Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Dissertation Machine Learning in Materials Science -- A case study in Carbon Nanotube field effect transistors

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulation-based inference recovers the resistances inside random nanotube transistor networks from measured current spreads, matching earlier experiments.

desk verdict A promising but unvalidated case study: the SBI-based resistance extraction is the real contribution, and it needs a calibration check, held-out data, and code before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14813 v1 pith:HNX5LK7X submitted 2025-01-19 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mes-hallcs.LGphysics.data-an

Shulin Tan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mes-hallcs.LGphysics.data-an
keywords carbonnanotubefield-effecttransistorssimulation-basedinferencecompactmodelrandomnetworksparameterextractionneuralnetworkmodelingGFlowNetjunctionresistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This dissertation tries to show that machine learning can take over three jobs in carbon-nanotube transistor research that traditional methods handle poorly: predicting device curves from scattered experimental data, extracting physical parameters when the model output is a distribution rather than a single number, and generating fabrication recipes for a target performance. The load-bearing result is the middle one. Transistors built on randomly deposited carbon nanotube networks produce a spread of on- and off-currents, and the resistances at the CNT-metal contacts and at the CNT-CNT junctions inside such a random network cannot be pulled out by standard extraction techniques, since hundreds of junctions are wired together and no closed-form expression exists. The author builds a compact network model that turns every CNT segment into a virtual-source resistor, then uses simulation-based inference to find the resistances whose simulated current spread best matches three measured wafers. The recovered values, about 10 kΩ for the metal contact, about 120 kΩ for the CNT-CNT junction, and roughly 77 kΩ per micrometer of CNT section, sit close to earlier atomic-force-microscopy and engineering estimates, which is what one would expect if the extraction is finding physical parameters and not just fitting noise.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the pairing of a netlist-based compact model with simulation-based inference. For each sampled random network, the model builds a resistor netlist: each CNT section contributes a length-dependent virtual-source resistance, each crossing contributes a fixed intersection resistance $R_{int}$, and each metal contact contributes a fixed $R_m$; threshold voltage is drawn through $V_t = k/n_{ss} + b$ from the measured subthreshold-swing distribution. The simulator repeats this over 100 random devices and summarizes the resulting currents as a gamma distribution $f(x;\alpha,\beta)=\beta^\alpha x^{\alpha-1} e^{-\beta x}/\Gamma(\alpha)$, which is the model output. Sequential neural posterior estimation with truncated proposals learns the posterior over the triple $(k, R_m, R_{int})$ by matching simulated to observed gamma parameters. A structurally wrong model, for instance inverting the length dependence of resistance, produces no converging parameter set and no distributional fit, showing that the netlist structure carries the physical content and the inference algorithm does not manufacture agreement by itself.

What would settle it

Fabricate wafers at a clearly different channel length (for example 140 nm or 600 nm) or CNT density (for example 20 or 80 CNTs per micrometer) under the same nominal recipe, and compare the measured $I_{on}$ and $I_{off}$ distributions against the model's predictions evaluated at the inferred resistances; because the model predicts saturation in both directions, a systematic mismatch would indict the structural assumptions rather than the parameters. Separately, measure CNT-CNT junction resistance on the same sorted-CNT material with conducting AFM and check whether it lands near the inferred ~120 kΩ or closer to the ~700 kΩ DFT value.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that simulation-based inference can recover the resistance parameters of a random network transistor from the measured distribution of its performance, a setting in which classical extraction is impossible because the model output is a probability distribution over many devices rather than a single current value. The compact model treats each CNT segment between two junctions or contacts as an independent virtual-source resistor, adds a constant scalar resistance $R_{int}$ at every CNT-CNT intersection and $R_m$ at every metal contact, and folds threshold-voltage variation in through the measured subthreshold-swing distribution using the fitted relation $V_t = k/n_{ss} + b$. Sampling random networks of 285 nm channel length at 45 CNTs per micrometer, the simulator generates 100 devices per run and summarizes the on- and off-currents as a gamma distribution; sequential neural posterior estimation then finds the parameter triple whose simulated gamma parameters match the observed ones. With the inferred parameters the model reproduces the $I_{on}$ and $I_{off}$ distributions of all three wafers, with $k$ near 1 for the on-state and somewhat higher for the off-state, and a deliberately mistuned model fails to converge to any satisfactory parameter set, which the paper reads as evidence that the inference tracks the model structure rather than fitting anything arbitrarily.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the compact network model is structurally correct: each CNT segment behaves as an independent virtual-source resistor, junction and metal-contact resistances are constant scalars, threshold voltage follows the fixed two-constant function of subthreshold swing, and the CNT length and diameter distributions borrowed from a datasheet and similar studies match the fabricated wafers; if any of these fails, simulation-based inference will return parameters that fit the measured gamma distributions without being the physical resistances.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For compact models whose output is a distribution of device behavior, simulation-based inference supplies a parameter-extraction route where linearization and exponential-transformation methods are simply unavailable.
  • The same extracted parameters reproduce the measured on- and off-current spreads across three separately fabricated wafers, so the calibration transfers between wafers made under the same nominal recipe.
  • Using the inferred parameters, the model predicts that on/off current saturates as CNT density increases and falls asymptotically as gate length grows, matching observed scaling behavior.
  • The failed run with a deliberately mistuned model shows that simulation-based inference can signal a wrong model structure rather than silently returning a best-fit parameter set, giving modelers a diagnostic check.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same netlist-plus-SBI pipeline should transfer to other random-network devices, such as sensors, transparent conductors, or printed electronics, where junction resistance dominates and the measured quantity is a spread of device outputs rather than a single value.
  • Summarizing each simulation run by a fitted gamma distribution discards shape information; conditioning the posterior on the full empirical distribution of simulated currents could tighten the posterior and reveal whether the three-parameter model is over- or under-determined.
  • Because the inferred junction resistance (~120 kΩ) sits close to the ~200 kΩ AFM-based and ~150 kΩ engineering estimates but well below the ~700 kΩ DFT value, an independent junction-resistance measurement on the same sorted-CNT material would separate model error from material-to-material variation.
  • The two fitted constants in $V_t = k/n_{ss} + b$ absorb any mismatch between the threshold-voltage shortcut and reality; checking the relation against directly measured threshold voltages on a fresh wafer would localize error in the network model versus error in that shortcut.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This dissertation applies machine learning to carbon nanotube field-effect transistors (CNTFETs) in three parts: neural network surrogate modeling of I-V characteristics, simulation-based inference (SBI) to extract resistance parameters in a compact network model, and GFlowNet-based generative models for device design. The central claim is in Chapter 5: SBI can recover CNT-metal contact resistance, CNT-CNT intersection resistance, and CNT section resistivity from measured on/off current distributions of randomly deposited CNTFETs, yielding values close to literature.

