Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Overcoming Quantum Resistivity Scaling in Nanoscale Interconnects Using Delafossite PdCoO2

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Layered oxide keeps near-bulk conductivity at 2 nm, beating copper

desk verdict A useful first-principles screening of PdCoO2 as an interconnect material, with a credible anisotropic-MFP mechanism and good bulk validation, but the 2-nm viability claim rests on an unshown thickness model and needs a referee's scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13573 v1 pith:NCASMAFR submitted 2025-08-19 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Seoung-Hun Kang , Youngjun Lee , Sangmoon Yoon , JongMok Ok , Mina Yoon , Ho Nyung Lee , Young-Kyun Kwon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords PdCoO2delafossiteinterconnectresistivityquantumconfinementmeanfreepathanisotropyelectron-phononscatteringnanoscaleelectronicsscaling
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the layered delafossite metal PdCoO2, whose structure alternates metallic and oxide planes, can replace copper in nanoscale interconnects because it loses far less conductivity when squeezed to nanometer thickness. The claim rests on a momentum-resolved calculation that separates electron velocities, lifetimes, and mean free paths by direction: PdCoO2 has roughly 15 nm mean free paths inside its conducting planes and 3 nm perpendicular to them, while copper is isotropic at about 22 nm. Under the same boundary conditions, including a 2 nm liner/diffusion barrier for copper, PdCoO2's resistivity stays close to its bulk value down to sub-30 nm and remains viable at 2 nm, whereas copper's resistivity rises sharply below about 40 nm. The authors also show that the calculated bulk resistivities and scaling curves track available measurements, and they propose the two slope changes in PdCoO2's wire resistivity, at 35 nm and 7 nm, as a signature of its anisotropic mean free paths. If the prediction holds, interconnect technology could keep scaling without paying copper's quantum-resistivity penalty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a momentum-resolved, direction-dependent transport model built from the conductivity tensor. For each electronic state it combines the Fermi velocity and the electron-phonon relaxation time into a mean free path vector; to compute a film or wire, it truncates that mean free path at the surface while keeping the bulk relaxation times. In PdCoO2 the mean free path separates into an in-plane component of about 15 nm and an out-of-plane component of about 3 nm. That anisotropy is what makes confinement act as a weak, direction-selective cut of electron paths rather than a uniform one, and it is what produces the predicted dual slope changes.

What would settle it

A decisive test is to grow aligned PdCoO2 films and wires at thicknesses or widths of 2, 5, 10, 20, and 35 nm and measure in-plane resistivity at 300 K. The model predicts near-bulk resistivity down to roughly 7-10 nm with the steep upturn only below that; a sharp upturn already at 20 nm, or 2 nm values higher than copper-with-liner resistivity, would falsify the boundary-truncation picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At room temperature, first-principles electron-phonon self-energy calculations put bulk in-plane resistivity of PdCoO2 at 2.7 microohm-cm, close to the measured 2.6, and bulk copper at 1.59 microohm-cm, close to the measured 1.73. When thickness is reduced, the momentum-resolved relaxation-time model predicts that copper's isotropic 22 nm mean free path makes resistivity climb steeply once film thickness or wire width falls below about 40 nm, whereas PdCoO2's short 3 nm out-of-plane mean free path suppresses the boundary-scattering channel perpendicular to the conducting planes. For square wires, the authors add a realistic 2 nm liner/diffusion barrier for copper but none for PdCoO2, since t

