Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 100 references

Symmetry-Guided Computational Screening of Two-Dimensional Altermagnets with ab initio Hubbard Corrections

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A symmetry-first computational screen of 2710 exfoliable monolayers finds 24 two-dimensional altermagnets, 20 of them new predictions.

desk verdict Useful symmetry-first candidate list, but 'ground-state' labels outrun the computed configuration space and the funnel counts don't add up. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02925 v1 pith:S6HXKB43 submitted 2026-08-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Anumita Bose , Nataliia Manko , Marco Gibertini , Antimo Marrazzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismtwo-dimensionalmaterialshigh-throughputscreeningHubbardUdensityfunctionaltheoryspinsplittingmagneticgroundstatesexfoliablemonolayers
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 a symmetry-first computational screen of 2710 exfoliable two-dimensional crystals can find altermagnets before any magnetic ground-state energy is calculated, and that this approach, combined with density-functional theory plus self-consistently determined Hubbard U corrections, identifies 24 monolayers with altermagnetic ground states, 20 of them new predictions. Altermagnets are collinear antiferromagnets whose spin splitting varies with momentum, combining advantages of ferromagnets and antiferromagnets for spintronics without stray fields. The significance is practical: the 24 candidates are all easily exfoliable from known bulk crystals, and several show large spin splittings, up to 487 meV, making them immediate targets for device experiments. The paper also claims its automated workflow makes the discovery reproducible and extendable to other material families.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the symmetry-guided screening protocol, specifically the step that generates all spin configurations consistent with altermagnetic symmetry and rejects those connected by inversion, translation, the out-of-plane twofold rotation C2z, or the horizontal mirror Mz. An altermagnet is a collinear compensated magnet whose opposite-spin sublattices are linked by a rotation, so spin-up and spin-down bands split in momentum space while remaining degenerate at certain points. The protocol combines this symmetry analysis with density-functional theory plus Hubbard U scans over a range of U values and two starting magnetization moments, then applies quantitative criteria for compensation, splitting size, and energetic proximity. In the refinement stage, U values are recomputed self-consistently with density-functional perturbation theory and structures are relaxed, which removes 18 of the 42 initial candidates and yields the final 24. This sequence is what allows the search to be broad, covering all 2710 monolayers, yet still land on ground-state altermagnets rather than merely symmetry-permitted ones.

What would settle it

Pick one candidate, say CoBrO or Fe2Si2SbO9, and determine its magnetic order experimentally in an exfoliated monolayer using neutron or resonant x-ray diffraction to check collinearity and compensation, and its band structure using spin-resolved photoemission to check for momentum-dependent splitting; alternatively, compute total energies allowing noncollinear or spin-spiral states and check whether any falls below the reported altermagnetic configuration. A noncollinear ground state or a lack of the predicted spin-split bands would falsify the altermagnet label for that material.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 24 monolayers are refined ground-state altermagnets: they have compensated magnetization (net moment below 0.01 μB per cell), altermagnetic spin splitting (maximum splitting above 5 meV, splitting at the Γ point below 5 meV), and an altermagnetic configuration within 1 meV per atom of the lowest magnetic state, all evaluated with Hubbard U parameters determined self-consistently from first principles. Four of these, RuF4, VF4, MnMoTeO6, and Fe2SeTe, were previously reported; twenty are new. The screening inverts the usual order, applying symmetry analysis to all 2710 monolayers before any energy calculation, so that no symmetry-permitted altermagnet is excluded because its unit cell is too large to scan. After the high-throughput stage identifies 42 candidates for at least one U value, refinement with self-consistent U and structural relaxation leaves the final 24. Prominent examples are metallic Fe2Si2SbO9 with a 294 meV splitting near the Fermi level and insulating CoBrO with a 330 meV splitting.

