# An Accurate Alternative to Hybrid Functionals for Germanium: DFT+α

Abdulgaffar Abdurrazaq, Ruggero Lot, Antoine Jay, Gabriela Herrero-Saboya, Nicolas Richard, Layla Martin-Samos, Anne Hémeryck, Stefano de Gironcoli

► To cite this version:

Abdulgaffar Abdurrazaq, Ruggero Lot, Antoine Jay, Gabriela Herrero-Saboya, Nicolas Richard, et al. An Accurate Alternative to Hybrid Functionals for Germanium: DFT+α. Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2026, 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c05816. [PDF] [ DOI ]

HAL Id: hal-05451056

https://laas.hal.science/hal-05451056v1

Submitted on 9 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# An Accurate Alternative to Hybrid Functionals for Germanium: DFT+α

Abdulgaffar Abdurrazaq, Ruggero Lot, Antoine Jay, Gabriela Herrero-Saboya,* Nicolas Richard, Layla Martin-Samos, Anne Hémeryck, and Stefano de Gironcoli

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Cite This: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c05816

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Read Online

## ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

Metrics & More

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Article Recommendations

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

Supporting Information

**ABSTRACT:** The accuracy of bulk-property predictions in density functional theory (DFT) calculations depends on the choice of the exchange-correlation functional. While the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional systematically overestimates lattice parameters and strongly underestimates electronic band gaps, hybrid functionals such as Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSE) offer better overall agreement across a broad range of materials. Using germanium as a critical test case, we challenge the ability of both functionals to capture the semiconductor properties. Although HSE improves PBE's gap error, it fails to reproduce germanium's correct Γ-L indirect and Γ-Γ band gaps simultaneously. Noting that the PBE-underestimated energy separation between the 4p valence-band maximum and 4s conduction-band minimum causes unphysical sp mixing, we propose DFT+α, a semiempirical correction scheme applied selectively to 4s-like orbitals. For germanium, DFT+α restores the proper ordering and orbital character of the band edges and yields accurate lattice constants, bulk modulus, elastic constants, and phonon frequencies at a fraction of hybrid-functional computational cost.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

## 1. INTRODUCTION

The accuracy of bulk-property predictions in density functional theory (DFT) calculations is determined by the choice of the exchange-correlation functional. Extensive benchmarking efforts have evaluated the performance of various functionals across a wide range of materials.¹ These studies highlight the limitations of the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE) functional,² which systematically overestimates lattice parameters and underestimates electronic band gaps. Hybrid functionals, such as Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof (HSE), modify standard exchange-correlation approximations by incorporating a fraction of Hartree-Fock exchange, along with a screening parameter that controls the range of exchange interactions.³,⁴ With adjusted parameters, HSE and other hybrids offer a practical trade-off between computational efficiency and overall accuracy across a broad range of materials. However, when one focuses on a specific system, it may fail to deliver broad predictive accuracy.

For semiconductors, HSE has become the reference computational approach. Germanium, with an indirect band gap (Γ-L) of 0.74 eV and a Γ-Γ band gap of 0.90 eV,⁵ provides a critical test for HSE's consistency in accurately describing bulk properties. Indeed, PBE severely underestimates both band gaps, often predicting a metallic system or gaps as small as a few meV. While HSE systematically corrects the band gaps to the right order of magnitude,

reported values are significantly dispersed, with discrepancies in the absolute and relative energies of both band gaps.⁶⁻¹⁰ In most cases, the Γ-L band gap is smaller than the Γ-Γ one, but both values frequently remain close to degeneracy. When compared to the experimental band gaps at low temperatures (T=1.5 K),⁵ only a few calculations reproduce the Γ-L band gap, while underestimating the Γ-Γ band gap by at least 10%,⁶⁻¹⁰

HSE band gap predictions remain scattered even when using the same code and pseudopotential implementation, identical exchange mixing and screening parameters, and no spin-orbit coupling.⁷⁻⁹ Two of these studies attempt to refine the indirect band gap further, one by incorporating spin-orbit coupling corrections,⁷ the other by adjusting the exchange mixing parameter.⁹ Notably, in the work of Peralta et al.,⁶ spin-orbit coupling corrections alone failed to reproduce the correct relative energy between the band gaps, requiring an adjustment of the lattice parameter to its experimental value.

