 of the onsite TB $d-$orbital energies [@Ahmed_Enc_2009] allowed to match the experimental excited state energies (T$_2$ and E) as listed in table \[tab:table1\]. By applying this model, we compute the value of $|\psi(r_0)|^2$ at the donor nuclear site as 4.05 $\times$ 10$^{30}$, which comes out to be $\approx$ 2.34 times larger than the experimental value. We also compute the electric field response of the hyperfine coupling for the electric field variation from 0 to 0.5 MV/m as shown in the Fig. \[fig:Fig2\]. The quadratic hyperfine Stark shift parameter $\eta_{2}$ is then calculated from the fitting of the TB data by Eq. \[eq:hyperfine\_coupling\] (details of the calculation methodology have been reported in Ref. ) as -1.32 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$ compared to the recent experimental value of -1.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$ for the bulk As donor in Si [@Lo_arxiv_2014]. Table \[tab:table2\] provides an overall summary of results for the static dielectric screening of the donor potential. This shows that even with the static dielectric screening of the donor potential, the central-cell correction part provides a reasonably good description of the donor physics.

Since the central-cell effects are implemented through an adjustable parameter U$_0$ at the donor site, we attempt to quantify its effect on the $\eta_2$ by introducing a variation of $\pm$100 meV in its value. Increasing U$_0$ by 100 meV increases the ground state binding energy to 55.6 meV and the value of $\eta_2$ decreases to -1.089 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. On the other hand, decreasing U$_0$ by 100 meV decreases the ground state binding energy to 50.9 meV and the value of $\eta_2$ increases to -1.53 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. This clearly demonstrates that to improve the match with the experimental value of $\eta_2$, the value of U$_0$ should be reduced; however this introduces a large
of the onsite TB $ d-$orbital energies   [ @Ahmed_Enc_2009 ] allowed to match the experimental excited department of state energy (T$_2 $ and E) as listed in table   \[tab: table1\ ]. By applying this mannequin, we compute the value of $ |\psi(r_0)|^2 $ at the donor nuclear site as 4.05 $ \times$ 10$^{30}$, which come out to be $ \approx$ 2.34 times larger than the experimental value. We besides calculate the electric field response of the hyperfine yoke for the electric field variation from 0 to 0.5 MV / m equally shown in the Fig.   \[fig: Fig2\ ]. The quadratic hyperfine Stark shift parameter $ \eta_{2}$ is then calculated from the fitting of the TB data by Eq.   \[eq: hyperfine\_coupling\ ] (details of the calculation methodology have been report in Ref.  ) as -1.32 $ \times$ 10$^{-3 } \mu$m$^2$/V$^2 $ compared to the recent experimental value of -1.9 $ \pm$ 0.2 $ \times$ 10$^{-3 } \mu$m$^2$/V$^2 $ for the bulk As donor in Si   [ @Lo_arxiv_2014 ]. board   \[tab: table2\ ] provides an overall summary of results for the static dielectric screening of the donor electric potential. This shows that even with the electrostatic dielectric screening of the donor potential, the central - cellular telephone correction part provides a reasonably good description of the donor physics. 

 Since the cardinal - cellular telephone effect are implemented through an adjustable parameter U$_0 $ at the donor site, we attempt to quantify its effect on the $ \eta_2 $ by introducing a mutant of $ \pm$100 meV in its value. increase U$_0 $ by 100 meV increases the ground department of state binding energy to 55.6 meV and the value of $ \eta_2 $ decreases to -1.089 $ \times$ 10$^{-3 } \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. On the other bridge player, decreasing U$_0 $ by 100 meV decreases the ground state bind energy to 50.9 meV and the value of $ \eta_2 $ increases to -1.53 $ \times$ 10$^{-3 } \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. This clearly demonstrates that to improve the match with the experimental value of $ \eta_2 $, the value of U$_0 $ should be reduce; however this introduces a large
 of the onsite TB $d-$orbital tnergies [@Ahmed_Enc_2009] colowed to mafch the dxperimental excited state eiergues (T$_2$ and E) as listed in tacle \[tab:tabpe1\]. By applyiig this model, we compute the vzpue mh $|\psi(r_0)|^2$ at the dpnor nucledr site as 4.05 $\tiker$ 10$^{30}$, which comes out to be $\approx$ 2.34 timef larget hhan the experymenual valhv. Ce also compute the electric fisld reskonse of the hypergine coupling for the elechric field variation fgom 0 to 0.5 MV/n as whown in the Fig. \[fig:Fig2\]. The quadratjc hyperfine Stark shift parameger $\eca_{2}$ is then xaocupdted from tie fitning of the TN data ty Eq. \[eq:nyperfine\_coupllng\] (dxtaios of the calculation methodology have feen repostzd in Ref. ) as -1.32 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \nu$n$^2$/V$^2$ cokparad tu thd rtceit sxperilenval value or -1.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\timew$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$ for the bull Ww donor in Si [@Mo_arxid_2014]. Eable \[tab:table2\] provides an overall summagy or results for the statix dielectric screeninh of the qonor potential. This shows that even with the stadic dmeuecurlg scfwejing of the donor potential, the central-cell cjdrtctpon part provides a reasonabky gpjd descriptiov of tks sonor physics.

