Potential and limits of superlattice multipliers coupled to different input power sources

A. Apostolakis; M. F. Pereira

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Potential and limits of superlattice multipliers coupled to different input power sources

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Superlattice multipliers driven by compact sources can deliver up to 7 microwatts near 1 terahertz at room temperature.

desk verdict A useful engineering comparison of pump sources for superlattice multipliers, built on the authors' own prior model, but the absolute power predictions depend on unstated coupling and geometry parameters and a shaky dismissal of space-charge domains. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04632 v1 pith:L67A3OHU submitted 2019-08-13 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

A. Apostolakis , M. F. Pereira This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mes-hall

keywords superlatticefrequencymultipliersharmonicgenerationterahertzsourcesinputpowernonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionsBoltzmanntransportequationnegativedifferentialconductivityroom-temperature

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that semiconductor superlattice frequency multipliers, driven by the compact electronic sources available today, can up-convert microwave power into the terahertz range at room temperature. The study compares four input sources—IMPATT diodes, InP Gunn devices, superlattice electron devices (SLEDs), and backward-wave oscillators—through a harmonic-current model built from a Boltzmann equation with relaxation rates supplied by nonequilibrium Green's-function calculations. Its central quantitative result is that a SLED-driven superlattice multiplier can generate measurable power up to about 7 microwatts near 1 THz, with odd harmonics dominating and even harmonics reachable only through structural asymmetry. If the model holds, this points to a practical all-solid-state route into the terahertz gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bessel-function harmonic-current ansatz for the miniband current. It writes each harmonic component $j_l^c$, $j_l^s$ as sums over Bessel functions $J_p(\alpha)$ evaluated at the ac-field control parameter $\alpha=eE_{\mathrm{ac}}d/h\nu$, with the energy $U=u+ph\nu$ entering the Lorentzian functions $Y(U)$ and $K(U)$ that encode the relaxation-rate approximation. The power formula $P_l=(A\mu_0 c L^2/8n_r)I_l^2$ converts those current components into radiated power. The physical mechanism that makes multiplication efficient is that strong ac drive pushes the superlattice into the negative-differential-conductivity region, reached when $\alpha$ exceeds the critical value $\alpha_c=\Gamma/h\nu$, where $\Gamma$ is the scattering rate.

What would settle it

Measure the third-harmonic output at about 749 GHz from a GaAs/AlGaAs superlattice with the paper's parameters (miniband width 140 meV, period 6.23 nm, electron density $1.5\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$, relaxation time 31 fs), driven at 249.6 GHz by a SLED source; the model predicts about 6.8 $\mu$W. If the measured power is much lower, or depends strongly on bias and domain formation, the homogeneous-field assumption is the point that fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes, within its model, that the power a driven superlattice emits at a given harmonic is controlled by the dimensionless field parameter $\alpha = e E_{\mathrm{ac}} d / h\nu$, the energy an electron gains per period compared with the photon energy. For a field $E(t)=E_{\mathrm{dc}}+E_{\mathrm{ac}}\cos(2\pi\nu t)$, the current splits into dc, cosine, and sine harmonic components expressed as Bessel-function series, and the output power $P_l(\alpha,\nu)$ is proportional to $I_l^2=(j_l^c)^2+(j_l^s)^2$. In the unbiased case the antisymmetric current-voltage characteristic emits only odd harmonics; even harmonics appear only when the characteristic is asymmetric, modeled by different peak currents and scattering rates for the two bias directions. Comparing realistic source parameters, the strongest response comes from coupling to superlattice electron devices, with about 6.8 $\mu$W at 749 GHz for the third harmonic and an overall figure of about 7 $\mu$W near 1 THz.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the electron distribution is homogeneous, so the local current-density–field relation is identical to the measured global current-voltage curve; if space-charge domains form under strong alternating drive, that equality fails and the computed harmonic powers would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A superlattice multiplier driven by a SLED oscillator is predicted to deliver roughly 6.8 $\mu$W at 749 GHz in the third harmonic, the strongest response of the source combinations examined.
Odd harmonics (third, fifth, seventh) dominate; the fifth and seventh require larger input powers and produce less output, so the input source should be matched to the maximum of $P_l(\alpha,\nu)$ rather than simply made more powerful.
Even harmonics are much weaker (nanowatt scale) in an unbiased superlattice, but interface-roughness engineering that breaks current symmetry is the route to enhancing them.
Coupling and waveguide losses between source and multiplier, not the multiplier itself, are the main practical bottleneck; reducing them raises the reachable output.
Compact sources (IMPATT, InP Gunn, SLED) can replace bulky tunable backward-wave oscillators for generating 0.3–2.0 THz radiation at room temperature.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the model implies each source–multiplier pair has an optimal operating point, so source designers could target the power and frequency that sit at the maximum of $P_l(\alpha,\nu)$ rather than maximizing raw output.
Editorial inference: because the calculation assumes a spatially homogeneous electron distribution, the 7 $\mu$W figure is probably best read as an optimistic bound; including space-charge domain formation could lower or reshape the harmonic powers, especially at high drive.
Editorial inference: the even-harmonic mechanism suggests a testable design rule—control the interface roughness statistics of the superlattice and measure the even-harmonic conversion efficiency to map how asymmetry translates into nanowatts of output.
Editorial inference: if the predicted powers are reproduced experimentally, the same harmonic-current machinery could be applied to other miniband materials or to cascaded multiplier chains to push further into the terahertz range.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This is a practical comparison paper, not a new physics paper. The authors take the superlattice multiplier model they validated in previous work against BWO experiments and run it for Impatt, Gunn, SLED, and BWO pump sources. The useful output is a set of figures and table-level predictions, with the headline claim that a SLED-driven multiplier can deliver up to 7 μW near 1 THz at room temperature. That number is plausible if the model and parameters are right, and the comparison of source options is a legitimate contribution for the THz engineering community.

