Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Stripe-Order Altermagnetism: Nematic Spin Splitting beyond the $l$-Wave Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Stripe antiferromagnets split spins with a mirror, not a rotation

desk verdict The core classification claim is correct and new; the RPA realizability section is the weak link, but the paper deserves serious peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17997 v2 pith:U6GJVQ3Z submitted 2026-07-20 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el

Zheng-Yang Zhuang , Zhongbo Yan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords altermagnetismstripeorderorbitalspin-reversingmirrornematicspinsplittingl-waveclassificationDrudecurrentanti-altermagnet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that stripe-ordered antiferromagnets can be altermagnetic—spin-split yet magnetically compensated—even when they have no spin-reversing rotation at all. The authors show that a spin-reversing mirror, not a rotation, can relate the opposite-spin sectors, placing this state outside the standard rotation-based l-wave classification. They construct a two-orbital model in which coexisting stripe spin order and orbital order realize this mirror-governed 'stripe altermagnet,' while a related Néel-orbital configuration realizes a spin-degenerate 'stripe anti-altermagnet' whose spin splitting can be switched on and off by an electric field. If correct, stripe altermagnets form a distinct symmetry class with a definite transport fingerprint: purely transverse Drude spin currents and spin-resolved anisotropies that distinguish them from rotation-governed altermagnets. Since stripe order is common in many correlated materials, this proposal identifies a concrete new search space for altermagnetism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-reversing mirror [C2∥Mx] in spin-space-group notation—a mirror reflection that simultaneously flips spin—which relates the two opposite-spin sublattice sectors when no spin-reversing rotation survives. The argument rests on the symmetry lemma that [C2∥C2z] plus spinless time reversal forces spin degeneracy, so a mirror is the only possible symmetry connecting opposite spins in a stripe altermagnet. In the model, the orbital-order term δx τx σz (dxz±dyz orbital bonding with the same wave vector as the stripe spin order) is what breaks [C2∥P] and [C2∥t] while preserving [C2∥Mx], generating the mirror-constrained nematic spin splitting; for the anti-altermagn

What would settle it

A first-principles or high-resolution spin-resolved photoemission study of a stripe-ordered material with a nominally preserved [C2∥Mx] and spinless time reversal: if the bands are spin-degenerate at generic momenta even when the required δx orbital order is present, the mirror alone is insufficient to produce altermagnetism, contradicting the model. Conversely, if a stripe altermagnet is found that also preserves [C2∥C2z] alongside [C̄2∥T], the symmetry lemma (Eq. E1) would be violated, refuting the central classification claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is that in a stripe antiferromagnet preserving spinless time reversal [C̄2∥T], no spin-reversing rotation can survive: the only candidate, [C2∥C2z], forces spin degeneracy when combined with [C̄2∥T] (End Matter, Eq. E1). Stripe-order altermagnetism must therefore be governed by a spin-reversing mirror such as [C2∥Mx], not by a rotation. In a two-orbital square-lattice model with dxz/dyz orbitals, the authors show that stripe spin order plus stripe orbital order with the same ordering vector preserves [C2∥Mx], breaks spin-reversing inversion and translation, and yields spin-split bands with zero net magnetization. A second configuration—Néel orbital order combined w

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that real stripe-ordered antiferromagnets can form the required coexisting orbital order—τx-type (dxz±dyz) orbital bonding with an ordering vector equal to the spin ordering vector (for stripe altermagnet) or Néel-type orbital order (for anti-altermagnet)—while preserving spinless time reversal and the spin-reversing mirror and breaking spin-reversing inversion and translation; the paper's only numerical support is an RPA scan at fixed interaction

