Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Emergent Surface Altermagnetism

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Surface altermagnetism can emerge at the boundaries of ordinary collinear antiferromagnets whose bulk bands are spin-degenerate, making the surface itself the source of nonrelativistic spin splitting.

desk verdict Surface termination can induce altermagnetic spin splitting in spin-degenerate AFMs—a solid concept undercut by unverifiable enumeration counts and a shared independent classification. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05529 v1 pith:GDRWBO52 submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yuzhong Hu , Pan Zhou , Baoru Pan , Songmin Liu , Binchang Zhou , Lizhong Sun This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords surfacealtermagnetismantiferromagnetspinspacegroupsplittingstatesCrSbNaMnP
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

This paper introduces surface altermagnetism (SAM): a nonrelativistic, symmetry-protected spin splitting of electronic states that appears on specific crystal surfaces of collinear antiferromagnets and altermagnets. The central claim is that the surface itself, by breaking a bulk symmetry that used to relate the opposite-spin sublattices, can generate altermagnetic spin polarization even in conventional antiferromagnets whose bulk bands are everywhere spin-degenerate. The authors build a bulk-to-surface spin-group framework and identify all symmetry-allowed surface pathways: 35 for PT-symmetric antiferromagnets, 61 for bulk altermagnets, and 203 spin space groups for antiferromagnets whose sublattices are connected by a fractional translation. They verify the framework with tight-binding models and first-principles calculations on NaMnP, LiMnAs, CrSb, and seven other compounds, finding surface spin splittings of order 0.7 eV and surface-only transport signatures. If correct, SAM extends altermagnetism from bulk bands to surfaces and offers a field-free, facet-tunable route to spin-polarized surface states for spintronics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin group, a symmetry group that treats spin rotations and spatial operations independently and is the appropriate description when spin-orbit coupling is negligible. The argument runs on the bulk-to-surface group–subgroup reduction: a surface with normal n keeps only those bulk operations that leave n invariant and whose translations lie parallel to the surface, and the surviving group is a spin wallpaper group. SAM appears exactly when the surface spin group lacks the operations that would map one spin sublattice onto the other and restore spin degeneracy—such as [C2||P][Cbar2||T], [C2||t_perp], or [C2||$C_n^{2}$][Cbar2||T]—while still containing symmetries that connect the two opposite sublattices. The enumeration is carried out at the spin point group level for PT-symmetric antiferromagnets and altermagnets, and at the spin space group level for tT-symmetric antiferromagnets, because in that class the sublattice-connecting symmetry is a fractional translation whose survival depends on the Miller indices.

What would settle it

A decisive test is spin-resolved photoemission on the predicted P-Na-terminated (001) surface of NaMnP: if the in-gap surface bands remain spin-degenerate along the paths where the slab calculation predicts a d-wave splitting of order 0.71 eV, that specific SAM realization is contradicted. A transport falsifier is the facet-dependent surface crystal Hall effect in CrSb: the paper predicts opposite-sign Hall signals on the (210) and (120) surfaces, so the absence of the predicted sign reversal would break the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that a collinear antiferromagnet or altermagnet, when cleaved along a suitable Miller plane, can host surface electronic states whose opposite-spin bands are split without spin-orbit coupling and without net magnetization. The mechanism is symmetry reduction: the surface removes the bulk operation that forced the two opposite-spin sublattices to be degenerate—[C2||P][Cbar2||T] in PT-symmetric antiferromagnets, the fractional translation [C2||t] in tT-symmetric antiferromagnets, or the rotation or rotoinversion that connects sublattices in bulk altermagnets—while preserving other spin-group operations that relate the sublattices. Working through the 58 collinear spin point groups and 517 collinear spin space groups, the authors enumerate 35, 61, and 203 symmetry-allowed pathways for PT-AFM-SAM, AM-SAM, and tT-AFM-SAM, respectively. Tight-binding models and density-functional calculations on NaMnP, LiMnAs, CrSb, and additional synthesized compounds show surface spin splittings up to about 0.71 eV, d-wave-like or g-wave-like momentum patterns, and a surface crystal Hall effect in CrSb that is symmetry-forbidden in the bulk and changes sign between the (210) and (120) facets.

