Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 77 references

This paper predicts that a magnetic tunnel junction built from Cr-doped RuO2 with (110) crystal orientation acts as a spin-polarized switch despite having almost no net magnetization.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 08:28 UTC pith:NE6OAFOH

load-bearing objection A useful computational prediction of ~300% TMR in Cr-doped RuO2(110) tunnel junctions, but the result hinges on an assumed altermagnetic order that the paper never tests. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21092 v1 pith:NE6OAFOH submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Tunnel magnetoresistance effect with a Cr-doped mathrm{RuO₂}(110) altermagnet

Katsuhiro Tanaka , Takuya Nomoto , Ryotaro Arita This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.40.Gk75.70.Cn71.15.Mb
keywords tunnel magnetoresistancealtermagnetRuO2Cr dopingantiferromagnetic spintronicsmagnetic tunnel junctionspin polarizationfirst-principles transport
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper predicts that a magnetic tunnel junction built from Cr-doped RuO2 with (110) crystal orientation acts as a spin-polarized switch despite having almost no net magnetization. Using first-principles density-functional and scattering calculations, the authors show that the collinear altermagnetic order of Ru1−xCrxO2 produces a momentum-dependent spin polarization, and in the (110) direction this gives a spin-polarized current that supports a tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) effect. The TMR grows with Cr content and peaks at x=0.45 at around 300%, larger than the 100–200% found for the (001)-oriented junctions. The paper argues that the full effect cannot be read off from bulk spin polarization alone; momentum-resolved tunneling and the magnetic alignment at the electrode/barrier interface are equally decisive, and the latter causes an oscillation in the TMR with barrier thickness.

Core claim

The central claim is that a finite, sizable tunnel magnetoresistance emerges in Ru1−xCrxO2(110)/TiO2(110)/Ru1−xCrxO2(110) magnetic tunnel junctions with altermagnetic electrodes, reaching roughly 300% at the Fermi energy for Cr fraction x=0.45. This exceeds the 100–200% range reported for the (001)-oriented junctions, and it arises because the (110) orientation converts the momentum-dependent spin splitting of the altermagnet into a net spin-polarized bulk current. The parallel- and antiparallel-configuration transmissions are computed with a scattering-theory transport method, and the TMR ratio is traced to spin-polarized tunneling that depends on momentum, to the interfacial magnetic struc

What carries the argument

The key object is the rutile altermagnet Ru1−xCrxO2 stacked along the (110) direction. In the assumed collinear antiferromagnetic order, the two Ru/Cr sublattices are inequivalent, so the band structure has spin-split states that swap under a combined time-reversal and lattice-rotation operation—the defining property of an altermagnet. Along (110), the momentum-resolved spin polarization of the conduction channels does not cancel, so a spin-polarized current flows even though the net magnetization is zero. The transport analysis uses a scattering-theory formalism to compute momentum-resolved transmissions and polarizations, and the final TMR emerges from the interplay of these bulk quantitie

Load-bearing premise

The predicted effect relies on the collinear altermagnetic order being the true magnetic ground state of Cr-doped RuO2(110), which the paper assumes without a stability calculation and which remains debated for pure RuO2.

