Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Effects of Interfacial States and Strain on Tunnel Magnetoresistance in van der Waals Magnetic Tunnel Junctions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that interface-induced metallic states, resonantly coupled across a TMDC barrier, control TMR in Cr2C-based all-2D junctions, and that 4% biaxial strain lifts TMR from 176% to 540% for MoS2 and from 98% to 496% for WS2.

desk verdict Solid mechanistic story for the unstrained Cr2C/TMDC junctions, but the headline strain-enhanced TMR numbers rest on conductances so small that the paper needs convergence evidence before I'd trust those values. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04888 v1 pith:CPURTXPG submitted 2026-08-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Sakshi Goel , Arti Kashyap , Keisuke Masuda , Terumasa Tadano This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords tunnelmagnetoresistancevanderWaalsmagneticjunctionsinterfacialstatesCr2CMXenetransitionmetaldichalcogenidesbiaxialtensilestrainresonanttunnelingfirst-principlestransport
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

This paper tries to establish that spin-dependent tunneling in all-two-dimensional magnetic tunnel junctions of the form Cr$_2$C/MY$_2$/Cr$_2$C is governed not only by the decay of evanescent waves in the barrier but also by metallic interfacial states that form at each electrode-barrier contact. The TMR ratio is the percentage resistance change when the two electrodes switch from parallel to antiparallel magnetization. For trilayer barriers of WS$_2$, MoSe$_2$, and WSe$_2$, the tails of these interfacial states reach the central layer and resonantly couple across the barrier, opening transmission channels near one conductance quantum at off-$\Gamma$ hot spots. The paper further claims that 4% biaxial tensile strain selectively suppresses the minority-spin interfacial states in the sulfide junctions, raising TMR from 176% to 540% for MoS$_2$ and from 98% to 496% for WS$_2$, while MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$ respond only weakly. If correct, strain and barrier thickness become practical design knobs for all-2D spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the interfacial state: a metallic electronic state induced at the Cr$_2$C/TMDC interface by charge transfer and orbital hybridization, which decays into the otherwise insulating barrier. The load-bearing property is its residual weight at the barrier center, obtained from the $\mathbf{k}_{\parallel}$-resolved local density of states of the central TMDC layer; this weight measures whether the tails of the states from the two interfaces overlap. When the overlap is strong, the states resonantly couple across the barrier and create the near-unity transmission channels that set the conductance and TMR; when strain removes the minority-spin component of the interfacial states, it removes the antiparallel-channel bottleneck and raises TMR.

