pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14817 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Layer-dependent quantum transport in KV2Se2O-based altermagnetic tunnel junctions

Yue Zhao , Bin Xiao , Jiawei Liu , Hui Zeng , Jun Zhao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetic tunnel junctionKV2Se2OSrTiO3 barriertunneling magnetoresistancelayer-dependent transportquantum transportinterface engineeringDFT-NEGF
0
0 comments X

The pith

Altermagnetic tunnel junctions with KV2Se2O electrodes exhibit layer-parity-dependent transmission through SrTiO3 barriers, reaching a TMR of 4.6 times 10 to the seventh percent at four layers.

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

The paper constructs a tunnel junction with altermagnetic KV2Se2O electrodes separated by a SrTiO3 semiconductor barrier and computes its quantum transport using density functional theory plus nonequilibrium Green's functions. Transmission through the junction oscillates sharply with the number of SrTiO3 layers because the parity of that number fixes whether the interface is oxygen-selenium or titanium-selenium. Odd-layer stacks produce a smooth potential that opens transverse-momentum paths for electrons; even-layer stacks produce a steeper potential that closes those paths. The calculation predicts an extremely large tunneling magnetoresistance when the barrier is exactly four layers thick. This layer-control mechanism offers a way to design compact spintronic elements that avoid the stray fields of ordinary magnets.

Core claim

In KV2Se2O/SrTiO3/KV2Se2O altermagnetic tunnel junctions the transmission probability oscillates with SrTiO3 thickness because the parity of the layer count sets the atomic termination at each interface. Odd layers terminate in an O-Se configuration whose effective potential remains smooth and permits k-parallel transport channels; even layers terminate in a Ti-Se configuration whose steeper potential blocks those channels. This interface-parity effect produces a calculated TMR ratio of 4.6 times 10 to the seventh percent for the four-layer barrier.

What carries the argument

The parity of the SrTiO3 layer count, which fixes the interface termination (O-Se for odd, Ti-Se for even) and thereby the shape of the effective potential that governs whether transverse-momentum electron channels can cross the barrier.

If this is right

  • TMR magnitude can be switched between high and low values simply by adding or removing one SrTiO3 layer.
  • Interface termination controls which transverse momentum channels remain open, providing atomic-scale tuning of conductance.
  • Barrier engineering through layer parity becomes a practical route to high magnetoresistance without external magnetic fields.
  • The oscillation period of two layers sets a design rule for choosing barrier thickness in similar altermagnetic devices.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same parity rule may appear in other oxide-barrier junctions once the electrode is an altermagnet or antiferromagnet.
  • Fabrication tolerances of one monolayer will be required to land on the high-TMR configurations.
  • Combining this giant TMR with the lack of stray fields could allow denser packing of spintronic bits than conventional magnetic tunnel junctions permit.
  • Direct transport measurements on monolayer-controlled samples would test whether the predicted oscillation survives real-interface disorder.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the even or odd count of SrTiO3 layers creates either an O-Se or Ti-Se interface whose potential shape alone decides which sideways electron paths cross the barrier.

