Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Electroluminescence in n-type GaAs unipolar nanoLEDs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First room-temperature light from n-type-only GaAs nanoLEDs

desk verdict A credible first demonstration of room-temperature EL from sub-micrometer n-i-n GaAs nanopillars, but the IQE>2% headline rests on an arithmetic error and a model-dependent estimate; the qualitative result deserves review, the efficiency number needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10142 v1 pith:D2CXKWWM submitted 2025-01-17 physics.app-ph cs.ETphysics.optics

Bejoys Jacob , João Azevedo , Jana B. Nieder , Bruno Romeira This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcs.ETphysics.optics PACS 78.60.Fi85.60.Jb
keywords n-i-nunipolarnanoLEDGaAselectroluminescencedouble-barrierquantumwellimpactionizationZenertunnelingtime-resolvedinternalefficiencynanopillararray
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 reports the first room-temperature electroluminescence from sub-micrometer n-i-n unipolar GaAs light-emitting diodes, devices that contain no p-type doping at all. The emitters are arrays of nanopillars with top diameters as small as 166 nm, and they shine at the GaAs band-edge wavelength of about 866 nm. Time-resolved electroluminescence shows decay lifetimes above 300 ps, and the authors estimate an internal quantum efficiency above 2% at sub-mA injection, rising toward 6% at higher injection. If correct, the result shows that the p-type layer long thought necessary for III-V light emitters can be replaced by hole generation through impact ionization and Zener tunneling inside a double-barrier quantum well, opening a simpler path to nanoscale light sources.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the AlAs/GaAs/AlAs double-barrier quantum well embedded in the n-i-n diode, which under bias generates minority holes through impact ionization and Zener (interband) tunneling. Around it, the argument uses the relation $\tau^{-1}\approx 4S/d_a$ to convert measured differential carrier lifetimes into a surface recombination velocity $S\approx 2\times10^4$ cm/s, and then inserts this $S$ as the linear coefficient $A=4S/d_a$ in the ABC recombination model $\eta_r = BN_d/(A+BN_d+CN_d^2)$ to estimate internal quantum efficiency. The claimed performance therefore rests on combining a passivation mechanism that keeps $S$ low in nanoscale pillars with a hole-generation mechanism that does not require p-type doping.

What would settle it

Measure the differential carrier lifetime for a series of pillar diameters under identical bias and check whether $\tau^{-1}$ scales linearly with $1/d_a$ with a constant surface velocity; alternatively, collect the emitted light with an integrating sphere and count photons to obtain an absolute external quantum efficiency. If the lifetime does not follow the $4S/d_a$ scaling, or if the absolute photon count implies an efficiency far below the estimated IQE after accounting for extraction, the central efficiency claim would be unsupported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a purely n-type (electron-transporting) n-i-n GaAs diode can emit light at room temperature when shaped into a nanopillar array. Holes are not supplied by doping; they are created inside the device by impact ionization and Zener tunneling in the high electric field of an AlAs/GaAs/AlAs double-barrier quantum well, then recombine radiatively with electrons in the n-doped GaAs emitter near the band edge, producing the observed 866 nm peak. The paper reports differential carrier lifetimes above 300 ps for 166 nm top-diameter pillars, only 2.8-fold shorter than for 6 µm unipolar microLEDs from the same epilayer design, and attributes the relatively long lifetime to sulfur chemical treatment plus a 10 nm Si$_3$N$_4$ coating that suppresses surface recombination. From these lifetimes the authors estimate an internal quantum efficiency of about 2% at low injection and up to 6% before Auger saturation, with a very small external quantum efficiency below $10^{-5}$ dominated by light blocked by the metal contact coating.

