Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 107 references

Light-Stabilized Metastable Electronic State in NiO with Enhanced Orbital Hybridization2

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Photoexciting nickel oxide across its charge-transfer gap creates a 600-picosecond-lived state with enhanced Ni–O orbital hybridization, not a thermal artifact.

desk verdict The CW UV result is a genuinely new observation; the microscopic interpretation rests on a fit and a decomposition that needs more work. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08842 v1 pith:VCWIVGM3 submitted 2026-08-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.str-el

Thomas C. Rossi , Fabio G. Santomauro , Lars Mewes , Janina Löffler , Dominik Kinschel , Giacomo Rossi , Mario Gutiérrez , Oliviero Cannelli
show 14 more authors
Boris V. Sorokin Jochen Rittmann Jakob Kel James Budarz Anna Wach Adam H. Clark Emiliano Dal Molin Maged F. Bekheet Albert Gili Sebastian Praetz Daniel Grötzsch Delphine Cabaret Renske M. van der Veen Majed Chergui
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.str-el
keywords nickeloxideorbitalhybridizationphotoinducedscreeningX-rayabsorptionspectroscopycharge-transferinsulatormetastableelectronicstateDFT+U+Vultrafast
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

Photoexcitation of the charge-transfer insulator nickel oxide (NiO) across its 3.7 eV charge-transfer gap creates a metastable electronic state in which Ni 3d–O 2p orbital hybridization is stronger than in the ground state. The evidence is a red shift of the Ni K-edge X-ray absorption spectrum that survives when lattice heating is subtracted. Under pulsed UV excitation the state lives about 600 ps and coexists with lattice heating; under continuous UV irradiation it forms at carrier densities seven to eight orders of magnitude lower, with negligible heating. First-principles DFT+U+V calculations reproduce the shift as an increase in the intersite Coulomb parameter between Ni 3d and O 2p orbitals. If correct, this identifies photoinduced screening of electronic correlations as a reversible, light-controlled tuning knob for carrier transport and charge-transfer energetics in correlated oxides.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the decomposition of the transient Ni K-edge X-ray absorption spectrum into a purely thermal lattice component, calibrated by temperature-dependent XAS and fixed by the EXAFS oscillations, and a residual non-thermal near-edge component. The non-thermal component's first-derivative red-shift lineshape is then tested against first-principles DFT+U+V spectra in which the on-site Hubbard $U$ and intersite Hubbard $V$ are varied; increasing the Ni 3d–O 2p intersite parameter $V$ is the specific knob that reproduces the observed red shift.

What would settle it

A measurement that would settle it: time-resolved X-ray absorption with femtosecond resolution at the Ni K-edge while independently monitoring the Ni–O bond length by EXAFS or diffraction. If the red shift appears without any resolvable change in bond length or Debye-Waller factor, yet also without the DFT+U+V-predicted dependence on $V$, the enhanced-hybridization interpretation is wrong. A complementary direct probe of hybridization, such as O K-edge X-ray absorption or resonant inelastic X-ray scattering, should show the corresponding changes in O 2p–Ni 3d mixing on the same 600 ps timescale.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that photoexcitation of NiO across its charge-transfer gap produces a long-lived (about 600 ps) excited state that is not a thermal artifact: the Ni K-edge X-ray absorption spectrum shifts to lower energy by tens of meV while the extended fine structure shows no non-thermal structural change. The shift is reproduced by DFT+U+V calculations when the intersite Hubbard parameter $V$ between Ni 3d and O 2p orbitals is increased, i.e. when the two orbitals hybridize more strongly; reductions of the on-site $U$ alone or changes in core-hole screening produce the wrong sign or too small a shift. The paper concludes that dynamic screening of on-site correlations after photoexcitation redistributes charge and enhances Ni–O hybridization, and that this electronic reorganization, not lattice heating, underlies the observed red shift.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that thermal and non-thermal contributions to the X-ray absorption spectrum add linearly and are largely uncorrelated because the core-hole lifetime is extremely short; if an unaccounted structural distortion produced the same near-edge red-shift lineshape without an EXAFS signature, the electronic interpretation would collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At continuous UV irradiation with roughly $10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ carrier density, the same electronic state forms with negligible lattice heating, so the state is not a thermal by-product and can be maintained under quasi-steady illumination.
  • At pulsed high fluence, the 600 ps non-thermal component coexists with a separately quantified lattice-heating component, so transient X-ray absorption can cleanly separate electronic from structural dynamics in this material.
  • DFT+U+V identifies increased intersite $V$ between Ni 3d and O 2p orbitals as the microscopic origin of the shift, while reduced on-site $U$ alone and core-hole screening produce the wrong sign or insufficient magnitude.
  • Because orbital hybridization controls carrier transport and charge-transfer energetics, dynamic screening provides a design principle: light can tune energy levels and bandwidths near the Fermi level in NiO-based devices.
  • The thermal-expansion contribution to $U$ is about 4 meV at 24 mJ/cm$^2$, comparable to the electronic shift, so mitigating lattice heating should enhance the magnitude and possibly the lifetime of the electronically excited state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the same screening–hybridization coupling operates at NiO surfaces, continuous UV light could act as a reversible external tuning knob for metal–oxygen covalency at catalytic sites, a step the paper does not take.
  • Inference: the large extracted broadenings (600–800 meV) versus small shifts (8–17 meV) suggest the homogeneous shift-and-broadening model is incomplete; a state-resolved calculation might change the quantitative $V$-increase estimate without changing its sign.
  • Inference: a testable prediction is that the non-thermal red-shift amplitude tracks photoexcited carrier density rather than absorbed energy; comparing two pump wavelengths with the same absorbed power would separate carrier-density effects from excess-energy heating.
  • Inference: the stronger relative non-thermal signal at $10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$ continuous excitation than at $10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$ pulsed excitation implies that high carrier density or lattice heat partially quenches the state; cooling the lattice or using a lower-fluence longer-pulse scheme may extend the state's lifetime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports Ni K-edge X-ray absorption measurements of NiO under continuous-wave (CW) and pulsed ultraviolet excitation. The authors observe a near-edge red shift under CW UV irradiation that they attribute to an electronic response with negligible lattice heating, and a similar 'non-thermal' wavelet in the XANES region of pulsed pump-probe XTA spectra after subtraction of a thermal (lattice heating) contribution inferred from the EXAFS region. The EXAFS analysis is detailed and cross-checked with temperature-dependent XAS and FDMNES simulations. DFT+U+V calculations are then used to propose that the red shift arises from an increase of the intersite Hubbard V parameter, which is interpreted as enhanced Ni 3d–O 2p hybridization, with an assigned lifetime of about 600 ps under pulsed excitation. The paper also discusses how photoinduced screening of correlations could be exploited to tune correlated-oxide functionality.

