Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 1 minor 2 cited by

A Systematic Literature Review of Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Techniques, Metrics, and Challenges

T0 review · 4 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The abstract claims a PRISMA-guided systematic review of retrieval-augmented generation covering 128 highly cited articles, but the submitted body text is an unrelated physics paper, so the review's content is not present in this submission

desk verdict The submission is a metadata/full-text mismatch: the claimed RAG systematic review is absent, so it cannot be reviewed as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06401 v3 pith:JJJQY4EW submitted 2025-08-08 cs.DL cs.AIcs.CLcs.IR

Andrew Brown , Muhammad Roman , Barry Devereux This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DLcs.AIcs.CLcs.IR
keywords retrieval-augmentedgenerationsystematicliteraturereviewPRISMAcitationcountdatasetsevaluationpracticeslargelanguagemodelsmanuscriptintegrity
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

This submission's abstract claims a systematic review of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), a method that couples a neural retriever with a language model to ground output in up-to-date external text. The review is said to synthesize 128 highly cited studies published between 2020 and May 2025, guided by the PRISMA 2020 reporting framework, and to catalogue datasets, architectures, and evaluation practices. If the review existed as described, it would give researchers a structured, evidence-based map of a fast-moving field and highlight where evaluation methods lag. However, the body text of the submission is a condensed-matter physics paper on high-pressure KNbO3, so the review's methods, inclusion decisions, and findings are not present here. The paper's pith therefore cannot be verified from the submitted text; the claim rests solely on the abstract.

What carries the argument

The claimed machinery is the PRISMA 2020 reporting framework together with a citation-count inclusion threshold, lowered for 2025 papers to offset citation lag. In a systematic review, the machinery is the search, screening, and synthesis protocol; here it is described in the abstract but not implemented or documented in the body text.

What would settle it

Open the submission's full text and look for the PRISMA flow diagram, the list of 128 included studies, or any RAG dataset or architecture table; the body instead reports single-crystal X-ray diffraction, Raman, and SHG data on KNbO3 up to 63 GPa.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated in the abstract, is that a PRISMA 2020-guided systematic literature review of retrieval-augmented generation, covering 128 highly cited articles retrieved from five databases and using a citation-count inclusion criterion lowered for 2025 papers to mitigate citation lag, catalogues the field's datasets, architectures, and evaluation practices and synthesises empirical evidence on RAG's effectiveness and limitations. The submitted full text, however, is an experimental report on the re-emergence of a polar instability in KNbO3 under high pressure, with no RAG content, so the discovery as claimed is not exhibited in the manuscript.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the submission actually contains the systematic review described in the abstract; the body text is a different paper, so the review's methods and results cannot be checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A structured catalogue of RAG datasets and architectures would let practitioners benchmark new methods against the field's most-used testbeds.
  • The review's synthesis of evaluation practices would expose where metrics such as faithfulness and answer correctness are applied inconsistently.
  • The lower 2025 citation threshold would capture recent methods that would otherwise be missed, providing a faster-updating evidence base.
  • Mapping methodological gaps could steer research toward underexplored problems like multi-hop retrieval or RAG-specific evaluation standards.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the abstract and body are irreconcilable, a reader cannot treat the review's claimed findings as evidence; at most, the abstract defines a protocol that was not carried out in this submission.
  • The citation-count screening criterion is itself a testable design choice: re-running the same research questions with percentile-based or expert-curated selection would show how much the 128-paper corpus depends on that threshold.
  • The physics paper in the body, taken alone, reports an incommensurate modulated phase in KNbO3 that suggests a re-entrant polar instability under pressure—an independent claim that could be checked against further structural refinements.
  • If the RAG review is eventually published with its full text, its value will hinge on whether the PRISMA flow diagram and the inclusion list are publicly provided; those are the load-bearing artifacts of any systematic review.
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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript metadata and abstract claim a PRISMA 2020-guided systematic literature review of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), reporting 128 included articles retrieved from ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and DBLP, with citation-count-based inclusion criteria and a lower threshold for 2025 papers. The body of the submission, however, is a condensed-matter physics paper titled "An underdog story: Re-emergence of a polar instability at high pressure in KNbO3" by Shoker et al., with its own arXiv identifier (2508.06399), a different author list, and 48 references all in solid-state physics. No part of the body text discusses RAG, PRISMA, citation thresholds, databases, datasets, architectures, evaluation practices, or the 128-article corpus. The claimed systematic review is therefore absent from the artifact submitted for review.