What the paper does well: the model is not invented for this paper, and the previous BWO validation gives it some credibility. The even-harmonic extension via asymmetric scattering parameters is a reasonable ansatz, even if it is also borrowed from the authors' own prior work. The paper is honest about the coupling losses between source and multiplier, which is often glossed over.

The soft spots are real. First, the relation between the input source power and the ac field control parameter α is never shown. You can't reproduce the figures without that mapping. Second, Eq. (4) for the output power contains the device area A and path length L, but the paper never gives their values. That turns the absolute power predictions—including the 7 μW headline—into numbers you can't check independently. If this is meant as an engineering guide, these are essential parameters.

Third, and more concerning, the paper dismisses space-charge domain effects with a bad number. It says Γdiel≈4.5 meV > Γ with Γ=21 meV, which is arithmetically impossible. Recomputing from their own expression and parameters gives Γdiel around 7 meV at u=0 and under 1 meV at the NDC minimum—both below Γ. So the inequality is reversed, and the claim that plasma effects are minimal is not supported. Since the maximum output occurs just after α passes α_c, i.e., inside the NDC region, the homogeneous-drive assumption is load-bearing. It might still be okay under strong ac drive because the oscillation frequency is high relative to the domain growth rate, but the paper doesn't make that argument. As written, the domain dismissal is a typo away from being an actual justification.

The math in Eqs. (1)-(4) is standard and the figures are consistent with the stated model. The citation pattern is heavily self-referential, but that's because the model is theirs and was validated elsewhere; not a flaw in itself.

Who gets value: engineers trying to pick a pump source for a room-temperature THz multiplier. They'll get a rough ranking, not a reliable absolute power. That's worth publishing after revision, but the authors should supply the α-to-power mapping, the device area and length, and fix the Γdiel comparison. I'd send it to peer review, with a request for those details.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a theoretical assessment of harmonic generation in semiconductor superlattice (SSL) multipliers driven by four types of input sources: IMPATT diodes, InP Gunn devices, superlattice electron devices (SLEDs), and backward-wave oscillators (BWOs). The transport model combines a Boltzmann relaxation-rate approach with input parameters from nonequilibrium Green's function (NEGF) calculations, leading to a Bessel-function expression for the current response (Eq. (1)) and a Poynting-vector formula for the emitted harmonic power (Eq. (4)). The authors compute third-, fifth-, and seventh-harmonic output powers for each source, reporting a maximum of about 6.8-7 μW near 1 THz for SLED-driven multipliers, and also treat even-harmonic generation via a piecewise asymmetric current-voltage modification in an appendix. The central claim is that SLEDs combined with SSL multipliers offer an efficient room-temperature path to mW-level input conversion, with measurable output at THz frequencies.

