Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Light-hole states and hyperfine interaction in electrically-defined Ge/GeSn quantum dots

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 In light-hole GeSn/Ge quantum dots, hyperfine decoherence is dominated by the Fermi contact interaction, with strength set by the tin fraction in the barriers.

desk verdict Solid first atomistic estimate of hyperfine in GeSn light-hole QDs, with an overstated dominance claim at low Sn and a real but fixable DFT-transferability caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12249 v2 pith:EUKGM2O4 submitted 2025-07-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

Agnieszka Miętkiewicz , Jakub Ziembicki , Krzysztof Gawarecki This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall PACS 73.21.La71.70.Gm71.15.Mb
keywords light-holequbithyperfineinteractionOverhauserfieldGeSnquantumwelltight-bindingmodeldensityfunctionaltheoryFermicontactdot
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 what limits the spin quality of a new type of hole qubit: a gate-defined quantum dot in a tensile-strained Ge well sandwiched between GeSn barriers, where the ground state is a light hole. The authors calculate the nuclear-spin decoherence channel and conclude that it is governed not by the usual dipolar mechanisms but by the Fermi contact interaction, which becomes active only because the hole wave function acquires small s-type atomic orbital admixtures through conduction-valence band mixing. They quantify this by computing Overhauser field fluctuations with a fully atomistic sp3d5s* tight-binding model combined with first-principles hyperfine parameters, and find the coupling grows strongly with the Sn content in the barrier. This matters because it identifies tin composition as the practical knob controlling how much nuclear-spin noise this platform experiences.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the hyperfine interaction Hamiltonian evaluated in the basis of the two lowest hole states, with the Overhauser-field fluctuations computed from the rms of its components. The key object is the Fermi contact term $\frac{8\pi}{3}\delta(\boldsymbol{r})\boldsymbol{S}$ embedded in the hyperfine operator; it is normally negligible for holes because valence orbitals are p-like, but here it becomes the dominant channel through small s-orbital (and s*-orbital) weights in the hole wave function. The paper isolates its contribution by turning off the contact term and the d-shell contributions in controlled model comparisons, and it derives the s-admixture weights from a realistic sp3d5s* tight-binding Hamiltonian with strain, spin-orbit coupling, and the parabolic gate potential.

What would settle it

Recompute the Overhauser-field fluctuations using hyperfine parameters obtained from an independent all-electron method (a different DFT code, different functional, or quantum-chemistry calculation) with proper uncertainty estimates; if the contact term no longer dominates, the paper's central claim is falsified. Alternatively, a spin-echo or coherence-time measurement on a GeSn/Ge/GeSn gate-defined dot that tracks the noise floor as the barrier Sn content is varied from 10% to 20% would directly test the predicted growth of the coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for the lowest hole doublet in an electrically defined GeSn/Ge/GeSn quantum dot, the hyperfine interaction is dominated to a large extent by the Fermi contact interaction mediated by s-type orbital admixtures, which arise from conduction-valence band mixing. This is demonstrated by computing Overhauser field fluctuations in a realistic sp3d5s* tight-binding model, with hyperfine matrix elements parameterized from DFT-calculated radial functions instead of hydrogen-like orbitals. The s-type admixture in the light-hole ground state rises from about 1.4% at 10% Sn to 6.4% at 20% Sn in the barrier, and the Overhauser fluctuations increase correspondingly. Systematically removing the contact term from the calculation reduces the fluctuations markedly, especially at 15% Sn, confirming that this channel is the leading source of nuclear-spin coupling.

