Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Creating currents of electric bubbles

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Electric bubbles in ferroelectric superlattices can be driven into directed currents, with predicted speeds over 25 m/s at room temperature and about 180 m/s at 200 K.

desk verdict First simulation evidence that electric bubbles in PTO/STO can be dragged into directed currents by traveling field waves; the mechanism is new and plausible, though the headline velocities are model-bound. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15074 v1 pith:LW4EUT7A submitted 2024-12-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Jorge Íñiguez-González (LIST , University of Luxembourg) , Hugo Aramberri (LIST) This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords electricbubblesferroelectricsuperlatticesPbTiO3/SrO3Brownianmotionfield-driventransportsecond-principlessimulationstopologicalquasiparticlesneuromorphiccomputing
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 argues that electric bubbles (e-bubbles) — nanoscale islands of reversed polarization in PbTiO$_3$/SrTiO$_3$ superlattices — can be turned into directed currents by electric fields, and backs this with predictive atomistic simulations. In the regimes where e-bubbles already diffuse spontaneously as Brownian particles, a static field gradient biases that diffusion into a net drift, and a traveling field wave can drag the bubbles along. The computed velocities exceed 25 m/s at room temperature and reach about 180 m/s in a 6/3 superlattice at 200 K, with bubbles remaining stable even when they fail to track fast waves. If these predictions hold, e-bubbles become an electric-field-controlled counterpart to magnetic skyrmions, relevant for low-power neuromorphic computing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the e-bubble itself: a roughly cylindrical, few-nanometer-diameter region of reversed polarization spanning the PTO layer, whose boundary moves by local dipole switching. Its spontaneous Brownian diffusion is the regime the paper exploits. The static-gradient mechanism is captured by treating the bubble as a point dipole and writing its energy as $V_b \approx -E_{\mathrm{tot},z} d_{b,z}$, which yields a constant drift force under a field gradient; the statistical description is the Smoluchowski equation $c \, \partial P/\partial x + D \, \partial^2 P/\partial x^2 = 0$, whose solution $P(x) \propto \exp(-cx/D)$ is fit to simulation histograms to extract velocities. The dynamic mechanism is a traveling sinusoidal field $E_{\mathrm{tot},z}(x;t) = E_z^{(0)} + E_z^{(1)} \sin(2\pi x/L - 2\pi t/\tau)$, whose moving potential minima pull the bubble; the ultimate speed limit is set by the rate of local polarization switching at the bubble boundary.

What would settle it

Measure the trajectory of a single e-bubble in a PTO/STO superlattice under a known static field gradient or a traveling field wave, for example by piezoresponse force microscopy or X-ray diffraction; if no directed drift appears or the velocities are far below 25 m/s at 300 K, the central claim is falsified. In simulations, recompute the maximum bubble speed using a different potential or density-functional barriers for PTO boundary switching: if the boundary-cell switching time at 100 m/s is much longer than about 4 ps, the speed limit is overestimated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that e-bubble currents are feasible. In the diffusive regime, an e-bubble behaves as a long-lived Brownian quasiparticle, so any spatial asymmetry in its energy landscape produces a drift; the paper demonstrates two ways to impose that asymmetry with electric fields. A sawtooth-modulated $z$-oriented field creates a nearly linear potential, giving a constant drift force, and the steady-state probability distribution obeys a Smoluchowski equation $P(x) \propto \exp(-cx/D)$. A sinusoidal traveling field wave, with its minima moving at velocity $v_W = L/\tau$, entrains the bubble; the bubble tracks the wave up to tens to over a hundred m/s and then falls behind. Simulations on 9/3 and 6/3 superlattices give drift velocities above 20 m/s under static bias and maximum bubble speeds of about 30 m/s (9/3 at 300 K) and 180 m/s (6/3 at 200 K) under field waves. The speeds are argued to be physically plausible because a bubble moving at 100 m/s needs its boundary cells to switch in about 4 ps, consistent with atomistic studies of ferroelectric switching in PTO.

