Predicting Organic Solar Cell Performance and Stability from Fast, Morphology-aware Current-Voltage Modeling

Jens Harting; Larry L\"uer; Olga Wodo; Olivier J.J. Ronsin; Yasin Ameslon

arxiv: 2605.19603 · v1 · pith:3CSCYZCDnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci · physics.comp-ph

Predicting Organic Solar Cell Performance and Stability from Fast, Morphology-aware Current-Voltage Modeling

Yasin Ameslon , Larry L\"uer , Jens Harting , Olga Wodo , Olivier J.J. Ronsin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 04:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.comp-ph

keywords organic solar cellsmorphology modelingcurrent-voltage characteristicsheterojunction phasesdevice performancestability predictionfast computation

0 comments

The pith

A fast method predicts current-voltage curves of organic solar cells from their complex multi-phase morphologies using morphology-aware descriptors.

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

The paper introduces a computational approach to calculate the current-voltage curve for organic solar cells that have intricate heterojunction structures with up to five distinct phases. This is achieved through descriptors that incorporate key processes like light absorption, exciton dissociation, recombination, and charge carrier movement without full microscopic detail each time. The method is tested against established simulation techniques and demonstrated on systems such as P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6, where it uncovers the trade-offs needed for better performance and durability. Importantly, the optimal morphology turns out to depend on the specific materials involved rather than being universal.

Core claim

The authors establish a unique method capable of calculating the current-voltage (JV) curve of complex heterojunction morphologies containing up to five phases with a very low computation time using morphology-aware descriptors of light absorption, exciton dissociation, non-geminate recombination and free charge carrier mobilities. This is validated against Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations and applied to P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6 systems to shed light on physical compromises for optimizing device performance and lifetime, with the finding that the morphology-performance relationship depends on the materials system studied.

What carries the argument

morphology-aware descriptors of light absorption, exciton dissociation, non-geminate recombination and free charge carrier mobilities that enable fast JV curve calculation for multi-phase morphologies

If this is right

The method supports analysis of morphologies with up to five phases: donor amorphous, donor crystalline, acceptor amorphous, acceptor crystalline, and mixed amorphous.
Validation shows agreement with more computationally intensive Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations.
Application to P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6 reveals specific physical compromises between performance and stability.
The relationship between morphology and device metrics varies depending on the materials system under consideration.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Designers could use this to rapidly iterate on morphology to balance efficiency and longevity in new solar cell formulations.
Similar descriptor-based approaches might accelerate modeling in related fields like perovskite or organic light-emitting devices with phase separation.
Further validation on experimental devices with controlled multi-phase structures would strengthen the predictive power.

Load-bearing premise

The morphology-aware descriptors accurately capture the combined effects of light absorption, exciton dissociation, recombination, and carrier mobilities across all phases without needing full microscopic simulation for each new morphology.

What would settle it

A significant mismatch between the method's predicted JV curves and direct experimental measurements on a solar cell with a verified five-phase morphology would indicate the descriptors fail to capture the necessary physics.

read the original abstract

Understanding the relationship between morphology and performance in organic solar cells is essential for developing devices that are both high performing and resilient to aging. This work introduces a unique method capable of calculating the current-voltage (JV) curve of complex heterojunction morphologies containing up to five phases (donor amorphous, donor crystalline, acceptor amorphous, acceptor crystalline, mixed amorphous) with a very low computation time using morphology-aware descriptors of light absorption, exciton dissociation, non-geminate recombination and free charge carrier mobilities. The method is validated against Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations and applied to P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6 systems, shedding light on the physical compromises encountered to optimize device performance and lifetime. Finally, we show that the morphology-performance relationship is dependent on the materials system studied.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper gives a practical fast method for JV curves from five-phase morphologies in organic solar cells using descriptors, but validation metrics and transferability checks are missing so the speedup claim stays unproven.

read the letter

The core offering here is a descriptor-driven shortcut that computes current-voltage curves for heterojunctions with up to five distinct phases—donor amorphous, donor crystalline, acceptor amorphous, acceptor crystalline, and mixed—without running full Monte Carlo or drift-diffusion each time. The descriptors cover light absorption, exciton dissociation, non-geminate recombination, and carrier mobilities, and the authors apply the approach to P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6 while noting that the morphology-performance link changes with the material pair. That material dependence is a useful reminder that one-size-fits-all rules are risky in this field. The low run time is the practical hook for anyone screening many morphologies during optimization or stability work. Validation against existing Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion runs is mentioned, which at least places the new method in conversation with established tools. Credit is due for pushing beyond the usual two-phase assumption and for trying to tie morphology directly to both performance and aging. The execution looks honest on its own terms even if the numbers are not yet shown. The main gaps sit in the validation layer. No quantitative error metrics or deviation plots appear in the abstract, so it is impossible to judge whether the descriptor predictions stay within acceptable bounds across the tested systems. The descriptors themselves are likely extracted from the same class of simulations used for comparison, which raises the usual circularity question: if mobility or recombination values are adjusted to match target JV data, the method becomes a fast interpolator rather than an independent predictor. The stress-test concern about fifth-phase transferability is on point; without a deliberate test case where the fifth phase fraction or interface geometry is varied outside the training morphologies, it is unclear whether the descriptors remain accurate or cheap to compute when the morphology changes. Minor implementation details such as how the five-phase interfaces are discretized would also need clarification before the speedup can be trusted for new materials. This work is aimed at device modelers and morphology engineers in organic photovoltaics who already run simulations but want a quicker filter before committing to expensive 3D runs. A reader who needs to explore many blend ratios or annealing conditions would find the speed attractive if the accuracy holds. It is worth sending to peer review because the problem it attacks is real and the five-phase handling is a concrete step forward, even though the current evidence base is still preliminary and will require added quantitative checks and cross-morphology tests before the central claim can be accepted.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a method to compute current-voltage curves for organic solar cell heterojunctions containing up to five phases (donor amorphous, donor crystalline, acceptor amorphous, acceptor crystalline, mixed amorphous) at low computational cost. It employs morphology-aware descriptors for light absorption, exciton dissociation, non-geminate recombination, and free charge carrier mobilities. The approach is validated against Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations on P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6 systems, then applied to examine morphology-performance and stability trade-offs, with the conclusion that these relationships are materials-system dependent.

