Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 36 references

Amorphization-Mediated Si-I to Si-V Phase Transition and Reversible Amorphous-Si-V Phase Memory in Silicon Nanoparticles

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 10 nm silicon nanoparticles under triaxial compression, Si-I transforms to Si-V through a transient amorphous shell, and a second load cycle shows reversible amorphous-to-Si-V memory.

desk verdict A plausible GAP-MD mechanism for the size-dependent Si-I to Si-V transition in 10 nm nanoparticles, but the six-flat-indenter geometry and 10 m/s loading rate leave the nucleation site selection unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10960 v1 pith:LEBMHL53 submitted 2025-09-13 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Ziye Deng , Reza Namakian , Wei Gao This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords siliconnanoparticlesphasetransitionamorphizationSi-V(simplehexagonal)stresstriaxialitymoleculardynamicsmachine-learnedpotentialmemory
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 aims to explain why 10 nm silicon nanoparticles compressed without a pressure-transmitting medium transform directly from diamond-cubic Si-I to simple-hexagonal Si-V at about 16 GPa, a pathway not seen in larger particles. Using atomistic simulations with a machine-learned potential, it shows the transition is two-step: a transient amorphous shell forms at the surface and moves inward, then Si-V crystallizes within that shell where stress triaxiality and hydrostatic pressure are both high. The paper also finds that unloading leaves the particle fully amorphous, and that a subsequent load-unload cycle produces a reversible amorphous-to-Si-V transformation—a nanoscale phase memory. If correct, this explains a puzzling experimental observation and identifies stress triaxiality, not just pressure, as the controlling variable in nanoscale silicon phase transitions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing concept is stress triaxiality, defined as the ratio of hydrostatic stress to von Mises (deviatoric) stress. The argument works by showing that low triaxiality at the indenter contacts and surface triggers amorphization, while high triaxiality combined with high hydrostatic stress selects Si-V nucleation; the transient amorphous phases (HDA with coordination ~6, VHDA with coordination ~8) act as structural precursors that lower the barrier to Si-V formation.

What would settle it

Run the same compression at a tenfold slower indenter speed or with a spherical (non-cornered) loading geometry; if Si-V then nucleates without a visible amorphous shell, or nucleates away from corners, the amorphization-mediated pathway is an artifact of rate or geometry. Alternatively, an in-situ experiment with sub-millisecond time resolution could look directly for the transient amorphous signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Si-I→Si-V transition in a 10 nm silicon nanoparticle is mediated by a transient amorphous phase rather than a direct crystal-crystal transformation. Under triaxial compression, low stress triaxiality near the free surface promotes shear-driven amorphization; the amorphous shell densifies through high-density amorphous (HDA) and very-high-density amorphous (VHDA) states (coordination ~6 to ~8) and recrystallizes into Si-V at the cube corners, where triaxiality and hydrostatic stress peak. The critical contact stress is ~16.1 GPa, close to the experimentally observed 14.7 GPa. Upon unloading, Si-V reverts to a fully amorphous four-fold network; a second loading th