Significance. If the claimed RAG systematic review existed as described, it could provide a useful structured synthesis of a rapidly growing field, with explicit PRISMA-based screening and a stated mitigation of citation lag. However, the submission as provided contains none of that review. The abstract's claims cannot be checked against any methods, data, or synthesis. The submitted full text is an unrelated research paper, so the central claim of the submission is unsubstantiated. No credit can be given for machine-checked proofs, reproducibility, or parameter-free derivations, as none are present in the claimed review. The significance of the RAG review is real but moot: the artifact under review does not contain it.

major comments (4)
  1. [Metadata and abstract vs. full text] The abstract describes a systematic literature review of RAG (128 articles, PRISMA 2020, citation-count thresholds, five databases), but the full text is titled "An underdog story: Re-emergence of a polar instability at high pressure in KNbO3" by Shoker et al. The full text carries its own arXiv ID (2508.06399, cond-mat.mtrl-sci) and its 48 references are all in condensed-matter physics. There is no section, equation, or table in the body that corresponds to the abstract's claims. This is not a formatting issue; the claimed RAG review is entirely absent.
  2. [PRISMA methods (claimed in abstract)] The abstract states the review is "guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework" and specifies inclusion/exclusion criteria based on citation count. The submitted document contains no PRISMA flow diagram, no search strings, no database query dates, no screening protocol, no data-extraction form, and no risk-of-bias assessment. Without these, the central claim of a systematic review cannot be verified or reproduced. The omission is load-bearing: the abstract asserts a methodology that the manuscript body does not implement.
  3. [Inclusion criteria and citation-count threshold] The abstract asserts that 128 articles met inclusion criteria and that a lower citation-count threshold was applied to 2025 papers to mitigate citation lag. The submitted full text gives no values for these thresholds, no list of included articles, and no justification for choosing citation counts as a relevance proxy. Because the body text is unrelated to RAG, these assertions cannot be checked, and the potential bias of citation-based selection (including its interaction with the 2025 adjustment) is unexamined.
  4. [Synthesis and catalogue claims] The abstract claims the review "catalogues datasets, architectures, and evaluation practices" and "synthesises empirical evidence on the effectiveness and limitations of RAG." The submitted body contains none of this: no dataset tables, no architecture taxonomy, no evaluation-metric summary, and no synthesized findings about RAG. The claimed results are therefore unsupported by any assessable content in this submission.
minor comments (1)
  1. [General] The full text appears to be a legitimate physics manuscript, but it is not the manuscript described by the metadata and abstract. At minimum, the submission was mislabeled or mispackaged; the authors should verify that the correct PDF was uploaded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the submitted body is a physics paper and the claimed RAG review is absent, but absence is not circularity.

full rationale

The claimed systematic review's derivation chain (PRISMA screening, citation-count thresholds, 128 included articles) cannot be evaluated because none of that content appears in the submitted full text; the body is an unrelated KNbO3 high-pressure study. However, circularity requires a specific reduction of a claimed result to its inputs or fitted parameters, and no such reduction is present. In the physics content, the experimental findings (SHG, XRD, Raman, IR) are reported as data-interpretation, and interpretations invoke prior first-principles predictions rather than fitting those predictions into the measured observables. Self-citations to the authors' earlier perovskite studies are ordinary literature references and not load-bearing justifications that make the current claims equivalent by construction. The metadata mismatch is a serious verifiability problem, but it is not a circularity pattern defined by the analysis criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claimed review relies on selection parameters (citation thresholds) and methodological assumptions (PRISMA applicability, citation count as quality proxy). No physical entities, forces, or formal constructs are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • citation-count inclusion threshold = unspecified; lower for 2025
    The review selects 'most highly cited studies' and applies a lower threshold to 2025 papers; the exact values are not given in the abstract and would determine which 128 papers entered the review.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption PRISMA 2020 is an appropriate framework for a computational literature review
    Stated in the abstract; applying a medical reporting standard to an AI/IR corpus typically requires adaptation that is not described.
  • domain assumption Citation count is a valid proxy for study relevance and quality
    The entire inclusion strategy rests on this; citation-based selection can systematically exclude recent or niche but important work despite the 2025 adjustment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Literature Review of Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Techniques, Metrics, and Challenges." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JJJQY4EW

