The Impurity and Decay-Magnetic Polaron Effects in III–V Compound Gaussian Quantum Wells

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 About the manuscript ID: coatings-1811005

Title: The effects of impurity and decay magnetic field on polaron in asymmetric Gaussian potential III-V compound semiconductor quantum wells.

Authors: Xin Zhang et al.

 In this work, the authors report the effects of decay magnetic field and hydrogen-like impurity on the ground state binding energy and ground state energy of weak-coupling bound polaron in asymmetrical Gaussian potential III-V compound quantum wells. This study is based on unitary transformation methods and linear combination operator. Important numerical results for the Coulombic impurity potential strength have been investigated. I think that this manuscript has some novel material and merit publication, but before that, several points need to be addressed, and some references and explanations need to be added. 

1) The abstract is too vague, it should be more specific and it would be helpful to have a few sentences on the importance of this work. 

2) The introduction part should be improved by incorporating recent review concerned III-V-Bi quantum-well system, see for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2018.05.003

3)  Instead of general conclusion, the authors need to optimize their findings for the technology specific where their findings could be employed along with merits for the same over the existing device architecture. 

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

1. The abstract is too vague, it should be more specific and it would be helpful to have a few sentences on the importance of this work. 

Reply to Q1: We thank the reviewers for their suggestions, to which we have made the following changes：

By numerical calculation, we find that the polaron is affected by the AGP, decay magnetic field, coulomb impurities and the type of crystal, which leads to a series of interesting phenomena such as changes in ground state energy, ground state binding energy. The study of results obtained has good theoretical guidance in optoelectronic devices and quantum information.

2. The introduction part should be improved by incorporating recent review concerned III-V-Bi quantum-well system, see for example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cplett.2018.05.003

Reply to Q2: We have now added additional latest references in the Introduction.

3. Instead of general conclusion, the authors need to optimize their findings for the technology specific where their findings could be employed along with merits for the same over the existing device architecture. 

Reply to Q3: In our conclusions we not only make a general summary, but we add the relevant conclusions for the application in semiconductor technology methods, and the features and advantages of the methods we utilize. In addition, the study of the polaron effect is of physical importance for the design and preparation of optoelectronic semiconductor devices, and the regulation of the polaron effect is essential to obtain excellent conductivity of the devices.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title is too long, make it more concise

The abstract is not enough to support the summarize version of yourn paper: provide brief introduction of your onbejctobe to answer the exisitng problem in 1 to 2 sentences, then in the middle part your methodology, at the later part of the abstract provide your analysis and outcome in 2-3 sentences.

in the introduction part, showing only the references to define such important terms which part of your title/theme does support your article

describe figure 1 in the context of your manuscript

in line 81, I am looking on your mqanuscript not in the provided reference (table I should be part of your manuscript or summarize what's in the table I of this reference 26)

in line 82, it should be Figure 2 and 3.

where is figure 4 description on the context of your manuscript?

enhance your conclusion, the provided section does not support the submitted manuscript

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

1. The title is too long, make it more concise

Reply to Q1: We thank the reviewer for their positive comments and helpful reviews of our work, and we likewise endorse the use of a new title and hope that this is now more appropriate for the multidisciplinary readership of Coatings journal. Our new title is The impurity and decay-magnetic polaron effects in III-V compound Gaussian quantum wells.

2. The abstract is not enough to support the summarize version of your paper: provide brief introduction of your object be to answer the existing problem in 1 to 2 sentences, then in the middle part your methodology, at the later part of the abstract provide your analysis and outcome in 2-3 sentences.

Reply to Q2: Changes were made to the abstract based on the issues raised by the reviewers, and a summarize version of the paper was added.

3. In the introduction part, showing only the references to define such important terms which part of your title/theme does support your article describe figure 1 in the context of your manuscript.

Reply to Q3: We added the description of Fig. 1 in the introduction of the article, when a hydrogen-like impurity is present in the crystal and the hydrogen-like impurity and the polaron interact to form a special form of polaron.

