introduced.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The Boltzmann equation df/dt = -(f-f0)/τ with a single relaxation time τ and local Fermi distribution f0(T(r)) governs the electron distribution; the solution is expanded f = f0 + f1 + ... to arbitrary order in ∇T (Eq. (1)-(3)).
    This is the basis of the response formula (3); no microscopic justification for a ∇T-independent τ is given.
  • domain assumption Fermi-function derivatives at high temperature obey ∂^ℓ f0/∂T^ℓ = ℓ!/4 β^{ℓ+1}(ε-μ) (Eq. (4)).
    This truncation generates all closed-form formulas; note that the sign of the ℓ=2 term appears questionable, so the assumption is at best an uncontrolled leading-order approximation.
  • domain assumption The Hamiltonian is spin-diagonal, H = H_kine σ0 + H_J σz, and spin-orbit coupling can be neglected because J ~ 100 meV >> Rashba ~ 1 meV.
    Stated in Discussions; if SOC or interband terms are comparable, the formulas are explicitly not applicable.
  • domain assumption The tight-binding Hamiltonians (13), (18), (23) and the X-wave (p,d,f,g,i) classification are correct descriptions of spin-split Fermi surfaces in 2D magnets.
    Taken from refs. [40,52,53]; the predictions inherit the validity and material relevance of these models.
  • standard math Mirror-symmetry parity analysis of the Fermi surface (ε(-kx)=ε(kx), ε(-ky)=ε(ky)) is sufficient to determine which ℓ-th order responses vanish.
    Used in the symmetry analysis section to set selection rules; valid if the integrands in (3) have the stated parity.
  • domain assumption The system is two-dimensional; currents are computed in D=2 with the given density of states and no anomalous (Berry-phase or quantum-metric) contribution.
    The paper states results are 2D and notes the formulas are not applicable with SOC where Berry-phase and quantum-metric terms enter.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear spin-Seebeck diode in $f$-wave magnets, third-order spin-Nernst effects in $g$-wave magnets and spin-Nernst effects in $i$-wave altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRJ2MQII

@misc{pith2026260219034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear spin-Seebeck diode in $f$-wave magnets, third-order spin-Nernst effects in $g$-wave magnets and spin-Nernst effects in $i$-wave altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRJ2MQII}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.19034}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A prominent feature of $d$-wave altermagnets is that spin current is generated by applying temperature gradient, which is known as the spin-Nernst effect. We show in $f$-wave magnets that spin current is generated proportional to the square of the temperature gradient, which we call the nonlinear spin-Seebeck current. It can be used as a spin current diode. In addition, we show in $g$-wave altermagnets that spin current is generated in the third order of the temperature gradient. We also show in $i$-wave altermagnets that spin current is generated perpendicular to the temperature gradient, which is the spin-Nernst current. We have derived analytic formulas for these spin currents. It is interesting that these phenomena occur in the absence of the spin-orbit interaction. On the other hand, we show in $p$-wave magnets that spin current is not generated by temperature gradient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.19034 by Motohiko Ezawa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Magnetization induced by a nonlinear response to temperature gradient in $d^{\prime }$, $g^{\prime }$ and $i^{\prime }$ altermagnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Nonlinear thermal gradients induce magnetization in d', g', and i' altermagnets but not in d, g, i or odd-parity magnets, as the leading response allowed by inversion symmetry.

  2. Intrinsic i-wave altermagnetism in 2D graphene superlattices

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Graphene antidot superlattices develop interaction-induced i-wave altermagnetic spin splitting from their intrinsic magnetic instability.

  3. Magnetization induced by a nonlinear response to temperature gradient in $d^{\prime }$, $g^{\prime }$ and $i^{\prime }$ altermagnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Second-order nonlinear response to a temperature gradient induces magnetization in d′, g′, and i′ altermagnets (and in d-wave for arbitrary gradient direction), but not in the corresponding unprimed g- and i-wave cases.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. I. Dyakonov and V . I. Perel, Possibility of orientating elec- tron spins with current Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. 13: 467, (1971)

    1971

  2. [2]

    M. I. Dyakonov and V . I. Perel, Current-induced spin orienta- tion of electrons in semiconductors. Phys. Lett. A 35 (6): 459 (1971)

    1971

  3. [3]

    Valenzuela, J

    Jairo Sinova, Sergio O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin Hall effects Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    Uchida, S

    K. Uchida, S. Takahashi, K. Harii, J. Ieda, W. Koshibae, K. Ando, S. Maekawa and E. Saitoh, Observation of the spin See- beck effect, Nature volume 455, 778 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Gerrit E. W. Bauer, Eiji Saitoh and Bart J. van Wees Spin caloritronics Nature Materials 11, 391 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Shu-guang Cheng, Yanxia Xing, Qing-feng Sun, and X. C. Xie, Spin Nernst effect and Nernst effect in two-dimensional elec- tron systems, Phys. Rev. B 78, 045302 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    Meyer, Y .-T

