Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Undamped Soliton-like Domain Wall Motion in Sliding Ferroelectrics

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that domain walls in bilayer 3R-MoS2 accelerate uniformly under an electric field and keep moving at constant speed after the field is removed, unlike conventional ferroelectrics.

desk verdict New and plausible prediction of undamped DW motion in sliding ferroelectrics, but the zero-damping limit is assumed rather than derived; deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02137 v2 pith:WGNJPB7E submitted 2025-02-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

Yubai Shi , Yuxiang Gao , Ri He , Hua Wang , Binwen Zhang , Zhicheng Zhong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.comp-ph
keywords slidingferroelectricitydomainwallmotionsolitonsine-Gordonequationmoleculardynamicsmachinelearningpotential3R-MoS2undamped
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 predicts that domain walls in the sliding ferroelectric bilayer 3R-MoS2 behave as undamped solitons. Under a constant electric field they accelerate uniformly, following Newton's second law; after the field is switched off they keep moving at constant speed instead of stopping. This contrasts with conventional ferroelectrics, where damping makes walls reach a terminal velocity and halt when the drive ends. The authors argue this happens because sliding ferroelectric switching is carried by a weak interlayer shear mode that couples weakly to phonons, so the damping coefficient $\Gamma$ is nearly zero. If correct, the result means domain-wall racetrack memory in sliding ferroelectrics could run on short pulses rather than continuous currents.

What carries the argument

The central object is the (1+1)-dimensional sine-Gordon soliton for the interlayer sliding field $u_s(x,t)$, whose static waveform and energy distribution match the machine-learned molecular dynamics result. The perturbed equation of motion for the soliton's center includes a damping term proportional to $\Gamma$; setting $\Gamma=0$ reduces it to an undamped Newton's second law, giving uniform acceleration under a constant field and inertial motion after the field is off. The critical velocity $v_c=\sqrt{\lambda/\rho}$ is the speed of the in-plane transverse acoustic phonon and plays the role of the speed of light, while the prefactor multiplying the electric field acts as the domain wall's mass-to-charge ratio.

What would settle it

In a bilayer 3R-MoS2 device, apply a picosecond electric-field pulse long enough to launch a domain wall but short enough that the wall does not cross the sample, then track the wall position after the pulse. If its velocity decreases after pulse removal, or if the delayed-switching interval grows with the distance the wall must travel, the undamped claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is an undamped, 'relativistic-like' soliton motion: the domain wall in bilayer 3R-MoS2 obeys an undamped Newtonian equation of motion (obtained from the perturbed sine-Gordon equation when $\Gamma\to 0$), accelerates linearly with applied field, and retains its velocity indefinitely after the field is removed. Molecular dynamics at 1 K and 300 K show the displacement is quadratic in time under constant field, the acceleration scales linearly with field strength, and the wall continues at constant velocity after field switch-off, while a comparison PbTiO3 wall stops. At large fields the velocity saturates near the in-plane transverse acoustic phonon speed (about 3000 to 4000 m/s), the analogue of the speed of light for this soliton. The authors therefore propose that sliding ferroelectrics offer a dissipation-free mechanism for domain-wall-based memory devices.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the damping coefficient $\Gamma$ in the equation of motion is effectively zero, supported only by the qualitative argument that the interlayer shear mode couples weakly to phonons; if any real damping exists, the wall would decelerate after the field is removed and the central claim would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, racetrack memory built from sliding ferroelectrics could be operated with field pulses only, eliminating the continuous current and associated heating that limits conventional domain-wall devices.
  • The predicted wall speed of roughly a kilometre per second is an order of magnitude faster than typical ferromagnetic domain walls, so read/write operations would be much quicker.
  • Because the wall accelerates uniformly, its arrival time at a target electrode is a deterministic quadratic function of pulse duration, which could simplify timing in device operation.
  • At very high fields the acceleration fades as the wall approaches the transverse acoustic phonon speed, setting an intrinsic upper bound on wall velocity that device designs must respect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same undamped mechanism should apply to other sliding ferroelectrics such as bilayer h-BN, since the authors note the universal character of their domain walls but do not run the driven-dynamics simulation for those systems.
  • A testable extension is to vary the pulse width in the proposed delayed-voltage experiment: undamped motion predicts the delay equals film length divided by constant wall speed, independent of pulse width, whereas any damping would make the delay pulse-width dependent.
  • The claim is an idealization at exactly $\Gamma=0$; even a very small damping would produce slow deceleration over long distances, so experiments bounding the velocity decay rate would quantify how close real materials are to the idealized limit.
  • The relativistic-like analogy implies the wall's effective mass grows as it approaches $v_c$; measuring the precise velocity saturation curve could test the Lorentz-factor energy scaling that the paper invokes but does not directly measure.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines DFT, Deep Potential MD, and sine-Gordon field theory to study domain-wall (DW) motion in sliding ferroelectric bilayer 3R-MoS2. It claims that the DW undergoes uniformly accelerated motion under a constant electric field, that its velocity approaches a relativistic-like limit set by the in-plane transverse acoustic phonon speed, and that after field removal the wall continues to move at constant velocity, i.e., undamped soliton-like motion, in contrast to PbTiO3. The authors fit the MD displacement curves, extract a linear acceleration-field relation, and propose a two-terminal experimental geometry to detect the post-pulse inertial motion.

