Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 130 references

PHOENIX -- Paderborn highly optimized and energy efficient solver for two-dimensional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations with integrated extensions

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 presents PHOENIX, an open-source C++/CUDA solver claiming up to a thousandfold speedup and 99.8% energy savings over a conventional MATLAB implementation for two-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equations.

desk verdict Solid, useful software paper; the speedup claim is credible, but the 99.8% energy saving is extrapolated from peak power, not directly measured. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18341 v1 pith:O5J2ZJHE submitted 2024-11-27 physics.comp-ph

Jan Wingenbach , David Bauch , Xuekai Ma , Robert Schade , Christian Plessl , Stefan Schumacher This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords nonlinearSchrödingerequationGross-PitaevskiiGPUcomputingRunge-Kuttamethodscacheoptimizationenergyefficiencyexciton-polaritoncondensatesopen-sourcesolver
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

PHOENIX is introduced as an open-source solver for the two-dimensional dissipative nonlinear Schrödinger equation and its extensions. The authors aim to establish that a carefully cache-optimized explicit Runge-Kutta implementation can make large-scale, statistically demanding simulations routine on ordinary consumer GPUs. Against a conventional sparse-matrix MATLAB RK4 implementation, they report speedups up to three orders of magnitude and energy savings up to 99.8%. If true, this removes a practical bottleneck: users can run very large grids, optimization loops, and Monte Carlo ensembles with quantum noise on a single workstation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is subgrid decomposition: the full $N_x \times N_y$ grid is divided into smaller subgrids, each surrounded by a halo of neighboring cells, so every RK4 step operates on data that fits in the last-level cache. The spatial derivative uses a five-point stencil, the intermediate RK4 sums are modeled as STREAM-triad-like kernels, and a Roofline model using measured device cache and memory bandwidths predicts the iteration-time floor. This decomposition turns a low-computational-intensity stencil into a cache-bandwidth-bound calculation, which is why the solver can approach hardware limits on consumer GPUs.

