Low-Power Optical Actuation of n-GaAs Cantilevers via Surface Piezoelectric Coupling

Ayel\'en Prado; Diego Perez-Morelo; Hern\'an Pastoriza; Leonardo Salazar Alarc\'on

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Low-Power Optical Actuation of n-GaAs Cantilevers via Surface Piezoelectric Coupling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modulated nanowatt LED illumination actuates n-GaAs cantilevers through surface piezoelectric coupling.

desk verdict A clean experimental demonstration of nanowatt-LED actuation of plain n-GaAs cantilevers, with a plausible mechanism that still needs one or two controls before the piezoelectric claim is airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10836 v1 pith:3PBGHLBR submitted 2025-06-12 physics.app-ph physics.ins-det

Ayelén Prado , Diego Perez-Morelo , Leonardo Salazar Alarcón , Hernán Pastoriza This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phphysics.ins-det

keywords opticalactuationgalliumarsenidecantileversurfacephotovoltagepiezoelectriceffectdepletionlayerMEMSresonatorLEDoptomechanics

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

The paper reports that a simple clamped n-GaAs cantilever can be actuated by a modulated red LED delivering a few nanowatts, with no special optical cavity, heterostructure, or metal coating. It proposes that light couples to motion through the surface depletion layer: absorbed photons change the surface voltage, and the resulting change in electric field produces a piezoelectric strain that bends the cantilever. The authors rule out heating and radiation-pressure actuation by showing the resonance frequency barely shifts with light power, by the absence of a second-harmonic response, by a phase reversal under bias-voltage polarity, and by static profilometry in which cantilevers along [011] and [0-11] bend in opposite directions. If correct, this makes low-power LED illumination a simple, remote actuation method for piezoelectric semiconductor MEMS.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the surface depletion layer (the space-charge region) of n-GaAs, where acceptor-like surface states bend the bands upward and create an intrinsic electric field pointing from the bulk to the surface. Modulated light generates electron-hole pairs that flatten the bands, reduce the surface voltage, and shrink the depletion layer, changing the strain in that layer through the inverse piezoelectric effect. Because the piezoelectric response has opposite signs along [011] and [0-11], the cantilever bends in opposite directions for the two crystallographic orientations, which is the signature used to identify the mechanism.

What would settle it

With the cantilever mechanically clamped so it cannot flex, illuminate it with the same modulated LED and measure the voltage between cantilever and substrate; a signal at the modulation frequency would indicate direct photovoltage rather than piezoelectric strain, while a flat response would support the paper's interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Light alone, at a few nanowatts of modulated LED power, can drive the first flexural mode of a plain n-GaAs cantilever. The paper establishes that the actuation is piezoelectric: the surface photovoltage in the depletion layer modulates the depth-dependent electric field, and through the inverse piezoelectric effect this produces a stress that bends the cantilever. The piezoelectric interpretation is confirmed by static profilometry showing that cantilevers oriented along [011] and [0-11] deflect in opposite directions under identical illumination, which cannot be explained by orientation-independent thermal or radiation-pressure effects.

Load-bearing premise

The same light that bends the cantilever also changes the voltage between its top and bottom surfaces directly, so the readout voltage could contain a non-mechanical component at the same frequency as the motion; the paper does not describe how that direct surface-photovoltage background is separated from the piezoelectric signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Plain n-GaAs cantilevers with ohmic contacts can be actuated optically without a metal bilayer or an embedded heterojunction, simplifying fabrication.
Actuation is delivered by free-space light while detection is electrical, so the drive and readout paths are naturally isolated from electrical crosstalk.
Applying a DC bias for capacitive detection introduces Duffing-like nonlinear dynamics, so linear operation requires keeping the excitation amplitude sufficiently low.
The light offset reduces the quality factor through carrier-induced ohmic losses while initially increasing the amplitude, an effect the paper attributes to filling of surface states.
Cantilever orientation determines the direction of light-induced bending, offering a built-in check of the piezoelectric mechanism and a way to design directional actuators.

