Strongly nonlinear nanocavity exciton-polaritons in gate-tunable monolayer semiconductors

Bo Zhen; Bumho Kim; Li He; Zhi Wang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Strongly nonlinear nanocavity exciton-polaritons in gate-tunable monolayer semiconductors

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports a photonic crystal nanocavity coupled to a gate-tunable MoSe2 monolayer, producing cavity exciton-polaritons whose strong nonlinearity is driven by excitation-induced dephasing and enables all-optical switching at pulse…

desk verdict Strong-coupling collapse in a compact TMD nanocavity is real and worth refereeing, but the 4 fJ switching record is projected from an unmeasured spectral-overlap factor, so the paper needs a clearer measured-vs-extrapolated split. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16635 v1 pith:YOFTRKXP submitted 2024-11-25 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall

Zhi Wang , Li He , Bumho Kim , Bo Zhen This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hall

keywords exciton-polaritonsphotoniccrystalnanocavitymonolayersemiconductorsstrongcouplingexcitation-induceddephasingall-opticalswitchingMoSe2femtojouleenergy

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

This paper reports a photonic crystal nanocavity coupled to a gate-tunable MoSe2 monolayer, producing cavity exciton-polaritons with a tightly confined optical mode. It argues that under increasing optical excitation, the exciton dephasing rate rises because of coupling to an incoherent exciton reservoir, which reduces the effective exciton-photon coupling and eventually destroys strong coupling. This mechanism yields strong nonlinear shifts in the polariton spectrum, enabling all-optical switching of the cavity transmission at pulse energies projected to be as low as ~4 fJ, with picosecond recovery of the lower polariton. The claim matters because it points toward scalable, low-energy all-optical and quantum photonic devices based on two-dimensional materials.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the coupled-oscillator model of a cavity mode and an exciton, whose complex eigenvalues show that raising the exciton dephasing rate gamma_X reduces the Rabi splitting and shifts the lower and upper polariton energies in opposite directions. In the device, strong three-dimensional optical confinement (mode volume ~1.3($\lambda$/n)^3) increases the exciton-photon coupling and concentrates the exciton population, so that excitation-induced dephasing sets in at low pulse energies. The EID effect, previously observed in conventional semiconductors, is transferred here to a monolayer TMD and used as the nonlinearity that switches the cavity spectrum.

What would settle it

Measure the switching threshold directly with a laser pulse whose spectral width is matched to the polariton linewidth (a few meV) and check whether the required pulse energy drops to roughly 4 fJ; if it does not, the projected record value is not realized. Alternatively, a time-resolved measurement that tracks the polariton linewidth and Rabi splitting against exciton density could verify whether dephasing, rather than heating or carrier screening, drives the collapse of strong coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that tightly confining a charge-tunable MoSe2 monolayer in a silicon nitride photonic crystal nanocavity yields strongly nonlinear cavity exciton-polaritons whose nonlinearity stems from excitation-induced dephasing rather than from direct exciton-exciton interaction or phase-space filling alone. At low power the system shows Rabi splitting of about 33 meV (coupling strength g = 16.8 meV), and as the excitation rises the lower polariton blueshifts, both polariton lines broaden, and above 100 nW the strong-coupling condition collapses. The authors measure the lower polariton returning to its equilibrium energy in about 1 ps, while transmission quenching at high power occurs within ~200 fs. They project an effective switching energy of ~4 fJ once the laser spectral width is matched to the polariton linewidth, corresponding to roughly $10^{4}$ photons, and argue that further reductions could reach few-photon nonlinearity.

Load-bearing premise

The ~4 fJ switching energy rests on an unmeasured correction factor that assumes only a small fraction of the 50-fs pulse energy couples into the cavity, so that matching the laser bandwidth to the polariton linewidth would cut the required energy by at least an order of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

All-optical switching of a nanophotonic cavity can be performed at femtojoule energy levels, orders of magnitude lower than prior 2D exciton-polariton demonstrations.
The strong-coupling breakdown itself is a usable nonlinear response: beyond the collapse threshold the cavity transmission is strongly suppressed, acting as an optical gate.
With picosecond lower-polariton recovery and ~200 fs response at high power, the device operates on time scales suitable for high-speed optical logic.
Extending the same platform to materials with stronger phase-space filling, such as trions or moire excitons, could reduce the threshold by up to two orders of magnitude.