Received: September 16, 2025

Revised: November 7, 2025

Accepted: December 22, 2025
In this work, we challenge the ability of PBE and HSE functionals to describe the semiconductor properties. We show that even though HSE mitigates PBE's severe underestimation of germanium's Γ–L and Γ–Γ band gaps, it fails to accurately reproduce both band gaps. Seeking an alternative approach, we reconsider the PBE band structure, where the energy difference between the valence band maximum with 4p character and the conduction band minimum with 4s character is significantly underestimated, resulting in an sp nonphysical mixing. Exploiting this specific aspect, we introduce DFT+α, a semiempirical correction scheme that selectively shifts the energy of 4s-like orbitals, recovering both the correct band-edge alignment and their corresponding orbital character. This refinement of germanium's electronic structure enables an accurate reproduction of the lattice parameter, bulk modulus $B_0$, elastic constants ($C_{11}$, $C_{12}$ and $C_{44}$) and phonon frequencies, offering a robust, computationally inexpensive alternative to standard hybrid functionals.

## 2. COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS

All calculations of germanium in its diamond lattice, with $Fd\bar{3}m$ space group symmetry, were performed using the Quantum ESPRESSO package for electronic structure calculations.¹¹ The germanium unit cell is described using a PAW nonrelativistic pseudopotential from the PseudoDojo platform¹²,¹³ that includes 3d electrons. A plane-wave basis set is used with a kinetic energy cutoff of 80 Ry and a density cutoff of 320 Ry. The Brillouin zone (BZ) is sampled with a 12³ Monkhorst–Pack grid. The optimized lattice parameters were determined by finding the minimum of the energy-volume curve. A smearing of 0.001 Ry is imposed to ensure convergence of the metallic states when using the PBE functional. In addition, HSE calculations were done with a 4³ q-grid and a Fock operator plane-wave cutoff equal to 320 Ry. Elastic constants have been calculated using the termo pw package included in Quantum ESPRESSO. The phonon dispersion curves are calculated using PHONOPY¹⁴ and a 5³ supercell with one displaced atom.

## 3. RESULTS

We perform DFT calculations for germanium using the HSE functional as implemented in the Quantum ESPRESSO package,¹¹ with default values of 0.106 Bohr⁻¹ and 0.25 for the screening and exchange mixing parameters, respectively. Shown in Figure 1 are the Γ–Γ and Γ–L band gaps, the lattice constant, and the elastic constants $B_0$, $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and $C_{44}$ for exchange mixing parameters ranging from 0.21 to 0.35. For each exchange coefficient, both the electronic and elastic properties are determined at the optimized lattice constant. For the standard exchange parameter, 0.25, we obtain a lattice constant of 5.71 Å (Figure 1b) and Γ–Γ and Γ–L band gaps of 0.775 and 0.823 eV, respectively (Figure 1a). The lattice constant differs by ~1.02% from the experimental value of 5.652 Å, measured at low temperatures (T=8 K).¹⁵ The computed band gaps also deviate from experimental data, both in their absolute and relative values.⁵ When the exchange parameter is increased beyond 0.28, the magnitudes of the Γ–Γ and Γ–L band gaps become inverted, but their absolute values still show discrepancies of 34% and 17%, respectively, for an exchange coefficient of 0.3. Regarding the elastic properties (Figure 1c), the bulk modulus and the $C_{44}$ constant remain relatively close to the experimental references of 75 and

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** DFT calculations of germanium's properties using the HSE functional, displayed as a function of the exchange mixing parameter. (a) Γ–Γ and Γ–L band gaps calculated at the optimized lattice parameter. Experimental values are taken from ref. 5 and previous results from refs. 6–10. (b) The optimized lattice parameter. Experimental values are from ref. 15 and previous results from refs. 6,7,9,10,16. (c) The elastic constants $B_0$, $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and $C_{44}$. Experimental constants are taken from ref. 5 and previous results from refs. 6,7,9,10,16.</figcaption></figure>

68 GPa⁵ respectively, for all exchange parameters. However, at the standard exchange parameter, $C_{11}$ and $C_{12}$ differ by about 15% and 35%, respectively, from their experimental values of 124 and 41 GPa.⁵

Overall, our HSE results deviate from the experimental data,⁵,¹⁵ a limitation shared by all previous HSE calculations,⁶⁻¹⁰,¹⁶ which exhibit scattered reproducibility and uneven accuracy (Figure 1).

