Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Planar hexagonal germanium grows epitaxially on m-plane CdS near 250 °C, with most mismatch strain relieved in a few nanometers before stacking faults erode long-range 2H order.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Epitaxial planar hexagonal Ge forms on m-plane CdS by LEPECVD at ~250 °C, with Raman E2g selection rules and rapid near-interface strain relief, but hexagonal order collapses beyond ~6–12 nm via I3 stacking faults and no Ge photoluminescence is seen.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-31 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid multi-technique demonstration of planar Ge-2H on m-CdS by LEPECVD, with a useful defect map; the main soft spot is that the XRD ~2:1 2H:3C ratio overstates well-ordered hexagonal volume once I3 disorder sets in. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24685 v1 pith:ZBWH67XX submitted 2026-07-27 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Growth and characterization of planar hexagonal Ge on CdS

Andrea Besana , Veronica Regazzoni , Marco Faverzani , Fabrizio Rovaris , Emiliano Bonera , Sonia Freddi , Elisa Brugaletta , Mohamed Zaghloul
show 8 more authors
Fabio Pezzoli Francesco Montalenti Monica Bollani Daniel Chrastina Anna Marzegalli Antonio M. Mio Emilio Scalise Giovanni Isella
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords hexagonal germaniumGe-2HCdS templatem-plane epitaxyLEPECVDstacking faultsstrain relaxationpolarized Raman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Metastable hexagonal (lonsdaleite) germanium is prized for a possibly direct or quasi-direct gap and a large Landé g-factor, but until now it has mostly been locked into nanowire shells that are hard to integrate. This work shows that non-basal m-plane CdS can template continuous planar Ge-2H by low-energy plasma-enhanced CVD when the growth temperature sits near 250 °C: hot enough for adatom mobility, cool enough to avoid a displacement reaction that destroys the interface. STEM shows the expected ABAB stacking next to the interface, XRD finds Ge-2H Bragg peaks with residual strain close to nanowire values, and the E2g Raman mode follows hexagonal polarization selection rules. Strain is dumped quickly by a short list of dislocations—some of which insert thin cubic slabs—while farther out I3 basal stacking faults scramble the hexagonal registry. No clear Ge photoluminescence appears, consistent with a weak pseudo-direct gap and the limited pure-hexagonal thickness. The result positions CdS as a workable planar template and maps the defect ladder that must be tamed if thicker, phase-pure films are to be useful.

Core claim

Epitaxial planar Ge-2H can be stabilized on m-plane CdS by LEPECVD at about 250 °C. Within the first few nanometers the film is predominantly hexagonal; a limited set of misfit dislocations relieves most of the anisotropic ~2–3.6 % mismatch (sometimes inserting localized cubic stacking), after which I3-type stacking-fault disorder progressively destroys long-range 2H order. Polarization-resolved Raman confirms the E2g selection rules of the hexagonal phase, while photoluminescence shows no Ge-related emission.

What carries the argument

m-plane CdS templating of ABAB stacking: the non-basal (1̄100) surface preserves the hexagonal bilayer sequence and kinetically frustrates cubic ABCABC stacking, enabling planar Ge-2H when growth temperature balances adatom mobility against thermochemical Ge–CdS intermixing.

Load-bearing premise

That the Raman band near 287–290 cm⁻¹ is a clean E2g fingerprint of hexagonal Ge, even though the neighboring ~302 cm⁻¹ band mixes hexagonal, cubic, and substrate signals and XRD already finds a substantial cubic volume fraction in thicker films.

