Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ab initio study of magnetoresistance effect in $\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}/\mathrm{MgO}/\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}$ antiferromagnetic tunnel junction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper predicts that an all-antiferromagnetic Mn3Sn/MgO/Mn3Sn tunnel junction reaches a tunnel magnetoresistance ratio above 1000 percent, driven by the momentum-dependent spin polarization of Mn3Sn and MgO's filtering of tunneling…

desk verdict Promising but unfinished ab initio TMR prediction for Mn3Sn/MgO/Mn3Sn that needs completion and interface-sensitivity checks before it can be taken seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.21877 v2 pith:BFXXIRCL submitted 2025-09-26 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Katsuhiro Tanaka , Yuta Toga , Susumu Minami , Satoru Nakatsuji , Takuya Nomoto , Takashi Koretsune , Ryotaro Arita This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords tunnelmagnetoresistanceantiferromagneticjunctionMn3SnnoncollinearantiferromagnetMgObarrierspinpolarizationfirst-principlestransportclusteroctupole
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 predicts that a magnetic tunnel junction built entirely from the antiferromagnet Mn3Sn, separated by a MgO barrier about twelve monolayers thick, can reach a tunnel magnetoresistance ratio above 1000 percent. The result matters because antiferromagnets normally have no net magnetization to act as a readable magnetic state; Mn3Sn's inverse 120-degree spin order breaks time-reversal symmetry and creates a momentum-space spin polarization even though the total moment vanishes. The prediction comes from first-principles electronic-structure and Landauer-Buettiker transport calculations, which trace the effect to the x-component of the spin polarization surviving the momentum sum, together with MgO's filtering of tunneling electrons near the zone center. If correct, all-antiferromagnetic junctions could offer the same readout contrast as ferromagnetic MgO junctions while keeping antiferromagnetic advantages such as the absence of stray fields.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the momentum-resolved spin polarization of Mn3Sn and the complex band structure of the MgO barrier. From a Wannier-based tight-binding model, the paper computes $s_n(\mathbf{k})=\langle\psi_{n,\mathbf{k}}|\mathbf{s}|\psi_{n,\mathbf{k}}\rangle$ and its symmetry relations, then projects it onto the two-dimensional Brillouin zone as $p(k_\parallel)$; the relations $s_x(k_x,k_y,k_z)=s_x(k_x,k_y,-k_z)$ and $s_z(k_x,k_y,k_z)=-s_z(k_x,k_y,-k_z)$ select the $x$-channel as the only one that survives the $k_z$ sum. On the barrier side, the lowest imaginary part of the complex wavevector, $\kappa_{z0}(k_\parallel)$, gives the dominant exponential decay of tunneling states; it is small near $k_\parallel \sim 0$, matching the region where $|p(k_\parallel)|$ is large. The tunneling conductance is assembled by the Landauer-Buettiker formula from momentum-resolved transmissions $T(k_\parallel)$ calculated with the scattering-state method.

