$_0 \rightarrow - \infty$) and the long-range part of the donor potential is Coulomb potential screened by static dielectric constant ($\epsilon(0)$) as given by Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]:

$$\label{eq:Static_donor_potential}
    U \left( r \right) = \frac{-e^2}{ \epsilon \left( 0 \right) r}$$

where $\epsilon(0)$ = 11.9 is the static dielectric constant of Si and $e$ is the charge on electron. This case is illustrated by schematic of Fig. \[fig:Fig1\] (a). Such setup leads to a six-fold degenerate set of donor states at a binding energy of $\approx$ 29.6 meV, as would be expected from a simple effective-mass type approximation. The donor wave function density at nuclear site is 3.57$\times$10$^{22}$ m$^{-3}$ which is seven orders of magnitude smaller than the experimental value. This clearly highlights the critical role of the central-cell correction at the donor site to accurately capture the splitting of the donor ground state binding energies and the wave function density at the nuclear site as measured in the experiment.

![Electric field response of hyperfine coupling is plotted for bulk As donor for static dielectric screening of donor potential as given by Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]. The data points are computed directly from the TB simulations and the line plots are fittings of Eq. \[eq:hyperfine\_coupling\]. []{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](fig2.png)

Next, we setup simulations according to the schematic of Fig. \[fig:Fig1\] (b), where we keep the donor potential U($\overrightarrow{r}$) as a Coulomb potential screened by static dielectric constant for Si as given by Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]. Previous tight binding based theoretical studies for the P donors [@Rahman_PRL_2007; @Martins_PRB_2004] and the As donors [@Lansbergen_Nat_Phys_2008] has also used this type of donor potential. We now include central-cell correction at the donor site as a cut-off potential U$_0$ which is tuned to be 2.6342 eV to accurately reproduce the experimental ground state energy, A$_1$=53.1 meV. Further tuning
$ _ 0 \rightarrow - \infty$) and the long - range part of the donor potential is Coulomb electric potential screen by static dielectric constant ($ \epsilon(0)$) as give by Eq.   \[eq: Static\_donor\_potential\ ]: 

 $ $ \label{eq: Static_donor_potential } 
     U \left (gas constant \right) = \frac{-e^2 } { \epsilon \left (0 \right) r}$$ 

 where $ \epsilon(0)$ = 11.9 is the static dielectric constant of Si and $ e$ is the charge on electron. This character is illustrate by schematic of Fig.   \[fig: Fig1\ ] (a). Such setup leads to a six - fold degenerate hardening of donor states at a binding department of energy of $ \approx$ 29.6 meV, as would be expected from a simple effective - bulk type approximation. The donor wave affair density at nuclear site is 3.57$\times$10$^{22}$ m$^{-3}$ which is seven orders of order of magnitude smaller than the experimental value. This clearly foreground the critical role of the cardinal - cell discipline at the donor site to accurately capture the splitting of the donor ground state bind energies and the wave function density at the nuclear site as measured in the experiment. 

! [ Electric playing field reply of hyperfine coupling is plotted for bulk As donor for static dielectric screening of donor potential as given by Eq.   \[eq: Static\_donor\_potential\ ]. The data point are computed directly from the TB pretense and the course plots are fittings of Eq.   \[eq: hyperfine\_coupling\ ]. [ ] { data - label="fig: Fig2"}](fig2.png) 

 Next, we setup model according to the schematic of Fig.   \[fig: Fig1\ ] (b), where we keep the donor potential U($\overrightarrow{r}$) as a Coulomb potential shield by static dielectric constant for Si as given by Eq.   \[eq: Static\_donor\_potential\ ]. Previous tight binding based theoretical report for the P donors   [ @Rahman_PRL_2007; @Martins_PRB_2004 ] and the As donors   [ @Lansbergen_Nat_Phys_2008 ] has also used this type of donor electric potential. We nowadays include central - cell correction at the donor web site as a cut - off potential U$_0 $ which is tuned to be 2.6342 eV to accurately reproduce the experimental ground state energy, A$ _ 1$=53.1 meV. Further tuning
$_0 \rihhtarrow - \infty$) and the uong-range part of the vonor pktential is Coulomb potential screenxd bt staupc dielectric constang ($\epsilon(0)$) as giveb by Wq. \[eq:Static\_vknor\_potcutial\]:

$$\mwbel{zq:Wtatic_donor_potgntial}
    U \neft( r \right) = \xrxc{-z^2}{ \epsilon \left( 0 \right) r}$$

where $\epsilon(0)$ = 11.9 is tne static dielecjric bogstahn if Si and $e$ is the charge on slectroi. This case is ollustrated by schematic ov Fih. \[fig:Fig1\] (a). Such setkp leads to a syz-fold degenefate set of donor statgs at a binding energy of $\approx$ 29.6 meV, as would ve exogcted from a simpje effective-mass typa approcimation. The dpnoc wace function density av nuclear site is 3.57$\tiies$10$^{22}$ m$^{-3}$ whiwh is seven orders if magnhtuda smxolef tgai tge expfrijental valhe. This cleqrly highlights the cwpyical role or the segtral-cell correction at the donor site uo acdurately capture the spoitting of the donor hround stwte binding energies and the wave function densitf at vhd nbgjdqr site as measured in the experiment.

![Electric fyslc gesponse of hypernine coupling is pkohtrq for bulk As donor fod static dielectrif screeging if donor kotenyial as given by Eq. \[eq:Static\_eonor\_potenticl\]. Rhe data points arz computed dnrectli from the TB simulations and the line plots are fittjvgs of Eq. \[eq:hyperwinv\_cou[ling\]. []{daux-label="fig:Fig2"}](fig2.pnd)

Next, we wetu' simulagionx accowding to tje scmamatic of Fig. \[fig:Fih1\] (b), wkere fe keep thf donor potential U($\overrightarrow{r}$) as a Coulokb ponential sereenec by static dyelectric consjant for Fi as given by Vq. \[eq:Statir\_donor\_potentyal\]. Previous dlght binding based treorwticql studkds for the P dpnors [@Rahmcu_PRL_2007; @Martuns_PRB_2004] and the As vonots [@Mansbergen_Nat_Phvr_2008] has also used yhir trpv oh donjs potential. Fe nuw kmcludd central-ceou cotrection at the donos sife as a cut-off potrnbial U$_0$ whuch is ttned to be 2.6342 eF to accurately rekroducx the xxperikenjal ground state energy, A$_1$=53.1 meV. Fhrther tujinn
$_0 \rightarrow - \infty$) and the long-range the potential is potential screened by given Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]: $$\label{eq:Static_donor_potential} \left( r \right) \frac{-e^2}{ \epsilon \left( 0 \right) r}$$ $\epsilon(0)$ = 11.9 is the static dielectric constant of Si and $e$ is charge on electron. This case is illustrated by schematic of Fig. \[fig:Fig1\] (a). setup to six-fold set of donor states at a binding energy of $\approx$ 29.6 meV, as would be expected a simple effective-mass type approximation. The donor wave density at nuclear site 3.57$\times$10$^{22}$ m$^{-3}$ which is seven of smaller than experimental This highlights the critical of the central-cell correction at the donor site to accurately capture the splitting of the donor ground binding energies wave function at nuclear as measured in ![Electric field response of hyperfine coupling bulk As donor for static dielectric screening of potential as by Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]. The data points computed directly from the TB simulations and the plots are fittings of Eq. \[eq:hyperfine\_coupling\]. []{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](fig2.png) Next, we setup simulations according to the schematic \[fig:Fig1\] (b), where we the donor potential as Coulomb screened static dielectric for Si as given by Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]. Previous tight binding based studies for the P donors [@Rahman_PRL_2007; @Martins_PRB_2004] and the As has used this type donor potential. We now central-cell at the donor site cut-off U$_0$ to 2.6342 to accurately reproduce the ground state energy, A$_1$=53.1 meV. tuning
$_0 \rightarrow - \infty$) and the long-Range part oF the dOnoR poTeNtiaL is COulomb potentiaL ScreEned by static dielectric ConstAnT ($\EpsiLOn(0)$) As givEn by Eq. \[eQ:stATIc\_dOnOr\_PotEnTIaL\]:

$$\labeL{eq:static_dOnor_potentIal}
    u \lEft( r \right) = \fraC{-E^2}{ \ePsilon \left( 0 \RigHt) r}$$

where $\epsiLon(0)$ = 11.9 Is the sTaTic DIelecTriC consTant of sI and $e$ iS the chargE oN ElectrON. This caSE Is IlluStrated by schematiC Of fIg. \[fig:Fig1\] (a). Such sEtup leAdS To A SIx-fOld Degenerate SeT of doNOr stateS At A BINdiNG energy of $\apprOx$ 29.6 meV, as woulD Be eXpecteD fRom A Simple EffecTiVE-maSs type approXimaTion. The doNor wavE FunctioN Density At nuclEar SitE is 3.57$\tIMeS$10$^{22}$ m$^{-3}$ WhiCh IS seVEn OrdERs oF magnituDe SmAller Than THE EXperImeNtal Value. this clearly hiGhlIghtS The CritiCal roLe of ThE centRal-celL corrEcTion at the donor sIte tO accurateLy cApTurE tHe splITting oF thE doNor grouNd state BIndInG ENErGies and the wave funcTiON DeNsity at tHe nuclEAr SiTE as measuReD in The eXPErimeNt.

![ElECtRic field ResponSE oF hYperfinE cOuplinG iS plOttEd for BUlk AS donor For statiC dielECtric screening OF donor potentiAL aS GIvEN by EQ. \[eq:static\_donor\_PoteNTial\]. the dATa PoiNTs are CompuTeD DiREctly from the TB simulAtIons anD the lIne plots are fiTtings of Eq. \[EQ:HYperfine\_CoupLInG\]. []{Data-label="fig:FiG2"}](fig2.pNg)

Next, we seTUp simulaTions AccordinG to the schEMAtic of FiG. \[fiG:FiG1\] (b), wHerE WE kEep the donor poTENtiaL U($\OverrigHtaRrow{r}$) as A CoUloMb pOteNtIal screenEd by statIc DiElEcTriC consTAnt for Si As GivEn By EQ. \[eq:StATic\_donOr\_potEntiAl\]. prEVioUs tight BInDINg baSeD tHeorEtiCaL studIes fOR thE P donorS [@Rahman_PRl_2007; @MaRTins_pRb_2004] aNd the As Donors [@LansberGeN_Nat_Phys_2008] haS aLso Used thIS Type of doNor potential. We now includE Central-CelL corrEctiOn at the doNor Site as A cuT-Off potEntial u$_0$ whicH iS tuNED to be 2.6342 Ev To AccUrAtely reproDUCe tHe expErImenTal grouNd state energy, A$_1$=53.1 meV. FURthEr tuning
$_0 \rightarrow - \infty$)  and the l ong-r ang e p ar t of  the  donor potenti a l is  Coulomb potential scr eened  b y  sta t ic  diel ectricc on s t ant  ( $\ eps il o n( 0)$)asgiven b y Eq. \[eq :St at ic\_donor\_p o te ntial\]:
$$\ label{eq:Sta tic _donor _p ote n tial} 
   U \ left(r  \righ t) = \fra c{ - e^2}{\ epsilon \ le ft(0 \right) r}$$

w h er e  $\epsilon(0)$  = 11. 9i st h e s tat ic dielect ri c con s tant of Si a n d $ e $ is the char ge on elect r on.  Thisca sei s illu strat ed byschematic o f Fi g. \[fig: Fig1\] (a). Su c h setup  leads  to  asix- f ol ddeg en e rat e  s eto f d onor sta te sat abind i n g ener gyof $ \appr ox$ 29.6 meV,  as  wou l d b e exp ected  fro ma sim ple ef fecti ve -mass type appr oxim ation. Th e d on orwa ve fu n ctionden sit y at nu clear s i teis 3 . 57 $\times$10$^{22}$m$ ^ { -3 }$ which  is se v en  o r ders ofma gni tude s malle r th a nthe expe riment a lva lue. Th is  clear ly  hi ghl ights thecritic al roleof th e  central-cellc orrection att he d on o r si teto accurate ly c a ptur e th e  s pli t tingof th ed on o r ground state bind in g ener giesand the wavefunction d e n s ity at t he n u cl e ar site as mea sured  in the ex p eriment. 

