Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Probing multipolar order in the candidate altermagnet MnF$_2$ through the elastocaloric effect under strain

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The elastocaloric response of MnF2 traces the predicted cusp-shaped crossover lines of its altermagnetic (ferro-octupolar) order parameter, establishing a thermodynamic probe of d-wave altermagnetism.

desk verdict A careful elastocaloric experiment on MnF2 shows a crossover collapsing as |ε_xy H_z|^{2/3}, but the claim that this specifically probes octupolar/altermagnetic order is symmetry-based and not uniquely established; still a solid, publishable contribution. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.19343 v2 pith:YGA2QSI2 submitted 2026-01-27 cond-mat.str-el cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Rahel Ohlendorf , Luca Buiarelli , Hilary M. L. Noad , Andrew P. Mackenzie , Rafael M. Fernandes , Turan Birol , Jörg Schmalian , Elena Gati This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-elcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismferro-octupolarordermultipolarelastocaloriceffectpiezomagnetismcrossoverscalingMnF2uniaxialstrain
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

MnF2 is a candidate d-wave altermagnet whose magnetic order parameter has the symmetry of a ferro-octupole. This paper argues that the combination of a shear strain ε_xy and a magnetic field along the c-axis forms the conjugate field h = μ_B ε_xy μ0 H_z for that order parameter, and that the elastocaloric effect under uniaxial stress can detect it. The experimental data show that the crossover temperature T* − T_c collapses onto a single cusp-shaped curve as a function of h, with the mean-field exponent 2/3 and coupling λ = 0.56(5). The authors take this as the first thermodynamic identification of the altermagnetic (multipolar) order parameter and its conjugate field, and use DFT to trace the microscopic origin of the coupling to piezomagnetism that is strongly enhanced by tiny off-stoichiometry.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conjugate field h = μ_B ε_xy μ0 H_z, the product of a B2g shear strain and a magnetic field along the tetragonal c-axis, which transforms like the ferro-octupolar (d-wave altermagnetic) order parameter Φ. The argument rests on the Landau free energy f = (k_B/2)(T−T_c)Φ^2 + (u/4)Φ^4 − λ h Φ, whose bilinear term is the only symmetry-allowed strain-field coupling that acts as a conjugate field. From this model, the crossover temperature follows T* − T_c ∝ (λ|h|)^{1/(βδ)}, and the elastocaloric effect η_xy = (∂T/∂ε_xy)_S measures the entropy's strain response, which is controlled by this coupling. The key experimental signature is the collapse of T* − T_c for all strain

What would settle it

Apply tensile shear strain to MnF2: the model predicts the altermagnetic contribution to η_xy changes sign relative to compression, while the symmetric-strain term does not. If the sign change is absent, or if T* − T_c no longer collapses onto a single cusp when plotted against ε_xy μ0 H_z, the bilinear-coupling interpretation would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the finite-temperature altermagnetic critical point of MnF2 is thermodynamically observable through the elastocaloric effect: applying a uniaxial stress along [110] (which induces a shear strain ε_xy) together with a magnetic field μ0 H_z along the c-axis shifts the magnetic transition from a sharp phase boundary at h=0 to a crossover line T*(ε_xy, H_z) that obeys the scaling T* − T_c ∝ |ε_xy μ0 H_z|^{2/3}. The measured crossover lines collapse onto a single cusp-shaped curve centered at h=0, symmetric in field and strain, matching a Landau free-energy model with a bilinear coupling −λ h Φ between the ferro-octupolar order parameter Φ and the conjugate field