What would settle it

Recompute the 4%-strained trilayer MoS$_2$ and WS$_2$ junctions with the on-site Coulomb repulsion on Cr set to 2.0 eV and 4.0 eV and with a denser $\mathbf{k}_{\parallel}$ grid, for example 300$\times$300; if the TMR ratios do not remain near 540% and 496%, or if the minority-spin conductances shift by orders of magnitude, the strained-TMR claim is not numerically stable. An experiment that holds a Cr$_2$C/MoS$_2$/Cr$_2$C junction under 4% biaxial tension and sees no large TMR increase would also count against it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the tunnel magnetoresistance of all-2D Cr$_2$C/TMDC/Cr$_2$C junctions is governed by interface-induced metallic states rather than by bulk barrier decay alone. These interfacial states form by charge transfer and orbital hybridization at each Cr$_2$C-TMDC contact, penetrate into the barrier, and, in trilayer junctions of WS$_2$, MoSe$_2$, and WSe$_2$, leave a finite residual weight at the central layer. Where that residual weight is large, the left- and right-interface states resonantly couple and produce transmission channels near one conductance quantum ($e^2/h$) at six off-$\Gamma$ hot spots; where it is small, as in MoS$_2$, those channels are suppressed. The authors then show that 4% biaxial tensile strain selectively removes the minority-spin interfacial states in the sulfide junctions, so the antiparallel conductance drops more than the parallel conductance and the TMR climbs from 176% to 540% for MoS$_2$ and from 98% to 496% for WS$_2$, while MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$ show only mild gains.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the density-functional calculation with the added on-site Coulomb repulsion U=3.0 eV on Cr captures the interfacial states and their penetration well enough that conductances as low as $4.5\times10^{-8}\,e^2/h$ and the resulting 540% TMR are real, not numerical noise.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For trilayer MoS$_2$ junctions, applying 4% biaxial tensile strain raises the TMR ratio from 176% to 540%.
  • For trilayer WS$_2$ junctions the same strain raises TMR from 98% to 496%, with the minority-spin interfacial states almost fully suppressed.
  • Barrier thickness is a complementary tuning knob: five layers is optimal for WS$_2$, MoSe$_2$, and WSe$_2$, while MoS$_2$ loses TMR monotonically with thickness.
  • The residual weight of interfacial states at the barrier center acts as a transport fingerprint: conductance maps track the central-layer LDOS more closely than the interfacial LDOS.
  • High-transmission channels confined to a few $\mathbf{k}_{\parallel}$ points do not turn the barrier into a metallic spacer; tunneling character is preserved elsewhere in the Brillouin zone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A cheap screening rule suggested by the paper: compute the Fermi-level LDOS of the central barrier layer alone; barriers whose central residual weight is large at the same $\mathbf{k}_{\parallel}$ points as the electrode states are likely to host the resonant channels that set TMR.
  • The same spin-selective strain mechanism might amplify TMR further in junctions whose electrodes have a cleaner spin polarization, where suppressing one spin channel at the interface would act on a more fully spin-polarized current.
  • Because the 4%-strain TMR values rest on conductances near $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-5}\,e^2/h$, experimental confirmation may require thicker or alloyed barriers that keep the strain mechanism but bring the antiparallel conductance into a measurable range.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents first-principles NEGF calculations, using DFT+U (U = 3.0 eV on Cr) with PBE and SG15 pseudopotentials as implemented in QuantumATK, for Cr2C/MY2/Cr2C all-2D van der Waals magnetic tunnel junctions with MY2 = MoS2, WS2, MoSe2, and WSe2 and barrier thicknesses of 3, 5, 7, and 9 layers. It finds that the k-parallel-resolved conductance is suppressed near the Gamma point and enhanced at six off-Gamma hot spots, consistent with the barrier decay rates, and it attributes near-unity transmission channels in trilayer WS2, MoSe2, and WSe2 to resonant coupling of interfacial states that leave residual weight at the barrier center. The authors show that increasing barrier thickness attenuates these residual states, which monotonically reduces the TMR for MoS2 but produces a maximum at five layers for the other barriers. Applying biaxial tensile strain up to 4% to the trilayer junctions, the paper reports a strong increase in TMR (176% to 540% for MoS2, 98% to 496% for WS2) and a weaker response for MoSe2 and WSe2, which it attributes to spin-selective suppression of minority-spin interfacial states under strain.