What would settle it

Measure the TMR of an epitaxial Ru1−xCrxO2(110)/TiO2(110)/Ru1−xCrxO2(110) junction at x≈0.45 with, say, four TiO2 layers. If the ratio is far below the predicted ~300%, or if magnetization measurements (such as muon spin rotation or neutron diffraction) show no collinear altermagnetic order in Cr-doped RuO2 at this composition, the prediction fails. A related check: the TMR should oscillate between odd and even TiO2 layer counts; absence of such oscillation at the Fermi energy would contradict the interfacial-sublattice mechanism.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A large TMR (≈300%) is possible with compensated antiferromagnetic electrodes, offering a route to memory and sensor devices without stray magnetic fields.
  • The (110) orientation of the rutile structure outperforms (001), roughly doubling the TMR, so crystal orientation is a key design parameter for altermagnetic tunnel junctions.
  • Because the TMR peaks at an intermediate Cr concentration while bulk spin polarization falls monotonically, optimal device performance requires tuning both the electrode composition and the junction interface.
  • The predicted oscillation of the TMR with barrier thickness (odd vs even TiO2 layers) provides a clear, testable signature of the interfacial magnetic structure's role.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the altermagnetic order persists in thin-film form, these results suggest a practical all-antiferromagnetic tunnel junction design; the paper does not address magnetic switching or thermal stability, but the large ratio implies a measurable signal.
  • The odd/even barrier-thickness oscillation could be used experimentally to verify the interfacial mechanism: fabricate junctions with 3, 4, and 5 TiO2 layers and look for alternating TMR at the Fermi energy.
  • The same analysis should generalize to other d-wave-like altermagnets in tetragonal or rutile lattices, potentially yielding even higher ratios if the interface termination is engineered.
  • Because the calculation models Cr substitution with the virtual crystal approximation, a full supercell treatment that includes explicit disorder might shift the optimal concentration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports first-principles DFT and Landauer–Büttiker transport calculations for Ru1−xCrxO2(110)/TiO2(110)/Ru1−xCrxO2(110) magnetic tunnel junctions with altermagnetic electrodes. The authors find a finite bulk transport spin polarization in Ru1−xCrxO2(110), and compute a TMR ratio that reaches about 300% at x = 0.45 for a four-monolayer TiO2(110) barrier, larger than their earlier result for the (001) orientation. They attribute the TMR to momentum-dependent spin splitting, interfacial magnetic configurations, and bulk spin-polarized current, and discuss barrier-thickness oscillations. The central assumption is that the collinear altermagnetic state, which is imposed at the outset, is the actual ground state of the doped system.

Significance. If the predicted altermagnetic order and the computed TMR are robust, this paper would provide a concrete materials realization of antiferromagnetic TMR in a (110)-oriented rutile oxide, with a ratio exceeding that of the (001) junction. The calculations are parameter-free in the sense that no TMR is fitted to experiment, and the computational setup is standard and well documented. The physical interpretation based on interfacial magnetic configurations and momentum-dependent spin splitting is insightful. However, the predictive value is contingent on the altermagnetic ground state being thermodynamically stable in Cr-doped RuO2, which the paper does not establish. Given the ongoing debate about the magnetic ground state of RuO2, this conditionality is central to the paper's central claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II (System and method)] The entire TMR prediction assumes a collinear altermagnetic order with two inequivalent Ru/Cr sites. This is imposed as the input electronic structure, with no total-energy comparison to a nonmagnetic or other magnetic state. The Introduction itself acknowledges Refs. [44–48] reporting nonmagnetic RuO2. A magnetic-stability calculation (e.g., total energy vs. magnetic moment or spin-constrained calculations) for at least the representative compositions x = 0.3, 0.45, 0.5 is needed to support the claim that Cr doping stabilizes the altermagnetic phase. Without this, the ~300% TMR is a prediction conditional on an unverified premise.
  2. [Section II (DFT details)] The virtual crystal approximation (VCA) with PBE, together with fixed RuO2 lattice constants for all x, cannot capture the local Coulomb enhancement or the real disorder of Cr substitution. The paper states that Cr substitution reinforces electron correlation and supports altermagnetism, but this mechanism is not verified by the VCA calculation. The quantitative TMR values (including the peak at x = 0.45) may be sensitive to these approximations. The authors should either perform explicit supercell calculations for at least x = 0.25 or 0.5, or provide a sensitivity analysis showing that the VCA and rigid-lattice approximations do not qualitatively change the result.
  3. [Section III.B (text after Fig. 6)] The statement that 'p_tot shows a monotonic decrease when the chemical potential increases' is contradicted by Fig. 2(e), which shows ptot increasing with energy (the text there says the magnitude increases with chemical potential, reaching ~35%). This discrepancy should be corrected and the interpretation of the TMR-vs-energy comparison revised accordingly.
  4. [Section III.B (Figs. 4 and 7)] The TMR ratio is reported at a single k-mesh (151×151) for NTiO2 = 4 and 101×101 otherwise, and the ratio is highly sensitive to energy and barrier thickness. No convergence checks with respect to k-mesh or number of barrier layers are presented, and no error estimates are given. Because the central quantitative claim is the ~300% peak at x = 0.45, a convergence study (e.g., increasing the k-mesh to 201×201 for x = 0.45, and varying NTiO2 over a wider range) is needed to show that the peak is not a numerical artifact.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] Typographical errors: 'magnetizaton' and 'antiferromagentic' should be 'magnetization' and 'antiferromagnetic'.
  2. [Section II] The interfacial distance between Ru1−xCrxO2(110) and TiO2(110) is set as the average of the bulk layer distances. This is a free parameter; at least a brief discussion of its sensitivity or a check with a relaxed interface would strengthen the results.
  3. [Eq. (1)] The spin index σ in Tσ(k∥, E) should be defined more precisely with respect to the electrode magnetization direction, especially for the antiparallel configuration where spin channels in the two electrodes are not globally aligned.
  4. [Fig. 7] The schematic in Figs. 7(c) and 7(d) is helpful, but the description of in-plane coordinates (y-offset by aRuO2/2) is somewhat confusing in the caption. A clearer statement of the registry would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: TMR is computed from first principles, with the altermagnetic order as a disclosed premise rather than a fitted or self-citation-derived result.

