Fourier-Tailored Light-Matter Coupling in van der Waals Heterostructures

Avishek Sarbajna; Dorte R. Danielsen; Duc Hieu Nguyen; Magnus V. Nielsen; Nicolas Stenger; Nolan Lassaline; Sander J. Linde; S{\o}ren Raza; Timothy J. Booth; Xavier Zambrana-Puyalto

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 12 references

Fourier-Tailored Light-Matter Coupling in van der Waals Heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A WS2 monolayer placed at the field maximum inside an hBN waveguide shows a 40 meV anti-crossing.

desk verdict A genuinely useful all-dielectric platform with a clean same-grating control; the qualitative anti-crossing holds, but the quantitative Rabi splitting is softer than the abstract implies because the branch fits are under-constrained. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02114 v1 pith:IRWAD6JF submitted 2025-02-04 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall

Dorte R. Danielsen , Nolan Lassaline , Sander J. Linde , Magnus V. Nielsen , Xavier Zambrana-Puyalto , Avishek Sarbajna , Duc Hieu Nguyen , Timothy J. Booth

show 2 more authors

Nicolas Stenger S{o}ren Raza

This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hall

keywords vanderWaalsheterostructureshexagonalboronnitridemonolayerWS2exciton-polaritonsFouriersurfacesRabisplittingthermalscanningprobelithographyangle-resolvedreflectancespectroscopy

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 sets out to show that a monolayer semiconductor embedded inside a dielectric waveguide can couple strongly enough to the waveguide mode to form exciton-polaritons, if it is placed where the mode's electric field is largest and a Fourier-patterned surface couples light in from free space. The demonstration embeds a WS$_2$ monolayer between two hBN flakes, with a two-sinusoid grating written into the top flake, and probes the device with angle-resolved reflectance. The payoff would be a low-loss, metal-free, integrated platform for polaritonic and quantum devices in which the active material is protected inside the heterostructure. The paper reports an anti-crossing with $E_{\mathrm{Rabi}} = 40 \pm 9$ meV and $g = 22 \pm 4$ meV, and classifies the system as being at the onset of strong coupling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Fourier surface grating, a topographic profile $f(x)=\sum_j A_j\cos(q_j x + \phi_j)$ whose spatial frequencies $q_j$ supply the extra wavevectors that shift free-space light into the waveguide mode through $k_{i,x}+q_j=k_{\mathrm{WG}}$. A second sinusoid at $q_2=2q_1$ folds bandgaps into the light cone. The design rule that carries the light-matter coupling argument is the placement of the WS$_2$ monolayer at the vertical position where the TE$_0$ electric field is maximal, since $g \sim \boldsymbol{\mu}\cdot\mathbf{E}$. The quantitative extraction uses a coupled-oscillator model with $E_{\mathrm{Rabi}}=\sqrt{4g^2-(\gamma_{\mathrm{Cav}}-\gamma_{\mathrm{Ex}})^2}$, fed by resonance energies obtained from two- and three-Lorentzian fits of the Fano-like reflectance lineshapes.

What would settle it

Fabricate an identical hBN waveguide and grating but with the WS$_2$ monolayer placed at the vertical node of the TE$_0$ mode; if angle-resolved reflectance still shows an avoided crossing near $E_{\mathrm{Rabi}} \approx 40$ meV, the claimed field-overlap mechanism is not what produces the splitting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By encapsulating a monolayer of WS$_2$ between two hBN flakes at a depth where the TE$_0$ waveguide mode has its electric-field maximum, and patterning the top hBN with a two-sinusoid Fourier grating, the paper reports an avoided crossing in angle-resolved reflectance between the TE$_0$ mode and the WS$_2$ A exciton. The extracted Rabi splitting is $E_{\mathrm{Rabi}} = 40 \pm 9$ meV and the coupling strength is $g = 22 \pm 4$ meV. Because $E_{\mathrm{Rabi}}$ does not quite exceed $\gamma_{\mathrm{Cav}} + \gamma_{\mathrm{Ex}} = 48.9 \pm 0.6$ meV, the system is described as being at the onset of strong coupling rather than fully inside it. The TE$_1$ mode, whose field is nearly zero at the WS$_2$ plane, remains largely uncoupled, which the paper uses to confirm that the coupling is governed by field overlap.

