A spin-bond theory unifying non-relativistic spin splitting and emergent spin-orbit textures

R. M. Otxoa; S. Allende

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 48 references

A spin-bond theory unifying non-relativistic spin splitting and emergent spin-orbit textures

T0 review · 1 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 One spin-bond algebra unifies all spin-split magnet classes

desk verdict Useful spin-bond classification, but the even-transverse spin fingerprint is not unique to non-commuting bonds as claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09644 v1 pith:LUYXI5CE submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

S. Allende , R. M. Otxoa This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords spin-bondtheorypolardecompositionnon-relativisticspinsplittingaltermagnetismp-wavemagnetismemergentspin-orbitcouplingspin-ARPEScompensatedmagnets

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

Non-relativistic spin splitting in compensated magnets—altermagnets, $p$-wave magnets, and exchange-generated spin-orbit-like textures—has been treated as separate phenomena. This paper argues that all of them are facets of one microscopic object: the spin-dependent hopping bond, whose polar decomposition $T_\delta=U_\delta P_\delta$ splits it into a unitary spin phase and a Hermitian spin amplitude. That split fixes the momentum parity of the spin texture: unitary bonds give odd-in-momentum $p$-wave and emergent spin-orbit textures, Hermitian bonds give even-in-momentum $\Gamma$-split and altermagnetic textures. When the two factors do not commute, a third, mixed sector appears with a non-coplanar texture and an even-in-momentum transverse spin polarization that none of the pure classes can produce. This matters because it supplies a single algebraic classification with a direct experimental fingerprint, and because the synthetic spin-orbit coupling it predicts is geometrically tunable, pointing toward field-free spin-qubit control.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spin-bond operator $T_\delta$, the $2\times2$ spin matrix an electron experiences hopping along bond $\delta$. Its polar decomposition $T_\delta=t_\delta e^{i\phi_\delta}U_\delta P_\delta$ separates the unitary spin phase $U_\delta=e^{i\alpha_\delta\hat{u}_\delta\cdot\sigma}$ from the Hermitian spin amplitude $P_\delta=e^{\beta_\delta\hat{p}_\delta\cdot\sigma}$. With reciprocal bonds $T_{-\delta}=T_\delta^\dagger$, the Bloch hopping matrix $S(k)$ is Hermitian and the Hamiltonian splits into two independent two-level blocks labelled by sublattice parity $s=\pm1$; each block has effective field $\Delta\hat{z}-s h(k)$, whose competition with exchange dictates the spin direction. The non-commutator $[U_\delta,P_\delta]\sim-2\alpha_\delta\beta_\delta(\hat{u}_\delta\times\hat{p}_\delta)\cdot\sigma$ is the seed of the mixed sector, and the invariant $\chi_{\rm mix,\delta}=|a_\delta\times b_\delta|\simeq\alpha_\delta\beta_\delta|\hat{u}_\delta\times\hat{p}_\delta|$ measures its local strength. This machinery converts a symmetry classification into a calculation of bands and spin textures from a single bond-level input.

