Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A nanolaser with extreme dielectric confinement

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dielectric nanobridge cavity can confine both the optical field and the excited-carrier population in the same subwavelength hotspot, achieving room-temperature continuous-wave lasing with a threshold power density near 5 kW/cm².

desk verdict A real CW room-temperature dielectric nanolaser with a useful new metric, but the self-alignment story leans on fitted parameters and should be checked against direct S measurements. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02844 v1 pith:MZ572WLR submitted 2024-12-03 physics.optics

Meng Xiong , Yi Yu , Yury Berdnikov , Simon Klinck Borregaard , Adrian Holm Dubré , Elizaveta Semenova , Kresten Yvind , Jesper M{o}rk This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics PACS 42.55.Sa42.60.Da
keywords extremedielectricconfinementnanolaserinteractionvolumecarrierlocalizationmodecontinuous-wavelasingsurfacepassivationphotoniccrystalnanocavity
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 laser cavity need not trade away light–matter interaction to achieve deep subwavelength optical confinement. Its central claim is that a dielectric nanobridge can localize the electromagnetic field and the excited electron–hole population in the same 'hotspot,' producing a mode volume of $0.88\,(\lambda/2n)^3$ and a carrier volume as small as $0.28\,(\lambda/n)^3$ while lasing continuously at room temperature with a threshold power density around $5\,\mathrm{kW\,cm^{-2}}$. This matters because previous extreme-confinement dielectric and void cavities concentrated light where there was no gain material, so they needed pulsed pumping or careful placement of quantum emitters. If the claim holds, dielectric nanostructuring alone can give practical low-threshold nanolasers, and the right design target is the spatial overlap of photons and carriers, not the optical mode volume alone.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interaction volume $V_I$, defined from the normalized photon density $N_p(\mathbf{r})$ and carrier density $N_c(\mathbf{r})$ by $V_I = \left(\int N_p N_c\,d\mathbf{r}\right)^{-1}$. It generalizes the optical mode volume to gain media with many emitters: for a uniform carrier distribution it reduces to the conventional optical volume $V_a/\Gamma$, and for a point emitter to $V_{mod}$. The paper's threshold relation $n_{c,th}=n_{tr}+V_I\omega_c/(gQ)$ makes minimizing $V_I$ — not $V_{mod}$ — the operative design goal. The physical mechanism that achieves a small $V_I$ is the EDC nanobridge: its sharp edges concentrate the mode field, its quasi-1D geometry suppresses carrier diffusion, and the pump-excited field pattern at 980 nm selectively excites the smallest-mode-volume mode, so photons and carriers land on the same spot without quantum-confined active regions.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the surface recombination velocity of the MOVPE-annealed, Al2O3-sealed InP sidewalls, for example by time-resolved photoluminescence of identically processed ridges, would settle whether the fitted 2500 cm/s is realistic; if the measured value is closer to the roughly 7000 cm/s reported for thin dielectric caps, the simulated carrier localization and threshold benefit are overstated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a form of self-aligned extreme dielectric confinement. In a thin InP membrane with embedded quantum wells, a central 80 nm dielectric nanobridge enforces electromagnetic boundary conditions that squeeze the lasing mode into a sub-diffraction hotspot. The same sharp-edged geometry shapes the pump-excited field so that, under 980 nm pumping, photogenerated carriers are concentrated at precisely that hotspot; the quasi-one-dimensional bridge also throttles carrier diffusion, and the locally enhanced spontaneous-emission factor keeps carriers from leaking into non-lasing modes. The paper reports continuous-wave room-temperature lasing at 1535 nm with a threshold of about 5 kW/cm², a mode volume of $0.88(\lambda/2n)^3$, a carrier volume of $0.28(\lambda/n)^3$, and an interaction volume of $4.2(\lambda/n)^3$ under 980 nm pumping, versus $31(\lambda/n)^3$ for the same-footprint photonic-crystal H0 reference laser.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison rests on the model's fitted surface recombination velocity of 2500 cm/s for the passivated nanobridge sidewalls; if the actual passivation leaves faster recombination, the concentrated carriers would drain away faster and the threshold advantage would shrink.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Continuous-wave room-temperature lasing becomes compatible with mode volumes below the diffraction limit in all-dielectric structures, removing the need for metallic or cryogenic operation.
  • For lasers with extended gain regions, the interaction volume $V_I$ supersedes $V_{mod}$ as the figure of merit, and carrier localization can be engineered by dielectric geometry rather than by nano-patterning the gain material.
  • The threshold advantage over the same-footprint H0 photonic-crystal laser persists under both 980 nm and 1310 nm pumping, implying the benefit is not tied to a specially tuned pump wavelength.
  • The self-alignment effect implies that shrinking the mode volume can improve, rather than worsen, carrier confinement in active nanocavities, contrary to the behavior reported in optical-switch studies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same geometric principle should transfer to other semiconductor optoelectronic devices—modulators, detectors, and sensors—where photogenerated carriers need to overlap a tightly confined optical field.
  • The paper leaves the electrical-injection case implicit: replacing the Gaussian pump pattern by a current-density profile in the same rate-equation model would yield an interaction volume for electrically pumped nanolasers and a corresponding threshold-current target.
