Detection and control of electronic orbital magnetism by spin waves in honeycomb ferromagnets

Chengwang Niu; Dongwook Go; Lichuan Zhang; Lizhi Zhang; Lu Zhang; Peng Li; Wulf Wulfhekel; Yuanping Chen; Yuriy Mokrousov

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 58 references

Detection and control of electronic orbital magnetism by spin waves in honeycomb ferromagnets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin waves can imprint and control orbital magnetism in honeycomb ferromagnets.

desk verdict A clean LSWT study extending magnon-driven topological orbital magnetism to honeycomb ferromagnets; the zero-field, wavevector-resolved predictions are worth refereeing, but the magnetic-field-control claim rests on an unverified orbital-Zeeman self-coupling. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09389 v2 pith:QPXMEDV6 submitted 2025-01-16 cond-mat.str-el

Lichuan Zhang , Lu Zhang , Dongwook Go , Chengwang Niu , Wulf Wulfhekel , Peng Li , Yuanping Chen , Yuriy Mokrousov

show 1 more author

Lizhi Zhang

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords orbitalmagnetismscalarspinchiralitytopologicalmomentmagnonshoneycombferromagnetDzyaloshinskii-MoriyainteractionKitaevNernsteffect

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 argues that in a ferromagnetic honeycomb lattice, spin waves are not just carriers of angular momentum but also imprints of electronic orbital order: a propagating magnon makes neighboring spins non-coplanar, producing a nonzero scalar spin chirality that acts on electrons like a magnetic field and generates an electronic orbital moment even without spin-orbit coupling. Using linear spin wave theory, the authors show that this magnon-driven topological orbital moment depends sharply on which magnon mode is excited—its sign is opposite for acoustic and optical branches, and it vanishes for spin waves traveling along the armchair direction. They further show that the moment and its Nernst transport can be tuned by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and Kitaev interactions and by the direction and magnitude of an external magnetic field, and that the resulting orbital accumulation is large enough to be detected with the magneto-optical Kerr effect or scanning transmission electron microscopy. If right, the result makes spin waves a practical handle for orbitronics and adds a previously overlooked orbital variable to the physics of magnon-phonon and magnon-photon coupling.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scalar spin chirality $\chi = \mathbf{S}_1 \cdot (\mathbf{S}_2 \times \mathbf{S}_3)$ of three neighboring spins, which acts like a spin-dependent magnetic field on electrons. The central identity is $\mathbf{L}^{\mathrm{TOM}} = \kappa^{\mathrm{TO}} \sum_{\langle ijk\rangle} \hat{e}_{ijk} \chi_{ijk}$, with the branch-resolved local form $L^{\mathrm{TOM}}_{nk} = \kappa^{\mathrm{TO}} \langle \Psi_{nk}|\chi(k)|\Psi_{nk}\rangle$, connecting magnon noncoplanarity to electronic orbital moment. The calculations run on linear spin wave theory for a Heisenberg-Kitaev-DMI honeycomb Hamiltonian, with Bose occupation weighting of the branch-resolved TOM and with magnon Berry curvature and Chern numbers providing the topological input to the orbital Nernst conductivity. The model parameters, including the constraint $3J + K = 5.8$ meV, $S = 1.5$, easy-axis anisotropy 0.1 meV, and triangle-dependent susceptibilities $\kappa^{\mathrm{TO}} = 2\ \mu_B^{-2}$ (normal) and $1\ \mu_B^{-2}$ (obtuse), are fixed to honeycomb ferromagnet materials such as CrI$_3$ and CrGeTe$_3$.