What would settle it

A thickness- or process-series experiment that yields a continuous >20 nm film whose XRD hexagonal-to-cubic intensity ratio approaches pure 2H, whose STEM [11̄20] maps show extended ABAB domains free of I3 faults, and whose co-polarized Raman E2g intensity follows the full angular selection rule without residual intensity assignable to cubic Ge or CdS.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • CdS m-plane wafers become a practical planar platform for hexagonal group-IV epitaxy instead of only III–V nanowire cores.
  • Device-relevant Ge-2H layers will be limited to roughly the first 6–12 nm unless growth is retuned to suppress I3 basal stacking faults after plastic relaxation.
  • Strain engineering and dislocation engineering (a-type and dissociated c-component partials) are the primary knobs for residual lattice constants and phase purity.
  • Optical characterization of bulk-like planar Ge-2H still requires thicker, cleaner films before emission can be cleanly separated from CdS sub-gap bands.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If I3 faults are intrinsic to Ge-2H rather than mismatch-driven, alloying (e.g., SiGe-2H) or surfactant-mediated growth may be required even on lattice-matched templates.
  • The same limited dislocation set and cubic-slab insertion pathway may appear in other metastable hexagonal group-IV / II–VI stacks, offering a transferable defect taxonomy.
  • Absence of PL here does not rule out a quasi-direct gap; resonant or cavity-enhanced measurements on sub-10 nm pure-hexagonal slabs could still reveal weak emission once substrate background is removed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports LEPECVD growth of Ge on commercial non-basal m-plane CdS and identifies 250 °C as an intermediate growth window between amorphous deposition at 200 °C and interfacial degradation at 300 °C. HAADF-STEM along two zone axes shows interfacial ABAB stacking, cubic inclusions, and I3-type basal faults; asymmetric RSMs resolve Ge-2H reflections and provide lattice parameters; polarization-resolved Raman spectra show the expected E2g selection rules; and EELS limits appreciable intermixing to about 2 nm. No Ge-related PL is detected. The authors further identify two dislocation families consistent with rapid anisotropic strain relaxation and describe a transition from relatively well-ordered interfacial Ge-2H to stacking-disordered material beyond roughly 6–12 nm.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this is a useful advance toward planar, potentially scalable hexagonal-Ge heterostructures rather than core–shell nanowires. The phase assignment is falsifiable and is supported by several largely independent channels: atomic-resolution stacking along two projections, two asymmetric XRD geometries, polarization selection rules for a spectrally separated E2g mode, and chemical intermixing measurements. The temperature series and defect analysis are also valuable for understanding why hexagonal order is lost with thickness. The concurrent MBE work of Koolen et al. is appropriately acknowledged, so the novelty is primarily the LEPECVD route and the detailed relaxation/defect characterization rather than the first planar Ge/CdS report. The public data availability statement is a further strength.

major comments (1)
  1. [§III.A, Fig. 3(a)] The estimated “roughly 2:1 ratio of 2H and 3C phases” should not be presented as a well-ordered volume fraction without further qualification. It is obtained from one integrated peak pair, while the STEM census of the same sample states that extended 2H domains are nearly absent beyond ~12 nm and that much of the remaining volume is I3-faulted or otherwise stacking disordered. Such faulted material can still contribute intensity near the 2H Bragg position, whereas the 3C peak preferentially counts ordered cubic material. The integration ranges, peak widths, grazing-incidence footprint/absorption corrections, texture effects, and uncertainty are also not reported. Please recast this as an apparent Bragg-intensity ratio, provide the needed corrections and uncertainty, or reconcile it quantitatively with the STEM census. This does not undermine the interfacial Ge-2H identification, but it d
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.A, discussion of Fig. 3(b)] The conversion from the measured (2-310) peak to a_parallel is unclear. The text says a_parallel is obtained through the (-1-120) spacing d_a = a_parallel/2, but the reported values appear to use a_parallel ≈ 1/q_parallel (1/2.5148 = 0.398 nm). Please define the reciprocal-space components and the conversion explicitly.
  2. [§III.C] The statement that the modeled dislocations are “energetically viable” is stronger than the reported tens-of-picoseconds MD stability test. The simulations demonstrate kinetic persistence under the chosen potential and boundary conditions, not relative thermodynamic stability. Please either qualify the wording or provide defect formation/relative energies and a MatterSim benchmark for relevant Ge-2H stacking-fault or dislocation configurations.
  3. [§III.B, Fig. 4] Please state how the spectra in Fig. 4(a) were normalized and how the confidence band in Fig. 4(d) was calculated. It would also help to specify whether the stated ~7.5° azimuthal offset was included as a fitted parameter or fixed after alignment.
  4. [§III.B, Fig. 5] Because the text draws a conclusion from the significantly different PL intensities of sample IV and bare CdS, the caption should state whether the plotted intensities are absolute or rescaled and whether collection geometry, substrate thickness, and acquisition parameters were identical.
  5. [§II.B] Minor typographical errors in the characterization section: “perfomed” should be “performed,” and “operation at 20 kV” should be “operating at 20 kV.”

