Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 70 references

Spin-dependent transport in Fe${_3}$GaTe${_2}$ and Fe${_n}$GeTe${_2}$ ($n$=3-5) van der Waals ferromagnets for magnetic tunnel junctions

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that four layered van der Waals ferromagnets—and Fe3GaTe2 in particular—conduct perpendicular current nearly as half-metals, with spin polarizations above 90% and tunnel magnetoresistance of several hundred percent in mode

desk verdict A useful, consistent DFT+NEGF comparison that makes a credible case for F3GaT as a near-ideal half-metal; the quantitative SPs are PBE-level and the 'all compounds' framing overshoots. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.06823 v1 pith:JBLZHOT4 submitted 2025-09-08 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Anita Halder , Declan Nell , Akash Bajaj , Stefano Sanvito , Andrea Droghetti This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 71.15.Mb72.25.Ba73.40.Gk75.70.Cn
keywords vanderWaalsferromagnetsFe3GaTe2Fe3Gehalf-metallictransportspinpolarizationmagnetictunneljunctionsmagnetoresistanceNEGF
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

This paper asks which of the van der Waals ferromagnets Fe3GeTe2, Fe4GeTe2, Fe5GeTe2, and Fe3GaTe2 is best suited as an electrode for magnetic tunnel junctions. Using first-principles density functional theory combined with non-equilibrium Green's function transport calculations, it shows that all of them, except Fe5GeTe2 in a particular theoretical structure, conduct electrons nearly as half-metals in the direction perpendicular to the layers. That means one spin channel carries current while the other has a transmission gap, giving bulk spin polarizations above 90%, with Fe3GaTe2 reaching about 97% and its Fermi level deep inside the minority-spin gap. The same property survives in model bilayer junctions where the van der Waals gap acts as a barrier, producing tunnel magnetoresistance of several hundred percent, near 800% for an Fe3GaTe2 homobilayer. The message is that Fe3GaTe2, which already has a Curie temperature above room temperature, is a realistic near-ideal half-metal for spintronics.

What carries the argument

The working object is the spin-resolved transmission coefficient T_sigma(E_F, k_parallel), summed over the transverse Brillouin zone to give the linear-response conductance. What carries the argument is the spin-down transmission gap: in these layered compounds, out-of-plane current flows through Te 5pz states hybridized with Fe 3dz2 states, and the exchange splitting opens a gap in the minority channel. The paper shows that the position of the Fermi energy relative to this gap—not the size of the gap alone—determines the spin polarization and the tunnel magnetoresistance.

What would settle it

Measure the spin polarization of the out-of-plane conductance of Fe3GaTe2 at the Fermi level—for example by spin-resolved photoemission or point-contact Andreev reflection. A substantial minority-spin signal, or a DFT calculation with a more accurate treatment of Fe d electrons that moves the Fermi level out of the spin-down gap by more than about 0.2 eV, would falsify the near-ideal half-metallic claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that perpendicular transport in this family is governed by a spin-down transmission gap rather than by a truly insulating minority band. In bulk Fe3GeTe2, Fe4GeTe2, and Fe3GaTe2 (and very likely in the experimentally reconstructed Fe5GeTe2), the spin-up transmission at the Fermi level is large while the spin-down transmission is essentially zero, yielding spin polarizations of about 94%, 92%, and 97% respectively. The gap comes from spin-split hybridization between Te 5pz and Fe 3dz2 orbitals perpendicular to the layers. The distinguishing feature of Fe3GaTe2 is that the Fermi energy lies deep inside this gap, whereas in Fe3GeTe2 it sits near the gap edge and in Fe4GeTe2

