Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Evidence of the impurity spin coupling with quantum paraelectric fluctuations in CaTi1-xRuxO3

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Dilute ruthenium impurities in the quantum paraelectric CaTiO3 produce a ferromagnetic-like ordered state below about 35 K, which the paper attributes to coupling of impurity spins to quantum paraelectric fluctuations rather than to…

desk verdict New dilute-Ru magnetization data and a useful CaZrO3 control, but the QPE-coupling story leans on a T* coincidence that does not survive the metallic side of the same phase diagram. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01631 v1 pith:WDFV3Q7B submitted 2019-08-05 cond-mat.str-el

Ivica M. Bradarić , Feodor V. Kusmartsev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantumparaelectricityCaTiO3Ti1-xRuximpuritymagnetismdynamicalmultiferroicityrutheniumdopingferromagnetic-liketransitionspin-latticecoupling
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 claims that ruthenium impurities dissolved in the quantum paraelectric CaTiO3—a material whose zero-point lattice fluctuations suppress ferroelectric order even at zero temperature—create a ferromagnetic-like ordered state below roughly 35 K. The transition already appears at 0.5% Ru per formula unit, remains at the same temperature up to 12.5% Ru, and is accompanied by magnetic hysteresis; the authors therefore exclude conventional Ru-Ru exchange, dipole interactions, or charge transfer as the origin. Instead they attribute the order to the coupling of each impurity spin to the fluctuating electric dipoles of the host, mediated by the dynamical multiferroicity mechanism in which time-varying polarization induces a local magnetization. If correct, the impurities act as a probe revealing that CaTiO3 enters a quantum paraelectric phase at $T^*\approx 35$ K, and spin coupling to quantum paraelectric fluctuations becomes a new route to magnetism in nominally nonmagnetic dielectrics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the impurity spin used as a local probe of quantum paraelectric fluctuations, and the mediating mechanism is dynamical multiferroicity: oscillating polar phonons create a time-dependent electric polarization $\mathbf{P}$, which induces a magnetization $\mathbf{M}\sim\mathbf{P}\times\partial_t\mathbf{P}$ that couples to the Ru$^{4+}$ spin and produces the observed ordered state. Barrett’s formula, $\varepsilon_r(T)=A+C/[(T_1/2)\coth(T_1/2T)-T_0]$, is used to identify the quantum regime of CaTiO$_3$ and to locate $T^*\approx 35$ K as the temperature where the dielectric constant saturates.

