Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Spin-Locked Helical Currents and Charge-Neutral Spin-Channel Pumping in Altermagnetic Nanotubes

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rolling an altermagnet into a nanotube locks spin to chirality, turning spin injection into helical currents and flux changes into pure spin currents.

desk verdict New concept, defensible symmetry story, but the main-text evidence leans on density plots rather than currents, and the numbers that matter come from the parent monolayer — worth refereeing, not worth taking on faith. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.19700 v3 pith:VQMCPU3F submitted 2025-10-22 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xin Chen , Zhen Han , Linyang Li , Mingwen Zhao This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismnanotubespin-chiralitylockingpurespincurrentsolenoidV2Se2Oscrewsymmetryspin-oddtransport
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 proposes that rolling a two-dimensional altermagnet into a nanotube along a specific direction converts its momentum-dependent spin polarization into spin-chirality locking: spin-up and spin-down carriers traverse helical paths of opposite handedness on the tube wall. In the direct configuration, injecting a single spin species drives a helical charge current whose handedness is fixed by the spin, producing an axial magnetic field that reverses with spin. In the inverse configuration, a time-varying axial magnetic flux induces equal and opposite axial charge currents in the two spin channels, yielding a pure (charge-neutral) spin current under open-circuit conditions in the weak spin-orbit coupling limit. First-principles calculations on a V2Se2O nanotube show spin-dependent helical charge densities with opposite azimuthal winding at both band edges, supporting the mechanism as a nonrelativistic route to spin-programmable chiral nanodevices.

What carries the argument

The screw axis of the nanotube and the surviving mirror time-reversal symmetry MzT form the structural backbone: the screw symmetry welds the altermagnet's k-odd spin polarization to an axial-azimuthal response that is odd under spin reversal, so the cross-transport coefficient flips sign when the spin label is exchanged. The inverse effect uses Faraday's law to turn a time-varying axial flux into a circumferential electric field, which then drives the two spin channels oppositely. The central observables are the chirality angle and helical pitch, defined from the ratio of circumferential to axial current averages, and the spin-odd axial-azimuthal conductivity that sets the flux-to-spin conv

What would settle it

Measure the two-terminal current in a V2Se2O nanotube under a time-varying axial flux: if the axial currents in the two spin channels are not equal and opposite (for instance, if a net charge current appears in the leads, or if the spin current scaling deviates from the predicted proportionality to flux derivative and inverse radius), the pure-spin pumping claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that rolling a two-dimensional altermagnet into a nanotube along the [110] direction of a Lieb-type lattice converts the momentum-odd spin polarization into a spin-chirality locking enforced by the screw axis: spin-up and spin-down carriers acquire opposite transverse (circumferential) velocity components on the cylindrical surface, so their transport is helical with opposite handedness. In the direct configuration, a single-spin injection drives a helical charge current and an opposite-sign axial near field for opposite spins; in the inverse configuration, a time-varying axial flux creates a circumferential Faraday field that drives equal-magnitude, opposite-sign axial

Load-bearing premise

The pure spin-current pumping claim rests on an assumption stated (not derived) in the inverse-configuration section: under two-terminal open-circuit conditions, spin accumulation is confined to boundary layers at the contacts and the tube interior supports a uniform pure spin flow with zero net charge current; if contact-induced spin relaxation, finite spin-orbit coupling, or charge leakage breaks the exact cancellation, charge neutrality is lost.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Injecting a single spin species into a rolled altermagnet tube produces a helical current whose handedness is fixed by that spin, generating an axial magnetic field that reverses sign when the spin is reversed.
  • A time-varying axial magnetic flux induces equal-magnitude, opposite-direction axial charge currents in the two spin channels, giving a pure spin current with zero net charge flow under open-circuit conditions and weak spin-orbit coupling.
  • The effect requires no spin-orbit coupling, so it works in light-element materials.
  • The tube remains globally compensated (zero net magnetization) because mirror time-reversal symmetry survives rolling.
  • Spin accumulation makes the tube's handedness programmable and can imprint chirality onto coaxial achiral nanotubes in van der Waals assemblies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is that the mechanism should persist for other Lieb-type altermagnets rolled along the equivalent [110] direction, and the helical pitch or chirality angle could be tuned by varying the tube radius or the rolling direction.
  • If the pure spin-current pumping is realized, it could serve as a low-dissipation spin source for magnonic or molecular spintronics without heavy elements, a consequence the paper hints at but leaves for future device engineering.
  • The spin-programmable handedness suggests a testable catalytic scenario: adsorbates on the tube wall might experience a spin-dependent enantioselective potential, which could be probed by comparing reaction yields under opposite spin injection.
  • The paper's central transport predictions rely on a specific open-circuit boundary condition; a clear experimental check would be measuring the axial current in each spin channel separately via spin-sensitive contacts under a time-varying flux.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that rolling a two-dimensional altermagnet into a nanotube along a direction that preserves a screw axis converts the material's momentum-odd spin polarization into a spin–chirality locking effect. It claims two reciprocal consequences: (i) injecting spin-polarized carriers drives a helical charge current whose handedness is fixed by the spin, producing opposite-sign axial magnetic fields for opposite spins; and (ii) a time-varying axial magnetic flux generates equal and opposite axial charge currents in the two spin channels, yielding a pure spin current under open-circuit conditions in the weak-spin–orbit-coupling limit. First-principles DFT results for a V2Se2O nanotube are presented, showing spin-resolved helical |ψ|^2 modulations at the VBM and CBM, and a parent-monolayer Wannier–Boltzmann calculation is invoked to quantify the spin-odd transverse response and field scale. The manuscript also discusses implications for spin-programmable chirality in coaxial van der Waals heteronanotubes.

