Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Ordering

Hiroaki Kusunose; Satoru Hayami; Yuki Yanagi

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Ordering

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Collinear antiferromagnetic order alone can generate momentum-dependent spin splitting without atomic spin-orbit coupling.

desk verdict Useful symmetry classification of spin splitting in collinear AFMs without SOC, but the central 'necessary condition' is only necessary: bipartite lattices with odd hoppings satisfy it and still show no splitting, so the 32-point-group tables need a caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08680 v1 pith:D6Q7C5FR submitted 2019-08-23 cond-mat.str-el

Satoru Hayami , Yuki Yanagi , Hiroaki Kusunose This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords collinearantiferromagnetspinsplittingeffectivespin-orbitinteractionmultipoleexpansionirreduciblerepresentationcurrentpiezomagneticeffecttight-bindingmodel

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 aims to show that momentum-dependent spin splitting of electronic bands does not require atomic spin-orbit coupling. It argues that a collinear antiferromagnetic order in a crystal with several sublattice sites acts as an effective spin-orbit interaction through the anisotropic hopping between sites, producing band dispersions of the form $\varepsilon_\sigma(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{\Gamma\gamma} X_{\Gamma\gamma} Q_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})\sigma$ that are even in $\mathbf{k}$. The central criterion is an irreducible-representation match: a hopping multipole $Q^{(n)}_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})$ (or a product such as $T_x^{(1)}(\mathbf{k})T_y^{(1)}(\mathbf{k})$) must belong to the same representation $\Gamma$ as the multipole $Q^{(0)}_{\Gamma\gamma}$ created by the magnetic order. If true, this opens a route to spin-orbit-like physics in light-element antiferromagnets, including spin-current generation by charge or thermal currents and strain-induced magnetization.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the microscopic multipole decomposition of a tight-binding Hamiltonian on a cluster of magnetic sites. The ordered moments are represented by onsite electric multipoles $Q^{(0)}_{\Gamma\gamma}$ (with Pauli-matrix products $\rho_\mu,\tau_\nu$ encoding the sublattice degrees of freedom), and the kinetic part by wave-vector-dependent bond multipoles $Q^{(n)}_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})$ of the $n$-th neighbor hopping plus magnetic toroidal multipoles $T^{(n)}_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})$ (odd-parity, time-reversal-odd bond objects). Because interactions in the Hamiltonian couple only objects in the same irreducible representation, the multiplication of bond multipoles effectively generates the conjugate field of the ordering multipole; Appendix B shows, for the tetragonal model, how products of toroidal hopping terms produce an effective quadrupole $\tilde{Q}^{(0)}_{xy}$ of order $k_xk_y$ even when no direct quadrupole hopping exists. The classification tables for 32 point groups then list which ordering irreps activate which symmetric spin-splitting polynomials, up to sixth order in $\mathbf{k}$.