Significance. If validated, the SBI approach would be a useful practical tool for parameter extraction when a model's output is a distribution rather than a single value, a genuinely valuable methodological contribution. The thesis also presents a transparent network compact model and includes a negative control (failed SBI when the model is wrong), which is a strength. However, the current evidence is insufficient to establish the central extraction claim because of circularity in the Vt construction, the absence of any parameter-recovery test, and the lack of quantitative evaluation in the neural-network chapter.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.5] The threshold voltage distribution is generated from the measured SS distribution through V_t = k*(1/n_ss)+b, with k and b inferred from the same wafer data. The agreement between the generated and measured V_t distributions shown in Fig 5.5 is therefore guaranteed by construction, and V_t is an input to the simulator rather than an independent prediction. Consequently, the resistance posterior is conditional on a fitted and uncertain V_t-SS relation; the paper should report the k,b fit uncertainty, propagate it through the inference, and validate the V_t relation on a held-out wafer.
  2. [Section 5.6 and inference setup in Section 5.5] No parameter-recovery or identifiability test is reported. The simulator output is summarized by gamma distribution parameters (alpha, beta) for I_on and I_off, while the inference targets at least three parameters (k, Rm, Rin). The text does not demonstrate that a known parameter set can be recovered from simulated data. Given that the priors for Rm and Rin are set to [1,20] kOhm and [1,500] kOhm, which bracket the literature values cited in Section 5.2, the reported posteriors 'close to previous experimental studies' may largely reflect the prior. A simulation-based calibration study with ground-truth parameters and a prior-sensitivity analysis is needed.
  3. [Section 5.6] The reported posterior behavior is physically problematic: k is 'around 1 for I_on' but 'higher for I_off', and Rm 'seems to be higher for I_off'. If these are intrinsic device constants, the fits to I_on and I_off should produce compatible posteriors. The discrepancy suggests model misspecification or non-identifiability, and the text does not address this tension. The authors should test whether the I_on and I_off posteriors overlap and discuss the implications.
  4. [Section 4.4] The claim that the neural network 'can provide reasonable predictions' is supported only by visual inspection of a few sample I-V curves (Figs 4.14-4.17). No quantitative error metrics, comparison to a baseline, or device-level held-out split are provided, so the predictive accuracy and generalization of the model are not established.
  5. [Section 5.5, prior specification] The text is unclear whether k is fixed ('k is 1') or inferred with prior [0.3,1], and the parameter b in V_t = k*(1/n_ss)+b is never assigned a prior or a fixed value. This ambiguity affects the reproducibility of the inference and should be resolved.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 5.6] The section number 5.6 is used twice, first for 'Results' and then for 'Conclusion and Future Research'; this should be renumbered.
  2. [Chapter 7] The concluding chapter refers to 'chapter 3' for the neural-network work, 'chapter 4' for SBI, and 'chapter 5' for GFlowNet; the actual chapters are 4, 5, and 6 respectively.
  3. [Section 2.3] The text states 'we developed a method to tackle this problem in chapter 4 using simulation-based inference', but the SBI work appears in Chapter 5.
  4. [Section 4.3] The source of experimental data is given as 'experimental data from [ ]' with an empty citation; a specific reference is needed.
  5. [Section 2.1] The CNT diameter formula is garbled: it should involve a square root sqrt(m^2 + m*n + n^2) and a factor (sqrt(3)/pi)*a_CC; the printed equation is missing these elements.
  6. [Section 5.6] The reported inferred values are internally inconsistent: the text first says Rm is around 10 kOhm and intersection resistance around 120 kOhm, then later states 'CNT-metal contact resistance is around 150 kOhm'; the latter appears to be a typo but should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the Vt-from-SS calibration step; the central SBI parameter extraction is not definitionally circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.5 (Experimental setup), passage on deriving Vth from SS, text near Fig 5.5]
    "So, we suppose that 𝑉𝑡=𝑘∗1/𝑛𝑠𝑠+𝑏, and infer the parameters k and b. The 𝑉𝑡 distributions are successfully generated with their corresponding SS distributions. ... Since SS and 𝑉𝑡ℎ can be affected by various factors and are hard to simulate, we expressed 𝑉𝑡ℎ with SS and treated them s an input of the model."