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions rest on the calculated Fermi-level position in relation to the spin-down transmission gap; the approximate exchange-correlation functional used for Fe d electrons is not exact, and a shift of the Fermi level by a few tenths of an eV would reduce some of these compounds from half-metallic to merely highly spin-polarized.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fe3GaTe2 becomes the standout candidate: near-ideal half-metallic conductance (SP around 97%), a Curie temperature above room temperature, and strong out-of-plane anisotropy make it a plausible all-van-der-Waals MTJ electrode.
  • Homobilayer vdW-gap junctions of Fe3GaTe2 are predicted to show TMR of roughly 800–900%, several times larger than the reported 213–340% in existing F3GaT/WS2 and F3GaT/WSe2 devices.
  • Heterojunctions made from two different FnGe/GaTe compounds keep TMR around 400–500%, suggesting independently switchable layers are practical.
  • The near half-metallicity is shared by F3GeT and F4GeT, so the family is robust across stoichiometry, but the theoretical P3m1 F5GeT structure is a counterexample with SP about 2%; half-metallicity depends on the experimentally derived UUD structure.
  • A consistent computational setup changes the ordering from earlier comparisons: F3GeT is not lower than F4GeT in spin polarization when both are treated identically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since replacing Ge with Ga in F3GeT is what moves the Fermi level deep into the gap, alloying or electrostatic gating across the FnGeTe2 family may be a tunable knob for optimizing spin polarization.
  • A direct experimental check would be spin-resolved photoemission or point-contact Andreev reflection on exfoliated Fe3GaTe2; finding minority-spin weight at the Fermi level would downgrade the near-ideal claim.
  • The model junctions treat the bare van der Waals gap as the tunnel barrier and use simplified s-orbital leads; real insulating barriers such as WS2, WSe2, or h-BN may alter interfacial transmission, so the predicted TMR should be tested with explicit barrier calculations.
  • If confirmed, the same gap mechanism might be sought in isostructural doped variants, for example Fe3Ga1-xGexTe2, to map where half-metallicity disappears.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a systematic first-principles DFT+NEGF study of spin-dependent perpendicular transport in the van der Waals ferromagnets Fe3GaTe2, Fe3GeTe2, Fe4GeTe2, and Fe5GeTe2. It computes Fermi surfaces, k-resolved transmission coefficients, orbital-projected DOS, bulk spin polarization via Eq. (3), and TMR via Eq. (4) for model bilayer junctions with the vdW gap as barrier. The central claims are that F3GaT, F3GeT, and F4GeT have bulk spin polarizations of 97%, 94%, and 92%, respectively, that F3GaT is nearly an ideal half-metal with EF deep inside the spin-down transmission gap, and that model bilayer MTJs show TMR values of several hundred percent, with the F3GaT homobilayer reaching 800–900%.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are robust, this is a valuable consistent comparison of a promising family of vdW ferromagnets, and it strengthens the case for F3GaT as a high-Tc, high-anisotropy, near-half-metallic electrode material. The methodology has clear strengths: SP and TMR are direct outputs of DFT+NEGF with no parameters fitted to the target quantities; the same computational setup is applied across compounds; the Fermi-surface and transmission analyses are mutually consistent; and the F4GeT results agree with prior work. The PBE-level sensitivity of the band alignment is the main technical risk, and the manuscript contains internal inconsistencies that need correction before the claims can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, F5GeT paragraph] For the experimentally derived F5GeT structure, the paper states that "a full calculation of the transmission coefficient is not performed due to the large system size" and that the Fermi surface "strongly suggests a very high SP". This is not a computed SP. The abstract and conclusion nevertheless claim that "all compounds" have SP exceeding 90%, while Fig. 3(a) contains no F5GeT value and the theoretical F5GeT structure gives only ~2%. The all-compounds claim is therefore unsupported for the most relevant experimental F5GeT structure. Either perform the transmission calculation with a coarser k-grid or explicitly restrict the claim to F3GaT, F3GeT, and F4GeT.
  2. [Sec. IV.C, final summary] The text states: "In this regard, F3GeT already stands out as the material closest to ideal half-metallic behavior, with its EF lying deep within the spin-down gap." This directly contradicts the preceding analysis of Figs. 4(a)-(b), where F3GeT has EF only ~0.1 eV below the spin-down conduction states, whereas F3GaT has EF deep inside the spin-down gap (-0.25 eV to +0.4 eV), and it contradicts Fig. 3(a), which gives F3GaT the highest SP. If this is a typo, it must be corrected; as written it reverses the paper's ranking and weakens the central conclusion.
  3. [Eq. (3) and Sec. IV.C] The bulk SP values and the TMR values inherit their sensitivity from the PBE position of EF relative to the spin-down transmission gap. F3GeT has only ~0.1 eV of margin, and F3GaT has roughly 0.25 eV; these are the same order as typical self-energy or Hubbard-U corrections for Fe d-states. No robustness test (GGA+U, hybrid functional, SOC, or an explicit rigid shift) is reported for F3GaT or F3GeT; the only such test cited is Ref. [49] for F4GeT. Since "near-ideal half-metallic" is the headline claim, I request a sensitivity analysis, or at minimum a clear statement that the classification is PBE-level and could be altered by moderate corrections.
  4. [Sec. V vs. Sec. VI] The F3GaT homobilayer TMR is reported as "nearly 800%" in Sec. V but "about 900%" in the conclusion. This is a quantitative discrepancy in a headline result. Please determine the correct value and use it consistently throughout the text and Fig. 3(b).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Grammar: "This findings underscore" should be "These findings underscore".
  2. [Sec. VI] Typo: "F3Ge3T" should be "F3GeTe2"; also "sizebale" should be "sizable".
  3. [Sec. V] The model MTJ uses Au s-orbital leads and the vdW gap as the barrier; this is a useful idealization but should be acknowledged more prominently in the abstract/conclusion so that the predicted TMR values are not read as predictions for realistic junctions with semiconducting barriers such as WS2 or h-BN.
  4. [Sec. IV.A] The notation "FnGe/GaT" in the conclusion is ambiguous; consider writing Fe3GeTe2/Fe3GaTe2 or defining the family label explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: SP and TMR are direct DFT+NEGF outputs; no fitted parameter or self-citation chain is load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities—bulk spin polarization and bilayer TMR—are computed, not fitted. SP is defined by Eq. (3) from the spin-resolved Landauer transmissions in Eqs. (1)–(2), and TMR by Eq. (4) from the parallel/antiparallel transmissions. These transmissions are outputs of DFT+NEGF calculations with a fixed computational protocol (PBE functional, Troullier-Martins pseudopotentials, numerical atomic orbital basis, self-consistently determined Fermi energy); nothing in the derivation adjusts a parameter to reproduce the reported SP values (97%, 94%, 92%) or TMR values (~800%). The only self-citation to prior work (Ref. [49]) is used for comparison and for robustness checks on F4GeT, while the new F3GeT, F3GaT, and bilayer results are computed in this paper and do not import the central claim from the citation. The PBE-level approximation and the simplified Au s-orbital model leads are methodological limitations affecting accuracy and realism, but they are not circular: they do not define the target quantities in terms of themselves. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction. Accordingly, no significant circularity is present.

