Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Quantum Mechanism of Piezomagnetism in Higher-Spin Altermagnets

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Lattice strain can induce magnetization in higher-spin altermagnets through quantum fluctuations, with the effect strongest for integer spins near the large-D transition.

desk verdict New zero-temperature quantum route to piezomagnetism in altermagnets with a clean mod-4 selection rule and integer/half-integer contrast, but the quantitative peak rests on a harmonic approximation that still needs an anharmonic check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10735 v1 pith:FVDMOBRF submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Daisuke Yamamoto , Makoto Naka This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords piezomagnetismaltermagnetismhigher-spinquantummagnetsflavor-wavetheoryHiggsamplitudemodesingle-ionanisotropylarge-Dtransitionmultipolarexcitations
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 a zero-temperature quantum mechanism for piezomagnetism—magnetization produced by lattice distortion—in higher-spin altermagnets. It argues that strain does not need to bring excitations into thermal occupation: the distortion virtually admixes higher-spin collective modes into the ground state, and a mod-4 selection rule admits only uniform amplitude branches as carriers of the magnetization. For integer spins, the active branch softens into a Higgs-like amplitude mode as the easy-plane anisotropy approaches the large-D transition, sharply enhancing the response. For half-integer spins, the same branch hardens with anisotropy, and the response stays weak. If correct, piezomagnetic measurements become a direct window onto multipolar and amplitude-mode dynamics.

What carries the argument

Flavor-wave theory with $2S$ bosonic flavors per site, diagonalized by a paraunitary Bogoliubov transformation, produces $4S$ excitation branches, and the $k=0$ branch classification in Table I carries the argument. The mod-4 selection rule states that only branches $\mu=4n$ carry uniform longitudinal spin fluctuation $\delta S^x_+$, so $g_\mu$ is nonzero only for those branches. The susceptibility formula $\chi_\lambda = -2\,\mathrm{Re}[g_\mu^* f_{\lambda,\mu}]/\omega_\mu(0)$ then ties the response to the product of the mode's dipolar weight $g_\mu$, its strain coupling $f_{\lambda,\mu}$, and the inverse energy $1/\omega_\mu(0)$, making the softening of $\omega_4(0)$ the amplification mechanism.

