Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Spin Splitter without Spin-Split Bands: A Reconfigurable Altermagnetic Texture

T0 review · 3 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 A counter-spiral magnetic texture realizes a spin splitter without spin-split bands, with spin Hall 0.082 e^2/h and zero charge Hall.

desk verdict Decoupling the symmetry that forbids splitting from the one that selects spin transport is genuinely new, but the ground-state premise is parked in a missing supplement. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10958 v1 pith:VXQKQQCI submitted 2026-08-11 cond-mat.str-el

Bin Xi , Jie Lu , Qiang Luo , Ken Chen , Jia-Wei Mei , Hong-Gang Luo , Jize Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords altermagnetismspin-splittereffectspin-spacegroupnoncollinearmagnetictexturespinHallspin-orbit-freespintronicscounter-spiralhoneycomblattice
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 tries to establish that a noncoplanar counter-spiral magnetic texture on a frustrated honeycomb magnet can serve as an altermagnet whose spin-splitter effect -- an electric field producing a transverse pure spin current with no net magnetization and no charge Hall -- does not require spin-split bands. In established collinear altermagnets the same crystal symmetry element both splits the bands and fixes the spin-current polarization; here those roles are divided between two spin-space-group elements, an antitranslation $\Theta$ that forbids even-parity band splitting and a $\mathbf{Q}$-locked helicity mirror $g$ that selects the spin-current polarization and forbids the perpendicular channel. At hole doping $x\simeq 0.132$, the spin-orbit-free Kubo calculation gives $\sigma_H^{(s_y)} = 0.082\,e^2/h$, $\sigma_H^{(s_x)} = 0$, $|\sigma_H^{(s_z)}|\approx 0.155\,|\sigma_H^{(s_y)}|$, and zero charge Hall, so the response is a spin splitter without spin-split bands. Selecting among the three degenerate $\mathbf{Q}$ orientations rotates the polarization axis in exact $120^\circ$ steps at fixed magnitude, and the selection rules persist in a $32$-site cell accessible to programmable photonic and circuit lattices.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two exact spin-space-group elements of the counter-spiral texture. The antitranslation $\Theta=[T\parallel\{E|\tau_{1/2}\}]$ is a half-period translation combined with spin reversal; it pairs every state at $\mathbf{k}$ with an equal-energy partner of opposite polarization at $-\mathbf{k}$, so it forbids even-parity band splitting. The helicity mirror $g=[C_{2x}\parallel\{M_x|\tau_g\}]$ is a mirror-glide in real space combined with a 180-degree spin rotation about the $x$-axis; because the two honeycomb sublattices carry helices of opposite handedness, the glide and the rotation together leave the texture invariant. This non-translation operation is the altermagnetic element: it selects the allowed spin-Hall channel, defines the dark axis, and enforces the charge-Hall zero through mirror-odd Berry curvature. The crucial feature is that the two elements are independent -- each alone enforces zero charge Hall, and only together do they determine the full spin-splitter selection rules.

What would settle it

A numerical ground-state search of the classical $J$-$\Gamma'$-$D$ model at $J=0$, $\Gamma'=-D<0$ that yields a different magnetic order (one lacking the counter-rotating sublattice helices and the helicity mirror) would invalidate the predicted spin-splitter response. Equivalently, a self-consistent calculation that finds the carrier-doped texture unstable toward ferromagnetism or a Neel state would falsify the claim that the spin splitter is realizable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the compensated counter-spiral ground state of the frustrated honeycomb $J$-$\Gamma'$-$D$ model acts as an altermagnet whose spin-splitter response is carried by the $\mathbf{Q}$-locked helicity mirror $g=[C_{2x}\parallel\{M_x|\tau_g\}]$, not by spin-split bands. The antitranslation $\Theta=[T\parallel\{E|\tau_{1/2}\}]$ forbids even-in-momentum spin splitting exactly, leaving the symmetry-allowed odd-parity residual below $2\times10^{-7}\,t$ at the Fermi level. The mirror $g$ fixes the allowed spin-current channel and its polarization axis, forbids the perpendicular dark axis, and independently forces the charge Hall to vanish at every filling. Removing either element leaves the charge-Hall zero intact, and only removing both allows a charge Hall. With hole doping near $x\simeq0.132$, the spin-orbit-free Kubo response gives $\sigma_H^{(s_y)} = 0.082\,e^2/h$, $\sigma_H^{(s_x)}=0$, $|\sigma_H^{(s_z)}|\approx 0.155|\sigma_H^{(s_y)}|$, and $\sigma_{xy}^{\mathrm{ch}}=0$. Choosing among the three degenerate $\mathbf{Q}$ orientations rotates the polarization axis in exact $120^\circ$ steps at fixed magnitude, and the selection rules survive in a 32-site magnetic cell compatible with programmable photonic and circuit lattices.

