This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Raman Linewidth Contributions from Four-Phonon
and Electron-Phonon Interactions in Graphene

Zherui Han These authors contributed equally to this work. School of Mechanical Engineering and the Birck Nanotechnology Center,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2088, USA.
   Xiaolong Yang These authors contributed equally to this work. Institute for Advanced Study, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China.    Sean E. Sullivan Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA.    Tianli Feng Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112, USA.    Li Shi Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA.    Wu Li wu.li.phys2011@gmail.com Institute for Advanced Study, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China.    Xiulin Ruan ruan@purdue.edu School of Mechanical Engineering and the Birck Nanotechnology Center,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907-2088, USA.
(October 1, 2025)
Abstract

The Raman peak position and linewidth provide insight into phonon anharmonicity and electron-phonon interactions (EPI) in materials. For monolayer graphene, prior first-principles calculations have yielded decreasing linewidth with increasing temperature, which is opposite to measurement results. Here, we explicitly consider four-phonon anharmonicity, phonon renormalization, and electron-phonon coupling, and find all to be important to successfully explain both the GG peak frequency shift and linewidths in our suspended graphene sample at a wide temperature range. Four-phonon scattering contributes a prominent linewidth that increases with temperature, while temperature dependence from EPI is found to be reversed above a doping threshold (ωG/2\hbar\omega_{G}/2, with ωG\omega_{G} being the frequency of the GG phonon).

preprint: APS/123-QED

Graphene has been studied Novoselov et al. (2004); Geim and Novoselov (2007); Akinwande et al. (2019) as an emerging atomically thin electronic and optoelectronic material and for thermal management Bonaccorso et al. (2010); Ghosh et al. (2008). Weak interactions between some acoustic phonon polarizations especially the flexural modes with the electronic and optical phonon excitations can give rise to hot electrons and overpopulated optical phonons Freitag et al. (2009); Chae et al. (2009) and limit the heat spreading contribution from low frequency phonons in graphene electronic and optoelectronic devices Sullivan et al. (2017). Meanwhile, the increased population of hot charge carriers can enhance the responsivity of graphene-based photodetectors Freitag et al. (2013). A detailed understanding of electron-phonon and phonon-phonon interaction is essential to understanding the transport properties and device performance of graphene and other 2D systems.

Raman spectroscopy provides an useful probe of the electron-phonon and phonon-phonon interactions in solid-state materials such as graphene Menéndez and Cardona (1984); Beechem et al. (2007); Ferrari and Basko (2013), and it has important implications for phonon anharmonicity. The Raman peak shift and linewidth depend on the coupling of the Raman-active optical phonon mode with electrons and other phonon polarizations. Prior first-principles studies Bonini et al. (2007) have investigated the contributions from electron-phonon and phonon-phonon scatterings to the linewidths of GG peak caused by Raman scattering of a zone-center optical phonon in graphene. The intrinsic phonon linewidth γin\gamma^{\rm in} is expressed as γin=γeph+γphph\gamma^{\rm in}=\gamma^{\rm e-ph}+\gamma^{\rm ph-ph} with γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} and γphph\gamma^{\rm ph-ph} representing contributions from the electron-phonon (e-ph) and phonon-phonon interactions (ph-ph), respectively. It was predicted that γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} decreases while γphph\gamma^{\rm ph-ph} increases with temperature (TT), and the descending trend of γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} would dominate up to 800 K Bonini et al. (2007). Opposite to this theoretical prediction, prior experiments show a monotonically increased linewidths with TT in graphite, few-layer graphene, and supported monolayer graphene Kang et al. (2010); Berciaud et al. (2010); Lin et al. (2011); Montagnac et al. (2013). This contradiction between theory and experiment underscores the need for an in-depth examination of the relative strength of intrinsic electron-phonon and phonon-phonon interactions in graphene.

