pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.09233 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

β-Ga₂O₃(001) surface reconstructions from first principles and experiment

Konstantin Lion , Piero Mazzolini , Kingsley Egbo , Toni Markurt , Oliver Bierwagen , Martin Albrecht , Claudia Draxl This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords beta-Ga2O3surface reconstruction1x2 reconstructionGaO4 tetrahedraSTEM imagingab initio thermodynamicsepitaxial growthindium substitution
0
0 comments X

The pith

β-Ga₂O₃(001) forms a stable 1×2 reconstruction of paired GaO₄ tetrahedra.

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

This paper combines first-principles calculations with experimental imaging to identify stable atomic arrangements on the (001) surface of beta-gallium oxide. The main finding is a new 1×2 pattern built from pairs of GaO₄ tetrahedra that share an oxygen bond. The structure remains favored over a wide span of oxygen and gallium chemical potentials that match real growth environments. High-angle annular dark-field STEM images of homoepitaxially grown layers align with the calculated atom positions. The work also examines how indium atoms substitute at surface sites during metal-exchange growth.

Core claim

Ab initio atomistic thermodynamics and replica-exchange grand-canonical molecular dynamics calculations identify a previously unreported 1×2 reconstruction consisting of paired GaO₄ tetrahedra on the β-Ga₂O₃(001) surface. In this arrangement two Ga atoms share one oxygen bond and are separated by 2.64 Å along the [010] direction. This reconstruction exhibits stability across a broad range of oxygen and gallium chemical potentials. High-angle annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy of homoepitaxially grown (001) layers is consistent with the predicted structure. Indium substitution at surface sites shows cooperative effects with distinct stability regions under O-rich条件.

What carries the argument

The 1×2 paired GaO₄ tetrahedra reconstruction, in which two Ga atoms share one oxygen bond with a 2.64 Å separation along [010], which maintains stability over wide ranges of oxygen and gallium chemical potentials.

If this is right

  • The 1×2 paired-tetrahedra structure remains the dominant surface arrangement during homoepitaxial growth of β-Ga₂O₃(001).
  • Indium atoms incorporate at surface sites with cooperative effects and distinct stability regions under oxygen-rich conditions.
  • Surface properties of β-Ga₂O₃(001) can be tuned by selecting growth conditions that favor the identified reconstructions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The stable reconstruction may alter electronic states or defect densities at interfaces in β-Ga₂O₃ devices.
  • Paired tetrahedra motifs could appear on other oxide surfaces and affect their epitaxial behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The high-angle annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy images of the grown layers correspond to the single predicted 1×2 paired-tetrahedra structure rather than a mixture of other reconstructions or defects.

