Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

The Frequency-Dependent Spin Contribution to the Magnetoelectric Tensor of Cr$_2$O$_3$: A First-Principles Study

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the dynamical magnetoelectric response of Cr2O3 separates into a magnon-governed static regime and an exciton-governed optical regime, each captured by a different level of theory.

desk verdict A careful, honest first-principles study of the dynamical spin ME tensor; the magnon identification is the main thing to push on in review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04638 v1 pith:MYVWUORY submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Torsten Geirsson , Davide Sangalli , Alberto García-Cristóbal , Alejandro Molina-Sánchez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords magnetoelectricresponsechromiaCr2O3magnonexcitonBethe-Salpeterequationtime-dependentdensityfunctionaltheoryspin-orbitcouplingfrequency-dependent
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

The paper sets out to establish what microscopic excitations control the frequency-dependent spin contribution to the magnetoelectric (ME) tensor of the prototype magnetoelectric Cr2O3. It implements four levels of theory — the independent-particle approximation (IPA), the random-phase approximation (RPA), time-dependent density functional theory in the adiabatic local-density form (TD-ALDA), and the Bethe–Salpeter equation (BSE) — and finds that they capture complementary physics. The core claim is that the static and low-frequency ME response is carried by collective spin excitations (magnons), while the optical response near 1.7–2.0 eV is dominated by electron–hole (excitonic) correlations. BSE reproduces the excitonic resonances seen in reflectance spectroscopy but places the magnonic pole at about 1.7–1.9 eV because of the known Goldstone-rule violation for magnons in this framework, whereas TD-ALDA puts the spin-dominated mode at 250 meV and recovers a static limit near 0.2 ps/m. The result matters because a correct frequency-dependent ME tensor is the prerequisite for quantitative use of electric-field control of magnetism and of magnetoelectric spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the frequency-dependent spin magnetoelectric tensor, computed in the length gauge with the magnetic dipole operator $\mathbf{m} = -\mu_B \boldsymbol{\sigma}$, so that a Zeeman-like coupling $\mathbf{E}(\omega)\cdot(-e\mathbf{r})$ produces a spin magnetization response. In its spectral representation, each excitation contributes a pole at energy $\omega_\lambda$ with residue $R^\lambda_{\mu\nu}$, which is the product of the magnetic and electric dipole matrix elements $\langle 0|m_\nu|\lambda\rangle$ and $\langle 0|(-er_\mu)|\lambda\rangle$ of the excited state $\lambda$. The paper's machinery is the systematic comparison of these poles across IPA, RPA, TD-ALDA and BSE, supplemented by the transverse spin susceptibility $\chi_{\pm}(\omega)$ to distinguish spin-dominated (optically dark) from charge-dominated excitations, and by a decomposition of the BSE residues into amplitude and phase to show that spin–orbit coupling locks the relative phase of the two matrix elements and thereby sets the sign of each ME contribution. The static limit is then controlled by the Kramers–Kronig-weighted spectral sum $\alpha^{\mathrm{spin}}_{\perp}(0)\propto\int d\omega\,\mathrm{Im}\,\alpha^{\mathrm{spin}}_{\perp}(\omega)/\omega$, which is why an eV-scale magnonic pole cannot build up a finite static response.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to compute the zone-center acoustic and optical magnon energies of Cr2O3 from a spin-wave Hamiltonian fitted to the DFT exchange parameters, or from a converged TDDFT magnon calculation, and compare them with the pole of the transverse spin susceptibility that underlies the claimed magnonic ME peak in both TD-ALDA and BSE; if that pole does not coincide with a spin-wave magnon (or with the experimentally reported 0.68 meV spin resonance) while remaining dark in optical absorption, the magnon identification and the explanation of the static-limit failure would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the spin-only, clamped-ion approximation, the dynamical magnetoelectric tensor $\alpha^{\mathrm{spin}}_{\mu\nu}(\omega)=\delta M_\nu(\omega)/\delta E_\mu(\omega)$ of antiferromagnetic Cr2O3 is shaped by three kinds of excitation. Independent interband transitions (IPA and RPA) produce no static or low-frequency response, so they cannot reproduce the established finite static spin ME response of roughly 0.3 ps/m. The BSE introduces bound exciton states, of dominant Cr-(d)-to-Cr-(d) character, whose spectrum reproduces the qualitative sign and shape of the experimental rotation and