Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Keffer-like form of the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral: Contribution to the Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert equation and spin wave dispersion dependence

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the ligand shift responsible for Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya coupling also produces an odd-anisotropy term in the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral, adding one-derivative spin torques, modified spin-wave dispersions, an

desk verdict A novel but shaky ansatz for odd symmetric exchange; coherent consequences, no microscopic justification. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.22108 v2 pith:7VVQ5MQP submitted 2025-12-26 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Pavel A. Andreev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.10.-b75.30.Et75.30.Ds75.85.+t
keywords oddanisotropyofsymmetricexchangeligandshiftHeisenbergintegralKefferformLandau-Lifshitz-Gilbertequationspinwavedispersionmultiferroicsspin-currentmodel
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 same ligand shift that is responsible for the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya interaction can also enter the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral as an odd function of the magnetic-ion separation. The proposed exchange constant U_ij = U0 + U1(rij·δ3) + U2(rij·[δ2×δ1]) preserves the required symmetry U_ij = U_ji while adding a term linear in the inter-ion distance. Carrying this microscopic form through a hydrodynamic expansion, the paper obtains a macroscopic energy density with one spatial derivative of the spin density, new torques in the Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert equation, modified antiferromagnetic spin-wave dispersions for both collinear and cycloidal order, and a new spin-current-mediated contribution to electric polarization. If the suggested odd term exists in real non-centrosymmetric antiferromagnets, it provides a previously overlooked coupling between magnetic order and electric polarization.

What carries the argument

The core object is the suggested structure of the exchange integral, Eq. (2): Uij = U0,ij + U1,ij (rij·δ3,ij−AB) + U2,ij (rij·[δ2,ij−AB × δ1]). The vectors δ2,ij−AB and δ3,ij−AB are ligand-shift displacements that change sign when the sublattice labels A and B are exchanged, which guarantees the scalar exchange constant remains symmetric, Uij = Uji. The linear dependence on rij means that a first-order Taylor expansion of the hydrodynamic equations yields contributions containing one spatial derivative of the spin densities. This one-derivative structure is what produces the new torques, the new energy density term, the new spin current, and the coupling between the longitudinal and transver

What would settle it

Compute the two-magnetic-ion exchange integral for a realistic superexchange path (e.g., Fe–O–Fe in a perovskite) as a function of ligand displacement using first-principles methods; if the exchange integral has no component that is odd under the exchange of the two magnetic ions (i.e., J does not change sign with the antisymmetric combination of the ligand shift), the OASEI does not exist and all derived effects vanish. Alternatively, measure the spin-wave spectrum of a known cycloidal antiferromagnet: if the longitudinal and transverse branches do not show the avoided crossing predicted by E

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral in antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic materials can contain an odd-anisotropy term generated by ligand shifts, U_ij = U0,ij + U1,ij (rij·δ3,ij−AB) + U2,ij (rij·[δ2,ij−AB × δ1]), with δ2 and δ3 changing sign under ion exchange so that Uij = Uji. From this form, the paper derives a macroscopic energy density E = (1/12)g²l (L·(δ_eff·∇)M − M·(δ_eff·∇)L), corresponding spin torques in the LLG equation, an effective spin current giving polarization P = (1/3)(γ/c)g²l[SB(SA·δ_eff) − SA(SB·δ_eff)], and spin-wave dispersions (Eqs 35 and 37) in which the new interaction appears through a characteristic frequency Ω3 = g2l L0 (δ_eff·k)/

