Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 66 references

Comparison of first principles and semi-empirical models of the structural and electronic properties of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloys

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 This paper validates a cheap, scalable atomistic modeling chain for the semiconductor alloy Ge1−xSnx by benchmarking it against an expensive hybrid-DFT reference, and identifies continuous Sn-induced band mixing as the physical mechanism…

desk verdict A solid, honest three-way benchmark for GeSn atomistic models; the TB 'validation' is partly circular (parameters adjusted against the same HSEsol supercells used as benchmark), but the paper deserves serious peer review with revision-level requests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02833 v1 pith:FUQPO7K4 submitted 2019-08-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Edmond J. O'Halloran , Christopher A. Broderick , Daniel S. P. Tanner , Stefan Schulz , Eoin P. O'Reilly This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Ge1-xSnxalloysbandmixingvalenceforcefieldtight-bindingmodifiedBecke-JohnsonhybridDFTgappressurecoefficientatomisticsimulation
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 seeks to establish a cheap, scalable atomistic modeling platform for the semiconductor alloy Ge1−xSnx by benchmarking two computationally cheaper approaches against a deliberately expensive hybrid-DFT reference. Using Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSEsol) calculations as the benchmark, the authors argue that LDA structural relaxation plus the modified Becke-Johnson (mBJ) exchange-correlation functional reproduces the HSEsol electronic structure to good accuracy at roughly an order of magnitude lower cost, and that a valence force field (VFF) relaxation combined with a nearest-neighbour sp3s* tight-binding Hamiltonian reproduces the band-edge physics well enough to be used for systems DFT cannot reach. The physical insight carried through all three models is that Sn incorporation continuously mixes the Ge Γ7c and L6c conduction-band edge states, so the indirect-to-direct gap transition in Ge1−xSnx is gradual rather than abrupt. A reader should care because validated cheap models open the way to predictive atomistic calculations of disordered alloys and realistic nanostructures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the pairing of two parametrised semi-empirical objects with a first-principles benchmark. The first is a non-polar valence force field of Musgrave-Pople/Martin form whose force constants are derived analytically from HSEsol-calculated elastic constants of Ge, α-Sn and the fictitious zinc-blende compound zb-GeSn, so it reproduces bond stretching, bond-angle bending and cross terms without numerical fitting. The second is a nearest-neighbour sp3s* tight-binding Hamiltonian, with spin-orbit coupling, parametrised to the HSEsol band structures of Ge, α-Sn and zb-GeSn, including local strain via Harrison's rule and Slater-Koster integrals, plus on-site and Vs∗pσ corrections for axial deformation potentials. The argument runs by comparing relaxed structures and band-edge energies from all three models on the same supercells, with the band-gap pressure coefficient dEg/dP serving as the experimentally accessible measure of Γ7c-L6c hybridisation that all models must reproduce.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a high-pressure measurement of dEg/dP on a Ge1−xSnx sample near x = 10% combined with a direct measurement of the Γ-point character of the gap: if the measured pressure coefficient and gap energy deviate from the three models' predictions by more than the Ge-level agreement of roughly 0.3 meV/kbar, the transferability of the HSEsol benchmark to alloy compositions would be refuted. Alternatively, recomputing the alloy supercells with the HSEsol mixing parameter retuned to any measured alloy gap would show whether the mBJ and TB agreement with HSEsol is an artefact of sharing the same x = 0 fit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a validation chain: HSEsol, with its exact-exchange mixing parameter α = 0.3 fitted to the experimental Ge Γ7c–L6c splitting, is treated as the reference; LDA+mBJ and VFF+TB are then shown to track it. For relaxed lattice constants, Ge-Sn bond lengths, band gaps Eg and spin-orbit splittings ΔSO, the two cheaper models agree with HSEsol to within a few percent for ordered 16- and 64-atom supercells and for a disordered 64-atom supercell containing a Sn-Sn pair. The authors take the band-gap pressure coefficient dEg/dP as the quantitative signature of band mixing: at x = 6.25% HSEsol, mBJ and TB all give values intermediate between the indirect and direct gaps of Ge, and the TB and mBJ values reproduce the HSEsol trend with x. From this they conclude that the alloy conduction-band edge is a strong admixture of Ge Γ7c and L6c states, and that the direct-gap character evolves continuously with Sn content.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark itself—HSEsol with 30 percent exact-exchange mixing fixed by the Ge band splitting at x = 0—is assumed to stay accurate as Sn is added, even though the only experimental checks in the paper are pressure coefficients for Ge and one 6% Sn photodiode.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LDA+mBJ is validated as a first-principles workhorse for Ge1−xSnx at roughly ten times lower computational cost than HSEsol, extending first-principles reach to larger supercells.
  • VFF relaxation can replace DFT relaxation in the modeling pipeline, so electronic-structure calculations can start from VFF-relaxed geometries with minimal loss of accuracy.
  • VFF+TB is scalable to systems of about 10^6 atoms, enabling direct atomistic studies of disordered alloys and nanostructures that hybrid DFT cannot reach.
  • Calculations must explicitly include atomistic alloying and disorder effects rather than relying on virtual crystal approximations, because band mixing and disorder alter the conduction-band character and pressure coefficients.
  • The indirect-to-direct gap transition in Ge1−xSnx is continuous, driven by Sn-induced band mixing, rather than an abrupt crossover at a single critical composition.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the transferability of the HSEsol α = 0.3 fit holds at higher Sn content, the same three-tier strategy (expensive hybrid DFT, cheaper DFT, semi-empirical) could plausibly be applied to neighbouring group-IV alloys such as Ge1−xPbx or SiGeSn.
  • A natural next step would be to compute optical transition strengths or radiative recombination rates with VFF+TB, since the paper validates band-edge energies and character but not those derived quantities.
  • The strong dependence of dEg/dP on local microstructure at fixed composition suggests that predictive alloy calculations will need ensemble averages over many disordered supercells rather than a single representative cell.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper presents a benchmark comparison of three atomistic models for Ge1-xSnx alloys: (i) HSEsol DFT for structural relaxation and electronic structure, (ii) LDA relaxation combined with mBJ electronic structure, and (iii) VFF relaxation combined with sp3s* tight-binding (TB). Using HSEsol as the reference, the authors compare relaxed lattice constants, bond length and bond angle distributions, band gaps, spin-orbit splittings, and hydrostatic pressure coefficients for ordered 64- and 16-atom supercells and one disordered 64-atom supercell. They conclude that LDA+mBJ reproduces HSEsol electronic structure at reduced cost, that VFF relaxation is accurate enough to replace first-principles relaxation, that VFF+TB describes the band-edge electronic structure well, and that Sn-induced Gamma-L band mixing drives a continuous evolution of the direct-gap character in Ge1-xSnx.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a practically useful benchmark: LDA+mBJ is an order-of-magnitude cheaper first-principles route for GeSn supercells, and VFF+TB offers a scalable route to much larger atomistic simulations. The VFF parameters are given explicitly in Table II, the computational details are transparent, and the use of dEg/dP as a physical probe of Gamma-L mixing is a valuable cross-check. The main risk is that the validation is substantially internal: HSEsol and mBJ share a fitted Ge Gamma7c-L6c target, and the TB parametrization was adjusted against HSEsol/mBJ alloy-supercell results, so the reported agreement does not by itself establish predictive accuracy for arbitrary alloy compositions. The paper's strengths include the systematic side-by-side comparison on identical supercells and the explicit acknowledgement of known TB limitations (effective masses, dispersionless X-W bands).

