Imaging the N\'eel Vector in Two-Dimensional Antiferromagnets using Antisymmetric Compton Scattering

Hua Wang; Jingshan Qi; Kai Chang; Wuxuan Li; Zhuocheng Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Imaging the N\'eel Vector in Two-Dimensional Antiferromagnets using Antisymmetric Compton Scattering

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Antisymmetric Compton scattering can image both switching and continuous rotation of the Néel vector in 2D antiferromagnets such as monolayer MnPS3.

desk verdict Plausible 2D extension of ACP but the central 2D-ACP evidence for the A2u state is not explained by the stated symmetry, and the missing SOC statement makes it impossible to validate. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.25418 v1 pith:4PFNAQUJ submitted 2026-07-28 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Wuxuan Li , Zhuocheng Lu , Jingshan Qi , Hua Wang , Kai Chang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 78.70.Ck75.50.Ee

keywords antisymmetricComptonscatteringNéelvectorantiferromagnetsmagnetoelectricmultipolestwo-dimensionalmagnetsMnPS3momentumdensityprofile

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 argues that the antisymmetric part of the Compton profile—the difference between momentum densities at opposite scattering momenta—carries a symmetry-protected signature of the Néel vector in two-dimensional antiferromagnets. Because the Néel vector breaks both spatial inversion and time reversal while preserving their product, the antisymmetric Compton profile (ACP) can be nonzero only when such order is present, and its shape and sign encode the direction and handedness of the staggered magnetization. Working on monolayer MnPS3, the authors combine group-theoretical classification of magnetoelectric multipoles with first-principles calculations to show that the ACP reverses sign under a 180° flip of the Néel vector and rotates in a one-to-one way with continuous in-plane rotations. If correct, this turns a largely ignored component of Compton scattering into a momentum-resolved laboratory probe of antiferromagnetic order, with implications for domain imaging, phase transitions, and altermagnetism.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the magnetoelectric multipole expansion of the magnetization distribution—monopole, toroidal moment, and quadrupole—each assigned to irreducible representations of the crystal point group. For MnPS3 (D3d) the out-of-plane order falls in A2u with k-space basis k_z, and in-plane order in Bu of C2h with k_x and k_y bases. The observable is the 2D-ACP, the p_z-integrated antisymmetric Compton profile, whose momentum-space pattern inherits the same irreps and thereby tracks the Néel vector.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to compute or measure the exact p_z-integral of the antisymmetric Compton profile for monolayer MnPS3 with out-of-plane Néel order. If the integral vanishes—i.e., the 2D-ACP pattern disappears when all p_z contributions are included—then the claimed imaging capability for the out-of-plane configuration is unsupported. Conversely, measuring an antisymmetric 2D-ACP pattern in an exfoliated MnPS3 monolayer under an out-of-plane field would confirm the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the antisymmetric Compton profile (ACP), defined as the antisymmetric part of the electron momentum density projected on a plane, is a direct, symmetry-protected fingerprint of the magnetoelectric multipoles that characterize the Néel vector in 2D antiferromagnets. In monolayer MnPS3, whose D3d point group admits A2u and Eu magnetic irreps, the calculated 2D-ACP for an out-of-plane Néel vector shows a threefold 'spiderweb' pattern that globally inverts sign when all moments flip by 180°, and for in-plane orientations the pattern's antisymmetric axes rotate with the Néel vector direction. The authors establish this by assigning k-space basis functions to each multipo