What would settle it

Grow an epitaxial $\mathrm{Mn_3Sn}(01\bar{1}0)/\mathrm{MgO}(110)/\mathrm{Mn_3Sn}$ stack with about 12 MgO monolayers, switch the cluster octupole moments between the parallel and antiparallel configurations, and measure the resistance-area product and TMR at low temperature; a TMR much below 1000 percent, or an RA far outside the predicted range of about 1 to 10 kOhm-micrometer-squared, would contradict the coherent-interface calculation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the all-antiferromagnetic junction $\mathrm{Mn_3Sn}(01\bar{1}0)/\mathrm{MgO}(110)/\mathrm{Mn_3Sn}$ shows a finite TMR ratio reaching $\gtrsim 1000\%$, with the reported value at $N_{\mathrm{MgO}(110)}=12$ monolayers and with the transport genuinely in the tunneling regime. The mechanism combines two ingredients. First, the inverse $120^{\circ}$ antiferromagnetic order of Mn3Sn gives a momentum-dependent spin polarization whose $s_x$ component is even under $k_z\to -k_z$ while $s_z$ is odd, so after summing over $k_z$ only the $x$-component, aligned with the easy axis of the cluster octupole moment, contributes to the difference between the parallel and antiparallel configurations. Second, the MgO(110) barrier filters the tunneling electrons: its smallest complex-band decay rate $\kappa_{z0}(k_\parallel)$ is lowest near $k_\parallel \sim 0$, and the momentum-resolved transmission difference $T_P(k_\parallel)-T_{AP}(k_\parallel)$ is largest there. A comparison with a vacuum-barrier junction shows that MgO changes the momentum pattern rather than merely acting as a spacer.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the Mn3Sn/MgO interface is coherent and defect-free, with the 7.6 percent lattice mismatch absorbed entirely by straining the MgO lattice; if real interfaces relax through dislocations, intermixing, or different atomic terminations, the predicted above-1000-percent ratio could change substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An Mn3Sn electrode can work with a reasonably thick MgO barrier rather than only with idealized barrier-free junctions.
  • The experimentally relevant orientation for spin-orbit torque switching, Mn3Sn(01-10), is the same geometry that shows the large TMR, so electrical write and magnetoresistive read are compatible in one junction.
  • The TMR ratio is governed by the x-component of the spin polarization along the easy axis, so reading the octupole orientation through resistance is a viable readout.
  • The exponential decay of transmission with barrier thickness and the small Fermi-level local density of states inside MgO confirm that the calculation describes tunneling rather than pinhole-like conduction.
  • The MgO barrier is not inert: the vacuum-barrier comparison shows that its k-parallel filtering shapes the momentum-resolved transmission pattern.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The symmetry-based argument implies the effect is structural rather than accidental, so moderate changes in MgO thickness or small lattice relaxation may shift the magnitude without destroying the mechanism.
  • The same even/odd symmetry selection could be applied to other noncollinear antiferromagnets, so a bulk Fermi-surface calculation alone might predict which electrode/barrier combinations are worth full junction simulations.
  • The ideal-interface, zero-temperature calculation likely overestimates the room-temperature ratio; phonon and interface disorder scatterings will broaden the k-parallel selection, and quantifying that reduction is a natural next test.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a first-principles study of the Mn3Sn(01-10)/MgO(110)/Mn3Sn magnetic tunnel junction. Using density functional theory with the Quantum ESPRESSO package and the pwcond Landauer-Buttiker transmission code, the authors compute zero-temperature tunneling conductances for parallel and antiparallel configurations of the noncollinear antiferromagnetic Mn3Sn electrodes. They find that the TMR ratio reaches about 1000% or more at 12 MgO monolayers, and they interpret this as arising from the momentum-dependent x-component of the Mn3Sn spin polarization combined with the k-parallel filtering of the MgO barrier, as supported by symmetry relations for the bulk spin polarization, momentum-resolved transmission maps, a vacuum-junction control calculation, and the complex band structure of MgO.