ellipticity on reflection; its lowest ME-active pole, at 1.9 eV (LDA starting point) or 1.7 eV (GGA), lies at a pole of the transverse spin susceptibility, is dark in optical absorption, and splits into two nearly degenerate pairs separated by about 10 meV, a quartet the paper identifies as the acoustic and optical magnons of the four-sublattice antiferromagnet, misplaced to eV energies by the Goldstone-rule violation of GW–BSE. TD-ALDA places the same spin-dominated mode at 250 meV and, once enough bands are included, yields a finite static limit of about 0.2 ps/m, consistent with earlier first-principles values. The paper's conclusion is that the dynamical ME response separates into regimes: low-energy collective spin excitations set the static limit, and electron–hole interactions set the optical excitonic response, and no single one of the four approximations captures both.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the lowest optically dark BSE pole, which matches the transverse spin susceptibility and forms a near-degenerate quartet, really is the magnon misplaced to eV energies, a conclusion drawn from indirect indicators with no spin-wave or magnon-dispersion calculation to confirm it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-principles calculations of the finite-frequency spin ME response of magnetic insulators cannot stop at IPA or RPA: both miss the low-energy spectral weight that the static limit requires.
  • BSE-based predictions of the dynamical ME tensor will systematically underestimate the static limit whenever the magnon pole sits at eV rather than meV energies, because the static value is an integral weighted by $1/\omega$ over the absorption spectrum.
  • The BSE approach does capture the excitonic ME resonances: the calculated non-reciprocal rotation and ellipticity reproduce the signs and peak ordering of the measured spectra across the 1.6–2.4 eV region, after a rigid shift of the energy axis.
  • A magnetoelectrically active magnon mode, excitable by both electric and magnetic terahertz fields, is the physical counterpart of the low-energy pole that carries the static ME response; the paper connects this to a recent pump–probe experiment at 0.165 THz.
  • TD-ALDA, despite lacking bound excitons, is a practical route to the static spin ME response in this material once the band and k-point content of the kernel is converged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test the paper leaves implicit: if the BSE magnon pole were corrected downward to meV energies (for example by restoring the Goldstone mode through a spin-wave-informed correction of the kernel), the Kramers–Kronig integral should bring the BSE static limit up toward the TD-ALDA value of about 0.2 ps/m; the paper does not perform this correction.
  • The 250 meV TD-ALDA peak is still roughly two orders of magnitude above the measured 0.68 meV spin resonance, so the claim that TD-ALDA places the mode closer to the expected regime leaves substantial room; an exchange-correlation kernel with nonlocal or frequency dependence might be needed to close the gap.
  • The regime separation suggests a practical division of labour for future calculations on other magnetoelectrics: TDDFT-type kernels for the low-frequency and static tensor, BSE for the optical spectrum, with the two joined at intermediate frequencies where both magnon and exciton poles contribute.
  • Because the paper treats only the spin channel with clamped ions, its quantitative values apply to the electronic spin part; including orbital and lattice contributions would modify absolute magnitudes but, if the separation is robust, not the qualitative picture that different excitation classes dominate different frequency windows.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents first-principles calculations of the frequency-dependent spin contribution to the magnetoelectric tensor of Cr2O3, comparing independent-particle (IPA), random-phase (RPA), time-dependent density-functional (TD-ALDA), and Bethe-Salpeter (BSE) approaches. The central claim is that the dynamical spin ME response separates into a low-frequency regime governed by collective spin excitations (magnons), which is required for the static limit, and an optical regime dominated by excitonic electron-hole correlations. The authors report that IPA and RPA yield no static spin ME response, TD-ALDA converges to about 0.2 ps/m through a low-energy mode, and BSE produces excitonic resonances with a lowest ME-active pole at about 1.9 eV (LDA) or 1.7 eV (GGA), which they interpret as a magnonic mode misplaced by the Goldstone-rule violation of GW-BSE. They compare BSE rotation and ellipticity spectra with experimental reflectance data and find qualitative agreement after energy shifts and amplitude scaling.