What would settle it

Measure the dielectric permittivity of CaTi$_{0.98}$Ru$_{0.02}$O$_3$: the interpretation requires a Barrett-type saturation near $T^*\approx 35$ K that does not shift with ruthenium concentration, and it requires CaZr$_{0.95}$Ru$_{0.05}$O$_3$ with matched oxygen-vacancy content to stay paramagnetic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that dilute Ru$^{4+}$ impurities substituted into the quantum paraelectric host CaTiO$_3$ acquire a spin-polarized, ferromagnetic-like ground state below $T^*\approx 35$ K, not through conventional exchange but through coupling of each impurity spin to the fluctuating electric dipoles that characterize the quantum paraelectric regime. Already 0.5% Ru per formula unit produces a divergence between zero-field-cooled and field-cooled susceptibility and magnetic hysteresis at 2 K, with the transition temperature remaining fixed near 35 K up to 12.5% Ru. Because no conventional magnetic interaction—dipole-dipole, Ru-Ti charge transfer, or cluster-based exchange—can operate at these dilutions, the authors attribute the order to dynamical multiferroicity, in which time-varying polarization $\mathbf{P}$ generates a magnetization $\mathbf{M}\sim\mathbf{P}\times\partial_t\mathbf{P}$ that couples to impurity spins. The same 35 K marks the saturation of the host’s dielectric constant in Barrett’s formula, and a control sample in the non-quantum-paraelectric host CaZrO$_3$ shows only paramagnetism. The paper therefore presents the impurity magnetism as evidence for a finite-temperature phase transition in CaTiO$_3$ into a quantum paraelectric phase.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on attributing the low-temperature magnetism to electric-dipole fluctuations in the host lattice rather than to oxygen vacancies, ruthenium clustering, or other defects, even though the paper does not measure the doped samples’ own dielectric response and the control host differs in more than just those fluctuations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ferromagnetic-like ordering temperature is pinned at $T^*\approx 35$ K from 0.5% to 12.5% Ru, so the magnetism is a property of the dilute-impurity/host system, not of Ru-Ru interactions.
  • CaTiO$_3$ is inferred to undergo a finite-temperature transition from paraelectric to quantum paraelectric phase at $T^*\approx 35$ K, a coherent quantum state analogous to the proposed 37 K phase in SrTiO$_3$.
  • Impurity spins can be ordered by quantum paraelectric fluctuations without conventional exchange, so dynamical multiferroicity can produce magnetic order in structurally and electronically simple hosts.
  • The Ru impurity acts as a local detector of quantum paraelectric fluctuations, making dilute magnetic probes a spectroscopic tool for quantum paraelectrics.
  • The same spin-charge-dynamics coupling may be ubiquitous in anisotropic systems, surfaces, and interfaces, pointing to design of materials with tailored magnetoelectric responses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the doped specimens’ dielectric response was not measured, the natural next experiment is dielectric spectroscopy on CaTi$_{1-x}$Ru$_x$O$_3$; the picture predicts the 35 K Barrett saturation to be independent of $x$.
  • The same coupling should appear in other quantum paraelectrics such as SrTiO$_3$ or KTaO$_3$ with dilute magnetic impurities, where a concentration-independent magnetic onset below the dielectric saturation temperature would signal a universal spin–quantum paraelectric coupling.
  • An electric field or uniaxial stress applied near $T^*$ should modulate the magnetic transition if impurity spins are coupled to electric-dipole fluctuations, a magnetoelectric consequence the paper does not pursue.
  • Pure CaTiO$_3$ itself should show a weak thermodynamic or dielectric anomaly near 35 K, which could be looked for in specific-heat or precise dielectric data.
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

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports DC and AC magnetization measurements on ceramic CaTi1-xRuxO3 samples with low Ru concentrations (0.5% to 12.5%) and finds a concentration-independent ferromagnetic-like transition below T* ≈ 35 K, whereas pure CaTiO3 remains paramagnetic. It argues that conventional magnetic interactions cannot explain this ordering and attributes it to coupling of Ru impurity spins to quantum paraelectric (QPE) fluctuations of the CaTiO3 host. The evidence adduced is (i) the coincidence between the magnetic onset and the saturation temperature of the dielectric constant of pure CaTiO3, obtained from literature Barrett-fit parameters, and (ii) the absence of ferromagnetic order in an equally doped CaZr0.95Ru0.05O3 control sample. The paper further proposes dynamical multiferroicity as a possible coupling mechanism and infers from the magnetic response that CaTiO3 undergoes a finite-temperature transition from a paraelectric to a quantum paraelectric phase.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the work would identify a new coupling between impurity spins and quantum paraelectric fluctuations, with implications for the design of quantum materials and for using dilute magnetic impurities as local probes of quantum paraelectric order. The magnetic data in Fig. 2 appear internally consistent, the ZFC/FC divergence and hysteresis are clearly demonstrated, and the CaZrO3 control in Fig. 3 is a useful negative experiment. The paper also deserves credit for using published Barrett-fit values for pure CaTiO3 rather than fitting the transition temperature from its own data. However, as it stands, the evidence is circumstantial: no dielectric measurements are reported for the doped samples, no quantitative mechanism is derived, and extrinsic contributions such as oxygen vacancies or Ru clustering are not characterized. The manuscript therefore advances an intriguing hypothesis rather than providing demonstrated evidence.