Load-bearing premise

The Rabi splitting is obtained by treating the waveguide mode measured on the hBN-only part of the same grating as the uncoupled cavity, even though adding the WS$_2$ monolayer changes the waveguide's dielectric environment, so the zero-detuning point is inferred rather than directly measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The vertical-overlap rule becomes a general design principle: active 2D layers should be placed at the antinode of the desired waveguide mode inside the dielectric, not on its surface.
hBN-encapsulated TMD monolayers can be probed by far-field reflectance through Fourier gratings while remaining protected from environmental degradation.
The two-sinusoid Fourier surface folds photonic bandgaps into the light cone, allowing band-structure engineering and coupling measurements in the same device.
Following the paper's stated next steps, adding more WS2 layers or aligning a band edge with the exciton should push the splitting past the loss sum and move the system from onset to full strong coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

Extension: because $g \sim \boldsymbol{\mu}\cdot\mathbf{E}$, moving the monolayer across the hBN thickness should trace the TE$_0$ field profile directly; the paper does not report such a thickness sweep.
Extension: a twin control stack with the identical grating but no WS$_2$ should show no anti-crossing, providing a clean experimental falsifier that the paper's data already approximate by comparing regions with and without WS$_2$.
Extension: the same fabrication chain should work for other excitonic 2D semiconductors by choosing the hBN thickness and grating period so the chosen mode crosses the exciton at zero detuning.
Extension: aligning an existing two-sinusoid band edge to the exciton could exploit slow light and raise the coupling beyond the loss threshold, turning the onset system into a more clearly strong-coupled one.

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

Here's my take. What's new: this is the first combination of Fourier-surface gratings with a TMD monolayer embedded inside an hBN waveguide, placed at the TE0 field antinode. That placement is the right physical idea, and the same-grating control (WS2 present vs absent) makes the anti-crossing comparison clean. The COMSOL simulations using literature refractive indices line up with experiment, including the modified TE0 response above the exciton and the largely unaffected TE1 mode. Credit where due: the authors are explicit that they are at the onset of strong coupling, not fully in it, and they provide two extraction methods.

The soft spot is the quantitative claim. The Rabi splitting is extracted by fitting reflectance spectra to three interfering Lorentzians in a regime where the two branches are barely resolved. With an uncoupled cavity HWHM of 33.8 meV and a claimed splitting of 40 meV, the fit has genuine freedom in trading peak positions, amplitudes, and phases. The energy-conservation cross-check in Fig. S5 uses the same fitted E± values, so it is not an independent validation of the branch positions. This does not overturn the qualitative result — you can see the anti-crossing by eye in the reflectance maps, and the simulations reproduce it — but the specific numbers (ERabi = 40 ± 9 meV, g = 22 ± 4 meV) are softer than the abstract implies. A global fit across all kx values or a pole-retrieval analysis would secure them. Raw data and code are not provided, which limits reproducibility but is common for this type of experimental paper.

The citation pattern is appropriate: the self-cited Fourier-surface and tSPL work is the direct foundation, and the prior hBN waveguide/TMD coupling papers are properly acknowledged. No red flags there.

