Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 96 references

First-principles predictions of carrier mobility with record accuracy using GW perturbation theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that correcting electron-phonon couplings with GW perturbation theory, alongside GW band structures, yields electron mobilities within 11% of experiment for Si, GaAs, GaP, diamond, and 3C-SiC.

desk verdict Genuinely new and mostly delivers: GWPT vertex corrections in the BTE cut mobility errors to ~11% on five benchmarks, though the 'fully many-body' label overstates the polar case and the headline number is a bit friendlier than the evidence warrants. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04219 v1 pith:YCMAXPCT submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Nick Pant , Sabyasachi Tiwari , Steven G. Louie , Zhenglu Li , Feliciano Giustino This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords carriermobilityGWperturbationtheoryelectron-phononcouplingBoltzmanntransportequationabinitiosemiconductorsmany-bodyfirst-principlesprediction
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 claims that the dominant error in first-principles carrier mobility calculations is not just the band structure but the electron-phonon coupling, which density functional theory overscreens. Applying many-body GW corrections to both quantities and solving the Boltzmann transport equation gives electron mobilities within 11% of experiment on average for Si, GaAs, GaP, diamond, and 3C-SiC at room temperature. Correcting only the bands with GW leaves the average error at 42%, and can even worsen agreement for diamond, SiC, and GaP. If correct, this lifts a long-standing limitation of DFT-based transport and makes predictive mobility screening practical.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GWPT electron-phonon matrix element, $g^{\mathrm{GW}}_{mn\nu}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) = g^{\mathrm{DFT}}_{mn\nu}(\mathbf{k},\mathbf{q}) + \langle \psi_{m\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q}} | \Delta_{\mathbf{q}\nu}(\Sigma^{\mathrm{GW}} - V_{\mathrm{xc}}) | \psi_{n\mathbf{k}} \rangle$, which replaces the DFT exchange-correlation potential variation by the variation of the GW self-energy and thereby corrects the overscreening of the bare vertex. The argument is carried by the exact Drude-like rewriting of the mobility, $\mu = e\tau/m^*$ with $1/\tau = (2\pi/\hbar) g^2 \rho$, which separates band-structure renormalization ($m^*$ and $\rho$) from coupling renormalization ($g$) and shows that the $g^2$ enhancement dominates the error reduction in most materials. Wannier interpolation of the GW-corrected quantities onto ultra-dense Brillouin-zone grids is what makes the fully many-body Boltzmann solution computationally feasible.