Reading between the lines

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

If the spectral-overlap correction holds, the same device should switch with a ~1 meV-bandwidth pulse at ~4 fJ; this is directly testable and would convert a projected record into a demonstrated one.
The EID mechanism implies that the switching energy scales with the exciton dephasing rate, so engineering lower intrinsic linewidths in the monolayer should proportionally reduce the required pulse energy.
Reaching few-photon or single-polariton nonlinearity will likely require both higher-index cavities (such as InGaP-on-insulator) and excitonic species with reduced density of states, directions the paper identifies but does not itself demonstrate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Read this one. The platform result is solid: they put a gate-tunable MoSe2 monolayer on a Si3N4 nanobeam cavity with V ~1.3(λ/n)^3, see a clear avoided crossing with Rabi splitting ~33 meV (g=16.8 meV), and show that increasing pulse power broadens and shifts the polariton modes until strong coupling collapses. The mechanism, excitation-induced dephasing rather than phase-space filling, is a reasonable read of the data, and the coupled-oscillator fit shows asymmetric LP/UP shifts consistent with that. Pump-probe shows the LP energy returning in ~1 ps and a fast collapse at high power, which is nice.

Now the soft spots. The headline '4 fJ switching' is not a measurement. They excite with 50 fs pulses whose ~60 meV spectrum is much broader than the polariton linewidth, and they assume that only the resonant fraction of the pulse actually matters. Then they multiply the incident pulse energy by that overlap factor and claim the switching energy can be 'reduced by at least an order of magnitude' if the spectrum is matched. That conversion relies on two untested assumptions: that the EID nonlinearity is linear in the absorbed on-resonance energy, and that changing pulse duration or peak intensity does not alter the dephasing. Neither is checked. Also, the paper never reports a direct threshold extraction—'switching' is defined as half-linewidth shift, but the power series in Fig. 3c is not analyzed against that criterion. The 'record-low' phrasing in the abstract is therefore doing a lot of work.

There are smaller issues: no error bars on the fitted g, γ, or on the polariton shifts; the transmission recovery in pump-probe takes hundreds of ps, so the 'picosecond switching' claim applies to the spectral shift, not to full signal recovery; and the SI is not available, so the overlap calculation and the slow-recovery discussion cannot be checked. None of these kill the central physics.

The citation pattern is fine; prior work on TMD polaritons in extended cavities is cited, and the claim of a first compact nanocavity demonstration is plausible. The paper would benefit from a revised version that clearly labels the 4 fJ number as a projection, provides uncertainties, and ideally shows a measurement with spectrally narrowed pulses or an explicit threshold extraction. This deserves a serious referee; the core experimental observation is credible and the platform is useful to the community. I would send it to review, with the request that the quantitative claims be brought in line with what is actually measured.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports experimental strong coupling between a gate-tunable MoSe2 monolayer and a silicon nitride photonic-crystal nanocavity, with a small mode volume of ~1.3(λ/n)^3. At low excitation the authors observe upper and lower polariton branches; with increasing excitation they see linewidth broadening, asymmetric energy shifts, and eventual collapse of strong coupling. They attribute this to excitation-induced dephasing (EID) of the exciton reservoir. Pump-probe measurements show picosecond energy shifts and fast quenching of transmission at high excitation. The headline quantitative claim is an all-optical switching energy of ~4 fJ, derived not from a direct narrowband measurement but from an assumed spectral-overlap correction applied to the measured broadband pulse energy.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant: it demonstrates a compact, gate-tunable platform for strongly nonlinear polaritons with large Rabi splitting, a clear power-dependent breakdown of strong coupling, and picosecond dynamics in a nanophotonic geometry. The qualitative demonstration of EID-driven nonlinearity is well supported by the power-dependent spectra and pump-probe data. The paper also provides a plausible route toward few-photon nonlinearities. However, the most prominent quantitative claim, the ~4 fJ switching energy, is currently a projection rather than a measured result, and the supporting SI is not available. The value of the paper therefore depends on whether that projected number can be substantiated or appropriately reframed.

major comments (4)

