Computation of the spatial distribution of charge-carrier density in disordered media
Abstract
The space- and temperature-dependent electron distribution determines optoelectronic properties of disordered semiconductors. It is a challenging task to get access to in random potentials, avoiding the time-consuming numerical solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation. We present several numerical techniques targeted to fulfill this task. For a degenerate system with Fermi statistics, a numerical approach based on a matrix inversion and that based on a system of linear equations are developed. For a non-degenerate system with Boltzmann statistics, a numerical technique based on a universal low-pass filter and one based on random wave functions are introduced. The high accuracy of the approximate calculations are checked by comparison with the exact quantum-mechanical solutions.
keywords:
Disordered materials, electron states in random potentialOn leave of absence from Rzhanov Institute of Semiconductor Physics and the Novosibirsk State University, Russia \alsoaffiliationFaculty of Physics, Philipps-UniversitΓ€t Marburg, Marburg 35032, Germany \abbreviationsIR,NMR,UV
1 Introduction
Disordered materials, such as amorphous organic and inorganic semiconductors and semiconductor alloys, play an important role in modern optoelectronics for computing, communications, photovoltaics, sensing, and light emission 1, 2, 3. The spatial and energy disorder creates a random potential, which decisively affects electron states. Among other effects, a disorder potential causes the spatial localization of electrons in the low-energy range. The knowledge of the space- and temperature-dependent electron distribution , particularly in localized states created by random potentials, is required to understand charge transport and light absorption/emission in disordered semiconductors. The distribution is most straightforwardly obtained by solving the SchrΓΆdinger equation in the presence of a disorder potential. However, this procedure is extremely demanding with respect to computation facilities. It is hardly affordable for realistically large chemically complex systems. Therefore, it is highly desirable to develop theoretical tools to get access to without solving the SchrΓΆdinger equation.
One of the currently mostly used theoretical tools to reveal the individual features of localized states in a random potential is the so-called localization-landscape theory (LLT) 4, 5, 6, 7. In the LLT, the random potential is converted into some effective potential, which drastically simplifies all calculations. However, recent studies 8, 9 revealed substantial problems of the LLT. For instance, the effective potential in the LLT lacks a temperature dependence that is necessary to describe appropriately. Moreover, the LLT is seen to be equivalent to the Lorentzian filter applied to a random potential 8. Such a choice of the filter function is rather unfortunate. The Lorentzian filter yields a significantly larger number of localized states in a random potential than the number of such states obtained via the exact solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation 8. Therefore, more developed computational techniques are desirable.
Here we develop two numerical techniques to reveal in disordered systems under degenerate conditions controlled by Fermi statistics, avoiding the time-consuming numerical solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation. One of the techniques is based on converting the Hamiltonian into a matrix, which, being subjected to several multiplications with itself succeeded by inverting the outcome, yields the distribution . The other technique replaces the operation of matrix inversion by solving a system of linear equations controlled by the matrix generated from the Hamiltonian.
We also describe two recently developed computational techniques for calculations of in non-degenerate systems controlled by Boltzmann statistics 8, 9. One algorithm is based on applying a temperature-dependent universal low-pass filter (ULF) to the random potential . This yields a temperature-dependent effective potential, , that enables a quasiclassical calculation of particle density . The ULF algorithm employs Fast-Fourier Transformation for calculating the effective potential , enabling the analysis of very large systems.
The other algorithm is based on the recursive application of the Hamiltonian to multiple sets of random wave functions (RWF) for a specific realization of the random potential . Following the repeated application of the thermal operator, the temperature-dependent electron density is determined by averaging the outcomes over different RWF sets. This procedure offers several advantages over the widely-used LLT. Unlike the LLT, which relies on an adjustable parameter that can only be determined through comparison with the exact solution 8, 9, the RWF scheme lacks any adjustable parameters and works across all temperatures. Additionally, the accuracy of the RWF approach in computing can systematically be improved, whereas the accuracy of the LLT is inherently limited.
2 Calculation of in a degenerate system controlled by Fermi statistics
To be definite, we consider a disorder potential acting on electrons, characterized by Gaussian statistics (βwhite noiseβ), i.e., the potential obeys with the auto-correlation function 10
(1) |
where indicates the average over many realizations of the random potential and is the strength of the interaction. This quantity yields natural definitions for the characteristic length scale and for the characteristic energy scale in the form
(2) |
(3) |
where is the space dimensionality and is the Boltzmann constant.