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumption that the simulation's loading—0.1 Å/ps indenter speed and six planar indenters with sharp corners—faithfully emulates the diamond-anvil-cell experiment; if the amorphization or corner nucleation is an artifact of the fast strain rate or the specific contact geometry, the proposed pathway would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The experimentally observed Si-I→Si-V transition in ~10 nm nanoparticles can be understood as amorphization-mediated, resolving why larger particles instead follow the bulk Si-I→Si-II path.
  • The critical pressure of ~16 GPa matches diamond-anvil-cell experiments, suggesting the mechanism is relevant to real loading conditions.
  • Unloading converts the particle to a dense amorphous state, which can serve as a precursor for reversible phase cycling.
  • Standard empirical interatomic potentials fail to reproduce the pathway and stress–strain response, indicating that accurate machine-learned potentials are needed for predictive nanoscale phase-transition simulations.
  • The reversible a-Si↔Si-V memory implies that a single nanoparticle can be switched repeatedly between amorphous and crystalline states by pressure cycling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the amorphous shell is genuinely the gatekeeper, then pre-amorphizing a nanoparticle (e.g., by ion implantation) should lower the threshold for Si-V formation or accelerate the transition; this is a testable extension the paper does not perform.
  • The corner nucleation sites coincide exactly with the corners of the six planar indenters, so a different indenter geometry (spherical or octahedral) might shift or suppress Si-V nucleation; the paper does not vary this.
  • The same two-step, triaxiality-controlled mechanism could apply to other group-IV semiconductors (germanium, silicon–germanium alloys) under non-hydrostatic compression, though the paper does not explore this.
  • The phase-memory effect suggests nanoscale silicon could serve as a pressure-cyclable switch in applications, but cycling durability and rate dependence remain open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses GAP-based molecular dynamics to simulate a 10 nm Si nanoparticle compressed by six rigid planar indenters. It reports a two-step Si-I → a-Si → Si-V transition: under triaxial compression a disordered/amorphous shell first forms in low-stress-triaxiality regions and propagates inward; Si-V then nucleates from the amorphous/VHDA shell at cube-corner locations where hydrostatic stress and stress triaxiality both peak, at a contact stress of about 16.1 GPa (experimental ~14.7 GPa). Upon unloading the Si-V-dominated particle becomes fully amorphous, and a second loading cycle shows a reversible a-Si ↔ Si-V transition, interpreted as a nanoscale phase memory. The same loading protocol is repeated with Tersoff and SW potentials, which give different pathways, reinforcing the claim that GAP is needed.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a plausible atomistic mechanism for the size-dependent Si-I → Si-V pathway observed in recent DAC experiments on 10 nm silicon nanoparticles, and it identifies stress triaxiality as the key controlling variable. The study has clear strengths: it uses a previously published, externally benchmarked GAP potential with no refitting to the target result; it compares three interatomic potentials; it releases input scripts and data on GitHub; and the predicted critical stress is close to experiment. The main risk is that the specific loading protocol (six planar indenters at 0.1 Å/ps) may create the very features on which the mechanism rests—cube-corner stress concentrations and a strain-rate-stabilized amorphous shell. The result is therefore significant but requires stronger validation of loading fidelity before the mechanistic claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Methods; Fig. 2B4–E4] The six planar indenters intersect to form cube corners, and Si-V nucleates precisely at those corners. These corners are geometric stress concentrations created by the idealized loading, whereas in a DAC without pressure medium, nanoparticles contact each other and the anvils at random, distributed points. The paper does not test whether Si-V would still nucleate under a more realistic contact geometry. Because the central claim is that nucleation occurs where triaxiality and hydrostatic stress are simultaneously high, demonstrating that this condition is realized only at the indenter corners does not by itself establish the mechanism for the experimental geometry. Please add at least one alternative loading geometry (e.g., spherical/convex indenters, a random packing of nanoparticles, or a single anvil with friction) to show the corner-nucleation result is not an artifact.
  2. [Methods; Fig. 3A and Fig. 1B] The 0.1 Å/ps indenter speed corresponds to a strain rate of roughly 10^8–10^9 s^-1, many orders of magnitude above quasi-static DAC conditions. High strain rates are known to promote amorphization over crystalline phase transitions. The paper acknowledges rate effects only for the reverse Si-V → a-Si transition (Fig. 3A) and does not check the forward Si-I → a-Si → Si-V pathway at lower rates. Without such tests, or a strong literature-based argument that the pathway is rate-independent, the transient a-Si shell could be a strain-rate artifact. This is load-bearing because the proposed two-step amorphization-mediated mechanism depends on the a-Si shell being a genuine metastable intermediate.
  3. [Fig. 1B and text after Fig. 1B] The contact stress is calculated using the instantaneous cross-sectional area of the simulation box rather than the actual contact area. For a sphere compressed by planar indenters, the box area is larger than the true contact area until the particle is nearly cube-shaped, so the quoted critical stress likely underestimates the actual contact pressure at the nucleation point. The comparison to the experimental 14.7 GPa value is therefore not quantitatively secure as presented. Please recompute the stress using the actual contact area (e.g., atoms within the repulsive-wall interaction range) or explicitly state that the comparison is semi-quantitative. If the 16.1 GPa plateau occurs only after the particle is cube-like, this should be stated and justified.
  4. [Fig. 2C; Methods (stress smoothing)] The stress triaxiality maps are central to the proposed mechanism, but they are obtained from per-atom virial stresses smoothed over a 6 Å cutoff. The manuscript does not test the sensitivity of the qualitative distinction (low-triaxiality shell vs high-triaxiality corners) to this smoothing length or to the Voronoi volume assignment. Since the mechanism separates core, shell, and corners based on these maps, a convergence check over reasonable smoothing radii (e.g., 4, 6, and 8 Å) is needed to show the triaxiality field is not an artifact of the smoothing procedure.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Appendix A heading] Title spells 'Tersorff'; should be 'Tersoff'.
  2. [Fig. A.5 caption] 'udergoing' should be 'undergoing'.
  3. [Appendix A] 'the CN reflects the region near indenters transform to CN around 6, then it porpogate inside' — 'porpogate' should be 'propagate'; the sentence should be rephrased for clarity.
  4. [Introduction] 'which however have yield inconsistent results' is grammatically incomplete; please revise.
  5. [Methods; Fig. 1B] Please define the engineering strain used on the x-axis (presumably indenter displacement divided by initial particle diameter) and define the stress triaxiality ratio with an explicit formula and sign convention.
  6. [Fig. 3] Points 1–5 on the stress–strain curves are referenced in the text but not clearly annotated in the figure; adding labels/legend entries would improve readability.
  7. [Methods] Please specify whether the indenter–particle interaction includes any tangential/friction forces; this can affect the local stress triaxiality at the contacts.
  8. [Discussion of experiment] The statement that the experiment did not report the intermediate a-Si 'likely because ... transient' is speculative; adding a rough estimate of the a-Si fraction or lifetime from the simulations, or softening the claim, would make the argument more persuasive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GAP potential is an externally fitted, pre-existing ML potential, and the claimed phase pathway and critical stress are emergent simulation outputs, not built-in definitions.

