Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Extended Hubbard Model realized in 2D clusters of molecular anions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A four-molecule cluster of PTCDA anions on a NaCl bilayer behaves as an extended Hubbard model, with the electron addition/removal energies and the asymmetric site occupations set by inter-site repulsions and site-energy offsets rather…

desk verdict A solid experimental platform paper with a transparent model, but the key parameter extraction is fit-in and the ground-state charge number is inferred, so the central claim is conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05868 v1 pith:PUNBOFK2 submitted 2025-09-06 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.str-el

Oliver Tong , Katherine A. Cochrane , Bingkai Yuan , Tanya Roussy , Mona Berciu , Sarah A. Burke This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.str-el
keywords extendedHubbardmodelmolecularanionsPTCDAelectrostaticforcespectroscopyclusterselectronaddition/removalenergiessite-resolvedchargestrongcorrelations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that two types of four-molecule PTCDA anion clusters—an asymmetric "diamond" and a symmetric "clover"—are quantitatively described by an extended Hubbard model. In the diamond cluster, electron addition occurs at 0.15 eV and removal at 0.21 eV, a 0.36 eV gap far below the 1.4 eV single-molecule Hubbard U, and the equilibrium charge is unevenly distributed, with the two B sites holding more negative charge than the two A sites. The model reproduces these observations only when distinct inter-site Coulomb terms ($V$, $V_{BB}$, $V_{AA}$) and site-energy offsets ($\epsilon_A$, $\epsilon_B$) are included, while $U$ merely prevents double occupancy. If right, this makes molecular anion clusters a tunable experimental platform for fermionic Hubbard models in a regime where non-local interactions, not $U$, control the physics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the extended Hubbard Hamiltonian in Eq. (1), defined on a four-site diamond geometry. It adds to the standard nearest-neighbor hopping $t$ and on-site repulsion $U$ three types of non-local terms: diagonal hoppings $t_{BB}$ (between the two B sites) and $t_{AA}$ (between the two A sites); site-energy offsets $\epsilon_{A/B} = \epsilon + E_{P,A/B}$ capturing polarization differences; and inter-site Coulomb repulsions $V$ (nearest-neighbor), $V_{BB}$ (B-B diagonal), and $V_{AA}$ (A-A diagonal). The model is solved by exact diagonalization in the occupation-number basis over all spin partitions, yielding ground-state energies $E_N$ for each total occupation $N$; fitting these to the EFS jump energies and the surface-potential-derived occupations fixes $V$, $V_{BB}$, $V_{AA}$, and $N_g = 2$. The load-bearing mechanism is that these non-local terms lower the energy of specific charge configurations, thereby controlling both the transition energies and the site-resolved partial occupations, with $U$ only forbidding double occupancy.

