Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 45 references

Exciton-Exciton Annihilation Mediated by Many-Body Coulomb and Phonon Interactions: An Ab Initio Study

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives an ab initio GW-BSE framework for exciton-exciton annihilation and applies it to monolayer WSe2, finding that cross-peak A-B channels dominate and EEA generates unbound electron-hole pairs on hundreds-of-picosecond…

desk verdict A genuinely new GW-BSE framework for exciton-exciton annihilation in TMDs, but the claim of unbound-pair dominance overreaches and the rates lean on tuned broadenings. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05223 v1 pith:FWKFXW2A submitted 2025-06-05 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Guy Vosco , Sivan Refaely-Abramson This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords exciton-excitonannihilationGW-BSEmonolayerWSe2phonon-assistedscatteringmany-bodyperturbationtheoryexcitondynamicstransitionmetaldichalcogenidesabinitio
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 argues that exciton-exciton annihilation (EEA) in monolayer WSe2 can be computed from first principles by combining GW-BSE exciton wavefunctions with screened-Coulomb and phonon-assisted scattering kernels. The authors derive eight diagrammatic coupling channels for recombination of an electron-hole pair from one exciton with a carrier from another, and evaluate the resulting rates for A- and B-peak excitons. Their central result is that annihilation is dominated not only by same-peak channels but by an unexpected cross-peak A–B contribution, and that the final products are mostly unbound electron-hole pairs rather than high-lying bound excitons. The computed annihilation acts on hundreds-of-picosecond timescales and, through phonon-assisted intermediate states, activates inter-valley and dark-state channels with a pronounced temperature dependence. If correct, the approach turns EEA rates into a predictive output of band-structure and exciton calculations in low-dimensional semiconductors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the eight-diagram EEA coupling element $V_{\mathrm{EEA}}^{S_1;S_2}(v,c,k)$, built from products of BSE exciton amplitudes $A^{S,Q}_{v,c,k}$ and screened Coulomb matrix elements $\hat{W}$, summed over direct-like and exchange-like recombination of an electron-hole pair from one exciton with an electron or hole from the other. Rates follow from Fermi's golden rule with a momentum-conservation delta replaced by a Gaussian broadening for the discrete k-grid, and phonon-assisted EEA is added as a second-order process in which an exciton first scatters to an intermediate exciton via a phonon (with a damping parameter in the energy denominator) and then annihilates. This machinery converts band structure, phonons, and GW-BSE exciton wavefunctions into scattering times without empirical EEA parameters.

What would settle it

A two-color pump-probe experiment on monolayer WSe2 at low temperature would settle the cross-peak claim: when the B exciton is excited and the A exciton population is probed, the A population should decay with an extra hundreds-of-picosecond channel that is absent under A-only excitation, if the predicted A–B annihilation dominates. Detecting the final-state carriers spectrally at the predicted high-momentum, near-band-edge energies (visible as unbound electron-hole contributions in transient absorption) would test the unbound-pair rather than bound high-exciton outcome.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that EEA in monolayer WSe2 is a many-body process whose rate and final-state character follow from the fully momentum-resolved GW-BSE amplitudes of the interacting excitons, with no empirical annihilation parameter. The key computed finding is a large and unexpected coupling between A-peak and B-peak excitons, mediated by screened Coulomb interactions and energy-conserving scattering into free electron-hole pairs across the Brillouin zone, with final states near K–Λ and M–Γ rather than at the K valleys. Phonon-assisted second-order processes relax the valley and spin restrictions through an intermediate scattered exciton, opening inter-valley and dark-state channels whose rates rise with temperature. The paper concludes that EEA in WSe2 typically produces dissociated carriers and that the process operates on hundreds-of-picosecond timescales.

