Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Bulk photovoltaic effects in altermagnets

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A d-wave altermagnet with Rashba spin-orbit coupling can generate an injection photocurrent whose magnitude is nearly independent of photon frequency between the band gap and a critical energy, meaning a broad slice of sunlight would…

desk verdict Clean analytic calculation, but the 'frequency-independent injection current' claim doesn't survive the paper's own Eq. (17) over the stated window. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16477 v2 pith:HINSLUDH submitted 2024-12-21 cond-mat.mes-hall

Motohiko Ezawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords bulkphotovoltaiceffectaltermagnetinjectioncurrentshiftRashbainteractiontwo-bandmodelphotocurrentsolarcell
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 predicts that in a two-dimensional d-wave altermagnet with Rashba interaction, linearly polarized light produces a dc injection current whose magnitude is almost constant for every photon energy in the window $\varepsilon_{\text{gap}} < \hbar\omega < \hbar\omega_{\text{c}}$. The same two-band model also yields a shift current, but that contribution decays as $1/\omega$. Because sunlight is a continuous broad spectrum, a flat injection response means all photons in that window are harvested with equal efficiency, unlike a p-n junction where only photons near the band gap work. The author concludes that the injection channel is the more useful one for solar-cell technology.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-band model of a d-wave altermagnet with Rashba coupling, Eq. (9), in which the d-wave altermagnet term $J(k_x^2-k_y^2)\mathbf n\cdot\boldsymbol\sigma$ gives momentum-dependent spin splitting without net magnetization, the Rashba term $\lambda(k_x\sigma_y-k_y\sigma_x)$ breaks inversion symmetry, and $B\sigma_z$ opens the band gap $\varepsilon_{\text{gap}}=2|B|$. The argument runs through the standard injection-current formula, Eq. (7), whose integrand $\Delta^x_{+-}|r^x_{-+}|^2$ is integrated on the resonant ellipse $k_\omega(\phi)$ fixed by $2\varepsilon(k_\omega,\phi)=\hbar\omega$. Expanding $k_\omega(\phi)$ and the matrix elements to first order in $J/(W\lambda)$ produces Eq. (17), where all $\omega$ dependence enters only through powers of $B/\hbar\omega$; this cancellation is what makes the spectrum flat. The shift-current formula, Eq. (8), is evaluated the same way and retains an explicit $1/\omega$ factor.

