Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 60 references

Cluster-configurational study of G-center in Silicon

T0 review · 5 major / 3 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 Using multiconfigurational quantum chemistry on hydrogen-passivated silicon clusters, this paper reproduces the G-center's zero-phonon line and zero-field splitting without Hubbard-U or GW tuning, and predicts a nuclear-bath spin coherence

desk verdict First CASSCF/NEVPT2 study of the G-center with a genuinely useful active-space workflow, but the draft is sloppy and the claimed 'excellent agreement' outruns the actual data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14083 v1 pith:F3WGABNA submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Narayan Pokhrel , Kyungwha Park , Vsevolod Ivanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords G-centersilicondefectmulticonfigurationalquantumchemistryzero-phononlinezero-fieldsplittingspincoherenceNEVPT2CASSCF
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 claims that a parameter-free multireference wavefunction method, SA-CASSCF(6,6)+NEVPT2, on hydrogen-passivated clusters can quantitatively capture the optical and spin properties of the G-center in silicon. Its computed vertical excitation energy of about 1.04 eV lands close to the experimental zero-phonon line at 0.969 eV, and its zero-field splitting components reproduce the order of magnitude and orientation of the measured triplet sublevel splittings. It further predicts a nuclear-spin-bath-limited coherence time of 1.465 ms for the triplet ground state. A sympathetic reader would care because it suggests a route to accurate defect characterization that avoids the empirical adjustments common in DFT-based studies.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a systematically constructed active space: a minimal CAS(2,2) over the defect HOMO and LUMO is extended by localizing occupied bonding orbitals and pairing them with their virtual antibonding counterparts to form a CAS(6,6). State-averaged CASSCF over 10 roots (5 singlets, 5 triplets) is followed by DLPNO-NEVPT2 corrections and quasidegenerate perturbation theory to include spin-orbit and spin-spin coupling. This active-space construction is what carries the argument, because it is what lets a single, parameter-free calculation capture both the multiconfigurational excited singlet and the triplet fine structure.

What would settle it

Recompute the vertical excitation and zero-field splitting of the G-center using the same CASSCF(6,6)+NEVPT2 procedure on a larger (say, 400+ atom) cluster or with a geometry relaxation step for the defect region. If the ZPL shifts by more than roughly 0.1 eV from the 1.04 eV value, or if Dxx does not move toward the experimental 142 MHz while Dyy and Dzz remain close, the claimed agreement is an artifact of the 265-atom truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The G-center's bright excited singlet is shown to have a genuinely multiconfigurational character—unlike the ground singlet and lowest triplet, which are nearly single-determinant—and this multireference treatment yields a vertical excitation energy of 1.036 eV (reported as the ZPL at 1040 meV) versus the experimental 969 meV. For the triplet, the zero-field splitting tensor components are computed as |Dxx|, |Dyy|, |Dzz| = 24, 1061, 1085 MHz, compared to experimental 142, 800, 941 MHz, with the authors noting the largest deviation is likely a cluster-size limitation. The same wavefunction gives a transition dipole moment of 3.31 Debye, aligning with the picture of a localized orbital transit

