pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21700 · v1 · pith:JUWXS4DRnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con

Quasiparticle GW for Superconductors: Toward a Unified Treatment of Electron-Phonon and Electron-Plasmon Couplings

Catalin D. Spataru , Christopher Renskers , Elena R. Margine This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 07:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con
keywords superconductivityquasiparticle GWEliashberg theorygrapheneelectron-phonon couplingelectron-plasmon couplingdynamical screening
0
0 comments X

The pith

A quasiparticle GW extension to superconductors unifies electron-phonon and electron-plasmon couplings.

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

The paper presents a theoretical framework called s-qpGW that extends the quasiparticle self-consistent GW method to the superconducting phase. This extension is coupled with the Eliashberg treatment to account for both phonon-mediated and plasmon-mediated interactions. When tested on bulk metals, the method performs comparably to established Eliashberg theory. It also correctly predicts that doped monolayer graphene does not exhibit superconductivity, highlighting its ability to capture dynamical screening effects that simpler models overlook.

Core claim

The authors claim that their s-qpGW approach, by adapting quasiparticle self-consistent GW to the superconducting state and integrating it with Eliashberg equations for phonon and plasmon couplings, provides a unified first-principles description that matches conventional results for bulk metals and accurately shows the absence of superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene due to proper treatment of dynamical Coulomb screening.

What carries the argument

The s-qpGW method, defined as the quasiparticle self-consistent GW approach extended to the superconducting phase and combined with Eliashberg theory to treat both electron-phonon and electron-plasmon interactions on equal footing.

If this is right

  • The approach matches the accuracy of state-of-the-art Eliashberg theory when applied to bulk metals.
  • It predicts the absence of superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene.
  • In a simple model of graphene with enhanced density of states, it demonstrates capture of dynamical Coulomb screening effects that standard BCS theory cannot account for.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This framework could be applied to few-layer graphene to clarify the relative roles of phonons and plasmons in observed superconductivity.
  • It may enable first-principles exploration of pairing mechanisms in other two-dimensional materials where dynamical screening is important.

Load-bearing premise

The quasiparticle self-consistent GW method can be extended to the superconducting phase in a way that accurately incorporates dynamical screening without adding uncontrolled approximations.