Significance. If correct, the results would establish a reversible, light-controlled mechanism for tuning orbital hybridization in a prototypical charge-transfer insulator, with direct implications for photocatalysis and optoelectronic device design. The paper has clear strengths: the EXAFS analysis is thorough and supported by independent temperature-dependent XAS data and ab initio FDMNES simulations; the CW experiment is an elegant control that isolates a non-thermal electronic response at low carrier density; and the Supporting Information provides a high level of experimental and computational detail. However, the central mechanistic conclusion currently rests on two load-bearing assumptions that are not fully validated: the linear additivity of thermal and non-thermal XAS components, and the use of the adjustable Hubbard V parameter to reproduce the very observable it is then used to explain. These issues make the main claim plausible but not yet established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2] The statement that 'the XTA spectrum is expressed as a linear combination of thermal and non-thermal components' is not justified by the core-hole lifetime argument. A short core-hole lifetime provides a temporal snapshot, but it does not imply that the XANES difference spectrum is the sum of independent thermal and electronic difference spectra, because XANES amplitudes depend nonlinearly on the core-hole potential, multiple scattering, and the electronic structure. The thermal component is extracted from the EXAFS region and then applied to the XANES, which assumes a single thermal ensemble. If the phonon distribution at 100 ps is not fully thermalized, or if a structural distortion shifts the edge without leaving an EXAFS signature, the residual 'non-thermal' wavelet could be an artifact of the subtraction. Please validate this assumption, for example by comparing the XANES residual with a measured T-XAS difference at higher temperature and by checking the extracted Delta-T against a full-spectrum nonlinear fit.
  2. [Section 4 and SI 12.2.5] The DFT+U+V calculation increases V by Delta-V = 0.10-0.33 eV (Figure 5b) and then uses the resulting red shift as evidence for enhanced hybridization. Because Delta-V is chosen to match the experimental red shift, the agreement is a parameter fit, not an independent test. The paper does exclude some alternatives (core-hole screening and reduced U), which is valuable, but it does not compute V for a photoexcited state or constrain Delta-V by any observable other than the one it is meant to explain. Please either compute V from a microscopic model of the excited state (e.g., DFPT with modified occupations) or provide an independent experimental signature that constrains Delta-V, such as the Ni K pre-edge intensity, the O K-edge response, or a hybridization-sensitive lattice parameter.
  3. [Section 1 (Figure 2d), Section 2 (Figure 4), SI 5] The CW experiment yields a 60 meV red shift at an estimated excitation density of about 3e13 cm^-3, whereas the pulsed experiment yields non-thermal shifts of only 8-17 meV at densities near 1e20 cm^-3. The paper's explanation that 'the simultaneous presence of lattice heating and electronic effects reduces the magnitude of the non-thermal contribution' is qualitative; no calculation or model is provided to show how a density increase of 7-8 orders of magnitude produces a comparable or only moderately larger shift. In addition, the CW density estimate (SI S5.1) uses the 600 ps lifetime from the pulsed measurement as an input, which is circular if the CW state is claimed to be the same long-lived state. Please provide a quantitative scaling model, or a threshold/saturation mechanism, that reconciles the CW and pulsed data within a single interpretation.
  4. [Section 2 and SI 10.1] The non-thermal signal is assigned the lifetime tau1 ~ 600 ps based on the assumption that electronic effects must be the shortest of the two observed decay components. This is an assumption, not a measurement. The same paragraph notes that the positive wavelet persists for at least 10 ns, and the biexponential fit in SI S10.1 gives tau2 = 30 ns with 79% weight. If the electronic component decayed with tau2, the 'long-lived' claim would be even stronger, but the current analysis does not distinguish these possibilities. Please fit the non-thermal component directly at energies where the thermal contribution is minimal, or perform a global analysis that does not impose the lifetime assignment a priori.
  5. [Section 3 and SI 8 (Figure S15)] The shift-and-broadening model used to extract red shifts of 8-17 meV yields broadenings of 570-880 meV, which the authors themselves state are 'several times larger' than previous reports and that 'this simple model does not accurately describe the photoexcited electronic state.' This admission directly affects the reliability of the quantitative red-shift values that are later compared with DFT+U+V results. Please quantify the uncertainty in Delta-E arising from the model choice, or replace the uniform-broadening ansatz with a physically motivated, energy-dependent lineshape.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The phrase 'The energy axis is splitted into two regions' should read 'split'; the same caption would benefit from stating explicitly that the shaded areas are one standard deviation, as is done elsewhere.
  2. [Figure 5 caption] There is a typo in the caption: 'intesite Vscreening' should be 'intersite V screening'.
  3. [Section 4 footnote] The footnote stating that the absence of the feature at 20 eV is because it originates from a shake-up excitation that 'cannot be modeled with the current level of theory' should be expanded: does this missing feature affect the calculated difference spectra used for comparison with experiment, and if so, how?
  4. [Section 1] The visible-light XANES residual discussion offers several speculative explanations (crystal-field multiplet population, bond elongation, symmetry breaking) without identifying a preferred one; this is acceptable as a discussion, but the abstract's wording that visible excitation 'primarily induces thermal changes' is somewhat stronger than the evidence presented in this subsection.
  5. [Title/Abstract] The title and abstract contain a superscript '2' after 'Hybridization', which appears to be a typesetting artifact; please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No material circularity: the DFT+U+V attribution is a discriminative parameter study, and the self-cited linear-decomposition precedent is supported by an independent physical argument.