Load-bearing premise

The counter-spiral must actually be the ground state of the classical $J$-$\Gamma'$-$D$ model at $J=0$, $\Gamma'=-D<0$, and it must survive hole doping and coupling to itinerant electrons; the paper supports this with a variational bound, not a self-consistent calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resolved band splitting is not a mandatory screening signature for altermagnetic spin splitters: a texture with quenched even-parity splitting can still produce a sizable spin-splitter response.
  • The spin-current polarization axis is not fixed to the crystal frame but follows the ordered wavevector, so selecting among degenerate $\mathbf{Q}$ orientations reconfigures the polarization in exact 120-degree steps without changing its magnitude or the charge-Hall zero.
  • Because either $\Theta$ or $g$ alone enforces zero charge Hall, the response is robust against perturbations that preserve just one of the two symmetries; a charge Hall appears only when both are broken.
  • The effect is free of spin-orbit coupling, making it accessible to light-element platforms as well as to programmable photonic meshes and topolectrical circuits where the 32-site cell can be encoded and rewritten in situ.
  • Decoupling the spectral and transport symmetry roles allows independent toggling of even-parity splitting and the spin-splitter response; a perturbation that preserves $g$ while releasing the $\Theta$ constraint could switch the splitting channel without affecting the spin current.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical consequence the paper leaves implicit is that a device built on this texture could rotate its spin-current direction by reorienting the ordered wavevector through strain, weak fields, or boundary pinning, avoiding the fixed-axis limitation of collinear altermagnets.
  • The two-element protection suggests a broader search strategy: screening compensated textures for a non-translation spin-space group element plus an antitranslation could expand the candidate pool for altermagnetic spintronics to include quenched-splitting systems.
  • A testable extension would be to implement the 32-site counter-spiral in a topolectrical circuit and measure the four-sector symmetry tests: breaking $\Theta$ should release even-parity splitting without creating a charge Hall, breaking $g$ should release the dark channel, and only breaking both should allow a charge Hall.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a spin-splitter mechanism in a noncoplanar counter-spiral texture of a frustrated honeycomb magnet. The authors couple a classical counter-spiral texture to itinerant electrons via an s–d Hamiltonian and show by symmetry that an antitranslation Θ forbids even-parity band splitting and the charge-Hall response, while a helicity mirror g selects the spin-Hall polarization and forbids the orthogonal spin channel. At hole doping x ≈ 0.132 they report σ_H^(s_y) = 0.082 e²/h, σ_H^(s_x) = 0, |σ_H^(s_z)|/|σ_H^(s_y)| ≈ 0.155, and zero charge Hall, with exact 120° reconfigurability among the three degenerate Q orientations. The transport calculation is performed in a fixed classical texture; the stability of the texture and the numerical convergence details are delegated to a supplemental material that is not included in the preprint.

