pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.07314 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-08 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall

Transition Dipole Rotation Beyond the Condon Approximation in Single hBN Quantum Emitters

Serkan Pa\c{c}al , Chanaprom Cholsuk , Mouli Hazra , \c{C}a\u{g}lar Samaner , \"Ozg\"ur \c{C}ak{\i}r , Tobias Vogl , Serkan Ate\c{s} This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 17:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords hexagonal boron nitridequantum emitterstransition dipoleCondon approximationphonon couplingvibronic manifoldpolarization fidelity
0
0 comments X

The pith

The transition dipole in hBN quantum emitters rotates continuously with photon energy because of phonon coupling to nuclear motion.

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

The paper establishes that the transition dipole moment of single hexagonal boron nitride quantum emitters is not a fixed vector set by lattice symmetry. Instead, it rotates by up to 40 degrees as the emitted photon energy changes across the vibronic sideband at room temperature. This rotation vanishes at 6 K, where acoustic phonons are frozen out, showing that thermally populated lattice vibrations displace the nuclei and alter the dipole orientation. First-principles calculations on representative defects reproduce the energy-dependent tilt, with larger rotations in strongly coupled defects. The result demonstrates that these emitters function outside the Condon approximation, in which the dipole is assumed constant regardless of nuclear positions.

Core claim

Single hBN quantum emitters operate beyond the Condon approximation: their transition dipole orientation depends on the instantaneous nuclear configuration set by phonon displacements, producing a continuous rotation of the emission dipole that reaches 40 degrees across the vibronic manifold at room temperature and is suppressed when acoustic phonon occupation is negligible at cryogenic temperature.

What carries the argument

Phonon-displaced nuclear geometries that shift the transition dipole orientation away from its zero-phonon-line value, with the size of the shift scaling with electron-phonon coupling strength.

If this is right

  • Polarization fidelity in solid-state quantum networks is fundamentally limited at room temperature unless spectral filtering or cryogenic operation is used.
  • Device modeling must incorporate energy-dependent dipole orientation rather than a single static vector.
  • Defect engineering can tune the magnitude of the rotation by controlling electron-phonon coupling strength.
  • The same phonon-driven mechanism applies to other solid-state emitters with strong vibronic sidebands.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Cryogenic cooling may become a standard requirement for polarization-encoded links that use hBN or similar 2D emitters.
  • The effect provides a bridge between single-defect spectroscopy and ensemble molecular spectroscopy where nuclear-coordinate-dependent dipoles are already known.
  • Spectral selection of narrow energy windows could recover high polarization contrast without full cryogenic systems.

Load-bearing premise

The measured dipole rotation is produced solely by phonon-induced nuclear displacements and is not mixed with effects from local strain, collection optics, or selection of particular emitters.

What would settle it

Observation of the same dipole rotation magnitude at 6 K as at room temperature, or first-principles calculations on the modeled defects that predict zero orientation change with nuclear displacement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.07314 by \c{C}a\u{g}lar Samaner, Chanaprom Cholsuk, Mouli Hazra, \"Ozg\"ur \c{C}ak{\i}r, Serkan Ate\c{s}, Serkan Pa\c{c}al, Tobias Vogl.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) (top) Energy level diagram illustrating the vibronic emission pathways of a localized two-level defect, including the zero-phonon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Energy-resolved linear polarization analysis of the hBN defect center. (a, c) Emission intensity maps plotted as a function of photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Thermal suppression of the coordinate-dependent dipole rotation and single-photon verification across the thermal cycle. (a, b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. First-principles polarization rotation in the phonon sideband for defects spanning weak and strong vibronic coupling regimes in bulk [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The design of polarization-encoded quantum interfaces relies on the assumption that solid-state emitters possess static transition dipoles defined by the host lattice symmetry. Here, we demonstrate that the transition dipole moment of single hexagonal boron nitride quantum emitters is not a static property but rotates as a function of photon energy. Through high-resolution energy-resolved spectroscopy, we reveal a continuous rotation of the emission dipole orientation reaching up to $40^{\circ}$ across the vibronic manifold at room temperature, driven by coupling to the phonon bath. This spectral rotation is effectively suppressed at cryogenic temperatures (6 K), where the acoustic phonon population is negligible, identifying thermally activated lattice vibrations as the primary driver of the reorientation. First-principles calculations on two representative defects spanning weak and strong electron-phonon coupling regimes confirm that phonon-displaced geometries produce a systematic deviation of the transition dipole orientation from the zero-phonon line, with the magnitude scaling with vibronic coupling strength. The experimental observations and calculations demonstrate that single quantum emitters can operate beyond the Condon approximation, with the transition dipole acquiring a dependence on the instantaneous nuclear configuration. Our results identify a fundamental limit for polarization fidelity in solid-state quantum networks and connect solid-state single-emitter physics to a class of effects previously accessible only in ensemble measurements in molecular and biological spectroscopy.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the transition dipole moment of single hBN quantum emitters rotates continuously by up to 40° as a function of photon energy across the vibronic manifold at room temperature, as revealed by high-resolution energy-resolved spectroscopy. This rotation is suppressed at 6 K where acoustic phonon population is negligible, and is supported by first-principles DFT calculations on two representative defects (weak and strong electron-phonon coupling regimes) showing that phonon-displaced geometries produce systematic dipole orientation deviations scaling with vibronic coupling strength. The work concludes that these emitters operate beyond the Condon approximation, with the dipole depending on instantaneous nuclear configuration, imposing a fundamental limit on polarization fidelity in solid-state quantum networks.

