Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Nonradiative quenching of EPR signals in germanium-doped AlGaN: evidence for DX-center formation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Germanium acts as a DX center in AlGaN when the aluminum fraction exceeds about 50 percent, explaining why it fails to provide mobile electrons there.

desk verdict First solid photo-EPR evidence that Ge is a DX center in AlGaN above ~50% Al, but the nonradiative-quenching trend rests on one DX-regime composition and a fit-sensitive barrier extraction. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12896 v1 pith:GZAE7EOL submitted 2024-11-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Jason Forbus , Darshana Wickramaratne , John L. Lyons , M.E. Zvanut This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 76.30.-v71.55.Eq71.20.Nr
keywords DXcenterAlGaNgermaniumdopingphoto-EPRnonradiativecaptureconfiguration-coordinatediagramhybridDFTn-type
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 paper argues that germanium substituting on the cation site in AlGaN is a DX center once the aluminum fraction exceeds about 50%, and that this explains why the dopant does not produce a mobile-electron population. The evidence combines photo-EPR spectroscopy, which sees no neutral-donor signal in the dark but a persistent one after illumination, with hybrid-functional DFT calculations of defect levels and configuration-coordinate diagrams. The same physics accounts for a counterintuitive trend: the temperature needed to quench the EPR signal falls as Al content rises, because the nonradiative capture barrier between the neutral and negative charge states shrinks. If correct, the result settles a long-standing debate about what limits n-type doping in high-Al-content AlGaN and AlN.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the one-dimensional configuration-coordinate diagram computed with the Nonrad code for the neutral-to-negative charge transition of GeAl. In these diagrams the capture barrier obeys an approximate expression ΔEb ~ (dE−Erel)^2/(4Erel), where dE is the ionization energy relative to the conduction-band minimum and Erel is the relaxation energy of the negative charge state; because Erel stays large compared with dE across the alloy range, the barrier decreases even as dE increases. The alloy is described by Vegard-law-scaled supercells, and the measured quenching curves are fitted to a Mott-Seitz nonradiative-capture expression to extract effective barriers.

What would settle it

A direct test would be resolving the 73Ge hyperfine structure in the photoinduced EPR spectrum; its absence would cast doubt on the neutral-Ge assignment. Alternatively, measuring the quenching temperature in Ge-doped samples at x=0.75 and x=0.55 and finding that the barrier increases with Al content (quenching temperature rising, not falling) would contradict the predicted trend, since the paper's mechanism requires the capture barrier to decrease monotonically with Al content in this range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that GeAl acts as a DX center in AlxGa1−xN for x>~0.5: a large lattice relaxation of the axial nitrogen neighbor stabilizes the negatively charged state, making the neutral donor metastable. Consistent with this, the Ge-doped samples show no EPR in the dark, a persistent neutral-donor EPR signal after photoexcitation above ~1.3 eV, and a thermal quenching temperature (160 K at x=0.50, 100 K at x=0.65) that decreases with Al content. First-principles calculations with the HSE hybrid functional reproduce the ordering: the (+/−) level drops below the conduction-band minimum for x≥0.55, and the calculated nonradiative capture barrier decreases with Al content, matching the fitted effective barriers of 0.198 eV (x=0.5) and 0.135 eV (x=0.65).