What would settle it

Fabricating KV2Se2O/SrTiO3/KV2Se2O stacks with precisely four SrTiO3 monolayers, measuring the resistance difference between parallel and antiparallel electrode alignments, and checking whether the TMR ratio reaches or falls far short of 4.6 times 10 to the seventh percent.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14817 by Bin Xiao, Hui Zeng, Jiawei Liu, Jun Zhao, Yue Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic representation of an altermagnetic tun [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The atomic structure and electronic properties of th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Device structure and layer-dependent spin-transpo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Transport properties of the (a, b) 4-layer and (c, d) 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Electron density and effective potential of the 4- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Benchmark of the MTJ performance. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) is the key component to enable information access and increasing number of MTJs is integrated to develop high-density spintronic devices. However, continuous miniaturization of the conventional MTJs is hindered by stray magnetic fields. Altermagnets, combining the advantages of both ferromagnets and antiferromagnets, provide a promising alternative to fabricate versatile MTJs with exotic properties, such as giant spin splitting, high intrinsic frequency, and absence of stray fields. Inspired by the altermagnetic metal candidate KV2Se2O reported recently, we design an altermagnetic tunnel junction (AMTJ) based on KV2Se2O/SrTiO3/KV2Se2O. Using density functional theory combined with non-equilibrium Green's function, we investigate the layer-dependent quantum transport properties and the tunneling magnetoresistance (TMR) of such AMTJ device. Our calculated results reveal that the transmission of the AMTJ device exhibits a pronounced oscillation behavior dependent on the number of layers of the SrTiO3 semiconductor, which is attributed to the interface configuration determined by parity of the layer number. In odd-layer devices, the electron-rich O-Se interface exhibits a smooth effective potential and enables transverse momentum (k||) transport channels, leading to enhanced transmission. In contrast, in even-layer devices, the Ti-Se interface presents a steeper effective potential, impeding quantum transport through transverse momentum (k||) channels. A giant TMR of 4.6*10^7% is predicted to be realized by using a 4-layer SrTiO3. Our findings not only provide physical understanding relevant to the quantum transport in AMTJs, but also unveil that the barrier interface engineering is a strategy to tune the magnetoelectric performance.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses DFT combined with NEGF to study quantum transport in KV2Se2O/SrTiO3/KV2Se2O altermagnetic tunnel junctions. It reports that transmission oscillates with SrTiO3 layer parity because odd layers produce an O-Se interface with smooth effective potential that opens k|| channels while even layers produce a Ti-Se interface with steeper potential that suppresses them, yielding a predicted TMR of 4.6×10^7% for a 4-layer barrier.

Significance. If the numerical results prove robust, the work would establish interface-parity engineering as a route to giant TMR in altermagnetic junctions, offering a stray-field-free platform for high-density spintronics. The parameter-free first-principles treatment of the full device geometry is a methodological strength that supports falsifiable predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The TMR value of 4.6×10^7% is presented without any convergence data on k-point sampling, energy cutoff, NEGF self-energy parameters, or supercell size; given the extreme sensitivity of interface potential gradients to these choices, the quantitative claim cannot be assessed for numerical stability.
  2. [Results (layer-dependent transport)] Results section on layer-dependent transport: The central attribution of channel suppression to the steeper Ti-Se effective potential in even-layer devices is stated without accompanying electrostatic potential profiles, charge-density difference plots, or k||-resolved transmission spectra that would directly demonstrate the claimed distinction between O-Se and Ti-Se terminations.
  3. [Methods] Methods: No exchange-correlation functional is specified, nor is any benchmarking against known bulk properties of KV2Se2O or SrTiO3 or inclusion of van der Waals corrections; these omissions are load-bearing because the O-Se versus Ti-Se potential difference rests on accurate treatment of Se p-states and Ti d-states at the interface.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The notation '4.6*10^7%' should be rendered as 4.6 × 10^7 % for typographic consistency.
  2. [Throughout] Figure captions and text: Ensure that all references to 'parity of the layer number' are accompanied by explicit statements of which termination (O-Se or Ti-Se) corresponds to odd versus even layers to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the positive assessment of the potential significance of our work on interface-parity engineering in altermagnetic tunnel junctions. We have addressed each major comment below with specific revisions to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The TMR value of 4.6×10^7% is presented without any convergence data on k-point sampling, energy cutoff, NEGF self-energy parameters, or supercell size; given the extreme sensitivity of interface potential gradients to these choices, the quantitative claim cannot be assessed for numerical stability.

    Authors: We agree that explicit convergence information is necessary to support the quantitative TMR claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection (or supplementary note) presenting convergence tests for k-point sampling density, plane-wave cutoff, NEGF self-energy parameters, and supercell lateral size. These tests demonstrate that the reported TMR remains stable to within a few percent once the chosen parameters are reached, and we will include the corresponding data tables or plots. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results (layer-dependent transport)] Results section on layer-dependent transport: The central attribution of channel suppression to the steeper Ti-Se effective potential in even-layer devices is stated without accompanying electrostatic potential profiles, charge-density difference plots, or k||-resolved transmission spectra that would directly demonstrate the claimed distinction between O-Se and Ti-Se terminations.

