## 3 Results and Discussion
The map average of mean square error of the fittings as well as average thickness of model layers and total thickness are presented in Figure 3:1 The mean square error of the map fitting is very good for ITO samples below 4 and for AZO below 3. For ITO, the thickest layer is the bottom one, whereas for AZO, it is the middle layer. These results are influenced by the different deposition methods used for each material. The ITO was purchased as a pre-manufactured product, suggesting that its production technology is likely more optimized than the single-sample preparation used for AZO. Industrial manufacturing processes tend to yield a better-prepared substrate surface, resulting in no detectable interface in ellipsometry measurements. The two top layers have distinct properties: one forms when the material is exposed to the environment after deposition, while the final layer represents surface roughness and adsorbates that develop during sample handling. In case of AZO, there is an interface layer between substrate and the main bulk of the film. Figure 4 shows maps of calculated total thickness of the films, which is the sum of all layers in the model;  
in each case, it was three layers. The average thickness of AZO was 103.9 \(\pm\) 2.2 nm and that for AZO:H+ was 113.2 \(\pm\) 3.0 nm, which is close to the expected value of 100 nm, while the error and total thickness increased after irradiation. For ITO, the total thickness was 189.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 nm and that for ITO:H+ was 191.3 \(\pm\) 1.7 nm; again, the error after irradiation increased, while the total thickness increased slightly. Optical properties of oxide thin films were determined from the fittings as well, with the thickest layer in each model, i.e., layer #1 for ITO and layer #2 for AZO, as arbitrarily chosen representative points. The thickest layers were used in optical properties analysis  
Figure 3:2 Maps of thin film thickness determined by modelling spectroscopic ellipsometry measurements for (**a**) AZO, (**b**) AZO:H+, (**c**) ITO, and (**d**) ITO:H+. Figure 3:3 Ellipsometry data fitting results, average values from map measurements of three layers thickness, the total thickness \(d\), and mean square error of the fits. as they have the greatest impact on sample optical properties. Figure 6 presents refractive index n and extinction coefficient k of ITO and AZO before and after irradiation. The properties of ITO did not change with the irradiation, while for AZO, they changed slightly. The biggest change was present for the extinction coefficient at wavelengths higher than 1000 nm. This increase is due to free carrier absorption in the material [23]. This result suggests that the number of charge carriers in AZO increases, which could cause an increase in the material's conductivity. Figure 7 shows the fittings of the XPS signal for the AZO and ITO samples; the data before irradiation of a sample are presented lower in each figure and those of an irradiated sample higher. For AZO, we measured narrow scans of the photoemission lines of interest: Al 2p, O 1s, Zn 2p, and C 1s. For ITO, we acquired high-resolution scans of In 3d, Sn 3d, and O 1s. All fittings were performed in Igor Pro using the Voigt function, which is a combination of Gaussian and Lorentzian functions [24]. In all spectra, the main contribution to the lattice component is associated, while at higher binding energies (with \(\sim\)1 eV difference), we have surface components that originate from surface defects caused by under-coordinated bonds. In the case of AZO, we attributed the components as follows: the lattice components are associated with Al 2p at about 73.6 eV and with Zn 2p at about 1021.4 eV. For O 1s, the binding energies (BE) of Al-O and Zn-O are distinguishable, with Zn-O at about 530 eV and Al-O at about 531.5 eV, while a component with BE between the two is associated with the undercoordinated bonds at the surface [25; 26]. In Table 1, we can see the relative contribution of different types of bonds in each spectrum.