What would settle it

Take any collinear antiferromagnet with negligible atomic spin-orbit coupling and a known ordered multipole $Q^{(0)}_{\Gamma\gamma}$; compute the tight-binding hopping multipoles of its crystal structure and compare irreducible representations. If the condition predicts a splitting of a given form (say $k_xk_y\sigma$) but spin-resolved angle-resolved photoemission or quantum-oscillation measurements show no such even-in-$\mathbf{k}$ spin splitting, the central claim fails; conversely, observing spin splitting in a collinear antiferromagnet whose hopping multipoles do not share an irrep with the order would also disprove it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spin-split bands can appear in collinear antiferromagnets even when atomic spin-orbit coupling is negligible and the Hamiltonian has exact SU(2) spin-rotation symmetry. In that limit, time reversal combined with a spin rotation enforces $\varepsilon_\sigma(\mathbf{k})=\varepsilon_\sigma(-\mathbf{k})$, so the only possible spin splitting is symmetric in $\mathbf{k}$, expressed by even-parity electric multipoles in momentum space: $\varepsilon_\sigma(\mathbf{k})=\sum_{\Gamma\gamma}X_{\Gamma\gamma}Q_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})\sigma$. The paper identifies the microscopic condition for a nonzero anisotropic field $X_{\Gamma\gamma}$: in a cluster tight-binding model, the hopping part contains bond multipoles $Q^{(n)}_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})$ and magnetic toroidal multipoles $T^{(n)}_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})$, and the collinear order creates an onsite mean-field multipole $Q^{(0)}_{\Gamma\gamma}$; when a hopping multipole, or a higher-order product of toroidal multipoles, transforms as the same irreducible representation of the point group as the mean-field multipole, the order activates a k-dependent spin splitting of the form $Q_{\Gamma\gamma}(\mathbf{k})\sigma$. The argument is demonstrated in four-sublattice pyrochlore and tetragonal models and then organized into a classification of the allowed second-, fourth-, and sixth-order spin-splitting forms under all 32 crystallographic point groups.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes atomic spin-orbit coupling is weak enough to ignore, so the only spin splitting that can appear under collinear order is symmetric in momentum; if spin-orbit coupling is not negligible, extra antisymmetric terms appear and the classification is incomplete.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Collinear antiferromagnets with weak atomic spin-orbit coupling can exhibit spin-split Fermi surfaces in zero field, with the splitting even in momentum (for example proportional to $k_xk_y\sigma$).
The symmetric spin-split dispersion produces a symmetric spin conductivity tensor, so an electric current or temperature gradient can generate a pure spin current along the ordered-moment direction without atomic spin-orbit coupling.
A shear strain can induce a uniform magnetization in the direction of the collinear antiferromagnetic order, realizing a piezomagnetic (magnetostriction) response.
The 32-point-group classification lists which collinear antiferromagnetic ordering patterns activate which spin-splitting forms, providing a direct guide for searching candidate materials among light-element and 3d transition-metal compounds.
In strictly bipartite lattices, chiral symmetry forbids the spin splitting, so the effect requires multisublattice clusters or hoppings that break the bipartite condition.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: the irreducible-representation match can be used as a quick computational screen: for any candidate collinear antiferromagnet, compare the irrep of the ordered-moment multipole with the irreps of its hopping multipoles, and only systems with a match need be examined in detail.
Inference: because the splitting scale from the perturbation analysis is roughly $(t^{(1)})^2/h$, materials with large inter-site hopping and moderate exchange constants should show the effect most strongly; selecting for that ratio, rather than for heavy elements, is a testable material-design rule.
Inference: if spin currents generated this way have a well-defined spin quantization axis (the ordered moment), then antiferromagnetic spintronic devices based on these materials could avoid the spin-relaxation channels associated with atomic spin-orbit coupling; the paper notes the current is well-defined but does not develop the device consequence.

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

Read the paper with the stress-test in hand. The test lands. The paper's central claim—same irrep between hopping multipole and MF multipole—is presented as the condition, but Appendix A's chiral-symmetry argument shows it is not sufficient. In the tetragonal example, the T_x T_y product ~ sin kx sin ky sits in B2, same as h_xy, yet the bands are spin degenerate when t2=0 because the bipartite lattice enforces ε_σ(k)=ε_−σ(k). That is the paper's own result, so the general tables overpredict for any collinear AFM on a bipartite lattice whose hoppings are only odd (nearest-neighbor). MnF2 and FeBO3 in the candidate list are exactly that kind of system. This is a genuine gap, though not a fatal one: the symmetry machinery is sound and the explicit models are clean.

What is actually new: a systematic classification of symmetric k-dependent spin splitting for 32 point groups, and a demonstration that collinear AFM order can induce effective spin-orbit coupling without atomic SOC through anisotropic hopping in sublattice clusters. The pyrochlore and tetragonal tight-binding calculations are transparent, use no fitted parameters, and the multipole condition is checked against explicit band structures. Appendix B's perturbation derivation shows phase-convention independence. That is real and reproducible.

