Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Surface-Sensitive Mapping of Anisotropic Phonon Cascades in T$_{d}$-WTe$_{2}$

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In photoexcited WTe2, energy first flows into phonons along the tungsten-chain axis before spreading across the surface Brillouin zone.

desk verdict New momentum-resolved phonon cascade data in WTe2; the el-ph anisotropy claim needs a forward model before I'd sign off. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.15853 v2 pith:CIRKGZ2P submitted 2026-06-14 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Alp Akbiyik , Felix Kurtz , Nandana Veena Uday , Sergey V. Yalunin , Claus Ropers , Hannes Böckmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords T_d-WTe2ultrafastlow-energyelectrondiffractiondiffusescatteringphonondynamicselectron-phononcouplingphonon-phononanisotropicthermalizationlayeredsemimetal
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 sets out to show that energy relaxation in the semimetal T_d-WTe2 after an optical pulse is a momentum-resolved cascade, not a single jump to thermal equilibrium. Using ultrafast low-energy electron diffraction and diffuse scattering, the authors track phonon populations in distinct momentum regions of the surface Brillouin zone. They find a rapid build-up of diffuse intensity along the tungsten-chain (Gamma-X) direction within a few picoseconds, which they attribute to anisotropic electron–phonon coupling during electronic cooling. That is followed by a slower redistribution perpendicular to the chains (Gamma-Y) and a gradual accumulation near the zone centre over 30–100 ps, assigned to anharmonic phonon–phonon scattering. The separation of these steps, supported by the fluence dependence of the slow time constant, identifies a hierarchical pathway in which energy is deposited into selected phonon modes before being shared with the broader lattice bath.

What carries the argument

Ultrafast low-energy electron diffraction with diffuse-scattering analysis (ULEED) is the technique carrying the argument. Low-energy (90 eV) electrons backscattered from the surface are inelastically scattered by phonons, and the transient diffuse background at a given in-plane momentum transfer reflects the structure-factor-weighted population of phonons with that momentum. Because the scattering vector is nearly perpendicular to the surface, the measurement is preferentially sensitive to phonons with out-of-plane displacement components, and low-frequency modes dominate through an inverse-frequency weighting. This momentum resolution is what allows the authors to separate the Gamma-X, Gam

What would settle it

Compute the ULEED diffuse-intensity map for a momentum-independent (isotropic) phonon population, using the DFT phonon dispersion, polarization vectors, and the inverse-frequency/out-of-plane structure-factor weighting of the backscattering geometry. If that map already shows more diffuse intensity along Gamma-X than Gamma-Y, then the observed anisotropy would not establish anisotropic electron–phonon coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

After optical excitation, T_d-WTe2 does not thermalize as a uniform lattice bath. The diffuse electron-scattering signal shows that energy is first deposited into finite-momentum phonons along the tungsten-chain (Gamma-X) direction on a few-picosecond time scale, consistent with anisotropic electron–phonon coupling originating from the elongated electron and hole pockets aligned with that axis. Diffuse intensity along the orthogonal Gamma-Y direction rises on a roughly 10 ps time scale, and intensity near the zone centre only saturates after more than 100 ps; the slow component's rate increases with pump fluence. Combined with a biexponential increase of the Debye-Waller mean-squared displac