What would settle it

Benchmark PHOENIX and a vectorized or spectral MATLAB solver of the same equation on the same grids while directly metering wall-clock energy draw of each process; a speedup well below three orders of magnitude or an energy saving far below 99.8 percent would falsify the headline claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bottleneck in two-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger time evolution is data movement, not arithmetic, and PHOENIX is built around that fact. By decomposing the grid into cache-sized subgrids with halos and expressing RK4 as a sequence of stencil and summation kernels, the solver reaches 51 to 94 percent of the cache-bandwidth bound on tested GPUs and saturates memory bandwidth for large grids. The same design yields up to three orders of magnitude speedup and up to 99.8 percent energy savings compared with a conventional MATLAB implementation, with single-precision runs roughly doubling throughput whenever the physics tolerates reduced precision.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that the MATLAB sparse-matrix RK4 code is a fair 'conventional' baseline and that energy savings computed from runtime ratio and peak power approximately equal true energy use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations that were previously too slow for routine exploration, such as 9000-by-9000-grid corner states or optimizer-driven exceptional-point searches, become one-hour or one-day tasks on a single GPU.
  • Statistical studies needing many repeated runs, such as 150- or 2250-sample Monte Carlo ensembles for quantum-state tomography, become practical on consumer hardware rather than large HPC allocations.
  • Users can extend the equation set with additional Hamiltonian terms or new integrators by editing short arithmetic kernels, without writing explicit parallel code.
  • Because the solver is transfer-bound rather than arithmetic-bound, single-precision execution approximately halves data movement and doubles throughput when physics permits it, with the paper noting sharp spectral resonances as an exception.
  • The subgrid design offers a direct path to multi-GPU or multi-node execution by distributing subgrids, extending the solver to grids that exceed a single device's memory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 99.8 percent energy saving is best read as an upper bound: it is derived from the speedup multiplied by manually measured peak power rather than from simultaneous energy metering of both codes, so the true energy advantage over an efficient MATLAB implementation is likely smaller.
  • The speedup claim is tied to the sparse-matrix RK4 MATLAB baseline; a MATLAB user already working with spectral or well-vectorized methods should expect a much smaller gain, and the 'conventional' label may overstate how representative that baseline is.
  • The observed gap between the H100's summation kernels and the cache-bandwidth bound points to a concrete next target: improving cache behavior of the two- and five-term sums could push datacenter GPUs closer to the bound, not just consumer GPUs.
  • The same subgrid-plus-Roofline recipe may transfer to other low-computational-intensity stencil solvers beyond the nonlinear Schrödinger family, such as reaction-diffusion or wave-propagation codes, though the paper does not claim this extension.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents PHOENIX, an MIT-licensed open-source C++/CUDA solver for the two-dimensional dissipative nonlinear Schrödinger equation and its extensions, including spinor fields, reservoir dynamics, coherent and incoherent driving, and stochastic noise. The solver uses an explicit RK4 integrator with a five-point Laplacian, subgrid decomposition for cache reuse, optional FFT smoothing, and fp32/fp64 support. Benchmarks on several CPUs and GPUs are compared with a roofline model, and the paper reports up to a 1000x speedup and 99.8% energy savings relative to a MATLAB sparse-matrix RK4 implementation. Four application examples from exciton-polariton physics are included to demonstrate the solver's breadth.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are fully substantiated, PHOENIX would be a valuable community resource: it ships public, MIT-licensed code with benchmark documentation, a parameter-free roofline model based on measured hardware bandwidths, and a simple extension interface for non-specialist users. The four worked examples show practical breadth, although they largely reproduce the authors' own earlier results rather than providing independent validation. The main uncertainty is not in the basic numerical scheme or the PHOENIX-side measurements, which are credible, but in the two headline comparison claims: the energy saving is derived from peak-power assumptions rather than direct measurement, and the speedup is measured against a baseline whose code is not provided. These issues affect the abstract and title and therefore need to be resolved before the paper's central claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1(b), Sec. 4.5, Abstract] The headline claim of energy savings 'up to 99.8%' is not supported by direct energy measurement. As the Fig. 1 caption states, the energy savings are 'determined by the speedup and the peak power consumption for large grids manually measured using HWiNFO.' This assumes both PHOENIX and the MATLAB baseline sustain their peak power for the entire run, which is implausible for a CPU-bound sparse-matrix MATLAB code with idle and stall phases. The paper already has a direct energy methodology with RAPL and NVML in Sec. 4.5 for PHOENIX; the same methodology should be applied to the MATLAB baseline, or the 99.8% figure should be relabeled as an upper-bound estimate and removed from the abstract and title.
  2. [Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 1(a)] The three-orders-of-magnitude speedup is measured against a baseline that is described only by a short paragraph and whose code and exact configuration are not deposited. A sparse-matrix-vector RK4 code in MATLAB is one plausible 'conventional' implementation, but it is not demonstrated to be representative, and the comparison also conflates the programming-language and hardware changes. Please release the MATLAB benchmark script with all settings (sparse-matrix construction, time step, precision, MATLAB version, threading, and whether gpuArray is used), and ideally report the speedup against at least one additional baseline such as a vectorized or spectral MATLAB solver.
  3. [Figs. 4-6 and Sec. 4.1] None of the performance or energy curves includes repeated-run statistics. The paper makes precise quantitative statements such as 'between 51% and 94% of the cache bandwidth bound' and '24-30 nJ per grid point update', and the 99.8% energy-saving figure rests on single-point comparisons. At minimum, the headline comparisons in Fig. 1 should report the mean and min-max spread over several runs, and the measurement protocol for the manually measured peak power should be described in enough detail to be replicable.
  4. [Sec. 3.2.8 and Eq. (12)] The roofline estimate in Eq. (12) excludes the halo exchange and the extra halo-cell computations described in Secs. 3.2.4 and 3.2.6, yet Fig. 4 compares that estimate with full RK4 timings that include those costs. For subgrid settings with small subgrids, the halo overhead is not negligible, so the reported fractions of the cache-bandwidth bound are optimistic. Please quantify the halo overhead or restrict the 'close to the bound' comparison to runs without subgrid decomposition.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.2.8 and Eq. (12)] The factor 2 in Eq. (12) is not explained in the text; since each complex buffer contains two real components, please state that explicitly when d is introduced.
  2. [Table 2] The AMD 7763 full-CPU row lists Pfp32 (2.5 TFlop/s) as smaller than Pfp64 (5.1 TFlop/s), which is inconsistent with the 5800X3D row and with the usual Zen3 fp32/fp64 throughput relation; please verify these values or explain the measurement result.
  3. [Sec. 3.2.6] The phrase 'grid sizes beyond approximately 10^4' is ambiguous; it should say 10^4 points per spatial dimension, consistent with the 15000 x 15000 grid discussion in Sec. 5.1.
  4. [Sec. 5.1 and Eq. (16)] The parameters E0 and omega for the coherent drive are only given in the reference list entry [80]; they should be defined in the main text for readability.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Phyton' in the Introduction, 'peridoic' and 'V ortices' in Sec. 5, and 'AMD 77632 CPU' in the Fig. 5 caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PHOENIX's performance and energy claims are measured against independent hardware bounds and an explicit MATLAB baseline, and the application demonstrations are validations rather than load-bearing derivations.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are benchmark results, not fitted predictions. The speedup is obtained by directly timing PHOENIX against the MATLAB sparse-matrix RK4 implementation described in Sec. 3.1, and the energy savings in Fig. 1(b) are explicitly computed from those timings and from peak power values manually measured with HWiNFO, as stated in the Fig. 1 caption: "Energy savings are determined by the speedup and the peak power consumption for large grids manually measured using HWiNFO." That is a derived, model-based estimate rather than a direct energy measurement of both codes, which is a legitimate methodological caveat about the 99.8% figure, but it is not circular: the speedup and power inputs are independent empirical inputs, and the reported quantity is not used to define or fit those inputs. The roofline analysis in Secs. 3.2.8 and 4.1 compares measured update rates to bounds computed from kernel read/write counts (Table 1) and hardware bandwidth limits measured with LIKWID and gpu-benches (Table 2); the measured performance is not fed back into the model, so the 51-94% achievement figures are genuine comparisons rather than identities. The application sections reproduce or extend the authors' earlier results (e.g., Refs. [38], [39], [40]), but these self-citations are demonstrative validations of the solver on standard physics examples, not load-bearing justifications of the performance claims, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior author work to force a choice. The MATLAB baseline is admittedly defined by the authors, but the paper states its construction explicitly and the speedup is a measured consequence of that stated baseline, not a quantity fitted to make the speedup appear. Overall, no derivation chain in the paper reduces to its own inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical parameters or entities; its claims rest on standard numerical methods and literature models. The key unstated assumptions are the adequacy of the RK4 time step, the grid resolution, single-precision arithmetic, and the truncated-Wigner noise model.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption RK4 explicit time integration is stable and accurate for the dNLSE with chosen time steps; no convergence or stability analysis is shown.
    Sec. 2 presents RK4 but does not justify time-step selection or show convergence tests; correctness of simulations depends on this.
  • standard math Five-point central difference stencil Eq. (8) approximates the Laplacian sufficiently well on the uniform grid.
    Eq. (8) is a standard O(dx^2) discretization; accuracy depends on grid resolution.
  • domain assumption Single precision is sufficient except for sharp spectral resonances (Sec. 3.2.5).
    Statement is qualitative, no error analysis across applications.
  • domain assumption Truncated Wigner approximation with noise correlation Eq. (22) correctly models quantum fluctuations.
    Adopted from Refs [41-44,125-128]; used for Example 4 without independent validation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Roofline model Eq. (11) with measured hardware specifications in Table 2 bounds achievable performance.
    Assumes either FP throughput or memory/cache transfer is the bottleneck; the paper notes halo exchange is excluded.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PHOENIX -- Paderborn highly optimized and energy efficient solver for two-dimensional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations with integrated extensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O5J2ZJHE

@misc{pith2026241118341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PHOENIX -- Paderborn highly optimized and energy efficient solver for two-dimensional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations with integrated extensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O5J2ZJHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18341}
}
read the original abstract

