Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 48 references

Quantum oscillation fingerprints of altermagnetism in hole-doped RuO2

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Hole doping turns RuO2 altermagnetic, and quantum oscillations track the spin splitting as a near-linear function of the Ru moment.

desk verdict Solid DFT map of QO vs hole doping in RuO2 with a usable Δ–moment correlation; the fingerprint claim is only as strong as rigid electron-count doping. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24599 v1 pith:ZZPV6QEL submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Yuchi Yang , Yusheng Hou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords altermagnetismRuO2quantumoscillationsholedopingFermisurfacespinsplittingd-wavealtermagnetdensityfunctionaltheory
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

RuO2 is a debated candidate for altermagnetism: compensated magnetic order with ferromagnet-like spin-split bands. This work uses first-principles calculations to show what happens when holes are added. Hole doping rebuilds the Fermi surface, grows the Ru magnetic moment, and strengthens spin splitting. For one pair of simple closed pockets, a normalized difference of quantum-oscillation frequencies rises almost linearly with that moment over a wide doping window, matching a minimal two-dimensional d-wave altermagnet model at small moment. The system also passes through an intermediate regime before locking into a stable altermagnetic state whose angle-dependent oscillation spectrum is distinctly simpler. Those two signatures—the quasi-linear correlation and the simplified spectrum—are offered as practical fingerprints for experiments that want to confirm altermagnetism in doped RuO2.

What carries the argument

The normalized relative frequency difference Δ = ⟨|F5−F6|⟩ / ⟨(F5+F6)/2⟩ for the closed pockets of bands 5 and 6. It converts the d-wave spin splitting of those pockets into a single angle-averaged number that can be plotted against the Ru moment and compared with a minimal tight-binding altermagnet model.

What would settle it

Measure angle-dependent quantum-oscillation frequencies on hole-doped RuO2 samples across roughly 0.5–1.5 holes per cell; check whether the low-frequency pair that is degenerate at θ=0 and splits at finite angle yields a Δ that rises quasi-linearly with an independently measured Ru moment, and whether the spectrum abruptly simplifies above about 0.9 hole per cell.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In hole-doped RuO2, first-principles quantum-oscillation spectra show that a normalized frequency splitting Δ between a pair of closed Fermi-surface pockets (bands 5 and 6) correlates quasi-linearly with the local Ru magnetic moment over a broad doping range, a trend captured by a minimal 2D d-wave altermagnet model at small moment. The material evolves from nonmagnetic through an intermediate regime into a stable altermagnetic state whose angle-dependent frequencies are distinctly simplified, giving concrete oscillation-based signatures of altermagnetism.

Load-bearing premise

That ordinary density-functional calculations with a small fixed Hubbard U on ruthenium and a simple change in total electron count correctly describe the real magnetic ground state and Fermi surface of hole-doped RuO2.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Quantum-oscillation frequency maps can fingerprint the stable altermagnetic regime in hole-doped RuO2 via a simplified, compact spectrum.
  • The quasi-linear Δ–m_Ru relation gives an experimental proxy for altermagnetic spin splitting without needing full spin-resolved ARPES.
  • An intermediate doping window (roughly 0.7–0.9 hole/cell) should show mixed or partially reconstructed Fermi-surface topology between nonmagnetic and fully altermagnetic limits.
  • Similar closed-pocket frequency differences may serve as spin-splitting diagnostics in other d-wave altermagnet candidates under doping or strain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear Δ–moment slope is material-generic for d-wave altermagnets, a single calibrated quantum-oscillation run could estimate local moments when neutron or XMCD data are unavailable.
  • Electrostatic gating or controlled Ru-vacancy engineering that reaches the high-doping simplified-spectrum window would be the cleanest experimental path to settle the RuO2 magnetism debate.
  • Failure of Δ to track moment under strain that preserves the closed pockets would falsify the claim that the correlation is symmetry-driven rather than DFT-specific.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents DFT+U (PBE, U=0.2–0.6 eV, SOC) calculations of hole-doped RuO2, with doping implemented by varying the total valence electron count, and computes angle-dependent quantum-oscillation (QO) frequencies via SKEAF. The authors track a pair of closed Fermi-surface pockets (bands 5 and 6), define a normalized angularly averaged frequency-splitting measure Δ, and report a quasi-linear correlation between Δ and the Ru local moment m_Ru (linear fit below 0.5 μB, R²=0.992, with data for different U collapsing onto one line). A minimal 2D d-wave altermagnet tight-binding model reproduces the small-moment linearity analytically, and an extended model with next-nearest-neighbor hopping and a doping-dependent Fermi level removes the saturation plateau. Two jumps in m_Ru and Δ near 0.7 and 0.9 hole/cell are interpreted as an NM→intermediate→AM sequence, and the simplified QO spectrum above 0.9 hole/cell is proposed as an experimental fingerprint of the stable AM state.