Load-bearing premise

The explanation depends on the computed nonradiative capture barriers from one-dimensional harmonic configuration-coordinate diagrams of a Vegard-law-scaled alloy, and on assigning the EPR signal to the neutral Ge donor by g-value comparison rather than isotope-resolved hyperfine structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ge cannot serve as a shallow n-type dopant in AlGaN with Al content above about 50%; instead it self-compensates by forming DX centers that pin the Fermi level.
  • The sharp drop in free-electron concentration reported in earlier transport studies of Ge-doped AlGaN is explained by DX formation rather than by acceptor impurities or a deep donor.
  • The persistence of the photoinduced EPR signal at low temperature and its quenching at 100–160 K provides a macroscopic fingerprint for identifying DX behavior in other dopant/alloy combinations.
  • Optical excitation near or above ~1.3 eV can populate the metastable neutral donor, so DX-related absorption or photoconductivity signatures should appear in this energy range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same configuration-coordinate reasoning suggests that strain engineering, such as biaxial strain from the substrate, could shift the barrier and the DX level; the paper does not explore this, but its Vegard-scaled calculations could be extended to strained alloys.
  • Because the paper assigns the EPR line by g-value only, a natural next experiment is isotope-enriched 73Ge doping to confirm the neutral-donor assignment; the absence of hyperfine structure would force a re-evaluation.
  • The mechanism implies that Si, which the paper finds remains a shallow donor at x=0.65, should show the opposite quenching behavior (no persistent photo-EPR), offering a control test of the DX interpretation in the same samples.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports photo-EPR measurements on Ge-doped AlGaN with Al contents x=0.50 and 0.65, together with a Si-doped x=0.65 reference. No EPR signal is observed in the dark in the Ge-doped samples, while illumination above ~1.3 eV generates a persistent EPR signal with g≈1.98 that is assigned to neutral Ge donors. In-situ annealing quenches the signal, with a higher quenching temperature for x=0.50 than for x=0.65. HSE-DFT calculations using Vegard-scaled supercells find Ge to be a shallow donor at x=0.50 and a DX center for x≥0.55, with the neutral charge state metastable and (+/−) levels below the AlGaN conduction band edge. Configuration-coordinate diagrams yield nonradiative capture barriers ΔEb that decrease with increasing Al content. Fitting the thermal-quenching data to a Mott-Seitz expression gives effective barriers E0 that also decrease with Al content, which the authors interpret as evidence that Ge forms a DX center and that the quenching is controlled by nonradiative capture.

Significance. If correct, this work resolves a long-standing ambiguity about compensation in Ge-doped AlGaN by identifying Ge as a DX center for Al contents above roughly 50%. The strength of the paper is its combination of persistent-photo-EPR experiments with independently computed first-principles barriers; the DFT results are not fitted to the EPR data, and the predicted barrier trend is a falsifiable claim that connects to prior transport measurements. The main limitations are the small number of experimental compositions and the absence of quantitative uncertainty estimates, which weaken the quantitative comparison but not the qualitative DX picture.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4(e) and section on nonradiative quenching] Figure 4(e) and the accompanying text plot the experimental E0 for x=0.50 on the calculated ΔEb curve and use the decrease from x=0.50 to x=0.65 as evidence that the capture barrier decreases with Al content. However, the manuscript's own DFT results state that Gecation is a shallow donor at x=0.50, with the (+/−) level above the AlGaN conduction band minimum, so no DX configuration-coordinate diagram and no calculated ΔEb exist at this composition. The x=0.50 thermal quenching can instead be interpreted as thermal ionization of a compensated shallow donor, a different physical process. The DX-regime experimental support for the calculated barrier trend therefore reduces to a single composition, x=0.65. Please either provide quenching data at a second composition in the DX regime or explicitly reframe the comparison as one DX point plus a theoretical trend.
  2. [Mott-Seitz fitting, Fig. 2 and Fig. 4(e)] The E0 values in Fig. 4(e) are obtained from a Mott-Seitz fit with α fixed at 10^8. When α is allowed to vary, E0 changes from 0.198 to 0.182 eV for x=0.50 and from 0.135 to 0.147 eV for x=0.65, and the difference between the two compositions shrinks from 63 meV to 35 meV. No uncertainties are reported for the relative spin densities or for E0, and 35 meV is comparable to the expected accuracy of one-dimensional harmonic configuration-coordinate barriers. The qualitative trend survives both fitting choices, but the quantitative agreement between experiment and DFT is not established.
  3. [DFT alloy model and supplementary validation] The alloy description uses strained supercells with Vegard-law scaling and a single k-point, and the validation against explicit-alloy supercells or virtual-crystal-approximation calculations is deferred to the supplementary material, which is not included in the manuscript. Without this validation, the robustness of the calculated ΔEb trend to alloy disorder and strain effects cannot be assessed. Please include the validation results or a summary of them in the main text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'aDX center' in the abstract, 'Onechallenge' in the introduction, and 'deceasing' in the concluding paragraph; these should be corrected.
  2. [Experimental assignment, Fig. 1 and Table II] The assignment of the photoinduced EPR signal to neutral Ge donors rests on g-value, linewidth, and power-saturation behavior rather than isotope-resolved hyperfine structure; a sentence acknowledging this limitation and the possible role of 73Ge (I=9/2, 7.8% abundance) would be useful.
  3. [Fig. 2] The relative number of spins is plotted without error bars; the paper states that the symbol size is larger than any temperature uncertainty, but the uncertainty in the spin-density ratio is not quantified. A brief statement on the reproducibility of the EPR intensity measurements would help.
  4. [Optical threshold] The experimental photoexcitation threshold of ~1.3 eV is compared to Franck-Condon peak absorption energies of ~1.5 eV; since thresholds are generally lower than peaks, this is consistent, but a sentence clarifying the expected relation between the two would prevent reader confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the DFT barriers and EPR measurements are independently determined, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central comparison is between two independently determined quantities: experimental EPR quenching barriers E0 obtained from a Mott-Seitz fit to measured spin densities, and first-principles configuration-coordinate barriers ΔEb computed with HSE-DFT in this work. The fitted E0 values are compared to, not used as inputs in, the DFT calculations; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The DFT calculations are performed in the paper itself, so the citation to Ref. 10 (prior theory by a co-author) is contextual rather than load-bearing, and Refs. 26, 27, 28, and 32 are methodological. The paper's own DFT finds x=0.50 to be a shallow donor, so plotting the x=0.50 fitted E0 alongside the DX-regime calculations is a limitation of the evidence (only x=0.65 lies in the computed DX regime in the measured samples), but this is a data-interpretation concern about the strength of confirmation, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to an input. The conclusion that Ge is a DX center for x greater than about 0.5 follows from the independent calculations plus the qualitative agreement of the measured quenching trend, not by construction.

