Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Emergent surface multiferroicity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A centrosymmetric, collinear, compensated antiferromagnet with ferroically ordered bulk magnetic octupoles develops a multiferroic surface—net magnetization, electric polarization, and a linear magnetoelectric response—even without…

desk verdict A real step beyond the same group's surface-magnetization paper, but the only direct numerical evidence for the linear magnetoelectric effect has a hole the authors themselves admit; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12434 v1 pith:E5P4CU63 submitted 2024-11-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sayantika Bhowal , Andrea Urru , Sophie F. Weber , Nicola A. Spaldin This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords multiferroicsmagnetoelectriceffectantiferromagnetsaltermagnetismmagneticoctupolessurfacemagnetizationFeF2bulk-boundarycorrespondence
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 establishes that a centrosymmetric, collinear, compensated antiferromagnet whose bulk hosts ferroically ordered magnetic octupoles develops a multiferroic surface: the surface acquires a net magnetization, a net electric dipole moment, and a linear magnetoelectric response, none of which exist in the bulk. Using FeF2 as a concrete example, first-principles calculations show the (110) and (1̄10) surfaces behave this way even in the absence of spin-orbit coupling, because the relevant multipoles are non-relativistic in origin. The result matters because it offers a route to magnetoelectric multiferroic behavior at the surfaces of ordinary antiferromagnets, and ties the surface response to the bulk octupolar order through a bulk–boundary correspondence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic octupole $O_{ijk}=\int \mu_i(\mathbf{r}) r_j r_k\, d^3r$, a rank-3, inversion-symmetric, time-reversal-broken multipole whose ferroic ordering defines d-wave altermagnetism. The argument runs: bulk ferroic octupoles couple to the surface's intrinsic electric field, producing surface magnetoelectric multipoles $M_{ij}=\int r_i\mu_j(\mathbf{r})\,d^3r$, which in turn set the non-zero components of the surface linear magnetoelectric tensor ($\alpha_{xz}$ and $\alpha_{yz}$). The surface linear response is confirmed computationally through layer-resolved dynamical magnetic charges—derivatives of the total magnetic moment with respect to Fe displacements—which are largest at the surface and vanish in bulk-like layers.