Seeking an alternative approach, we reconsider the PBE's band structure. Unlike diamond and silicon, germanium's sp³ hybridization results in a valence band maximum with a 4p character at the center of the Brillouin zone, while the conduction band minimum exhibits a 4s character. In the PBE approximation, the energy difference between these bands is significantly underestimated, resulting in an sp nonphysical mixing. Exploiting this specific aspect, we introduce DFT+α, a semiempirical correction scheme that selectively shifts the energy of 4s-like orbitals, recovering both the correct band edges alignment and their corresponding orbital character.

Under the DFT+α scheme, the eigenvalues of the Kohn–Sham Hamiltonian have been modified as
$$E[n(\mathbf{r})] = E_{\text{KS}}[n(\mathbf{r})] + \alpha \sum_{I,\sigma} \text{Tr}[n^{I\sigma}(\mathbf{r})] \quad (1)$$

where $E_{\text{KS}}[n(\mathbf{r})]$ is the standard Kohn–Sham energy for the electronic density $n(\mathbf{r})$, and $n^{I\sigma}(\mathbf{r})$ is the occupation matrix of the selected 4s-like states, located on atom I and spin $\sigma$. The $\alpha$ coefficient modulates the energy increase in the targeted Kohn–Sham states.

Within the DFT+$\alpha$ method, defining the occupation matrix, $n^{I\sigma}(\mathbf{r})$, requires specifying the occupation of atomic orbitals in a multiatomic system. Given the inherent arbitrariness of this task, possible approaches include defining these occupations based on projections onto atomic orbitals or Wannier functions. The occupation matrix can be written in the following generic form,

$$n^{I\sigma} = \sum_{\mathbf{k}\nu} f_{\mathbf{k}\nu}^{\sigma} \langle \psi_{\mathbf{k}\nu}^{\sigma} | \hat{P}^{I} | \psi_{\mathbf{k}\nu}^{\sigma} \rangle \quad (2)$$

where $\psi_{\mathbf{k}\nu}^{\sigma}$ is the KS wave function of the state $\mathbf{k}\nu$ and spin $\sigma$, and $f_{\mathbf{k}\nu}^{\sigma}$ is the corresponding occupation. $\hat{P}^{I}$ is the projector operator on the wave function $\psi^{I}$ of atom I, defined as $\hat{P}^{I} = \sum_{\mathbf{l}} |\psi^{\mathbf{l}}\rangle\langle\psi^{\mathbf{l}}|$. We define $\psi^{I}$ as,

$$\psi^{I}(r) = C \left[ 1 + 2r^{2} + \frac{1}{2}(2r^{2})^{2} + \frac{1}{6}(2r^{2})^{3} \right] e^{-2r^{2}} \phi_{S}(r) \quad (3)$$

where $\phi_{S}(r)$ is the 4s atomic orbital of the germanium pseudopotential, and C is the normalization factor. This normalized function primarily corresponds to the 4s orbital of the pseudopotential, but its long-range tail is suppressed with the exponential term to minimize the overlap between wave functions of neighboring atoms. This modified pseudopotential is used in the localized manifold projector, introduced to compute the effective interaction parameters in the LDA+U method,¹⁷ as implemented in the Quantum ESPRESSO (QE) package.¹¹ Although DFT+$\alpha$ is proposed for the critical case of germanium, this scheme can also be applied to related semiconductors that exhibit sp mixing (see Supporting Information).