Load-bearing premise

The computer model (a second-principles potential fitted to quantum simulations of PbTiO$_3$ and SrTiO$_3$ and adjusted for the superlattice) must correctly describe how e-bubbles form and how their boundary cells switch under strong electric fields; if the switching barriers or bubble energetics are wrong, the predicted velocities and stability would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Static field gradients convert spontaneous Brownian diffusion of e-bubbles into directed currents, with drift velocity growing approximately linearly with the gradient and increasing with temperature.
  • Traveling field waves drag e-bubbles at the wave speed for slow waves, with perfect tracking up to about 50 m/s at $E_z^{(1)} = 50$ kV/cm and up to about 150 m/s at $E_z^{(1)} = 100$ kV/cm in the 6/3 superlattice.
  • Maximum predicted bubble speeds are about 180 m/s for the 6/3 superlattice at 200 K and 30 m/s for the 9/3 superlattice at 300 K, placing e-bubbles on par with typical magnetic-skyrmion velocities without any velocity optimization.
  • E-bubbles remain stable even when the field wave is too fast and the bubble slips off track, supporting their use as long-lived quasiparticles.
  • A bubble speed of 100 m/s implies boundary polarization switches in about 4 ps, a rate consistent with earlier atomistic studies of ferroelectric switching in PTO, so the speed limit is physical rather than an artifact.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same drift-diffusion logic suggests that any Brownian quasiparticle with a well-defined dipole can be biased into a current by a potential gradient; the e-bubble is one realization of a general mechanism for creating directed motion from thermal noise.
  • If the predicted speeds hold experimentally, field-wave-driven e-bubbles could be used as electric-field-controlled information carriers in neuromorphic hardware, avoiding the electrical currents needed to move magnetic skyrmions and potentially lowering power consumption.
  • Advances in surface-acoustic-wave technology or nanofabricated wedge electrodes could provide the traveling waves or static gradients needed in real devices; the paper points to these as plausible experimental routes.
  • Pinning in real samples is the main obstacle; defect engineering might create channels that guide bubble currents, and measuring the fraction of mobile bubbles in high-quality samples would test the practical relevance.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. Using second-principles molecular dynamics, the manuscript studies electric bubbles in PbTiO3/SrTiO3 superlattices and proposes two electric-field strategies to create directed bubble currents. A static sawtooth-modulated field produces a confinement of the bubble position P(x), whose exponential tails are fit to a Smoluchowski drift-diffusion solution to extract c/D and, with a separately computed zero-field D, drift velocities above 20 m/s. A traveling sinusoidal field is shown by direct trajectory tracking to drag bubbles at the wave velocity up to tens of m/s, with maximum speeds of about 30 m/s in the 9/3 superlattice at 300 K and about 180 m/s in the 6/3 superlattice at 200 K. The authors argue that these speeds are ultimately limited by the picosecond polarization switching of a few boundary cells, and they compare the result with magnetic skyrmion velocities.

Significance. If the predictions are correct, the paper provides a strategy for driving topological electric bubbles without electric currents, with speeds that rival typical magnetic skyrmions and could be relevant for unconventional computing. The work's strengths are that the traveling-wave velocities are obtained by direct MD tracking of bubble positions, the static-gradient analysis uses an independently computed diffusion constant rather than a fitted formula, and the predictions are concrete and falsifiable for specific superlattices, temperatures, and field parameters. The main limitation is that the quantitative speed ceiling rests on unvalidated ultrafast switching dynamics of the model potential.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods; discussion after Fig. 4] The quantitative ceiling of the traveling-wave results is set by the rate at which polarization reverses at the e-bubble boundary: the text notes that a bubble velocity of 100 m/s implies boundary cells switch in about 4 ps. The only evidence offered for such rates is an analogy to first-principles bulk PTO switching (Ref. [28]); the SCALE-UP potential is said to be fitted to bulk DFT data and adjusted for superlattices, but the paper does not test whether it reproduces switching barriers, critical-nucleus sizes, or time-dependent switching in the PTO/STO superlattice at the large local fields used here. Since the bubble slip rate in a moving potential depends exponentially on barrier heights, an unvalidated anharmonic property directly controls the maximum tracking velocity and the headline numbers above 25 m/s and around 180 m/s. Please add a validation of the switching kinetics or explicitly reframe the high-speed numbers as model-limited upper estimates.
  2. [Figs. 2 and 4] Figures 2 and 4 present the central velocity predictions without error bars or statistical measures. The text further admits in the discussion of Fig. 4 that obtaining good statistics in the regime c <= vW would require prohibitively long simulations, which is precisely the regime where the maximum of c is located. The headline values are therefore point estimates whose sampling uncertainty is unknown, and the comparison with magnetic-skyrmion speeds cannot be assessed quantitatively. Please provide error estimates from independent runs or block resampling, or restrict the claims to within statistical reach.
  3. [Static-gradient analysis, Eqs. (3)-(4), Figs. 1-2] The static-gradient velocities in Fig. 2 are obtained by fitting Eq. (4) to the tails of P(x), but the manuscript does not specify the fit window, the fitting procedure, or the sensitivity of c/D to that choice. In addition, Eq. (3) is solved with a diffusion constant D taken from independent zero-field simulations, even though D can depend on the applied force; the paper provides no check that D is unchanged at nonzero E1. Because the static-gradient result is one of the two proposed mechanisms, please document the fit ranges and justify or test the constant-D assumption.
  4. [Eq. (1) and Fig. 1a] The sawtooth-modulated field in Eq. (1) has a discontinuity at the periodic boundaries, so the effective potential experienced by the bubble differs from the ideal point-dipole potential and is not linear across the cell. The derivation of Eq. (4) assumes a constant-drift region, yet the manuscript does not show that the fitted tail region is free of boundary effects or that bubble recirculation across x=0,L does not bias P(x). A test with a longer supercell or with fits restricted to different portions of the cell would make the exponential-tail analysis robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical errors: postive in the introduction, dependece in the static-gradient section, and wavelenghts in the experimental feasibility paragraph should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 1a] The red dashed line is described as proportional to the electric potential for a bubble of 4 unit cells in diameter; please define how the bubble diameter is measured and clarify the sign convention of the plotted potential.
  3. [Discussion near Fig. 4] The estimate that 100 m/s corresponds to about 4 ps per boundary-cell switch assumes a particular boundary thickness; state the cell size and the number of switching cells used in this estimate.
  4. [Methods] Please report the MD time step, thermostat details including the velocity-rescaling interval, and the exact field parameters and supercell dimensions, or provide a repository link, so that the calculations are reproducible.
  5. [Discussion, pinning paragraph] The conclusion that pinning will not be an unsurmountable problem is speculative given that the simulations contain no defects; I suggest presenting this as an open question rather than a conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: e-bubble velocities are extracted directly from MD trajectories or from Smoluchowski fits with an independently computed diffusion constant; self-citations are to the model and prior Brownian-bubble prediction, not to the velocity results.

