Emergent Interfacial Magnetism in Epitaxial RuO$_2$

Congjun Wu; Shi Liu; Yudi Yang; Zhuang Qian

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 29 references

Emergent Interfacial Magnetism in Epitaxial RuO$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetism in epitaxial RuO2 can emerge from the interface with TiO2 rather than from strain, through interfacial charge transfer that hole-dopes the Ru 4d orbitals.

desk verdict Interface-boundary magnetism in RuO2 is a fresh idea with well-designed controls, but the thickness-dependent WFM/AM switching rests on two out-of-plane k-points and needs a convergence check before the engineering story can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16093 v1 pith:BMA3SQNC submitted 2026-07-17 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yudi Yang , Zhuang Qian , Shi Liu , Congjun Wu This is my paper

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords RuO2altermagnetisminterfacialmagnetismelectronicreconstructiondensityfunctionaltheoryTiO2/RuheterostructureweakferromagnetismRKKYcoupling

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 claims that magnetism in epitaxial RuO2 is not a bulk property but an interfacial boundary phase. At a TiO2/RuO2 (001) interface, electrons transfer into RuO2 but settle on oxygen orbitals, effectively hole-doping the Ru 4d states and pushing the first few Ru layers across a magnetic instability. Strain alone does not produce the moments, and a vacuum-terminated surface does not either, isolating the interface as the key ingredient. In symmetric TiO2/RuO2/TiO2 sandwiches, the two magnetic interfaces couple through the metallic spacer with an RKKY-like exchange, so the ground state alternates between weak-ferromagnetic and fully compensated altermagnetic as the RuO2 thickness changes. This offers a practical route to stabilize and control the fragile magnetism that experiments see mainly in films.

What carries the argument

The key mechanism is the orbital-selective interfacial charge transfer at the TiO2/RuO2 (001) interface. Although the net electron flow is from TiO2 to RuO2, the interfacial Ru atom loses 0.045e from its 4d shell (mainly dxy), while neighboring O atoms gain 0.085e in their 2p shells — the added electrons are 'stored' on oxygen ligands, effectively hole-doping Ru. This local reduction in Ru d-filling, combined with epitaxial tensile strain, drives the near-critical RuO2 boundary layers across the magnetic instability. A second essential element is the metallic RuO2 spacer, which mediates an RKKY-like interlayer exchange between the two magnetic interfaces and yields a thickness-dependent sign

What would settle it

Recompute the TiO2/RuO2 (001) interface with a Hubbard U on Ru 4d or with a hybrid functional: if the interfacial moments disappear or change sign, the PBE-based prediction is not robust. Alternatively, a thickness-series measurement of the WFM/AM switching that finds no sign change in the coupling would rule out the RKKY-like interlayer exchange.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that direct atomic contact between TiO2 and RuO2 drives an interfacial electronic reconstruction: charge density flows from TiO2 into RuO2, but orbital-resolved analysis shows the added charge is accommodated mainly by O 2p orbitals, depleting the Ru dxy orbital and effectively hole-doping the Ru 4d manifold. Because RuO2 sits near a magnetic instability, this local reduction in d-filling nucleates sizable Ru moments in the first two layers, with an uncompensated antiferromagnetic arrangement. In symmetric TiO2/RuO2/TiO2 heterostructures the two interfaces couple through the metallic RuO2 spacer, producing an oscillatory RKKY-like thickness dependence that selects betwee

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the standard generalized-gradient density functional without Hubbard U correctly captures the proximity of RuO2 to a magnetic instability; if the functional overestimates that proximity, the predicted interfacial moments could be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Interfacial engineering, not strain alone, is the practical route to stabilize magnetism in epitaxial RuO2; the effect requires explicit TiO2 contact.
Substrate doping (Y vs Nb) provides a handle on the moments: p-type Y enhances them by reinforcing Ru d depletion, n-type Nb suppresses them.
RuO2 thickness acts as a switch between weak-ferromagnetic and compensated altermagnetic states in TiO2/RuO2/TiO2 sandwiches.
The mechanism explains the experimental dichotomy: magnetic signatures appear in epitaxial films because the interface itself creates the magnetic phase, while bulk crystals remain nonmagnetic.
Nonmagnetic oxide boundaries can be used as a general tool to engineer magnetic order in metals sitting near a magnetic instability.

