Thermal excitation of flexoelectricity in silicon

Kailu Wang; Lingtong Lv; Qianqian Ma; Shengping Shen; Xin Wen

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Thermal excitation of flexoelectricity in silicon

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermally excited free carriers, not the bulk lattice response, set the temperature-dependent flexoelectricity of intrinsic silicon, with a slope governed by the bandgap.

desk verdict New temperature-dependent flexoelectric data in Si/Ge that are probably real, but the headline bandgap extraction is not supported by the paper's own numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20379 v1 pith:2QUJOICO submitted 2025-06-25 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Lingtong Lv , Qianqian Ma , Kailu Wang , Xin Wen , Shengping Shen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords flexoelectricitysiliconSchottkybarrierintrinsiccarrierexcitationbandgapgermaniumtemperaturedependenceflexoelectronics

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

Flexoelectricity in silicon—polarization generated by a strain gradient—can be far larger than first-principles predictions once the metal contacts form a Schottky barrier layer. This paper reports that the effective flexoelectric coefficient of heavily arsenic-doped silicon is about 2.6 µC/m and nearly temperature-independent, while in intrinsic silicon it rises from 15.2 nC/m to 1.8 µC/m as temperature increases from 223 K to 473 K. The authors argue that the difference is controlled by the free-carrier population: donor ionization in doped silicon barely changes with temperature, whereas intrinsic excitation in undoped silicon grows exponentially. They derive a quantitative relationship, $d\ln(\mu_{13}^{\mathrm{eff}})/d(T^{-1}) \approx -E_g/(4k_B T)$, and show that the fitted slope reproduces the ~1.12 eV bandgap of silicon and the ~0.66 eV bandgap of germanium. If correct, this makes the bandgap the key parameter governing thermal flexoelectric response in first-generation semiconductors and offers a way to tune flexoelectric devices by temperature or doping.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the barrier-layer model of semiconductor flexoelectricity, given as $\mu_{13}^{\mathrm{eff}} = \varphi t (N \varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_r q / 2\phi)^{1/2}$, where $N$ is carrier concentration, $\phi$ the Schottky barrier height, $\varphi$ the surface deformation potential, and $t$ the beam thickness. Substituting the intrinsic carrier concentration $N = (N_C N_V)^{1/2} e^{-E_g/(2k_B T)}$ and differentiating with respect to $T^{-1}$ produces the distilled result Eq. (4), $d\ln(\mu_{13}^{\mathrm{eff}})/d(T^{-1}) \approx -E_g/(4k_B T)$. This identity is what lets the paper read the semiconductor bandgap directly from the temperature slope of the flexoelectric coefficient, and it is the mechanism through which doping and temperature become interchangeable tuning knobs for the effective response.

