Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Quantum order-by-disorder in a honeycomb spin model lifts a classical degeneracy and selects the p-wave magnet as the unique S=1/2 ground state, establishing a microscopic mechanism for odd-parity magnetism.

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

2026-08-02 20:05 UTC pith:SL64ZBHI

load-bearing objection Classical analysis and model are solid, but the quantum-selection claim is not supported by the thin iDMRG evidence. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.23986 v2 pith:SL64ZBHI submitted 2026-02-27 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Quantum spin models of commensurate p-wave magnets

GiBaik Sim , Stephan Rachel This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 75.10.Jm75.30.Et72.25.-b
keywords p-wave magnetquantum order by disorderHubbard modelKitaev-Heisenberg modelDzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactionEdelstein effectinfinite DMRGhoneycomb lattice
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.

The paper asks whether the p-wave magnet, a phase with odd-parity, time-reversal-symmetric spin splitting in momentum space, can be realized as the spontaneous ground state of a microscopic model rather than by construction. It starts from a honeycomb-lattice Hubbard model with an imaginary spin-dependent hopping and derives a spin Hamiltonian whose classical ground state is a noncollinear zigzag state—the p-wave magnet—degenerate with competing noncoplanar states. Using infinite DMRG for spin-1/2, the authors show that quantum fluctuations lift this degeneracy and select the p-wave magnet, establishing a concrete stabilization mechanism. This matters for spintronics because the derived band structure exhibits a finite Edelstein effect (current-induced spin accumulation), and the mechanism is argued to apply to the honeycomb magnet Ni2Mo3O8.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the strong-coupling limit of a time-reversal-symmetric Hubbard model with imaginary bond-dependent hopping on the honeycomb lattice yields a spin model whose classical ground state contains a noncollinear zigzag state—the p-wave magnet—exactly degenerate with noncoplanar superpositions of three M-point modes. Infinite DMRG on a 48-site cylinder for S=1/2 shows that quantum order-by-disorder selects the coplanar p-wave state. A minimal tight-binding model built from this spin texture produces p-wave spin-split Dirac bands and a nonvanishing Edelstein response, and the construction extends to a second bond pattern relevant to Ni2Mo3O8.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is quantum order by disorder: within a manifold of classically degenerate spin configurations, zero-point fluctuations choose the state with the lowest quantum correction. The load-bearing objects are the strong-coupling spin Hamiltonian (Heisenberg, Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya, and Kitaev-type terms), the Luttinger–Tisza spectrum whose minimum at the M point fixes the single-Q zigzag candidate, and the iDMRG simulation that demonstrates this ordering survives in the quantum regime.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical conclusion rests on a single 6×4×2-site infinite-cylinder geometry, whose unit cell is commensurate with the p-wave and 120° states by construction; if a larger or differently twisted cylinder favored a noncoplanar or incommensurate state at the same θ, the claimed unique selection could fail.

What would settle it

Run iDMRG or exact diagonalization on the same spin Hamiltonian (Eq. 4, θ=π/3) using a larger circumference (e.g., 6×6) or a different unit-cell twist; if a noncoplanar multi-Q state or an incommensurate spiral has lower energy per site, the claim that quantum fluctuations uniquely select the p-wave magnet is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • The p-wave magnet is a genuine ground state of an interacting Hubbard-type model, so its magnon spectrum and response functions can now be computed from a microscopic starting point.
  • Quantum fluctuations generically select single-Q coplanar order over multi-Q noncoplanar competitors in this family of frustrated spin models, a selection principle likely to generalize beyond honeycomb lattices.
  • The calculated Edelstein response gives a concrete spintronic signature: an applied in-plane current induces spin polarization along the band-spin-polarization axis, with magnitude comparable to other p-wave magnet candidates.
  • The same mechanism with a C3z-symmetric bond pattern reproduces the noncollinear zigzag order observed in Ni2Mo3O8, bridging theory and a specific material.
  • The phase transitions into the p-wave phase are first-order in both bond patterns, so the phase is sharply separated from spiral and 120° orders.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The pure S=1 version of the model (without the single-ion anisotropy and biquadratic terms) is not tested; since zero-point energy typically weakens with increasing spin, the p-wave selection may become less robust at S=1.
  • The imaginary hopping term is realizable in cold-atom optical lattices using laser-assisted tunneling, which could provide a direct experimental test of the quantum order-by-disorder selection.
  • A measured Edelstein response with the predicted sign and anisotropy could be used to distinguish the coplanar single-Q p-wave state from multi-Q noncoplanar states, which have different spin symmetries.
  • The existence of a first-order boundary at θ≈0.85 suggests that small lattice distortions or strain, which modify DM couplings, could switch materials between spiral and p-wave magnetism.