Load-bearing premise

The classification assumes an ideal surface that preserves the bulk antiferromagnetic sublattice symmetry and collinear magnetic order with negligible spin-orbit coupling; if a real termination reconstructs, relaxes into a different magnetic configuration, or develops strong spin-orbit coupling, the predicted spin-split surface states would be altered or absent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Conventional collinear antiferromagnets with fully spin-degenerate bulk bands can still act as sources of nonrelativistic spin-polarized surface states, so altermagnetism is not restricted to bulk altermagnets.
  • For any collinear magnet, the bulk spin space group together with the chosen Miller index determines whether a surface hosts SAM; the classification is orientation-resolved, as CrSb illustrates with ferromagnetic-type behavior on (001), spin-degenerate surfaces on the {100} family, and d-wave SAM with opposite spin polarization on the {210} and {120} facets.
  • SAM creates surface-only observables that are absent in the bulk, including a surface crystal Hall effect with chirality-controlled sign in CrSb and spin-splitter-type transport at the boundaries of antiferromagnets whose bulk bands are spin degenerate.
  • The splitting is nonrelativistic and can be large—about 0.71 eV on the NaMnP (001) surface—making it accessible to spin- and angle-resolved photoemission and spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy.
  • The bulk-to-surface symmetry construction also applies to interfaces, heterostructures, and gate-controlled boundary layers, not only to vacuum-terminated surfaces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If SAM is as general as the classification suggests, surface termination could become a design axis for altermagnetic devices: the same parent crystal could be switched between spin-degenerate and spin-split surface channels simply by choosing the facet orientation, without external fields.
  • A natural testable extension is magnetic tunnel junctions: the paper notes in an appendix that the same symmetry reduction applies to buried interfaces, but does not calculate the resulting spin-dependent tunneling or interfacial magnetocrystalline anisotropy, both of which could be computed and measured.
  • In semiconducting antiferromagnets such as NaMnP, whose bulk gap is about 1.02 eV, the in-gap conduction is carried by the spin-split surface states, so transport measurements on thin, surface-dominated films could reveal SAM without spin-resolved photoemission.
  • The classification's independence from material-specific parameters suggests that moderate disorder or weak spin-orbit coupling will not destroy SAM qualitatively; comparing facet-dependent spin textures between light-element and heavy-element antiferromagnets would isolate the nonrelativistic contribution.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the concept of surface altermagnetism (SAM), in which nonrelativistic spin splitting emerges at the surface of collinear antiferromagnets (AFMs) or altermagnets (AMs) even when the bulk bands are spin degenerate. The authors construct a group-subgroup framework connecting bulk spin groups to surface spin wallpaper groups and claim to enumerate all symmetry-allowed SAM pathways: 35 for PT-symmetric AFMs, 61 for bulk AMs, and 203 for tT-symmetric AFMs. They support the proposal with tight-binding models and first-principles calculations for ten synthesized compounds, including NaMnP, LiMnAs, and CrSb, and discuss surface-specific observables such as a facet-dependent crystal Hall effect.