Significance. If the quantitative predictions are reliable, the paper provides a useful engineering comparison of candidate input sources for THz-frequency multipliers, and it extends previously validated BWO-based calculations (Ref. 5) to a wider set of sources. The model is a standard Boltzmann-Bessel treatment, and the use of NEGF-derived parameters gives the work a microscopic grounding. However, the absolute power values depend on unspecified device geometry and on an unjustified homogeneous-drive approximation in the strong-field regime. The paper also omits the crucial mapping from input source power to the ac-field parameter α, which is essential for relating the table of source powers to the computed harmonic outputs. These issues mean the central quantitative claims are not yet reproducible or fully robust, although the qualitative ranking of sources may still be informative.

major comments (3)

[Section 2] The dismissal of space-charge domain effects is based on an arithmetically inconsistent comparison. The text states that Γdiel ≈ 4.5 meV > Γ, but the same section quotes Γ = 21 meV. Recomputing with the authors' own expression and parameters (j0 = 2.14×10^9 A/m², d = 6.23 nm, ε = 13) gives Γdiel ≈ 7 meV at u = 0 and ≈ 0.9 meV at the NDC minimum |u| = √3 Γ, both below Γ. Therefore the claimed inequality is reversed, and the homogeneous-distribution assumption (end of Section 2) is not justified in the strong-drive regime (α > α_c) where the maximum 6.8-7 μW outputs are predicted. Because domain formation is itself a harmonic-generation channel and modifies j(t), the central power predictions are not robust under the stated approximation. The authors should either provide a quantitative justification for neglecting domains or explicitly restrict the validity of the predictions to the regime where such justification holds.
[Section 3, Eq. (4)] The output power formula contains two device-specific parameters that are never specified: the contact area A and the effective path length L. While the manuscript lists the miniband width, period, electron density, refractive index, relaxation time, Γ, and j0, it does not provide A or L. Without these values, the absolute powers (e.g., 7 μW at 1 THz) are unreproducible, and the comparisons in Figs. 1-3 are not anchored to a concrete device. Please provide A and L, or state explicitly that all powers are normalized and give the normalization convention.
[Section 2, Eq. (1)] The mapping from the input source power (Table 1) to the dimensionless ac-field parameter α = e E_ac d / ħν is not derived or stated. The harmonic currents in Eq. (1) depend on α through the Bessel functions, and the predicted power values in Figs. 1-3 are functions of α. However, the paper never explains how the quoted input powers (e.g., 330 μW for an InP Gunn device) are converted into the values of α used in the calculations. This omission is load-bearing for the quantitative predictions; without it, the reader cannot verify that the claimed 7 μW output corresponds to the stated input source. Please include the coupling model or explicitly list the α values employed for each source.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (1)] The Bessel functions in the expressions for j_l^c and j_l^s use an undefined variable "a" in Eq. (1); based on the definition of α in the preceding line, this should be α. Please correct the notation throughout.
[Section 2] The text defines Γdiel as a rate but writes it in millielectronvolts (4.5 meV) and compares it to Γ = 21 meV, mixing energy and rate units. Since ħ/Γ is a time, the comparison should be made in consistent units (e.g., both as energies ħΓdiel and Γ, or both as rates).
[Section 3] The manuscript refers to "Table 1" as summarizing the input source parameters, but the table content is not visible in the provided manuscript text. Please ensure the table is included with all numerical entries for each source.
[Appendix] In the appendix, the sentence defining the asymmetric parameters states "the critical energies U_c^+ = Γ+ and U_c^+ = Γ+ respectively." The second equality should presumably be U_c^- = Γ^-; please correct this typo.
[Section 3] The phrase "the maximum possible value which can obtained for the third-harmonic radiation" is grammatically incomplete; also, the transition from the numerical discussion to the qualitative statement about BWO tunability is abrupt and could be better structured.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: harmonic powers follow from experimentally validated model parameters and equations, not from the claimed outputs.

