Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Anisotropic Superconductivity with Enhanced Critical Field in Strained RuO2

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-13 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Strained RuO2 films show anisotropic superconductivity that exceeds the Pauli limit by a factor of about 5.5, explained by spin-orbit scattering.

desk verdict Clean multi-axis transport data on strained RuO2 showing orientation-dependent SC and Hc2∥/Hp up to 5.5; the SO-scattering story is provisional but the observations stand on their own. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09437 v1 pith:Q3LV3M6A submitted 2026-07-10 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Younes Ghorbani , Samuel Poage , Xuehsi Gao , Luka Mitrovic , Neha Wadehra , Benjamin Gregory , Suchismita Sarker , Betul Pamuk
show 4 more authors
Andrej Singer Darrell G. Schlom Chun Ning Lau Kaveh Ahadi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords superconductivityepitaxialstrainRuO2Paulilimitspin-orbitscatteringanisotropictransportaltermagnetcandidate
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

Bulk RuO2 is not superconducting, yet epitaxial films of RuO2 grown under anisotropic strain on TiO2 become superconducting at a few tenths of a kelvin. The transition temperature, critical current and critical field all change with the substrate orientation and with the crystallographic direction of current flow inside the film. When a magnetic field is applied in the plane of the film, the upper critical field rises well above the Pauli paramagnetic limit (Hc2,∥/Hp ≈ 5.5). The authors attribute this resilience to strong spin-orbit scattering from ruthenium 4d electrons and from the defects that form when the film partially relaxes its large lattice mismatch. The result shows that epitaxial strain can both induce superconductivity and engineer its directional and magnetic-field response in a single oxide.

What carries the argument

Anisotropic epitaxial strain and the planar defects that accompany its partial relaxation, which both enhance the Fermi-level density of states and create directional scattering that randomizes electron spins, thereby suppressing Pauli pair-breaking.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the in-plane critical field and spin-relaxation time on a fully coherent, defect-free film of the same thickness (or a clean determination of the actual carrier density and effective mass) would show whether Hc2,∥ still exceeds the Pauli limit when the assumed dirty-limit scattering is removed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Epitaxial RuO2 films of roughly 10 nm thickness on TiO2(100) and TiO2(110) display two-dimensional superconductivity whose critical temperature, critical current and in-plane upper critical field depend strongly on growth orientation and transport direction; the measured Hc2,∥ exceeds the Pauli limit by factors of 4–5.5, which the authors ascribe to spin-orbit scattering in the dirty limit.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that the films sit deep in the dirty limit and that spin-orbit scattering alone accounts for the large Pauli-limit violation rests on mean-free-path and coherence-length estimates that assume bulk carrier density and an effective mass of 2.4.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports epitaxial growth of ~10 nm RuO2 films on TiO2(100) and TiO2(110) by oxide MBE and presents direction-resolved transport showing orientation- and crystallographic-direction-dependent superconductivity (Tc ≈ 0.55 K on (100), ≈ 0.28 K on (110)). In-plane upper critical fields strongly exceed the BCS Pauli limit (Hc2,∥/Hp reaching ~5.5 and ~4), while out-of-plane fields remain modest, consistent with 2D dirty-limit superconductivity. Anisotropy in Ic and Hc2 is linked to anisotropic epitaxial strain relaxation and associated planar defects imaged by hard X-ray reciprocal-space mapping; the Pauli-limit violation is attributed to spin-orbit scattering from Ru 4d states and disorder. Supporting structural data (RHEED, XRD, RSM) and first-principles DOS calculations under the two strain states are included.