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Stripe-ordered antiferromagnets that preserve spinless time reversal and possess a spin-reversing mirror should exhibit spin-split bands with no spin-reversing rotation—directly contradicting the assumption that altermagnetism requires the rotation-based l-wave labels.
  • Applying an in-plane electric field parallel or normal to the mirror plane yields a purely longitudinal charge current and a purely transverse Drude spin current, giving a macroscopic electrical signature.
  • The spin-resolved probes ΔC4(θ) and ΔMx(θ) provide a practical experimental test: mirror-governed stripe altermagnets will show a finite ΔC4 and a vanishing ΔMx, distinguishing them from rotation-governed l-wave altermagnets.
  • The stripe anti-altermagnet enables ferroelectric-like control: spin splitting is zero at zero field, appears under a vertical electric field in buckled structures, and reverses when the field direction is reversed, without flipping the magnetic order.
  • RPA results indicate stripe altermagnetism is spontaneously favored near half filling for strong hopping anisotropy, so existing stripe-ordered correlated materials are natural candidate platforms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry lemma might generalize: any collinear antiferromagnet whose only surviving spin-reversing rotation is incompatible with spinless time reversal could belong to a mirror-governed class, suggesting a broader organizing principle for altermagnetism beyond stripes.
  • The predicted nodal lines of the spin splitting (kx = 0, ±π/2 and ky = 0) offer a fingerprint that spin-resolved photoemission could test against rotation-governed altermagnets, where the nodes are arranged differently.
  • If future first-principles studies of candidate materials find that the δz orbital-polarization channel (rather than δx) is the leading instability, the proposed stripe altermagnet would be suppressed in favor of a weak ferrimagnet; resonant x-ray scattering that distinguishes the two orbital orders could settle which materials actually realize the mirror-governed state.
  • The demonstration that a spin-reversing mirror alone can enforce zero net magnetization while producing spin splitting may inspire design of two-dimensional altermagnets without rotational symmetry, including van der Waals or moiré systems where mirrors are easier to engineer than rotations.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces stripe-order altermagnetism (stripe AM) as a class of collinear magnetic states in which a spin-reversing mirror, rather than a spin-reversing rotation, relates opposite-spin sectors and hence gives nematic spin splitting outside the rotation-based l-wave classification. The authors construct two-orbital square-lattice models: a minimal stripe-AM model with stripe spin order plus stripe orbital order of τx-bonding type, and a stripe-spin/Néel-orbital model realizing a stripe anti-altermagnet whose spin splitting can be switched by an electric field. They prove in End Matter that, within the stripe geometry, the only possible spin-reversing rotation is [C2∥C2z], and that when combined with preserved spinless time reversal this symmetry enforces spin degeneracy; therefore a spin-split stripe altermagnet must lack all spin-reversing rotations. They further derive the spin-reversing-mirror constraint on the Drude conductivity tensor, obtaining a purely transverse spin current and vanishing mirror probe ∆Mx, while the rotational probe ∆C4 is finite. RPA calculations are presented to argue that stripe AM is favored near half filling under strong hopping anisotropy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper identifies a genuine symmetry class of altermagnetism distinct from rotation-governed l-wave altermagnets, with a concrete transport fingerprint: purely transverse Drude spin current and vanishing spin-resolved mirror residual. The symmetry analysis is self-contained and the derivations check out: End Matter Eq. (E1) correctly shows that [C2∥C2z] combined with spinless time reversal forces spin degeneracy; the minimal-model mirror relation σx Hs(kx,ky)σx = H−s(−kx,ky) is correct; and Eqs. (5)–(6) follow from the mirror constraint, giving ∆C4 = (σxx↑ − σyy↑)cos2θ and ∆Mx = 0. The models are admittedly constructed to exhibit the mirror symmetry, but the deductive core is internally consistent. The main weakness is the RPA realizability claim, which rests on a narrow parameter choice and does not rule out the competing τz orbital-polarization channel that would destroy the mirror and produce a weak ferrimagnet. This is an existence claim, not a classification claim, and it needs additional support before the paper can be accepted as a demonstration of spontaneous stripe AM.

