Tunable Dirac nodal line in orthorhombic RuO$_2$

Alexander A. Tsirlin; Ece Uykur; Marcus Schmidt; Nico Giordano; Oleg Janson; Victoria A. Ginga

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Tunable Dirac nodal line in orthorhombic RuO$_2$

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Compressing RuO2 past 13 GPa drives a second-order transition to an orthorhombic phase, and the material's Dirac nodal line shifts up in energy and crosses the Fermi level near 20 GPa.

desk verdict Solid structural work on RuO2's HP-I phase, but the claimed 20 GPa Dirac crossing rests on unrenormalized DFT energies that the authors themselves correct elsewhere. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11146 v1 pith:SV3QI55D submitted 2024-11-17 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Ece Uykur , Oleg Janson , Victoria A. Ginga , Marcus Schmidt , Nico Giordano , Alexander A. Tsirlin This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 62.50.-p71.20.-b

keywords RuO2Diracnodallinehighpressureferroelasticphasetransitionorthorhombicstraincrystal-fieldsplittingelectronicbandstructurerutileoxide

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

RuO$_2$ is a metallic oxide whose band structure contains a Dirac nodal line sitting only 45 meV below the Fermi level. This paper shows that compressing it above about 13 GPa under quasi-hydrostatic conditions turns the tetragonal rutile structure into an orthorhombic CaCl$_2$-type phase via a second-order ferroelastic transition driven by octahedral tilts. Combining single-crystal x-ray diffraction with spin–orbit-coupled density-functional calculations on the measured structures, the authors find that the nodal line then shifts monotonically to higher energy and crosses the Fermi level near 20 GPa, while its spin–orbit gap stays nearly constant. They further conclude that the pressure-induced color change from black to yellow comes from an increasing $t_{2g}$–$e_g$ crystal-field splitting, not from the structural transition itself, and that the orthorhombic phase remains a paramagnetic metal. The payoff is a concrete tuning knob—strain in the $ab$ plane—for placing a topological band feature exactly at the Fermi level.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Dirac nodal line, a line of spin–orbit-gapped band crossings along the diagonal of the $k_x$–$k_y$ plane with no dispersion along $k_z$. The argument is carried by two tools used together: single-crystal x-ray diffraction inside a diamond anvil cell with neon as a quasi-hydrostatic medium, which supplies the pressure-dependent lattice parameters and oxygen positions, and full-relativistic density-functional band-structure calculations on those experimental structures, with Wannier-derived local Hamiltonians for the Ru 4$d$ and $t_{2g}$ states. The tuning parameters are the orthorhombic strain $\varepsilon = (a-b)/(a+b)$ and the octahedral tilt angle $\omega$, which scales linearly with $\varepsilon$ and serves as the order parameter of the ferroelastic transition. Comparing the band extrema along M–A as a function of pressure is what locates the nodal line's energy relative to the Fermi level.

What would settle it

Perform k-resolved photoemission or another direct band-mapping measurement on RuO$_2$ compressed under quasi-hydrostatic conditions across 13–36.5 GPa and track the gapped Dirac crossing along M–A; if the crossing does not move monotonically upward and reach the Fermi level near 20 GPa, the central claim would be contradicted. A simpler optical check is the pressure dependence of the reflectivity minimum, which the paper predicts to blue-shift continuously through the visible range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central predictive claim is that the Dirac nodal line of RuO$_2$ is a persistent feature that survives the pressure-driven transition into the orthorhombic HP-I polymorph and can be moved deliberately in energy. As pressure rises from 0 to 36.5 GPa, the gapped Dirac crossing along M–A shifts upward; the crossing reaches the Fermi level around 20 GPa, while the spin–orbit gap at the crossing remains almost unchanged. The nodal line also becomes 'thinner' in momentum space and sharper along the energy axis, which the authors say is favorable for experimental detection. On the structural side, the paper establishes that the AP-to-HP-I transition is second-order and ferroelastic, with the octahedral tilt angle scaling linearly with the orthorhombic strain, and that the HP-I phase is a nonmagnetic metal at all pressures studied. The authors present the 20 GPa crossing as a prediction from these calculations, not as a directly observed experimental quantity.

