Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 198 references

Exchange-Correlation Functionals in 2D Materials: Applications, Challenges, and Limitations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This review establishes that no single exchange-correlation functional predicts all properties of 2D materials, and gives a property-by-property recommendation map.

desk verdict A useful field-guide review whose central band-gap ranking is undermined by comparing Kohn–Sham gaps with optical gaps; fixable, but the numbers should not be quoted as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.00921 v2 pith:O75JZEWD submitted 2025-11-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Ahsan Javed , Mahvish Shaheen , Muhammad Shahbaz , M. Sufyan Ramzan , Rafi Ullah , Wei Jiang This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 71.15.Mb73.22.-f
keywords exchange-correlationfunctionals2DmaterialsdensityfunctionaltheorySCAN/r2SCANHSE06GW-BSEbandgapsthermalconductivity
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 argues that the accuracy of density functional theory for 2D materials depends heavily on which exchange-correlation functional is chosen, and that the best choice varies with the target property. It recommends SCAN or r2SCAN for structural and magnetic properties, HSE06 for electronic band gaps (with caveats for gapless or strongly correlated materials), PBE and PBEsol for thermal conductivity, and GW+BSE for optical excitonic spectra. These recommendations are grounded in a survey of benchmarks across transition metal dichalcogenides, hBN, phosphorene, and other families, and the review attributes the need for differentiated choices to quantum confinement, anisotropic dielectric screening, and van der Waals interactions. A sympathetic reader would take away a practical decision map for functional selection and a clear view of where current functionals still fail.

What carries the argument

Kohn–Sham DFT's exchange-correlation functional — the approximation that replaces all electron-electron interactions beyond the classical Hartree term. The review organizes functionals by Jacob's ladder (LDA, GGA, meta-GGA such as SCAN/r2SCAN, hybrids such as HSE06, and many-body methods such as GW+BSE) and uses the ladder to explain why each level fails or succeeds for specific 2D properties.

What would settle it

Compute SCAN and G0W0 band gaps and BSE exciton binding energies for a set of 2D semiconductors such as MoS2, WS2, and hBN. If SCAN gap plus BSE binding energy is systematically larger than the experimental optical gap by more than the claimed ~5%, the paper's performance ranking against experiment is an artifact of comparing different physical quantities.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that exchange-correlation functional accuracy is property-specific in 2D materials: SCAN and r2SCAN provide the most reliable lattice constants, bond lengths, and magnetic exchange parameters; HSE06 gives the best band gaps and direct-to-indirect crossover strains but artificially opens gaps in graphene and silicene and overestimates gaps in strongly correlated systems; PBE and PBEsol yield the most realistic thermal conductivity predictions; and only GW+BSE captures the large exciton binding energies that dominate optical spectra. The paper also documents non-universality across material families, showing that no functional works for all cases, and identifies ma

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that experimental optical gaps can be used as reference values for Kohn–Sham single-particle gaps, on the assumption that excitonic contributions are generally smaller than the typical errors introduced by DFT functionals — an assumption that is questionable for 2D materials where exciton binding energies reach 1–2 eV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For structural predictions in 2D material databases, using SCAN or r2SCAN instead of PBE reduces lattice-constant errors substantially for common transition metal dichalcogenides.
  • For electronic band gaps, HSE06 is the preferred variational functional, but its artificial gap opening in gapless Dirac materials means PBE or LDA remains safer for graphene and silicene.
  • Accurate magnetic transition temperatures in antiferromagnetic 2D materials can be obtained from SCAN/r2SCAN exchange parameters, rivaling hybrid functionals at much lower computational cost.
  • Thermal conductivity estimates should default to PBE or PBEsol; the review notes that no comprehensive meta-GGA benchmarks for thermal properties have been reported yet.
  • Optical properties, including exciton binding energies of 1–2 eV, require GW+BSE; no semilocal or hybrid functional captures them.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's Table 3 compares Kohn–Sham single-particle gaps directly with experimental optical gaps, and its justification rests on the claim that excitonic corrections are smaller than functional errors. In 2D materials exciton binding energies are often 0.5–2 eV, so the apparent ~5% SCAN accuracy may shift if quasiparticle and excitonic corrections are included; a fairer benchmark would compare
  • The recommendation map is based on a limited set of material families; extending the same benchmarks to MXenes, metal-organic frameworks, and Janus TMDCs could reveal additional functional-specific failures not covered in this review.
  • Machine-learning surrogates trained on G0W0/BSE data could sidestep functional choice entirely, but their transferability depends on structurally diverse training sets; the material-family examples in this review suggest such models need careful out-of-sample testing.
  • If the SCAN/r2SCAN advantage for magnetic transition temperatures holds beyond the antiferromagnets benchmarked, it would provide a low-cost route to screening 2D magnets for spintronic applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a topical review of exchange-correlation (XC) functionals for 2D materials. It provides a theoretical overview of DFT, Jacob's ladder, and the GW+BSE framework, then surveys functional performance for structural, electronic, optical, magnetic, and thermal properties, and discusses machine-learning approaches. The central deliverable is a practical mapping: SCAN/r2SCAN for structures and magnetism, HSE06 for electronic properties, PBE/PBEsol for thermal properties, and GW+BSE for excitonic/optical properties. The review is organized by target property with summary tables (Tables 2, 5, 6, 7) and explicit recommendations in §6.