major comments (3)
  1. [II B] The TB parametrization for zb-GeSn is adjusted specifically to improve the impact of Sn incorporation in alloy supercell calculations. The text states that the initial sp3s* fit tends to underestimate the impact of Sn incorporation in Ge1-xSnx alloy supercell calculations, and that the authors therefore adjust the differences in the free atomic orbital energies to obtain a more accurate description. The same HSEsol alloy-supercell results later serve as the benchmark in Tables IV and V and in Figs. 3 and 4. The adjustment is not quantified, and the full parametrization is deferred to Ref. 57. Consequently, the close VFF+TB/HSEsol agreement for Eg, Delta_SO, and dEg/dP is partly a result of fitting to the benchmark rather than an independent validation of the TB model. I request the adjusted parameter values, the magnitude of the adjustment, and at least one out-of-sample test (for example, a different supercell composition or configuration not used in the fitting) before the TB model is certified as predictive for Ge1-xSnx alloys.
  2. [II A and III B 3] The HSEsol benchmark uses alpha = 0.3, chosen to reproduce the Ge Gamma7c-L6c splitting at x = 0, and the mBJ functional uses c = 1.2 chosen to the same experimental target. The agreement between mBJ and HSEsol for alloy supercells therefore checks consistency between two functionals that share a fitted low-order quantity, not absolute accuracy at finite Sn content. The only external alloy comparison is the x ~ 6% dEg/dP value (9.2 meV/kbar compared with 10.0 from HSEsol, 9.5 from mBJ, and 10.0 from TB), while the experimental values at x = 8% and 10% quoted in Sec. III B 3 are not used as benchmarks. I ask for a sensitivity test of alpha (for example, alpha = 0.2 and 0.4) on the alloy supercells, or direct comparison with additional experimental alloy data, to establish that the benchmark remains valid away from x = 0.
  3. [II C and III B 3] The conclusion that alloy disorder strongly affects the conduction band edge and reduces dEg/dP (8.32 versus 10.00 meV/kbar for the ordered Ge15Sn1 supercell) rests on a single disordered Ge60Sn4 supercell. One random configuration, which happens to contain a Sn-Sn nearest-neighbour pair, cannot separate disorder-induced trends from statistical fluctuations. An ensemble of several independent disordered configurations, or an explicit configurational average, is needed before this disorder-related conclusion is presented as a general property of disordered Ge1-xSnx alloys.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table IV] In Table IV, the Ge15Sn1 row is labelled x = 3.12%, which is inconsistent with Table III and with the text where this 16-atom supercell has x = 6.25%.
  2. [III B 1] The mBJ band gaps for Ge63Sn1 and Ge15Sn1 are quoted as 0.660 and 0.356 meV; the units should be eV.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and repeated words: 'pursude' in Sec. III A 1, 'miniminal' and 'continously' in Sec. IV, 'the the' in Sec. III A 2, and 'possesses possesses' in Sec. III B 2. A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