Soft spots beyond the bipartite issue: Tables V and VI appear without derivation; saying 'similar analysis can be straightforwardly extended' is not a proof, and for a classification paper a reader should not have to take the table on faith. The zero-SOC restriction is stated up front, so not a flaw, but it means the material list is qualitative—real SOC will add antisymmetric terms and can change the spin polarization. The paper says as much, only briefly.

Overall, this deserves serious refereeing. It would be accepted after revision if the authors (1) state the irrep condition as necessary but not sufficient, (2) add the bipartite/chiral exclusion to the general classification, and (3) qualify the candidate materials accordingly. I would cite it for the symmetry tables and the demonstration.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a multipole-based symmetry analysis of momentum-dependent spin splitting in collinear antiferromagnets without atomic spin-orbit coupling. After establishing that spin-rotation symmetry restricts the splitting to even-in-k (symmetric) forms, the authors show in two tight-binding models (pyrochlore and tetragonal) that a collinear AFM mean field can generate such a splitting via hopping multipoles in the same irreducible representation. They then propose a classification of second- and higher-order spin-splitting types for the 32 crystallographic point groups and discuss consequences for spin-current generation and piezomagnetic responses.

Significance. The paper is potentially useful and, for the worked examples, clean: the pyrochlore and tetragonal band calculations are explicit, Appendix A gives a simple proof of the chiral-symmetry exclusion, and the multipole tables are a convenient reference. The central idea—that anisotropic hopping combined with collinear AFM order can mimic spin-orbit coupling—is timely and relevant. The main weakness is that the general point-group tables are presented as a correspondence between ordering irrep and spin splitting without incorporating the bipartite chiral-symmetry exclusion demonstrated in the authors' own Appendix A; as a result the tables can overpredict spin splitting for important material classes.

major comments (2)

[Sec. III B; Appendix A; Tables V and VI] The condition stated in Sec. III B ('the hopping matrix ... belongs to the same irrep. Γ of the MF multipole') is presented as the necessary condition, and the paper is careful to call it necessary; nevertheless the surrounding presentation and Tables V and VI invite a sufficiency reading, and the authors' own example shows the condition is not sufficient. In the tetragonal model with t^(2)_a = t^(2)_b = 0 and finite t^(1)_b, Table IV gives T_x^(1b)T_y^(1b) ~ sin k_x sin k_y, which is B2 under C4v, the same irrep as h_xy; yet Fig. 2(d) shows spin-degenerate bands. Appendix A proves the general reason: any bipartite lattice with opposite sublattice spin polarization has chiral symmetry and hence no spin splitting. Tables V and VI list the multipole/irrep combinations that give spin-split forms without encoding this bipartite exclusion. Consequently the classification overpredicts for bipartite materials, including several in the candidate list (MnF2, FeBO3). Please amend the tables and text to state explicitly that the irrep condition is not sufficient, and incorporate the chiral-symmetry exclusion into the general classification.
[Sec. III C] Section III C introduces Tables V and VI with 'Similar analysis can be straightforwardly extended to any other point groups' and does not provide the derivation or a proof that the listed irreps are actually associated with nonzero spin splitting in a lattice model. Since the irrep condition is only necessary, the tables cannot be read as a constructive classification without additional conditions. I request either a derivation of the tables (or a reference to a complete derivation), or an explicit statement of the assumptions under which the SS column is realized, together with the bipartite caveat.

minor comments (3)

