Native antisite defects in h-BN

Adam Gali; Pei Li; Song Li

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Native antisite defects in h-BN

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A density-functional study proposes that native antisite defects, not impurities, underlie two observed single-photon emitters in hexagonal boron nitride: the neutral boron antisite with a 1.58 eV zero-phonon line and the positively…

desk verdict First systematic optical study of native antisite defects in hBN, but the main 1.58 eV assignment rests on a 2 meV tunneling barrier that likely invalidates the static Franck–Condon picture. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01133 v3 pith:4PRSEHIY submitted 2025-01-02 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Song Li , Pei Li , Adam Gali This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci

keywords hexagonalboronnitrideantisitedefectsingle-photonemitterzero-phononlineJahn-Tellerdistortiondensityfunctionaltheoryphononsidebandcolorcenter

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 tries to establish that two native antisite defects are the microscopic sources of specific quantum emitters observed in hexagonal boron nitride (hBN). It assigns the near-infrared single-photon line around 1.58 eV to the neutral boron antisite, a boron atom on a nitrogen site, and the dim blue line at 2.63 eV to the positively charged nitrogen antisite. The decisive mechanism is an out-of-plane Jahn-Teller distortion: the boron antisite is dynamically unstable in the plane, and this soft out-of-plane motion reshapes the optical transition through a Huang-Rhys factor of 1.68. If the assignments are right, two simple intrinsic defects can explain emitters that were previously attributed to unclear vacancy or impurity centers, giving experimenters concrete atomic models to confirm or refute.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the native antisite defects: BN, a boron atom replacing a nitrogen site, and NB, a nitrogen atom replacing a boron site, together with the antisite pair BNNB. The argument is carried by the dynamic Jahn-Teller mechanism: in BN(0) a roughly 16 meV imaginary phonon shows that the planar configuration is unstable, and the defect relaxes into one of two equivalent out-of-plane C3v configurations with a computed 2 meV barrier between them. Exciting the defect breaks the symmetry further to C2v, and the Franck-Condon overlap between the vibrational modes of the ground and excited states produces the zero-phonon line and the Huang-Rhys factor that are compared with experiment. The nitrogen antisite works through a pseudo-Jahn-Teller effect in which excitation restores the high-symmetry D3h geometry, which explains the absence of a permanent dipole moment.

What would settle it

Look for the predicted roughly 16 meV out-of-plane mode as a low-energy replica in the photoluminescence sideband of the 1.58 eV emitter, and check its spin dependence: the line should show no Zeeman splitting or optically detected magnetic resonance because BN(0) is nonmagnetic; either signature would rule out the assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the neutral boron antisite BN(0) is a nonmagnetic, near-infrared single-photon source with a zero-phonon line at 1.58 eV and a phonon sideband that matches the frequently observed hBN spectra, while the positively charged nitrogen antisite NB(+) is a plausible dim blue emitter with a 2.63 eV zero-phonon line. Both defects are single substitutions, yet their optical behavior is controlled by geometry: BN(0) has two equivalent out-of-plane configurations separated by only 2 meV in the screened-hybrid calculation, and the Jahn-Teller symmetry breaking lowers the zero-phonon line from 1.74 eV to 1.58 eV and raises the Huang-Rhys factor from 1.09 to 1.68. NB(+) keeps high D3h symmetry, has no permanent dipole, and yields a 2.63 eV zero-phonon line with Huang-Rhys factor 2.13. The paper also simulates the antisite pair BNNB but concludes that its excessively strong phonon sideband rules it out as the source of the observed blue emitters.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the screened-hybrid density-functional calculations, especially the tiny 2 meV energy barrier between the two out-of-plane configurations of the neutral boron antisite, predict the zero-phonon-line energies and Huang-Rhys factors accurately enough to assign emitters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 1.58 eV near-infrared line in hBN should be treated as a candidate for the neutral boron antisite, with its characteristic out-of-plane phonon replica at roughly 16 meV.
The dim blue emitter at 2.63 eV should be tested against the nitrogen antisite's signatures: D3h symmetry, no permanent dipole, and a Huang-Rhys factor near 2.13.
Out-of-plane relaxation must be included when modeling other planar defects in hBN, because the soft mode, not just the electronic gap, determines the emission lineshape.
The antisite pair BNNB, despite a bright transition with a 3 Debye dipole and an 11.7 ns radiative lifetime, is unlikely to be the observed blue emitter because its simulated sideband is far stronger than the measured one.
Under nitrogen-rich growth conditions, the Fermi level pinning and formation energies put both candidate antisites at low concentration, which is consistent with their appearing as rare single-photon sources.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the 2 meV barrier is so small, a practical check would be to recompute the BN(0) zero-phonon line with larger supercells and denser k-point sampling; if the barrier and the C3v relaxation change, the 1.58 eV value is not stable.
A direct experimental test would be resonant photoluminescence excitation on a single 1.58 eV emitter: the sideband spacing should match the predicted out-of-plane mode frequency, and the lack of a permanent dipole could be checked by Stark spectroscopy.
If out-of-plane distortion is indeed generic in hBN defects, strain or isotope engineering should tune the emission through the soft mode, offering a way to control single-photon energies beyond the electronic level structure.
The nonmagnetic prediction extends to the ground and excited states: magneto-optical measurements at the single-emitter level could separate BN(0) from the many spin-active candidates among hBN defects.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper is the first systematic computational look at native antisite defects in hBN. It calculates ZPL energies, Huang–Rhys factors, and simulated PL spectra for the boron and nitrogen antisites in several charge states, using standard ΔSCF and Franck–Condon methods. The two headline candidates are the neutral boron antisite for the 1.6 eV NIR emitters and the positive nitrogen antisite for the dim blue emitter. The authors hedge appropriately with “might” and “tentatively,” and the comparison to experiment is honest about the limits.

