Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 72 references

Complete Raman Tensor Determination in Birefringent $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ by Single-Stage Hyperspectral Analysis of Polarization Angle-Resolved Raman Spectra

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single hyperspectral fit separates all 15 Raman-active modes of β-Ga2O3, including previously overlapped pairs.

desk verdict A solid methodological advance: single-stage hyperspectral fitting separates overlapping Raman modes in birefringent β-Ga2O3 and delivers first experimental tensor elements for B_g(3)/B_g(4), but the numbers need uncertainty quantification and a sensitivity check. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21045 v1 pith:YPB6PEPR submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Hans Tornatzky , Jonas Rose , Moritz Mei{ss}ner , Benjamin M. Janzen , Zbigniew Galazka , Juan Sebastián Reparaz , Manfred E. Ramsteiner , Markus R. Wagner This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords Ramanspectroscopypolarizationangle-resolvedbirefringenceβ-Ga2O3monocliniccrystaltensorphononmodeshyperspectralfitting
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 aims to prove that quantitative Raman tensor extraction is feasible in strongly birefringent, low-symmetry crystals if the polarization-angle-resolved data are treated as one coherent block rather than as a series of independent spectra. The authors measure Raman scattering on four crystal planes of β-Ga2O3 while rotating the light polarization, and fit the full hyperspectral dataset in a single stage using a model that carries the birefringence corrections inside the angle-dependent selection rules. They report that this yields the energies and relative Raman tensor elements of all 15 Raman-active modes, including the three pairs—A_g(5)/B_g(3), A_g(7)/B_g(4), and B_g(5)/A_g(9)—whose members are too close in energy for the spectrometer to resolve individually. A reliable complete tensor set matters because β-Ga2O3 is a leading candidate for next-generation power electronics, and its monoclinic anisotropy has previously made quantitative Raman analysis seem impractical.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a single-stage hyperspectral fit function that models, for each scattering geometry, the Raman intensity as a sum over modes of a Lorentzian line shape multiplied by an angle-dependent selection-rule profile, plus a background. Each profile is computed from a birefringence-corrected effective Raman tensor built by transforming Raman and dielectric tensors into the crystal-surface coordinate system and applying Fresnel transmission, internal eigenpolarization mixing, collection-cone solid-angle, and dipole-scattering prefactor corrections. Because A_g and B_g profiles have different functional dependences on the polarization angle—sin^4/cos^4 combinations versus sin^2(2φ)/cos

What would settle it

Generate simulated hyperspectral PARRS data for β-Ga2O3 with known tensor elements and the reported spectral resolution and noise, run the same single-stage fit, and check whether the B_g(3)/B_g(4) elements are recovered without bias. Alternatively, measure the three critical mode pairs on an additional crystal plane, such as the (110) plane, or at a second laser wavelength, where the birefringence corrections change; if the extracted tensor elements drift significantly, the result is model-dependent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the full Raman response of monoclinic β-Ga2O3 can be inverted from polarization angle-resolved Raman spectra once birefringence is built into the model: all ten A_g and five B_g modes are individually resolved and assigned energies, linewidths, and relative Raman tensor elements in a self-consistent fit across the (100), (010), (001), and (2̄01) planes. The decisive advantage over the standard two-step workflow—fit each spectrum, then fit the extracted peak intensities—is that overlapping peaks beyond the spectral resolution are separable because each symmetry class is forced to follow a distinct, theoretically predicted angle profile. As a byproduct, the multi-plan

