Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Analysis of real-space transport channels for electrons and holes in halide perovskites

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In halide perovskites, the smallest hopping channel—the ppπ bond—acts as the bottleneck that suppresses hole transport, and its filling is set by on-site energy gaps and halide spin-orbit coupling.

desk verdict Real-space channel decomposition is a genuine step forward, but the 'ppπ bottleneck' is a plausible inference, not a tested causal claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.19999 v1 pith:HX7IPQ76 submitted 2025-05-26 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Frederik Vonhoff , Maximilian J. Schilcher , David R. Reichman , David A. Egger This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords dynamicdisordermodelhalideperovskiteschargetransportspin-orbitcouplingtight-bindingorbitaloccupationsppπchannelMAPbBr3
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 aims to establish which microscopic features of halide perovskites control how fast electrons and holes move, using a dynamic disorder model that couples molecular-dynamics geometries to a time-dependent tight-binding Hamiltonian. The authors find that charge carriers travel through three real-space bonding channels—spσ, ppσ, and ppπ—and that the ppπ channel, which has a markedly weaker hopping parameter, becomes a critical bottleneck. They further show that the energy gaps between on-site orbital levels and the magnitude of halide spin-orbit coupling determine how much each channel is populated over time. If this picture is correct, it explains why MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3 differ in electron versus hole transport, and it offers concrete levers—level alignment and halide composition—for engineering carrier mobility.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamic disorder (DD) model: a time-dependent tight-binding Hamiltonian whose hopping elements are mapped from first-principles DFT (HSE functional including SOC) data via an exponential fit to Pb–X distances, with on-site energies from Ewald summations and SOC parameters fixed to their mean values. The transport channels are defined by the three hopping types—tspσ, tppσ, and tppπ—and the analysis tool is the time evolution of orbital occupations, which reveals which channel carries the current and which one traps carriers.

What would settle it

A direct test would be to recompute the carrier dynamics using molecular dynamics trajectories generated from first principles (for example, HSE-quality ab initio MD) rather than a force field, and check whether the ppπ orbital occupation and the associated hole-mobility suppression are reproduced. Alternatively, an experiment that systematically varies halide spin-orbit coupling—such as a pressurized or alloyed MAPb(Br,I)3 series—while measuring hole mobility could falsify the claim if larger halide SOC does not produce the predicted drop in hole transport.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that charge carrier transport in MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3 is governed by the time-dependent filling of three real-space transport channels—spσ, ppσ, and ppπ—where the ppπ channel acts as a bottleneck. The paper demonstrates that the relative occupations of these channels are set by two material-specific parameters: the energy gaps between on-site levels (particularly Pb-p and X-p) and the halide spin-orbit coupling strength γX. A smaller on-site gap enhances transport by allowing more balanced occupation and steadier flow along the ppσ channel, whereas a larger halide SOC increases X-pπ occupation, drawing carriers into the weak ppπ channel and suppressing hole mobility. This mechanism rationalizes why electron transport is stronger in MAPbI3 than in MAPbBr3 while hole transport shows the opposite trend, and it attributes the lower hole mobility of the iodide in part to its roughly twofold larger halide SOC.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis rests on the assumption that the force-field molecular dynamics trajectories taken from the earlier work faithfully reproduce the relevant anharmonic nuclear motion of MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3, and that the tight-binding mapping rule—exponentially fitted hoppings, Ewald-averaged on-site energies, and mean SOC parameters—yields a trustworthy time-dependent Hamiltonian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ppπ bottleneck implies that hole transport in halide perovskites is intrinsically limited by the occupation of X-pπ orbitals, so reducing halide spin-orbit coupling—for example, by substituting a lighter halide—should raise hole mobility.
  • Because MAPbI3 exhibits stronger electron transport but weaker hole transport than MAPbBr3, the results provide a microscopic rationale for composition-dependent mobility trends that experiments already observe.
  • Aligning the Pb-p and X-p on-site energy levels, whether by chemical substitution or strain, should enhance carrier transport by making the ppσ channel more efficient.
  • The finding that halide SOC acts by repopulating the bottleneck orbital suggests that spin-orbit effects can be understood as a channel-filling mechanism rather than merely a band-structure correction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mechanism generalizes, any dynamically disordered semiconductor with a weak π-type hopping channel could show the same bottleneck, meaning the design rule 'minimize the energy gap between channel orbitals' may extend beyond halide perovskites to other heavy-halide or heavy-metal systems.
  • The Rabi-like proportionality between transition probability and on-site level difference implies that tuning on-site gaps by even a few tenths of an electronvolt could measurably change mobility—this is a testable prediction for alloy series such as MAPb(BrxI1−x)3.
  • Experimental probes that vary the halide SOC independently of lattice structure, such as high-pressure studies or epitaxial strain, could isolate the SOC contribution and directly test whether the ppπ occupation follows the predicted trend.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the authors' dynamic disorder (DD) model to MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3, using tight-binding Hamiltonians parameterized from hybrid-DFT (HSE+SOC) calculations and Wannier90, with nuclear trajectories taken from force-field molecular dynamics. The authors compute mean-squared displacements (MSD) of carrier wave packets and time-resolved orbital occupations for both orbital-localized and full conduction/valence-band initializations. Their central claims are that (i) energy gaps between on-site levels and the halide spin-orbit coupling strength govern which real-space transport channels (spσ, ppσ, ppπ) become populated over time, and (ii) the ppπ channel is a critical bottleneck for charge transport, particularly for holes in MAPbI3 where halide SOC is stronger. The paper further proposes that the difference in hole mobility between MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3 is partly attributable to the larger halide SOC in the iodide.