What would settle it

Measure the $k=0$ excitation spectrum and strain-induced magnetization of an integer-spin easy-plane altermagnet such as NiF$_2$ near its large-$D$ transition: the mechanism fails if the $\mu=4$ mode does not soften while the piezomagnetic peak still appears, or if the response stays flat despite the softening. A cheaper falsifier is an exact-diagonalization benchmark of $\chi_K$ and $\chi_D$ on a small cluster with the same parameters, checking whether the harmonic peaks survive anharmonic corrections.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the zero-temperature piezomagnetic susceptibility is controlled by virtual admixture of the uniform longitudinal amplitude branch $\mu=4n$. In the flavor-wave calculation the susceptibility takes the form $\chi_\lambda = -2\sum_\mu \mathrm{Re}[g_\mu^* f_{\lambda,\mu}]/\omega_\mu(0)$, and because $g_\mu$ and $f_{\lambda,\mu}$ vanish for all branches except $\mu=4n$, only that branch matters. For integer spins, the $\mu=4$ branch evolves from a quadrupolar excitation into a dipolar, Higgs-like amplitude mode near the large-$D$ transition, so $g_4$ grows, $f_{\lambda,4}$ is dome-shaped, and $1/\omega_4(0)$ diverges, together producing the pronounced piezomagnetic enhancement. In half-integer spins the same branch hardens with increasing $D$, suppressing the response. The mechanism does not require altermagnetic spin splitting: a sublattice-dependent single-ion anisotropy alone yields a finite zero-temperature response.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation keeps the flavor-wave expansion at quadratic order around a self-consistent mean-field state, so the predicted near-critical enhancement assumes that anharmonic terms do not renormalize the active mode's energy or coupling matrix elements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Integer-spin easy-plane altermagnets, such as S=1 NiF2, should show a pronounced nonmonotonic piezomagnetic response that peaks as the large-D transition is approached.
  • Half-integer systems such as S=5/2 MnTe should show only a smooth, weak response, making the integer-half-integer contrast a directly testable signature.
  • The response is a zero-temperature, virtual effect: it requires no thermal occupation of magnons and no carrier doping.
  • The mechanism does not rely on altermagnetic spin splitting; even with K=0, a sublattice-dependent single-ion anisotropy alone produces a finite susceptibility, distinguishing it from occupation-imbalance mechanisms.
  • Piezomagnetic measurements can therefore serve as a probe of higher-spin collective modes, revealing amplitude and quadrupolar excitations through a static macroscopic observable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same virtual-admixture logic should extend to other uniform static responses, such as magnetostriction or magnetoelectric coupling, whenever a uniform operator selects a subset of amplitude branches; strain could then be used to read out quadrupolar order.
  • Near the large-D critical point, anharmonic magnon interactions and decay will renormalize the active mode's energy and coupling matrix elements, so a quantitative test is to compute self-energy corrections or compare with exact diagonalization on small clusters.
  • If the selection rule is generic, the mechanism should also appear in non-altermagnetic compensated magnets with sublattice-dependent single-ion anisotropy, which could be checked in thin films of NiF2 under controlled strain.
  • The growth of the mode's dipolar weight near the transition suggests the same soft mode should be visible dynamically in neutron scattering or Raman spectroscopy as a longitudinal amplitude mode with increasing spectral weight.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies zero-temperature piezomagnetism in S≥1 two-sublattice square-lattice antiferromagnets with altermagnetic second-neighbor couplings and easy-plane single-ion anisotropy. Starting from a self-consistent mean-field solution of the local eigenstates, the authors construct a linear flavor-wave (Bogoliubov) theory and derive the piezomagnetic susceptibility in Eq. (12) as a sum over k=0 virtual excitations weighted by 1/ωμ(0). They identify a mod-4 selection rule: only the uniform longitudinal amplitude branches μ=4n have a finite dipolar matrix element gμ, and they show how the branch content evolves with D for integer and half-integer S. The central claim is that for integer spins the lowest active branch gains dipolar, Higgs-like amplitude character and stays low in energy near the large-D transition, producing a pronounced nonmonotonic enhancement of χK and χD, whereas for half-integer spins it hardens and suppresses the response. A finite-distortion mean-field calculation is presented as confirmation of the linear-response result.