[Nonlinear cavity polaritons, paragraph after Fig. 3b] The abstract states that the nanocavity enables all-optical switching 'down to ~4 fJ', but the main text presents this number as a projection: the laser spectral width (~60 meV) is much broader than the polariton linewidth, so only a small fraction of the pulse energy is coupled, and the switching energy 'can be reduced by at least an order of magnitude, reaching as low as ~4 fJ' when the pulse is spectrally matched. No narrowband measurement, no direct calibration of the overlap fraction, and no uncertainty estimate are provided. Because the 4 fJ figure is the headline quantitative claim, the authors must either measure the threshold with spectrally matched pulses or clearly label the number as a model-dependent projection in both the abstract and the main text.
[Fig. 3c and the switching-energy definition] The switching energy is defined as the pulse energy required to shift the polariton resonance by half its linewidth, but the main text never extracts this threshold from the data. Fig. 3c plots cavity transmission at the equilibrium LP energy versus optical excitation, which does not directly display the half-linewidth-shift criterion. The paper should include a clear threshold extraction (e.g., LP energy shift versus pulse energy with the half-linewidth marker) and report the corresponding pulse energy with error bars, or explicitly state that the threshold was not measured and provide the raw energies used for the projection.
[Coupled oscillator model and parameter estimates] The exciton-photon coupling strength is reported as g = 16.8 meV, and the cavity linewidth is decomposed into radiative and nonradiative parts, but no uncertainties, fit residuals, or comparison between model and measured spectra are shown. The claim that EID is the operative mechanism relies on the coupled-oscillator model reproducing the power-dependent spectra, yet the manuscript does not provide quantitative evidence that this model uniquely supports EID over other mechanisms such as thermal shifts or free-carrier screening. Please include representative fits overlaid on the data and report parameter uncertainties and fit quality metrics.
[General: dependence on the Supplementary Information] Several load-bearing details are deferred to the SI, including the spectral-overlap correction that produces the 4 fJ estimate, the expected increase in cavity-waveguide coupling, the slow recovery attributed to impurity-trapped excitons, and the threshold extraction for switching. Since the SI is not available in the arXiv submission, the main text as posted cannot be fully verified. The authors should either include the SI in the review package or move the essential derivations and threshold analysis into the main text.

minor comments (5)

[Page 2, first column] There is a typo: 'full-wdith-half-maximum' should be 'full-width-half-maximum'.
[Abstract and main text] The abstract presents '~4 fJ' as an achieved switching energy, while the main text describes it as a projected reduction after spectral matching; these presentations should be reconciled so that the claim is not overstated.
[Fig. 3c] The horizontal axis is labeled only as 'optical excitation'; please specify the unit (nW or fJ) and indicate whether the values are measured before the grating coupler, as stated in the text, and include uncertainty estimates.
[Nonlinear cavity polaritons, paragraph following Fig. 3b] The phrase 'sub-linear dependence' should be hyphenated as 'sub-linear' (or rendered as 'sublinear').
[Conclusion and outlook] The statement that the ~4 fJ value sets 'a new benchmark' would be more convincing if it included a comparison with earlier 2D polariton switching energies from the cited literature, rather than asserting the benchmark without quantitative context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the experimental claims rest on direct measurements and independent references; the only self-citation is minor and non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is experimental: linear spectra fix the coupled-oscillator parameters (g = 16.8 meV from the observed polariton splitting), power- and time-resolved transmission provide the nonlinear spectral shifts and strong-coupling collapse, and the 4 fJ switching-energy figure is explicitly an extrapolation from the measured pulse energy corrected by an unmeasured spectral-overlap factor ('only a small fraction of the pulse energy is effectively coupled into the cavity'). None of these steps defines its conclusion in terms of its premise. The coupled-oscillator model is an interpretive fit, not a generator of parameter-free predictions, and the exciton-dephasing increase is independently evidenced by the power-dependent reflectance linewidth broadening in Fig. 3a. The 4 fJ estimate is a stated projection, so its validity is a robustness/correctness risk (the overlap factor is not measured) rather than a circular reduction. The only self-citation is reference [18] (B. Kim et al.), used for the intrinsic MoSe2 linewidth and the ~100 ps impurity-trapped-exciton lifetime; neither use is load-bearing, and the linewidth is also supported by external reference [19]. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, and any weaknesses are experimental assumptions, not circularity.