What would settle it

An experimental measurement confirming or refuting the absence of superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene at the doping levels studied in the paper would directly test whether the s-qpGW predictions hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21700 by Catalin D. Spataru, Christopher Renskers, Elena R. Margine.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Calculated isotropic Eliashberg spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. a) Superconducting properties of doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Superconducting properties of bulk Nb cal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Anomalous (pairing) self-energy and spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Anomalous (pairing) self-energy and spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Calculated superconducting gap ∆ of doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Superconducting two-dimensional materials, and in particular few-layer graphene, offer an exciting platform for low-power electronics, yet the origin of their unconventional superconductivity remains an open question. Prevailing theories, primarily rooted in the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) framework that assumes electron-phonon interactions are the main mechanism of superconductivity, struggle to account quantitatively for the observed phenomena. Recent studies point to a plasmonic pairing mechanism in graphene systems; however, disentangling the relative contributions of phonon- and plasmon-mediated pairing remains challenging due to the lack of a satisfactory first-principles framework capable of accurately capturing dynamical screening effects in the electronic channel. Here, we present a new theoretical framework that extends the quasiparticle self-consistent GW method to the superconducting phase by coupling it with the Eliashberg treatment of both phonon- and plasmon-mediated interactions. Our approach, termed "s-qpGW", is on par with the state-of-the-art Eliashberg theory of superconductivity when applied to bulk metals, and correctly predicts the absence of superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene. To differentiate s-qpGW from conventional Eliashberg approaches, we study a simple model system, graphene with an artificially enhanced density of states, and demonstrate that s-qpGW captures dynamical Coulomb screening effects in ways that standard BCS theory cannot.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces 's-qpGW', an extension of quasiparticle self-consistent GW to the superconducting state that couples to Eliashberg equations for both phonon- and plasmon-mediated pairing. It reports that s-qpGW reproduces state-of-the-art Eliashberg results for bulk metals, correctly yields zero Tc in doped monolayer graphene due to dynamical screening, and distinguishes itself from BCS by capturing screening effects in a model graphene system with artificially enhanced density of states.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the framework offers a first-principles route to unify electron-phonon and electron-plasmon channels without ad-hoc separation of interactions. This is particularly relevant for 2D materials where long-range Coulomb effects and dynamical screening dominate, potentially explaining the absence of superconductivity in monolayer graphene and guiding predictions for few-layer systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method section on s-qpGW extension] The extension of qpGW to include anomalous propagators and the coupled Eliashberg treatment of the dynamical Coulomb kernel (likely in the section defining the s-qpGW equations) requires explicit demonstration that no uncontrolled approximations in the frequency-dependent W or self-consistency loop for the order parameter artificially suppress pairing in 2D geometries; the no-SC prediction for monolayer graphene is load-bearing and sensitive to this treatment.
  2. [Results for bulk metals] The claim that s-qpGW is 'on par' with Eliashberg theory for bulk metals lacks tabulated comparisons of Tc, gap magnitudes, or spectral functions (e.g., in the results for Pb or Al); without these quantitative benchmarks and error estimates, the equivalence cannot be verified as more than qualitative.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract/Introduction] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a brief statement of the key equations or approximations retained from standard GW/Eliashberg to clarify the scope of the extension.
  2. [Model system results] Figure captions for the model graphene system should explicitly state the enhancement factor applied to the density of states and the resulting Tc values for both s-qpGW and BCS.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us identify areas where additional clarity and quantitative detail will strengthen the presentation. We address each major comment below and describe the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method section on s-qpGW extension] The extension of qpGW to include anomalous propagators and the coupled Eliashberg treatment of the dynamical Coulomb kernel (likely in the section defining the s-qpGW equations) requires explicit demonstration that no uncontrolled approximations in the frequency-dependent W or self-consistency loop for the order parameter artificially suppress pairing in 2D geometries; the no-SC prediction for monolayer graphene is load-bearing and sensitive to this treatment.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to the sensitivity of the monolayer-graphene result. The s-qpGW implementation retains the full frequency dependence of the screened interaction W obtained from the GW self-consistency loop and solves the Eliashberg equations without any ad-hoc separation or static approximation for the Coulomb kernel. The absence of superconductivity is a direct consequence of the strong dynamical screening that suppresses the effective pairing interaction at the relevant frequencies. To make this explicit, we will add a dedicated appendix that reports convergence tests with respect to the frequency mesh, the number of self-consistency iterations on the order parameter, and the treatment of the 2D Coulomb kernel for the doped monolayer. These tests confirm that the zero-Tc outcome is robust and not an artifact of the numerical procedure. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results for bulk metals] The claim that s-qpGW is 'on par' with Eliashberg theory for bulk metals lacks tabulated comparisons of Tc, gap magnitudes, or spectral functions (e.g., in the results for Pb or Al); without these quantitative benchmarks and error estimates, the equivalence cannot be verified as more than qualitative.

    Authors: We agree that tabulated quantitative comparisons would allow readers to assess the level of agreement more precisely. In the revised manuscript we will insert a new table that lists the critical temperatures, zero-temperature gaps, and selected spectral-function features obtained from s-qpGW for Pb and Al, together with the corresponding reference values from fully converged Eliashberg calculations. Convergence uncertainties arising from the frequency grid and k-point sampling will be reported as error estimates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

s-qpGW extension remains self-contained; no reduction of graphene no-SC prediction to fitted input or self-citation