full rationale

The core velocity predictions in Figures 3 and 4 are read directly from molecular-dynamics trajectories of the e-bubble position under a traveling field wave; no fitted formula or parameter encoding the target velocity is used. For the static-gradient results, the paper fits P(x) to Eq. (4) to obtain c/D, then multiplies by D obtained from separate zero-bias MD simulations (E_z^(1)=0). The diffusion constant is thus independent of the biased runs, so the inferred drift velocity is not a fit to its own input. The second-principles SCALE-UP potential is fitted to first-principles bulk data (Ref. 21) and adjusted for superlattices (Ref. 22), not to e-bubble velocities or to the field-driven switching dynamics under study; using a previously parameterized model is not circular. The paper's reliance on its own prior prediction of Brownian e-bubbles (Ref. 9) is also not load-bearing because the current simulations reproduce the diffusive regime and compute P(x) and D explicitly. The picosecond-switching plausibility argument cites an external study (Ref. 28, Shin et al., Nature 2007), not a self-citation chain. The acknowledged limitations, such as "obtaining good statistics in the regime where c ≲ vW would require prohibitively long simulations" and the unavoidable difference from experimental pinning, affect confidence in quantitative maxima but do not reduce the predictions to their inputs. Any concern about unvalidated switching barriers in the SCALE-UP potential is a model-reliability or correctness risk, not a circularity of the derivation.

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

The paper introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. The central predictions rest on the second-principles interatomic potential (fitted to DFT in earlier work), the prior prediction of Brownian e-bubbles (Ref. 9), and the validity of the drift-diffusion description. These are inherited assumptions rather than ad hoc additions in this paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The second-principles SCALE-UP potential accurately describes the energetics and dynamics of PTO/STO superlattices, including e-bubble stability and switching.
    The potential was fitted to first-principles DFT data for bulk compounds and adjusted for superlattices in earlier works (Refs. 21, 22, 32). The velocity predictions depend on this model's accuracy, especially the switching barriers at bubble boundaries.
  • domain assumption E-bubbles behave as long-lived Brownian quasiparticles in the simulated regimes, as predicted in Ref. 9.
    The drift-diffusion analysis assumes the bubble behaves as a point-like Brownian particle with a well-defined position and diffusion constant, an assumption from prior work by the same group.
  • standard math The steady-state Smoluchowski equation with constant drift and diffusion applies in the central region of the supercell.
    Equation (3) and its solution Eq. (4) are standard; the premise that the drift force is constant in the central region is an approximation invoked in Supplementary Note 1.
  • domain assumption The e-bubble can be approximated as a point dipole with constant dipole moment for the force estimate in Eq. (2).
    The force estimate Vb ≈ -Etot db,z assumes a fixed dipole db,z, though the authors acknowledge bubbles are not point dipoles; the simulation results do not rely directly on this equation.
  • domain assumption Velocity rescaling every 50 ps to thermostat the wave simulations does not significantly affect e-bubble diffusion.
    Stated in Methods: 'We explicitly check that such a rescaling has no significant effect on the e-bubble diffusion.' No quantitative evidence is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Creating currents of electric bubbles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LW4EUT7A