Reading between the lines

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

The same orbital-selective mechanism might be triggered by other oxide substrates with different electronegativity or O 2p energy levels, suggesting a broader design space than TiO2 alone.
If the RKKY-like oscillation holds, superlattice periodicity in TiO2/RuO2 multilayers could encode a sequence of WFM/AM states, potentially useful for multi-state spintronics; the paper mentions future work on periodicity but does not test it.
A direct test of the orbital-hole-doping picture would be a functional check: adding a Hubbard U or using a hybrid functional would reveal whether the interfacial moments survive beyond the standard generalized-gradient approximation; the authors explicitly did not apply U.
The claim predicts a specific signature: the magnetic moments should be confined to the first two Ru layers at a TiO2 interface, which could be probed by depth-resolved techniques like XMCD or polarized neutron reflectometry on a well-defined heterostructure.

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 genuinely new thing here is that magnetism in epitaxial RuO2 can come from the TiO2/RuO2 interface itself, not from strain alone. The control calculations are well chosen: strained bulk, a vacuum-terminated surface, and a heterostructure clamped to bulk RuO2 lattice constants all stay nonmagnetic, while the explicit interface develops Ru moments confined to the first couple of layers. The charge analysis showing O 2p gain and Ru 4d depletion is a plausible orbital-selective mechanism, and the Y/Nb doping trend is a nice falsifiable prediction. The writing is clear and the logic is easy to follow.

The soft spots are real, though. The biggest one is the RKKY-like switching in Fig. 4(c). The Methods say two out-of-plane k-points are used for the periodic sandwich structures. For a metallic RuO2 spacer, the energy difference between WFM and AM states is a Fermi-surface property that oscillates with spacer thickness; two k-points along the supercell direction are far too coarse to resolve that oscillation. The paper gives no convergence test for ΔE with respect to k_z, and doesn't even report the magnitude of ΔE. So the alternation between WFM and AM might be a sampling artifact. That claim is central to the abstract's 'thickness as a handle' message, but the boundary-phase mechanism itself does not depend on it.

Also, the PBE-without-U choice is not benchmarked. Given that bulk RuO2 magnetism is known to be functional-sensitive (many calculations and experiments find nonmagnetic bulk), the interfacial moments could be an artifact of PBE overestimating the magnetic instability. The authors should at least show a DFT+U or hybrid check. There are also missing numerical details: no cutoff convergence, no supercell-size tests, and the doping calculations don't report concentrations or supercell sizes.

On the citation pattern: leaning on Ref. [21] is fine, but that earlier work is not an independent check of this paper's claims, so it shouldn't be used as the only theoretical anchor.

Overall, the core idea is solid enough to warrant careful refereeing. The referees should demand convergence tests on the k-point grid and the functional, and the authors should either substantiate the thickness oscillation or back away from it. If the interface magnetism survives those checks, this is a useful contribution; if only the RKKY claim is wrong, the paper still has value but needs to be repositioned.

I would send it to peer review, with the explicit request for additional calculations.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports DFT calculations (PBE, no Hubbard U, Quantum Espresso) for (001)-oriented TiO2/RuO2 heterostructures. It claims that interfacial electronic reconstruction, rather than epitaxial strain alone, stabilizes sizable Ru local moments confined to the first few RuO2 layers; that the added electrons reside on O 2p states, effectively hole-doping the Ru 4d manifold; that Y/Nb doping of TiO2 can enhance/suppress these moments; and that in symmetric TiO2/RuO2/TiO2 sandwiches the two magnetic interfaces couple through the metallic spacer, producing an oscillatory (RKKY-like) thickness dependence favoring either a weak-ferromagnetic (WFM) or a compensated altermagnetic (AM) state.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a concrete, experimentally relevant route to stabilize and control magnetism in the controversial altermagnet candidate RuO2, moving beyond the strain-only picture. The study is timely and the central idea—interfacial boundary magnetism driven by orbital-selective charge transfer—is physically plausible and falsifiable. Strengths include the well-designed comparison set (strained bulk, vacuum-terminated surface, and bulk-lattice-constant interface), the absence of fitted parameters, and explicit doping and thickness predictions that could be tested in epitaxial films. However, the key thickness-dependent WFM/AM alternation rests on very sparse out-of-plane k-point sampling and is not yet demonstrated to be converged, and the functional sensitivity of the near-critical magnetic instability is not addressed.

