Comparative analysis of electric potential in p-GaN/InGaN/n-GaN nanowire LEDs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in the development of deep ultraviolet, light emitting diodes (LEDs) have been reported for nanowire (NW) device geometries composed of nitride semiconductors. Typically, these involve arrays of NWs where the level of variation in the electrical and optical properties of individual NW LEDs is unknown. In this work, the electric potential distributions in axial p-GaN/InGaN/n-GaN NW LEDs grown by plasma-assisted molecular beam epitaxy are investigated using electron holography (EH). Two kinds of NWs are observed to grow simultaneously on the same substrate. One type exhibits a long, thin morphology and a varying diameter, while the other has a short, wide morphology with a uniform diameter. Although the bottom p-GaN and InGaN regions have similar lengths in both types, the top n-GaN region are five times longer in the first type. Photoluminescence spectra from arrays, show an InGaN emission peak ranging from 2.55 eV to 2.65 eV, which indicates an average In composition of 20 ± 3 percent. This is consistent with energy dispersive x-ray maps from individual NWs of both types, which reveal a core/shell InGaN/GaN structure with similar composition. However, the EH potential maps reveal a built-in junction voltage of approximately 3 V in the long, thin NWs, while the short NWs exhibit a drastic reduction, with a junction voltage of only 0.6 V. The difference is primarily attributed to the length of the short wire n-doped segment being too short to reach the flat potential of a complete p-n junction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".