full rationale

The load-bearing input is the GAP interatomic potential of Bartók et al. (ref 21), an externally published ML potential fitted to DFT data across silicon phases; the paper fits no parameter to the experimental Si-I→Si-V result it later compares with ref 15. The 16.1 GPa critical stress, the transient a-Si shell, and Si-V nucleation at the nanocube corners are outputs of the MD trajectory and are not defined into existence by the phase-identification method (entropy fingerprints and RDFs are independent of the stress criteria being claimed). The claimed stress-triaxiality mechanism is an interpretation of the local stress fields, not a restatement of the loading protocol. The only self-citations (refs 3, 4, 24) are general methodological remarks and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The acknowledged rate limitation (Fig. 3A: rapid unloading leaves Si-V→a-Si incomplete) and the un-tested sensitivity of the forward path to indenter speed/geometry are robustness concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to another by construction.

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

No parameters are fitted to the target result; the equilibrium phase sequence emerges from the published GAP potential. The hand-chosen settings above, especially indenter speed and coordination cutoff, shape the reported pathway and should be varied to establish robustness.

free parameters (4)
  • Indenter advancement speed = 0.1 Å/ps
    Chosen loading rate for the MD simulation; the reverse transformation is noted to be incomplete at this rate, and no rate-convergence study is reported for the forward amorphization pathway. A slower rate could remove or alter the intermediate a-Si shell.
  • Indenter stiffness = k = 1000 eV/ų
    Repulsive stiffness of the rigid planar indenters; controls the sharpness of contact stress concentrations at the cube corners where Si-V nucleates.
  • Local coordination cutoff = 2.85 Å (SW/GAP), 3.5 Å (Tersoff)
    The HDA (CN~6) and VHDA (CN~8) classification, which underpins the proposed densification step, depends on the chosen cutoff distance.
  • Stress smoothing cutoff = 6 Å
    Per-atom virial stress and triaxiality maps are spatially averaged over a 6 Å neighborhood; the reported spatial pattern of triaxiality depends on this radius.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The GAP Si potential of Bartók et al. (2018) accurately describes the forces in Si-I, a-Si, HDA, VHDA, and Si-V including surface and high-strain configurations relevant to a 10 nm nanoparticle.
    All conclusions about the phase pathway arise from MD with this potential. The paper benchmarks against Tersoff and SW but not directly against DFT for this specific nanoparticle system.
  • domain assumption The six rigid planar indenter loading replicates the essential triaxial stress state of the DAC experiment without a pressure-transmitting medium, including lateral confinement and anisotropic contact stresses.
    Used to emulate experiment [15]. The corner-localized nucleation sites and the low-triaxiality shell near contacts are properties of this geometry; a different geometry could change where Si-V nucleates.
  • domain assumption Local configurational entropy (Piaggi-Parrinello) and RDF matching unambiguously classify each atom as Si-I, a-Si, HDA/VHDA, or Si-V at the strain levels shown.
    Phase maps in Fig. 2B and Fig. B.9 rest on these classifiers; misclassification would change the narrative of the two-step pathway.
  • standard math Standard classical MD with a canonical thermostat at 300 K and a 1 fs timestep produces the correct dynamical pathway.
    The simulation uses standard LAMMPS MD with CSVR; the timestep and thermostat are standard practice, but the pathway claim depends on the adequacy of this dynamical approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Amorphization-Mediated Si-I to Si-V Phase Transition and Reversible Amorphous-Si-V Phase Memory in Silicon Nanoparticles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LEBMHL53

