pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.12979 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · physics.acc-ph

Evidence for Umklapp electron scattering emission from metal photocathodes

I-J. Shan , L.A. Angeloni , W. Andreas Schroeder This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 14:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.acc-ph
keywords photoemissionphotocathodesUmklapp scatteringquantum efficiencymean transverse energysingle crystal metalsFranck-Condon mechanism
0
0 comments X

The pith

Measurements on copper and tungsten single-crystal photocathodes show extra emission near threshold matching a model with Umklapp scattering.

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

The paper compares measured quantum efficiency and mean transverse energy spectra from Cu(001) and W(111) photocathodes against standard photoemission theories and identifies an additional one-photon process that dominates near and below threshold. It attributes this process to a momentum-resonant Franck-Condon mechanism enabled by inelastic Umklapp electron scattering. A first-principles simulation that incorporates the electron thermal effective mass, the inelastic mean free path at the vacuum level, and the number of Fermi surfaces in the metal, when added to a direct one-step band emission model, reproduces the observed spectral shapes for both materials. This matters for electron source design because photocathode performance in accelerators and imaging systems depends on accurate prediction of emission properties close to threshold.

Core claim

Comparison of the measured spectral emission properties of single-crystal Cu(001) and W(111) photocathodes to established photoemission theories reveal evidence for an additional one photon emission process predominantly affecting electron emission near and below the photoemission threshold. This additional photoemission process is postulated to be due to a momentum-resonant Franck-Condon mechanism mediated by inelastic Umklapp electron scattering. An initial first-principles simulation of this emission process, when combined with a direct one-step band emission model, is consistent with the measured spectral dependencies of both the quantum efficiency and mean transverse energy.

What carries the argument

The Umklapp-mediated Franck-Condon mechanism, simulated from electron thermal effective mass, inelastic mean free path at the vacuum level, and number of Fermi surfaces, added to a one-step band emission model.

Load-bearing premise

That the discrepancies between measured spectra and standard theories arise specifically from the postulated Umklapp process rather than from other unmodeled effects or experimental artifacts.

What would settle it

A measurement on a third single-crystal metal whose Fermi-surface count is known but whose simulated spectra deviate sharply from experiment when the Umklapp term is included would falsify the model.

read the original abstract

Comparison of the measured spectral emission properties of single-crystal Cu(001) and W(111) photocathodes to established photoemission theories reveal evidence for an additional one photon emission process predominantly affecting electron emission near and below the photoemission threshold. This additional photoemission process is postulated to be due to a momentum-resonant Franck-Condon mechanism mediated by inelastic Umklapp electron scattering. An initial first-principles simulation of this emission process (involving the electron thermal effective mass, the inelastic electron mean free path at the vacuum level, and the number of Fermi surfaces in the metal), when combined with a direct one-step band emission model, is consistent with the measured spectral dependencies of both the quantum efficiency and mean transverse energy of electron photoemission from the two single-crystal metal photocathodes.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports spectral measurements of quantum efficiency (QE) and mean transverse energy (MTE) for single-crystal Cu(001) and W(111) photocathodes. It identifies discrepancies with established photoemission theories near threshold and postulates an additional one-photon process arising from a momentum-resonant Franck-Condon mechanism mediated by inelastic Umklapp electron scattering. An initial simulation of this process, incorporating the electron thermal effective mass, the inelastic electron mean free path at the vacuum level, and the number of Fermi surfaces, is combined with a direct one-step band emission model and reported to be consistent with the measured QE and MTE spectral dependencies.