Load-bearing premise

The computed timescales rest on choosing the energy-conservation broadening (40 meV for Coulomb, 10 meV for phonon-assisted channels) and a 10–20 meV intermediate-state damping from numerical stabilization, without a first-principles derivation of these physical widths.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monolayer WSe2 excited by an A- or B-resonant pulse should show EEA-limited decay on hundreds of picoseconds, with the rate increasing at higher temperature through phonon-activated inter-valley channels.
  • Annihilation between A- and B-peak excitons is a significant loss channel, so models of WSe2 exciton dynamics that treat A and B manifolds independently will miss a dominant decay route.
  • EEA in WSe2 mostly yields unbound electron-hole pairs rather than high-energy bound excitons, which changes how transient absorption signatures of annihilation should be interpreted.
  • The same GW-BSE-with-phonon machinery can produce EEA rates for other layered semiconductors directly from band-structure and exciton calculations, replacing material-specific empirical parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' finding that final states are momentum-distributed free carriers suggests EEA efficiency in other TMDs may be controlled by the availability of high-energy band pairs obeying energy conservation, not simply by exciton binding energy or valley overlap.
  • Because single-phonon processes do not allow dark-dark annihilation for a photoexcited population, extending the framework to two-phonon intermediate states could change the predicted low-temperature rates for dark exciton populations.
  • The predicted A–B dominance could be tested by pump-probe schemes that excite the B resonance and monitor the A population decay, a measurement the authors do not report.
  • If the Gaussian broadening needed for convergence (40 meV Coulomb, 10 meV phonon-assisted) reflects intrinsic linewidth scales, analogous calculations in other materials will need material-specific broadening rather than a universal value.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an ab initio framework for exciton-exciton annihilation (EEA) in monolayer WSe2, combining GW-BSE exciton wavefunctions with screened Coulomb interaction terms (eight diagrams) and phonon-assisted second-order processes computed with DFPT couplings. It reports Coulomb-driven and phonon-assisted EEA rates for A- and B-peak exciton manifolds, finding picosecond-scale annihilation channels, a notable A-B cross-peak contribution, and phonon-activated intervalley processes. The paper concludes that EEA occurs on hundreds-of-picosecond timescales and predominantly generates unbound electron-hole pairs. The Supplemental Material documents computational parameters and the dependence of the rates on broadening and damping choices.

Significance. If the underlying approximations are accepted, this is a valuable step toward a predictive first-principles description of EEA: the framework explicitly evaluates many-body Coulomb and phonon-assisted channels from GW-BSE eigenstates and DFPT couplings rather than fitting EEA data, and it provides a microscopic picture of final-state band and momentum distributions. The transparent derivation, the explicit treatment of eight Coulomb diagrams, and the inclusion of phonon-assisted intervalley processes are genuine strengths. However, the quantitative claims rest on two currently under-justified choices: the restriction of final states to noninteracting electron-hole pairs, and the numerical broadening/damping parameters that set the absolute rates. The paper also contains an internal inconsistency about dark-dark phonon-assisted channels. These issues are load-bearing for the headline conclusions, so the present version is not yet ready for publication.

major comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (5), Fig. 1, final paragraph] The conclusion that EEA 'predominantly leads to the generation of unbound electron-hole pairs' is an input restriction rather than a computed result. Equation (5) sums over single-particle (v,c,k) final states with energy conservation enforced against the bare quasiparticle difference eps_c,k - eps_v,k+Q1+Q2, and no BSE kernel is applied in the final-state channel. Bound high-energy exciton final states are therefore excluded by construction, as the text itself acknowledges when it says high-energy excitonic final states are 'not ruled out.' The stronger claim that unbound pairs are 'more common' requires comparing both channels. Because WSe2 excitons have large binding energies, final-state electron-hole attraction could substantially renormalize the final density of states and the matrix elements, potentially shifting the A-B and B-B rates and the inferred timescales. Please either include excitonic final states in the calculation or restrict the conclusion to the free-carrier manifold actually computed.
  2. [Supplemental Material Section III, Eq. (15), Fig. 5; Eq. (5)] The absolute rates depend on the widths chosen for the energy-conservation Gaussian and for the intermediate-state damping, and these widths are not derived from a microscopic model. The Coulomb-driven rate uses sigma = 40 meV, the phonon-assisted rate uses 10 meV for energy conservation and eta = 10-20 meV for the denominator; Figure 5 shows that the AD-AD channel only stabilizes at broadenings above 40 meV and that the phonon-assisted rates are sensitive to eta. Since the reported 'hundreds of picoseconds' timescales inherit this arbitrary scale, the central quantitative claim is not yet robust. The manuscript should either determine these broadenings from a physical mechanism (e.g., self-energy lifetimes or phonon linewidths) or present the final rates as functions of sigma and eta with a clear uncertainty estimate.
  3. [Fig. 4A-B and Eq. (7)] The temperature dependence of the phonon-assisted rates is not robust to the damping eta. The shaded regions in Fig. 4A-B show a large variation between eta = 10 and 20 meV, and SI Fig. 5B indicates that the denominator dominates the temperature and energy dependence. This weakens the attribution of the temperature-activated intervalley channels to the phonon Bose-Einstein population: the same trend could partly arise from the ad hoc damping parameter. The authors should separate the physical phonon-population effect from the artificial broadening and quantify how the reported temperature slopes change over the eta range.
  4. [Fig. 4C and concluding paragraph] There is an internal inconsistency about dark-dark phonon-assisted channels. In the paragraph describing Fig. 4, the paper states that single-phonon processes 'do not allow the dark-dark annihilation pathway for photoexcited excitons,' yet the concluding paragraph claims that the phonon-assisted process activates 'inter-valley, dark-dark, and dark-bright annihilation channels.' If the dark-dark pathway is not included in the calculation, the conclusion should be revised to say 'dark-bright' and 'inter-valley' only, or the calculation should be extended to two-phonon processes and the limitations updated accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, exciton characterization paragraph] There are typos and spacing issues, e.g., 'exciotns 1,2' and inconsistent 'WSe 2' spacing; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [Eq. (2) vs Supplemental Material Eq. (13)] The sign convention in Eq. (2) uses alternating signs for the four diagram classes, whereas SI Eq. (13) writes all eight terms with explicit plus signs; the relationship between these presentations should be clarified for readers.
  3. [Reference list] The bibliography entries in the main text are not numbered in order of appearance (e.g., Quantum Espresso and BerkeleyGW citations appear as [1]-[3], [6], [7], [9] after [38]), and the Supplemental Material has its own separate numbering; the merged list should be renumbered consistently.
  4. [Abstract and conclusion] The abstract says 'picosecond-scale annihilation' while the conclusion says 'hundreds of picoseconds'; these are consistent only if different channels are meant, and the paper should state explicitly which processes are picosecond-scale and which are hundreds of picoseconds.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'predominantly unbound electron-hole pairs' conclusion is fixed by the final-state basis of Eq. (5) rather than computed; the EEA rates themselves are not fit to experimental data.

  1. self definitional [Eqs. (5)-(6), Abstract/Conclusion, SI Section IV]
    "Next, we compute the EEA scattering times: τ^{S1,S2}_{EEA}^{-1} = 2π/(ℏ N_k) Σ_{v,c,k} |V^{S1,S2}_{EEA}(v,c,k)|^2 ρ(ΔE) ... ΔE = (ϵ_{c,k} − ϵ_{v,k+Q1+Q2}) − (Ω_{S1,Q1} + Ω_{S2,Q2}) ... EEA occurs on timescales of hundreds of picoseconds and predominantly leads to the generation of unbound electron-hole pairs."