full rationale

The central experimental observable is the non-thermal red-shift wavelet in the Ni K-edge XANES. It is extracted by subtracting a thermal contribution that is determined independently from the EXAFS region using temperature-dependent XAS measurements and FDMNES simulations, not by fitting the XANES residual itself. The DFT+U+V calculations start from a DFPT-computed equilibrium V of 2.10 eV and then scan increased V as a perturbation; the resulting red shifts are compared with the residual, and alternative mechanisms (core-hole screening, U reduction, and V reduction) are explicitly computed and rejected because they produce blue shifts or too-small shifts. This makes the attribution to increased hybridization discriminative rather than a fit of the target observable. The paper also labels the result as a 'plausible explanation' and acknowledges that a quantitative treatment would require dynamic correlations, so it does not present the V increase as an independent prediction. The linear-decomposition assumption is attributed in part to refs 33 and 34, which are prior works by the same group; however, the paper adds a physical justification based on the short core-hole lifetime, and those cited works are external experimental studies on other oxides. The self-citation is therefore a minor methodological precedent rather than a load-bearing circular chain. The cw carrier-density estimate uses the pulsed 600 ps lifetime, but this is an internal consistency estimate and not required to establish the electronic character of the cw shift, which rests on the absence of EXAFS heating signatures and the XANES lineshape. Overall, no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its explanatory machinery is the well-established Hubbard U/V paradigm plus a fitted Delta V. The main assumptions are the linear decomposition of the transient signal and the adequacy of DFT+U+V for K-edge XAS.

free parameters (5)
  • Intersite Hubbard V increase (Delta V) = 0.10, 0.20, 0.33 eV for fluences 24, 52, 68 mJ/cm2
    Chosen so that DFT+U+V XTA simulations reproduce the experimental non-thermal red shifts; value is not derived from the photoexcited carrier density. Section 4, Figure 5, SI S12.2.5.
  • EXAFS Debye-Waller increase (Delta sigma^2) = 0.42 mAngstrom^2 at 24 mJ/cm2
    Fitted to reproduce the transient EXAFS oscillations; supports the thermal component but is a fitted quantity. SI S7.3.
  • Lattice expansion (Delta a) = 0.00171 Angstrom at 24 mJ/cm2
    Fitted together with the Debye-Waller change in the ab initio EXAFS simulation. SI S7.3.
  • Spectral red shift in CW experiment = 60 meV
    Value obtained by matching the simulated shifted spectrum to the difference XAS under continuous UV; a descriptive fit.
  • Shift-and-broadening model parameters (Delta E, Delta Gamma) = Delta E 8-17 meV, Delta Gamma 570-880 meV across fluences
    Result of a chi-square minimization to the non-thermal XTA; the large broadenings are flagged by the authors as inadequately described by the model. SI S8.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption XTA can be decomposed as a linear combination of independent thermal and non-thermal components
    Invoked in Section 2 to subtract the thermal EXAFS contribution and isolate the electronic XANES signal; depends on the shortness of the core-hole lifetime.
  • domain assumption DFT+U+V with DFPT-computed U=6.7 eV and V=2.10 eV adequately describes Ni K-edge XAS in NiO
    Used for all simulated XAS and XTA spectra; the accuracy of the XSpectra approach for this edge is assumed. SI S12.
  • ad hoc to paper The quasi-equilibrium excitation density under CW light can be estimated using the 600 ps lifetime from pulsed XTA
    Equation S4 in SI S5.1; this reuses the paper's own decay time to estimate the CW carrier density and is therefore self-referential.
  • domain assumption Core-hole lifetime is short enough that the measured XAS is a snapshot of the electronic structure in a thermally disordered lattice
    Justifies the linear decomposition in Section 2; standard in ultrafast XAS but not directly verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Light-Stabilized Metastable Electronic State in NiO with Enhanced Orbital Hybridization2." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCWIVGM3