Significance. If the numerical result is robust, the paper provides a valuable ab initio prediction of a large TMR effect in an all-antiferromagnetic tunnel junction with a practical MgO barrier and in a crystallographic orientation relevant for spin-orbit-torque switching. The work is not circular: the TMR ratio is a direct transmission output, and the spin-polarization and complex-band analyses are independent interpretive checks. The symmetry argument leading to Eq. (5) is clean, and the vacuum-junction comparison in Appendix A is a useful control. The main weakness is that the central quantitative claim is presented without final figures, without convergence or uncertainty analysis, and without sensitivity tests for the assumed coherent-interface structure.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B, Fig. 5] The headline claim that the TMR ratio reaches ≳1000% at N_MgO(110)=12 cannot be fully evaluated from the submitted manuscript because Fig. 5 is marked with the placeholder '!!To be updated!!!' and no numerical values for T_P, T_AP, or the TMR ratio are given in the text. Since the TMR ratio is a ratio of two exponentially small tunneling conductances, the authors should provide the final figure together with the raw T_P and T_AP values, a convergence check with respect to the 51x51 versus 101x101 k_parallel meshes, and a statement of the numerical uncertainty from the Gaussian smearing used in Eq. (4).
  2. [Sec. II A] The interface model accommodates the ~7.6% lattice mismatch entirely by straining the MgO lattice, and only the interfacial distance is optimized over several high-symmetry stackings. No test addresses alternative strain partitioning, in-plane atomic relaxation, misfit dislocations, or different interface terminations. Because the predicted TMR ratio depends on the momentum-dependent filtering of MgO and on the interfacial Mn3Sn electronic structure, and because T_AP is a small conductance, these structural choices are load-bearing for the predicted ≳1000% effect; the authors should add explicit sensitivity calculations or provide a quantitative argument establishing that the chosen coherent-interface model is representative.
  3. [Sec. II B] The antiparallel configuration is constructed by doubling the scattering region and then cutting it in half before the transmission calculation, but the manuscript does not specify how the doubled cell is cut or verify that the Mn3Sn buffer layers are thick enough to decouple the two Mn3Sn/MgO interfaces. This matters because spurious coupling between the two interfaces in the doubled cell could affect the small T_AP conductance. The authors should describe the exact construction and report convergence with respect to the number of buffer layers.
  4. [Sec. II A and Sec. II B] The self-consistent calculation constrains the initial Mn magnetic moments to 3.0 micro-Bohr magnetons with a 1.0 Ry penalty, and the paper states only that the inverse triangular structure is realized 'overall' with a 'tiny net magnetization'. Since the TMR mechanism is attributed to the specific magnetic configuration, the authors should show that the final results are insensitive to the constraint by comparing with an unconstrained calculation or by varying the constraint strength and initial moment directions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III B] In the paragraph discussing Fig. 5, the text says 'the total transmission for the parallel configuration, T_P, and that for the parallel configuration, T_AP'; the second instance should read 'antiparallel configuration'.
  2. [Sec. II C, Eq. (4)] The numerical evaluation of Eq. (4) relies on a Gaussian smearing described only in footnote 93; please state the smearing width in the main text and note that the same smearing is used in the numerator and denominator.
  3. [Fig. 1] The schematic in Fig. 1(d) uses the labels 'Parallel MgO' and 'Antiparallel MgO', but the caption does not explain that these refer to the relative orientation of the cluster octupole moments of the two Mn3Sn electrodes; please clarify.
  4. [Appendix A] The phrase 'momenum dependence' in the first paragraph of Appendix A should be corrected to 'momentum dependence'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TMR ratio is a direct Landauer transmission output, and the spin-polarization and complex-band analyses are independent interpretive checks rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central result, the TMR ratio reaching ≳1000%, is obtained by ab initio pwcond transmission calculations through the Mn3Sn/MgO/Mn3Sn scattering region, with T_tot given by the Landauer formula in Eq. (1) and the TMR ratio defined by Eq. (7). No parameter is fitted to reproduce the 1000% value; the MgO thickness, interfacial stacking, and strain treatment are structural modeling choices made before the transport calculation, not adjustable parameters selected to match the target. The bulk Mn3Sn spin polarization in Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), and the MgO complex band structure in Fig. 7, are computed independently from the same underlying DFT electronic structure but are used only to interpret the momentum-resolved transmission qualitatively; they are not inputs that force the TMR magnitude. No equation in the paper reduces to another by construction, no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked from prior work by the same authors to forbid alternative explanations. The cited prior work, including experimental observations of octupole-driven magnetoresistance and previous TMR proposals, is contextual and does not carry the derivation of the reported TMR ratio. The untested coherent-interface assumption and possible sensitivity to dislocations or intermixing are legitimate correctness or robustness concerns, but they are not circularity: the calculation remains an independent first-principles evaluation of the modeled structure. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the claimed TMR prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particle, mediator, force, or conserved quantity is introduced. The cluster octupole moment and the magnetic order of Mn3Sn come from prior literature. The load-bearing modeling choices are the coherent strained MgO interface, preservation of the inverse 120-degree magnetic structure, and the validity of PBE-GGA and Landauer-Buttiker transport for this junction.