major comments (4)
  1. [§Spontaneous stripe AM, Fig. 3, Eq. (3)] The RPA calculation is the only support for the central realizability claim that stripe-order altermagnetism is spontaneously favored. The computation is performed at a single fixed interaction ratio Us/tx0 = 2.7, Uo/tx0 = 2.8, with no justification for Uo > Us. Moreover, the label “stripe AM” in Fig. 3 denotes only that the leading spin channel and some leading orbital channel match the stripe-AM configuration; it does not show that the τx orbital-bonding channel actually dominates the τz orbital-polarization channel. The manuscript itself states that finite δz at δx = 0 breaks [C2∥Mx] and yields a weak ferrimagnet. Therefore, if χ0_{o,z} is comparable to or larger than χ0_{o,x} anywhere in the “stripe AM” region, the proposed phase is not realized. The authors should provide the momentum-mesh density, scan Uo/Us, and show that χ0_{o,x} > χ0_{o,z} across the claimed region, or explicitl
  2. [§Spontaneous stripe AM, Fig. 3] The RPA section concedes that “Neither stripe anti-AM configuration is therefore selected” and that the broad “others” region reflects incommensurate leading instabilities. This is honest but undercuts the strength of the claim in the abstract that “RPA calculations show that stripe-order altermagnetism is favored near half filling under strong hopping anisotropy.” The diagram is computed for one effective-interaction model with fixed Uν; no test of sensitivity to the interaction parametrization or to temperature is given. Since the existence of a stripe AM phase is one of the paper’s main advertised results, this needs to be supported by either a systematic parameter scan or a clear statement that the RPA section is only illustrative.
  3. [§Discussion, candidate materials] The Discussion lists several candidate materials (iron-pnictide parents, La1.8−xEu0.2SrxCuO4, BaCoS2, Sr1−xSmxMnO3) but provides no material-specific calculation or symmetry analysis showing that the required coexisting τx orbital order with the same ordering vector as the spin order can arise while preserving spinless time reversal and the spin-reversing mirror and breaking all spin-reversing rotations. This is not required for the symmetry classification, but it is load-bearing for the paper’s broader claim of realistic stripes. If these materials are meant as suggestions, the text should say so; if they are meant as evidence of realizability, at least one concrete symmetry or electronic-structure check is needed.
  4. [End Matter, Eq. (E1)] The proof that [C2∥C2z] plus spinless time reversal forces spin degeneracy is correct, and the argument that n=4,6 rotations are incompatible with a fixed stripe ordering vector is reasonable. However, the claim that these are the only crystallographic spin-reversing rotations that could appear is phrased somewhat tersely. In particular, the statement that n=1,3 are incompatible with a finite collinear moment because an odd power generates pure spin reversal [C2∥E] assumes that no additional translation or sublattice operation accompanies the rotation. In the spin-space-group notation, a spin-reversing rotation [C2∥Cn] is a single operation, so the argument is fine as written, but the exposition would benefit from explicitly noting that combined rotation-plus-translation operations are already included in the classification by considering the full Wyckoff orbits.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The factor of two in the bare susceptibility is said to account for spin degeneracy. This is correct only in the parent phase before magnetic order develops; after spin symmetry is broken the factor is not generally valid. The text should clarify that Eq. (3) is evaluated in the unpolarized parent state.
  2. [Fig. 3] The figure caption does not specify the number of momentum points in the mesh D_q or the broadening used. This is important for assessing whether the “others” region is dominated by numerical incommensurability or by a physical tendency.
  3. [End Matter, Eq. (E7)] The statement that the near-Γ splitting is “locally d_xy-like” is correct, but the following sentence would be clearer if it emphasized that the local resemblance does not imply a global l-wave label because the full Hamiltonian lacks [C2∥C4z]. The current wording is fine, but the distinction should be kept prominent in the main text as well.
  4. [§Spin-current response, Eq. (7)] The four-lobed polar patterns for J˜s_L and J˜s_T are derived from the off-diagonal form of σ˜s. It would help the reader to note explicitly that this angular structure is a consequence of the mirror constraint plus spinless time reversal, not an independent prediction, and that it does not by itself distinguish mirror-governed from rotation-governed altermagnets. The paper makes this point in the text, but a one-line reminder near Eq. (7) would improve clarity.
  5. [General] There are a few typographical issues in the equation displays: for example, “H J =J σz” appears without a τ0 factor in the main text, and “d xy-like” appears with a subscript in one place and as “d_xy-like” in another. These are presentation issues only.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetry theorem, model construction, and transport predictions are self-contained derivations; RPA caveats are honest limitations, not circular steps.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. The End Matter proof (Eq. E1) derives spin degeneracy from [C2||C2z] plus spinless time reversal using only the two symmetry relations, with no imported conclusion. The stripe-AM Hamiltonian (Eq. 2 with H_orb = delta_x tau_x sigma_z) is explicitly constructed to preserve [C2||Mx] and break [C2||P] and [C2||t]; the spin splitting in Fig. 2(c) and the minimal-model spectrum Eq. E5 are direct algebraic consequences of that symmetry, not fitted outputs. The transport result (Eqs. 5-7) follows from the mirror relation sigma^{c,down} = R_x sigma^{c,up} R_x^T, and the numerical conductances of Fig. 4 are computed from the model, not used to infer the symmetry. The RPA section is a parameter-specific model calculation (Us/tx0 = 2.7, Uo/tx0 = 2.8) and is honestly qualified: 'Neither stripe anti-AM configuration is therefore selected' and 'Nonlocal, orbital-dependent, or lattice-mediated interactions can modify this selection.' The paper also explicitly concedes that finite delta_z at delta_x = 0 breaks [C2||Mx] and gives a weak ferrimagnet. These are existence/realizability limitations, not circularity. Self-citations (e.g., [54], [82]) appear in context and discussion, but no load-bearing step reduces to a self-cited result; the symmetry proof and model calculations stand alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are the hand-chosen model parameters of the two-orbital Hamiltonians (hoppings, exchange fields, interaction strengths, temperature, relaxation time, optimal μ), which set the magnitudes of the RPA instabilities and transport responses; none is fitted to experimental data. The axioms are the spin-space-group framework of nonrelativistic collinear magnets (negligible SOC), the single-domain stripe geometry, the crystal-field assignment of the orbitals under the mirror, the RPA/Stoner criterion as an instability indicator, and the Drude approximation with a single relaxation time. No new physical entities are introduced: 'stripe AM' and 'stripe anti-AM' are symmetry-class labels for spin+orbital orders, with transport fingerprints computed within the models rather than independently verified; hence invented_entities is empty.

