Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 77 references

The paper establishes that the spin-splitting class of a periodically driven collinear magnet is fixed by the intersection of the crystal's static spin point group with the light's dynamical symmetry group, enabling light-switchable odd-, e

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 08:02 UTC pith:QMH233BS

load-bearing objection A genuinely unifying Floquet spin-group framework that systematizes light-induced spin splitting; the symmetry core is sound, but the numerical support needs convergence checks before the 3D h-wave/k-wave claims are taken as verified. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.02393 v1 pith:QMH233BS submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.mes-hall

Floquet spin-group framework and its application to light-tailored spin splitting in collinear magnets

Tongshuai Zhu , Zixuan Li , Huaiqiang Wang , Su-Huai Wei , Jiawei Ruan This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetismFloquet engineeringspin point groupscollinear antiferromagnetslight-induced spin splittingcircularly polarized lightbilinear polarized lighth-wave spin splitting
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.

This paper claims that, in collinear magnets with negligible spin-orbit coupling, the pattern of spin-split bands under periodic laser driving is fully determined by the intersection of the material's static spin point group and the dynamical symmetry group of the light. That intersection, written as G_D = \tilde{G}_S ∩ \tilde{G}_L, decides which spin-preserving and spin-flipping symmetries survive the drive, and the surviving operations force a specific relation between spin-up and spin-down quasienergies. Using this rule, the authors classify all relevant two- and three-dimensional spin point groups under circularly and bilinearly polarized light, and show numerically that one material can be switched among odd-parity, even-parity, and mixed-parity spin splitting by changing the light's polarization or relative phase. If correct, this gives a systematic symmetry selection principle for engineering light-controlled spin textures, replacing case-by-case Floquet studies.

Core claim

The author would state the discovery as: any periodically driven collinear magnet with negligible spin-orbit coupling has its quasienergy spin-splitting class fixed by the intersection of the static spin point group of the crystal and the dynamical symmetry group of the light field. This intersection—G_D = \tilde{G}_S ∩ \tilde{G}_L—decides which spin operations survive driving, and the surviving operations enforce an exact band relation ε_{χ_S s,β}(η_S R k) = ε_{s,β}(k) modulo ℏω. Enumerating all 2D spin layer groups and 3D spin point groups under CPL, BLPL with α=0, and BLPL with α=π/4 yields tables predicting transitions among spin-degenerate antiferromagnetic, even-parity, odd-parity, mix

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet dynamical spin point group operation, written [S||R]·τ_n, which combines a spin-space operation S (preserving or reversing spin), a spatial point operation R, and a fractional time translation within the driving period. The load-bearing identities are Eq. 2, G_D = \tilde{G}_S ∩ \tilde{G}_L, and Eq. 5, ε_{χ_S s,β}(η_S R k) = ε_{s,β}(k) mod ℏω. The first identity selects which combined spin-space-time symmetries of the driven Hamiltonian survive, and the second converts those surviving operations into forced relations between spin-up and spin-down quasimomentum bands; Tables I and II then enumerate the resulting spin-splitting classes for every 2D and 3D colli

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the light only shifts the electron's crystal momentum through the vector potential, never acting directly on its spin (negligible spin-orbit coupling), and that the high-frequency Floquet approximation accurately describes the driven bands; if either fails, the predicted symmetry classes change.

What would settle it

Spin-resolved time- and angle-resolved photoemission on a driven collinear antiferromagnet such as monolayer MnPSe3 would settle the core claim: the rule predicts an odd-parity f-wave pattern under CPL and an even-parity d-wave pattern under BLPL at α=0 at the same Fermi energy, so observing any other splitting class under those conditions would falsify Eq. 2.

