This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
This study involves a multiscale DFT + SCAPS-1D + ML framework, which provides a powerful toolset for optimizing perovskite solar cells. Atomic‐scale simulations reveal that RbGeI 3 forms a cubic perovskite lattice with a direct band gap of ≈1.55 eV, whereas RbGeBr 3 and RbGeCl 3 adopt distorted orthorhombic structures with much larger gaps (∼2.58 eV and ∼3.2 eV). The RbGeI 3 gap lies near the ideal single‐junction range (∼1.2–1.7 eV), and its electronic structure exhibits delocalized Ge–I orbitals with mixed ionic–covalent bonding, implying high carrier mobility. In contrast, the Br/Cl compounds exhibited stronger structural distortion and reduced orbital overlap, consistent with lower mobility. These DFT findings indicate that RbGeI 3 is intrinsically best suited for efficient light absorption and charge transport. SCAPS-1D device simulations of FTO/Nd:ZnO (NZO)/RbGeX 3 /graphene‐oxide (GO)/Pt or C-Cu cells confirm that RbGeI 3 yields the highest PV performance. Under optimized conditions (absorber thickness ∼ 500–600 nm, bulk defect density <10 15 cm − 3 , and a back-contact work function >=5.0 eV), the RbGeI 3 ‐based cell achieves Voc ≈ 1.054 V, Jsc ≈ 27.94 mA/cm 2 , FF ≈ 80.4 %, and PCE ≈ 23.68 %. Efficiency falls sharply for thinner/thicker layers or higher trap densities. The inclusion of a GO hole-transport layer enhances the hole extraction and Voc. In contrast, the wider-gap RbGeBr 3 and RbGeCl 3 devices show much lower Jsc and efficiency under the same conditions. Machine-learning regression models (linear regression, SVR, random forests, XGBoost) trained on the SCAPS dataset accurately reproduce these device outputs. XGBoost provides the best predictions (for PCE, MSE ≈ 0.072, R 2 > 0.999), consistently outperforming simpler models. SHAP feature analysis reveals that absorber defect density, series/shunt resistances, and doping concentrations are the most influential variables for Voc, Jsc, FF, and PCE. This confirms that defect and resistive losses dominate the device performance in these cells.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nowsherwan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: