Noise in gallium nitride-based quantum well structures used for nanometer devices in the frequency range 1 Hz--3 Mhz and temperature range 77K--324K

Electronic noise has been investigated in AlxGa1−x N/GaN Modulation-Doped Field Effect Transistors (MODFETs) of submicron dimensions, grown for us by MBE (Molecular Beam Epitaxy) techniques at Virginia Commonwealth University by Dr. H. Morkoç and coworkers. Some 20 devices were grown on a GaN substrate, four of which have leads bonded to source (S), drain (D), and gate (G) pads, respectively. Conduction takes place in the quasi-2D layer of the junction (xy plane) which is perpendicular to the quantum well (z-direction) of average triangular width ∼3 nm. A non-doped intrinsic buffer layer of ∼5 nm separates the Si-doped donors in the AlxGa1−xN layer from the 2D-transistor plane, which affords a very high electron mobility, thus enabling high-speed devices. Since all contacts (S, D, and G) must reach through the AlxGa1−xN layer to connect internally to the 2D plane, parallel conduction through this layer is a feature of all modulation-doped devices. While the shunting effect may account for no more than a few percent of the current IDS, it is responsible for most excess noise, over and above thermal noise of the device. ^ The excess noise has been analyzed as a sum of Lorentzian spectra and 1/f noise. The Lorentzian noise has been ascribed to trapping of the carriers in the AlxGa1−xN layer. A detailed, multitrapping generation-recombination noise theory is presented, which shows that an exponential relationship exists for the time constants obtained from the spectral components as a function of 1/kT. The trap depths have been obtained from Arrhenius plots of log (τT2) vs. 1000/T. Comparison with previous noise results for GaAs devices shows that: (a) many more trapping levels are present in these nitride-based devices; (b) the traps are deeper (farther below the conduction band) than for GaAs. Furthermore, the magnitude of the noise is strongly dependent on the level of depletion of the AlxGa1−xN donor layer, which can be altered by a negative or positive gate bias VGS. ^ Altogether, these frontier nitride-based devices are promising for bluish light optoelectronic devices and lasers; however, the noise, though well understood, indicates that the purity of the constituent layers should be greatly improved for future technological applications. ^

Examining moderators of the hindsight bias in the context of civil legal decision -making: Counterfactuals, causal proximity, and self -referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. ^ In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. ^ Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.^

Examining Moderators of the Hindsight Bias in the Context of Civil Legal Decision-Making: Counterfactuals, Causal Proximity, and Self-Referencing

The current research sought to clarify the diverging relationships between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias observed in the literature thus far. In a non-legal context, Roese and Olson (1996) found a positive relationship between counterfactuals and hindsight bias, such that counterfactual mutations that undid the outcome also increased participants’ ratings of the outcome’s a priori likelihood. Further, they determined that this relationship is mediated by causal attributions about the counterfactually mutated antecedent event. Conversely, in the context of a civil lawsuit, Robbennolt and Sobus (1997) found that the relationship between counterfactual thinking and hindsight bias is negative. The current research sought to resolve the conflicting findings in the literature within a legal context. In Experiment One, the manipulation of the normality of the defendant’s target behavior, designed to manipulate participants’ counterfactual thoughts about said behavior, did moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge on mock jurors’ judgments of the foreseeability of that outcome as well as their negligence verdicts. Although I predicted that counterfactual thinking would increase, or exacerbate, the hindsight bias, as found by Roese and Olson (1996), my results provided some support for Robbenolt and Sobus’s (1997) finding that counterfactual thinking decreases the hindsight bias. Behavior normality did not moderate the hindsight effect of outcome knowledge in Experiment Two, nor did causal proximity in Experiment Three. Additionally, my hypothesis that self-referencing may be an effective hindsight debiasing technique received little support across the three experiments. Although both the self-referencing instructions and self-report measure consistently decreased mock jurors’ likelihood of finding the defendant negligent, and self-referencing instructions decreased their foreseeability ratings in studies two and three, the self-referencing manipulation did not interact with outcome knowledge to moderate a hindsight bias effect on either foreseeability or negligence judgments. The consistent pattern of results across the three experiments, however, suggests that self-referencing may be an effective technique in reducing the likelihood of negligence verdicts.