Load-bearing premise

The separation of the overlapped A_g/B_g mode pairs rests on the assumption that the polarization-angle profiles computed from the birefringence model—using dielectric-tensor values provided to the authors privately—are accurate enough that the fit can correctly divide intensity between two peaks the spectrometer cannot resolve on its own.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The energies and relative Raman tensor elements of all 15 Raman-active phonon modes of β-Ga2O3 are now determined experimentally, including B_g(3) and B_g(4), which previously had no measured values.
  • The single-stage hyperspectral fitting strategy is offered as a route for other birefringent or low-symmetry crystals where peak overlap has prevented quantitative Raman tensor analysis.
  • For the four planes studied, the relative signs of the tensor elements in the (a,b,d) and (e,f) groups are fixed by the data rather than by convention; only the sign of c remains undetermined.
  • The resulting tensor set provides a complete benchmark for density-functional-theory calculations of the Raman response of β-Ga2O3.
  • The reported agreement with earlier experimental and theoretical values for isolated modes indicates that the method reproduces known results while correcting those affected by overlap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strongest model dependence lies in the three unresolved pairs: if the dielectric tensor or the birefringence corrections are slightly off, the fit can trade intensity between the overlapping A_g and B_g peaks, so the newly reported B_g(3) and B_g(4) tensor values should be treated as model-dependent until independently validated.
  • A natural validation is a synthetic-data recovery test: simulate PARRS hyperspectral data with known tensor elements and the same noise level, run the single-stage fit, and measure the bias in the overlapped modes; this would quantify identifiability.
  • Repeating the measurements at a second excitation wavelength, where the dielectric tensor and birefringence change, would alter the angular profiles and provide an independent check that the separated modes are genuine rather than fitting artifacts.
  • The same framework could be extended to extract strain or temperature dependence of Raman tensors, since it already resolves overlapping peaks that per-spectrum fitting cannot.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a single-stage hyperspectral fitting procedure for polarization angle-resolved Raman spectra (PARRS) of birefringent β-Ga2O3. The model explicitly accounts for birefringence using the Kranert approach (Eqs. 4-8) with a dielectric tensor taken from private communication (Eq. 2). Measurements on (100), (010), (001), and (2̄01) planes are combined to extract the energies and relative Raman tensor elements of all 15 Raman-active modes, including previously unresolved overlapping pairs A_g(5)/B_g(3), A_g(7)/B_g(4), and B_g(5)/A_g(9). The central claim is full spectral separation and quantitative determination of all tensor elements, with relative signs within the (a,b,d) and (e,f) groups, though the sign of c is not determined.

Significance. If the method is robust, it provides a significant advance in quantitative Raman spectroscopy of optically anisotropic materials, addressing a problem that has been considered 'pointless' by some earlier work. The explicit inclusion of Fresnel and solid-angle corrections in a global fit to hyperspectral data, rather than fitting each spectrum individually, is a valuable contribution. The residual plots suggest good agreement between model and data. However, the central quantitative output—the tensor elements in Table I—is reported without uncertainties, and no identifiability or sensitivity analysis is provided. The reliance on a privately communicated dielectric tensor and the unresolved sign of c further temper the claim of a 'complete' determination.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Table I] The central output—the relative Raman tensor elements a, b, c, d, e, f for all 15 modes in Table I—is reported without any uncertainties. This is particularly concerning for the overlapping pairs A_g(5)/B_g(3), A_g(7)/B_g(4), and B_g(5)/A_g(9), where the fit must separate modes separated by as little as 1.0 cm^-1. No confidence intervals, bootstrap results, or parameter-correlation analysis are provided. Without these, the reader cannot judge whether the reported values are statistically meaningful or whether the fit can trade intensity between overlapping modes. Please provide uncertainties (e.g., from the covariance matrix or a bootstrap) and discuss their implications.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (2), (6)-(7)] The quantitative separation of overlapping modes rests on the theoretical PARRS profiles from the Kranert model, which depend on the dielectric tensor of Eq. (2). This tensor is from private communication (Ref. [65]) and is given without stated uncertainties. The Fresnel and solid-angle corrections in Eqs. (6)-(7) also depend on this tensor. No sensitivity analysis is shown: it is not demonstrated how the fitted tensor elements change when ε is varied within a plausible range or when model approximations are modified. This is load-bearing because a small model error could trade intensity between overlapping A_g and B_g modes. Please add a sensitivity analysis, or fit the dielectric tensor components as free parameters if the data constrain them.
  3. [Abstract/Table I and Sec. III] The title and abstract claim 'complete Raman tensor determination,' yet the sign of the c tensor element is not determined (Sec. III: 'Solely the element c enters quadratically'). The paper suggests a (110) plane would link c to the other elements, but such a measurement is not reported. Thus the claim of completeness is overstated. Either modify the claim to 'magnitudes and relative signs within the (a,b,d) and (e,f) groups' or include a measurement that resolves the sign of c.
  4. [Sec. III] The statement that the newly determined B_g(3) and B_g(4) tensor elements are 'in good agreement with the values predicted by theory [42]' is not quantified. Please provide a numerical comparison with the theoretical values and define what 'good agreement' means (e.g., within a certain percentage). This is important because these modes are the main new experimental result and the only validation offered for the separation method.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III] The statement 'The error of the phonon energies can be considered well below the spectral resolution of 0.5 cm^-1' lacks justification from the fit residuals or a covariance analysis. Please provide a quantitative error estimate.
  2. [Sec. II and Data Availability] The analysis used a non-public alpha version of peak-o-mat2; for reproducibility, consider providing the fit model definition, representative data, and a version-controlled script, or at least a detailed pseudocode of the single-stage fitting procedure.
  3. [Fig. 3 and SI] The contour plots are informative, but the color scale uses the square root of intensity while the residual plots use a linear scale, which can obscure systematic deviations in low-intensity regions. Consider presenting residuals with the same transformation for direct comparability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: tensor elements are fitted outputs, model and dielectric tensor are external inputs, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Raman tensor elements in Table I are fitted outputs; the paper does not define them a priori or use the target quantities as fitting constraints. The angle-dependent PARRS profiles are taken from the external Kranert birefringence model (Eqs. 4-8, Refs. [30,42]), and the dielectric tensor (Eq. 2) is an external input from Ref. [13] and private communication Ref. [65], not derived from the present measurements or from the same authors' prior results. The claimed separation of overlapping A_g/B_g pairs follows from fitting Lorentzian lineshapes multiplied by these theoretical profiles; even if model misspecification or lack of identifiability analysis could bias the fit, that is a robustness concern, not circularity. The sign of c is explicitly left undetermined, and fixing a and e positive is a stated normalization. Self-citations ([39], [40], [45], [51]) are used only for comparison of values or coordinate-system conventions and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force the central conclusion. Therefore no circular step reduces the prediction to its inputs.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central measurement depends on the prior birefringence model, the externally supplied dielectric tensor, and a global fit with many unconstrained parameters; the lack of uncertainty reporting is the main ledger concern.