Significance. The review addresses a timely and important need: a practical guide to choosing XC functionals for 2D materials. Its organization by target property, inclusion of ML/AI methods, and concrete, falsifiable recommendations are useful strengths. The paper would be a valuable reference if the quantitative electronic-property ranking were built on consistent physical references. As presented, however, the central electronic-property recommendation is weakened by (i) mixing Kohn–Sham gaps with optical experimental gaps in Table 3, (ii) an incorrect Dyson equation in §2.2, and (iii) unreferenced 'self-calculated' G0W0 values without computational details. These issues are fixable but require re-analysis of the main comparative tables and a correction of the theory section.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.2.1, Eq. (14), Table 3] The band-gap validation compares Kohn–Sham single-particle gaps (LDA/PBE/SCAN/HSE06) and G0W0 quasiparticle gaps directly against experimental optical gaps. The paper itself states that experimental gaps are optical and differ from photoemission gaps by the exciton binding energy, and that G0W0 overestimates the optical gap because it neglects excitonic effects. For 2D materials, exciton binding energies are often 0.5–2 eV (e.g., ~2 eV for hBN, ~0.5–1 eV for TMDCs), comparable to or larger than the functional errors being ranked. The G0W0 column in Table 3 illustrates the magnitude: values are 0.5–1.2 eV above the listed optical gaps. Consequently, Table 3 and the claim that SCAN 'underestimates the experimental values (around 5%)' conflate different physical quantities. Moreover, even on its own terms, the 5% figure is inconsistent with Table 3 (e.g., hBN: 5.05 vs 5.95, ~15% under; HfS2
  2. [§2.2, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The many-body theory section contains incorrect equations. The Dyson equation is miswritten: Eq. (12) is not the Dyson equation. The correct relation is G^{-1} = G_0^{-1} − Σ (or G = G_0 + G_0 Σ G). Similarly, Eq. (13) writes W = v + v·ε·W, but the standard form is W = v + v χ_0 W (with ε = 1 − v χ_0) or W = ε^{-1} v. As printed, these equations are dimensionally/formally inconsistent and undermine the tutorial value of the review. Please correct both equations and the surrounding text.
  3. [Table 3 caption and §4.2.1] The caption states that band-gap values without references are 'self calculated results and are in accordance with literature,' but no computational parameters are provided: no code, pseudopotential, plane-wave cutoff, k-mesh, GW scheme (one-shot vs self-consistent), or treatment of the vacuum/slab geometry. These unreferenced G0W0 values are used to draw conclusions about functional rankings and about the gap between G0W0 and experiment. For a review making quantitative claims, all self-calculated data should be either fully documented or replaced by published, citable values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The notation 'GoWo' appears repeatedly (e.g., Table 3, §4.2.3); it should be 'G0W0' for consistency with standard usage.
  2. [§4.2.3] The notation 'ΔHSEso > ΔGoWoso > ΔDFTso' is difficult to read; please typeset the subscripts clearly (e.g., Δ_HSE^so, Δ_G0W0^so, Δ_DFT^so).
  3. [§4.2.5] The FeCl2 example would benefit from specifying whether the experimental gap and the calculated gaps refer to the monolayer or bulk, and from clarifying the measurement type (optical or transport gap).
  4. [§6.1] Typographical errors: 'materails' should be 'materials'; 'hetero structures' should be 'heterostructures'. In §6.3, 'V ASP' should read 'VASP'.
  5. [§2.1, Eq. (5)–(7)] The notation 'ϵXxc (X=LDA.GGA,meta-GGA)' contains a period instead of a comma; this is a minor presentation issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review synthesizes independent benchmarks; the optical-gap reference concern is a correctness issue, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

This is a topical review rather than a derivation chain. Its central recommendations (SCAN/r2SCAN for structures, HSE06 for electronic properties, PBE/PBEsol for thermal properties, SCAN/r2SCAN for magnetism) are presented as qualitative syntheses of literature benchmarks, not as results deduced from first principles. The paper explicitly uses external databases and prior studies (e.g., C2DB, Tran et al., Edzards et al., Rezaei/Alaei/Oganov, Zhang et al.) alongside the authors' own published benchmarks. The authors' self-citations, such as [58] for lattice constants and band-gap radar plots and [154] for spin-orbit splitting, are parameter-free published calculations that are compared against experimental references, so they function as independent empirical evidence rather than as a self-referential derivation. The one substantive concern—using experimental optical gaps as a proxy for electronic gaps in Table 3 and the stated ~5% SCAN underprediction—is a validity issue: the text itself acknowledges that experimental gaps are optical and differ from fundamental gaps by the exciton binding energy, and the paper's own G0W0 column shows large excitonic corrections in 2D materials. But this is a mistaken comparison or an over-strong assumption about small exciton binding energies, not a case where the claimed prediction is identical to its input by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no equation reduces to another by definition, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