@misc{pith2026260808842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Light-Stabilized Metastable Electronic State in NiO with Enhanced Orbital Hybridization2},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCWIVGM3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08842}
}
read the original abstract

Light-driven control of electronic structure in correlated metal oxides offers new opportunities for optimizing materials used in photovoltaic and photoelectrochemical technologies. We show that photoexcitation of NiO, a prototypical transparent semiconductor and hole-transport material, across its charge-transfer gap produces a long-lived metastable state with enhanced Ni 3d-O 2p orbital hybridization. We characterize this state using Ni K-edge X-ray absorption spectroscopy, which probes how structural and electronic changes affect the unoccupied p density of states during continuous and pulsed ultraviolet excitation. Under pulsed excitation, high carrier densities of approximately 10^20 per cubic centimeter generate a state with a lifetime of approximately 600 picoseconds, in which enhanced hybridization coexists with lattice heating. By contrast, continuous ultraviolet irradiation at much lower carrier densities of approximately 10^13 per cubic centimeter stabilizes a similar electronic state with negligible lattice heating, demonstrating that its formation is not solely thermally driven. First-principles DFT+U+V calculations attribute the spectral changes to stronger Ni 3d-O 2p hybridization, which alters the unoccupied Ni 4p states probed by dipole-allowed K-edge transitions. We attribute this change to the dynamic screening of on-site electronic correlations following photoexcitation, which redistributes the charge density. Because orbital hybridization governs carrier transport and charge-transfer energetics, our results identify photoinduced screening as a mechanism for dynamically tuning correlated oxides and suggest new design principles for optoelectronic materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08842 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photoinduced changes in the electronic structure of correlated oxides can lead to improved photocatalytic performances. (a) Schematic density of states near the charge-transfer gap (∆CT) of NiO. Different UV light excitations are applied to NiO in this work. (b) Dynamic screening of the 3d conduction band leading to a renormalization of the charge-transfer gap and a broadening of the d states, which enables energy c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Long-lived electronic excited state in NiO under continuous ultraviolet irradiation. (a) Filtered spectral density of a xenon arc lamp used for the excitation of NiO in the visible and the UV (colored shaded areas, left axis). The absorption coefficient of NiO single crystal is shown for reference (black circles, right axis, adapted from reference (31)). The position of the charge-transfer gap (∆CT) is shown with a … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overlapping electronic and heating effects in the photoexcited state of NiO under pulsed laser excitation. X-ray transient absorption (XTA) spectra at a pump-probe time delay of 100 ps (white circles) in the (a) XANES, and (b) EXAFS, normalized to the absorption edge jump of the equilibrium Ni K-edge XAS spectrum (black curve). The excitation fluence is 24 mJ cm−2 at a pump photon energy of 3.49 eV. Shaded areas rep… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Red shift of the XAS spectrum in the excited state interpreted as increase in intersite screening due to increased orbital hybridization. Simulated (a) XAS and (b) XTA spectra upon increase of the intesite V screening parameter between Ni 3d and O 2p orbitals using DFT…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z. H. Li, J. X. He, J. Y. Li, K. Xu, X. H. Lv, M.-d. Li, C. P. Liu, K. M. Yu, and J. D. Ye, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters16, 175 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Wrobel, H

    F. Wrobel, H. Park, C. Sohn, H.-W. Hsiao, J.-M. Zuo, H. Shin, H. N. Lee, P. Ganesh, A. Benali, P. R. C. Kent, O. Heinonen, and A. Bhattacharya, Physical Review B101, 195128 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Cox,Transition Metal Oxides: An Introduction to Their Electronic Structure and Properties (Oxford University Press, 2010) p

    P. Cox,Transition Metal Oxides: An Introduction to Their Electronic Structure and Properties (Oxford University Press, 2010) p. 295

    2010

  4. [4]

    Imada, A

    M. Imada, A. Fujimori, and Y. Tokura, Reviews of Modern Physics70, 1039 (1998)

    1998

  5. [5]