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. The paper derives a spin-1/2 Hamiltonian from a Hubbard model on the honeycomb lattice with spin-dependent hopping that preserves time-reversal symmetry. In the classical limit, a Luttinger-Tisza analysis finds a noncollinear coplanar 'p-wave magnet' state with M-point ordering in a finite region of the parameter θ, but this state is energetically degenerate with noncoplanar multi-Q states. The authors claim that quantum fluctuations, as probed by iDMRG on 48-site cylinders, lift this degeneracy and uniquely select the p-wave magnet. They then construct a minimal tight-binding model for the p-wave texture and compute a finite Edelstein response, and discuss relevance to Ni2Mo3O8.

Significance. If the quantum-selection claim is robust, the paper provides a concrete microscopic mechanism for stabilizing p-wave magnetism from an interacting Hubbard model, which would be a valuable step for the field. The strong-coupling derivation and the classical Luttinger-Tisza treatment appear sound and are clearly presented. The Edelstein response calculation for the minimal model is a useful illustration. However, the central assertion—that quantum fluctuations select the p-wave magnet as the unique ground state—rests entirely on iDMRG correlation patterns on a single finite cylinder per case; the missing energy comparison with the degenerate noncoplanar competitors is a load-bearing gap. The manuscript's framing as establishing 'spontaneous p-wave magnetism' is therefore currently too strong.

major comments (3)
  1. [Quantum spin model] The conclusion that quantum fluctuations select the p-wave magnet is based solely on the correlation pattern of the iDMRG state (Fig. 2). The paper does not report the variational energy of the p-wave state relative to the noncoplanar states that are exactly degenerate at the classical level, nor any bond-dimension convergence or cylinder-width extrapolation. Without this comparison, the central claim 'quantum fluctuations lift the classical degeneracy and select the p-wave magnet as the ground state' is not established. The authors should provide energies of both classes of states (with bond-dimension and Ly convergence) or otherwise bound the energy difference.
  2. [End Matter] The End Matter states: 'This geometry is commensurate with the magnetic unit cells of both the p-wave magnet and the coplanar 120° state, while incommensurate spiral states are suppressed by the finiteness of the unit-cell size.' This admission applies equally to the noncoplanar multi-Q states: the 6×4×2 (and 6×3×2) cylinder breaks the C3 symmetry connecting the three M-point modes, and if the noncoplanar state's unit cell is not commensurate with this geometry, it is artificially penalized. The paper provides no check that the same quantum selection occurs for other cylinder widths or boundary conditions. A finite-size/geometry-bias artifact cannot be ruled out.
  3. [Classical spin model / Quantum spin model] The first-order transitions at θ≈0.85 (case (i)) and θ≈0.67, 1.25 (case (ii)) are inferred from kinks in the iDMRG energy and sign changes in its derivative. On a finite cylinder, such kinks can also arise from finite-bond-dimension effects or from level crossings that do not survive the thermodynamic limit. The order-parameter discontinuity or a scaling analysis is not shown. While less central than the selection claim, this weakens the phase-diagram statement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that quantum fluctuations select the p-wave magnet as the 'unique ground state'; given the evidence presented, this is an overclaim. Consider wording like 'consistent with the p-wave magnet' until the energy comparison is provided.
  2. [Title] The title has a spacing typo: 'commensuratep-wave magnets' should be 'commensurate p-wave magnets'.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The spinor notation is clear but define ⋯; also note that the hopping term is written with c_i^† c_j, which may imply a particular gauge; a short remark would help.
  4. [Fig. 1] The color or labels for the different phases in Fig. 1(a) are not fully described in the caption; please clarify what the orange/yellow shading indicates.
  5. [End Matter] In the spin-1 extension, the iDMRG results for the biquadratic and single-ion anisotropy are only summarized without showing data or parameters; please add a brief description or refer to a specific SM section with example curves.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central Hubbard-to-spin-to-iDMRG derivation is not circular; only the illustrative tight-binding/Edelstein calculation builds the p-wave texture in by hand.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Band structure and Edelstein effect; Eq. (6) and Fig. 3]
    "We introduce a minimal tight-binding model to illustrate the electronic properties of the p-wave magnet on the honeycomb lattice. The model is given by Hp = t∑⟨ij⟩ c†i cj + Jd∑i c†i [m̂pi·σ]ci, where m̂pi denotes the site-dependent local spin polarization of the p-wave magnet shown in Fig. 1(b). ... The resulting band dispersion clearly exhibits p-wave–type spin splitting."