free parameters (4)
  • Relative Raman tensor elements (a,b,c,d,e,f) for all 15 modes = Table I, normalized to a=1000 for A_g(10)
    These are the paper's central outputs but are obtained as free parameters of the hyperspectral fit; without independent constraints or error bars they are fitted results, not externally anchored values.
  • Lorentzian peak parameters (energy and FWHM per mode) = Energies in Table I; FWHM values not tabulated
    Line positions and widths are fit outputs of the same global fit; the line positions agree with literature but no fit uncertainties are given.
  • Per-scattering-geometry intensity scaling factors s_sg = Approximately 1
    Introduced in the fit function to account for focus and surface-roughness differences between geometries; these are additional fitted degrees of freedom.
  • Background functions B_sg(omega, phi) = Functional form and number of parameters not specified
    The fit includes per-geometry background terms; their parameterization is not given, making the total number of fitted degrees of freedom difficult to audit.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math C2h point-group decomposition Gamma = 10 A_g + 5 B_g (Raman-active) and the tensor forms of Eq. (1).
    Standard group-theoretical result used to parameterize all Raman modes.
  • domain assumption Kranert birefringence model: I proportional to sum_i |e_s R_i e_i|^2 (Eq. 4) with correction factors T, rho, Z (Eqs. 6-7).
    The entire PARRS profile computation rests on this prior model; any inaccuracy propagates directly into the fitted tensor elements.
  • domain assumption Dielectric tensor eigenvalues at 632.8 nm (Eq. 2) taken from private communication (Ref. 65).
    Used for all coordinate transformations and birefringence corrections; not independently measured or verified within this paper.
  • domain assumption Lorentzian line shape for every phonon mode across all angles and spectra.
    The fit function multiplies Lorentzians by PARRS profiles; deviations from Lorentzian lineshapes would map into intensity and tensor-element errors.
  • ad hoc to paper Overlapping modes are separated uniquely by imposing their theoretical angle-dependent profiles.
    For the overlapping pairs A_g(5)/B_g(3), A_g(7)/B_g(4), and B_g(5)/A_g(9), separation relies on the model profiles; no identifiability or uniqueness proof is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Complete Raman Tensor Determination in Birefringent $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ by Single-Stage Hyperspectral Analysis of Polarization Angle-Resolved Raman Spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YPB6PEPR

@misc{pith2026260721045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Complete Raman Tensor Determination in Birefringent $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ by Single-Stage Hyperspectral Analysis of Polarization Angle-Resolved Raman Spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YPB6PEPR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21045}
}
abstract