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

No new physical entities are postulated. The central calculations depend on standard DFT approximations and a fitted exchange fraction, while the experimental analysis uses a Mott-Seitz fit with adjustable alpha and E0 values. The extracted barriers are compared to, not used in, the first-principles calculations.

free parameters (4)
  • HSE Hartree-Fock exchange fraction = 0.33
    Tuned to reproduce the experimental AlN band gap and lattice parameters; affects absolute defect level positions and capture barriers.
  • Mott-Seitz frequency factor alpha = 1e8 fixed; 2e7 to 5e8 when fitted
    Used to extract effective capture barriers E0 from the EPR annealing data; the trend holds for both fixed and fitted alpha.
  • Effective capture barrier E0 for x=0.5 = 0.198 eV with alpha fixed; 0.182 eV with alpha fitted
    Fit to the temperature-dependent EPR spin density for the 50 percent Al sample; compared with the calculated Delta Eb trend.
  • Effective capture barrier E0 for x=0.65 = 0.135 eV with alpha fixed; 0.147 eV with alpha fitted
    Fit to the temperature-dependent EPR spin density for the 65 percent Al sample; compared with the calculated Delta Eb trend.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption HSE hybrid DFT with a tuned exchange fraction accurately describes defect levels and barriers in AlGaN alloys.
    Used for all formation energies and configuration-coordinate diagrams; no convergence tests or explicit alloy supercells are reported in the main text.
  • domain assumption AlGaN alloys can be modeled by scaling the lattice parameters according to Vegard's law.
    The strained-supercell approach is assumed equivalent to explicit alloy supercells, citing Refs. 26 and 27.
  • domain assumption One-dimensional harmonic configuration-coordinate diagrams describe the nonradiative capture process and provide reliable barriers.
    Used to compute Delta Eb and optical absorption via the Nonrad code; the accuracy of this approximation is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The EPR signal originates from the neutral donor Ge0 on the cation site.
    Assignment based on g-value near 1.98, linewidth, and comparison to Si-doped samples; no hyperfine or isotope-resolved confirmation is presented.
  • standard math Thermal quenching is described by a Mott-Seitz expression for nonradiative capture.
    Used to fit E0 values; assumes a single thermally activated process with a constant frequency factor.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonradiative quenching of EPR signals in germanium-doped AlGaN: evidence for DX-center formation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZAE7EOL

@misc{pith2026241112896,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonradiative quenching of EPR signals in germanium-doped AlGaN: evidence for DX-center formation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZAE7EOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12896}
}
read the original abstract

