Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Pressure-Tunable Electronic and Magnonic Transport in Altermagnet La$_2$O$_3$Mn$_2$Se$_2$

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Pressure boosts exchange anisotropy and quadruples the magnon spin Seebeck response in the insulating altermagnet La2O3Mn2Se2, while preserving the symmetry selection rules for the anomalous Hall effect.

desk verdict Solid computational prediction with a concrete falsifiable claim, but a gaping hole: the cited high-pressure experiment reports a spin-crossover that could invalidate the S=5/2 assumption at 40 GPa. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04184 v1 pith:3ZU2Q5TG submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Nafise Rezaei , Alireza Qaiumzadeh , Artem R. Oganov , Mojtaba Alaei This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismspinSeebeckeffectmagnontransporthydrostaticpressureexchangeanisotropychiralmagnonsanomalousHallLa2O3Mn2Se2
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

Hydrostatic pressure from 0 to 40 GPa is predicted to enhance the inequivalence between two competing second-neighbor exchange interactions in the insulating altermagnet La2O3Mn2Se2, increasing $|J_{2a}-J_{2b}|$ from 1.97 to 9.38 meV while preserving the compensated antiferromagnetic ground state. The enlarged exchange anisotropy widens the momentum-dependent splitting between the two chiral magnon branches, yielding a nearly fourfold increase in the longitudinal magnon-driven spin Seebeck conductivity at 100 K, from $3.68\times10^{-1}$ to $1.36$ meV/K. In the electronic channel, pressure leaves the magnetic-symmetry selection rules for the anomalous Hall effect unchanged but redistributes the Berry curvature, producing pronounced energy-dependent sign reversals in the anomalous Hall conductivity. Together these results establish exchange anisotropy as the microscopic mechanism by which lattice compression controls both magnonic and electronic transport in a single insulating altermagnet.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the spin Hamiltonian with intralayer and interlayer Heisenberg exchange couplings plus biquadratic and Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya terms, fitted to DFT+U total energies by energy mapping. The key object is the pair of crystallographically distinct second-neighbor intralayer exchanges, $J_{2a}$ (linear Mn–O–Mn bridge) and $J_{2b}$ (buckled Mn–Se–Mn bridge), whose inequivalence $\delta J_2 = |J_{2a}-J_{2b}|$ acts as the control parameter for chiral magnon splitting. Linear spin-wave theory for $S=5/2$ local moments, input to a Boltzmann transport expression for altermagnetic magnons, converts $\delta J_2$ into the longitudinal spin Seebeck conductivity; the splitting at the $X$ and $Y$ points scales approximately as $\Delta\varepsilon(X)\approx 1.60\,\delta J_2$.