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

The central claims rest on a small number of fitted or estimated parameters (g, delta_c-X, gamma_cav components) and on the assumed spectral-overlap factor that converts measured pulse energy into the projected 4 fJ figure. The EID mechanism is assumed to dominate the nonlinear response. No new particles, forces, or exotic entities are introduced; the 'exciton reservoir' is a standard concept in the literature, not invented by this paper.

free parameters (5)

Exciton-photon coupling strength g = 16.8 meV
Estimated from the transmission spectrum in the charge-neutral regime using the coupled oscillator model; no uncertainty reported. Central to the claim of strong coupling.
Cavity-exciton detuning delta_c-X = ~10 meV
Expected from simulation/red shift after TMD transfer; used in the coupled oscillator eigenvalues. Not directly measured in the paper.
Cavity linewidth components (gamma_rad, gamma_nonrad) = 0.7 meV, 1.2 meV (0.7 and 1.4 meV after TMD)
The cavity linewidth is decomposed into radiative and nonradiative parts based on design and transmission measurements; these values enter the coupled oscillator model and affect the inferred coupling strength.
Spectral overlap correction factor for 4 fJ estimate = at least an order of magnitude reduction
The claim of record-low 4 fJ switching energy is obtained from the measured pulse energy (~67 fJ at 0.2 nW and 3 kHz repetition) divided by an assumed spectral-overlap factor; this factor is not measured or derived in the main text.
Exciton dephasing rate as a function of density = not quantified
The central mechanism claims the exciton dephasing rate gamma_X increases with polariton density, but no quantitative relation is given; any quantitative prediction of the switching threshold depends on this unknown function.

assumptions (5)

standard math The coupled oscillator model with complex eigenvalues E+/- (Equation in the text) describes the coupled exciton-cavity system.
This is a standard two-level model used throughout the paper to interpret the transmission spectra and the power-dependent shifts.
domain assumption The nonlinear linewidth broadening is due to excitation-induced dephasing from coupling to an exciton reservoir, not to heating, charge doping, or other effects.
The paper attributes the observed broadening and strong-coupling collapse to EID based on prior literature and qualitative trends, but does not rule out alternative mechanisms quantitatively. This assumption is load-bearing for the interpretation.
ad hoc to paper The spectral overlap between the laser pulse and the polariton lines determines the fraction of pulse energy coupled to the cavity, and this fraction is at least 1/10.
The 4 fJ switching energy is derived from this assumed correction factor, which is not measured. The paper states it 'at least an order of magnitude' but provides no supporting calculation in the main text.
domain assumption The simulated cavity mode volume of 1.3(lambda/n)^3 and the gate-dependent reflectance/transmission data accurately represent the device.
The authors rely on finite-difference time-domain (or similar) simulations for the mode volume and on the assumption that the fabricated device matches the simulation; no direct measurement of mode volume is shown.
domain assumption The cavity resonance slow temporal drift is linear and can be compensated in the analysis.
The paper explains that the LP and UP peaks are slightly red-shifted relative to the linear measurement 'due to slow temporal drift' and that this is accounted for; the validity of this correction is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strongly nonlinear nanocavity exciton-polaritons in gate-tunable monolayer semiconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YOFTRKXP

@misc{pith2026241116635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strongly nonlinear nanocavity exciton-polaritons in gate-tunable monolayer semiconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YOFTRKXP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16635}
}

read the original abstract

Strong coupling between light and matter in an optical cavity provides a pathway to giant polariton nonlinearity, where effective polariton-polariton interactions are mediated by materials' nonlinear responses. The pursuit of such enhanced nonlinearity at low optical excitations, potentially down to the single-particle level, has been a central focus in the field, inspiring the exploration of novel solid-state light-matter systems. Here, we experimentally realize extremely nonlinear and robust cavity exciton-polaritons by coupling a charge-tunable MoSe2 monolayer to a photonic crystal nanocavity. We show that the observed polariton nonlinearity arises from increased exciton dephasing at high populations, leading to diminished exciton-photon coupling and ultimately the breakdown of the strong coupling condition. Remarkably, the strong mode confinement of the nanocavity enables all-optical switching of the cavity spectrum at ultralow optical excitation energies, down to ~4 fJ, on picosecond timescales. Our work paves the way for further exploration of 2D nonlinear exciton-polaritons, with promising applications in both classical and quantum all-optical information processing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16635 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Linear characterization of the coupled TMD-PhC nanocavity. a, Gate-dependent reflectance spectrum ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Nonlinear cavity exciton-polaritons. a. Exciton reflectance and b. cavity transmission measured as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Pump-probe spectroscopy of nonlinear cavity po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Bright yet dark: how strong coupling quenches exciton-polariton radiation
physics.optics 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Exciton-polariton radiation can be completely quenched by coherent interference between excitonic and photonic decay channels, creating polaritonic bound states in the continuum.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Schneider, A

