Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 70 references

Moir\'e-resonant surface state in ultrathin RuO$_2$

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A moiré lattice and Fermi-surface nesting cooperate to trap a nonmagnetic charge density wave on ultrathin RuO2(110), and no surface magnetism appears.

desk verdict Strong experimental surface science with a useful null magnetic result, but the central DMRG resonance claim is not yet reproducible because the model parameters are not disclosed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05047 v2 pith:2QKLO4T5 submitted 2025-07-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Philipp Ke{ss}ler , Andreas Feuerpfeil , Armando Consiglio , Hendrik Hohmann , Ronny Thomale , Jonas Erhardt , Bing Liu , Vedran Jovic
show 4 more authors
Ralph Claessen Patrick Härtl Matteo Dürrnagel Simon Moser
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords RuO2moirépatternchargedensitywaveflat-bandsurfacestateFerminestingspin-polarizedSTMDMRGreconstruction
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

The paper tries to establish that the two key electronic surprises on ultrathin RuO2(110) grown on Ru(0001) are charge, not spin, in origin. It reports a charge-density-wave-like modulation whose period is set by the moiré pattern between the oxide film and the ruthenium substrate, and whose strength peaks precisely when the moiré wave vector matches the Fermi-surface nesting vector of the flat-band surface state. A minimal one-dimensional DMRG model with a fitted tight-binding band, a periodic moiré potential, and electron interactions reproduces the resonance at -5 mV that appears in scanning tunneling spectroscopy. The same experiments see no magnetic contrast, placing an upper bound of about 0.3 Bohr magnetons per unit cell on surface magnetic order. If right, this refutes proposals of surface magnetism on RuO2(110) and makes ultrathin RuO2 a testbed for moiré-assisted electronic order.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the quasi-one-dimensional flat-band surface state (FBSS) hosted by the [001]-oriented Ru–O chains on RuO2(110), together with the moiré potential imprinted by the Ru(0001) substrate. The model Hamiltonian $H = H_{\mathrm{Kin}} + H_{\mathrm{Moir\'e}} + H_{\mathrm{Cor}}$ combines a tight-binding term fitted to DFT and ARPES, a periodic onsite moiré modulation of period $q_M$, and a two-particle interaction; DMRG solves it on an isolated chain and the site-resolved density modulation $\langle \hat{n}_i \rangle$ is compared to the STS signal. The mechanism is that Fermi-surface nesting at $q_N$ and the moiré potential at $q_M$ reinforce each other at a band filling where the two vectors coincide, producing an LDOS resonance at -5 mV that neither ingredient alone can produce.