    S. Meyer, Y .-T. Chen, S. Wimmer, M. Althammer, T. Wimmer, R. Schlitz, S. Geprags, H. Huebl, D. Kodderitzsch, H. Ebert, G. E. W. Bauer, R. Gross and S. T. B. Goennenwein Observation of the spin Nernst effect, Nature Materials 16, 977 (2017)

    2017

  8. [8]

    Y . Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Field induced positional shift of Bloch electrons and its dynamical implications, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 166601 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal invariant materials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    Ideue, K

    T. Ideue, K. Hamamoto, S. Koshikawa, M. Ezawa, S. Shimizu, Y . Kaneko, Y . Tokura, N. Nagaosa, and Y . Iwasa, Bulk rectifica- tion effect in a polar semiconductor, Nat. Phys. 13, 578 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    H. Liu, J. Zhao, Y .-X. Huang, W. Wu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, and S. A. Yang, Intrinsic second-order anomalous Hall effect and its application in compensated antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 277202 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Michishita and N

    Y . Michishita and N. Nagaosa, Dissipation and geometry in nonlinear quantum transports of multiband electronic systems, Phys. Rev. B 106, 125114 (2022)

    2022

  13. [13]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y . Yanase, Nonlinear electric transport in odd- parity magnetic multipole systems: Application to Mn-based compounds, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043081 (2020)

    2020

  14. [14]

    C. Wang, Y . Gao, and D. Xiao, Intrinsic nonlinear Hall effect in antiferromagnetic tetragonal cumnas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 277201 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Oiwa and H

    R. Oiwa and H. Kusunose, Systematic analysis method for non- linear response tensors, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 91, 014701 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    Gao, Y .-F

    A. Gao, Y .-F. Liu, J.-X. Qiu, B. Ghosh, T.V . Trevisan, Y . On- ishi, C. Hu, T. Qian, H.-J. Tien, S.-W. Chen et al., Quantum metric nonlinear Hall effect in a topological antiferromagnetic heterostructure, Science 381, eadf1506 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    N. Wang, D. Kaplan, Z. Zhang, T. Holder, N. Cao, A. Wang, X. Zhou, F. Zhou, Z. Jiang, C. Zhang et al., Quantum metric- induced nonlinear transport in a topological antiferromagnet, Nature 621, 487 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Kamal Das, Shibalik Lahiri, Rhonald Burgos Atencia, Dimitrie Culcer, and Amit Agarwal, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivities induced by the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B 108, L201405 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Daniel Kaplan, Tobias Holder and Binghai Yan, Unification of Nonlinear Anomalous Hall Effect and Nonreciprocal Magne- toresistance in Metals by the Quantum Geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 026301 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    YuanDong Wang, ZhiFan Zhang, Zhen-Gang Zhu, and Gang Su, Intrinsic nonlinear Ohmic current, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085419 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Longjun Xiang, Bin Wang, Yadong Wei, Zhenhua Qiao, and Jian Wang, Linear displacement current solely driven by the quantum metric, Phys. Rev. B 109, 115121 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Zhen-Hao Gong, Z. Z. Du, Hai-Peng Sun, Hai-Zhou Lu, X. C. Xie, Nonlinear transport theory at the order of quantum metric, arXiv:2410.04995v2

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Ezawa, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivity induced by quantum geometry in altermagnets and measurement of the in-plane Neel vector, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivity induced by quantum geometry in altermagnets and measurement of the in-plane Neel vector, Phys. Rev. B 110, L241405 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Yuan Fang, Jennifer Cano, and Sayed Ali Akbar Ghorashi, Quantum Geometry Induced Nonlinear Transport in Altermag- 5 nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 106701 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Ezawa, Purely electrical detection of the Neel vector of p-wave magnets based on linear and nonlinear conductivities, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Purely electrical detection of the Neel vector of p-wave magnets based on linear and nonlinear conductivities, Phys. Rev. B 112, 125412 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Xiao-Qin Yu, Zhen-Gang Zhu, Jhih-Shih You, Tony Low, and Gang Su, Topological nonlinear anomalous Nernst effect in strained transition metal dichalcogenides Phys. Rev. B 99, 201410(R) (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    D. B. Karki and Mikhail N. Kiselev, Nonlinear Seebeck effect of SU(2) Kondo impurity, Phys. Rev. B 100, 125426 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Taraphder, and Sumanta Tewari, Nonlinear Nernst effect in bilayer WTe2 Phys

    Chuanchang Zeng, Snehasish Nandy, A. Taraphder, and Sumanta Tewari, Nonlinear Nernst effect in bilayer WTe2 Phys. Rev. B 100, 245102 (2019)

    2019

  29. [29]

    Marchegiani, A

    G. Marchegiani, A. Braggio, and F. Giazotto, Nonlinear Ther- moelectricity with Electron-Hole Symmetric Systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 106801 (2020)

    2020

  30. [30]

    Observation of nonlinear thermoelectric effect in MoGe/Y3Fe5O12 Hiroki Arisawa, Yuto Fujimoto, Takashi Kikkawa and Eiji Saitoh Nature Communications 15, 6912 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Hirata, T