![E lectricfield res p o nse of h ype rfi necou p l in g is plottedf o r bu lk  As don orfor sta tic  di ele ctr ic  screenin g of don or  p ot en tia l asg iven byEq . \ [e q:S tatic \ _donor \_pot enti al \] .  Th e datap oi n t s ar eco mput eddi rectl y fr o m t he TB s imulation s a n d th eli ne plot s are fitting sof Eq. \[e q: hyp erfine \ _ coupling \]. []{data-label="fig: F ig2"}]( fig 2.png )

N ext, we s etu p simu lat i ons ac cordin g toth e s c h emati c of  Fi g.  \[fig:Fig 1 \ ] ( b), w he re w e keepthe donor potentia l  U( $\overrightar row {r}$ ) as  aC ou l omb  p o ten t i al screened bystatic die le c tr ic constan t  fo rSi as g iven by  Eq.\ [eq:Sta tic\_dono r\_potent ia l\]. P rev ious tight  binding  based th e oreti c al  stud ies  for t he  Pdonor s [@Ra h man _PRL_ 2007;@M artins _PRB_ 20 04] andthe As donors [@Lansber gen_Na t_Phy s_2 008] hasals o  us ed this t ypeof donor p ote nti al. W e n o w inc lude ce ntr a l-cel l co r rection a t  t hed o no r site as a c u t-o ff po ten t ial U$ _0$which is tuned to be 2.6342 eV t o ac c u rat ely repr od uce the experi men ta l ground s ta te energy,A$_1$=53 .1 meV.Furthe r tuni ng
$_0 \rightarrow_- \infty$)_and the long-range part_of the_donor_potential is_Coulomb_potential screened by_static dielectric constant_($\epsilon(0)$) as given by_Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]:

$$\label{eq:Static_donor_potential}
  __U \left( r \right) = \frac{-e^2}{ \epsilon \left( 0 \right) r}$$

where $\epsilon(0)$ = 11.9_is_the static_dielectric_constant_of Si and $e$ is_the charge on electron. This_case is_illustrated by schematic of Fig. \[fig:Fig1\] (a). Such setup_leads_to a six-fold_degenerate set of donor states at a binding energy_of $\approx$ 29.6 meV, as would_be expected from_a_simple_effective-mass type approximation. The_donor wave function density at nuclear_site is 3.57$\times$10$^{22}$ m$^{-3}$ which is_seven orders of magnitude smaller than the_experimental value. This clearly highlights the_critical role of the central-cell_correction at_the donor site to accurately_capture the splitting_of the_donor ground state_binding energies and the wave function_density at the_nuclear site as measured in the_experiment.

![Electric_field response of_hyperfine_coupling_is plotted_for bulk As_donor_for static_dielectric_screening of donor potential as given_by_Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]. The data points are computed directly_from the TB simulations_and_the line plots are_fittings of Eq. \[eq:hyperfine\_coupling\]. []{data-label="fig:Fig2"}](fig2.png)

Next, we_setup simulations according to the schematic_of Fig. \[fig:Fig1\]_(b), where_we keep the donor potential U($\overrightarrow{r}$) as a Coulomb potential screened_by static dielectric constant for Si_as given by Eq. \[eq:Static\_donor\_potential\]._Previous tight_binding_based theoretical studies_for_the P_donors [@Rahman_PRL_2007; @Martins_PRB_2004] and the As donors [@Lansbergen_Nat_Phys_2008] has_also used_this type of donor potential. We_now include central-cell correction_at_the donor site as a cut-off_potential U$_0$ which is tuned to_be 2.6342 eV to accurately_reproduce_the_experimental ground state energy, A$_1$=53.1_meV. Further tuning