What would settle it

Measure the EFS jump positions on the same diamond cluster while systematically varying the tip–sample distance and oscillation amplitude; genuine molecular addition/removal energies should be independent of these parameters, whereas tip-induced charging dynamics would shift the jumps with coupling strength. Alternatively, independently determine the cluster's ground-state occupation (e.g., through single-electron capacitance or a different charge-sensing method) and check whether it is indeed $N_g = 2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the large-$U$ limit ($t \ll U$), the charge-state transitions and occupation asymmetry of the diamond cluster are governed by the extended terms of the Hubbard Hamiltonian, not by $U$ itself. With $U = 1.4$ eV, $\epsilon_B = 0.485$ eV, $\epsilon_A = 0.462$ eV, $V = 0.315$ eV, $V_{BB} = 0.281$ eV, $V_{AA} = 0.247$ eV, and $t = 20$ meV (with $t_{AA} = t_{BB} = 0$), the model matches the measured single-electron addition (0.15 eV) and removal (0.21 eV) energies and the site-resolved surface-potential maps for $N = 1$, $2$, $3$ charge states, assuming a ground-state occupation $N_g = 2$. Notably, the occupation asymmetry reverses between $N = 2$ (B sites more occupied) and $N = 3$ (A sites more occupied), a feature driven by the cross-cluster hoppings and inter-site potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the EFS frequency-shift jumps directly equal the single-electron addition and removal energies of an isolated cluster, and that the cluster's ground state holds exactly two electrons ($N_g = 2$); the paper states that "the value of $N_g$ is not known from the experiment" and selects $N_g = 2$ because $N_g = 3$ fails the imposed occupation and gap constraints.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same exact-diagonalization-plus-EFS approach can be applied to larger and differently shaped molecular clusters, allowing experimental exploration of a wider phase space of extended Hubbard models.
  • The inter-site potentials and site-energy offsets are tunable through molecule choice, substrate (e.g., different ionic salts), and film thickness, so the ratios $V/U$ and $\epsilon/U$ could be varied systematically.
  • The demonstration that non-local terms, not $U$, control charge-state transitions in the strongly localized limit suggests that small molecular clusters can reveal correlation physics missed by the single-band Hubbard model alone.
  • Site-resolved EFS maps provide a direct readout of partial occupations for each charge state, enabling quantitative comparison with exact-diagonalization predictions across a range of parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $N_g = 2$ assignment is confirmed, the diamond cluster is effectively a two-electron (or two-hole) plaquette; the same geometry might exhibit spin correlations or charge ordering that could be probed with spin-sensitive scanning probes, a direction the paper mentions but does not pursue.
  • The predicted reversal of occupation asymmetry between $N = 2$ and $N = 3$ (B sites more occupied vs. A sites more occupied) is a sharp, testable fingerprint; a quantitative conversion of measured surface potential to absolute charge could confirm it directly.
  • For larger arrays of such anion clusters, the EFS technique could map the boundary between charge-ordered and delocalized phases as a function of $V/U$ and site-energy disorder, effectively realizing a digital-twin experiment for extended Hubbard phase diagrams.
  • The result implies that in this platform the intersite repulsions act as the dominant energy scale for charge dynamics, so cluster-based simulators may need to include these terms explicitly rather than treating the Hubbard model as the effective theory.
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 scanning tunneling microscopy, non-contact atomic force microscopy, and electrostatic force spectroscopy measurements on clusters of four PTCDA molecular anions on NaCl/Ag(111), focusing on a C2-symmetric 'diamond' cluster whose EFS spectra show bias-dependent frequency-shift jumps at site-dependent voltages. The authors model the cluster with a four-site extended Hubbard Hamiltonian containing on-site U, nearest-neighbor and diagonal intersite Coulomb repulsions V, VBB, VAA, site-energy offsets εA, εB, and nearest-neighbor plus cross-cluster hoppings t, tAA, tBB. Using exact diagonalization, they determine parameters by requiring the model's electron addition/removal energies to match the EFS jump positions and by imposing site-occupation asymmetries observed in the surface-potential maps. They conclude that, in the large-U limit, the occupation pattern and transition energies are controlled by the non-local site potentials and intersite repulsions rather than by U, and that such molecular-anion clusters are promising platforms for simulating extended Hubbard models.

