Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Anisotropic Core-Shell Swift Heavy Ion Tracks in beta-Ga2O3

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that swift heavy ion tracks in beta-Ga2O3 are intrinsically anisotropic core-shell structures—an amorphous core wrapped in a gamma-phase shell—and that the anisotropy is set by orientation-dependent recovery controlled by e

desk verdict A plausible but under-supported simulation study of anisotropic core-shell SHI tracks in beta-Ga2O3; the new physics is interesting but the quantitative and methodological details need a major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.13614 v2 pith:B7ST7L5Q submitted 2026-02-14 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Huan He , Jiayu Liang , Shaowei He , Yanwen Zhang , Jiahui Zhang , Ziqi Cai , Tan Shi , Hang Zang
show 3 more authors
Flyura Djurabekova Chaohui He Junlei Zhao
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords swiftheavyiontrackbeta-Ga2O3core-shellstructureanisotropicrecoverytwo-temperaturemodelmachine-learnedpotentialrecrystallization
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 argues that the common assumption of radially symmetric ion tracks fails for low-symmetry crystals. Using multiscale simulations, it shows that beta-Ga2O3 responds to swift heavy ions with a sequence: full recovery at low energy loss, recrystallization into a metastable gamma phase at intermediate loss, and core-shell amorphous/gamma tracks at high loss. Even though energy is deposited essentially isotropically, final track shapes are anisotropic: the amorphous core is consistently narrowed along the stiff [010] direction. The simulated track sizes quantitatively match experimental measurements across a wide range of energy losses. If right, this makes elastic anisotropy a central predictor of radiation damage morphology in oxides.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a multiscale chain: Monte Carlo particle transport produces the spatial ionization profile; a two-temperature model converts it to a lattice energy deposition profile; and molecular dynamics with a machine-learned interatomic potential evolves the atomic structure. The central conceptual object is the core-shell track (amorphous core plus gamma-phase shell), characterized by local configurational entropy. The orientation-dependent recovery is tied to direction-dependent elastic stiffness, with the highest stiffness along [010] enabling faster recrystallization.

What would settle it

A direct test is to measure track cross-sections for irradiation perpendicular to (010), (001), and (201) planes at about 44 keV/nm and compare with the predicted shapes—especially the strongly asymmetric profile for (010). If the amorphous core is not consistently narrowest along [010], the elastic-stiffness mechanism fails. A complementary check is to rerun the two-temperature model with different published electron-phonon coupling constants and see whether the anisotropy and quantitative sizes survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Swift heavy ion irradiation of monoclinic beta-Ga2O3 produces core-shell tracks whose morphology is governed by recovery dynamics, not by primary damage. The paper identifies a universal structural sequence with increasing electronic energy loss: complete lattice recovery; recrystallization into metastable gamma-Ga2O3; and finally an amorphous core with a gamma-phase shell. Despite isotropic energy deposition, the amorphous core is consistently more confined along [010], the direction of highest Young's modulus (~284 GPa), because stiff directions recover faster. The simulations quantitatively reproduce experimental track diameters for (100) irradiation from 18 to 44 keV/nm, challenging the