What would settle it

Higher-resolution surface imaging that shows Ga atom positions or spacings inconsistent with two Ga atoms sharing an oxygen bond and separated by 2.64 Å along the [010] direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.09233 by Claudia Draxl, Kingsley Egbo, Konstantin Lion, Martin Albrecht, Oliver Bierwagen, Piero Mazzolini, Toni Markurt.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Unrelaxed bulk-truncated (001) surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: a) Conventional unit cell of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Top view of the ideal (001)-A surface. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Surface phase diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: shows the phase diagram of β-Ga2O3(001) within an atmosphere of oxygen and gallium. The phase diagram on the left side, as obtained by PBEsol, consists of five distinct regions, labeled a to e. An enumeration of the surface periodicity and composition of all found metastable structures is given in Table I, while a top view of the structures is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Top views of all metastable and stable surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Surface free energy difference ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: HAADF-STEM image of the homoepitaxial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: DOS of all stable and metastable surface [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: RHEED observation of a 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Surface phase diagrams of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a comprehensive investigation of reconstructions on $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$(001) combining first-principles calculations with experimental observations. Using ab initio atomistic thermodynamics and replica-exchange grand-canonical molecular dynamics simulations, we explore the configurational space of possible reconstructions under varying chemical potentials of oxygen and gallium. Our calculations reveal several stable surface reconstructions, most notably a previously unreported 1$\times$2 reconstruction consisting of paired GaO$_4$ tetrahedra that exhibits remarkable stability across a wide range of experimental growth conditions. In this reconstruction, two Ga atoms share one oxygen bond and are separated by a distance of 2.64 {\AA} along the [010] direction. High-angle annular dark-field scanning transmission electron microscopy imaging of homoepitaxially grown (001) layers is consistent with the predicted structure. Additional investigations of possible indium substitution at the surface sites, which can occur during metal-exchange catalysis growth, reveal a cooperative effect in In incorporation, with distinct stability regions for In-substituted structures under O-rich conditions. Our findings provide an understanding for controlling surface properties during epitaxial growth of $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$(001).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines first-principles calculations, ab initio atomistic thermodynamics, and replica-exchange grand-canonical molecular dynamics to map surface reconstructions on β-Ga₂O₃(001) under varying Ga and O chemical potentials. It identifies several stable terminations and highlights a previously unreported 1×2 reconstruction formed by paired GaO₄ tetrahedra in which two Ga atoms share an oxygen bond and are separated by 2.64 Å along [010]; this structure is reported to remain stable across a wide range of growth-relevant conditions. HAADF-STEM images of homoepitaxially grown (001) layers are stated to be consistent with the predicted atomic arrangement. The work additionally examines In substitution at surface sites and notes cooperative incorporation effects under O-rich conditions.

Significance. If the assignment of the observed STEM contrast to the specific 1×2 paired-tetrahedra geometry can be placed on a firmer quantitative footing, the result would be useful for guiding surface preparation and doping strategies during epitaxial growth of β-Ga₂O₃. The methodological combination of replica-exchange grand-canonical MD with conventional ab initio thermodynamics is a clear strength, as it enables broader sampling of configurational space than static relaxation approaches alone. The experimental component is welcome but currently provides only qualitative support.

major comments (1)
  1. [HAADF-STEM imaging and comparison to theory] In the section presenting the HAADF-STEM results and their comparison to theory, the manuscript states only that the images are “consistent with” the predicted 1×2 paired-GaO₄-tetrahedra structure. No simulated HAADF-STEM images are shown for the proposed model, nor for competing low-energy reconstructions or plausible defect mixtures. Without such quantitative image simulations, alternative terminations that could produce similar column contrast cannot be ruled out, leaving the experimental identification of the specific 1×2 geometry as the least constrained link in the argument.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the exchange-correlation functional, plane-wave cutoff, and k-point sampling used in the DFT calculations, as well as any convergence tests performed on the reported formation energies and Ga–Ga distance.
  2. [Results and discussion] Figure captions or the main text should explicitly list the range of μ_O and μ_Ga values (or equivalent oxygen partial pressures and temperatures) over which the 1×2 reconstruction is found to be the lowest-energy termination.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting the need for stronger quantitative support of the experimental identification. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the section presenting the HAADF-STEM results and their comparison to theory, the manuscript states only that the images are “consistent with” the predicted 1×2 paired-GaO₄-tetrahedra structure. No simulated HAADF-STEM images are shown for the proposed model, nor for competing low-energy reconstructions or plausible defect mixtures. Without such quantitative image simulations, alternative terminations that could produce similar column contrast cannot be ruled out, leaving the experimental identification of the specific 1×2 geometry as the least constrained link in the argument.

    Authors: We agree that the current experimental support relies on qualitative consistency between the observed HAADF-STEM contrast and the atomic positions in the paired-tetrahedra model. To place the assignment on a firmer quantitative footing, the revised manuscript will include multislice simulations of HAADF-STEM images for the 1×2 reconstruction. These will be compared directly to the experimental images, including intensity profiles along the [010] direction. We will also provide simulations for the other low-energy terminations identified in our thermodynamic analysis to demonstrate that they produce distinguishable contrast patterns. This addition will allow us to address possible alternative interpretations more rigorously. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; first-principles results and experiment remain independent