Load-bearing premise

The central load-bearing premise is that the calculated p_z-integrated antisymmetric Compton profile of a monolayer is actually measurable as an antisymmetric signal, rather than being canceled by the projection; for the out-of-plane A2u state the symmetry basis k_z is odd under p_z reversal, so the nonzero in-plane 2D-ACP must come from higher-order momentum dependence or spin–orbit coupling not spelled out in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ACP provides a direct momentum-space image of antiferromagnetic order, complementing neutron diffraction and second-harmonic generation which lack reciprocal-space maps of the spin arrangement.
A 180° Néel vector flip produces a global sign reversal of the ACP, enabling unambiguous detection of magnetic switching.
Continuous in-plane rotation of the Néel vector rotates the antisymmetric axes of the ACP, giving a one-to-one mapping between magnetic configuration and momentum-space response.
The symmetry catalog of magnetoelectric multipoles across all crystallographic point groups (provided in the supplement) offers a practical guide for identifying ACP signatures in other materials.
The framework extends naturally to altermagnets and higher-rank multipoles (octupoles, hexadecapoles), where suitable experimental probes are still scarce.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's out-of-plane A2u assignment uses k-space basis k_z, which is odd under p_z→−p_z; the survival of an in-plane antisymmetric pattern after p_z integration is not fully explained in the text and may rely on higher-order momentum components or spin–orbit coupling that are not explicitly stated. A careful check of this projection step would sharpen the central claim.
If the ACP genuinely tracks the Néel vector in-plane, it could be developed into a scanning probe using focused X-ray beams or 2D-ACAR, potentially imaging antiferromagnetic domains at the nanoscale in exfoliated monolayers.
The one-to-one rotation mapping suggests the ACP could serve as a laboratory-based alternative to neutron diffraction for thin van der Waals magnets, provided the weak signal can be amplified by Compton tomography.
The group-theoretical tables may also predict ACP signatures in non-collinear or multi-q antiferromagnets, where the Néel vector is not a single direction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this paper uses group theory plus DFT to argue that antisymmetric Compton scattering can track the Néel vector in monolayer MnPS3. The rotation-dependent ACP maps and the point-group tables in the supplement are genuinely new. But there is a load-bearing gap: for the out-of-plane A2u Néel state, the 2D-ACP as defined (projection over p_z) should vanish for the leading k_z basis, and the paper never explains which higher-order terms create the spiderweb pattern in Fig. 2(b). Also, a nonzero ACP requires spin-orbit coupling, and the text says nothing about SOC or the DFT parameters. These are fixable, but as written the central claim is not supported.

What is good: the symmetry analysis is clean and standard, the extension to 2D is natural, and the idea that continuous Néel rotations rotate the antisymmetric axes is a useful contribution. The full catalog of ME multipole basis functions for all point groups is a helpful resource if it is correct. The paper is honest about the small signal (×10^3 magnification) and the need for high-brilliance X-ray sources.

The soft spots: the projection inconsistency is not a technicality. If the A2u term is odd in p_z, the 2D-ACP should be zero, so the nonzero pattern implies an Eu-type component that is never identified. The missing SOC statement is equally serious: without SOC, the charge EMD is inversion-symmetric even in a magnet, so the ACP is identically zero. No code, parameters, or data are provided, so the calculations cannot be checked. The sign reversal under L→−L is symmetry-forced, not an independent validation; the rotation dependence is the real evidence, and it could still be correct.

Bottom line: deserving of a serious referee because the idea is important and the issues are repairable, but in its current form the 2D evidence does not establish the claim. I would bring it to reading group to discuss the projection subtlety, but I would not cite it in my own work until the authors clarify the surviving terms and confirm SOC was used. Recommendation: peer review, with expectation of heavy revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes antisymmetric Compton scattering as a probe of the Néel vector in two-dimensional antiferromagnets, using monolayer MnPS3 as a model system. The authors classify magnetoelectric multipoles by irreps of the D3d (and, for in-plane order, C2h) point group, define the antisymmetric Compton profile (ACP) as the parity-odd part of the electron momentum density, and present first-principles 2D ACP maps that show sign reversal under L→−L and rotation of the pattern with in-plane Néel-vector orientation. The central claim is that the ACP provides a symmetry-protected, momentum-space fingerprint of AFM order and magnetoelectric multipoles.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would offer a momentum-space, laboratory-based probe of Néel order in 2D van der Waals antiferromagnets, complementing neutron and optical techniques. The group-theoretical framework is standard and the orientation-dependent ACP patterns are computed, not fitted, which is a genuine strength. However, two load-bearing gaps—the treatment of the p_z projection for the A2u configuration and the unstated role of spin–orbit coupling—currently prevent the central claim from being established. The sign reversal under L→−L is largely symmetry-forced, whereas the orientation-dependent pattern is the more substantive, independent content.

major comments (4)