Significance. The conceptual contribution is the separation of two symmetry elements—antitranslation and helicity mirror—so that band splitting and spin-splitter response are controlled by different symmetry operations, with a redundant protection of the charge-Hall zero. The four-sector perturbation tests in Fig. 4 directly support this allocation, and the response is computed from the model rather than fitted, which strengthens the claim. The predicted upper bound of 2×10^-7 t on the Fermi-level even-parity splitting and the 120° selection rule are falsifiable in the model and in the proposed photonic/circuit implementations. If the ground-state premise and numerical convergence are firmly established, the result is a useful proof-of-principle for reconfigurable altermagnetic textures beyond collinear spin-split bands.

major comments (3)
  1. [§b, §e, and §h (with Ref. [28])] The platform premise—that the counter-spiral is the global ground state of H_loc at J = 0, Γ′ = −D < 0 and that it survives coupling to itinerant electrons at the doping used—is not established in the main text. The main text delegates the classical ground-state derivation to Sec. S1 and the carrier back-action analysis to Sec. S4.4, but the Supplemental Material is not included; the only main-text stability statement is the variational bound in §e that the counter-spiral lies below a ferromagnet and a carrier-induced Néel state for |Γ′|S²/t > 1.51. A variational comparison against two selected trial states does not prove global stability of the counter-spiral, and the fixed-texture transport calculation does not prove that a self-consistent s–d solution with J_H = 5 preserves the texture at x ≈ 0.132. Because every transport and reconfigurability claim is computed in this fixed background, this is the load-bearing point and needs either a proof of global stability, a self-consistent check, or an explicit caveat in the main text.
  2. [§e and Fig. 3] The central quantitative result σ_H^(s_y) = 0.082 e²/h at µ* is described as "N_k-converged" and stable for η = 0.05–0.15t, with the details relegated to Sec. S4.2. Since Sec. S4.2 is not supplied, the convergence in the k-mesh and the η-dependence cannot be checked from the manuscript. This value is one of the paper's headline claims, so the main text should report the convergence data, for example σ_H at two meshes and two or three smearing widths, in a table or in a few lines rather than only citing the supplement.
  3. [§h and Sec. i] The Discussion states that the realization requires bond-anisotropic exchange that stabilizes the counter-spiral and carriers whose back-action preserves it, citing Secs. S1.4 and S4.4, and the data availability statement says that data and scripts are available only upon request. This combination makes the paper's most security-critical elements impossible to verify from the submitted preprint. The revision should include the supplemental sections in the submission and make the numerical data and scripts publicly accessible, at least for the ground-state minimization and the transport convergence checks.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§e] The term "N_k-converged" is used without defining N_k; the authors should state unambiguously that the 16×16 supercell BZ grid corresponds to a given N_k and report the value used for the convergence statement.
  2. [§d] The symbol C is introduced in the sentence "The half-filled occupied projector likewise has C = 0" without definition; please specify that C denotes the charge Chern number or the equivalent Kubo-derived quantity.
  3. [Fig. 3] The top axis of Fig. 3 lists hole-doping labels 0.8, 0.6, 0.3, 0.1, 0 from left to right, which is reversed relative to the increasing-µ bottom axis; reversing the order would avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. i] The statement that data and scripts are available "upon reasonable request" is not standard for a numerical paper of this type; a public repository would improve verifiability and reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states "N_k-converged" without defining N_k or the smearing parameter η; since η is used throughout the transport section, a one-sentence definition in the main text would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation in the transport calculation; the spin-splitter response and its symmetry-imposed zeros are computed from the model Hamiltonian rather than fitted. The load-bearing ground-state premise is delegated to the authors' own unpublished supplement, an omitted-proof/verifiability gap, and only peripheral self-citations appear.

full rationale

The central transport results are non-circular: H = -t sum c^dagger c + J_H sum S_i·sigma (Eq. 1) is a fixed-texture s-d model with no experimental fitting constants; sigma_H^(sy)=0.082 e^2/h is a Kubo output at mu* ~ -3.805t (Sec. e, Fig. 3), and the zeros of the charge Hall, dark-axis spin Hall, and even-parity splitting follow from the exact Theta and g symmetries rather than from fitted inputs. No equation is defined in terms of a target response, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The main non-circular caveat is the platform premise: Sec. b says the texture is 'generated by the classical J-Gamma'-D local-moment Hamiltonian H_loc [Sec. S1]', Sec. e states 'Carrier back-action is bounded variationally: ... [Sec. S4.4]', Sec. h requires 'carriers whose back-action preserves it [Secs. S1.4 and S4.4]', and Sec. i makes data/scripts available only upon request. These passages locate the classical ground-state derivation and the self-consistency check in the authors' own Supplemental Material, which is not included in the preprint; this is an omitted-proof and reproducibility concern rather than a circular reduction, because the transport response would remain a well-defined model calculation if the ground-state claim were treated as an assumption. The only self-citations (Refs. [51] and [61]) appear inside the supplement's reference list and do not carry any main-text argument, so at most a minor self-citation adjustment applies.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a set of model choices (J_H, eta, classical exchange parameters) and on symmetry assumptions about the texture that are verified in the main text or delegated to the supplemental. No new particles or entities are introduced. The main unverified inputs are the classical ground state and the rigidity of the texture under doping.