Significance. If the observations hold, the work supplies a concrete experimental platform for strain-engineered superconductivity in a material that is also discussed as an altermagnet candidate, and it demonstrates that epitaxial orientation can be used to tune both Tc and the degree of Pauli-limit violation. The multi-axis transport data, defect-sensitive reciprocal-space maps, and systematic exclusion of several alternative pair-breaking scenarios (orbital limit, FFLO, simple Rashba admixture) constitute a solid, reproducible data set that will be useful to the oxide-superconductivity and altermagnet communities. The results open a route to epitaxially controlled superconducting devices without requiring new materials discovery.

major comments (2)
  1. Experimental Results and Mechanism sections: the dirty-limit claim (Δ au tr/ℏ ≈ 0.001–0.004) and the subsequent attribution of Hc2,∥/Hp ~5.5 to spin-orbit scattering rest on a bulk literature carrier density n = 8.87 imes 10^21 cm^-3 and m* = 2.4. Film-specific Hall densities and effective masses are not reported. Because these parameters enter both lmfp and the SO-scattering interpretation, a direct measurement (or a quantitative uncertainty analysis) is needed before the microscopic mechanism can be regarded as established.
  2. Mechanism for … enhanced critical field: the temperature dependence of Hc2,∥ is shown (Fig. 4) but is not compared with the Werthamer–Helfand–Hohenberg or Klemm–Luther–Beasley expressions that incorporate spin-orbit scattering. A quantitative fit (or an estimate of the SO scattering time that reproduces the observed factor of ~5) would convert the attribution from qualitative to predictive and would strengthen the central interpretive claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. Introduction: “titatanes” should be “titanates”.
  2. Fig. 2 caption and main text: the current-sweep direction that reverses the Ic asymmetry is stated, but the precise definition of “downward/upward” relative to the plotted axes is ambiguous; a short clarifying sentence would help.
  3. Throughout: Hc2 is extracted at 0.9 Rn; a brief justification or comparison with the 50 % Rn criterion would improve reproducibility.
  4. Appendix: the kinetic-energy cutoff is given only as “Ry”; the numerical value should be stated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; experimental observations of anisotropic SC and Pauli-limit violation stand independently of interpretive model and self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental transport study of epitaxially strained RuO2 films. Central claims (orientation- and direction-dependent Tc/Ic/Hc2, and Hc2,∥/Hp reaching ~5.5) are direct measurements from resistance vs T/I/B data (Figs. 2–4, S3). Pauli-limit ratios use the standard BCS relation Δ ≈ 1.76 kBTc applied to measured Tc, not a fit. Dirty-limit estimates (lmfp, τtr, Δτ tr/ℏ ≪ 1) and spin-orbit-scattering attribution employ literature bulk n and m* = 2.4 as conventional inputs; these support interpretation but do not force the measured Hc2 values by construction. Self-citations ([11,12] and related) supply growth/structural context and prior DOS/strain results; they are not load-bearing for the new magnetoelectric data or the Pauli-violation observation. No self-definitional loops, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear. Alternative mechanisms are quantitatively considered and disfavored on the paper’s own estimates. Score 1 reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations to prior growth papers by overlapping authors.

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

Experimental condensed-matter paper. Central claims rest on standard BCS/GL formulas, literature values for bulk carrier density and effective mass, and the assumption that the films remain non-magnetic. No new particles or forces are postulated; free parameters are conventional material constants taken from outside the present data set.

free parameters (3)
  • bulk carrier density n = 8.87e21 cm^{-3}
    Used to compute Fermi wave-vector and mean free path; taken as 8.87×10^21 cm^{-3} from literature rather than measured on the films.
  • effective mass m* = 2.4 m_e
    Used for transport scattering time τ_tr; fixed at 2.4 from literature.
  • BCS gap prefactor = 1.76
    Δ ≈ 1.76 kB Tc assumed to convert measured Tc into Pauli field Hp.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Standard BCS weak-coupling relation Hp = Δ / √2 μB and Ginzburg-Landau expressions for Hc2,⊥ and orbital Hc2,∥.
    Invoked throughout Results and Discussion to quantify Pauli-limit violation and extract coherence lengths.
  • domain assumption Stoichiometric RuO2 (bulk and relaxed films) is a non-magnetic Pauli paramagnet; inversion and time-reversal symmetries remain intact.
    Used to rule out unconventional pairing, FFLO, and Rashba-enhanced critical fields; supported by cited recent experiments but not re-measured here.
  • domain assumption Films are deep in the dirty limit (l_mfp < ξ_GL) so that spin-orbit scattering can enhance Hc2 beyond the Pauli limit.
    Central to the mechanism claimed for Hc2,∥/Hp ∼ 5.5; depends on the free parameters n and m*.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Superconductivity with Enhanced Critical Field in Strained RuO2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q3LV3M6A