What would settle it

Inject a coherent spin wave along the armchair ($\Gamma$–M) direction in a honeycomb ferromagnet below its Curie temperature and measure the magneto-optical Kerr rotation: the paper predicts exactly zero magnon-driven orbital moment for that propagation direction, so any sizable Kerr signal there would rule out the scalar-spin-chirality mechanism as described.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that scalar spin chirality generated by magnon excitations imprints a topological orbital moment (TOM) on the electrons of a honeycomb ferromagnet, with the local TOM of branch n and wavevector k given by $L^{\mathrm{TOM}}_{nk} = \kappa^{\mathrm{TO}} \langle \Psi_{nk}|\chi(k)|\Psi_{nk}\rangle$, where $\chi(k)$ is the k-dependent scalar spin chirality of the spin-wave state and $\kappa^{\mathrm{TO}}$ is the topological orbital susceptibility. The authors find that the acoustic and optical magnon branches carry opposite local TOM, that the TOM is concentrated near the K and K' points and is strictly zero along the $\Gamma$–M (armchair) direction, and that the net thermally populated orbital moment peaks at intermediate temperature and vanishes at the Curie temperature. They also show that the moment is controlled by the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, the Kitaev interaction, the magnetization orientation, and the magnetic field magnitude, and that it drives a topological orbital Nernst conductivity whose sign, unlike that of the magnon spin Nernst conductivity, does not change across a topological phase transition.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetic-field results assume that the field couples to the magnon-generated orbital moment through a Zeeman term in which that orbital moment is itself a functional of the magnon eigenstates, without a self-consistent solution of this circular dependence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The zero-TOM direction along the armchair path and the opposite signs on acoustic and optical branches give an experimental fingerprint: a Kerr or STEM measurement can identify which magnon branch is excited and which way a spin wave travels.
Because DMI and Kitaev interaction strengths can be changed by strain or electric fields, the same material could be switched between different orbital-moment magnitudes and different magnon topological phases.
Rotating the magnetization direction or changing the out-of-plane magnetic field magnitude provides a second, independent control knob, useful for verifying that the measured signal is genuinely orbital in origin.
The predicted orbital Nernst conductivity is comparable to the magnon spin Nernst conductivity but keeps its sign across topological transitions, offering an experimental way to separate orbital from spin transport.
Magnon-mediated TOM enters the Hamiltonian of magnon-phonon and magnon-photon hybrids as a new degree of freedom, so hybrid quasiparticle dispersions would carry orbital-field signatures that future experiments could search for.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the wavevector-selective sign of TOM suggests that a focused spin-wave beam could write spatial patterns of orbital moment in a two-dimensional ferromagnet, with Kerr microscopy reading the pattern back; this is a testable device concept.
Because the orbital-Zeeman coupling is implemented without a self-consistent recomputation of the magnon spectrum, a natural extension is to iterate the magnon eigenstates against the field-dependent TOM and check whether the predicted field-driven topological transitions survive.
The constant-per-triangle susceptibility $\kappa^{\mathrm{TO}}$ is a modeling input; computing $\kappa^{\mathrm{TO}}$ from first principles for CrI$_3$ or CrGeTe$_3$ would turn the predicted TOM magnitudes and Nernst conductivities into concrete material-specific numbers.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The thing to know: this is not a brand-new effect. It takes the authors' earlier magnon-driven TOM formalism [25], applies it to the honeycomb ferromagnet with DMI and Kitaev terms, and works out the observable signatures. The genuinely new physics is that TOM is zero for spin waves along the armchair direction while nonzero along other q, and that DMI/Kitaev tune the sign and magnitude. That is a crisp, falsifiable prediction, and the LSWT machinery is standard and internally consistent.

What it does well: the model is transparent, the parameter sweeps are thorough, and the authors are honest about the material-dependent kappa^TO values. Connecting TOM to the orbital Nernst response and comparing with magnon spin Nernst conductivity gives experimental handles (MOKE, STEM). The citation pattern is fine; heavy use of their own prior work is justified because the central formula comes from there.

Soft spots, in order of severity:

1. The orbital-Zeeman term HB = -B dot (mu_B sum L^TOM + mu_B g sum S_i) is introduced ad hoc. Since L^TOM_nk = kappa^TO depends on the magnon eigenstates, adding HB changes the Hamiltonian, which changes the eigenstates, which changes L^TOM. The paper diagonalizes once with B and plots TOM(B) and kappa_ON(B) as if the backaction were absent. No derivation, no self-consistency. This does not touch the zero-field results (armchair zero, DMI/Kitaev dependence, temperature behavior), but Figs. 3(g) and 4(b) do not yet establish field control. This is the main thing I would want fixed before publication.

2. Minor: there is a textual inconsistency about the zero-TOM path. Fig. 2(d) and the surrounding paragraph say zero along the Gamma-M path; later text says zero along the Gamma-K/K' path and calls that the armchair direction. For a paper selling the armchair signature, this needs to be sorted out.

3. kappa^TO is set by hand to 2 and 1 mu_B^-2, so all magnitudes are schematic. The authors acknowledge this; it is a quantitative caveat, not a mechanism flaw.

Bottom line: the zero-field honeycomb predictions are solid and should be refereed seriously. The field-control claim needs a self-consistent or microscopically derived orbital-Zeeman treatment. I would send it to review with that as the required revision. It will be useful to people working on orbitronics, magnonics, and honeycomb van der Waals magnets.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies magnon-driven topological orbital magnetism (TOM) in a honeycomb ferromagnet using linear spin-wave theory (LSWT). The central quantity is the local TOM per magnon branch, L^TOM_nk = kappa^TO <Psi_nk|chi(k)|Psi_nk>, where chi(k) is the k-dependent scalar spin chirality and kappa^TO is the topological orbital susceptibility. The authors compute the temperature-dependent TOM by occupying magnon modes with the Bose distribution, and the topological orbital Nernst conductivity by weighting the Berry curvature with the local TOM. They report that the TOM is highly sensitive to magnon wavevector, to the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya and Kitaev interactions, to the magnetization direction, and to an external magnetic field, and they propose detection via the magneto-optical Kerr effect or scanning transmission electron microscopy. The zero-field results are obtained within a standard LSWT framework with parameter sweeps; the field-control results rest on an additional orbital-Zeeman term introduced in the magnetic-field section.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are justified, the paper provides a promising route to couple magnonic excitations to electronic orbital degrees of freedom, extending earlier work on kagome lattices to the honeycomb geometry and connecting to ongoing experiments in CrI3-type and Cu(1,3-bdc) materials. The strength of the manuscript is its explicit and transparent LSWT machinery, which yields qualitative predictions for wavevector-dependent TOM and its transport consequences. The paper is also honest about several of its modeling choices, e.g., the dependence of the estimated Nernst conductivity on the material-dependent value of kappa^TO. However, the central field-control claim currently rests on a Zeeman coupling that is both un-derived and self-referential, and the quantitative temperature dependence depends on an assumed exponent. These weaknesses prevent the paper from fully delivering on its advertised 'control' of orbital magnetism by magnetic fields, although the zero-field mechanism and its parameter dependence remain plausible.

major comments (3)

[Magnetic-field effects (introduction of HB, Fig. 3(g), Fig. 4(b))] The Zeeman term HB = -B*(mu_B sum L^TOM + mu_B g sum S_i) introduces a self-consistency problem that is not addressed. Since L^TOM_nk = kappa^TO <Psi_nk|chi(k)|Psi_nk> is a functional of the magnon eigenstates |Psi_nk>, adding HB to the Hamiltonian changes those eigenstates, which in turn changes L^TOM. The manuscript neither derives this orbital-Zeeman coupling from a microscopic electronic Hamiltonian nor performs a self-consistent calculation; it simply diagonalizes the spin-wave problem once with B included and plots the resulting TOM. Consequently, the field-control results in Fig. 3(g) and Fig. 4(b) are not established predictions. I ask the authors to provide a microscopic derivation, a self-consistent treatment, or a clearly labeled phenomenological model with a stated regime of validity; otherwise the field-control claim should be withdrawn or substantially weakened.
[Eq. (2) and the definition of L^TOM] The paper states that spin waves 'provide a way to control electronic orbital magnetism' and that the local TOM is L^TOM_nk = kappa^TO <Psi_nk|chi(k)|Psi_nk>. Because this relation is an input assumption rather than a result derived in this manuscript, the finding that spin waves produce TOM is built into the adopted ansatz. The chirality-TOM relation has independent support from prior work [12-16], so this is not a fatal circularity, but the manuscript should explicitly label it as an assumption and soften the word 'demonstrate' in the abstract. A concrete test would be to compare the kappa^TO ansatz with a microscopic tight-binding or first-principles calculation of the orbital moment for a representative magnon configuration, for example at the K point where the local TOM is claimed to be maximal.
[Temperature dependence, Eq. (2) and Fig. 2(e,f)] The temperature-dependent spin length is assumed to follow S(T)=S(1-T/TC)^beta with beta=0.3, and the chirality is then taken as chi(T)=Si(T)*(Sj(T)*Sk(T)). This is a modeling choice that is not derived for the Heisenberg-Kitaev honeycomb model, and the quantitative temperature behavior of TOM in Fig. 2(e,f) depends sensitively on it. The manuscript states the assumption explicitly, but the subsequent temperature curves are presented as quantitative results. The authors should justify the beta value for this model, show the sensitivity of the TOM curves to beta, or present the temperature dependence as qualitative.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract] There is a typo: 'excitiation' should be 'excitations'.
[Main text, second paragraph of the model section] 'respresenting' should be 'representing', and 'mean-free-theory' should be 'mean-field theory'.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains 'Heishenberg-Kitaev model'; it should be 'Heisenberg-Kitaev model'.
[Eq. (1)] The single-ion anisotropy term A(n_i.S_i)^2 uses the unit vector n_i; please specify explicitly that n_i is along the z axis for the easy-axis case, and define the sign convention for A.
[Fig. 3(g) and Fig. 4(b)] The figures for the magnetic-field dependence would benefit from axis labels indicating the range of B (in Tesla or meV) and from stating the field direction in the caption, beyond the text description.
[References] Reference [18] appears to be a duplicate of reference [12]; please merge or renumber.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Magnetic-field control of TOM is built into the Hamiltonian via an orbital-Zeeman term that contains TOM itself; zero-field results remain independent.