Significance. If the extracted parameters and their interpretation are independently confirmed, the work would be a valuable experimental realization of an extended Hubbard model in a small molecular cluster, with concrete values for the intersite Coulomb terms (V≈0.315 eV, VBB≈0.281 eV, VAA≈0.247 eV) and a clear demonstration that non-U terms can dominate in the t<<U regime. The manuscript's strengths include a transparently specified Hamiltonian, exact diagonalization rather than approximate methods, an explicit exploration of the tAA/tBB dependence in Fig. 3(d)–(f), and an honest acknowledgment that Ng is not known from experiment and that the surface-potential-to-charge conversion is qualitative. These strengths make the work potentially significant, but the experimental-model link currently contains a circular step and several untested assumptions, so the significance is conditional on additional validation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II B (Model details)] The two transition energies E∆N=±1 are used as target values in the constrained optimization: the paper states, 'A constrained optimization algorithm was used to identify the values of V, VAA and VBB that give the correct values of E∆N=±1.' Therefore, the subsequent agreement between the calculated and measured addition/removal energies for this cluster is guaranteed by construction and cannot serve as independent confirmation of the model. Please provide an out-of-sample test or cross-validation—for example, predicting the clover-cluster energy gap using the same intersite potentials, or a quantitative prediction of the N=3 site-resolved occupation from an independent charge calibration—before claiming that the transition energies are well described.
  2. [§II B and §II C (Ng assignment)] The paper explicitly states that 'the value of Ng is not known from the experiment,' and Ng=2 is selected because Ng=3 fails the imposed occupation and gap constraints. This makes the ground-state electron number an inference from the same data that are used to fit the model, rather than an independently measured quantity. The extracted values of V, VBB, and VAA, the assignment of the equilibrium EFS segment to N=2, and the central conclusion that intersite potentials control the occupation all rely on this inferred Ng. Please either provide an independent measurement of the cluster charge state (for example, Kelvin-probe or single-electron capacitance measurements) or, failing that, quantify how the fitted parameters and the qualitative conclusions would change if Ng=1 or Ng=3 were assumed, and state this limitation prominently in the Discussion.
  3. [§I (Experimental details) and §II B] The EFS frequency-shift jumps are interpreted directly as the isolated-cluster addition and removal energies E(Ng+1)-E(Ng) and E(Ng-1)-E(Ng). However, in EFS on thin insulating films, jump positions can be shifted by tip-induced band bending and cantilever-tunneling coupling (see references [24-26]), and the paper acknowledges this coupling only qualitatively. Please provide a quantitative estimate of tip-induced electrostatic shifts or a control measurement (for example, varying the tip excursion or set-point) to justify treating the jump voltages as ground-state-to-ground-state transition energies of the isolated cluster.
  4. [§II C (Discussion)] The manuscript asserts that 'the behaviour observed does not depend on U' and that occupation asymmetry is 'independent of U' in the abstract, but the numerical study is performed at a single value of U=1.4 eV. Since this universal-in-U claim is central to the paper's message, please provide a sensitivity analysis over a physically reasonable range of U (for example, 1.2–1.6 eV) showing that the site-occupation asymmetries and the ordering of the addition/removal energies are unchanged, with t<<U maintained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo in the abstract: 'asymmetric hoping terms' should be 'asymmetric hopping terms'.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'Witht << U' is missing a space; it should read 'With t << U'.
  3. [§II B, Eq. (1)] The sign convention for εA and εB is confusing: the Hamiltonian contains −εB( n1+n3 )−εA( n2+n4 ), yet the numerical values are given as positive (εA=0.462 eV, εB=0.485 eV). Please clarify whether these are binding energies measured relative to the Fermi level or orbital energies, and how the sign relates to the EFS jump voltages.
  4. [Fig. 3] The color scale and the labels 'nB<nA' in panels (b) and (c) of Figure 3 are difficult to parse; the text says the required sign of ⟨nB⟩−⟨nA⟩ is positive in (b) and negative in (c), but the figure caption does not explain the color bar or the overlaid symbols. Please make the sign convention and the plot axes explicit.
  5. [§II C (Discussion)] The statement that the cross-cluster hopping parameters 'allow for delocalization of a single electron across two sites, lowering the overall energy' would be more convincing with a direct energy comparison, showing the energy gain from nonzero tAA/tBB relative to the case tAA=tBB=0.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Transition-energy and occupation-asymmetry agreements are partly guaranteed by the fitting constraints, leaving the independent content to the site-resolved maps and geometric parameter estimates.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Model details (Section B), equations defining EΔN=±1 and the constrained optimization paragraph]
    "For the correct parameters, these must match the experimentally measured energy cost of adding (0.15±0.01eV) and removing (0.21±0.01eV) one electron determined from the jump positions in the ‘Diamond’ cluster. ... A constrained optimization algorithm was used to identify the values of V,VAA and VBB that give the correct values of E∆N=±1"

    The two EFS jump energies are the objective of the constrained optimization, not independent outputs of the model. The abstract's claim that 'transition energies are well described' therefore restates the fitting constraint rather than a prediction. The independent content is limited to the occupation distributions, the rejection of Ng=3, and the comparison of the fitted V, VBB, VAA values with geometry-based electrostatic estimates; the transition-energy agreement itself is guaranteed by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Model details (Section B), 'Of all these possible values...' paragraph]
    "we then kept only those that also produced the correct electron distributions. Specifically, we require that ⟨nB⟩>⟨nA⟩, i.e. there is a higher average occupation on the B molecules (sites 1,3) than on the A molecules (sites 2,4) if N=Ng, while ⟨nA⟩>⟨nB⟩ when N=Ng+1, as these were key features of the experimental observations shown in Fig. 2."

