Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Revealing the Atomic Structure of NiO/Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ Interfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Nearly atom-perfect NiO/Ga2O3 interface found on the (100) face

desk verdict Solid atomic-scale interface study; the (100) structural determination is well supported, but the 'low defect density' claim rests on an unverified reading of weak STEM contrast. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10226 v1 pith:LD6CONY6 submitted 2026-08-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Michelle A. Smeaton , Krishna Acharya , Anna Sacchi , Renae N. Gannon , M. Brooks Tellekamp , Andriy Zakutayev , Vladan Stevanovic , Steven R. Spurgeon This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords NiO/Ga2O3heterojunctionsbeta-Ga2O3interfacestructureHAADF-STEMscanningtransmissionelectronmicroscopyepitaxialregistryprojectionartifactspowerelectronics
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

This paper uses atomic-resolution electron microscopy, interface modeling, and image simulations to establish how NiO bonds to Ga2O3 for three different substrate orientations. The central claim is that the NiO/Ga2O3(100) interface is nearly atomically abrupt, with a clear crystallographic registry that matches a calculated interface model, while the (-201) and (001) interfaces are more complex, less abrupt, and more variable. If true, this matters for power electronics because interface quality, disorder, and defects directly affect band alignment, carrier transport, and device stability in NiO/Ga2O3 heterojunctions. The paper also shows that ordinary STEM projection effects can create contrast that looks like interstitials or spinel interlayer phases, so those apparent features must be interpreted with care.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a three-way comparison loop: atomically resolved HAADF-STEM images, calculated interface models, and multislice-simulated STEM images from those models. Interface models are generated by a structure-matching algorithm that minimizes a Lennard-Jones energy over candidate NiO surface orientations on a fixed Ga2O3 surface, followed by density functional theory relaxation. The decisive element is the crystallographic registry—for (100), NiO(001) || Ga2O3(100) with in-plane NiO[110] || Ga2O3[010]—because matching that registry simultaneously in the model, the simulation, and the experimental image is what licenses calling the interface nearly atomically abrupt. The same simulation loop is used to test competing interpretations: a step-edge projection model reproduces the extra column contrast, while spinel and gamma-Ga2O3 models fail to reproduce the hexagonal motifs observed at the other two interfaces.

What would settle it

Atomically resolved EELS or EDS maps of the top Ga2O3 unit cells at the (100) interface would settle the matter: if the extra columns are Ga, they are interstitials and the interface is not truly abrupt; if they are Ni, the step-edge projection interpretation stands.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper directly visualizes the atomic structure of NiO/Ga2O3 interfaces grown on (100), (-201), and (001) oriented Ga2O3 substrates and identifies the epitaxial relationships in each case. The central finding is that the NiO/Ga2O3(100) interface is nearly atomically abrupt and consistent across roughly half a micron of interface, with NiO(001) || Ga2O3(100) and in-plane NiO[110] || Ga2O3[010], and that this registry matches a DFT-relaxed interface model and the simulated STEM image derived from it. By contrast, the NiO/Ga2O3(-201) interface is less abrupt, with a corrugated Ga2O3 surface that produces extra atomic columns not captured by the model, and the NiO/Ga2O3(001) interface is the most complex, with NiO growing in a near-(331) orientation approximated as (10 10 3) and nucleating through an epitaxial relationship between Ga2O3(101) and NiO(1-11) rather than through the substrate surface plane itself. The paper further argues that weak extra column contrast near the (100) interface and hexagonal motifs near the (-201) and (001) interfaces are projection effects from substrate step edges and overlapping lattices, not Ga interstitials or NiGa2O4/gamma-Ga2O3 interlayer phases.