Significance. As a qualitative mechanistic study, the paper has clear value: the k-parallel-resolved conductance maps in Fig. 2, the central-layer LDOS maps, and the decay-rate analysis in Fig. S3 form an internally consistent picture of interfacial-state-mediated tunneling, and the distinction between resonant channels and metallic spacer behavior (Sec. III A 2) is well argued. The TMR values are computed outputs of the NEGF calculation rather than fitted parameters, so there is no circularity in the central mechanism. If the quantitative strain claims are confirmed, the predicted 4%-strain TMR values would constitute useful design targets for MXene-based all-2D MTJs. However, the paper does not currently establish numerical convergence of the small conductances that determine the strain-enhanced TMR, and no code or data are deposited; hence the headline numbers are not yet robust. The mechanism itself is likely to survive even if the absolute values shift.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III C, Table S2, Sec. II] The headline strain-enhanced TMR ratios are built on conductances whose numerical reliability is not demonstrated. For MoS2 at 4% strain, Table S2 gives G_P,up = 0.0032, G_P,down = 0.000045, G_AP,up = 0.00027, and G_AP,down = 0.00025 in units of 10^-3 e2/h, so G_P = 3.2 x 10^-6 e2/h and G_AP = 5.2 x 10^-7 e2/h; the reported 540% ratio is extremely sensitive to the denominator, and a similar situation holds for WS2 (G_AP = 2 x 10^-5 e2/h) at 496%. The manuscript reports only a single 150 x 150 k-parallel mesh (Sec. II), with no convergence checks, no variation of the Fermi-Dirac smearing (300 K), and no dependence on the Hubbard U = 3.0 eV on Cr, which is the main empirical parameter in the Hamiltonian. I request k-mesh convergence tables (e.g., 150 x 150 versus 300 x 300), electronic-temperature dependence, and U-dependence (at least U = 0, 3, and 4 eV) for the 0% and 4% strained trilayer junctions, together with the raw conductance values with more significant figures.
  2. [Sec. III C] The strain results assume that the unstrained ground-state interfacial stackings (M3 for MoS2 and MoSe2, M1 for WS2 and WSe2, Table S1) remain the most stable under biaxial tensile strain. Since the paper invokes the M1/M3 stacking difference to explain the barrier-dependent conductance (Sec. III A 2) and the mechanism of strain action is through modification of interfacial hybridization, the stacking energetics should be recomputed at the strain values plotted in Fig. 6 (at least at 4%). Without this check, the strain-enhanced TMR values are contingent on an unverified structural assumption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The paper does not explicitly state the zero-bias condition for all TMR values; please state that Eq. (6) refers to zero bias and that finite-bias effects are outside the present scope.
  2. [Sec. III C] The strained supercell parameters (in-plane lattice constant and the d_EB and d_BB values at 2-4% strain) are not reported; providing them in the Supplemental Material would aid reproducibility and interpretation of the LDOS changes.
  3. [Fig. 4] Adding distinct markers to each curve would improve readability, particularly for the 3L and 5L points where the curves for MoSe2 and WSe2 cross.
  4. [Sec. II] Spin-orbit coupling is not discussed. For W-based TMDCs, SOC is sizable; a sentence justifying its neglect or providing an estimate of its effect would strengthen the spin-selective mechanism.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TMR values are NEGF outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained with respect to the reported TMR predictions. The TMR ratios in Table II, Fig. 6, and Table S2 are outputs of Eq. (6) evaluated with NEGF conductances from Eqs. (1)-(5), each obtained by solving the device Hamiltonian without any parameter fitted to the target TMR values. The Hubbard U = 3.0 eV for Cr is taken from previous studies and is not tuned to reproduce the 540%/496% results. The k-parallel-resolved conductance maps and LDOS analyses are post-hoc interpretive evidence rather than constraints fed back into the transport calculation. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. 25, 52, 53, 56) provide contextual support for the interfacial-state mechanism but do not supply a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz that forces the central quantitative claim. Numerical-convergence concerns about the small antiparallel conductances are a correctness or robustness risk, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the DFT+U model, the fixed Hubbard U, the assumed stacking, and the coherent-transport approximation. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'interfacial states' and 'residual states' are features of the computed electronic structure.

free parameters (3)
  • Hubbard U for Cr 3d states = 3.0 eV
    On-site Coulomb parameter added to PBE for Cr, taken from prior Cr2C junction studies (Refs. [40,45]); not varied or fitted to the TMR targets, but it modifies the electronic structure that determines the interfacial states.
  • Fermi-Dirac electronic temperature = 300 K
    Used for Brillouin-zone integration and smearing in the NEGF calculations; a numerical choice that affects the sharpness of k-resolved conductance features.
  • LDOS broadening parameter = 10^-2 eV
    Infinitesimal broadening for density-of-states calculations; directly affects the visibility and magnitude of the residual states at the barrier center.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Coherent Landauer-NEGF tunneling is the correct transport description at zero bias for these junctions
    Equations (1)-(4) implement the Landauer formula; this formalism assumes phase-coherent, elastic tunneling and ignores inelastic scattering, which is standard for ideal MTJs.
  • domain assumption PBE+U with U=3.0 eV on Cr gives an accurate electronic structure for Cr2C and the TMDC barriers
    The interfacial states and their penetration depth depend on band alignment and exchange splitting; U is taken from Refs. [40,45] and is not validated against experiment or higher-level theory in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The M1 (WS2, WSe2) and M3 (MoS2, MoSe2) stackings are the stable interfaces and remain coherent under strain
    Stability is judged by total-energy differences in Table S1; transport assumes these ideal interfaces with no defects or disorder, which may not hold in fabricated devices.
  • ad hoc to paper Only odd barrier thicknesses (3,5,7,9 layers) preserve structural inversion symmetry
    This restriction is stated in Sec. III B; even-layer junctions, which would break the symmetry between the two interfaces, are not treated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of Interfacial States and Strain on Tunnel Magnetoresistance in van der Waals Magnetic Tunnel Junctions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CPURTXPG