What would settle it

A high-pressure measurement of the Mn local moment (e.g., by x-ray emission spectroscopy or magnetic susceptibility) that detects the onset of a spin crossover below 40 GPa, or a measurement of the longitudinal spin Seebeck coefficient at 100 K and 40 GPa that fails to reach the predicted ~1.36 meV/K, would settle whether the central claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hydrostatic pressure acts as a symmetry-preserving control parameter for both magnonic and electronic transport in the insulating altermagnet La2O3Mn2Se2. Using first-principles calculations and spin-Hamiltonian modeling, the authors find that compressing from 0 to 40 GPa increases the inequivalence between the two second-neighbor intralayer exchange interactions, $|J_{2a}-J_{2b}|$, from 1.97 to 9.38 meV, without altering the signs of any exchange couplings or the compensated G-type antiferromagnetic order. This exchange reconstruction enhances the momentum-dependent splitting of the two chiral magnon branches, producing a nearly fourfold increase in the longitudinal spin Seebeck conductivity at 100 K ($3.68\times10^{-1}$ to $1.36$ meV/K). In the electronic sector, pressure leaves the magnetic point-group selection rules intact—only $\sigma_{yz}$ (or $\sigma_{xz}$) is allowed for $\mathbf{L}\parallel x$ (or $y$)—but redistributes the Berry curvature, yielding energy-dependent sign reversals in the anomalous Hall conductivity. The paper identifies exchange anisotropy as the microscopic link between lattice compression and magnon transport, and proposes chemical-pressure substitutions (La$\rightarrow$Y, Sc, Lu, Yb; Se$\rightarrow$S) as a practical proxy for applied pressure.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction depends on the manganese ions keeping their full high-spin local moments up to 40 GPa; the paper cites a high-pressure experiment that finds a lattice collapse initiated by spin crossover, but never establishes that 40 GPa lies below that crossover.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 40 GPa, the predicted spin Seebeck conductivity at 100 K reaches 1.36 meV/K, a factor of about 3.7 larger than at ambient pressure, so hydrostatic pressure becomes a quantitative tuning knob for magnonic spin transport.
  • Because pressure does not alter which anomalous Hall tensor components are symmetry-allowed, the altermagnetic d-wave spin texture and the compensated G-type order are robust under compression; only the magnitude and energy dependence of the Hall response change.
  • The dominant microscopic origin of the enhanced magnon response is the increase in $|J_{2a}-J_{2b}|$, not a change in the magnetic space group; materials with larger intrinsic second-neighbor exchange inequivalence should show proportionally larger spin Seebeck effects.
  • Chemical pressure, via substitution of La by smaller nonmagnetic cations (Y, Sc, Lu, Yb) or Se by S, is proposed by the authors as a possible non-hydrostatic route to reproduce the pressure-driven enhancement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One testable extension the authors do not pursue: the predicted scaling $\Delta\varepsilon(X)\approx 1.60\,\delta J_2$ suggests that the same exchange-anisotropy mechanism could be used to design other altermagnets with large chiral magnon splitting and enhanced spin Seebeck response at ambient pressure.
  • If the pressure-driven spin crossover reported in the high-pressure study cited as Ref. [19] begins below 40 GPa, the local moments would shrink and the linear spin-wave and spin Seebeck calculations would no longer apply; this bounds the useful pressure window for the predicted enhancement.
  • The near-degeneracy of G-type and C-type interlayer stackings at ambient pressure, with pressure favoring G-type correlations, implies that pressure could also be used to stabilize one interlayer magnetic configuration over the other in related layered altermagnets.
  • A direct experiment measuring the longitudinal spin Seebeck voltage across a La2O3Mn2Se2 film under hydrostatic pressure at 100 K would provide a clean quantitative test of the fourfold enhancement, provided the magnon lifetime and sample geometry are controlled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines DFT+U total-energy mapping, spin-Hamiltonian fits, linear spin-wave theory, and Boltzmann transport to predict that hydrostatic pressure from 0 to 40 GPa increases the exchange anisotropy |J2a−J2b| from 1.97 to 9.38 meV in the insulating altermagnet La2O3Mn2Se2. The authors argue that this enhances the chiral magnon splitting and produces a nearly fourfold increase in the longitudinal magnon-driven spin Seebeck conductivity at 100 K, from 3.68×10−1 to 1.36 meV/K, while leaving the symmetry selection rules of the anomalous Hall effect unchanged. The paper also reports pressure-driven redistribution of Berry curvature and sign reversals of the AHC.

Significance. If the central prediction is robust, the paper establishes a concrete symmetry-preserving strategy to simultaneously tune magnonic and electronic transport in an insulating altermagnet, with a clear microscopic mechanism (exchange reconstruction of competing second-neighbor pathways) rather than a purely heuristic tuning claim. The workflow is systematic and includes several praiseworthy elements: exchange parameters are extracted from a large set of magnetic configurations, the interlayer couplings are isolated by configuration subtraction, the magnetic anisotropy is cross-checked with two independent implementations (VASP and FLEUR), and the Monte Carlo and spin-wave analyses use standard, reproducible codes. The main value rests on the quantitative claim at 40 GPa, which is currently sensitive to the high-spin assumption and to the absence of error estimates on the fitted exchange constants.

