pith. sign in

arxiv: 2412.09216 · v1 · pith:OLU5CPFUnew · submitted 2024-12-12 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · cond-mat.mes-hall

Crystal Symmetry Selected Pure Spin Photocurrent in Altermagnetic Insulators

Ruizhi Dong , Ranquan Cao , Dian Tan , Ruixiang Fei This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 07:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords altermagnetsphotocurrentspin currentspin point group symmetrynonlinear photogalvanic effectinsulatorsMnTeBiFeO3
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spin point group symmetry selects directions for pure spin photocurrents in altermagnetic insulators independent of spin-orbit coupling.

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

The paper shows that nonlinear photogalvanic effects in insulating altermagnets generate spin photocurrents protected by spin point group symmetry, remaining pure along specific crystal directions with no accompanying charge current. This protection holds even without spin-orbit coupling, in contrast to parity-time symmetric materials where such coupling mixes the responses. A reader would care because it identifies a way to produce controllable spin currents in common insulating antiferromagnets for potential low-dissipation applications. The authors support the claim with symmetry analysis of allowed tensors and first-principles calculations on wurtzite MnTe and multiferroic BiFeO3. They additionally identify an SOC-induced linear inject current in BiFeO3 that may relate to observed photovoltaic enhancements.

Core claim

Spin and charge photocurrents in altermagnets are protected by spin point group symmetry, so that the spin current can exist as a pure spin current along specific crystal directions regardless of spin-orbit coupling, unlike the behavior in parity-time symmetric materials where spin-orbit coupling induces significant charge current. This is demonstrated through tensor analysis of the nonlinear photogalvanic response and applied via calculations to materials including wurtzite MnTe and BiFeO3, where the latter also shows an overlooked linear-inject-current mechanism induced by spin-orbit coupling.

What carries the argument

spin point group symmetry, which dictates the allowed photocurrent tensors in the nonlinear photogalvanic response and enforces purity of the spin current along selected directions

If this is right

  • Pure spin photocurrent is allowed along specific directions in wurtzite MnTe without spin-orbit coupling effects.
  • Symmetry protection separates spin and charge responses in the nonlinear photogalvanic effect for insulating altermagnets.
  • In BiFeO3 the same symmetry permits pure spin current while spin-orbit coupling adds a linear inject current that can enhance bulk photovoltaic response.
  • Nonlinear photogalvanic effects become a viable route to spin-current generation in insulating altermagnets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The mechanism could allow spintronic elements in altermagnetic insulators that avoid net charge flow and associated dissipation.
  • Similar symmetry analysis might apply to other insulating altermagnets beyond the two materials calculated here.
  • The linear inject current identified in BiFeO3 suggests a general way to tune photovoltaic efficiency in multiferroics via spin-orbit coupling.

Load-bearing premise

Spin point group symmetry alone fully determines the photocurrent tensors without other mechanisms introducing charge current components along the predicted pure-spin directions.

What would settle it

Observation of a nonzero charge photocurrent component along a symmetry-predicted pure-spin direction in first-principles calculations or transport measurements on wurtzite MnTe would falsify the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09216 by Dian Tan, Ranquan Cao, Ruixiang Fei, Ruizhi Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The schematic scenarios illustrate the linearly po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The crystal structure of multiferroic BiFeO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) The crystal structure of wurtzite MnTe, (b) the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The photo-driven spin- and charge-current of mul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The generation of time-reversal-odd spin-current in metallic altermagnets has attracted considerable interest in spintronics. However, producing pure spin-current in insulating materials remains both challenging and desirable, as insulating states are frequently found in antiferromagnets. Nonlinear photogalvanic effects offer a promising method for generating spin-current in insulators. We here revealed that spin and charge photocurrents in altermagnets are protected by spin point group symmetry. Unlike the photocurrents in parity-time symmetric materials, where spin-orbit coupling (SOC) induces a significant charge current, the spin-current in altermagnets can exist as a pure spin current along specific crystal directions regardless of SOC. We applied our predictions using first-principles calculations to several distinct materials, including wurtzite MnTe and multiferroic BiFeO3. Additionally, we elucidated the previously overlooked linear-inject-current mechanism in BiFeO3 induced by SOC, which may account for the enhanced bulk photovotaic effect in multiferroics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that spin point group symmetry in altermagnetic insulators protects pure spin photocurrents (while forbidding charge photocurrents) in nonlinear photogalvanic effects along specific crystal directions; this protection holds even with SOC, unlike in PT-symmetric materials. The claim is supported by symmetry classification and first-principles calculations on wurtzite MnTe and multiferroic BiFeO3; the authors additionally identify an SOC-induced linear inject-current mechanism in BiFeO3 that may explain enhanced bulk photovoltaic effects.