@misc{pith2026260804888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of Interfacial States and Strain on Tunnel Magnetoresistance in van der Waals Magnetic Tunnel Junctions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CPURTXPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04888}
}
abstract

All-two-dimensional magnetic tunnel junctions promise atomically sharp interfaces, yet the role of interface-induced states in their spin transport is not fully understood. Here, we theoretically investigate spin-dependent transport in van der Waals magnetic tunnel junctions of the structure Cr$_2$C/$MY_2$/Cr$_2$C ($M$ = Mo, W; $Y$ = S, Se) with barrier thicknesses of 3, 5, 7, and 9 layers. The broad features of the $\mathbf{k}_{\parallel}$-resolved conductances, namely suppression near the $\Gamma$ point and enhancement at six off-$\Gamma$ hot spots, are consistent with the decay of evanescent states in the barrier. However, trilayer WS$_2$, MoSe$_2$, and WSe$_2$ barriers exhibit conductances of the order of $e^2/h$ at $\mathbf{k}_{\parallel}$ points within the hot spots. We attribute these near-unity transmission channels to resonant coupling between the interfacial states at the two electrode--barrier interfaces, as evidenced by their weak but finite residual weight at the barrier center. For thicker barriers, this coupling weakens, which suppresses the residual weight, thereby reducing the tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) ratio of the MoS$_2$ junction while enhancing those of the other junctions. To exploit the interfacial states for spin-selective tunneling, we further examine biaxial tensile strain applied to the trilayer junctions. At 4\% strain, the TMR ratio increases from 176\% to 540\% for MoS$_2$ and from 98\% to 496\% for WS$_2$, whereas MoSe$_2$ and WSe$_2$ exhibit comparatively weaker enhancement. Our results establish interfacial-state engineering via strain and barrier thickness as effective routes for enhancing the TMR effect in all-two-dimensional magnetic tunnel junctions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04888 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Scattering-region supercells of (a) Cr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Results for the 3L-MoSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. TMR ratio as a function of barrier thickness. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. TMR ratio as a function of biaxial tensile strain for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Julli` ere, Tunneling between ferromagnetic films, Phys

    M. Julli` ere, Tunneling between ferromagnetic films, Phys. Lett. A54, 225 (1975)

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    Hybridization between the bulk electrode states and the electronic states at the interface can induce gap states inside the semiconducting barrier

    Effect of induced states resonance on transmission These additional high-conductance channels suggest the involvement of interfacial states. Hybridization between the bulk electrode states and the electronic states at the interface can induce gap states inside the semiconducting barrier. Such interface-induced metallic states have indeed been reported in ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    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)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    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)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    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, Na- ture Materials3, 868 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    S. S. P. 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)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    D. D. Djayaprawira, K. Tsunekawa, M. Nagai, H. Mae- hara, S. Yamagata, N. Watanabe, S. Yuasa, Y. Suzuki, and K. Ando, 230% room-temperature magnetoresis- tance in CoFeB/MgO/CoFeB magnetic tunnel junctions, Applied Physics Letters86, 092502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Y. M. Lee, J. Hayakawa, S. Ikeda, F. Matsukura, and H. Ohno, Giant tunnel magnetoresistance and high an- nealing stability in CoFeB/MgO/CoFeB magnetic tunnel junctions with synthetic pinned layer, Applied Physics Letters89, 042506 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Ikeda, J

    S. Ikeda, J. Hayakawa, Y. Ashizawa, Y. M. Lee, K. Miura, H. Hasegawa, M. Tsunoda, F. Matsukura, and H. Ohno, Tunnel magnetoresistance of 604% at 300K by suppres- sion of Ta diffusion in CoFeB/MgO/CoFeB pseudo-spin- valves annealed at high temperature, Applied Physics Letters93...

