Enabling High‐Performance Tandem Organic Photovoltaic Cells by Balancing the Front and Rear Subcells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In tandem organic photovoltaics, the front subcell is based on large‐bandgap materials, whereas the case of the rear subcell is more complicated. The rear subcell is generally composed of a narrow‐bandgap acceptor for infrared absorption but a large‐bandgap donor to realize a high open‐circuit voltage. Unfortunately, most of the ultraviolet–visible part of the photons are absorbed by the front subcell; as a result, in the rear subcell, the number of excitons generated on large‐bandgap donors will be reduced significantly. This reduces the (photo) conductivity and finally limits the hole‐transporting property of the rear subcell. In this work, a simple and effective way is proposed to resolve this critical issue. To ensure sufficient photogenerated holes in the rear subcell, a small amount of an infrared‐absorbing polymer donor as a third component is introduced, which provides a second hole‐generation and transporting mechanism to minimize the aforementioned detrimental effects. Finally, the short‐circuit current density of the two‐terminal tandem organic photovoltaic is significantly enhanced from 10.3 to 11.7 mA cm −2 (while retaining the open‐circuit voltage and fill factor) to result in an enhanced power conversion efficiency of 15.1%.
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".