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: multi-technique experimental phase identification with external crystallographic and Raman benchmarks, not self-defined predictions.

full rationale

This is a growth-and-characterization paper whose load-bearing claims (planar Ge-2H on m-plane CdS near 250 °C; strain relief by a limited dislocation set; progressive loss of 2H order to I3/stacking disorder) rest on independent experimental channels—HAADF-STEM ABAB stacking, HR-XRD RSMs of Ge-2H (2̄201)/(2̄310), and the two-fold E2g Raman polarization selection rules—plus atomistic relaxations checked against TEM geometries. Lattice parameters and I3-defect taxonomy are compared to external nanowire literature and known wurtzite slip systems as benchmarks, not used to define the same quantities the paper then ‘predicts.’ The ~2:1 2H:3C XRD intensity ratio is an estimate from measured peak integrals and published structure factors (xrayutilities), not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. No self-definitional loop, uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, or ansatz smuggled in via self-citation carries the central result. Any debate over whether faulted volume is over-counted as 2H is a correctness/interpretation issue, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

Load-bearing content is experimental. Background axioms are standard wurtzite epitaxy and Raman tensor selection rules; free parameters are ordinary process set-points and analysis choices (growth T, rate, minimum stacking runs for coloring STEM, structure-factor intensity ratio), not theory constants fitted to force the central claim. No new physical entities are postulated beyond named, previously known defect types (I3 BSF, partial dislocations) applied to this heterostructure.

free parameters (4)
  • Growth temperature Tg = 250 °C optimal among tested
    Process set-point scanned at 200/250/300 °C; 250 °C selected as optimal. Central morphology/phase outcome depends on this choice.
  • Deposition rate = 0.05 nm/s
    Fixed near reactor lower limit to avoid epitaxy breakdown at low T.
  • STEM stacking classification thresholds = ≥2 AB / ≥3 ABC
    Regions labeled 2H only if ≥2 consecutive AB layers; cubic only if ≥3 consecutive ABC; else unhighlighted. Affects visual hexagonal volume impression in Fig. 2.
  • XRD 2H:3C integrated-intensity ratio = ~2:1 2H:3C
    Volume fraction estimated from relative peak intensities and computed structure factors; approximate and geometry-dependent.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Non-basal wurtzite m-plane surfaces kinetically favor ABAB (2H) stacking of the epilayer over ABC cubic stacking.
    Stated in Introduction as the substrate-selection principle; standard in hex group-IV nanowire/planar template literature.
  • domain assumption Raman tensors of hexagonal crystals imply E2g intensity is allowed in x(y,y)x̄ and suppressed in x(z,z)x̄ backscattering on the m-plane.
    Used in Section III.B / Fig. 4 to claim hexagonal symmetry from polarization dependence.
  • domain assumption I3 basal stacking faults have zero net Burgers vector and do not relieve misfit strain.
    Invoked in defect section citing prior hex group-IV work; separates strain-relieving dislocations from disorder that kills long-range 2H order.
  • domain assumption MatterSim machine-learned potentials are accurate enough to assess metastability of proposed dislocation cores in Ge-2H.
    Section III.C relies on MLIP relaxations and short MD (>600 K, tens of ps) as support that observed cores are viable.
  • standard math Standard crystallography and continuum dislocation theory (Burgers vectors, partial dissociation of 1/2(0001), a-type 1/3⟨11̄20⟩).
    Used to assign defect characters in Fig. 6.

reviewed 2026-07-31 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Growth and characterization of planar hexagonal Ge on CdS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZBWH67XX

@misc{pith2026260724685,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Growth and characterization of planar hexagonal Ge on CdS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZBWH67XX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24685}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
abstract