We present photo-electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) measurements and first-principles calculations that indicate germanium (Ge) is a DX-center in AlGaN. Our photo-EPR measurements on Ge-doped AlGaN samples show no EPR spectra in the dark, while persistent EPR spectra is observed upon photoexcitation with photon energies greater than ~1.3 eV. Thermally annealing the samples decreased the EPR signal, with the critical temperature to quench the EPR signal being larger in the lower Al-content sample. Using detailed first-principles calculations of Ge in AlGaN, we show all of these observations can be explained by accounting for the DX configuration of Ge in AlGaN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12896 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. EPR spectra measured in the dark (grey) and post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy difference between the Ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Relative number of spins obtained from EPR mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Configuration coordinate diagrams for Ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author M. H. \ Wong , author O. Bierwagen , author R. J. \ Kaplar , \ and\ author H. Umezawa ,\ @noop journal journal J. Mater. Res. \ volume 36 ,\ pages 4601 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Watson \ and\ author G

    author author J. Watson \ and\ author G. Castro ,\ @noop journal journal J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron. \ volume 26 ,\ pages 9226 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Amano , author R

    author author H. Amano , author R. Collazo , author C. De Santi , author S. Einfeldt , author M. Funato , author J. Glaab , author S. Hagedorn , author A. Hirano , author H. Hirayama , author R. Ishii , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. \ volume 53 ,\ pages 503001 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    author author J. L. \ Lyons , author D. Wickramaratne , \ and\ author A. Janotti ,\ @noop journal journal Curr. Opin. Solid State Mater. Sci. \ volume 30 ,\ pages 101148 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    author author M. N. \ Fireman , author G. L'Heureux , author F. Wu , author T. Mates , author E. C. \ Young , \ and\ author J. S. \ Speck ,\ @noop journal journal J. Cryst. Growth \ volume 508 ,\ pages 19 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Ajay , author J

    author author A. Ajay , author J. Sch \"o rmann , author M. Jim \'e nez-Rodriguez , author C. Lim , author F. Walther , author M. Rohnke , author I. Mouton , author L. Amichi , author C. Bougerol , author M. Den Hertog , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. \ volume 49 ,\ pages 445301 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Kirste , author M

    author author R. Kirste , author M. P. \ Hoffmann , author E. Sachet , author M. Bobea , author Z. Bryan , author I. Bryan , author C. Nenstiel , author A. Hoffmann , author J.-P. \ Maria , author R. Collazo , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 103 ,\ pages 242107 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    u gler , author A. Rohrbeck , author J. Bl \

    author author S. Fritze , author A. Dadgar , author H. Witte , author M. B \"u gler , author A. Rohrbeck , author J. Bl \"a sing , author A. Hoffmann , \ and\ author A. Krost ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 100 ,\ pages 122104 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page 2012

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Mooney ,\ @noop journal journal J

    author author P. Mooney ,\ @noop journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 67 ,\ pages R1 ( year 1990 ) NoStop

    1990

  2. [10]

    Gordon , author J

    author author L. Gordon , author J. L. \ Lyons , author A. Janotti , \ and\ author C. G. \ Van de Walle ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 89 ,\ pages 085204 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  3. [11]

    Zhang , author P

    author author X. Zhang , author P. Kung , author A. Saxler , author D. Walker , author T. Wang , \ and\ author M. Razeghi ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 67 ,\ pages 1745 ( year 1995 ) NoStop

    1995

  4. [12]

    Bansal , author K

    author author A. Bansal , author K. Wang , author J. S. \ Lundh , author S. Choi , \ and\ author J. M. \ Redwing ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 114 ,\ pages 142101 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  5. [13]

    Blasco , author A

    author author R. Blasco , author A. Ajay , author E. Robin , author C. Bougerol , author K. Lorentz , author L. Alves , author I. Mouton , author L. Amichi , author A. Grenier , \ and\ author E. Monroy ,\ @noop journal journal J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. \ volume 52 ,\ pages 125101...

    2019

  6. [14]

    Bagheri , author R

    author author P. Bagheri , author R. Kirste , author P. Reddy , author S. Washiyama , author S. Mita , author B. Sarkar , author R. Collazo , \ and\ author Z. Sitar ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 116 ,\ pages 222102 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  7. [15]

    Washiyama , author K

    author author S. Washiyama , author K. J. \ Mirrielees , author P. Bagheri , author J. N. \ Baker , author J.-H. \ Kim , author Q. Guo , author R. Kirste , author Y. Guan , author M. H. \ Breckenridge , author A. J. \ Klump , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \...

