Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Polar-vortex-driven interfacial strain coupling in PbTiO3/SrRuO3 Heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Polar vortices push 10-nm strain into the magnetic SrRuO3 layer

desk verdict Element-specific RSXS evidence of vortex strain transfer into SrRuO3 is genuinely new; the strain-proxy simulation is the load-bearing and unvalidated link. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09815 v1 pith:ZONZZVRD submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

S. A. Raza , V. A. Stoica , H. Zheng , H. G. Lee , A. Ross , U. Saha , L. Q. Chen , L. W. Martin
show 2 more authors
V. Gopalan J. W. Freeland
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords polarvorticesinterfacialstraincouplingresonantsoftX-rayscatteringPbTiO3/SrRuO3heterostructuresferroelectric/ferromagneticinterfacespenetrationphase-fieldsimulationoxide
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 sets out to show that the periodically strained lattice created by polar vortices in ferroelectric PbTiO3 does not stop at the interface but is transferred into the adjacent metallic ferromagnet SrRuO3. The authors grow (PbTiO3)16/(SrRuO3)9/(PbTiO3)16 trilayers on DyScO3(110), confirm that the PbTiO3 contains roughly 10 nm polar vortices, and then use resonant soft X-ray scattering at the strontium and ruthenium L3 edges to detect vortex-period diffraction signatures inside the SrRuO3 layer. Phase-field-based diffraction simulations reproduce the resonant enhancement only when strain is allowed in SrRuO3. If the claim holds, it establishes a concrete structural mechanism for imprinting nanoscale magnetic modulations onto a ferromagnet, with implications for voltage-controlled spintronic devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of the polar-vortex superstructure in PbTiO3, a periodic array of clockwise and counterclockwise polarization vortices with about 10 nm periodicity, with element-specific resonant soft X-ray scattering, in which the photon energy is tuned to the Sr-L3 or Ru-L3 absorption edge so that the scattering factor of that element dominates. The vortex strain pattern is first computed by phase-field simulation of (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n and then projected onto an atomic lattice with SrRuO3 substituted for SrTiO3; the simulated reciprocal space maps are compared with measured resonance profiles. The key comparison is between two limiting simulations: strain absent in SrRuO3 versus strain active in SrRuO3.