Load-bearing premise

The list of 24 ground-state altermagnets stands on the assumption that the only magnetic configurations that matter are collinear and that density-functional theory with a Hubbard correction and self-consistently determined U ranks their energies correctly; if a candidate's true magnetic ground state is noncollinear, incommensurate, or otherwise absent from the calculated set, that candidate is not actually a ground-state altermagnet.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Twenty new exfoliable monolayers become candidate two-dimensional altermagnets, considerably expanding the known set relative to earlier screens of the same database.
  • The metal Fe2Si2SbO9 offers a 294 meV spin splitting near the Fermi level, a usable scale for spin-transport devices, while insulating CoBrO combines a 1.31 eV gap with a 330 meV splitting for spin-filtering.
  • The symmetry-first workflow can be applied to other crystal databases without the small-unit-cell constraint that limited earlier searches.
  • Because the candidates are easily exfoliable, they are ready for van der Waals heterostructure experiments where gating, proximity effects, and moiré engineering could tune altermagnetic order.
  • The energetic-stability criterion admits a few materials, such as CuH8N2(OF2)2 and SrCo2Te3(ClO4)2, whose altermagnetic state is not the lowest-energy state, so their classification as ground-state altermagnets rests on the 1 meV per atom tolerance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The screening tests only collinear spin configurations, so any candidate whose true magnetic ground state is noncollinear or incommensurate would not actually be a ground-state altermagnet; extending the workflow to noncollinear order is a direct test.
  • Because the refinement uses a Hubbard-corrected density functional with self-consistent U, switching to hybrid functionals or adding spin-orbit coupling could shift energy differences and splitting magnitudes, though the symmetry classification itself should persist.
  • The transition-metal filter is conservative; compounds containing other magnetic elements, such as AgF2, may also be two-dimensional altermagnets, so the 24 candidates should be viewed as a lower bound.
  • If Fe2SeTe behaves as a doped FeSe analogue, it may bridge altermagnetism and superconductivity in one material, a possibility the paper raises but does not establish.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a high-throughput computational search for two-dimensional altermagnets in the MC2D database (2710 monolayers). The screening is symmetry-first: candidates are filtered by chemical composition, compensated magnetization, and the absence of connecting symmetries (I, T, C2z, Mz) between opposite-spin sublattices, yielding 79 easily exfoliable candidates. For these, the authors run DFT+U calculations over a grid of Hubbard U values (0–8 eV) for all symmetry-generated altermagnetic configurations plus one ferromagnetic configuration, and apply quantitative criteria on magnetization compensation, spin splitting magnitude, zero splitting at Gamma, and energetic proximity to the lowest-energy calculated state (|E_AM - E_GS| < 1 meV/atom). This stage produces 42 altermagnetic candidates. A refinement stage determines self-consistent Hubbard U values from DFPT, re-evaluates the magnetic states, and applies structural relaxation, resulting in a final set of 24 'refined ground-state altermagnets', including 4 previously reported and 20 new. The paper highlights Fe2SeTe, Fe2Si2SbO9, and CoBrO with large spin splittings, and provides an automated AiiDA workflow and a database for future use.