In this study, we employ first-principles methods that explicitly consider higher-order phonon anharmonicity based on recent advances Feng and Ruan (2016); Feng et al. (2017). Specifically, we account for both three-phonon scattering contribution (γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph}) and four-phonon scattering contribution (γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph}) in the calculation of γphph=γ3ph+γ4ph\gamma^{\rm ph-ph}=\gamma^{\rm 3ph}+\gamma^{\rm 4ph} without involving fitting parameters that were used in several prior studies Lin et al. (2011); Apostolov et al. (2012); Cuscó et al. (2016). We further utilize a recently developed temperature dependent effective potential (TDEP) formalism Hellman et al. (2013), which can be combined with four-phonon scattering for a unified treatment Ravichandran and Broido (2018); Xia (2018), to capture the phonon renormalization effect in graphene. While a prior work Yang et al. (2020) suggested that the four-phonon scattering channel is generally important and even dominant in the zone-center optical phonon linewidth in 3D dielectric crystals, our results show that considering the effect of temperature is necessary for accurately predicting γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph} in pristine graphene and can allow accurate prediction of the Raman peak shift at finite temperatures. In particular, γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph} in graphene would be greatly overestimated if the effect of temperature on the phonon self-energy is neglected. The calculated linewidth and peak shift agree well with previous experiments of supported graphene and our own measurements of clean suspended monolayer graphene. By considering not only EPI as in previous work Hasdeo et al. (2016) but also the TT dependence of EPI in addition to full anharmonicity, our calculations predict that γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} changes nonmonotonically with increasing doping level and temperature.

All first-principles calculations are implemented in VASP package Kresse and Hafner (1993) and QUANTUM-ESPRESSO package Giannozzi et al. (2009). The ShengBTE code incorporating four-phonon scattering Li et al. (2014); Han et al. (2021) is then used to calculate ph-ph scattering rates. The EPW package Poncé et al. (2016) is used to calculate e-ph scattering rates. To consider the phonon renormalization effect, we use TDEP to compute TT-dependent effective interatomic force constants (IFCs). Further computational details are presented in the Supplemental Material sup .

We first present our results of phonon anharmonicity in pristine graphene. Figure 1 presents the first principles predicted Raman GG peak frequency, which is equivalent to the frequency of the zone-center E2gE_{2g} mode. The results show good agreement with the available experiments Calizo et al. (2007); Lin et al. (2011) and our own measurement of monolayer graphene sample grown by chemical vapor deposition and suspended over a circular hole Sullivan et al. (2017), which validates our choice of using the TDEP method to capture the temperature effects in graphene. This TT dependence of the Raman GG peak is a signature of anharmonicity that comes from both phonon-phonon interactions and lattice thermal expansion. The TDEP method intrinsically includes the impact of higher-order phonon-phonon interactions on the phonon frequency Kim et al. (2018). For the thermal expansion contribution, we directly use the first-principles-predicted lattice constants from Ref. Mounet and Marzari (2005) in our calculations. Consistent with Ref. Bonini et al. (2007), and despite the negative thermal expansion of graphene, the overall frequency shift still decreases with increasing TT.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: GG peak frequency shift of graphene from 0 K to 800 K. Orange solid line is a quadratic fitting to our calculated results at different temperatures using TDEP method. Experiment data are from Ref. Calizo et al. (2007); Lin et al. (2011) and this work.

We next shift our focus to the calculation of phonon linewidth, which is related to the phonon-phonon scattering rate τ1\tau^{-1} as γphph=τ12π\gamma^{\rm ph-ph}=\frac{\tau^{-1}}{2\pi}. Figure 2(a) presents our calculated γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph} and γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph}, which are expressed in the full width at half maximum (FWHM). The results convey two important insights. First, γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph} is dominant over γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph}, even at room temperature. With rising TT, γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph} only slightly increases while γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph} grows dramatically. Based on this finding, neglection of four-phonon scattering is the main cause of the opposite TT dependence calculated in Ref. Bonini et al. (2007) compared to experiments, as given in Fig. 2(b) (dash dot black curve). Second, we note that the modification of the phonon self-energy with TT is necessary for accurate calculation of γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph}, which exhibits a different TT dependence compared to γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph}. Without considering the phonon renormalization effect, the calculation would overestimate the four-phonon scattering rates especially at higher temperatures, as shown by the comparison between the red and orange lines in Fig. 2(a). In comparison, γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph} is relatively insensitive to temperatures (see comparison between the dashed and solid blue lines in Fig. 2(a)). Similarly, a recent work on graphene Gu et al. (2019) based on an optimized Tersoff potential suggests that fourth-order IFCs show much stronger dependence on TT than third-order IFCs.

