Universal Band Alignment Rule for Perovskite/Organic Heterojunction Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast with the band alignment rule governing conventional semiconductor heterojunctions, the Fermi level position (i.e., work function, ϕ psk ) of the perovskite and the differences in ionization energies of the organics are shown to dictate the band alignment and band offsets at perovskite/organic heterojunction interfaces. The experimental data show that the interface band alignments follow a universal alignment rule with three different energy windows: pinning of unoccupied molecular orbital states (LUMO) to the perovskite Fermi level, band offsets mediated by perovskite work functions, and pinning of occupied molecular orbital states (HOMO) to the perovskite Fermi level. The surface-passivated perovskites and several common native perovskites are all found to follow the same band alignment rule. Data scattering in measured band offsets, however, is observed on the same type of perovskites without proper surface passivation treatment. Solar cells made on the perovskites without surface passivation are also found to exhibit a large dispersive distribution in energy conversion efficiencies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".