What would settle it

Repeat the DMRG calculation while varying the interaction strength and moiré amplitude around the values used in the paper; if the -5 mV resonance disappears under small parameter changes, the nesting-assisted mechanism is an artifact of parameter choice. Alternatively, change the film thickness so that $q_M$ moves away from $q_N$ and check whether the STS resonance at $q_M$ tracks the new moiré vector or stays pinned at -5 mV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that the interplay between the moiré potential and the nested Fermi surface of the flat-band surface state induces a moiré-trapped charge density wave instability in ultrathin RuO2(110), without a spin-density wave. The moiré wave vector $q_M \approx 0.27\,\text{Å}^{-1}$ extracted from STM is collinear with and close to the ARPES nesting vector $q_N \approx 0.24(4)\,\text{Å}^{-1}$ of the quasi-one-dimensional flat surface band; dI/dV maps show an energy-dependent peak whose integrated intensity resonates at -5 mV. DMRG on an isolated Ru–O chain shows that the resonance requires both the moiré potential and a two-particle interaction: removing either one removes the peak. Spin-polarized STM with a Gd tip shows no magnetic contrast, and the DMRG ground states are spin singlets, so the ordering tendency is purely charge-like. The paper also reports a metastable 2×2 reconstruction with a DFT energy gain of about 25 meV per cell that can be switched reversibly by STM voltage pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the DMRG model with its fitted tight-binding band, periodic moiré potential, and unspecified two-particle interaction faithfully represents the RuO2(110) surface, and that the interaction and moiré amplitudes were not tuned after the fact to force the -5 mV resonance seen in the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The apparent-height beating seen in STM on RuO2(110)/Ru(0001) is explained as moiré-imprinted charge order, not as a substrate buckling effect.
  • Because the FBSS binding energy and moiré period change with film thickness, the resonance and the CDW strength should be tunable, making the system a controllable platform for studies of moiré-assisted electronic order.
  • Bulk-truncated RuO2(110) without the substrate moiré should show no $q_M$ charge ordering, since the resonance disappears when either the moiré or the interaction is turned off.
  • Surface magnetism on RuO2(110) is excluded at the ~0.3 $\mu_B$ per unit cell sensitivity of the spin-polarized STM measurements, so altermagnetic surface-state interpretations need to confront this null result.
  • The reversible 2×2 reconstruction toggled by STM tip pulses implies a bistable structural degree of freedom on the surface, with possible consequences for catalytic activity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism is generic, the same recipe—a surface state whose Fermi surface nests at the moiré wave vector—should produce similar nonmagnetic charge instabilities on other lattice-mismatched oxide films; this can be tested by growing RuO2(110) on substrates with different lattice constants.
  • The reported energy dispersion of the moiré peak, steeper than expected for quasiparticle interference, may be a fingerprint of the nesting-assisted resonance rather than a separate phenomenon; a momentum-resolved calculation of the dynamic susceptibility would sharpen that prediction.
  • The absence of magnetism together with the presence of a switchable reconstruction suggests that the surface's low-energy response is dominated by lattice and charge degrees of freedom; one could probe this by looking for phonon anomalies at the 2×2 wave vector in helium-atom scattering or vibrational spectroscopy.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a combined STM/STS, ARPES, DFT, and DMRG study of ultrathin RuO2(110) films grown on Ru(0001). The authors observe a nonmagnetic incommensurate moiré modulation with wave vector qM ≈ 0.27 Å⁻¹, a flat-band surface state with a nested Fermi surface and nesting vector qN ≈ 0.24(4) Å⁻¹, and a resonance at −5 mV in the qM-resolved LDOS. A minimal DMRG Hamiltonian combining kinetic, moiré, and interaction terms is claimed to reproduce this resonance only when all three terms are included. The paper also reports a metastable 2×2 surface reconstruction that can be switched reversibly with the STM tip and is attributed to a DFT structural relaxation, as well as SP-STM measurements showing no magnetic contrast down to an estimated sensitivity of about 0.3 μB per unit cell.

Significance. The experimental work is of high quality: single-domain film growth, atomically resolved STM, ARPES Fermi-surface mapping, and SP-STM with a Gd-coated tip provide a solid basis for the reported observations. The moiré structure-factor simulation agrees well with the experimental FFT, and the reversible 2×2 reconstruction is an interesting standalone result. The DMRG suppression tests (with and without HCor and HMoiré) give a clean conceptual decomposition of the proposed mechanism, and the null magnetic result is a useful constraint for the altermagnetism debate on RuO2. If the DMRG resonance at −5 mV is shown to be robust and parameter-free, this would constitute a valuable example of moiré-assisted electronic order in an oxide surface. At present, however, the central theoretical comparison is not verifiable because the model parameters and interaction terms are not disclosed.