    Equation (5) defines the EEA rate as a sum over noninteracting single-particle final states (v,c,k), with energy conservation enforced against the bare quasiparticle difference. No BSE kernel is applied to the final state, so bound high-energy exciton final states are absent from ρ(ΔE) by construction. The claim that EEA 'predominantly leads to the generation of unbound electron-hole pairs' is thus not a comparative prediction but a restatement of the chosen final-state basis; the paper also concedes it does not rule out high-lying excitonic final states. Because only free electron-hole pair final states are enumerated, the conclusion that unbound pairs are more common is forced by the definition of the rate, not by a calculation that includes both channels.

full rationale

The core EEA rates and couplings are computed from GW-BSE wavefunctions and DFPT phonon couplings rather than fitted to experimental EEA data, and no load-bearing self-citation chain appears: the cited methodological papers are independent computational tools. The broadening and damping parameters are manually chosen and the rates are sensitive to them, especially the 10–20 meV intermediate-state damping and the 40 meV energy-conservation broadening, but the paper reports convergence checks rather than presenting those parameters as predictions, so this is a parameter-sensitivity/correctness concern rather than circularity. The one construction-level circularity is the headline claim about unbound final states: Eq. (5) sums only over single-particle (v,c,k) final states, so the conclusion that EEA predominantly generates unbound electron-hole pairs is imposed by the final-state basis, not established against the alternative bound-exciton channel. For that central interpretive claim, the reduction is direct and by construction, giving a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard many-body perturbation theory plus a set of manually chosen numerical parameters (Gaussian broadening, intermediate-state damping, scissor shift). No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Coulomb EEA broadening sigma = 40 meV
    Gaussian broadening of the energy-conservation delta function in Eq. 5; rates stabilize around 40 meV, but AD-AD only stabilizes at higher broadening.
  • Phonon-assisted energy-conservation broadening = 10 meV
    Used in phonon-assisted EEA density of states; has a smaller effect on rates than the intermediate-state damping.
  • Intermediate-state damping eta = 10-20 meV
    Imaginary part in the phonon-assisted EEA denominator; rates are sensitive to this parameter and the uncertainty bands in Figure 4 reflect its variation.
  • Scissor shift = unspecified
    BSE eigenvalues are shifted to match excitonic energies computed on the 72x72 grid; this calibration affects the energy conservation condition.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GW-BSE provides accurate exciton wavefunctions and energies
    The EEA coupling is computed entirely from BSE exciton amplitudes and screened Coulomb interactions from G0W0.
  • domain assumption Tamm-Dancoff approximation is valid for the EEA matrix elements
    The SI states BSE Hamiltonians and EEA matrix elements are evaluated within TDA; the main text claims beyond-TDA contributions, so this is an unresolved assumption.
  • domain assumption Fermi's golden rule with a broadened delta function gives the EEA rate
    Equation 5 uses |V|^2 times a Gaussian-broadened density of states, relying on weak-coupling perturbation theory.
  • domain assumption Single-phonon processes dominate phonon-assisted EEA
    The authors restrict to single-phonon processes, which does not allow dark-dark annihilation for photoexcited excitons, as they state.
  • standard math DFT-PBE and G0W0 bandstructure are adequate starting points
    Standard approximations, though PBE underestimates bandgaps and G0W0 corrections are applied.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exciton-Exciton Annihilation Mediated by Many-Body Coulomb and Phonon Interactions: An Ab Initio Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FWKFXW2A

@misc{pith2026250605223,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exciton-Exciton Annihilation Mediated by Many-Body Coulomb and Phonon Interactions: An Ab Initio Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FWKFXW2A}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05223}
}
abstract