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

If this is right

  • Spin-splitting parity can be switched within a single material by exchanging CPL for BLPL or tuning the relative phase α, as demonstrated for MnPSe3 and Mn2P2S3Se3.
  • In 2D, CPL converts spin-degenerate antiferromagnets into odd-parity p- or f-wave splitting, while BLPL with α=0 produces even-parity d-wave splitting, with Table I covering all 2D spin layer groups.
  • In 3D, CPL induces spin splitting in all 58 collinear antiferromagnetic spin point groups and creates h-wave and k-wave splittings that cannot occur in 2D.
  • Distinct transport consequences follow: CPL can generate an anomalous Hall effect, whereas BLPL forbids it but permits a Berry curvature dipole.
  • The framework extends beyond collinear magnets to noncollinear and noncoplanar spin groups.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The intersection rule acts as a selection-rule dictionary: the dynamical group of any periodic drive—not just CPL or BLPL—can be inserted into G_D to read off the predicted splitting class without new band-structure calculations, suggesting direct extensions to multicolor or elliptically polarized light.
  • The 2D/3D difference in how the mirror m001 acts implies that film thickness is itself a symmetry knob: the same material and light could produce an even-parity pattern in the ultrathin limit and a higher-order h- or k-wave pattern in bulk, which is testable in thickness series.
  • If the high-frequency approximation breaks near resonances, the exact quasienergy constraint remains valid but the effective band structure can change; lowering ℏω and checking whether the tabulated parity classes survive would probe the limits of the classification.
  • Because spin-splitting parity controls the odd/even momentum structure of the Fermi surface, switching parity should directly switch the sign of nonlinear responses such as the Berry curvature dipole—an implication beyond the paper's explicit transport remarks.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Floquet spin point group framework for periodically driven collinear magnets with negligible spin-orbit coupling. It combines the static spin point group of the crystal with the dynamical symmetry group of the driving light through G_D = \tilde{G}_S ∩ \tilde{G}_L (Eq. 2) and derives a quasienergy constraint (Eq. 5) that classifies spin-resolved Floquet bands into spin-degenerate, even-parity, odd-parity, mixed-parity, and ferrimagnetic-like classes. The framework is applied to 2D spin layer groups and 3D spin point groups, producing classifications under CPL and BLPL in Tables I and II. Numerical demonstrations include first-principles Fermi surfaces for MnPSe3 and Mn2P2S3Se3, showing light-induced switching among parity classes, and tight-binding models for 3D systems, claiming h-wave and k-wave spin splittings.