What would settle it

Repeat the measurement on intrinsic silicon with contacts that do not form a Schottky barrier, for example using ohmic heavily doped surface layers or electrodes with matched work function. If the effective coefficient still rises by two orders of magnitude with temperature and its $\ln(\mu)$ versus $T^{-1}$ slope still equals $-E_g/(4k_B)$, the proposed barrier mechanism is not the origin; if the enhancement disappears, the barrier layer is required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the effective flexoelectric coefficient $\mu_{13}^{\mathrm{eff}}$ in Au/Si/Au beams tracks the semiconductor's free-carrier concentration, not the bulk flexoelectric response. Bending modifies the Schottky barrier layer at the gold–silicon interface through the surface deformation potential, converting strain gradients into interfacial polarization changes that dominate the measured signal. Combining the barrier-layer expression with the intrinsic carrier density formula gives $\mu_{13}^{\mathrm{eff}} \propto e^{-E_g/(4k_B T)}$, which differentiates to the concise relation $d\ln(\mu_{13}^{\mathrm{eff}})/d(T^{-1}) \approx -E_g/(4k_B T)$. Fits on multiple intrinsic silicon samples yield $E_g \approx 1.12$ eV, matching the room-temperature silicon bandgap, and the same procedure on germanium yields $\approx 0.66$ eV. The paper therefore claims that thermal excitation of free carriers, rather than lattice or surface flexoelectricity, is responsible for the strong temperature dependence, and that heavy doping suppresses it because arsenic donor ionization is nearly temperature-independent.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the measured flexoelectric signal comes almost entirely from the Schottky barrier layer at the gold–silicon contacts, and that barrier height, deformation potential, dielectric constant, and sample thickness are effectively temperature-independent over the measured range; if those conditions fail, the fitted slope connecting to the bandgap is not meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Doping or temperature can tune the effective flexoelectric coefficient of silicon by about two orders of magnitude, providing a design lever for silicon-based electromechanical sensors, energy harvesters, and flexotronic devices.
Equation (4) lets a flexoelectric bending measurement serve as a bandgap probe for semiconductors whose carrier density is dominated by intrinsic excitation.
In heavily doped silicon, the effective coefficient stays nearly constant across the measured temperature range, which is useful for devices requiring stable electromechanical response.
The observed saturation of intrinsic silicon's coefficient near 150 °C bounds the usable temperature range and points to a carrier-related ceiling, such as tunneling through a narrowed barrier or dielectric degradation, rather than exhaustion of carriers.

Reading between the lines

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

If Eq. (4) is general, the same Arrhenius slope should appear in any semiconductor where intrinsic carriers dominate the Schottky-barrier response, so the relationship can be tested across compound semiconductors and should reproduce each material's bandgap at the relevant temperature.
At higher temperatures the nominally temperature-independent prefactor in Eq. (3) will contribute its own terms to the slope; measurable deviations from the pure $-E_g/(4k_B T)$ line could expose the temperature dependence of barrier height or deformation potential.
Illumination of intrinsic silicon should shift free-carrier concentration without changing temperature, so a photoflexoelectric analog is a direct, testable extension: the coefficient should rise with photocarrier density in the same manner as with thermal excitation.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The key experimental observation is likely real and worth knowing: over 223–473 K, the effective flexoelectric coefficient of intrinsic silicon rises by two orders of magnitude while heavily doped silicon stays flat, and germanium shows the same trend. The correlation with measured carrier concentration and capacitance is strong evidence that free carriers in the Schottky barrier layer mediate the effect. That is a genuinely useful result for anyone working on Si-compatible electromechanics.

The paper also does some things well. They check for static-force artifacts, measure carrier concentration directly rather than assuming it, include Ge as a universality test, and connect to an existing barrier-layer model rather than inventing a new one. The saturation at high temperature is acknowledged and discussed with plausible mechanisms.

Now the soft spots, in order of severity. First, the abstract quotes 15.2 nC/m at 223 K and 1.8 μC/m at 473 K. End-to-end, that ratio gives an Arrhenius slope of about 0.69 eV, not the claimed 1.12 eV. The 1.12 eV fit must come from a restricted temperature window, but the paper never states the fit range, the number of points, or the error bars. Since the central quantitative punchline is the extraction of the bandgap, this is a load-bearing problem, not a cosmetic one. Second, Eq. (4) is dimensionally wrong as printed: the derivative of -E_g/(4 k_B T) with respect to T^-1 is a constant, -E_g/(4 k_B), not -E_g/(4 k_B T). That typo obscures what was actually fitted. Third, Eq. (1) is taken from prior work, including the same group's paper [32], and the authors assume temperature-independent barrier height, deformation potential, and dielectric constant without direct justification. That assumption is plausible but should be stated as a limitation.

The stress-test note slightly overstates the case: the displayed numbers do not contradict the qualitative picture, but they do mean the bandgap claim is currently unsupported. A referee can fix this by demanding the raw data, fit ranges, and error bars, and by making the authors correct Eq. (4).

