Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Time-Reversal-Invariant Altermagnetic Acoustic Crystals

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A bilayer acoustic crystal with two pseudospin channels reproduces altermagnetic band splitting under preserved time-reversal symmetry.

desk verdict A serious, well-executed theory-plus-experiment paper proposing the first TRS-preserving acoustic altermagnet analogue, but the experiment-model link is fitted and the sign-reversed interlayer coupling is never independently verified. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08827 v1 pith:A7XZYETQ submitted 2026-08-09 cond-mat.mes-hall

Tianzhi Xia , Han-Rong Xia , Jinglin Liu , Xiying Fan , Zebin Zhu , Zhen Gao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords time-reversal-invariantaltermagnetismacousticcrystalpseudospinpseudo-time-reversaloperatorbandsplittingsublattice-spinlockingiso-frequencycontourstight-bindingmodel
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

Altermagnets are magnetic phases whose spin-up and spin-down bands split in momentum even though the material carries no net magnetization, a combination traditionally thought to require broken time-reversal symmetry (TRS). This paper claims to remove that requirement in a classical-wave system by giving two pseudospin degrees of freedom (synthetic two-valued labels that play the role of electron spin) to the two sublattices of a bilayer acoustic lattice, connected by a pseudo-time-reversal operator that flips pseudospin while leaving physical TRS intact. The result is the first time-reversal-invariant altermagnetic acoustic crystal, whose measurements show pseudospin-split bands, anisotropic iso-frequency contours oriented orthogonally for the two channels, and real-space sublattice-spin locking. If the claim holds, acoustic crystals become a testbed for altermagnetic physics, and the same two-pseudospin construction transfers to photonic and mechanical wave systems.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the pseudo-time-reversal operator $\mathcal{T}_p = \sigma_y K$ (with $\mathcal{T}_p^2 = -1$), built from the layer Pauli matrix $\sigma_y$ and complex conjugation, acting on a bilayer centered square lattice whose two sublattices carry opposite pseudospin configurations. It reproduces the action of the genuine fermionic time-reversal operator up to a phase, so the system can host pseudo-spin splitting while real time reversal remains unbroken. The control parameters are the four next-nearest-neighbor couplings $r_1, r_2, r_3, r_4$: unequal couplings for identical pseudospins along the $x$ and $y$ directions break the pseudo-time-reversal symmetry and generate the $d$-wave terms $\Delta_\tau$ and $\Delta_\sigma$, both proportional to $(\cos k_y a - \cos k_x a)$, the algebraic signature of the altermagnetic phase. In the experiment the machinery is physical: cavities and connecting tubes realize the tight-binding parameters, with a central hole of area $S_V$ lowering the on-site potential by $2V$ and tube cross-sectional areas setting the hopping amplitudes.

