MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416395599 · doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.5c04477

Revealing Additional Size-Dependent Defect Suppression Channels Governing Detectivity in InAs Colloidal Quantum Dot Photodiodes

2025· article· en· W4416395599 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Zeiske, Hyeong Woo Ban, Xubiao Li, Bin Deng, Rafael López‐Arteaga, Ubaid H. Kazianga, Moon Gyu Han, Tae‐Gon Kim, Bin Chen, Edward H. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueNano Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicQuantum Dots Synthesis And Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMaterials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversitySamsung Advanced Institute of TechnologyNorthwestern UniversityDivision of Materials ResearchSamsungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQuantum dotPhotodiodeNanocrystalIndium arsenideIndiumPhotoluminescenceIndium phosphideDark current

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indium arsenide (InAs) colloidal quantum dot (CQD) photodiodes combine tunable bandgaps with solution processing, offering a versatile platform for infrared detection. Using high-dynamic-range external quantum efficiency (HDR-EQE) measurements, we probe defect signatures and quantify their impact on performance. Analysis of Urbach tails and Gaussian sub-bandgap states shows that trap densities decrease with increasing nanocrystal size, exceeding predictions from simple surface-to-volume scaling and underscoring the influence of surface chemistry on bandedge disorder. These defect states affect the dark saturation current ( J 0 ), enabling us to estimate their contribution to detectivity and noise. The results connect nanocrystal size, defect population, and device performance, distinguishing intrinsic trap-mediated effects from extrinsic loss channels. We find that while intrinsic defects play a role, today’s InAs CQD photodiodes are primarily limited by contact and interface properties, highlighting these as key targets for further improvement.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNano LettersSame topicQuantum Dots Synthesis And PropertiesFrench-language works237,207