free parameters (4)
  • MgO in-plane strain = 7.6% (lattice mismatch)
    The MgO lattice is strained in-plane to match Mn3Sn(01-10); this coherent-epitaxy choice determines the barrier band structure and affects the predicted TMR.
  • Interfacial distance and stacking = not reported (optimized)
    The paper states only that the interfacial distance is optimized for several high-symmetry stacking configurations; the selected stacking and relaxed distances are not tabulated, although the momentum-resolved transmission depends on them.
  • Initial Mn moment constraint = 3.0 mu_B with 1.0 Ry penalty
    The SCF calculation for the scattering region constrains the initial Mn moments to 3.0 mu_B with a 1.0 Ry penalty to speed convergence; the final magnetic state may retain memory of this constraint.
  • Gaussian smearing width in p(k_parallel) = not specified
    Equation (4) approximates the delta function with a Gaussian of small finite smearing; the chosen width affects the plotted effective polarization, though not directly the TMR number.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption PBE-GGA exchange-correlation accurately describes the electronic structure of Mn3Sn and the Mn3Sn/MgO interface
    All results rely on DFT with PBE-GGA and ultrasoft pseudopotentials; no beyond-DFT corrections or benchmark comparisons for this specific junction are provided.
  • domain assumption Landauer-Buttiker coherent ballistic transport through the MgO barrier is a valid description of the TMR
    The pwcond scattering calculation assumes phase-coherent tunneling and neglects inelastic scattering, disorder, and finite-temperature effects.
  • domain assumption The inverse 120-degree magnetic structure of Mn3Sn is preserved in the junction and the antiparallel state corresponds to reversing all three sublattice moments
    The magnetic structure is imposed as an initial condition with a penalty constraint and checked after convergence; the antiparallel state is constructed by reversing moments in one electrode.
  • standard math The magnetic space group symmetry operations and the resulting spin-polarization relations in Eqs. (5) and (6) are correct
    The transformation rules for sx and sz under the listed operations are standard group theory and are consistent with the computed Fermi surfaces.
  • domain assumption The smallest imaginary part of the MgO complex band structure dominates tunneling at each k_parallel
    The paper uses the assumption that the least-decaying evanescent channel dominates transmission to explain the MgO filtering effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ab initio study of magnetoresistance effect in $\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}/\mathrm{MgO}/\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}$ antiferromagnetic tunnel junction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BFXXIRCL

@misc{pith2026250921877,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ab initio study of magnetoresistance effect in $\mathrmMn_3Sn/\mathrmMgO/\mathrmMn_3Sn$ antiferromagnetic tunnel junction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BFXXIRCL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.21877}
}
abstract

The antiferromagnets with the time-reversal symmetry broken magnetic structures possess a finite spin splitting in the momentum space, and may contribute to a realization of a finite tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) effect even with magnets with zero net spin polarization. In this paper, we study the TMR effect with the noncollinear antiferromagnet $\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}$ whose inverse $120^{\circ}$ antiferromagnetic order breaks the time-reversal symmetry. In particular, we employ the representative barrier material $\mathrm{MgO}$ as the tunnel insulator, and calculate the TMR effect in the $\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}(01\bar{1}0)/\mathrm{MgO}(110)/\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}$ magnetic tunnel junctions (MTJs), which has an optimal geometry for the spin-orbit torque switching of the magnetic configurations. We show that a finite TMR ratio reaching $\gtrsim 1000\%$ appears in the $\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}/\mathrm{MgO}/\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}$ MTJs, which is due to the spin splitting properties of $\mathrm{Mn_{3}Sn}$ in the momentum space combined with the screening effect of $\mathrm{MgO}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.21877 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Momentum-dependent spin polarization on the Fermi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Momentum dependence of the effective polarization of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Local density of states (LDOS) of each layer of the scattering region for the parallel configuration with 10 monolayers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Total transmission for the parallel and antipar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a), (b) Momentum-resolved transmission of the (a) parallel and (b) antiparallel configurations, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a), (b) Complex energy bands of MgO with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Crystal structure of the Mn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Effects of Band Symmetry on Spin-Dependent Transport in Noncollinear Antiferromagnetic Tunnel Junctions