In this work, we introduce PHOENIX, a highly optimized explicit open-source solver for two-dimensional nonlinear Schr\"odinger equations with extensions. The nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation and its extensions (Gross-Pitaevskii equation) are widely studied to model and analyze complex phenomena in fields such as optics, condensed matter physics, fluid dynamics, and plasma physics. It serves as a powerful tool for understanding nonlinear wave dynamics, soliton formation, and the interplay between nonlinearity, dispersion, and diffraction. By extending the nonlinear Schr\"odinger equation, various physical effects such as non-Hermiticity, spin-orbit interaction, and quantum optical aspects can be incorporated. PHOENIX is designed to accommodate a wide range of applications by a straightforward extendability without the need for user knowledge of computing architectures or performance optimization. The high performance and power efficiency of PHOENIX are demonstrated on a wide range of entry-class to high-end consumer and high-performance computing GPUs and CPUs. Compared to a more conventional MATLAB implementation, a speedup of up to three orders of magnitude and energy savings of up to 99.8% are achieved. The performance is compared to a performance model showing that PHOENIX performs close to the relevant performance bounds in many situations. The possibilities of PHOENIX are demonstrated with a range of practical examples from the realm of nonlinear (quantum) photonics in planar microresonators with active media including exciton-polariton condensates. Examples range from solutions on very large grids, the use of local optimization algorithms, to Monte Carlo ensemble evolutions with quantum noise enabling the tomography of the system's quantum state.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance comparison on high-end consumer hardware. Results illustrate (a) speedup and iterations per second and (b) energy savings of PHOENIX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the RK4 steps. Dark green objects mark real or complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The last-level cache (LLC) sizes of the devices in Tab. 2 is shown [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The grid point update rates for single-precision RK4-time steps where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The grid point update rates measured on the devices listed in Tab. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Energy usage per grid point update Epoint for the devices listed in Tab. 2 for different grid sizes for single-precision (solid lines) and correspond￾ing double-precision calculations (dashed lines). For each grid size, the best energy efficiency of different subgrid s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (a) Extended double-wave lattice with 9000 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) Spatial pump in ps−1µm−2 and (b) double-well potential distri￾bution in meV. (c) The integrated density of the polariton modes in µm−2 (inserted plots) in black and the mode energies in scales of brown, indicat￾ing the condensation switch-off and the energy bifurca…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Overview of the first seven groups of approximate real-space sym [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) k-space expectation value above the condensation threshold P0 = Pthr. The red square indicates the selected signal for the mode occu￾pation. (b) Mean and variance of averaged polariton excitation number and (c) second-order correlation function g (2)(0) as a funct…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

130 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. H. Strogatz, Nonlinear dynamics and chaos: with applications to physics, biology, chemistry, and engineering, CRC press, 2018

    2018

  2. [2]

    Bongard, H

    J. Bongard, H. Lipson, Automated reverse engineering of nonlinear dy- namical systems, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104 (2007) 9943–9948

    2007

  3. [3]

    J. M. T. Thompson, H. B. Stewart, Nonlinear dynamics and chaos, John Wiley & Sons, 2002

    2002

  4. [4]

    Lam, Introduction to nonlinear physics, Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    L. Lam, Introduction to nonlinear physics, Springer Science & Business Media, 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    W.-M. Liu, B. Wu, Q. Niu, Nonlinear e ffects in interference of Bose- Einstein condensates, Physical Review Letters 84 (2000) 2294–2297

    2000

  6. [6]

    N. G. Berlo ff, Nonlocal nonlinear Schrödinger equations as models of superfluidity, Journal of Low Temperature Physics 116 (1999) 359–380

    1999

  7. [7]

    Malomed, M

    B. Malomed, M. I. Weinstein, Soliton dynamics in the discrete nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Physics Letters A 220 (1996) 91–96

    1996

  8. [8]

    Akhmediev, A

    N. Akhmediev, A. Ankiewicz, J. M. Soto-Crespo, Rogue waves and ra- tional solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Physical Review E 80 (2009) 026601

    2009

Show all 130 references
  1. [9]

    Wang, Optical solitons of the perturbed nonlinear Schrödinger equation in Kerr media, Optik 243 (2021) 167382

    M.-Y . Wang, Optical solitons of the perturbed nonlinear Schrödinger equation in Kerr media, Optik 243 (2021) 167382

    2021

  2. [10]

    H. Deng, H. Haug, Y . Yamamoto, Exciton-polariton Bose-Einstein con- densation, Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (2010) 1489

    2010

  3. [11]

    Byrnes, N

    T. Byrnes, N. Y . Kim, Y . Yamamoto, Exciton–polariton condensates, Nature Physics 10 (2014) 803–813

    2014

  4. [12]

    P. N. Glaskowsky, NVIDIA’s Fermi: The First Complete GPU Comput- ing Architecture, accessed: 2024-09-24 (2009). URL https://www.nvidia.com/content/pdf/fermi_white_ papers/p.glaskowsky_nvidia%27s_fermi-the_first_ complete_gpu_architecture.pdf

    2009

  5. [13]

    URL https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/pdf/CUDA_C_ Programming_Guide.pdf

    NVIDIA Corporation & a ffiliates, Cuda C ++ Programming Guide Version 12.6, accessed: 2024-09-24 (2024). URL https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/pdf/CUDA_C_ Programming_Guide.pdf

    2024

  6. [14]

    Y . R. Choi, V . Stegailov, GPU-accelerated matrix exponent for solving 1D time-dependent Schrödinger equation, in: V . V oevodin, S. Sobolev, M. Yakobovskiy, R. Shagaliev (Eds.), Supercomputing, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023, pp. 100–113

    2023

  7. [15]

    B. D. Smith, L. W. Cooke, L. J. LeBlanc, GPU-accelerated solutions of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation for simulating 2D spinor BECs, Computer Physics Communications 275 (2022) 108314

    2022

  8. [16]

    Lon ˇcar, A

    V . Lon ˇcar, A. Balaž, A. Bogojevi ´c, S. Škrbi ´c, P. Muruganandam, S. K. Adhikari, CUDA programs for solving the time-dependent dipo- lar Gross–Pitaevskii equation in an anisotropic trap, Computer Physics Communications 200 (2016) 406–410

    2016

  9. [17]

    Kivioja, S

    M. Kivioja, S. Mönkölä, T. Rossi, GPU-accelerated time integration of Gross-Pitaevskii equation with discrete exterior calculus, Computer Physics Communications 278 (2022) 108427

    2022

  10. [18]