major comments (3)
  1. [Introduction and Methods (magnon spectrum)] The paper cites Ref. [19] for structural stability up to about 53 GPa, but that reference reports an unusual in-plane lattice collapse initiated by pressure-driven spin-crossover, as stated in its title. The manuscript never reports the crossover pressure nor verifies that 40 GPa lies below it. Because the magnon spectrum, the spin Seebeck calculation, and the exchange fits in Table I all assume localized Mn ions with S=5/2 (Methods: 'localized spins with S=5/2'), a spin crossover below 40 GPa would invalidate the central prediction. The authors should state the crossover pressure from Ref. [19], report the DFT magnetic moment at 40 GPa, and either demonstrate that the high-spin state survives or restrict the pressure range of the central claim.
  2. [Table I and exchange-mapping subsection] The fitted exchange constants are presented without any uncertainty or sensitivity analysis. The central result is the increase of |J2a−J2b| from 1.97 to 9.38 meV, and the magnon splitting scales approximately as Δε(X)≈1.60δJ2, so the statistical and methodological errors on J2a and J2b are directly propagated into the headline spin Seebeck enhancement. Given that the fits use 'more than 60 magnetic configurations', the authors should provide error bars from the fitting procedure or a sensitivity study with respect to U_eff and the chosen functional, similar to the G/C degeneracy check already reported.
  3. [Spin Hamiltonian model and Discussion] The paper acknowledges that G-type and C-type interlayer stackings are nearly degenerate at ambient pressure within DFT accuracy, yet the entire magnonic and AHC analysis is performed for the G-type state. Since the claim is that pressure 'preserves the compensated antiferromagnetic ground state', the near-degeneracy at 0 GPa should be quantified (e.g., energy difference in meV/Mn) and the authors should show that the same qualitative conclusions hold for the C-type state or explain why the G-type choice is experimentally mandated at all pressures. As written, the 0 GPa magnon and AHC results could be contingent on a stacking choice that DFT cannot distinguish.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (3) and Methods] The spin Seebeck result assumes a single constant relaxation time τ0=10 ps for both branches and both pressures, but no justification or sensitivity check is provided; a brief discussion of how τ0 affects the 3.7× enhancement would help.
  2. [Methods, first-principles calculations] The text mentions a '63-atom SUPERHEX supercell' and a '2×2×1, 72-atom supercell'; the supercell geometry and the number of independent configurations should be defined more precisely in the main text or the SI, since the reader cannot otherwise assess the conditioning of the exchange fits.
  3. [Introduction, Ref. [19]] The sentence introducing Ref. [19] should mention the spin-crossover mechanism explicitly, not only the 'unusual in-plane lattice collapse', because the spin state is precisely the assumption that the pressure-dependent magnon calculation relies on.
  4. [Figure 4] The color labels for σ_{yz}, σ_{xz}, and σ_{xy} are not visible in the printed description of Fig. 4; please ensure the figure legend is legible and that the correspondence between line color and tensor component is stated in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: transport predictions follow from independently fitted DFT exchange parameters, not from the predicted quantities themselves.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. Exchange parameters J1, J2a, J2b, etc. are extracted from more than 60 collinear DFT total energies in a SUPERHEX supercell (Methods), with independent interlayer fits from 2x2x1 supercells. The magnon spectrum is then computed by linear spin-wave theory from those parameters, and the spin Seebeck conductivity is evaluated from the branch-resolved Boltzmann expression (Eq. 3) with a fixed external relaxation time tau0 = 10 ps from Ref. [28]; no spin-Seebeck output is used to adjust any exchange parameter or transport parameter. The AHC is computed directly from Wannier-interpolated Berry curvature, not from any fitted transport coefficient. The claimed scaling relation Delta_epsilon(X) ~ 1.60 deltaJ2 is a numerical consequence of the spin model, not a fitted target. Self-citations (Refs. [20], [35], [36]) are method/tool citations and are not load-bearing for the main prediction, which is benchmarked against external experimental data (e.g., experimental TN = 163 K compared with MC-predicted 198 K at ambient pressure). One caveat, located in the Methods ('linear spin-wave theory for localized spins with S=5/2') and the Introduction's citation of Ref. [19], is that the 40 GPa magnonic/spin-Seebeck prediction assumes Mn remains in a localized S=5/2 state without explicitly verifying that 40 GPa is below the pressure-driven spin-crossover reported in Ref. [19] ('unusual in-plane lattice collapse initiated by pressure-driven spin-crossover'). This is a correctness/validity risk external to the circularity question: it makes the prediction conditional, but it does not make the prediction a restatement of its input. The derivation chain itself does not reduce to its own outputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 12 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central prediction rests on a large set of fitted exchange parameters, a Hubbard U chosen from prior work, an assumed magnon relaxation time, and two unvalidated magnetic-state assumptions: G-type ordering and S=5/2 moments. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced. The most fragile input is the S=5/2 assumption in view of the pressure-driven spin crossover reported in Ref. [19].

