Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 89 references

Emergence and Detection of Surface altermagnetism in KV$_2$Se$_2$O

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The (001) surface of antiferromagnetic KV2Se2O is a d-wave altermagnet.

desk verdict The surface altermagnetism story for KV2Se2O is qualitatively solid, but the headline NLEE number is tied to a VO termination that the paper's own data show is not generic. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03551 v1 pith:O7IB6PQQ submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Rodrigo Jaeschke-Ubiergo , Xanthe H. Verbeek , Colin Lange , Sergio Rodriguez , Atasi Chakraborty , Alexander Mook , Jairo Sinov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords surfacealtermagnetismKV2Se2OnonlinearEdelsteineffectd-wavespinsplittingantiferromagnetLieblatticespin-orbitcouplingstates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

KV2Se2O has two experimental faces: neutron diffraction says the bulk is an antiferromagnet with (0,0,1/2) order, while photoemission and spin-selective scanning tunneling microscopy see d-wave spin splitting. This paper predicts that both are true: the (001) surface of the antiferromagnetic phase is an emergent d-wave altermagnet even though the bulk bands stay spin-degenerate, because the surface breaks time reversal and inversion while keeping a compensating combined spin-space symmetry. The paper's new, testable signature is a surface-localized nonlinear Edelstein response, $\chi^{(2)}_{zxx} \approx 125\, e^2\tau^2 a^2/(2\pi)^2\hbar$ at chemical potential 0.2 eV, which follows the same d-wave pattern and can be disentangled from the ordinary linear Edelstein response by symmetry. If correct, surface-sensitive probes and bulk probes are not in conflict; they are measuring different parts of the same crystal.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the surface magnetic point group 4'm'm: in the bulk the magnetic group preserves inversion and time reversal, eliminating spin splitting and all Edelstein responses, while at the (001) surface inversion and time reversal are broken but a symmetry combining a fourfold real-space rotation with a twofold spin rotation still connects opposite magnetic moments layer by layer, enforcing compensation and d-wave spin splitting. On this symmetry scaffold, the quantitative prediction is carried by a layer-projected semiclassical transport formula, $\chi^{(2)}_{\alpha ij}(\ell) = \chi_0 \sum_n \int d^2k\, (\partial s^\alpha_{n,\ell}/\partial k_i)\, v^j_n\, \delta(\varepsilon_n - E_F)$ with $\chi_0 = e^2\tau^2 a^2/(2\pi)^2\hbar$, evaluated on a slab built from density-functional tight-binding states. The response peaks where spin-orbit coupling creates avoided crossings of opposite-spin V-d surface states with high group velocity, about $0.5\times10^{6}$ m/s.