What would settle it

Measure the (110) surface of FeF2 with nitrogen-vacancy magnetometry or surface magneto-optical Kerr effect while sweeping an electric field along [110]; the predicted change in the [001] magnetization should be linear in the field and obey $\alpha_{xz}=\alpha_{yz}$. Observing no such linear change, or a different sign pattern between magnetic domains, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that bulk magnetic octupoles—rank-3 magnetic multipoles that break time reversal while preserving inversion—act as the source of surface multiferroicity. When a surface cuts the crystal, its intrinsic electric field acts on these bulk octupoles to generate surface magnetoelectric multipoles, a net magnetization, and an electric dipole moment. For FeF2 the calculations predict the (110) surface to have a linear magnetoelectric response with $\alpha_{xz}=\alpha_{yz}$ and the (1̄10) surface with $\alpha_{xz}=-\alpha_{yz}$; the net magnetization lies along [00̄1] for (110) and [001] for (1̄10), while the electric dipole points along the surface normal. Because the octupolar order exists without spin-orbit interaction in d-wave spin-split antiferromagnets (altermagnets), the surface multiferroicity is predicted to be general to that class of materials.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation that produces the surface magnetoelectric response relies on artificially shifting a single fluorine atom to break the slab's inversion symmetry, and the physical surface response is assumed to be the same as the response to that artificial shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The (110) surface of FeF2 will show a linear magnetoelectric response $\alpha_{xz}=\alpha_{yz}$, the (1̄10) surface $\alpha_{xz}=-\alpha_{yz}$, and both will switch sign with the magnetic domain.
  • All d-wave spin-split antiferromagnets (altermagnets) with ferroic magnetic octupoles are expected to exhibit a nonrelativistic surface linear magnetoelectric effect and surface multiferroicity, without spin-orbit coupling.
  • The sign of the surface magnetization and of the magnetoelectric multipoles flips when the magnetic domain is reversed, while the electric dipole direction stays fixed, giving a simple domain readout.
  • The bulk–boundary correspondence explains which surface orientations show the effect: the orientation of the intrinsic surface electric field relative to the bulk octupole components selects the surface magnetization and magnetoelectric tensor components.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this bulk–boundary correspondence is generic, surfaces and interfaces of altermagnets could become a systematic platform for multiferroic and magnetoelectric engineering without heavy elements, a device-oriented consequence the paper does not discuss.
  • The same mechanism may generate higher-order surface multipoles, such as surface magnetic toroidal moments, with experimental consequences the paper leaves implicit.
  • Because the dynamical magnetic charge calculation breaks inversion by a single artificial fluorine shift, a complementary approach—an asymmetric slab or surface passivation—would test how much of the predicted response is intrinsic rather than an artifact of that shift.
  • The predicted linear magnetoelectric response is lattice-mediated only; an independent electronic contribution could be probed by measuring the response at frequencies above optical phonons.
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 manuscript argues that the (110) and (1-10) surfaces of rutile FeF2, a centrosymmetric collinear compensated antiferromagnet with ferroically ordered bulk magnetic octupoles, are multiferroic: they exhibit a net magnetization, a net electric dipole moment, and a linear magnetoelectric response, all in the absence of spin-orbit coupling. Using DFT+U calculations and a multipole decomposition of the magnetization density, the authors compute layer-resolved surface magnetization, electric dipoles, and magnetoelectric multipoles. They further compute dynamical magnetic charges (DMCs) to claim explicit confirmation of the surface linear ME effect, and they propose a bulk-boundary correspondence linking the surface ME response to the bulk magnetic octupoles.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, this is a valuable extension of surface magnetism to the emerging class of altermagnetic materials, and the identification of a surface linear ME effect without spin-orbit coupling would be notable. The paper's strengths include a clear symmetry-based framework, explicit first-principles calculations with provided computational parameters, layer-resolved predictions that are falsifiable by surface magnetometry, and a bulk-boundary correspondence that goes beyond the specific example. The multipole decomposition is used consistently with the authors' prior work, and the calculations for surface magnetization and electric dipole are straightforward. However, the quantitative confirmation of the linear ME effect via DMCs is not yet convincing, and the multiferroic classification is not fully justified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplement I and Fig. 3] The DMC calculation that is presented as confirmation of the surface linear ME effect is not a controlled perturbation. As stated in Supplement I, the undistorted slab is inversion-symmetric, so the linear DMC is expected to vanish by symmetry, and the authors break inversion by slightly moving one F atom. No details are given for this displacement (amplitude, direction, or which F atom is moved), no convergence with respect to the displacement is reported, and no extrapolation to the zero-displacement limit is provided. Because the bulk has a quadratic ME response, the internal electric field generated by the displaced F atom can induce a contribution proportional to βE^2 that contaminates the linear term; with the reported DMC values on the order of 10^-4 μB/Å, such contamination could easily be comparable in magnitude. The claim in the main text that the linear response 'confirms the emergence of surface ME response' is therefore not supported by the presented data. A control study varying the artificial F displacement, and ideally comparing different choices of the displaced atom, is required.
  2. [Main text, 'Next, we confirm...' paragraph and Fig. 3] The computed DMC is ∂m_z/∂u_Fe,[110], i.e., the magnetic response to a displacement of Fe atoms along the surface normal [110], while the claimed linear ME tensor components are α_xz and α_yz. The mapping between the displacement along [110] and the electric-field components E_x and E_y is not explained. Since the linear ME tensor is not necessarily symmetric, the response to a [110] field need not equal α_xz or α_yz. The paper should state explicitly which DMC component is computed, how it relates to the reported α components, and why displacing only Fe atoms, and not F atoms, captures the relevant lattice-mediated response.
  3. [Bulk-boundary correspondence, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The derivation of the bulk-boundary correspondence assumes that the intrinsic electric field at the (110) surface has the form E=(E_x,E_y,0) with E_x=E_y, and E_x=-E_y for the (1-10) surface. This assumption is never derived from the surface structure or computed from first principles. It is load-bearing because it is used to obtain the relations M^surf_xz = ± M^surf_yz and to connect the surface ME response to the bulk octupole components. Please provide a justification for this form of the intrinsic field, or test it explicitly in the slab calculations.
  4. [Abstract and 'Emergent surface multiferroicity' section] The classification of the surface as multiferroic rests on the coexistence of a net magnetization and a net electric dipole moment at the surface. However, the paper's own definition of an ME multiferroic requires two primary ferroic orders. Neither the surface magnetization nor the surface electric dipole is demonstrated to be switchable, and the electric dipole is a boundary property rather than a bulk ferroelectric order. Please clarify whether the term 'multiferroic' is used in a weaker sense, namely coexistence of magnetic and polar responses, and discuss the implications for the central claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The notation for the octupole components O_zyx and O_zxy appears before the definitions of the local and global octupole tensors; consider defining these components explicitly in the text to avoid confusion.
  2. [Bulk-boundary correspondence section] The statement that the non-relativistic surface linear ME effect is 'general to all d-wave NRSS materials' goes beyond the demonstrated example; please soften this claim or provide additional symmetry arguments that justify the generalization.
  3. [Supplement I] The dependence of the results on the Hubbard U (6 eV) and Hund's exchange J (0.95 eV) parameters is not tested; a brief statement about the robustness of the qualitative conclusions to these choices would be helpful.
  4. [Fig. 3] In Fig. 3(a), the data points are described as 'shown as squares' in the caption, but the symbol is not identified in the main text; this is a minor editorial point.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central predictions rest on independent first-principles calculations, though the paper relies on the authors' prior multipole formalism and surface-magnetization work.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the (110) surface of FeF2 is multiferroic with a linear magnetoelectric response—is supported by independent DFT calculations of surface magnetization, electric dipole moments, and magnetoelectric (ME) multipoles, rather than being derived solely from the bulk octupoles. The bulk-to-surface correspondence is a symmetry argument (Eqs. 1–3) that relates the signs and relative magnitudes of surface ME multipole components to bulk octupole tensor components, but it does not fit any parameter or rename an input as a prediction. The computed ME multipoles (Fig. 2g,h) and the dynamical magnetic charge (DMC) calculations (Fig. 3) provide separate first-principles evidence. The most unusual step is the artificial breaking of inversion symmetry by moving one F atom to access DMCs (Supplement I); this is a methodological concern about whether the numerical reference state represents the physical surface, but it is not a circular reduction because the DMC is a computed response, not an input used to define the predicted response. The self-citations to Refs. [4], [10], and [11] provide the multipole decomposition framework and prior surface-magnetization prediction, but these are tools and a reproduced result, not load-bearing assumptions that force the new conclusion. The new surface ME effect and its nonrelativistic origin are not equivalent to any fitted parameter or to a prior result by construction. Therefore, no specific circular step can be identified under the required standard.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the DFT+U methodology with chosen U and J, the multipole decomposition formalism developed in prior work by the same group, and an assumed form of the surface intrinsic electric field. No new physical entities are introduced. The key assumptions are that the surface field has the symmetry used to connect bulk octupoles to surface ME response, and that the static surface dipole qualifies as a ferroic order.