    2008

  2. [10]

    Scheike, Z

    T. Scheike, Z. Wen, H. Sukegawa, and S. Mitani, 631% room temperature tunnel magnetoresistance with large oscillation effect in CoFe/MgO/CoFe(001) junctions, Ap- plied Physics Letters122, 112404 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Sakuraba, M

    Y. Sakuraba, M. Hattori, M. Oogane, Y. Ando, H. Kato, A. Sakuma, T. Miyazaki, and H. Kubota, Giant tun- neling magnetoresistance in Co 2MnSi/Al-O/Co2MnSi magnetic tunnel junctions, Applied Physics Letters88, 192508 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Miura, H

    Y. Miura, H. Uchida, Y. Oba, K. Abe, and M. Shi- rai, Half-metallic interface and coherent tunneling in Co2YZ/MgO/Co2YZ (YZ=MnSi,CrAl) magnetic tunnel junctions: A first-principles study, Phys. Rev. B78, 064416 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    S. V. Faleev, Y. Ferrante, J. Jeong, M. G. Samant, B. Jones, and S. S. P. Parkin, Heusler compounds with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy and large tunneling magnetoresistance, Phys. Rev. Mater.1, 024402 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    T. Aull, E. S ¸a¸ sıo˘ glu, N. Hinsche, and I. Mertig, Ab Initio Study of Magnetic Tunnel Junctions Based on Half-Metallic and Spin-Gapless Semiconducting Heusler Compounds: Reconfigurable Diode and Inverse Tunnel- Magnetoresistance Effect, Phys. Rev. Appl.18, 034024 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Miura, S

    Y. Miura, S. Muramoto, K. Abe, and M. Shirai, First-principles study of tunneling magnetoresistance in Fe/MgAl2O4/Fe(001) magnetic tunnel junctions, Phys. Rev. B86, 024426 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Sukegawa, Y

    H. Sukegawa, Y. Miura, S. Muramoto, S. Mitani, T. Ni- izeki, T. Ohkubo, K. Abe, M. Shirai, K. Inomata, and K. Hono, Enhanced tunnel magnetoresistance in a spinel oxide barrier with cation-site disorder, Phys. Rev. B86, 184401 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Sukegawa, H

    H. Sukegawa, H. Xiu, T. Ohkubo, T. Furubayashi, T. Niizeki, W. Wang, S. Kasai, S. Mitani, K. Inomata, and K. Hono, Tunnel magnetoresistance with improved bias voltage dependence in lattice-matched Fe/spinel MgAl2O4/Fe(001) junctions, Applied Physics Letters96, 212505 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Sukegawa, Y

    H. Sukegawa, Y. Kato, M. Belmoubarik, P.-H. Cheng, T. Daibou, N. Shimomura, Y. Kamiguchi, J. Ito, H. Yoda, T. Ohkubo, S. Mitani, and K. Hono, MgGa 2O4 spinel barrier for magnetic tunnel junctions: Coherent tunneling and low barrier height, Applied Physics Let- ters110, 122404 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Masuda and Y

    K. Masuda and Y. Miura, Bias voltage effects on tun- neling magnetoresistance in Fe|MgAl 2O4|Fe(001) junc- tions: Comparative study with Fe|MgO|Fe(001) junc- tions, Phys. Rev. B96, 054428 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Scheike, Z

    T. Scheike, Z. Wen, H. Sukegawa, and S. Mi- tani, Enhanced tunnel magnetoresistance in Fe/Mg4Al−O x/Fe(001) magnetic tunnel junctions, Applied Physics Letters120, 032404 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Shukla, S