What would settle it

Measure the off-specular resonant enhancement at the ruthenium L3 edge in a series of (PbTiO3)16/(SrRuO3)m/(PbTiO3)16 samples with m from 3 to 30 unit cells: if the enhancement does not weaken as m grows beyond the roughly 10 nm vortex periodicity, the claim that the strain modulation penetrates from PbTiO3 into SrRuO3 would be contradicted. Alternatively, atomically resolved imaging of the Ru and Sr columns across the interface would show directly whether the vortex-period displacement pattern continues into SrRuO3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the polar-vortex superstructure in PbTiO3, with a periodicity of about 10 nm, generates in-plane strain modulations that propagate across the interface into the 9-unit-cell SrRuO3 layer. The evidence comes from element-specific resonant soft X-ray scattering at the Sr-L3 and Ru-L3 edges: the vortex satellite reflections are enhanced on resonance, and off-specular qz profiles show pronounced modulations near the SrRuO3 Bragg position. Phase-field simulations of the vortex structure, using the (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n strain pattern as a proxy for SrRuO3, reproduce the resonant enhancement only when strain is active inside the SrRuO3 layer; without strain in SrRuO3 the enhancement is absent. The paper states that the vortex-induced modulation penetrates into the SrRuO3 layer, indicating that lattice distortions associated with the polar-vortex order extend across the interface.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on using the strain pattern computed for a PbTiO3/SrTiO3 sandwich as a stand-in for the strain in the SrRuO3 layer; if SrRuO3 twists or absorbs the lattice distortion differently because of different octahedral rotations, stiffness, or interfacial chemistry, the comparison that identifies strain penetration loses its force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The roughly 10 nm periodic strain field of the PbTiO3 vortices is imprinted into SrRuO3, so the ferromagnet carries a nanoscale lattice modulation rather than a uniform epitaxial strain.
  • Because SrRuO3's magnetic properties are strain-sensitive, the interfacial strain coupling provides a route to spatially modulated magnetic anisotropy, exchange interactions, or Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interactions at a few-unit-cell length scale.
  • Element-specific resonant scattering distinguishes the two sublattices: the strontium sublattice response remains coherent over a longer range, while the ruthenium sublattice shows broader features, indicating partial disorder in the Ru sublattice.
  • The resonant enhancement survives averaging over lateral displacements of the vortex patterns in the top and bottom PbTiO3 layers, showing that strain penetration is robust to stacking disorder even though incoherent stacking weakens sharp coherent oscillations.
  • The coexistence of coherent and incoherent regions, reproduced in simulations by averaging over displaced atomic configurations, suggests that the experimental sample contains both well-registered and misregistered vortex stacks.
  • The 125 K ferromagnetic transition measured in transport confirms that the SrRuO3 layer retains a robust magnetic ground state in this heterostructure geometry, making the strain imprint magnetically relevant.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves the magnetic response unmeasured; a natural extension would be X-ray magnetic circular dichroism or anomalous Hall measurements at the vortex period, which the authors note were not performed because the available field could not saturate SrRuO3. A resolvable periodic magnetic signal at about 10 nm would confirm the functional consequence of the strain penetration.
  • A testable extension is to vary the SrRuO3 layer thickness: if the strain imprint is a penetration effect, the ruthenium-edge resonant enhancement should decay as the SrRuO3 layer grows beyond roughly one vortex period.
  • The proxy assumption invites a direct check: calculate or measure the actual vortex strain in SrRuO3 including oxygen-octahedral rotations, and compare the predicted ruthenium-sublattice scattering with the broader, less coherent Ru response reported here.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of (PbTiO3)16/(SrRuO3)9/(PbTiO3)16 heterostructures grown on DyScO3(110), combining hard X-ray reciprocal space mapping, transport measurements, and resonant soft X-ray scattering at the Sr and Ru L3 edges. The central claim is that the approximately 10 nm periodic polar-vortex strain pattern in the PbTiO3 layers penetrates into the SrRuO3 layer, producing an element-specific resonant enhancement at the vortex satellite position and along qz. This claim is supported by phase-field-based diffraction simulations that compare a model with strain imposed on the SrRuO3 layer against one with no such strain. The authors acknowledge that quantitative agreement with experiment is incomplete and that the strain pattern in SrRuO3 is represented by a proxy taken from (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n simulations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a direct structural observation of nanoscale strain transfer from a polar vortex superstructure into a ferromagnetic metal layer, with potential consequences for engineering periodic magnetic textures at sub-10 nm length scales. The experimental work is valuable: the resonant enhancement at both Sr and Ru edges is measured independently and is not produced by fitting; the strain-on versus strain-off comparison is a benchmark rather than a tuned fit; and the paper explicitly notes that the simulated enhancement is weaker than the measured one, which limits concerns about overfitting. However, the inference from the simulation comparison to 'strain penetration' depends on an unvalidated proxy assumption, so the strength of the claim is currently below what the title and abstract assert.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B, Fig. 4] The load-bearing assumption in the simulation comparison is that the (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n strain pattern is a valid proxy for the strain in the SrRuO3 layer. The paper states: 'we choose to utilize the (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n data as a proxy for the strain in the SrRuO3 layer... the patterns should be similar.' This assertion is not validated. SrRuO3 is orthorhombic Pnma, metallic, and has oxygen-octahedral rotations, whereas SrTiO3 is cubic and insulating; the displacement pattern transferred across the PbTiO3/SrRuO3 interface could differ qualitatively, for example in shear components or octahedral tilt coupling. If the proxy pattern is wrong, the strain-on simulation in Fig. 4 is not a valid representation of the sample, and the experimentally observed resonant enhancement could be produced by interfacial intermixing, roughness, or thickness fluctuations rather than by penetrating vortex strain. Please validate the proxy, for example by computing the SRO strain from a phase-field model with SRO-specific parameters or by comparing with atomically resolved TEM displacement maps, or explicitly limit the claim to consistency with the proxy-derived model rather than a demonstration of penetration.
  2. [Section II.C and Section IV] The experimental section states that the resonant enhancement 'demonstrates that the vortex-induced modulation penetrates into the SrRuO3 layer.' This is too strong given the modeling caveats in Section IV: 'full quantitative agreement with experimental data is still challenging.' The measurement itself shows an element-specific resonant enhancement at a vortex-satellite position, but assigning that enhancement specifically to strain penetration requires the simulation, and the simulation relies on the proxy mentioned above. Please either soften the wording from 'demonstrates' to 'is consistent with' or provide an additional test, such as a control measurement on a sample without vortices or a quantitative comparison of resonant and off-resonant intensity ratios between experiment and simulation.
  3. [Section III.B, Fig. 4] The paper acknowledges that 'the calculated resonant enhancements are less pronounced than those observed experimentally.' This means the simulation captures the trend but not the magnitude. To make the strain-on versus strain-off comparison convincing, please define a quantitative metric for agreement (e.g., the ratio of resonant to off-resonant satellite intensity, or the qz-dependent enhancement profile) and report its value for both experiment and simulation. A qualitative match of 'the main experimental trends' is not sufficient to distinguish strain penetration from other sources of resonant enhancement, particularly given that the proxy strain field is not computed for SrRuO3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B] In the sentence 'recently explored by C´eline,et al.', the author name is incomplete; please provide the full name and correct the formatting of the citation.
  2. [Section II.C] In the sentence 'In both cases the, resonant scattering enhancements are on the higher qz', the comma after 'the' is a typo and should be removed.
  3. [Section III.B] The phrase 'and asses its relevance in resonant diffraction simulations' contains a typo: 'asses' should be 'assess'.
  4. [Figure 4 caption] The caption states 'comparing the cases where strain is absent in the SrRuO3 layer and where strain is active in the SrRuO3 layer, are shown in top and bottom panels, respectively.' Please rephrase for clarity; the subject-verb agreement is awkward and the placement of 'respectively' is confusing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the strain-penetration claim rests on element-specific resonant scattering measured at the Sr and Ru edges, and the phase-field proxy is an acknowledged, non-fitted modeling input rather than an output recycled from the data.