major comments (6)
  1. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Because we have exhausted conventional mechanisms...'] The central attribution rests entirely on a temperature coincidence with pure CaTiO3 dielectric data, not on measurements of the doped samples. The paragraph uses Barrett-fit parameters from ref. 26 for pure CaTiO3 and states that the dielectric constant saturates at 35 K, but no dielectric data for CaTi1-xRuxO3 are shown. Since Ru substitution introduces carriers and disorder, the QPE regime in the doped samples could be shifted, broadened, or destroyed; without a measured dielectric signature in the same samples, the claim that T* marks the onset of QPE fluctuations is unsupported.
  2. [Main text, Fig. 1B and references 16-19] The concentration independence of T* across the full solid solution undermines the unique link to CaTiO3 QPE. The paper explicitly notes that the same ferromagnetic-like transition near T* ≈ 35 K appears for the entire CaTi1-xRuxO3 series, including the Ru-rich metallic side that is essentially CaRuO3. CaRuO3 is not a quantum paraelectric; if T* remains pinned near 35 K in that regime, the transition temperature cannot be a unique fingerprint of CaTiO3 QPE fluctuations. The manuscript does not explain how the QPE attribution survives on the Ru-rich side of the phase diagram.
  3. [Main text, paragraphs beginning 'Next, we show...' and 'Finally, in order to confirm...'] The exclusion of conventional magnetic mechanisms is incomplete, and the dismissal of oxygen vacancies and domain-wall effects is unsupported. The argument rules out dipole-dipole and Ti-mediated superexchange interactions assuming an ideal cubic lattice and an even distribution of Ru ions, but no structural, spectroscopic, or local-probe data are presented to justify these assumptions. The text admits 'parasitic paramagnetism stemming from the oxygen vacancies' but merely asserts that it does not influence the results. It also notes that oxygen vacancies tend to be trapped in ferrielectric twin walls (ref. 35) yet dismisses any contribution from static polar regions because only time-varying polarization can produce dynamical multiferroicity. This does not rule out vacancy-induced moments, Ru clustering, or static local polarization coupled to impurity spins through more conventional mechanisms.
  4. [Main text, Fig. 3 and paragraph beginning 'Finally, in order to confirm...'] The CaZrO3 control does not isolate the QPE mechanism. The comparison in Fig. 3 shows that CaZr0.95Ru0.05O3 behaves paramagnetically while CaTi0.95Ru0.05O3 orders ferromagnetically, but the two hosts differ in lattice constant, tolerance factor, dielectric behavior, and potentially in Ru solubility and oxygen stoichiometry. The control demonstrates that the effect is not generic to all perovskite hosts, but it does not prove that the active ingredient in CaTiO3 is specifically QPE fluctuations rather than another host-specific property such as a particular Ti-O hybridization or structural distortion.
  5. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Now, we can view the Ru impurity as a probe...'] The inference of a finite-temperature transition from paraelectric to quantum paraelectric phase in CaTiO3 is logically unsupported. The claim 'as magnetism occurs only when the system enters quantum regime, it follows that CaTiO3 undergoes finite temperature phase transition' treats the magnetic response as direct evidence of the host's quantum regime, which is precisely the point at issue. In addition, the statement that 'quantum phase transitions do not involve entropy' does not imply that the QPE phase below T* is ordered; the concept of quantum coherence invoked here is not defined or derived from any microscopic model.
  6. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Next, we discuss a possible route...'] The proposed dynamical multiferroicity mechanism is qualitative and is not connected to the experimental energy scales. The paper invokes M ~ r × j ~ P × ∂tP and a static magnetization from two degenerate optical phonons, but it provides no estimate of the coupling strength to Ru impurity spins, no predicted ordering temperature, and no explanation for why the ordering temperature is concentration independent. Without a quantitative model showing that QPE fluctuations can order dilute Ru moments at approximately 35 K, the central causal claim remains a conjecture.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and main text] The phrase 'bellow 35 K' in the description of Fig. 2 should read 'below 35 K'.
  2. [References, ref. 21] Reference 21 is cited as 'See supplementary materials', but no supplementary file is provided with the manuscript; this reference is unresolved.
  3. [Fig. 1B caption] The caption lists 'blue circles – this work, black squares (16), red up triangles (17, 18)', but the text does not specify which concentrations correspond to each symbol, making it difficult to assess the claimed concentration independence.
  4. [Fig. 2B caption] The measured frequencies listed in the text are 0.1, 1, 10, and 100 Hz, while the figure caption for Fig. 3A lists 0.1, 1, 10, and 1000 Hz; please verify that the labels match the actual measurements.
  5. [Main text, paragraph beginning 'Next, we discuss a possible route...'] The notation P × ∂tP should be defined explicitly, since the symbol P is not formally introduced and the derivative notation could be ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the T* coincidence is an external comparison, not a fitted prediction, and the central attribution is supported by new data and a control experiment.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The authors observe a ferromagnetic-like transition below T*≈35 K in Ru-doped CaTiO3 across several concentrations (0.5%, 1.25%, 2%, 12.5%) and compare this onset with the saturation temperature of the dielectric constant of pure CaTiO3 taken from published Barrett-fit parameters (refs 26, 30). No parameter is fitted to the magnetic data to force the coincidence; the dielectric saturation temperature is an independent external input. The CaZrO3 control is a separate experiment showing that a non-quantum-paraelectric host does not produce the same magnetism, providing independent discriminative evidence. The mechanism invoking dynamical multiferroicity (ref 31) is an external theoretical proposal used qualitatively, not an ansatz smuggled in from the authors' own prior work. Self-citations (refs 17-18) document earlier measurements of the concentration-independent transition, but the present paper adds new low-doping magnetometry, AC susceptibility, and hysteresis data, and the cited results are independently reproducible experimental facts, not derived from the present model. The final inference that CaTiO3 undergoes a finite-temperature phase transition into a QPE state at T* is an overinterpretation of a smooth dielectric saturation, but this is a correctness risk, not circularity, because the conclusion is not assumed in the premises. Overall, the central claim rests on external benchmarks and new measurements, yielding no reduction of the result to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is not derived from first principles; it loads on five unproved premises: the QPE nature of CaTiO3, the irrelevance of conventional exchange, the inertness of oxygen vacancies, the applicability of dynamical multiferroicity, and the ordered nature of the QPE state. No new free parameters are fitted in this paper; the only fitted quantities are Barrett dielectric parameters borrowed from ref. 26.

