Modeling intermediate band solar cells: a roadmap to high efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermediate band (IB) photovoltaics have the potential to be highly efficient and cost effective solar cells. When the IB concept was proposed in 1997, there were no known intermediate band materials. In recent years, great progress has been made in developing materials with intermediate bands, though power conversion efficiencies have remained low. To understand the material requirements to increase IB device efficiencies, we must develop good models for their behavior under bias and illumination. To evaluate potential IB materials, we present a figure of merit, consisting of parameters that can be measured without solar cell fabrication. We present a new model for IB devices, including the behavior of their junctions with n- and p-type semiconductors. Using a depletion approximation, we present analytic approximations for the boundary conditions of the minority carrier diffusion equations. We compare the analytic results to Synopsys Sentaurus device models. We use this model to find the optimal thickness of the IB region based on material parameters. For sufficiently poor IB materials, the optimal thickness is zero – i.e., the device is more efficient without the IB material at all. We show the minimum value of the figure of merit required for an IB to improve the efficiency of a device, providing a clear goal for the quality of future IB materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".