Significance. If the classification is correct, SAM substantially extends altermagnetism from bulk bands to boundaries and provides an orientation-resolved, symmetry-based predictive scheme. The paper has clear strengths: the symmetry reasoning is coherent and parameter-free, the concept of a bulk-to-surface 'pathway' is useful and materially different from a bare listing of surface groups, and the inclusion of ten first-principles examples spanning all three proposed classes is a valuable consistency check. The explicit discussion in Appendix C of the validity domain and the dependence on ideal sublattice-preserving terminations is also commendable. However, the central enumerative claims are not checkable in the submitted text, because the derivation and the tables containing the counts (Tabs. S3-S5) are confined to the missing Supplementary Materials. The manuscript therefore cannot currently be independently verified on its main quantitative claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Symmetry analysis; Appendix A] The central classification counts (35, 61, and 203) are asserted in the abstract and in the 'Symmetry analysis' section, but the derivation is not present in the main text: the enumeration is deferred to Tabs. S3-S5 of the Supplementary Materials, which were not part of the reviewed manuscript. Appendix A states that the enumeration is 'complete and nonredundant' but gives no counting rule, no definition of a 'pathway' in algorithmic terms, and no worked example that would let a reader reproduce any of the counts. The only checkable numeric statement, that the eleven admissible surface SPGs are consistent with Ref. [74], addresses a different object (surface SPGs, not pathways). Because the paper's predictive claim is that 'the bulk SSG of any collinear magnet directly yields the surface orientations capable of hosting SAM,' these counts are the load-bearing pillar of the work. Please move the enumeration tables and the counting procedure into the main text or an appendix, or provide the Supplementary Materials for review.
  2. [Appendix C; Discussion] Appendix C appropriately restricts the predictions to ideal terminations that preserve the bulk antiferromagnetic sublattice symmetry and collinear magnetic order, and it states that terminations breaking sublattice equivalence or spin symmetry would alter or destroy the spin-split surface bands, while real surfaces may reconstruct. This caveat directly qualifies the abstract's characterization of SAM as a 'robust, symmetry-protected magnetic state' and the Discussion's claim of a 'widely applicable route' and 'Universality.' The first-principles demonstrations cover selected ideal terminations only, for example the P-Na terminated (001) surface of NaMnP and the (210) and (120) facets of CrSb. As submitted, the evidence does not establish that SAM survives under realistic surface reconstructions, magnetic reconfigurations, or termination disorder. The authors should either provide additional evidence, such as calculations for all inequivalent stable terminations of at least one compound or explicit surface phase diagrams, or restate the central claim as applying to ideal, sublattice-preserving terminations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The tight-binding Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) is ambiguous: the first and fourth terms have the identical operator structure c†_{α,i}c_{β,j}, with the intended nearest-neighbor versus next-nearest-neighbor distinction appearing only in the text, and the summation ranges are not specified. Please rewrite the model with explicit bond sums or refer the reader to the detailed construction in the Supplementary Materials.
  2. [Symmetry analysis] The notation 'tT-symmetric AFM' is used throughout without defining the symbol 'tT'; the defining operation is later written as [C2||t]. A sentence defining tT as the combination of a fractional translation with spin reversal would remove ambiguity.
  3. [Fig. 4] The text states that the (210) and (120) CrSb surfaces show reversed spin polarization and opposite-sign Hall conductivity, but the figure does not show the Hall conductivity values or a clear sign convention. Adding explicit computed values or an inset with the sign would make the claim checkable.
  4. [Appendix E] Appendix E contains a grammatical error ('Further details is provided') and the sentence on nonlocal geometries could be tightened for clarity.
  5. [Tab. S1 / Appendix A] The relation between the eleven surface SPGs and the standard International Tables for Crystallography Vol. E notation for subperiodic groups is only referenced, not displayed. A short correspondence table in the main text would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetry classification and DFT/TB demonstrations are self-contained, with self-citations only contextual.

full rationale

The central derivation is a group-subgroup symmetry analysis: surface spin point groups and spin space groups are constructed as subgroups of the bulk spin space group that preserve translations parallel to the surface, and SAM pathways are enumerated by removing the bulk sublattice-connecting operations ([C2||P][Cbar2||T], the fractional translation [C2||t], or rotations/rotoinversions). None of the enumerated counts (35, 61, 203) is fitted to the tight-binding or first-principles data; the TB models and DFT slabs are chosen after the symmetry analysis to illustrate the predicted effect, and the surface spin splitting is computed rather than imposed by the classification. The one external consistency check invoked, the eleven admissible surface SPGs, is checked against the non-overlapping independent work [74], and the spin-group formalism is taken from the public crystallographic literature [38-41]. Self-citations [15-17] appear in the introductory context of altermagnetism and are not load-bearing for the surface classification. Appendix C explicitly limits the predictions to terminations preserving the bulk antiferromagnetic sublattice symmetry, and Appendix E concedes that bulk conduction may mask the surface channel in thick metallic samples; both are validity-domain limitations, not circular steps. The enumeration itself resides in Supplementary tables not reproduced in the main text, so its completeness is not independently verifiable from the manuscript alone, but unverified completeness is a correctness or reproducibility concern rather than circularity. No step was found in which an output quantity is equal by construction to an input, nor any load-bearing argument that reduces to a self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The symmetry classification is a parameter-free group-theoretic derivation; the only fitted or hand-chosen numbers (Hubbard U, TB hoppings) affect quantitative magnitudes, not the existence of SAM. The main assumptions are the nonrelativistic spin-group description and ideal, bulk-like surface terminations.