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the scalar Heisenberg exchange integral actually contains a term linear in the inter-ion separation times an antisymmetric ligand shift, U1,ij (rij·δ3) + U2,ij (rij·[δ2×δ1]); this form is suggested by analogy with the Keffer DMI term but is not derived from a microscopic superexchange Hamiltonian or first-principles calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The OASEI adds spin torques to the LLG equation that are first-order in spatial derivatives, in contrast to the standard Heisenberg exchange torques, which involve second derivatives.
  • The spin-wave spectrum in easy-axis and easy-plane antiferromagnets is modified: the new interaction enters as a frequency-squared term, so the dispersion depends on the square of the projection of the wave vector onto the effective ligand direction, not linearly as for DMI.
  • In easy-plane collinear order, the new term couples the δLz and δMz magnon branches, creating a richer dielectric response in multiferroics than previously modeled.
  • In a cycloidal equilibrium, the new torque has a nonzero projection that must be balanced by the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya torque; this balance gives a practical estimate of the new coupling constant from known DMI and cycloid parameters.
  • The new polarization term has the local structure SB(SA·δ_eff) − SA(SB·δ_eff), meaning it does not require spatial gradients of the spin density, unlike previously considered spin-current polarizations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the odd term is linear in ligand displacement, its magnitude could be estimated from first-principles superexchange calculations of a magnetic dimer as a function of ligand position; such a calculation would either confirm or bound the suggested OASEI.
  • The predicted coupling of δLz and δMz branches could be searched for in inelastic neutron scattering on cycloidal antiferromagnets (e.g., TbMnO3 or BiFeO3), where an avoided crossing at nonzero wave vector would indicate the new interaction.
  • If OASEI exists, it offers a macroscopic route to magnetoelectric coupling that is local in the spins rather than gradient-based, which would show up as a zero-wavevector dielectric response distinct from the conventional spin-current contributions, potentially measurable as a new electromagnon resonance.
  • The paper's hydrodynamic derivation is general for any two-sublattice magnet; a similar construction could apply to ferrimagnets or multi-sublattice systems, where the relative signs of the sublattice-dependent ligand shifts might produce even richer torque structures.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new 'odd anisotropy of symmetric exchange interaction' (OASEI). Specifically, in Sec. II, Eq. (2), the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral is taken to have the Keffer-like form U_ij = U_0,ij + U_1,ij (r_ij · δ_3,ij−AB) + U_2,ij (r_ij · [δ_2,ij−AB × δ_1]), where the partial ligand-shift vectors δ_2 and δ_3 are asserted to be odd under bond reversal (δ_3,ji−BA = −δ_3,ij−AB, δ_2,ji−BA = −δ_2,ij−AB), thereby preserving U_ij = U_ji. From this starting point, the paper uses a quantum-hydrodynamic method to derive spin torques (Eqs. (7)–(10)), a force field (Eqs. (12)–(13)), a macroscopic energy density with one spatial derivative (Eq. (17)), an effective spin current and electric polarization (Eqs. (19)–(20)), and modified spin-wave dispersions for collinear and cycloidal antiferromagnetic equilibrium configurations (Eqs. (35), (37)). The unknown coupling g2l is estimated in Eq. (41) by balancing the OASEI torque against the Dzyaloshinskii–Moriya torque in the model's own cycloid solution.