TB validation is partially circular: zb-GeSn TB parameters were adjusted to improve agreement with the same HSEsol alloy-supercell results later used as the benchmark.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II B (semi-empirical zb-GeSn TB fit); benchmark comparisons in Sec. III B 1, Tables IV and V]
    "Following this procedure provides a good overall fit to the HSEsol-calculated zb-GeSn band structure, but we find that – compared to HSEsol and mBJ calculations – these parameters tend to underestimate the impact of Sn incorporation in Ge 1−xSnx alloy supercell calculations. To rectify this we adjust the differences in the free atomic orbital energies used to determine the Ge and Sn atomic orbital energies in the zb-GeSn TB Hamiltonian."

    The TB parameters are explicitly adjusted to improve agreement with HSEsol and mBJ calculations for Ge1−xSnx alloy supercells. Those same HSEsol alloy-supercell calculations are then used as the benchmark in Sec. III B (Tables IV and V) to support the claim that TB calculations provide a good quantitative description of the alloy electronic structure near the band edges. The subsequent agreement in Eg, ΔSO, and dEg/dP between VFF+TB and HSEsol is therefore partly a consequence of fitting to the benchmark rather than an independent prediction. The adjustment is not quantified, its fitted parameter values are not given, and full details are deferred to an in-preparation manuscript (Ref. 57), so the number of tuned degrees of freedom cannot be assessed from the paper.

