Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 16 references

Dimerization of Ag adatoms on Si(100) at surprisingly low temperature due to adatom migration on top of Si-dimer rows

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 Ag adatoms dimerize on Si(100) at 140 K because they migrate along the tops of the Si dimer rows by ordinary thermal motion, not by impact-driven hot-atom kicks.

desk verdict Plausible mechanism for low-T Ag dimerization on Si(100), but the 0.09 eV barrier ordering that drives it is within DFT error and needs convergence checks before the claim is secure. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08207 v1 pith:X44OYAX6 submitted 2025-06-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Alejandro Peña-Torres , Michail Stamatakis , Hannes Jónsson This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 68.43.Jk68.43.Bc
keywords AgadatomsSi(100)surfacedimer-rowmigrationaddimerformationlow-temperaturedepositionkineticMonteCarlodensityfunctionaltheoryhot-atommechanism
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 sets out to explain why silver adatoms deposited on the Si(100) surface at temperatures as low as 140 K are observed to form dimers, even though isolated adatoms should be frozen in place. It argues that the accepted explanation, transient hot-atom mobility from the energy of impact, is wrong, and that the real mechanism is ordinary thermal migration on top of the silicon dimer rows. The key quantitative claim is that the effective activation energy for diffusion parallel to the dimer rows is about 0.55 eV, roughly 20% lower than the 0.68 eV barrier the static energy landscape appears to impose, because an adatom makes many fast hops along a row before dropping into the stable valley between rows. If correct, this resolves an apparent contradiction between nearly isotropic energy barriers and strongly anisotropic, low-temperature diffusion, and explains the experimental absence of isolated Ag adatoms in cryogenic STM images.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a multi-hop migration path along the top of a Si dimer row, through sites the paper labels T (on the row edge), T2 (between two dimers of the row) and T3 (on top of a dimer, a barely stable intermediate with a 0.005 eV barrier back to T2), with B the optimal binding site in the valley between rows. The load-bearing numbers are the barriers from the T2 site: 0.36 eV to hop along the row versus 0.45 eV to drop to B; that 0.09 eV difference is what keeps an adatom on top of the row at low temperature, enabling long runs of hops before it falls down. The supporting machinery is a three-layer simulation chain: classical molecular dynamics of deposition with a Tersoff-type potential to get landing sites and impact energy dissipation; climbing-image nudged elastic band with DFT/PBEsol forces to map the minimum energy paths; and kinetic Monte Carlo with Arrhenius rates (a pre-exponential factor of $10^{12}$ s$^{-1}$) to reach experimental timescales. The construction that carries the argument is the comparison between the static energy barrier, which looks isotropic at 0.68 eV, and the effective activation energy of about 0.55 eV extracted from the simulated temperature dependence of the parallel diffusion coefficient.