For pristine graphene, the EPI contribution to FWHM is given by Fermi’s golden rule Bonini et al. (2007):

γeph(T)=4πN𝐤𝐤,i,j|g(𝐤+𝐪)j,𝐤i|2[f𝐤i(T)f(𝐤+𝐪)j(T)]×δ[ϵ𝐤iϵ(𝐤+𝐪)j+ω𝐪]\begin{array}[]{r}\gamma^{\mathrm{e}-\mathrm{ph}}(T)=\frac{4\pi}{N_{\mathbf{k}}}\sum\limits_{\mathbf{k},i,j}\left|g_{(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})j,\mathbf{k}i}\right|^{2}\left[f_{\mathbf{k}i}(T)-f_{(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})j}(T)\right]\\ \times\delta\left[\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}i}-\epsilon_{(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})j}+\hbar\omega_{\mathbf{q}}\right]\end{array} (1)

where ω𝐪\omega_{\mathbf{q}} is the phonon frequency, the sum is on N𝐤N_{\mathbf{k}} electron vectors 𝐤\mathbf{k}. g(𝐤+𝐪)j,𝐤ig_{(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})j,\mathbf{k}i} is the e-ph coupling matrix element for a phonon with wave vector 𝐪\mathbf{q} exciting an electronic state |𝐤i|\mathbf{k}i\rangle with wavevector 𝐤\mathbf{k} into the state |(𝐤+𝐪)j|(\mathbf{k}+\mathbf{q})j\rangle. f𝐤i(T)f_{\mathbf{k}i}(T) is the Fermi-Dirac occupation for an electron with energy ϵ𝐤i\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}i}, δ\delta is the Dirac delta used to describe the energy selection rule.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) Intrinsic E2gE_{2g} mode linewidth from ph-ph interactions γphph\gamma^{\rm ph-ph}, with and without phonon renormalization. Here, the data with ’Renorm.’ at the beginning of the label are those calculated with TDEP to account for the temperature effect, and Renorm.γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph} is fitted to a quatratic function. (b) Intrinsic E2gE_{2g} mode linewidth of graphene from e-ph and ph-ph contributions. γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} is calculated for pristine graphene. Experiments are from Ref. Lin et al. (2011) and our own measurements. A previous prediction Bonini et al. (2007) is plotted as the dash-dot black line, and shows an opposite dependence on TT compared to measurements.

With the above results, Figure 2(b) shows our calculated intrinsic phonon linewidth γin\gamma^{\rm in} of pristine graphene. The red solid line in Fig. 2(b) shows that γin\gamma^{\rm in} calculated without temperature corrections would be well above the experimental data. With four-phonon scattering and phonon renormalization accounted for, the obtained renormalized linewidth agrees reasonably well with prior experiments and our own measurements of suspended monolayer graphene. While the absolute FWHM values of our calculation results fall slightly below the experimental data for pristine graphene, this discrepancy could be explained by the finite instrument resolution of the spectrometers used in the experiments, which is on the order of a few cm-1 in our measurements and would broaden the measured linewidth. In contrast to the dash dot black line calculated in previous studies Bonini et al. (2007), the phonon linewidth for the E2gE_{2g} mode is not completely dominated by γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph}. Rather, its descending trend would be compensated and then outweighed by the growing γphph\gamma^{\rm ph-ph}, which is mainly due to the increasing four-phonon scattering rates at higher temperatures. Thus, at all temperatures γin\gamma^{\rm in} exhibits an increasing trend. Our calculations successfully explain this TT dependence observed in experiments.