Significance. The proposed mechanism is conceptually new: it is a zero-temperature, virtual-admixture effect that requires no thermal occupation of higher-spin modes, and it yields a sharp selection rule and an integer/half-integer distinction that could be tested in materials such as NiF2 and α-MnTe. The derivation is transparent, has no fitted parameters apart from K/J, and the linear-response formula is explicit and internally consistent. The main caveat is that the headline quantitative enhancement is computed at harmonic order only and is not benchmarked against any nonperturbative method; the finite-α validation is also not fully specified. With those points addressed, the finding would be a significant contribution to the altermagnetism and multipolar-excitation literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (12), Fig. 3(a), End Matter] The quantitative prediction of a pronounced integer-spin piezomagnetic peak rests on the quadratic flavor-wave Hamiltonian, Eq. (5), with the mode energy ω4(0) and the matrix elements g4 and fλ,4 taken at harmonic order. Near the large-D transition, the quartic boson terms discarded by the linear flavor-wave expansion couple the (near-)soft amplitude sector to the gapless Goldstone modes; in two dimensions these interaction terms can renormalize the mode gap, change g4 and fλ,4, and give the nominally soft mode a finite decay width. Since no nonperturbative benchmark (exact diagonalization, DMRG, or a self-consistent treatment of quartic terms) is provided, the height and quantitative structure of the peak in Fig. 3(a) are not yet secure. I request an estimate of the leading anharmonic corrections to ω4(0), g4, and fλ,4, or a small-cluster benchmark, before the 'pronounced enhancement' claim can be accepted. In addition, the text should clarify whether the critical softening occurs in the staggered µ=3 channel while the active uniform µ=4 denominator remains finite, since this distinction matters for the interpretation of the 1/ω4(0) enhancement.
  2. [Fig. 4, text after Eq. (12)] The finite-distortion calculation labelled 'multi-component mean-field theory' is not defined anywhere in the main text or End Matter. If it is the same self-consistent single-site mean-field decoupling used for Fig. 1(b), it does not obviously contain the Bogoliubov virtual-admixture processes that enter Eq. (12), and the statement that the small-α agreement 'confirms the susceptibility analysis' is therefore not substantiated. The authors should either specify the method and show that it includes the same linear-response processes, or clearly present the agreement as a check of the linearization only, with the relation between the two calculations stated explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title] The first-page title reads 'Alterm agnets' with an erroneous space; please fix.
  2. [References] Reference [37] is a duplicate of reference [23].
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] In Fig. 2, the D=0 degenerate higher branches are shown as black lines because the color is ill-defined; using distinct line styles would make the branch tracking easier to follow.
  4. [After Eq. (6)] The branch index µ is defined at small D and then tracked continuously, but the tracking rule at level crossings is not stated; please make the convention precise.
  5. [Conclusion] The concluding claim that a δD response exists even at K=0 is not shown in any figure; please provide the K=0 analogue of Fig. 3(a) or state explicitly that it follows by continuity from the presented results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the piezomagnetic response is computed from the stated Hamiltonian via a self-contained flavor-wave calculation, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (5) is obtained by a standard mean-field plus linear flavor-wave expansion of the explicitly stated Hamiltonian (1), and the ingredients entering Eq. (12) — g_mu, f_lambda,mu, and omega_mu(0) — are computed from that same diagonalization rather than fitted to the target response. The mod-4 selection rule is derived from computed dipolar matrix elements (Table I and Eq. (13)), and the integer versus half-integer contrast follows from the local spectrum of the D(S^z)^2 term, not from an imposed assumption. Author self-citations [15,29] provide background model conventions and a contrasting thermal-occupation mechanism; they are not load-bearing evidence for the new zero-temperature virtual-admixture mechanism. The harmonic truncation near the large-D transition is a stated approximation and a potential quantitative correctness risk, but no step in the argument reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on a specified spin model and standard flavor-wave theory. There are no fitted-to-data parameters; K/J=0.2 is a representative model choice. The main unvalidated assumption is the adequacy of the linear flavor-wave approximation near the large-D transition.

free parameters (1)
  • K/J = 0.2
    Second-neighbor altermagnetic exchange ratio fixed by hand in all plotted results (Figs. 1-4). The paper argues the qualitative δD response persists at K=0, so the central contrast does not depend on this value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The local-moment Heisenberg Hamiltonian with easy-plane single-ion anisotropy describes the relevant altermagnetic physics.
    Model (Eq. 1) neglects itinerant electrons, spin-orbit coupling, and phonon dynamics.
  • domain assumption A local mean-field decoupling, with a product of single-site eigenstates, is an adequate starting point; the flavor-wave expansion is truncated at linear order.
    This is the core approximation; the paper does not quantify its error near the large-D transition.
  • standard math First-order perturbation theory (Eq. 12) gives the complete static response to small distortions.
    Standard linear response in a non-interacting boson vacuum; verified only within the same approximation (Fig. 4).
  • domain assumption The mean-field large-D transition for integer spins is a real quantum phase transition and the mode softening is not an artefact.
    No non-perturbative benchmark is provided; the integer-half-integer contrast depends on the existence of this transition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Mechanism of Piezomagnetism in Higher-Spin Altermagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVDMOBRF

@misc{pith2026260810735,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Mechanism of Piezomagnetism in Higher-Spin Altermagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVDMOBRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10735}
}
abstract