Significance. If the rigid-doping idealization is a reasonable guide to real hole-doped RuO2, this work provides the first systematic map of how QO spectra evolve through the NM–AM transition and gives concrete, falsifiable predictions: (i) a low-frequency (3–9 kT) pair of branches degenerate at θ=0 and splitting at finite θ as a d-wave spin-splitting diagnostic, and (ii) a sharply simplified spectrum above ~0.9 hole/cell as a fingerprint of the stable AM state. The angular-sampling convergence tests (Fig. S3), robustness checks across U = 0.2–0.6 eV and ±1% strain (Figs. S4–S5), and an analytic small-moment expansion (Eq. 8) that explains rather than merely fits the linearity are genuine strengths, as is the extended model in §S3 that removes the artificial saturation. The significance is tempered by the contested experimental status of RuO2 magnetism and by the fact that all moments and frequencies derive from a single uncalibrated doping model; the predictions are useful to experimentalists only to the extent that idealized electron removal mimics vacancies, O excess, or gating.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II (Computational Details); §III A] The entire doping evolution is computed by changing the total valence electron count in a uniformly compensated cell at an unrelaxed experimental structure. Yet §III A motivates the study with Ru vacancies and O excess (citing Ref. 28) and electrostatic gating (Ref. 42) as the experimental realizations. No explicit-defect or gated supercell calculation is presented. Vacancy potentials can pin or destroy local moments and shift the Lifshitz features that define the 0.7 and 0.9 hole/cell jumps, on which the proposed fingerprint depends. The concern is amplified by the paper's own admission (§III A) that stoichiometric RuO2 needs an unphysically large U for an AM ground state in this framework, while experiments match NM QO frequencies (Refs. 32–33): the doping-induced moments driving the correlation are uncalibrated predictions of this method. At minimum, one explicit Ru-vacancy or O-exces
  2. [§III C; Fig. 3(b), Fig. 5] The 'intermediate state' is inferred solely from two jumps in m_Ru, Δ, and the DOS, plus a spectrum simplification. No total-energy comparison across the transitions is shown (the only energy given is AM vs FM at 1.3 hole/cell, ~16 meV/cell), and no symmetry or order-parameter analysis distinguishes this regime. Notably, the 0.7–0.9 hole/cell range already has finite m_Ru (0.138–0.17 μB) and finite Δ — by the paper's own definition it is an AM state with a smaller moment, not a distinct phase. The jumps appear to be Lifshitz/magnetic-moment discontinuities (band 4's new Fermi crossing at 0.9, Fig. S8), not evidence for a new state. The term 'intermediate state' and the NM→intermediate→AM narrative in the abstract and §IV need either substantiation (energetics, magnetic-space-group characterization) or replacement by a description in terms of two successive transitions.
  3. [§III B, Fig. 3(c); Eq. (8)] The central quantitative result — quasi-linearity of Δ vs m_Ru below 0.5 μB — is, as the authors' own Eq. (8) shows, the generic small-moment limit: ΔE ≈ 2Δε·mJH/√(Δε²+t₃²T²) is linear in m by perturbation theory. The DFT fit (R²=0.992) therefore largely confirms the expected small-moment expansion rather than revealing a new correlation. What is genuinely non-trivial is the collapse of the slope across U = 0.2–0.6 eV and the persistence of linearity up to ~0.5 μB without saturation. The text should be restructured to state precisely which aspects are non-obvious, and the abstract phrase 'meaningful correlation ... quasi-linear trend over a broad doping range' should be qualified accordingly.
  4. [§III B; Figs. 2–3; Fig. S8] Bands 5–6 are tracked across the full 0–1.5 hole/cell range, but the Fermi surface undergoes reconstructions in this interval (band 4 develops a new Fermi-level crossing at 0.9 hole/cell, Fig. S8; band 2 becomes multi-lobed). Since band indices are assigned by energy ordering at each k, Lifshitz events can permute or hybridize band identity. The SM (Fig. S2) states the branches are identified by degeneracy at θ=0 and continuity, but the procedure for maintaining a consistent band-5/6 assignment through the 0.7 and 0.9 jumps should be made explicit, with a statement on whether Δ is continuous in the band-resolved sense across the jumps or is a post-hoc pairing of branches.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (2)–(3)] Eq. (2) defines Δ with the absolute value inside the angular average, ⟨|F5−F6|⟩, while Eq. (3) writes |⟨A5⟩−⟨A6⟩|. These coincide only if F5−F6 has a fixed sign over the averaging range. Given the d-wave symmetry (branches degenerate at θ=0, splitting at finite θ), please state explicitly whether the sign is preserved over the integration window and, if not, which expression is actually evaluated.
  2. [§III B, Fig. 3(c)] The linear fit gives intercept 0.025±0.008 (in units of 10⁻¹), which is ~3σ from zero; calling it 'negligible' is loose. Also, the notation 'Δ(10⁻¹)' for the fit variable is unclear — define the rescaled quantity explicitly.
  3. [§II] For the unstrained calculations the structure from Ref. 28 is used 'without further structural relaxation', while strained cases are relaxed internally. Please justify that residual forces on the unrelaxed structure are negligible, or report them, since Fermi-surface areas (and hence Δ) are sensitive to small structural changes.
  4. [Figs. 1, 3] Fig. 1(c)–(d): the caption refers to red arrows marking DOS peaks, but the arrow colors/labels are hard to discern; please check figure legibility. Similarly, in Fig. 3(a) the hollow vs solid dot convention for bands 5/6 should be restated in the caption of each panel where used.
  5. [Data Availability] Data availability is 'upon reasonable request'. Given that the paper's predictive value lies in the angle-resolved frequency tables, depositing the SKEAF inputs and the computed F(θ) branch data (or a repository link) would substantially aid experimental comparison.
  6. [References] Several key citations (Refs. 9, 12, 25–27, 29) carry 2025–2026 dates and some appear to be in press; please verify volume/page details at proof stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Δ–m_Ru is an observational DFT correlation; the 2D model independently explains small-m linearity.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is that a quantum-oscillation signature Δ (normalized angular average of |F5−F6| for the closed Γ pockets) tracks the Ru local moment m_Ru quasi-linearly under hole doping, with a distinct simplified QO spectrum in the stable AM regime. Both Δ and m_Ru are independent outputs of the same DFT+U workflow (Fermi-surface areas via SKEAF vs. spin density); correlating them is empirical within the calculation, not definitional. The linear fit below 0.5 μB is a post-hoc summary of those outputs, not an input that forces later “predictions.” The minimal 2D d-wave Hamiltonian is a separate symmetry-motivated model; its small-mJH expansion of ΔE is derived analytically and shown to be quasi-linear across varied hoppings without fitting to the RuO2 slope. Prior literature (hole doping promotes magnetism; stoichiometric RuO2 needs large U) is used as motivation and context, not as a self-citation uniqueness theorem that closes the argument. Concerns about rigid electron-count doping vs. real defects are physical-validity issues, not circular reductions of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The load-bearing claim is a DFT-derived correlation plus spectral fingerprint. It rests on standard electronic-structure practice (PBE+U, Onsager relation, electron-count doping), a small set of chosen interaction/strain parameters, and constructed scalar measures (Δ, δ). No new physical entity is required; the intermediate state is a regime label for observed jumps. The main external vulnerability is whether DFT+U at small U represents real hole-doped RuO2 magnetism.