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation rests on the symmetry assignment that MnF2's order parameter is a B2g ferro-octupole whose only relevant strain–field coupling is the bilinear term −λ μ_B ε_xy μ0 H_z Φ; if the true order parameter has another symmetry, or if a different non-altermagnetic magnetoelastic effect produces the same cusp, the conclusion does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measured crossover lines follow the predicted |ε_xy μ0 H_z|^{2/3} scaling, confirming that shear strain and c-axis field jointly act as the conjugate field of the ferro-octupolar order parameter.
  • Entropy accumulation near the critical point produces a resolvable elastocaloric signal that grows with applied field, providing a bulk thermodynamic signature of altermagnetic order.
  • DFT calculations show that the coupling λ is highly sensitive to small carrier concentrations, so slight off-stoichiometry dominates the piezomagnetic response in insulating altermagnets.
  • The same elastocaloric protocol should be effective in metallic d-wave altermagnets where λ is expected to be orders of magnitude larger, allowing measurements of the AM susceptibility and access to quantum criticality.
  • Because spin-orbit coupling induces octupolar moments even in higher-order g-wave altermagnets, the approach should extend beyond d-wave materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A wider range of h would allow a precision test of the crossover exponent: distinguishing mean-field 2/3 from the 3D-Ising value ≈0.64 would quantify fluctuation effects in an altermagnet for the first time.
  • The predicted sign change of the altermagnetic elastocaloric contribution between compressive and tensile strain — which the paper could not test because MnF2 crystals break under tension — is a direct, testable consequence of the model.
  • If doping controls λ as strongly as DFT suggests, intentional off-stoichiometry could be used as a tuning knob for altermagnetic and piezomagnetic responses in practical devices.
  • More broadly, any material with a ferro-octupolar order parameter and a symmetry-allowed piezomagnetic coupling can be probed with this strain-plus-field protocol, which may extend beyond the altermagnet candidates discussed here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports elastocaloric effect (ECE) measurements on single-crystal MnF2 under uniaxial [110] stress and magnetic field along c. The authors observe that the characteristic magnetic-transition temperature T* shifts with strain and field in a way that collapses onto a cusp-shaped curve when plotted against the combined field h = μ_B ε_xy μ_0 H_z, consistent with the Landau prediction T* - T_c ∝ |h|^{1/(βδ)} for a conjugate field coupling to a B2g order parameter. A global fit with the mean-field exponent 1/(βδ) = 2/3 gives λ = 0.56(5). The authors further compare the ECE magnitude with mean-field simulations using the same free energy, and present DFT calculations of the piezomagnetic coefficient, including the effect of off-stoichiometric doping. The paper claims this establishes the first thermodynamic probe of the d-wave altermagnetic/ferro-octupolar order parameter.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, the experiment provides a new thermodynamic route to detect the hidden multipolar order parameter of d-wave altermagnets, complementing spectroscopic and transport probes. The H_110 symmetry control and the explicit comparison against a strain-dependent-a_2 alternative are valuable checks, and the ECE methodology is well matched to the predicted conjugate field. The DFT calculations add a microscopic estimate of λ, and the predictions for larger-λ materials (Fig. 4c) are falsifiable. However, the central identification is a symmetry-based assignment: the experiment directly demonstrates a thermodynamic response to a field of symmetry h = ε_xy H_z, not the physical