Significance. If the central mechanism is quantitatively established, the paper would introduce a genuinely new route to nonrelativistic spin-controlled chiral transport and charge-neutral spin pumping in one-dimensional altermagnetic systems. The symmetry-based picture—rolling a 2D altermagnet to convert k-space spin texture into real-space spin-chirality locking—is conceptually attractive and extends the altermagnetism paradigm to nanotubes. Strengths include the use of a concrete material prototype (V2Se2O), first-principles relaxation and band-structure calculations, and the identification of reciprocal direct and inverse effects. However, the current manuscript does not deliver the quantitative evidence needed to support the headline claims: the main-text evidence for the helical current is based on charge density rather than current density, and the quantitative transport coefficients and scaling laws are deferred to the Supplemental Material or computed only for the parent monolayer, not the rolled nanotube.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 and surrounding text] The central evidence for the direct helical-current effect is the real-space |ψ|^2 of the VBM/CBM states. As the authors themselves note, these are squared moduli of Bloch states. For a state carrying an azimuthal phase e^{imφ}, |ψ|^2 is azimuthally uniform when the envelope is smooth, so the helical corrugations in Fig. 4 do not by themselves establish a circulating current. The claimed opposite azimuthal phase windings are asserted in the text and labeled in Fig. 3 but are not displayed; no J_θ(r) = Im[ψ^*∂_φψ]/r, ⟨L_z⟩, or equivalent current-density map is given. This is load-bearing because the handedness of the helical current and the sign of the axial magnetic field are the paper's main quantitative predictions. The authors should either compute and plot the spin-resolved azimuthal current density/phase winding for the nanotube band-edge states, or explicitly soften the claim to st
  2. [Abstract and inverse-configuration paragraph] The quantitative inverse effect — axial spin current proportional to dΦ/dt and inversely proportional to radius — is stated to be derived in the Supplemental Material, while the quantitative Wannier–Boltzmann calculation is explicitly for the parent monolayer, not the rolled nanotube. Thus the main text contains no first-principles transport coefficient σ_zθ for the nanotube itself. The scaling therefore rests on an unverified assumption that the 2D altermagnetic transverse response survives folding into the 1D subband structure with the same sign and magnitude. Because the pump current and the field scale are central quantitative claims, the manuscript should either report the nanotube σ_zθ (e.g., from a nanotube Wannier–Boltzmann or Kubo calculation) or clearly present the scaling as an ansatz whose validity for nanotubes remains to be tested.
  3. [Inverse configuration, open-circuit conditions] The pure spin-current pumping claim requires that, under open circuit, the spin-odd axial-azimuthal response is the only operative channel and that the two spin currents cancel exactly. The text states that spin accumulation is confined to boundary layers near the contacts, but this is not derived or checked; contact-induced spin relaxation, finite spin–orbit coupling, or charge leakage would break the cancellation and produce a nonzero charge current. In the weak-spin–orbit-coupling limit invoked, the authors should specify the conditions under which the boundary-layer approximation holds, estimate the magnitude of the residual charge leakage, or at least state this as an assumption with its limitations.
  4. [Symmetry argument (screw axis, M_zT)] The core symmetry argument — that C4zT is broken on rolling but M_zT remains, forcing a spin-odd axial-azimuthal response — is stated qualitatively, not derived. Given that the whole effect depends on this, a compact group-theoretic or tensor argument showing how the screw axis plus M_zT constrains σ_zθ to be odd under spin reversal, and why the 1D subband quantization does not spoil the relationship, should appear in the main text or be reproduced from the Supplemental Material. Without it, the reader cannot assess whether the helical-current and pump effects are indeed symmetry-enforced or rely on additional microscopic assumptions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and main text] 'Explicit the first-principles calculations' is ungrammatical; should be 'We present explicit first-principles calculations' or similar.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] 'occur near z' — presumably the Z point in the one-dimensional Brillouin zone; please clarify and use consistent notation (Z vs z).
  3. [Figs. 2 and 4] The color conventions differ between figures (red/blue in Fig. 2 vs yellow/blue in Fig. 4), and the helicity labels '+'/'−' in Fig. 3 are not defined with respect to a concrete sign convention (e.g., direction of k_z or handedness of the screw). Please define these explicitly.
  4. [General presentation] The text refers to 'mirror-antisymmetric' and 'compensated' but does not define the action of M_zT on the orbital degrees of freedom; a schematic of the symmetry operation would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nanotube spin-chirality argument is symmetry-based and the transport coefficients are computed, not fitted to the predicted effects.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (i) 2D altermagnets have momentum-odd spin polarization (an established, externally referenced property); (ii) rolling into a nanotube along [110] preserves a screw axis and MzT symmetry, converting in-plane transverse deflection into an axial-azimuthal spin-odd response; (iii) the direct effect (spin-locked helical current) and inverse effect (flux-driven pure spin current) are reciprocal consequences of the same spin-odd cross conductivity. No equation is shown to reduce to the other by construction: the response coefficient is a material property computed via Wannier–Boltzmann from the parent monolayer, not fitted to the nanotube's helical current or spin pump. The scaling for the pump (axial spin current ∝ dΦ/dt/R) follows from Faraday's law plus the spin-odd conductivity; the proportionality constant is not equated to the target outcome. The DFT evidence (helical |ψ|^2 modulations) is offered as confirmation of the band-edge wave function helicity, but even if this evidence is insufficient to prove a circulating current (as the skeptic notes), that is an evidentiary weakness, not circularity. The main text defers quantitative derivations to the Supplemental Material; this is an incompleteness, not a circularity. Self-citations (refs [23,24]) provide background on altermagnetism and the Lieb-lattice model but are not load-bearing for the nanotube prediction: the symmetry argument stands independently, and the model choice is supported by multiple external references. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' previous work. Thus the paper is self-contained against external first-principles benchmarks and its central claims do not reduce to their inputs.