    Hp is defined with the p-wave texture m̂pi as an input, so the p-wave spin splitting and the finite Edelstein response χeven_⊥x computed in Fig. 3 are consequences of that input rather than independent predictions of the Hubbard/spin derivation. This is an illustrative construction, not evidence for the ground-state selection, and therefore does not compromise the central claim.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is self-contained: Eq. (1) is a Hubbard model, Eq. (4) is obtained by a standard strong-coupling projection, the classical analysis uses Luttinger–Tisza minimization of that spin Hamiltonian, and the S=1/2 ground state is found by iDMRG on Eq. (4) without putting p-wave order into the Hamiltonian. No parameter is fitted to the target phase; the p-wave state is identified from correlation patterns after the calculation. The paper itself flags the main numerical limitation in the End Matter: 'This geometry is commensurate with the magnetic unit cells of both the p-wave magnet and the coplanar 120° state, while incommensurate spiral states are suppressed by the finiteness of the unit-cell size.' That is a finite-cylinder robustness concern (especially for the classically degenerate noncoplanar competitors) rather than a circular step. Self-citations (refs. 48, 57, 60, 75) are background/technical and are not load-bearing; the order-by-disorder expectation is supported by external refs. 61,62. The only mild by-construction element is the tight-binding Edelstein illustration, which uses the p-wave texture as an input. Overall score 2: central claim has independent content, with one minor non-central definitional element.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data: θ is a swept coupling and J=4t^2/U sets the energy scale. The central claim relies on a standard strong-coupling projection, exactness of the Luttinger-Tisza construction under the hard-spin constraint, and convergence/commensurability of the iDMRG cylinder; the latter two are asserted rather than demonstrated in the main text. No new physical entities are introduced; the p-wave magnet is an existing concept.

