We erroneously implied that a percolative insulator-metal transition is always first order and hence that the doping-induced percolative insulator-metal transition at low temperature in Y1-xCa x Ti O 3 is first order. However, the electronic phase separation uncovered in our experiments only implies that the underlying single-phase insulator to single-phase metal transition is first order. We cannot currently determine whether the percolative transition is first order or second order, since we do not have resistivity measurements for doping levels very close to xc. The last sentence of the abstract should read: “Our results indicate that the hole-doping-induced insulator-metal transition in Y1-xCa x Ti O 3 involves electronic phase separation, and thus is of inherent first-order character.” The last sentence of the introduction should read: “Our results strongly indicate a first-order nature of the doping-induced IMT involving electronic phase separation, consistent with theory.” The following sentence needs to be added in the discussion: “It should be noted that our conclusion of a first-order transition, as implied by the electronic phase separation, applies only to the transition from the x=0 pure Mott phase to the x=x* pure metallic phase. The appearance of conducting transport at xc=0.35 is a separate, percolative transition, which may or may not be first order.” We are grateful to Amnon Aharony for pointing out this error.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Journal||Physical Review B|
|State||Published - Apr 15 2022|
Bibliographical notePublisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Physical Society. All rights reserved.