What would settle it

Build a control acoustic sample with $r_1 = r_3$ and $r_2 = r_4$, the paper's antiferromagnetic condition: the model predicts no pseudospin splitting anywhere in the Brillouin zone, so a measured splitting in that sample would refute the altermagnetic interpretation. A second decisive check is to calibrate the cavity-hole and tube-geometry mapping on single-cell test structures and compare the fitted tight-binding parameters against the values used in the band-structure calculations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the defining signatures of altermagnetism can appear in a system that strictly preserves time-reversal symmetry. The construction is a bilayer centered square lattice whose A and B sublattices host opposite pseudospins: pseudospin-up carries on-site potentials $(V,-V)$ across the two layers with interlayer hopping $\kappa$, while pseudospin-down carries $(-V,V)$ with $-\kappa$. A pseudo-time-reversal operator $\mathcal{T}_p = \sigma_y K$, with $\mathcal{T}_p^2 = -1$, relates the two sectors and differs from the genuine fermionic time-reversal operator only by a phase factor, yet it leaves physical TRS intact. When the next-nearest-neighbor hoppings satisfy $r_1 \neq r_3$ and $r_2 \neq r_4$, the Bloch Hamiltonian develops terms proportional to $(\cos k_y a - \cos k_x a)$; this is the $d_{x^2-y^2}$-wave anisotropy of altermagnetism, producing momentum-dependent pseudospin splitting and locking each pseudospin to its own sublattice, while restoring $r_1 = r_3$, $r_2 = r_4$ returns degenerate bands, the antiferromagnetic limit. The authors realize this in an acoustic cavity-tube crystal and report measurements of spin-split bands, orthogonally elongated iso-frequency contours, and spatially separated pseudospin channels that match the model.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental realization rests on the assumption, adopted from earlier acoustic work (the design of Fig. 2(a) and the surrounding text) rather than calibrated in this paper, that the cavities and tubes implement the tight-binding Hamiltonian with linear relations: a central hole of area $S_V$ lowers the on-site potential by exactly $2V$, and tube cross-sectional areas set hopping amplitudes proportionally; if the realized effective parameters drift substantially from these assumed values, the measured splitting, contours, and filtering would no longer match the altermagnetic model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured spin-split bands, orthogonally elongated iso-frequency contours, and sublattice-confined pressure fields count as direct experimental evidence of altermagnetic sublattice-pseudospin locking under strictly TRS-preserving conditions.
  • The crystal works as a pseudospin filter: simultaneous excitation of both channels produces orthogonal propagation, so each output port delivers a single pseudospin species acoustically.
  • The same two-pseudospin construction with a pseudo-time-reversal operator transfers directly to photonic, mechanical, and other classical-wave lattices, giving a general route to simulate magnetic symmetries without magnetic bias.
  • The same lattice with $r_1 = r_3$ and $r_2 = r_4$ is the antiferromagnetic phase with degenerate bands, so a single acoustic design hosts both magnetic phases depending only on how the next-nearest-neighbor couplings are arranged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive follow-up would be to calibrate the cavity-hole and tube-geometry mapping on single cells and compare the fitted tight-binding parameters with the values used in the band-structure fits, since the linear relations are adopted from earlier acoustic work rather than verified in situ.
  • The operator construction suggests a broader dictionary: any collinear electronic altermagnet could be mimicked by a layered classical lattice with staggered on-site potentials, potentially extending beyond spin-1/2 pseudospins to higher pseudospin textures with richer splitting patterns.
  • If the linear mapping holds, a reconfigurable version could switch between the altermagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases dynamically, for instance by mechanically or electrically tuning the tube cross-sections, turning the sample into a tunable acoustic router.
  • Because the split channels carry no net angular momentum or charge, the demonstrated filtering is purely geometric; one concrete extension is a pseudospin-addressed acoustic network in which signals are steered by sublattice site alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 a tight-binding model of a bilayer centered square lattice with two sublattices (A, B) representing two pseudospin species. Each sublattice carries layer-dependent on-site potentials ±V and interlayer couplings ±κ, and the pseudo-time-reversal operator T_p = σ_y K connects the two sublattice blocks. When the next-nearest-neighbor couplings satisfy r1≠r3 and r2≠r4, the Hamiltonian acquires d-wave anisotropic terms proportional to (cos k_y - cos k_x), producing momentum-dependent pseudospin splitting, orthogonal iso-frequency contours, and sublattice–pseudospin locking. The authors realize this model in a two-layer acoustic cavity–tube crystal and report experimental measurements of split bulk bands, orthogonal iso-frequency contours, sublattice-localized fields, and pseudospin filtering at 3.48 kHz.

Significance. If the acoustic geometry faithfully implements the proposed Hamiltonian, this work would be a valuable classical-wave analogue of altermagnetism, showing that d-wave anisotropic splitting and sublattice-polarized transport can be engineered without breaking physical time-reversal symmetry. The experimental effort is substantial: measured bulk bands for the two pseudospin sectors, iso-frequency contours, real-space field maps, and a filtering demonstration, all compared with COMSOL and tight-binding calculations. The tight-binding derivation itself is internally consistent, and the d-wave terms correctly vanish when r1=r3 and r2=r4. The paper also contains a candid internal note, after Eq. (2), that the layer-selective field confinement is a parameter effect rather than a symmetry-protected feature. However, the central claim that this is a time-reversal-invariant altermagnetic acoustic crystal rests on several load-bearing assumptions that are not yet independently verified, in particular the acoustic realization of the sign of the interlayer hopping, the non-circularity of the fitted parameters, and the conservation of the pseudospin label in the full Hamiltonian.

