MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412604152 · doi:10.1103/q44z-ynbr

Collinear altermagnets and their Landau theories

2025· article· en· W4412604152 on OpenAlexafffund
Paul McClarty, Jeffrey G. Rau, Judit Romhányi

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties of Alloys
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of WindsorNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLandau quantizationLandau theoryPhysicsStatistical physicsTheoretical physicsPsychologyCondensed matter physicsQuantum mechanicsMagnetic fieldPhase transition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Altermagnets exhibit spontaneously spin-split electronic bands in the zero spin-orbit coupling (SOC) limit arising from the presence of collinear compensated magnetic order. The distinctive magnetocrystalline symmetries of altermagnets ensure that these spin splittings have a characteristic anisotropy in crystal momentum space. These systems have attracted a great deal of interest due to their potential for applications in spintronics. In this paper, we provide a general Landau theory that encompasses all three-dimensional altermagnets where the magnetic order does not enlarge the unit cell. We identify all crystal structures that admit altermagnetism and then reduce these to a relatively small set of distinct possible Landau theories governing such systems. In the zero SOC limit, we determine the possible local multipolar orders that are tied to the spin splitting of the band structure. We make precise the connection between altermagnetism as defined at zero SOC (“ideal” altermagnets) and the effects of weak SOC. In particular, we examine which response functions allowed by symmetry when SOC is present are guaranteed by the spin-orbit free theory and spell out the distinctive properties of altermagnets in comparison with conventional collinear antiferromagnets. Finally, we show how these ideas can be applied by considering a number of altermagnetic candidate materials.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ResearchSame topicMagnetic Properties of AlloysFrench-language works237,207