free parameters (2)
  • Hubbard Ueff for Mn = 3 eV
    Dudarev GGA+U effective Hubbard parameter applied to Mn in DFT calculations of NaMnP and related compounds; sets the quantitative band gap and spin splitting magnitude but not the symmetry classification.
  • Tight-binding parameters t1-t4, J = 0.4, 0.3, 0.2, -0.15, 0.2
    Hand-chosen hopping amplitudes and exchange coupling in the model Hamiltonian to illustrate SAM; values are illustrative and not fitted to the target effect.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic limit with negligible spin-orbit coupling, so that spin groups describe the magnetic symmetry.
    Invoked in the Symmetry analysis section: 'In the nonrelativistic limit, the symmetries ... described spin groups'; the authors note strong SOC may limit applicability.
  • domain assumption The surface spin group is a subgroup of the bulk spin group, keeping only translations parallel to the surface and operations that do not reverse the surface normal.
    Used in Eq. (2) following Weber et al.; this is the foundational map from bulk to surface symmetry.
  • domain assumption The cleaved surface is ideally terminated and preserves the collinear, compensated antiferromagnetic sublattice structure of the bulk.
    Appendix C: 'Our calculations focus on terminations that preserve the antiferromagnetic sublattice structure... Terminations that break sublattice equivalence or spin symmetry are expected to lift degeneracy protection'.
  • domain assumption Long-range magnetic order persists at the surface with the same spin configuration as the bulk.
    Used for slab calculations, e.g., NaMnP surface magnetic ground state coincides with bulk order; surface magnetic reconfiguration would change the analysis.
invented entities (1)
  • Surface altermagnetism (SAM) independent evidence
    purpose: A new magnetic state at surfaces where altermagnetic spin splitting emerges from symmetry reduction, even when the bulk is spin-degenerate.
    The paper provides falsifiable predictions: spin-split surface bands, surface anomalous Hall effect, and facet-dependent spin polarization in specific compounds, testable by spin-ARPES, STM, and transport.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent Surface Altermagnetism." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GDRWBO52

@misc{pith2026260805529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent Surface Altermagnetism},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GDRWBO52}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05529}
}
abstract

Research on altermagnetism has thus far primarily focused on spin-polarized bulk electronic states in magnetic materials. In this work, we advance the field by introducing the concept of surface altermagnetism (SAM), wherein altermagnetic spin polarization emerges at the surfaces of collinear antiferromagnets (AFMs) or altermagnets (AMs). To lay the theoretical groundwork for this phenomenon, we construct a thorough symmetry-based framework that systematically connects bulk spin groups to surface spin groups for both types of systems. Through symmetry analysis, we identify all symmetry-breaking surfaces capable of supporting SAM, identifying 35 for $PT$-symmetric AFMs and 61 distinct cases for bulk AMs. Moreover, we show that 203 collinear spin space groups---including 100 without and 103 with the $[C_2 \Vert P]$ operation---permit the appearance of SAM on the surface of $tT$-symmetric AFMs via the breaking of fractional translational symmetries. The proposed framework is verified using tight-binding models and first-principles calculations, with practical material implementations shown in representative compounds like NaMnP, LiMnAs, and CrSb. Our results establish SAM as a robust, symmetry-protected magnetic state, extending altermagnetic phenomena to material surfaces and paving the way for advanced, field-free spin manipulation in next-generation spintronic technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05529 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spin group representation of the SAM. (a) SSG description [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (e), this reduced surface SPG causes the surface states to exhibit momentum-dependent alternating spin splitting along the M˜ − Y˜ − Γ˜ − X˜ − M˜ path. When examining the spin dis￾tribution across the entire BZ, these surface states reveal a characteristic d-wave distribution, as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Realization of the SAM in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Realization of SAM in altermagnetic CrSb. (a) Crystal struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [74]

    Lange, R

    C. Lange, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, X. H. Verbeek, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and A. Mook, Emergent altermagnetism at surfaces of antiferromagnets: Full symmetry classification and material identification (2026), arXiv:2602.08773

    arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Hellman, A

    F. Hellman, A. Hoffmann, Y . Tserkovnyak, G. S. D. Beach, E. E. Fullerton, C. Leighton, A. H. MacDonald, D. C. Ralph, D. A. Arena, H. A. D¨urr, P. Fischer, J. Grollier, J. P. Heremans, T. Jungwirth, A. V . Kimel, B. Koopmans, I. N. Krivorotov, S. J. May, A. K. Petford-Long, J. M. Rondinelli, N. Samarth, I. K. Schuller, A. N. Slavin, M. D. Stiles, O. Tcher...

