Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Odd-parity Magnetism Driven by Antiferromagnetic Exchange

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coplanar antiferromagnetic order in non-symmorphic crystals can split electron spins by momentum alone, without spin-orbit coupling, through a secondary odd-parity order parameter.

desk verdict A systematic, mostly solid framework for odd-parity magnetism; the main risk is the completeness of the supplementary enumeration, not the Landau argument. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02057 v3 pith:PBSDRQWJ submitted 2025-01-03 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yue Yu , Magnus B. Lyngby , Tatsuya Shishidou , Mercè Roig , Andreas Kreisel , Michael Weinert , Brian M. Andersen , Daniel F. Agterberg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords odd-paritymagnetismantiferromagneticexchangenon-symmorphicspacegroupsspinsplittingwithoutspin-orbitcouplingp-wavemagnetsEdelsteineffectBerrycurvaturedipoleFeSe
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

The paper claims that in 421 period-doubling antiferromagnets belonging to non-symmorphic space groups, coplanar magnetic order cannot sit alone: symmetry forces one of three additional translation-invariant orders to emerge, and one of them is an odd-parity, time-reversal-preserving spin splitting that requires no spin-orbit coupling. A Landau theory with two sublattice spin order parameters $\mathbf{S}_1$ and $\mathbf{S}_2$ shows the competition, with $\mathbf{S}_1\times\mathbf{S}_2$ acting as a non-relativistic Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya vector. The paper builds minimal tight-binding models for 119 of these cases, identifies 67 candidate materials, and confirms the predicted $h$-wave splitting in FeSe by density functional theory at an energy scale near 0.1 eV. If correct, this gives a general route to spin-split bands and spin responses in ordinary antiferromagnets, relevant for spintronics.

What carries the argument

The engine is the two-sublattice coplanar order parameter $(\mathbf{S}_1,\mathbf{S}_2)$ in a non-symmorphic space group (one containing screw axes or glide planes), where inversion acts on the two-dimensional irreducible representation as the Pauli matrix $\tau_x$ (class 1) or with a nontrivial sublattice flip (class 2). The organising object is the quartic Landau free energy $f = \alpha(T)\sum_i \mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_i + \beta_1(\sum_i \mathbf{S}_i\cdot\mathbf{S}_i)^2 + \beta_2(\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_2)^2 + \beta_3(\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_1)(\mathbf{S}_2\cdot\mathbf{S}_2)$, in which non-symmorphic symmetries forbid the $\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_2$ and $|\mathbf{S}_1|^2-|\mathbf{S}_2|^2$ terms; the signs of $\beta_2$ and $\beta_3$ then select the three competing induced orders. Microscopically, an $8\times 8$ tight-binding Hamiltonian with Pauli matrices $\tau_i$ for sublattices and $\rho_i$ for the folded Brillouin zone carries the argument, and the coplanar band dispersion yields a spin splitting controlled by $\sqrt{t_1 t_4 - t_2 t_3}\propto (t_x \tilde{t}_y)^{1/2}$ times the exchange $J$.

What would settle it

Search a non-symmorphic period-doubling antiferromagnet listed among the 421 cases, for example FeSe with $\mathbf{Q}=(\pi,\pi,0)$, using angle-resolved photoemission: if the predicted h-wave spin splitting is absent while coplanar order is present, or if neutron scattering shows no nematic or scalar odd-parity secondary order where the Landau theory requires one, the central claim fails. Alternatively, a first-principles calculation of the Landau coefficients for any listed space group that finds a symmetry-allowed $\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_2$ term would break the three-state competition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a generic symmetry mechanism: in non-symmorphic space groups, inversion acts non-trivially on the two-dimensional irreducible representation that hosts a coplanar antiferromagnetic order parameter, so the sublattice moments $(\mathbf{S}_1,\mathbf{S}_2)$ transform with a nontrivial Pauli matrix under inversion. As a result, the uniform spin vector $\mathbf{S}_1\times\mathbf{S}_2$ is odd under inversion yet even under time reversal, producing a momentum-odd, non-relativistic spin splitting of $p$-, $f$-, or $h$-wave form depending on the space group. The same Landau free energy, truncated at quartic order, admits three competing ground states: the odd-parity spin-splitting state, a nematic state, and a scalar odd-parity state tied to multiferroicity. The microscopic models show that the splitting energy is generically set by the exchange coupling rather than by spin-orbit coupling, and DFT on FeSe with $(\pi,\pi,0)$ coplanar order gives an $h$-wave splitting of order 0.1 eV. The scalar odd-parity state additionally carries a non-zero Berry curvature dipole without spin-orbit coupling, enabling nonlinear transport.