    Grimaud, O

    A. Grimaud, O. Diaz-Morales, B. Han, W. T. Hong, Y.-L. Lee, L. Giordano, K. A. Stoerzinger, M. T. M. Koper, and Y. Shao-Horn, Nature Chemistry9, 457 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    L. Hu, J. Peng, W. Wang, Z. Xia, J. Yuan, J. Lu, X. Huang, W. Ma, H. Song, W. Chen, Y.-B. Cheng, and J. Tang, ACS Photonics1, 547 (2014)

    2014

  7. [7]

    Wang, P.-S

    K.-C. Wang, P.-S. Shen, M.-H. Li, S. Chen, M.-W. Lin, P. Chen, and T.-F. Guo, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces6, 11851 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    G. A. Sawatzky and J. W. Allen, Physical Review Letters53, 2339 (1984)

    1984

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Kuneš, V

    J. Kuneš, V. I. Anisimov, S. L. Skornyakov, A. V. Lukoyanov, and D. Vollhardt, Physical Review Letters99, 156404 (2007)

    2007

  2. [10]

    Østrøm, M

    I. Østrøm, M. Favaro, M. Seyfouri, P. Burr, and B. Hoex, Journal of the American Chemical Society147, 3593 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    A. G. Gavriliuk, I. A. Trojan, and V. V. Struzhkin, Physical Review Letters109, 086402 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    S. Mori, S. Fukuda, S. Sumikura, Y. Takeda, Y. Tamaki, E. Suzuki, and T. Abe, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C112, 16134 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    S. Bai, M. Cao, Y. Jin, X. Dai, X. Liang, Z. Ye, M. Li, J. Cheng, X. Xiao, Z. Wu, Z. Xia, B. Sun, E. Wang, Y. Mo, F. Gao, and F. Zhang, Advanced Energy Materials4, 1301460 (2014). 70

    2014

  6. [14]

    J. R. Manders, S.-W. Tsang, M. J. Hartel, T.-H. Lai, S. Chen, C. M. Amb, J. R. Reynolds, and F. So, Advanced Functional Materials23, 2993 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    J. H. Kim, P.-W. Liang, S. T. Williams, N. Cho, C.-C. Chueh, M. S. Glaz, D. S. Ginger, and A. K.-Y. Jen, Advanced Materials27, 695 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Tancogne-Dejean, M

    N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. A. Sentef, and A. Rubio, Physical Review B102, 115106 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Cavalleri, C

    A. Cavalleri, C. Tóth, C. W. Siders, J. A. Squier, F. Ráksi, P. Forget, and J. C. Kieffer, Physical Review Letters87, 237401 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Nature Materials16, 1077 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    C. Ahn, A. Cavalleri, A. Georges, S. Ismail-Beigi, A. J. Millis, and J.-M. Triscone, Nature Materials 20, 1462 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Lojewski, D

    T. Lojewski, D. Golež, K. Ollefs, L. Le Guyader, L. Kämmerer, N. Rothenbach, R. Y. Engel, P. S. Miedema, M. Beye, G. S. Chiuzbăian, R. Carley, R. Gort, B. E. Van Kuiken, G. Mercu- rio, J. Schlappa, A. Yaroslavtsev, A. Scherz, F. Döring, C. David, H. Wende, U. Bovensiepen, M. E...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Cazali, A

    R. Cazali, A. Alic, M. Guer, C. J. Kaplan, F. Lepetit, O. Tcherbakoff, S. Guizard, A. Rubio, N. Tancogne-Dejean, G. S. Chiuzbăian, and R. Géneaux, arXiv , 2501.19238v1 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. C. Rossi, N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. Oppermann, M. Porer, A. Magrez, R. V. Chopdekar, Y. Takamura, U. Staub, R. M. van der Veen, A. Rubio, and M. Chergui, Science Advances11, eadx5676 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Merzoni, L

    G. Merzoni, L. Martinelli, S. Parchenko, S. F. R. TenHuisen, V. Lebedev, L. Adriano, R. Carley, N. Gerasimova, L. Mercadier, M. Teichmann, B. E. v. Kuiken, Z. Yin, A. Alic, D. R. Bayku- sheva, S. G. Chiuzbaian, S. D. Conte, O. Dogadov, A. Föhlisch, M. W. Haverkort, M. Kusch, T...

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Windsor, D

    Y. Windsor, D. Zahn, R. Kamrla, J. Feldl, H. Seiler, C.-T. Chiang, M. Ramsteiner, W. Widdra, R. Ernstorfer, and L. Rettig, Physical Review Letters126, 147202 (2021). 71

    2021

  17. [25]

    X. Wang, R. Y. Engel, I. Vaskivskyi, D. Turenne, V. Shokeen, A. Yaroslavtsev, O. Grånäs, R. Knut, J. O. Schunck, S. Dziarzhytski, G. Brenner, R.-P. Wang, M. Kuhlmann, F. Kuschewski, W. Bronsch, C. Schüßler-Langeheine, A. Styervoyedov, S. S. P. Parkin, F. Parmigiani, O. Eriksso...