Hexagonal group-IV semiconductors have attracted increasing interest owing to their unconventional electronic and optical properties compared to the cubic diamond phase. However, the stabilization of these metastable allotropes in planar heterostructures remains a major challenge. In this work, we demonstrate the epitaxial growth of planar hexagonal germanium on non-basal $m$-plane CdS substrates by low-energy plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposition. The role of growth temperature in the formation and stabilization of the hexagonal phase is investigated. X-ray diffraction, scanning transmission electron microscopy, and polarization-resolved Raman spectroscopy reveal the formation of epitaxial hexagonal germanium with the expected crystal symmetry. In particular, the Raman response exhibits the characteristic polarization selection rules of the E$_\text{2g}$ phonon mode of hexagonal Ge. Conversely, photoluminescence spectroscopy does not reveal any Ge-related emission feature. Combined transmission electron microscopy observations and atomistic modeling show that strain relaxation is governed by a limited set of dislocation mechanisms, which efficiently relieve most of the mismatch strain within a few nanometers from the interface and can involve localized cubic stacking insertions. At greater distances from the interface, the progressive loss of hexagonal order is increasingly dominated by stacking-fault disorder, particularly I3-type defects. These results establish CdS as a promising template for the planar stabilization of hexagonal Ge and provide insight into the defect mechanisms governing strain relaxation in metastable group-IV heterostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24685 by Andrea Besana, Anna Marzegalli, Antonio M. Mio, Daniel Chrastina, Elisa Brugaletta, Emiliano Bonera, Emilio Scalise, Fabio Pezzoli, Fabrizio Rovaris, Francesco Montalenti, Giovanni Isella, Marco Faverzani, Mohamed Zaghloul, Monica Bollani, Sonia Freddi, Veronica Regazzoni.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Growth-temperature dependence of the morphological properties of Ge/CdS samples. (a) In-plane and (b) cross [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Cross-sectional HAADF-STEM image of sample IV (a 50 nm-thick Ge layer, T [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. High-resolution X-ray diffraction reciprocal space maps for sample IV around the (a) (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Low-temperature unpolarized PL spectra of CdS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (a) A schematic illustration of dislocations in the system. Dislocation lines are represented by solid green lines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The red cross indicates the expected position of the peak according to synchrotron XRD measurements of core/shell nanowires [9]

    direction. The red cross indicates the expected position of the peak according to synchrotron XRD measurements of core/shell nanowires [9]. The broad peak atq ∥ ≃0.10 nm −1 corresponds to the ( ¯1¯13) peak of the Ge-3C phase (the black cross corresponds to the peak position based on the lattice parametera 3C = 0.5657 nm of Ge-3C [28], with [ ¯1¯12]∥[1 ¯10...

  2. [2]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Two-dimensional gas of massless Dirac fermions in graphene, Nature438, 197 (2005)

    2005

  3. [3]

    P. Vogt, P. De Padova, C. Quaresima, J. Avila, E. Frantzeskakis, M. C. Asensio, A. Resta, B. Ealet, and G. Le Lay, Silicene: Compelling Experimental Evidence for Graphenelike Two-Dimensional Silicon, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 155501 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Electric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films, Science306, 666 (2004)

    2004

  5. [5]

    M. W. Ochapski and M. P. de Jong, Progress in epitaxial growth of stanene, Open Physics20, 208 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    = 0.3464 nm instead ofd m = √ 3a/2 = 0.3452 nm. From the relative integrated intensities of the Ge-2H (2¯201) and Ge-3C (¯1¯13) peaks, and their structure factors calculated using xrayutilities [29], a roughly 2:1 ratio of 2H and 3C phases was estimated. By rotating the sample byϕ= 90°around the sur- face normal, the (2 ¯310) Bragg peak becomes accessi- b...