free parameters (6)
  • J_H (s-d coupling) = 5 t
    Coupling strength between itinerant electrons and the classical spin texture; set to 5 throughout. It sets the energy scale for the spin-dependent hopping and affects the magnitude of the spin Hall response.
  • Smearing width eta = 0.1 t
    Finite-smearing parameter in the Kubo formula; the paper states the response is stable for eta = 0.05-0.15 t (Sec. S4.2).
  • Thermal broadening k_B T = 0.03 t
    Fermi occupation broadening used in the transport calculation.
  • 1Q scalar potential strength V_0 = 0.03 t
    Perturbation used to break Theta in the symmetry-protection tests (Sec. f).
  • Sublattice imbalance m_AB = 0.05 t
    Perturbation used to break the helicity mirror g in the symmetry-protection tests (Sec. f).
  • Classical exchange regime (J=0, Gamma'=-D<0) = J=0, Gamma'=-D; stability requires |Gamma'|S^2/t > 1.51
    Parameters of the local-moment Hamiltonian that generate the counter-spiral texture; chosen by hand to realize the desired ground state.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The classical J-Gamma'-D model with J=0 and Gamma'=-D<0 has the counter-spiral as its ground state (or a stable state) for the chosen parameters.
    Invoked in Sec. b and delegated to Supplemental Sec. S1. If false, the texture used for transport is not physically realized. Cites Li2IrO3 polytypes as precedent for counterrotating order.
  • domain assumption The electronic properties are captured by the non-interacting s-d Hamiltonian H = -t sum c-dagger c + J_H sum (S_i dot sigma) with a fixed classical spin background.
    Standard double-exchange/s-d model; assumes no electron-electron interactions beyond the coupling to local moments and no feedback of the electrons on the texture.
  • domain assumption The two spin-space-group elements Theta and g are exact symmetries of the counter-spiral texture and of the electronic Hamiltonian, with U_g(k) H(k) U_g-dagger(k) = H(M_x k).
    The paper verifies the texture invariance geometrically and numerically (Eq. 2 and Fig. 1), but this is still a property of the specific classical spin configuration.
  • standard math The Kubo formula with finite smearing eta gives the dc charge and spin Hall conductivities in the non-interacting system.
    Standard linear-response theory; the paper uses a finite-smearing implementation and quotes convergence in Sec. S4.2.
  • standard math The spin current operator is defined as the symmetrized product of spin and velocity, as in Shi et al. (Ref. [41]).
    In spin-orbit-free systems this definition is standard and the spin current is conserved.
  • domain assumption Carrier back-action on the texture is small enough to ignore; the paper provides only a variational bound (Sec. S4.4) and does not self-consistently recompute the magnetic order.
    The transport calculation treats the texture as rigid. If back-action significantly distorts the texture, the predicted response could change.
  • domain assumption The three Q orientations are exactly degenerate and related by the combined spin-lattice C3 symmetry of the Gamma' exchange.
    Used for the 120-degree reconfigurability claim; details in Supplemental Sec. S1.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin Splitter without Spin-Split Bands: A Reconfigurable Altermagnetic Texture." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXQKQQCI

@misc{pith2026260810958,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin Splitter without Spin-Split Bands: A Reconfigurable Altermagnetic Texture},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXQKQQCI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10958}
}
abstract

