Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Interaction enhanced altermagnet in the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exactly solvable model shows that electron interactions drive a d-wave altermagnet through a Lifshitz transition into a fully spin-polarized state whose spin-flip resonance diverges logarithmically.

desk verdict A clean exact-solvable altermagnet extension of the HK model with a plausible Lifshitz transition and log-divergent spin-flip peak, but the discarded q=0 Kubo term needs to be addressed before the static susceptibility claims stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.04141 v2 pith:SRQCALG5 submitted 2025-11-06 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mes-hall

Ádám Bácsi , Balázs Dóra This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetismHatsugai-Kohmotomodelspinsusceptibilitymany-bodyLifshitztransitiondynamicalresponsenon-FermiliquidexactsolvabilityMottinsulator
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 studies the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model, an exactly solvable model of correlated electrons, dressed with a d-wave altermagnetic band structure whose up- and down-spin Fermi surfaces are two crossed ellipses. It claims that increasing the momentum-space interaction $U$ causes a many-body Lifshitz transition at a critical $U_c$: doubly occupied momentum states disappear from the Fermi surface and every momentum state becomes fully spin polarized. Using a Kubo formula expressed directly in terms of many-body occupation probabilities, the paper derives the full dynamical spin susceptibility, which develops an energy gap of size $U$ and a sharp spin-flip peak that becomes log-divergent at the lower gap edge for $U$ at or above $U_c$. The static zz response remains the non-interacting Pauli value, while altermagnetic anisotropy reduces the static transverse response. If correct, the model gives exact, parameter-free predictions for how correlations strengthen altermagnetic order and shape its magnetic response.

What carries the argument

The Hatsugai-Kohmoto interaction $U n_{k\uparrow}n_{k\downarrow}$ is local in momentum space, decoupling the Hamiltonian into independent $k$-sectors with four many-body states (empty, one spin, one spin, doubly occupied). The $d_{x^2-y^2}$ altermagnetic bands $\varepsilon_\uparrow(k) = k_x^2/(2m\alpha) + \alpha k_y^2/(2m)$, $\varepsilon_\downarrow(k) = \alpha k_x^2/(2m) + k_y^2/(2m\alpha)$ give spin-dependent Fermi surfaces. The paper evaluates the Kubo formula directly using equilibrium occupation probabilities $P(k,\cdot)$, exploiting the exact time evolution $c_{ks}(t) = c_{ks} e^{-i\varepsilon_s(k)t}(1 - (1-e^{-iUt})n_{k\bar{s}})$. The spin-flip response reduces to sums over momentum regions with $P(k,\uparrow)^2$ and $P(k,\downarrow)^2$ weights; a saddle point in $\varepsilon_\uparrow - \varepsilon_\downarrow$ produces the log-divergent peak at the

