Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism

Libor Šmejkal,1, 2 Jairo Sinova,1, 2 and Tomas Jungwirth2, 3

1
Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
2
Institute of Physics, Czech Academy of Sciences,
Cukrovarnická 10, 162 00 Praha 6 Czech Republic
3
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
(Dated: April 25, 2022)
Magnetism is one of the largest, most fundamental, and technologically most relevant fields of
condensed-matter physics. Traditionally, two basic magnetic phases have been considered – ferro-
arXiv:2204.10844v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 22 Apr 2022

magnetism and antiferromagnetism. The breaking of the time-reversal symmetry and spin splitting
of the electronic states by the magnetization in ferromagnets underpins a range of macroscopic
responses in this extensively explored and exploited type of magnets. By comparison, antiferromag-
nets have vanishing net magnetization. This Perspective reflects on recent observations of mate-
rials hosting an intriguing ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic dichotomy, in which spin-split spectra
and macroscopic observables, akin to ferromagnets, are accompanied by antiparallel magnetic or-
der with vanishing magnetization, typical of antiferromagnets. An unconventional non-relativistic
symmetry-group formalism offers a resolution of this apparent contradiction by delimiting a third
basic magnetic phase, dubbed altermagnetism. Our Perspective starts with an overview of the
still emerging unique phenomenology of the phase, and of the wide array of altermagnetic mate-
rial candidates. In the main part of the article, we illustrate how altermagnetism can enrich our
understanding of overarching condensed-matter physics concepts, and have impact on prominent
condensed-matter research areas.

CONTENTS Ferromagnets, known for several millennia, are charac-

terized by a strong macroscopic magnetization. They
I. Introduction 1 generate a range of macroscopic phenomena originating
from the spin-split electronic band structure with broken
II. Altermagnetic phase 3 time-reversal (T ) symmetry, induced by the net mag-
A. Ab initio band-structures 3 netization. Antiferromagnets, on the other hand, were
discovered only a century ago, due to their vanishing net
B. Symmetry classification and description 4
magnetization that makes them behave in many aspects
C. Identification rules 6
as non-magnetic materials. In a traditional picture of
D. Material candidates 7 antiferromagnetism, a compensating antiparallel order-
ing of atomic magnetic moments, i.e. the effective can-
III. Physical concepts 9 cellation of atomic moments leading to the vanishingly
A. Kramers theorem 9 small macroscopic net magnetization, has been thought
B. Fermi-liquid instabilities 10 to generate no spin splitting of electronic states, and to
C. Electron and magnon quasiparticles 12 be invisible to the macroscopic electrical or optical probes
D. Berry phase and non-dissipative transport 14 commonly used in ferromagnets.
Recently, diverse condensed matter research communi-
IV. Research areas 15 ties have been intrigued by theoretical predictions of T -
A. Spintronics 15 symmetry breaking macroscopic phenomena [2–16] and
B. Ultra-fast optics and neuromorphics 17 spin-split band structures [2–9, 13–25], that are typical
C. Thermoelectrics, field-effect electronics and of ferromagnets, in materials with compensated antipar-
multiferroics 19 allel magnetic ordering, that is characteristic of antiferro-
D. Superconductivity 20 magnets. The apparent ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic
dichotomy in these materials challenges the traditional
V. Conclusion 20 division of materials by the two basic magnetic phases.
Acknowledgement 20 A recent development [16] exploiting an unconventional
non-relativistic symmetry-group formalism [26–28] can
References 21 resolve this contradiction by delimiting, apart from the
traditional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism, a
third distinct and comparably abundant phase. This
third phase, dubbed altermagnetism, is characterized by
I. INTRODUCTION
a compensated magnetic order with opposite-spin sublat-
tices connected by crystal-rotation symmetries, and by
Magnetic solids are traditionally divided into two ele- band structures with broken T -symmetry and alternat-
mentary phases – ferromagnets and antiferromagnets [1]. ing sign of the spin splitting in the momentum space. The
distinction of the three phases is highlighted in Fig. 1.
 2

Altermagnet

(c)
M =0

Energy
0

C2,4,6 Y Γ X

Ferromagnet Antiferromagnet

(a) M ̸= 0 (b) M =0

Energy
P 0
Energy

0
t

Y Γ X
Y Γ X

FIG. 1. Illustrative model distinction between conventional collinear ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic phases, and the
emerging altermagnetic phase, highlighted in the crystal-structure real space and electronic-structure momentum space. (a)
Ferromagnetic model with one spin sublattice and corresponding magnetization (left panel), momentum-independent spin
splitting (right panel) and isotropic spin-split Fermi surfaces (inset of right panel). (b) Antiferromagnetic model with opposite-
spin sublattices connected by translation (t) or inversion (P) transformations, and corresponding zero net magnetization and
spin-degenerate bands. (c) Altermagnetic model with opposite-spin sublattices connected by rotation (C) transformation, and
corresponding zero net magnetization, anisotropic sublattice spin densities, spin splitting with alternating sign, and anisotropic
spin-split Fermi surfaces.

As we will discuss in this Perspective, altermagnetism Fermi-liquid instabilities, electron and magnon quasipar-
emerges on the basic level of the crystal-potential the- ticles, and Berry phase and non-dissipative transport.
ory and effective single-particle non-relativistic descrip- Sec. IV then outlines foreseen potential of altermagnets
tion of band structures of collinear magnets. It is, there- in selected active research areas, including spintronics,
fore, a robust elementary magnetic phase. The theoreti- ultra-fast optics, neuromorphics, thermoelectrics, field-
cal prediction of altermagnetism thus complements in a effect electronics, multiferroics, and high-temperature su-
unique fundamental way modern studies of spin quantum perconductivity.
phases associated with more complex, and often more While our focus in the following sections is on the
subtle, topological phenomena, many-body correlations, emerging field of altermagnetism from the theory per-
relativistic physics, or frustrated magnetic interactions spective, we point out here that first measurements have
[29–38]. already indicated that altermagnetism can soon become
Altermagnetism is expected to be abundant in na- an active experimental field. Shortly after the theory
ture and to occur in both three-dimensional and two- predictions of the possible coexistence of the compen-
dimensional crystals, in diverse structural or chemistry sated antiparallel magnetic order and the T -symmetry
types, and in conduction types covering the whole spec- breaking macroscopic phenomena, a supporting evidence
trum from insulators to superconductors. In Sec. II, we has been brought up by initial experiments [5, 10–12],
give an overview of the predicted characteristic features, as highlighted in Tab. I. Apart from the fundamental
symmetries and material landscape of the altermagnetic physics interests, we expect that intense experimental
phase. research will be also driven by the potential impact of
The properties connected to the spin-split T -symmetry altermagnetism on technology. Altermagnetism can oc-
broken band structures of altermagnets open up a poten- cur in crystals with common light elements, high mag-
tial for previously unforeseeable developments in a broad netic ordering temperatures and strong spin-coherence,
condensed-matter physics field. In Sec. III, we highlight that are among the key prerequisites for practical device
the distinct properties of altermagnets in the context applications.
of overarching physical concepts of Kramers theorem,
 3

Macroscopic response Theory in RuO2 Experiment in RuO2 Theory in other materials

Anomalous Hall effect 2019 [3] 2020 [5] SrRuO3 [39], Mn5 Si3 [6], κ-Cl [40], (Cr,Fe)Sb2 [7]

Spin current and torque 2020 [8, 16] 2021 [10–12] κ-Cl [4], CaCrO3 [41]

TABLE I. Theoretical predictions, supported by experiments, of T -symmetry breaking macroscopic phenomena in RuO2 , and
a list of other altermagnetic materials in which these macroscopic responses were also theoretically predicted. The anomalous
Hall effect is a T -odd off-diagonal component of the electrical conductivity tensor [2]. The T -odd spin current can be generated
along or transverse to an applied electrical bias; an out-of-plane spin current generated by an in-plane electrical bias in an
altermagnetic layer can exert a torque on magnetic moments in an adjacent layer in a multilayer stack [8].

(a) (c) RuO2 (d)

Y

XB z y 1

XA x M
S

FeF2 MnF2
S’ Y S
(b) (e) (f)

ky X
Γ

kx

FIG. 2. (a) Schematics of the rutile XY2 crystal structure with antiparallel magnetic moments on XA and XB magnetic
sublattices. (b) Brillouin zone of the rutile crystal and ab initio non-relativistic calculation of a wave-vector kz = 0 cut of the
anisotropic spin-split Fermi surface of metallic RuO2 . (c) Ab initio altermagnetic spin splitting of bands in RuO2 , calculated
without (red and blue) and with (black) relativistic spin-orbit coupling. (d) Ab initio altermagnetic spin-split Fermi surface for
selected kz values in RuO2 with correlations accounted for within the dynamical mean-field theory. (d,e) Ab initio altermagnetic
spin-split bands of insulating FeF2 and MnF2 , respectively. Adapted from Refs. [3, 18, 20, 42].

II. ALTERMAGNETIC PHASE The notion was based on focusing on the lattice of mag-
netic atoms alone, while omitting the essential role of
non-magnetic atoms on magnetism in the rutile crystals.
A. Ab initio band-structures
This may be one of the reasons why the spin splitting
and T -symmetry breaking of their non-relativistic band
In Fig. 2 we show representative non-relativistic band structures (Figs. 2b-f) remained unnoticed for nearly a
structures of metallic RuO2 [3, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18] and century.
insulating FeF2 [42] and MnF2 [20, 43], on which we il- Remarkably, the room-temperature antiparallel mag-
lustrate key characteristics of the spin-split T -symmetry netic ordering in metallic rutile RuO2 was discovered
broken band structures of altermagnets. These altermag- [46, 47] and investigated [48, 49] only recently. The sub-
netic material examples belong to the family of crystals sequent theoretical and experimental exploration of the
with the rutile structure (Fig. 2a). For several insulat- T -symmetry breaking macroscopic responses [3, 5, 8, 10–
ing members of the rutile family, the compensated an- 14, 16, 18, 19] has made RuO2 one of the workhorse ma-
tiparallel arrangement of magnetic moments (Fig. 2a) terials of the emerging research of altermagnetism.
was well known already to Néel and his contemporaries Figures 2b-f show that the altermagnetic spin splitting
who, ironically, introduced them into the literature as is strongly momentum-dependent in all three rutiles. In
a classic representation of antiferromagnetism [44, 45]. RuO2 , it reaches in parts of the Brillouin zone a ∼1 eV
 4

scale, which is comparable to the spin-splitting magni- spin-group formalism for the general symmetry classifi-
tudes in ferromagnets. Unlike ferromagnets, however, the cation and description of the altermagnetic phase.
altermagnetic spin splitting in the non-relativistic bands The relativistic magnetic groups [51–56] consider
is accompanied by a zero net magnetization. transformations in coupled real physical space and the
Figure 2 also illustrates that spin splittings in alter- space of magnetic moment vectors. They have repre-
magnets can exceed by an order of magnitude the record sented a primary symmetry tool for describing magnetic
relativistic spin splittings in bulk crystals with heavy el- structures in materials’ databases [55, 56], and have been
ements [50]. Moreover, unlike the momentum-dependent broadly applied in the research of equilibrium and non-
spin textures in the relativistic bands, spin is a good equilibrium magnetic phenomena, including their mod-
quantum number and the electronic states share a com- ern topological variants [57–62].
[C2 ||C4z ]
mon momentum-independent spin quantization axis in
the non-relativistic bands of altermagnets. Non-relativistic spin symmetry Relativistic magnetic symmetry
The spin-split parts of the altermagnetic band struc-
ture are complemented by spin degeneracies along certain (a) Top view (b)
lines or surfaces in the Brillouin zone. In Sec. II.B we will
show that non-relativistic symmetries of the altermag-
netic spin group corresponding to the given crystal allow T Mz
for the spin splittings and protect the spin degeneracies y
in high symmetry planes and lines [16].
Fermi surface cuts shown in Fig. 2b,d highlight the [C2 ||C4z t] T Mxȳ Mxy
typical anisotropic nature of the spin-split Fermi sur- x X
faces, with an equal number of states in the opposite spin
channels, and with the spin-momentum locking which is
even under the inversion of the momentum and breaks RuA (mmm) RuB (mmm) (c)
T -symmetry.
Ab initio calculations in RuO2 shown in Fig. 2c,d also M[110]

demonstrate that the altermangetic spin splitting is only T Mz

weakly affected by the relativistic spin-orbit coupling, z
and that the prominent features of the altermagnetic
spin-momentum locking are preserved when including a2 , y T Mxȳ Mxy
[E||Mi ]
correlation effects beyond the local-spin-density approx- [C2 ||C4z t] X
a1 , x
imation of the density-functional theory [3, 18, 20]. A
stable itinerant altermagnetism is further confirmed in
calculations without Hubbard correlations in other ma- FIG. 3. (a) Schematic top view and 3D view of the RuO2
terials, such as Mn5 Si3 [6] or KRu4 O8 [16]. A sizable crystal with opposite spin directions on RuA and RuB sublat-
altermangetic spin splitting survives also in the presence tices depicted by red and blue color, oxygen atoms shown in
of a strong alloying disorder, as shown in altermagnetic black, and with the depicted non-relativistic spin group sym-
Cr0.15 Fe0.85 Sb2 [7]. All this can be understood by the metries in the notation of Ref. [16] (see text). Curved red
fact that the altermagnetic symmetries, discussed in the arrow and its label highlights the generator of opposite-spin
following section, can in principle hold equally well for sublattice transformations, and the generators of the halv-
the effective single-particle Kohn-Sham potential, as well ing subgroup of same-spin sublattice transformations are also
highlighted (in black). (b,c) Schematic spin arrangement on
as for the Dyson-equation description of correlated or
the RuO2 crystal with antiparallel (b) and parallel (c) spin
disordered systems. It highlights that the altermagnetic directions and the crystallographic spin-axis orientation de-
phase is robust in a broad range of materials, can be picted by red and blue arrows, and with the depicted relativis-
described within the effective single-particle Kohn-Sham tic magnetic symmetry group generators. The crossed arrow
theory, and that the non-relativistic crystal potential can highlights that the magnetic group contains no opposite spin-
play a dominant role in both uncorrelated and correlated sublattice transformation elements. (c) The spin-polarized
altermagnets. relativistic Fermi surface highlighting the presence of the ap-
proximate spin symmetry [C2 ||C4z ], omitted by the magnetic
group. (d) Relativistic momentum-resolved Berry curvature
hotspots originating from the avoided crossings along the
B. Symmetry classification and description
kx,y = 0 lines, whose position in the momentum space is
determined by the spin symmetries in the absence of the rel-
We now move from the microscopic ab initio theory to ativistic spin-orbit coupling. (e) Fermi surface resolved Berry
a discussion of altermagnetism from the symmetry per- curvature of FeSb2 altermagnet illustrates pronounced contri-
spective. We start with an example comparing the de- butions to Berry curvature from the quasi-nodal surface cross
scription of RuO2 by relativistic magnetic-group symme- kx = 0, ky = 0. Adapted from Ref. [16].
tries and by non-relativistic spin-group symmetries [16].
This will illustrate why we choose the non-relativistic The non-relativistic spin group formalism [26–28] is a
 5

