Reply to “Comment on “Diamond (111) surface reconstruction and epitaxial graphene interface””

In the Comment by Goletti [], concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of our experimental findings, as well as the application of basic ground-state density functional theory (DFT) models pertaining to the <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><a:mrow><a:mi mathvariant="normal">C</a:mi><a:mrow><a:mo>(</a:mo><a:mn>111</a:mn><a:mo>)</a:mo><a:mtext>−</a:mtext><a:mo>(</a:mo><a:mn>2</a:mn><a:mo>×</a:mo><a:mn>1</a:mn><a:mo>)</a:mo></a:mrow></a:mrow></a:math> surface presented in our earlier publication [Reed , ]. These concerns are addressed and our interpretation of the results is ultimately reconfirmed. We present further analysis of the original data and introduce new measurements on previously unreported regions of the surface reconstructed (<c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><c:mrow><c:mn>2</c:mn><c:mo>×</c:mo><c:mn>1</c:mn></c:mrow></c:math>) Brillouin zone, aiding in the evaluation of the dispersion relation at other high-symmetry points. We gain insights relating to the current use of DFT calculations that include many-body theories when relating to the occupied electronic structure of this surface as measured by angle-resolved photoelectron spectroscopy.