free parameters (2)
  • Hubbard U on Fe d states = 6 eV
    DFT+U parameter taken from prior work; affects calculated multipole moments and DMC values; not fitted to the surface properties here, but the quantitative results depend on this choice.
  • Hund's exchange J = 0.95 eV
    DFT+U parameter used with U=6 eV; influences magnetic exchange and multipole decomposition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PBE+U with U=6 eV, J=0.95 eV accurately describes the electronic and magnetic ground state of FeF2.
    Used throughout the DFT calculations; no systematic check of U dependence on the surface results is reported.
  • domain assumption The atomic-site multipole decomposition of the DFT density matrix correctly represents the bulk and surface magnetic octupoles and ME multipoles.
    Relies on the formalism of Refs [26,27] and the in-house VASP implementation; no independent benchmark is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The surface intrinsic electric field has the form E=(Ex,Ey,0) with Ex=Ey for the (110) surface and Ex=-Ey for the (1-10) surface.
    Invoked in Eqs. (1)-(3) to link bulk octupoles to surface ME multipoles; the actual surface field is not computed, so this is an assumption about the surface termination.
  • domain assumption The surface linear ME response can be extracted from the lattice-mediated DMC calculation, with the electronic contribution following the same symmetry.
    The authors compute only the lattice contribution via DMCs; the electronic part is assumed to obey the same symmetry-allowed tensor components.
  • ad hoc to paper A static net electric dipole moment at the surface is sufficient to classify the surface as multiferroic.
    The paper equates the computed surface electric dipole with a ferroic polarization, but switchability is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent surface multiferroicity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5P4CU63

@misc{pith2026241112434,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent surface multiferroicity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5P4CU63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12434}
}
abstract