major comments (4)
  1. [Acoustic realization, Fig. 2(a)-(b)] The tight-binding model requires interlayer hopping +κ on the A sublattice and -κ on the B sublattice, but the text states that the interlayer tubes for κ share the identical cross-sectional area with the NN and NNN tubes. Since the hopping sign in coupled-cavity systems is set by the phase conventions and geometry of the tube connections, identical tubes cannot by themselves produce opposite signs. No fabrication-level detail is given for how the B sublattice interlayer coupling becomes -κ. If this sign is not actually realized, the pseudo-TRS relation H↓ = T_p H↑ T_p^{-1} is not implemented, and the observed anisotropic bands and orthogonal contours could arise from an ordinary anisotropic bipartite acoustic lattice rather than from the altermagnetic construction.
  2. [Fig. 2(c) and acoustic realization section] The iso-frequency contours in Fig. 2(c) are computed using parameters extracted by fitting the tight-binding Hamiltonian to the COMSOL band structure in Fig. 2(b). The orthogonal contours are therefore not an independent prediction but a consequence of the fitted model. To support the claim that the acoustic crystal realizes the altermagnetic Hamiltonian, the authors should either calibrate the hole-area/tube-area map independently (for example, from single-cavity and dimer simulations) or demonstrate that the fitted parameters are forced by the geometry without free adjustment.
  3. [Eqs. (2)-(8)] The pseudospin operator S_z = τ_z ⊗ (Vσ_z + κσ_x)/√(V^2+κ^2) does not commute with the Hamiltonian because the nearest-neighbor term f(k)τ_x⊗σ_0 in Eq. (8) flips the sublattice index τ_z. Consequently, eigenstates at generic k are not pseudospin eigenstates, and the red/blue band labels in Figs. 1(c), 2(b), and 3(b)-(c) require a projection or dominance criterion that is not stated. Without such a criterion, the reported 'pseudospin-dependent band splitting' may be a labeling artifact rather than a symmetry-protected property. The authors should quantify the hybridization due to f(k) at the experimental parameters (|t|/V ≈ 0.025) and specify how the pseudospin channels are separated in the measured data.
  4. [Eq. (1) vs. Eq. (3)] The 2×2 relation H↓ = T_p H↑ T_p^{-1} is k-independent, but in the full 4×4 Bloch Hamiltonian the operator T_p = (τ_0⊗σ_y)K does not map H(k) to H(-k) because it does not flip the sublattice index. The altermagnetic phase is instead defined through a combined operation involving the translation L(a/2,a/2), which is described only verbally. The authors should present the explicit action of L, T_p, and their combination on H(k), including the condition under which this combined operation is a symmetry and why it is broken when r1≠r3 and r2≠r4.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The phase convention for the fermionic time-reversal operator is inconsistent: with the standard T_f = -iσ_y K, one has -iT_f = -σ_y K, not σ_y K. Please state the convention used for T_f.
  2. [After Eq. (2)] The manuscript explicitly concedes that the layer-selective field confinement is 'a parameter effect rather than a symmetry-protected feature.' This qualification should also appear in the abstract or introduction when the claim of sublattice–pseudospin locking is made.
  3. [Fig. 2(a)-(b)] The sign convention for the NNN hoppings r_i is not discussed: r1=r2=-0.006 kHz and r3=r4=8r1=-0.048 kHz are negative, while the text only relates their magnitude to the tube cross-sectional area. Please specify how the sign of each hopping is set by the geometry.
  4. [Figs. 3 and 4 captions] The terminology alternates between 'spin-sublattice locking' and 'sublattice–pseudospin locking.' To avoid confusion with physical spin, please use 'sublattice–pseudospin locking' consistently throughout.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Pseudospin is defined by the sublattice index, and the simulated iso-frequency contours are recomputed from TB parameters fitted to the same COMSOL band structure; independent measurements mitigate but do not remove these reductions.