@misc{pith2026241215074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Creating currents of electric bubbles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LW4EUT7A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15074}
}
read the original abstract

The experimental demonstration of electric skyrmion bubbles and the recent prediction of their Brownian motion have brought topological ferroelectrics close to their magnetic counterparts. Electric bubbles (e-bubbles) could potentially be leveraged in applications for which magnetic skyrmions have been proposed (e.g., neuromorphic computing). Yet, we still lack a strategy to create currents of e-bubbles. Here, using predictive atomistic simulations, we illustrate two approaches to induce e-bubble currents by application of suitable electric fields, static or dynamic. We focus on regimes where e-bubbles display spontaneous diffusion, which allows us to generate a current by simply biasing their Brownian motion. Our calculations indicate that e-bubble velocities over 25 m/s can be achieved at room temperature, suggesting that these electric quasiparticles could rival the speeds of magnetic skyrmions upon further optimization.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15074 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the average e-bubble velocity, c, against the wave velocity vW. In the representative case of the 6/3 superlattice, we find c ≈ vW at small wave velocities. This perfect tracking regime extends up to about 50 m/s for a relatively small perturbation with E (1) z = 50 kV cm−1 , and up to about 150 m/s for E (1) z = 100 kV cm−1 . Then, c always reaches a maximum beyond which the bubbles slow down considerably. We… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Inhomogeneous Electric Fields for Precise Control and Displacement of Polar Textures

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Inhomogeneous electric fields can deterministically stabilize and switch polar textures in PbTiO3 and drive domain walls at speeds up to about 3000 m/s.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [28]

    Y.-H. Shin, I. Grinberg, I.-W. Chen, and A. M. Rappe, Nature 449, 881 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [1]

    Lichtensteiger, S

    C. Lichtensteiger, S. Fernandez-Pena, C. Weymann, P. Zubko, and J.-M. Triscone, Nano Letters 14, 4205 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    Zhang, L

    Q. Zhang, L. Xie, G. Liu, S. Prokhorenko, Y. Nahas, X. Pan, L. Bellaiche, A. Gruverman, and N. Valanoor, Advanced Materials 29, 1702375 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    S. R. Bakaul, S. Prokhorenko, Q. Zhang, Y. Nahas, Y. Hu, A. Petford-Long, L. Bellaiche, and N. Valanoor, Advanced Materials 33, 2105432 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Prokhorenko, Y

    S. Prokhorenko, Y. Nahas, V. Govinden, Q. Zhang, N. Valanoor, and L. Bellaiche, Nature Communications 15, 412 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Bastogne, F

    L. Bastogne, F. G´ omez-Ortiz, S. Anand, and P. Ghosez, Nano Letters 24, 13783 (2024). 5

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    S. Das, Y. L. Tang, Z. Hong, M. A. P. Gon¸ calves, M. R. McCarter, C. Klewe, K. X. Nguyen, F. G´ omez-Ortiz, P. Shafer, E. Arenholz, et al., Nature 568, 368 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    M. A. Pereira Gon¸ calves, C. Escorihuela-Sayalero, P. Garc ´ ıa-Fern´ andez, J. Junquera, and J.´I˜ niguez, Sci- ence Advances 5, eaau7023 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    L. Han, C. Addiego, S. Prokhorenko, M. Wang, H. Fu, Y. Nahas, X. Yan, S. Cai, T. Wei, Y. Fang, et al., Nature 603, 63 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Aramberri and J

    H. Aramberri and J. ´I˜ niguez-Gonz´ alez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 136801 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    Junquera, Y

    J. Junquera, Y. Nahas, S. Prokhorenko, L. Bellaiche, J. ´I˜ niguez, D. G. Schlom, L.-Q. Chen, S. Salahuddin, D. A. Muller, L. W. Martin, et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 025001 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Peper, J

    F. Peper, J. Lee, J. Carmona, J. Cortadella, and K. Morita, J. Emerg. Technol. Comput. Syst. 9 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Pinna, F