Significance. If the ground-state labels are correct, this work substantially expands the known family of 2D altermagnets and introduces a useful methodological template: symmetry analysis before expensive magnetic ground-state searches. The use of self-consistently determined Hubbard U from DFPT, the openness of the workflow, and the direct computation of momentum-dependent spin splittings are concrete strengths. The paper is likely to be influential for the 2D magnetism and spintronics communities. However, the central claim that the 24 materials are ground-state altermagnets is currently weakened by an incomplete search over magnetic configurations and by several unresolved numerical inconsistencies in the manuscript. These issues are fixable but must be addressed before publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section I.A and Figure 2] The ground-state criterion is evaluated against a restricted set of magnetic configurations. The AMPWScanWorkChain computes DFT+U energies only for the symmetry-generated altermagnetic configurations and one ferromagnetic configuration, and E_GS is defined as the lowest-energy configuration among those considered for the same U. Non-altermagnetic antiferromagnetic orders (e.g., conventional stripe or zigzag AFM) and noncollinear or incommensurate states are never computed. Therefore the abstract's claim of 'reliably capture[ing] magnetic ground states' and the Table I label 'refined ground-state altermagnets' are not established unless the authors either extend the energy competition to include explicit non-altermagnetic AFM configurations for the 24 finalists, or rephrase the claims as 'lowest-energy among the calculated collinear AM and FM states.' This is a load-bearing issue because the numerical highlight of the paper (24 robust ground-state altermagnets) depends on it.
  2. [Section I.B and Methods] The material counts are internally inconsistent. Section I.B states that self-consistent U values are obtained for 36 of the 42 candidates, that three materials are excluded during refinement (Co2NO6, Co2TaTe2, CoH2SeO4), and that 24 materials remain. However, 36 minus 3 is 33, not 24; the fate of the other 9 materials is never explained. The Methods section compounds the inconsistency by saying the automated Hubbard workflow converged for 24 materials and the remaining 18 were done manually, implying all 42 received U values, while later listing several materials (TlCr4BiO14, FePSe3, Cu2Fe4S7, etc.) for which U could not be completed. The paper must reconcile these numbers (42, 36, 24, plus the individual exclusions) so that the final count is auditable.
  3. [Table I and Section I.B] The sign convention of the 'energetic stability' column is contradictory. The caption defines ΔE_min_AM-NAM as the energy difference between the altermagnetic ground state and the lowest-energy non-altermagnetic magnetic state. Under this definition, a negative value means the altermagnetic state lies lower in energy and is therefore the ground state. However, the text in Section I.B states that the negative values for CuH8N2(OF2)2, SrCo2Te3(ClO4)2, V3(H3O5)2, and Al2CuCl8 'indicate that the altermagnetic state for these materials is not the lowest-energy state.' This is backwards under the stated definition. The authors should either flip the sign in the table/definition or correct the textual interpretation; the classification of these four materials as refined ground-state altermagnets should be re-examined once the convention is fixed.
  4. [Section I.B] The transition from 'three materials are excluded' to '24 materials are confirmed' leaves 9 unaccounted systems. Even if the missing 9 are removed because they no longer satisfy the altermagnetic criteria at their self-consistent U, the manuscript should state this explicitly and list them. As written, the paper cannot be independently audited from the information given in the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I caption] The caption reports ΔE in meV/magnetic atom, while the screening criterion in Section I.A uses meV/atom; please clarify whether these are the same normalization and how the number of magnetic atoms is counted for each compound.
  2. [Section I.A] In the criterion list, the expression '|E AM−E GS|<1 meV/atom' and the phrase 'the last criterion i.e.,|E AM−E GS|<1 meV/atom' should be reformatted with proper spacing for readability.
  3. [Figure 2] The starting magnetization values are denoted 'm_i = 0.1, 0.5' but the units are not given; please indicate whether these are μB per magnetic site or normalized values.
  4. [Abstract and Summary] The claim that 24/2710 is a 'significantly larger fraction' than prior searches is not quantified; adding the comparison with the 2/194 result of Haddadi et al. would make this statement more precise.
  5. [Methods] The Methods section describes both a 'balanced protocol' for the AiiDA Hubbard workflow and a manual DFPT iteration with a convergence threshold of 0.1 eV; please state whether the two approaches give consistent U values for the systems where both were applied.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the altermagnetic predictions are produced by an independent DFT+U/DFPT workflow, not by fitting or self-definition.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central claim (24 refined ground-state altermagnets) is obtained by applying an explicit, pre-defined screening protocol: symmetry analysis generates candidate altermagnetic configurations, DFT+U energies are computed independently for those configurations and for a ferromagnetic reference, and the quantities M_abs, M_tot, ΔE_max, ΔE_Γ,max, and |E_AM - E_GS| are evaluated as outputs. The Hubbard-U parameters used in the refinement are determined self-consistently by DFPT, not fitted to reproduce altermagnetism, so the 'prediction' of which materials remain altermagnetic at the self-consistent U is a genuine, parameter-free test. Spin splittings are calculated outputs of the band-structure calculations, not inputs. The definition of E_GS as the lowest energy among the configurations considered is an explicit operational criterion; while it limits the physical claim to the searched magnetic configuration space, this is a completeness/accuracy limitation rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations to MC2D and to AiiDA workflow papers are to publicly available databases and codes used as tools; they are not invoked to justify the altermagnetic predictions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The discrepancy between the 36/42 counts in the refinement section and the Methods description is an audit/consistency issue, not evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on six hand-chosen screening parameters, five domain assumptions about DFT+U and the magnetic configuration space, and no invented physical entities. The heaviest burden is the assumption that collinear configurations generated by symmetry cover the true magnetic ground state, since only those states are compared.

free parameters (6)
  • Altermagnetic screening thresholds = Mabs > 0.1 uB/cell; Mtot < 0.01 uB/cell; dE > 5 meV; dE_Gamma < 5 meV
    Hand-chosen cutoffs define what counts as an altermagnetic ground state; the final list of 24 depends directly on them.
  • Energy proximity criterion = |E_AM - E_GS| < 1 meV/atom
    This threshold allows materials whose altermagnetic state is not the lowest-energy state to still be classified as ground-state altermagnets.
  • Hubbard U scan grid = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 eV
    The scan range and step were chosen for computational cost; the initial robustness assessment of each candidate depends on this grid.
  • Starting magnetizations = 0.1 and 0.5 uB on transition-metal sites
    Two initial magnetic moments were used to mitigate local minima; they are not physical inputs but affect which magnetic states are found.
  • Allowed transition metals = V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Ru, Re
    This hand-chosen list excludes elements such as Ag and Cu in some compounds, e.g., AgF2 is removed by this filter.
  • Exfoliation energy thresholds = 30 meV/Angstrom^2 (DF2-C09); 35 meV/Angstrom^2 (rVV10)
    Taken from prior literature but hand-selected to define easily exfoliable and to determine the candidate pool.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PBE+U DFT with SSSP pseudopotentials captures the magnetic ground-state energy ordering of these 2D transition-metal compounds.
    Central validity assumption; no experimental verification or beyond-DFT benchmark for the 24 candidates is provided.
  • domain assumption The collinear altermagnetic spin configurations generated by the symmetry workflow plus the FM state span the relevant low-energy magnetic orders.
    Noncollinear and incommensurate orders are not calculated, so a lower-energy noncollinear ground state would invalidate the ground-state label.
  • domain assumption Symmetry criteria excluding P, tau, C2z, and Mz as sublattice-connecting operations correctly classify 2D altermagnets.
    The paper relies on the spin layer group framework of Refs. [51, 53]; errors in that framework would propagate to the candidate list.
  • domain assumption MC2D database structures are accurate, chemically correct, and representative of exfoliable monolayers.
    All downstream results depend on these starting geometries; e.g., CoH2SeO4 was dropped after relaxation broke the altermagnetic symmetry.
  • domain assumption Linear-response DFPT gives physically meaningful Hubbard U values for the relevant d states.
    The paper itself reports non-convergence or unphysical U for several compounds (Cu in Cu2Fe4S7, Fe in FePSe3, etc.), indicating sensitivity to this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Symmetry-Guided Computational Screening of Two-Dimensional Altermagnets with ab initio Hubbard Corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S6HXKB43