  1. self definitional [Tight-binding model, after Eq. (2)]
    "Note that the pseudospin is identified solely by the sublattice index, and the layer degree of freedom is merely a construction tool."

    The pseudospin operator S_z is built from the sublattice Pauli matrix τ_z, and the paper explicitly states that pseudospin is identified solely by the sublattice index. Therefore 'pseudospin-up' means 'on sublattice A' and 'pseudospin-down' means 'on sublattice B' by definition. The claimed 'sublattice--pseudospin locking' (field localized on A for up, on B for down) is then a restatement of the labeling convention, not an emergent prediction. Exciting sublattice A is operationally identical to exciting 'pseudospin-up', so the spatial separation observed in Figs. 2(d) and 3(f-g) is guaranteed by the chosen identification. The band splitting itself remains a genuine model result, but the locking hallmark reduces to the definition.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Acoustic realization, Fig. 2(c) paragraph]
    "Figure 2(c) shows the iso-frequency contours computed via the Green's function method on a 75 × 75 supercell, using parameters extracted by fitting the tight-binding Hamiltonian to the band structure in Fig. 2(b)."

    The anisotropic iso-frequency contours are presented as direct evidence of the altermagnetic phase, but the tight-binding parameters carrying the anisotropy (e.g., r3 = 8r1 = r4 = 8r2) were extracted by fitting the TB Hamiltonian to the very band structure shown in Fig. 2(b). Computing contours from these fitted parameters is therefore not an independent prediction; it is a different plot of the same fitted dispersion. The measured contours in Figs. 3(d-e) are independent experimental data and agree with the simulation, which restores evidential value, but the simulated 'prediction' in Fig. 2(c) is circular by construction.

full rationale

The tight-binding model itself is self-contained: pseudo-time-reversal operator T_p = σ_y K with T_p^2 = -1 exactly maps H_up to H_down as defined in Eq. (1), and the band splitting follows from the chosen NNN anisotropy parameters. No external theorem is imported, and no uniqueness claim is borrowed from the authors' prior work. The main reductions are internal. First, the pseudospin degree of freedom is explicitly identified with the sublattice index, so the observed sublattice--pseudospin locking is true by definition rather than an emergent symmetry-breaking signature. Second, the simulated iso-frequency contours are computed from TB parameters fitted to the same COMSOL band structure they are supposed to explain. These two steps warrant a partial circularity score. However, the experimental measurements—measured bulk bands, measured iso-frequency contours, and measured field distributions—are obtained independently of the TB fit and agree with the model, providing genuine external confirmation. The acoustic realization relies on a linear cavity-hole/tube-area map cited from refs [48-53], including same-first-author refs [48,52], but the COMSOL eigenfrequency simulations independently validate the realized band structure. Overall, the central experimental demonstration has independent content, but two key 'hallmarks' are either definitional or fitted, so the paper is partially circular rather than fully self-referential.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on a custom tight-binding mapping from acoustic geometry to Hamiltonian parameters, and on an interpretive bridge identifying sublattice index with pseudospin. The model itself is not derived from first principles; it is constructed to reproduce altermagnetic band features. The key supporting references [48-53] establish the acoustic cavity-to-tight-binding mapping, but that mapping is not re-derived here. No new physical entities beyond the labels pseudospin and pseudo-time-reversal are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Tight-binding demonstration parameters (Fig. 1) = V=0.8, κ=0.15, t=-0.15, r1=0.15, r2=-0.15, r3=-0.15, r4=0.15
    Chosen to realize the altermagnetic phase in the model; no experimental connection.
  • Acoustic tight-binding parameters (Fig. 2b, 2c) = ω0=3.48 kHz, V=0.24 kHz, t=-κ=r1=r2=-0.006 kHz, r3=8r1, r4=8r2
    Extracted by fitting the tight-binding Hamiltonian to the COMSOL band structure, then used to compute the iso-frequency contours.
  • Green's function excitation and loss parameters = E0=0.5, η=0.001, 75x75 supercell
    Chosen for the contour plots in Figs. 1(d) and 1(e); the small loss parameter mimics dissipation.
  • Complex sound velocity for finite-element simulation = c=(343+0.5i) m/s
    Chosen to match experimental absorption conditions in the COMSOL simulations.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bloch's theorem and the tight-binding approximation apply to the periodic acoustic cavity-tube network.
    Used throughout the theory section to write Eq. (3) as a Bloch Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Acoustic on-site potentials and inter-site hoppings scale linearly with hole and tube cross-sectional areas.
    Invoked in Fig. 2(a); based on refs [48-53], not independently calibrated in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper A pseudo-time-reversal operator T_p = σ_y K with T_p^2 = -1 acts as a faithful stand-in for fermionic time-reversal symmetry in a scalar acoustic system.
    Introduced by the authors to justify the altermagnetic analogy; it is a mathematical construction, not a physical symmetry.
  • ad hoc to paper Pseudospin can be identified by sublattice index alone.
    Stated explicitly after Eq. (2); this makes sublattice-pseudospin locking definitional rather than emergent.
invented entities (2)
  • Pseudospin degree of freedom
    purpose: To emulate electron spin in scalar acoustic waves and define the up/down channels
    Pseudospin is an operator constructed from sublattice and layer indices; no external observable outside this paper distinguishes it independently.
  • Pseudo-time-reversal operator T_p
    purpose: To connect the two pseudospin sectors while preserving physical time-reversal symmetry
    A constructed operator (σ_y K) with no direct physical counterpart in acoustics; its utility is internal to the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-Reversal-Invariant Altermagnetic Acoustic Crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A7XZYETQ