full rationale

No circular step is present in the derivation chain. The harmonic-current formalism in Eqs. (1)-(3) is adopted from Refs. 2 and 5, but those references contain independent experimental validation: the paper states that in Ref. 5 the current response j(t) was calculated with the same formalism and 'accurately compared to experimental data for different input frequencies and power delivered only by a BWO.' The material parameters used here, Gamma = 21 meV and j0 = 2.14 x 10^9 A/m^2, are presented as outputs of NEGF calculations, not as values fitted to the harmonic powers reported in this paper. The odd-harmonic output powers are direct evaluations of Eq. (4) from those parameters and the tabulated input-source powers; no target harmonic power is fed back into the model. The even-harmonic estimates in the Appendix similarly use an asymmetric ansatz whose parameters (Gamma+ = 21 meV, Gamma- = 20 meV, j0+ = 2.14 x 10^9 A/m^2, j0- = 1.94 x 10^9 A/m^2) are stated to come from 'exact NEGF calculations' with 'reasonable agreement with experimental measurements.' Thus the even-harmonic predictions are consequences of an independently supported model, not fits to the 16 nW or 22 nW values. The paper's dielectric-relaxation discussion contains an apparent internal inconsistency: it claims Gamma_diel ~ 4.5 meV > Gamma while the stated Gamma is 21 meV, and this affects the justification of the homogeneous-drive approximation. That is a correctness or consistency concern, not circularity, because the predicted powers do not reduce to that assertion. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations are load-bearing only in the sense that they supply the model and parameters, but they are backed by external experimental comparison, which the review rules treat as genuine independent support.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest mainly on Gamma and j0 from the authors' previous NEGF calculations, plus unstated geometric parameters A and L. The validity of the Boltzmann relaxation-rate model and the homogeneous-field assumption are the key physical premises.

free parameters (6)

Gamma (scattering rate) = 21 meV
Taken from NEGF calculations in Ref. 2; central to the relaxation-rate current response, Eq. (2).
j0 (peak current density) = 2.14e9 A/m^2
Taken from NEGF in Ref. 2; sets the scale of the current and hence the harmonic powers.
A (contact area of device) = not specified
Required by Eq. (4) for output power but not given in the paper.
L (effective path through crystal) = not specified
Required by Eq. (4) for output power but not given in the paper.
Gamma+, Gamma- (asymmetric scattering rates) = 21 meV, 20 meV
Adopted from Refs. 2,5 for the asymmetric current-flow model in the Appendix.
j0+, j0- (asymmetric peak currents) = 2.14e9, 1.94e9 A/m^2
Adopted from Refs. 2,5 for the asymmetric model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Boltzmann equation with relaxation-rate approximation accurately describes miniband transport in the superlattice.
Invoked in Section 2, Eq. (2); basis for the current response. Validated in prior work for BWO, but not for all sources.
domain assumption The electron distribution is homogeneous, so the local field-current relation equals the global current-voltage characteristic.
Stated at end of Section 2; ignores space-charge domain formation under NDC conditions.
ad hoc to paper The ansatz with asymmetric j0 and Gamma (piecewise for U<0 and U>=0) captures the effect of interface roughness on current flow.
Introduced in the Appendix; parameters taken from prior work, not derived here.
domain assumption The criterion alpha > alpha_c = U_c/(h*nu) with U_c = Gamma determines the onset of NDC and Bloch oscillations in a harmonic field.
Used in Section 2; taken from Ref. 41.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential and limits of superlattice multipliers coupled to different input power sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L67A3OHU

@misc{pith2026190804632,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential and limits of superlattice multipliers coupled to different input power sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L67A3OHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04632}
}

read the original abstract

A theoretical study is presented to assess the performance of semiconductor superlattice multipliers as a function of the currently available input power sources. The prime devices which are considered as input power sources are Impatt diodes, InP Gunn devices, superlattice electron devices and Backward Wave Oscillator sources. These sources have been successfully designed to deliver input radiation frequencies in the range from 0.1 to 0.5 THz. We discuss the harmonic power generation of both odd and even harmonics by implementing an ansatz solution stemmed from a hybrid approach combining nonequilibrium Green's functions and the Boltzmann kinetic equation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[1]