What would settle it

A cryogenic STM experiment on a dilute Ag deposit on Si(100) at 100–140 K settles it: the explanation predicts that isolated adatoms hop along the tops of dimer rows and pair into dimers, while atoms that reach the valleys stay put; seeing adatoms move across rows, or seeing dimers form anyway when a higher-level calculation reverses the sign of the 0.09 eV barrier difference, would falsify the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the low-temperature aggregation of Ag on Si(100) is caused by thermally activated migration on top of the Si dimer rows, and not by transient hot-atom motion following impact. The argument rests on three computed results. First, molecular dynamics of deposition shows that 91% of impinging Ag atoms land on top of a dimer row, and that the kinetic energy of impact is dissipated within 1–2 ps, with an average surface displacement of about 1.2 Å, at most one hop and only half the time, so the hot spot cannot carry an atom to a meeting with another adatom. Second, density functional theory (PBEsol) with nudged elastic band calculations gives a nearly isotropic energy landscape, with a barrier of 0.68 eV for leaving the optimal binding site between rows, but the mechanism differs by direction: along a row the atom passes through a sequence of shallow sites and hops repeatedly on top of the row, because hopping along the row (0.36 eV from the T2 site) costs 0.09 eV less than dropping down to the stable valley (0.45 eV). Third, kinetic Monte Carlo simulations over 100–300 K show that the number of hops on top of a row before falling into the valley grows exponentially as temperature drops, so the effective activation energy for parallel diffusion becomes about 0.55 eV, 20% below the static barrier, and at 140 K the majority of deposited Ag atoms end up as dimers; artificially raising the row-hopping barrier to 1 eV kills dimer formation. The paper concludes that dimerization stems from structural guidance by the Si dimer rows rather than impact-driven mobility.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism collapses if the computed 0.09 eV advantage of hopping along a dimer row over dropping into the stable valley has the wrong sign, because density-functional errors for such barriers are typically of that same size and the paper gives no error estimate; it also assumes from an empirical potential that 91% of depositing atoms land on top of a row.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 100–300 K an Ag adatom that finds itself on top of a dimer row makes many consecutive hops along the row before dropping into the stable valley, so at 140 K most deposited atoms dimerize within the simulation timescale.
  • The effective activation energy for diffusion parallel to the rows is about 0.55 eV, roughly 20% below the 0.68 eV static barrier, because the repeated top-row hops renormalize the rate.
  • The anisotropy is a low-temperature effect: above about 300 K the 0.09 eV difference between the competing hops becomes negligible, and diffusion approaches isotropic.
  • Cryogenic STM should find Ag dimers but no isolated adatoms on the surface, since any adatom landing on a row either finds a partner or falls into a valley and freezes there.
  • The same row-top migration mechanism previously documented for Si and Au adatoms on Si(100) is now shown for Ag, so it is a general pattern for this surface rather than a silver-specific effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental discriminator: cool the substrate below about 70 K so that the 0.36 eV top-row hop is thermally frozen; the paper's mechanism predicts dimer formation should essentially stop, while a residual hot-atom contribution would not feel the temperature at all.
  • The argument implies the dimer yield depends on the landing-site lottery: if deposition were tuned so that most atoms land directly in the inter-row valleys, dimer formation at 140 K should vanish, because the paper's own rates put the valley-to-row escape time at about $5\times10^{11}$ s.
  • Because the sign of a single 0.09 eV barrier difference carries the mechanism, recomputing the T2-to-T3 and T2-to-B barriers with an electronic-structure method that can resolve the sign with confidence would settle the explanation without any new experiment.
  • Read as a general principle, the result shows how a nominally isotropic adsorption energy landscape can still produce strongly anisotropic, low-temperature-active diffusion whenever a low-barrier highway of shallow sites exists on the surface, a pattern worth testing for other metal/semiconductor pairs before invoking non-thermal mechanisms.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a thermal-migration mechanism to explain the experimentally observed formation of Ag addimers on Si(100) at temperatures as low as 140 K, in contrast to the previously suggested hot-atom mechanism. The authors combine Tersoff-potential molecular dynamics of Ag deposition, adaptive kinetic Monte Carlo (AKMC) with the same empirical potential, DFT/PBEsol calculations of adsorption sites and CI-NEB minimum-energy paths, and KMC simulations based on the DFT barriers. Their central finding is that, although the static barriers for diffusion parallel and perpendicular to the Si dimer rows are nearly equal (about 0.68 eV), an Ag adatom that has escaped a stable inter-row B site preferentially migrates along a dimer row because the T2→T3 hop (0.36 eV) is 0.09 eV lower than the T2→B drop (0.45 eV). This kinetic bias produces an effective activation energy for parallel diffusion of about 0.55 eV and, in KMC simulations that assume barrierless and irreversible Ag dimer formation, leads to dimerization at 140 K. The authors conclude that the puzzling low-temperature dimerization is due to structural guidance by the Si dimer rows rather than to transient hot-atom motion.