major comments (4)
  1. [Nesting-Driven Moiré Resonance; Eq. (1), Fig. 3(b)] The central claim that the combined moiré potential and Fermi-surface nesting produce the −5 mV resonance rests on the DMRG curve in Fig. 3(b), but the model is specified only symbolically. The manuscript never states the explicit form of HCor, the numerical values of the hopping parameters in HKin, the moiré potential amplitude, the interaction strength, the chain length, the filling, or the boundary terms, and the supplementary material containing the relevant figures is not part of the submission. Since the qM periodicity is taken from experiment and inserted into HMoiré, the static peak at qM is enforced by construction; the genuinely predictive content is the interaction-enhanced resonance at −5 mV, which cannot be assessed without knowing whether the parameters were fixed before comparison or adjusted to reproduce the peak. The suppression tests (green/turquoise curves) only show that removing HCor or HMoiré removes the peak; they do not show robustness within a physically plausible parameter window. Please report all parameters, state which were fixed a priori, and provide a parameter-sensitivity study.
  2. [Nesting-Driven Moiré Resonance; Fig. 3(a)] The manuscript states that the energy-dependent momentum shift of the four FFT peaks from 0.87qM at −25 mV to 1.08qM at 15 mV is "currently unexplained" and about twice as steep as expected for quasiparticle interference of the FBSS. This dispersion is presented as part of the moiré-resonance phenomenon, and leaving it unexplained weakens the central comparison. The DMRG model should be tested against this dispersion; if it cannot reproduce it, the authors should state the discrepancy explicitly and discuss how it affects the claim that the model captures the experimentally observed moiré resonance.
  3. [Nesting-Driven Moiré Resonance; DMRG Methods] The DMRG calculation models an isolated one-dimensional Ru–Obr chain along [001], while the ARPES data show a two-dimensional Fermi surface with two nearly parallel linear features; the nesting vector qN is a property of the 2D surface. The manuscript does not justify that a single chain captures the same nesting-enhanced resonance observed on the 2D surface. Please provide a quantitative argument, for example a 2D susceptibility calculation showing that the dominant nesting is along the chain direction, an estimate of interchain coupling, or a comparison of 1D and 2D results; alternatively, explicitly present the 1D model as a minimal illustration rather than a direct simulation of the surface.
  4. [Abstract; Emergent Surface Reconstructions] The abstract states that the c(2×2)/2×2 reconstruction "arises from surface phonon softening," but the main text reports only a DFT structural relaxation that is energetically favorable by approximately 25 meV per 2×2 unit cell and speculates that the instability may be coupled to an electronic reconstruction. No phonon calculation is presented. Please either provide the phonon calculation or revise the abstract to match the structural-relaxation interpretation presented in the body of the paper.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Emergent Surface Reconstructions] The abstract uses "c(2 × 2)" while the main text consistently writes "2 × 2" for the same reconstruction; please reconcile the notation and define the relation to the RuO2(110) surface unit cell.
  2. [Throughout] The Å sign is rendered as "˚A" (degree-A) in several places, for example "0.24(4) ˚A⁻¹" and "λM = 22.9(20) ˚A"; the typesetting should be corrected to "Å".
  3. [Nesting-Driven Moiré Resonance; DMRG paragraph] The text says the DMRG peak at qM = 2π/λM = 0.27 Å⁻¹ is "matching the experimentally determined moiré period"; since the moiré period is an input to the model, "set to" would be a more accurate phrasing.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

DMRG's static qM peak is inserted then extracted by construction, and the load-bearing −5 mV resonance has no disclosed Hamiltonian or parameter values to audit.

  1. self definitional [Nesting-Driven Moiré Resonance (Eq. 1 and Fig. 3(b) discussion); DMRG model construction in main text]
    "We constructed a minimal Hamiltonian model incorporating key features of the RuO2 (110) surface: (i) a tight-binding term (HKin) fitted to the DFT surface band structure and adapted to the FBSS ARPES results [3,15], (ii) a periodic onsite modulation representing the moiré potential (HMoiré), and (iii) a two-particle interaction term capturing electron correlations (HCor). ... When the moiré potential is included but its interaction with the FBSS is suppressed by setting HCor = 0, the correct periodicity qM is recovered, but the central peak seen in experiment is absent (green curve)."

    The reduction is exact: the model's moiré term is an onsite periodic potential whose period is the same qM = 2π/λM ≈ 0.27 Å⁻¹ extracted from the STM data, and the computed density ⟨ˆni⟩ then displays a periodic modulation whose FFT shows 'a dominant, non-dispersive peak at qM ... matching the experimentally determined moiré period.' Any nonzero moiré amplitude forces a component at qM in the output; the green-curve control (HCor = 0) confirms this by 'recovering' the qM periodicity with interactions switched off. The static peak is therefore an input-output identity, and it cannot serve as independent evidence that Fermi-surface nesting or correlations generate the moiré charge modulation.

  2. other [Fig. 3(b) paragraph; Methods: Density Matrix Renormalization Group (DMRG)]
    "The total Hamiltonian reads: H = HKin + HMoiré + HCor. (1) ... The amplitude at qM = 0.27 Å⁻¹, calculated with both the moiré potential (HMoiré) and correlation effects (HCor) included, is shown in Fig. 3(b) (orange curve). It reproduces the characteristic resonance at −5 mV observed experimentally (black curve). ... All calculations were performed using the ITENSOR library [57,58] with an SVD cutoff of 10⁻¹⁰."

    The central mechanism claim rests on this curve, yet the text provides no way to test whether the outcome is emergent or imposed. Eq. (1) lists HCor only as 'a two-particle interaction term capturing electron correlations'; its operator form, and the values of the tight-binding, interaction, and moiré-amplitude parameters, the chain length, filling, and boundary terms, are absent from both the main text and the Methods (which report only the SVD cutoff and bond dimensions). The orange curve is said to reproduce the characteristic resonance at −5 mV, and the green/turquoise controls show that removing HCor and/or HMoiré removes the peak, but those controls are equally consistent with an emergent resonance and with parameters tuned post hoc to place a resonance at −5 mV.