Load-bearing premise

The entire tunability narrative rests on the accuracy with which nonmagnetic spin–orbit-coupled density-functional theory places the nodal line's energy relative to the Fermi level at every pressure; if that error is larger than the roughly 45 meV scale of the shift, the predicted 20 GPa crossing could be an artifact even though the structural transition is real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the 20 GPa prediction is right, hydrostatic pressure places the Dirac nodal line exactly at the Fermi level, giving a clean external control for nodal-line transport and spectroscopy without chemical doping.
Since the nodal line moves as a nearly rigid object with an almost constant spin–orbit gap, strain applied in the ab plane of films should be able to reproduce the shift at much lower effective pressures than the 20 GPa bulk crossing.
The color change from black to yellow is tied to the pressure-driven increase in the $t_{2g}$–$e_g$ crystal-field splitting, so optical reflectivity offers a simple, non-resonant proxy for how far the band structure has been pushed.
The orthorhombic HP-I phase is calculated to be a nonmagnetic metal up to 36.5 GPa, meaning the previously reported loss of metallicity above 28 GPa is likely a consequence of non-hydrostatic conditions and the appearance of higher-pressure polymorphs, not of the HP-I phase itself.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test would be pressure-dependent angle-resolved photoemission or quantum-oscillation measurements through the 13–36 GPa range; the predicted monotonic upward shift and the sharpening of the nodal line give a specific signature to look for.
The linear tilt-strain scaling suggests that biaxial compressive strain in RuO$_2$ films, the kind produced by epitaxial growth, could act as the same tuning knob as hydrostatic pressure, an extrapolation the paper leaves implicit.
If the nodal-line energy shift is governed chiefly by the orthorhombic strain rather than by volume compression, then other rutile-type dioxides with similar band topology might exhibit the same strain-tunability, a speculation beyond the paper's scope.
The authors' attribution of the high-pressure insulator transition to non-hydrostatic effects implies that a measurement under truly hydrostatic conditions above 28 GPa should find HP-I metallic; this is a testable consequence the paper does not itself perform.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear X,

The RuO2 structural work is the strong part: first single-crystal refinement of the HP-I phase under quasi-hydrostatic conditions, with oxygen positions and tilt angles as a function of pressure, and a clean second-order ferroelastic transition at ~13 GPa. That part is careful and will be a reference for future high-pressure studies. The color change explanation via increased crystal-field splitting is plausible and does not depend on the nodal-line claim.

The Dirac nodal line story is a DFT prediction. The qualitative picture—orthorhombic strain pushes the line up in energy and it crosses the Fermi level within the HP-I stability range—is supported by the band calculations and is a reasonable hypothesis worth testing. But the specific 'around 20 GPa' is fragile. The paper applies a 1.35 band-energy renormalization to the computed reflectivity (Fig 5b caption) but not to the nodal-line energies in Fig 6c. Since the ambient Dirac point sits only 45 meV below E_F, a 35% rescale moves it to ~33 meV, and the crossing pressure could shift substantially, possibly beyond the 36.5 GPa upper bound observed here. The authors don't justify this inconsistency. So the quantitative tunability claim is not calibrated against their own measure of DFT error.

This is a real soft spot, but not fatal. The structural part stands on its own, and the qualitative Dirac-line shift is robust across the figure. What's missing is experimental confirmation—pressure-dependent optics or ARPES could pin the crossing—and a straight answer about the renormalization. No raw data or code are deposited, which is a minor concern for a mostly experimental paper.

Who's it for? Experimentalists and theorists working on RuO2, high-pressure oxides, and strain engineering of band structure. It deserves a serious referee: the structural data are new and the prediction is testable. I'd send it to review, but request the authors to address the 1.35 inconsistency and state clearly which energies are raw PBE+SO and which are renormalized.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a single-crystal x-ray diffraction study of RuO2 under quasi-hydrostatic pressures up to 37 GPa, combined with PBE+SO density-functional calculations using the experimentally determined structures. The authors identify a second-order ferroelastic transition from the tetragonal rutile phase to the orthorhombic CaCl2-type (space group Pnnm) phase at about 13 GPa, characterize the evolution of lattice parameters, the tilt order parameter, and the equation of state, and attribute the pressure-induced color change to an increased t2g-eg crystal-field splitting. Based on calculated band structures, they predict that a Dirac nodal line present in the ambient-pressure phase shifts to higher energies with compression in the orthorhombic phase and crosses the Fermi level around 20 GPa, with the spin-orbit gap staying nearly constant.