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

No target quantities are fitted; the only numbers entering are standard DFT settings (smearing, k-meshes, electronic temperature) and experimental structural parameters. The transport and TMR are computed outputs. The main non-standard input is the choice of simplified Au s-orbital leads for MTJ models.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA with DFT-D3 accurately describes the electronic structure and magnetism of Fe n Ge/GaTe 2 compounds.
    Invoked in Section III; no Hubbard U or hybrid functional is tested, yet the Fermi level position relative to the spin-down gap is the decisive quantity.
  • domain assumption Spin-collinear (two-spin-fluid) approximation without spin-orbit coupling is valid for the perpendicular transport spin polarization.
    Section II states 'we perform spin-collinear calculations, following established practice'; heavy Te and small in-plane anisotropy could introduce spin-mixing, but the out-of-plane magnetization makes SOC effects on SP secondary.
  • standard math The Landauer-Buttiker formula with the Fisher-Lee transmission coefficient describes zero-bias coherent transport.
    Section II Eqs. (1)-(3); standard transport formalism.
  • domain assumption The simplified model MTJ (two vdW layers separated by the vdW gap, connected to Au s-orbital-only leads) is representative of real MTJs.
    Section V A; the Au 6s-only leads are an idealization that may not capture real electrode interfaces and band alignment, affecting quantitative TMR.
  • domain assumption The experimental crystal structures, including the F5GeT R-3m ABC-stacked UUD configuration, are correct.
    Section IV A and Table I; lattice parameters fixed to experimental values, F5GeT experimental supercell assumes ABC stacking and UUD Fe/Ge arrangement from STM literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-dependent transport in Fe${_3}$GaTe${_2}$ and Fe${_n}$GeTe${_2}$ ($n$=3-5) van der Waals ferromagnets for magnetic tunnel junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JBLZHOT4