full rationale

One circular step is provable from the text; a second is a flagged audit gap; the paper's independent experimental anchors prevent a higher score. Provable: the static qM peak that the DMRG 'recovers' is an input-output identity — HMoiré is an onsite potential with the period measured in the same STM data (λM = 22.9 Å), so ⟨ˆni⟩ must contain a component at qM; the green-curve control merely re-inserts the period and reads it back. The paper does not use this leg as the novel claim; the novel claim is the −5 mV resonance, which survives only when HCor is present. That resonance is the load-bearing step, and it is unauditable: neither the form of HCor nor any hopping, interaction, moiré-amplitude, filling, size, or boundary parameter is given in the main text or Methods, so the 'reproduction' (orange vs. black curve) cannot be distinguished from a tuned fit; the suppression tests (green/turquoise) are consistent with both readings. Per the reviewing rules this missing support is flagged and weighed. Non-circular, independent evidence: the SP-STM magnetic-sensitivity null and the DMRG spin-singlet ground states support the nonmagnetic conclusion; qM (STM) and qN (ARPES, including prior bulk ARPES by co-author Jovic et al.) are separate measurements; the 2×2 reconstruction rests on the paper's own DFT slab relaxations. Co-author self-citations (refs 3, 15, 22, 38) are external experiments, not a load-bearing citation chain; no uniqueness theorem is invoked. Two additional, non-circular weaknesses lower confidence but not the circularity score: the abstract claims the c(2×2) arises from 'surface phonon softening,' while the body reports only a DFT structural relaxation with no phonon calculation shown; and the 1D DMRG chain is assumed to capture 2D Fermi-surface nesting without a demonstrated correspondence. Verdict: score 5 — partial circularity concentrated in the DMRG/Fig. 3(b) leg, while the experimental findings themselves stand on independent measurements.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by inputs to the DMRG model: the moiré period is measured and imposed, the interaction and moiré amplitudes are untabulated, and the band structure enters through fitted tight-binding parameters. The DFT reconstruction result is more self-contained, but the phonon claim in the abstract is not backed by a calculation.

free parameters (3)
  • DMRG interaction strength (HCor)
    The two-particle interaction term is introduced in Eq. (1) but its value is not stated in the main text. The DMRG resonance at -5 mV in Fig. 3(b) may depend critically on this value.
  • DMRG moiré potential amplitude (HMoiré)
    A periodic onsite modulation with period qM is inserted by hand; its amplitude is not reported, and it guarantees a peak at qM even without interactions.
  • Tight-binding hopping parameters in HKin
    Fitted to the DFT surface band structure and ARPES results according to Refs [3,15]; these are inputs rather than ab initio values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The RuO2(110) surface electronic structure is captured by an isolated 1D Ru-O chain along [001].
    DMRG is run on a single chain; the 2D Fermi surface nesting known from ARPES is folded into 1D. If interchain coupling matters, the resonance prediction may not transfer.
  • domain assumption The moiré modulation can be represented as a static periodic onsite potential with the measured period qM.
    Used in HMoiré in Eq. (1); the STM structure factor supports this, but it is an input, not a result of the calculation.
  • domain assumption Spin-polarized STM sensitivity of about 0.3 μB per unit cell is sufficient to detect the predicted surface magnetic order.
    Relies on Refs [49,50] for calibration; weak or short-range magnetic order could evade the measurement.
  • domain assumption DFT-PBE slab relaxations correctly identify the 2x2 reconstruction as 25 meV per cell lower in energy.
    No phonon calculation is shown, and the abstract's phonon-softening claim is unsupported in the main text.
  • domain assumption The nesting vector qN measured by ARPES is the relevant instability vector for the charge response.
    Near-coincidence with qM is the main evidence; no Lindhard susceptibility from the measured band structure is computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Moir\'e-resonant surface state in ultrathin RuO$_2$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QKLO4T5

@misc{pith2026250705047,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Moir\'e-resonant surface state in ultrathin RuO$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QKLO4T5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05047}
}
abstract