@misc{pith2026250910960,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Amorphization-Mediated Si-I to Si-V Phase Transition and Reversible Amorphous-Si-V Phase Memory in Silicon Nanoparticles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LEBMHL53}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10960}
}
read the original abstract

Molecular dynamics simulations using a Gaussian Approximation Potential (GAP) reveal a stress triaxiality driven, two-step Si-I (diamond cubic) to Si-V (simple hexagonal) phase transition pathway in a spherical Si nanoparticle with a 10 nm diameter under triaxial compression. A transient amorphous phase first forms at the surface and propagates inward around Si-I core, where stress triaxiality is low (shear-dominated). Within the amorphous shell, the material recrystallizes into Si-V at locations of elevated stress triaxiality and hydrostatic pressure. The resulting Si-V structure transforms into a fully amorphous state upon unloading. A subsequent loading-unloading cycle applied to this amorphous nanoparticle reveals a reversible amorphous to Si-V transformation, demonstrating a nanoscale phase memory effect.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10960 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Atomistic model of a 10 nm Si nanoparticle under triaxial compression. (B) Stress–strain curves from MD using GAP, Tersoff, and SW interatomic potentials. Key transition events are marked: Si-V nucleation at 28% strain predicted by GAP, dislocation formation at 9.7% strain predicted by SW, and nucleation of a tetragonal metastable phase at 18% strain predicted by Tersoff. [17, 18]. By contrast, simulations using… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (A) Stress–strain response from triaxial compression and unloading MD simulations using the GAP potential. The trajectory reveals amorphous silicon (a-Si) as an intermediate that mediates the Si-I→Si￾V transition; unloading leaves the particle predominantly a-Si. (B) A subsequent loading–unloading cycle shows a reversible a-Si↔Si-V transition. (C-F) Cross-sectional snapshots of Si nanoparticle at representative poin… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. Rödl, T. Sander, F. Bechstedt, J. Vidal, P. Olsson, S. Laribi, J. F. Guillemoles, Wurtzite silicon as a potential absorber in photovoltaics: Tailoring the optical absorption by applying strain, Phys. Rev. B 92 (2015) 045207. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.92.045207

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.045207 2015

  2. [2]

    290.5496.1532

    H.G.Craighead, Nanoelectromechanicalsystems, Science290(2000)1532–1536.doi:10.1126/science. 290.5496.1532

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Ghasemi, P

    A. Ghasemi, P. Xiao, W. Gao, Nudged elastic band method for solid-solid transition under finite deformation, The Journal of Chemical Physics 151 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Ghasemi, W

    A. Ghasemi, W. Gao, A method to predict energy barriers in stress modulated solid–solid phase transitions, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 137 (2020) 103857

    2020

  5. [5]

    Mujica, A

    A. Mujica, A. Rubio, A. Muñoz, R. J. Needs, High-pressure phases of group-iv, iii–v, and ii–vi com- pounds, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 863–912. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.863

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.75.863 2003

  6. [6]