Reading between the lines

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

A control experiment that clamps the cantilever so it cannot move, or measures the voltage at off-resonance modulation frequencies, would determine how much of the detected signal is a direct photovoltage background rather than a piezoelectric response to strain; the paper does not report such a control.
Because the mechanism depends on surface-state density and doping, surface passivation or changes in doping level could tune the actuation efficiency, though the paper does not test this.
The fast picosecond and nanosecond surface-photovoltage components cited in the paper suggest the same actuation mechanism could drive much higher-frequency modes than the roughly 14 kHz fundamental, which the authors list as future work.
A systematic study of cantilevers along other crystallographic directions, such as (111), should show different or vanishing light-induced bending, providing a direct orientation-resolved test of the piezoelectric model.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should read this one if you care about optical actuation of semiconductor MEMS. The new thing is that they drive a simple, homogeneously doped n-GaAs cantilever with a modulated red LED at a few nanowatts, no heterostructure or diode junction built into the cantilever. That is a real simplification over prior work in refs 1-5, which needed engineered junctions. The actuation is efficient and the detection scheme is dual: piezoelectric voltage and bias-current. The paper gives several independent pieces of evidence for a non-thermal, non-electrostatic mechanism: linear amplitude response with no second harmonic, less than 0.2 Hz resonance-frequency drift when the optical offset is varied, a π phase shift when the bias polarity is flipped, and orientation-dependent static deflection in profilometry. Those are good, honest measurements, and the fits are standard resonator responses. The small frequency drift with a few tens of nanowatts is genuinely convincing against bulk photothermal bending.

The main soft spot is the mechanistic claim. The static profilometry result—opposite bending for [011] and [0-11] cantilevers—does rule out heating and radiation pressure, which are orientation-independent. But it does not uniquely establish piezoelectricity in the depletion layer. As the authors themselves mention, surface-state filling changes the initial curvature of the cantilever; that same channel, a light-induced anisotropic surface stress on the (001) GaAs surface, would also produce opposite bending for the two orientations, with no bulk e14 piezoelectric stress involved. The finite-element simulations in the SI address thermal dynamics only. So the piezoelectric interpretation is plausible but not uniquely established. A second soft spot is in detection scheme (i): the voltage between cantilever and substrate will include a direct surface-photovoltage modulation at the same frequency as the drive, in addition to the piezoelectric voltage from mechanical strain. The paper does not explain how that background is subtracted from the resonance curves. It is probably small off-resonance, but it should be quantified.

These are both addressable with additional controls: a wavelength-dependence or a measurement of the isolated photovoltage background, or a direct comparison of the measured static deflection against a finite-element model that includes both piezoelectric and surface-stress contributions. The paper is still a solid experimental contribution and deserves a serious referee. I would send it to peer review, but ask the authors to either add those controls or soften the mechanism claim to 'consistent with piezoelectricity.'

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports low-power optical actuation of simple-clamped n-GaAs cantilevers using a modulated 633 nm LED at nanowatt power levels. The authors propose that illumination modulates the surface photovoltage and space-charge-region width, producing a depth-dependent strain through the inverse piezoelectric effect of GaAs. Motion is detected either through the piezoelectric voltage generated by deformation (configuration i) or through the current from bias-induced capacitance changes (configuration ii). The evidence includes linear amplitude response and absence of a second harmonic, small resonance-frequency drift under varying light offset, a bias-polarity-dependent phase shift, and orientation-dependent static deflection measured by optical profilometry. The paper concludes that photothermal, electrostatic, and radiation-pressure effects are ruled out and that the actuation mechanism is piezoelectric in nature.