Significance. If the bottleneck and channel-occupation claims are correct, the work offers a useful real-space decomposition of carrier transport in halide perovskites and could inform composition-based design rules (e.g., why MASnI3 is more conductive). The first-principles parameterization of the TB Hamiltonian (HSE, not PBE) is a step forward relative to earlier DD-model studies, and the orbital-occupation analysis is a genuinely informative diagnostic. However, the paper's central causal assertions about the ppπ bottleneck and about SOC controlling hole transport are not directly tested: the evidence is correlative (small mean hopping, suppressed MSD for a ppπ-localized initial state, and occupation changes under arbitrary parameter shifts). The missing control is a perturbation of t_ppπ itself in the full hole dynamics. Given that the authors already perform parameter-perturbation scans for on-site energies and γ_X, adding such a test is feasible and would substantially strengthen the paper. The manuscript is therefore of interest but requires additional work before the bottleneck conclusion is established.

major comments (1)
  1. [§III.A and Fig. 2] The MSD curves in Fig. 2 (and Fig. 5) are presented without error bars or any statistical measure. The methods section states that mobilities are averaged over different starting positions only later in Sec. II.C, but it is not clear whether the MSD curves in Fig. 2 are averaged over starting positions, over multiple trajectories, or over the 100 snapshots. Given that the curves for MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3 are close (e.g., Pb-s vs Pb-p in Fig. 2), the reader cannot assess whether the claimed differences are statistically meaningful. The authors should report standard errors or confidence intervals, and should state explicitly how many initial positions and trajectory realizations were used for each curve.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The phrase 'proceeding the initialization' should likely be 'preceding the initialization' or 'following the initialization'; the intended temporal order is unclear.
  2. [References] Reference [33] contains a typo: 'Metal-Insulator Tranisitions' should be 'Metal-Insulator Transitions'.
  3. [Sec. III.B] The text says 'when we apply shifts that align the Pb-p on-site levels for the two HaPs more (cf. Tab. I)'. Since the shifts (−1 eV for Br, +1 eV for I) move the Pb-p levels in opposite directions and make the absolute on-site energies less similar (3.23→2.23 eV, 2.58→3.58 eV), 'align' should be clarified: the intended effect is to make the Pb-p to X-p gaps more similar (5.29→4.29 eV for Br, 4.15→5.15 eV for I), not the Pb-p levels themselves.
  4. [Eq. (1)] The relation between on-site energies and PDOS is stated without derivation or reference; a short justification or citation would help readers who are not familiar with the Wannier90 projection scheme.
  5. [Sec. II.A] The sentence 'the extracted hopping elements, on-site energies, and SOC parameters are combined into a first-principles database' could be clearer about whether the hopping mapping is a single exponential fit per bond type or includes a dependence on local environment beyond the Pb-X distance.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The DFT→TB→dynamics pipeline is self-contained, but the central 'ppπ critical bottleneck' claim reduces to the smallness of t_ppπ and the single-orbital X-pπ MSD, relabeled as a causal mechanism.