    The Vt distribution is presented as 'successfully generated' from the SS distribution, but k and b are inferred from the same measured Vt/SS wafer data, so the agreement in Fig 5.5 is guaranteed by the fit rather than by the model. The fitted Vt is then used as an input to the simulator, so it cannot serve as independent validation of the compact model. This is a real but localized circularity: it does not by itself force the Ion/Ioff posterior, since the SBI targets are separately measured distributions and the authors show a misspecified model for which SBI fails.

full rationale

The paper's central Chapter 5 claim—that SNPE can recover CNT contact, intersection, and channel resistances from measured Ion/Ioff summary distributions—is not circular. The posterior is not guaranteed to match the target; the authors show a deliberately misspecified model for which SBI fails (Fig 5.13), and the inferred resistances are compared with independent literature values. The one genuine circularity is the Vth-from-SS preprocessing: if k and b in Vt = k*(1/nss)+b are inferred from the same measured Vt/SS data, then Fig 5.5's 'successfully generated' Vt distribution is a fit to that same data, not a prediction, and feeding that Vt into the simulator makes it a calibrated input rather than independent evidence. This does not force the Ion/Ioff posterior, so the central derivation stands. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found. The absence of a parameter-recovery or identifiability study, and the use of in-sample posterior predictive matching as evidence, is an evidentiary weakness but not a definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a chain of borrowed empirical constants, a structural network model, and fitted scaling parameters. The SBI extraction is honest Bayesian inference, but its physical interpretation depends on the model being correct, and the model includes several ad hoc choices such as the Vt-SS linearization, constant junction resistance, and borrowed CNT distributions. The free-parameter count is moderate for a methods demonstration, but the lack of withheld-data validation means the fitted parameters are not yet shown to transfer.

free parameters (7)
  • Vt-SS slope k and intercept b = k ~ 1 for I_on, larger for I_off; b not reported
    In Section 5.5, Vt is expressed as k*(1/nss)+b and k, b are inferred from wafer data rather than derived. This makes the Vt distribution match by construction.
  • CNT-metal contact resistance Rm = ~10 kOhm; text also mentions 150 kOhm in Section 5.6
    One of three SBI-inferred parameters, with prior Rm in [1,20] kOhm chosen from literature [83]. Central to the compact-network fit.
  • CNT-CNT intersection resistance R_int = ~120 kOhm
    Inferred via SBI with prior [1,500] kOhm and compared to literature values around 150-200 kOhm.
  • CNT section resistivity constant k1 = implied ~77.3 kOhm/um
    The section resistance formula includes k1, and the inferred CNT conductance is reported in Section 5.6. The text is not clear how k1 is identified separately from k, Rm, and Rint.
  • Neural network hyperparameters = embedding 512/6 layers for log(Ids); 256/7 layers for Ids ratio; LR 1e-5 to 1e-7
    Chosen by monitoring test loss in Section 4.4; hand-selected and not derived from physics.
  • GFlowNet reward and training parameters = temperature beta=15, reward k=0.5, batch size 10
    Chosen in Chapter 6 and its appendix to make training tractable; they control diversity and match of generated solutions.
  • Virtual-source empirical constants alpha and beta = alpha=-3.5, beta=1.8
    Taken from references [91] and [92] and used in the compact model. They are empirical fits from prior work, not derived in this thesis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Virtual-source compact model equations describe the intrinsic current of each CNT segment.
    Invoked in Section 5.4 to construct R_network. If this model is wrong for nanoscale CNT sections, the inferred resistances are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper CNT sections act as independent virtual-source resistors connected by fixed junction and metal-contact resistors, and network current is a scalar circuit solve.
    This is the paper's modeling choice in Section 5.4 and is not validated against a physical full-device simulation or experiment beyond the distributional fit.
  • ad hoc to paper Threshold voltage is deterministically linked to subthreshold swing by Vt = k*(1/nss)+b.
    Derived in Section 5.5 through simplification, with k and b fitted to data. Used to generate the Vt distributions in Figure 5.5.
  • domain assumption Gamma distributions accurately represent the I_on, I_off, and simulated device current distributions.
    Stated in Section 5.5. The model output and targets are both gamma-fitted, so goodness of fit is partly an artifact of the chosen family.
  • domain assumption CNT length and diameter distributions taken from a technical data sheet and similar research match the wafers used in reference [94].
    Used in Section 5.4 and the appendix to sample network geometry. The manufacturer did not provide distributions, so this is borrowed data.
  • domain assumption The capacitance approximation Cox = Cgc_m * N introduces only about 0.4% error at 45 CNTs per micrometer.
    The appendix Figure 5.16 justifies the approximation; the deviation grows at lower densities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dissertation Machine Learning in Materials Science -- A case study in Carbon Nanotube field effect transistors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNX5LK7X