    The model is filtered so that the two measured occupation-asymmetry inequalities are satisfied, and the later statement in the Discussion that the model 'nicely reproduces the charge asymmetry at equilibrium' is therefore not an independent confirmation of those specific features. The same inequalities also select Ng=2 over Ng=3 because the required gap and occupation conditions are imposed together. Some independent content remains in the finer site-resolved maps and the geometric electrostatic estimates, but the coarse occupation asymmetries presented as agreement are inputs to the parameter selection, so this part of the central claim is circular to that extent.

full rationale

The derivation is not self-contained as a predictive test of the transition energies: the constrained optimization explicitly fits V, VBB, and VAA so that EΔN=±1 match the two EFS jump energies, so the abstract's 'transition energies are well described' is a restatement of the fit target. Likewise, the occupation-asymmetry inequalities are imposed as parameter-selection filters and then cited as reproduced features in Fig. 4. The paper does not hide these constraints, and substantial non-circular content remains: the selected interaction parameters are compared with independent geometry-based electrostatic estimates, the Ng=2 solution is found only after rejecting Ng=3, the hopping-parameter dependence is explored after the fit, and the finer site-resolved VSP maps are not all individually constrained. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem was found. The circularity is therefore partial, confined to the transition-energy and coarse-asymmetry 'agreements' that are guaranteed by construction, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on six adjusted numbers: three intersite repulsions fit to the measured charging energies, one hopping chosen as 20 meV, and two cross-cluster hoppings set to zero in the main fit, plus the inferred ground-state occupancy. The on-site U and site energies are inherited from prior single-molecule work. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • V (nearest-neighbor intersite repulsion) = 0.315 ± 0.001 eV (also 0.313 ± 0.003 in first pass)
    Optimized to reproduce the measured electron addition and removal energies EΔN=±1; central to the energy-gap agreement.
  • VBB (diagonal B-B repulsion) = 0.281 ± 0.002 eV
    Optimized along with V and VAA; constrained further by the requirement that ⟨nB⟩>⟨nA⟩ at N=2 and the opposite at N=3.
  • VAA (diagonal A-A repulsion) = 0.247 ± 0.006 eV
    Optimized along with V and VBB; same occupation constraints as VBB.
  • t (nearest-neighbor hopping) = 0.02 eV (set, not fitted)
    Set to 20 meV for convenience while fitting the V parameters; the paper argues results are insensitive to small t.
  • tAA and tBB (cross-cluster hoppings) = 0 eV in the main fit; varied up to t in later analysis
    Set to zero during V-parameter extraction; later shown to affect the N=3 occupation asymmetry qualitatively.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PTCDA on NaCl(2ML)/Ag(111) carries a stable mono-anion with one electron in a molecular orbital (SOMO), so each molecule maps to a single Hubbard site.
    Basis for mapping molecules to Hubbard sites; supported by prior work [28,29] and by the observed STS SOMO/SUMO states.
  • domain assumption The on-site repulsion U=1.4 eV and site energies εB=0.485 eV, εA=0.462 eV are taken as known inputs from prior single-molecule measurements and electrostatic calculations, not re-derived here.
    Stated in Model details; these values set the large-U regime.
  • domain assumption EFS frequency-shift jumps correspond to reversible single-electron charging of the cluster, and the jump bias equals the charging energy EΔN=±1 relative to EF.
    Required to map experimental jumps (Clover: 0.35 V addition, -0.23 V removal; Diamond: 0.15 V, -0.21 V) to model energy differences.
  • ad hoc to paper The ground-state electron number of the diamond cluster is N_g=2.
    The authors state N_g is not known from experiment; N_g=2 is selected because N_g=3 solutions fail the imposed occupation and gap constraints. If wrong, the extracted parameters change.
  • domain assumption The hopping parameters t=20 meV and tAA=tBB=0 are negligible in the V-parameter fitting stage.
    Justified by order-of-magnitude separation (t ~ 20 meV vs V ~ 300 meV); later analysis shows the qualitative conclusions survive small tBB>tAA.
  • domain assumption Each molecule is described by a single spinful orbital, and the substrate and tip act only as an electron reservoir without renormalizing the model parameters.
    Standard for molecular Hubbard mapping; ignores possible orbital degeneracy (near-degenerate LUMO/LUMO+1 noted in STS) and tip-induced potential shifts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended Hubbard Model realized in 2D clusters of molecular anions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PUNBOFK2