free parameters (12)
  • Hubbard U_eff = 4 eV
    Dudarev Hubbard correction on Mn 3d states, taken from prior studies [14,17]; all exchange constants and band structures depend on this value.
  • J1 first-neighbor intralayer exchange = -28.79 meV (0 GPa), -48.23 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted to more than 60 collinear DFT+U total-energy configurations in a SUPERHEX supercell; dominant intralayer magnetic energy scale.
  • J2a linear Mn-O-Mn second-neighbor exchange = -2.68 meV (0 GPa), -12.90 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted to the same total-energy mapping; one half of the central anisotropy parameter |J2a-J2b|.
  • J2b buckled Mn-Se-Mn second-neighbor exchange = -4.65 meV (0 GPa), -22.28 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted to the same total-energy mapping; strengthens more under pressure than J2a, driving the claimed magnon and spin Seebeck enhancement.
  • J3 third-neighbor intralayer exchange = -0.56 meV (0 GPa), -2.66 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted to the same collinear total-energy mapping; included in the spin Hamiltonian.
  • J4 fourth-neighbor intralayer exchange = -0.21 meV (0 GPa), -0.95 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted to the same collinear total-energy mapping; included in the spin Hamiltonian.
  • J_perp_1 interlayer exchange = 0.011 meV (0 GPa), 0.060 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted from 12 magnetic configurations in a 2x2x1 supercell; competes with J_perp_3 for stacking type.
  • J_perp_2 interlayer exchange = -0.010 meV (0 GPa), -0.080 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted from the same interlayer energy differences; plays a secondary role in stacking competition.
  • J_perp_3 interlayer exchange = -0.013 meV (0 GPa), -0.106 meV (40 GPa)
    Fitted from the same interlayer energy differences; favors G-type stacking and is enhanced under pressure.
  • Biquadratic exchange B = -2.75 meV (0 GPa), -2.37 meV (40 GPa)
    Nearest-neighbor biquadratic exchange from the four-state method; stabilizes collinear spin order.
  • DM interaction D = -0.17 meV (0 GPa), -0.55 meV (40 GPa)
    Nearest-neighbor Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya vector along z from the four-state method; yields a negligible estimated canting angle.
  • Magnon relaxation time tau0 = 10 ps
    Assumed typical magnon relaxation time in the Boltzmann transport expression, Eq. (3), taken from Ref. [28]; absolute spin Seebeck conductivities scale linearly with it, while the reported fourfold ratio cancels it only if it is pressure-independent.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The G-type compensated collinear antiferromagnetic state remains the ground state up to 40 GPa.
    The paper notes that G-type and C-type interlayer stackings are nearly degenerate at ambient pressure across PBE+U, SCAN, and HSE functionals; if pressure selects C-type or introduces canting, the altermagnetic selection rules and the spin Seebeck calculation change.
  • domain assumption Mn ions remain in the S=5/2 high-spin localized state at 40 GPa.
    Linear spin-wave theory assumes S=5/2; Ref. [19] reports pressure-driven spin-crossover in this material, and the text does not assess whether 40 GPa is below the crossover.
  • domain assumption Hydrostatic pressure preserves the I4/mmm crystal structure up to 40 GPa.
    Based on Ref. [19] reporting structural stability to about 53 GPa, but with an unusual in-plane lattice collapse; the relaxed 40 GPa structure depends on this.
  • domain assumption DFT+U with U_eff=4 eV accurately describes the correlated insulator and its exchange interactions.
    All exchange constants and transport inputs come from this approximation; no direct experimental benchmark at 40 GPa is available.
  • domain assumption Interlayer exchange couplings are negligible for the magnon spectrum.
    They are two to three orders of magnitude smaller than intralayer couplings, but the same couplings drive 3D magnetic ordering and are enhanced under pressure.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnon relaxation time is constant, equal to 10 ps, for both branches and at both pressures.
    This converts Boltzmann transport results into absolute spin Seebeck conductivities; the fourfold enhancement is a ratio that cancels this constant only if tau0 is truly pressure-independent.
  • standard math The bilinear plus biquadratic plus DM spin Hamiltonian captures the relevant spin physics.
    Total-energy mapping to Heisenberg, biquadratic, and DM terms is a standard method; residual ring-exchange, phonon, or spin-lattice effects are ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pressure-Tunable Electronic and Magnonic Transport in Altermagnet La$_2$O$_3$Mn$_2$Se$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ZU2Q5TG