[Sec. III B] The text 'Sec. ??he discussion is generalized' appears to be a typesetting error; it should likely read 'Sec. III C.'
[Appendix B] Equations (B9) and (B10) contain denominators such as Q'^(1)_0(k) and [Q'^(1)_0(k) ± Q^(2)_0(k)]^2; the validity of the perturbative expansion at parameter values where these vanish should be stated.
[Tables V and VI] The caption should define the SS column explicitly as the form of ε_σ(k) − ε_{−σ}(k) for a given irrep, and note that it lists allowed forms, not guaranteed splittings.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the selection rule is a group-theoretic condition verified by explicit tight-binding models, not an input fitted to the predicted outcome.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a symmetry condition: for a collinear AFM with negligible SOC, a k-dependent spin splitting of the form Q(k)sigma appears only when a hopping multipole or a product of hopping multipoles shares the irrep of the mean-field multipole Q^(0). This is not a tautology. It is derived by explicitly decomposing the tight-binding Hamiltonians for the pyrochlore and tetragonal models (Eqs. (2)-(5)) into multipole operators and then computing the band structures, e.g., the kxky sigma splitting in Fig. 2(d). The perturbative derivation in Appendix B (Eqs. (B9)-(B12)) independently shows how Q^(2)_xy(k) or products T_x T_y generate the effective quadrupole coupling, without assuming the conclusion. No parameter is fitted to the claimed spin splitting; hopping amplitudes and mean fields are chosen as inputs and the dispersion is calculated. The multipole basis is taken from the authors' earlier group-theoretic work (Refs. 34-36, 38), but that is a parameter-free classification, and the present paper's own explicit examples are self-contained. The paper even states a limitation in Appendix A: in bipartite systems, chiral symmetry forbids spin splitting even when the same-irrep condition is satisfied, which shows the condition is genuinely necessary rather than sufficient and is not a renamed restatement of the answer. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with the paper's equations; the classification's possible overprediction for bipartite lattices is a correctness concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central classification is parameter-independent, so no free parameters are fitted to data. The toy-model hopping and mean-field parameters are illustrative and do not affect the symmetry condition. The analysis relies on standard group theory and the stated domain assumption of negligible atomic SOC; no new physical entities are introduced beyond the conceptual label 'effective spin-orbit interaction'.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The electronic Hamiltonian has SU(2) spin-rotation symmetry because atomic spin-orbit coupling is negligible.
Stated in Sec. II ('we focus on the collinear AFM orderings where the atomic SOC is negligible'); this underlies the RT symmetry argument that only symmetric spin splitting appears.
domain assumption The antiferromagnetic order is represented by a local mean-field potential Hm proportional to spin σ, with no spin-dependent hopping.
Used in Sec. III and Appendix B; the mean-field multipoles Q(0)Γγ are taken as onsite sublattice potentials. This is the standard single-particle description of ordered magnets.
standard math The multipole expansion of the hopping matrix into bond multipoles Q(n)Γγ(k) and T(n)Γγ(k) is complete for the symmetry analysis.
This is group theory; the multipole basis is defined in Tables I, II, IV and refs 34-36.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Ordering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D6Q7C5FR

@misc{pith2026190808680,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Ordering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D6Q7C5FR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08680}
}

abstract

We clarify the macroscopic symmetry and microscopic model-parameter conditions for emergence of spin-split electronic band structure in collinear antiferromagnets without atomic spin-orbit coupling. By using the microscopic multipole descriptions, we elucidate the fundamental degree of freedom in a cluster unit of an antiferromagnet giving rise to an effective spin-orbit interaction through the anisotropic kinetic motions of electrons. We show a correspondence of the ordering patterns and resultant momentum-dependent spin splitting for 32 crystallographic point groups after demonstrating two intuitive examples of four-sublattice pyrochlore and tetragonal systems. Our study unveils potential features of collinear antiferromagnets with considerably weak spin-orbit coupling in light-element materials and 3$d$ transition metal oxides, which can be utilized for a spin-current generation by electric (thermal) current and a magneto-striction effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08680 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Irreducible representations of the electric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Symmetry, microscopy and spectroscopy signatures of altermagnetism
cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-06 unverdicted

A review of the symmetry, microscopic origin, and detection of altermagnetism, a collinear magnetic phase with alternating spin polarization in momentum space.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Kimura , author T

author T. Kimura , author T. Goto , author H. Shintani , author K. Ishizaka , author T. Arima , and author Y. Tokura , journal Nature volume 426 , pages 55 ( year 2003 )

work page 2003
[2]

