Achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism through two-dimensional heterojunctions

Junjie He; San-Dong Guo; Yee Sin Ang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism through two-dimensional heterojunctions

T0 review · 3 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 Stacking two equally magnetized 2D ferromagnets can create a fully-compensated ferrimagnet with pronounced spin-splitting, as demonstrated in CrI3/CrGeTe3 heterojunctions.

desk verdict Clean, distinct design principle for fully-compensated ferrimagnets; the flagship CrI3/CrGeTe3 claim is plausible but rides on a marginal DFT energy difference and a Hubbard U that the paper never justifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10768 v1 pith:MANGLWUS submitted 2025-09-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

San-Dong Guo , Junjie He , Yee Sin Ang This is my paper

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords fully-compensatedferrimagnetism2DheterojunctionsCrI3/CrGeTe3spin-splittingA-typeantiferromagnetismdensityfunctionaltheoryHubbardUstrainengineering

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

The paper proposes a general strategy for making fully-compensated ferrimagnets: stack two different two-dimensional ferromagnetic monolayers that have the same total magnetic moment and arrange their spins in an A-type antiferromagnetic pattern. In such a stack the two spin sublattices are not related by any symmetry, so the material can have zero net magnetization yet still show strong spin-splitting — a combination not possible in ordinary antiferromagnets. First-principles calculations show that CrI3/CrGeTe3 becomes exactly this kind of material once electron correlation (U > 0.2 eV) or tensile strain is applied. A second example, YBr2/YCl2, supports the generality of the idea. The approach is insensitive to lattice matching and stacking order, which makes it more realistic to build in the lab than earlier proposals.

What carries the argument

The key object is the vertical heterojunction of two equal-moment ferromagnetic monolayers, arranged in A-type antiferromagnetic order. Replacing the magnetic moment of an atom by the total moment of a primitive cell allows the two sublattices to be chemically distinct while still canceling magnetically; because they are not connected by any symmetry operation, the band structure can show spin-splitting despite zero net magnetization. The authors verify this with spin-polarized DFT+U calculations, examining four magnetic configurations (FM, AFM1, AFM2, AFM3) and comparing their energies as functions of the Hubbard U and of biaxial strain.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic ground state of an exfoliated CrI3/CrGeTe3 bilayer using magnetometry or neutron scattering: if the net magnetic moment is 12 µB per unit cell rather than zero, the central claim is false. Alternatively, a higher-level computation (e.g., quantum Monte Carlo or self-consistent GW) showing that the ferromagnetic state remains lowest in energy for all realistic values of U would also contradict the paper's conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a fully-compensated ferrimagnet — zero net magnetic moment with nonzero spin-splitting — can be obtained by vertically stacking two different ferromagnetic monolayers with equal total magnetic moments, provided the interlayer coupling is A-type antiferromagnetic. Unlike altermagnets, where the two spin sublattices are connected by rotation or mirror symmetries, here the sublattices share no symmetry, which is exactly what permits the spin-splitting. For the AB-stacked CrI3/CrGeTe3 heterojunction, density functional theory with a Hubbard U shows that AFM1 ordering becomes the ground state for U just above 0.2 eV, and the total magnetic moment is strictly zero while a

Load-bearing premise

The A-type antiferromagnetic order (AFM1) must be the true ground state of the CrI3/CrGeTe3 heterojunction, but at U=0 density functional theory favors the ferromagnetic state by 0.28 meV, so the result depends on electron correlation or tensile strain being large enough to flip that ordering.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the strategy works, fully-compensated ferrimagnets can be assembled from the many already-synthesized 2D ferromagnets, avoiding the experimental hurdles of alloying or electric-field switching.
The resulting materials combine zero net moment with large, non-volatile spin-splitting, making them promising for low-energy spintronics, high-density data storage, and sensitive magnetic sensors.
Because the approach does not require strict lattice matching or a particular stacking manner, it should be easier to realize experimentally than symmetry-sensitive altermagnet bilayers.
Tensile strain can stabilize the A-type antiferromagnetic order, providing a practical tuning knob for achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism even in materials that prefer other magnetic orders at equilibrium.
The same construction can, in principle, be applied to pairs of antiferromagnets or altermagnets, though the resulting spin-splitting will likely be weaker than using ferromagnets.