Significance. If the proposed mechanism is firmly established, the work offers a simple and low-cost actuation route for GaAs-based MEMS without requiring embedded heterostructures, extending previous optomechanical actuation schemes. The experimental study is multi-pronged and includes several falsifiable observations: the linear amplitude response, the absence of a second harmonic, the small frequency drift with offset, the bias-polarity phase behavior, and the opposite static deflections of [011] and [0-11] cantilevers. The finite-element thermal simulations are a useful supporting element. However, the central mechanism is not yet quantitatively established: the primary detection scheme may contain a non-mechanical surface-photovoltage background, and the orientation-dependent deflection does not uniquely exclude light-induced anisotropic surface stress. These issues are addressable with additional controls, and the manuscript would be substantially strengthened by such evidence.

major comments (3)

[Results and discussion, Fig. 1(a), configuration (i)] The voltage detected in configuration (i) is interpreted as the piezoelectric voltage produced by mechanical strain, but the modulated LED also modulates the surface photovoltage between the cantilever and the substrate at the same frequency even when the cantilever is stationary. No procedure is described for separating this direct photovoltaic background from the mechanical signal. Because all of the low-power actuation data in Figures 1(c) and 2 are acquired in this configuration, the resonance amplitudes and phases may contain a non-mechanical component. The authors should quantify the stationary (clamped or off-resonance) voltage response under identical illumination and subtract it or show that it is negligible.
[Results and discussion, Fig. 4(b) and surrounding text] The opposite static deflection of [011] and [0-11] cantilevers confirms that the actuation cannot be due to orientation-independent heating or radiation pressure, but it does not uniquely establish piezoelectric coupling. A light-induced anisotropic surface stress, for example from changes in the occupancy of the anisotropic (001) GaAs surface states, would also produce opposite bending directions for the two orientations without involving bulk e14 piezoelectricity. The manuscript itself invokes surface-state filling to explain the offset dependence of the amplitude and initial curvature (Fig. 2(d) and surrounding text), so this alternative channel is already present in the model. To support the piezoelectric interpretation, the authors need a control or estimate that isolates the bulk inverse-piezoelectric strain, such as a comparison between measured surface photovoltage and the predicted piezoelectric bending moment, or a finite-element model that includes an anisotropic surface-stress layer and shows it cannot reproduce the data.
[Results and discussion, Fig. 2 and Supplementary Information] The claim that the actuation mechanism is 'piezoelectrically induced stress in the surface depletion layer' is never tested quantitatively. The finite-element simulations reported in the SI address thermal dynamics only, and no independent measurement of the surface photovoltage is compared with the predicted piezoelectric bending moment. Thus the measured deflection amplitudes are consistent with the proposed mechanism but do not discriminate it from other strain-generating mechanisms. A quantitative comparison, such as an order-of-magnitude estimate from measured SPV values or a direct SPV measurement, would make the central claim load-bearing.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 1(b) caption vs. Materials and methods] The cantilever dimensions are inconsistent: the Figure 1(b) caption states 200 x 50 x 1 um, while the Materials and methods section states 200 x 40 x 1 um. This inconsistency affects the conversion between power density and total incident power (e.g., P0 = 0.71 W/m2 corresponds to 5.69 nW only for a 40-um-wide cantilever).
[Results and discussion, Fig. 2(a)] The statement that no response was found at the second harmonic when the light was modulated at half the resonance frequency should be supported by showing the measured spectrum or by describing the measurement threshold in the text or SI.
[Figure 4(a) caption] The differential profiles in Figure 4(a) are referenced to the profile at the minimum light power needed for PSI (5.91 W/m2); the caption should state this explicitly so that 'differential change' is not confused with a dark-reference deflection.
[Results and discussion, Fig. 3(b)-(e)] The phase-shift argument for ruling out electrostatic actuation is compressed; the sign convention between the lock-in reference, the capacitive detection current, and the bias polarity should be clarified so the pi shift is unambiguous to the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the piezoelectric-mechanism claim is tested by independent orientation-dependent static deflection and phase measurements, not by a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental mechanism study. Its load-bearing evidence for the piezoelectric mechanism is the opposite static deflection of [011] and [0-11] cantilevers under illumination and the polarity-dependent phase behavior under bias; neither observable is produced by fitting the model to the data. The only fits shown are standard linear-resonator and Duffing response curves, and those fits are not the evidence for the actuation mechanism. The orientation and phase predictions follow from independently known piezoelectric coupling in GaAs (e.g., ref. 14) and are falsifiable against orientation-independent thermal and radiation-pressure alternatives. The one self-citation involving the present authors (ref. 17, for Duffing and phase-locking dynamics) is incidental and not load-bearing: the nonlinear response is a standard result independently supported by the cited literature. No equation in the text defines the conclusion in terms of its own inputs, and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The possible direct photovoltage background in detection configuration (i) is a measurement and interpretation risk, not a case of the conclusion being defined from the input. The alternative hypothesis of light-induced anisotropic surface stress is a scientific underdetermination concern about mechanism identification, not a circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is experimental and does not depend on fitted constants. Literature values for extinction coefficient, piezoelectric coefficients, and thermal shift are used as inputs. The main assumptions concern the surface state model, the piezoelectric coupling, the thermal exclusion, the detection signal interpretation, and the contact metal coverage.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The (001) surface of n-GaAs has acceptor-like surface states that create upward band bending and a depletion layer whose width changes with surface photovoltage.
Basis for the proposed actuation mechanism; cited from refs [9,12,13] in the Introduction.
domain assumption GaAs is piezoelectric; an electric field in the surface depletion layer induces strain in the [110] and [-110] directions, coupling surface voltage to bending.
Used throughout to explain actuation; piezoelectric constants cited from ref [14].
domain assumption Photothermal actuation is negligible at the power levels used, and the resonance-frequency thermal calibration of roughly 1 Hz/K and the finite-element thermal simulation are correct.
The main text states heating would shift resonance by 1 Hz/K and that finite-element simulations support negligible heating, but the details are only in Supplementary Information section 1.
ad hoc to paper The measured voltage in detection configuration (i) is dominated by the piezoelectric response rather than the direct surface photovoltage.
No experimental control or subtraction is described for the surface-photovoltage background in the voltage signal.
domain assumption The metal bonding layer (Cr/Au) is limited to contact pads and does not cover the cantilever body, so photothermal bimorph effects are absent.
The fabrication description is ambiguous about the area covered by the bonding layer; the interpretation assumes the cantilever body is uncoated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-Power Optical Actuation of n-GaAs Cantilevers via Surface Piezoelectric Coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PBGHLBR