free parameters (7)
  • Hopping amplitudes (tx0, tx1, ty0, ty1, td0, td1) = (1, 0.2, 0.15, 0.03, 0.4, 0.3) dimensionless (Fig. 2); (0.35, 0.07, 0.0525, 0.0105, 0.14, 0.105) eV (Fig. 4)
    Hand-chosen model parameters defining the band dispersions. The spin-splitting magnitude, RPA phase diagram, and transport numbers all depend on them; not fitted to experimental data.
  • Orbital exchange fields δx, δg = 0.6 in both models
    Chosen strengths of the orbital order; set the orbital gap scale and influence the band splitting and RPA instabilities.
  • Stripe exchange coupling J = 0.4 (Fig. 2); 0.14 eV (Fig. 4)
    Chosen magnitude of the stripe spin order. The spin splitting is proportional to J (Eq. E7: ΔE ≈ 16ηt̃d2J kxky/√…).
  • RPA interaction strengths Us/tx0, Uo/tx0 = 2.7, 2.8
    Fixed effective onsite spin and orbital interactions. Fig. 3, the evidence for the claim 'stripe AM is favored near half filling under strong anisotropy', is computed at these values and requires Uo > Us; the hierarchy is not justified.
  • Temperature and relaxation time = kBT/tx0 = 0.04 (RPA); kBT = 0.0105 eV, τ = 10 fs (transport)
    Chosen smearing and scattering time. The reported conductance values scale linearly with τ.
  • Chemical potential μ at reported conductance maximum = 0.196 eV
    Chosen to maximize |σ̃sxy| = 2.522×10⁻⁴ S. The 'accessible to measurements' claim is presented at this single optimal point without robustness analysis.
  • Field-induced imbalance λ (and t̃d2 in the minimal model) = λ = 0, ±0.8 (Fig. 2d); t̃d2 not given a value
    Chosen to illustrate electrical switching (λ = eEzd/2 in the buckled geometry); t̃d2 is the phenomenological sublattice-asymmetric hopping that produces the spin splitting in the minimal model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic collinear magnetism with negligible spin-orbit coupling; the spin-space-group description with operations [C2∥Cn], [C2∥Mi], and preserved spinless time reversal [C̄2∥T] applies.
    The entire l-wave classification, the claim that [C2∥C2z] forces degeneracy, and the spin-current analysis presuppose this regime. Invoked in the opening symmetry section and End Matter.
  • domain assumption Single-domain stripe-order geometry: ferromagnetic chains along one direction stacked antiferromagnetically, ordering vector q = (π,0) or (0,π).
    Underlies the claims that only [C2∥C2z] among spin-reversing rotations survives and that n=4,6 rotate the chains away from the fixed ordering vector (End Matter).
  • domain assumption Standard crystal-field assignment for dxz/dyz orbitals under Mx: the τx-bonding order δxτxσz preserves [C2∥Mx] while the τz-polarization order δzτzσz breaks it.
    The two-orbital model construction (stripe AM vs weak ferrimagnet) depends on this assignment; a different orbital channel would shift the classification.
  • standard math RPA/Stoner criterion identifies the leading ordering instability (Eq. 3 with Uνχ0,ν* ≥ 1).
    Standard weak-coupling method used for Fig. 3. Its validity in the strongly anisotropic, quasi-one-dimensional regime is assumed without discussion.
  • domain assumption Drude transport with a single spin-independent relaxation time τ (Eq. 4), with the mirror constraint σc,↓ = Rxσc,↑Rx^T applied to the full conductivity tensor.
    The 'purely transverse spin current' result assumes identical τ for both spin sectors and neglects disorder, SOC, and Berry-curvature contributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stripe-Order Altermagnetism: Nematic Spin Splitting beyond the $l$-Wave Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6GJVQ3Z

@misc{pith2026260717997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stripe-Order Altermagnetism: Nematic Spin Splitting beyond the $l$-Wave Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6GJVQ3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17997}
}
abstract

Altermagnetism combines compensated magnetic order with nonrelativistic spin splitting, yet established mechanisms predominantly rely on spin-reversing rotations in N\'eel-order antiferromagnets. Here we establish stripe-order altermagnetism governed instead by a spin-reversing mirror, placing it outside the usual rotation-based $l$-wave classification. Using two-orbital models, we show that the interplay between stripe spin and orbital orders can yield a stripe altermagnet with mirror-constrained nematic spin splitting or a stripe anti-altermagnet with spin-degenerate bands. The latter can support ferroelectric-like electrical control of spin splitting in suitable buckled structures. Random-phase-approximation (RPA) calculations show that stripe-order altermagnetism is favored near half filling under strong hopping anisotropy. The spin-reversing mirror further enforces a purely transverse Drude spin current for an electric field parallel or normal to the mirror plane, while spin-resolved mirror and rotation probes distinguish this response from that of rotation-governed $l$-wave altermagnets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Real-space comparison of (a) stripe-order and (b) N [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Stripe-altermagnetic models and spin-resolved band struc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. RPA leading-instability diagram as a function of the chemical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Drude spin-current response and symmetry probe for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y . Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum-dependent spin splitting by collinear antiferromagnetic ordering, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  2. [2]