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a hydrogen-passivated cluster cut from an unrelaxed DFT geometry, with no dielectric embedding, faithfully represents the G-center's electronic structure—but the paper's own data show significant shifts in ZPL (0.58 eV) and ZFS (up to a factor of 8) across cluster sizes, so if the cluster boundary or frozen geometry distorts the multiconfigurational balance, the headline numbers move outside the claimed agreement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the agreement holds, multiconfigurational quantum chemistry can serve as a predictive tool for defect ZPLs and ZFS in silicon without the need for Hubbard-U tuning or GW corrections.
  • The localization picture—where the excitation is between two defect-localized orbitals rather than a delocalized bound exciton—would be validated, helping settle the ongoing debate about the G-center's optical mechanism.
  • The predicted 1.465 ms nuclear-bath coherence time for the triplet suggests the metastable spin state is in principle a usable qubit, with decoherence limited by the nuclear environment rather than by intrinsic defect dynamics.
  • The computed SOC matrix elements identify dominant intersystem crossing channels within the excited manifold, which could guide experiments on spin initialization and readout for the G-center.
  • The cluster-size sensitivity of the ZFS components implies that quantitative spin-property predictions require careful convergence checks, but the ZPL appears to converge within 0.1 eV by 265 atoms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same active-space construction is applied to other carbon-related defects in silicon, it may reproduce their ZPL and ZFS without the element-specific U parameters that DFT needs, making multireference screening of defect qubits a viable alternative to GW-DFT.
  • The paper's T2 prediction of 1.465 ms is longer than the measured excited-state lifetime (around 4.5–6 ns), suggesting that without a spin-preserving readout scheme, the triplet's coherence will never be fully observable—an implicit design constraint for G-center qubit architectures.
  • The strong cluster-size dependence of Dxx (from about 0.2 MHz in the smallest cluster to 24 MHz in the largest) hints that even the 265-atom model may not be converged for the smallest ZFS component; a larger cluster or a relaxed geometry could bring the prediction closer to the experimental 142 MHz or move it further away, which would test the central claim directly.
  • The paper's vertical excitation is computed on the ground-state geometry, so the residual 70 meV gap to the ZPL could partially reflect a missing relaxation correction; accounting for that might close the gap further, making the agreement stronger than stated.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports multiconfigurational quantum-chemistry calculations (SA-CASSCF/NEVPT2) on hydrogen-passivated silicon clusters containing the G-center defect. From these calculations the authors extract vertical excitation energies, zero-field splitting (ZFS) parameters of the metastable triplet, spin-orbit coupling matrix elements, an excited-state radiative lifetime, and a nuclear-spin-bath coherence time obtained with the PYCCE code. The central claim is that this parameter-free multireference approach gives 'excellent agreement' with the experimental zero-phonon line (969 meV) and ZFS tensor components, and predicts a millisecond-scale coherence time.