Load-bearing premise

The efficiency estimate assumes that the measured carrier lifetime at low injection is set entirely by surface recombination, through $\tau^{-1}\approx 4S/d_a$, with no separate radiative or Auger contribution, and the same surface velocity is then used as the linear coefficient in the ABC model, so the reported IQE is a model-dependent recasting of that lifetime rather than an independent measurement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, nanoscale III-V emitters no longer require p-type doping, removing a source of series resistance, optical absorption, and fabrication complexity.
  • The n-i-n architecture with a double-barrier quantum well could be transferred to other III-V materials such as InP, extending unipolar emission across visible and infrared wavelengths.
  • Sub-300 ps lifetimes imply the devices can be modulated at gigahertz rates, making them candidates for fast nanoscale light sources.
  • The measured lifetimes indicate that sulfur-plus-Si$_3$N$_4$ passivation keeps surface recombination low even for pillars with high surface-to-volume ratio, a result that would apply to other etched nanostructures.
  • With improved carrier injection efficiency and transparent contacts, the paper projects internal quantum efficiency could exceed 15% and external efficiency could rise well above the current $10^{-5}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The IQE figure is essentially an interpretation of the measured lifetime under the assumption that surface recombination dominates at low injection; a direct photon-counting measurement of the external quantum efficiency would test whether the internal efficiency is really as high as 2-6%.
  • The disappearance of the 806 nm quantum-well emission in pillars below 1 µm suggests that shrinking the device diverts current away from coherent resonant-tunneling pathways; this could be exploited or countered by engineering the barrier to favor resonant injection.
  • If the 2.8-fold lifetime penalty between micro- and nanopillars is mostly due to surface effects, even better passivation or core-shell designs could bring nanoscale unipolar devices close to the efficiency of their micron-scale counterparts.
  • The large gap between internal (2-6%) and external ($<10^{-5}$) efficiency is dominated by the metal contact blocking emission, so switching to transparent contacts or optimizing the angled deposition could yield orders-of-magnitude improvements in usable light output without changing the emitter physics.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports room-temperature electroluminescence (EL) at approximately 866 nm from sub-micrometer n-i-n unipolar GaAs nanopillar LED arrays with a top pillar diameter of 166 nm. The devices show diode-like I-V characteristics, a nonlinear L-I curve, and time-resolved EL decay lifetimes larger than 300 ps. The authors attribute hole generation to impact ionization and Zener tunneling in an AlAs/GaAs/AlAs double-barrier quantum well, and they estimate an internal quantum efficiency (IQE) higher than 2% at sub-mA injection using an ABC recombination model with parameters taken from prior work and an assumed injection efficiency.

Significance. If the quantitative efficiency estimate were reliable, the demonstration of room-temperature EL in an n-type-only GaAs nanoLED would represent a genuinely new class of nanoscale emitters without p-type doping, potentially mitigating contact resistance and optical absorption losses. The qualitative observation is well supported: the EL peak at 866 nm is consistent with the GaAs band-edge transition, the spectral comparison across pillar sizes (Supplementary Figs. S1 and S4) is informative, and the surface recombination velocity estimate is usefully compared with an independent PL-based benchmark (S = 1.1 x 10^4 cm/s from [18]). However, the headline IQE claim is not independently established; it is a model-dependent recasting of the lifetime measurement with assumed parameters, and it contains a numerical inconsistency. The qualitative room-temperature EL demonstration is not endangered, but the efficiency number needs substantial revision or re-framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Surface recombination velocity and IQE (main text) and Supplement Eq. (E.2)] The stated value A = 3.34 x 10^9 s^-1 is inconsistent with the given S = 2.08 x 10^4 cm/s and da = 490 nm, since 4S/da = 4*(2.08 x 10^4 cm/s)/(4.90 x 10^-5 cm) = 1.70 x 10^9 s^-1. Recomputing Eq. (E.2) with A = 1.70 x 10^9 s^-1, B = 1.8 x 10^-10 cm^3/s, C = 3.5 x 10^-30 cm^6/s, and eta_i = 0.11 gives IQE values from approximately 0.2% at Nd = 2 x 10^17 cm^-3 to 2.3% at Nd = 2 x 10^18 cm^-3; the claim of 'IQE >2% at sub-mA' is therefore not supported across the stated carrier-density range. The authors should correct the arithmetic and re-evaluate the quantitative conclusion.
  2. [Surface recombination velocity and IQE (main text) and Supplement Eqs. (E.1) and (E.2)] The IQE estimate is partly circular: the surface recombination velocity S is extracted from the measured differential lifetime via tau^-1 ~ 4S/da, and the same 4S/da is then used to set the A coefficient in the ABC model. As a result, the IQE is a recasting of the lifetime measurement with literature values for B and C, not an independent determination. Moreover, the assumption that surface recombination dominates at low injection, used to extract S, is in tension with the derived radiative efficiencies: for the IQE to reach 2% with eta_i = 0.11 requires eta_r ~ 18%, which from Eq. (E.2) implies B*Nd is not negligible compared with A at the upper end of the assumed Nd range. Please state this limitation explicitly or support the IQE with an independent S measurement.
  3. [Surface recombination velocity and IQE (main text)] The IQE calculation relies on assumed values of eta_i = 0.11 (taken from micro-sized devices [15]) and an assumed donor density range Nd = 2 x 10^17 - 2 x 10^18 cm^-3, with no direct measurement of the carrier density under electrical operation. Since the IQE varies by roughly an order of magnitude across this assumed Nd range, the claimed 'IQE >2%' is not robust. The authors should provide an experimental constraint on Nd (for example, from geometry and injection current density or from capacitance measurements) or present the IQE as a sensitive range with the assumed parameters explicitly identified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Time-resolved electroluminescence] The sentence 'TREL measurements were used to estimate the differential carrier lifetimes of the EL of the unipolar microLEDs' should refer to the nanoLEDs, since the measurements presented in Fig. 4 are on the nanopillar arrays.
  2. [Fig. 4 and Supplement Eq. (E.1)] The manuscript reports only fitted lifetime values without showing the raw TREL histograms or the mono-exponential fits; including representative decay traces with residuals would allow the reader to assess the quality of the fit.
  3. [Introduction and Fig. 1 caption] The text contains typographical errors: 'Zenner tunneling' should read 'Zener tunneling', and 'simplifing' should be 'simplifying'.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement indicates that data may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request; depositing the raw EL spectra and time-resolved decay histograms in a public repository would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The room-temperature EL observation is direct and self-contained, but the IQE >2% headline is a model estimate whose A coefficient is fixed by the same measured lifetime, making the efficiency claim partially circular; the assumed injection efficiency also comes from the authors' prior work.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Surface recombination velocity and internal quantum efficiency (IQE)' and Supplement 1, Eq. (E.1)-(E.2)]
    "We assume that under the low excitation conditions employed in the experiments of Fig 4, the surface-related non-radiative recombination rate scales as 4S/da, so that S can be estimated directly from the size -dependent (diameter of the active region, da) carrier lifetime in the low injection regime . Applying τ–1≈ 4S/da to the result s in Fig. 4, the calculated surface velocity recombination for the nanoLED ranges from 2.08 × 104 to 1.99 × 104 cm s–1."