Load-bearing premise

The DFT-derived hyperfine parameters, especially the contact density |R_S(0)|^2 for tin, are assumed to be quantitatively accurate and transferable from bulk crystals to the strained GeSn barrier and Ge well; if that number changes appreciably, the dominance of the contact term could disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raising the Sn content in the barriers from 10% to 15% increases the transverse Overhauser-field fluctuation by about 60% and the z-component by roughly a factor of 2, so barrier composition is a direct lever on the nuclear-spin noise floor.
  • The dominant effect of higher Sn content is not the extra Sn nuclei themselves (they contribute only a few percent to the total) but the increased s-type admixture and stronger confinement that come with a deeper well.
  • The deviation of the transverse-to-z Overhauser ratio from the ideal light-hole value of 2 is largely a fingerprint of the isotropic contact term, which tends to equalize the two components.
  • Models that ignore conduction-valence band mixing will miss the leading hyperfine coupling channel in this system, so any quantitative prediction of decoherence times in GeSn devices must include that mixing.
  • The computed growth of Overhauser fluctuations with tin content provides a concrete, testable prediction for future spin-echo or coherence-time measurements on GeSn/Ge/GeSn dots.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the contact term truly dominates, isotopic purification of 73Ge alone will not suppress the dominant channel, because the contact coupling acts through s-admixtures spread over the whole dot, including Sn sites; tuning the barrier composition would be the more direct lever.
  • The same DFT-parameterized contact mechanism should be checked in other tensile-strained group-IV systems, such as GeSn-on-Si quantum wells, where an even smaller band gap should produce larger s-admixtures and possibly a stronger hyperfine coupling.
  • There may be a design trade-off: higher Sn content helps confine the hole and moves Ge toward a direct band gap (useful for optical interfaces), but it also raises the nuclear-spin noise floor, and this paper's numbers allow that trade to be quantified.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents atomistic tight-binding and DFT calculations of the lowest hole doublet in gate-defined GeSn/Ge/GeSn quantum wells. Strain is obtained with a valence-force-field model, the single-particle states are computed with an sp3d5s* tight-binding Hamiltonian plus a parabolic lateral confinement, and the hyperfine interaction is parameterized using all-electron wave functions reconstructed from PAW-DFT for bulk Ge and Sn. The authors evaluate Overhauser-field fluctuations and find that s-type orbital admixtures, induced by conduction-valence band mixing, allow the Fermi contact term to become the dominant hyperfine channel, with a strong increase of the fluctuations as the Sn content in the barrier grows. Dependences on quantum-well width and lateral confinement strength are also reported.

Significance. If the contact-mediated Sn dependence holds, the paper provides a valuable quantitative prediction for hole-spin qubits in GeSn, where the light-hole ground state and the strong spin-orbit tunability have generated recent interest. The strengths of the work include a fully atomistic treatment that goes beyond k.p models, a clear decomposition of hyperfine channels in Table II, and the use of DFT-derived radial functions near the nucleus instead of hydrogenic approximations. The predicted dependence of Overhauser fluctuations on barrier composition is falsifiable by element- or isotope-sensitive experiments, and the channel decomposition gives design guidance. The calculation is not circular: the tight-binding and DFT parameters are fixed externally and the Overhauser values are outputs. However, the quantitative reliability of the central claim rests on a few load-bearing approximations that need additional sensitivity tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A3] The hyperfine matrix element in Appendix A3 assigns the same DFT-derived |R_S(0)|^2 to every l=0 orbital, including the s* orbital. Since s* is an empirical second s-like orbital in the sp3d5s* basis rather than the physical 4s/5s radial function, using the DFT value for s* is an uncontrolled approximation. The paper reports the s-type admixture as the sum of s and s* contributions, and Table II shows that switching off the contact term nearly eliminates the Sn-content dependence in the perpendicular Overhauser fluctuation. An error in the s* contact coupling would therefore directly bias the central claim. Please report the s and s* weights separately and test the sensitivity of the Overhauser fluctuations to how s* is treated, for example by setting its contact parameter to zero or using a separately computed radial overlap.
  2. [Sec. II D and Table I] The parameters |R_S(0)|^2 and M_alpha_beta are obtained from bulk, unstrained Ge and Sn crystals and then used without modification for Ge atoms under biaxial tensile strain in the quantum well and for Sn atoms in the GeSn alloy barrier. The central Sn-content trend is governed by the product of the tight-binding s-admixture coefficients and these atomic parameters, especially those of Sn. No uncertainty estimates or transferability tests are provided, and the statement that the PAW reconstruction 'should, in principle' give the correct wave function near the core is an assertion rather than a demonstrated validation. Please quantify how the hyperfine parameters change for Ge under representative tensile strain and for Sn in a GeSn supercell, and estimate the resulting uncertainty in the Overhauser values.
  3. [Sec. III B, Table II, and Conclusions] The claim that the hyperfine interaction is 'dominated to a large extent' by the Fermi contact term is not uniformly supported by the data. At 10% Sn the full-model rms values are 2.06 neV (transverse) and 1.44 neV (z), while the no-contact values are 1.58 neV and 0.978 neV; the contact term is clearly dominant only at higher Sn content, where the 15% Sn values are 3.28/2.91 neV versus 1.58/1.32 neV. Please qualify the conclusions to the high-Sn regime, or provide a decomposition that isolates the contact contribution more directly, for example by switching the contact term on and off for s and s* separately.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The units of |R_S(0)|^2 are given as Å^{-1/3}, but this quantity has dimensions of inverse volume (Å^{-3}). Please correct the typo and indicate whether atomic units are used.
  2. [Sec. II D] The hybrid functional is not fully identified; the text states only that the Hartree-Fock exchange fraction was set to 0.19. Please specify which hybrid functional was used (e.g., PBE0 or HSE with a modified mixing parameter) and whether the fraction was tuned solely to the Ge band gap.
  3. [Appendix A1, Table III] The GeSn lattice constant row lists two values, '6.121*' and '6.071', with a footnote about the expanded value used only in the strain VFF simulation. Please clarify which value is used in the VFF calculation and which is used in the tight-binding Hamiltonian, and state the bowing relation used for the alloy lattice constant.
  4. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is written without an explicit statistical average over the unpolarized nuclear-spin bath, although the text describes the result as a root-mean-square fluctuation. Please add the angle-bracket notation or otherwise clarify how the thermal average over nuclear spin configurations enters the expression.
  5. [General] The manuscript does not include a data/code availability statement, and many input parameters are deferred to Refs. [20,21]. Given the number of numerical settings (VFF parameters, tight-binding parameters, DFT settings), a self-contained table of the key input parameters would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Overhauser-field calculation is a closed evaluation of independently computed DFT and tight-binding inputs; self-citations are methodological and externally cross-checked.