Load-bearing premise

The Landau free energy is truncated at quartic order, and the conclusion that exactly three states compete relies on non-symmorphic symmetries forbidding the $\mathbf{S}_1\cdot\mathbf{S}_2$ and $|\mathbf{S}_1|^2-|\mathbf{S}_2|^2$ terms; if any symmetry-allowed exception exists among the 421 cases, the three-state outcome is not universal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In all 421 enumerated AFM configurations, one of the three secondary orders is unavoidable, so odd-parity spin splitting is a generic feature of this class rather than a fine-tuned exception.
  • Odd-parity spin splitting appears without spin-orbit coupling, with energy scale set by the exchange coupling, potentially much larger than Rashba or Dresselhaus splittings.
  • The framework yields concrete material candidates: 67 experimentally catalogued magnetic materials, including FeSe (h-wave) and CeNiAsO (p-wave).
  • CeNiAsO in the p-wave state shows a non-relativistic Edelstein effect whose sign changes with chemical potential.
  • Scalar odd-parity states give a non-zero Berry curvature dipole and nonlinear current-voltage transport without spin-orbit coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the three-state competition is universal, then any newly discovered coplanar antiferromagnet in a non-symmorphic group covered by the 421 cases should show one of the three secondary orders; seeing only ordinary AFM order would challenge the claimed universality.
  • The same $\mathbf{S}_1\times\mathbf{S}_2$ object may be relevant beyond bulk magnets, for instance in non-symmorphic heterostructures where the splitting could persist up to the magnetic ordering temperature.
  • The Berry curvature dipole in the scalar odd-parity state suggests that nonlinear Hall experiments on manganites such as RMnO$_3$ could directly test the predicted order without requiring spin-resolved measurements.
  • The DFT FeSe result at 0.1 eV implies that angle-resolved photoemission on FeSe with coplanar order should observe the h-wave spin texture, a test accessible with current instruments.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a group-theoretic and microscopic framework for generating odd-parity, time-reversal-preserving, non-relativistic spin splitting from coplanar antiferromagnetic order in non-symmorphic space groups. The authors argue that for period-doubling AFM states with a two-dimensional irreducible representation and nontrivial inversion, the magnetic order necessarily induces one of three translation-invariant secondary orders: odd-parity spin splitting (S1×S2), nematic order, or scalar odd-parity order. They enumerate 421 such AFM configurations, construct minimal tight-binding models for 119 of them, identify 67 candidate materials in the Magndata database, provide DFT evidence for an h-wave spin splitting in FeSe with a magnitude near 0.1 eV, and compute the non-relativistic Edelstein response for CeNiAsO.