full rationale

This paper is a first-principles transport study. The TMR ratio is obtained from self-consistent DFT electronic structures and Landauer–Büttiker transmission (Eq. (1), Sec. II), with no parameter fitted to the TMR value; the Cr concentration enters through the virtual crystal approximation, whose potential mixing is fixed before transport and not adjusted to reproduce any TMR datum. The spin polarization p_tot (Eq. (3)) is computed from conduction-channel counts and is explicitly shown not to track the TMR ratio (Sec. III.B), so the TMR is not a re-expression of p_tot. The key physical premise—that Ru1−xCrxO2 is an altermagnet—is taken from the authors' Ref. [26] and from the wider altermagnet literature, and the paper itself acknowledges the ongoing debate over RuO2 magnetism (Refs. [44–48]). This is a stated assumption/limitation rather than a circular derivation: the transport calculation remains an independent computation conditional on that assumption. The comparison to the (001) 100–200% TMR is from prior work [26] but is only a benchmark; the (110) result is computed here. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the claimed output. Self-citations (Refs. [26,41,75]) are contextual or comparative and not the load-bearing derivation of the claimed 300% TMR. Therefore score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central prediction is computed from standard DFT and transport theory, with the main assumptions being the disputed altermagnetic ground state, VCA disorder modeling, fixed lattice parameters, and neglect of SOC.