Significance. If the main claim is correct, this is a useful contribution to the relatively underdeveloped field of dynamical first-principles magnetoelectric response. The systematic comparison of four levels of theory, the inclusion of spin-orbit coupling in a spinorial formulation, the convergence tests over k-meshes and bands, and the additional DFT+U and LDA/GGA checks are all genuine strengths. The paper also makes a falsifiable statement about the static limit requiring collective spin excitations, which is interesting even if the magnon identification remains under-supported. However, the significance is moderated by the fact that the central decomposition relies on the classification of the lowest BSE pole as a magnon, and that classification is not directly established by the presented evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV C, Table I, Fig. 4] The identification of the lowest BSE ME-active pole as a magnon is not established. The three indicators listed (coincidence with the transverse spin-susceptibility pole, optical darkness, and the near-degenerate quartet) are equally consistent with a local spin-flip Cr d-to-d crystal-field exciton. In fact, Table I reports W_d->d = 0.71 for this pole and energies of 1.947/1.960 eV (LDA), which is precisely the known d-d exciton region, while the measured antiferromagnetic resonance is at 0.682 meV (Ref. [6]). No magnon dispersion, spin-wave calculation, or non-Tamm-Dancoff BSE test is provided to support the Goldstone-violation interpretation. Because this assignment is the basis for the claim that BSE misses the static limit due to the Goldstone rule violation (Sec. V), that load-bearing conclusion is currently unsupported. Please either provide direct evidence of collective spin-wave character (for example, a momentum-resolved spin-spin correlation function or a comparison with a converged TDDFT magnon dispersion) or explicitly reframe the conclusions so that the BSE low-energy pole is treated as a spin-flip d-d exciton.
  2. [IV B, Sec. III B, Fig. S7] The claim that TD-ALDA recovers the finite static spin ME response through a low-energy magnonic mode is central, but the numerical support is incomplete. The text states that the low-frequency peak at 250 meV converges slowly with the number of bands and that the static limit converges to approximately 0.2 ps/m, yet no table or plot gives the static value as a function of bands (v25c25 to v40c40), k-mesh (2x2x2 to 6x6x6), and broadening (0.1 eV vs 0.01 eV), nor an uncertainty estimate. Furthermore, 250 meV is still more than two orders of magnitude above the 0.682 meV AFMR, so the statement that this is 'closer to the expected low-energy magnonic regime' requires a quantitative comparison with a converged magnon calculation for Cr2O3, such as the TDDFT results of Ref. [43]. Without this, the mechanism linking the low-energy peak to the static limit is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  3. [IV D, Fig. 6] The comparison with the reflectance data of Ref. [5] is made after a rigid downward shift of 0.82 eV (LDA) or 0.40 eV (GGA) and after multiplying the experimental rotation and ellipticity by a factor of four. These adjustments are calibrated to the first absorption feature and to the amplitude, so the resulting agreement in peak ordering and relative signs is a consistency check rather than a quantitative prediction. To make the qualitative-validity claim meaningful, please state which features survive independent of the shift and scaling choices and report how the comparison changes when the shift is varied within, say, ±0.2 eV.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The terminology is inconsistent: the abstract speaks of a 'magnon-like peak' while Sec. V refers to a 'low-energy magnonic pole'; please align the wording to avoid overclaiming in one place and underclaiming in another.
  2. [II C, Eq. (7)] Please specify the convention for the sign of Im alpha in the figures and state the Kramers-Kronig relation used for the static limit; currently the sign of the imaginary part is not defined in the text.
  3. [III B] The description of the double-grid BSE method (6x6x6 coarse and 16x16x16 fine) should state explicitly which grid enters the screening and which enters the exciton Hamiltonian; this is standard but should be written out for reproducibility.
  4. [Fig. S7] The BSE band-convergence test compares only v12c28 and v18c28; given the paper's emphasis on low-energy convergence, a test with more valence or conduction bands would strengthen the claim that the low-frequency structure is converged.
  5. [III A, Table S1] The atomic magnetic moments are reported with six decimals; this is overprecise and should be rounded to a physically meaningful precision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained and the noted self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central linear-response expressions (Eqs. 3-7) are standard first-principles formulae with no target result built into the definition of the magnetoelectric tensor. The scissor shift is calibrated to the experimental quasiparticle gap of 3.4 eV from combined XPS/BIS data, not to the ME spectrum, so the BSE excitonic peak positions are not fitted to the ME response. The comparison with experiment in Sec. IV D uses explicitly disclosed downward energy shifts (0.82 eV for LDA, 0.40 eV for GGA) and a factor-of-four amplitude rescaling of the experimental data; these are disclosed presentational adjustments and are not presented as predictions of absolute energies or amplitudes. Self-citations (Yambo/Lumen code, Yambopy, the spinorial BSE formulation, and Ref. [45] on magnons in chromium trihalides) concern code infrastructure and methodological background; the load-bearing claim that GW-BSE violates the Goldstone rule for magnons is supported by independent external references [46] (Olsen) and [47] (Müller et al.) in addition to the same-group reference [45]. The identification of the lowest BSE ME-active pole as a magnon rests on three indirect indicators (coincidence with the transverse spin-susceptibility pole, optical darkness, and near-degenerate quartet structure). A spin-flip Cr d-d crystal-field exciton could in principle share those signatures, but that is a scientific-interpretation/correctness concern, not a circular reduction of the derivation to its inputs: the paper does not define 'magnon' as 'pole of Im chi+-', nor does it fit a parameter to the experimental ME spectrum and then rename that fit as a prediction. The TD-ALDA static limit converging to about 0.2 ps/m and being compared with the previously reported 0.3 ps/m is a benchmark comparison, not a fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction. Therefore no circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation relies on standard DFT and many-body perturbation theory inputs. The only hand-chosen numbers are the scissor shift, broadenings, an optional Hubbard U, and the ad hoc shifts and amplitude factor used in the experimental comparison. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The magnon interpretation of the BSE peak is an interpretive assumption, not an invented entity.

