name: simulation-verification-and-comparison description: Compare simulation results between Driftfusion and other simulators (ASA, IonMonger), analyze discrepancies in J-V characteristics, and configure simulations for fair comparison.

Simulation Verification and Comparison

Use this skill when you need to:

When to use: Comparing Driftfusion results with ASA tool

Configuration Steps:

Discretization Setup:
- Set linear grid spacing for ASA: 1 nm
- Set interface thickness in Driftfusion: 1 nm
Optical Model:
- Select Beer-Lambert option (without back contact reflection)
- Use identical optical constant and photon flux density spectrum data
- Alternative: Insert generation profile from ASA into Driftfusion parameters
J-V Scan Settings:
- Scan range: $V_{app} = 0$ to 1.3 V
- Scan rate: $k_{scan} = 10^{-10}$ V/s
- Reason: Minimizes displacement current for fair comparison with steady-state ASA solver

When to use: Comparing simulation results for devices with varying conduction band properties

Calculation: $$\text{Percentage Difference} = 100 \times \frac{J_{ASA} - J_{DF}}{J_{ASA}}$$

Analysis Guidelines:

Parameter Set 1 (PS1):

Parameter Set 2 (PS2):

Expected difference: Up to ~5% for $J > 10^{-12}$ mA cm⁻²
Root causes:
- Electron density change > 7 orders of magnitude at absorber-ETL interface
- eDOS transition: $N_{CB} = 10^{18}$ to $10^{20}$ cm⁻³
- Conduction band energy change: 0.3 eV

Mitigation: Use uniform eDOS ($N_{CB} = 10^{18}$ cm⁻³) across all layers

IonMonger Approach:

Driftfusion Approach:

Primary Variance Sources:

Interfacial Recombination Errors:

Volumetric surface recombination scheme introduces errors
Surface carrier density differences (electron density at active layer-HTL interface)
Errors increase with energetic barriers (0.4 to 0.8 eV)

Mitigation Strategies:

Trade-off: Increased thickness sacrifices consistency with analytical models using abrupt interfaces, but provides greater flexibility.