Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Competing ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions in non-altermagnetic Ru$_{1-x}$Cr$_{x}$O$_{2}$

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 ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Neutron diffraction finds that Cr-doped RuO2 lacks the long-range magnetic order needed for an altermagnet.

desk verdict The neutron null for x=0.23 is real and worth publishing, but the paper's wider claim that Cr holes stay localized goes beyond what these data show. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20298 v1 pith:52MRERJ5 submitted 2026-07-22 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

David T. Plouff , Nawsher J. Parvez , Subhash Bhatt , Xixiang Zhang , Adam A. Aczel , Jonathan Gaudet , John Q. Xiao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 75.25.-m75.50.Ee75.70.Ak
keywords altermagnetismRuO2chromiumdopingneutrondiffractionthinfilmsmagneticclustersantiferromagneticcouplingCurie-Weissanalysis
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 tests whether substituting chromium into the nonmagnetic metal RuO2 can hole-dope the ruthenium bands and stabilize the long-range antiferromagnetic order required for a d-wave altermagnet — a state that would combine the useful properties of ferromagnets and antiferromagnets for spintronics. Using neutron diffraction on epitaxial thin films with x=0 and x=0.23, the authors search at the two reciprocal-space positions where an altermagnetic moment is predicted to produce magnetic Bragg peaks, and find none. Magnetometry on the same films shows ferromagnetic hysteresis for x≥0.23 together with a susceptibility downturn near 20 K, which they interpret as antiferromagnetically coupled ferromagnetic CrO2-rich clusters. The conclusion is that Cr holes stay localized on Cr ions rather than doping Ru bands, so Ru1-xCrxO2 is not a route to a thin-film d-wave altermagnet.

What carries the argument

The decisive measurement is elastic neutron diffraction at the structurally forbidden (100) and (001) reciprocal-lattice positions, the predicted brightest magnetic peaks for an altermagnetic state with moments along the c-axis or in the ab-plane. The (002) nuclear peak of the film is used to normalize the expected magnetic intensity, and the comparison assumes the DFT-predicted ordered moment of about 0.5 Bohr magneton per formula unit. Supporting this are Curie-Weiss fits to the susceptibility, which yield positive Weiss temperatures and effective moments larger than the single-ion Cr prediction — fingerprints the authors read as ferromagnetically coupled Cr clusters.

What would settle it

A magnetic Bragg peak at (100) or (001) in a similarly prepared Ru0.77Cr0.23O2 film — with intensity consistent with an ordered moment of roughly 0.5 Bohr magneton per formula unit oriented along the c-axis or in the ab-plane — would contradict the null result. Alternatively, muon spin rotation showing coherent long-range magnetic order below 20 K in the same composition would falsify the localized-cluster interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the x=0.23 film, like x=0, shows no magnetic Bragg scattering at the (100) and (001) positions that would signal the long-range, symmetry-breaking antiferromagnetic order of a d-wave altermagnet. The authors demonstrate for the first time, by direct probe, that Cr substitution at this level does not support the sought-after altermagnetic state. Combined with the low-temperature magnetization data — remanence and coercivity coexisting with a susceptibility downturn and enhanced effective moments — the evidence points to ferromagnetic CrO2 clusters antiferromagnetically coupled to one another, meaning the Cr-derived holes remain localized rather than hole-doping the R