C. Schneider, A. Rahimi-Iman, N. Y. Kim, J. Fis- cher, I. G. Savenko, M. Amthor, M. Lermer, A. Wolf, L. Worschech, V. D. Kulakovskii, et al., An electrically pumped polariton laser, Nature 497, 348 (2013)

work page 2013
[2]

Byrnes, N

T. Byrnes, N. Y. Kim, and Y. Yamamoto, Exciton– polariton condensates, Nature Physics 10, 803 (2014)

2014
[3]

A. Amo, J. Lefr` ere, S. Pigeon, C. Adrados, C. Ciuti, I. Carusotto, R. Houdr´ e, E. Giacobino, and A. Bramati, Superfluidity of polaritons in semiconductor microcavi- ties, Nature Physics 5, 805 (2009)

2009
[4]

Hennessy, A

K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, M. Winger, D. Gerace, M. Atat¨ ure, S. Gulde, S. F¨ alt, E. L. Hu, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Quantum nature of a strongly coupled sin- gle quantum dot–cavity system, Nature 445, 896 (2007)

2007
[5]

Englund, A

D. Englund, A. Faraon, I. Fushman, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Controlling cavity reflectivity with a single quantum dot, Nature 450, 857 (2007)

2007
[6]

G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Colloquium: Excitons in atomically thin transition metal dichalco- genides, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 021001 (2018)

2018
[7]

K. F. Mak and J. Shan, Photonics and optoelectronics of 2d semiconductor transition metal dichalcogenides, Na- ture Photonics 10, 216 (2016)

work page 2016
[8]

Delteil, T

A. Delteil, T. Fink, A. Schade, S. H¨ ofling, C. Schnei- der, and A. ˙Imamo˘ glu, Towards polariton blockade of confined exciton–polaritons, Nature materials 18, 219 (2019)

2019

Show all 23 references

[9]

Mu˜ noz-Matutano, A

G. Mu˜ noz-Matutano, A. Wood, M. Johnsson, X. Vidal, B. Q. Baragiola, A. Reinhard, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, J. Bloch, A. Amo, G. Nogues, et al., Emergence of quantum cor- relations from interacting fibre-cavity polaritons, Nature Materials 18, 213 (2019)

2019
[10]

Emmanuele, M

R. Emmanuele, M. Sich, O. Kyriienko, V. Shahnazaryan, F. Withers, A. Catanzaro, P. Walker, F. Benimetskiy, M. Skolnick, A. Tartakovskii, et al., Highly nonlinear trion-polaritons in a monolayer semiconductor, Nature communications 11, 3589 (2020)

2020
[11]

Zhang, F

L. Zhang, F. Wu, S. Hou, Z. Zhang, Y.-H. Chou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. R. Forrest, and H. Deng, Van der waals heterostructure polaritons with moir´ e- induced nonlinearity, Nature 591, 61 (2021)

2021
[12]

L. B. Tan, O. Cotlet, A. Bergschneider, R. Schmidt, P. Back, Y. Shimazaki, M. Kroner, and A. ˙Imamo˘ glu, Interacting polaron-polaritons, Physical Review X 10, 021011 (2020)

2020
[13]

J. Gu, V. Walther, L. Waldecker, D. Rhodes, A. Raja, J. C. Hone, T. F. Heinz, S. K´ ena-Cohen, T. Pohl, and V. M. Menon, Enhanced nonlinear interaction of polari- tons via excitonic rydberg states in monolayer wse2, Na- ture communications 12, 2269 (2021)

2021
[14]

Datta, M

B. Datta, M. Khatoniar, P. Deshmukh, F. Thouin, R. Bushati, S. De Liberato, S. K. Cohen, and V. M. Menon, Highly nonlinear dipolar exciton-polaritons in bi- layer mos2, Nature communications 13, 6341 (2022)

2022
[15]

Takemura, M

N. Takemura, M. D. Anderson, S. Trebaol, S. Biswas, D. Oberli, M. T. Portella-Oberli, and B. Deveaud, De- phasing effects on coherent exciton-polaritons and the breakdown of the strong coupling regime, Physical Re- view B 92, 235305 (2015)