Load-bearing premise

The result leans on the specific two-temperature-model parameters (electron-phonon coupling and energy source) and on the accuracy of the machine-learned potential for amorphous and recrystallizing gallium oxide; if either misrepresents energy transfer from electrons to the lattice, the quantitative track sizes and anisotropy could shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Track diameters and shapes in beta-Ga2O3 can be predicted from elastic anisotropy rather than assumed cylindrical symmetry.
  • The metastable gamma-phase shell is a stable product of electronic excitation alone, not only of nuclear collision cascades.
  • Irradiation perpendicular to (100) gives smaller residual tracks at high energy loss, making orientation a lever for radiation-hardness engineering.
  • Simulated track sizes match experiments, supporting use of this multiscale approach for other low-symmetry oxides.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If elastic stiffness controls recovery, then strain engineering or alloying that changes directional moduli could tune track morphology and radiation tolerance.
  • The same core-shell picture may apply to other anisotropic oxides, where experimental tracks might show similar orientation-dependent fine structure.
  • A testable extension: measure track cross-sections for (010), (001), and (201) irradiations to check the predicted shapes, since the paper only compares (100) sizes with experiments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a multiscale simulation study of swift heavy ion (SHI) track formation in monoclinic beta-Ga2O3, combining Geant4 Monte Carlo electronic energy deposition, a two-temperature model (TTM), and machine-learned interatomic potential molecular dynamics (tabGAP). The authors report a sequence of structural responses with increasing electronic energy loss (Se): full recovery, recrystallization into a metastable gamma-Ga2O3 phase, and core-shell track formation (amorphous core + gamma shell) at high Se. They claim that despite isotropic initial electronic energy deposition, the final track morphology is strongly anisotropic across orientations, governed by orientation-dependent recovery dynamics, with the highest stiffness along [010] promoting recrystallization. They also claim quantitative agreement with experimental track sizes over Se = 18–44 keV/nm.

Significance. If substantiated, the paper would provide an atomistic mechanism for anisotropic core-shell track formation in a low-symmetry oxide, establishing elastic anisotropy as a key factor controlling track recovery. The multiscale framework (Geant4 + TTM + ML-MD with a generally applicable tabGAP potential) is state-of-the-art, and the predicted orientation-dependent track shapes are concrete, experimentally testable. The paper explicitly separates primary damage from recovery, which is a valuable conceptual contribution. However, the quantitative and mechanistic claims currently rest on several incompletely specified procedures, as detailed below.

