pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23855 · v1 · pith:Q66QVVFCnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Phase-dependent electronic structure of two-dimensional Ag layers at the graphene/SiC interface

Sawani Datta , Boyang Zheng , Arpit Jain , Kathrin K\"uster , Joshua A. Robinson , Vincent H. Crespi , Ulrich Starke This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 03:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords graphenesilver intercalationSiC interfaceARPESDFTunfolding entropycharge carrier densityinterface screening
0
0 comments X

The pith

The denser, 30-degree-rotated Ag(2) phase of silver at the graphene/SiC interface produces about 1.75 times higher charge carrier density in the overlying graphene than the standard epitaxial Ag(1) phase.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper demonstrates that two distinct structural phases of two-dimensional silver can be stabilized by intercalation beneath graphene on silicon carbide, each affecting the graphene layer differently. The Ag(2) phase, obtained via an in situ ultra-high-vacuum method, forms a rotated supercell structure whose calculated bands, when selected by a new unfolding entropy metric, align closely with angle-resolved photoemission measurements. As a direct result, graphene on Ag(2) exhibits higher doping and modified charge-plasmon coupling relative to the conventional Ag(1) phase. These findings establish that the choice of intercalated silver phase provides a handle on the electronic environment and screening experienced by the graphene.

Core claim

Intercalated silver beneath graphene on SiC forms two phases: Ag(1) with a (1x1) epitaxial relation to the SiC lattice and Ag(2) rotated by 30 degrees that forms supercells with higher packing density. An in situ UHV preparation method yields the Ag(2) phase. Low-energy electron diffraction confirms the structural distinction, while high-resolution ARPES reveals richer band dispersion for Ag(2). Density functional theory calculations introduce an unfolding entropy that quantifies which phase's bands unfold most appropriately to the SiC primitive cell, finding superior agreement with experiment for Ag(2). Relative to Ag(1), the Ag(2) phase increases the charge carrier density in the graphene

What carries the argument

The unfolding entropy, a quantified metric that selects which calculated silver band structure is more suitable to unfold onto the SiC primitive cell for direct comparison with ARPES data.

If this is right

  • The Ag(2) phase becomes accessible through conventional in situ UHV methods rather than requiring high-pressure confinement.
  • Graphene on Ag(2) displays a richer silver-derived band dispersion and higher doping level than on Ag(1).
  • The charge-plasmon interaction in the graphene layer changes with the choice of underlying silver phase.
  • Effective screening at the graphene/SiC interface is phase-dependent on the intercalated silver structure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Phase selection between Ag(1) and Ag(2) could serve as an internal control for carrier density in graphene devices without external gates or chemical doping.
  • The unfolding entropy metric may extend to other rotated or supercell 2D interfaces where multiple structural phases complicate band unfolding.
  • Altered plasmon interactions suggest the phases could be used to tune optoelectronic response in graphene heterostructures.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the newly defined unfolding entropy provides a reliable, unbiased metric for deciding which phase's calculated bands can be unfolded to the SiC primitive cell and will match ARPES data without post-hoc adjustments.