full rationale

The paper builds three models on a common HSEsol benchmark, and much of the comparison is legitimate: the VFF constants are obtained analytically from HSEsol bulk lattice and elastic constants of Ge, α-Sn, and zb-GeSn, and then tested on alloy supercells, which is an independent cross-check; mBJ is a separate functional whose only fitted parameter c is fixed to the experimental Ge Γ7c–L6c splitting, so its agreement with HSEsol on alloy band structure is a genuine prediction rather than a fit to HSEsol. The principal circularity is in the TB parametrization. The authors state that the initial sp3s* fit to the HSEsol zb-GeSn band structure underestimated Sn incorporation in alloy supercells relative to HSEsol and mBJ, and that they adjusted the Ge/Sn free-atomic orbital energy differences to obtain a more accurate description of the impact of Sn incorporation. Because the HSEsol alloy-supercell results are then used as the benchmark in Tables IV and V, the demonstrated VFF+TB/HSEsol agreement for Eg, ΔSO, and dEg/dP is partly built into the parameter choice. The pressure-coefficient comparison to the Ge0.94Sn0.06 photodiode measurement and the independent mBJ agreement provide some external support, so the circularity is partial rather than total. No other load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-imported-from-authors pattern is present; the deferred parameter papers (Refs. 47, 48, 57) are a transparency issue but not circular by themselves. Overall the derivation is not equivalent to its inputs, but one central validation step reduces in part to a fit, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims depend on a chain of fitted functional parameters, empirical potentials and TB parameters, and small, specific supercells; many parametrisation details are deferred to separate manuscripts (Refs. 47, 48, 57), all with overlapping authorship.

free parameters (4)
  • HSE exact-exchange mixing parameter alpha = 0.3
    Adjusted to reproduce the experimental Gamma_7c-L_6c splitting of Ge, then applied unchanged to all Ge1-xSnx supercells (Sec. II A).
  • mBJ functional parameter c = 1.2
    Adjusted to reproduce the same experimental Ge Gamma_7c-L_6c splitting, then applied to all alloy calculations (Sec. II A).
  • sp3s* tight-binding parameter set for Ge, alpha-Sn, zb-GeSn = Not listed (Ref. 57 in preparation)
    The TB Hamiltonian is fitted to HSEsol band structures of the constituent materials; the parameter values are not disclosed in this paper.
  • Adjustment of zb-GeSn free atomic orbital energy differences in TB = Not specified
    The zb-GeSn TB fit was modified to better reproduce Sn incorporation effects in alloy supercells, building part of the target alloy behavior into the model (Sec. II B).
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption HSEsol with alpha=0.3 is an accurate benchmark for Ge1-xSnx electronic structure at all compositions considered.
    The benchmark's accuracy for alloys is assumed; alpha is fit at x=0 only, and no direct experimental alloy band structure is used for validation in the paper.
  • domain assumption The mBJ functional with c=1.2, applied on LDA-relaxed geometries, provides a reliable first-principles electronic structure description.
    mBJ is an established approximation but has known systematic errors (e.g., overestimated CB effective masses, underestimated spin-orbit splitting) acknowledged in Sec. II A.
  • domain assumption The nearest-neighbour sp3s* TB model, with the two strain corrections added, captures the band-edge physics of Ge1-xSnx alloys.
    The paper acknowledges the model overestimates effective masses and has dispersionless X-W bands (Sec. III B 2), yet claims the band-edge character is accurate.
  • domain assumption 16- and 64-atom supercells with L points folded to the zone centre are adequate to study Sn-induced Gamma_7c-L_6c mixing.
    The choice is defended physically in Sec. II C, but finite-size effects are not quantified.
  • ad hoc to paper The single disordered Ge60Sn4 supercell is representative of disordered alloy behaviour at x=6.25%.
    Only one random configuration, containing a Sn-Sn nearest-neighbour pair, is used; conclusions about disorder effects rest on this single realization (Sec. III A 3 and III B 3).
  • domain assumption The analytical VFF force-constant expressions derived in Refs. 46-48 are correct.
    The derivation is not reproduced in this paper; it is referenced to a thesis and submitted/in-preparation manuscripts (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption The experimental dEg/dP values cited from Eales et al. (Refs. 21,22) are accurate reference data.
    The paper uses these measurements as the external check on the band-mixing picture without independent verification (Sec. III B 3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Comparison of first principles and semi-empirical models of the structural and electronic properties of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUQPO7K4