    Jiang, X.-Y

    T. Jiang, X.-Y . Wei, Y . Li, D.-S. Wang, J.-Y . Yuan, A fast and accurate coupled meshless algorithm for the 2D /3D Gross–Pitaevskii equations on two GPUs, Computing 105 (2023) 2595–2620

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fioroni, L

    L. Fioroni, L. Gravina, J. Stefaniak, A. Baumgärtner, F. Finger, D. Dreon, T. Donner, A Python GPU-accelerated solver for the Gross- Pitaevskii equation and applications to many-body cavity QED, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14401 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Gaidamour, Q

    J. Gaidamour, Q. Tang, X. Antoine, BEC2HPC: A HPC spectral solver for nonlinear Schrödinger and rotating Gross-Pitaevskii equations. sta- tionary states computation, Computer Physics Communications 265 (2021) 108007

    2021

  13. [21]

    O. L. Berman, R. Y . Kezerashvili, G. V . Kolmakov, L. M. Pomirchi, Spontaneous formation and nonequilibrium dynamics of a soliton- shaped Bose-Einstein condensate in a trap, Physical Review E 91 (2015) 062901

    2015

  14. [22]

    Gothandaraman, S

    A. Gothandaraman, S. Sadatian, M. Faryniarz, O. L. Berman, G. V . Kol- makov, Application of graphics processing units (GPUs) to the study of non-linear dynamics of the exciton Bose-Einstein condensate in a semi- conductor quantum well, in: 2011 Symposium on Application Accele...

    2011

  15. [23]

    Wingenbach, D

    J. Wingenbach, D. Bauch, X. Ma, R. Schade, C. Plessl, S. Schumacher, PHOENIX: Paderborn highly optimized and energy e fficient solver for two-dimensional nonlinear Schrödinger equations with integrated extensions (Nov. 2024). doi:10.5281/zenodo.14228839. URL https://github.com...

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Program Generation, Optimization, and Platform Adaptation

    M. Frigo, S. G. Johnson, The design and implementation of FFTW3, Proceedings of the IEEE 93 (2005) 216–231, special issue on “Program Generation, Optimization, and Platform Adaptation”

    2005

  17. [25]

    Haidar, S

    A. Haidar, S. Tomov, J. Dongarra, N. J. Higham, Harnessing GPU ten- sor cores for fast FP16 arithmetic to speed up mixed-precision iterative refinement solvers, in: Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage, and Analysis, S...

    2018

  18. [26]

    N. J. Higham, S. Pranesh, M. Zounon, Squeezing a matrix into half pre- cision, with an application to solving linear systems, SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 41 (2019) A2536–A2551

    2019

  19. [27]

    N. J. Higham, T. Mary, Mixed precision algorithms in numerical linear algebra, Acta Numerica 31 (2022) 347–414

    2022

  20. [28]

    Schade, T

    R. Schade, T. Kenter, H. Elgabarty, M. Lass, O. Schütt, A. Lazzaro, H. Pabst, S. Mohr, J. Hutter, T. D. Kühne, C. Plessl, Towards electronic structure-based ab-initio molecular dynamics simulations with hundreds of millions of atoms, Parallel Computing 111 (2022) 102920

    2022

  21. [29]

    Abdelfattah, H

    A. Abdelfattah, H. Anzt, E. G. Boman, E. Carson, T. Cojean, J. Don- garra, A. Fox, M. Gates, N. J. Higham, X. S. Li, J. Loe, P. Luszczek, S. Pranesh, S. Rajamanickam, T. Ribizel, B. F. Smith, K. Swirydow- icz, S. Thomas, S. Tomov, Y . M. Tsai, U. M. Yang, A survey of nu- meric...

    2021

  22. [30]

    J. D. McCalpin, Memory bandwidth and machine balance in current high performance computers, IEEE Computer Society Technical Com- mittee on Computer Architecture (TCCA) Newsletter (1995) 19–25

    1995

  23. [31]

    J. D. McCalpin, STREAM: Sustainable memory bandwidth in high performance computers, Tech. rep., University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, a continually updated technical report. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/ (1991-2007). 15

    1991

  24. [32]

    Roehl, J

    T. Roehl, J. Treibig, G. Hager, G. Wellein, Overhead analysis of per- formance counter measurements, in: 43rd International Conference on Parallel Processing Workshops (ICCPW), 2014, pp. 176–185

    2014

  25. [33]

    Ernst, gpu-benches, version 1c36d509ee717dca9215c27135fa1e611bb03ed1, Accessed: 2024-11-05, (2024)

    D. Ernst, gpu-benches, version 1c36d509ee717dca9215c27135fa1e611bb03ed1, Accessed: 2024-11-05, (2024). URL https://github.com//te42kyfo/gpu-benches

    2024

  26. [34]

    URL https://nvdam.widen.net/content/hj0uek1pxq/ original/NVIDIA_H100_Tensor_Core_GPU_Architecture_ Whitepaper_V1.03.pdf

    NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA H100 Tensor Core GPU Architecture (2021). URL https://nvdam.widen.net/content/hj0uek1pxq/ original/NVIDIA_H100_Tensor_Core_GPU_Architecture_ Whitepaper_V1.03.pdf

    2021

  27. [35]

    URL https://images.nvidia.com/ aem-dam/Solutions/Data-Center/l4/ nvidia-ada-gpu-architecture-whitepaper-v2.1.pdf

    NVIDIA Corporation, NVIDIA ADA GPU ARCHITECTURE (2023). URL https://images.nvidia.com/ aem-dam/Solutions/Data-Center/l4/ nvidia-ada-gpu-architecture-whitepaper-v2.1.pdf

    2023

  28. [36]

    X. Ma, R. Driben, B. A. Malomed, T. Meier, S. Schumacher, Two- dimensional symbiotic solitons and vortices in binary condensates with attractive cross-species interaction, Scientific Reports 6 (2016) 34847

    2016

  29. [37]

    Pukrop, S

    M. Pukrop, S. Schumacher, X. Ma, Circular polarization reversal of half- vortex cores in polariton condensates, Physical Review B 101 (2020) 205301

    2020

  30. [38]

    Lüders, M

    C. Lüders, M. Pukrop, E. Rozas, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, J. Sperling, S. Schumacher, M. Aßmann, Quantifying quantum coherence in polari- ton condensates, PRX Quantum 2 (2021) 030320