Significance. If the result holds, it supplies a symmetry-protected route to pure spin photocurrents in insulating altermagnets, which is relevant for spintronics where insulating antiferromagnets are common. The explicit symmetry-based distinction from PT-symmetric cases and the concrete material predictions constitute strengths; the identification of the linear mechanism in BiFeO3 is a useful side result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / symmetry analysis] Abstract and symmetry section: the central assertion that spin point group symmetry forbids charge photocurrent tensor elements while permitting spin photocurrent elements 'regardless of SOC' is load-bearing. The manuscript must demonstrate explicitly (e.g., via the form of the second-order conductivity tensor) that SOC does not mix in additional charge components along the selected directions, given that SOC is shown to generate new channels in the BiFeO3 linear-inject-current case.
  2. [Computational methods and results] First-principles results (MnTe and BiFeO3 sections): the calculations are invoked to validate the symmetry predictions, yet no convergence tests, k-point sampling details, functional choice, or error bars on the photocurrent tensors are reported. This prevents assessment of whether the computed spin photocurrents are indeed charge-free within numerical accuracy.
  3. [BiFeO3 results] BiFeO3 discussion: the SOC-induced linear inject-current mechanism is presented as a separate finding, but its possible influence on the nonlinear photogalvanic tensor (and thus on the claimed purity of the spin current) must be addressed to ensure the two mechanisms do not interfere along the chosen crystal axes.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Typo in abstract: 'photovotaic' should read 'photovoltaic'.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract phrasing: 'We here revealed' is nonstandard; 'Here we reveal' or 'We reveal' would be clearer.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable suggestions. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / symmetry analysis] Abstract and symmetry section: the central assertion that spin point group symmetry forbids charge photocurrent tensor elements while permitting spin photocurrent elements 'regardless of SOC' is load-bearing. The manuscript must demonstrate explicitly (e.g., via the form of the second-order conductivity tensor) that SOC does not mix in additional charge components along the selected directions, given that SOC is shown to generate new channels in the BiFeO3 linear-inject-current case.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that an explicit demonstration is necessary to support the claim. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the symmetry analysis section to include the explicit tensor forms for the second-order conductivity, showing the allowed and forbidden elements both in the absence and presence of SOC. This will confirm that no charge components are introduced by SOC along the directions where pure spin photocurrents are predicted. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Computational methods and results] First-principles results (MnTe and BiFeO3 sections): the calculations are invoked to validate the symmetry predictions, yet no convergence tests, k-point sampling details, functional choice, or error bars on the photocurrent tensors are reported. This prevents assessment of whether the computed spin photocurrents are indeed charge-free within numerical accuracy.

    Authors: The referee is correct that these details were omitted. We will add a dedicated subsection on computational methods, including the k-point mesh used, convergence criteria for the photocurrent calculations, the specific DFT functional employed, and numerical error estimates. This will allow verification that the charge photocurrent components are zero within the numerical precision of the calculations. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [BiFeO3 results] BiFeO3 discussion: the SOC-induced linear inject-current mechanism is presented as a separate finding, but its possible influence on the nonlinear photogalvanic tensor (and thus on the claimed purity of the spin current) must be addressed to ensure the two mechanisms do not interfere along the chosen crystal axes.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation. Although the linear inject-current is a distinct first-order process, we will revise the BiFeO3 section to explicitly discuss whether it could affect the second-order nonlinear tensor. We will clarify that the linear mechanism does not contribute to the second-order response and confirm through symmetry or additional analysis that the purity of the spin photocurrent is maintained along the selected axes. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: symmetry classification and first-principles application are independent of the target result