Significance. If the numerical support is confirmed, the framework provides a useful unifying principle for light-controlled spin splitting in collinear magnets. The symmetry derivation is transparent and the classification tables are potentially valuable references for designing Floquet spin textures. The main strength is the combination of the static spin group and the light dynamical group, which makes the allowed quasienergy relations explicit. The h-wave/k-wave prediction in 3D is interesting, but its empirical support currently rests on approximate Floquet calculations that need convergence documentation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Spin splitting in 3D; Fig. 3; Table II] The empirical claim that CPL produces h-wave and k-wave spin splittings is supported only by Floquet Fermi surfaces computed 'within the high-frequency approximation' at ℏω=10 eV and A~a=2. The manuscript does not state the order of the Floquet–Magnus expansion or the number of photon sectors retained, and no convergence check is shown. With A~a=2 the expansion is not in the small-amplitude limit, so higher-order terms can in principle alter the in-plane nodal patterns (g-/i-type) and the k_z sign reversal from which the h/k labels are read. Please report the expansion order and a quantitative convergence test (e.g., increasing the Floquet cutoff or comparing with exact diagonalization of the small tight-binding models). Without this, the numerical realization of the new classes is not fully verified.
  2. [2D classification; Fig. 2] The same convergence concern applies to the first-principles switching demonstrations in Fig. 2. The drive parameters are strong (ℏω=10 eV, A~=0.35 Å^-1), but no Floquet truncation or convergence information is provided for the Fermi surfaces in Fig. 2(b)-(d) and (f)-(h). Since the switching among f-wave, d-wave, and mixed-parity spin splitting is the paper's central application, please document the Floquet method used (order/cutoff, photon sectors) and show that the symmetry assignments are stable with respect to the truncation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5) and classification definitions] The quasienergy relation is modulo ℏω, but the parity classes are stated without specifying which Floquet replica β is used to define ε_↑(k) and ε_↓(k). Please state the convention (e.g., central Floquet zone) so that 'spin splitting' is well defined when sidebands cross.
  2. [Tables I and II] The classifications are presented as exhaustive, but the derivation for all entries is not shown. Please provide, in the Supplemental Material or an appendix, the generator sets for the relevant spin layer/point groups and the surviving operations under each light field, so that the tables can be audited.
  3. [Main text; Fig. 1 caption] There are several typographical issues: 'dynmaical' in the main text, 'APT-AFM' in the Fig. 1 caption, and 'detials' in Ref. [64]. Please correct them.
  4. [3D spin splitting section] The terms h-wave and k-wave are not defined. Please specify the spectroscopic angular-momentum order and give the explicit k-space symmetry relation (e.g., the transformation under the remaining fourfold/sixfold operation) for each class.
  5. [Mn2P2S3Se3, BLPL α=π/4] For MnPX3 the remaining spin-flip operation is stated as [C2||m100], while for Mn2P2S3Se3 it is stated as [C2||m010]. Please clarify whether this difference is due to a coordinate-axis convention or is a typographical inconsistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Floquet spin-group classification is a symmetry construction, and the self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the quasienergy spin-splitting class is fixed by G_D = \tilde{G}_S ∩ \tilde{G}_L—is not circular. Eq. 2 defines the dynamical spin point group as the intersection of the static spin group and the light's dynamical group, and Eq. 5 is a direct consequence of requiring the Floquet Hamiltonian to commute with an operation in G_D. The classification in Tables I and II is an enumeration over the listed spin layer/point groups; no parameter is fitted and no target class is fed into the derivation. The first-principles (Fig. 2) and tight-binding (Fig. 3) results are external checks with fixed driving parameters (ℏω=10 eV, A=0.35 Å⁻¹ or Ãa=2), not inputs. The only self-citations (Refs. 36 and 57) concern prior reports of CPL-induced odd-parity splitting and the spin-group formalism, respectively; neither is used to force the present conclusion. The reviewer concern about the high-frequency approximation is a numerical-convergence/correctness issue, not a circularity: an unconverged Floquet truncation could weaken the numerical evidence, but it does not make the symmetry derivation reduce to its inputs. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to a claimed prediction. Because two background citations share authors with the present paper but are not load-bearing, the score is 2 rather than 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework relies on standard symmetry-group axioms and the Peierls substitution. The main free parameters are the driving amplitude and frequency, which are physical control parameters, not fitted to the target outcome. No fitted parameters are used to define the symmetry tables. The paper does not introduce new physical entities beyond the formal G_D notation.