free parameters (1)
  • Barrett dielectric fit parameters for CaTiO3 (C, T1, T0) = C = 7.7e4 K, T1 = 104 K, T0 = -159 K
    Borrowed from ref. 26; used to identify 35 K as the saturation/quantum-regime temperature that is matched to the magnetic T*. Not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption CaTiO3 is a quantum paraelectric with dielectric saturation near 35 K.
    Invoked from refs. 26 and 30; not measured on the doped samples studied here.
  • domain assumption Conventional magnetic interactions between Ru impurities are negligible due to large Ti-Ru band separation.
    Extrapolated from photoemission on SrRu1-xTixO3 (ref. 27) to CaTiO3; used to rule out exchange paths.
  • ad hoc to paper Oxygen vacancies do not affect the magnetic response beyond a parasitic shielding effect.
    Asserted in the text without supporting measurement; central to excluding defect magnetism.
  • domain assumption Dynamical multiferroicity applies: time-varying polarization induces magnetization M ~ P x dP/dt, which couples to impurity spins.
    Invoked from ref. 31 as the coupling mechanism; not demonstrated for this material.
  • ad hoc to paper A quantum paraelectric phase is an ordered quantum coherent state because quantum phase transitions do not involve entropy.
    Inferred conceptually in the discussion; used to support a finite-temperature transition at T*.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence of the impurity spin coupling with quantum paraelectric fluctuations in CaTi1-xRuxO3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDFV3Q7B

@misc{pith2026190801631,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence of the impurity spin coupling with quantum paraelectric fluctuations in CaTi1-xRuxO3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDFV3Q7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01631}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum paraelectrics are materials in which a long-range ferroelectric/antiferroelectric order is suppressed by quantum fluctuations, i.e. zero-point motion of the lattice prevents condensation of the soft polar phonon mode even at T = 0 K. The most prominent quantum paraelectric materials are SrTiO3, KTaO3, and CaTiO3. Here we focus on peculiar properties of the pseudo-cubic perovskite CaTi1-xRuxO3 system. Namely, as soon as any concentration of either Ru or Ti is introduced into the pure compounds, a concentration-independent ferromagnetic-like transition occurs at low temperatures. We present the experimental evidence of the spin-polarized ground state of CaTi1-xRuxO3 induced by coupling of magnetic moments of Ru impurities with quantum paraelectric fluctuations in the host compound CaTiO3.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01631 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. B we summarized the results of AC magnetic susceptibility experiments on CaTiO3, 1.25%, 2%, and 12.5% Ru per formula unit. Clearly, FM behavior is observed in all Ru doped samples as compared with paramagnetic response of CaTiO3. FM is also evidenced in magnetic hysteresis in 2% Ru doped sample (remanent mass magnetization σR = 4.8 × 10-4 Am2 /kg and coercive magnetic field HC = 2695 A/m), shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ed