Significance. The structural part of the work is careful and valuable: the single-crystal refinements have good residuals, the volume evolution is continuous, and the order-parameter analysis supports a second-order ferroelastic transition. The DFT calculations use experimental structural parameters and contain no fitted constants in the determination of the nodal-line position, which is a strength. The predicted strain tunability of the Dirac nodal line is an interesting and falsifiable result, although it remains a prediction without experimental confirmation. The color-change mechanism is supported by the computed reflectivity, but it relies on a 1.35 band-energy renormalization taken from a previous ambient-pressure study.

major comments (2)

[Sec. IV and Fig. 6(c)] The claim that the Dirac crossing 'crosses the Fermi level around 20 GPa' is read from PBE+SO band extrema in Fig. 6(c), whose energy axis is not renormalized. In contrast, the caption of Fig. 5(b) states that the energy axis was 'divided by 1.35 according to the band energy renormalization determined from the ambient-pressure optical study [8].' At ambient pressure the Dirac point lies only 45 meV below the Fermi level, so a 35% rescale of this energy scale is substantial. The authors should either justify why the 1.35 renormalization does not apply to the Dirac-point energy relative to the Fermi level, or apply it and recompute the crossing pressure. Without this, the 'around 20 GPa' number may be an artifact of the unrenormalized calculation.
[Sec. III.C, Fig. 6(c)] The crossing pressure 'around 20 GPa' is presented without any uncertainty estimate, even though it is interpolated between discrete pressure points and the Dirac-point energy at ambient pressure is only 45 meV below the Fermi level. Given the 1.35 renormalization issue and the small energy slope in Fig. 6(c), the uncertainty in the crossing pressure could be several GPa and might move it beyond the 36.5 GPa stability limit of the HP-I phase observed in this work. Please provide a quantitative error estimate for the crossing pressure, for example by propagating the effect of the 1.35 renormalization and by comparing results from different exchange-correlation functionals or structural inputs.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Title] The abstract and title state as a property of the material that the Dirac nodal line 'shifts across the Fermi level upon compression' and is 'tunable.' Since this is a DFT prediction without experimental confirmation, please rephrase to make clear that the shift is predicted, e.g., 'is predicted to shift across the Fermi level upon compression.'
[Sec. III.C] In the paragraph discussing the evolution of the Dirac crossing, the text reads 'despite the sizable orthorhombic strain setting on in the AP-I phase'; this should be 'HP-I phase' to match the terminology used elsewhere in the manuscript.
[Fig. 6(c) caption] The caption refers to 'positions of the band minima and maxima along M-A' and to symbols labeled 'Dirac' and 'Gapped Dirac point,' but it does not define what quantity is plotted (e.g., the midpoint of the SO gap) or how the two symbols differ. Please clarify the definition of the plotted energy and the meaning of each symbol.
[Sec. III.C, paragraph 4] The sentence 'The same plot reveals that the ∆ Dirac gap itself stays almost intact' uses the symbol ∆ without defining it; please specify that ∆ denotes the spin-orbit-induced gap at the Dirac crossing and state its numerical value at representative pressures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nodal-line crossing is a direct DFT prediction from experimental structures, and the 1.35 renormalization factor is not used to locate the crossing.

full rationale

The central claim—the Dirac nodal line of orthorhombic HP-I RuO2 shifts up in energy and crosses the Fermi level around 20 GPa—is obtained directly from PBE+SO DFT band-structure calculations at experimentally determined lattice parameters and oxygen positions (Methods, Sec. II). No fitted parameter enters the Dirac-point energy; the crossing is read off the calculated M–A band extrema (Fig. 6c). The 1.35 band-energy renormalization in Fig. 5(b) is taken from the authors' ambient-pressure optical study [8], but it is applied only to the reflectivity axis to explain the color change; it is not used to locate the nodal line or the crossing pressure. Therefore the 20 GPa result is not a fitted output or a self-consistent definition. The paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from prior work, and the nodal-line concept is a standard DFT observable. The alternative concern that the same 1.35 rescale would shift the crossing is a calibration/correctness issue, not a circular reduction. Ref. [8] is a self-citation, but it is not load-bearing for the paper's main prediction. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The main external inputs are standard DFT functionals, experimental structural parameters, and one empirical rescale factor from the authors' prior optical work. The tilt-angle power-law fit is an experimental parameterization. The absence of raw data and code prevents independent numerical reproduction.