Our calculations above also clearly show the contribution of the EPI to the GG band linewidth of pristine graphene, and especially it dominates the γin\gamma^{\rm in} below 500 K. Prior calculations have demonstrated that the EPI in graphene can be tuned over a wide range by changing the carrier density through the application of a gate voltage Yan et al. (2007); Park et al. (2007); Si et al. (2013); Park et al. (2014); Kim et al. (2016); Yang et al. (2021). While it is not possible to apply a gate voltage to our suspended monolayer graphene sample, we investigate this effect by calculating the GG band linewidth arising from the e-ph scattering for graphene with doping of either electrons or holes.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: TT-dependent GG band linewidth arising from the EPI γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} at different carrier densities for electron-doped graphene (a) and for hole-doped graphene (b). The orange solid lines denote the linewidth contributed by the intrinsic ph-ph scattering (γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph}+γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph}). (c) The γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} at different temperatures and carrier density as a function of Fermi energy EFE_{F}. The vertical dotted line is the position of the charge-neutral Dirac point. The blue solid line is the carrier density; the other solid lines are the calculated γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} at three temperatures. The black dots represent experimental data from Ref. Yan et al. (2007). To highlight only the effect of e-ph scattering, we have isolated γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} from the original experimental data in Ref. Yan et al. (2007). (d) Electron density of states (DOS) of graphene near the Dirac point. The insets are schematic diagrams for e-ph scattering process applicable to the case of the GG mode. ϵ\epsilon is the onset energy for vertical electron-hole pair transitions. The left inset represents the decay of the GG phonon into electron-hole pairs occurring at low carrier densities (EF<ωG/2E_{F}<\hbar\omega_{G}/2 ). The right inset indicates that the GG phonon decay into the electron-hole pair is forbidden by the Pauli exclusion principle at high carrier densities (EF>ωG/2E_{F}>\hbar\omega_{G}/2).

Figure 3(a, b) shows the calculated TT-dependent γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} of the GG band at different carrier densities nn for graphene. The contribution from the intrinsic ph-ph scattering (γ3ph\gamma^{\rm 3ph}+γ4ph\gamma^{\rm 4ph}), which is independent of carrier density, is also provided for comparison. It can be seen that γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} is significantly decreased with increasing nn. This indicates that as the carrier density increases, the contribution of e-ph scattering to the linewidth decreases as compared to the contribution from ph-ph scattering. It is also seen in Fig. 3(a) that the TT dependence of the γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} is strongly dependent on the carrier concentration. For low electron densities, e.g., n=2.1×1011cm2n=\rm 2.1\times 10^{11}~cm^{-2}, the calculated γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} decreases with increasing TT, whereas it increases with TT for carrier densities above 1.1×1012cm2\sim\rm 1.1\times 10^{12}\ cm^{-2}. From Eq. 1, the temperature dependence of γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} is governed by f𝐤i(T)f𝐤j(T)f_{\mathbf{k}i}(T)-f_{\mathbf{k}j}(T), which are closely associated with the sharpness of the Fermi function and the position of the Fermi energy relative to the threshold of the onset energy for vertical transitions of an electron from a π\pi valence band to a π\pi^{*} conduction band state Yan et al. (2007); Park et al. (2007). This energy corresponds to ωG0.2\hbar\omega_{G}\approx 0.2 eV. For low carrier density regimes (EF<ωG/2E_{F}<\hbar\omega_{G}/2), as the Fermi function is smeared out with increasing TT, the number of empty electron states available for transition by absorbing the GG phonon is reduced, thus causing the γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} to decrease with increasing TT. As the carrier density increases to reach EF>ωG/2E_{F}>\hbar\omega_{G}/2, the smoothing of the Fermi function with increasing TT makes part of the occupied electronic states available, and consequently γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} increases with TT. These analyses are also applicable to the case of holes.