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on spin point group symmetry forbidding charge photocurrent components while allowing pure spin photocurrent along selected directions, even with SOC. This is a standard tensor analysis under a given symmetry group, not a self-definition or fit. First-principles calculations on wurtzite MnTe and BiFeO3 serve as external verification rather than input. No equations, fitted parameters, or self-citations are shown that reduce the prediction to the input by construction. The SOC-induced linear inject-current in BiFeO3 is presented as an additional finding, not a load-bearing premise. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that spin point group symmetry governs the nonlinear photocurrent response tensors and that first-principles calculations faithfully capture this symmetry protection in the chosen materials.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Spin point group symmetry protects spin and charge photocurrents in altermagnets
    Invoked to explain why pure spin current exists along specific directions regardless of SOC.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5720 in / 1225 out tokens · 48665 ms · 2026-05-23T07:06:29.362440+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quantization of spin circular photogalvanic effect in altermagnetic Weyl semimetals

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Prediction of a quantized spin circular photogalvanic effect in altermagnetic Weyl semimetals, enabled by symmetry classification and confirmed in a tight-binding model and material candidate.

  2. Symmetry-driven Intrinsic Nonlinear Pure Spin Hall Effect

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Symmetry analysis identifies 39 magnetic point groups supporting intrinsic nonlinear pure spin Hall effect with predictions for significant currents in Kramers-Weyl metals at room temperature.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Sinova, S

    J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. Back, and T. Jungwirth, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 1213 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Dyakonov and V

    M. Dyakonov and V. Perel, Physics Letters A 35, 459 (1971)

    work page 1971

  4. [4]

    Murakami, N

    S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 301, 1348 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Sinova, D

    J. Sinova, D. Culcer, Q. Niu, N. A. Sinitsyn, T. Jung- wirth, and A. H. MacDonald, Physical Review Letters 92, 126603 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Physical Review Letters 95, 226801 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, Physical Review Letters 96, 106802 (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Science Advances 6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 88, 123702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Physical Review B 102, 014422 (2020). 6

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    H. Bai, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, P. Chen, C. Wan, L. Han, W. Zhu, S. Liang, Y. Su, X. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Physical Review Letters 130, 216701 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    J. A. Ouassou, A. Brataas, and J. Linder, Physical Re- view Letters 131, 076003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  14. [14]

    Hariki, A

    A. Hariki, A. Dal Din, O. J. Amin, T. Yamaguchi, A. Badura, D. Kriegner, K. W. Edmonds, R. P. Cam- pion, P. Wadley, D. Backes, L. S. I. Veiga, S. S. Dhesi, G. Springholz, L. ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, T. Jungwirth, and J. Kuneˇ s, Physical Review Letters 132, 176701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    R. A. Leenders, D. Afanasiev, A. V. Kimel, and R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, Nature 630, 335 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Aoyama and K

    T. Aoyama and K. Ohgushi, Physical Review Materials 8, L041402 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

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

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Physical Review Letters 126, 127701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and J. Liu, Nature Communications 12, 2846 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Z.-F. Gao, S. Qu, B. Zeng, Y. Liu, J.-R. Wen, H. Sun, P.-J. Guo, and Z.-Y. Lu, arXiv , 2311.04418 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    R. D. R. Bhat, F. Nastos, A. Najmaie, and J. E. Sipe, Physical Review Letters 94, 096603 (2005)

    work page 2005

  21. [21]

    S. D. Ganichev, E. L. Ivchenko, V. V. Bel’kov, S. A. Tarasenko, M. Sollinger, D. Weiss, W. Wegscheider, and W. Prettl, Nature 417, 153 (2002)

    work page 2002

  22. [22]

    Zhou and S.-Q

    B. Zhou and S.-Q. Shen, Physical Review B 75, 045339 (2007)

    work page 2007

  23. [23]

    S. M. Young, F. Zheng, and A. M. Rappe, Physical Review Letters 110, 057201 (2013)

    work page 2013

  24. [24]

    R. Fei, X. Lu, and L. Yang, arXiv , 2006.10690 (2020)

    work page arXiv 2006

  25. [25]