  1. renaming known result [Section III A (Results), paragraph following Fig. 3d; echoed in the abstract and conclusions]
    "Compared to ¯tspσ and ¯tppσ, the hopping parameter ¯tppπ is significantly smaller. This can be understood by considering the reduced overlap of orbitals involved in the ppπ channel (Fig. 4, right panel). Consequently, the ppπ channel is a bottleneck channel for charge transport, which explains the reduced MSD we found when X-pπ orbitals were used to initialize the wave function (cf. Fig. 2)."

    The 'critical bottleneck' claim is not demonstrated for realistic full electron/hole wavefunctions. Its only support is that t_ppπ is the smallest TB hopping (Table I) and that a wave packet initialized on an X-pπ orbital spreads slowly (Fig. 2). In the TB Hamiltonian, a small hopping directly suppresses spreading along that bond by construction, so the single-orbital MSD result carries the same information as the parameter value. Calling this a 'critical bottleneck for charge transport' and using it to explain hole-vs-electron and MAPbI3-vs-MAPbBr3 differences adds a causal claim that is not tested: the full hole state occupies all three channels, and a slow parallel channel need not limit a network with faster channels.

full rationale

The core computational derivation is not circular: tight-binding parameters are obtained from DFT/Wannier90 and MD trajectories (with the model itself previously validated against experiment, including independent support cited as ref. [46]), and the MSD/mobility results are computed, not fitted to transport targets. The on-site-energy-shift and halide-SOC-rescaling analyses are controlled numerical experiments whose outcomes are not encoded in the parameterization. The one genuinely circular-looking element is the abstract's headline claim that 'the ppπ channel is a critical bottleneck for charge transport': in the text this follows immediately from the observation that t_ppπ is the smallest hopping parameter plus the single-orbital X-pπ MSD suppression, which is itself a built-in consequence of that small hopping. The full-wavefunction hole transport is never subjected to the analogous parameter perturbation (varying t_ppπ) that the authors do use for on-site energies and γX, so the bottleneck attribution for realistic transport is a relabeling of the parameter hierarchy rather than a tested causal reduction. This affects the framing and generality of the central conclusion but does not undermine the parameterization or the dynamical calculations themselves. Self-citations to refs. [22,24] for the DD model and trajectories are data/background citations, not load-bearing proofs of the new channel analysis, so they do not raise the circularity score further.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a first-principles parameterized tight-binding model plus force-field MD trajectories from the authors' prior work. No new physical entities are introduced. The main unverified inputs are the mapping rule between DFT and TB parameters and the fidelity of the force-field trajectories.