    G. Shukla, S. Sanvito, and G. Lee, Fe- and Co-based magnetic tunnel junctions with AlN and ZnO spacers, Phys. Rev. B105, 184427 (2022). 10

    2022

  14. [22]

    Abhisri and R

    A. Abhisri and R. Krishna Ghosh, Resonant tunneling driven spin torque enhancement in magnetic tunnel junc- tions: A DFT-NEGF simulation study, Journal of Ap- plied Physics138, 123901 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    O. V. Yazyev and A. Pasquarello, Magnetoresistive junc- tions based on epitaxial graphene and hexagonal boron nitride, Phys. Rev. B80, 035408 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Piquemal-Banci, R

    M. Piquemal-Banci, R. Galceran, F. Godel, S. Caneva, M.-B. Martin, R. S. Weatherup, P. R. Kidambi, K. Bouzehouane, S. Xavier, A. Anane, F. Petroff, A. Fert, S. M.-M. Dubois, J.-C. Charlier, J. Robertson, S. Hof- mann, B. Dlubak, and P. Seneor, Insulator-to-Metallic Spin-Filter...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Piquemal-Banci, R

    M. Piquemal-Banci, R. Galceran, S. M. Dubois, V. Za- tko, M. Galbiati, F. Godel, M. B. Martin, R. S. Weatherup, F. Petroff, A. Fert, J. C. Charlier, J. Robert- son, S. Hofmann, B. Dlubak, and P. Seneor, Spin filter- ing by proximity effects at hybridized interfaces in spin- va...

    2020

  18. [26]

    Kurniawan, K

    I. Kurniawan, K. Masuda, and Y. Miura, Theory of tun- nel magnetoresistance in magnetic tunnel junctions with hexagonal boron nitride barriers: mechanism and ap- plication to ferromagnetic alloy electrodes, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics58, 465302 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Shukla, R

    G. Shukla, R. Ali, and A. Shafique, Co-TMDC MTJs : A New Frontier in Spintronics, ACS Applied Electronic Materials7, 115 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Huang, Y.-X

    T.-C. Huang, Y.-X. Chen, Y.-L. Chen, M.-T. Wu, C.-F. Pai, C. Chuang, Y.-P. Hsieh, and M. Hofmann, Observ- ing and suppressing metallization in MoS 2 for near-ideal spin filtering, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces17, 65967 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    W. Wang, A. Narayan, L. Tang, K. Dolui, Y. Liu, X. Yuan, Y. Jin, Y. Wu, I. Rungger, S. Sanvito, and F. Xiu, Spin-valve effect in NiFe/MoS 2/NiFe junctions, Nano Letters15, 5261 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    H.-C. Wu, C. ´O. Coile´ ain, M. Abid, O. Mauit, A. Syrly- bekov, A. Khalid, H. Xu, R. Gatensby, J. Jing Wang, H. Liu, L. Yang, G. S. Duesberg, H.-Z. Zhang, M. Abid, and I. V. Shvets, Spin-dependent transport properties of Fe3O4/MoS2/Fe3O4 junctions, Sci. Rep.5, 15984 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Rotjanapittayakul, W

    W. Rotjanapittayakul, W. Pijitrojana, T. Archer, S. San- vito, and J. Prasongkit, Spin injection and magnetoresis- tance in MoS2-based tunnel junctions using Fe3Si heusler alloy electrodes, Scientific Reports8, 4779 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Hirohata, K