To examine the carrier dependence closely, Fig. 3(c) displays γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} of the GG band varying with EFE_{F}. The carrier density with respect to the Fermi energy is also included in Fig. 3(c) (blue curve). It is remarkable in Fig. 3(c) that the variation of γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} with doping level varies with TT. Note that our calculation at 10 K is in reasonable agreement with recent experimental measurements Yan et al. (2007), and that at 300 K coincides with the previous theoretical prediction Lazzeri and Mauri (2006). The difference between experiment Yan et al. (2007) and our calculation at 10 K is mainly due to the local density variations in graphene samples. Following the Pauli exclusion principle, near the ground state (T0T\rightarrow 0 K) the vertical transitions can be allowed only when EF<0.1E_{F}<0.1 eV (corresponding to 1.1×1012cm2\sim\rm 1.1\times 10^{12}\ cm^{-2}), as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 3(d) on the left, where the energy selection rules are easily satisfied. When EF>0.1E_{F}>0.1 eV, the energy selection rules fully prohibit the ππ\pi\rightarrow\pi^{*} transitions, as illustrated in the inset of Fig. 3(d) on the right. Hence, as seen in Fig. 3(c), at T=10T=10 K the γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} suddenly drops at EF=0.1E_{F}=0.1 eV. As TT increases, however, the smoothing of the Fermi function makes part of the occupied electronic states available, thus the γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} is smeared out also. As a consequence, the threshold of the Fermi energy, above which γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} vanishes, increases with TT. It can be seen in Fig. 3(c) that at T=300T=300 K the threshold of the Fermi energy increases to 0.2\sim 0.2 eV from 0.10.1 eV at T=10T=10 K, and it reaches 0.3\sim 0.3 eV at T=600T=600 K. Note also that as EFE_{F} increases, γeph\gamma^{\rm e-ph} exhibits a nearly symmetric reduction relative to the position of the charge-neutral Dirac point, which is closely related to the symmetry of the electron density of states (DOS) near the Dirac point, as shown in Fig. 3(d).

Figure 4 shows the calculated total linewidth of the GG mode at different carrier concentrations in comparison to available experimental data Lin et al. (2011); Berciaud et al. (2010). Our calculations show that the FWHM of the GG mode is extremely sensitive to the carrier density and can vary over a wide range as the carrier density changes. It is clear that after considering a residual charge density of 2.16×1012cm2\rm 2.16\times 10^{12}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}} our calculation can well explain another Raman measurement Berciaud et al. (2010). This finding indicates that the variations of the GG band linewidth among reported experimental data can be attributed to the e-ph scattering contribution, which strongly depend on the carrier density. On the other hand, the TT dependence of the FWHM exhibits a strong doping dependence, which is strongly connected to the interplay between the ph-ph scattering and e-ph scattering. At low carrier densities, e.g., n=2.1×1011cm2n=\rm 2.1\times 10^{11}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}, the calculated linewith increases slowly with TT, since e-ph processes make a dominant contribution to γ\gamma and it partially compensates the increase of the linewidth due to ph-ph processes. At higher carrier densities, e.g., n=2.16×1012cm2n=\rm 2.16\times 10^{12}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}}, the FWHM is completely dominated by the ph-ph processes, and it thus increase rapidly as TT increases. These results reveal the significance of the e-ph scattering in determining the GG band linewith and its temperature dependence in graphene.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: GG band linewidth as a function of temperature for different doping levels. The experiment data are from Ref. Berciaud et al. (2010); Lin et al. (2011) and our own measurements.

In conclusion, we have investigated the GG band frequency shift and linewith of graphene by including phonon renormalization and the anharmonic three-phonon, four-phonon, and electron-phonon scattering contributions, using first principles. We reveal that four-phonon scattering, which was neglected in the past, plays an indispensable role in the GG band linewith of pristine graphene, although it is greatly weakened by phonon renormalization. When combining both ph-ph and e-ph scattering, our prediction successfully explains previous measurements and our own measurements. Our calculation also shows that the e-ph coupling contribution and its temperature dependence significantly varies with doping levels. By calculating the GG band linewidth at different carrier densities, we suggest that the variations among previous experiments results can be attributed to the e-ph coupling contribution. Our work provides important insights into the understanding phonon-phonon interaction and electron-phonon interaction of graphene and other 2D materials.