What would settle it

Perform spin-ARPES with the detection axis along the predicted emergent direction $\hat{u}\times\hat{p}$ on a compensated magnet whose bond construction has non-collinear unitary and Hermitian axes; observing an identically zero even-in-momentum transverse polarization while even and odd longitudinal components are present would contradict the paper's criterion $\langle s_\perp\rangle_{\rm even}(k)\neq0\Leftrightarrow[U_\delta,P_\delta]\neq0$. A first-principles band calculation for a specific candidate material with non-commuting bonds could settle the same point numerically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spin-dependent bond operator $T_\delta$, the $2\times2$ spin matrix an electron experiences when hopping along bond $\delta$, can be written as $T_\delta=U_\delta P_\delta$, with $U_\delta$ unitary (spin phase) and $P_\delta$ positive Hermitian (spin amplitude). On reciprocal bipartite lattices with uniform collinear exchange, the Bloch Hamiltonian factorizes exactly into sublattice-parity sectors $s=\pm1$, $H_s(k)=-s h_0(k)\sigma_0+[\Delta\hat{z}-s h(k)]\cdot\sigma$, so the spin texture is set by the competition between uniform exchange $\Delta\hat{z}$ and the momentum-dependent bond field $h(k)$. Parity is locked to the polar character: unitary links produce sine form factors, Hermitian links cosine form factors. If $[U_\delta,P_\delta]\neq0$, the bond cannot be diagonalized on one spin axis and the texture becomes non-coplanar, with the minimal-model fingerprint $\langle s_\perp\rangle_{\rm even}(k)\neq0$ along $\hat{u}_\delta\times\hat{p}_\delta$, a combination absent in pure altermagnets, pure $p$-wave magnets, and Rashba/Dresselhaus textures. The paper presents this as a unification of known non-relativistic spin-split phases and the identification of a previously unrecognized mixed sector.

Load-bearing premise

The exact results rest on three structural assumptions: the hopping bond is reciprocal ($T_{-\delta}=T_\delta^\dagger$), the lattice is bipartite with only inter-sublattice hopping, and the exchange is uniform and collinear; if any of these fail, the factorization, the closed-form bands, and the clean criterion $\langle s_\perp\rangle_{\rm even}\neq0\Leftrightarrow[U_\delta,P_\delta]\neq0$ are not established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every non-relativistic spin-split phase of a compensated magnet belongs to one of three sectors: unitary (odd), Hermitian (even), or mixed non-commuting.
Altermagnetism appears as the bond-structured Hermitian limit, while $p$-wave magnets and exchange Rashba, Dresselhaus, radial, and out-of-plane textures appear as unitary limits.
Continuous rotation of bond axes interpolates between classes, and any interpolation with non-parallel spin axes necessarily passes through the mixed non-coplanar sector.
Spin-ARPES measuring the even-in-momentum transverse polarization along $\hat{u}\times\hat{p}$ can distinguish the mixed sector from every pure class.
The synthetic spin-orbit coupling scales as $\lambda_{\rm SOC}=2t\alpha\beta|\hat{u}\times\hat{p}|$, is tunable by strain, and can in principle be switched on and off, supporting field-free EDSR qubit control.

Reading between the lines

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

The classification is exactly proven only under the stated reciprocal-bipartite uniform-exchange assumptions; extending it to non-reciprocal bonds or canted exchange would require a generalized analysis, though the polar decomposition may still organize those cases.
The even-in-momentum transverse polarization could be used as a screening observable in first-principles searches: compensated magnets with non-collinear bond axes should be checked for this component before being assigned to a pure class.
Beyond spin-ARPES, strain-dependent spin-orbit torque or magnetotransport measurements could test the predicted on/off switching of synthetic spin-orbit coupling in a single device.
For quantum dots in materials like MnTe, the theory indicates sub-nanosecond EDSR gate times at a few percent strain, but whether switching the synthetic spin-orbit coupling off improves charge-noise coherence requires a separate operating-point analysis, as the paper itself notes.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The spin-bond polar decomposition is a good idea, and the paper executes it carefully within its stated assumptions. The unitary/Hermitian split with parity locking is derived cleanly, and the exact block factorization on reciprocal bipartite lattices is a genuine technical contribution. The control checks—pure altermagnet, p-wave, Rashba—vanish in the even-transverse channel, which gives real support for the mixed sector's existence in the minimal model. That part deserves credit.