RuO$_2$ has emerged as a prototypical candidate for altermagnetism. In the face of daunting evidence for magnetic order in the bulk, the focus naturally shifted to surfaces and ultrathin films, where Coulomb interactions are dimensionally quenched and electron correlations strongly enhanced. Here, we examine atomically ordered, ultrathin RuO$_2$(110) grown on Ru(0001) using a combination of scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), density functional theory, and density matrix renormalization group methods. We observe a nonmagnetic charge order that is imprinted by the incommensurate moir\'e stacking with the substrate and enhanced by the electronic Fermi surface scattering within the flat-band surface state. We further identify a nonmagnetic, metastable $c(2 \times 2)$ surface reconstruction that arises from surface phonon softening and can be toggled reversibly via STM tip manipulation. Spin-polarized STM measurements, however, reveal no evidence of magnetic order on the RuO$_2$(110) surface. Our findings of a nonmagnetic charge-modulation position ultrathin RuO$_2$(110) as an intriguing platform for exploring moir\'e-assisted electronic orders.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    Over, H. et al. Atomic-Scale Structure and Catalytic Reactivity of the RuO 2(110) Surface. Science 287, 1474–1476 (2000). URL https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/ science.287.5457.1474

    work page arXiv 2000

  2. [1]

    Surface Chemistry of Ruthenium Dioxide in Heterogeneous Catalysis and Elec- trocatalysis: From Fundamental to Applied Research

    Over, H. Surface Chemistry of Ruthenium Dioxide in Heterogeneous Catalysis and Elec- trocatalysis: From Fundamental to Applied Research. Chemical Reviews 112, 3356–3426 (2012). URL http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/ 10.1021/cr200247n. 9

    work page doi:10.1021/cr200247n 2012

  3. [2]

    & Yan, B

    Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, C.-X., Felser, C. & Yan, B. Dirac nodal lines and induced spin Hall effect in metallic rutile oxides. Physical Review B 95, 235104 (2017). URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.95.235104

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Jovic, V. et al. Momentum for Catalysis: How Surface Reactions Shape the RuO2 Flat Surface State. ACS Catalysis 11, 1749–1757 (2021). URL https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10. 1021/acscatal.0c04871

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Feng, Z. et al. An anomalous Hall effect in altermagnetic ruthenium diox- ide. Nature Electronics 5, 735–743 (2022). URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41928-022-00866-z

    work page 2022

  6. [5]

    J., Perry, E

    Lee, Y., Suntivich, J., May, K. J., Perry, E. E. & Shao-Horn, Y. Synthesis and Activ- ities of Rutile IrO 2 and RuO2 Nanoparticles for Oxygen Evolution in Acid and Alkaline Solutions. The Journal of Physical Chem- istry Letters 3, 399–404 (2012). URL https: //pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jz2016507

    work page doi:10.1021/jz2016507 2012

  7. [6]

    G., Frankenthal, R

    Vadimsky, R. G., Frankenthal, R. P. & Thompson, D. E. Ru and RuO 2 as Elec- trical Contact Materials: Preparation and Environmental Interactions. Journal of The Electrochemical Society 126, 2017–2023 (1979). URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1149/1.2128846

    work page doi:10.1149/1.2128846 1979

  8. [7]

    & Jungwirth, T

    ˇSmejkal, L., Sinova, J. & Jungwirth, T. Emerging research landscape of altermag- netism. Physical Review X 12, 040501 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.12.040501

    work page 2022

Show all 70 references
  1. [8]

    & Jungwirth, T

    ˇSmejkal, L., Sinova, J. & Jungwirth, T. Beyond conventional ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism: A phase with nonrel- ativistic spin and crystal rotation sym- metry. Physical Review X 12, 031042 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.12.031042

    2022

  2. [9]

    Betancourt, R. G. et al. Spontaneous Anoma- lous Hall Effect Arising from an Unconven- tional Compensated Magnetic Phase in a Semiconductor. Physical Review Letters 130, 036702 (2023). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.036702

    2023 doi

  3. [10]

    Tschirner, T. et al. Saturation of the anomalous Hall effect at high magnetic fields in altermagnetic RuO 2. APL Materials 11 (2023). URL https://pubs.aip.org/apm/ article/11/10/101103/2913994/

    2023

  4. [11]

    Zhou, X. et al. Crystal Thermal Trans- port in Altermagnetic RuO 2. Physical Review Letters 132, 056701 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.132.056701

    2024

  5. [12]

    Guo, Y. et al. Direct and Inverse Spin Splitting Effects in Altermagnetic RuO2. Advanced Science 11 (2024). URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. 1002/advs.202400967

    2024

  6. [13]

    Jeong, S. G. et al. Metallicity and anomalous Hall effect in epitaxially strained, atomically thin RuO2 films. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122 (2025). URL https: //pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2500831122

    2025 doi

  7. [14]

    Mattheiss, L. F. Electronic structure of RuO2, OsO 2, and IrO 2. Physical Review B 13, 2433–2450 (1976). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.13.2433

    1976 doi

  8. [15]