The work is genuinely new: previous defect assignments in hBN focused on vacancies, carbon, and oxygen, while antisites were mostly ignored. The inclusion of the out-of-plane Jahn–Teller distortion and its effect on the optical transition is a useful contribution. The methods are standard enough to be reproducible, and the paper is refreshingly clear about what is and isn’t established.

The soft spots are real, and one is load-bearing. The paper reports a 2 meV HSE barrier between the two out-of-plane configurations of BN(0), along with an imaginary 16 meV phonon at the planar geometry. The zero-point energy of that soft mode is several meV, so the true 0 K ground state should be a delocalized tunneling doublet, not a static C3v minimum. The Franck–Condon PL spectrum computed from the single JT minimum therefore does not represent the physical initial state, and the 1.58 eV ZPL and S = 1.68 are not well-defined. The authors do not address this, and they report no convergence tests or sensitivity analysis for the barrier, the ZPL, the supercell size, or the HSE mixing parameter. That is the central weakness.

The blue emitter assignment to NB(+) is more robust because the D3h symmetry is stable and there is no JT complication, but it is based on limited experimental correlation, and the 2.63 eV ZPL sits about 0.2 eV below the commonly cited 2.8–2.9 eV blue line.

Overall, this is a useful survey and a reasonable set of candidates, but the main assignment is not yet established. The paper deserves peer review because the question is important and the approach is standard; the reviewer should ask the authors to treat the dynamic JT effect properly and to provide convergence checks. I would cite it cautiously and bring it to a reading group for discussion.

Recommendation: send to review, conditional on addressing the tunneling issue and the numerical convergence tests.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents DFT calculations (HSE with alpha=0.32, a 256-atom two-layer supercell, Gamma-only sampling) of native antisite defects in hexagonal boron nitride: B_N, N_B, and BNNB. Using Franck-Condon analysis, the authors compute zero-phonon-line energies, Huang-Rhys factors, and PL line shapes. They propose that the neutral boron antisite B_N(0) is a nonmagnetic single-photon emitter with a ZPL at 1.58 eV and a phonon sideband consistent with a 1.55 eV emitter observed in hBN thin films, and that the positively charged nitrogen antisite N_B(+) may explain a dim blue emitter with a ZPL at 2.63 eV. They also analyze the BNNB antisite pair and conclude it is likely not responsible for the observed blue spectra.

Significance. If correct, the identification of native antisite defects as quantum emitters would be a valuable step for hBN defect engineering. The paper uses standard, reproducible methods (HSE hybrid functional, Franck-Condon approximation) and provides quantitative predictions for ZPL energies, Huang-Rhys factors, formation energies, and radiative lifetimes. The N_B(+) assignment appears internally consistent. However, the central B_N(0) assignment rests on a static Jahn-Teller distorted minimum whose stability is questionable because the reported 2 meV HSE barrier is smaller than the estimated zero-point energy of the relevant out-of-plane mode. In addition, the lack of convergence tests for supercell size, k-point sampling, and the HSE mixing parameter weakens the quantitative claims. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on resolving these issues.

major comments (2)