    Authors: We accept that the physical explanation would be strengthened by direct visual evidence. The revised manuscript will incorporate (i) electrostatic potential profiles averaged along the transport direction for representative odd- and even-layer junctions, (ii) charge-density difference plots highlighting the O-Se versus Ti-Se interface regions, and (iii) k||-resolved transmission maps at the Fermi energy. These additions will explicitly show the smoother potential and open transverse channels for O-Se terminations and the steeper barrier for Ti-Se terminations. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: No exchange-correlation functional is specified, nor is any benchmarking against known bulk properties of KV2Se2O or SrTiO3 or inclusion of van der Waals corrections; these omissions are load-bearing because the O-Se versus Ti-Se potential difference rests on accurate treatment of Se p-states and Ti d-states at the interface.

    Authors: We regret the omission in the Methods section. All calculations employed the PBE functional; this will be stated explicitly in the revision. We will also add a benchmarking subsection comparing our computed lattice constants, formation energies, and band structures of bulk KV2Se2O and SrTiO3 with available experimental data and prior calculations. In addition, we will report a short test using DFT-D3 van der Waals corrections, confirming that the relative interface potential gradients and the resulting transmission oscillation remain qualitatively unchanged. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: TMR prediction is direct output of DFT+NEGF computation on explicit atomic interfaces

full rationale

The paper's central result (giant TMR of 4.6×10^7% for 4-layer SrTiO3) is obtained by running standard first-principles transport calculations on a constructed KV2Se2O/SrTiO3/KV2Se2O junction geometry. Transmission oscillations are attributed to parity-dependent interface terminations (O-Se vs Ti-Se) whose effective potentials are computed from atomic relaxation and charge transfer within the chosen DFT functional and NEGF formalism. No parameters are fitted to a subset of data and then reused to predict a closely related quantity; no self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or an ansatz; and the derivation does not reduce any equation to itself by construction. The interface-potential distinction is an emergent numerical outcome of the explicit supercell model rather than a definitional input, making the calculation self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No explicit free parameters, new axioms, or invented entities are stated in the abstract; the calculation relies on standard DFT and NEGF frameworks whose validity is taken as given.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Density functional theory with a chosen exchange-correlation functional plus non-equilibrium Green's functions accurately captures the electronic structure and transport at KV2Se2O/SrTiO3 interfaces.
    Implicit in all such device simulations; no alternative validation is mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 1312 out tokens · 62441 ms · 2026-05-10T10:07:43.862633+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 81 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    E. Y. Tsymbal, O. N. Mryasov, and P. R. LeClair, Spin-dependent tunnelling in magnetic tunnel junctions, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 15, R109 (2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Dieny, I

    B. Dieny, I. L. Prejbeanu, K. Garello, P. Gambardella, P. Freitas, R. Lehndorff, W. Raberg, U. Ebels, S. O. Demokritov, J. Akerman, A. Deac, P. Pirro, C. Adel- mann, A. Anane, A. V. Chumak, A. Hirohata, S. Man- gin, S. O. Valenzuela, M. C. Onba¸ slı, M. d’Aquino, G. Prenat, G. Finocchio, L. Lopez-Diaz, R. Chantrell, O. Chubykalo-Fesenko, and P. Bortolotti,...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Jenkins, A

    S. Jenkins, A. Meo, L. E. Elliott, S. K. Piotrowski, M. Bapna, R. W. Chantrell, S. A. Majetich, and R. F. L. Evans, Magnetic stray fields in nanoscale magnetic tunnel junctions, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 53, 044001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    ˇZelezn´ y, P