full rationale

The Overhauser-field calculation is a closed evaluation, not a fit. Eq. (2) defines the rms fluctuations from the tight-binding eigenstates w^(mu)_{i,alpha} (Secs. II B, III A) and the hyperfine tensor A, whose parameters |R_S(0)|^2 and M_alpha_beta are computed in this paper (Table I) from all-electron PAW-reconstructed DFT wave functions of bulk Ge and Sn (Sec. II D, Appendix A4). Nothing in this chain is normalized to, fitted against, or defined in terms of the target Overhauser values, so the 'fitted input called prediction' and 'self-definitional' patterns do not apply. The central claims — contact-channel dominance and its growth with barrier Sn content — are read off a decomposition (Table II): removing the contact term collapses the transverse fluctuation to 1.58 neV at both 10% and 15% Sn, so the Sn sensitivity is a computed output (growing s/s* admixtures, 1.4% to 6.4%, from the TB eigenstates) rather than an input. Self-citations Refs. [15,20,21] are methodological: the GeSn tight-binding parametrization is externally falsifiable (the indirect-to-direct gap transition at ~12.5% Sn is cross-checked against the independent k.p value of ~10.5%, Ref. [9]), and the hyperfine matrix-element formula is reproduced explicitly in Appendix A3 instead of being imported as a black box. The paper explicitly departs from Refs. [15,20] by replacing hydrogen-like radial functions with new DFT-derived ones. The flagged concerns — bulk-DFT |R_S(0)|^2 applied to strained-QW/alloy atoms without stated uncertainty, and the same contact value assigned to the fictitious s* orbital (delta_{l0}delta_{l'0}|R_S(0)|^2 in Appendix A3) — are accuracy and transferability risks that could rescale the conclusion, but they are not circular because the parameters do not derive from the predicted Overhauser field. Score 1.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on a chain of empirical inputs. The tight-binding hopping integrals and on-site energies are taken from Ref. [21]; the VFF strain parameters from Ref. [47]; the hyperfine-envelope parameters are newly computed from DFT (Table I). These are independent of the target Overhauser values, so the calculation is not circular, but it is not parameter-free. The main assumptions are the transferability of bulk DFT-derived hyperfine parameters to the alloy and the idealized parabolic confinement potential.