We consider here a collection of non-interacting electrons in some external potential in the thermodynamic equilibrium that is characterized by the temperature and the Fermi energy . The goal is to develop an effective numerical method for the calculation of the electron density (concentration) as a function of coordinates in a degenerate system. The electron density can be defined as
(4) |
In this equation, summation index labels the electron eigenstates, i. e., solutions of the SchrΓΆdonger equation , where and are the wavefunction and the energy of the eigenstate; is the Fermi function,
(5) |
and factor 2 before the sum in Eq. (4) accounts for the two possible spin orientations.
Below we assume that the system under study is discretized with a finite-difference (or tight-binding) method. A wavefunction is therefore represented as a collection of probability amplitudes at points (grid nodes) evenly distributed in space. The Hamiltonian is a matrix of size . Equation (4) for in this discrete setting obtains the form
(6) |
where is the electron density at grid node ; is the value of eigenfunction at node ; is the electron energy that corresponds this eigenfunction; and is the spatial volume per one grid node (in the one-dimensional case, is simply the distance between nodes).
Equation (6) represents a standard way for a numerical calculation of the electron density in degenerate systems. However this way requires the solution of the eigenvalue problem, which takes a large amount of computational resources for the large size of the Hamiltonian matrix. Below we suggest two methods that allow one to speed up the calculation of . In Method 1 (see Section 2.1), the numerical solution of the eigenvalue problem is replaced by a matrix inversion. The latter numerical task is much faster than the solution of the eigenvalue problem in the case of a sparse matrix, in which almost all entries are equal to zero. In Method 2 (see Section 2.2), we employ a numerical solution of a system of linear equation, which is even faster than the matrix inversion. Performance of Methods 1 and 2, as compared to the standard method based on the eigenvalue problem, is tested in Section 2.3 on an example of a one-dimensional disordered system with one occupied band.
The idea of Methods 1 and 2 is based on a simple observation that the shape of the function
(7) |
where a number is large, resembles the shape of the Fermi function in the vicinity of point . Other approaches for approximating the Fermi function are also possible. 11, 12, 13, 14 Replacing with an appropriate linear function of the Hamiltonian is the essence of Methods 1 and 2. The detailed justification is given in Appendix A.
2.1 Method 1: matrix inversion
The method is based on the Hamiltonian (a matrix ), the Fermi energy , and two additional parameters: a βreference energyβ and the number of iterations . These parameters are related to the temperature ,
(8) |
Details for the choice of these parameters are given in Appendix B.
The method starts from composing the matrix from the Hamiltonian
(9) |
where is the unit matrix. Then, the matrix is squared times
(10) |
To the resulting matrix we add the unit matrix and invert the sum to get a new matrix
(11) |
Finally, the electron density is obtained from the diagonal elements of the matrix :
(12) |
(13) |
2.2 Method 2: solving a system of linear equation
Similarly to Method 1, the input parameters are , and , which are related to the temperature by Eq. (8). In addition, this method requires one more parameter . The choice of is discussed in Appendix B. For a given , we compose a matrix of size that obeys the following conditions (see Fig. 1 for the shape of this matrix in the one-dimensional case):
-
β’
each entry of matrix is equal to either 0 or 1;
-
β’
in each row of matrix , exactly one entry is equal to 1;
-
β’
in each column of matrix , the nodes with nonzero entries are placed spatially as far from each other as possible. For example, in the one-dimensional case, the unities in each column are separated by zeros, as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The matrix is calculated, as done in Method 1, see Eqs. (9) and (10). However, in contrast to Method 1, no matrix inversion is necessary. Instead, a system of linear equations
(14) |
is to be solved with respect to an unknown matrix of size . This is a computationally easier task in comparison to the matrix inversion.
