Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 57 references

Ferroelectric order in metals can act as Cooper-pairing glue, and the sign of dT_c/dQ is decided by a single dimensionless inequality.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-04 00:42 UTC pith:EC3DKGAR

load-bearing objection A sound microscopic derivation of a local T_c-enhancement criterion for ferroelectric metals, but the abstract's 'emerge' overstates the model's actual content. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2608.00338 v1 pith:EC3DKGAR submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.supr-con

Ferroelectric superconductivity in noncentrosymmetric metals

Jason G. Kattan , T. Pereg-Barnea This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-con
keywords ferroelectric superconductivitypolarization fluctuationsCooper pairingBCS theorypolar phononsnoncentrosymmetric metalssliding ferroelectricsThomas-Fermi screening
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that ferroelectric order need not be hostile to superconductivity: in a ferroelectric metal, fluctuations of the ionic polarization field can mediate an attractive electron-electron interaction just as ordinary phonons do in BCS theory. Treating electrons and ions microscopically, the authors reduce a general coupled electron-ion Hamiltonian to a single-band BCS model parameterized by the ferroelectric order parameter Q, and derive a compact inequality — dg_s/dQ + g_s^2 d ln Λ/dQ > 0 — that decides whether increasing the polar distortion raises or lowers T_c. The sign depends on how the polarization simultaneously changes the band effective mass, dielectric screening, polar phonon stiffness, and the pairing cutoff. A sympathetic reader would care because the result converts a long-standing qualitative debate about ferroelectricity and superconductivity into a concrete, computable condition, and it explains why some polar metals show enhanced T_c while others suppress it.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that polarization fluctuations in a ferroelectric metal are a legitimate source of Cooper pairing, analogous to nonpolar phonons in conventional BCS theory, and that the effect of ferroelectric order on superconductivity is controlled by how the polar distortion Q changes the dimensionless s-wave attraction g_s(Q). After integrating out the phonons of a microscopic electron-ion Hamiltonian, the authors reduce the general kernel to a single-band BCS model and derive the local enhancement criterion dT_c/dQ > 0, equivalently dg_s/dQ + g_s^2 d lnΛ/dQ > 0 at Q=Q0, where the first term is the shift in pairing strength and the second is the change in the Debye energy wi

What carries the argument

The central object is the microscopic ionic polarization field p_ion(x,t), defined by δρ_ion = -∇·p_ion, whose fluctuations about the ferroelectric equilibrium become the phonons that mediate electron-electron attraction. The carrying mechanism is the reduction to a single polar optical branch λ0 with order parameter Q0, producing the effective interaction kernel V(k,p;Q) in which the attractive phonon part competes with screened Coulomb repulsion; the paper's workhorse is the dimensionless s-wave attraction g_s(Q) (Eq. 107) and the Q-derivative inequality (Eq. 109), which separates changes in pairing strength from changes in the Debye cutoff Λ(Q).

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative criterion (109) assumes the pairing glue is dominated by the single polar optical branch at long wavelength with Thomas-Fermi-screened couplings and Gaussian, spatially uniform polarization fluctuations; if local-field, non-uniform, or interlayer charge-transfer channels dominate instead, the derived sign of dT_c/dQ need not hold.