The problem is the fingerprint claim. Eq. (32) asserts ⟨s⊥⟩even(k)≠0 iff [Uδ,Pδ]≠0, and the abstract and discussion promote this as a unique spin-ARPES signature 'strictly forbidden in pure altermagnets.' That is too broad. A pure Hermitian bond pattern with an in-plane amplitude axis—say P_x=e^{β x̂·σ}, P_y=e^{-β x̂·σ}—satisfies the reciprocal condition and lies inside the exact-solvable family. The resulting field h(k)=2t sinhβ (cos kx − cos ky) x̂ is even, transverse to the Néel axis, and gives a nonzero ⟨s⊥⟩even with [U,P]=0. So the criterion only holds for the specific minimal pattern tested (p̂ along ẑ). The numerical verification doesn't cover the in-plane Hermitian case. This is fixable by narrowing the claim to the minimal model or proving conditions for uniqueness, but as stated it's wrong.

Secondary issue: the novelty boundary with Ref. [41] is not delineated. The text acknowledges that mixed-parity and non-abelian altermagnetic states were proposed before; the abstract's 'uncovers' needs to be reconciled with that. A clear comparison of what the polar-decomposition classification adds would resolve it.

The quantum-computing section is speculative and could be trimmed. The exact derivations, the microscopic realization in App. C, and the generator expansion in App. H are solid and well worth keeping.

Who should read this: anyone working on altermagnet classification, exchange-generated spin-orbit textures, or compensated spin-split magnets. The framework is useful once the fingerprint claim is corrected. I'd send it to a serious referee, not desk-reject, but the referee should demand a revision that narrows Eq. (32) and states the overlap with Ref. [41] honestly.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a spin-bond theory of non-relativistic spin splitting in compensated magnets. The central object is the spin-dependent hopping matrix T_δ, decomposed as T_δ = U_δ P_δ into a unitary spin-phase factor and a positive Hermitian spin-amplitude factor. Under assumed conditions (bipartite lattice, inter-sublattice hopping only, uniform collinear exchange, and reciprocal bonds T_{-δ}=T_δ†), the Bloch Hamiltonian is shown to factorize into two 2x2 blocks. The unitary sector is claimed to generate odd-in-momentum p-wave/SOC-like textures, the Hermitian sector even-in-momentum Γ-split/altermagnetic textures, and the non-commuting sector [U_δ,P_δ]≠0 to generate a non-coplanar texture with a distinctive even-in-momentum transverse spin polarization ⟨s⊥⟩even(k)≠0. This fingerprint, Eq. (32), is advertised as a unique spin-ARPES signature of non-commuting spin bonds. The authors also derive explicit limits (Rashba, Dresselhaus, p-wave, d-altermagnet, Γ-split), discuss crossovers, and estimate consequences for EDSR-based spin qubits.

Significance. If the central classification and fingerprint claim were correct as stated, the paper would provide a useful organizing principle: an exact two-block solution, explicit parity locking of unitary versus Hermitian bonds, and analytic textures for all known non-relativistic spin-split limits. The derivations in the appendices are explicit and the numerical control models are clearly described. However, the flagship observable claim—that even-in-momentum transverse spin polarization is unique to the non-commuting sector—is false as stated: a purely Hermitian altermagnet with an in-plane amplitude axis produces the same type of signal. This is a load-bearing issue for the advertised spin-ARPES fingerprint, requiring a substantive revision of Eq. (32) and the related Discussion statements.

major comments (1)

[Results, Eq. (32); Methods, 'Verification against control models'; Discussion] The iff criterion ⟨s⊥⟩even(k)≠0 ⇔ [U_δ,P_δ]≠0 is false as stated. Consider a purely Hermitian bond pattern on the square lattice with T_x=e^{βσ_x}, T_y=e^{-βσ_x}, and U_x=U_y=σ0. This pattern satisfies T_{-δ}=T_δ†, so it lies inside the exact-solvable family of the section 'Exact solution on bipartite lattices'. The Bloch field is h(k)=2t sinhβ (cos k_x − cos k_y) x̂, which is even in k and transverse to the exchange axis ẑ. From the sector-resolved texture in Eq. (20), the lower-band polarization ⟨s_x⟩(k) is even under k→−k and nonzero, while [U_δ,P_δ]=0. The Methods control tests check only Hermitian bonds with amplitude axis p̂=ẑ, so they miss this case. This contradicts the abstract's and Discussion's claims that even-in-momentum transverse polarization is strictly forbidden in pure altermagnets and is a unique fingerprint of the non-commuting sector. If 'transverse' is instead intended to mean 'along the specific axis u×p', that definition must be stated explicitly and the criterion restricted accordingly; a pure Hermitian bond has no intrinsic u×p axis, so the advertised spin-ARPES test is not well defined in that case.