Who this is for: people working on flexoelectricity in semiconductors, especially silicon-based devices. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject, because the observation is new, the experiment is nontrivial, and the quantitative issue is fixable with better reporting. My recommendation: send it out, but make the referee dig into the fitting procedure before publication.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of the effective flexoelectric coefficient μ_13^eff in intrinsic and heavily As-doped silicon beams over 223–473 K using three-point bending with a static preload and an oscillatory force. The authors find that heavily doped Si has μ_13^eff ≈ 2.6 μC/m, nearly independent of temperature, whereas intrinsic Si grows from ~15.2 nC/m at 223 K to ~1.8 μC/m at 473 K, with saturation above ~150 °C. They attribute the response to a Schottky-barrier (barrier-layer) mechanism, in which μ_13^eff ∝ N^{1/2}. Combining this with the intrinsic carrier density leads to Eq. (4), d ln μ/d(T^{-1}) ≈ -E_g/(4k_B T), and the authors claim that Arrhenius fits yield E_g ≈ 1.12 eV for Si and ≈0.66 eV for Ge, matching the known bandgaps. The paper concludes that thermally excited carriers control flexoelectricity in intrinsic first-generation semiconductors.

Significance. If the central quantitative claim is correct, the paper would establish a simple relationship between the temperature dependence of flexoelectricity and the semiconductor bandgap, and it would help explain the orders-of-magnitude discrepancy between earlier Si flexoelectric measurements and first-principles calculations. The qualitative picture is well supported by the parallel temperature dependences of flexoelectricity, interfacial capacitance, and carrier concentration, as well as by the contrast between doped and intrinsic samples. The paper also makes a falsifiable prediction—that the Arrhenius slope is controlled by E_g/(4k_B)—and tests it on Ge. However, as detailed in the major comments, the paper's own reported endpoint values are inconsistent with the claimed fitted bandgap, and the fitting procedure is not documented. The reliance on a model from the authors' own earlier work (refs. [23,32]) is a mild circularity concern, but it is mitigated by the fact that the temperature dependence in Eq. (4) arises mainly from the standard intrinsic carrier density. Overall, the data set and conceptual link are valuable, but the headline quantitative claim is currently unsupported.

major comments (3)

[Abstract, Fig. 2a, Fig. 3b] Using the two endpoint values quoted in the abstract (μ=15.2 nC/m at 223 K and μ=1.8 μC/m at 473 K), the ratio is 118, and the corresponding Arrhenius slope is ln(118)/(1/223−1/473)≈2.0×10^3 K. If this slope is identified with E_g/(4k_B), the implied bandgap is ≈0.69 eV, not 1.12 eV; including the T^{3/4} prefactor from N_C N_V only raises this to ≈0.78 eV. The room-temperature value of 29.1 nC/m (Fig. 1c) together with the 223-K point gives an apparent E_g of only ≈0.2 eV. Therefore the statement that the slopes "consistently yield an E_g of ~1.12 eV" cannot be true over the full 223–473 K range. The fit must have been restricted to a narrower, unstated temperature sub-range, or the quoted endpoint values are misreported. The manuscript must state the exact fitting range, the number of data points, how the saturation above ~150 °C is handled, and show the raw Arrhenius plots with the fitted line. Without this, the headline "fitted E_g ≈ 1.12 eV" is not supported by the paper's own displayed numbers; the same requirement applies to the Ge data in Fig. 3b.
[Eq. (4)] Eq. (4) is dimensionally inconsistent as printed. Since d/d(T^{-1})[-E_g/(4k_B T)] = -E_g/(4k_B), the right-hand side should be a constant in kelvin, not -E_g/(4k_B T). Moreover, the T^{3/4} temperature dependence of (N_C N_V)^{1/4} contributes an additional term of -3T/4 to the slope, which is about 7% of the E_g term at 300 K and is not negligible if a quantitative bandgap is claimed. The authors should provide the correctly derived expression and state exactly which functional form was used in the fit.
[Eq. (3) and Section 9 of the Supplemental Material] Eq. (3) is obtained from Eq. (1) by inserting Eq. (2), but this requires that the barrier height, the deformation potential, the dielectric constant, and the sample thickness are all temperature-independent over 223–473 K. The text acknowledges this only in passing ("neglecting the weak temperature independence") and refers to the Supplemental Material. Because the extracted E_g is the sole quantitative evidence for the central claim, a sensitivity estimate is needed: for example, how much would a typical ∂ε_r/∂T or a 0.1 eV change in barrier height with temperature shift the fitted E_g? If those effects are comparable to ±0.1 eV, the claimed match to 1.12 eV would not be meaningful.