Quantum cascade lasers: from tool to product,

M. Razeghi, Q. Y. Lu, N. Bandyopadhyay, W. Zhou, D. Heydari, Y. Bai and S. Slivken, “Quantum cascade lasers: from tool to product,” Opt. Express 23, 8462-8475 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

Theory and Measurements of Harmonic Generation in Semiconductor Superlattices with Applications in the 100 GHz to 1 THz Range,

M. F. Pereira, D. Winge, A. Wacker, J. P. Zubelli, A. S. Rodrigues, V. Anfertev and V. Vaks, “Theory and Measurements of Harmonic Generation in Semiconductor Superlattices with Applications in the 100 GHz to 1 THz Range,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 045306 (2017)

work page 2017
[3]

Semiconductor superlattices: a model system for nonlinear transport,

A. Wacker, “Semiconductor superlattices: a model system for nonlinear transport,” Physics Reports 357, 1-111 (2002)

work page 2002
[4]

TERA-MIR Radiation: Materials, Generation, Detection and Applications II,

M. F. Pereira, “TERA-MIR Radiation: Materials, Generation, Detection and Applications II,” Opt. Quant. Electron. 47, 815-820 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

THz Generation by GHz Multiplication in Superlattices,

M. F. Pereira, V. Anfertev, J. P. Zubelli and V. Vaks, “THz Generation by GHz Multiplication in Superlattices,” J. of Nanophotonics, 11, 046022 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Numerical studies of superlattice multipliers performance,

A. Apostolakis, M. F. Pereira, “Numerical studies of superlattice multipliers performance,” Quantum Sensing and Nano Electronics and Photonics XVI, 109262G (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

Semiconductor -superlattice frequency multiplier for generation of submillimeter waves,

F. Klappenberger, K. F. Renk, P. Renk, B. Rieder, Yu. I. Koshurinov, D. G. Pavel’e v, V. Ustinov, A. Zhukov, N. Maleev and A. Vasilev, “Semiconductor -superlattice frequency multiplier for generation of submillimeter waves,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 3924 (2004)

work page 2004
[8]

Frequency doubling and tripling of terahertz radiation in a GaAs/AlAs superlattice due to frequency modulation of Bloch oscillations,

S. Winnerl, E. Schomburg, S. Brandl, O. Kus, K. F. Renk, M. Wanke, S. Allen, A. Ignatov, V. Ustinov, A. Zhukov and P. Kop’ev, “Frequency doubling and tripling of terahertz radiation in a GaAs/AlAs superlattice due to frequency modulation of Bloch oscillations,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 1762 (2000)

work page 2000

Show all 49 references

[9]

Planar Schottky Diode Frequency Multiplier for Molecular Spectroscopy up to 1.3 THz,

F. Maiwald, F. Lewen, B. Vowinkel, W. Jabs, D. G Pavel’ev, M. Winnerwisser, G. Winnerwisser, “Planar Schottky Diode Frequency Multiplier for Molecular Spectroscopy up to 1.3 THz,” IEEE Microwave Guided Wave Lett., 9, 198-200 (1999). 16

1999
[10]

480 GHz oscillator with an InP Gunn device,

H. Eisele, “480 GHz oscillator with an InP Gunn device,” Electron. Lett. 46, 422 -423 (2010)

2010
[11]

State of the art and future of electronic sources at terahertz frequencies,

H. Eisele , “State of the art and future of electronic sources at terahertz frequencies,” Electron. Lett. 46, 8-11 (2010)

2010
[12]

C.W. oscillation with p+ -p-n+ silicon IMPATT diodes in 200 GHz and 300 GHz bands

M. Ino, T. Ishibashi and M. Ohmori, “C.W. oscillation with p+ -p-n+ silicon IMPATT diodes in 200 GHz and 300 GHz bands”, Electron. Lett. 12 (2010)

2010
[13]

High-performance GaAs/AlAs superlattice electronic devices in oscillators at frequencies 100–320 GHz,

H. Eisele, L. Li and E. H. Linfield, “High-performance GaAs/AlAs superlattice electronic devices in oscillators at frequencies 100–320 GHz,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 172103 (2018)

2018
[14]

Cutting-edge terahertz technology,

M. Tonouchi, “Cutting-edge terahertz technology,” Nat. Photonics 1, 97 (2007)

2007
[15]