@misc{pith2026250806401,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Literature Review of Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Techniques, Metrics, and Challenges},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JJJQY4EW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06401}
}
read the original abstract

This systematic review of the research literature on retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) provides a focused analysis of the most highly cited studies published between 2020 and May 2025. A total of 128 articles met our inclusion criteria. The records were retrieved from ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and the Digital Bibliography and Library Project (DBLP). RAG couples a neural retriever with a generative language model, grounding output in up-to-date, non-parametric memory while retaining the semantic generalisation stored in model weights. Guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework, we (i) specify explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria based on citation count and research questions, (ii) catalogue datasets, architectures, and evaluation practices, and (iii) synthesise empirical evidence on the effectiveness and limitations of RAG. To mitigate citation-lag bias, we applied a lower citation-count threshold to papers published in 2025 so that emerging breakthroughs with naturally fewer citations were still captured. This review clarifies the current research landscape, highlights methodological gaps, and charts priority directions for future research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. From inconsistency to decision: explainable operation and maintenance of battery energy storage systems

    eess.SY 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An LLM multi-agent/RAG pipeline converts routine BESS monitoring data into explainable maintenance decisions, claiming >80% faster and ~98% cheaper O&M than expert-driven practice.

  2. Towards AI Evaluation in Domain-Specific RAG Systems: The AgriHubi Case Study

    cs.CL 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    AgriHubi, a Finnish-language agricultural RAG system built on PORO models, showed improved user ratings (top scores from 3% to 21%) across two rounds of testing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    G. A. Samara, T. Sakudo, and K. Yoshimitsu, Important generalization concerning the role of competing forces in displacive phase transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1767 (1975)

    work page 1975

  2. [2]

    Bouvier and J

    P. Bouvier and J. Kreisel, Pressure-induced phase tran- sition in LaAlO 3, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14, 3981 (2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    R. J. Angel, J. Zhao, and N. L. Ross, General rules for predicting phase transitions in perovskites due to octa- hedral tilting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 025503 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    J. Zhao, N. L. Ross, and R. J. Angel, New view of the high-pressure behaviour of GdFeO3-type perovskites, Acta Crystallographica Section B 60, 263 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    H. J. Xiang, M. Guennou, J. ´I˜ niguez, J. Kreisel, and L. Bellaiche, Rules and mechanisms governing octahe- dral tilts in perovskites under pressure, Phys. Rev. B 96, 054102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Pruzan, D

    P. Pruzan, D. Gourdain, and J. C. Chervin, Vibrational dynamics and phase diagram of KNbO3 up to 30 GPa and from 20 to 500 K, Phase Transitions 80, 1103 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    I. A. Kornev, L. Bellaiche, P. Bouvier, P.-E. Janolin, B. Dkhil, and J. Kreisel, Ferroelectricity of perovskites under pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 196804 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    I. A. Kornev and L. Bellaiche, The nature of ferroelec- tricity under pressure, Phase Transitions 80, 385 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Bousquet and P

    E. Bousquet and P. Ghosez, First-principles study of bar- ium titanate under hydrostatic pressure, Phys. Rev. B 74, 180101 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    Janolin, P