generalization of the relativistic magnetic groups because [16, 19, 21, 66].
it allows for different transformations to act simultane- Figure 4a shows that the prominent [C2 k C4z ] sym-
ously in the decoupled spin and real space. The spin metry of the non-relativistic spin point group of RuO2 is
groups have been employed only sporadically in magnetic an apparent dominant features of the Fermi surfaces even
literature [16, 24, 25, 63–65]. when the relativistic spin-orbit coupling is included in the
The non-relativistic spin point group of RuO2 is a di- band-structure calculation. In contrast, the prominent
rect product, r × RRuO
s
2
, of a spin-only group r = [C∞ k four-fold symmetry is absent in the relativistic magnetic
E] + [C̄2 C∞ k T ] and of a non-trivial spin point group group. This illustrates that the non-relativistic spin-
RRuO
s
2
= [E k H] + [C2 k C4z ] [E k H] = 24/ 1m 2m 1m groups represent an example of approximate, or so called
[16]. In the spin-only group, C∞ is a group of arbitrary ”hidden” symmetries. They allow for a systematic sym-
rotations of the spin space around the common axis of metry classification and description of magnetic phases
spins of the collinear magnet, E is real-space identity, arising from the typically dominant non-relativistic crys-
and C̄2 is a 180◦ spin-space rotation transformation (C2 ) tal potentials [16, 26, 63, 64].
around an axis perpendicular to the spins combined with The spin-group formalism catagorizes all non-
the spin-space inversion (i.e. time-reversal) [27, 28]. relativistic collinear magnetic structures into three dis-
H = mmm is a halving subgroup of real-space trans- tinct phases [16]: (i) Ferromagnets (ferrimagnets) with
formations of the non-magnetic crystallographic group one spin lattice (or opposite-spin sublattices not con-
4/mmm of RuO2 [16]. The subgroup [E k H], where E is nected by any symmetry transformation), (ii) spin-
spin-space identity, contains symmetry transformations degenerate antiferromagnets with opposite-spin sublat-
which interchange atoms belonging only to one of the tices connected by translation (spin-group symmetry
two spin sublattices. Its generators, [E k Ē], [E k Mxy ], [C2 k t]) or inversion (spin-group symmetry [C2 k Ē]),
and [E k Mz ], are shown in Fig. 3a. Here Ē is the spin- and (iii) altermagnets with opposite-spin sublattices con-
group notation [16, 27, 28] for real-space inversion (P), nected by rotation transformations, but not connected by
and Mxy and Mz are real-space mirror transformations. translation or inversion.
[C2 k C4z ], where C4z is a four-fold real-space rota-
tion, is a generator of symmetry transformations which (a) ky (c) FeSb2
interchange atoms between opposite-spin sublattices, as
also shown in Fig. 3a. The presence of symmetry trans-
formations connecting the opposite-spin sublattices pro-
tects the zero net magnetization of the non-relativistic
magnetic structure of RuO2 . They also determine the Γ
separation of opposite-spin equal-energy electronic states kx
in the momentum space, i.e., the symmetry-protected
spin-degenerate parts of the Brillouin zone, and the parts
where spin splitting is allowed by symmetry. [C2 ||C4z ]
The relativistic magnetic point group of RuO2 is RuO2
m0 m0 m for the spin-axis direction shown in Fig. 3b. ky
Its generators are space-inversion, mirror Mz combined (b) (d)
with T -transformation, and mirror Mxy . The same
magnetic group describes a fully compensated antipar-
allel magnetic order (Fig. 3b), a parallel magnetic or-
der with a strong non-relativistic ferromagnetic moment
(Fig. 3c), as well as an antiparallel magnetic order with Γ kx
a weak uncompensated relativistic magnetization [16].
This example illustrates that the relativistic magnetic
groups do not generally separate between relativistic and
non-relativistic, compensated and non-compensated, or
collinear and non-collinear magnetic phases. Magnetic
FIG. 4. (a) Spin-polarized relativistic Fermi surface high-
space groups of type II, describing T -invariant crystals lighting the presence of the approximate spin symmetry
without a magnetic order, are an exception for which a [C2 ||C4z ], omitted by the magnetic group. (b) Relativis-
transition to a non-relativistic physics description in de- tic momentum-resolved Berry curvature hotspots originating
coupled spin and real space can be generally performed from the avoided crossings along the kx,y = 0 lines, whose
by making a direct product with the spin-only group position in the momentum space is determined by the spin
SU (2) of arbitrary spin-space rotations [27, 66]. For symmetries in the absence of the relativistic spin-orbit cou-
the remaining magnetic space groups of type I, III, and pling. (c) Fermi surface resolved Berry curvature of FeSb2 al-
IV, generally encompassing crystals with collinear and termagnet illustrates pronounced contributions to Berry cur-
non-collinear magnetic order [20, 22], a transition to vature from the quasi-nodal surface cross kx = 0, ky = 0. (d)
the non-relativistic physics description is not available Brilouin zone notation. Adapted from Ref. [5, 7, 16].
 6

The altermagnetic spin groups have a general form of split, but equally populated spin-up and spin-down en-
the direct product, r × Rs . Here the spin-only group, ergy iso-surfaces in the non-relativistic band structure
that breaks T -symmetry. This makes altermagnetism
r = [C∞ k E] + [C̄2 C∞ k T ], (1) distinct from the ferromagnetic phase with a non-zero
net magnetization, the spin-degenerate antiferromag-
is common to all three non-relativistic collinear phases, netic phase, or non-magnetic relativistic systems with
while the non-trivial spin groups given by, T -invariant bands. In Tab. II we summarize the proper-
ties derived from the spin group symmetries, which will
Rs = [E k H] + [C2 k A] [E k H], (2) guide our discussion in the following sections. The first
two lines regard symmetries of the spin-only group which
correspond exclusively to altermagnets. Here A is the
apply to all three non-relativistic collinear phases. The
real-space rotation transformation (proper or improper,
remaining lines in Tab. II apply only to altermagnets.
symmorphic or non-symmorphic). Altermagnets have

Altermagnetic spin-group symmetries Magnetic crystal structure Non-relativistic band structure

 
C̄2 kT Co-planar Inversion symmetry

[C∞ k E] Collinear Spin good quantum number & k-independent

 
C̄2 kT × [C2 k A] [E k H] Compensated Spin splitting & broken T -symmetry

H Sublattice spin-density anisotropy Spin-Fermi-surface anisotropy

Lk ∩ AH 6= ∅ Spin-degenerate nodal lines or surfaces

Lk ∩ AH = ∅ Spin splitting at crystal-momentum k

LM ∩ AH = ∅ Spin splitting at TRIM M

Orbitally-degenerate Γ-point Electric spin-splitting mechanism

TABLE II. Spin-group symmetries and corresponding magnetic crystal structure and non-relativistic band structure character-
istics. The first two lines regard symmetries of the spin-only group that apply to all three non-relativistic collinear phases. The
remaining lines apply only to altermagnets. Symbol Lk marks the little group of real-space symmetry transformations which
map crystal-momentum k on itself or on a momentum which differs from k by a reciprocal lattice vector. M is a time-reversal
invariant momentum (TRIM). Adapted from Ref. [16]

We conclude this section by summarizing the basic ele- is mmm, and the crystallographic point-group rotation
ments of the algorithm for determining the alternagnetic transformation connecting the opposite-spin sublattices
spin group (Eq. (2)). It can be constructed by identify- is C4z (cf. Fig. 3a).
ing:
1. crystallographic group of the material,
C. Identification rules
2. crystallographic group of the spin-sublattice (in
the case of bipartite lattice the spin sublattice Elementary rules for identifying the altermagnetic
point group corresponds directly to Wyckoff posi- phase of a crystal can be summarized as follows:
tion point group),
1. there is an even number of magnetic atoms in the
3. crystallographic rotation transformation connect-
unit cell and the number of atoms in the unit cell
ing the opposite-spin sublattices.
does not change between the non-magnetic and
Taking RuO2 as an example, the crystallographic point magnetic phases of the crystal (cf. two Ru atoms
group is 4/mmm, the sublattice (Wyckoff) point group in RuO2 unit cell, shown in Fig. 3a),
 7

2. there is no inversion center between the sites occu- combined with translation or inversion transforma-
pied by the magnetic atoms from the opposite-spin tion (cf. the opposite-spin sublattices in RuO2 con-
sublattices (cf. the absence of the inversion center nected by C4z t transformation, shown in Fig. 3a),
between the RuA and RuB sites in RuO2 because
of the oxygen atoms, shown in Fig. 3a), 4. the spin group is determined by the algorithm de-
scribed in Sec. II.B (cf. the RuO2 spin group given
3. the two opposite-spin sublattices are connected by by Eq. (2) with A = C4z and H = mmm).
crystallographic rotation transformation, possibly

Insulator La2CuO4

Semiconductor MnTe V2Se2O

Semimetal VNb3S6 Cr2O

Metal FeSb2

3D Layered Quasi-2D

FIG. 5. Crystal structrures of selected altermagnetic candidates organized by dimensionality and conduction type. Adapted
from Ref. [7, 15, 16, 67].

D. Material candidates • perovskite oxide insulators LaMnO3 [22, 68],

CaCrO3 [9] and parent cuprate of high-Tc super-
The rules from Sec. II.C can be used for high- conductor La2 CuO4 [16],
throughput scanning of altermagnetic material candi- • ferrite insulator Fe2 O3 [16],
dates. This section gives an overview of the predicted
range of material types, illustrated on specific examples. • pnictide with metal-insulator transition FeSb2 [7,
Symmetry prohibits a realization of altermagnetism 16] and metal CrSb [16],
in one-dimensional (1D) chains, because of the absence
• chalcogenide semiconductor MnTe [16] and
of rotation transformations in 1D. On the other hand,
(semi)metal VNb3 S6 [16], CoNb3 S6 [3],
Figs. 5-7, and the list of material candidates given be-
low illustrate that altermagnetism can occur in two- • silicide metal Mn5 Si3 [6],
dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) crystals,
the conduction types can cover the whole spectrum from • organic insulator κ-Cl [4].
insulators, semiconductors and semimetals, to metals and
superconductors, and the structure and chemistry types Crystallographic and spin groups, and other characteris-
can be also diverse: tics of the selected altermagnetic material candidates are
summarized in Tab. III.
A list of crystallographic symmetry groups that in
• quasi-2D oxide insulator V2 Se2 O [15] or semimetal principle allow for hosting the altermagnetic phase is
Cr2 O [67], given in Ref. [16]. We also point out that altermagnetism
can occur in structures with inversion symmetry (e.g. ru-
• 3D rutile fluoride or oxide insulators FeF2 [42], tiles), or without inversion symmetry (e.g. VNb3 S6 or
MnF2 [20, 43], MnO2 [17] and metal RuO2 [3, 18], CoNb3 S6 ).
 8

(a) FeSb2 (b) κ-Cl

0 (c) Mn5Si3 (d) V2Se2O

0
Energy (eV)
Energy (eV)

-0.2

-0.2

Γ M1 K -M2 Γ A L1 H -L2 A

Γ0 M1 K -M2 Γ A L1 H -L2 A
FIG. 6. (a-d) Ab initio spin-split band structures of depicted altermagnetic candidate materials. Adapted from Ref. [6, 7, 15, 69]
0
Energy (eV)
Energy (eV)

-0.2

-0.2 SOI

-M1 L1 M1 -M2 LSOI

2 M2

-M1 L1 M1 -M2 L2 M2
0.5

0.5

0
Energy (eV)

0
Energy (eV)

-0.5

-0.5

-1
-200 0 200
-1
FIG. 7. Altermagnetic candidates identified from ab initio calculations, organizeed in a Néel temperature vs. altermagnetic
spin-splitting strength diagram. Adapted from Ref. [16] and references therein.-200Hall conductivity
0 (S/cm)
200
Hall conductivity (S/cm)
 9

Space group Spin point group Conduction TN (K) Splitting(meV) Anisotropy Refs.
RuO2 P 42 /mnm 24 /1m 1m 1m M 400 1400 dxy ,P-2 [3, 18]
KRu4 O8 I4/m 24 /1m M 300 dx2 −y2 , P-2 [16]
Mn5 Si3 P 63 /mcm 2m 2m 1m M ∼200 150 dx2 −y2 , P-2 [6]
(Cr,Fe)Sb2 P nma 2m 2m 1m M <200 dxy ,P-2 [7]
CaCrO3 P nma M 90 <200 d-wave,P-2 [9]
CrSb P 63 /mmc 26 /2m 2m 1m M 705 1200 g-wave,B-4 [16]
MnTe P 63 /mmc 26 /2m 2m 1m I 310 1100 g-wave,B-4 [16]
La2 CuO4 Bmab 2m 2m 1m I <317 10 dxy ,P-2 [16]
MnO2 P 42 /mnm 24 /1m 1m 1m I <900 dxy ,P-2 [17]
LaMnO3 P nma I 139,5 20 P-2 [22, 68]
κ-Cl P nma I 23 <50 dxy ,P-2 [4]
MnF2 P 42 /mnm 24 /1m 1m 1m I 67 297 dxy ,P-2 [20, 43]
V2 Se2 O I - >1000 dx2 −y2 ,P-2 [15]
CuF2 P 21 /c 22 /2m I 69 350 B-2 [16]

TABLE III. Altermagnetic candidates identified from ab initio calculations. We list the non-magnetic space group, spin point
group, conduction type, transition temperature, and altermagnetic spin-splitting magnitude and anisotropy type. ”P/B–#”
refers to the planar/bulk spin winding number, which around the Γ-point can take a value of 2, 4, or 6 (see Sec. III).