    2022

  18. [26]

    Mrowec and Z

    S. Mrowec and Z. Grzesik, Journal of Physics and Chemistry of Solids65, 1651 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    D. Yang, F. Du, Y. Ren, T. Kang, P. Hu, F. Teng, and H. Fan, Journal of Materials Chemistry C9, 14146 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    S. Woo, T. Lee, C. W. Song, J. Y. Park, Y. Jung, J. Hong, and S. Kyoung, physica status solidi (a)221, 2400310 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    van Veenendaal, X

    M. van Veenendaal, X. Liu, M. H. Carpenter, and S. P. Cramer, Physical Review B83, 045101 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Y. Gao, Q. Sun, J. M. Yu, M. Motta, J. McClain, A. F. White, A. J. Minnich, and G. K.-L. Chan, Physical Review B101, 165138 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Newman and R

    R. Newman and R. M. Chrenko, Physical Review114, 1507 (1959)

    1959

  24. [32]

    Gillen and J

    R. Gillen and J. Robertson, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter25, 165502 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    T. C. Rossi, C. P. Dykstra, T. N. Haddock, R. Wallick, J. H. Burke, C. M. Gentle, G. Doumy, A. M. March, and R. M. van der Veen, Nano Letters21, 9534 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    T. C. Rossi, L. Qiao, C. P. Dykstra, R. Rodrigues Pela, R. Gnewkow, R. F. Wallick, J. H. Burke, E. Nicholas, A. M. March, G. Doumy, D. B. Buchholz, C. Deparis, J. Zúñiga-Pérez, M. Weise, K. Ellmer, M. Fondell, C. Draxl, and R. M. van der Veen, Communications Materials6, 191 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Filez, V

    M. Filez, V. De Coster, H. Poelman, V. Briois, A. Beauvois, J. Dendooven, M. B. J. Roeffaers, V. Galvita, and C. Detavernier, Nature Catalysis8, 187 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    Espinosa, G

    A. Espinosa, G. R. Castro, J. Reguera, C. Castellano, J. Castillo, J. Camarero, C. Wilhelm, M. A. García, and Á. Muñoz-Noval, Nano Letters21, 769 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Sachs, L

    M. Sachs, L. Harnett-Caulfield, E. Pastor, B. Davies, D. J. C. Sowood, B. Moss, A. Kafizas, J. Nelson, A. Walsh, and J. R. Durrant, Nature Chemistry17, 1348 (2025). 72

    2025

  30. [38]

    B. T. Phelan, M. W. Mara, and L. X. Chen, Chemical Communications57, 11904 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    C.-Y. Liu, K. Ruotsalainen, K. Bauer, R. Decker, A. Pietzsch, and A. Föhlisch, Physical Review B106, 035104 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Gandhi and S

    A. Gandhi and S. Wu, Nanomaterials7, 231 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Golež, L

    D. Golež, L. Boehnke, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, Physical Review B100, 041111(R) (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Giannetti, M

    C. Giannetti, M. Capone, D. Fausti, M. Fabrizio, F. Parmigiani, and D. Mihailovic, Advances in Physics65, 58 (2016)

    2016

  35. [43]

    Konstantinova, J

    T. Konstantinova, J. D. Rameau, A. H. Reid, O. Abdurazakov, L. Wu, R. Li, X. Shen, G. Gu, Y. Huang, L. Rettig, I. Avigo, M. Ligges, J. K. Freericks, A. F. Kemper, H. A. Dürr, U. Boven- siepen, P. D. Johnson, X. Wang, and Y. Zhu, Science Advances4, eaap7427 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Imran, H

    M. Imran, H. Coskun, N. A. Khan, and J. Ouyang, Applied Physics A127, 117 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    O. Šipr, J. Vackář, and J. Minár, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation25, 523 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Golež, E

    D. Golež, E. Paprotzki, P. Werner, and M. Eckstein, Physical Review B111, 045147 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Golež, M

    D. Golež, M. Eckstein, and P. Werner, Physical Review B100, 235117 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Biswas, J

    S. Biswas, J. Husek, S. Londo, and L. R. Baker, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters9, 5047 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Biswas, J

    S. Biswas, J. Husek, S. Londo, and L. R. Baker, Nano Letters18, 1228 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Janotti, J

    A. Janotti, J. B. Varley, P. Rinke, N. Umezawa, G. Kresse, and C. G. Van de Walle, Physical Review B81, 085212 (2010)

    2010

  43. [51]

    M. H. Rittmann-Frank, C. J. Milne, J. Rittmann, M. Reinhard, T. J. Penfold, and M. Chergui, Angewandte Chemie International Edition53, 5858 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    T. J. Penfold, J. Szlachetko, F. G. Santomauro, A. Britz, W. Gawelda, G. Doumy, A. M. March, S. H. Southworth, J. Rittmann, R. Abela, M. Chergui, and C. J. Milne, Nature Communications 9, 478 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    H. Liu, I. M. Klein, J. M. Michelsen, and S. K. Cushing, Chem7, 2569 (2021). 73