Reading between the lines

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

An electron-counting rule for interlayer magnetic coupling, which the paper cites, could allow rapid screening of candidate monolayer pairs before expensive DFT calculations, turning the proposal into a high-throughput design tool.
Because the ground-state competition between FM and AFM1 in CrI3/CrGeTe3 is extremely close (0.28 meV), the material may be highly sensitive to interlayer spacing, twist angle, or chemical functionalization — parameters that could be used to switch the magnetic ground state electrically or mechanically.
If the A-type antiferromagnetic order holds at finite temperature, heterojunctions of this type might exhibit the anomalous Hall and magneto-optical Kerr effects with zero net magnetization, opening a path to antiferromagnetic spintronics without the need for symmetry-engineered altermagnets.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this paper proposes a genuinely different route to fully-compensated ferrimagnets—stack two 2D ferromagnets with equal total moments and let them order antiferromagnetically between layers. That's a clean idea, and the symmetry logic is correct: if the two magnetic sublattices are not connected by any symmetry, you can get spin-splitting with zero net moment. The examples are concrete, with DFT calculations that don't cut corners on enumerating magnetic configurations.

What's new: previous strategies were alloying, electric fields, Janus engineering, ferroelectric fields, and spin-order engineering. The vertical heterojunction idea is distinct and plausibly easier to realize experimentally, since it is insensitive to stacking details and lattice matching. That is a useful addition to the 2D-magnetism toolbox.

The soft spots are in the material-specific claims. For CrI3/CrGeTe3, at U=0 the FM state is lower than the desired AFM1 state by only 0.28 meV per formula unit. That is within typical DFT error and could easily flip with a different vdW functional. The paper then shows AFM1 becomes ground state for U>0.2 eV. That is a very low threshold—in practice, Cr 3d U in similar compounds is usually 1–3 eV—so the material prediction is actually not as fragile as the stress-test note suggests. The real problem is that the paper doesn't justify the physical U or give any beyond-DFT check, which leaves the claim conditional.

The strain pathway (tensile >1.6% at U=0) is plausible but experimentally demanding. And the CrI3/CrBr3 example is presented in a non-ground-state AFM1 configuration, which doesn't support the proposal; it's just a "what if" calculation.

The YBr2/YCl2 junction is the strongest proof of concept: with U=2 eV it has AFM1 as the ground state, zero net moment, and clear spin-splitting. That gives the principle independent footing, though those monolayers are not yet synthesized.

There are frequent typos, but nothing that confuses the physics.

Bottom line: the general strategy is sound, the flagship example is plausible but needs a more robust ground-state analysis. This is a solid proposal paper, not a breakthrough material prediction. It deserves peer review; I'd send it out and ask the referee to demand more sensitivity checks for CrI3/CrGeTe3 (different vdW schemes, justification of U, maybe hybrid functionals) and to move the non-ground-state CrI3/CrBr3 data into the supplement. If I were working in 2D spintronics, I'd cite the heterojunction concept.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a general strategy for achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism: stack two different two-dimensional ferromagnetic monolayers with equal total magnetic moments in an A-type antiferromagnetic (AFM1) interlayer arrangement. The resulting zero net moment and spin splitting follow from the symmetry-breaking between the two sublattices. The authors perform GGA+U+DFT-D3 calculations for AB-stacked CrI3/CrGeTe3 and report that at U=0 the FM state is lower than AFM1 by 0.28 meV per formula unit, while AFM1 becomes the ground state for U>0.2 eV or, at U=0, for tensile strain above a threshold (Fig. 4). In the AFM1 state they find a strictly zero total magnetic moment and pronounced spin splitting. They also present YBr2/YCl2 as a second example and show that CrI3/CrBr3 remains FM. The central design idea is symmetry-based and does not require strict lattice matching, but the material-specific realization depends critically on establishing AFM1 as the physical ground state.