Significance. If the descriptors prove transferable and the validation holds with quantitative accuracy, the method could enable rapid screening of complex multi-phase morphologies for both efficiency and lifetime in organic photovoltaics, a longstanding bottleneck in the field. The explicit demonstration of system dependence strengthens the case for morphology-aware modeling over generic effective-medium approximations.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: validation is stated against Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations, yet no quantitative error metrics (RMSE on JV curves, predicted PCE deviation, or similar) are supplied. Without these numbers it is impossible to judge whether the low-computation-time advantage is achieved at acceptable accuracy loss for the central predictive claim.
[Method description (paragraph on method)] Method description (paragraph on method): the claim that the small set of morphology-aware descriptors captures the combined effects of absorption, dissociation, recombination and mobilities across all five phases without requiring full microscopic simulation for each new morphology rests on unshown transferability. No test on deliberately varied fifth-phase fractions, new interface geometries, or out-of-sample morphologies is described, which is load-bearing for the assertion that the method generalizes beyond the two validation systems.
[Abstract] Abstract: descriptors for mobilities and recombination are presented as morphology-aware, but the text does not clarify whether their extraction involves any fitting or calibration to the same JV data used for validation. If any key parameter is adjusted to the target curves, the reported 'prediction' becomes a fitted interpolation by construction and undermines the claimed advantage over direct simulation.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: the statement that the method 'sheds light on the physical compromises encountered to optimize device performance and lifetime' would benefit from a one-sentence indication of how stability/aging is incorporated into the descriptor framework.
Ensure that any timing comparisons with Monte Carlo or drift-diffusion solvers are reported with explicit wall-clock values and hardware specifications so readers can reproduce the claimed computational savings.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript to improve clarity on validation metrics, transferability, and parameter derivation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: validation is stated against Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations, yet no quantitative error metrics (RMSE on JV curves, predicted PCE deviation, or similar) are supplied. Without these numbers it is impossible to judge whether the low-computation-time advantage is achieved at acceptable accuracy loss for the central predictive claim.

Authors: We agree that quantitative error metrics are necessary to evaluate the accuracy of our approach. In the revised manuscript, we will add RMSE values for the JV curves and deviations in predicted PCE for comparisons against both Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations on the P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6 systems. revision: yes
Referee: [Method description (paragraph on method)] Method description (paragraph on method): the claim that the small set of morphology-aware descriptors captures the combined effects of absorption, dissociation, recombination and mobilities across all five phases without requiring full microscopic simulation for each new morphology rests on unshown transferability. No test on deliberately varied fifth-phase fractions, new interface geometries, or out-of-sample morphologies is described, which is load-bearing for the assertion that the method generalizes beyond the two validation systems.

Authors: We acknowledge that explicit tests on varied fifth-phase fractions, new interface geometries, and out-of-sample morphologies would strengthen the transferability claim. The descriptors are derived from general physical principles applicable to multi-phase systems, but the current manuscript focuses on the two validation cases. We will add a dedicated discussion on expected transferability and the design of the descriptors in the revised version; new computational tests can be included if they do not require prohibitive additional resources. revision: partial
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: descriptors for mobilities and recombination are presented as morphology-aware, but the text does not clarify whether their extraction involves any fitting or calibration to the same JV data used for validation. If any key parameter is adjusted to the target curves, the reported 'prediction' becomes a fitted interpolation by construction and undermines the claimed advantage over direct simulation.

Authors: We thank the referee for this clarification request. The descriptors for mobilities and recombination are extracted directly from morphological features and material properties using independent physical relations, with no fitting or calibration performed against the JV curves used for validation. The comparisons with Monte Carlo and drift-diffusion simulations therefore represent genuine out-of-sample predictions. We will add explicit statements clarifying this procedure in the method section and abstract of the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper presents a method that computes JV curves for up to five-phase morphologies via precomputed morphology-aware descriptors for absorption, dissociation, recombination and mobilities, then validates the outputs against independent Monte Carlo and 3D drift-diffusion simulations on P3HT:PCBM and PM6:Y6. No equations or sections in the supplied text show a parameter fitted to the target JV data and then relabeled as a prediction, nor any self-definitional loop where an output is used to define its own input. The validation step supplies external benchmarks rather than reducing the result to the descriptors by construction, so the derivation chain remains self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Limited to abstract; descriptors for absorption, dissociation, recombination and mobilities are treated as given inputs whose accuracy is assumed rather than derived from first principles within the paper.

free parameters (1)

mobility and recombination parameters
Likely fitted or chosen per material system to match validation simulations, as is standard in such morphology-aware models.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The chosen morphology descriptors sufficiently represent the physics of charge generation and transport in multi-phase blends.
Invoked when the method is presented as predictive rather than purely interpolative.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5684 in / 1343 out tokens · 26955 ms · 2026-05-20T04:03:54.574487+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 103 canonical work pages

[1]

We identified four studies basing on advanced physics -based simulation methods (2D or 3D drift-diffusion, Monte-Carlo, Master equation for well-defined morphologies[2]