@misc{pith2026260804184,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pressure-Tunable Electronic and Magnonic Transport in Altermagnet La$_2$O$_3$Mn$_2$Se$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ZU2Q5TG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04184}
}
abstract

Hydrostatic pressure provides a symmetry-preserving route to engineer electronic and magnonic transport in the correlated insulating altermagnet La$_2$O$_3$Mn$_2$Se$_2$. Using first-principles calculations combined with spin-Hamiltonian modeling, we show that compression from 0 to 40 GPa markedly enhances the inequivalence between the competing second-neighbor exchange interactions, increasing $|J_{2a}-J_{2b}|$ from 1.97 to 9.38 meV while preserving the compensated antiferromagnetic ground state. The resulting exchange anisotropy amplifies the momentum-dependent splitting between the two chiral magnon branches, yielding a nearly fourfold enhancement of the longitudinal magnon-driven spin Seebeck response at 100 K, from $3.68\times10^{-1}$ to $1.36$ meV/K. In contrast, hydrostatic pressure preserves the magnetic-symmetry selection rules governing the anomalous Hall effect while redistributing the electronic Berry curvature, producing pronounced energy-dependent sign reversals in the anomalous Hall conductivity. These results identify exchange anisotropy as the microscopic mechanism underlying the pressure-enhanced magnon response and establish hydrostatic pressure as an effective means of simultaneously controlling electronic and magnonic transport in insulating altermagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04184 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Crystal and magnetic-exchange geometry of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pressure evolution of the altermagnetic electronic structure. (a) Spin-resolved band structures at 0 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Pressure-enhanced chiral magnon splitting. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spin-Seebeck response from unequal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    Garcia-Gassull, A

    L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Razpopov, P. P. Stavropou- los, I. I. Mazin, and R. Valent ´ ı, Microscopic origin 9 of the magnetic interactions and their experimen- tal signatures in altermagnetic La2O3Mn2Se2, npj Spintronics4, 9 (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [1]

    QTransMag

    = 3.68×10 −1 toσ xx(P= 40) = 1.36 (meV/K). 7 This enhancement originates from the pressure- induced increase in the momentum-resolved split- ting of the two chiral magnon branches [Fig. 3], which amplifies the thermal population imbalance between magnons with opposite spin polarization. DISCUSSION We have demonstrated that hydrostatic pressure provides a ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Smejkal, J