    J. ˇZelezn´ y, P. Wadley, K. Olejn ´ ık, A. Hoffmann, and H. Ohno, Spin transport and spin torque in antiferro- magnetic devices, Nat. Phys. 14, 220 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    J. Liu, J. Lu, S. Peng, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, J. Qiao, S. Wang, W. Li, J. Chen, Z. Wang, R.-W. Li, Y. Zhang, and W. Zhao, Antiferromagnetic materials: From fundamen- tals to applications, Matter 8, 102472 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 015005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    C. Song, H. Bai, Z. Zhou, L. Han, H. Reichlova, J. H. Dil, J. Liu, X. Chen, and F. Pan, Altermagnets as a new class of functional materials, Nat. Rev. Mater. 10, 473 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Jungwirth, J

    T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, R. M. Fernandes, Q. Liu, H. Watanabe, S. Murakami, S. Nakatsuji, and L. ˇSmejkal, Symmetry, microscopy and spectroscopy signatures of al- termagnetism, Nature 649, 837 (2026)

    work page 2026

  10. [10]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin, X. Zhang, H. Wu, H. Chen, Z. Meng, L. Liu, Z. Xia, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and Z. Liu, An anoma- lous hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron. 5, 735 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Bai, J. Dai, L. Han, C. Chen, S. Liang, Y. Cao, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, W. Zhu, F. Pan, and C. Song, Electrical manipulation of spin splitting torque in altermagnetic RuO 2, Nat. Commun. 16, 5646 (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Krempask´ y, L

    J. Krempask´ y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. W. D’Souza, M. Ha- jlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. C. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov, W. R. Pudelko, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, A. Birk Hellenes, Z. Jansa, H. Reichlov´ a, Z. ˇSob´ aˇ n, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, P. Wadley, J. Sinova, D. Kriegner, J. Min´ ar, J. H. Dil, and T. Jungwirth, Alter...

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    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, A metallic room-temperature d- wave altermagnet, Nat. Phys. 21, 754 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    inverse magnetic breakdown

    X. Yan, Z. Song, J. Song, Z. Fang, H. Weng, and Q. Wu, Magnetic symmetry breaking driven “inverse magnetic breakdown” in a d-wave altermagnet KV 2Se2O, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 69, 257011 (2026)

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    J. Ding, Z. Jiang, X. Chen, Z. Tao, Z. Liu, T. Li, J. Liu, J. Sun, J. Cheng, J. Liu, Y. Yang, R. Zhang, L. Deng, W. Jing, Y. Huang, Y. Shi, M. Ye, S. Qiao, Y. Wang, Y. Guo, D. Feng, and D. Shen, Large band splitting in g-wave altermagnet crsb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 206401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Han, X.-D

    X.-Q. Han, X.-D. Wang, M.-Y. Xu, Z. Feng, B.-W. Yao, P.-J. Guo, Z.-F. Gao, and Z.-Y. Lu, Ai-driven in- verse design of materials: Past, present, and future, Chin. Phys. Lett. 42, 027403 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Zhang, B

    W. Zhang, B. Xiao, C. Li, C. Qiu, H. Zeng, and J. Zhao, Multiple strain-induced effects beyond the piezoelectric effect in altermagnetic monolayer co 2mose4, Phys. Rev. B 112, 144436 (2025)

    work page 2025

  18. [18]

    Y. Che, Y. Guo, H. Lv, X. Wu, and J. Yang, Symmetry- driven multiferroic altermagnetism in two-dimensional materials, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 148, 5125 (2026) , pMID: 41588792

    work page 2026

  19. [19]

    R. Xu, Y. Gao, and J. Liu, Chemical design of monolayer altermagnets, Nat. Sci. Rev. 13, nwaf528 (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Samanta, D.-F

    K. Samanta, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsym- bal, Spin Filtering with Insulating Altermagnets, Nano Lett. 25, 3150 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    H. Chen, L. Liu, X. Zhou, Z. Meng, X. Wang, Z. Duan, G. Zhao, H. Yan, P. Qin, and Z. Liu, Emerging antiferromagnets for spintronics, Adv. Mater. 36, 2310379 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Dal Din, O

