## Sub-monolayer structures of Ag overlayers on Ge(111): experimental observations and first-principles study

Shree Ram Acharya 1 , Cory H. Mullet 2,* , Jason A. Giacomo 2,† , Duy Le 1,3 ,  Shirley Chiang , and Talat 2

- S. Rahman 1,3,‡

1 Department of Physics, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816-0115, USA

2 Department of Physics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8677, USA

3 Renewable Energy and Chemical Transformations Cluster, University of Central Florida, Orlando,

## FL 32816-0115, USA

We present a joint experimental and theoretical determination of structures of Ag adatoms on the Ge(111) surface using low energy electron diffraction, low energy electron microscopy, scanning tunneling microscopy, and density functional theory-based calculations, as functions of coverages and temperature. Experimentally for clean Ge(111), c(2 × 8)  and  (2 × 1)  phases  occur, while  Ag  overlayers  cause  (4 × 4), ( √ 3 × √ 3 ) R30 o and  (3 × 1) surface  structural  phases.  The dependence of the growth behavior of these different phases was examined as a function of temperature, Ag deposition rate and coverage, substrate step density, and history of temperature cycling.  First-principles  calculations  of  the  electronic  and  geometric  structures  and  vibrational dynamics show the Ge(111)-c(2 × 8) configuration with Ge adatoms adsorbed on three-fold hollow

* Current address: Intel Corporation, Hillsboro, OR 97124.

† Current address: Air Quality Research Center, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-8677.

‡ Corresponding author email address: Talat@ucf.edu (Talat S. Rahman)

(T4) sites to be the energetically most  favored phase  of the Ge(111) surface, among unreconstructed Ge(111), reconstructed Ge(111)-2 × 1, and Ge(111)-c(2 × 8) structures. The Ge(111)-Ag(3 × 1) overlayer of the system has Ge atoms forming a honeycomb chain on a missing top layer reconstructed surface, with metal at 1 3 ML coverage in channel. The Ge (111)-Ag( √ 3 × √ 3) 𝑅𝑅 30 0 overlayer contains one monolayer Ag forming inequivalent Ag triangles in a surface unit cell  on  the  missing  top  layer  reconstructed  Ge(111)  surface.  The  Ge(111)-Ag(4 × 4)  overlayer formed at low Ag coverage contains two triangular subunits at different heights: one with six Ag adatoms and the other with three Ge adatoms on the intact double layer Ge(111) surface. The temperature and coverage dependent surface phase diagram, obtained by minimizing the surface free energy, captures the main features of the experimental phase diagram.

## I. INTRODUCTION

A system with sub monolayer Ag deposited on the most compact (111) surface of Germanium [Ag/Ge(111)]  has  gained  interest  due  to  the  formation  of  various  one-  and  two-dimensional structures of the system by manipulating temperature and metal coverage (see [1]  and references therein). In fundamental aspects,  such structures are relatively convenient to analyze to get an understanding about interactions of Ge and Ag atoms, to find atomic configurations at which they are  stable  as  a  function  of  coverage  and  temperature,  and  to  explore  the  source  of  phase transformations  from  one  structure  to  another.  Such  a  basic  experimental  and  theoretical understanding can pave the way for designing complex models of the growth processes of metallic thin films over semiconducting surfaces.

We first present our experimental observations of the structural phases of the Ag/Ge(111) system, as measured primarily by low energy electron diffraction (LEED) and low energy electron microscopy (LEEM). Similar to earlier published results [1], we observe several structural phases, such  as  ( √ 3 × √ 3) 𝑅𝑅 30 0 ,  (4 × 4),  and  3 × 1,  as  a  function  of  temperature  and  coverage.  Below temperatures  of  300°C,  the  clean  Ge(111)  surface  displays  the  c(2×8)  reconstruction,  while between 300 0 C and 420 0 C, a (2 × 1) LEED pattern appears. As the Ag coverage is increased, the (4 × 4) and (3 × 1) phases form up to coverages of 0.375 ML. We show in this paper details of the formations  of  regions  with  these  different  phases,  particularly  how  these  structural  phases nucleate at steps, on terraces, and at defects on the surface.  At higher coverage, from 0.375 to 1 ML, the (4 × 4) and √ 3 phases occur for temperatures &lt;500 0 C. The (3 × 1) phase also appears in narrow temperature ranges from 420 0 C to 570 0 C, and depending on coverage, can appear with the (4 × 4) or √ 3 phases. Above 570 0 C, we observe only a (1 × 1) LEED pattern, indicating no specific ordered structure.

The construction of atomic models of observed structures is an important first step to further explore properties of a system. However, there is no consensus on the geometrical models of observed overlayers of the Ag/Ge(111) system. For √ 3 overlayer, the honeycomb- chained- trimer (HCT) model corresponding to the honeycomb pattern with two bright spots per √ 3 unit cell [2-4] and  inequivalent-triangle  (IET)  configurations [5]  of  hexagonal  pattern  with  two  types  of  Ag triangles of different sizes in √ 3 unit cell that correspond to the bright and dark spots in the image from scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) are proposed. The possibility of obtaining one or the

other periodic pattern by manipulating the tunneling bias in STM is reported in ref. [6]. For (4 ×4), based on STM data and charge transfer insight, Hammar et al. [2] proposed a model with Ag and Ge adatoms on double layer beneath on which Ag at 6/16 monolayer (ML) coverage adsorbs on top of Ge on one half of unit cell and Ge on the other half occupy T4 sites with rest atom between them.  A  slightly  modified  model  is  proposed  by  Spence  et  al.  [7]  based  on  detailed  STM measurement in which Ge adatoms form trimer. Collazo-Davilla et al. [8] proposed a missing top layer reconstructed model with six Ag atoms on Ge substitutional sites and ring-like assembly of nine Ge atoms on two triangular subunits based on direct method to surface X-ray diffraction data. Based on the observation of missing top layer surface due to laveling of 4 × 4 and √ 3 tetraces and symmetry in images on STM measurement, Weitering et al. [9] proposed a model with  (2 × 2) sublattices of Ge trimers and Ag atoms centered at T4 sites and H3 sites, respectively and secondlayer  Ge  restatoms.  For  Ag-(3 × 1)/Ge(111),  various  models  can  be  candidates  from  the  Ag(3 × 1)/Si(111) surface: Seiwartz-chain model [10-12] which is a missing top layer model that has five-fold chains along [1 1 � 0] direction with metal atoms on channel, the extended Pandey model [12,13] formed by extension of (2 × 1) 𝜋𝜋 -bonded chain model and honeycomb channel (HCC) model [8,14-17] in which surface atoms form a honeycomb chain.  The former two models could explain the  metal  insensitive  LEED  I-V  curve  [18]  but  can  not  expain  surface  band  structure  and  STM images [19,20]. The HCC model is shown computationally to be the energetically favored with double bond formation and reproduces ARPES and STM results [16,17].

To get an atomic model of observed ordered surface structures, their electronic structure and thermodynamic stability in a single computational setup so that energetics are  comparable, the density  functional  theory  [21,22]  based  calculation  is  performed  in  this  study.  The  bonding characteristics are explained by calculating the electronic states and charge density distributions. To compare energetics of overlayers with different number of atoms, the surface free energy which quantifies the amount of energy required to form a surface, either by breaking bonds of bulk  stacking  or  adding  adatoms  is  calculated.  In  addition  to  the  general  practice  of  such calculations at 0 K, the contribution of vibrational entropy of atomic motion is incorporated in this study by coupling the static DFT  with vibrational calculations. The vibrational calculation of the energetically favored configuration of each overlayer provides the thermodynamic stability of the model  and  the  temperature  dependent  surface  free  energy.    For  a  given  temperature  and coverage, the surface free energies obtained for a combination of different phases are minimized to determine the favored phase in the given temperature and coverage leading to construct the surface phase diagram.

In the rest of this paper, we present first the details of the experimental set up in section 2, the experimental results in section 3, computational set up in section 4, computational results and discussion in section 5, and conclusions in section 6.

## II. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS

Measurements  were  carried  out  in  a  ultrahigh  vacuum  (UHV)  system  consisting  of  three connected chambers housing several commercial instruments, including a LEEM (Elmitec GmbH), STM (Oxford Instruments), and x-ray photoemission spectrometer (Vacuum Generators) [23].

Ge(111) samples were cut from Sb-doped Ge(111) 2-inch wafers purchased from MTI Crystal, with resistivity ~0.25 Ω -cm and polished on one side to within 0.5° of the (111) surface. Ge(111) crystals were cleaned in ultrahigh vacuum with repeated cycles of Ar  bombardment (250 eV, 5 + µ A) of the unheated sample for 15 minutes, followed by annealing the sample between 800°C and 830°C for 10 minutes (30 minutes for the last anneal before imaging in LEEM or STM). The energy of the Ar  beam was 0.25 keV.  Sputtering and annealing cycles were performed in the analysis + chamber (base pressure 2 × 10 -10 Torr) before transferring the sample to the LEEM chamber (base pressure 1 × 10 - 10 Torr) or STM chamber (base pressure 4 × 10 -10 Torr). Samples were sputtered and annealed until a clean c(2×8) LEED pattern was obtained, as shown in FIG. 1 (a). For reference, the LEED  pattern  of  the  Ge(111)-(2 × 1)  reconstruction  is  also  shown  in  FIG.  1 ((b)-(c)).  The  clean Ge(111)-c(2×8)  reconstruction  transforms  to  a  (2 × 1) reconstruction  at  300°C,  with  some hysteresis [24].  The (2 × 1) LEED pattern has characteristic oblong features at (½, ½) (FIG. 1 ((b)(c)), pointed out with blue arrows, the shape and intensity of which vary with temperature [24]. X-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) was also occasionally used to verify that the sample was free from contaminants.

FIG. 1. LEED pictures of clean, reconstructed Ge(111) surface. Red arrows point to first-order spots, blue arrows to half-order spots, and green arrows to eighth-order spots. (a) Ge(111)-c(2×8) near room temperature. (b)-(c) Ge(111)-(2 × 1) at 370°C.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-4dd76afb-3cfa-4e7c-bb65-214f31a6b381.jpg)

Sample heating was monitored through a K-type thermocouple with the junction pressed against the back of the sample. The thermocouple was then calibrated with an infrared pyrometer with  the  emissivity  set  to  0.42.  The  emissivity  was  found  by  calibrating  the  pyrometer  to  the melting point of an old Ge sample. The thermocouple calibration was then checked by measuring the temperature for the c(2×8) to (2 × 1) phase transition at 300°C on clean Ge(111) [24].

Ag was deposited via direct evaporation from an Ag wrapped tungsten filament which was resistively  heated.  The  deposition  rate  was  calibrated  in  the  LEEM  with  a  Ge(111)  sample  by measuring the time to complete the (4 × 4) phase (at 0.375 ML), √ 3 phase (at 1.00 ML), or by the

partial completion of one or both of these phases, as shown in FIG. 2. A range of deposition rates (0.005-1.5 ML/min) was employed depending upon the phenomena under study.

## III. EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS

The growth of Ag on the reconstructed Ge(111)-c(2×8) surface was studied by dosing Ag in the LEEM while imaging the surface at various temperatures. No evidence of Ag dosing could be seen in the LEEM images before about 0.1 ML of coverage. After 0.1 ML of Ag coverage, a darkening and broadening of the steps on the surface can be seen in the LEEM images. We examined the different growth behaviors of the various structural phases [(4×4), √𝟑𝟑 , and (3×1)] of Ag/Ge(111) as a function of the substrate temperature during the growth process.