Who is this for? People working on polaritonics in van der Waals stacks, especially anyone interested in all-dielectric platforms for exciton-polaritons. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation would be to send it to review, with the expectation that the quantitative extraction is either strengthened or the splitting is presented more cautiously as an estimate from overlapping resonances. I would bring it to a reading group and would cite it for the platform and the careful same-grating comparison.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the fabrication and optical characterization of van der Waals heterostructures in which a monolayer WS2 is embedded inside an hBN waveguide and a two-sinusoid Fourier grating is patterned into the top hBN layer by thermal scanning-probe lithography. The authors demonstrate diffractive coupling of free-space light to TE0 and TE1 waveguide modes, show that the TE0 field maximum overlaps the WS2 layer, and observe an avoided crossing in angle-resolved reflectance when WS2 is present. From Lorentzian fits of the reflectance spectra they extract an uncoupled exciton energy of 1984.3 ± 0.6 meV, half-widths γEx = 15.1 ± 0.6 meV and γCav = 33.8 ± 0.2 meV, a Rabi splitting ERabi = 40 ± 9 meV, and a coupling strength g = 22 ± 4 meV. They conclude that the system is at the onset of the strong-coupling regime.

Significance. If the quantitative claim is secure, the paper presents a useful and transferable platform: placing the active TMD at the field maximum of a low-loss dielectric waveguide while using Fourier-surface gratings for far-field coupling is a practical route to exciton-polaritons in vdW heterostructures. The work has clear strengths: the fabrication is carefully characterized by AFM with reported fit RMSEs; the patterned hBN-only control and the WS2-free part of the same grating provide a direct comparison; the COMSOL simulations use literature refractive indices and reproduce the qualitative anti-crossing; and the authors report confidence intervals and an alternative energy-conservation analysis. The qualitative observation of an anti-crossing is well supported. The main weakness is that the central quantitative result, ERabi = 40 ± 9 meV, rests on a three-Lorentzian decomposition of spectra in which the two branches are not spectrally resolved, and the cross-check uses the same fitted branch energies.

major comments (3)

[Fig. 5 and Methods, 'Analysis of coupling strength using the coupled oscillator model'] The central Rabi-splitting claim is not yet secured against fitting degeneracy. Near zero detuning the expected branch separation ERabi ≈ 40 meV is smaller than or comparable to the sum of the uncoupled half-widths (γCav + γEx ≈ 49 meV), so the two branch resonances are not resolved as distinct spectral features. The spectra in Fig. 5c are fitted independently at each kx with a sum of three interfering Lorentzians, and the 95% confidence intervals shown in Fig. 5c reflect the precision of each individual fit, not the uniqueness of the three-peak decomposition. I ask for a global fit of all spectra with shared parameters, and/or a validation on simulated reflectance spectra: the COMSOL model already reproduces the anti-crossing in Fig. 4d, so applying the same extraction pipeline to simulated spectra with a known input coupling would directly test whether the procedure recovers the input coupling without bias.
[Fig. S5 and Table S2] The energy-conservation cross-check does not independently validate the fitted branch energies E±. It uses the same fitted E+ and E− values and only replaces the estimate of the uncoupled cavity energy, so it tests the zero-detuning assumption, not the Lorentzian decomposition. The consistency of the two ERabi estimates (40 ± 9 meV vs 38 ± 4 meV) is reassuring for the former, but it leaves the central fitting-degeneracy concern unaddressed.
[Methods, 'Analysis of coupling strength using the coupled oscillator model'] The Rabi splitting is extracted as the energy difference between the upper and lower branches at the data points whose kx values are closest to the zero-detuning intersection. This nearest-neighbor selection is not a fit at zero detuning and can introduce a systematic error that is not included in the 95% confidence intervals. The authors should report the actual detuning of the selected points and, preferably, interpolate E± to δ = 0 with the coupled-oscillator model, or use a global fit that includes the zero-detuning position as a fitted parameter.

minor comments (4)