What would settle it

Measure the electric-field-induced out-of-plane spin density on a VO-terminated (001) surface of KV2Se2O at $\mu=0.2$ eV: if the surface altermagnetism picture is right, the signal must be invariant under reversing the field, must vanish for fields along the (110) and (1-10) diagonals, and must reverse when the magnetic order is reversed. Observing instead the field-odd in-plane pattern of the linear Edelstein effect, or no out-of-plane signal, would falsify the prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the (001) surface of bulk-antiferromagnetic KV2Se2O realizes emergent surface altermagnetism: despite spin degeneracy in the bulk enforced by combined inversion and time-reversal symmetry, the surface states are spin-split with d-wave symmetry, with nodal directions along the (110) and (1-10) diagonals, so the surface spin polarization alternates in momentum space while the surface remains magnetically compensated. This reconciles the neutron diffraction measurement of bulk antiferromagnetic order with photoemission and tunneling evidence of d-wave spin splitting. The paper's new quantitative prediction is the surface nonlinear Edelstein effect: an in-plane electric field induces an out-of-plane spin density $\delta s_z = \chi^{(2)}_{zxx}(E_x^2 - E_y^2)$, with $\chi^{(2)}_{zxx} \approx 125\, e^2\tau^2 a^2/(2\pi)^2\hbar$ at $\mu=0.2$ eV, localised at the top layer and carrying the same d-wave angular dependence, which makes the surface altermagnetism detectable and separable from the linear in-plane Edelstein response.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative prediction assumes an ideal, unreconstructed VO-terminated (001) surface where the bulk (0,0,1/2) antiferromagnetic order persists unchanged up to the surface, magnetic domains and terraces are large enough to avoid averaging the signal away, and the density-functional treatment without an added Coulomb-correction term places the V-d surface states at the correct energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The apparent contradiction between neutron diffraction and photoemission is resolved: the former sees bulk antiferromagnetic order, the latter sees d-wave surface altermagnetism.
  • An in-plane electric field induces an out-of-plane spin density quadratic in the field and invariant under field reversal, so it can be cleanly separated from the linear in-plane Edelstein signal.
  • A VO-terminated (001) surface at $\mu=0.2$ eV should show a strong peak in $\chi^{(2)}_{zxx}$; a SeK-terminated surface suppresses that peak.
  • The surface nonlinear Edelstein response is estimated at roughly 125 $e^2\tau^2 a^2/(2\pi)^2\hbar$, about two orders of magnitude above earlier model estimates, making detection realistic, for example through the inverse spin Hall effect in a normal-metal cap.
  • The same surface-altermagnetism mechanism is expected to apply to other stacked Lieb-lattice antiferromagnets, widening the pool of detectable altermagnetic surfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the response is truly surface-localized and termination-dependent, the nonlinear Edelstein signal could serve as a diagnostic of which surface termination a cleave actually exposes, since only the VO termination gives the $\mu=0.2$ eV peak.
  • The field-reversal protocol used to separate $\chi^{(1)}$ from $\chi^{(2)}$ should generalise to other time-reversal-odd surface responses, giving a background-free route to isolate surface altermagnetism in transport measurements.
  • Because opposite antiferromagnetic domains contribute with opposite sign, spatial mapping of the induced out-of-plane spin density could image magnetic domain structure at the surface instead of averaging it away.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper uses DFT and Wannier-based surface calculations to argue that in the bulk antiferromagnetic (0,0,1/2) phase of KV2Se2O, the (001) surface exhibits d-wave altermagnetism: despite bulk PT symmetry and Kramers degeneracy, the surface states are spin-split with d-wave symmetry. The authors further compute a layer-resolved nonlinear Edelstein susceptibility and predict χ^(2)_zxx ≈ 125 e²τ²a²/(2π)²ℏ at μ = 0.2 eV on an ideal VO-terminated surface, with the out-of-plane spin response following the d-wave angular dependence and disentangled from the in-plane linear Edelstein response. They argue that this reconciles the ARPES/STM evidence for altermagnetism with the neutron diffraction evidence for bulk antiferromagnetism, and they propose the surface nonlinear Edelstein effect as a key detection signature.