For growth of Ag on Ge(111) at temperatures below ~185 0 C, the (4 × 4) phase does not form. Instead the √ 3 phase appears to grow as dark features at low coverage until it covers the surface at ~0.5 ML (not shown). Evidently, reduced mobility of the atoms at lower temperature causes the growth of small domains and clusters on the surface. However, the √ 3 phase must be filled with vacancies, as it will continue to accept more Ag up to a total coverage of 1.0 ML before the second layer and 3D islands begin to form. There is the possibility of a second, lower density, √ 3 structure, similar to the behavior of Pb/Ge(111), which has two different √ 3 -structures, the dilute α and dense β phases [25,26]. No such indication has been found in the literature, however, and the LEEM data do not show any contrast changes that might indicate two separate structures.

Dosing Ag onto the Ge(111) at 200 0 C allows us to look at the region of the phase diagram where the reconstructed c(2 × 8) substrate phase and the (4 × 4) and √ 3 Ag phases all coexist, up to a coverage of ~0.4 ML (FIG. 2). At this temperature, the mobility of adatoms, especially Ge, on the surface is limited. This in turn reduces the faceting of the Ge surface and creates a barrier to the formation of the (4 × 4) phase. It then takes a sufficient build-up of Ag adatoms on the surface to induce a phase transition which then produces the higher density √ 3 phase. At 200°C the (4 × 4) phase forms at the edges of the √ 3 phase as seen in Fig. 3, indicating that there is still some Ge mobility at the phase boundaries.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-23440668-906b-48cc-b936-c6f94231c302.jpg)

FIG. 2. Ag dosed at 200°C does not completely cover the surface, and the two Ag phases, √ 3 and (4 × 4), coexist up to ~0.4 ML. This image shows the coexistence of the two phases and the Ge substrate at Ag coverage of 0.33 ML. The blue circles surround six dark spots that are due to dead spots in the microchannel plate; these are present in all LEEM images shown in this paper. The inset shows the LEED pattern displaying both the √ 3 and the (4 × 4) spots.

FIG. 3 (a-d) shows a progression of LEEM images as Ag was dosed up to 0.33 ML at 250 C. LEED 0 was done at various points during dosing to confirm that this is the (4 × 4) phase. Ag begins forming the (4 × 4) phase along the steps of the substrate. As the coverage increases, the images show the (4 × 4) phase growing out from the steps in both directions. The substrate steps remain in their original positions as the (4 × 4) phase spreads out onto the terrace from both the upper and lower step edges. This is not step flow growth but rather a nucleation of the phase at the steps, instead of forming clusters on the terraces. The growth continues until the surface is completely covered by the (4 × 4) structure.

Another  interesting  observation  on  the  dynamics  of  sub-monolayer  coverages  of  Ag  on Ge(111) has to do with the diffusion of Ag atoms on the surface. Two groups have measured the diffusivity  of  Ag  on  the  clean,  reconstructed  Ge(111)  surface  by  watching  the  evolution  of  Ag islands  deposited  through  masks.  Suliga  and  Henzler  found,  using  scanning  Auger  electron spectroscopy (AES), that the Ag diffusion coefficient along the steps was two orders of magnitude larger than that on a smooth Ge(111) face [27]. Similarly, Metcalfe and Venables used scanning AES to study the effect of diffusion on the surface [28]. They also incorporated biased secondary electron imaging (b-SEI). In their b-SEI images the Ag island shapes led to the conclusion that Ag was diffusing more rapidly along steps on the surface. They also compared their results to previous Ag/Si(111) studies and note that Ge adatom movement (as deduced from the observed faceting [27,29]) could explain the differences in the two systems and the increased Ag diffusion along steps in the Ge(111) surface. Ge adatom mobility (or the lack of it) at lower temperatures as

indicated by the lack of faceting could also explain the different growth characteristics observed in LEEM at these temperatures, as discussed above.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-8561d2bf-ed2b-481f-a11b-c3e83523e103.jpg)

FIG. 3. Ag is dosed onto Ge(111) at 250°C. (a)-(d) The dark (4 × 4) phase is seen to form first at steps and then to grow outward onto the terraces. At 0.18 ML a few isolated islands of (4 × 4) can be seen growing (red circles). The (4 × 4) phase completes at Ag coverage of 0.37 ML. (e)-(h) After the completion of the dark (4 × 4) phase, the light gray √𝟑𝟑 phase begins to grow. Notice that in contrast to the way the (4 × 4) phase grows on the surface, the √𝟑𝟑 phase nucleates on a terrace and then grows to fill the terrace, with the layer completing at 1.0 ML.

The lower barrier to  diffusion  at  the  steps  seems  counterintuitive  given  that  the  phase  is expected to begin growing where adatoms slow down enough to nucleate into ordered structures. From this point of view the observation of the phase growth at the steps would suggest that the steps are acting as sinks for adatoms, with higher mobility on the terraces. However, this is a simplistic view of the system and the structure of the phase itself needs to be considered. The (4 × 4) structure incorporates both Ge and Ag atoms on an intact double layer [2]. Thus, efficient growth of the (4 × 4) phase requires mobility of both Ag and Ge adatoms. The faceting observed by Suliga and Henzler [29] indicates Ge adatoms are mobile at the steps. Thus, the phase begins to form at the step facets where both atomic species are mobile.

As dosing of Ag continues, the (4 × 4) phase completes and a denser √ 3 phase begins to form. There has been some controversy over the saturation coverage of the √ 3 phase and hence the structure of the phase. Two early studies found the √ 3 coverage using AES break points as 0.85 ML [30] and 0.82 ML [27]. A later 2-D X-ray structure analysis proposed a model with a saturation coverage of 0.72 ML [31]. However, after STM imaging was successfully applied to the Ag/Si(111) system, [32] it was used to study Ag/Ge(111) and strong similarities were recognized between the two systems [2]. The honeycomb chained trimer (HCT) model had already been proposed for the Ag/Si(111) system which had a coverage of 1.0 ML [33]. Two more studies utilizing core-level photoelectron spectroscopy [34] and AES [28] also concluded Ag/Ge(111)-√ 3 had a HCT structure. A  STM  study  by  Spence  and  Tear,  [7]  which  showed  well  separated  (±1.0  V)  occupied  and unoccupied images that compared perfectly with similar STM images on Ag/Si(111), [32] solidified

the HCT model as the accepted structure. The STM study by L-W Chou et al. [5] has shown an inequivalent triangle (IET) structure with two types of Ag triangles having different sizes in the surface unit cell and forming hexagonal periodicity on the surface. Another STM study by H. M. Sohail et al. [6] observed HCT and IET structures based on tunneling bias. LEEM's strength lies in observing  the  contrast  differences  caused  by  ordered  patterns  on  the  surface  but  not  in determining the structures that produce them. Thus, LEEM is not suited to determining surface structures and cannot definitively say which saturation coverage is correct, but it seems likely that the true coverage is 1.0 ML, corresponding to the HCT model.

FIG. 3 ((e)-(h)) shows the progression of the √ 3 phase as it begins to form at 0.37 ML until it completely covers the surface. Immediately we notice that the growth is different from the (4 × 4) phase. The √ 3 phase  depends less on the step structure and more freely grows out onto the terraces. As for the (4 × 4) data, this observation is backed up by diffusivity measurements done by Suliga and Henzler and also Metcalfe and Venables [27,28]. Both of these groups, through different techniques, have found that Ag adatoms have higher mobility on the Ag-(4 × 4) surface than on the Ge(111)-c(2×8)  surface  with  no  preferred  mobility  in  the  step  direction.  Also,  Ge  atoms  have already been incorporated into the (4 × 4) structure and the increased Ag density then provokes the transition to the higher coverage √ 3 phase. This is why the √ 3 phase grows as larger islands on the surface rather than out from the steps as the (4 × 4) does. However, there appears to be some  reduction  in  the  diffusion  of  Ag  adatoms  across  steps  (presumably  due  to  an  Ehrlich-

Schwoebel barrier) as the √ 3 domains are typically bound by steps. A more complete picture of these phenomena is formed when we look at other dosing temperatures and different samples.

Growth of the Ag (4 × 4)  phase at 410°C is shown in FIG. 4. Initial growth of Ag (4 × 4)  first appears in LEEM images at step edges for &lt; 0.1 ML coverage (FIG. 4 (a)).  Growth proceeds outward from both edges of the step.  Nucleation on terraces is also observed (FIG. 4 ((c)-(d)). The lag time between  nucleation  at  steps  and  nucleation  on  terraces  is  greater  at  higher  substrate temperatures during deposition (FIG. 4) than at lower temperatures. For growth both at terraces and at steps, the (4 × 4) domain boundaries are characterized by distinct faceting. The substrate temperature during deposition also affects the number density of Ag islands on terraces, which is higher  for  deposition  at  lower  temperature.  In  addition,  at  the  same  temperature,  a  higher deposition rate yields a higher number density.

In addition to deposition variables controlled by the experimenter, such as deposition rate and temperature, the step density of the substrate also has a significant effect on (4 × 4) growth. In areas of high local step density, growth on terraces is completely suppressed in favor of growth from steps. In contrast, in regions of medium and low step density, growth occurs both at steps and on terraces.

In summary, three key variables influence (4 × 4) growth as viewed in LEEM:  temperature, deposition rate, and substrate step density. Under all growth parameters examined, the (4 × 4) phase was found to nucleate initially at step edges for coverages less than 0.1 ML.  For sufficiently wide substrate terraces, subsequent (4 × 4) island growth on terraces was also observed.  For island

growth  on  terraces,  the  number  density  increases  with  deposition  rate  and  decreases  with deposition temperature. Too few data points were taken to compare the effects of substrate terrace  width  and  deposition  parameters  on  (4 × 4)  island  growth  to  theory,  as  was  elegantly performed in a study of the growth on CaF2 on Si(111) [35].  However, conclusions can be drawn as to the relative importance of terrace width, deposition rate, and temperature on the average domain size of (4 × 4) islands.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-89a15733-eaa1-4983-807d-3249b1f0cba5.jpg)

FIG. 4. LEEM images of the growth of (4 × 4) and √𝟑𝟑 phases of Ag on Ge(111) at 410°C as a function of coverage. Colored arrows point at growth at three sites of the substrate: step edges (yellow arrows), terraces (red arrows), and at two large substrate defects (green arrows). Deposition rate is 0.017 ML/min. (a)-(d) Growth at low coverage shows (4 × 4) Ag (dark) on Ge(111) (bright). Field of view (FOV) = 5 µ m. (e) Another region with 0.18 ML coverage. Examples of substrate defects are

marked  with  green  arrows.  FOV  =  10 µ m.  (f)  Higher  coverage  of  0.62  ML,  showing  finger-like growth (red arrows) of bright √ 3 phase into darker (4 × 4) regions. FOV = 10 µ m.

In  terms  of  the  controllable  experimental  parameters,  temperature  and  deposition  rate, temperature has the more dramatic effect on the number density of (4 × 4)  islands,  given  the temperature  range  over  which  the  (4 × 4)  phase  grows  (~200-550°C)  and  given  the  range  of deposition rates conveniently achievable with our Ag evaporator.  Our experiments showed that a difference of 80-90°C in deposition temperature has a greater effect on island density than an order of magnitude difference in deposition rate.

Given a flat substrate, with wide terraces, the number density of Ag (4 × 4) islands is highly amenable to control. Large islands can be grown at high temperatures and low deposition rates. For example, Fig. 5 (e) depicts islands of ~1000 nm in width for deposition at T = 410°C, Θ /t = 0.017 ML/min, Θ = 0.18 ML. In contrast, small islands are grown by depositing at low temperature and high rate of deposition.