Nonlinear effects in periodic semiconductor structures (Frequency multiplication due to nonparabolicity of dispersion law in semiconductor structure)

Yu. A. Romanov, “Nonlinear effects in periodic semiconductor structures (Frequency multiplication due to nonparabolicity of dispersion law in semiconductor structure)”, Opt. Spektrosk. 33, 917 (1972)

1972
[16]

Observation of high -order harmonic generation in a bulk crystal,

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, “Observation of high -order harmonic generation in a bulk crystal,” Nat. Phys. 7, 138 (2011)

2011
[17]

Sub-cycle control of terahertz high-harmonic generation by dynamical Bloch oscillations,

O. Schubert, M. Hohenleutner, F. Langer, B. Urbanek, C. Lange, U. Huttner, D. Golde, T. Meier, M. Kira, S. W. Koch, and R. Huber, “Sub-cycle control of terahertz high-harmonic generation by dynamical Bloch oscillations,” Nature Photon. 8, 119 (2014)

2014
[18]

Coherent Electric-Field Effects in Semiconductors,

H. T. Duc, T. Meier, and S. W. Koch, “Coherent Electric-Field Effects in Semiconductors,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 086606
[19]

Excitonic Bloch oscillations in a terahertz field,

M. M. Dignam, “Excitonic Bloch oscillations in a terahertz field,” Phys. Rev. B, 59 (1999)

1999
[20]

Many -body effects in the gain spectra quantum-wells,

M. F. Pereira, S. W. Koch and W. W. Chow, “Many -body effects in the gain spectra quantum-wells,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 59, 2941-2943 (1991)

1991
[21]

Analytical solutions for semiconductor luminescence including Coulomb with applications to dilute bismides,

C. I. Oriaku and M. F. Pereira, “ Analytical solutions for semiconductor luminescence including Coulomb with applications to dilute bismides,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, 34, 321–328 (2017)

2017
[22]

Analytical Expressions for Numerical Characterization of Semiconductors per Comparison with Luminescence,

M. F. Pereira, “Analytical Expressions for Numerical Characterization of Semiconductors per Comparison with Luminescence,” Materials 11, 1-15 (2018)

2018
[23]

High-density effects, stimulated emission, and electrooptical properties of ZnCdSe/ZnSe single quantum wells and laser diodes,

H. Grempel, A. Diesel, W. Ebeling, J. Gutowski, K. Schüll, B. Jobst, D. Hommel, M. F. Pereira and K. Henneberger, “High-density effects, stimulated emission, and electrooptical properties of ZnCdSe/ZnSe single quantum wells and laser diodes,” Phys. Status Solidi B 194, 199 (1996)

1996
[24]

Theory of nonlinear optical absorption in coupled-band quantum wells with many -body effects,

M. F. Pereira, R. Binder and S. W. Koch, “Theory of nonlinear optical absorption in coupled-band quantum wells with many -body effects,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 64, 279 -281 (1991)

1991
[25]

Microscopic Theory for the Optical Properties of Coulomb-Correlated Semiconductors,

M. F. Pereira and K. Hennebe rger, “Microscopic Theory for the Optical Properties of Coulomb-Correlated Semiconductors,” Phys. Status Solidi B 206, 477-491 (1998)

1998
[26]

Many -body treatment on the modulation response in a strained quantum well semiconductor laser medium,

W. W. Chow, M. F. Pereira and S. W. Koch (1992), “Many -body treatment on the modulation response in a strained quantum well semiconductor laser medium,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 61, 758 (1992). 17

1992
[27]

Optical nonlinearities in strained-layer InGaAs/GaAs multiple quantum wells,

R. Jin, K. Okada, G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, M. F. Pereira and S. W. Koch and N. Peyghambarian, “Optical nonlinearities in strained-layer InGaAs/GaAs multiple quantum wells,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 61, 1745 (1992)

1992
[28]

Gain mechanisms and lasing in II -VI compounds,

M. F. Pereira and K. Henneberger, “Gain mechanisms and lasing in II -VI compounds,” Phys. Status Solidi B 202, 751-762 (1997)

1997
[29]

Analytical expressions for numerical characterization of semiconductors per comparison with luminescence,

M. F. Pereira, “ Analytical expressions for numerical characterization of semiconductors per comparison with luminescence,” Materials 11, 2 (2018)

2018
[30]

Characterization of intersubband devices combining a nonequilibrium many body theory with transmission with transmission spectroscopy experiments,

M. F. Pereira, R. Nelander, A. Wacker, D. G. Revin, M. R. Soulby, L. R. Wilson, J. W. Cockburn, A. B. Krysa, J. S. Roberts and R. J. Airey, “Characterization of intersubband devices combining a nonequilibrium many body theory with transmission with transmission spectroscopy ex...