    2017

  3. [2]

    As shown in Fig

    rotation symmetry connects identical spin states, while the mirror symmetriesM 001 andM 120 link opposite spin states. As shown in Fig. 4(f), the ( ¯210) surface band structure FIG. 4. Realization of SAM in altermagnetic CrSb. (a) Crystal struc- ture. (b) 3D BZ with top cross-section (altermagnetic spin splitting) and projection on the ( ¯210) and ( ¯120)...

  4. [3]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: Topological insula- tors, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  5. [4]

    Bhowal, A

    S. Bhowal, A. Urru, S. F. Weber, and N. A. Spaldin, Emergent surface multiferroicity, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 146703 (2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    Y . A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, Oscillatory effects and the magnetic susceptibility of carriers in inversion layers, J. Phys. C17, 6039 (1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [6]

    LaShell, B

    S. LaShell, B. A. McDougall, and E. Jensen, Spin splitting of an Au(111) surface state band observed with angle resolved pho- toelectron spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3419 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [7]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y . Tokura, Topological properties and dynam- ics of magnetic skyrmions, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 899 (2013)

    2013

Show all 84 references
  1. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrel- ativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Mazinet al., Altermagnetism—A new punch line of funda- mental magnetism, Phys

    I. Mazinet al., Altermagnetism—A new punch line of funda- mental magnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spon- taneous Hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  5. [12]

    Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, L

    R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V `yborn`y, Y . Yahagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn`y, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz ´alez-Hern´andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin,et al., An anomalous Hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron.5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y . Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal,et al., Broken kramers degeneracy in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  8. [15]

    R. He, D. Wang, N. Luo, J. Zeng, K.-Q. Chen, and L.-M. Tang, Nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling in antiferromagnetic twisted bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 046401 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    B. Pan, P. Zhou, P. Lyu, H. Xiao, X. Yang, and L. Sun, General stacking theory for altermagnetism in bilayer systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 166701 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    P. Zhou, X. N. Peng, Y . Z. Hu, B. R. Pan, S. M. Liu, P. B. Lyu, and L. Z. Sun, Transition from antiferromagnets to alter- magnets: Symmetry-breaking theory, Phys. Rev. B112, 144419 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    B. Pan, P. Zhou, Y . Hu, S. Liu, B. Zhou, H. Xiao, X. Yang, and L. Sun, Floquet-induced altermagnetic transition inA-type antiferromagnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. B112, 224430 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Huang, S

    F. Huang, S. He, K.-Q. Chen, and L.-M. Tang, Spin- ferroelasticity coupling in nonrelativistic spin-split antiferromagnetic-ferroelastic systems, Phys. Rev. B113, L020411 (2026)

    2026

  13. [20]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´alez-Hern´andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Giant and tunneling magnetoresistance in unconventional collinear antiferromagnets with nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling, Phys. Rev. X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  14. [21]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-F. Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y . Tsymbal, D. G. Schlom,et al., Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferromagnet ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron.5, 267 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y . Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan,et al., Observation of spin splitting torque in a collinear antiferromagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y . Mokrousov, and Y . Yao, Altermagnetism: Exploring new frontiers in magnetism and spintronics, Adv. Funct. Mater.34, 2409327 (2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, J. Zub ´aˇc, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, K. Geishendorf, Z. ˇSob´aˇn, 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, Spon- taneous anomalous Hall effect ar...

    2023

  18. [25]

    Krempask ´y, L

    J. Krempask ´y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D ′souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl´ıˇrov´a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V . Stro- cov, D. Usanov,et al., Altermagnetic lifting of Kramers spin 6 degeneracy, Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  19. [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, Large band splitting ing-wave altermagnet CrSb, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206401 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V . N. Strocov, P. Con- stantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V . K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty,et al., Direct observation of altermagnetic band splitting in CrSb thin films, Nat. Commun. 15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Z. Wu, M. Long, H. Chen, S. Paul, H. Matsuki, O. Zheliuk, U. Zeitler, G. Li, R. Zhou, Z. Zhu, D. Graf, T. I. Weinberger, F. M. Grosche, Y . Maeno, and A. G. Eaton, Fermi surface of RuO 2 measured by quantum oscillations, Phys. Rev. X15, 031044 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    R. M. Sattigeri, G. Cuono, and C. Autieri, Altermagnetic sur- face states: towards the observation and utilization of alter- magnetism in thin films, interfaces and topological materials, Nanoscale15, 16998 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    E. W. Hodt, P. Sukhachov, and J. Linder, Interface-induced magnetization in altermagnets and antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B110, 054446 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Sorn, Antichiral surface states and Su-Schrieffer-Heeger physics in rutile altermagnets, Phys