axioms (4)
  • standard math Luttinger-Tisza minimization is exact when the lowest-band eigenmodes satisfy the hard-spin constraint.
    Used to obtain the classical phase diagram; the authors state the hard-spin constraint is satisfied in the entire parameter regime explored.
  • domain assumption The strong-coupling expansion truncated at O(t^2/U) and the restriction to one electron per site captures the relevant physics of Eq. (1).
    Eq. (4) is derived by projecting onto the singly occupied subspace; higher-order ring-exchange terms and finite-U corrections are neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The iDMRG calculation with bond dimension up to 2000 and a 48-site unit cell is converged.
    Fig. 2 and the Quantum spin model section report bond dimensions up to 2000 but defer convergence data to the Supplemental Material.
  • ad hoc to paper The 6×4×2 cylinder geometry is commensurate with the candidate p-wave/noncoplanar states and does not bias the selection among them.
    The End Matter states the geometry is commensurate with the p-wave and 120° states and explicitly suppresses incommensurate spirals; the same commensurability could bias against multi-Q noncoplanar states.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12421 in / 15593 out tokens · 154854 ms · 2026-08-02T20:05:38.768108+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The $p$-wave magnet has emerged as a new type of magnetism exhibiting odd-parity, time-reversal-symmetric spin splitting in momentum space, and has attracted considerable interest as a promising platform for spintronic applications. However, the theoretical understanding of the fundamental mechanism responsible for stabilizing this phase remains limited. In this work, we identify a microscopic interacting model that realizes the $p$-wave magnet as its ground state. We first introduce a Hubbard model and derive the corresponding low-energy spin Hamiltonian. At the classical level, we find that the $p$-wave magnet is stabilized but remains energetically degenerate with competing noncoplanar states. Quantum fluctuations lift this degeneracy, selecting the $p$-wave magnet as the unique ground state. The resulting electronic structure exhibits finite spin accumulation via the Edelstein effect, highlighting the potential of $p$-wave magnetism for spintronic applications. We further discuss the relevance of our theory to quasi-two-dimensional honeycomb magnets such as Ni$_2$Mo$_3$O$_8$. Our findings establish the possibility of spontaneous $p$-wave magnetism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.23986 by Gibaik Sim, Stephan Rachel.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Quantum phase diagram of the spin-1/2 model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (color online) (a) Band spectrum of the model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Classical phase diagram of the model given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_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.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Nonrelativistic Spin-Orbit-Coupling Effects in Odd-Parity Coplanar Magnets

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Bilayer odd-parity coplanar magnets constructed from altermagnets realize tunable nonrelativistic SOC spin textures equivalent to relativistic counterparts.

  2. Optical Magnetic Switching in Odd-Parity Magnets with Spin-Orbit Coupling

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In odd-parity (p-wave) magnets with spin-orbit coupling, elliptically polarized light creates a momentum-independent spin-dependent term that yields finite magnetization and a polarization-switchable Chern number.

  3. Dynamical Polarization from Hidden Spin and Orbital Textures in p-Wave Magnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Optically driven p-wave magnets develop a resonantly enhanced ac spin polarization at the 2J_sd exchange gap and a rectified, polarization-controlled dc orbital polarization invisible to period-averaged treatments.

  4. Topological Ising superconductivity in two-dimensional p-wave magnet

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A mixed singlet-triplet Ising state in a 2D p-wave magnet transitions to a nodal topological superconducting phase with Majorana edge modes protected by momentum-resolved winding numbers when triplet pairing exceeds s...

  5. $P$-wave Orbital Magnetism

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    P-wave orbital magnetism protected by combined translation and time-reversal symmetry is proposed to originate from loop-current-induced orbital textures in a 2D Dirac lattice model, measurable via orbital Hall conductivity.

  6. The fate of odd-parity magnetism in one dimension

    cond-mat.str-el 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bosonization analysis of a 1D extended Hubbard-Kondo model shows p-wave magnetic order produces p-wave character in the electron spectral function only at commensurate fillings, with interactions becoming irrelevant o...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Moriya,Spin Fluctuations in Itinerant Electron Mag- netism, edited by P

    T. Moriya,Spin Fluctuations in Itinerant Electron Mag- netism, edited by P. Fulde, M. Cardona, and H.-J. Queisser, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences, Vol. 56 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985)

    1985

  2. [2]

    ˇZuti´ c, J

    I. ˇZuti´ c, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Spintronics: Fun- damentals and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 323 (2004)

    2004

  3. [3]

    Hayami, M

    S. Hayami, M. Yatsushiro, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Classification of atomic-scale multipoles under crystallo- graphic point groups and application to linear response tensors, Phys. Rev. B98, 165110 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. Mac- Donald, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, Altermagnetism: An unconventional spin-ordered phase of matter, Newton1, 100162 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    M. I. Katsnelson, V. Yu. Irkhin, L. Chioncel, A. I. Licht- enstein, and R. A. De Groot, Half-metallic ferromagnets: From band structure to many-body effects, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 315 (2008)