    2021

  31. [39]

    Y . Li, X. Ma, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis, S. Schumacher, T. Gao, Switching off a microcavity polariton condensate near the exceptional point, ACS Photonics 9 (2022) 2079–2086

    2022

  32. [40]

    Schneider, W

    T. Schneider, W. Gao, T. Zentgraf, S. Schumacher, X. Ma, Topological edge and corner states in coupled wave lattices in nonlinear polariton condensates, Nanophotonics 13 (2024) 509

    2024

  33. [41]

    Lindberg, S

    M. Lindberg, S. W. Koch, Effective Bloch equations for semiconductors, Physical Review B 38 (1988) 3342

    1988

  34. [42]

    Takayama, N

    R. Takayama, N. Kwong, I. Rumyantsev, M. Kuwata-Gonokami, R. Binder, T-matrix analysis of biexcitonic correlations in the nonlinear optical response of semiconductor quantum wells, The European Physi- cal Journal B-Condensed Matter and Complex Systems 25 (2002) 445– 462

    2002

  35. [43]

    Wouters, I

    M. Wouters, I. Carusotto, Excitations in a nonequilibrium Bose-Einstein condensate of exciton polaritons, Physical Review Letters 99 (2007) 140402

    2007

  36. [44]

    Wingenbach, M

    J. Wingenbach, M. Pukrop, S. Schumacher, X. Ma, Dynamics of phase defects trapped in optically imprinted orbits in dissipative binary polari- ton condensates, Physical Review B 105 (2022) 245302

    2022

  37. [45]

    A. V . Kavokin, J. J. Baumberg, G. Malpuech, F. P. Laussy, Microcavities, V ol. 21, Oxford university press, 2017

    2017

  38. [46]

    H. Deng, G. Weihs, C. Santori, J. Bloch, Y . Yamamoto, Condensation of semiconductor microcavity exciton polaritons, Science 298 (2002) 199– 202

    2002

  39. [47]

    Kasprzak, M

    J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szyma ´nska, R. André, J. L. Staehli, V . Savona, P. B. Littlewood, B. Deveaud, L. S. Dang, Bose–Einstein condensation of exciton polaritons, Nature 443 (2006) 409–414

    2006

  40. [48]

    H. Deng, H. Haug, Y . Yamamoto, Exciton-polariton Bose-Einstein con- densation, Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (2010) 1489–1537

    2010

  41. [49]

    Wertz, L

    E. Wertz, L. Ferrier, D. D. Solnyshkov, R. Johne, D. Sanvitto, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, R. Grousson, A. V . Kavokin, P. Senellart, et al., Spontaneous formation and optical manipulation of extended polariton condensates, Nature Physics 6 (2010) 860–864

    2010

  42. [50]

    Sanvitto, S

    D. Sanvitto, S. Pigeon, A. Amo, D. Ballarini, M. De Giorgi, I. Carusotto, R. Hivet, F. Pisanello, V . G. Sala, P. S. S. Guimaraes, et al., All-optical control of the quantum flow of a polariton condensate, Nature Photonics 5 (2011) 610–614

    2011

  43. [51]

    Wertz, A

    E. Wertz, A. Amo, D. D. Solnyshkov, L. Ferrier, T. C. H. Liew, D. San- vitto, P. Senellart, I. Sagnes, A. Lemaître, A. V . Kavokin, G. Malpuech, J. Bloch, Propagation and amplification dynamics of 1D polariton con- densates, Physical Review Letters 109 (2012) 216404

    2012

  44. [52]

    Cristofolini, A

    P. Cristofolini, A. Dreismann, G. Christmann, G. Franchetti, N. G. Berloff, P. Tsotsis, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis, J. J. Baumberg, Op- tical superfluid phase transitions and trapping of polariton condensates, Physical Review Letters 110 (2013) 186403

    2013

  45. [53]

    Askitopoulos, H

    A. Askitopoulos, H. Ohadi, A. V . Kavokin, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Sav- vidis, P. G. Lagoudakis, Polariton condensation in an optically induced two-dimensional potential, Physical Review B 88 (2013) 041308(R)

    2013

  46. [54]

    Christopoulos, G

    S. Christopoulos, G. B. H. V on Högersthal, A. J. D. Grundy, P. G. Lagoudakis, A. V . Kavokin, J. J. Baumberg, G. Christmann, R. Butté, E. Feltin, J.-F. Carlin, et al., Room-temperature polariton lasing in semi- conductor microcavities, Physical Review Letters 98 (2007) 126405

    2007

  47. [55]

    K˛ edziora, A

    M. K˛ edziora, A. Opala, R. Mastria, L. De Marco, M. Król, K. Łempicka- Mirek, K. Tyszka, M. Ekielski, M. Guziewicz, K. Bogdanowicz, A. Sz- erling, H. Sigurðsson, T. Czyszanowski, J. Szczytko, M. Matuszewski, D. Sanvitto, B. Pi˛ etka, Predesigned perovskite crystal waveguides ...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Baas, J.-P

    A. Baas, J.-P. Karr, M. Romanelli, A. Bramati, E. Giacobino, Optical bistability in semiconductor microcavities in the nondegenerate para- metric oscillation regime: Analogy with the optical parametric oscil- lator, Physical Review B 70 (2004) 161307

    2004

  49. [57]

    N. A. Gippius, I. A. Shelykh, D. D. Solnyshkov, S. S. Gavrilov, Y . G. Rubo, A. V . Kavokin, S. G. Tikhodeev, G. Malpuech, Polarization multi- stability of cavity polaritons, Physical Review Letters 98 (2007) 236401

    2007

  50. [58]

    T. K. Paraïso, M. Wouters, Y . Léger, F. Morier-Genoud, B. Deveaud- Plédran, Multistability of a coherent spin ensemble in a semiconductor microcavity, Nature Materials 9 (2010) 655–660

    2010

  51. [59]

    Ballarini, M

    D. Ballarini, M. De Giorgi, E. Cancellieri, R. Houdré, E. Giacobino, R. Cingolani, A. Bramati, G. Gigli, D. Sanvitto, All-optical polariton transistor, Nature Communications 4 (2013) 1778

    2013

  52. [60]

