Gate-Tunable Rectifiers and Self-Powered Photodetectors Based on TaS <sub>2</sub> /WSe <sub>2</sub> /Bi Asymmetrical Schottky Junction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asymmetrical contact engineering has emerged as an efficient strategy for realizing high-performance Schottky junction-dependent rectifiers and self-powered photodetectors based on two-dimensional (2D) materials, which is of great significance for a new generation of low-power electronic and optoelectronic devices. However, conventional evaporated-metal electrodes frequently induce pronounced Fermi-level pinning at the 2D semiconductor–metal interface, rendering the Schottky barrier height (SBH) insensitive to the metal work-function difference and thereby precluding the deliberate formation of asymmetrical Schottky barriers through metal selection alone. Herein, we report a Schottky junction-based multilayer WSe 2 with asymmetrical Fermi-level pinning-free contacts integrated with metallic 2D van der Waals (vdW)-stacked 2H-TaS 2 and low-melting-point semimetallic Bi electrodes that preserves the metal work-function difference effectively owing to the damage-free and atomic-clean interface, which can function simultaneously as a rectifier and a self-powered photodetector. Employing a high-work-function TaS 2 -contacted electrode helps to facilitate hole-dominated p-type transport, whereas low-work-function Bi forms an almost ideal ohmic n-type contact with an extremely low electron Schottky barrier. Owing to the gate-tunable Fermi level of WSe 2 and SBH, the device exhibits rectifying output characteristics at various gate voltages, and the rectification ratio increases as the voltage rises from 1 × 10 2 to 1 × 10 4 . Moreover, the responsivity of the self-powered photodetector presents 17.86 and 340.7 A/W under gate voltages of −60 and 60 V, respectively, all achieved under zero-bias conditions. The device also enables low dark current and demonstrates exceptional illumination switching reliability, with switching ratios of 1 × 10 4 and 1 × 10 6 at the respective gate voltages. This work presents a novel approach for developing superior-performance rectifiers and energy-efficient, low-power-consuming adaptive photodetectors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".