The low symmetry of the monoclinic phase of Ga$_2$O$_3$ leads to pronounced optical anisotropy and, consequently, to birefringence, which strongly affects the Raman response. Because Raman scattering is fundamentally sensitive to the polarizability of a material, this anisotropy must be carefully accounted for in order to extract quantitative information - an effort that has only recently been shown to be feasible in such media. Here, we report Raman measurements from all three principal crystal planes $(100)$, $(010)$, and $(001)$, as well as from the $(\overline{2}01)$-plane of a $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ single crystal. By combining polarization angle-resolved Raman spectroscopy (PARRS) with a newly developed fitting procedure and explicitly accounting for birefringence, we achieve full spectral separation and quantitatively determine the energies and relative Raman tensor elements of all 15 Raman-active modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21045 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. a) Unit cell of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Contour plot of the polarization dependent Raman [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

72 extracted references

  1. [65]

    Sturm (Universit¨ at Leipzig), Private communication

    C. Sturm (Universit¨ at Leipzig), Private communication

  2. [42]

    Kranert, C

    C. Kranert, C. Sturm, R. Schmidt-Grund, and M. Grund- mann, Sci. Rep.6, 35964 (2016)

    2016

  3. [1]

    S. J. Pearton, J. Yang, P. H. Cary, F. Ren, J. Kim, M. J. Tadjer, and M. A. Mastro, Appl. Phys. Rev.5, 011301 (2018)

    2018

  4. [2]

    S. J. Pearton, F. Ren, M. Tadjer, and J. Kim, J. Appl. Phys.124, 220901 (2018)

    2018

  5. [3]

    Higashiwaki, K

    M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, A. Kuramata, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi, Phys. Status Solidi A211, 21 (2014)

    2014

  6. [4]

    Higashiwaki, K

    M. Higashiwaki, K. Sasaki, A. Kuramata, T. Masui, and S. Yamakoshi, Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 013504 (2012)

    2012

  7. [5]

    Higashiwaki, A

    M. Higashiwaki, A. Kuramata, H. Murakami, and Y. Ku- magai, J. Phys. D. Appl. Phys.50, 333002 (2017)

    2017

  8. [6]

    Kokubun, K

    Y. Kokubun, K. Miura, F. Endo, and S. Nakagomi, Appl. Phys. Lett.90, 031912 (2007)

    2007

Show all 72 references
  1. [7]

    Oshima, T

    T. Oshima, T. Okuno, N. Arai, N. Suzuki, S. Ohira, and S. Fujita, Appl. Phys. Express1, 011202 (2008)

    2008

  2. [8]

    A. J. Green, J. Speck, G. Xing, P. Moens, F. Allerstam, K. Gumaelius, T. Neyer, A. Arias-Purdue, V. Mehro- tra, A. Kuramata, K. Sasaki, S. Watanabe, K. Koshi, J. Blevins, O. Bierwagen, S. Krishnamoorthy, K. Leedy, A. R. Arehart, A. T. Neal, S. Mou, S. A. Ringel, A. Kumar, A. S...

    2022

  3. [9]

    Matsumoto, M

    T. Matsumoto, M. Aoki, A. Kinoshita, and T. Aono, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.13, 1578 (1974)

    1974

  4. [10]

    N. Ueda, H. Hosono, R. Waseda, and H. Kawazoe, Appl. Phys. Lett.71, 933 (1997)

    1997

  5. [11]

    Yamaguchi, Solid State Commun.131, 739 (2004)

    K. Yamaguchi, Solid State Commun.131, 739 (2004)

    2004

  6. [12]

    Onuma, S

    T. Onuma, S. Saito, K. Sasaki, T. Masui, T. Yamaguchi, T. Honda, and M. Higashiwaki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.54, 112601 (2015)

    2015

  7. [13]

    Sturm, J

    C. Sturm, J. Furthm¨ uller, F. Bechstedt, R. Schmidt- Grund, and M. Grundmann, APL Materials3, 0 (2015)

    2015

  8. [14]

    J. B. Varley and A. Schleife, Semicond. Sci. Technol.30, 024010 (2015)

    2015

  9. [15]

    Furthm¨ uller and F

    J. Furthm¨ uller and F. Bechstedt, Phys. Rev. B93, 115204 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    Onuma, S

    T. Onuma, S. Saito, K. Sasaki, T. Masui, T. Yamaguchi, T. Honda, A. Kuramata, and M. Higashiwaki, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.55(2016)

    2016

  11. [17]

