Superior Noise Suppression, Response Time, and Device Stability of Non‐Fullerene System over Fullerene Counterpart in Organic Photodiode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herein, non‐fullerene acceptor‐based organic photodiodes are compared with fullerene acceptor‐based organic photodiodes. The non‐fullerene acceptor, ethylhexyl‐rhodanine‐benzothiadiazole‐coupled indacenodithiophene ( eh ‐IDTBR)‐based organic photodiodes show a higher detectivity (1.61 × 10 13 cm Hz 1/2 W −1 ) and a faster response time ( ≈ 2.7 µs) than the fullerene acceptor, [6,6]‐phenyl C 71 butyric acid methyl ester (PC 71 BM)‐based organic photodiodes (3.25 × 10 12 cm Hz 1/2 W −1 and ≈ 6.24 µs, respectively) owing to the excellent dark current suppression of the carrier injection and the low trap density of eh ‐IDTBR. Moreover, the eh ‐IDTBR‐based photodetector shows better operational device stability than the fullerene counterpart under electrical and thermal stress. This is corroborated by the morphology and crystallography analyses, both of which reveal that the eh ‐IDTBR‐containing photo‐sensitive films remain intact after imposing an external stress. This study elucidates important key advantages of the non‐fullerene acceptor, eh ‐IDTBR, and sets a milestone as it compares the non‐fullerene acceptors and fullerene acceptors in organic photodiodes for the first time. This work sets a new record for the performance and stability of solution‐processable non‐fullerene acceptor‐based organic photodiodes.
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) | 0.003 | 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".