Significance. The symmetry-based argument for surface altermagnetism is rigorous and the DFT/Wannier workflow is standard, so the qualitative conclusion — that a PT-symmetric bulk antiferromagnet can host d-wave spin-split surface states — is robust and of broad interest for the Lieb-lattice family. The layer-resolved nonlinear Edelstein calculation, the explicit discussion of termination and terrace sensitivity, and the separation of linear and nonlinear contributions are valuable strengths. The predicted χ^(2) value is large and falsifiable, and no parameter is fitted to the response itself; τ and μ enter only as an overall scale and a reporting point. However, the central quantitative signature is conditional on an ideal, unreconstructed VO-terminated surface and on the position of V-d surface states in a DFT calculation without Hubbard U, so the advertised quantitative prediction requires careful qualification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III B and Figs. 4-5] The central quantitative prediction, χ^(2)_zxx ≈ 125 e²τ²a²/(2π)²ℏ at μ = 0.2 eV, is computed for an ideal, unreconstructed VO-terminated (001) surface in which the bulk (0,0,1/2) antiferromagnetic order is preserved rigidly up to the surface. This assumption is load-bearing: Figs. 4 and 5 show that a SeK-terminated surface removes the V-d surface states near μ = 0.2 eV and suppresses the layer-resolved peak, and the text acknowledges that terrace averaging reduces the signal. The manuscript provides no experimental evidence that the surfaces measured in Refs. [59] and [66] are VO-terminated, that the magnetic order is unmodified at that termination, or that magnetic domains and terraces are large enough to avoid cancellation. The abstract's statement that the results 'fully explain' the experiments is therefore not supported by the evidence presented. I recommend either providing evidence or a strong argument for the VO termination, or substantially rephrasing the claim so that the termination-dependent NLEE signature is explicitly presented as conditional on the ideal-surface assumption.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The claim that the calculations 'fully explain the recent seemingly contradicting experimental evidence' overstates what is demonstrated. The manuscript shows that the calculated (001) surface states of the AFM phase have a d-wave spin-splitting pattern qualitatively similar to the measured photoemission data, but it does not compare the calculated spectral function, band positions, or constant-energy maps with the ARPES results of Ref. [59], nor does it analyze the spin-selective STM data of Ref. [66] beyond a qualitative statement. If the authors wish to claim a full explanation, a direct comparison with the experimental spectra (or at least a clear statement of which experimental features are reproduced and which are not) is needed; otherwise the wording should be tempered to 'qualitatively consistent with'.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eq. (7)] Equation (7) defines tan θ = |δS_oop|/|δS_ip| = χ^(2)_zxx E_0 / χ^(1)_zx, but Table I shows that the even (intraband) linear Edelstein tensor has only in-plane components: for E ∥ x̂, the induced in-plane spin is δs_y = χ^(1)_xy E_0, while χ^(1)_zx = 0. The denominator should be χ^(1)_xy (or the corresponding magnitude of the in-plane linear response). Since Fig. 6b,c reports numerical values of θ, please verify the convention and the numerical implementation; if the calculation actually used χ^(1)_xy, then the displayed equation and notation should be corrected accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The text contains several typographical errors ('contradicgting', 'conecept', 'anfiterromagnetic', 'repsonse', 'sucebtibility', 'not showned', 'direcitons') that should be corrected before publication.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The figure caption and the main text use inconsistent panel labels: the text refers to Figs. 2a-c, 2d, and 2f-h, while the caption lists (b-d), (e), and (f-h) with overlapping and duplicated entries. Please renumber the panels consistently.
  3. [Appendix A] The statement 'kinetic energy cutoff of 10^-7 eV for the plane-wave basis' is dimensionally implausible; this is likely a convergence threshold for the total energy rather than a kinetic-energy cutoff. Please clarify.
  4. [Sec. III B] The sensitivity of the NLEE peak to the DFT treatment of V-d correlations is not discussed; since the peak at μ = 0.2 eV is dominated by V-d surface states, a brief statement of the expected shift under a Hubbard U correction or a U-scan comparison would improve confidence in the quantitative value.
  5. [Sec. III C] The sentence describing Fig. 6c says θ is plotted as a function of the applied electric field while also fixing E0 = 1000 V/cm; please clarify the field range and the role of E0 in that panel.
  6. [Sec. III C] The statement that θ reaches 90° at μ = 0.23 eV because the linear response crosses zero should acknowledge that the arctangent of a divergent ratio is discontinuous there; the statement is acceptable but the discontinuity should be noted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the surface-state spectra and nonlinear Edelstein tensor are computed from a DFT/Wannier Hamiltonian with no parameter fitted to the predicted response.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. The bulk (0,0,1/2) antiferromagnetic order is taken from an external neutron-diffraction experiment (Ref. [60]); the surface spectral functions and slab band structures are obtained from a Wannier tight-binding Hamiltonian fitted to the paper's own DFT calculations (Appendix A); and the nonlinear Edelstein susceptibility is evaluated by direct Brillouin-zone integrals over that Hamiltonian via Eqs. (3)-(6), so no free parameter is adjusted to reproduce the predicted chi^(2)_zxx. The d-wave angular dependence of the response follows from the surface magnetic point group 4'm'm derived in Appendix C, and the quoted peak value of about 125 e^2 tau^2 a^2 / (2 pi)^2 hbar is the result of those integrals, not a fit. The paper does cite Ref. [53], by overlapping authors, as the source of the surface-altermagnetism concept, but it independently reproduces and extends the surface-state splitting with its own DFT/Wannier slab calculations, so that citation is not load-bearing. The explicit caveats about VO versus SeK termination and terrace averaging are structural assumptions and acknowledged limitations, not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is largely a first-principles DFT/Wannier response computation. The main loads carried from outside are the assumed AFM ordering, the ideal VO termination, the GGA description of V-d states, and the relaxation-time transport model. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • Relaxation time tau = 100 fs (range 10-100 fs, assumed)
    chi^(2) scales as tau^2 and the nonlinear-to-linear ratio scales as tau; tau is taken from literature values for clean metals, not fitted to the target response.
  • Chemical potential mu at which the peak response is quoted = 0.2 eV above E_F
    The large chi^(2)_zxx is evaluated at mu = 0.2 eV where V-d surface states appear; the response is strongly energy dependent and experimental Fermi-level alignment is not established.
  • Interband broadening eta = 1 meV
    Used in Eq. (B7) to regularize the denominator in d(s)/dk; chosen for convergence, not fitted to data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The AFM magnetic structure with propagation vector (0,0,1/2) and magnetic space group P_c 4_2/mcm from neutron diffraction [60] is the correct bulk ground state and persists to the surface.
    All surface spin symmetry and band-structure results depend on this ordering; a different magnetic configuration would change the surface spin point group and the d-wave pattern.
  • domain assumption The (001) surface is an ideal bulk-truncated VO-terminated surface with no reconstruction, relaxation, or moment rearrangement.
    The large NLEE peak is tied to V-d surface states that require VO termination with strong local inversion breaking (Section III B, Figs. 4-5).
  • domain assumption GGA-PBEsol without Hubbard U adequately describes the V-d surface states and their energies for the response estimate.
    V oxides can be correlated; omitting U may shift surface-state positions relative to E_F and modify chi^(2)(mu).
  • domain assumption The Boltzmann equation in constant relaxation time approximation with intraband terms only captures the leading Edelstein response.
    The derivation in Appendix B assumes this; interband and scattering-dependent corrections are neglected.
  • standard math Magnetic group theory of surface point group 4'm'm constrains the response tensors as in Tables I and II.
    The tensor forms follow from standard group-theoretic projection; this is background mathematics, not an empirical input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergence and Detection of Surface altermagnetism in KV$_2$Se$_2$O." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7IB6PQQ