As the $\alpha$ parameter modifies the alignment between 4s and 4p orbitals, it must be tuned to reproduce the band gaps. We demonstrate that, by adjusting only this single $\alpha$ parameter, one can achieve consistent accuracy across all bulk properties. As shown in Figure 2a, both the $\Gamma-\Gamma$ and $\Gamma-L$ band gaps are estimated for different $\alpha$ values, ranging from 0 (corresponding to a standard PBE calculation) to 2. The optimized lattice parameter was used to calculate the pair of band gaps for each $\alpha$ value. As illustrated by the yellow arrows, the $\Gamma-\Gamma$ band gap opens for $\alpha$ greater than 0.5 and inverts in magnitude with the $\Gamma-L$ gap for values above 1.07. For $\alpha=1.4$ (blue dotted line in Figure 2a), both band gaps are within less than 2% of the experimental values.⁵ For this $\alpha$, the optimized lattice constant is 5.676 Å, which is within 0.4% of the experimental reference (Figure 2b). For comparison, a standard PBE calculation finds as optimal value of $a=5.769$ Å, a lattice constant with more than 2% relative error. For the electronic gaps and the lattice parameter, increasing the $\alpha$ value forces the opening of the $\Gamma-\Gamma$ gap and, consequently, decreases the lattice parameter.

For a more in-depth understanding of the effect of $\alpha$ on the KS eigenvalues, we plot the germanium band structure using standard PBE and PBE+$\alpha$ calculations with $\alpha=1.4$ (Figure 3a). For each calculation, the optimized lattice parameter of PBE+$\alpha$ is used. As expected, the first and fifth bands are the most

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. DFT+$\alpha$ calculation of germanium's properties using the PBE functional displayed as a function of the $\alpha$ parameter. (a) $\Gamma-\Gamma$ and $\Gamma-L$ band gaps at the optimized lattice parameter for each $\alpha$ value. Yellow arrows mark the transition from a closed band gap to an open one, as well as the inversion of the $\Gamma-\Gamma$ and $\Gamma-L$ band gaps. Experimental values are taken from ref. 5. (b) The optimized lattice parameter. The experimental lattice parameter is reported in ref. 15. (c) The elastic constants $B_0$, $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and $C_{44}$ at the optimized lattice parameter for each $\alpha$ value. Experimental constants are collected from ref. 5.</figcaption></figure>

affected by the DFT+$\alpha$ formulation, as they have the highest 4s character. However, their shift relative to the standard KS eigenvalues varies along the BZ, depending on the degree of hybridization between the 4s and 4p atomic orbitals. At $\Gamma$, the first and fifth bands are purely 4s, leading to the largest deviation between PBE and PBE+$\alpha$, effectively opening the $\Gamma-\Gamma$ band gap to the experimental value.⁵ Additional illustrations of the effect of the $\alpha$ parameter on band alignment, as well as a preliminary investigation of related semiconductors whose PBE description also exhibits sp mixing, are provided in the Supporting Information.

Though the DFT+$\alpha$ method was developed to improve germanium's electronic properties, it also proves to be a robust method for describing the ground-state properties of the bulk, such as the lattice constant (Figure 2c). Moreover, as shown in Figure 2c, the elastic constants $B_0$, $C_{11}$, $C_{12}$, and $C_{44}$ are in close proximity to experimental references, with a relative error lower than 6%. The discontinuity in the $B_0(\alpha)$ and $C_{ij}(\alpha)$ curves slightly above $\alpha=0.45$ is due to the cell deformations used to calculate the elastic constants, which open or close the $\Gamma-\Gamma$ band gap, leading to irregular fits of the equations of
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** DFT+α calculation of germanium's properties for the chosen value α=1.4 at its optimized lattice constant, *a* = 5.676 Å. (a) Electronic band structure within the DFT+α approach is shown in black. For comparison, the standard DFT calculation using the PBE functional was performed at the same lattice parameter and is shown in red. Gray-filled areas correspond to occupied states or bands 1–4. Experimental values for the Γ–Γ and Γ–L band gaps at cryogenic temperatures are taken from ref. 5. The projected electronic density of states (DOS) onto the 4s and 4p atomic orbitals for the DFT+α calculation is also included. (b) Phonon dispersion curves of Ge, computed by using standard DFT (blue), DFT+α (red), and HSE (black). For each calculation, the corresponding optimized lattice constant is used. Experimental values are taken from ref. 18.</figcaption></figure>

state. For comparison, standard PBE values exhibit relative errors in the range of 19–24%.