Significance. The central symmetry argument is rigorous and is the paper's main strength: the three-state competition follows from the existence of a 2D IR, and the dispersion formula Eq. (4) is derived cleanly in the supplementary material. The DFT calculation for FeSe is an independent ab initio check that goes beyond the model level, and the identification of 67 material candidates gives the work immediate practical reach. The paper also provides analytical Berry-curvature expressions for the scalar odd-parity state, which is a useful addition to the field. If the claims hold, this constitutes a systematic route to non-relativistic spin splitting without SOC and will be of broad interest to the spintronics and magnetism communities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Microscopic models / Eq. (4) and DFT section] The abstract and conclusion claim that the odd-parity spin-splitting energy scale is 'generically large,' but the only quantitative evidence is the DFT result for FeSe (0.1 eV in a constrained coplanar state) and the model expression in Eq. (4), whose magnitude depends on the exchange J and the hopping anisotropy t1t4−t2t3. No systematic estimate is provided for the 119 microscopic models or for the 67 Magndata materials. Please either provide a survey of typical splittings across the enumerated cases or qualify the claim to 'can be large' with reference to the FeSe example.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The statement that minimal microscopic models are constructed for 119 of the 421 cases is not supported in the main text. The supplementary Tables IV and V list tight-binding coefficients for a subset of space groups and Wyckoff positions, but the counting that yields 119 is not explained, and the relation between the tables and the number 119 is opaque. Please provide a transparent enumeration (e.g., a table mapping each of the 119 cases to a row of Tables IV/V) or a reproducible script.
  3. [Phenomenological model / SM Tables I–III] The universality claim for the 421 cases rests on the completeness and correctness of the enumeration in Tables I–III and on the assertion that every listed (space group, wavevector, IR) case has a 2D IR with nontrivial inversion. The main text demonstrates the representation structure only for SG129 (End Matter). Because a single erroneous entry would narrow the claimed universality, please provide an independent verification of the enumeration, for example via a computational symmetry check using a crystallographic representation database, and state explicitly how the 421 count (325+84+12) was obtained.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Phenomenological model] The statement that non-symmorphic symmetries forbid S1·S2 and |S1|^2−|S2|^2 in Eq. (1) would benefit from a one-line general argument: for a 2D IR, Schur's lemma forces any invariant quadratic form to be proportional to the identity. The current text relies on the SG129 example in the End Matter.
  2. [Figure 2] The caption of Fig. 2 does not define the red-white-blue color code used to indicate the spin polarization; please add a sentence describing the color scale.
  3. [Non-relativistic Edelstein Effect] In the paragraph beginning 'We compute the Edelstein response tensor', the phrase 'the bands shown in Fig. 4(c)' should presumably refer to the bands in Fig. 4(a); please correct the cross-reference.
  4. [Microscopic models] The text states 'This minimal model captures 13 nonsymmorphic materials' without specifying how these 13 are identified or how they relate to the later statement that microscopic models are constructed for 119 cases; please clarify the terminology (model versus material).
  5. [References] Reference [31] is a placeholder ('URL_will_be_inserted_by_publisher'); the supplementary material should be given a stable URL or journal reference.
  6. [Supplementary Tables IV and V] The supplementary tables use abbreviations like 'cx/2' and state that 'trivial factors like cx+cy have been omitted'; please provide the full definitions in a single place to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetry-based Landau and microscopic derivation is self-contained, and the FeSe DFT calculation provides an independent external check.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained and not circular. The Landau free energy in Eq. (1) is the group-theoretic invariant expansion for a two-dimensional irreducible representation with nontrivial inversion; the absence of S1·S2 and |S1|^2−|S2|^2 is a representation-theory statement, demonstrated explicitly for SG129 in the End Matter and enumerated in the supplementary tables. The three competing states are a classification of the quartic couplings, and any nonzero pair of sublattice vectors necessarily has at least one of S1×S2, S1·S2, or |S1|^2−|S2|^2 nonzero, so the 'generic induced order' claim is algebraic rather than a fitted result. The microscopic Hamiltonians in Eqs. (2)-(3) use only symmetry-allowed hoppings and exchange couplings, and the dispersion in Eq. (4) is derived from those Hamiltonians; no parameter is fitted to the spin-splitting form it is said to predict. The FeSe h-wave splitting is confirmed by an independent FLAPW DFT calculation, and the CeNiAsO tight-binding fits serve only to illustrate the Edelstein response, not to establish the central claim. The only self-citations (Refs. [21], [37]) are contextual or an agreement check for the DFT band structure, and they are not load-bearing. The main residual risk is the completeness of the 421-case enumeration, which the paper explicitly delegates to the supplementary tables; that is a verifiable completeness/correctness issue, not circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on standard group representation theory plus physical assumptions about the AFM order parameter, the free energy expansion, and the absence of SOC. The most fragile input is the symmetry-enforced absence of S1·S2 and |S1|^2-|S2|^2 terms, which is asserted from symmetry tables rather than proven in the main text. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Exchange coupling J = 0.02 to 0.08 eV in CeNiAsO model
    Magnitude of the magnetic order parameter; not derived from first principles, chosen to illustrate the Edelstein response and to set the spin-splitting scale.
  • Tight-binding hoppings (tx0, ty0) = fitted to DFT bands of CeNiAsO
    Low-energy model parameters extracted from ab initio calculation; enter the spin-splitting formula and Berry curvature.
  • Landau coefficients beta1, beta2, beta3 = not determined
    Free-energy parameters determine which of the three competing ground states is realized; the paper does not compute them for specific materials.
  • Relaxation time tau = not specified
    Edelstein response tensor is computed in relaxation-time approximation; tau sets the overall magnitude and is not predicted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption AFM order parameter transforms as a two-dimensional irreducible representation of the little group at the ordering wavevector
    Established in the introduction as one of two key ingredients; restricts the analysis to 2D IRs (421 cases).
  • domain assumption Inversion acts non-trivially on the 2D IR in non-symmorphic space groups
    Needed for S1 x S2 to be odd under inversion. Derived from the presence of fractional translations.
  • domain assumption The Landau free energy can be truncated at quartic order in S1, S2
    Standard for continuous phase transitions; higher-order terms could alter the phase boundaries but not the symmetry classification.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-symmorphic symmetries forbid S1·S2 and |S1|^2 - |S2|^2 terms in the free energy
    Central to the three-state competition; not explicitly proven in the main text, delegated to symmetry tables in the SM.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling is neglected
    The framework targets the non-relativistic limit; with SOC the odd-parity spin and scalar orders mix, and the paper acknowledges this in the material classification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Odd-parity Magnetism Driven by Antiferromagnetic Exchange." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBSDRQWJ

@misc{pith2026250102057,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Odd-parity Magnetism Driven by Antiferromagnetic Exchange},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBSDRQWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02057}
}
abstract

Realizing odd-parity, time-reversal-preserving, non-relativistic spin splitting is a central goal for spintronics applications. We propose a group-theory-based microscopic framework to induce odd-parity spin splitting from coplanar antiferromagnetic (AFM) states without spin-orbit coupling (SOC). We develop phenomenological models for 421 conventional period-doubling AFM systems in non-symmorphic space groups and construct minimal microscopic models for 119 of these. We find that these AFM states can attain three possible competing ground states. These ground states all break symmetries in addition to those broken by the usual AFM order. Specifically, they give rise to either odd-parity spin-splitting, nematic order, or scalar odd-parity order related to multiferroicity. Our microscopic theories reveal that the odd-parity spin-splitting energy scale is generically large and further reveal that the scalar odd-parity order gives a non-zero Berry curvature dipole without SOC. We identify 67 materials in the Magndata database for which our theory applies. We provide DFT calculations on FeSe that reveal an $h$-wave spin splitting consistent with our symmetry arguments and apply our microscopic model to determine the non-relativistic Edelstein response for CeNiAsO.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02057 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spin configuration of the coplanar AFM state, de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Three competing phases and their induced orders. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Band structure relevant for CeNiAsO with two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Electronic structure of CeNiAsO including orbital projections to Ce and Ni states. Two pairs of bands cross the Fermi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Dynamical Polarization from Hidden Spin and Orbital Textures in p-Wave Magnets

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Optically driven p-wave magnets develop a resonantly enhanced ac spin polarization at the 2J_sd exchange gap and a rectified, polarization-controlled dc orbital polarization invisible to period-averaged treatments.

  2. Majorana flat bands and anomalous proximity effects in $p$-wave magnet--superconductor hybrid systems

    cond-mat.supr-con 2025-02 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A two-dimensional hybrid of an s-wave superconductor and a p-wave magnet hosts chiral-symmetry-protected flat-band Majorana bound states and a disorder-robust quantized zero-bias conductance peak.

  3. Coexistence of $p$-wave magnetism and superconductivity

    cond-mat.supr-con 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    p-wave magnets can coexist with conventional s-wave superconductivity, and the superconducting state strongly enhances the transverse spin current these magnets generate.

  4. 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

58 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    The real- space interpretation of Eq.3 can be found in End Matter

    The three AFM states are described by ( ⃗J1, ⃗J2) = ( S1+S2 2 , S1−S2 2 ) = J(ˆx, ˆx), J(ˆx, 0), and J(ˆx, ˆy). The real- space interpretation of Eq.3 can be found in End Matter. Non-relativistic odd-parity spin-splittings: The odd- 4 parity spin splitting can be obtained from the dispersion: Eαβγ = ϵ0 + γ ⃗J 2 1 + ⃗J 2 2 + |t|2 + 2β (t1t3 + t2t4)2 + ( ⃗J...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low- Z antiferromag- nets,

    Lin-Ding Yuan, Zhi Wang, Jun-Wei Luo, Emmanuel I. Rashba, and Alex Zunger, “Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low- Z antiferromag- nets,” Phys. Rev. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Specifically, we consider the well-known example of Fe-based supercon- ductors with SG129 with Q = ( π, π,0)