free parameters (2)

Band-energy renormalization factor (1.35) = 1.35 (dimensionless)
Used to rescale the calculated reflectivity energy axis (Fig. 5b) to match the ambient-pressure optical spectrum from Ref. [8] by the same group. The color-change statement depends on this calibration, though the nodal-line energy does not.
Order-parameter fit parameters Pc and beta = Pc = 12.8 GPa, beta = 0.35
Eq. (1) fits the measured tilt angle versus pressure to a power law. The fitted Pc anchors the structural transition, but the values are experimental fit results rather than forward predictions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption PBE and SCAN exchange-correlation functionals adequately describe structural and electronic properties of RuO2 at high pressure.
All electronic-structure results, including the color change, the nonmagnetic metallic state, and the nodal-line crossing, come from DFT with these functionals. Their accuracy is not benchmarked against pressure-dependent experimental band-structure data.
domain assumption The nonmagnetic solution is the true ground state of HP-I RuO2.
Calculations starting from spin-polarized configurations converged to nonmagnetic solutions (Section III C), but this does not exclude magnetic or altermagnetic orders beyond the PBE approximation.
ad hoc to paper The 1.35 energy rescale determined at ambient pressure remains valid at all pressures.
The color-change explanation uses this single calibration factor across the whole pressure range without independent validation at high pressure.
ad hoc to paper The SO-gapped band crossing can still be called a Dirac nodal line.
The paper calls the crossing a 'gapped Dirac point' (Fig. 6), so the protected zero-energy nature implied by 'Dirac nodal line' is not established. The importance of the feature depends on this terminology.
standard math Kohn-Sham eigenvalues from PBE+SO approximate quasiparticle energies near the Fermi level.
The positions of the nodal line and the reflectivity minimum are interpreted as physical energies despite known DFT band-gap and renormalization errors. The 1.35 factor is a partial correction.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable Dirac nodal line in orthorhombic RuO$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SV3QI55D

@misc{pith2026241111146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable Dirac nodal line in orthorhombic RuO$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SV3QI55D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11146}
}

abstract

Pressure evolution of RuO2 is studied using single-crystal x-ray diffraction in a diamond anvil cell, combined with \textit{ab initio} band-structure calculations. The tetragonal rutile structure transforms into the orthorhombic CaCl$_2$-type structure above 13 GPa under quasi-hydrostatic pressure conditions. This second-order transition is ferroelastic in nature and accompanied by tilts of the RuO$_6$ octahedra. Orthorhombic RuO$_2$ is expected to be paramagnetic metal, similar to ambient-pressure RuO$_2$. It shows the increased $t_{2g}-e_g$ crystal-field splitting that is responsible for the pressure-induced color change. It further features the Dirac nodal line that shifts across the Fermi level upon compression.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11146 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Low-pressure tetragonal (AP, left panel) and high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Energies of the AP and HP-I polymorphs as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Density of states as a function of pressure across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a, b) Band structures of RuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Visualization of the Dirac nodal line at four selecte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Reciprocal-lattice reconstruction in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[8]

Z. Q. Wang, Z. Q. Li, L. Sun, Z. Y. Zhang, K. He, H. Niu, J. Cheng, M. Yang, X. Yang, G. Chen, Z. Yuan, H. F. Ding, and B. F. Miao, Inverse spin Hall eﬀect dominated spin-charge conversion in (101) and (110)-oriented RuO 2 ﬁlms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 046701 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Q. Li, C. H. Watson, R. G. Goodrich, D. G. Haase, and H. Lukefahr, Thick ﬁlm chip resistors for use as low tem- perature thermometers, Cryogenics 26, 467 (1986)

work page 1986
[2]

thin- ner

reveal a gradual compression of the tetragonal structure (AP polymorph) up to 12 GPa. The position of oxygen remains constant, similar to other tetragonal rutile-type oxides [ 40], and only the lattice parameters change with pressure. Above 13 GPa, the indexing of the reﬂections clearly indicates the symmetry change to orthorhombic with the space group P ...

