Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Optimizing phonon scattering by tuning surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing to break the random-alloy limit of thermal conductivity

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Partial intermixing at superlattice interfaces can lower thermal conductivity below both the abrupt-interface value and the random-alloy limit, with an optimal roughness for thick spacers.

desk verdict Solid NEMD study with a genuinely new qualitative prediction—optimal interface roughness that beats the random-alloy limit—but the admitted use of a non-converged cross-section weakens the quantitative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05830 v1 pith:ANSWDSIA submitted 2019-08-16 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Xiaolong Yang , Wu Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords thermalconductivitysuperlatticesinterfaceroughnessphononscatteringinterdiffusionalloylimitmoleculardynamicsthermoelectric
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 tries to establish that the way atoms intermix at superlattice interfaces is not just a side effect of growth but a tunable lever for heat flow. Using molecular dynamics on model binary superlattices, it argues that partial intermixing can scatter phonons in two complementary frequency ranges: interfaces block low-to-mid frequencies and alloy disorder blocks high frequencies, so the total thermal conductivity can fall below both the abrupt-interface value and the random-alloy limit. The authors identify a non-monotonic response: for large-period superlattices there is an intermediate roughness that minimizes thermal conductivity, while for short periods conductivity decreases monotonically toward the alloy value. If right, this gives thermoelectric materials a practical design target: control interdiffusion during growth or annealing rather than maximize interface sharpness or disorder.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a tunable model of an intermixed interface: a Laplace (double-exponential) concentration profile with scale parameter alpha, which continuously interpolates a superlattice from perfectly abrupt interfaces (alpha approaching 0) through rough interfaces to a totally intermixed random alloy. Atomic species are assigned randomly according to this profile in a binary Lennard-Jones crystal, with mass and bond-strength ratios spanning realistic material pairs. Spectral heat currents computed from non-equilibrium molecular dynamics resolve which phonon frequencies each scattering mechanism removes: interface scattering suppresses low-to-mid frequency transmission, alloy scattering suppresses high-frequency transmission, and the crossover between the two regimes explains why an optimal roughness exists for long-period samples.

What would settle it

Measure the cross-plane thermal conductivity of annealed SiGe superlattices with thick Si spacers as a function of annealing-driven intermixing: the central claim would be falsified if kappa decreases monotonically with intermixing and never drops below the alloy limit, or if no optimal intermediate roughness appears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the central claim is that surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing can make superlattice thermal conductivity lower than the corresponding random-alloy limit, provided the light-material spacer layer is thick enough (roughly 30 unit cells in the model). For large-period superlattices, the conductivity as a function of interface roughness is non-monotonic, with an optimal intermediate roughness that minimizes kappa; for short periods, kappa decreases monotonically and approaches the alloy limit from above. The same simulations show that intermixing is most effective below the alloy limit for large mass mismatch, while for large bond-strength (lattice) mismatch, an ideally abrupt interface can already give kappa well below the alloy limit. These are stated as general trends for Lennard-Jones model systems that mimic Si/Ge, AlAs/GaAs, and Bi2Te3/Sb2Te3.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single Lennard-Jones potential with solid-argon parameters, differing only in atomic mass and bond strength, captures the phonon physics that governs real superlattices such as Si/Ge well enough for the qualitative trends to transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For large-period superlattices, controlling interdiffusion to an intermediate amount gives the lowest thermal conductivity; both sharper and more intermixed interfaces conduct more heat.
  • Intermixing is a more powerful lever for materials with large mass mismatch, where high-frequency phonons already carry little heat and interface scattering dominates.
  • For large lattice mismatch, perfectly abrupt interfaces may already beat the alloy limit, so growth optimization should target sharpness rather than intermixing.
  • The dominance of harmonic, temperature-independent scattering in the model implies the low-thermal-conductivity effect should persist over a broad temperature range, not just at cryogenic temperatures.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A clear testable consequence the authors leave implicit: in annealed SiGe superlattices, kappa should first fall and then rise as annealing time increases for thick spacers, tracing the predicted optimal-roughness minimum.
  • The same two-channel scattering picture suggests a design rule for other nanostructures: pair a strong low-frequency scatterer (interfaces) with a strong high-frequency scatterer (alloy disorder) to cover the phonon spectrum.
  • Because the quantitative results rest on a single Lennard-Jones potential, quantitative transfer to real materials would require checking whether strain, anharmonicity, or three-phonon processes shift the optimal roughness; the qualitative non-monotonicity may survive but the optimum value likely will not.
  • The Laplace-profile model could be extended to graded or asymmetric intermixing, where the optimal profile may be non-symmetric and further lower kappa.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses non-equilibrium molecular dynamics (NEMD) combined with spectral heat current calculations to study the cross-plane thermal conductivity of binary Lennard-Jones superlattices as the interface roughness, modeled by a Laplace distribution of species mixing, increases from perfectly abrupt to completely intermixed. The authors compare these conductivities with those of random alloys of the same composition and report that rough superlattices can fall below the alloy limit when the light-mass 'spacer' layer is thick enough, that a non-monotonic dependence with an optimal roughness appears for large-period superlattices, and that the effect is stronger with larger mass mismatch and specific bond-strength ratios. They interpret the results through spectral transmission functions and cumulative conductivity, and they compare selected results with experimental Si/Ge superlattice data at 300 K.