What would settle it

In a clean ferroelectric metal with tunable polar distortion (e.g., strained strontium titanate or bilayer Td-MoTe2 under electrostatic gating), measure T_c(Q) and independently extract m*(Q), ε∞(Q), Ω0(Q), and the polar electron-phonon coupling; if the observed sign of dT_c/dQ disagrees with Eq. (109) evaluated with those measured inputs, the single-branch long-wavelength Gaussian approximation is falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Ferroelectricity and superconductivity are compatible in principle, and the same microscopic formalism covers conventional displacive ferroelectrics and sliding ferroelectrics.
  • Because T_c depends exponentially on 1/g_s, even a modest polar modification of the interaction kernel can produce a substantial change in T_c — upward or downward.
  • The enhancement criterion (Eq. 109) is a computable diagnostic: given m*(Q), ε∞(Q), Ω0(Q), and the polar coupling, one can predict whether a candidate ferroelectric metal will show enhanced or suppressed superconductivity.
  • The full multiband, spin-orbit-coupled interaction kernel allows for unconventional singlet, triplet, mixed-parity, or spin-orbit-entangled pairing; the s-wave model is the minimal illustration.
  • In the four archetypal scenarios the model reproduces qualitatively the enhanced T_c seen in strained strontium titanate, the possibility of suppression in other polar metals, peaked enhancement for sliding ferroelectrics, and a high-T_c plateau for interfaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the criterion (109) could be turned into a first-principles screening pipeline: compute the Q-dependent effective mass, dielectric function, polar phonon frequency, and electron-phonon matrix element for candidate polar metals and read off the sign of dT_c/dQ.
  • If real sliding ferroelectrics have a non-monotonic layer-registry dependence of the electron-phonon vertex, then peaked T_c(Q) should be a common feature rather than a special case; this is testable by stacking-tuned transport measurements.
  • The paper's Gaussian-vertex parametrization for sliding ferroelectrics is illustrative; the underlying prediction that the channel eigenvalue λ(Q,T) can peak at intermediate Q is stable and could be checked by measuring the pairing susceptibility or superfluid density under interlayer displacement.
  • A strong-coupling extension near the ferroelectric quantum critical point would likely soften the polar branch enough that the quadratic-frequency assumption (Eq. 94) breaks down, and the weak-coupling exponential formula (Eq. 108) would require correction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops a microscopic theory of ferroelectric metals, introducing a polarization field operator for the ionic degrees of freedom coupled to itinerant electrons through screened Coulomb and spin-orbit interactions. After integrating out the phonons in the ferroelectric phase, the authors derive a general effective two-body interaction kernel (Eq. 66), which they reduce to a single-band, spin-independent, s-wave BCS model parametrized by a uniform ferroelectric order parameter Q. The central results are the dimensionless s-wave attraction strength g_s(Q) (Eq. 107), the BCS critical-temperature estimate (Eq. 108), and the local enhancement criterion dg_s/dQ + g_s^2 d ln Λ/dQ > 0 (Eq. 109). Four illustrative archetypes (enhanced pairing, suppressed pairing, peaked enhancement, high-Tc plateau) are computed using parameters listed in Appendix B. The formal derivation chain is internally consistent, and the numerical curves are explicitly described as illustrative rather than material-specific fits.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful microscopic framework for ferroelectric superconductivity that can be applied to both conventional ionic ferroelectrics and sliding ferroelectrics. Its main formal contribution is a closed-form criterion that separates the polar-distortion dependence of the pairing strength from the change in the pairing cutoff. The derivation is transparent, the approximations are stated explicitly (single polar branch, G=0 long-wavelength vertex, dilute limit, Gaussian fluctuations), and the paper is honest about the illustrative status of the numerical parameters. The chief caveat is that the claimed 'emergence' scenario is not actually demonstrated by the equations: the demonstrated content is a local enhancement condition for a pre-existing superconductor.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. V A, Eqs. (107)-(109); Table I] The abstract's claim that superconductivity can 'even emerge from ferroelectricity' is not supported by the presented mathematics. Equation (109) is a local-response condition dT_c/dQ|_{Q0}>0, and Eq. (108) is meaningful only when g_s(Q)>0. In Table I, all four archetypes have g_s(0)=g_ref^s>0 (0.070, 0.120, 0.080, 0.070), so every calculation starts from a superconducting state at Q=0 and merely modifies its T_c. No parameter set with g_s(0)<0<g_s(Q0) is analyzed, and no threshold/onset argument is provided. The 'emerge' scenario therefore does not follow from Eq. (109) or the sample calculations. This should be repaired either by adding an explicit example in which g_s crosses from negative to positive before Q0 (together with a discussion of the onset of pairing), or by softening the abstract and introduction to state that the paper derives conditions for enhancement of superconductiv
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V B] The qualitative behavior of the 'enhanced pairing' and 'high-Tc plateau' curves follows directly from the chosen signs a_m>0, a_epsilon<0, a_Omega>0 in Appendix B. The paper is transparent that these are not fits, but a sentence in Sec. V B explicitly saying that the figures are existence illustrations of parameter sensitivity, not evidence for any particular material, would prevent over-reading.
  2. [Sec. V A, Eqs. (92)-(104)] The reduction to a single polar branch with G=0 and the omission of the quantum-metric term are acknowledged. Given that the Introduction emphasizes sliding ferroelectrics, where interlayer charge-transfer and local-field channels can dominate, the Discussion should more prominently state that Eq. (109) is a criterion for the reduced model, not a universal criterion for ferroelectric superconductivity.
  3. [Throughout] The notation g_s for the attraction strength conflicts with the spin-degeneracy factor g introduced in Sec. V A; consider renaming one of them. Also, the phrase 'contrary to a long-standing conjecture that these two phenomena are incompatible, or at least unrelated' is vague; the 'or at least unrelated' clause adds little.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the central criterion is derived, and the illustrative parameters are honestly labeled as non-predictive choices.