@misc{pith2026260802925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Symmetry-Guided Computational Screening of Two-Dimensional Altermagnets with ab initio Hubbard Corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S6HXKB43}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02925}
}
abstract

Altermagnets combine compensated antiferromagnetic order with momentum-dependent spin splitting, offering a promising platform for spintronic applications without macroscopic magnetization or stray magnetic fields. Although a wide range of three-dimensional (3D) materials have been identified as altermagnets, two-dimensional (2D) altermagnets remain comparatively limited. In this work, we perform a high-throughput computational search for altermagnetism across 2710 materials in the Materials Cloud 2D Crystals (MC2D) database. Our approach combines symmetry-based screening with first-principles density functional theory calculations, including self-consistent Hubbard-$U$ corrections, to reliably capture magnetic ground states. Through a systematic exploration of magnetic configurations and their energetic stability, we identify 42 materials exhibiting altermagnetic ground states for at least one value of $U$, of which 24 remain robust upon determination of the Hubbard-$U$ parameters from first principles--including 4 materials previously reported in the literature and 20 newly predicted candidates. These comprise promising monolayers such as metallic Fe$_2$Si$_2$SbO$_9$, and insulating CoBrO, with spin splittings about 294 meV and 330 meV, respectively. Our results significantly expand the pool of potential 2D altermagnet candidates with favorable exfoliation energetics and provide valuable guidance for experimental efforts. In addition, this work establishes a high-throughput computational framework for reproducible discovery and characterization of altermagnetic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02925 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Physical Review X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond con- ventional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation sym- metry, Physical Review X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Altermagnetism: Exploring new frontiers in magnetism and spintronics, Advanced Functional Mate- rials34, 2409327 (2024). 9

    2024

  4. [4]

    Krempask` y, L

    J. Krempask` y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov,et al., Altermagnetic lifting of kramers spin degeneracy, Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    S. S. Fender, O. Gonzalez, and D. K. Bediako, Altermag- netism: A chemical perspective, Journal of the Ameri- can Chemical Society147, 2257 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Altermagnets as a new class of functional materials, Nature Reviews Materials 10, 473 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Tamang, S

    R. Tamang, S. Gurung, D. P. Rai, S. Brahimi, and S. Lounis, Altermagnetism and altermagnets: A brief review, Magnetism5, 17 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Giant and tunneling magnetoresistance in unconventional collinear antiferro- magnets with nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling, Physical Review X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V` yborn` y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn` y, Effi- cient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromagnetism, Physical Review Letters 126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Observation of spin-splitter torque in collinear antiferromagnetic RuO 2, Physical Review Letters129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan,et al., Observation of spin splitting torque in a collinear antiferromagnet RuO2, Physical Review Letters128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, J. Zub´ aˇ c, K. Geishen- dorf, P. Ritzinger, B. R˚ uˇ ziˇ ckov´ a, T. Kotte, J.ˇZelezn´ y, K. Olejn´ ık, G. Springholz, B. B¨ uchner, A. Thomas, K. V´ yborn´ y, T. Jungwirth, H. Reichlov´ a, and D. Krieg- ner, Anisotropic magnetoresistance in alterm...