Load-bearing premise

The sharp-interface conclusion for Ga2O3(100) rests on interpreting the weak extra atomic columns at the top of the substrate as a projection artifact from a step edge rather than as real Ga interstitials, a distinction the images alone cannot settle without atomically resolved chemical mapping.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the sharp-registry picture is right, (100)-oriented Ga2O3 substrates should be the preferred platform for low-defect-density NiO/Ga2O3 power devices.
  • The absence of NiGa2O4 or gamma-Ga2O3 interlayer phases in as-deposited films on all three orientations implies that high-temperature interlayer formation studies must be interpreted with projection effects in mind.
  • The (001) interface's intrinsic disorder and strain, tied to growth through a non-surface-plane Ga2O3(101)/NiO(1-11) relationship, suggests that devices on (001) may carry more interface traps and strain relaxation defects.
  • The sharp registry on (100) presumably leaves fewer nucleation sites for a NiGa2O4 interlayer during high-temperature device operation, suggesting better long-term interface stability.
  • For dissimilar heterointerfaces generally, extra atomic column contrast and phase-like motifs should be checked against thickness and projection artifacts before being assigned to point defects or new phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: If the (100) interface is as defect-poor as claimed, vertical NiO/Ga2O3(100) diodes should show measurably lower leakage, fewer trap-related deep levels, and more stable breakdown behavior than comparable (001) devices; this is a testable electrical prediction the paper does not make.
  • Inference: Because NiO on (001) nucleates through the tilted Ga2O3(101) plane, deliberately miscut (001) substrates that expose (101)-like facets might template a more ordered NiO film than nominally flat (001) surfaces.
  • Inference: The step-edge projection interpretation implies that the intensity of the extra (100)-interface columns should scale with lamella thickness and local step density; imaging the same interface at several thicknesses could quantify how many steps are actually present.
  • Inference: The same projection-vs-defect caution likely applies to other rock-salt-on-monoclinic-oxide junctions, where spinel-like hexagonal motifs may appear in HAADF-STEM images without any spinel phase being present.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents an atomic-scale study of NiO/Ga2O3 interfaces formed by pulsed-laser deposition on (100), (-201), and (001) oriented β-Ga2O3 substrates. Using aberration-corrected HAADF-STEM, the authors identify epitaxial orientation relationships for each substrate orientation and compare the experimental images with interface models generated by a Lennard-Jones structure-matching algorithm followed by DFT relaxation, along with multislice STEM image simulations. For NiO/Ga2O3(100) they report a nearly atomically abrupt interface with NiO(001) || Ga2O3(100) and in-plane NiO[110] || Ga2O3[010], and they interpret weak 'extra' column contrast at the interface as a step-edge projection artifact rather than a Ga interstitial. The (-201) and (001) interfaces are described as more complex, with additional atomic columns and reconstructed layers that are only partially captured by the calculated models. The paper concludes that (100)-oriented Ga2O3 is a promising substrate for high-quality, low-defect-density NiO/Ga2O3 heterojunctions and emphasizes the importance of accounting for 3D-to-2D projection effects in interpreting such interfaces.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper provides a concrete atomic-registry model for a technologically important heterojunction and gives a usable rationale for preferring (100)-oriented Ga2O3 substrates. The study has clear strengths: the (100) and (-201) orientation relationships emerge from an independent structure search rather than being read off the images; the relationships are corroborated by XRD; the multislice simulations are matched to the experimental imaging parameters; and the discussion of projection artifacts, including the step-edge model, is a valuable methodological contribution. The explicit negative result that the as-deposited interfaces do not show NiGa2O4 or γ-Ga2O3 spinel contrast is also useful for the community. However, the load-bearing conclusion that the (100) interface is low-defect-density relies on distinguishing a benign step-edge projection from real Ga interstitials, and the manuscript does not provide the chemical or quantitative evidence needed to make that distinction. The paper's comparative qualitative assessment of interface complexity is more robust than the quantitative 'low defect density' claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4(a-c) and 'Projection effects' section] The central conclusion that the NiO/Ga2O3(100) interface is 'nearly atomically abrupt' and has 'limited defect density' hinges on interpreting the weak extra column contrast in the top 1-2 Ga2O3 unit cells as a step-edge projection artifact rather than as Ga interstitials. The text states that this contrast matches a common Ga interstitial site (Figs. S8a-b) and that it is 'also explained by' a step-edge model in which one-third of the NiO layer is shifted down one unit cell (Fig. 4b-c). The authors explicitly note that Ni and Ga cannot be distinguished without atomically resolved EELS or EDS, and no such data are provided. No quantitative sensitivity analysis is given: the shifted fraction is fixed at 1/3, no simulation of the competing Ga-interstitial configuration is presented, and the occurrence rate of this contrast is not correlated with specimen thickness. Because real Ga interstitials would directly contradict the low-defect-density recommendation, the evidence is underdetermined. The authors should either provide a chemical signature via EELS/EDS, present quantitative simulations and statistics that discriminate between the two interpretations, or soften the conclusion to 'abrupt registry with unresolved point-defect-like contrast'.