free parameters (3)
  • GeSn lattice constant in VFF strain simulation = 6.121 Å (expanded from 6.071 Å)
    Adjusted in Appendix A1 to reproduce the lattice bowing of Ge1-xSnx from Ref. [40]; directly affects strain, band offsets, and thus the s-admixture amplitudes.
  • HF exchange fraction in DFT = 0.19
    Set in Section II D to reproduce the Ge direct band gap (0.911 eV); influences the DFT radial wavefunctions and hence |R_S(0)|^2 and M_alpha_beta.
  • Light-hole effective mass for the parabolic confinement potential = 0.043 m0
    Bulk Ge LH mass from Ref. [22], used in Section II A to define V_ext; affects the wavefunction extent and participation number.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The sp3d5s* tight-binding model with parameters from Ref. [21] accurately describes the electronic structure of GeSn alloys across the composition range.
    The entire calculation of hole wavefunctions and s-admixtures rests on this transferability (Section II B).
  • domain assumption The parabolic in-plane potential V_ext = (m*_lh omega^2/2)(x^2+y^2) with the bulk LH mass is a faithful model of the gate-defined QD confinement.
    Introduced in Section II A; the Overhauser results are computed for this idealized potential.
  • domain assumption DFT-derived hyperfine parameters for bulk Ge and Sn are transferable to atoms in the strained GeSn alloy and Ge QW.
    Table I values are used for all atomic sites of each species (Section II D, Appendix A4); no correction for local alloy environment is made.
  • domain assumption Hyperfine matrix elements between orbitals localized on different nuclei are negligible.
    Stated in Appendix A3; this standard on-site approximation underlies Eq. (A?) for the fluctuations.
  • domain assumption The nuclear spin bath is unpolarized and thermal, justifying the rms fluctuation formula in Eq. (2).
    Assumed in Section II C following Refs. [12,15].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-hole states and hyperfine interaction in electrically-defined Ge/GeSn quantum dots." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EUKGM2O4

@misc{pith2026250712249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-hole states and hyperfine interaction in electrically-defined Ge/GeSn quantum dots},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EUKGM2O4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12249}
}
abstract

We theoretically investigate hole spins confined in a gate-defined quantum dot (QD) embedded in GeSn/Ge/GeSn quantum well (QW) structure. Owing to the tensile strain in the Ge layer, the system effectively realizes a light-hole qubit. We systematically study how various morphological parameters influence the energy spectrum, g-factors, and the hyperfine coupling to the nuclear spin bath. The simulations are carried out using a realistic, fully atomic sp$^3$d$^5$s$^*$ tight-binding model. We also perform complementary DFT calculations of wave functions near the atomic cores and use them to parameterize the hyperfine-interaction Hamiltonian. We evaluate the Overhauser field fluctuations and demonstrate that the strength of the hyperfine coupling for the lowest hole doublet crucially depends on the Sn content in the barrier. We highlight the conduction-valence band mixing, which leads to considerable $s$-type admixtures to the hole states, providing the dominant channel of hyperfine coupling due to the Fermi contact interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic picture of the material layers in the considered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The band edges at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fluctuations of the Overhauser field represented by rms as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Radial part of the wave function near the atomic core for Ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    To account for this effect, we utilize Martin’s Valence Force Field (VFF) model [27, 28]

    Strain calculation ThelatticemismatchbetweentheGeandSnlatticeconstant inevitably leads to strain. To account for this effect, we utilize Martin’s Valence Force Field (VFF) model [27, 28]. The model relies on four parameters𝑘(r),𝑘(𝜃),𝑘(rr),𝑘(r𝜃), which describebondstretching,bondbending,bond-bondstretching, and bond stretching angle bending, respectively [...

    work page

  2. [2]

    However, theconventionalTBHamiltonian[17] 𝐻 isdefinedinthe B= {𝑠, 𝑝𝑥, 𝑝𝑦, 𝑝𝑧, 𝑑𝑥𝑦, 𝑑𝑦𝑧, 𝑑𝑧𝑥, 𝑑𝑥2−𝑦2, 𝑑3𝑧2−𝑟 2, 𝑠∗} basis