Significance. If the simulation parameters can be shown to be fixed independently of the data and the agreement is quantitative, the work would provide a concrete, testable mechanism for near-threshold photoemission anomalies in metals. This could influence photocathode modeling for accelerator applications. The combination of experiment on two distinct single-crystal surfaces with a mechanistic simulation is a positive feature, but the current lack of parameter provenance and fit metrics limits the strength of the evidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the simulation is labeled 'first-principles' yet explicitly depends on three material-specific inputs (electron thermal effective mass, inelastic mean free path at the vacuum level, and number of Fermi surfaces). No statement is given that these values were taken from independent literature sources and held fixed; without such documentation the reported consistency is non-unique and does not distinguish the postulated Umklapp process from unmodeled effects in standard theories.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of consistency rests on qualitative agreement between the combined model and the measured QE and MTE spectra. No error bars on the data, no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric, and no description of how the three simulation parameters were obtained or validated are provided, so the strength of the evidence cannot be assessed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it stated the photon-energy range over which the discrepancies and the model agreement are observed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments on the abstract. We address each point below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated in the next version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the simulation is labeled 'first-principles' yet explicitly depends on three material-specific inputs (electron thermal effective mass, inelastic mean free path at the vacuum level, and number of Fermi surfaces). No statement is given that these values were taken from independent literature sources and held fixed; without such documentation the reported consistency is non-unique and does not distinguish the postulated Umklapp process from unmodeled effects in standard theories.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract phrasing could lead to ambiguity. The three inputs are standard material constants taken from independent literature (thermal effective mass from established band-structure data, inelastic mean free path from electron-transport measurements, and number of Fermi surfaces from known Fermi-surface topology) and are held fixed; none are varied to fit the present QE or MTE spectra. The term 'first-principles' in the abstract refers to the mechanistic derivation of the Umklapp-mediated Franck-Condon channel rather than a fully parameter-free ab-initio computation. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that the parameters are literature-derived and fixed, thereby clarifying that the model is not tuned to the current data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim of consistency rests on qualitative agreement between the combined model and the measured QE and MTE spectra. No error bars on the data, no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric, and no description of how the three simulation parameters were obtained or validated are provided, so the strength of the evidence cannot be assessed.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the abstract presents only a qualitative statement of consistency. The full manuscript displays the experimental QE and MTE data with error bars in the figures, and the parameter values are justified by reference to prior independent measurements. To strengthen the presentation, we will add a quantitative comparison (root-mean-square deviation and a simple chi-squared metric between model and data) together with a brief table listing the literature sources and fixed values of the three inputs. These additions will be placed in the results section and referenced from the abstract. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper claims an initial first-principles simulation involving the electron thermal effective mass, inelastic mean free path at the vacuum level, and number of Fermi surfaces, combined with a one-step band model, is consistent with measured QE and MTE spectra. The provided abstract and context contain no equations, no statements that these inputs were fitted or selected to reproduce the specific data, and no reduction of the consistency result to the inputs by construction. The simulation is presented as independent support for the postulated Umklapp process rather than a tautological renaming or self-referential fit. No load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatz smuggling are evident in the given text. This is a standard case of a model-to-data consistency check without demonstrated circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The claim rests on the assumption that standard photoemission theories are complete above threshold and that the three simulation parameters can be treated as known inputs; the new entity is the postulated scattering mechanism itself, which has no independent falsifiable prediction supplied in the abstract.

free parameters (3)
  • electron thermal effective mass
    Input to the first-principles simulation of the Umklapp emission channel
  • inelastic electron mean free path at the vacuum level
    Input to the first-principles simulation of the Umklapp emission channel
  • number of Fermi surfaces in the metal
    Input to the first-principles simulation of the Umklapp emission channel
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Established one-step band emission models accurately describe photoemission above threshold
    Used as the baseline against which discrepancies are identified
  • ad hoc to paper The three simulation parameters can be taken from literature or simple estimates without further fitting
    Required for the claim that the simulation is first-principles and consistent with data
invented entities (1)
  • momentum-resonant Franck-Condon mechanism mediated by inelastic Umklapp electron scattering no independent evidence
    purpose: To account for the additional one-photon emission observed near and below threshold
    Postulated to explain spectral features not captured by standard theories

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5439 in / 1729 out tokens · 25572 ms · 2026-05-10T14:30:25.709521+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

92 extracted references · 92 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hertz, Annalen der Physik 267, 983-1000 (1887)