2015
[16]

Takemura, M

N. Takemura, M. Anderson, S. Biswas, M. Navadeh- Toupchi, D. Oberli, M. Portella-Oberli, and B. Deveaud, Coherent and incoherent aspects of polariton dynamics in semiconductor microcavities, Physical Review B 94, 195301 (2016)

2016
[17]

Moody, C

G. Moody, C. Kavir Dass, K. Hao, C.-H. Chen, L.-J. Li, A. Singh, K. Tran, G. Clark, X. Xu, G. Bergh¨ auser,et al., 6 Intrinsic homogeneous linewidth and broadening mecha- nisms of excitons in monolayer transition metal dichalco- genides, Nature communications 6, 8315 (2015)

2015
[18]

B. Kim, Y. Luo, D. Rhodes, Y. Bai, J. Wang, S. Liu, A. Jordan, B. Huang, Z. Li, T. Taniguchi, et al., Free tri- ons with near-unity quantum yield in monolayer mose2, ACS nano 16, 140 (2021)

2021
[19]

Y. Zhou, G. Scuri, J. Sung, R. J. Gelly, D. S. Wild, K. De Greve, A. Y. Joe, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Kim, et al., Controlling excitons in an atomically thin membrane with a mirror, Physical Review Letters 124, 027401 (2020)

2020
[20]

J. S. Ross, S. Wu, H. Yu, N. J. Ghimire, A. M. Jones, G. Aivazian, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, D. Xiao, W. Yao, et al., Electrical control of neutral and charged excitons in a monolayer semiconductor, Nature communications 4, 1474 (2013)

2013
[21]

M. Li, S. Biswas, C. U. Hail, and H. A. Atwater, Refrac- tive index modulation in monolayer molybdenum dise- lenide, Nano Letters 21, 7602 (2021)

2021
[22]

Thiel, J

L. Thiel, J. E. Castro, T. J. Steiner, C. L. Nguyen, A. Pechilis, L. Duan, N. Lewis, G. D. Cole, J. E. Bow- ers, and G. Moody, Wafer-scale fabrication of ingap-on- insulator for nonlinear and quantum photonic applica- tions, Applied Physics Letters 125 (2024)

2024
[23]

Y. Shen, N. C. Harris, S. Skirlo, M. Prabhu, T. Baehr- Jones, M. Hochberg, X. Sun, S. Zhao, H. Larochelle, D. Englund, et al., Deep learning with coherent nanopho- tonic circuits, Nature photonics 11, 441 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Schneider, A

C. Schneider, A. Rahimi-Iman, N. Y. Kim, J. Fis- cher, I. G. Savenko, M. Amthor, M. Lermer, A. Wolf, L. Worschech, V. D. Kulakovskii, et al., An electrically pumped polariton laser, Nature 497, 348 (2013)

work page 2013

[2] [2]

Byrnes, N

T. Byrnes, N. Y. Kim, and Y. Yamamoto, Exciton– polariton condensates, Nature Physics 10, 803 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

A. Amo, J. Lefr` ere, S. Pigeon, C. Adrados, C. Ciuti, I. Carusotto, R. Houdr´ e, E. Giacobino, and A. Bramati, Superfluidity of polaritons in semiconductor microcavi- ties, Nature Physics 5, 805 (2009)

2009

[4] [4]

Hennessy, A

K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, M. Winger, D. Gerace, M. Atat¨ ure, S. Gulde, S. F¨ alt, E. L. Hu, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Quantum nature of a strongly coupled sin- gle quantum dot–cavity system, Nature 445, 896 (2007)

2007

[5] [5]

Englund, A

D. Englund, A. Faraon, I. Fushman, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Controlling cavity reflectivity with a single quantum dot, Nature 450, 857 (2007)

2007

[6] [6]

G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Colloquium: Excitons in atomically thin transition metal dichalco- genides, Reviews of Modern Physics 90, 021001 (2018)

2018

[7] [7]

K. F. Mak and J. Shan, Photonics and optoelectronics of 2d semiconductor transition metal dichalcogenides, Na- ture Photonics 10, 216 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Delteil, T

A. Delteil, T. Fink, A. Schade, S. H¨ ofling, C. Schnei- der, and A. ˙Imamo˘ glu, Towards polariton blockade of confined exciton–polaritons, Nature materials 18, 219 (2019)

2019