    Anzellini, M

    S. Anzellini, M. T. Wharmby, F. Miozzi, A. Kleppe, D. Daisenberger, H. Wilhelm, Quasi-hydrostatic equation of state of silicon up to 1 megabar at ambient temperature, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 15537. doi:10. 1038/s41598-019-51931-1

    2019

  7. [7]

    J. Hu, J. Zhu, L. D. Merkle, C. S. Menoni, I. L. Spain, Crystal data for high-pressure phases of silicon, Phys. Rev. B 34 (1986) 4679–4684. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.34.4679

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.34.4679 1986

  8. [8]

    Kailer, Y

    A. Kailer, Y. G. Gogotsi, K. G. Nickel, Phase transformations of silicon caused by contact loading, J. Appl. Phys. 81 (1997) 3057–3063. doi:10.1063/1.364340. 13

    doi:10.1063/1.364340 1997

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    J. I. Jang, M. J. Lance, S. Q. Wen, T. Y. Tsui, G. M. Pharr, Indentation-induced phase transformations in silicon: Influences of load, rate and indenter angle on the transformation behavior, Acta Mater. 53 (2005) 1759–1770. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2004.12.025

    2005 doi

  2. [10]

    T. S. Duffy, G. Shen, D. L. Heinz, J. F. Shu, Y. Z. Ma, H. K. Mao, R. J. Hemley, A. K. Singh, Lattice strains in gold and rhenium under nonhydrostatic compression to 37 gpa, Phys. Rev. B 60 (1999) 15063–15073. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.60.15063

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    Yesudhas, S

    S. Yesudhas, S. Sorb, V. I. Levitas, F. Lin, K. K. Pandey, J. S. Smith, Unusual plastic strain- induced phase transformation phenomena in silicon, Nat. Commun. 15 (2024) 7054. doi:10.1038/ s41467-024-51469-5

    2024

  4. [12]

    Y. He, L. Zhong, F. Fan, C. Wang, T. Zhu, S. X. Mao, In situ observation of shear-driven amorphization in silicon crystals, Nature Nanotechnology 11 (2016) 866–871. doi:10.1038/nnano.2016.166

    2016 doi

  5. [13]

    Merabet, M

    A. Merabet, M. Texier, C. Tromas, S. Brochard, L. Pizzagalli, L. Thilly, J. Rabier, A. Talneau, Y. M. Le Vaillant, O. Thomas, J. Godet, Low-temperature intrinsic plasticity in silicon at small scales, Acta Materialia 161 (2018) 54–60. URL:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2018...

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    A. J. Wagner, E. D. Hintsala, P. Kumar, W. W. Gerberich, K. A. Mkhoyan, Mechanisms of plasticity in near-theoretical strength sub-100 nm Si nanocubes, Acta Materialia 100 (2015) 256–265. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actamat.2015.08.029. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2015.08.029

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Z. D. Zeng, Q. S. Zeng, M. Y. Ge, B. Chen, H. B. Lou, X. H. Chen, J. Y. Yan, W. G. Yang, H. K. Mao, D. R. Yang, W. L. Mao, Origin of plasticity in nanostructured silicon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 185701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.185701

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    Tersoff, Modeling solid-state chemistry: Interatomic potentials for multicomponent systems, Phys

    J. Tersoff, Modeling solid-state chemistry: Interatomic potentials for multicomponent systems, Phys. Rev. B 39 (1989) 5566–5568. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.39.5566

    1989 doi

  9. [17]

    Zhang, Q

    N. Zhang, Q. Deng, Y. Hong, L. Xiong, S. Li, M. Strasberg, W. Yin, Y. Zou, C. R. Taylor, G. Sawyer, Y. Chen, Deformation mechanisms in silicon nanoparticles, Journal of Applied Physics 109 (2011). doi:10.1063/1.3552985

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Valentini, W

    P. Valentini, W. W. Gerberich, T. Dumitricˇ a, Phase-transition plasticity response in uniaxially com- pressed silicon nanospheres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 175701. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.175701

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    F. H. Stillinger, T. A. Weber, Computer simulation of local order in condensed phases of silicon, Phys. Rev. B 31 (1985) 5262–5271. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.31.5262. 14

    1985 doi

  12. [20]