free parameters (2)
  • hopping-distance fit coefficients a, b, c = not reported; fitted separately for tspσ, tppσ, tppπ from DFT data
    The mapping rule in Sec. II A converts MD geometries into TB Hamiltonians using a*exp(-b*x)+c. The paper states that HSE gives a larger parameter a than PBE, which changes all transport results, but the fitted values and their uncertainties are not reported.
  • parameter shifts for mechanism scans = ε_Pb^p ± 1 eV; halide SOC 2·γ_Br and γ_I/2
    In Sec. III B, the authors shift Pb-p on-site levels by 1 eV and rescale halide SOC by factors of 2 and 1/2 to demonstrate the influence on MSD and occupations. These hand-chosen perturbation sizes are not justified by a systematic sweep.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The Einstein-Smoluchowski relation connects the diffusive part of the MSD to carrier mobility.
    Used in Sec. II C to extract mobilities from wave packet dynamics; assumes a diffusive regime is reached within the simulated 100 fs window.
  • domain assumption A tight-binding basis of Pb-s, Pb-p, and halide-p orbitals captures the band-edge states relevant for transport.
    Sec. II A uses only these orbitals for the Hamiltonian. Neglected orbitals could in principle contribute to transport channels and alter the ppπ bottleneck conclusion.
  • domain assumption Force-field MD trajectories from ref. [24] faithfully represent the anharmonic lattice dynamics of MAPbBr3 and MAPbI3.
    Sec. II B relies entirely on these trajectories for the large-scale time series of Hamiltonians, without independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Spin-orbit coupling parameters can be set to their trajectory-averaged mean values.
    Sec. II A fixes γX and γPb to mean values, ignoring temporal fluctuations of SOC that could influence carrier dynamics and orbital occupations.
  • domain assumption Hopping elements depend only on Pb-X distance through the fitted exponential form a*exp(-b*x)+c.
    Sec. II A constructs all large-scale Hamiltonians from this distance-based mapping rule; any neglected angular or multi-atom dependence would propagate into the transport results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of real-space transport channels for electrons and holes in halide perovskites." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HX7IPQ76

@misc{pith2026250519999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of real-space transport channels for electrons and holes in halide perovskites},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HX7IPQ76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.19999}
}
abstract

Predicting and explaining charge carrier transport in halide perovskites is a formidable challenge because of the unusual vibrational and electron-phonon coupling properties of these materials. This study explores charge carrier transport in two prototypical halide perovskite materials, MAPbBr$_3$ and MAPbI$_3$, using a dynamic disorder model. Focusing on the role of real-space transport channels, we analyze temporal orbital occupations to assess the impact of material-specific on-site energy levels and spin-orbit coupling (SOC) strengths. Our findings reveal that both on-site energies and SOC magnitude significantly influence the orbital occupation dynamics, thereby affecting charge dispersal and carrier mobility. In particular, energy gaps across on-site levels and the halide SOC strength govern the filling of transport channels over time. This leads us to identify the $pp\pi$ channel as a critical bottleneck for charge transport and to provide insights into the differences between electron and hole transport across the two materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.19999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Workflow of the dynamic disorder (DD) model: each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Mean-squared displacement of carrier wave functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Schematic visualization of the three transport chan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Time evolution of relative occupation for the orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. MSDs for full initialization of electron e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Projected density of states (PDOS) for the orbital [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Octahedral tilting and B-site off-centering in halide perovskites are not coupled

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Octahedral tilting and B-site off-centering in halide perovskites are symmetry-decoupled; the Pb-to-Ge trend in tilting comes from partial covalent Br-B bonding that stiffens tilt modes, not from the lone pair directly.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [24]

    M. J. Schilcher, D. J. Abramovitch, M. Z. Mayers, L. Z. Tan, D. R. Reichman, and D. A. Egger, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, L081601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    S. D. Stranks and H. J. Snaith, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 1748 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    Correa-Baena, M

    J.-P. Correa-Baena, M. Saliba, T. Buonassisi, M. Gr¨ atzel, A. Abate, W. Tress, and A. Hagfeldt, Science 358, 739 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    J. Liu, J. Qu, T. Kirchartz, and J. Song, J. Mater. Chem. A 9, 20919 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    T. M. Brenner, D. A. Egger, L. Kronik, G. Hodes, and D. Cahen, Nat. Rev. Mater. 1, 15007 (2016). 8

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    J. S. Manser, J. A. Christians, and P. V. Kamat, Chem. Rev. 116, 12956 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    C. C. Stoumpos and M. G. Kanatzidis, Adv. Mater. 28, 5778 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [7]

    W. Li, Z. Wang, F. Deschler, S. Gao, R. H. Friend, and A. K. Cheetham, Nat. Rev. Mater. 2, 2058 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    De Wolf, J

    S. De Wolf, J. Holovsky, S.-J. Moon, P. L¨ oper, B. Niesen, M. Ledinsky, F.-J. Haug, J.-H. Yum, and C. Ballif, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 5, 1035 (2014)