  • A direct test of the carrier-localization mechanism would be to fabricate bridges with a range of widths and measure threshold versus pump spot size; the model predicts an optimum width that depends on spot size because $V_{car}$ and the confinement factor $\Gamma_{xy}$ trade off.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a room-temperature continuous-wave InP quantum-well nanolaser based on a dielectric nanobridge ('extreme dielectric confinement', EDC) with a simulated mode volume of 0.88(λ/2n)^3, and claims a much smaller carrier volume (0.28(λ/n)^3 at 980 nm pumping) through co-localization of the optical mode and the pump-generated carrier distribution. The authors introduce an 'interaction volume' VI that generalizes the mode-volume concept to spatially extended gain media, and they use a 2D rate-equation model to argue that the threshold is proportional to VI. They compare the EDC laser with a photonic-crystal H0 nanolaser and report a lower threshold (down to 12 dB after absorbed-power normalization) despite a lower Q-factor. The central narrative is that the dielectric nanostructure not only localizes light but also spontaneously localizes excited carriers, leading to self-alignment of light and matter.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, this is an important advance: it demonstrates a practical dielectric route to sub-diffraction-limit lasing without the ohmic losses of plasmonics, and it proposes a useful metric (VI) that connects mode volume, carrier localization, and laser threshold. The experimental core is credible: CW room-temperature lasing is supported by an S-curve, a single-mode spectrum, a resolution-limited linewidth, and a far-field pattern, and the comparison with a PhC H0 laser is carefully normalized. The analytic derivation of Pth ∝ VI from the rate equations is internally consistent, and the limiting cases (VI reducing to the conventional optical volume and to Vmod) are reassuring. The main weakness, acknowledged partly in the SI, is that the quantitative co-localization and threshold-advantage claims are model outputs obtained with a surface recombination velocity fitted to the same class of data, and the pump-absorption normalization is also simulation-based. This does not invalidate the device demonstration, but it makes the 'extreme confinement of both light and matter' narrative quantitatively model-dependent rather than directly established.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI C.2.3 and Table S2] The surface recombination velocity S=2500 cm/s is explicitly stated to be 'extracted from theoretical fitting', and the gain linearization parameter N_s is also fitted to experimental data. The simulated carrier profiles in Fig. 3d, the quoted Vcar and VI values, and the threshold advantage in Fig. 4d are all outputs of this model. As the authors themselves note, S for a comparable 5-nm Al2O3 cap in Ref. [19] is about 7000 cm/s, so the fitted value is not conservative. Please provide an independent estimate of S (e.g., time-resolved photoluminescence on identically passivated test structures) or a sensitivity analysis over a plausible range (e.g., S = 500–7000 cm/s and a reasonable variation of N_s) showing that the central conclusions are robust. Without this, the central claim that carriers are dielectrically confined to the hotspot is not independently established.
  2. [Eq. (S.31) and Fig. 4d] The reported up-to-12 dB threshold reduction is presented after normalizing the input powers using simulated pump-excited field patterns so that the absorbed powers are equal for the EDC and PhC lasers. This normalization is computed from the same FDTD model that provides the carrier-generation profiles. If the fabricated geometry deviates from the simulated one (e.g., in bridge width, sidewall angle, or Al2O3 thickness), the normalization itself could shift ΔPth, potentially creating or enlarging the apparent advantage. Please quantify the sensitivity of the normalized threshold difference to plausible fabrication deviations, or support the normalization with a measured absorption comparison.
  3. [Discussion and SI D.3, Eq. (3)/(S.30)] The numerical values of VI should be reconciled with the stated inputs. Taking Vmod = 0.88(λ/(2n))^3 = 0.11(λ/n)^3, Vcar = 0.28(λ/n)^3 for 980 nm pumping, Γ_xy = 0.93, and Γ_z = 0.096 from Table S2, Eq. (3) gives VI ≈ 3.3(λ/n)^3, not the reported 4.2(λ/n)^3. Please clarify whether Γ in Eq. (3) is the total confinement factor or only the vertical factor, and report the directly computed VI from Eq. (S.13) alongside the Gaussian approximation so that the numerical consistency of the central metric can be assessed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text after Fig. 1] The text refers to 'Fig. 1e' for the simulated photon and carrier density distributions, but those distributions appear in Fig. 1c; Fig. 1e shows SEM images. Please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [References (main text vs SI)] The reference numbering differs between the main text and the SI: main-text Ref. [19] is Thompson et al. on computational limits, while SI Ref. [19] is Higuera-Rodriguez et al. on surface recombination. This is confusing; please use separate numbering or explicitly label SI references.
  3. [Eq. (2), main text] Eq. (2) introduces ntr and VI before their definitions are given; please define them at first use in the main text or point to the SI definition immediately.
  4. [Fig. 4d caption] The caption says 'On the left (right), the pump focus is below (above) the membrane', but the panel also includes a central Hf = 0 point; please clarify the labeling so that the three focal-height regimes are unambiguous.
  5. [Data availability] Because the quantitative claims rely heavily on simulations, please consider releasing the simulation scripts and the full parameter set (including the fitting procedure for S and N_s) so that the sensitivity of the results can be independently checked.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Carrier-localization and threshold-advantage predictions rest on a surface-recombination velocity fitted to the same data, but the measured lasing demonstration and threshold ordering are independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [SI Section C.2.3 and Table S2; Eqs. (S.6), (S.14)-(S.16); Fig. 3 caption]
    "Notably, a surface recombination velocity of S = 2500 cm/s is extracted from theoretical fitting, much lower than the state-of-the-art values [17], [18]. // 'Experimental results (dots) align closely with theoretical predictions (solid lines), illustrating a lower threshold for the EDC than the PhC laser.'"

