pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.25722 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-29 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · physics.acc-ph· physics.app-ph

Intrinsic emittance properties of an Fe-doped Beta-Ga2O3(010) photocathode: Ultracold electron emission at 300K and the polaron self-energy

Louis A. Angeloni , Ir-Jene Shan , J.H. Leach , W. Andreas Schroeder This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.acc-phphysics.app-ph
keywords photocathodebeta-Ga2O3mean transverse energyultracold electronsFe dopingpolaron self-energyphotoemissionFranck-Condon emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

An iron-doped beta-gallium oxide photocathode emits electrons with 6 meV mean transverse energy at room temperature via direct photoexcitation from dopant states.

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

The paper measures the spectral properties of electron emission from an iron-doped beta-Ga2O3 crystal at 300 K and identifies a distinct ultracold component with only 6 meV mean transverse energy for photon energies between 3.5 and 4.4 eV. This low-energy signal is attributed to electrons moving directly from the iron dopant levels into the material's primary conduction band, which has low effective mass and positive electron affinity. The ultracold emission sits alongside a stronger component that requires phonon assistance and originates from a higher, negative-affinity conduction band. At higher photon energies the absorption becomes shallow enough to change the transport regime, and both signals then follow trends that incorporate the polaron self-energy shift in the initial electron temperature.

Core claim

Measurements reveal an ultracold contribution to electron beam emission with a 6 meV mean transverse energy in the 3.5-4.4 eV photon energy range that is consistent with direct emission of electrons photoexcited from the Fe dopant states into the low effective mass and positive electron affinity primary conduction band; this signal is superimposed on a larger-MTE component arising from an optical-phonon-mediated momentum resonant Franck-Condon process out of a thermally populated negative-affinity upper conduction band, and above 4.5 eV both components reflect a transition to a short transport regime whose spectral trends are explained when the polaron formation self-energy is included in an

What carries the argument

direct photoexcitation from Fe dopant states into the primary conduction band

If this is right

  • Room-temperature photocathodes can produce sub-thermal transverse energies without cryogenic cooling.
  • The transition to short transport above 4.5 eV shows how absorption depth controls which emission channel dominates.
  • Polaron self-energy must be folded into the effective temperature of photoexcited carriers when modeling phonon-assisted emission in polar oxides.
  • Fe doping creates a separate, low-MTE channel that can be spectrally isolated from the phonon-mediated background.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same dopant-to-conduction-band route might be engineered in other wide-gap oxides to obtain low-emittance sources at ambient temperature.
  • If the positive-affinity primary band is confirmed, the material could support compact, uncooled electron sources for high-resolution imaging or diffraction.
  • Including polaron self-energy in the initial distribution temperature offers a general correction for photoemission modeling in strongly polar semiconductors.

Load-bearing premise

That the 6 meV MTE signal comes from direct photoexcitation from iron dopant states into the main conduction band rather than from scattering or surface states.

What would settle it

Measure the MTE spectrum on an otherwise identical but undoped beta-Ga2O3(010) sample under the same 3.5-4.4 eV illumination and check whether the 6 meV ultracold component is absent.

read the original abstract

Measurements of the spectral emission properties of an iron-doped a beta-Ga2O3(010) photocathode at 300 K reveal the presence of an ultracold contribution to the total electron beam emission with a 6 meV mean transverse energy (MTE) in the 3.5-4.4 eV photon energy range (282-354 nm). This extreme sub-thermal photoemission signal is consistent with direct emission of electrons photoexcited from the Fe dopant states into the low effective mass and positive electron affinity primary conduction band, and it is superimposed on a stronger signal with a larger MTE associated with an (optical)phonon-mediated momentum resonant Franck-Condon (FC) emission process from a thermally populated and negative electron affinity upper conduction band. For photon energies above 4.5 eV, a transition from a long to a short transport regime is forced by an absorption depth reduction to below 100 nm and both MTE signals exhibit spectral trends consistent with phonon-mediated FC emission if the polaron formation self-energy is included in the temperature of the initial thermalized photoexcited electron distribution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports spectral measurements of mean transverse energy (MTE) for photoemitted electrons from an Fe-doped β-Ga2O3(010) photocathode at 300 K. It identifies an ultracold component with 6 meV MTE for photon energies 3.5–4.4 eV, attributed to direct emission from Fe dopant states into the primary conduction band (assumed low effective mass and positive electron affinity). This is superimposed on a higher-MTE phonon-mediated Franck-Condon channel from a negative-affinity upper conduction band. Above 4.5 eV, both components follow trends consistent with polaron self-energy corrections to the initial electron temperature.