minor comments (5)

[References] Refs. [27] and [36] are the same reference (Schiaffino et al., Phys. Rev. B 99, 085107 (2019)), and Refs. [31] and [46] are also duplicates (Li et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 062904 (2024)).
[Fig. 1d] "Femi level" should read "Fermi level."
[Before Eq. (4)] "Neglecting the weak temperature independence" should read "neglecting the weak temperature dependence."
[After Eq. (1)] The same symbol φ is used for both the Schottky barrier height and the surface deformation potential, which makes the definition of Eq. (1) ambiguous; distinct symbols (e.g., φ_B and φ_D) should be used.
[General] The statement that the flexoelectric coefficient "get saturated" (Fig. 2a) should be rephrased for grammatical correctness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bandgap extraction is checked against independent textbook bandgaps, and the sole self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Eq. (1) is adopted from refs [23,32] (one being same-group Ma et al.), giving μ13^eff proportional to sqrt(N). Eq. (2) is the standard intrinsic carrier density N = sqrt(N_C N_V) exp(-Eg/2k_B T). Substitution yields Eq. (3), whose logarithmic temperature slope is then compared with measured slopes to extract Eg. The extracted Eg is checked against the independently known textbook bandgaps of Si (~1.12 eV) and Ge, an external benchmark not used to construct Eq. (1). Thus the central claim—that the temperature dependence is set by the bandgap—is not forced by the model; it could have been falsified if the measured slopes had given a different value. The self-citation [32] is present but is redundant with the independent ref [23] and does not carry the load. The paper's Eq. (4) contains a dimensional typo (the right-hand side should be -Eg/(4k_B), not -Eg/(4k_B T)), and the abstract's 223 K/473 K endpoints imply a smaller end-to-end slope than 1.12 eV; these are internal-consistency or correctness concerns, not circular reduction. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the Schottky barrier-layer model from prior work, plus standard semiconductor statistics. The only fitted quantity is the bandgap, which is compared to an independent known value. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

Bandgap E_g extracted from Arrhenius slope = 1.12 eV (Si), 0.66 eV (Ge)
Obtained from the slope of ln(μ13^eff) versus 1/T using Eq. (4), then compared with textbook bandgaps. The fit range and uncertainty are not reported.
Saturation temperature for intrinsic Si flexoelectricity = ~150 °C
Introduced to explain why the flexoelectric coefficient stops increasing with carrier concentration at high temperature; not predicted by the model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Effective flexoelectric coefficient of a bent semiconductor with a Schottky barrier follows Eq. (1), from refs [23,32].
The barrier-layer mechanism is cited, not derived; ref [32] shares authors with this paper.
standard math Intrinsic carrier concentration is given by Eq. (2) with constant E_g and effective densities of states.
Textbook semiconductor statistics (Sze and Ng [40]).
ad hoc to paper Temperature dependence of prefactor quantities (N_C, N_V, barrier height, deformation potential, dielectric constant, thickness) is neglected in deriving Eq. (4).
The paper states this neglect in Section 9 of the Supplemental Material [33] and main text, but does not show it is negligible over 223-473 K.
domain assumption The measured flexoelectric response is dominated by the barrier-layer mechanism, not bulk or surface contributions.
Supported qualitatively by the anomalously large apparent dielectric constant, but not by a quantitative side-by-side comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermal excitation of flexoelectricity in silicon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2QUJOICO