@misc{pith2026250610836,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-Power Optical Actuation of n-GaAs Cantilevers via Surface Piezoelectric Coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PBGHLBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10836}
}

read the original abstract

The mechanical behavior of any semiconductor microstructure is inevitably coupled to light. In the case of micro mechanical resonators (MEMs), carrier generation can affect the quality factor of the resonance through electron-phonon scattering and ohmic losses, but it may also inject energy into the structure and induce movement. Thus, semiconductor MEMs may be regarded as intrinsically optomechanical systems. Here, we report on the optical actuation of a simple-clamped n-GaAs cantilever. This is achieved through modulated nanowatt LED illumination at the resonance frequency. We propose that the mechanism responsible for the coupling between light and movement is piezoelectrically induced stress in the surface depletion layer. Motion may be detected using two methods: by measuring the piezoelectric voltage generated due to deformation or the current arising due to the capacitance changes. In the latter case, a bias voltage must be applied to the device, which leads to nonlinear dynamics. Our results indicate that photothermal and electrostatic effects can be ruled out because i) we measure a very small drift of the resonance frequency with the light modulation offset which, together with finite-element simulations, indicates photothermal effects are not responsible for actuation, ii) we observe a phase shift under different bias voltage polarities, which rules out electrostatic actuation and iii), static measurements performed using an optical profilometer confirm the piezoelectric nature of the interaction with light. In summary, we find homogeneous low power LED illumination to be an effective, simple and convenient method of actuation for piezoelectric semiconductor based MEMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[11]

& Gotoh, H

Oguri, K., Tsunoi, T., Kato, K., Nakano, H., Nishikawa, T., Tateno, K., ... & Gotoh, H. (2015). Dynamical observation of photo-Dember effect on semi-insulating GaAs using femtosecond core-level photoelectron spectroscopy. Applied Physics Express, 8(2), 022401

work page 2015
[2]