@misc{pith2026250905868,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended Hubbard Model realized in 2D clusters of molecular anions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PUNBOFK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05868}
}
abstract

The Hubbard model, despite its simplicity, is remarkably successful at describing numerous many-body phenomena. However, due to the small class of problems which can be solved exactly, there has been substantial interest in quantum simulations of extended Hubbard models to in turn, simulate materials and the interaction-driven phases they host. Here, we study small clusters of molecular anions of 3,4,9,10-perylene tetracarboxylic dianhydride on NaCl bilayers on Ag(111) using non-contact Atomic Force Microscopy, Electrostatic Force Spectroscopy, and Scanning Tunnelling Microscopy and Spectroscopy, and show that the occupation and transition energies are well described by an extended Hubbard model. In particular, asymmetric clusters of four molecules require the addition of differing inter-site electrostatic interaction terms and on-site potentials, as well as asymmetric hoping terms. With $t<<U$, occupation asymmetry is driven by these terms, independent of U. The good agreement between the model and the data indicate such molecular anion clusters could be used to probe larger systems and a more varied phase space of realistic fermionic Hubbard models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05868 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. PTCDA clusters on NaCl bilayer on Ag(111). (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Surface potential measurements of “Diamond” (a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) 4-site extended Hubbard model mapping onto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Charge occupation and excitations for the asymmetric “diamond” model and comparison to experimental data. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    J. Hubbard, Electron correlations in narrow energy bands, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences276, 238 (1963)

    1963

  2. [2]

    Ishii and S

    Y. Ishii and S. Sugano, Electronic States and Geometrical Structures of Hubbard Clusters, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan53, 3895 (1984)

    work page 1984

  3. [3]

    Callaway, D

    J. Callaway, D. P. Chen, and R. Tang, The Hubbard model for small clusters, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik D Atoms, Molecules and Clusters3, 91 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    Dutta, M

    O. Dutta, M. Gajda, P. Hauke, M. Lewenstein, D.- S. L¨ uhmann, B. A. Malomed, T. Sowi´ nski, and J. Za- krzewski, Non-standard Hubbard models in optical lat- tices: a review, Reports on Progress in Physics78, 066001 (2015), 1406.0181

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Y. Tang, L. Li, T. Li, Y. Xu, S. Liu, K. Barmak, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. H. MacDonald, J. Shan, and K. F. Mak, Simulation of Hubbard model physics in WSe2/WS2 moir´ e superlattices, Nature579, 353 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, L. Xian, A. Georges, A. J. Millis, J. Hone, C. R. Dean, D. N. Basov, A. N. Pa- supathy, and A. Rubio, Moir´ e heterostructures as a condensed-matter quantum simulator, Nature Physics 17, 155 (2021), 2011.12638

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    E. Manousakis, A Quantum-Dot Array as Model for Copper-Oxide Superconductors: A Dedicated Quantum Simulator for the Many-Fermion Problem, Journal of Low Temperature Physics126, 1501 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Barthelemy and L

    P. Barthelemy and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Quantum Dot Systems: a versatile platform for quantum simulations, Annalen der Physik525, 808 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Hsiao, P

    T.-K. Hsiao, P. C. Fari˜ na, S. D. Oosterhout, D. Jirovec, X. Zhang, C. J. v. Diepen, W. I. L. Lawrie, C.-A. Wang, A. Sammak, G. Scappucci, M. Veldhorst, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Exciton Transport in a Ger- manium Quantum Dot Ladder, Physical Review X14, 011048 (20...