full rationale

The central chain — microscopic Hamiltonian (7), polarization-field decomposition (20), ferroelectric fluctuations (53), integrated-out phonon interaction (66), single-band gap equation (72), s-wave attraction strength (107), T_c estimate (108), and local enhancement criterion (109) — is a continuous mathematical derivation. Equation (109) is obtained by differentiating (108) and is not an identity imposed by a fitted parameter; its content is the explicit dependence of g_s(Q) on the band mass, dielectric function, polar-mode frequency, and vertex. The Appendix B coefficients are explicitly labeled 'illustrative input parameters' and 'not material-specific fits' (Table I caption), so the archetype curves are sample calculations selected to exhibit qualitative behaviors, not fitted predictions. The fact that the sign of the 'enhanced pairing' curve is built into the chosen a_m, a_epsilon, a_Omega, a_G is a limitation of the illustrative demonstration, not a circular reduction of the derived criterion. The self-citations (refs. 37, 40, 42, 50) provide technical formalism but are not used to force the central conclusion, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation. One non-circular caveat: the abstract's 'even emerge from ferroelectricity' is not exhibited by any archetype, since Table I has g_s(0) > 0 for all four cases; Eq. (109) is only a local enhancement condition. This is an overstatement, not a circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 8 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central result rests on standard BCS machinery plus a chain of modeling assumptions: static-limit phonons, uniform order parameter, single-branch dominance, Thomas-Fermi screening, and a long-wavelength vertex. The quantitative outcomes (Figs. 1-2) are controlled by ten hand-set parameters (Table I) that the paper explicitly says are not material-specific fits. No new physical entities are introduced; the microscopic polarization field is a standard reformulation, and the Q-dependent Gaussian coupling is a modeling device without independent evidence.

