text:
# Transform-limited pulses are not optimal for resonant multiphoton transitions

\]www.weizmann.ac.il/home/feyaron/

## Abstract

Maximizing nonlinear light-matter interactions is a primary motive for compressing laser pulses to achieve ultrashort transform limited pulses. Here we show how, by appropriately shaping the pulses, resonant multiphoton transitions can be enhanced significantly beyond the level achieved by maximizing the pulse’s peak intensity. We demonstrate the counterintuitive nature of this effect with an experiment in a resonant two-photon absorption, in which, by selectively removing certain spectral bands, the peak intensity of the pulse is reduced by a factor of 40, yet the absorption rate is doubled. Furthermore, by suitably designing the spectral phase of the pulse, we increase the absorption rate by a factor of 7.

The ability to steer quantum systems by coherently manipulating the interacting light (coherent quantum control), has been proposed 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4  and recently demonstrated 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 8 ; 9 ; 10  for manipulating both simple and complex systems such as atoms, molecules and semiconductors. Weiner et al. 11  demonstrated selectivity among Raman transitions excited by shaped pulses. They showed that by splitting an initially transform limited pulse into a pulse sequence with a specific repetition rate, a certain vibrational mode of a molecular crystal was excited. Meshulach and Silberberg 12 ; 13  demonstrated that by manipulating the spectral phase of the exciting laser pulse, one could reduce and even annihilate the two photon absorption (TPA) rate. Nevertheless, it has been established 13  that these processes are maximized by transform-limited pulses, and cannot be enhanced beyond that level by shaping the pulses. Here we show that for transitions that involve an intermediate resonant state, this limit is no longer valid. By shaping the pulses in a way that exploits the spectral response of the interaction around the resonance we enhanced the resonant TPA rate in Rb vapor by a factor of 7, even though their peak intensity was reduced. In another experiment we enhanced the TPA rate by $`100\%`$ simply by blocking all the red-detuned frequencies of the pulse, although the peak intensity of the pulse was reduced by a factor of 40.

Consider a TPA in an atomic system, induced by a weak femtosecond laser pulse with an electric field $`\epsilon (t)`$. The amplitude of the excited state is predicted by the second order time dependent perturbation theory:

$`a_f(t)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mu _{fn}\mu _{ng}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{t_1}}\epsilon (t_1)\epsilon (t_2)`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`exp(i\omega _{fn}t_1)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _{ng}t_2)dt_2dt_1,`$
where $`\mu _{fn}`$ and $`\mu _{ng}`$ are the dipole moment matrix elements, with $`|g`$,$`|n`$ and $`|f`$ the ground, intermediate, and final levels, $`\omega _{ij}(E_iE_j)/\mathrm{}`$, and the summation is performed over all possible intermediate states of the unperturbed atom. The pulse duration is assumed here to be considerably shorter than all lifetimes involved. In a nonresonant TPA, all the intermediate levels of the atom are considerably far from the pulse frequency spectrum. The nonresonant excited state amplitude can then be approximated by 13 :

$`a_f^{nr}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{fn}\mu _{ng}}{\omega _{ng}\omega _{fg}/2}}`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}E(\omega )E(\omega _{fg}\omega )𝑑\omega .`$
where $`E(\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\epsilon (t)`$, and the pulse spectrum is taken to be centered on $`\omega _{fg}/2`$. Equation (2) reflects the fact that two-photon transitions occur for all pairs of photons with frequencies that additively give the final transition energy. As is evident from Eq. (2), the nonresonant TPA rate is maximized by a transform limited pulse, where all the spectral elements of $`E(\omega )`$ have the same phase, and therefore add constructively.

In the case of a resonant TPA, some intermediate (resonant) levels are within the spectral range of the pulse. The contribution to the excited state amplitude due to a transition through an intermediate resonant level $`|i`$ is given by:

$`a_f^r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}^2}}\mu _{fi}\mu _{ig}[i\pi E(\omega _{ig})E(\omega _{fg}\omega _{ig})`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{E(\omega )E(\omega _{fg}\omega )}{\omega _{ig}\omega }}d\omega ].`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the principle value of Couchy, and $`\omega _{ig},\omega _{fg}\omega _{ig}=\omega _{fi}`$ are the resonance frequencies. As is evident from Eq. (3), the resonant process exhibits a different spectral behavior from that of the nonresonant one. In cases where a single resonant level exists close to the two-photon frequency $`\omega _{fg}/2`$ (compared to the spectral bandwidth of the pulse), the contribution of the nonresonant process is negligible, therefore Eq. (3) describes the total TPA rate.

The first term in Eq. (3) depends only on the spectral components of the pulse at the resonance frequencies, whereas the second term integrates over the contributions of all other spectral components of the pulse. The broad spectral dependence of the second term originates from the short time ($`10^{13}`$ sec) the atom spends at the intermediate level before absorbing the second photon, which according to the uncertainty principle allows for some detuning between the exciting photons and the resonance frequencies. Nevertheless, the larger the detuning, the lower the probability the atom will stay at the intermediate level long enough to absorb a second photon, hence the $`\frac{1}{\omega _{ig}\omega }`$ factor. Due to the considerably longer time the atom remains at the final level, the frequencies of all the photon pairs must sum to $`\omega _{fg}`$, and hence the dependence on $`E(\omega )E(\omega _{fg}\omega )`$ in Eqs. (2) and (3). As expected for a harmonically driven system, the first term (the on-resonance contribution) is shifted by $`\pi /2`$ compared with the second term(the off-resonance contributions). Also, the spectral components below and above the resonance excite the system in-phase and $`\pi `$ out-of-phase, respectively. We shall utilize these phase relations to enhance the nonlinear response.

Using the above derivation, we can predict the TPA rate for various pulses with different spectra. When the atom is subjected to a transform limited pulse, the second term in Eq. (3) integrates over both negative and positive contributions, and becomes negligible as the spectral width of the exciting pulse grows larger than $`|\omega _{ig}\omega _{fg}/2|`$. In other words, a transform limited pulse induces a destructive quantum interference between the events in which the first exciting photon is red detuned and those in which it is blue detuned. A simple, although counterintuitive, way to enhance the transition probability is to prevent this destructive interference by blocking all red (or blue) detuned photons, despite the fact that this will reduce the pulse’s peak intensity (due to both attenuation of the power and broadening of the pulse). Larger enhancement can be achieved by applying a phase function that inverts the sign of $`E(\omega )E(\omega _{fg}\omega )`$ about the resonance, so that all photon pairs interfere constructively, and the transition probability is maximized. Since the integrand in Eq. (3) approaches its maximum absolute value around the singular point at $`\omega _{ig}`$, this enhancement depends on the actual spectral resolution of the phase function, which limits the sharpness of the sign inversion around $`\omega _{ig}`$.

To demonstrate these enhancements experimentally, we considered the resonant TPA in Rubidium gas between the 5S and the 5D states, which is dominated by resonant transitions through the 5P level (Fig. 1a). The TPA was induced by pulses with a bandwidth of 18 nm (corresponding to 50 fs transform limited pulses), produced by a mode-locked Ti:sapphire laser with an average power of 150 mW and repetition rate of 80 MHz. The spectrum, centered on the two-photon transition frequency $`\omega _{fg}/2`$ (778 nm), overlapped with the 5S-5P and the 5P-5D resonant transitions at $`\omega _{ig}`$ and $`\omega _{fi}`$ corresponding to 780 nm and 776 nm, respectively. As excited atoms decay spontaneously to the ground level through the 6P level, the TPA intensity is evaluated by measuring the fluorescence at 420 nm. We adjusted the spectral phase of the pulse with a programmable pulse shaper, which includes a liquid crystal spatial light modulator (SLM) at its Fourier plane 14 ; 15 ; 16 . The shaper enables both cancellation of dispersion, as well as the application of any desired additional spectral phase mask by applying different phase shifts to the spatially separated spectral components of the pulse. Our setup (Fig. 1b) was almost identical to the one in 12 , except that the input laser beam was expanded in order to improve the spectral resolution to less than 0.3 nm.

In the first experiment we demonstrate enhancement of the TPA rate by blocking parts of the spectrum of the exciting pulse. To achieve that, we placed an adjustable slit at the shaper’s Fourier plane, and used it to block spectral bands of the pulse symmetrically around $`\omega _{fg}/2`$ (Fig. 2a). The SLM was used here only for dispersion cancellation in order to produce transform-limited pulses at the Rubidium gas cell. We measured both the fluorescence signal and the average power transmitted through the slit as a function of the ”cutoff wavelengths” (i.e. the shortest and longest wavelengths that passed the slit; see Fig. 2a).