free parameters (4)
  • Driving amplitude A~ (or A0) = 0.35 Å⁻¹ (2D), 0.25 Å⁻¹ (Mn2P2S3Se3), dimensionless 2 (3D tight-binding)
    Chosen for the numerical demonstrations; not derived from experiment. The symmetry classification itself does not depend on this value, but the existence of a sizable gap/renormalization and the Fermi-surface shapes do.
  • Driving frequency ℏω = 10 eV
    Used in all numerical calculations. This is in the high-frequency regime, but no convergence study is shown. The symmetry classification is frequency-independent.
  • Relative phase α of BLPL = 0, π/4, ±π/2
    The classification depends on α, which is a physical control parameter, not a fit. Listed for completeness as a control parameter.
  • Fermi energy for Fermi-surface plots = E_F = -0.3, -0.35, -0.2, -0.335, 1.2, -2.4 eV (varies)
    Chosen to highlight the spin-splitting patterns; different Fermi energies for different panels make the direct comparison of carrier pockets less clean.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Peierls substitution H_s(k,t) = H_s[k+A(t)] governs the light-matter coupling, with the light acting only on the orbital (momentum) degree of freedom.
    This is the standard minimal-coupling approximation in the velocity gauge; it fails when spatial variation of the light field or higher-order coupling terms matter.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling is negligible, so spin is a good quantum number and the spin point group description applies.
    The entire framework is built on collinear magnets with negligible SOC; material classes with significant SOC require a different (double-group) treatment.
  • domain assumption The high-frequency approximation (Floquet-Magnus expansion to leading order) is valid for the numerical Fermi surface calculations.
    Used to compute the effective static Hamiltonian for Figs. 2-3. The paper does not show convergence checks, and it is known that high-frequency expansions can miss resonances.
  • standard math The dynamical symmetry group of the light is generated by the stated operations [E||C_n]·τ_n, [T||m_x]·τ_2, etc., and these are the only symmetries that matter.
    This is a group-theory statement about the vector potential A(t); it is correct for the idealized plane-wave light fields considered.
  • standard math The quasienergy spectrum is considered modulo ℏω, and the classification applies to the Floquet band structure as a whole.
    This is standard Floquet theory.
invented entities (1)
  • Floquet dynamical spin point group G_D no independent evidence
    purpose: Unified symmetry group of the periodically driven collinear magnet, defined as the intersection of the static spin group and the light dynamical group.
    This is a mathematical construction, not a physical entity. It does not require independent physical evidence beyond the group-theory definitions.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 11954 in / 10372 out tokens · 85695 ms · 2026-08-04T08:02:39.024360+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Altermagnets combine momentum-dependent spin splitting with vanishing net magnetization, opening new opportunities for spintronics. Recent studies have shown that periodic driving by linearly or circularly polarized light, as well as by multicolor light fields, can control spin splitting in altermagnets and conventional antiferromagnets, and can even generate spin splitting patterns absent in equilibrium. Despite this progress, a unified principle connecting the dynamical symmetry of light to the symmetry of spin-split bands remains lacking, limiting the systematic design of light-induced spin structures. Here, by combining the spin group of crystals with the dynamical group of light, we establish a unified Floquet spin group framework for the study of periodically driven collinear magnets with negligible spin-orbit coupling. This framework systematically determines the allowed parity, momentum dependence, and nodal structure of spin splitting under different driving protocols. Guided by this symmetry classification, we show that odd-parity, even-parity, and mixed-parity spin splittings can be switched within the same material by tailoring the driving field. We further uncover higher-order $h$-wave and $k$-wave spin splittings in three-dimensional systems. Our work establishes a unified symmetry framework for light-controlled spin splitting and provides general principles for engineering nonequilibrium spin-band structures in altermagnets and related magnetic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02393 by Huaiqiang Wang, Jiawei Ruan, Su-Huai Wei, Tongshuai Zhu, Zixuan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Floquet spin splittings and dynamical symmetry in driven collinear magnets. (a) The symmetries of a collinear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Calculations of light-selected spin splitting in two-dimensional materials. (a-d) Calculated Fermi surface of MnPSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Light selected spin splitting in three-dimensional tight-binding models. (a), Lattice model used for the tetragonal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 7 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Z. Zhou, X. Cheng, M. Hu, R. Chu, H. Bai, L. Han, J. Liu, F. Pan, and C. Song, Nature638, 645 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal, C.-J. Kang, and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    J. Ding, Z. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Tao, Z. Liu, T. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Liu, Y. Yang, R. Zhang, L. Deng, W. Jing, Y. Huang, Y. Shi, M. Ye, S. Qiao, Y. Wang, Y. Guo, D. Feng, and D. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206401 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    X. Duan, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y. Liu, Z. Zhang, I. ˇZuti´ c, and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106801 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    M. Gu, Y. Liu, H. Zhu, K. Yananose, X. Chen, Y. Hu, A. Stroppa, and Q. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106802 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Z.-M. Wang, Y. Zhang, S.-B. Zhang, J.-H. Sun, E. Dagotto, D.-H. Xu, and L.-H. Hu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 176705 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Z. Zhu, R. Huang, X. Chen, Z. Cui, X. Duan, J. Zhang, I. ˇZuti´ c, and T. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 186702 (2026)