    = tx etx + ty ety. Specifically, we consider the well-known example of Fe-based supercon- ductors with SG129 with Q = ( π, π,0). Here tx = tx0 cos kx 2 cos ky 2 so that etx = tx0 sin kx 2 sin ky 2 . This yields a √J tx0 sin kx sin ky-like nematic term in the dispersion. In the SM, we identify 22 materials in the Magndata database that should exhibit a sim...

    work page

  4. [4]

    For the first two AFM states, Eαβγ is independent of α, implying doubly degenerate bands

    The spin splitting is between α = ± bands. For the first two AFM states, Eαβγ is independent of α, implying doubly degenerate bands. For the coplanar state, the magnitude of spin splitting depends on J√t1t4 − t2t3 ∝ J(tx ety − etxty)1/2. These spin splittings for different space groups and AFM wavevectors are shown in SM. We now consider SG129(P4/nmm) wit...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear An- tiferromagnetic Ordering,

    Satoru Hayami, Yuki Yanagi, and Hiroaki Kusunose, “Momentum-Dependent Spin Splitting by Collinear An- tiferromagnetic Ordering,” Journal of the Physical Soci- ety of Japan 88, 123702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Pre- diction of unconventional magnetism in doped FeSb 2,

    Igor I Mazin, Klaus Koepernik, Michelle D Johannes, Rafael Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, and LiborˇSmejkal, “Pre- diction of unconventional magnetism in doped FeSb 2,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Be- yond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromag- netism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry,

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, “Be- yond Conventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromag- netism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism,

    Libor ˇSmejkal, Jairo Sinova, and Tomas Jungwirth, “Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism,” Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Ferroically Ordered Magnetic Octupoles in d-Wave Altermagnets,

    Sayantika Bhowal and Nicola A. Spaldin, “Ferroically Ordered Magnetic Octupoles in d-Wave Altermagnets,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 011019 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Altermagnetic lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy,

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ a˚A, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P....

    2024

  3. [11]

    Efficient Electrical Spin Splitter Based on Nonrelativistic Collinear Antiferromagnetism,

    Rafael Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, Libor ˇSmejkal, Karel V´ yborn´ y, Yuta Yahagi, Jairo Sinova, Tom´ aˇ s Jungwirth, and Jakub ˇZelezn´ y, “Efficient Electrical Spin Splitter Based on Nonrelativistic Collinear Antiferromagnetism,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Elec- trical 180° switching of N´ eel vector in spin-splitting anti- ferromagnet,

    Lei Han, Xizhi Fu, Rui Peng, Xingkai Cheng, Jiankun Dai, Liangyang Liu, Yidian Li, Yichi Zhang, Wenxuan Zhu, Hua Bai, Yongjian Zhou, Shixuan Liang, Chong Chen, Qian Wang, Xianzhe Chen, Luyi Yang, Yang Zhang, Cheng Song, Junwei Liu, and Feng Pan, “Elec- trical 180° switching of...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Efficient spin Seebeck and spin Nernst effects of magnons in altermagnets,

    Qirui Cui, Bowen Zeng, Ping Cui, Tao Yu, and Hongxin Yang, “Efficient spin Seebeck and spin Nernst effects of magnons in altermagnets,” Phys. Rev. B 108, L180401 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Inverse magnetocaloric effect in altermagnetic 2D non-van der Waals FeX (X= S and Se) semiconductors,

    Qinxi Liu, Jinchao Kang, Peng Wang, Weiwei Gao, Yan Qi, Jijun Zhao, and Xue Jiang, “Inverse magnetocaloric effect in altermagnetic 2D non-van der Waals FeX (X= S and Se) semiconductors,” Advanced Functional Materials 34, 2402080 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    P-wave magnets,

    Anna Birk Hellenes, Tom´ aˇ s Jungwirth, Rodrigo Jaeschke-Ubiergo, Atasi Chakraborty, Jairo Sinova, and Libor ˇSmejkal, “P-wave magnets,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2309.01607 (2023), arXiv:2309.01607 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Minimal Models and Transport Properties of Unconventional p-Wave Mag- nets,

    Bjørnulf Brekke, Pavlo Sukhachov, Hans Gløckner Giil, Arne Brataas, and Jacob Linder, “Minimal Models and Transport Properties of Unconventional p-Wave Mag- nets,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 236703 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Enumeration and representation theory of spin space groups,