III. PHYSICAL CONCEPTS splitting has been commonly considered to be excluded

in crystals with a compensating antiparallel arrangement
To illustrate the potential and stimulate future re- of magnetic moments [1, 80–84]. Indeed, there are two
search of altermagnetism in a broad condensed-matter types of Kramers spin-degenerate antiferromagnets.
physics field, we now discuss foreseen unique features of The first type has a symmetry combining T with
the altermagnetic phase in the context of several overar- translation t in the antiferromagnetic crystal. The
ching physical concepts. T t-symmetry defines type-IV magnetic space groups.
Among those, only the antiferromagnetic crystals with
space-inversion symmetry have the Kramers spin-
A. Kramers theorem degenerate bands. As a result, the bands have T -
symmetry, (s, k) = (−s, −k), and inversion symme-
Energy bands are Kramers spin degenerate [70, 71] try, (s, k) = (s, −k), apart from being spin degener-
across the whole Brillouin zone in all crystals that are ate, (s, k) = (−s, k). Examples are FeRh or MnBi2 Te4
invariant under the symmetry transformation that com- [85, 86]. In the non-relativistic limit and for collinear
bines T and space-inversion. Lifted Kramers spin- antiferromagnetic order (cf. Sec. II.B), the Kramers
degeneracy by breaking this crystal symmetry brings spin degeneracy is protected by the spin-group symme-
forth a plethora of physically intriguing and techno- try [C2 k t] alone, i.e., independent of whether the an-
logically relevant phenomena, ranging from topological tiferromagnetic crystal is or is not inversion symmet-
phases of matter [36, 37, 57, 59, 60, 72–74] and dissipa- ric. We note that the non-relativistic collinear symme-
tionless Hall transport [2, 32, 37], to charge-spin conver- try [C2 k t] does not imply that all materials described
sion effects in spintronic memory devices [35, 75–77]. by type-IV magnetic space groups have necessarily van-
For the many decades of spin-physics research, lift- ishing spin splitting in the non-relativistic limit. This
ing of the Kramers spin degeneracy in energy bands has is because type-IV magnetic space groups encompass
been considered to originate from two basic mechanisms. also non-collinear magnets. However, all materials from
The first one links the broken space-inversion symmetry type-IV magnetic space groups have T -symmetric bands,
to the spin space by the electron’s relativistic spin-orbit whether or not relativistic effects are included.
coupling [78, 79]. It results in inversion-asymmetric spin- The second type of antiferromagnetic crystals with
split energy bands, and non-collinear spin textures (e.g. Kramers spin-degenerate bands break space-inversion
Rashba) in the momentum space, illustrated in Fig. 8a. and T (or T t) symmetries on their own, but have a sym-
The second mechanism is associated with T -symmetry metry combining the two transformations. In this case,
breaking by external magnetic field or by internal mag- the Kramers spin-degenerate bands have broken inver-
netization of ferromagnets (ferrimagnets) [51]. Micro- sion symmetry and broken T -symmetry. Here CuMnAs
scopically, the latter tends to be dominated by a non- or Mn2 Au are among the prominent material examples
relativistic magnetic-exchange interaction, and is com- [87–91]. The Kramers spin-degeneracy of non-relativistic
monly modelled by a momentum-independent effective bands in these collinear antiferromagnets is protected by
Zeeman term, as illustrated in Fig. 1a. spin symmetry [C2 k Ē], in combination with the spin-
All magnetically ordered crystals have broken T - only group symmetry C̄2 kT (cf. 1st line in Tab. II). In
symmetry. While this directly leads to the effective Zee- addition, the [C2 k Ē]-symmetry protects
  T -symmetry
man spin splitting of energy bands in ferromagnets, spin of the non-relativistic bands, and C̄2 kT protects in-
 10

version symmetry of bands in the non-relativistic limit. Lifting of the Kramers spin degeneracy by the al-
Breaking of inversion symmetry and T -symmetry in the termagnetic phase, illustrated in Figs. 8c,d, is distinct
band structure of this type of collinear antiferromagnets from the conventional mechanisms. Unlike the relativis-
is, therefore, purely of relativistic origin. tic spin-orbit coupling mechanism, it does not require
breaking of the space-inversion symmetry. In fact, the
non-relativistic band structure of altermagnets has the
(a) Relativistic (c) Altermagnetic
inversion symmetry protected by the spin-group symme-
E
E try corresponding to the co-planarity of the magnetic or-
der, as shown on the 1st line in Tab. II. This applies in-
dependently of the presence or absence of inversion sym-
metry in the magnetic crystal structure [16]. Also unlike
the relativistic spin-orbit coupling mechanism, the non-
relativistic electronic states in the altermagnetic bands
have a common spin-quantization axis and spin is a good
quantum number. These characteristics are protected by
ky kx the spin-group symmetry corresponding to the collinear-
ky kx ity of the magnetic order, as highlighted on the 2nd line
in Tab. II.
Comparing to ferromagnets, altermagnets share the
strong non-relativistic T -symmetry breaking and spin
(b) (d) splitting in the band structure. In altermagnets, these
characteristics are allowed by the spin-group symmetry
shown on the 3rd line in Tab. II. The distinction from
ferromagnets is that the same spin-group symmetry also
CoA CoB RuA RuB protects the zero non-relativistic net magnetization in al-
Tt termagnets.
[C2 ||C4 t]

FIG. 8. (a) Model relativistic Rashba spin-split bands.

(b) Model of antiferromagnetic zero-magnetization crystal of B. Fermi-liquid instabilities
BiCoO3 with magnetic symmetry T t, and with broken space-
inversion symmetry. (c) Model non-relativistic altermagnetic In Fermi-liquid theory, interactions among electron
spin splitting. (d) Model of altermnagnetic crystal of RuO2 quasiparticles are described by Landau parameters in
with non-relativistic spin symmetry [C2 k C4 t]. Adapted from spin-singlet and spin-triplet channels, using an orbital
Ref. [16, 92]. angular momentum partial-wave expansion. Large (neg-
ative) values of Landau parameters lead to Pomeranchuk
While magnets with the compensated magnetic or- Fermi-liquid instabilities [98, 99]. A prominent example
der were commonly associated with spin-degenerate of an isotropic s-wave instability in the spin-triplet chan-
bands, Zeeman or relativistic spin-splitting mechanisms nel is Stoner ferromagnetism, which corresponds to the
were also discussed in antiferromagnets. An effective momentum-independent effective Zeeman spin splitting
ferromagnetic-like Zeeman splitting, and the correspond- in the electronic band structure.
ing T -symmetry breaking in the band structure, was as- Theoretically, a rich landscape of quantum ordered
sociated in antiferromagnets with a net moment, sug- phases is linked to anisotropic (non-zero angular momen-
gested to occur due to canting, for instance in GdPtBi tum) Landau parameters [99]. However, experimental in-
[93]. Alternatively, a real Zeeman spin splitting was con- dications of anisotropic Fermi-liquid instabilities are rare.
sidered in antiferromagnets due to an external magnetic An example are nematic-phase instabilities in the spin-
field [94–96]. A T -symmetric relativistic Rashba split- singlet channel with non-zero angular momenta. Their
ting was predicted in antiferromagnets such as BiCoO3 typical characteristics are anisotropic distortions of Fermi
with broken space-inversion symmetry, and with the op- surfaces. Nematic instabilities were considered in frac-
posite Co sublattices connected by the T t-symmetry, as tional quantum Hall systems, Mott insulators or high-Tc
shown in Figs. 8a,b [92]. Another example of an uncon- superconductors – all belonging to the family of complex
ventional magnetic and relativistic splitting has been ex- strongly correlated systems [99].
perimentally demonstrated in surface states of antiferro- In analogy to Stoner ferromagnetism, non-zero angular
magnetic NdBi [97]. Both of these types of spin splitting momentum instabilities in the spin-triplet channel typi-
offer intriguing interplay with antiferromagnetism. How- cally break the SU (2) symmetry of the non-relativistic
ever, they also inherit a net magnetization (Fig. 1a) or a non-magnetic Fermi liquid [99]. A characteristic feature
non-collinear spin texture (Fig 8a) in the band structure, of a spin-triplet p-wave instability is a shift of spin-up
characteristic of conventional ferromagnets or relativistic and spin-down Fermi surfaces in opposite directions. Un-
spin-orbit-coupled systems, respectively. like Stoner ferromagnetism dominated by the exchange
 11

interaction, and in analogy to the nematic phases, the diagram and ab initio bands of RuO2 . Remarkably, the
spin-triplet p-wave instability was considered in corre- mechanism is dominated by anisotropic exchange interac-
lated systems, e.g., in heavy fermion compounds [99]. tion, i.e., it persists without including correlation effects
Altermagnetism is not described by a p-wave (or higher beyond the local-spin-density approximation [16, 18].
odd-parity wave) instability in the spin-triplet channel. An effective single-particle two-band Hamiltonian that
This is seen from the spin-group symmetry on the 1st models this mechanism contains,uapart
"BAND_S02_A0001UP.OUT.txt" from the common
1:($2*13.6*2):(($9))
1
line in Tab. II, reflecting the co-planarity of the mag- "BAND_S02_A0001DN.OUT.txt"
kinetic-energy hopping term, au spin-dependent
1:(($2*13.6*2)):(($9))
hopping
netic crystal order, and the corresponding inversion sym- due to the anisotropic exchange interaction in the alter-
metry of the spin-split band structure.0 On the other magnetic state [6, 7, 13]:-0.5

Energy (eV)

Energy (eV)
hand, altermagnetism can be associated with even-parity
-1
wave Fermi liquid instabilities in the spin-triplet chan- H = 2t cos kx cos-1ky + 2tJ sin kx sin ky σz . (3)
nel [16, 18]. We now illustrate on the band structure of -1.5 is plotted in Figs 10a,b. The
The model band structure
AKE

RuO2 that the predicted characteristics-2of the altermag-

energy spectrum exhibits spin-degenerate nodal surfaces
netic Fermi-liquid instabilities are extraordinary.
at kx,y = 0, π, marked in grey in Fig. 10a, and protected
1 1
by mirror plane symmetries that transform one spin sub-
0.5
lattice on the opposite-spin subblatice, and are contained
"BAND_S02_A0001UP.OUT.txt"
d-wave exchange u 01:($2*13.6*2):(($9)) 0
Energy (eV)

Energy (eV)
1 "BAND_S02_A0001DN.OUT.txt" u 1:(($2*13.6*2)):(($9)) in the little groups of the nodal-surface momenta (cf.
(a) Model (b) RuO2 5th line in Tab. II). The-0.5 resulting nodal structure and
0 0 -1 spin splitting modulation -1 pattern corresponds to a dxy -
-0.5
Energy (eV)

1
-1.5
wave symmetry. The characteristic dxy -wave spin-up and
Energy

-1 -2 spin-down Fermi surfaces -2 are anisotropic and mutually

1 -1.5
-1.5
rotated by 90◦ , following
-2.5 the [C2 k C4 ] spin-group sym-
S' Γ S S' Γ S S'
metry. ΓAb initioS bands ofS'RuO2 and S
Γ the corresponding
2
s-wave exchange & anisotropic electric crystal potential model thus illustrate an extraordinary spin-triplet Fermi-
1 liquid instability that, unlike the s-wave Stoner ferro-
1 (c) 1
(d) 1
0.5
magnetism, is anisotropic and, unlike the p-wave heavy-
0
0
0
2 fermion compounds, is uncorrelated and occurs in the
Energy (eV)

even-parity d-wave channel.

(t)
Energy

-0.5
Energy

-1 Remarkably, the ab initio band structure of RuO2

1 -1
demonstrates an additional distinct spin-splitting mech-
-1.5
-2
-2 anism. In this case, the size and momentum-dependence
2 -2
of a strong non-relativistic altermagnetic spin splitting is
-2.5
S' Γ S'S'
SM Γ
Γ S
S S' Γ S
determined by the band splitting due to an anisotropic
1 Γ M 2
crystal potential of the non-magnetic phase [16]. This
FIG. 9. (a) Schematic diagram of the anisotropic (d-wave) ex- unconventional electric spin-splitting mechanism is illus-
change Fermi-liquid instability in the altermagnet. Black line trated on a schematic diagram in Fig. 9c. In the non-
corresponds to the spin-degenerate band in the non-magnetic magnetic state, there are two spin-degenerate bands that
phase while red and blue lines are spin-split bands in the alter- cross at the four-fold spin and orbital-degenerate Γ-point,
magnetic phase. (b) Spin-projected (and orbital-projected) while the orbital degeneracy is lifted away from the Γ-
ab initio bands of RuO2 in the energy window correspond-
point (cf. 8th line in Tab. II). One of the two spin-
ing to (a). (c) Schematic diagram of the isotropic (s-wave)
exchange Fermi-liquid instability combined with anisotropic
degenerate bands has a dominant projection on one sub-
electric crystal potential in the altermagnet. Solid and dashed lattice while the other band on the other sublattice. The
black lines correspond to the spin-degenerate bands domi- bands are anisotropic due to the anisotropy of the electric
nated by one or the other sublattice in the non-magnetic crystal potential (cf. 4th line in Tab. II). The anisotropies
phase, respectively. Red and blue lines are spin-split bands of the spin-degenerate bands corresponding to the two
in the altermagnetic phase. (d) Spin-projected (and orbital- sublattices are mutually rotated by 90◦ , reflecting the
projected) ab initio bands of RuO2 in the energy window cor- real-space C4 rotation symmetry which transforms one
responding to (c). Pink boxes with labels ”1” and ”2” corre- crystal sublattice on the other. As a result, there is a
spond to the full ab initio bands of RuO2 shown in Fig. 2c. mutual momentum-dependent splitting between the two
Adapted from Ref. [16]. spin-degenerate bands away from the Γ-point.
The altermagnetic phase brings an additional
A spin-splitting mechanism due to an anisotropic ex- momentum-independent (isotropic) exchange interac-
change interaction [13, 18, 20, 21] can be identified in tion, with opposite sign in the bands corresponding
parts of the RuO2 band structure with a single two-fold to opposite-spin sublattices. As a result, two pairs of
spin-degenerate band in the non-magnetic phase, which spin-split bands form with opposite sign of the spin
undergoes in the altermagnetic phase an anisotropic splitting. For a given pair, the size and momentum-
momentum-dependent spin splitting with alternating dependence of the spin splitting is a copy of the size and
sign [16]. This is illustrated in Figs. 9a,b on a schematic momentum-dependence of the orbital splitting in the
 12

non-magnetic state. The presence of this microscopic The potential richness of the landscape of altermag-
spin-splitting mechanism in RuO2 is again confirmed netic Fermi-liquid instabilities can be further inferred
by ab initio calculations shown in Fig. 9d. In this case, by inspecting the symmetries of all altermagnetic spin
the altermagnet can be viewed as two interpenetrating groups. Each altermagnetic spin point group can be asso-
s-wave Stoner ferromagnets with opposite magnetiza- ciated with a given minimum even-parity wave anisotropy
tions that, due to the interplay with anisotropies of the of the spin-split Fermi surfaces near the Γ-point [16].
electric crystal potential, generate spin-split d-wave-like Apart from d-wave, this minimum anisotropy can have
Fermi surfaces. a g-wave or i-wave form [16, 21].