    The projected susceptibilities are evaluated on a dis- crete meshD q covering0≤q x, qy ≤π. After tracing over spin, the static bare susceptibility is χ0 ν(q) = 2 X k,m,n wk f[E n(k+q)]−f[E m(k)] Em(k)−E n(k+q) × ⟨um(k)|Oν|un(k+q)⟩ 2 ,(3) whereν=s,(o, x),(o, z)labels the spin, orbital-bonding (τx), and orbital-polarization (τ z) channels, withO ν = ¯τ0,¯τx...

  3. [3]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y . Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Bottom-up design of spin-split and reshaped electronic band structures in antiferro- magnets without spin-orbit coupling: Procedure on the basis of augmented multipoles, Phys. Rev. B102, 144441 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Q. Liu, X. Dai, and S. Bl ¨ugel, Different facets of unconven- tional magnetism, Nature Physics21, 329 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    H.-Y . Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Multifunctional antiferromagnetic materials with giant piezo- magnetism and noncollinear spin current, Nature Communica- tions12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  7. [7]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low-Zantiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Prediction of low-Z collinear and noncollinear antiferromagnetic compounds having momentum-dependent spin splitting even without spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Mater.5, 014409 (2021)

    2021

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    J. E. Hirsch, Spin-split states in metals, Phys. Rev. B41, 6820 (1990)

    1990

  2. [10]

    Ikeda and Y

    H. Ikeda and Y . Ohashi, Theory of unconventional spin density wave: A possible mechanism of the micromagnetism in u-based heavy fermion compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3723 (1998)

    1998

  3. [11]

    Wu and S.-C

    C. Wu and S.-C. Zhang, Dynamic generation of spin-orbit cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 036403 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    C. Wu, K. Sun, E. Fradkin, and S.-C. Zhang, Fermi liquid in- stabilities in the spin channel, Phys. Rev. B75, 115103 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    Reimers, L

    S. Reimers, L. Odenbreit, L. ˇSmejkal, V . N. Strocov, P. Con- stantinou, A. B. Hellenes, R. Jaeschke Ubiergo, W. H. Campos, V . K. Bharadwaj, A. Chakraborty, T. Denneulin, W. Shi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, S. Das, M. Kl¨aui, J. Sinova, and M. Jourdan, Direct observation of alter...

    2024

  6. [14]

    J. Ding, Z. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Tao, Z. Liu, T. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Liu, Y . Yang, R. Zhang, L. Deng, W. Jing, Y . Huang, Y . Shi, M. Ye, S. Qiao, Y . Wang, Y . Guo, D. Feng, and D. Shen, Large Band Splitting ing-Wave Altermagnet CrSb, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206401 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    G. Yang, Z. Li, S. Yang, J. Li, H. Zheng, W. Zhu, Z. Pan, Y . Xu, S. Cao, W. Zhao, A. Jana, J. Zhang, M. Ye, Y . Song, L.-H. Hu, L. Yang, J. Fujii, I. V obornik, M. Shi, H. Yuan, Y . Zhang, Y . Xu, and Y . Liu, Three-dimensional mapping of the altermag- netic spin splitting in...

    2025

  8. [16]

    Zeng, M.-Y

    M. Zeng, M.-Y . Zhu, Y .-P. Zhu, X.-R. Liu, X.-M. Ma, Y .-J. Hao, P. Liu, G. Qu, Y . Yang, Z. Jiang, K. Yamagami, M. Arita, X. Zhang, T.-H. Shao, Y . Dai, K. Shimada, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y . Huang, Q. Liu, and C. Liu, Observation of Spin Splitting in Room-Temperature Metallic Antif...

    2024

  9. [17]

    C. Li, M. Hu, Z. Li, Y . Wang, W. Chen, B. Thiagarajan, M. Le- andersson, C. Polley, T. Kim, H. Liu, C. Fulga, M. G. Vergniory, O. Janson, O. Tjernberg, and J. van den Brink, Topological Weyl altermagnetism in CrSb, Communications Physics8, 311 6 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    W. Lu, S. Feng, Y . Wang, D. Chen, Z. Lin, X. Liang, S. Liu, W. Feng, K. Yamagami, J. Liu, C. Felser, Q. Wu, and J. Ma, Signature of Topological Surface Bands in Altermagnetic Weyl Semimetal CrSb, Nano Letters25, 7343 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Obser- vation of a giant band splitting in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. B109, 115102 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y . Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal, C.-J. Kang, and C. Kim, Broken Kramers Degeneracy in Altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 036702 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Krempask ´y, L

    J. Krempask ´y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ıˇrov´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´aˇn, R. D. Gon- zalez Betancourt, P. Wadle...