[Antisymmetric Compton profile; Figs. 2(b) and 3(c)] The A2u out-of-plane configuration is assigned the k-space basis k_z (Table I), which is odd under p_z→−p_z. With the stated definition J_2D(p_x,p_y)=∫ρ(p)dp_z, the leading antisymmetric contribution integrates to zero. The listed higher-order bases for Eu (k_z(k_x^2−k_y^2) and k_xk_yk_z) are also odd in k_z and integrate to zero. The manuscript does not identify which terms with even p_z dependence survive the integral, nor how the in-plane spiderweb pattern in Fig. 2(b) and the nonzero 1D ACP along p_x/p_y in Fig. 3(c) follow from an A2u response. The authors should provide an explicit symmetry decomposition of the projected EMD or restrict the out-of-plane claim to the 1D ACP along k_z.
[Antisymmetric Compton profile; computational basis of Figs. 2–4] No sentence in the main text mentions spin–orbit coupling. For a collinear AFM without SOC, each spin block is time-reversal invariant, so the total charge EMD is even under p→−p and the ACP vanishes identically. The nonzero ACP shown in Figs. 2–4 therefore requires SOC. The manuscript must state explicitly whether the DFT calculations included SOC and provide the computational parameters (code, pseudopotentials, cutoff, k-grid, magnetic configuration). If SOC was not included, the central numerical results are artifacts.
[MnPS3 monolayer; Table II and Fig. 4] For the in-plane Néel vector, the text states that the symmetry reduces to C2h and then applies 'compatibility relations between D4h and its subgroup C2h.' However, MnPS3 has point group D3d, not D4h. The reduction of D3d's Eu irrep to C2h must be shown explicitly; invoking D4h compatibility relations is unjustified and weakens the basis for Table II and the orientation mapping in Fig. 4.
[Antisymmetric Compton profile; definition of 2D-ACP] The manuscript calls J_2D(p_x,p_y)=∫ρ(p)dp_z a '2D-ACP' and says it is experimentally accessible via 2D-ACAR. 2D-ACAR is a positron-annihilation technique, not Compton scattering. Compton scattering measures a 1D projection along the scattering vector; obtaining a 2D momentum map requires tomographic reconstruction. The experimental protocol for measuring the claimed 2D ACP should be specified, or the claim should be restricted to the 1D ACP.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract/Introduction] The acronym '2D-ACP' is used before it is defined; define it at first use in the main text.
[Computational details] The computational parameters are relegated to the Supplemental Material with no summary in the Letter. For reproducibility, the main text should at least state the DFT code, treatment of SOC, and magnetic supercell.
[Notation] The notation J_a(p_z) for the 1D ACP and J_2D(p_x,p_y) for the projected quantity is confusing because the latter is not the antisymmetric part of a 1D profile. Consider renaming the projected quantity, e.g., ρ̃(p_x,p_y).
[Symmetry language] The statement that 'the ACP and the ME multipoles share the same symmetry' is imprecise: the ACP is a momentum-space function, whereas ME multipoles are real-space moments. Specify the representation of the projected function and how it is related to the multipole irrep.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ACP patterns are obtained from explicit DFT calculations rather than fitted, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The antisymmetric Compton profile is defined as J_a(p_z) = (1/2)[J(p_z)-J(-p_z)] from the computed electron momentum density, and the claimed behaviors—sign reversal under a 180-degree flip of the Néel vector and rotation of the in-plane ACP pattern—are then demonstrated by explicit first-principles DFT calculations for distinct magnetic configurations, not by fitting a parameter to the target quantity. The group-theoretical tables give symmetry selection rules for where a nonzero ACP is allowed, while the DFT figures provide independent evidence that those channels are occupied. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no computational parameter is adjusted to force the reported ACP orientation. The prior toroidal-order ACP work cited in the paper is external to the present authors; there is no self-citation chain carrying the load, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in through citation. The physical concerns about the A2u k_z basis potentially vanishing after p_z integration and about the need for spin-orbit coupling to obtain a P-odd charge momentum density are validity and assumption issues, not circular reductions: they do not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs by construction. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on symmetry assumptions and DFT. No numeric free parameters are disclosed. The main unstated input is that spin-orbit coupling generates a P-odd charge EMD; without it the ACP would vanish. The 2D-ACP projection is defined but its experimental realization is not demonstrated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Compton profile antisymmetric part J_a(p_z)=1/2[J(p_z)−J(−p_z)] is a measurable observable; the 2D projection J_2D(p_x,p_y)=∫ρ(p)dp_z is accessible via 2D-ACAR.
Sec. 'Antisymmetric Compton profile'; mixes Compton scattering and positron annihilation without derivation.
domain assumption Monolayer MnPS3 in the out-of-plane Néel state has D3d point group with magnetic order in A2u; in-plane Néel state has C2h with Bu.
From literature [13,44] and Table I/II; structural assumption from prior crystal data.
domain assumption Charge electron momentum density ρ(p) develops a P-odd component (via magnetoelectric multipoles) that transforms as the Néel vector.
Central symmetry assertion; requires spin-orbit coupling, which is not explicitly stated.
domain assumption DFT calculations (functional and parameters not given in main text) accurately capture the ACP patterns.
First-principles results quoted without computational details.
standard math Group-theoretical decomposition of ME multipoles from [35,36,37] applies.
Standard point-group representation theory.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Imaging the N\'eel Vector in Two-Dimensional Antiferromagnets using Antisymmetric Compton Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PFNAQUJ