    L. Smejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Be- yond conventional ferromagnetism and antifer- romagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [3]

    Smejkal, J

    L. Smejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerg- ing research landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Gonzalez-Hernandez, L

    R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, L. Smejkal, K. Vy- borny, Y. Yahagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. Zelezny, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Smejkal, R

    L. Smejkal, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, T. Jung- wirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal sym- metry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Smejkal, A

    L. Smejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. Sipr, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Chiral magnons in altermagnetic RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 256703 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Weißenhofer, M

    M. Weißenhofer, M. Mrudul, S. Mankovsky, and P. M. Oppeneer, Magnon orbital nernst effect in altermagnets, npj Quantum Mater. (2026)

    work page 2026

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Sourounis and A

    K. Sourounis and A. Manchon, Efficient genera- tion of spin currents in altermagnets via magnon drag, Phys. Rev. B111, 134448 (2025)

    2025

  2. [9]

    Sylju ˚ asen, A

    E. Sylju ˚ asen, A. Qaiumzadeh, and A. Sudbø, Quantum geometry and magnon hall transport in an altermagnet, Phys. Rev. B112, 064429 (2025)

    2025

  3. [10]

    E. W. Hodt, A. Qaiumzadeh, and J. Linder, Phonon-enhanced optical spin conductivity and spin-splitter effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 113, 054403 (2026)

    2026

  4. [11]

    G. E. W. Bauer, E. Saitoh, and B. J. van Wees, Spin caloritronics, Nat. Mater.11, 391 (2012)

    2012

  5. [12]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon spintronics, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    Alaei, P

    M. Alaei, P. Sobieszczyk, A. Ptok, N. Rezaei, A. R. Oganov, and A. Qaiumzadeh, Origin ofa- type antiferromagnetism and chiral split magnons in altermagneticα-MnTe, Phys. Rev. B111, 104416 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    N. Ni, E. Climent-Pascual, S. Jia, Q. Huang, and R. J. Cava, Physical properties and magnetic structure of the layered oxyselenide La2O3Mn2Se2, Phys. Rev. B82, 214419 (2010)

    2010

  8. [15]

    Koo and M.-H

    H.-J. Koo and M.-H. Whangbo, Analysis of the magnetic structure of the manganese oxychalco- genides R2Mn2Se2O (R=LaO, BaF) by density functional calculations, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 324, 3859 (2012)

    2012

  9. [16]

    H. Lei, E. S. Bozin, A. Llobet, V. Ivanovski, V. Koteski, J. Belosevic-Cavor, B. Cekic, and C. Petrovic, Magnetism in La2O3(Fe1-xMnx)2Se2 tuned by Fe/Mn ratio, Phys. Rev. B86, 125122 (2012)

    2012

  10. [17]

    C.-C. Wei, X. Li, S. Hatt, X. Huai, J. Liu, B. Singh, K.-M. Kim, R. M. Fernandes, P. Car- don, L. Zhao, T. T. Tran, B. A. Frandsen, K. S. Burch, F. Liu, and H. Ji, La2O3Mn2Se2: A correlated insulating layered d-wave altermagnet, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 024402 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    S. Asai, J. Hu, Z. Liu, S. Itoh, D. Ueta, J. Mat- suda, T. Hatanaka, H. Watanabe, R. Arita, and T. Masuda, Realization of a two-dimensional d- wave altermagnet in La 2O3Mn2Se2, Phys. Rev. Mater.10, L011401 (2026)

    2026

  12. [20]

    Y.-K. Li, Y. Yang, Y. Zhang, Z. Gui, X.-K. Wen, Y.-J. Li, Q. Liu, X.-L. Wang, R. Wang, J. Ying, and X. Chen, Unusual in-plane lattice collapse in layered La2O3Mn2Se2 initiated by pressure-driven spin-crossover, Commun. Mater.6, 245 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Rezaei, A