    2024

  5. [13]

    H. Chen, L. Liu, X. Zhou, Z. Meng, X. Wang, Z. Duan, G. Zhao, H. Yan, P. Qin, and Z. Liu, Emerging an- tiferromagnets for spintronics, Advanced Materials36, 2310379 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zhang, W

    X.-P. Zhang, W. Feng, R.-W. Zhang, X. Fan, X. Wang, and Y. Yao, Theory of anisotropic magnetoresistance in altermagnets and its applications, Physical Review Letters135, 266706 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Z. Guo, X. Wang, W. Wang, G. Zhang, X. Zhou, and Z. Cheng, Spin-polarized antiferromagnets for spintron- ics, Advanced Materials37, 2505779 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    J.-U. Lee, S. Lee, J. H. Ryoo, S. Kang, T. Y. Kim, P. Kim, C.-H. Park, J.-G. Park, and H. Cheong, Ising- type magnetic ordering in atomically thin FePS 3, Nano Letters16, 7433 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang,et al., Discovery of intrinsic ferromagnetism in two-dimensional van der waals crys- tals, Nature546, 265 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden,et al., Layer-dependent fer- romagnetism in a van der waals crystal down to the monolayer limit, Nature546, 270 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Magnetism in two-dimensional van der waals materials, Nature563, 47 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Gong and X

    C. Gong and X. Zhang, Two-dimensional magnetic crys- tals and emergent heterostructure devices, Science363, eaav4450 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    H. Li, S. Ruan, and Y.-J. Zeng, Intrinsic van der waals magnetic materials from bulk to the 2D limit: new fron- tiers of spintronics, Advanced Materials31, 1900065 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Y. Khan, S. M. Obaidulla, M. R. Habib, A. Gayen, T. Liang, X. Wang, and M. Xu, Recent breakthroughs in two-dimensional van der waals magnetic materials and emerging applications, Nano Today34, 100902 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    C. Liu, H. Zhang, S. Zhang, D. Hou, Y. Liu, H. Wu, Z. Jiang, H. Wang, Z. Ma, X. Luo,et al., Emergent, non-aging, extendable, and rechargeable exchange bias in 2D Fe 3GeTe2 homostructures induced by moderate pressuring, Advanced Materials35, 2203411 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. Mishchenko, A. Carvalho, and A. Castro Neto, 2D materials and van der waals het- erostructures, Science353, aac9439 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Y. Liu, N. O. Weiss, X. Duan, H.-C. Cheng, Y. Huang, and X. Duan, Van der waals heterostructures and de- vices, Nature Reviews Materials1, 16042 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    X. Chen, Z. Zhou, B. Deng, Z. Wu, F. Xia, Y. Cao, L. Zhang, W. Huang, N. Wang, and L. Wang, Elec- trically tunable physical properties of two-dimensional materials, Nano Today27, 99 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    L. Du, T. Hasan, A. Castellanos-Gomez, G.-B. Liu, Y. Yao, C. N. Lau, and Z. Sun, Engineering symme- try breaking in 2D layered materials, Nature Reviews Physics3, 193 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    K. F. Mak, J. Shan, and D. C. Ralph, Probing and controlling magnetic states in 2d layered magnetic ma- terials, Nature Reviews Physics1, 646 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Y. Guo, H. Liu, O. Janson, I. C. Fulga, J. van den Brink, and J. I. Facio, Spin-split collinear antiferromagnets: A large-scale ab-initio study, Materials Today Physics32, 100991 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    O. Amin, A. Dal Din, E. Golias, Y. Niu, A. Zakharov, S. Fromage, C. Fields, S. Heywood, R. Cousins, F. Mac- cherozzi,et al., Nanoscale imaging and control of alter- magnetism in MnTe, Nature636, 348 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kutnyakhov, N. Wind,et al., Observation of time- reversal symmetry breaking in the band structure of altermagnetic RuO 2, Science Advances10, eadj4883 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Y. Guo, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y.-y. Jiang, L. Jiang, C. Wu, J. Dong, X. Xu, W. He, B. He,et al., Direct and inverse spin splitting effects in altermagnetic RuO 2, Advanced Science11, 2400967 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V. N. Strocov, P. Constantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V. K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, et al., Direct observation of altermagnetic band split- ting in CrSb thin films, Nature Communications15, 2116 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    J. Ding, Z. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Tao, Z. Liu, T. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Liu,et al., Large band splitting in g-wave altermagnet CrSb, Physical Review Letters133, 206401 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Z.-F. Gao, S. Qu, B. Zeng, Y. Liu, J.-R. Wen, H. Sun, P.-J. Guo, and Z.-Y. Lu, Ai-accelerated discovery of 10 altermagnetic materials, National Science Review12, nwaf066 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Bhattarai, P