    2022

  7. [7]

    M. E. D´ avila, L. Xian, S. Cahangirov, A. Rubio, and G. Le Lay, Germanene: a novel two-dimensional ger- manium allotrope akin to graphene and silicene, New J. Phys.16, 095002 (2014)

    2014

  8. [8]

    Dushaq, A

    G. Dushaq, A. Nayfeh, and M. Rasras, Hexagonal ger- manium formation at room temperature using controlled penetration depth nano-indentation, Sci. Reports9, 1593 (2019)

    2019

  9. [9]

    kon Ikaros T

    H. kon Ikaros T. Hauge, M. A. Verheijen, S. Conesa- Boj, T. Etzelstorfer, M. Watzinger, D. Kriegner, I. Zardo, C. Fasolato, F. Capitani, P. Postorino, S. K¨ olling, A. Li, S. Assali, J. Stangl, and E. P. A. M. Bakkers, Hexagonal Silicon Realized, Nano Lett.15, 5855 (2015)

    2015

  10. [10]

    kon Ikaros T

    H. kon Ikaros T. Hauge, S. Conesa-Boj, M. A. Ver- heijen, S. Koelling, and E. P. A. M. Bakkers, Single- Crystalline Hexagonal Silicon–Germanium, Nano Lett. 17, 85 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    R¨ odl, J

    C. R¨ odl, J. Furthm¨ uller, J. R. Suckert, V. Armuzza, F. Bechstedt, and S. Botti, Accurate electronic and opti- cal properties of hexagonal germanium for optoelectronic applications, Phys. Rev. Mater.3, 034602 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    E. M. T. Fadaly, A. Dijkstra, J. R. Suckert, D. Ziss, M. A. J. van Tilburg, C. Mao, Y. Ren, V. T. van Lange, K. Korzun, S. K¨ olling, M. A. Verheijen, D. Busse, C. R¨ odl, J. Furthm¨ uller, F. Bechstedt, J. Stangl, J. J. Finley, S. Botti, J. E. M. Haverkort, and E. P. A. M. Bakkers, Direct-bandgap emission from hexagonal Ge and SiGe alloys, Nature580, 205 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Kolok, G

    B. Kolok, G. Frank, and A. P´ alyi, Acoustic phonons, spin-phonon coupling, and spin relaxation via the lat- tice reorientation mechanism in hexagonal germanium nanowires, Phys. Rev. B112, 205409 (2025)

    2025

  14. [14]

    Pulcu, J

    Y. Pulcu, J. Koltai, A. Korm´ anyos, and G. Burkard, Multiband k·p theory for hexagonal germanium, Phys- ical Review B109, 205202 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Borlido, J

    P. Borlido, J. R. Suckert, J. Furthm¨ uller, F. Bechstedt, S. Botti, and C. R¨ odl, From pseudo-direct hexagonal ger- manium to direct silicon-germanium alloys, Phys. Rev. Mater.5, 114604 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    C. A. Broderick, X. Zhang, M. E. Turiansky, and C. G. Van de Walle, First-principles theory of direct-gap optical emission in hexagonal Ge and its enhancement via strain engineering, Phys. Rev. Mater.10, 044603 (2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    Cahangirov, M

    S. Cahangirov, M. Audiffred, P. Tang, A. Iacomino, W. Duan, G. Merino, and A. Rubio, Electronic struc- ture of silicene on Ag(111): Strong hybridization effects, Phys. Rev. B88, 035432 (2013)

    2013

  18. [18]

    Cinquanta, E

    E. Cinquanta, E. Scalise, D. Chiappe, C. Grazianetti, B. van den Broek, M. Houssa, M. Fanciulli, and A. Molle, Getting through the Nature of Silicene: An sp2–sp3 Two- Dimensional Silicon Nanosheet, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C117, 16719 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    Scalise, K

    E. Scalise, K. Iordanidou, V. V. Afanas’ev, A. Stesmans, and M. Houssa, Silicene on non-metallic substrates: Re- cent theoretical and experimental advances, Nano Re- search11, 1169 – 1182 (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    Bollier, F

    I. Bollier, F. Balduini, M. Sousa, M. Vettori, W. H. J. Peeters, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and H. Schmid, Electri- cal characterization of hexagonal SiGe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 127, 163309 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    de Matteis, M

    D. de Matteis, M. D. Luca, E. M. T. Fadaly, M. A. Ver- heijen, M. L´ opez-Su´ arez, R. Rurali, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and I. Zardo, Probing Lattice Dynamics and Electronic Resonances in Hexagonal Ge and Si xGe1−x Alloys in Nanowires by Raman Spectroscopy, ACS Nano14, 6845 11 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    This behavior is consistent with the displacement- reaction mechanism proposed by Koolenet al.[22], which leads to the formation of GeS, a highly volatile compound

    on 100 nm-thick Ge layers deposited at 300°C on CdS(1¯100), suggesting that the underlying degradation mechanism is largely independent of the specific growth method. This behavior is consistent with the displacement- reaction mechanism proposed by Koolenet al.[22], which leads to the formation of GeS, a highly volatile compound. Subsequently, GeS undergo...