    Xiaobing Chen, Jun Ren, Yanzhou Zhu, Yutong Yu, Ao Zhang, Pengfei Liu, Jiayu Li, Yuntian Liu, Caiheng Li, and Qihang Liu, “Enumeration and representation theory of spin space groups,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Spin space groups: Full classification and applications,

    Zhenyu Xiao, Jianzhou Zhao, Yanqi Li, Ryuichi Shindou, and Zhi-Da Song, “Spin space groups: Full classification and applications,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Enumeration of spin-space groups: Toward a complete description of symmetries of magnetic orders,

    Yi Jiang, Ziyin Song, Tiannian Zhu, Zhong Fang, Hong- 6 ming Weng, Zheng-Xin Liu, Jian Yang, and Chen Fang, “Enumeration of spin-space groups: Toward a complete description of symmetries of magnetic orders,” Phys. Rev. X 14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    New perspectives for Rashba spin–orbit coupling,

    A. Manchon, H. C. Koo, J. Nitta, S. M. Frolov, and R. A. Duine, “New perspectives for Rashba spin–orbit coupling,” Nature Materials 14, 871–882 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Fermi liquid instabilities in the spin chan- nel,

    Congjun Wu, Kai Sun, Eduardo Fradkin, and Shou- Cheng Zhang, “Fermi liquid instabilities in the spin chan- nel,” Phys. Rev. B 75, 115103 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Limits on dynamically generated spin- orbit coupling: Absence of l = 1 Pomeranchuk instabili- ties in metals,

    Egor I. Kiselev, Mathias S. Scheurer, Peter W¨ olfle, and J¨ org Schmalian, “Limits on dynamically generated spin- orbit coupling: Absence of l = 1 Pomeranchuk instabili- ties in metals,” Phys. Rev. B 95, 125122 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Conditions for l = 1 Pomeranchuk instability in a Fermi liquid,

    Yi-Ming Wu, Avraham Klein, and Andrey V. Chubukov, “Conditions for l = 1 Pomeranchuk instability in a Fermi liquid,” Phys. Rev. B 97, 165101 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    On the Remarkable Superconductivity of FeSe and Its Close Cousins,

    Andreas Kreisel, Peter J. Hirschfeld, and Brian M. Andersen, “On the Remarkable Superconductivity of FeSe and Its Close Cousins,” Symmetry 12 (2020), 10.3390/sym12091402

    2020 doi

  17. [25]

    Intertwined spin-orbital coupled orders in the iron-based superconductors,

    Morten H. Christensen, Jian Kang, and Rafael M. Fer- nandes, “Intertwined spin-orbital coupled orders in the iron-based superconductors,” Physical Review B 100 (2019), 10.1103/physrevb.100.014512

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Magnetic control of ferroelectric polar- ization,

    T. Kimura, T. Goto, H. Shintani, K. Ishizaka, T. Arima, and Y. Tokura, “Magnetic control of ferroelectric polar- ization,” Nature (London) 426, 55–58 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Electric polarization reversal and memory in a multiferroic material induced by magnetic fields,

    N. Hur, S. Park, P. A. Sharma, J. S. Ahn, S. Guha, and S. W. Cheong, “Electric polarization reversal and memory in a multiferroic material induced by magnetic fields,” Nature (London) 429, 392–395 (2004)

    2004

  20. [28]

    Fer- roelectricity in the magnetice-phase of orthorhombic per- ovskites,

    Ivan A. Sergienko, Cengiz S ¸en, and Elbio Dagotto, “Fer- roelectricity in the magnetice-phase of orthorhombic per- ovskites,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 227204 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    Multifer- roics: a magnetic twist for ferroelectricity,

    Sang-Wook Cheong and Maxim Mostovoy, “Multifer- roics: a magnetic twist for ferroelectricity,” Nature Ma- terials 6, 13–20 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Double crystallographic groups and their representa- tions on the Bilbao crystallographic server,

    Luis Elcoro, Barry Bradlyn, Zhijun Wang, Maia G Vergniory, Jennifer Cano, Claudia Felser, B Andrei Bernevig, Danel Orobengoa, G Flor, and Mois I Aroyo, “Double crystallographic groups and their representa- tions on the Bilbao crystallographic server,” Applied Crystallography 5...

