English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a recent Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 187203 (2011)], Fujii et al.reported Mn 2p photoelectron emission spectra for (Ga,Mn)As recorded using hardx-rays. Due to the enhanced bulk sensitivity, hard-x-ray spectra reveal anextra "low-binding-energy peak", which is absent in surface-sensitive spectrarecorded using soft x-rays. Based on Anderson-impurity-model calculations,Fujii et al. assigned the low-binding-energy peak to a cd6L2 final state, andrelated the variations in its intensity to variations in the As 4p-Mn 3dhybridization strength V. We show here that the definition of thecharge-transfer energy considered by Fujii et al. is different from thatconsidered in the Zaanen-Sawatzky-Allen diagram. We note that the Andersonimpurity model is insufficient to describe low-binding-energy peaks inhard-x-ray core-level photoemission for transition-metal compounds on the vergeof a metal-insulator transition. We propose a more plausible origin for the(Ga,Mn)As low-binding-energy peak, related to the nature of its metal-insulatortransition.

Comment on "Identification of different electron screening behavior between the bulk and surface of (Ga,Mn)As [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 187203 (2011)]"