What would settle it

Recomputing the electron mobility of GaAs and GaP with the missing W-variation and a GW-level long-range Fröhlich coupling would settle the matter: if the mean error across the five benchmark materials rises above 20% instead of staying near 11%, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that GW self-energy effects in the electron-phonon vertex, rather than band-structure corrections alone, are required to bring computed mobilities into agreement with high-purity measurements. The GWPT-corrected matrix element $g^{\mathrm{GW}} = g^{\mathrm{DFT}} + \langle \psi | \Delta(\Sigma^{\mathrm{GW}} - V_{\mathrm{xc}}) | \psi \rangle$ increases the coupling strength by up to 80% for band-edge states (43% on average in GaP), correcting the overscreening that makes DFT couplings too weak. With these couplings and GW bands in the fully iterative Boltzmann equation, the mean absolute relative error at 300 K drops from 106% (DFT), or 42% (GW bands only), to 11% across the five benchmark crystals. A hybrid scheme that keeps DFPT couplings with GW bands is not sufficient and, for diamond, SiC, and GaP, it moves the answer further from experiment.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that the screening of the electron-phonon interaction stays frozen when atoms move (the constant-screening approximation) and, for the polar materials GaAs and GaP, the long-range Fröhlich interaction is still taken from the DFT-level theory rather than from the many-body correction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The common practice of combining GW bands with DFPT electron-phonon couplings should be abandoned; it can worsen agreement and is never as accurate as the fully corrected scheme.
  • The 11% mean error over Si, GaAs, GaP, diamond, and 3C-SiC provides a benchmark that future first-principles transport methods should be measured against.
  • The same GWBTE workflow can be applied to other weakly-to-moderately correlated semiconductors, where phonon-limited scattering governs room-temperature mobility.
  • For polar materials, upgrading the long-range Fröhlich coupling from DFPT to GWPT is the most likely next step to preserve the accuracy outside the current benchmark set.
  • The material-specific decomposition means that no single correction applies everywhere: GaAs needs band renormalization, while SiC, GaP, and diamond need vertex renormalization, and silicon needs neither beyond DFT.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the 11% accuracy survives a broader dataset, first-principles mobility could replace empirical mobility models in semiconductor device simulation and materials screening.
  • The wavevector-dependent spread of the GWPT corrections, spanning a factor of two around the average, indicates that simple scalar rescaling of DFPT couplings cannot capture many-body effects; this indirectly motivates machine-learned vertex corrections for larger unit cells.
  • A natural test is to apply the protocol to a strongly polar or low-dimensional semiconductor (e.g., GaN or a transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayer), where the constant-screening and DFPT long-range approximations are most stressed; degradation of the 11% error would identify the next approximation to fix.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This Letter reports GWBTE, a first-principles workflow that combines G0W0 quasiparticle band structures with GW perturbation theory (GWPT) electron-phonon matrix elements and solves the ab initio Boltzmann transport equation (aiBTE). The authors benchmark room-temperature electron mobilities for five cubic semiconductors (Si, GaAs, GaP, diamond, 3C-SiC), reporting a mean absolute relative error (MARE) of 11% with respect to high-quality experimental references, compared with 106% for DFT+DFPT and 42% for GW+DFPT. They also present a temperature-dependent comparison against 66 experimental measurements (24% MARE), a Drude-like decomposition that separates band-structure and electron-phonon coupling contributions, and extensive convergence tests. The central claim is that many-body corrections to both band structure and electron-phonon couplings are needed for predictive mobility calculations, with GW+DFPT being potentially worse than DFT+DFPT for some materials.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a notable advance: a parameter-free, fully ab initio method reaching 11% MARE on the tested semiconductors, roughly four times more accurate than the common GW-band-only scheme. The paper's strengths include extensive numerical convergence checks (Supplemental Figs. S3, Tabs. S8-S9), a full-frequency GW comparison in diamond (Tab. S6), jackknife cross-validation (Tab. S3), and open data and code availability. The main caveat is that the benchmark set is small (five materials) and that the many-body treatment of the electron-phonon coupling is incomplete for polar materials: for GaAs and GaP, the long-range Fröhlich part is still interpolated at the DFPT level, and the constant-screening approximation is used without a per-material test. These limitations do not invalidate the work, but they should be addressed before the 'record accuracy' claim can be accepted as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplemental Methods (Wannier-Fourier interpolation; GW perturbation theory calculations)] The claim that the 11% MARE arises from GW corrections to both the band structure and the electron-phonon couplings is not fully supported for GaAs and GaP. The Supplemental Methods state that long-range dipole and quadrupole corrections are applied at the DFPT level, and that the GWPT workflow neglects the variation of the screened Coulomb interaction (constant-screening approximation). Since Fröhlich scattering dominates transport in these polar materials at 300 K, the mobilities of two of the five benchmark materials are controlled by matrix elements that are not GW-corrected. The paper provides no quantitative test of the constant-screening approximation or of the DFPT long-range vertex against a GWPT reference for these materials. I request either adding such tests (e.g., using the GWPT Fröhlich approach cited as Ref. 15) or substantially qualifying the abstract and main-text claims to state that the long-range Fröhlich coupling is treated at the DFPT level.
  2. [Fig. 2(a) and Table S3] The headline MARE of 11% is computed on only five materials, all cubic semiconductors with similar bonding and transport characteristics. The jackknife analysis shows robustness within this set, but it does not establish that 'record accuracy' holds more generally. The authors already caution about statistical accuracy, but the abstract and title still assert a general record. I recommend either expanding the benchmark set or explicitly restricting the claim to 'the five semiconductors studied here.'
  3. [Table S5 and Fig. 3(g)-(i)] The Drude-like decomposition used to attribute mobility corrections to band-structure versus electron-phonon effects is performed in the SERTA approximation, but Table S5 shows that SERTA deviates strongly from the full iterative BTE for GaAs (5924 cm2/Vs versus 9680 cm2/Vs, a 39% discrepancy). The conclusion that GaAs's mobility improvement is driven mainly by band-structure corrections may therefore not carry over to the full BTE results. Please either provide the corresponding decomposition using the iterative BTE mobilities or explicitly discuss the SERTA/BTE discrepancy for GaAs when interpreting Fig. 3.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2(a) caption] The caption states that all samples have doping concentration ≤10^16 cm^-3, but Table S1 lists diamond at 7×10^16 cm^-3; please reconcile these values.
  2. [Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The quantity ρ in Eq. (1) is called the 'average density of states,' but the Supplemental Methods define it as a scattering density of states (Eq. S9) that depends on phonon occupations and delta functions; this should be clarified in the main text to avoid confusion.
  3. [Supplemental Methods and Figure S3 caption] There are several typos, including 'Monkhort-Pack' instead of 'Monkhorst-Pack' and 'bwteen' instead of 'between' in the Fig. S3 caption; please proofread.
  4. [Supplemental Methods (GW perturbation theory calculations)] The statement that the constant-screening approximation 'has been widely tested to be valid' cites Ref. 23, but no test specific to the present materials is provided; a short benchmark or a clearer justification of transferability to GaAs and GaP would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central 11% MARE benchmark is an external experimental comparison with no fitted parameters; the Drude decomposition is an exact rewriting used only for analysis.