@misc{pith2026250906823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-dependent transport in Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$ and Fe$_n$GeTe$_2$ ($n$=3-5) van der Waals ferromagnets for magnetic tunnel junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JBLZHOT4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06823}
}
abstract

We present a systematic first-principles investigation of linear-response spin-dependent quantum transport in the van der Waals ferromagnets Fe$_3$GeTe$_2$, Fe$_4$GeTe$_2$, Fe$_5$GeTe$_2$, and Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$. Using density functional theory combined with the non-equilibrium Green's function formalism, we compute their Fermi surfaces, transmission coefficients, and orbital-projected density of states. All compounds exhibit nearly half-metallic conductance along the out-of-plane direction. This is characterized by a finite transmission coefficient for one spin channel and a gap in the other, resulting in spin polarization values exceeding 90$\%$ in the bulk. Notably, Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$ displays the ideal half-metallic behavior, with the Fermi energy located deep in the spin-down transmission gap. We further show that this high spin polarization is preserved in bilayer magnetic tunnel junctions, which exhibit a large tunnel magnetoresistance of the order of several hundred percent. This findings underscore the promise of these materials, and in particular of Fe$_3$GaTe$_2$, for spintronics applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Crystal structures of bulk (a) F3GaT, (b) F3GeT, (c) F4GeT, and (d) F5GeT as predicted theoretically (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Top six panels: Fermi surface for the spin up and spin down channels of (a) F3GaT, (b) F3GeT, (c) F4GeT and (d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Bulk spin polarization (SP) for the investigated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Top panels: transmission coefficient at zero-bias for bulk (a) F3GaT, (b) F3GeT, (c) F4GeT, and (d) F5GeT. Bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. F3GaT/F3GeT bilayer MTJ. (a) Schematic structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    Halder, D

    A. Halder, D. Nell, A. Sihi, A. Bajaj, S. Sanvito, and A. Droghetti, Nano Letters0, null (0), pMID: 39037057, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01479, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01479

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01479

  2. [1]

    S. S. P. Parkin, C. Kaiser, A. Panchula, P. M. Rice, B. Hughes, M. Samant, and S.-H. Yang, Nature Mate- rials3, 862 (2004), ISSN 1476-4660, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1038/nmat1256

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat1256 2004

  3. [2]

    Julliere, Physics Letters A54, 225 (1975), ISSN 0375- 9601, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375960175901747

    M. Julliere, Physics Letters A54, 225 (1975), ISSN 0375- 9601, URLhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0375960175901747

    arXiv 1975

  4. [3]

    J. S. Moodera, L. R. Kinder, T. M. Wong, and R. Meser- vey, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 3273 (1995), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3273

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.3273 1995

  5. [4]

    Yuasa, T

    S. Yuasa, T. Nagahama, A. Fukushima, Y. Suzuki, and K. Ando, Nature Materials3, 868 (2004), ISSN 1476- 4660, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/nmat1257

    doi:10.1038/nmat1257 2004

  6. [5]

    W. H. Butler, X.-G. Zhang, T. C. Schulthess, and J. M. MacLaren, Phys. Rev. B63, 054416 (2001), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.63.054416

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.63.054416 2001

  7. [6]

    Mathon and A

    J. Mathon and A. Umerski, Phys. Rev. B63, 220403 (2001), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.63.220403

    work page 2001

  8. [7]

    D. Nell, S. Sanvito, I. Rungger, and A. Droghetti, Phys. Rev. B111, 035133 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.111.035133

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.111.035133 2025

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    R. A. de Groot, F. M. Mueller, P. G. v. En- gen, and K. H. J. Buschow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 2024 (1983), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.50.2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    J. M. D. Coey and M. Venkatesan, Journal of Applied Physics91, 8345 (2002), ISSN 0021-8979, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1447879

    2002 doi

  3. [10]

    C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li, H. Ji, A. Stern, Y. Xia, T. Cao, W. Bao, C. Wang, Y. Wang, et al., Nature546, 265 (2017), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/nature22060

    2017

  4. [11]

    Huang, G

    B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla, D. R. Klein, R. Cheng, K. L. Seyler, D. Zhong, E. Schmidgall, M. A. McGuire, D. H. Cobden, et al., Nature546, 270 (2017), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/nature22391

    2017

  5. [12]