  23. [23]

    V. T. van Lange, A. Dijkstra, E. M. T. Fadaly, W. H. J. Peeters, M. A. J. van Tilburg, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, F. Bechstedt, J. J. Finley, and J. E. M. Haverkort, Nanosecond Carrier Lifetime of Hexagonal Ge, ACS Pho- tonics11, 4258 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Scalise, A

    E. Scalise, A. Sarikov, L. Barbisan, A. Marzegalli, D. Mi- gas, F. Montalenti, and L. Miglio, Thermodynamic driv- ing force in the formation of hexagonal-diamond Si and Ge nanowires, Appl. Surf. Sci.545, 148948 (2021)

    2021

  25. [25]

    Koolen, T

    R. Koolen, T. O. Goedkoop, S. P. Ramanandan, M. A. Verheijen, and E. P. A. M. Bakkers, Exploring the growth of planar hexagonal germanium on commercially avail- able wurtzite substrates, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A44, 032703 (2026)

    2026

  26. [26]

    Isella, D

    G. Isella, D. Chrastina, B. R¨ ossner, T. Hackbarth, H.-J. Herzog, U. K¨ onig, and H. von K¨ anel, Low-energy plasma- enhanced chemical vapor deposition for strained Si and Ge heterostructures and devices, Solid State Electron. 48, 1317 (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

    Fortner, R

    J. Fortner, R. Yu, and J. Lannin, Raman scattering of amorphous germanium clusters and ultrathin films, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A8, 3493 (1990)

    1990

  28. [28]

    T´ unica, P

    M. T´ unica, P. W. Muchiri, A. Zobelli, A. Marze- galli, E. Scalise, and M. Amato, Interaction of Dopants with the I 3 -Type Basal Stacking Fault in Hexagonal- Diamond Si, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C129, 11093 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    E. M. T. Fadaly, A. Marzegalli, Y. Ren, L. Sun, A. Dijk- stra, D. De Matteis, E. Scalise, A. Sarikov, M. De Luca, R. Rurali, I. Zardo, J. E. M. Haverkort, S. Botti, L. Miglio, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and M. A. Verheijen, Unveiling planar defects in hexagonal group IV materi- als, Nano Lett.21, 3619 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Rovaris, W

    F. Rovaris, W. H. Peeters, A. Marzegalli, F. Glas, L. Vin- cent, L. Miglio, E. P. Bakkers, M. A. Verheijen, and E. Scalise, 2H–Si/Ge for Group-IV Photonics: on the Origin of Extended Defects in Core–Shell Nanowires, ACS Appl. Nano Mater.7, 9396 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    J. P. Dismukes, L. Ekstrom, and R. J. Paff, Lattice Pa- rameter and Density in Germanium-Silicon Alloys, J. Phys. Chem.68, 3021 (1964)

    1964

  32. [32]

    Kriegner, E

    D. Kriegner, E. Wintersberger, and J. Stangl,xrayutil- ities: a versatile tool for reciprocal space conversion of scattering data recorded with linear and area detectors, J. Appl. Cryst.46, 1162 (2013)

    2013

  33. [33]

    B. I. Swanson, General Notation for Polarized Raman Scattering from Gases, Liquids, and Single Crystals, Ap- plied Spectroscopy27, 382 (1973)

    1973

  34. [34]

    Fasolato, I

    C. Fasolato, I. Zardo, and M. De Luca, Addressing crys- tal structure in semiconductor nanowires by polarized raman spectroscopy, inFundamental Properties of Semi- conductor Nanowires, edited by N. Fukata and R. Rurali (Springer Singapore, Singapore, 2021) pp. 307–348

    2021

  35. [35]