    A. Dal Din, O. J. Amin, P. Wadley, and K. W. Edmonds, Antiferromagnetic spintronics and beyond, npj Spintronics 2, 25 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Nomoto, and R. Arita, Approaches to tunnel magnetoresistance effect with antiferromagnets, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 37, 183003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Shao and E

    D.-F. Shao and E. Y. Tsymbal, Antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions for spintronics, npj Spintronics 2, 13 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Samanta, Y.-Y

    K. Samanta, Y.-Y. Jiang, T. R. Paudel, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Tunneling magnetoresistance in magnetic tunnel junctions with a single ferromagnetic electrode, Phys. Rev. B 109, 174407 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    B. Chi, L. Jiang, Y. Zhu, G. Yu, C. Wan, and X. Han, Anisotropic spin filtering by an al- termagnetic barrier in magnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Appl. 23, 014013 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Zhang, X

    H. Zhang, X. Ma, C. Jiang, J. Yin, S. Lyu, S. Lu, X. Shang, B. Man, C. Zhang, D. Li, S. Li, W. Chen, H. Liu, G. Wang, K. Cao, Z. Wang, and W. Zhao, Integration of high-performance spin-orbit torque MRAM devices by 200-mm-wafer manufacturing platform, J. Semicond. 43, 102501 (2022)

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    Jiang, Z.-A

    Y.-Y. Jiang, Z.-A. Wang, K. Samanta, S.-H. Zhang, R.- C. Xiao, W. J. Lu, Y. P. Sun, E. Y. Tsymbal, and D.-F. Shao, Prediction of giant tunneling magnetoresistance in RuO2/TiO2/RuO2 (110) antiferromagnetic tunnel junc- tions, Phys. Rev. B 108, 174439 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Z. Yang, X. Yang, J. Wang, Q. Li, R. Peng, C. H. Lee, L. K. Ang, J. Lu, Y. S. Ang, and S. Fang, Unconventional thickness scaling of coherent tunnel magnetoresistance in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 112, 205202 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Nomoto, and R. Arita, First-principles 8 study of the tunnel magnetoresistance effect with cr- doped ruo 2 electrode, Phys. Rev. B 110, 064433 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Zhang and G

    L. Zhang and G. Gao, Dimension- and facet- dependent altermagnetic biferroics and fer- romagnetic biferroics and triferroics in crsb, Adv. Funct. Mater. n/a, e25978 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Zhang, G

    L. Zhang, G. Ni, J. He, and G. Gao, Above room temper- ature multiferroic tunnel junction with the altermagnetic metal crsb, Phys. Rev. B 112, 064401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    J. Lai, T. Yu, P. Liu, L. Liu, G. Xing, X.-Q. Chen, and Y. Sun, d-wave flat fermi surface in alter- magnets enables maximum charge-to-spin conversion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 256702 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Z. Wu, M. Long, H. Chen, S. Paul, H. Matsuki, O. Zhe- liuk, U. Zeitler, G. Li, R. Zhou, Z. Zhu, D. Graf, T. I. Weinberger, F. M. Grosche, Y. Maeno, and A. G. Eaton, Fermi surface of RuO2 measured by quantum oscillations, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031044 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    X. Yang, S. Fang, Z. Yang, P. Ho, J. Lu, and Y. S. Ang, Altermagnetic flatband-driven fermi sur- face geometry for giant tunneling magnetoresistance, Adv. Funct. Mater. n/a, e31921 (2026)

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    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, Crystal-symmetry-paired spin–valley locking in a lay- ered room-temperature metallic altermagnet candidate, Nat. Phys. 21, 760 (2025)

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Q. Hu, X. Cheng, Q. Duan, Y. Hu, B. Jiang, Y. Xiao, Y. Li, M. Pan, L. Deng, C. Liu, G. Cao, Z. Liu, M. Ye, S. Qiao, Z. Liu, Z. Sun, A. Gao, Y. Huang, R. Zhong, J. Liu, B. Lv, and H. Ding, Observation of spin-valley locked nodal lines in a quasi-2d altermagnet (2026), arXiv:2601.02883 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Husain, M

