1. Modeling of an interface between two solids Ashcroft and Mermin Ch. 18 Sze Ch.3 1987 Review Chapter by Tersoff

2. The Work Function of a Metal A.If there are no interface dipoles Negative value of E f reflects the attractive force of the positive ions

3. The Work Function of a Metal B.Surface dipole – additional component due to dipole field

4. Evaluation of a Single Monolayer Maximum Dipole Energy in GaAs a

5. Two metals Same chemical potential after contact is established – if electrons are free, by the definition of chemical potential.

6. Measurement of the Contact Potential by the Kelvin Probe Method A

7. Ideal Insulator ε=1 No charge redistribution due to an electric field – no dipole at the interface. Afinity rule exact

8. The Neutrality Level Concept Surface neutrality level – Bardeen 1947 Cowley and Sze 1965 Bulk neutrality layer - Tejedor and Flores 1977, Tersoff 1984

10. Cowley and Sze’s analysis E0E0

11. E0E0

12. Silicon Barrier with Metals

13. Other Semiconductors

14. Summary

15. The bulk neutrality level Epitaxial interfaces are almost defect free Yet, the affinity rule is not obeyed The bulk neutrality level plays a role analogous to the Fermi level in metals No Charge transfer if both neutrality layers coincide

16. The bulk neutrality level -Tersoff

17. limits metal Ideal insulator

18. Evaluation of α – consider bulk material- Tersoff’s thought experiment ECEC EVEV

19. freeze all charges - introduce dipole – ECEC EVEV ΔE 0

20. relax charges (not the fixed dipole) - fixed dipole is screened like in a plate capacitor ECEC EVEV ΔE =ΔE 0 /ε

21. Compare to previous definitions ECEC EVEV ΔE =ΔE 0 /ε hence

22. Conclusion: in semiconductors neutrality levels are almost aligned

23. Microscopic origin of the dipole (the homogenous material thought experiment) States induced by tunneling – empty states are positively charged, filled states negatively charged.

24. The sum rule – the integrated density of states at any location is a constant EfEf A fraction of the states that tunneled from the right originate from the conduction band – DOS below Fermi level increased A fraction of the states that tunneled from the left originate from the valence band - DOS below Fermi level decreased

25. A heterojunction aligned at the - neutrality levels - total DOS bellow Fermi level remains unchanged EfEf A fraction of the states that tunneled from the left originate from the valence band A fraction of the states that tunneled from the left originate from the conduction band

26. Microscopic or macroscopic α ? Tersoff – but charge is located at bond distance Tejedor and Flores calculate

27. Calculation of neutrality level at 1D (Tersoff) Eb is a natural division between the valence and conduction bands

28. Calculation of neutrality level at 3D- Tersoff

29. Calculation of the neutrality level by Tersoff and comparison with barrier height

31. 2011 comments by Tersoff A. I can't really say that my ideas have evolved much since then, since I moved on to other things. I don't remember what is in that chapter, but strictly speaking, both the interfacial properties and the bulk properties do matter. A metal-metal interface is the ideal example where bulk properties totally screen out interfacial effects. The smaller the dielectric constant, the more the interfacial details matter. The interface could also dominate if it is too non-bulk-like, e.g. non-stochiometric, or high density of defects. Q. I am accustomed to the way of thinking which relates band alignment between semiconductors as well as Schottky barriers to the properties of the interface. Thinking of bulk properties in this context is unusual to me, and I was intrigued to find out how your ideas have evolved over the years.

32. 2011 comments by Tersoff Just from my very out-of-date memories, I don't remember silicides behaving any differently than other metals -- i.e. Schottky barriers roughly consistent with calculated neutrality levels, with small shifts reflecting the different metal workfunctions. There is much more opportunity for complications at III-V interfaces, especially for polar orientations like 001 and 111, because the chemistry might lead to a dipole at the interface, just as for polar surfaces. It's intriguing that such effects usually don't seem important -- different metals on (001) surfaces of III-V's show the trends expected from simple bulk arguments. This is convenient, but it isn't really understood.