What would settle it

Preparation of both Ag phases under identical conditions followed by quantitative comparison of graphene charge carrier density from ARPES Fermi surface area or Hall measurements that shows no 1.75-fold difference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23855 by Arpit Jain, Boyang Zheng, Joshua A. Robinson, Kathrin K\"uster, Sawani Datta, Ulrich Starke, Vincent H. Crespi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. LEED patterns of (a) Ag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) The band structure for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of DFT and ARPES data. (a) DFT band structure of Ag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) by a wide-range Fermi surface map revealing such replicas surrounding the main graphene π ∗ pocket. This map is measured with 180 eV photon energy. The replica pockets are displaced relative to the main pocket along the graphene reciprocal-lattice directions by a small momentum separation, indicative of Umklapp scattering of the graphene π-bands by the superlattice reciprocal vector, Gsup. To quantify … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) Ag 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Intercalation at the graphene/SiC interface provides a controlled route to stabilize atomically thin layers with properties distinct from their bulk counterparts. In this platform, the structure and stability of the intercalated phase depend sensitively on the defect landscape of the starting substrate. For intercalated two-dimensional silver at the graphene/SiC interface, two phases have been observed: a phase epitaxial to the SiC lattice, Ag$_{(1)}$, readily obtained following the conventional intercalation method under ultra-high-vacuum conditions and extensively characterized, and a more densely packed phase, called Ag$_{(2)}$, which has remained largely unexplored. Here we report an in situ ultra-high-vacuum preparation method of the second phase intercalated at the graphene/SiC interface; this phase previously was prepared via high-pressure confinement heteroepitaxy. Low-energy electron diffraction shows that Ag$_{(2)}$ is rotated by 30 degree relative to the SiC lattice and forms supercells, in contrast to the $(1\times 1)$ epitaxial relation of Ag$_{(1)}$ with SiC. High-resolution angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy reveals a more rich Ag$_{(2)}$ band dispersion compared to the Ag$_{(1)}$. In density functional theory calculations, by defining the unfolding entropy which, in a quantified way, finds that the band structure of Ag$_{(2)}$ is more suitable to be unfolded to the SiC primitive cell, and the resulting unfolded band dispersion is in great agreement with the experimental data. We further show that the different intercalated Ag phases tune the electronic properties of the overlying quasi-free-standing graphene layer differently: compared with Ag$_{(1)}$, Ag$_{(2)}$ yields an $\sim$1.75 times higher charge carrier density and modifies the charge-plasmon interaction of the graphene layer, indicating a change in effective screening at the interface.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an in situ UHV preparation of a new densely packed Ag(2) phase (30° rotated supercell) at the graphene/SiC interface, distinct from the known (1×1) Ag(1) phase. LEED confirms the structural difference, ARPES shows richer band dispersion for Ag(2), and DFT calculations introduce a new 'unfolding entropy' metric to select Ag(2) bands as more suitable for unfolding onto the SiC primitive cell, yielding agreement with experiment. This leads to the central claim that Ag(2) produces ∼1.75 times higher graphene charge carrier density and alters the charge-plasmon interaction relative to Ag(1), indicating modified interface screening.

Significance. If the phase assignment and unfolding procedure hold, the result establishes that intercalated Ag phase structure can quantitatively tune graphene carrier density and plasmon screening, providing a platform for interface engineering in 2D heterostructures. The direct experimental distinction via LEED and ARPES is a clear strength supporting the structural and qualitative electronic claims.

major comments (2)
  1. [DFT calculations and unfolding entropy definition] The unfolding entropy metric (introduced to decide that Ag(2) bands unfold more suitably than Ag(1) to match ARPES) lacks validation on benchmark systems, comparison to standard unfolding methods such as spectral-weight or symmetry-based approaches, and explicit demonstration that the threshold is independent of Ag(2)'s denser packing. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the selected unfolded dispersion directly supplies the ∼1.75× carrier-density ratio and the plasmon-modification conclusion.
  2. [Electronic structure and carrier density results] The reported ∼1.75 factor in graphene charge carrier density is extracted from the unfolded bands assigned via the entropy metric; the manuscript should specify the exact procedure (e.g., Fermi-surface integration or band-filling calculation) and test sensitivity to the entropy threshold or supercell choice, as any post-selection would undermine the quantitative distinction from Ag(1).
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the unfolding entropy 'finds' Ag(2) more suitable but supplies neither its mathematical definition nor any indication of whether parameters were adjusted, reducing clarity for readers.
  2. [Figures and methods] Figure captions and methods should explicitly note the k-space range and resolution used for the ARPES–DFT comparison to allow independent assessment of the reported agreement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments. We address the major comments point by point below, indicating the revisions planned for the next manuscript version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [DFT calculations and unfolding entropy definition] The unfolding entropy metric (introduced to decide that Ag(2) bands unfold more suitably than Ag(1) to match ARPES) lacks validation on benchmark systems, comparison to standard unfolding methods such as spectral-weight or symmetry-based approaches, and explicit demonstration that the threshold is independent of Ag(2)'s denser packing. This is load-bearing for the central claim because the selected unfolded dispersion directly supplies the ∼1.75× carrier-density ratio and the plasmon-modification conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the unfolding entropy is a new metric introduced here and that its presentation would benefit from additional supporting material. In the revised manuscript we will add a validation subsection applying the metric to benchmark systems with known unfolding behavior, include direct comparisons against spectral-weight and symmetry-based unfolding methods, and test the threshold choice on additional supercells of varying density to confirm independence from the Ag(2) packing. These additions will strengthen the justification for the band selection used in the quantitative claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Electronic structure and carrier density results] The reported ∼1.75 factor in graphene charge carrier density is extracted from the unfolded bands assigned via the entropy metric; the manuscript should specify the exact procedure (e.g., Fermi-surface integration or band-filling calculation) and test sensitivity to the entropy threshold or supercell choice, as any post-selection would undermine the quantitative distinction from Ag(1).