    S. Husain, M. Ramesh, X. Li, S. Prokhorenko, S. K. Ojha, A. Ross, K. Das, B. Zhao, H. W. Park, P. Meisenheimer, Y. Nahas, L. Caretta, L. W. Martin, S. K. Kim, Z. Yao, H. Wen, S. Salahuddin, L.-Q. Chen, Y. Han, R. de Sousa, L. Bellaiche, M. Bibes, D. G. Schlom, and R. Ramesh, Magnon confinement in epitaxial antiferromagnetic oxide heterostructures, Nat. Mat...

    work page 2026

  39. [39]

    A. S. Goossens, K. Samanta, A. Jaman, W. Boubaker, J. J. L. van Rijn, E. Y. Tsymbal, and T. Baner- jee, Symmetry-driven large tunneling magne- toresistance in SrRuO 3 magnetic tunnel junc- tions with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, L091401 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Luo, X.-Y

    Q.-Q. Luo, X.-Y. Guo, H. Zhou, G. Gurung, J.- M. Xu, W.-J. Lu, Y.-P. Sun, E. Y. Tsymbal, and D.-F. Shao, Angular-dependent tunneling mag- netoresistance in a tunnel junction with ferromag- netic and noncollinear antiferromagnetic electrodes, Phys. Rev. B 111, 144417 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Taylor, H

    J. Taylor, H. Guo, and J. Wang, Ab initio modeling of quantum transport properties of molecular electronic de- vices, Phys. Rev. B 63, 245407 (2001)

    work page 2001

  42. [42]

    Brandbyge, J.-L

    M. Brandbyge, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordej´ on, J. Taylor, and K. Stokbro, Density-functional method for nonequilibrium electron transport, Phys. Rev. B 65, 165401 (2002)

    work page 2002

  43. [43]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993)

    work page 1993

  44. [44]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schem es for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseu- dopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

    work page 1999

  46. [46]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

    work page 1994

  47. [47]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Gen- eralized gradient approximation made simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996)

    work page 1996

  48. [48]

    H. J. Monkhorst and J. D. Pack, Spe- cial points for brillouin-zone integrations, Phys. Rev. B 13, 5188 (1976)

    work page 1976

  49. [49]

    V. I. Anisimov, J. Zaanen, and O. K. Andersen, Band theory and mott insulators: Hubbard u instead of stoner i, Phys. Rev. B 44, 943 (1991)

    work page 1991

  50. [50]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Electron-energy-loss spec- tra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An lsda+u study, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 (1998)

    work page 1998

  51. [51]

    A. Chen, S. V. Nair, B. Miljkovic, C. Souza, H. E. Ruda, and Z. Ji, Electronic structure of bulk and two- dimensional SrTiO 3: DFT calculation with GGA + U methods, J. Nanopart. Res. 22, 259 (2020)

    work page 2020

  52. [52]

    Y. Xu, H. Zhang, M. Feng, and F. Tian, Electronic structure, magnetic transition, and fermi surface insta- bility of the room-temperature altermagnet kv 2se2O, Phys. Rev. B 112, 125141 (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Smidstrup, T

    S. Smidstrup, T. Markussen, P. Vancraeyveld, J. Wellendorff, J. Schneider, T. Gunst, B. Ver- stichel, D. Stradi, P. A. Khomyakov, U. G. Vej-Hansen, M.-E. Lee, S. T. Chill, F. Rasmussen, G. Penazzi, F. Corsetti, A. Ojanper¨ a, K. Jensen, M. L. N. Palsgaard, U. Martinez, A. Blom, M. Brandbyge, and K. Stokbro, QuantumATK: an integrated plat- form of electroni...

    work page 2019

  54. [54]

    S. Fang, B. Wu, Q. Li, Z. Yang, H. Du, J. Yang, Z. Luo, and J. Lu, Light-assisted n´ eel spin cur- rents in PT -symmetric antiferromagnetic semiconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B 109, 085201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  55. [55]