@misc{pith2026250620379,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermal excitation of flexoelectricity in silicon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2QUJOICO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20379}
}

read the original abstract

Flexoelectricity, an electromechanical coupling between strain gradient and polarization, offers a promising dimension to enrich silicon-based devices. Although the flexoelectricity of silicon is known, some fundamental aspects remain ambiguous, such as the discrepancy between experimental results and theoretical predictions, the influence of doping concentration, and the role of the bandgap. Here, we measured the flexoelectricity of intrinsic and heavily doped Si over the temperature range of 223 -473 K. The flexoelectric coefficient is of 2.6 {\mu}C/m and barely varies with temperature in doped silicon, while in intrinsic silicon it varies by nearly two orders of magnitude from 15.2 nC/m to 1.8 {\mu}C/m as temperature increases. We show that their different temperature dependencies correspond to the temperature-insensitive donor ionization in doped silicon and the temperature-sensitive intrinsic excitation in intrinsic silicon, with the latter captured by a quantitative relationship between flexoelectricity, temperature and bandgap. Furthermore, similar experimental results on germanium (Ge) suggest the universality of this relationship in first-generation semiconductors. These findings would offer valuable reference for developing Si-based electromechanical devices, as well as understanding the strain-gradient effects on semiconductor band structures (flexoelectronics).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20379 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

[32]

Q. Ma, X. Wen, L. Lv, Q. Deng, and S. Shen, On the flexoelectric -like effect of Nb -doped SrTiO3 single crystals, Applied Physics Letters 123, 082902 (2023)

work page 2023
[1]

Leong, M

D. Leong, M. Harry, K. J. Reeson, and K. P. Homewood, A silicon/iron -disilicide light- emitting diode operating at a wavelength of 1.5 µm, Nature 387, (1997)

work page 1997
[2]

M. A. Green, J. Zhao, A. Wang, P. J. Reece, and M. Gal, Efficient silicon light- emitting diodes, Nature 412, (2001)

work page 2001
[3]

Riordan, L

M. Riordan, L. Hoddeson, and C. Herring, The invention of the transistor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, (1999)

work page 1999
[4]

S. R. Hofstein and F. P. Heiman, The silicon insulated-gate field-effect transistor, Proc. IEEE 51, 1190 (1963)

work page 1963
[5]

R. M. Swanson, S. K. Beckwith, R. A. Crane, W. D. Eades, Y. H. Kwark, R. A. Sinton, and S. E. Swirhun, Point -contact silicon solar cells, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 31, 661 (1984)

work page 1984
[6]

Riethmuller and W

W. Riethmuller and W. Benecke, Thermally excited silicon microactuators, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 35, 758 (1988)

work page 1988
[7]

B. Wang, Y. Gu, S. Zhang, and L. -Q. Chen, Flexoelectricity in solids: Pr ogress, challenges, and perspectives, Progress in Materials Science 106, 100570 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 56 references

[8]

Zubko, G

P. Zubko, G. Catalan, and A. K. Tagantsev, Flexoelectric Effect in Solids, Annual Review of Materials Research 43, 387 (2013)

2013
[9]

Liang, H

X. Liang, H. Dong, Y. Wang, Q. Ma, H. Shang, S. Hu, and S. Shen, Advancements of Flexoelectric Materials and Their Implementations in Flexoelectric Devices, Advanced Functional Materials 34, 2409906 (2024)

2024
[10]

K. P. Olson, C. A. Mizzi, and L. D. Marks, Band Bending and Ratcheting Explai n Triboelectricity in a Flexoelectric Contact Diode, Nano Lett. 22, 3914 (2022)

2022
[11]

Kumar and H

M. Kumar and H. Seo, Reconfigurable Polarized Photodetector with Centrosymmetric Silicon Enabled by Flexoelectric Effect for Encrypted Communication, Advanced Optical Materials 11, 2301165 (2023)

2023
[12]