    The basis AsmentionedinSec.IIB,wechosetheangularmomentum basis B′={𝑠,𝑝−1,𝑝0,𝑝1,𝑑−2,𝑑−1,𝑑0,𝑑1,𝑑2,𝑠∗}. However, theconventionalTBHamiltonian[17] 𝐻 isdefinedinthe B= {𝑠, 𝑝𝑥, 𝑝𝑦, 𝑝𝑧, 𝑑𝑥𝑦, 𝑑𝑦𝑧, 𝑑𝑧𝑥, 𝑑𝑥2−𝑦2, 𝑑3𝑧2−𝑟 2, 𝑠∗} basis. Therefore, we perform the transformation 𝐻′=𝑃†𝐻𝑃, with 𝑃= 𝑃orb 0 0 𝑃orb , where the upper (lower) part of the matrix corresponds to th...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Therefore, we can simplify the notation to⟨𝑹𝑖;𝛼|𝐴𝑛(𝒓− 𝑹𝑖)| 𝑹𝑖;𝛽⟩≡ ⟨𝛼|𝐴𝑛(𝒓)|𝛽⟩foragiventypeofatom

    The hyperfine coupling TocalculatethefluctuationsoftheOverhauserfield[Eq.2], one needs to determine the matrix elements 𝐴𝑛,𝜇𝜈 = 𝜓𝜇 𝐴𝑛(𝒓− 𝑹𝑖) 𝜓𝜈 ≈ ∑︁ 𝑖 ∑︁ 𝛼,𝛽 𝑤(𝜇)∗ 𝑖,𝛼 𝑤(𝜈) 𝑖,𝛽 ⟨𝑹𝑖;𝛼|𝐴𝑛(𝒓− 𝑹𝑖)| 𝑹𝑖;𝛽⟩, 7 where we neglected the terms with the orbitals localized at different nuclei than𝐴𝑛(𝒓− 𝑹𝑖) is centered on. Therefore, we can simplify the notation to⟨𝑹𝑖;𝛼...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Forthis purpose, we used the vaspbandunfolding [48] code written by Qijing Zheng

    DFT wave function As mentioned in the main text, we extracted the AE wave function from the PS wave function using its definition in termsofAE/PSpartialwavesandprojectorfunctions. Forthis purpose, we used the vaspbandunfolding [48] code written by Qijing Zheng. We modified the module that reconstructs the AE wave function on the regular grid to get the ang...

    work page

  5. [5]

    L. A. Terrazos, E. Marcellina, Z. Wang, S. N. Coppersmith, M. Friesen, A. R. Hamilton, X. Hu, B. Koiller, A. L. Saraiva, D. Culcer, and R. B. Capaz, Theory of hole-spin qubits in strained germanium quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B103, 125201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    3, 012003 (2023)

    Y.Fang,P.Philippopoulos,D.Culcer,W.A.Coish,andS.Chesi, Recentadvancesinhole-spinqubits,Mater.Quantum.Technol. 3, 012003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    N.W.Hendrickx,W.I.L.Lawrie,L.Petit,A.Sammak,G.Scap- pucci,andM.Veldhorst,Asingle-holespinqubit,NatCommun 11, 3478 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Bosco and D

    S. Bosco and D. Loss, Fully Tunable Hyperfine Interactions of Hole Spin Qubits in Si and Ge Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 190501 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Assali, A

    S. Assali, A. Attiaoui, P. D. Vecchio, S. Mukherjee, J. Nicolas, and O. Moutanabbir, A Light-Hole Germanium Quantum Well on Silicon, Advanced Materials34, 2201192 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Y. H. Huo, B. J. Witek, S. Kumar, J. R. Cardenas, J. X. Zhang,N.Akopian,R.Singh,E.Zallo,R.Grifone,D.Kriegner, R. Trotta, F. Ding, J. Stangl, V. Zwiller, G. Bester, A. Rastelli, andO.G.Schmidt,Alight-holeexcitoninaquantumdot,Nature Phys10, 46 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Vrijen and E

    R. Vrijen and E. Yablonovitch, A spin-coherent semiconduc- tor photo-detector for quantum communication, Phys. E: Low- Dimens. Syst. Nanostructures10, 569 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Del Vecchio and O