Acknowledgements.
X. R., Z. H., and L. S. were supported by two collaborating grants (2015946 and 2015954) of the US National Science Foundation. Simulations were performed at the Rosen Center for Advanced Computing (RCAC) of Purdue University. X.Y. was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 12004254). W. L. was supported by the GuangDong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (Grant No. 2021A1515010042) and the Shenzhen Science, Technology and Innovation Commission (Grant No. 20200809161605001). We would like to thank Professor Xiaokun Gu for the helpful discussions on thermal expansion and temperature-dependent force constants.

References

  • Novoselov et al. (2004) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004).
  • Geim and Novoselov (2007) A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater. 6, 183 (2007), ISSN 1476-1122.
  • Akinwande et al. (2019) D. Akinwande, C. Huyghebaert, C.-H. Wang, M. I. Serna, S. Goossens, L.-J. Li, H.-S. P. Wong, and F. H. L. Koppens, Nature 573, 507 (2019), ISSN 0028-0836.
  • Bonaccorso et al. (2010) F. Bonaccorso, Z. Sun, T. Hasan, and A. Ferrari, Nat. Photonics 4, 611 (2010).
  • Ghosh et al. (2008) D. Ghosh, I. Calizo, D. Teweldebrhan, E. P. Pokatilov, D. L. Nika, A. A. Balandin, W. Bao, F. Miao, and C. N. Lau, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 151911 (2008).
  • Freitag et al. (2009) M. Freitag, M. Steiner, Y. Martin, V. Perebeinos, Z. Chen, J. C. Tsang, and P. Avouris, Nano Lett. 9, 1883 (2009), ISSN 1530-6984, eprint 0912.0531.
  • Chae et al. (2009) D.-H. Chae, B. Krauss, K. v. Klitzing, and J. H. Smet, Nano Lett. 10, 466 (2009), ISSN 1530-6984, eprint 1001.1814.
  • Sullivan et al. (2017) S. Sullivan, A. Vallabhaneni, I. Kholmanov, X. Ruan, J. Murthy, and L. Shi, Nano Lett. 17, 2049 (2017), ISSN 1530-6984, eprint 1701.03011.
  • Freitag et al. (2013) M. Freitag, T. Low, and P. Avouris, Nano Lett. 13, 1644 (2013), ISSN 1530-6984.
  • Menéndez and Cardona (1984) J. Menéndez and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B 29, 2051 (1984), ISSN 1098-0121.
  • Beechem et al. (2007) T. Beechem, S. Graham, S. P. Kearney, L. M. Phinney, and J. R. Serrano, Review of Scientific Instruments 78, 061301 (2007).
  • Ferrari and Basko (2013) A. C. Ferrari and D. M. Basko, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 235 (2013), ISSN 1748-3387.
  • Bonini et al. (2007) N. Bonini, M. Lazzeri, N. Marzari, and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 176802 (2007), ISSN 0031-9007, eprint 0708.4259.
  • Kang et al. (2010) K. Kang, D. Abdula, D. G. Cahill, and M. Shim, Phys. Rev. B 81, 165405 (2010), ISSN 1098-0121.
  • Berciaud et al. (2010) S. Berciaud, M. Y. Han, K. F. Mak, L. E. Brus, P. Kim, and T. F. Heinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 227401 (2010), ISSN 0031-9007.
  • Lin et al. (2011) J. Lin, L. Guo, Q. Huang, Y. Jia, K. Li, X. Lai, and X. Chen, Phys. Rev. B 83, 125430 (2011), ISSN 1098-0121.
  • Montagnac et al. (2013) G. Montagnac, R. Caracas, E. Bobocioiu, F. Vittoz, and B. Reynard, Carbon 54, 68 (2013), ISSN 0008-6223.
  • Feng and Ruan (2016) T. Feng and X. Ruan, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045202 (2016), ISSN 2469-9950.
  • Feng et al. (2017) T. Feng, L. Lindsay, and X. Ruan, Phys. Rev. B 96, 161201(R) (2017), ISSN 2469-9950.