Regarding the vibrational properties of germanium, the PBE +α approach also addresses the limitations of the PBE description of phonon frequencies. In Figure 3b, we plot the phonon dispersion curves calculated using PBE, PBE+α (α=1.4), and HSE calculations against neutron diffraction data.¹⁸ For each calculation, the optimized lattice parameter is used. For the acoustic branches, PBE+α aligns well with the HSE calculations, significantly improving the description of the branches' slopes near Γ, i.e., the sound velocities. For the optical modes, both PBE+α and HSE increase the underestimated frequencies, aligning well with experimental data near Γ. However, at the edges of the BZ, both approaches tend to underestimate the optical branches. In the case of PBE+α, this misalignment may result from the lack of piecewise linearity in the approach or from an inaccurate description of long-range interactions. We note that, although our scheme improves the description of bulk properties by manually correcting the sp mixing, it does not remedy the intrinsic limitations of exchange-correlation functionals.

## 4. DISCUSSION

In summary, we challenge the conventional understanding of PBE and HSE functionals in accurately describing the semiconductor properties. For germanium, we have demonstrated that while HSE corrects PBE's severe underestimation of the Γ–L and Γ–Γ band gaps, it fails to reproduce both experimental values simultaneously. As an alternative, we propose the DFT+α approach, a tailored correction that adjusts the erroneous energy difference between germanium's 4s and 4p bands to effectively open the band gap. We demonstrate that by adjusting only this energy difference, one can achieve consistent accuracy across all bulk properties.

Beyond the description of physical properties, DFT+α provides a computational advantage over hybrid calculations, as it scales comparably to a standard self-consistent field (SCF) calculation. For germanium, this correction is critical, transforming its description from metallic to semiconducting. Since sp mixing in diamond and zincblende lattices is a recurring limitation, it also provides improvements for related semiconductors (see Supporting Information).

While DFT+α is a semiempirical approach, it addresses a major drawback of the most commonly used exchange-correlation functionals: the sp mixing. For germanium, this correction is critical, transforming its description from metallic to semiconducting. Since sp mixing in diamond and zincblende lattices is a recurring limitation, it also provides improvements for related semiconductors (see Supporting Information).

### ■ ASSOCIATED CONTENT

**Data Availability Statement**

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request.

**Supporting Information**

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c05816.

Germanium's band structure and cohesive energy at various lattice constants from DFT and DFT+α. Fundamental band gaps and optimal lattice parameters of semiconductors with diamond and zinc-blende lattices: a comparison between DFT, DFT+α, and experimental values (PDF)

**Accession Codes**

The Quantum ESPRESSO package and the PHONOPY code are open-source software that can be obtained from https://www.quantum-espresso.org/ and https://phonopy.github.io/phonopy/, respectively.

### ■ AUTHOR INFORMATION

**Corresponding Author**

Gabriela Herrero-Saboya — CNR-Istituto Officina dei Materiali (IOM), c/o SISSA, Trieste 1-34136, Italy;
● orcid.org/0000-0002-7434-7942; Email: herrero@iom.cnr.it

**Authors**

Abdulgaffar Abdurrazaq — LAAS-CNRS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse F-31400, France; SISSA–Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Trieste 1-34136, Italy
**Ruggero Lot** – LAAS-CNRS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse F-31400, France; AREA Science Park, Trieste I-34149, Italy

**Antoine Jay** – LAAS-CNRS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse F-31400, France; orcid.org/0000-0002-0361-5866

**Nicolas Richard** – CEA, DAM, DIF, Arpajon F-91297, France

**Layla Martin-Samos** – CNR-Istituto Officina dei Materiali (IOM), c/o SISSA, Trieste I-34136, Italy

**Anne Hémeryck** – LAAS-CNRS, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, Toulouse F-31400, France; orcid.org/0000-0002-0201-1171

**Stefano de Gironcoli** – SISSA–Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Trieste I-34136, Italy; CNR-Istituto Officina dei Materiali (IOM), c/o SISSA, Trieste I-34136, Italy; orcid.org/0000-0002-2307-0998

Complete contact information is available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.5c05816

## Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was carried out using HPC resources from CALMIP-Grant P1555. This work was supported by the French GeSPAD Project of the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-20-CE24-0004). This work was also supported by the European Commission through the MAX Centre of Excellence for supercomputing applications (grant numbers 10109337 and 824143) and by the Italian MUR, through the Italian National Centre for HPC, Big Data, and Quantum Computing (grant number CN00000013). The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical support of Pietro Delugas.