work page
[3]

Over, Surface chemistry of ruthenium diox- ide in heterogeneous catalysis and electrocatal- ysis: From fundamental to applied research, Chem

H. Over, Surface chemistry of ruthenium diox- ide in heterogeneous catalysis and electrocatal- ysis: From fundamental to applied research, Chem. Rev. 112, 3356 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

ˇSmejkal, J

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

2022
[5]

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, Nature Electronics 5, 735 (2022)

work page 2022
[6]

H. Bai, Y. C. Zhang, Y. J. Zhou, P. Chen, C. H. Wan, L. Han, W. X. Zhu, S. X. Liang, Y. C. Su, X. F. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Eﬃcient spin-to-charge conversion via altermagnetic spin splitting eﬀect in antiferromagnet RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 216701 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

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, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Ross- nagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl¨ aui, G. Sch¨ onhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hel- lenes, G. Jakob, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, Observation of time-reversal s...

work page 2024

Show all 46 references

[9]

Wenzel, E

M. Wenzel, E. Uykur, S. R¨ oßler, M. Schmidt, O. Janson, A. Tiwari, M. Dressel, and A. A. Tsirlin, Fermi-liquid behavior of non-altermagnetic RuO 2, arXiv:2407.11148

arXiv
[10]

Hiraishi, H

M. Hiraishi, H. Okabe, A. Koda, R. Kadono, T. Muroi, D. Hirai, and Z. Hiroi, Nonmagnetic ground state in RuO 2 revealed by muon spin rotation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 166702 (2024)

2024
[11]

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, and S. Moser, Absence of magnetic order in RuO 2: insights from µSR spectroscopy and neu- tron diﬀraction, arXiv:2405.10820

arXiv
[12]

Kiefer, F

L. Kiefer, F. Wirth, A. Bertin, P. Becker, L. Bohat´ y, K. Schmalzl, A. Stunault, J. A. Rodr ´ ıguez-Velamaz´ an, O. Fabelo, and M. Braden, Crystal structure and ab- sence of magnetic order in single crystalline RuO 2, arXiv:2410.05850

arXiv
[13]

J. Liu, J. Zhan, T. Li, J. Liu, S. Cheng, Y. Shi, L. Deng, M. Zhang, C. Li, J. Ding, Q. Jiang, M. Ye, Z. Liu, Z. Jiang, S. Wang, Q. Li, Y. Xie, Y. Wang, S. Qiao, J. Wen, Y. Sun, and D. Shen, Absence of alter- magnetic spin splitting character in rutile oxide RuO 2, arXiv:2409.13504

arXiv
[14]

Uchida, T

M. Uchida, T. Nomoto, M. Musashi, R. Arita, and M. Kawasaki, Superconductivity in uniquely strained RuO2 ﬁlms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 147001 (2020)

2020
[15]

J. P. Ruf, H. Paik, N. J. Schreiber, H. P. Nair, L. Miao, J. K. Kawasaki, J. N. Nelson, B. D. Faeth, Y. Lee, B. H. Goodge, B. Pamuk, C. J. Fennie, L. F. Kourkoutis, D. G. Schlom, and K. M. Shen, Strain-stabilized superconduc- tivity, Nature Comm. 12, 59 (2021)

2021
[16]

Jovic, R

V. Jovic, R. J. Koch, S. K. Panda, H. Berger, P. Bugnon, A. Magrez, K. E. Smith, S. Biermann, C. Jozwiak, A. Bostwick, E. Rotenberg, and S. Moser, Dirac nodal lines and ﬂat-band surface state in the functional oxide RuO2, Phys. Rev. B 98, 241101(R) (2018)

2018
[17]

Y. Sun, Y. Zhang, C.-X. Liu, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Dirac nodal lines and induced spin Hall eﬀect in metallic rutile oxides, Phys. Rev. B 95, 235104 (2017)