Load-bearing premise

The measured anisotropy in diffuse intensity is read as anisotropy in the phonon population, which requires that the probe's own sensitivity—the inverse-frequency and out-of-plane polarization weighting—does not intrinsically favor the Gamma-X direction when the phonon population is uniform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the relaxation is hierarchical, the transient phonon distribution in T_d-WTe2 remains nonthermal for tens of picoseconds, so properties that depend on the phonon spectrum (electrical transport, band renormalization) evolve directionally in time and are not captured by a single temperature.
  • The early Gamma-X phonon population is a momentum-resolved fingerprint of the anisotropic electron–phonon coupling, which can be used to benchmark first-principles calculations of scattering rates in low-symmetry materials.
  • The inverse scaling of the slow rise time with fluence supports anharmonic phonon–phonon scattering as the redistribution mechanism, implying that the thermalization time can be tuned by excitation density.
  • Because the backscattering geometry suppresses interlayer sliding modes and highlights out-of-plane acoustic modes, the measurement gives a surface-specific view that supplements and must be reconciled with bulk-sensitive diffuse x-ray or transmission electron diffraction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the interpretation is correct, the technique becomes a direct probe of which phonon momenta are populated first in any low-symmetry or topological material, simply by reading the shape of the diffuse pattern at early times.
  • The instrument resolution (about 3 ps) means the reported 3.5 ps rise is an upper bound; if a future instrument with sub-picosecond resolution shows the anisotropy is already fully developed within the first pulse, the electron–phonon stage would be even more sharply momentum-selective.
  • The surface-specific backscattering geometry leaves open how the cascade proceeds in the bulk; comparing these results with bulk-sensitive diffuse probes on the same material could separate surface and interior relaxation channels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper uses ultrafast low-energy electron diffraction and diffuse scattering (ULEEDS) on Td-WTe2 to follow momentum-resolved phonon population dynamics after 1030 nm optical excitation. The main experimental results are: (i) a biexponential increase in the Debye-Waller-derived mean-squared displacement; (ii) a prompt rise of diffuse intensity at the Γ-X zone boundary with a ~3.5 ps time constant; (iii) a delayed rise at Γ-Y (~10 ps); and (iv) a slow accumulation near the zone center (>100 ps). The authors interpret this sequence as a hierarchical relaxation: hot electrons preferentially emit finite-momentum phonons along the W-chain (Γ-X) direction via anisotropic electron-phonon coupling, followed by anharmonic phonon-phonon scattering that redistributes energy across the Brillouin zone and finally into low-frequency zone-center modes. The central claim is that this is a momentum-resolved cascade rather than instantaneous thermalization.

Significance. If established, the result would be a valuable demonstration of momentum-resolved, surface-sensitive probing of phonon thermalization in an anisotropic semimetal, complementing previous work on coherent zone-center phonons. The paper introduces no new theory but leverages a relatively new ULEEDS diffuse-scattering capability. The separation of fast and slow MSD components and the fluence dependence of the slow time constant are useful observations. However, the decisive step—interpreting the diffuse-intensity anisotropy as phonon-population anisotropy—is not backed by a forward calculation of the diffuse scattering. The necessary DFT phonon data are available in the paper (Fig. 4b), making the missing control straightforward. The significance of the paper thus hinges on this quantitative step.

major comments (2)
  1. [§II (introductory paragraphs) and Methods C; Fig. 4b] The diffuse ULEED intensity is not a direct phonon population. The paper explicitly states it is structure-factor-weighted and sensitive to out-of-plane displacements and inverse-frequency weighting (Sec. II, paragraphs after Fig. 2; Fig. 4b). Yet the analysis treats the measured Γ-X vs Γ-Y diffuse enhancement as a direct population anisotropy. Because the low-energy acoustic modes along Γ-X in Td-WTe2 are lower in frequency and have different polarization content than those along Γ-Y, an isotropic phonon population could by itself produce a Γ-X anisotropic diffuse pattern through the weighting factors. The authors should compute the expected one-phonon diffuse intensity for an isotropic/thermal phonon distribution using their DFT phonon frequencies and polarization vectors, and compare with the measured maps. This is a missing control, not an internal contradiction, and the necessary in
  2. [§II, 'Along Γ−X... identifies anisotropic el–ph coupling'] Even with the structure-factor control in place, the attribution of the fast Γ-X rise specifically to electron-phonon coupling is qualitative. The supporting evidence cited is the elongated Fermi surface and band extrema along Γ-X, and the weak fluence dependence of the fast time constant. These are necessary but not sufficient: an anisotropic phonon density of states or direction-dependent anharmonic decay could also produce a momentum-selective early signal. A quantitative estimate (e.g., q-resolved el-ph matrix elements or an EPC-weighted phonon emission rate from DFT) is needed to back the claim that the Γ-X build-up is dominated by el-ph scattering. Alternatively, a control experiment varying the excitation photon energy or polarization could strengthen the assignment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The text reads 'where τ_fast and τ_fast are...'—the second symbol should be τ_slow. Please fix this typo.
  2. [Abstract vs. §II] The abstract states a '30–100 ps timescale' for the final accumulation, while the text says the zone-center intensity 'saturates only after more than 100 ps.' Please make the reported times consistent.
  3. [Methods B] The sentence 'Assuming 1−R for the absorption, 70 % of the beam is absorbed for the applied angle of incidence and p-polarization' is unclear. Specify how the incident-angle projection and the (1−R) factor combine to give the absorbed fluence.
  4. [Methods C / Fig. 4] The ROIs used for diffuse analysis are not defined in detail. Please specify the size and position of the integration windows (e.g., relative to the zone boundaries and the Γ point), and describe the background-subtraction procedure more explicitly. Also report fit amplitudes and uncertainties for the single-exponential diffuse rises.
  5. [Methods C] The statement that the 3.5 ps rise 'is further used as an upper boundary for a Gaussian instrument response function' needs clarification: was the IRF width fixed to 3.5 ps or fitted with that as a bound? How sensitive are the reported MSD time constants to this assumption?
  6. [§II] There is a typo: 'This assginment' should be 'This assignment.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central anisotropic Γ–X vs Γ–Y cascade claim rests on independent diffuse-map comparisons and DFT-based electronic structure; only a minor analysis coupling exists where the 3.5 ps Γ–X diffuse rise is used as the instrument-response upper bound in the MSD deconvolution.

