Photocurrent in plasmonic nanofibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a theory of photoresponse and photocurrent in photonic nanofibers. Photonic nanofiber is a compound system doped with an ensemble of quantum dots and metallic nanoparticles, where they interact with each other via the dipole–dipole interaction. The bound states of the confined probe photons in the nanofiber hybrid are calculated using the transfer matrix method based on Maxwell’s equations. It is found that the density of states of photons in the nanofiber depends on the dipole–dipole interaction coupling. The nonradiative decay rate due to dipole–dipole interaction rates is calculated using the quantum mechanical perturbation theory. An analytical expression of the photoresponse coefficient and the photocurrent is calculated using the density matrix method. We predicted that the quenching in photocurrent is due to the dipole–dipole interaction. Furthermore, we have shown that the photoluminescence quenching increases as the strength of the dipole–dipole coupling increases. We also compared our theory with the experimental results of the photocurrent in a nanofiber doped with Al metallic nanoparticle nanodisks and Ge/Si quantum dots. A good agreement between theory and experiment is found. Our analytical expressions can be used by experimentalists to perform new types of experiments and for inventing new types of nanosensors and nanoswitches.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".