Approximate requirements for the step density necessary to grow islands of a desired size and number density can be estimated from our data. For temperature of 410°C and deposition rate of 0.017 ML/min, terraces greater than 2300 nm in width are necessary to nucleate (4 × 4) islands. We observed that a 70°C reduction in temperature results in approximately an order of magnitude reduction in the minimum terrace width required to grow Ag islands.

The effect of terrace width on growth was also observed for the higher density √ 3 phase, which nucleates after the completion of the (4 × 4) phase at 0.375 ML. While the nucleation of the √ 3 was observed to occur irrespective of the location of step edges, the steps were observed to form boundaries to √ 3 growth.  FIG. 4 (f) shows √ 3 growth across a low step density sample at 410°C. Growth morphology across terraces is dendritic (red arrows) but bounded by step edges (yellow arrows).

The (4 × 4) growth begins at step edges for all experimental parameters examined.  Whether any growth begins on terraces depends upon deposition temperature and deposition rate, as well as the local step density.  Growth on terraces could be completely suppressed for samples of sufficiently  high  step  density  at  a  given  deposition  temperature.  Alternatively,  on  samples  of sufficiently low step density at a given temperature, (4 × 4) island growth was substantial. Growth at both steps and on terraces was characterized by faceted growth fronts.

While growth of the √ 3 phase was substantially different from that of the (4 × 4) phase, it was still strongly influenced by substrate step density. The √ 3 phase generally nucleated on terraces and grew dendritically away from the nucleation site until a step edge was encountered.  At a given temperature, growth then proceeded in stripes down the lengths of terraces for samples of high step density, and islands had irregular shapes for samples of low step density.

Similar  to  previous  STM  studies  [2,7,9],  the  (3 × 1)  phase  was  observed  in  narrow  spatial regions along (4 × 4) Ag domains in STM images.  Although (3 × 1) spots are also apparent in LEED

pictures, the domains are too small to resolve with LEEM.  FIG. 5 shows LEED, LEEM, and STM measurements of the same sample, which had 0.59 ML of Ag deposited on Ge(111) at 330°C.  At this  coverage  and  deposition  temperature,  Ag  on  the  surface  has  primarily √ 3 and  (4 × 4) structures, as seen in LEEM (FIG. 5 (a)).  However, LEED measurements show weak (3 × 1) spots, as well as strong (4 × 4) and √ 3 spots (FIG. 5 (b)).  After depositing Ag while imaging with LEEM and LEED, the sample was cooled to room temperature without a significant change in either the LEEM image  or  the  LEED  pattern.    The  STM  image  shows  (3 × 1)  regions  alongside  edges  of  (4 × 4) domains, especially as small insets between (4 × 4) regions and small domains (&lt;10 nm in size) of Ge(111)-c(2×8) that persist at this coverage (FIG. 5 (c)).  The sizes of the (3 × 1) and (4 × 4) unit cells from our STM images agree with the dimensions reported in previous studies [2,7,9].

FIG. 5. Ag deposited on Ge(111) at 330°C while imaging with LEEM and LEED, followed by STM imaging at room temperature. Θ = 0.59 ML. (a) LEEM image showing regions with √ 3 (bright) and

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-dd96e164-67fb-4d5b-a477-f4b2d7452f16.jpg)

(4 × 4) (dark) structures. FOV = 5 µ m, E = 4.0 eV. (b) LEED picture showing √ 3 ,  (4 × 4), and faint (3 × 1) spots. For reference, several spots are indicated with colored arrows: √ 3 (green), (3 × 1) (yellow), and the [0, ¾] (4 x 4) spot (red). E = 8.1 eV. (c) Empty state STM image. Regions of (4 × 4), c(2×8), and (3 × 1) Ag are indicated. Sample bias = +1.0 V, tunneling current = 0.5 nA. 33.1 nm x 41.7 nm.

The (3 × 1) phase was observed to form at low coverage, before growth of the (4 × 4) or √ 3 phases.  For deposition at 370°C, (3 × 1) was the only phase of Ag on the surface for coverage up to 0.1 ML.  FIG. 6 shows LEED patterns for Ag deposited on Ge(111) up to ~1 ML at 370°C. The first Ag LEED spots observed are somewhat faint, elongated spots consistent with three rotational domains of Ag (3 × 1) (FIG. 6 (b)).  As additional Ag is deposited, Ag (3 × 1) spots intensify as (4 × 4) (FIG. 6 (c)) and then √ 3 (FIG. 6 (d)) phases form.  As the coverage approaches 1 ML, the (4 × 4) and (3 × 1) phases are replaced by the √ 3 phase on the surface (FIG. 6 (ef)).  The (3 × 1) and (4 × 4) spots extinguish approximately simultaneously.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-915e38cb-0cdc-4efc-80c5-06d70cb5be4b.jpg)

FIG.  6.  LEED  pictures  of  the  deposition  of  Ag  on  Ge(111)  at  370°C.  Deposition  rate  =  0.3-0.4 ML/min, with seconds of Ag deposition indicated. Colored arrows in (d) identify LEED spots: Ag (3 × 1) (yellow), Ag (4 × 4) (red), and Ag √ 3 (green). The blue arrow in (a) points to one of the oblong diffraction features characteristic of Ge (2 × 1) (a) Ge (2 × 1). At this energy the primary Ge(111) LEED spots are not visible. (b) Ge (2 × 1) + Ag (3 × 1). (c) Ag (3 × 1) + Ag (4 × 4). (d) Ag (3 × 1) (yellow arrow) + Ag (4 × 4) (red arrow) + Ag √ 3 (green arrow). (e) √ 3 Ag + Ag (3 × 1) (faint) + Ag (4 × 4) (very faint). (f) √ 3 Ag.

We present an experimental phase diagram (FIG. 7), based on both the experimental data shown in this paper and additional data [36]. Note, however, that no attempt was made to include the effects of thermodynamics. In addition, the √ 3 phase which was observed in FIG. 1 is not shown in this phase diagram, because its appearance is hysteretic. Although for deposition below

200 0 C, it appears first, after heating to 370 C, it no longer recurs when the sample is cooled. Above 0 0.375 ML Ag coverage, LEEM and LEED images show that the √ 3 structure is very stable below 570 0 C.  For  this  high  coverage range, changing the temperature from 150 C to 575 C coverage 0 0 resulted in an increase in the Ag √ 3 domain size with increasing temperature, as observed in LEEM.

For the region with T&lt;300 0 C and coverage &lt;0.375 ML, we have indicated the phases [c(2x8), 4x4, and 3x1] that appear to be stable when the sample is cooled to this temperature range.

FIG. 7. Experimentally determined phase diagram for Ag/Ge(111).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-10dbe2e9-484d-4778-9cee-295a50bd8d93.jpg)

The regions of the phase diagram showing the (3×1) phase differ somewhat from those in the phase diagram of Grozea [1] , who observed this phase only for T&gt;350 C. Instead, FIG. 7 shows this 0 phase appears for a large range of lower temperatures. Grozea  shows  the (3×1) appearing in narrow  temperature  ranges  above  350 0 C,  but  we  see  it  occurring  at  somewhat  higher

temperatures. In other words, we observe the (3×1) over large regions of the phase diagram. While we observe (3×1) patterns easily in LEED pictures, the regions are not observed in LEEM real space images, either because they are too small or because they do not have sufficient contrast. The STM image in FIG. 5 (c) agrees in only showing (3×1) in a very small spatial region.

We also note that the (4×4) phase does not appear above 500 0 C, in agreement with Grozea's phase  diagram.  At  575 C,  LEEM  and  LEED  images  showed  that  the  (3×1)  or  the 0 √ 3 structure disorder to a 1×1 or 3×1 phase. Ag then desorbs from the surface at 580 C. 0

From the experimental work, we observed overlayer structures for a range of temperatures and coverages: Ge(111)-(2 × 1),  Ge(111)-c(2 ×8 ),  Ag-( √ 3 × √ 3) R30 0 ,  Ag-(4×4), and Ag-(3×1). In the following sections, we provide details of our computational study to find atomic models of the observed phases, their electronic structure, their vibrational dynamics and their thermodynamic stability.

## IV. COMPUTATIONAL DETAILS

We perform DFT [21,22] based calculations using the Vienna  Ab Initio Simulation Package (VASP)  code [37].  The  Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof  (PBE) [38]  generalized  gradient  approximation (GGA)  is  used  for  the  exchange-correlation  (XC)  functional.  The  pseudopotentials  from  the projected augmented wave (PAW) method [39,40] are used to treat the electron-ion interaction, and plane wave basis functions up to kinetic energy cutoff of 500 eV are used to expand the electron wave functions. A primitive unit cell of bulk Ge is constructed by taking two Ge atoms on

a basis set located at (0, 0, 0) and (1/4, 1/4, 1/4) a, where 'a' is the lattice constant of face-centered cubic diamond structure. The 12 × 12 × 12 Monkhorst-Pack set of k-points is used for the Brillouin zone integration. All structure models are relaxed using the conjugate gradient algorithm with force and energy convergence criteria of 0.001 eV/Å and 10 -5 eV, respectively.

The optimized lattice constant of bulk Ge after fitting the stabilized jellium equation of state [41] comes out to be 5.783 Å which is the overestimated value by 2.22 % from the experimental value of 5.657 Å [42]. Such an overestimation on using PBE is known to be due to the gradient correction on density that usually favors the more inhomogeneous system leading to elongation of  bonds  [43].  The  value  of  bulk  modulus  is  calculated  to  be  58.678  GPa  which  is    the underestimates by 22.59 % from the experimental value of 75.8 GPa [44] The close prediction of bulk modulus using LDA XC in ref. [45] implies that the gradient correction on density can be attributed to the source of difference in value of bulk modulus. The electronic band structure obtained using PBE XC potential becomes metallic with no band gap as shown in the FIG. 8 (a) with green  curves  which  is  in  disagreement  with  the  experimental  band  gap  of  0.74  eV  at  low tempearature and 0.66 eV at 300 K [46]. Such an underestimation of band gaps of semiconductors when using PBE and LDA XC in the DFT approach is well known and is attributed to simplying assumptions made about the discontinuity of the functional derivative of the exchange-correlation [47,48]. Over the years several efforts have been made to overcome this deficiency of DFT and methods such as GW,DFT with hybrid functionals, linear combination of atomic orbitals (LCAO) formalism with GGA potential and k p . method  have successfully reproduced the band gap of bulk

Ge [49-52]. These methods are, however, computationally demanding for multiple calculations each requiring super cells consisting of few hundred atoms, as is the case here.  Note that our interest is in calculations of the electronic structure and vibrational dynamics of surface systems which need upto 178 atoms in the super cell.