    2024

  14. [22]

    Hajlaoui, S

    M. Hajlaoui, S. Wilfred D’Souza, L. ˇSmejkal, D. Krieg- ner, G. Krizman, T. Zakusylo, N. Olszowska, O. Caha, J. Michaliˇcka, J. S´anchez-Barriga, A. Marmodoro, K. V´yborn´y, A. Ernst, M. Cinchetti, J. Minar, T. Jungwirth, and G. Springholz, Temperature dependence of relativist...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei, Y .-J. Sun, Y . Huang, X. Zheng, Y . Peng, L. He, S. Li, J. Luo, Z. Li, G. Chen, H. Li, H. Weng, and T. Qian, A metallic room-temperature d-wave altermagnet, Nature Physics 21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y . Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y . Huang, X. Meng, C. Zhang, T. Okuda, K. Shimada, S. Cui, Y . Zhao, G. H. Cao, S. Qiao, J. Liu, and C. Chen, Crystal-symmetry-paired spin–valley lock- ing in a layered room-temper...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Z. Wang, S. Yu, X. Cheng, X. Xiao, W. Ma, F. Quan, H. Song, K. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Y . Ma, W. Liu, P. Yadav, X. Shi, Z. Wang, Q. Niu, Y . Gao, B. Xiang, J. Liu, Z. Wang, and X. Chen, Atomic-scale spin sensing of a 2dd-wave altermagnet via heli- cal tunneling (2025), arXiv:2512.2...

    2025

  18. [26]

    G. Yang, C. Li, C. Wang, X. Zhao, Y . Wan, H. Gui, G. Zeng, S. Cao, C. Hu, Q. Yu, Y . Zhang, D. Chen, Y . Liu, Y . Song, Y . Zhang, F. Liu, L.-H. Hu, L. Jiao, and H. Yuan, Visualizing spin-polarization of an altermagnet kv 2se2o via spin-selective tunneling (2026), arXiv:2603....

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Research Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    X. Chen, W. Chen, and Q. Liu, The rise of unconventional mag- netism (2026), arXiv:2603.27505 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2026

  21. [29]

    H. Bai, Y . C. Zhang, Y . J. Zhou, P. Chen, C. H. Wan, L. Han, W. X. Zhu, S. X. Liang, Y . C. Su, X. F. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Efficient spin-to-charge conversion via altermagnetic spin splitting effect in antiferromagnetruo 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 216701 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    L. Han, X. Fu, R. Peng, X. Cheng, J. Dai, L. Liu, Y . Li, Y . Zhang, W. Zhu, H. Bai, Y . Zhou, S. Liang, C. Chen, Q. Wang, X. Chen, L. Yang, Y . Zhang, C. Song, J. Liu, and F. Pan, Elec- trical 180◦ switching of N´eel vector in spin-splitting antiferro- magnet, Science Advance...

    2024

  23. [31]

    J.-X. Hu, O. Matsyshyn, and J. C. W. Song, Nonlinear Su- perconducting Magnetoelectric Effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 026001 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    X. Duan, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y . Liu, Z. Zhang, I. ˇZuti´c, and T. Zhou, Antiferroelectric Altermagnets: Antiferroelectricity Alters Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106801 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    M. Gu, Y . Liu, H. Zhu, K. Yananose, X. Chen, Y . Hu, A. Stroppa, and Q. Liu, Ferroelectric Switchable Altermag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106802 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, P. Wadley, D. Kriegner, H. Reichlova, F. Krizek, H. Ohno, and L. Smejkal, Altermagnetic spintronics (2025), arXiv:2508.09748 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhu, Z.-Y

    D. Zhu, Z.-Y . Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Topological su- perconductivity in two-dimensional altermagnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B108, 184505 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    D. Zhu, D. Liu, Z.-Y . Zhuang, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Field- sensitive dislocation bound states in two-dimensionald-wave altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B110, 165141 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Li and C.-C

    Y .-X. Li and C.-C. Liu, Majorana corner modes and tunable patterns in an altermagnet heterostructure, Phys. Rev. B108, 205410 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Y .-X. Li, Y . Liu, and C.-C. Liu, Creation and manipulation of higher-order topological states by altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 109, L201109 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    S. A. A. Ghorashi, T. L. Hughes, and J. Cano, Altermagnetic Routes to Majorana Modes in Zero Net Magnetization, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 106601 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    D. S. Antonenko, R. M. Fernandes, and J. W. F. Venderbos, Mirror Chern Bands and Weyl Nodal Loops in Altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 096703 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Zhang, L.-H