    The IQE is computed from Supplement Eq. (E.2), ηr = B Nd/(A + B Nd + C Nd^2), with A = 4S/da stated in the supplement. Since S was itself derived from the measured low-injection differential lifetime τ via τ^-1 ≈ 4S/da, the reported IQE is algebraically a recasting of the same lifetime measurement with literature constants B and C and an assumed ηi. It is therefore not an independent output that could validate the assumption that radiative and Auger recombination are negligible at the operating point. Additionally, the quoted A = 3.34×10^9 s^-1 is arithmetically inconsistent with S = 2.08×10^4 cm/s and da = 490 nm, which give about 1.70×10^9 s^-1, so the numerical IQE is not even a consistent transformation of its stated inputs.

  2. self citation load bearing [Surface recombination velocity and internal quantum efficiency (IQE) section, Fig. 5 discussion]
    "In Fig. 5, we sho w the results assuming a low injection efficiency value of ηI=0.11, typical of GaAs -based unipolar micro-sized devices reported so far [15]."

    The quantitative claim 'IQE higher than 2%' scales linearly with ηi, and the adopted ηi = 0.11 is taken from the authors' own prior Optica paper [15] rather than measured or independently derived in this work. The headline efficiency therefore depends on a self-citation for its proportionality constant; if ηi were lower, or if the prior estimate were itself model-dependent, the stated IQE would not follow. This is load-bearing for the numerical efficiency claim, even though the raw EL observation is independent.

full rationale

The raw observation of room-temperature electroluminescence at ~866 nm from n-i-n GaAs nanoLEDs is an experimentally self-contained result and is not circular. The quantitative IQE estimate, however, is partially circular: S is obtained from the measured differential lifetime through τ^-1 ≈ 4S/da, and the same S enters the ABC-model coefficient A = 4S/da used in Eq. (E.2), so the 'IQE >2%' value largely repackages the lifetime measurement with literature constants and an assumed injection efficiency. The comparison to the independently measured S ≈ 1.1×10^4 cm/s in [18] provides some external grounding for the surface recombination magnitude, but [18] is from the same group and does not validate the radiative and Auger assumptions at the operating point. There is also an internal arithmetic inconsistency: A = 3.34×10^9 s^-1 does not follow from S = 2.08×10^4 cm/s and da = 490 nm, which yield about 1.70×10^9 s^-1. The central demonstration of electroluminescence stands, but the quantitative efficiency claim reduces by construction to the lifetime input plus assumed model constants, yielding a partial circularity score of 6.