@misc{pith2026260808827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-Reversal-Invariant Altermagnetic Acoustic Crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A7XZYETQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08827}
}
read the original abstract

Altermagnets have emerged as a new class of magnetic materials that combine spin-split electronic bands with zero net magnetization. Extending this paradigm to classical-wave systems has, however, been fundamentally challenging because conventional realizations require broken time-reversal symmetry (TRS). Here, we overcome this limitation by introducing two pseudospin degrees of freedom and constructing a pseudo-time-reversal operator that faithfully reproduces the action of its physical counterpart while preserving actual TRS. Building on this framework, we theoretically propose and experimentally realize the first time-reversal-invariant altermagnetic acoustic crystal. Acoustic measurements directly reveal pseudospin-dependent band splitting--a defining hallmark of altermagnetism--under strictly TRS-preserving conditions. Moreover, the altermagnetic acoustic crystal exhibits sublattice-pseudospin locking, enabling flexible control over acoustic pseudospin splitting and filtering. Our work establishes acoustic crystals as a versatile platform for exploring altermagnetic physics and opens new avenues for spin-inspired wave manipulation in nonmagnetic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08827 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Šmejkal, A

    L. Šmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. González- Hernández, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Giant and tunneling magnetoresistance in unconventional collinear antiferromagnets with nonrelativistic spin-momentum coupling, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011028 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Šmejkal, J

    L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond c onventional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Šmejkal, J

    L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    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

  5. [5]

    P. A. McClarty and J. G. Rau, Landau theory of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 176702 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Feng et al., An anomalous Hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat

    Z. Feng et al., An anomalous Hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron. 5, 735 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    T. Sato, S. Haddad, I. C. Fulga, F. F. Assaad, and J. Van Den Brink, Altermagnetic anomalous Hall effect emerging from electronic correlations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 086503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    R. Y . Chu et al., Third-order nonlinear Hall effect in altermagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 216703 (2025)

    work page 2025

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Cheng, Y

    N. Cheng, Y . Yin, X. Zhao, G. Hu, X. Y uan, and J. Ren, Sliding-controlled spin-valley-layer polarized anomalous Hall effect in two-dimensional altermagnetic bilayers, Phys. Rev. B 113, 155424 (2026)

    2026

  2. [10]

    Bai et al., Efficient spin-to-charge conversion via a ltermagnetic spin splitting effect in 11 antiferromagnet RuO 2, Phys