  1. other [Sec. IV.C (Methods: Data Analysis) and Sec. II (Results, Fig. 4a)]
    "The fastest rise exhibits a 3.5 ps timescale and was obtained from the single exponential model for zone-boundary intensity along the Γ−X direction. It is further used as an upper boundary for a Gaussian instrument response function, convoluted in the bi-exponential MSD dynamics."

    The 3.5 ps Γ–X diffuse rise is first fitted from the diffuse background and then imposed as the width of the Gaussian instrument response in the MSD biexponential deconvolution. Any fast MSD component faster than this width is artificially rendered as a ~3.5 ps rise by the convolution. The subsequent statement that the 3.5 ps Γ–X rise 'is associated with the fast component of the MSD rise' is therefore partly a consequence of the shared timescale rather than an independent confirmation. This coupling does not, however, create the central Γ–X vs Γ–Y anisotropy, which is read directly from the diffuse maps, so the circularity is mild and not load-bearing for the main conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that photoexcited Td-WTe2 first populates finite-momentum phonons along the W-chain (Γ–X) direction via anisotropic electron–phonon coupling, then redistributes by anharmonic phonon–phonon scattering—rests on two main observables: the Debye–Waller MSD rise and the momentum-resolved diffuse background. The diffuse Γ–X vs Γ–Y anisotropy is a direct comparison of measured intensities in different Brillouin-zone regions and is not forced by any fitted parameter. The attribution to electron–phonon versus phonon–phonon processes is supported by fluence-dependent time constants and by independent DFT electronic-structure calculations. The only quantitative coupling between the two analyses is the use of the 3.5 ps Γ–X diffuse rise as an upper bound for the instrument response in the MSD deconvolution; this is a conservative, standard deconvolution step and does not force the main anisotropy result. Self-citations to refs. [14,23–27] establish the ULEEDS methodology and are not used to exclude alternative explanations; they are prior published technique developments rather than load-bearing uniqueness claims. The lack of a forward model for the expected diffuse intensity from an isotropic phonon population is a missing control and a correctness risk, but not circularity, since the paper does not define its conclusion through that model. Overall, the derivation chain is largely self-contained and the central claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The paper's central cascade claim rests on fitted time constants and on a qualitative mapping of diffuse intensity to phonon population. No ab initio simulation of the ULEEDS diffuse intensity is provided, which is the main missing piece separating observation from microscopic attribution.