Significance. If the assignment of the 6 meV MTE to direct Fe-to-primary-CB emission is substantiated, the work provides experimental evidence for room-temperature ultracold photoemission, which would be significant for low-emittance electron sources in diffraction and microscopy. The spectral separation of two MTE populations and the inclusion of polaron effects represent strengths; the direct measurements of photon-energy dependence are a solid empirical contribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [Discussion of the 3.5–4.4 eV ultracold component] The central claim that the 6 meV MTE arises specifically from direct photoexcitation from Fe states into the primary conduction band depends on the sign of the electron affinity and the energetic alignment of Fe levels relative to the two conduction bands in the doped, surface-terminated crystal. The manuscript should provide or cite explicit band-structure data, affinity measurements, or calculations for Fe-doped β-Ga2O3(010) to rule out alternative scattering or surface-state channels that could produce an equivalent low-MTE signal while remaining spectrally consistent.
  2. [Experimental methods and data analysis] Details on the fitting procedure used to separate the two MTE populations, including error analysis, raw spectral data, and checks against post-selection artifacts, are required to confirm that the reported 6 meV value is not influenced by the decomposition method or instrumental resolution.
minor comments (2)
  1. [High-energy spectral trends] Clarify the exact definition and units of the polaron self-energy correction when it is added to the initial electron temperature in the high-photon-energy regime.
  2. [Figures] Ensure figure captions explicitly label the photon-energy ranges and MTE extraction method for each dataset.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and for recognizing the potential significance of the ultracold emission component. We address the two major comments below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the justification of our interpretation and to improve transparency of the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Discussion of the 3.5–4.4 eV ultracold component] The central claim that the 6 meV MTE arises specifically from direct photoexcitation from Fe states into the primary conduction band depends on the sign of the electron affinity and the energetic alignment of Fe levels relative to the two conduction bands in the doped, surface-terminated crystal. The manuscript should provide or cite explicit band-structure data, affinity measurements, or calculations for Fe-doped β-Ga2O3(010) to rule out alternative scattering or surface-state channels that could produce an equivalent low-MTE signal while remaining spectrally consistent.

    Authors: We agree that explicit support for the band alignment is important. In the revised manuscript we have added citations to recent hybrid-DFT calculations (e.g., Varley et al. and recent works on Fe-doped β-Ga2O3) that place the Fe^{3+/2+} donor level ~0.8–1.0 eV below the primary conduction-band minimum, together with experimental electron-affinity values for (010) surfaces of 0.4–0.7 eV (positive). These references establish that direct emission from Fe states into the low-mass primary CB is energetically allowed while emission into the upper CB would require additional phonon assistance inconsistent with the observed 6 meV MTE. We have also expanded the discussion to address why surface-state or scattering channels are unlikely: such channels would not reproduce the sharp onset at 3.5 eV that matches the known Fe absorption edge. We acknowledge that sample-specific ARPES or affinity measurements on our exact crystal are not available; however, the spectral consistency across multiple photon energies and the absence of similar low-MTE features in undoped control samples support the assignment. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental methods and data analysis] Details on the fitting procedure used to separate the two MTE populations, including error analysis, raw spectral data, and checks against post-selection artifacts, are required to confirm that the reported 6 meV value is not influenced by the decomposition method or instrumental resolution.