    2008

  6. [6]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Antifer- romagnetism in RuO 2 as ad-wave pomeranchuk insta- bility, Phys. Rev. B99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Hayami, Y

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

    2020

  8. [8]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low- Z antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond Con- ventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Re- search Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    V. Leeb, A. Mook, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Knolle, Sponta- neous Formation of Altermagnetism from Orbital Order- ing, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236701 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Y. Li, V. Leeb, K. Wohlfeld, R. Valent ´ ı, and J. Knolle, Exploringd-wave magnetism in cuprates from oxygen moments, Phys. Rev. B112, 125139 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    P. A. McClarty and J. G. Rau, Landau Theory of Alter- magnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 176702 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, S. Nakatsuji, and T. Jungwirth, Anomalous Hall antiferromagnets, Nat Rev Mater7, 482 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Altermagnets as a new class of functional materials, Nat Rev Mater10, 473 (2025)

    2025

  16. [16]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Altermagnetism: Exploring New Frontiers in 6 Magnetism and Spintronics, Advanced Functional Ma- terials34, 2409327 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    Z. Liu, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, Altermagnetism and Superconductivity: A Short Historical Review, arXiv:2510.09170 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    J. E. Hirsch, Spin-split states in metals, Phys. Rev. B41, 6820 (1990)

    1990

  19. [19]

    Wu and S.-C

    C. Wu and S.-C. Zhang, Dynamic Generation of Spin- Orbit Coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 036403 (2004)

    2004

  20. [20]

    C. M. Varma and L. Zhu, Helicity order: Hidden or- der parameter in URu 2Si2, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 036405 (2006)

    2006

  21. [21]

    C. Wu, K. Sun, E. Fradkin, and S.-C. Zhang, Fermi liquid instabilities in the spin channel, Phys. Rev. B75, 115103 (2007)

    2007

  22. [22]

    E. I. Kiselev, M. S. Scheurer, P. W¨ olfle, and J. Schmalian, Limits on dynamically generated spin-orbit coupling: Absence ofl= 1 pomeranchuk instabilities in metals, Phys. Rev. B95, 125122 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Y.-M. Wu, A. Klein, and A. V. Chubukov, Conditions for l= 1 Pomeranchuk instability in a Fermi liquid, Phys. Rev. B97, 165101 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    A. B. Hellenes, T. Jungwirth, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, P-wave mag- nets, arXiv:2309.01607 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Chakraborty, A

    A. Chakraborty, A. Birk Hellenes, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Sinova, Highly efficient non-relativistic Edelstein effect in nodal p-wave magnets, Nat Commun16, 7270 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Brekke, P

    B. Brekke, P. Sukhachov, H. G. Giil, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Minimal Models and Transport Properties of Unconventional p -Wave Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 236703 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Q. Song, S. Stavri´ c, P. Barone, A. Droghetti, D. S. An- tonenko, J. W. F. Venderbos, C. A. Occhialini, B. Ilyas, E. Erge¸ cen, N. Gedik, S.-W. Cheong, R. M. Fernandes, S. Picozzi, and R. Comin, Electrical switching of a p-wave magnet, Nature642, 64 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    Yamada, M

    R. Yamada, M. T. Birch, P. R. Baral, S. Okumura, R. Nakano, S. Gao, M. Ezawa, T. Nomoto, J. Masell, Y. Ishihara, K. K. Kolincio, I. Belopolski, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, K. Ohishi, T. Ohhara, R. Kiyanagi, T. Naka- jima, Y. Tokura, T.-h. Arima, Y. Motome, M. M. Hirschmann, and M. Hirschberger, A metallic p-wave magnet with commensurate spin helix, Nature646, ...