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that no long-range altermagnetic order exists rests on the assumption that the ordered moment would be large enough (about 0.5 Bohr magneton per formula unit), at the probed wavevectors and orientations, to produce a detectable neutron signal in these thin films.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, Cr alloying is not a viable route to a thin-film d-wave altermagnet based on RuO2.
  • The previously reported zero-field anomalous Hall effect in Cr-doped RuO2 is better explained by ferromagnetic CrO2 clusters coupled antiferromagnetically rather than by altermagnetic order.
  • The localized nature of Cr holes means band-structure engineering via Cr substitution cannot be relied on to produce the 0.4 holes per Ru site needed for altermagnetism.
  • Future searches for d-wave altermagnets in this rutile family should look beyond Ru1-xCrxO2, for example at different dopants or doping mechanisms that preserve itinerancy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The null result is only as strong as the assumed moment, wavevector, and orientation; a true altermagnetic moment smaller than about 0.5 Bohr magneton per formula unit, ordered at a different wavevector, or oriented so that both probed peaks are weak would be missed.
  • The cluster picture could be tested directly with local probes such as muon spin rotation or resonant x-ray scattering that do not require long-range order, or by studying the field dependence of the hysteresis to estimate cluster sizes.
  • If Cr clusters are indeed the source of the anomalous Hall signal, then similar alloying routes in other rutile oxides may also produce cluster magnetism rather than altermagnetism, suggesting that composition-dependent transport signatures should be reexamined.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a combined XRD/XPS/magnetometry/neutron diffraction study of epitaxial Ru_{1-x}Cr_xO_2 thin films (0 ≤ x ≤ 0.28) to test the proposal that Cr substitution hole-dopes RuO_2 into a d-wave altermagnet. XRD and XPS establish epitaxial growth, lattice-parameter trends, and depth-uniform Cr composition, while magnetometry shows a gradual susceptibility downturn below ~20 K and ferromagnetic hysteresis/remanence for x ≥ 0.23. Neutron diffraction on x = 0 and x = 0.23 samples, scanned at the structurally forbidden (100) and (001) positions, finds no magnetic Bragg peaks at 10 K at the intensity expected for the DFT-predicted 0.5 μ_B/f.u. ordered moment. The authors conclude that long-range altermagnetic order is absent in the x = 0.23 film and interpret the combined data as evidence for antiferromagnetically coupled ferromagnetic CrO_2-rich clusters, implying that Cr 3d holes remain localized rather than doping the Ru bands.