    H. Hertz, Annalen der Physik 267, 983-1000 (1887)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Lenard, Annalen der Physik 307, 359-375 (1900)

    P. Lenard, Annalen der Physik 307, 359-375 (1900)

    work page 1900

  3. [3]

    Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 132-148 (1905)

    A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 132-148 (1905)

    work page 1905

  4. [4]

    R. A. Millikan, Phys. Rev. 4, 73-75 (1914)

    work page 1914

  5. [5]

    Himpsel, Adv

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

    work page 1983

  6. [6]

    Ossiander, J

    M. Ossiander, J. Riemenberger, S. Neppl, M. Mittermair, M. Schäffer, A. Duensing, M. S. Wagner, R. Heider, M. Wurzer, M. Gerl, M. Schnitzenbaumer, J. V . Barth, F. Libisch, C. Lemell, J. Burgdörfer, P. Feulner, and R. Kienberger, Nature 561, 374-377 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Dowell and J

    D. Dowell and J. Schmerge, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 12, 074201 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Vecchione, D

    T. Vecchione, D. Dowell, W. Wan, J. Feng, and H. Padmore, Proceedings of FEL2013, New York, NY , 2013 (JACoW, Geneva, Switzerland, 2013), p. 424

    work page 2013

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

    Karkare and I

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

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    G. D. Mahan, Phys. Rev. B 2, 4334-4350 (1970)

    work page 1970

  12. [12]

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

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Adhikari, P

    G. Adhikari, P. Riley, and W.A. Schroeder, AIP Advances 9, 06305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Berglund and W.E

    C.N. Berglund and W.E. Spicer, Phys. Rev. 136, 1030 (1964)

    work page 1964

  15. [15]

    Karkare, G

    S. Karkare, G. Adhikari, W.A. Schroeder, K. Nangoi, T. Arias, and J. Maxson, Physical Review Letters 125, 054801 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Devlin, L

    L. Devlin, L. Jones, T. Noakes, C. Welsch, and B. Militsyn, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 89, 083305 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    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

  18. [18]

    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

  19. [19]

    Akre, et al., Phys

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

    work page 2008

  20. [20]

    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

  21. [21]

    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

  22. [22]

    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

  23. [23]

    Sciani and R

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

    work page 2005

  24. [24]

    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

  25. [25]

    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

  26. [26]

    Musumeci, J

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

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    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. 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

  30. [30]

    Murooka, N

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

    work page 2011

  31. [31]

    R. K. Li and P. Musumeci, Phys. Rev. Applied 2, 024003 (2014)

    work page 2014

  32. [32]

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

    work page 2003

  33. [33]

    Fritz et al

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

    work page 2007

  34. [34]

    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

  35. [35]

    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

  36. [36]

    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

  37. [37]

    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

  38. [38]

    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

  39. [39]

    Xie, Proceedings of the 16 th Particle Accelerator Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, Conf

    M. Xie, Proceedings of the 16 th Particle Accelerator Conference, Dallas, TX, USA, Conf. Proc. C 950501, 183 (1996)

    work page 1996

  40. [40]

    Huang and K.-J

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

    work page 2007

  41. [41]

    Michalik and J.E

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

    work page 2009

  42. [42]

    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

  43. [43]

    Antoniuk, P

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

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    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

  45. [45]

    Xiang and J

    R. Xiang and J. Schaber, Micromachines 13, 1241 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Franck, Trans

    J. Franck, Trans. Farad. Soc. 21, 536 (1926)

    work page 1926

  47. [47]

    Condon, Phys

    E. Condon, Phys. Rev. 28, 1182 (1926)

    work page 1926

  48. [48]

    Rameau, J

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

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Solid State Physics

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, (1976) "Solid State Physics", Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York

    work page 1976

  50. [50]

    Angeloni, I-J

    L.A. Angeloni, I-J. Shan, J.H. Leach, and W.A. Schroeder, J. Appl. Phys. 139, 095706 (2026)

    work page 2026

  51. [51]