    Jovic, V. et al. Dirac nodal lines and flat-band surface state in the functional oxide RuO2. Physical Review B 98, 241101 (2018). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.98.241101

    2018

  9. [16]

    Jovic, V. et al. The Dirac nodal line net- work in non-symmorphic rutile semimetal RuO2. cond-mat.mes-hall (2019). URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/1908.02621

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    & Kuneˇ s, J

    Ahn, K.-H., Hariki, A., Lee, K.-W. & Kuneˇ s, J. Antiferromagnetism in RuO 2 as d-wave Pomeranchuk instability. Physical Review B 99, 184432 (2019). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.99.184432

    2019 doi

  11. [18]

    Berlijn, T. et al. Itinerant Antiferromag- netism in RuO 2. Physical Review Letters 10 118, 077201 (2017). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.077201

    2017 doi

  12. [19]

    Zhu, Z. et al. Anomalous Antiferromagnetism in Metallic RuO 2 Determined by Resonant X-ray Scattering. Physical Review Letters 122, 017202 (2019). URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.017202

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    W., Khalyavin, D

    Lovesey, S. W., Khalyavin, D. D. & van der Laan, G. Magnetic properties of RuO 2 and charge-magnetic interference in Bragg diffraction of circularly polarized x-rays. Physical Review B 105, 014403 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.105.014403

    2022

  14. [21]

    I., Garcia-Gassull, L

    Smolyanyuk, A., Mazin, I. I., Garcia-Gassull, L. & Valent´ ı, R. Fragility of the mag- netic order in the prototypical altermagnet RuO2. Physical Review B 109, 134424 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.109.134424

    2024

  15. [22]

    Keßler, P. et al. Absence of magnetic order in RuO 2: insights from µSR spectroscopy and neutron diffraction. npj Spintronics 2, 50 (2024). URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/s44306-024-00055-y

    2024

  16. [23]

    Kiefer, L. et al. Crystal structure and absence of magnetic order in single-crystalline RuO 2. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 37, 135801 (2025). URL https://iopscience.iop. org/article/10.1088/1361-648X/adad2a

    2025 doi

  17. [24]

    Pawula, F. et al. Multiband transport in RuO2. Physical Review B 110, 064432 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.110.064432

    2024

  18. [25]

    Peng, X. et al. Universal Scaling Behav- ior of Transport Properties in Non-Magnetic RuO2 (2024). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2412.12258

    2024 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Fedchenko, O. et al. Observation of time- reversal symmetry breaking in the band structure of altermagnetic RuO 2. Science Advances 10, 31 (2024). URL https://www. science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adj4883

    2024 doi

  20. [27]

    Liu, J. et al. Absence of Altermagnetic Spin Splitting Character in Rutile Oxide RuO2. Physical Review Letters 133, 176401 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.133.176401

    2024

  21. [28]

    Plouff, D. T. et al. Revisiting altermag- netism in RuO 2: a study of laser-pulse induced charge dynamics by time-domain terahertz spectroscopy. npj Spintronics 3, 17 (2025). URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/s44306-025-00083-2

    2025

  22. [29]

    W., Khalyavin, D

    Lovesey, S. W., Khalyavin, D. D. & van der Laan, G. Magnetic structure of RuO2 in view of altermagnetism. Physical Review B 108, L121103 (2023). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.108.L121103

    2023 doi

  23. [30]

    & Mazin, I

    Smolyanyuk, A., ˇSmejkal, L. & Mazin, I. I. Origin of the anomalous Hall effect in Cr- doped RuO2. Physical Review B 111, 064406 (2025). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.111.064406

    2025

  24. [31]

    Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    Giamarchi, T. Quantum Physics in One Dimension (Oxford University Press, 2003). URL https://academic.oup.com/ book/27811

    2003

  25. [32]

    Brahimi, S., Rai, D. P. & Lounis, S. Confinement-induced altermangetism in RuO 2 thin films (2024). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15377

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Jeong, S. G. et al. Altermagnetic Polar Metallic phase in Ultra-Thin Epitaxially- Strained RuO 2 Films (2024). URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.05838

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    M., de Wijs, G

    Torun, E., Fang, C. M., de Wijs, G. A. & de Groot, R. A. Role of Magnetism in Catalysis: RuO 2(110) Surface. The Jour- nal of Physical Chemistry C 117, 6353–6357 (2013). URL https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10. 1021/jp4020367

    2013

  28. [35]