Validation of morphology-aware electronic descriptors To validate our simplified approach for evaluating morphology -dependent electronic properties , the values for exciton dissociation, bimolecular recombination, and mobilities have been calculated using Equations 6, 7, 13 and 14 above and compared with previously published 15 simulation results. We ide...

work page
[2]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [9] [11] [12] [14] [15] [37] [42] where the simula tion results can be compared to the present approach. [4] [6] [7] [13] They discuss different morphological descriptors and types of morphology, but all these studies treat only two -phase morphologies (either amorphous demixed donor - acceptor BHJ or amorphous -crystalline single -materia...

work page
[3]

phase separation

Results 4.1. Morphology-dependent JV curves and their evolution upon thermal loading To illustrate the interest and the power of the proposed approach, we apply the method to a set of various organic photoactive layer BHJ morphologies, for which we identify the phase distribution, calculate the optical and electronic properties, and finally the JV curve o...

work page
[4]

Conclusions With this work, we introduced a new method to study the morphology-performance relationship of OSC. The approach relies on a topological analysis of the BHJ morphology and on the basic physics of the optoelectronic processes involved in power conversion , namely light absorption, free charge carrier generation, transport and recombination. Com...

work page
[5]

Conflict of interests There are no conflicts to declare

work page
[6]

Data availability The simulation data used for this article is publicly accessible on Zenodo (see DOI:10.5281/zenodo.20272551)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20272551
[7]

FAUsolar

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge financial support by the German Research Foundation (DFG, project HA 4382/14-1, project BR 4031/21-2 and within the Collaborative Research Center ‘ChemPrint’ , project 538767711, CRC 1719), the European Commission (H2020 Program, Project 101008701/ EMERGE), the Helmholtz Association (SolarTAP Innovation Platform) ,...

work page
[8]

O. Wodo, S. Tirthapura, S. Chaudhary, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Organic Electronics 2012, 13, 1105

work page 2012
[9]

X. Xu, Y . Ji, C. Du, T. Hou, Y . Li, RSC Advances 2015, 5, 70939

work page 2015
[10]

P . K. Watkins, A. B. Walker, G. L. B. Verschoor, Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1814

work page 2005
[12]

Khodakarimi, M

S. Khodakarimi, M. H. Hekmatshoar, F. Abbasi, Applied Physics A 2016, 122

work page 2016
[15]

Groves, R

C. Groves, R. A. Marsh, N. C. Greenham, The Journal of Chemical Physics 2008, 129, 114903

work page 2008
[16]

Kawashima, M

E. Kawashima, M. Fujii, K. Yamashita, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 26456

work page 2016
[17]

Wilken, T

S. Wilken, T. Upreti, A. Melianas, S. Dahlström, G. Persson, E. Olsson, R. Österbacka, M. Kemerink, Solar RRL 2020, 4, 2000029

work page 2020
[18]

R. A. Marsh, C. Groves, N. C. Greenham, Journal of Applied Physics 2007, 101, 083509

work page 2007
[19]

Groves, L

C. Groves, L. J. A. Koster, N. C. Greenham, Journal of Applied Physics 2009, 105, 094510

work page 2009
[20]

Y . Geng, Y . Han, L. Xiong, H. Li, Organic Electronics 2024, 127, 107006

work page 2024
[21]

E. Van, M. Jones, E. Jankowski, O. Wodo, Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. 2018, 3, 853

work page 2018
[22]

M. C. Heiber, K. Kister, A. Baumann, V. Dyakonov, C. Deibel, T.-Q. Nguyen, Phys. Rev. Applied 2017, 8, 054043

work page 2017
[23]

L. Ye, H. Hu, M. Ghasemi, T. Wang, B. A. Collins, J.-H. Kim, K. Jiang, J. H. Carpenter, H. Li, Z. Li, T. McAfee, J. Zhao, X. Chen, J. L. Y . Lai, T. Ma, J.-L. Bredas, H. Yan, H. Ade, Nature Mater 2018, 17, 253

work page 2018
[24]

Armin, W

A. Armin, W. Li, O. J. Sandberg, Z. Xiao, L. Ding, J. Nelson, D. Neher, K. Vandewal, S. Shoaee, T. Wang, H. Ade, T. Heumüller, C. Brabec, P . Meredith, Advanced Energy Materials 2021, 11, 2003570

work page 2021
[25]

L. Ye, S. Li, X. Liu, S. Zhang, M. Ghasemi, Y . Xiong, J. Hou, H. Ade, Joule 2019, 3, 443. 26

work page 2019
[26]

J. A. Bartelt, Z. M. Beiley, E. T. Hoke, W. R. Mateker, J. D. Douglas, B. A. Collins, J. R. Tumbleston, K. R. Graham, A. Amassian, H. Ade, J. M. J. Fréchet, M. F. Toney, M. D. McGehee, Advanced Energy Materials 2013, 3, 364

work page 2013
[27]

Z. Wang, Z. Peng, Z. Xiao, D. Seyitliyev, K. Gundogdu, L. Ding, H. Ade, Advanced Materials 2020, 32, 2005386

work page 2020
[28]

M. B. Isichenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1992, 64, 961

work page 1992
[29]

C. H. Y . Ho, S. H. Cheung, H.-W. Li, K. L. Chiu, Y . Cheng, H. Yin, M. H. Chan, F. So, S.-W. Tsang, S. K. So, Advanced Energy Materials 2017, 7, 1602360

work page 2017
[30]

Vakhshouri, D

K. Vakhshouri, D. R. Kozub, C. Wang, A. Salleo, E. D. Gomez, Physical Review Letters 2012, 108

work page 2012
[31]