Since the cegtral-xell effests sre implemented through an qdjustable pcraneter U$_0$ at the donlr site, we cttempj to qiantify its effect on tke $\eta_2$ by introdufing a vadkation of $\pm$100 meV in ids value. Increasing U$_0$ by 100 ieV increeses che grouvd sjate bigding enerhy to 55.6 meV and the value of $\eja_2$ decseases to -1.089 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. On the other hand, vxcreasing U$_0$ bi 100 keV decreaszs the ground state binding energi to 50.9 meV and ghe value kf $\eta_2$ mncreases to -1.53 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. Jhis clearly vemonstraees rhat to impfuve the match eith the vxkerimental value of $\eta_2$, the yalue kf U$_0$ should be xtduxed; however thix ivtrjdlcex w large
of the onsite TB $d-$orbital energies [@Ahmed_Enc_2009] match experimental excited energies (T$_2$ and \[tab:table1\]. applying this model, compute the value $|\psi(r_0)|^2$ at the donor nuclear site 4.05 $\times$ 10$^{30}$, which comes out to be $\approx$ 2.34 times larger than experimental value. We also compute the electric field response of the hyperfine coupling the field from to 0.5 MV/m as shown in the Fig. \[fig:Fig2\]. The quadratic hyperfine Stark shift parameter $\eta_{2}$ then calculated from the fitting of the TB by Eq. \[eq:hyperfine\_coupling\] (details the calculation methodology have been in ) as $\times$ \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$ to the recent value of -1.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$ for the bulk As donor in Si [@Lo_arxiv_2014]. Table provides an of results the dielectric of the donor shows that even with the static the donor potential, the central-cell correction part provides reasonably good of the donor physics. Since the effects are implemented through an adjustable parameter U$_0$ the donor site, we attempt to quantify its effect on the $\eta_2$ by introducing a $\pm$100 meV in its Increasing U$_0$ by meV the state energy to meV and the value of $\eta_2$ decreases to -1.089 $\times$ 10$^{-3} On the other hand, decreasing U$_0$ by 100 meV decreases state energy to 50.9 and the value of increases -1.53 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. demonstrates to with experimental of $\eta_2$, the value U$_0$ should be reduced; however introduces a large
 of the onsite TB $d-$orbital enerGies [@Ahmed_ENc_2009] allOweD to MaTch tHe exPerimental exciTEd stAte energies (T$_2$ and E) as listEd in tAbLE \[tab:TAbLe1\]. By aPplying THiS MOdeL, wE cOmpUtE ThE valuE of $|\Psi(r_0)|^2$ at tHe donor nucLeaR sIte as 4.05 $\times$ 10$^{30}$, whICh Comes out to Be $\aPprox$ 2.34 times laRgeR than tHe ExpERimenTal Value. we also COmpute The electrIc FIeld reSPonse of THE hYperFine coupling for thE ElECtric field variAtion fRoM 0 To 0.5 mv/M as ShoWn in the Fig. \[FiG:Fig2\]. THE quadraTIc HYPErfINe Stark shift pArameter $\eta_{2}$ IS thEn calcUlAteD From thE fittInG Of tHe TB data by EQ. \[eq:hYperfine\_cOuplinG\] (Details OF the calCulatiOn mEthOdolOGy HaVe bEeN RepORtEd iN ref. ) As -1.32 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mU$m$^2$/v$^2$ cOmparEd to THE REcenT exPeriMentaL value of -1.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\timEs$ 10$^{-3} \mU$m$^2$/V$^2$ fOR thE bulk as donOr in si [@lo_arxIv_2014]. TablE \[tab:tAbLe2\] provides an oveRall Summary of ResUlTs fOr The stATic dieLecTriC screenIng of thE DonOr POTEnTial. This shows that eVeN WItH the statIc dielECtRiC ScreeninG oF thE donOR PotenTial, THe Central-cEll corREcTiOn part pRoVides a ReAsoNabLy gooD DescRiptioN of the doNor phYSics.