@misc{pith2026250114813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dissertation Machine Learning in Materials Science -- A case study in Carbon Nanotube field effect transistors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNX5LK7X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14813}
}
read the original abstract

In this thesis, I explored the use of several machine learning techniques, including neural networks, simulation-based inference, and generative flow networks, on predicting CNTFETs performance, probing the conductivity properties of CNT network, and generating CNTFETs processing information for target performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14813 by the authors.

Figure 2.1
Figure 2.1. Carbon Nanotube structure. ………………………………………….……….…4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.10. Training Loss for logIds model with various combinations of embedding size [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6.11
Figure 6.11. Action space of GFlowNet with compact model……………………….…….1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6_11.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

    Wang, Hanchen, et al. "Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence." Nature 620.7972 (2023): 47-60

    2023

  2. [2]

    Artificial intelligence to win the nobel prize and beyond: Creating the engine for scientific discovery

    Kitano, Hiroaki. "Artificial intelligence to win the nobel prize and beyond: Creating the engine for scientific discovery." AI magazine 37.1 (2016): 39-49

    2016

  3. [3]

    Gflownets for ai-driven scientific discovery

    Jain, Moksh, et al. "Gflownets for ai-driven scientific discovery." Digital Discovery 2.3 (2023): 557-577

    2023

  4. [4]

    The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery

    Lu, Chris, et al. "The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery." arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

    Jumper, John, et al. "Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold." nature 596.7873 (2021): 583-589

    2021

  6. [6]

    AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models

    Varadi, Mihaly, et al. "AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models." Nucleic acids research 50.D1 (2022): D439-D444

    2022

  7. [7]

    Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development

    Mak, Kit-Kay, Yi-Hang Wong, and Mallikarjuna Rao Pichika. "Artificial intelligence in drug discovery and development." Drug discovery and evaluation: safety and pharmacokinetic assays (2024): 1461-1498

    2024

  8. [8]

    Quantum machine learning

    Biamonte, Jacob, et al. "Quantum machine learning." Nature 549.7671 (2017): 195- 202. 128

    2017

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon

    Iijima, Sumio. "Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon." nature 354.6348 (1991): 56

    1991

  2. [10]

    Electrical conductivity of individual carbon nanotubes

    Ebbesen, T. W., et al. "Electrical conductivity of individual carbon nanotubes." Nature 382.6586 (1996): 54-56. [11]Tans, Sander J., Alwin RM Verschueren, and Cees Dekker. "Room-temperature transistor based on a single carbon nanotube." Nature 393.6680 (1998): 49-52. [12]Frank...

    1996

  3. [15]

    Carbon nanotube transistors scaled to a 40-nanometer footprint

    Cao, Qing, et al. "Carbon nanotube transistors scaled to a 40-nanometer footprint." Science 356.6345 (2017): 1369-1372

    2017

  4. [16]

    Carbon nanotube transistor technology for More-Moore scaling

    Cao, Qing. "Carbon nanotube transistor technology for More-Moore scaling." Nano Research 14.9 (2021): 3051-3069

    2021

  5. [17]

    Carbon nanotube electronics

    Avouris, Phaedon, et al. "Carbon nanotube electronics." Proceedings of the IEEE 91.11 (2003): 1772-1784

    2003

  6. [18]

    Logic circuits with carbon nanotube transistors

    Bachtold, Adrian, et al. "Logic circuits with carbon nanotube transistors." Science 294.5545 (2001): 1317-1320. 129

    2001

  7. [19]

    Carbon nanotube computer

    Shulaker, Max M., et al. "Carbon nanotube computer." Nature 501.7468 (2013): 526-530

    2013

  8. [20]

    High-κ dielectrics for advanced carbon-nanotube transistors and logic gates

    Javey, Ali, et al. "High-κ dielectrics for advanced carbon-nanotube transistors and logic gates." Nature materials 1.4 (2002): 241-246

    2002

  9. [21]

    Carbon nanotube transistors and logic circuits

    Avouris, Ph, et al. "Carbon nanotube transistors and logic circuits." Physica B: Condensed Matter 323.1-4 (2002): 6-14

    2002

  10. [22]

    Carbon nanotube transistor operation at 2.6 GHz

    Li, Shengdong, et al. "Carbon nanotube transistor operation at 2.6 GHz." Nano Letters 4.4 (2004): 753-756

    2004

  11. [23]

    Carbon nanotube radio- frequency electronics

    Zhong, Donglai, Zhiyong Zhang, and Lian-Mao Peng. "Carbon nanotube radio- frequency electronics." Nanotechnology 28.21 (2017): 212001

    2017

  12. [24]

    A 1 GHz integrated circuit with carbon nanotube interconnects and silicon transistors

    Close, Gael F., et al. "A 1 GHz integrated circuit with carbon nanotube interconnects and silicon transistors." Nano Letters 8.2 (2008): 706-709

    2008

  13. [26]

    Gigahertz frequency flexible carbon nanotube transistors

    Chimot, N., et al. "Gigahertz frequency flexible carbon nanotube transistors." Applied physics letters 91.15 (2007). [27]Wilder, Jeroen WG, et al. "Electronic structure of atomically resolved carbon nanotubes." Nature 391.6662 (1998): 59. [28]Martel, Richard, et al. "Single-an...