    S. Sorn, Antichiral surface states and Su-Schrieffer-Heeger physics in rutile altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B111, L161109 (2025)

    2025

  25. [32]

    D. Q. Ho, D. Q. To, R. Hu, G. W. Bryant, and A. Janotti, Symmetry-breaking induced surface magnetization in nonmag- netic RuO2, Phys. Rev. Mater.9, 094406 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    Gauswami and P

    A. Gauswami and P. K. Jha, Exploration of surface oriented al- termagnetic states in CrTe, FeSb2 and MnO2: a first-principles study, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter37, 305801 (2025)

    2025

  27. [34]

    G. Yang, R. Chen, C. Liu, J. Li, Z. Pan, T. Hua, P. Xiong, L. Deng, N. Zheng, Y . Tang,et al., Observation of hidden alter- magnetism in Cs 1−δV2Te2O, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.00972 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  28. [35]

    S. F. Weber and N. A. Spaldin, Characterizing and overcom- ing surface paramagnetism in magnetoelectric antiferromag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 146701 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    N. Jana, A. Chakraborty, A. Mukherjee, and A. Agarwal, Lay- ered topological antiferromagnetic metal at room temperature: YbMn2Ge2, Phys. Rev. B112, 075127 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    D. Liu, S. Zeng, J.-H. Liao, and Y .-J. Zhao, Unlocking alter- magnetism in antiferromagnetic 2D films via adsorption, arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09518 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [38]

    S. F. Weber, A. Urru, and N. A. Spaldin, Local magnetoelectric effects as predictors of surface magnetic order, Phys. Rev. X15, 021094 (2025)

    2025

  32. [39]

    P. Liu, J. Li, J. Han, X. Wan, and Q. Liu, Spin-group symmetry in magnetic materials with negligible spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. X12, 021016 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    Z. Xiao, J. Zhao, Y . Li, R. Shindou, and Z.-D. Song, Spin space groups: Full classification and applications, Phys. Rev. X14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  34. [41]

    X. Chen, J. Ren, Y . Zhu, Y . Yu, A. Zhang, P. Liu, J. Li, Y . Liu, C. Li, and Q. Liu, Enumeration and representation theory of spin space groups, Phys. Rev. X14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    Jiang, Z

    Y . Jiang, Z. Song, T. Zhu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, Z.-X. Liu, J. Yang, and C. Fang, Enumeration of spin-space groups: Toward a com- plete description of symmetries of magnetic orders, Phys. Rev. X14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    K. D. Belashchenko, Equilibrium magnetization at the bound- ary of a magnetoelectric antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 147204 (2010)

    2010

  37. [44]

    S. F. Weber, A. Urru, S. Bhowal, C. Ederer, and N. A. Spaldin, Surface magnetization in antiferromagnets: Classification, ex- ample materials, and relation to magnetoelectric responses, Phys. Rev. X14, 021033 (2024). [44]See Supplementary Materials for the symmetry description...

    2024

  38. [45]

    Kopsk´y and D

    V . Kopsk´y and D. B. Litvin, eds.,International Tables for Crys- tallography, Vol. E: Subperiodic Groups, 2nd ed. (Wiley, Chich- ester, 2010)

    2010

  39. [46]

    D. B. Litvin,Magnetic Group Tables: 1-, 2- and 3-Dimensional Magnetic Subperiodic Groups and Magnetic Space Groups(In- ternational Union of Crystallography, Chester, 2013)

    2013

  40. [47]

    C. Le, F. Cui, I.-F. Io, M. Hirschmann, X. Wu, and C.- K. Chiu, Catalog of altermagnetism in magnetic wallpa- per/space groups and nonsymmorphic altermagnets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.10857 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bronger, Ternary transition metal chalcogenides with frame- work structures and the characterization of their bonding by magnetic properties, Pure Appl