@misc{pith2026260725418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Imaging the N\'eel Vector in Two-Dimensional Antiferromagnets using Antisymmetric Compton Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PFNAQUJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.25418}
}

abstract

We demonstrate that antisymmetric Compton scattering can detect both the switching and the continuous rotation of the N\'eel vector in two-dimensional (2D) antiferromagnets. By probing magnetoelectric (ME) multipoles, which couple electric and magnetic dipoles, this approach overcomes the limitations of conventional techniques that rely on a finite net magnetization. Using a group-theoretical decomposition of the staggered moments in 2D MnPS$_3$ into irreducible representations, combined with first-principles calculations, we show that the antisymmetric Compton profile (ACP) is highly sensitive to the N\'eel vector orientation: it reverses sign under N\'eel vector reversal and exhibits distinct anisotropies under in-plane rotation. These results establish the ACP as a versatile probe of antiferromagnetic (AFM) order and magnetoelectric phenomena in van der Waals materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.25418 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Atomic structure of monolayer MnPS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. 2D-ACP under rotation of the N´eel vector. Magenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references

[1]

N´ eel, Reviews of Modern Physics25, 58 (1953)

L. N´ eel, Reviews of Modern Physics25, 58 (1953)

1953
[2]

Nˇ emec, M

P. Nˇ emec, M. Fiebig, T. Kampfrath, and A. V. Kimel, Nature Physics14, 229 (2018)

2018
[3]

K. Kim, S. Y. Lim, J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, T. Y. Kim, K. Park, 5 G. S. Jeon, C. H. Park, J.-G. Park, and H. Cheong, Na- ture Communications10, 345 (2019)

2019
[4]

S. W. Cheong, M. Fiebig, W. Wu, L. Chapon, and V. Kiryukhin, npj Quantum Materials5, 3 (2020)

2020
[5]

A. Gao, Y. Liu, C. Hu, J. Qiu, C. Tzschaschel, B. Ghosh, S. Ho, D. B´ erub´ e, R. Chen, H. Sun,et al., Nature595, 521 (2021)

2021
[6]

J. M. Rondinelli, M. Stengel, and N. A. Spaldin, Nature Nanotechnology3, 46 (2008)

2008
[7]

Hirohata and K

A. Hirohata and K. Takanashi, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics47, 193001 (2014)

2014
[8]

N. A. Spaldin and R. Ramesh, Nature Materials18, 203 (2019)

2019

Show all 55 references

[9]

E. C. Ahn, npj 2D Materials and Applications4, 17 (2020)

2020
[10]

Th¨ ole, A

F. Th¨ ole, A. Keliri, and N. A. Spaldin, Journal of Applied Physics127(2020)

2020
[11]

Shirazi,Magnetostrictive Ferri & Antiferromagnetic Thin Films for Multiferroic Applications(University of California, Los Angeles, 2021)

P. Shirazi,Magnetostrictive Ferri & Antiferromagnetic Thin Films for Multiferroic Applications(University of California, Los Angeles, 2021)

