Sn-Doping in LPCVD-Grown (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Films

Ahmed Ibreljic; Anhar Bhuiyan; Saleh Ahmed Khan; Sourav Sarker

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 references

Sn-Doping in LPCVD-Grown (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Films

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Tin-doped β-Ga₂O₃ films grown by LPCVD can be doped controllably to $1.17\times10^{17}$–$3.06\times10^{18}$ cm⁻³ and reach Hall mobilities of 113 cm²/V·s at room temperature and 380 cm²/V·s at 84 K, the highest reported for this growth…

desk verdict Useful first systematic LPCVD Sn-doping study with likely record mobilities, but the superlative is not directly benchmarked against prior LPCVD work and the thickness inference muddies the carrier-density numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07823 v1 pith:FKZXYK44 submitted 2026-08-07 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Saleh Ahmed Khan , Ahmed Ibreljic , Sourav Sarker , Anhar Bhuiyan This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph

keywords β-Ga2O3LPCVDSndopinghomoepitaxialgrowthHallmobilitypowerelectronicswide-bandgapsemiconductordonoractivation

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

Using solid gallium and tin sources in low-pressure chemical vapor deposition, this paper shows that tin can dope homoepitaxial (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ films controllably across $1.17\times10^{17}$ to $3.06\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ while preserving monoclinic phase, step-flow morphology, and narrow X-ray rocking curves. The best film has room-temperature Hall mobility 113 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ and 380 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ at 84 K; the authors report these as the highest values for LPCVD-grown Sn-doped $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$. Because growth runs at 6.4–16.6 $\mu$m/h, the process makes 1.7–11.3 $\mu$m thick layers far faster than metal-organic CVD or molecular-beam epitaxy, which is what matters for high-voltage power-device drift layers. The paper argues this combination makes LPCVD a viable and scalable route for thick $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ drift layers.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the solid-source Sn/Ga crucible arrangement: tin content in the source charge sets the electron concentration, while substrate temperature, pressure, and gas flows are fixed. The paper then uses a two-donor charge-neutrality model and Matthiessen's-rule mobility decomposition—ionized-impurity, neutral-impurity, polar-optical-phonon, and acoustic deformation-potential scattering—to extract donor energies and compensation from temperature-dependent Hall data. Growth thickness, estimated from cross-sectional FESEM of co-loaded sapphire films, converts sheet Hall data into bulk carrier concentration and growth rates.