self definitional [Magnetic-field-effects paragraph (p. 3-4), Eq. H_B and Fig. 3(g)]
"The corresponding Zeeman term in the Hamiltonian is given by HB = −B · ( μB P ijk LTOM ijk + μB g P i Si ), where g-factor is chosen as 2. ... The orbital-Zeeman coupling introduces chirality and affects the magnonic topology, which in turn influences the magnitude of TOM. As shown in Fig. 3 (g) and Fig. S8, both topological properties and the magnitude of TOM are modulated by the value of B."

Earlier, LTOM_nk is defined as κTO ⟨Ψnk|χ(k)|Ψnk⟩, i.e., as a functional of the magnon eigenstates |Ψnk⟩. Those eigenstates are the solutions of the spin-wave Hamiltonian that now contains H_B with the very same LTOM. Thus the reported B-dependence of TOM is obtained from a Hamiltonian whose field-coupling term was constructed out of the quantity being predicted: the field control of TOM is an input of the model, not a derived consequence. The paper neither derives this orbital-Zeeman coupling from a microscopic electronic Hamiltonian nor specifies a self-consistent treatment of the LTOM-dependent Hamiltonian. Consequently, Figs. 3(g) and 4(b) do not independently establish field control of TOM, although the zero-field wavevector, DMI/Kitaev, temperature, and Nernst results are unaffected.

full rationale

The zero-field derivation chain is largely self-contained: the honeycomb spin Hamiltonian of Eq. (1) is solved with linear spin-wave theory, and the magnon eigenstates are used to evaluate the scalar spin chirality entering the established SSC-TOM relation. Although the local form LTOM_nk = κTO ⟨Ψnk|χ(k)|Ψnk⟩ is cited to the authors' previous work [25], the underlying SSC-TOM relation has independent prior grounding and external experimental support [27], so that self-citation is not scored as circular. The significant circularity is confined to the magnetic-field branch: H_B is defined using LTOM, the very quantity whose B-dependence is reported, making the field-control prediction partly self-referential. The other advertised controls (wavevector, DMI, Kitaev interaction, temperature) do not reduce to their inputs by construction, so the overall circularity is partial rather than total.

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

The central calculation relies on six hand-chosen or prior model parameters and five structural assumptions, including an unverified orbital Zeeman coupling. No genuinely new physical entities are invented; the main free parameter is the topological orbital susceptibility, which sets the overall scale.

free parameters (6)

Topological orbital susceptibility kappa^TO = 2 mu_B^-2 (normal), 1 mu_B^-2 (obtuse)
Set by hand 'for simplicity' to relate scalar spin chirality to orbital moment; directly sets the absolute scale of TOM and the orbital Nernst conductivity.
Kitaev interaction K = 5.2 meV
Model parameter chosen with J such that 3J+K=5.8 meV from prior work; varied in sweeps.
Heisenberg exchange J = 0.2 meV
Chosen via the constraint 3J+K=5.8 meV; controls magnon bandwidth.
Single-ion anisotropy A = 0.1 meV
Model parameter for easy-axis anisotropy along z.
Spin length S = 1.5
Model parameter chosen for Cr-based honeycomb ferromagnets.
S(T) exponent beta = 0.3
Phenomenological exponent in S(T)=S(1-T/TC)^beta; not derived for this system.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Local TOM is given by L^TOM_nk = kappa^TO <Psi_nk|chi(k)|Psi_nk>
Adopted from prior work [25]; kappa^TO is set by hand rather than derived from electronic structure.
standard math Linear spin wave theory describes the magnon excitations
Assumes small fluctuations around a ferromagnetic ground state; standard for magnon calculations.
domain assumption Constraint 3J+K=5.8 meV keeps ground state energy consistent
Adopted from prior work [37]; reduces parameter space.
ad hoc to paper Orbital Zeeman coupling has form HB = -B*(mu_B sum L^TOM + mu_B g sum S_i)
Introduced without derivation; L^TOM depends on the magnon eigenstates, creating a self-consistency issue.
ad hoc to paper Temperature-dependent spin length follows S(T)=S(1-T/TC)^beta with beta=0.3
Phenomenological ansatz for the temperature dependence of the spin moment.
standard math Curie-Weiss temperature is estimated by mean-field theory
MFT formula for TC; approximate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detection and control of electronic orbital magnetism by spin waves in honeycomb ferromagnets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QPXMEDV6