Significance. The conceptual framework is attractive: if robust, it provides a non-volatile, experimentally accessible route to fully-compensated ferrimagnetism in vdW heterostructures, without alloying disorder, electric fields, or ferroelectric switching. The paper gives a clear workflow—equal-moment FM monolayers in AFM1 order—and the total-moment and spin-splitting diagnostics are appropriate. The computational protocol is well specified, and the YBr2/YCl2 example adds useful evidence for the design rule. The main weakness is that the flagship CrI3/CrGeTe3 prediction is conditional on a Hubbard-U threshold and on an energy difference of 0.28 meV at U=0, which is below typical DFT accuracy. If the authors can supply a physically justified U or beyond-DFT validation, or carefully reframe the claim as a candidate prediction, the work would be a valuable contribution. As written, the material-specific result is not yet robust enough for the strength of the abstract's assertions.

major comments (3)

[Material realization, Figs. 2(c)-(d)] The claim that CrI3/CrGeTe3 is a fully-compensated ferrimagnet rests on AFM1 being the ground state. At U=0, the FM state is lower than AFM1 by only 0.28 meV per formula unit, which is within the numerical uncertainty of DFT and is likely sensitive to the vdW functional. The paper does not provide an independent determination of the Hubbard U for Cr 3d in this heterojunction, nor a beyond-DFT check (e.g., HSE06, cRPA, or comparison with experimentally known interlayer coupling). As a result, the statement 'CrI3/CrGeTe3 is a fully-compensated ferrimagnet' is not yet supported; the calculation shows that it would be if U>0.2 eV or tensile strain exceeds a threshold. Please quantify the sensitivity and either justify the chosen U or reframe the conclusion as conditional.
[Strain engineering, Fig. 4 and text after Fig. 4] The strain threshold for stabilizing AFM1 is reported inconsistently. Fig. 4(b) indicates that AFM1 becomes the ground state for a/a0 > 1.016, but the text later states 'When a/a0 is greater than 1.106 ... becoming a fully-compensated ferrimagnet even if U=0.00 eV.' If 1.016 is correct, the later number is a typo; if 1.106 is intended, the claim is not supported by the data in Fig. 4, which only go up to 1.04 and show AFM1 starting at 1.02. Please reconcile the threshold and provide data across the transition, including the region near 1.016-1.10, to support the strain-engineering route.
[Introduction and Discussion] The paper repeatedly emphasizes that the approach is 'insensitive to stacking manner' and that 'our proposal ... does not have any symmetry requirements for the stacking manner.' However, only AA and AB stackings are tested, and AB is found to be lower in energy by about 21 meV relative to AA in the AFM1 reference. This does not establish insensitivity to stacking; it only shows that the fully-compensated condition is not tied to a particular high-symmetry registry. A more continuous stacking scan or an explicit statement about the limitations of the current stacking sampling is needed to support the abstract's broader claim.

minor comments (4)