    Mirek, A

    R. Mirek, A. Opala, P. Comaron, M. Furman, M. Król, K. Tyszka, B. Seredy ´nski, D. Ballarini, D. Sanvitto, T. C. H. Liew, W. Pacuski, J. Suffczy´nski, J. Szczytko, M. Matuszewski, B. Pi˛ etka, Neuromorphic binarized polariton networks, Nano Letters 21 (2021) 3715–3720

    2021

  53. [61]

    Y . G. Rubo, Half vortices in exciton polariton condensates, Physical Re- view Letters 99 (2007) 106401

    2007

  54. [62]

    K. G. Lagoudakis, T. Ostatnick `y, A. V . Kavokin, Y . G. Rubo, R. An- dré, B. Deveaud-Plédran, Observation of half-quantum vortices in an exciton-polariton condensate, Science 326 (2009) 974–976

    2009

  55. [63]

    Panzarini, L

    G. Panzarini, L. C. Andreani, A. Armitage, D. Baxter, M. S. Skolnick, V . N. Astratov, J. S. Roberts, A. V . Kavokin, M. R. Vladimirova, M. A. Kaliteevski, Exciton-light coupling in single and coupled semiconductor microcavities: Polariton dispersion and polarization splitting...

    1999

  56. [64]

    Kavokin, G

    A. Kavokin, G. Malpuech, M. Glazov, Optical spin Hall e ffect, Physical Review Letters 95 (2005) 136601

    2005

  57. [65]

    Leyder, M

    C. Leyder, M. Romanelli, J. P. Karr, E. Giacobino, T. C. H. Liew, M. M. Glazov, A. V . Kavokin, G. Malpuech, A. Bramati, Observation of the optical spin Hall effect, Nature Physics 3 (2007) 628–631

    2007

  58. [66]

    Lafont, S

    O. Lafont, S. M. H. Luk, P. Lewandowski, N. H. Kwong, P. T. Le- ung, E. Galopin, A. Lemaitre, J. Tignon, S. Schumacher, E. Baudin, R. Binder, Controlling the optical spin hall e ffect with light, Applied Physics Letters 110 (2017) 061108

    2017

  59. [67]

    S. M. H. Luk, H. Vergnet, O. Lafont, P. Lewandowski, N. H. Kwong, E. Galopin, A. Lemaitre, P. Roussignol, J. Tignon, S. Schumacher, R. Binder, B. E, All-optical beam steering using the polariton lighthouse effect, ACS Photonics 8 (2021) 449

    2021

  60. [68]

    Flayac, D

    H. Flayac, D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, Oblique half-solitons and their generation in exciton-polariton condensates, Physical Review B 83 (2011) 193305

    2011

  61. [69]

    Hivet, H

    R. Hivet, H. Flayac, D. D. Solnyshkov, D. Tanese, T. Boulier, D. An- dreoli, E. Giacobino, J. Bloch, A. Bramati, G. Malpuech, et al., Half- solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles, Nature Physics 8 (2012) 724–728

    2012

  62. [70]

    Vladimirova, S

    M. Vladimirova, S. Cronenberger, D. Scalbert, K. V . Kavokin, A. Mi- ard, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, A. V . Kavokin, Polariton-polariton interaction constants in microcavities, Physical Re- view B 82 (2010) 075301

    2010

  63. [71]

    Boulier, M

    T. Boulier, M. Bamba, A. Amo, C. Adrados, A. Lemaitre, E. Galopin, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, C. Ciuti, E. Giacobino, A. Bramati, Polariton- generated intensity squeezing in semiconductor micropillars, Nature Communications 5 (2014) 3260

    2014

  64. [72]

    J. C. López Carreño, C. Sánchez Muñoz, D. Sanvitto, E. del Valle, F. P. Laussy, Exciting polaritons with quantum light, Physical Review Letters 115 (2015) 196402

    2015

  65. [73]

    Lüders, M

    C. Lüders, M. Pukrop, F. Barkhausen, E. Rozas, C. Schneider, 16 S. Höfling, J. Sperling, S. Schumacher, M. Aßmann, Tracking quan- tum coherence in polariton condensates with time-resolved tomography, Physical Review Letters 130 (2023) 113601

    2023

  66. [74]

    Lüders, F

    C. Lüders, F. Barkhausen, M. Pukrop, E. Rozas, J. Sperling, S. Schu- macher, M. Aßmann, Continuous-variable quantum optics and resource theory for ultrafast semiconductor spectroscopy, Optical Materials Ex- press 13 (2023) 2997–3035

    2023

  67. [75]

    St-Jean, V

    P. St-Jean, V . Goblot, E. Galopin, A. Lemaître, T. Ozawa, L. Le Gratiet, I. Sagnes, J. Bloch, A. Amo, Lasing in topological edge states of a one- dimensional lattice, Nature Photonics 11 (2017) 651–656

    2017

  68. [76]

    W. A. Benalcazar, B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, Quantized electric mul- tipole insulators, Science 357 (2017) 61–66

    2017

  69. [77]

    Obana, F

    D. Obana, F. Liu, K. Wakabayashi, Topological edge states in the su- schrieffer-heeger model, Physical Review B 100 (2019) 075437

    2019

  70. [78]

    Z. Wang, Y . Chong, J. D. Joannopoulos, M. Soljaˇci´c, Observation of uni- directional backscattering-immune topological electromagnetic states, Nature 461 (2009) 772–775

    2009

  71. [79]

    Klembt, T

    S. Klembt, T. H. Harder, O. A. Egorov, K. Winkler, R. Ge, M. A. Ban- dres, M. Emmerling, L. Worschech, T. C. H. Liew, M. Segev, C. Schnei- der, S. Hö"fling, Exciton-polariton topological insulator, Nature 562 (2018) 552

    2018

  72. [80]

    N = 9000, L = 900 µm, meff = 10−4me,γ = 0.005 ps−1, g = 2 µeVµm2, E± = E0exp (−iωt), dW = 0,γr = 0, ∆LT = 0, gr = 0

  73. [81]

    Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, V ol

    T. Kato, Perturbation theory for linear operators, V ol. 132, Springer Sci- ence & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  74. [82]

    Wiersig, Nonorthogonality constraints in open quantum and wave sys- tems, Physical Review Research 1 (2019) 033182