free parameters (1)
  • Interface separation between Ru1−xCrxO2(110) and TiO2(110) = average of √2 a_RuO2/2 and √2 a_TiO2/2
    Hand-chosen in Section II; affects tunneling matrix elements and TMR magnitude. No relaxation or experimental calibration is performed.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The collinear altermagnetic order of Ru1−xCrxO2 is stable and has the assumed magnetic structure.
    The whole calculation starts from this magnetic state (Section II). The Introduction cites competing nonmagnetic results for RuO2, so this is a fragile premise.
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA exchange-correlation is adequate for the electronic structure and transport of this correlated oxide.
    No Hubbard U or hybrid functional is used; the paper mentions correlation reinforcement by Cr substitution but does not benchmark the chosen functional.
  • domain assumption The virtual crystal approximation captures the effects of random Ru→Cr substitution.
    VCA is used to model Cr doping (Section II); it neglects disorder, local relaxations, and possible site preferences.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling can be neglected, so spin-resolved transport channels are well defined.
    The transport formalism uses spin-up/spin-down channels without SOC (Eq. 1); altermagnetic spin splitting is nonrelativistic, but interface SOC could matter.
  • standard math Coherent Landauer-Büttiker scattering theory applies to this junction.
    Standard transport formalism used in Refs [69-74]; appropriate for ballistic tunneling in clean junctions.
  • domain assumption Lattice constants of RuO2 and TiO2 remain valid for all Cr concentrations and at the interface.
    a_RuO2 and c_RuO2 are used for all x (Section II); no structural relaxation or alloy Vegard shift is considered.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13235 in / 9970 out tokens · 84364 ms · 2026-08-01T08:28:14.684505+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Antiferromagnets can have a finite spin-polarization in the momentum space when their magnetic structure breaks the macroscopic time-reversal symmetry. This spin-polarization can produce a spin-polarized electric current even in antiferromagnets with vanishingly small net magnetizaton, which supports the antiferromagentic tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) effect. In this paper, using first-principles calculations, we study the TMR effect with a doped altermagnet $\mathrm{Ru}_{1-x}\mathrm{Cr}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}$ with $(110)$ orientation, whose collinear antiferromagnetic structure breaks the time-reversal symmetry macroscopically. The momentum-dependent spin-polarization combined with the $(110)$ crystal orientation makes the electric current spin-polarized through bulk $\mathrm{Ru}_{1-x}\mathrm{Cr}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}(110)$. We further calculate the TMR effect in the $\mathrm{Ru}_{1-x}\mathrm{Cr}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}(110)/\mathrm{TiO_{2}}(110)/\mathrm{Ru}_{1-x}\mathrm{Cr}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}(110)$ tunnel junction and show that a finite TMR effect emerges. Based on the analysis of the tunneling transport, the TMR effect is attributed to the spin polarized tunneling transport with momentum dependence and the interfacial magnetic structures, as well as the spin-polarized electric current in a bulk form of $\mathrm{Ru}_{1-x}\mathrm{Cr}_{x}\mathrm{O}_{2}(110)$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21092 by Katsuhiro Tanaka, Ryotaro Arita, Takuya Nomoto.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structures of the rutile Ru [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Calculation results of the spin polarization in the bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Crystal structure of the Ru [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Cr-doping amount dependence of the total trans [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) Energy dependence of the total transmission for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) TiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Julliere, Tunneling between ferromagnetic films, Phys

    M. Julliere, Tunneling between ferromagnetic films, Phys. Lett. A54, 225–226 (1975)

    1975

  2. [2]

    Miyazaki and N

    T. Miyazaki and N. Tezuka, Giant magnetic tunneling effect in Fe/Al 2O3/Fe junction, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 139, L231–L234 (1995)

    1995

  3. [3]

    J. S. Moodera, L. R. Kinder, T. M. Wong, and R. Meser- vey, Large Magnetoresistance at Room Temperature in Ferromagnetic Thin Film Tunnel Junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 3273–3276 (1995)

    1995

  4. [4]

    W. H. Butler, X.-G. Zhang, T. C. Schulthess, and J. M. MacLaren, Spin-dependent tunneling conductance of Fe|MgO|Fe sandwiches, Phys. Rev. B63, 054416 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    Mathon and A

    J. Mathon and A. Umerski, Theory of tunneling mag- netoresistance of an epitaxial Fe/MgO/Fe(001) junction, Phys. Rev. B63, 220403 (2001)

    2001

  6. [6]

    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, Nat. Mater.3, 862–867 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Yuasa and D

    S. Yuasa and D. D. Djayaprawira, Giant tunnel magne- toresistance in magnetic tunnel junctions with a crys- talline MgO(0 0 1) barrier, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.40, R337–R354 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    ˇZelezn´ y, Y

    J. ˇZelezn´ y, Y. Zhang, C. Felser, and B. Yan, Spin- Polarized Current in Noncollinear Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 187204 (2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. ˇZelezn´ y, Y. Sun, J. van den Brink, and B. Yan, Spin Hall effect emerging from a noncollinear magnetic lattice without spin–orbit coupling, New J. Phys.20, 073028 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    M. Naka, S. Hayami, H. Kusunose, Y. Yanagi, Y. Mo- tome, and H. Seo, Spin current generation in organic an- tiferromagnets, Nat. Commun.10, 4305 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    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, Ef- ficient Electrical Spin Splitter Based on Nonrelativis- tic Collinear Antiferromagnetism, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 127701 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Watanabe, K