    Ricci, F

    F. Ricci, F. Boschi, A. Baraldi, A. Filippetti, M. Hi- gashiwaki, A. Kuramata, V. Fiorentini, and R. Fornari, J. Phys. Condens. Matter28, 224005 (2016)

    2016

  12. [18]

    Sturm and M

    C. Sturm and M. Grundmann, Phys. Rev. A93, 053839 (2016)

    2016

  13. [19]

    A. Mock, R. Korlacki, C. Briley, V. Darakchieva, B. Mon- emar, Y. Kumagai, K. Goto, M. Higashiwaki, and M. Schubert, Phys. Rev. B96, 245205 (2017)

    2017

  14. [20]

    Ratnaparkhe and W

    A. Ratnaparkhe and W. R. L. Lambrecht, Appl. Phys. Lett.110, 132103 (2017)

    2017

  15. [21]

    Gopalan, S

    P. Gopalan, S. Knight, A. Chanana, M. Stokey, P. Ranga, M. A. Scarpulla, S. Krishnamoorthy, V. Darakchieva, Z. Galazka, K. Irmscher, A. Fiedler, S. Blair, M. Schu- bert, and B. Sensale-Rodriguez, Appl. Phys. Lett.117 (2020)

    2020

  16. [22]

    J. B. Cho, G. Jung, K. Kim, J. Kim, S. K. Hong, J. H. Song, and J. I. Jang, J. Phys. Chem. C125, 1432 (2021)

    2021

  17. [23]

    Zhang, I

    N. Zhang, I. M. Kislyakov, C. Xia, H. Qi, J. Wang, and H. F. Mohamed, Opt. Express29, 18587 (2021)

    2021

  18. [24]

    Meißner, N

    M. Meißner, N. Bernhardt, F. Nippert, B. M. Janzen, Z. Galazka, and M. R. Wagner, Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 152102 (2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    Grundmann, C

    M. Grundmann, C. Sturm, C. Kranert, S. Richter, R. Schmidt-Grund, C. Deparis, and J. Z´ u˜ niga-P´ erez, Phys. status solidi - Rapid Res. Lett.11, 1600295 (2016)

    2016

  20. [26]

    Onuma, S

    T. Onuma, S. Saito, K. Sasaki, K. Goto, T. Masui, T. Ya- maguchi, T. Honda, A. Kuramata, and M. Higashiwaki, Appl. Phys. Lett.108, 101904 (2016)

    2016

  21. [27]

    Schubert, R

    M. Schubert, R. Korlacki, S. Knight, T. Hofmann, S. Sch¨ oche, V. Darakchieva, E. Janz´ en, B. Monemar, D. Gogova, Q.-T. Thieu, R. Togashi, H. Murakami, Y. Kumagai, K. Goto, A. Kuramata, S. Yamakoshi, and M. Higashiwaki, Phys. Rev. B93, 125209 (2016)

    2016

  22. [28]

    Sturm, R

    C. Sturm, R. Schmidt-Grund, C. Kranert, J. Furthm¨ uller, F. Bechstedt, and M. Grundmann, Phys. Rev. B94, 035148 (2016)

    2016

  23. [29]

    J. A. Spencer, A. L. Mock, A. G. Jacobs, M. Schubert, Y. Zhang, and M. J. Tadjer, Appl. Phys. Rev.9(2022)

    2022

  24. [30]

    Kranert, C

    C. Kranert, C. Sturm, R. Schmidt-Grund, and M. Grund- mann, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 127401 (2016)

    2016

  25. [31]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Xu, J. Zhao, H. Wang, J. Hao, S. Zhang, H. Cheng, and B. Dong, Appl. Surf. Sci.581, 152426 (2022)

    2022

  26. [32]

    von Wenckstern, Adv

    H. von Wenckstern, Adv. Electron. Mater.3, 1600350 (2017)

    2017

  27. [33]

    Parisini, K

    A. Parisini, K. Ghosh, U. Singisetti, and R. Fornari, Semicond. Sci. Technol.33, 105008 (2018)

    2018

  28. [34]

    Ghosh and U

    K. Ghosh and U. Singisetti, Appl. Phys. Lett.109(2016)

    2016

  29. [35]

    Villora, Y

    E. Villora, Y. Morioka, T. Atou, T. Sugawara, M. Kikuchi, and T. Fukuda, Phys. Status Solidi A193, 187 (2002). 7

    2002

  30. [36]