R. Wang, Y . Jiang, W. Gruber, Y . He, M. Wu, P . Weitz, K. Zhang, L. Lüer, K. Forberich, T. Unruh, E. Spiecker, C. Deibel, N. Li, C. J. Brabec, Advanced Materials Interfaces 2022, 9, 2200342

work page 2022
[32]

J. Liu, Y . Yin, K. Wang, P . Wei, H. Lu, C. Song, Q. Liang, W. Huang, iScience 2022, 25

work page 2022
[33]

S. M. Hosseini, N. Tokmoldin, Y . W. Lee, Y . Zou, H. Y . Woo, D. Neher, S. Shoaee, Solar RRL 2020, 4, 2000498

work page 2020
[34]

L. Lüer, I. M. Peters, A. S. Smith, E. Dorschky, B. M. Eskofier, F. Liers, J. Franke, M. Sjarov, M. Brossog, D. M. Guldi, A. Maier, C. J. Brabec, Joule 2024, 8, 295

work page 2024
[35]

Osterrieder, F

T. Osterrieder, F. Schmitt, L. Lüer, J. Wagner, T. Heumüller, J. Hauch, C. J. Brabec, Energy Environ. Sci. 2023, 16, 3984

work page 2023
[36]

Keshav, F

M. Keshav, F. Kaka, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2023, 254, 112258

work page 2023
[37]

Rodríguez-Martínez, E

X. Rodríguez-Martínez, E. Pascual-San-José, M. Campoy-Quiles, Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14, 3301

work page 2021
[39]

H. K. Kodali, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2013, 111, 66

work page 2013
[40]

M. C. Heiber, A. Dhinojwala, Physical Review Applied 2014, 2

work page 2014
[41]

Min Nam, J

Y . Min Nam, J. Huh, W. Ho Jo, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2010, 94, 1118

work page 2010
[42]

Neupane, B

U. Neupane, B. Bahrami, M. Biesecker, M. F. Baroughi, Q. Qiao, Nano Energy 2017, 35, 128

work page 2017
[43]

G. A. Nemnes, S. Iftimie, A. Palici, A. Nicolaev, T. L. Mitran, A. Radu, S. Antohe, Applied Surface Science 2017, 424, 264

work page 2017
[44]

O. Wodo, J. Zola, B. S. Sarath Pokuri, P . Du, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Materials Discovery 2015, 1, 21

work page 2015
[45]

F. Kaka, R. K. Singh, P . C. Ramamurthy, A. Choudhury, AIP Advances 2020, 10, 065304

work page 2020
[46]

F. Kaka, S. Khanna, P . C. Ramamurthy, A. Choudhury, Journal of Applied Physics 2020, 128, 145501

work page 2020
[47]

Maqsood, L

I. Maqsood, L. D. Cundy, M. Biesecker, J.-H. Kimn, E. Darlington, E. P . Hettwer, S. Schill, V. Bommisetty, In 2014 IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), 2014, pp. 1758–1761

work page 2014
[48]

Bergermann, C

K. Bergermann, C. Deibel, R. Herzog, R. C. I. MacKenzie, J.-F. P . Null, M. Stoll, CiCP 2023, 34, 1

work page 2023
[49]

Kaiser, J

W. Kaiser, J. Popp, M. Rinderle, T. Albes, A. Gagliardi, Algorithms 2018, 11, 37

work page 2018
[50]

R. S. Gebhardt, P . Du, O. Wodo, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Computational Materials Science 2017, 129, 220

work page 2017
[51]

H. Li, G. Sini, J. Sit, A. J. Moulé, J.-L. Bredas, Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13, 601

work page 2020
[52]

R. G. E. Kimber, E. N. Wright, S. E. J. O’Kane, A. B. Walker, J. C. Blakesley, Phys. Rev. B 2012, 86, 235206

work page 2012
[53]

O. J. J. Ronsin, J. Harting, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 49785−49800

work page 2022
[54]

O. J. J. Ronsin, J. Harting, Advanced Theory and Simulations 2022, 2200286

work page 2022
[55]

F. C. Spano, The Journal of Chemical Physics 2005, 122, 234701

work page 2005
[56]

F. C. Spano, Acc. Chem. Res. 2010, 43, 429

work page 2010
[57]

R. Wang, L. Lüer, S. Langner, T. Heumueller, K. Forberich, H. Zhang, J. Hauch, N. Li, C. J. Brabec, ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 3590

work page 2021
[58]

X. Du, L. Lüer, T. Heumueller, J. Wagner, C. Berger, T. Osterrieder, J. Wortmann, S. Langner, U. Vongsaysy, M. Bertrand, N. Li, T. Stubhan, J. Hauch, C. J. Brabec, Joule 2021, 5, 495. 27

work page 2021
[59]

L. A. A. Pettersson, L. S. Roman, O. Inganäs, Journal of Applied Physics 1999, 86, 487

work page 1999
[60]

Kerremans, C

R. Kerremans, C. Kaiser, W. Li, N. Zarrabi, P . Meredith, A. Armin, Advanced Optical Materials 2020, 8, 2000319

work page 2020
[61]

C. F. Bohren, Eur. J. Phys. 2010, 31, 573

work page 2010
[62]

Campoy-Quiles, C

M. Campoy-Quiles, C. Müller, M. Garriga, E. Wang, O. Inganäs, M. I. Alonso, Thin Solid Films 2014, 571, 371

work page 2014
[63]

T. Sai, M. Saba, E. R. Dufresne, U. Steiner, B. D. Wilts, Faraday Discuss. 2020, 223, 136

work page 2020
[64]

O. Wodo, S. Tirthapura, S. Chaudhary, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Journal of Applied Physics 2012, 112, 064316

work page 2012
[65]

O. Wodo, J. D. Roehling, A. J. Moulé, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 3060

work page 2013
[66]