    Authors: We will revise the manuscript to provide an explicit description of the carrier-density extraction procedure from the unfolded bands, including the precise integration or filling method employed. We will also report sensitivity tests with respect to the entropy threshold value and supercell size to demonstrate that the ∼1.75 factor is robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on independent ARPES measurements and standard DFT

full rationale

The paper prepares both Ag phases experimentally, measures graphene ARPES spectra separately for each, extracts carrier density and plasmon features directly from those spectra, and uses a newly defined unfolding entropy only to select which DFT-computed Ag bands to unfold onto the SiC cell for interpretive comparison. The entropy metric is applied to the calculated bands prior to any experimental matching step, and the reported 1.75× carrier-density ratio is obtained from the graphene Dirac-point shift in the measured spectra rather than from any fitted or unfolded quantity. No equation reduces the central observables to quantities defined from the same dataset, and no self-citation chain is invoked as a uniqueness theorem. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on experimental LEED/ARPES spectra, standard DFT band calculations, and a newly introduced unfolding entropy metric. No explicit numerical free parameters are mentioned. The unfolding entropy is an invented quantity whose validity is assessed only by agreement with the present data.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard density-functional approximations suffice to describe the electronic structure of the Ag/graphene/SiC interface for comparison with ARPES.
    Invoked when the paper states that DFT calculations agree with the measured band dispersions after unfolding.
invented entities (1)
  • unfolding entropy no independent evidence
    purpose: To provide a quantified measure of how suitable a calculated band structure is for unfolding onto the SiC primitive cell.
    Defined within the paper to compare Ag(1) and Ag(2) phases; no independent experimental test outside this study is described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5899 in / 1379 out tokens · 69475 ms · 2026-05-25T03:39:36.741980+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    for getting sharper Ag and graphene bands. Although the annealing temperatures and times were kept essen- tially the same, the present samples were prepared in a different preparation chamber with a modified experimen- tal setup. In particular, we used electron-beam heating instead of direct plate heating as the reported one, and the evaporator-to-sample ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (in total 27) Ag atoms on top of a (5 × 5) SiC supercell. The cutoff energy is 450 eV, the self-consistent field (SCF) conver- gence criterion is 1 .4 × 10−8 eV/atom, and the force con- vergence criterion is 0 .01 eV/˚A with D3 van der Waals correction [57, 58]. The k-point samplings are Γ-centered 13 × 13 × 1 (51 × 51 × 1) for the self-consistent (non-se...

    work page

  3. [3]

    supercell of Ag(2), as outlined by the blue rhombus in the upper-right quadrant of Fig. 1(c). To quantify the supercell periodicities, we performed Lorentzian fits to line profiles passing through the replica spots. Fig. 1(e) shows a fit to a profile through the graphene (1 × 1) spot and a diagonally opposite pair of the sixfold satellites (profile direct...

    work page

  4. [4]

    A corresponding line profile analysis of the second set of replicas (Fig

    periodicity (more precisely, (6 .1 × 6.1)) relative to graphene. A corresponding line profile analysis of the second set of replicas (Fig. 1(f), profile direction indicated by the blue line in the enlarged view in panel(d)) yields a separation of 0 .2 of the SiC reciprocal surface lattice vector (GSiC), identifying these spots as the (5 × 5) SiC grid spot...

