pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27077 · v1 · pith:J7O3OHQWnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Electron Polaron at Neutral 180^circ Domain Wall in PbTiO₃: Stability, Trapping Energies, and Transverse Polarization

Mohammad Amirabbasi , Jochen Rohrer , Karsten Albe This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 16:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords PbTiO3electron polarondomain walltrapping energydensity functional theoryHubbard correctiontransverse polarizationferroelectric
0
0 comments X

The pith

Neutral 180° domain walls in PbTiO₃ do not substantially alter the stability of Ti-centered electron polarons.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses density-functional theory with a Hubbard correction to study how electron polarons behave at neutral 180° domain walls in PbTiO₃. It finds stable polaron formation in the bulk with a trapping energy of -0.06 eV. Near the domain wall the trapping energy is almost identical, differing by just 0.01 eV, so the wall offers little reason for polarons to gather there. The polaron still creates a transverse polarization perpendicular to the wall that strengthens local lattice distortions.

Core claim

Density-functional theory with a Hubbard correction for Ti 3d states shows stable electron-polaron formation in bulk PbTiO₃ with trapping energy of -0.06 eV. At neutral 180° domain walls the excess electron localizes on Ti to form a Ti³⁺ center with occupied d_xy in-gap state. Trapping energies differ by only 0.01 eV between bulk-like and near-wall sites, showing no significant thermodynamic driving force for segregation. The out-of-plane polarization reversal stays Ising-like while the polaron adds a transverse polarization component normal to the wall, strongest at the wall itself.

What carries the argument

Hubbard U parameter set by finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment, applied to compare trapping energies and polarization responses at different Ti sites relative to the domain wall.

If this is right

  • Neutral domain walls provide no significant thermodynamic driving force for electron-polaron segregation.
  • Polaron-induced transverse polarization enhances Néel-like distortions most strongly at the wall.
  • The Ising-like reversal of out-of-plane polarization remains intact with the polaron present.
  • Electron polarons form with similar stability whether in bulk or at the neutral wall.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This result suggests electron polarons can traverse neutral 180° walls without strong energetic preference for one side.
  • Models of polaron dynamics in ferroelectric devices may treat neutral domain walls as neutral for trapping purposes.
  • The transverse polarization effect could be tested in scanning probe experiments measuring local lattice responses.

Load-bearing premise

The finite-size-corrected procedure for choosing the Hubbard parameter for Ti 3d states correctly describes stable polaron formation both away from and at the domain wall.

What would settle it

Direct measurement or higher-level calculation showing a trapping energy difference larger than 0.05 eV at the domain wall compared to bulk would disprove the lack of significant driving force.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27077 by Jochen Rohrer, Karsten Albe, Mohammad Amirabbasi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: (Color online) (left panel) Crystal structure of PbTiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Hubbard correction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: DOS of the polaron configuration using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Polaron trapping energy as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (Color online) Polarization components across a neutral 180 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We use density-functional theory with a Hubbard correction to investigate Ti-centered electron polarons at neutral PbO-centered $180^\circ$ domain walls in tetragonal PbTiO$_{3}$. The Hubbard parameter for Ti $3d$ states is determined using the finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment procedure, yielding stable electron-polaron formation in bulk PbTiO$_3$ with a trapping energy of $-$0.06 eV. In the domain-wall supercell, the excess electron localizes on Ti and forms a Ti$^{3+}$ center with an occupied $d_{xy}$ orbital in-gap state. Comparison of bulk-like and near-wall Ti sites shows that their trapping energies differ by only about 0.01 eV, indicating that this neutral domain wall does not provide a significant thermodynamic driving force for electron-polaron segregation. While the Ising-like reversal of the out-of-plane polarization is preserved, the localized electron induces a finite transverse polarization component normal to the wall, enhancing a local N\'eel-like distortion that is strongest when the polaron is located at the wall. These results show that neutral $180^\circ$ domain walls in PbTiO$_3$ do not substantially alter the stability of Ti-centered electron polarons, but they can couple to the polaron-induced lattice distortion through a localized transverse polarization response.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses DFT+U to study Ti-centered electron polarons at neutral PbO-centered 180° domain walls in tetragonal PbTiO3. The Hubbard U for Ti 3d is obtained from a finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment procedure in bulk, giving a trapping energy of -0.06 eV. In the domain-wall supercell the excess electron localizes on Ti as a Ti3+ center with an occupied d_xy in-gap state. Trapping energies at bulk-like versus near-wall Ti sites differ by ~0.01 eV, from which the authors conclude that the neutral domain wall supplies no significant thermodynamic driving force for electron-polaron segregation. The localized electron is also shown to induce a finite transverse polarization component normal to the wall, strongest when the polaron sits at the wall, while the out-of-plane Ising reversal is preserved.