nature of the condensing mode. The quantitative exponent 2/3 is assumed, not measured, and the DFT-based microscopic explanation relies on an unmeasured doping level chosen to match experiment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (4) / Fig. 1(c) / Abstract] The data demonstrate a conjugate-field response to h = μ_B ε_xy μ_0 H_z, but this does not uniquely identify the d-wave altermagnetic ferro-octupolar order parameter. The same T* - T_c ∝ |h|^{2/3} crossover law follows for any order parameter transforming as B2g with a bilinear coupling -λ h Ψ. In MnF2, the established piezomagnetic coupling (Refs. 43, 44) is a property of the same magnetic order that is conventionally described by the Néel vector; the paper does not exclude the possibility that the observed response is simply the conjugate-field response of that Néel order, which is the same magnetic order in altermagnetic language. The authors should either show explicitly that the conventional Néel order parameter cannot couple to h, or reframe the claim as a probe of the symmetry of the magnetic order parameter in a candidate altermagnet rather than a fingerprint that distinguishes o
  2. [Results / Eq. (5) / Fig. 1(c)] The exponent 1/(βδ) = 2/3 is fixed, not determined by the data. Since λ is a free fitting parameter, the same data also accept a 3D Ising exponent with λ = 0.35(5), as the authors note, and no free-exponent fit is reported. Therefore the data do not establish the mean-field exponent or the universality class; they establish the scaling form and the symmetry of h. The wording in the abstract and Fig. 1(c), 'follow the expectation ... mean-field exponent', overstates the result. Please report a fit with 1/(βδ) free (or at least a confidence interval for the exponent) and adjust the claims accordingly.
  3. [DFT / Fig. 4(a)] The microscopic explanation relies on an assumed ~0.001 holes/Mn from off-stoichiometry to bring the calculated λ into agreement with experiment. This assumption is not independently measured or constrained; it is chosen to match the target value. The DFT section should be presented as demonstrating that plausible doping can enhance λ, not as a quantitative microscopic explanation of the experimental value. In addition, the comparison in Fig. 3 uses λ extracted from the same T* dataset, so the agreement in η_xy magnitude is a consistency check within one model, not an independent validation of the AM coupling.
minor comments (5)
  1. [End Matter, Sec. D1] 'in the total five sample studied' should read 'in the total of five samples studied'.
  2. [End Matter, Sec. B] 'the appropiate Young's modulus' contains a typo: 'appropriate'.
  3. [SI, Sec. C4 / Fig. S3] The panels use differently scaled ordinates, which makes cross-panel quantitative comparison difficult. Please add explicit scale indicators or a common axis for at least one representative panel.
  4. [SI, Sec. D4] The independent a_1 value is -54(3) K, while the global fit gives -59(3) K. The text says these agree 'within error bars', but the difference is comparable to the combined uncertainty. Please clarify with a quoted combined uncertainty or discuss the discrepancy.
  5. [Main text, Fig. 2] The definition of T* as the point of steepest slope in η_xy should be stated more precisely, including the numerical procedure and how uncertainties in T* are propagated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the crossover scaling law is a standard Landau/Ising result derived in the paper and tested by a nontrivial data collapse; self-citation and λ reuse are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central predicted relation, T* − Tc ∝ |μB εxy μ0Hz|^{2/3} (Eq. 5), is derived in the paper from the Landau free energy Eq. (4) and, in full detail, in SI Sec. C1 from the pseudospin Hamiltonian (S1). It is not fit to the data beyond the amplitude λ: the experimental T* − Tc values collapse onto a single cusp-shaped