Significance. If the reported trends are robust, the paper identifies a practical tuning knob—surface interdiffusion—that could combine interface and alloy scattering to suppress thermal conductivity below both abrupt-interface and random-alloy values, with direct implications for thermoelectric materials. The study is systematic in its parametrization of interface roughness, uses spectral decomposition to assign frequency ranges to the underlying scattering mechanisms, and does not fit any parameter to the target results; the alloy limit is computed from independent random-alloy simulations. These are genuine strengths. However, the significance is limited by two issues: all production runs use a cross-section that the authors themselves show is not converged, and the model is a generic Lennard-Jones system whose claimed transferability to Si/Ge, AlAs/GaAs, and Bi2Te3/Sb2Te3 is not demonstrated beyond one argon-parameter potential. The 30 K to 300 K comparison used for experimental validation is also not properly justified. The central ideas are plausible and falsifiable, but the current evidence is not sufficient for the strength of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Non-equilibrium molecular dynamics, Fig. 2(c)] The convergence test in Fig. 2(c) shows that the thermal conductivity decreases with cross-sectional area and only converges at A = 10 UC × 10 UC, yet all production runs use A = 6 UC × 6 UC 'considering the limitation of the computational cost.' This is directly load-bearing because the paper's central claims are relative comparisons: the rough-SL-versus-alloy ordering in Fig. 4(b) has a margin of about 19% (5.7709 vs 7.0962 W/mK), and the κ/κ_alloy curves in Figs. 6-8, including the existence and location of the optimal-roughness minimum, could change if the finite-size error differs between a mass-disordered alloy and a layered superlattice. A finite cross-section also discretizes transverse phonon wavevectors, which may affect coherent interface scattering and alloy scattering differently. The authors should rerun the key simulations at 10 × 10 UC, or at least demonstrate that the ordering and the non-monotonic features are unchanged.
  2. [Section II, Model system; Section III, Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 5(a)] The model is a single Lennard-Jones potential with solid-argon parameters, with only atomic masses and the ε ratio varied, and the paper itself states that this potential 'cannot provide an adequate quantitative description of real materials.' Nevertheless, Fig. 3(b) directly compares 30 K simulation results with 300 K experimental data for Si/Ge superlattices, and the text claims that the rough-interface conductivity being nearly temperature independent 'explains why κ calculated at 30K can afford the experimental results measured at 300K.' This is not a valid justification: classical MD cannot capture quantum phonon occupation, the simulation temperature range ends at 150 K, and the agreement with experiment in Fig. 3(b) may be fortuitous given the generic model. The authors should either test one real material with a validated interatomic potential to show that the qualitative trends survive, or substantially soften the claims of experimental agreement and material-specific guidance.
  3. [Section II, Interfacial species mixing; Section III, Figs. 3-4] The 'alloy limit' is the reference quantity for the paper's main claim, but the manuscript never specifies how the random alloy structures are generated, how many independent disorder realizations are used, or whether the alloy has the exact same dimensions, composition, and lattice sites as the intermixed superlattice. If the alloy limit is computed from a single random configuration, the statistical uncertainty could be comparable to the 19% margin in Fig. 4(b). The authors should report the number of realizations, the averaging procedure, and the relationship between the α→∞ limit of the Laplace distribution and the random-alloy structures used as the reference.
  4. [Section III, Figs. 6-9] The existence of an optimal interface roughness that minimizes κ is a central conclusion, and Fig. 6(b,c) and Fig. 7(a) show non-monotonic κ/κ_alloy curves without any reported statistical uncertainty. Error bars appear only in Fig. 8. Without an estimate of run-to-run variability, the reader cannot judge whether the minimum in Fig. 6(b,c) is statistically significant or an artifact of a single trajectory. The authors should provide error bars for all reported κ and κ/κ_alloy values, or explicitly state the number of independent simulations and the standard deviation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The text contains several typos: 'in same cases' should be 'in some cases'; 'have a clear implications' should be 'have clear implications'; 'different extend' should be 'different extent'; and 'low the thermal conductivity' should be 'lower the thermal conductivity'.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4 discussion] In the paragraph reporting the mean free paths, the text says 'for the sample with short period length ((A)43/(B)6)' after giving the long-period results; the parenthetical should read 'long period length' for the second set of MFP values.