What would settle it

Compute the exact $q=0$ Kubo term (the first term of Eq. 14) for this model and compare it with the $q\to 0$ limit of the remaining terms. In a zero-magnetization system the transverse susceptibility need not be continuous at $q=0$; if they differ at any frequency or in the static limit, the reported response functions are incomplete. Alternatively, measure the dynamical spin structure factor of a cold-atom realization at small $q$ and check whether the $U$-gap and log-divergent peak appear as predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: in the d-wave altermagnetic Hatsugai-Kohmoto model, repulsion drives a many-body Lifshitz transition at $U_c = \mu_0/(1-B(\alpha))$: doublons leave the Fermi surface and each momentum state becomes fully spin-polarized. The transverse dynamical spin susceptibility develops a gap $U$, a peak at $\omega_m = U + (1-1/\alpha^2)(\mu-U)$ that becomes log-divergent at the lower gap edge for $U \ge U_c$; the static zz response stays at the Pauli value while altermagnetism reduces the transverse static response via $C(\alpha)$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the exact $q=0$ term in the Kubo susceptibility is physically irrelevant, so the $q\to 0$ limit of the $q\neq 0$ branch gives the complete response; if the two limits disagree, the predicted gap and log-divergent peak do not represent the full spin response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The predicted many-body Lifshitz transition is an exactly solvable example of interaction-strengthened magnetic order: repulsion removes doubly occupied momentum states and leaves a fully spin-polarized Fermi surface, so the altermagnet becomes more magnetic as U grows.
  • The dynamical transverse spin susceptibility is measurable in principle by spin-resolved Bragg spectroscopy or neutron/X-ray scattering; the gap proportional to U and the log-divergent peak at the lower gap edge are sharp fingerprints of the HK correlation.
  • Above U_c the small-momentum spin response becomes identical in structure to that of an altermagnetic Mott insulator, making the HK altermagnet a controlled model for altermagnetic Mott physics.
  • The static zz Pauli response staying U-independent while the transverse static response is reduced by C(α) gives a simple benchmark for numerical studies of correlated altermagnets.
  • The exact formulas for Γ''↑↓(ω) allow direct quantitative comparison with future numerical simulations of HK-type models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the q→0 and exact q=0 limits of the transverse susceptibility were shown to coincide (which the paper does not establish), the same many-body Lifshitz transition should appear in the charge compressibility and optical conductivity, giving independent observables for the transition.
  • In ultracold-atom realizations of HK-type models with spin-dependent lattices, the predicted log-divergent peak should be observable as a sharp, narrow feature in spin-resolved Bragg spectroscopy; finite temperature and lattice cutoffs would soften it but the trend toward the gap edge should survive.
  • The exact solubility suggests a controlled route to altermagnetic Mott physics: for U > U_c the small-momentum spin response mimics a Mott insulator even though the lower Hubbard band is partially filled, so the model can serve as a benchmark for numerical studies of correlated altermagnets.
  • The same many-body occupation-probability machinery could be applied to other spin-split band structures to test whether the log-divergent peak and the Lifshitz transition are generic to altermagnetism or specific to the d_{x²−y²} form.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model with a d-wave altermagnetic dispersion. The Hamiltonian is diagonalized separately at each momentum, yielding exact many-body occupation probabilities. The authors identify an interaction-driven Lifshitz transition at U_c above which doublons are absent and every momentum state is singly occupied and fully spin-polarized. The spin susceptibility is evaluated from the Kubo formula using these occupation probabilities. The main claims are that, for small wavevectors, the transverse dynamical susceptibility develops a gap proportional to U, exhibits a peak that becomes log-divergent above U_c, and that the static transverse susceptibility is reduced by altermagnetism but is independent of U.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides an exactly solvable example of correlation-driven Fermi-surface reconstruction in an altermagnet, with a quantitative prediction for the spin susceptibility that could be tested in neutron or Bragg spectroscopy. The strengths are the exact per-momentum diagonalization, the use of many-body occupation probabilities in the Kubo formula, and the analytic closed forms for the susceptibility. There are no fitted parameters beyond the model parameters U, α, and μ0. The central physical idea, that HK interactions suppress momentum-space doublons and lead to a fully spin-polarized momentum occupation above a critical U, is internally consistent and supported by the ground-state analysis. The main caveat, discussed below, concerns the treatment of the q=0 term and the order-of-limits issue in the Kubo response.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (14)] The exact q=0 term (first line of Eq. (14)) is discarded with the statement that 'all excitations, including optical excitations, possess a non-zero wavenumber'. This is not correct: a uniform magnetic field (q=0) couples to the total spin and can induce spin flip at the same momentum, so the first term is exactly the uniform transverse spin response. For U>U_c this term has energy denominators ε_s(k)−ε_\bar{s}(k) with no U and can vanish along the nodal lines, so the uniform response is gapless, in contrast to the 'gap proportional to U' claimed for the q→0 branch. The q→0 limit of the q≠0 branch need not coincide with q=0, and the paper does not establish continuity. The abstract's unqualified statements about the spectral gap and the static transverse susceptibility therefore require either a computation of the q=0 term or a clear restriction to q≠0.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (17)] The central formula Eq. (17) is presented without derivation. The text says the frequency dependence is 'analytically obtained' after taking the δ→0 limit, but the momentum integrals and the conditions defining the intervals U<ω<ω_m and ω_m<ω<α^2ω_m are not shown. The result is not obvious given the nontrivial momentum dependence of ε↑(k)−ε↓(k). In addition, for U>U_c, Eq. (18) with μ=U_c gives ω_m<U, whereas the text states that the response is located between U and U+(α^2−1)U_c. This apparent contradiction in the lower edge must be resolved; as written, the log-divergent peak at ω=U and the interpretation of U as the gap are not unambiguously supported for U>U_c.
  3. [Sec. V and Abstract] The static susceptibility section explicitly considers only the q→0 limit. However, the abstract states that 'The static susceptibility remains unaffected by the correlations and altermagnetism reduces the static transverse response' without this qualification. The q=0 transverse component, which is part of the exact Kubo formula Eq. (14), is not computed and is not described by Eqs. (20)−(23). The paper should either compute the q=0 term and report its behavior, or qualify every static and dynamical claim as applying to the q≠0, q→0 limit. As it stands, the unqualified wording is misleading.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5)] The chemical potential μ(U) is stated without derivation. The density-conservation calculation leading to Eq. (5) and to the Lifshitz transition should be included, at least in an appendix.
  2. [Sec. IV] The transition from Eq. (16) to Eq. (17) should indicate which terms in Γ↑↓ contribute at positive frequency. The text is currently too terse for the reader to verify the sign conventions and the integration limits.
  3. [General] There are typographical/formatting issues in the full text: the Hamiltonian term 'd x2−y2' is garbled, and 'altermagnet' is sometimes used as an adjective. These should be corrected.
  4. [Fig. 2] The caption states 'µ0 = (1−B(1.2))U_c', which is consistent with Eq. (5) for U=0 but could be stated more explicitly as μ0 = [1−B(α)]U_c.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the susceptibility and Lifshitz transition are derived from the stated Hamiltonian and exact many-body occupation probabilities, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The Hamiltonian (1) defines the model; the many-body occupation probabilities (3) follow from exact diagonalization in each momentum sector; the ground-state chemical potential (5), doublon density (6), and Lifshitz transition at U_c are computed from these probabilities with no fitted inputs. The spin susceptibility is evaluated from the Kubo formula (7)-(14) using the same exact occupation probabilities, and the final dynamical and static results (17)-(23) are analytic evaluations of that expression. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then presented as a prediction; no result is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to derive. The only potentially questionable step is the neglect of the exact q=0 term in Eq. (14), justified as 'physically not relevant because all excitations... possess a non-zero wavenumber' and 'similarly to Ref. [28]'. This is an assumption about the physical relevance of a particular contribution and an order-of-limits choice, not a circular reduction: the q=0 term is neither silently absorbed into a fitted parameter nor used as the input from which the reported q→0 response is derived. Ref. [28] is an external methodological citation, not a self-citation, and the central α≠1 results do not depend on an unverified uniqueness claim. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The ledger records the model's free inputs (U, alpha, mu0) and three structural assumptions: the fixed-density chemical potential form, the discard of the q=0 Kubo term, and the T=0 product-to-square replacement in the q->0 limit. These are the places where the paper's claims could be invalidated without changing the Hamiltonian.