Exciton-exciton annihilation (EEA), in which two excitons interact to generate high-energy excitations, is an important non-radiative channel in light-induced excited-state relaxation. When efficient, this process offers an alternative route to exciton emission, potentially allowing extended energetically excited particles' lifetime and coherence. These properties are significant in designing and understanding materials-based quantum devices, particularly for low-dimensional semiconductors. Here, we present a first-principles framework to compute EEA mechanisms and rates using many-body perturbation theory within the GW and Bethe-Salpeter Equation (GW-BSE) formalism. Our method explicitly accounts for Coulomb-driven and phonon-assisted exciton-exciton scattering by explicitly evaluating the interaction channels between the constituent electrons and holes composing the BSE excitons. We apply this framework to monolayer WSe$_2$ and explore the $A$, $B$ excitation manifolds, finding picosecond-scale annihilation between bright and dark states, cross valleys, and cross peak manifolds. These channels become allowed due to scattering into free electron-hole pairs across the Brillouin zone. Our results supply new insights into non-radiative exciton relaxation mechanisms in two-dimensional materials, providing a predictive and general tool for modeling these interactions in excitonic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05223 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Diagrammatic representation of the Coulomb [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (A) WSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Final-state projections of the calculated exci [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (A) Phonon-assisted exciton-exciton annihilation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (A) The Coulomb-driven EEA rates as a function of the energy conservation broadening. The phonon-assisted EEA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Normalized final state (A) bands and (B) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. L. Cohen and S. G. Louie, Fundamentals of condensed matter physics (Cambridge University Press, 2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum computation and quantum information (Cambridge university press, 2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    S. Z. Butler, S. M. Hollen, L. Cao, Y. Cui, J. A. Gupta, H. R. Guti´ errez, T. F. Heinz, S. S. Hong, J. Huang, A. F. Ismach, et al., ACS nano 7, 2898 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 90, 021001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    J. R. Schaibley, H. Yu, G. Clark, P. Rivera, J. S. Ross, K. L. Seyler, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature Reviews Mate- rials 1, 1 (2016). 6

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Cudazzo, I

    P. Cudazzo, I. V. Tokatly, and A. Rubio, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 84, 085406 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    D. Y. Qiu, F. H. Da Jornada, and S. G. Louie, Physical Review B 93, 235435 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Chernikov, T

    A. Chernikov, T. C. Berkelbach, H. M. Hill, A. Rigosi, Y. Li, B. Aslan, D. R. Reichman, M. S. Hybertsen, and T. F. Heinz, Physical review letters 113, 076802 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    P. B. Deotare and Z. Mi, 2D Excitonic Materials and Devices, Vol. 112 (Elsevier, 2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Moody, J

    G. Moody, J. Schaibley, and X. Xu, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 33, C39 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    H.-Y. Chen, V. A. Jhalani, M. Palummo, and M. Bernardi, Physical Review B 100, 075135 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    N. S. Ginsberg and W. A. Tisdale, Annual review of phys- ical chemistry 71, 1 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Linardy, D

    E. Linardy, D. Yadav, D. Vella, I. A. Verzhbitskiy, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Pauly, M. Trushin, and G. Eda, Nano Letters 20, 1647 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    K.-Q. Lin, C. S. Ong, S. Bange, P. E. Faria Junior, B. Peng, J. D. Ziegler, J. Zipfel, C. B¨ auml, N. Paradiso, K. Watanabe, et al., Nature communications 12, 5500 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Erkensten, S

    D. Erkensten, S. Brem, K. Wagner, R. Gillen, R. Perea- Caus ´ ın, J. D. Ziegler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Maultzsch, A. Chernikov, et al., Physical Review B 104, L241406 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Steinhoff, F

    A. Steinhoff, F. Jahnke, and M. Florian, Physical Review B 104, 155416 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    V. I. Klimov, A. A. Mikhailovsky, D. McBranch, C. A. Leatherdale, and M. G. Bawendi, Science 287, 1011 (2000)

    2000

  10. [18]

    F. Wang, G. Dukovic, E. Knoesel, L. E. Brus, and T. F. Heinz, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Ma- terials Physics 70, 241403 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Surrente, A

    A. Surrente, A. Mitioglu, K. Galkowski, L. Klopotowski, W. Tabis, B. Vignolle, D. K. Maude, and P. Plochocka, Physical Review B 94, 075425 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Plaud, L