    Q., To, D

    Ho, D. Q., To, D. Q., Hu, R., Bryant, G. W. & Janotti, A. Symmetry-breaking induced surface magnetization in non-magnetic RuO2 (2025). URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2502. 03751. 11

    2025

  29. [36]

    & Chen, W

    Hu, H.-R., Wan, X. & Chen, W. Quasi- particle interference in altermagnets. Physical Review B 111, 035132 (2025). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.111.035132

    2025

  30. [37]

    & Linder, J

    Sukhachov, P. & Linder, J. Impurity-induced Friedel oscillations in altermagnets and p- wave magnets. Physical Review B 110, 205114 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.110.205114

    2024 doi

  31. [38]

    Keßler, P. et al. Epitaxial RuO 2 and IrO2 films by pulsed laser deposition on TiO2(110). APL Materials 12 (2024). URL https://pubs.aip.org/apm/article/12/ 10/101110/3317172/

    2024

  32. [40]

    & Varga, P

    Over, H., Seitsonen, A., Lundgren, E., Schmid, M. & Varga, P. Experimental and simulated STM images of stoichiometric and partially reduced RuO2(110) surfaces includ- ing adsorbates. Surface Science 515, 143– 156 (2002). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S00396...

    2002

  33. [41]

    & Wintterlin, J

    R¨ ossler, M., G¨ unther, S. & Wintterlin, J. Scanning Tunneling Microscopy of the RuO2(110) Surface at Ambient Oxygen Pres- sure. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 111, 2242–2250 (2007). URL https://pubs. acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp065182j

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Electron atomic scattering factors and scattering potentials of crys- tals

    Peng, L.-M. Electron atomic scattering factors and scattering potentials of crys- tals. Micron 30, 625–648 (1999). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0968432899000335

    1999

  35. [43]

    M., Zimmermann, K

    Rodriguez, J. M., Zimmermann, K. M., Chevalier, P., Marcus, J. & Veuillen, J. Y. Contrast reversal of the charge density wave stm image in purple potassium molybdenum bronze (formula presented). Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 60, 2122–2126 (1999)

    1999

  36. [44]

    Mallet, P., Guyot, H., Veuillen, J. Y. & Motta, N. Charge-density-wave STM obser- vation in η–Mo4O11. Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 63, 9–12 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    Spera, M. et al. Insight into the charge density wave gap from contrast inversion in topographic stm images. Physical Review Letters 125, 267603 (2020). URL https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.267603

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    White, S. R. Density matrix formula- tion for quantum renormalization groups. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2863–2866 (1992). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.69.2863

    1992

  39. [47]

    The density-matrix renor- malization group in the age of matrix product states

    Schollw¨ ock, U. The density-matrix renor- malization group in the age of matrix product states. Annals of Physics 326, 96– 192 (2011). URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0003491610001752. January 2011 Special Issue

    2011

  40. [48]

    R., Affleck, I

    White, S. R., Affleck, I. & Scalapino, D. J. Friedel oscillations and charge density waves in chains and ladders. Physical Review B 65, 165122 (2002). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.65.165122

    2002 doi

  41. [49]

    & Bl¨ ugel, S

    Kurz, P., Bihlmayer, G. & Bl¨ ugel, S. Mag- netism and electronic structure of hcp Gd and the Gd(0001) surface. Jour- nal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14, 305 (2002). URL https://iopscience.iop.org/ article/10.1088/0953-8984/14/25/305

    2002 doi

  42. [50]

    & Bode, M

    H¨ artl, P., Leisegang, M. & Bode, M. Mag- netic domain structure of epitaxial Gd films grown on W(110). Physical Review B 105, 174431 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.105.174431

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    & Furthm¨ uller, J

    Kresse, G. & Furthm¨ uller, J. Effi- cient iterative schemes for ab initio total- energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Physical Review B 54, 11169–11186 (1996). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.54.11169. 12

    1996

  44. [52]

    & Joubert, D

    Kresse, G. & Joubert, D. From ultra- soft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Physical Review B 59, 1758–1775 (1999). URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.59.1758

    1999 doi

  45. [53]

    Bl¨ ochl, P. E. Projector augmented-wave method. Physical Review B 50, 17953– 17979 (1994). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953

    1994 doi

  46. [54]

    Perdew, J. P. et al. Atoms, molecules, solids, and surfaces: Applications of the generalized gradient approximation for exchange and cor- relation. Physical Review B 46, 6671–6687 (1992). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.46.6671

    1992

  47. [55]

    P., Burke, K

    Perdew, J. P., Burke, K. & Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. Physical Review Letters 77, 3865– 3868 (1996). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865