    2017

  23. [31]

    A thermodynamic theory of “weak

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, “A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics,” Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 4, 241–255 (1958)

    1958

  24. [32]

    New mechanism of anisotropic superex- change interaction,

    Tˆ oru Moriya, “New mechanism of anisotropic superex- change interaction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 228–230 (1960)

    1960

  25. [33]

    Superconductivity- induced improper orders in nonsymmorphic systems,

    Andr´ as L. Szab´ o and Aline Ramires, “Superconductivity- induced improper orders in nonsymmorphic systems,” Phys. Rev. B 110, L180503 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    URL_will_be_inserted_by_publisher, supplemental material contains symmetry of odd-parity spin splittings, scalar odd-parity order, and nematicity for different nonsymmorphic space groups; microscopic tight-binding parameters; derivation for Berry curvatures; list of candidate ...

  27. [35]

    FLAPW: Applications and implementations,

    M Weinert, G Schneider, R Podloucky, and J Redinger, “FLAPW: Applications and implementations,” J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 084201 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    A technique for rel- ativistic spin-polarised calculations,

    D D Koelling and B N Harmon, “A technique for rel- ativistic spin-polarised calculations,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 10, 3107 (1977)

    1977

  29. [37]

    A lin- earised relativistic augmented-plane-wave method utilis- ing approximate pure spin basis functions,

    A H MacDonald, W E Picket, and D D Koelling, “A lin- earised relativistic augmented-plane-wave method utilis- ing approximate pure spin basis functions,” Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 13, 2675 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Sim- ple,

    John P. Perdew, Kieron Burke, and Matthias Ernzer- hof, “Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Sim- ple,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865–3868 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    (Pierre) Villars, Pearson’s handbook : crystallographic data for intermetallic phases, desk ed ed

    P. (Pierre) Villars, Pearson’s handbook : crystallographic data for intermetallic phases, desk ed ed. (ASM International, 1997)

    1997

  32. [40]

    Mag- netic fluctuations in single-layer FeSe,

    T. Shishidou, D. F. Agterberg, and M. Weinert, “Mag- netic fluctuations in single-layer FeSe,” Communications Physics 1, 8 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Full-potential nonorthogonal local-orbital minimum-basis band- structure scheme,

    Klaus Koepernik and Helmut Eschrig, “Full-potential nonorthogonal local-orbital minimum-basis band- structure scheme,” Phys. Rev. B 59, 1743–1757 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    NMR study of the new magnetic superconductor CaK(Fe 0.951Ni0.049)4As4: Mi- croscopic coexistence of the hedgehog spin-vortex crystal and superconductivity,

    Q.-P. Ding, W. R. Meier, A. E. B¨ ohmer, S. L. Bud’ko, P. C. Canfield, and Y. Furukawa, “NMR study of the new magnetic superconductor CaK(Fe 0.951Ni0.049)4As4: Mi- croscopic coexistence of the hedgehog spin-vortex crystal and superconductivity,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 220510 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Multiple magnetic orders in LaFeAs1−xPxO uncover universality of iron-pnictide su- perconductors,

    Ryan Stadel, Dmitry D. Khalyavin, Pascal Manuel, Koji Yokoyama, Saul Lapidus, Morten H. Christensen, Rafael M. Fernandes, Daniel Phelan, Duck Young Chung, Raymond Osborn, Stephan Rosenkranz, and Omar Chmaissem, “Multiple magnetic orders in LaFeAs1−xPxO uncover universality of ...

    2022

  36. [44]

    Vestigial chiral and charge orders from bidirectional spin-density waves: Application to the iron-based superconductors,

    RM Fernandes, SA Kivelson, and Erez Berg, “Vestigial chiral and charge orders from bidirectional spin-density waves: Application to the iron-based superconductors,” Physical Review B 93, 014511 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    MAGNDATA: towards a database of magnetic structures. I.The com- mensurate case,

    Samuel V. Gallego, J. Manuel Perez-Mato, Luis El- coro, Emre S. Tasci, Robert M. Hanson, Koichi Momma, Mois I. Aroyo, and Gotzon Madariaga, “ MAGNDATA: towards a database of magnetic structures. I.The com- mensurate case,” Journal of Applied Crystallography 49, 1750–1776 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Assa Auerbach, Interacting electrons and quantum magnetism (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  39. [47]