2007
[31]

Intersubband gain without global in version through dilute nitride band engineering,

M. F. Pereira and S. Tomić, “Intersubband gain without global in version through dilute nitride band engineering,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 061101 (2011)

2011
[32]

Coupling of THz radiation with intervalence band transitions in microcavities,

M. F. Pereira and I. A. Faragai, “Coupling of THz radiation with intervalence band transitions in microcavities,” Opt. Express 22, 3439 (2014)

2014
[33]

Microscopic approach for intersubband -based thermophotovoltaic structures in the terahertz and mid-infrared,

M. F. Pereira, “ Microscopic approach for intersubband -based thermophotovoltaic structures in the terahertz and mid-infrared,” JOSA B 28, 2014-2017 (2011)

2011
[34]

Momentum dependent scattering matrix elements in quantum cascade laser transport. Microelectron,

M. F. Pereira and T. Schmielau “Momentum dependent scattering matrix elements in quantum cascade laser transport. Microelectron,” J. 40, 869-871 (2009)

2009
[35]

Fingerprints of spatial charge transfer in quantum cascade lasers,

R. Nelander R, A. Wacker, M. F. Pereira, D. G. Revin, M. R. Soulby, L. R. Wilson, J. W. Cockburn, A. B. Krysa, J. S. Roberts and R. J. Airey, “Fingerprints of spatial charge transfer in quantum cascade lasers,” Appl. Phys. 102, 11314 (2007)

2007
[36]

The linewidth enhancement factor of intersubband lasers: from a two-level limit to gain without inversion conditions,

M. F. Pereira, “The linewidth enhancement factor of intersubband lasers: from a two-level limit to gain without inversion conditions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 222102 (2016)

2016
[37]

Nonequilibrium many body theory for quantum transport in terahertz quantum cascade lasers,

T. Schmielau and M. F. Pereira, “Nonequilibrium many body theory for quantum transport in terahertz quantum cascade lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 231111 (2009)

2009
[38]

Terahertz sources ,

“Terahertz sources ,” terasense.com, http://terasense.com/products/terahertz-sources/ (accessed 25 April 2019)

2019
[39]

Controlling the harmonic conversion efficiency in semiconductor superlattices by interface roughness design,

A. Apostolakis and M. F. Pereira, “Controlling the harmonic conversion efficiency in semiconductor superlattices by interface roughness design,” AIP Advances 9, 015022 (2019)

2019
[40]

The terminology employed in previous works 41 to described this type of oscillations was Bloch oscillations in a harmonic field (BOHF)
[41]

Bloch oscillations in superlattices: The problem of a terahertz oscillator,

Yu. A. Romanov, Yu.Yu Romanova, “Bloch oscillations in superlattices: The problem of a terahertz oscillator,” Semiconductors, 39 (2005)

2005
[42]

Theory of the Gunn effect,

H. Kroemer, “Theory of the Gunn effect,” Proc. IEEE, 52, 1736 (1964)

1964
[43]

Ultrafast creation and annihilation of space-charge domains in a semicon ductor superlattice observed by use of Terahertz fields,

F. Klappenberger, K. N. Alekseev, K. F. Renk, R. Scheuerer, E. Schomburg, S. J. Allen, G. R. Ramian, J. S. S. Scott, A. Kovsh, V. Ustinov, and A. Zhukov, “Ultrafast creation and annihilation of space-charge domains in a semicon ductor superlattice observed by use of Terahertz ...