The altermagnetic spin-splitter effect converts an electric field into a transverse pure spin current, with no net magnetization and no charge-Hall counterpart. In established materials this function is tied to crystal-fixed spin-split bands that lock the polarization axis to the lattice. We show that the noncoplanar counter-spiral ground state of a frustrated honeycomb magnet instead carries the altermagnetic operation through a $\mathbf Q$-locked helicity mirror $g$. The mirror selects the spin-current polarization and forbids the perpendicular one, while an antitranslation $\Theta$ forbids even-parity spin splitting. Band splitting and spin-splitter response therefore rest on different symmetry elements. Either element alone enforces the charge-Hall zero---a redundancy absent from other spin--orbit-free noncollinear routes---and a charge Hall appears only when both elements are removed. Hole doping then realizes a \emph{spin splitter without spin-split bands}---the symmetry-allowed odd-parity residual below $2\times10^{-7}$ of the hopping $t$ at the Fermi level---with $\sigma_H^{(s_y)}=0.082\,e^2/h$ without spin--orbit coupling and with zero charge Hall response. Selecting among the three degenerate $\mathbf{Q}$ orientations rotates the polarization axis in exact $120^\circ$ steps at fixed magnitude and charge-Hall zero; the selection rules persist in a $32$-site cell accessible to programmable photonic and circuit lattices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10958 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Representative counter-spiral texture. The two sublattices carry single- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Band diagnostics, 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Doped spin splitter without spin-split bands. Fixed-texture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Two-element protection and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antiferro- magnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022). 12

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  3. [3]

    S2.1], andC 2x sends (σx, σy, σz)→(σ x,−σ y,−σ z) [Fig

    in units of the nearest-neighbor bond length [Sec. S2.1], andC 2x sends (σx, σy, σz)→(σ x,−σ y,−σ z) [Fig. 1(b)]. This operation exchanges the two honeycomb sublattices and relates their opposite-helicity spin textures. At the Bloch level Ug(k)H(k)U † g (k) =H(M xk),(2) whereU g contains the Seitz phase and theC 2x spin rotation. Geometrically, neither fa...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Hayami, Y

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

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Prediction of low-zcollinear and noncollinear antiferromagnetic compounds having momentum-dependent spin splitting even without spin- orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Materials5, 014409 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    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

  8. [8]

    Vijayvargia, E

    A. Vijayvargia, E. Day-Roberts, A. S. Botana, and O. Erten, Altermagnets with topological order in Kitaev bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 166701 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Benny, X

    M. Benny, X. Gong, K. Jamroszczyk, A. Fakhredine, G. Cuono, R. Islam, J. Skolimowski, and C. Autieri, Staggered dzyaloshinskii–moriya and the spin-canting angle in centrosymmetric altermagnetic and ferromagnetic phases: Influence on the anomalous hall effect and weyl points, P...

    2026

  2. [10]

    W. F. Brinkman and R. J. Elliott, Theory of spin-space groups, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A294, 343 (1966)

    1966

  3. [11]

    D. B. Litvin and W. Opechowski, Spin groups, Physica76, 538 (1974)

    1974

  4. [12]

    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 complete description of symmetries of magnetic orders, Phys. Rev. X14, 031039 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    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

  6. [14]

    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

  7. [15]

    Watanabe, K

    H. Watanabe, K. Shinohara, T. Nomoto, A. Togo, and R. Arita, Symmetry analysis with spin crystallographic groups: Disentangling effects free of spin-orbit coupling in emergent electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. B109, 094438 (2024). 13

    2024

  8. [16]

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

    2026

  9. [17]

    Cheong and F.-T

    S.-W. Cheong and F.-T. Huang, Altermagnetism with non-collinear spins, npj Quantum Ma- terials9, 13 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

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

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Yahagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    ˇSmejkal, R

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

    2020

  12. [20]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Multifunctional antiferromag- netic materials with giant piezomagnetism and noncollinear spin current, Nat. Commun.12, 2846 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Osumi, S

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

    2024

  14. [22]

    Krempask´ y, L.ˇSmejkal, S

    J. Krempask´ y, L.ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. W...

    2024

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    Reimers, L

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

    2024

  17. [25]

    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 14 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Chen Ye, K