The experimental results are presented in Fig. 2b together with the theoretical curve calculated by Eq. (3). When the cutoff frequencies approached the frequencies of the resonant transitions, we observed a steep enhancement of the fluorescence signal, reaching a factor of 2, while the power of the pulse at that point was reduced by $`71\%`$. The maximum signal was achieved when the cutoff frequency was shifted from $`\omega _{ig}`$ by the spectral resolution of the system. Closing the slit further decreased the fluorescence rapidly, which approached zero when the slit closed completely.

Figure 2c illustrates the calculated temporal intensities of the optimal shaped pulse and the initial, unshaped transform-limited pulse, showing both the drastic reduction of the intensity and the broadening of the pulse. These results demonstrate the counterintuitive nature of this enhancement. The $`71\%`$ reduction in the average power and the 8-fold broadening of the pulse (to 390 fs) result in a reduction of the peak intensity by a factor of 38, yet the TPA rate was increased by $`100\%`$.

The goal of the next experiment was to achieve maximum enhancement of the TPA rate by inverting the sign of $`E(\omega )E(\omega _{fg}\omega )`$ about the resonance. Therefore we used the SLM as a phase filter to apply a phase shift of $`\pi /2`$ to a 4 nm spectral window, and scanned that window over the pulse’s spectrum. The 4 nm width of the phase window was chosen to fit the difference between resonant transitions at 780 nm and 776 nm, respectively. Figure 3b shows the measured fluorescence intensity vs. the spectral position of the phase window, together with a theoretical curve calculated by Eq. (3). Maximum enhancement by a factor of 7 was achieved when the phase window was centered on $`\omega _{fg}/2`$, its leading and trailing edges close to the frequencies of the resonant transitions (Fig. 3a). Substituting the phase window at that position in Eq. (3) will show that it performs the desired sign inversion about the resonance for a spectral region of 8 nm around $`\omega _{ig}`$, thus inducing a constructive instead of a destructive interference in that region. Figure 3c shows the calculated temporal intensities of the optimal shaped pulse and the initial, unshaped transform-limited pulse.

The same enhancement factor (and a similar phase window) was achieved when we performed an adaptive optimization 17 ; 18 ; 19 ; 20  of the phase function, using the fluorescence intensity as a feedback signal.

In conclusion, we have shown that resonant multiphoton transitions can be significantly enhanced by exploiting the general spectral response of the interaction around resonance. When the interaction involves an intermediate resonant state, maximizing the peak intensity by obtaining a transform-limited pulse does not maximize the transition rate (as is the case with nonresonant interactions), and pulses with significantly lower intensities can be more effective. By properly designing the spectral amplitude and phase of the exciting pulse, we have demonstrated large enhancements of resonant TPA, in excellent agreement with the theory. Unlike other experiments in coherent quantum control, where selectivity between a few processes is the primary goal, we achieved an enhancement of the absolute rate of a single, simple nonlinear process. Since this enhancement is based on the general behavior of any system around resonance, we believe this mechanism may have played a role in enhancing more complex nonlinear interactions 18 ; 19 , and could be applied to enhance other resonant nonlinear processes.


format: text

text:
# Spin-Polarized Electron Transport at Ferromagnet/Semiconductor Schottky Contacts

## I introduction

Semiconductor physics is in the midst of a wide ranging exploration of physical phenomena and device concepts that are connected with the electron spin degree of freedom. Much work has focused on optical generation and detection of spin populations. However, most spin based device concepts require an electrical means of injecting, manipulating, and detecting spin-polarized electron currents. Thus it is important to understand the fundamental physics of electron spin transport in the main structural components that make up semiconductor devices. The Schottky contact is an essential semiconductor device component. Schottky contacts form at most metal/semiconductor interfaces. Electrical spin injection and detection schemes often involve ferromagnetic metal/semiconductor interfaces with Schottky contacts so it is important to understand spin dependent electron transport at these structures.

Presently, theories for the injection or detection of spin-polarized electron currents at a metallic ferromagnet/nonmagnetic semiconductor interface have been formulated in the spirit of transport at a ferromagnetic metal/normal metal interface. The description of spin transport is incorporated using variations on a spin diffusion equation.wyder  In these approachesschmidt ; rashba ; smithsilver ; pikus ; yu ; rashba2  the semiconductor is described as a poorly conducting metal, in the sense that the the carrier density and thus the conductivity of the semiconductor is taken to be spatially uniform. Important insights gained through these models include: (i) the large conductivity mismatch between a highly conductive metal and a comparatively weakly conductive semiconductor is a major obstacle to spin injection; and (ii) a spin selective interface resistance can be of great benefit to efficient spin injection. A major drawback to a spin device physics model based on such uniform conductivity treatments is that they do not describe the underlying electronic properties, the currents and potentials of real semiconductor structures. An obvious example of a problem with uniform conductivity models for metal/semiconductor Schottky contacts is that they yield the symmetric, linear current-voltage characteristics of resistors rather than the rectifying characteristics of diodes. An initial study of spin injection including the effects of band-bending in a depletion region at an n-type Schottky contact showed that the depletion region can have an important effect on spin transport and that a device-physics approach to the theory of spin-contacts is necessary.brief

Experimentally, spin dependent transport has been investigated at interfaces consisting of a ferromagnetic metalploogmetal ; crowell ; jonkermetal  or a heavily doped spin-polarized semiconductorjonkerhet ; molenhet  contact and a non-magnetic semiconductor. Both spin injection, in which the electron flux flows from the spin polarized contact into the nonmagnetic semiconductor, and spin detection, in which the electron flux flows from the nonmagnetic semiconductor into the spin polarized contact, have been considered. In the spin injection measurements, detection of spin-polarized injection is often made using a spin-LED (light-emitting diode) configuration. In these experiments, electrons are injected into an n-type semiconductor from a spin polarized contact and are subsequently transported to a detection region, typically a quantum well, where they recombine with unpolarized holes transported from an adjacent p-type doped region. Because of the optical selection rules in III-V semiconductors the relative intensity of right- and left- circularly polarized luminescence gives a measure of the spin-polarization of the electron density in the recombination region. In spin detection measurements, spin polarized electrons are often optically generated in III-V semiconductors, and a spin dependent voltage signal is sought as the electron flux is transported into a spin polarized contact.

In this paper, we theoretically investigate spin-polarized electron current at ferromagnetic metal/semiconductor Schottky contacts. We systematically treat the semiconductor device operation and the spin physics at the same level of approximation. We consider both n-type and p-type Schottky contacts with current flow corresponding to either forward and reverse bias. We first treat the overall electrostatics of the system and subsequently solve charge and spin continuity equations. We use a drift-diffusion transport model to describe the charge and spin currents. The drift-diffusion transport model is a strong scattering approximation appropriate for relatively high temperatures, such as room temperature. It is the approach used to describe most semiconductor device operation. Here we extend this this approach to describe spin dependent transport at Schottky contacts. We find that the depletion region associated with a Schottky energy barrier can have a very strong effect on spin-polarized electron transport at ferromagnetic metal/semiconductor contacts. A large Schottky barrier is detrimental to spin injection and can also hinder spin detection. The model suggest structure design strategies for reducing the detrimental effects of the Schottky energy barrier.

The paper is organized in the following way: in Sec. II we describe the model, in Sec. III we present our numerical results and in Sec. IV we summarize our conclusions. Calculational details are included in the appendices.

## II description of model

When a metal/semiconductor interface is formed the Fermi energy is usually pinned within the energy gap of the semiconductor. The position of the the semiconductor valence and conduction bands, relative to Fermi energy, at the interface does not depend strongly on the bulk doping of the semiconductor or on which metal is used to make the contact. For a given semiconductor, this energy matching position at the interface is largely fixed. Generally the position of the semiconductor valence and conduction bands relative to the Fermi energy at the interface, which depends on interfacial charge distribution, does not coincide with the corresponding energy position of the bands in the bulk of the semiconductor, which depends on the bulk doping level. There is a band bending region near the interface which at zero applied bias: is depleted of carriers, is charged because of the background doping, and has a large spatially varying electric field. The Schottky energy barrier between the pinned Fermi level and the semiconductor conduction band at the interface results in the charged depletion region and has important consequences on charge current flow at metal/semiconductor interfaces. For example, it leads to diode type current-voltage characteristics. Thus, it is not particularly surprising that this energy barrier and depletion region also have important consequences on spin current flow at these interfaces.

The design of the interface is central to spin injection and detection structures. In particular, spin dependent interface resistance resulting from spin dependent tunnel barriers have been argued to be essential for effective spin injection or detection at metal semiconductor interfaces. schmidt ; rashba ; smithsilver  Possible spin-selective interface resistance layers, formed from thin magnetic insulators, have been experimentally investigated by Motsnyi, et al.motsnyi  In other work, Hanbicki, et al., have investigated Schottky barriers with heavy doping near the interface to study structures in which current is dominated by tunneling for spin injection.jonkerdep  These results are promising for the realization of future electron spin based device designs. Interfacial spin-flip scattering, which would be detrimental to spin injection or detection structures, is possible.interface  Structures should be designed to minimize this process.