What would settle it

Cut a cross-section of one of the $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ homoepilayers and measure its thickness directly with electron microscopy, or profile Sn by secondary-ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) through the layer. If those numbers disagree with the sapphire-based thickness estimate, the reported carrier concentrations and growth rates would need revision; the mobility values themselves are largely unaffected, but the doping calibration and speed advantage rest on this measurement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Central claim: LPCVD is not just a fast growth method but also a clean doping environment for Sn in $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$, with electrical quality close to metal-organic CVD and molecular-beam epitaxy. The evidence is a doping series grown at 1000 °C and ~1.5 Torr from Ga and Sn metal, with Sn loading setting the donor density; structural characterization (XRD, Raman, XPS) shows phase-pure, near-stoichiometric films; temperature-dependent Hall measurements fitted with a two-donor model give low shallow-donor activation energies (32.7 and 26.7 meV), a second deeper donor, and compensating acceptor concentrations about an order of magnitude below the donors. The standout sample, at $1.17\times10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, reaches 113 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ (room temperature) and 380 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ (84 K).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the homoepitaxial films grown on $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ substrates have the same thickness as simultaneously grown films on sapphire, because the film thickness itself was never measured on the actual samples; every carrier concentration and growth-rate number inherits that inference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A growth rate of 6.4–16.6 $\mu$m/h means a 10 $\mu$m drift layer, the kind needed for multi-kilovolt vertical devices, can be grown in roughly an hour rather than a day.
Sn doping with LPCVD covers the $10^{17}$–$10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ range with mobilities comparable to MOCVD and MBE, giving device designers a second donor species beyond Si in a fast growth platform.
The measured activation energies (26.7–32.7 meV) and low compensation imply nearly complete donor ionization at room temperature, a prerequisite for low on-resistance drift layers.
Above roughly $3\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$, surface roughness and rocking-curve width degrade, which defines a practical doping ceiling if smooth step-flow morphology is needed.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: a direct thickness measurement on the homoepitaxial films themselves would settle whether the growth-rate advantage is as large as claimed; that is the one experiment this paper leaves undone.
A natural follow-up is to place a vertical Schottky diode or transistor on the 11.3 $\mu$m layer and compare blocking voltage with Si-doped MOCVD drift layers; the paper's earlier Sn-doped LPCVD diode work makes that test immediate.
The transport model assumes only four scattering mechanisms; a temperature-dependent Hall study down to lower temperatures or a mobility-versus-thickness series could reveal whether defects at the film/substrate interface contribute at low temperature.
Sn's octahedral-site preference and low activation energy suggest that co-doping or multi-layer stacks with Si might be feasible, but abrupt doping-transition behavior in LPCVD is not addressed and would need calibration for device structures.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper delivers the first systematic study of Sn-doped homoepitaxial (010) beta-Ga2O3 grown by LPCVD, and the core result is believable: controlled n-type doping from 1.17e17 to 3.06e18 cm-3, Hall mobilities that track doping in a sensible way (113 to 63 cm2/Vs at room temperature), and a low-temperature peak of 380 cm2/Vs at 84 K for the lowest-doped sample. Growth rates of 6.4-16.6 um/h with thicknesses up to 11.3 um are genuinely impressive for this technique. The structural work is solid and internally consistent: XRD rocking curves widen gradually with doping, Raman shows the expected monoclinic modes, XPS gives near-stoichiometric O/Ga, and AFM shows step-flow morphology throughout. The transport modeling is standard and gives reasonable donor energies and low compensation.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The "highest reported value for LPCVD-grown Sn-doped beta-Ga2O3" claim is not actually supported by the comparison shown. Figure 6 benchmarks only against MOCVD and MBE; refs 72 and 73 (LPCVD Sn-doped on sapphire) and ref. 61 (their own LPCVD Sn-doped diodes) are cited but never quoted. If any of those prior films had a room-temperature mobility above 113 or an 84 K mobility above 380, the record claim is wrong. The claim should be qualified to homoepitaxial LPCVD and directly compared with those numbers.

The thickness issue is real but narrower than the reader suggests. The films' thicknesses come from co-loaded sapphire witnesses, not from the homoepitaxial layers themselves. That affects absolute carrier concentrations, growth rates, and derived donor densities, because all of them scale with the assumed thickness. It does not affect the Hall mobilities, since van der Pauw mobility is thickness-independent. The authors should measure thickness on the actual films or, at minimum, report the uncertainty introduced by the witness assumption.

Missing error bars are a broader problem. Hall data, rocking-curve widths, and XPS compositions are all presented without uncertainty estimates, so it is hard to say whether sample-to-sample differences are meaningful. The two-donor and Matthiessen fits are performed on the same temperature-dependent data they are said to confirm; the agreement is a property of the fit, not an independent check. That is common practice, but the language "excellent agreement confirms" oversells it.

For the Ga2O3 epitaxy community this is a useful data point and a candidate benchmark for LPCVD Sn doping. It deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject. My recommendation: send it to review, and require the authors to substantiate the record claim with direct LPCVD comparisons, address the thickness determination, and add uncertainty estimates. The central findings will likely survive those revisions.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a systematic study of Sn-doped (010) β-Ga2O3 homoepitaxial films grown by low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD). The authors vary Sn source loading to achieve room-temperature carrier concentrations from 1.17×10^17 to 3.06×10^18 cm^-3, with Hall mobilities decreasing from 113 to 63 cm^2/V·s. Structural characterization (XRD, Raman, XPS, FESEM, AFM) shows phase-pure monoclinic films with step-flow morphology and rocking-curve FWHM as low as 68.4 arcsec. Temperature-dependent Hall measurements on two samples are analyzed with a two-donor charge-neutrality model and Matthiessen's-rule mobility model, yielding shallow donor energies of 32.7 and 26.7 meV, deeper donor levels near 95 and 80 meV, and compensating acceptor densities of 2.0×10^16 and 3.5×10^16 cm^-3. The central claim is that the sample with n=1.17×10^17 cm^-3 exhibits the highest room-temperature (113 cm^2/V·s) and low-temperature (380 cm^2/V·s at 84 K) Hall mobilities reported for LPCVD-grown Sn-doped β-Ga2O3, and that LPCVD growth rates of 6.4–16.6 μm/h enable thick drift layers.

Significance. If the superlative mobility claims are adequately supported, this work is a valuable contribution to the β-Ga2O3 power-device materials literature: it demonstrates controlled Sn doping by LPCVD over a wide range, shows good structural quality and high growth rates, and provides temperature-dependent Hall data with a scattering analysis. The paper also usefully extends the comparison of LPCVD Sn-doped films against MOCVD/MBE Sn-doped layers. The main significance hinges on the record-mobility claim, which is not currently substantiated because no quantitative comparison with prior LPCVD Sn-doped work is provided. The experimental dataset (XRD, Raman, XPS, AFM, Hall) is internally consistent, and the growth-rate/thickness claims are plausible, although the thickness-inference method introduces a systematic uncertainty that propagates to reported carrier concentrations.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Figure 6; Abstract] The claim that the 113 cm^2/V·s room-temperature mobility and the 380 cm^2/V·s at 84 K are 'the highest reported values for LPCVD-grown Sn-doped β-Ga2O3' is unsupported as written. Figure 6 benchmarks only against MOCVD and MBE data (refs 21, 22, 39, 40, 43, 44). No mobility values from prior LPCVD-grown Sn-doped β-Ga2O3 reports are quoted, including refs 72 and 73 (LPCVD Sn-doped on sapphire) and ref. 61 (the authors' own LPCVD Sn-doped Schottky diode work with presumably similar drift layers). To sustain the superlative, the authors must either add those prior LPCVD data points to the benchmarking figure and explicitly compare the mobility values, or temper the claim to 'among the highest' with a clear statement of the comparison basis.
[Section II, Experimental Details; Table 1] Film thicknesses of the homoepitaxial layers were not measured directly; they were estimated from cross-sectional FESEM images of co-loaded β-Ga2O3 films grown on sapphire, assuming identical growth rates on sapphire and on the (010) β-Ga2O3 substrate. This assumption is not validated, and because carrier concentrations in Table 1 are computed as sheet density divided by thickness, the reported values of 1.17×10^17–3.06×10^18 cm^-3, as well as the growth rates of 6.4–16.6 μm/h, carry an unquantified systematic error. The Hall mobility is not affected by this thickness uncertainty because the van der Pauw mobility is obtained from sheet carrier density and sheet resistance, as noted in the paper's own data flow. The authors should either measure the thickness of the actual homoepitaxial films (e.g., by step profilometry, ellipsometry, or TEM) or explicitly quantify the expected difference in growth rate between sapphire and (010) β-Ga2O3 and provide an uncertainty estimate for the carrier concentrations.