    D. Pinna, F. Abreu Araujo, J.-V. Kim, V. Cros, D. Quer- lioz, P. Bessiere, J. Droulez, and J. Grollier, Phys. Rev. Appl. 9, 064018 (2018)

    2018

  6. [13]

    Grollier, D

    J. Grollier, D. Querlioz, K. Y. Camsari, K. Everschor- Sitte, S. Fukami, and M. D. Stiles, Nature Electronics 3, 360 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Kaiser and S

    J. Kaiser and S. Datta, Applied Physics Letters 119, 150503 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    K. Raab, M. A. Brems, G. Beneke, T. Dohi, J. Roth¨ orl, F. Kammerbauer, J. H. Mentink, and M. Kl¨ aui, Nature Communications 13, 6982 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Cortes and V

    C. Cortes and V. Vapnik, Machine Learning 20, 273 (1995)

    1995

  10. [17]

    Yokouchi, S

    T. Yokouchi, S. Sugimoto, B. Rana, S. Seki, N. Ogawa, Y. Shiomi, S. Kasai, and Y. Otani, Science Advances 8, eabq5652 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    Finocchio, J

    G. Finocchio, J. A. C. Incorvia, J. S. Friedman, Q. Yang, A. Giordano, J. Grollier, H. Yang, F. Ciubotaru, A. V. Chumak, A. J. Naeemi, et al., Nano Futures 8, 012001 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    Jonietz, S

    F. Jonietz, S. M¨ uhlbauer, C. Pfleiderer, A. Neubauer, W. M¨ unzer, A. Bauer, T. Adams, R. Georgii, P. B¨ oni, R. A. Duine, et al., Science 330, 1648 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Nagaosa and Y

    N. Nagaosa and Y. Tokura, Nature Nanotechnology 8, 8579 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

    J. C. Wojde l, P. Hermet, M. P. Ljungberg, P. Ghosez, and J. ´I˜ niguez, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 305401 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Zubko, J

    P. Zubko, J. C. Wojde l, M. Hadjimichael, S. Fernandez- Pena, A. Sen´ e, I. Luk’yanchuk, J. Triscone, and J. ´I˜ niguez, Nature534, 524 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    Shafer, P

    P. Shafer, P. Garc ´ ıa-Fern´ andez, P. Aguado-Puente, A. R. Damodaran, A. K. Yadav, C. T. Nelson, S.-L. Hsu, J. C. Wojde l, J.´I˜ niguez, L. W. Martin, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 915 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    M. Graf, H. Aramberri, P. Zubko, and J. ´I˜ niguez, Nature Materials 21, 1252 (2022)

    2022

  18. [25]

    G´ omez-Ortiz, M

    F. G´ omez-Ortiz, M. Graf, J. Junquera, J. ´I˜ niguez- Gonz´ alez, and H. Aramberri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 066801 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Raimondo, E

    E. Raimondo, E. Saugar, J. Barker, D. Rodrigues, A. Giordano, M. Carpentieri, W. Jiang, O. Chubykalo- Fesenko, R. Tomasello, and G. Finocchio, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 024062 (2022)

    2022

  20. [27]

    Balakrishnan, Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Springer and ANE Books Pvt

    V. Balakrishnan, Elements of Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics (Springer and ANE Books Pvt. Ltd., 2021), ISBN 9783030622329

    2021

  21. [29]

    Berenschot, R

    E. Berenschot, R. M. Tiggelaar, B. Borgelink, C. van Kampen, C. S. Deenen, Y. Pordeli, H. Witteveen, H. J. G. E. Gardeniers, and N. R. Tas, ACS Applied Nano Materials 5, 15847 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Delsing, A

    P. Delsing, A. N. Cleland, M. J. A. Schuetz, J. Kn¨ orzer, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, K. Srinivasan, M. Wu, K. C. Bal- ram, C. B¨ auerle, et al., Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 52, 353001 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    V. T. Pham, N. Sisodia, I. D. Manici, J. Urrestarazu- Larra˜ naga, K. Bairagi, J. Pelloux-Prayer, R. Guedas, L. D. Buda-Prejbeanu, S. Auffret, A. Locatelli, et al., Science 384, 307 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Garc ´ ıa-Fern´ andez, J

    P. Garc ´ ıa-Fern´ andez, J. C. Wojde l, J. ´I˜ niguez, and J. Junquera, Physical Review B 93, 195137 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    unican.es/

    SCALE-UP, an implementation of second-principles den- sity functional theory, https://www.secondprinciples. unican.es/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.