2004
[44]

Negative differential conductivity effects in semiconductors,

B.R. Pamplin, “Negative differential conductivity effects in semiconductors,” Contemp. Phys.11, 1 (1970)

1970
[45]

Terahertz Bloch Oscillator with a Modulated Bias,

T. Hyart, N. V. Alexeeva, J. Mattas, and K. N. Alekseev, “Terahertz Bloch Oscillator with a Modulated Bias,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 140405 (2009)

2009
[46]

Application of the genetic algorithm to the optimized design of semimagnetic semiconductor-based spin-filters,

J. Radovanović, V. Milanović, Z. Ikonić and D. Indjin, “Application of the genetic algorithm to the optimized design of semimagnetic semiconductor-based spin-filters,” Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 40, 5066 (2007)

2007
[47]

Optimization of spin-filtering properties in diluted magnetic semiconductor heterostructures,

J. Radovanović, V. Milanović, Z. Ikonić and D. Indjin, “Optimization of spin-filtering properties in diluted magnetic semiconductor heterostructures,” Journal of applied physics 99, 073905 (2006)

2006
[48]

Quantum well shape optimization of continuously graded Al x Ga 1− x N structures by combined supersymmetric and coordinate transform methods,

J. Radovanović, V. Milanović, Z. Ikonić, D. Indjin, “Quantum well shape optimization of continuously graded Al x Ga 1− x N structures by combined supersymmetric and coordinate transform methods,” Physical Review B 69, 115311 (2004)

2004
[49]

Theory of Parametric Amplification in Superlattices,

T. Hyart, A. V. Shorkhov and K. N. Alekseev, “Theory of Parametric Amplification in Superlattices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 220404 (2007). A. Apostolakis received his Ph.D. from the Department of Physics, School of Science, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK in 2017. He is...

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Quantum cascade lasers: from tool to product,

M. Razeghi, Q. Y. Lu, N. Bandyopadhyay, W. Zhou, D. Heydari, Y. Bai and S. Slivken, “Quantum cascade lasers: from tool to product,” Opt. Express 23, 8462-8475 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Theory and Measurements of Harmonic Generation in Semiconductor Superlattices with Applications in the 100 GHz to 1 THz Range,

M. F. Pereira, D. Winge, A. Wacker, J. P. Zubelli, A. S. Rodrigues, V. Anfertev and V. Vaks, “Theory and Measurements of Harmonic Generation in Semiconductor Superlattices with Applications in the 100 GHz to 1 THz Range,” Phys. Rev. B 96, 045306 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Semiconductor superlattices: a model system for nonlinear transport,

A. Wacker, “Semiconductor superlattices: a model system for nonlinear transport,” Physics Reports 357, 1-111 (2002)

work page 2002

[4] [4]

TERA-MIR Radiation: Materials, Generation, Detection and Applications II,

M. F. Pereira, “TERA-MIR Radiation: Materials, Generation, Detection and Applications II,” Opt. Quant. Electron. 47, 815-820 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

THz Generation by GHz Multiplication in Superlattices,

M. F. Pereira, V. Anfertev, J. P. Zubelli and V. Vaks, “THz Generation by GHz Multiplication in Superlattices,” J. of Nanophotonics, 11, 046022 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Numerical studies of superlattice multipliers performance,

A. Apostolakis, M. F. Pereira, “Numerical studies of superlattice multipliers performance,” Quantum Sensing and Nano Electronics and Photonics XVI, 109262G (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

Semiconductor -superlattice frequency multiplier for generation of submillimeter waves,

F. Klappenberger, K. F. Renk, P. Renk, B. Rieder, Yu. I. Koshurinov, D. G. Pavel’e v, V. Ustinov, A. Zhukov, N. Maleev and A. Vasilev, “Semiconductor -superlattice frequency multiplier for generation of submillimeter waves,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 3924 (2004)

work page 2004

[8] [8]

Frequency doubling and tripling of terahertz radiation in a GaAs/AlAs superlattice due to frequency modulation of Bloch oscillations,

S. Winnerl, E. Schomburg, S. Brandl, O. Kus, K. F. Renk, M. Wanke, S. Allen, A. Ignatov, V. Ustinov, A. Zhukov and P. Kop’ev, “Frequency doubling and tripling of terahertz radiation in a GaAs/AlAs superlattice due to frequency modulation of Bloch oscillations,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 77, 1762 (2000)

work page 2000