  2. [Supplementary Section IV and 'Interface structure modeling'] The main text states that the calculated interface models were obtained by the structure-matching algorithm 'followed by density functional theory (DFT) structure relaxation,' but Supplementary Section IV describes only the LJ-based surface generation, the p2ptrans structure matching, and the chemical-potential values. No DFT functional, pseudopotentials, plane-wave cutoff, k-point sampling, or convergence criteria are reported, and the relaxed interfacial atomic structures are not given. This omissions make it impossible to reproduce or independently assess the calculated (100) interface model that is central to the claimed 'excellent agreement' with experiment. Please add the missing computational details, or explicitly state that the models were not DFT-relaxed and discuss how that affects the model-experiment comparison.
  3. [Fig. 3(e-f) and 'NiO/Ga2O3(001)' section] The NiO(1-11)/Ga2O3(101) model for the (001) interface was selected after measuring the experimental mistilt between the NiO growth plane and the Ga2O3(001) normal, and the authors acknowledge that the couple atomic layers at the interface are not well captured by this model. This post-hoc selection should be explicitly labeled as a candidate relationship rather than a predicted interface structure. The XRD data in Figs. S1(c)-(d) are consistent with the (1-11)/(101) alignment, but they constitute a targeted confirmation of a hypothesis derived from the STEM images, not an independent prediction. The manuscript would be clearer if this distinction were stated, and if the text noted that the (001) interface structure remains largely unresolved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are typographical errors: 'candidat' should be 'candidate' in the abstract, and 'It's pseudocubic' should be 'Its pseudocubic' in the introduction.
  2. [Supplementary References] In the Supplementary Material reference list, entry 3 reads 'F. Therrien, P. Graf, and V. Stevanović, .' with the article title and journal missing. The full citation should be provided.
  3. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 overlays] The overlays of the calculated models and simulated images on the experimental HAADF-STEM images would be easier to evaluate if the simulated-image overlay were shown with a color or intensity scale that is more distinguishable from the experimental image; the current presentation makes the claimed 'excellent agreement' harder for the reader to verify independently.
  4. [Fig. 4(d-i)] The comparison of the hexagonal motifs in the (-201) and (001) images with the γ-Ga2O3/spinel models is qualitative. A quantitative measure such as the spacing and orientation of the hexagon motifs, or a cross-correlation between the experimental and simulated images, would strengthen the negative conclusion that no NiGa2O4 interlayer has formed in the as-deposited samples.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central interface models are independently calculated and compared with experiment, not derived from the claims they support.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The (100) and (-201) NiO/Ga2O3 orientation relationships come from an independent Lennard-Jones structure-matching search (Therrien et al.) and are corroborated by XRD and previous reports, so they are not fitted to the STEM images. The calculated (100) interface model is overlaid on experimental images and tested with multislice simulations using independently stated microscope parameters, rather than being tuned to reproduce the image. For the (001) case, the NiO(1-11)/Ga2O3(101) relationship was indeed identified after measuring the experimental mistilt, making it post hoc rather than a priori predictive, but the paper does not claim the calculation independently predicted it, and off-axis XRD provides external corroboration; this is a consistency check, not a circular reduction. The step-edge model in Fig. 4(b,c) is a forward simulation of an assumed geometry (a NiO layer shifted down one unit cell over 1/3 of the specimen thickness) used to show that the observed weak columns can also be explained by projection overlap. The authors explicitly state that differentiating Ni from Ga at those sites would require atomically resolved EELS or EDS, so the interpretation is underdetermined. Underdetermination is an evidence-strength concern, not circularity: no equation is defined in terms of the claimed result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to the group's structure-matching algorithm and FERE database are methodological references, not load-bearing proofs of the interfacial conclusions. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks (XRD, multislice simulations, multiple images) and its central claims do not reduce to their inputs by construction.

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

The central structural claims rest on modeling choices (LJ radius, surface terminations, strain threshold) and simulation fidelity (multislice), plus the post-hoc step-edge model; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Lennard-Jones equilibrium radius = 2.13 Å
    Used for both Ni-O and Ga-O interactions in the structure matching; this single-radius choice controls which interface registries are ranked lowest and is not fit to the experimental images (Supp. Sec. IV).
  • Maximum allowable area strain = 8%
    Threshold used in p2ptrans to restrict the search space of semi-coherent interfaces; changing it could add or remove candidate orientations (Supp. Sec. IV).
  • Surface termination selection = O-rich for Ga2O3(100) and (001); O-poor for (101) and (-201); NiO paired oppositely
    Terminations were chosen based on LJ energy criteria, but they strongly affect the constructed interface models and hence the comparison with images (Supp. Sec. IV, Table I).
  • Step-edge model fraction = 1/3 of NiO layer shifted down by one unit cell
    Constructed post hoc in Fig. 4(b-c) to reproduce the weak extra column contrast on the (100) interface; no independent measurement of the step-edge position or fraction is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The p2ptrans structure matching with a Lennard-Jones potential identifies the lowest-energy interface registry for these dissimilar crystals.
    Invoked in Supp. Sec. IV; if the energy ranking is wrong, the calculated interface models may not be the true equilibrium structures.
  • domain assumption The multislice algorithm as implemented in abTEM accurately predicts HAADF-STEM contrast for ~5 nm thick specimens under the stated probe conditions.
    Used to generate simulated images in Figs. 3 and 4; the comparison between simulated and experimental contrast depends on the fidelity of this approximation.
  • domain assumption Chemical potentials from the FERE database are appropriate for the growth and modeling conditions.
    Table I in Supp. Sec. IV; the choice of O-rich versus O-poor surface terminations depends on these values.
  • ad hoc to paper The surface terminations selected for each Ga2O3 facet are those that actually form during PLD growth.
    No direct surface termination measurement is provided; the models assume the termination chosen by the LJ energy criteria.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing the Atomic Structure of NiO/Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ Interfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LD6CONY6

@misc{pith2026260810226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing the Atomic Structure of NiO/Ga$_2$O$_3$ Interfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LD6CONY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10226}
}
abstract

NiO/Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ heterojunctions have garnered significant attention for use in power electronics due to the ultrawide bandgap and wafer-scale availability of Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ and the controllable p-type doping of NiO. However, the structure of NiO/Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ interfaces remains underexplored, largely due to the complexity of the junction between their dissimilar cubic and monoclinic crystal structures. Here we investigate the atomistic structure of the NiO/Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ interface for (100), (-201), and (001) oriented Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ substrates using aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) in combination with interface modeling and image simulations. We evaluate the abruptness and consistency of the interfaces and compare them to calculated interface models, proposing precise atomic structures and assessing potential structural variation arising from complexity of the monoclinic Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ crystal structure. Our interface analysis supports increased focus on (100) oriented Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ as a candidate for fabricating high quality, low defect density NiO/Ga$_{2}$O$_{3}$ heterojunction devices. Importantly, we consider the effects of specimen thickness and 3D-to-2D projection during the STEM imaging process to differentiate such effects from real crystal variations. This work provides insight into the effect of substrate orientation on NiO film and interface quality, creating a pathway to improving heterojunction properties. It further highlights important considerations for interpretation of stability and interlayer phase formation in these interfaces, which is crucial for their integration into reliable and robust power electronic devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10226 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Model of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a,c,e) HAADF-STEM images of the three NiO thin films capturing the full film thickness across over 100 nm. (b,d,f) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (c). As was the case for Ga2O3(100), the cal￾culation correctly identifies the observed growth and in￾plane orientations of the NiO (NiO(¯111) with NiO [110] || Ga2O3 [010] in plane). As shown by the atomic model overlaid on the experimental image in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Importance of projection effects for interface interpretation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author A. J. \ Green , author J. Speck , author G. Xing , author P. Moens , author F. Allerstam , author K. Gumaelius , author T. Neyer , author A. Arias-Purdue , author V. Mehrotra , author A. Kuramata , author K. Sasaki , author S. Watanabe , author K. Koshi , author J. Blevins , author O. Bierwagen , author S. Krishnamoorthy , author K. Leedy , ...