    work page

  5. [5]

    absorbing the additional structure factor ⟨kn|Km⟩

    and the valence band signal are clearly observed. Importantly, the O 1 s [65] signal is not detectable, in- dicating the absence of measurable air contamination. Furthermore, no Pb 4femission is observed in the bind- ing energy (BE) window of ∼ 135–143 eV [25]. Given that the photoionization cross-sections of Ag 3 d and Pb 4 f are of comparable magnitude ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    diamond-like

    through unfolding the supercell band structure prop- erly to the SiC primitive cell. In Fig. 4(b), we compare the experimental CEC map at 1 .35 eV BE with the CEC calculated from the unfolded Ag (2) DFT band structure at 0.05 eV below the saddle point at MSiC. The calculated contour reproduces the nearly circular Ag (2) pocket shape in good agreement with...

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science306, 666 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater.6, 183 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Y.-W. Son, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 216803 (2006)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    G. R. Bhimanapati, Z. Lin, V. Meunier, Y. Jung, J. Cha, S. Das, D. Xiao, Y. Son, M. S. Strano, V. R. Cooper, L. Liang, S. G. Louie, E. Ringe, W. Zhou, S. S. Kim, R. R. Naik, B. G. Sumpter, H. Terrones, F. Xia, Y. Wang, J. Zhu, D. Akinwande, N. Alem, J. A. Schuller, R. E. Schaak, M. Terrones, and J. A. Robinson, ACS Nano9, 11509 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Z. Lin, A. McCreary, N. Briggs, S. Subramanian, K. Zhang, Y. Sun, X. Li, N. J. Borys, H. Yuan, S. K. Fullerton-Shirey, A. Chernikov, H. Zhao, S. McDonnell, A. M. Lindenberg, K. Xiao, B. J. LeRoy, M. Drndi´ c, J. C. M. Hwang, J. Park, M. Chhowalla, R. E. Schaak, A. Javey, M. C. Hersam, J. Robinson, and M. Terrones, 2D Mater.3, 042001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  12. [12]

    D. Bera, L. Qian, T. Tseng, and P. H. Holloway, Materials (Basel)3, 2260 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Huang, C

    X. Huang, C. Liu, and P. Zhou, npj 2D Mater. Appl.6, 51 (2022)

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, M. I. Katsnelson, I. V. Grigorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.102, 10451 (2005)

    work page 2005

  15. [15]

    Karakachian, T

    H. Karakachian, T. T. N. Nguyen, J. Aprojanz, A. A. Zakharov, R. Yakimova, P. Rosenzweig, C. M. Polley, T. Balasubramanian, C. Tegenkamp, S. R. Power, and U. Starke, Nat. Commun.11, 6380 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Parzinger, E

    E. Parzinger, E. Mitterreiter, M. Stelzer, F. Kreupl, J. W. Ager, A. W. Holleitner, and U. Wurstbauer, Appl. Mater. Today8, 132 (2017)

    work page 2017

  17. [17]

    C. Lee, X. Wei, J. W. Kysar, and J. Hone, Science321, 385 (2008)

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    K. F. Mak, C. Lee, J. Hone, J. Shan, and T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 136805 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Bostwick, F

    A. Bostwick, F. Speck, T. Seyller, K. Horn, and E. Roten- berg, Science328, 999 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Rosenzweig, H

    P. Rosenzweig, H. Karakachian, D. Marchenko, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. B105, 235428 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    S. Link, S. Forti, A. St¨ ohr, K. K¨ uster, M. R¨ osner, D. Hirschmeier, C. Chen, J. Avila, M. C. Asensio, A. A. Zakharov, T. O. Wehling, A. I. Lichtenstein, M. I. Kat- snelson, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. B100, 121407 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    S. A. Herrera, G. Parra-Mart´ ınez, P. Rosenzweig, B. Matta, C. M. Polley, K. K¨ uster, U. Starke, F. Guinea, J. ´A. Silva-Guill´ en, G. G. Naumis, and P. A. Pantale´ on, ACS Nano18, 34842 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Zhong, J