major comments (5)
  1. [Results, 'identical lattice energy profile'; Methods, 'Molecular dynamics simulation'] The central claim—that anisotropy arises from recovery, not primary damage—requires the initial volumetric energy deposition to be isotropic. The text states 'an identical lattice energy profile was imposed for all orientations' but does not specify whether this is a per-atom kinetic energy profile or a per-volume energy density. The observation that the (100) plane has the highest fraction of high-Ek atoms, attributed to its higher planar density, indicates a per-atom profile, which makes the total deposited energy per unit path length orientation-dependent. The invariance of the combined (core+gamma) radius is a weak test of isotropy. Please specify the injection method explicitly and demonstrate that the volumetric energy density is orientation-independent.
  2. [Results, comparison with experiments; Table II] The claim of 'excellent quantitative agreement' is not supported by the numbers. For (100) at 44 keV/nm, the simulated track is elliptical with diameters 8.55 nm and 11.61 nm. The cited experimental values are 7.8±0.9 nm and 8.3±0.4 nm. If the experiments measure the track cross-section in the (100) plane, the simulated major axis exceeds the Tracy et al. value by roughly 3.3 nm, far outside the stated uncertainty. The relevant simulated quantity (minor axis, area-equivalent diameter, or full ellipse) must be compared explicitly, with the experimental measurement geometry stated.
  3. [Methods, 'Molecular dynamics simulation'; Table II] Three independent runs are performed for each configuration, but Table II reports only single values for track size, gamma-phase size, and recovery ratio, with no standard deviation or range. Since quantitative agreement with experiment is a central claim, the run-to-run spread must be reported to assess the significance of the comparisons. Without error bars, the apparent agreement could be fortuitous.
  4. [Results, 'entropy-based criterion'; Methods, 'Molecular dynamics simulation'] The size criterion used to extract track and gamma-phase radii is not specified. The text says 'Based on the entropy-based criterion, the size ... are summarized in Table II,' but the exact entropy threshold(s) for the amorphous core (Omega in [-2.5,-2.0]) and the boundary of the gamma-phase shell are not defined, nor is the procedure for converting one-dimensional entropy profiles into radial extents. Without this, Table II is not reproducible. Please provide the explicit criterion and analysis procedure.
  5. [Methods, 'Two-temperature model'] The TTM parameters (electron-phonon coupling constant g, heat capacities Ce and Cl, thermal conductivities Ke and Kl) and the normalization of the source term Se(r,t) are not given in the main text; the text only refers to supporting information. The TTM output is the sole energy input to the MD simulations, so the quantitative track sizes depend directly on these values. Please provide the numerical values and their provenance, or ensure the SI is available with the manuscript.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Results, first paragraph] Typo: 'Morte Carlo' should be 'Monte Carlo'.
  2. [Methods, 'Molecular dynamics simulation'] The supercell atom count reads '115,2000'—likely a typo for '1,152,000'. Please correct.
  3. [Results, subsection on low-Se response] The reference 'Table SX' is a placeholder; the actual supplementary table number should be inserted.
  4. [General] Several formatting issues: missing spaces before 'beta-Ga2O3' in a few places (e.g., abstract), and 'byLAMMPSsoftware' in Methods should be 'by LAMMPS software'. The supplementary information is referenced but not included in the arXiv version; please ensure it is accessible for review.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: simulated track-size predictions are independent MD outputs benchmarked against experiment, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central quantities—orientation-dependent track diameters, gamma-phase shell sizes, and recovery ratios—are outputs of the multiscale simulation chain (Geant4 → TTM → ML-MD with tabGAP), not parameters fitted to the experimental diameters quoted for comparison. The Se values are independently calculated inputs, the TTM equations are standard, and no coefficient is tuned to reproduce the measured track sizes. The paper's use of the authors' own tabGAP potential and earlier gamma-phase characterizations is methodological and interpretive; those citations do not contain the target result, and the final track-size agreement with independent experiments (Ai et al., Tracy et al.) provides external validation. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or rename a fitted parameter as a prediction. A transparency concern remains: TTM parameter values and the exact discrete projection of the continuum lattice-energy profile onto atoms are not given in the main text, so the physical isotropy of the injected energy is asserted rather than demonstrated. This is a reproducibility/validity risk, not circularity, because no output is reduced to its input by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The central dependencies are a chain of modeling choices: Geant4 source, TTM parameters (not shown), tabGAP potential (author-developed), and an entropy criterion for track sizes. The 'gamma-phase shell' is not an invented entity but a metastable phase known in the literature. The most load-bearing unquantified input is the TTM parameter set, particularly the electron-phonon coupling constant.

free parameters (5)
  • electron-phonon coupling g = not stated
    TTM input that controls how much electronic energy goes into the lattice; the paper says parameter details are in the SI, but the SI is not provided. The track sizes and thresholds depend on this value.
  • TTM heat capacities and conductivities Ce, Cl, Ke, Kl = not stated in main text
    Standard TTM inputs but their values are not given; the lattice-temperature evolution depends on them.
  • Entropy-based track-size criterion (Omega plateau threshold) = Omega in [-2.5,-2.0] defines the amorphous core; the gamma shell is defined by the sharp increase at 5.0-7.5 nm
    The reported track diameters depend on choices of what entropy level counts as amorphous and where the shell begins. The criterion is calibrated on the simulated structures themselves, not on an external reference.
  • Kinetic-energy fraction threshold (0.5 eV) = 0.5 eV
    Used to define the fraction of high-Ek atoms that explains the low-Se orientation dependence; arbitrary threshold, chosen post hoc to support the planar-density argument.
  • Young's modulus along [010] = 284 GPa
    Computed from the same tabGAP potential and used as the explanation for anisotropic recovery. It is a property of the model, not an independent experimental input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The two-temperature model with parameters Ce, Cl, Ke, Kl, g adequately describes the electron-lattice energy transfer in beta-Ga2O3 under SHI.
    Invoked in Methods equations (1)-(2); if the TTM parameters are wrong, the deposited lattice energy profiles are wrong, and the entire MD input changes.
  • domain assumption The tabGAP machine-learned interatomic potential accurately describes beta, gamma, amorphous Ga2O3, melting, recrystallization, and defect energies.
    All MD results rely on tabGAP (refs 24, 30). The paper cites prior validation but does not show convergence or error bars. The central structural assignments (gamma phase, amorphous core) are RDF/BAD matches within this potential.
  • domain assumption The isotropic, orientation-averaged electronic energy deposition profile can be imposed identically for the four crystal orientations by rotating the crystal, without modifying the TTM source term.
    The claim of 'identical lattice energy profile' across orientations is an assumption; the MC energy deposition is actually a function of the crystallographic structure and ion channeling, so the profiles could differ. The paper does not show the imposed profiles for each orientation.
  • domain assumption The 320 ps simulation time is sufficient to reach the final stable track morphology.
    Recrystallization is slow; longer timescales could shrink or grow the amorphous core. The paper shows changes up to 320 ps but does not demonstrate convergence.
  • domain assumption A supercell of roughly 150x300x300 A^3 and periodic boundary conditions in all directions do not significantly affect the track morphology.
    The thermal spike and stress field may interact with periodic images in the stiffest direction; no convergence test over cell size is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Core-Shell Swift Heavy Ion Tracks in beta-Ga2O3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B7ST7L5Q