Significance. If the undamped-motion claim is correct, the result is important: it would establish an inertia-dominated, dissipation-free DW regime in a 2D sliding ferroelectric, with direct implications for low-power racetrack-type memories. The paper's strengths are its direct MD evidence of uniform acceleration and continued motion after field removal, the explicit comparison with conventional ferroelectric PbTiO3, and a concrete experimental protocol. However, the central 'undamped' conclusion is not yet established: the analytic model sets the damping coefficient to zero rather than deriving or bounding it, and the MD field-off window is short. These issues are load-bearing and need to be addressed before the claim is supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2) and Supplemental Material S2] The undamped Newtonian equation, Eq. S17, is obtained by writing a phenomenological damping term proportional to Gamma in Eq. (2) and then taking Gamma -> 0. This is an assumption, not a derivation: the paper does not quantify Gamma from the DP Hamiltonian or from independent phonon-lifetime calculations. Since the central claim is that the DW is undamped, this limit must be supported by a quantitative estimate or by an upper bound extracted from the simulations, rather than imposed by hand.
  2. [Fig. 3(a,b,d)] The field-off MD window is too short to distinguish zero damping from a small nonzero damping. The field is removed at 20 ps and the wall is followed for only tens of picoseconds; for v(t) = v0 exp(-t/tau), any tau of order 100 ps or larger is visually indistinguishable from a plateau over this window. Please provide longer trajectories at 1 K and 300 K, fit the post-field velocity decay, and report an upper bound on Gamma (or a lower bound on tau).
  3. [Fig. 2(e) and text near Eq. (1)] The manuscript states on page 6 that vc is estimated to be on the order of 3000 m/s, but on page 7 it reports that the DW velocity ceases to increase at around 4000 m/s, 'close to the value estimated from our field theory analysis.' These statements are inconsistent: a plateau at 4000 m/s would exceed the model's limiting speed vc. Please reconcile this discrepancy and report vc, the fitted saturation velocity, and the associated uncertainties.
  4. [Simulation setup around Fig. 1(c)] The periodic simulation cell and the finite cutoff of the Deep Potential model can suppress phonon-radiation damping: a periodic cell can reabsorb phonons emitted by the moving wall, and the authors themselves note that the DP cutoff discards long-range interactions when discussing the static DW width and energy. Please discuss these effects quantitatively, for example by testing the field-off velocity decay as a function of cell size and cutoff.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption / main text] The text cites 'Fig. 3(b) and (c)' for the PbTiO3 comparison, but Fig. 3(b) shows MoS2 at 300 K; the PbTiO3 data appear to be in Fig. 3(c). Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos and duplicated phrases, including 'Tthe', 'the strength of the strength of electric field', 'originate s', and 'the undamped DW motion the undamped motion of DW after' near the end of the experimental-proposal paragraph. A careful copyedit is needed.
  3. [Fig. 2(d) and Table S1-2] Please report statistical uncertainties on the fitted accelerations, especially for the 300 K data, so that the linear acceleration-field relation and the field-off plateau can be assessed quantitatively.
  4. [Eq. (1) and surrounding notation] The notation E_v = E / gamma is introduced without a derivation or a clear definition of E; please define E explicitly and ensure the typesetting of the gamma factor is correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the undamped DW conclusion rests on an explicit Γ→0 limit plus independent MD evidence, not on a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is supported by two independent strands. The field theory introduces a phenomenological damping coefficient Γ in Eq. (2) and then considers the limit Γ→0, yielding the undamped Newtonian equation (Eq. S17). This is an explicitly stated modeling limit, not a quantity fitted to the same data that is then renamed as a prediction; the paper does not derive the undamped equation from data. The MD simulations using the DP potential provide independent evidence: constant acceleration under a field and constant velocity after field removal (Figs. 2 and 3), with the field-theory curve compared afterward in Fig. 2(d). The acceleration-field