    H. Xu, H. Wang, J. Zhou, and J. Li, Nature Communi- cations 12, 4330 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    R. Fei, W. Song, L. Pusey-Nazzaro, and L. Yang, Phys- ical Review Letters 127, 207402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    T. Song, E. Anderson, M. W.-Y. Tu, K. Seyler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, X. Li, T. Cao, D. Xiao, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Science Advances 7, eabg8094 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    J. E. Sipe and A. I. Shkrebtii, Physical Review B 61, 5337 (2000)

    work page 2000

  29. [29]

    von Baltz and W

    R. von Baltz and W. Kraut, Physical Review B 23, 5590 (1981)

    work page 1981

  30. [30]

    Ahn, G.-Y

    J. Ahn, G.-Y. Guo, and N. Nagaosa, Physical Review X 10, 041041 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Watanabe and Y

    H. Watanabe and Y. Yanase, Physical Review X 11, 011001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Wang and X

    H. Wang and X. Qian, Science Advances 5, eaav9743 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Yanase, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 15, 63 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Holder, H. Ishizuka, F. de Juan, N. Na- gaosa, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Nature Communications 10, 3783 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    R. Fei, W. Song, and L. Yang, Physical Review B 102, 035440 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Re- view X 12, 031042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Kraut and R

    W. Kraut and R. V. Baltz, Physical Review B 19, 1548 (1979)

    work page 1979

  38. [38]

    Freimuth, S

    F. Freimuth, S. Bl¨ ugel, and Y. Mokrousov, Phys. Rev. B 90, 174423 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    P. Liu, J. Li, J. Han, X. Wan, and Q. Liu, Physical Review X 12, 021016 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    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, Physical Review Letters 132, 036702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Krempask´ y, L

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl´ ı ˚Aov´ 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´ a˚A, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Kriegner, J. Min´ ar, J. H. Dil, and T. Jungwirth, Nature ...

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Osumi, S

    T. Osumi, S. Souma, T. Aoyama, K. Yamauchi, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, T. Takahashi, K. Ohgushi, and T. Sato, Physical Review B 109, 115102 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Kriegner, H

    D. Kriegner, H. Reichlova, J. Grenzer, W. Schmidt, E. Ressouche, J. Godinho, T. Wagner, S. Y. Martin, A. B. Shick, V. V. Volobuev, G. Springholz, V. Hol´ y, J. Wunderlich, T. Jungwirth, and K. V´ yborn´ y, Physical Review B 96, 214418 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    S. Siol, Y. Han, J. Mangum, P. Schulz, A. M. Holder, T. R. Klein, M. F. A. M. van Hest, B. Gorman, and A. Zakutayev, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 6, 6297 (2018)

    work page 2018

  45. [45]

    S. Mori, S. Hatayama, Y. Shuang, D. Ando, and Y. Sutou, Nature Communications 11, 85 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    See Supplemental Material at xx, which includes Refs.[47-49]. We present the first-principles computa- tional details, spin current implement, band structure, and photo-induced spin current and charge current by two different mechanisms of MnTe and BFO with and without SOC,

    work page

  47. [47]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Physical Review B 54, 11169 (1996)

    work page 1996

  48. [48]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Physical Review B 57, 1505 (1998)

    work page 1998

  49. [49]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    work page 1996

  50. [50]

    S. V. Kiselev, R. P. Ozerov, and G. S. Zhdanov, Soviet physics. Doklady 7, 742 (1963)

    work page 1963

  51. [51]

    J. R. Teague, R. Gerson, and W. James, Solid State Communications 8, 1073 (1970)

    work page 1970

  52. [52]

    Fischer, M

    P. Fischer, M. Polomska, I. Sosnowska, and M. Szyman- ski, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 13, 1931 (1980)

    work page 1931

  53. [53]

    S. M. Young, F. Zheng, and A. M. Rappe, Physical Review Letters 109, 236601 (2012)

    work page 2012

  54. [54]

    S. Y. Yang, J. Seidel, S. J. Byrnes, P. Shafer, C.-H. Yang, M. D. Rossell, P. Yu, Y.-H. Chu, J. F. Scott, J. W. Ager, L. W. Martin, and R. Ramesh, Nature Nanotechnology 5, 143 (2010)

    work page 2010