We consider four scenarios corresponding to the injection or collection of spin polarized electron current at Schottky contacts to n-type or p-type semiconductors. The four cases are schematically shown in Fig. 1. Panel (a) of Fig. 1 illustrates the case of spin injection into a n-type semiconductor.

The diode formed by the Schottky contact is in reverse bias and the electron flux is from the ferromagnetic metal on the left into the semiconductor on the right. A heavily doped region near the interface, as illustrated by the doping profile in the lower part of panel (a), can be designed to form a sharp potential profile through which electrons tunnel. The heavily doped region reduces the effective Schottky energy barrier that determines the properties of the depletion region.sze  The total barrier e$`\varphi _b`$ is divided into two parts, a tunneling region with barrier height e$`\varphi _t`$ and an effective Schottky barrier height $`eV_{bi}`$. The potential drop in the depletion region consists of the effective Schottky barrier height plus the applied reverse bias $`eV_R`$. Two parameters of the tunneling region, its tunneling resistance and the magnitude of the reduction of the effective Schottky barrier, can be separately controlled by the parameters of the doping profile, for example the height and width of the heavily doped region.

Panel (b) of Fig. 1 illustrates the case of spin-polarization sensitive current detection at a Schottky contact between a ferromagnetic metal and an n-type semiconductor. A spin-polarized electron flux is incident from the semiconductor and the Schottky diode is in forward bias. In a typical experimental situation, the structure is held under constant current bias and a change in voltage signal is sought when the the polarity of the spin-polarized incident current is reversed. There may be a heavily doped region near the interface as in panel (a).

Panel (c) of Fig. 1 illustrates the case of electron spin injection into a p-type semiconductor. The p-type Schottky diode is in strong forward bias. There is an insulating tunneling barrier at the interface that limits the hole current, which nonetheless can be considerable. There is a hole accumulation region in the semiconductor near the interface. The minority carrier electron flux is from the ferromagnetic metal into the semiconductor. This structure can be interesting for characterizing the spin dependent transport properties of the tunneling barrier.

Panel (d) of Fig. 1 illustrates the case of spin-polarization sensitive current detection at a Schottky contact between a ferromagnetic metal and a p-type semiconductor. The p-type Schottky diode is under zero or small (either forward or reverse) bias. Spin polarized electrons are optically generated by absorption of circularly polarized light. In a typical experimental situation, the structure is held under constant current bias and a fixed incident optical intensity and a change in voltage signal is sought when the the polarity of the circularly polarized incident light is reversed. This is the essentially the same structure as in panel (c), except under different bias and optical excitation conditions. These two experimental configurations can be used together to characterize the spin transport properties of a tunneling barrier at the ferromagnet/semiconductor interface.

We describe the ferromagnetic metal and the interface using a spin dependent drift-diffusion equation, a spin diffusion equation, and spin dependent interface conductances as in Ref. smithsilver, . The drift-diffusion equation describing current flow in the ferromagnetic metal is

$$j_\eta =\sigma _\eta \frac{\left(\mu _\eta /e\right)}{x}$$
(1)
Here $`j_\eta `$ is the current density due to electrons of spin type $`\eta `$$`(`$$`=`$$``$,$``$$`)`$, $`\sigma _\eta `$ is the conductivity for electrons of that spin type, $`\mu _\eta `$ is the corresponding electro-chemical potential, $`e`$ is the magnitude of the electron charge and $`x`$ is position. Eq. (1) assumes rapid wave vector randomizing scattering events, so that electrons of the same spin stay in local quasi-thermal equilibrium with each other. However, spin-flip scattering can be comparatively slow so that electrons of different spin may be driven out of local quasi-thermal equilibrium by, for example, an applied current density. When electrons with different spins are driven out of local quasi-thermal equilibrium, so that $`\mu _{}`$ is not equal to $`\mu _{}`$ at some point in space, spin relaxation away from that spatial point is described by a diffusion equation

$$\frac{^2\mu _{}}{x^2}=\frac{\mu _{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2}.$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is the spin diffusion length in the metallic contact and we use the notation $`\mu _\pm `$$`=`$$`\mu _{}`$$`\pm `$$`\mu _{}`$. At the contact/semiconductor interface, electrons of different spin can be driven out of quasi-thermal equilibrium by current flow. Far from the interface, as $`x`$$``$$`\pm \mathrm{}`$, the electrochemical potential difference vanishes $`\mu _{}`$$``$$`0`$. The total steady state current density is a constant function of position. We assume no strong spin flip scattering at the interface so that the individual current components for the two spin types are continuous at the interface. Current flow at the interface is described using an interface resistance

$$j_\eta ^o=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _\eta }{eR_\eta }$$
(3)
where $`j_\eta ^o`$ is the current density at the interface, $`R_\eta `$ is the interface resistance, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mu _\eta `$ is an interfacial discontinuity in electro-chemical potential for electrons of spin type $`\eta `$. If the interface resistance is zero, the electro-chemical potentials are continuous at the interface whereas for nonzero values of $`R_\eta `$ a discontinuity in $`\mu _\eta `$ can develop at the interface. For notational ease, we set the variables $`j_\pm `$$`=`$$`j_{}`$$`\pm `$$`j_{}`$. In the contact where the hole current is zero, the total current $`j`$$`=`$$`j_+`$. We take the electron density as a function of position to be fixed, independent of the current density $`j`$, in the contact. The total conductivity of the contact is then independent of position and current density. It is convenient to define a contact polarization variable $`\alpha _c`$ by $`\sigma _{}`$$`=`$$`\alpha _c\sigma _c`$ or $`\sigma _{}`$$`=`$$`(`$$`1`$$``$$`\alpha _c`$$`)`$$`\sigma _c`$ where $`\sigma _c`$ is the total contact conductivity.

We take the contact on the left ($`x`$$`<`$$`0`$) and the semiconductor on the right ($`x`$$`>`$$`0`$) of the interface located at $`x=0`$, as in Fig. 1, so that the current density is negative for electron injection into the semiconductor. Solving Eq. (2) with the stated boundary conditions gives

$$\mu _{}=\mu _{}^0^{}e^{x/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\text{for }x<0.$$
(4)
Quantities evaluated at the interface approached from the contact and semiconductor are indicated by the superscripts $`0^{}`$ and $`0^+`$, respectively. From Eqs. (1) and (4) we find

$`\mu _{}^0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`e\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\left({\displaystyle \frac{j_{}^0^{}}{\sigma _{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j_{}^0^{}}{\sigma _{}}}\right)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{2\sigma _c\alpha _c\left(1\alpha _c\right)}}\left(j_+^0^{}+j_{}^0^{}2\alpha _cj_+^0^{}\right),`$
and

$$\frac{\mu _+}{x}=\frac{2ej}{\sigma _c}+\frac{\left(12\alpha _c\right)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\mu _{}^0^{}e^{x/\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}.$$
(6)
The total current in the semiconductor is $`j`$$`=`$$`j_{}`$$`+`$$`j_{}`$$`+`$$`j_p`$$`=`$$`j_+`$$`+`$$`j_p`$ where $`j_p`$ is the hole current density. For n-type Schottky barriers $`j_p`$$`=`$$`0`$, but not necessarily for the p-type structures. It is convenient to define $`\beta `$ as the fraction of the electron current carried by spin up electrons $`\beta `$$`=`$$`j_{}`$$`/`$$`j_+`$. We assume that there is not strong spin-flip scattering at the interface so that $`j_{}^0^{}`$$`=`$$`j_{}^{0^+}`$. The total current $`j`$ is continuous at the interface. The interface resistance conditions, Eq. (3) then lead to the interface matching conditions,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu _{}^0^{}=\frac{ej_+^{0^+}\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}{\sigma _c\alpha _c(1\alpha _c)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left[\beta ^{0^+}\alpha _c\left(\alpha _c\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{\left(jj_+^{0^+}\right)}{j_+^{0^+}}\right]\end{array}$$
(7)
$$\mu _{}^{0^+}\mu _{}^0^{}=ej_+^{0^+}\left(\beta ^{0^+}\left(R_{}+R_{}\right)R_{}\right)$$
(8)
$$\mu _+^{0^+}\mu _+^0^{}=j\left(\beta ^{0^+}\left(R_{}R_{}\right)+R_{}\right).$$
(9)
These matching conditions apply for each of the four cases illustrated in Fig. (1).