    The 2D laser model's carrier equation (S.6) uses surface recombination as a Neumann boundary condition with velocity S. S is stated to be 'extracted from theoretical fitting' (SI C.2.3), i.e., calibrated to the measured input-output/threshold behavior of these devices. The same model then produces the 'theoretical predictions' for those measured curves and, more importantly, the carrier-density profiles, Vcar, VI, and threshold differences that constitute the central claim of carrier localization and self-alignment. Thus the quantitative prediction of a lower threshold and of carrier localization is partly an output of the fit rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The paper's derivation of the interaction volume VI and the relation Pth proportional to nc,th is a legitimate analytical consequence of its rate-equation model: VI is defined via the overlap integral of normalized photon and carrier densities, and the threshold carrier number is derived from the photon and carrier rate equations, not assumed. The measured device demonstration (CW room-temperature lasing at 5 kW/cm2, single-mode spectrum, linewidth narrowing, threshold ordering versus the PhC H0 laser) is experimental and does not reduce to any fit. The main circularity concern is concentrated in the modeling: the surface recombination velocity S = 2500 cm/s is explicitly 'extracted from theoretical fitting' (SI C.2.3), and this same model generates the theoretical curves labeled as 'predictions' in Fig. 3 and the carrier-density, Vcar, and VI values that support the 'extreme dielectric confinement of both light and matter' and 'self-alignment' claims. Because S directly controls how strongly carriers remain localized in the nanobridge, the quantitative localization advantage is partly a consequence of the fitted parameter rather than an independent validation. Still, the paper is transparent about the fitting, reports independent data on passivation, focal-height dependence, and 20-device statistics, and does not rely on a self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem. The central experimental result is self-contained; the quantitative carrier-localization narrative is model-dependent. Overall, partial but not fundamental circularity, corresponding to a score of 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical values (V_car, V_I, threshold differences) come from a rate-equation model whose parameters include at least two explicit fit quantities (S and N_s). The measured CW lasing itself is independent of these, but the quantitative explanation of the low threshold and the self-alignment mechanism is model-dependent.