    S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and T. Neupert, Finite-momentum Cooper pairing in proximitized altermagnets, Nature Commu- nications15, 1801 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Two-dimensional alter- magnets: Superconductivity in a minimal microscopic model, Phys. Rev. B108, 224421 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Monkman, J

    K. Monkman, J. Weng, N. Heinsdorf, A. Nocera, Y . Barlas, and M. Franz, Persistent Spin Currents in Superconducting Alter- magnets, Phys. Rev. X16, 011057 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Fukaya, B

    Y . Fukaya, B. Lu, K. Yada, Y . Tanaka, and J. Cayao, Supercon- ducting phenomena in systems with unconventional magnets, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 313003 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Z. Liu, H. Hu, and X.-J. Liu, Altermagnetism and supercon- ductivity: A short historical review, (2026), arXiv:2510.09170 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    2026 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Birk Hellenes, T

    A. Birk Hellenes, T. Jungwirth, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, P-wave magnets, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2309.01607 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Brekke, P

    B. Brekke, P. Sukhachov, H. G. Giil, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Minimal Models and Transport Properties of Unconventional p-Wave Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 236703 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Y . Yu, M. B. Lyngby, T. Shishidou, M. Roig, A. Kreisel, M. Weinert, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Odd-Parity Magnetism Driven by Antiferromagnetic Exchange, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 046701 (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Liu, Z.-Y

    D. Liu, Z.-Y . Zhuang, D. Zhu, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Light-induced odd-parity altermagnets on dimerized lattices, Phys. Rev. B 113, L060409 (2026)

    2026

  42. [50]

    Huang, Z

    S. Huang, Z. Qin, F. Zhan, D.-H. Xu, D.-S. Ma, and R. Wang, Light-induced odd-parity magnetism in conventional antiferro- magnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 126703 (2026)

    2026

  43. [51]

    Lin, Odd-parity altermagnetism through sublattice cur- rents: From Haldane-Hubbard model to general bipartite lat- tices, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.09602 (2025)

    Y .-P. Lin, Odd-parity altermagnetism through sublattice cur- rents: From Haldane-Hubbard model to general bipartite lat- tices, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.09602 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    M. Zeng, Z. Qin, L. Qin, S. Feng, D.-H. Xu, and R. Wang, The electronic and transport properties in the Haldane-Hubbard with 7 odd-parity altermagnetism, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.09906 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  45. [53]

    T. Zhu, D. Zhou, H. Wang, S.-H. Wei, and J. Ruan, Floquet odd- parity collinear magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 126704 (2026)

    2026

  46. [54]

    Li, D.-F

    B. Li, D.-F. Shao, and A. A. Kovalev, Floquet spin splitting and spin generation in antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 166701 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    Zhuang, D

    Z.-Y . Zhuang, D. Zhu, D. Liu, Z. Wu, and Z. Yan, Odd- parity altermagnetism originated from orbital orders (2025), arXiv:2508.18361 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    B. Pan, P. Zhou, Y . Hu, S. Liu, B. Zhou, H. Xiao, X. Yang, and L. Sun, Floquet-induced altermagnetic transition ina-type antiferromagnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. B112, 224430 (2025)

    2025

  49. [57]

    P. Liu, J. Li, J. Han, X. Wan, and Q. Liu, Spin-Group Symme- try in Magnetic Materials with Negligible Spin-Orbit Coupling, Phys. Rev. X12, 021016 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    X. Chen, J. Ren, Y . Zhu, Y . Yu, A. Zhang, P. Liu, J. Li, Y . Liu, C. Li, and Q. Liu, Enumeration and Representation Theory of Spin Space Groups, Phys. Rev. X14, 031038 (2024)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Jiang, Z

    Y . Jiang, Z. Song, T. Zhu, Z. Fang, H. Weng, Z.-X. Liu, J. Yang, and C. Fang, Enumeration of spin-space groups: Toward a com- plete description of symmetries of magnetic orders, Phys. Rev. X14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Z. Xiao, J. Zhao, Y . Li, R. Shindou, and Z.-D. Song, Spin Space Groups: Full Classification and Applications, Phys. Rev. X14, 031037 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Y . Liu, X. Chen, Y . Yu, J. Etxebarria, J. M. Perez-Mato, and Q. Liu, Symmetry classification of magnetic orders using ori- ented spin space groups, Nature652, 869 (2026)

    2026

  54. [62]

    Zaanen and O

    J. Zaanen and O. Gunnarsson, Charged magnetic domain lines and the magnetism of high-Tc oxides, Phys. Rev. B40, 7391(R) (1989)

    1989

  55. [63]

    Machida, Magnetism in la2cuo4 based compounds, Physica C: Superconductivity158, 192 (1989)

    K. Machida, Magnetism in la2cuo4 based compounds, Physica C: Superconductivity158, 192 (1989)

    1989

  56. [64]