The semiconductor near the interface is either depleted, as shown in panels (a), (b) and (d) in Fig. 1, or accumulated as shown in panel (c) in Fig. 1. We input the drop in electrostatic potential between the semiconductor side of the interface and the edge of the depletion or accumulation region. A tunneling region, such as is illustrated in panel (a) in Fig. 1 is described by the interface resistances $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$, and is taken to have negligible width. The semiconductor side of the interface starts at the right of the tunneling region. From the input potential drop we calculate: the current density; the net bias voltage, which may include a contribution from the interface resistance; and the electrostatic profile. For the depleted cases we use the usual depletion approximation to describe the electrostatics in the semiconductor. For the accumulated case, we assume that hole current is limited by an interfacial barrier, take a constant hole quasi-Fermi energy in the semiconductor as shown in Fig. 1(c), and solve Poisson’s equation self-consistently to determine the electrostatic potential in the accumulation region. Details of the electrostatics are described in Appendix A.

In the semiconductor, electron and hole currents satisfy continuity equations,

$$\frac{j_\eta }{x}=e\left(g_\eta r_\eta \right),$$
(10)
and

$$\frac{j_p}{x}=e\left(g_pr_p\right),$$
(11)
where $`g`$ is a generation rate and $`r`$ a recombination rate. For spin polarized electrons there is a contribution to the recombination rate from both spin flip scattering and electron-hole recombination,

$$r_{}=\frac{n_{}}{\tau _r}+\frac{n_{}n_{}}{\tau _s},$$
(12)
where $`\tau _r`$ and $`\tau _s`$ are the recombination and spin flip times, respectively, and an analogous expression applies for $`r_{}`$. We use a drift-diffusion approximation to describe electron and hole currents,

$$j_\eta =\overline{\mu }_n\frac{n_i}{2}kTe^{e\varphi /kT}\frac{e^{\mu _\eta /kT}}{x},$$
(13)
and

$$j_p=\overline{\mu }_pn_ikTe^{e\varphi /kT}\frac{e^{\mu _p/kT}}{x}$$
(14)
where $`\overline{\mu }_{n(p)}`$ is the electron (hole) mobility, $`n_i`$ is the intrinsic carrier concentration and $`\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential. The carrier densities are given by

$$n_\eta =\frac{n_i}{2}e^{(e\varphi +\mu _\eta )/kT}$$
(15)
and

$$p=n_ie^{(e\varphi +\mu _p)/kT}.$$
(16)
It is convenient to go into a representation describing the electron charge and spin degrees of freedom and we define

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm =e^{\mu _{}/kT}\pm e^{\mu _{}/kT}.$$
(17)
so that

$$j_\pm =\overline{\mu }_n\frac{n_i}{2}kTe^{e\varphi /kT}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm }{x},$$
(18)
and

$$n_\pm =\frac{n_i}{2}e^{e\varphi /kT}\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm .$$
(19)
The corresponding generation and recombination rates are $`g_\pm `$$`=`$$`g_{}`$$`\pm `$$`g_{}`$, $`r_+`$$`=`$$`n_+`$$`/`$$`\tau _r`$, and $`r_{}`$$`=`$$`n_{}`$$`(`$$`2`$$`/`$$`\tau _s`$$`+`$$`1`$$`/`$$`\tau _r`$$`)`$. The continuity equations become

$$\frac{j_\pm }{x}=e\left(g_\pm r_\pm \right).$$
(20)
Substituting the drift-diffusion form into the continuity equation gives a transport equation for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$,

$$\frac{^2\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm }{x^2}+\left(\frac{e}{kT}\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm }{x}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm =e\stackrel{~}{g}_\pm e^{e\varphi /kT}$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}_\pm `$$`=`$$`g_\pm /[\overline{\mu }_n(kT/e)(n_i/2)]`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2`$$`=`$$`(kT/e)\overline{\mu }_n\tau _r`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2`$$`=`$$`(kT/e)\overline{\mu }_n(2/\tau _s+1/\tau _r)^1`$. An analogous equation holds for holes. Analytic solutions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$ are discussed in Appendix B.

Boundary conditions at the semiconductor side of the interface, $`x`$$`=`$$`0^+`$, and at the depletion edge, $`x`$$`=`$$`w`$, are used to determine the two matching coefficients (see Appendix B) that appear in the solutions of Eq. (21). Details of the boundary conditions differ somewhat for the individual cases and will be specified in the discussion of these cases. For the charge degree of freedom, we use interface recombination boundary conditions at the semiconductor side of the interface,

$$j_+^{0^+}=ev_{sr}\left(n_+^{0^+}n_{eq}^{0^+}\right)$$
(22)
where $`v_{sr}`$ is the surface recombination velocity and $`n_{eq}^{0^+}`$ is the equilibrium electron density at the semiconductor side of the interface. For the n-type semiconductor cases we set the electron density at the depletion edge $`(x`$$`=`$$`w)`$ equal to the bulk doping density so that that the material becomes charge neutral at this point $`n_+(w)`$$`=`$$`N_d`$ where $`N_d`$ is the bulk doping density. From the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\pm `$, we see that

$$\mu _{}=2kT\mathrm{tanh}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+}\right).$$
(23)
Combined with Eq. (7) this gives a boundary condition for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at the semiconductor side of the interface. It is often useful to write

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_+}=\frac{\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_+}{x}}{\frac{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{x}}\left(2\beta 1\right)$$
(24)
and

$$\left(2\beta 1\right)=\frac{j_{}}{j_+}=\frac{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{}}{x}}{\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_+}{x}}.$$
(25)
This form can be useful because $`(2\beta `$$``$$`1)`$ can become the unknown in the matching condition of Eq. (8). In the doped material beyond the depletion region the electric field is small and spatially uniform. In the usual treatment of current flow in Schottky diodes this small field is neglected. For most of the cases there is no generation term in Eq. (21) and we only need the homogenous solution for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(xw)=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(w)\mathrm{exp}[(wx)/\mathrm{}_+]$$
(26)
where

$$\mathrm{}_\pm ^1=\pm \frac{e|E|}{2kT}+\sqrt{\left(\frac{e|E|}{2kT}\right)^2+\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_s}\right)^2}.$$
(27)
Here, $`E`$ is the uniform electric field in the doped material beyond the depletion region. Substituting into Eq. (19) we obtain the more familiar notation of the “drift-diffusion” framework. In the bulk, $`n_{}`$ relaxes according to

$$n_{}(xw)=n_{}(w)\mathrm{exp}[(wx)/\mathrm{}_{}]$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{}_{}`$ reflects the field modification of the diffusion length at constant carrier density.pikus ; yu  Matching the continuity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ and its spatial derivative, the current from Eq. (1), at the edge of the depletion region give the final boundary conditions.

## III calculated results of model contacts

We discuss results for each of the four cases shown in Fig. 1 sequentially.

### III.1 Injection at an n-type contact.

This section discusses results for electron spin injection at an n-type Schottky contact as shown in Fig. 1(a). The effective Schottky barrier of the of contact can be varied by changing the doping profile in the semiconductor near the interface as shown at the bottom of the panel. We consider a heavily doped region near the interface that creates a narrow tunneling region. The effect of the narrow doping region is to reduce the effective Schottky barrier energy with the associated reduction in the depletion width. This approach to tailoring effective Schottky barriers is well established in semiconductor device applications.sze

For this case, there is no hole current or optical generation. Consequently, we solve the homogeneous form of Eq. (21) matched to boundary conditions at the interface given by Eqs. (7-9) and at the depletion edge by Eqs. (26) and (1). The tunneling regions are parameterized using interface resistances and reduced effective Schottky barriers. The contact is metallic with resistance equal to $`10^5\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm, polarization $`\alpha _c`$$`=`$0.9 (80% polarized) and spin diffusion length equal to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$$`=`$100 nm. The n-type semiconductor has an electron mobility of $`\overline{\mu }_n`$$`=`$5000 cm<sup>2</sup>/(V s) and a spin diffusion length equal to 1.0 $`\mu `$m. The diode characteristic from Eq. (22) is determined using $`v_{sr}`$$`=`$$`10^7`$ cm/s.

In Figs. 2, 3, and 4 we show calculations of spin injection through a depleted n-type Schottky contact at T=300K. In Fig. 2, we show the effect of the effective Schottky barrier on spin injection. In panel (a), the current spin polarization as a function of position is plotted for three effective Schottky energy barriers, as labelled in the figure. For each barrier energy, the structure is biased to operate at 90% of the reverse-saturation current. The calculation shows clearly that the presence of an energy barrier degrades the performance of the spin injecting structure, and that the dependence on barrier height is strong. In panel (b), the corresponding electrochemical potential differences are plotted for each structure. We see from this panel that the origin of the splitting in electrochemical potentials (directly related to polarization) is from the interface resistance. If the interface resistance is lowered or if the $`R_{}/R_{}`$ ratio approaches unity, then the injection properties of the structure degrade. Some specifics regarding the barrier lowering and interface resistance for the n-type injector are discussed Ref. brief, .