full rationale

The derivation couples the quasiparticle self-consistent GW framework to Eliashberg equations for phonon and plasmon channels, yielding a unified dynamical screening treatment. The abstract states that s-qpGW is on par with Eliashberg for bulk metals and correctly predicts absence of superconductivity in doped monolayer graphene, with differentiation shown via a model system of graphene with artificially enhanced DOS. No equations or sections are quoted that define a parameter from the target result and then re-present it as a prediction, nor is the central claim justified solely by overlapping-author citations whose content reduces to the present result. The graphene prediction is presented as an output of the extended formalism rather than an input by construction, and the method is benchmarked against independent Eliashberg results for bulk cases. This satisfies the criteria for a self-contained derivation against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the validity of the quasiparticle GW approximation in the superconducting state and on the standard Eliashberg equations for pairing; no new free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quasiparticle self-consistent GW remains accurate when extended to the superconducting phase.
    The paper builds the s-qpGW method on this extension.
  • domain assumption Eliashberg theory correctly describes both phonon and plasmon mediated pairing once the screened interaction is supplied by GW.
    Central to the unified treatment claimed in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5786 in / 1307 out tokens · 47008 ms · 2026-05-22T07:55:44.539923+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    the diagonal approximation (neglecting band mixing), and treating everything as 2×2 matrices. For each (n,k) the static Coulomb self-energy is defined as a symmetrized convo- lution with the Nambu spectral function, ˆ˜ΣC nk = 1 2 Z dωℜ ˆΣC nk(ω) ˆAnk(ω) + 1 2 Z dω ˆAnk(ω)ℜ ˆΣC nk(ω),(B-6) where ˆAnk(ω) = ˆGa nk(ω)− ˆGr nk(ω) 2πi ,(B-7) 14 and ˆGr/a nk (ω)...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, S. Fang, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras, and P. Jarillo- Herrero, Unconventional superconductivity in magic-angle graphene superlattices, Nature 556, 43 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    H. Zhou, T. Xie, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and A. F. Young, Superconductivity in rhom- bohedral trilayer graphene, Nature598, 434 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Y. Xia, Z. Han, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Superconductivity in 16 twisted bilayer WSe2, Nature637, 833 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Y. Guo, J. Pack, J. Swann, L. Holtzman, M. Cothrine, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Mandrus, K. Barmak, J. Hone, A. J. Mil- lis, A. Pasupathy, and C. R. Dean, Supercon- ductivity in 5.0°twisted bilayer WSe 2, Nature 637, 839 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Barrier, L

    J. Barrier, L. Peng, S. Xu, V. I. Fal’ko, K. Watanabe, T. Tanigushi, A. K. Geim, S. Adam, and A. I. Berdyugin, Coulomb screening of superconductivity in magic- angle twisted bilayer graphene (2024), arXiv:2412.01577

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Parra-Mart´ ınez, A

    G. Parra-Mart´ ınez, A. Jimeno-Pozo, V. o. T. Phong, H. Sainz-Cruz, D. Kaplan, P. Emanuel, Y. Oreg, P. A. Pantale´ on, J. A. Silva- Guill´ en, and F. Guinea, Band Renormalization, Quarter Metals, and Chiral Superconductivity in Rhombohedral Tetralayer Graphene, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 136503 (2025)

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.108, 1175 (1957)

    work page 1957

  9. [9]

    Y.-Z. Chou, F. Wu, J. D. Sau, and S. Das Sarma, Acoustic-phonon-mediated su- perconductivity in moir´ eless graphene multi- layers, Phys. Rev. B106, 024507 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A

    E. Vi˜ nas Bostr¨ om, A. Fischer, J. B. Profe, J. Zhang, D. M. Kennes, and A. Ru- bio, Phonon-mediated unconventional super- conductivity in rhombohedral stacked multi- layer graphene, npj Computational Materials 10, 163 (2024)

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    C. D. Spataru and F. L´ eonard, Ab initio calcu- lations of low-energy quasiparticle lifetimes in bilayer graphene, Applied Physics Letters123, 113101 (2023)

    work page 2023

  12. [12]

    Takada, Plasmon mechanism of supercon- ductivity in two- and three-dimensional elec- tron systems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan45, 786 (1978)

    Y. Takada, Plasmon mechanism of supercon- ductivity in two- and three-dimensional elec- tron systems, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan45, 786 (1978)

    work page 1978

  13. [13]

    Akashi and R

    R. Akashi and R. Arita, Development of Density-Functional Theory for a Plasmon- Assisted Superconducting State: Application to Lithium Under High Pressures, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 057006 (2013)

    work page 2013

  14. [14]