    2007

  14. [29]

    DNA and carbon nanotubes as medicine

    Cheung, William, et al. "DNA and carbon nanotubes as medicine." Advanced drug delivery reviews 62.6 (2010): 633-649

    2010

  15. [30]

    Raman spectroscopy of carbon nanotubes

    Dresselhaus, Mildred S., et al. "Raman spectroscopy of carbon nanotubes." Physics reports 409.2 (2005): 47-99

    2005

  16. [31]

    Raman spectroscopy of graphene and carbon nanotubes

    Saito, R., et al. "Raman spectroscopy of graphene and carbon nanotubes." Advances in Physics 60.3 (2011): 413-550

    2011

  17. [32]

    Raman spectroscopy for carbon nanotube applications

    Jorio, A., and RJJoAP Saito. "Raman spectroscopy for carbon nanotube applications." Journal of Applied Physics 129.2 (2021). [33]Rao, A. M., et al. "Diameter-selective Raman scattering from vibrational modes in carbon nanotubes." Science 275.5297 (1997): 187-191

    2021

  18. [34]

    Dispersion of carbon nanotubes with SDS surfactants: a study from a binding energy perspective

    Duan, Wen Hui, Quan Wang, and Frank Collins. "Dispersion of carbon nanotubes with SDS surfactants: a study from a binding energy perspective." Chemical Science 2.7 (2011): 1407-1413

    2011

  19. [35]

    SDS surfactants on carbon nanotubes: aggregate morphology

    Tummala, Naga Rajesh. "SDS surfactants on carbon nanotubes: aggregate morphology." ACS nano 3.3 (2009): 595-602

    2009

  20. [36]

    Comparative study of the extraction selectivity of PFO-BPy and PCz for small to large diameter single-walled carbon nanotubes

    Liu, Fang, et al. "Comparative study of the extraction selectivity of PFO-BPy and PCz for small to large diameter single-walled carbon nanotubes." Nano Research 15.9 (2022): 8479-8485

    2022

  21. [37]

    Sorting carbon nanotubes by electronic structure using density differentiation

    Arnold, Michael S., et al. "Sorting carbon nanotubes by electronic structure using density differentiation." Nature nanotechnology 1.1 (2006): 60-65. 131

    2006

  22. [38]

    Comparative study of carbon nanotube dispersion using surfactants

    Rastogi, Richa, et al. "Comparative study of carbon nanotube dispersion using surfactants." Journal of colloid and interface science 328.2 (2008): 421-428

    2008

  23. [39]

    Improving the performance and uniformity of carbon-nanotube- network-based photodiodes via yttrium oxide coating and decoating

    Ma, Ze, et al. "Improving the performance and uniformity of carbon-nanotube- network-based photodiodes via yttrium oxide coating and decoating." ACS applied materials & interfaces 11.12 (2019): 11736-11742

    2019

  24. [40]

    Langmuir− Blodgett assembly of densely aligned single-walled carbon nanotubes from bulk materials

    Li, Xiaolin, et al. "Langmuir− Blodgett assembly of densely aligned single-walled carbon nanotubes from bulk materials." Journal of the American Chemical Society 129.16 (2007): 4890-4891

    2007

  25. [41]

    Langmuir− Blodgett films of matrix-diluted single-walled carbon nanotubes

    Krstic, V ojislav, et al. "Langmuir− Blodgett films of matrix-diluted single-walled carbon nanotubes." Chemistry of materials 10.9 (1998): 2338-2340

    1998

  26. [42]

    Small Molecule Additives to Suppress Bundling in Dimensional‐Limited Self‐Alignment Method for High‐Density Aligned Carbon Nanotube Array

    Chao, Tzu‐Ang, et al. "Small Molecule Additives to Suppress Bundling in Dimensional‐Limited Self‐Alignment Method for High‐Density Aligned Carbon Nanotube Array." Advanced Materials Interfaces 11.6 (2024): 2300684

    2024

  27. [43]

    Carbon nanotube based radio frequency transistors for K- band amplifiers

    Zhou, Jianshuo, et al. "Carbon nanotube based radio frequency transistors for K- band amplifiers." ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 13.31 (2021): 37475-37482

    2021

  28. [44]

    Effect of humidity on the hysteresis of single walled carbon nanotube field‐effect transistors

    Rinkiö, Marcus, et al. "Effect of humidity on the hysteresis of single walled carbon nanotube field‐effect transistors." physica status solidi (b) 245.10 (2008): 2315-2318. [45]Svensson, Johannes, and Eleanor EB Campbell. "Schottky barriers in carbon nanotube-metal contacts." ...