free parameters (10)
  • a_m (band-mass coefficient) = 0.08 (enhanced), 0.06 (suppressed), 0.14 (peaked), 0.10 (plateau)
    Quadratic coefficient of m*(q)/m*(0)=1+a_m q^2 (Eq. B1). Hand-picked per archetype; controls density-of-states change with polarity.
  • a_epsilon (dielectric coefficient) = -0.10, -0.03, -0.08, -0.09
    Controls how background screening changes with Q (Eq. B1). Chosen, not derived.
  • a_Omega (polar-mode stiffness coefficient) = 0.35, 0.45, 0.75, 0.30
    Controls hardening/softening of the polar branch (Eq. B1). Its sign largely decides enhancement vs suppression in the model.
  • a_G (polar-coupling coefficient) = 0.18, 0.08, 0.05, 0.10
    Q-dependence of the electron-phonon vertex G_eff (Eq. B2).
  • x_TF(0) (reference Thomas-Fermi parameter) = 0.741, 0.606, 0.645, 0.667
    Sets the screening scale at the reference background (Eq. B3).
  • mu_c (reference Coulomb penalty) = 0.070, 0.120, 0.080, 0.070
    Magnitude of the repulsive Coulomb term at q=0 (Appendix B).
  • g_ref_s (reference attraction strength) = 0.200, 0.120, 0.235, 0.300
    Baseline pairing strength at q=0. Positive in all four archetypes, so SC exists already at Q=0.
  • Lambda_D/k_B (reference Debye cutoff) = 26, 18, 38, 52 K
    Pairing energy window at reference background (Eq. B5).
  • A_M, q_M, sigma_M (Gaussian vertex parameters) = 0.25, 0.58, 0.20 (peaked case only)
    Produce a maximum of the coupling at intermediate sliding displacement, qualitatively motivated by Td-MoTe2.
  • Gamma_4, kappa_0, omega_D (double-well, stiffness, Debye frequency) = absorbed into a_Omega, eta=0, Lambda_D
    Underlying FE potential and dispersion parameters; their Q-dependence is parametrized rather than computed from any material.
axioms (8)
  • standard math Standard BCS mean-field decoupling and weak-coupling exponential T_c formula (Eqs. 72-86)
    Underpins the gap equation and Eq. (108); textbook machinery.
  • domain assumption Phonon-mediated interaction taken in the instantaneous (static) limit; retardation dropped
    Appendix A replaces the phonon propagator by (1/Omega^2) delta(t-t'), removing memory effects from the effective interaction.
  • ad hoc to paper Odd-order anharmonic couplings vanish; potential truncated at quartic order (Eq. 44)
    Required for the simple double-well picture of ferroelectricity; stated as appropriate when parity mixing is weak.
  • domain assumption Uniform macroscopic polarization; single zone-center branch lambda0 becomes polar (Eqs. 47-53)
    Reduces the FE sector to one scalar order parameter Q. The abstract's spatially modulated case is never modeled.
  • domain assumption Ionic charge redistribution represented by a microscopic polarization field with delta rho_ion = -div p_ion (Eq. 20)
    The decomposition is nonunique (acknowledged in Sec. III); final results are expressed in displacement operators, but the Coulomb-sector rewriting rests on it.
  • domain assumption Thomas-Fermi screening with background dielectric epsilon_infinity(Q) for the retained band (Eqs. 87-88)
    Single-parameter screening of the 2D Coulomb interaction; standard but a strong simplification for a polar metal.
  • ad hoc to paper Single polar branch dominates pairing; G=0 long-wavelength vertex; dilute metal qa<<1; quantum-metric term dropped (Eqs. 92-104)
    This is the load-bearing modeling chain behind Eq. (107); if local-field (G!=0) couplings or acoustic branches matter, the condition (109) changes.
  • domain assumption Cell-periodic Bloch functions vary on momentum scale a^-1 so |M|^2 ~ 1 (Eq. 104)
    Drops the band-geometric correction to the vertex; k-dependence is retained only through the unit vector q-hat.
invented entities (2)
  • Microscopic polarization field operator p_ion(x,t) independent evidence
    purpose: Formal device to rewrite ionic charge redistribution and its coupling to electrons (Eqs. 20-31)
    Not a new physical entity; borrowed from the prior microscopic polarization formalism of refs 37-42. Nonuniqueness is acknowledged; final results use displacement operators.
  • Q-parametrized family of BCS models with background-dependent coupling G_eff(q) no independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes how layer sliding modifies the electron-phonon vertex (Eq. B2)
    Purely a parametrization, including an unmotivated Gaussian bump with parameters A_M, q_M, sigma_M; no falsifiable handle outside this paper.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23205 in / 27659 out tokens · 243648 ms · 2026-08-04T00:42:55.508601+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

It has recently been shown in experiments that certain materials can display both superconductivity and ferroelectricity, contrary to a long-standing conjecture that these two phenomena are incompatible, or at least unrelated. In this work we study superconductivity in ferroelectric metals, using a formalism of ionic polarization fields coupled to itinerant electrons, both of which are treated at the microscopic level. The ferroelectric order manifests as a spontaneous polarization that may be uniform or spatially modulated, and fluctuations of the polarization mediate interactions between the electrons. The polarization fluctuations give rise to attractive interactions that can lead to Cooper pairing in certain lattice configurations, analogous to the nonpolar phonons in conventional BCS theory. Working with a simplified BCS model, we derive conditions under which superconductivity can coexist with and even emerge from ferroelectricity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00338 by Jason G. Kattan, T. Pereg-Barnea.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Phase diagram for (a) enhanced pairing, (b) sup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Representative evaluations of the ferroelectric BCS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