2017
[18]

H. Bai, L. Han, X. Y. Feng, Y. J. Zhou, R. X. Su, Q. Wang, L. Y. Liao, W. X. Zhu, X. Z. Chen, F. Pan, X. L. Fan, and C. Song, Observation of spin 8 splitting torque in a collinear antiferromagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 197202 (2022)

2022
[19]

Karube, T

S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Observation of spin- splitter torque in collinear antiferromagnetic RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 137201 (2022)

2022
[20]

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, and D. C. Ralph, Tilted spin current gener- ated by the collinear antiferromagnet ruthenium dioxide, Nature Electronics 5, 267 (2022)

2022
[21]

Haines and J

J. Haines and J. M. L´ eger, Phase transitions in ruthe- nium dioxide up to 40 GPa: Mechanism for the rutile-to-ﬂuorite phase transformation and a model for the high-pressure behavior of stishovite SiO 2, Phys. Rev. B 48, 13344 (1993)

1993
[22]

C. J. Howard, B. J. Kennedy, and C. Curfs, Temperature- induced structural changes in CaCl 2, CaBr 2, and CrCl2: A synchrotron x-ray powder diﬀraction study, Phys. Rev. B 72, 214114 (2005)

2005
[23]

S. S. Rosenblum, W. H. Weber, and B. L. Chamberland, Raman-scattering observation of the rutile-to-CaCl 2 phase transition in RuO 2, Phys. Rev. B 56, 529 (1997)

1997
[24]

White, D

M. White, D. Schacher, G. A. Smith, D. Smith, C. Park, K. V. Lawler, and A. Salamat, Pressure-induced loss of metallicity in RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Materials 8, 013603 (2024)

2024
[25]

Haines, J

J. Haines, J. M. L´ eger, O. Schulte, and S. Hull, Neutron diﬀraction study of the ambient-pressure, rutile-type and the high-pressure, CaCl 2-type phases of ruthenium diox- ide, Acta Cryst. B53, 880 (1997)

1997
[26]

Armstrong, N

K. Armstrong, N. C. Siersch, T. Boﬀa-Ballaran, D. J. Frost, T. Yu, and Y. Wang, Equations of state, phase relations, and oxygen fugacity of the Ru-RuO 2 buﬀer at high pressures and temperatures, Amer. Mineral. 105, 333 (2020)

2020
[27]

H. K. Mao, J. Xu, and P. M. Bell, Cali- bration of the ruby pressure gauge to 800 kbar under quasi-hydrostatic conditions, Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 91, 4673 (1986)

1986
[28]

Klotz, J.-C

S. Klotz, J.-C. Chervin, P. Munsch, and G. L. Marc- hand, Hydrostatic limits of 11 pressure transmitting me- dia, J. Phys. D 42, 075413 (2009)

2009
[29]

Liermann, Z

H.-P. Liermann, Z. Konˆ opkov´ a, W. Morgenroth, K. Glazyrin, J. Bednarˇ cik, E. E. McBride, S. Petitgirard, J. T. Delitz, M. Wendt, Y. Bican, A. Ehnes, I. Schwark, A. Rothkirch, M. Tischer, J. Heuer, H. S.-S. T. Krachta, and H. Franz, The extreme conditions beamline P02.2 and...

2015
[30]

Rigaku Oxford Diﬀraction, (2014), CrysAlisPro Softwa re system, version 1.171.37.35, Rigaku Corporation, Ox- ford, UK

2014
[31]

Petˇ r ´ ıˇ cek, M

V. Petˇ r ´ ıˇ cek, M. Duˇ sek, and L. Palatinus, Crystallo- graphic computing system JANA2006: General features, Z. Krist. 229, 345 (2014)

2014
[32]

Blaha, K

P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, J. Luitz, R. Laskowski, F. Tran, and L. Marks, WIEN2k, An Aug- mented Plane Wave + Local Orbitals Program for Cal- culating Crystal Properties (Karlheinz Schwarz, Techn. Universit¨ at Wien, Austria), 2018. ISBN 3-9501031-1-2

2018
[33]