The electron spin density polarization can be examined in the presence of the electron density profile. For the same conditions used in Figs. 2, the spin polarization of the local electron density is shown in panel (a) of Fig. 3. The total density is shown in panel (b) of Fig. 3 for comparison. The polarized current may persist deeper into the semiconductor than its ability to spin polarize the local electron gas. A spin polarized current may be established in the semiconductor without strongly perturbing the spin polarization of a background of free carriers. However, for optical detection, such as the spin-LED, the signal is proportional to the spin polarization of the local density and not of the current.

In the calculations presented in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 the effect of an electric field in the doped region outside the depletion region was neglected. This is the usual approximation in describing the electrical properties of Schottky diodes. It is reasonable because the doped region outside the depletion region is conductive and the current flow is limited by the depletion region. In Fig. 4 we compare a calculation of the current polarization as a function of position neglecting the electric field in the doped region with one which includes a greatly exaggerated value for the electric field outside the depletion region for an effective barrier height of 0.1 eV. The field used for the solid line was chosen to give $`\mathrm{}_{}`$$`=`$$`10\mu `$m and is 70 times that determined by the conductance of this region and the injected current density. If a field determined by the conductance and current density ($`E`$$`=`$$`j/en_+\overline{\mu }`$) is used, the result is essentially indistinguishable from that using zero field. (For the calculation in Fig. 4 that field is $``$37 V/cm.) The figure shows that for a Schottky structure with a significant effective barrier height the electric field in the doped region outside the depletion region has little effect on the spin injection properties of the structure. The reason for this is that the matching conditions on the currents and electrochemical potentials are at the interface between the metal and the depleted region of the semiconductor where the concentration of electrons is exceedingly small. This is to be contrasted with uniform conductivity models where the electron concentration is the same up to the interface so that $`\mu _\eta /x`$ is driven by the electric field on the semiconductor side.yu ; pikus

The depleted region that occurs at at a Schottky contact is seen to be detrimental to spin injection at a ferromagnetic metal/ semiconductor interface. The problem arises because injection is into a very low resistance region of the semiconductor that is depleted of carriers. However, the depletion region can be tailored using a doping density profile to minimize these deleterious effects. For example, a heavily doped region near the interface, such as a delta-doped layer, can be used to form a sharp potential profile through which electrons tunnel to reduce the effective Schottky energy barrier that determines the magnitude of the depletion region.

### III.2 Detection at an n-type contact.

This section describes results for spin detection at n-type Schottky structures as shown in Fig. 1(b). The spin detection case is similar to that of spin injection discussed in the previous section but with a modification of the boundary conditions. The boundary condition on the current spin polarization at $`x`$$`=`$$`w`$ is an incident polarized current $`j_{}(w)`$. We consider a constant total current density of 5.0 A cm<sup>-2</sup> and seek a voltage signal as the polarity of the spin polarization is reversed. The contact is metallic and has the same properties as in the previous section.

The calculated current polarization as a function of position within the depletion region for detector operation is shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Results are calculated for 60% incident spin polarization. In Fig. 5, we examine the dependence of the spin polarized current on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ for fixed effective Schottky barrier. Since the effective Schottky barrier is fixed the depletion width is the same for the various cases. Long spin relaxation times result in larger spin polarizations at the interface. In panels (a) and (b) of Fig. 5 the current polarization behavior is almost identical for up and down incident currents when the interface resistance is zero. This shows that the presence of a polarized contact material (polarized spin up) has little impact on the spin polarized current in the semiconductor. In panels (c) and (d) the currents are calculated including interface resistance and show a strong asymmetry owing to the mismatch in $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$.

In Fig. 6 we examine the dependence of the current polarization in the depletion region on $`V_{bi}`$ at fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$. The bias conditions have been adjusted to give the same total current density for all cases. Structures with different barrier heights have different depletion widths. A main point seen from Fig. 6 is that large effective barrier energies result in small spin polarizations at the interface. In panels (a) and (b) of Fig. 6 the current polarization behavior is very close for up and down incident currents when the interface resistance is zero. In panels (c) and (d) the currents are calculated including interface resistance and show a strong asymmetry owing to the mismatch in $`R_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$.

We consider an n-type Schottky detector structure at a constant total current density. To fix the total current in the structure, the forward bias ($`V_F`$ in Fig. 1(b)) is tuned for each structure. The detected signal is the change in voltage at fixed current density when the spin polarization of the incident current is reversed. This voltage difference is obtained by integrating the electrochemical potential over position from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and taking the difference for two incident spin polarizations. After cancellations, the surviving terms yield a voltage difference of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\frac{j_{}^{0^+}}{j_+}\right)\times \frac{j_+}{4}\left[R_{}R_{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c\left(12\alpha _c\right)}{\sigma _c\alpha _c\left(1\alpha _c\right)}\right]$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ indicates the difference between the quantities for opposite signs of the incident spin polarization at $`x`$$`=`$$`w`$.

¿From Eq. (29) we see that without a spin dependent interface resistance ($`R_{}`$$`=`$$`R_{}`$$``$0) and for a highly conductive contact ($`\sigma _c`$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$) no significant voltage difference can be established. Using metallic contacts ($`\sigma _c`$$`=`$$`10^5`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ cm<sup>-1</sup>) with contact spin diffusion lengths less than a micron ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$$`=`$10<sup>-5</sup> cm) and currents ($``$1 A cm<sup>-2</sup>) corresponding to low biasing conditions the calculated detected voltage differences are negligibly small ($``$10<sup>-10</sup> V). We conclude that Schottky contacts without a spin-selective tunnel barrier will not be useful as spin polarized current detectors and therefore we concentrate on Schottky structures containing a spin selective interface resistance. In Fig. 7 we show calculated voltage differences as a function of effective Schottky barrier for three values of the spin-diffusion length in the semiconductor. The detection signal saturates for both large and small $`V_{bi}`$ values. For small barriers the depletion region vanishes and the incident polarized current reaches the interface and only small applied bias is required to establish the constant current. For large depletion widths, larger applied biases are required to keep the current density fixed and the resulting resulting interface current polarization saturates consistent with the behavior shown in Fig. 6(c) and 6(d).

The depleted region that occurs at at a Schottky contact is seen to be detrimental to spin detection at a ferromagnetic metal/ semiconductor interface. The problem arises because in these forward biased structures, electron current is driven by diffusion against a strong and rapidly varying electric field in the depletion region. As a result the effective drift-diffusion lengths in the depletion region can become rather short leading to strong spin relaxation. As for the electron injection structures the depletion region can be tailored using a doping density profile to minimize these deleterious effects.

### III.3 Injection at a p-type contact.

This section describes results for spin polarized electron injection from a ferromagnetic contact into a forward biased p-type Schottky diode. The hole current is limited by a barrier at the interface but is most likely larger that the minority electron injection current. The output signal is the ratio of right to left circularly polarized light emitted from the semiconductor when the injected electrons recombine radiatively with unpolarized holes in the p-type material.

The electrostatic treatment for the p-type structure is described in Appendix A. Calculated energy band and hole concentration profiles are shown in Fig. 8 and correspond to the semiconductor portion of Fig. 1(c). An interfacial barrier is an important feature of the structure to prevent runaway hole current at the interface. As a consequence of the barrier there is strong accumulation of holes near the interface. The large and rapidly varying hole concentration requires a different treatment of the electron spin relaxation processbap  than used in the depletion cases considered above. To account for the presence of the accumulated holes, we use the local hole concentration to vary the recombination and spin-flip scattering rates as a function of position.

We take the electron spin relaxation times to be linear with the local hole density and define rate coefficients $`R_{sf}`$ and $`R_{rec}`$ for spin-flip scattering and recombination so that $`\tau _s^1`$$`=`$$`R_{sf}`$$`\times `$$`p(x)`$ and $`\tau _r^1`$$`=`$$`R_{rec}`$$`\times `$$`p(x)`$. We present calculations for a range of $`R_{sf}`$. We take $`R_{rec}`$$`=`$7$`\times `$$`10^{10}`$cm<sup>3</sup> s<sup>-1</sup>, a typical value for p-type GaAs at T=300K.rate  The hole mobility is $`\overline{\mu }_p`$$`=`$500 cm<sup>2</sup>/(V s).

Unlike for the depleted structures there is no closed form analytic solution for the spin-dependent transport equations for the accumulated structure. Given a numerical solution for $`p(x)`$ from the electrostatic calculation, the solution of Eq. (21) is obtained by numerical integration and the shooting criterion that solutions be non-diverging as $`x`$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$. There is no optical generation of carriers ($`g_\pm `$$`=`$$`0`$) so that only the homogeneous solution is required.