linearity and the relativistic-like saturation near the transverse-acoustic speed are MD observations, not outputs of a fitted Γ. Self-citations to [5] and [30] supply the DP potential and prior DW-switching context; these are published, externally validated results and are not the load-bearing proof of zero damping. The qualitative argument for weak damping via low-frequency interlayer shear modes is an approximation, and the finite simulation window only places a bound on Γ, but that is a robustness/validation concern, not circularity. No equation is equivalent by construction to its input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that the damping coefficient Γ is zero. The field theory introduces Γ in Eq. (2) and then sets it to zero to obtain the undamped equation, so the undamped motion is partly an input rather than a derived result. The MD simulation provides independent evidence, but the simulation itself relies on the accuracy of the DP potential. The other free parameters (Δ, u0, λ, ρ) are material constants fitted to DFT, and σ is a phenomenological coupling tensor. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Δ (interlayer sliding barrier height) = not given in main text (fitted from cosine fit to DFT energy curve, Fig. 1a)
    The potential energy curve along the sliding path is fitted with a cosine function to extract the barrier height Δ, which enters the sine-Gordon model.
  • u0 (sliding distance from XM to MX state) = not given in main text (fitted from same cosine fit)
    The sliding distance between the two stacking states is fitted from the DFT energy curve and used in the soliton solution and equation of motion.
  • λ (in-plane lattice distortion stiffness) = not given in main text (from DFT)
    The coefficient of energy cost for in-plane lattice distortion is a material parameter entering the speed v_c = sqrt(λ/ρ).
  • ρ (mass density) = bulk MoS2 density
    The mass density of the bilayer is used to define v_c and the kinetic equation; it is a standard material constant.
  • σ (piezoelectric-like coupling tensor) = not specified in main text (off-diagonal element)
    The tensor σ characterizes the response of DW motion to an electric field, with off-diagonal elements needed for motion perpendicular to the field. Its values are not given in the main text.
  • Γ (damping coefficient) = 0 (assumed)
    The damping coefficient is set to zero to obtain the undamped equation. This is the central assumption, not a fitted value, and it is the load-bearing premise of the claim.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The interlayer sliding distance u_s(x,t) is a good collective coordinate describing the domain wall.
    The paper reduces the many-atom dynamics to a single scalar field u_s(x,t) (Eq. 1). This assumes that the domain wall can be described by a one-dimensional soliton profile, neglecting other degrees of freedom such as out-of-plane buckling or variations along the wall.
  • domain assumption The domain wall dynamics is governed by a damped sine-Gordon equation with a phenomenological damping term Γ.
    The equation of motion, Eq. (2), is taken as the starting point, motivated by standard sine-Gordon soliton theory. The form of the damping term is postulated, not derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption The external electric field couples linearly to the domain wall through a constant tensor σ.
    The driving term in Eq. (2) is assumed to be linear in the electric field E with a material-specific coefficient σ. This is a standard assumption for field-driven DW motion but is not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The damping coefficient Γ is negligible for sliding ferroelectrics.
    The paper claims Γ→0 based on a qualitative argument about the weak interlayer shear mode. This assumption is not derived from first principles and is the key premise that produces the undamped motion.
  • domain assumption The DP machine learning potential accurately reproduces the relevant DFT potential energy surface including anharmonic and dissipative effects.
    The MD simulations rely on a Deep Potential model trained on DFT data. The undamped behavior in the simulations depends on this model faithfully capturing phonon-phonon scattering and damping. The paper does not provide a validation of the DP model's dissipative properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Undamped Soliton-like Domain Wall Motion in Sliding Ferroelectrics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WGNJPB7E