We show that the surface of a centrosymmetric, collinear, compensated antiferromagnet, which hosts bulk ferroically ordered magnetic octupoles, exhibits a linear magnetoelectric effect, a net magnetization, and a net electric dipole moment. Thus, the surface satisfies all the conditions of a multiferroic, in striking contrast to the bulk, which is neither polar nor exhibits any net magnetization or linear magnetoelectric response. Of particular interest is the case of non-relativistic $d$-wave spin split antiferromagnets, in which the bulk magnetic octupoles and consequently the surface multiferroicity exist even without spin-orbit interaction. We illustrate our findings using first-principles calculations, taking FeF$_2$ as an example material. Our work underscores the bulk-boundary correspondence in these unconventional antiferromagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12434 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Band decomposed magnetization density in bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Emergence of multiferroicity for the (110) (top panel) and (1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Computed total Fe magnetic moment ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Crystal structure of bulk FeF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison between the sum of the magnetic response of the Fe ions in entire slab and the sum of the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Layer-resolved second-order DMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

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

  1. Giant topological Hall effect in epitaxial Ni$_{80}$Fe$_{20}$/La$_{0.65}$Sr$_{0.35}$MnO$_3$ thin film heterostructures

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Py/LSMO thin-film stack shows a topological Hall resistivity of about 2.8 µΩcm at room temperature, roughly five times the value in a single permalloy layer.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [110]

    On the other hand, for the [1 ¯10] surface, we have αxz = −αyz

    surface layer, we expect αxz = αyz . On the other hand, for the [1 ¯10] surface, we have αxz = −αyz . Thus, from the computation of the ME multipoles, we predict a change in magnetic moment along the z direction as a linear response to an applied electric field along x or y direction and vice-versa in the (110) and (1 ¯10) surface layers. Next, we confirm...

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Reyren, S

    N. Reyren, S. Thiel, A. D. Caviglia, L. F. Kourkoutis, G. Hammerl, C. Richter, C. W. Schneider, T. Kopp, A.- S. R¨ uetschi, D. Jaccard, M. Gabay, D. A. Muller, J.-M. Triscone, and J. Mannhart, Superconducting interfaces between insulating oxides, Science 317, 1196 (2007)

    work page 2007

  3. [2]

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

    2010

  4. [3]

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

    work page 2010

  5. [4]

    S. F. Weber, A. Urru, S. Bhowal, C. Ederer, and N. A. Spaldin, Surface magnetization in antiferromag- nets: Classification, example materials, and relation to magnetoelectric responses, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021033 (2024)

    2024

  6. [5]

    Nichols, X

    J. Nichols, X. Gao, S. Lee, T. L. Meyer, J. W. Freeland, V. Lauter, D. Yi, J. Liu, D. Haskel, J. R. Petrie, E.-J. Guo, A. Herklotz, D. Lee, T. Z. Ward, G. Eres, M. R. Fitzsimmons, and H. N. Lee, Emerging magnetism and anomalous hall effect in iridate–manganite heterostruc- tures, Nat. Commun 7, 12721 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    N. A. Spaldin and M. Fiebig, The renaissance of magne- toelectric multiferroics, Science 309, 391 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [7]

    N. A. Hill, Why are there so few magnetic ferroelectrics?, J. Phys. Chem. B 104, 6694 (2000)

    2000

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    N. A. Spaldin and R. Ramesh, Advances in magnetoelec- tric multiferroics, Nat. Mater 18, 203 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    N. A. Spaldin, S.-W. Cheong, and R. Ramesh, Multi- ferroics: Past, present, and future, Phys. Today 63, 38 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Urru and N

    A. Urru and N. A. Spaldin, Magnetic octupole tensor decomposition and second-order magnetoelectric effect, Ann. Phys. 447, 168964 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Bhowal and N

    S. Bhowal and N. A. Spaldin, Ferroically ordered mag- netic octupoles in d-wave altermagnets, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011019 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    P. N. Lapa, M.-H. Lee, I. V. Roshchin, K. D. Be- lashchenko, and I. K. Schuller, Detection of uncom- pensated magnetization at the interface of an epitaxial antiferromagnetic insulator, Phys. Rev. B 102, 174406 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    ˇSmejkal, R