    1996 doi

  48. [56]

    White, S. R. Density matrix renormaliza- tion group algorithms with a single cen- ter site. Physical Review B 72, 180403 (2005). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.72.180403

    2005

  49. [57]

    Fishman, M., White, S. R. & Stoudenmire, E. M. The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calculations. SciPost Phys. Codebases 4 (2022). URL https://scipost. org/10.21468/SciPostPhysCodeb.4

    2022 doi

  50. [58]

    Fishman, M., White, S. R. & Stouden- mire, E. M. Codebase release 0.3 for ITensor. SciPost Phys. Codebases 4–r0.3 (2022). URL https://scipost.org/10.21468/ SciPostPhysCodeb.4-r0.3

    2022

  51. [59]

    & Gerhardt, W

    Sch¨ afer, H., Schneidereit, G. & Gerhardt, W. Zur Chemie der Platinmetalle. RuO 2 Chemischer Transport, Eigenschaften, ther- mischer Zerfall. Zeitschrift f¨ ur anorganis- che und allgemeine Chemie 319, 327–336 (1963). URL http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/ zaac.19633190514

    1963

  52. [60]

    Over, H. et al. Visualization of Atomic Processes on Ruthenium Diox- ide using Scanning Tunneling Microscopy. ChemPhysChem 5, 167–174 (2004). URL https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cphc.200300833

    2004 doi

  53. [61]

    & Over, H

    Herd, B., Knapp, M. & Over, H. Atomic Scale Insights into the Initial Oxidation of Ru(0001) Using Molecular Oxygen: A Scan- ning Tunneling Microscopy Study. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 116, 24649– 24660 (2012). URL https://pubs.acs.org/ doi/10.1021/jp3085155

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    & Over, H

    Goriachko, A. & Over, H. The Nanostructur- ing of Atomically Flat Ru(0001) upon Oxi- dation and Reduction. Nanoscale Research Letters 11, 534 (2016). URL https://link. springer.com/10.1186/s11671-016-1757-2

    2016 doi

  55. [63]

    & Over, H

    He, Y., Langsdorf, D., Li, L. & Over, H. Ver- satile Model System for Studying Processes Ranging from Heterogeneous to Photocatal- ysis: Epitaxial RuO2(110) on TiO2(110). The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 119, 2692– 2702 (2015). URL https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ 10.1021/jp5121405

    2015 doi

  56. [64]

    Minkin, A. S. et al. Interlayer interaction, shear vibrational mode, and tribologi- cal properties of two-dimensional bilayers with a commensurate moir´ e pattern. Physical Review B 108, 085411 (2023). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.108.085411

    2023

  57. [65]

    & Mila, F

    Chepiga, N. & Mila, F. Lifshitz point at commensurate melting of chains of Rydberg atoms. Physical Review Research 3, 023049 (2021). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.3.023049

    2021

  58. [66]

    & Over, H

    Kim, Y., Seitsonen, A. & Over, H. The atomic geometry of oxygen-rich Ru(0001) surfaces: coexistence of (1 ×1)O and RuO2(110) domains. Surface Science 465, 1–8 (2000). URL https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0039602800007330

    2000

  59. [67]

    Kim, Y. D. et al. Characterization of Var- ious Oxygen Species on an Oxide Surface: 13 RuO2(110). The Journal of Physical Chem- istry B 105, 3752–3758 (2001). URL https: //pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp003213j

    2001 doi

  60. [68]

    D., Schwegmann, S., Seitsonen, A

    Kim, Y. D., Schwegmann, S., Seitsonen, A. P. & Over, H. Epitaxial Growth of RuO 2(100) on Ru(10 ¯10): Surface Structure and Other Properties. The Journal of Physical Chem- istry B 105, 2205–2211 (2001). URL https: //pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jp003650y

    2001 doi

  61. [69]

    Cotton, F. A. & Mague, J. T. The Crys- tal and Molecular Structure of Tetragonal Ruthenium Dioxide. Inorganic Chemistry 5, 317–318 (1966). URL https://pubs.acs.org/ doi/abs/10.1021/ic50036a037

    1966 doi

  62. [70]

    & Ugrinic, G

    Swanson, H., Fuyat, R. & Ugrinic, G. Standard X-ray Diffraction Powder Pat- terns, NBS CIRCULAR 539, Volume IV. Tech. Rep., National Bureau of Standards (1955). URL https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/ nistpubs/Legacy/circ/nbscircular539v4.pdf. 14

    1955

Pith tools

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