    J. Wiersig, Nonorthogonality constraints in open quantum and wave sys- tems, Physical Review Research 1 (2019) 033182

    2019

  75. [83]

    M. V . Berry, Physics of non-Hermitian degeneracies, Czechoslovak Journal of Physics 54 (2004) 1039–1047

    2004

  76. [84]

    C. M. Bender, Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians, Reports on Progress in Physics 70 (2007) 947

    2007

  77. [85]

    W. D. Heiss, Exceptional points of non-Hermitian operators, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 37 (2004) 2455

    2004

  78. [86]

    W. D. Heiss, The physics of exceptional points, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 45 (2012) 444016

    2012

  79. [87]

    Dembowski, H.-D

    C. Dembowski, H.-D. Gräf, H. L. Harney, A. Heine, W. D. Heiss, H. Re- hfeld, A. Richter, Experimental observation of the topological structure of exceptional points, Physical Review Letters 86 (2001) 787

    2001

  80. [88]

    Y . Choi, S. Kang, S. Lim, W. Kim, J.-R. Kim, J.-H. Lee, K. An, Quasieigenstate coalescence in an atom-cavity quantum composite, Physical Review Letters 104 (2010) 153601

    2010

  81. [89]

    Kodigala, T

    A. Kodigala, T. Lepetit, B. Kanté, Exceptional points in three- dimensional plasmonic nanostructures, Physical Review B 94 (2016) 201103

    2016

  82. [90]

    A. Guo, G. J. Salamo, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, M. V olatier-Ravat, V . Aimez, G. A. Siviloglou, D. N. Christodoulides, Observation of PT- symmetry breaking in complex optical potentials, Physical Review Let- ters 103 (2009) 093902

    2009

  83. [91]

    S.-B. Lee, J. Yang, S. Moon, S.-Y . Lee, J.-B. Shim, S. W. Kim, . f. J.- H. Lee, K. An, Observation of an exceptional point in a chaotic optical microcavity, Physical Review Letters 103 (2009) 134101

    2009

  84. [92]

    Fruchart, R

    M. Fruchart, R. Hanai, P. B. Littlewood, V . Vitelli, Non-reciprocal phase transitions, Nature 592 (2021) 363–369

    2021

  85. [93]

    Zhang, F

    H. Zhang, F. Saif, Y . Jiao, H. Jing, Loss-induced transparency in op- tomechanics, Optics Express 26 (2018) 25199–25210

    2018

  86. [94]

    Z. Lin, H. Ramezani, T. Eichelkraut, T. Kottos, H. Cao, D. N. Christodoulides, Unidirectional invisibility induced by PT-symmetric periodic structures, Physical Review Letters 106 (2011) 213901

    2011

  87. [95]

    El-Ganainy, M

    R. El-Ganainy, M. Khajavikhan, L. Ge, Exceptional points and lasing self-termination in photonic molecules, Physical Review A 90 (2014) 013802

    2014

  88. [96]

    Chen, ¸ S

    W. Chen, ¸ S. Kaya Özdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, L. Yang, Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity, Nature 548 (2017) 192–196

    2017

  89. [97]

    Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photonics Re- search 8 (2020) 1457–1467

    J. Wiersig, Review of exceptional point-based sensors, Photonics Re- search 8 (2020) 1457–1467

    2020

  90. [98]

    Mandal, E

    I. Mandal, E. J. Bergholtz, Symmetry and higher-order exceptional points, Physical Review Letters 127 (2021) 186601

    2021

  91. [99]

    T. Gao, E. Estrecho, K. Y . Bliokh, T. C. H. Liew, M. D. Fraser, S. Brod- beck, M. Kamp, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, Y . Yamamoto, et al., Ob- servation of non-Hermitian degeneracies in a chaotic exciton-polariton billiard, Nature 526 (2015) 554–558

    2015

  92. [100]

    T. Gao, G. Li, E. Estrecho, T. C. H. Liew, D. Comber-Todd, A. Nalitov, M. Steger, K. West, L. Pfei ffer, D. W. Snoke, et al., Chiral modes at exceptional points in exciton-polariton quantum fluids, Physical Review Letters 120 (2018) 065301

    2018

  93. [101]

    Hanai, A

    R. Hanai, A. Edelman, Y . Ohashi, P. B. Littlewood, Non-Hermitian phase transition from a polariton Bose-Einstein condensate to a photon laser, Physical Review Letters 122 (2019) 185301

    2019

  94. [102]

    Rahmani, A

    A. Rahmani, A. Opala, M. Matuszewski, Exceptional points and phase transitions in non-hermitian nonlinear binary systems, Physical Review B 109 (2024) 085311

    2024

  95. [103]

    Wingenbach, S

    J. Wingenbach, S. Schumacher, X. Ma, Manipulating spectral topology and exceptional points by nonlinearity in non-Hermitian polariton sys- tems, Physical Review Research 6 (2024) 013148

    2024

  96. [104]

    N = 200, L = 20 µm, meff = 0.5· 10−4me, γ = 0.16 ps−1, γr = 1.5γ, g = 6 µeVµm2, gr = 2g, R = 0.01 ps−1µm2, gx = 0, ∆LT = 0, E± = 0, dW = 0

  97. [105]

    Kuster, Y

    O. Kuster, Y . Augenstein, C. Rockstuhl, T. J. Sturges, Inverse design of polaritonic devices, Applied Physics Letters 125 (2004) 181102

    2004

  98. [106]

    K. G. Lagoudakis, M. Wouters, M. Richard, A. Baas, I. Carusotto, R. André, L. S. Dang, B. Deveaud-Plédran, Quantized vortices in an exciton–polariton condensate, Nature Physics 4 (2008) 706–710

    2008

  99. [107]

    Sanvitto, F

    D. Sanvitto, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szyma ´nska, G. Tosi, M. Baud- isch, F. P. Laussy, D. N. Krizhanovskii, M. S. Skolnick, L. Marrucci, A. Lemaitre, et al., Persistent currents and quantized vortices in a polari- ton superfluid, Nature Physics 6 (2010) 527–533

    2010

  100. [108]

    Roumpos, M

    G. Roumpos, M. D. Fraser, A. Lö ffler, S. Höfling, A. Forchel, Y . Ya- mamoto, Single vortex–antivortex pair in an exciton-polariton conden- sate, Nature Physics 7 (2011) 129–133