@misc{pith2026260803551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergence and Detection of Surface altermagnetism in KV$_2$Se$_2$O},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7IB6PQQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03551}
}
abstract

We demonstrate the recent concept of emergent surface altermagnetism through its unique signatures in \KVSO. We show that for bulk antiferromagnetically ordered \KVSO, the (001) surface exhibits $d$-wave altermagnetism. Our results fully explain the recent seemingly contradicgting experimental evidence, independently showing both an antiferromagnetically ordered bulk from neutron diffraction, and $d$-wave spin splitting from photoemission spectroscopy. To fully verify this conecept, we predict, as a key experimental signature, a large nonlinear Edelstein response, which is localized at the surface, and follows the $d$-wave altermagnetic symmetry. These results are not only relevant for the metallic and room-temperature magnet \KVSO, but also for several other Lieb lattice systems. Our work expands the pool of techniques that can be used to detect altermagnetism emerging at the surfaces of antiferromagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Non-relativistic DFT calculations of KV2Se2O with AM (a-e) and AFM (f-j) ordering. (a) Unit cell of the AM configuration, cyan and magenta arrows denote magnetic moments with opposite direction. (b) Spin-polarized bulk electronic band structure, with altermagnetic d-wave splitting. (c-e) Surface states for the VO-terminated (001) surface of the AM configuration. (c) Spin-up and (d) spin-down channel surface spectral… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Slab of KV2Se2O, with Nslab = 11 and broken PT . (b-d) Spin polarized band structure projected on the bottom surface (b), top surface (c) and bulk (d). (f-h) Spin polarized isoenergy lines at µ = EF + 0.2eV, projected on the bottom surface (g), top surface (g) and bulk (h). (e) χzxx component of the NLEE tensor, as function of the chemical potential resolved in both surfaces. (i) Layer resolved NLEE tensor at µ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Chemical potential average of the surface nonlinear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Slab calculations of KV2Se2O (including SOC) with two types of terminations and number of layers. (a,d) Graphic representation of the terminations used in the top surface. (a) Termination in VO plane. (d) Termination in SeK layers. Bottom termination (not showned) is V…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Nonlinear Edelstein response χ (2) zxx at the top sur￾face of KV2Se2O, with termination on VO (a) and (SeK) (b). Layer resolved nonlinear Edelstein response χ (2) zxx(ℓ) for top surface terminated in VO (c) and SeK (d). Bottom surface is terminated at the VO plane in a…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [59]

    We also propose the nonlinear Edelstein effect as a key experimental signature of the surface altermagnetism in KV 2Se2O

    and spin-selective scanning tunneling microscopy [66] give evidence of altermagnetic splitting. We also propose the nonlinear Edelstein effect as a key experimental signature of the surface altermagnetism in KV 2Se2O. The Edelstein effect refers to the non- equilibrium spin density induced by an applied electric field [67]. The linear Edelstein response i...

  2. [66]

    G. Yang, C. Li, C. Wang, X. Zhao, Y. Wan, H. Gui, G. Zeng, S. Cao, C. Hu, D. Chen, Y. Liu, Y. Song, F. Liu, L.-H. Hu, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Arxiv Preprint , 1 (2026), arXiv:2603.21969

    arXiv 2026

  3. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X12, 031042 (2022), arXiv:2105.05820

    arXiv 2022

  4. [2]

    In the next section, we will focus on the surface Edelstein effect, which can be exploited to probe the surface altermagnetism in KV 2Se2O

    propagation vector, a surface sensi- tive probe like ARPES is expected to show, qualitatively, the same spin splitting pattern as the bulk altermagnetic configuration. In the next section, we will focus on the surface Edelstein effect, which can be exploited to probe the surface altermagnetism in KV 2Se2O. 4 III. SURFACE NONLINEAR EDELSTEIN EFFECT A. Edel...