full rationale

The paper derives candidate surface reconstructions and their stability windows exclusively via ab initio atomistic thermodynamics and replica-exchange grand-canonical MD; these methods operate on first-principles energetics and chemical-potential grids that do not incorporate the later HAADF-STEM observations. The experimental images are presented only as post-hoc consistency checks rather than as fitting targets or definitional inputs. No equations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems reduce any reported stability, geometry, or atomic distance to quantities fitted against the target observations themselves.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study rests on standard density-functional approximations and thermodynamic assumptions without introducing new fitted parameters or postulated entities beyond those already established in surface-science literature.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Density functional theory with a chosen exchange-correlation functional yields sufficiently accurate relative surface energies for Ga₂O₃ reconstructions.
    Invoked implicitly by the use of ab initio atomistic thermodynamics.
  • domain assumption Replica-exchange grand-canonical molecular dynamics adequately samples the relevant configurational space at the temperatures and chemical potentials considered.
    Central to the claim of having explored possible reconstructions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5760 in / 1504 out tokens · 52033 ms · 2026-05-18T08:05:57.963352+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Physics-informed automated surface reconstructing via low-energy electron diffraction based on Bayesian optimization

    physics.comp-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A trust-region Bayesian optimization framework integrates LEED multiple scattering models to jointly optimize structural and experimental parameters for automated surface reconstruction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    and [010] azimuthal directions were collected for the as-prepared sample as well as after an O-plasma treatment at a substrate temperature of 950 ◦C for 15– 30 minutes. As visible, upon plasma treatment an ad- ditional periodicity compatible with a 2×1 surface re- construction is observed along the [010] azimuthal direc- tion upon the plasma treatment. Th...

    work page doi:10.17172/nomad/2025.10.09-1 2020

  2. [2]

    A. J. Green, J. Speck, G. Xing, P. Moens, F. Allerstam, K. Gumaelius, T. Neyer, A. Arias-Purdue, V. Mehro- tra, A. Kuramata, K. Sasaki, S. Watanabe, K. Koshi, J. Blevins, O. Bierwagen, S. Krishnamoorthy, K. Leedy, A. R. Arehart, A. T. Neal, S. Mou, S. A. Ringel, A. Kumar, A. Sharma, K. Ghosh, U. Singisetti, W. Li, K. Chabak, K. Liddy, A. Islam, S. Rajan, ...

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Higashiwaki and G

    M. Higashiwaki and G. H. Jessen, Appl. Phys. Lett.112, 060401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Higashiwaki and S

    M. Higashiwaki and S. Fujita, eds.,Gallium Oxide: Mate- rials Properties, Crystal Growth, and Devices, Springer Series in Materials Science, Vol. 293 (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    S. J. Pearton, J. Yang, P. H. Cary, F. Ren, J. Kim, M. J. Tadjer, and M. A. Mastro, Appl. Phys. Rev.5, 011301 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Yue, Z. Wang, Q. Wang, C. Shi, Z. Xu, X. D. Bai, C. Tang, and C. Gu, J. Phys. Chem. B110, 796 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    S. P. Arnold, S. M. Prokes, F. K. Perkins, and M. E. Zaghloul, Appl. Phys. Lett.95, 103102 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    N. D. Cuong, Y. W. Park, and S. G. Yoon, Sens. Actua- tors B Chem.140, 240 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Z. Liu, T. Yamazaki, Y. Shen, T. Kikuta, N. Nakatani, and Y. Li, Sens. Actuators B Chem.129, 666 (2008)

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    Mazeina, F

    L. Mazeina, F. K. Perkins, V. M. Bermudez, S. P. Arnold, and S. M. Prokes, Langmuir26, 13722 (2010)

    work page 2010

  11. [11]

    Chang, Z

    P.-C. Chang, Z. Fan, W.-Y. Tseng, A. Rajagopal, and J. G. Lu, Appl. Phys. Lett.87, 222102 (2005)

    work page 2005

  12. [12]