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

57 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    ferroelectric

    P. W. Anderson and E. I. Blount, Symmetry consid- erations on martensitic transformations: “ferroelectric” metals?, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 217 (1965)

    1965

  2. [2]

    M. E. Lines and A. M. Glass,Principles and Applications of Ferroelectrics and Related Materials(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Ferroelectric

    N. A. Benedek and T. Birol, “Ferroelectric” metals re- examined: fundamental mechanisms and design consid- erations for new materials, J. Mater. Chem. C4, 4000 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Hickox-Young, D

    D. Hickox-Young, D. Puggioni, and J. M. Rondinelli, Po- lar metals taxonomy for materials classification and dis- covery, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 010301 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Resta, Macroscopic polarization in crystalline di- electrics: The geometric phase approach, Rev

    R. Resta, Macroscopic polarization in crystalline di- electrics: The geometric phase approach, Rev. Mod. Phys.66, 899 (1994)

    1994

  6. [6]

    R. D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt, Theory of polariza- tion of crystalline solids, Phys. Rev. B47, 1651 (1993)

    1993

  7. [7]

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

    2017

  8. [8]

    Ahadi, L

    K. Ahadi, L. Galletti, Y. Li, S. Salmani-Rezaie, W. Wu, and S. Stemmer, Enhancing superconductivity in SrTiO3 films with strain, Sci. Adv.5, eaaw0120 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    Hameed, D

    S. Hameed, D. Pelc, Z. W. Anderson, A. Klein, R. J. Spieker, L. Yue, B. Das, J. Ramberger, M. Lukas, Y. Liu, M. J. Krogstad, R. Osborn, Y. Li, C. Leighton, R. M. Fer- nandes, and M. Greven, Enhanced superconductivity and ferroelectric quantum criticality in plastically deformed strontium titanate, Nat. Mater.21, 54 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Z. Fei, W. Zhao, T. A. Palomaki, B. Sun, M. K. Miller, Z. Zhao, J. Yan, X. Xu, and D. H. Cobden, Ferroelectric switching of a two-dimensional metal, Nature (London) 560, 336 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    S. C. de la Barrera, Q. Cao, Y. Gao, Y. Gao, V. S. Bheemarasetty, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, W. Zhu, D. Xiao, and B. M. Hunt, Direct measurement of ferroelectric po- larization in a tunable semimetal, Nat. Commun.12, 5298 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Jindal, A

    A. Jindal, A. Saha, Z. Li, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. C. Hone, T. Birol, R. M. Fernandes, C. R. Dean, A. N. Pasupathy, and D. A. Rhodes, Coupled ferroelectricity and superconductivity in bilayerTd-MoTe2, Nature (Lon- don)613, 48 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Zhang, M

    M. Zhang, M. Qin, Y. Sun, S. Hong, Y. Zhou, and Y. Xie, Enhanced superconductivity and coexisting ferroelectric- ity at oxide interfaces, Nat. Commun.17, 219 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    M. D. Dong, X. B. Cheng, M. Zhang, and J. Wu, Strongly coupled interface ferroelectricity and interface supercon- ductivity in amorphous LaAlO3/KTaO3(111), Nat. Com- mun.17, 2805 (2026)

    2026

  15. [15]

    J. F. Schooley, W. R. Hosler, and M. L. Cohen, Super- conductivity in semiconducting SrTiO3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 12, 474 (1964)

    1964

  16. [16]

    J. F. Schooley, W. R. Hosler, E. Ambler, J. H. Becker, M. L. Cohen, and C. S. Koonce, Dependence of the su- perconducting transition temperature on carrier concen- tration in semiconducting SrTiO 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 305 (1965)