What would settle it

Measure the injection photocurrent spectrum of a Rashba-coupled d-wave altermagnet across the window $\varepsilon_{\text{gap}}<\hbar\omega<\hbar\omega_{\text{c}}$; if $\sigma^{x;xx}_{\text{inject}}$ varies by more than the small $O((B/\hbar\omega)^2)$ correction predicted by Eq. (17), the flat-spectrum claim is wrong. A second check is circular polarization: the paper predicts no shift current from circularly polarized light, so detecting a circularly induced shift current would contradict Eq. (24).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with the two-band Hamiltonian $H(\mathbf{k}) = \frac{\hbar^2(k_x^2+k_y^2)}{2M}I_2 + \lambda(k_x\sigma_y-k_y\sigma_x) + J(k_x^2-k_y^2)\,\mathbf n\cdot\boldsymbol\sigma + B\sigma_z$ and an in-plane Néel vector $\mathbf n=(0,1,0)$, the paper derives the injection conductivity to first order in $J/(W\lambda)$ as $\sigma^{x;xx}_{\text{inject}} = -\frac{\tau e^3}{8\hbar^2}\frac{J}{W\lambda}\left[1 + 8\left(\frac{B}{\hbar\omega}\right)^2 - 48\left(\frac{B}{\hbar\omega}\right)^4\right]$. For $B\ll\hbar\omega$ this approaches the frequency-independent value $-\tau e^3 J/(8\hbar^2 W\lambda)$, which is the paper's main result: the injection current is almost independent of $\omega$ across the allowed window. The shift current, by contrast, is $\sigma^{x;xy}_{\text{shift}} = \frac{1}{\omega}\frac{e^3}{4\hbar^2}\frac{J}{W\lambda}\frac{B}{\hbar\omega}\left[1+4(B/\hbar\omega)^2\right]$, so it falls as $1/\omega$ and vanishes at $B=0$. The injection current survives in the gapless limit and only needs a small $B$ to open the gap and make the Berry connection well defined.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a two-band d-wave altermagnet with Rashba coupling and a fixed in-plane Néel vector faithfully represents real materials; the paper itself states that complex real band structures and electron-hole or many-body interactions could modify the injection spectrum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A Rashba-coupled d-wave altermagnet would act as a broadband photovoltaic absorber: every photon in $\varepsilon_{\text{gap}}<\hbar\omega<\hbar\omega_{\text{c}}$ contributes nearly the same injection current, so the total dc output grows with the width of that window.
  • The injection current is proportional to the relaxation time $\tau$, so cleaner samples give stronger photocurrents, while the shift current is $\tau$-independent and cannot be enhanced this way.
  • The shift current is proportional to $B$, so it requires a sizable symmetry-breaking field; the injection current does not, and remains finite as $B\to0$.
  • The critical frequency $\hbar\omega_{\text{c}}$ sets an upper bound set by the band structure; above it no optical transition occurs, and below the gap nothing flows.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the flatness of the injection spectrum is a structural consequence of the velocity-imbalance matrix element on the resonant ellipse, so similar flat responses may appear in other compensated magnets with anisotropic spin splitting, not only d-wave altermagnets; testing that requires computing Eq. (7) for g-wave or i-wave models.
  • A concrete testable extension is to measure the polarization dependence of $\sigma^{x;yy}_{\text{inject}}$ and compare the ratio $\sigma^{x;xx}/\sigma^{x;yy}$ with Eqs. (17) and (19); that ratio carries the $B/\hbar\omega$ dependence and would expose deviations from the two-band model.
  • The calculation is first order in $J/(W\lambda)$; extending the numerics to large $J$ near $\hbar\omega_{\text{c}}$, where perturbation theory has not been checked, would show whether the flat window survives the breakdown of the expansion.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the dc bulk photovoltaic response of a two-dimensional d-wave altermagnet with Rashba spin-orbit coupling. Starting from a two-band model, Eq. (9), the author derives first-order-in-J expressions for the injection conductivity, Eqs. (17), (19), (20), and for the shift conductivity, Eq. (23), and verifies them against numerical integration. The central claim is that the injection current under linearly polarized light is almost frequency-independent for photon energies in the window ε_gap < ℏω < ℏω_c, which is presented as a practical advantage for broadband solar energy harvesting.