    R. Bhattarai, P. Minch, and T. D. Rhone, High- throughput screening of altermagnetic materials, Phys- ical Review Materials9, 064403 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Sufyan, B

    A. Sufyan, B. Marfoua, J. A. Larsson, E. Van Loon, and R. Armiento, High-throughput quantification of al- termagnetic band splitting, Physical Review Materials 10, 044407 (2026)

    2026

  30. [38]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Multifunctional antiferromagnetic materials with giant piezomagnetism and noncollinear spin cur- rent, Nature communications12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei,et al., A metallic room- temperature d-wave altermagnet, Nature Physics21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y. Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu,et al., Crystal- symmetry-paired spin–valley locking in a layered room- temperature metallic altermagnet candidate, Nature Physics21, 760 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    S. Zeng, D. Liu, H. Peng, C.-C. He, X.-B. Yang, and Y.-J. Zhao, Classification and design of two-dimensional altermagnets, Frontiers of Physics21, 095301 (2026)

    2026

  34. [42]

    Mazin, R

    I. Mazin, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, In- duced monolayer altermagnetism in mnp (s, se) 3 and fese, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.02355 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. Wang, H. Wang, L. Liu, J. Zhang, and H. Zhang, Electric-field-induced switchable two-dimensional alter- magnets, Nano Letters25, 498 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Zhang, C

    R.-W. Zhang, C. Cui, R. Li, J. Duan, L. Li, Z.-M. Yu, and Y. Yao, Predictable gate-field control of spin in al- termagnets with spin-layer coupling, Physical Review Letters133, 056401 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    R. He, D. Wang, N. Luo, J. Zeng, K.-Q. Chen, and L.-M. Tang, Nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling in anti- ferromagnetic twisted bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 046401 (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    Y. Liu, J. Yu, and C.-C. Liu, Twisted magnetic van der waals bilayers: An ideal platform for altermagnetism, Physical Review Letters133, 206702 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Sheoran and S

    S. Sheoran and S. Bhattacharya, Nonrelativistic spin splittings and altermagnetism in twisted bilayers of cen- trosymmetric antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, L051401 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    B. Pan, P. Zhou, P. Lyu, H. Xiao, X. Yang, and L. Sun, General stacking theory for altermagnetism in bilayer systems, Physical Review Letters133, 166701 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Zeng and Y.-J

    S. Zeng and Y.-J. Zhao, Bilayer stacking a-type al- termagnet: A general approach to generating two- dimensional altermagnetism, Physical Review B110, 174410 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    R. Xu, Y. Gao, and J. Liu, Chemical design of monolayer altermagnets, National Science Review13, nwaf528 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Zeng and Y.-J

    S. Zeng and Y.-J. Zhao, Description of two-dimensional altermagnetism: Categorization using spin group the- ory, Physical Review B110, 054406 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    J. Wang, X. Yang, Z. Yang, J. Lu, P. Ho, W. Wang, Y. S. Ang, Z. Cheng, and S. Fang, Pentagonal 2D al- termagnets: Material screening and altermagnetic tun- neling junction device application, Advanced Functional Materials , 2505145 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Sødequist and T

    J. Sødequist and T. Olsen, Two-dimensional altermag- nets from high throughput computational screening: Symmetry requirements, chiral magnons, and spin-orbit effects, Applied Physics Letters124, 182409 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Haddadi, D

    F. Haddadi, D. Campi, F. J. Dos Santos, N. Mounet, L. Ponet, N. Marzari, and M. Gibertini, Exploring the magnetic landscape of easily exfoliable two-dimensional materials, ACS Nano20, 13528 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    Torelli, H

    D. Torelli, H. Moustafa, K. W. Jacobsen, and T. Olsen, High-throughput computational screening for two- dimensional magnetic materials based on experimental databases of three-dimensional compounds, npj Com- putational Materials6, 158 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    Mounet, M

    N. Mounet, M. Gibertini, P. Schwaller, D. Campi, A. Merkys, A. Marrazzo, T. Sohier, I. E. Castelli, A. Ce- pellotti, G. Pizzi,et al., Two-dimensional materials from high-throughput computational exfoliation of ex- perimentally known compounds, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy13, 246 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Campi, N

    D. Campi, N. Mounet, M. Gibertini, G. Pizzi, and N. Marzari, Expansion of the materials cloud 2D database, ACS Nano17, 11268 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Liechtenstein, V

    A. Liechtenstein, V. I. Anisimov, and J. Zaanen, Density-functional theory and strong interactions: Or- bital ordering in Mott-Hubbard insulators, Physical Re- view B52, R5467 (1995)

    1995

  51. [59]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. De Gironcoli, Linear response ap- proach to the calculation of the effective interaction pa- rameters in the LDA+U method, Physical Review B71, 035105 (2005)