Significance. If the central null result is accepted, it provides direct experimental evidence against an altermagnetic ground state in Cr-substituted RuO_2 at x = 0.23, complementing the recent body of work refuting altermagnetism in stoichiometric RuO_2. It also supports the cluster-based explanation of the anomalous Hall effect in Cr-doped RuO_2 proposed by Smolyanyuk et al., and it helps redirect future searches for thin-film d-wave altermagnets. Strengths of the work include the depth-resolved XPS characterization, substrate-subtracted magnetometry on a systematic composition series, and the use of neutron diffraction, a direct probe of long-range magnetic order, on a film sample with a comparison to a DFT-informed magnetic peak intensity.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV (Conclusion) and abstract] The conclusion that 'Cr ions do not hole dope Ru bands... the holes remain localized to the Cr ions' is not entailed by the observations. The neutron null constrains only long-range order at (100)/(001) under the assumed 0.5 μ_B/f.u. moment, and the magnetometry supports a cluster scenario but does not uniquely establish it. Absence of magnetic Bragg peaks could also arise from quenched disorder, strain, short-range correlations, a reduced ordered moment, or an ordering wavevector not scanned, even if the Cr holes were itinerant. The wording in the abstract and Section IV should be tempered to 'not effectively hole dope within the cluster model,' or the authors should add a direct electronic-structure/valence probe (e.g., XAS or ARPES) to substantiate the localization claim.
  2. [Section III.C, Fig. 5] The sensitivity of the neutron null is calibrated to a DFT-predicted ordered moment of 0.5 μ_B/f.u. from Ref. [50], but the paper does not state the counting-statistics upper limit on an ordered moment. The dashed curves in Fig. 5 represent the calculated magnetic peak, but no explicit detection threshold is given. The reader cannot assess how much smaller than 0.5 μ_B/f.u. the moment must be to escape detection. Please report an upper bound on μ_ordered derived from the noise level and normalization, and state the assumed magnetic propagation vector, since the (100)/(001) scans only constrain commensurate k=0 (or equivalent) order.
  3. [Section III.B, Fig. 4] The effective moments and Curie-Weiss temperatures are extracted from fits to χ = χ0 + C/(T - θ_CW), but no fit range, fit uncertainties, or goodness-of-fit are reported. The claim that the extracted effective moments are 'systematically larger' than the single-ion prediction, and the trend of increasing θ_CW with x, cannot be evaluated without error bars. This is load-bearing because the cluster picture is inferred from the composition dependence of these fitted parameters. Provide a table listing θ_CW, μ_eff, χ0, and their uncertainties for each sample, and specify the high-temperature fitting window. Also clarify how the reported phase fractions in Table I affect the volume-to-molar susceptibility conversion and hence the extracted moments.
  4. [Section IV and title] The neutron diffraction measurement was performed on a single doped composition, x = 0.23; the magnetometry on x ≥ 0.16 is indirect and cannot by itself establish the absence of long-range order. The conclusion that 'Cr alloying into RuO2 is not a viable route' generalizes beyond the measured composition. Either report neutron data on a higher-x sample (e.g., x = 0.28) or restrict the conclusion to x = 0.23 and explicitly state that the remaining compositions are constrained only by magnetometry. The title's blanket 'non-altermagnetic Ru1-xCrxO2' should be qualified accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II (Methods)] Typo: 'The crystal structural of the films' should read 'The crystal structure of the films'.
  2. [Section III.B, Fig. 3] The units 'per mol' in Fig. 3(b) should specify per mole of Cr, per mole of formula unit, or per mole of cation, since the normalization affects the extracted Curie-Weiss parameters.
  3. [Section III.C, Fig. 5 caption] The calculation of the dashed magnetic peak from the (002) nuclear normalization is not described in the text. A brief equation or a reference to a standard neutron-diffraction intensity formula would make the sensitivity estimate reproducible.
  4. [Section III.C] The sentence 'demonstrates for the first time that x=0.23 also does not support the sought-after d-wave altermagnetic state' should be supported by a brief check of prior neutron work on Cr-doped RuO2; if this truly is the first neutron measurement of this composition, state so explicitly and avoid the implication that all x are covered.
  5. [Section IV / Abstract] The abstract says 'samples with x = 0 and x = 0.23 at low temperatures show no evidence of long-range altermagnetic order.' This is accurate, but the phrase 'at low temperatures' is misleading for the x = 0 sample, which was measured at 100 K; consider saying 'at 10 K for x = 0.23 and at 100 K for x = 0.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the magnetic null is calibrated against an external DFT prediction, and the Curie-Weiss parameters are openly fitted; the hole-localization conclusion is an interpretation, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is: (1) epitaxial film quality and composition are established by XRD and XPS; (2) susceptibility is fit to Curie-Weiss plus a constant chi0 term, with theta_CW and mu_eff explicitly reported as fitted values; (3) the neutron scattering expected intensity for an altermagnetic state is estimated by normalizing to the measured (002) nuclear peak and assuming the 0.5 mu_B/f.u. ordered moment taken from Ref. [50], an external DFT study by a different group; (4) the absence of (100) and (001) magnetic intensity is then compared with that forward-calculated benchmark. No parameter is fitted to the (100)/(001) data and then relabeled as a prediction; the comparison is between data and an externally prescribed model, so there is no fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The 'ferromagnetically coupled CrO2 clusters' picture is inferred from the enhancement of the fitted effective moment relative to a single-ion model and from the susceptibility downturn, but the paper explicitly labels this as suggestive/speculative ('suggests', 'consistent with', 'we speculate'), not as a quantity derived by construction from the same data. The paper's self-citations (Refs. [31], [46]) appear only in the literature overview of indirect probes and are not load-bearing for the null result. The conclusion that Cr holes remain localized is a physical inference with acknowledged scope limits (only the (100) and (001) positions were scanned, and the sensitivity depends on the assumed ordered moment, wavevector, and orientation), which is an evidence-strength limitation rather than a circular step. Under the hard rule that circularity requires a quotable construction—e.g., Eq. X = Eq. Y by definition, or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction—no such step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard measurement assumptions and a few fitted magnetic parameters. The only genuinely postulated microscopic object is the AFM-coupled CrO2-cluster picture, which is an inference rather than a directly observed entity. No new fundamental constants or exotic entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Curie-Weiss temperature θ_CW = 0.1, 1.2, 6.6, 10 K for (100) x=0.16/0.20/0.23/0.28 and 28.1 K for (001) x=0.23
    Fitted from high-temperature inverse susceptibility; used to infer predominantly ferromagnetic exchange and interpret the low-T downturn.
  • Effective moment μ_eff = 0 to ~2.5 μB (Fig. 4)
    Fitted from the Curie-Weiss constant; compared with single-ion Cr prediction to infer ferromagnetically coupled Cr clusters.
  • Temperature-independent susceptibility χ0 = Not tabulated in the text
    Included in the Curie-Weiss fit for each sample; affects the extracted θ_CW and μ_eff values.
  • Assumed ordered moment for magnetic peak intensity = 0.5 μB/f.u.
    Chosen from DFT prediction in Ref. [50] to calculate the expected magnetic Bragg intensity; directly sets the sensitivity claim of the neutron null result.
  • Phase fractions for two-phase films = 0.53/0.47 (x=0.20), 0.54/0.46 (x=0.28)
    Determined from XRD intensity ratios; used to convert volume susceptibility to molar susceptibility for the (100) samples.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Magnetic neutron scattering only detects moment components perpendicular to the scattering vector; measuring (100) and (001) covers c-axis and ab-plane moments.
    Neutron scattering selection rule invoked in Section III.C to justify the two probed positions.
  • domain assumption Altermagnetic order in Ru1-xCrxO2 would be commensurate and produce intensity at the structurally forbidden (100)/(001) positions.
    Assumed from the proposed RuO2 AFM structure and DFT; only these positions were scanned.
  • domain assumption The thin-film volume contributing to coherent magnetic scattering is accurately represented by the measured (002) nuclear intensity and film thickness.
    Needed for the estimated sensitivity of the null neutron result; stacking and strain effects could reduce the effective magnetic volume.
  • domain assumption Curie-Weiss law with a temperature-independent χ0 adequately describes the high-temperature susceptibility.
    Standard analysis (Ref. [53]) used to extract θ_CW and μ_eff.
  • domain assumption Subtraction of bare-substrate signals fully isolates the film magnetization.
    Methods section; errors in substrate correction could bias the low-temperature downturn.
invented entities (1)
  • Antiferromagnetically coupled ferromagnetic CrO2 clusters
    purpose: Explains enhanced effective moments, remanence/coercivity, and the susceptibility downturn below 20 K without long-range altermagnetic order.
    Not directly imaged; inferred from magnetometry. The authors themselves label the AFM coupling a 'speculation' in Section III.B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Competing ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions in non-altermagnetic Ru$_{1-x}$Cr$_{x}$O$_{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/52MRERJ5