Hurtado, M

C. Hurtado, M. MacGregor, K. Chen, and S. Ciampi, Schottky Diode Leakage Current Fluctuations: Electrostatically Induced Flexoelectricity in Silicon, Advanced Science 11, 2403524 (2024)

2024
[13]

Kazemi, T

A. Kazemi, T. Peters, S. Trolier-McKinstry, and S. Roundy, Space Charge Induced Flexoelectric Transducers for Energy Harvesting, in 2022 21st International Conference on Micro and Nanotechnology for Power Generation and Energy Conversion Applications (PowerMEMS) (2022), pp. 26–29

2022
[14]

Zhang and S

G. Zhang and S. Shen, Analysis of electromechanical couplings and nonlinear carrier transport in flexoelectric semiconductors, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 56, 325102 (2023)

2023
[15]

D. Guo, P. Guo, Y. Yao, L. Ren, M. Jia, W. Wang, Y. Wang, Y. Zhang, A. Yu, and J. Zhai, Macroscopic flexotronics enhanced controllable piezotronic-like response by flexual semiconductor devices, Nano Energy 100, 107508 (2022)

2022
[16]

L. Sun, L. Zhu, C. Zhang, W. Chen, and Z. Wang, Mechanical Manipulation of Silicon - based Schott ky Diodes via Flexoelectricity, Nano Energy 83, 105855 (2021)

2021
[17]

P. C. Lou, R. G. Bhardwaj, A. Katailiha, W. P. Beyermann, and S. Kumar, Oscillatory Hall effect from magnetoelectronic coupling in flexoelectronic silicon, Phys. Rev. B 109, L081113 (2024)

2024
[18]

D. Tian, Y. Hou, Q. Pan, and B. Chu, Large Piezoelectriclike Response from Inhomogeneously Deformed Silicon Crystals, Phys. Rev. Applied 14, 034008 (2020)

2020
[19]

Kumar, J

M. Kumar, J. Lim, J. Park, and H. Seo, Controllable, Self‐Powered, and High‐ Performance Short‐Wavelength Infrared Photodetector Driven by Coupled Flexoelectricity and Strain Effect, Small Methods 5, 2100342 (2021)

2021
[20]

M.-M. Yang, D. J. Kim, and M. Alexe, Flexo - photovoltaic effect, Science 360, 904 (2018)

2018
[21]

L. Wang, S. Liu, X. Feng, C. Zhang, L. Zhu, J. Zhai, Y. Qin, and Z. L. Wang, Flexoelectronics of centrosymmetric semiconductors, Nat. Nanotechnol. 15, 661 (2020)

2020
[22]

Narvaez, F

J. Narvaez, F. Vasquez-Sancho, and G. Catalan, Enhanced flexoelectric- like response in oxide semiconductors, Nature 538, 219 (2016)

2016
[23]

Shu et al., Photoflexoelectric effect in halide perovskites, Nat

L. Shu et al., Photoflexoelectric effect in halide perovskites, Nat. Mater. 19, 605 (2020)

2020
[24]

X. Han, L. Kou, Z. Zhang, Z. Zhang, X. Zhu, J. Xu, Z. Liao, W. Guo, and D. Yu, Strain - Gradient Effect on Energy Bands in Bent ZnO *Contact author: xin.wen@icn2.cat †Contact author: sshen@xjtu.edu.cn Microwires, Advanced Materials 24, 4707 (2012)

2012
[25]

H. Li, L. Chu, Y. Li, G. Dui, and Q. Deng, Study on PN heterojunctions associated bending coupling in flexoelectric semiconductor composites considering the effects of size- dependent and symmetry- breaking, Journa l of Applied Physics 132, 125701 (2022)

2022
[26]

Hong and D

J. Hong and D. Vanderbilt, First -principles theory and calculation of flexoelectricity, Phys. Rev. B 88, 174107 (2013)

2013
[28]

Royo and M

M. Royo and M. Stengel, Lattice-mediated bulk flexoelectricity from first principles, Phys. Rev. B 105, 064101 (2022)

2022
[29]

