Differences in Electron and Hole Injection and Auger Recombination between Red, Green, and Blue CdSe-Based Quantum Dot Light Emitting Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the significant progress that has been made in recent years in improving the performance of quantum dot light-emitting devices (QLEDs), the effect of charge imbalance and excess carriers on excitons in red (R) vs green (G) vs blue (B) QLEDs has not been compared or systematically studied. In this work we study the effect of changing the electron (e)/hole (h) supply ratio in the QDs emissive layer (EML) in CdSe-based R-, G-, and B-QLEDs with inverted structure in order to identify the type of excess carriers and investigate their effect on the electroluminescence performance of QLEDs of each color. Results show that in R-QLEDs, the e/h ratio in the EML is >1, whereas in G- and B-QLEDs, the e/h ratio is <1 with charge balance conditions being significantly worse in the case of B-QLEDs. Transient photoluminescence (PL) and steady state PL measurements show that, compared to electrons, holes lead to a stronger Auger quenching effect. Transient electroluminescence (TrEL) results indicate that Auger quenching leads to a gradual decline in the EL performance of the QLEDs after a few microseconds, with a stronger effect observed for positive charging versus negative charging. The results provide insights into the differences in the efficiency behavior of R-, G-, and B-QLEDs and uncover the role of excess holes and poor charge balance in the lower efficiency and EL stability of B-QLEDs.
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 | 0.000 | 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".