@misc{pith2026260213614,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Core-Shell Swift Heavy Ion Tracks in beta-Ga2O3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B7ST7L5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.13614}
}
abstract

Swift heavy ion (SHI) irradiation generates nanoscale ion tracks through intense electronic excitation, yet the microscopic mechanisms governing their morphology and phase stability in low symmetry oxides remain poorly understood. Here, a multiscale atomistic simulation framework is used to investigate the formation and recovery of SHI-induced tracks in monoclinic $\beta$-Ga2O3 over a wide range of electronic energy losses (Se) and crystallographic orientations. A sequence of distinct structural responses is identified with increasing Se: (i) complete lattice recovery at low Se; (ii) recrystallization into a metastable $\gamma$-Ga2O3 phase at intermediate Se; and (iii) the formation of core-shell ion tracks at high Se, consisting of an amorphous core surrounded by a recrystallized $\gamma$-phase shell. Despite the essentially isotropic initial energy deposition, the final ion-track morphology exhibits pronounced crystallographic anisotropy, governed by orientation-dependent recovery dynamics. The superior recrystallization along the [010] direction is attributed to its exceptionally high elastic stiffness. Notably, SHI irradiation perpendicular to the (100) plane induces a more severe structural response at low Se ($\le$ 10 keV/nm), however, at higher Se, it yields a smaller residual ion track compared to the other orientations. The simulated ion-track sizes show excellent quantitative agreement with the available experimental measurements over a wide range of Se values. These findings establish a unified atomic-scale picture of core-shell track formation and anisotropic recovery in $\beta$-Ga2O3.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13614 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatiotemporal lattice-energy evolution and ion-track morphology under low and high Se. a,b Spatiotemporal profiles of lattice energy obtained from TTM simulations at Se of 10 keV/nm and 44 keV/nm, respectively. c-h Cross-sectional morphologies from MD simulations with Se = 10 keV/nm and 44 keV/nm, colored by atomic displacement magnitude. All images correspond to the central cross section of the simulated region, r… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structural analysis of β-Ga2O3 under SHI irradiation perpendicular to (1 0 0) direction at different electronic energy losses. a O FCC order parameter evolution at different Se values. b Atomic configurations at 30 ps and 320 ps (Se = 10 keV/nm). Red (blue) atoms are Ga (O) atoms. c Evolution of Ga–Ga RDF of the track core (region 1, r ≤ 2.5 nm). d Atomic configurations at 30 ps and 320 ps (Se = 44 keV/nm). e The ov… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Final state of oxygen lattice order mapping under different SHI irradiation perpendicular to (1 0 0) plane. direction. In particular, for SHI irradiation perpendicu￾lar to the (1 0 0) and (0 0 1) planes, recovery along [0 1 0] is significantly more efficient than along other directions, resulting in the flattened elliptical track morphologies shown in Figure 4a and c. This anisotropic recovery be￾havior is in excell… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ion-track morphology characterized by local structural entropy in β-Ga2O3. a–d Spatial maps of the local structural entropy for ion tracks formed under SHI irradiation perpendicular to the (1 0 0), (0 1 0), (0 0 1), and (2 0 1) crystallographic planes at Se of 44 keV/n…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [10]