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Band symmetry suppresses interband transmission in parallel configuration but enables symmetry-compatible channels in antiparallel configuration, yielding TMR exceeding 2000% while reducing it relative to spin-polariz...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  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, 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, Nat. Mater.3, 868–871 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    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) junc- tions, Appl. Phys. Lett.122, 112404 (2023)

    2023

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    E. Y. Tsymbal, O. N. Mryasov, and P. R. LeClair, Spin- dependent tunnelling in magnetic tunnel junctions, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter15, R109–R142 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Zhang and W

    X.-G. Zhang and W. H. Butler, Band structure, evanes- cent states, and transport in spin tunnel junctions, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter15, R1603–R1639 (2003)

    2003

  3. [11]

    Itoh and J

    H. Itoh and J. Inoue, Theory of Tunnel Magnetoresis- tance, J. Magn. Soc. Jpn.30, 1–37 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Yuasa and D

    S. Yuasa and D. D. Djayaprawira, Giant tunnel magne- toresistance in magnetic tunnel junctions with a crys- 9 (c) (a) (d)(b) TP(k||) TAP(k||) TP(k||) - TAP(k||) TP/AP(k||) z x FIG. 8. (a) Crystal structure of the Mn 3Sn(01¯10)/vacuum/Mn3Sn magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ). (b), ...

    2007

  5. [13]

    W. H. Butler, Tunneling magnetoresistance from a sym- metry filtering effect, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater.9, 014106 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Mathon, Tight-binding theory of tunneling giant mag- netoresistance, Phys

    J. Mathon, Tight-binding theory of tunneling giant mag- netoresistance, Phys. Rev. B56, 11810–11819 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Merodio, A

    P. Merodio, A. Kalitsov, H. B´ ea, V. Baltz, and M. Chshiev, Spin-dependent transport in antiferromag- netic tunnel junctions, Appl. Phys. Lett.105, 122403 (2014)

    2014

  8. [16]

    Stamenova, R

    M. Stamenova, R. Mohebbi, J. Seyed-Yazdi, I. Rung- ger, and S. Sanvito, First-principles spin-transfer torque in CuMnAs|GaP|CuMnAs junctions, Phys. Rev. B95, 060403 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    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

  10. [18]

    Jia, X.-L

    X.-T. Jia, X.-L. Cai, and Y. Jia, Giant magnetoresistance in antiferromagnetic Mn 2Au-based tunnel junction, Sci. China Phys., Mech. Astron.63, 1–7 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    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

  13. [21]

    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

  14. [22]

    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 antiferromagnetic tunnel junction, Nature613, 490–495 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    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

  16. [24]

    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

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

    Jia, H.-M

    X. Jia, H.-M. Tang, and S.-Z. Wang, Tunneling magne- toresistance in all-antiferromagnetic Mn 2 Au-based tun- nel junctions, Phys. Rev. B108, 104406 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    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

  20. [28]

    J. Shi, S. Arpaci, V. Lopez-Dominguez, V. K. Sang- wan, F. Mahfouzi, J. Kim, J. G. Athas, M. Hamdi, C. Aygen, H. Arava, C. Phatak, M. Carpentieri, J. S. 10 Jiang, M. A. Grayson, N. Kioussis, G. Finocchio, M. C. Hersam, and P. Khalili Amiri, Electrically Con- trolled All-Antife...