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Salfi, J

    J. Salfi, J. A. Mol, R. Rahman, G. Klimeck, M. Y. Simmons, L. C. L. Hollenberg, and S. Rogge, Quantum simulation of the Hubbard model with dopant atoms in silicon, Nature Communications7, 11342 (2016), 1507.06125

    2016 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J. P. Dehollain, U. Mukhopadhyay, V. P. Michal, Y. Wang, B. Wunsch, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, M. S. Rudner, E. Demler, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Nagaoka ferromagnetism observed in a quantum dot plaquette, Nature579, 528 (2020), 1904.05680

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Kiczynski, S

    M. Kiczynski, S. K. Gorman, H. Geng, M. B. Donnelly, Y. Chung, Y. He, J. G. Keizer, and M. Y. Simmons, En- gineering topological states in atom-based semiconductor quantum dots, Nature606, 694 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Barends, L

    R. Barends, L. Lamata, J. Kelly, L. Garc´ ıa-´Alvarez, A. G. Fowler, A. Megrant, E. Jeffrey, T. C. White, D. Sank, J. Y. Mutus, B. Campbell, Y. Chen, Z. Chen, B. Chiaro, A. Dunsworth, I.-C. Hoi, C. Neill, P. J. J. O’Malley, C. Quintana, P. Roushan, A. Vainsencher, J. Wenner, E...

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Damascelli, Z

    A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Angle- resolved photoemission studies of the cuprate supercon- ductors, Reviews of Modern Physics75, 473 (2003), cond-mat/0208504

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sch¨ onenberger and S

    C. Sch¨ onenberger and S. F. Alvarado, Observation of sin- gle charge carriers by force microscopy, Physical Review Letters65, 3162 (1990)

    1990

  8. [16]

    M. T. Woodside and P. L. McEuen, Scanned Probe Imag- ing of Single-Electron Charge States in Nanotube Quan- tum Dots, Science296, 1098 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Cockins, Y

    L. Cockins, Y. Miyahara, S. D. Bennett, A. A. Clerk, S. Studenikin, P. Poole, A. Sachrajda, and P. Grutter, Energy levels of few-electron quantum dots imaged and characterized by atomic force microscopy, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of A...

    2010

  10. [18]

    Gross, F

    L. Gross, F. Mohn, P. Liljeroth, J. Repp, F. J. Giessibl, and G. Meyer, Measuring the charge state of an adatom with noncontact atomic force microscopy, Science324, 1428 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Steurer, S

    W. Steurer, S. Fatayer, L. Gross, and G. Meyer, Probe- based measurement of lateral single-electron transfer be- tween individual molecules, Nature Communications6, 8353 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Scheuerer, L

    P. Scheuerer, L. L. Patera, and J. Repp, Manipulating and Probing the Distribution of Excess Electrons in an Electrically Isolated Self-Assembled Molecular Structure, Nano Letters20, 1839 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    F. Mohn, L. Gross, N. Moll, and G. Meyer, Imaging the charge distribution within a single molecule, Nature Nan- otechnology7, 227 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    L. L. Patera, S. Fatayer, J. Repp, and L. Gross, Probing Molecular Properties at Atomic Length Scale Using Charge-State Control, Chemical Reviews 8 10.1021/acs.chemrev.4c00899 (2025)

    2025 doi

  15. [23]

    Steurer, J

    W. Steurer, J. Repp, L. Gross, I. Scivetti, M. Persson, and G. Meyer, Manipulation of the Charge State of Sin- gle Au Atoms on Insulating Multilayer Films, Physical Review Letters114, 036801 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Ondr´ aˇ cek, P

    M. Ondr´ aˇ cek, P. Hapala, and P. Jel´ ınek, Charge-state dynamics in electrostatic force spectroscopy, Nanotech- nology27, 274005 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Koci´ c, P

    N. Koci´ c, P. Weiderer, S. Keller, S. Decurtins, S.-X. Liu, and J. Repp, Periodic Charging of Individual Molecules Coupled to the Motion of an Atomic Force Microscopy Tip, Nano Letters15, 4406 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Koci´ c, S

    N. Koci´ c, S. Decurtins, S.-X. Liu, and J. Repp, Forces from periodic charging of adsorbed molecules, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics146, 092327 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    T. R. Huff, T. Dienel, M. Rashidi, R. Achal, L. Livadaru, J. Croshaw, and R. A. Wolkow, Electrostatic Landscape of a Hydrogen-Terminated Silicon Surface Probed by a Moveable Quantum Dot, ACS Nano13, 10566 (2019), 1902.11296