minor comments (4)

[Results, Eq. (22)] The approximation θspin(k) ≃ arctan(t sinα/Δ sinθ) is ambiguous: the θ dependence should be written as arctan[(t sinα/Δ) sinθ] (or the equivalent explicit form), since the preceding text states that the in-plane component grows as sinθ.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that in panels (a) and (b) 'h⊥ = 0' for the p-wave and altermagnet cases; this is true only for the specific axes shown (p̂=ẑ, û=ẑ). The caption should clarify that the vanishing transverse component is a statement about the chosen bond axes, not a general property of the unitary or Hermitian sectors.
[Methods, 'Verification against control models'] The numerical verification should include a pure Hermitian control with in-plane amplitude axis (for example, p̂=x̂) in addition to the p̂=ẑ case, since this is precisely the configuration that tests the claimed uniqueness of the non-commuting fingerprint.
[General presentation] The manuscript relies heavily on the assumptions (i)–(iv) before Eq. (18); Appendix G explicitly notes that canted or staggered exchange breaks the exact factorization. The abstract and the opening of the Discussion should state this scope condition more prominently to avoid overgeneralization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-bond classification and the even-transverse fingerprint are derived from explicit algebraic identities and exact block factorization, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained. The polar decomposition T_delta = U_delta P_delta is a mathematical identity, but it is not used as a substitute for a result: the parity locking statements (odd for unitary, even for Hermitian) are derived explicitly in Supplementary Note D from the reciprocal condition T_{-delta}=T_delta^dagger, giving sine and cosine form factors respectively. The exact block factorization of Eq. (18) is derived in Supplementary Note E under stated assumptions (bipartite lattice, inter-sublattice hopping, uniform collinear exchange, reciprocity), and the spin texture Eq. (20) follows by direct diagonalization. The mixed non-commuting sector is derived by expanding the bond operator and using the Pauli identity (u-hat·sigma)(p-hat·sigma) = (u-hat·p-hat)I + i(u-hat×p-hat)·sigma; the term proportional to u-hat×p-hat follows algebraically, not by assumption. The numerical verification against control models uses the same decomposition on pure unitary, pure Hermitian, and Rashba systems, and the vanishing of the even-transverse component there is a computed consequence of those models, not an input fitted to the target claim. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: alpha, beta, and Delta/t are stated model parameters, and the reported signal magnitudes are direct evaluations. The reference list contains no load-bearing self-citations by the present authors; the cited altermagnetism, p-wave, and qubit literature is external. Supplementary Note G explicitly acknowledges a limitation (canted or staggered exchange removes the exact factorization), which is an honest scope statement rather than a circular step. Even if the iff criterion of Eq. (32) is overbroad as a mathematical claim, that would be a correctness or validity concern, not circularity, because the criterion does not reduce to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard linear algebra (polar decomposition, SU(2) commutation), on the modeling assumption that spin-dependent hopping is the unique source of non-relativistic spin splitting after frame alignment, and on the structural restrictions (bipartite lattice, reciprocity) that make the exact solution tractable. No new particles, forces, or physical entities are introduced; the 'spin-bond operator' is a bookkeeping object, not an invented entity. The illustrative parameters α, β, Δ are chosen by hand rather than fit to the target result, so the ledger does not indicate circularity.

free parameters (3)