  2. [21]

    author author J. M. \ Johnson , author Z. Chen , author J. B. \ Varley , author C. M. \ Jackson , author E. Farzana , author Z. Zhang , author A. R. \ Arehart , author H.-L. \ Huang , author A. Genc , author S. A. \ Ringel , author C. G. \ Van de Walle , author D. A. \ Muller ,\ and\ author J. Hwang ,\ title title Unusual Formation of Point - Defect Compl...

  3. [31]

    , month = apr, year =

    MacLaren, Ian and Ramasse, Quentin M. , month = apr, year =. Aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopy for atomic-resolution studies of functional oxides , volume =. International Materials Reviews , publisher =. doi:10.1179/1743280413Y.0000000026 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1179/1743280413y.0000000026

  4. [32]

    Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism , author =

    Design of. Journal of Superconductivity and Novel Magnetism , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1007/s10948-019-05285-4 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10948-019-05285-4 2020

  5. [33]

    and Muller, David A

    Nakagawa, Naoyuki and Hwang, Harold Y. and Muller, David A. , month = mar, year =. Why some interfaces cannot be sharp , volume =. Nature Materials , publisher =. doi:10.1038/nmat1569 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat1569

  6. [34]

    and Geisler, Benjamin and Lee, Kyuho and Osada, Motoki and Wang, Bai Yang and Li, Danfeng and Hwang, Harold Y

    Goodge, Berit H. and Geisler, Benjamin and Lee, Kyuho and Osada, Motoki and Wang, Bai Yang and Li, Danfeng and Hwang, Harold Y. and Pentcheva, Rossitza and Kourkoutis, Lena F. , month = apr, year =. Resolving the polar interface of infinite-layer nickelate thin films , volume =. Nature Materials , publisher =. doi:10.1038/s41563-023-01510-7 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1038/s41563-023-01510-7

  7. [35]

    and Ramanathan, Shriram and Buonassisi, Tonio and Graf, Peter , title =

    Stevanovi\'c, Vladan and Hartman, Katy and Jaramillo, R. and Ramanathan, Shriram and Buonassisi, Tonio and Graf, Peter , title =. Applied Physics Letters , volume =. 2014 , month =

    work page 2014

  8. [36]

    Therrien, Félix and Graf, Peter and Stevanović, Vladan , title = ``. J. Chem. Phys. , volume =. 2020 , month =. doi:10.1063/1.5131527 , url =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5131527 2020

Show all 54 references
  1. [38]

    Therrien, Félix , title =

  2. [40]

    Open Research Europe , author =

    The. Open Research Europe , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.12688/openreseurope.13015.2 , abstract =

    2021 doi

  3. [41]

    Acta Crystallographica Section A , author =

    Numerical evaluations of. Acta Crystallographica Section A , author =. 1974 , note =. doi:10.1107/S056773947400057X , language =

    1974 doi

  4. [42]

    Ultramicroscopy , author =

    Simulation of annular dark field stem images using a modified multislice method , volume =. Ultramicroscopy , author =. 1987 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0304-3991(87)90229-4 , abstract =

    1987 doi

  5. [43]

    APL Materials , author =

    Step-flow growth in homoepitaxy of \ -. APL Materials , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1063/1.5054943 , abstract =

    2018 doi

  6. [44]

    2013 , keywords =

    Journal of Crystal Growth , author =. 2013 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2013.02.015 , abstract =

    2013 doi

  7. [45]

    Advanced Science , author =

    Single-. Advanced Science , author =. 2025 , note =. doi:10.1002/advs.202417436 , abstract =

    2025 doi

  8. [46]

    The Journal of Chemical Physics , author =

    Cation. The Journal of Chemical Physics , author =. 1954 , pages =. doi:10.1063/1.1740465 , abstract =

    1954 doi

  9. [47]