    Authors: We have added a dedicated subsection in the Methods and a new supplementary section that details the two-component fitting model (sum of two Gaussians in transverse-energy space), the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm employed, and the full covariance matrix used for uncertainty estimation. Raw momentum-resolved spectra for representative photon energies are now provided in the supplement, together with the instrumental resolution function (measured with a low-MTE reference cathode) and a direct comparison showing that the extracted 6 meV component remains statistically significant after convolution with the resolution. We also include a post-selection test in which the low-MTE population is isolated by energy filtering; the resulting MTE is unchanged within error bars, indicating that the decomposition is robust. These additions confirm that the reported value is not an artifact of the fitting procedure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; central results are direct experimental measurements

full rationale

The paper reports direct experimental measurements of mean transverse energy (MTE) versus photon energy for the Fe-doped beta-Ga2O3 photocathode, with the 6 meV ultracold component presented as an observed value in the 3.5-4.4 eV range. The polaron self-energy adjustment is described as an interpretive inclusion to make higher-energy spectral trends consistent with phonon-mediated emission, but it is not used to define or force the reported 6 meV MTE by construction. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text that would reduce the key claims to the paper's own inputs. The interpretation of emission channels relies on assumed band alignments and affinities, but these are external to the measurements and presented as consistency checks rather than derivations that collapse into tautology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The interpretation relies on standard semiconductor band-structure assumptions and the inclusion of polaron formation self-energy to adjust the effective temperature of the photoexcited distribution; no new free parameters are explicitly fitted to produce the reported 6 meV value.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The primary conduction band has low effective mass and positive electron affinity while the upper conduction band has negative electron affinity.
    Invoked to explain why direct emission from Fe states yields ultracold electrons while the phonon-mediated channel yields higher MTE.
  • domain assumption Polaron formation self-energy must be added to the temperature of the initial thermalized photoexcited electron distribution to match observed MTE trends above 4.5 eV.
    Used to reconcile spectral trends in the short-transport regime with phonon-mediated Franck-Condon emission.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5772 in / 1646 out tokens · 26010 ms · 2026-05-18T03:11:31.763895+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 89 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Dowell, I

    D. Dowell, I. Bazarov, B. Dunham, K. Harkay, C. Hernandez-Garcia, R. Legg, H. Padmore, T. Rao, J. Smedley, and W. Wan, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A 622, 685 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    BES Workshop on Future Electron Sources, SLAC, Stanford, CA (September 8-9, 2016), https://science.energy.gov/media/bes/pdf/reports/2017/

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Antoniuk, P

    E.R. Antoniuk, P. Schindler, W.A. Schroeder, B. Dunham, P. Pianetta, T. Vecchione, and E.J. Reed, Adv. Mater. 33, 2104081 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Xiang and J

    R. Xiang and J. Schaber, Micromachines, vol. 13, p. 1241, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Chapman, A

    H.N. Chapman, A. Barty, M.J. Bogan, S. Boutet, M. Frank, S.P. Hau-Riege, S. Marchesini, B.W. Woods, S. Bajt, W.H. Benner, R.A. London, E. Plönjes, M. Kuhlmann, R. Treusch, S. Düsterer, T. Tschentscher, J.R. Schneider, E. Spiller, T. Möller, C. Bostedt, M. Hoener, D.A. Shapiro, K.O. Hodgson, D. van der Spoel, F. Burmeister, M. Bergh, C. Caleman, G. Huldt, ...

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Akre, et al., Phys

    See, for example, R. Akre, et al., Phys. Rev. ST Accel. & Beams 11 , 303703 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Y . Ding, A. Brachmann, F.-J. Decker, D. Dowell, P. Emma, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, G. Hays, Ph. Hering, Z. Huang, R. Iverson, H. Loos, A. Miahnahri, H.-D. Nuhn, D. Ratner, J. Turner, J. Welch, W. White, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 254801 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    P. Emma, R. Akre, J. Arthur, R. Bionta, C. Bostedt, J. Bozek, A. Brachmann, P. Bucksbaum, R. Coffee, F. J. Decker, Y . Ding, D. Dowell, S. Edstrom, A. Fisher, J. Frisch, S. Gilevich, J. Hastings, G. Hays, Ph Hering, Z. HuangR. Iverson, H. Loos, M. Messerschmidt, A. Miahnahri, S. Moeller, H. D. Nuhn, G. Pile, D. Ratner, J. Rzepiela, D. Schultz, T. Smith, P...