Significance. If the central postulate Eq. (2) is physically realized, the paper identifies a genuinely new contribution to the magnetic energy density, spin torques, spin currents, and polarization that has been neglected in multiferroic and antiferromagnetic systems. The macroscopic consequences are derived explicitly from a Hamiltonian, and the internal consistency of the torque, energy, force, and spin-current expressions is a strength. The paper also delivers concrete, falsifiable predictions for spin-wave dispersion modifications, which could be tested in non-centrosymmetric antiferromagnets or multiferroics. However, the significance is conditional: every macroscopic result inherits the unproven and physically questionable symmetry properties of the ligand-shift vectors in Eq. (2). Without a microscopic justification or an external benchmark, the paper remains a phenomenological exercise rather than a demonstrated mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (2)] The central load-bearing assertion—that the symmetric exchange integral can contain an odd linear dependence on r_ij through ligand-shift vectors—is introduced as 'We suggest' and is not derived from any microscopic superexchange Hamiltonian or first-principles calculation. The paper asserts that δ_3,ji−BA = −δ_3,ij−AB and δ_2,ji−BA = −δ_2,ij−AB to enforce U_ij = U_ji. But a physical ligand displacement vector from the midpoint of an A–B bond is invariant under swapping the labels A and B; it does not change sign. The paper does not define the 'partial ligand shifts' in terms of ionic positions or a superexchange path, so the antisymmetry property is imposed by fiat. Since all subsequent torque, energy, polarization, dispersion, and estimate equations (Eqs. (7)–(10), (17), (20), (35), (37), (41)) rely on this ansatz, the paper's central claim lacks a demonstrated microscopic basis. The a
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (2) and (3)] There is a sign inconsistency in the definition of the second odd term. Eq. (2) contains U_2,ij (r_ij · [δ_2,ij−AB × δ_1]), while Eq. (3) defines J_2,ij = U_2,ij (r_ij · [δ_1 × δ_2,ij−AB]). Since [δ_2 × δ_1] = −[δ_1 × δ_2], these two expressions are not the same unless the orientation of δ_2 is implicitly reversed. This sign ambiguity propagates into the effective vector δ_ef f in Eq. (5) and hence into every subsequent formula using δ_ef f. The paper should fix a single convention and verify that all equations (including Eqs. (7)–(10), (17), (20), (41)) use it consistently.
  3. [Sec. IX.C, Eq. (41)] The numerical estimate of the OASEI coupling g2l is circular: it is obtained by demanding balance between the OASEI torque and the DMI torque within the paper's own cycloid equilibrium solution. This is an internal consistency condition, not a determination from independent physics or experiment. Moreover, the expression δ_ef f = δ_1 δ_2 and the ratio δ_2/δ_ef f = 1/δ_1 are dimensionally and notationally unclear, since δ_ef f is a vector and the product δ_1 δ_2 is not defined as a vector in the text. To make the prediction falsifiable, the authors should provide an independent estimate from first principles or from a known material parameter, or at least state clearly that the balance condition only fixes the ratio of the new coupling to the DMI coupling.
  4. [Secs. III and IX] The manuscript contains unresolved placeholders '??' in place of equation references (e.g., in Sec. III before Eq. (7) and in Sec. IX.A.2 before 'the energy density (??)'). In addition, Sec. III defines L = S_A − S_A and M = S_A + S_A, which must be typos for L = S_A − S_B and M = S_A + S_B. These errors make it difficult to verify the derivation of the dispersion relations, which are a central result. They should be corrected and the missing equation numbers restored before publication.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are many typographical errors ('an gives', 'I has been demonstrated', 'Keffer-like' with ligature issues, 'from' for 'form', etc.). A thorough proofreading is needed.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eqs. (2)–(4)] The notation δ_2,ij−AB and δ_3,ij−AB is cumbersome and not consistently defined. Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are referenced but the captions are not self-explanatory; please define the 'partial shifts' in the figures with reference to actual ionic displacements.
  3. [Sec. V, Eqs. (15)–(17)] The relation between the partial energy densities E_A and E_B and the full energy density is not fully explained. In particular, the factor 1/6 in Eqs. (15)–(16) versus 1/12 in Eq. (17) should be derived explicitly, since a naive sum E_A + E_B gives a different prefactor unless a factor of 1/2 is applied to the sum. Please clarify the counting.
  4. [Sec. IX.A.2, Eq. (35)] The definitions of Ω_2 and Ω_3 use δ_2 and δ_ef f as magnitudes, but the text writes them without kets. Please add vector notation or explicitly state that these are magnitudes along the relevant direction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the macroscopic consequences are derived from an explicitly proposed ansatz, not from fitted data or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing input is Eq. (2), which it explicitly labels as a suggestion: "We suggest the following structure for the scalar coefficient (exchange integral) for the antiferromagnetic multiferroic materials." From this assumed form, the torques (7)-(10), energy density (17), polarization (20), and spin-wave dispersions (35) and (37) are obtained by the quantum-hydrodynamic expansion of the microscopic Hamiltonian. These are conditional consequences of the ansatz, not quantities that were first fitted and then relabeled as predictions; nothing in the derivation requires the output to be known beforehand. Equation (41) is an in-model parameter estimate obtained by balancing the new torque with the DMI torque at the assumed cycloidal equilibrium; it is not used as an external benchmark or presented as a prediction of an independently measured quantity. The self-citations [10], [11], and [13] provide method context and prior classifications, but they do not supply a uniqueness theorem or a forced ansatz that carries the central claim; the odd ligand-shift structure is introduced directly in the present text. The physical plausibility of the antisymmetry conditions on delta_2 and delta_3, and the unresolved '??' placeholders and sign inconsistency between Eqs. (2) and (3), are validity or support concerns, not circularity in the derivation chain. No quoted step exhibits the specific reduction that would make an output equal to an input by construction, so the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper contributes a proposed Hamiltonian term and its systematic consequences. It introduces two microscopic coupling constants U1,U2 and an effective g2l with no independent determination; the symmetry assumptions for ligand shifts are geometrically motivated but not derived; no new particles or fields are introduced beyond the OASEI interaction itself.