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

The central experimental observation does not depend on free parameters, but the IQE and EQE estimates do. The efficiency numbers rely on several assumed or model-derived parameters, most notably eta_i, Nd, S, and da, with no error propagation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • injection efficiency eta_i = 0.11 (assumed from Ref. [15])
    Used to convert radiative efficiency eta_r into IQE = eta_i * eta_r; assumed typical for GaAs unipolar microdevices, not measured in this work.
  • carrier density Nd = 2e17 to 2e18 cm^-3 (low injection), 2e19 cm^-3 (high injection)
    Assumed to equal the n-type doping in the emitter; IQE is highly sensitive to this choice.
  • surface recombination velocity S = 2.08e4 cm/s
    Extracted from the measured differential lifetime using tau^-1 ~ 4S/da; not an independent measurement.
  • active diameter da = 490 nm
    Estimated from cone angle and height (da = dtop + 2H tan(theta_c)); enters A = 4S/da.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The differential carrier lifetime measured by TREL equals the total recombination lifetime, so tau^-1 ~ 4S/da isolates surface recombination.
    Used in the S and IQE calculation; neglects contributions from radiative and Auger recombination at the low-injection operating point, which are then included in the IQE formula. This creates an internal inconsistency in the ABC model treatment.
  • domain assumption The ABC recombination model with constant A, B, C describes the device, with A = 4S/da and B, C taken from literature.
    Invoked in Supplement Eq. (E.2) to compute IQE; the model assumes uniform carrier density and ignores carrier spillover.
  • domain assumption The observed 866 nm EL arises from radiative recombination in the n-GaAs emitter electrons with minority holes generated by impact ionization and Zener tunneling.
    The band diagram in Fig. 1(b) and spectral attribution to the GaAs band edge are arguments, not direct measurements of the hole population.
  • domain assumption The PL-based extraction efficiency measured on uncoated pillars transfers to electrically pumped metal-coated pillars via the gamma correction factor.
    Used for EQE estimation; the metal coating changes the optical environment, and the worst-case gamma=1/47 is an approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electroluminescence in n-type GaAs unipolar nanoLEDs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2CXKWWM

@misc{pith2026250110142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electroluminescence in n-type GaAs unipolar nanoLEDs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2CXKWWM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10142}
}
read the original abstract

In this Letter, we report the observation of electroluminescence (EL) at around 866 nm from n-i-n unipolar (electron-transporting) III-V GaAs nanoLEDs. The devices consist of nanopillars with top diameter of 166 nm, arranged in a 10x10 pillar array. Hole generation through impact ionization and Zener tunnelling is achieved by incorporating an AlAs/GaAs/AlAs double-barrier quantum well within the epilayer structure of the n-i-n diode. Time-resolved EL measurements reveal decay lifetimes larger than 300 ps, allowing us to estimate an internal quantum efficiency (IQE) higher than 2 per cent at sub-mA current injection. These results demonstrate the potential for a new class of n-type nanoscale light-emitting devices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10142 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of 10×10 nanopillar array LED. Theinset shows the 𝑛-𝑖-𝑛 III-V epilayer stack design considered for this study, which includes an AlAs/GaAs/AlAs double-barrier quantum well (DBQW) region. (b) The energy conductionband(CB) and the valence band (VB) diagram under applied voltage, showing: electron (e) and hole (h) carrier transport, hole generation via I. impact ionization and II. Zener tunneling, the dep… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of a fabricated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. , the carrier differential lifetime for low injection conditions is ~300 ps. The sub-ns value indicates that the non￾radiative recombination are dominant, specifically surface recombination, due to the high surface-to-volume ratio of the nanopillars fabricated. However, we notice the 300 ps value is only 2.8-fold shorter than the lifetimes measured in unipolar microLEDs under low injection conditions (~821 ps for a … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Calculated internal quantum efficiency (IQE) for the characterized unipolar nanoLED (blue continuous line) and the example of an unipolar microLED[15](browncircles continuous line). (b) Calculated IQE assuming optimized unipolar nanoLED with improved injection effi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [18]

    Surface Passivation of III –V GaAs Nanopillars by Low-Frequency Plasma Deposition of Silicon Nitride for Active Nanophotonic Devices,

    B. Jacob, F. Camarneiro, J. Borme, O. Bondarchuk, J. B. Nieder, and B. Romeira, “Surface Passivation of III –V GaAs Nanopillars by Low-Frequency Plasma Deposition of Silicon Nitride for Active Nanophotonic Devices,” ACS Appl. Electron. Mater., vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 3399–3410, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1021/acsaelm.2c00195

    work page doi:10.1021/acsaelm.2c00195 2022

  2. [15]

