MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415743473 · doi:10.1109/jphot.2025.3627564

Impact of Ge Substrate Thicknesses and Epitaxy Growth Conditions on the Optical and Material Properties of Ge- and GaAs-Based VCSELs

2025· article· en· W4415743473 on OpenAlexafffund
Zeyu Wan, Yun-Cheng Yang, Chao‐Hsin Wu, Yiwen Zhang, Rui‐Tao Wen, Guangrui Xia

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE photonics journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor Lasers and Optical Devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsEpitaxySubstrate (aquarium)LaserDislocationQuantum wellGallium arsenideSemiconductor laser theorySapphire

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparative study is presented on the dependence of optical and material properties of VCSELs on Ge and GaAs substrate thicknesses as well as epitaxy process conditions. It was found that adjusting the Ge substrate thickness and optimizing the epitaxy process can shift the stopband center and cavity resonance wavelength by several nanometers. Ge-based VCSELs exhibit improved epitaxial uniformity, smaller deviations from design specifications, reduced stoichiometry variations, and strain magnitudes comparable to those of GaAs-based counterparts. In the selected 46.92 <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$\mu$</tex-math></inline-formula>m<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup> sample area, no defects were observed in the quantum well (QW) regions of Ge-based VCSELs, and the threading dislocation density (TDD) was measured to be below 2.13×106 cm<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">-2</sup>. These results highlight the potential of Ge substrates as promising candidates for advanced VCSELs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE photonics journalSame topicSemiconductor Lasers and Optical DevicesFrench-language works237,207