2021
[12]

Xue and J

Q. Xue and J. Zhou, Nano Letters25, 9054 (2025)

2025
[13]

Ressouche, M

E. Ressouche, M. Loire, V. Simonet, R. Ballou, A. Stu- nault, and A. Wildes, Physical Review B82, 100408 (2010)

2010
[14]

K. Kim, S. Y. Lim, J. Kim, J. U. Lee, S. Lee, P. Kim, K. Park, S. Son, C. H. Park, J. G. Park,et al., 2D Ma- terials6, 041001 (2019)

2019
[15]

G. Long, H. Henck, M. Gibertini, D. Dumcenco, Z. Wang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Giannini, and A. F. Mor- purgo, Nano Letters20, 2452 (2020)

2020
[16]

Z. Ni, A. Haglund, H. e. Wang, B. Xu, C. Bernhard, D. Mandrus, X. Qian, E. Mele, C. Kane, and L. Wu, Nature Nanotechnology16, 782 (2021)

2021
[17]

A. Urru, J. R. Soh, N. Qureshi, A. Stunault, B. Roessli, H. M. Rønnow, and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Re- search5, 033147 (2023)

2023
[18]

Taylor, M

A. Taylor, M. Pitcher, R. Ewings, T. Perring, S. Clarke, and A. Boothroyd, Physical Review B83, 220514 (2011)

2011
[19]

M¨ uller-Buschbaum, Polymer Journal45, 34 (2013)

P. M¨ uller-Buschbaum, Polymer Journal45, 34 (2013)

2013
[20]

Jeevan, D

H. Jeevan, D. Adroja, A. Hillier, Z. Hossain, C. Ritter, and C. Geibel, Physical Review B84, 184405 (2011)

2011
[21]

Fiebig, D

M. Fiebig, D. Fr¨ ohlich, T. Lottermoser, V. Pavlov, R. Pisarev, and H. Weber, Physical Review Letters87, 137202 (2001)

2001
[22]

Reshak, Scientific Reports7, 46415 (2017)

A. Reshak, Scientific Reports7, 46415 (2017)

2017
[23]

Z. Sun, Y. Yi, T. Song, G. Clark, B. Huang, Y. Shan, S. Wu, D. Huang, C. Gao, Z. Chen,et al., Nature572, 497 (2019)

2019
[24]

L. Tao, Q. Zhang, H. Li, H. J. Zhao, X. Wang, B. Song, E. Y. Tsymbal, and L. Bellaiche, Physical Review Letters 133, 096803 (2024)

2024
[25]

D. F. Shao, S. H. Zhang, G. Gurung, W. Yang, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Physical Review Letters124, 067203 (2020)

2020
[26]

MacDonald and M

A. MacDonald and M. Tsoi, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and En- gineering Sciences369, 3098 (2011)

2011
[27]

A. Du, D. Zhu, K. Cao, Z. Zhang, Z. Guo, K. Shi, D. Xiong, R. Xiao, W. Cai, J. Yin,et al., Nature Elec- tronics6, 425 (2023)

2023
[28]

Jungwirth, X

T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Nature Nanotechnology11, 231 (2016)

2016
[29]

Corcovilos, S

T. Corcovilos, S. Baur, J. Hitchcock, E. Mueller, and R. Hulet, Physical Review A81, 013415 (2010)

2010
[30]

Bhowal and N

S. Bhowal and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Research 3, 033185 (2021)

2021
[31]

Cooper, P

M. Cooper, P. Mijnarends, N. Shiotani, N. Sakai, and A. Bansil,X-ray Compton scattering, Vol. 5 (OUP Ox- ford, 2004)

2004
[32]

Collins, D

S. Collins, D. Laundy, T. Connolley, G. van der Laan, F. Fabrizi, O. Janssen, M. Cooper, H. Ebert, and S. Mankovsky, Foundations of Crystallography72, 197 (2016)

2016
[33]

Pratt, L

R. Pratt, L. LaJohn, V. Florescu, T. Suri´ c, B. K. Chat- terjee, and S. Roy, Radiation Physics and Chemistry79, 124 (2010)

2010
[34]

Baltz, A

V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 015005 (2018)

2018
[35]