On the other hand, it has been shown that the use of DFT+U method [53] with isotropic onsite  effective  interaction    Ueffective  =  -J  can  reproduce  the  experimental  band  gap  and  elastic constants of bulk Ge [54,55]. We use the same approach of tuning the value of Ueffective to match the experimental band gap in this study and find it to be computationally feasible for our purposes. For Ueffective = -2.94 eV that enhances the strength of the effective on-site interaction between p electrons, close to its reported values  [54-56], we get an indirect band gap ( E g Γ-L ) of 0.66 eV (FIG. 8).  In  FIG.  8  (a),  one  can  see  that  the  correction  to  the  energy  of  p  electrons  leading  to  their localization (Ueffective &lt; 0) results in increase in eigen-energy of the sp hybridized bands at non-zero value of k (most significantly on the lowest conduction band) and adds contribution of p states near the top of the valence band near the Γ point. Since p-states have zero probability at the atomic sites, pure p-states are not affected by Ueffective as shown by overlapping of green and red curves at the top of valence band. In accordance with group theory, there are pure states at Γ point: triply degenerate p-states at top of valence band and the single s-state above it. At this set up, the lattice constant and bulk modulus of Ge obtained using the jellium equation of state are 5.616 Å and 80.577 GPa, respectively which are 0.72 % and 7.3 % off from experimental value of 5.657 Å and 75.8 GPa reported in refs. [42] and [44], respectively. Since p orbitals of higher energy

are available continuousy at and near the top valence band in the band structure from DFT+U approach (which are absent in using DFT with PBE XC) (see FIG. 8 ), that form strong bond resulting into relatively small lattice constant in DFT+U approach. The distance to first four neighbors is 2.432 Å and angles in the tetrahedral coordination are 109.5  implying sp  hybridized orbitals of 0 3 bulk Ge atom.

FIG. 8. Electronic band structure of bulk Ge calculated using the DFT (thin green curve) and the DFT + U (Ueffective  =  -2.94  eV)  approach  (thick  red  curve)  alongwith  the  labeling  of  contributing orbitals on each band where for e.g., p  refers the contribution of all three p orbitals. 3

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-f62fa221-c19c-4d56-be7d-4bb695997e79.jpg)

For surface construction using the slab models, we use a supercell having 15 Å vacuum in the normal direction to the slab in order to minimize the interactions between periodic images. The 12 × 12 × 1 Monkhorst-Pack k-point mesh for the (1 × 1) surface unit cell is scaled in calculation of surface phases with different periodicity to have the same numerical accuracy. The surface free

energy at temperature T, γ (T), is used to compare energetics of surfaces with different numbers of atoms and is calculated as

$$\gamma ( T ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 \, A } \, [ \, G _ { \text{slab} } ^ { \text{Total} } ( T ) - \sum _ { i } \mu _ { i } \, ( T ) \, N _ { i } \, ],$$

where G slab Total (T) is the Gibbs free energy of the slab, µi (T) and N i are the chemical potential and the number of atoms of type 'i' in the system, respectively, 'A' is the area of surface unit cell and the factor (½) is due to 2 identical surfaces on slab.

In equation (1), G slab Total (T) is calculated as the sum of the total electronic internal energy of slab supercell  obtained  from  DFT  calculation  ( E slab Total ) and  the  temperature  dependent  phonon Helmholtz free energy (F slab vib (T)) calculated using

$$F _ { s l a b } ^ { v i b } \left ( T \right ) = \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } [ \frac { h \omega } { 2 } + k _ { B } T \ln ( 1 - e ^ { - \frac { h \omega } { k _ { B } T } } ) ] \, \rho \left ( \omega \right ) d \omega,$$

in which the phonon frequencies ′ω′ are  calculated by using the finite difference method and supercell approach as implemented in phonopy package [57]. To calculate force constant, atoms in 4 ×4×4 supercell of bulk Ge (for which phonon density of states converge) are displaced from relaxed position with amplitude of 0.01 Å. Phonon density of states ρ ( ω ) is calculated by sampling the Brillouin zone with 90 × 90 × 90 q-point mesh for bulk Ge with a smearing width of 0.05 THz and the points are scaled for different surface systems to have the same numerical accuracy. The plot of phonon dispersion and the corresponding density of states of bulk Ge are shown in FIG. 9 (a)  and  (b),  respectively.  The  plots  are  in  excellent  agreement  with  the  reported  theoretical

calculation [58] using density functional perturbation theory (DFPT) approach and experimental data [59,60].

FIG. 9. (a) The phonon dispersion and (b) the phonon density of states, of bulk Ge obtained using finite difference method used in this study (blue curve) and comparison to that obtained from density functional perturbation theory based  calculation [58] (green dotted curve) and experimental result: phonon dispersion from ref. [59] and phonon DOS from ref. [60] (filled red dots).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-578c5301-6980-417b-b64f-435190067191.jpg)

The chemical potential of Ge (μ Ge (T)) in equation (1) is taken as the energy of a bulk Ge atom ( E Ge bulk ) which corresponds to the thermodynamic equilibrium between surface and bulk Ge atoms. To calculate μ Ag (T) of Ag adatom, we have to approximate a reference from where the adatoms come to make the ordered structure. Since the Ag structures considered in this study are planar, their reservoir is approximated as the system with  far apart separated Ag adatoms on the Ge(111) surface at which they behave like  2D-non-interacting gas that interact with substrate. Under the

approximation, which we mimic by taking one Ag adatom on 6 × 6 surface unit of Ge(111), μ Ag (T) is given by (see also ref. [61]):

$$\mu _ { A g } \left ( T \right ) = \varepsilon _ { A g } - \ln ( \frac { 2 \pi m k T } { h ^ { 2 } } \, \frac { A } { N } ),$$

where ε Ag is the  binding energy of an isolated Ag adatom on the relaxed Ag/Ge(111) system, 'A' is the surface area on which N = 1 Ag adatom is adsorbed. Once µAg (T) of Ag is substituted in equation (1) for an overlayer, one can get Ag coverage (u) and temperature (T) dependent surface free energy γ (T, u) of a phase.

For a given surface structure under consideration, its atomic geometry is taken to be the one that has  the lowest γ (0) among the various configurations considered with adatoms on different probable adsorption sites either on the intact double layer, or on the missing top layer Ge(111), since reported models of ordered structures of the Ge(111) surface or that with Ag overlayer display one of these terminations. The temperature (T) and coverage (u) dependent surface free energy γ (T, u) of the energetically favored configuration is then calculated. If the value of γ (T, u) of a thermodynamically stable phase is lower than that of other phases with the same number of atoms for the entire temperature range, the former is favored and so γ (T, u) of that phase is taken for phase-diagram calculations. The γ (T, u) of individual phases are combined to find γ (T, u) of an arbitrary coverage and temperature numerically (section 5.8 for details). An isolated phase or coexistence of considered phases that has the minimum γ (T, u) is then decided to be the phase at  the  given  temperature  and  coverage  condition.  Such  a  numerical  approach  overcomes  the

computationally very intensive first-principles calculation of  a single model of coexisting overlayer structure.

## V. RESULTS

We  discuss  the  geometrical  features  of  the  energetically  favored  atomic  models  of unreconstructed  Ge(111),  reconstructed  Ge(111)  and  of  systems  having  Ag  adatoms  on  the Ge(111) surface. The vibrational structure of model of each phase is presented as a measure of thermodynamic stability and its electronic structure is discussed to understand the formation of the  phase.  A  surface  phase  diagram  is  constructed  by  taking  the  surface  free  energies  of  the dynamically stable atomic model of phases.

## A. Unreconstructed Ge(111)-1 × 1

The atomic model of the unreconstructed Ge(111)-1 × 1 surface formed by stacking bulk-like structure along [111] direction is shown in FIG. 10 (a) (side view) and (b) (top view). This is an intact double layer (IDL) surface structure  in which the surface Ge atoms are coordinated with three Ge atoms on layer below at the nearest neighbor separation, different from another possible missing top layer (MTL) surface in which such coordination is one with atom directly below it. An ABC stacking of double layers is formed on both type of surface termination. The surface energy of the intact double layer (IDL) structure is 85.88 meV/ Å 2 , smaller than 150.07 meV/ Å 2 (energy higher by 5.260 eV) of missing top layer (MTL) surface termination and 108.24 meV/ Å 2 (energy higher by

1.832 eV) of reconstructed MTL (MLR)  surface in which the surface Ge atoms of MTL termination form equilateral triangle.

In the side view of the IDL model of Ge(111) shown in FIG. 10 (a), the bond length between atoms on top surface layer (1 st ) and a layer below (2 nd layer) ( d 12 ) is 2.402 Å and other similarly defined interlayers bond lengths are d 23 =2.468 Å, d 34 =2.428 Å, d 45 =2.442 Å and d 56 =2.432 Å (bulk value). In comparison to the bulk position of the atoms, the height of an atom in layer 1 is relaxed inward by 0.065 Å, in layer 2 by 0.034 Å outward, in layer 3 by 0.003 Å outward, and in layer 4 by 0.013 Å outward. So, the 1 st and 2 nd layer atoms whose s and pz orbitals contribute on the dangling bond (significantly more of 1 st layer atom, see FIG. 11 (b)) relaxes more than inner layer atoms. Upon relaxation of the Ge(111) surface, the contribution of s and pz orbitals on dangling bond decreases slightly and the small contribution of px and py orbitals on the bond that appeared on unrelaxd surface vanishes. On the top view of the surface shown in FIG. 10 (b), atoms from three different layers are exposed. The distance between Ge atoms on the surface layer is 3.971 Å which is the second nearest neighbor distance in bulk.

FIG. 10. (a) Side view of the repeated simulation supercell of the atomic model of the Ge(111)1 × 1 phase. (b) Top view of the phase that exposes 3 different on-top adsorption sites: above first layer atom (T1) (above white sphere), above four-fold coordinated second layer atom on threefold hollow site (T4) (above graysphere) and above fourth layer atom on three-fold hollow (H3) site (above black sphere).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-5871c2db-73b0-4e8f-9b54-36606054a53b.jpg)

The electronic charge density distribution and the orbital projected density of states of atoms on the top surface layer and on the second layer of the Ge(111) surface are shown in FIG. 11 (a) and (b), respectively. In FIG. 11 (a), there are three red colored dumb bell shape high electron density regions between each top layer Ge atom (position corresponds to center of small blue circles) and three Ge atoms on layer below (position corresponds to center of green contour) that represent  their  covalent  bonding  and  three-fold  symmetric  coordination  of  surface  atoms.

Geometrically, the distance from top layer Ge atom to Ge atoms on 2 nd layer is 2.402 Å, less than the bulk nearest neighbor distance of 2.432 Å.  The bonded atoms  subtend an angle of 111.5 0 ( angle by the centers of the green contours at the center of blue sphere), slightly different from that of 109.5  at bulk structure, at the top layer Ge atom due to change in interlayer distance 0 discussed previously. In FIG. 11 (b), the dangling bond is shown to be localized only on the top surface layer atom (atom-1) and it is of hybridized s and pz orbitals . Since the atom directly below the top layer surface atom is after two double layers, the pz bond is not saturated. Note that z direction is taken to be perpendicular to the surface i.e., the direction perpendicular to the plane containing white spheres in FIG. 10 (a) is z-direction. The second neighbor distance separation of surface atoms imply that the surface dangling bonds interact through second-neighbor.

The  phonon  dispersion  of  Ge(111)-(1x1)    shown  in  FIG.  11  (c)  points  to  its  propensity  for reconstruction. The two acoustic modes, one longitudinal and another transverse, have imaginary frequency along Γ M or Γ --K directions, implying that the surface undergoes reconstruction. In fact there are two different observed phases of the reconstructed Ge(111) surface, as discussed in section 3: Ge(111)-2 × 1 formed on cleavage [62] [63-67] and Ge adatom decorated Ge(111)-c(2×8) phase [68,69] .