    1965

  17. [17]

    K. A. M¨ uller and H. Burkard, SrTiO3: An intrinsic quan- tum paraelectric below 4 k, Phys. Rev. B19, 3593 (1979)

    1979

  18. [18]

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

    2014

  19. [19]

    Russell, N

    R. Russell, N. Ratcliff, K. Ahadi, L. Dong, S. Stemmer, and J. W. Harter, Ferroelectric enhancement of supercon- ductivity in compressively strained SrTiO 3 films, Phys. Rev. Mater.3, 091401 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Dunnett, A

    K. Dunnett, A. Narayan, N. A. Spaldin, and A. V. Bal- atsky, Strain and ferroelectric soft-mode induced super- conductivity in strontium titanate, Phys. Rev. B97, 144506 (2018)

    2018

  21. [21]

    van der Marel, F

    D. van der Marel, F. Barantani, and C. W. Rischau, Pos- sible mechanism for superconductivity in doped SrTiO 3, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 013003 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    M. N. Gastiasoro, T. V. Trevisan, and R. M. Fernandes, Anisotropic superconductivity mediated by ferroelectric fluctuations in cubic systems with spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. B101, 174501 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    S. K. Saha, M. N. Gastiasoro, J. Ruhman, and A. Klein, Strong coupling theory of superconductivity and fer- roelectric quantum criticality in metallic SrTiO 3, npj Quantum Mater.10, 82 (2025)

    2025

  24. [24]

    Q. Yang, M. Wu, and J. Li, Origin of two-dimensional vertical ferroelectricity in WTe 2 bilayer and multilayer, J. Phys. Chem. Lett.9, 7160 (2018)

    2018

  25. [25]

    X. Liu, Y. Yang, T. Hu, G. Zhao, C. Chen, and W. Ren, Vertical ferroelectric switching by in-plane sliding of two- dimensional bilayer WTe2, Nanoscale11, 18575 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Wu and J

    M. Wu and J. Li, Sliding ferroelectricity in 2D van der Waals materials: Related physics and future opportu- nities, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.118, e2115703118 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    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, Science372, 1462 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Yasuda, X

    K. Yasuda, X. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and P. Jarillo-Herrero, Stacking-engineered ferroelectricity in bilayer boron nitride, Science372, 1458 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    P. Meng, Y. Wu, R. Bian, E. Pan, B. Dong, X. Zhao, J. Chen, L. Wu, Y. Sun, Q. Fu, Q. Liu, D. Shi, Q. Zhang, Y.-W. Zhang, Z. Liu, and F. Liu, Sliding induced multiple polarization states in two-dimensional ferroelectrics, Nat. Commun.13, 7696 (2022)

    2022

  30. [30]

    J. Kim, M. Yu, A. Omran, J. Yang, R. Ramachandran, W. O. Nachlas, P. Irvin, J. Levy, and C.-B. Eom, En- hanced superconductivity at quantum-critical KTaO3 in- terfaces (2025), arXiv:2511.12904 [cond-mat.supr-con]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    V. L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, On the theory of su- perconductivity, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.20, 1064 (1950)

    1950

  32. [32]

    Sigrist and K

    M. Sigrist and K. Ueda, Phenomenological theory of un- conventional superconductivity, Rev. Mod. Phys.63, 239 (1991)

    1991

  33. [33]

    Kanasugi and Y

    S. Kanasugi and Y. Yanase, Spin-orbit-coupled ferroelec- tric superconductivity, Phys. Rev. B98, 024521 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Chaudhary and I

    G. Chaudhary and I. Martin, Superconductivity from do- main wall fluctuations in sliding ferroelectrics, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 246001 (2024). 18

    2024

  35. [35]