    Ions leaving no tracks

    A. Abdullaev, J. Garcia Fernandez, C. Nozais, J. O’Connell, R. Tlegenov, K. Sekerbayev, A. Azarov, A. Leino, T. Fernandez Bouvier, J. Zhao, A. Ar- timez Pena, N. Medvedev, Z. Utegulov, Ø. Prytz, F. Djurabekova, and A. Kuznetsov, Ions leaving no tracks, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07440 (2025), 2509.07440

    work page Pith review arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07440 2025

  2. [1]

    M. C. Ridgway, R. Giulian, D. J. Sprouster, P. Kluth, L. L. Araujo, D. J. Llewellyn, A. P. Byrne, F. Kremer, P. F. P. Fichtner, G. Rizza, H. Amekura, and M. Toule- monde, Role of thermodynamics in the shape trans- formation of embedded metal nanoparticles induced by swift heavy-ion irradiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 095505 (2011)

    2011

  3. [2]

    Ochedowski, O

    O. Ochedowski, O. Osmani, M. Schade, B. K. Bussmann, B. Ban-d’Etat, H. Lebius, and M. Schleberger, Graphitic nanostripes in silicon carbide surfaces created by swift heavy ion irradiation, Nat. Commun.5, 3913 (2014)

    2014

  4. [3]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Sachan, O. H. Pakarinen, M. F. Chisholm, P. Liu, H. Xue, and W. J. Weber, Ionization-induced annealing of pre-existing defects in silicon carbide, Nat. Commun.6, 8049 (2015)

    2015

  5. [4]

    M. Lang, F. Djurabekova, N. Medvedev, M. Toulemonde, and C. Trautmann, Fundamental phenomena and appli- cations of swift heavy ion irradiations, inComprehensive Nuclear Materials, edited by R. J. M. Konings and R. E. Stoller (Elsevier, Oxford, 2020) 2nd ed., pp. 485–516

    2020

  6. [5]

    Medvedev, A

    N. Medvedev, A. E. Volkov, R. Rymzhanov, F. Akhme- tov, S. Gorbunov, R. Voronkov, and P. Babaev, Frontiers, challenges, and solutions in modeling of swift heavy ion effects in materials, J. Appl. Phys.133, 100701 (2023)

    2023

  7. [6]

    Amekura, A

    H. Amekura, A. Chettah, K. Narumi, A. Chiba, Y. Hirano, K. Yamada, S. Yamamoto, A. A. Leino, F. Djurabekova, K. Nordlund, N. Ishikawa, N. Okubo, and Y. Saitoh, Latent ion tracks were finally observed in diamond, Nat. Commun.15, 1786 (2024)

    2024

  8. [7]

    M. C. Ridgway, T. Bierschenk, R. Giulian, B. Afra, M. D. Rodriguez, L. L. Araujo, A. P. Byrne, N. Kirby, O. H. Pakarinen, F. Djurabekova, K. Nordlund, M. Schle- berger, O. Osmani, N. Medvedev, B. Rethfeld, and P. Kluth, Tracks and voids in amorphous Ge induced by swift heavy-ion irradiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 245502 (2013)