The detected quantity in this case is the degree of circular polarization of the emitted light. Assuming good radiative recombination efficiency, the optical polarization of right and left circularly polarized light ($`\sigma _\pm `$) is proportional to the local electron density and is given by

$$\frac{\sigma _+\sigma _{}}{\sigma _++\sigma _{}}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}n_{}𝑑x}{_0^{\mathrm{}}n_+𝑑x}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2}\left(2\beta ^{0^+}1\right).$$
(30)
The spin polarization ($`2\beta ^{0^+}`$$``$$`1`$) of the electron current at the interface is obtained from the numerical solution of Eq. 21. The integration is straightforward because the electron concentrations are related to the current through the continuity equations, Eqs. (10-12).

The calculated optical polarizations for injection into p-type material are shown in Fig. 9 as a function of the spin-flip scattering rate coefficient. The curves are calculated for the same electron current density at $`x`$$`=`$$`0`$. We consider insulating barriers that result in minority carrier injection efficiencies equal to 50% and 10%. If used as a characterization tool, the structure should to be sensitive to differences in the optical polarization signals in order to determine the interface resistance values. This is the case for the case of slow spin-flip scattering compared radiative recombination. If the spin-flip scattering rate is faster than the recombination rate in the semiconductor characterization by this method is will to be difficult.

### III.4 Detection at a p-type contact.

The p-type detector structure shown in Fig. 1(d) involves optical generation of carriers. The p-type Schottky diode is at zero or small bias (either forward or reverse). As in the depleted n-type detector, we compute the voltage difference established as the circular polarization of the light is changed from right to left. We assume that the optical generation is nearly uniform over the depletion depth (i.e., that the reciprocal of the absorption coefficient is small compared to the depletion width) and that the optical generation of spin-polarized carriers is a 3:1 or 1:3 ratio of spin-up to spin-down electrons according to the optical selection rules. Beyond the depletion edge, for $`x`$$`>`$$`w`$, the optical generation falls off as $`\mathrm{exp}(\chi x)`$ with $`\chi `$$`=`$$`10^4`$ cm. Under these conditions, the transport equation (21) is solved analytically as described in Appendix B.

A calculated current/voltage characteristic for the various current components calculated for this structure are shown in the inset of Fig. 10. The properties of the p-type Schottky are those used in the accumulation case of the previous section. The barrier height is 0.7eV and the incident light power is set to 1 W cm<sup>-2</sup> or $`g_+`$$``$$`4.4`$$`\times `$$`10^{22}`$ s<sup>-1</sup> cm<sup>-3</sup> for photons at the bandgap of GaAs. In this structure, the electron current stays nearly constant over a broad range of applied bias around $`V_A`$$`=`$$`0`$ so we report results for zero bias. The value for $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, as for the n-type detector structure, is given by Eq. (29) except that the total electron current at the interface $`j_+`$ must be accounted for separately from the total current which includes a contribution from holes. This separation is straightforward once solutions for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\pm ,p}`$ have been calculated. In Fig. 10 we plot the calculated voltage differences as a fucntion of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$ for optical excitation. If the semiconductor spin lifetime has been determined by other experimental means, this represents a second method of characterizing the interface resistance. Notice that even when the spin lifetime becomes maximally long ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_s`$$`=`$$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_r`$) there is a strong dependence of the measured voltage on the interfacial conditions.

## IV Summary

We have presented a theoretical description of the injection and detection of spin polarized electrons at n-type and p-type Schottky contacts. The presence of the depletion region that occurs at Schottky contacts has been shown to be detrimental to both spin injection and detection in n-type Schottky structures. The problem for the reverse biased n-type spin injection structures arises because the injection is into a very low resistance region of the semiconductor that is depleted of carriers. The problem for the forward biased n-type spin detection structures arises because electron current is driven by diffusion against a strong and rapidly varying electric field in the depletion region. As a result the effective drift-diffusion lengths in the depletion region can become rather short leading to strong spin relaxation in the depletion region.

For both n-type injection and detection structures, the depletion region can be tailored using a doping density profile to minimize these deleterious effects. A heavily doped region near the interface, such as a delta-doped layer, can be used to form a sharp potential profile and this tunneling region effectively reduces the Schottky energy barrier that determines the magnitude of the depletion region. The model results indicate that efficient spin-injection and spin-polarization detection can be achieved in these n-type structures if they are properly designed so that the effective Schottky barrier is reduced to less than about 0.2 eV.

We discussed two experimental cases in which ferromagnetic Schottky contacts to p-type semiconductors could be used to characterize the spin dependent transport properties of interface tunnel barriers: optical detection of spin currents injected into a strongly forward biased accumulated p-type semiconductor and electrical measurement of optically excited spin populations at zero biased p-type contacts. The same structure can be used under different bias and excitation conditions for the two experiments.

A set of spin-labelled transport equations has been developed, in a systematic way, that is suitable for device models at a basic level. We have demonstrated that the electrostatic and current conditions that are present in actual devices can lead to important consequences for spin dependent transport in the structures must be taken into account. With these building blocks in place, there are clear extensions of the model to more complex device structures which will be the focus of future work.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the SPINs program of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency.

## Appendix A schottky contact electrostatics

The band-bending that occurs near a Schottky contact is central to the discussion of spin transport in these structures. This appendix describes the electrostatic inputs to the solutions of the spin transport equations.

Three of the cases, shown in Fig. 1(a), (b), and (d), involve a contact under small bias. In these cases, we use the depletion approximation where the electrostatic potential and depletion width are given by

$$\varphi (x)=\varphi (0)\pm \frac{eN}{\epsilon _s\epsilon _o}wx\frac{1}{2}\frac{eN}{\epsilon _s\epsilon _o}x^20xw$$
(31)
and

$$w=\sqrt{\frac{2\epsilon _s\epsilon _o}{eN}\left(V_{bi}+V_A\right)}$$
(32)
here $`\epsilon _o`$ is the free space permittivity, and $`\epsilon _s`$ is the relative static dielectric constant of the semiconductor. The applied voltage $`V_A`$ can be either sign but must be small enough in forward bias so as not to invert the semiconductor from depletion to accumulation. For an n-type contact, $`N`$ is the donor concentration and the upper sign applies. The acceptor concentration and the lower sign are used for p-type contacts.

The inverted p-type contact shown in Fig. 1(c), requires a numerical treatment of the electrostatics. We consider a case of strong forward bias in which a barrier layer limits hole transport at the metal/semiconductor interface and we treat the accumulation region in the semiconductor as a quasi-equilibrium system characterized by a Fermi energy for holes with a valence band density of states $`N_V`$. The electrostatics in the accumulation region is determined by the hole density which is given by statistics:

$$p\left(x\right)=N_V\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(x)\right]$$
(33)
where the Fermi one-half integral is given by

$$_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[y\right]=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{1+e^{\lambda y}}𝑑\lambda $$
(34)
and

$$\lambda \left(x\right)=\frac{\epsilon E_V\left(x\right)}{kT}\lambda _F\left(x\right)=\frac{E_FE_V\left(x\right)}{kT}.$$
(35)
Far from the interface the hole density is equal to the acceptor doping level $`p(\mathrm{})`$$`=`$$`N_A`$ so the local hole concentration can be written as

$$p\left(x\right)=N_A\frac{_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(x)\right]}{_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\right]}.$$
(36)
To solve Poisson’s equation, we compute the charge density by subtracting the background density of ionized accepters which yields

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`e\left[p\left(x\right)N_A\right]`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`eN_A{\displaystyle \frac{_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(x)\right]_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\right]}{_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\right]}}.`$
These algebraic steps are made so that the numerator can be rearranged to give an integral with a closed-form solution. First we rearrange the difference of Fermi integrals in the numerator as:

$$\begin{array}{c}_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(x)\right]_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\right]\hfill \\ \hfill =_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}}{1+e^{\lambda \lambda _F(\mathrm{})}}𝒜𝑑\lambda \end{array}$$
(38)
where