    Room-temperature electroluminescence and light detection from III-V unipolar microLEDs without p-type doping,

    B. Jacob, F. Camarneiro, J. Borme, J. M. L. Figueiredo, J. B. Nieder, and B. Romeira, “Room-temperature electroluminescence and light detection from III-V unipolar microLEDs without p-type doping,” Optica, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 528 –537, Apr. 2023, doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.476938

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.476938 2023

  3. [1]

    Ultralow-threshold electrically pumped quantum - dot photonic-crystal nanocavity laser,

    B. Ellis et al., “Ultralow-threshold electrically pumped quantum - dot photonic-crystal nanocavity laser,” Nat. Photon., vol. 5, no. 5, p. 297, May 2011, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2011.51

    work page doi:10.1038/nphoton.2011.51 2011

  4. [2]

    Hybrid indium phosphide-on-silicon nanolaser diode,

    G. Crosnier et al., “Hybrid indium phosphide-on-silicon nanolaser diode,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 11, p. 297, Mar. 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [3]

    Waveguide -coupled nanopillar metal-cavity light-emitting diodes on silicon,

    V. Dolores -Calzadilla et al. , “Waveguide -coupled nanopillar metal-cavity light-emitting diodes on silicon,” Nat. Commun., vol. 8, p. 14323, Feb. 2017, doi: 10.1038/ncomms14323

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms14323 2017

  6. [4]

    Ultrafast direct modulation of a single -mode photonic crystal nanocavity light -emitting diode,

    G. Shambat et al., “Ultrafast direct modulation of a single -mode photonic crystal nanocavity light -emitting diode,” Nat. Commun. 2011 21 , vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1 –6, Nov. 2011, doi: 10.1038/ncomms1543

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms1543 2011

  7. [5]

    Electrically driven subwavelength optical nanocircuits,

    K. C. Y. Huang, M.-K. Seo, T. Sarmiento, Y. Huo, J. S. Harris, and M. L. Brongersma, “Electrically driven subwavelength optical nanocircuits,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 8, p. 244, Feb. 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [6]

    Lasing action in low-resistance nanolasers based on tunnel junctions,

    C.-Y. Fang et al., “Lasing action in low-resistance nanolasers based on tunnel junctions,” Opt. Lett., vol. 44, no. 15, pp. 3669 –3672, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1364/OL.44.003669

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.44.003669 2019

Show all 26 references
  1. [7]

    The Effect of the Carrier Drift Velocity Saturation in High-Power Semiconductor Lasers at Ultrahigh Drive Currents,

    O. S. Soboleva, V. V Zolotarev, V. S. Golovin, S. O. Slipchenko, and N. A. Pikhtin, “The Effect of the Carrier Drift Velocity Saturation in High-Power Semiconductor Lasers at Ultrahigh Drive Currents,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices , vol. 67, no. 11, pp. 4977–4982, 2020, doi: 1...

    2020

  2. [8]

    A Unipolar Quantum Dot Diode Structure for Advanced Quantum Light Sources,

    T. Strobel et al., “A Unipolar Quantum Dot Diode Structure for Advanced Quantum Light Sources,” Nano Lett., vol. 23, no. 14, pp. 6574–6580, Jul. 2023, doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c01658

    2023 doi

  3. [9]

    Quantum Cascade Laser,

    J. Faist, F. Capasso, D. L. Sivco, C. Sirtori, A. L. Hutchinson, and A. Y. Cho, “Quantum Cascade Laser,” Science, vol. 264, no. 5158, pp. 553–556, 1994, doi: 10.1126/science.264.5158.553

    1994 doi

  4. [10]

    Near -UV electroluminescence in unipolar - doped, bipolar -tunneling GaN/AlN heterostructures,

    T. A. Growden, W. Zhang, E. R. Brown, D. F. Storm, D. J. Meyer, and P. R. Berger, “Near -UV electroluminescence in unipolar - doped, bipolar -tunneling GaN/AlN heterostructures,” Light Sci. &Amp; Appl., vol. 7, p. 17150, Mar. 2018

    2018

  5. [11]

    Electroluminescence on-off ratio control of n-i-n GaAs/AlGaAs-based resonant tunneling structures,

    E. R. de Oliveira et al., “Electroluminescence on-off ratio control of n-i-n GaAs/AlGaAs-based resonant tunneling structures,” Phys. Rev. B , vol. 98, no. 7, p. 75302, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.98.075302