    P.-E. Janolin, P. Bouvier, J. Kreisel, P. A. Thomas, I. A. Kornev, L. Bellaiche, W. Crichton, M. Hanfland, and B. Dkhil, High-pressure effect on PbTiO 3: An investi- gation by Raman and x-ray scattering up to 63 GPa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 237601 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    R. E. Cohen, Y. Lin, M. Ahart, and R. J. Hemley, Ab- sence of high-pressure ground-state reentrant ferroelec- tricity in PbTiO 3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 236801 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    through the French Programme d’Investissement d’Avenir. For the purpose of open access, and in fulfill- ment of the obligations arising from the grant agreement, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to any Author Ac- cepte...

    doi

  5. [13]

    Guennou, P

    M. Guennou, P. Bouvier, J. Kreisel, and D. Machon, Pressure-temperature phase diagram of SrTiO 3 up to 53 GPa, Phys. Rev. B 81, 054115 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Guennou, P

    M. Guennou, P. Bouvier, B. Krikler, J. Kreisel, R. Hau- mont, and G. Garbarino, High-pressure investigation of CaTiO3 up to 60 GPa using x-ray diffraction and raman spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B 82, 134101 (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    M. D. Fontana, G. Metrat, J. L. Servoin, and F. Gervais, Infrared spectroscopy in KNbO 3 through the successive ferroelectric phase transitions, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 17, 483 (1984)

    1984

  8. [16]

    Ravy, J.-P

    S. Ravy, J.-P. Iti´ e, A. Polian, and M. Hanfland, High- pressure study of x-ray diffuse scattering in ferroelectric perovskites, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 117601 (2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for a) a document containing experimental de- tails as well as complementary results and tables as de- tailed in the text, and b) a movie representing the mod- ulated structure for t values ranging from 0 to 1 in...

  10. [18]

    G. Shen, Y. Wang, A. Dewaele, C. Wu, D. E. Fratan- duono, J. Eggert, S. Klotz, K. F. Dziubek, P. Loubeyre, O. V. Fat’yanov, P. D. Asimow, T. Mashimo, and R. M. M. Wentzcovitch, Toward an international prac- tical pressure scale: A proposal for an ipps ruby gauge (ipps-ruby2020...

    2020

  11. [19]

    Takemura, Evaluation of the hydrostaticity of a helium-pressure medium with powder x-ray diffraction techniques, Journal of Applied Physics 89, 662 (2001)

    K. Takemura, Evaluation of the hydrostaticity of a helium-pressure medium with powder x-ray diffraction techniques, Journal of Applied Physics 89, 662 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    Dewaele and P

    A. Dewaele and P. Loubeyre, Pressurizing conditions in helium-pressure-transmitting medium, High Pressure Re- search 27, 419 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    Rigaku, CrysAlis Pro Version 171.43.90, Rigaku Oxford Diffraction. (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Mezouar, G

    M. Mezouar, G. Garbarino, S. Bauchau, W. Morgenroth, K. Martel, S. Petitdemange, P. Got, C. Clavel, A. Moyne, H.-P. Van Der Kleij, A. Pakhomova, B. Wehinger, M. Gerin, T. Poreba, L. Canet, A. Rosa, A. Forestier, G. Weck, F. Datchi, M. Wilke, S. Jahn, D. Andrault, L. Libon, L. ...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Garbarino, M

    G. Garbarino, M. E. Hanfland, S. Gallego-Parra, A. D. Rosa, M. Mezouar, D. Duran, K. Martel, E. Papillon, T. Roth, P. Got, and J. Jacobs, Extreme conditions x-ray diffraction and imaging beamline ID15B on the ESRF ex- tremely brilliant source, High Press. Res. 44, 199 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Petˇ r ´ ıˇ cek, L

    V. Petˇ r ´ ıˇ cek, L. Palatinus, J. Pl´ aˇ sil, and M. Duˇ sek, Jana2020 – a new version of the crystallographic comput- ing system Jana, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crys- talline Materials 238, 271 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    A. M. Glazer, Simple ways of determining perovskite structures, Acta Crystallogr. A 31, 756 (1975)

    1975

  18. [26]