full rationale

The central claim—that the 10 nm vortex-induced strain modulation penetrates into the SrRuO3 layer—is anchored primarily in the resonant soft X-ray scattering experiment, not in the simulation. At the Sr and Ru L3 edges, the measurement is element-specific to the SrRuO3 layer, so observing vortex-periodic satellite peaks at those edges directly reports a periodic modulation of the Sr and Ru sublattices inside SrRuO3. This evidence is independent of the phase-field model. The model is used only to interpret the origin of the modulation as strain. Its strain field in SrRuO3 is explicitly taken from a different system: the paper states, 'we choose to utilize the (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n data as a proxy for the strain in the SrRuO3 layer,' and immediately notes that the quantitative strain values will differ while 'the patterns should be similar.' That is a disclosed modeling assumption, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; no equation in the paper defines the measured resonant enhancement in terms of the proxy. The strain-active versus strain-absent comparison in Fig. 4 is a forward benchmark with no free parameters tuned to force the experimental enhancement, and the authors candidly report that 'the calculated resonant enhancements are less pronounced than those observed experimentally,' which shows the model is not being adjusted to manufacture agreement. The self-citations to prior (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n phase-field work supply the vortex structural template, but the presence and periodicity of the vortices in the present sample are independently confirmed by hard X-ray reciprocal space maps in this paper. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained for the penetration claim: measurement provides the evidence, and the simulation only adds a physically motivated, explicitly labeled interpretation. The unvalidated proxy assumption is a genuine validity risk for the quantitative strain pattern in SrRuO3, but it is a limitation about physical similarity between SrTiO3 and SrRuO3, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its own input.