@misc{pith2026190802833,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Comparison of first principles and semi-empirical models of the structural and electronic properties of Ge$_1-x$Sn$_x$ alloys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUQPO7K4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02833}
}
abstract

We present and compare three distinct atomistic models -- based on first principles and semi-empirical approaches -- of the structural and electronic properties of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloys. Density functional theory calculations incorporating Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSE) and modified Becke-Johnson (mBJ) exchange-correlation functionals are used to perform structural relaxation and electronic structure calculations for a series of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloy supercells. Based on HSE calculations, a semi-empirical valence force field (VFF) potential and $sp^{3}s^{\ast}$ tight-binding (TB) Hamiltonian are parametrised. Comparing the HSE, mBJ and TB models, and using the HSE results as a benchmark, we demonstrate that: (i) mBJ calculations provide an accurate first principles description of the electronic structure at reduced computational cost, (ii) the VFF potential is sufficiently accurate to circumvent the requirement to perform first principles structural relaxation, and (iii) TB calculations provide a good quantitative description of the alloy electronic structure in the vicinity of the band edges. Our results also emphasise the importance of Sn-induced band mixing in determining the nature of the conduction band structure of Ge$_{1-x}$Sn$_{x}$ alloys. The theoretical models and benchmark calculations we present inform and enable predictive, computationally efficient and scalable atomistic calculations for disordered alloys and nanostructures. This provides a suitable platform to underpin further theoretical investigations of the properties of this emerging semiconductor alloy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02833 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Band structure of (a) Ge, (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Comparison of first principles and semi-empirical relaxations of the atomic positions for a disordered Ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: First principles and semi-empirical calculations of the band structure of two ordered Ge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Zhou , author B

    author Z. Zhou , author B. Yin , and author J. Michel , journal Light: Science & Applications volume 4 , pages e358 ( year 2015 )

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    author P. J. Winzer and author D. T. Neilson , journal J. Lightwave Tech. volume 35 , pages 1099 ( year 2017 )

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Thomson , author A

    author D. Thomson , author A. Zilkie , author J. E. Bowers , author T. Komljenovic , author G. T. Reed , author L. Vivien , author D. Marris-Morini , author E. Cassan , author L. Virot , author J.-M. F \' e d \' e li , et al. , journal J. Opt. volume 18 , pages 073003 ( year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Geiger , author T

    author R. Geiger , author T. Zabel , and author H. Sigg , journal Front. Mater. volume 2 , pages 52 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  5. [5]

    Saito , author A

    author S. Saito , author A. Z. Al-Attili , author K. Oda , and author Y. Ishikawa , journal Semicond. Sci. Technol. volume 31 , pages 043002 ( year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Reboud , author A

    author V. Reboud , author A. Gassenq , author J. M. Hartmann , author J. Widiez , author L. Virot , author J. Aubin , author K. Guilloy , author S. Tardif , author J. M. F \' e d \' e li , author N. Pauc , et al. , journal Prog. Cryst. Growth & Charact. volume 63 , pages 1 ( year 2017 )

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Kouvetakis , author J

    author J. Kouvetakis , author J. Menendez , and author A. V. G. Chizmeshya , journal Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. volume 36 , pages 497 ( year 2006 )

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Soref , journal Phil

    author R. Soref , journal Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A volume 372 , pages 0113 ( year 2014 )

    work page 2014

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Zaima , author O

    author S. Zaima , author O. Nakatsuka , author N. Taoka , author M. Kurosawa , author W. Takeuchi , and author M. Sakashita , journal Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. volume 16 , pages 043502 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  2. [10]

    Wirths , author R

    author S. Wirths , author R. Geiger , author N. von den Driesch , author G. Mussler , author T. Stoica , author S. Mantl , author Z. Ikonic , author M. Luysberg , author S. Chiussi , author J. M. Hartmann , et al. , journal Nat. Photonics volume 9 , pages 88 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  3. [11]