[Section on B_N(0) (paragraph beginning 'The BN is nonmagnetic...') and Table I] The reported 2 meV HSE energy barrier between the two out-of-plane configurations of B_N(0) is far smaller than the zero-point energy of the 16 meV imaginary mode (approximately 8 meV). The 0 K ground state should therefore be a delocalized tunneling doublet, not a static C3v-JT minimum. The Franck-Condon calculation that starts from the symmetry-broken minimum yields ZPL = 1.58 eV and S = 1.68 in Table I, but these quantities are not well-defined if the initial vibrational state is delocalized. The authors should either compute the vibronic spectrum explicitly including tunneling, or provide a concrete justification (for example, coupling to a bath that localizes the wavefunction) for why the static-minimum approximation is valid. As written, the central B_N(0) assignment is not supported by the calculations presented.
[Methods paragraph (supercell, k-point, HSE parameters)] The calculations use a single Gamma-point k-point sampling, a 256-atom supercell, and a fixed HSE mixing parameter alpha = 0.32, with no convergence tests reported. The ZPL assignments (1.58 eV and 2.63 eV) are quantitative, and the computed barrier for B_N(0) is highly functional-sensitive (59 meV with PBE versus 2 meV with HSE). The authors must demonstrate that the key results are robust with respect to supercell size, k-point sampling, and alpha. Without this, the agreement with experiment could be fortuitous, and the 2 meV barrier in particular cannot be trusted as a basis for the proposed dynamic Jahn-Teller picture.

minor comments (7)

[Abstract] The abstract says 'solid-state single phonon emitters'; this should be 'single photon emitters'.
[Abstract and introduction] The phrase 'Experimental observed emission' should read 'Experimentally observed emission'.
[Table I] The rows labeled D3h in Table I are not explained in the text; clarify whether these are unrelaxed high-symmetry geometries or constrained solutions.
[Discussion of B_N(0) excited state] The sentence 'the high symmetry configuration of excited state is JT unstable due to the half occupation of the e state' leaves unspecified which high-symmetry configuration is meant; please specify the point group of the excited state before the JT distortion.
[Comparison with experiment (Fig. 2b)] The phrase 'the data of low energy range is missing' is vague; specify which energy range of the experimental spectrum is absent and how this affects the comparison.
[Reference [51]] Reference [51] is a preprint from Researchsquare; if a peer-reviewed version is now available, it should be cited instead.
[Equation (2)] Equation (2) uses the bulk refractive index nD = 2.1 for a two-layer hBN system; the authors should note that this is an approximation and discuss its possible effect on the radiative lifetime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted ZPLs are computed from DFT and then compared with, not fitted to, experimental spectra.

full rationale

The paper's central predictions (BN(0) ZPL at 1.58 eV, NB(+) ZPL at 2.63 eV, Huang-Rhys factors, and radiative lifetimes) are produced by spin-resolved DFT with a screened hybrid functional, ΔSCF excited-state total energies, and Franck-Condon phonon overlaps. The experimental comparison is explicitly framed after the calculation as a tentative assignment ('we tentatively associate,' 'we speculate'), not as a fitted output. No equation in the paper defines the predicted ZPL in terms of the target experimental line, and no parameter is reported as tuned to the observed 1.58 eV or 2.63 eV emissions; the HSE mixing parameter, supercell size, and k-point choice are generic methodological settings. The self-citations (Refs. 41 and 44) provide methodological explanation or label a pseudo-Jahn-Teller scenario, but the structural relaxations and ZPLs are derived in the present calculations, so those citations are not load-bearing. The small 2 meV HSE barrier for BN(0) and the absence of convergence tests are genuine robustness or correctness risks—the static JT minimum may not represent the physical 0 K vibrational state—but that is a physics concern, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained against external experimental benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on standard DFT method choices and on the assumption that the experimental spectra cited are the same emitters. No new physical entities are introduced; the defect structures are known antisite configurations. The main unquantified input is the HSE mixing parameter, and the largest structural assumption is the validity of the single-Gamma-point supercell without convergence checks.

free parameters (1)