    A. Plaud, L. Schu´ e, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, F. Fos- sard, F. Ducastelle, A. Loiseau, and J. Barjon, Applied Physics Letters 114 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    D. Sun, Y. Rao, G. A. Reider, G. Chen, Y. You, L. Br´ ezin, A. R. Harutyunyan, and T. F. Heinz, Nano letters 14, 5625 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Kumar, Q

    N. Kumar, Q. Cui, F. Ceballos, D. He, Y. Wang, and H. Zhao, Physical Review B 89, 125427 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Mouri, Y

    S. Mouri, Y. Miyauchi, M. Toh, W. Zhao, G. Eda, and K. Matsuda, Physical Review B 90, 155449 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Phys- ical review letters 108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Konabe and S

    S. Konabe and S. Okada, Physical Review B 90, 155304 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Chatterjee, D

    E. Chatterjee, D. B. Soh, C. Rogers, D. J. Gray, and H. Mabuchi, Physical Review B 100, 155405 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Deilmann, M

    T. Deilmann, M. Dr¨ uppel, and M. Rohlfing, Physical Re- view Letters 116, 196804 (2016)

    2016

  20. [28]

    Biswas, A

    S. Biswas, A. Champagne, J. B. Haber, S. Pokawan- vit, J. Wong, H. Akbari, S. Krylyuk, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. V. Davydov, et al., ACS nano 17, 7685 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Torche and G

    A. Torche and G. Bester, Communications Physics 4, 67 (2021)

    2021

  22. [31]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, et al., Journal of physics: Condensed mat- ter 21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  23. [35]

    Deslippe, G

    J. Deslippe, G. Samsonidze, D. A. Strubbe, M. Jain, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Computer Physics Com- munications 183, 1269 (2012)

    2012

  24. [36]

    D. Y. Qiu, T. Cao, and S. G. Louie, Physical review letters 115, 176801 (2015)

    2015

  25. [37]

    H.-Y. Chen, D. Sangalli, and M. Bernardi, Physical Re- view Letters 125, 107401 (2020)

    2020

  26. [38]

    Antonius and S

    G. Antonius and S. G. Louie, Physical Review B 105, 085111 (2022). 7 Supplemental Material: Exciton-Exciton Annihilation Mediated by Many-Body Coulomb and Phonon Interactions: An Ab Initio Study Guy Vosco1 and Sivan Refaely-Abramson1 1 Department of Molecular Chemistry and Mat...

    2022

  27. [39]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, et al., Journal of physics: Condensed matter 29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  28. [40]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, et al., Journal of physics: Condensed matter 21, 395502 (2009)

    2009

  29. [41]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Baseggio, P. Bonf` a, D. Brunato, R. Car, I. Carnimeo, C. Cavazzoni, S. De Gironcoli, P. Delugas, F. Ferrari Ruffino, et al., The Journal of chemical physics 152 (2020)

    2020

  30. [42]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical review letters 77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  31. [43]

    M. J. Van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. J. Verstraete, D. R. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rignanese, Computer Physics Communications 226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  32. [44]

    Deslippe, G

    J. Deslippe, G. Samsonidze, D. A. Strubbe, M. Jain, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1269 (2012)

    2012

  33. [45]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Physical Review B 34, 5390 (1986)

    1986

  34. [46]

    F. H. da Jornada, D. Y. Qiu, and S. G. Louie, Physical Review B 95, 035109 (2017)

    2017

  35. [47]

    Rohlfing and S

    M. Rohlfing and S. G. Louie, Physical Review B 62, 4927 (2000)

    2000

  36. [48]

    Giustino, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015003 (2017)

    F. Giustino, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 015003 (2017)

    2017

  37. [49]

    Ponc´ e, E

    S. Ponc´ e, E. R. Margine, C. Verdi, and F. Giustino, Computer Physics Communications 209, 116 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.