(a) Γ-point spin-winding QP (c) TRIM-valley spin-polarized QP

S
Y

Γ
X

(b) 2 (d)
2

Energy (t)
Energy (t)

0 0

-2
-2 Γ X S Y Γ
X S Γ S' Y

(e) Altermagnetic Relativistic

(f)

-K +K
Μ2 Μ1

FIG. 10. (a,b) Model of the altermagnetic quasiparticle with quadratic dispersion around the spin-degenerate Γ-point, and
spin-winding number 2 around the Γ-point. The model corresponds to Eq. (3). (c,d) Model of the altermagnetic spin-polarized
valley quasiparticle with no spin winding in the valley. The model corresponds to Eq. (4). The center of a valley is at TRIM, and
the spin polarization is opposite at TRIM X and Y. (e) Schematic illustration of distinct symmetries of band structures with
non-relativistic altermagnetic and relativistic non-magnetic valleys. (f) Real-space spin-dependent hoppings used to construct
model band structures in (a-c). Adapted from Refs. [6, 7, 13].

C. Electron and magnon quasiparticles whose spin-dependent part is given by λ (kx σy − ky σx )

(Fig. 8a). However, unlike the linearly dispersing quasi-
particles around the Γ-point of the inversion-asymmetric
The predicted extraordinary Fermi-liquid instabilities relativistic bands, the altermagnetic quasiparticles in the
in altermagnets can generate a variety of unconventional above model have a quadratic dispersion around the Γ-
electron quasiparticles. An example can be illustrated on point, in line with the general inversion symmetry of
the energy bands of the model two-band Hamiltonian (3) bands in altermagnets (cf. 1st line in Tab. II).
in the k·p approximation around the Γ-point, highlighted
by a dashed rectangle in Fig. 10b. The spin-dependent The altermagnetic quasiparticles are spin polarized
part of the band structure is given by 2tJ kx ky σz . The away from the Γ-point and can be assigned a spin-
spin degeneracy of the Γ-point is generally protected in winding number. In analogy to relativistic systems, the
altermagnets by the spin-group symmetry [C2 k A], be- spin-winding number describes how many times spin re-
cause the Γ-point is invariant under any real-space sym- verses when completing a closed path around the Γ-point.
metry transformation (including the rotations A). The However, the spin-winding number of the above alter-
Γ-point spin degeneracy is analogous to the T -symmetric magnetic quasiparticle model is 2, in contrast to the spin-
relativistic bands. Here an example is the Rashba model winding number 1 in the relativistic Rashba model. The
 13

spin-winding numbers around the Γ-point in altermag- The altermagnetic spin-polarized quasiparticles in sep-
nets have even-integer values, again because of the inver- arate local valleys in the momentum space are reminis-
sion symmetry of the bands. The spin winding of the al- cent of relativistic spin-polarized valley-quasiparticles in
termagnetic quasiparticles can be planar (cf. relativistic non-magnetic hexagonal 2D materials, such as transi-
Rashba or Dresselhaus spin-textures) or bulk (cf. rela- tion metal dichalcogenides [101]. The common features
tivistic Weyl spin-texture) [16]. The allowed even-integer shared by the altermagnetic and relativistic quasiparti-
values are 2, 4 or 6 in the vicinity of the Γ-point, and are cles are the opposite spin polarization in valleys occupy-
determined by the spin-group of the altermagnet [16]. ing different parts of the Brillouin zone, and the zero net
This illustrates to potential richness of the spin-polarized spin polarization when integrated over the whole Bril-
quasiparticles in altermagnets around the Γ-point. louin zone. However, only altermagnets allow these val-
We point out that the spin-winding number in the rel- leys to be centered at TRIMs, as highlighted in Fig. 10e.
ativistic systems is associated with continuously varying In the non-magnetic relativistic systems, spin splitting is
spin direction in the momentum space. In contrast, alter- excluded by T -symmetry not only at the Γ-point, but at
magnets show that non-zero integer invariants, describ- all TRIMs.
ing how many times the quasiparticle spin reverses when So far we discussed the electron quasiparticles from the
completing a closed path around the Γ-point, can ex- symmetry perspective limited to the spin-group transfor-
ist also in systems where all spins share a common spin mations acting on the spin and momentum-dependent
quantization axis, and spin is a good quantum number. band structure. Additional rich quasiparticle physics,
A different type of predicted altermagnetic electron including higher-order degeneracy quasiparticles, can
quasiparticles can be illustrated on a two-band model emerge from the analysis of spin-group transformations
Hamiltonian [6, 7, 13]: acting on the electron wavefunctions (spin-group repre-
sentations) [16, 24, 62, 64].
H = ±2tJ (cos kx − cos ky ) σz , (4) Besides the electron energy spectra and quasiparticles,
we foresee that the real-space symmetries of the alter-
whose energy spectrum is shown in Fig. 10d. (Around magnetic crystal structure will be also reflected in unique
the Γ-point, Eq. (4) is related to the model in Eq. (3) by characteristics of the spin-wave spectra and magnon
a 45◦ rotation of the momentum space, and by setting quasiparticles [102].
t = 0). The typically leading contribution to the magnon spec-
In the k · p approximation around time-reversal invari- tra can be obtained by mapping the spin-dependent elec-
ant momenta (TRIMs) X and Y, highlighted by dashed tronic
P structure on the Heisenberg Hamiltonian, H =
rectangles in Fig. 10d, the spectrum takes a form of spin- − i6=j Jij êi êj [64, 103, 104]. Here êi is the direction
split valleys given by (see Figs. 10c,d), of the magnetic moment around an atom at position Ri ,
and Jij are Heisenberg exchange coupling parameters. In
E± (X, k) = ±tJ (4 − k 2 ), the Heisenberg model, the real and spin space transfor-
E± (Y, k) = ∓tJ (4 − k 2 ). (5) mations are decoupled and the symmetries of the corre-
sponding magnon bands can be described by the non-
(Recall that a momentum k is time-reversal invariant relativistic spin-group formalism [26, 64].
when it differs from −k by a reciprocal lattice vector.) In antiferromagnets, translation or inversion symme-
The spin-group symmetry condition allowing for the try transformations connecting opposite-spin sublattices
spin-split TRIMs is given on the 7th line in Tab. II. The protect double-degeneracy of the magnon spectra [26, 64].
possibility to observe spin-split valleys around TRIMs in This has been commonly illustrated on the opposite-spin
real materials is predicted by ab initio band structure cal- sublattices of rutile crystals, while omitting the presence
culations of the altermagnetic phase in, e.g., Mn5 Si3 [6] of non-magnetic atoms in these crystals [26, 64, 105]. We
(Fig. 6c). Besides 3D crystals, the altermagnetically spin- have seen in Sec. II, however, that the non-magnetic O-
split valleys can also form in 2D materials [15, 23, 100], atoms in rutile RuO2 (or F-atoms in rutile FeF2 and
as predicted, e.g., in ab initio calculations of the band MnF2 ) break the translation and inversion symmetries
structure of a monolayer insulator V2 Se2 O [15] (Fig. 6d). connecting the opposite-spin sublattices. Instead of clas-
Locally, the individual valleys around the X and Y sic antiferromagnets [26, 44, 64, 105], rutiles are the pro-
TRIMs are isotropic in the above model. This illustrates totypical representatives of altermagnetism, with inter-
that altermagnets can host spin-polarized quasiparticles linked unique properties of the real-space crystal struc-
analogous to the model non-relativistic s-wave Stoner fer- ture and momentum-space electronic and magnonic band
romagnet, with no spin winding around the TRIM. How- structures [102].
ever, unlike ferromagnets, the altermagnetic spin-group In analogy to the electronic band structure, the double-
symmetries impose that each spin-split TRIM has a coun- degeneracy of magnon bands is predicted to be lifted
terpart TRIM elsewhere in the Brillouin zone with oppo- in altermagnets, with the sign of the splitting alternat-
site spin splitting. The presence of these TRIM pairs is ing across the magnon Brillouin zone [102]. Magnons
protected by the [C2 k A] [E k H] spin-group symmetries in altermagnets can also feature antiferromagnetic-
(cf. 3rd line in Tab. II). ferromagnetic dichotomy. The dispersion of altermag-
 14

netic magnons can be linear around the degenerate Γ- band structure (cf. 5th line in Tab. II). When the
point, in analogy to antiferromagnets, while the Landau relativistic spin-orbit coupling is included, these nodal
damping in altermagnets can be comparably low to the lines or surfaces (which may be weakly gapped by the
damping of magnons in ferromagnets due to the compa- spin-orbit coupling) become symmetry-defined Berry-
rably large spin splitting of the electron quasiparticles curvature hotspots. This is illustrated in Fig. 4 on rel-
[102, 104]. ativistic ab initio band structures of RuO2 and FeSb2
[2, 7, 13].

D. Berry phase and non-dissipative transport

Since T is antiunitary in quantum mechanics, the
Berry curvature (6) is odd under T , T Bn (k) =
Berry phase is a general concept in quantum mechan- −Bn (−k). It implies that the integral in Eq. (7) van-
ics [106]. A prototypical example is the Aharonov-Bohm ishes in T -symmetric band structures. Breaking of T -
phase given by a real-space path integral of the electro- symmetry in the band structure of altermagnets is, there-
dynamic vector potential along a closed loop or, equiva- fore, the key property that allows for the observation of
lently, by an integral of the magnetic field over an area macroscopic responses, such as the anomalous Hall effect
enclosed by the loop. The phase can be macroscopically [2, 3]. Recent experiments [5] have detected the anoma-
observable by resistance oscillations in an applied mag- lous Hall effect in RuO2 of a comparable strength to typ-
netic field. ical Hall signals in ferromagnets. This is consistent with
In the crystal momentum space, a Berry connection the predicted strong altermagnetic T -symmetry break-
analogue of the electrodynamic vector potential, and a ing in the band structure of this compensated collinear
Berry curvature analogue of the magnetic field, magnet [3, 5] (cf. Tab. I).
An (k) = ihunk |∇k unk i
Bn (k) = ∇k × An (k), (6) RuO2 is an example in which the lattice of the mag-
netic Ru atoms alone would have the opposite-spin sub-
can also generate macroscopic observables. A prominent lattices connected by a translation. As mentioned above,
example is the non-dissipative Hall current given by the this symmetry would imply T -symmetry of the band
transverse conductivity [32], structure (and in combination with inversion symmetry
e2 X
Z
d3 k of the crystal also spin degeneracy). The presence of
Hall
σxy =− f [εn (k)]Bnz (k). (7) the non-magnetic oxygen atoms is, therefore, essential
~ n BZ (2π)3 for the T -symmetry breaking (and spin splitting) in the
altermagnetic band structure of RuO2 and, consequently,
Here f [εn (k)] is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function, for the anomalous Hall effect [3]. The term crystal Hall
εn (k) is the energy of the Bloch state in band n with effect [3, 7, 39, 111] was introduced to highlight this fea-
crystal momentum k, and unk (r) is the periodic part of ture. One of the implications, unparalleled in the con-
the Bloch wavefunction. ventional anomalous Hall effect in ferromagnets, is that
Altermagnets are predicted to bring unique elements the crystal Hall effect in altermagnets is predicted to flip
into the physics of Berry phase phenomena [2, 3, 5– sign not only when reversing the magnetic moments, but
7, 39, 40]. The Berry curvature near the Γ-point of a also when the symmetry-breaking arrangement of non-
k · p altermagnet-Rashba model [2], tk 2 + 2tJ kx ky σz + magnetic atoms reverses between the two magnetic sub-
λ (kx σy − ky σx ), is given by lattices [3].
2tJ λ2 kx ky
B(k)± = ∓ p 2 . (8)
4tJ (kx ky )2 + λ2 k 2 Finally, we recall that in 2D systems, Eq. (7) turns into
a surface integral proportional to the Berry phase, which
Eq. (8) illustrates that the characteristic even-parity becomes quantized when the integration covers the full
wave (d-wave) anisotropy in the non-relativistic band Brillouin zone in 2D insulators [112]. The corresponding
structure of altermagnets can be also reflected in their quantum Hall effect [113] was demonstrated in graphene
relativistic Berry curvature. In contrast, a counterpart at room temperature [114] but it requires a strong mag-
ferromagnet-Rashba model, tk 2 +∆σz +λ (kx σy − ky σx ), netic field. The ferromagnetic quantum anomalous Hall
gives an isotropic Berry curvature near the Γ-point counterpart [115] can be observed at zero magnetic field
[2, 32, 107–110], reflecting the principally isotropic s- but, so far, has been limited to Kelvin temperatures
wave nature of ferromagnetism. [37, 116]. Since altermagnetism can host the Berry phase
The Berry curvature tends to reach the highest val- phenomena, and can occur in 2D crystals and in insula-
ues near band (anti)crossings [2, 32], which implies an- tors, it opens new possibilities in the search for high-
other outstanding feature of altermagnets. In contrast temperature zero-field quantum Hall phenomena. For a
to the typically accidental (anti)crossings in ferromag- further in-depth discussion of Berry phase physics and
nets, the spin-group symmetries of altermagnets impose non-dissipative Hall transport in altermagnets we refer
the presence of the nodal lines or nodal surfaces in the to the recent topical review [2].
 15