@misc{pith2026260720298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Competing ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic interactions in non-altermagnetic Ru$_1-x$Cr$_x$O$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/52MRERJ5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20298}
}
abstract

We investigate the proposal of hole doping RuO$_{2}$ via alloying with Cr ions to induce altermagnetism. Thin film samples of Ru$_{1-x}$Cr$_{x}$O$_{2}$ ($0 \leq x \leq 0.28$) were prepared by reactive magnetron co-sputtering on TiO$_{2}$ substrates, with epitaxial nature verified by X-ray diffraction and composition depth profiles determined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy combined with Ar etching. Neutron diffraction measurements of samples with $x = 0$ and $x = 0.23$ at low temperatures show no evidence of long-range altermagnetic order with spins oriented along the $c$-axis or within the $ab$-plane. In contrast, temperature dependent susceptibility measurements in samples with $x \geq 0.16$ show a gradual downturn below $T\approx20~$K, suggestive of antiferromagnetic interactions, although this coexists with ferromagnetic hysteresis and remnant magnetization at $4~$K for samples with $x \geq 0.23$. Together, our magnetometry and neutron scattering measurements suggest the coexistence of antiferromagnetically coupled ferromagnetic CrO\textsubscript{2} clusters. This indicates that Cr ions do not hole dope Ru bands to induce an altermagnet state, but rather the holes remain localized to the Cr ions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20298 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fig. 1 (a) shows the rutile unit cell (image produced using the VESTA software [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [50]

    Smolyanyuk, L

    A. Smolyanyuk, L. ˇSmejkal, and I. I. Mazin, Origin of the anomalous hall effect in cr-doped ruo 2, Physical Review B111, 064406 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    Julliere, Tunneling between ferromagnetic films, Physics letters A54, 225 (1975)

    M. Julliere, Tunneling between ferromagnetic films, Physics letters A54, 225 (1975)

    1975

  3. [2]

    S. S. Parkin, C. Kaiser, A. Panchula, P. M. Rice, B. Hughes, M. Samant, and S.-H. Yang, Giant tunnelling magnetoresistance at room temperature with mgo (100) tunnel barriers, Nature materials3, 862 (2004)

    2004

  4. [3]

    Yuasa, T

    S. Yuasa, T. Nagahama, A. Fukushima, Y. Suzuki, and K. Ando, Giant room-temperature magnetoresistance in single-crystal fe/mgo/fe magnetic tunnel junctions, Nature materials3, 868 (2004)

    2004

  5. [4]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic 16 TABLE I. Sample Properties (hkl) Sample Crx a( ˚A) b( ˚A) c( ˚A) Phase fraction thickness (nm) (001) RuO2 0±0 4.520 4.520 3.091 1 200 RuO2 0±0 4.586 4.586 3.063 1 19.5 Ru0.77Cr0.23O2 0.231±0.002 4.517 4.517 3.039 1 160 (100) Ru0.84Cr0.16O2 0.156±0.002 4.546 4.592 ...