curve when plotted against the conjugate field, and the functional form is a nontrivial check of the model. The conjugate field h = μB εxy μ0Hz (Eq. 2) is a symmetry input from prior literature, not defined in terms of the measured T* or ηxy; had the symmetry assignment been wrong, no collapse would be expected. The later use of the fitted λ in the ηxy simulations (Fig. 3) and the DFT estimate of ~0.001 holes/Mn are consistency/plausibility checks rather than independent predictions of the scaling exponent, so they do not make the derivation circular. The free-energy model is cited to same-group papers [22,26,40], but the SI re-derives the crossover and the octupolar assignment is anchored in external symmetry analyses, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. Limitations noted in the paper — tensile strains could not be measured and only representative error bars are shown — affect experimental robustness, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the experimental test has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No genuinely new entities are introduced; the octupolar order parameter and conjugate field are taken from prior literature. The main assumptions are the symmetry assignment, the Landau form, the fixed critical exponents, and the DFT interpretation. The doping concentration is a free parameter used to absorb the DFT-experiment discrepancy.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (AM coupling) = 0.56(5) mean-field; 0.35(5) 3D Ising; 0.48(3) with gamma
    Fitted to T* vs h data via Eq. (5); used to generate ECE simulations in Fig. 3.
  • a1 = -59(3) K global; -54(3) K from zero-field data
    Linear strain shift of Tc in Eq. (4); determined from elastocaloric transition shifts.
  • a2 = -0.01585(14) K/T^2 global; -0.01578(9) extrapolated
    Quadratic field shift of Tc; determined from field dependence of the transition.
  • gamma = 11(5) in main-data fit; 118(3) in no-lambda fit
    Strain-dependent a2 coefficient considered as an alternative explanation; not in the main model.
  • DFT hole doping concentration = ~0.001 holes per Mn (~1e19 cm^-3)
    Chosen post hoc so DFT lambda matches the experimentally fitted lambda; not measured or predicted before the fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Landau free-energy Eq. (4) with Φ^4 and bilinear coupling -λ h Φ, h=μ_B ε_xy μ0 H_z, describes the altermagnetic transition.
    Standard Landau theory for a scalar order parameter; its validity for octupolar order in MnF2 is assumed from prior symmetry analyses.
  • domain assumption MnF2 has B2g d_xy-wave altermagnetic order with emergent ferro-octupolar order.
    Imported from Refs 10 and 14; contested by Ref 28, which finds no altermagnetic magnon splitting; not directly verified here.
  • domain assumption Mean-field critical exponents (β=1/2, δ=3) apply to the crossover scaling.
    The fit fixes 1/(βδ)=2/3; a 3D-Ising exponent gives a different λ, and the paper does not determine the exponent from data.
  • domain assumption The elastocaloric anomaly at Tc reflects the entropy derivative of the AM order parameter, with phonon background approximately strain-independent.
    Needed to interpret η_xy features; phononic entropy is held constant in simulations (SI Sec. C3).
  • domain assumption DFT with LDA+U, PAW pseudopotentials, and Hubbard/Hund corrections captures the piezomagnetic response.
    Standard first-principles approximation; it underestimates λ unless doping is added, so it is not an independent confirmation.
  • ad hoc to paper The samples contain ~0.001 holes per Mn from off-stoichiometry.
    Not measured; introduced to reconcile DFT with the experimentally fitted lambda (Fig. 4a).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing multipolar order in the candidate altermagnet MnF$_2$ through the elastocaloric effect under strain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YGA2QSI2

