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

Strain-tunable topological quantum phase transition in buckled honeycomb lattices

Jia-An Yan1 jiaanyan@gmail.com 1. Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, USA
2. Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, USA
3. Department of Physics, Washington University, St Louis, MO 63005, USA
   Mack A. Dela Cruz1 1. Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, USA
2. Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, USA
3. Department of Physics, Washington University, St Louis, MO 63005, USA
   Salvador Barraza-Lopez2 1. Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, USA
2. Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, USA
3. Department of Physics, Washington University, St Louis, MO 63005, USA
   Li Yang3 1. Department of Physics, Astronomy, and Geosciences, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, USA
2. Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701, USA
3. Department of Physics, Washington University, St Louis, MO 63005, USA
(August 19, 2025)
Abstract

Low-buckled silicene is a prototypical quantum spin Hall insulator with the topological quantum phase transition controlled by an out-of-plane electric field. We show that this field-induced electronic transition can be further tuned by an in-plane hydrostatic biaxial strain ε\varepsilon, owing to the curvature-dependent spin-orbit coupling (SOC): There is a Z2Z_{2} = 1 topological insulator phase for biaxial strain |ε||\varepsilon| smaller than 0.07, and the band gap can be tuned from 0.7 meV for ε=+0.07\varepsilon=+0.07 up to a fourfold 3.0 meV for ε=0.07\varepsilon=-0.07. First-principles calculations also show that the critical field strength EcE_{c} can be tuned by more than 113%, with the absolute values nearly 10 times stronger than the theoretical predictions based on a tight-binding model. The buckling structure of the honeycomb lattice thus enhances the tunability of both the quantum phase transition and the SOC-induced band gap, which are crucial for the design of topological field-effect transistors based on two-dimensional materials.

Two-dimensional (2D) quantum spin Hall (QSH) insulator Kane2005v1 ; Kane2005v2 ; Bernevig2006 ; Bernevig2006sci ; Konig2007 ; Hasan2010 ; Qi2011 is characterized by an insulating bulk and gapless edge states at its boundaries Kane2005v1 ; Kane2005v2 . These edge states are topologically protected from backscattering of non-magnetic defects or impurities due to time-reversal symmetry, thus providing enticing concepts for novel quantum electronic devices with low energy dissipation Hasan2010 ; Qi2011 . Quantized conductance through QSH edge states were originally reported on HgTe/CdTe Bernevig2006sci ; Konig2007 , and on InAs/GaSb Liu2008 ; Du2013 quantum wells too.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (Color online) The electronic properties of silicene are independently tuned by (a) an in-plane biaxial strain ε\varepsilon, and (b) an out-of-plane EE-field EzE_{z}. Subplots (c) and (d) are band dispersions under typical values of ε\varepsilon or EzE_{z}, respectively. Insets are zoom-ins of the band dispersion near the KK-point (the Fermi level is set to zero; note the overlapping bands for ε=0.00\varepsilon=0.00 and 0.050.05 on (c)). Here, we will explore the combined effects of ε\varepsilon and EzE_{z} on its electronic structures.

There is an intense drive to realize QSH insulators with controllable quantum phase transitions and tunable electronic and spin properties Ezawa2012njp ; Ezawa2012prl . The intrinsic spin-orbit coupling (SOC) in graphene is weak Kane2005v2 ; Min2006 ; HH2006 ; Yao2007 , but other 2D materials that may realize this phenomena include honeycomb lattices of bismuth atoms on a silicon surface FengPNAS , an electric-field-induced QSH phase on few-layer black phosphorus Liu2014 , a new structural phase of a transition-metal dichalcogenide Guinea2014 ; Qian2014 , and silicene/germanene Ciraci ; Liu2011prl ; Liu2011prb ; Ni2012 ; Drummond2012 ; Ezawa2012njp ; Ezawa2012prl ; Padilha2013 , among others Ma ; PRL2013 ; Rapid2014 ; Tang2014 .