Fiebig , journal J

author M. Fiebig , journal J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. volume 38 , pages R123 ( year 2005 )

work page 2005
[3]

Khomskii , journal Physics volume 2 , pages 20 ( year 2009 )

author D. Khomskii , journal Physics volume 2 , pages 20 ( year 2009 )

work page 2009
[4]

author J. E. Hirsch , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 83 , pages 1834 ( year 1999 )

work page 1999
[5]

Sinova , author D

author J. Sinova , author D. Culcer , author Q. Niu , author N. A. Sinitsyn , author T. Jungwirth , and author A. H. MacDonald , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 92 , pages 126603 ( year 2004 )

work page 2004
[6]

author B. A. Bernevig , author T. L. Hughes , and author S.-C. Zhang , journal Science volume 314 , pages 1757 ( year 2006 )

work page 2006
[7]

Sinova , author S

author J. Sinova , author S. O. Valenzuela , author J. Wunderlich , author C. H. Back , and author T. Jungwirth , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 87 , pages 1213 ( year 2015 )

work page 2015
[8]

Herman , author C

author F. Herman , author C. D. Kuglin , author K. F. Cuff , and author R. L. Kortum , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 11 , pages 541 ( year 1963 )

work page 1963

Show all 54 references

[9]

Levitov , author Y

author L. Levitov , author Y. V. Nazarov , and author G. Eliashberg , journal Sov. Phys. JETP volume 61 , pages 133 ( year 1985 )

1985
[10]

Fujimoto , journal Phys

author S. Fujimoto , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 72 , pages 024515 ( year 2005 )

2005
[11]

Orenstein and author J

author J. Orenstein and author J. E. Moore , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 87 , pages 165110 ( year 2013 )

2013
[12]

Hayami , author H

author S. Hayami , author H. Kusunose , and author Y. Motome , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 90 , pages 024432 ( year 2014 )

2014
[13]

Yoda , author T

author T. Yoda , author T. Yokoyama , and author S. Murakami , journal Sci. Rep. volume 5 , pages 12024 ( year 2015 )

2015
[14]

Fu , journal Phys

author L. Fu , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 115 , pages 026401 ( year 2015 )

2015
[15]

Zhong , author J

author S. Zhong , author J. E. Moore , and author I. Souza , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 116 , pages 077201 ( year 2016 )

2016
[16]

Jungwirth , author X

author T. Jungwirth , author X. Marti , author P. Wadley , and author J. Wunderlich , journal Nat. Nanotech. volume 11 , pages 231 ( year 2016 )

2016
[17]

Baltz , author A

author V. Baltz , author A. Manchon , author M. Tsoi , author T. Moriyama , author T. Ono , and author Y. Tserkovnyak , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 90 , pages 015005 ( year 2018 )

2018
[18]

S mejkal , author R

author L. S mejkal , author R. Gonz \'a lez-Hern \'a ndez , author T. Jungwirth , and author J. Sinova , journal arXiv:1901.00445 ( year 2019 )

1901 arXiv
[19]

Suzuki , author T

author M.-T. Suzuki , author T. Koretsune , author M. Ochi , and author R. Arita , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 95 , pages 094406 ( year 2017 )

2017
[20]

Li , author A

author X. Li , author A. H. MacDonald , and author H. Chen , journal arXiv:1902.10650 ( year 2019 )

1902 arXiv
[21]

Hitomi and author Y

author T. Hitomi and author Y. Yanase , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 85 , pages 124702 ( year 2016 )

2016
[22]

Ishitobi and author K

author T. Ishitobi and author K. Hattori , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 88 , pages 063708 ( year 2019 )

2019
[23]

Hayami , author H

author S. Hayami , author H. Kusunose , and author Y. Motome , journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter volume 28 , pages 395601 ( year 2016 )

2016
[24]

Th \"o le and author N

author F. Th \"o le and author N. A. Spaldin , journal Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A volume 376 , pages 20170450 ( year 2018 )

2018
[25]