    D. C. Look and K. D. Leedy, Sci. Rep.9, 1290 (2019)

    2019

  31. [37]

    J. R. Ritter, K. G. Lynn, and M. D. McCluskey, J. Appl. Phys.126, 225705 (2019)

    2019

  32. [38]

    K. A. Mengle and E. Kioupakis, AIP Adv.9, 015313 (2019)

    2019

  33. [39]

    B. M. Janzen, R. Gillen, Z. Galazka, J. Maultzsch, and M. R. Wagner, Phys. Rev. Mater.6, 054601 (2022)

    2022

  34. [40]

    B. M. Janzen, P. Mazzolini, R. Gillen, A. Falkenstein, M. Martin, H. Tornatzky, J. Maultzsch, O. Bierwagen, and M. R. Wagner, J. Mater. Chem. C9, 2311 (2021)

    2021

  35. [41]

    D. Dohy, G. Lucazeau, and A. Revcolevschi, J. Solid State Chem.45, 180 (1982)

    1982

  36. [43]

    B. Liu, M. Gu, and X. Liu, Appl. Phys. Lett.91, 172102 (2007)

    2007

  37. [44]

    Grundmann, C

    M. Grundmann, C. Sturm, C. Kranert, S. Richter, R. Schmidt-Grund, C. Deparis, and J. Z´ u˜ niga-P´ erez, Phys. Status Solidi Rapid Res. Lett.11, 1600295 (2017)

    2017

  38. [45]

    K. Xu, S. Zhao, L. S.-M. Choi, N. Bernhardt, P. Emte- nani, M. Meißner, H. Tornatzky, O. Bierwagen, P. Maz- zolini, R. Mincigrucci, L. Foglia, D. Fainozzi, F. Ben- civenga, Z. Galazka, G. Fytas, B. Graczykowski, R. Ru- rali, M. Scheffler, C. Carbogno, J. S. Reparaz, and M. R. ...

  39. [46]

    I. R. Beattie and T. R. Gilson, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. Math. Phys. Sci.307, 407 (1968)

    1968

  40. [47]

    Machon, P

    D. Machon, P. F. McMillan, B. Xu, and J. Dong, Phys. Rev. B73, 094125 (2006)

    2006

  41. [48]

    Onuma, S

    T. Onuma, S. Fujioka, T. Yamaguchi, Y. Itoh, M. Hi- gashiwaki, K. Sasaki, T. Masui, and T. Honda, J. Cryst. Growth401, 330 (2014)

    2014

  42. [49]

    Y. Yao, Y. Ishikawa, and Y. Sugawara, J. Appl. Phys. 126, 205106 (2019)

    2019

  43. [50]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Xu, S. Zhang, H. Wang, H. Cheng, J. Hao, J. Wu, and F. Fang, Physica B Condens. Matter600, 412624 (2021)

    2021

  44. [51]

    Seyidov, M

    P. Seyidov, M. Ramsteiner, Z. Galazka, and K. Irmscher, J. Appl. Phys.131, 035707 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    Fiedler, M

    A. Fiedler, M. Ramsteiner, Z. Galazka, and K. Irmscher, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 152107 (2020)

    2020

  46. [53]

    Zhang, Z

    K. Zhang, Z. Xu, J. Zhao, H. Wang, J. Hao, S. Zhang, H. Cheng, and B. Dong, J. Alloys Compd.881, 160665 (2021)

    2021

  47. [54]

    T. Z. Kosc, H. Huang, T. J. Kessler, R. A. Negres, and S. G. Demos, Sci. Rep.10, 16283 (2020)

    2020

  48. [55]

    Sander, S

    T. Sander, S. Eisermann, B. K. Meyer, and P. J. Klar, Phys. Rev. B85, 165208 (2012)

    2012

  49. [56]

    Hildebrandt, C

    R. Hildebrandt, C. Sturm, M. Wieneke, A. Dadgar, and M. Grundmann, Appl. Phys. Lett.119, 121109 (2021)

    2021

  50. [57]

    Galazka, R

    Z. Galazka, R. Uecker, D. Klimm, K. Irmscher, M. Nau- mann, M. Pietsch, A. Kwasniewski, R. Bertram, S. Gan- schow, and M. Bickermann, ECS J. Solid State Sci. Tech- nol.6, Q3007 (2017)

    2017

  51. [58]