Mechanical strain and curvature (i.e., shape) HH2006 ; Maria2010 modify the electronic and spin properties of buckled honeycomb lattices, and a deep understanding of their effects is emerging ACSNano ; RapidAlejandro ; Tomanek ; Kamien . In a classic work, the dependence of the SOC strength λSOC\lambda_{SOC} on curvature is established to arise from (1) on-site spin-flips among σ\sigma- and π\pi- bands due to the intrinsic coupling among spin and ss- and pp-electronic orbitals, and (2) a subsequent hybridization of the hopping π\pi-electron with electrons from bands with σ\sigma-symmetry in the presence of curvature HH2006 . This important phenomenon lies beyond those descriptions of the electronic structure of silicene and other group-IV 2D materials that are based on π\pi-electrons only Ezawa2012njp ; Ezawa2012prl . Curvature is of central importance for the discussion of 2D-based topological field-effect transistors because it raises the intrinsic gap, and hence the temperature at which these devices could operate. On the other hand, a controllable and tunable topological quantum phase transition will greatly facilitate the device fabrication and operation Qian2014 . Working on silicene, we generalize Ezawa’s result Δ(Ez)=2|lEzλSOC|\Delta(E_{z})=2|lE_{z}-\lambda_{SOC}| for the dependence of the energy band gap Δ(Ez)\Delta(E_{z}) on the electric field (EE-field) EzE_{z}, in which the SOC strength λSOC\lambda_{SOC} is assumed to be a constant, into:

Δ(Ez,ε)=2|l(ε)EzλSOC(ε)|,\Delta(E_{z},\varepsilon)=2|l(\varepsilon)E_{z}-\lambda_{SOC}(\varepsilon)|, (1)

where λSOC\lambda_{SOC} evolves with strain due to a curvature-induced hybridization among ss and pp electrons.

Pristine silicene is a QSH insulator with a band gap Δ(Ez=0,ε=0)\Delta(E_{z}=0,\varepsilon=0) of about 1.5 meV (18 K) Liu2011prl ; Liu2011prb . This band gap is tunable by an EE-field EzE_{z} perpendicular to the buckled atomic layer Ni2012 ; Drummond2012 ; Ezawa2012njp as an electrostatic potential difference is established between the two Si atoms in the unit cell due to their height difference 2l2l. Silicene behaves as a Z2Z_{2} = 1 non-trivial QSH insulator below a critical EzE_{z} strength |Ec||E_{c}|, and becomes a trivial band insulator for values of |Ez|>|Ec||E_{z}|>|E_{c}| Ezawa2012njp ; Ezawa2012prl . In addition, silicene is likely to be fabricated on substrates Aufray2010 ; Lalmi2010 ; Vogt2012 ; Fleurence2012 ; Chen2012 ; Feng2012 ; Jamgotchian2012 ; Lin2012 and may be subject of in-plane strain ε\varepsilon already. A fundamental understanding of effects of the strain on the topological quantum phase transition is important for the design of quantum electronic devices based on silicene and other 2D materials FengPNAS ; Liu2014 ; Qian2014 ; Padilha2013 .

Calculations were carried out using density-functional theory HK1964 ; KS1965 as implemented in the Quantum ESPRESSO code pwscf with the GGA-PBEsol exchange-correlation functional PBE2008 . The SOC was included in the fully relativistic Rappe-Rabe-Kaxiras-Joannopoulos (RRKJ) ultrasoft pseudopotential scheme RRKJ1990 with a nonlinear core correction. The cutoff energy in the plane wave expansion is 50 Ry. A Monkhorst-Pack uniform kk-grid of 36×\times36×\times1 is employed. A vacuum region of 20 Å  is introduced along the out-of-plane (zz) direction to eliminate spurious interactions among periodic images. The EE-field EzE_{z} is induced by a saw-tooth potential along the zz-direction (c.f., Fig. 1(b)). Biaxial strain is applied to the silicene lattice, and ε\varepsilon is defined as ε\varepsilon = (aa0)/a0(a-a_{0})/a_{0} (see Fig. 1(a)). Here aa and a0=3.85a_{0}=3.85 Å Bechstedt2012 ; Padilha2013 ; Rapid2014 are the strained and unstrained lattice constants, respectively.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: (a) Typical band dispersions for various magnitudes of ε\varepsilon: A semicondoctor-to-metal transition occurs when |ε|>0.07|\varepsilon|>0.07, as highlighted by the tilted (red) arrows. Insets help highlight the band dispersions near the Fermi level around the KK-point. (b) Band gap Δ\Delta (left axis) and the height difference 2l2l due to buckling (right axis) as a function of biaxial strain ε\varepsilon, for an Ez=0E_{z}=0 display a linear relationship in silicene, that has been explicitly indicated.