    2011

  101. [109]

    T. C. H. Liew, O. A. Egorov, M. Matuszewski, O. Kyriienko, X. Ma, E. A. Ostrovskaya, Instability-induced formation and nonequilibrium dynamics of phase defects in polariton condensates, Physical Review B 91 (2015) 085413

    2015

  102. [110]

    N. B. Baranova, A. V . Mamaev, N. F. Pilipetsky, V . V . Shkunov, B. Y . Zel’dovich, Wave-front dislocations: topological limitations for adaptive systems with phase conjugation, JOSA 73 (1983) 525–528

    1983

  103. [111]

    X. Ma, S. Schumacher, V ortex-vortex control in exciton-polariton con- densates, Physical Review B 95 (2017) 235301

    2017

  104. [112]

    Y . Xue, I. Chestnov, E. Sedov, E. Kiktenko, A. K. Fedorov, S. Schu- macher, X. Ma, A. Kavokin, Split-ring polariton condensates as macro- scopic two-level quantum systems, Physical Review Research 3 (2021) 013099

    2021

  105. [113]

    Barrat, A

    J. Barrat, A. F. Tzortzakakis, M. Niu, X. Zhou, G. G. Paschos, D. Pet- rosyan, P. G. Savvidis, Qubit analog with polariton superfluid in an an- nular trap, Science Advances 10 (2024) eado4042

    2024

  106. [114]

    K. G. Lagoudakis, F. Manni, B. Pietka, M. Wouters, T. C. H. Liew, V . Savona, A. V . Kavokin, R. André, B. Deveaud-Plédran, Probing the dynamics of spontaneous quantum vortices in polariton superfluids, Physical Review Letters 106 (2011) 115301

    2011

  107. [115]

    E. A. Ostrovskaya, J. Abdullaev, A. S. Desyatnikov, M. D. Fraser, Y . S. Kivshar, Dissipative solitons and vortices in polariton Bose-Einstein condensates, Physical Review A 86 (2012) 013636

    2012

  108. [116]

    X. Ma, B. Berger, M. Aßmann, R. Driben, T. Meier, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, S. Schumacher, Realization of all-optical vortex switching in exciton-polariton condensates, Nature Communications 11 (2020) 897

    2020

  109. [117]

    S. W. Seo, S. Kang, W. J. Kwon, Y .-i. Shin, Half-quantum vortices in an antiferromagnetic spinor Bose-Einstein condensate, Physical Review Letters 115 (2015) 015301

    2015

  110. [118]

    S. W. Seo, W. J. Kwon, S. Kang, Y . Shin, Collisional dynamics of half- quantum vortices in a spinor Bose-Einstein condensate, Physical Review Letters 116 (2016) 185301

    2016

  111. [119]

    Manni, Y

    F. Manni, Y . Léger, Y . G. Rubo, R. André, B. Deveaud, Hyperbolic spin vortices and textures in exciton–polariton condensates, Nature Commu- nications 4 (2013) 2590

    2013

  112. [120]

    N = 500, L = 100 µm, meff = 10−4me, γ = 0.15 ps−1, γr = 1.5γ, g = 3 µeVµm2, gr = 2g, R = 0.01 ps−1µm2, gx = 0.2g, ∆LT = 0.025 meVµm2, E± = 0, V = 0, dW = 0

  113. [121]

    A. P. D. Love, D. N. Krizhanovskii, D. M. Whittaker, R. Bouchekioua, D. Sanvitto, S. A. Rizeiqi, R. Bradley, M. S. Skolnick, P. R. East- ham, R. André, L. S. Dang, Intrinsic decoherence mechanisms in the microcavity polariton condensate, Physical Review Letters 101 (2008) 17 067404

    2008

  114. [122]

    Horikiri, P

    T. Horikiri, P. Schwendimann, A. Quattropani, S. Höfling, A. Forchel, Y . Yamamoto, Higher order coherence of exciton-polariton condensates, Physical Review B 81 (2010) 033307

    2010

  115. [123]

    A. F. Adiyatullin, M. D. Anderson, P. V . Busi, H. Abbaspour, R. André, M. T. Portella-Oberli, B. Deveaud, Temporally resolved second-order photon correlations of exciton-polariton Bose-Einstein condensate for- mation, Applied Physics Letters 107 (2015) 221107

    2015

  116. [124]

    Klaas, E

    M. Klaas, E. Schlottmann, H. Flayac, F. P. Laussy, F. Gericke, M. Schmidt, M. v. Helversen, J. Beyer, S. Brodbeck, H. Suchomel, S. Höfling, S. Reitzenstein, C. Schneider, Photon-number-resolved mea- surement of an exciton-polariton condensate, Physical Review Letters 121 (2018) 047401

    2018

  117. [125]

    Carusotto, C

    I. Carusotto, C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Reviews of Modern Physics 85 (2013) 299

    2013

  118. [126]

    Sinatra, C

    A. Sinatra, C. Lobo, Y . Castin, The truncated Wigner method for Bose- condensed gases: limits of validity andapplications, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 35 (2002) 3599

    2002

  119. [127]

    Wouters, V

    M. Wouters, V . Savona, Stochastic classical field model for polariton condensates, Physical Review B 79 (2009) 165302

    2009

  120. [128]

    Alnatah, P

    H. Alnatah, P. Comaron, S. Mukherjee, J. Beaumariage, L. N. Pfei ffer, K. West, K. Baldwin, M. Szymanska, D. W. Snoke, Critical fluctuations in a confined driven-dissipative quantum condensate, Science Advances 10 (2024) eadi6762

    2024

  121. [129]

    N = 257, L = 230.4 µm, meff = 10−4me, γ = 0.2 ps−1, γr = 1.5γ, g = 6 µeVµm2, gr = 2g, R = 0.015 ps−1µm2, gx = 0, ∆LT = 0, E± = 0, V = 0, dW = 1

  122. [130]

    Bauer, T

    C. Bauer, T. Kenter, M. Lass, L. Mazur, M. Meyer, H. Nitsche, H. Riebler, R. Schade, M. Schwarz, N. Winnwa, et al., Noctua 2 su- percomputer, Journal of large-scale research facilities 9 (2024). 18

    2024

Pith tools

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