Finally, the electron density is calculated as
(15) |
(16) |
2.3 Numerical example: a one-dimensional disordered system with one occupied band
Let us compare the performance of different methods to calculate in a simple one-dimensional tight-binding model with energy bands and disorder. We consider a linear chain of lattice nodes at a distance from each other. We measure distances and energies in the units determined by Eqs. (2) and (3). In these units, the hopping integrals between neighboring nodes and are equal to . The on-site energies are chosen to be
(17) |
where are random numbers uniformly distributed in the range . All other matrix elements of the Hamiltonian are equal to zero. Periodic boundary conditions apply. The constant term makes the lower boundary of the energy spectrum to be near zero, and the higher boundary to be . The amplitude of periodic variations of the potential is . The amplitude of the random-noise potential is chosen such that the βdisorder strengthβ is equal to unity. As an example, we show one realization of the on-site energies in Fig. 2a.
As a consequence of the periodic potential (the second term in the r.h.s. of Eq. (17)), the electron energy spectrum consists of the four energy bands separated from each other by band gaps. We consider the situation when the lowest energy band is completely occupied by electrons, and three other bands are empty (quarter filling). The electron density in such a case is expressed as
(18) |
where summation is performed over the eigenstates of the occupied band.
The wave functions , that enter Eq. (18), can be obtained by diagonalizing the Hamiltonian. An example of the calculated electron density distribution is shown in Fig. 2b by blue lines.
Also we show in Fig. 2b the approximated electron density obtained by Method 1 (red dots) and by Method 2 (orange circles). The parameters for these methods are: (the middle of the lowest band gap), , , and . One can see that both Methods provide quite accurate results for the electron density.
In Fig. 3 we compare the time required by three ways of calculating the electron densityβthe exact method based on the Hamiltonian diagonalization, Method 1, and Method 2βon a desktop PC with MATLAB used for the matrix manipulations. One can see that Method 1, which employs matrix inversion, is approximately one order of magnitude faster than the usual method of Hamiltonian diagonalization. Method 2 provides additional speedup by more than an order of magnitude.
Note that Method 1 can be further improved by using advanced techniques to calculate the diagonal part of the inverted matrix 15, 16, 17. For the sake of simplicity, we use here the standard MATLAB functions in Method 1. Even in such a non-optimized setting, this Method demonstrates a substantial speedup in comparison with matrix diagonalization.
3 Calculation of in a non-degenerate system controlled by Boltzmann statistics
3.1 Low-pass filter (LF) approach
3.1.1 Motivation
Already in the 1960s, Halperin and Lax recognized that electrons in a random potential cannot follow very short-range potential fluctuations. 10 This effect is illustrated in Fig. 4, where the random white-noise potential in one dimension is depicted by the green solid line. The detailed shape of in the region (in the dimensionless units given by Eq. (2)) is compared with the shape of the wave function for the lowest energy state in this spatial region. Apparently, the characteristic width of the wave function, even for low-energy localized states, is substantially larger than the spatial scale of the fluctuations of the disorder potential . The latter scale in semiconductor alloys is of the order of the lattice constant nm. The strong inequality suggests that electrons in localized states are affected only by the mean disorder potential, averaged over the space scale . It is, therefore, not necessary to solve exactly the SchrΓΆdinger equation with the real disorder potential in order to get access to the individual features of electron states. Instead, one can apply to the disorder potential a low-pass filter 10 (LF) that smoothes the spatial fluctuations of .
Halperin and Lax suggested the square of the wave function as the filter function 10. The width of the filter function, was adjusted dependent on the energy, , of the localized state, , where is counted from the band edge in the absence of disorder. A variational approach was used to determine the shape of the low-energy density of states in a random potential 10. Baranovskii and Efros 18 addressed the same problem by a slightly different variational approach and confirmed the result of Halperin and Lax.
Neither of the two groups considered, however, the individual features of localized states, being focused solely on the structure of the density of states in the low-energy region 10, 18. Our aim here is, in contrast, to calculate the spatial distribution of electron density, , in a given disorder potential . We start below with the definition of the low-pass filter and then formulate the algorithm for the calculation of .
3.1.2 Definiton of a low-pass filter (LF)
In one dimension, the low-pass filter (LF) is determined by the operation
(19) |
where the filter function should contain the appropriate length scale . This operation converts the real disorder potential into the smooth effective potential . For instance, one can try a Lorentzian function ,
(20) |
because using as LF a Lorentzian function with has recently been proven 8 equivalent to the popular LLT approach 4, 5, 6, 7.