A review paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. Its quantitative claims rest on the domain assumptions listed above, plus the accuracy of the underlying cited literature.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Experimental optical band gaps are a valid reference for judging DFT Kohn–Sham gap errors.
    Section 4.2.1 states this explicitly; it ignores the fact that 2D exciton binding energies are typically 0.5–2 eV, which shifts the ranking.
  • domain assumption The values compiled from cited literature (C2DB, experiments) are accurate and consistently computed.
    The review does not re-verify any of the tabulated numbers and uses them without error bars.
  • ad hoc to paper Self-calculated GoWo band gaps in Table 3 are computed with unknown but adequate parameters.
    The paper marks some values as 'self calculated' but provides no computational details (code, pseudopotential, k-mesh), so they cannot be independently checked.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exchange-Correlation Functionals in 2D Materials: Applications, Challenges, and Limitations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O75JZEWD

@misc{pith2026251200921,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exchange-Correlation Functionals in 2D Materials: Applications, Challenges, and Limitations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O75JZEWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.00921}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid development of two-dimensional (2D) materials has reshaped modern nanoscience, offering properties that differ fundamentally from their bulk counterparts. As experimental discovery accelerates, the need for reliable computational techniques has become increasingly important. Within the framework of density functional theory, this review explores the critical role of exchange-correlation functionals in predicting key material properties such as structural, optoelectronic, magnetic, and thermal. We examine the challenges posed by quantum confinement, anisotropic screening, and van der Waals interactions, which conventional functionals often fail to describe. Advanced approaches, including meta-GGA, hybrid functionals, and many-body perturbation theory (e.g., GW and Bethe-Salpeter equation), are assessed for their improved accuracy in capturing electronic structure and excitonic effects. We further discuss the non-universality of functionals across different 2D material families and the emerging role of machine learning to enhance computational efficiency. Finally, the review outlines current limitations and emerging strategies, providing a roadmap for advancing exchange-correlation functionals and beyond, to enable the practical design and application of 2D materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.00921 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Families of 2D materials are represented by the outer layer, which shows the material [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The schematic diagram of KS-DFT. Reprinted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Jacob’s Ladder in DFT: A hierarchy of XC approximations where each higher rung offers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of optimized lattice constants for TMDC monolayers using different func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Lattice parameter a of (a) conventional MOF-5 and (b) its Sr-substituted counterpart, featuring H-passivated (left) and hydroxyl-functionalized (right). The experimental reference for conventional MOF-5 [117] is marked by a horizontal bar. Reprinted from [116]. CC BY 4…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radar plots showing mean absolute error (MAE) in band-gap predictions for several TMDC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Band structure of hBN monolayer for different functionals. Reprinted from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: DFT vs G0W0 fundamental bandgaps for the set of 298 2D materials. Reprinted from [151]. CC BY 4.0. 4.2.3 Spin orbit coupling and Valence band splitting Spin-orbit coupling (SOC) describes the interaction between an electron’s spin and its orbital motion around the nucl…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparative band structure of NbS2 monolayer, with and without SOC. 4.2.4 Band Gap Crossover Pristine monolayers from families like TMDCs, SINOX, and mXenes are predominantly semiconduct￾ing. Certain 2D materials undergo a critical strain at which the intrinsic direct …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Comparative band Structure of silicene monolayer for PBE and HSE06 functional. Clearly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Imaginary part of transverse dielectric constant for monolayer MoS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic representation of the band structure in multilayer TMDCs with corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Optical absorbance with (blue solid line) and without (blue dashed line) electron–hole [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A comparison of the computed N´eel transition temperatures using the SCAN and r [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Phonon dispersion of monolayer MoS2 under 0%-1.6% strain shows redshift in E′ /E1 2g modes, with no change in monolayer A′ 1 mode. Reproduced from [181], Copyright (2024), with permission from AIP Publishing. Phosphorene monolayer exhibits strong anisotropy which make…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: DFT shows an initial high computational cost and a cubic dependence on the system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Schematic illustration of the self-consistent field Kohn–Sham/fully connected neural net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_17.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

198 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Singh V, Ranjan V, Kumar V and Aggarwal S 1998Physics of Semiconductor Devices (Springer)

  2. [2]

    Geim A K and Novoselov K S 2007Nature Materials6183–191

  3. [3]

    Ares P and Novoselov K S 2022Nano Materials Science43–9

  4. [4]

    Morozov S, Novoselov K, Katsnelson M, Schedin F, Elias D C, Jaszczak J A and Geim A 2008 Physical Review Letters100016602

    2008

  5. [5]

    Xu X, Liu C, Sun Z, Cao T, Zhang Z, Wang E, Liu Z and Liu K 2018Chemical Society Reviews 473059–3099

  6. [6]

    Ramzan M S, Wo´ zniak T, Kuc A and Cocchi C 2024physica status solidi (b)261ISSN 1521- 3951

  7. [7]

    Khan I, Bezzerga D, Marfoua B and Hong J 2025npj 2D Materials and Applications918

  8. [8]

    Maroof S, Sattar A, Bashir A I, Irfan M, Latif H, Mustafa H, Saeed A, Amjad R J and Alvi F 2025arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.07745

    arXiv

Show all 198 references
  1. [9]