    Akashi and R

    R. Akashi and R. Arita, Density Functional Theory for Plasmon-Assisted Superconductiv- ity, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 83, 061016 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Sanna, C

    A. Sanna, C. Pellegrini, and E. K. U. Gross, Combining Eliashberg Theory with Density Functional Theory for the Accurate Predic- tion of Superconducting Transition Tempera- tures and Gap Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 057001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Davydov, A

    A. Davydov, A. Sanna, C. Pellegrini, J. K. De- whurst, S. Sharma, and E. K. U. Gross, Ab initio theory of plasmonic superconductivity within the Eliashberg and density-functional formalisms, Phys. Rev. B102, 214508 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    Akashi, Revisiting homogeneous electron gas in pursuit of properly normed ab initio Eliashberg theory, Phys

    R. Akashi, Revisiting homogeneous electron gas in pursuit of properly normed ab initio Eliashberg theory, Phys. Rev. B105, 104510 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    in’t Veld, M

    Y. in’t Veld, M. I. Katsnelson, A. J. Millis, and M. R¨ osner, Screening induced crossover between phonon- and plasmon-mediated pair- ing in layered superconductors, 2D Materials 10, 045031 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Eliashberg, Interactions between electrons and lattice vibrations in a superconductor, Sov

    G. Eliashberg, Interactions between electrons and lattice vibrations in a superconductor, Sov. Phys. JETP11, 696 (1960)

    work page 1960

  20. [20]

    G. M. Eliashberg, Temperature Green’s func- tion for electrons in a superconductor, Sov. Phys. JETP12, 1000 (1961)

    work page 1961

  21. [21]

    Das Sarma, J

    S. Das Sarma, J. D. Sau, Y.-T. Tu, and S. Wang, Conventional and practical metal- lic superconductivity arising from repulsive coulomb coupling (2025), arXiv:2511.00625

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Gor’Kov, On the energy spectrum of super- conductors, Sov

    L. Gor’Kov, On the energy spectrum of super- conductors, Sov. Phys. JETP7, 158 (1958)

    work page 1958

  23. [23]

    Nambu, Quasi-particles and gauge invari- ance in the theory of superconductivity, Phys

    Y. Nambu, Quasi-particles and gauge invari- ance in the theory of superconductivity, Phys. Rev.117, 648 (1960)

    work page 1960

  24. [24]

    E. R. Margine and F. Giustino, Anisotropic Migdal-Eliashberg theory using Wannier func- tions, Phys. Rev. B87, 024505 (2013)

    work page 2013

  25. [25]

    C. D. Spataru and F. L´ eonard, Nanoscale func- tionalized superconducting transport channels as photon detectors, Phys. Rev. B103, 134512 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Hedin and S

    L. Hedin and S. Lundqvist, Effects of Electron- Electron and Electron-Phonon Interactions on the One-Electron States of Solids (Academic Press, 1970) pp. 1–181

    work page 1970

  27. [27]

    Giustino, Electron-phonon interactions from first principles, Rev

    F. Giustino, Electron-phonon interactions from first principles, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015003 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    A. B. Migdal, Interaction between electrons and lattice vibrations in a normal metal, Sov. Phys. JETP7, 996 (1958)

    work page 1958

  29. [29]

    Hedin, New Method for Calculating the One-Particle Green’s Function with Applica- tion to the Electron-Gas Problem, Phys

    L. Hedin, New Method for Calculating the One-Particle Green’s Function with Applica- tion to the Electron-Gas Problem, Phys. Rev. 139, A796 (1965). 17

    work page 1965

  30. [30]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Electron correlation in semiconductors and insulators: Band gaps and quasiparticle energies, Phys. Rev. B34, 5390 (1986)

    work page 1986

  31. [31]

    L. X. Benedict, C. D. Spataru, and S. G. Louie, Quasiparticle properties of a simple metal at high electron temperatures, Phys. Rev. B66, 085116 (2002)

    work page 2002

  32. [32]