    2026

  13. [13]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Nat. Rev. Mater.10, 473 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Nat. Commun.12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    R. B. Regmi, H. Bhandari, B. Thapa, Y. Hao, N. Sharma, J. McKenzie, X. Chen, A. Nayak, M. El Gazzah, B. G. M´ arkus,et al., Nat. Commun.16, 4399 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    L. Han, X. Fu, R. Peng, X. Cheng, J. Dai, L. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, H. Bai,et al., Sci. Adv.10, eadn0479 (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei,et al., Nat. Phys.21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y. Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu,et al., Nat. Phys.21, 760 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Y. Liu, J. Yu, and C.-C. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206702 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Lin, S.-B

    H.-J. Lin, S.-B. Zhang, H.-Z. Lu, and X. C. Xie, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 136301 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    V. Leeb, A. Mook, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Knolle, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236701 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    C. Wu, K. Sun, E. Fradkin, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B75, 115103 (2007)

    2007

  24. [24]

    Yarmohammadi, M

    M. Yarmohammadi, M. Berritta, M. Bukov, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Linder, and P. M. Oppeneer, Phys. Rev. B113, L060403 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Q. Song, S. Stavri´ c, P. Barone, A. Droghetti, D. S. An- tonenko, J. W. Venderbos, C. A. Occhialini, B. Ilyas, E. Erge¸ cen, N. Gedik,et al., Nature642, 64 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Yamada, M

    R. Yamada, M. T. Birch, P. R. Baral, S. Okumura, R. Nakano, S. Gao, M. Ezawa, T. Nomoto, J. Masell, Y. Ishihara,et al., Nature646, 837 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    Y. Yu, M. B. Lyngby, T. Shishidou, M. Roig, A. Kreisel, M. Weinert, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046701 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    A. B. Hellenes, T. Jungwirth, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01607 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Zhang, Z

    X. Zhang, Z. Jiang, S. Shen, J. Yuan, J. Yoo, X. Ma, M. Ye, J. Liu, Z. Liu, C. Kim,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.02420 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Phys. Rev. B 101, 220403(R) (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Li and P

    Y. Li and P. Sukhachov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.18695 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Zhuang, D

    Z.-Y. Zhuang, D. Zhu, D. Liu, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18361 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Lin and M

    Y.-P. Lin and M. Vila, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09602 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Leeb and J

    V. Leeb and J. Knolle, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.07418 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Huang, Z

    S. Huang, Z. Qin, F. Zhan, D.-H. Xu, D.-S. Ma, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 126703 (2026)

    2026

  36. [36]

    T. Zhu, D. Zhou, H. Wang, S.-H. Wei, and J. Ruan, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 126704 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Liu, Z.-Y

    D. Liu, Z.-Y. Zhuang, D. Zhu, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Phys. Rev. B113, L060409 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    Li, D.-F

    B. Li, D.-F. Shao, and A. A. Kovalev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 166701 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    Tian, C.-H

    Y. Tian, C.-H. Zhao, C.-B. Wang, B. Zhang, X. Kong, and W.-J. Gong, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.11483 (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Z. Li, L. Li, M. Guan, and S. Meng, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.06416 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Zhuang, J.-X

    Z.-Y. Zhuang, J.-X. Hu, S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and Z. Yan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.05205 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Y. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Science342, 453 (2013)

    2013

  43. [43]

    S. Zhou, C. Bao, B. Fan, H. Zhou, Q. Gao, H. Zhong, T. Lin, H. Liu, P. Yu, P. Tang,et al., Nature614, 75 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Matsuyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier, and A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys.16, 38 (2020)

    2020

  45. [45]

    H¨ ubener, M

    H. H¨ ubener, M. A. Sentef, U. De Giovannini, A. F. Kem- per, and A. Rubio, Nat. Commun.8, 13940 (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    D. Choi, M. Mogi, U. De Giovannini, D. Azoury, B. Lv, Y. Su, H. H¨ ubener, A. Rubio, and N. Gedik, Nat. Phys. 21, 1100 (2025)