    Q. Zhong, J. Zhang, P. Cheng, B. Feng, W. Li, S. Sheng, H. Li, S. Meng, L. Chen, and K. Wu, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter29, 095002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Romanyuk, J

    K. Romanyuk, J. Brona, and B. Voigtl¨ ander, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 096101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    K¨ orner, F

    M. K¨ orner, F. Loske, M. Einax, A. K¨ uhnle, M. Reichling, and P. Maass, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 016101 (2011)

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Aizawa, S

    T. Aizawa, S. Suehara, and S. Otani, J. Phys. Chem. C 118, 23049 (2014)

    work page 2014

  27. [27]

    Riedl, C

    C. Riedl, C. Coletti, T. Iwasaki, A. A. Zakharov, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 246804 (2009)

    work page 2009

  28. [28]

    K. V. Emtsev, A. A. Zakharov, C. Coletti, S. Forti, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. B84, 125423 (2011)

    work page 2011

  29. [29]

    Forti, S

    S. Forti, S. Link, A. St¨ ohr, Y. Niu, A. A. Zakharov, C. Coletti, and U. Starke, Nat. Commun.11, 2236 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Rosenzweig and U

    P. Rosenzweig and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. B101, 201407 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Matta, P

    B. Matta, P. Rosenzweig, O. Bolkenbaas, K. K¨ uster, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023250 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    Z. Y. Al Balushi, K. Wang, R. K. Ghosh, R. A. Vil´ a, S. M. Eichfeld, J. D. Caldwell, X. Qin, Y.-C. Lin, P. A. DeSario, G. Stone, S. Subramanian, D. F. Paul, R. M. Wallace, S. Datta, J. Redwing, and J. A. Robinson, Nat. Mater.15, 1166 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    El-Sherif, N

    H. El-Sherif, N. Briggs, B. Bersch, M. Pan, M. Hamidine- jad, S. Rajabpour, T. Filleter, K. W. Kim, J. Robinson, and N. D. Bassim, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces13, 55428 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    A. Vera, B. Zheng, W. Yanez, K. Yang, S. Y. Kim, X. Wang, J. C. Kotsakidis, H. El-Sherif, G. Krishnan, R. J. Koch, T. A. Bowen, C. Dong, Y. Wang, M. Wether- ington, E. Rotenberg, N. Bassim, A. L. Friedman, R. M. Wallace, C. Liu, N. Samarth, V. H. Crespi, and J. A. Robinson, ACS Nano18, 21985 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    Wundrack, M

    S. Wundrack, M. Bothe, M. Jaime, K. K¨ uster, M. Gr- uschwitz, Y. Yin, Z. Mamiyev, P. Sch¨ adlich, B. Matta, S. Datta, M. Eckert, C. Tegenkamp, U. Starke, R. Stosch, H. W. Schumacher, T. Seyller, K. Pierz, T. Tschirner, and A. Bakin, Adv. Mater.38, e11992 (2026)

    work page 2026

  36. [36]

    L.-S. Lu, A. Vera, F. Turker, K. M. Ananthanarayanan, C. Dong, M. Wetherington, and J. A. Robinson, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A44, 030802 (2026)

    work page 2026

  37. [37]

    Pompei, K

    E. Pompei, K. Skibi´ nska, G. Senesi, Y. Vlamidis, A. Rossi, S. Forti, C. Coletti, F. Beltram, S. Rubini, L. Sorba, S. Heun, and S. Veronesi, Small21, e05640 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Briggs, B

    N. Briggs, B. Bersch, Y. Wang, J. Jiang, R. J. Koch, N. Nayir, K. Wang, M. Kolmer, W. Ko, A. De La Fuente Duran, S. Subramanian, C. Dong, J. Shallen- berger, M. Fu, Q. Zou, Y.-W. Chuang, Z. Gai, A.-P. Li, A. Bostwick, C. Jozwiak, C.-Z. Chang, E. Rotenberg, J. Zhu, A. C. T. van Duin, V. Crespi, and J. A. Robinson, Nat. Mater.19, 637 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    M. T. Wetherington, F. Turker, T. Bowen, A. Vera, S. Ra- jabpour, N. Briggs, S. Subramanian, A. Maloney, and J. A. Robinson, 2D Mater.8, 041003 (2021). 13