free parameters (3)
  • U (HK interaction strength)
    Tunable model input defining the correlation scale; the transition is at U_c = mu0/(1-B(alpha)). Not fitted to data.
  • alpha (d-wave altermagnetic anisotropy)
    Tunable band asymmetry (alpha=1 is spin-degenerate); all susceptibility results are parametric in alpha and symmetric under alpha <-> 1/alpha.
  • mu0 (chemical potential at U=0)
    Equivalent to the fixed electron density n_e through mu0 = pi n_e/m; sets the scale of U_c.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The Kubo formula Eq. (7) defines the linear spin response of the HK altermagnet.
    Standard linear response theory; no alternative response definition is considered.
  • domain assumption The chemical potential as a function of U, Eq. (5): mu(U) = (1-U/U_c)mu0 + U for U<U_c and mu=U_c for U>U_c, keeps the electron density fixed.
    Presented as 'emerges' (Sec. II) without a derivation from the density constraint; the Lifshitz transition location and the U>U_c regime depend on it.
  • domain assumption The exact q=0 term in Eq. (14) can be neglected because 'all excitations... possess a non-zero wavenumber'.
    Invoked in Sec. III; the paper does not check whether q->0 and q=0 limits of the transverse susceptibility coincide.
  • domain assumption At T=0, products of probabilities in the q->0 limit can be evaluated with P(k+q, .)P(k, .) replaced by P(k, .)^2.
    Needed to go from Eq. (14) to the spin-flip response Gamma_{up down} in Eq. (16) and to the analytic formula Eq. (17); boundary terms are handled as squares of step functions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interaction enhanced altermagnet in the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRQCALG5

