Photodetachment of Au<sup>−</sup> ion confined in a quantum well
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the single-channel photodetachment dynamics of a non-hydrogenic negative ion confined in a quantum well for the first time. We choose an Au− ion as an example and put forward an analytical formula for the photodetachment cross section using both the quantum mechanical method and the semiclassical closed-orbit theory. It is found that the photodetachment cross section of an Au− ion in a quantum well can be written as a smooth background term multiplied by a modulation factor. The calculation results suggest that multi-periodic oscillatory structures appear in the photodetachment cross section, and the oscillating pattern depends heavily on the position of the ion in the quantum well and the laser light polarization. We compare the results calculated using the quantum mechanical method and the closed-orbit theory, and find good agreement between the two results. The photodetachment cross section formula we put forward is universal, and can be applied to any negative ion with a p-wave photodetachment. On account of its general applicability, our work can provide some guidance for the experimental study of the photodetachment processes of non-hydrogenic negative ions in the presence of a quantum well or a microcavity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".