Significance. If the central claim were substantiated, the paper would offer a valuable benchmark: multireference wavefunction methods applied to a 265-atom cluster could reproduce the G-center's optical and spin properties without the Hubbard-U/GW tuning used in prior DFT studies. The use of a systematically constructed active space and the attempt to compute spin decoherence from first principles are also notable. However, the manuscript's own data contain severe internal inconsistencies and demonstrate strong cluster-size dependence, so the claimed agreement is not established. The paper is therefore currently not a reliable contribution to the field.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Table 2] The text claims the vertical excitation energy is 'convergent within 0.1 eV' when increasing the cluster from Model 2 to Model 3. Table 2 lists 1.229 eV (Model 2) and 1.036 eV (Model 3) with cc-pVDZ-DK, a drop of 0.193 eV; the Model 1 to Model 3 change is 0.576 eV. The reported ZPL of 1040 meV is therefore not converged with respect to cluster size, undermining the claim of excellent agreement.
  2. [§2.3, Tables 3 and 5] Table 3 is labeled 'ZFS (MHz)' but lists |Dxx|=0.0240 for Model 3 CAS(6,6), whereas Table 5 reports |Dxx|=24 MHz for the same calculation—a factor of 1000 inconsistency. Either Table 3 is in GHz or Table 5 is incorrect. This directly affects the abstract's claim of agreement with the experimental ZFS tensor. The cluster-size dependence in Table 3 is also severe: |Dxx| changes by a factor of ~8.5 between Model 1 and Model 3, so the Model 3 value is not converged.
  3. [§2.3.1, Table 4] The text states 'Intersystem crossing is mediated by a dominant spin-orbit coupling channel (~75 cm^-1)', but Table 4 lists a maximum SOC matrix element of 65.4 cm^-1 (T0–S2). No source for 75 cm^-1 is given, making the specific claim about a dominant ISC pathway inconsistent with the reported data.
  4. [§2.2 and §2.4] The text quotes a vertical excitation energy of 1.07 eV in the discussion of the radiative lifetime, but Table 2 gives 1.036 eV for Model 3 with cc-pVDZ-DK; no 1.07 eV entry appears. This discrepancy affects the reported ZPL (1040 meV) and the lifetime estimate. The calculation must be reported consistently.
  5. [§4.1 and §3] The cluster model is constructed by cutting an HSE06-relaxed 217-atom geometry and passivating the surface with hydrogen; the text states 'No subsequent relaxation step is carried out.' The paper explicitly attributes the Dxx discrepancy to 'a limitation of the cluster size.' No convergence with respect to geometry relaxation, dielectric embedding, or larger cluster sizes is provided. Given the strong cluster-size dependence in Tables 2 and 3, the reported agreement for Model 3 may be fortuitous; the central claim is not robust.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and formatting problems: 'T able', 'Intersytem', 'sugggests', 'CAS(10,8)' in §2.3.1 where the active space is CAS(6,6), '256 atom' instead of '265 atom' in §4.1, an unresolved 'table??' reference, and 'TODO' in the keywords. These should be corrected.
  2. [§2.3.1] The phrase 'within microseconds (needs to be looked at, colloquium paper)' appears to be an incomplete editorial note and should be either removed or substantiated with a proper citation.
  3. [§2.4] The quantum efficiency rescaling is presented without a clear derivation of the assumed quantum efficiency value; the sentence 'Since, G-centers show very little quantum efficiency<1% on the higher end' is grammatically unclear and would benefit from a concrete reference and value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central ZPL, ZFS, and CCE-T2 results are parameter-free; the only self-citation (HSE06 geometry) is an independently published input, not a re-injection of the target observables.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain for the headline results is not circular. The ZPL is computed as a SA-CASSCF(6,6)+NEVPT2 vertical excitation (Table 2, §2.2) and the ZFS components come from diagonalizing the SOC+SSC Hamiltonian via QDPT (§2.3); neither step fits or defines any constant in terms of the experimental 969 meV ZPL or the measured ZFS tensor. The coherence time is a gCCE/PYCCE simulation using DFT hyperfine parameters and converged bath/dipole cutoffs (§4.3), again not fit to the quoted T2. The one self-citation that enters the workflow is the input geometry: §4.1 states "The geometry of the 217-atom G Center cluster optimized with HSE06 hybrid DFT functional as obtained from [29] is used for all the calculations." This is the authors' prior published HSE06 relaxation, but it is an externally published DFT geometry, not a fit to the G-center ZPL/ZFS, so it is independent support rather than a definitional re-injection. The paper itself flags the real weaknesses of this input — §4.1: "No subsequent relaxation step is carried out"; Discussion: "predictions for the other ZFS components are worse, which may be a limitation of the cluster size"; §2.2: "Some deviations from experimental ZPL is expected because we are performing the calculation on same ground state singlet geometry." These are convergence/modeling limitations, not circularity. The excited-state lifetime estimate is semi-empirical because it rescales the computed radiative lifetime by a measured quantum efficiency (§2.4), but the paper presents this transparently as a rescaling and does not use it as a central validation of the method. Overall, no equation in the paper reduces an output to an input by construction.

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

The central results rest on several unverified modeling choices: (1) a same-group prior HSE06 geometry frozen into hydrogen-passivated clusters with no relaxation or embedding; (2) treating the vertical excitation as the ZPL; (3) CAS(6,6)/10-root active space sufficiency; (4) DLPNO-NEVPT2 accuracy; (5) a truncated nuclear-spin-bath model with tuned radii for the coherence estimate; plus an imported experimental quantum efficiency used to rescale the lifetime. No new physical entities are introduced. The geometry input from ref [29] is the only significant self-cited dependency and is independently published.