    2018 doi

  6. [12]

    Electroluminescence and impact ionization phenomena in a double‐barrier resonant tunneling structure,

    C. R. H. White, M. S. Skolnick, L. Eaves, and M. L. Leadbeater, “Electroluminescence and impact ionization phenomena in a double‐barrier resonant tunneling structure,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 58, no. 11, pp. 1164–1166, 1991, doi: 10.1063/1.104352

    1991 doi

  7. [13]

    Determination of Carrier Density and Dynamics via Magnetoelectroluminescence Spectroscopy in Resonant-Tunneling Diodes,

    E. R. de Oliveira et al. , “Determination of Carrier Density and Dynamics via Magnetoelectroluminescence Spectroscopy in Resonant-Tunneling Diodes,” Phys. Rev. Appl. , vol. 15, no. 1, p. 14042, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.15.014042

    2021 doi

  8. [14]

    High efficiency submicron light‐emitting resonant tunneling diodes,

    H. Buhmann, L. Mansouri, J. Wang, P. H. Beton, L. Eaves, and M. Henini, “High efficiency submicron light‐emitting resonant tunneling diodes,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 65, no. 26, pp. 3332–3334, 1994, doi: 10.1063/1.112383

    1994 doi

  9. [16]

    Electroluminescence in Unipolar -Doped In0.53Ga0.47As/AlAs Resonant -Tunneling Diodes: A Competition between Interband Tunneling and Impact Ionization,

    E. R. Brown, W.-D. Zhang, T. A. Growden, P. Fakhimi, and P. R. Berger, “Electroluminescence in Unipolar -Doped In0.53Ga0.47As/AlAs Resonant -Tunneling Diodes: A Competition between Interband Tunneling and Impact Ionization,” Phys. Rev. Appl. , vol. 16, no. 5, p. 54008, Nov. 20...

    2021 doi

  10. [17]

    Electroluminescence from GaAs/AlGaAs Heterostructures in Strong in-Plane Electric Fields: Evidence for k- and Real-Space Charge Transfer,

    W. Gao et al. , “Electroluminescence from GaAs/AlGaAs Heterostructures in Strong in-Plane Electric Fields: Evidence for k- and Real-Space Charge Transfer,” ACS Photonics, vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 1155–1159, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.5b00212

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    Nitride Surface Passivation of GaAs Nanowires: Impact on Surface State Density,

    P. A. Alekseev et al. , “Nitride Surface Passivation of GaAs Nanowires: Impact on Surface State Density,” Nano Lett., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 63–68, 2015, doi: 10.1021/nl502909k. Supplement 1. Fig. S1. Electroluminescence (EL) spectra comparison between unipolar nanoLED arrays of ...

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    The parameter A is given by: 𝑨 = 𝟒𝑺 𝒅𝒂 , where S is the surface recombination velocity, and da is the diameter of the active emitting region of the nanopillar

    (E.2) where B is the bimolecular recombination coefficient, C is the Auger recombination coefficient, and Nd is the local carrier density of donors. The parameter A is given by: 𝑨 = 𝟒𝑺 𝒅𝒂 , where S is the surface recombination velocity, and da is the diameter of the active emi...

  13. [21]

    Jacob, F

    B. Jacob, F. Camarneiro, J. Borme, J. M. L. Figueiredo, J. B. Nieder, and B. Romeira, Optica 10, 528 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Romeira, J

    B. Romeira, J. Borme, H. Fonseca, J. Gaspar, and J. B. Nieder, Opt. Express 28, 32302 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Takiguchi, G

    M. Takiguchi, G. Zhang, S. Sasaki, K. Nozaki, E. Chen, K. Tateno, T. Tawara, A. Shinya, H. Gotoh, and M. Notomi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 251106 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Dolores-Calzadilla, B

    V. Dolores-Calzadilla, B. Romeira, F. Pagliano, S. Birindelli, A. Higuera-Rodriguez, P. J. Van Veldhoven, M. K. Smit, A. Fiore, and D. Heiss, Nat. Commun. 2017 81 8, 1 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    Shambat, B

    G. Shambat, B. Ellis, A. Majumdar, J. Petykiewicz, M. A. Mayer, T. Sarmiento, J. Harris, E. E. Haller, and J. Vučković, Nat. Commun. 2, 539 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Senanayake, C.-H

    P. Senanayake, C.-H. Hung, J. Shapiro, A. Lin, B. Liang, B. S. Williams, and D. L. Huffaker, Nano Lett. 11, 5279 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.