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Zhang, R

    K. Zhang, R. A. Maniyara, Y. Wang, A. Jain, M. T. Wetherington, T. T. Mai, C. Dong, T. Bowen, K. Wang, S. V. Rotkin, A. R. H. Walker, V. H. Crespi, J. Robinson, and S. Huang, Sci. Adv.11, eadw1800 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    A. Jain, B. Zheng, S. Datta, K. Ulman, J. Henz, M. W.-J. Liu, V. D. Pham, W. He, C. Dong, L.-S. Lu, A. Vera, N. Sawtarie, W. Auker, K. Wang, B. Hengstebeck, Z. W. Henshaw, S. Mathela, M. T. Wetherington, W. H. Blades, K. Knappenberger, U. Wurstbauer, S. Y. Quek, U. Starke, S. Huang, V. H. Crespi, and J. A. Robinson, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2511.07151 [cond-ma...

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    M. W.-J. Liu, K. A. Ulman, B. Zheng, A. Jain, D. J. Heintzelman, K. Wang, W. He, C. Dong, L.-S. Lu, V. H. Crespi, S. Y. Quek, J. A. Robinson, and K. L. J. Knap- penberger, Nano Letters25, 17145 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Dong, L.-S

    C. Dong, L.-S. Lu, Y.-C. Lin, and J. A. Robinson, ACS Nanoscience Au4, 115 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Ramachandran, M

    V. Ramachandran, M. F. Brady, A. R. Smith, R. M. Feenstra, and D. W. Greve, J. Electron. Mater.27, 308 (1998)

    work page 1998

  45. [45]

    Soubatch, S

    S. Soubatch, S. E. Saddow, S. P. Rao, W. Lee, M. Konuma, and U. Starke, Mater. Sci. Forum483, 761 (2005)

    work page 2005

  46. [46]

    K. V. Emtsev, A. Bostwick, K. Horn, J. Jobst, G. L. Kel- logg, L. Ley, J. L. McChesney, T. Ohta, S. A. Reshanov, J. R¨ ohrl, E. Rotenberg, A. K. Schmid, D. Waldmann, H. B. Weber, and T. Seyller, Nat. Mater.8, 203 (2009)

    work page 2009

  47. [47]

    Riedl, C

    C. Riedl, C. Coletti, and U. Starke, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.43, 374009 (2010)

    work page 2010

  48. [48]

    Forti and U

    S. Forti and U. Starke, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys.47, 094013 (2014)

    work page 2014

  49. [49]

    K. V. Emtsev, F. Speck, T. Seyller, L. Ley, and J. D. Riley, Phys. Rev. B77, 155303 (2008)

    work page 2008

  50. [50]

    Y. Liu, X. Liu, C.-Z. Wang, Y. Han, J. W. Evans, A. Lii- Rosales, M. C. Tringides, and P. A. Thiel, J. Phys. Chem. C125, 6954 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Matta, P

    B. Matta, P. Rosenzweig, K. K¨ uster, C. Polley, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. B111, 155435 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Fiori, Y

    S. Fiori, Y. Murata, S. Veronesi, A. Rossi, C. Coletti, and S. Heun, Phys. Rev. B96, 125429 (2017)

    work page 2017

  53. [53]

    Sch¨ adlich, C

    P. Sch¨ adlich, C. Ghosal, M. Stettner, B. Matta, S. Wolff, F. Sch¨ olzel, P. Richter, M. Hutter, A. Haags, S. Wen- zel, Z. Mamiyev, J. Koch, S. Soubatch, P. Rosenzweig, C. Polley, F. S. Tautz, C. Kumpf, K. K¨ uster, U. Starke, T. Seyller, F. C. Bocquet, and C. Tegenkamp, Adv. Mater. Interfaces10, 2300471 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    S. Chen, P. A. Thiel, E. Conrad, and M. C. Tringides, Phys. Rev. Mater.4, 124005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    C. M. Polley, M. Leandersson, J. Adell, J. Osiecki, D. Car- bone, K. Ali, H. Fedderwitz, and T. Balasubramanian, Synchrotron Radiat. News37, 18 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Varykhalov, J