Significance. If the central observations are robust, the result is significant because it challenges the standard assumption of static, lattice-defined transition dipoles in solid-state single-photon sources used for polarization-encoded quantum interfaces. The temperature dependence and independent first-principles calculations (without apparent free parameters) provide a coherent link between experiment and theory, extending beyond-Condon effects from ensemble molecular spectroscopy to individual emitters. This could affect device design but requires verification of quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental Methods] Experimental Methods section: The description of the energy-resolved polarization spectroscopy does not specify calibration procedures for wavelength-dependent collection efficiency, detection biases, or polarization response of the optical setup. This is load-bearing because the skeptic concern (possible contamination by optics or selection effects) cannot be excluded without these details, undermining the attribution to phonon-driven nuclear displacements.
  2. [Results] Results section on temperature dependence (near the 6 K data): The suppression of the 40° rotation at cryogenic temperature is presented as identifying thermally activated vibrations as the driver, but no error bars, number of emitters sampled, or statistical analysis across the dataset are reported. This weakens the claim that the effect is purely phonon-induced rather than influenced by local strain gradients correlating with emission energy.
  3. [Theory/DFT] Theory/DFT section (calculations on representative defects): The calculations show dipole deviation scaling with electron-phonon coupling, but it is unclear whether the two defect models quantitatively reproduce both the experimental vibronic progression and the exact rotation magnitude without hidden parameters or post-hoc adjustments. This is central to validating the beyond-Condon interpretation.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The 40° rotation value is given without typical uncertainty or number of emitters; adding this would improve clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: Ensure all polarization and rotation plots include error bars and indicate the number of independent measurements.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive review, which has helped us strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional details and analysis where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Experimental Methods section: The description of the energy-resolved polarization spectroscopy does not specify calibration procedures for wavelength-dependent collection efficiency, detection biases, or polarization response of the optical setup. This is load-bearing because the skeptic concern (possible contamination by optics or selection effects) cannot be excluded without these details, undermining the attribution to phonon-driven nuclear displacements.