    N. Rezaei, A. R. Oganov, A. Ghojavand, M. V. Miloˇ sevi´ c, and M. Alaei, Benchmarking first- principles approaches for extracting magnetic ex- change interactions, npj Computational Mate- rials https://doi.org/10.1038/s41524-026-02161-3 (2026)

    2026 doi

  14. [22]

    Mosleh and M

    Z. Mosleh and M. Alaei, Benchmarking density functional theory on the prediction of antiferro- magnetic transition temperatures, Phys. Rev. B 108, 144413 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    H. J. Xiang, E. J. Kan, S.-H. Wei, M.-H. Whangbo, and X. G. Gong, Predicting the spin- lattice order of frustrated systems from first prin- ciples, Phys. Rev. B84, 224429 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Xiang, C

    H. Xiang, C. Lee, H.-J. Koo, X. Gong, and M.-H. Whangbo, Magnetic properties and energy-mapping analysis, Dalton Transactions 42, 823 (2013), https://pubs.rsc.org/dt/article- pdf/42/4/823/2659394/c2dt31662e.pdf

    2013

  17. [25]

    X. Li, H. Yu, F. Lou, J. Feng, M.-H. Whangbo, and H. Xiang, Spin hamiltonians in mag- nets: Theories and computations, Molecules26, 10.3390/molecules26040803 (2021)

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Wortmann, G

    D. Wortmann, G. Michalicek, N. Baadji, M. Bet- zinger, G. Bihlmayer, J. Br¨ oder, T. Burnus, J. Enkovaara, F. Freimuth, C. Friedrich, C.- R. Gerhorst, S. Granberg Cauchi, U. Grytsiuk, A. Hanke, J.-P. Hanke, M. Heide, S. Heinze, R. Hilgers, H. Janssen, D. A. Kl¨ uppelberg, R. K...

    2023

  19. [27]

    The FLEUR project,https://www.flapw.de/

  20. [28]

    pressure- tunable electronic and magnonic transport in altermagnet La 2O3Mn2Se2

    N. Rezaei, A. Qaiumzadeh, A. R. Oganov, and M. Alaei, Supplementary material for “pressure- tunable electronic and magnonic transport in altermagnet La 2O3Mn2Se2” (2026), unpublished supplementary material

    2026

  21. [29]

    Q. Cui, B. Zeng, P. Cui, T. Yu, and H. Yang, Efficient spin seebeck and spin nernst effects of magnons in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B108, L180401 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dy- namics for liquid metals, Phys. Rev. B47, 558(R) (1993)

    1993

  23. [31]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations us- ing a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseu- dopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  26. [34]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Gener- alized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Electron-energy- loss spectra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An LSDA+U study, Phys. Rev. B57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    Alaei and A

    M. Alaei and A. R. Oganov, Optimizing supercell structures for heisenberg exchange interaction cal- culations, Phys. Rev. B111, 144419 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Rezaei, M

    N. Rezaei, M. Alaei, and H. Akbarzadeh, ESpinS: A program for classical Monte Carlo simulations of spin systems, Comput. Mater. Sci.202, 110947 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo method and application to spin glass simu- lations, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 1604 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    Toth and B

    S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-q incommensurate magnetic structures, J. Phys. Cond. Mat.27, 166002 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, Y.-S. Lee, I. Souza, D. Vanderbilt, and N. Marzari, wannier90: A tool for obtaining maximally-localised wannier func- tions, Comput. Phys. Commun.178, 685 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Marzari and D

    N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Maximally local- ized generalized wannier functions for composite energy bands, Phys. Rev. B56, 12847 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Souza, N

    I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt, Max- imally localized wannier functions for entangled energy bands, Phys. Rev. B65, 035109 (2001)

    2001

  35. [43]

    X. Wang, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vander- bilt, Ab initio calculation of the anomalous hall conductivity by wannier interpolation, Phys. Rev. B74, 195118 (2006)

    2006

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.