FIG. 11. (a) Electron-density distribution on a plane between the top Ge layer and 2 nd Ge layer from top. Contours are plotted up to 0.08 A0 -3 with the interval of 0.008 A0 -3 . The center of small blue, green, and large blue contours correspond to the atoms such that sites below them are assigned as T1, T4 and H3, respectively. The red colored dumb-bell contours corresponding to high density represent sp  type covalent bond between Ge atoms. (b) The projected density of states 3 (PDOS) along ps and s orbitals of Ge atom on top surface layer (atom-1) and 2 nd layer (atom-2). Note that the z-direction in the PDOS plot in all figures is taken perpendicular to the surface. (c) Phonon dispersion, of Ge(111)-1 × 1 system.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-5af74827-2d4d-47db-82e5-14da3ef93db2.jpg)

## B. Reconstructed Ge(111)-2 × 1

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-af7a9a39-c0e7-4016-9712-cb3a9f728015.jpg)

FIG. 12. Side view of the repeated unit cell (labeled atoms, except 5 and 8, belong to a unit cell) of (a) the reconstructed Ge(111)-2 × 1 phase, and (b)  the unreconstructed Ge(111)-1 × 1 system for reference. The white, gray, and black spheres represent T1, T4 and H3 adsorption sites, respectively. The numbering on atoms is to facilitate a comparison of atomic positions.

In  1961,  Haneman  [62]  observed  diffraction  pattern  with  half-order  beams  on  the  (111) surfaces of diamond structure crystals including Ge. Since such a pattern can be obtained from surface  with  atomic  periodicity  double  of  the  spacing  of  atoms  in  bulk-like  terminated  (111) planes, a buckled model was purposed  with alternating outer atoms raised and lowered relative to an ideal bulk termination[62].This model is different from the Pandey Π -bonded chain model for Si(111)-2 × 1 [63,70,71] and C  (111)-2 × 1 [72] in which atoms in the Π -chain are bonded with two other surface atoms and lie in the same horizontal plane without buckling or tilting of the chain atoms. Various theoretical [64-66] and experimental [67] studies confirm that the Ge(111) surface  has modified Pandey Π -bonded chain structure in which the atoms in Π chain are tilted so that one of the atoms in the tilted structure becomes outer and the other inner. Similar structures are reported for Si(111)-2 × 1 too [73-76]. There are two tilted buckling geometry depending on whether one or the other of the Π -chain atoms is outermost: one in which the tilting is reverse to the atomic orientation in the 3 rd layer from surface and is called negative buckling (of atoms 4 and 2 with that of 7 and 10 in FIG. 12 (a)) and the other isomer in which tilting is parallel to orientation of the 3 rd layer atoms and is called positive buckling (not shown).

In our calculation, the value of γ (0 K) of negative buckled structure (side view in FIG. 12 (a)) is 72.32 meV/ Å 2 which is lower than that of positive buckled structure by 0.866 meV/ Å 2 (energy difference by 0.047 eV per unit cell or 0.0023 eV per atom). The untitled Pandey model transforms into the negatively tilted model upon relaxation. Although the energy difference between two types of tilted structure is small, the favored tilting in our calculation is different from positive buckled structure in other studies [64,77]. In comparison to unreconstructed Ge(111)-1 × 1 phase, the value of γ (0 K) of the negative tilted reconstructed phase is lower by 13.37 meV/ Å 2 which implies that the reconstruction is energetically favored. The relative energy gain with respect to the unreconstructed surface is 0.36 eV/(1 × 1) surface cell, in close agreement with reported value of 0.334 eV [64]. The side view of the unreconstructed Ge(111)-1 × 1 phase is shown in FIG. 12 (b) for reference. Although all of our unit cell parameters are scaled with the bulk lattice constant, a test calculation shows increase of buckling when the cell volume is not contrained as indicated by 6.8%, 1.4%, 4% and 0% change in the height between atoms labelled 1 and 4, and 2, 2 and 5, and 3 and 1, respectively.

Geometrically, one of the surface layer atom of Ge(111)-1 × 1 (atom 1 in FIG. 12 (b)) shifts in the [ 111] ��� direction (Fig. 12 (a)) and stabilizes at 0.1 Å below atom 3 of second layer. The atom labeled 1 bonds with four atoms  labeled 3 , 3' (next to 3 on surface), 4 and 7 at distance 2.452 Å , 2.452 Å , 2.411 Å and 2.524 Å, respectively subtending angles 3-1-4 of 124  and 3-1-3' of 108.2 . 0 0 The decrease in electronic energy by the formation of bonding requires significant bond distortion. To minimize the energy corresponding to bond distortion, atom 1 aligns at the same height with

atom 3 of second layer and atom 3 undergoes lateral displacement towards atom 1 by 0.824 Å. Both atoms 3 and 1 are bonded with four atoms at distance close to the bulk bond lengths and so have bulk-like coordination on the surface. Atom 7 whose bond with the atom on top of it is broken is also bonded with four atoms, three on the same 2 nd layer and one on the 1 st layer. Atom 4 in FIG. 12 (a) bonds with three atoms: with tilted atom 2 and 2' (behind 2 on surface) at distance 2.387 Å and with atom 1 at 2.411 Å ,  all  being  less  than  the  bulk  bond  length  of  2.432 Å and subtending angles 2-4-2' of 112.6 , 1-4-2 and 1-4-2' of 122.5 . The atom 2 bonds with three atoms: 0 0 atom 4 and 4' at 2.387 Å subtending angle 4-2-4' of 112.6 and with atom 5 at distance 2.470 Å subtending angle 5-2-4 of 102.4 . As a result of buckling or tilting, rather than hexamer structure, 0 the system forms five-atom and seven-atom rings. and the dangling bonds disappear.

Since both the dimerization and buckling decrease the electronic energy, the reconstructed surface is energetically favored over the clean unreconstructed surface, thanks to rearrangements of bonds in the topmost two atomic layers. Its model has five-fold and seven-fold rings shown in the side view in FIG. 12 (a), in agreement with the buckled Pandey chain model [77]. The height difference (buckling) between atoms 1 and 4 in the reconstructed structure is 0.712 Å, and that between atoms 4 and 2 is 0.707 Å which is in close agreement with the reported value of 0.78 Å [64]. As a result of reconstruction, there is a reduction of the states near the Fermi level which form dangling bond in the unreconstructed Ge(111) surface, as depicted in the PDOS plot of the phase in FIG. 13 (a).  There is a small non-zero value of the projection of density of states on pz orbital of atoms labeled 1 and 4 in FIG. 12 (a) at Fermi level, as seen in Fig. 13 (a). The phonon

density  of  states  of  the  phase  shown  in  FIG.  13  (b)  displays  no  soft  modes,  implying  its thermodynamic stability. The peak about wavenumber 50 cm -1  in FIG. 13 (b) corresponds to the vertical motion of the atom labeled 2 in FIG. 12 (a) in [ 1 1 1 � � � ] direction.

FIG. 13. (a) Projected density of states (PDOS) on s- and p- orbitals, (b) phonon density of states, of the Ge(111)-2 × 1 phase.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-195f9ece-2245-4adc-925e-4d1c2f8f34f2.jpg)

## C. Reconstructed Ge(111)-c(2×8)

For  an  atomic  model  of  the  Ge(111)-c(2×8)  phase,  we  turn  to  those  previously  proposed [69,78-81] in which there is one Ge adatom for every four surface atoms in a way such that ¾ of top layer dangling bonds of the Ge(111)-1 × 1 surface are saturated.  After considering a number of scenarios for the position of the adatom, the model shown in Fig. 14 (a) with adatoms adsorbed on T4 sites is found to be the energetically most favored configuration with γ (0) = 71.24 meV/ Å 2 , close to reported value of 68.62 meV/ Å 2 [82]. The surface energy of the configuration is 8.098

meV/ Å 2 lower than that with adatoms on the H3 sites (21 meV/atom in terms of total energy), while the T1 sites is not at all favored.

In the model, the distances between successive Ge  adatoms in the same row along the longer side of the surface unit cell, shown in FIG. 14 (a), is 7.915 Å and 6.91 Å along the shorted side. The surface Ge atoms around an adatom show displacement different from 3.971 Å found on Ge(111): three of them from top Ge(111) surface layer are at 3.771 Å (pulled towards adatom) and other three  atoms from two layer below are at 4.126 Å  ( pushed away from adatom . A Ge adatom ) pushes down a Ge atom below it by 0.64 Å with respect to other atoms on the same layer and the pushed atom similarly does for 3 rd layer atom below it by 0.52 Å. Such an observation of pulling up of adatom at the T4 site and pushing down the atom below adatom is also observed on Si(111) -(7 × 7) surface and is attributed to the rehybridization of the sp  back bonds [83]. An additional 3 surface feature is the pop up of 'rest' atoms, the three-fold coordinated Ge surface atoms that are  not  bonded  with  adatoms,  by  0.33 Å in  our  study . Such popping up of rest atoms is also observed in  STM  [79]  and  helium  atom  scattering  [84])  experiments.  The  buckling  of  0.025 Å between  rest  atoms  in  the  (2 × 2)  and  c  (2 × 4)  sub-units  of  the  c(2×8)  surface  unit  is  also  in agreement with STM  observations [79].  Our calculations do not show buckling between adatoms, in  agreement  with  previous  work  [69].  The  structural  asymmetries  in  rest  atoms  but  not  on adatoms has been explained [69] in terms of the presence of small excess electron charge in rest atoms but not on adatoms.

FIG. 14. (a) Top view of the Ge(111)-c(2×8) surface with Ge adatoms (blue spheres) adsorbed above gray spheres (T4 site). (b) Comparison of phonon density of  states (continuous blue curve) with experimental measurement [85] (discrete red points). (c) Projected density of states (PDOS) on s- and p- orbitals.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-863d3e29-7cd7-4ee7-8d50-a1ced345d3e7.jpg)

In FIG. 14  (b),  comparison  of  the  calculated  phonon  density  of  states  with  available experimental data [85] shows good agreement. The high frequency mode around 320 cm -1   results from the short bond of length (2.364 Å )  between the atom directly below the adatom and the 3 rd atom just below it. This feature is a signature of adatom adsorption on the T4 site and does not exist when adatom adsorbs on the hollow H3 site since there are no such stretched bonds. The

projected density states of the phase shown in FIG. 14 (c) is metallic due to the presence of dangling bond on adatoms and rest atoms.

An  indication  of  the  relative  stability  of  the  atomic  models  of  unreconstructed  and reconstructed Ge(111) surfaces is obtained through comparison of their surface free energy, γ (T) ,  in  FIG.  15.  For  the  temperature  range  of  interest  it  shows  that γ (T) of  the  unreconstructed Ge(111)-(1 × 1) phase is higher than that of both reconstructed surfaces, and that the Ge(111)c(2×8) phase is slightly favored over the (2 × 1). This relative stability of the of c(2×8) phase over the (2 × 1) can be traced to the energy gain due to shift of occupied bands of the rest atom into the projected bulk valence bands [86]. In short, without metal adsorption, the Ge adatom decorated Ge(111)-c(2×8)  structure  is  the  energetically  favored  and  thermodynamically  stable  phase,  in agreement with experimental observations of this phase [68,79,80,84,87-89].