N. A. Spaldin, M. Fechner, E. Bousquet, A. Balatsky, and L. Nordstr¨ om, Physical Review B88, 094429 (2013)

2013
[36]

Watanabe and Y

H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Physical Review B96, 064432 (2017)

2017
[37]

Watanabe and Y

H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Physical Review B98, 245129 (2018)

2018
[38]

Schaufelberger, M

L. Schaufelberger, M. E. Merkel, A. M. Tehrani, N. A. Spaldin, and C. Ederer, Physical Review Research5, 033172 (2023)

2023
[39]

Bhowal, D

S. Bhowal, D. O’Neill, M. Fechner, N. A. Spaldin, U. Staub, J. Duffy, and S. P. Collins, Open Research Europe1, 132 (2022)

2022
[40]

Ederer and N

C. Ederer and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review B76, 214404 (2007)

2007
[41]

N. A. Spaldin, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical physics132, 493 (2021)

2021
[42]

N. A. Spaldin, M. Fiebig, and M. Mostovoy, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter20, 434203 (2008)

2008
[43]

Th¨ ole and N

F. Th¨ ole and N. A. Spaldin, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and En- gineering Sciences376(2018)

2018
[44]

L. M. Malard, M. H. Guimar˜ aes, D. L. Mafra, M. S. Mazzoni, and A. Jorio, Physical Review B79, 125426 (2009)

2009
[45]

T. Inui, Y. Tanabe, and Y. Onodera,Group theory and its applications in physics(Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

2012
[46]

Perez-Mato, S

J. Perez-Mato, S. Gallego, E. Tasci, L. Elcoro, G. de la Flor, and M. Aroyo, Annual Review of Materials Re- search45, 217 (2015)

2015
[47]

M. J. Cooper, Reports on Progress in Physics48, 415 (1985)

1985
[48]

Z. Lin, C. Wang, P. Wang, S. Yi, L. Li, Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Wang, H. Huang, Y. Sun,et al., Physical Review B102, 155103 (2020)

2020
[49]

Dugdale, Low Temperature Physics40, 328 (2014)

S. Dugdale, Low Temperature Physics40, 328 (2014)

2014
[50]

Mills Jr, inPositron Spectroscopy of Solids(IOS Press,

A. Mills Jr, inPositron Spectroscopy of Solids(IOS Press,
[51]

Bhowal, S

S. Bhowal, S. P. Collins, and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review Letters128, 116402 (2022)

2022
[52]

ˇSmejkal, J

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

2022
[53]

ˇSmejkal, J

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

2022
[54]

Bhowal and N

S. Bhowal and N. A. Spaldin, Physical Review X14, 011019 (2024)

2024
[55]

Bandyopadhyay, S

S. Bandyopadhyay, S. Picozzi, and S. Bhowal, Physical Review B112, 064405 (2025)

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N´ eel, Reviews of Modern Physics25, 58 (1953)

L. N´ eel, Reviews of Modern Physics25, 58 (1953)

1953

[2] [2]

Nˇ emec, M

P. Nˇ emec, M. Fiebig, T. Kampfrath, and A. V. Kimel, Nature Physics14, 229 (2018)

2018

[3] [3]

K. Kim, S. Y. Lim, J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, T. Y. Kim, K. Park, 5 G. S. Jeon, C. H. Park, J.-G. Park, and H. Cheong, Na- ture Communications10, 345 (2019)

2019

[4] [4]

S. W. Cheong, M. Fiebig, W. Wu, L. Chapon, and V. Kiryukhin, npj Quantum Materials5, 3 (2020)

2020

[5] [5]

A. Gao, Y. Liu, C. Hu, J. Qiu, C. Tzschaschel, B. Ghosh, S. Ho, D. B´ erub´ e, R. Chen, H. Sun,et al., Nature595, 521 (2021)

2021

[6] [6]

J. M. Rondinelli, M. Stengel, and N. A. Spaldin, Nature Nanotechnology3, 46 (2008)

2008

[7] [7]

Hirohata and K

A. Hirohata and K. Takanashi, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics47, 193001 (2014)

2014

[8] [8]

N. A. Spaldin and R. Ramesh, Nature Materials18, 203 (2019)

2019