Figures 5, 13, 14, and 15 have changed in our previous article1 due to a bug found in our code. The bug was related to the implementation of the electron-hole binary scattering and affected the results of doping densities greater than 1 × 1019/cm3. In Figure 5, only the drift velocity vs electric field curve for the 1 × 1019/cm3 doping level case has changed. In Figures 13–15, the sample's doping density was 1 × 1019/cm3, and hence these figures have changed. The corrected figures are given in this erratum.

FIG. 5.

Comparison of simulated and experimental2 drift velocities at different electric fields and p-doping densities of N = 1.5 × 1017/cm3, 1.5 × 1018/cm3, and 1 × 1019/cm3. The main cause of disagreement is the assumption of the L and X valleys being spherical rather than ellipsoidal and the inaccuracy in the screening mechanism.

FIG. 5.

Comparison of simulated and experimental2 drift velocities at different electric fields and p-doping densities of N = 1.5 × 1017/cm3, 1.5 × 1018/cm3, and 1 × 1019/cm3. The main cause of disagreement is the assumption of the L and X valleys being spherical rather than ellipsoidal and the inaccuracy in the screening mechanism.

Close modal
FIG. 13.

Comparison of measured and simulated spectral responses. Electron affinity (EA) is a variable parameter in the simulation. It is seen that the best fit is obtained for EA = −0.02 eV.

FIG. 13.

Comparison of measured and simulated spectral responses. Electron affinity (EA) is a variable parameter in the simulation. It is seen that the best fit is obtained for EA = −0.02 eV.

Close modal
FIG. 14.

Comparison of measured (data by Bazarov et al.3 and data by Liu et al.4) and simulated MTE with and without surface scattering.

FIG. 14.

Comparison of measured (data by Bazarov et al.3 and data by Liu et al.4) and simulated MTE with and without surface scattering.

Close modal
FIG. 15.

Simulated and experimental3 response times for photon energies of 1.74 eV and 2.38 eV. The simulated values show a variation in the response time with electron affinity, but the electron affinity is unknown for the experimental data.

FIG. 15.

Simulated and experimental3 response times for photon energies of 1.74 eV and 2.38 eV. The simulated values show a variation in the response time with electron affinity, but the electron affinity is unknown for the experimental data.

Close modal

To make the text in accordance with the updated figures, Sec. III A 2 should be changed to, “Fig. 13 shows the spectral response measurement along with the results obtained from the simulation for various values of electron affinity. A very close match is obtained between the experimental results and the simulated one with electron affinity of −0.02 eV. The match is remarkable as the simulated results are obtained entirely from the band structure and transport properties of GaAs and no arbitrary scaling parameters have been used. The only uncertain variable is the electron affinity which is deduced to be −0.02 eV by comparing the simulated results to the experiment. We see that the electron affinity was close to zero and only slightly negative. In order to calculate the quantum efficiency, the reflectivity value of GaAs was taken from Ref. 12.”

The second sentence in Sec. III B should read, “The electron affinity is assumed to be 15 meV.”

The 3rd sentence of the 2nd paragraph of Sec. II D 4 should read, “The model implemented in this simulation assumes that electrons lose the emission angle information and are redistributed uniformly in the polar angle during emission.”

In addition to these, two typographical errors were identified in the paper:

  1. The value of the electro-mechanical coupling constant (Kav2) should be 0.00252.

  2. The expression for Cp in Eq. (16) is wrongly written. The correct expression should be
    Cp=e24πϵsKav2kBT2|v|.
    (1)

The authors would like to thank Yongjun Choi for identifying the bug in our code.

1.
S.
Karkare
,
D.
Dimitrov
,
W.
Schaff
,
L.
Cultrera
,
A.
Bartnik
,
X.
Liu
,
E.
Sawyer
,
T.
Esposito
, and
I.
Bazarov
,
J. Appl. Phys.
113
,
104904
(
2013
).
2.
H.
Taniyama
,
M.
Tomizawa
,
T.
Furuta
, and
A.
Yoshii
,
J. Appl. Phys.
68
,
621
(
1990
).
3.
I. V.
Bazarov
,
B. M.
Dunham
,
Y.
Li
,
X.
Liu
,
D. G.
Ouzounov
,
C. K.
Sinclair
,
F.
Hannon
, and
T.
Miyajima
,
J. Appl. Phys.
103
,
054901
(
2008
).
4.
Z.
Liu
,
Y.
Sun
,
P.
Pianetta
, and
R. F. W.
Pease
,
J. Vac. Sci. Technol., B
23
,
2758
(
2005
).