    H. Bai et al., Efficient spin-to-charge conversion via a ltermagnetic spin splitting effect in 11 antiferromagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 216701 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Yang et al., Three -dimensional mapping of the altermagnetic spin splitting in CrSb, Nat

    G. Yang et al., Three -dimensional mapping of the altermagnetic spin splitting in CrSb, Nat . Commun. 16, 1442 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Z. Zhou, X. Cheng, M. Hu, R. Chu, H. Bai, L. Han, J. Liu, F. Pan, and C. Song, Manipulation of the altermagnetic order in CrSb via crystal symmetry, Nature 638, 645 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    S. S. Fender, O. Gonzalez, and D. K. Bediako, Altermagnetism: A chemical perspective, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 147, 2257 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, R. M. Fernandes, Q. Liu, H. Watanabe, S. Murakami, S. Nakatsuji, and L. Šmejkal, Symmetry, microscopy and spectroscopy signatures of altermagnetism, Nature 649, 837 (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    Krempaský et al., Altermagnetic lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy, Nature 626, 517 (2024)

    J. Krempaský et al., Altermagnetic lifting of Kramers spin degeneracy, Nature 626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Jiang et al., A metallic room-temperature d-wave altermagnet, Nat

    B. Jiang et al., A metallic room-temperature d-wave altermagnet, Nat. Phys. 21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Chen et al., Giant room -temperature third -order electrical transport in a thin -film altermagnet candidate, Nat

    H. Chen et al., Giant room -temperature third -order electrical transport in a thin -film altermagnet candidate, Nat. Nanotechnol. (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    A. S. Kim, Y . Huang, Z. Sun, Q.- H. Park, and H. Choi, Photonic altermagnets: Magnetic symmetries in photonic structures, Nano Lett. 26, 3681 (2026)

    2026

  11. [19]

    J. Chen, Y . Zheng, Z.-Y . Li, and C.-W. Qiu, Altermagnetic photonic crystals, Nat. Phys. (2026), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-026-03405-1

    2026 doi

  12. [20]

    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:2605.28656 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    W. Sun, W. Wang, C. Yang, S. Huang, and Z. Cheng, A unified symmetry framework for spin– ferroelectric coupling in altermagnetic multiferroics, Nat. Commun. 17, 3101 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

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

    2025

  16. [24]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, and L. Šmejkal, Altermagnetism: An unconventional spin-ordered phase of matter, Newton 1, 100162 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    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)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Yang et al., Ultrafast magneto-optical fingerprints of altermagnetism in MnTe, Phys

    X. Yang et al., Ultrafast magneto-optical fingerprints of altermagnetism in MnTe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 256702 (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    Liu et al., Observation of switchable chiral magnons in an altermagnet, Phys

    Z. Liu et al., Observation of switchable chiral magnons in an altermagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 236705 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Fedchenko et al., Observation of time-reversal symmetry breaking in the band structure of altermagnetic RuO 2, Sci

    O. Fedchenko et al., Observation of time-reversal symmetry breaking in the band structure of altermagnetic RuO 2, Sci. Adv. 10, eadj4883 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    W. Li, C. Xu, M. Wang, M. Zou, W. Li, H. Wang, W. Jiang, and B. Wang, Large anomalous Nernst effect in a metallic altermagnet CrSb single crystal, Phys. Rev. B 112, L100401 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Z.-M. Wang, Y . Zhang, S.-B. Zhang, J.- H. Sun, E. Dagotto, D.- H. Xu, and L.- H. Hu, Spin- orbital altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 176705 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Z. Wang, Y . D. Chong, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić, Reflection-free one-way edge modes in a gyromagnetic photonic crystal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 013905 (2008)

    2008

  24. [32]

    Z. Wang, Y . Chong, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić, Observation of unidirectional backscattering-immune topological electromagnetic states, Nature 461, 772 (2009). 12

    2009

  25. [33]

    J. Chen, Y . Zheng, S. Yang, F. Shi, Z.-Y . Li, and C.-W. Qiu, One-way valley-robust transport in edge-tailored photonic crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 203803 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Liu et al., Topological Chern vectors in three-dimensional photonic crystals, Nature 609, 925 (2022)