Okamoto, H., Ito, D., Onomitsu, K., Sanada, H., Gotoh, H., Sogawa, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2011). Vibration amplification, damping, and self-oscillations in micromechanical resonators induced by optomechanical coupling through carrier excitation. Physical review letters, 106(3), 036801

work page 2011
[3]

Masmanidis, Rassul B

Sotiris C. Masmanidis, Rassul B. Karabalin, Iwijn De Vlaminck, Gustaaf Borghs, Mark R. Freeman, Michael L. Roukes. Actuation, T. C. P. (2007). Multifunctional Nanomechanical Systems via. Science, 1144793(780), 317

work page 2007
[4]

Optical actuation of a micromechanical photodiode via the photovoltaic-piezoelectric effect

Rampal, A., Kleiman, R.N. Optical actuation of a micromechanical photodiode via the photovoltaic-piezoelectric effect. Microsyst Nanoeng 7, 29 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

Rampal, Opto-and Electro-Mechanical coupling between the depletion and the piezoelectric region of a Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) Micro Torsional Resonator Photodiode, Ph.D

A. Rampal, Opto-and Electro-Mechanical coupling between the depletion and the piezoelectric region of a Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) Micro Torsional Resonator Photodiode, Ph.D. thesis (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Vassalli, V

M. Vassalli, V. Pini, B. Tiribilli, Role of the driving laser position on atomic force microscopy cantilevers excited by photothermal and radiation pressure effects. Applied physics letters 97 (14) (2010)

work page 2010
[7]

L., & Munday, J

Ma, D., Garrett, J. L., & Munday, J. N. (2015). Quantitative measurement of radiation pressure on a microcantilever in ambient environment. Applied Physics Letters, 106(9)

work page 2015
[8]

Yamaguchi, H. (2017). GaAs-based micro/nanomechanical resonators. Semiconductor Science and Technology, 32(10), 103003

work page 2017

Show all 24 references

[9]

Kronik, L., & Shapira, Y. (1999). Surface photovoltage phenomena: theory, experiment, and applications. Surface science reports, 37(1-5), 1-206

1999
[10]

K., Weber, E

Willardson, R. K., Weber, E. R., & Tsen, K. T. (2000). Ultrafast physical processes in semiconductors (Vol. 67). Elsevier

2000
[12]

Tokudomi, S., Azuma, J., Takahashi, K., & Kamada, M. (2007). Ultrafast decay of surface photo-voltage effect on n-type GaAs (100) surface. Journal of the Physical Society of Japan, 76(10), 104710

2007
[13]

Azuma, J., Tokudomi, S., Takahashi, K., & Kamada, M. (2009). Dynamics of photo ‐ excited carriers on GaAs (100) surface studied by ultrafast time ‐ resolved photoemission. physica status solidi c, 6(1), 307-310

2009
[14]

Fricke, K. (1991). Piezoelectric properties of GaAs for application in stress transducers. Journal of applied physics, 70(2), 914-918

1991
[15]

Shoshani, O., Strachan, S., Czaplewski, D., Lopez, D., & Shaw, S. W. (2024). Extraordinary frequency stabilization by resonant nonlinear mode coupling. Physical Review Applied, 22(5), 054055

2024
[16]

Houri, S., Hatanaka, D., Asano, M., Ohta, R., & Yamaguchi, H. (2019). Limit cycles and bifurcations in a nonlinear MEMS resonator with a 1: 3 internal resonance. Applied Physics Letters, 114(10)

2019
[17]

and Perez-Morelo, D

Wang, M. and Perez-Morelo, D. J. and Lopez, D. and Aksyuk, V. A. (2022) Persistent Nonlinear Phase-Locking and Nonmonotonic Energy Dissipation in Micromechanical Resonators. Phys. Rev. X, 12, 4

2022
[18]

Photomechanical vibration of thin crystals of polar semiconductors

Jacek Łagowski , Harry C. Gatos “Photomechanical vibration of thin crystals of polar semiconductors”, SURFACE SCIENCE 45 (1974) 353-370