Significance. If the claim as stated were correct, the paper would offer a simple analytical demonstration of a nearly flat injection-current spectrum in an experimentally relevant material class, which would be a genuinely useful contribution to the bulk photovoltaic effect literature. The paper is transparent about its model and uses standard, established formulas for injection and shift currents; the numerical checks in Figs. 4 and 5 are a strength. The main problem is that the headline claim is stronger than the paper's own result, Eq. (17), supports, and several secondary formulas contain apparent inconsistencies. The limitations of the two-band model are acknowledged in the Discussion, but the internal frequency-dependence issue is independent of those material-realistic caveats.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Eq. (17)] The central claim that σ^{x;xx}_inject is 'almost constant' over the entire window ε_gap < ℏω < ℏω_c is contradicted by the paper's own first-order result. In Eq. (17), write x = B/ℏω; the bracket is f(x) = 1 + 8x² − 48x⁴. At the lower edge ℏω = ε_gap = 2B, x = 1/2 and f = 0, so the injection conductivity vanishes. At x = 1/√24 ≈ 0.204, f = 5/4, so the conductivity is 25% above the asymptotic value of Eq. (18). Thus within the stated frequency window the conductivity varies from 0 to 1.25 times the constant value quoted in Eq. (18). The flat behavior holds only for ℏω ≫ ε_gap. The abstract, the caption of Fig. 1(c), and the sentence after Eq. (18) ('The injection current is almost independent of the applied frequency ω.') should be revised to state this asymptotic condition explicitly, and the solar-cell efficiency argument should be adjusted accordingly.
  2. [Discussion and Eqs. (15)–(16)] The paper states that the perturbation expansion is made in the parameter J/(Wλ) and justifies it by J/(Wλ) ∼ a/W ≪ 1, but the actual expansion in Eqs. (15) and (16) is controlled by the dimensionless combination J k_ω/λ (equivalently, the relative correction to k_ω is of order J k_ω/λ). Since k_ω is fixed by the photon energy and is not related to the sample width W, the estimate a/W ≪ 1 does not by itself establish smallness of the expansion parameter at the relevant frequencies. The numerical agreement at the chosen parameter values is reassuring, but a quantitative validity criterion, such as a bound on J k_c/λ over the integration contour, is needed to support the perturbative formulas.
  3. [Eqs. (21)–(23) and Fig. 1(b)] There are inconsistencies in the secondary results. First, combining Eqs. (17) and (19) with Eq. (6) for σ^{x;⟲}_inject gives, up to the same order, a term proportional to 2 + 6(B/ℏω)² − 44(B/ℏω)⁴, not the expression (2 + 2B) + o(B³) in Eq. (21); the same issue affects Eq. (22). The notation in these equations is also dimensionally problematic, since a dimensionless factor 2 is added to an energy B. Second, Eq. (23) gives σ^{x;xy}_shift ∝ (B/ℏω²)[1 + 4(B/ℏω)²] for fixed B, which decays as 1/ω² at large ω, whereas the text and the caption of Fig. 1(b) state that the shift current decays as 1/ω. The prefactor or the stated frequency dependence should be corrected, and the comparison between injection and shift currents should be revised accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction] There are several typographical errors, including 'intensive researche' in the first line and 'Similary' before Eq. (19).
  2. [Fig. 5] The panels in Fig. 5 have vertical axes labeled only as 'σ' with a prefactor; please add explicit units or state clearly that the plotted quantity is normalized by the indicated prefactor.
  3. [El. (21)–(22)] The notation o(B³) is used without defining the variable with respect to which the asymptotic expansion is taken; clarify whether B is the dimensionless ratio B/ℏω.
  4. [General] The paper does not show the intermediate algebra leading from Eqs. (11)–(16) to Eqs. (17), (19), (20), and (23). The numerical checks are useful, but providing the derivation in an appendix or supplementary material would strengthen the manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the photocurrent formulas are standard, the model is applied analytically, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain starts from the standard length-gauge formulas (7) and (8) for injection and shift currents, cited to independent literature (Aversa–Sipe, Sipe–Shkrebtii, Ahn–Guo–Nagaosa, etc.), and then evaluates them analytically on the model Hamiltonian (9). The central result, Eq. (17), is obtained as an explicit first-order perturbative expansion in J/(Wλ) with numerical confirmation shown in Figs. 4 and 5; no model parameter is fitted to produce the frequency dependence, and the 'prediction' is a derived expression, not an input. Self-citations (refs. 39, 40, 51) appear only to motivate the altermagnet-plus-Rashba setup and are not load-bearing for the injection-current formula; the perturbation expansion and the transport formulas stand independently. The claim that the injection current is 'almost constant' for ε_gap < ℏω < ℏωc is internally overstated relative to Eq. (17), which varies from zero at the lower edge to an asymptotic constant, with the flat form Eq. (18) explicitly derived only for ℏω ≫ 2B. That is an internal-consistency or overclaim issue, not a circularity in which the conclusion is equivalent by construction to its inputs. No parameter is fitted, no uniqueness theorem is borrowed from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. The derivation is self-contained once the standard formulas are granted, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result uses no fitted data. Model parameters (J, λ, M, W) are inputs from typical material estimates. The B term is introduced to open a gap and is assumed small. The general photocurrent formulas from prior literature are used as axioms. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • B = 0.1ε0 in numerical figures; assumed small
    Zeeman or magnetization term that opens the gap. Its value is chosen small to regularize the Berry connection; the paper states B can be infinitesimally small, e.g., geomagnetism may suffice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The injection and shift current formulas from Aversa-Sipe and Sipe-Shkrebtii (Eqs. 7 and 8) correctly describe the second-order optical response.
    Used as the starting point for all calculations; no derivation is provided within this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The perturbation expansion in J/(Wλ) is valid to first order, with J/(Wλ) ~ a/W << 1.
    The smallness is argued from typical values (λ~0.33 eV·Å at Au(111), J~30 meV·a², W>100a), but the truncation is an approximation introduced to obtain closed-form results.
  • domain assumption The chemical potential is zero (half-filling) at zero temperature, so the valence band is fully occupied and the conduction band empty.
    This sets f_- - f_+ = 1 for optical transitions; it is an idealization, not a general condition.
  • domain assumption The Néel vector is fixed to n = (0,1,0); other in-plane orientations are not analyzed.
    The calculation only holds for this orientation, though the authors suggest it is representative of the in-plane case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bulk photovoltaic effects in altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HINSLUDH