There is a 1.5 meV gap opening at the KK-point that is induced by the SOC for ε=0\varepsilon=0 and Ez=0E_{z}=0. When independently applied (c.f., Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)) strain and EE-field lead to distinct changes on the electronic band dispersions, as seen in Figs. 1(c) and 1(d), respectively. In-plane strain preserves inversion symmetry, leading to a gap opening that is more apparent for compressive strain (see the inset of Fig. 1(c), ε=0.05\varepsilon=-0.05), thus suggesting a relation among λSOC\lambda_{SOC} and ε\varepsilon that –as a matter of fact– has been discussed in the context of graphene some time ago HH2006 . On the other hand, EzE_{z} lifts inversion symmetry thus removing the band degeneracy, as seen on the inset of Fig. 1(d) for Ez=1E_{z}=1 V/nm (dashed lines). The effects of EE-fields on the electronic properties of silicene have been thoroughly discussed in the past, so we continue exploring the effect of strain on Fig. 2.

There are three effects of strain on the electronic structure that are conveyed by Fig. 2(a): (i) A renormalization of the Fermi velocity near the KK-point deJuan . (ii) An upward shift of the valence-band maxima (VBM) under compressive strain, and a downward shift of the conduction-band minima (CBM) under tensile strain at the Γ\Gamma-point. (iii) A gap opening at the KK-point that is especially evident under compressive strain. Effects (ii) and (iii) are responsible for the semiconductor-to-metal transition, and are the focus of the ensuing discussion.

For sufficiently large compressive strain, the VBM crosses the Fermi level at the Γ\Gamma-point (c.f., Fig. 2(a) for ε=0.07\varepsilon=-0.07; this crossing has been highlighted by a tilted red arrow). Similarly, the CBM at the Γ\Gamma-point nearly touches the Fermi level for a tensile strain of ε=+\varepsilon=+0.07: Silicene undergoes a transition to a metallic phase for strain beyond |ε|0.07|\varepsilon|\sim 0.07. Although arising under different mechanisms, these effects due to strain are reminiscent of the topological-metal phase transition that is induced by an electric field in few-layer black phosphorus Liu2014 .

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (Color online) Topological quantum phase diagram of silicene with respect to in-plane biaxial strain ε\varepsilon and out-of-plane EE-field EzE_{z}. The vertical axis is the band gap Δ\Delta. The critical EE-fields EcE_{c}, at which there is a phase transition from a topological insulator into a band insulator, have been indicated by vertical white arrows. The metallic state has a zero value of Δ\Delta that is shown in red, and the area marked by QSH represents the topological spin Hall state phase.

We next discuss the band dispersion seen around the KK-point in the insets of Fig. 2(a). To do so, we first report the SOC-induced band gap Δ\Delta and the buckling height 2l2l as a function of ε\varepsilon in Fig. 2(b): Δ\Delta increases monotonically as ε\varepsilon decreases from ε=+0.07\varepsilon=+0.07 down to ε=0.07\varepsilon=-0.07, meaning that compressive strain enhances the band gap Δ\Delta while tensile strain decreases the gap. Since the energy band gap never closes in going from pristine silicene – a Z2=1Z_{2}=1 topological insulator – to strained silicene with |ε|<0.07|\varepsilon|<0.07, so these systems share the same topological classification according to the adiabatic continuity argument for transformations of the electronic bands.

The above phenomenon can be understood from the change of the buckling height 2l2l among two silicon atoms due to an in-plane strain (l=l(ε)l=l(\varepsilon)) shown in Fig. 2(b). Buckling (and hence ll) increases with compressive strain, thus enhancing the overlap among σ\sigma and π\pi orbitals, resulting in a strain-dependent SOC HH2006 ; Liu2011prl . The band gap Δ\Delta increase is almost linear on ll: Δ5.25l\Delta\sim 5.25l. A positive ε\varepsilon reduces ll, making the structure more planar (graphene-like), so the overlap among σ\sigma and π\pi orbitals decreases, bringing λSOC\lambda_{SOC} down into its “intrinsic value” (i.e., its value under a zero curvature) HH2006 ; Liu2011prl . However, when ε\varepsilon = ++0.07, the CBM at the Γ\Gamma-point nearly touches the Fermi level (tilted arrow on subplot in Fig. 2(a)), so that a further increase of ε\varepsilon induces a transition into a metallic phase.