    2005

  52. [60]

    Baroni, P

    S. Baroni, P. Giannozzi, and A. Testa, Green’s-function approach to linear response in solids, Physical Review Letters58, 1861 (1987)

    1987

  53. [61]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Hubbard pa- rameters from density-functional perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. B98, 085127 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Hp–a code for the calculation of hubbard parameters using density- functional perturbation theory, Computer Physics Com- munications279, 108455 (2022)

    2022

  55. [63]

    S. P. Huber, S. Zoupanos, M. Uhrin, L. Talirz, L. Kahle, R. H¨ auselmann, D. Gresch, T. M¨ uller, A. V. Yaku- tovich, C. W. Andersen,et al., Aiida 1.0, a scalable com- putational infrastructure for automated reproducible workflows and data provenance, Scientific Data7, 300 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Uhrin, S

    M. Uhrin, S. P. Huber, J. Yu, N. Marzari, and G. Pizzi, Workflows in aiida: Engineering a high-throughput, event-based engine for robust and modular computa- tional workflows, Computational Materials Science187, 110086 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Physical Review Letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  58. [66]

    H. Peng, S. Zeng, J.-H. Liao, C.-C. He, X.-B. Yang, and Y.-J. Zhao, Multicomponent altermagnet: A gen- eral approach to generating multicomponent structures with two-dimensional altermagnetism, Physical Review B111, 195123 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo,et al., Quantum espresso: a modular and open-source software project for quantum simulations of materials, Journal of physics: Condensed 11 Matter21, 395...

    2009

  60. [68]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni,et al., Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with quantum espresso, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Baseggio, P. Bonf` a, D. Brunato, R. Car, I. Carnimeo, C. Cavazzoni, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, F. Ferrari Ruffino, A. Ferretti, N. Marzari, I. Timrov, A. Urru, and S. Baroni, Quantum espresso toward the exascale, The Journal of Chemical Physics 152, 154105 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    Smolyanyuk, L

    A. Smolyanyuk, L. ˇSmejkal, and I. I. Mazin, A tool to check whether a symmetry-compensated collinear mag- netic material is antiferro- or altermagnetic, SciPost Physics Codebases , 30 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Smolyanyuk, L

    A. Smolyanyuk, L. ˇSmejkal, and I. I. Mazin, Codebase release r1.0 for amcheck, SciPost Physics Codebases , 30 (2024)

    2024

  64. [72]

    de Miranda Nascimento, F

    G. de Miranda Nascimento, F. J. dos Santos, M. Bercx, D. Grassano, G. Pizzi, and N. Marzari, Accurate and efficient protocols for high-throughput first-principles materials simulations, npj Computational Materials (2026)

    2026

  65. [73]

    Bastonero, C

    L. Bastonero, C. Malica, E. Macke, M. Bercx, S. Huber, I. Timrov, and N. Marzari, First-principles hubbard pa- rameters with automated and reproducible workflows, npj Computational Materials11, 183 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    Mazin (The PRX Editors), Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys

    I. Mazin (The PRX Editors), Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  67. [75]

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

    2024

  68. [76]

    N. A. Spaldin, S.-W. Cheong, and S. Griffin, Why are there so few non-altermagnetic antiferromagnets?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.17181 (2026)

    2026

  69. [77]

    Gonz´ alez-Garc´ ıa, W

    A. Gonz´ alez-Garc´ ıa, W. L´ opez-P´ erez, P. Pacheco, L. Ram´ ırez-Montes, and R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, Coex- istence ofd-wave altermagnetism and topological states in janus FeSeX (X= S, Te) monolayers, Physical Review Materials10, 044004 (2026)

    2026

  70. [78]

    Louca, K

    D. Louca, K. Horigane, A. Llobet, R. Arita, S. Ji, N. Katayama, S. Konbu, K. Nakamura, T.-Y. Koo, P. Tong,et al., Local atomic structure of superconduct- ing FeSe1−xTex, Physical Review B81, 134524 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    K. S. Atsushi Togo and I. Tanaka, Spglib: a software li- brary for crystal symmetry search, Science and Technol- ogy of Advanced Materials: Methods4, 2384822 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Shinohara, A

    K. Shinohara, A. Togo, and I. Tanaka, Algorithms for magnetic symmetry operation search and identification of magnetic space group from magnetic crystal struc- ture, Acta Crystallographica Section A79, 390 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Y. Yu, X. Chen, Y. Zhu, Y. Li, R. Xiong, J. Li, Y. Liu, and Q. Liu, Identifying oriented spin space groups and related physical properties using an online platform findspingroup, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.21397 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  74. [82]