    W. Bronger, Ternary transition metal chalcogenides with frame- work structures and the characterization of their bonding by magnetic properties, Pure Appl. Chem.57, 1363 (1985)

    1985

  42. [49]

    Bronger, P

    W. Bronger, P. M ¨uler, R. H ¨opner, and H.-U. Schuster, Zur charakterisierung der magnetischen eigenschaften von NaMnP, NaMnAs, NaMnSb, NaMnBi, LiMnAs und KMnAs ¨uer neu- tronenbeugungsexperimente, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem.539, 175 (1986)

    1986

  43. [50]

    V oln`y, K

    J. V oln`y, K. Charv ´atov´a, M. Veis, V . Hol ´y, M. V ondr ´aˇcek, J. Honolka, E. Duverger-N´edellec, J. Schusser, S. W. D’Souza, J. Min ´ar, J. M. Pientka, A. Marmodoro, K. V ´yborn´y, and K. Uhl´ıˇrov´a, Single-crystal studies and electronic structure in- vestigation of th...

    2022

  44. [51]

    Y . F. Guo, A. J. Princep, X. Zhang, P. Manuel, D. Khalyavin, I. I. Mazin, Y . G. Shi, and A. T. Boothroyd, Coupling of mag- netic order to planar Bi electrons in the anisotropic Dirac metals AMnBi2 (A=Sr, Ca), Phys. Rev. B90, 075120 (2014)

    2014

  45. [52]

    Bronger, A

    W. Bronger, A. Kyas, and P. M ¨uller, The antiferromagnetic structures of KFeS 2, RbFeS 2, KFeSe 2, and RbFeSe 2 and the correlation between magnetic moments and crystal field calcu- lations, J. Solid State Chem.70, 262 (1987)

    1987

  46. [53]

    Kiiamov, M

    A. Kiiamov, M. Kuznetsov, D. Croitori, I. Filippova, V . Tsurkan, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, Z. Seidov, F. Mayr, S. Wid- mann, F. Vagizov,et al., Density functional theory approach to the vibrational properties and magnetic specific heat of the covalent chain antiferromagnet KFeS 2...

    2022

  47. [54]

    L. Li, L. Zheng, B. A. Frandsen, A. D. Christianson, D.-X. Yao, M. Wang, and R. J. Birgeneau, Spin dynamics of the spin-chain antiferromagnet RbFeS2, Phys. Rev. B104, 224419 (2021)

    2021

  48. [55]

    C. D. Ling, J. Neumeier, and D. N. Argyriou, Observation of antiferromagnetism in marokite CaMn2O4, J. Solid State Chem. 160, 167 (2001)

    2001

  49. [56]

    Beleanu, J

    A. Beleanu, J. Kiss, G. Kreiner, C. K ¨ohler, L. M ¨uchler, W. Schnelle, U. Burkhardt, S. Chadov, S. Medvediev, D. Ebke, et al., Large resistivity change and phase transition in the an- tiferromagnetic semiconductors LiMnAs and LaOMnAs, Phys. Rev. B88, 184429 (2013)

    2013

  50. [57]

    C. I. Hiley, D. Scanlon, A. Sokol, S. Woodley, A. Ganose, S. Sangiao, J. De Teresa, P. Manuel, D. Khalyavin, M. Walker, et al., Antiferromagnetism at T>500 K in the layered hexago- 7 nal ruthenate SrRu2O6, Phys. Rev. B92, 104413 (2015)

    2015

  51. [58]

    W. Tian, C. Svoboda, M. Ochi, M. Matsuda, H. B. Cao, J.- G. Cheng, B. C. Sales, D. G. Mandrus, R. Arita, N. Trivedi, and J.-Q. Yan, High antiferromagnetic transition temperature of the honeycomb compound SrRu 2O6, Phys. Rev. B92, 100404 (2015)

    2015

  52. [59]

    J. M. Hastings, N. Elliott, and L. M. Corliss, Antiferromagnetic structures of MnS 2, MnSe 2, and MnTe 2, Phys. Rev.115, 13 (1959)

    1959

  53. [60]

    Matsuda, H

    J. Matsuda, H. Watanabe, and R. Arita, Multiferroic collinear antiferromagnets with hidden altermagnetic spin splitting, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 226703 (2025)

    2025

  54. [61]

    Tsubokawa, Magnetic anisotropy of chromium antimonide and its manganese substitites, J