    Gibertini, M

    M. Gibertini, M. Koperski, A. F. Morpurgo, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Nanotechnology14, 408 (2019), ISSN 1748-3395, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/s41565-019-0438-6

    2019

  6. [13]

    K. S. Burch, D. Mandrus, and J.-G. Park, Nature563, 47 (2018), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-018-063

    2018

  7. [14]

    T. Song, X. Cai, M. W.-Y. Tu, X. Zhang, B. Huang, N. P. Wilson, K. L. Seyler, L. Zhu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, et al., Science360, 1214 (2018), URLhttps://www. science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar4851

    2018 doi

  8. [15]

    D. R. Klein, D. MacNeill, J. L. Lado, D. Soriano, E. Navarro-Moratalla, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Manni, P. Canfield, J. Fern´ andez-Rossier, et al., Sci- ence360, 1218 (2018), URLhttps://www.science.org/ doi/abs/10.1126/science.aar3617

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Z. Fei, B. Huang, P. Malinowski, W. Wang, T. Song, J. Sanchez, W. Yao, D. Xiao, X. Zhu, A. F. May, et al., Nature Materials17, 778 (2018), ISSN 1476-4660, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-018-0149-7

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    Roemer, D

    R. Roemer, D. H. D. Lee, S. Smit, X. Zhang, S. Godin, V. Hamza, T. Jian, J. Larkin, H. Shin, C. Liu, et al., npj 2D Materials and Applications8, 63 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41699-024-00499-0

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    Roemer, C

    R. Roemer, C. Liu, and K. Zou, npj 2D Materials and Applications4, 33 (2020), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/s41699-020-00167-z

    2020

  12. [20]

    K.-H. Min, D. H. Lee, S.-J. Choi, I.-H. Lee, J. Seo, D. W. Kim, K.-T. Ko, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. H. Ha, et al., Nature Materials21, 1144 (2022), ISSN 1476-4660, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-022-01320-3

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Z. Wang, D. Sapkota, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Mandrus, and A. F. Morpurgo, Nano Letters18, 4303 (2018), pMID: 29870263, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1021/acs.nanolett.8b01278

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Albarakati, C

    S. Albarakati, C. Tan, Z.-J. Chen, J. G. Partridge, G. Zheng, L. Farrar, E. L. H. Mayes, M. R. Field, C. Lee, Y. Wang, et al., Science Advances5, eaaw0409 (2019), URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10. 1126/sciadv.aaw0409

    2019

  15. [23]

    H. Lin, F. Yan, C. Hu, Q. Lv, W. Zhu, Z. Wang, Z. Wei, K. Chang, and K. Wang, ACS Applied Materi- als & Interfaces12, 43921 (2020), pMID: 32878440, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c12483

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    W. Zhu, H. Lin, F. Yan, C. Hu, Z. Wang, L. Zhao, Y. Deng, Z. R. Kudrynskyi, T. Zhou, Z. D. Kova- lyuk, et al., Advanced Materials33, 2104658 (2021), URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/adma.202104658

    2021

  17. [25]

    W. Zhu, Y. Zhu, T. Zhou, X. Zhang, H. Lin, Q. Cui, F. Yan, Z. Wang, Y. Deng, H. Yang, et al., Nature Communications14, 5371 (2023), ISSN 2041-1723, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41077-0

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Zheng, X

    Y. Zheng, X. Ma, F. Yan, H. Lin, W. Zhu, Y. Ji, R. Wang, and K. Wang, npj 2D Materials and Ap- plications6, 62 (2022), ISSN 2397-7132, URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1038/s41699-022-00339-z

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    W. Jin, G. Zhang, H. Wu, L. Yang, W. Zhang, and H. Chang, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces15, 36519 (2023), pMID: 37466234, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 10 1021/acsami.3c06167

    2023

  20. [28]

    Li, J.-T

    X. Li, J.-T. L¨ u, J. Zhang, L. You, Y. Su, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nano Letters19, 5133 (2019), pMID: 31276417, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs. nanolett.9b01506

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    C. Tan, J. Lee, S.-G. Jung, T. Park, S. Albarakati, J. Par- tridge, M. R. Field, D. G. McCulloch, L. Wang, and C. Lee, Nature Communications9, 1554 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04018-w