4. In line 81, I am looking on your manuscript not in the provided reference (table I should be part of your manuscript or summarize what's in the table I of this reference 26)

Reply to Q4: Following the reviewer’s advice, we added Table 1 related to parameters as follows:

5. In line 82, it should be Figure 2 and 3.

Reply to Q5: According to the reviewer's advice we have modified this.

6. where is figure 4 description on the context of your manuscript?

Reply to Q6: We have added a description of the relevant context in the manuscript.

7. Enhance your conclusion, the provided section does not support the submitted manuscript.

Reply to Q7: For enhancement of our conclusions, we have added a general summary, as well as the features and advantages of the methods we utilized.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors study numerically the effects of the magnetic field and impurity on the ground state of the polaron. They state that Coulomb's potential increases both ground state and ground state binding energies. The problems with the presentation and language of the manuscript start already in the Abstract. Right after the statement about the energies (“Numerical results demonstrated that increasing Coulombic impurity potential strength increased GSBE and GSE”), the authors produce the following sentence: “On the other side GSE and GSBE are increasing ones of it.” I list below the problems of the manuscript as they appeared when I tried to read it. The authors introduce a lot of abbreviations but not always after using the whole words, as with PEP on page one. Equation 1 has no definitions of the parameters $\beta$, $V_q$, $a_q$. The reference to [24,25] does not explain why the unitary transformations are introduced in Eqs. (3). Should the reader guess that Eqs. (9,10) are the results from references [24,25]? What is $B_0$ and how and why does it appear in the equations? The main results of the paper are numerical simulations using particular values of the parameters, and all the authors trouble themselves to do is to address the reader to the table in another reference. Even the main statement of the authors about the growth of both energies is not clear – in Fig.2 the energy change decreases with increasing strength of the potential. The language of the manuscript makes it almost unreadable.

To summarize, I do not recommend it for publication in your journal.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

1. Right after the statement about the energies (“Numerical results demonstrated that increasing Coulombic impurity potential strength increased GSBE and GSE”), the authors produce the following sentence: “On the other side GSE and GSBE are increasing ones of it.”

Reply to Q1: We made the following changes to the sentences pointed out by the reviewers：

By numerical calculation, we find that the polaron is affected by the AGP, decay magnetic field, coulomb impurities and the type of crystal, which leads to a series of interesting phenomena such as changes in ground state energy, ground state binding energy. The study of results obtained has good theoretical guidance in optoelectronic devices and quantum information.

2. The authors introduce a lot of abbreviations but not always after using the whole words, as with PEP on page one.

Reply to Q2: Based on the questions raised by the reviewers, we have made the following changes：The phrase “PEP” should be replaced with “Polaron effect” in key words section.

3. Equation 1 has no definitions of the parameters $\beta$, $V_q$, $a_q$.

Reply to Q3: As suggested by the reviewers, we have interpreted the relevant parameters.

4. The reference to [24,25] does not explain why the unitary transformations are introduced in Eqs. (3). Should the reader guess that Eqs. (9,10) are the results from references [24,25]?

Reply to Q4: The purpose of introducing the unitary transformations is to quantize the Hamiltonian. The chosen  is from the famous Lee–Low–Pines unitary transformation method. The final result is calculated to obtain.

5. What is $B_0$ and how and why does it appear in the equations?

Reply to Q5: In the original manuscript a description of the decaying magnetic field B was missing,  being the physical quantity associated with the decaying magnetic field. We have explained this in the new manuscript.

6. The main results of the paper are numerical simulations using particular values of the parameters, and all the authors trouble themselves to do is to address the reader to the table in another reference.

Reply to Q6: We apologize for the omission of Table 1 during the numerical simulation and have added Table 1.

Table 1: Parameters related to GaAs, InAs and InSb crystals

7. Even the main statement of the authors about the growth of both energies is not clear – in Fig.2 the energy change decreases with increasing strength of the potential.

Reply to Q7: We have made changes to the relevant statements in the manuscript

8. The language of the manuscript makes it almost unreadable.

Reply to Q8: Thanks for your suggestions. We have policed the language of our manuscript word by word.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Reference format should be verify

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the manuscript according to my comments. It still can be improved, and I recommend it for publication.