HSE mixing parameter alpha = 0.32
Chosen to reproduce the hBN band gap, not fitted to defect ZPLs, but the computed ZPL and Huang-Rhys factors depend on this value. No sensitivity analysis is reported.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption HSE with alpha=0.32 accurately describes the electronic structure, phonons, and excited states of antisite defects in hBN.
Invoked throughout the methods section; all ZPL and Huang-Rhys results rely on this functional choice.
domain assumption A 256-atom two-layer supercell sampled at a single Gamma point is sufficiently converged for defect energetics and optical transitions.
Stated in the methods section; no k-point or supercell-size convergence tests are provided.
domain assumption The Franck-Condon approximation at 0 K is valid for simulating the PL lineshape.
Used to convert phonon overlaps into the simulated spectra; this is standard but an approximation.
domain assumption The experimentally observed emitters under discussion are native defects, not impurity-related centers.
Introduced in the introduction through the robustness of emission lines against fabrication methods; it underlies the search among native antisites.
domain assumption The experimental spectra used for comparison (Refs. 31, 13, 51) are correctly assigned to single-photon emitters and are representative of the claimed defect classes.
The association of BN(0) with the 1.55 eV spectrum and NB(+) with blue emitters depends on these literature assignments.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Native antisite defects in h-BN." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PRSEHIY

@misc{pith2026250101133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Native antisite defects in h-BN},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PRSEHIY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01133}
}

read the original abstract

Hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) is an excellent host for solid-state single phonon emitters. Experimental observed emission ranges from infrared to ultraviolet. The emission centers are generally attributed to either intrinsic or extrinsic point defects embedded into hBN. Nevertheless, the microscopic structure of most of these defect emitters is uncertain. Here, through density-functional theory calculations we studied the native antisite defects in hBN. We find that the neutral boron antisite might be a nonmagnetic single photon source with zero-phonon-line (ZPL) at 1.58 eV and such a lineshape that is often observed in experiments. Furthermore, the positively charged nitrogen antisite might be associated with a dim color center recently observed as a blue emitter with ZPL at 2.63 eV. These simple single substitution defects indicate the existence of out-of-plane phonon mode which significantly affects the optical properties. Our results could provide useful information for identification of quantum emitters in hBN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01133 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Ground state energy level of B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Energy level diagram of (a) B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Formation energy as a function of Fermi level of B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Stark Shift from Quantum Defects in Hexagonal Boron Nitride
cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

DFT calculations predict that the symmetry of hBN defects controls whether their emission energy shifts linearly or quadratically under an electric field, and that the dielectric environment strongly changes the shift...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Wolfowicz, F

G. Wolfowicz, F. J. Heremans, C. P. Anderson, S. Kanai, H. Seo, A. Gali, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 906 (2021)

work page 2021
[2]

Zhang, Y

G. Zhang, Y . Cheng, J.-P. Chou, and A. Gali, Appl. Phys. Rev. 7, 031308 (2020)

work page 2020
[3]

T. T. Tran, K. Bray, M. J. Ford, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 37 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

Gottscholl, M

A. Gottscholl, M. Kianinia, V . Soltamov, S. Orlinskii, G. Mamin, C. Bradac, C. Kasper, K. Krambrock, A. Sperlich, M. Toth, et al., Nat. Mater. 19, 540 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

Chejanovsky, A

N. Chejanovsky, A. Mukherjee, J. Geng, Y .-C. Chen, Y . Kim, A. Denisenko, A. Finkler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. B. R. Dasari, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 1079 (2021)

work page 2021
[6]

Mendelson, D

N. Mendelson, D. Chugh, J. R. Reimers, T. S. Cheng, A. Gottscholl, H. Long, C. J. Mellor, A. Zettl, V . Dyakonov, P. H. Beton, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 321 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Hayee, L

F. Hayee, L. Yu, J. L. Zhang, C. J. Ciccarino, M. Nguyen, A. F. Marshall, I. Aharonovich, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, P. Narang, T. F. Heinz, et al., Nat. Mater. 19, 534 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

Bourrellier, S

R. Bourrellier, S. Meuret, A. Tararan, O. Stéphan, M. Kociak, L. H. Tizei, and A. Zobelli, Nano Letters 16, 4317 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 52 references

[9]

Bommer and C

A. Bommer and C. Becher, Nanophotonics 8, 2041 (2019)

2019
[10]

T. T. Tran, C. Elbadawi, D. Totonjian, C. J. Lobo, G. Grosso, H. Moon, D. R. Englund, M. J. Ford, I. Aharonovich, and M. Toth, ACS Nano 10, 7331 (2016)

2016
[11]

Vuong, G

T. Vuong, G. Cassabois, P. Valvin, A. Ouerghi, Y . Chassagneux, 5 C. V oisin, and B. Gil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 097402 (2016)

2016
[12]