    G.-G. Liu et al., Topological Chern vectors in three-dimensional photonic crystals, Nature 609, 925 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    J. W. Liu, G. G. Liu, B. Zhang, H. C. Mo, R. Li, M. Li, X. D. Chen, B. Zhang, W. J. Chen, and J. W. Dong, Chiral valley edge states based on Dirac mass engineering, Nat Commun 16, 11256 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    G. G. Liu et al., Photonic axion insulator, Science 387, 162 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    P. Zhou, G. G. Liu, Y . Yang, Y . H. Hu, S. Ma, H. Xue, Q. Wang, L. Deng, and B. Zhang, Observation of photonic antichiral edge states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263603 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    J. Lu, C. Qiu, L. Ye, X. Fan, M. Ke, F. Zhang, and Z. Liu, Observation of topological valley transport of sound in sonic crystals, Nat. Phys. 13, 369 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    He, H.- S

    C. He, H.- S. Lai, B. He, S.- Y . Yu, X. Xu, M.-H. Lu, and Y .-F. Chen, Acoustic analogues of three-dimensional topological insulators, Nat. Commun. 11, 2318 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Zhang, H.- X

    X. Zhang, H.- X. Wang, Z.- K. Lin, Y . Tian, B. Xie, M. -H. Lu, Y .-F. Chen, and J.- H. Jiang, Second-order topology and multidimensional topological transitions in sonic crystals, Nat. Phys. 15, 582 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Q. Wei, X. Zhang, W. Deng, J. Lu, X. Huang, M. Yan, G. Chen, Z. Liu, and S. Jia, Higher-order topological semimetal in acoustic crystals, Nat. Mater. 20, 812 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    S. H. Mousavi, A. B. Khanikaev, and Z. Wang, Topologically protected elastic waves in phononic metamaterials, Nat. Commun. 6, 8682 (2015)

    2015

  35. [43]

    S. Li, D. Zhao, H. Niu, X. Zhu, and J. Zang, Observation of elastic topological states in soft materials, Nat. Commun. 9, 1370 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    S.-Y . Yu, C. He, Z. Wang, F.-K. Liu, X.-C. Sun, Z. Li, H.-Z. Lu, M.-H. Lu, X.-P. Liu, and Y .-F. Chen, Elastic pseudospin transport for integratable topological phononic circuits, Nat . Commun. 9, 3072 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    H. Xue, Y . Yang, and B. Zhang, Topological acoustics, Nat. Rev. Mater. 7, 974 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Y . Ding, Y . Peng, Y . Zhu, X. Fan, J. Yang, B. Liang, X. Zhu, X. Wan, and J. Cheng, Experimental demonstration of acoustic Chern insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 014302 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    S. A. Cummer, J. Christensen, and A. Alù, Controlling sound with acoustic metamaterials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 16001 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    T. Xia, X. Fan, Q. Chen, Y . Zhang, and Z. Li, A simple scheme to realize the Rice-Mele model in acoustic system, Chin. Phys. B (2026), doi:10.1088/1674-1056/ae3473

    2026 doi

  41. [49]

    H. Xue, Y . Ge, H.-X. Sun, Q. Wang, D. Jia, Y .-J. Guan, S.-Q. Yuan, Y . Chong, and B. Zhang, Observation of an acoustic octupole topological insulator, Nat Commun. 11, 2442 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Y . Qi, C. Qiu, M. Xiao, H. He, M. Ke, and Z. Liu, Acoustic r ealization of q uadrupole topological insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 206601 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    J. Wu, Y . Hu, Z. He, K. Deng, X. Huang, M. Ke, W. Deng, J. Lu, and Z. Liu, Hybrid-order skin effect from loss-induced nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 176601 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    T. Xia, Q. Zhang, and C. Qiu, Observation of antihelical edge states in acoustic metamaterials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 056601 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    H. Wang, H. Liu, Y . Liu, Y . Tang, P. Lai, H. Cheng, and S. Chen, Correspondence between dynamic higher-order topological insulator and synthetic higher-order Dirac semimetal, Phys. Rev. B 111, L201408 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.