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\lambda _F\left(x\right)}}{e^{\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\lambda }+e^{\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\lambda _F\left(x\right)}}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{\frac{E_V(x)E_V\left(\mathrm{}\right)}{kT}}}{e^{\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\lambda }+e^{\frac{E_V(x)E_V\left(\mathrm{}\right)}{kT}}}}.`$
We substitute the charge density into the integral form of Poisson’s equation for the electric field $`F`$. This process begins with Poisson’s equation in the form

$$_{F(x)}^{F\left(\mathrm{}\right)=0}F𝑑F=_{E_V(x)}^{E_V\left(\mathrm{}\right)}\frac{\rho \left(E_V\right)}{\epsilon _s\epsilon _o}𝑑E_V$$
(40)
and results in

$$\begin{array}{c}F^2\left(x\right)=\frac{2N_A}{\epsilon _s\epsilon _o_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\right]}\hfill \\ \hfill \times _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}}{1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda \lambda _{\mathrm{}}\right)}\left(_{E_V(x)}^{E_V\left(\mathrm{}\right)}𝒜dE_V\right)d\lambda \end{array}$$
(41)
which can be simplified by substituting the analytic expression for the interior integral. After substitution and simplification, we arrive at the following result:

$$\begin{array}{c}F^2\left(x\right)=\frac{2kTN_A}{\epsilon _s\epsilon _o_{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\lambda _F(\mathrm{})\right]}\hfill \\ \hfill \times _0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}}{1+q}(\overline{q}q+(1+q)\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+qe^{\overline{q}}}{1+q}\right])d\lambda \end{array}$$
(42)
where $`\overline{q}`$ and $`q`$ are defined by

$$\overline{q}=\frac{E_V\left(\mathrm{}\right)E_V\left(x\right)}{kT}q=\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda \lambda _{\mathrm{}}\right).$$
(43)
An electrostatic profile is computed by first obtaining the electric field at $`x`$$`=`$$`0`$. Given the energy barrier (fixes $`\overline{q}`$ at $`x`$$`=`$$`0`$) and doping density (fixes the fermi level relative to the band edge in the bulk), we can obtain $`F(0)`$ with one numerical integration of Eq. (42). The valence band, electric field, and density profiles are then generated by integrating Eqs. (40) and (42) forward in $`x`$ and evaluating Eq. (37) at each spatial step. A sample result of this process is plotted in Fig. 8.

## Appendix B SOLUTIONS TO THE TRANSPORT EQUATION IN THE DEPLETION REGION

In this appendix we present analytic solutions for the transport equation (21) when the depletion approximation is used for the electrostatics of the structure.

In the depletion mode cases, we have a second order differential equation in the depletion region that is solved subject to boundary conditions at the metal/semiconductor interface and at the depletion region edge in the semiconductor. A typical equation, including the possibility of optical generation, can be written as

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{dx^2}+\frac{e}{kT}\frac{d\varphi }{dx}\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dx}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{\Omega }=Ge^{\frac{e\varphi }{kT}}.$$
(44)
Within the depletion approximation, we have a quadratic form of the electrostatic potential

$$\frac{e\varphi }{kT}=\frac{1}{2}ax^2+bx+\frac{e\varphi _o}{kT}$$
(45)
The particular solution $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_p=\frac{G}{a+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}e^{\frac{e\varphi }{kT}}$$
(46)
and the homogeneous differential equation can be written as

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Omega }}{dx^2}+\left(ax+b\right)\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{dx}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(47)
Solutions results from a change of variables that transform the homogeneous differential equation to the confluent hypergeometric equation,

$$z\frac{d^2f}{dz^2}+\left(\xi z\right)\frac{df}{dz}\zeta f=0,$$
(48)
which has independent solutions $`M(\zeta ,\xi ,z)`$ and $`U(\zeta ,\xi ,z)`$, the confluent hypergeometric functions of the first and second kinds.stegun  In order to avoid the use of complex coefficients (this may arise if a single form of the solution is used with both directions of the electric field), we give the variable substitutions and homogeneous solutions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h`$ for n-type ($`a`$$`<`$$`0`$, $`b`$$`>`$$`0`$) and p-type ($`a`$$`>`$$`0`$, $`b`$$`<`$$`0`$) cases separately.

The necessary transformations are obtained by substituting

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h=\left(ax+b\right)f(z)z=\frac{\left(ax+b\right)^2}{2a}\text{(n-type)}$$
(49)
or

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h=\left(ax+b\right)e^zf(z)z=\frac{\left(ax+b\right)^2}{2a}\text{(p-type)}$$
(50)
into Eq. (47). The result of the transformation is Eq. (48) with $`\xi `$$`=`$$`\frac{3}{2}`$ and

$$\zeta =\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\text{(n-type)}$$
(51)
or

$$\zeta =1+\frac{1}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\text{(p-type)}.$$
(52)
In both the n-type and p-type solutions,

$$f\left(z\right)=\gamma _1M(\zeta ,\xi ,z)+\gamma _2U(\zeta ,\xi ,z)$$
(53)
where $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are coefficients determined by applying boundary conditions.

Boundary conditions applied at the depletion edge where $`x`$$`=`$$`w`$$`=`$$``$$`b/a`$ require the evaluation of the special functions as the argument vanishes, $`z`$$``$$`0`$. The $`M(\zeta ,\xi ,z)`$ function approaches unity as $`z`$ vanishes. The $`U(\zeta ,\xi ,z)`$ function is more complicated. The small argument behavior of interest is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{z0}{lim}U(\zeta ,\xi ,z)\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \xi \right)}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \left\{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\zeta \xi \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\xi \right)}\frac{1}{z^{\xi 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(2\xi \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\zeta \right)}\right\}.\end{array}$$
(54)
The apparent singularity is cancelled by the leading factors of $`(ax`$$`+`$$`b)`$ in Eqs. (49) and (50). It can be shown after some algebra that the functions and derivatives have well behaved values at the depletion edge given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h\left(w\right)=\gamma _2\frac{\sqrt{2\pi a}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}\text{(n-type)}$$
(55)
or

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_h\left(w\right)=\gamma _2\frac{\sqrt{2\pi a}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{1}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}\text{(p-type)}$$
(56)
and

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_h}{dx}|_{x=w}=a\gamma _1+\gamma _2\left[\frac{2a\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}\right]\text{(n-type)}$$
(57)
or

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }_h}{dx}|_{x=w}=a\gamma _1\gamma _2\left[\frac{2a\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\right)}\right]\text{(p-type)}.$$
(58)
The other matching solutions occur for the interface at $`x`$$`=`$$`0^+`$ and require only the evaluation of the special functions for typical arguments with no special considerations.


text:
# Possible background reductions in double beta decay experiments

## 1  Introduction

Neutrinoless double beta decay ($`2\beta 0\nu `$) is a problem of great interest in particle physics (see ). Currently, there are many experiments searching for this subject, and new ones are planned for the future (e.g. ). One of the most promising of the experiments is NEMO-3. It will study double beta decay of different nuclei with the primary objective to look for the $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay of $`{}_{}{}^{100}\mathrm{Mo}`$. The detector is sensitive to decays with a half life on the order of $`10^{25}`$ years .

The greatest concern in double beta experiments is the background which can mimic the double beta decay process. The backgrounds can be classified by their origin. There are external and internal backgrounds.

The external background accounts for such things as cosmic rays, $`\gamma `$rays and neutrons coming from the walls of the laboratory and parts of the detector. To decrease this background, one places the detector deep underground, applies passive and/or active shielding and incorporates radiopure materials. The data from the NEMO-2 detector and Monte-Carlo (MC) calculations predict that the external background in the NEMO-3 detector for five years of operation will be equivalent to zero .

The internal background is caused by the properties of the source material. An unavoidable background originates from two neutrino double beta decay ($`2\beta 2\nu `$) of the source ($`{}_{}{}^{100}\mathrm{Mo}`$). This kind of internal background cannot be completely separated from the $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay mode due to the finite energy resolution of the detector. Another source of internal background is the radioactive impurities in the sample. The energy of the $`\beta ^{}`$ decay of such nuclei as $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ is greater than the energy of the $`2\beta `$ transition of $`{}_{}{}^{100}\mathrm{Mo}`$ (3.03 MeV). Therefore they produce especially troublesome backgrounds. The background from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ clearly depends on the purity of the sample. However, producing source materials with high purity is a sophisticated and expensive procedure. Often the desired level of purity cannot be reached. This is why it is useful to elaborate on methods of data analysis which suppress the backgrounds of the radioactive impurities.

Farther along in this paper the particular mechanisms by which $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ can produce events similar to $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay are discussed. The characteristics of each type of background are described and a new analysis, which can suppress them, is presented.

## 2  The NEMO-3 detector.

The detector (Fig. 1) is cylindrical in design and it is divided into 20 equal sectors. A thin (40-60 mg/cm2) cylindrical source foil is constructed from either a metal film or powder, bound by an organic glue to mylar strips. The source hangs between two concentric cylindrical tracking volumes consisting of open octagonal drift cells operating in Geiger mode. These cells run vertically and are staged in a 4, 2, and 3 row pattern to optimise track reconstruction. The design of the 6,180 drift cells calls for 50 $`\mu `$m anode and cathode wires.

The tracking volumes are surrounded by a calorimeter made of 1,940 large blocks of plastic scintillator coupled to very low radioactivity 3” and 5” Hammamatsu photomultiplier tubes (PMTs). At 1 MeV, the energy resolution, which depends on the scintillator shape and the associated PMT, ranges from 11% to 14.5% (FWHM), with a time resolution of 250 ps.