    D. R. Hamann, Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials, Phys. Rev. B 88, 085117 (2013)

    work page 2013

  56. [56]

    S. Liu, T. Chen, B. Wu, H. Fan, Y. Zhu, S. Bi, Y. Liu, Y. Shi, W. Zhang, M. Wang, Q. Li, J. Yang, J. Lu, T. Zhou, and B. Liu, Mn 3SnN-based antiferromag- netic tunnel junction with giant tunneling magnetoresis- tance and multi-states: Design and theoretical valida- tion, Adv. Sci. 12, e02985 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    X. Liu, G. Yu, K. He, Y. Xiao, S. Zhu, and L. Shen, Origin and enhancement of magnetoresistance in antifer- romagnetic tunnel junctions: spin channel selection rules , Mater. Horiz. 12, 3485 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    J. Zhao, H. Zeng, D. Wang, and G. Yao, First prin- ciples calculation of metal (ni and cu) contact on the electronic transport properties of 2d gep semiconductor, Appl. Surf. Sci. 542, 148596 (2021)

    work page 2021

  59. [59]

    Y.-F. Sun, Y. Mao, Y.-C. Zhuang, and Q.-F. Sun, Tunneling magnetoresistance effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B 112, 094411 (2025)

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    S. Liu, Y. Zhu, X. Chen, S. Bi, J. Yang, T. Zhou, and B. Liu, Anisotropic transport in CrSb altermagnetic tunnel junction with giant tunneling magnetoresistance, Mater. Today Phys. 62, 102046 (2026) . 9

    work page 2026

  61. [61]

    J. Yang, S. Fang, Y. Peng, S. Liu, B. Wu, R. Quhe, S. Ding, C. Yang, J. Ma, B. Shi, L. Xu, X. Sun, G. Tian, C. Wang, J. Shi, J. Lu, and J. Yang, Layer-dependent gi- ant magnetoresistance in two-dimensional crps 4 magnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Appl. 16, 024011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  62. [62]

    Zeng, T.-C

    H. Zeng, T.-C. Zhang, H.-G. Bao, J. Zhao, and D.- Z. Ding, Computational design of two-dimensional gep based flexible strain sensor: Distinct j-v response, Sens. Actuators, A 351, 114155 (2023)

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    F. Liu, Z. Zhang, X. Yuan, Y. Liu, S. Zhu, Z. Lu, and R. Xiong, Giant tunneling magnetore- sistance in insulated altermagnet/ferromagnet junc- tions induced by spin-dependent tunneling effect, Phys. Rev. B 110, 134437 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    T. Wang, F. Liu, E. Zhou, T. Liu, R. Xiong, R. Cao, Z. Xia, Z. Huo, Y. Guo, S. Liu, and Z. Zhang, Ferroelectric Ga 2O3-enabled high-density spintronic memory via nonrelativistic spin splitting, Adv. Funct. Mater. 36, e17376 (2026)

    work page 2026

  65. [65]

    Qu, X.-Y

    S. Qu, X.-Y. Hou, Z.-X. Liu, P.-J. Guo, and Z.-Y. Lu, Al- termagnetic weyl node-network metals protected by spin symmetry, Phys. Rev. B 111, 195138 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    S. Li, Y. Zhang, A. Bahri, X. Zhang, and C. Jia, Altermagnetism and strain induced altermag- netic transition in Cairo pentagonal monolayer, npj Quantum Mater. 10, 83 (2025)

    work page 2025

  67. [67]

    Waldron, V

    D. Waldron, V. Timoshevskii, Y. Hu, K. Xia, and H. Guo, First principles modeling of tun- nel magnetoresistance of Fe /MgO/Fe trilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 226802 (2006)

    work page 2006

  68. [68]

    Zhang, G

    L. Zhang, G. Ni, X. Wu, and G. Gao, All- altermagnetic tunnel junction of RuO 2/NiF2/RuO2, Chin. Phys. Lett. (2026)

    work page 2026

  69. [69]