    Kobayashi, S

    Y. Kobayashi, S. Endo, T. Ashida, L. C. Ming, and T. Kikegawa, High-pressure phase above 40 GPa in fer- roelectric KNbO 3, Phys. Rev. B 61, 5819 (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    Toulouse, D

    C. Toulouse, D. Amoroso, R. Oliva, C. Xin, P. Bouvier, P. Fertey, P. Veber, M. Maglione, P. Ghosez, J. Kreisel, and M. Guennou, Stability of the tetragonal phase of BaZrO3 under high pressure, Phys. Rev. B 106, 064105 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Bessas, K

    D. Bessas, K. Glazyrin, D. S. Ellis, I. Kantor, D. G. Merkel, V. Cerantola, V. Potapkin, S. van Smaalen, A. Q. R. Baron, and R. P. Hermann, Pressure-mediated structural transitions in bulk EuTiO 3, Phys. Rev. B 98, 054105 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Ghosez, private communication (2025)

    P. Ghosez, private communication (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    van Smaalen, Incommensurate Crystallography, Inter- national Union of Crystallography Monographs on Crys- tallography (OUP Oxford, 2007)

    S. van Smaalen, Incommensurate Crystallography, Inter- national Union of Crystallography Monographs on Crys- tallography (OUP Oxford, 2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    H. T. Stokes, B. J. Campbell, and S. van Smaalen, Gen- eration of (3 + d)-dimensional superspace groups for de- scribing the symmetry of modulated crystalline struc- tures, Acta Crystallogr. A 67, 45 (2011)

    2011

  24. [32]

    Ramakrishnan, S

    S. Ramakrishnan, S. R. Kotla, T. Rekis, J.-K. Bao, C. Eisele, L. Noohinejad, M. Tolkiehn, C. Paul- mann, B. Singh, R. Verma, B. Bag, R. Kulkarni, A. Thamizhavel, B. Singh, S. Ramakrishnan, and S. van Smaalen, Orthorhombic charge density wave on the tetragonal lattice of EuAl 4...

    2022

  25. [33]

    F. Z. Yang, K. F. Luo, W. Zhang, X. Guo, W. R. Meier, H. Ni, H. X. Li, P. M. Lozano, G. Fabbris, A. H. Said, C. Nelson, T. T. Zhang, A. F. May, M. A. McGuire, R. Juneja, L. Lindsay, H. N. Lee, J. M. Zuo, M. F. Chi, 7 X. Dai, L. Zhao, and H. Miao, Incommensurate trans- verse Pe...

    2024

  26. [34]

    S. R. Kotla, L. Noohinejad, P. Pokhriyal, M. Tolkiehn, H. Agarwal, S. Ramakrishnan, and S. van Smaalen, Real- ization of broken inversion symmetry in the charge den- sity wave phase in EuAl4 (2025), arXiv:2506.01633 [cond- mat.str-el]

    2025

  27. [35]

    Cherifi-Hertel, C

    S. Cherifi-Hertel, C. Voulot, U. Acevedo-Salas, Y. Zhang, O. Cr´ egut, K. D. Dorkenoo, and R. Hertel, Shedding light on non-Ising polar domain walls: Insight from second harmonic generation microscopy and polarimetry analy- sis, Journal of Applied Physics 129, 081101 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Croes, I

    B. Croes, I. Gaponenko, C. Voulot, K. D. Gr´ egut, Olivier Dorkenoo, F. Cheynis, S. Curiotto, P. M¨ uller, F. Leroy, K. Cordero-Edwards, P. Paruch, and S. Cherifi- Hertel, Automatic ferroelectric domain pattern recogni- tion based on the analysis of localized nonlinear opti- c...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Bersuker, On the origin of ferroelectricity in perovskite- type crystals, Physics Letters 20, 589 (1966)

    I. Bersuker, On the origin of ferroelectricity in perovskite- type crystals, Physics Letters 20, 589 (1966)

    1966

  30. [38]