    H. Watanabe, K. Shinohara, T. Nomoto, A. Togo, and R. Arita, Symmetry analysis with spin crystallographic groups: Disentangling effects free of spin-orbit coupling in emergent electromagnetism, Phys. Rev. B109, 094438 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    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, 1–8 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    ˇSmejkal, A

    L. ˇSmejkal, A. B. Hellenes, R. Gonz´ alez-Hern´ andez, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Giant and Tunneling Mag- netoresistance in Unconventional Collinear Antiferro- magnets with Nonrelativistic Spin-Momentum Coupling, Phys. Rev. X12, 011028 (2022)

    2022

  15. [15]

    J. Dong, X. Li, G. Gurung, M. Zhu, P. Zhang, F. Zheng, E. Y. Tsymbal, and J. Zhang, Tunneling Magnetoresis- tance in Noncollinear Antiferromagnetic Tunnel Junc- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 197201 (2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    X. Chen, T. Higo, K. Tanaka, T. Nomoto, H. Tsai, H. Idzuchi, M. Shiga, S. Sakamoto, R. Ando, H. Kosaki, T. Matsuo, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Arita, S. Miwa, and S. Nakatsuji, Octupole-driven magnetoresistance in an 7 antiferromagnetic tunnel junction, Nature613, 490–495 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    P. Qin, H. Yan, X. Wang, H. Chen, Z. Meng, J. Dong, M. Zhu, J. Cai, Z. Feng, X. Zhou, L. Liu, T. Zhang, Z. Zeng, J. Zhang, C. Jiang, and Z. Liu, Room-temperature magnetoresistance in an all- antiferromagnetic tunnel junction, Nature613, 485–489 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Shao, Y.-Y

    D.-F. Shao, Y.-Y. Jiang, J. Ding, S.-H. Zhang, Z.-A. Wang, R.-C. Xiao, G. Gurung, W. J. Lu, Y. P. Sun, and E. Y. Tsymbal, N´ eel Spin Currents in Antiferromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 216702 (2023)

    2023

  19. [19]

    Q. Cui, Y. Zhu, X. Yao, P. Cui, and H. Yang, Giant spin- Hall and tunneling magnetoresistance effects based on a two-dimensional nonrelativistic antiferromagnetic metal, Phys. Rev. B108, 024410 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Jiang, Z.-A

    Y.-Y. Jiang, Z.-A. Wang, K. Samanta, S.-H. Zhang, R.- C. Xiao, W. J. Lu, Y. P. Sun, E. Y. Tsymbal, and D.-F. Shao, Prediction of giant tunneling magnetoresistance in RuO2/TiO2/RuO2 (110) antiferromagnetic tunnel junc- tions, Phys. Rev. B108, 174439 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    B. Chi, L. Jiang, Y. Zhu, G. Yu, C. Wan, J. Zhang, and X. Han, Crystal-facet-oriented altermagnets for detecting ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic states by giant tun- neling magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. Appl.21, 034038 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    Samanta, Y.-Y

    K. Samanta, Y.-Y. Jiang, T. R. Paudel, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Tunneling magnetoresistance in magnetic tunnel junctions with a single ferromagnetic electrode, Phys. Rev. B109, 174407 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    M. Zhu, J. Dong, X. Li, F. Zheng, Y. Zhou, K. Wu, and J. Zhang, Magnetic Switching Dynamics and Tunnel Magnetoresistance Effect Based on Spin-Splitting Non- collinear Antiferromagnet Mn 3Pt, Chin. Phys. Lett.41, 047502 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    C.-T. Chou, S. Ghosh, B. C. McGoldrick, T. Nguyen, G. Gurung, E. Y. Tsymbal, M. Li, K. A. Mkhoyan, and L. Liu, Large Spin Polarization from symmetry- breaking Antiferromagnets in Antiferromagnetic Tunnel Junctions, Nat.Commun.15, 7840 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Yin, S. Zhu, R. Cheng, Y. Wen, and J. He, Spin-correlation transport and multiple resistive states in multiferroic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. B110, 024428 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Nomoto, and R. Arita, First-principles study of the tunnel magnetoresistance effect with Cr- doped RuO2 electrode, Phys. Rev. B110, 064433 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Gurung, M

