Atomistic theory of electronic and optical properties of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">In</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">As</mml:mi><mml:mo>∕</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">In</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">P</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math>self-assembled quantum dots on patterned substrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report on an atomistic theory of electronic structure and optical properties of a single InAs quantum dot grown on InP patterned substrate. The spatial positioning of individual dots using InP nanotemplates results in a quantum dot embedded in InP pyramid. The strain distribution of a quantum dot in the InP pyramid is calculated using the continuum elasticity theory. The electron and valence hole single-particle states are calculated using an atomistic effective-bond-orbital model with second nearest-neighbor interactions, coupled to strain via the Bir-Pikus Hamiltonian. The optical properties are determined by solving the many-exciton Hamiltonian for interacting electron and hole complexes using the configuration-interaction method. The effect of positioning of quantum dots using a nanotemplate on their optical spectra is determined by a comparison with dots on unpatterned substrates, and with experimental results. The possibility of tuning the quantum dot properties with varying the nanotemplate is explored.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".