    2024

  21. [29]

    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. [30]

    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. [31]

    C. Zhu, X. Jia, and H.-M. Tang, Tunneling magnetore- sistance effect in antiferromagnetic Mn2Au/BAs/Mn2Au tunnel junctions, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.597, 172036 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    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

  25. [33]

    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

  26. [34]

    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

  27. [35]

    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. [36]

    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

  29. [37]

    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

  30. [38]

    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. [39]

    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. Sc...

    2025

  32. [40]

    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. [41]

    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. [42]

    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. [43]

    Z. Yang, X. Yang, J. Wang, R. Peng, C. H. Lee, L. K. Ang, J. Lu, Y. S. Ang, and S. Fang, Unconventional tun- nel magnetoresistance scaling with altermagnets (2025), arXiv:2505.17192

    2025

  36. [44]

    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. F...

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Shao and E

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

    2024

  38. [46]

    Tanaka, T

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

    2025

  39. [47]

    Nakatsuji and R

    S. Nakatsuji and R. Arita, Topological Magnets: Func- tions Based on Berry Phase and Multipoles, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.13, 119–142 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    B. H. Rimmler, B. Pal, and S. S. Parkin, Non-collinear antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nat. Rev. Mater. , 1–19 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    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

  42. [50]

    ˇSmejkal, J

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

    2022

  43. [51]

    Nagamiya, S

    T. Nagamiya, S. Tomiyoshi, and Y. Yamaguchi, Tri- angular spin configuration and weak ferromagnetism of Mn3Sn and Mn 3Ge, Solid State Commun.42, 385–388 (1982)

    1982

  44. [52]

    Tomiyoshi, Polarized Neutron Diffraction Study of the Spin Structure of Mn3Sn, J

    S. Tomiyoshi, Polarized Neutron Diffraction Study of the Spin Structure of Mn3Sn, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.51, 803–810 (1982)

    1982

  45. [53]

    P. J. Brown, V. Nunez, F. Tasset, J. B. Forsyth, and P. Radhakrishna, Determination of the magnetic struc- ture of Mn 3Sn using generalized neutron polarization analysis, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter2, 9409 (1990)

    1990

  46. [54]

    Nakatsuji, N

    S. Nakatsuji, N. Kiyohara, and T. Higo, Large anomalous Hall effect in a non-collinear antiferromagnet at room temperature, Nature527, 212–215 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    K¨ ubler and C

    J. K¨ ubler and C. Felser, Non-collinear antiferromagnets and the anomalous Hall effect, Europhys. Lett.108, 67001 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Ikhlas, T

    M. Ikhlas, T. Tomita, T. Koretsune, M.-T. Suzuki, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Arita, Y. Otani, and S. Nakatsuji, Large anomalous Nernst effect at room temperature in a chiral antiferromagnet, Nat. Phys.13, 1085–1090 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    T. Higo, H. Man, D. B. Gopman, L. Wu, T. Koret- sune, O. M. van’t Erve, Y. P. Kabanov, D. Rees, Y. Li, M.-T. Suzuki, S. Patankar, M. Ikhlas, C. L. Chien, R. Arita, R. D. Shull, J. Orenstein, and S. Nakatsuji, Large magneto-optical Kerr effect and imaging of mag- netic octupole...

    2018

  50. [58]

    T. Chen, T. Tomita, S. Minami, M. Fu, T. Koretsune, M. Kitatani, I. Muhammad, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Ishii, 11 F. Ishii, R. Arita, and S. Nakatsuji, Anomalous trans- port due to Weyl fermions in the chiral antiferromagnets Mn3X,X= Sn,Ge, Nat. Commun.12, 572 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Higo and S

    T. Higo and S. Nakatsuji, Thin film properties of the non- collinear Weyl antiferromagnet Mn 3Sn, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.564, 170176 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Kuroda, T

    K. Kuroda, T. Tomita, M.-T. Suzuki, C. Bareille, A. Nu- groho, P. Goswami, M. Ochi, M. Ikhlas, M. Nakayama, S. Akebi, R. Noguchi, R. Ishii, N. Inami, K. Ono, H. Kumigashiea, A. Varykhalov, T. Muro, T. Koretsune, R. Arita, S. Shin, T. Kondo, and S. Nakatsuji, Evidence for magne...