[Section III, Eqs. (1)–(2); Table 3] The two-donor charge-neutrality model is fitted to the very same temperature-dependent Hall carrier-concentration data from which the donor parameters are then 'extracted,' and Table 3 sets the shallow donor concentration ND1 equal to the room-temperature carrier concentration by construction (1.17×10^17 and 3.28×10^17 cm^-3). The 'excellent agreement' between measured and fitted curves is therefore a property of the fit, not an independent validation of the two-donor hypothesis. The extracted values of ND2, ED2, and NA should be presented as model-dependent estimates rather than as directly determined materials parameters. A concrete test would be to compare the fitted donor activation energies with values obtained from a separate technique (e.g., capacitance-voltage profiling or admittance spectroscopy) or to state explicitly that the two-donor model is one plausible parametrization and not a unique solution.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Figure 3] The Raman axis label in Figure 3 is garbled ('Raman Shi9'); the intended text is likely 'Raman Shift (cm^-1)'.
[Section III, Figure 6] The legend entries in Figure 6 mix growth-method labels (e.g., 'MBE MOCATAXY', 'MOVPE') with an inconsistent naming scheme; for clarity, use a uniform naming convention and define the symbols in the caption.
[Section III, Table 1] Table 1 lists sample numbers but omits growth duration and measured thickness repeatability. Adding these parameters would aid reproducibility, especially given the thickness-inference approach.
[Section II, Experimental Details] The Hall measurement temperature range is stated as 80 to 350 K, but the low-temperature peak mobility is reported at 84 K; the authors should clarify whether 84 K is the lowest measured temperature or the temperature of the observed peak.
[References] Reference 4 contains a typo ('1202A1202' should be '1202A2'), and several arXiv preprints (refs 53, 63, 64) are cited without archival validation; please check the final published versions or include appropriate caveats.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the central mobility and carrier-concentration results are direct Hall measurements, the transport-model parameters are explicitly fitted rather than predicted, and the superlative and thickness concerns are non-circular support/assumption issues.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative results are direct experimental measurements: room-temperature and low-temperature Hall mobilities, carrier concentrations, XRD rocking-curve widths, and RMS roughness values are measured quantities and do not depend on any fitted model for their validity. The van der Pauw Hall mobility is computed from sheet resistance and sheet carrier density, so it is unaffected by the Section II thickness-estimation caveat, in which film thicknesses were inferred from co-loaded sapphire growths rather than measured on the homoepitaxial films; this affects absolute carrier concentrations and growth rates but is an assumption, not a circular reduction. The 'highest reported values for LPCVD-grown Sn-doped beta-Ga2O3' superlative is under-supported as a benchmark because Figure 6 compares only with MOCVD/MBE data (refs 21, 22, 39, 40, 43, 44) and does not quote prior LPCVD-grown Sn-doped Hall mobilities from refs 61, 72, or 73; however, this is a missing-comparison support problem, not a self-definitional or fitted-input-called-prediction circularity. The two-donor charge-neutrality model (Eq. 1) and Matthiessen's-rule mobility model (Eq. 2) are explicitly fitted to the same temperature-dependent Hall data, and Table 2 lists the phonon energy as 'Fitted'; the 'excellent agreement' reported in Section III is therefore an in-sample fit metric rather than an independent prediction, and the extracted donor energies and compensation concentrations are parameter-extraction outputs, not quantities derived from the conclusion they are used to support. The paper labels the curves in Figure 7 as 'Fitted' and does not claim an out-of-sample prediction. Self-citations (refs 59, 61-64) are used as contextual prior-work comparisons and are not load-bearing in the derivation chain. Accordingly, no step satisfying the quotation-and-reduction test for circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative claims rest on fitted transport parameters and on a thickness calibration from sapphire witness samples; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