free parameters (4)
  • Scissor shift to experimental quasiparticle gap = 3.4 eV (LDA and GGA)
    Standard calibration of the DFT gap using experimental XPS/BIS data; used to set BSE excitation energies. This is a free input from experiment, not derived from the target ME response.
  • Broadening eta = 0.1 eV for spectra, 0.01 eV for static limit
    Chosen by hand; affects line shapes and the integrated static limit through the 1/omega factor in the Kramers-Kronig relation.
  • Hubbard U (GGA+U supplemental test) = 5 eV
    Taken from prior literature; used only to test robustness of BSE spectra, not part of the main prediction.
  • Energy shifts and amplitude factor for experimental comparison = LDA shift 0.82 eV, GGA shift 0.40 eV, experimental amplitude factor 4
    Ad hoc alignment applied in Figure 6 to match the absorption onset and amplitude with experiment. These adjustments are presentational but affect the claimed qualitative agreement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFT (LDA and GGA) Kohn-Sham orbitals are adequate input for BSE and TD-ALDA response calculations
    The calculations use a DFT ground state without self-consistency beyond the ground state. This is standard practice but a load-bearing domain assumption.
  • standard math Tamm-Dancoff approximation in BSE
    Neglects coupling between resonant and anti-resonant transitions; stated as reliable in the optical regime for a wide range of materials.
  • domain assumption Clamped-ion, spin-only, zero-temperature approximation
    Ionic (lattice-mediated) and orbital contributions to the ME tensor are neglected. Prior static studies indicate spin dominates the electronic part, but this is an assumption for the dynamical response.
  • domain assumption ALDA kernel is local and adiabatic
    The TD-ALDA exchange-correlation kernel cannot capture bound excitons; this motivates using BSE for the excitonic region, but it limits the validity of TD-ALDA results.
  • ad hoc to paper Quasiparticle energies approximated by scissor-corrected DFT energies
    A rigid scissor shift is applied to LDA and GGA eigenvalues instead of a full GW calculation. This is a practical but ad hoc approximation for BSE.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Frequency-Dependent Spin Contribution to the Magnetoelectric Tensor of Cr$_2$O$_3$: A First-Principles Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MYVWUORY

@misc{pith2026260804638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Frequency-Dependent Spin Contribution to the Magnetoelectric Tensor of Cr$_2$O$_3$: A First-Principles Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MYVWUORY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04638}
}
abstract

The magnetoelectric (ME) effect provides a promising pathway for controlling magnetic functionalities using electric fields. While first-principles methods for the static linear ME response are well established, comparable approaches for the frequency-dependent response remain less developed, despite experiments showing pronounced finite-frequency resonances. Here, we investigate the dynamical spin-induced linear ME response from first principles and systematically compare the independent-particle approximation (IPA), random-phase approximation (RPA), time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT), and the Bethe-Salpeter equation (BSE). We apply these methods to the prototypical ME material Cr$_2$O$_3$ and compare the results with available experimental and theoretical studies. We find that the IPA and RPA fail to reproduce the previously reported finite static limit of the spin-induced response. Within the BSE framework, pronounced excitonic resonances emerge in the ME spectrum, in qualitative agreement with experiment. We also identify a magnon-like peak that coincides with a pole of the transverse spin susceptibility while remaining essentially dark in optical absorption, highlighting the sensitivity of the ME response to spin excitations. TDDFT places this mode closer to the expected low-energy magnonic regime and yields a sizable static spin-induced response. Our results show that these frameworks capture complementary aspects of the dynamical ME response. Low-energy collective spin excitations are required to recover the static limit, whereas electron-hole interactions are essential for reproducing the excitonic resonances.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) The unit cell geometry and electronic band [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Panels (a) and (b): Real and imaginary parts, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The imaginary parts of the transverse dielectric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The decomposition of the BSE (with LDA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Comparison between experimental rotation and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [6]