@misc{pith2026250202137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Undamped Soliton-like Domain Wall Motion in Sliding Ferroelectrics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WGNJPB7E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02137}
}
read the original abstract

Sliding ferroelectricity in bilayer van der Waals materials exhibits ultrafast switching speed and fatigue resistance during the polarization switching, offering an avenue for the design of memories and neuromorphic devices. The unique polarization switching behavior originates from the distinct characteristics of domain wall (DW), which possesses broader width and faster motion compared to conventional ferroelectrics. Herein, using machine-learning-assisted molecular dynamics simulations and field theory analysis, we predict an undamped soliton-like DW motion in sliding ferroelectrics. It is found that the DW in sliding ferroelectric bilayer 3R-MoS2 exhibits uniformly accelerated motion under an external field, with its velocity ultimately reaches the relativistic-like limit due to continuous acceleration. Remarkably, the DW velocity remains constant even after the external field removal, completely deviating from the velocity breakdown observed in conventional ferroelectrics. This work provides opportunities for applications of sliding ferroelectrics in memory devices based on DW engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Stacking mode and sliding barrier of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Li and M

    L. Li and M. Wu, Binary compound bilayer and multilayer with vertical polarizations: two-dimensional ferroelectrics, multiferroics, and nanogenerators, ACS Nano 11, 6382 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Wu and J

    M. Wu and J. Li, Sliding ferroelectricity in 2D van der Waals materials: Related physics and future opportunities, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, 13 e2115703118 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    X. Wang, K. Yasuda, Y. Zhang, S. Liu, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Hone, L. Fu, and P. Jarillo -Herrero, Interfacial ferroelectricity in rhombohedral -stacked bilayer transition metal dichalcogenides, Nature nanotechnology 17, 367 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    T. H. Yang, B.-W. Liang, H.-C. Hu, F.-X. Chen, S.-Z. Ho, W.-H. Chang, L. Yang, H.-C. Lo, T. -H. Kuo, and J. -H. Chen, Ferroelectric transistors based on shear - transformation-mediated rhombohedral -stacked molybdenum disulfide, Nature Electronics 7, 29 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    R. Bian, R. He, E. Pan, Z. Li, G. Cao, P. Meng, J. Chen, Q. Liu, Z. Zhong, and W. Li, Developing fatigue -resistant ferroelectrics using interlayer sliding switching, Science 385, 57 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Yasuda, E

    K. Yasuda, E. Zalys-Geller, X. Wang, D. Bennett, S. S. Cheema, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, P. Jarillo -Herrero, and R. Ashoori, Ultrafast high -endurance memory based on sliding ferroelectrics, Science 385, 53 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Yasuda, X

    K. Yasuda, X. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Stacking- engineered ferroelectricity in bilayer boron nitride, Science 372, 1458 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Vizner Stern, Y

    M. Vizner Stern, Y. Waschitz, W. Cao, I. Nevo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Sela, M. Urbakh, O. Hod, and M. Ben Shalom, Interfacial ferroelectricity by van der Waals sliding, Science 372, 1462 (2021)

    2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, P

    D. Zhang, P. Schoenherr, P. Sharma, and J. Seidel, Ferroelectric order in van der Waals layered materials, Nature Reviews Materials 8, 25 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Vizner Stern, S

    M. Vizner Stern, S. Salleh Atri, and M. Ben Shalom, Sliding van der Waals polytypes, Nature Reviews Physics 7, 50 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    S. Deng, H. Yu, J. Ji, C. Xu, and H. Xiang, Deterministic and Efficient Switching of Sliding Ferroelectrics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15081 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Yang and S