free parameters (6)
  • Number of state-averaged roots (10 roots: 5 singlets + 5 triplets) = 10
    Chosen by a convergence criterion on ZPL and ZFS (§2.1); a tuning knob that shifts NEVPT2 gaps, and later captioned inconsistently as 12 states.
  • PYCCE bath radius r_bath = 26 nm
    Treated as a 'converged parameter'; the convergence study is deferred to a missing supplementary (§2.5).
  • PYCCE dipole cutoff r_dipole = 6 nm
    Tunable truncation of the nuclear-spin-bath model, same missing-convergence issue (§2.5).
  • CCE expansion order = 2
    Truncation of the cluster correlation expansion; higher orders are not demonstrated (§2.5).
  • Quantum efficiency Phi = <1% (experimental, ref. [45])
    Imported experimental value used to rescale the computed 0.26 μs radiative lifetime to ~2.6 ns (§2.4).
  • Stretch exponent n in coherence fit = not reported
    The decoherence curve is fitted to exp[-(t/T2)^n]; n is a fit parameter whose value is not stated (§2.5).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The HSE06-DFT relaxed GCB geometry (217-atom cluster from ref [29]) is correct, and hydrogen-passivated cluster truncation without relaxation preserves the defect's electronic structure.
    Central input for all excitation energies and ZFS; no embedding or strain. §4.1 states 'No subsequent relaxation step is carried out.' The paper's own cluster-size dependence (Table 3) shows the assumption is fragile.
  • domain assumption The vertical excitation energy at the ground-state geometry approximates the experimental ZPL within the ~0.1 eV NEVPT2 error, without excited-state geometry optimization or electron-phonon corrections.
    §2.2 explicitly states the full ZPL treatment is 'beyond the scope of this work'; comparing ΔE_VE (1.036 eV) to the 969 meV ZPL is load-bearing for the headline optical claim.
  • domain assumption CAS(6,6) on Pipek-Mezey localized orbitals with 10-root state averaging spans the correlation space needed for both singlet and triplet manifolds.
    Active-space choice is called 'the crux' (§2.1); no benchmark against larger active spaces is given, and the SOC section later references an unexplained CAS(10,8) wavefunction.
  • domain assumption DLPNO-NEVPT2 with RIJCOSX and auxiliary basis sets is accurate for these excitation energies and ZFS parameters.
    Approximate NEVPT2 is used for feasibility; only a small-cluster spot check is mentioned (§4.2).
  • domain assumption G-center decoherence is governed by the nuclear spin bath via DFT-computed hyperfine couplings inside a 512-atom region and point-dipole couplings outside; CCE order 2 with 10 Monte Carlo bath states converges the coherence function.
    Underlies the 1.465 ms T2; the stated convergence evidence is in a missing supplement (§2.5, §4.3).
  • standard math The effective spin Hamiltonian for the S=1 triplet is the standard D/E zero-field-splitting form, with two sublevels usable as qubit states.
    Standard effective-spin description invoked in §2.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cluster-configurational study of G-center in Silicon." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3WGABNA

@misc{pith2026260714083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cluster-configurational study of G-center in Silicon},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3WGABNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14083}
}
read the original abstract

Understanding the properties of defects is imperative for proper use for variety of applications including quantum computing. In this paper, we use the multiconfigurational self consistent field (MCSCF) combined with DFT optimized geometry in order to investigate the spin and optical properties of G centers in Silicon. By utilizing quantum chemistry based methods, we show excellent agreement with the Zero Phonon Line and Zero Field Splitting Tensor components of the G center. We also calculate the theoretical spin decoherence time of the G centers using Cluster Correlation Expansion (CCE) methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S., Chauvin, N

    Quard, H., Cueff, S., Nguyen, H. S., Chauvin, N. & Wood, T. Integration of color centers into silicon photonic structures.Applied Physics Reviews12, 041326 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0258819

    doi:10.1063/5.0258819 2025

  2. [2]

    & Toth, M

    Aharonovich, I., Englund, D. & Toth, M. Solid-state single-photon emitters. Nature Photonics10, 631–641 (2016). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton. 2016.186

    doi:10.1038/nphoton 2016

  3. [3]

    L., Reinhard, F

    Degen, C. L., Reinhard, F. & Cappellaro, P. Quantum sensing.Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035002 (2017). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys. 89.035002. 12

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys 2017

  4. [4]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-023-00558-3

    Aslam, N.et al.Quantum sensors for biomedical applications.Nature Reviews Physics5, 157–169 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42254-023-00558-3

    doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00558-3 2023

  5. [5]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-67056-1

    Ma˜ nas-Valero, S.et al.Isofrequency spin-wave imaging using color center magne- tometry for magnon spintronics.Nature Communications17, 379 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-67056-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-67056-1 2025

  6. [6]

    & Wrachtrup, J

    Atat¨ ure, M., Englund, D., Vamivakas, N., Lee, S.-Y. & Wrachtrup, J. Mate- rial platforms for spin-based photonic quantum technologies.Nature Reviews Materials3, 38–51 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41578-018-0008-9

    doi:10.1038/s41578-018-0008-9 2018

  7. [7]

    URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature15759

    Hensen, B.et al.Loophole-free bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres.Nature526, 682–686 (2015). URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/nature15759

    doi:10.1038/nature15759 2015

  8. [8]

    G.et al.Multi-scale reconstruction of single-ion damage tracks in dia- mond via nitrogen-vacancy centers (2026)

    Ang, D. G.et al.Multi-scale reconstruction of single-ion damage tracks in dia- mond via nitrogen-vacancy centers (2026). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606. 23621. arXiv:2606.23621

    arXiv 2026

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    A.et al.Nuclear recoil detection with color centers in bulk lithium fluoride (2025)

    Araujo, G. A.et al.Nuclear recoil detection with color centers in bulk lithium fluoride (2025). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20732. arXiv:2503.20732

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Liu, W.et al.Quantum emitter formation dynamics and probing of radiation- induced atomic disorder in silicon.Phys. Rev. Appl.20, 014058 (2023). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.014058

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    C., Alkauskas, A., Exarhos, A

    Bassett, L. C., Alkauskas, A., Exarhos, A. L. & Fu, K.-M. C. Quantum defects by design.Nanophotonics8, 1867–1888 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1515/ nanoph-2019-0211

    2019

  4. [12]

    Science Advances9, eadh8617 (2023)

    Xiong, Y.et al.High-throughput identification of spin-photon interfaces in silicon. Science Advances9, eadh8617 (2023). URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/sciadv.adh8617

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    & Abrikosov, I

    Davidsson, J., Iv´ ady, V., Armiento, R. & Abrikosov, I. A. Adaq: Automatic work- flows for magneto-optical properties of point defects in semiconductors.Computer Physics Communications269, 108091 (2021). URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0010465521002034

    2021

  6. [14]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16283

    Ivanov, V.et al.Database of semiconductor point-defect properties for appli- cations in quantum technologies (2023). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16283. arXiv:2303.16283

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c06613

    Xiong, Y.et al.Computationally driven discovery of t center-like quantum defects in silicon.Journal of the American Chemical Society146, 30046–30056 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.4c06613. 13

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    M.et al.Electrical manipulation of telecom color centers in sili- con.Nature Communications15, 4722 (2024)

    Day, A. M.et al.Electrical manipulation of telecom color centers in sili- con.Nature Communications15, 4722 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-024-48968-w

    2024

  9. [17]

    P., Chroneos, A

    Filippatos, P. P., Chroneos, A. & Londos, C. A. Re-examination of important defect complexes in silicon: From microelectronics to quantum computing.Jour- nal of Applied Physics137, 230701 (2025). URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5. 0276550

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    & Chen, S

    Johnston, A., Felix-Rendon, U., Wong, Y.-E. & Chen, S. Cavity-coupled telecom atomic source in silicon.Nature Communications15, 2350 (2024). URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-46643-8

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41565-025-02066-0

    Song, H.et al.Entanglement of a nuclear spin qubit register in silicon photon- ics.Nature Nanotechnology21, 53–57 (2026). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41565-025-02066-0

    2026

  12. [20]

    Dhaliah, D., Xiong, Y., Sipahigil, A., Griffin, S. M. & Hautier, G. First-principles study of the t center in silicon.Phys. Rev. Mater.6, L053201 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevMaterials.6.L053201

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    & Gali, A

    Udvarhelyi, P., Pershin, A., De´ ak, P. & Gali, A. An l-band emitter with quantum memory in silicon.npj Computational Materials8, 262 (2022). URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41524-022-00957-7

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Nature Communications15, 4497 (2024)

    Jhuria, K.et al.Programmable quantum emitter formation in silicon. Nature Communications15, 4497 (2024). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41467-024-48714-2

    2024

  15. [23]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41928-020-00499-0

    Redjem, W.et al.Single artificial atoms in silicon emitting at telecom wave- lengths.Nature Electronics3, 738–743 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41928-020-00499-0

    2020

  16. [24]

    Express31, 8352–8362 (2023)

    Zhiyenbayev, Y.et al.Scalable manufacturing of quantum light emitters in silicon under rapid thermal annealing.Opt. Express31, 8352–8362 (2023). URL https: //opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-31-5-8352

