Optical transitions and the mobility edge in amorphous semiconductors: A joint density of states analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determine the contributions to the joint density of states function attributable to the various types of optical transitions that occur within an amorphous semiconductor. We consider four types of optical transitions in this analysis: (1) those from the valence band extended electronic states to the conduction band extended electronic states, (2) those from the valence band extended electronic states to the conduction band localized electronic states, (3) those from the valence band localized electronic states to the conduction band extended electronic states, and (4) those from the valence band localized electronic states to the conduction band localized electronic states. We perform this analysis within the framework of a general empirical density of states model, with square-root functional dependencies in the band regions and exponential functional dependencies in the tail regions. In order to keep the analysis as general as possible, our joint density of states results are determined as functions of the valence band and conduction band mobility edge locations, these edge locations demarcating the extended electronic states from their localized counterparts. The dependence of these joint density of states results on a number of key density of states modeling parameters is then determined. Finally, we apply this joint density of states formalism to the specific case of hydrogenated amorphous silicon, and draw conclusions about the optical response of this particular material.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".