    B. Chi, L. Jiang, Y. Zhu, G. Yu, C. Wan, J. Zhang, and X. Han, Crystal-facet-oriented alter- magnets for detecting ferromagnetic and antiferro- magnetic states by giant tunneling magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 034038 (2024)

    work page 2024

  70. [70]

    Shao, S.-H

    D.-F. Shao, S.-H. Zhang, M. Li, C.-B. Eom, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Spin-neutral currents for spintronics, Nat. Commun. 12, 7061 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Samanta and E

    K. Samanta and E. Y. Tsymbal, Symmetry- controlled SrRuO 3/SrTiO3/SrRuO3 magnetic tunnel junctions: Spin polarization and its relevance to tunneling magnetoresistance, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 36, 495802 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Q. Cui, Y. Zhu, X. Yao, P. Cui, and H. Yang, Giant spin- hall and tunneling magnetoresistance effects based on a two-dimensional nonrelativistic antiferromagnetic meta l, Phys. Rev. B 108, 024410 (2023)

    work page 2023

  73. [73]

    Y. Shi, G. Zhan, L. Xu, K. Luo, J. Liu, Z. Wu, and H. Liu, Spin-dependent transport in alter- magnet CrSb-based magnetic tunnel junction, Appl. Phys. Lett. 127, 182409 (2025)

    work page 2025

  74. [74]

    Scheike, Z

    T. Scheike, Z. Wen, H. Sukegawa, and S. Mitani, 631% room temperature tunnel magnetoresistance with large oscillation effect in CoFe/MgO/CoFe(001) junc- tions, Appl. Phys. Lett. 122, 112404 (2023)

    work page 2023

  75. [75]

    Scheike, Q

    T. Scheike, Q. Xiang, Z. Wen, H. Sukegawa, T. Ohkubo, K. Hono, and S. Mitani, Exceeding 400% tunnel magnetoresistance at room temperature in epitaxial Fe/MgO/Fe(001) spin-valve-type magnetic tunnel junc- tions, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118, 042411 (2021)

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    B. G. Park, J. Wunderlich, X. Mart ´ ı, V. Hol´ y, Y. Kurosaki, M. Yamada, H. Yamamoto, A. Nishide, J. Hayakawa, H. Takahashi, A. B. Shick, and T. Jungwirth, A spin-valve-like magnetoresis- tance of an antiferromagnet-based tunnel junction, Nat. Mater. 10, 347 (2011)

    work page 2011

  77. [77]

    J. Shi, S. Arpaci, V. Lopez-Dominguez, V. K. Sang- wan, F. Mahfouzi, J. Kim, J. G. Athas, M. Hamdi, C. Aygen, H. Arava, C. Phatak, M. Carpentieri, J. S. Jiang, M. A. Grayson, N. Kioussis, G. Finocchio, M. C. Hersam, and P. Khalili Amiri, Electrically con- trolled all-antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions on sil- icon with large room-temperature magnetoresist...

    work page 2024

  78. [78]

    P. Qin, H. Yan, X. Wang, H. Chen, Z. Meng, J. Dong, M. Zhu, J. Cai, Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. Liu, T. Zhang, Z. Zeng, J. Zhang, C. Jiang, and Z. Liu, Room-temperature magnetoresis- tance in an all-antiferromagnetic tunnel junction, Nature 613, 485 (2023)

    work page 2023

  79. [79]

    C.-T. Chou, S. Ghosh, B. C. McGoldrick, T. Nguyen, G. Gurung, E. Y. Tsymbal, M. Li, K. A. Mkhoyan, and L. Liu, Large spin polarization from symmetry-breaking antiferromagnets in antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions, Nat. Commun. 15, 7840 (2024)

    work page 2024

  80. [80]

    Noh, G.-H

    S. Noh, G.-H. Kim, J. Lee, H. Jung, U. Seo, G. So, J. Lee, S. Lee, M. Park, S. Yang, Y. S. Oh, H. Jin, C. Sohn, and J.-W. Yoo, Tunneling magnetoresistance in altermagnetic RuO 2-based magnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 246703 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.