  5. [3]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. Mac- Donald, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, Newton1, 100162 (2025)

    2025

  6. [4]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Science Advances6, 10.1126/sciadv.aaz8809 (2020)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz8809 2020

  7. [5]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, and L. ˇSmejkal, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences118, e2108924118 (2021), arXiv:2105.06356

    arXiv 2021

  8. [6]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Physical Review B99, 184432 (2019), arXiv:1902.04436

    arXiv 2019

Show all 89 references
  1. [7]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X12, 040501 (2022), arXiv:2204.10844

    2022 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Physical Review Letters126, 127701 (2021), arXiv:2002.07073

    2021 arXiv

  3. [9]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X12, 9 011028 (2022), arXiv:2103.12664

    2022 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Samanta, M

    K. Samanta, M. Leˇ zai´ c, M. Merte, F. Freimuth, S. Bl¨ ugel, and Y. Mokrousov, Journal of Applied Physics127, 213904 (2020)

    2020

  5. [11]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Advanced Functional Materials34, 1 (2024), arXiv:2406.02123

    2024 arXiv

  6. [12]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Nature Communications10, 4305 (2019), arXiv:1902.02506

    2019 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Y. Zhu, T. Chen, Y. Li, L. Qiao, X. Ma, C. Liu, T. Hu, H. Gao, and W. Ren, Nano Letters24, 472 (2024), arXiv:2308.00234

    2024 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Jaeschke-Ubiergo, V

    R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, V. K. Bharadwaj, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Sinova, Physical Review B109, 094425 (2024), arXiv:2308.16662

    2024 arXiv

  9. [15]

    Karetta, X

    B. Karetta, X. H. Verbeek, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Sinova, Physical Review B112, 094454 (2025), arXiv:2505.21293

    2025

  10. [16]

    Jaeschke-Ubiergo, V.-K

    R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, V.-K. Bharadwaj, W. Campos, R. Zarzuela, N. Biniskos, R. M. Fernandes, T. Jung- wirth, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.10797 (2025), arXiv:2503.10797

    2025 arXiv

  11. [17]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nature Communications12, 7061 (2021), arXiv:2103.09219

    2021 arXiv

  12. [18]

    L. E. Golub and L. ˇSmejkal, Arxiv Preprint (2025), arXiv:2503.12203

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, P. Wadley, D. Kriegner, H. Re- ichlova, F. Krizek, H. Ohno, and L. Smejkal, Arxiv Preprint , 1 (2025), arXiv:2508.09748

    2025 arXiv

  14. [20]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Nature Reviews Materials 10.1038/s41578-025-00779-1 (2025)

    2025 doi

  15. [21]

    Krempask´ y, L

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P....

    2024 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Trama, I

    M. Trama, I. Gaiardoni, C. Guarcello, J. I. Facio, A. Maiellaro, F. Romeo, R. Citro, and J. van den Brink, Arxiv Preprint , 1 (2024), arXiv:2410.18036

    2024

  17. [23]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Physical Review B109, 115102 (2024), arXiv:2308.10117

    2024 arXiv

  18. [24]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, T. Denneulin, W. Shi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, S. Das, M. Kl¨ aui, J. Sinova, and M. Jourdan, Nature Communi- cations15, 211...

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    G. Yang, Z. Li, S. Yang, J. Li, H. Zheng, W. Zhu, Z. Pan, Y. Xu, S. Cao, W. Zhao, A. Jana, J. Zhang, M. Ye, Y. Song, L.-H. Hu, L. Yang, J. Fujii, I. Vobornik, M. Shi, H. Yuan, Y. Zhang, Y. Xu, and Y. Liu, Nature Commu- nications16, 1442 (2025), arXiv:2405.12575

    2025 arXiv

  20. [26]

    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, Physical Review Letters 133, 206401 (2024), arXiv:2405.12687

    2024 arXiv

  21. [27]

    S. S. Lee, S. 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, Physical Review Letters132, 036702 (2024), arXiv:2308.11180

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    C. Li, M. Hu, Z. Li, Y. Wang, W. Chen, B. Thiagarajan, M. Leandersson, C. Polley, T. Kim, H. Liu, C. Fulga, M. G. Vergniory, O. Janson, O. Tjernberg, and J. van den Brink, Arxiv Preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2405.14777 (2024), arXiv:2405.14777

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [29]

    Hariki, A

    A. Hariki, A. Dal Din, O. J. Amin, T. Yamaguchi, A. Badura, D. Kriegner, K. W. Edmonds, R. P. Cam- pion, P. Wadley, D. Backes, L. S. I. Veiga, S. S. Dhesi, G. Springholz, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, T. Jungwirth, and J. Kuneˇ s, Physical Review Letters132, 176701 (2024), arXi...