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on assuming that confinement down to 2 nm leaves the material's intrinsic electron-vibration scattering rates unchanged, so only the geometric cutting off of electron paths at surfaces matters; if confinement alters those rates, the claimed PdCoO2 advantage over copper would be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling prediction is correct, interconnect lines made of PdCoO2 can be patterned at sub-30 nm widths without the steep resistivity penalty that currently forces copper lines to be thickened or re-engineered.
  • Because PdCoO2 is already an oxide, it needs no separate diffusion barrier or liner, so the entire wire cross-section conducts instead of losing 2 nm on each side to copper's barrier.
  • The two slope changes, near 35 nm and 7 nm, give a design rule: in-plane confinement only begins to matter below 35 nm and out-of-plane confinement below 7 nm, so oriented films and wires retain bulk-like transport through most of the useful scaling range.
  • The same momentum-resolved calculation can be applied to other layered or delafossite conductors to screen them for interconnect use, not just PdCoO2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the predicted mechanism holds, the practical advantage depends on growing films with the conducting Pd planes parallel to the substrate; mis-oriented or polycrystalline grains would reintroduce out-of-plane boundary scattering and erase most of the gain.
  • The same logic implies a sharp lower bound: near or below the 3 nm out-of-plane mean free path, even PdCoO2 should begin to show a strong resistivity upturn, so the 'viable at 2 nm' claim sits close to the material's own confinement limit.
  • The theory-experiment gap the authors attribute to grain-boundary scattering could be tested directly: patterned wires with controlled grain size should show a resistivity difference that scales with inverse grain size, isolating the missing scattering term.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports first-principles electron-phonon calculations for bulk PdCoO2 and Cu, extracting Fermi-velocity anisotropies, relaxation times, and mean free paths, and then uses a momentum-resolved relaxation-time model from a companion preprint to compute thickness- and width-dependent resistivity of films and wires. The central claim is that, under identical boundary conditions including a 2 nm liner/barrier for Cu, PdCoO2 suppresses boundary scattering and preserves near-bulk in-plane conductivity down to sub-30 nm, remaining viable at 2 nm, with dual slope changes at ~35 nm and ~7 nm as a fingerprint of its anisotropic MFP.

Significance. If substantiated, the result is significant for interconnect scaling: it identifies a layered conductor that may outperform Cu under quantum confinement. The manuscript's genuine strengths are the bulk validation (calculated Cu resistivity 1.59 vs 1.73 microOhm-cm; PdCoO2 2.7 vs 2.6 microOhm-cm) and the physically plausible qualitative mechanism, namely that a strongly anisotropic MFP suppresses boundary scattering along the conducting planes. The dual-slope prediction is also a concrete, falsifiable output. However, the thickness-dependent results that carry the central claim come from a model that is neither derived nor tested in this manuscript; they must be treated as conditional until that model is exposed and its assumptions are checked.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II (last paragraph) and Fig. 3 caption] The momentum-resolved relaxation-time model used to produce Figs. 3 and 4 is only cited to the companion preprint, ref [27]; its equations, boundary conditions, and how bulk electron-phonon data are transformed into film/wire resistivities are not presented. Since the abstract's 'viable at 2 nm' and the dual-slope predictions are outputs of this model, the derivation is load-bearing. Please include the full formalism in the paper or SI, or explicitly label the 2-nm claim as an extrapolation of an unvalidated model. Without this, the central claim cannot be audited.
  2. [Section III, Fig. 4(b) and SI-S7] The model assumes that bulk electron-phonon relaxation times and matrix elements remain valid in films down to 2 nm, with boundary scattering imposed by truncating bulk mean free paths. The paper itself states that the theoretical PdCoO2 curve is lower than the experimental data because grain boundaries are excluded. This means an additional, likely size-dependent scattering mechanism is already significant at the measured thicknesses, yet no estimate of its contribution at 2 nm is provided. The claim that the scaling curves 'track available measurements' is therefore only qualitative; the quantitative agreement is with a lower envelope, not the data.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 4(c) and Conclusion] The dual slope changes at ~35 nm and ~7 nm are presented as a mechanistic fingerprint supporting the model, but they are predictions of the same model and cannot serve as independent confirmation. They should be framed as testable predictions, and the text should not imply that their existence validates the boundary-scattering treatment.
  4. [Abstract and Fig. 4(c)] The statement that PdCoO2 is 'remaining viable at 2 nm' is not operationally defined. No threshold resistivity or performance metric is given, and the calculated resistivities at 2 nm are not quoted in the text. The paper should either quantify what 'viable' means relative to Cu with liner/barrier at that width, or soften the claim to what the presented curves actually support (sub-30 nm near-bulk behavior).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] Typo: 'sucessfully' should be 'successfully'.
  2. [Section II] The sampling statement '10,000 points for q-space sampling' is unclear; specify whether these are random points, a uniform grid, or something else, and give the q-grid spacing.
  3. [Fig. 2(a) and text] The sentence 'directional velocity differences between the two materials are pronounced, reaching 0.48 x 10^6 m/s along x, 0.56 along y, and 1.1 along z' is ambiguous: are these differences or actual Fermi velocities? Such a high z-velocity for PdCoO2 would contradict the claimed anisotropy; clarify.
  4. [Fig. 4(a)] The panel label 'Thin film' appears over what is described in the text as bulk resistivity. Check the figure layout so the caption and panel labels are consistent.
  5. [General] The SI references are inconsistent ('SI-Fig.S1', 'SI-S7', 'SI-Fig.S6'). Use a single numbering scheme.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central 2-nm viability claim is imported from a self-cited companion model; bulk e-ph calculations are independent, but the thickness predictions are not.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section II (Computational Details); also Fig. 3 caption]
    "Finally, to quantify thickness-dependent resistivity effects in thin films and wires, we utilized our previously developed momentum-resolved relaxation-time approach27."