    2017

  53. [61]

    S. Miwa, S. Iihama, T. Nomoto, T. Tomita, T. Higo, M. Ikhlas, S. Sakamoto, Y. Otani, S. Mizukami, R. Arita, and S. Nakatsuji, Giant Effective Damping of Octupole Oscillation in an Antiferromagnetic Weyl Semimetal, Small Sci.1, 2000062 (2021)

    2021

  54. [62]

    A. H. MacDonald and M. Tsoi, Antiferromagnetic metal spintronics, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A369, 3098–3114 (2011)

    2011

  55. [63]

    E. V. Gomonay and V. M. Loktev, Spintronics of antifer- romagnetic systems (Review Article), Low Temp. Phys. 40, 17–35 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunder- lich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 231–241 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015005 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    ˇZelezn` y, P

    J. ˇZelezn` y, P. Wadley, K. Olejn´ ık, A. Hoffmann, and H. Ohno, Spin transport and spin torque in antiferro- magnetic devices, Nat. Phys.14, 220–228 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    S. A. Siddiqui, J. Sklenar, K. Kang, M. J. Gilbert, A. Schleife, N. Mason, and A. Hoffmann, Metallic an- tiferromagnets, J. Appl. Phys.128, 040904 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    O. J. Amin, K. W. Edmonds, and P. Wadley, Electri- cal control of antiferromagnets for the next generation of computing technology, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 010501 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Fukami, V

    S. Fukami, V. O. Lorenz, and O. Gomonay, Antiferro- magnetic spintronics, J. Appl. Phys.128, 070401 (2020)

    2020

  62. [70]

    H. Chen, L. Liu, X. Zhou, Z. Meng, X. Wang, Z. Duan, G. Zhao, H. Yan, P. Qin, and Z. Liu, Emerging Anti- ferromagnets for Spintronics, Adv. Mater.36, 2310379 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    T. Higo, K. Kondou, T. Nomoto, M. Shiga, S. Sakamoto, X. Chen, D. Nishio-Hamane, R. Arita, Y. Otani, S. Miwa, and S. Nakatsuji, Perpendicular full switching of chiral antiferromagnetic order by current, Nature607, 474–479 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    J.-Y. Yoon, P. Zhang, C.-T. Chou, Y. Takeuchi, T. Uchimura, J. T. Hou, J. Han, S. Kanai, H. Ohno, S. Fukami, and L. Liu, Handedness anomaly in a non- collinear antiferromagnet under spin–orbit torque, Nat. Mater.22, 1106–1113 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Takeuchi, Y

    Y. Takeuchi, Y. Sato, Y. Yamane, J.-Y. Yoon, Y. Kanno, T. Uchimura, K. V. D. Zoysa, J. Han, S. Kanai, J. Ieda, H. Ohno, and S. Fukami, Electrical coherent driving of chiral antiferromagnet, Science389, 830–834 (2025)

    2025

  66. [74]

    Z. Xu, X. Zhang, Y. Qiao, G. Liang, S. Shi, and Z. Zhu, Deterministic spin-orbit torque switching including the interplay between spin polarization and kagome plane in Mn3Sn, Phys. Rev. B109, 134433 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Y. Chen, J. Gaudet, G. G. Marcus, T. Nomoto, T. Chen, T. Tomita, M. Ikhlas, H. S. Suzuki, Y. Zhao, W. C. Chen, J. Strempfer, R. Arita, S. Nakatsuji, and C. Broholm, In- tertwined charge and spin density waves in a topological kagome material, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032016 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    Suzuki, T