free parameters (4)
  • Hubbard U on Ru 4d = 0.4 eV (default); also 0.2, 0.6 eV
    Default U=0.4 eV set 'unless otherwise stated'; results also shown for 0.2 and 0.6 eV. Choice affects moment magnitude and transition sharpness though the small-m linear collapse is claimed robust.
  • Minimal-model hoppings t2, t3 and exchange mJH (in units of t1) = e.g. t2=0.6, t3=0.2, mJH varied; additional sets in SM
    Hand-chosen parameter sets to illustrate quasi-linear then saturating δ(mJH); not fit to DFT Δ but selected to span regimes.
  • Realistic-model Fermi-level slope Ef=Ef0−β(mJH) = Ef0=-0.5, β=1 (model); DFT slope −0.55 eV per hole/cell
    Phenomenological linear reduction of Ef with moment/doping (Ef0=-0.5, β=1 in model units; DFT fit Ef=7.94−0.55h cited) to keep split bands crossing EF.
  • Realistic-model hoppings t, t3, t4, t5, JH = t=0.05, t3=0.425, t4=-0.1, t5=0.05, JH=0.2 (units as in SM)
    Adopted from Roig et al. minimal-models paper with small variations; JH=0.2 following that reference.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PBE+U DFT with modest U correctly orders NM vs AM states and Fermi surfaces of hole-doped RuO2
    Central computational premise; paper notes stoichiometric AM needs unphysically large U without doping (Introduction, citing Smolyanyuk et al.).
  • domain assumption Hole doping can be modeled by reducing total valence electron count at fixed (or strained) lattice
    Computational Details; standard but neglects defect chemistry of Ru vacancies/O excess mentioned as experimental routes.
  • standard math Quantum oscillation frequency F=(ℏ/2πe)A from extremal Fermi-surface areas (Onsager)
    Eq. (1); basis for all QO spectra via SKEAF.
  • ad hoc to paper Normalized angular average Δ=⟨|F5−F6|⟩/⟨(F5+F6)/2⟩ is a faithful scalar signature of AM spin splitting
    Eqs. (2)–(3); definition chosen by authors to compare dopings given d-wave angular structure.
  • domain assumption Unstrained crystal structure taken from Ref. [28] without further relaxation is adequate
    Computational Details; strained cases relax internals only.
  • domain assumption SOC only weakly modifies bands so conclusions from SOC-included DFT and SOC-free minimal model remain comparable
    Stated after Fig. 1; SOC kept in DFT, omitted in 2D model.
invented entities (2)
  • Normalized QO spin-splitting measure Δ (and model analog δ)
    purpose: Compress angle-dependent frequency (or radius) splitting of a pocket pair into one doping-comparable scalar correlated with m_Ru
    Not a new particle or force; a constructed observable. Independent evidence would be experimental extraction of the same branches and trend.
  • Intermediate state between NM and stable AM in hole-doped RuO2
    purpose: Label the doping window (~0.7–0.9 hole/cell) with partial moment/Δ jumps but still complex QO spectra before spectral simplification
    Inferred from simultaneous jumps in m_Ru, Δ, DOS, and later QO simplification; not an independent thermodynamic phase proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum oscillation fingerprints of altermagnetism in hole-doped RuO2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZPV6QEL