    Q. Yang and S. Meng, Light -Induced Complete Reversal of Ferroelectric Polarization in Sliding Ferroelectrics, Physical Review Letters 133, 136902 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    J. Wang, X. Li, X. Ma, L. Chen, J. -M. Liu, C. -G. Duan, J. Í ñ iguez-Gonzá lez, D. Wu, and Y. Yang, Ultrafast Switching of Sliding Polarization and Dynamical Magnetic Field in van der Waals Bilayers Induced by Light, Physical Review Letters 133, 126801 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Gao and L

    L. Gao and L. Bellaiche, Large Photoinduced Tuning of Ferroelectricity in Sliding Ferroelectrics, Physical Review Letters 133, 196801 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    R. He, H. Wang, F. Liu, S. Liu, H. Liu, and Z. Zhong, Unconventional ferroelectric domain switching dynamics in CuInP2S6 from first principles, Physical Review B 108, 024305 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Liu and R

    S. Liu and R. Cohen, Origin of stationary domain wall enhanced ferroelectric susceptibility, Physical Review B 95, 094102 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Yoshimura, K

    Y. Yoshimura, K. -J. Kim, T. Taniguchi, T. Tono, K. Ueda, R. Hiramatsu, T. Moriyama, K. Yamada, Y. Nakatani, and T. Ono, Soliton -like magnetic domain wall motion induced by the interfacial Dzyaloshinskii –Moriya interaction, Nature Physics 12, 157 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Caretta, S.-H

    L. Caretta, S.-H. Oh, T. Fakhrul, D.-K. Lee, B. H. Lee, S. K. Kim, C. A. Ross, K.- J. Lee, and G. S. Beach, Relativistic kinematics of a magnetic soliton, Science 370, 14 1438 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    H. How, R. O’Handley, and F. Morgenthaler, Soliton theory for realistic magnetic domain-wall dynamics, Physical Review B 40, 4808 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    Fogel, S

    M. Fogel, S. Trullinger, A. Bishop, and J. Krumhansl, Dynamics of sine -Gordon solitons in the presence of perturbations, Physical Review B 15, 1578 (1977)

    1977

  13. [21]

    S. Liu, I. Grinberg, and A. M. Rappe, Exploration of the intrinsic inertial response of ferroelectric domain walls via molecular dynamics simulations, Applied Physics Letters 103 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    T. Yang, B. Wang, J. -M. Hu, and L. -Q. Chen, Domain dynamics under ultrafast electric-field pulses, Physical Review Letters 124, 107601 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Sharma, R

    P. Sharma, R. G. P. McQuaid, L. J. McGilly, J. M. Gregg, and A. Gruverman, Nanoscale Dynamics of Superdomain Boundaries in Single-Crystal BaTiO3 Lamellae, Advanced Materials 25, 1323 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Boddu, F

    V. Boddu, F. Endres, and P. Steinmann, Molecular dynamics study of ferroelectric domain nucleation and domain switching dynamics, Scientific reports 7, 806 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Y.-H. Shin, I. Grinberg, I. -W. Chen, and A. M. Rappe, Nucleation and growth mechanism of ferroelectric domain-wall motion, Nature 449, 881 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    McGilly, P

    L. McGilly, P. Yudin, L. Feigl, A. Tagantsev, and N. Setter, Controlling domain wall motion in ferroelectric thin films, Nature nanotechnology 10, 145 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Thomas, M

    L. Thomas, M. Hayashi, X. Jiang, R. Moriya, C. Rettner, and S. Parkin, Resonant amplification of magnetic domain-wall motion by a train of current pulses, Science 315, 1553 (2007). [28]S. S. Parkin, M. Hayashi, and L. Thomas, Magnetic domain-wall racetrack memory, Science 320,...