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

No fitted parameters or new entities are introduced; the analysis is symmetry-based with DFT support. The main unproven inputs are the rolling symmetry assumption, the weak-SOC/linear-response ansatz, and the monolayer-to-tube transport folding.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 2D parent is a compensated altermagnet with C4zT symmetry and no net moment.
    Adopted from prior altermagnet literature (Refs 13-24); basis for the spin-odd response.
  • domain assumption Rolling along [110] preserves a screw axis and mirror time-reversal M_zT, keeping the tube compensated and spin-degenerate along z.
    Central geometric premise; supported by DFT charge density in Fig. 2(b), but not derived for arbitrary rolling vectors.
  • ad hoc to paper In the weak-SOC limit, spin channels are independent and the axial-azimuthal transconductance is exactly odd under spin reversal.
    This is the paper's key symmetry ansatz; asserted in the inverse-configuration section but derivation is in SM.
  • domain assumption Thin-wall, linear-response regime: the Faraday field is uniform across the wall and axial currents are linear in the driving field.
    Standard for nanotube devices; stated in the inverse-configuration section.
  • domain assumption Wannier-Boltzmann transport on the parent monolayer captures the tube's spin-odd transverse response.
    Needed to translate the monolayer calculation into a tube field scale; no validation of the folding approximation is shown.
  • domain assumption Open-circuit contacts confine spin accumulation to boundary layers and allow a uniform interior pure spin flow.
    Stated in inverse-configuration section but not checked numerically.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-Locked Helical Currents and Charge-Neutral Spin-Channel Pumping in Altermagnetic Nanotubes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VQMCPU3F

@misc{pith2026251019700,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-Locked Helical Currents and Charge-Neutral Spin-Channel Pumping in Altermagnetic Nanotubes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VQMCPU3F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.19700}
}
abstract