C. A. Mizzi and L. D. Marks, The role of surfaces in flexoelectricity, Journal of Applied Physics 129, (2021)

2021
[30]

Narvaez Morales, Flexoelectricity in single crystals (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2016)

J. Narvaez Morales, Flexoelectricity in single crystals (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 2016)

2016
[33]

See Supplemental Material for details on materials preparation, the theoretical model, measurements and complementary experiments described in the paper
[34]

C. A. Mizzi, B. Guo, and L. D. Marks, Twin - boundary-mediated flexoelectricity in LaAlO3, Phys. Rev. Mater. 5, 064406 (2021)

2021
[35]

Zubko, G

P. Zubko, G. Catalan, A. Buckley, P. R. L. Welche, and J. F. Scott, Strain -Gradient- Induced Polarization in SrTiO3 Single Crystals, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 167601 (2007)

2007
[36]

Schiaffino, C

A. Schiaffino, C. E. Dreyer, D. Vanderbilt, and M. Stengel, Metric wave approach to flexoelectricity within density functional perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. B 99, 085107 (2019)

2019
[37]

C. A. Mizzi, B. Guo, and L. D. Marks, Experimental determination of flexoelectric coefficients in SrTiO3, KTaO3, TiO2, and YAlO3 single crystals, Phys. Rev. Materials 6, (2022)

2022
[38]

Moreno -Garcia, K

D. Moreno -Garcia, K. M. Howell, and L. G. Villanueva, Flexoelectricity in amorphous hafnium oxide (HfO2), APL Materials 12, (2024)

2024
[39]

S. M. Kogan, Piezoelectric effect during inhomogeneous deformation and acoustic scattering of carriers in crystals, Sov. Phys. Solid State 5, 2069 (1964)

1964
[40]

S. M. Sze and K. K. Ng, Physics of Semiconductor Devices (Wiley, 2006)

2006
[41]

Kittel and P

C. Kittel and P. McEuen, Introduction to Solid State Physics (John Wiley & Sons, 2018)

2018
[42]

A. K. Tagantsev and A. S. Yurkov, Flexoelectric effect in finite samples, Journal of Applied Physics 112, 044103 (2012)

2012
[43]

K. P. Olson and L. D. Marks, Is Triboelectricity Confusing, Confused or Complex?, arXiv Preprint arXiv:2503.01600 (2025)

2025
[44]

Stengel, Surface control of flexoelectricity, Phys

M. Stengel, Surface control of flexoelectricity, Phys. Rev. B 90, 201112 (2014)

2014
[45]

Y. Jin, F. Zhang, K. Zhou, C. H. Suen, X. Y. Zhou, and J. -Y. Dai, Oxygen vacancy and photoelectron enhanced flexoelectricity in perovskite SrTiO3 crystal, Applied Physics Letters 118, 164101 (2021)

2021
[46]

H. Li, H. Wu, Z. Wang, Z. Xie, S. Shu, Z. Liu, S. Ke, and L. Shu, Space -charge-induced colossal dielectric constant and large flexoelectricity in Nb -doped BaTiO3 ceramics, Applied Physics Letters 124, 062904 (2024)

2024
[47]

O. G. Vendik, E. K. Hollmann, A. B. Kozyrev, and A. M. Prudan, Ferroelectric Tuning of Planar and Bulk Microwave Devices, Journal of Superconductivity 12, 325 (1999)

1999
[48]

L. B. Kong, S. Li, T. S. Zhang, J. W. Zhai, F. Y. C. Boey, and J. Ma, Electrically tunable dielectric materials and strategies to improve their performances, Progress in Materials Science 55, 840 (2010)

2010
[49]

A. K. Tagantsev, V. O. Sherman, K. F. Astafiev, J. Venkatesh, and N. Setter, Ferroelectric Materials for Microwave Tunable Applications, Journal of Electroceramics 11, 5 (2003)

2003
[50]