    2018

  6. [5]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nature nanotechnology11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  7. [6]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging research landscape of altermagnetism, 17 Physical Review X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  8. [7]

    Shao and E

    D.-F. Shao and E. Y. Tsymbal, Antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions for spintronics, npj Spin- tronics2, 13 (2024)

    2024

Show all 54 references
  1. [8]

    ˇSmejkal, R

    L. ˇSmejkal, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, T. Jungwirth, and J. Sinova, Crystal time-reversal sym- metry breaking and spontaneous hall effect in collinear antiferromagnets, Science advances6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  2. [9]

    L.-D. Yuan, Z. Wang, J.-W. Luo, E. I. Rashba, and A. Zunger, Giant momentum-dependent spin splitting in centrosymmetric low-z antiferromagnets, Physical Review B102, 014422 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    I. I. Mazin, K. Koepernik, M. D. Johannes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, and L.ˇSmejkal, Prediction of unconventional magnetism in doped fesb2, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2108924118 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Krempask` y, L

    J. Krempask` y, L. ˇSmejkal, S. D’souza, M. Hajlaoui, G. Springholz, K. Uhl ´ ıˇ rov´ a, F. Alarab, P. Constantinou, V. Strocov, D. Usanov,et al., Altermagnetic lifting of kramers spin degen- eracy, Nature626, 517 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K

    R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, L.ˇSmejkal, K. V` yborn` y, Y. Yahagi, J. Sinova, T. Jungwirth, and J. ˇZelezn` y, Efficient electrical spin splitter based on nonrelativistic collinear antiferromag- netism, Physical Review Letters126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    K. D. Belashchenko, Giant strain-induced spin splitting effect in mnte, ag-wave altermagnetic semiconductor, Physical Review Letters134, 086701 (2025)

    2025

  7. [14]

    Berlijn, P

    T. Berlijn, P. C. Snijders, O. Delaire, H.-D. Zhou, T. A. Maier, H.-B. Cao, S.-X. Chi, M. Mat- suda, Y. Wang, M. R. Koehler,et al., Itinerant antiferromagnetism in ruo 2, Physical review letters118, 077201 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Z. Zhu, J. Strempfer, R. Rao, C. Occhialini, J. Pelliciari, Y. Choi, T. Kawaguchi, H. You, J. Mitchell, Y. Shao-Horn,et al., Anomalous antiferromagnetism in metallic ruo 2 determined by resonant x-ray scattering, Physical review letters122, 017202 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    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,et al., Absence of magnetic order in ruo2: insights fromµ sr spectroscopy and neutron diffraction, npj Spintronics2, 50 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    C. A. Occhialini, C. Nelson, A. Bombardi, S. Fan, R. Acevedo-Esteves, R. Comin, D. N. Basov, M. Musashi, M. Kawasaki, M. Uchida,et al., Structural origin of resonant diffraction 18 in ruo 2, Physical Review B113, L060411 (2026)

    2026

  11. [18]

    B. Z. Gregory, N. Wadehra, S. Zhang, Y. Wu, S. Poage, J. Strempfer, A. K. Kundu, A. Rajapi- tamahuni, E. Vescovo, A. Verma,et al., Resonant diffraction and photoemission inconsistent with altermagnetism in epitaxial ruo 2 films, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13781 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    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, Physical Review Letters132, 166702 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    J. Liu, J. Zhan, T. Li, J. Liu, S. Cheng, Y. Shi, L. Deng, M. Zhang, C. Li, J. Ding,et al., Absence of altermagnetic spin splitting character in rutile oxide ruo 2, Physical Review Letters 133, 176401 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    Osumi, K

    T. Osumi, K. Yamauchi, S. Souma, S. Paul, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, K. Ozawa, M. Kitamura, K. Horiba, H. Kumigashira,et al., Spin-degenerate bulk bands and topological surface states associated with dirac nodal lines in ruo 2, Physical Review B113, 085116 (2026)

    2026

  15. [22]