    2021

  46. [54]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Computer Physics Communications279, 108455 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Leiria Campo Jr and M

    V. Leiria Campo Jr and M. Cococcioni, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter22, 055602 (2010)

    2010

  48. [56]

    Calandra, J

    M. Calandra, J. P. Rueff, C. Gougoussis, D. Céolin, M. Gorgoi, S. Benedetti, P. Torelli, A. Shukla, D. Chandesris, and C. Brouder, Physical Review B86, 165102 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    X. Ren, I. Leonov, G. Keller, M. Kollar, I. Nekrasov, and D. Vollhardt, Physical Review B74, 195114 (2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    Miura and T

    O. Miura and T. Fujiwara, Physical Review B77, 195124 (2008)

    2008

  51. [59]

    Mocatti, G

    S. Mocatti, G. Marini, G. Volpato, P. Cudazzo, and M. Calandra, npj Computational Materials 12, 260 (2026)

    2026

  52. [60]

    X. Liu, Z. Wang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, O. Vafek, and J. I. A. Li, Science371, 1261 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    Werner and A

    P. Werner and A. J. Millis, Physical Review Letters104, 146401 (2010)

    2010

  54. [62]

    B. E. Van Kuiken, H. Cho, K. Hong, M. Khalil, R. W. Schoenlein, T. K. Kim, and N. Huse, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters7, 465 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    R. M. Jay, A. Banerjee, T. Leitner, R.-P. Wang, J. Harich, R. Stefanuik, H. Wikmark, M. R. Coates, E. V. Beale, V. Kabanova, A. Kahraman, A. Wach, D. Ozerov, C. Arrell, P. J. M. Johnson, C. N. Borca, C. Cirelli, C. Bacellar, C. Milne, N. Huse, G. Smolentsev, T. Huthwelker, M. ...

    2023

  56. [64]

    Shang, C

    C. Shang, C. Cao, D. Yu, Y. Yan, Y. Lin, H. Li, T. Zheng, X. Yan, W. Yu, S. Zhou, and J. Zeng, Advanced Materials31, 1805104 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    J. W. Suh, J. Park, S. H. Jeong, G. H. Park, M. S. Choi, C. Jin, J.-W. Lee, K. Lee, B. R. Jeong, H.-D. Kim, S.-D. Kim, H. J. Kim, S. E. Kim, Y. Ji, H. Lee, J. Bang, K. H. Lee, and S. Y. Lee, Applied Catalysis B: Environmental343, 123540 (2024)

    2024

  58. [66]

    W. T. Hong, K. A. Stoerzinger, Y.-L. Lee, L. Giordano, A. Grimaud, A. M. Johnson, J. Hwang, E. J. Crumlin, W. Yang, and Y. Shao-Horn, Energy & Environmental Science10, 2190 (2017). 74

    2017

  59. [67]

    X. Miao, J. Zhang, Z. Hu, and S. Zhou, Precision Chemistry3, 72 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Leonov and S

    I. Leonov and S. Biermann, Physical Review B103, 165108 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Schlesiger, L

    C. Schlesiger, L. Anklamm, H. Stiel, W. Malzer, and B. Kanngießer, Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry30, 1080 (2015)

    2015

  62. [70]

    Schlesiger, S

    C. Schlesiger, S. Praetz, R. Gnewkow, W. Malzer, and B. Kanngießer, Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry35, 2298 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    J. Ye, G. Liu, C. H. Liebscher, and M. Felderhoff, RSC Mechanochemistry3, 67 (2026)

    2026

  64. [72]

    Newville, Journal of Physics: Conference Series430, 012007 (2013)

    M. Newville, Journal of Physics: Conference Series430, 012007 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    A. H. Clark, P. Steiger, B. Bornmann, S. Hitz, R. Frahm, D. Ferri, and M. Nachtegaal, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation27, 681 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    A. H. Clark, J. Imbao, R. Frahm, and M. Nachtegaal, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation27, 551 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Sevillano, H

    E. Sevillano, H. Meuth, and J. J. Rehr, Physical Review B20, 4908 (1979)

    1979

  68. [76]

    Anspoks and A

    A. Anspoks and A. Kuzmin, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids357, 2604 (2011)

    2011

  69. [77]

    Anspoks, A

    A. Anspoks, A. Kalinko, R. Kalendarev, and A. Kuzmin, Physical Review B86, 174114 (2012)

    2012

  70. [78]

    Anspoks, A

    A. Anspoks, A. Kalinko, R. Kalendarev, and A. Kuzmin, Thin Solid Films553, 58 (2014)

    2014

  71. [79]

    S. P. Srivastava, R. C. Srivastava, I. D. Singh, S. D. Pandey, and P. L. Gupta, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan43, 885 (1977)

    1977

  72. [80]

    Bischoff, M

    B. Bischoff, M. F. Bekheet, E. Dal Molin, S. Praetz, B. Kanngießer, R. Schomäcker, M. Etter, H. S. Jeppesen, A. Tayal, A. Gurlo, and A. Gili, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation31, 77 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B: Condensed Matter192, 55 (1993)