Halperin and Lax 10 suggested instead to use for LF the square of the wave function . The shape of the wave functions for the low-energy states was determined by the optimal-fluctuation-approach that yields the filtering function
(21) |
where the characteristic length should depend on the state energy 10, 18. Remarkably, it appears that a universal, energy-independent value for , can be introduced 8, as evidenced in Fig. 5a, where the effective potential yielded by the filtering function given by Eq. (21), is compared with the positions and energies of the eigenstates. The eigenstates for the given realization of disorder potential were obtained via a straightforward solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation. In Fig. 5, the 30 eigenstates with the lowest energies are depicted by red points. The excellent agreement between the local minima of the effective potential (shown by the solid green line) and the positions and energies of the exactly calculated eigenstates justifies the filter function given by Eq. (21).
In Fig. 5b, such a comparison is illustrated for the case of a Lorentzian filter, determined by Eq. (20) with chosen to mimic the LLT result 8. Evidently, the choice of a Lorentzian filter function is not satisfying. The number of the local minima in the effective potential (shown by the solid blue line) is significantly larger than the true number of the exactly calculated eigenstates. This happens because the Lorentzian function given by Eq. (20) is not smooth at . The cusp at filters too many extrema from the real disorder potential , preventing the identification of true localized electron states by searching the minima of the effective potential . The filter function suggested by Halperin and Lax 10 does not possess such a deficiency.
Not only the energies and spatial positions of localized states in disorder potential , discussed above, are of interest for the theory. In fact, the key quantity for the optoelectronic properties of disordered semiconductors is the space- and temperature-dependent electron distribution . Below we extend the LF approach to calculate . For that purpose, we introduce the temperature into the filter function and, concomitantly, into the definition of the effective potential that yields .
3.1.3 Universal filter function to determine
The -dependent spatial distribution of electron density is related to the quasi-classical effective potential as
(22) |
where is the effective density of states in the conduction band and is the chemical potential. This equation serves as the definition of the quasi-classical effective potential . This effective potential is smooth in comparison to the initial disorder potential because is derived from the electron density , which has the spatial scale of the electron wave functions, i.e., is broader than the scale of the short-range fluctuations of . Let us, therefore, obtain by subjecting to the action of a universal low-pass filter (ULF).
The key question is how to find out the appropriate -dependent filter function that can be used to extract the shape of the effective potential for a given realization of the white-noise potential . One can show that the Fourier image of this function has the shape 9
(23) |
where erfi is the imaginary error function, and .
In order to reveal the electron density distribution for a given realization of the white-noise potential , one should first calculate the Fourier image of using a fast-Fourier-transform (FFT). This function should be then multiplied by , given by Eq. (23). The inverse Fourier transform of the product by the FFT yields the effective potential because the inverse Fourier transform converts a product into a convolution 9. Inserting into Eq. (22) gives the electron density . In Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, we compare the results for of the above procedure with the effective potentials obtained via Eq. (22) from the electron density calculated using the exact solution of SchrΓΆdinger equation in one and two dimensions, respectively. Coordinate and temperature in the figures are measured in units given by Eqs. (2) and (3).
3.2 Random-wave-functions (RWF) approach to calculate
3.2.1 Background
The idea of the RWF approach resembles the one suggested recently by Lu and Steinerberger 19 to search for the low-lying eigenfunctions of various linear operators. An iterative application of the operator leads to the increasing contributions of the low-energy regions to the state vector 19. A similar approach has been suggested by Krajewski and Parrinello 20 for the calculation of the thermodynamic potential.
Let us consider the action of the operator on an arbitrarily chosen wave function. The goal is to model the equilibrium distribution of electrons, which is described by the Boltzmann statistics in the nondegenerate case considered here. In Boltzmann statistics, states with energy contribute to the distribution with the probability proportional to . The wave function is the probability amplitude, which explains the factor in the operator . The wave function is always a linear combination of eigenfunctions that correspond to different energies. The action of the operator suppresses the contributions of high-energy eigenfunctions in favor of the contributions of low-energy eigenfunctions. By the application of the operator to a collection of the random wave functions, the average contributions of eigenfunctions corresponding to different energies approach their distribution in thermal equilibrium. The averaging here is performed over the set of the random wave functions. Physically, this procedure corresponds to the averaging of the electron density . The question arises on how to numerically subject a wave function to the action of the operator . It can be done by recursively applying the Hamiltonian to the wave function:
(24) |
with a natural number 9 and a small parameter . A simple analysis justifies the choice 9 , where is the estimate for the upper boundary of the energy distribution. In the case of a regular grid with the lattice constant , . Below we describe how to realize this idea technically.
