Excitons in nonlinear optical responses: shift current in MoS2 and GeS monolayers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well-known that exciton effects are determinant to understanding the optical absorption spectrum of low-dimensional materials. However, the role of excitons in nonlinear optical responses has been much less investigated at the experimental level. Additionally, computational methods to calculate nonlinear conductivities in real materials are still not widespread, particularly taking into account excitonic interactions. We present a methodology to calculate the excitonic second-order optical responses in 2D materials relying on: (i) ab initio tight-binding Hamiltonians obtained by Wannier interpolation and (ii) solving the Bethe-Salpeter equation with effective electron-hole interactions. Here, in particular, we explore the role of excitons in the shift current of monolayer materials. Focusing on MoS 2 and GeS monolayer systems, our results show that 2 p -like excitons, which are dark in the linear response regime, yield a contribution to the photocurrent comparable to that of 1 s -like excitons. Under radiation with intensity ~10 4 W/cm 2 , the excitonic theory predicts in-gap photogalvanic currents of almost ~10 nA in sufficiently clean samples, which is typically one order of magnitude higher than the value predicted by independent-particle theory near the band edge.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".