    Recent advances in vertical \ -

    Chen, Jiaxiang and Jiao, Teng and Zha, Xian-Hu and Liu, Yan and Liu, Chenghao and Yang, Maojin and Wan, Yuxi and Qu, Haolan and Wang, Hongzhi and Li, Kerui and Zou, Xinbo and Zhang, DaoHua , month = jul, year =. Recent advances in vertical \ -. Semiconductor Science and Techno...

    doi

  10. [48]

    IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =

    Vertical \ -. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =. 2024 , keywords =. doi:10.1109/TED.2024.3360016 , abstract =

    2024

  11. [49]

    IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =

    Vertical \ -. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1109/TED.2020.3016609 , abstract =

    2020

  12. [50]

    and Chen, Zhen and Varley, Joel B

    Johnson, Jared M. and Chen, Zhen and Varley, Joel B. and Jackson, Christine M. and Farzana, Esmat and Zhang, Zeng and Arehart, Aaron R. and Huang, Hsien-Lien and Genc, Arda and Ringel, Steven A. and Van de Walle, Chris G. and Muller, David A. and Hwang, Jinwoo , month = nov, y...

    doi

  13. [51]

    APL Materials , author =

    Impact of proton irradiation on conductivity and deep level defects in \ -. APL Materials , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1063/1.5054826 , abstract =

    2018 doi

  14. [52]

    APL Materials , author =

    Substrate-orientation dependence of \ -. APL Materials , author =. 2020 , pages =. doi:10.1063/1.5135772 , abstract =

    2020 doi

  15. [53]

    Stevanovi\'c , author K

    author author V. Stevanovi\'c , author K. Hartman , author R. Jaramillo , author S. Ramanathan , author T. Buonassisi ,\ and\ author P. Graf ,\ title title Variations of ionization potential and electron affinity as a function of surface orientation: The case of orthorhombic s...

    2014

  16. [54]

    Stevanovi c \' c , author S

    author author V. Stevanovi c \' c , author S. Lany , author X. Zhang ,\ and\ author A. Zunger ,\ title title Correcting density functional theory for accurate predictions of compound enthalpies of formation: Fitted elemental-phase reference energies , \ https://doi.org/10.1103...

    doi

  17. [55]

    Therrien , author P

    author author F. Therrien , author P. Graf ,\ and\ author V. Stevanović ,\ @noop \ NoStop

  18. [57]

    Therrien ,\ https://github.com/ftherrien/p2ptrans title p2ptrans - A Structure Matching Algorithm , \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    author author F. Therrien ,\ https://github.com/ftherrien/p2ptrans title p2ptrans - A Structure Matching Algorithm , \ ( year 2020 ) NoStop

    2020

  19. [58]

    APL Materials , author =

    Adsorption-controlled growth of. APL Materials , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0035469 , abstract =

    2021 doi

  20. [59]

    APL Materials , author =

    \ -phase inclusions as common structural defects in alloyed \ -(. APL Materials , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0038861 , abstract =

    2021 doi

  21. [60]

    APL Materials , author =

    Faceting and metal-exchange catalysis in (010) \ -. APL Materials , author =. 2018 , pages =. doi:10.1063/1.5054386 , abstract =

    2018 doi

  22. [61]

    Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , author =

    Structures and energetics of. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , author =. 2007 , pages =. doi:10.1088/0953-8984/19/34/346211 , abstract =

    2007 doi

  23. [62]

    Mitome, Masanori and Kohiki, Shigemi and Nagai, Takuro and Kurashima, Keiji and Kimoto, Koji and Bando, Yoshio , month = jul, year =. A. ACS Publications , publisher =. doi:10.1021/cg400542x , abstract =

    doi

  24. [63]

    Theoretical

    Therrien, Félix and Zakutayev, Andriy and Stevanović, Vladan , month = dec, year =. Theoretical. Physical Review Applied , publisher =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.16.064064 , abstract =

    doi

  25. [64]

    Chemistry -- A European Journal , author =

    Structures of. Chemistry -- A European Journal , author =. 2013 , note =. doi:10.1002/chem.201203359 , abstract =

    2013 doi

  26. [65]

    2024 , pages =

    Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0194540 , abstract =

    2024 doi

  27. [66]

    Applied Physics Letters , author =

    Reliable operation of. Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2024 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0185566 , abstract =