@misc{pith2026260119343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing multipolar order in the candidate altermagnet MnF$_2$ through the elastocaloric effect under strain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YGA2QSI2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.19343}
}
abstract

Altermagnets break a combination of time-reversal and rotational symmetries without generating a net magnetization. As such, the order parameter of $d$-wave altermagnets has the same symmetry as magnetic multipoles, and couples to the product of a magnetic field and uniaxial strain. We combine elastocaloric experiments, free-energy modeling, and first-principles calculations on MnF$_2$ to establish a thermodynamic probe of the predicted finite-temperature altermagnetic critical point. These results pave the way to explore altermagnetic quantum criticality in $d$-wave materials and beyond.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.19343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Emergent ferro-octupolar order [10, 14] of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of (a) experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Magnitude of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Elastocaloric effect, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Elastocaloric effect, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Calculated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [110]

    The latter is denoted byε xy andν is the Poisson’s ratio

    direction,σ 110, leads to an induced strain that can be described by the superposition of a symmetric strain and an antisymmetric strain. The latter is denoted byε xy andν is the Poisson’s ratio. (b,c) ECE data,η xy, on MnF 2 as a function of the relative temperature,T−T c.T c is the transi- tion temperature including non-AM shifts in strain and field (se...

  2. [1]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  3. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  4. [3]

    Jungwirth, R

    T. Jungwirth, R. M. Fernandes, E. Fradkin, A. H. Mac- Donald, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal, Newton1(2025)

    2025

  5. [4]

    ˇSmejkal, R

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

    2020

  6. [5]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.88, 123702 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    R. M. Fernandes, V. S. de Carvalho, T. Birol, and R. G. Pereira, Phys. Rev. B109, 024404 (2024)

    2024

  8. [7]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, P. Wadley, D. Kriegner, H. Re- ichlova, F. Krizek, H. Ohno, and L. Smejkal,Altermag- netic spintronics, arXiv:2508.09748

    arXiv

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    W. F. Brinkman, R. J. Elliott, and R. E. Peierls, Proc. R. Soc. A294, 343 (1966)

    1966

  2. [9]

    Litvin and W

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

    1974

  3. [10]

    Bhowal and N

    S. Bhowal and N. A. Spaldin, Phys. Rev. X14, 011019 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

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

    2024

  5. [12]

    Schiff, P

    H. Schiff, P. McClarty, J. G. Rau, and J. Romh´ anyi, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 033301 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Jaeschke-Ubiergo, V.-K

    R. Jaeschke-Ubiergo, V.-K. Bharadwaj, W. Campos, R. Zarzuela, N. Biniskos, R. M. Fernandes, T. Jung- wirth, J. Sinova, and L. ˇSmejkal,Atomic Altermag- netism, arXiv:2503.10797

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    Buiarelli, R

    L. Buiarelli, R. M. Fernandes, and T. Birol, Phys. Rev. B112, 224442 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    Hayami, Y

    S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144441 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, R. M. Fernandes, Q. Liu, H. Watanabe, S. Murakami, S. Nakatsuji, and L.ˇSmejkal, Nature649, 837 (2026)

    2026

  10. [17]

    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, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 176701 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    Krempask´ y, L.ˇSmejkal, S

    J. Krempask´ y, L.ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Hajlaoui, 6 G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constanti- nou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, et al., Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Moriya, J

    T. Moriya, J. Phys. Chem. Solids11, 73 (1959)

    1959

  13. [20]

    Dzyaloshinskii, Zhur

    I. Dzyaloshinskii, Zhur. Eksptl’. i Teoret. Fiz.V ol: 33 (1957)

    1957

  14. [21]

    Tavger, Sov

    B. Tavger, Sov. Phys. Crystallogr.3, 341 (1958)

    1958

  15. [22]

    C. R. W. Steward, R. M. Fernandes, and J. Schmalian, Phys. Rev. B108, 144418 (2023)

    2023

  16. [23]

    Li, A.-D

    J.-Y. Li, A.-D. Fan, Y.-K. Wang, Y. Zhang, and S. Li, Appl. Phys. Lett.125(2024)

    2024

  17. [24]

    K. V. Yershov, V. P. Kravchuk, M. Daghofer, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B110, 144421 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Khodas, S

    M. Khodas, S. Mu, I. I. Mazin, and K. D. Belashchenko, Tuning of altermagnetism by strain, arXiv: 2506.06257

  19. [26]

    A. R. Chakraborty, J. Schmalian, and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. B112, 035146 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y. Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Phys. Rev. B110, 144412 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    V. C. Morano, Z. Maesen, S. E. Nikitin, J. Lass, D. G. Mazzone, and O. Zaharko,Absence of altermagnetic magnon band splitting in MnF 2, arXiv: 2412.03545

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    D. S. Antonenko, R. M. Fernandes, and J. W. F. Vender- bos, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 096703 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei, et al., Nat. Phys.21, 754 (2025)

    2025

  24. [31]

    A. S. Patri, A. Sakai, S. Lee, A. Paramekanti, S. Nakat- suji, and Y. B. Kim, Nat. Comm.10, 4092 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    C. W. Hicks, M. E. Barber, S. D. Edkins, D. O. Brod- sky, and A. P. Mackenzie, Rev. Sci. Instrum.85, 065003 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    M. S. Ikeda, T. Worasaran, J. C. Palmstrom, J. A. W. Straquadine, P. Walmsley, and I. R. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B98, 245133 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Y.-S. Li, M. Garst, J. Schmalian, S. Ghosh, N. Kikugawa, D. A. Sokolov, C. W. Hicks, F. Jerzembeck, M. S. Ikeda, Z. Hu, et al., Nature607, 276 (2022)

    2022

  28. [35]