    The paper's headline predictions — near-bulk conductivity at 2 nm, dual slope changes at 35/7 nm, and superiority over Cu under confinement — are all produced by the model in ref. [27], which is an arXiv preprint by overlapping authors (Y. Lee, S.-H. Kang, Y.-K. Kwon). The model is not derived or described in this paper; it is simply cited. The Fig. 3 caption confirms that the film values were obtained with 'a momentum-resolved model based on bulk electron-phonon scattering data.' Thus the central claim reduces to an unverified output of a self-cited companion, rather than to a result established independently in this work.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Fig. 3 caption]
    "Thickness-dependent values for PdCoO2 films were obtained using a momentum-resolved model based on bulk electron-phonon scattering data."

    This line exposes the key assumption: bulk electron-phonon relaxation times and mean free paths are transferred unchanged to films down to 2 nm, and boundary scattering is represented by truncating these bulk MFPs. No derivation or validation of this truncation rule for 2-nm films is given here; the companion preprint [27] is cited as authority. The predicted 2-nm viability is therefore a direct consequence of this ansatz, not an independently derived first-principles result. The paper itself later concedes that the model 'assumes an ideal defect-free crystal and excludes contributions from grain boundaries (GBs),' further showing that the 2-nm conclusion rests on auxiliary assumptions rather than on the present calculation.

full rationale

The bulk electronic-structure and electron-phonon calculations for PdCoO2 and Cu are first-principles and are benchmarked against experimental bulk resistivity (2.7 vs 2.6 uOhm-cm for PdCoO2; 1.59 vs 1.73 for Cu), so that part of the paper has independent content. However, the paper's central quantitative claim — that PdCoO2 remains viable at 2 nm and outperforms Cu under quantum confinement — is generated almost entirely by a momentum-resolved relaxation-time model that is only cited to the authors' own companion preprint (arXiv:2508.08622), not derived or audited here. The Fig. 3 caption states explicitly that the film values rely on bulk electron-phonon scattering data, and the paper admits that the model omits grain boundaries and other imperfections, which are known to dominate at few-nanometer dimensions. The dual slope changes at 35 nm and 7 nm are also model outputs tied to the input MFPs rather than experimentally confirmed fingerprints. These issues are serious but do not represent a full tautology: the bulk physics and the qualitative anisotropy argument are legitimate first-principles content, and the thickness model is a self-consistent calculation rather than a fit to the thickness-dependent data. Hence a partial circularity score of 4 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes first-principles electron-phonon data (MFP, velocity, relaxation time) and applies a boundary-scattering model from a companion preprint. The main free input is the 2 nm Cu barrier thickness; the main unstated risk is the validity of using bulk e-ph lifetimes at 2 nm thickness.