[Table S1] In Table S1, the equation for the double-sinusoid profile is written with A1 in both terms; it should read A2 cos(q2 x − π/2) to be consistent with the text and with the reported A2 value.
[Main text, Fig. 1 and Methods, 'Simulations'] The main text states that the dispersion in Fig. 1 is computed with an isotropic refractive index n = 2.1, while the simulations are said to use the anisotropic refractive index of hBN; please clarify which approximation is used in the waveguide-dispersion plots and in the COMSOL simulations.
[Fig. 5d] The uncoupled hBN mode is represented by a linear fit over a limited kx range, and the extrapolation to the exciton intersection is used to define zero detuning; reporting the linear fit parameters and residuals would make the uncertainty in the intersection position more transparent.
[Methods, 'Analysis of coupling strength using the coupled oscillator model'] The two-Lorentzian fit expression places the phase factor e^{iφ} on only one of the two Lorentzian terms; as written, the relative phase is not displayed symmetrically, and the text should clarify whether the phase multiplies the amplitude of one oscillator or the entire interference term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Rabi-splitting claim is an experimental measurement corroborated by independent simulations, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—observation of an anti-crossing and extraction of ERabi = 40 ± 9 meV from the upper and lower branch splitting—does not reduce to its inputs. The uncoupled waveguide dispersion is taken from the WS2-free region of the same grating, the uncoupled exciton energy is fitted at large angles, and the coupled branch energies are fitted from reflectance spectra; these are independent measurements, not parameters defined to force the anti-crossing. The anti-crossing is visible in raw reflectance and reproduced in finite-element simulations using literature refractive indices for hBN and WS2. The energy-conservation cross-check uses the same fitted E± values, so it does not independently validate branch positions; that is a fitting-degeneracy or correctness concern, not circularity. The method citations to refs 34, 40, 51, and 55 are self-citations, but they support fabrication and topography-analysis procedures, not the strong-coupling claim, and the claim is benchmarked against independent simulations. No equation is defined in terms of the target result, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited.

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

The central results are experimental extractions rather than first-principles derivations. The parameters listed are measured or fitted observables, not tuning knobs introduced to force agreement; the main modeling assumptions are the coupled-oscillator interpretation and the use of the hBN-only region as the uncoupled waveguide reference. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Grating amplitudes and period for the coupled device (A1, A2, Lambda) = A1 = 33.7 +/- 1.8 nm, A2 = 6.1 +/- 1.4 nm, Lambda = 294.9 +/- 1.7 nm
Extracted from AFM line fits; used as fixed geometry in COMSOL reflectance simulations. Not tuned to match optics.
Uncoupled exciton resonance energy E_Ex = 1984.3 +/- 0.6 meV
Weighted average of Lorentzian fits at large angles; used as the zero-detuning reference.
Uncoupled half-linewidths gamma_Ex and gamma_Cav = gamma_Ex = 15.1 +/- 0.6 meV, gamma_Cav = 33.8 +/- 0.2 meV
Extracted by two-Lorentzian interference fits; enter the strong-coupling criteria and the conversion from ERabi to g.
Rabi splitting ERabi = 40 +/- 9 meV (hBN-mode method); 38 +/- 4 meV (energy-conservation method)
Central observable; difference between fitted upper and lower branch energies at zero detuning.
Coupling strength g = 22 +/- 4 meV (hBN-mode method); about 21 meV (energy-conservation method)
Derived from ERabi and linewidths using the coupled-oscillator formula; labels the system at onset of strong coupling.

assumptions (5)

standard math Coupled-oscillator model for the exciton-waveguide system, including ERabi = sqrt(4g^2 - (gamma_Cav - gamma_Ex)^2) and the strong-coupling criteria ERabi > gamma_Cav + gamma_Ex and 2g > |gamma_Cav - gamma_Ex|.
Standard two-level polariton model; used in Methods and Table S2. The criteria are taken from Refs 46-48.
domain assumption The waveguide mode in the coupled region can be approximated by the waveguide mode measured from the same grating where WS2 is absent.
Used to determine the zero-detuning point and Rabi splitting in Fig. 5d. Cross-checked with an energy-conservation estimate (Fig. S5).
domain assumption TE modes of the hBN slab are described with an isotropic in-plane refractive index n = 2.1; simulations use the anisotropic hBN refractive index from Zotev et al.
TE modes have only in-plane field; approximation used for dispersion diagrams and COMSOL inputs.
domain assumption Monolayer WS2 optical constants are taken from the literature (Li et al., 2014).
Used in COMSOL simulations; not independently measured in this work.
domain assumption Reflectance lineshapes can be decomposed as a sum of two or three interfering Lorentzian oscillators plus a broad background.
Fano-like model underlying all energy and linewidth extractions; a mis-modeled background phase could bias the fitted branch energies.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fourier-Tailored Light-Matter Coupling in van der Waals Heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IRWAD6JF