    2008

  29. [46]

    The role of metal− nanotube contact in the performance of carbon nanotube field-effect transistors

    Chen, Zhihong, et al. "The role of metal− nanotube contact in the performance of carbon nanotube field-effect transistors." Nano letters 5.7 (2005): 1497-1502. 132

    2005

  30. [47]

    Contact resistance between metal and carbon nanotube interconnects: Effect of work function and wettability

    Lim, Seong Chu, et al. "Contact resistance between metal and carbon nanotube interconnects: Effect of work function and wettability." Applied Physics Letters 95.26 (2009)

    2009

  31. [48]

    Deep learning

    Goodfellow, Ian. "Deep learning." (2016)

    2016

  32. [49]

    Backpropagation and stochastic gradient descent method

    Amari, Shun-ichi. "Backpropagation and stochastic gradient descent method." Neurocomputing 5.4-5 (1993): 185-196

    1993

  33. [50]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization

    Kingma, Diederik P. "Adam: A method for stochastic optimization." arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  34. [51]

    Understanding deep learning

    Prince, Simon JD. Understanding deep learning. MIT press, 2023

    2023

  35. [52]

    P. J. Diggle, R. J. Gratton, Monte Carlo methods of inference for implicit statisticalmodels. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 46, 193–212 (1984)

    1984

  36. [53]

    The frontier of simulation- based inference

    Cranmer, Kyle, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. "The frontier of simulation- based inference." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.48 (2020): 30055-30062. [54]Lueckmann, Jan-Matthis, et al. "Benchmarking simulation-based inference." International conference o...

    2020 arXiv

  37. [56]

    Truncated proposals for scalable and hassle-free simulation-based inference

    Deistler, Michael, Pedro J. Goncalves, and Jakob H. Macke. "Truncated proposals for scalable and hassle-free simulation-based inference." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 23135-23149. [57]Papamakarios, George, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. "Seque...

    2022

  38. [58]

    Attention is all you need

    Vaswani, A. "Attention is all you need." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (2017)

    2017

  39. [59]

    Generative adversarial networks

    Goodfellow, Ian, et al. "Generative adversarial networks." Communications of the ACM 63.11 (2020): 139-144. [60 ]Bengio, Yoshua, et al. "Gflownet foundations." The Journal of Machine Learning Research 24.1 (2023): 10006-10060

    2020

  40. [61]

    Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation

    Bengio, Emmanuel, et al. "Flow network based generative models for non-iterative diverse candidate generation." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (2021): 27381-27394

    2021

  41. [62]

    Towards understanding and improving gflownet training

    Shen, Max W., et al. "Towards understanding and improving gflownet training." International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 2023. [63]Roy, Julien, et al. "Goal-conditioned gflownets for controllable multi-objective molecular design." arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04620 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  42. [64]

    Trajectory balance: Improved credit assignment in gflownets

    Malkin, Nikolay, et al. "Trajectory balance: Improved credit assignment in gflownets." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 (2022): 5955-5967. 134

    2022

  43. [65]

    Crystal-gfn: sampling crystals with desirable properties and constraints

    AI4Science, Mila, et al. "Crystal-gfn: sampling crystals with desirable properties and constraints." arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04925 (2023)

    2023

  44. [66]

    Towards equilibrium molecular conformation generation with GFlowNets

    V olokhova, Alexandra, et al. "Towards equilibrium molecular conformation generation with GFlowNets." Digital Discovery 3.5 (2024): 1038-1047

    2024

  45. [67]

    Aligned, high-density semiconducting carbon nanotube arrays for high-performance electronics

    Liu, Lijun, et al. "Aligned, high-density semiconducting carbon nanotube arrays for high-performance electronics." Science 368.6493 (2020): 850-856

    2020

  46. [68]

    Carbon nanotube-based flexible high-speed circuits with sub- nanosecond stage delays

    Long, Guanhua, et al. "Carbon nanotube-based flexible high-speed circuits with sub- nanosecond stage delays." Nature Communications 13.1 (2022): 6734

    2022

  47. [69]

    Complementary transistors based on aligned semiconducting carbon nanotube arrays

    Liu, Chenchen, et al. "Complementary transistors based on aligned semiconducting carbon nanotube arrays." ACS nano 16.12 (2022): 21482-21490

    2022

  48. [70]

    Enhancement‐mode field‐effect transistors and high‐speed integrated circuits based on aligned carbon nanotube films

    Lin, Yanxia, et al. "Enhancement‐mode field‐effect transistors and high‐speed integrated circuits based on aligned carbon nanotube films." Advanced Functional Materials 32.11 (2022): 2104539

    2022

  49. [71]

    Gigahertz integrated circuits based on carbon nanotube films

    Zhong, Donglai, et al. "Gigahertz integrated circuits based on carbon nanotube films." Nature Electronics 1.1 (2018): 40-45

    2018

  50. [72]

    Improving the performance of aligned carbon nanotube-based transistors by refreshing the substrate surface

    Lin, Yanxia, et al. "Improving the performance of aligned carbon nanotube-based transistors by refreshing the substrate surface." ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 15.8 (2023): 10830-10837

