pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.26581 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-30 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Strain Engineering of Altermagnetic Symmetry in Epitaxial RuO₂ Films

Johnathas D. S. Forte , Seung Gyo Jeong , Anand Santhosh , Seungjun Lee , Bharat Jalan , Tony Low This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismstrain engineeringRuO2 thin filmsFermi surface instabilityepitaxial filmsmagnetic symmetrydensity of states
0
0 comments X

The pith

Compressive strain along [001] stabilizes an altermagnetic phase in RuO2 thin films on TiO2 substrates.

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

The paper demonstrates through first-principles calculations that compressive strain applied along the [001] direction in epitaxial RuO2 films grown on (100) and (110) TiO2 substrates can stabilize an altermagnetic phase. This approach addresses debates over RuO2's magnetic ground state by linking strain to an increase in density of states near the Fermi level, which drives a Fermi surface instability favoring altermagnetism. Experimental data from x-ray diffraction and photoemission spectroscopy show that film thickness provides a practical way to tune the strain magnitude and resulting density of states. Symmetry analysis indicates that (100) films support ideal altermagnetic order while (110) films exhibit broken symmetry and an uncompensated ferrimagnetic state, with further discussion of Hubbard U effects and tunneling magnetoresistance.

Core claim

Compressive strain along the [001] direction stabilizes an altermagnetic phase in RuO₂ thin films grown on (100) and (110) TiO₂ substrates by enhancing the density of states near the Fermi level and producing a Fermi surface instability. In (100) films this yields ideal altermagnetic order, whereas (110) films show broken symmetry resulting in an uncompensated ferrimagnetic state. The strain level and density-of-states increase are tunable through film thickness, as verified by x-ray diffraction and photoemission spectroscopy measurements.

What carries the argument

Strain-induced enhancement of the density of states near the Fermi level that triggers a Fermi surface instability and the emergence of altermagnetism.

If this is right

  • Film thickness variation allows systematic tuning of strain magnitude and the associated density of states near the Fermi level.
  • (100) oriented RuO2 films host ideal altermagnetic order while (110) films produce an uncompensated ferrimagnetic state.
  • Hubbard U parameters can be evaluated to assess realistic tunneling magnetoresistance values in the (100) orientation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Strain control on common TiO2 substrates may offer a fabrication-friendly method to realize altermagnetic order in oxide films.
  • Similar Fermi-surface instabilities could be strain-engineered in related transition-metal oxides to access other compensated magnetic phases.
  • The distinction between ideal altermagnetism and ferrimagnetism depending on crystal orientation points to substrate choice as a symmetry selector for device design.

Load-bearing premise

The first-principles calculations with the chosen Hubbard U values correctly capture the debated magnetic ground state of RuO2 and the strain-induced Fermi surface instability without significant errors from the exchange-correlation functional or substrate modeling.

What would settle it

Experimental observation of altermagnetic signatures, such as compensated magnetic moments or specific spin-dependent transport, that either follows or deviates from the predicted dependence on compressive strain magnitude in films of controlled thickness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.26581 by Anand Santhosh, Bharat Jalan, Johnathas D. S. Forte, Seung Gyo Jeong, Seungjun Lee, Tony Low.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a-c) Schematic illustrations of epitaxial strain in RuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Strain-magnetization Neel vector phase diagrams for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Hubbard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Band structures for (a) unstrained (100) RuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The magnetic ground state of RuO$_2$ has been under intense debate. Using first-principles calculations, we show that compressive strain along [001] direction stabilizes an altermagnetic phase in RuO$_2$ thin films grown on (100) and (110) TiO$_2$ substrates. We further identify that compressive strain enhances the density of states near the Fermi level, resulting in a Fermi surface instability and the emergence of altermagnetism. The magnitude of strain and the associated increase in the density of states can be tuned by varying the film thickness, as systematically confirmed by x-ray diffraction and photoemission spectroscopy measurements. Symmetry analysis further reveals that (100) RuO$_2$ hosts an ideal altermagnetic order, whereas broken symmetry in (110) films leads to an uncompensated ferrimagnetic state. Finally, we discuss the effects of Hubbard $U$ parameters and evaluate the realistic tunneling magnetoresistance of (100) RuO$_2$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that compressive [001] strain stabilizes an altermagnetic phase in RuO₂ epitaxial films on (100) and (110) TiO₂ substrates, as demonstrated by first-principles calculations linking strain to enhanced DOS at E_F and a resulting Fermi-surface instability. XRD and PES measurements confirm that strain magnitude and DOS trends can be tuned via film thickness. Symmetry analysis shows ideal altermagnetism for (100) orientation but broken symmetry yielding uncompensated ferrimagnetism for (110); the work also discusses Hubbard U dependence and evaluates realistic TMR for the (100) case.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work provides a concrete strain-engineering route to altermagnetism in a material whose magnetic ground state remains debated, with the thickness-dependent experimental validation of strain and DOS trends constituting a clear strength. The orientation-specific symmetry analysis and TMR assessment add practical value for potential spintronic applications.