@misc{pith2026241216477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bulk photovoltaic effects in altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HINSLUDH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16477}
}
abstract

The bulk photovoltaic effect is a photocurrent generation from alternating electric field, which is a promising candidate for future efficient solar cell technology. It is the second-order optical current, which is the injection current or the shift current. We focus on the direct current generation. By employing a simple two-band model of the $d$-wave altermagnet coupled with the Rashba interaction, we show that the linearly polarized light can generate the injection and shift currents when the N\'{e}el vector points to an in-plane direction. The magnitude of the injection current is almost constant over a wide range of the frequency $\omega $ of the applied light provided it is smaller than a certain critical frequency $\omega _{\text{c}}$ and larger than the bulk gap energy $\varepsilon _{\text{gap}}$, $\varepsilon _{\text{gap}}<\hbar \omega <\hbar \omega _{\text{c}}$. Hence, the use of the injection current is quite efficient for solar cell technology because any photon whose energy is within this range can be equally utilized.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of photovoltaic current as a function of the en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a1) Energy spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a1), (a2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a1), (a2) Current as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (b) k (ϕ) at ℏω = 0 .4ε0 in the case of J = 0 .1ε0/k2

    work page

  2. [2]

    We have set B = 0.1ε0

    The red ellipse is the Fermi surface of the original model, while the blue ellipse is that of the perturbation theory given in Eq.(16). We have set B = 0.1ε0. The conductivities are given by[9, 10] σc;↕ (Φ) = Reσc;xx cos2 Φ + Reσc;yy sin2 Φ +2Reσc;xy cos Φ sin Φ, σc;⟲ = Reσc;xx + Reσc;yy + 2Reσc;xy, σc;⟳ = Reσc;xx + Reσc;yy − 2Imσc;xy. (6) The injection c...

    work page

  3. [3]

    V . I. Belinicher and B. I. Sturman, The photogalvanic effect in media lacking a center of symmetry, Sov. Phys. Usp. 23, 199 (1980)

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    Kraut and R

    W. Kraut and R. von Baltz, Anomalous bulk photo-voltaic ef- fect in ferroelectrics: A quadratic response theory, Phys. Rev. B 19, 1548 (1979)

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    Ralph von Baltz and Wolfgang Kraut, Theory of the bulk pho- tovoltaic effect in pure crystals, Phys. Rev. B 23, 5590 (1981)

    work page 1981

  6. [6]

    Aversa and J

    C. Aversa and J. E. Sipe, Nonlinear Optical Susceptibilities of Semiconductors: Results with a Length-Gauge Analysis, Phys. Rev. B 52, 14636 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Second-order optical response in semiconductors, Phys. Rev. B 61, 5337 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    V . M. Fridkin, Bulk photovoltaic effect in noncentrosymmetric crystals, Crystallogr. Rep. 46, 654 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Grushin, Takahiro Morimoto, Joel E

    Fernando de Juan, Adolfo G. Grushin, Takahiro Morimoto, Joel E. Moore, Quantized circular photogalvanic effect in Weyl semimetals, Nature Communications 8, 15995 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    de Juan, Y

    F. de Juan, Y . Zhang, T. Morimoto, Y . Sun, J. E. Moore, and A.G. Grushin, Difference Frequency Generation in Topological Semimetals, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 012017 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Junyeong Ahn, Guang-Yu Guo, and Naoto Nagaosa, Low- Frequency Divergence and Quantum Geometry of the Bulk Photovoltaic Effect in Topological Semimetals, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041041 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Yiyang Jiang, Tobias Holder, and Binghai Yan, Reveal- ing Quantum Geometry in Nonlinear Quantum Materials, arXiv:2503.04943