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    Y. Deng, Y. Yu, Y. Song, J. Zhang, N. Z. Wang, Z. Sun, Y. Yi, Y. Z. Wu, S. Wu, J. Zhu, et al., Nature563, 94 (2018), ISSN 1476-4687, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/s41586-018-0626-9

    2018

  23. [31]

    A. F. May, D. Ovchinnikov, Q. Zheng, R. Hermann, S. Calder, B. Huang, Z. Fei, Y. Liu, X. Xu, and M. A. McGuire, ACS Nano13, 4436 (2019), URLhttps:// doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.8b09660

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Silinskas, S

    M. Silinskas, S. Senz, P. Gargiani, A. M. Ruiz, B. Kalkofen, I. Kostanovskiy, K. Mohseni, J. J. Baldov ´ ı, H. L. Meyerheim, S. S. P. Parkin, et al.,Self-intercalation as origin of high-temperature ferromagnetism in epitax- ially grown fe5gete2 thin films(2024), 2309.17439, UR...

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, F

    G. Zhang, F. Guo, H. Wu, X. Wen, L. Yang, W. Jin, W. Zhang, and H. Chang, Nature Communications13, 5067 (2022), ISSN 2041-1723, published: 2022/08/29, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32605-5

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Z. Chen, Y. Yang, T. Ying, and J.-g. Guo, Nano Let- ters24, 993 (2024), pMID: 38190333, URLhttps:// doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c04462

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    W. Jin, G. Zhang, H. Wu, L. Yang, W. Zhang, and H. Chang, ACS Applied Materials & In- terfaces15, 36519 (2023), pMID: 37466234, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c06167, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.3c06167

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    H. Pan, A. K. Singh, C. Zhang, X. Hu, J. Shi, L. An, N. Wang, R. Duan, Z. Liu, S. S. P. Parkin, et al., InfoMat6, e12504 (2024), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/inf2.12504, URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/inf2.12504

    2024 doi

  29. [37]

    H. L. Zhuang, P. R. C. Kent, and R. G. Hennig, Phys. Rev. B93, 134407 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.93.134407

    2016 doi

  30. [38]

    J.-X. Zhu, M. Janoschek, D. S. Chaves, J. C. Cezar, T. Durakiewicz, F. Ronning, Y. Sassa, M. Mansson, B. L. Scott, N. Wakeham, et al., Phys. Rev. B93, 144404 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.93.144404

    2016

  31. [39]

    Z.-X. Shen, X. Bo, K. Cao, X. Wan, and L. He, Phys. Rev. B103, 085102 (2021), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.103.085102

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Ghosh, S

    S. Ghosh, S. Ershadrad, V. Borisov, and B. Sanyal, npj Computational Materials9, 86 (2023), URLhttps:// doi.org/10.1038/s41524-023-01024-5

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    X. Hu, Y. Zhao, X. Shen, A. V. Krasheninnikov, Z. Chen, and L. Sun, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces12, 26367 (2020), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/acsami. 0c05530

    2020 doi

  34. [42]

    A. M. Ruiz, D. L. Esteras, D. L´ opez-Alcal´ a, and J. J. Baldov ´ ı, Nano Letters24, 7886 (2024), pMID: 38842368, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01019, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.4c01019

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Ershadrad, S

    S. Ershadrad, S. Ghosh, D. Wang, Y. Kvashnin, and B. Sanyal, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 4877 (2022), pMID: 35617439, URLhttps://doi. org/10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00692

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Y. Su, X. Li, M. Zhu, J. Zhang, L. You, and E. Y. Tsym- bal, Nano Letters21, 175 (2021), pMID: 33264014, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c03452

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    Zhang, T

    L. Zhang, T. Li, J. Li, Y. Jiang, J. Yuan, and H. Li, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C124, 27429 (2020), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.0c09432

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Y. Zhu, B. Chi, L. Jiang, X. Guo, Y. Yan, and X. Han, Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 034010 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied. 20.034010

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    D. Li, T. Frauenheim, and J. He, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces13, 36098 (2021), URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1021/acsami.1c10673

    2021 doi

  40. [48]

    Davoudiniya and B

    M. Davoudiniya and B. Sanyal, Nanoscale Adv. pp. – (2024), URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D4NA00639A