    2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    M. C. Sequeira, J.-G. Mattei, H. Vazquez, F. Djurabekova, K. Nordlund, I. Monnet, P. Mota- Santiago, P. Kluth, C. Grygiel, S. Zhang, E. Alves, and K. Lorenz, Unravelling the secrets of the resistance of GaN to strongly ionising radiation, Commun. Phys.4, 51 (2021)

    2021

  2. [9]

    P. P. Hu, Z. N. Jin, L. J. Xu, S. X. Zhang, P. F. Zhai, J. Zeng, Z. Z. Li, X. Y. Yan, L. Cai, and J. Liu, Latent tracks induced by swift heavy ions in gallium nitride, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B568, 165855 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    A. K. Gupta, E. Zarkadoula, B. L. Musico, J. A. Hachtel, M. A. Roldan, V. R. Paduri, C. Harris, R. Subedi, M. Ziatdinov, S. V. Kalinin, C. Trautmann, V. Kep- pens, J. Liu, Y. Zhang, W. J. Weber, and R. Sachan, Unveiling swift heavy ion track morphology in Sr-based high-entropy...

    2025

  4. [12]

    Wierbik, H

    J. Wierbik, H. Heimes, C. Notthoff, S. Dutt, T. Al- wadi, A. Kiy, P. Mota-Santiago, N. Kirby, and P. Kluth, Anisotropic fine structure of ion tracks in single crystals, Phys. Rev. B113, 035306 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    Kluth, C

    P. Kluth, C. S. Schnohr, O. H. Pakarinen, F. Djurabekova, D. J. Sprouster, R. Giulian, M. C. Ridgway, A. P. Byrne, C. Trautmann, D. J. Cookson, K. Nordlund, and M. Toulemonde, Fine structure in swift heavy ion tracks in amorphous SiO 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 175503 (2008)

    2008

  6. [14]

    Bierschenk, A

    T. Bierschenk, A. A. Leino, W. Wesch, B. Afra, M. D. Rodriguez, F. Djurabekova, L. Keller, O. H. Pakarinen, K. Nordlund, M. C. Ridgway, and P. Kluth, Forma- tion and self-organisation of nano-porosity in swift heavy ion irradiated amorphous Ge, Acta Mater.261, 119396 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    S. J. Pearton, J. Yang, P. H. Cary, F. Ren, J. H. Kim, M. J. Tadjer, and M. A. Mastro, A review of Ga 2O3 materials, processing, and devices, Appl. Phys. Rev.5, 011301 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    W.-S. Ai, J. Liu, Q. Feng, P.-F. Zhai, P.-P. Hu, J. Zeng, S.-X. Zhang, Z.-Z. Li, L. Liu, X.-Y. Yan, and Y.-M. Sun, Degradation ofβ-Ga 2O3 Schottky barrier diode under swift heavy ion irradiation, Chin. Phys. B30, 056110 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    S. J. Pearton, F. Ren, A. Y. Polyakov, E. B. Yakimov, L. Chernyak, and A. Haque, Perspective on comparative radiation hardness of Ga 2O3 polymorphs, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A43, 038501 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Manikanthababu, B

    N. Manikanthababu, B. R. Tak, K. Prajna, S. Sarkar, K. Asokan, D. Kanjilal, S. R. Barman, R. Singh, and B. K. Panigrahi, Swift heavy ion irradiation-induced modifications in the electrical and surface properties of β-Ga2O3, Appl. Phys. Lett.117, 142105 (2020). 10

    2020

  11. [19]