free parameters (2)
  • Surface recombination velocity S = 2500 cm/s (25 m/s in Table S2)
    Extracted from theoretical fitting of threshold curves; it determines how strongly carriers are lost at etched sidewalls and therefore shapes the predicted carrier localization and threshold advantage.
  • Carrier linear parameter N_s = 0.6e24 m^-3
    Described as the 'linear parameter' employed to fit experimental data in the QW gain model (SI C.2.1). It affects the gain and thus the threshold current predictions.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Carrier transport obeys ambipolar diffusion with constant diffusion coefficient D and Neumann surface recombination boundary condition; drift is neglected.
    Used in the 2D laser model (SI C.2.1, Eqs. S.6-S.7) that generates the simulated carrier distributions and threshold predictions.
  • domain assumption The spontaneous emission factor beta_i can be computed from a finite series of quasi-normal modes within a 150 nm wavelength window, excluding nonradiative recombination.
    Underpins the claim that enhanced beta at the hotspot preserves carriers and causes self-alignment (SI C.1, Eq. S.3).
  • domain assumption The carrier generation profile equals the FDTD-computed pump-excited field intensity |E_p|^2 for an ideal Gaussian beam, imported into the rate equations.
    The self-alignment mechanism depends on the simulated pump pattern matching the real focused beam and fabricated device (SI E.1).
  • domain assumption The QW gain follows a phenomenological logarithmic model with parameters g0, N_tr, N_s from literature or fitting.
    Used to relate carrier density to gain and threshold; the empirical fit parameter N_s is not independently measured (SI C.2.1).
  • domain assumption Carrier density separates as N_ca(r)=N(x,y)N_z(z) with uniform N_z and an effective QW thickness of 20 nm.
    Reduces the 3D problem to 2D; vertical field and carrier variations are treated as minor (SI C.2.1, Eq. S.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A nanolaser with extreme dielectric confinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MZ572WLR

@misc{pith2026241202844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A nanolaser with extreme dielectric confinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MZ572WLR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02844}
}
read the original abstract

The interaction between light and matter can be enhanced by spatially concentrating the light field to boost the photon energy density and increasing the photon dwell time to prolong energy transfer between light and matter. Traditionally, strong spatial light localization has been achieved using plasmonics, which, despite its effectiveness, entails ohmic losses. Recent advances in nanostructured dielectrics offer an avenue for achieving strong light confinement without metallic losses. However, previous studies primarily focused on minimizing the optical mode volume without adequately addressing light-matter interactions. Here, we develop a nanolaser that simultaneously localizes the electromagnetic field and excited carriers within the same region of a dielectric nanobridge. This extreme dielectric confinement of both light and matter achieves a mode volume below the diffraction limit and a subwavelength carrier volume without the introduction of lateral quantum confinement, enabling continuous-wave lasing at room-temperature. Moreover, we observe a strong correlation between the mode field and carrier distribution, and unexpectedly, the enhanced mode field localization automatically leads to more pronounced carrier localization, promoting self-alignment of light and matter, which significantly reduces the laser threshold. We quantify the intensified light-matter interaction with a newly proposed interaction volume, which generalizes the concept of mode volume to a broad class of active media. Our work lays the ground for developing ultra-efficient optoelectronic devices by greatly enhancing light-matter interactions through advanced material nanostructuring.