    Morel and P

    P. Morel and P. W. Anderson, Calculation of the superconducting state parameters with re- tarded electron-phonon interaction, Phys. Rev. 125, 1263 (1962)

    work page 1962

  33. [33]

    P. B. Allen and B. Mitrovi´ c, Theory of Super- conductingT c (Academic Press, 1983) pp. 1– 92

    work page 1983

  34. [34]

    Pellegrini and A

    C. Pellegrini and A. Sanna, Ab initio methods for superconductivity, Nat. Rev. Phys.6, 509 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    S. V. Faleev, M. van Schilfgaarde, and T. Kotani, All-Electron Self-ConsistentGW Approximation: Application to Si, MnO, and NiO, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 126406 (2004)

    work page 2004

  36. [36]

    van Schilfgaarde, T

    M. van Schilfgaarde, T. Kotani, and S. Faleev, Quasiparticle Self-ConsistentGWTheory, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 226402 (2006)

    work page 2006

  37. [37]

    H. J. Vidberg and J. W. Serene, Solving the Eliashberg Equations by Means of N-Point Pad´ e Approximants, J. of Low Temp. Phys.29, 179 (1977)

    work page 1977

  38. [38]

    E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, Dielectric function, screening, and plasmons in two- dimensional graphene, Phys. Rev. B75, 205418 (2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    J. Ye, M. F. Craciun, M. Koshino, S. Russo, S. Inoue, H. Yuan, H. Shimotani, A. F. Mor- purgo, and Y. Iwasa, Accessing the transport properties of graphene and its multilayers at high carrier density, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.108, 13002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Our jellium-like Lindhard screening model for Nb was calibrated by choosing an electron ef- fective massm ∗ = 1.8m e; the model accounts for the five valence electrons of Nb and yields a Fermi energyE F = 5.32 eV

    work page

  41. [41]

    Ponc´ e, E

    S. Ponc´ e, E. Margine, C. Verdi, and F. Giustino, EPW: Electron–phonon coupling, transport and superconducting properties us- ing maximally localized Wannier functions, Comput. Phys. Commun.209, 116 (2016)

    work page 2016

  42. [42]

    H. Lee, S. Ponc´ e, K. Bushick, S. Hajinazar, J. Lafuente-Bartolome, J. Leveillee, C. Lian, J.-M. Lihm, F. Macheda, H. Mori, H. Paudyal, W. H. Sio, S. Tiwari, M. Zacharias, X. Zhang, N. Bonini, E. Kioupakis, E. R. Margine, and F. Giustino, Electron–phonon physics from first principles using the epw code, npj Comp. Materials9, 156 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    E. R. Margine and F. Giustino, Two-gap su- perconductivity in heavilyn-doped graphene: Ab initio migdal-eliashberg theory, Phys. Rev. B90, 014518 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    H. Mori, T. Nomoto, R. Arita, and E. R. Margine, Efficient anisotropic Migdal- Eliashberg calculations with an intermediate representation basis and Wannier interpola- tion, Phys. Rev. B110, 064505 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Lewandowski, D

    C. Lewandowski, D. Chowdhury, and J. Ruh- man, Pairing in magic-angle twisted bilayer graphene: Role of phonon and plasmon umk- lapp, Phys. Rev. B103, 235401 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    M. Long, A. Jimeno-Pozo, H. Sainz-Cruz, P. A. Pantale´ on, and F. Guinea, Evolution of su- perconductivity in twisted graphene multilay- ers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, e2405259121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics, 3rd ed. (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000)

    work page 2000

  48. [48]

    Simonato, M

    M. Simonato, M. I. Katsnelson, and M. R¨ osner, Revised Tolmachev-Morel-Anderson pseu- dopotential for layered conventional supercon- ductors with nonlocal Coulomb interaction, Phys. Rev. B108, 064513 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Shishkin and G

    M. Shishkin and G. Kresse, Self-consistentGW calculations for semiconductors and insulators, Phys. Rev. B75, 235102 (2007)

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    B.-C. Shih, Y. Xue, P. Zhang, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Quasiparticle Band Gap of ZnO: High Accuracy from the Conventional G0W0 Approach, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 146401 (2010)

    work page 2010