    Bikerouin, A

    M. Bikerouin, A. Marzegalli, D. Spirito, G. J. K. Schaf- far, C. Bongiorno, F. Rovaris, M. Zaghloul, A. A. Corley- Wiciak, L. Miglio, V. Maier-Kiener, G. Capellini, A. M. Mio, and E. Scalise, Formation of Micrometer-Sized Tex- tured Hexagonal Silicon Crystals via Nanoindentation, Small Structures6, 2400552 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    F. J. Bryant and A. F. J. Cox, Energy level structure for the infra-red luminescence of cadmium sulphide and zinc sulphide, Br. J. Appl. Phys.16, 463 (1965)

    1965

  37. [37]

    F. J. Bryant and A. F. J. Cox, Polarization of infra-red fluorescence in single crystals of cadmium sulphide, Proc. Phys. Soc.87, 551 (1966)

    1966

  38. [38]

    A. F. J. Cox, W. E. Hagston, and C. J. Radford, Infra-red luminescence of zinc and cadmium sulphide phosphors and the possible role of cation vacancies, J. Phys. C. Solid State Phys.1, 1746 (1968)

    1968

  39. [39]

    S. G. Patil and J. Woods, Luminescence in copper-doped CdS crystals, J. Lumin.4, 231 (1971)

    1971

  40. [40]

    Buhmann, H.-J

    D. Buhmann, H.-J. Schulz, and M. Thiede, Photolumi- nescence of CdS: V, Cu crystals, Phys. Rev. B19, 5360 (1979)

    1979

  41. [41]

    F. J. Bryant and A. F. J. Cox, Structured Luminescence Emission in Cadmium Sulphide at 2.0 to 2.8µm, phys. stat. sol. (b)14, 427 (1966)

    1966

  42. [42]

    Boyn, Optical Absorption due to Intrinsic Defects in CdS Single Crystals, phys

    R. Boyn, Optical Absorption due to Intrinsic Defects in CdS Single Crystals, phys. stat. sol. (b)29, 307 (1968)

    1968

  43. [43]

    Komninou, J

    P. Komninou, J. Kioseoglou, G. Dimitrakopulos, T. Ke- hagias, and T. Karakostas, Partial dislocations in wurtzite GaN, phys. stat. sol. (a)202, 2888 (2005)

    2005

  44. [44]

    Arslan, A

    I. Arslan, A. Bleloch, E. A. Stach, S. Ogut, and N. D. Browning, Using EELS to observe composition and elec- tronic structure variations at dislocation cores in GaN, Phil. Mag.86, 4727 (2006)

    2006

  45. [45]

    H. Yang, C. Hu, Y. Zhou, X. Liu, Y. Shi, J. Li, G. Li, Z. Chen, S. Chen, C. Zeni, M. Horton, R. Pinsler, A. Fowler, D. Z¨ ugner, T. Xie, J. Smith, L. Sun, Q. Wang, L. Kong, C. Liu, H. Hao, and Z. Lu, MatterSim: A Deep Learning Atomistic Model Across Elements, Temper- atures and Pressures, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04967 (2024)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Vincent, E

    L. Vincent, E. M. T. Fadaly, C. Renard, W. H. J. Peeters, M. Vettori, F. Panciera, D. Bouchier, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, and M. A. Verheijen, Growth-Related Forma- tion Mechanism of I3-Type Basal Stacking Fault in Epi- taxially Grown Hexagonal Ge-2H, Adv. Mater. Inter.9, 2102340 (2022)

    2022

  47. [47]

    Supplemental material Growth and characterization of planar hexagonal Ge on CdS (a) (b) (c) (d) 500 nm 500 nm 5 μm 5μm III IV CdS CdS FIG

    10.5281/zenodo.21627143. Supplemental material Growth and characterization of planar hexagonal Ge on CdS (a) (b) (c) (d) 500 nm 500 nm 5 μm 5μm III IV CdS CdS FIG. S1: 20×20µm 2 AFM maps of pristine CdS (a) before and (b) after chemical cleaning procedure, revealing a root-mean-square surface roughness of around 0.8 nm. 2×2µm 2 AFM maps of (c) sample III ...

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.21627143

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 31, 2026.