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

  1. Strong coupling between a dielectric nanocavity and a monolayer transition metal dichalcogenide

    physics.optics 2025-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An InP extreme-confinement nanocavity and a monolayer of MoTe2 show clear avoided crossing with a light-matter coupling of about 5 meV, exceeding the system losses by a factor of two.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [19]

    E., Smalbrugge, E., van Veldhoven, P

    Higuera-Rodriguez, A., Romeira, B., Birindelli, S., Black, L. E., Smalbrugge, E., van Veldhoven, P. J., Kessels, W. M. M., Smit, M. K. & Fiore, A. Ultr alow surface recombination velocity in passivated InGaAs/InP nanopillars. Nano Lett. 17, 2627–2633 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Y ., Kim, C

    Suh, J. Y ., Kim, C. H., Zhou, W., Huntington, M. D., Co, D. T., Wasielewski, M. R. & Odom, T. W. Plasmonic bowtie nanolaser arrays. Nano Lett. 12, 5769–5774 (2012). 28

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    H., Kang, J

    Kwon, S. H., Kang, J. H., Seassal, C ., Kim, S. K., Regreny, P., Lee, Y . H., Lieber, C. M. & Park, H. G. Subwavelength plasmonic lasing from a semiconductor nanodisk with silver nanopan cavity. Nano Lett. 10, 3679–3683 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    S., Pan, S

    Jiang, S., Belogolovskii, D ., Deka, S. S., Pan, S. H. & Fainman, Y . Experimental demonstration of mode selection in bridge-coupled metallo-dielectric nanolasers. Opt. Lett. 46, 6027–6030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    & Ning, C

    Xu, J., Zhang, T., Li, Y ., Zhang, J., Wang, Z., Kan, Q., Zhang, R. & Ning, C. Z. Room-temperture low- threshold plasmonic nanolaser through mode-tailoring at communication wavelengths. Laser & Photon. Rev. 2200322 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Ouyang, Y ., Luan, H., Zhao, Z., Mao, W. & Ma, R. Si ngular dielectric nanolaser with atomic-scale field localization. Nature 632, 287–293 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    & Baba, T

    Kita, S., Nozaki, K., Hachuda, S., Watanabe, H., Saito , Y ., Otsuka, S., Nakada, T., Arita, Y . & Baba, T. Photonic crystal point-shift nanolasers with and without nanoslots-design, fabrication, lasing, and sensing characteristics. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quant. 17, 1632–1647(2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    C., Yin, L

    Ding, K., Liu, Z. C., Yin, L. J., Hill, M. T., Marell, M. J. H., van Veldhoven, P. J., Nöetzel, R. & Ning, C. Z. Room-temperature continuous wave lasing in deep-subwavelength metallic cavities under electrical injection. Phys. Rev. B 85, 041301 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    E., Schröder, F., Yu, Y ., Casses, L

    Xiong, M., Christiansen, R. E., Schröder, F., Yu, Y ., Casses, L. N., Semenova, E., Yvind, K., Stenger, N., Sigmund, O. & Mørk, J. Experimental realization of deep sub-wavelength confinement of light in a topology- optimized InP nanocavity. Opt. Mat. Express 14, 397–406 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Quantum theory of radiation

    Fermi, E. Quantum theory of radiation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 4, 87–132 (1932)

    1932

  3. [11]

    & Corzine, S

    Coldren, L. & Corzine, S. Diode Lasers and Photonic Integrated Circuits (Wiley, ed. 2, 2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    & Baba, T

    Nozaki, K., Kita, S. & Baba, T. Room temperature c ontinuous wave operation and controlled spontaneous emission in ultrasmall photonic crystal nanolaser. Opt. Express 15, 7506–7514 (2007)

    2007

  5. [13]

    & Baba, T

    Nozaki, K. & Baba, T. Carrier and photon analyses of photonic microlasers by two-dimensional rate equations. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 23, 1411–1417 (2005). 29

    2005

  6. [14]

    T., Ek, S., Vukovic, D., Peucheret, C., Oxenløwe, L

    Yu, Y ., Palushani, E., Heuck, M., Kuznetsova, N., Kris tensen, P. T., Ek, S., Vukovic, D., Peucheret, C., Oxenløwe, L. K., Combrié, S., Rossi, A. de, Yvind, K. & Mørk, J. Switching characteristics of an InP photonic crystal nanocavity: Experiment and theory. Opt. Express 21, ...