    Margetis, Y

    author J. Margetis, Y. Zhou, W. Dou, P. C. Grant, B. Alharthi, et al. , journal Appl. Phys. Lett. volume 113 , pages 221104 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  4. [12]

    Yang , author S

    author Y. Yang , author S. Su , author P. Guo , author W. Wang , author X. Gong , author L. Wang , author K. L. Low , author G. Zhang , author C. Xue , author B. Cheng , et al. , journal Proceedings of the International Electron Devices Meeting ( year 2012 )

    2012

  5. [13]

    a nder , author T. Stoica , author G. Mussler , author M. Myronov , author J. M. Hartmann , author D. Gr \

    author S. Wirths , author A. T. Tiedemann , author Z. Ikonic , author P. Harrison , author B. Holl \" a nder , author T. Stoica , author G. Mussler , author M. Myronov , author J. M. Hartmann , author D. Gr \" u tzmacher , et al. , journal Appl. Phys. Lett. volume 102 , pages ...

    2013

  6. [14]

    Santa and author A

    author S. Santa and author A. Schenk , journal Appl. Phys. Lett. volume 105 , pages 162101 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  7. [15]

    Fang , author J

    author Y.-Y. Fang , author J. Xie , author J. Tolle , author R. Roucka , author V. R. D'Costa , author A. V. G. Chizmeshya , author J. Menendez , and author J. Kouvetakis , journal J. Am. Chem. Soc. volume 130 , pages 16095 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  8. [16]

    Roucka , author A

    author R. Roucka , author A. Clark , author T. Wilson , author T. Thomas , author M. F \" u hrer , author N. J. Ekins-Daukes , author A. Johnson , author R. Hoffman , and author D. Begarney , journal IEEE J. Photovolt. volume 6 , pages 1025 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  9. [17]

    Tim \` o , author G

    author G. Tim \` o , author G. Abagnale , author N. Armani , author M. Calicchio , and author B. Schineller , journal AIP Conf. Proc. volume 2012 , pages 040011 ( year 2018 )

    2012

  10. [18]

    Moontragoon , author Z

    author P. Moontragoon , author Z. Ikoni\' c , and author P. Harrison , journal Semicond. Sci. Technol. volume 22 , pages 742 ( year 2007 )

    2007

  11. [19]

    Eckhardt , author K

    author C. Eckhardt , author K. Hummer , and author G. Kresse , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 89 , pages 65201 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  12. [20]

    author M. P. Polak , author P. Schroch , and author R. Kudraweic , journal J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. volume 50 , pages 195103 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  13. [21]

    author T. D. Eales , author I. P. Marko , author S. A. Ghetmiri , author W. Du , author Y. Zhou , author S.-Q. Yu , author J. Margetis , author J. Tolle , author S. Schulz , author E. J. O'Halloran , et al. , journal `` New experimental evidence for the nature of the band gap ...

    2017

  14. [22]

    author T. D. Eales , author I. P. Marko , author S. Schulz , author E. J. O'Halloran , author S. A. Ghetmiri , author W. Du , author Y. Zhou , author S. Q. Yu , author J. Margetis , author J. Tolle , et al. , journal `` Ge _ 1-x Sn _ x alloys: consequences of band mixing effec...

    2019

  15. [23]

    Dybala , author K

    author F. Dybala , author K. \. Z elazna , author H. Maczko , author M. Gladysiewicz , author J. Misiewicz , author R. Kudraweic , author H. Lin , author R. Chen , author C. Shang , author Y. Huo , et al. , journal J. Appl. Phys. volume 119 , pages 215703 ( year 2016 )

    2016

  16. [24]

    author C. A. Broderick, M. D. Dunne et al. , journal `` Atomistic analysis of localisation and band mixing effects in Ge _ 1-x (C,Sn) _ x group-IV alloys '', Proc. 18 ^ th IEEE International Conference on Nanotechnology ( year 2018 )