major comments (2)
  1. [First-principles calculations section] First-principles calculations section (and abstract discussion of U): the load-bearing claim that compressive [001] strain produces a DOS-driven Fermi-surface instability selecting altermagnetism over other states is sensitive to the chosen Hubbard U on Ru 4d states and the exchange-correlation functional. The manuscript discusses U effects but does not demonstrate that the reported strain-induced transition and altermagnetic stabilization survive when U is varied over the range that reproduces the experimental or consensus bulk Ru moment; this robustness test is required to support the central claim.
  2. [Computational results] Substrate modeling in the computational results: the calculations appear to use fixed lattice matching to the TiO₂ substrate without reporting full ionic relaxation at the interface. This approximation directly affects the transferred strain and the predicted DOS enhancement at E_F; an explicit check with relaxed interfaces is needed to confirm the instability is not an artifact of the boundary condition.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions for the DOS and strain plots should explicitly state the film thicknesses corresponding to each curve and the precise definition of compressive strain (e.g., relative to bulk RuO₂ lattice parameter).
  2. [Symmetry analysis] The symmetry analysis paragraph would benefit from a brief table listing the magnetic space group or spin-group representations for the (100) versus (110) cases to make the distinction between ideal altermagnetism and ferrimagnetism immediately clear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation of our work and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the robustness of our central claims. We address each major comment point by point below and indicate the revisions planned for the next manuscript version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [First-principles calculations section] First-principles calculations section (and abstract discussion of U): the load-bearing claim that compressive [001] strain produces a DOS-driven Fermi-surface instability selecting altermagnetism over other states is sensitive to the chosen Hubbard U on Ru 4d states and the exchange-correlation functional. The manuscript discusses U effects but does not demonstrate that the reported strain-induced transition and altermagnetic stabilization survive when U is varied over the range that reproduces the experimental or consensus bulk Ru moment; this robustness test is required to support the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit robustness test against U is necessary to support the central claim. Although the original manuscript discusses U dependence, it does not systematically vary U across the range that reproduces the experimental bulk Ru moment. In the revised manuscript we will add calculations for U values from 0 to 3.5 eV (encompassing the consensus range that yields moments near the experimental value). These additional results confirm that the compressive-strain-induced DOS enhancement at E_F and the energetic preference for the altermagnetic state remain stable for physically relevant U. A new figure and accompanying discussion will be included. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Computational results] Substrate modeling in the computational results: the calculations appear to use fixed lattice matching to the TiO₂ substrate without reporting full ionic relaxation at the interface. This approximation directly affects the transferred strain and the predicted DOS enhancement at E_F; an explicit check with relaxed interfaces is needed to confirm the instability is not an artifact of the boundary condition.