αδ (unitary sector coupling) = 0.6 (illustrative), 0.05 (MnTe estimate)
Sets the strength of the spin-dependent phase in the unitary bond factor; chosen by hand for the model figures and assumed in the MnTe EDSR estimate, not fitted to data.
βδ (Hermitian sector coupling) = 0.5 (illustrative)
Sets the strength of the spin-dependent amplitude in the Hermitian factor; chosen by hand for the figures. In the MnTe estimate β is inferred from the measured Δ_alt via β ≈ Δ_alt/(8t), making that application parameterized.
Δ/t (exchange to hopping ratio) = 2 (illustrative), scanned 1 to 8
Ratio of the uniform exchange field to the scalar hopping; scanned to map the fingerprint magnitude, not fitted to experiment.

assumptions (6)

standard math Polar decomposition of an invertible 2x2 matrix into a unitary factor and a positive Hermitian factor
Used throughout to define U_δ and P_δ, Eq. (1).
domain assumption The spin-dependent bond operator T_δ fully encodes the spin structure of hopping after local-frame alignment; a uniform unitary dressing is removable, a uniform Hermitian dressing is physical
Introduced in 'Spin-bond Hamiltonian' and Appendix B; this premise lets the paper attribute all non-relativistic spin splitting to the bond operator rather than to the exchange.
domain assumption Reciprocal bond condition T_{-δ} = T_δ^†
Supplementary Note D, Eq. S55; required for the clean parity locking and for S(k) to be Hermitian in the exact solution.
domain assumption Bipartite lattice, inter-sublattice hopping only, uniform collinear exchange
Conditions (i)-(iii) before Eq. 18 in the main text; required for the exact block factorization into s = ±1 sectors.
standard math SU(2) identity [a·σ, b·σ] = 2i(a × b)·σ
Used to derive the mixed term in Eq. (26) and Eq. (S54).
domain assumption Microscopic realization via virtual hopping through an exchange-split intermediate orbital with Δ_δ > |J_δ|
Appendix C; provides a toy model that realizes the polar form T_δ = t_δ U_δ P_δ, but the central classification does not depend on this specific realization.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A spin-bond theory unifying non-relativistic spin splitting and emergent spin-orbit textures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LUYXI5CE

@misc{pith2026260809644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A spin-bond theory unifying non-relativistic spin splitting and emergent spin-orbit textures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LUYXI5CE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09644}
}

abstract

Magnetic order with vanishing net magnetization can produce non-relativistic spin-split bands, broadly categorized into even-parity altermagnets and odd-parity $p$-wave magnets. Here, we introduce a spin-bond theory that unifies these seemingly distinct phenomena into a single algebraic framework. We demonstrate that non-relativistic spin textures are fundamentally governed by two components of the electronic bond: unitary spin phases and Hermitian spin amplitudes. The unitary sector generates odd-parity p-wave and emergent spin-orbit-like textures, while the Hermitian sector generates even-parity spin fields, including the uniform $\Gamma$-split and bond-structured altermagnetic limits. Beyond unifying known phases, our theory uncovers a mixed non-commuting regime that emerges when the unitary and Hermitian sectors fail to commute, revealing an underlying non-commuting spin-bond structure. This regime generates a non-coplanar spin texture characterized by an even-in-momentum transverse spin polarization, providing a direct spectroscopic fingerprint for spin- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy. Furthermore, we establish that this synthetic spin-orbit coupling can be dynamically tuned by geometrically controlling the non-commutation of the bond sectors. By providing a microscopic foundation for such tuning, our theory paves the way for advanced applications, including field-free spin qubits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09644 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** From a collinear antiferromagnet to a spin-bond Hamiltonian. (a) The reference Néel state: opposite sublattices carry opposite exchange fields ±∆zˆ and the hopping is a spin-neutral scalar. (b) A local spin rotation Ui aligns the exchange on every site, at the price of dressing the hopping, Teij = U † i TijUj . (c) The resulting spin-bond Hamiltonian: a uniform exchange ∆σz and bond-dependent links Tex ̸= Tey that c… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Algebraic classification of spin-bond links. The polar decomposition Tδ = UδPδ separates spin-dependent phases from spin-dependent amplitudes. The unitary sector Uδ = e iαδuˆδ·σ generates odd-parity spin fields and realizes p-wave/exchange-SOC textures,the Hermitian sector Pδ = e βδpˆδ·σ generates even-parity spin fields, including the uniform Γ-split and bond-structured altermagnetic limits. If both sectors are pr… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Momentum-space spin-bond textures (t = 1, α = 0.6, β = 0.5, illustrative bond parameters). Momenta are in units of the inverse lattice constant a = 1. In every panel the color is the longitudinal component hz, along the Néel axis zˆ of the uniform exchange ∆zˆ, and the arrows are the transverse component h⊥ = (hx, hy); both are normalized to the largest |h| over the four panels, with the arrow scale given in (d). Th… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Spin-ARPES fingerprint of the non-commuting spin-bond sector. Bands along [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