    H. Zhu, Y. Tang, A. Zhong, L. Wang, F. Liu, P. Zhao, J. Liu, L. Shu, Z. Wu, and B. Li, Swift heavy ion irradiation-driven energy band engineering and its pro- found influence on the photoresponse ofβ-Ga 2O3 ul- traviolet photodetectors, Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 153505 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    T. Ma, X. Li, S. Zhong, Y. Feng, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, C. Peng, H. Zhang, Z. Zhang, X. Liang, and Z. Lei, Single-event burnout inβ-Ga 2O3 Schottky barrier diode induced by heavy ion irradiation, Appl. Phys. Lett.127, 123501 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    C. L. Tracy, M. Lang, D. Severin, M. Bender, C. Traut- mann, and R. C. Ewing, Anisotropic expansion and amorphization of Ga 2O3 irradiated with 946 MeV Au ions, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B374, 40 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    W. Ai, L. Xu, S. Nan, P. Zhai, W. Li, Z. Li, P. Hu, J. Zeng, S. Zhang, L. Liu, Y. Sun, and J. Liu, Radiation damage inβ-Ga 2O3 induced by swift heavy ions, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys.58, 120914 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Iancu, E

    D. Iancu, E. Zarkadoula, V. Leca, A. Hotnog, Y. Zhang, W. J. Weber, and G. Veli¸ sa, Intrinsic property of defec- tiveβ-Ga 2O3 to self-heal under ionizing irradiation, Scr. Mater.268, 116858 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    J. Zhao, J. Byggm¨ astar, H. He, K. Nordlund, F. Djurabekova, and M. Hua, Complex Ga 2O3 poly- morphs explored by accurate and general-purpose machine-learning interatomic potentials, npj Comput. Mater.9, 159 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Azarov, J

    A. Azarov, J. Fern´ andez, J. Zhao,et al., Universal ra- diation tolerant semiconductor, Nature Communications 14, 4855 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    J. Zhao, J. G. Fern´ andez, A. Azarov, R. He, Ø. Prytz, K. Nordlund, M. Hua, F. Djurabekova, and A. Kuznetsov, Crystallization instead of amorphization in collision cascades in gallium oxide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 126101 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Azarov, J

    A. Azarov, J. G. Fern´ andez, J. Zhao, R. He, J.- H. Park, D.-W. Jeon, Ø. Prytz, F. Djurabekova, and A. Kuznetsov, Phase glides and self-organization of atom- ically abrupt interfaces out of stochastic disorder inα- Ga2O3, Nat. Commun.16, 3245 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako, J. Apostolakis, H. Araujo, P. Arce, M. Asai, D. Axen, S. Banerjee, G. Barrand, F. Behner, L. Bellagamba, J. Boudreau, L. Broglia, A. Brunengo, H. Burkhardt, S. Chauvie, J. Chuma, R. Chytracek, G. Cooperman, G. Cosmo, P. Degtyarenko, A. Del...

    2003

  21. [29]

    A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. in ’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, R. Shan, M. J. Stevens, J. Tranchida, C. Trott, and S. J. Plimpton, LAMMPS - a flexible simulation tool for particle-based mat...

    2022

  22. [30]

    H. He, J. Zhao, J. Byggm¨ astar, R. He, K. Nord- lund, C. He, and F. Djurabekova, Threshold displace- ment energy map of Frenkel pair generation inβ-Ga 2O3 from machine-learning-driven molecular dynamics simu- lations, Acta Mater.276, 120087 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Zhao, J. Byggm¨ astar, E. J. Frankberg, and A. Kuronen, Large-scale atomistic study of plasticity in amorphous gallium oxide with ab-initio accuracy, Sci. Rep.15, 9492 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    Stukowski, Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the open visualization tool, Modell

    A. Stukowski, Visualization and analysis of atomistic simulation data with OVITO–the open visualization tool, Modell. Simul. Mater. Sci. Eng.18, 015012 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    T. Liu, T. Wang, Z. Li, E. Zhou, J. Zhao, J. Feng, X. Fei, Y. Guo, F. Djurabekova, S. Liu, and Z. Zhang, Anisotropic kinetics of ion-irradiation- induced phase transition in gallium oxide, arXiv 10.48550/arXiv.2601.02770 (2026), 2601.02770

    2026 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.