    G. Gurung, M. Elekhtiar, Q.-Q. Luo, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Nearly perfect spin polarization of non- collinear antiferromagnets, Nat. Commun.15, 10242 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Luo, X.-Y

    Q.-Q. Luo, X.-Y. Guo, H. Zhou, G. Gurung, J.-M. Xu, W.-J. Lu, Y.-P. Sun, E. Y. Tsymbal, and D.-F. Shao, Angular-dependent tunneling magnetoresistance in a tunnel junction with ferromagnetic and noncollinear antiferromagnetic electrodes, Phys. Rev. B111, 144417 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Z. Wang, B. Bian, L. Zhang, and Z. Yu, Mn 3Sn-based noncollinear antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions with bi- layer boron nitride tunnel barriers, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125, 202404 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Yang, Y.-Y

    L. Yang, Y.-Y. Jiang, X.-Y. Guo, S.-H. Zhang, R.-C. Xiao, W.-J. Lu, L. Wang, Y.-P. Sun, E. Y. Tsymbal, and D.-F. Shao, Interface-controlled antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions, Newton , 100142 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    S. Liu, T. Chen, B. Wu, H. Fan, Y. Zhu, S. Bi, Y. Liu, Y. Shi, W. Zhang, M. Wang, Q. Li, J. Yang, J. Lu, T. Zhou, and B. Liu, Mn 3SnN-Based Antiferromagnetic Tunnel Junction with Giant Tunneling Magnetoresis- tance and Multi-States: Design and Theoretical Valida- tion, Adv. Sci.12, e02985 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    Noh, G.-H

    S. Noh, G.-H. Kim, J. Lee, H. Jung, U. Seo, G. So, J. Lee, S. Lee, M. Park, S. Yang, Y. S. Oh, H. Jin, C. Sohn, and J.-W. Yoo, Tunneling Magnetoresistance in Alter- magnetic RuO2-Based Magnetic Tunnel Junctions, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 246703 (2025)

    2025

  33. [33]

    Y. Zhu, S. Liu, Q. Cui, J. Jiang, H. Yang, T. Zhou, and B. Liu, Tunneling magnetoresistance in altermagnetic tunnel junctions with the half-metal electrode, Appl. Phys. Lett.127, 082401 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Y.-F. Sun, Y. Mao, Y.-C. Zhuang, and Q.-F. Sun, Tun- neling magnetoresistance effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B112, 094411 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Z. Yang, X. Yang, J. Wang, Q. Li, R. Peng, C. H. Lee, L. K. Ang, J. Lu, Y. S. Ang, and S. Fang, Unconventional thickness scaling of coherent tunnel magnetoresistance in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. B112, 205202 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Luo, X.-Y

    Q.-Q. Luo, X.-Y. Guo, W.-J. Lu, Y.-P. Sun, E. Y. Tsym- bal, M. Li, and D.-F. Shao, Multiferroic Tunnel Junc- tions With Noncollinear Antiferromagnetic Electrodes, Adv. Funct. Mater.36, e28671 (2026)

    2026

  37. [37]

    Tanaka, Y

    K. Tanaka, Y. Toga, S. Minami, S. Nakatsuji, T. Nomoto, T. Koretsune, and R. Arita, Ab initio study of mag- netoresistance effect in Mn 3Sn/MgO/Mn3Sn antiferro- magnetic tunnel junction, Phys. Rev. Mater.10, 044405 (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    C. Mao, S. Liu, S. Li, J. Yang, and J. Yang, Interfacial bond tailored altermagnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. B113, 174409 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    J. Guo, H. Mavani, W. Fang, J. Tang, W. Li, W. Wu, H. Li, E. Y. Tsymbal, and L. Zhang, Termination- Preserved Ultrahigh Tunneling Magnetoresistance in Al- termagnetic KV 2Se2O , ACS Nano20, 18900–18910 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Shao and E