    2024 arXiv

  24. [30]

    O. J. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Za- kharov, S. C. Fromage, C. J. B. Fields, S. L. Hey- wood, R. B. Cousins, F. Maccherozzi, J. Krempask´ y, J. H. Dil, D. Kriegner, B. Kiraly, R. P. Campion, A. W. Rushforth, K. W. Edmonds, S. S. Dhesi, L. ˇSmejkal, T. Jungwirth, a...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [31]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin, X. Zhang, H. Wu, H. Chen, Z. Meng, L. Liu, Z. Xia, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and Z. Liu, Nature Electronics 5, 735 (2022), arXiv:2002.08712

    2022 arXiv

  26. [32]

    M. Zeng, M. Zhu, Y.-P. Zhu, X. Liu, X.-M. Ma, Y.-J. Hao, P. Liu, G. Qu, Y. Yang, Z. Jiang, K. Yamagami, M. Arita, X. Zhang, T.-H. Shao, Y. Dai, K. Shimada, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y. Huang, Q. Liu, and C. Liu, Advanced Science11, 2406529 (2024), arXiv:2405.12679

    2024 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Reichlova, R

    H. Reichlova, R. Lopes Seeger, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, I. Kounta, R. Schlitz, D. Kriegner, P. Ritzinger, M. Lammel, M. Leivisk¨ a, A. Birk Hellenes, K. Olejn´ ık, V. Petˇ riˇ cek, P. Doleˇ zal, L. Horak, E. Schmoranzerova, A. Badura, S. Bertaina, A. Thomas, V. Baltz, L. Mic...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Leivisk¨ a, J

    M. Leivisk¨ a, J. Rial, A. Badura, R. L. Seeger, I. Kounta, S. Beckert, D. Kriegner, I. Joumard, E. Schmoranzerov´ a, J. Sinova, O. Gomonay, A. Thomas, S. T. B. Goennen- wein, H. Reichlov´ a, L.ˇSmejkal, L. Michez, T. Jungwirth, and V. Baltz, Arxiv Preprint (2024), arXiv:2401.02275

    2024 arXiv

  29. [35]

    L. Han, X. Fu, R. Peng, X. Cheng, J. Dai, L. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, H. Bai, Y. Zhou, S. Liang, C. Chen, Q. Wang, X. Chen, L. Yang, Y. Zhang, C. Song, J. Liu, and F. Pan, Science Advances10, eadn0479 (2024)

    2024

  30. [36]

    Galindez-Ruales, R

    E. Galindez-Ruales, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, C. Schmitt, S. Das, F. Fuhrmann, A. Ross, E. Golias, A. Akashdeep, L. L¨ unenb¨ urger, E. Baek, W. Yang, L.ˇSmejkal, V. Kr- ishna, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, J. Sinova, A. Rothschild, C. You, G. Jakob, and M. Kl¨ aui, Advanced Materials 37,...

    2025

  31. [37]

    R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, J. Zub´ aˇ c, R. Gonzalez- Hernandez, K. Geishendorf, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, G. Springholz, K. Olejn´ ık, L.ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, S. T. B. Goennenwein, A. Thomas, H. Reichlov´ a, J.ˇZelezn´ y, and D. Kriegner, Physical Review Letters130, 036702 ...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [38]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-F. Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsym- bal, D. G. Schlom, and D. C. Ralph, Nature Electronics 5, 267 (2022), arXiv:2108.09150

    2022 arXiv

  33. [39]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Y. Feng, Y. J. Zhou, R. X. Su, Q. Wang, L. Y. Liao, W. X. Zhu, X. Z. Chen, F. Pan, X. L. Fan, and C. Song, Physical Review Letters128, 197202 (2022), arXiv:2109.05933

    2022 arXiv

  34. [40]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Physical Review Letters129, 137201 (2022), arXiv:2111.07487

    2022 arXiv

  35. [41]

    Y. Liu, H. Bai, Y. Song, Z. Ji, S. Lou, Z. Zhang, C. Song, and Q. Jin, Advanced Optical Materials11, 1 (2023)

    2023

  36. [42]

    Badura, W

    A. Badura, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, I. Kounta, L. Michez, M. Petit, J. Rial, M. Leivisk¨ a, V. Baltz, F. Krizek, D. Kriegner, J. ˇZelezn´ y, J. Zemen, S. Telkamp, S. Sailler, M. Lammel, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. B. Hel- lenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, T. Jungw...

