Equivalent Performance in Three-Terminal and Four-Terminal Tandem Solar Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tandem or multijunction solar cells are a promising method to circumvent the efficiency limit of single-junction solar cells, but there is ongoing debate over how best to interconnect the subcells in a tandem cell. In addition to four-terminal and two-terminal tandem cell architectures, a new three-terminal tandem cell architecture has recently been demonstrated, which features a standard two-terminal (front-back) circuit as well as an interdigitated back contact (IBC) circuit connected to the bottom cell. It has no middle contacts, and thus, maintains some of the simplicity of a two-terminal tandem. In this study, we measure four-terminal GaInP//Si and GaInP/GaAs//Si tandem cells in four-terminal and three-terminal configurations by connecting wires to mimic a three-terminal architecture. We demonstrate that both modes allow the same efficiencies exceeding 30% to be attained. Furthermore, we show that the IBC circuit not only collects excess power from the bottom cell, but that it can inject power into the bottom cell if it is current limiting the front-back circuit, enabling four-terminal performance in monolithic structures, regardless of which cell delivers less current.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".