free parameters (1)
  • Cu liner/barrier thickness = 2 nm
    Applied to Cu wires to model realistic interconnect geometry (refs 33-35); not fitted, but a hand-chosen input that lowers Cu's effective cross-section and therefore favors PdCoO2 in the comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PBE-DFT accurately describes the electronic structure and Fermi velocities of PdCoO2 and Cu
    Used throughout; no validation against more advanced functionals or experiment beyond resistivity comparisons.
  • domain assumption Electron-phonon coupling is the only intrinsic scattering mechanism; grain boundaries, impurities, and electron-electron scattering are negligible
    Stated in Section III/Conclusion; the theory-experiment gap is then attributed entirely to grain boundaries, which is an interpretation rather than a measured input.
  • ad hoc to paper Bulk electron-phonon relaxation times remain valid in films down to 2 nm, with boundary scattering imposed by truncating mean free paths
    Fig. 3 caption: 'Thickness-dependent values for PdCoO2 films were obtained using a momentum-resolved model based on bulk electron-phonon scattering data.' This ignores confinement-induced changes to e-ph coupling and is load-bearing for the results.
  • domain assumption The momentum-resolved model of ref [27] is correct and applicable
    Operational definition of the central method; not derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Overcoming Quantum Resistivity Scaling in Nanoscale Interconnects Using Delafossite PdCoO2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NCASMAFR

@misc{pith2026250813573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Overcoming Quantum Resistivity Scaling in Nanoscale Interconnects Using Delafossite PdCoO2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NCASMAFR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13573}
}
read the original abstract

Continued scaling into the sub 7 nm regime exacerbates quantum limited resistivity in Cu interconnects. We evaluated layered PdCoO2 and explicitly benchmarked it against Cu to identify mechanisms that maintain conductivity under confinement. Using a momentum resolved relaxation time formalism derived from the conductivity tensor, we link k and energy resolved velocities, life times, and mean free paths (MFPs) to thickness dependent resistivity for films and wires. PdCoO2 exhibits quasi 2D transport with high inplane velocities and strongly anisotropic MFPs (15 nm inplane, 3 nm outofplane near EF), whereas Cu shows an isotropic 22 nm MFP. Under identical boundary conditions including a realistic 2 nm liner/diffusion barrier for Cu, PdCoO2 displays suppressed boundary scattering and a much slower resistivity increase from bulk down to sub 30 nm, preserving near bulk conductivity and remaining viable at 2 nm. Thickness trends reveal dual slope changes in PdCoO2 (35 nm and 7 nm) set by anisotropic MFPs, contrasting with the single characteristic scale of Cu (40 nm). The calculated bulk values and scaling curves track available measurements for both materials. These results establish PdCoO2 as a scalable interconnect that outperforms Cu under quantum confinement and provide a quantitative framework to screen layered conductors for next generation nanoelectronic interconnects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Crystal structure and electronic properties of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Fermi velocity and electron-phonon relaxation times [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Thickness-dependent electronic transport proper [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. Thickness-dependent resistivity of PdCoO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Momentum-Resolved Relaxation-Time Approach for Size-Dependent Conductivity in Anisotropic Metallic Films

    author author Y. Lee , author J. S. \ Lee , author S. Lee , author S.-H. \ Kang , \ and\ author Y.-K. \ Kwon ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv:2508.08622 \ ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    author author H. H. \ Radamson , author Y. Miao , author Z. Zhou , author Z. Wu , author Z. Kong , author J. Gao , author H. Yang , author Y. Ren , author Y. Zhang , author J. Shi , author J. Xiang , author H. Cui , author B. Lu , author J. Li , author J. Liu , author H. Lin , author H. Xu , author M. Li , author J. Cao , author C. He , author X. Duan , a...

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Badawy \ and\ author E

    author author G. Badawy \ and\ author E. P. \ Bakkers ,\ 10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00656 journal journal Chemical reviews \ volume 124 ,\ pages 2419 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00656 2024

  4. [3]

    Pan \ and\ author A

    author author C. Pan \ and\ author A. Naeemi ,\ 10.1109/LED.2013.2291783 journal journal IEEE Electron Device Letters \ volume 35 ,\ pages 250 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page arXiv 2013

  5. [4]

    author author R. L. \ Graham , author G. B. \ Alers , author T. Mountsier , author N. Shamma , author S. Dhuey , author S. Cabrini , author R. H. \ Geiss , author D. T. \ Read , \ and\ author S. Peddeti ,\ 10.1063/1.3292022 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 96 ,\ pages 042116 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3292022 2010

  6. [5]

    Gall ,\ 10.1063/1.5133671 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 127 ,\ pages 050901 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    author author D. Gall ,\ 10.1063/1.5133671 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 127 ,\ pages 050901 ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5133671 2020