Altermagnetism has been widely explored in 3D and 2D crystals, but its one-dimensional realization remains largely unexplored. Here we propose an altermagnetic nanotube formed by rolling a 2D altermagnet, which converts \textcolor{black}{symmetry-enforced directional spin anisotropy in momentum space} into \textcolor{black}{spin--chirality locking in the screw-symmetric geometry}. Unlike curvature-induced magnetization in bent films, \textcolor{black}{the nanotube remains compensated and produces no net magnetization}. Two reciprocal effects emerge: (i) \textcolor{black}{spin-selective} injection drives a helical current whose handedness is fixed by the spin, yielding opposite-sign axial magnetic fields; and (ii) a time-varying axial flux generates a circumferential Faraday field that drives \textcolor{black}{equal and opposite axial charge currents in the two fixed spin channels, yielding a charge-neutral spin-channel current in the open-circuit weak-SOC limit}. \textcolor{black}{Explicit the first-principles calculations of the relaxed V$_2$Se$_2$O nanotube reveal spin-resolved helical $|\psi|^2$ modulations near both band edges, while a parent-monolayer Wannier--Boltzmann calculation quantifies the energy-dependent spin-odd transverse response and corresponding ideal thin-wall field scale.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19700 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Spin-programmable chiral nanosolenoid from a rolled two-dimensional altermagnet. (a),(b) Rolling imposes a screw [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Atomic structure of two-dimensional V [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spin-resolved electronic band structures of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ajiki and T

    H. Ajiki and T. Ando, Magnetic properties of carbon nan- otubes, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.62, 2470 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    J. P. Lu, Novel magnetic properties of carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1123 (1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    A. M. Rao, E. Richter, S. Bandow, B. Chase, P. C. Eklund, K. A. Williams, S. Fang, K. R. Subbaswamy, M. Menon, A. Thess, R. E. Smalley, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Diameter-selective raman scatter- ing from vibrational modes in carbon nanotubes, Science 275, 187 (1997)

    1997

  4. [4]

    Bachtold, C

    A. Bachtold, C. Strunk, J.-P. Salvetat, J.-M. Bonard, L. Forr´ o, T. Nussbaumer, and C. Sch¨ onenberger, Aharonov–bohm oscillations in carbon nanotubes, Na- ture397, 673 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    J. Cao, Q. Wang, M. Rolandi, and H. Dai, Aharonov- bohm interference and beating in single-walled carbon- nanotube interferometers, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 216803 (2004)

    2004

  6. [6]

    Zaric, G

    S. Zaric, G. N. Ostojic, J. Kono, J. Shaver, V. C. Moore, M. S. Strano, R. H. Hauge, R. E. Smalley, and X. Wei, Optical signatures of the aharonov-bohm phase in single- walled carbon nanotubes, Science304, 1129 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    F. Yang, M. Wang, D. Zhang, J. Yang, M. Zheng, and Y. Li, Chirality pure carbon nanotubes: Growth, sort- ing, and characterization, Chemical Reviews120, 2693 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    B. Liu, F. Wu, H. Gui, M. Zheng, and C. Zhou, Chirality- controlled synthesis and applications of single-wall car- bon nanotubes, ACS Nano11, 31 (2017)

    2017

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    M. Liu, K. Hisama, Y. Zheng, M. Maruyama, S. Seo, A. Anisimov, T. Inoue, E. I. Kauppinen, S. Okada, S. Chiashi, R. Xiang, and S. Maruyama, Photolumines- cence from single-walled mos2 nanotubes coaxially grown on boron nitride nanotubes, ACS Nano15, 8418 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    W. Dai, Y. Zheng, A. Kumamoto, Y. Gao, S. Fu, S. Zhao, R. Kitaura, E. I. Kauppinen, K. Otsuka, S. V. Rotkin, Y. Ikuhara, M. Maruyama, S. Okada, R. Xiang, and S. Maruyama, Metallic nbs2 one-dimensional van der waals heterostructures, ACS Nano19, 32800 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    C. Yang, Q. Lin, Y. Sato, Y. Gao, Y. Zheng, T. Wang, Y. Ma, W. Dai, W. Li, M. Maruyama, S. Okada, K. Sue- naga, S. Maruyama, and R. Xiang, Janus mosse nan- otubes on 1d swcnt-bnnt van der waals heterostructure (small 27/2025), Small21, 2570208 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Nakanishi, S

    Y. Nakanishi, S. Furusawa, Y. Sato, T. Tanaka, Y. Yomogida, K. Yanagi, W. Zhang, H. Nakajo, S. Aoki, T. Kato, K. Suenaga, and Y. Miyata, Structural diver- sity of single-walled transition metal dichalcogenide nan- otubes grown via template reaction, Advanced Materials 35, 2306...