    D.-F. Shao and E. Y. Tsymbal, Antiferromagnetic tunnel junctions for spintronics, npj Spintronics2, 13 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Nomoto, and R. Arita, Approaches to tunnel magnetoresistance effect with antiferromagnets, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter37, 183003 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    J. Kang, M. Hamdi, S. K. Cheung, L.-D. Yuan, M. Elekhtiar, W. Rogers, A. Meo, P. G. Lim, M. S. N. Tey, A. D’Addario, S. T. Konakanchi, E. Matt, J. Athas, S. Arpaci, L. Wan, S. C. Mehta, P. Upadhyaya, M. Car- pentieri, V. P. Dravid, M. C. Hersam, J. A. Katine, G. D. Fuchs, G. Finocchio, E. Y. Tsymbal, J. M. Rondinelli, and P. K. Amiri, Octupole-driven spin...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Elekhtiar, D.-F

    M. Elekhtiar, D.-F. Shao, and E. Y. Tsymbal, Effects of Band Symmetry on Spin-Dependent Transport in Noncollinear Antiferromagnetic Tunnel Junctions (2026), arXiv:2605.25369

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

    Smolyanyuk, I

    A. Smolyanyuk, I. I. Mazin, L. Garcia-Gassull, and R. Valent ´ ı, Fragility of the magnetic order in the pro- 8 totypical altermagnet RuO 2, Phys. Rev. B109, 134424 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Keßler, L

    P. Keßler, L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, I. I. Mazin, R. Valent ´ ı, and S. Moser, Absence of magnetic order in RuO2: insights fromµSR spectroscopy and neu- tron diffraction, npj Spintronics2, 50 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    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. Lett.133, 176401 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Osumi, K

    T. Osumi, K. Yamauchi, S. Souma, S. Paul, A. Honma, K. Nakayama, K. Ozawa, M. Kitamura, K. Horiba, H. Kumigashira, C. Bigi, F. m. c. Bertran, T. Oguchi, T. Takahashi, Y. Maeno, and T. Sato, Spin-degenerate bulk bands and topological surface states associated with Dirac nodal lines in RuO 2, Phys. Rev. B113, 085116 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    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, Itiner- ant Antiferromagnetism in RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 077201 (2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    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 An- tiferromagnetism in Metallic RuO 2 Determined by Res- onant X-ray Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 017202 (2019)

    2019

  51. [51]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇ s, Antifer- romagnetism in RuO 2 asd-wave Pomeranchuk instabil- ity, Phys. Rev. B99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  52. [52]

    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

  53. [53]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Beyond Con- ventional Ferromagnetism and Antiferromagnetism: A Phase with Nonrelativistic Spin and Crystal Rotation Symmetry, Phys. Rev. X12, 031042 (2022)

    2022

  54. [54]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Emerging Re- search Landscape of Altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  55. [55]

    Fedchenko, J

    O. Fedchenko, J. Min´ ar, A. Akashdeep, S. W. D’Souza, D. Vasilyev, O. Tkach, L. Odenbreit, Q. Nguyen, D. Kut- nyakhov, N. Wind, L. Wenthaus, M. Scholz, K. Ross- nagel, M. Hoesch, M. Aeschlimann, B. Stadtm¨ uller, M. Kl¨ aui, G. Sch¨ onhense, T. Jungwirth, A. B. Hellenes, G. Jakob, L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and H.-J. Elmers, Ob- servation of time-reversal s...

    2024

  56. [56]

    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 RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 197202 (2022)

    2022

  57. [57]

    Karube, T

    S. Karube, T. Tanaka, D. Sugawara, N. Kadoguchi, M. Kohda, and J. Nitta, Observation of Spin-Splitter Torque in Collinear Antiferromagnetic RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 137201 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    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 Antiferromag- net RuO2, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 216701 (2023)

    2023

  59. [59]

    M. Wang, K. Tanaka, S. Sakai, Z. Wang, K. Deng, Y. Lyu, C. Li, D. Tian, S. Shen, N. Ogawa, N. Kanazawa, P. Yu, R. Arita, and F. Kagawa, Emergent zero-field anomalous Hall effect in a reconstructed rutile antifer- romagnetic metal, Nat. Commun.14, 8240 (2023)