@misc{pith2026250202114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fourier-Tailored Light-Matter Coupling in van der Waals Heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IRWAD6JF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02114}
}

abstract

Dielectric structures can support low-absorption optical modes, which are attractive for engineering light-matter interactions with excitonic resonances in two-dimensional (2D) materials. However, the coupling strength is often limited by the electromagnetic field being confined inside the dielectric, reducing spatial overlap with the active excitonic material. Here, we demonstrate a scheme for enhanced light-matter coupling by embedding excitonic tungsten disulfide (WS$_2$) within dielectric hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), forming a van der Waals (vdW) heterostructure that optimizes the field overlap and alignment between excitons and optical waveguide modes. To tailor diffractive coupling between free-space light and the waveguide modes in the vdW heterostructure, we fabricate Fourier surfaces in the top hBN layer using thermal scanning-probe lithography and etching, producing sinusoidal topographic landscapes with nanometer precision. We observe the formation of exciton-polaritons with a Rabi splitting indicating that the system is at the onset of strong coupling. These results demonstrate the potential of Fourier-tailored vdW heterostructures for exploring advanced optoelectronic and quantum devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

N.; Fogler, M

(1) Basov, D. N.; Fogler, M. M.; García De Abajo, F. J. Polaritons in van Der Waals Materials. Science 2016, 354, aag1992. (2) Sanvitto, D.; Kéna-Cohen, S. The Road towards Polaritonic Devices. Nat. Mater. 2016, 15, 1061–1073. (3) Gu, J.; Chakraborty, B.; Khatoniar, M.; Menon, V. M. A Room-Temperature Polariton Light-Emitting Diode Based on Monolayer WS2....

work page 2016
[12]

E.; Heron, P

(56) Crameri, F.; Shephard, G. E.; Heron, P. J. The Misuse of Colour in Science Communication. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11,

work page 2020
[21]

A.; Knoll, A

(40) Lassaline, N.; Thureja, D.; Chervy, T.; Petter, D.; Murthy, P. A.; Knoll, A. W.; Norris, D. J. Freeform Electronic and Photonic Landscapes in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nano Lett. 2021, 21, 8175–8181. (41) Saleh, B. E. A. .; Teich, M. Carl. Fundamentals of Photonics; Wiley,

work page 2021
[1001]

G.; Cuadra, J.; Yankovich, A

(11) Stührenberg, M.; Munkhbat, B.; Baranov, D. G.; Cuadra, J.; Yankovich, A. B.; Antosiewicz, T. J.; Olsson, E.; Shegai, T. Strong Light-Matter Coupling between Plasmons in Individual Gold Bi-Pyramids and Excitons in Mono- and Multilayer WSe2. Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 5938–5945. (12) Lee, B.; Liu, W.; Naylor, C. H.; Park, J.; Malek, S. C.; Berger, J. S.; Joh...

work page 2018
[1028]

(4) Thomas, A.; Lethuillier-Karl, L.; Nagarajan, K.; Vergauwe, R. M. A.; George, J.; Chervy, T.; Shalabney, A.; Devaux, E.; Genet, C.; Moran, J.; Ebbesen, T. W. Tilting a Ground-State Reactivity Landscape by Vibrational Strong Coupling. Science 2019, 363, 615–619. (5) Garcia-Vidal, F. J.; Ciuti, C.; Ebbesen, T. W. Manipulating Matter by Strong Coupling to...

work page 2019
[1296]