free parameters (3)
  • U1,ij — coefficient of the (rij·δ3) term in Eq (4) = None; only the composite g2l is estimated under cycloid balance in Eq (41)
    Introduced ad hoc in Eq (2) as the strength of one OASEI channel; no microscopic calculation or data fit.
  • U2,ij — coefficient of the (rij·[δ2×δ1]) term in Eq (3) = None
    Second ad hoc coupling constant in Eq (2); same lack of microscopic grounding.
  • g2l — effective macroscopic OASEI coupling = Related to DMI parameters through the cycloid balance condition (Eq 41)
    This 'estimate' is an internal consistency relation between the new coupling and the DMI parameters; it does not test the model against an independent observable.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar exchange integral can depend linearly on rij through a ligand-shift vector while remaining symmetric (Uij=Uji)
    Used to construct Eq (2); no microscopic derivation from superexchange is provided.
  • domain assumption The partial ligand shifts transform as δ3,ji−BA=−δ3,ij−AB and δ2,ji−BA=−δ2,ij−AB with δ1 constant
    These sign rules are needed to satisfy Uij=Uji (Sec II A,B); they require a specific inequivalent ligand arrangement but are not derived from a lattice model.
  • standard math Quantum hydrodynamic expansion of the spin Hamiltonian gives the torque/force/energy to first/second order in the inter-ion distance
    The method is imported from Refs [29],[30],[11]; the paper says 'straightforward calculations lead' without showing the expansions.
  • domain assumption Spin-current model P^μ = (γ/c) ε^{μαβ} J^{αβ} is a valid route from spin torques to electric polarization
    The paper follows Refs [10],[11]; it acknowledges critical discussion in Ref [9] but does not re-derive the model independently.
  • domain assumption DMI in the Keffer form (30)-(34) and the AFM relation U_AB=-U_AA hold for the materials considered
    Used to set up the XYZ model and the cycloid balance; originates from previous papers including the author's own Ref [13].
invented entities (1)
  • Odd anisotropy of symmetric exchange interaction (OASEI)
    purpose: New first-gradient spin term in antiferromagnetic/multiferroic energy, producing spin torque, modified spin waves, and extra polarization
    The interaction is introduced by hand in Eq (2). No measured or independently computed signature is given; the only quantitative relation (Eq 41) connects it to other model constants.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Keffer-like form of the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral: Contribution to the Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert equation and spin wave dispersion dependence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VVQ5MQP

@misc{pith2026251222108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Keffer-like form of the symmetric Heisenberg exchange integral: Contribution to the Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert equation and spin wave dispersion dependence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VVQ5MQP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.22108}
}
read the original abstract