[Material realization, paragraph on magnetic configurations] At U=0, the FM configuration is the ground state, yet the paper computes and plots band structures for the AFM1 configuration at U=0 (Fig. 3). This is useful as a metastable-state analysis, but it should be clearly labeled as such in the text and figure caption to avoid the impression that AFM1 is the equilibrium order at U=0.
[Material realization, total magnetic moment discussion] The statement 'all the total magnetic moments ... are strictly 0.00 µB' is only valid for the AFM1 (and possibly AFM2/AFM3) configurations, not for the FM state, which has 12 µB. Please clarify that this statement applies to the AFM1 ordering.
[General typography and references] There are several typographical errors that should be corrected: 'Whin' and 'ordeing' in the material realization section, 'alternagnets' for 'altermagnets' in the introduction, and 'Rrog. Mater. Sci.' in Ref. [43] (should be 'Prog. Mater. Sci.'). Also, 'a/a0' is printed inconsistently; unify notation.
[YBr2/YCl2 example] For the YBr2/YCl2 heterojunction, only U=2.00 eV is used. Since the paper's main message emphasizes U dependence, it would be useful to state whether the AFM1 ground state persists over a range of U values for this second example.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the design rule is an explicit conditional, and the U/strain dependence is a robustness caveat rather than a circular input.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain, the central proposal is an explicit conditional: stacking two ferromagnetic monolayers with equal total magnetic moments in an A-type antiferromagnetic arrangement yields zero net moment and, because the layers are chemically distinct, spin-splitting. This is stated as a construction principle, not as a derived empirical prediction, and it is not circular. The CrI3/CrGeTe3 material claim is then tested by first-principles calculations that compare four magnetic configurations and scan both Hubbard U and strain. The paper transparently reports that at U=0 the FM state is lower by 0.28 meV/f.u. and that AFM1 becomes the ground state only for U > 0.2 eV or tensile strain beyond about 1.6%. This is parameter sensitivity and a lack of independent experimental calibration of U, which are correctness/robustness concerns, not circular reductions: U is swept, not fitted to the target result. The zero total magnetic moment and spin-splitting are computed under the specified AFM1 ordering and are supported by integrated densities of states and the band gap, rather than being inserted as the desired output. Some definitions and the IDOS criterion are cited from the authors' own prior work [20], but those statements are elementary and are also directly recalculated here, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No equation, fitted parameter, or ansatz is renamed as a prediction. The derivation is therefore self-contained given its stated computational assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of DFT+U, the additivity of layer magnetic moments, and the tunability of the magnetic ground state via the Hubbard U (or strain). No new physical entities are introduced; one free parameter (U) is used to realize the target magnetic ordering.

free parameters (1)

Hubbard U for Cr/Y d orbitals = U > 0.2 eV for AFM1 ground state; representative U = 1, 2, 3 eV (CrI3/CrGeTe3); U = 2 eV (YBr2/YCl2)
U is not derived from first principles. The threshold U > 0.2 eV is chosen such that the AFM1 (A-type AFM) order becomes the ground state, which is the magnetic order required for the proposal to work.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption PBE-GGA+U with Dudarev correction and DFT-D3 describes the magnetic ground state and band structure of the heterojunctions accurately enough.
Invoked in Computational detail; no hybrid-functional or beyond-DFT validation.
domain assumption The total magnetic moment of the heterojunction is the difference of the two monolayer total moments, so equal monolayer moments give zero net moment.
This is the design principle in Approach; it assumes layer moments are additive and that interlayer hybridization does not alter them.
ad hoc to paper The AFM1 (A-type antiferromagnetic) ordering can be stabilized by choosing U > 0.2 eV or by tensile strain.
At U = 0 the FM state is lower in energy by 0.28 meV; the AFM1 ground state is imposed by the parameter choice, an assumption tailored to make the proposal work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism through two-dimensional heterojunctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MANGLWUS

@misc{pith2026250910768,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism through two-dimensional heterojunctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MANGLWUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10768}
}