    M. Kato, K. Machida, H. Nakanishi, and M. Fujita, Soliton lat- tice modulation of incommensurate spin density wave in two dimensional hubbard model -a mean field study-, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan59, 1047 (1990)

    1990

  57. [65]

    H ¨ucker, Structural aspects of materials with static stripe or- der, Physica C: Superconductivity481, 3 (2012)

    M. H ¨ucker, Structural aspects of materials with static stripe or- der, Physica C: Superconductivity481, 3 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Tranquada, B

    J. Tranquada, B. Sternlieb, J. Axe, Y . Nakamura, and S.-i. Uchida, Evidence for stripe correlations of spins and holes in copper oxide superconductors, nature375, 561 (1995)

    1995

  59. [67]

    S. A. Kivelson, I. P. Bindloss, E. Fradkin, V . Oganesyan, J. M. Tranquada, A. Kapitulnik, and C. Howald, How to detect fluc- tuating stripes in the high-temperature superconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 1201 (2003)

    2003

  60. [68]

    Missiaen, H

    A. Missiaen, H. Mayaffre, S. Kr¨amer, D. Zhao, Y . Zhou, T. Wu, X. Chen, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, D. LeBoeuf, and M.-H. Julien, Spin-stripe order tied to the pseudogap phase in la1.8−xeu0.2srxcuo4, Phys. Rev. X15, 021010 (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    C. Fang, H. Yao, W.-F. Tsai, J. Hu, and S. A. Kivelson, Theory of electron nematic order in lafeaso, Phys. Rev. B77, 224509 (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    C. Xu, M. M ¨uller, and S. Sachdev, Ising and spin orders in the iron-based superconductors, Phys. Rev. B78, 020501(R) (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    R. M. Fernandes, A. V . Chubukov, J. Knolle, I. Eremin, and J. Schmalian, Preemptive nematic order, pseudogap, and orbital order in the iron pnictides, Phys. Rev. B85, 024534 (2012)

    2012

  64. [72]

    A. J. Achkar, M. Zwiebler, C. McMahon, F. He, R. Sutarto, I. Djianto, Z. Hao, M. J. P. Gingras, M. H ¨ucker, G. D. Gu, A. Revcolevschi, H. Zhang, Y .-J. Kim, J. Geck, and D. G. Hawthorn, Nematicity in stripe-ordered cuprates probed via resonant x-ray scattering, Science351, 576 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    V . Leeb, A. Mook, L.ˇSmejkal, and J. Knolle, Spontaneous For- mation of Altermagnetism from Orbital Ordering, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 236701 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    M. Vila, V . Sunko, and J. E. Moore, Orbital-spin locking and its optical signatures in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B112, L020401 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Q. N. Meier, A. Carta, C. Ederer, and A. Cano, Net and com- pensated altermagnetism from staggered orbital order: Layer- dependent spin splitting insr n+1crno3n+1, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 116705 (2026)

    2026

  68. [76]

    Camerano, A

    L. Camerano, A. O. Fumega, J. L. Lado, A. Stroppa, and G. Profeta, Multiferroic nematic d-wave altermagnetism driven by orbital-order on the honeycomb lattice 10.1038/s41699-025- 00599-5 (2025)

    2025 doi

  69. [77]

    Matsuda, H

    J. Matsuda, H. Watanabe, and R. Arita, Multiferroic collinear antiferromagnets with hidden altermagnetic spin splitting, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 226703 (2025)

    2025

  70. [78]

    See the Supplemental Material for the stripe anti-altermagnets, spontaneous stripe-order altermagnetism, and spin-current re- sponse

  71. [79]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Berry phase effects on elec- tronic properties, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  72. [80]

    ˇZelezn´y, Y

    J. ˇZelezn´y, Y . Zhang, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Spin-polarized current in noncollinear antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 187204 (2017)

    2017

  73. [81]

    B. Lenz, M. Fabrizio, and M. Casula, Order from disorder phe- nomena in bacos2, Communications Physics7, 35 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    Yamagata, T

    M. Yamagata, T. Endo, Y . Inoue, and Y . Koyama, Features of highly correlated electronic states in the simple perovskite man- ganite sr 1−x smx mno3 with 0.15≤x≤0.50, journal of the physical society of japan86, 054705 (2017)

    2017

  75. [83]

    Zhuang, J.-X

    Z.-Y . Zhuang, J.-X. Hu, S.-B. Zhang, L.-H. Hu, and Z. Yan, Mixed-parity altermagnetism in collinear spin-orbital magnets (2026), arXiv:2605.05205 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026 arXiv

  76. [84]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y . Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agter- berg, Minimal models for altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B110, 144412 (2024). 8 End Matter Spin degeneracy from[C 2∥C2z]and spinless time reversal.–In the two-dimensional stripe geometry, among the crystallographic opera...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.