X. Xu, Z. O. Martin, D. Sychev, A. S. Lagutchev, Y . P. Chen, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, V . M. Shalaev, and A. Boltasseva, Nano Letters 21, 8182 (2021)

2021
[13]

A. Gale, C. Li, Y . Chen, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, I. Aharonovich, and M. Toth, ACS Photonics 9, 2170 (2022)

2022
[14]

Ziegler, R

J. Ziegler, R. Klaiss, A. Blaikie, D. Miller, V . R. Horowitz, and B. J. Alemán, Nano Letters 19, 2121 (2019)

2019
[15]

C. Jin, F. Lin, K. Suenaga, and S. Iijima, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 195505 (2009)

2009
[16]

O. L. Krivanek, M. F. Chisholm, V . Nicolosi, T. J. Pennycook, G. J. Corbin, N. Dellby, M. F. Murfitt, C. S. Own, Z. S. Szilagyi, M. P. Oxley, et al., Nature 464, 571 (2010)

2010
[17]

Abdi, J.-P

M. Abdi, J.-P. Chou, A. Gali, and M. B. Plenio, ACS Photonics 5, 1967 (2018)

2018
[18]

Ivády, G

V . Ivády, G. Barcza, G. Thiering, S. Li, H. Hamdi, J.-P. Chou, Ö. Legeza, and A. Gali, Npj Comput. Mater. 6, 41 (2020)

2020
[19]

J. R. Reimers, J. Shen, M. Kianinia, C. Bradac, I. Aharonovich, M. J. Ford, and P. Piecuch, Phys. Rev. B 102, 144105 (2020)

2020
[20]

Sajid, J

A. Sajid, J. R. Reimers, and M. J. Ford, Phys. Rev. B 97, 064101 (2018)

2018
[21]

C. Su, F. Zhang, S. Kahn, B. Shevitski, J. Jiang, C. Dai, A. Un- gar, J.-H. Park, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, et al., Nat. Mater. , 896–902 (2022)

2022
[22]

S. A. Tawfik, S. Ali, M. Fronzi, M. Kianinia, T. T. Tran, C. Stampfl, I. Aharonovich, M. Toth, and M. J. Ford, Nanoscale 9, 13575 (2017)

2017
[23]

Hamdi, G

H. Hamdi, G. Thiering, Z. Bodrog, V . Ivády, and A. Gali, Npj Comput. Mater. 6, 178 (2020)

2020
[24]

Weston, D

L. Weston, D. Wickramaratne, M. Mackoit, A. Alkauskas, and C. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. B 97, 214104 (2018)

2018
[25]

Auburger and A

P. Auburger and A. Gali, Phys. Rev. B 104, 075410 (2021)

2021
[26]

Mackoit-Sinkeviˇ cien˙ e, M

M. Mackoit-Sinkeviˇ cien˙ e, M. Maciaszek, C. G. Van de Walle, and A. Alkauskas, Appl. Phys. Lett. 115, 212101 (2019)

2019
[27]

Li and A

S. Li and A. Gali, Front. Quantum. Sci. Technol. 1, 1007756 (2022)

2022
[28]

Tan, J.-M

Q. Tan, J.-M. Lai, X.-L. Liu, D. Guo, Y . Xue, X. Dou, B.-Q. Sun, H.-X. Deng, P.-H. Tan, I. Aharonovich, et al., Nano Letters 22, 1331 (2022)

2022
[29]

Li and A

S. Li and A. Gali, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13, 9544 (2022)

2022
[30]

S. Li, A. Pershin, and A. Gali, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13515 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[31]

Huang, M

P. Huang, M. Grzeszczyk, K. Vaklinova, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. Novoselov, and M. Koperski, Phys. Rev. B 106, 014107 (2022)

2022
[32]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Comput. Mater. Sci. 6, 15 (1996)

1996
[33]

Kresse and J

G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 (1996)

1996
[34]

P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994)

1994
[35]

Kresse and D

G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999)

1999
[36]

Grimme, J

S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, J. Chem. Phys. 132, 154104 (2010)

2010
[37]

J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and M. Ernzerhof, J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8207 (2003)

2003
[38]

A. Gali, E. Janzén, P. Deák, G. Kresse, and E. Kaxiras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 186404 (2009)

2009
[39]

Alkauskas, J

A. Alkauskas, J. L. Lyons, D. Steiauf, and C. G. Van de Walle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 267401 (2012)

2012
[40]