    2025

  47. [47]

    C. Bao, M. Sch¨ uler, T. Xiao, F. Wang, H. Zhong, T. Lin, X. Cai, T. Sheng, X. Tang, H. Zhang,et al., Nat. Com- mun.15, 10535 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Y. Liu, C. Yang, G. Gaertner, J. Huckabee, A. V. Suslov, G. Refael, F. Nathan, C. Lewandowski, L. E. Foa Torres, I. Esin,et al., Nat. Commun.16, 2057 (2025)

    2057

  49. [49]

    Merboldt, M

    M. Merboldt, M. Sch¨ uler, D. Schmitt, J. P. Bange, W. Bennecke, K. Gadge, K. Pierz, H. W. Schumacher, D. Momeni, D. Steil,et al., Nat. Phys.21, 1093 (2025)

    2025

  50. [50]

    and topological insulator surface states[42], leading to a light-induced anomalous Hall effect[44]. The re- cent experimental observation of Floquet–Bloch states by time- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, has demonstrated that periodic driving can not only shift or renormalize electronic bands, but also recon- struct the effective symmetry an...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B79, 081406(R) (2009)

    2009

  52. [52]

    P.-H. Fu, S. Mondal, J.-F. Liu, Y. Tanaka, and J. Cayao, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 066703 (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    Yu, R.-X

    J. Yu, R.-X. Zhang, and Z.-D. Song, Nat. Commun.12, 5985 (2021)

    2021

  54. [54]

    Engelhardt and J

    G. Engelhardt and J. Cao, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 090601 8 (2021)

    2021

  55. [55]

    Neufeld, D

    O. Neufeld, D. Podolsky, and O. Cohen, Nat. Commun. 10, 405 (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    Xu and C

    S. Xu and C. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 096401 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Z. Xiao, J. Zhao, Y. Li, R. Shindou, and Z.-D. Song, Phys. Rev. X14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Jiang, Z

    Y. Jiang, Z. Song, T. Zhu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, Z.-X. Liu, J. Yang, and C. Fang, Phys. Rev. X14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    X. Chen, J. Ren, Y. Zhu, Y. Yu, A. Zhang, P. Liu, J. Li, Y. Liu, C. Li, and Q. Liu, Phys. Rev. X14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, R. M. Fernandes, Q. Liu, H. Watanabe, S. Murakami, S. Nakatsuji, and L.ˇSmejkal, Nature649, 837 (2026)

    2026

  61. [61]

    M. Zeng, Z. Qin, L. Qin, S. Feng, L. Wu, D.-H. Xu, and R. Wang, Phys. Rev. B113, L220412 (2026)

    2026

  62. [62]

    Luo, J.-X

    X.-J. Luo, J.-X. Hu, M.-L. Hu, and K. Law, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05512 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Wang, Z.-M

    Y. Wang, Z.-M. Yu, C. Cui, Y. Han, T. He, W. Wu, R.- W. Zhang, S. A. Yang, and Y. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 106402 (2026)

    2026

  64. [64]

    Mazin, R

    I. Mazin, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02355 (2023)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    See the Supplementary Material, which includes Refs. [67–76], for the details of the first-principles calculations, the tight-binding models, the floquet-volkov sates for dif- ferent light and the details of the spin point groups for colliner magnets

  66. [66]

    Y. Liu, J. Yu, P. Zhang, and C.-C. Liu, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.19303 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    D. Zhu, Z. Yan, and M. Yarmohammadi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.27335 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  69. [69]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  70. [70]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  71. [71]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  72. [72]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  73. [73]

    Souza, N

    I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  74. [74]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune,et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter32, 165902 (2020)

    2020

  75. [75]

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Comput. Phys. Commun.224, 405 (2018)

    2018

  76. [76]

    G.-X. Zhi, C. Xu, S.-Q. Wu, F. Ning, and C. Cao, Com- put. Phys. Commun.271, 108196 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    S. T. Park, Phys. Rev. A90, 013420 (2014)

    2014