Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Rise Time and Charge Collection Efficiency of Graphene-Optimized 4H-SiC PIN Detector

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graphene layer over the active region of a 4H-SiC ring-electrode PIN detector cuts alpha-particle signal rise time by 24% at 200 V while keeping charge collection efficiency above 99%.

desk verdict Solid incremental fabrication result, but the rise-time and radiation-resistance claims need repeated devices and error bars before they can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21902 v1 pith:OSLH7P6K submitted 2025-05-28 physics.ins-det

Zhenyu Jiang , Xuemei Lu , Congcong Wang , Yingjie Huang , Xiaoshen Kang , Suyu Xiao , Xiyuan Zhang , Xin Shi This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det
keywords grapheneelectrode4H-SiCPINdetectoralphaparticledetectionrisetimechargecollectionefficiencyprotonirradiationRamanspectroscopyradiationhardness
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

Silicon carbide detectors attract interest because they tolerate radiation, but their metal front electrode blocks low-penetration particles, photodetection, and heavy-ion studies. This paper reports a 4H-SiC PIN detector in which a monolayer graphene sheet replaces the metal in the active region of a ring-electrode device, and claims that at 200 V the $\alpha$-particle signal rise time drops from 443 ps to 336 ps, a 24% improvement, while charge collection efficiency stays at 99.24%. It also claims that pre-irradiating the graphene to $2\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{n_{eq}/cm^2}$ leaves rise time and its uniformity essentially unchanged, evidence that the graphene electrode has useful radiation resistance. A sympathetic reader cares because a transparent, radiation-tolerant electrode would extend silicon carbide detectors to low-energy ions, UV, X-rays, and heavy ions without losing speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the graphene/ring-electrode (G/RE) geometry: a monolayer graphene sheet transferred into the middle of a ring-electrode 4H-SiC PIN so the active region has a conductive, nearly transparent top contact instead of a continuous metal layer. The graphene is claimed to homogenize the electric field that a ring electrode alone leaves weak in the center, shortening the lateral hole path in the P++ layer and reducing pulse tailing. The argument is carried by 200 V pulse-shape measurements and by Raman spectra: the $I_D/I_G$ ratio rises from 0.077 at $2\times10^{11}$ to 0.27 at $3.5\times10^{13}$, and the paper uses that defect growth to explain the longer rise time and lower CCE at high fluence.

What would settle it

Fabricate four or more RE and four or more G/RE detectors from the same 4H-SiC wafer, measure many alpha pulses per detector at 200 V, and check whether the 107 ps difference (443 vs 336 ps) exceeds the device-to-device spread; if the spread is comparable or larger, the claimed graphene effect is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a graphene layer over the active region of a ring-electrode 4H-SiC PIN detector acts as a transparent, conductive electrode that homogenizes the electric field, so holes created by $\alpha$ particles reach the electrode faster and more uniformly. The reported comparison at 200 V: the ring-electrode-only device has a mean rise time of 443 ps with $\sigma$ 84.70 ps; the graphene/ring-electrode device has 336 ps with $\sigma$ 41.02 ps, a 24% reduction; the full-surface-electrode reference has 335 ps with $\sigma$ 31.43 ps. Charge collection efficiency of the graphene device is 99.24% when the surface-electrode detector is defined as 100%. After the graphene is irradiated to $2\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{n_{eq}/cm^2}$ before transfer, the rise time is 344 ps and CCE is 90.59%; the paper treats the timing change as not significant, while at $3.5\times10^{13}$ the rise time lengthens to 372.5 ps and CCE drops to 87.58%, which it attributes to proton-induced defects seen in Raman spectra.