FIG. 15. Variation  of  surface  free  energy  with  temperature  of  the  unreconstructed  and reconstructed phases of Ge(111).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-283afb81-06c4-401e-91f9-ef3f42fbb52d.jpg)

## D. Ge(111)-Ag (1 × 1)

FIG. 16. (a) Side view of the repeated atomic model of the Ge(111)-Ag (1x1) phase in which the green  spheres  represent  Ag  adatoms,  and  gray  and  black  spheres  represent  the  T4  and  H3 adsorption sites, respectively. (b) Phonon dispersion of the Ge(111)-Ag (1 × 1) phase.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-d1f893eb-a6de-41c5-be6c-2158e97afa06.jpg)

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-e016214a-b3ee-4ffd-aa00-3ba0ac15835e.jpg)

Our calculations find the atomic model in which Ag adatoms adsorb on the missing top layer (MTL)    of  Ge(111)  at  1  ML  coverage  (see  FIG.  16  (a))  to  be  energetically  the  most  favored configuration over those in which the Ag adatom adsorbs on the T4, T1, and H3 sites of the intact double layer surface by 16, 6.57 and 5.34 meV/ Å 2 , respectively. The height of the Ag atom over the nearby Ge atom are 0.924 Å , 1.529 Å , 1.732 Å and 2.466 Å on MTL, H3, T4 and T1 adsorption configurations,  respectively,  showing  that  Ag  is  closest  to  surface  in  the  MLR  configuration. Additionally, in the MLR structure, the Ag adatom adsorbs at distance 2.472 Å from three surface Ge atoms, a value exactly equal to the distance in √ 3 structure discussed below. The interlayer Ge distances are d 23 (between 2 nd and 3 rd layer from top) = 2.417 Å, d 34 = 2.435 Å, d 45 = 2.438 Å and

d 56 = 2.432 Å (bulk value). The comparison of the bond lengths with unreconstructed Ge(111)-1 × 1 system shows that on Ag adsorption, the length of bonds between an atom and another atom on top of it are decreased while that of others increase.

The phonon dispersion of the MLT phase shown in FIG. 16 (b) displays modes with negative frequencies implying dynamic instability of the structure. As in the case of clean Ge(111) surface, these are the two acoustic, one longitudinal and another transverse modes. Following the negative peak at M (1/2, 0, 0) point of Brillouin zone, the structure is deformed along the Γ - M direction to break  symmetry.  To  accommodate  the  deformation  in  calculations  with  periodic  boundary condition,  the unit cell is repeated 2 × 2 × 1 times.  The symmetry broken structure is then found to have lower surface energy than the initial 1 ×1 structure. In the deformed structure, some Ag adatoms and some Ge atoms are closer in comparison to unreconstructed structure.  Three of the Ag atoms form planar equilateral triangle centered about the T4 site so that the Ag-Ag distance is 4.23 Å (which is 3.971 Å in the undeformed structure) and the height of the Ag layer from the Ge layer is 0.7 Å (which is 0.924 Å in the non-deformed structure), close to the value 4.56 Å and 0.727 Å of the same quantity in the √ 3 structure discussed below. The fourth Ag atom pops up by 0.2 Å (which is not case in undeformed structure) as compared to the other Ag atoms and is at the center of the three surface Ge atoms that form an equilateral triangle with side length of 4.42 Å (which is 3.971 Å in the undeformed structure). The distance of the fourth Ag atom from the closest lying Ag adatom is 2.855 Å, closer than the Ag bulk bond length of 2.932 Å. As a result of the above transformation the Ag adtoms centered about the T4 site get further spaced from each other and

end up closeer to the Ag atom which is at center of Ge atoms. This instability in the Ag ( 1 × 1) ordered structure  forbids  isolated  existence  of  the  ordered  phase:  a  result  consistent  with experimental observations of the phase at temperatures beyond 400 0 C or in the disordered phase without definite coverage [1,90].

## E. Ge(111)-Ag (3 × 1)

Hammar et al. [2] identified the existence of the (3 × 1) phase of Ag at the boundary of the (4 × 4) phase grown on the Ge(111)-c(2×8) surface with atomic geometry similar to that of this very structure on the Si(111) surface. Previous to the observation, the (3×1) phase was shown to form when alkali metals adsorb on the Ge(111) surface[91] and Ag on the Si(111) surface [18]. With the establishment of 1 3 ML of the metal coverage [10], missing top layer or Seiwartz model [10-12], extended Pandey model [12,13] and honeycomb chain-channel (HCC) model [14-17,92] have been proposed on the Si(111) surface. For Ag/Ge(111) system, Grozea et al. [93] reported the existence of the (3×1) phase at large region at 1 3 ML and Mullet et al. [94] observed the (3×1) phase on substantial region along with √ 3 and (4 × 4) phases especially at high temperature. The coverage and temperature regime in which the phase is observed as an isolated or in coexisting form has already discussed in sec. 3. However, despite these and related  studies and debate, a detailed, microscopic understanding of the Ge(111)-Ag (3x1) phase from first principles is lacking. We present here results of such an investigation which points to the honeycomb chain-channel (HCC)  model  whose  side  and  top  view  are  shown  in  FIG.  17  (a)  and  (b),  respectively,  as    the

energetically  favored  structure  with  surface  energy  lower  by  11.49  meV/ Å 2 than  that  of  the Seiwartz-chain model and by 25.26 meV/ Å 2 over the extended-Pandey-chain model. The lack of soft modes in the phonon density of states presented in FIG. 17 (c) lead us to conclude that the HCC structure is thermodynamically stable.

FIG. 17. (a) Side view of the equilibrium geometry of the honeycomb chain-channel (HCC) model of the Ge(111)-Ag (3 × 1) phase in which the green spheres are the Ag adatoms and the gray, black and white spheres represent Ge atoms in different double layers. The vertical lines enclose the supercell laterally. (b) Top view. (c) Phonon density of states. (d) Projected density of electronic states.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-5a11fa5d-d6c2-49bd-bae4-d862d6a5b74d.jpg)

The surface unit of the HCC model has four inequivalent Ge atoms (labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4 in FIG. 17 (a)) forming a honeycomb chain that runs along [1 1 � 0] direction in a plane parallel to the bulk terminated (111) substrate and metal atom in channel. The maximum height variation among the Ge atoms in the honeycomb-chain is 0.096  Å.  The  Ag  atom  in  the  channel  is  at  nearly  equal distance from the closeby Ge atoms: 2.646 Å from Ge (4) and 2.659 Å from Ge (5) in FIG. 17 (a). This distance is slightly more than the Ag-Ge distance of 2.472 Å in (1 × 1) and √ 3 structures. The Ag-Ag distance in channel is 3.971 Å . The outer atoms 1 and 4 are coordinated with four atoms, three Ge atoms and one Ag atom, while the inner atoms 2 and 3 are coordinated with three Ge atoms since d (Ge(2)-Ge(8)) =2.766 Å and d (Ge(2)-Ge(8)) =2.648 Å, significantly more than the bulk Ge distance of 2.432 Å . From the absence of dangling bond on the projected density of states plot in FIG. 17 (d) in the configuration with three-fold coordinated inner Ge atoms imply a doublebond between atoms 2 and 3 that then increases the distance to Ge (8). The distance between the inner and outer atoms are relatively more than that between inner atoms: d(Ge (1)-Ge (2))= 2.521 Å and d(Ge (3)-Ge (4))= 2.469 Å.

Since  both  the  (3x1)  and √ 3 models  (discussed  in  sec.  5.6)  have  missing  top  layer reconstruction, they can transform from one to the other. In the optimized structure, the height of Ag from the average height of honeycomb-chain Ge atoms is 0.587 Å which is 0.727 Å in √ 3 structure.

## F. Ge(111)-Ag ( √ 3 × √ 3 ) R 30 0

As a possible candidate of the √ 3 phase, we calculate the energetics of Ag on unreconstructed Ge(111) (defined above as IDL) and on the MTL reconstructed surface. We consider two models on reconstructed MTL, namely the honeycomb-chained-triangle (HCT) [2-4,95] of equilateral Ag triangles and the inequivalent-Ag triangle (IET) [5,6] that form a hexagonal network of two types of Ag triangles. The IET model with Ag triangles centered on T4 sites is found to be energetically favored by 3.289 meV/ Å 2 over the HCT (0.269 eV in energy which is close to the value of 0.20 eV [5]) and by 32.744 meV/ Å 2 over Ag on IDL Ge(111) surface. The smaller size of Ag triangle in IET is attributed as the cause of the higher stability over HCT [5]. The top and side views of the IET model are shown in Fig. 18 (a) and (b), respectively.

Table I. Comparison of structural parameters (see FIG. 18)  of the energetically favored Ge(111)-Ag ( √ 3 × √ 3 ) R 30 0 IET model with the corresponding values from another theoretical study [5].

| Parameter     | This study     | Ref. [5]      |
|---------------|----------------|---------------|
| d Ag1 ( Å )   | 2.955 and 4.56 | 2.93 and 4.40 |
| d Ag2 ( Å )   | 5.06           | 5.18          |
| Z Ag ( Å )    | 3.111          | 3.13          |
| d Ge ( Å )    | 2.685          | 2.82          |
| θ Ge (degree) | 55.3           | 52            |

FIG. 18. (a) Top view of the repeated atomic model of the √ 3 phase showing a hexagonal structure formed by center of inequivalent triangles. (b) Side view. (c) Electron-density distribution in the (111) plane passing through the center of Ge atoms on MTL reconstructed layer on which center of light blue circles of small radius and red circles correspond to center of Ge atoms of MLR and projection of charge density at Ag atoms position on the plane, respectively (contours are plotted up to 0.08 A0 -3 with the interval of 0.008 A0 -3 ). (d) Projected density of electronic states. (e) Phonon density of states of the √ 3 phase. The green, gray and black spheres refer to Ag adatoms, and Ge atoms (T4 and H3) adsorption sites, respectively.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-2c05222e-0c08-4b59-88e1-c11b759c5f81.jpg)

In the IET model, there are two equilateral triangular configurations of Ag centered about T 4 site whose side lengths ( d Ag1 in Fig. 18 (a)) are 2.955 Å and 4.56 Å , both being longer than the bulk Ag-Ag bond length of 2.932 Å  The distance between Ag adatoms that are in different triangles .

( d Ag2 in FIG. 18 (a)) is 5.06 Å  The Ag layer is at height 0.727 . Å from the MTL reconstructed Ge(111) surface, the value being close to the height difference between Ge layers on top Ge double layers of the IDL model. The top layer Ge atoms also form equilateral triangle centered about the T4 site (see  FIG.  18  (a))  with  side  lengths d Ge of  2.685 Å which  is  longer  than  bulk  Ge  bond  length  of 2.432 Å .  Each Ge atoms of top MLR surface are at 2.473 Å from Ge atom at layer below, 2.684 Å from two Ge atom on the same layer and at 2.603 Å from two Ag atoms and 2.668 Å from third Ag adatom of Ag triangle. The interaction between these atoms can be seen on the charge density contour plot in FIG. 18 (c) taken on the (111) plane containing MLR Ge atoms. The Ge atoms are bonded with 2 of Ag atoms through open contours and charge distribution is higher in between Ge atoms indicating bonding between them. The coordination of Ge atoms of MLR with Ge and Ag atoms results into the absence of dangling bonds in the PDOS plot of the model in FIG. 18 (d).

The comparison of various structural parameters of the model from our calculation (see FIG. 18 (a) and (b)  for definition) with those reported [5] is presented in Table I, which show close agreement. The phonon DOS plot shown in FIG. 18 (e) imply the thermodynamic stability of the structure.