    Chrobak, N

    D. Chrobak, N. Tymiak, A. Beaber, O. Ugurlu, W. W. Gerberich, R. Nowak, Deconfinement leads to changes in the nanoscale plasticity of silicon, Nat. Nanotechnol. 6 (2011) 480–484. doi:10.1038/nnano. 2011.118

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    A. P. Bartók, J. Kermode, N. Bernstein, G. Csányi, Machine learning a general-purpose interatomic potential for silicon, Phys. Rev. X 8 (2018) 041048. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.8.041048

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    Friederich, F

    P. Friederich, F. Häse, J. Proppe, A. Aspuru-Guzik, Machine-learned potentials for next-generation matter simulations, Nature Materials 20 (2021) 750–761

    2021

  15. [23]

    Ceriotti, Beyond potentials: Integrated machine learning models for materials, Mrs Bulletin 47 (2022) 1045–1053

    M. Ceriotti, Beyond potentials: Integrated machine learning models for materials, Mrs Bulletin 47 (2022) 1045–1053

    2022

  16. [24]

    Shuang, Z

    F. Shuang, Z. Wei, K. Liu, W. Gao, P. Dey, Universal machine learning interatomic potentials poised to supplant dft in modeling general defects in metals and random alloys, Machine Learning: Science and Technology (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Hirel, Atomsk: a tool for manipulating and converting atomic data files, Comput

    P. Hirel, Atomsk: a tool for manipulating and converting atomic data files, Comput. Phys. Commun. 197 (2015) 212–219. doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2015.07.012

    2015 doi

  18. [26]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolintineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. In ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, S. J. Plimpton, Lammps–aflexiblesimulationtoolforparticle-basedmaterialsmodeling...

    2022

  19. [27]

    Stukowski, V

    A. Stukowski, V. V. Bulatov, A. Arsenlis, Automated identification and indexing of dislocations in crystal interfaces, Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 20 (2012) 085007. doi:10.1088/0965-0393/20/8/ 085007

    2012 doi

  20. [28]

    Stukowski, Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with ovito – the open visualization tool, Modell

    A. Stukowski, Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with ovito – the open visualization tool, Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng. 18 (2010) 015012. doi:10.1088/0965-0393/18/1/015012

    2010 doi

  21. [29]

    P. M. Piaggi, M. Parrinello, Entropy based fingerprint for local crystalline order, J. Chem. Phys. 147 (2017) 114112. doi:10.1063/1.4998408

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    K. K. Pandey, N. Garg, K. V. Shanavas, S. M. Sharma, S. K. Sikka, Pressure induced crystallization in amorphous silicon, Journal of Applied Physics 109 (2011). doi:10.1063/1.3587161

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    N. Garg, K. K. Pandey, K. V. Shanavas, C. A. Betty, S. M. Sharma, Memory effect in low-density amorphous silicon under pressure, Physical Review B 83 (2011) 115202. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.83. 115202

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Haberl, M

    B. Haberl, M. Guthrie, D. Sprouster, J. Williams, J. Bradby, New insight into pressure-induced phase transitions of amorphous silicon: the role of impurities, Applied Crystallography 46 (2013) 758–768. 15

    2013

  25. [33]

    V. L. Deringer, N. Bernstein, G. Csányi, C. Ben Mahmoud, M. Ceriotti, M. Wilson, D. A. Drabold, S. R. Elliott, Origins of structural and electronic transitions in disordered silicon, Nature 589 (2021) 59–64. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-03072-z

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    Z. Fan, H. Tanaka, Microscopic mechanisms of pressure-induced amorphous-amorphous transitions and crystallisation in silicon, Nature Communications 15 (2024) 368

    2024

  27. [35]

    Y. Hong, N. Zhang, M. A. Zaeem, Metastable phase transformation and deformation twinning induced hardening-stiffening mechanism in compression of silicon nanoparticles, Acta Mater. 145 (2018) 8–18. doi:10.1016/j.actamat.2017.11.034

    2018 doi

  28. [36]

    Maras, O

    E. Maras, O. Trushin, A. Stukowski, T. Ala-Nissila, H. Jónsson, Global transition path search for dislocation formation in ge on si (001), Computer Physics Communications 205 (2016) 13–21. 16

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.