    I. Tsubokawa, Magnetic anisotropy of chromium antimonide and its manganese substitites, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.16, 277 (1961)

    1961

  55. [62]

    W. J. Takei, D. E. Cox, and G. Shirane, Magnetic structures in the MnSb-CrSb system, Phys. Rev.129, 2008 (1963)

    1963

  56. [63]

    Kahal, A

    L. Kahal, A. Zaoui, and M. Ferhat, Magnetic properties of CrSb: A first-principle study, J. Appl. Phys.101, 093912 (2007)

    2007

  57. [64]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasi- lyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind,et al., Observation of time-reversal symmetry break- ing in the band structure of altermagnetic RuO 2, Sci. Adv.10, eadj4883 (2024)

    2024

  58. [65]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y . Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agter- berg, Minimal models for altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B110, 144412 (2024)

    2024

  59. [66]

    Honer, M

    C. Honer, M. Prosniewski, A. Putatunda, and D. J. Singh, Prop- erties of the antiferromagnetic selenite MnSeO 3 and its non- magnetic analogue ZnSnO3 from first principles calculations, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter.29, 405501 (2017)

    2017

  60. [67]

    Alonso, M

    J. Alonso, M. Martinez-Lope, C. dl Calle, A. Munoz, E. Moran, and G. Demazeau, High-pressure synthesis and study of the crystal and magnetic structures of the distorted SeMO 3 (M= Mn, Co, Ni, Zn) perovskites, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.121, 032004 (2008)

    2008

  61. [68]

    T. c. v. Rauch, T. Olsen, D. Vanderbilt, and I. Souza, Geometric and nongeometric contributions to the surface anomalous Hall conductivity, Phys. Rev. B98, 115108 (2018)

    2018

  62. [69]

    M. Gu, J. Li, H. Sun, Y . Zhao, C. Liu, J. Liu, H. Lu, and Q. Liu, Spectral signatures of the surface anomalous Hall effect in mag- netic axion insulators, Nat. Commun.12, 3524 (2021)

    2021

  63. [70]

    X. He, L. Wang, K. Xia, and S. M. Zhou, Experimental ob- servation of the surface anomalous Hall effect in CoNi 3 (001) epitaxial films, Phys. Rev. B109, 104422 (2024)

    2024

  64. [71]

    J. Liu, J. Zhan, T. Li, J. Liu, S. Cheng, Y . Shi, L. Deng, M. Zhang, C. Li, J. Ding, Q. Jiang, M. Ye, Z. Liu, Z. Jiang, S. Wang, Q. Li, Y . Xie, Y . Wang, S. Qiao, J. Wen, Y . Sun, and D. Shen, Absence of altermagnetic spin splitting character in rutile oxide RuO2, Phys. Rev....

    2024

  65. [72]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y . Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu,et al., Crystal-symmetry-paired spin– valley locking in a layered room-temperature metallic altermag- net candidate, Nat. Phys.21, 760 (2025)

    2025

  66. [73]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei,et al., A metallic room-temperatured-wave alter- magnet, Nat. Phys.21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular-dynamics simu- lation of the liquid-metal–amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium, Phys. Rev. B49, 14251 (1994)

    1994

  68. [76]

    Kresse and J

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

    1996

  69. [77]

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

    1996

  70. [78]

    P. E. Bl ¨ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  71. [79]

    Marzari and D

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

    1997

  72. [80]

    Souza, N

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

    2001

  73. [81]

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

    2008

  74. [82]

    M. L. Sancho, J. L. Sancho, and J. Rubio, Quick iterative scheme for the calculation of transfer matrices: application to Mo (100), J. Phys. F: Met. Phys.14, 1205 (1984)

    1984

  75. [83]

    Q. Wu, S. Zhang, H.-F. Song, M. Troyer, and A. A. Soluyanov, WannierTools: An open-source software package for novel topological materials, Comput. Phys. Commun.224, 405 (2018)

    2018

  76. [84]

    Seemann, D

    M. Seemann, D. K ¨odderitzsch, S. Wimmer, and H. Ebert, Symmetry-imposed shape of linear response tensors, Phys. Rev. B92, 155138 (2015). End Matter Appendix A: Surface symmetry groups and the levels of the classification—The surface groups are subperiodic spin groups: cleavin...

    2015

Pith tools

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