Rubinstein, R

M. Rubinstein, R. H. Colby, Polymer Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2003

work page 2003
[67]

Meier, H

T. Meier, H. Bässler, A. Köhler, Advanced Optical Materials 2021, 9, 2100115

work page 2021
[68]

Koopmans, V

M. Koopmans, V. M. L. Corre, L. J. A. Koster, Journal of Open Source Software 2022, 7, 3727

work page 2022
[69]

J. A. Nelson, The Physics Of Solar Cells, World Scientific Publishing Company, 2003

work page 2003
[70]

G. F. Burkhard, E. T. Hoke, M. D. McGehee, Advanced Materials 2010, 22, 3293

work page 2010
[71]

M. L. Schubert, H. Metni, J. D. Fischbach, B. Zerulla, M. Krstić, U. W. Paetzold, S. Orooji, O. J. J. Ronsin, Y . Ameslon, J. Harting, T. Kirchartz, S. Ravishankar, C. Dreessen, E. Kim, C. Sprau, M. Hussein, A. Colsmann, K. Forberich, K. Jäger, P . Friederich, C. Rockstuhl, Towards a fully differentiable digital twin for solar cells, arXiv, 2025

work page 2025
[73]

Siber, O

M. Siber, O. J. J. Ronsin, J. Harting, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2023, 11, 15979

work page 2023
[74]

Siber, O

M. Siber, O. J. J. Ronsin, G. L. Frey, J. Harting, Advanced Science 2026, 13, e24140

work page 2026
[76]

Shoaee, M

S. Shoaee, M. Stolterfoht, D. Neher, Advanced Energy Materials 2018, 8, 1703355

work page 2018
[77]

C. Wang, C. Wöpke, T. Seiler, J. Faisst, M. List, M. Kuhn, B. Joseph, A. Ehm, D. R. T. Zahn, Y . Vaynzof, E. M. Herzig, R. C. I. Mackenzie, U. Würfel, M. Saladina, C. Deibel, Rethinking Charge Transport and Recombination in Donor-diluted Organic Solar Cells, arXiv, 2026. 1

work page 2026
[78]

Validation of morphology-aware electronic descriptors ....................................................................... 2 1.1. Comparison to published Monte Carlo, master equation and 2D-3D drift diffusion simulation results. 2 1.1.1. Exciton dissociation for layered morphologies of binary blends......................................... 2 1.1.2. Exc...

work page
[79]

Drift-diffusion simulation of a real PM6-Y6 solar cell; determination of 𝜼𝒅𝒊, 𝝁𝒉𝒊, 𝝁𝒆𝒊, 𝒌𝒓𝒘𝒄 and 𝑵𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒘𝒄 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

work page
[80]

Detailed data to the structure-property investigations for morphologies M1 to M6 ......................... 13 3.1. Morphology and electronic properties of the as cast films ....................................................... 13 3.2. Green equation and simulated fill factor for a simplified drift-diffusion modelling setup ........ 14 3.3. Evolution of ...

work page
[81]

Performance evolution under thermal loading for morphologies M1 to M6 calculated with various model parameters ....................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. PM6:Y6 with different model parameters ..................................................................

work page
[82]

References ........................................................................................................................................... 21 2

work page
[83]

LG” for lateral gradient) or crystalline (“LGcr

Validation of morphology-aware electronic descriptors 1.1. Comparison to published Monte Carlo, master equation and 2D- 3D drift diffusion simulation results. 1.1.1. Exciton dissociation for layered morphologies of binary blends Yang and coworkers performed Monte -Carlo simulations to calculate the exciton dissociation efficiency for different type of pla...

work page
[84]

worst case

Drift-diffusion simulation of a real PM6-Y6 solar cell; determination of 𝜼𝒅𝒊, 𝝁𝒉𝒊, 𝝁𝒆𝒊, 𝒌𝒓 𝒘𝒄 and 𝑵𝒕𝒆𝒉 𝒘𝒄 The objective here is to get reasonable reference values for 𝜂𝑑𝑖, 𝜇ℎ𝑖, 𝜇𝑒𝑖, 𝑘𝑟 𝑤𝑐 and 𝑁𝑡𝑒ℎ 𝑤𝑐, which reflect the optoelectronic properties of the considered donor-acceptor blend. For this, we choose to fit the JV curve of real PM6-Y6 solar cells in or...

work page
[85]

Detailed data to the structure-property investigations for morphologies M1 to M6 3.1. Morphology and electronic properties of the as cast films The following table show morphological parameters describing the as -cast films and the ir corresponding performance results. We introduce in this section the following additional parameters 𝜙𝐶𝑟,𝑑, 𝜙𝐶𝑟,𝑎, 𝜙𝐴𝑚,𝑑, 𝜙...

work page
[86]

worst case

Performance evolution under thermal loading for morphologies M1 to M6 calculated with various model parameters 4.1. PM6:Y6 with different model parameters In the main text, it is assumed that bimolecular recombination is non -Langevin. A strong penalty has also been used for crystal to amorphous phase hopping. The figure below shows the sensitivity of the...

work page

Showing first 80 references.