    2025

  29. [29]

    Y. Yu, M. B. Lyngby, T. Shishidou, M. Roig, A. Kreisel, M. Weinert, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Odd-Parity Magnetism Driven by Antiferromagnetic Ex- change, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046701 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    X. Chen, J. Ren, Y. Zhu, Y. Yu, A. Zhang, P. Liu, J. Li, Y. Liu, C. Li, and Q. Liu, Enumeration and Represen- tation Theory of Spin Space Groups, Phys. Rev. X14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Z. Xiao, J. Zhao, Y. Li, R. Shindou, and Z.-D. Song, Spin Space Groups: Full Classification and Applications, Phys. Rev. X14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Jiang, Z

    Y. Jiang, Z. Song, T. Zhu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, Z.-X. Liu, J. Yang, and C. Fang, Enumeration of Spin-Space Groups: Toward a Complete Description of Symmetries of Magnetic Orders, Phys. Rev. X14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    Schiff, A

    H. Schiff, A. Corticelli, A. Guerreiro, J. Romh´ anyi, and P. A. McClarty, The crystallographic spin point groups and their representations, SciPost Phys.18, 109 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    S. Wu, W. A. Phelan, L. Liu, J. R. Morey, J. A. Tutma- her, J. C. Neuefeind, A. Huq, M. B. Stone, M. Feygenson, D. W. Tam, B. A. Frandsen, B. Trump, C. Wan, S. R. Dunsiger, T. M. McQueen, Y. J. Uemura, and C. L. Bro- holm, Incommensurate Magnetism Near Quantum Criti- cality in CeNiAsO, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 197203 (2019)

    2019

  35. [35]

    F. Lu, X. He, K. Cheng, Z. Wang, J. Zhang, and Y. Luo, 75As NMR study of the antiferromagnetic kondo lattice compound ceniaso, Phys. Rev. B107, 045104 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Shishidou, D

    T. Shishidou, D. F. Agterberg, and M. Weinert, Mag- netic fluctuations in single-layer FeSe, Commun Phys1, 8 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Stadel, D

    R. Stadel, D. D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, K. Yokoyama, S. Lapidus, M. H. Christensen, R. M. Fernandes, D. Phe- lan, D. Y. Chung, R. Osborn, S. Rosenkranz, and O. Chmaissem, Multiple magnetic orders in lafeas1−xpxo uncover universality of iron-pnictide superconductors, Commun Phys5, 146 (2022)

    2022

  38. [38]

    Dsouza, A

    R. Dsouza, A. Kreisel, B. M. Andersen, D. F. Agterberg, and M. H. Christensen, Odd-Parity Magnetism in Fe- Based Superconductors, arXiv:2508.21673 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    T. Zhu, D. Zhou, H. Wang, and J. Ruan, Floquet odd- parity collinear magnets, arXiv:2508.02542 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Huang, Z

    S. Huang, Z. Qin, F. Zhan, D.-H. Xu, D.-S. Ma, and R. Wang, Light-induced Odd-parity Magnetism in Con- ventional Collinear Antiferromagnets, arXiv:2507.20705 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Li, D.-F

    B. Li, D.-F. Shao, and A. A. Kovalev, Floquet Spin Splitting and Spin Generation in Antiferromagnets, arXiv:2507.22884 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Lee and P

    C. Lee and P. M. R. Brydon, Inversion-Asymmetric Itin- erant Antiferromagnets by the Space Group Symmetry, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 116701 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    Leeb and J

    V. Leeb and J. Knolle, Collinearp-wave magnetism and hidden orbital ferrimagnetism, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07418 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    A. H. MacDonald, S. M. Girvin, and D. Yoshioka, T U expansion for the Hubbard model, Phys. Rev. B37, 9753 (1988)

    1988

  45. [45]

    Shekhtman, O

    L. Shekhtman, O. Entin-Wohlman, and A. Aharony, Moriya’s anisotropic superexchange interaction, frustra- tion, and Dzyaloshinsky’s weak ferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 836 (1992)

    1992

  46. [46]

    Chaloupka, G

    J. Chaloupka, G. Jackeli, and G. Khaliullin, Zigzag mag- netic order in the iridium oxide Na2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 097204 (2013)