Blaha, K

P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, F. Tran, R. Laskowski, G. K. H. Madsen, and L. D. Marks, WIEN2k: An APW+lo program for calculating the properties of solids, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 074101 (2020)

2020
[34]

Koepernik and H

K. Koepernik and H. Eschrig, Full-potential nonorthog - onal local-orbital minimum-basis band-structure scheme, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1743 (1999)

1999
[35]

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

1996
[36]

Koepernik, O

K. Koepernik, O. Janson, Y. Sun, and J. van den Brink, Symmetry-conserving maximally projected Wan- nier functions, Phys. Rev. B 107, 235135 (2023)

2023
[37]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Eﬃciency of ab- initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Computational Materials Science 6, 15 (1996)

1996
[38]

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)

1996
[39]

J. Sun, A. Ruzsinszky, and J. P. Perdew, Strongly con- strained and appropriately normed semilocal density functional, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 036402 (2015)

2015
[40]

Momma and F

K. Momma and F. Izumi, VESTA3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, Journal of Applied Crystallography 44, 1272 (2011)

2011
[41]

R. M. Hazen and L. W. Finger, Bulk moduli and high- pressure crystal structures of rutile-type compounds, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 42, 143 (1981)

1981
[42]

Ono and K

S. Ono and K. Mibe, Determination of the phase bound- ary of the ferroelastic rutile to CaCl 2 transition in RuO 2 using in situ high-pressure and high-temperature raman spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 84, 054114 (2011)

2011
[43]

Haines, J

J. Haines, J. M. L´ eger, and O. Schulte, P a¯ 3 modiﬁed ﬂuorite-type structures in metal dioxides at high pres- sure, Science 271, 629 (1996)

1996
[44]

J. S. Tse, D. D. Klug, K. Uehara, Z. Q. Li, J. Haines, and J. M. L´ eger, Elastic properties of potential superhard phases of RuO 2, Phys. Rev. B 61, 10029 (2000)

2000
[45]

R. O. Kuzian, O. Janson, A. Savoyant, J. van den Brink, and R. Hayn, Ab initio based ligand ﬁeld ap- proach to determine electronic multiplet properties, Phys. Rev. B 104, 085154 (2021)

2021
[46]

J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9(3), 90 (2007)

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [8]

Z. Q. Wang, Z. Q. Li, L. Sun, Z. Y. Zhang, K. He, H. Niu, J. Cheng, M. Yang, X. Yang, G. Chen, Z. Yuan, H. F. Ding, and B. F. Miao, Inverse spin Hall eﬀect dominated spin-charge conversion in (101) and (110)-oriented RuO 2 ﬁlms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 046701 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Q. Li, C. H. Watson, R. G. Goodrich, D. G. Haase, and H. Lukefahr, Thick ﬁlm chip resistors for use as low tem- perature thermometers, Cryogenics 26, 467 (1986)

work page 1986

[3] [2]

thin- ner

reveal a gradual compression of the tetragonal structure (AP polymorph) up to 12 GPa. The position of oxygen remains constant, similar to other tetragonal rutile-type oxides [ 40], and only the lattice parameters change with pressure. Above 13 GPa, the indexing of the reﬂections clearly indicates the symmetry change to orthorhombic with the space group P ...

work page

[4] [3]

Over, Surface chemistry of ruthenium diox- ide in heterogeneous catalysis and electrocatal- ysis: From fundamental to applied research, Chem

H. Over, Surface chemistry of ruthenium diox- ide in heterogeneous catalysis and electrocatal- ysis: From fundamental to applied research, Chem. Rev. 112, 3356 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [4]

ˇSmejkal, J

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

2022

[6] [5]

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, Nature Electronics 5, 735 (2022)

work page 2022

[7] [6]

H. Bai, Y. C. Zhang, Y. J. Zhou, P. Chen, C. H. Wan, L. Han, W. X. Zhu, S. X. Liang, Y. C. Su, X. F. Han, F. Pan, and C. Song, Eﬃcient spin-to-charge conversion via altermagnetic spin splitting eﬀect in antiferromagnet RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 216701 (2023)

work page 2023

[8] [7]

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, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Ross- nagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl¨ aui, G. Sch¨ onhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hel- lenes, G. Jakob, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, Observation of time-reversal s...

work page 2024