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Hikaru Watanabe and Youichi Yanase, Chiral Photocurrent in Parity-Violating Magnet and Enhanced Response in Topologi- cal Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 011001 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Shun Okumura, Takahiro Morimoto, Yasuyuki Kato, and Yuk- itoshi Motome, Quadratic optical responses in a chiral magnet, Phys. Rev. B 104, L180407 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Dai and A

    Z. Dai and A. M. Rappe, Recent progress in the theory of bulk photovoltaic effect, Chemical Physics Reviews 4, 011303 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y . Guo, N. Nagaosa, A. Vishwanath, Riemannian geometry of resonant optical responses, Nature Physics 18, 290 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    S. M. Young and A. M. Rappe, First Principles Calculation of the Shift Current Photovoltaic Effect in Ferroelectrics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 116601 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    S. M. Young, F. Zheng, and A. M. Rappe, First-Principles Cal- culation of the Bulk Photovoltaic Effect in Bismuth Ferrite, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 236601 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Morimoto and N

    T. Morimoto and N. Nagaosa, Topological nature of nonlinear optical effects in solids, Science Advances 2, e1501524 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Kun Woo Kim, Takahiro Morimoto, and Naoto Nagaosa, Shift charge and spin photocurrents in Dirac surface states of topo- logical insulator, Phys. Rev. B, 95, 035134 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Barik and J

    T. Barik and J. D. Sau, Nonequilibrium nature of nonlinear opti- cal response: Application to the bulk photovoltaic effect, Phys. Rev. B 101, 045201 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Hiroki Yoshida and Shuichi Murakami, Diverging shift cur- rent responses in the gapless limit of two-dimensional systems, arXiv:2407.18565

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Hua Wang and Xiaofeng Qian, Electrically and magnetically switchable nonlinear photocurrent in PT-symmetric magnetic topological quantum materials, npj Computational Materials 6, 199 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    7, 13259 (2016)

    Lukas Braun, Gregor Mussler, Andrzej Hruban, Marcin Kon- czykowski, Thomas Schumann, Martin Wolf, Markus Munzen- berg, Luca Perfetti amd Tobias Kampfrath Ultrafast photocur- rents at the surface of the three-dimensional topological insula- tor Bi 2 Se3, Nature Commun. 7, 13259 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Nakamura, S

    M. Nakamura, S. Horiuchi, F. Kagawa, N. Ogawa, T. Kurumaji, Y . Tokura and M. Kawasaki, Shift current photovoltaic effect in a ferroelectric charge-transfer complex, Nature Communica- tions 8, 281 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Sotome, M

    M. Sotome, M. Nakamura, J. Fujioka, M. Ogino, Y . Kaneko, T. Morimoto, Y . Zhang, M. Kawasaki, N. Nagaosa, Y . Tokura, N. Ogawa, Spectral dynamics of shift current in ferroelectric semiconductor SbSI, PNAS 116, 1929 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Osterhoudt, Laura K

    Gavin B. Osterhoudt, Laura K. Diebel, Mason J. Gray, Xu Yang, John Stanco, Xiangwei Huang, Bing Shen, Ni Ni, Philip 6 J. W. Moll, Ying Ran and Kenneth S. Burch, Colossal mid- infrared bulk photovoltaic effect in a type-I Weyl semimetal Nature Materials 18, 471 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Hiroki Hatada, Masao Nakamura, Masato Sotome, Yoshio Kaneko, Naoki Ogawa, Takahiro Morimoto, Yoshinori Tokura, Masashi Kawasaki, Defect tolerant zero-bias topological pho- tocurrent in a ferroelectric semiconductor, PNAS 117, 20411 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Libor Šmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, Emerg- ing Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Smejkal, J

    L. Smejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Non- relativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X, 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Smejkal, A