IV. RESEARCH AREAS where the spin polarization and the antiferromagnetic or-
ders in the electrodes were all commensurate. This is a
We now move to the discussion of the potential of al- subtle, spin-coherent quantum-interference phenomenon
termagnetism in specific areas of condensed-matter re- relying on perfectly epitaxial commensurate multilay-
search. We start from spintronics in which, besides the ers [81, 117–119]. Similarly delicate were the proposed
anomalous Hall effect, initial theory predictions have GMR/TMR effects in these antiferromagnetic structures
been recently supported by experiments. [117]. This may explain why experimentally, the via-
bility of non-relativistic spintronic concepts in the con-
ventional spin-degenerate antiferromagnets has not been
A. Spintronics demonstrated to date.
As a result, the attention in the research of spintron-
The T -symmetry broken electronic structure in ferro- ics in Kramers spin-degenerate antiferromagnets turned
magnets is split into majority and minority spin bands. to relativistic phenomena [34]. Anisotropic magnetore-
This results in different conductivities of the two spin sistance, which can be used to detect a 90◦ reorienta-
channels, which makes electrical currents in ferromag- tion of the antiferromagnetic Néel vector [120], is an
nets spin polarized. Passing the spin-polarized current example generally applicable to both types of Kramers
between a reference and a sensing/recording ferromag- spin-degenerate antiferromagnets because it is an even-
netic electrode in a multilayer structure can generate under-T macroscopic response (cf. Sec. III.A). A 2nd -
giant magnetoresistance (GMR), tunneling magnetore- order magnetoresistance, which can be used to detect a
sitance (TMR), and spin-transfer torque (STT) effects. 180◦ reorientation of the Néel vector, is an example of
These principally non-relativistic strong responses un- an odd-under-T response that occurs only in the sec-
derpin reading and writing of information in commercial ond type of Kramers spin-degenerate antiferromagnets
spintronic devices [75–77]. with T -symmetry broken and inversion-symmetry bro-
A STT mechanism in Kramers spin-degenerate anti- ken band structures [121]. These magnetoreristance re-
ferromagnets, proposed more than a decade ago [81], dif- sponses, as well as the spin-orbit torque (SOT) phenom-
fers fundamentally from STT in ferromagnets. The the- ena used to electrically induce the Néel vector reorien-
oretical model considered a transmission of a staggered tation [87], tend to be weak, owing to their relativistic
spin polarization from one to the other antiferromagnet, origin.
The strong non-relativistic T -symmetry breaking and as illustrated in Fig. 11b. The GMR magnitude can be
spin splitting in altermagnetic bands directly opens the estimated from the conventional current-in-plane GMR
possibility to not only replicate the concepts known from expression derived in ferromagnets [75],
ferromagnets, but also to enrich non-relativistic spintron-
ics by new effects and functionalities linked to the zero 1 1
GMR = (Rσ + − 2), (9)
net magnetization [4, 8–15]. 4 Rσ
The anisotropy of the split and equally populated where Rσ = σ+,xx /σ−,xx = σ+,xx /σ+,yy = σ−,yy /σ−,xx .
spin-up and spin-down Fermi surfaces in altermagnets Ab initio calculations in RuO2 give GMR reaching a
(cf. Figs. 10a,b) results in spin-dependent anisotropic 100% scale [13] (Fig. 11e), highlighting the expected large
group velocities, ∂E+ (k)/∂ki 6= ∂E− (k)/∂ki , where +/− GMR ratios in altermagnets.
refers to the spin index. The corresponding conductiv- As noted above, the polarization of the longitudinal
ities are also spin-dependent and anisotropic. Consid- spin-polarized current in altermagnets is predicted to re-
ering x and y-direction as the anisotropic axes of the verse not only with the reversal of the altermagnetic order
spin-split Fermi surfaces, σ+,xx 6= σ−,xx , σ+,yy 6= σ−,yy , vector but also with the reorientation (e.g. by 90◦ ) of the
and σ±,xx = σ∓,yy . The electrical current then becomes applied electrical bias. A directly related effect, also un-
spin-polarized when the bias is applied along the x or y- paralleled in ferromagnets, is illustrated in Fig. 11c. For
direction, as schematically illustrated in Fig. 11a. More- a bias applied in the diagonal direction between the two
over, as a consequence of the T -symmetry breaking of the anisotropy axes of the spin-split Fermi surfaces, the lon-
spin-split bands, the sign of the spin polarization reverses gitudinal current is unpolarized. However, a spin-current
when reversing the altermagnetic order vector. is generated in the transverse direction. The effect has
The above non-relativistic spin-current characteristics been predicted in a range of inorganic and organic ma-
are analogous to ferromagnets. In contrast to ferromag- terials [4, 8, 9, 15]. The altermagnet acts here as an
nets, the altermagnetic spin splitting is also predicted to electrical spin-splitter, with a propagation angle between
cause the reversal of the spin polarization of the current spin-up and spin-down currents reaching 34◦ in RuO2 [8].
when the applied electrical bias is flipped between the x The corresponding charge-spin conversion ratio reaches
and y-direction. remarkable 28% (Fig. 11e), and the spin-conductivity is
The spin-polarized current directly implies a GMR ef- a factor of three larger than the record value from a sur-
fect in a stack comprising two altermagnets, separated vey of 20,000 non-magnetic relativistic spin-Hall materi-
by a conductive non-magnetic spacer, with the altermag- als [122].
netic order vectors oriented either parallel or antiparallel, The outstanding charge-spin conversion characteristics
 16

(a) Longitudinal spin-current (b) Giant magnetoresistance

(e)

(c) Transverse spin-current (d) Spin-splitter torque

n(m)
n(θ)
jS

AM(FM)

E AM

FIG. 11. (a) Schematics of the longitudinal spin-current in altermagnets. For an electric bias E applied along one of the
main anisotropy axes of the spin-split Fermi surfaces, the spin-up and spin-down charge currents are parallel but of different
magnitudes due to the Fermi surface anisotropies. As a result, the longitudinal charge current is spin-polarized. (b) Schematics
of a GMR stack in a current-in-plane geometry. As an example, we show the antiparallel configuration of the altermagnetic
order vectors in the two electrodes AM1 and AM2 . Interfaces are oriented along one of the main anisotropy axes of the spin-split
bands. Energy band cuts highlight the anisotropy around the Γ-point, resulting in anisotropic spin-dependent conductivities. (c)
Schematics of the transverse spin-current. For E applied in the diagonal direction between the two anisotropy axes of the spin-
split Fermi surfaces, the spin-up and spin-down charge currents combine in an unpolarized longitudinal charge current and in a
pure transverse spin-current. (d) Spin-splitter-torque concept on a schematic of altermagnetic / altermagnetic (ferromagnetic)
bilayer. A spin-current from the bottom altermagnet propagates in the out-of-plane direction and generates a spin-splitter-
torque on the altermagnetic (or ferromagnetic) order vector in top layer. (e) Ab initio longitudinal spin-up and spin-down
conductivities (red and blue), GMR, and the ratio of the transverse spin current relative to the longitudinal charge current
(SCR) in RuO2 . Adapted from Refs. [8, 13].

of altermagnetic RuO2 prompt a theoretical proposal of a netic electrodes [13, 14]. The altermagnetic TMR can
spin-splitter torque (SST) [8], in part already supported be illustrated on the model band structure with spin-
by initial experiments [10–12] (cf. Tab. I). In the geome- spit valleys (cf. Figs. 10c,d). The pairs of valleys with
try schematically illustrated in Fig. 11d, an in-plane bias opposite spin polarization result in the equal net popu-
generates the non-relativistic spin-current in the alter- lation of spin-up and spin-down states, while the den-
magnetic film along the out-of-plane direction, with the sities of states within a given valley become spin de-
polarization of the spin-current controlled by the orienta- pendent, n+ (M1 ) 6= n− (M1 ), n+ (M2 ) 6= n− (M2 ), and
tion of the altermagnetic order vector. The spin current n± (M1 ) = n∓ (M2 ). For tunneling which conserves the
then exerts a torque on the adjacent altermagnetic (or valley index, parallel and antiparallel configurations of
ferromagnetic) layer. SST does not inherit the problems altermagnetic order vectors in the two layers, illustrated
of STT associated with the out-of-plane direction of the in Fig. 12a, are predicted to give different conductances,
applied electrical bias [76, 123]. Instead, it shares the in- in analogy to ferromagnetic TMR. This can be seen by
plane electrical-bias geometry of the SOT generated by applying the Jullière formula [75] per valley [13],
the relativistic spin-Hall polarizer, while circumventing
1 1
the limitations of the more subtle relativistic spintronic TMR = (Rn + − 2), (10)
effects [35]. 2 Rn
Another foreseen non-relativistic spintronic effect is an where the ratio of the spin-up and spin-down densities of
altermagnetic variant of the TMR in a tunnel junction states in the valley is given by, Rn = n+ (M1 )/n− (M1 ) =
with an insulating spacer separating the two altermag- n+ (M1 )/n+ (M2 ) = n− (M2 )/n− (M1 ).
 17

Ab initio calculations of ∼ 100% TMR ratios in RuO2 quasiparticles are well separated in the momentum space
(Fig. 12b) or Mn5 Si3 [13, 14] illustrate the potential for to provide for the sufficiently decoupled spin transport
achieving large TMR responses in tunnel junctions with channels (Fig. 12c). On the other hand, the GMR de-
altermagnetic electrodes. rived from the anisotropy of the macroscopic (averaged
Finally, we note that symmetry-wise, TMR is in prin- over momentum) spin-dependent conductivities, is pre-
ciple expected in all altermagnetic spin groups [13], and dicted to be allowed only in selected altermagnetic spin
can reach large magnitudes as long as the spin-polarized groups [13, 16].

(a) Parallel Antiparallel

AM1 Tunneling AM2 AM1 Tunneling AM2

barrier barrier

(b) (c)

FIG. 12. (a) Schematics of a TMR stack with an insulating barrier and altermagnetic electrodes with parallel and antiparallel
order vectors. Energy band cuts highlight the oppositely split valleys, resulting in valley and spin-dependent densities of
states. (b) Ab initio quantum-transmission calculations of the TMR in a RuO2 | TiO2 | RuO2 tunnel junction. (c) Model
spin and transport-momentum projected band structure, and relative difference between the conductances in the parallel and
antiparallel configuration of the altermagnetic order vectors in the two electrodes. The TMR is maximized for transport energies
corresponding to the spin-split valleys well separated in momentum. Adapted from Refs. [13, 14].

B. Ultra-fast optics and neuromorphics magnetization precession time-scale comparable to the

pulse length. The energy in this regime starts to lin-
early increase with decreasing pulse length, making the
Achieving energy efficient fast switching is among the switching prohibitively energy-costly [124, 126–128]. The
key outstanding problems in spintronics [124, 125]. The ∼ ns threshold of electrical writing pulse-lengths in ferro-
principally isothermal reorientation switching of magne- magnets applies to switching via current-induced Oersted
tization in ferromagnets has a threshold when the elec- fields, as well as to the spintronic STT or SOT switching
trical writing pulse-length is scaled down to the mag- mechanisms.
netization precession time-scale. This is determined by One of the driving ideas behind the antiferromagnetic
the inverse of the magnetic resonance frequency which in spintronics research has been the prospect of fast SOT
ferromagnets is typically in the GHz-range. The corre- switching, enabled by the antiferromagnetic resonance
sponding threshold writing pulse-length is then in the ns- frequencies reaching a THz-scale [34, 129]. While in
range. For longer pulses, the switching current amplitude ferromagnets the resonance frequency is determined by
is almost independent of the pulse length and, therefore, the weak magnetic-anisotropy energy, in antiferromag-
the writing energy (Joule heating) linearly decreases with nets it scales with the geometric mean of the magnetic-
decreasing pulse length. Below the threshold, however, anisotropy energy and the strong exchange energy re-
the writing current amplitude has to increase to keep the sponsible for the antiparallel magnetic order [130].
 18