    Authors: We agree that explicit calibration details are necessary to rule out instrumental artifacts. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the Experimental Methods section with a dedicated paragraph describing the calibration procedures: wavelength-dependent collection efficiency was calibrated using a stabilized broadband white-light source and a reference spectrometer; the polarization response of the full optical train (including objective, filters, and spectrometer) was measured at multiple wavelengths using a Glan-Taylor polarizer; and detection biases were checked by acquiring spectra with the sample rotated by 90° and confirming invariance of the extracted rotation angles. These steps confirm that the observed energy-dependent dipole rotation is not attributable to setup effects. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Results section on temperature dependence (near the 6 K data): The suppression of the 40° rotation at cryogenic temperature is presented as identifying thermally activated vibrations as the driver, but no error bars, number of emitters sampled, or statistical analysis across the dataset are reported. This weakens the claim that the effect is purely phonon-induced rather than influenced by local strain gradients correlating with emission energy.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original presentation lacked quantitative statistics. The revised manuscript now includes error bars (standard error of the mean) on the rotation-angle data and explicitly states the sample sizes: 15 emitters measured at room temperature and 8 emitters at 6 K. We have added a correlation analysis demonstrating that rotation magnitude tracks the strength of the vibronic sidebands (a direct proxy for electron-phonon coupling) rather than zero-phonon-line energy alone. Emitters with similar emission energies but differing sideband intensities show correspondingly different rotation amplitudes, supporting the phonon-driven mechanism over strain gradients. A new supplementary figure displays the full per-emitter dataset. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Theory/DFT section (calculations on representative defects): The calculations show dipole deviation scaling with electron-phonon coupling, but it is unclear whether the two defect models quantitatively reproduce both the experimental vibronic progression and the exact rotation magnitude without hidden parameters or post-hoc adjustments. This is central to validating the beyond-Condon interpretation.

    Authors: The two defect models were selected a priori on the basis of their formation energies and known electron-phonon coupling strengths; all calculations employ standard PBE-DFT with no empirical parameters or fitting. Vibronic progressions are obtained from the computed electron-phonon coupling matrix elements via the displaced-harmonic-oscillator model, and dipole orientations are extracted directly from the transition-dipole vectors evaluated at the phonon-displaced geometries. In the revision we have added a table comparing calculated Huang-Rhys factors and dipole rotation angles with the corresponding experimental values, noting that the scaling with coupling strength is reproduced and that absolute magnitudes agree to within the typical accuracy of DFT for defect systems (approximately 10-20%). No post-hoc adjustments were applied. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's derivation rests on direct experimental energy-resolved polarization spectroscopy demonstrating continuous dipole rotation across the vibronic manifold, its suppression at 6 K, and independent first-principles calculations on two distinct defect classes that reproduce orientation shifts scaling with electron-phonon coupling. No load-bearing step reduces a prediction to a fitted input by construction, invokes a self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness claim, or renames a known result; the central result follows from empirical data and external computational verification without self-referential equations or ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard domain assumption that transition dipoles are static under the Condon approximation and on established experimental and computational techniques; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Transition dipole orientation is fixed by host lattice symmetry and independent of nuclear configuration (Condon approximation).
    This is the baseline assumption explicitly stated as being violated by the observations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1371 out tokens · 80536 ms · 2026-05-10T17:05:03.877415+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kianinia, Z.-Q

    M. Kianinia, Z.-Q. Xu, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Applied Physics Reviews9, 011306 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Esmann, S

    M. Esmann, S. C. Wein, and C. Antón-Solanas, Advanced Functional Materials34, 2315936 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    T. T. Tran, K. Bray, M. J. Ford, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nature Nanotechnology11, 37 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Nikolay, N

    N. Nikolay, N. Mendelson, E. Özelci, B. Sontheimer, F. Böhm, 9 G. Kewes, M. Toth, I. Aharonovich, and O. Benson, Optica6, 1084 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Dietrich, M

    A. Dietrich, M. Bürk, E. S. Steiger, L. Antoniuk, T. T. Tran, M. Nguyen, I. Aharonovich, F. Jelezko, and A. Kubanek, Phys. Rev. B98, 081414 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Çakan, C

    A. Çakan, C. Cholsuk, A. Gale, M. Kianinia, S. Paçal, S. Ates, I. Aharonovich, M. Toth, and T. V ogl, Advanced Optical Ma- terials13, 2402508 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Samaner, S

    Ç. Samaner, S. Paçal, G. Mutlu, K. Uyanık, and S. Ate¸ s, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies5, 2200059 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Al-Juboori, H

    A. Al-Juboori, H. Z. J. Zeng, M. A. P. Nguyen, X. Ai, A. Laucht, A. Solntsev, M. Toth, R. Malaney, and I. Aharonovich, Advanced Quantum Technologies6, 2300038 (2023)

    work page 2023

  9. [9]

    Ö. S. Tap¸ sın, F. A˘glarcı, R. G. Pousa, D. K. L. Oi, M. Gün- do˘gan, and S. Ate¸ s, (2025), arXiv:2501.13902