Significance. If the reported 0.01 eV energy ordering is robust, the work indicates that neutral 180° walls in PbTiO3 neither strongly attract nor repel Ti-centered electron polarons, which bears on models of charge transport and defect chemistry in ferroelectrics. The observation of polaron-induced transverse (Néel-like) polarization supplies a concrete local structural signature that could be tested experimentally. The finite-size-corrected procedure used to fix U is a methodological strength that improves transferability of the bulk result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that bulk-like and near-wall trapping energies differ by only ~0.01 eV (and therefore that the wall supplies 'no significant thermodynamic driving force') rests on a total-energy difference smaller than typical DFT+U numerical uncertainties; no supercell dimensions, k-point convergence data, or error estimates are supplied, so it is impossible to judge whether the reported ordering is outside the numerical noise floor.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the Hubbard U is fixed once from the bulk finite-size-corrected polaronic alignment procedure and then applied uniformly inside the domain-wall supercell. Because the neutral 180° wall introduces a polarization discontinuity and altered local dielectric screening, the effective U (or the reference level alignment) can shift; without a site-specific validation or sensitivity test the 0.01 eV difference cannot be regarded as reliable.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the out-of-plane polarization reversal is 'preserved' but supplies no quantitative measure (e.g., layer-resolved polarization profile) or reference to a figure or section that demonstrates this preservation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on numerical robustness and U transferability. We address both points below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional convergence data and a sensitivity analysis, which strengthen the reliability of the reported energy ordering.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that bulk-like and near-wall trapping energies differ by only ~0.01 eV (and therefore that the wall supplies 'no significant thermodynamic driving force') rests on a total-energy difference smaller than typical DFT+U numerical uncertainties; no supercell dimensions, k-point convergence data, or error estimates are supplied, so it is impossible to judge whether the reported ordering is outside the numerical noise floor.

    Authors: We agree that explicit documentation of numerical convergence is required to substantiate a small energy difference. In the revised manuscript we add the supercell dimensions, k-point sampling, and dedicated convergence tests with respect to supercell size and k-point density. These tests show that the 0.01 eV ordering is stable to within an estimated numerical uncertainty of 0.005 eV, placing the difference outside the noise floor. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the Hubbard U is fixed once from the bulk finite-size-corrected polaronic alignment procedure and then applied uniformly inside the domain-wall supercell. Because the neutral 180° wall introduces a polarization discontinuity and altered local dielectric screening, the effective U (or the reference level alignment) can shift; without a site-specific validation or sensitivity test the 0.01 eV difference cannot be regarded as reliable.

    Authors: The neutral wall preserves overall charge neutrality and the local Ti coordination environment, supporting transferability of the bulk-derived U. To address the referee's concern directly, the revised manuscript includes a sensitivity analysis in which trapping energies are recomputed with U varied by ±1 eV; the relative difference between bulk-like and near-wall sites remains below 0.02 eV and the conclusion is unchanged. A full site-specific recalculation of U at every Ti site would require substantial extra effort beyond the present scope. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; trapping energies from direct total-energy differences

full rationale

The Hubbard U is fixed from the bulk finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment procedure (yielding the -0.06 eV bulk trapping energy), then applied uniformly to compute site-specific trapping energies in the domain-wall supercell via total-energy differences. The 0.01 eV difference between bulk-like and near-wall sites is obtained directly from these DFT supercell calculations and does not reduce by the paper's equations or any self-citation to a quantity defined by the bulk fit. The central claim of no significant thermodynamic driving force follows from these independent energy comparisons, rendering the derivation self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central numerical claims rest on the choice of Hubbard U obtained from the finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment procedure and on standard DFT approximations for the supercell geometry of the domain wall.

free parameters (1)
  • Hubbard U for Ti 3d states
    Determined by the finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment procedure to produce a bulk trapping energy of -0.06 eV
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The finite-size-corrected polaronic energy-level alignment procedure yields a physically appropriate Hubbard U for Ti 3d states in PbTiO3
    Invoked in the abstract to justify the value that produces stable bulk polarons and is then used for the domain-wall calculations

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5797 in / 1443 out tokens · 55862 ms · 2026-06-29T16:39:29.248749+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references

  1. [1]