Freysoldt and J

C. Freysoldt and J. Neugebauer, Phys. Rev. B 97, 205425 (2018)

2018
[41]

Gali, Nanophotonics 12, 359 (2023)

Á. Gali, Nanophotonics 12, 359 (2023)

2023
[42]

Hoese, P

M. Hoese, P. Reddy, A. Dietrich, M. K. Koch, K. G. Fehler, M. W. Doherty, and A. Kubanek, Sci. Adv. 6, eaba6038 (2020)

2020
[43]

X. Li, G. D. Shepard, A. Cupo, N. Camporeale, K. Shayan, Y . Luo, V . Meunier, and S. Strauf, ACS Nano 11, 6652 (2017)

2017
[44]

Li, J.-P

S. Li, J.-P. Chou, A. Hu, M. B. Plenio, P. Udvarhelyi, G. Thiering, M. Abdi, and A. Gali, Npj Quantum Inf. 6, 85 (2020)

2020
[45]

Shevitski, S

B. Shevitski, S. M. Gilbert, C. T. Chen, C. Kastl, E. S. Barnard, E. Wong, D. F. Ogletree, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Zettl, et al., Phys. Rev. B 100, 155419 (2019)

2019
[46]

Fournier, A

C. Fournier, A. Plaud, S. Roux, A. Pierret, M. Rosticher, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Buil, X. Quélin, J. Barjon, et al., Nat. Commun. 12, 3779 (2021)

2021
[47]

Zhigulin, J

I. Zhigulin, J. Horder, V . Ivády, S. J. White, A. Gale, C. Li, C. J. Lobo, M. Toth, I. Aharonovich, and M. Kianinia, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 044011 (2023)

2023
[48]

A. K. Da ˛browska, J. Binder, I. Prozheev, F. Tuomisto, J. Iwa´ nski, M. Tokarczyk, K. P. Korona, G. Kowalski, R. Ste ˛pniewski, and A. Wysmołek, J. Lumin. 269, 120486 (2024)

2024
[49]

Khorasani, T

E. Khorasani, T. Frauenheim, B. Aradi, and P. Deák, Phys. Status Solidi B 258, 2100031 (2021)

2021
[50]

Maciaszek, L

M. Maciaszek, L. Razinkovas, and A. Alkauskas, Phys. Rev. Mater. 6, 014005 (2022)

2022
[51]

Liang, Y

H. Liang, Y . Chen, L. Loh, N. L. Q. Cheng, Y . Chen, C. Yang, Z. Zhang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Y . Quek, et al., Researchsquare (2023), https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs- 2606377/v1

2023 doi
[52]

A. W. Schell, H. Takashima, T. T. Tran, I. Aharonovich, and S. Takeuchi, ACS Photonics 4, 761 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Wolfowicz, F

G. Wolfowicz, F. J. Heremans, C. P. Anderson, S. Kanai, H. Seo, A. Gali, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Nat. Rev. Mater. 6, 906 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [2]

Zhang, Y

G. Zhang, Y . Cheng, J.-P. Chou, and A. Gali, Appl. Phys. Rev. 7, 031308 (2020)

work page 2020

[3] [3]

T. T. Tran, K. Bray, M. J. Ford, M. Toth, and I. Aharonovich, Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 37 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

Gottscholl, M

A. Gottscholl, M. Kianinia, V . Soltamov, S. Orlinskii, G. Mamin, C. Bradac, C. Kasper, K. Krambrock, A. Sperlich, M. Toth, et al., Nat. Mater. 19, 540 (2020)

work page 2020

[5] [5]

Chejanovsky, A

N. Chejanovsky, A. Mukherjee, J. Geng, Y .-C. Chen, Y . Kim, A. Denisenko, A. Finkler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. B. R. Dasari, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 1079 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [6]

Mendelson, D

N. Mendelson, D. Chugh, J. R. Reimers, T. S. Cheng, A. Gottscholl, H. Long, C. J. Mellor, A. Zettl, V . Dyakonov, P. H. Beton, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 321 (2021)

work page 2021

[7] [7]

Hayee, L

F. Hayee, L. Yu, J. L. Zhang, C. J. Ciccarino, M. Nguyen, A. F. Marshall, I. Aharonovich, J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, P. Narang, T. F. Heinz, et al., Nat. Mater. 19, 534 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Bourrellier, S

R. Bourrellier, S. Meuret, A. Tararan, O. Stéphan, M. Kociak, L. H. Tizei, and A. Zobelli, Nano Letters 16, 4317 (2016)

work page 2016