    S. Sachdev, Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ed. 2, 2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    N. Das, S. Mishra , Fluctuations and criticalit y in quantum paraelectrics . J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21, 095901 (2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Pálová, P

    L. Pálová, P. Chandra, P. Coleman, Quantum cr itical paraelectrics and the Casimir effect in time. Phys. Rev. B 79, 075101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    S. E. Rowley, L. J. Spalek, R. P. Smith, M. P. M. Dean, M. Itoh, J. F. Scott, G. G. Lonzarich, S. S. Saxena, Ferroelectric quantum criticality. Nat. Phys. 10, 367 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    K. A. M üller, H. Burkard, SrTiO 3: An intrinsic quantum paraelectric below 4 K. Phys. Rev. B 19, 3593 (1979)

    work page 1979

  6. [6]

    J. F. Schooley, W. R. Hosler, E. Ambler, J. H. Becker, M . L. Cohen, C. S. Koonce , Dependence of the Superconducting Transition Temperature on Carrier Concentration in Semiconducting SrTiO3. Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 305 (1965)

    work page 1965

  7. [7]

    Baratoff, G

    A. Baratoff, G. Binnig, Mechanism of Superconductivity in SrTiO 3. Physica B+C 108, 1335 (1981)

    work page 1981

  8. [8]

    Bussmann -Holder, A

    A. Bussmann -Holder, A. Simon, H. Buttner, Possibility of a common origin to ferroelectricity and superconductivity in oxides. Phys. Rev. B 39, 207 (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    S. R. Shenoy, V. Subrahmanyam, A. R. Bishop, Quantum Paraelectric Model for Layered Superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4657 (1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    J. L. Birman, N. A. Zimbovskaya, Electrodynamics of nearly ferroelectric superconductors. Phys. Rev. B 64, 144506 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Bussmann -Holder, A

    A. Bussmann -Holder, A. Simon, A. R. Bishop, Ferroelectricity and superconductivity competing or cooperating phenomena. Z. Kristallogr. 226, 177 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    J. M. Edge, Y . Kedem, U. Aschauer, N. A. Spaldin, A . V. Balatsky, Quantum Critical Origin of the Superconducting Dome in SrTiO3. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 247002 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    C. W. Rischau, X. Lin, C. P. Grams, D. Finck, S. Harms, J. Engelmayer , T. Lorenz , Y. Gallais, B. Fauqué , J. Hemberger , K. Behnia , A ferroelectric quantum phase transition inside the superconducting dome of Sr1−xCaxTiO3−δ. Nat. Phys. 13, 643 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Ishikava, M

    T. Ishikava, M. Kurita, S. Koshihara, M. Takaseda, M. Itoh, High Carrier Mobility Coupled with Quantum Paraelectric Fluctuation. Ferroelectrics 346, 10 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Shimozawa, K

    M. Shimozawa, K. Hashimoto, A. Ueda, Y. Suzuki, K. Sugii, S. Yamada, Y. Imai , Quantum-disordered state of magnetic and electric dipoles in a hydrogen -bonded Mott system. Nat. Commun. 8, 1821 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Hardy, B

    V. Hardy, B. Raveau, R. Retoux, N. Barrier, A. Maignan, Nature of the ferromagnetism induced by nonmagnetic substitutions on the Ru site of CaRuO 3. Phys. Rev. B 73, 094418 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    Zorkovská, A

    A. Zorkovská, A. Baran, I. Bradarić, I. Savić, J. Šebek, E. Šantava. P. Svoboda, D. Marinčev, S. Kohout, H. Keller, A. Feher, Influence of Ti 4+ on the magnetic state of CaRu1-xTixO3. Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 316, e699 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Baran, A