  7. [6]

    author author J. H. \ Moon , author E. Jeong , author S. Kim , author T. Kim , author E. Oh , author K. Lee , author H. Han , \ and\ author Y. K. \ Kim ,\ https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202207321 journal journal Advanced Science \ volume 10 ,\ pages 2207321 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1002/advs.202207321 2023

  8. [7]

    Steinh \"o gl , author G

    author author W. Steinh \"o gl , author G. Schindler , author G. Steinlesberger , author M. Traving , \ and\ author M. Engelhardt ,\ 10.1063/1.1834982 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 97 ,\ pages 023706 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1834982 2004

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    \ Kim , author J

    author author J.-S. \ Kim , author J. Kim , author D.-J. \ Yang , author J. Shim , author L. H. \ Hu , author C. Lee , author J. Kim , \ and\ author S. W. \ Kim ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 386 ,\ pages eadk6189 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024

  2. [9]

    Harada , author Z

    author author T. Harada , author Z. P. L. \ Ang , author Y. Sakakibara , author T. Nagai , \ and\ author Y. Masahiro ,\ 10.1063/5.0260219 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 126 ,\ pages 221902 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    2025 doi

  3. [10]

    author author R. D. \ Shannon , author D. B. \ Rogers , \ and\ author C. T. \ Prewitt ,\ @noop journal journal Inorganic Chemistry \ volume 10 ,\ pages 713 ( year 1971 ) NoStop

    1971

  4. [11]

    author author A. P. \ Mackenzie ,\ @noop journal journal Reports on Progress in Physics \ volume 80 ,\ pages 032501 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  5. [12]

    Eyert , author R

    author author V. Eyert , author R. Frésard , \ and\ author A. Maignan ,\ 10.1021/cm703404e journal journal Chemistry of Materials \ volume 20 ,\ pages 2370 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  6. [13]

    Wu , author I

    author author X. Wu , author I. Asselberghs , author M. Politou , author A. Contino , author I. Radu , author C. Huyghebaert , author Z. Tokei , author B. Soree , author S. De Gendt , author S. De Feyter , \ and\ author M. Heyns ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mee.2016.10.013 jou...

    2016 doi

  7. [14]

    Brahlek , author G

    author author M. Brahlek , author G. Rimal , author J. M. \ Ok , author D. Mukherjee , author A. R. \ Mazza , author Q. Lu , author H. N. \ Lee , author T. Z. \ Ward , author R. R. \ Unocic , author G. Eres , \ and\ author S. Oh ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.3.093401 journal jou...

    2019 doi

  8. [15]

    Harada , author K

    author author T. Harada , author K. Fujiwara , \ and\ author A. Tsukazaki ,\ 10.1063/1.5027579 journal journal APL Materials \ volume 6 ,\ pages 046107 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018 doi

  9. [16]

    author author J. M. \ Ok , author S. Yoon , author A. R. \ Lupini , author P. Ganesh , author M. F. \ Chisholm , \ and\ author H. N. \ Lee ,\ @noop journal journal Scientific Reports \ volume 20 ( year 2020 a ) NoStop

    2020

  10. [17]

    author author J. M. \ Ok , author M. Brahlek , author W. S. \ Choi , author K. M. \ Roccapriore , author M. F. \ Chisholm , author S. Kim , author C. Sohn , author E. Skoropata , author S. Yoon , author J. S. \ Kim , \ and\ author H. N. \ Lee ,\ @noop journal journal APL Mater...

    2020

  11. [18]

    Kohn \ and\ author L

    author author W. Kohn \ and\ author L. J. \ Sham ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A1133 journal journal Physical Review \ volume 140 ,\ pages A1133 ( year 1965 ) NoStop

    1965 doi

  12. [19]

    Hohenberg \ and\ author W

    author author P. Hohenberg \ and\ author W. Kohn ,\ 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B864 journal journal Physical Review \ volume 136 ,\ pages B864 ( year 1964 ) NoStop

    1964 doi

  13. [20]

    Giannozzi , author S

    author author P. Giannozzi , author S. Baroni , author N. Bonini , author M. Calandra , author R. Car , author C. Cavazzoni , author D. Ceresoli , author G. L. \ Chiarotti , author M. Cococcioni , author I. Dabo , author A. D. \ Corso , author S. d. \ Gironcoli , author S. Fab...