Load-bearing premise

The claim assumes that the one ring-electrode detector and the one graphene-coated detector are otherwise identical, so the 24% rise-time difference is caused by the graphene layer rather than by fabrication or measurement variation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Detectors with a graphene active-area electrode can be used for alpha particles and other short-range radiation without the dead-layer penalty of a metal contact, while retaining a sub-350 ps rise time at 200 V.
  • The reported result implies that low-dose proton exposure up to $2\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{n_{eq}/cm^2}$ does not erase the graphene timing benefit, so graphene-electrode detectors could survive modest radiation environments without losing fast response.
  • The rise-time sigma narrowing from 84.70 ps to 41.02 ps suggests the graphene layer also stabilizes charge collection across the active area, which matters for position-sensitive and timing detectors.
  • If further irradiation degrades the graphene, with $I_D/I_G$ rising to 0.27, rise time lengthens and CCE falls, so the radiation-tolerance claim is limited to low fluences.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not perform: build several G/RE and RE detectors from the same wafer and compare device-to-device scatter, because the current 24% figure rests on single devices with no reported error bars.
  • Because graphene is UV-transparent, a UV-TCT scan across the active area could map the electric-field homogenization directly; if the improvement is really field homogenization, the center response should show the largest gain.
  • The paper emphasizes rise-time immunity at $2\times10^{11}$, but its own data show CCE already dropping from 99.24% to 90.59% at that fluence; a careful reader should treat the radiation-resistance claim as applying to timing, not to full charge collection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the fabrication and characterization of 4H-SiC PIN detectors in which a monolayer graphene electrode replaces part of the metal electrode in the active area (G/RE detectors). The authors compare ring-electrode (RE), surface-electrode (SE), unirradiated graphene/ring-electrode (G/RE PIN-1), and two proton-irradiated G/RE detectors (2e11 and 3.5e13 neq/cm2). They report that at 200 V the rise time of the unirradiated G/RE detector is 336 ps versus 443 ps for the RE detector, a 24% improvement, and that the 2e11 neq/cm2 irradiated G/RE detector has a similar rise time (344 ps), supporting a claim of radiation resistance of the graphene electrode. Charge collection efficiency (CCE) is defined relative to the SE detector set to 100%, giving 97.99% for RE, 99.24% for unirradiated G/RE, 90.59% for the 2e11 irradiated G/RE, and 87.58% for the 3.5e13 irradiated G/RE. Raman spectra show increasing defect density with fluence. The authors conclude that graphene electrodes reduce rise time and improve uniformity and that moderate irradiation does not significantly affect rise time.

Significance. If the reported 24% rise-time improvement and the radiation-resistance claim hold, the work would be a useful step toward applying SiC detectors to low-penetration particles, UV/X-ray detection, and heavy-ion spectroscopy, where thick or non-uniform metal electrodes are problematic. The paper provides a concrete fabrication flow, I-V and C-V data, alpha-particle pulse measurements, and Raman characterization, and it explicitly discloses that CCE is normalized to the SE detector. The central measured numbers are internally consistent (443 to 336 ps is a 24% reduction). However, the significance is currently limited by the absence of uncertainties, the use of single devices per configuration, and an unspecified proton-to-neutron-equivalent fluence conversion, all of which affect the strength of the main claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [IV.B and Table I] The headline '24% reduction' and the radiation-resistance conclusion rest on single devices per configuration with no reported uncertainties or event counts. For the RE detector the rise-time distribution has sigma = 84.7 ps (Fig. 4a), while the claimed improvement is 107 ps, i.e., only about 1.3 sigma of the RE distribution. Without repeated devices or a statistical test, the difference between 443 ps and 336 ps cannot be distinguished from device-to-device fabrication variability. Please report per-device statistics, confidence intervals, or at least the number of pulses and a quantitative comparison.
  2. [IV.C and Fig. 6(b)] The claim that 'irradiation has no significant impact on the rise time and uniformity' at 2e11 neq/cm2 conflicts with the reported CCE drop from 99.24% (unirradiated G/RE) to 90.59% (2e11 irradiated G/RE). The conclusion should be restricted to rise time and its uniformity, not to overall detector performance. The CCE reduction of about 8.7 percentage points needs a quantitative discussion and cannot be dismissed as 'slightly reduced' when it is a substantial degradation relative to the 24% rise-time effect.
  3. [II.B and Table I] The conversion from 80 MeV proton fluence to 1-MeV neutron equivalent fluence (neq/cm2) is not specified. This conversion is material- and energy-dependent, and the manuscript provides no displacement-damage cross-section or NIEL scaling factor. Without this information the reported fluence values in Table I cannot be reproduced or compared with other radiation studies. Please state the conversion method or report the primary proton fluence as well.
  4. [IV.A and IV.B] The CCE normalization is defined relative to a single SE detector set to 100% at 200 V, but no uncertainty or calibration chain is given for this reference. Since the CCE values (97.99%, 99.24%, 90.59%, 87.58%) are all close to or derived from this reference, the absolute CCE claims and the 99.22% value quoted in the abstract are only as reliable as the SE normalization. Please provide the absolute calibration or an explicit statement that only relative CCE is meaningful.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several typographical errors should be corrected: 'Keithly' should be 'Keithley', 'irradition' should be 'irradiation', 'anisol' should likely be 'anisole', and 'ion-hole pairs' should be 'electron-hole pairs'.
  2. [IV.B, Fig. 4 caption] The figure caption lists rise times of 443, 335, and 336 ps for RE, SE, and unirradiated G/RE, but the text in IV.B gives 443, 335, and 336 ps; the SE value appears as '335' in the text and '335' in the caption, which is consistent, but the corresponding sigma values (84.70, 31.43, 41.02) are presented without units or a statement of what they represent (standard deviation of the fit, of the distribution, etc.). Please clarify.
  3. [IV.B, Fig. 6] The abstract states a CCE of 99.22% for the graphene-optimized detector, while the text and Fig. 6(b) give 99.24% for the unirradiated G/RE. Please reconcile these numbers.
  4. [II.A] The phrase 'transfer and etch graphene' and the description of the graphene transfer process would benefit from a reference to a standard transfer technique or a more detailed step list, since the reproducibility of the transfer is central to the device comparison.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all headline quantities are direct measurements; only disclosed normalization is the stated CCE reference.