    Stehle Y, Meyer III H M, Unocic R R, Kidder M, Polizos G, Datskos P G, Jackson R, Smirnov S N and Vlassiouk I V 2015Chemistry of materials278041–8047

  2. [10]

    Ali S A, Irfan A, Mazumder A, Balendhran S, Ahmed T, Walia S and Ulhaq A 2021Applied Physics Letters119

  3. [11]

    Ramzan M S, Bacic V, Jing Y and Kuc A 2019The Journal of Physical Chemistry C123 25470–25476

  4. [12]

    Wo´ zniak T, Faria Junior P E, Ramzan M S and Kuc A B 2023Small192206444

  5. [13]

    Sajid A, Reimers J R and Ford M J 2018Physical Review B97064101

  6. [14]

    L¨ upke F, Waters D, de la Barrera S C, Widom M, Mandrus D G, Yan J, Feenstra R M and Hunt B M 2020Nature Physics16526–530

  7. [15]

    Zhang H, Yu J, Piti´ e S, Gu´ egan F, Wang J and Frapper G 2025Nanoscale176874–6883

  8. [16]

    Zhu Z, Dong B, Guo H, Yang T and Zhang Z 2020Chinese Physics B29046101

  9. [18]

    Mustafa H, Irfan M, Sattar A, Amjad R J, Latif H, Usman A, Ahmad M A and Qin S 2023 Materials Science and Engineering: B289116205

    2023

  10. [19]

    Wang Y, Mei L, Li Y, Xia X, Cui N, Long G, Yu W, Chen W, Mu H and Lin S 2024Physics Reports10811–46

  11. [20]

    thesis Tulane University

    Ismael T 2024Two-Dimensional Materials-Based Photovoltaics for High Specific Power Ap- plicationsPh.D. thesis Tulane University

  12. [21]

    Sohail M T, Yin J, Abdullah M, Younis M, Anjum M N, Sohail M T, Alroobaea R, Ahmad I and Peiguang Y 2024Materials Today Physics49101600

  13. [22]

    Downes M, Shuck C E, McBride B, Busa J and Gogotsi Y 2024Nature protocols191807–1834

  14. [23]

    Mustafa H, Rasheed A, Ajmal S, Sarwar N, Falak U, Lee S G and Sattar A 2023Energy & Fuels372410–2419

  15. [24]

    Liu H, Neal A T, Zhu Z, Luo Z, Xu X, Tom´ anek D and Ye P D 2014ACS nano84033–4041

  16. [25]

    Li J, Li Y, Du S, Wang Z, Gu B L, Zhang S C, He K, Duan W and Xu Y 2019Science advances 5eaaw5685

  17. [26]

    Vyazovskaya A Y, Bosnar M, Chulkov E V and Otrokov M M 2025Communications Materials 688

  18. [27]

    Saito Y, Nojima T and Iwasa Y 2016Nature Reviews Materials21–18 25 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  19. [28]

    Qiu D, Gong C, Wang S, Zhang M, Yang C, Wang X and Xiong J 2021Advanced Materials 332006124

  20. [29]

    Hashmi A, Nakanishi K, Farooq M U and Ono T 2020npj 2D Materials and Applications4 39

  21. [30]

    Wei S, Liao X, Wang C, Li J, Zhang H, Zeng Y J, Linghu J, Jin H and Wei Y 20202D Materials 8012005

  22. [31]

    Dhakshinamoorthy A, Asiri A M and Garcia H 2019Advanced Materials311900617

  23. [32]

    Yuan H, Li N, Fan W, Cai H and Zhao D 2022Advanced science92104374

  24. [33]

    Khan U, Nairan A, Gao J and Zhang Q 2023Small Structures42200109

  25. [34]

    Wang Z F, Su N and Liu F 2013Nano Letters132842–2845 ISSN 1530-6984

  26. [35]

    Wang Z F, Liu Z and Liu F 2013Phys. Rev. Lett.110(19) 196801

  27. [36]

    Jiang W, Huang H and Liu F 2019Nature Communications102207 ISSN 2041-1723

  28. [37]

    Jiang W, Zhang S, Wang Z, Liu F and Low T 2020Nano Letters201959–1966 ISSN 1530-6984

    1966

  29. [38]

    Jiang W, Ni X and Liu F 2021Accounts of Chemical Research54416–426 ISSN 0001-4842

  30. [39]

    Chaves A, Azadani J G, Alsalman H, Da Costa D, Frisenda R, Chaves A, Song S H, Kim Y D, He D, Zhou Jet al.2020npj 2D Materials and Applications429

  31. [40]

    Duan X, Wang C, Pan A and Yu R 2015Chemical Society Reviews248859–8876

  32. [41]

    Bansal S, Chaudhary P, Sharma B B, Saini S and Joshi A 2024Journal of Energy Storage87 111420

  33. [42]

    Ratcliff L E, Mohr S, Huhs G, Deutsch T, Masella M and Genovese L 2017Wiley Interdisci- plinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science7e1290

  34. [43]

    Ziesche P, Kurth S and Perdew J P 1998Computational materials science11122–127

  35. [44]

    Koch W and Holthausen M C 2015A chemist’s guide to density functional theory(John Wiley & Sons)