    2009

  14. [21]

    author author J. P. \ Perdew , author K. Burke , \ and\ author M. Ernzerhof ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.3865 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 77 ,\ pages 3865 ( year 1996 ) NoStop

    1996 doi

  15. [22]

    Baroni , author S

    author author S. Baroni , author S. de Gironcoli , author A. Dal Corso , \ and\ author P. Giannozzi ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.73.515 journal journal Rev. Mod. Phys. \ volume 73 ,\ pages 515 ( year 2001 ) NoStop

    2001 doi

  16. [23]

    Pizzi , author V

    author author G. Pizzi , author V. Vitale , author R. Arita , author S. Blügel , author F. Freimuth , author G. Géranton , author M. Gibertini , author D. Gresch , author C. Johnson , author T. Koretsune , author J. Ibañez-Azpiroz , author H. Lee , author J.-M. \ Lihm , author...

    2020

  17. [24]

    Poncé , author E

    author author S. Poncé , author E. Margine , author C. Verdi , \ and\ author F. Giustino ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2016.07.028 journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 209 ,\ pages 116 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  18. [25]

    author author J. I. \ Mustafa , author M. Bernardi , author J. B. \ Neaton , \ and\ author S. G. \ Louie ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.94.155105 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 94 ,\ pages 155105 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  19. [26]

    author author G. K. \ Madsen \ and\ author D. J. \ Singh ,\ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2006.03.007 journal journal Computer Physics Communications \ volume 175 ,\ pages 67 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    author author J. M. \ Ok , author K. Kang , author J. Hyun , author C.-Y. \ Lim , author S. Gim , author J. Hwang , author J. D. \ Denlinger , author M. Cheon , author B. Regmi , author J.-E. \ Lee , author H. Ryu , author S. J. \ Kim , author Y. Lee , author Y.-H. \ Kim , aut...

    2024 doi

  21. [29]

    Rimal , author C

    author author G. Rimal , author C. Schmidt , author H. Hijazi , author L. C. \ Feldman , author Y. Liu , author E. Skoropata , author J. Lapano , author M. Brahlek , author D. Mukherjee , author R. R. \ Unocic , author M. F. \ Chisholm , author Y. Sun , author H. Yu , author S...

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    author author J. S. \ Chawla \ and\ author D. Gall ,\ 10.1063/1.3684976 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 111 ,\ pages 043708 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Khojier \ and\ author H

    author author K. Khojier \ and\ author H. Savaloni ,\ @noop journal journal International Journal of Nano Dimension \ volume 3 ,\ pages 217 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013

  24. [32]

    author author CRC Handbook ,\ @noop title CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics ,\ edition 85th \ ed.,\ edited by\ editor D. R. \ Lide \ ( publisher CRC Press ,\ year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004

  25. [33]

    author author N. T. \ Cuong \ and\ author S. Okada ,\ 10.1063/1.4979038 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 110 ,\ pages 131601 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Li , author X

    author author L. Li , author X. Chen , author C.-H. \ Wang , author J. Cao , author S. Lee , author A. Tang , author C. Ahn , author S. Singha Roy , author M. S. \ Arnold , \ and\ author H.-S. P. \ Wong ,\ @noop journal journal ACS nano \ volume 9 ,\ pages 8361 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015

  27. [35]

    Zhao , author Z

    author author Y. Zhao , author Z. Liu , author T. Sun , author L. Zhang , author W. Jie , author X. Wang , author Y. Xie , author Y. H. \ Tsang , author H. Long , \ and\ author Y. Chai ,\ @noop journal journal ACS nano \ volume 8 ,\ pages 12601 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014

  28. [36]

    \ Lo , author M

    author author C.-L. \ Lo , author M. Catalano , author K. K. \ Smithe , author L. Wang , author S. Zhang , author E. Pop , author M. J. \ Kim , \ and\ author Z. Chen ,\ @noop journal journal npj 2D Materials and Applications \ volume 1 ,\ pages 42 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  29. [37]

    author author P. J. W. M. \ Moll , author P. Kushwaha , author N. Nandi , author B. Schmidt , \ and\ author A. P. \ Mackenzie ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 351 ,\ pages 1061 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.