    V. R. Bilyk, R. M. Dubrovin, A. K. Zvezdin, A. I. Kiri- lyuk, and A. V. Kimel, Control of spins in collinear an- tiferromagnet Cr2O3 by terahertz electric fields, Newton 10.1016/j.newton.2025.100132 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [43]

    Skovhus and T

    T. Skovhus and T. Olsen, Magnons in antiferromagnetic bcc Cr and Cr 2O3 from time-dependent density func- tional theory, Physical Review B106, 085131 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [5]

    Krichevtsov, V

    B. Krichevtsov, V. Pavlov, R. Pisarev, and V. Grid- nev, Magnetoelectric spectroscopy of electronic transi- tions in antiferromagnetic Cr2O3, Physical review letters 76, 4628 (1996)

    work page 1996

  4. [1]

    R. E. Newnham,Properties of materials: anisotropy, symmetry, structure(OUP Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  5. [2]

    N. A. Spaldin and M. Fiebig, The renaissance of magne- toelectric multiferroics, Science309, 391 (2005)

    2005

  6. [3]

    N. A. Spaldin and R. Ramesh, Advances in magnetoelec- tric multiferroics, Nature materials18, 203 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [4]

    Liang, A

    X. Liang, A. Matyushov, P. Hayes, V. Schell, C. Dong, H. Chen, Y. He, A. Will-Cole, E. Quandt, P. Martins, et al., Roadmap on magnetoelectric materials and de- vices, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics57, 1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Y. He, Z. Liu, N. Su, D. Hong, and Y. Sun, Dynamic mag- netoelectric effect and phase diagram of the polar magnet Ni2MnTeO6, Physical Review B112, 054422 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Malashevich, S

    A. Malashevich, S. Coh, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Full magnetoelectric response of Cr 2O3 from first princi- ples, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Mate- rials Physics86, 094430 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Malashevich, I

    A. Malashevich, I. Souza, S. Coh, and D. Vanderbilt, Theory of orbital magnetoelectric response, New Journal of Physics12, 053032 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Ye and D

    M. Ye and D. Vanderbilt, Dynamical magnetic charges and linear magnetoelectricity, Physical Review B89, 064301 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    Vanderbilt,Berry phases in electronic structure the- ory: electric polarization, orbital magnetization and topo- logical insulators(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    D. Vanderbilt,Berry phases in electronic structure the- ory: electric polarization, orbital magnetization and topo- logical insulators(Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    A. M. Essin, A. M. Turner, J. E. Moore, and D. Van- derbilt, Orbital magnetoelectric coupling in band insula- tors, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Mate- rials Physics81, 205104 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    Brown Jr, R

    W. Brown Jr, R. Hornreich, and S. Shtrikman, Upper bound on the magnetoelectric susceptibility, Physical Re- view168, 574 (1968)

    1968

  7. [14]

    Fiebig, Revival of the magnetoelectric effect, Journal of physics D: applied physics38, R123 (2005)

    M. Fiebig, Revival of the magnetoelectric effect, Journal of physics D: applied physics38, R123 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    Vopson, Y

    M. Vopson, Y. Fetisov, G. Caruntu, and G. Srinivasan, Measurement techniques of the magneto-electric coupling in multiferroics, materials10, 963 (2017)

    2017

  9. [16]

    Y ¯ ıng and U

    Y. Y ¯ ıng and U. Z¨ ulicke, Magnetoelectricity in two- dimensional materials, Advances in Physics: X7, 2032343 (2022)

    2022

  10. [17]

    Bousquet, N

    E. Bousquet, N. A. Spaldin, and K. T. Delaney, Unex- pectedly large electronic contribution to linear magneto- electricity, Physical Review Letters106, 107202 (2011)

    2011

  11. [18]