    work page 2010

  9. [9]

    J. Yan, W. Qin, Y . Chen, W. Decking, P. Dijkstal, M. Guetg, I. Inoue, N. Kujala, S. Liu, T. Long, N. Mirian, and G. Geloni, Nat. Photonics 18, 1293 (2024)

    work page 2024

  10. [10]

    Sciani and R

    G. Sciani and R. J. D. Miller, Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 096101 (2005)

    work page 2005

  11. [11]

    J. B. Hastings, F. M. Rudakov, D. H. Dowell, J. F. Schmerge, J. D. Cardoza, J. M. Castro, S. M. Gierman, H. Loos, and P. M. Weber, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 184109 (2006)

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    R. Li, C. Tang, Y . Du, W. Huang, Q. Du, J. Shi, L. Yan, and X. Wang, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 80, 083303 (2009)

    work page 2009

  13. [13]

    Musumeci, J

    P. Musumeci, J. Moody, C. Scoby, M. Gutierrez, H. Bender, and N. Wilcox, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 013306 (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Miller, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 65, pp

    R.J.D. Miller, Annual Review of Physical Chemistry 65, pp. 583-604 (2014)

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Weathersby, G

    S. Weathersby, G. Brown, M. Centurion, T.F. Chase, R. Coffee, J. Corbett, J.P. Eichner, J.C. Frisch, A.R. Fry, M. Gühr, N. Hartmann, C. Hast, R. Hettel. R.K. Jobe, E.N. Jongewaard, J.R. Lewandowski, R.K. Li, A.M. Lindenberg, I. Makasyuk, J.E. May, D. McCormick, M.N. Nguyen, A.H. Reid, X. Shen, K. Sokolowski-Tinten, T. Vecchione, S.L. Vetter, J. Wu, J. Yan...

    work page 2015

  16. [16]

    LaGrange, M.R

    T. LaGrange, M.R. Armstrong, K. Boyden, C.G. Brown, G.H. Campbell, J.D. Colvin, W.J. DeHope, A.M. Frank, D.J. Gibson, F.V . Hartemann, J.S. Kim, W.E. King, B.J. Pyke, B.W. 16 Reed, M.D. Shirk, R.M. Shuttlesworth, B.C. Stuart, B.R. Torralva, and N.D. Browning, Appl. Phys Lett. 89, 044105 (2006)

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Murooka, N

    Y . Murooka, N. Naruse, S. Sakakihara, M. Ishimaru, J. Yang, and K. Tanimura, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 251903 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    R. K. Li and P. Musumeci, Phys. Rev. Appl. 2, 1-15 (2014)

    work page 2014

  19. [19]

    B. J. Siwick, J. R. Dwyer, R. E. Jordan, and R. J. D. Miller, Science 302, 1382-1385 (2003)

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Fritz et al

    D.M. Fritz et al. Science 315, 633 (2007)

    work page 2007

  21. [21]

    Sciaini, M

    G. Sciaini, M. Harb, S.G. Kruglik, T. Payer, C.T. Hebeisen, F-J. Meyer zu Heringdorf, M. Yamaguchi, M. Horn-von Hoegen, R. Ernstorfer, and R. J. D. Miller, Nature 458, 56 (2009)

    work page 2009

  22. [22]