We investigate piezomagnetism in higher-spin altermagnets with easy-plane single-ion anisotropy using a flavor-wave approach. We show that quantum fluctuations of higher-spin collective modes provide a microscopic origin of the piezomagnetic response. For integer spins, the relevant branch softens and evolves into a Higgs-like amplitude mode on approaching the large-$D$ transition, endowing the excitation with a sizable dipolar component and producing a pronounced enhancement of piezomagnetism. By contrast, in half-integer systems the higher-spin branches are progressively separated from the low-energy dipolar sector as the anisotropy increases, which suppresses their contribution to the response. This integer-half-integer contrast directly links macroscopic piezomagnetism to the low-energy fate of multipolar excitations. Our results establish piezomagnetism as a probe of higher-spin quantum dynamics and identify higher-spin altermagnets as a promising setting for quantum magnetoelastic responses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10735 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Square lattice with two sublattices, A and B, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of the flavor-wave excitation spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Piezomagnetic susceptibilities χK (dashed) and χD (solid), multiplied by J, as functions of D/J at K/J = 0.2 for S = 1, 3/2, 2, and 5/2. Mode dependences (a) of gµ, (b) of fK,µ (dashed) and fD,µ (solid), and (c) of ωµ(0) as functions of D/J for different S, with the same color scheme as in (a). Thick and thin curves in (b)–(d) denote the active branches µ = 4 and 8, respectively; for all other branches, gµ = fK,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Strain-induced uniform magnetization Muni as a function of the distortion parameter α, obtained from multi￾component mean-field theory with δJ = αJ, δK = αK, and δD = αD. (a) S = 1 and (b) S = 3/2 for different D/J at K/J = 0.2. Dashed lines show the linear-response pr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Absolute values of the nonvanishing normalized di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rodin, M

    A. Rodin, M. Trushin, A. Carvalho, and A. H. Cas- tro Neto, Collective excitations in 2D materials, Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 524 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    A. V. Chumak, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Magnon spintronics, Nat. Phys. 11, 453 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Pirro, V

    P. Pirro, V. I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hille- brands, Advances in coherent magnonics, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 1114 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    X. Gu, Y. Wei, X. Yin, B. Li, and R. Yang, Colloquium: Phononic thermal properties of two-dimensional materi- als, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 041002 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Colloquium: Excitons in atomically thin transition metal dichalco- genides, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 021001 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    Pekker and C

    D. Pekker and C. M. Varma, Amplitude/Higgs modes in condensed matter physics, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 6, 269 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Matsunaga, Y

    R. Matsunaga, Y. I. Hamada, K. Makise, Y. Uzawa, H. Terai, Z. Wang, and R. Shimano, Higgs amplitude mode in the BCS superconductors Nb 1−xTixN induced by terahertz pulse excitation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 057002 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Endres, T

    M. Endres, T. Fukuhara, D. Pekker, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, C. Gross, E. Demler, S. Kuhr, and I. Bloch, The ‘Higgs’ amplitude mode at the two-dimensional superfluid/Mott insulator transition, Nature 487, 454 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    R¨ uegg, B

    C. R¨ uegg, B. Normand, M. Matsumoto, A. Furrer, D. F. McMorrow, K. W. Kr¨ amer, H.-U. G¨ udel, S. N. Gvasaliya, H. Mutka, and M. Boehm, Quantum magnets under pressure: Controlling elementary excitations in TlCuCl 3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 205701 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Penc and A

    K. Penc and A. M. L¨ auchli, Spin nematic phases in quan- tum spin systems, in Introduction to Frustrated Mag- netism, edited by C. Lacroix, P. Mendels, and F. Mila (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011) pp. 331–362

    2011

  3. [11]

    Romh´ anyi and K

    J. Romh´ anyi and K. Penc, Multiboson spin-wave theory for ba 2coge2o7: A spin-3/2 easy-plane n´ eel antiferromag- net with strong single-ion anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B 86, 174428 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    Bai, S.-S