    L. Smejkal, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, S. Nakatsuji and T. Jungwirth, Anomalous Hall antiferromagnets, Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 482 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Makoto Naka, Satoru Hayami, Hiroaki Kusunose, Yuki Yanagi, Yukitoshi Motome and Hitoshi Seo, Spin current generation in organic antiferromagnets, Nat. Com. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  25. [34]

    Rafael Gonzalez-Hernandez, Libor Šmejkal, Karel Vborn, Yuta Yahagi, Jairo Sinova, Tomš Jungwirth, and Jakub Železn, Effi- cient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett., 126:127701, (2021)

    2021

  26. [35]

    M Naka, Y Motome, and H Seo, Perovskite as a spin current generator. Phys. Rev. B, 103, 125114, (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Schreiber, Rakshit Jain, Ding-Fu Shao, Hari P

    Arnab Bose, Nathaniel J. Schreiber, Rakshit Jain, Ding-Fu Shao, Hari P. Nair, Jiaxin Sun, Xiyue S. Zhang, David A. Muller, Evgeny Y . Tsymbal, Darrell G. Schlom and Daniel C. Ralph, Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferro- magnet ruthenium dioxide, Nature Elec...

    2022

  28. [37]

    Makoto Naka, Yukitoshi Motome and Hitoshi Seo, Altermag- netic Perovskites, npj Spintronics volume 3, 1 (2025)

    2025

  29. [38]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y . Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum- Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear Antiferromagnetic Or- dering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  30. [39]

    Rina Takagi, Ryosuke Hirakida, Yuki Settai, Rikuto Oiwa, Hirotaka Takagi, Aki Kitaori, Kensei Yamauchi, Hiroki In- oue, Jun-ichi Yamaura, Daisuke Nishio-Hamane, Shinichi Itoh, Seno Aji, Hiraku Saito, Taro Nakajima, Takuya Nomoto, Ry- otaro Arita and Shinichiro Seki, Spontaneou...

    2024

  31. [40]

    Yuan Fang, Jennifer Cano, and Sayed Ali Akbar Ghorashi, Quantum Geometry Induced Nonlinear Transport in Altermag- nets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 106701 (2024)

    2024

  32. [41]

    Ezawa, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivity induced by quantum geometry in altermagnets and measurement of the in-plane Neel vector, Phys

    M. Ezawa, Intrinsic nonlinear conductivity induced by quantum geometry in altermagnets and measurement of the in-plane Neel vector, Phys. Rev. B 110, L241405 (2024)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Ezawa, Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in g-wave and i-wave altermagnets and perfect spin- current diode based on f-wave magnets, arXiv:2411.16036

    M. Ezawa, Third-order and fifth-order nonlinear spin-current generation in g-wave and i-wave altermagnets and perfect spin- current diode based on f-wave magnets, arXiv:2411.16036

    arXiv

  34. [43]

    Holder, D

    T. Holder, D. Kaplan, and B. Yan, Consequences of Time- Reversal-Symmetry Breaking in the Light-Matter Interaction: Berry Curvature, Quantum Metric, and Diabatic Motion, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 033100 (2020)

    2020

  35. [44]

    Semenov, X

    Y .G. Semenov, X. Li, and K. W. Kim, Tunable Photogalvanic Effect on Topological Insulator Surfaces via Proximity Interac- tions, Phys. Rev. B 86, 201401(R) (2012)

    2012

  36. [45]

    Ogawa, R

    N. Ogawa, R. Yoshimi, K. Yasuda, A. Tsukazaki, M. Kawasaki, and Y . Tokura, Zero-Bias Photocurrent in Ferromagnetic Topo- logical Insulator, Nat. Commun. 7, 12246 (2016)

    2016

  37. [46]

    C.-K. Chan, N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and P. A. Lee, Photocur- rents in Weyl Semimetals, Phys. Rev. B 95, 041104(R) (2017)

    2017

  38. [47]

    Zhang, T

    Y . Zhang, T. Holder, H. Ishizuka, F. de Juan, N. Nagaosa, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Switchable Magnetic Bulk Photovoltaic Ef- fect in the Two-Dimensional Magnet CrI3 , Nat. Commun. 10, 3783 (2019)

    2019

  39. [48]