full rationale

The reported mobilities are obtained by solving the ab initio Boltzmann transport equation from independently computed GW/DFT inputs and are compared against literature experimental data (Refs. 31-35 and Supplemental Table S1), so the central claim cannot reduce by construction to its inputs. GWPT matrix elements are computed from first principles via Eqs. (S1)-(S2), with explicit convergence tests in Supplemental Tables S8-S9, and no mobility parameter is fitted to experimental values. Eq. (1) is explicitly an exact rewriting of the SERTA mobility (Eqs. S4-S13) and is used only to disentangle mass, coupling, and density-of-states contributions after the mobility has already been fully computed; it is not used to generate the mobility predictions. The constant-screening approximation (Delta W = 0) and the DFPT-level long-range dipole/quadrupole corrections in the Supplemental Methods are stated limitations rather than hidden fits: the former is supported by an independent prior calculation (Ref. 23) and the latter is explicitly acknowledged as an area for future GWPT interpolation. Self-citations to GWPT methodology (Refs. 17, 30) supply the method but not the benchmark numbers, and the benchmark itself is external experimental data. Therefore no self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation-load-bearing circular step is present; the paper is self-contained with respect to the claimed mobility accuracy comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to experimental mobility data: all numerical settings (plane-wave cutoffs, number of bands, grid sizes, carrier concentration) are convergence or modeling choices, not fitted values. The central claim rests on standard many-body approximations (G0W0, plasmon-pole, constant-screening W) and on the curation of experimental benchmarks; these are listed as domain assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption G0W0 approximation with vertex set to the delta function (Gamma = 1) for quasiparticle energies
    Used in the Quasiparticle corrections section; standard many-body approximation, validated against experimental band gaps in Table S7 and against full-frequency calculations in Figure S6.
  • domain assumption Generalized plasmon-pole approximation for the frequency dependence of the screened Coulomb interaction W
    Used in the GW calculations; compared to full-frequency contour deformation for diamond in Table S6 with differences around 0.01 eV, so it is a tested approximation.
  • domain assumption Constant-screening approximation: the variation of the screened Coulomb interaction W with atomic displacement is neglected in GWPT
    Invoked in the GW perturbation theory calculations section and stated to follow Ref. 23; the paper does not re-test this for all five materials, relying on prior tests.
  • domain assumption First-order changes of electron eigenvalues are neglected for finite-q phonon perturbations
    Argued in the Supplemental Methods to be zero by crystal momentum conservation; used in constructing the linear response of the Green's function, with a caveat that the exact q=0 point is treated as a small finite-volume region.
  • domain assumption Long-range Fröhlich electron-phonon coupling is treated at DFPT level for polar materials (GaAs, GaP), not at GWPT level
    Mentioned in the Supplemental Methods: the authors note that a recently developed long-range GWPT Fröhlich interaction would further improve the accuracy of interpolation for polar materials. This assumption could affect the completeness of vertex corrections in GaAs and GaP.
  • domain assumption The selected experimental references (Tables S1, S2, S4) represent intrinsic phonon-limited mobilities
    The benchmark claim rests on experimental values from the literature; the paper selects one reference per material as 'most accurate' (bold in Table S2) and justifies the diamond choice in footnote 54. The 11% MARE is conditional on these reference choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First-principles predictions of carrier mobility with record accuracy using GW perturbation theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YCMAXPCT