    Z. Wu, M. Long, H. Chen, S. Paul, H. Matsuki, O. Zheliuk, U. Zeitler, G. Li, R. Zhou, Z. Zhu, et al., Fermi surface of ruo 2 measured by quantum oscillations, Physical Review X15, 031044 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    J. H. Kim, J. Choi, J. H. Lee, H. Kim, H. Seo, J. S. Lee, M. Kang, E. S. Choi, W. Kang, J. M. Ok,et al., Definitive fermi-surface mapping of high-purity ruo2 via angle-dependent quantum oscillations, Current Applied Physics (2026)

    2026

  17. [24]

    T. Qian, A. Rutherford, E. S. Choi, H. Zhou, B. Maiorov, M. Lee, and C. A. Mizzi, Deter- mining the nature of magnetism in altermagnetic candidate ruo 2, Physical Review Research 8, L012072 (2026)

    2026

  18. [25]

    A. N. Guthrie and L. T. Bourland, Magnetic susceptibilities and ionic moments in the palla- dium and platinum groups, Physical Review37, 303 (1931)

    1931

  19. [26]

    J. M. Fletcher, W. E. Gardner, B. F. Greenfield, M. J. Holdoway, and M. H. Rand, Magnetic and other studies of ruthenium dioxide and its hydrate, Journal of the Chemical Society A: Inorganic, Physical, Theoretical , 653 (1968)

    1968

  20. [27]

    Ryden and A

    W. Ryden and A. Lawson, Magnetic susceptibility of iro2 and ruo2, The Journal of Chemical Physics52, 6058 (1970)

    1970

  21. [28]

    S. Paul, G. Mattoni, H. Matsuki, T. Johnson, C. Sow, S. Yonezawa, and Y. Maeno, Growth of ultra-clean oxide single crystals of the altermagnet candidate ruo2, Journal of Crystal Growth 19 , 128405 (2025)

    2025

  22. [29]

    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 absence of magnetic order in single-crystalline ruo2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 135801 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    S. Paul, S. Paul, A. Ikeda, H. Matsuki, G. Mattoni, J. Schmalian, K. Yamauchi, C. Sow, S. Yonezawa, and Y. Maeno, Fermi-liquid behavior and characteristic temperature-dependent susceptibility in clean single crystal ruo 2, Phys. Rev. B (2026)

    2026

  24. [31]

    F. M. Abel, S. Bhatt, S. S. Fields, V. Sharma, D. Q. Ho, D. Wines, D. Q. To, J. C. Presti- giacomo, T. Adel, R. Torsi,et al., Probing magnetic properties of ruo {2}heterostructures through the ferromagnetic layer, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15004 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [32]

    S. S. Fields, J. C. Prestigiacomo, C. D. Cress, N. G. Combs, O. van’t Erve, P. G. Callahan, K. E. Knipling, M. E. Jamer, F. M. Abel, F. Ye,et al., Non-altermagnetic origin of exchange bias behaviors in incoherent ruo2/fe bilayer heterostructures, ACS Applied Materials & Inter-...

    2026

  26. [33]

    Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Wu, Z. Zhu, H. Guo, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, X. Wang, H. Yan, P. Qin,et al., An anomalous hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium dioxide, Nature Electronics5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Tschirner, P

    T. Tschirner, P. Keßler, R. D. Gonzalez Betancourt, T. Kotte, D. Kriegner, B. B¨ uchner, J. Dufouleur, M. Kamp, V. Jovic, L. Smejkal,et al., Saturation of the anomalous hall effect at high magnetic fields in altermagnetic ruo2, Apl Materials11(2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    S. G. Jeong, S. Lee, B. Lin, Z. Yang, I. H. Choi, J. Y. Oh, S. Song, S. W. Lee, S. Nair, R. Choudhary,et al., Metallicity and anomalous hall effect in epitaxially strained, atomically thin ruo2 films, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2500831122 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    Wang, Z.-Y

    Y.-C. Wang, Z.-Y. Shen, C.-H. Lin, W.-C. Hsu, Y.-S. Chen, Y.-Y. Chin, A. K. Singh, W.-L. Lee, C.-T. Chen, S.-Y. Huang,et al., Absence of transport altermagnetic spin-splitting effect in ruo2, Nano Letters26, 2548 (2026)

    2026

  30. [37]