@misc{pith2026260709437,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Superconductivity with Enhanced Critical Field in Strained RuO2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q3LV3M6A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09437}
}
read the original abstract

The superconductivity in RuO2 emerges under strain. RuO2 is also an altermagnet candidate. The nature of superconductivity and its relation with neighboring orders, however, are not understood. To address this problem, we grew epitaxial RuO2 films on TiO2(100) and TiO2(110) single crystal substrates and studied the electronic transport and emergent superconductivity along various crystallographic directions. We show that the superconducting transition strongly depends on the growth orientation and the crystallographic direction of the transport in the RuO2 films. We also observe a strong violation of Pauli paramagnetic limit with in-plane applied magnetic field which we attribute to strong spin-orbit scattering. These results offer opportunities for epitaxially engineered superconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09437 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a), stabilizing an itinerant antiferromagnetic or￾dering within a reasonable Hubbard U range. Similarly, the predicted strain control of the Fermi-level density of states in RuO2 (Figure 1b and c) could engineer an itin￾erant magnetic ordering [16, 27]. While the ground state of the stoichiometric bulk RuO2 is a trivial Pauli paramagnet, epitaxial strain could tune the lattice dynamics, modify the electronic struc￾t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shimizu, H

    K. Shimizu, H. Ishikawa, D. Takao, T. Yagi, and K. Amaya, Nature419, 597 (2002)

    2002

  2. [2]

    Drozdov, M

    A. Drozdov, M. Eremets, I. Troyan, V. Ksenofontov, and S. I. Shylin, Nature525, 73 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    C. F. Richardson and N. W. Ashcroft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 118 (1997)

    1997

  4. [4]

    L. P. Gor’kov and V. Z. Kresin, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 011001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Locquet, J

    J.-P. Locquet, J. Perret, J. Fompeyrine, E. M¨ achler, J. W. Seo, and G. Van Tendeloo, Nature394, 453 (1998)

    1998

  6. [6]

    Bozovic, G

    I. Bozovic, G. Logvenov, I. Belca, B. Narimbetov, and I. Sveklo, Physical review letters89, 107001 (2002)

    2002

  7. [7]

    Ahadi, L

    K. Ahadi, L. Galletti, Y. Li, S. Salmani-Rezaie, W. Wu, and S. Stemmer, Science advances5, eaaw0120 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Russell, N

    R. Russell, N. Ratcliff, K. Ahadi, L. Dong, S. Stemmer, and J. W. Harter, Physical Review Materials3, 091401 (2019)

    2019

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Engelmann, V

    J. Engelmann, V. Grinenko, P. Chekhonin, W. Skrotzki, D. Efremov, S. Oswald, K. Iida, R. H¨ uhne, J. H¨ anisch, M. Hoffmann,et al., Nature communications4, 2877 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    J. Xu, T. Jarlborg, and A. Freeman, Physical Review B 40, 7939 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    J. P. Ruf, H. Paik, N. J. Schreiber, H. P. Nair, L. Miao, J. K. Kawasaki, J. N. Nelson, B. D. Faeth, Y. Lee, B. H. Goodge,et al., Nature Communications12, 59 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Wadehra, B

    N. Wadehra, B. Z. Gregory, S. Zhang, N. Schnitzer, Y. Iguchi, Y. E. Li, B. Pamuk, D. A. Muller, A. Singer, K. M. Shen,et al., Communications Materials6, 135 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    Uchida, T

    M. Uchida, T. Nomoto, M. Musashi, R. Arita, and M. Kawasaki, Physical Review Letters125, 147001 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Fatima, D

    Z. Fatima, D. Oka, and T. Fukumura, Crystal Growth & Design21, 4083 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    W. Nunn, S. Nair, H. Yun, A. Kamath Manjesh- war, A. Rajapitamahuni, D. Lee, K. A. Mkhoyan, and B. Jalan, APL Materials9, 10.1063/5.0062726 (2021)