  • Apostolov et al. (2012) A. T. Apostolov, I. N. Apostolova, and J. M. Wesselinowa, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 24, 235401 (2012), ISSN 0953-8984.
  • Cuscó et al. (2016) R. Cuscó, B. Gil, G. Cassabois, and L. Artús, Phys. Rev. B 94, 155435 (2016), ISSN 2469-9950.
  • Hellman et al. (2013) O. Hellman, P. Steneteg, I. A. Abrikosov, and S. I. Simak, Phys. Rev. B 87, 104111 (2013), ISSN 1098-0121, eprint 1303.1145.
  • Ravichandran and Broido (2018) N. K. Ravichandran and D. Broido, Physical Review B 98, 085205 (2018).
  • Xia (2018) Y. Xia, Applied Physics Letters 113, 073901 (2018).
  • Yang et al. (2020) X. Yang, T. Feng, J. S. Kang, Y. Hu, J. Li, and X. Ruan, Phys. Rev. B 101, 161202(R) (2020), ISSN 2469-9950.
  • Hasdeo et al. (2016) E. H. Hasdeo, A. R. Nugraha, M. S. Dresselhaus, and R. Saito, Phys. Rev. B 94, 075104 (2016).
  • Kresse and Hafner (1993) G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 47, 558 (1993), ISSN 1098-0121.
  • Giannozzi et al. (2009) P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 395502 (2009), ISSN 0953-8984, eprint 0906.2569.
  • Li et al. (2014) W. Li, J. Carrete, N. A. Katcho, and N. Mingo, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 1747 (2014), ISSN 0010-4655.
  • Han et al. (2021) Z. Han, X. Yang, W. Li, T. Feng, and X. Ruan, arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.04895 (2021).
  • Poncé et al. (2016) S. Poncé, E. Margine, C. Verdi, and F. Giustino, Comput. Phys. Commun. 209, 116 (2016), ISSN 0010-4655, eprint 1604.03525.
  • (32) See supplemental material at [url will be inserted by publisher] for computational details.
  • Calizo et al. (2007) I. Calizo, A. A. Balandin, W. Bao, F. Miao, and C. N. Lau, Nano Lett. 7, 2645 (2007), ISSN 1530-6984.
  • Kim et al. (2018) D. S. Kim, O. Hellman, J. Herriman, H. L. Smith, J. Y. Y. Lin, N. Shulumba, J. L. Niedziela, C. W. Li, D. L. Abernathy, and B. Fultz, Proc. National Acad. Sci. 115, 1992 (2018), ISSN 0027-8424, eprint 1610.08737.
  • Mounet and Marzari (2005) N. Mounet and N. Marzari, Phys. Rev. B 71, 205214 (2005), ISSN 1098-0121.
  • Gu et al. (2019) X. Gu, Z. Fan, H. Bao, and C. Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. B 100, 064306 (2019), ISSN 2469-9950.
  • Yan et al. (2007) J. Yan, Y. Zhang, P. Kim, and A. Pinczuk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 166802 (2007), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.166802.
  • Park et al. (2007) C.-H. Park, F. Giustino, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 086804 (2007).
  • Si et al. (2013) C. Si, Z. Liu, W. Duan, and F. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 196802 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.196802.
  • Park et al. (2014) C.-H. Park, N. Bonini, T. Sohier, G. Samsonidze, B. Kozinsky, M. Calandra, F. Mauri, and N. Marzari, Nano Lett. 14, 1113 (2014), ISSN 1530-6984, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/nl402696q.
  • Kim et al. (2016) T. Y. Kim, C.-H. Park, and N. Marzari, Nano Lett. 16, 2439 (2016), ISSN 1530-6984, URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b05288.
  • Yang et al. (2021) X. Yang, A. Jena, F. Meng, S. Wen, J. Ma, X. Li, and W. Li, Mater. Today. Phys. 18, 100315 (2021), ISSN 2542-5293, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542529320301395.
  • Lazzeri and Mauri (2006) M. Lazzeri and F. Mauri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 266407 (2006).