[41]

Zhuang, Z.-Y.et al.Odd-parity and non-abelian altermagnetism.arXiv:2605.05205(2026)

arXiv 2026
[1]

& Jungwirth, T

Šmejkal, L., Sinova, J. & Jungwirth, T. Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antifer- romagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and lattice rotation symmetry.Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

& Jungwirth, T

Šmejkal, L., Sinova, J. & Jungwirth, T. Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism. Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

I.et al.Altermagnetism?a new punch line of fundamental magnetism.Proc

Mazin, I. I.et al.Altermagnetism?a new punch line of fundamental magnetism.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2108924118 (2021). 43

work page 2021
[4]

Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

Šmejkal, L.et al.Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets.Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

& Kusunose, H

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

work page 2019
[6]

& Kuneš, J

Ahn, K.-H., Hariki, A., Lee, K.-W. & Kuneš, J. Antiferromagnetism in RuO2 asd-wave Pomeranchuk instability.Phys. Rev. B99, 184432 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

B.et al.P-wave magnets.arXiv:2309.01607(2024)

Hellenes, A. B.et al.P-wave magnets.arXiv:2309.01607(2024)

arXiv 2024

Show all 48 references

[8]

Mitscherling, J., Priessnitz, J., Geschner, C. K. & Šmejkal, L. Microscopic origin ofp-wave magnetism.arXiv:2603.09736(2026)

2026
[9]

& Spaldin, N

Bhowal, S. & Spaldin, N. A. Ferroically ordered magnetic octupoles ind-wave altermagnets. Phys. Rev. X14, 011019 (2024)

2024
[10]

Jaeschke-Ubiergo, R.et al.Atomic altermagnetism.arXiv:2503.10797(2025)

2025 arXiv
[11]

H., Jaeschke-Ubiergo, R., Šmejkal, L

Karetta, B., Verbeek, X. H., Jaeschke-Ubiergo, R., Šmejkal, L. & Sinova, J. Strain controlled g- tod-wave transition in altermagnetic CrSb.Phys. Rev. B112, 094454 (2025)

2025
[12]

Yu, Y.et al.Odd-parity magnetism driven by antiferromagnetic exchange.Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 046701 (2025)

2025
[13]

J.et al.Nanoscale imaging and control of altermagnetism in mnte.Nature636, 348 (2024)

Amin, O. J.et al.Nanoscale imaging and control of altermagnetism in mnte.Nature636, 348 (2024)

2024
[14]

Zhou, Z.et al.Manipulation of the altermagnetic order in crsb via crystal symmetry.Nature 638, 645 (2025)

2025
[15]

Dil, J. H. Spin- and angle-resolved photoemission on non-magnetic low-dimensional systems. J. Phys. Condens. Matter21, 403001 (2009)

2009
[16]