Significance. The paper addresses a real experimental puzzle and offers a physically plausible mechanism that is, in principle, falsifiable: it predicts strongly anisotropic low-temperature diffusion with an effective activation energy about 20% lower than the static barrier, and a preference for Ag to land on top of the dimer rows. The methodological combination of deposition MD, systematic saddle-point searches, and KMC is standard and appropriate, and the paper contains useful comparison with previous DFT studies. If the mechanism is correct, it provides a general lesson that small static-barrier differences can create large kinetic anisotropy at low temperature. However, the central quantitative claims rest on several load-bearing assumptions that are not secured by the presented evidence, in particular the sign and magnitude of the 0.09 eV barrier difference, the barrierless dimer-formation rule, and the stability of the barely bound T3 site.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 inset and KMC results (Figs. 3-4)] The entire low-temperature mechanism is governed by the 0.09 eV difference between the T2→T3 barrier (0.36 eV) and the T2→B barrier (0.45 eV). At 140 K the Boltzmann ratio of these rates is exp(0.09 eV/kBT) ≈ 1800, so the predicted anisotropy and dimerization yield are exponentially sensitive to this difference. The paper reports no uncertainty estimates for the barriers and no convergence tests (functional, k-points, supercell size, van der Waals treatment) for the 0.09 eV difference. Since typical DFT errors for such surface barriers are of order 0.1 eV, the sign of the difference is not secured. Please provide a systematic convergence study and a KMC sensitivity analysis in which this barrier difference is varied within a plausible range (e.g., ±0.05 eV) to show that the dimerization conclusion is robust.
  2. [KMC dimerization simulations (paragraph beginning 'To investigate this, we performed KMC simulations at 140 K')] The dimerization simulations assume that Ag dimer formation is barrierless and irreversible when two adatoms occupy the merged B–(T+T2) or (T+T2)–T3 configurations. No DFT or NEB calculation for the two-adatom system, the dimer binding energy, or the dimer-formation barrier is presented. This rule is load-bearing because the central claim is dimerization. In addition, the T and T2 sites have different binding energies and different rate constants, and the paper does not explain how the merging of these two sites into a single species in the KMC lattice is implemented or how the elementary rates are adjusted. Please compute the dimer-formation minimum energy paths or otherwise justify the barrierless and irreversible assumption, and describe the merging procedure in detail.
  3. [T3 site and NEB convergence (Fig. 2 and Methods)] The T3 site is described as 'barely a minimum' with a barrier of only 0.005 eV on either side, while the CI-NEB optimization is carried out until forces perpendicular to the path are below 0.01 eV/Å. These two numbers are of the same order, so it is not established that T3 is a true stationary point on the DFT potential energy surface. If T3 is an artifact of the NEB interpolation, the along-row T2→T3→T2 hops and the perpendicular path through Tu and T3 would not be real. Please report tighter NEB convergence (e.g., force tolerance below 0.001 eV/Å) and confirm the existence of T3 with a local minimization or a more refined search.
  4. [Landing-site statistics and KMC input (paragraph 'Here, the T and T2 sites were merged...')] The KMC dimerization simulations use a top-row landing probability 'four times greater than that of landing in between rows' based on counting four top-row sites (T, T2, T3, Tu) versus one B site, i.e., 80% top-row. However, the MD deposition simulations gave 91% top-row landing, and the Tu site is not included in the KMC lattice (the elementary transitions list only B, T, T2, T3). The resulting inconsistency (80% versus 91%, and an undefined treatment of Tu) affects the initial conditions of the dimerization simulations. Please use a landing probability consistent with the KMC lattice and with the MD result, and provide a sensitivity analysis of the dimerization yield to this probability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and text (paragraph starting 'The reduction of the effective activation energy...')] The abstract states that the experimental observation is dimerization 'even as low as 140 K', but the body text says 'even after deposition at temperature as low as 100 K' when citing Ref. 10. Please clarify which temperature corresponds to the experimental data.
  2. [MD deposition results (paragraph beginning 'To assess the initial impingement...')] The text states that the average displacement during energy dissipation is 1.2 Å and that 'roughly half the time an atom lands, it performs one hop due to transient mobility', yet concludes that hot-atom motion is not a significant contributor to dimerization. Please quantify how the transient hop contributes to the dimerization yield, or qualify the conclusion to acknowledge a small but non-negligible transient contribution.
  3. [KMC diffusion model (paragraph containing D(T) = <L^2>/2τ)] The effective activation energy of 0.55 eV is obtained from a linear fit of ln D versus 1/T over 100–300 K, but no error bars or goodness-of-fit information are reported, and the analysis uses only 10 random seeds per temperature. Please report standard errors or confidence intervals for the fitted activation energy.
  4. [Methods and dimerization simulations] A single pre-exponential factor of 10^12 s^-1 is assumed for all elementary processes without justification or sensitivity analysis. While the kinetic competition at a fixed temperature depends only on barrier differences, the absolute timescale for dimerization (e.g., the 12800 s in the AKMC simulation) is sensitive to the prefactor, so a brief discussion or sensitivity check would be appropriate.
  5. [General presentation] There are several minor typographical and stylistic issues: 'optiml B site' in the paragraph describing perpendicular diffusion, 'skidding on top of the dimer rows' in the dimerization paragraph, and the reference 'jeong Kong, K.' should be formatted consistently with the author's name. These do not affect the scientific content.
  6. [Quantitative dimerization yield] The paper states that 'most of the deposited Ag atoms end up forming dimers' but does not report a quantitative fraction or its dependence on simulation time or coverage. Reporting the yield and its statistical uncertainty would strengthen the comparison with the experimental observation of addimer formation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the KMC results are emergent outputs of stated DFT and MD inputs, with no parameter fitted to the target dimerization observation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. DFT/PBEsol NEB calculations supply site binding energies and elementary hop barriers; these are independent first-principles inputs, not chosen to reproduce the experimental dimerization result. The 91% top-row landing fraction and 1-2 ps energy dissipation come from separate classical MD simulations of deposition. The KMC hop statistics, the temperature-dependent diffusion coefficient, and the derived effective activation energy of 0.55 eV are emergent outputs of the assumed barriers and prefactor, not fits to the Huang et al. observation of dimers at 140 K. The control simulation with the T2-to-T3 barrier artificially raised to 1 eV provides a transparent mechanistic contrast, confirming that along-row hops drive dimer encounters rather than being inserted into the output. The dimer-formation rule is an input to the KMC model, but the paper's claim is about migration enabling atoms to meet, and the encounter statistics are computed nontrivially. Minor self-citations to prior work on Si and Au adatoms are used only as plausibility context, not as the load-bearing justification for the Ag mechanism. The fragility of the 0.09 eV difference between the T2-to-T3 and T2-to-B barriers is a numerical accuracy concern about DFT error bars, not a circularity, since no barrier value is adjusted to force the conclusion.