    X. Bai, S.-S. Zhang, Z. Dun, H. Zhang, Q. Huang, H. Zhou, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, F. Ye, C. D. Batista, and M. Mourigal, Hybridized quadrupolar ex- citations in the spin-anisotropic frustrated magnet FeI 2, 6 Nat. Phys. 17, 467 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    A. Jain, M. Krautloher, J. Porras, G. H. Ryu, D. P. Chen, D. L. Abernathy, J. T. Park, A. Ivanov, J. Chaloupka, G. Khaliullin, B. Keimer, and B. J. Kim, Higgs mode and its decay in a two-dimensional antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys. 13, 633 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Antifer- romagnetism in RuO 2 as d-wave pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B 99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Spin current generation in organic an- tiferromagnets, Nat. Commun. 10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Momentum- dependent spin splitting by collinear antiferromagnetic ordering, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low- Z antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    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. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    A. Bose, S. Vadnais, and A. Paramekanti, Altermag- netism and superconductivity in a multiorbital model, Phys. Rev. B 110, 205120 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, P. Wadley, D. Kriegner, H. Re- ichlov´ a, F. Krizek, H. Ohno, and L. ˇSmejkal, Altermag- netic spintronics, Nat. Phys. (2026)

    2026

  14. [22]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Chiral magnons in altermagnetic RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 256703 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Z. Liu, M. Ozeki, S. Asai, S. Itoh, and T. Masuda, Chiral split magnon in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156702 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    I. E. Dzialoshinskii, The problem of piezomagnetism, Sov. Phys. JETP 6, 621 (1958)

    1958

  17. [25]

    Moriya, Piezomagnetism in CoF 2, J

    T. Moriya, Piezomagnetism in CoF 2, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 11, 73 (1959)

    1959

  18. [26]

    A. S. Borovik-Romanov, Piezomagnetism in the antifer- romagnetic fluorides of cobalt and manganese, Sov. Phys. JETP 11, 786 (1960)

    1960

  19. [27]

    Aoyama and K

    T. Aoyama and K. Ohgushi, Piezomagnetic properties in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    K. V. Yershov, V. P. Kravchuk, M. Daghofer, and J. van den Brink, Fluctuation-induced piezomagnetism in local moment altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B. 110 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    M. Naka, Y. Motome, T. Miyazaki, and H. Seo, Nonrel- ativistic piezomagnetic effect in an organic altermagnet, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 94 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Papanicolaou, Unusual phases in quantum spin-1 sys- tems, Nucl

    N. Papanicolaou, Unusual phases in quantum spin-1 sys- tems, Nucl. Phys. B. 305, 367 (1988)

    1988

  23. [31]

    Joshi, M

    A. Joshi, M. Ma, F. Mila, D. N. Shi, and F. C. Zhang, Elementary excitations in magnetically ordered systems with orbital degeneracy, Phys. Rev. B Condens. Matter 60, 6584 (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    L¨ auchli, F

    A. L¨ auchli, F. Mila, and K. Penc, Quadrupolar phases of the s=1 bilinear-biquadratic heisenberg model on the triangular lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 087205 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    R. A. Muniz, Y. Kato, and C. D. Batista, Generalized spin-wave theory: Application to the bilinear-biquadrati c model, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2014, 83I01 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    J. H. P. Colpa, Diagonalization of the quadratic boson hamiltonian, Physica A 93, 327 (1978)

    1978

  27. [35]

    M. T. Hutchings, M. F. Thorpe, R. J. Birgeneau, P. A. Fleury, and H. J. Guggenheim, Neutron and optical in- vestigation of magnons and magnon-magnon interaction effects in NiF 2, Phys. Rev. B 2, 1362 (1970)

    1970

  28. [36]

    Van Haren, N

    R. Van Haren, N. Hald, and D. Lederman, Emer- gent magnetic phases and piezomagnetic effects in MnxNi1−xF2 thin film alloys, Phys. Rev. B 108, 134437 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Z. Liu, M. Ozeki, S. Asai, S. Itoh, and T. Masuda, Chiral split magnon in altermagnetic MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156702 (2024). 7 END MA TTER Linear flavor-wave formulation. — We provide details of the linear flavor-wave calculation [30–33] used in the main text. For each sub...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.