@misc{pith2026260804219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First-principles predictions of carrier mobility with record accuracy using GW perturbation theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YCMAXPCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04219}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate prediction of carrier mobility is critical for the discovery and design of next-generation electronic materials. Despite sustained progress, state-of-the-art ab initio methods remain limited by the approximate treatment of electron-phonon interactions at the density functional theory level. Here, we demonstrate that incorporating many-body GW corrections to both the electronic band structure and electron--phonon couplings when solving the ab initio Boltzmann transport equation yields a mean absolute relative error of just 11% for electron mobilities across benchmark semiconductors, including Si, GaAs, GaP, diamond, and SiC. The common practice of neglecting GW corrections to the electron--phonon interaction can lead to mobility errors exceeding 50%. The present findings highlight the importance of many-body GW self-energy effects in carrier transport simulations, and provides fundamental insights into how many-body electron--phonon interactions govern charge transport in crystalline solids.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04219 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Feynman diagram for the Fan-Migdal self energy, Σ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Comparison between the Hall mobilities of GaP, 3C-SiC, Si, diamond, and GaAs calculated within DFT+DFPT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Comparison between DFT (gray) and GW (blue) band structure of GaP. (b) Comparison between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Giustino, Rev

    F. Giustino, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 015003 (2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Jena,Quantum physics of semiconductor materials and devices(Oxford University Press, 2022)

    D. Jena,Quantum physics of semiconductor materials and devices(Oxford University Press, 2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Semiconductor Research Corporation,Decadal Plan for Semiconductors, Tech. Rep. (Semiconductor Research Corporation, 2021) accessed: 2025-08-25

    2021

  4. [4]

    Y. Liu, X. Duan, H.-J. Shin, S. Park, Y. Huang, and X. Duan, Nature591, 43 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Claes, S

    R. Claes, S. Ponc´ e, G.-M. Rignanese, and G. Hautier, Nat. Rev. Phys.7, 73 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Ponc´ e, W

    S. Ponc´ e, W. Li, S. Reichardt, and F. Giustino, Rep. Prog. Phys.83, 036501 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    H. Lee, S. Ponce, K. Bushick, S. Hajinazar, J. Lafuente- Bartolome, J. Leveillee, C. Lian, J.-M. Lihm, F. Macheda, H. Mori,et al., npj Comput. Mater.9, 156 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    J.-J. Zhou, J. Park, I.-T. Lu, I. Maliyov, X. Tong, and M. Bernardi, Comput. Phys. Commun.264, 107970 (2021)