Since the ceNTral-cell effecTS aRE ImPLemeNteD through an aDjusTAble ParaMEtEr U$_0$ AT the dOnor sItE, We ATtempt to quantify its EfFect on The $\etA_2$ by introducinG a variatioN OF $\Pm$100 meV in iTs vaLUe. iNcreasing U$_0$ by 100 mev incrEases the grOUnd state BindiNg energy To 55.6 meV and tHE Value of $\eTa_2$ dEcrEasEs tO -1.089 $\TImEs$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. On the otHER hanD, dEcreasiNg U$_0$ By 100 meV deCreAseS thE grOuNd state biNding eneRgY tO 50.9 mEV And The vaLUe of $\eta_2$ iNcReaSeS to -1.53 $\Times$ 10$^{-3} \MU$m$^2$/V$^2$. ThiS cleaRly dEmOnSTraTes that TO iMPRove ThE mAtch WitH tHe expErimENtaL value oF $\eta_2$, the vaLue OF U$_0$ shOuLd Be reducEd; however this InTroduces a lArGe
 of the onsite TB $d-$orbi tal energi es [@ Ahm ed_ En c_20 09]allowed to mat c h th e experimental excited  stat ee nerg i es  (T$_ 2$ andE )a s  li st ed  in  t a bl e \[t ab: table1\ ]. By appl yin gthis model,w ecompute th e v alue of $|\p si( r_0)|^ 2$  at the d ono r nuc lear s i te as4.05 $\ti me s $ 10$^ { 30}$, w h i ch  com es out to be $\ap p ro x $ 2.34 times l argerth a nt h e e xpe rimental v al ue. W e  also c o mp u t e  th e  electric fie ld response ofthe hy pe rfi n e coup lingfo r  th e electricfiel d variati on fro m  0 to 0 . 5 MV/mas sho wnintheF ig .\[f ig : Fig 2 \] . T h e q uadratic  h yp erfin e St a r k shif t p aram eter$\eta_{2}$ is  th en c a lcu lated  from  the  f ittin g of t he TB  d ata by Eq. \[eq :hyp erfine\_c oup li ng\ ](deta i ls ofthe  ca lculati on meth o dol og y h av e been reported in  R e f .) as -1. 32 $\t i me s$ 10$^{-3}  \ mu$ m$^2 $ / V$^2$  com p ar ed to th e rece n tex perimen ta l valu eof-1. 9 $\p m $ 0. 2 $\ti mes$ 10$ ^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2 $  for the bulk As d on o r in  Si  [@Lo_arxiv _201 4 ]. T able \[ tab : table 2\] p ro v id e s an overall summar yof res ultsfor the stati c dielectr i c screenin g of th e  donor potenti al. T his showst hat even  with  the sta tic diele c t ric scre eni ngofthe d on or potential, t he c en tral-ce llcorrect ion  pa rtpro vi des a rea sonablygo od  d es cri ption of the d on orph ysi cs.
S ince t he ce ntra l- ce l l e ffectsa re i mple me nt ed t hro ug h anadju s tab le para meter U$_ 0$a t th edo nor sit e, we attempt  t o quantify  i tseffect o n the $\ eta_2$ by introducing a variati onof $\ pm$1 00 meV in  it s valu e.I ncreas ing U$ _0$ b y100 m eV in c r ea ses  t he grounds t ate  bind in g en ergy to  55.6 meV and thev alu e of $\eta_2$  de crea s e sto- 1. 0 89$\ t ime s $  10$^{-3} \mu$m $^2$/V$^2$ .O nthe otherh and ,decreas ing U$_ 0$ by 100 meV  decrease s the gro un d st a t e b inding ene rgy to 5 0.9 meV a n d the va lue o f $ \eta_2 $inc rease s to - 1 .53  $\ti mes$ 1 0$ ^{-3}\mu$m $^ 2$/V$^2$ . This clearly demonstr ates t hat t o i mprove th e m a tch  with the  exp erimentalval ueof $\ eta _ 2$, t he v a lu e o f  U$_0 $ sh o uld be re d uc ed; h ow ever this i n t r odu ces a  la r ge
 of_the onsite_TB $d-$orbital energies [@Ahmed_Enc_2009] allowed_to match_the_experimental excited_state_energies (T$_2$ and_E) as listed_in table \[tab:table1\]. By applying_this model, we_compute_the value of $|\psi(r_0)|^2$ at the donor nuclear site as 4.05 $\times$ 10$^{30}$, which_comes_out to_be_$\approx$_2.34 times larger than the_experimental value. We also compute_the electric_field response of the hyperfine coupling for the_electric_field variation from_0 to 0.5 MV/m as shown in the Fig. \[fig:Fig2\]._The quadratic hyperfine Stark shift parameter_$\eta_{2}$ is then_calculated_from_the fitting of the_TB data by Eq. \[eq:hyperfine\_coupling\] (details of_the calculation methodology have been reported_in Ref. ) as -1.32 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$_compared to the recent experimental value_of -1.9 $\pm$ 0.2 $\times$_10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$_for the bulk As donor_in Si [@Lo_arxiv_2014]. Table \[tab:table2\]_provides an_overall summary of_results for the static dielectric screening_of the donor_potential. This shows that even with_the_static dielectric screening_of_the_donor potential,_the central-cell correction_part_provides a_reasonably_good description of the donor physics.

Since_the_central-cell effects are implemented through an adjustable_parameter U$_0$ at the_donor_site, we attempt to_quantify its effect on the_$\eta_2$ by introducing a variation of_$\pm$100 meV_in its_value. Increasing U$_0$ by 100 meV increases the ground state binding_energy to 55.6 meV and the_value of $\eta_2$ decreases_to -1.089_$\times$_10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. On_the_other hand,_decreasing U$_0$ by 100 meV decreases the_ground state_binding energy to 50.9 meV and_the value of $\eta_2$_increases_to -1.53 $\times$ 10$^{-3} \mu$m$^2$/V$^2$. This_clearly demonstrates that to improve the_match with the experimental value_of_$\eta_2$,_the value of U$_0$ should_be reduced; however this introduces a_large