3.2.2 The RWF algorithm
Let us consider the RWF algorithm on a spatial lattice with the volume per lattice site. The value of the random wave function on each lattice site is chosen independently as a random number extracted from a normal distribution with the average value zero and variance . The following transformation of the wave function ,
(25) |
is applied times. Then an estimate of the reduced electron density is
(26) |
The calculation of is carried out for a large number of realizations of the random wave function . Then, the electron density is the arithmetic mean of the functions obtained for different realizations R, multiplied by a chemical-potential-related factor ,
(27) |
The larger the number of realizations , the more accurate is the calculated electron density .
In Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 the reduced electron densities, obtained via the RWF algorithm are compared with the exact ones calculated using the solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation for one and three dimensions, respectively. Evidently, the RWF algorithm with 1000 iterations accurately yields the electron density in a wide range of temperatures.
4 Discussion
In this work, we introduce four theoretical tools to get access to the space- and temperature-dependent electron density in disordered media with a random potential , avoiding the time-consuming numerical solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation.
For the case of degenerate conditions controlled by Fermi statistics, the Hamiltonian is converted into a matrix, which, being subjected to several multiplications with itself succeeded by inverting the outcome, yields the distribution . The other possible technique for the case of Fermi statistics replaces the operation of matrix inversion by solving a system of linear equations controlled by the matrix generated from the Hamiltonian.
For non-degenerate conditions with Boltzmann statistics, the universal low-pass filter (ULF) approach and the random-wave-function (RWF) algorithm are suggested for approximate calculations of . Both methods require far less computational resources than the complete solution of the SchrΓΆdinger equation.
The ULF approach employs the temperature-dependent effective potential . This technique is based on the Fast Fourier Transformation, which does not impose any demands on computational resources, such as processor time and memory. Therefore, it can be applied to mesoscopically large three-dimensional disordered systems.
Being superior to the widely used approximate methods, the RWF is computationally more costly than the ULF approach, if mesoscopically large three-dimensional systems at low temperatures are addressed. However, the accuracy of calculations based on the RWF algorithm can be unlimitedly improved by increasing the number of the RWF realizations.
Appendix
Appendix A Why do Methods 1 and 2 work
To understand why Method 1 works, let us apply to the Hamiltonian a unitary transformation that diagonalizes it. This transformation also diagonalizes all the matrices that appear in Method 1. The diagonal elements of matrices , , and are, in accord to Eqs. (9) β (11),
(28) | ||||
(29) | ||||
(30) | ||||
(31) |
Let us consider those values of that are close to the Fermi energy . For them,
(32) |
Taking Eq. (8) into account, one can rewrite this estimate as
(33) |
where sign ββ is chosen if , and sign ββ otherwise. Substitution of Eq. (33) into Eq. (31) and comparison to expression (5) for the Fermi function provides the following result:
(34) |
(35) |
which is valid after the unitary transformation that diagonalizes the Hamiltonian. If we undo this transformation, Eq. (34) acquires the form
(36) |
that is, the diagonal matrix elements of the matrix are equal to
(37) |
or, due to Eq. (6),
(38) |
that justifies Eq. (12) of Method 1.
Similarly, from Eq. (35) one can get after undoing the unitary transformation:
(39) |
which justifies Eq. (13) of Method 1.
Now let us consider Method 2. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the case . The opposite case is completely analogous.
The matrix can be expressed as according to Eqs. (11) and (14). Hence, the sum in the right-hand side of Eq. (15) can be rewritten as
(40) |
For a given , there is only one value of such that , according to construction of the matrix (see Section 2.2). For this value of , there are only few values of such that , as illustrated in Fig 10. Let us denote the set of these values of as . One can therefore rewrite Eq. (40) as
(41) |
Note that since . Therefore the sum in the right-hand side of Eq. (41) contains the term .