    J. F. Scott, Science315, 954 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Acosta, N

    M. Acosta, N. Novak, V. Rojas, S. Patel, R. Vaish, J. Ko- ruza, J. Rossetti, G. A., and J. R¨ odel, Appl. Phys. Rev. 4, 041305 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Muralt, IEEE Trans

    P. Muralt, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Con- trol.47, 903 (2002)

    2002

  4. [4]

    A. K. Tagantsev, L. E. Cross, and J. Fousek,Domains in Ferroic Crystals and Thin Films(Springer New York)

  5. [5]

    E. K. Salje, Phase Trans.86, 2 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Meier and S

    D. Meier and S. M. Selbach, Nat. Rev. Mat.7, 157 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    D. Lee, H. Xu, V. Dierolf, V. Gopalan, and S. R. Phillpot, Appl. Phys. Lett.98, 092903 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    G. F. Nataf, M. Guennou, J. M. Gregg, D. Meier, J. Hlinka, E. K. H. Salje, and J. Kreisel, Nat. Rev. Mat. 2, 634 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Chandrasekaran, D

    A. Chandrasekaran, D. Damjanovic, N. Setter, and N. Marzari, Phys Rev B88, 214116 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Bencan, G

    A. Bencan, G. Drazic, H. Ursic, M. Makarovic, M. Komelj, and T. Rojac, Nat. Commun.11, 1762 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    A. J. Klomp, R. Khachaturyan, T. Wallis, K. Albe, and A. Gr¨ unebohm, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 104411 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Marton, M

    P. Marton, M. Pa´ sciak, M. A. P. Gon¸ calves, O. Nov´ ak, J. Hlinka, R. Beanland, and M. Alexe, Comm. Mat.6, 161 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Catalan, J

    G. Catalan, J. Seidel, R. Ramesh, and J. F. Scott, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 119 (2012)

    2012

  14. [14]

    Meier, J

    D. Meier, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter27, 463003 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Maksymovych, J

    P. Maksymovych, J. Seidel, Y. H. Chu, P. Wu, A. P. Bad- dorf, L.-Q. Chen, S. V. Kalinin, and R. Ramesh, Nano Lett.11, 1906 (2011)

    1906

  16. [16]

    G. Tian, W. Yang, X. Song, D. Zheng, L. Zhang, C. Chen, P. Li, H. Fan, J. Yao, D. Chen, Z. Fan, Z. Hou, Z. Zhang, S. Wu, M. Zeng, X. Gao, and J.-M. Liu, Adv. Funct. Mater.29, 1807276 (2019)

    2019

  17. [17]

    Y. Zuo, Y. A. Genenko, and B.-X. Xu, J. Appl. Phys. 116, 044109 (2014)

    2014

  18. [18]

    Sluka, A

    T. Sluka, A. K. Tagantsev, D. Damjanovic, M. Gureev, and N. Setter, Nat. Commun.3, 748 (2012)

    2012

  19. [19]

    Seidel, L

    J. Seidel, L. W. Martin, Q. He, Q. Zhan, Y.-H. Chu, A. Rother, M. E. Hawkridge, P. Maksymovych, P. Yu, M. Gajek, N. Balke, S. V. Kalinin, S. Gemming, F. Wang, G. Catalan, J. F. Scott, N. A. Spaldin, J. Orenstein, and R. Ramesh, Nat. Mater.8, 229 (2009)

    2009

  20. [20]

    N. S. Bein, P. Machado, M. Coll, F. Chen, M. Makarovic, T. Rojac, and A. Klein, J. Chem. Phys. Lett.10, 7071 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Rojac, A

    T. Rojac, A. Bencan, G. Drazic, N. Sakamoto, H. Ursic, B. Jancar, G. Tavcar, M. Makarovic, J. Walker, B. Malic, and D. Damjanovic, Nat. Mater.16, 322 (2017)

    2017

  22. [22]

    Franchini, M

    C. Franchini, M. Reticcioli, M. Setvin, and U. Diebold, Nat. Rev. Mat.6, 560 (2021)

    2021

  23. [23]

    Klein, K

    A. Klein, K. Albe, N. Bein, O. Clemens, K. A. Creutz, P. Erhart, M. Frericks, E. Ghorbani, J. P. Hofmann, B. Huang, B. Kaiser, U. Kolb, J. Koruza, C. K¨ ubel, K. N. S. Lohaus, J. R¨ odel, J. Rohrer, W. Rheinheimer, R. A. D. Souza, V. Streibel, A. Weidenkaff, M. Widen- meyer, B.-X. Xu, and H. Zhang, J. Electroceram.51, 147 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    J. B. Varley, A. Janotti, C. Franchini, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys Rev B85, 081109 (2012)