    2021

  8. [16]

    Bagheri , author P

    author author P. Bagheri , author P. Reddy , author S. Mita , author D. Szymanski , author J. H. \ Kim , author Y. Guan , author D. Khachariya , author A. Klump , author S. Pavlidis , author R. Kirste , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 130 ,\ pages 05570...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Bagheri , author C

    author author P. Bagheri , author C. Qui \ n ones-Garcia , author D. Khachariya , author J. Loveless , author Y. Guan , author S. Rathkanthiwar , author P. Reddy , author R. Kirste , author S. Mita , author J. Tweedie , et al. ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volum...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Bagheri , author J

    author author P. Bagheri , author J. H. \ Kim , author S. Washiyama , author P. Reddy , author A. Klump , author R. Kirste , author S. Mita , author R. Collazo , \ and\ author Z. Sitar ,\ @noop journal journal J. Appl. Phys. \ volume 130 ,\ pages 205703 ( year 2021 b ) NoStop

    2021

  11. [19]

    Hohenberg \ and\ author W

    author author P. Hohenberg \ and\ author W. Kohn ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 136 ,\ pages B864 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964 doi

  12. [20]

    Kohn \ and\ author L

    author author W. Kohn \ and\ author L. J. \ Sham ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133 journal journal Phys. Rev. \ volume 140 ,\ pages A1133 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965 doi

  13. [21]

    author author P. E. \ Bl\"ochl ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.50.17953 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 50 ,\ pages 17953 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994 doi

  14. [22]

    Kresse \ and\ author J

    author author G. Kresse \ and\ author J. Furthm\"uller ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.54.11169 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 54 ,\ pages 11169 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  15. [23]

    Kresse \ and\ author J

    author author G. Kresse \ and\ author J. Hafner ,\ https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.49.14251 journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 49 ,\ pages 14251 ( year 1994 ) NoStop

    1994 doi

  16. [24]

    Heyd , author G

    author author J. Heyd , author G. Scuseria , \ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ 10.1063/1.1564060 journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 118 ,\ pages 8207 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  17. [25]

    Heyd , author G

    author author J. Heyd , author G. E. \ Scuseria , \ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ @noop journal journal J. Chem. Phys. \ volume 124 ,\ pages 219906 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  18. [26]

    Freysoldt , author B

    author author C. Freysoldt , author B. Grabowski , author T. Hickel , author J. Neugebauer , author G. Kresse , author A. Janotti , \ and\ author C. G. \ Van de Walle ,\ http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.253 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 86 ,\ pages 253 ( year...

    doi

  19. [27]

    author author C. E. \ Dreyer , author A. Alkauskas , author J. L. \ Lyons , author J. S. \ Speck , \ and\ author C. G. \ Van de Walle ,\ @noop journal journal Appl. Phys. Lett. \ volume 108 ,\ pages 141101 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  20. [28]

    Wickramaratne , author C

    author author D. Wickramaratne , author C. E. \ Dreyer , author J.-X. \ Shen , author J. L. \ Lyons , author A. Alkauskas , \ and\ author C. G. \ Van de Walle ,\ @noop journal journal physica status solidi (b) \ volume 257 ,\ pages 1900534 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  21. [29]

    author author M. E. \ Turiansky , author A. Alkauskas , author M. Engel , author G. Kresse , author D. Wickramaratne , author J.-X. \ Shen , author C. E. \ Dreyer , \ and\ author C. G. \ Van de Walle ,\ @noop journal journal Comput. Phys. Commun. \ volume 267 ,\ pages 108056 (...

    2021

  22. [30]

    Bayerl , author M

    author author M. Bayerl , author M. Brandt , author T. Graf , author O. Ambacher , author J. Majewski , author M. Stutzmann , author D. As , \ and\ author K. Lischka ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 63 ,\ pages 165204 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001

  23. [31]

    Carlos , author J

    author author W. Carlos , author J. Freitas Jr. , author M. A. \ Khan , author D. Olson , \ and\ author J. Kuznia ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 48 ,\ pages 17878 ( year 1993 ) NoStop

    1993

  24. [32]

    Di Bartolo ,\ @noop title Advances in nonradiative processes in solids ,\ Vol.\ volume 249 \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    author author B. Di Bartolo ,\ @noop title Advances in nonradiative processes in solids ,\ Vol.\ volume 249 \ ( publisher Springer Science & Business Media ,\ year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  25. [33]

    Wickramaratne , author J.-X

    author author D. Wickramaratne , author J.-X. \ Shen , author A. Alkauskas , \ and\ author C. G. \ Van de Walle ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. B \ volume 97 ,\ pages 077301 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.