    2023

  60. [60]

    Smolyanyuk, L

    A. Smolyanyuk, L. ˇSmejkal, and I. I. Mazin, Origin of the anomalous Hall effect in Cr-doped RuO 2, Phys. Rev. B111, 064406 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Hohenberg and W

    P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Inhomogeneous Electron Gas, Phys. Rev.136, B864–B871 (1964)

    1964

  62. [62]

    Kohn and L

    W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Self-Consistent Equations In- cluding Exchange and Correlation Effects, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133–A1138 (1965)

    1965

  63. [63]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mauri, R. Mazzarello, S. Paolini, A. Pasquarello, L. Paulatto, C. Sbraccia, S. Sc...

    2009

  64. [64]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carnimeo, A. D. Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. DiStasio, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, F. Giustino, T. Gorni, J. Jia, M. Kawa- mura, H.-Y. Ko, A. Kokalj, E. K¨...

    2017

  65. [65]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865–3868 (1996)

    1996

  66. [66]

    Dal Corso, Pseudopotentials periodic table: From H to Pu, Comput

    A. Dal Corso, Pseudopotentials periodic table: From H to Pu, Comput. Mater. Sci.95, 337–350 (2014), https://dalcorso.github.io/pslibrary/

    2014

  67. [67]

    Nordheim, Zur Elektronentheorie der Metalle

    L. Nordheim, Zur Elektronentheorie der Metalle. I, Ann. Phys.401, 607–640 (1931)

    1931

  68. [68]

    Bellaiche and D

    L. Bellaiche and D. Vanderbilt, Virtual crystal approxi- mation revisited: Application to dielectric and piezoelec- tric properties of perovskites, Phys. Rev. B61, 7877– 7882 (2000)

    2000

  69. [69]

    Joon Choi and J

    H. Joon Choi and J. Ihm, Ab initio pseudopotential method for the calculation of conductance in quantum wires, Phys. Rev. B59, 2267–2275 (1999)

    1999

  70. [70]

    Smogunov, A

    A. Smogunov, A. Dal Corso, and E. Tosatti, Ballistic con- ductance of magnetic Co and Ni nanowires with ultrasoft pseudopotentials, Phys. Rev. B70, 045417 (2004)

    2004

  71. [71]

    Landauer, Spatial Variation of Currents and Fields Due to Localized Scatterers in Metallic Conduction, IBM J

    R. Landauer, Spatial Variation of Currents and Fields Due to Localized Scatterers in Metallic Conduction, IBM J. Res. Dev.1, 223–231 (1957). 9

    1957

  72. [72]

    Landauer, Electrical resistance of disordered one- dimensional lattices, Phil Mag.21, 863–867 (1970)

    R. Landauer, Electrical resistance of disordered one- dimensional lattices, Phil Mag.21, 863–867 (1970)

    1970

  73. [73]

    B¨ uttiker, Four-Terminal Phase-Coherent Conduc- tance, Phys

    M. B¨ uttiker, Four-Terminal Phase-Coherent Conduc- tance, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 1761–1764 (1986)

    1986

  74. [74]

    B¨ uttiker, Symmetry of electrical conduction, IBM J

    M. B¨ uttiker, Symmetry of electrical conduction, IBM J. Res. Develop.32, 317–334 (1988)

    1988

  75. [75]

    Tanaka, T

    K. Tanaka, T. Nomoto, and R. Arita, Local density of states as a probe for tunneling magnetoresistance effect: Application to ferrimagnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. B107, 214442 (2023)

    2023

  76. [76]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi,VESTA3for three-dimensional visualization of crystal, volumetric and morphology data, J. Appl. Cryst.44, 1272–1276 (2011)

    2011

  77. [77]

    Hirel, Atomsk: A tool for manipulating and converting atomic data files, Comput

    P. Hirel, Atomsk: A tool for manipulating and converting atomic data files, Comput. Phys. Commun.197, 212–219 (2015)

    2015