    2023

  5. [13]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    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. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

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

    2024

  10. [18]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Giant and tunneling mag- netoresistance in unconventional collinear antiferromag- nets with nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling, Phys. 6 Rev. X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Y. Feng, Y. J. Zhou, R. X. Su, Q. Wang, L. Y. Liao, W. X. Zhu, X. Z. Chen, F. Pan, X. L. Fan, and C. Song, Observation of spin splitting torque in a collinear antiferromagnet ruo 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. Mac- Donald, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, Altermagnetism: An unconventional spin-ordered phase of matter, Newton1, 10.1016/j.newton.2025.100162 (2025), published: 2025- 08-04, Accessed: 2025-10-07

    2025

  13. [21]

    Y.-P. Zhu, X. Chen, X.-R. Liu, Y. Liu, P. Liu, H. Zha, G. Qu, C. Hong, J. Li, Z. Jiang, X.-M. Ma, Y.-J. Hao, M.-Y. Zhu, W. Liu, M. Zeng, S. Jayaram, M. Lenger, J. Ding, S. Mo, K. Tanaka, M. Arita, Z. Liu, M. Ye, D. Shen, J. Wrachtrup, Y. Huang, R.-H. He, S. Qiao, Q. Liu, and C...

    2024

  14. [22]

    X. Chen, Y. Liu, P. Liu, Y. Yu, J. Ren, J. Li, A. Zhang, and Q. Liu, Unconventional magnons in collinear mag- nets dictated by spin space groups, Nature640, 349 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    X. Chen, J. Zou, L. Song, W. Sun, Y. Wu, L. Zhu, X. Cheng, D. Wang, and B. Sanyal, N´ eel- vector-orientation induced intrinsic half-metallicity in two-dimensional altermagnets (2025), arXiv:2510.17522 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    X. Chen, D. Wang, L. Li, and B. Sanyal, Giant spin- splitting and tunable spin-momentum locked transport in room temperature collinear antiferromagnetic semimetal- lic CrO monolayer, Appl. Phys. Lett.123, 022402 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Wu, Y.-l

    B. Wu, Y.-l. Song, W.-x. Ji, P.-j. Wang, S.-f. Zhang, and C.-w. Zhang, Quantum anomalous hall effect in an an- tiferromagnetic monolayer of moo, Phys. Rev. B107, 214419 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Li, A.-D

    J.-Y. Li, A.-D. Fan, Y.-K. Wang, Y. Zhang, and S. Li, Strain-induced valley polarization, topological states, and piezomagnetism in two-dimensional altermagnetic v2te2o, v2steo, v2sseo, and v2s2o, Applied Physics Let- ters125, 222404 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    J. Tian, J. Li, H. Liu, Y. Li, Z. Liu, L. Li, J. Li, G. Liu, and J. Shi, Spin-layer coupling in an altermagnetic mul- tilayer: A design principle for spintronics, Phys. Rev. B 111, 035437 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    S.-D. Guo, Y. Liu, J. Yu, and C.-C. Liu, Valley polar- ization in twisted altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B110, L220402 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    K. V. Yershov, O. Gomonay, J. Sinova, J. van den Brink, and V. P. Kravchuk, Curvature-induced magnetization of altermagnetic films, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 116701 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    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 current, Na- ture Communications12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Xu and L

    X. Xu and L. Yang, Alterpiezoresponse in two- dimensional lieb-lattice altermagnets, Nano Letters25, 11870 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Y. Che, H. Lv, X. Wu, and J. Yang, Engineering alter- magnetic states in two-dimensional square tessellations, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 036701 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    W. Xie, X. Xu, Y. Yue, H. Xia, and H. Wang, Piezovalley effect and magnetovalley coupling in altermagnetic semi- conductors studied by first-principles calculations, Phys. Rev. B111, 134429 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Jiang, X

    Y. Jiang, X. Zhang, H. Bai, Y. Tian, B. Zhang, W.-J. Gong, and X. Kong, Strain-engineering spin-valley lock- ing effect in altermagnetic monolayer with multipiezo properties, Applied Physics Letters126, 053102 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    I. Khan, D. Bezzerga, B. Marfoua, and J. Hong, Al- termagnetism, piezovalley, and ferroelectricity in two- dimensional Cr2SeO altermagnet, npj 2D Materials and Applications9, 18 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Zhiheng, M

    L. Zhiheng, M. Dengpan, C. Jiangtao, X. Yan, and L. Zhifeng, Spin-axis dynamic locking (2025), arXiv:2509.18476 [cond-mat.other]

    2025

  29. [37]

    J. Lai, T. Yu, P. Liu, L. Liu, G. Xing, X.-Q. Chen, and Y. Sun,d-wave flat fermi surface in altermag- nets enables maximum charge-to-spin conversion (2025), arXiv:2506.07703 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.