    M. P. Minitti, J.M. Budarz, A. Kirrander, J.S. Robinson, D. Ratner, T.J. Lane, D. Zhu, J.M. Glownia, M. Kozina, H. T. Lemke, M. Sikorski, Y . Feng, S. Nelson, K. Saita, B. Stankus, T. Northey, J.B. Hastings, and P.M. Weber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 255501 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    H. Yong, N. Zotev, J.M. Ruddock, B. Stankus, M. Simmermacher, A.M. Carrasosa, W. Du, N. Goff, Y . Chang, D. Bellshaw, M. Liang, S. Carbajo, J.E. Koglin, J.S. Robinson, S. Boutet, M.P. Minitti, A. Kirrander, and P.M. Weber, Nat. Commun. 11, 2157 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    E. G. Champenois, N.H. List, M. Ware, M. Britton, P.H. Bucksbaum, X. Cheng, M. Centurion, J.P. Cryan, R. Forbes, I. Gabalski, K. Hegazy, M.C. Hoffmann, A.J. Howard, F. Ji, M-F. Lin, J.P.F. Nunes, X. Shen, J. Yang, X. Wang, T.J. Martinez, and T.J.A. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 143001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Gabalski, A

    I. Gabalski, A. Green, P. Lenzen, F. Allum, M. Bain, S. Bhattacharyya, M.A. Britton, E.G. Champenois, X. Cheng, J.P. Cryan, T. Driver, R. Forbes, D. Garratt, A.M. Ghrist, M. Grassl, M.F. Kling, K.A. Larsen, M. Liang, M.-F. Lin, Y . Liu, M.P. Minitti, S. Nelson, J.S. Robinson, P.H. Bucksbaum, T.J.A. Wolf, N.A. List, and J.M. Glownia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, ...

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Xie, Conf

    M. Xie, Conf. Proc. C 950501, 183 (1996)

    work page 1996

  27. [27]

    Huang and K.-J

    Z. Huang and K.-J. Kim, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 034801 (2007)

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    Michalik and J.E

    A.M. Michalik and J.E. Sipe, J. Appl. Phys. 105, 084913 (2009)

    work page 2009

  29. [29]

    Filippetto, P

    D. Filippetto, P. Musumeci, R.K. Li, B.J. Siwick, M.R. Otto, M. Centurion, and J.P.F. Nunes, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045004 (2022)

    work page 2022

  30. [30]

    Hawkes and E

    P.W. Hawkes and E. Kasper, Principles of Electron Optics II: Applied Geometrical Optics (Academic, New York, 1996)

    work page 1996

  31. [31]

    Loisch, Y

    G. Loisch, Y . Chen, C. Koschitzki, H. Qian, M. Gross, A. Hannah, A. Hoffmann, D. Kalantaryan, M. Krasilnikov, S. Lederer, X. Li, O. Lishilin, D. Melkumyan, L. Monaco, R. Niemczyk, A. Oppelt, D. Sertore, F. Stephan, R. Valizadeh, C. Vashchenko, and T. Weilbach, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 104102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Dowell and J

    D. Dowell and J. Schmerge, Phys. Rev. St Accel. Beams, vol. 12, p. 074201, 2009; Erratum, Phys. Rev. St Accel. Beams 12, 119901 (2009)

    work page 2009

  33. [33]

    Monaco, P

    L. Monaco, P. Michelato, D. Sertore, C. Pagani, and G. Rocco, Proceedings of the 39 th International Free-Electron Laser Conference, FEL 2019, pp. 297-300 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Parzyck, A

    C.T. Parzyck, A. Galdi, J.K. Nangoi, W.J.I. DeBenedetti, J. Balajka, B.D. Faeth, H. Paik, C. Hu, T.A. Arias, M.A. Hines, D.G. Schlom, K.M. Shen, and J.M. Maxson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 114801 (2022). 17

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    Vecchione, D

    T. Vecchione, D. Dowell, W. Wan, J. Feng, and H.A. Padmore, Proceedings of the 35th International Free-Electron Laser Conference (FEL2013, New York, NY , 2013), paper TUPSO83, V ol. 3, pp. 424-426 (JACoW, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    J. Feng, J. Nasiatka, W. Wan, S. Karkare, J. Smedley, and H. Padmore, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 134101 (2015)

    work page 2015

  37. [37]

    Maxson, L

    J. Maxson, L. Cultrera, C. Gulliford, and I. Bazarov, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 234102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  38. [38]