    A. Baran, A. Zorkovská, M. Kajňaková, J. Šebek, E. Šantava, I. Bradarić, A. Feher, Quantum criticality in CaRuO 3 – Influence of Ti substitution. Phys. Status Solidi B 249, 1607 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    T. He, R. J. Cava, Disorder-induced ferromagnetism in CaRuO3. Phys. Rev. B 63, 172403 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    R. D. Shannon, Revised effective ionic radii and systematic studies of interatomic distances in halides and chalcogenides. Acta Cryst. A 32, 751 (1976)

    1976

  13. [21]

    See supplementary materials

  14. [22]

    H. W. Eng, P. W. Barnes, B. M. Auer, P. M. Woodward, Investigations of the electronic structure of d0 transition metal oxides belonging to the perovskite family. Journal of Solid State Chemistry 175, 94 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Gunasekera, L

    J. Gunasekera, L. Harriger, T. Heitmann, A. Dahal, H. Knoll, D. K. Singh, Quasilocal critical nature of cooperative paramagnetic fluctuations in CaRuO 3 metal. Phys. Rev. B 91, 241103 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    Magnetism in ruthenates

    D. J. Singh , “Magnetism in ruthenates” in Electronic Structure and Magnetism of Complex Materials , D. J. Singh, D. A. Papaconstantopoulos, Eds. (Springer series in Materials Science, 2003), Vol. 54, chap. 7

    2003

  17. [25]

    B. Chen, P. Chen, H. Xu, F. Jin, Z. Guo, D. Lan, S. Wan, G. Gao, F. Chen, W . Wu, Interfacial Control of F erromagnetism in Ultrathin La 0.67Ca0.33MnO3 Sandwiched between CaRu1–xTixO (x=0–0.8) Epilayers. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 8, 34924 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    I.-S. Kim, M. Itoh, T. Nakamura, Electrical conductivity and metal-nonmetal transition in the perovskite -related layered system Ca n+1TinO3n+1-δ (n=2,3, and ∞) . Journal of Solid State Chemistry 101, 77 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    Kim, J.-Y

    J. Kim, J.-Y. Kim, B.-G. Park, S.-J. Oh, Photoemission and x -ray absorption study of the electronic structure of SrRu1-xTixO3. Phys. Rev. B 73, 235109 (2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    S. A. Fedulov, Y. Venevtsev, Study of the systems lead titanate -calcium stannate and lead titanate-calcium zirconate. Soviet Phys.-Cryst. 9, 286 (1964)

    1964

  21. [29]

    J. H. Barrett, Dielectric constant in perovskite type crystals. Phys. Rev. 86, 118 (1952)

    1952

  22. [30]

    C. Ang, A. S. Balla, L. E. Cross, Dielectric behavior of paraelectric KTaO 3, CaTiO3, and (Ln1/2Na1/2)TiO3 under a dc electric field. Phys. Rev. B 64, 184104 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    D. M. Juraschek, M. Fechner, A. V. Balatsky, N. A. Spaldin, Dynamical multiferroicity. Phys. Rev. Materials 1, 014401 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    K. A. Müller, W. Berlinger, E. Tosatti, Indication for a novel phase in the quantum paraelectric regime of SrTiO3. Z. Phys. B – Condensed Matter 84, 277 (1991)

    1991

  25. [33]

    Hemberger, M

    J. Hemberger, M. Nicklas, R. Viana, P. Lunkenheimer, A. Loidl, R. Böhmer, Quantum paraelectric and induced ferroelectric states in SrTiO 3. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 8, 4673 (1996)

    1996

  26. [34]

    E. K. H. Salje, O. Aktas, M. A. Carpenter, V. V. Laguta, J. F. Scott, Domains within domains and walls within walls: Evidence for polar domains in cryogenic SrTiO 3. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 247603 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Van Aert, S

    S. Van Aert, S. Turner, R. Delville, D. Schryvers, G. Van Tendeloo, E. K. H. Salje, Direct observation of ferrielectricity at ferroelastic domain boundaries in CaTiO 3 by electron spectroscopy. Adv. Mater. 24, 523 (2012). Acknowledgments: I. M. Bradarić is grateful for financi...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.