    2021

Show all 96 references
  1. [9]

    Cepellotti, J

    A. Cepellotti, J. Coulter, A. Johansson, N. S. Fedorova, and B. Kozinsky, J. Phys. Mater.5, 035003 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Gonze, B

    X. Gonze, B. Amadon, G. Antonius, F. Arnardi, L. Baguet, J.-M. Beuken, J. Bieder, F. Bottin, J. Bouchet, E. Bousquet,et al., Comput. Phys. Com- mun.248, 107042 (2020)

    2020

  3. [13]

    Onida, L

    G. Onida, L. Reining, and A. Rubio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 601 (2002)

    2002

  4. [14]

    J. Ma, A. S. Nissimagoudar, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. B 97, 045201 (2018)

    2018

  5. [15]

    Ponce, E

    S. Ponce, E. R. Margine, and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. B 97, 121201 (2018)

    2018

  6. [16]

    Ponce, D

    S. Ponce, D. Jena, and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 096602 (2019)

    2019

  7. [18]

    Lazzeri, C

    M. Lazzeri, C. Attaccalite, L. Wirtz, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. B78, 081406 (2008)

    2008

  8. [19]

    Gr¨ uneis, J

    A. Gr¨ uneis, J. Serrano, A. Bosak, M. Lazzeri, S. L. Molodtsov, L. Wirtz, C. Attaccalite, M. Krisch, A. Ru- bio, F. Mauri,et al., Phys. Rev. B80, 085423 (2009)

    2009

  9. [20]

    Faber, J

    C. Faber, J. L. Janssen, M. Cˆ ot´ e, E. Runge, and X. Blase, Phys. Rev. B84, 155104 (2011)

    2011

  10. [21]

    Z. Yin, A. Kutepov, and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. X3, 021011 (2013)

    2013

  11. [22]

    Mandal, R

    S. Mandal, R. E. Cohen, and K. Haule, Phys. Rev. B89, 220502 (2014)

    2014

  12. [23]

    Monserrat, Phys

    B. Monserrat, Phys. Rev. B93, 100301 (2016)

    2016

  13. [24]

    Faber, P

    C. Faber, P. Boulanger, C. Attaccalite, E. Cannuccia, I. Duchemin, T. Deutsch, and X. Blase, Phys. Rev. B 91, 155109 (2015)

    2015

  14. [25]

    Baroni, S

    S. Baroni, S. De Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Gian- nozzi, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 515 (2001)

    2001

  15. [26]

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

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

    2014

  16. [27]

    Antonius, S

    G. Antonius, S. Ponce, P. Boulanger, M. Cote, and X. Gonze, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 215501 (2014)

    2014

  17. [28]

    Golze, M

    D. Golze, M. Dvorak, and P. Rinke, Frontiers in chem- istry7, 377 (2019)

    2019

  18. [29]

    See Supplemental Material [url] for the Supplemental Methods, Supplemental Tables S1–S10, and Supplemen- tal Figures S1–S6, which includes Refs. [57–70]

  19. [30]

    Z. Li, G. Antonius, Y.-H. Chan, and S. G. Louie, Com- put. Phys. Commun.295, 109003 (2024)

    2024

  20. [31]

    S. M. Sze,Semiconductor devices: physics and technology (John wiley & sons, 2008)

    2008

  21. [34]

    Pernot, C

    J. Pernot, C. Tavares, E. Gheeraert, E. Bustarret, M. Katagiri, and S. Koizumi, Appl. Phys. Lett.89 (2006)

    2006

  22. [35]

    Nelson, F

    W. Nelson, F. Halden, and A. Rosengreen, J. Appl. Phys. 37, 333 (1966)

    1966

  23. [36]

    Jacoboni, C

    C. Jacoboni, C. Canali, G. Ottaviani, and A. A. Quar- anta, Solid-State Electron.20, 77 (1977)

    1977

  24. [37]