    Hayashida, K

    T. Hayashida, K. Arakawa, T. Oshima, K. Kimura, and T. Kimura, Observation of antiferromagnetic domains in Cr2O3 using nonreciprocal optical effects, Physical Re- view Research4, 043063 (2022). 11

    2022

  12. [19]

    M. Muto, Y. Tanabe, T. Iizuka-Sakano, and E. Hana- mura, Magnetoelectric and second-harmonic spectra in antiferromagnetic Cr 2O3, Physical Review B57, 9586 (1998)

    1998

  13. [20]

    Kaxiras and J

    E. Kaxiras and J. D. Joannopoulos,Quantum theory of materials(Cambridge university press, 2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Rzazewski and R

    K. Rzazewski and R. W. Boyd, Equivalence of interac- tion hamiltonians in the electric dipole approximation, Journal of modern optics51, 1137 (2004)

    2004

  15. [22]

    Pozo Oca˜ na and I

    ´O. Pozo Oca˜ na and I. Souza, Multipole theory of opti- cal spatial dispersion in crystals, SciPost Physics14, 118 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Marsili, A

    M. Marsili, A. Molina-S´ anchez, M. Palummo, D. San- galli, and A. Marini, Spinorial formulation of theGW- BSE equations and spin properties of excitons in two- dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides, Physical Review B103, 155152 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    M. Wu, Z. Li, and S. G. Louie, Optical and magneto- optical properties of ferromagnetic monolayer CrBr 3: A first-principlesGWandGWplus Bethe–Salpeter equa- tion study, Physical Review Materials6, 014008 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    R. M. Martin, L. Reining, and D. M. Ceperley,Interact- ing electrons(Cambridge University Press, 2016)

    2016

  19. [26]

    Reining, V

    L. Reining, V. Olevano, A. Rubio, and G. Onida, Ex- citonic effects in solids described by time-dependent density-functional theory, Physical review letters88, 066404 (2002)

    2002

  20. [27]

    Guandalini, P

    A. Guandalini, P. D’Amico, A. Ferretti, and D. Varsano, EfficientGWcalculations in two dimensional materials through a stochastic integration of the screened potential, npj Computational Materials9, 44 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    For both the LDA and the GGA ground state, in the Lumencode, only the term containing the functional derivative with respect to the density is constructed in the definition of the adiabatic kernel, i.e.f A xc = ∂v DF T[ραβ(t)](x, t)/∂ραβ(x′, t)

  22. [29]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carnimeo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. D. Jr, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstm...

    2017

  23. [30]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Physical Review Letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  24. [31]

    D. R. Hamann, Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials, Physical Review B88, 085117 (2013)

    2013

  25. [32]

    A. H. Hill, A. Harrison, C. Dickinson, W. Zhou, and W. Kockelmann, Crystallographic and magnetic studies of mesoporous eskolaite, Cr 2O3, Microporous and Meso- porous Materials130, 280 (2010)

    2010

  26. [33]

    ”See Supplemental Material for the (i) geometry and (ii) convergence plots along with further comparisons be- tween LDA and GGA, and (iii) the effect of DFT+Uon the BSE spectra.”

  27. [34]

    J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Self-interaction correction to density-functional approximations for many-electron systems, Physical Review B23, 5048 (1981)

    1981

  28. [35]

    Sangalli, A

    D. Sangalli, A. Ferretti, H. Miranda, C. Attaccalite, I. Marri, E. Cannuccia, P. Melo, M. Marsili, F. Paleari, A. Marrazzo,et al., Many-body perturbation theory cal- culations using the yambo code, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter31, 325902 (2019)

    2019

  29. [36]

    Sangalli, R

    D. Sangalli, R. Reho, I. M. Alliati, J. Cervantes- Villanueva, A. Esquembre Kuˇ cukali´ c, T. Geirsson, D. A. Leon Valido, B. Mellado Pinto, P. Milev, M. Nalabothula, F. Paleari, A. Romani, L. Bellentani, J. M. Castelo Ares, M. D’Alessandro, S. Laricchia, E. M. Montagna, S. Or...