major comments (4)

[Methods (functional choice)] The central claim of a thickness-dependent WFM/AM alternation (Fig. 4(c)) is based on total-energy differences ΔE = E_WFM − E_AM computed for periodic sandwich structures sampled with only two out-of-plane k-points. For a metallic RuO2 spacer, the interlayer exchange coupling is an RKKY-like oscillatory quantity whose sign and period are set by the Fermi surface; two k_z points are far too coarse to integrate that Fermi surface reliably. No convergence test with respect to out-of-plane k-points is reported, and no magnitudes of ΔE or numerical error bars are given. The observed sign changes in ΔE may therefore be a k-point sampling artifact rather than a physical thickness-dependent coupling. The authors should provide (i) a k_z-convergence study (e.g., 2 vs 4 vs 6 vs 8 out-of-plane points) for at least two representative thicknesses, (ii) the numerical values of ΔE with an estimate of t
[Fig. 3 / Methods] The paper explicitly uses PBE without a Hubbard U, and bulk RuO2 magnetism is known to be highly functional-sensitive (Refs. 15–17 report no magnetic order in high-quality single crystals). Since the entire phenomenon relies on driving a near-critical magnetic instability, it is essential to check whether the interfacial moments survive small changes to the exchange-correlation treatment. I recommend adding a sensitivity test—e.g., DFT+U with Ueff = 2–3 eV on Ru 4d, or a hybrid functional for a small representative supercell—and reporting whether interfacial magnetism and the WFM/AM energy ordering are robust. This is not a demand for a different theory, but a concrete correctness-risk check that the reader's concern about functional artifacts is addressed.
[Fig. 4(c) / text] The doping calculations are presented only qualitatively. The manuscript does not specify the Y/Nb substitution concentration, the supercell size used, or the number of dopant atoms, nor does it report the structural relaxation details. Without these, the claim that 'Y enhances and Nb suppresses the interfacial moments' is not reproducible. The authors should state the exact doping models (e.g., one substitution per N-atom supercell, the corresponding carrier concentration) and show that the trend is systematic with concentration. This is needed to support the tunability claim that is part of the paper's message.
[Fig. 4(c)] The energy differences ΔE = E_WFM − E_AM are never reported numerically. The reader cannot judge whether the computed values (e.g., sub-meV per interface) are above the numerical noise floor of the DFT calculation (k-point sampling, smearing, convergence thresholds). Please provide the actual values, ideally in a table, along with an estimate of the numerical uncertainty. This is essential to assess whether the sign changes in Fig. 4(c) are meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 4(c)] The caption refers to blue and orange circles for Ti and Ru layers, but oxygen atoms are not shown or described; a complete structural model would be more informative. Also, the inset is hard to read in print; please enlarge or label the relevant atomic planes.
[Methods / Eq. (1)] The horizontal axis of Fig. 4(c) is labeled only as 'RuO2 thickness' without units or explicit values (e.g., number of RuO2 layers). Please add quantitative tick labels and state which thicknesses were actually computed.
[Fig. 4(d,e)] The differential charge density Δρ(z) is computed by subtracting isolated TiO2 and RuO2 slabs in the same geometry. This is standard, but the authors should state how the electrostatic potential alignment (or reference) between the isolated and combined systems was handled, since a naive subtraction of charged slabs can introduce artifacts.
[General] The AM state is identified by momentum-dependent spin splitting, but the paper does not show the spin-space-group symmetry or a spin-resolved Fermi-surface map that would directly demonstrate altermagnetism. A short symmetry analysis would strengthen the AM assignment.
[General] The section on the Landau–Pomeranchuk instability and Ref. [21] is used to motivate the mechanism. Since this is the authors' own prior work, a more independent assessment of the near-criticality (e.g., comparing with other theoretical estimates of the magnetic susceptibility) would avoid over-reliance on a single self-citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: interfacial magnetism is obtained from self-contained DFT calculations, with the only self-citation used as non-load-bearing interpretation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained first-principles DFT. Interfacial Ru moments are computed directly in TiO2/RuO2 heterostructures and TiO2/RuO2/vacuum slabs (Fig. 1); charge transfer and orbital-resolved Löwdin occupations are computed from the same DFT densities (Fig. 2); the Y/Nb doping response is a parameter-free substitution calculation (Fig. 3); and the WFM/AM energy difference is a direct total-energy comparison (Fig. 4(c)). No parameter is fitted to reproduce interfacial magnetism, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of an input quantity. The self-citation to Qian et al. [21] is used only as an interpretive frame ('Previous studies showed that hole doping can induce antiferromagnetism in bulk RuO2 under suitable tensile strain [21]'); it is not the source of the interfacial moments, which are established by the paper's own charge-density analysis and doping trend. Thus the self-citation is not load-bearing. The explicit statement that no Hubbard U was applied and the coarse out-of-plane k-point sampling are methodological/correctness concerns (potential functional or Brillouin-zone artifacts in the WFM/AM sign changes), but they are not instances of circular reasoning, since the calculations do not take the target result as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the PBE/no-U modeling choice and on idealized coherent interface models; no new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption PBE GGA without Hubbard U gives a reliable description of magnetism in near-critical RuO2.
The paper relies on this throughout; bulk RuO2 magnetism is known to be functional-sensitive (Refs 15–17), so this is a strong assumption.
domain assumption The coherent TiO2/RuO2 interface models with fixed in-plane TiO2 lattice constants represent epitaxial (001) films.
Real films may contain defects, intermixing, or different terminations; the calculations only cover ideal coherent interfaces.
domain assumption Löwdin orbital projections meaningfully partition interfacial charge transfer between Ru 4d and O 2p states.
The orbital-selective hole-doping mechanism is based on Löwdin occupations, which are basis-dependent.
domain assumption DFT total-energy differences reliably determine magnetic ordering in these heterostructures.
The WFM vs AM ground-state selection is based on total-energy differences; finite-temperature or dynamical effects are not considered.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emergent Interfacial Magnetism in Epitaxial RuO$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BMA3SQNC