    2025

  37. [43]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Ross- nagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl¨ aui, G. Sch¨ onhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hellenes, G. J...

    2024 arXiv

  38. [44]

    Aoyama and K

    T. Aoyama and K. Ohgushi, Physical Review Materials 8, L041402 (2024), arXiv:2305.14786

    2024 arXiv

  39. [45]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review Letters131, 256703 (2023), arXiv:2211.13806

    2023 arXiv

  40. [46]

    Gohlke, A

    M. Gohlke, A. Corticelli, R. Moessner, P. A. McClarty, and A. Mook, Arxiv Preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2211.15157 (2022), arXiv:2211.15157

    2022 doi arXiv

  41. [47]

    C. T. Liao, Y. C. Wang, Y. C. Tien, S. Y. Huang, and D. Qu, Physical Review Letters133, 56701 (2024)

    2024

  42. [48]

    Z. Liu, M. Ozeki, S. Asai, S. Itoh, and T. Ma- suda, Physical Review Letters133, 156702 (2024), arXiv:2408.16490

    2024 arXiv

  43. [49]

    Q. Sun, J. Guo, D. Wang, D. L. Abernathy, W. Tian, and C. Li, Physical Review Letters135, 186703 (2025)

    2025

  44. [50]

    Hoyer, R

    R. Hoyer, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, K.-H. H. Ahn, L. ˇSmejkal, and A. Mook, Physical Review B111, L020412 (2025), arXiv:2405.05090

    2025 arXiv

  45. [51]

    Hoyer, P

    R. Hoyer, P. P. Stavropoulos, A. Razpopov, R. Valent´ ı, L. ˇSmejkal, and A. Mook, Physical Review B112, 064425 (2025)

    2025

  46. [52]

    Gomonay, V

    O. Gomonay, V. P. Kravchuk, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, K. V. Yershov, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, J. van den Brink, and J. Sinova, npj Spintronics2, 35 (2024), arXiv:2403.10218

    2024 arXiv

  47. [53]

    Lange, R

    C. Lange, R. Jaeschke-ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, H. Ver- beek, L. Smejkal, J. Sinova, and A. Mook, Arxiv Preprint , 1 (2026), arXiv:arXiv:2602.08773v1

    2026 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Z. Zhou, H. Zhao, C. Shen, W. Chen, Z. Liao, T. Feng, and W. Liu, Solid State Sciences168, 108039 (2025)

    2025

  49. [55]

    V. Leeb, P. D’Ornellas, F. de Juan, and A. G. Grushin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10108 (2026), arXiv:2602.10108

    2026

  50. [56]

    K. D. Belashchenko, Arxiv Preprint , 1 (2026), arXiv:2606.11128

    2026 arXiv

  51. [57]

    Weißenhofer and A

    M. Weißenhofer and A. Marmodoro, Physical Review B 110, 094427 (2024)

    2024

  52. [58]

    Sasioglu, I

    E. Sasioglu, I. Mertig, and S. Lounis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08790 (2026), arXiv:2602.08790

    2026 arXiv

  53. [60]

    If KV 2Se2O orders antiferromagneti- cally with a (0,0, 1

    experiments. If KV 2Se2O orders antiferromagneti- cally with a (0,0, 1

  54. [61]

    Z. Lin, D. Chen, W. Lu, X. Liang, S. Feng, K. Ya- magami, J. Osiecki, M. Leandersson, B. Thiagarajan, J. Liu, C. Felser, and J. Ma, Arxiv Preprint (2024), arXiv:2402.04995

    2024 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Franz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.30766 (2026), arXiv:2606.30766

    M. Franz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.30766 (2026), arXiv:2606.30766

    2026 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y. Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y. Huang, X. Meng, C. Zhang, T. Okuda, K. Shimada, S. Cui, Y. Zhao, G.-H. Cao, S. Qiao, J. Liu, and C. Chen, Nature Physics21, 760 (2025)

    2025

  57. [64]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei, Y.-J. Sun, Y. Huang, X. Zheng, Y. Peng, L. He, S. Li, J. Luo, Z. Li, G. Chen, H. Li, H. Weng, and T. Qian, Nature Physics21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  58. [65]