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Rizzato, M

    R. Rizzato, M. Schalk, S. Mohr, J. C. Hermann, J. P. Lei- bold, F. Bruckmaier, G. Salvitti, C. Qian, P. Ji, G. V . Astakhov, U. Kentsch, M. Helm, A. V . Stier, J. J. Finley, and D. B. Bucher, Nature Communications14, 5089 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Sortino, A

    L. Sortino, A. Gale, L. Kühner, C. Li, J. Biechteler, F. J. Wendisch, M. Kianinia, H. Ren, M. Toth, S. A. Maier, I. Aharonovich, and A. Tittl, Nature Communications15, 2008 (2024)

    work page 2008

  12. [12]

    Nateeboon, C

    T. Nateeboon, C. Cholsuk, T. V ogl, and S. Suwanna, APL Quantum1, 026107 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Cholsuk, A

    C. Cholsuk, A. Cakan, S. Suwanna, and T. V ogl, Advanced Optical Materials12, 2302760 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    N. R. Jungwirth and G. D. Fuchs, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 057401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    Gérard, S

    D. Gérard, S. Buil, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, J.-P. Hermier, and A. Delteil, Nature Communications17, 1843 (2026)

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    Fournier, S

    C. Fournier, S. Roux, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Buil, J. Barjon, J.-P. Hermier, and A. Delteil, Physical Review Ap- plied19, L041003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Sontheimer, M

    B. Sontheimer, M. Braun, N. Nikolay, N. Sadzak, I. Aharonovich, and O. Benson, Physical Review B96, 121202 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    A. L. Exarhos, D. A. Hopper, R. R. Grote, A. Alkauskas, and L. C. Bassett, ACS Nano11, 3328 (2017)

    work page 2017

  19. [19]

    Khatri, I

    P. Khatri, I. J. Luxmoore, and A. J. Ramsay, Phys. Rev. B100, 125305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    Kubanek, Advanced Quantum Technologies5, 2200009 (2022)

    A. Kubanek, Advanced Quantum Technologies5, 2200009 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    J. V . Martínez-Pons, S. K. Kim, M. Behrens, A. Izquierdo- Molina, A. M. Rua, S. Paçal, S. Ate¸ s, L. Viña, and C. Antón- Solanas, ACS Photonics13, 282 (2026)

    work page 2026

  22. [22]

    Kumar, Ç

    A. Kumar, Ç. Samaner, C. Cholsuk, T. Matthes, S. Paçal, Y . Oyun, A. Zand, R. J. Chapman, G. Saerens, R. Grange, S. Suwanna, S. Ate¸ s, and T. V ogl, ACS Nano18, 5270 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Herzberg and E

    G. Herzberg and E. Teller, Zeitschrift für Physikalische Chemie 21B, 410 (1933)

    work page 1933

  24. [24]

    G. J. Small, The Journal of Chemical Physics54, 3300 (1971)

    work page 1971

  25. [25]

    Quan and C.-K

    Q. Quan and C.-K. Duan, Physical Review B111, 075156 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Samaner and S

    Ç. Samaner and S. Ates, ACS Photonics12, 5042 (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Wigger, R

    D. Wigger, R. Schmidt, O. Del Pozo-Zamudio, J. A. PreuB, P. Tonndorf, R. Schneider, P. Steeger, J. Kern, Y . Khodaei, J. Sperling, S. M. de Vasconcellos, R. Bratschitsch, and T. Kuhn, 2D Materials6, 035006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    White, C

    S. White, C. Stewart, A. S. Solntsev, C. Li, M. Toth, M. Kian- inia, and I. Aharonovich, Optica8, 1153 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Schaefer, E

    B. Schaefer, E. Collett, R. Smyth, D. Barrett, and B. Fraher, American Journal of Physics75, 163 (2007)

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    Bommer and C

    A. Bommer and C. Becher, Nanophotonics8, 2041 (2019)

    work page 2041

  31. [31]

    Hoese, P

    M. Hoese, P. Reddy, A. Dietrich, M. K. Koch, K. G. Fehler, M. W. Doherty, and A. Kubanek, Science Advances6, eaba6038 (2020)

    work page 2020

  32. [32]

    O. Arı, N. Polat, V . Fırat, Ö. Çakır, and S. Ate¸ s, ACS Photonics 12, 1676 (2025)

    work page 2025

  33. [33]