  36. [45]

    Snyder J C, Rupp M, Hansen K, M¨ uller K R and Burke K 2012Physical review letters108 253002

  37. [46]

    Schleder G R, Padilha A C, Acosta C M, Costa M and Fazzio A 2019Journal of Physics: Materials2032001

  38. [47]

    Bystrom K, Falletta S and Kozinsky B 2024Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation20 7516–7532

  39. [48]

    Carvalho A, Trevisanutto P E, Taioli S and Neto A C 2021Reports on Progress in Physics84 106501

  40. [49]

    Penev E S, Marzari N and Yakobson B I 2021ACS nano155959–5976

  41. [50]

    Gupta S, Zhang J J, Lei J, Yu H, Liu M, Zou X and Yakobson B I 2025Chemical Reviews 125786–834

  42. [51]

    Giustino F 2014Materials modelling using density functional theory: properties and predictions (Oxford University Press)

  43. [52]

    Hohenberg P and Kohn W 1964Physical review136B864

  44. [53]

    Kohn W and Sham L J 1965Physical review140A1133

  45. [54]

    Kohn W 1999Reviews of Modern Physics711253

  46. [55]

    Javed A, Asif M and Ullah R 2024Materials Letters372137066

  47. [56]

    Perdew J P and Wang Y 1992Physical Review B4513244 26 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  48. [57]

    Shahbaz M and Szalewicz K 2018Phys. Rev. Lett.121113402

  49. [58]

    Javed A, Ali S A, Asif M and Ullah R 2025Materials Letters380137661

  50. [59]

    Sun J, Remsing R C, Zhang Y, Sun Z, Ruzsinszky A, Peng H, Yang Z, Paul A, Waghmare U, Wu Xet al.2015arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.01089

    arXiv

  51. [60]

    Perdew J P 2025APL Computational Physics1

  52. [61]

    Lee K, Murray ´E D, Kong L, Lundqvist B I and Langreth D C 2010Phys. Rev. B82081101

  53. [62]

    Chakraborty D, Berland K and Thonhauser T 2020J. Chem. Theory Comput.165893–5911

  54. [63]

    Vydrov O A and Van Voorhis T 2010J. Chem. Phys.133244103

  55. [64]

    Peng H, Yang Z H, Sun J and Perdew J P 2015arXiv:1510.05712

    arXiv

  56. [65]

    Shahbaz M and Szalewicz K 2019Theor. Chem. Acc.1381–17

  57. [66]

    Bakar A, Shahbaz M and Afaq A 2023Phys. Scr

  58. [67]

    Today Commun.39108546 ISSN 2352-4928

    Azam M, Shahbaz M, ur Rehman H and Khan N 2024Mater. Today Commun.39108546 ISSN 2352-4928

  59. [68]

    Scr.99115953

    Rehman H u, Shahbaz M and Afaq A 2024Phys. Scr.99115953

  60. [69]

    Bakar A, Shahbaz M and Afaq A 2025Materialia39102329 ISSN 2589-1529

  61. [70]

    Peng H, Yang Z H, Sun J and Perdew J P 2015arXiv

  62. [71]

    Modeling and Simulation

    Franchini C 2015Many-Body Physics: From Kondo to Hubbard. Modeling and Simulation. Verlag des Forschungszentrum J¨ ulich

  63. [72]

    Becke A D 1993J. Chem. Phys.985648–5652

  64. [73]

    Perdew J P, Ernzerhof M and Burke K 1996The Journal of Chemical Physics1059982–9985

  65. [74]

    Jain M, Chelikowsky J R and Louie S G 2011Physical Review Letters107216806

  66. [75]

    Shishkin M, Marsman M and Kresse G 2007Physical review letters99246403

  67. [76]

    Hybertsen M S and Louie S G 1986Physical Review B345390

  68. [77]

    Shishkin M and Kresse G 2006Phys. Rev. B74(3) 035101

  69. [78]

    Shishkin M and Kresse G 2007Phys. Rev. B75(23) 235102

  70. [79]

    Golze D, Dvorak M and Rinke P 2019Frontiers in Chemistry7377

  71. [80]

    Albrecht S, Reining L, Del Sole R and Onida G 1998Phys. Rev. Lett.80(20) 4510–4513

  72. [81]

    Rohlfing M and Louie S G 1998Phys. Rev. Lett.81(11) 2312–2315

  73. [82]

    Louie S G and Rubio A 2005 Quasiparticle and optical properties of solids and nanostructures: The gw-bse approachHandbook of Materials Modeling: Methods(Springer) pp 215–240

    2005

  74. [83]

    Tal A, Liu P, Kresse G and Pasquarello A 2020Phys. Rev. Res.2(3) 032019

  75. [84]

    Sander T, Maggio E and Kresse G 2015Phys. Rev. B92(4) 045209

  76. [85]

    Car R 2016Nature chemistry8820–821

  77. [86]

    Li Q, Wu K, Zhu H, Yang Y, He S and Lian T 2024Chemical reviews1245695–5763

  78. [87]

    Cipriano L A, Di Liberto G, Tosoni S and Pacchioni G 2020Nanoscale1217494–17501

  79. [88]