    A. Hirohata, K. Elphick, D. C. Lloyd, and S. Mizukami, Interfacial quality to control tunnelling magnetoresis- tance, Frontiers in Physics10, 1007989 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    W. Jin, G. Zhang, H. Wu, L. Yang, W. Zhang, and H. Chang, Room-temperature and tunable tunneling magnetoresistance in Fe3GaTe2 -based 2D van der Waals heterojunctions, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces15, 36519 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    H. Lin, F. Yan, C. Hu, Q. Lv, W. Zhu, Z. Wang, Z. Wei, K. Chang, and K. Wang, Spin-valve effect in Fe3GeTe2/MoS2/Fe3GeTe2 van der Waals heterostruc- tures, ACS Applied Materials and Interfaces12, 43921 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    H. Pan, A. K. Singh, C. Zhang, X. Hu, J. Shi, L. An, N. Wang, R. Duan, Z. Liu, S. S. Parkin, P. Deb, and W. Gao, Room-temperature tunable tunneling mag- netoresistance in Fe 3GaTe2/WSe2/Fe3GaTe2 van der Waals heterostructures, InfoMat6, 10.1002/inf2.12504 (2024)

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Zhou, H. Li, L. Shen, and Y. P. Feng, Recent progress and challenges in magnetic tunnel junctions with 2D materials for spintronic applications, Applied Physics Reviews8, 021308 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Borge-Dur´ an, A

    I. Borge-Dur´ an, A. Paul, and I. Grinberg, From Non- Magnetic to Magnetic: A First-Principles Study of the Emergence of Magnetism in 2D (Nb1−xTix)4C3 MXenes, Chemistry of Materials35, 7442 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Kumar, S

    P. Kumar, S. Tsuda, K. Yaji, and S. Isogami, Origin of two-dimensional MXene/ferromagnetic interface evalu- ated by angle-dependent hard x-ray photoemission spec- troscopy, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials 26, 2551484 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Kumar, Y

    P. Kumar, Y. Miura, Y. Kotani, A. Sumiyoshiya, T. Nakamura, G. K. Shukla, and S. Isogami, Unconven- tional spin–orbit torques by 2D Multilayered MXenes for future nonvolatile magnetic memories, Small21, 2500626 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    S. Das, A. Kabiraj, and S. Mahapatra, Room tempera- ture giant magnetoresistance in half-metallic Cr2C based two-dimensional tunnel junctions, Nanoscale14, 9409 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    H. Yu, M. Chen, Z. Shao, Y. Tao, X. Jiang, Y. Dong, J. Zhang, X. Yang, and Y. Liu, Giant tunneling magne- toresistance in in-plane double-barrier magnetic tunnel junctions based on MXene Cr 2C, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys.25, 10991 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Gan, Y.-J

    L.-Y. Gan, Y.-J. Zhao, D. Huang, and U. Schwin- genschl¨ ogl, First-principles analysis of MoS2/Ti2C and MoS2/Ti2CY2 (Y = F,OH) all-2D semiconductor/metal contacts, Phys. Rev. B87, 245307 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Smidstrup, T

    S. Smidstrup, T. Markussen, P. Vancraeyveld, J. Wellen- dorff, J. Schneider, T. Gunst, B. Verstichel, D. Stradi, P. A. Khomyakov, U. G. Vej-Hansen, M. E. Lee, S. T. Chill, F. Rasmussen, G. Penazzi, F. Corsetti, A. Ojan- per¨ a, K. Jensen, M. L. Palsgaard, U. Martinez, A. Blom,...

    2020

  36. [44]

    D. R. Hamann, Optimized norm-conserving vanderbilt pseudopotentials, Phys. Rev. B88, 085117 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    Schlipf and F

    M. Schlipf and F. Gygi, Optimization algorithm for the generation of ONCV pseudopotentials, Comput. Phys. Commun.196, 36 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Q. Sun, Z. Fu, Y. Li, and Z. Yang, Manipulation of elec- tronic and magnetic properties of Cr2CX2(X = F,O,OH) monolayer by applying mechanical strains, Journal of Al- loys and Compounds850, 156769 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, A con- sistent and accurate ab initio parametrization of density functional dispersion correction (DFT-D) for the 94 ele- ments H-Pu, J. Chem. Phys.132, 154104 (2010)

    2010

  40. [48]

    S. Deng, L. Li, and M. Li, Stability of direct band gap under mechanical strains for monolayer MoS 2, MoSe 2, WS2 and WSe 2, Physica E: Low-dimensional Systems and Nanostructures101, 44 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Brandbyge, J.-L