  3. [Equation (4)] The notation 'va_i(b)*' in the spectral heat current expression is unclear; please define the velocity components and the harmonic force constant tensor K_{ij} explicitly, or provide the exact equation numbers from Refs. [36,38] so that the expression is unambiguous.
  4. [Captions and text] Figure and caption language should be polished: 'SLs materials' should be 'SL materials', and the inconsistent use of 'KB' versus 'k_B' in Eq. (7) should be unified.
  5. [References] References [4] and [6] appear to cite the same Zebarjadi et al. paper with different years (2012 vs 2011); please check and correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: rough-SL and alloy-limit conductivities are independent simulation outputs, with the roughness parameter alpha as an independent control rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity: the thermal conductivities of abrupt-interface superlattices, rough-interface superlattices, and random alloys are all obtained from the same NEMD procedure, and no parameter is fitted to the target conductivity values. The interface roughness parameter α in Eq. (2) is an independent structural control, and the random-alloy limit is a separately simulated reference structure, not defined in terms of the rough-SL result. The central comparisons—e.g., κ∞(rough SL) = 5.7709 W/mK versus κ∞(alloy) = 7.0962 W/mK for (A)43/(B)6 in Fig. 4(b), and the κ/κalloy versus α curves in Figs. 6–8—are therefore not equal by construction. The spectral heat current analysis is also post-hoc: the harmonic spectral current Q is checked against the fully anharmonic NEMD heat flux J (within 6%, Fig. 5(b)), and the transmission functions are used to interpret, not to define, the computed conductivities. The paper cites prior work coauthored by W. Li (Refs. 10 and 20) to motivate the problem and to provide experimental comparison, but the new predictions stand on independent simulations rather than on those citations; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the conclusion. The admitted non-convergence of the 6×6 UC cross-section in Fig. 2(c) is a methodological correctness concern, not a circularity concern, because it does not amount to reusing the target result as an input. Overall, no step in the paper's derivation reduces to its own inputs by definition, by fitted parameter, or by a load-bearing self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on four main assumptions: the adequacy of the Lennard-Jones model to represent real superlattice materials, the dominance of harmonic phonon scattering captured by the spectral heat current, the transfer of 30K results to 300K, and the Laplace-distribution description of intermixing. No new physical entities are introduced, and no parameters are fitted to the target conductivities; all are control parameters or standard model inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • LJ energy parameter ε = 0.1664 eV (argon)
    Chosen from solid argon in previous studies; not fitted to the target. All interactions use the same σ and ε in the base set.
  • Atomic masses (mA, mB) = 40 and 90 g/mol (base case), 40/60 and 40/120 for mass-mismatch cases
    Control parameters chosen to mimic Si/Ge and other SLs; not fitted to target conductivities.
  • Bond-strength ratio (εB/εA) = 16:1 and 4:1 for bond-mismatch systems
    Control parameters used to mimic lattice mismatch; not fitted.
  • Interface roughness α = swept (e.g., 0, 0.5, ...; values in Figs 6-8)
    Independent variable controlling the intermixing profile; the central tuning knob, not a fitted parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Lennard-Jones potential with a single σ and ε for all pairs, but varying atomic masses and ε ratios, captures the qualitative phonon transport physics of real superlattices such as Si/Ge, AlAs/GaAs, and Bi2Te3/Sb2Te3.
    Invoked in Sec. II 'Model system' to justify using LJ parameters instead of realistic potentials.
  • domain assumption Harmonic (elastic) phonon scattering dominates the interface thermal transport, so the spectral heat current from the harmonic approximation (Eq. 4) is sufficient; anharmonic corrections are negligible.
    Invoked in Sec. II 'Spectral heat current calculation' where Q/J within 6% is used to justify neglecting anharmonic effects.
  • domain assumption The thermal conductivity of the rough SLs is insensitive to temperature, so κ computed at 30K is representative of 300K behavior.
    Invoked in Sec. III 'Temperature dependence' and used to compare with 300K experiments; shown only up to 150K.
  • domain assumption The Laplace distribution (Eq. 2) is an appropriate statistical model for surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing at SL interfaces.
    Introduced in Sec. II 'Interfacial species mixing', following previous studies (Refs.23,30).
  • standard math The Schelling extrapolation 1/κ = 1/κ∞(1+λ/Lx) gives the correct infinite-length limit of NEMD conductivity.
    Used in Sec. III 'Sample length dependence' to extrapolate finite-size NEMD results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing phonon scattering by tuning surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing to break the random-alloy limit of thermal conductivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ANSWDSIA