    2013

  47. [47]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic Spin Model for the Honeycomb Iridates beyond the Kitaev Limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Rousochatzakis, J

    I. Rousochatzakis, J. Reuther, R. Thomale, S. Rachel, and N. B. Perkins, Phase diagram and quantum order by disorder in the kitaevK 1 −K 2 honeycomb magnet, Phys. Rev. X5, 041035 (2015)

    2015

  49. [49]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Spin-Orbit Physics Giving Rise to Novel Phases in Correlated Sys- tems: Iridates and Related Materials, Annu. Rev. Con- dens. Matter Phys.7, 195 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Hermanns, I

    M. Hermanns, I. Kimchi, and J. Knolle, Physics of the Kitaev Model: Fractionalization, Dynamic Correlations, and Material Connections, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.9, 17 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    Matsuda, T

    Y. Matsuda, T. Shibauchi, and H.-Y. Kee, Kitaev quan- tum spin liquids, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 045003 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Schaffer, S

    R. Schaffer, S. Bhattacharjee, and Y. B. Kim, Quantum 7 phase transition in Heisenberg-Kitaev model, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics86, 224417 (2012)

    2012

  53. [53]

    L.-M. Duan, E. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling spin exchange interactions of ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Physical review letters91, 090402 (2003)

    2003

  54. [54]

    Hassan, S

    S. Hassan, S. Goyal, R. Shankar, and D. S´ en´ echal, Quarter-filled Kitaev-Hubbard model: A quantum Hall state in an optical lattice, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics88, 045301 (2013)

    2013

  55. [55]

    J. Faye, D. S´ en´ echal, and S. Hassan, Topological phases of the Kitaev-Hubbard model at half filling, Physical Re- view B89, 115130 (2014)

    2014

  56. [56]

    Sato and F

    T. Sato and F. F. Assaad, Quantum Monte Carlo simu- lation of generalized Kitaev models, Physical Review B 104, L081106 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    Rachel, Interacting topological insulators: a review, Rep

    S. Rachel, Interacting topological insulators: a review, Rep. Prog. Phys.81, 116501 (2018)

    2018

  58. [58]

    J. M. Luttinger and L. Tisza, Theory of Dipole Interac- tion in Crystals, Phys. Rev.70, 954 (1946)

    1946

  59. [59]

    S. R. Sklan and C. L. Henley, Nonplanar ground states of frustrated antiferromagnets on an octahedral lattice, Phys. Rev. B88, 024407 (2013)

    2013

  60. [60]

    Sim and S

    G. Sim and S. Lee, Discovery of a new type of magnetic order on pyrochlore spinels, Phys. Rev. B98, 014423 (2018)

    2018

  61. [61]

    C. L. Henley, Ordering due to disorder in a frustrated vector antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2056 (1989)

    2056

  62. [62]

    A. V. Chubukov and Th. Jolicoeur, Order-from-disorder phenomena in Heisenberg antiferromagnets on a triangu- lar lattice, Phys. Rev. B46, 11137 (1992)

    1992

  63. [63]

    I. P. McCulloch, Infinite size density matrix renormaliza- tion group, revisited, arXiv:0804.2509 (2008)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  64. [64]

    Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    U. Schollw¨ ock, The density-matrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states, Annals of Physics 326, 96 (2011)

    2011

  65. [65]

    Freimuth, S

    F. Freimuth, S. Bl¨ ugel, and Y. Mokrousov, Spin-orbit torques in Co/Pt(111) and Mn/W(001) magnetic bilayers from first principles, Phys. Rev. B90, 174423 (2014)

    2014

  66. [66]

    H. Li, H. Gao, L. P. Zˆ arbo, K. V´ yborn´ y, X. Wang, I. Garate, F. Doˇ gan, A. ˇCejchan, J. Sinova, T. Jung- wirth, and A. Manchon, Intraband and interband spin- orbit torques in noncentrosymmetric ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B91, 134402 (2015)