    L. Ye, Y. Sun, V. Sunko, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, M. S. Ikeda, T. Worasaran, M. E. Sorensen, M. D. Bachmann, J. Orenstein, and I. R. Fisher, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.120, e2302800120 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    E. Gati, B. Schmidt, S. L. Bud’ko, A. P. Mackenzie, and P. C. Canfield, npj Quantum Mater.8, 69 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    L. Ye, M. E. Sorensen, M. D. Bachmann, and I. R. Fisher, Nat. Comm.15, 7005 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Z. Liu, Y. Shi, Q. Jiang, E. W. Rosenberg, J. M. DeSte- fano, J. Liu, C. Hu, Y. Zhao, Z. Wang, Y. Yao, et al., Phys. Rev. X14, 031015 (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    Lieberich, Y

    F. Lieberich, Y. Saito, Y. Agarmani, T. Sasaki, N. Yoneyama, S. M. Winter, M. Lang, and E. Gati,Strain as a tool to stabilize the isotropic triangular lattice in a geometrically frustrated organic quantum magnet, arXiv: 2506.23813

    arXiv

  33. [40]

    C. R. W. Steward, G. Palle, M. Garst, J. Schmalian, and I. Jang, Phys. Rev. B112, 064431 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    R. A. Erickson, Phys. Rev.90, 779 (1953)

    1953

  35. [42]

    Schweika, S

    W. Schweika, S. V. Maleyev, T. Br¨ uckel, V. P. Plakhty, and L.-P. Regnault, Europhys. Lett.60, 446 (2002)

    2002

  36. [43]

    A. S. Borovik-Romanov, Sov. Phys. JETP38, 1088 (1960)

    1960

  37. [44]

    Baruchel, A

    J. Baruchel, A. Draperi, M. El Kadiri, G. Fillion, M. Maeder, P. Molho, and J. Porteseil, J. Phys. (Paris) C8, 1895 (1988)

    1988

  38. [45]

    Costa and P

    M. Costa and P. Brown, Physica B: Cond. Matt.156- 157, 329 (1989)

    1989

  39. [46]

    Faure, D

    Q. Faure, D. Bounoua, V. Bal´ edent, A. Gukasov, V. O. Garlea, A. Ribeiro, J. G. Rau, S. Petit, and P. McClarty, Altermagnetism revealed by polarized neutrons in mnf 2, arXiv:2509.23117

  40. [47]

    Bartosch, M

    L. Bartosch, M. de Souza, and M. Lang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 245701 (2010)

    2010

  41. [48]

    Etxebarria, J

    J. Etxebarria, J. M. Perez-Mato, E. S. Tasci, and L. El- coro, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. A81, 317 (2025)

    2025

  42. [49]

    M. E. Barber, A. Steppke, A. P. Mackenzie, and C. W. Hicks, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 023904 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    X. H. Verbeek, D. Voderholzer, S. Sch¨ aren, Y. Gachnang, N. A. Spaldin, and S. Bhowal, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043157 (2024)

    2024

  44. [51]

    V. P. Andratskil and A. S. Borovik-Romanov, Sov. Phys. JETP24, 687 (1967)

    1967

  45. [52]

    Aoyama and K

    T. Aoyama and K. Ohgushi, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, L041402 (2024)

    2024

  46. [53]

    M. S. Ikeda, T. Worasaran, E. W. Rosenberg, J. C. Palm- strom, S. A. Kivelson, and I. R. Fisher, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.118, e2105911118 (2021)

    2021

  47. [54]

    I. I. Mazin, AAPPS Bulletin35, 18 (2025)

    2025

  48. [55]

    Y.-M. Wu, Y. Wang, and R. M. Fernandes, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 156001 (2025)

    2025

  49. [56]

    Shapira, S

    Y. Shapira, S. Foner, and A. Misetich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 98 (1969)

    1969

  50. [57]

    Komuro, T

    M. Komuro, T. Aoyama, and K. Ohgushi, Phys. Rev. B 111, 214445 (2025)

    2025

  51. [58]