full rationale

This is an experimental characterization paper, not a derivation or prediction chain. The central claims—the 24% rise-time reduction (443 ps vs. 336 ps) and the CCE values (97.99%, 99.24%, 90.59%, 87.58%)—are arithmetic ratios of directly measured quantities, not outputs of a fitted model. The only normalization is the explicitly disclosed reference choice: "We define the CCE for the SE PIN detector as 100% @ 200 V." This is a calibration convention, not a circular derivation: the G/RE CCE is simply the measured collected charge (59.00 fC) divided by the measured SE collected charge (59.46 fC), and the paper does not claim the SE detector is an absolute 100% quantum-efficiency standard. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction. No load-bearing self-citation is invoked: references to prior graphene-on-SiC work ([7], [16]) and to 4H-SiC LGAD work ([5]) provide background and motivation, but the rise-time and CCE conclusions rest on the present measurements, not on those citations. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz-by-citation, or renaming of a known result is used. The legitimate concerns raised by a skeptical reading—single devices per configuration, no quoted uncertainties, and possible device-to-device variation—are statistical robustness issues, not circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claims are purely experimental; no fitting parameters are introduced to manufacture the result. The paper relies on standard device-physics assumptions (depletion depth from C-V, full absorption of alphas, Raman single-layer criterion) and on an unexplained neutron-equivalent fluence conversion.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The alpha source energy is taken as 5.54 MeV and assumed to be fully absorbed in the 50 um epitaxial layer.
    241Am emits alpha particles predominantly at 5.486 MeV; the stated 5.54 MeV is an approximation. The full-absorption assumption underlies the CCE estimate.
  • domain assumption Full depletion at approximately 120 V is inferred from C-V data and used to justify that 200 V is beyond full depletion.
    The one-sided junction C-V analysis assumes uniform doping and ideal parallel-plate capacitance response; the extracted 45 um depletion depth is used in interpreting charge collection.
  • ad hoc to paper The 80 MeV proton fluence is converted to 1-MeV neutron equivalent fluence using an unspecified scaling.
    No conversion factor, reference, or NIEL curve is provided; the n_eq values for the two irradiated samples are stated without justification.
  • domain assumption Raman I2D/IG > 1.5 is taken as proof of single-layer graphene.
    The single-layer identification is used to interpret that graphene, not graphite, is the electrode; it relies on the cited criterion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Rise Time and Charge Collection Efficiency of Graphene-Optimized 4H-SiC PIN Detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OSLH7P6K