Di Matteo and author M

author S. Di Matteo and author M. R. Norman , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 96 , pages 115156 ( year 2017 )

2017
[26]

Hayami , author Y

author S. Hayami , author Y. Yanagi , author H. Kusunose , and author Y. Motome , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 122 , pages 147602 ( year 2019 )

2019
[27]

Massarelli , author B

author G. Massarelli , author B. Wu , and author A. Paramekanti , journal arXiv:1904.04280 ( year 2019 )

1904 arXiv
[28]

Naka , author S

author M. Naka , author S. Hayami , author H. Kusunose , author Y. Yanagi , author Y. Motome , and author H. Seo , journal arXiv:1902.02506 ( year 2019 )

1902 arXiv
[29]

Dresselhaus , journal Phys

author G. Dresselhaus , journal Phys. Rev. volume 100 , pages 580 ( year 1955 )

1955
[30]

author E. I. Rashba , journal Sov. Phys. Solid State volume 2 , pages 1109 ( year 1960 )

1960
[31]

Katsura , author N

author H. Katsura , author N. Nagaosa , and author A. V. Balatsky , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 95 , pages 057205 ( year 2005 )

2005
[32]

Tokura and author S

author Y. Tokura and author S. Seki , journal Adv. Mater. volume 22 , pages 1554 ( year 2010 )

2010
[33]

Hayami_PhysRevB.98.165110

note The classification of the spin-split band structure in the presence of the SOC is shown in Ref. Hayami_PhysRevB.98.165110
[34]

Hayami and author H

author S. Hayami and author H. Kusunose , journal J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. volume 87 , pages 033709 ( year 2018 )

2018
[35]

Hayami , author M

author S. Hayami , author M. Yatsushiro , author Y. Yanagi , and author H. Kusunose , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 98 , pages 165110 ( year 2018 )

2018
[36]

Watanabe and author Y

author H. Watanabe and author Y. Yanase , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 98 , pages 245129 ( year 2018 )

2018
[37]

See also Appendix sec:Effective spin-orbit coupling for different phase conventions

note The phase factor reflecting each sublattice position directly represents the symmetry within a unit cell, although the phase convention is arbitrary. See also Appendix sec:Effective spin-orbit coupling for different phase conventions
[38]

Suzuki , author T

author M.-T. Suzuki , author T. Nomoto , author R. Arita , author Y. Yanagi , author S. Hayami , and author H. Kusunose , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 99 , pages 174407 ( year 2019 )

2019
[39]

author S. V. Gallego , author J. M. Perez-Mato , author L. Elcoro , author E. S. Tasci , author R. M. Hanson , author K. Momma , author M. I. Aroyo , and author G. Madariaga , journal J. Appl. Crystallogr. volume 49 , pages 1750 ( year 2016 )

2016
[40]

author M. V. Lobanov , author M. Greenblatt , author N. C. El’ad , author J. D. Jorgensen , author D. V. Sheptyakov , author B. H. Toby , author C. E. Botez , and author P. W. Stephens , journal J. Phys.: Condens. Matter volume 16 , pages 5339 ( year 2004 )

2004
[41]

Gitgeatpong , author Y

author G. Gitgeatpong , author Y. Zhao , author M. Avdeev , author R. O. Piltz , author T. J. Sato , and author K. Matan , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 92 , pages 024423 ( year 2015 )

2015
[42]

Moussa , author M

author F. Moussa , author M. Hennion , author J. Rodriguez-Carvajal , author H. Moudden , author L. Pinsard , and author A. Revcolevschi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 54 , pages 15149 ( year 1996 )

1996
[43]

Calder , author V

author S. Calder , author V. O. Garlea , author D. F. McMorrow , author M. D. Lumsden , author M. B. Stone , author J. C. Lang , author J.-W. Kim , author J. A. Schlueter , author Y. G. Shi , author K. Yamaura , et al. , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 108 , pages 257209 ( year 2012 )

2012
[44]