@misc{pith2026251104141,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interaction enhanced altermagnet in the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRQCALG5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04141}
}
abstract

We investigate the interplay between altermagnetic band structures and electronic correlations by focusing on the $d_{x^2-y^2}$ altermagnetic generalization of the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model. We find that with increasing interaction, a many-body Lifshitz transition takes place when doubly occupied regions disappear from the Fermi surface and almost all momentum states become fully spin polarized. This is termed interaction enhanced altermagnet. We find that the dynamical susceptibility, which possesses only transverse non-zero components for small wavevectors, develops a gap proportional to the interaction strength, and displays a sharp peak at a frequency increasing with the interaction. Above the Lifshitz transition, this peak moves to the lower gap edge and becomes log-divergent. The signal intensity increases with the interaction up until the Lifshitz transition and saturates afterwards. The static susceptibility remains unaffected by the correlations and altermagnetism reduces the static transverse response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04141 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic picture of the ground state occupation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The spin susceptibility develops a gap of U at finite interaction strength. This is the energy cost of forming a ↑↓ pair from two spin-up particles located infinitesimally close to each other through the spin-flip process. The maximum response at ωm is found as Γ ′′ ↑↓,max = µ 2 Bg(εF ) α − α−1 arth s µ(α2 − 1) + U α2(2µ − U) ! . (19) As the interaction strength approaches Uc, the maximum location shifts to the lowe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Frequency dependence of the dynamical spin sus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth,Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth,Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Q. Cui, B. Zeng, P. Cui, T. Yu, and H. Yang,Efficient spin Seebeck and spin Nernst effects of magnons in alter- magnets, Phys. Rev. B108, L180401 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    P. Rao, A. Mook, and J. Knolle,Tunable band topology and optical conductivity in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 110, 024425 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    P. Das, V. Leeb, J. Knolle, and M. Knap,Realizing altermagnetism in Fermi-Hubbard models with ultracold atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 263402 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Krempask´ y, L.ˇSmejkal, S

    J. Krempask´ y, L.ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constanti- nou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez,et al.,Altermagnetic lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy, Nature626(7999), 517 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Gomonay, V

    O. Gomonay, V. P. Kravchuk, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, K. V. Yershov, T. Jungwirth, L. ˇSmejkal, J. v. d. Brink, and J. Sinova,Structure, control, and dynamics of altermag- netic textures, npj Spintronics2(1), 35 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao,Altermagnetism: Exploring new frontiers in mag- netism and spintronics, Advanced Functional Materials 34(49), 2409327 (2024)

    2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    G. Yang, Z. Li, S. Yang, J. Li, H. Zheng, W. Zhu, Z. Pan, Y. Xu, S. Cao, W. Zhao, A. Jana, J. Zhang,et al.,Three- dimensional mapping of the altermagnetic spin splitting in CrSb, Nature Communications16(1), 1442 (2025)

    2025

  2. [10]

    Cheong and F.-T

    S.-W. Cheong and F.-T. Huang,Altermagnetism classi- fication, npj Quantum Materials10(1), 38 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    S. D. Lundemo, F. S. Nogueira, and A. Sudbø,Quan- tum critical scaling of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B111, 214436 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    X.-J. Yi, Y. Mao, X. Lu, and Q.-F. Sun,Spin splitting Nernst effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B111, 035423 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    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, Nat. Rev. Mater.10, 473 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Gondolf, A

    J. Gondolf, A. Kreisel, M. Roig, Y. Yu, D. F. Agterberg, and B. M. Andersen,Local signatures of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B111, 174436 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Iguchi, H

    S. Iguchi, H. Kobayashi, Y. Ikemoto, T. Furukawa, H. Itoh, S. Iwai, T. Moriwaki, and T. Sasaki,Magneto- optical spectra of an organic antiferromagnet as a can- didate for an altermagnet, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033026 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Betancourt, J

    R. Betancourt, J. Zub´ aˇ c, K. Geishendorf, 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, et al.,Anisotropic magnetoresistance in altermagnetic MnTe, npj Spintronics2(1) (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Hoyer, P