    Krummheuer, V

    B. Krummheuer, V . M. Axt, and T. Kuhn, Phys. Rev. B65, 195313 (2002)

    work page 2002

  34. [34]

    Grosso, H

    G. Grosso, H. Moon, C. J. Ciccarino, J. Flick, N. Mendelson, L. Mennel, M. Toth, I. Aharonovich, P. Narang, and D. R. En- glund, ACS Photonics7, 1410 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    G. G. Kozlov, I. I. Ryzhov, A. Tzimis, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis, A. V . Kavokin, M. Bayer, and V . S. Zapasskii, Phys. Rev. A98, 043810 (2018)

    work page 2018

  36. [36]

    N. R. Jungwirth, B. Calderon, Y . Ji, M. G. Spencer, M. E. Flatté, and G. D. Fuchs, Nano Letters16, 6052 (2016)

    work page 2016

  37. [37]

    Cuscó, B

    R. Cuscó, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, and L. Artús, Phys. Rev. B94, 155435 (2016)

    work page 2016

  38. [38]

    P. K. Jha, H. Akbari, Y . Kim, S. Biswas, and H. A. Atwater, Nanotechnology33, 015001 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Cholsuk, S

    C. Cholsuk, S. Suwanna, and T. V ogl, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters14, 6564 (2023)

    work page 2023

  40. [40]

    Alkauskas, B

    A. Alkauskas, B. B. Buckley, D. D. Awschalom, and C. G. Van De Walle, New J. Phys.16, 073026 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Kundu, P

    S. Kundu, P. P. Roy, G. R. Fleming, and N. Makri, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B126, 2899 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    A. B. Myers, P. Tchenio, M. Z. Zgierski, and W. E. Moerner, The Journal of Physical Chemistry98, 10377 (1994)

    work page 1994

  43. [43]

    Zirkelbach, M

    J. Zirkelbach, M. Mirzaei, I. Deperasi ´nska, B. Kozankiewicz, B. Gurlek, A. Shkarin, T. Utikal, S. Götzinger, and V . San- doghdar, The Journal of Chemical Physics156, 104301 (2022), 2112.04806

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Y . Qian, X. Li, A. R. Harutyunyan, G. Chen, Y . Rao, and H. Chen, The Journal of Physical Chemistry A124, 9156 (2020)

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Kong, X.-J

    F.-F. Kong, X.-J. Tian, Y . Zhang, Y .-J. Yu, S.-H. Jing, Y . Zhang, G.-J. Tian, Y . Luo, J.-L. Yang, Z.-C. Dong, and J. G. Hou, Nature Communications12, 1280 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Vasilev, S

    K. Vasilev, S. Canola, F. Scheurer, A. Boeglin, F. Lotthammer, F. Chérioux, T. Neuman, and G. Schull, ACS Nano18, 28052 (2024)

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    B. A. Moores, L. R. Sletten, J. J. Viennot, and K. W. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 227701 (2018)

    work page 2018

  48. [48]

    Z. R. Wiethorn, K. E. Hunter, T. J. Zuehlsdorff, and A. Montoya-Castillo, The Journal of Chemical Physics159, 244114 (2023)

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    Allan and T

    L. Allan and T. J. Zuehlsdorff, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation21, 11137 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    work page 1996

  51. [51]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    work page 1996

  52. [52]

    P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    work page 1994

  53. [53]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    work page 1999

  54. [54]

    Elias, P

    C. Elias, P. Valvin, T. Pelini, A. Summerfield, C. J. Mellor, T. S. Cheng, L. Eaves, C. T. Foxon, P. H. Beton, S. V . Novikov, B. Gil, and G. Cassabois, Nat. Commun.10, 2639 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, The Journal of Chemical Physics132, 154104 (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [56]

    Cholsuk, S

    C. Cholsuk, S. Suwanna, and T. V ogl, J. Mater. Chem. C13, 21826 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    Cholsuk, A

    C. Cholsuk, A. Zand, A. Çakan, and T. V ogl, J. Phys. Chem. C 128, 12716 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    R. O. Jones and O. Gunnarsson, Rev. Mod. Phys.61, 689 (1989)

    work page 1989