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

    2020

  7. [14]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Spin current generation in organic an- tiferromagnets, Nat. Commun. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  8. [15]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Antifer- romagnetism in RuO 2 as d-wave Pomeranchuk instabil- ity, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum- dependent spin splitting by collinear antiferromagnetic ordering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low- z antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Predic- tion of low-z collinear and noncollinear antiferromagnetic compounds having momentum-dependent spin splitting even without spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Materials 5, 014409 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  13. [20]

    Yuan and A

    L.-D. Yuan and A. Zunger, Degeneracy removal of spin bands in antiferromagnets with non-interconvertible spin motif pair, arXiv 2211.07803 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  14. [21]

    L.-D. Yuan, X. Zhang, C. Mera, and A. Zunger, Uncov- ering hidden spin polarization of energy bands in antifer- romagnets, arXiv2211.09921 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  16. [23]

    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. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  17. [24]

    Strempfer, U

    J. Strempfer, U. R¨ utt, S. P. Bayrakci, T. Br¨ uckel, and W. Jauch, Magnetic properties of transition metal fluo- rides MF 2 (M = Mn, Fe, Co, Ni) via high-energy photon diffraction, Phys. Rev. B 69, 014417 (2004)

    2004

  18. [25]

    [26, 27]

    The local multipole moments are computed within DFT using methods discussed in Refs. [26, 27]. We used the implementations of this method within an in-house ex- tended version of V ASP

  19. [26]

    N. A. Spaldin, M. Fechner, E. Bousquet, A. Balatsky, and L. Nordstr¨ om, Monopole-based formalism for the diago- nal magnetoelectric response, Phys. Rev. B 88, 094429 (2013). 6

    2013

  20. [27]

    Bultmark, F

    F. Bultmark, F. Cricchio, O. Gr ˚ an¨ as, and L. Nordstr¨ om, Multipole decomposition of LDA+U energy and its appli- cation to actinide compounds, Phys. Rev. B 80, 035121 (2009)

    2009

  21. [28]

    Supplemental materials for emergent surface multifer- roicity, describing the computational details and addi- tional results for dynamical magnetic charge

  22. [29]

    Munoz, A

    F. Munoz, A. Romero, J. Mej ´ ıa-L´ opez, I. V. Roshchin, R. Gonz´ alez, and M. Kiwi, Surface states of fef2 (110) and its uncompensated magnetization, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 393, 226 (2015)

    2015

  23. [30]

    Ye and D

    M. Ye and D. Vanderbilt, Dynamical magnetic charges and linear magnetoelectricity, Phys. Rev. B 89, 064301 (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    I. E. Chupis, Surface linear magnetoelectric effect, Fer- roelectrics 161, 287 (1994)

    1994

  25. [32]

    C.-G. Duan, J. P. Velev, R. F. Sabirianov, Z. Zhu, J. Chu, S. S. Jaswal, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Surface magnetoelectric effect in ferromagnetic metal films, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 137201 (2008)

    2008

  26. [33]

    E. A. Eliseev, A. N. Morozovska, M. D. Glinchuk, B. Y. Zaulychny, V. V. Skorokhod, and R. Blinc, Surface- induced piezomagnetic, piezoelectric, and linear mag- netoelectric effects in nanosystems, Phys. Rev. B 82, 085408 (2010)

    2010

  27. [34]

    Appel, B

    P. Appel, B. J. Shields, T. Kosub, N. Hedrich, R. H¨ ubner, J. Faßbender, D. Makarov, and P. Maletinsky, Nanomag- netism of magnetoelectric granular thin-film antiferro- magnets, Nano Letters 19, 1682 (2019), pMID: 30702895

    2019

  28. [35]

    Z. Q. Qiu and S. D. Bader, Surface magneto-optic Kerr effect, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 71, 1243 (2000)

    2000

  29. [36]

    Wiesendanger, Spin mapping at the nanoscale and atomic scale, Rev

    R. Wiesendanger, Spin mapping at the nanoscale and atomic scale, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1495 (2009)

    2009

  30. [37]

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

    1994

  31. [38]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopoten- tials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  32. [39]

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

    1996

  33. [40]

    Cricchio, Multipoles in Correlated Electron Materials, Ph.D

    F. Cricchio, Multipoles in Correlated Electron Materials, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University (2010). Supplementary Material for Emergent surface multiferroicity I. COMPUT A TIONAL DET AILS All calculations presented in this manuscript were per- formed using density functional th...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.