MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966553016 · doi:10.1103/physrevb.75.125206

Superposition of electron-hole density gratings in GaAs generated by quantum control of charge densities and charge currents

2007· article· en· W1966553016 on OpenAlexafffund
Y. Kerachian, H. M. van Driel, Arthur L. Smirl

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review B · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsGratingElectronPolarization (electrochemistry)Atomic physicsAmplitudeOpticsCondensed matter physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantum interference of single-photon and two-photon absorption of 775 and $1550\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$, $\ensuremath{\sim}150\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{fs}$ optical pulses in GaAs at $300\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{K}$ is known to lead to coherent control of electron-hole pair density and charge currents with the magnitude controlled by the pulses' relative phase and polarization. When the pulses are noncollinearly incident on a (001) GaAs crystal, the relative phase between the pulses varies in the plane of the surface, resulting in current and density gratings. The current grating also produces a charge-neutral electron-hole pair density grating following the completion of dielectric relaxation by the end of the pulses. The two types of density gratings, which are monitored using $830\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{nm}$, $150\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{fs}$ pulses and which decay by ambipolar diffusion and recombination on a $15\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\mathrm{ps}$ time scale, are studied as a function of sample azimuthal orientation and pulse polarization. For those polarizations where both density gratings are simultaneously generated, the amplitude of the current-induced density grating is comparable to that of the directly deposited grating and independent of grating period, although the former is related to a third-order optical process and the latter to a second-order process. Superposition and interference of the density gratings are therefore observed, as shown from the azimuthal dependence of the diffraction efficiency.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review BSame topicSemiconductor Quantum Structures and DevicesFrench-language works237,207