    J. Rodríguez-Carvajal, Physica B: Condensed Matter192, 55 (1993)

    1993

  74. [82]

    Roisnel and J

    T. Roisnel and J. Rodríquez-Carvajal, Materials Science Forum378-381, 118 (2001)

    2001

  75. [83]

    C. M. Wolff, S. A. Bourelle, L. Q. Phuong, J. Kurpiers, S. Feldmann, P. Caprioglio, J. A. Marquez, J. Wolansky, T. Unold, M. Stolterfoht, S. Shoaee, F. Deschler, and D. Neher, Advanced Energy Materials11, 2101823 (2021). 75

    2021

  76. [84]

    F. A. Lima, C. J. Milne, D. C. V. Amarasinghe, M. H. Rittmann-Frank, R. M. v. d. Veen, M. Reinhard, V.-T. Pham, S. Karlsson, S. L. Johnson, D. Grolimund, C. Borca, T. Huthwelker, M. Janousch, F. van Mourik, R. Abela, and M. Chergui, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 063111 (2011)

    2011

  77. [85]

    Gougoussis, M

    C. Gougoussis, M. Calandra, A. P. Seitsonen, and F. Mauri, Physical Review B80, 075102 (2009)

    2009

  78. [86]

    H. L. Lu, G. Scarel, M. Alia, M. Fanciulli, S.-J. Ding, and D. W. Zhang, Applied Physics Letters 92, 222907 (2008)

    2008

  79. [87]

    S. L. Taylor, A. E. Jakus, R. N. Shah, and D. C. Dunand, Advanced Engineering Materials19, 1600365 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Seltz, B

    H. Seltz, B. J. DeWitt, and H. J. McDonald, Journal of the American Chemical Society62, 88 (1940)

    1940

  81. [89]

    D. R. Lide,CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, Vol. 85 (CRC press, 2004)

    2004

  82. [90]

    Bunău and Y

    O. Bunău and Y. Joly, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter21, 345501 (2009)

    2009

  83. [91]

    Singer, M

    A. Singer, M. J. Marsh, S. H. Dietze, V. Uhlíř, Y. Li, D. A. Walko, E. M. Dufresne, G. Srajer, M. P. Cosgriff, P. G. Evans, E. E. Fullerton, and O. G. Shpyrko, Physical Review B91, 115134 (2015)

    2015

  84. [92]

    J. Chen, X. Xu, J. Zhou, and B. Li, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 025002 (2022)

    2022

  85. [93]

    Huang, M

    X. Huang, M. Ma, X. Huang, S. Qing, and X. Zhang, Journal of Molecular Liquids439, 128740 (2025)

    2025

  86. [94]

    Gougoussis, M

    C. Gougoussis, M. Calandra, A. Seitsonen, C. Brouder, A. Shukla, and F. Mauri, Physical Review B79, 045118 (2009)

    2009

  87. [95]

    Bassani, Applied Optics19, 4093 (1980)

    F. Bassani, Applied Optics19, 4093 (1980)

    1980

  88. [96]

    S. A. Guda, A. A. Guda, M. A. Soldatov, K. A. Lomachenko, A. L. Bugaev, C. Lamberti, W. Gawelda, C. Bressler, G. Smolentsev, A. V. Soldatov, and Y. Joly, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation11, 4512 (2015). 76

    2015

  89. [97]

    Cococcioni, I

    P.Giannozzi, S.Baroni, N.Bonini, M.Calandra, R.Car, C.Cavazzoni, D.Ceresoli, G.L.Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Ger- stmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mauri, R....

    2009

  90. [98]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carnimeo, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P.Delugas, R.A.DiStasio, A.Ferretti, A.Floris, G.Fratesi, G.Fugallo, R.Gebauer, U.Ger...

    2017

  91. [99]

    T. Eto, S. Endo, M. Imai, Y. Katayama, and T. Kikegawa, Physical Review B61, 14984 (2000)

    2000

  92. [100]

    Troullier and J

    N. Troullier and J. L. Martins, Physical Review B43, 1993 (1991)

    1991

  93. [101]

    J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Physical Review Letters77, 3865 (1996)

    1996

  94. [102]

    Timrov, P

    I. Timrov, P. Agrawal, X. Zhang, S. Erat, R. Liu, A. Braun, M. Cococcioni, M. Calandra, N. Marzari, and D. Passerone, Physical Review Research2, 033265 (2020)

    2020

  95. [103]

    Kokalj, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling17, 176 (1999)

    A. Kokalj, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling17, 176 (1999)

    1999

  96. [104]

    P. Haas, F. Tran, P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, and R. Laskowski, Physical Review B80, 195109 (2009)

    2009

  97. [105]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Physical Review B98, 085127 (2018)

    2018

  98. [106]

    Timrov, N

    I. Timrov, N. Marzari, and M. Cococcioni, Physical Review B103, 045141 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Taillefumier, D

    M. Taillefumier, D. Cabaret, A.-M. Flank, and F. Mauri, Physical Review B66, 195107 (2002). 77

    2002

Pith tools

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