    Biswas, J

    A. Biswas, J. Sutradhar, S. K. Saha, A. Klein, and J. Ruhman, Interlayer charge-transfer ferroelectric fluc- tuations as a pairing mechanism in van der Waals su- perconductors (2026), arXiv:2601.03352 [cond-mat.supr- con]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    D. S. Annenkov, A. A. Kopasov, and A. S. Mel’nikov, In- terplay of ferroelectricity and interlayer superconductiv- ity in van der Waals bilayers, Phys. Rev. B112, 224521 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    J. G. Kattan and J. E. Sipe, Multipolar quantum electro- dynamics of localized charge-current distributions: Spec- tral theory and renormalization, Phys. Rev. A107, 032820 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    P. T. Mahon, R. A. Muniz, and J. E. Sipe, Microscopic polarization and magnetization fields in extended sys- tems, Phys. Rev. B99, 235140 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    P. T. Mahon and J. E. Sipe, Electric polarization and magnetization in metals, SciPost Phys.14, 058 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    J. G. Kattan, M. Albert, and J. E. Sipe, A new perspective on the anomalous Hall effect (2026), arXiv:2607.09019 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    P. T. Mahon, J. G. Kattan, and J. E. Sipe, Polarization and orbital magnetization in Chern insulators: A micro- scopic perspective, Phys. Rev. B107, 115110 (2023)

    2023

  42. [42]

    J. G. Kattan, A. H. Duff, and J. E. Sipe, Linear re- sponse of a Chern insulator to finite-frequency electric fields, Phys. Rev. B111, 075202 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    L. P. Gor’kov and E. I. Rashba, Superconducting 2D sys- tem with lifted spin degeneracy: Mixed singlet-triplet state, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 037004 (2001)

    2001

  44. [44]

    P. A. Frigeri, D. F. Agterberg, A. Koga, and M. Sigrist, Superconductivity without inversion symmetry: MnSi versus CePt3Si, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 097001 (2004)

    2004

  45. [45]

    Fr¨ ohlich, Theory of the superconducting state

    H. Fr¨ ohlich, Theory of the superconducting state. I. The ground state at the absolute zero of temperature, Phys. Rev.79, 845 (1950)

    1950

  46. [46]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  47. [47]

    Morel and P

    P. Morel and P. W. Anderson, Calculation of the su- perconducting state parameters with retarded electron- phonon interaction, Phys. Rev.125, 1263 (1962)

    1962

  48. [48]

    L. N. Cooper, Bound electron pairs in a degenerate Fermi gas, Phys. Rev.104, 1189 (1956)

    1956

  49. [49]

    Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed

    M. Tinkham,Introduction to Superconductivity, 2nd ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996)

    1996

  50. [50]

    J. G. Kattan and J. E. Sipe, Chern insulators in two and three dimensions: A global perspective, Phys. Rev. B113, 125201 (2026)

    2026

  51. [51]

    Cochran, Crystal stability and the theory of ferro- electricity, Adv

    W. Cochran, Crystal stability and the theory of ferro- electricity, Adv. Phys.9, 387 (1960)

    1960

  52. [52]

    Baroni, S

    S. Baroni, S. de Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Gi- annozzi, Phonons and related crystal properties from density-functional perturbation theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 515 (2001)

    2001

  53. [53]

    Giustino, Electron-phonon interactions from first prin- ciples, Rev

    F. Giustino, Electron-phonon interactions from first prin- ciples, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015003 (2017)

    2017

  54. [54]

    J. M. Edge, Y. Kedem, U. Aschauer, N. A. Spaldin, and A. V. Balatsky, Quantum critical origin of the supercon- ducting dome in SrTiO 3, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 247002 (2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    Stern, Polarizability of a two-dimensional electron gas, Phys

    F. Stern, Polarizability of a two-dimensional electron gas, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 546 (1967)

    1967

  56. [56]

    Kozii, Z

    V. Kozii, Z. Bi, and J. Ruhman, Superconductivity near a ferroelectric quantum critical point in ultralow-density Dirac materials, Phys. Rev. X9, 031046 (2019)

    2019

  57. [57]

    Z. Chen, Y. Liu, H. Zhang, Z. Liu, H. Tian, Y. Sun, M. Zhang, Y. Zhou, J. Sun, and Y. Xie, Two-dimensional superconductivity at the LaAlO 3/KTaO3 heterointer- face, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 026802 (2021)

    2021

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.