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    Kohn, Rev

    W. Kohn, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1253 (1999), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1253

    1999 doi

  42. [51]

    Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    S. Datta,Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995)

    1995

  43. [52]

    A. R. Rocha, V. M. Garc ´ ıa-Su´ arez, S. Bailey, C. Lam- bert, J. Ferrer, and S. Sanvito, Phys. Rev. B73, 085414 (2006), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.73.085414

    2006

  44. [53]

    Rungger, A

    I. Rungger, A. Droghetti, and M. Stamenova, inHand- book of Materials Modeling. Vol. 1 Methods: Theory and Modeling, edited by S. Yip and W. W. Andreoni (Springer International Publishing, 2019)

    2019

  45. [54]

    Rungger and S

    I. Rungger and S. Sanvito, Phys. Rev. B78, 035407 (2008), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.78.035407

    2008

  46. [55]

    N. F. Mott and R. H. Fowler, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A - Math- ematical and Physical Sciences153, 699 (1936), URLhttps://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/abs/ 10.1098/rspa.1936.0031

    1936

  47. [56]

    Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development 1, 223 (1957)

    R. Landauer, IBM Journal of Research and Development 1, 223 (1957)

    1957

  48. [57]

    B¨ uttiker, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1761 (1986), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.57. 1761

    1986 doi

  49. [58]

    Buttiker, IBM Journal of Research and Development 32, 317 (1988)

    M. Buttiker, IBM Journal of Research and Development 32, 317 (1988)

    1988

  50. [59]

    D. S. Fisher and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B23, 6851 (1981), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.23.6851

    1981

  51. [61]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 47.558

    1993 doi

  52. [62]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865. 11

    1996 doi

  53. [63]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, The Journal of Chemical Physics132, 154104 (2010), ISSN 0021-9606, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1063/1.3382344

    2010 doi

  54. [64]

    J. M. Soler, E. Artacho, J. D. Gale, A. Garc ´ ıa, J. Jun- quera, P. Ordej´ on, and D. S´ anchez-Portal, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter14, 2745 (2002), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/14/11/302

    2002 doi

  55. [65]

    Troullier and J

    N. Troullier and J. L. Martins, Phys. Rev. B 43, 1993 (1991), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.43.1993

    1993

  56. [66]

    J. Seo, D. Y. Kim, E. S. An, K. Kim, G.-Y. Kim, S.-Y. Hwang, D. W. Kim, B. G. Jang, H. Kim, G. Eom, et al., Science Advances6, eaay8912 (2020), URLhttps:// www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.aay8912

    2020 doi

  57. [67]

    T. T. Ly, J. Park, K. Kim, H.-B. Ahn, N. J. Lee, K. Kim, T.-E. Park, G. Duvjir, N. H. Lam, K. Jang, et al., Advanced Functional Materials31, 2009758 (2021), URLhttps://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/adfm.202009758

    2021 doi

  58. [68]

    H. Wu, C. Hu, Y. Xie, B. G. Jang, J. Huang, Y. Guo, S. Wu, C. Hu, Z. Yue, Y. Shi, et al., Phys. Rev. B 109, 104410 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.109.104410

    2024 doi

  59. [69]

    Stahl, E

    J. Stahl, E. Shlaen, and D. Johrendt, Zeitschrift f¨ ur anorganische und allgemeine Chemie644, 1923 (2018), URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10. 1002/zaac.201800456

    1923

  60. [70]

    X. Wu, L. Lei, Q. Yin, N.-N. Zhao, M. Li, Z. Wang, Q. Liu, W. Song, H. Ma, P. Ding, et al., Phys. Rev. B 104, 165101 (2021), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.165101

    2021 doi

  61. [71]

    B. Zhao, R. Ngaloy, S. Ghosh, S. Ershadrad, R. Gupta, K. Ali, A. M. Hoque, B. Karpiak, D. Khokhriakov, C. Polley, et al., Advanced Materials35, 2209113 (2023), URLhttps://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/adma.202209113

    2023 doi

  62. [72]

    J.-E. Lee, S. Yan, S. Oh, J. Hwang, J. D. Denlinger, C. Hwang, H. Lei, S.-K. Mo, S. Y. Park, and H. Ryu, Nano Letters23, 11526 (2023), pMID: 38079244, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c03203

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.