The symmetric Heisenberg exchange interaction and antisymmetric Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction are parts of the tensor potential describing effective spin-spin interaction caused by the superexchange interaction of magnetic ions via nonmagnetic ion. There is the Keffer form of the vector constant of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, which includes the shift of the nonmagnetic ion (ligand) from the line connecting two magnetic ions. It is suggested, in this paper, that the ligand shift can give contribution in the constant of the symmetric Heisenberg interaction in antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic materials. Hence, the constant of the Heisenberg interaction is composed minimum of two terms. One does not depend on the ligand shift an gives standard contribution in the energy density like term with no derivatives of the spin densities or term containing two spatial derivatives of the spin densities. It is demonstrated that additional term gives a term in the energy density containing one spatial derivative of the spin density. Corresponding contribution in the Landau--Lifshitz--Gilbert equation is found. Possibility of the noncollinear equilibrium order of spin under influence of new spin torque is discussed. Modification of the spin wave (normal modes) dispersion dependencies in the antiferromagnetic materials is found for the collinear order and for the cycloidal order of spins. Effective spin current is derived and applied for the spin-current model of the polarization origin in multiferroics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.22108 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The figure shows a possible configuration of the mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: This figure is similar to Fig. (1), but we present the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    summarize some models for the microscopic mecha- nisms driving magnetoelectric behaviour (see Sec. 2.4). Which are also discussed over next 20 years in reviews [2], [3], [4], [5]. They are enriched with the spin-current model [6] suggested for one of mechanisms, where the electric dipole moment is proportional to the vector prod- uct of spins. Its macrosc...

    arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    The spin torques given by equations (9) and (10) are equal to zero

    Equilibrium We assume L0 = L0ez and M0 = 0, with L0 = const. The spin torques given by equations (9) and (10) are equal to zero. Same result is correct for equations (28) and (29). In these four equations each term is equal to zero for the chosen equilibrium. Equations (33) and (34) are famous in relation to the a possibility of formation of nonzero M0, b...

  3. [3]

    The dispersion dependence (35) contains two types of solutions

    Perturbations The dispersion dependence for the small amplitude of the described equilibrium appears as ω2 = Ω 2 2 + Ω2 3 ± √ ω4 0 + 4Ω2 2Ω2 3, (35) where Ω 2 = g0ζL0δ2/2 is the characteristic frequency of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, Ω 3 = g2lL0(δef f · k)/6 is the characteristic frequency of the symmetric ex- change interaction with the odd an...

  4. [4]

    These conditions satisfy equations (9), (10), (28), (29), and (34), where each term is equal to zero

    Equilibrium We assume L0 = L0ex and M0 = 0, with L0 = const. These conditions satisfy equations (9), (10), (28), (29), and (34), where each term is equal to zero. Equation (33) leads to the following condition for the relative orientation of the equilibrium antiferromagnetic vector and the ligand shift δ2,AB ∥ L0 = L0ex (which is opposite to the previous ...

  5. [5]

    Perturbations We consider the small amplitude perturbations of the described equilibrium state. It leads to the following dis- persion dependence ω2 = 1 2 [ ω2 1 + ω2 2 − 2(Ω2 2 + Ω2 3) ± √ (ω2 1 − ω2 2)2 + 16Ω2 2Ω2 3 − 4˜κ˜κ−L2 0Ω2 3 ] , (37) where ˜κ ≡ κ − 1 6 κ2+k2, ˜κ− ≡ κ− + 1 6 κ2−k2, ω2 1 = (g0u + A−k2) ( −κ + A+k2 + 1 6 κ2+k2 ) L2 0, (38) and ω2 2...

  6. [6]

    In this case the first term in equation (9) has nonzero projection on the z-direction

    Equilibrium We consider noncollinear equilibrium condition, which is also corresponds to easy-plane regime of uniaxial crys- tals L0 = Lb cos(qx)ex + Lc sin(qx)ey, (40) and M0 = 0, where Lc = ±Lb. In this case the first term in equation (9) has nonzero projection on the z-direction. Corresponding spin torque T z oa = (1 /6)g2l(δef f · q)L2 b(Lb/Lc). It is ...

  7. [7]

    Perturbations Analysis of perturbations at the cycloidal equilibrium order can be found in Ref. [20]. Similarly, we find that presence of the periodic equilibrium order shifts some co- efficients in the dispersion dependence via the additional terms depend on q. While the periodic coefficients are ex- cluded without neglecting any of them. This conclusion is i...