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

The central mechanism rests on DFT barriers, an empirical potential for deposition, and an assumed barrierless dimerization step. No new entities are introduced; the free parameters are the rate prefactor and the landing-probability ratio. The 0.09 eV barrier-difference assumption is the most fragile input.

free parameters (2)
  • Pre-exponential factor ν = 10^12 s^-1
    Assumed identical for all elementary hops in AKMC and KMC; no vibrational frequency calculation is provided, and the dimerization KMC outcome is sensitive to this rate scale.
  • Relative landing probability for top-row sites = 4:1 (top vs between rows)
    Used in dimerization KMC initial conditions; rationalized by the number of sites but inconsistent with the MD-derived 91% top-row landing fraction.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption DFT/PBEsol energy barriers for Ag adatom hops on Si(100) are accurate to better than the 0.09 eV difference that controls the low-temperature path choice.
    The 0.09 eV difference between T2 to T3 (0.36 eV) and T2 to B (0.45 eV) drives the mechanism; no error estimate accompanies the CI-NEB results.
  • domain assumption The Tersoff-type Ag/Si potential describes deposition landing sites and impact energy dissipation correctly.
    The 91% top-row landing fraction and the 1-2 ps hot-spot cooling come from MD with this empirical potential; it does not reproduce the surface buckling.
  • ad hoc to paper Ag dimer formation is barrierless and irreversible when adatoms occupy the merged B-(T+T2) or (T+T2)-T3 configurations.
    The KMC 'allowed' dimers to form in these configurations without a DFT calculation of the Ag2 binding energy or a formation barrier; the simulated dimer yield depends on this rule.
  • domain assumption The KMC lattice with B, T, T2, T3 sites (merging T and T2 for dimer runs, excluding Tu) captures the relevant surface chemistry.
    The shallow Tu minimum is omitted; the merging changes connectivity and may affect the effective rates.
  • domain assumption A pre-exponential factor of 10^12 s^-1 applies to every elementary process.
    Standard estimate; no attempt rates from DFT are computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dimerization of Ag adatoms on Si(100) at surprisingly low temperature due to adatom migration on top of Si-dimer rows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X44OYAX6

@misc{pith2026250608207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dimerization of Ag adatoms on Si(100) at surprisingly low temperature due to adatom migration on top of Si-dimer rows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X44OYAX6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08207}
}
read the original abstract