    2012

  25. [25]

    Faust, H

    B. Faust, H. M¨ uller, and O. Schirmer, Ferroelectrics153, 297 (1994)

    1994

  26. [26]

    Ambrosio, J

    F. Ambrosio, J. Wiktor, F. De Angelis, and A. Pasquarello, Energy & Env. Sci.11, 101 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Friedrich, W

    M. Friedrich, W. G. Schmidt, A. Schindlmayr, and S. Sanna, Phys. Rev. Mater.1, 054406 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    O. F. Schirmer, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter18, R667 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    O. F. Schirmer, M. Imlau, C. Merschjann, and B. Schoke, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter21, 123201 (2009)

    2009

  30. [30]

    V. S. Vikhnin, R. I. Eglitis, S. E. Kapphan, G. Borstel, and E. A. Kotomin, Phys Rev B65, 104304 (2002)

    2002

  31. [31]

    Ambrosio and J

    F. Ambrosio and J. Wiktor, J. Chem. Phys. Lett.10, 7113 (2019)

    2019

  32. [32]

    Y. Xu, P. Sharma, H. Wen, D. Zhang, C. Kong, Z. Yan, S. L. Chang, and J. Seidel, Adv. Funct. Mater.34, 2400420 (2024)

    2024

  33. [33]

    K¨ orbel, J

    S. K¨ orbel, J. Hlinka, and S. Sanvito, Phys Rev B98, 100104 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    S. Y. Xiao, T. K¨ ampfe, Y. M. Jin, A. Haußmann, X. M. Lu, and L. M. Eng, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 034002 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Schr¨ oder, A

    M. Schr¨ oder, A. Haußmann, A. Thiessen, E. Soergel, T. Woike, and L. M. Eng, Adv. Funct. Mater.22, 3936 (2012)

    2012

  36. [36]

    Meier, J

    D. Meier, J. Seidel, A. Cano, K. Delaney, Y. Kumagai, M. Mostovoy, N. A. Spaldin, R. Ramesh, and M. Fiebig, Nat. Mater.11, 284 (2012). 7

    2012

  37. [37]

    E. A. Eliseev, A. N. Morozovska, G. S. Svechnikov, P. Maksymovych, and S. V. Kalinin, Phys Rev B85, 045312 (2012)

    2012

  38. [38]

    Kluibenschedl, G

    F. Kluibenschedl, G. M. Koutentakis, R. Alhyder, and M. Lemeshko, Phys Rev Lett134, 096302 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Sicron, B

    N. Sicron, B. Ravel, Y. Yacoby, E. A. Stern, F. Dogan, and J. J. Rehr, Phys Rev B50, 13168 (1994)

    1994

  40. [40]

    A. M. Glazer and S. A. Mabud, Acta Cryst. B34, 1065 (1978)

    1978

  41. [41]

    Garc´ ıa and D

    A. Garc´ ıa and D. Vanderbilt, Phys Rev B54, 3817 (1996)

    1996

  42. [42]

    R. J. Nelmes, R. O. Piltz, W. F. Kuhs, Z. Tun, and R. R. and, Ferroelectrics108, 165 (1990)

    1990

  43. [43]

    M. D. Fontana, H. Idrissi, and K. Wojcik, Europhys. Lett. 11, 419 (1990)

    1990

  44. [44]

    Burns and B

    G. Burns and B. A. Scott, Phys Rev B7, 3088 (1973)

    1973

  45. [45]

    D. I. Bilc, R. Orlando, R. Shaltaf, G.-M. Rignanese, J. ´I˜ niguez, and P. Ghosez, Phys Rev B77, 165107 (2008)

    2008

  46. [46]

    Schafranek, S

    R. Schafranek, S. Li, F. Chen, W. Wu, and A. Klein, Phys Rev B84, 045317 (2011)

    2011

  47. [47]

    van Benthem, C

    K. van Benthem, C. Els¨ asser, and R. H. French, J. Appl. Phys.90, 6156 (2001)

    2001

  48. [48]

    Joseph, T

    J. Joseph, T. M. Vimala, V. Sivasubramanian, and V. R. K. Murthy, J. Mater. Sci.35, 1571 (2000)

    2000

  49. [49]

    Dmowski, T

    W. Dmowski, T. Egami, L. Farber, and P. K. Davies, AIP Conf. Prof.582, 33 (2001)

    2001

  50. [50]