@misc{pith2026250109389,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detection and control of electronic orbital magnetism by spin waves in honeycomb ferromagnets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QPXMEDV6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09389}
}

read the original abstract

Exploring and manipulating the orbital degrees of freedom in solids has become a fascinating research topic in modern magnetism. Here, we demonstrate that spin waves can provide a way to control electronic orbital magnetism by the mechanism of scalar spin chirality, allowing for experimental detection using techniques such as the magneto-optical Kerr effect and scanning transmission electron microscopy. By applying linear spin wave theory, we uncover that electronic magnon-driven orbital magnetization is extremely sensitive to the character of the magnonic excitations. Furthermore, we show that both the induced electronic orbital magnetism and the Nernst transport properties of the orbital angular momentum can be regulated by the strength of the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction, Kitaev interaction, as well as the direction and magnitude of the external magnetic field. We argue that magnon-mediated electronic orbital magnetism presents an emergent variable which has to be taken into account when considering the physics of coupling magnonic excitiations to phonons and light.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09389 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) The schematic structure of the honeycomb lattice in an oblique view. The arrows along the black dots indicate the orientations of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Evolution of TOM at a temperature of 50 K as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Dependence of the orbital Nernst conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[25]

Zhang, D

L.-C. Zhang, D. Go, J.-P. Hanke, P. M. Buhl, S. Grytsiuk, S. Blügel, F. R. Lux, and Y . Mokrousov, Imprinting and driving electronic orbital magnetism using magnons, Communications Physics 3, 227 (2020)

work page 2020
[1]

H.-W. L. M. K. Dongwook Go, Daegeun Jo and Y . Mokrousov, Orbitronics: Orbital currents in solids, EPL 135, 37001 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

D. G. T. G. S. H. Y . M. H.-W. L. Hiroki Hayashi, Daegeun Jo and K. Ando, Observation of long-range orbital transport and giant orbital torque, Commun. Phys. 6, doi.org/10.1038/s42005- 023-01139-7 (2023)

doi:10.1038/s42005- 2023
[3]

Y . Yang, P. Wang, J. Chen, D. Zhang, C. Pan, S. Hu, T. Wang, W. Yue, C. Chen, W. Jiang, et al., Orbital torque switching in perpendicularly magnetized materials, Nat. Commun. 15, 8645 (2024). 5

work page 2024
[4]

Y .-G. Choi, D. Jo, K.-H. Ko, D. Go, K.-H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B.-C. Min, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Observation of the orbital hall effect in a light metal ti, Nature 619, 52 (2023)

work page 2023
[5]

Go, Dongwook, Jo, Daegeun, Kim, Changyoung, Lee, and Hyun- Woo, Intrinsic spin and orbital hall effects from orbital texture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086602 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

J. Kim, D. Go, H. Tsai, D. Jo, and Y . C. Otani, Nontrivial torque generation by orbital angular momentum injection in ferromagnetic-metal/ cu / al 2o3 trilayers, Phys. Rev. B 103, L020407 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Adamantopoulos, M

T. Adamantopoulos, M. Merte, G. Go, F. Freimuth, S. Blügel, and Y . Mokrousov, Orbital rashba effect as a platform for robust orbital photocurrents, Physical Review Letter (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 58 references

[8]

S. Ding, Z. Liang, D. Go, C. Yun, M. Xue, Z. Liu, S. Becker, W. Yang, H. Du, C. Wang, Y . Yang, G. Jakob, M. Kläui, Y . Mokrousov, and J. Yang, Observation of the orbital rashba- edelstein magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 067201 (2022)

2022
[9]

Taguchi, Y ., Oohara, Yoshizawa, H., Nagaosa, N., and Tokura, Spin chirality, berry phase, and anomalous hall effect in a frus- trated ferromagnet., Science 291, 2573 (2001)

2001
[10]

Shindou and N

R. Shindou and N. Nagaosa, Orbital ferromagnetism and anoma- lous hall effect in antiferromagnets on the distorted fcc lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 116801 (2001)

2001
[11]

Nagaosa and Y

N. Nagaosa and Y . Tokura, Topological properties and dynamics of magnetic skyrmions, Nature nanotechnology 8, 899 (2013)

2013
[13]

Hanke, F

J.-P. Hanke, F. Freimuth, A. K. Nandy, H. Zhang, S. Blügel, and Y . Mokrousov, Role of berry phase theory for describing or- bital magnetism: From magnetic heterostructures to topological orbital ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 94, 121114 (2016)