The puzzling experimental observations of Ag addimer formation on the Si(100) surface upon vapor deposition at low temperature, even as low as 140 K, reported by Huang et al. [Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2021, 23, 4161], is explained by facile thermal migration on top of the Si dimer rows, while diffusion is inactive once an Ag adatom lands in one of the optimal binding sites in between dimer rows. The previously hypothesized transient mobility due to the hot spot formed as an Ag atom lands on the Si surface is found not to contribute significantly to mobility and dimer formation. The experimental conditions are simulated by a combination of classical dynamics calculations of the deposition events, systematic searches of saddle points representing transition states for thermally activated events and kinetic Monte Carlo simulations of long timescale evolution of the system over a temperature range from 100 K to 300 K. While the calculated energy barriers for diffusion parallel and perpendicular to the Si dimer rows are found to be nearly equal, indicating isotropic diffusion, the simulations show highly anisotropic diffusion, as the optimal migration mechanism involves multiple hops of Ag adatoms on top of Si dimer rows. Impinging Ag atoms are found to have a 90% chance of landing on top of a dimer row and while the hot spot created cools down too fast for transient mobility to play an important role, the energy barrier for thermally activated hops along the dimer row is low enough for migration to be active even at 100 K. A migrating Ag adatom can dimerise with another Ag adatom sitting at a stable binding site in between rows or another adatom on top of the same row. The simulations for deposition at 140 K show that most of the deposited Ag atoms end up forming dimers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top view of the clean Si(100) dis￾playing a c(4×2) rearrangement. The buckled dimers are highlighted with a brown (orange) color for the upper (lower) Si atoms. The bind￾ing sites found for the Ag adatom, in between dimer rows (B, Bd) and on top of dimer rows (T, T2, T3, Tu and Td) are marked on the sur￾face. curs is 12800 s (≈ 213 min). It is worth noting that the Tersoff potential used in these simula￾tions does n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Energy along calculated minimum en￾ergy paths between the various adsorption sites for a Ag adatom on the dimer row reconstructed Si(100) surface. The filled disks correspond to images in the CI-NEB calculations of the paths. The inset illustrates the two possible paths that the Ag adatom can take to hop from a B site to a T3 site. T2. In addition to the listed sites, another local minima on top of the dimer rows wa… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Average number of Ag adatom hops along the Si dimer rows in between visits to the optimal B sites obtained from the KMC simula￾tions at various temperature values. The inset shows the binding sites lattice used in the KMC simulations, with the Si dimer rows shaded. The star marker at 140 K indicates the num￾ber of hops obtained in the AKMC simulations using the Tersoff-type potential. The KMC simulations are carried… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshot of a simulation at t = 1050 s. The dotted lines represent the boundaries of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W.; Park, N

    (1) Kim, Y. W.; Park, N. G.; Cho, W. S.; Chae, K. H.; Whang, C. N.; Kim, K. S.; Kim, S. S.; Choi, D. S. Atomic structures of Ag islands on Si(001)(2x1).Surf. Sci. 1998,396,

    work page 1998

  2. [122]

    Ad- sorption and Migration of Silver on Group IV Semiconductor (001) Surfaces by Den- sity Functional Theory.J

    (15) Huang, X.; Hoffman, A.; Huang, K. Ad- sorption and Migration of Silver on Group IV Semiconductor (001) Surfaces by Den- sity Functional Theory.J. Phys. Chem. C 2022,126,

    work page 2022

  3. [139]

    Growth of Silver Structure on Silicon Surfaces Ob- served in vivo by Scanning Tunneling Mi- croscopy.Surf

    (7) Kocan, P.; Ostadal, I.; Sobotik, P. Growth of Silver Structure on Silicon Surfaces Ob- served in vivo by Scanning Tunneling Mi- croscopy.Surf. Sci.2006,600,

    work page 2006

  4. [249]

    K.; Ichi- nokawa, T

    (6) Winau, D.; Itoh, H.; Schmid, A. K.; Ichi- nokawa, T. Reconstructions and Growth of Ag on Si(001)(2x1).Surf. Sci.1994, 303,

    work page 1994

  5. [295]

    S.; Kim, J

    (2) Cho, W. S.; Kim, J. Y.; Park, N. G.; Chae, K. H.; Kim, Y. W.; Kim, S. S.; Choi, D. S.; Whang, C. N. Atomic struc- ture of Ag grown on Si(001) (2x1) at high temperature.Surf. Sci.1999,439, L792. (3) Matsuda, I.; Yeom, H. W.; Tono, K.; Ohta, T. Angle-resolved photoemission study of electronic structure development during Ag growth on the Si(001) surface...

    work page 1999

  6. [632]

    T.; Smith, W.; Trachenko, K.; Dove, M

    (25) Todorov, I. T.; Smith, W.; Trachenko, K.; Dove, M. T. DL POLY 3: new dimen- sions in molecular dynamics simulations via massive parallelism.J. Mater. Chem. 2006,16,

    work page 2006

  7. [1326]

