Theory of excitonic complexes in gated <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msub> <mml:mi>WSe</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> </mml:msub> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> quantum dots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present here a theory of excitonic complexes in gated ${\text{WSe}}_{\text{2}}$ quantum dots (QDs). The QD gate potential causes type-II band alignment, i.e., electrostatically confines holes and repels electrons, or vice versa. Hence, the confinement of excitons involves a delicate balance of the repulsion of electrons by the gate potential with the attraction by the Coulomb potential of the hole localized in the QD. We present a theory of neutral excitonic complexes within a gated ${\text{WSe}}_{\text{2}}$ QD, considering spin, valley, electronic orbitals, and many-body interactions. We analyze how the electron-hole attraction depends on a range of parameters, such as screened Coulomb interaction, strength of confinement of holes, and repulsion of electrons. Using an atomistic tight-binding model, we compute valence and conduction band states within a computational box comprising over 1 million atoms with applied gate potential. The gate potential is split into a fictitious type-I potential which attracts both the electron and hole and a correction repelling the electron only. The atomistic wave functions are then used to calculate direct and exchange Coulomb matrix elements for a fictitious type-I QD and to obtain a spectrum of interacting electron-hole pairs. Next, the effect of repulsive potential, pulling away the electron from the valence hole, is included in the excitonic basis. This allows us to determine whether electron-hole pairs are sufficiently attracted to overcome electron repulsion by the confinement potential. Finally, we compute the dipole transition between hole and electron states to obtain the absorption spectrum.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".