@misc{pith2026250521902,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Rise Time and Charge Collection Efficiency of Graphene-Optimized 4H-SiC PIN Detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OSLH7P6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21902}
}
read the original abstract

Silicon carbide detectors exhibit good detection performance and are being considered for detection applications. However, the presence of surface electrode of detector limits the application of low-penetration particle detectors, photodetectors and heavy-ion detection. A graphene-optimized 4H-SiC detector has been fabricated to expand the application of SiC detectors.Its electrical properties and the charge collection performance of {\alpha} particles are reported. The effective doping concentration of lightly doped 4H-SiC epitaxial layer is about 4.5\times10^{13}cm^{-3}, approaching the limit of the lowest doping level by the SiC epitaxial growth technique. The rise time of the graphene-optimized ring electrode detector is reduced by 24% at 200 V, compared to ring electrode detector. The charge collection efficiency (CCE) of graphene-optimized 4H-SiC PIN is 99.22%. When the irradiation dose is 2\times10^{11} n_{eq}/cm^2, the irradiation has no significant impact on the rise time and uniformity of the rise time for the graphene-optimized 4H-SiC detectors. This study proves that graphene has a certain radiation resistance. Graphene-optimized 4H-SiC detectors can not only reduce the signal rise time, but also improve uniformity of signal rise time and stability of charge collection. This research will expand the application of graphene-based 4H-SiC detectors in fields such as low energy ions, X-ray, UV light detection, particle physics, medical dosimetry and heavy-ion detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21902 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) 3D cross-sectional schematic of the G/RE 4H-SiC PIN radiation detector. (b) Real G/RE 4H-SiC PIN radiation detector image. B. Irradiation conditions The graphene irradiation was conducted at the Associated Proton Beam Experiment Platform (APEP) beamline of the China Spallation Neutron Source (CSNS) in Dongguan, Guangzhou, China. The APEP facility delivers protons with an average energy of 80 MeV. The irradiation… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The RE 4H-SiC PIN, SE 4H-SiC PIN, unirradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN detectors, 2 × 1011 neq/cm2 and 3.5 × 1013 neq/cm2 irradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN detectors: (a) I-V characteristics. (b) C-V characteristics. IV. RISE TIME AND CHARGE COLLECTION PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS A. Experimental setup The charge collection performance setup for α particles is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimental setup for α particle measurement B. Rise time and charge collection performance of the RE, SE and G/RE 4H-SiC PIN Charge collection performance is an important parameter of semi￾conductor detector, which determines the efficiency of detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Signal waveforms and rise time distributions at 200V: (a) RE 4H￾SiC PIN. (b) SE 4H-SiC PIN. (c) Unirradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN. (d) 2 × 1011 neq/cm2 irradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN. (e) 3.5 × 1013 neq/cm2 irradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hole motion trajectories: (a) SE 4H-SiC PIN. (b) RE 4H-SiC PIN. epitaxial layer. A Gaussian distribution function is used to analyze the charge collection for 4H-SiC PIN detectors. The charge collection distributions of the RE, SE and unirradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN detec…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The RE, SE, unirradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN detectors, 2 × 1011 neq/cm2 and 3.5 × 1013 neq/cm2 irradiated G/RE 4H-SiC PIN detectors G/RE PIN detectors: (a) Charge collection distributions at 200V. (b) Charge collection efficiencies at 200V. peak related to the interlayer …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Normalized Raman spectra of graphene. (b) The relationship between Raman peak strength ID/IG, I2D/IG ratio and irradiation dose. atoms can cause displacement damage, possibly result in the deep states within the bandgap [24]. Proton irradiation causes graphene to f…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    New materials for radiation hard semiconductor dectectors,

    P. Sellin and J. Vaitkus, “New materials for radiation hard semiconductor dectectors,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment, vol. 557, no. 2, pp. 479–489, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Silicon carbide and its use as a radiation detector material,

    F. Nava, G. Bertuccio, A. Cavallini, and E. Vittone, “Silicon carbide and its use as a radiation detector material,” Measurement Science & Technology, vol. 19, no. 10, p. 102001, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    In situ localized growth of porous tin oxide films on low power microheater platform for low temperature co detection,