ND1, ED1, ND2, ED2, NA (two-donor model) = Sample 1: 1.17e17 cm-3, 32.7 meV, 1.31e17 cm-3, 95 meV, 2.0e16 cm-3; Sample 2: 3.28e17 cm-3, 26.7 meV, 4.35e17 cm-3…
Extracted by fitting Eq. (1) to the measured n(T) data for Samples 1 and 2 in Fig. 7(b); these fitted values are the basis for the claimed donor activation energies and low compensation.
Phonon energy (ħωo) = 47 meV
Listed as 'Fitted' in Table 2 and used in the polar optical phonon scattering term when fitting the Hall mobility temperature dependence in Fig. 7(a).

assumptions (5)

standard math Charge neutrality with two donor species and one compensating acceptor (Eq. 1)
Standard semiconductor statistics used to describe carrier freeze-out; assumes the specific two-donor defect model.
standard math Matthiessen's rule combining four independent scattering mechanisms (Eq. 2)
Standard transport model; assumes ionized impurity, neutral impurity, polar optical phonon, and acoustic deformation potential scattering are independent.
ad hoc to paper Room-temperature carrier concentration equals the shallow donor concentration ND1
In Table 3, ND1 is set to the room-temperature Hall electron concentration, assuming full ionization of shallow donors at 300 K and negligible deep donor contribution at room temperature.
domain assumption Thickness of the homoepitaxial film equals that of co-loaded sapphire witness
Thickness and growth rate of the homoepitaxial layer are inferred from cross-sectional FESEM of simultaneously loaded sapphire samples, assuming identical growth rates on both substrates.
domain assumption Single parabolic conduction band with effective mass 0.313 m0
Used in the mobility model; values taken from prior literature rather than measured here.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sn-Doping in LPCVD-Grown (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Films." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKZXYK44

@misc{pith2026260807823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sn-Doping in LPCVD-Grown (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Films},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKZXYK44}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07823}
}

abstract

In this work, Sn-doped (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ homoepitaxial films were grown by low-pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD), and the influence of Sn incorporation on their structural, morphological, and electrical properties was systematically investigated. Controlled room-temperature carrier concentrations ranging from $1.17 \times 10^{17}$ to $3.06 \times 10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$ were achieved, with corresponding Hall mobilities decreasing from 113 to 63 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$. The films exhibited the monoclinic $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ phase, near-stoichiometric composition, and well-defined step-flow morphology, with a minimum rocking-curve FWHM of 68.4 arcsec and an RMS roughness of 2.63 nm. Film thicknesses ranging from 1.66 to 11.3 $\mu$m were obtained at growth rates of 6.4 to 16.6 $\mu$m h$^{-1}$, demonstrating the ability of LPCVD to produce thick epitaxial layers. The sample with a room-temperature carrier concentration of $1.17 \times 10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$ exhibited room-temperature and low-temperature Hall mobilities of 113 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ and 380 cm$^2$ V$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ at 84 K, respectively. Both represent the highest reported values for LPCVD-grown Sn-doped $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$. Transport modeling of the same sample yielded a shallow donor activation energy of 32.7 meV, a deeper donor level at 95 meV, and a low compensating acceptor concentration of $2.0 \times 10^{16}$ cm$^{-3}$, indicating efficient donor activation and a low degree of compensation. These results demonstrate that LPCVD enables controlled Sn doping while maintaining excellent structural and electrical quality, providing a viable route for realizing thick $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ epitaxial drift layers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07823 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

5 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[3]

High-Mobility Ge-Doped $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Growth on Sapphire by Low-Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition

(64) Ibreljic, A.; Khan, S. A.; Sarker, S.; Isah, I.; Margiotta, S.; Davenport, M.; Lam, S.; Bhuiyan, A. High-Mobility Ge-Doped β-Ga2O3 Growth on Sapphire by Low-Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.10908

work page Pith review arXiv
[4]

B.; Weber, J

(65) Varley, J. B.; Weber, J. R.; Janotti, A.; Van de Walle, C. G. Oxygen vacancies and donor impurities in β-Ga2O3. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97 (14), 142106. DOI: 10.1063/1.3499306. (66) Víllora, E. G.; Shimamura, K.; Yoshikawa, Y .; Ujiie, T.; Aoki, K. Electrical conductivity and carrier concentration control in β-Ga2O3 by Si doping. Appl. Phys. Lett. 20...

work page arXiv 2010
[44]

Furthermore, the extracted compensating acceptor concentrations of 2.0 × 10¹⁶ and 3.5 × 10¹⁶ cm⁻³ are substantially lower than the corresponding donor concentrations, indicating a low degree of compensation. The combination of low shallow donor activation energies, low compensation, and the excellent agreement between the measured data and the transport m...

arXiv 2018
[230]