  8. [8]

    Fiebig, ”Revival of the magnetoelectric effect”, J

    M. Fiebig, ”Revival of the magnetoelectric effect”, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 38, R123 (2005)

    2005

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Nagaosa, ”Theory of multiferroic behavior in cycloid al helimagnets”, J

    N. Nagaosa, ”Theory of multiferroic behavior in cycloid al helimagnets”, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20, 434207 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Tokura, S

    Y. Tokura, S. Seki, and N. Nagaosa, ”Multiferroics of spin origin”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 77, 076501 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Dong, J.-M

    S. Dong, J.-M. Liu, S.-W. Cheong, Z. Ren, ”Multiferroic materials and magnetoelectric physics: symmetry, entan- glement, excitation, and topology”, Advances in Physics 64, 519 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: different routes to magne- toelectric coupling”, npj Spintronics, 2 18 (2024)

    M. Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: different routes to magne- toelectric coupling”, npj Spintronics, 2 18 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    Katsura, N

    H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and A. V. Balatsky, ”Spin Cur- rent and Magnetoelectric Effect in Noncollinear Mag- nets”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 057205 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    G.Bar’yakhtar, V

    V. G.Bar’yakhtar, V. A. L’vov, D. A. Yablonskii, ”In- homogeneous magnetoelectric effect”, JETP 37, 673 (1983)

    1983

  7. [15]

    Mostovoy, ”Ferroelectricity in Spiral Magnets”, Phy s

    M. Mostovoy, ”Ferroelectricity in Spiral Magnets”, Phy s. Rev. Lett. 96, 067601 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    A. S. Moskvin, S.-L. Drechsler, ”Microscopic mecha- nisms of spin-dependent electric polarization in 3d ox- ides”, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024102 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Equation of evolution of electric polarization of multiferroics proportional to the vector product of spins of ions of the cell under the influence of the Heisienberg Hamiltonian”, JETP, 166, 645 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Electric polariza- tion evolution equation for antiferromagnetic multifer- roics with the polarization proportional to the scalar product of the spins”, Phys. Scr. 99, 1059b2 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    D. I. Khomskii, ”Multiferroics and Beyond: Electric Properties of Different Magnetic Textures”, JETP 132, 482 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    P. A. Andreev, ”On the generalized Keffer form of the Dzyaloshinskii constant: its consequences for the spin, momentum and polarization evolution”, arXiv:2511.21672

  13. [21]

    R. S. Fishman, T. R˜ o˜ om, and R. de Sousa, ”Normal modes of a spin cycloid or helix”, Phys. Rev. B 99, 064414 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Zakeri, Y

    K. Zakeri, Y. Zhang, J. Prokop, T.-H. Chuang, N. Sakr, W. X. Tang, and J. Kirschner, ”Asymmetric Spin-Wave Dispersion on Fe(110): Direct Evidence of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya Interaction”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 137203 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    Moon, S.-M

    J.-H. Moon, S.-M. Seo, K.-J. Lee, K.-W. Kim, J. Ryu, H.- W. Lee, R. D. McMichael, and M. D. Stiles, ”Spin-wave 10 propagation in the presence of interfacial Dzyaloshinskii - Moriya interaction” , Phys. Rev. B 88, 184404 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Risinggard, I

    V. Risinggard, I. Kulagina, J. Linder, ”Electric field c on- trol of magnoninduced magnetization dynamics in mul- tiferroics”, Scientific Reports 6, 31800 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    P. A. Andreev, ”Regimes of optical transparency and in- stabilities of collinear dielectric ferromagnetic materi als in the presence of the dynamic magnetoelectric effect”, arXiv:2505.07107 (accepted to Phys. Scr.)

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. A. Andreev, M. I. Trukhanova, ”Mean-field theory of the electromagnon resonance”, EPL 152, 56001 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    P. A. Andreev, ”Electric susceptibility of antiferrom ag- netic multiferroics with cycloidal spin order at magne- toelectric effect associated with collinear component of spins”, arXiv:2510.07425

  20. [28]

    Pimenov, A

    A. Pimenov, A. Mukhin, V. Ivanov, V. D. Travkin, A. M. Balbashov, and A. Loidl, ”Possible evidence for elec- tromagnons in multiferroic manganites”, Nature Phys. 2, 97 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    A. M. Shuvaev, F. Mayr, A. Loidl, A. A. Mukhin, and A. Pimenov, ”High-frequency electromagnon in GdMnO 3”, Eur. Phys. J. B 80, 351 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Aupiais, M