Altermagnets can share with antiferromagnets the flip of the sign of the Néel vector between two neighboring
exchange-enhanced resonance frequency, favorable for atomic planes [135]. Thanks to the latest developments in
achieving energy efficient reorientation switching at pulse scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) with
lengths well below ∼ ns. Unlike antiferromagnets, as dis- sub-unit cell spin resolution [135, 136], the presence of
cussed in Sec. IV.A, they are also predicted to enable stationary atomically-sharp domain walls in the antifer-
the favorable non-relativistic spin-torque mechanisms of romagnet has been visualized by direct imaging [135].
current-induced switching, as well as the readout by the While so far explored in the Kramers spin-degenerate
strong non-relativistic GMR/TMR responses. antiferromagnets, quenching into the atomic-scale mag-
A conceptually different approach to achieve higher netic textures with pulse lengths ranging from ms down
magnetization dynamic frequencies in ferromagnets, and to fs-scales may be equally applicable to altermagnets,
by this comparably higher writing speeds, is to utilize since they share with antiferromagnets the stray-field-
the large exchange energy by exciting finite wave-vector free compensated magnetic ordering. Moreover, in alter-
spin-waves. The process can be triggered, e.g., by strong magnets, each atomically-sharp domain wall separating
heating laser pulses [131, 132], and involves demagne- domains with opposite sign of the altermagnetic-order
tization of the ferromagnet. This brings us to the fron- vector can be viewed as a local GMR/TMR junction
tier research of ultra-fast switching in magnets by optical that is self-assembled, and represents the ultimate down-
fs-laser pulses [125]. The optical switching mechanisms scaling of the width of the junction spacer. This addi-
are principally distinct from the reorientation switching tional GMR/TMR contributions to the resistances of the
of magnetization by Oersted fields or effective current- atomically-sharp domain walls, absent in the Kramers
induced spin-torque fields. The ultra-fast reorientation spin-degenerate antiferromagnets, can be expected to sig-
switching by fs-laser pulses can involve, e.g., unequal nificantly enhance the resistive switching signals of the
demagnetization/remagnetization dynamics of different quenched multi-domain (multi-domain-wall) states in al-
spin-sublattices in ferrimagnets, or demagnetization fol- termagnets.
lowed by domain-nucleation and expansion in ferromag- The above prospect of information coding down to
nets [125]. The fundamental distinction between switch- atomic length-scales and fs time-scale gives a strong
ing principles when using electrical and optical excita- incentive for further development of microscopies with
tions splits spin-electronics and opto-spintronics in ferro- ultra-high spatial and temporal resolution, and with both
magnets (ferrimagnets) into largely independent research charge and spin sensitivity. Recently reported STEM
and development fields. images of altermagnetic ferrite Fe2 O3 with sub-unit cell
Recently, materials used in the antiferromagnetic spin- spin resolution represent a major step in this direction
tronics research have opened a possibility to bridge the [135, 136]. Another recent progress in scanning-probe
electrical and optical switching by a unifying mechanism microscopy imaging of anisotropic charge distribution on
that is principally different from all the above mecha- individual atoms [137] can facilitate a complementary in-
nisms based on the reorientation of the average mag- sight into the microscopic spin-splitting mechanism (cf.
netic order vector. Over the full range from ms elec- 4th line in Tab. II and Sec. III.B), and the correspond-
trical pulses to fs-laser pulses, the antiferromagnet can ing GMR/TMR mechanism in the altermagnet on the
be demagnetized and then quenched into a metastable nano-scale. High temporal resolution can be achieved
nano-fragmented antiferromagnetic domain state with in pump-probe fs-laser experiments. They can utilize
a higher resistivity than the uniform antiferromagnetic expected large changes in reflectivity [133] of the alter-
ground state [133]. This quenching of the antiferromag- magnet, that accompany the large quenching-induced re-
net into the multi-domain state does not involve a con- sistive changes. Optical reflectivity can substitute here
trol of the mean orientation of the Néel vector. Once the more elaborate and subtle magneto-optical detection
the system is quenched into the complex magnetic tex- of dynamics of the magnetic-order vector, convention-
tures after the electrical or optical excitation, the lack of ally employed in the reorientation switching experiments
long-range stray fields in the antiferromagnetic crystals [125].
can inhibit efficient removal of the non-equilibrium mag- Apart from the interest in the area of ultra-fast opti-
netic textures [133]. Since the required switching energy cal switching by fs-laser pulses, the quenching mechanism
is associated with bringing the system by the electrical or can have potential applications in neuromorphic comput-
optical excitation to the antiferromagnetic-paramagnetic ing. The quenching mechanism facilitates highly repro-
transition, it does not show the unfavorable increase of ducible reversible analog switching and relaxation char-
the switching energy with decreasing pulse length, typi- acteristics, reminiscent of spiking neural-network compo-
cal of the fast current-induced precessional reorientation nents [133, 138–141]. For example, the time dependence
switching in ferromagnets. in the studied antiferromagnets of the resistivity after
Resistivity increase in the quenched state on the ∼ the pulse-excitation has a universal smooth form of a
10 − 100% scale, and insensitivity to extreme magnetic Kohlrausch stretched-exponential relaxation [142]. This
fields [133, 134], have been associated with the pulse- can be used in neuromorphic circuits to mimic the neu-
induced formation of atomically-sharp domain walls in ron’s leaky integration, or to detect the pulse order and
the antiferromagnetic film corresponding to an abrupt delay that determine the synaptic weights [140, 143]. The
 19

smooth analog switching and relaxation functions are cept is based on employing heat gradients, instead of
distinct from ferromagnetic neuromorphic devices whose electrical bias, to directly read or write information in
characteristic behavior are stochastic fluctuations be- a memory device [148].
tween two states with opposite magnetization [144, 145].
Finally, we point out that the foreseen altermagnetic Altermagnets significantly enlarge the material land-
neuromorphic devices with the ms-fs scalability of the scape for realizing and optimizing these thermo-electric
writing pulse-length, reversible and reproducible analog responses that originate, in analogy to their electronic
time-dependent switching and relaxation characteristics, counterparts, from the T -symmetry broken spin-split
and with strongly enhanced resistive switching signals by band structure. Unlike the typically metallic ferro-
the local GMR/TMR at atomically-sharp domain walls, magnets, altermagnets are predicted to span a broad
represent an attractive complementary research direction range of conduction types (cf. Sec. II.D). This is favor-
to the more traditional charge-based neuromorphic de- able because, from a general thermo-electric perspective,
vices. Charge memristors led to successful demonstra- semimetals or semiconductors are more suitable mate-
tions of analog synapses in proof-of-concept artificial neu- rial types than metals due to the strong dependence of
ral networks [146]. However, the ionic transport nature their electronic structure on energy near the Fermi level.
of their operation, that facilitates large resistive switch- A particularly intriguing case in this context are mate-
ing signals and the memristive characteristics, also im- rials showing a metal-insulator transition. Among the
poses principle endurance and speed limitations [147]. altermagnetic candidate materials, FeSb2 [7, 16] is an
These limitations are absent in the spintronic neuromor- example in which earlier studies reported an extraordi-
phic devices, including the foreseen altermagnetic neuro- nary (spin-independent) thermo-electric response, linked
morphic components, as they rely on the manipulation to the metal-insulator transition [150].
of the charge and spin of electrons.
Similar to thermoelectrics, the non-metallic materials
are favorable for field-effect electronics. A research of
C. Thermoelectrics, field-effect electronics and ferromagnetic semiconductors, in particular of the Mn-
multiferroics doped III-V compounds, was motivated by the prospect
of integrating spintronics with field-effect transistor func-
The key merit of ferromagnets from energy-saving per- tionalities in one material [151]. Because magnetism is
spective is non-volatility, i.e., that they can store infor- carrier-mediated in these materials, one of the driving
mation even when power is switched off. On the other ideas in this area of research was the control of the mag-
hand, electrical reading and especially writing informa- netic order by electrostatic gating effects [152]. Research
tion into ferromagnetic memory devices can generate sig- of devices based on the III-V semiconductors also led
nificant Joule heating [75]. This can be directly harvested to discoveries of the spin Hall effect and SOT, that gave
during the writing process in which the elevated temper- birth to the field of relativistic spintronics [33, 35]. These
ature effectively reduces the equilibrium energy barrier successes, on one hand, and the failure to achieve high
separating the states with opposite magnetization orien- ferromagnetic transition temperatures in these semicon-
tation. In the latest generation of hard disks, elevat- ductors, on the other hand, provided one of the key in-
ing the temperature of a bit while recording is provided centives driving the research field of antiferromagnetic
through an external laser heat-source. Similarly, the all- relativistic spintronics [34]. Altermagnets open a new
optical switching by laser pulses via the demagnetization prospect of materials combining not only high magnetic
processes mentioned in Sec. IV.B is typically accompa- transition temperatures with non-metallic band struc-
nied by significant heating effects. This brings us to a tures, but also with the strong non-relativistic spintronic
discussion of how altermagnetism, rather the generating responses generated by the T -symmetry breaking and
heat, can contribute to energy harvesting in devices com- spin splitting in the energy bands.
bining heat, charge and spin phenomena.
Ferromagnets have been considered for a direct heat Multiferroic materials [153] can complement the mag-
conversion to electricity [148]. Here the anomalous netic semiconductors by offering a non-volatile electric
Nernst effect, a thermo-electric counterpart of the control of magnetism via the internal coupling between
anomalous Hall effect, is regarded as an attractive can- the ferroelectric and magnetic orders. Only insulating
didate phenomenon [149]. The anomalous Nernst effect materials can be ferroelectric, otherwise the free carriers
generates an electric field in a transverse direction to the would screen out the electric polarization. This again dis-
thermal gradient. Particularly in thin-film or nanostruc- favors ferromagnets that are mostly metallic. The promi-
tured heat-charge conversion device, the transverse ge- nent multiferroic materials are non-centrosymmetric per-
ometry can significantly enhance the conversion efficiency ovskite oxides with a compensated magnetic order [153].
compared to the conventional longitudinal Seebeck effect As shown in Sec. II.D, altermagnetism is compatible with
[149]. A complementary research area to the anomalous this material family. Here CaMnO3 is an example multi-
Nernst effect are thermal counterparts of the GMR/TMR ferroic [154], that is also a material candidate for hosting
and STT phenomena. Here the energy harvesting con- the altermagnetic phase [16].
 20

D. Superconductivity pling mechanism tends to be limited to the conventional

spin-singlet s-wave pairing [157], altermagnets can be
The family of insulating perovskite oxides brings us particularly relevant for research of the unconventional
to its prominent cuprate member La2 CuO4 that, upon superconductivity, including both the spin-singlet and
doping, turns into a high-temperature d-wave supercon- spin-triplet anisotropic types of Cooper pairing.
ductor [155]. The recognition that this cuprate crystal Finally, we foresee intriguing new physics at altermag-
belongs to an altermagnetic spin group with a d-wave net/superconductor interfaces in areas including Andreev
character of the spin-momentum locking [16] brings us reflection [158] or Majorana fermion quasiparticles [159].
to foreseen research of the interplay of altermagnetism On one hand, the behavior of alternagnets at these inter-
and superconductivity [16, 156]. Research in this con- faces can be reminiscent of conventional antiferromag-
text may include areas such as the coexistence of alter- nets when dominated by the spin-symmetry protected
magnetism and unconventional superconductivity with nodal lines or surface. On the other hand, interface ori-
anisotropic Cooper pairing [157], altermagnetic fluctu- entations exposing the strong altermagnetic spin splitting
ations as a pairing mechanism [157], or phenomena at can generate a phenomenology similar to the ferromag-
altermagnet/superconductor interfaces [158, 159]. net/superconductor interfaces. As in the case of bulk
Since altermagnets have spin-degenerate nodal lines or crystals, the research of interface effects can exploit the
surfaces protected by the spin-group symmetries, a spin- predicted broad range of altermagnetic material types.
singlet Cooper pairing may occur for the corresponding
momenta, in analogy to conventional antiferromagnets.
For the spin-singlet case, the 2 × 2 Cooper-pair potential V. CONCLUSION
matrix (gap function or order parameter), ∆(k), ˆ sat-
isfies ∆↑↑ (k) = ∆↓↓ (k) = 0, ∆↓↑ (k) = −∆↑↓ (k), and
∆↑↓ (k) = ∆↑↓ (−k) [157]. The matrix is unitary, with In this Perspective we have drawn a picture of a third
corresponding zero net spin average of the pairing state, basic magnetic phase that emerges on the fundamental
and describes even-parity wave Copper pairing, including level of non-relativistic uncorrelated band-theory of non-
the anisotropic, e.g., d-wave pairing. frustrated collinear magnets. The altermagnetic phase
On the other hand, the altermagnetic spin-group sym- can be uniquely defined in both crystal-structure real
metries also allow for spin-split and broken T -symmetry space and electronic-structure momentum space, system-
parts of the Brillouin zone where, (s, k) 6= (−s, −k) atically classified and described by symmetry-group the-
and AH k 6= k (cf. 3rd and 6th line in Tab. II). These ory, and is predicted to be abundant among diverse
momenta can support spin-triplet Cooper pairing. In material types. Most importantly, the notion and the
analogy to ferromagnets, the spin-triplet Cooper-pair significance of a distinct phase becomes apparent from
potential matrix corresponding to a spin-split spin-up the unique ways in which altermagnetism can contribute
Fermi surface of the altermagnet, ∆ ˆ (↑) (k), takes a form, to the development of fundamental physical concepts,
(↑) (↑) (↑) (↑) and to the research in modern condensed-matter physics
∆↑↓ (k) = ∆↓↑ (k) = ∆↓↓ (k) = 0, and ∆↑↑ (k) = fields. Given the still relatively early stage of our under-
(↑)
−∆↑↑ (−k) [157]. The matrix in this case is non-unitary standing of altermagnetism, and the limited space, our
and describes odd-parity wave Copper pairing [157]. Un- choice of the discussion topics in this Perspective should
like ferromagnets, however, the altermagnetic spin-group be regarded as broadly illustrative and provisional. We
symmetries impose the presence of a counter-part spin- can anticipate that in the near future, altermagnetism
down Fermi surface with a corresponding ∆ ˆ (↓) (k0 ) that will have impact in other fields including magnetic topo-
(↓) 0 (↓) 0 (↓) 0 (↓)
satisfies, ∆↑↓ (k ) = ∆↓↑ (k ) = ∆↑↑ (k ) = 0, ∆↓↓ (k0 ) = logical matter, magnonics, valleytronics, or axion elec-
(↓) (↓) (↑) trodynamics. Fig. 13 summarizes the emerging research
−∆↓↓ (−k0 ), and ∆↓↓ (k0 ) = ∆↑↑ (k), where k0 = AH k. landscape of altermagnetism.
On one hand, altermagnets can thus share with ferro-
magnets the spin-triplet symmetry of Cooper pairing
while, unlike ferromagnets on the other hand, a zero net
spin average of the spin-triplet superconducting state is Acknowledgement
protected by the altermagnetic spin-group symmetries.
In the context of unconventional supercoductivity, the We acknowledge fruitful interactions with Igor Mazin.
ferromagnetic-antiferromagnetic dichotomy of altermag- This work was supported by Ministry of Education of
netism, as well as the features unparalleled in neither the Czech Republic Grants LNSM-LNSpin, LM2018140,
the conventional ferromagnets or antiferromagnets, mir- Czech Science Foundation Grant No. 19-28375X, EU
ror the discussion in the previous sections. FET Open RIA Grant No. 766566, SPIN+X (DFG
Apart from the compatibility of altermagnetism with SFB TRR 173) and Elasto-Q-Mat (DFG SFB TRR 288).
the different types of Cooper pairing, altermagnetic fluc- We acknowledge the computing time granted on the su-
tuations can provided earlier unexplored mechanisms for percomputer Mogon at Johannes Gutenberg University
generating the pairing. Since the electron-phonon cou- Mainz (hpc.uni-mainz.de).
 21

Magnonics Spintronics

Kramers theorem

Magnetic topological matter

Energy (t)
-2 Ultra-fast optics

S' Γ S
Axion electrodynamics Neuromorphics

Altermagnets

Berry phases Fermi liquid instabilities

High-Tc superconductivity Thermoelectrics

Field-effect electronics
Electron quasiparticles
Valleytronics Multiferroics

FIG. 13. Summary of the emerging research landscape of altermagnetism.

