MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979224534

Unveiling competitions between carrier recombination pathways in semiconductors via mechanical damping

2025· article· en· W6979224534 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSilicon and Solar Cell Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecombinationSemiconductorRecombination rateCarrier lifetimeAuger effectCarrier generation and recombinationSpontaneous emissionSemiconductor device
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The total rate of carrier recombination in semiconductors has conventionally been expressed using an additive model, r_total = Σr_i , which rules out the interactions between carrier recombination pathways. Here we challenge this paradigm by demonstrating pathway competitions using our newly developed light-induced mechanical absorption spectroscopy (LIMAS), which allows us to probe genuine recombination dynamics in semiconductors via mechanical damping. We show that the total recombination rate in zinc sulfide (ZnS), a model semiconductor material, follows a multiplicative weighting model, r_total \propto Πr_i ^(w_i) with Σw_i=1. Under both steady-state and switch-on illuminations, the weighting factors w_i for each recombination pathway-direct, trap-assisted, and sublinear-are dictated by the carrier generation mechanism: (i) interband transition favors direct recombination; (ii) single-defect level-mediated generation promotes trap-assisted recombination; (iii) generation involving multiple saturated defect levels gives rise to sublinear recombination. Upon light switch-off, localized state changes drive a dynamic evolution of w_i, altering pathway competitions. These findings reshape our fundamental understanding of carrier dynamics and provide a new strategy to optimize next-generation optoelectronic devices.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicSilicon and Solar Cell TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207