RECORD
Is the normal to superionic transformation occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors a real thermodynamic phase transition?
Materials Science · Submitted 9 Aug 2020
abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review
The authors' main claim In fact, based on mounting experimental evidence, the normal to superionic phase transformation occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors can be rigorously considered, and should be referred to, as a phase transition.
The compiled record
The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.
Open the compiled record
The abstract, sentence by sentence
Fedorov has written a Comment on our recent paper J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 1267 (2018) in which he suggests that the transformation from a normal ($\alpha$) to a superionic ($\beta$) state occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors (e.g., CaF$_{2}$ and Li-based superionic materials) cannot be regarded as a phase transition in a rigorous thermodynamic sense. Fedorov's arguments for such a criticism can be summarized as follows: (1) the available heat capacity data for the $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation do not reproduce the expected behaviour for a thermodynamic phase transition, (2) there is not evidence for molar volume discontinuity during the superionic $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation, and (3) the $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation is symmetry preserving. Here, we demonstrate either by reproducing experimental data published by other authors or by explaining some simple solid-state arguments that the statements put forward by Fedorov are incorrect and do not correspond to reality. In fact, based on mounting experimental evidence, the normal to superionic phase transformation occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors can be rigorously considered, and should be referred to, as a phase transition. Notwithstanding, it remains less obvious to establish with generality which is the order of the $\alpha \to \beta$ phase transition.
background contribution method result interpretation main claim
| # | sentence | role | the authors' own work | states the main conclusion | strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| s0 | Fedorov has written a Comment on our recent paper J. Phys. Chem. | background 1.00 | 0.05 | 0.01 | asserted 0.88 |
| s1 | C 112, 1267 (2018) in which he suggests that the transformation from a normal ($\alpha$) to a superionic ($\beta$) state occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors (e.g., CaF$_{2}$ and Li-based superionic materials) cannot be regarded as a phase transition in a rigorous thermodynamic sense. | background 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.05 | hedged possibility 0.92 |
| s2 | Fedorov's arguments for such a criticism can be summarized as follows: (1) the available heat capacity data for the $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation do not reproduce the expected behaviour for a thermodynamic phase transition, (2) there is not evidence for molar volume discontinuity during the superionic $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation, and (3) the $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation is symmetry preserving. | background 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.03 | asserted 0.91 |
| s3 | Here, we demonstrate either by reproducing experimental data published by other authors or by explaining some simple solid-state arguments that the statements put forward by Fedorov are incorrect and do not correspond to reality. | contribution 0.91 | 0.85 | 0.11 | asserted 0.98 |
| s4 | In fact, based on mounting experimental evidence, the normal to superionic phase transformation occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors can be rigorously considered, and should be referred to, as a phase transition. | interpretation 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.95 | asserted 1.00 |
| s5 | Notwithstanding, it remains less obvious to establish with generality which is the order of the $\alpha \to \beta$ phase transition. | limitation 0.96 | 0.31 | 0.05 | hedged possibility 0.51 |
What was examined, and what was not
- arXiv listing abstract v1
- full text
- figures and tables
- references and citing sentences
- relations to other papers
- P abstract
- S sections
- T body sentences
- C citations
- R cross-paper relations
The paper
Original abstract
Fedorov has written a Comment on our recent paper J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 1267 (2018) in which he suggests that the transformation from a normal ($\alpha$) to a superionic ($\beta$) state occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors (e.g., CaF$_{2}$ and Li-based superionic materials) cannot be regarded as a phase transition in a rigorous thermodynamic sense. Fedorov's arguments for such a criticism can be summarized as follows: (1) the available heat capacity data for the $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation do not reproduce the expected behaviour for a thermodynamic phase transition, (2) there is not evidence for molar volume discontinuity during the superionic $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation, and (3) the $\alpha \to \beta$ transformation is symmetry preserving. Here, we demonstrate either by reproducing experimental data published by other authors or by explaining some simple solid-state arguments that the statements put forward by Fedorov are incorrect and do not correspond to reality. In fact, based on mounting experimental evidence, the normal to superionic phase transformation occurring in type-II fast-ion conductors can be rigorously considered, and should be referred to, as a phase transition. Notwithstanding, it remains less obvious to establish with generality which is the order of the $\alpha \to \beta$ phase transition.
Human review
Discussion
Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.