    I. Aupiais, M. Mochizuki, H. Sakata, R. Grasset, Y. Gal- lais, A. Sacuto, M. Cazayous, ”Colossal electromagnon excitation in the non-cycloidal phase of TbMnO 3 under pressure”, npj Quantum Materials 3, 60 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Katsura, A

    H. Katsura, A. V. Balatsky, and N. Nagaosa, ”Dynami- cal Magnetoelectric Coupling in Helical Magnets”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 027203 (2007)

    2007

  24. [32]

    M. A. Castro, C. Saji, G. Saez, P. Vergara, S. Allende, and A. S. Nunez, ”Phenomenological theory of electro- magnons in multiferroic systems”, Phys. Rev. B 111, 214401 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Hermenau, S

    J. Hermenau, S. Brinker, M. Marciani, M. Steinbrecher, M. dos Santos Dias, R. Wiesendanger, S. Lounis, J. Wiebe, ”Stabilizing spin systems via symmetrically tai- lored RKKY interactions”, Nature Communications 10, 2565 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    D.-J. Choi, N. Lorente, J. Wiebe, K. von Bergmann, A. F. Otte, A. J. Heinrich, ”Colloquium: Atomic spin chains on surfaces”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 041001 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Udvardi, L

    L. Udvardi, L. Szunyogh, K. Palotas, and P. Weinberger, ”First-principles relativistic study of spin waves in thin magnetic films”, Phys. Rev. B 68, 104436 (2003)

    2003

  28. [36]

    L. S. Kuz’menkov, S. G. Maksimov, and V. V. Fe- doseev, ”Microscopic quantum hydrodynamics of sys- tems of fermions: Part I,” Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 126, 110 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    P. A. Andreev, I. N. Mosaki, and M. I. Trukhanova, ”Quantum hydrodynamics of the spinor Bose–Einstein condensate at non-zero temperatures”, Phys. Fluids 33, 067108 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    P. A. Andreev, ”Extended hydrodynamics of degenerate partially spin polarized fermions with short-range inter- action up to the third order by interaction radius approx- imation”, Laser Phys. 31, 045501 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    V. G. Bary’achtar, V. A. L’vov, D. A. Jablonskii, ”The- ory of inhomogeneous magnetoelectric effect”, JETP Lett. 37, 673 (1983)

    1983

  32. [40]

    E. P. Stefanovskii, D. A. Jablonskii, ”Theory of electr i- cal polarization of multisublattice orthorhombic antifer - romagnets with a double-exchange superlattice”, Sov. J. Low Temp. Phys. 12, 478–480 (1986)

    1986

  33. [41]

    Sparavigna, A

    A. Sparavigna, A. Strigazzi, and A. Zvezdin, ”Electric - field effects on the spin-density wave in magnetic ferro- electrics”, Phys. Rev. B 50, 2953 (1994)

    1994

  34. [42]

    Cheong, M

    S.-W. Cheong, M. Mostovoy, ”Multiferroics: a magnetic twist for ferroelectricity” , Nature Materials 6, 13 (2007)

    2007

  35. [43]

    P. A. Andreev, ”Generalization and microscopic jus- tification of the material-field form of the Landau- Lifshitz equation for antiferromagnets”, Moscow Univer- sity Physics Bulletin 80, (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Z. V. Gareeva, A. F. Popkov, S. V. Soloviov, and A. K. Zvezdin, ”Field-induced phase transitions and phase diagrams in BiFeO 3-like multiferroics” Phys. Rev. B 87, 214413 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    I. V. Bychkov, D. A. Kuzmin, V. G. Shavrov, ”Hybridiza- tion of electromagnetic, spin and acoustic waves in mag- netic having conical spiral ferromagnetic order”, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 329, 142 (2013)

    2013

  38. [46]

    I. V. Bychkov, V. D. Buchelnikov, D. A. Kuzmin, V. V. Shadrin, ”Spectrum of the coupled waves in magnetics having the ferromagnetic spiral”, Solid State Phenomena 190, 257 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.