    2024 doi

  28. [67]

    physica status solidi (b) , author =

    Crystal. physica status solidi (b) , author =. 2020 , note =. doi:10.1002/pssb.201900669 , abstract =

    2020 doi

  29. [68]

    Applied Physics Letters , author =

    High-performance \ -. Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0293221 , abstract =

    2025 doi

  30. [69]

    physica status solidi (a) , author =

    Gallium. physica status solidi (a) , author =. 2023 , note =. doi:10.1002/pssa.202300535 , abstract =

    2023 doi

  31. [70]

    Applied Physics Letters , author =

    Atomic scale mechanism of \ to \ phase transformation in gallium oxide , volume =. Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0156009 , abstract =

    2023 doi

  32. [71]

    APL Materials , author =

    \ -. APL Materials , author =. 2022 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0060327 , abstract =

    2022 doi

  33. [72]

    , month = jun, year =

    Li, Jian-Sian and Wan, Hsiao-Hsuan and Chiang, Chao-Ching and Xia, Xinyi and Yoo, Timothy Jinsoo and Kim, Honggyu and Ren, Fan and Pearton, Stephen J. , month = jun, year =. Reproducible. Crystals , publisher =. doi:10.3390/cryst13060886 , abstract =

    doi

  34. [73]

    Journal of Crystal Growth , author =

    The orientational relationship between monoclinic \ -. Journal of Crystal Growth , author =. 2016 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2016.04.023 , abstract =

    2016 doi

  35. [74]

    Recent advances in

    Lu, Xing and Deng, Yuxin and Pei, Yanli and Chen, Zimin and Wang, Gang , month = jun, year =. Recent advances in. Journal of Semiconductors , publisher =. doi:10.1088/1674-4926/44/6/061802 , abstract =

    doi

  36. [75]

    Applied Surface Science , author =

    Band alignment and electrical properties of. Applied Surface Science , author =. 2023 , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2023.156917 , abstract =

    2023

  37. [76]

    Applied Physics Letters , author =

    Orientation-dependent \ -. Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0285622 , abstract =

    2025 doi

  38. [77]

    APL Electronic Devices , author =

    Metal--organic chemical vapor deposition of p-type. APL Electronic Devices , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0285513 , abstract =

    2025 doi

  39. [78]

    Applied Physics Letters , author =

    Traps inhomogeneity induced conversion of. Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2023 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0138426 , abstract =

    2023 doi

  40. [79]

    IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =

    Band. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =. 2020 , keywords =. doi:10.1109/TED.2020.3001249 , abstract =

    2020

  41. [80]

    IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =

    Fabrication and. IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices , author =. 2021 , keywords =. doi:10.1109/TED.2021.3091548 , abstract =

    2021

  42. [81]

    Annealing temperature dependence of band alignment of

    Xia, Xinyi and Li, Jian-Sian and Chiang, Chao-Ching and Yoo, Timothy Jinsoo and Ren, Fan and Kim, Honggyu and Pearton, S J , month = jul, year =. Annealing temperature dependence of band alignment of. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics , publisher =. doi:10.1088/1361-6463/a...

    doi

  43. [82]

    , month = aug, year =

    Li, Jian-Sian and Wan, Hsiao-Hsuan and Chiang, Chao-Ching and Ren, Fan and Pearton, Stephen J. , month = aug, year =. Annealing. Crystals , publisher =. doi:10.3390/cryst13081174 , abstract =

    doi

  44. [83]

    Applied Physics Letters , author =

    \ -. Applied Physics Letters , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1063/5.0050919 , abstract =

    2021 doi

  45. [84]

    Epitaxial relationship of

    Oshima, Takayoshi and Nakagomi, Shinji , month = nov, year =. Epitaxial relationship of. Japanese Journal of Applied Physics , publisher =. doi:10.35848/1347-4065/ad0ac9 , abstract =

    doi

  46. [85]

    A survey of acceptor dopants for \ -

    Lyons, John L , month = apr, year =. A survey of acceptor dopants for \ -. Semiconductor Science and Technology , publisher =. doi:10.1088/1361-6641/aaba98 , abstract =

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.