    2023

  17. [25]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38559-6

    Redjem, W.et al.All-silicon quantum light source by embedding an atomic emis- sive center in a nanophotonic cavity.Nature Communications14, 3321 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38559-6

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43246-023-00349-4

    Redjem, W.et al.Defect engineering of silicon with ion pulses from laser accel- eration.Communications Materials4, 22 (2023). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s43246-023-00349-4

    2023

  19. [28]

    & Watkins, G

    O’Donnell, K., Lee, K. & Watkins, G. Origin of the 0.97 ev luminescence in irradi- ated silicon.Physica B+C116, 258–263 (1983). URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/0378436383902565

    1983

  20. [29]

    Ivanov, V.et al.Effect of localization on photoluminescence and zero-field splitting of silicon color centers.Phys. Rev. B106, 134107 (2022). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.106.134107

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    C., Davies, G

    Foy, C., do Carmo, M. C., Davies, G. & Lightowlers, E. Uniaxial stress measure- ments on the 0.97 ev line in irradiated silicon.Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics14, L7–L12 (1981)

    1981

  22. [31]

    & Smith, R

    Bean, A., Newman, R. & Smith, R. Electron irradiation damage in silicon contain- ing carbon and oxygen.Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids31, 739–751 (1970)

    1970

  23. [32]

    & Sauer, R

    Thonke, K., Klemisch, H., Weber, J. & Sauer, R. New model of the irradiation- induced 0.97-ev (g) line in silicon: A c s- si* complex.Physical Review B24, 5874 (1981)

    1981

  24. [33]

    & Gali, A

    Udvarhelyi, P., Somogyi, B., Thiering, G. & Gali, A. Identification of a telecom wavelength single photon emitter in silicon.Physical review letters127, 196402 (2021)

    2021

  25. [34]

    & Watkins, G

    Lee, K., O’donnell, K., Weber, J., Cavenett, B. & Watkins, G. Optical detection of magnetic resonance for a deep-level defect in silicon.Physical Review Letters 48, 37 (1982)

    1982

  26. [35]

    Durand, A.et al.Hopping of the center-of-mass of single g centers in silicon-on- insulator.Phys. Rev. X14, 041071 (2024). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.14.041071

    2024

  27. [36]

    L., Economou, S

    Bhandari, C., Wysocki, A. L., Economou, S. E., Dev, P. & Park, K. Multicon- figurational study of the negatively charged nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond. Physical Review B103, 014115 (2021)

    2021

  28. [37]

    & Barcza, G

    Benedek, Z., Ganyecz, ´A., Pershin, A., Iv´ ady, V. & Barcza, G. Accurate and convergent energetics of color centers by wavefunction theory.npj Computational Materials11, 346 (2025)

    2025

  29. [38]

    Komza, L.et al.Indistinguishable photons from an artificial atom in silicon photonics.Nature communications15, 6920 (2024)

    2024

  30. [39]

    Y., Tan, L

    Hong, S. Y., Tan, L. Z., Lee, K. H., Kang, Y. & Lee, Y. Radiative electronic bound states in the continuum from defects in semiconductors.Nano Letters26, 7605–7611 (2026). URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.6c01118. 15

    2026 doi

  31. [40]

    Janicka, K., Wysocki, A. L. & Park, K. Computational insights into electronic excitations, spin–orbit coupling effects, and spin decoherence in cr (iv)-based molecular qubits.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A126, 8007–8020 (2022)

    2022

  32. [41]

    D.et al.Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform.Journal of cheminformatics4, 17 (2012)

    Hanwell, M. D.et al.Avogadro: an advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform.Journal of cheminformatics4, 17 (2012)

    2012

  33. [42]

    O., Lindh, R., Malmqvist, P

    Roos, B. O., Lindh, R., Malmqvist, P. ˚A., Veryazov, V. & Widmark, P.-O.Multi- configurational Quantum Chemistry(John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    & Mezey, P

    Pipek, J. & Mezey, P. G. A fast intrinsic localization procedure applicable for ab initio and semiempirical linear combination of atomic orbital wave functions. The Journal of Chemical Physics90, 4916–4926 (1989)