    A. Varykhalov, J. Large-Scale Res. Facil.4, A99 (2018)

    work page 2018

  57. [57]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Comput. Mater. Sci.6, 15 (1996)

    work page 1996

  58. [58]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Furthm¨ uller, Phys. Rev. B54, 11169 (1996)

    work page 1996

  59. [59]

    Kresse and J

    G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B47, 558 (1993)

    work page 1993

  60. [60]

    Kresse and D

    G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B59, 1758 (1999)

    work page 1999

  61. [61]

    P. E. Bl¨ ochl, Phys. Rev. B50, 17953 (1994)

    work page 1994

  62. [62]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 3865 (1996)

    work page 1996

  63. [63]

    Grimme, J

    S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, J. Chem. Phys.132, 154104 (2010)

    work page 2010

  64. [64]

    Grimme, S

    S. Grimme, S. Ehrlich, and L. Goerigk, J. Comput. Chem. 32, 1456 (2011)

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    Popescu and A

    V. Popescu and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B85, 085201 (2012)

    work page 2012

  66. [66]

    Zheng, VaspBandUnfolding (2026)

    Q. Zheng, VaspBandUnfolding (2026)

    work page 2026

  67. [67]

    J. P. Perdew, Int. J. Quantum Chem.28, 497 (1985)

    work page 1985

  68. [68]

    M. P. Seah and W. A. Dench, Surf. Interface Anal.1, 2 (1979)

    work page 1979

  69. [69]

    Starke and C

    U. Starke and C. Riedl, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter21, 134016 (2009)

    work page 2009

  70. [70]

    V. D. Pham, B. Zheng, A. Jain, C. Dong, L.-S. Lu, Z. W. Henshaw, W. H. Blades, J. A. Robinson, V. H. Crespi, A. Trampert, and R. Engel-Herbert, Phys. Rev. Mater. 10, 034003 (2026)

    work page 2026

  71. [71]

    J. A. Bearden and A. F. Burr, Rev. Mod. Phys.39, 125 (1967)

    work page 1967

  72. [72]

    J. Yu, S. Ye, X. Xv, L. Pan, P. Lin, H. Liao, and D. Wang, Nanomaterials12, 3215 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    J. J. Yeh and I. Lindau, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables32, 1 (1985)

    work page 1985

  74. [74]

    J. J. Olivero and R. L. Longbothum, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transfer17, 233 (1977)

    work page 1977

  75. [75]

    W. Lee, Y. Wang, W. Qin, H. Kim, M. Liu, T. N. Nunley, B. Fang, R. Maniyara, C. Dong, J. A. Robinson, V. H. Crespi, X. Li, A. H. MacDonald, and C.-K. Shih, Nano Letters22, 7841 (2022)

    work page 2022

  76. [76]

    W. Ku, T. Berlijn, and C.-C. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 216401 (2010)

    work page 2010

  77. [77]

    Rosenzweig, H

    P. Rosenzweig, H. Karakachian, D. Marchenko, K. K¨ uster, and U. Starke, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 176403 (2020)

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    Matta, P

    B. Matta, P. Rosenzweig, C. Polley, U. Starke, and K. K¨ uster, Nanoscale17, 19317 (2025)

    work page 2025

  79. [79]

    A. L. Walter, A. Bostwick, K.-J. Jeon, F. Speck, M. Ostler, T. Seyller, L. Moreschini, Y. J. Chang, M. Polini, R. As- gari, A. H. MacDonald, K. Horn, and E. Rotenberg, Phys. Rev. B84, 085410 (2011)

    work page 2011

  80. [80]

    J. M. Luttinger and J. C. Ward, Phys. Rev.118, 1417 (1960)

    work page 1960

Showing first 80 references.