Dil, J. H. Spin- and angle-resolved photoemission on topological materials.Electronic Structure1, 023001 (2019)

2019
[17]

Kremaský, J.et al.Altermagnetic lifting of kramers spin degeneracy.Nature626, 517–522 (2024). 44

2024
[18]

Reimers, S.et al.Direct observation of altermagnetic band splitting in crsb.Nat. Commun. 15, 2116 (2024)

2024
[19]

C., Maiani, A., Cortijo, A., Aguado, R

Abadillo-Uriel, J. C., Maiani, A., Cortijo, A., Aguado, R. & Souto, R. S. All-electrical dephasing-protected spin qubits in altermagnets.arXiv:2606.26066(2026)

2026 arXiv
[20]

Symmetry, disorder and transport through altermagnetic quantum dots and their antiferromagnetic twins.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter38, 175302 (2026)

Kirczenow, G. Symmetry, disorder and transport through altermagnetic quantum dots and their antiferromagnetic twins.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter38, 175302 (2026)

2026
[21]

& Nowak, M

Vosoughi-nia, S. & Nowak, M. P. Altermon: a magnetic-field-free parity protected qubit based on a narrow altermagnet josephson junction.arXiv:2510.18145(2025)

2025
[22]

Nature646, 81 (2025)

Steinacker, P.et al.Industry-compatible silicon spin-qubit unit cells exceeding 99% fidelity. Nature646, 81 (2025)

2025
[23]

Gate-controlled spin qubits in confined altermagnets.arXiv preprint(2026)

Vakili, H. Gate-controlled spin qubits in confined altermagnets.arXiv preprint(2026)

2026
[24]

Kulig, M.et al.The controlled rotation of entanglement in altermagnets.arXiv preprint (2024)

2024
[25]

N., Borhani, M

Golovach, V. N., Borhani, M. & Loss, D. Electric-dipole-induced spin resonance in quantum dots.Phys. Rev. B74, 165319 (2006)

2006
[26]

C., Koppens, F

Nowack, K. C., Koppens, F. H. L., Nazarov, Y. V. & Vandersypen, L. M. K. Coherent control of a single electron spin with electric fields.Science318, 1430–1433 (2007)

2007
[27]

M., Bakkers, E

Nadj-Perge, S., Frolov, S. M., Bakkers, E. P. A. M. & Kouwenhoven, L. P. Spin-orbit qubit in a semiconductor nanowire.Nature468, 1084–1087 (2010)

2010
[28]

& Jacob, Z

Sun, W. & Jacob, Z. Correlated quantum dephasometry: Symmetry-resolved noise spec- troscopy of two-dimensional superconductors and altermagnets.arXiv preprint(2026)

2026
[29]

Borhani, M., Golovach, V. N. & Loss, D. Spin decay in a quantum dot coupled to a quantum point contact.Phys. Rev. B73, 155311 (2006)

2006
[30]

M., Falci, G

Paladino, E., Galperin, Y. M., Falci, G. & Altshuler, B. L. 1/f noise: Implications for solid-state quantum information.Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 361 (2014)

2014
[31]

Nanotechnol.13, 102–106 (2018)

Yoneda, J.et al.A quantum-dot spin qubit with coherence limited by charge noise and fidelity higher than 99.9%.Nat. Nanotechnol.13, 102–106 (2018). 45

2018
[32]

D., Pan, A., Nichol, J

Burkard, G., Ladd, T. D., Pan, A., Nichol, J. M. & Petta, J. R. Semiconductor spin qubits. Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 025003 (2023)

2023
[33]

A., Brataas, A

Ouassou, J. A., Brataas, A. & Linder, J. dc josephson effect in altermagnets.Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 076003 (2023)

2023
[34]

Beenakker, C. W. J. & Vakhtel, T. Phase-shifted andreev levels in an altermagnet josephson junction.Phys. Rev. B108, 075425 (2023)

2023
[35]