    Norton, T

    P. Norton, T. Braggins, and H. Levinstein, Phys. Rev. B 8, 5632 (1973)

    1973

  25. [45]

    Mnatsakanov, L

    T. Mnatsakanov, L. Pomortseva, and S. Yurkov, Semi- conductors35, 394 (2001)

    2001

  26. [46]

    Bhatnagar and B

    M. Bhatnagar and B. Baliga, IEEE Trans. Electron De- vices40, 645 (1993)

    1993

  27. [47]

    V. S. Vavilov and E. A. Konorova, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 19, 301 (1976)

    1976

  28. [51]

    F. Nava, C. Canali, C. Jacoboni, L. Reggiani, and S. Ko- zlov, Solid State Commun.33, 475 (1980)

    1980

  29. [53]

    Leveillee, X

    J. Leveillee, X. Zhang, E. Kioupakis, and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. B107, 125207 (2023)

    2023

  30. [54]

    As discussed in Ref

    The experimental measurements of diamond in particu- lar exhibit a large spread. As discussed in Ref. 34, most transport measurements are for photo-induced free carri- ers that probe non-equilibrium transport. This accounts for the higher mobility values reported in those meas...

  31. [55]

    Many-body first principles cal- culations of carrier mobility with record accuracy

    N. Pant, S. Tiwari, S. G. Louie, Z. Li, and F. Giustino, Supporting data for “Many-body first principles cal- culations of carrier mobility with record accuracy” 8 (https://doi.org/10.24435/materialscloud:bm-0c), Mate- rials Cloud Archive (2025)

    2025 doi

  32. [56]

    N. Pant, Z. Li, and F. Giustino, The software patch for the codes used in this work is avail- able at https://gitlab.com/giustino/cqme-codes/- /tree/main/2026-Pant-GWBTE, GitLab (2026)

    2026

  33. [57]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni,et al., J. Phys. Condens. Mat- ter29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  34. [60]

    M. J. Van Setten, M. Giantomassi, E. Bousquet, M. J. Verstraete, D. R. Hamann, X. Gonze, and G.-M. Rig- nanese, Comput. Phys. Commun.226, 39 (2018)

    2018

  35. [64]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. Geranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. Ibanez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponce, T. Pon- weiser, J...

    2020

  36. [65]

    Tiwari, B

    S. Tiwari, B. Cucco, V.-A. Ha, and F. Giustino, npj Com- put. Mater. (2026)

    2026

  37. [68]

    Deslippe, G

    J. Deslippe, G. Samsonidze, D. A. Strubbe, M. Jain, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1269 (2012)

    2012

  38. [69]

    Ponce, E

    S. Ponce, E. R. Margine, C. Verdi, and F. Giustino, Com- put. Phys. Commun.209, 116 (2016)

    2016

  39. [70]

    Stillman, C

    G. Stillman, C. Wolfe, and J. Dimmock, J. Phys. Chem. Solids31, 1199 (1970). Supplemental materials First-principles predictions of carrier mobility with record accuracy using GW perturbation theory Nick Pant,1, 2 Sabyasachi Tiwari,1, 2 Steven G. Louie, 3, 4 Zhenglu Li, 5 and ...

    1970

  40. [71]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. B. Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni,et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter29, 465901 (2017)

    2017

  41. [72]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Baseggio, P. Bonf` a, D. Brunato, R. Car, I. Carnimeo, C. Cavazzoni, S. De Gironcoli, P. Delugas, F. Ferrari Ruffino,et al., J. Chem. Phys.152(2020)

    2020

  42. [73]

    Hamann, Phys

    D. Hamann, Phys. Rev. B88, 085117 (2013)

    2013

  43. [74]

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

    2018

  44. [75]

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

    1996

  45. [76]

    D. M. Ceperley and B. J. Alder, Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 566 (1980)

    1980

  46. [77]