    M. Brandbyge, J.-L. Mozos, P. Ordej´ on, J. Taylor, and K. Stokbro, Density-functional method for nonequilib- rium electron transport, Physical Review B65, 165401 (2002). 11

    2002

  42. [50]

    Smidstrup, D

    S. Smidstrup, D. Stradi, J. Wellendorff, P. A. Khomyakov, U. G. Vej-Hansen, M.-E. Lee, T. Ghosh, E. J´ onsson, H. J´ onsson, and K. Stokbro, First-principles green’s-function method for surface calculations: A pseu- dopotential localized basis set approach, Phys. Rev. B 96, 19...

    2017

  43. [51]

    Dolui, A

    K. Dolui, A. Narayan, I. Rungger, and S. Sanvito, Ef- ficient spin injection and giant magnetoresistance in Fe|MoS2|Fe junctions, Phys. Rev. B90, 041401 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    Rungger, A

    I. Rungger, A. Reily Rocha, O. Mryasov, O. Heinonen, and S. Sanvito, Electronic transport through Fe/MgO/Fe(100) tunnel junctions, Journal of Mag- netism and Magnetic Materials316, 481 (2007), proceedings of the Joint European Magnetic Symposia

    2007

  45. [53]

    Masuda, H

    K. Masuda, H. Itoh, and Y. Miura, Interface-driven gi- ant tunnel magnetoresistance in (111)-oriented junctions, Phys. Rev. B101, 144404 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Masuda, H

    K. Masuda, H. Itoh, Y. Sonobe, H. Sukegawa, S. Mi- tani, and Y. Miura, Interfacial giant tunnel magnetore- sistance and bulk-induced large perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in (111)-oriented junctions with fcc ferromag- netic alloys: A first-principles study, Phys. Rev. B103, ...

    2021

  47. [55]

    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

  48. [56]

    Sakuraba, K

    Y. Sakuraba, K. Izumi, T. Iwase, S. Bosu, K. Saito, K. Takanashi, Y. Miura, K. Futatsukawa, K. Abe, and M. Shirai, Mechanism of large magnetoresistance in Co2MnSi/Ag/Co2MnSi devices with current perpendic- ular to the plane, Phys. Rev. B82, 094444 (2010)

    2010

  49. [57]

    Simalaotao, I

    K. Simalaotao, I. Kurniawan, Y. Miura, and Y. Sakuraba, Searching for Cu-X spacers using a half-metallic Co 2FeGa0.5Ge0.5 electrode to boost mag- netoresistance in CPP-GMR devices: a first-principles study, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics58, 395303 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    X. Li, Y. Su, M. Zhu, F. Zheng, P. Zhang, J. Zhang, and J.-T. L¨ u, Current-perpendicular-to-plane giant mag- netoresistance effect in van der waals heterostructures, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 034052 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. Ye, Y. Wang, R. Quhe, Y. Pan, Y. Guo, Z. Song, J. Yang, W. Guo, and J. Lu, Magnetoresis- tance in Co/2D MoS2/Co and Ni/2D MoS2/Ni junctions, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics18, 16367 (2016)

    2016

  52. [60]

    X. Wang, J. Xu, E. Hwang, and J. S. Park, Strain-driven interfacial engineering in metal-MoS 2 contacts, Applied Physics Letters127, 123104 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    L. M. Loong, X. Qiu, Z. P. Neo, P. Deorani, Y. Wu, C. S. Bhatia, M. Saeys, and H. Yang, Strain-enhanced tun- neling magnetoresistance in MgO magnetic tunnel junc- tions, Scientific Reports4, 6505 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Effects of Interfacial States and Strain on Tunnel Magnetoresistance in van der Waals Magnetic Tunnel Junctions

    F. Carrascoso, R. Frisenda, and A. Castellanos-Gomez, Biaxial versus uniaxial strain tuning of single-layer MoS2, Nano Materials Science4, 44 (2022), special issue on Graphene and 2D Alternative Materials. Supplemental Material for “Effects of Interfacial States and Strain on ...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.