@misc{pith2026260724599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum oscillation fingerprints of altermagnetism in hole-doped RuO2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZPV6QEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24599}
}
read the original abstract

Altermagnetism, characterized by its ferromagnetism-like spin-splitting band structure and antiferromagnetism-like magnetic order, has garnered considerable attention recently. Although hole doping may promote magnetism in the debated altermagnet candidate RuO2, the evolution of its electronic and magnetic properties under hole doping remains poorly understood. Based on first-principles calculations, we employ quantum oscillations to study hole-doped RuO2. We find that hole doping can enhance spin splitting and reconstruct the Fermi surface in RuO2, which is revealed by the angle-dependent quantum oscillation frequency. By tracking a pair of closed Fermi-surface pockets, we identify a meaningful correlation between the magnetic moment of Ru and a quantum-oscillation-based signature of spin splitting. This correlation follows a quasi-linear trend over a broad doping range, which can be captured by a minimal two-dimensional d-wave altermagnetic model. In addition, the hole-doped RuO2 exhibits a transition from a nonmagnetic to an altermagnetic state via an intermediate state. The quasi-linear correlation through quantum oscillation and the distinct quantum oscillation frequency of the stable altermagnetic state can serve as useful signatures for identifying the altermagnetic state in RuO2. Our results provide a comprehensive framework for understanding hole-doped RuO2, offering new insights into altermagnetic transitions and their identification.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Crystal structure and electronic structures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Fermi surfaces and angle-dependent quantum oscillation frequency of hole-doped RuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Evolution of the magnetic moment and quantum-oscillation-based signature of spin splitting in RuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Minimal 2D tight-binding model for the AM state. (a) Schematic of the 2D lattice. (b) 2D Fermi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Total DOSs and quantum oscillation frequencies of the intermediate state in hole-doped RuO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references