## REFERENCES

(1) Borlido, P.; Aull, T.; Huran, A. W.; Tran, F.; Marques, M. A. L.; Botti, S. Large-Scale Benchmark of Exchange-Correlation Functionals for the Determination of Electronic Band Gaps of Solids. *J. Chem. Theory Comput.* **2019**, *15*, 5069–5079.

(2) Perdew, J. P.; Burke, K.; Ernzerhof, M. Generalized Gradient Approximation Made Simple. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **1996**, *77*, 3865–3868.

(3) Heyd, J.; Scuseria, G. E.; Ernzerhof, M. Hybrid functionals based on a screened Coulomb potential. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2003**, *118*, 8207–8215.

(4) Heyd, J.; Scuseria, G. E.; Ernzerhof, M. Erratum: "Hybrid functionals based on a screened Coulomb potential" [J. Chem. Phys. 118, 8207 (2003)]. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2006**, *124* (21), 219906.

(5) Madelung, O. Semiconductors: data Handbook; Springer, 2004.

(6) Peralta, J. E.; Heyd, J.; Scuseria, G. E.; Martin, R. L. Spin-orbit splittings and energy band gaps calculated with the Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof screened hybrid functional. *Phys. Rev. B* **2006**, *74*, 073101.

(7) Hummer, K.; Harl, J.; Kresse, G. Heyd-Scuseria-Ernzerhof hybrid functional for calculating the lattice dynamics of semiconductors. *Phys. Rev. B* **2009**, *80*, 115205.

(8) Deák, P.; Aradi, B.; Frauenheim, T.; Janzén, E.; Gali, A. Accurate defect levels obtained from the HSE06 range-separated hybrid functional. *Phys. Rev. B* **2010**, *81*, 153203.

(9) Weber, J. R.; Janotti, A.; Van de Walle, C. G. Dangling bonds and vacancies in germanium. *Phys. Rev. B* **2013**, *87*, 035203.

(10) Colleoni, D.; Pasquarello, A. Diffusion of interstitial oxygen in silicon and germanium: a hybrid functional study. *J. Phys.: Cond. Matter* **2016**, *28*, 495801.

(11) Giannozzi, P.; et al. Advanced capabilities for materials modelling with Quantum ESPRESSO. *J. Phys.: Cond. Matter* **2017**, *29*, 465901.

(12) Jollet, F.; Torrent, M.; Holzwarth, N. Generation of Projector Augmented-Wave atomic data: A 71 element validated table in the XML format. *Comput. Phys. Commun.* **2014**, *185*, 1246–1254.

(13) The pseudopotential for Ge was taken from the Pseudo-Dojo PseudoPotential Download Page: https://www.pseudo-dojo.org/. The type was selected as PAW (JTH v1.1), the functional was PBE, and the accuracy was set to stringent.

(14) Togo, A. First-principles Phonon Calculations with Phonopy and Phono3py. *J. Phys. Soc. Jpn.* **2023**, *92*, 012001.

(15) Hu, M. Y.; Sinn, H.; Alatas, A.; Sturhahn, W.; Alp, E. E.; Wille, H. C.; Shvyd'ko, Y. V.; Sutter, J. P.; Bandaru, J.; Haller, E. E.; Ozhogin, V. I.; Rodriguez, S.; Colella, R.; Kartheuser, E.; Villeret, M. A. Effect of isotopic composition on the lattice parameter of germanium measured by x-ray backscattering. *Phys. Rev. B* **2003**, *67*, 113306.

(16) Räsander, M.; Moram, M. A. On the accuracy of commonly used density functional approximations in determining the elastic constants of insulators and semiconductors. *J. Chem. Phys.* **2015**, *143*, 144104.

(17) Cococcioni, M.; de Gironcoli, S. Linear response approach to the calculation of the effective interaction parameters in the LDA+U method. *Phys. Rev. B* **2005**, *71*, 035105.

(18) Nilsson, G.; Nelin, G. Phonon Dispersion Relations in Ge at 80 °K. *Phys. Rev. B* **1971**, *3*, 364–369.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

CAS INSIGHTS™

EXPLORE THE INNOVATIONS
SHAPING TOMORROW

Discover the latest scientific research and trends with CAS Insights.
Subscribe for email updates on new articles, reports, and webinars at the intersection of science and innovation.

Subscribe today

CAS

A division of the
American Chemical Society

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>