    1989

  35. [44]

    & Jacquemin, D

    Sarkar, R., Loos, P.-F., Boggio-Pasqua, M. & Jacquemin, D. Assessing the perfor- mances of caspt2 and nevpt2 for vertical excitation energies.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation18, 2418–2436 (2022)

    2022

  36. [45]

    Physical Review B110, L020102 (2024)

    Durand, A.et al.Genuine and faux single g centers in carbon-implanted silicon. Physical Review B110, L020102 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    Baron, Y.et al.Single g centers in silicon fabricated by co-implantation with carbon and proton.Applied Physics Letters121(2022)

    2022

  38. [47]

    Beaufils, C.et al.Optical properties of an ensemble of g-centers in silicon.Physical Review B97, 035303 (2018)

    2018

  39. [48]

    Kim, K.-Y.et al.Bright purcell-enhanced single photon emission from a silicon g center.Nano Letters25, 4347–4352 (2025)

    2025

  40. [49]

    & Wigner, E

    Weisskopf, V. & Wigner, E. Berechnung der nat¨ urlichen linienbreite auf grund der diracschen lichttheorie.Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik63, 54–73 (1930)

    1930

  41. [50]

    Savarese, M.et al.Fluorescence lifetimes and quantum yields of rhodamine derivatives: new insights from theory and experiment.The Journal of Physical Chemistry A116, 7491–7497 (2012)

    2012

  42. [51]

    Cache, F.et al.Optical detection of the electron spin resonances of g centers in silicon.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12473(2026)

    2026 arXiv

  43. [52]

    The orca program system.WIRES Comput

    Neese, F. The orca program system.WIRES Comput. Molec. Sci.2, 73–78 (2012)

    2012

  44. [53]

    Software update: the orca program system, version 5.0.WIRES Comput

    Neese, F. Software update: the orca program system, version 5.0.WIRES Comput. Molec. Sci.12, e1606 (2022)

    2022

  45. [54]

    A., Harrison, R

    De Jong, W. A., Harrison, R. J. & Dixon, D. A. Parallel douglas–kroll energy and gradients in nwchem: Estimating scalar relativistic effects using douglas–kroll 16 contracted basis sets.The Journal of Chemical Physics114, 48–53 (2001)

    2001

  46. [55]

    Dunning Jr, T. H. Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. i. the atoms boron through neon and hydrogen.The Journal of chemical physics 90, 1007–1023 (1989)

    1989

  47. [56]

    & Becker, U

    Neese, F., Wennmohs, F., Hansen, A. & Becker, U. Efficient, approximate and parallel hartree–fock and hybrid dft calculations. a ‘chain-of-spheres’ algorithm for the hartree–fock exchange.Chemical Physics356, 98–109 (2009)

    2009

  48. [57]

    Accurate coulomb-fitting basis sets for h to rn.Physical chemistry chemical physics8, 1057–1065 (2006)

    Weigend, F. Accurate coulomb-fitting basis sets for h to rn.Physical chemistry chemical physics8, 1057–1065 (2006)

    2006

  49. [58]

    & H¨ attig, C

    Weigend, F., K¨ ohn, A. & H¨ attig, C. Efficient use of the correlation consistent basis sets in resolution of the identity mp2 calculations.The Journal of chemical physics116, 3175–3183 (2002)

    2002

  50. [59]

    Guo, Y., Sivalingam, K., Valeev, E. F. & Neese, F. Sparsemaps—a systematic infrastructure for reduced-scaling electronic structure methods. iii. linear-scaling multireference domain-based pair natural orbital n-electron valence perturbation theory.The Journal of chemical physi...

    2016

  51. [60]

    & Neese, F

    Ganyushin, D. & Neese, F. First-principles calculations of zero-field splitting parameters.The Journal of chemical physics125(2006)

    2006

  52. [61]

    & Galli, G

    Onizhuk, M. & Galli, G. Pycce: A python package for cluster correlation expan- sion simulations of spin qubit dynamics.Advanced Theory and Simulations4, 2100254 (2021). 5 Acknowledgements VI acknowledges support from Virginia Tech startup funds. The authors acknowledge Advance...

    2021

Pith tools

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