abstract

In addition to altermagnets, fully-compensated ferrimagnets are another category of collinear magnetic materials that possess zero-net total magnetic moment and exhibit spin-splitting, making them promising for low-energy spintronics, high-density data storage and high-sensitivity sensors. Although many methods, such as alloying, external electric field, Janus engineering, ferroelectric field and spin ordering, have been proposed to achieve fully-compensated ferrimagnetism, these approaches either face experimental difficulties or produce a small spin-splitting or are volatile. Here, we propose to form vertical heterostructures by stacking two different but equally magnetized two-dimensional ferromagnetic materials. If an A-type antiferromagnetic ordering is satisfied, a fully compensated ferrimagnet can be formed. This vertical heterostructure approach is insensitive to lattice matching and stacking manner, thus being more conducive to experimental realization. Through first-principles calculations, we verify our proposal with several examples, focusing in particular on $\mathrm{CrI_3}$/$\mathrm{CrGeTe_3}$ heterojunction composed of experimentally synthesized $\mathrm{CrI_3}$ and $\mathrm{CrGeTe_3}$ monolayers. The calculations show that $\mathrm{CrI_3}$/$\mathrm{CrGeTe_3}$ is a fully-compensated ferrimagnet, with pronounced spin-splitting, and that tensile strain is more favorable for achieving fully-compensated ferrimagnetism. Our work provides an experimentally feasible strategy for realizing fully-compensated ferrimagnetism, thereby further advancing the development of this field.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10768 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (Color online)For AB-stacked CrI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (Color online)For AB-stacked CrI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Color online)For AB-stacked YBr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Hu, Half-metallic antiferromagnet as a prospective material for spintronics, Adv

X. Hu, Half-metallic antiferromagnet as a prospective material for spintronics, Adv. Mater.24, 294 (2012)

2012
[2]

Jungwirth, J

T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Manchon, X. Marti, J. Wun- derlich and C. Felser, The multiple directions of antifer- romagnetic spintronics, Nat. Phys.14, 200 (2018)

2018
[3]

˘Smejkal, J

L. ˘Smejkal, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

2022
[4]

Mazin, Altermagnetism-a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys

I. Mazin, Altermagnetism-a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040002 (2022)

2022
[5]

Y. Liu, J. Yu and C. C. Liu, Twisted Magnetic Van der Waals Bilayers: An Ideal Platform for Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206702 (2024)

2024
[6]

X. Duan, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, I ˘Zuti´cand T. Zhou, An- tiferroelectric Altermagnets: Antiferroelectricity Alters Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106801 (2025)

2025
[7]

H.-Y. Ma, M. L. Hu, N. N. Li, J. P. Liu, W. Yao, J. F. Jia and J. W. Liu, Multifunctional antiferromagnetic ma- terials with giant piezomagnetism and noncollinear spin current, Nat. Commun.12, 2846 (2021)

2021
[8]

M. Gu, Y. Liu, H. Zhu, K. Yananose, X. Chen, Y. Hu, A. Stroppa and Q. Liu, Ferroelectric Switchable Altermag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106802 (2025)

2025

Show all 46 references

[9]

S. D. Guo, Hidden altermagnetism, Front. Phys. (Beijing)21, 025201 (2026)

2026
[10]

L. Bai, W. Feng, S. Liu, L. ˘Smejkal, Y. Mokrousov, and Y. Yao, Altermagnetism: Exploring New Frontiers in Magnetism and Spintronics, Adv. Funct. Mater.34, 2409327 (2024)

2024
[11]

S. D. Guo, X. S. Guo, D. C. Liang and G. Wang, Symmetry-breaking induced transition among net-zero- magnetization magnets, J. Mater. Chem. C13, 11997 (2025)

2025
[12]

van Leuken and R

H. van Leuken and R. A. de Groot, Half-Metallic Anti- ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1171 (1995)

1995
[13]

Akai and M

H. Akai and M. Ogura, Half-Metallic Diluted Antiferro- magnetic Semiconductors, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 026401 (2006)

2006
[14]

Wurmehl, H

S. Wurmehl, H. C. Kandpal, G. H. Fecher, and C. Felser, Valence electron rules for prediction of half- metallic compensated-ferrimagnetic behaviour of Heusler compounds with complete spin polarization, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter18, 6171 (2006)

2006
[15]

Kawamura, Kazuyoshi Yoshimi, Kenichiro Hashimoto, Akito Kobayashi and Takahiro Misawa, Compensated Ferrimagnets with Colossal Spin Splitting in Organic Compounds, Phys

T. Kawamura, Kazuyoshi Yoshimi, Kenichiro Hashimoto, Akito Kobayashi and Takahiro Misawa, Compensated Ferrimagnets with Colossal Spin Splitting in Organic Compounds, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 156502 (2024)