The strain-dependent SOC may be more qualitatively explained with the following matrix form at atom AA Liu2011prb :

HA,SOC=λ~SOC2(0000000000-i000010+i00000-i000001-i000000000000100-i0000+i0+i0001+i00000),H_{A,SOC}=\frac{\tilde{\lambda}_{SOC}}{2}\left(\begin{matrix}$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\ $0$&$0$&$-i$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$1$\\ $0$&$+i$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$-i$\\ $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$1$&$-i$&$0$\\ $0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\\ $0$&$0$&$0$&$1$&$0$&$0$&$-i$&$0$\\ $0$&$0$&$0$&$+i$&$0$&$+i$&$0$&$0$\\ $0$&$1$&$+i$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$\end{matrix}\right), (2)

on the basis set {|s|s\uparrow\rangle, |px|p_{x}\uparrow\rangle, |py|p_{y}\uparrow\rangle, |pz|p_{z}\uparrow\rangle, |s|s\downarrow\rangle, |px|p_{x}\downarrow\rangle, |py|p_{y}\downarrow\rangle, |pz|p_{z}\downarrow\rangle}. This SOC matrix produces spin flips among |pz|p_{z}\rangle (π\pi) and |px|p_{x}\rangle, |py|p_{y}\rangle orbitals (that belong on σ\sigma- bands prior to the orbital hybridization) and λ~SOC\tilde{\lambda}_{SOC} could be obtained as a fitting parameter. The SOC matrix at atom BB HB,SOCH_{B,SOC} has an identical form. This intrinsic SOC is further enhanced by hopping HH2006 .

After indicating the dependence among Δ\Delta and ε\varepsilon seen on the first-principles data (Figs. 1 and 2), we study the combined effects of strain and EE-field on the topological phase transition, and display Δ\Delta as a function of the EzE_{z} and ε\varepsilon. Δ(Ez,ε)\Delta(E_{z},\varepsilon) has a characteristic WW-shape Liu2011prl ; Liu2011prb ; Ezawa2012njp ; Padilha2013 ; Qian2014 as seen in Fig. 3. For a given value of ε\varepsilon, Δ\Delta decreases to zero as |Ez||E_{z}| increases. For a given magnitude of ε\varepsilon smaller than 7%, the value of EzE_{z} for which Δ=0\Delta=0 is known as the critical field |Ec(ε)||E_{c}(\varepsilon)|: As the field increases further beyond |Ec(ε)||E_{c}(\varepsilon)|, the energy band gap Δ\Delta reopens and increases again, but the electronic state is a trivial insulator because, according to the bulk-boundary correspondence principle, the topological phase transition occurs at the critical field strength |Ec(ε)||E_{c}(\varepsilon)| when the band gap closes. Fig. 3 clearly shows that the critical field strength |Ec(ε)||E_{c}(\varepsilon)| increases with compressive strain: Strain tunes the quantum phase transition due to a buckling-dependent SOC.

Fig. 3 can also be seen as a phase diagram that indicates the different quantum phases that can be reached by jointly tuning EzE_{z} and ε\varepsilon: Between -0.07 <ε<<\varepsilon<+0.07, silicene is a QSH insulator for any applied EE-field in the range of |E|<|Ec(ε)||E|<|E_{c}(\varepsilon)|. On the other hand, silicene changes to an ordinary band insulator with |E|>|Ec(ε)||E|>|E_{c}(\varepsilon)|. This phase diagram is clearly visible in Fig. 3.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: (Color online) The critical EE-field strength EcDFTE_{c}^{\texttt{DFT}} calculated from DFT is shown as a function of the theoretical value EcthE_{c}^{\texttt{th}} based on Eq. (1). The red line indicates a linear fit of the data.

