Strain and band edges in single and coupled cylindrical InAs/GaAs and InP/InGaP self-assembled quantum dots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative study is made of the strain distribution in cylindrical InAs/GaAs and InP/InGaP self-assembled quantum dots as obtained from isotropic elasticity theory, the anisotropic continuum mechanical model, and from atomistic calculations. For the isotropic case, the recently proposed approach [J. H. Davies, J. Appl. Phys. 84, 1358 (1998)] is used, while the finite-element method, the valence force field method, and Stillinger–Weber potentials are employed to calculate the strain in anisotropic structures. We found that all four methods result in strain distributions of similar shapes, but with notable quantitative differences inside the dot and near the disk–matrix boundary. The variations of the diagonal strains with the height of the quantum dot, with fixed radius, as calculated from all models, are almost linear. Furthermore, the energies of the band edges in the two types of quantum dots are extracted from the multiband effective-mass theory by inserting the strain distributions as obtained by the four models. We demonstrated that all strain models produce effective potentials for the heavy and light holes which agree very well inside the dot. A negligible anisotropy of all normal strains in the (x,y) plane is found, which, providing the axial symmetry of the kinetic part of the multiband effective-mass Hamiltonian, justifies the use of the axial approximation. Strain propagation along the vertical direction is also considered with the aim to study the influence of strain on the electron coupling in stacks of quantum dots. We found that the interaction between the strain fields of the individual quantum dots makes the effective quantum wells for the electrons in the conduction band shallower, thereby counteracting the quantum mechanical coupling.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".