free parameters (4)
  • MSD biexponential parameters (tau_fast, tau_slow, b) = fast few ps; slow ~30 ps; amplitude ratio b not tabulated in text
    Fit to Delta<u^2> data at each fluence (Eq. 2); the separation of fast and slow components is the backbone of the sequential relaxation claim.
  • Diffuse ROI single-exponential rise times (tau_rise) = 3.5 ps (Gamma-X), 10 ps (Gamma-Y), >100 ps (zone centre)
    Fit to diffuse background traces (Eq. 3); these timescales define the hierarchical cascade.
  • Instrument-response Gaussian width = 3.5 ps upper bound
    Set from the Gamma-X diffuse rise and convolved into the MSD fits; affects the fast-component interpretation.
  • Absorbed-fluence conversion parameters = w_x ~ 150 um, w_y ~ 100 um, 70% absorption
    Converts laser fluence to absorbed fluence; underlies the fluence-dependence interpretation of time constants.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Debye-Waller relation (Eq. 1) applies to LEED Bragg intensities
    Used to extract MSD from Bragg-peak suppression; LEED multiple scattering can modify the simple exponential form, and the paper does not validate the approximation for WTe2.
  • domain assumption Inelastic electron diffuse scattering intensity is proportional to structure-factor-weighted phonon occupation, with low-frequency modes dominating
    Invoked in Results to read the diffuse background as a map of phonon populations; no forward calculation of the diffuse cross-section is provided.
  • domain assumption ULEED is sensitive primarily to phonon modes with out-of-plane displacement components
    Used to explain sensitivity to ZA modes; assumed from the backscattering geometry and ref 14.
  • domain assumption Fermi-surface elongation along Gamma-X provides phase space for anisotropic electron-phonon scattering
    Used to attribute the early Gamma-X diffuse build-up to anisotropic el-ph coupling; based on DFT electronic structure and cited ARPES/transport work, not on computed el-ph matrix elements.
  • domain assumption Electron-phonon energy-transfer rates are weakly fluence dependent; anharmonic phonon-phonon rates increase with occupation
    Taken from refs 30 and 31; used to assign the fluence-independent fast component to el-ph and the fluence-dependent slow component to ph-ph.
  • domain assumption DFT-PBE phonon dispersions and polarization vectors (Fig. 4b) accurately represent the structure-factor weighting
    The calculated phonon structure-factor coloring is used to argue sensitivity to low-frequency acoustic modes; no experimental validation of the DFT phonons is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Surface-Sensitive Mapping of Anisotropic Phonon Cascades in T$_{d}$-WTe$_{2}$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIRKGZ2P

@misc{pith2026260615853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Surface-Sensitive Mapping of Anisotropic Phonon Cascades in T$_d$-WTe$_2$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIRKGZ2P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.15853}
}
abstract

Understanding how energy flows from photoexcited carriers into the lattice is essential for describing nonequilibrium phenomena in low-symmetry quantum materials. Here, we use ultrafast low-energy electron diffraction and diffuse scattering to probe momentum-resolved phonon dynamics at the surface of T$_d$-WTe$_2$, a strongly anisotropic semimetal. Following optical excitation, the Debye--Waller suppression of Bragg peaks exhibits a biexponential increase of the mean-squared atomic displacement, indicating sequential lattice relaxation. Analysis of the diffuse background reveals a preferential intensity build-up parallel to the tungsten-chain axis in the material, attributed to anisotropic electron--phonon coupling during electronic cooling which precedes anharmonic phonon--phonon scattering and subsequent thermalization across the surface Brillouin zone. The results identify a hierarchical relaxation pathway in which energy is first deposited into selected finite-momentum phonons before spreading through the broader lattice bath. Our work highlights the importance of momentum-resolved diffuse scattering for disentangling electron--phonon and phonon--phonon relaxation in anisotropic topological semimetals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.15853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Representation of the real space structure [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Schematic of the ULEED experimental setup. (b) Delay-dependent diffraction intensities of back-scattered low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Transient change in out-of-plane mean-squared displacement (MSD) for selected absorbed fluences. Bi-exponential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Left, transient change in diffuse background for 4.5 mJcm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references

  1. [1]

    M. N. Ali, J. Xiong, S. Flynn, J. Tao, Q. D. Gib- son, L. M. Schoop, T. Liang, N. Haldolaarachchige, M. Hirschberger, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Nature514, 205 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Pletikosi´ c, M

    I. Pletikosi´ c, M. N. Ali, A. V. Fedorov, R. J. Cava, and T. Valla, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 216601 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    A. A. Soluyanov, D. Gresch, Z. Wang, Q. Wu, M. Troyer, X. Dai, and B. A. Bernevig, Nature527, 495 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    A. Mar, S. Jobic, and J. A. Ibers, Journal of the American Chemical Society114, 8963 (1992)

    1992

  5. [5]