2024
[16]

M. ˘Zic, K. Rode, N. Thiyagarajah, Y. C. Lau, D. Betto, J. M. D. Coey, S. Sanvito, K. J. O’Shea and C. A. Fer- guson, Designing a fully compensated half-metallic ferri- magnet, Phys. Rev. B93, 140202(R) (2016)

2016
[17]

H. A. Zhou, T. Xu, H. Bai and W. Jiang, Efficient Spin- tronics with Fully Compensated Ferrimagnets, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.90, 081006 (2021)

2021
[18]

Galanakis and E

I. Galanakis and E. Saso˘glu, HighT C half-metallic fully- compensated ferrimagnetic Heusler compounds, Appl. Phys. Lett.99, 052509 (2011)

2011
[19]

X. Y. Hou, Z. F. Gao, H. C. Yang, P. J. Guo and Z. Y. Lu, Luttinger compensated magnetic material LaMn 2SbO6, arXiv:2504.09447 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[20]

Y. Liu, S. D. Guo, Y. Li and C. C. Liu, Two-dimensional fully-compensated Ferrimagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 116703 (2025)

2025
[21]

S. D. Guo, Valley polarization in two-dimensional zero- net-magnetization magnets, Appl. Phys. Lett.126, 080502 (2025)

2025
[22]

S. D. Guo, Y. L. Tao, Z. Y. Zhuo, G. Zhu and Y. S. Ang, Electric-field-tuned anomalous valley Hall effect in A-type hexagonal antiferromagnetic monolayers, Phys. Rev. B109, 134402 (2024)

2024
[23]

S. D. Guo, W. Xu, Y. Xue, G. Zhu and Y. S. Ang, Layer-locked anomalous valley Hall effect in a two- dimensional A-type tetragonal antiferromagnetic insula- tor, Phys. Rev. B109, 134426 (2024)

2024
[24]

S. D. Guo, P. Li and G. Wang, First-principles calcu- lations study of valley polarization in antiferromagnetic bilayer systems, Phys. Rev. B111, L140404 (2025)

2025
[25]

Zhang, S

L. Zhang, S. D. Guo and G. Wang, Spontaneous and reversible spin-splitting in ferroelectric A-type antiferro- magnetism, J. Mater. Chem. C12, 8485 (2024)

2024
[26]

J. Feng, X. Zhou, J. Chen, M. Xu, X. Yang and Y. Li, Ferroelectric antiferromagnetic lifting of spin-valley de- generacy, Phys. Rev. B111, 214446 (2025)

2025
[27]

Cheng, H

N. Cheng, H. Cheng, X. Zhao, G. Hu, X. Yuan and J. Ren. Ferroelectric polarization manipulates the layer- polarized anomalous Hall effect in bilayers with fully compensated ferrimagnetism, Phys. Rev. B111, 195154 (2025)

2025
[28]

F. Yao, M. Liao, M. Gibertini et al., Switching on and off the spin polarization of the conduction band in anti- ferromagnetic bilayer transistors. Nat. Nanotechnol.20, 609 (2025)

2025
[29]

S. D. Guo, S. Chen and G. Wang, Spin ordering-induced fully-compensated ferrimagnetism, arXiv:2507.10848 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[30]

Huang, G

B. Huang, G. Clark, E. Navarro-Moratalla et al., Layer- dependent ferromagnetism in a van der Waals crystal down to the monolayer limit, Nature546, 270 (2017)

2017
[31]

C. Gong, L. Li, Z. Li et al., Discovery of intrinsic fer- romagnetism in two-dimensional Van der Waals crystals. Nature546, 265 (2017)

2017
[32]

Hohenberg and W

P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous Electron Gas, Phys. Rev.136, B864 (1964); W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Self-Consistent Equations Including Exchange and Correlation Effects, Phys. Rev.140, A1133 (1965)

1964
[33]