## G. Ge(111)-Ag (4 × 4) phase

FIG. 19. (a) Top view of the atomic model of the Ge(111)-Ag (4 × 4) phase with its surface unit cell represented by parallelogram where the green, blue, white, gray, and black spheres refer to Ag adatom, Ge adatom, Ge atom which are the T1, T4, and H3 adsorption sites, respectively. (b) Orbital projected electronic density of states. (c) Phonon density of states.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-929b5bad-9e64-498e-bf1b-2587ed67eae9.jpg)

Of the proposed models for the (4 × 4) phase by Hammar et al. [2], Spence et al. [7], Weitering et al. [9] and Collazo et al. [8], we find that by Hammar et al. [2] to be the most energetically favored (see FIG. 19 (a) for top view). The model contains six Ag adatoms in one triangular subunit and three Ge adatoms on another triangular subunit adsorbed on IDL Ge(111) surface. The heights of Ag adatoms on corners and edges from Ge atoms on layer below them are 2.148 Å and 2.456 Å, respectively. The corner and edge Ag adatoms form equilateral triangles with length of 5.639 Å and 2.844 Å, respectively  The distance from Ag on corner to the nearest neighbor Ag on edge is . 2.822 Å and that between Ag on edges is 2.846 Å , both distances are less than their distance in bulk implying that the Ag adatoms form bonded structure. The Ag adatoms are not at top site as reported [2], rather at an angle of 30.6 0 and 15.5 0 from the normal drawn on Ge atom on layer

below. The three Ge adatoms bond with nine of the remaining ten surface Ge atoms keeping one as rest atom which pops up the surface as in Ge(111)-c(2×8) by height 0.618 Å . As in the Ge(111)c(2×8) model, the surface Ge atoms just below Ge adatoms are pushed into the bulk by height 0.591 Å as compared to other Ge atoms on the same layer . The presence of Ge adatoms and rest atoms contribute to dangling bond at Fermi level, which one can see in the orbital resolved density of electronic states in FIG. 19 (b).

The thermodynamic stability of the phase is shown using the phonon density of states plot in FIG. 19 (c). The small feature at about 6 cm - 1 corresponds to the back and forth vibration of the Ag cluster about its geometric center parallel to the surface. This low frequency in-plane vibration is weakly coupled to the substrate, as in the case of Co clusters on Cu(111) [96]. The feature at high frequency  (320  cm -1 )  corresponds  to  bond  stretching  vibrations  of  Ge  atoms  below  the  Ge adatoms. Although there is no experimental report of  the vibrational study of the phase, the appearance of such features in the calculated phonon density of states attest to the presence of Ag clusters and Ge adatoms on the T4 site.

As  explained  in  computational  details,  the  phonon  density  of  states  of  each  of  the  stable phases are used in equation (2) to calculate F slab vib (T) as part of γ (T) in equation (1), which is used to construct surface phase diagram as explained below in section 5.8.

## H. Ag/Ge(111) surface phase diagram

Up to this point, we have shown that Ge(111)-c(2×8), Ge(111)-Ag (3 × 1), Ge(111)-Ag ( √ 3 × √ 3 ) R 30 0 and  Ge(111)-Ag(4 × 4)  are  the  energetically  favored  and  thermodynamically  stable phases. We next construct the surface phase diagram by considering stable isolated phases and the possible multi-phase coexistence, by evaluating the surface free energy of a combination of phases for given coverage (u) and temperature (T) using

$$\gamma \left ( T, u \right ) = a _ { 0 } \, \gamma _ { G e - c \left ( 2 \times 8 \right ) } \left ( T \right ) + a _ { 1 } \, \gamma _ { 3 \times 1 } \left ( T, u \right ) + a _ { 2 } \, \gamma _ { \sqrt { 3 } } \left ( T, u \right ) + a _ { 3 } \, \gamma _ { 4 \times 4 } \left ( T, u \right )$$

where a 0 ,  a 1 ,  a 2 , a 3 refer to the value of coverage of phases: a 0 of Ge c(2 × 8), a 1 of Ag-(3 ×1 ), a 2 Ag-( √ 3  × √ 3 ) R 30 0 and a 3 of Ag-(4 × 4).  They are required to satisfy the condition that the total fraction of possible phases sum to unity i.e.,

$$a _ { 0 } + a _ { 1 } + a _ { 2 } + a _ { 3 } = 1,$$

and the given Ag coverage (u) can be expressed as combination of possible Ag  phases as

$$u = \frac { 1 } { 3 } a _ { 1 } + a _ { 2 } + + \frac { 6 } { 1 6 } a _ { 3 }$$

where the coefficients 1 3 , 1 and 6 16 of a 1 , a 2 and a 3 , respectively refers to Ag coverage on surface unit  on √ 3 ,    (3 ×1 )  and  (4 × 4)  phases,  respectively.  For  each  coverage  and  temperature, possible  combinations  are  considered,  and  the  one  that  minimizes  the  value  of γ (T, u) in equation (4) and satisfies equations (5) and (6) is taken as the calculated phase for that set of

conditions. The coverage-temperature dependent surface phase diagram of Ag/Ge(111) system obtained using the outlined approach is shown in FIG. 20.

FIG. 20. Coverage-temperature dependent surface phase diagram of Ag/Ge(111).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00180v2-figure-44d15983-5900-4e63-99ed-03c4080da8f3.jpg)

The Ge(111)-c(2×8) phase is found to have the lowest surface free energy at all temperatures under study over the dynamically stable reconstructed Ge(111)-2 × 1 phase. The (4 × 4) overlayer Ag  structure  coexisting  with  Ge(111)-c(2×8)  has  the  minimum  surface  free  energy  until  its saturation coverage of 0.375 ML. At temperature below 400 0 C and at coverage &gt;0.375 ML, the (4 × 4) structure coexists with √ 3 structure because the combination has the lowest surface energy, and the proportion of the latter structure keeps increasing with increasing Ag coverage until 1 ML. At Ag coverage beyond 0.375 ML and temperature beyond 400 0 C, with increasing Ag coverage, the proportion of (4 × 4) decreases following the same trend as below 400 0 C and the combined proportion of √ 3 and (3 × 1) increases with a small presence of the (3 × 1) phase with maximum to 2% of total coverage.

The above conclusion that the c(2×8) phase is the energetically favored one is in agreement with the experimental results shown in the phase diagram in FIG. 7.   Although the computational phase diagram does not include Ge(111)-(2 × 1) because of its slightly higher surface free energy over the c(2×8) (see FIG. 15), the small difference in their surface free energy agrees with the experimental observation of 2 × 1 coexisting above 300 C.  Note that our computational results find 0 both of those phases as dynamically stable. The coexistence of (4 × 4)  and  the  Ge(111)-c(2×8) phase up to 0.375 ML  is in agreement with the experimental phase diagram. The large region of the phase diagram showing the coexistence of (4 × 4) with the √ 3 phase for coverage &gt;0.375 ML agrees with the experimental phase diagram, in which with increasing Ag coverage, the fraction of the √ 3 phase increases until its saturation coverage of 1 ML. The (3 × 1) phase is calculated to coexist  with  other  phases  only  at  coverage  beyond  0.375  ML;  this  result  differs  from  the experimental observation of the (3x1) phase coexisting for lower coverages. Consistent with the experimental observation of the (1 × 1) phase around 600 0 C in disordered phase, our computational study find it to be dynamically unstable.

## VI. CONCLUSIONS

We show the experimentally determined structures of Ag adatoms on the Ge(111) surface using low energy electron diffraction, low energy electron microscopy, and scanning tunneling microscopy as functions of coverages and temperature. The atomic models of those phases  are determined using the density functional theory approach. For each of structures, the electronic

structures are presented to find the physical reasons for their formations, and the vibrational structures are calculated to determine their thermodynamical stabilities.

In the energetically favored intact double layer model of the unreconstructed Ge(111) surface, the top layer atom has a dangling bond of  spz type and the surface is dynamically unstable due to acoustic  modes  of  vibration.  The  intact  double  layer  Ge(111)  surface  with  four  Ge  adatoms adsorbed on the three-fold hollow T4 site in each surface unit cell is found to be the model for the reconstructed Ge(111) surface.  The inequivalent trimer model with Ag adatoms on the missing top layer reconstructed Ge(111) surface at 1 ML coverage is the favored atomic model for the √ 3 phase. The honeycomb-chain channel model of the (3 × 1) phase in which the missing top layer reconstructed Ge atoms form a honeycomb with metal atoms in the channel is found to be the atomic  model  of  the  (3 × 1)  phase.  The  atomic  model  of  the  (4 × 4)  phase  is  metallic  with  two triangular  subunits  with  six  Ag  adatoms  on  one  subunit  and  three  Ge  adatoms  on  T4  sites  on another  subunit  at  different  height.  Our  vibrational  study  confirms  that  the  atomic  models corresponding to the experimentally observed phases are dynamically stable.

An  experimental  surface  phase  diagram  is  produced  as  a  summary  of  the  detailed observations of the multiple surface structural phases as a function of temperature and coverage, and a similar diagram is constructed by minimizing the surface free energy of the combination of stable  phases.  In  agreement  with  experimental  observations,  the  computational  study  show Ge(111)-c(2×8) as the favored Ge(111) phase at low temperature. The coexistence of the (4 × 4) phase with Ge(111)-c(2×8) phase up coverage of 0.375 ML agrees in both the experimental and

theoretical  phase  diagrams,  as  does  the  coexistent  of  the  (4 × 4)  phase  with  the √ 3 phase  at coverage &gt;0.375 ML at a range of temperatures. The calculations show coexistence of (3 × 1), √ 3 , and (4x4) at temperatures beyond 400 0 C, while the experiment shows coexistence of (3x1) and √ 3 above 500 0 C. Both experiment and theory show the (1 × 1) phase as a disordered structure formed only at the desorption temperature.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) through allocation DMR130009 and the Advanced Computing Center at the University of Central Florida for high-performance computational resources. We are pleased to acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation under Grants DMR-1710306 (S.R.A., D.L. and T.S.R.) and DMR-1710748 (S.C.). We thank Professor C. Y. Fong for critical reading of the manuscript.

[1] D. Grozea, E. Bengu, and L. Marks, Surf. Sci. 461 , 23 (2000).

[2] M. Hammar, M. Göthelid, U. Karlsson, and S. Flodström, Phys. Rev. B 47 , 15669 (1993).

[3] H. Huang, H. Over, S. Tong, J. Quinn, and F. Jona, Phys. Rev. B 49 , 13483 (1994).

[4] C.-S. Tsai, C. Su, J.-K. Wang, and J.-C. Lin, Langmuir : ACS J. Surf. Colloids 19 , 822 (2003).

[5] L.-W. Chou, H. Wu, Y.-R. Lee, J.-C. Jiang, C. Su, and J.-C. Lin, J. Chem. Phys. 131 , 224705 (2009).

[6] H. M. Sohail and R. I. Uhrberg, Surf. Sci. 625 , 23 (2014).

[7] D. Spence and S. Tear, Surf. Sci. 398 , 91 (1998).

[8] C. Collazo-Davila et al. , Surf. Sci. 418 , 395 (1998).

- [9] H. Weitering and J. Carpinelli, Surf. Sci. 384 , 240 (1997).

[10] H. Weitering, N. DiNardo, R. Perez-Sandoz, J. Chen, and E. Mele, Phys. Rev. B 49 , 16837 (1994).