    C. Chen Ye, K. Tenzin, J. S lawi´ nska, and C. Autieri, Dominant orbital magnetization in the prototypical altermagnet MnTe, Phys. Rev. B113, 014413 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. ˇZelezn´ y, Y. Sun, J. van den Brink, and B. Yan, Spin Hall effect emerging from a noncollinear magnetic lattice without spin–orbit coupling, New J. Phys.20, 073028 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    G¨ obel, A

    B. G¨ obel, A. Mook, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Antiferromagnetic skyrmion crystals: Generation, topological hall, and topological spin hall effect, Phys. Rev. B96, 060406(R) (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    spin splitter without spin-split bands: A reconfigurable altermagnetic texture

    B. Xi, J. Lu, Q. Luo, K. Chen, J.-W. Mei, H.-G. Luo, and J. Zhao, Supplemental material for “spin splitter without spin-split bands: A reconfigurable altermagnetic texture” (2026), see Supplemental Material (available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request) for...

    2026

  22. [30]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Interplay between Kitaev interaction and single ion anisotropy in ferromagnetic CrI 3 and CrGeTe 3 monolayers, npj Comput. Mater.4, 57 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    C. Xu, J. Feng, M. Kawamura, Y. Yamaji, Y. Nahas, S. Prokhorenko, Y. Qi, H. Xiang, and L. Bellaiche, Possible Kitaev quantum spin liquid state in 2d materials withS= 3/2, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 087205 (2020)

    2020

  24. [32]

    P. P. Stavropoulos, X. Liu, and H.-Y. Kee, Magnetic anisotropy in spin-3/2 with heavy ligand in honeycomb Mott insulators: Application to CrI 3, Phys. Rev. Research3, 013216 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    S. C. Williams, R. D. Johnson, F. Freund, S. Choi, A. Jesche, I. Kimchi, S. Manni, A. Bom- bardi, P. Manuel, P. Gegenwart, and R. Coldea, Incommensurate counterrotating magnetic order stabilized by Kitaev interactions in the layered honeycombα-Li 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B93, 195158 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Biffin, R

    A. Biffin, R. D. Johnson, S. Choi, F. Freund, S. Manni, A. Bombardi, P. Manuel, P. Gegenwart, and R. Coldea, Unconventional magnetic order on the hyperhoneycomb Kitaev lattice inβ- Li2IrO3: Full solution via magnetic resonant x-ray diffraction, Phys. Rev. B90, 205116 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    Biffin, R

    A. Biffin, R. D. Johnson, I. Kimchi, R. Morris, A. Bombardi, J. G. Analytis, A. Vishwanath, and R. Coldea, Noncoplanar and counterrotating incommensurate magnetic order stabilized 15 by Kitaev interactions inγ-Li 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 197201 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Kimchi, R

    I. Kimchi, R. Coldea, and A. Vishwanath, Unified theory of spiral magnetism in the harmonic- honeycomb iridatesα,β, andγLi 2IrO3, Phys. Rev. B91, 245134 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Martin and C

    I. Martin and C. D. Batista, Itinerant electron-driven chiral magnetic ordering and sponta- neous quantum hall effect in triangular lattice models, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 156402 (2008)

    2008

  30. [38]

    Akagi, M

    Y. Akagi, M. Udagawa, and Y. Motome, Hidden multiple-spin interactions as an origin of spin scalar chiral order in frustrated Kondo lattice models, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 096401 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    A. B. Hellenes, T. Jungwirth, R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, A. Chakraborty, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, P-wave magnets, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2309.01607 (2023), arXiv:2309.01607

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yamada, M

    R. Yamada, M. T. Birch, P. R. Baral, S. Okumura, R. Nakano, S. Gao, M. Ezawa, T. Nomoto, J. Masell, Y. Ishihara, K. K. Kolincio, I. Belopolski, H. Sagayama, H. Nakao, K. Ohishi, T. Ohhara, R. Kiyanagi, T. Nakajima, Y. Tokura, T.-h. Arima, Y. Motome, M. M. Hirschmann, and M. Hi...