    M. Kim, S. Han, J. H. Kim, J.-U. Lee, Z. Lee, and H. Cheong, 2D Materials3, 034004 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    E. J. Sie, C. M. Nyby, C. D. Pemmaraju, S. J. Park, X. Shen, J. Yang, M. C. Hoffmann, B. K. Ofori-Okai, R. Li, A. H. Reid, S. Weathersby, E. Mannebach, N. Finney, D. Rhodes, D. Chenet, A. Antony, L. Bali- cas, J. Hone, T. P. Devereaux, T. F. Heinz, X. Wang, and A. M. Lindenberg, Nature565, 61 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    P. Hein, S. Jauernik, H. Erk, L. Yang, Y. Qi, Y. Sun, C. Felser, and M. Bauer, Nature Communications11, 2613 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    S. Ji, O. Gr ˚ an¨ as, and J. Weissenrieder, ACS Nano15, 8826 (2021)

    2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Chase, M

    T. Chase, M. Trigo, A. H. Reid, R. Li, T. Vecchione, X. Shen, S. Weathersby, R. Coffee, N. Hartmann, D. A. Reis, X. J. Wang, and H. A. D¨ urr, Applied Physics Let- ters108, 041909 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Waldecker, R

    L. Waldecker, R. Bertoni, H. H¨ ubener, T. Brumme, T. Vasileiadis, D. Zahn, A. Rubio, and R. Ernstorfer, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 036803 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    M. J. Stern, L. P. Ren´ e de Cotret, M. R. Otto, R. P. Chatelain, J.-P. Boisvert, M. Sutton, and B. J. Siwick, Phys. Rev. B97, 165416 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Maldonado, T

    P. Maldonado, T. Chase, A. H. Reid, X. Shen, R. K. Li, K. Carva, T. Payer, M. Horn von Hoegen, K. Sokolowski- Tinten, X. J. Wang, P. M. Oppeneer, and H. A. D¨ urr, Phys. Rev. B101, 100302(R) (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    M. R. Otto, J.-H. P¨ ohls, L. P. R. de Cotret, M. J. Stern, M. Sutton, and B. J. Siwick, Science Advances 7, eabf2810 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Kurtz, T

    F. Kurtz, T. N. Dauwe, S. V. Yalunin, G. Storeck, J. G. Horstmann, H. B¨ ockmann, and C. Ropers, Nature Ma- terials23, 890 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Y. Tao, J. A. Schneeloch, A. A. Aczel, and D. Louca, Phys. Rev. B102, 060103(R) (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    B. Tang, J. Zhou, P. Sun, X. Wang, L. Bai, J. Dan, J. Yang, K. Zhou, X. Zhao, S. J. Pennycook, and Z. Liu, Advanced Materials31, 1900862 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Q. Song, X. Pan, H. Wang, K. Zhang, Q. Tan, P. Li, Y. Wan, Y. Wang, X. Xu, M. Lin, X. Wan, F. Song, and L. Dai, Scientific Reports6, 29254 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    R. Aoki, K. Uchida, and K. Tanaka, AIP Advances12, 045309 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    B. He, C. Zhang, W. Zhu, Y. Li, S. Liu, X. Zhu, X. Wu, X. Wang, H.-h. Wen, and M. Xiao, Scientific Reports6, 30487 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Y. M. Dai, J. Bowlan, H. Li, H. Miao, S. F. Wu, W. D. Kong, P. Richard, Y. G. Shi, S. A. Trugman, J.-X. Zhu, H. Ding, A. J. Taylor, D. A. Yarotski, and R. P. Prasankumar, Phys. Rev. B92, 161104 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    Drueke, J

    E. Drueke, J. Yang, and L. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B104, 064304 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Soranzio, M

    D. Soranzio, M. Savoini, P. Beaud, F. Cilento, L. Boie, J. D¨ ossegger, V. Ovuka, S. Houver, M. Sander, S. Zer- dane, E. Abreu, Y. Deng, R. Mankowsky, H. T. Lemke, F. Parmigiani, M. Peressi, and S. L. Johnson, npj 2D Materials and Applications6, 71 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Vogelgesang, G

    S. Vogelgesang, G. Storeck, J. G. Horstmann, T. Diek- mann, M. Sivis, S. Schramm, K. Rossnagel, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, Nature Physics14, 184 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Storeck, J

    G. Storeck, J. G. Horstmann, T. Diekmann, S. Vogelge- sang, G. von Witte, S. V. Yalunin, K. Rossnagel, and C. Ropers, Structural Dynamics7, 034304 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    J. G. Horstmann, H. B¨ ockmann, B. Wit, F. Kurtz, G. Storeck, and C. Ropers, Nature583, 232 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    B¨ ockmann, J