    H. Long, A. Harley-Trochimczyk, T. He, T. Pham, Z. Tang, T. Shi, A. Zettl, W. Mickelson, C. Carraro, and R. Maboudian, “In situ localized growth of porous tin oxide films on low power microheater platform for low temperature co detection,” Acs Sensors, p. acssensors.5b00302, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Charge collection efficiency study on neutron-irradiated planar silicon carbide diodes via UV-TCT,

    P. Gaggl, T. Bergauer, M. G ¨obel, R. Thalmeier, M. Villa, and S. Waid, “Charge collection efficiency study on neutron-irradiated planar silicon carbide diodes via UV-TCT,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, vol. 1040, p. 167218, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Electrical Properties and Gain Performance of 4H- SiC LGAD (SICAR),

    S. Zhao, K. Wang, K. Xie, C. Fu, C. Wang, S. Xiao, X. Zhang, X. Shi, and C. Wang, “Electrical Properties and Gain Performance of 4H- SiC LGAD (SICAR),” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science , vol. 71, no. 11, pp. 2417–2421, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    SiC detectors: A review on the use of silicon carbide as radiation detection material,

    M. D. Napoli, “SiC detectors: A review on the use of silicon carbide as radiation detection material,” in Frontiers of Physics, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Position-resolved charge collection of silicon carbide detectors with an epitaxially-grown graphene layer,

    I. Lopez Paz, P. Godignon, N. Moffat, G. Pellegrini, J. M. Raf ´ı, and G. Rius, “Position-resolved charge collection of silicon carbide detectors with an epitaxially-grown graphene layer,” Scientific Reports , vol. 14, no. 1, p. 10376, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Enhanced ohmic contact via graphitization of polycrystalline silicon carbide,

    F. Liu, B. Hsia, C. Carraro, A. P. Pisano, and R. Maboudian, “Enhanced ohmic contact via graphitization of polycrystalline silicon carbide,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 97, p. 262107, 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Strong hole-doping and robust resistance-decrease in proton-irradiated graphene,

    C. Lee, J. Kim, S. Kim, Y . J. Chang, K. S. Kim, B. Hong, and E. J. Choi, “Strong hole-doping and robust resistance-decrease in proton-irradiated graphene,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 21311, 2016

    2016

  2. [10]

    Monolithic Integration of Graphene in SiC Radiation Sensors for Harsh-Environment Applica- tions,

    S. O. Ugobono, J. M. Raf ´ı, P. Godignon, G. Pellegrini, G. Rius, M. J. Ramos, J. G. L ´opez, and A. G. Osuna, “Monolithic Integration of Graphene in SiC Radiation Sensors for Harsh-Environment Applica- tions,” Materials Science Forum, vol. 1062, pp. 458 – 462, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    Negative fermi-level pinning effect of metal/n- gaas(001) junction induced by a graphene interlayer,

    H. H. Yoon, W. Song, S. Jung, J. Kim, K. Mo, G. Choi, H. Y . Jeong, J. Lee, and K. Park, “Negative fermi-level pinning effect of metal/n- gaas(001) junction induced by a graphene interlayer,” ACS Applied Materials &Amp; Interfaces , vol. 11, pp. 47182–47189, 2019. 6 GENERIC CO...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Effect of an intermediate graphite layer on the electronic properties of metal/sic contacts,

    S. A. Reshanov, K. V . Emtsev, F. D. Speck, K. Gao, T. K. Seyller, G. D. Pensl, and L. Ley, “Effect of an intermediate graphite layer on the electronic properties of metal/sic contacts,” physica status solidi (b) , vol. 245, 2008

    2008

  5. [13]

    Improved performance of sic radiation detectors due to optimized ohmic contact electrode by graphene insertion,

    Y . Jia, X. Sun, Z. Shi, K. Jiang, T. Wu, H. Liang, X. Cui, W. L ¨u, and D. Li, “Improved performance of sic radiation detectors due to optimized ohmic contact electrode by graphene insertion,” Diamond and Related Materials, vol. 115, p. 108355, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Graphene Ohmic Contacts to n-type Silicon Carbide (0001),