2016
[14]

Hanke, F

J.-P. Hanke, F. Freimuth, S. Blügel, and Y . Mokrousov, Prototyp- ical topological orbital ferromagnet γ-FeMn, Sci. Rep. 7, 41078 (2017)

2017
[15]

F. R. Lux, F. Freimuth, S. Blügel, and Y . Mokrousov, Engineer- ing chiral and topological orbital magnetism of domain walls and skyrmions, Commun. Phys. 1, 60 (2018)

2018
[16]

Grytsiuk, J.-P

S. Grytsiuk, J.-P. Hanke, M. Hoffmann, J. Bouaziz, O. Gomonay, G. Bihlmayer, S. Lounis, Y . Mokrousov, and S. Blügel, Topological–chiral magnetic interactions driven by emergent orbital magnetism, Nat. Commun. 11, 1 (2020)

2020
[17]

Nickel, A

F. Nickel, A. Kubetzka, S. Haldar, R. Wiesendanger, S. Heinze, and K. von Bergmann, Coupling of the triple- q state to the atomic lattice by anisotropic symmetric exchange, Phys. Rev. B 108, L180411 (2023)

2023
[18]

Hoffmann, J

M. Hoffmann, J. Weischenberg, B. Dupé, F. Freimuth, P. Ferri- ani, Y . Mokrousov, and S. Heinze, Topological orbital magneti- zation and emergent hall effect of an atomic-scale spin lattice at a surface, Phys. Rev. B 92, 020401 (2015)

2015
[19]

Nickel, A

F. Nickel, A. Kubetzka, M. Gutzeit, R. Wiesendanger, K. von Bergmann, and S. Heinze, Antiferromagnetic order of topolog- ical orbital moments in atomic-scale skyrmion lattices, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18088 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[20]

Redies, F

M. Redies, F. R. Lux, J.-P. Hanke, P. M. Buhl, G. P. M˝ uller, N. S. Kiselev, S. Blügel, and Y . Mokrousov, Distinct magnetotrans- port and orbital fingerprints of chiral bobbers, Phys. Rev. B 99, 140407(R) (2019)

2019
[21]

Fujimoto, Hall effect of spin waves in frustrated magnets, Phys

S. Fujimoto, Hall effect of spin waves in frustrated magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 047203 (2009)

2009
[22]

Neubauer, C

A. Neubauer, C. Pfleiderer, B. Binz, A. Rosch, R. Ritz, P. G. Niklowitz, and P. Böni, Topological hall effect in the a phase of mnsi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 186602 (2009)

2009
[23]

Feng, J.-P

W. Feng, J.-P. Hanke, X. Zhou, G.-Y . Guo, S. Blügel, Y . Mokrousov, and Y . Yao, Topological magneto-optical effects and their quantization in noncoplanar antiferromagnets, Nat. Commun. 11, 118 (2020)

2020
[24]

X. Zhou, W. Feng, Y . Li, and Y . Yao, Spin-chirality-driven quan- tum anomalous and quantum topological hall effects in chiral magnets, Nano Letter 23, 5680 (2023)

2023
[26]

Chisnell, J

R. Chisnell, J. Helton, D. Freedman, D. Singh, F. Demmel, C. Stock, D. Nocera, and Y . Lee, Magnetic transitions in the topological magnon insulator cu (1, 3-bdc), Physical Review B 93, 214403 (2016)

2016
[27]

Alahmed, X

L. Alahmed, X. Zhang, J. Wen, Y . Xiong, Y . Li, L. Zhang, F. R. Lux, F. Freimuth, M. Mahdi, Y . Mokrousov, V . Novosad, W.- K. Kwok, D. Yu, W. Zhang, Y . S. Lee, and P. Li, Evidence of magnon-mediated orbital magnetism in a quasi-2d topological magnon insulator, Nano Letter 2...

2022
[28]

Pirro, V

P. Pirro, V . I. Vasyuchka, A. A. Serga, and B. Hillebrands, Ad- vances in coherent magnonics, Nature Reviews Materials6, 1114 (2021)

2021
[29]

Cenker, B

J. Cenker, B. Huang, N. Suri, P. Thijssen, A. Miller, T. Song, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. A. McGuire, D. Xiao, et al. , Direct observation of two-dimensional magnons in atomically thin cri3, Nature Physics 17, 20 (2021)

2021
[30]

Huang, G

B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, W. Yao, D. Xiao, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and X. Xu, Layer-dependent ferromagnetism in a van der waals crystal down to the monolayer limit, Nature 54...