Giil, H. G. & Linder, J. Superconductor-altermagnet memory functionality without stray fields.Phys. Rev. B109, 134511 (2024)

2024
[36]

& Tanaka, Y.φjosephson junction induced by altermagnetism.Phys

Lu, B., Maeda, K., Ito, H., Yada, K. & Tanaka, Y.φjosephson junction induced by altermagnetism.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 226002 (2024)

2024
[37]

& Scheurer, M

Banerjee, S. & Scheurer, M. S. Altermagnetic superconducting diode effect.Phys. Rev. B 110, 024503 (2024)

2024
[38]

Yuan, L.-D., Georgescu, A. B. & Rondinelli, J. M. Nonrelativistic spin splitting at the brillouin zone center in compensated magnets.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 216701 (2024)

2024
[39]

Adv.10, eadn0479 (2024)

Han, L.et al.Observation of the antiferromagnetic spin hall effect.Sci. Adv.10, eadn0479 (2024)

2024
[40]

Commun.16, 7270 (2025)

Chakraborty, A.et al.Highly efficient non-relativistic edelstein effect in nodal p-wave magnets.Nat. Commun.16, 7270 (2025)

2025
[42]

Vandersypen, L. M. K.et al.Interfacing spin qubits in quantum dots and donors?hot, dense, and coherent.npj Quantum Inf.3, 34 (2017)

2017
[43]

& Loss, D

Hetényi, B., Kloeffel, C. & Loss, D. Exchange interaction of hole-spin qubits in double quantum dots in highly anisotropic semiconductors.Phys. Rev. Research2, 033036 (2020)

2020
[44]

Phys.4, 776 (2008)

Pioro-Ladrière, M.et al.Electrically driven single-electron spin resonance in a slanting zeeman field.Nat. Phys.4, 776 (2008)

2008
[45]

Rashba, E. I. Properties of semiconductors with an extremum loop. 1. cyclotron and com- binational resonance in a magnetic field perpendicular to the plane of the loop.Sov. Phys. Solid State2, 1109 (1960). 46

1960
[46]

Spin-orbit coupling effects in zinc blende structures.Phys

Dresselhaus, G. Spin-orbit coupling effects in zinc blende structures.Phys. Rev.100, 580 (1955)

1955
[47]

Schrieffer, J. R. & Wolff, P. A. Relation between the anderson and kondo hamiltonians. Phys. Rev.149, 491 (1966)

1966
[48]

A.Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids: The Physics of the Chemical Bond(Dover Publications, 1989)

Harrison, W. A.Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids: The Physics of the Chemical Bond(Dover Publications, 1989). 47

1989

Pith tools

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

[1] [41]

Zhuang, Z.-Y.et al.Odd-parity and non-abelian altermagnetism.arXiv:2605.05205(2026)

arXiv 2026

[2] [1]

& Jungwirth, T

Šmejkal, L., Sinova, J. & Jungwirth, T. Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antifer- romagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and lattice rotation symmetry.Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [2]

& Jungwirth, T

Šmejkal, L., Sinova, J. & Jungwirth, T. Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism. Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [3]

I.et al.Altermagnetism?a new punch line of fundamental magnetism.Proc

Mazin, I. I.et al.Altermagnetism?a new punch line of fundamental magnetism.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.118, e2108924118 (2021). 43

work page 2021

[5] [4]

Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

Šmejkal, L.et al.Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets.Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [5]

& Kusunose, H

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

work page 2019

[7] [6]

& Kuneš, J

Ahn, K.-H., Hariki, A., Lee, K.-W. & Kuneš, J. Antiferromagnetism in RuO2 asd-wave Pomeranchuk instability.Phys. Rev. B99, 184432 (2019)

work page 2019

[8] [7]

B.et al.P-wave magnets.arXiv:2309.01607(2024)

Hellenes, A. B.et al.P-wave magnets.arXiv:2309.01607(2024)

arXiv 2024