    Galazka, S

    Z. Galazka, S. Ganschow, K. Irmscher, D. Klimm, M. Al- brecht, R. Schewski, M. Pietsch, T. Schulz, A. Dittmar, A. Kwasniewski, R. Grueneberg, S. B. Anooz, A. Popp, U. Juda, I. M. Hanke, T. Schroeder, and M. Bickermann, Prog. Cryst. Growth Charact. Mater.67, 100511 (2021)

    2021

  52. [59]

    Galazka, S

    Z. Galazka, S. Ganschow, P. Seyidov, K. Irmscher, M. Pietsch, T.-S. Chou, S. Bin Anooz, R. Grueneberg, A. Popp, A. Dittmar, A. Kwasniewski, M. Suendermann, D. Klimm, T. Straubinger, T. Schroeder, and M. Bicker- mann, Appl. Phys. Lett.120, 152101 (2022)

    2022

  53. [60]

    Galazka, J

    Z. Galazka, J. Appl. Phys.131, 031103 (2022)

    2022

  54. [61]

    Kristokat, peak-o-mat2,https://github.com/ kurisutsukato/peak-o-mat.git(2026), analysis was performed in part with a non-public alpha-version

    C. Kristokat, peak-o-mat2,https://github.com/ kurisutsukato/peak-o-mat.git(2026), analysis was performed in part with a non-public alpha-version

    2026

  55. [62]

    Kristokat, peak-o-mat (2026),https://qceha.net/

    C. Kristokat, peak-o-mat (2026),https://qceha.net/

    2026

  56. [63]

    Momma and F

    K. Momma and F. Izumi, J. Appl. Crystallogr.44, 1272 (2011)

    2011

  57. [64]

    Kroumova, M

    E. Kroumova, M. Aroyo, J. Perez-Mato, A. Kirov, C. Capillas, S. Ivantchev, and H. Wondratschek, Ph. Transit.76, 155 (2003)

    2003

  58. [66]

    See Supplemental Material at [provided by Publisher] for a detailed description of the coordinate systems and their respective transformations as well as the comprehensive set of contour plots, plots of the fitted model function and respective fit residual

  59. [67]

    Hayes and R

    W. Hayes and R. Loudon, Scattering of light by crystals, A Wiley-Interscience publication (Wiley, New York,

  60. [69]

    The lattice parameters area 0 = 12.21 ˚A,b 0 = 3.04 ˚A andc= 5.80 ˚A [58]

    Thecrystallographic coordinate system(a,b,c) is defined by [100]≡a, [010]≡b, and [001]≡cwith a monoclinic angle ofβ=∠(a, c) = 103.8 ◦ between thea- andc-axes. The lattice parameters area 0 = 12.21 ˚A,b 0 = 3.04 ˚A andc= 5.80 ˚A [58]

  61. [70]

    For one definitionx,yandzare chosen such thatx∥[100] andy∥[010], whilezis defined perpendicular to both axes

    Several equivalent orthonormalquasi-crystal coordinate systems(x,y,z) are commonly found in the literature. For one definitionx,yandzare chosen such thatx∥[100] andy∥[010], whilezis defined perpendicular to both axes. Consequently, the angle betweenzand the crystallographicc-a...

  62. [71]

    For a wavelength ofλ= 633 nm it is obtained by a rotation ofα= 2.33 ◦ in thexy-plane followed by an anticyclic permutation ofx,yandz

    In the orthonormalprincipal axis coordinate system(˜x, ˜y, ˜z) are defined by the eigenvectors of the dielectric tensor. For a wavelength ofλ= 633 nm it is obtained by a rotation ofα= 2.33 ◦ in thexy-plane followed by an anticyclic permutation ofx,yandz. Expressed in the above...

  63. [72]

    Each system is defined such thatz ′ p is perpendicular to their respective plane, e

    Finally, foursample coordinate systems(x′ p,y ′ p,z ′ p) withp∈ {a,b,c, 201}are introduced. Each system is defined such thatz ′ p is perpendicular to their respective plane, e. g. ˜z a ⊥(100), which coincides with the direction of light propagation. The axisx ′ p is chosen par...

  64. [1978]

    p. 31. S1 Supplemental material to the article: Complete Raman Tensor Determination in Birefringentβ-Ga2O3 by Single-Stage Hyperspectral Analysis of Polarization Angle-Resolved Raman Spectra A. Conventional coordinate systems inβ-Ga 2O3 To understand the theoretical modeling o...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.