    S. Hertel, A. Finkler, M. Krieger, and H. B. Weber, “Graphene Ohmic Contacts to n-type Silicon Carbide (0001),” Materials Science Forum, vol. 821-823, pp. 933–936, 2015. UnivIS-Import:2017-11- 07:Pub.2015.nat.dphy.IAP.LAP.graphe

    2015

  7. [15]

    Formation and role of graphite and nickel silicide in nickel based ohmic contacts to n-type silicon carbide,

    I. P. Nikitina, K. Vassilevski, N. G. Wright, A. B. Horsfall, A. O’Neill, and C. M. Johnson, “Formation and role of graphite and nickel silicide in nickel based ohmic contacts to n-type silicon carbide,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 97, p. 083709, 2005

    2005

  8. [16]

    Position-resolved charge collection of silicon carbide detectors with an epitaxially-grown graphene layer,

    I. L. Paz, P. Godignon, N. Moffat, G. Pellegrini, J. M. Raf ´ı, and G. Rius, “Position-resolved charge collection of silicon carbide detectors with an epitaxially-grown graphene layer,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    H, Study on Charge Collection Properties of New 3D-Trench electrode Si Detector

    D. H, Study on Charge Collection Properties of New 3D-Trench electrode Si Detector. PhD thesis, Xiangtan University, 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Ultra Low Noise Epitaxial 4H-SiC X-Ray Detectors,

    G. Bertuccio, S. Caccia, F. Nava, G. Foti, D. Puglisi, C. Lanzieri, S. Lavanga, G. Abbondanza, D. Crippa, and F. Preti, “Ultra Low Noise Epitaxial 4H-SiC X-Ray Detectors,” Materials Science Forum, vol. 615- 617, pp. 845 – 848, 2009

    2009

  11. [19]

    High Resolution 4H-SiC p-i-n Radiation Detectors With Low-V oltage Operation,

    Q. Yang, Q. Liu, L. Guo, S. Hao, D. Zhou, W. Xu, B. Zhang, F. Yang, F. Ren, D. Chen, R. Zhang, Y . Zheng, and H. Lu, “High Resolution 4H-SiC p-i-n Radiation Detectors With Low-V oltage Operation,” IEEE Electron Device Letters , vol. 43, no. 12, pp. 2161–2164, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Interpretation of raman spectra of dis- ordered and amorphous carbon,

    A. C. Ferrari and J. Robertson, “Interpretation of raman spectra of dis- ordered and amorphous carbon,” Physical Review B, vol. 61, pp. 14095– 14107, 2000

    2000

  13. [21]

    Effect of He ion irradiation on microstruc- ture and electrical properties of graphene,

    Z. Na, L. Bo, and L. Li-wei, “Effect of He ion irradiation on microstruc- ture and electrical properties of graphene,” 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Raman spectroscopy of graphene,

    J. Wu, H. Xu, and J. Zhang, “Raman spectroscopy of graphene,” Acta Chimica Sinica, vol. 72, pp. 301–318, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Hysteresis of electronic transport in graphene transistors,

    H. Wang, Y . Wu, C. Cong, J. Shang, and T. Yu, “Hysteresis of electronic transport in graphene transistors,”ACS nano, vol. 4 12, pp. 7221–8, 2010

    2010

  16. [24]

    Progress in the study of irradiation effects of graphene and graphene field effect transistors,

    S. Mingxia, W. Huanling, C. Feiliang, L. Mo, and Z. Jian, “Progress in the study of irradiation effects of graphene and graphene field effect transistors,” Journal of Terahertz Science and Electronic Information Technology, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 513–522, 2022

    2022

  17. [25]

    Electrical Characterization of 5 MeV Proton-Irradiated Few Layer Graphene,

    G. Ko, H.-Y . Kim, F. Ren, S. J. Pearton, and J. Kim, “Electrical Characterization of 5 MeV Proton-Irradiated Few Layer Graphene,” Electrochemical and Solid-State Letters , vol. 13, p. K32, jan 2010

    2010

  18. [26]

    Radiation Effects in Advanced Semiconduc- tor Materials and Devices,

    C. Claeys and E. Simoen, “Radiation Effects in Advanced Semiconduc- tor Materials and Devices,” 2002

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.