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

No numerical parameters are fitted to the resonant-scattering data in the paper; the authors state in Section III.A that a robust fit to specular data could not be obtained due to strong parameter correlations and non-uniqueness. The phase-field inputs are carried over from prior PbTiO3/SrTiO3 studies, not fitted here, and the strain in SrRuO3 is treated as a proxy rather than a fitted value. The out-of-plane lattice constants c≈4.02 Å for PbTiO3 and c≈3.89 Å for SrRuO3 are reported as measurements, not fitted parameters. No new physical entities are postulated; the polar vortex texture and the SrRuO3 layer are pre-existing objects.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Kinematic (first Born) X-ray scattering theory applies to resonant soft X-ray reflectivity.
    Section III.A uses a kinematic diffraction model to simulate reflectivity; multiple scattering or dynamical effects in the trilayer are neglected.
  • domain assumption The heterostructure can be approximated as cubic for diffraction simulation.
    Section III.A states 'with the first-order approximation of the structure as cubic'; this ignores orthorhombic/tetragonal distortions that may affect strain transfer.
  • domain assumption Strain distribution from PbTiO3/SrTiO3 vortex simulations is a valid proxy for strain in the SrRuO3 layer.
    Section III.B states 'we choose to utilize the (PbTiO3)n/(SrTiO3)n data as a proxy for the strain in the SrRuO3 layer'; the authors acknowledge quantitative values will differ.
  • domain assumption Resonant scattering enhancement is dominated by strain-driven atomic displacements rather than by resonant electronic or chemical contrast.
    Section IV attributes the enhancement to strain modulation and simulations include only displacement contrast; no quantitative check against a chemically modulated model is reported.
  • domain assumption An idealized, defect-free vortex structure with simple lateral disorder captures the experimental coherence.
    Section III.B and Fig. 5 assume an idealized structure and model incoherence by averaging laterally shifted configurations, not by realistic disorder statistics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polar-vortex-driven interfacial strain coupling in PbTiO3/SrRuO3 Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZONZZVRD

@misc{pith2026260809815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polar-vortex-driven interfacial strain coupling in PbTiO3/SrRuO3 Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZONZZVRD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09815}
}
read the original abstract

Interfacial coupling in oxide heterostructures is a central problem in condensed-matter physics, as it typically emerges at the atomic scale through local interactions mediated by lattice polarization and strain. In this work, we investigate nanoscale polar-supertexture-driven interfacial strain coupling in (PbTiO3)16/(SrRuO3)9/(PbTiO3)16 heterostructures grown on DyScO3(110) substrates. Under appropriate epitaxial strain conditions, the PbTiO3 layers form polar vortex superstructures with a periodicity of approximately 10 nm. We demonstrate that the resulting in-plane nanoscale strain modulation propagates into the SrRuO3 layer. Using element-specific resonant X-ray reflectivity, we probe the nanoscale strain modulations of the strontium and ruthenium sublattices at the interface, revealing strong interfacial strain coupling between the ferroelectric and ferromagnetic layers. These findings provide new insights into engineering nanoscale magnetic modulations through interfacial strain and polarization control.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09815 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematic of the X-ray diffraction geometry for (PbTiO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Scattering intensity measured at a fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: In-plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Effects of epitaxial strain on resonant X-ray scattering, phase-field simulations yield the out-of-plane polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Effects of interfacial vortex displacement on resonant X-ray scattering, simulated reciprocal space map (RSM) of the trilayer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zubko, S

    P. Zubko, S. Gariglio, M. Gabay, P. Ghosez, and J.-M. Triscone, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.2, 141 (2011)

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    M. E. Lines and A. M. Glass,Principles and Applications of Ferroelectrics and Related Materials(Oxford University Press, 2001), ISBN 9780198507789

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    S. Das, Z. Hong, M. McCarter, P. Shafer, Y .-T. Shao, D. Muller, L. Martin, and R. Ramesh, APL Materials8(2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Y . Hao, T. Li, and X. Hong, Chemical Communications61, 4924 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Y . Gu, C. Song, Q. Zhang, F. Li, H. Tan, K. Xu, J. Li, M. S. Saleem, M. U. Fayaz, J. Peng, et al., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces12, 6707 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Huang, Ariando, X

    Z. Huang, Ariando, X. Renshaw Wang, A. Rusydi, J. Chen, H. Yang, and T. Venkatesan, Advanced materials30, 1802439 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    W. Ko, Z. Gai, A. A. Puretzky, L. Liang, T. Berlijn, J. A. Hachtel, K. Xiao, P. Ganesh, M. Yoon, and A.-P. Li, Advanced Materials35, 2106909 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    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., Reviews of Modern Physics95, 025001 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Hu, L.-Q