    2007

  20. [29]

    Thomas, R

    L. Thomas, R. Moriya, C. Rettner, and S. S. Parkin, Dynamics of magnetic domain walls under their own inertia, Science 330, 1810 (2010)

    2010

  21. [30]

    R. He, B. Zhang, H. Wang, L. Li, P. Tang, G. Bauer, and Z. Zhong, Ultrafast switching dynamics of the ferroelectric order in stacking -engineered ferroelectrics, Acta Materialia 262, 119416 (2024)

    2024

  22. [31]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Han, H. Wang, R. Car, and E. Weinan, Deep potential molecular dynamics: a scalable model with the accuracy of quantum mechanics, Physical review letters 120, 143001 (2018)

    2018

  23. [32]

    Plimpton, Fast parallel algorithms for short -range molecular dynamics, Journal of computational physics 117, 1 (1995)

    S. Plimpton, Fast parallel algorithms for short -range molecular dynamics, Journal of computational physics 117, 1 (1995)

    1995

  24. [33]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmü ller, Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane -wave basis set, Computational Materials Science 6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  25. [34]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Generalized gradient approximation made simple, Physical review letters 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  26. [35]

    Klimeš, D

    J. Klimeš, D. R. Bowler, and A. Michaelides, Van der Waals density functionals applied to solids, Physical Review B 83, 195131 (2011)

    2011

  27. [36]

    H. Wang, L. Zhang, J. Han, and E. Weinan, DeePMD-kit: A deep learning package for many -body potential energy representation and molecular dynamics, Computer Physics Communications 228, 178 (2018). 15

    2018

  28. [37]

    Zhang, H

    Y. Zhang, H. Wang, W. Chen, J. Zeng, L. Zhang, H. Wang, and E. Weinan, DP - GEN: A concurrent learning platform for the generation of reliable deep learning based potential energy models, Computer Physics Communications 253, 107206 (2020)

    2020

  29. [38]

    Y. Shi, R. He, B. Zhang, and Z. Zhong, Revisiting the phase diagram and piezoelectricity of lead zirconate titanate from first principles, Physical Review B 109, 174104 (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    Y. Shi, Y. Shan, H. Wu, Z. Zhong, R. -W. Li, and R. He, Compositional ordering driven morphotropic phase boundary in ferroelectric solid solutions, Physical Review B 110, 054102 (2024)

    2024

  31. [40]

    Kaasbjerg, K

    K. Kaasbjerg, K. S. Thygesen, and K. W. Jacobsen, Phonon-limited mobility in n- type single-layer MoS 2 from first principles, Physical Review B 85, 115317 (2012)

    2012

  32. [41]

    S. Liu, I. Grinberg, and A. M. Rappe, Intrinsic ferroelectric switching from first principles, Nature 534, 360 (2016)

    2016

  33. [42]

    L. Bai, C. Ke, Z. Luo, T. Zhu, L. You, and S. Liu, Intrinsic Ferroelectric Switching in Two-Dimensional α-In2Se3, ACS Nano 18, 26103 (2024)

    2024

  34. [43]

    W. J. Merz, Domain formation and domain wall motions in ferroelectric BaTiO 3 single crystals, Physical Review 95, 690 (1954)

    1954

  35. [44]

    Weindler, H

    T. Weindler, H. Bauer, R. Islinger, B. Boehm, J. -Y. Chauleau, and C. Back, Magnetic damping: Domain wall dynamics versus local ferromagnetic resonance, Physical Review Letters 113, 237204 (2014)

    2014

  36. [45]

    Dawber, D

    M. Dawber, D. J. Jung, and J. F. Scott, Perimeter effect in very small ferroelectrics, Applied Physics Letters 82, 436 (2003)

    2003

  37. [46]

    Y. Kim, H. Han, W. Lee, S. Baik, D. Hesse, and M. Alexe, Non -Kolmogorov− Avrami− Ishibashi switching dynamics in nanoscale ferroelectric capacitors, Nano letters 10, 1266 (2010)

    2010

  38. [47]

    J. Park, I. W. Yeu, G. Han, C. S. Hwang, and J. -H. Choi, Ferroelectric switching in bilayer 3R MoS2 via interlayer shear mode driven by nonlinear phononics, Scientific reports 9, 14919 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.