@misc{pith2026190805830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing phonon scattering by tuning surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing to break the random-alloy limit of thermal conductivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ANSWDSIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05830}
}
abstract

We investigate the evolution of the cross-plane thermal conductivity $\kappa$ of superlattices (SLs) as interfaces change from perfectly abrupt to totally intermixed, by using non-equilibrium molecular dynamics simulations in combination with the spectral heat current calculations. We highlight the role of surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing by calculating the $\kappa$ of SLs with changing interface roughness, whose tuning allows for the $\kappa$ values much lower than the "alloy limit" and the abrupt interface limit in same cases. The interplay between alloy and interface scattering in different frequency ranges provides a physical basis to predict a minimum of thermal conductivity. More specifically, we also explore how the interface roughness affects the thermal conductivities for SLs materials with a broad span of atomic mass and bond strength. In particular, we find that (i) only when the "spacer" thickness of SLs increases up to a critical value the $\kappa$ of rough SLs can break the corresponding "alloy limit". (ii) Whether the $\kappa$ changes monotonically as interface roughness strongly depends on the period length and intrinsic behavior of phonon transport for SLs materials. Especially, for the SL with large period length, there exists an optimal interface roughness which can minimize the thermal conductivity. (iii) Surface-interdiffusion-driven intermixing is more effective in achieving the low $\kappa$ below the alloy limit for SL materials with large mass mismatch than with small one. (iv) It's possible for SLs materials with large lattice mismatch (i.e., bond strength) to design an ideally abrupt interface structure with $\kappa$ much below the "alloy limit". These results have a clear implications for optimization of thermal transport for heat management and for the development of thermoelectric materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Schematic illustration of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) Schematic illustration of the phonon transmission function calculation set up from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The cross-plane thermal conductivity calculated at 30K for different ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Inverse of the predicted thermal conductivity as a function of inverse of the simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Thermal conductivities of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The thermal conductivity relative to alloy limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) The cross-plane thermal conductivity of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: (a) The cross-plane thermal conductivity of ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a-b) The spectral thermal conductivity (c-d) Cumulative thermal conductivity of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chowdhury, R

    I. Chowdhury, R. Prasher, K. Lofgreen, G. Chrysler, S. Narasimhan, R. Mahajan, D. Koester, R. Alley, and R. Venkatasubramanian, Nat. Nanotech. 4, 235 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    D. G. Cahill, P. V. Braun, G. Chen, D. R. Clarke, S. Fan, K. E. Goodson, P. Keblinski, W. P. King, G. D. Mahan, and A. Majumdar, Appl. Phys. Rev. 1, 251 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Nielsch, J

    K. Nielsch, J. Bachmann, J. Kimling, and H. Bottner, Adv. Energy Mater. 1, 713 (2011), ISSN 1614-6840

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Zebarjadi, K

    M. Zebarjadi, K. Esfarjani, M. S. Dresselhaus, Z. F. Ren, and G. Chen, Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 5147 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    W. Liu, X. Yan, G. Chen, and Z. Ren, Nano Energy 1, 42 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Zebarjadi, K

    M. Zebarjadi, K. Esfarjani, M. S. Dresselhaus, Z. F. Ren, and G. Chen, Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 5147 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Z. Chen, G. Han, L. Yang, L. Cheng, and J. Zou, Prog. Nat. Sci. :Mater. Inter. 22, 535 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Z. Tian, K. Esfarjani, and G. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 86, 235304 (2012). 14

    work page 2012

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Stoltz, N

    G. Stoltz, N. Mingo, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. B 80, 113408 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    P. Chen, N. A. Katcho, J. P. Feser, W. Li, M. Glaser, O. G. Schmidt, D. G. Cahill, N. Mingo, and A. Rastelli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 115901 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    P. J. Obrien, S. Shenogin, J. Liu, P. K. Chow, D. Laurencin, P. H. Mutin, M. Yamaguchi, P. Keblinski, and G. Ramanath, Nat. Mater. 12, 118 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    Y. Wang, Z. Lu, A. K. Roy, and X. Ruan, J. Appl. Phys. 119, 37 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Mizuno, S