    J.-M. Hu, L.-Q. Chen, and C.-W. Nan, Advanced Materials28, 15 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Taniyama, Y

    T. Taniyama, Y . Gohda, K. Hamaya, and T. Kimura, Science and Technology of Advanced Materials25, 2412970 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    C. Vaz, Y . Shin, M. Bibes, K. Rabe, F. Walker, and C. Ahn, Applied Physics Reviews8(2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Y . Tang, Y . Zhu, B. Wu, Y . Wang, L. Yang, Y . Feng, M. Zou, W. Geng, and X. Ma, Nano Letters21, 6274 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Stoica, N

    V . Stoica, N. Laanait, C. Dai, Z. Hong, Y . Yuan, Z. Zhang, S. Lei, M. McCarter, A. Yadav, A. Damodaran, et al., Nature materials18, 377 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    S.-L. Hsu, M. R. McCarter, C. Dai, Z. Hong, L.-Q. Chen, C. T. Nelson, L. W. Martin, and R. Ramesh, Advanced Materials31, 1901014 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    F. Xue, C. Zhang, S. Zheng, P. Tong, B. Wang, Y . Peng, Z. Wang, H. Xu, Y . He, H. Zhou, et al., Nature Communications16, 2349 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    S. Das, A. Ghosh, M. R. McCarter, S.-L. Hsu, Y .-L. Tang, A. R. Damodaran, R. Ramesh, and L. W. Martin, APL Materials6(2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    S. Das, Y . Tang, Z. Hong, M. Gonc ¸alves, M. McCarter, C. Klewe, K. Nguyen, F. G´omez-Ortiz, P. Shafer, E. Arenholz, et al., Nature568, 368 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    Lichtensteiger, M

    C. Lichtensteiger, M. Hadjimichael, E. Zatterin, C.-P. Su, I. Gaponenko, L. Tovaglieri, P. Paruch, A. Gloter, and J.-M. Triscone, APL Materials11(2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    W. Zhou, Q. Li, Y . Xiong, Q. Zhang, D. Wang, Q. Cao, L. Lv, and Y . Du, Scientific reports4, 6991 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Egoavil, H

    R. Egoavil, H. Tan, J. Verbeeck, S. Bals, B. Smith, B. Kuiper, G. Rijnders, G. Koster, and G. Van Tendeloo, Applied physics letters102 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    Seddon, D

    S. Seddon, D. Dogaru, S. Holt, D. Rusu, J. Peters, A. Sanchez, and M. Alexe, Nature Communications12, 2007 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    J. P. Velev, J. D. Burton, M. Y . Zhuravlev, and E. Y . Tsymbal, npj Computational Materials2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    X. Yao, C. Wang, E.-J. Guo, X. Wang, X. Li, L. Liao, Y . Zhou, S. Lin, Q. Jin, C. Ge, et al., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces14, 6194 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Hu, C.-G

    J.-M. Hu, C.-G. Duan, C.-W. Nan, and L.-Q. Chen, NPJ Computational Materials3, 18 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Huang, S.-J

    H. Huang, S.-J. Lee, B. Kim, B. Sohn, C. Kim, C.-C. Kao, and J.-S. Lee, ACS applied materials & interfaces12, 37757 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    A. Y . Abid, Y . Sun, X. Hou, C. Tan, X. Zhong, R. Zhu, H. Chen, K. Qu, Y . Li, M. Wu, et al., Nature Communications12, 2054 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Lichtensteiger, C.-P

    C. Lichtensteiger, C.-P. Su, I. Gaponenko, M. Hadjimichael, L. Tovaglieri, P. Paruch, A. Gloter, and J.-M. Triscone, APL Materials11 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Hadjimichael, Y