    W. O. J. Boo and J. W. Stout, J. Chem. Phys.65(1976)

    1976

  52. [59]

    Ikeda, N

    H. Ikeda, N. Okamura, K. Kato, and A. Ikushima, J. Phys. C11(1978)

    1978

  53. [60]

    Torrent, F

    M. Torrent, F. Jollet, F. Bottin, G. Z´ erah, and X. Gonze, Comput. Mater. Sci.42, 337 (2008)

    2008

  54. [61]

    M. A. L. Marques, M. J. T. Oliveira, and T. Burnus, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 2272 (2012)

    2012

  55. [62]

    Gonze, F

    X. Gonze, F. Jollet, F. Abreu Araujo, D. Adams, B. Amadon, T. Applencourt, C. Audouze, J.-M. Beuken, J. Bieder, A. Bokhanchuk, et al., Comput. Phys. Com- mun.205, 106 (2016)

    2016

  56. [63]

    Gonze, B

    X. Gonze, B. Amadon, G. Antonius, F. Arnardi, L. Baguet, J.-M. Beuken, J. Bieder, F. Bottin, J. Bouchet, E. Bousquet, et al., Comput. Phys. Com- mun.248, 107042 (2020)

    2020

  57. [64]

    A. H. Romero, D. C. Allan, B. Amadon, G. Anto- nius, T. Applencourt, L. Baguet, J. Bieder, F. Bottin, J. Bouchet, E. Bousquet, et al., J. Chem. Phys.152, 124102 (2020)

    2020

  58. [65]

    Jollet, M

    F. Jollet, M. Torrent, and N. Holzwarth, Comput. Phys. Commun.185, 1246 (2014)

    2014

  59. [66]

    Amadon, F

    B. Amadon, F. Jollet, and M. Torrent, Phys. Rev. B77, 155104 (2008)

    2008

  60. [67]

    Verstraete and X

    M. Verstraete and X. Gonze, Phys. Rev. B65, 035111 (2001)

    2001

  61. [68]

    H. M. L. Noad, K. Ishida, Y.-S. Li, E. Gati, V. Stangier, N. Kikugawa, D. A. Sokolov, M. Nicklas, B. Kim, I. I. Mazin, et al., Science382, 447 (2023)

    2023

  62. [69]

    Jerzembeck, H

    F. Jerzembeck, H. S. Røising, A. Steppke, H. Rosner, D. A. Sokolov, N. Kikugawa, T. Scaffidi, S. H. Simon, A. P. Mackenzie, and C. W. Hicks, Nat. Comm.13, 4596 (2022)

    2022

  63. [70]

    R. L. Melcher, Phys. Rev. B2, 733 (1970)

    1970

  64. [71]

    M. S. Ikeda, J. A. W. Straquadine, A. T. Hristov, T. Worasaran, J. C. Palmstrom, M. Sorensen, P. Walm- sley, and I. R. Fisher, Rev. Sci. Instrum.90, 083902 7 (2019)

    2019

  65. [72]

    Stockert and N

    U. Stockert and N. Oeschler, Cryogenics51, 154 (2011)

    2011

  66. [73]

    J. A. W. Straquadine, M. S. Ikeda, and I. R. Fisher, Rev. Sci. Instrum.91, 083905 (2020)

    2020

  67. [74]

    Jerzembeck, Y.-S

    F. Jerzembeck, Y.-S. Li, G. Palle, Z. Hu, M. Biderang, N. Kikugawa, D. A. Sokolov, S. Ghosh, B. J. Ramshaw, T. Scaffidi, et al., Phys. Rev. B110, 064514 (2024)

    2024

  68. [75]

    Hart and R

    S. Hart and R. W. H. Stevenson, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 5, 160 (1972). 8 END MA TTER A. Elastocaloric data at different fields and strains In the following, we present all experimental data of the ECE in MnF 2 as a function ofTat differentε xy and µ0Hz, that we used to infer t...