    2018

  17. [25]

    Schulz , author C

    author S. Schulz , author C. A. Broderick , author E. J. O'Halloran , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal `` The nature of the band gap of Ge _ 1-x Sn _ x alloys '', Proc. 18 ^ th International Conference on Numerical Simulation of Optoelectronic Devices ( year 2018 )

    2018

  18. [26]

    author C. A. Broderick , author E. J. O'Halloran , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal `` Comparative analysis of electronic structure evolution in Ge _ 1-x Sn _ x and Ge _ 1-x Pb _ x alloys '', Proc. 19 ^ th International Conference on Numerical Simulation of Optoelectronic D...

    2019

  19. [27]

    He and author H

    author G. He and author H. A. Atwater , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 79 , pages 1937 ( year 1997 )

    1937

  20. [28]

    Yin , author X.-G

    author W.-J. Yin , author X.-G. Gong , and author S.-H. Wei , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 78 , pages 161203 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  21. [29]

    Heyd , author G

    author J. Heyd , author G. E. Scuseria , and author M. Ernzerhof , journal J. Chem. Phys. volume 118 , pages 8207 ( year 2003 )

    2003

  22. [30]

    Heyd and author G

    author J. Heyd and author G. E. Scuseria , journal J. Chem. Phys. volume 121 , pages 1187 ( year 2004 )

    2004

  23. [31]

    Schimka , author J

    author L. Schimka , author J. Harl , and author G. Kresse , journal J. Chem. Phys. volume 134 , pages 1 ( year 2011 )

    2011

  24. [32]

    Tran and author P

    author F. Tran and author P. Blaha , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 226401 , pages 102 ( year 2009 )

    2009

  25. [33]

    author P. E. Bl \" o chl , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 50 , pages 17953 ( year 1994 )

    1994

  26. [34]

    Kresse and author D

    author G. Kresse and author D. Joubert , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 59 , pages 1758 ( year 1999 )

    1999

  27. [35]

    Kresse and author J

    author G. Kresse and author J. Furthm \" u ller , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 54 , pages 11169 ( year 1996 a )

    1996

  28. [36]

    Kresse and author J

    author G. Kresse and author J. Furthm \" u ller , journal Comput. Mater. Sci. volume 6 , pages 15 ( year 1996 b )

    1996

  29. [37]

    o rnstein , journal Landolt-B \

    author H. Landolt and author R. B \" o rnstein , journal Landolt-B \" o rnstein: Condensed Matter volume III/41A1a ( year 1982 a )

    1982

  30. [38]

    Brudevoll , author D

    author T. Brudevoll , author D. S. Citrin , author N. E. Christensen , and author M. Cardona , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 48 , pages 17128 ( year 1993 )

    1993

  31. [39]

    R \" u cker and author M

    author H. R \" u cker and author M. Methfessel , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 52 , pages 11509 ( year 1995 )

    1995

  32. [40]

    Pandey , author M

    author R. Pandey , author M. R \' e rat , and author M. Caus \` a , journal Appl. Phys. Lett. volume 75 , pages 4127 ( year 1999 )

    1999

  33. [41]

    Khenata , author H

    author R. Khenata , author H. Baltache , author M. Sahnoun , author M. Driz , author M. R \' e rat , and author B. Abbar , journal Physica B volume 336 , pages 321 ( year 2003 )

    2003

  34. [42]

    o rnstein , journal Landolt-B \

    author H. Landolt and author R. B \" o rnstein , journal Landolt-B \" o rnstein: Condensed Matter volume III/41A1b ( year 1982 b )

    1982

  35. [43]

    author S. H. Groves , author C. R. Pidgeon , and author R. J. Wagner , journal J. Phys. Chem. Solids volume 31 , pages 2031 ( year 1970 )

    1970

  36. [44]

    author M. J. P. Musgrave and author J. A. Pople , journal Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A volume 268 , pages 474 ( year 1962 )

    1962

  37. [45]

    author R. M. Martin , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 1 , pages 4005 ( year 1970 )