    2025

  33. [41]

    Prodan, Robustness of the spin-chern number, Phys

    E. Prodan, Robustness of the spin-chern number, Phys. Rev. B80, 125327 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    J. Shi, P. Zhang, D. Xiao, and Q. Niu, Proper definition of spin current in spin-orbit coupled systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 076604 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Spin Hall effects, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    V. O. Garlea and C. L. Sarkis, Review of honeycomb-based Kitaev materials with zigzag magnetic ordering, Acta Crystallogr. B81, 11 (2025), arXiv:2410.11083

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. S. Kim, Y. Huang, Z. Sun, Q.-H. Park, and H. Choi, Photonic altermagnets: Magnetic sym- metries in photonic structures, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2506.23497 (2025), arXiv:2506.23497

    2025 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. Qiu, H. Li, Y. Meng, X. Xi, Z. Zhu, C. Shang, Z. Gao, T. J. Cui, and S. Liu, Orbital altermagnetic photonic crystal, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2605.28656 (2026), arXiv:2605.28656

    2026 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Cao, X.-X

    C. Cao, X.-X. Xue, Y. S. Ang, and H. Meng, Mirror-symmetry-enforced photonic altermagnet, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2606.21545 (2026), arXiv:2606.21545

    2026 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. B. On, F. Ashtiani, D. Sanchez-Jacome, D. Perez-Lopez, S. J. B. Yoo, and A. Blanco- Redondo, Programmable integrated photonics for topological hamiltonians, Nat. Commun. 15, 629 (2024). 16

    2024

  41. [49]

    C. H. Lee, S. Imhof, C. Berger, F. Bayer, J. Brehm, L. W. Molenkamp, T. Kiessling, and R. Thomale, Topolectrical circuits, Commun. Phys.1, 39 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    J. Wu, Z. Wang, Y. Biao, F. Fei, S. Zhang, Z. Yin, Y. Hu, Z. Song, T. Wu, F. Song, and R. Yu, Non-Abelian gauge fields in circuit systems, Nat. Electron.5, 635 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    P. W. Anderson and H. Hasegawa, Considerations on double exchange, Phys. Rev.100, 675 (1955)

    1955

  44. [52]

    K. Chen, Q. Luo, Z. Zhou, S. He, B. Xi, C. Jia, H.-G. Luo, and J. Zhao, Triple-meron crystal in high-spin Kitaev magnets, New J. Phys.25, 023006 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Fukui, Y

    T. Fukui, Y. Hatsugai, and H. Suzuki, Chern numbers in discretized Brillouin zone: Efficient method of computing (spin) Hall conductances, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.74, 1674 (2005)

    2005

  46. [54]

    T. L. Gilbert, A phenomenological theory of damping in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE Trans. Magn.40, 3443 (2004)

    2004

  47. [55]

    Hukushima and K

    K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto, Exchange Monte Carlo method and application to spin glass simulations, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.65, 1604 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann

    A. Kitaev, Anyons in an exactly solved model and beyond, Ann. Phys.321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  49. [57]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, On the theory of the dispersion of magnetic permeability in ferromagnetic bodies, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion8, 153 (1935)

    1935

  50. [58]

    Matsuda, H

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

    2025

  51. [59]

    Metropolis, A

    N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, J. Chem. Phys.21, 1087 (1953)

    1953

  52. [60]

    J. G. Rau, E. K.-H. Lee, and H.-Y. Kee, Generic spin model for the honeycomb iridates beyond the Kitaev limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 077204 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    R. H. Swendsen and J.-S. Wang, Replica Monte Carlo simulation of spin-glasses, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2607 (1986)

    1986

  54. [62]

    B. Xi, K. Chen, Q. Luo, J. Lu, J.-W. Mei, H.-G. Luo, and J. Zhao, Beyond-adiabatic flat Chern bands from a double-helix skyrmion crystal, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2607.03707 (2026), arXiv:2607.03707

    2026 doi arXiv

  55. [63]

    Zener, Interaction between thed-shells in the transition metals

    C. Zener, Interaction between thed-shells in the transition metals. ii. ferromagnetic compounds of manganese with perovskite structure, Phys. Rev.82, 403 (1951). 17

    1951

Pith tools

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