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. A. Cochrane, A. Schiffrin, T. S. Roussy, M. Capsoni, and S. A. Burke, Pronounced polarization-induced en- ergy level shifts at boundaries of organic semiconductor nanostructures, Nature Communications6, 8312 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Dole˘ zal, S

    J. Dole˘ zal, S. Canola, P. Hapala, R. C. d. C. Ferreira, P. Merino, and M. ˇSvec, Real Space Visualization of En- tangled Excitonic States in Charged Molecular Assem- blies, ACS Nano16, 1082 (2022), 2110.00310

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Repp and G

    J. Repp and G. Meyer, Scanning tunneling microscopy of adsorbates on insulating films. From the imaging of individual molecular orbitals to the manipulation of the charge state, Applied Physics a-Materials Science & Pro- cessing85, 399 (2006)

    2006

  23. [31]

    ar- chitecture

    E. Umbach, K. Gl¨ ockler, and M. Sokolowski, Surface “ar- chitecture” with large organic molecules: interface order and epitaxy, Surface Science402, 20 (1998)

    1998

  24. [32]

    W¨ urthner, Perylene bisimide dyes as versatile build- ing blocks for functional supramolecular architectures, Chemical Communications0, 1564 (2004)

    F. W¨ urthner, Perylene bisimide dyes as versatile build- ing blocks for functional supramolecular architectures, Chemical Communications0, 1564 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    S. A. Burke, W. Ji, J. M. Mativetsky, J. M. Topple, S. Fostner, H.-J. Gao, H. Guo, and P. Gr¨ utter, Strain Induced Dewetting of a Molecular System: Bimodal Growth of PTCDA on NaCl, Physical Review Letters 100, 186104 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Jia, Z.-X

    Q. Jia, Z.-X. Hu, W. Ji, S. A. Burke, H.-J. Gao, P. Gr¨ utter, and H. Guo, Adsorption of PTCDA and C 60 on KBr(001): electrostatic interaction versus electronic hybridization, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics18, 11008 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    L. J. Klein and C. C. Williams, Modeling and experimen- tal investigation of cantilever dynamics in force detected single electron tunneling, Journal of Applied Physics95, 2547 (2004)

    2004

  28. [36]

    D. K. Campbell, J. T. Gammel, and E. Y. Loh, Bond- charge coulomb repulsion in peierls-hubbard models, Physical Review B38, 12043 (1988)

    1988

  29. [37]

    Kollar, R

    M. Kollar, R. Strack, and D. Vollhardt, Ferromagnetism in correlated electron systems: Generalization of Na- gaoka’s theorem, Physical Review B53, 9225 (1996), cond-mat/9511060

    1996 arXiv

  30. [38]

    G. Czap, P. J. Wagner, F. Xue, L. Gu, J. Li, J. Yao, R. Wu, and W. Ho, Probing and imaging spin inter- actions with a magnetic single-molecule sensor, Science 364, 670 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Verlhac, N

    B. Verlhac, N. Bachellier, L. Garnier, M. Ormaza, P. Ab- ufager, R. Robles, M.-L. Bocquet, M. Ternes, N. Lorente, and L. Limot, Atomic-scale spin sensing with a single molecule at the apex of a scanning tunneling microscope, Science366, 623 (2019), 1901.04862

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Y. Chen, Y. Bae, and A. J. Heinrich, Harnessing the Quantum Behavior of Spins on Surfaces, Advanced Ma- terials35, e2107534 (2023), 2112.14473

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Kimura, K

    K. Kimura, K. Miwa, H. Imada, M. Imai-Imada, S. Kawahara, J. Takeya, M. Kawai, M. Galperin, and Y. Kim, Selective triplet exciton formation in a single molecule, Nature570, 210 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    S. A. Burke, J. M. LeDue, J. M. Topple, S. Fostner, and P. Grutter, Relating the Functional Properties of an Or- ganic Semiconductor to Molecular Structure by nc-AFM, Advanced Materials21, 2029 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    J. M. Mativetsky, S. A. Burke, S. Fostner, and P. Grutter, Templated growth of 3,4,9,10-perylenetetracarboxylic di- anhydride molecules on a nanostructured insulator, Nan- otechnology18, 105303 (2007)

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.