  1. [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. [2]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  3. [3]

    Mazin (The PRX Editors), Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys

    I. Mazin (The PRX Editors), Editorial: Altermagnetism—a new punch line of fundamen- tal magnetism, Phys. Rev. X12, 040002 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    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, Nature Reviews Materials 10, 473 (2025)

    2025

  5. [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, Science Advances6, eaaz8809 (2020)

    2020

  6. [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, Nature Elec- tronics5, 735 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Leivisk ¨a, J

    M. Leivisk ¨a, J. Rial, A. Bad’ura, R. L. Seeger, I. Kounta, S. Beckert, D. Kriegner, I. Joumard, E. Schmoranzerov´a, J. Sinova, O. Gomonay, A. Thomas, S. T. B. Goennen- wein, H. Reichlov´a, L. ˇSmejkal, L. Michez, T. c. v. Jung- wirth, and V. Baltz, Anisotropy of the anomalous Hall effect in thin films of the altermagnet candidate Mn5Si3, Phys. Rev. B109...

    2024

  8. [8]

    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, and D. C. Ralph, Tilted spin current generated by the collinear antiferromagnet ruthenium dioxide, Na- ture Electronics5, 267 (2022)

    2022

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Y. Huo, L. Yan, S. Li, and L. Zhou, Ultrafast laser- driven asymmetric demagnetization dynamics in d-Wave altermagnets., The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters (2026)

    2026

  2. [10]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 231 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Z. Jin, Z. Zeng, Y. Cao, and P. Yan, Skyrmion hall effect in altermagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 196701 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Y.-X. Li, Y. Chen, L. Pan, S. Li, S.-B. Zhang, and H.- Z. Lu, Exploration of altermagnetism in RuO2, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy69, 257001 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    W. D. Ryden and A. W. Lawson, Magnetic susceptibility of IrO2 and RuO2, The Journal of Chemical Physics52, 6058 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    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, J. Chem. Soc. A , 653 (1968)

    1968

  7. [15]

    J. J. Lin, S. M. Huang, Y. H. Lin, T. C. Lee, H. Liu, X. X. Zhang, R. S. Chen, and Y. S. Huang, Low temperature electrical transport properties of RuO 2 and IrO2 single crystals, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, 8035 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    H. S. O’Neill and J. Nell, Gibbs free energies of for- mation of RuO 2, IrO2, and OsO 2: A high-temperature electrochemical and calorimetric study, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta61, 5279 (1997). 9

    1997

  9. [17]

    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, Itinerant antiferromagnetism in RuO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 077201 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    K.-H. Ahn, A. Hariki, K.-W. Lee, and J. Kuneˇs, Antifer- romagnetism in RuO2 as𝑑-wave Pomeranchuk instabil- ity, Phys. Rev. B99, 184432 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    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. Jak...

    2024

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    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 RuO2, Phys. Rev. Let...

    2024

  15. [23]

    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 RuO 2: Insights from𝜇SR spectroscopy and neutron diffraction, npj Spintronics2, 50 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    Kiefer, F

    L. Kiefer, F. Wirth, A. Bertin, P. Becker, L. Bohat´ y, K. Schmalzl, A. Stunault, J. A. Rodr ´ıguez-Velamazan, O. Fabelo, and M. Braden, Crystal structure and absence of magnetic order in single-crystalline RuO2, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter37, 135801 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    S. Wang, C. Wang, Y. Yuan, J. Li, F. Pei, D. Liu, C. Qin, J. Cao, Y. Wang, T. Wang, J. Liu, J.-E. Lee, G. Zhang, C. Klewe, C. Yu, F. Zhang, D. Song, K. Chen, W. Zhao, D. Shen, Z. Qiu, M. Yang, B. Hong, and Q. Li, Absence of magnetic order in epitaxial RuO 2 revealed by x-ray l...