A solenoid producing a magnetic field ($`30`$ G) surrounds the detector to reject ($`e^+,e^{})`$ pairs. External shielding of 20 cm of low activity iron reduces gamma-ray fluxes and thermal neutrons. A supplementary shield (water tanks, wood and polyethylene plates) suppress the contribution of fast neutrons to the external background. At the depth of the experimental hall (4,800 m of water equivalent) in the Modane Underground Laboratory, the signal from cosmic rays is negligible. Vigorous flushing of the air in the hall reduces the radon levels to 10-20 Bq/m3. The presence of 214Bi decays in the detector from this level of radon contamination is below that introduced by the PMTs.

An electron in the detector is defined by a track linking the source foil and a fired scintillator. A two-electron event (2e-event) is defined by two tracks which have a common vertex in the foil, and each track is associated with a fired scintillator. The neutrinoless double beta decay gives rise to two electrons which produce a 2e-event in the detector with a line spectrum, because two electrons emitted carry all the energy of the decay. However, due to energy loss and the finite energy resolution of the calorimeter, the summed electron spectrum of $`2\beta 0\nu `$ events has some width. The MC calculations predict that the spectrum of $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decays of $`{}_{}{}^{100}\mathrm{Mo}`$ in NEMO-3 will be as shown in Fig. 2.

To suppress the background from $`2\beta 2\nu `$ decay only the 2e-events with energies within the window 2,840-3,240 keV are selected for further analysis. Hereafter, this window is referred to as the high-energy region (HER).

A characteristic feature of the NEMO-3 detector is that it can not only measure the whole energy unleashed in the decay, but also the energy of each electron and the angle between them. A spectrum of the individual electron energy in a 2e-event depends on its source in the foil. This phenomenon and its effective analysis are studied in the rest of the paper.

## 3  The primary sources of the internal backgrounds

The internal background estimations reported here, were made with MC calculations. The calculations were done with the help of the GEANT 3.21 package.

The way by which the energy of 2e-event is distributed between the electrons can be well represented in a two-dimensional histogram (i.e. Fig. 3). Along the axis of these histogram are the energies of electron 1 (E1) and 2 (E2). Thus, each 2e-event looks like a point.

The 2e-events from $`2\beta 2\nu `$ decay of $`{}_{}{}^{100}\mathrm{Mo}`$ in the HER are shown in Fig. 3. Notice that for the majority of the events, the energy is divided almost equally between the two electrons.

In the study of the background from the radioactive impurities in the source, it is important to understand the exact mechanism by which the $`\beta ^{}`$ decay of $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ or $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ can be detected as a 2e-event in the HER. After scrutinising the results of the MC calculations, three basic mechanisms were identified.

The first is $`\beta ^{}`$ decay accompanied by an electron from the electron conversion (EC) mechanism. In this case, two electrons with sufficient energy are emitted from a common point.

The second process is Möller scattering of the $`\beta ^{}`$ decay electron in the material of the foil. The two electrons can be detected as a 2e-event even if the $`\beta ^{}`$ decay is followed by a transition of the daughter nucleus from an excited state to the ground state (g.s.) via a $`\gamma `$-ray emission. This occurs because the $`\gamma `$-ray can escape the detector, given that the detection efficiency of the scintillator is rather low (30-50$`\%`$).

The third possibility is that the second electron is produced via Compton scattering of the $`\gamma `$-ray, which follows the $`\beta ^{}`$ decay. Again, as in the previous case, this process can be interpreted as a 2e-event if the scattered $`\gamma `$-ray is not detected.

### 3.1  The background from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$.

The $`\beta ^{}`$ decay of $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ produces 2e-events via all of the above mentioned mechanisms. These are the three dominate modes of the decay which yield almost all the background from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ in the HER. The specific transitions are shown in Fig. 4. The results of the background MC simulations are presented in Table 1.

The characteristic features of the background, produced by each of these processes, are as follows. In the first process (Fig. 4 a), a conversion electron with fixed energy (1,323 keV) is emitted. One can see the conversion line in the histogram of the corresponding 2e-events in Fig. 5. Though the probability of this process is very low (0.22$`\%`$) it contributes about half of the background from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ in the HER (see Table 1).

In the second process (Fig. 4 b), the second electron is produced by Möller scattering. Thus, there is a small momentum transfer and a small scattering angle. This can be observed in the 2e-events (Fig. 6). One of the electrons in the pair has significantly higher energy than the other.

Finally, in the third process (Fig. 4 c), the energies of the $`\beta `$-electron and the $`\gamma `$-ray are almost equal ($`1.5`$ MeV). Therefore the total energy of the two electrons is approximately 3 MeV only if the second (Compton) electron acquires nearly all the energy of the $`\gamma `$-ray. Thus, the corresponding 2e-events registered in the HER have two electrons with practically the same energies (Fig. 7).

A histogram of not only the three dominate decay modes but all the background 2e-events from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ is given in Fig. 8 for the HER.

### 3.2  The background from $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ .

The background of 2e-events in the HER from $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ comes mainly from the electron conversion mechanism. The $`\beta ^{}`$ decay of $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ always occurs through the excited state of a $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Pb}`$ nucleus with an energy of 2,615 keV. This high energy and rather large probability of EC ($`2.410^3`$) account for its large contribution to the background in the HER. In Fig. 9 one can see 2e-events from $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ and the contribution from the $`\beta ^{}`$ decay process plus $`\mathrm{EC}`$. In the HER it contributes up to $`80\%`$ of all $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ 2e-events. As in the case with the background from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$, a conversion line can be clearly seen in the histogram of the 2e-events (Fig. 1011).

## 4 Results

The MC results can be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). To do this, one should introduce new cuts, which take into account the difference in the energy distributions among the electrons in the background 2e-events and in the 2e-events from $`2\beta 0\nu `$.

Currently, there are many modes of $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay discussed in the literature . Consider the two most favoured hypotheses: the existence of a non-zero Majorana mass for the neutrino and the admixture of the right hand current in the electro-weak interaction. These two hypotheses lead to different electron energy spectra, and thus they should be treated separately.

### 4.1 $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay: Majorana neutrino mass

The 2e-events from $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay, in the case of a non-zero Majorana neutrino mass, are shown in Fig. 12. Their distribution is similar to the one from $`2\beta 2\nu `$ decay (Fig. 3). The 2e-events are symmetric from the point of view of electrons energy. Thus, one cannot distinguish $`2\beta 0\nu `$ and $`2\beta 2\nu `$ decays based upon the energy of each electron in the pair.

The situation is different for the backgrounds from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$. Since the major component of the background is caused by the EC process, it can be suppressed if one excludes the region where the conversion line peaks (Fig. 11). In Fig. 11 an example of the corresponding cut is given in the form of rectangular areas to be excluded. Table 2 presents the reduction factors for various sizes of the excluded region for $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$.

It is evident that one can get rid of a significant fraction of the $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ background. The reduction of the $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ background is less effective, because the conversion line peaks in the region where the $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay is expected (Fig. 8,12) and it also contributes less than half of the total $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ background. The results for $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ are presented in Table 3.

### 4.2 $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay: right hand current

The distribution of 2e-events from $`2\beta 0\nu `$ decay in the case of right hand current admixture in the electro-weak Lagrangian is shown in Fig. 13. It clearly differs from the case of the Majorana neutrino mass (Fig. 12). Such a distribution allows one to suppress efficiently the backgrounds from $`2\beta 2\nu `$ decay and $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$, but makes it difficult to suppress the $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$ background. The suggested cut is to reject events, which do not lie in the rectangular areas (Fig. 13). Table 4 presents these results.

## 5 Conclusion

In general one needs to gather as much information about the event as possible to be able to suppress the backgrounds efficiently. In double beta decay experiments the measurement of the energies of each electron allows one to introduce additional cuts, which improve the S/N ratio. The final values of the cuts should be tuned based on the properties of the detector and the background levels.

It was shown that the dominate part of the internal background comes from the EC process associated with the radioactive impurities ($`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{208}\mathrm{Tl}`$) which can be efficiently suppressed.

The sensitivity of the NEMO-3 detector to the right hand current admixture can be improved by reducing the background from $`{}_{}{}^{214}\mathrm{Bi}`$ and $`2\beta 2\nu `$ decay.

The NEMO-3 detector can study any double beta isotope that can be produced in foil form, therefore similar analysis can be made on other isotopes and radioactive contamination.

Though all the estimates were made for the NEMO-3 detector, qualitatively, the results are valid for experiments where the energy of each electron is measured. For example, this method can be applied to the data analysis in existing (ELEGANT-V , ITEP TPC ) and future (MOON , DCBA ) experiments.