Intrinsic electron mobility limits in β-Ga2O3

(78) Ma, N.; Tanen, N.; Verma, A.; Guo, Z.; Luo, T.; Xing, H.; Jena, D. Intrinsic electron mobility limits in β-Ga2O3. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2016, 109 (21), 212101. (79) Neal, A. T.; Mou, S.; Rafique, S.; Zhao, H.; Ahmadi, E.; Speck, J. S.; Stevens, K. T.; 18 Blevins, J. D.; Thomson, D. B.; Moser, N.; et al. Donors and deep acceptors in β-Ga2O3. Appl. Phys. L...

doi:10.1063/1.5034474 2016
[2026]

High-Quality Ge-Doped (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Homoepitaxial Films Grown by Low-pressure CVD: Structural, Electrical, and Schottky Diode Characteristics

(54) Zhang, Y .; Feng, Z.; Karim, M. R.; Zhao, H. High-temperature low-pressure chemical vapor deposition of β-Ga2O3. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2020, 38 (5), 050806. DOI: 10.1116/6.0000360. (55) Rafique, S.; Han, L.; Neal, A. T.; Mou, S.; Boeckl, J.; Zhao, H. Towards High-Mobility Heteroepitaxial β-Ga2O3 on Sapphire − Dependence on The Substrate Off-Axis An...

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

High-Mobility Ge-Doped $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Growth on Sapphire by Low-Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition

(64) Ibreljic, A.; Khan, S. A.; Sarker, S.; Isah, I.; Margiotta, S.; Davenport, M.; Lam, S.; Bhuiyan, A. High-Mobility Ge-Doped β-Ga2O3 Growth on Sapphire by Low-Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.10908

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [4]

B.; Weber, J

(65) Varley, J. B.; Weber, J. R.; Janotti, A.; Van de Walle, C. G. Oxygen vacancies and donor impurities in β-Ga2O3. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2010, 97 (14), 142106. DOI: 10.1063/1.3499306. (66) Víllora, E. G.; Shimamura, K.; Yoshikawa, Y .; Ujiie, T.; Aoki, K. Electrical conductivity and carrier concentration control in β-Ga2O3 by Si doping. Appl. Phys. Lett. 20...

work page arXiv 2010

[3] [44]

Furthermore, the extracted compensating acceptor concentrations of 2.0 × 10¹⁶ and 3.5 × 10¹⁶ cm⁻³ are substantially lower than the corresponding donor concentrations, indicating a low degree of compensation. The combination of low shallow donor activation energies, low compensation, and the excellent agreement between the measured data and the transport m...

arXiv 2018

[4] [230]

Intrinsic electron mobility limits in β-Ga2O3

(78) Ma, N.; Tanen, N.; Verma, A.; Guo, Z.; Luo, T.; Xing, H.; Jena, D. Intrinsic electron mobility limits in β-Ga2O3. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2016, 109 (21), 212101. (79) Neal, A. T.; Mou, S.; Rafique, S.; Zhao, H.; Ahmadi, E.; Speck, J. S.; Stevens, K. T.; 18 Blevins, J. D.; Thomson, D. B.; Moser, N.; et al. Donors and deep acceptors in β-Ga2O3. Appl. Phys. L...

doi:10.1063/1.5034474 2016

[5] [2026]

High-Quality Ge-Doped (010) $\beta$-Ga$_2$O$_3$ Homoepitaxial Films Grown by Low-pressure CVD: Structural, Electrical, and Schottky Diode Characteristics

(54) Zhang, Y .; Feng, Z.; Karim, M. R.; Zhao, H. High-temperature low-pressure chemical vapor deposition of β-Ga2O3. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2020, 38 (5), 050806. DOI: 10.1116/6.0000360. (55) Rafique, S.; Han, L.; Neal, A. T.; Mou, S.; Boeckl, J.; Zhao, H. Towards High-Mobility Heteroepitaxial β-Ga2O3 on Sapphire − Dependence on The Substrate Off-Axis An...

work page Pith review arXiv 2020