Slow Light in Photonic Crystals

(50) Baba, T. Slow Light in Photonic Crystals. Nat. Photonics 2008, 2, 465–473. (51) Lassaline, N. Generating Smooth Potential Landscapes with Thermal Scanning-Probe Lithography. J. Phys. Mater. 2024, 7, 015008. (52) Purdie, D. G.; Pugno, N. M.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Ferrari, A. C.; Lombardo, A. Cleaning Interfaces in Layered Materials Heterostruct...

work page 2008
[1991]

G.; Wang, Y.; Andres-Penares, D.; Severs-Millard, T.; Randerson, S.; Hu, X.; Sortino, L.; Louca, C.; Brotons-Gisbert, M.; Huq, T.; Vezzoli, S.; Sapienza, R.; Krauss, T

(42) Zotev, P. G.; Wang, Y.; Andres-Penares, D.; Severs-Millard, T.; Randerson, S.; Hu, X.; Sortino, L.; Louca, C.; Brotons-Gisbert, M.; Huq, T.; Vezzoli, S.; Sapienza, R.; Krauss, T. F.; Gerardot, B. D.; Tartakovskii, A. I. Van Der Waals Materials for Applications in Nanophotonics. Laser Photonics Rev. 2023, 17, 2200957.. (43) Quaranta, G.; Basset, G.; M...

work page 2023
[2024]

J.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Novotny, L

(17) Khelifa, R.; Shan, S.; Moilanen, A. J.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Novotny, L. WSe2 Light-Emitting Device Coupled to an h-BN Waveguide. ACS Photonics 2023, 10, 1328–1333. (18) Khelifa, R.; Back, P.; Flöry, N.; Nashashibi, S.; Malchow, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Jain, A.; Novotny, L. Coupling Interlayer Excitons to Whispering Gallery Modes in ...

work page 2023

Show all 12 references

[2025]

J.; Rugar, D

(38) Mamin, H. J.; Rugar, D. Thermomechanical Writing with an Atomic Force Microscope Tip. Appl. Phys. Lett. 1992, 61, 1003–1005. 18 (39) Howell, S. T.; Grushina, A.; Holzner, F.; Brugger, J. Thermal Scanning Probe Lithography—a Review. Microsyst. Nanoeng. 2020, 6,

1992
[3719]

M.; Thompson, J

(29) Perea-Causin, R.; Erkensten, D.; Fitzgerald, J. M.; Thompson, J. J. P.; Rosati, R.; Brem, S.; Malic, E. Exciton Optics, Dynamics, and Transport in Atomically Thin Semiconductors. APL Mater. 2022, 10, 100701. (30) Watanabe, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Kanda, H. Direct-Bandgap Prope...

2022 arXiv
[4547]

All-Dielectric Meta-Optics and Non-Linear Nanophotonics

(13) Kivshar, Y. All-Dielectric Meta-Optics and Non-Linear Nanophotonics. National Science Review. Oxford University Press March 1, 2018, pp 144–158. 16 (14) Kuznetsov, A. I.; Miroshnichenko, A. E.; Brongersma, M. L.; Kivshar, Y. S.; Luk’yanchuk, B. Optically Resonant Dielectr...

2018 arXiv
[5387]

V.; Castellanos-Gomez, A

(53) Frisenda, R.; Navarro-Moratalla, E.; Gant, P.; Pérez De Lara, D.; Jarillo-Herrero, P.; Gorbachev, R. V.; Castellanos-Gomez, A. Recent Progress in the Assembly of Nanodevices and van Der Waals Heterostructures by Deterministic Placement of 2D Materials. Chem. Soc. Rev. 201...