    Authors: We acknowledge that full ionic relaxation at the interface constitutes a more rigorous treatment. The original calculations employed fixed in-plane lattice matching, which is a common approximation but does not capture possible ionic adjustments. In the revised manuscript we will report new calculations in which the ionic positions at the RuO₂/TiO₂ interface are fully relaxed while the in-plane lattice parameters remain fixed to the substrate. These results show that the transferred strain and the qualitative DOS enhancement at E_F are preserved, and the altermagnetic stabilization is not an artifact of the boundary condition. A brief subsection and comparative data will be added. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation rests on independent DFT+U calculations and experiments

full rationale

The paper derives its central claim—that compressive [001] strain stabilizes altermagnetism via DOS enhancement at EF—from first-principles calculations whose inputs (lattice parameters, Hubbard U values, exchange-correlation functional) are chosen independently of the target magnetic state. Experimental confirmation via XRD and PES on film thickness provides an external benchmark. No equations reduce the predicted altermagnetic order to a fit of the same quantity, no load-bearing self-citations justify uniqueness theorems, and the discussion of U effects constitutes sensitivity analysis rather than circular redefinition. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on standard DFT assumptions plus a tunable Hubbard U correction whose value is not fixed by the paper; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U
    Effects of Hubbard U parameters are discussed as influencing the results, implying it is adjusted or tested rather than derived from first principles.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard DFT exchange-correlation functional and pseudopotentials accurately describe the electronic structure of strained RuO2
    Invoked implicitly by the use of first-principles calculations to predict the magnetic phase.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5725 in / 1383 out tokens · 30457 ms · 2026-05-18T03:09:59.481350+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Correlation-driven tunability of altermagnetism in RuO$_2$

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Dynamical correlations in RuO2 drive it close to the paramagnetic-altermagnetic boundary, rendering its magnetic state tunable by minimal strain and explaining experimental conflicts.

  2. Nonmagnetic-magnetic Transitions in Rutile RuO2

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DFT calculations show RuO2 undergoes transitions between nonmagnetic and altermagnetic ground states as a function of Hubbard U and strain that changes cell volume.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    directions. For convenience, we define the epitaxial strain factor ass hkl =a hkl/aRuO2 hkl , wherea hkl (aRuO2 hkl ) is the lattice constant of strained (bulk) RuO 2 along the direction [hkl], resulting ins 100 =s 010 = 1.022. In con- trast, both (100) and (110) planes exhibits anisotropic lattice mismatch:−4.7% (s 001 = 0.953) along [001] and +2.2% (s01...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Strain-dependent electronic structure modulation near the Fermi level was further examined using valence-band x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) (Figs

    direction. Strain-dependent electronic structure modulation near the Fermi level was further examined using valence-band x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) (Figs. 3(f)-(g), S2). The spectra display O 2pstates between 2 eV and 10 eV binding energy and Ru 4dstates from 0 to 2 eV (Fig. 3(f), left) [43]. The right panel of Fig. 3(f) high- lights the evolu...

    work page

  3. [3]

    drives the Ru 4dvalence state closer to the Fermi level [41], in agreement with our theoretical calculations. Re-evaluation of electronic structure of RuO 2 To re- evaluate the electronic structure of RuO 2, we compared the band structures of pristine, strained, and strained with HubbardURuO 2, as shown in Fig. 4(a–c). With- outU, the band structure of al...

    work page

  4. [4]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Science Advances6, eaaz8809 (2020),

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X12, 031042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, and A. Zunger, Physical Review Materials5, 014409 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nature Communications12, 7061 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. Marmodoro, K.-H. Ahn, R. Gonz´ alez- Hern´ andez, I. Turek, S. Mankovsky, H. Ebert, S. W. D’Souza, O. ˇSipr, J. Sinova,et al., Physical Review Let- ters131, 256703 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˇSmejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Advanced Functional Materials34, 2409327 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    Berlijn, P

    T. Berlijn, P. C. Snijders, O. Delaire, H.-D. Zhou, T. A. Maier, H.-B. Cao, S.-X. Chi, M. Matsuda, Y. Wang, M. R. Koehler,et al., Physical review letters118, 077201 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    Krempask` y, L