    P. Feng, J. Y. Zhang, Q. H. Li, and T. H. Wang, Appl. Phys. Lett.88, 153107 (2006)

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    L. Li, E. Auer, M. Liao, X. Fang, T. Zhai, U. K. Gau- tam, A. Lugstein, Y. Koide, Y. Bando, and D. Golberg, Nanoscale3, 1120 (2011)

    work page 2011

  14. [14]

    Kokubun, K

    Y. Kokubun, K. Miura, F. Endo, and S. Nakagomi, Appl. Phys. Lett.90, 031912 (2007)

    work page 2007

  15. [15]

    W. Y. Weng, T. J. Hsueh, S. J. Chang, G. J. Huang, and S. P. Chang, IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett.22, 709 (2010)

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Kuramata, K

    A. Kuramata, K. Koshi, S. Watanabe, Y. Yamaoka, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.55, 1202A2 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Galazka, R

    Z. Galazka, R. Uecker, D. Klimm, K. Irmscher, M. Nau- mann, M. Pietsch, A. Kwasniewski, R. Bertram, S. Gan- schow, and M. Bickermann, ECS J. Solid State Sci. Tech- nol.6, Q3007 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    R. Roy, V. G. Hill, and E. F. Osborn, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 74, 719 (1952)

    work page 1952

  19. [19]

    Schewski, K

    R. Schewski, K. Lion, A. Fiedler, C. Wouters, A. Popp, S. V. Levchenko, T. Schulz, M. Schmidbauer, S. Bin Anooz, R. Gr¨ uneberg, Z. Galazka, G. Wagner, K. Irmscher, M. Scheffler, C. Draxl, and M. Albrecht, APL Materials7, 022515 (2018)

    work page 2018

  20. [20]

    Mazzolini, P

    P. Mazzolini, P. Vogt, R. Schewski, C. Wouters, M. Al- brecht, and O. Bierwagen, APL Materials7, 022511 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    J. D. Blevins, K. Stevens, A. Lindsey, G. Foundos, and L. Sande, IEEE Trans. Semicond. Manuf.32, 466 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    Bermudez, Chemical Physics323, 193 (2006)

    V. Bermudez, Chemical Physics323, 193 (2006)

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    S. Mu, M. Wang, H. Peelaers, and C. G. Van de Walle, APL Materials8, 091105 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Scheffler, inStudies in Surface Science and Cataly- sis, Physics of Solid Surfaces 1987, Vol

    M. Scheffler, inStudies in Surface Science and Cataly- sis, Physics of Solid Surfaces 1987, Vol. 40, edited by J. Koukal (Elsevier, 1988) pp. 115–122

    work page 1987

  25. [25]

    G.-X. Qian, R. M. Martin, and D. J. Chadi, Phys. Rev. B38, 7649 (1988)

    work page 1988

  26. [26]

    Reuter and M

    K. Reuter and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B65, 049901 (2001)

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    Reuter and M

    K. Reuter and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B68, 045407 (2003)

    work page 2003

  28. [28]

    Reuter, C

    K. Reuter, C. Stampf, and M. Scheffler, inHandbook of Materials Modeling, edited by S. Yip (Springer Nether- lands, Dordrecht, 2005) pp. 149–194

    work page 2005

  29. [29]

    Rogal, K

    J. Rogal, K. Reuter, and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. B75, 205433 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    Y. Zhou, M. Scheffler, and L. M. Ghiringhelli, Phys. Rev. B100, 174106 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Zhou,Surface Phase Diagrams Including Anharmonic Effects via a Replica-Exchange Grand-Canonical Method, Ph.D

    Y. Zhou,Surface Phase Diagrams Including Anharmonic Effects via a Replica-Exchange Grand-Canonical Method, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universit¨ at Berlin (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    Y. Zhou, C. Zhu, M. Scheffler, and L. M. Ghiringhelli, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 246101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Stull and H

    D. Stull and H. Prophet,JANAF Thermochemical Ta- bles, 2nd ed. (U.S. National Bureau of Standards, Wash- ington, D.C., 1971)

    work page 1971

  34. [34]