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

N.; Fogler, M

(1) Basov, D. N.; Fogler, M. M.; García De Abajo, F. J. Polaritons in van Der Waals Materials. Science 2016, 354, aag1992. (2) Sanvitto, D.; Kéna-Cohen, S. The Road towards Polaritonic Devices. Nat. Mater. 2016, 15, 1061–1073. (3) Gu, J.; Chakraborty, B.; Khatoniar, M.; Menon, V. M. A Room-Temperature Polariton Light-Emitting Diode Based on Monolayer WS2....

work page 2016

[2] [12]

E.; Heron, P

(56) Crameri, F.; Shephard, G. E.; Heron, P. J. The Misuse of Colour in Science Communication. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11,

work page 2020

[3] [21]

A.; Knoll, A

(40) Lassaline, N.; Thureja, D.; Chervy, T.; Petter, D.; Murthy, P. A.; Knoll, A. W.; Norris, D. J. Freeform Electronic and Photonic Landscapes in Hexagonal Boron Nitride. Nano Lett. 2021, 21, 8175–8181. (41) Saleh, B. E. A. .; Teich, M. Carl. Fundamentals of Photonics; Wiley,

work page 2021

[4] [1001]

G.; Cuadra, J.; Yankovich, A

(11) Stührenberg, M.; Munkhbat, B.; Baranov, D. G.; Cuadra, J.; Yankovich, A. B.; Antosiewicz, T. J.; Olsson, E.; Shegai, T. Strong Light-Matter Coupling between Plasmons in Individual Gold Bi-Pyramids and Excitons in Mono- and Multilayer WSe2. Nano Lett. 2018, 18, 5938–5945. (12) Lee, B.; Liu, W.; Naylor, C. H.; Park, J.; Malek, S. C.; Berger, J. S.; Joh...

work page 2018

[5] [1028]

(4) Thomas, A.; Lethuillier-Karl, L.; Nagarajan, K.; Vergauwe, R. M. A.; George, J.; Chervy, T.; Shalabney, A.; Devaux, E.; Genet, C.; Moran, J.; Ebbesen, T. W. Tilting a Ground-State Reactivity Landscape by Vibrational Strong Coupling. Science 2019, 363, 615–619. (5) Garcia-Vidal, F. J.; Ciuti, C.; Ebbesen, T. W. Manipulating Matter by Strong Coupling to...

work page 2019

[6] [1296]

Slow Light in Photonic Crystals

(50) Baba, T. Slow Light in Photonic Crystals. Nat. Photonics 2008, 2, 465–473. (51) Lassaline, N. Generating Smooth Potential Landscapes with Thermal Scanning-Probe Lithography. J. Phys. Mater. 2024, 7, 015008. (52) Purdie, D. G.; Pugno, N. M.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Ferrari, A. C.; Lombardo, A. Cleaning Interfaces in Layered Materials Heterostruct...

work page 2008

[7] [1991]

G.; Wang, Y.; Andres-Penares, D.; Severs-Millard, T.; Randerson, S.; Hu, X.; Sortino, L.; Louca, C.; Brotons-Gisbert, M.; Huq, T.; Vezzoli, S.; Sapienza, R.; Krauss, T

(42) Zotev, P. G.; Wang, Y.; Andres-Penares, D.; Severs-Millard, T.; Randerson, S.; Hu, X.; Sortino, L.; Louca, C.; Brotons-Gisbert, M.; Huq, T.; Vezzoli, S.; Sapienza, R.; Krauss, T. F.; Gerardot, B. D.; Tartakovskii, A. I. Van Der Waals Materials for Applications in Nanophotonics. Laser Photonics Rev. 2023, 17, 2200957.. (43) Quaranta, G.; Basset, G.; M...

work page 2023

[8] [2024]

J.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Novotny, L

(17) Khelifa, R.; Shan, S.; Moilanen, A. J.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Novotny, L. WSe2 Light-Emitting Device Coupled to an h-BN Waveguide. ACS Photonics 2023, 10, 1328–1333. (18) Khelifa, R.; Back, P.; Flöry, N.; Nashashibi, S.; Malchow, K.; Taniguchi, T.; Watanabe, K.; Jain, A.; Novotny, L. Coupling Interlayer Excitons to Whispering Gallery Modes in ...

work page 2023