@misc{pith2026260716093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emergent Interfacial Magnetism in Epitaxial RuO$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BMA3SQNC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16093}
}

abstract

The magnetic ground state of the altermagnet candidate RuO$_2$ remains controversial, with magnetic signatures observed mainly in epitaxial films. Here we show, using first-principles calculations, that magnetism in epitaxial RuO$_2$ can emerge as an interfacial boundary phase at TiO$_2$/RuO$_2$ interfaces. While TiO$_2$-induced epitaxial strain alone does not make (001)-oriented RuO$_2$ magnetic, explicit TiO$_2$/RuO$_2$ interfaces stabilize sizable Ru moments confined to the first few Ru layers. Charge-density and orbital-resolved analyses reveal interfacial electronic reconstruction, and substrate doping provides a route to tune the induced moments. In symmetric TiO$_2$/RuO$_2$/TiO$_2$ heterostructures, the two magnetic interfaces couple through the metallic RuO$_2$ spacer, producing a thickness-dependent alternation between weak-ferromagnetic and compensated altermagnetic states. Our results identify interface engineering as a practical route to stabilize and control fragile magnetism in RuO$_2$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16093 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Schematic of the pristine, Y-doped, and Nb-doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Interfacial magnetic coupling in TiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[21]

Z. Qian, Y. Yang, S. Liu, and C. Wu, Fragile uncon- ventional magnetism in RuO 2 by proximity to landau- pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B111, 174425 (2025)

2025
[1]

ˇSmejkal, J

L. ˇSmejkal, 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
[2]

ˇSmejkal, J

L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

2022
[3]

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

2025
[4]

Q. Liu, X. Dai, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Different facets of uncon- ventional magnetism, Nat. Phys.21, 329–331 (2025)

2025
[5]

ˇSmejkal, R

L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

2020
[6]

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 anomalous hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron. 5, 735 (2022)

2022
[7]

Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. c. v. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativis- tic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

2021

Show all 29 references

[8]

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
[9]

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 splitting torque in a collinear antiferromagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 197202 (2022)

2022
[10]

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)

2023
[11]

Shao, S.-H

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

2021
[12]

Berlijn, P

T. Berlijn, P. C. Snijders, O. Delaire, H.-D. Zhou, T. A. Maier, H.-B. Cao, S.-X. Chi, M. Matsuda, Y. Wang, M. R. Koehler, P. R. C. Kent, and H. H. Weitering, Itin- erant antiferromagnetism in RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 077201 (2017)

2017
[13]