[1] [1]

We identified four studies basing on advanced physics -based simulation methods (2D or 3D drift-diffusion, Monte-Carlo, Master equation for well-defined morphologies[2]

Validation of morphology-aware electronic descriptors To validate our simplified approach for evaluating morphology -dependent electronic properties , the values for exciton dissociation, bimolecular recombination, and mobilities have been calculated using Equations 6, 7, 13 and 14 above and compared with previously published 15 simulation results. We ide...

work page

[2] [2]

[4] [5] [6] [7] [9] [11] [12] [14] [15] [37] [42] where the simula tion results can be compared to the present approach. [4] [6] [7] [13] They discuss different morphological descriptors and types of morphology, but all these studies treat only two -phase morphologies (either amorphous demixed donor - acceptor BHJ or amorphous -crystalline single -materia...

work page

[3] [3]

phase separation

Results 4.1. Morphology-dependent JV curves and their evolution upon thermal loading To illustrate the interest and the power of the proposed approach, we apply the method to a set of various organic photoactive layer BHJ morphologies, for which we identify the phase distribution, calculate the optical and electronic properties, and finally the JV curve o...

work page

[4] [4]

Conclusions With this work, we introduced a new method to study the morphology-performance relationship of OSC. The approach relies on a topological analysis of the BHJ morphology and on the basic physics of the optoelectronic processes involved in power conversion , namely light absorption, free charge carrier generation, transport and recombination. Com...

work page

[5] [5]

Conflict of interests There are no conflicts to declare

work page

[6] [6]

Data availability The simulation data used for this article is publicly accessible on Zenodo (see DOI:10.5281/zenodo.20272551)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20272551

[7] [7]

FAUsolar

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge financial support by the German Research Foundation (DFG, project HA 4382/14-1, project BR 4031/21-2 and within the Collaborative Research Center ‘ChemPrint’ , project 538767711, CRC 1719), the European Commission (H2020 Program, Project 101008701/ EMERGE), the Helmholtz Association (SolarTAP Innovation Platform) ,...

work page

[8] [8]

O. Wodo, S. Tirthapura, S. Chaudhary, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Organic Electronics 2012, 13, 1105

work page 2012

[9] [9]

X. Xu, Y . Ji, C. Du, T. Hou, Y . Li, RSC Advances 2015, 5, 70939

work page 2015

[10] [10]

P . K. Watkins, A. B. Walker, G. L. B. Verschoor, Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1814

work page 2005

[11] [12]

Khodakarimi, M

S. Khodakarimi, M. H. Hekmatshoar, F. Abbasi, Applied Physics A 2016, 122

work page 2016

[12] [15]

Groves, R

C. Groves, R. A. Marsh, N. C. Greenham, The Journal of Chemical Physics 2008, 129, 114903

work page 2008

[13] [16]

Kawashima, M

E. Kawashima, M. Fujii, K. Yamashita, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18, 26456

work page 2016

[14] [17]

Wilken, T

S. Wilken, T. Upreti, A. Melianas, S. Dahlström, G. Persson, E. Olsson, R. Österbacka, M. Kemerink, Solar RRL 2020, 4, 2000029

work page 2020

[15] [18]

R. A. Marsh, C. Groves, N. C. Greenham, Journal of Applied Physics 2007, 101, 083509

work page 2007

[16] [19]

Groves, L

C. Groves, L. J. A. Koster, N. C. Greenham, Journal of Applied Physics 2009, 105, 094510

work page 2009

[17] [20]

Y . Geng, Y . Han, L. Xiong, H. Li, Organic Electronics 2024, 127, 107006

work page 2024

[18] [21]

E. Van, M. Jones, E. Jankowski, O. Wodo, Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. 2018, 3, 853

work page 2018

[19] [22]

M. C. Heiber, K. Kister, A. Baumann, V. Dyakonov, C. Deibel, T.-Q. Nguyen, Phys. Rev. Applied 2017, 8, 054043

work page 2017

[20] [23]

L. Ye, H. Hu, M. Ghasemi, T. Wang, B. A. Collins, J.-H. Kim, K. Jiang, J. H. Carpenter, H. Li, Z. Li, T. McAfee, J. Zhao, X. Chen, J. L. Y . Lai, T. Ma, J.-L. Bredas, H. Yan, H. Ade, Nature Mater 2018, 17, 253

work page 2018

[21] [24]

Armin, W

A. Armin, W. Li, O. J. Sandberg, Z. Xiao, L. Ding, J. Nelson, D. Neher, K. Vandewal, S. Shoaee, T. Wang, H. Ade, T. Heumüller, C. Brabec, P . Meredith, Advanced Energy Materials 2021, 11, 2003570

work page 2021

[22] [25]

L. Ye, S. Li, X. Liu, S. Zhang, M. Ghasemi, Y . Xiong, J. Hou, H. Ade, Joule 2019, 3, 443. 26

work page 2019

[23] [26]

J. A. Bartelt, Z. M. Beiley, E. T. Hoke, W. R. Mateker, J. D. Douglas, B. A. Collins, J. R. Tumbleston, K. R. Graham, A. Amassian, H. Ade, J. M. J. Fréchet, M. F. Toney, M. D. McGehee, Advanced Energy Materials 2013, 3, 364

work page 2013

[24] [27]

Z. Wang, Z. Peng, Z. Xiao, D. Seyitliyev, K. Gundogdu, L. Ding, H. Ade, Advanced Materials 2020, 32, 2005386

work page 2020

[25] [28]

M. B. Isichenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 1992, 64, 961

work page 1992

[26] [29]

C. H. Y . Ho, S. H. Cheung, H.-W. Li, K. L. Chiu, Y . Cheng, H. Yin, M. H. Chan, F. So, S.-W. Tsang, S. K. So, Advanced Energy Materials 2017, 7, 1602360

work page 2017

[27] [30]

Vakhshouri, D

K. Vakhshouri, D. R. Kozub, C. Wang, A. Salleo, E. D. Gomez, Physical Review Letters 2012, 108

work page 2012

[28] [31]

R. Wang, Y . Jiang, W. Gruber, Y . He, M. Wu, P . Weitz, K. Zhang, L. Lüer, K. Forberich, T. Unruh, E. Spiecker, C. Deibel, N. Li, C. J. Brabec, Advanced Materials Interfaces 2022, 9, 2200342

work page 2022

[29] [32]