    Indirect mechanism of Au adatom diffusion on the Si(100) surface

    (22) Pe˜ na-Torres, A.; Ali, A.; Stamatakis, M.; J´ onsson, H. Indirect mechanism of Au adatom diffusion on the Si(100) surface. Phys. Rev. B.2022,105, 205411. (23) Chill, S. T.; Welborn, M.; Terrell, R.; Zhang, L.; Berthet, J.-C.; Pedersen, A.; J´ onsson, H.; Henkelman, G. EON: Soft- ware for long time simulations of atomic scale systems.Modelling Simul....

    work page 2022

  8. [1911]

    P.; J´ onsson, H

    (26) Henkelman, G.; Uberuaga, B. P.; J´ onsson, H. A climbing image nudged elastic band method for finding saddle points and minimum energy paths.J. Chem. Phys.2000,113,

    work page 2000

Show all 16 references
  1. [2636]

    Dy- namics and Energetics of Reconstruction at the Si(100) Surface.J

    (19) Guo, C.-S.; Hermann, K.; Zhao, Y. Dy- namics and Energetics of Reconstruction at the Si(100) Surface.J. Phys. Chem. C 2014,118, 25614. (20) Over, H.; Wasserfall, J.; Ranke, W.; Ambiatello, C.; Sawitzki, R.; Wolf, D.; Moritz, W. Surface atomic geometry of Si(001)-2x1: A lo...

    2014

  2. [3928]

    Atomically Resolved Nucle- ation and Initial Growth of a Ag Three- Dimensional Island on Si(001) Substrate

    (8) Takeuchi, O.; Kageshima, M.; Sakama, H.; Kawazu, A. Atomically Resolved Nucle- ation and Initial Growth of a Ag Three- Dimensional Island on Si(001) Substrate. Phys. Rev. B2011,83, 205433. 8 (9) Starr, D. E.; Ranney, J. T.; Larsen, J. H.; Musgrove, J. E.; Campbell, C. T. M...

    2001

  3. [4161]

    Clus- ter models study of Ag bonding, migration and interaction on Si(100)-2x1.Surf

    (11) Zhou, R.-H.; Cao, P.-L.; Lee, L.-Q. Clus- ter models study of Ag bonding, migration and interaction on Si(100)-2x1.Surf. Sci. Letters1993,290, L649. (12) Okon, J. C.; Joachim, C. Chemisorption of a Ag atom on a Si(100)-2x1 surface: lo- cal surface deformation.Surf. Sci. L...

    1997

  4. [4731]

    P.; J´ onsson, H

    (21) Smith, A. P.; J´ onsson, H. Dimer and string formation during low temperature silicon deposition on Si(100).Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996,77,

    1996

  5. [6275]

    S.; Huang, K.; Nogami, J.; Singh, C

    (14) Huxter, W. S.; Huang, K.; Nogami, J.; Singh, C. V. How Silver Grows on the Sil- icon (001) Surface: A Theoretical and Ex- perimental Investigation.ACS Appl. Elec- tro. Mater.2019,1,

    2019

  6. [8134]

    W.; Ahn, D.; Yi, H.; Yu, B

    (16) jeong Kong, K.; Yeom, H. W.; Ahn, D.; Yi, H.; Yu, B. D. Ab initio study of ad- sorption and diffusion of Ag atoms on a Si(001) surface.Phys. Rev. B.2003,67, 235328. (17) Butler, K. T.; Vullum, P. E.; Mug- gerud, A. M.; Cabrera, E.; Harding, J. H. Structural and electronic...

    2003

  7. [9901]

    Improved tangent estimate in the nudged elastic 9 band method for finding minimum energy paths and saddle points.J

    (27) Henkelman, G.; J´ onsson, H. Improved tangent estimate in the nudged elastic 9 band method for finding minimum energy paths and saddle points.J. Chem. Phys. 2000,113,

    2000

  8. [9978]

    InHand- book of Materials Modeling; Andreoni, W., Yip, S., Eds.; Springer Cham, 2018; pp 689–714

    (28) ´Asgeirsson, V.; J´ onsson, H. InHand- book of Materials Modeling; Andreoni, W., Yip, S., Eds.; Springer Cham, 2018; pp 689–714. (29) Smidstrup, S.; Pedersen, A.; Stokbro, K.; J´ onsson, H. Improved initial guess for min- imum energy path calculations.J. Chem. Phys.2014,1...

    2018

Pith tools

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