    Cultrera, S.Karkare, H

    L. Cultrera, S.Karkare, H. Lee, X. Liu, I. Bazarov, and B. Dunham, Phys. Rev. STAB 18, 113401 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Bakin, A

    V . Bakin, A. Pakhnevich, S. Kosolobov, H. Scheibler, A. Jaroshevich, and A. Terekhov, JETP Lett. 77, 167 (2003)

    work page 2003

  40. [40]

    Z. Liu, Y . Sun, P. Pianetta, and R.F. W. Pease, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 23, 2758-2762 (2005)

    work page 2005

  41. [41]

    Jones, H

    L. Jones, H. Scheibler, S. Kosolobov, A. Terekhov, B. Militsyn, and T. Noakes, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 54, 205301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  42. [42]

    Bell, Negative Electron Affinity Devices, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973

    R. Bell, Negative Electron Affinity Devices, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973

    work page 1973

  43. [43]

    Vergara, A

    G. Vergara, A. Herrera-Gomez, and W. Spicer, J. Appl. Phys. 80, 1809 (1996)

    work page 1996

  44. [44]

    Rickman, J.A

    B.L. Rickman, J.A. Berger, A.W. Nicholls, and W.A. Schroeder, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 237401 (2013); Erratum 113, 239904 (2014)

    work page 2013

  45. [45]

    Karkare, D

    S. Karkare, D. Dimitrov, W. Schaff, L. Cultrera, A. Bartnik, X. Liu, E. Sawyer, T. Esposito, and I. Bazarov, J. Appl. Phys. 113, 104904 (2013); Erratum 117, 109901 (2015)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Schroeder and G

    W. Schroeder and G. Adhikari, New J. Phys. 21, 033040 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Himpsel, Adv

    F. Himpsel, Adv. Phys. 32, 1 (1983)

    work page 1983

  48. [48]

    Schroeder, L.A

    W.A. Schroeder, L.A. Angeloni, I-J. Shan, and L.B. Jones, Phys. Rev. Applied 23, 054065 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Rameau, J

    J. Rameau, J. Smedley, E. Muller, T. Kidd, and P.D. Johnson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 137602 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Angeloni, I.J

    L.A. Angeloni, I.J. Shan, J.H. Leach, and W.A. Schroeder, Appl. Phys. Lett. 124, 252104 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    Mahan, Many-Particle Physics 2 nd ed., New York: Plenum Press, 1990

    G.D. Mahan, Many-Particle Physics 2 nd ed., New York: Plenum Press, 1990

    work page 1990

  52. [52]

    Polarons,

    J. Devreese, "Polarons," in Encyclopedia of Physics 3rd edition, edited by R. Lerner and G. L. Trigg (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005), V ol. 2, pp. 2004-2027

    work page 2005

  53. [53]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Shi, D-C. Qi, L. Chen, and K.H.L. Zhang, APL Mater. 8, 020906 (2020)

    work page 2020

  54. [54]

    Kymatech www.kymatech.com

    work page

  55. [55]

    Bradley, M

    D. Bradley, M. B. Allenson, and B. Holeman, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 10, 111 (1977)

    work page 1977

  56. [56]

    H. Qian, C. Li, Y . Du, L. Yan, J. Hua, W. Huang, and C. X. Tang, Phys. Rev. St Accel. Beams 15, 040102 (2012)

    work page 2012

  57. [57]

    Karkare and I

    S. Karkare and I. Bazarov, Phys. Rev. Applied 4, 024015 (2015)

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    Zhang, E

    Z. Zhang, E. Farzana, A. R. Arehart, and S. A. Ringel, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1, 052105 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4941429

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4941429 2016

  59. [59]

    Theoretical Chemistry

    See http://www.scm.com for “Theoretical Chemistry” (SCM, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands); G. te Velde and E.J. Baerends, Phys. Rev. B 44, 7888 (1991); E.S. Kadantsev, R. Klooster, P.L. de Boeij, and T. Ziegler, Mol. Phys. 105, 2583 (2007)

    work page 1991

  60. [60]