    M.-T. Suzuki, T. Koretsune, M. Ochi, and R. Arita, Clus- ter multipole theory for anomalous Hall effect in antifer- romagnets, Phys. Rev. B95, 094406 (2017)

    2017

  69. [77]

    Suzuki, T

    M.-T. Suzuki, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, Y. Yanagi, S. Hayami, and H. Kusunose, Multipole expansion for magnetic structures: A generation scheme for a symmetry-adapted orthonormal basis set in the crystal- lographic point group, Phys. Rev. B99, 174407 (2019)

    2019

  70. [78]

    Hohenberg and W

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

    1964

  71. [79]

    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

  72. [80]

    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. M...

    2009

  73. [81]

    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. Ger...

    2017

  74. [82]

    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

  75. [83]

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

    1996

  76. [84]

    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

  77. [85]

    A. D. Corso and A. M. Conte, Spin-orbit coupling with ultrasoft pseudopotentials: Application to Au and Pt, Phys. Rev. B71, 115106 (2005)

    2005

  78. [86]

    Dal Corso, A

    A. Dal Corso, A. Smogunov, and E. Tosatti,Abinitiobal- listic conductance with spin-orbit coupling: Application to monoatomic wires, Phys. Rev. B74, 045429 (2006)

    2006

  79. [87]

    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

  80. [88]

    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). 12

    1957

  81. [89]

    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

  82. [90]

    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

  83. [91]

    B¨ uttiker, Symmetry of electrical conduction, IBM J

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

    1988

  84. [92]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. Iba˜ nez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc´ e, T. Pon- wei...

    2020

  85. [93]

    In the numerical integration, we approximate the delta function by the Gaussian distribution with a small finite smearing and consider only the energy bands crossingE F for integrand

  86. [94]

    H. Tsai, T. Higo, K. Kondou, T. Nomoto, A. Sakai, A. Kobayashi, T. Nakano, K. Yakushiji, R. Arita, S. Miwa, Y. Otani, and S. Nakatsuji, Electrical manip- ulation of a topological antiferromagnetic state, Nature 580, 608–613 (2020)

    2020

  87. [95]

    Asakura, T

    M. Asakura, T. Higo, T. Matsuo, R. Uesugi, D. Nishio- Hamane, and S. Nakatsuji, Observation of Omnidirec- tional Exchange Bias at All-Antiferromagnetic Polycrys- talline Heterointerface, Adv. Mater.36, 2400301 (2024)

    2024

  88. [96]

    Asakura, T

    M. Asakura, T. Higo, T. Matsuo, Y. Tsushima, S. Kuro- sawa, R. Uesugi, D. Nishio-Hamane, and S. Nakatsuji, Magnetic field switching of exchange bias in a metallic FM/AFM heterostructure at room temperature, Nano Lett.25, 10294 (2025)

    2025

  89. [97]

    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

  90. [98]

    Kokalj, XCrySDen—a new program for displaying crystalline structures and electron densities, J

    A. Kokalj, XCrySDen—a new program for displaying crystalline structures and electron densities, J. Mol. Graphics Modelling17, 176–179 (1999)

    1999

  91. [99]

    Kawamura, FermiSurfer: Fermi-surface viewer pro- viding multiple representation schemes, Comput

    M. Kawamura, FermiSurfer: Fermi-surface viewer pro- viding multiple representation schemes, Comput. Phys. Commun.239, 197–203 (2019)

    2019

  92. [110]

    || z‾ (a) (b) Mn Sn b || [1210] a || [2110] c || [0001] a b ‾ ‾ ‾ Parallel MgO Antiparallel MgO A B C A B C A B C A B C z x Mg O FIG. 1. (a) Crystal structure of Mn 3Sn. (b) One of the two distinct kagome layers of Mn 3Sn. Red arrows represent the magnetic moments carried by M...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.