    Mikalik and J.E

    A.M. Mikalik and J.E. Sipe, J. Appl. Phys. 99, 054908 (2006); Erratum, J. Appl. Phys. 103, 129901 (2008)

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    Berger and W.A

    J.A. Berger and W.A. Schroeder, J. Appl. Phys. 108 (2010) 124905

    work page 2010

  53. [53]

    https://princetonscientific.com

    work page

  54. [54]

    K. L. Chavez and D. W. Hess, J. Electrochemical Soc. 148, G640-G643 (2001)

    work page 2001

  55. [55]

    F. Zhou, A. Brachmann, F.-J. Decker, P. Emma, S. Gilevich, R. Iverson, P. Stefan and J. Turner, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 9, 090703 (2012)

    work page 2012

  56. [56]

    Perrone, M

    A. Perrone, M. R. Aziz and N. A. Vainos, Materials 18, 690 (2025)

    work page 2025

  57. [57]

    F. Zhou, J. Sheppard, T. Vecchione, E. Jongewaard, A. Brachmann, J. Corbett, S. Gilevich and S. Weathersby, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 783, 51 (2015)

    work page 2015

  58. [58]

    Burdick, Phys

    G.A. Burdick, Phys. Rev. 129, 139 (1963)

    work page 1963

  59. [59]

    Marini, G

    A. Marini, G. Onida, and R. Del Sole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 016403 (2001)

    work page 2001

  60. [60]

    Christensen and B

    N.E. Christensen and B. Feuerbacher, Phys. Rev. B 10, 2349 (1974)

    work page 1974

  61. [61]

    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

  62. [62]

    Lehtola, C

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

    work page 2018

  63. [63]

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

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5094646 2019

  64. [64]

    J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 039902 (2009)

    work page 2009

  65. [65]

    Berglund and W.E

    C.N. Berglund and W.E. Spicer, Phys. Rev. 136 (1964) 1044

    work page 1964

  66. [66]

    Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 8th ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2005, pp

    C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 8th ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2005, pp. 145-147

    work page 2005

  67. [67]

    P. B. Johnson and R. W. Christy, Phys. Rev. B 6, 4370 (1973)

    work page 1973

  68. [68]

    R. F. Willis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 670 (1975)

    work page 1975

  69. [69]

    R. F. Willis and N. E. Christensen, Phys. Rev. B 18, 5140 (1978)

    work page 1978

  70. [70]

    Nguyen-Truong, Appl

    Hieu T. Nguyen-Truong, Appl. Phys. Lett. 108, 172901 (2016)

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    De Vera and R

    P. De Vera and R. Garcia-Molina, J. Phys. Chem. C 123, 2075 (2019)

    work page 2075

  72. [72]

    D. Gall, J. Appl. Phys. 119, 085101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    M. P. Seah and W. A. Dench, Surf. Interface Anal 1, 2-11 (1979)

    work page 1979

  74. [74]

    Gobeli and F

    G. Gobeli and F. Allen, Phys. Rev. 137, A245 (1965)

    work page 1965

  75. [75]

    W. S. M. Werner, K. Glantschnig, C. Ambrosch-Draxl. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 38, 1013- 1092 (2009)

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    N. G. Derry, E. M. Kern and H. E. Worth, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 33, 060801 (2015)

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    Deriving accurate work functions from thin-slab calculations,

    C. J. Fall, N. Binggeli and A. Baldereschi, "Deriving accurate work functions from thin-slab calculations," Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 11, 2689 (1999)

    work page 1999

  78. [78]

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

    work page 2022

  79. [79]

    Khuntia, G

    A. Khuntia, G. Sahu, R. Sahoo, D. Mahapatra and N. Barik, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 523, no. 0378-4371, pp. 852-857 (2019)

    work page 2019

  80. [80]

    Nowak and M

    D. Nowak and M. Lee, Phys. Rev. B 5, 2851 (1972)

    work page 1972

Showing first 80 references.