- [11] K. Sakamoto, T. Okuda, H. Nishimoto, H. Daimon, S. Suga, T. Kinoshita, and A. Kakizaki, Phys. Rev. B 50 , 1725 (1994).
- [12] T. Okuda, H. Shigeoka, H. Daimon, S. Suga, T. Kinoshita, and A. Kakizaki, Surf. Sci. 321 , 105 (1994).
- [13] S. C. Erwin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 , 1973 (1995).
- [14] S. Hasegawa, M. Maruyama, Y. Hirata, D. Abe, and H. Nakashima, Surf. Sci. 405 , L503 (1998).
- [15] L. Lottermoser et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 , 3980 (1998).
- [16] M.-H. Kang, J.-H. Kang, and S. Jeong, Phys. Rev. B 58 , R13359 (1998).
- [17] S. C. Erwin and H. H. Weitering, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 , 2296 (1998).
- [18] W. Fan and A. Ignatiev, Phys. Rev. B 41 , 3592 (1990).
- [19] H. Weitering, X. Shi, and S. Erwin, Phys. Rev. B 54 , 10585 (1996).
- [20] S. Jeong and M.-H. Kang, Phys. Rev. B 54 , 8196 (1996).
- [21] P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136 , B864 (1964).
- [22] W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140 , A1133 (1965).
- [23] C. Devlin, D. Futaba, A. Loui, J. Shine, and S. Chiang, Materials Sci. and Eng.: B 96 , 215 (2002).
- [24] R. Phaneuf and M. Webb, Surf. Sci. 164 , 167 (1985).
- [25] Y. Sato, S. Chiang, and N. Bartelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 , 096103 (2007).
- [26] Y. Sato and S. Chiang, Surf. Sci. 603 , 2300 (2009).
- [27] E. Suliga and M. Henzler, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 16 , 1543 (1983).
- [28] F. Metcalfe and J. Venables, Surf. Sci. 369 , 99 (1996).
- [29] E. Suliga and M. Henzler, J. Vacuum Sci. &amp; Tech. A: Vacuum, Surf., and Films 1 , 1507 (1983).
- [30] M. Bertucci, G. Le Lay, M. Manneville, and R. Kern, Surf. Sci. 85 , 471 (1979).
- [31] D. Dornisch, W. Moritz, H. Schulz, R. Feidenhans, M. Nielsen, F. Grey, R. L. Johnson, and G. Le Lay, Surf. Sci. 274 , 215 (1992).
- [32] K. Wan, X. Lin, and J. Nogami, Phys. Rev. B 45 , 9509 (1992).
- [33] T. Takahashi, S. Nakatani, N. Okamoto, T. Ishikawa, and S. Kikuta, Surf. Sci. 242 , 54 (1991).
- [34] M. Göthelid, M. Hammar, U. O. Karlsson, C. Wigren, and G. LeLay, Phys. Rev. B 52 , 14104 (1995).
- [35] U. Hessinger, M. Leskovar, and M. A. Olmstead, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 , 2380 (1995).
- [36] C. H. Mullet, Growth of Ir on Ge (111) and Ge (110) and Growth of Ag on Ge (111), Ge (110), and Ge (001) Studied by Low Energy Electron Microscopy and Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (University of California, Davis, 2012).
- [37] G. Kresse and J. Furthmüller, Phys. Rev. B 54 , 11169 (1996).
- [38] J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 , 3865 (1996).

- [39] P. E. Blöchl, Phys. Rev. B 50 , 17953 (1994).
- [40] G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59 , 1758 (1999).
- [41] J. P. Perdew, H. Q. Tran, and E. D. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 42 , 11627 (1990).
- [42] E. R. Johnson and S. M. Christian, Phys. Rev. 95 , 560 (1954).
- [43] M. Ernzerhof and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 110 , 5029 (1999).
- [44] L. Bruner and R. W. Keyes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7 , 55 (1961).
- [45] C. Filippi, D. J. Singh, and C. J. Umrigar, Phys. Rev. B 50 , 14947 (1994).
- [46] G. Macfarlane and V. Roberts, Phys. Rev. 97 , 1714 (1955).
- [47] L. Sham and M. Schlüter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 , 1888 (1983).
- [48] J. P. Perdew and M. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 , 1884 (1983).
- [49] M. S. Hybertsen and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B 34 , 5390 (1986).
- [50] J. E. Peralta, J. Heyd, G. E. Scuseria, and R. L. Martin, Phys. Rev. B 74 , 073101 (2006).
- [51] C. Ekuma, M. Jarrell, J. Moreno, and D. Bagayoko, Phys. Lett. A 377 , 2172 (2013).
- [52] S. Richard, F. Aniel, and G. Fishman, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 235204 (2004).
- [53] S. Dudarev, G. Botton, S. Savrasov, C. Humphreys, and A. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57 , 1505 (1998).
- [54] H. Tahini, A. Chroneos, R. W. Grimes, U. Schwingenschlögl, and A. Dimoulas, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat. 24 , 195802 (2012).
- [55] H. Tahini, A. Chroneos, R. Grimes, U. Schwingenschlögl, and H. Bracht, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99 , 072112 (2011).
- [56] K. Sakata, B. Magyari-Köpe, S. Gupta, Y. Nishi, A. Blom, and P. Deák, Comput. Mat. Sci. 112 , 263 (2016).
- [57] A. Togo and I. Tanaka, Scripta Materialia 108 , 1 (2015).
- [58] A. Trejo, A. Miranda, L. Toscano-Medina, R. Vázquez-Medina, and M. Cruz-Irisson, Microelectronic Eng. 159 , 215 (2016).
- [59] G. Nilsson and G. Nelin, Phys. Rev. B 3 , 364 (1971).
- [60] G. Nelin and G. Nilsson, Phys. Rev. B 5 , 3151 (1972).
- [61] K. Bromann, H. Brune, M. Giovannini, and K. Kern, Surf. Sci. 388 , L1107 (1997).
- [62] D. Haneman, Phys. Rev. 121 , 1093 (1961).
- [63] K. Pandey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 , 1913 (1981).
- [64] N. Takeuchi, A. Selloni, A. Shkrebtii, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. B 44 , 13611 (1991).
- [65] M. Rohlfing, M. Palummo, G. Onida, and R. Del Sole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 , 5440 (2000).
- [66] A. Stekolnikov, J. Furthmüller, and F. Bechstedt, Phys. Rev. B 65 , 115318 (2002).

- [67] G. Bussetti, C. Goletti, P. Chiaradia, M. Rohlfing, M. Betti, F. Bussolotti, S. Cirilli, C. Mariani, and A. Kanjilal, Surf. Sci. 602 , 1423 (2008).
- [68] R. Becker, J. A. Golovchenko, and B. Swartzentruber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 , 2678 (1985).
- [69] N. Takeuchi, A. Selloni, and E. Tosatti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 , 648 (1992).
- [70] J. E. Northrup and M. L. Cohen, J. Vac. Sci. and Tech. 21 , 333 (1982).
- [71] D. Chadi, Phys. Rev. B 26 , 4762 (1982).
- [72] D. Vanderbilt and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B 30 , 6118 (1984).
- [73] B. Craig and P. Smith, Surf. Sci. 225 , 225 (1990).
- [74] C. H. Patterson, S. Banerjee, and J. F. McGilp, Phys. Rev. B 84 , 155314 (2011).
- [75] M. Zitzlsperger, R. Honke, P. Pavone, and U. Schröder, Surf. Sci. 377 , 108 (1997).
- [76] G. Xu, B. Deng, Z. Yu, S. Tong, M. Van Hove, F. Jona, and I. Zasada, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 045307 (2004).
- [77] Y. Zhu, S. Zhang, X. Zhang, S. Zhang, A. Hao, H. Jin, and R. Liu, Phys. B: Condens. Mat. 405 , 4541 (2010).
- [78] R. Becker, B. Swartzentruber, J. Vickers, and T. Klitsner, Phys. Rev. B 39 , 1633 (1989).
- [79] E. Hirschorn, D. Lin, F. Leibsle, A. Samsavar, and T.-C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. B 44 , 1403 (1991).
- [80] I. Razado-Colambo, J. He, H. Zhang, G. Hansson, and R. Uhrberg, Phys. Rev. B 79 , 205410 (2009).
- [81] D. Chadi and C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. B 23 , 1843 (1981).
- [82] R. Zhachuk, S. Teys, and J. Coutinho, J. Chem. Phys. 138 , 224702 (2013).
- [83] K. Tamaru, Dynamic processes on solid surf. (Springer Sci. &amp; Business Media, 2013).
- [84] D. Farías, G. Lange, K. Rieder, and J. Toennies, Phys. Rev. B 55 , 7023 (1997).
- [85] A. Béraud, J. Kulda, I. Yonenaga, M. Foret, B. Salce, and E. Courtens, Phys. B: Condens. Mat. 350 , 254 (2004).
- [86] F. Bechstedt, A. Stekolnikov, J. Furthmüller, and P. Käckell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 , 016103 (2001).
- [87] R. Feidenhans, J. S. Pedersen, J. Bohr, M. Nielsen, F. Grey, and R. Johnson, Phys. Rev. B 38 , 9715 (1988).
- [88] R. G. ávan Silfhout and J. ávan der Veen, Faraday Dis. Chem. Soc. 89 , 169 (1990).
- [89] R. M. Feenstra, J. Lee, M. Kang, G. Meyer, and K. Rieder, Phys. Rev. B 73 , 035310 (2006).
- [90] J.  A.  Giacomo, A  low  energy  electron  microscopy  study  of  the  growth  and  surface  dynamics  of silver/germanium (111) and gold/germanium (111) (University of California, Davis, 2009).
- [91] W. Fan and A. Ignatiev, Phys. Rev. B 40 , 5479 (1989).
- [92] C. Collazo-Davila, D. Grozea, and L. Marks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 , 1678 (1998).
- [93] D. Grozea, E. Bengu, C. Collazo-Davila, and L. Marks, Surf. Rev. and Lett. 6 , 1061 (1999).

- [94] C. H. Mullet and S. Chiang, J. Vac. Sci. &amp; Tech. A: Vac., Surf., and Films 31 , 020602 (2013).
- [95] T. Takahashi, S. Nakatani, N. Okamoto, T. Ishikawa, and S. Kikuta, Jap. J. Appl. Phys. 27 , L753 (1988).
- [96] S. Borisova, S. Eremeev, G. Rusina, V. Stepanyuk, P. Bruno, and E. Chulkov, Phys. Rev. B 78 , 075428 (2008).
Shree Ram Acharya Cory H. Mullet Jason A. Giacomo Duy Le Shirley Chiang Talat S. Rahman
Sub-monolayer structures of Ag overlayers on Ge(111): experimental observations and first-principles study
We present a joint experimental and theoretical determination of structures
of Ag adatoms on the Ge(111) surface using low energy electron diffraction, low
energy electron microscopy, scanning tunneling microscopy, and density
functional theory-based calculations, as functions of coverages and
temperature. Experimentally for clean Ge(111), c(2X8) and (2X1) phases occur,
while Ag overlayers cause (4X4), (V3XV3)R30 and (3X1) surface structural
phases. The dependence of the growth behavior of these different phases was
examined as a function of temperature, Ag deposition rate and coverage,
substrate step density, and history of temperature cycling. First-principles
calculations of the electronic and geometric structures and vibrational
dynamics show the Ge(111)-c(2X8) configuration with Ge adatoms adsorbed on
three-fold hollow (T4) sites to be the energetically most favored phase of the
Ge(111) surface, among unreconstructed Ge(111), reconstructed Ge(111)-2X1, and
Ge(111)-c(2X8) structures. The Ge(111)-Ag(3X1) overlayer of the system has Ge
atoms forming a honeycomb chain on a missing top layer reconstructed surface,
with metal at 1/3 ML coverage in channel. The Ge (111)-Ag(V3XV3)R30 overlayer
contains one monolayer Ag forming inequivalent Ag triangles in a surface unit
cell on the missing top layer reconstructed Ge(111) surface. The
Ge(111)-Ag(4X4) overlayer formed at low Ag coverage contains two triangular
subunits at different heights: one with six Ag adatoms and the other with three
Ge adatoms on the intact double layer Ge(111) surface. The temperature and
coverage dependent surface phase diagram, obtained by minimizing the surface
free energy, captures the main features of the experimental phase diagram.