    P. Del Vecchio and O. Moutanabbir, Light-hole gate-defined spin-orbit qubit, Phys. Rev. B107, L161406 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    P.DelVecchioandO.Moutanabbir,Light-holespinconfinedin germanium, Phys. Rev. B110, 045409 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Del Vecchio, S

    P. Del Vecchio, S. Bosco, D. Loss, and O. Moutanabbir, Fully tunable strong spin-orbit interactions in light hole germanium quantum channels (2025), arXiv:2506.14759

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A.V.Khaetskii, D.Loss,andL.Glazman,ElectronSpinDeco- herence in Quantum Dots due to Interaction with Nuclei, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 186802 (2002). 8

    2002

  8. [16]

    Fischer, W

    J. Fischer, W. A. Coish, D. V. Bulaev, and D. Loss, Spin deco- herence of a heavy hole coupled to nuclear spins in a quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B78, 155329 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Phys.: Condens

    J.Schliemann,A.Khaetskii,andD.Loss,Electronspindynam- ics in quantum dots and related nanostructures due to hyperfine interaction with nuclei, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter15, R1809 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    D. V. Bulaev and D. Loss, Electric Dipole Spin Resonance for Heavy Holes in Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 097202 (2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

    Machnikowski, K

    P. Machnikowski, K. Gawarecki, and Ł. Cywiński, Hyperfine interactionforholesinquantumdots: 𝑘·𝑝 model,Phys.Rev.B 100, 085305 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    J. M. Taylor, A. Imamoglu, and M. D. Lukin, Controlling a Mesoscopic Spin Environment by Quantum Bit Manipulation, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 246802 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem, Phys. Rev.94, 1498 (1954)

    1954

  14. [22]

    Jancu, R

    J.-M. Jancu, R. Scholz, F. Beltram, and F. Bassani, Empiri- caltight-bindingcalculationforcubicsemiconductors: General methodand materialparameters,Phys. Rev.B 57,6493 (1998)

    1998

  15. [23]

    M.Zieliński,M.Korkusiński,andP.Hawrylak,Atomistictight- binding theory of multiexciton complexes in a self-assembled InAs quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B81, 085301 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Gawarecki, A

    K. Gawarecki, A. Garbiec, J. Stanecki, and M. Zieliński, Mod- eling the g-factors, hyperfine interaction and optical properties of semiconductor QDs: the atomistic and eight-band𝑘· 𝑝 ap- proaches (2025), arXiv:2506.22380 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Gawarecki, J

    K. Gawarecki, J. Ziembicki, P. Scharoch, and R. Kudrawiec, Electronic and spectral properties of Ge1−𝑥Sn𝑥 quantum dots, J. Appl. Phys.135, 214303 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Band structure and carrier concentration of Germanium (Ge), https://www.ioffe.ru/SVA/NSM/Semicond/Ge/bandstr.html

  19. [27]

    Graf and P

    M. Graf and P. Vogl, Electromagnetic fields and dielectric re- sponse in empirical tight-binding theory, Phys. Rev. B51, 4940 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    T. B. Boykin and P. Vogl, Dielectric response of molecules in empiricaltight-bindingtheory,Phys.Rev.B 65,035202(2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    P.VoglandC.Strahberger,Self-similaropticalabsorptionspec- tra in high magnetic fields, Phys. Stat. Sol.234, 472 (2002)

    2002

  22. [30]

    X. Ma, G. W. Bryant, and M. F. Doty, Hole spins in an InAs/GaAs quantum dot molecule subject to lateral electric fields, Phys. Rev. B93, 245402 (2016)

    2016

  23. [31]

    R. M. Martin, Elastic Properties of ZnS Structure Semiconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B1, 4005 (1970)

    1970

  24. [32]

    D.S.P.Tanner,M.A.Caro,S.Schulz,andE.P.O’Reilly,Fully analyticvalenceforcefieldmodelfortheelasticandinnerelastic propertiesofdiamondandzincblendecrystals,Phys.Rev.B 100, 094112 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    C.Testelin,F.Bernardot,B.Eble,andM.Chamarro,Hole–spin dephasingtimeassociatedwithhyperfineinteractioninquantum dots, Phys. Rev. B79, 195440 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    E. A. Chekhovich, M. M. Glazov, A. B. Krysa, M. Hopkinson, P.Senellart,A.Lemaître,M.S.Skolnick,andA.I.Tartakovskii, Element-sensitive measurement of the hole–nuclear spin inter- action in quantum dots, Nature Phys9, 74 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    G.KresseandJ.Hafner,Abinitiomoleculardynamicsforliquid metals, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    G.KresseandJ.Furthmüller,Efficiencyofab-initiototalenergy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set, Computational Materials Science6, 15 (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    D.M.CeperleyandB.J.Alder,Groundstateoftheelectrongas by a stochastic method, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 566 (1980)