[1] L. Néel, Science 174, 985 (1971). E. Schmoranzerova, A. Bad, A. Thomas, V. Baltz,
[2] L. Šmejkal, A. H. MacDonald, J. Sinova, S. Nakatsuji, L. Michez, J. Sinova, S. T. B Goennenwein, T. Jung-
and T. Jungwirth, Nature Reviews Materials , published wirth, and L. Smejkal, Macroscopic time reversal sym-
on (2022), arXiv:2107.03321. metry breaking arising from antiferromagnetic Zeeman
[3] L. Šmejkal, R. González-Hernández, T. Jungwirth, effect, Tech. Rep. (2020) arXiv:2012.15651v1.
and J. Sinova, Science Advances 6, eaaz8809 (2020), [7] I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. González-
arXiv:1901.00445. Hernández, and L. Šmejkal, PNAS 118, e2108924118
[4] M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- (2021), arXiv:2105.06356.
tome, and H. Seo, Nature Communications 10, 4305 [8] R. González-Hernández, L. Šmejkal, K. Výborný, Y. Ya-
(2019), arXiv:1902.02506. hagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. Železný, Physical
[5] Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. Šmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, Review Letters 126, 127701 (2021), arXiv:2002.07073.
R. González-Hernández, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin, [9] M. Naka, Y. Motome, and H. Seo, Physical Review B
X. Zhang, H. Wu, H. Chen, C. Jiang, M. Coey, 103, 125114 (2021), arXiv:2011.12459.
J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and Z. Liu, , (2020), [10] A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-f. Shao, H. P. Nair,
arXiv:2002.08712. J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. G.
[6] H. Reichlova, R. Lopes Seeger, R. González-Hernández, Schlom, and D. C. Ralph, (2021), arXiv:2108.09150.
I. Kounta, R. Schlitz, D. Kriegner, P. Ritzinger, [11] H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, Q. Wang, W. Zhu,
M. Lammel, M. Leiviskä, V. Petřiček, P. Doležal, X. Chen, F. Pan, X. Fan, and C. Song, (2021),
 22

arXiv:2109.05933. [39] K. Samanta, M. Ležaić, M. Merte, F. Freimuth,

[12] S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, S. Blügel, and Y. Mokrousov, Journal of Applied
M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, (2021), arXiv:2111.07487. Physics 127, 213904 (2020).
[13] L. Šmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. González-Hernández, [40] M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo-
J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X 12, tome, and H. Seo, Physical Review B 102, 075112
011028 (2022), arXiv:2103.12664. (2020).
[14] D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. [41] M. Naka, Y. Motome, and H. Seo, Perovskite
Tsymbal, Nature Communications 12, 7061 (2021), as a spin current generator , Tech. Rep. (2020)
arXiv:2103.09219. arXiv:2011.12459v1.
[15] H.-Y. Ma, M. Hu, N. Li, J. Liu, W. Yao, J.-F. Jia, and [42] S. López-Moreno, A. H. Romero, J. Mejı́a-López,
J. Liu, Nature Communications 12, 2846 (2021). A. Muñoz, and I. V. Roshchin, Physical Review B 85,
[16] L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, , (2021), 134110 (2012).
arXiv:2105.05820. [43] S. López-Moreno, A. H. Romero, J. Mejı́a-López, and
[17] Y. Noda, K. Ohno, and S. Nakamura, Physical Chem- A. Muñoz, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 18,
istry Chemical Physics 18, 13294 (2016). 33250 (2016).
[18] K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneš, Phys- [44] L. Néel, Reviews of Modern Physics 25, 58 (1953).
ical Review B 99, 184432 (2019). [45] N. Kurti, Selected Works of Louis Neel, 1st ed. (CRC
[19] S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Journal of the Press, 1988).
Physical Society of Japan 88, 123702 (2019). [46] T. Berlijn, P. C. Snijders, O. Delaire, H. D. Zhou, T. A.
[20] L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and Maier, H. B. Cao, S. X. Chi, M. Matsuda, Y. Wang,
A. Zunger, Physical Review B 102, 014422 (2020). M. R. Koehler, P. R. Kent, and H. H. Weitering, Phys-
[21] S. Hayami, Y. Yanagi, and H. Kusunose, Physical Re- ical Review Letters 118, 2 (2017), arXiv:1612.09589.
view B 102, 144441 (2020). [47] Z. H. Zhu, J. Strempfer, R. R. Rao, C. A. Occhialini,
[22] L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Phys- J. Pelliciari, Y. Choi, T. Kawaguchi, H. You, J. F.
ical Review Materials 5, 014409 (2021). Mitchell, Y. Shao-Horn, and R. Comin, Physical Re-
[23] S. A. Egorov and R. A. Evarestov, The Journal of Phys- view Letters 122, 017202 (2019), arXiv:1806.02036.
ical Chemistry Letters 12, 2363 (2021). [48] S. W. Lovesey, D. D. Khalyavin, and G. van der Laan,
[24] P. Liu, J. Li, J. Han, X. Wan, and Q. Liu, (2021), (2021), arXiv:2108.01972.
arXiv:2103.15723. [49] C. A. Occhialini, V. Bisogni, H. You, A. Barbour, I. Jar-
[25] J. Yang, Z.-X. Liu, and C. Fang, (2021), rige, J. F. Mitchell, R. Comin, and J. Pelliciari, Physical
arXiv:2105.12738. Review Research 3, 033214 (2021), arXiv:2108.06256.
[26] W. F. Brinkman and R. J. Elliott, Proceedings of the [50] K. Ishizaka, M. S. Bahramy, H. Murakawa, M. Sakano,
Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineer- T. Shimojima, T. Sonobe, K. Koizumi, S. Shin,
ing Sciences 294, 343 (1966). H. Miyahara, A. Kimura, K. Miyamoto, T. Okuda,
[27] D. Litvin and W. Opechowski, Physica 76, 538 (1974). H. Namatame, M. Taniguchi, R. Arita, N. Nagaosa,
[28] D. B. Litvin, Acta Crystallographica Section A 33, 279 K. Kobayashi, Y. Murakami, R. Kumai, Y. Kaneko,
(1977). Y. Onose, and Y. Tokura, Nature Materials 10, 521
[29] F. D. M. Haldane, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, (2011).
040502 (2017). [51] L. Landau and E. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continu-
[30] J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller, Angewandte Chemie ous Media, vol. 8 of Course of Theoretical Physics, 2nd
International Edition in English 27, 735 (1988). ed. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1965).
[31] H. L. Stormer, Reviews of Modern Physics 71, 875 [52] N. V. Shubnikov and A. V. Belov, Colored Symmetry.
(1999). (Macmillan Publishers, New York, 1964).
[32] N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald, [53] B. A. Tavger and V. M. Zaitsev, Soviet Physics JETP
and N. P. Ong, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 1539 3, 430 (1956).
(2010), arXiv:0904.4154. [54] C. J. Bradley and A. P. Cracknell, The Mathematical
[33] J. Sinova, S. O. Valenzuela, J. Wunderlich, C. H. Back, Theory of Symmetry in Solids (Oxford Univeristy Press,
and T. Jungwirth, Reviews of Modern Physics 87, 1213 1972).
(2015), arXiv:1411.3249. [55] D. B. Litvin, Magnetic Group Tables (International
[34] T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wun- Union of Crystallography, Chester, England, 2013).
derlich, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 231 (2016), [56] S. V. Gallego, J. Manuel Perez-Mato, L. Elcoro, E. S.
arXiv:1606.04284. Tasci, R. M. Hanson, K. Momma, M. I. Aroyo, and
[35] A. Manchon, J. Železný, I. M. Miron, T. Jungwirth, G. Madariaga, J. Appl. Cryst 49, 1750 (2016).
J. Sinova, A. Thiaville, K. Garello, and P. Gam- [57] L. Šmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, B. Yan, and A. H. MacDon-
bardella, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 035004 (2019), ald, Nature Physics 14, 242 (2018), arXiv:1706.00670.
arXiv:1801.09636. [58] H. Watanabe, H. C. Po, and A. Vishwanath, Science
[36] M. Franz and L. Molenkamp, eds., Contemporary Con- Advances 4, eaat8685 (2018), arXiv:1707.01903.
cepts of Condensed Matter Science, vol. 6 - Topological [59] Y. Xu, L. Elcoro, Z. D. Song, B. J. Wieder, M. G.
Insulators (Elsevier, 2013). Vergniory, N. Regnault, Y. Chen, C. Felser, and B. A.
[37] Y. Tokura, K. Yasuda, and A. Tsukazaki, Nature Re- Bernevig, Nature 586, 702 (2020).
views Physics 1, 126 (2019). [60] L. Elcoro, B. J. Wieder, Z. Song, Y. Xu, B. Bradlyn,
[38] S. Nakatsuji and R. Arita, Annual Review of Con- and B. A. Bernevig, Nature Communications 12, 5965
densed Matter Physics 13 (2022), 10.1146/annurev- (2021), arXiv:2010.00598.
conmatphys-031620-103859.
 23

[61] J. Cano, B. Bradlyn, and M. G. Vergniory, APL Mate- mann, I. P. Rusinov, A. Y. Vyazovskaya, S. V. Ere-
rials 7, 101125 (2019). meev, Y. M. Koroteev, V. M. Kuznetsov, F. Freyse,
[62] P. M. Lenggenhager, X. Liu, T. Neupert, and J. Sánchez-Barriga, I. R. Amiraslanov, M. B. Babanly,
T. Bzdušek, (2022), arXiv:2201.08404. N. T. Mamedov, N. A. Abdullayev, V. N. Zverev, A. Al-
[63] A. F. Andreev and V. Marchenko, Uspekhi Fizicheskih fonsov, V. Kataev, B. Büchner, E. F. Schwier, S. Ku-
Nauk 130, 39 (1980). mar, A. Kimura, L. Petaccia, G. Di Santo, R. C. Vi-
[64] A. Corticelli, R. Moessner, and P. A. McClarty, Physi- dal, S. Schatz, K. Kißner, M. Ünzelmann, C. H. Min,
cal Review B 105, 064430 (2022), arXiv:2103.05656. S. Moser, T. R. F. Peixoto, F. Reinert, A. Ernst, P. M.
[65] I. Turek, (2022), arXiv:2201.11452. Echenique, A. Isaeva, and E. V. Chulkov, Nature 576,
[66] M.-T. Suzuki, T. Koretsune, M. Ochi, and R. Arita, 416 (2019), arXiv:1809.07389.
Physical Review B 95, 094406 (2017), arXiv:1611.06042. [87] J. Železný, H. Gao, K. Výborný, J. Zemen, J. Mašek,
[67] X. Chen, D. Wang, L. Li, and B. Sanyal, (2021), A. Manchon, J. Wunderlich, J. Sinova, and T. Jung-
arXiv:2104.07390. wirth, Physical Review Letters 113, 157201 (2014),
[68] T. Okugawa, K. Ohno, Y. Noda, and S. Nakamura, arXiv:1410.8296.
Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 30, 075502 [88] P. Wadley, B. Howells, J. Železný, C. Andrews, V. Hills,
(2018). R. P. Campion, V. Novák, K. Olejnı́k, F. Maccherozzi,
[69] H. Seo and M. Naka, Journal of the Physical Society of S. S. Dhesi, S. Y. Martin, T. Wagner, J. Wunderlich,
Japan 90, 064713 (2021), arXiv:2101.09883. F. Freimuth, Y. Mokrousov, J. Kuneš, J. S. Chauhan,
[70] H. A. Kramers, Proc. Amsterdam Acad. 33 (1930). M. J. Grzybowski, A. W. Rushforth, K. Edmond, B. L.
[71] E. Wigner, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wis- Gallagher, and T. Jungwirth, Science 351, 587 (2016),
senschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische arXiv:1503.03765.
Klasse 1932, 546 (1932). [89] L. Šmejkal, J. Železný, J. Sinova, and T. Jung-
[72] B. Bradlyn, L. Elcoro, J. Cano, M. G. Vergniory, wirth, Physical Review Letters 118, 106402 (2017),
Z. Wang, C. Felser, M. I. Aroyo, and B. A. Bernevig, arXiv:1610.08107.
Nature 547, 298 (2017), arXiv:1703.02050. [90] H. J. Elmers, S. V. Chernov, S. W. D’Souza,
[73] J. Zang, V. Cros, and A. Hoffmann, eds., Topology in S. P. Bommanaboyena, S. Y. Bodnar, K. Medjanik,
Magnetism, Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences, Vol. S. Babenkov, O. Fedchenko, D. Vasilyev, S. Y. Agusts-
192 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018). son, C. Schlueter, A. Gloskovskii, Y. Matveyev, V. N.
[74] M. G. Vergniory, L. Elcoro, C. Felser, N. Regnault, B. A. Strocov, Y. Skourski, L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova, J. Minár,
Bernevig, and Z. Wang, Nature 566, 480 (2019). M. Kläui, G. Schönhense, and M. Jourdan, ACS Nano
[75] C. Chappert, A. Fert, and F. N. Van Dau, Nature Ma- 14, 17554 (2020).
terials 6, 813 (2007), arXiv:1003.4058. [91] O. Fedchenko, L. Smejkal, M. Kallmayer, Y. Lytvy-
[76] D. C. Ralph and M. D. Stiles, Journal of Magnetism and nenko, K. Medjanik, S. Babenkov, D. Vasilyev,
Magnetic Materials 320, 1190 (2008), arXiv:0711.4608. M. Klaeui, J. Demsar, G. Schoenhense, M. Jourdan,
[77] S. Bhatti, R. Sbiaa, A. Hirohata, H. Ohno, S. Fukami, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, (2021), arXiv:2110.12186.
and S. Piramanayagam, Materials Today 20, 530 [92] K. Yamauchi, P. Barone, and S. Picozzi, Physical Re-
(2017). view B 100, 245115 (2019).
[78] R. Winkler, Spin–Orbit Coupling Effects in Two- [93] T. Suzuki, R. Chisnell, A. Devarakonda, Y. T. Liu,
Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems, Springer W. Feng, D. Xiao, J. W. Lynn, and J. G. Checkelsky,
Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. 191 (Springer Berlin Hei- Nature Physics 12, 1119 (2016).
delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2003). [94] R. Ramazashvili, Physical Review Letters 101, 137202
[79] N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, (2008).
Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 015001 (2018), [95] R. Ramazashvili, Physical Review B 79, 184432 (2009).
arXiv:1705.01111. [96] E. J. Rozbicki, J. F. Annett, J.-R. Souquet, and A. P.
[80] E. Turov, Physical properties of magnetically ordered Mackenzie, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 23,
crystals (Academic Press, New York, 1965). 094201 (2011).
[81] A. S. Núñez, R. A. Duine, P. Haney, and A. H. Mac- [97] B. Schrunk, Y. Kushnirenko, B. Kuthanazhi, J. Ahn,
Donald, Physical Review B 73, 214426 (2006). L.-L. Wang, E. O’Leary, K. Lee, A. Eaton, A. Fe-
[82] C. Sürgers, G. Fischer, P. Winkel, and H. V. Löhneysen, dorov, R. Lou, V. Voroshnin, O. J. Clark, J. Sánchez-
Nature Communications 5, 3400 (2014). Barriga, S. L. Bud’ko, R.-J. Slager, P. C. Can-
[83] C. Sürgers, W. Kittler, T. Wolf, and H. V. Löhneysen, field, and A. Kaminski, Nature 603, 610 (2022),
AIP Advances 6, 055604 (2016), arXiv:1601.01840. arXiv:2203.12511.
[84] N. J. Ghimire, A. S. Botana, J. S. Jiang, J. Zhang, Y.-S. [98] I. Pomeranchuk, Phys. JETP 8, 361 (1959).
Chen, and J. F. Mitchell, Nature Communications 9, [99] C. Wu, K. Sun, E. Fradkin, and S.-C. Zhang, Physical
3280 (2018). Review B 75, 115103 (2007).
[85] X. Marti, I. Fina, C. Frontera, J. Liu, P. Wadley, [100] S. A. Egorov, D. B. Litvin, and R. A. Evarestov,
Q. He, R. J. Paull, J. D. Clarkson, J. Kudrnovský, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C , acs.jpcc.1c02653
I. Turek, J. Kuneš, D. Yi, J.-H. Chu, C. T. Nelson, (2021).
L. You, E. Arenholz, S. Salahuddin, J. Fontcuberta, [101] J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross,
T. Jungwirth, and R. Ramesh, Nature Materials 13, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature Reviews Ma-
367 (2014), arXiv:0402594 [cond-mat]. terials 1, 16055 (2016).
[86] M. M. Otrokov, I. I. Klimovskikh, H. Bentmann, D. Es- [102] A. Marmodoro, L. Šmejkal, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth,
tyunin, A. Zeugner, Z. S. Aliev, S. Gaß, A. U. B. Wolter, to be submitted (2022).
A. V. Koroleva, A. M. Shikin, M. Blanco-Rey, M. Hoff-
 24