Let us argue now that, at large enough , all other terms in this sum with are negligible. One can see from Eq. (36) that the matrix is close to the projector to the set of eigenstates with energies below the Fermi energy. Typically, especially in the situation when the filled states are separated by a band gap from the empty ones, the matrix elements of this projector decrease with increasing the distance between nodes and , and become negligible at some distance. Hence, the matrix elements in the right-hand side of Eq. (41) becomes negligible if nodes and are far away from each other, i. e., if . The only non-negligible term is , and therefore,
(42) |
Substituting there from Eq. (38), one arrives at Eq. (15) of Method 2.
Appendix B Choice of parameters , and
There are two restrictions on the choice of parameters and and, hence, on the temperature value that can be achieved with Methods 1 and 2. First, the approximate equalities (34) and (35) must hold in the whole range of electron energies. And second, the matrix must not be ill-conditioned.
To consider the first restriction, let us define the function
(43) |
(44) |
Methods 1 and 2 are based on the fact that this function is close to the Fermi function in a vicinity of the Fermi energy , see Eqs. (31), (34) and (35). Let us now consider the behavior of the function in a broad range of energies .
As an example, Fig. 11 shows along with the Fermi function for and two choices of the βreference energyβ : (upper panel) and (lower panel). In both cases, there is a discrepancy between the functions and below the energy in the first case, and above the energy in the second case. Electron energy levels must not fall into these areas of discrepancy, otherwise the contributions of these levels into the electron density would not be accounted correctly in Methods 1 and 2. Therefore, in the case of , the lowest electron energy must be larger than . Similarly, in the case of , the highest electron energy must be smaller than . These conditions can be rewritten as restrictions to the βreference energyβ :
(45) |
Now let us consider the second restriction. The inversion of the matrix in Method 1, or solving a system of linear equations expressed by this matrix in Method 2, is possible when this matrix is not ill-conditioned. This means that the condition number, a ratio of the largest and the smallest eigenvalues of the matrix, is less than the maximal value of the order of (a number that corresponds to the accuracy of representation of real numbers in the computer memory). The minimal eigenvalue of matrix is close to unity, and corresponds to energy levels near to . The largest eigenvalue corresponds to the energy level farthest from , i. e., either to or to , and is approximately the largest of two values and . Hence, the parameters and have to obey the following restrictions:
(46) |
The choice of parameters and is based on equations (45) and (46). We consider two different options: (i) when the temperature is given, and (ii) when the goal is to obtain the sharpest possible boundary between filled and empty states.
In the first option, one should try the natural numbers in ascending order as values of . For each such number , one finds according to Eq. (8) and check whether conditions (45) and (46) are fulfilled. The smallest suitable value of is the best choice. Indeed, the smaller is, the more sparse matrix is and, consequently, the faster is matrix inversion in Method 1 or solution of linear equations in Method 2.
In the second option, the largest possible is desirable, in order to minimize the temperature according to Eq. (8). To achieve the largest , one has to choose the value that maximizes the denominator in Eq. (46):
(47) |
and then one needs to choose the maximal number that obeys the restrictions (46),
(48) |
or
(49) |
for the first and the second choice of in Eq. (47), correspondingly.
Finally, let us consider the choice of the parameter in Method 2. The accuracy of Method 2 improves with . However, larger give rise to a longer computation time due to the increase of the size of the matrix in Eq. (14). Hence, there is a trade-off between the accuracy and the efficiency. The best value of parameter can be estimated as
(50) |
where is dimensionality of the space, is the distance between neighboring sites in the lattice, and is a characteristic length of decay of the matrix element with increasing the distance between sites and .
S.D.B. and K.M. acknowledge financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Research Training Group βTIDEβ, RTG2591) as well as by the key profile area βQuantum Matter and Materials (QM2)β at the University of Cologne. K.M. further acknowledges support by the DFG through the project ASTRAL (ME1246-42).