    Non- relativistic torque and Edelstein effect in non-collinear magnets,

    Rafael Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, Philipp Ritzinger, Karel V´ yborn´ y, JakubˇZelezn´ y, and Aur´ elien Manchon, “Non- relativistic torque and Edelstein effect in non-collinear magnets,” Nature Communications 15, 7663 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Spin Hall and Edelstein Effects in Novel Chiral Noncollinear Altermagnets,

    Mengli Hu, Oleg Janson, Claudia Felser, Paul McClarty, Jeroen van den Brink, and Maia G. Vergniory, “Spin Hall and Edelstein Effects in Novel Chiral Noncollinear Altermagnets,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2410.17993 (2024), arXiv:2410.17993 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024

  41. [49]

    Highly Efficient Non-relativistic Edelstein effect in p-wave magnets,

    Atasi Chakraborty, Anna Birk Hellenes, Rodrigo Jaeschke-Ubiergo, Tomas Jungwirth, Libor ˇSmejkal, and Jairo Sinova, “Highly Efficient Non-relativistic Edelstein effect in p-wave magnets,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2411.16378 (2024), arXiv:2411.16378 [cond- mat.mes-hall]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal invariant materials,

    Inti Sodemann and Liang Fu, “Quantum nonlinear Hall effect induced by Berry curvature dipole in time-reversal invariant materials,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 216806 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Uni- fication of nonlinear anomalous Hall effect and nonrecip- rocal magnetoresistance in metals by the quantum geom- etry,

    Daniel Kaplan, Tobias Holder, and Binghai Yan, “Uni- fication of nonlinear anomalous Hall effect and nonrecip- rocal magnetoresistance in metals by the quantum geom- etry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 026301 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Symmetry analy- sis with spin crystallographic groups: Disentangling ef- fects free of spin-orbit coupling in emergent electromag- netism,

    Hikaru Watanabe, Kohei Shinohara, Takuya Nomoto, 7 Atsushi Togo, and Ryotaro Arita, “Symmetry analy- sis with spin crystallographic groups: Disentangling ef- fects free of spin-orbit coupling in emergent electromag- netism,” Physical Review B 109, 094438 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Multiferroic collinear antiferromagnet with hidden al- termagnetic split,

    Jin Matsuda, Hikaru Watanabe, and Arita Ryotaro, “Multiferroic collinear antiferromagnet with hidden al- termagnetic split,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20128 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    dataset for

    “dataset for ”odd-parity magnetism driven by antiferro- magnetic exchange”,” (2025). END MA TTER The data that support the findings of this article are openly available[51]. Examples on non-symmorphic symmetries We now highlight the importance of non-symmorphic symmetries thro...

    2025

  47. [55]

    + 2αJ 2(t1t4 − t2t3) + (t1t3 + t2t4 + t5t6)2 1/2 , (18) where α, β, γ= ± and |t|2 ≡ t2 1 + t2 2 + t2 3 + t2 4 + t2 5 + t2

  48. [56]

    The magnitude of spin splitting depends on J√t1t4 − t2t3 ∝ J(tx ety)1/2. We now turn to the Berry curvature dipole of the collinear scalar odd-parity state ( ⃗J1, ⃗J2) = ( S1+S2 2 , S1−S2 2 ) = J(ˆx, 0), the dispersion is Eβγ = γ J 2 + |t|2 + 2β q J 2(t2 1 + t2 2 + t2

  49. [57]

    + (t1t3 + t2t4 + t5t6)2 1/2 , (19) The general formula for Berry curvature is Ω ij = −2 Im{Tr[(∂iPn)(1 − Pn)(∂jPn)]}, where Pn is the projection operator onto band n. Here, for each 4 × 4 Hamiltonian Hα, the projection operator is Pαβγ = 1 4 1 + Hα Eβγ 1 + ¯Hα ¯Eβ , ¯Hα ≡ 2 [(...

  50. [58]

    We have kept the leading contributions, quadratic in J and linear in the further hopping strength tz (or etz)

    + (t1t3 + t2t4 + t5t6)2 (20) The Berry curvature is ¯β = + : Ωij αβγ = J 2 16 ¯E3 βE3 αβγ [∂itz(3t5 x∂jety − 9t4 xety∂jtx + 6t3 xet2 y∂jety + 2t2 xet3 y∂jtx − txet4 y∂jety − et5 y∂jtx) − tz∂itx∂jety(3t4 x + 6t2 xet2 y − et4 y) − 8 etzt4 x∂itx∂jety + ∂i etz(4t5 x∂jety − 8t4 xet...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.