    Lorke M 2025arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01684

    arXiv

  80. [89]

    Rudenko A N and Katsnelson M I 20242D Materials11042002

  81. [90]

    Latini S, Olsen T and Thygesen K S 2015Physical Review B92245123 27 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  82. [91]

    St¨ ohr M, Van Voorhis T and Tkatchenko A 2019Chemical Society Reviews484118–4154

  83. [92]

    Momeni K, Ji Y, Wang Y, Paul S, Neshani S, Yilmaz D E, Shin Y K, Zhang D, Jiang J W, Park H Set al.2020npj Computational Materials622

  84. [93]

    Banszerus L, M¨ oller S, Steiner C, Icking E, Trellenkamp S, Lentz F, Watanabe K, Taniguchi T, Volk C and Stampfer C 2021Nature communications125250

  85. [94]

    Patra A, Jana S, Samal P, Tran F, Kalantari L, Doumont J and Blaha P 2021The Journal of Physical Chemistry C12511206–11215

  86. [95]

    Borlido P, Schmidt J, Huran A W, Tran F, Marques M A and Botti S 2020npj Computational Materials61–17

  87. [96]

    Rasmussen F A and Thygesen K S 2015The Journal of Physical Chemistry C11913169– 13183

  88. [97]

    Ding Y, Wang Y, Ni J, Shi L, Shi S and Tang W 2011Physica B: Condensed Matter406 2254–2260

  89. [98]

    Ataca C, Sahin H and Ciraci S 2012The Journal of Physical Chemistry C1168983–8999

  90. [99]

    Yamusa S A, Shaari A, Alsaif N A, Alsalamah I M, Isah I and Rekik N 2022ACS omega7 45719–45731

  91. [100]

    Buda I G, Lane C, Barbiellini B, Ruzsinszky A, Sun J and Bansil A 2017Scientific reports7 44766

  92. [101]

    Gjerding M N, Taghizadeh Aet al.20212D Materials8044002

  93. [103]

    Prasad M K, Taverne M P, Huang C C, Mar J D and Ho Y L D 2024Materials174122

  94. [104]

    Korsaks V 2015Materials Research Bulletin70976–979

  95. [105]

    Guti´ errez H R, Perea-L´ opez N, El ´ ıas A L, Berkdemir A, Wang B, Lv R, L´ opez-Ur ´ ıas F, Crespi V H, Terrones H and Terrones MNano Letters133447–3454

  96. [106]

    Zhao W, Ghorannevis Z, Chu L, Toh M, Kloc C, Tan P H and Eda G 2013ACS Nano7 791–797

  97. [107]

    Zhong H, Quhe R, Wang Y, Ni Z, Ye M, Song Z, Pan Y, Yang J, Yang L, Lei Met al.2016 Scientific reports621786

    2016

  98. [108]

    Hu X, Zhang Q and Yu S 2019Applied Surface Science478857–865

  99. [109]

    Miller B, Steinhoff A, Pano B, Klein J, Jahnke F, Holleitner A and Wurstbauer U 2017Nano Letters175229–5237

  100. [110]

    Yan-Bin Q, Yan-Ling L, Guo-Hua Z, Zhi Z and Xiao-Ying Q 2007Chinese Physics163809

  101. [111]

    Zhou Y, Wang Z, Yang P, Zu X, Yang L, Sun X and Gao F 2012Acs Nano69727–9736

  102. [112]

    Xiang H, Xu B, Liu J, Xia Y, Lu H, Yin J and Liu Z 2016AIP Advances6

  103. [113]

    Manjula M M and Ramesh R 2023Journal of Computational Electronics221433–1442

  104. [114]

    Huynh T M D, Nguyen D K, Nguyen T D H, Dien V K, Pham H D and Lin M F 2021Frontiers in Materials7569756

  105. [115]

    Li Y 2024Results in Physics56107156

  106. [116]

    Edzards J, Santana-Andreo J, Saßnick H D and Cocchi C 2025Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation217062–7074

  107. [117]

    Li H, Eddaoudi M, O’Keeffe M and Yaghi O M 1999nature402276–279

  108. [118]

    Carpinelli J M, Weitering H H, Plummer E W and Stumpf R 1996Nature381398–400 28 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  109. [119]

    Xi X, Zhao L, Wang Z, Berger H, Forr´ o L, Shan J and Mak K F 2015Nature nanotechnology 10765–769

  110. [120]

    Chowdhury S, Rigosi A F, Hill H M, Vora P, Hight Walker A R and Tavazza F 2022Nanoma- terials12504

  111. [121]

    Wines D, Ibrahim A, Gudibandla N, Adel T, Abel F M, Jois S, Saritas K, Krogel J T, Yin L, Berlijn Tet al.2025ACS nano199925–9935

  112. [122]

    Yin L, Tang H, Berlijn T and Ruzsinszky A 2024npj Computational Materials10207

  113. [123]

    Chiu W C, Mardanya S, Markiewicz R, Nieminen J, Singh B, Hakioglu T, Agarwal A, Chang T R, Lin H and Bansil A 2025ACS nano1918108–18116

  114. [124]