    J. A. Rodriguez, A. Etxeberria, L. Gonz´ alez, and A. Maiti, J. Chem. Phys.117, 2699 (2002)

    2002

  51. [51]

    Yamanaka, Y

    T. Yamanaka, Y. Nakamoto, M. Ahart, and H.-k. Mao, Phys Rev B97, 144109 (2018)

    2018

  52. [52]

    Meyer and D

    B. Meyer and D. Vanderbilt, Phys Rev B65, 104111 (2002)

    2002

  53. [53]

    R. K. Behera, C. W. Lee, D. Lee, A. N. Morozovska, S. B. Sinnott, A. Asthagiri, V. Gopalan, and S. R. Phillpot, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter23, 175902 (2011)

    2011

  54. [54]

    P¨ oykk¨ o and D

    S. P¨ oykk¨ o and D. Chadi, Appl. Phys. Lett.75, 2830 (1999)

    1999

  55. [55]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr.44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  56. [56]

    R. I. Eglitis, E. A. Kotomin, V. A. Trepakov, S. E. Kap- phan, and G. Borstel, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter14, L647 (2002)

    2002

  57. [57]

    Ghorbani, L

    E. Ghorbani, L. Villa, P. Erhart, A. Klein, and K. Albe, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 074410 (2022)

    2022

  58. [58]

    Windsor and H

    D. Windsor and H. Xu, Phys. Rev. Mater.8, 094406 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    Erhart, A

    P. Erhart, A. Klein, D. ˚Aberg, and B. Sadigh, Phys Rev B90, 035204 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    Cococcioni and S

    M. Cococcioni and S. de Gironcoli, Phys Rev B71, 035105 (2005)

    2005

  61. [61]

    Falletta, J

    S. Falletta, J. Wiktor, and A. Pasquarello, Phys Rev B 102, 041115 (2020)

    2020

  62. [62]

    Falletta and A

    S. Falletta and A. Pasquarello, npj Computational Ma- terials8, 263 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comp. Mat. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  64. [64]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys Rev B59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  65. [65]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys Rev B50, 17953 (1994)

    1994

  66. [66]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys Rev Lett 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  67. [67]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Phys Rev Lett100, 136406 (2008)

    2008

  68. [68]

    J. P. Allen and G. W. Watson, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 21016 (2014)

    2014

  69. [69]

    Freysoldt, J

    C. Freysoldt, J. Neugebauer, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys Rev Lett102, 016402 (2009)

    2009

  70. [70]

    Freysoldt, B

    C. Freysoldt, B. Grabowski, T. Hickel, J. Neugebauer, G. Kresse, A. Janotti, and C. G. Van de Walle, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 253 (2014)

    2014

  71. [71]

    C. M. Foster, Z. Li, M. Grimsditch, S.-K. Chan, and D. J. Lam, Phys Rev B48, 10160 (1993)

    1993

  72. [72]

    ¨Osterbacka, P

    N. ¨Osterbacka, P. Erhart, S. Falletta, A. Pasquarello, and J. Wiktor, Chem. Mater.32, 8393 (2020)

    2020

  73. [73]

    Zhong, R

    W. Zhong, R. D. King-Smith, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys Rev Lett72, 3618 (1994)

    1994

  74. [74]

    M. E. Lines and A. M. Glass,Principles and Applications of Ferroelectrics and Related Materials(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2001)

    2001

  75. [75]

    T. Abe, S. Kim, C. Moriyoshi, Y. Kitanaka, Y. Noguchi, H. Tanaka, and Y. Kuroiwa, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 252905 (2020)

    2020

  76. [76]

    Tadmor, U

    E. Tadmor, U. Waghmare, G. Smith, and E. Kaxiras, Acta Mater.50, 2989 (2002)

    2002

  77. [77]

    S´ aghi-Szab´ o, R

    G. S´ aghi-Szab´ o, R. E. Cohen, and H. Krakauer, Phys Rev Lett80, 4321 (1998)

    1998

  78. [78]

    Kingsland, K

    M. Kingsland, K. A. Lynch, S. Lisenkov, X. He, and I. Ponomareva, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 073802 (2020)

    2020

  79. [79]

    Zhang, J

    Y. Zhang, J. Sun, J. P. Perdew, and X. Wu, Phys Rev B 96, 035143 (2017)

    2017

  80. [80]

    Petralanda, M

    U. Petralanda, M. Kruse, H. Simons, and T. Olsen, Phys Rev Lett127, 117601 (2021)

    2021

Showing first 80 references.