J. Liu, Y . Yin, K. Wang, P . Wei, H. Lu, C. Song, Q. Liang, W. Huang, iScience 2022, 25

work page 2022

[30] [33]

S. M. Hosseini, N. Tokmoldin, Y . W. Lee, Y . Zou, H. Y . Woo, D. Neher, S. Shoaee, Solar RRL 2020, 4, 2000498

work page 2020

[31] [34]

L. Lüer, I. M. Peters, A. S. Smith, E. Dorschky, B. M. Eskofier, F. Liers, J. Franke, M. Sjarov, M. Brossog, D. M. Guldi, A. Maier, C. J. Brabec, Joule 2024, 8, 295

work page 2024

[32] [35]

Osterrieder, F

T. Osterrieder, F. Schmitt, L. Lüer, J. Wagner, T. Heumüller, J. Hauch, C. J. Brabec, Energy Environ. Sci. 2023, 16, 3984

work page 2023

[33] [36]

Keshav, F

M. Keshav, F. Kaka, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2023, 254, 112258

work page 2023

[34] [37]

Rodríguez-Martínez, E

X. Rodríguez-Martínez, E. Pascual-San-José, M. Campoy-Quiles, Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 14, 3301

work page 2021

[35] [39]

H. K. Kodali, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2013, 111, 66

work page 2013

[36] [40]

M. C. Heiber, A. Dhinojwala, Physical Review Applied 2014, 2

work page 2014

[37] [41]

Min Nam, J

Y . Min Nam, J. Huh, W. Ho Jo, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells 2010, 94, 1118

work page 2010

[38] [42]

Neupane, B

U. Neupane, B. Bahrami, M. Biesecker, M. F. Baroughi, Q. Qiao, Nano Energy 2017, 35, 128

work page 2017

[39] [43]

G. A. Nemnes, S. Iftimie, A. Palici, A. Nicolaev, T. L. Mitran, A. Radu, S. Antohe, Applied Surface Science 2017, 424, 264

work page 2017

[40] [44]

O. Wodo, J. Zola, B. S. Sarath Pokuri, P . Du, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Materials Discovery 2015, 1, 21

work page 2015

[41] [45]

F. Kaka, R. K. Singh, P . C. Ramamurthy, A. Choudhury, AIP Advances 2020, 10, 065304

work page 2020

[42] [46]

F. Kaka, S. Khanna, P . C. Ramamurthy, A. Choudhury, Journal of Applied Physics 2020, 128, 145501

work page 2020

[43] [47]

Maqsood, L

I. Maqsood, L. D. Cundy, M. Biesecker, J.-H. Kimn, E. Darlington, E. P . Hettwer, S. Schill, V. Bommisetty, In 2014 IEEE 40th Photovoltaic Specialist Conference (PVSC), 2014, pp. 1758–1761

work page 2014

[44] [48]

Bergermann, C

K. Bergermann, C. Deibel, R. Herzog, R. C. I. MacKenzie, J.-F. P . Null, M. Stoll, CiCP 2023, 34, 1

work page 2023

[45] [49]

Kaiser, J

W. Kaiser, J. Popp, M. Rinderle, T. Albes, A. Gagliardi, Algorithms 2018, 11, 37

work page 2018

[46] [50]

R. S. Gebhardt, P . Du, O. Wodo, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Computational Materials Science 2017, 129, 220

work page 2017

[47] [51]

H. Li, G. Sini, J. Sit, A. J. Moulé, J.-L. Bredas, Energy Environ. Sci. 2020, 13, 601

work page 2020

[48] [52]

R. G. E. Kimber, E. N. Wright, S. E. J. O’Kane, A. B. Walker, J. C. Blakesley, Phys. Rev. B 2012, 86, 235206

work page 2012

[49] [53]

O. J. J. Ronsin, J. Harting, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2022, 14, 49785−49800

work page 2022

[50] [54]

O. J. J. Ronsin, J. Harting, Advanced Theory and Simulations 2022, 2200286

work page 2022

[51] [55]

F. C. Spano, The Journal of Chemical Physics 2005, 122, 234701

work page 2005

[52] [56]

F. C. Spano, Acc. Chem. Res. 2010, 43, 429

work page 2010

[53] [57]

R. Wang, L. Lüer, S. Langner, T. Heumueller, K. Forberich, H. Zhang, J. Hauch, N. Li, C. J. Brabec, ChemSusChem 2021, 14, 3590

work page 2021

[54] [58]

X. Du, L. Lüer, T. Heumueller, J. Wagner, C. Berger, T. Osterrieder, J. Wortmann, S. Langner, U. Vongsaysy, M. Bertrand, N. Li, T. Stubhan, J. Hauch, C. J. Brabec, Joule 2021, 5, 495. 27

work page 2021

[55] [59]

L. A. A. Pettersson, L. S. Roman, O. Inganäs, Journal of Applied Physics 1999, 86, 487

work page 1999

[56] [60]

Kerremans, C

R. Kerremans, C. Kaiser, W. Li, N. Zarrabi, P . Meredith, A. Armin, Advanced Optical Materials 2020, 8, 2000319

work page 2020

[57] [61]

C. F. Bohren, Eur. J. Phys. 2010, 31, 573

work page 2010

[58] [62]

Campoy-Quiles, C

M. Campoy-Quiles, C. Müller, M. Garriga, E. Wang, O. Inganäs, M. I. Alonso, Thin Solid Films 2014, 571, 371

work page 2014

[59] [63]