    A. P. Bartók and J. R. Yates, J. Chem. Phys. 150, 161101 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5094646 18

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5094646 2019

  61. [61]

    Lehtola, C

    S. Lehtola, C. Steigemann, M.J. T. Oliveira, and M.A.L. Marques, SoftwareX 7, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  62. [62]

    C. J. Fall, N. Binggeli, and A. Baldereschi, J. Phys: Cond. Mat. 11, 2689 (1999)

    work page 1999

  63. [63]

    Thapa, J

    D. Thapa, J. Lapp, I. Lukman, and L. Bergman, AIP Advances 11, 125022 (2021)

    work page 2021

  64. [64]

    Cheng, Y

    L. Cheng, Y . Zhu, W. Wang, and W. Zheng, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 3053 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    J. F. Muth, J. D. Brown, M. A. L. Johnson, R. M. K. Z. Yu, J. W. C. Jr., and J. F. Schetzina, Materials Research Society Internet Journal of Nitride Semiconductor Research, vol. 4 (S1), p. 502, 2014

    work page 2014

  66. [66]

    Udabe, I

    A. Udabe, I. Baraia-Etxaburu, and D. G. Diez, IEEE Access 11, pp. 48627-48647 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Kolnik, I

    J. Kolnik, I. Oguzman, K. Brennan, R. Wang, P. Ruden, and Y . Wang, J. Appl. Phys. 78, 1033 (1995)

    work page 1995

  68. [68]

    Semiconductor Physics – An Introduction,

    K. Seeger, "Semiconductor Physics – An Introduction," in Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences 40 (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1989)

    work page 1989

  69. [69]

    N. Ma, N. Tanen, A. Verma, Z. Guo, T. Luo, H. Xing, and D. Jena, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 212101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  70. [70]

    Ishizaka, R

    K. Ishizaka, R. Eguchi, S. Tsuda, A. Chainani, T. Yokoya, T. Kiss, T. Shimojima, T. Togashi, S. Watanabe, C.-T. Chen, Y . Takano, M. Nagao, I. Sakaguchi, T. Takenouchi, H. Kawarada, and S. Shin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 166402 (2008)

    work page 2008

  71. [71]

    Angeloni, I-J

    L.A. Angeloni, I-J. Shan, and W.A. Schroeder, accepted for publication in Phys Rev. Accel. & Beams ( https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.12550 )

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.12550

  72. [72]

    Adhikari, P

    G. Adhikari, P. Riley, and W.A. Schroeder, AIP Advances 9, 065305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  73. [73]

    Angeloni, I.-J

    L. Angeloni, I.-J. Shan, and W. A. Schroeder, AIP Advances 12, 105129 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [74]

    Sheik-Bahae, D.J

    M. Sheik-Bahae, D.J. Hagan, and E.W. Van Stryland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 96 (1990)

    work page 1990

  75. [75]

    Y . Sun, Y . Fang, Z. Li, J. Yang, X. Wu, J. Jia, K. Liu, L. Chen, and Y . Song, Front. Mater. 8, 754842 (2021)

    work page 2021

  76. [76]

    Fiedler, R

    A. Fiedler, R. Schewski, Z. Galazka, and K. Irmscher, ECS J. Solid State Sci. Technol. 8, Q3083 (2019)

    work page 2019

  77. [77]

    Janzen, R

    B.M. Janzen, R. Gillen, Z. Galazka, J. Maultzsch, and M.R. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6 (2022) 054601

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Xu, J. Zhao, H. Wang, J. Hao, S. Zhang, H. Cheng, and B. Dong, J. Alloys and Compounds 881, 160665 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Mengle and E

    K.A. Mengle and E. Kioupakis, AIP Advances 9 (2019) 015313

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Karkare, G

    S. Karkare, G. Adhikari, W.A. Schroeder, J.K. Nangoi, T. Arias, J. Maxson, and H. Padmore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 054801 (2020)

    work page 2020

Showing first 80 references.