[103] S. V. Halilov, H. Eschrig, A. Y. Perlov, and P. M. C. Stamm, Y. Acremann, S. Finizio, S. Wintz, J. Raabe,
Oppeneer, Physical Review B 58, 293 (1998). and P. Gambardella, Nature Nanotechnology 12, 980
[104] A. Marmodoro, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, J. Minár, and (2017), arXiv:arXiv:1704.06402v1.
O. O. Ondřejšipr, (2022), arXiv:2202.04525v1. [125] A. V. Kimel and M. Li, Nature Reviews Materials 4,
[105] S. M. Rezende, A. Azevedo, and R. L. Rodrı́guez- 189 (2019).
Suárez, Journal of Applied Physics 126, 151101 (2019). [126] D. Bedau, H. Liu, J. Z. Sun, J. A. Katine, E. E. Fuller-
[106] M. V. Berry, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- ton, S. Mangin, and A. D. Kent, Applied Physics Let-
don. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 392, 45 ters 97, 262502 (2010), arXiv:1009.5240.
(1984), arXiv:1108.0910. [127] K. Garello, C. O. Avci, I. M. Miron, M. Baumgart-
[107] D. Culcer, A. MacDonald, and Q. Niu, Physical Re- ner, A. Ghosh, S. Auffret, O. Boulle, G. Gaudin, and
view B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 68, P. Gambardella, Applied Physics Letters 105, 212402
1 (2003), arXiv:0311147 [cond-mat]. (2014), arXiv:1310.5586.
[108] T. S. Nunner, N. A. Sinitsyn, M. F. Borunda, V. K. [128] G. Prenat, K. Jabeur, P. Vanhauwaert, G. D. Pend-
Dugaev, A. A. Kovalev, A. Abanov, C. Timm, T. Jung- ina, F. Oboril, R. Bishnoi, M. Ebrahimi, N. Lamard,
wirth, J.-i. Inoue, A. H. MacDonald, and J. Sinova, O. Boulle, K. Garello, J. Langer, B. Ocker, M. C.
Physical Review B 76, 235312 (2007), arXiv:0706.0056. Cyrille, P. Gambardella, M. Tahoori, and G. Gaudin,
[109] V. K. Dugaev, J. Barnaś, M. Taillefumier, B. Canals, IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems
C. Lacroix, and P. Bruno, Journal of Physics: 2, 49 (2016).
Conference Series 104 (2008), 10.1088/1742- [129] K. Olejnı́k, T. Seifert, Z. Kašpar, V. Novák, P. Wadley,
6596/104/1/012018. R. P. Campion, M. Baumgartner, P. Gambardella,
[110] D. Xiao, M. C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Reviews of Modern P. Němec, J. Wunderlich, J. Sinova, P. Kužel, M. Müller,
Physics 82, 1959 (2010), arXiv:0907.2021. T. Kampfrath, and T. Jungwirth, Science Advances 4,
[111] D. F. Shao, J. Ding, G. Gurung, S. H. Zhang, and eaar3566 (2018), arXiv:1711.08444.
E. Y. Tsymbal, Physical Review Applied 15, 1 (2021), [130] C. Kittel, Phys. Rev. 82, 565 (1951).
arXiv:2006.09624. [131] E. Beaurepaire, J. C. Merle, A. Daunois, and
[112] M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of Modern Physics J. Y. Bigot, Physical Review Letters 76, 4250 (1996),
82, 3045 (2010), arXiv:1002.3895. arXiv:9709264 [cond-mat].
[113] K. V. Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Physical Re- [132] I. Radu, K. Vahaplar, C. Stamm, T. Kachel, N. Pon-
view Letters 45, 494 (1980), arXiv:arXiv:1011.1669v3. tius, H. A. Dürr, T. A. Ostler, J. Barker, R. F. Evans,
[114] K. S. Novoselov, Z. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Morozov, R. W. Chantrell, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, A. Kirilyuk,
H. L. Stormer, U. Zeitler, J. C. Maan, G. S. Boebinger, T. Rasing, and A. V. Kimel, Nature 472, 205 (2011).
P. Kim, and A. K. Geim, Science 315, 1379 (2007), [133] Z. Kašpar, M. Surýnek, J. Zubáč, F. Krizek, V. Novák,
arXiv:0702408 [cond-mat]. R. P. Campion, M. S. Wörnle, P. Gambardella,
[115] C.-Z. Chang, J. Zhang, X. Feng, J. Shen, Z. Zhang, X. Marti, P. Němec, K. W. Edmonds, S. Reimers, O. J.
M. Guo, K. Li, Y. Ou, P. Wei, L.-L. Wang, Z.-Q. Ji, Amin, F. Maccherozzi, S. S. Dhesi, P. Wadley, J. Wun-
Y. Feng, S. Ji, X. Chen, J. Jia, X. Dai, Z. Fang, S.-C. derlich, K. Olejnı́k, and T. Jungwirth, Nature Electron-
Zhang, K. He, Y. Wang, L. Lu, X.-C. Ma, and Q.-K. ics 4, 30 (2021).
Xue, Science 340, 167 (2013), arXiv:arXiv:1212.4783. [134] J. Zubáč, Z. Kašpar, F. Krizek, T. Förster, R. P. Cam-
[116] Y. Deng, Y. Yu, M. Z. Shi, Z. Guo, Z. Xu, J. Wang, pion, V. Novák, T. Jungwirth, and K. Olejnı́k, Physical
X. H. Chen, and Y. Zhang, Science 367, 895 (2020). Review B 104, 184424 (2021), arXiv:2107.05724.
[117] A. H. MacDonald and M. Tsoi, Philosophical Trans- [135] F. Krizek, S. Reimers, Z. Kašpar, A. Marmodoro,
actions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Phys- J. Michalička, O. Man, A. Edstrom, O. J. Amin, K. W.
ical and Engineering Sciences 369, 3098 (2011), Edmonds, R. P. Campion, F. Maccherozzi, S. S. Dnes,
arXiv:0510797 [cond-mat]. J. Zubáč, J. Železný, K. Výborný, K. Olejnı́k, V. Novák,
[118] H. B. M. Saidaoui, A. Manchon, and X. Wain- J. Rusz, J. C. Idrobo, P. Wadley, and T. Jungwirth, Sci-
tal, Physical Review B 89, 174430 (2014), ence Advances 8, eabn3535 (2022), arXiv:2012.00894.
arXiv:arXiv:1403.6383v1. [136] Y. Kohno, T. Seki, S. D. Findlay, Y. Ikuhara, and
[119] M. Stamenova, R. Mohebbi, J. Seyed-Yazdi, I. Rungger, N. Shibata, Nature 602, 234 (2022).
and S. Sanvito, Physical Review B 95, 060403 (2017). [137] B. Mallada, A. Gallardo, M. Lamanec, B. de la Torre,
[120] A. B. Shick, S. Khmelevskyi, O. N. Mryasov, J. Wunder- V. Špirko, P. Hobza, and P. Jelinek, Science 374, 863
lich, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review B 81, 212409 (2021).
(2010), arXiv:1002.2151. [138] W. A. Borders, H. Akima, S. Fukami, S. Moriya,
[121] J. Godinho, H. Reichlova, D. Kriegner, V. Novak, S. Kurihara, Y. Horio, S. Sato, and H. Ohno, Applied
K. Olejnik, Z. Kaspar, Z. Soban, P. Wadley, R. P. Cam- Physics Express 10, 013007 (2017).
pion, R. M. Otxoa, P. E. Roy, J. Zelezny, T. Jung- [139] K. Olejnı́k, V. Schuler, X. Marti, V. Novák, Z. Kašpar,
wirth, and J. Wunderlich, Nature Communications 9, P. Wadley, R. P. Campion, K. W. Edmonds, B. L. Gal-
4686 (2018), arXiv:1806.02795. lagher, J. Garces, M. Baumgartner, P. Gambardella,
[122] Y. Zhang, Q. Xu, K. Koepernik, R. Rezaev, O. Janson, and T. Jungwirth, Nature Communications 8, 15434
J. Železný, T. Jungwirth, C. Felser, J. van den Brink, (2017).
and Y. Sun, npj Computational Materials 7, 167 (2021). [140] A. Kurenkov, S. DuttaGupta, C. Zhang, S. Fukami,
[123] A. Brataas, A. D. Kent, and H. Ohno, Nature Materials Y. Horio, and H. Ohno, Advanced Materials 31,
11, 372 (2012). 1900636 (2019).
[124] M. Baumgartner, K. Garello, J. Mendil, C. O. [141] A. Kurenkov, S. Fukami, and H. Ohno, Journal of Ap-
Avci, E. Grimaldi, C. Murer, J. Feng, M. Gabureac, plied Physics 128, 010902 (2020).
 25

[142] J. C. Phillips, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 352, [150] Q. Jie, R. Hu, E. Bozin, A. Llobet, I. Zaliznyak,
4490 (2006). C. Petrovic, and Q. Li, Physical Review B 86, 115121
[143] Wulfram Gerstner and Werner M. Kistler, Spiking Neu- (2012), arXiv:1210.3355.
ron Models (Cambridge University Press, 2002). [151] H. Ohno, Science 281, 951 (1998).
[144] J. Grollier, D. Querlioz, and M. D. Stiles, Proceedings [152] T. Dietl and H. Ohno, Reviews of Modern Physics 86,
of the IEEE 104, 2024 (2016). 187 (2014), arXiv:1307.3429.
[145] J. Kaiser, W. A. Borders, K. Y. Camsari, S. Fukami, [153] R. Ramesh and N. A. Spaldin, Nature Materials 6, 21
H. Ohno, and S. Datta, Physical Review Applied 17, (2007).
014016 (2022). [154] S. Bhattacharjee, E. Bousquet, and P. Ghosez, Physical
[146] C. Li, M. Hu, Y. Li, H. Jiang, N. Ge, E. Montgomery, Review Letters 102, 117602 (2009), arXiv:0811.2344.
J. Zhang, W. Song, N. Dávila, C. E. Graves, Z. Li, J. P. [155] Q. Si, R. Yu, and E. Abrahams, Nature Reviews Ma-
Strachan, P. Lin, Z. Wang, M. Barnell, Q. Wu, R. S. terials 1, 1 (2016), arXiv:1604.03566.
Williams, J. J. Yang, and Q. Xia, Nature Electronics [156] I. I. Mazin, (2022), arXiv:2203.05000.
1, 52 (2018). [157] M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Reviews of Modern Physics 63,
[147] J. J. Yang, D. B. Strukov, and D. R. Stewart, Nature 239 (1991).
Nanotechnology 8, 13 (2013), arXiv:1011.1669v3. [158] I. I. Mazin, A. A. Golubov, and B. Nadgorny, Journal
[148] G. E. Bauer, E. Saitoh, and B. J. Van Wees, Nature of Applied Physics 89, 7576 (2001).
Materials 11, 391 (2012), arXiv:1107.4395. [159] K. Flensberg, F. von Oppen, and A. Stern, Nature
[149] M. Mizuguchi and S. Nakatsuji, Science and Technology Reviews Materials 6, 944 (2021), arXiv:2103.05548.
of Advanced Materials 20, 262 (2019).