    2026

  19. [27]

    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 l...

    2026

  20. [28]

    Smolyanyuk, I

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

    2024

  21. [29]

    Z. Qian, Y. Yang, S. Liu, and C. Wu, Fragile uncon- ventional magnetism in RuO2 by proximity to Landau- Pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B111, 174425 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Z.-X. Li, H. Zhou, X. Wan, and W. Chen, Diagnosing al- termagnetic phases through quantum oscillations, Phys. Rev. B111, 125119 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Shoenberg,Magnetic Oscillations in Metals, Cam- bridge Monographs on Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1984)

    D. Shoenberg,Magnetic Oscillations in Metals, Cam- bridge Monographs on Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    Z. Wu, M. Long, H. Chen, S. Paul, H. Matsuki, O. Zhe- liuk, U. Zeitler, G. Li, R. Zhou, Z. Zhu, D. Graf, T. I. Weinberger, F. M. Grosche, Y. Maeno, and A. G. Eaton, Fermi surface of RuO 2 measured by quantum oscilla- tions, Phys. Rev. X15, 031044 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Huang, J

    Y. Huang, J. Lai, J. Zhan, T. Yu, R. Chen, P. Liu, X.-Q. Chen, and Y. Sun, Ab initio study of quantum oscillations in altermagnetic and nonmagnetic phases of RuO2, Phys. Rev. B110, 144410 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

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

    1996

  28. [36]

    Kresse and D

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

    1999

  29. [37]

    P. E. Bl ¨ochl, Projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  30. [38]

    S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Electron-energy-loss spec- tra and the structural stability of nickel oxide: An LSDA+U study, Phys. Rev. B57, 1505 (1998)

    1998

  31. [39]

    Rourke and S

    P. Rourke and S. Julian, Numerical extraction of de Haas–van Alphen frequencies from calculated band energies, Computer Physics Communications183, 324–332 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    V. Wang, N. Xu, J.-C. Liu, G. Tang, and W.-T. Geng, V ASPKIT: A user-friendly interface facilitating high-throughput computing and analysis using V ASP code, Computer Physics Communications267, 108033 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kokalj, XCrySDen—a new program for displaying crystalline structures and electron densities, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling17, 176 (1999)

    A. Kokalj, XCrySDen—a new program for displaying crystalline structures and electron densities, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling17, 176 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Y. Wu, D. Li, C.-L. Wu, H. Y. Hwang, and Y. Cui, Electrostatic gating and intercalation in 2D materials, Nature Reviews Materials8, 41 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    [29, 44]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL to be inserted by publisher] for additional tests, extended tight- binding models, and supporting figures, which includes Refs. [29, 44]

  36. [45]

    Jiang, X

    Y. Jiang, X. Chen, C. Xuan, Z. Wang, and H. Yu, Alter- magnet skyrmions: Macroscopic realization of𝑑-wave symmetry, Phys. Rev. B112, 014423 (2025)

    2025

  37. [46]

    S. Li, Y. Zhang, A. Bahri, X. Zhang, and C. Jia, Alter- magnetism and strain induced altermagnetic transition in Cairo pentagonal monolayer, npj Quantum Materials 10, 83 (2025)

    2025

  38. [47]

    Brekke, A

    B. Brekke, A. Brataas, and A. Sudbø, Two-dimensional altermagnets: Superconductivity in a minimal micro- scopic model, Phys. Rev. B108, 224421 (2023). SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: Quantum oscillation fingerprints of altermagnetism in hole-doped RuO 2 Yuchi Yang1 and Yusheng Hou 1,∗...

    2023

  39. [48]

    Z. Qian, Y. Yang, S. Liu, and C. Wu, Fragile unconventional magnetism in RuO2 by proximity to Landau-Pomeranchuk instability, Phys. Rev. B111, 174425 (2025)

    2025

  40. [49]

    M. Roig, A. Kreisel, Y. Yu, B. M. Andersen, and D. F. Agterberg, Minimal models for altermagnetism, Phys. Rev. B110, 144412 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.