2017
[31]

C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y . Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Q. Qiu, R. J. Cava, S. G. Louie, J. Xia, , and X. Zhang, Discovery of intrinsic ferromagnetism in two- dimensional van der waals crystals, Nature 546 (2017)

2017
[32]

F. Zhu, L. Zhang, X. Wang, F. J. dos Santos, J. Song, T. Mueller, K. Schmalzl, W. F. Schmidt, A. Ivanov, J. T. Park, J. Xu, J. Ma, S. Lounis, S. Blügel, M. Yuriy, S. Yixi, and B. Thomas, Topo- logical magnon insulators in two-dimensional van der waals fer- romagnets crsite3 an...

2021
[33]

I. Lee, F. G. Utermohlen, D. Weber, K. Hwang, C. Zhang, J. van Tol, J. E. Goldberger, N. Trivedi, and P. C. Hammel, Fundamen- tal spin interactions underlying the magnetic anisotropy in the kitaev ferromagnet cri3, Physical Review Letters 124, 017201 (2020)

2020
[34]

Z.-X. Li, C. Wang, Y . Cao, and P. Yan, Edge states in a two- dimensional honeycomb lattice of massive magnetic skyrmions, Phys. Rev. B 98, 180407 (2018)

2018
[35]

Shimokawa, T

T. Shimokawa, T. Okubo, and H. Kawamura, Multiple-q states of the J1 − J2 classical honeycomb-lattice heisenberg antifer- romagnet under a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B 100, 224404 (2019)

2019
[36]

Janssen, E

L. Janssen, E. C. Andrade, and M. V ojta, Honeycomb-lattice heisenberg-kitaev model in a magnetic field: Spin canting, meta- magnetism, and vortex crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 277202 (2016)

2016
[37]

Zhang, F

L.-C. Zhang, F. Zhu, D. Go, F. R. Lux, F. J. dos Santos, S. Lounis, Y . Su, S. Blügel, , and Y . Mokrousov, Interplay of dzyaloshinskii-moriya and kitaev interactions for magnonic properties of heisenberg-kitaev honeycomb ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 103, 134414 (2021)

2021
[38]

Y . Bai, L. Zhang, N. Mao, R. Li, Z. Chen, Y . Dai, B. Huang, and C. Niu, Coupled electronic and magnonic topological states in two-dimensional ferromagnets, ACS nano (2024)

2024
[39]

Toth and B

S. Toth and B. Lake, Linear spin wave theory for single-q in- commensurate magnetic structures, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 27, 166002 (2015)

2015
[40]

F. J. dos Santos, M. dos Santos Dias, F. S. M. Guimarães, J. Bouaziz, and S. Lounis, Phys. Rev. B 97, 024431 (2018)

2018
[41]

Zhang, Y

L.-C. Zhang, Y . Onykiienko, P. Buhl, Y . Tymoshenko, P.ˇCer- mák, A. Schneidewind, J. Stewart, A. Henschel, M. Schmidt, S. Blügel, et al., Magnonic weyl states in cu 2 oseo 3, Physical 6 Review Research 2, 013063 (2020)

2020
[42]

See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by pub- lisher] for technical details of the calculations
[43]

MacNeill, J

D. MacNeill, J. T. Hou, D. R. Klein, P. Zhang, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and L. Liu, Gigahertz frequency antiferromagnetic resonance and strong magnon-magnon coupling in the layered crystalcrcl3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 047204 (2019)

2019
[44]

A. H. Comstock, C. Chou, Z. Wang, T. Wang, R. Song, J. Sklenar, A. Amassian, W. Zhang, H. Lu, and L. Liu, Hybrid magnonics in hybrid perovskite antiferromagnets, Nature Communications 14 (2023)

2023
[45]

C. Tang, L. Alahmed, M. Mahdi, Y . Xiong, J. Inman, N. J. Mclaughlin, C. Zollitsch, T. H. Kim, C. R. Du, and H. Kure- bayashi, Spin dynamics in van der waals magnetic systems, Physics Reports 1032, 1 (2023)

2023
[46]

Holm and W

C. Holm and W. Janke, Critical exponents of the classical three- dimensional heisenberg model: A single-cluster monte carlo study, Phys. Rev. B48, 936 (1993)

1993
[47]

Tiwari, M

S. Tiwari, M. L. Van de Put, B. Sorée, and W. G. Vandenberghe, Critical behavior of the ferromagnets cri3, crbr3, and crgete3 and the antiferromagnet fecl2: A detailed first-principles study, Phys. Rev. B 103, 014432 (2021)

2021
[48]

G. Go, D. P. Goli, N. Esaki, Y . Tserkovnyak, and S. K. Kim, Scalar spin chirality hall effect, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03679 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[49]