T. Sai, M. Saba, E. R. Dufresne, U. Steiner, B. D. Wilts, Faraday Discuss. 2020, 223, 136

work page 2020

[60] [64]

O. Wodo, S. Tirthapura, S. Chaudhary, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Journal of Applied Physics 2012, 112, 064316

work page 2012

[61] [65]

O. Wodo, J. D. Roehling, A. J. Moulé, B. Ganapathysubramanian, Energy Environ. Sci. 2013, 6, 3060

work page 2013

[62] [66]

Rubinstein, R

M. Rubinstein, R. H. Colby, Polymer Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 2003

work page 2003

[63] [67]

Meier, H

T. Meier, H. Bässler, A. Köhler, Advanced Optical Materials 2021, 9, 2100115

work page 2021

[64] [68]

Koopmans, V

M. Koopmans, V. M. L. Corre, L. J. A. Koster, Journal of Open Source Software 2022, 7, 3727

work page 2022

[65] [69]

J. A. Nelson, The Physics Of Solar Cells, World Scientific Publishing Company, 2003

work page 2003

[66] [70]

G. F. Burkhard, E. T. Hoke, M. D. McGehee, Advanced Materials 2010, 22, 3293

work page 2010

[67] [71]

M. L. Schubert, H. Metni, J. D. Fischbach, B. Zerulla, M. Krstić, U. W. Paetzold, S. Orooji, O. J. J. Ronsin, Y . Ameslon, J. Harting, T. Kirchartz, S. Ravishankar, C. Dreessen, E. Kim, C. Sprau, M. Hussein, A. Colsmann, K. Forberich, K. Jäger, P . Friederich, C. Rockstuhl, Towards a fully differentiable digital twin for solar cells, arXiv, 2025

work page 2025

[68] [73]

Siber, O

M. Siber, O. J. J. Ronsin, J. Harting, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 2023, 11, 15979

work page 2023

[69] [74]

Siber, O

M. Siber, O. J. J. Ronsin, G. L. Frey, J. Harting, Advanced Science 2026, 13, e24140

work page 2026

[70] [76]

Shoaee, M

S. Shoaee, M. Stolterfoht, D. Neher, Advanced Energy Materials 2018, 8, 1703355

work page 2018

[71] [77]

C. Wang, C. Wöpke, T. Seiler, J. Faisst, M. List, M. Kuhn, B. Joseph, A. Ehm, D. R. T. Zahn, Y . Vaynzof, E. M. Herzig, R. C. I. Mackenzie, U. Würfel, M. Saladina, C. Deibel, Rethinking Charge Transport and Recombination in Donor-diluted Organic Solar Cells, arXiv, 2026. 1

work page 2026

[72] [78]

Validation of morphology-aware electronic descriptors ....................................................................... 2 1.1. Comparison to published Monte Carlo, master equation and 2D-3D drift diffusion simulation results. 2 1.1.1. Exciton dissociation for layered morphologies of binary blends......................................... 2 1.1.2. Exc...

work page

[73] [79]

Drift-diffusion simulation of a real PM6-Y6 solar cell; determination of 𝜼𝒅𝒊, 𝝁𝒉𝒊, 𝝁𝒆𝒊, 𝒌𝒓𝒘𝒄 and 𝑵𝒕𝒆𝒉𝒘𝒄 ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

work page

[74] [80]

Detailed data to the structure-property investigations for morphologies M1 to M6 ......................... 13 3.1. Morphology and electronic properties of the as cast films ....................................................... 13 3.2. Green equation and simulated fill factor for a simplified drift-diffusion modelling setup ........ 14 3.3. Evolution of ...

work page

[75] [81]

Performance evolution under thermal loading for morphologies M1 to M6 calculated with various model parameters ....................................................................................................................................... 18 4.1. PM6:Y6 with different model parameters ..................................................................

work page

[76] [82]

References ........................................................................................................................................... 21 2

work page

[77] [83]

LG” for lateral gradient) or crystalline (“LGcr

Validation of morphology-aware electronic descriptors 1.1. Comparison to published Monte Carlo, master equation and 2D- 3D drift diffusion simulation results. 1.1.1. Exciton dissociation for layered morphologies of binary blends Yang and coworkers performed Monte -Carlo simulations to calculate the exciton dissociation efficiency for different type of pla...

work page

[78] [84]

worst case

Drift-diffusion simulation of a real PM6-Y6 solar cell; determination of 𝜼𝒅𝒊, 𝝁𝒉𝒊, 𝝁𝒆𝒊, 𝒌𝒓 𝒘𝒄 and 𝑵𝒕𝒆𝒉 𝒘𝒄 The objective here is to get reasonable reference values for 𝜂𝑑𝑖, 𝜇ℎ𝑖, 𝜇𝑒𝑖, 𝑘𝑟 𝑤𝑐 and 𝑁𝑡𝑒ℎ 𝑤𝑐, which reflect the optoelectronic properties of the considered donor-acceptor blend. For this, we choose to fit the JV curve of real PM6-Y6 solar cells in or...

work page

[79] [85]

Detailed data to the structure-property investigations for morphologies M1 to M6 3.1. Morphology and electronic properties of the as cast films The following table show morphological parameters describing the as -cast films and the ir corresponding performance results. We introduce in this section the following additional parameters 𝜙𝐶𝑟,𝑑, 𝜙𝐶𝑟,𝑎, 𝜙𝐴𝑚,𝑑, 𝜙...

work page

[80] [86]

worst case

Performance evolution under thermal loading for morphologies M1 to M6 calculated with various model parameters 4.1. PM6:Y6 with different model parameters In the main text, it is assumed that bimolecular recombination is non -Langevin. A strong penalty has also been used for crystal to amorphous phase hopping. The figure below shows the sensitivity of the...

work page