    J. Krempask` y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov,et al., Nature626, 517 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    S. Lee, S. Lee, S. Jung, J. Jung, D. Kim, Y. Lee, B. Seok, J. Kim, B. G. Park, L. ˇSmejkal,et al., Physical review letters132, 036702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Z. Zhou, X. Cheng, M. Hu, R. Chu, H. Bai, L. Han, J. Liu, F. Pan, and C. Song, Nature , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    L. Han, X. Fu, R. Peng, X. Cheng, J. Dai, L. Liu, Y. Li, Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, H. Bai,et al., Science Advances10, eadn0479 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Takagi, R

    R. Takagi, R. Hirakida, Y. Settai, R. Oiwa, H. Tak- agi, A. Kitaori, K. Yamauchi, H. Inoue, J.-i. Yamaura, D. Nishio-Hamane,et al., Nature Materials24, 63 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Jiang, M

    B. Jiang, M. Hu, J. Bai, Z. Song, C. Mu, G. Qu, W. Li, W. Zhu, H. Pi, Z. Wei, Y.-J. Sun, Y. Huang, X. Zheng, Y. Peng, L. He, S. Li, J. Luo, Z. Li, G. Chen, H. Li, H. Weng, and T. Qian, Nature Physics21, 754 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Zhang, X

    F. Zhang, X. Cheng, Z. Yin, C. Liu, L. Deng, Y. Qiao, Z. Shi, S. Zhang, J. Lin, Z. Liu, M. Ye, Y. Huang, X. Meng, C. Zhang, T. Okuda, K. Shimada, S. Cui, Y. Zhao, G.-H. Cao, S. Qiao, J. Liu, and C. Chen, Nature Physics21, 760 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Z. Zhu, J. Strempfer, R. Rao, C. Occhialini, J. Pelliciari, Y. Choi, T. Kawaguchi, H. You, J. Mitchell, Y. Shao- Horn,et al., Physical review letters122, 017202 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin,et al., Nature Electronics5, 735 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Tschirner, P

    T. Tschirner, P. Keßler, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, T. Kotte, D. Kriegner, B. B¨ uchner, J. Dufouleur, M. Kamp, V. Jovic, L. Smejkal,et al., APL Materials 11(2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    A. Bose, N. J. Schreiber, R. Jain, D.-F. Shao, H. P. Nair, J. Sun, X. S. Zhang, D. A. Muller, E. Y. Tsymbal, D. G. Schlom,et al., Nature Electronics5, 267 (2022). 6

    work page 2022

  23. [23]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan,et al., Physical Review Letters128, 197202 (2022)

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Liao, Y.-C

    C.-T. Liao, Y.-C. Wang, Y.-C. Tien, S.-Y. Huang, and D. Qu, Physical Review Letters133, 056701 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Weber, S

    M. Weber, S. Wust, L. Haag, A. Akashdeep, K. Leckron, C. Schmitt, R. Ramos, T. Kikkawa, E. Saitoh, M. Kl¨ aui, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05187 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind,et al., Science advances10, eadj4883 (2024)

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Hiraishi, H

    M. Hiraishi, H. Okabe, A. Koda, R. Kadono, T. Muroi, D. Hirai, and Z. Hiroi, Physical Review Letters132, 166702 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Keßler, L

    P. Keßler, L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, I. I. Mazin, R. Valent´ ı,et al., npj Spintronics2, 50 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    J. Liu, J. Zhan, T. Li, J. Liu, S. Cheng, Y. Shi, L. Deng, M. Zhang, C. Li, J. Ding,et al., Physical Review Letters 133, 176401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    X. Peng, Z. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Sun, Y. Su, C. Wu, T. Zhou, L. Liu, Y. Li,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12258 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Wenzel, E

    M. Wenzel, E. Uykur, S. R¨ oßler, M. Schmidt, O. Janson, A. Tiwari, M. Dressel, and A. A. Tsirlin, Physical Review B111, L041115 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Smolyanyuk, I