Matsumoto and S

R. Matsumoto and S. Murakami, Theoretical prediction of a rotating magnon wave packet in ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 197202 (2011)

2011
[50]

Cheng, S

R. Cheng, S. Okamoto, and D. Xiao, Spin nernst effect of magnons in collinear antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 217202 (2016)

2016
[51]

A. A. Kovalev and V . Zyuzin, Spin torque and nernst effects in dzyaloshinskii-moriya ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. B 93, 161106 (2016)

2016
[52]

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 with s= 3/2, Physical Review Letters 124, 087205 (2020)

2020
[53]

B. Dai, D. Wu, S. A. Razavi, S. Xu, H. He, Q. Shu, M. Jackson, F. Mahfouzi, H. Huang, Q. Pan,et al., Electric field manipulation of spin chirality and skyrmion dynamic, Science Advances 9, eade6836 (2023)

2023
[54]

Shinagawa, Faraday and kerr effects in ferromagnets, in Magneto-optics (Springer, 2000) pp

K. Shinagawa, Faraday and kerr effects in ferromagnets, in Magneto-optics (Springer, 2000) pp. 137–177

2000
[55]

J. C. Idrobo, J. Rusz, G. Datt, D. Jo, S. Alikhah, D. Muradas, U. Noumbe, M. V . Kamalakar, and P. M. Oppeneer, Direct ob- servation of nanometer-scale orbital angular momentum accu- mulation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09269 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[56]

G. Go, D. An, H.-W. Lee, and S. K. Kim, Magnon orbital nernst effect in honeycomb antiferromagnets without spin–orbit cou- pling, Nano Letters 24, 5968 (2024)

2024
[57]

R. R. Neumann, A. Mook, J. Henk, and I. Mertig, Orbital mag- netic moment of magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 117209 (2020)

2020
[58]

Y . Kunz, M. Küß, M. Schneider, M. Geilen, P. Pirro, M. Albrecht, and M. Weiler, Coherent surface acoustic wave–spin wave in- teractions detected by micro-focused brillouin light scattering spectroscopy, Applied Physics Letters 124 (2024)

2024
[59]

Hirosawa, A

T. Hirosawa, A. Mook, J. Klinovaja, and D. Loss, Magnetoelec- tric cavity magnonics in skyrmion crystals, PRX Quantum 3, 040321 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Zhang, D

L.-C. Zhang, D. Go, J.-P. Hanke, P. M. Buhl, S. Grytsiuk, S. Blügel, F. R. Lux, and Y . Mokrousov, Imprinting and driving electronic orbital magnetism using magnons, Communications Physics 3, 227 (2020)

work page 2020

[2] [1]

H.-W. L. M. K. Dongwook Go, Daegeun Jo and Y . Mokrousov, Orbitronics: Orbital currents in solids, EPL 135, 37001 (2021)

work page 2021

[3] [2]

D. G. T. G. S. H. Y . M. H.-W. L. Hiroki Hayashi, Daegeun Jo and K. Ando, Observation of long-range orbital transport and giant orbital torque, Commun. Phys. 6, doi.org/10.1038/s42005- 023-01139-7 (2023)

doi:10.1038/s42005- 2023

[4] [3]

Y . Yang, P. Wang, J. Chen, D. Zhang, C. Pan, S. Hu, T. Wang, W. Yue, C. Chen, W. Jiang, et al., Orbital torque switching in perpendicularly magnetized materials, Nat. Commun. 15, 8645 (2024). 5

work page 2024

[5] [4]

Y .-G. Choi, D. Jo, K.-H. Ko, D. Go, K.-H. Kim, H. G. Park, C. Kim, B.-C. Min, G.-M. Choi, and H.-W. Lee, Observation of the orbital hall effect in a light metal ti, Nature 619, 52 (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [5]

Go, Dongwook, Jo, Daegeun, Kim, Changyoung, Lee, and Hyun- Woo, Intrinsic spin and orbital hall effects from orbital texture, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 086602 (2018)

work page 2018

[7] [6]

J. Kim, D. Go, H. Tsai, D. Jo, and Y . C. Otani, Nontrivial torque generation by orbital angular momentum injection in ferromagnetic-metal/ cu / al 2o3 trilayers, Phys. Rev. B 103, L020407 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [7]

Adamantopoulos, M

T. Adamantopoulos, M. Merte, G. Go, F. Freimuth, S. Blügel, and Y . Mokrousov, Orbital rashba effect as a platform for robust orbital photocurrents, Physical Review Letter (2024)

work page 2024