    J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B23, 5048 (1981)

    1981

  47. [78]

    Baroni, S

    S. Baroni, S. De Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Giannozzi, Rev. Mod. Phys.73, 515 (2001)

    2001

  48. [79]

    Pizzi, V

    G. Pizzi, V. Vitale, R. Arita, S. Bl¨ ugel, F. Freimuth, G. Geranton, M. Gibertini, D. Gresch, C. Johnson, T. Koretsune, J. Ibanez-Azpiroz, H. Lee, J.-M. Lihm, D. Marchand, A. Marrazzo, Y. Mokrousov, J. I. Mustafa, Y. Nohara, Y. Nomura, L. Paulatto, S. Ponce, T. Ponweiser, J. ...

    2020

  49. [80]

    H. Lee, S. Ponce, K. Bushick, S. Hajinazar, J. Lafuente-Bartolome, J. Leveillee, C. Lian, J.-M. Lihm, F. Macheda, H. Mori, et al., npj Comput. Mater.9, 156 (2023)

    2023

  50. [81]

    Tiwari, B

    S. Tiwari, B. Cucco, V.-A. Ha, and F. Giustino, npj Comput. Mater. (2026)

    2026

  51. [82]

    Verdi and F

    C. Verdi and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 176401 (2015)

    2015

  52. [83]

    Brunin, H

    G. Brunin, H. P. C. Miranda, M. Giantomassi, M. Royo, M. Stengel, M. J. Verstraete, X. Gonze, G.-M. Rignanese, and G. Hautier, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 136601 (2020)

    2020

  53. [84]

    Gonze, B

    X. Gonze, B. Amadon, G. Antonius, F. Arnardi, L. Baguet, J.-M. Beuken, J. Bieder, F. Bottin, J. Bouchet, E. Bousquet, et al., Comput. Phys. Commun.248, 107042 (2020)

    2020

  54. [85]

    Zhu, C.-E

    Z. Zhu, C.-E. Hsu, B. Zhang, Z. Zheng, M. Del Ben, A. M. Alvertis, H.-C. Hsueh, and Z. Li, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.12479 (2025)

    2025

  55. [86]

    X. Wang, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B74, 195118 (2006)

    2006

  56. [87]

    Deslippe, G

    J. Deslippe, G. Samsonidze, D. A. Strubbe, M. Jain, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Comput. Phys. Commun.183, 1269 (2012)

    2012

  57. [88]

    M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B34, 5390 (1986)

    1986

  58. [89]

    Reining, Wiley Interdiscip

    L. Reining, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci.8, e1344 (2018)

    2018

  59. [90]

    Golze, M

    D. Golze, M. Dvorak, and P. Rinke, Frontiers in chemistry7, 377 (2019)

    2019

  60. [91]

    Z. Li, G. Antonius, M. Wu, F. H. Da Jornada, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 186402 (2019)

    2019

  61. [92]

    Z. Li, G. Antonius, Y.-H. Chan, and S. G. Louie, Comput. Phys. Commun.295, 109003 (2024)

    2024

  62. [93]

    Faber, P

    C. Faber, P. Boulanger, C. Attaccalite, E. Cannuccia, I. Duchemin, T. Deutsch, and X. Blase, Phys. Rev. B91, 155109 (2015)

    2015

  63. [94]

    Zhang, D

    B. Zhang, D. Weinberg, C.-E. Hsu, A. R. Altman, Y. Shi, J. B. White III, D. Vigil-Fowler, S. G. Louie, J. R. Deslippe, F. H. da Jornada,et al., inProc. Int. Conf. High Perform. Comput. Netw. Storage Anal. SC(2025) pp. 48–59

    2025

  64. [95]

    Ponce, E

    S. Ponce, E. R. Margine, C. Verdi, and F. Giustino, Comput. Phys. Commun.209, 116 (2016)

    2016

  65. [96]