Finally, we discuss the critical field strength EcE_{c}. In Fig. 4, the first-principles data EcDFTE_{c}^{\texttt{DFT}} are shown as a function of the theoretical predictions from Eq. (1): Ecth=λSOC/lE_{c}^{\texttt{th}}=\lambda_{SOC}/l. The DFT results are nearly 10 times larger than the theoretical values, indicating a strong screening in silicene. In Ref. [Drummond2012, ], the field-induced band gap is found to be suppressed by a factor of about eight due to the high polarizability of silicene. Here, we show that the screening also significantly enhances the critical EE-field strength required to induce a quantum phase transition. More precisely, a linear fit in Fig. 4 yields EcDFT9.6EcthE_{c}^{\texttt{DFT}}\sim 9.6E_{c}^{\texttt{th}}.

In summary, using first-principles methods, we show that the biaxial strain ε\varepsilon can be utilized to tune the spin-orbit coupling in silicene and hence its topological quantum phase transition. At |ε||\varepsilon|\sim0.07, silicene undergoes a transition from topological insulator into a metallic phase. Within the range of -0.07 <<ε\varepsilon<+<+0.07, pristine silicene remains a QSH insulator with a strain-dependent SOC that increases under a compressive strain. The critical electric field strength is significantly enhanced by the screening, nearly 10 times larger than the theoretical predictions from a tight-binding model. These phenomena highlight the interplay between the mechanical strain and EE-field on the electronic properties of low-buckled honeycomb lattices.

J.A.Y. acknowledges the Faculty Development and Research Committee grant (OSPR No. 140269) and the FCSM Fisher General Endowment at the Towson University. M.A.D.C. is partially supported by FCSM Fisher General Endowment at the Towson University. S.B.L. Acknowledges funding from the Arkansas Biosciences Institute and NSF-XSEDE (TG-PHY090002).