1974
[19]

C., Schwarz, P., Völlm, H., Feili, D., Wu, X

Qiu, H. C., Schwarz, P., Völlm, H., Feili, D., Wu, X. Z., & Seidel, H. (2013). Electrical crosstalk in two-port piezoelectric resonators and compensation solutions. Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, 23(4), 045007

2013
[20]

E., Kelso, S

Aspnes, D. E., Kelso, S. M., Logan, R. A., & Bhat, R. (1986). Optical properties of Al x Ga1− x As. Journal of applied physics, 60(2), 754-767

1986
[21]

K., Hierold, C., Korvink, J

Fedder, G. K., Hierold, C., Korvink, J. G., & Tabata, O. (2015). Resonant MEMS: fundamentals, implementation, and application. John Wiley & Sons

2015
[22]

T., Andronico, A., Ducci, S., Leo, G., & Favero, I

Baker, C., Hease, W., Nguyen, D. T., Andronico, A., Ducci, S., Leo, G., & Favero, I. (2014). Photoelastic coupling in gallium arsenide optomechanical disk resonators. Optics express, 22(12), 14072-14086

2014
[23]

Okamoto, H., Ito, D., Onomitsu, K., Sogawa, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2009). Controlling quality factor in micromechanical resonators by carrier excitation. Applied physics express , 2 (3), 035001

2009
[24]

D., & Steel, D

Guenther, B. D., & Steel, D. (Eds.). (2018). Encyclopedia of modern optics. Academic Press. 25. Heiblum, M., Nathan, M. I., & Chang, C. A. (1982). Characteristics of AuGeNi ohmic contacts to GaAs. Solid-State Electronics, 25(3), 185-195

2018
[26]

G., & Ashby, C

Baca, A. G., & Ashby, C. I. (2005). Fabrication of GaAs devices (No. 6). IET

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

& Gotoh, H

Oguri, K., Tsunoi, T., Kato, K., Nakano, H., Nishikawa, T., Tateno, K., ... & Gotoh, H. (2015). Dynamical observation of photo-Dember effect on semi-insulating GaAs using femtosecond core-level photoelectron spectroscopy. Applied Physics Express, 8(2), 022401

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Okamoto, H., Ito, D., Onomitsu, K., Sanada, H., Gotoh, H., Sogawa, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2011). Vibration amplification, damping, and self-oscillations in micromechanical resonators induced by optomechanical coupling through carrier excitation. Physical review letters, 106(3), 036801

work page 2011

[3] [3]

Masmanidis, Rassul B

Sotiris C. Masmanidis, Rassul B. Karabalin, Iwijn De Vlaminck, Gustaaf Borghs, Mark R. Freeman, Michael L. Roukes. Actuation, T. C. P. (2007). Multifunctional Nanomechanical Systems via. Science, 1144793(780), 317

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Optical actuation of a micromechanical photodiode via the photovoltaic-piezoelectric effect

Rampal, A., Kleiman, R.N. Optical actuation of a micromechanical photodiode via the photovoltaic-piezoelectric effect. Microsyst Nanoeng 7, 29 (2021)

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Rampal, Opto-and Electro-Mechanical coupling between the depletion and the piezoelectric region of a Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) Micro Torsional Resonator Photodiode, Ph.D

A. Rampal, Opto-and Electro-Mechanical coupling between the depletion and the piezoelectric region of a Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) Micro Torsional Resonator Photodiode, Ph.D. thesis (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Vassalli, V

M. Vassalli, V. Pini, B. Tiribilli, Role of the driving laser position on atomic force microscopy cantilevers excited by photothermal and radiation pressure effects. Applied physics letters 97 (14) (2010)

work page 2010

[7] [7]

L., & Munday, J

Ma, D., Garrett, J. L., & Munday, J. N. (2015). Quantitative measurement of radiation pressure on a microcantilever in ambient environment. Applied Physics Letters, 106(9)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Yamaguchi, H. (2017). GaAs-based micro/nanomechanical resonators. Semiconductor Science and Technology, 32(10), 103003

work page 2017