Yang, Z.-D

M.-M. Yang, Z.-D. Luo, Z. Mi, J. Zhao, S. P. E, and M. Alexe, Piezoelectric and pyroelectric effects induced by interface polar symmetry, Nature 584, 377 (2020)

2020
[51]

F. J. Morin and J. P. Maita, Electrical Properties of Silicon Containing Arsenic and Boron, Phys. Rev. 96, 28 (1954). *Contact author: xin.wen@icn2.cat †Contact author: sshen@xjtu.edu.cn

1954
[52]

Statz, G

H. Statz, G. deMars, L. Davis, and A. Adams, Surface States on Silicon and Germanium Surfaces, Phys. Rev. 106, 455 (1957)

1957
[53]

Schriever and R

C. Schriever and R. B. Wehrspohn, Stretching silicon’s potential, Nature Mater 11, 96 (2012)

2012
[54]

Huang, Y

B. Huang, Y. Yu, F. Zhang, Y. Liang, S. Su, M. Zhang, Y. Zhang, C. Li, S. Xie, and J. Li, Mechanically Gated Transis tor, Advanced Materials 35, 2305766 (2023)

2023
[55]

P. C. Lou, A. Katailiha, R. G. Bhardwaj, W. P. Beyermann, D. Mohata, and S. Kumar, Flexoelectronic doping of degenerate silicon and correlated electron behavior, Phys. Rev. B 105, 245112 (2022)

2022
[56]

D. Guo, P. Guo, L. Ren, Y. Yao, W. Wang, M. Jia, Y. Wang, L. Wang, Z. L. Wang, and J. Zhai, Silicon flexoelectronic transistors, S ci Adv 9, eadd3310 (2023)

2023
[57]

Cazzanelli et al., Second -harmonic generation in silicon waveguides strained by silicon nitride, Nature Mater 11, 148 (2012)

M. Cazzanelli et al., Second -harmonic generation in silicon waveguides strained by silicon nitride, Nature Mater 11, 148 (2012)

2012
[58]

Schriever, F

C. Schriever, F. Bianco, M. Cazzanelli, M. Ghulinyan, C. Eisenschmidt, J. de Boor, A. Schmid, J. Heitmann, L. Pavesi, and J. Schilling, Second-Order Optical Nonlinearity in Silicon Waveguides: Inhomogeneous Stress and Interfaces, Advanced Optical Materials 3, 129 (2015)

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [32]

Q. Ma, X. Wen, L. Lv, Q. Deng, and S. Shen, On the flexoelectric -like effect of Nb -doped SrTiO3 single crystals, Applied Physics Letters 123, 082902 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Leong, M

D. Leong, M. Harry, K. J. Reeson, and K. P. Homewood, A silicon/iron -disilicide light- emitting diode operating at a wavelength of 1.5 µm, Nature 387, (1997)

work page 1997

[3] [2]

M. A. Green, J. Zhao, A. Wang, P. J. Reece, and M. Gal, Efficient silicon light- emitting diodes, Nature 412, (2001)

work page 2001

[4] [3]

Riordan, L

M. Riordan, L. Hoddeson, and C. Herring, The invention of the transistor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, (1999)

work page 1999

[5] [4]

S. R. Hofstein and F. P. Heiman, The silicon insulated-gate field-effect transistor, Proc. IEEE 51, 1190 (1963)

work page 1963

[6] [5]

R. M. Swanson, S. K. Beckwith, R. A. Crane, W. D. Eades, Y. H. Kwark, R. A. Sinton, and S. E. Swirhun, Point -contact silicon solar cells, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 31, 661 (1984)

work page 1984

[7] [6]

Riethmuller and W

W. Riethmuller and W. Benecke, Thermally excited silicon microactuators, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 35, 758 (1988)

work page 1988

[8] [7]

B. Wang, Y. Gu, S. Zhang, and L. -Q. Chen, Flexoelectricity in solids: Pr ogress, challenges, and perspectives, Progress in Materials Science 106, 100570 (2019)

work page 2019