    R. Hoyer, P. P. Stavropoulos, A. Razpopov, R. Valent ´ ı, L. ˇSmejkal, and A. Mook,Altermagnetic splitting of magnons in hematiteα−fe 2o3, Phys. Rev. B112, 064425 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    V. Leeb, A. Mook, L. ˇSmejkal, and J. Knolle,Sponta- neous formation of altermagnetism from orbital ordering, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236701 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Kaushal and M

    N. Kaushal and M. Franz,Altermagnetism in modified Lieb lattice Hubbard model, arXiv:2412.16421

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge Univ

    S. Sachdev,Quantum Phase Transitions(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999)

    1999

  13. [21]

    Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    T. Giamarchi,Quantum Physics in One Dimension(Ox- ford University Press, Oxford, 2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    G. D. Mahan,Many particle physics(Plenum Publishers, New York, 1990)

    1990

  15. [23]

    Giuliani and G

    G. Giuliani and G. Vignale,Quantum Theory of the Elec- tron Liquid(Cambridge University Press, 2005)

    2005

  16. [24]

    P. W. Phillips, L. Yeo, and E. W. Huang,Exact theory for superconductivity in a doped Mott insulator, Nature Physics16(12), 1175 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Hatsugai and M

    Y. Hatsugai and M. Kohmoto,Exactly solvable model of correlated lattice electrons in any dimensions, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan61(6), 2056 (1992)

  18. [26]

    Lidsky, J

    D. Lidsky, J. Shiraishi, Y. Hatsugai, and M. Kohmoto, Simple exactly solvable models of non-Fermi-liquids, Phys. Rev. B57, 1340 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    J. Zhao, L. Yeo, E. W. Huang, and P. W. Phillips,Ther- modynamics of an exactly solvable model for supercon- ductivity in a doped Mott insulator, Phys. Rev. B105, 184509 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Zhao, W.-W

    M. Zhao, W.-W. Yang, H.-G. Luo, and Y. Zhong,Friedel oscillation in non-Fermi liquid: lesson from exactly solv- able Hatsugai–Kohmoto model, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter35(49), 495603 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Guerci, G

    D. Guerci, G. Sangiovanni, A. J. Millis, and M. Fabrizio, Electrical transport in the Hatsugai-Kohmoto model, Phys. Rev. B111, 075124 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Y. Ma, J. Zhao, E. W. Huang, D. Kush, B. Bradlyn, and P. W. Phillips,Charge susceptibility and Kubo response in Hatsugai-Kohmoto-related models, Phys. Rev. B112, 045109 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Zhao, W.-W

    M. Zhao, W.-W. Yang, and Y. Zhong,Hat- 7 sugai–Kohmoto models: exactly solvable playground for Mottness and non-Fermi liquid, Journal of Physics: Con- densed Matter37(18), 183005 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics(Springer US, New York, 2000), 3rd ed

    2000

  25. [33]

    Kubo,Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible pro- cesses

    R. Kubo,Statistical-mechanical theory of irreversible pro- cesses. i. general theory and simple applications to mag- netic and conduction problems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan12(6), 570 (1957)

    1957

  26. [34]

    I. M. Lifshitz,Anomalies of electron characteristics of a metal in the high pressure region, Sov. Phys. JETP11, 1130 (1960)

    1960

  27. [35]

    G. E. Volovik,Topological Lifshitz transitions, Low Temp. Phys.43, 47 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Blundell,Magnetism in Condensed Matter, Oxford Master Series in Condensed Matter Physics (OUP Ox- ford, 2001)

    S. Blundell,Magnetism in Condensed Matter, Oxford Master Series in Condensed Matter Physics (OUP Ox- ford, 2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    C. P. Slichter,Principles of Magnetic Resonance (Spinger-Verlag, New York, 1989), 3rd ed

    1989

  30. [38]

    Y. J. Sun, F. Yang, and L. Q. Chen,Spin relaxation and transport behavior ind-wave altermagnetic systems, Phys. Rev. B112, 024412 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Stenger, S

    J. Stenger, S. Inouye, A. P. Chikkatur, D. M. Stamper- Kurn, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle,Bragg spec- troscopy of a Bose-Einstein condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4569 (1999)

    1999

  32. [40]

    A. A. Abrikosov,Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.