References

  • (1) C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005).
  • (2) C. L. Kane, E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005).
  • (3) B. A. Bernevig, S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 106802 (2006).
  • (4) B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, S.-C. Zhang, Science 314,1757 (2006).
  • (5) M. König, S. Wiedmann, C. Brüne, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 318, 766 (2007).
  • (6) M. Z. Hasan, C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010).
  • (7) X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 1057 (2011).
  • (8) C. Liu, T. L. Hughes, X. L. Qi, K. Wang, S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 236601 (2008).
  • (9) L. Du, I. Knez, G. Sullivan, R.-R. Du, http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.1925.
  • (10) M. Ezawa, New J. Phys. 14, 033003 (2012).
  • (11) M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 055502 (2012).
  • (12) H. Min, J. E. Hill, N. A. Sinitsyn, B. R. Sahu, L. Kleinman, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 74, 165310 (2006).
  • (13) D. Huertas-Hernando, F. Guinea, and A. Brataas, Phys. Rev. B 74, 155426 (2006).
  • (14) Y. Yao, F. Ye, X.-L. Qi, S.-C. Zhang, and Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. B 75, 041401(R) (2007).
  • (15) M. Zhou, W. Ming, Z. Liu, Z. Wang, P. Li, and F. Liu, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 111, 14378 (2014).
  • (16) Q. Liu, X. Zhang, L. B. Abdalla, A. Fazzio, and A. Zunger, http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.3932.
  • (17) M. A. Cazalilla, H. Ochoa, and F. Guinea. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 077201 (2014).
  • (18) X. Qian, J. Liu, L. Fu, and J. Li, Science 346, 1344 (2014).
  • (19) S. Cahangirov, M. Topsakal, E. Aktürk, H. Sahin, and S. Ciraci, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 236804 (2009).
  • (20) C. C. Liu, W. X. Feng, and Y. G. Yao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 076802 (2011).
  • (21) C. C. Liu, H. Jiang, and Y. G. Yao, Phys. Rev. B 84, 195430 (2011).
  • (22) Z. Ni, Q. Liu, K. Tang, J. Zheng, J. Zhou, R. Qin, Z. Gao, D. Yu, and J. Lu, Nano Lett. 12, 113-118 (2012).
  • (23) N. D. Drummond, V. Zólyomi, and V. I. Fal’ko, Phys. Rev. B 85, 075423 (2012).
  • (24) J. E. Padilha, L. Seixas, R. B. Pontes, A. J. R. da Silva, and A. Fazzio, Phys. Rev. B 88, 201106(R) (2013).
  • (25) Y. Ma, Y. Dai, M. Guo, C. Niu, and B. Huang, J. Phys. Chem. C 116, 12977 (2012).
  • (26) Y. Xu, B. Yan, H.-J. Zhang, J. Wang, G. Xu, P. Tang, W. Duan, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 136804 (2013).
  • (27) P. Rivero, J.-A. Yan, V. M. Garcia-Suarez, J. Ferrer, and S. Barraza-Lopez. Phys. Rev. B 90, 241408(R) (2014).
  • (28) P. Tang, P. Chen, W. Cao, H. Huang, S. Cahangirov, L. Xian, Y. Xu, S.-C. Zhang, W. Duan, and A. Rubio. Phys. Rev. B 90, 121408(R) (2014).
  • (29) M. A. H. Vozmediano, M. I. Katsnelson, and F. Guinea. Phys. Rep. 496, 109 (2010).
  • (30) A. A. Pacheco Sanjuan, Z. Wang, H. Pour Imani, M. Vanevic, and S. Barraza-Lopez. Phys. Rev. B 89, 121403(R) (2014).
  • (31) A. A. Pacheco Sanjuan, M. Mehboudi, E. O. Harriss, H. Terrones, and S. Barraza-Lopez. ACS Nano 8, 1136 (2014).
  • (32) J. Guan, Z. Jin, Z. Zhu, C. Chuang, B.-Y. Jin, and D. Tománek. Phys. Rev. B 90, 245403 (2014).
  • (33) T. Castle, Y. Cho, X. Gong, E. Jung, D. M. Sussman, S. Yang, and R. D. Kamien. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 245502 (2014).
  • (34) F. de Juan, M. Sturla, and M. A. H. Vozmediano. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 227205 (2012).
  • (35) B. Aufray, A. Kara, S. Vizzini, H. Oughaddou, C. Leandri, B. Ealet, and G. Le Lay, Appl. Phys. Lett. 96, 183102 (2010).
  • (36) B. Lalmi, H. Oughaddou, H. Enriquez, A. Kara, S. Vizzini, B. Ealet, and B. Aufray, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 223109 (2010).
  • (37) P. Vogt, P. DePadova, C. Quaresima, J. Avila, E. Frantzeskakis, M. C. Asensio, A. Resta, B. Ealet, and G. LeLay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 155501 (2012).
  • (38) A. Fleurence, R. Friedlein, T. Ozaki, H. Kawai, Y. Wang, and Y. Yamada-Takamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 245501 (2012).
  • (39) L. Chen, C.-C. Liu, B. Feng, X. He, P. Cheng, Z. Ding, S. Meng, Y. Yao, K. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 056804 (2012).
  • (40) B. Feng, Z. Ding, S. Meng, Y. Yao, X. He, P. Cheng, L. Chen, and K. Wu, Nano Lett., 12, 3507-3511 (2012).
  • (41) H. Jamgotchian, Y. Colignon, N. Hamzaoui, B. Ealet, J. Y. Hoarau, B. Aufray, and J. P. Bibérian, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 24, 172001 (2012).
  • (42) C.-L. Lin, R. Arafune, K. Kawahara, N. Tsukahara, E. Minamitani, Y. Kim, N. Takagi, and M. Kawai, App. Phys. Exp. 5, 045802 (2012).
  • (43) P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B864 (1964).
  • (44) W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, A1133 (1965).
  • (45) P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, S. de Gironcoli, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mauri, R. Mazzarello, S. Paolini, A. Pasquarello, L. Paulatto, C. Sbraccia, S. Scandolo, G. Sclauzero, A. P. Seitsonen, A. Smogunov, P. Umari, R. M. Wentzcovitch, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 21, 395502 (2009).
  • (46) J. P. Perdew, A. Ruzsinszky, G. I. Csonka, O. A. Vydrov, G. E. Scuseria, L. A. Constantin, X. Zhou, and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 136406 (2008); Erratum Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 039902(E) (2009).
  • (47) A. M. Rappe, K. M. Rabe, E. Kaxiras, and J. D. Joannopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 41, 1227(R) (1990); Erratum Phys. Rev. B 44, 13175 (1991).
  • (48) F. Bechstedt, L. Matthes, P. Gori, and O. Pulci, App. Phys. Lett. 100, 261906-261908 (2012).