References
- Baranovski 2006 Baranovski, S. D., Ed. Charge Transport in Disordered Solids with Applications in Electronics; John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Chichester, 2006
- Masenda et al. 2021 Masenda, H.; Schneider, L. M.; Adel Aly, M.; Machchhar, S. J.; Usman, A.; Meerholz, K.; Gebhard, F.; Baranovskii, S. D.; Koch, M. Energy Scaling of Compositional Disorder in Ternary Transition-Metal Dichalcogenide Monolayers. Adv. Electron. Mater. 2021, 7, 2100196
- Baranovskii et al. 2022 Baranovskii, S. D.; Nenashev, A. V.; Hertel, D.; Gebhard, F.; Meerholz, K. Energy Scales of Compositional Disorder in Alloy Semiconductors. ACS Omega 2022, 7, 45741
- Arnold et al. 2016 Arnold, D. N.; David, G.; Jerison, D.; Mayboroda, S.; Filoche, M. Effective Confining Potential of Quantum States in Disordered Media. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2016, 116, 056602
- Filoche et al. 2017 Filoche, M.; Piccardo, M.; Wu, Y.-R.; Li, C.-K.; Weisbuch, C.; Mayboroda, S. Localization Landscape Theory of disorder in semiconductors. I. Theory and modeling. Phys. Rev. B 2017, 95, 144204
- Piccardo et al. 2017 Piccardo, M.; Li, C.-K.; Wu, Y.-R.; Speck, J. S.; Bonef, B.; Farrell, R. M.; Filoche, M.; Martinelli, L.; Peretti, J.; Weisbuch, C. Localization Landscape Theory of disorder in semiconductors. II. Urbach tails of disordered quantum well layers. Phys. Rev. B 2017, 95, 144205
- Li et al. 2017 Li, C.-K.; Piccardo, M.; Lu, L.-S.; Mayboroda, S.; Martinelli, L.; Peretti, J.; Speck, J. S.; Weisbuch, C.; Filoche, M.; Wu, Y.-R. Localization Landscape Theory of disorder in semiconductors. III. Application to carrier transport and recombination in light emitting diodes. Phys. Rev. B 2017, 95, 144206
- Gebhard et al. 2023 Gebhard, F.; Nenashev, A. V.; Meerholz, K.; Baranovskii, S. D. Quantum states in disordered media. I. Low-pass filter approach. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 107, 064206
- Nenashev et al. 2023 Nenashev, A. V.; Baranovskii, S. D.; Meerholz, K.; Gebhard, F. Quantum states in disordered media. II. Spatial charge carrier distribution. Phys. Rev. B 2023, 107, 064207
- Halperin and Lax 1966 Halperin, B. I.; Lax, M. Impurity-Band Tails in the High-Density Limit. I. Minimum Counting Methods. Phys. Rev. 1966, 148, 722β740
- Goedecker 1999 Goedecker, S. Linear scaling electronic structure methods. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1999, 71, 1085β1123
- Ceriotti et al. 2008 Ceriotti, M.; KΓΌhne, T. D.; Parrinello, M. An efficient and accurate decomposition of the Fermi operator. J. Chem. Phys. 2008, 129, 024707
- Lin et al. 2009 Lin, L.; Lu, J.; Car, R.; E, W. Multipole representation of the Fermi operator with application to the electronic structure analysis of metallic systems. Phys. Rev. B 2009, 79, 115133
- Bowler and Miyazaki 2012 Bowler, D. R.; Miyazaki, T. methods in electronic structure calculations. Rep. Progr. Phys. 2012, 75, 036503
- Lin et al. 2009 Lin, L.; Lu, J.; Ying, L.; Car, R.; E, W. Fast algorithm for extracting the diagonal of the inverse matrix with application to the electronic structure analysis of metallic systems. Commun. Math. Sci. 2009, 7, 755β777
- Tang and Saad 2012 Tang, J. M.; Saad, Y. A probing method for computing the diagonal of a matrix inverse. Numerical Linear Algebra with Applications 2012, 19, 485β501
- Li et al. 2013 Li, S.; Wu, W.; Darve, E. A fast algorithm for sparse matrix computations related to inversion. J. Comput. Phys. 2013, 242, 915β945
- Baranovskii and Efros 1978 Baranovskii, S. D.; Efros, A. L. Band edge smearing in solid solutions. Sov. Phys. Semicond. 1978, 12, 1328β1330
- Lu and Steinerberger 2018 Lu, J.; Steinerberger, S. Detecting localized eigenstates of linear operators. Res. Math. Sci. 2018, 5, 33
- Krajewski and Parrinello 2005 Krajewski, F. R.; Parrinello, M. Stochastic linear scaling for metals and nonmetals. Phys. Rev. B 2005, 71, 233105