    H. Mizuno, S. Mossa, and J. L. Barrat, Sci. Rep. 5, 14116 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Guo, and B

    R. Guo, and B. Huang, Sci. Rep. 5, 9579 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    M. N. Luckyanova and G. Chen, Science 338, 936 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Prasher, Nano Lett

    R. Prasher, Nano Lett. 5, 2155 (2005)

    2005

  9. [17]

    S. J. Koester, K. Rim, J. O. Chu, P. M. Mooney, J. A. Ott, and M. A. Hargrove, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 2148 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Magri and A

    R. Magri and A. Zunger, Physical Rev. B 65, 165302 (2002)

    2002

  11. [19]

    D. B. Aubertine and P. C. McIntyre, J. Appl. Phys. 97, 013531 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    P. Chen, T. Etzelstorfer, F. Hackl, N. A. Katcho, H.-T. Chang, L. Nausner, S.-W. Lee, T. Fromherz, J. Stangl, O. G. Schmidt, et al., phys. status solidi (a) 213, 533 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    R. J. Stevens, L. V. Zhigilei, and P. M. Norris, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 50, 3977 (2007)

    2007

  14. [22]

    Lyver, John W

    I. Lyver, John W. and E. Blaistenbarojas, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 345402 (2009)

    2009

  15. [23]

    E. S. Landry and A. J. H. McGaughey, Phys. Rev. B 79, 075316 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    N. A. Roberts and D. G. Walker, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 193102 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Borca-Tasciuc, W

    T. Borca-Tasciuc, W. Liu, J. Liu, T. Zeng, D. W. Song, C. D. Moore, G. Chen, K. L. Wang, M. S. Goorsky, and T. Radetic, Superlattices Microst. 28, 199 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    A. J. H. McGaughey, M. I. Hussein, E. S. Landry, M. Kaviany, and G. M. Hulbert, Phys. Rev. B 74, 104304 (2006)

    2006

  19. [27]

    W. S. Capinski, H. J. Maris, T. Ruf, M. Cardona, K. Ploog, and D. S. Katzer, Phys. Rev. B 59, 8105 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    Y. Wang, H. Huang, and X. Ruan, Phys. Rev. B 90, 165406 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    Y. Wang, C. Gu, and X. Ruan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 42 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    T. S. English, J. C. Duda, J. L. Smoyer, D. A. Jordan, P. M. Norris, and L. V. Zhigilei, Phys. Rev. B 85, 035438 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    X. Yang, J. Carrete, and Z. Wang, J. Appl. Phys. 118, 085701 (2015). 15

    2015

  24. [32]

    Xiong, K

    S. Xiong, K. S¨ a¨ askilahti, Y. A. Kosevich, H. Han, D. Donadio, and S. Volz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 025503 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Plimpton, J

    S. Plimpton, J. Comput. Phys. 117, 1 (1993)

    1993

  26. [34]

    X. Yang, J. Lin, G. Qiao, and Z. Wang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 013904 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    Z. Zhu, X. Yang, M. Huang, Q. He, G. Yang, and Z. Wang, Nanotech. 27, 055401 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    S¨ a¨ askilahti, J

    K. S¨ a¨ askilahti, J. Oksanen, S. Volz, and J. Tulkki, Phys. Rev. B91, 115426 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    S¨ a¨ askilahti, J

    K. S¨ a¨ askilahti, J. Oksanen, J. Tulkki, and S. Volz, Phys. Rev. E93, 052141 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    S¨ a¨ askilahti, J

    K. S¨ a¨ askilahti, J. Oksanen, J. Tulkki, and S. Volz, Phys. Rev. B90, 134312 (2014)

    2014

  31. [39]

    P. K. Schelling, S. R. Phillpot, and P. Keblinski, Phys. Rev. B 65, 144306 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    E. S. Landry, M. I. Hussein, and A. J. H. McGaughey, Phys. Rev. B 77, 184302 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    barrier”) layer thickness n with a fixed A (Si-like “spacer

    E. Lampin, P. L. Palla, P.-A. Francioso, and F. Cleri, J. Appl. Phys. 114, 033525 (2013). 16 FIG. 1: (a) Schematic illustration of ( A)m/(B)n SL structures used for our simulation. N denotes the period numbers of n monlayers (ML) of B separated by m ML of A. (b) The log-ratio ...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.