    Zhang D, Schoenherr P, Sharma P and Seidel J 2023Nature Reviews Materials825–40

  115. [125]

    Poudel S P, Villanova J W and Barraza-Lopez S 2019Physical Review Materials3124004

  116. [126]

    Bilc D, Orlando R, Shaltaf R, Rignanese G M, ´I˜ niguez J and Ghosez P 2008Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics77165107

  117. [127]

    Zhang Y, Sun J, Perdew J P and Wu X 2017Physical Review B96035143

  118. [128]

    Fu L, Hu Y, Tang N, Duan J, Jia X, Yang H, Li Z, Han X, Li G, Lu Jet al.2025Physical Review Letters135046903

  119. [129]

    Cassabois G, Valvin P and Gil B 2016Nature Photonics10262–266

  120. [130]

    Jung C S, Shojaei F, Park K, Oh J Y, Im H S, Jang D M, Park J and Kang H S 2015ACS nano99585–9593

  121. [131]

    Yagmurcukardes M, Senger R T, Peeters F M and Sahin H 2016Physical Review B94245407

  122. [132]

    Guti´ errez Y, Giangregorio M M, Dicorato S, Palumbo F and Losurdo M 2021Frontiers in Chemistry9781467

  123. [133]

    Yue C, Huang Z, Wang W L, Gao Z, Lin H, Liu J and Chang K 2024ACS nano1825478– 25488

  124. [134]

    Liu H, Antwi K A, Chua S and Chi D 2014Nanoscale6624–629

  125. [135]

    Gaiser C, Zandt T, Krapf A, Serverin R, Janowitz C and Manzke R 2004Physical Review B 69075205

  126. [136]

    Bafekry A, Faraji M, Hoat D M, Shahrokhi M, Fadlallah M, Shojaei F, Feghhi S, Ghergherehchi M and Gogova D 2021Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics54155303

  127. [137]

    Liang D, Xu S, Lu P and Cai Y 2022Physical Review B105195302

  128. [138]

    2020Science369670–674

    Hong Y L, Liu Z, Wang L, Zhou T, Ma W, Xu C, Feng S, Chen L, Chen M L, Sun D Met al. 2020Science369670–674

  129. [139]

    Mak K F, Lee C, Hone Jet al.2010Physical Review Letters105(13) 136805

  130. [140]

    Vu T V, Lavrentyev A, Thuan D V, Nguyen C V, Khyzhun O, Gabrelian B, Tran K C, Luong H L, Tung P D, Pham K Det al.2019Superlattices and Microstructures125205–213

  131. [141]

    Coehoorn R, Haas C, Dijkstra J, Flipse C d, De Groot R and Wold A 1987Physical Review B 356195

  132. [142]

    Sahin H, Tongay S, Horzum S, Fan W, Zhou J, Li J, Wu J and Peeters F 2013Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics87165409

  133. [143]

    Zhang Y, Chang T R, Zhou B, Cui Y T, Yan H, Liu Z, Schmitt F, Lee J, Moore R, Chen Y et al.2014Nature nanotechnology9111–115

  134. [144]

    Ruppert C, Aslan B and Heinz T F 2014Nano letters146231–6236

  135. [145]

    Lezama I G, Arora A, Ubaldini A, Barreteau C, Giannini E, Potemski M and Morpurgo A F 2015Nano letters152336–2342 29 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  136. [146]

    Yue R, Barton A T, Zhu H, Azcatl A, Pena L F, Wang J, Peng X, Lu N, Cheng L, Addou R et al.2015ACS nano9474–480

  137. [147]

    Islam M R, Mojumder M R H, Moghal B K, Islam A J, Miah M R, Roy S, Kumar A, Shi- havuddin A and Ashique R H 2022Physica Scripta97045806

  138. [148]

    Ramasubramaniam A 2012Physical Review B86115409

  139. [149]

    Wang X, Meng W and Yan Y 2017arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03877

    arXiv

  140. [150]

    Blase Xet al.1995Physical Review B51(11) 6868–6875

  141. [151]

    Tran F, Doumont J, Kalantari L, Blaha P, Rauch T, Borlido P, Botti S, Marques M A, Patra A, Jana Set al.2021The Journal of Chemical Physics155

  142. [152]

    Zollner K, Junior P E F and Fabian J 2019arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.10763

    1909 arXiv

  143. [153]

    Chen J, Wu K, Hu W and Yang J 2021The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters1212256– 12268

  144. [154]

    Javed A, Asif M and Ullah R 2025Journal of Inorganic and Organometallic Polymers and Materials35651–660

  145. [155]

    Pan Y and Caruso F 2024npj 2D Materials and Applications842

  146. [156]

    Blundo E, Felici M, Yildirim Tet al.2020Physical Review Research2

  147. [157]

    Das R, Rakshit B, Debnath Set al.2014Physical Review B89(11) 115201

  148. [158]

    Ahmad S, Mukherjee Set al.2014Graphene352

  149. [159]

    Pet˝ o J, Dobrik P, Ko´ os A Aet al.2019npj 2D Materials and Applications339

  150. [160]

    Nguyen C V and Hieu N N 2016Chemical Physics4689–14

  151. [161]