    M. Hadjimichael, Y . Li, E. Zatterin, G. A. Chahine, M. Conroy, K. Moore, E. N. O. Connell, P. Ondrejkovic, P. Marton, J. Hlinka, et al., Nature Materials20, 495 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    D. Rusu, J. J. Peters, T. P. Hase, J. A. Gott, G. A. Nisbet, J. Strempfer, D. Haskel, S. D. Seddon, R. Beanland, A. M. Sanchez, et al., Nature 602, 240 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    D. Tian, Z. Liu, S. Shen, Z. Li, Y . Zhou, H. Liu, H. Chen, and P. Yu, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e2101946118 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    M. C. Langner, C. L. S. Kantner, Y . H. Chu, L. M. Martin, P. Yu, J. Seidel, R. Ramesh, and J. Orenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 177601 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    W. Lin, L. Liu, Q. Liu, L. Li, X. Shu, C. Li, Q. Xie, P. Jiang, X. Zheng, R. Guo, et al., Advanced Materials33, 2101316 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Dwivedi and H

    G. Dwivedi and H. Chou, Chemical Physics Letters865, 141963 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Dwivedi, S

    G. Dwivedi, S. Sun, Y . Kuo, and H. Chou, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter31, 125602 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Koster, L

    G. Koster, L. Klein, W. Siemons, G. Rijnders, J. S. Dodge, C.-B. Eom, D. H. A. Blank, and M. R. Beasley, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 253 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    B. H. Cha, K. T. Kim, and D. R. Lee, Scientific Reports14, 27561 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Z. Hong, A. R. Damodaran, F. Xue, S.-L. Hsu, J. Britson, A. K. Yadav, C. T. Nelson, J.-J. Wang, J. F. Scott, L. W. Martin, et al., Nano 11 letters17, 2246 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    A. R. Damodaran, J. Clarkson, Z. Hong, H. Liu, A. K. Yadav, C. T. Nelson, S.-L. Hsu, M. McCarter, K.-D. Park, V . Kravtsov, et al., Nature materials16, 1003 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Yadav, C

    A. Yadav, C. Nelson, S. Hsu, Z. Hong, J. Clarkson, C. Schlep¨utz, A. Damodaran, P. Shafer, E. Arenholz, L. Dedon, et al., Nature530, 198 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Zhang, A

    X. Zhang, A. N. Penn, L. Wysocki, Z. Zhang, P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, L. Kornblum, J. M. LeBeau, I. Lindfors-Vrejoiu, and D. P. Kumah, APL Materials10, 051107 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Q. Li, V . A. Stoica, M. Pa´sciak, Y . Zhu, Y . Yuan, T. Yang, M. R. McCarter, S. Das, A. K. Yadav, S. Park, et al., Nature592, 376 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    T. Yang, C. Dai, and L.-Q. Chen, Nano letters23, 2551 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    T. Yang, C. Dai, V . A. Stoica, F. Xue, H. Wang, Y . Ji, V . Gopalan, and L.-Q. Chen, Acta Materialia239, 118258 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Z. Shao, N. Schnitzer, J. Ruf, O. Y . Gorobtsov, C. Dai, B. H. Goodge, T. Yang, H. Nair, V . A. Stoica, J. W. Freeland, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2303312120 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Z. Hong, S. Das, C. Nelson, A. Yadav, Y . Wu, J. Junquera, L.-Q. Chen, L. W. Martin, and R. Ramesh, Nano letters21, 3533 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Kavle, A

    P. Kavle, A. M. Ross, H. Kp, P. Meisenheimer, A. Dasgupta, J. Yang, C.-C. Lin, H. Pan, P. Behera, E. Parsonnet, et al., Advanced Materials 36, 2410146 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Nishihaya, Y

    S. Nishihaya, Y . Matsuki, H. Kaminakamura, H. Sugeno, M.-C. Jiang, Y . Murakami, R. Arita, H. Ishizuka, and M. Uchida, Advanced Materials37, e02624 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Koster, L

    G. Koster, L. Klein, W. Siemons, G. Rijnders, J. S. Dodge, C.-B. Eom, D. H. Blank, and M. R. Beasley, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 253 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    W. Wang, L. Li, J. Liu, B. Chen, Y . Ji, J. Wang, G. Cheng, Y . Lu, G. Rijnders, G. Koster, et al., npj Quantum Materials5, 73 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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