    H. B¨ ockmann, J. G. Horstmann, A. S. Razzaq, S. Wip- permann, and C. Ropers, Structural Dynamics9, 045102 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    B¨ ockmann, J

    H. B¨ ockmann, J. G. Horstmann, F. Kurtz, M. Buriks, K. Gadge, S. R. Manmana, S. Wippermann, and C. Rop- ers, Nature Physics21, 1106 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Xu and T

    R. Xu and T. C. Chiang, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Kristallographie - Crystalline Materials220, 1009 (2005)

    2005

  21. [29]

    M. A. Van Hove, W. H. Weinberg, and C.-M. Chan,Low- Energy Electron Diffraction: Experiment, Theory and Surface Structure Determination, Springer Series in Sur- face Sciences, Vol. 6 (Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1986)

    1986

  22. [30]

    Laser Material Interactions for Micro- and Nano- Applications

    B. Mueller and B. Rethfeld, Applied Surface Science302, 24 (2014), e-MRS 2013 Symposium V: “Laser Material Interactions for Micro- and Nano- Applications” 27–31 May 2013, Strasbourg (France)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Fugallo, M

    G. Fugallo, M. Lazzeri, L. Paulatto, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. B88, 045430 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    Jiang, F

    J. Jiang, F. Tang, X. C. Pan, H. M. Liu, X. H. Niu, Y. X. Wang, D. F. Xu, H. F. Yang, B. P. Xie, F. Q. Song, P. Dudin, T. K. Kim, M. Hoesch, P. K. Das, I. Vobornik, X. G. Wan, and D. L. Feng, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 166601 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Zahn, P.-N

    D. Zahn, P.-N. Hildebrandt, T. Vasileiadis, Y. W. Wind- sor, Y. Qi, H. Seiler, and R. Ernstorfer, Nano Letters20, 3728 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Seiler, D

    H. Seiler, D. Zahn, M. Zacharias, P.-N. Hildebrandt, T. Vasileiadis, Y. W. Windsor, Y. Qi, C. Carbogno, C. Draxl, R. Ernstorfer, and F. Caruso, Nano Letters 21, 6171 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Theuss, A

    F. Theuss, A. Shragai, G. Grissonnanche, L. Peralta, G. d. l. F. Simarro, I. M. Hayes, S. R. Saha, Y. S. Eo, A. Suarez, A. C. Salinas, G. Pokharel, S. D. Wilson, N. P. Butch, J. Paglione, and B. J. Ramshaw, Phys. Rev. B 110, 144507 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Tinnemann, C

    V. Tinnemann, C. Streub¨ uhr, B. Hafke, T. Witte, A. Kalus, A. Hanisch-Blicharski, M. Ligges, P. Zhou, D. von der Linde, U. Bovensiepen, and M. Horn-von Hoe- gen, Structural Dynamics6, 065101 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    H. Zhu, J. Yi, M.-Y. Li, J. Xiao, L. Zhang, C.-W. Yang, R. A. Kaindl, L.-J. Li, Y. Wang, and X. Zhang, Science 359, 579 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Kurtz, G

    F. Kurtz, G. von Witte, L. Jehn, A. Akbiyik, I. Vinograd, M. Le Tacon, A. A. Haghighirad, D. Chen, C. Shekhar, C. Felser, and C. Ropers, Phys. Rev. B111, L140101 (2025). 8

    2025

  31. [39]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavaz- zoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carn- imeo, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. DiStasio, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Ge...

    2017

  32. [40]

    Baroni, S

    S. Baroni, S. de Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Gian- nozzi, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 515 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B88, 085117 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    M. J. van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. J. Verstraete, D. R. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G. M. Rig- nanese, Computer Physics Communications226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    A. Mar, S. Jobic, and J. A. Ibers, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 8963 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    Storeck, S

    G. Storeck, S. Vogelgesang, M. Sivis, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, Structural Dynamics4, 044024 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    M. N. Polyanskiy, Scientific Data11, 94 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    HQ Graphene, WTe 2 (Tungsten Ditelluride),https:// www.hqgraphene.com/WTe2.php

  39. [47]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, Journal of Applied Crystallog- raphy44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.