    Y . Hirata, T. Kikkawa, H. Arisawa, E. SaitohNonlinear Seebeck effect in at room temperature, Appl. Phys. Lett. 126, 252408 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Harsh Varshney, Amit Agarwal, Intrinsic nonlinear Nernst and Seebeck effect, New J. Phys. 27, 083506 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Harsh Varshney, Amit Agarwal, Asymmetric Scatter- ing Drives Large Nonlinear Nernst and Seebeck Effects, arXiv:2601.17775

    arXiv

  34. [34]

    Ying-Fei Zhang, Zhi-Fan Zhang, Hua Jiang, Zhen-Gang Zhu, Gang Su, Fundamental Relations as the Leading Order in Non- linear Thermoelectric Responses with Time-Reversal Symme- try, arXiv:2601.19625

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Keita Hamamoto, Motohiko Ezawa, Kun Woo Kim, Takahiro Morimoto, and Naoto Nagaosa, Nonlinear spin current gener- ation in noncentrosymmetric spin-orbit coupled systems, Phys. Rev. B 95, 224430 (2017)

    2017

  36. [36]

    Mai Kameda Daichi Hirobe, Shunsuke Daimon, Yuki Shiomi, Saburo Takahashi, Eiji Saitoh, Microscopic formulation of non- linear spin current induced by spin pumping, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials 476, 459 (2019)

    2019

  37. [37]

    Satoru Hayami, Megumi Yatsushiro, and Hiroaki Kusunose, Nonlinear spin Hall effect in PT -symmetric collinear magnets, Phys. Rev. B 106, 024405 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Satoru Hayami, Linear and nonlinear spin-current generation in polar collinear antiferromagnets without relativistic spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 109, 214431 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Sanjib Kumar Das, Bitan Roy, From local spin nematicity to altermagnets: Footprints of band topology, Phys. Rev. B 111, L201102 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Ezawa, Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in g-wave and i-wave altermagnets and perfectly nonreciprocal spin current in f-wave magnets, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in g-wave and i-wave altermagnets and perfectly nonreciprocal spin current in f-wave magnets, Phys. Rev. B 111, 125420 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Smejkal, J

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

    2022

  42. [42]

    Libor Šmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Emerg- ing Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Hayami, Y

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

    2019

  44. [44]

    Anna Birk Hellenes, Tomas Jungwirth, Jairo Sinova, Libor Šmejkal, Unconventional p-wave magnets, arXiv:2309.01607

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  45. [45]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. MacDon- ald, J. Sinova, L. Smejkal, From supefluid 3He to altermagnets, arXiv:2411.00717

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    Makoto Naka, Satoru Hayami, Hiroaki Kusunose, Yuki Yanagi, Yukitoshi Motome and Hitoshi Seo, Spin current generation in organic antiferromagnets, Nat. Com. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Rafael Gonzalez-Hernandez, Libor Šmejkal, Karel Vborn, Yuta Yahagi, Jairo Sinova, Tomš Jungwirth, and Jakub Železn, Effi- cient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126:127701, (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    M Naka, Y Motome, and H Seo, Perovskite as a spin current generator. Phys. Rev. B, 103, 125114, (2021)

    2021

  49. [49]

    Schreiber, Rakshit Jain, Ding-Fu Shao, Hari P

    Arnab Bose, Nathaniel J. Schreiber, Rakshit Jain, Ding-Fu Shao, Hari P. Nair, Jiaxin Sun, Xiyue S. Zhang, David A. Muller, Evgeny Y . Tsymbal, Darrell G. Schlom & Daniel C. Ralph, Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferro- magnet ruthenium dioxide, Nature Electronics 5, 267 (2022)

    2022

  50. [50]

    Makoto Naka, Yukitoshi Motome and Hitoshi Seo, Altermag- netic Perovskites, npj Spintronics 3, 1 (2025)

    2025

  51. [51]

    Motohiko Ezawa, Quantum geometry and X-wave magnets with X=p,d,f,g,i, arXiv:2512.05477 to be publihsed in APEX

    arXiv

  52. [52]

    Ezawa, Almost half-quantized planar Hall effects in X-wave magnets with X=p,d,f,g,i Phys

    M. Ezawa, Almost half-quantized planar Hall effects in X-wave magnets with X=p,d,f,g,i Phys. Rev. B 112, 235307 (2025)

    2025

  53. [53]

    Ezawa, Tunneling magnetoresistance in a junction made of X-wave magnets with X=p,d,f,g,i, arXiv:2509.16867

    M. Ezawa, Tunneling magnetoresistance in a junction made of X-wave magnets with X=p,d,f,g,i, arXiv:2509.16867

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  54. [54]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y . Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Spontaneous antisym- metric spin splitting in noncollinear antiferromagnets without spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B 101, 220403 (2020)

    2020

  55. [55]

    Hayami, Y

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

    2020

  56. [56]

    Yichen Liu, Junxi Yu, and Cheng-Cheng Liu, Twisted Magnetic Van der Waals Bilayers: An Ideal Platform for Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206702 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    Mazin, R

    I. Mazin, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, and L. Smejkal, In- duced monolayer altermagnetism in mnp(s,se)3 and fese arXiv:2309.02355

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.