Kresse, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid met- als, J

G. Kresse, Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid met- als, J. Non-Cryst. Solids193, 222 (1995)

1995
[34]

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, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6,15(1996)

1996
[35]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopoten- tials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[36]

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

1996
[37]

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. B57, 1505 (1998)

1998
[38]

Grimme, S

S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich and L. Goerigk, Effect of the 7 damping function in dispersion corrected density func- tional theory, J. Comput. Chem.32, 1456 (2011)

2011
[39]

See Supplemental Material at [] for the crystal structures, the integrated densities of states and the related energy band structures
[40]

S. D. Guo, W. Q. Mu and B. G. Liu, Valley-polarized quantum anomalous Hall insulator in monolayer, 2D Mater.9, 035011 (2022)

2022
[41]

Huang, W.-Y

B. Huang, W.-Y. Liu, X.-C. Wu, S.-Z. Li , H. Li, Z. Yang and W.-B. Zhang, Large spontaneous valley polarization and high magnetic transition temperature in stable two- dimensional ferrovalley YX 2 (X=I, Br, and Cl), Phys. Rev. B107, 045423 (2023)

2023
[42]

W. Chen, Z. Sun, Z. Wang, L. Gu, X. Xu, S. Wu and C. Gao, Direct observation of van der Waals stackingdepen- dent interlayer magnetism, Science366, 983 (2019)

2019
[43]

S. Xing, J. Zhou, X. Zhang, S. Elliott and Z. Sun, The- ory, properties and engineering of 2D magnetic materials, Rrog. Mater. Sci.132, 101036 (2023)

2023
[44]

Xiao and B

J. Xiao and B. Yan, An electron-counting rule to de- termine the interlayer magnetic coupling of the van der Waals materials, 2D Mater.7, 045010 (2020)

2020
[45]

Zeng and Y.-J

S. Zeng and Y.-J. Zhao, Bilayer stacking -type altermag- net: A general approach to generating two-dimensional altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B110, 174410 (2024)

2024
[46]

W. Sun, H. Ye, L. Liang, N. Ding, S. Dong and S.-S. Wang, Stacking-dependent ferroicity of a reversed bi- layer: Altermagnetism or ferroelectricity. Phys. Rev. B 110, 224418 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Hu, Half-metallic antiferromagnet as a prospective material for spintronics, Adv

X. Hu, Half-metallic antiferromagnet as a prospective material for spintronics, Adv. Mater.24, 294 (2012)

2012

[2] [2]

Jungwirth, J

T. Jungwirth, J. Sinova, A. Manchon, X. Marti, J. Wun- derlich and C. Felser, The multiple directions of antifer- romagnetic spintronics, Nat. Phys.14, 200 (2018)

2018

[3] [3]

˘Smejkal, J

L. ˘Smejkal, J. Sinova and T. Jungwirth, Beyond conven- tional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrelativistic spin and crystal rotation symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

2022

[4] [4]

Mazin, Altermagnetism-a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys

I. Mazin, Altermagnetism-a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040002 (2022)

2022

[5] [5]

Y. Liu, J. Yu and C. C. Liu, Twisted Magnetic Van der Waals Bilayers: An Ideal Platform for Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 206702 (2024)

2024

[6] [6]

X. Duan, J. Zhang, Z. Zhang, I ˘Zuti´cand T. Zhou, An- tiferroelectric Altermagnets: Antiferroelectricity Alters Magnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106801 (2025)

2025

[7] [7]

H.-Y. Ma, M. L. Hu, N. N. Li, J. P. Liu, W. Yao, J. F. Jia and J. W. Liu, Multifunctional antiferromagnetic ma- terials with giant piezomagnetism and noncollinear spin current, Nat. Commun.12, 2846 (2021)

2021

[8] [8]

M. Gu, Y. Liu, H. Zhu, K. Yananose, X. Chen, Y. Hu, A. Stroppa and Q. Liu, Ferroelectric Switchable Altermag- netism, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 106802 (2025)

2025