    1970

  38. [46]

    author D. S. P. Tanner , Ph.D. thesis, school University College Cork , address Ireland ( year 2018 )

    2018

  39. [47]

    author D. S. P. Tanner , author M. A. Caro , author S. Schulz , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal ``Fully analytic valence force field model for the elastic and inner elastic properties of diamond and zincblende crystals'' , submitted ( year 2019 a )

    2019

  40. [48]

    author D. S. P. Tanner , author C. A. Broderick , author A. C. Kirwan , author S. Schulz , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal ``Elastic properties of elemental and compound group-IV materials: hybrid density functional theory and valence force field parametrisation'' , in pre...

    2019

  41. [49]

    author J. D. Gale , journal JCS Faraday Trans. volume 93 , pages 629 ( year 1997 )

    1997

  42. [50]

    author J. D. Gale and author A. L. Rohl , journal Mol. Simul. volume 29 , pages 291 ( year 2003 )

    2003

  43. [51]

    author J. D. Gale , journal Z. Krist. volume 220 , pages 552 ( year 2005 )

    2005

  44. [52]

    Vogl , author H

    author P. Vogl , author H. P. Hjalmarson , and author J. D. Dow , journal J. Phys. Chem. Solids volume 44 , pages 365 ( year 1983 )

    1983

  45. [53]

    author J. C. Slater and author G. F. Koster , journal Phys. Rev. volume 94 , pages 1498 ( year 1954 )

    1954

  46. [54]

    R\" u cker , author R

    author H. R\" u cker , author R. Enderlein , and author F. Bechstedt , journal Phys. Status Solidi B volume 158 , pages 595 ( year 1983 )

    1983

  47. [55]

    author M. C. Mu \ n oz and author G. Armelles , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 48 , pages 2839 ( year 1993 )

    1993

  48. [56]

    Li , author A

    author Y.-H. Li , author A. Walsh , author S. Chen , author W.-J. Yin , author J.-H. Yang , author J. Li , author J. L. F. Da Silva , author X. G. Gong , and author S.-H. Wei , journal Appl. Phys. Lett. volume 94 , pages 212109 ( year 2009 )

    2009

  49. [57]

    author C. A. Broderick , author A. C. Kirwan , author S. Schulz , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal ``Electronic properties of elemental and compound group-IV materials: hybrid density functional theory and tight-binding parametrisation'' , in preparation ( year 2019 b )

    2019

  50. [58]

    author D. J. Chadi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 16 , pages 790 ( year 1977 )

    1977

  51. [59]

    author T. B. Boykin , author G. Klimeck , author R. C. Bowen , and author R. Lake , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 56 , pages 4102 ( year 1997 )

    1997

  52. [60]

    author D. J. Chadi and author M. L. Cohen , journal Phys. Stat. Solidi B volume 68 , pages 405 ( year 1975 )

    1975

  53. [61]

    Lindsay and author E

    author A. Lindsay and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal Solid State Commun. volume 112 , pages 443 ( year 1999 )

    1999

  54. [62]

    author E. P. O'Reilly , author A. Lindsay , author S. Tomi \' c , and author M. Kamal-Saadi , journal Semicond. Sci. Technol. volume 17 , pages 870 ( year 2002 )

    2002

  55. [63]

    Usman , author C

    author M. Usman , author C. A. Broderick , author A. Lindsay , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 84 , pages 245202 ( year 2011 )

    2011

  56. [64]

    Usman , author C

    author M. Usman , author C. A. Broderick , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal Phys. Rev. Applied volume 10 , pages 044024 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  57. [65]

    Schulz , author M

    author S. Schulz , author M. A. Caro , author L.-T. Tan , author P. J. Parbrook , author R. W. Martin , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal Appl. Phys. Express. volume 6 , pages 121001 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  58. [66]

    author M. A. Caro , author S. Schulz , and author E. P. O'Reilly , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 88 , pages 214103 ( year 2013 )

    2013

Pith tools

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