Ohgushi , author J.-i

author K. Ohgushi , author J.-i. Yamaura , author H. Ohsumi , author K. Sugimoto , author S. Takeshita , author A. Tokuda , author H. Takagi , author M. Takata , and author T.-h. Arima , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 110 , pages 217212 ( year 2013 )

2013
[45]

Solana-Madruga , author A

author E. Solana-Madruga , author A. M. Ar\'evalo-L\'opez , author A. J. Dos santos Garc\' a , author C. Ritter , author C. Cascales , author R. S\'aez-Puche , and author J. P. Attfield , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 97 , pages 134408 ( year 2018 )

2018
[46]

Sale , author Q

author M. Sale , author Q. Xia , author M. Avdeev , and author C. D. Ling , journal Inorg. Chem. volume 58 , pages 4164 ( year 2019 )

2019
[47]

Xu , author M

author D. Xu , author M. Avdeev , author P. D. Battle , and author X.-Q. Liu , journal Inorg. Chem. volume 56 , pages 2750 ( year 2017 )

2017
[48]

Yamani , author Z

author Z. Yamani , author Z. Tun , and author D. Ryan , journal Can. J. Phys. volume 88 , pages 771 ( year 2010 )

2010
[49]

Jauch , author M

author W. Jauch , author M. Reehuis , and author A. Schultz , journal Acta Crystallogr. A volume 60 , pages 51 ( year 2004 )

2004
[50]

author A. F. May , author Y. Liu , author S. Calder , author D. S. Parker , author T. Pandey , author E. Cakmak , author H. Cao , author J. Yan , and author M. A. McGuire , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 95 , pages 174440 ( year 2017 )

2017
[51]

author A. M. Kalashnikova , author A. V. Kimel , author R. V. Pisarev , author V. N. Gridnev , author A. Kirilyuk , and author T. Rasing , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 99 , pages 167205 ( year 2007 )

2007
[52]

Jacobs , journal J

author I. Jacobs , journal J. Appl. Phys. volume 34 , pages 1106 ( year 1963 )

1963
[53]

Harima , journal J

author H. Harima , journal J. Phys. Chem. Solids volume 63 , pages 1035 ( year 2002 )

2002
[54]

Yamaura , author K

author J. Yamaura , author K. Ohgushi , author H. Ohsumi , author T. Hasegawa , author I. Yamauchi , author K. Sugimoto , author S. Takeshita , author A. Tokuda , author M. Takata , author M. Udagawa , et al. , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 108 , pages 247205 ( year 2012 )

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Kimura , author T

author T. Kimura , author T. Goto , author H. Shintani , author K. Ishizaka , author T. Arima , and author Y. Tokura , journal Nature volume 426 , pages 55 ( year 2003 )

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Fiebig , journal J

author M. Fiebig , journal J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. volume 38 , pages R123 ( year 2005 )

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Khomskii , journal Physics volume 2 , pages 20 ( year 2009 )

author D. Khomskii , journal Physics volume 2 , pages 20 ( year 2009 )

work page 2009

[4] [4]

author J. E. Hirsch , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 83 , pages 1834 ( year 1999 )

work page 1999

[5] [5]

Sinova , author D

author J. Sinova , author D. Culcer , author Q. Niu , author N. A. Sinitsyn , author T. Jungwirth , and author A. H. MacDonald , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 92 , pages 126603 ( year 2004 )

work page 2004

[6] [6]

author B. A. Bernevig , author T. L. Hughes , and author S.-C. Zhang , journal Science volume 314 , pages 1757 ( year 2006 )

work page 2006

[7] [7]

Sinova , author S

author J. Sinova , author S. O. Valenzuela , author J. Wunderlich , author C. H. Back , and author T. Jungwirth , journal Rev. Mod. Phys. volume 87 , pages 1213 ( year 2015 )

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Herman , author C

author F. Herman , author C. D. Kuglin , author K. F. Cuff , and author R. L. Kortum , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 11 , pages 541 ( year 1963 )

work page 1963