Fabrication of ultrahigh aspect ratio Si nanopillar and nanocone arrays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High aspect ratio (HAR) structures have many promising applications such as biomedical detection, optical spectroscopy, and material characterization. Bottom-up self-assembly is a low-cost method to fabricate HAR structures, but it remains challenging to control the structure dimension, shape, density, and location. In this paper, an optimized top-down method using a combination of pseudo-Bosch etching and wet isotropic thinning/sharpening is presented to fabricate HAR silicon (Si) nanopillar and nanocone arrays. To achieve these structure profiles, electron beam lithography and reactive ion etching were carried out to fabricate silicon pillars having a nearly vertical sidewall, followed by thinning or sharpening by wet etching with a mixture of hydrofluoric (HF) acid and nitric acid (HNO3). For the dry etching step using the pseudo-Bosch process, the sidewall angle is largely dependent on the SF6/C4F8 gas flow ratio, and it was found that a vertical profile can be attained with a ratio of 22/38. For the wet etching process, a very large HNO3/HF volume ratio is shown to give smooth etching with a slow and controllable etching rate. The final structure profile also depends on the pattern density/array periodicity. When the array period is large, silicon nanopillar is thinned down, and its aspect ratio can reach 1:135 with a sub-100 nm apex. When the pillar array becomes very dense (periodicity much smaller than height), a very sharp nanocone structure is obtained after wet etching with an apex diameter under 20 nm.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".