Crystal ordering in a strongly mass-asymmetric electron–hole bilayer
Follow the latest progress by email.
Which crystal structure minimizes energy at intermediate densities in a strongly mass-asymmetric electron–hole bilayer? The competing honeycomb and triangular arrangements must include correlations among mobile electrons in the same physical model.
Why it matters and what counts as progress
Why it matters: The phase comparison tests whether mobile-electron correlations can reconstruct the preferred lattice in a mass-asymmetric bilayer.
What counts as progress: Compare correlated energies with controlled variational and finite-size errors, identify a stable phase range or independently test the predicted reconstruction.
How the problem developed
- 21 Nov 2006 · Numerical evidence [1]
P. Ludwig, A. Filinov, Yu. E. Lozovik, H. Stolz and M. Bonitz Path-integral Monte Carlo found hole localization as the mass ratio increased while electrons remained nearly homogeneous at the studied density.
- 12 Oct 2026 · Reported numerical result [2]
Shengdu Chai and coauthors Neural-network variational Monte Carlo in the fixed-hole Born–Oppenheimer limit reported a transition from triangular to honeycomb electron–hole crystal order as density increases.
AI contribution
Honeycomb Crystal in a Mass-Asymmetric Electron-Hole Bilayer
Chai and collaborators report neural-network variational Monte Carlo evidence that mobile-electron correlations favor a honeycomb electron–hole crystal over triangular order at intermediate densities in a strongly mass-asymmetric bilayer.
Sources
Website timeline
Publication dates and editorial changes.
Neural-wavefunction calculations predict a honeycomb electron–hole crystal