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    S. G. Jeong, S. Lee, B. Lin, Z. Yang, I. H. Choi, J. Y. Oh, S. Song, S. w. Lee, S. Nair, R. Choudhary,et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences122, e2500831122 (2025)

    2025

  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,et al., Physical review letters118, 077201 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    ˇSmejkal, J

    L. ˇSmejkal, J. Sinova, and T. Jungwirth, Physical Review X12, 040501 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    J.-J. Lin, S. Huang, Y. Lin, T. Lee, H. Liu, X. Zhang, R. Chen, and Y. Huang, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, 8035 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    K. M. Glassford and J. R. Chelikowsky, Physical Review B49, 7107 (1994)

    1994

  13. [21]

    A. N. Guthrie and L. Bourland, Physical Review37, 303 (1931)

    1931

  14. [22]

    Fletcher, W

    J. Fletcher, W. Gardner, B. Greenfield, M. Holdoway, and M. Rand, Journal of the Chemical Society A: Inor- ganic, Physical, Theoretical , 653 (1968)

    1968

  15. [23]

    Ryden and A

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

    1970

  16. [24]

    Cordfunke, R

    E. Cordfunke, R. Konings, E. F. Westrum Jr, and R. Sha- viv, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids50, 429 (1989)

    1989

  17. [25]

    H. S. C. O’Neill and J. Nell, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta61, 5279 (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    Smolyanyuk, I

    A. Smolyanyuk, I. I. Mazin, L. Garcia-Gassull, and R. Valent´ ı, Physical Review B109, 134424 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    E. C. Stoner, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences165, 372 (1938)

    1938

  20. [28]

    S. G. Jeong, I. H. Choi, S. Lee, J. Y. Oh, S. Nair, J. H. Lee, C. Kim, A. Seo, W. S. Choi, T. Low,et al., Science Advances11, eadw7125 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    J. Hu, C. Wu, and X. Dai, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 067004 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    F. Ando, Y. Miyasaka, T. Li, J. Ishizuka, T. Arakawa, Y. Shiota, T. Moriyama, Y. Yanase, and T. Ono, Nature 584, 373 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Nadeem, M

    M. Nadeem, M. S. Fuhrer, and X. Wang, Nature Reviews Physics5, 558 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    J. Ma, R. Zhan, and X. Lin, Advanced Physics Research , 2400180 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Prozorov, M

    R. Prozorov, M. A. Tanatar, N. Ni, A. Kreyssig, S. Nandi, S. L. Bud’ko, A. I. Goldman, and P. C. Canfield, Phys. Rev. B80, 174517 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    X. Peng, Z. Liu, S. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Y. Sun, Y. Su, C. Wu, T. Zhou, L. Liu, Y. Li,et al., Communications Materials6, 177 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Z. Wu, M. Long, H. Chen, S. Paul, H. Matsuki, O. Zhe- liuk, U. Zeitler, G. Li, R. Zhou, Z. Zhu,et al., Physical Review X15, 031044 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    N. R. Werthamer, E. Helfand, and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev.147, 295 (1966)

    1966

  29. [37]

    R. A. Klemm, A. Luther, and M. R. Beasley, Phys. Rev. B12, 877 (1975)

    1975

  30. [38]

    E. G. Arnault, A. H. Al-Tawhid, S. Salmani-Rezaie, D. A. Muller, D. P. Kumah, M. S. Bahramy, G. Finkelstein, and K. Ahadi, Science Advances9, eadf1414 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    A. H. Al-Tawhid, S. J. Poage, S. Salmani-Rezaie, A. Gon- zalez, S. Chikara, D. A. Muller, D. P. Kumah, M. N. Gastiasoro, J. Lorenzana, and K. Ahadi, Nano Letters 23, 6944 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    S. J. Poage, X. Gao, M. Baksi, S. Salmani-Rezaie, D. A. Muller, D. P. Kumah, C. N. Lau, J. Lorenzana, M. N. Gastiasoro, and K. Ahadi, Phys. Rev. B111, 214506 (2025)

    2025

  33. [41]