    Lu D, Liu L, Ma Y, Yang K and Wu H 2022Journal of Materials Chemistry C108009–8014

  152. [162]

    Xia F, Wang H, Xiao D, Dubey M and Ramasubramaniam A 2014Nature photonics8899–907

  153. [163]

    Bernardi M, Ataca C, Palummo M and Grossman J C 2017Nanophotonics6479–493

  154. [164]

    Galvani T, Paleari F, Miranda H P, Molina-S´ anchez A, Wirtz L, Latil S, Amara H and Ducastelle F 2016Physical Review B94125303

  155. [165]

    Jung E, Park J C, Seo Y S, Kim J H, Hwang J and Lee Y H 2022Scientific Reports124543

  156. [166]

    Hu B, Qian T X, Zhou J, Ding Y, Cai T and Ju S 2025ACS omega1030924–30934

  157. [167]

    Sun J, Zhang R, Li X and Yang J 2016Applied Physics Letters109

  158. [168]

    Tang H, Pangeni N and Ruzsinszky A 2025The Journal of Physical Chemistry C

  159. [169]

    Mermin N D and Wagner H 1966Physical Review Letters171133

  160. [170]

    Aldea J G, Esteras D L, Roche S and Garcia J H 2025Nanoscale1724955–24989

  161. [171]

    Lado J L and Fern´ andez-Rossier J 20172D Materials4035002

  162. [172]

    Gong C, Li L, Li Z, Ji H, Stern A, Xia Y, Cao T, Bao W, Wang C, Wang Yet al.2017Nature 546265–269

  163. [173]

    Fei Z, Huang B, Malinowski P, Wang W, Song T, Sanchez J, Yao W, Xiao D, Zhu X, May A F et al.2018Nature materials17778–782

  164. [175]

    Tellez-Mora A, He X, Bousquet E, Wirtz L and Romero A H 2024npj Computational Materials 1020

  165. [176]

    Lee Y, Kotani T and Ke L 2020Physical Review B101241409 30 IOP PublishingJournalvv(yyyy) aaaaaa Authoret al

  166. [177]

    Renteria J D, Nika D L and Balandin A A 2014Applied sciences4525–547

  167. [178]

    Gu X, Li B and Yang R 2016Journal of Applied Physics119

  168. [179]

    Farooq R, Javed A, Azam M, Asif M and Shaheen M 2025Materials Letters389138304

  169. [180]

    He C, Xu C, Chen C, Tong J, Zhou T, Sun S, Liu Z, Cheng H M and Ren W 2024Nature Communications154832

  170. [181]

    Ali S A, Ahmed B, Javed A, Muzaffar M U, Bano A and Ulhaq A 2024Applied Physics Letters 125

  171. [182]

    Zhang F, Zheng X, Wang H, Ding L and Qin G 2022Materials Advances35108–5117

  172. [183]

    Li Z, Xia Y and Wolverton C 2023Physical Review B108184307

  173. [184]

    Kielar S, Li C, Huang H, Hu R, Slebodnick C, Alatas A and Tian Z 2024Nature Communica- tions156981

  174. [185]

    Han Z, Yang X, Li W, Feng T and Ruan X 2022Computer Physics Communications270 108179

  175. [186]

    Zhou H, Zhou S, Hua Z, Bawane K and Feng T 2023Applied Physics Letters123

  176. [187]

    Lu B, Xia Y, Ren Y, Xie M, Zhou L, Vinai G, Morton S A, Wee A T, van der Wiel W G, Zhang Wet al.2024Advanced Science112305277

  177. [188]

    Sajid A and Thygesen K S 2022Physical Review B106104108

  178. [189]

    del Rio B G, Phan B and Ramprasad R 2023npj Computational Materials9158

  179. [190]

    Zhuang Y, Gu Y, Zhang B, Wu J and Chen G 2025JACS Au54002–4010

  180. [191]

    Gupta V, Choudhary K, DeCost B, Tavazza F, Campbell C, Liao W k, Choudhary A and Agrawal A 2024npj Computational Materials101

  181. [192]

    Fiedler L, Shah K, Bussmann M and Cangi A 2022Physical Review Materials6040301

  182. [193]

    Grunert M, Großmann M and Runge E 2025Nature Communications168142

  183. [194]

    Javed A and Ali S 2025arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01092

  184. [195]

    Rezaei N, Alaei M and Oganov A R 2025Physical Review B111144406

  185. [196]

    Mazdziarz M 2024Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation209734–9740

  186. [197]

    Hbab A, Ait Lamine L, Amounas S and Chaib H 2025Solid State Communications397115838

  187. [198]

    Hafner J 2008Journal of Computational Chemistry292044–2078

  188. [199]

    Garc ´ ıa A, Papior N, Akhtar A, Artacho E, Blum V, Bosoni E, Brandimarte P, Brandbyge M, Cerd´ a J I, Corsetti Fet al.2020The Journal of chemical physics152

  189. [200]

    Dau M T, Al Khalfioui M, Michon A, Reserbat-Plantey A, V´ ezian S and Boucaud P 2023 Scientific Reports135426

    2023

  190. [201]

    Nair A S, Foppa L and Scheffler M 2025Scientific Data121518 31

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.