    D. R. Lide, ed.,CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (Internet Version 2005)

    work page 2005

  35. [35]

    M. Wang, S. Mu, and C. G. Van de Walle, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces13, 10650 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    M. Wang, S. Mu, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. B 102, 035303 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    Galazka, Semicond

    Z. Galazka, Semicond. Sci. Technol.33, 113001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    M. R. Shirts and J. D. Chodera, The Journal of Chemical Physics129, 124105 (2008)

    work page 2008

  39. [39]

    Pymbar, https://github.com/choderalab/pymbar, Ac- cessed: 29/03/2021

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    J. P. Perdew and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B45, 13244 (1992)

    work page 1992

  41. [41]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    work page 1996

  42. [42]

    Ernzerhof, J

    M. Ernzerhof, J. P. Perdew, and K. Burke, Int. J. Quan- tum Chem.64, 285 (1997)

    work page 1997

  43. [43]

    Mazzolini, A

    P. Mazzolini, A. Falkenstein, C. Wouters, R. Schewski, T. Markurt, Z. Galazka, M. Martin, M. Albrecht, and O. Bierwagen, APL Materials8, 011107 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    M. D. Pashley, Phys. Rev. B40, 10481 (1989)

    work page 1989

  45. [45]

    Hinuma, T

    Y. Hinuma, T. Gake, and F. Oba, Phys. Rev. Materials 3, 084605 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Valtiner, M

    M. Valtiner, M. Todorova, G. Grundmeier, and J. Neuge- bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 065502 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    B. M. Janzen, P. Mazzolini, R. Gillen, V. F. S. Peltason, L. P. Grote, J. Maultzsch, R. Fornari, O. Bierwagen, and M. Wagner, J. Mater. Chem. C9, 14175 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Noguera, J

    C. Noguera, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter12, R367 (2000)

    work page 2000

  49. [49]

    P. W. Tasker, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.12, 4977 (1979)

    work page 1979

  50. [50]

    M. S. Williams, M. Alonso-Orts, M. Schowalter, A. Karg, S. Raghuvansy, J. P. McCandless, D. Jena, A. Rosenauer, M. Eickhoff, and P. Vogt, APL Mater.12, 011120 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    A. Karg, A. Hinz, S. Figge, M. Schowalter, P. Vogt, 16 A. Rosenauer, and M. Eickhoff, APL Materials11, 091114 (2023)

    work page 2023

  52. [52]

    P. Vogt, F. V. E. Hensling, K. Azizie, C. S. Chang, D. Turner, J. Park, J. P. McCandless, H. Paik, B. J. Bocklund, G. Hoffman, O. Bierwagen, D. Jena, H. G. Xing, S. Mou, D. A. Muller, S.-L. Shang, Z.-K. Liu, and D. G. Schlom, APL Materials9, 031101 (2021)

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    J. I. H¨ utner, A. Conti, D. Kugler, F. Mittendorfer, G. Kresse, M. Schmid, U. Diebold, and J. Balajka, Sci- ence385, 1241 (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    Redondo, J

    J. Redondo, J. Michaliˇ cka, F. Kraushofer, G. Franceschi, B. ˇSmid, N. Kumar, O. Man, M. Blatnik, D. Wrana, B. Mallada, M. ˇSvec, G. S. Parkinson, M. Setvin, M. Riva, U. Diebold, and J. ˇCechal, Adv. Mater. Inter- faces10, 2300602 (2023)

    work page 2023

  55. [55]

    V. Blum, R. Gehrke, F. Hanke, P. Havu, V. Havu, X. Ren, K. Reuter, and M. Scheffler, Computer Physics Communications180, 2175 (2009)

    work page 2009

  56. [56]

    J. W. Abbott, C. M. Acosta, A. Akkoush, A. Am- brosetti, V. Atalla, A. Bagrets, J. Behler, D. Berger, B. Bieniek, J. Bj¨ ork, V. Blum, S. Bohloul, C. L. Box, N. Boyer, D. S. Brambila, G. A. Bramley, K. R. Bryen- ton, M. Camarasa-G´ omez, C. Carbogno, F. Caruso, S. Chutia, M. Ceriotti, G. Cs´ anyi, W. Dawson, F. A. De- lesma, F. D. Sala, B. Delley, R. A. D...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 136406 (2008)

    work page 2008

  58. [58]