    2014

  2. [9]

    Baranowski and P

    M. Baranowski and P. Plochocka, Adv. Energy Mater. 10, 1903659 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    S. D. Stranks, G. E. Eperon, G. Grancini, C. Menelaou, M. J. P. Alcocer, T. Leijtens, L. M. Herz, A. Petrozza, and H. J. Snaith, Science 342, 341 (2013)

    2013

  4. [11]

    M. B. Johnston and L. M. Herz, Acc. Chem. Res. 49, 146 (2016)

    2016

  5. [12]

    E. L. Unger, L. Kegelmann, K. Suchan, D. S¨ orell, L. Ko- rte, and S. Albrecht, J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 11401 (2017)

    2017

  6. [13]

    P. Y. Yu and M. Cardona, Fundamentals of Semiconduc- tors (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

    2010

  7. [14]

    M. J. Schilcher, P. J. Robinson, D. J. Abramovitch, L. Z. Tan, A. M. Rappe, D. R. Reichman, and D. A. Egger, ACS Energy Lett. 6, 2162 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Troisi and G

    A. Troisi and G. Orlandi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 086601 (2006)

    2006

  9. [16]

    Fratini and S

    S. Fratini and S. Ciuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 266601 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    A. S. Mishchenko, L. Pollet, N. V. Prokof’ev, A. Kumar, D. L. Maslov, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 076601 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Giannini, O

    S. Giannini, O. G. Ziogos, A. Carof, M. Ellis, and J. Blumberger, Adv. Theory Simul. 3, 2000093 (2020)

    2020

  12. [19]

    Quarti, E

    C. Quarti, E. Mosconi, J. M. Ball, V. D’Innocenzo, C. Tao, S. Pathak, H. J. Snaith, A. Petrozza, and F. De Angelis, Energy Environ. Sci. 9, 155 (2016)

    2016

  13. [20]

    Yaffe, Y

    O. Yaffe, Y. Guo, L. Z. Tan, D. A. Egger, T. Hull, C. C. Stoumpos, F. Zheng, T. F. Heinz, L. Kronik, M. G. Kanatzidis, J. S. Owen, A. M. Rappe, M. A. Pimenta, and L. E. Brus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 136001 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    Marronnier, G

    A. Marronnier, G. Roma, S. Boyer-Richard, L. Pedesseau, J.-M. Jancu, Y. Bonnassieux, C. Katan, C. C. Stoumpos, M. G. Kanatzidis, and J. Even, ACS Nano 12, 3477 (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    M. Z. Mayers, L. Z. Tan, D. A. Egger, A. M. Rappe, and D. R. Reichman, Nano Lett. 18, 8041 (2018)

    2018

  16. [23]

    Gehrmann and D

    C. Gehrmann and D. A. Egger, Nat. Commun. 10, 3141 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    S. A. Seidl, X. Zhu, G. Reuveni, S. Aharon, C. Gehrmann, S. Caicedo-D´ avila, O. Yaffe, and D. A. Egger, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, L092401 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Zacharias, G

    M. Zacharias, G. Volonakis, F. Giustino, and J. Even, Npj Comput. Mater. 9, 153 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Frenzel, M

    M. Frenzel, M. Cherasse, J. M. Urban, F. Wang, B. Xiang, L. Nest, L. Huber, L. Perfetti, M. Wolf, T. Kampfrath, X.-Y. Zhu, and S. F. Maehrlein, Sci. Adv. 9, eadg3856 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Park and D

    Y. Park and D. T. Limmer, Phys. Rev. Mater. 7, 106002 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Wiktor, E

    J. Wiktor, E. Fransson, D. Kubicki, and P. Erhart, Chem. Mat. 35, 6737 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    C. M. Hylton-Farrington and R. C. Remsing, Chem. Mater. 36, 9442 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zhu and D

    X. Zhu and D. A. Egger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 016403 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    A. F. Ioffe and A. R. Regel, Prog. Semicond4, 237 (1960)

    1960

  25. [33]