    H. Z. Cummins, Experimental studies of structurally in- commensurate crystal phases, Physics Reports 185, 211 (1990)

    1990

  31. [39]

    Voute, M

    A. Voute, M. Deutsch, A. Kalinko, F. Alabarse, J.-B. Brubach, F. Capitani, M. Chapuis, V. Ta Phuoc, R. So- pracase, and P. Roy, New high-pressure/low-temperature set-up available at the AILES beamline, Vibrational Spectroscopy 86, 17 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Yazdi-Rizi, P

    M. Yazdi-Rizi, P. Marsik, B. P. P. Mallett, and C. Bern- hard, Anisotropy of infrared-active phonon modes in the monodomain state of tetragonal SrTiO 3 (110), Phys. Rev. B 95, 024105 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Siddique, J

    S. Siddique, J. L. Hart, D. Niedzielski, R. Singha, M.-G. Han, S. D. Funni, M. Colletta, M. T. Kiani, N. Schnitzer, N. L. Williams, L. F. Kourkoutis, Y. Zhu, L. M. Schoop, T. A. Arias, and J. J. Cha, Realignment and suppres- sion of charge density waves in the rare-earth trite...

    2024

  34. [42]

    Ramakrishnan, A

    S. Ramakrishnan, A. Sch¨ onleber, C. B. H¨ ubschle, C. Eisele, A. M. Schaller, T. Rekis, N. H. A. Bui, F. Feulner, S. van Smaalen, B. Bag, S. Ramakrishnan, M. Tolkiehn, and C. Paulmann, Charge density wave and lock-in transitions of CuV 2S4, Phys. Rev. B 99, 195140 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Goian, S

    V. Goian, S. Kamba, O. Pacherov´ a, J. Drahokoupil, L. Palatinus, M. Duˇ sek, J. Rohl ´ ıˇ cek, M. Savinov, F. Laufek, W. Schranz, A. Fuith, M. Kachl ´ ık, K. Maca, A. Shkabko, L. Sagarna, A. Weidenkaff, and A. A. Be- lik, Antiferrodistortive phase transition in EuTiO3, Phys. ...

    2012

  36. [44]

    J.-W. Kim, P. Thompson, S. Brown, P. S. Normile, J. A. Schlueter, A. Shkabko, A. Weidenkaff, and P. J. Ryan, Emergent superstructural dynamic order due to compet- ing antiferroelectric and antiferrodistortive instabilities in bulk EuTiO 3, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 027201 (2013)

    2013

  37. [45]

    R. G. Burkovsky, I. Bronwald, D. Andronikova, B. We- hinger, M. Krisch, J. Jacobs, D. Gambetti, K. Roleder, A. Majchrowski, A. V. Filimonov, A. I. Rudskoy, S. B. Vakhrushev, and A. K. Tagantsev, Critical scatter- ing and incommensurate phase transition in antiferro- electric P...

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    R. G. Burkovsky, I. Bronwald, D. Andronikova, G. Litya- gin, J. Piecha, S.-M. Souliou, A. Majchrowski, A. Fil- imonov, A. Rudskoy, K. Roleder, A. Bosak, and A. Tagantsev, Triggered incommensurate transition in PbHfO3, Phys. Rev. B 100, 014107 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    Bosak, V

    A. Bosak, V. Svitlyk, A. Arakcheeva, R. Burkovsky, V. Diadkin, K. Roleder, and D. Chernyshov, Incommen- surate crystal structure of PbHfO3, Acta Crystallograph- ica Section B 76, 7 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Zhong and D

    W. Zhong and D. Vanderbilt, Competing structural in- stabilities in cubic perovskites, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2587 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    A. K. Tagantsev, K. Vaideeswaran, S. B. Vakhrushev, A. V. Filimonov, R. G. Burkovsky, A. Shaganov, D. An- dronikova, A. I. Rudskoy, A. Q. R. Baron, H. Uchiyama, D. Chernyshov, A. Bosak, Z. Ujma, K. Roleder, A. Ma- jchrowski, J.-H. Ko, and N. Setter, The origin of antifer- roel...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.