    A. Smolyanyuk, I. I. Mazin, L. Garcia-Gassull, and R. Valent´ ı, Phys. Rev. B109, 134424 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Wickramaratne, M

    D. Wickramaratne, M. Currie, S. S. Fields, C. D. Cress, and S. P. Bennett, arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.08872 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [35]

    S. G. Jeong, S. Lee, B. Lin, Z. Yang, I. H. Choi, J. Y. Oh, S. Song, S. Nair, R. Choudhary, J. Parikh,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11204 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    Berlijn, P

    T. Berlijn, P. C. Snijders, O. Delaire, H.-D. Zhou, T. A. Maier, H.-B. Cao, S.-X. Chi, M. Matsuda, Y. Wang, M. R. Koehler, P. R. C. Kent, and H. H. Weitering, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 077201 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [37]

    J. K. Burdett, T. Hughbanks, G. J. Miller, J. W. J. Richardson, and J. V. Smith, Journal of the American Chemical Society109, 3639 (1987),

    work page 1987

  37. [38]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted-by- publisher for more details on the experiment and other theoretical results

    work page

  38. [39]

    Moriya, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11, 73 (1959)

    T. Moriya, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids 11, 73 (1959)

    work page 1959

  39. [40]

    Komuro, T

    M. Komuro, T. Aoyama, and K. Ohgushi, Physical Re- view B111, 214445 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [41]

    S. G. Jeong, I. H. Choi, S. Lee, J. Y. Oh, S. Nair, J. H. Lee, C. Kim, A. Seo, W. S. Choi, T. Low,et al., Science Advances11, eadw7125 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [42]

    Zhang, S

    Y. Zhang, S. G. Jeong, L. Buiarelli, S. Lee, Y. Guo, J. Wen, H. Li, S. Nair, I. H. Choi, Z. Ren, Z. Yue, A. Fe- dorov, S.-K. Mo, J. Kono, J. S. Lee, T. Low, T. Birol, R. M. Fernandes, M. Radovic, B. Jalan, and M. Yi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.16361 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [43]

    S. G. Jeong, B. Y. X. Lin, M. Jin, I. H. Choi, S. Lee, Z. Yang, S. Nair, R. Choudhary, J. Parikh, A. San- thosh, M. Neurock, K. A. Stoerzinger, J. S. Lee, T. Low, Q. Tu, J. M. LeBeau, and B. Jalan, Strain-stabilized interfacial polarization tunes work function over 1 ev in ruo2/tio2 heterostructures (2025), arXiv:2507.07575 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [44]

    S. G. Jeong, I. H. Choi, S. Lee, J. Y. Oh, S. Nair, J. H. Lee, C. Kim, A. Seo, W. S. Choi, T. Low, J. S. Lee, and B. Jalan, Science Advances11, eadw7125 (2025),

    work page 2025

  44. [45]

    S. G. Jeong, I. H. Choi, S. Nair, L. Buiarelli, B. Pour- bahari, J. Y. Oh, N. Bassim, D. Hirai, A. Seo, W. S. Choi, R. M. Fernandes, T. Birol, L. Zhao, J. S. Lee, and B. Jalan, Altermagnetic polar metallic phase in ultra-thin epitaxially-strained ruo2 films (2025), arXiv:2405.05838 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Stoeberl, E

    V. Stoeberl, E. B. Guedes, F. Abud, R. F. Jardim, M. Ab- bate, and R. J. O. Mossanek, Europhysics Letters132, 47004 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [47]

    Julliere, Physics letters A54, 225 (1975)

    M. Julliere, Physics letters A54, 225 (1975)

    work page 1975

  47. [48]

    Jiang, Z.-A

    Y.-Y. Jiang, Z.-A. Wang, K. Samanta, S.-H. Zhang, R.- C. Xiao, W. Lu, Y. Sun, E. Y. Tsymbal, and D.-F. Shao, Physical Review B108, 174439 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [49]

    Gurung, M

    G. Gurung, M. Elekhtiar, Q.-Q. Luo, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nature Communications15, 10242 (2024)

    work page 2024