    Wouters, C

    C. Wouters, C. Sutton, L. M. Ghiringhelli, T. Markurt, R. Schewski, A. Hassa, H. von Wenckstern, M. Grund- mann, M. Scheffler, and M. Albrecht, Phys. Rev. Mate- rials4, 125001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    K. Lion, P. Pavone, and C. Draxl, Phys. Rev. Materials 6, 013601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Adamo and V

    C. Adamo and V. Barone, The Journal of Chemical Physics110, 6158 (1999)

    work page 1999

  61. [61]

    Ernzerhof and G

    M. Ernzerhof and G. E. Scuseria, The Journal of Chem- ical Physics110, 5029 (1999)

    work page 1999

  62. [62]

    H. H. Tippins, Phys. Rev.140, A316 (1965)

    work page 1965

  63. [63]

    Orita, H

    M. Orita, H. Ohta, M. Hirano, and H. Hosono, Applied Physics Letters77, 4166 (2000)

    work page 2000

  64. [64]

    De´ ak, M

    P. De´ ak, M. Lorke, B. Aradi, and T. Frauenheim, Journal of Applied Physics126, 130901 (2019)

    work page 2019

  65. [65]

    ˚Ahman, G

    J. ˚Ahman, G. Svensson, and J. Albertsson, Acta Crys- tallogr C Cryst Struct Commun52, 1336 (1996)

    work page 1996

  66. [66]

    S. P. Ong, W. D. Richards, A. Jain, G. Hautier, M. Kocher, S. Cholia, D. Gunter, V. L. Chevrier, K. A. Persson, and G. Ceder, Computational Materials Science 68, 314 (2013)

    work page 2013

  67. [67]

    Sun and G

    W. Sun and G. Ceder, Surf. Sci.617, 53 (2013)

    work page 2013

  68. [68]

    A. Togo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.92, 012001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    A. Togo, L. Chaput, T. Tadano, and I. Tanaka, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter35, 353001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    De´ ak, Q

    P. De´ ak, Q. Duy Ho, F. Seemann, B. Aradi, M. Lorke, and T. Frauenheim, Phys. Rev. B95, 075208 (2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    https://gitlab.com/zhouyuanyuan/fhi-panda

    work page

  72. [72]

    Tkatchenko and M

    A. Tkatchenko and M. Scheffler, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 073005 (2009)

    work page 2009

  73. [73]

    Bussi, D

    G. Bussi, D. Donadio, and M. Parrinello, The Journal of Chemical Physics126, 014101 (2007)

    work page 2007

  74. [74]

    Bonomi, D

    M. Bonomi, D. Branduardi, G. Bussi, C. Camil- loni, D. Provasi, P. Raiteri, D. Donadio, F. Marinelli, F. Pietrucci, R. A. Broglia, and M. Parrinello, Computer Physics Communications180, 1961 (2009)

    work page 1961

  75. [75]

    Draxl and M

    C. Draxl and M. Scheffler, MRS Bull.43, 676 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Draxl and M

    C. Draxl and M. Scheffler, J. Phys. Mater.2, 036001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Scheidgen, L

    M. Scheidgen, L. Himanen, A. N. Ladines, D. Sikter, M. Nakhaee, ´A. Fekete, T. Chang, A. Golparvar, J. A. M´ arquez, S. Brockhauser, S. Br¨ uckner, L. M. Ghir- inghelli, F. Dietrich, D. Lehmberg, T. Denell, A. Al- bino, H. N¨ asstr¨ om, S. Shabih, F. Dobener, M. K¨ uhbach, R. Mozumder, J. F. Rudzinski, N. Daelman, J. M. Pizarro, M. Kuban, C. Salazar, P. O...

    work page 2023