Z. H. Zhu, J. Strempfer, R. R. Rao, C. A. Occhialini, J. Pelliciari, Y. Choi, T. Kawaguchi, H. You, J. F. Mitchell, Y. Shao-Horn, and R. Comin, Anomalous anti- ferromagnetism in metallic RuO2 determined by resonant x-ray scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 017202 (2019)

2019
[14]

R. Y. Chu, L. Han, Z. H. Gong, X. Z. Fu, H. Bai, S. X. Liang, C. Chen, S.-W. Cheong, Y. Y. Zhang, J. W. Liu, Y. Y. Wang, F. Pan, H. Z. Lu, and C. Song, Third-order nonlinear hall effect in altermagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 216703 (2025)

2025
[15]

Hiraishi, H

M. Hiraishi, H. Okabe, A. Koda, R. Kadono, T. Muroi, D. Hirai, and Z. Hiroi, Nonmagnetic ground state in RuO2 revealed by muon spin rotation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 166702 (2024)

2024
[16]

Philipp, G.-G

K. Philipp, G.-G. Laura, S. Andreas, P. Thomas, S. Za- her, K. Dmitry, M. Pascal, O. Fabio, M. Igor I., V. Roser, and M. Simon, Absence of magnetic order in RuO 2: in- sights fromµSR spectroscopy and neutron diffraction, arXiv , 2405.10820 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[17]

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 altermagnetic spin splitting character in rutile oxide RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Le...

2024
[18]

Y.-X. Li, Y. Chen, L. Pan, S. Li, S.-B. Zhang, and H.-Z. Lu, Exploration of altermagnetism in RuO 2, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 257001 (2026)

2026
[19]

Wu and S.-C

C. Wu and S.-C. Zhang, Dynamic generation of spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 036403 (2004)

2004
[20]

C. Wu, K. Sun, E. Fradkin, and S.-C. Zhang, Fermi liquid instabilities in the spin channel, Phys. Rev. B75, 115103 (2007)

2007
[22]

J. D. S. Forte, S. G. Jeong, A. Santhosh, S. Lee, B. Jalan, and T. Low, Strain engineering of altermagnetic symme- try in epitaxial RuO 2 films, arXiv , 2510.26581 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[23]

M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect exchange cou- pling of nuclear magnetic moments by conduction elec- trons, Phys. Rev.96, 99 (1954)

1954
[24]

Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro- and antiferro- magnetism on zener’s model, Prog

T. Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro- and antiferro- magnetism on zener’s model, Prog. Theor. Phys.16, 45 (1956)

1956
[25]

Yosida, Magnetic properties of Cu-Mn alloys, Phys

K. Yosida, Magnetic properties of Cu-Mn alloys, Phys. Rev.106, 893 (1957)

1957
[26]

Giannozzi, S

P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo,et al., QUANTUM ESPRESSO: a modu- lar and open-source software project for quantum simula- tions of materials, J. Phys. Condens. Matter21, 395502 (2009)

2009
[27]

Giannozzi, O

P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, 6 D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni,et al., Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with QUANTUM ESPRESSO, J. Phys. Condens. Matter29, 465901 (2017)

2017
[28]

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

1996
[29]

van Setten, M

M. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. Ver- straete, D. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rignanese, The PseudoDojo: Training and grading a 85 element op- timized norm-conserving pseudopotential table, Comput. Phys. Commun.226, 39 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Z. Qian, Y. Yang, S. Liu, and C. Wu, Fragile uncon- ventional magnetism in RuO 2 by proximity to landau- pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B111, 174425 (2025)

2025

[2] [1]

ˇSmejkal, J

L. ˇSmejkal, 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

[3] [2]

ˇSmejkal, J

L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging re- search landscape of altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

2022

[4] [3]

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

2025

[5] [4]

Q. Liu, X. Dai, and S. Bl¨ ugel, Different facets of uncon- ventional magnetism, Nat. Phys.21, 329–331 (2025)

2025

[6] [5]

ˇSmejkal, R

L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal symmetry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz8809 (2020)

2020

[7] [6]

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 anomalous hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nat. Electron. 5, 735 (2022)

2022

[8] [7]

Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V´ yborn´ y, Y. Ya- hagi, J. Sinova, T. c. v. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn´ y, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativis- tic collinear antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

2021