    2023

  51. [73]

    Radiofrequency transistors based on aligned carbon nanotube arrays

    Shi, Huiwen, et al. "Radiofrequency transistors based on aligned carbon nanotube arrays." Nature Electronics 4.6 (2021): 405-415. 135

    2021

  52. [74]

    Terahertz metal-oxide-semiconductor transistors based on aligned carbon nanotube arrays

    Zhang, Zhiyong, et al. "Terahertz metal-oxide-semiconductor transistors based on aligned carbon nanotube arrays." (2023)

    2023

  53. [75]

    Towards monochiral carbon nanotubes: A review of progress in the sorting of single-walled carbon nanotubes

    Janas, Dawid. "Towards monochiral carbon nanotubes: A review of progress in the sorting of single-walled carbon nanotubes." Materials Chemistry Frontiers 2.1 (2018): 36-63

    2018

  54. [76]

    Gel electrophoresis using a selective radical for the separation of single-walled carbon nanotubes

    Mesgari, Sara, et al. "Gel electrophoresis using a selective radical for the separation of single-walled carbon nanotubes." Faraday Discussions 173 (2014): 351-363

    2014

  55. [77]

    Polycarbazole-sorted semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes for incorporation into organic thin film transistors,

    N. A. Rice, W. J. Bodnaryk, B. Mirka, O. A. Melville, A. Adronov, and B. H. Lessard, “Polycarbazole-sorted semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes for incorporation into organic thin film transistors,” Adv. Electron. Mater., vol. 5, no. 1, Jan. 2019, Art. no. 1800539, do...

    2019 doi

  56. [78]

    Contact resistance between carbon nanotubes

    Buldum, Alper, and Jian Ping Lu. "Contact resistance between carbon nanotubes." Physical Review B 63.16 (2001): 161403

    2001

  57. [79]

    Percolating conduction in finite nanotube networks

    Kumar, S., J. Y . Murthy, and M. A. Alam. "Percolating conduction in finite nanotube networks." Physical review letters 95.6 (2005): 066802

    2005

  58. [80]

    Resistive analysis of scattering-dependent electrical transport in single-wall carbon-nanotube networks

    Tripathy, Srijeet, et al. "Resistive analysis of scattering-dependent electrical transport in single-wall carbon-nanotube networks." IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 67.12 (2020): 5676-5684. 136

    2020

  59. [81]

    Charge transport in semiconducting carbon nanotube networks

    Zorn, Nicolas F., and Jana Zaumseil. "Charge transport in semiconducting carbon nanotube networks." Applied Physics Reviews 8.4 (2021)

    2021

  60. [82]

    The frontier of simulation- based inference

    Cranmer, Kyle, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. "The frontier of simulation- based inference." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117.48 (2020): 30055-30062

    2020

  61. [83]

    SBI--A toolkit for simulation-based inference

    Tejero-Cantero, Alvaro, et al. "SBI--A toolkit for simulation-based inference." arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.09114 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  62. [84]

    Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation

    Papamakarios, George, and Iain Murray. "Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation." Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

    2016

  63. [85]

    Flexible statistical inference for mechanistic models of neural dynamics

    Lueckmann, Jan-Matthis, et al. "Flexible statistical inference for mechanistic models of neural dynamics." Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  64. [86]

    A review and analysis of electrical percolation in carbon nanotube polymer composites

    Bauhofer, Wolfgang, and Josef Z. Kovacs. "A review and analysis of electrical percolation in carbon nanotube polymer composites." Composites science and technology 69.10 (2009): 1486-1498

    2009

  65. [87]

    Percolation in transparent and conducting carbon nanotube networks

    Hu, Lea, D. S. Hecht, and G. Grüner. "Percolation in transparent and conducting carbon nanotube networks." Nano letters 4.12 (2004): 2513-2517

    2004

  66. [88]

    P. N. Nirmalraj, P. E. Lyons, S. De, J. N. Coleman, and J. J. Boland, Nano Lett. 9(11), 3890 (2009). 137

    2009

  67. [89]

    A compact SPICE model for carbon-nanotube field-effect transistors including nonidealities and its application—Part I: Model of the intrinsic channel region

    Deng, Jie, and H-S. Philip Wong. "A compact SPICE model for carbon-nanotube field-effect transistors including nonidealities and its application—Part I: Model of the intrinsic channel region." IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 54.12 (2007): 3186- 3194

    2007

  68. [90]

    A compact SPICE model for carbon-nanotube field-effect transistors including nonidealities and its application—Part II: Full device model and circuit performance benchmarking

    Deng, Jie, and H-S. Philip Wong. "A compact SPICE model for carbon-nanotube field-effect transistors including nonidealities and its application—Part II: Full device model and circuit performance benchmarking." IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 54.12 (2007): 3195-3205

    2007

  69. [91]

    A compact virtual-source model for carbon nanotube FETs in the sub-10-nm regime—Part I: Intrinsic elements

    Lee, C-S., et al. "A compact virtual-source model for carbon nanotube FETs in the sub-10-nm regime—Part I: Intrinsic elements." IEEE transactions on electron devices 62.9 (2015): 3061-3069