    Daido, Y

    A. Daido, Y. Ikeda, and Y. Yanase, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 037001 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    N. F. Yuan and L. Fu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences119, e2119548119 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Hiraishi, H

    M. Hiraishi, H. Okabe, A. Koda, R. Kadono, T. Muroi, D. Hirai, and Z. Hiroi, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 166702 8 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 176401 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Keßler, L

    P. Keßler, L. Garcia-Gassull, A. Suter, T. Prokscha, Z. Salman, D. Khalyavin, P. Manuel, F. Orlandi, I. I. Mazin, R. Valent´ ı,et al., npj Spintronics2, 50 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    B. Z. Gregory, N. Wadehra, S. Zhang, Y. Wu, S. Poage, J. Strempfer, A. K. Kundu, A. Rajapita- mahuni, E. Vescovo, A. Verma,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13781 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13781 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    K. Yu, T. W. Heitmann, C. Song, M. P. DeFeo, B. L. T. Plourde, M. B. S. Hesselberth, and P. H. Kes, Phys. Rev. B76, 220507 (2007)

    2007

  40. [48]

    C. C. de Souza Silva, J. Van de Vondel, M. Morelle, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Nature440, 651 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Togawa, K

    Y. Togawa, K. Harada, T. Akashi, H. Kasai, T. Matsuda, F. Nori, A. Maeda, and A. Tonomura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 087002 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Palau, C

    A. Palau, C. Monton, V. Rouco, X. Obradors, and T. Puig, Phys. Rev. B85, 012502 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    B. B. Jin, B. Y. Zhu, R. W¨ ordenweber, C. C. de Souza Silva, P. H. Wu, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Phys. Rev. B81, 174505 (2010)

    2010

  44. [52]

    Van de Vondel, V

    J. Van de Vondel, V. N. Gladilin, A. V. Silhanek, W. Gillijns, J. Tempere, J. T. Devreese, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 137003 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    C. C. de Souza Silva, J. Van de Vondel, B. Y. Zhu, M. Morelle, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Phys. Rev. B73, 014507 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Van de Vondel, C

    J. Van de Vondel, C. C. de Souza Silva, B. Y. Zhu, M. Morelle, and V. V. Moshchalkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 057003 (2005)

    2005

  47. [55]

    Carapella, V

    G. Carapella, V. Granata, F. Russo, and G. Costabile, Applied Physics Letters94, 10.1063/1.3155424 (2009)

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    Golod and V

    T. Golod and V. M. Krasnov, Nature Communications 13, 3658 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Rashidi, W

    A. Rashidi, W. Huynh, B. Guo, S. Ahadi, and S. Stem- mer, npj Quantum Materials9, 70 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Schumann, L

    T. Schumann, L. Galletti, H. Jeong, K. Ahadi, W. M. Strickland, S. Salmani-Rezaie, and S. Stemmer, Physical Review B101, 100503 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    L. P. Gor’kov and E. I. Rashba, Physical Review Letters 87, 037004 (2001)

    2001

  52. [60]

    Fulde and R

    P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Physical Review135, A550 (1964)

    1964

  53. [61]

    M. Kim, Y. Kozuka, C. Bell, Y. Hikita, and H. Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. B86, 085121 (2012)

    2012

  54. [62]

    A. G. Swartz, A. K. C. Cheung, H. Yoon, Z. Chen, Y. Hikita, S. Raghu, and H. Y. Hwang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 167003 (2018)

    2018

  55. [63]

    Y. Lu, T. Takayama, A. F. Bangura, Y. Katsura, D. Hashizume, and H. Takagi, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan83, 023702 (2014)

    2014

  56. [64]

    Yamamoto, K

    Y. Yamamoto, K. Nakajima, T. Ohsawa, Y. Matsumoto, and H. Koinuma, Japanese journal of applied physics44, L511 (2005)

    2005

  57. [65]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo,et al., Journal of physics: Condensed mat- ter21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  58. [66]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavaz- zoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni,et al., Journal of physics: Condensed matter29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Physical review letters100, 136406 (2008)

    2008

  60. [68]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune,et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Mat- ter32, 165902 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed July 13, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.