    Z. Wang, Z. Li, L. Sun, Z. Zhang, K. He, H. Niu, J. Cheng, M. Yang, X. Yang, G. Chen, et al., Inverse spin hall effect dominated spin-charge conversion in (101) and (110)-oriented ruo 2 films, Physical Review Letters133, 046701 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    D. Yang, Z. Li, Y. Dai, L. Lang, Z. Shi, Z. Yuan, and S.-M. Zhou, Ferromagnetic interface engineering of spin-charge conversion in ruo 2, Physical Review Letters136, 026702 (2026). 20

    2026

  32. [39]

    H. Bai, L. Han, X. Feng, Y. Zhou, R. Su, Q. Wang, L. Liao, W. Zhu, X. Chen, F. Pan,et al., Observation of spin splitting torque in a collinear antiferromagnet ruo 2, Physical Review Letters128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    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, Physical review letters129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    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,et al., Tilted spin current generated by an antiferromagnet, Nat. Electron.5, 263 (2022)

    2022

  35. [42]

    Y. Guo, J. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Y.-y. Jiang, L. Jiang, C. Wu, J. Dong, X. Xu, W. He, B. He,et al., Direct and inverse spin splitting effects in altermagnetic ruo2, Advanced Science11, 2400967 (2024)

    2024

  36. [43]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Bai, J. Dai, L. Han, C. Chen, S. Liang, Y. Cao, Y. Zhang, Q. Wang, W. Zhu, et al., Electrical manipulation of spin splitting torque in altermagnetic ruo2, Nature Commu- nications16, 5646 (2025)

    2025

  37. [44]

    J. Qiao, Y. Jiang, B. Hong, Z. Wang, J. Liu, J. Li, Z. Liu, B. Wang, S. Wang, Y. Zhang, et al., Enhanced damping-like torque through strain modulation in ruo2, Nano Letters26, 5873 (2026)

    2026

  38. [45]

    Y. Liu, H. Bai, Y. Song, Z. Ji, S. Lou, Z. Zhang, C. Song, and Q. Jin, Inverse altermagnetic spin splitting effect-induced terahertz emission in ruo2, Advanced Optical Materials11, 2300177 (2023)

    2023

  39. [46]

    D. T. Plouff, L. Scheuer, S. Shrestha, W. Wu, N. J. Parvez, S. Bhatt, X. Wang, L. Gundlach, M. B. Jungfleisch, and J. Q. Xiao, Revisiting altermagnetism in ruo2: a study of laser-pulse induced charge dynamics by time-domain terahertz spectroscopy, npj Spintronics3, 17 (2025)

    2025

  40. [47]

    Jechumt´ al, O

    J. Jechumt´ al, O. Gueckstock, K. Jasensk` y, Z. Kaˇ spar, K. Olejn ´ ık, M. Gaerner, G. Reiss, S. Moser, P. Kessler, G. De Luca,et al., Spin-to-charge-current conversion in altermagnetic candidate ruo 2 probed by terahertz emission spectroscopy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11481 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Y. Cao, D. Tian, L. Huang, H. Bai, S. Liang, L. Han, C. Chen, Y. Zhang, L. Wang, C. Zhang, et al., Insight into spin-to-charge conversion in rutile ru o 2, Physical Review B112, 064415 (2025). 21

    2025

  42. [49]

    Smolyanyuk, I

    A. Smolyanyuk, I. I. Mazin, L. Garcia-Gassull, and R. Valent ´ ı, Fragility of the magnetic order in the prototypical altermagnet ruo 2, Physical Review B109, 134424 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    K. G. West, M. Osofsky, I. Mazin, N. N. Dao, S. A. Wolf, and J. Lu, Magnetic properties and spin polarization of ru doped half metallic cro2, Applied Physics Letters107(2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    M. Wang, K. Tanaka, S. Sakai, Z. Wang, K. Deng, Y. Lyu, C. Li, D. Tian, S. Shen, N. Ogawa, et al., Emergent zero-field anomalous hall effect in a reconstructed rutile antiferromagnetic metal, Nature Communications14, 8240 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Mugiraneza and A

    S. Mugiraneza and A. M. Hallas, Tutorial: a beginner’s guide to interpreting magnetic sus- ceptibility data with the curie-weiss law, Communications Physics5, 95 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Vesta 3 for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, Applied Crystallography44, 1272 (2011). 22

    2011

Pith tools

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