Abstract

Remote epitaxy relaxes the constraints of conventional epitaxy, to enable low defect density, chemically abrupt heterostructures and exfoliation of single crystalline membranes. However, definitive evidence for a true remote mechanism remains elusive because most experiments can be explained by alternative mechanism that are macroscopically indistinguishable from true remote epitaxy. Using GdAuGe films grown on graphene/SiC (0001), we present two signatures that cannot be explained by the leading alternatives to the remote mechanism: (1) a few atomic layer thick disordered interlayer at the GdAuGe/graphene interface and (2) a 30° rotated epitaxial relationship between the GdAuGe film and the SiC substrate. Density functional theory calculations indicate these signatures arise from remote epitaxial frustration, a competition amongst epitaxy to the remotely screened substrate, to graphene, and to the graphene-induced interfacial reconstruction.

Abstract

Remote epitaxy relaxes the constraints of conventional epitaxy, to enable low defect density, chemically abrupt heterostructures and exfoliation of single crystalline membranes. However, definitive evidence for a true remote mechanism remains elusive because most experiments can be explained by alternative mechanism that are macroscopically indistinguishable from true remote epitaxy. Using GdAuGe films grown on graphene/SiC (0001), we present two signatures that cannot be explained by the leading alternatives to the remote mechanism: (1) a few atomic layer thick disordered interlayer at the GdAuGe/graphene interface and (2) a 30° rotated epitaxial relationship between the GdAuGe film and the SiC substrate. Density functional theory calculations indicate these signatures arise from remote epitaxial frustration, a competition amongst epitaxy to the remotely screened substrate, to graphene, and to the graphene-induced interfacial reconstruction.

Abstract

Remote epitaxy relaxes the constraints of conventional epitaxy, to enable low defect density, chemically abrupt heterostructures and exfoliation of single crystalline membranes. However, definitive evidence for a true remote mechanism remains elusive because most experiments can be explained by alternative mechanism that are macroscopically indistinguishable from true remote epitaxy. Using GdAuGe films grown on graphene/SiC (0001), we present two signatures that cannot be explained by the leading alternatives to the remote mechanism: (1) a few atomic layer thick disordered interlayer at the GdAuGe/graphene interface and (2) a 30° rotated epitaxial relationship between the GdAuGe film and the SiC substrate. Density functional theory calculations indicate these signatures arise from remote epitaxial frustration, a competition amongst epitaxy to the remotely screened substrate, to graphene, and to the graphene-induced interfacial reconstruction.

Abstract

Remote epitaxy relaxes the constraints of conventional epitaxy, to enable low defect density, chemically abrupt heterostructures and exfoliation of single crystalline membranes. However, definitive evidence for a true remote mechanism remains elusive because most experiments can be explained by alternative mechanism that are macroscopically indistinguishable from true remote epitaxy. Using GdAuGe films grown on graphene/SiC (0001), we present two signatures that cannot be explained by the leading alternatives to the remote mechanism: (1) a few atomic layer thick disordered interlayer at the GdAuGe/graphene interface and (2) a 30° rotated epitaxial relationship between the GdAuGe film and the SiC substrate. Density functional theory calculations indicate these signatures arise from remote epitaxial frustration, a competition amongst epitaxy to the remotely screened substrate, to graphene, and to the graphene-induced interfacial reconstruction.