    S. He, J. He, W. Zhang, L. Zhao, D. Liu, X. Liu, D. Mou, Y.-B. Ou, Q.-Y. Wang, Z. Li,et al., Phase diagram and electronic indication of high-temperature superconduc- tivity at 65 k in single-layer FeSe films, Nature Materials 12, 605 (2013)

    2013

  75. [83]

    J. Lee, F. Schmitt, R. Moore, S. Johnston, Y.-T. Cui, W. Li, M. Yi, Z. Liu, M. Hashimoto, Y. Zhang,et al., Interfacial mode coupling as the origin of the enhance- ment of tc in FeSe films on SrTiO 3, Nature515, 245 (2014)

    2014

  76. [84]

    Vanderbilt, Soft self-consistent pseudopotentials in a generalized eigenvalue formalism, Physical Review B 41, 7892 (1990)

    D. Vanderbilt, Soft self-consistent pseudopotentials in a generalized eigenvalue formalism, Physical Review B 41, 7892 (1990)

    1990

  77. [85]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys- ical Review B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  78. [86]

    Goedecker, M

    S. Goedecker, M. Teter, and J. Hutter, Separable dual- space gaussian pseudopotentials, Physical Review B54, 1703 (1996)

    1996

  79. [87]

    D. R. Hamann, Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials, Physical Review B88, 085117 (2013)

    2013

  80. [88]

    Willand, Y

    A. Willand, Y. O. Kvashnin, L. Genovese, ´A. V´ azquez- Mayagoitia, A. K. Deb, A. Sadeghi, T. Deutsch, and S. Goedecker, Norm-conserving pseudopotentials with chemical accuracy compared to all-electron calculations, The Journal of Chemical Physics138(2013)

    2013

  81. [89]

    Kucukbenli, M

    E. Kucukbenli, M. Monni, B. Adetunji, X. Ge, G. Ade- bayo, N. Marzari, S. De Gironcoli, and A. D. Corso, Projector augmented-wave and all-electron calculations across the periodic table: a comparison of structural and energetic properties, arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.3015 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Dal Corso, Pseudopotentials periodic table: From h to pu, Computational Materials Science95, 337 (2014)

    A. Dal Corso, Pseudopotentials periodic table: From h to pu, Computational Materials Science95, 337 (2014)

    2014

  83. [91]

    K. F. Garrity, J. W. Bennett, K. M. Rabe, and D. Van- derbilt, Pseudopotentials for high-throughput dft cal- culations, Computational Materials Science81, 446 (2014)

    2014

  84. [92]

    Schlipf and F

    M. Schlipf and F. Gygi, Optimization algorithm for the generation of oncv pseudopotentials, Computer Physics Communications196, 36 (2015)

    2015

  85. [93]

    Lejaeghere, G

    K. Lejaeghere, G. Bihlmayer, T. Bj¨ orkman, P. Blaha, S. Bl¨ ugel, V. Blum, D. Caliste, I. E. Castelli, S. J. Clark, A. Dal Corso,et al., Reproducibility in density functional theory calculations of solids, Science351, aad3000 (2016)

    2016

  86. [94]

    Prandini, A

    G. Prandini, A. Marrazzo, I. E. Castelli, N. Mounet, and N. Marzari, Precision and efficiency in solid-state pseu- dopotential calculations, npj Computational Materials 4, 72 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Sohier, M

    T. Sohier, M. Calandra, and F. Mauri, Density func- tional perturbation theory for gated two-dimensional heterostructures: Theoretical developments and appli- cation to flexural phonons in graphene, Phys. Rev. B 96, 075448 (2017)

    2017

  88. [96]

    Methfessel and A

    M. Methfessel and A. T. Paxton, High-precision sam- pling for brillouin-zone integration in metals, Physical Review B40, 3616 (1989)

    1989

  89. [97]

    Marzari, D

    N. Marzari, D. Vanderbilt, A. De Vita, and M. C. Payne, Thermal contraction and disordering of the al (110) sur- face, Physical Review Letters82, 3296 (1999)

    1999

  90. [98]

    X. Gonze, First-principles responses of solids to atomic displacements and homogeneous electric fields: Imple- mentation of a conjugate-gradient algorithm, Physical Review B55, 10337 (1997)

    1997

  91. [99]

    Yu and E

    K. Yu and E. A. Carter, Communication: Comparing ab initio methods of obtaining effective u parameters for closed-shell materials, The Journal of Chemical Physics 140(2014). 12

    2014

  92. [100]

    A. Bose, N. Manko, M. Gibertini, and A. Marrazzo, 2D altermagnets database (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.