    1972

  69. [77]

    The crossover temperature in mean-field and other universality classes In analogy to the case of an Ising ferromagnet in finite field, in which ferroically ordered dipoles couple bilinearly to a magnetic field, we can treat the ordered octupoles in an AM as ferroically interac...

  70. [78]

    Strain and field coupling beyond piezomagnetism The equation of state given in Eq. (S3) follows from the Landau free-energy expansion [22, 26, 40] f= kB 2 T−T (0) c Φ2 + u 4 Φ4 −λ ˆhΦ.(S12) 11 withu=k BT (0) c /3 andf=F/Nhas been normalized by he number of unit cellsN. In orde...

  71. [79]

    S1, we show the entropy,S, and the heat ca- pacity,C/T, at zero strain obtained from our model sim- ulations

    Further details on the simulations of the ECE In Fig. S1, we show the entropy,S, and the heat ca- pacity,C/T, at zero strain obtained from our model sim- ulations. The entropy was calculated using Eq. (4) of the main text with prefactors that were chosen such that the high-tem...

  72. [80]

    divergence

    Simulation results for tensile strains In the main text (cf. Fig. 3), we argued that the ECE magnitude in finite field and strain close toT (0) c is gov- erned by the near “divergence” of the Gr¨ uneisen pa- rameter, Γ xy, of the underlying ferro-octupolar critical point. Here...

  73. [81]

    The calculations employed JTH v1.1 pseudopoten- tials [65] within the Local Density Approximation (LDA)

    First-principles calculations We simulated MnF2 using Density Functional Theory (DFT) with Projector Augmented-Wave (PA W) spinor wavefunctions, as implemented inAbinit9.10.1 [60– 64]. The calculations employed JTH v1.1 pseudopoten- tials [65] within the Local Density Approxim...

  74. [82]

    Subsequently, the samples were first pol- ished by hand and then by Plasma Focused Ion Beam into a dumbbell shape (see e.g

    Methods To study the response of MnF 2 to uniaxial stress, sin- gle crystals of MnF 2 were oriented along the tetragonal [1 1 0] direction. Subsequently, the samples were first pol- ished by hand and then by Plasma Focused Ion Beam into a dumbbell shape (see e.g. Ref. [68]), i...

  75. [83]

    Experimen- tally, this frequency is determined from the maximum of the recorded thermocouple voltage as a function of fre- quency at fixed temperature and field [71]

    Quasi-adiabaticity and absolute values of the elastocaloric effect In order to measure the ECE under quasi-adiabatic conditions, the measurement frequency was chosen such that (i) it is high enough that as little heat as possi- ble dissipates into the bath and (ii) it is small...

  76. [84]

    Taking the averages of Ref

    Elastic properties of MnF 2 The elastic tensor of MnF 2 were measured at room temperature in several earlier works. Taking the averages of Ref. [75] and references therein, we obtain (in GPa) C=   101.9 79.7 70.9 0 0 0 79.7 101.9 70.9 0 0 0 70.9 70.9 165.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3...

  77. [85]

    (5) of the main text

    Detailed discussion of fit results forT ∗(ε, µ0Hz) Results of the global fit to the mean-field equation – In the following, we discuss details of the global fit of theT ∗(εxy, µ0Hz) data to Eq. (5) of the main text. The obtained fit parameters areλ= 0.56(5),T (0) c = 67.467(3)...

  78. [86]

    ϵxyµ0H110 Based on symmetry arguments, a bilinear coupling of Φ is only allowed withϵ xy strain andµ 0Hz, but not with, e

    Comparison of ECE results underϵ xyµ0Hz vs. ϵxyµ0H110 Based on symmetry arguments, a bilinear coupling of Φ is only allowed withϵ xy strain andµ 0Hz, but not with, e. g.,ϵ xy strain andµ 0H110. Correspondingly, in order to demonstrate the symmetry-selectivity of our ECE data, ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.