    Z. Sun, Y . Yi, T. Song, G. Clark, B. Huang, Y . Shan, S. Wu, D. Huang, C. Gao, Z. Chen et al., Giant Nonreciprocal Second- Harmonic Generation from Antiferromagnetic Bilayer CrI 3 , Nature (London) 572, 497 (2019)

    2019

  40. [49]

    Junta Iguchi, Hikaru Watanabe, Yuta Murakami, Takuya Nomoto, Ryotaro Arita, Bulk photovoltaic effect in antiferro- magnet: Role of collective spin dynamics, Phys. Rev. B 109, 064407 (2024)

    2024

  41. [50]

    Yu-Xuan Li and Cheng-Cheng Liu, Majorana corner modes and tunable patterns in an altermagnet heterostructure, Phys. Rev. B 108, 205410 (2023)

    2023

  42. [51]

    Hughes, Jennifer Cano, Altermagnetic Routes to Majorana Modes in Zero Net Magne- tization, Phys

    Sayed Ali Akbar Ghorashi, Taylor L. Hughes, Jennifer Cano, Altermagnetic Routes to Majorana Modes in Zero Net Magne- tization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    Di Zhu, Zheng-Yang Zhuang, Zhigang Wu, and Zhongbo Yan, Topological superconductivity in two-dimensional altermag- netic metals, Phys. Rev. B 108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  44. [53]

    M. Ezawa. Detecting the Neel vector of altermagnets in het- erostructures with a topological insulator and a crystalline valley-edge insulator, Physical Review B 109 (24), 245306 (2024)

    2024

  45. [54]

    Yichen Liu, Junxi Yu, and Cheng-Cheng Liu, Twisted Magnetic Van der Waals Bilayers: An Ideal Platform for Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206702 (2024)

    2024

  46. [55]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kunes, Antiferromag- netism in RuO2 as d-wave Pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  47. [56]

    Gonzalez-Hernandez, T.Jungwirth, and J

    L.Smejkal, R. Gonzalez-Hernandez, T.Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and sponta- neous Hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets. Science Ad- vances 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  48. [57]

    11, 101103 (2023)

    Teresa Tschirner, Philipp Keler, Ruben Dario Gonzalez Be- tancourt, Tommy Kotte, Dominik Kriegner, Bernd Buechner, Joseph Dufouleur, Martin Kamp, Vedran Jovic, Libor Smejkal, Jairo Sinova, Ralph Claessen, Tomas Jungwirth, Simon Moser, Helena Reichlova, Louis Veyrat, Saturation...

    2023

  49. [58]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Minar, A. Akashdeep, S.W. D’Souza, D. Vasi- lyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q.L. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Rossnagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtmueller, M. Klaeui, G. Schoenhense, G. Jakob, T. Jungwirth, L. Smejkal, J. S...

    2024

  50. [59]

    Zihan Lin, Dong Chen, Wenlong Lu, Xin Liang, Shiyu Feng, Kohei Yamagami, Jacek Osiecki, Mats Leandersson, Balasubramanian Thiagarajan, Junwei Liu, Claudia Felser, Junzhang Ma, Observation of Giant Spin Splitting and d- wave Spin Texture in Room Temperature Altermagnet RuO 2, a...

    arXiv

  51. [60]

    Miina Leivisk Javier Rial, Anton Badura, Rafael Lopes Seeger, Ismaa Kounta, Sebastian Beckert, Dominik Kriegner, Isabelle Joumard, Eva Schmoranzerov Jairo Sinova, Olena Gomonay, Andy Thomas, Sebastian T. B. Goennenwein, Helena Reichlov Libor Smejkal, Lisa Michez, Tom Jungwirth...

    2024

  52. [61]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M.D. Johannes, Rafael Gonzalez- Herndez, Libor Šmejkal, Prediction of unconventional mag- netism in doped FeSb 2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  53. [62]

    LaShell, B.A

    S. LaShell, B.A. McDougall, and E. Jensen, Spin Splitting of an Au(111) Surface State Band Observed with Angle Resolved Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3419 (1996)

    1996

  54. [63]

    Yu-Xuan Li, Yichen Liu, and Cheng-Cheng Li, Creation and Manipulation of Higher-Order Topological States by Altermag- nets, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201109 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.