    1980

  31. [39]

    J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Self-interaction correction to density-functional approximations for many-electron systems, Phys. Rev. B23, 5048 (1981)

    1981

  32. [40]

    J. P. Perdew, M. Ernzerhof, and K. Burke, Rationale for mixing exactexchangewithdensityfunctionalapproximations,J.Chem. Phys.105, 9982 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    1999

  34. [42]

    Y.M.Niquet,D.Rideau,C.Tavernier,H.Jaouen,andX.Blase, Onsite matrix elements of the tight-binding Hamiltonian of a strained crystal: Application to silicon, germanium, and their alloys, Phys. Rev. B79, 245201 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Semicond.39, 061006 (2018)

    J.Zheng,Z.Liu,C.Xue,C.Li,Y.Zuo,B.Cheng,andQ.Wang, Recent progress in GeSn growth and GeSn-based photonic de- vices *, J. Semicond.39, 061006 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    M.P.Polak,P.Scharoch,andR.Kudrawiec,Theelectronicband structure of Ge1-xSnxin the full composition range: Indirect, direct,andinvertedgapsregimes,bandoffsets,andtheBurstein– Moss effect, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.50, 195103 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Kramer and A

    B. Kramer and A. MacKinnon, Localization: Theory and ex- periment, Rep. Prog. Phys.56, 1469 (1993)

    1993

  38. [46]

    B. Eble, C. Testelin, P. Desfonds, F. Bernardot, A. Balocchi, T.Amand,A.Miard,A.Lemaître,X.Marie,andM.Chamarro, Hole–Nuclear Spin Interaction in Quantum Dots, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 146601 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    J. H. Prechtel, A. V. Kuhlmann, J. Houel, A. Ludwig, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, and R. J. Warburton, Decoupling a hole spinqubitfromthenuclearspins,NatureMater 15,981(2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    M.Krzykowski,K.Gawarecki,andP.Machnikowski,Holespin- flip transitions in a self-assembled quantum dot, Phys. Rev. B 102, 205301 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Winkler,Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems(Springer, 2003)

    R. Winkler,Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two-Dimensional Electron and Hole Systems(Springer, 2003)

    2003

  42. [50]

    Bester, S

    G. Bester, S. Nair, and A. Zunger, Pseudopotential calculation of the excitonic fine structure of million-atom self-assembled In1−𝑥Ga𝑥As/GaAs quantum dots, Phys. Rev. B67, 161306 (2003)

    2003

  43. [51]

    D. S. P. Tanner, C. A. Broderick, A. C. Kirwan, S. Schulz, and E. P. O’Reilly, Fully analytic valence force fields for the relaxationofgroup-IVsemiconductoralloys: Elasticproperties of group-IV materials calculated from first principles (2021), arXiv:2110.11888 [cond-mat]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zheng, Vaspbandunfolding, https://github.com/ QijingZheng/VaspBandUnfolding

    Q. Zheng, Vaspbandunfolding, https://github.com/ QijingZheng/VaspBandUnfolding

  45. [53]

    Boguslawski and I

    P. Boguslawski and I. Gorczyca, Atomic-orbital interpretation of electronic structure of III-V semiconductors: GaAs versus AlAs, Semicond. Sci. Technol.9, 2169 (1994)

    1994

  46. [54]

    J.G.DíazandG.W.Bryant,Electronicandopticalfinestructure of GaAs nanocrystals: The role of𝑑 orbitals in a tight-binding approach, Phys. Rev. B73, 075329 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    M. F. Herbst, J. E. Avery, and A. Dreuw, Quantum chemistry with Coulomb Sturmians: Construction and convergence of Coulomb Sturmian basis sets at the Hartree-Fock level, Phys. Rev. A99, 012512 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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