    2015

  67. [67]

    Offidani, M

    M. Offidani, M. Milletar ` ı, R. Raimondi, and A. Fer- reira, Optimal Charge-to-Spin Conversion in Graphene on Transition-Metal Dichalcogenides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 196801 (2017)

    2017

  68. [68]

    Manchon, J

    A. Manchon, J. ˇZelezn´ y, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gambardella, Current-induced spin-orbit torques in ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 035004 (2019)

    2019

  69. [69]

    ˇZelezn´ y, Y

    J. ˇZelezn´ y, Y. Zhang, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Spin- Polarized Current in Noncollinear Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 187204 (2017)

    2017

  70. [70]

    Gurung, D.-F

    G. Gurung, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Transport spin polarization of noncollinear antiferromagnetic an- tiperovskites, Phys. Rev. Materials5, 124411 (2021)

    2021

  71. [71]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, P

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, P. Ritzinger, K. V´ yborn´ y, J. ˇZelezn´ y, and A. Manchon, Non-relativistic torque and Edelstein effect in non-collinear magnets, Nat Commun 15, 7663 (2024)

    2024

  72. [72]

    J. R. Morey, A. Scheie, J. P. Sheckelton, C. M. Brown, and T. M. McQueen, Ni2Mo3O8: Complex antiferromag- netic order on a honeycomb lattice, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 014410 (2019)

    2019

  73. [73]

    Yadav, S

    P. Yadav, S. Lee, G. L. Pascut, J. Kim, M. J. Gutmann, X. Xu, B. Gao, S.-W. Cheong, V. Kiryukhin, and S. Choi, Noncollinear magnetic order, in-plane anisotropy, and magnetoelectric coupling in the pyroelectric honeycomb antiferromagnet Ni 2Mo3O8, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 033099 (2023)

    2023

  74. [74]

    B. Gao, T. Chen, X.-C. Wu, M. Flynn, C. Duan, L. Chen, C.-L. Huang, J. Liebman, S. Li, F. Ye, M. B. Stone, A. Podlesnyak, D. L. Abernathy, D. T. Adroja, M. Duc Le, Q. Huang, A. H. Nevidomskyy, E. Morosan, L. Balents, and P. Dai, Diffusive excitonic bands from frustrated triangular sublattice in a singlet-ground-state system, Nat Commun14, 2051 (2023)

    2051

  75. [75]

    Yadav, S

    R. Yadav, S. Rachel, L. Hozoi, J. van den Brink, and G. Jackeli, Strain-and pressure-tuned magnetic interac- tions in honeycomb Kitaev materials, Physical Review B 98, 121107 (2018)

    2018

  76. [76]

    Hauschild and F

    J. Hauschild and F. Pollmann, Efficient numerical sim- ulations with Tensor Networks: Tensor Network Python (TeNPy), SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes , 5 (2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    Hauschild, J

    J. Hauschild, J. Unfried, S. Anand, B. Andrews, M. Bintz, U. Borla, S. Divic, M. Drescher, J. Geiger, M. Hefel, K. H´ emery, W. Kadow, J. Kemp, N. Kirchner, V. S. Liu, G. Moller, D. Parker, M. Rader, A. Romen, S. Scalet, L. Schoonderwoerd, M. Schulz, T. Soejima, P. Thoma, Y. Wu, P. Zechmann, L. Zweng, R. Mong, M. Zaletel, and F. Pollmann, Tensor network P...

    2024

  78. [78]

    Luo, J.-X

    X.-J. Luo, J.-X. Hu, and K. T. Law, Spin Symmetry Cri- teria for Odd-parity Magnets, arXiv:2510.05512 (2025). END MA TTER Here, we focus on case (ii), specified by the pattern in Eq. (3), which is directly relevant to the honeycomb magnet Ni 2Mo3O8. In this material, the magnetically active Ni2+ ions occupy inequivalent tetrahedral and oc- tahedral oxygen...

    arXiv 2025