    2013

  7. [15]

    Saldutti, M., Yu, Y ., Kountouris, G., Kristensen, P. T. & Mørk, J. Carrier diffusion in semiconductor nanoscale resonators. Phys. Rev. B 109, 245301 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    & Bandelow, U

    Wenzel, H., Kantner, M., Radziunas, M. & Bandelow, U. Semiconductor laser linewidth theory revisited. Appl. Sci. 11, 6004 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    & Raineri, F

    Crosnier, G., Bazin, A., Ardizzone, V ., Monnier, P., Raj, R. & Raineri, F. Subduing surface recombination for continuous-wave operation of photonic crystal na nolasers integrated on Silicon waveguides. Opt. Express 23, 27953–27959 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    M., Hooten, S., Kim, Y ., Kim, J., Yablonovitch, E

    Andrade, N. M., Hooten, S., Kim, Y ., Kim, J., Yablonovitch, E. & Wu, M. C. Sub-50 cm/s surface recombination velocity in InGaAsP/InP ridges. Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 191102 (2021)

    2021

  11. [20]

    Rabinovich, W. S. & Feldman, B. J. Spatial hole burning effects in distributed feedback lasers. IEEE J. Quant. Electron. 25, 20–30 (1989)

    1989

  12. [21]

    & Lippi, G

    Mørk, J. & Lippi, G. L. Rate equa tion description of quantum noise in nanolasers with few emitters. Appl. Phys. Lett. 112, 141103 (2018)

    2018

  13. [22]

    & Yvind, K

    Dimopoulos, E., Xiong, M., Sakanas, A., Marchevsky, A., Dong, G., Yu, Y ., Semenova, E., Mørk, J. & Yvind, K. Experimental demonstration of nanolaser with sub-µA threshold current. Optica 10, 973–976 (2023)

    2023

  14. [23]

    N., Weis, T

    Babar, A. N., Weis, T. A. S., Tsoukalas, K., Kadkhod azadeh, S., Arregui, G., Lahijani, B. V . & Stobbe, S. Self-assembled photonic cavities with atomic-scale confinement. Nature 624, 57–63 (2023)

    2023

  15. [24]

    & Tong, L

    Wu, H., Yang, L., Xu, P., Gong, J., Guo, X., Wang, P. & Tong, L. Photonic nanolaser with extreme optical field confinement. Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 013902 (2022). 30

    2022

  16. [25]

    & Raineri, F

    Bazin, A., Monnier, P., Lafosse, X., Beaudoin, G., Brai ve, R., Sagnes, I., Raj, R. & Raineri, F. Thermal management in hybrid InP/silicon photonic crystal nanobeam laser. Opt. Express 22, 10570–10578 (2014)

    2014

  17. [26]

    & Mørk, J

    Saldutti, M., Yu, Y . & Mørk, J. The onset of lasing in semiconductor nanolasers. Laser & Photon. Rev. 2300840 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    V ., Christiansen, R

    Albrechtsen, M., Lahijani, B. V ., Christiansen, R. E., Nguyen, V . T. H., Casses, L. N., Hansen, S. E., Stenger, N., Sigmund, O., Jansen, H., Mørk, J. & Stobbe, S. Nanometer-scale photon confinement in topology- optimized dielectric cavities. Nat. Commun. 13, 6281 (2022)

    2022

  19. [28]

    Yoshida, K., Gong, J., Kanibolotsky, A. L. et al. Elec trically driven organic laser using integrated OLED pumping. Nature 621, 746–752 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    & Reithmaier, J

    Banyoudeh, S. & Reithmaier, J. P. High-density 1.54 μm InAs/InGaAlAs/InP(100) based quantum dots with reduced size inhomogeneity. J. Cryst. Growth, 425, 299–302 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.