    2026

  30. [37]

    I. M. Alliati, D. Sangalli, and M. Gr¨ uning, Double k- grid method for solving the Bethe–Salpeter equation via Lanczos approaches, Frontiers in Chemistry9, 763946 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Zimmermann, P

    R. Zimmermann, P. Steiner, and S. H¨ ufner, Electron spectroscopies and partial excitation spectra in Cr 2O3, inProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Vacuum Ultraviolet Radiation Physics(Elsevier, 1996) pp. 49–52

    1996

  32. [39]

    Lebreau, M

    F. Lebreau, M. M. Islam, B. Diawara, and P. Marcus, Structural, magnetic, electronic, defect, and diffusion properties of Cr 2O3: A DFT+Ustudy, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C118, 18133 (2014)

    2014

  33. [40]

    S. Shi, A. L. Wysocki, and K. D. Belashchenko, Mag- netism of chromia from first-principles calculations, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics79, 104404 (2009)

    2009

  34. [41]

    Astrov, Magnetoelectric effect in chromium oxide, Sov

    D. Astrov, Magnetoelectric effect in chromium oxide, Sov. Phys. JETP13, 729 (1961)

    1961

  35. [42]

    Botti, A

    S. Botti, A. Fourreau, F. Nguyen, Y.-O. Renault, F. Sot- tile, and L. Reining, Energy dependence of the exchange- correlation kernel of time-dependent density functional theory: A simple model for solids, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72, 125203 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Szilva, Y

    A. Szilva, Y. Kvashnin, E. A. Stepanov, L. Nordstr¨ om, O. Eriksson, A. I. Lichtenstein, and M. I. Katsnelson, Quantitative theory of magnetic interactions in solids, Reviews of Modern Physics95, 035004 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Esquembre-Kuˇ cukali´ c, K

    A. Esquembre-Kuˇ cukali´ c, K. B. Le, A. Garc ´ ıa-Crist´ obal, M. Bernardi, D. Sangalli, and A. Molina-S´ anchez, Magnons in chromium trihalides calculated with the ab initio Bethe-Salpeter equation, Phys. Rev. B112, 184412 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Olsen, Unified treatment of magnons and excitons in monolayer CrI3 from many-body perturbation theory, Physical Review Letters127, 166402 (2021)

    T. Olsen, Unified treatment of magnons and excitons in monolayer CrI3 from many-body perturbation theory, Physical Review Letters127, 166402 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    M. C. M¨ uller, C. Friedrich, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Acoustic magnons in the long-wavelength limit: investigating the Goldstone violation in many-body perturbation theory, Physical Review B94, 064433 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    A. R. Kshirsagar and S. Reichardt, Flipping of electronic spins in BiFeO 3 via chiral d-d excitations, Physical Re- view B112, L121111 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Paleari, A

    F. Paleari, A. Molina-S´ anchez, M. Nalabothula, R. Reho, M. Bonacci, J. Castelo, J. Cervantes-Villanueva, M. Pi- 12 onteck, M. Silvetti, C. Attaccalite, and H. Pereira Coutada Miranda, Yambopy (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Hornreich and S

    R. Hornreich and S. Shtrikman, Theory of gyrotropic birefringence, Physical Review171, 1065 (1968)

    1968

  43. [51]

    ´Iniguez, First-principles approach to lattice-mediated magnetoelectric effects, Physical Review Letters101, 117201 (2008)

    J. ´Iniguez, First-principles approach to lattice-mediated magnetoelectric effects, Physical Review Letters101, 117201 (2008)

    2008

  44. [52]

    Essenberger, S

    F. Essenberger, S. Sharma, J. Dewhurst, C. Bersier, F. Cricchio, L. Nordstr¨ om, and E. Gross, Magnon spec- trum of transition-metal oxides: calculations includ- ing long-range magnetic interactions using the lsda+ u method, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Ma- terials P...

    2011

  45. [53]

    The Frequency-Dependent Spin Contribution to the Magnetoelectric Tensor of Cr2O3: A First-Principles Study

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Hp–a code for the calculation of hubbard parameters using density- functional perturbation theory, Computer Physics Com- munications279, 108455 (2022). 13 Supplemental Material for “The Frequency-Dependent Spin Contribution to the Magn...

    2022

  46. [54]

    LDA and GGA comparison The LDA and GGA exchange–correlation functionals yielded similar but not identical BSE results. The major differences were the smaller optical oscillator strengths in GGA compared to LDA, as well as the relative position of the absorption onset, which oc...

  47. [55]

    This can be done by utilizing a covariant derivative approach as described in Ref

    Effect of DFT+Uon BSE spectra The BSE calculations can be performed on top of a DFT ground-state where a HubbardUparameter has been included, as long as the Hubbard term in the Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian is accounted for in the calculation of the optical dipole elements. This can b...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.