    2015

  70. [92]

    A compact virtual-source model for carbon nanotube FETs in the sub-10-nm regime—Part II: Extrinsic elements, performance assessment, and design optimization

    Lee, Chi-Shuen, et al. "A compact virtual-source model for carbon nanotube FETs in the sub-10-nm regime—Part II: Extrinsic elements, performance assessment, and design optimization." IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices 62.9 (2015): 3070-3078

    2015

  71. [93]

    Diggle PJ, Gratton RJ (1984) Monte Carlo Methods of Inference for Implicit Statistical Models in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). V ol. 46, pp. 193–212

    1984

  72. [94]

    Fabrication of carbon nanotube field-effect transistors in commercial silicon manufacturing facilities

    Bishop, Mindy D., et al. "Fabrication of carbon nanotube field-effect transistors in commercial silicon manufacturing facilities." Nature Electronics 3.8 (2020): 492-501. 138

    2020

  73. [95]

    Defining and overcoming the contact resistance challenge in scaled carbon nanotube transistors

    Franklin, Aaron D., Damon B. Farmer, and Wilfried Haensch. "Defining and overcoming the contact resistance challenge in scaled carbon nanotube transistors." ACS nano 8.7 (2014): 7333-7339

    2014

  74. [96]

    CircuitScribe: Block Diagram based Circuit Simulation Application,

    A. Gajare et al., "CircuitScribe: Block Diagram based Circuit Simulation Application," in Proc. 2021 IEEE Mysore Sub Section International Conference (MysuruCon), IEEE, 2021

    2021

  75. [97]

    Comparative Analysis of Software Environments for Computer Modeling in Electrical and Electronic Engineering,

    S. Popov and N. Hinov, "Comparative Analysis of Software Environments for Computer Modeling in Electrical and Electronic Engineering," in Proc. 2023 International Conference on Information Technologies (InfoTech), IEEE, 2023

    2023

  76. [98]

    Optimizing transistor performance of percolating carbon nanotube networks,

    V . K. Sangwan, A. Behnam, V . W. Ballarotto, M. S. Fuhrer, A. Ural, and E. D. Williams, “Optimizing transistor performance of percolating carbon nanotube networks,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 97, no. 4, p. 43111, Jul. 2010, doi: 10.1063/1.3469930

    2010 doi

  77. [99]

    Introduction to Random Variables by Nathaniel E. Helwig

  78. [100]

    Carbon nanotube transistor technology for More-Moore scaling

  79. [101]

    Innovation: The future of silicon technology

    Meyerson, B. Innovation: The future of silicon technology. In Semico IMPACT Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 2004

    2004

  80. [102]

    A.; Lundstrom, M

    Liu, Y .; Luisier, M.; Majumdar, A.; Antoniadis, D. A.; Lundstrom, M. S. On the interpretation of ballistic injection velocity in deeply scaled 139

  81. [103]

    A.; Colinge, J

    Ferain, I.; Colinge, C. A.; Colinge, J. P. Multigate transistors as the future of classical metal–oxide–semiconductor field-effect transistors

  82. [104]

    Subband structure engineering for performance enhancement of Si MOSFETs

    Takagi, S.; Koga, J.; Toriumi, A. Subband structure engineering for performance enhancement of Si MOSFETs. In International Electron Devices Meeting. IEDM Technical Digest, Washington, DC, USA, 1997, pp 219–222

    1997

  83. [105]

    Nature 2011, 479, 310–316. MOSFETs. IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 2012, 59, 994–1001

    2011

  84. [106]

    J.; Tersoff, J.; Franklin, A

    Cao, Q.; Han, S. J.; Tersoff, J.; Franklin, A. D.; Zhu, Y .; Zhang, Z.; Tulevski, G. S.; Tang, J. S.; Haensch, W. End-bonded contacts for carbon nanotube transistors with low, size-independent resistance. Science 2015, 350, 68–72

    2015

  85. [107]

    Physics of carbon nanotube electronic devices

    Anantram, M. P., and F. Leonard. "Physics of carbon nanotube electronic devices." Reports on progress in physics 69.3 (2006): 507

    2006

  86. [108]

    Metallization considerations for carbon nanotube device optimization

    Farmer, Damon B. "Metallization considerations for carbon nanotube device optimization." Journal of Applied Physics 132.10 (2022)

    2022

  87. [109]

    Interpolation and extrapolation

    Wahab, Muhammad Abdul. "Interpolation and extrapolation." Proc. Topics Syst. Eng. Winter Term 17 (2017): 1-6

    2017

  88. [110]

    Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB® for Engineers and Scientists

    Steven C. Chapra, “Applied Numerical Methods with MATLAB® for Engineers and Scientists”,3rd Edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002, ch.17-18

    2002

  89. [111]

    ON THE CHARGE-SHEET MODEL OF THE THIN-FILM MOSfET

    Sanchez, A. OrtiZ-Conde FJ Garcia, P. E. Schmidt, and A. Sa-Noto. "ON THE CHARGE-SHEET MODEL OF THE THIN-FILM MOSfET."

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.