    Ponce, F

    S. Ponce, F. Macheda, E. R. Margine, N. Marzari, N. Bonini, and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. Research3, 043022 (2021)

    2021

  66. [97]

    G. K. Madsen and D. J. Singh, Comput. Phys. Commun.175, 67 (2006)

    2006

  67. [98]

    W. M. Haynes,CRC handbook of chemistry and physics, 101 edition(CRC press, 2020)

    2020

  68. [99]

    Nelson, F

    W. Nelson, F. Halden, and A. Rosengreen, J. Appl. Phys.37, 333 (1966)

    1966

  69. [100]

    S. M. Sze,Semiconductor devices: physics and technology(John wiley & sons, 2008)

    2008

  70. [101]

    Pernot, C

    J. Pernot, C. Tavares, E. Gheeraert, E. Bustarret, M. Katagiri, and S. Koizumi, Appl. Phys. Lett.89(2006)

    2006

  71. [102]

    Hicks and D

    H. Hicks and D. Manley, Solid State Commun.7, 1463 (1969)

    1969

  72. [103]

    Miyauchi, H

    T. Miyauchi, H. Sonomura, and N. Yamamoto, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.6, 1409 (1967)

    1967

  73. [104]

    Shinohara, M

    M. Shinohara, M. Yamanaka, H. Daimon, E. Sakuma, H. Okumura, S. Misawa, K. Endo, and S. Yoshida, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.27, L434 (1988)

    1988

  74. [105]

    Ludwig and R

    G. Ludwig and R. Watters, Physical Review101, 1699 (1956)

    1956

  75. [106]

    Jacoboni, C

    C. Jacoboni, C. Canali, G. Ottaviani, and A. A. Quaranta, Solid-State Electron.20, 77 (1977)

    1977

  76. [107]

    Norton, T

    P. Norton, T. Braggins, and H. Levinstein, Phys. Rev. B8, 5632 (1973)

    1973

  77. [108]

    Jansen, D

    H. Jansen, D. Dobos, T. Eisel, H. Pernegger, V. Eremin, and N. Wermes, J. Appl. Phys.113(2013)

    2013

  78. [109]

    Gabrysch, S

    M. Gabrysch, S. Majdi, D. J. Twitchen, and J. Isberg, J. Appl. Phys.109(2011)

    2011

  79. [110]

    A. G. Redfield, Physical Review94, 526 (1954)

    1954

  80. [111]

    Stillman, C

    G. Stillman, C. Wolfe, and J. Dimmock, J. Phys. Chem. Solids31, 1199 (1970)

    1970

  81. [112]

    Rode and S

    D. Rode and S. Knight, Phys. Rev. B3, 2534 (1971)

    1971

  82. [113]

    Rohatgi, Webplotdigitizer

    A. Rohatgi, Webplotdigitizer

  83. [114]

    Stanley, M

    C. Stanley, M. Holland, A. Kean, J. Chamberlain, R. Grimes, and M. Stanaway, J. Cryst. Growth111, 14 (1991)

    1991

  84. [115]

    Lin, Y.-W

    L.-Y. Lin, Y.-W. Lin, X.-R. Zhong, Y.-Y. Zhang, and H.-L. Li, J. Cryst. Growth56, 344 (1982)

    1982

  85. [116]

    Madelung,Semiconductors: data handbook(Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    O. Madelung,Semiconductors: data handbook(Springer Science & Business Media, 2004)

    2004

  86. [117]

    F. Nava, C. Canali, C. Jacoboni, L. Reggiani, and S. Kozlov, Solid State Commun.33, 475 (1980). 23

    1980

  87. [118]

    Nesladek, A

    M. Nesladek, A. Bogdan, W. Deferme, N. Tranchant, and P. Bergonzo, Diam. Relat. Mater.17, 1235 (2008)

    2008

  88. [119]

    Bhatnagar and B

    M. Bhatnagar and B. Baliga, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices40, 645 (1993)

    1993

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.