    Y. Sun, Y. Huang, J. Cheng, S. Zhang, Z. Li, H. Luo, X. Ma, W. Yang, J. Yang, D. Chen, K. Sun, M. Gut- mann, S. C. Capelli, F. Shen, J. Hao, L. He, G. Chen, and S. Li, Physical Review B112, 184416 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Y. Qi, J. Zhao, and H. Zeng, Physical Review B110, 014442 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    A. B. Hellenes, T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, Arxiv Preprint (2023), arXiv:2309.01607v1

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    C. C. Wei, X. Li, S. Hatt, X. Huai, J. Liu, B. Singh, K. M. Kim, R. M. Fernandes, P. Cardon, L. Zhao, T. T. Tran, B. M. Frandsen, K. S. Burch, F. Liu, and H. Ji, Physical Review Materials9, 24402 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    W. H. Campos, F. C. F. Mbognou, A. B. Hellenes, J. Poata, T. Chen, J. Priessnitz, and L. ˇSmejkal, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12223 (2026), arXiv:2603.12223

    2026

  63. [71]

    H. Xu, J. Zhou, H. Wang, and J. Li, Physical Review B 103, 205417 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    V. M. Edelstein, Solid State Communications73, 233 (1990)

    1990

  65. [73]

    Fig- ures 1c,d show the surface spectral functionG σ(E,k) for both spin channelsσ∈{↑,↓}

    (see computational details in the Appendix A). Fig- ures 1c,d show the surface spectral functionG σ(E,k) for both spin channelsσ∈{↑,↓}. Figure 1e shows the spin polarized surface spectral function across the Brillouin Zone at the Fermi energy. In this calculation, we have pick...

  66. [74]

    Chakraborty, A

    A. Chakraborty, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Sinova, Nat. Commun. in press, ArXiv 2411.16378 10.48550/arXiv.2411.16378 (2024), arXiv:2411.16378

    2024 doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    N. A. ´A. Pari, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Sinova, Physical Review B112, 024404 (2025), arXiv:2412.10984

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Li, X.-Y

    D. Li, X.-Y. Liu, X.-G. Ye, Z.-C. Pan, W.-Z. Xu, P.-F. Zhu, A.-Q. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and Z.-M. Liao, Physical Review B110, L100409 (2024)

    2024

  69. [77]

    such as RbV 2Te2O, La 2O3A2Se2 (with A=Fe,Mn), V2Se2O, UCr 2Si2C, Sr 2CrO2Cr2OAs2, among others [16, 63–65, 78, 79]. Some of these systems have been pre- dicted to be antiferromagnetic in the bulk, which makes them suitable candidates for surface altermagnetism, and the surfac...

  70. [78]

    I. Baek, S. Han, S. Cheon, and H.-W. Lee, npj Spintronics 3, 6 (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Q. S. Wu, S. N. Zhang, H.-F. F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, Computer Physics Communications 224, 405 (2017), arXiv:1703.07789

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    J. Yang, L. Wei, Y. Li, L. Chen, W. Niu, S. Wang, F. Li, P. Liu, S. Zhou, and Y. Pu, Applied Physics Letters127, 10.1063/5.0278802 (2025)

    2025 doi

  73. [81]

    Jiang, F

    C. Jiang, F. Yang, Y. Zhao, J. Yang, P. Yu, H. Liu, Y. Zhang, Z. Jia, X. Cao, L. Tian, J. Yan, Z. Liu, Z. Liu, X.-L. Sheng, C. Xiao, S. A. Yang, S. Dong, and F. Xiu, Physical Review Letters136, 236302 (2026)

    2026

  74. [82]

    Chang, I

    P.-H. Chang, I. I. Mazin, and K. D. Belashchenko, Arxiv Preprint , 1 (2025), arXiv:2508.04839

    2025 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Lemoine, A

    P. Lemoine, A. Verni` ere, M. Pasturel, G. Venturini, and B. Malaman, Inorganic Chemistry57, 2546 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Nature Communications12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  77. [85]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Computational Mate- 11 rials Science6, 15 (1996), arXiv:0927-0256(96)00008 [10.1016]

    1996

  78. [86]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Physical Review B59, 1758 (1999), arXiv:0927-0256(96)00008 [10.1016]

    1999

  79. [87]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Physical Review B50, 17953 (1994), arXiv:arXiv:1408.4701v2

    1994 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Physical Review B56, 12847 (1997), arXiv:9707145 [cond-mat]

    1997

  81. [89]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, G. Pizzi, Y. S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, Computer Physics Com- munications185, 2309 (2014), arXiv:0708.0650. Responseχ αi χ(1) even   0χ xy 0 −χxy 0 0 0 0 0   χ(1) odd   χxx 0 0 0−χ xx 0 0 0 0   Table I. Symmetry-constra...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.