    Mott, Metal-Insulator Tranisitions (CRC Press., 1990)

    N. Mott, Metal-Insulator Tranisitions (CRC Press., 1990)

    1990

  26. [34]

    Wiktor, I

    J. Wiktor, I. Reshetnyak, F. Ambrosio, and A. Pasquarello, Phys. Rev. Mater. 1, 022401 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Zhou and M

    J.-J. Zhou and M. Bernardi, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033138 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    F. S. Hegner, A. Cohen, S. S. Rudel, S. M. Kronawit- ter, M. Grumet, X. Zhu, R. Korobko, L. Houben, C.-M. Jiang, W. Schnick, G. Kieslich, O. Yaffe, I. D. Sharp, and D. A. Egger, Adv. Energy Mater. 14, 2303059 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    L. Wang, D. Beljonne, L. Chen, and Q. Shi, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 244116 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Troisi, Chem

    A. Troisi, Chem. Soc. Rev. 40, 2347 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Ciuchi and S

    S. Ciuchi and S. Fratini, Phys. Rev. B 86, 245201 (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Fratini, D

    S. Fratini, D. Mayou, and S. Ciuchi, Adv. Funct. Mater. 26, 2292 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    Oberhofer, K

    H. Oberhofer, K. Reuter, and J. Blumberger, Chem. Rev. 117, 10319 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Giannini, A

    S. Giannini, A. Carof, M. Ellis, H. Yang, O. G. Ziogos, S. Ghosh, and J. Blumberger, Nat. Commun. 10, 3843 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Asher, D

    M. Asher, D. Angerer, R. Korobko, Y. Diskin-Posner, D. A. Egger, and O. Yaffe, Adv. Mater. 32, 1908028 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Giannini, L

    S. Giannini, L. Di Virgilio, M. Bardini, J. Hausch, J. J. Geuchies, W. Zheng, M. Volpi, J. Elsner, K. Broch, Y. H. Geerts, F. Schreiber, G. Schweicher, H. I. Wang, J. Blum- berger, M. Bonn, and D. Beljonne, Nat. Mater. 22, 1361 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Lacroix, G

    A. Lacroix, G. T. de Laissardi` ere, P. Qu´ emerais, J.-P. Julien, and D. Mayou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 196601 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    D¨ orflinger, P

    P. D¨ orflinger, P. Rieder, and V. Dyakonov, Adv. Energy Mater. , 2403332 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  40. [48]

    J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, Chem. Phys. 118, 8207 (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, Chem. Phys. 124, 219906 (2006)

    2006

  42. [50]

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

    1996

  43. [51]

    Y. Yuan, R. Xu, H.-T. Xu, F. Hong, F. Xu, and L.-J. Wang, Chin. Phys. B 24, 116302 (2015)

    2015

  44. [52]

    T. Das, G. Di Liberto, and G. Pacchioni, J. Phys. Chem. C 126, 2184 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. G´ eranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. Iba˜ nez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponc´ e, T. Pon- wei...

    2020

  46. [54]

    See Supplemental Material at LINK for more details on the impact of the functional on the hopping elements and the connection of the Crystal Orbital Bond Index to the hopping elements. 9

  47. [55]

    Ashhab, O

    S. Ashhab, O. Voznyy, S. Hoogland, E. H. Sargent, and M. E. Madjet, Sci. Rep. 7, 8902 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Mehdizadeh, S

    A. Mehdizadeh, S. F. Akhtarianfar, and S. Shojaei, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 6725 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    P. W. Atkins and R. S. Friedman, Molecular Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University Press, 2005)

    2005

  50. [58]

    J. H. Fetherolf, D. Goleˇ z, and T. C. Berkelbach, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021062 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Paschal, A

    C. Paschal, A. Pogrebnoi, and T. Pogrebnaya, Appl. Phys. A 127, 355 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    L. M. Herz, ACS Energy Lett. 2, 1539 (2017)

    2017

  53. [61]

    Capitaine and B

    A. Capitaine and B. Sciacca, Adv. Mater. 33, 2102588 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.