Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Ultrafast electrical control of dipolariton-based optical circuits with a few femto-joul per bit power consumption

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports an electrically controlled waveguide-dipolariton optical transistor that switches at >1 GHz with ~3 fJ/bit and a 25 µm² active area.

desk verdict Solid MHz-rate electrical switching of waveguide dipolaritons with sub-ns transitions, but the GHz and record-energy claims are extrapolated, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00878 v2 pith:GLUEXVIW submitted 2025-02-02 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph

Dror Liran , Ronen Rapaport , Kirk Baldwin , Loren Pfeiffer , Hui Deng This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-ph
keywords excitonpolaritonswaveguidedipolaritonsopticaltransistorelectro-opticmodulationquantum-confinedStarkeffectfemtojouleperbitintegratedphotonicsnonlinear
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 aims to show that waveguide exciton-dipolaritons—light-matter hybrid quasiparticles in an AlGaAs waveguide—can be made into electrically controlled optical transistors that switch in sub-nanosecond time and consume only a few femtojoules per bit. Such a device would fill a known gap in photonic circuits, where programmable nodes need to be fast, low-power, and compact enough to scale. The authors demonstrate voltage-gated blocking of propagating dipolaritons with modulation faster than 1 GHz, extinction ratios up to 15 dB (25 dB under DC), and a total energy budget of about 2.5–3 fJ/bit, in an active area down to 25 µm². If correct, this makes waveguide-dipolariton platforms a viable route to dense, electrically reconfigurable photonic circuits for classical and quantum computing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the voltage-tunable dipolariton dispersion in a gated waveguide. The indium tin oxide gate applies a perpendicular electric field that induces a quantum-confined Stark effect on the heavy-hole exciton, shifting its energy as $\alpha' V^2$ with $\alpha' = 1.53$ meV/V². Blocking occurs when the gate voltage shifts the injected lower-polariton energy into the lower-polariton to middle-polariton gap, a condition the paper expresses as $\Delta V_G = V_G^{\mathrm{off}} \left(1 - \sqrt{-(E(\beta)_0 + \Omega(V_G))/-E(\beta)_0}\right)$, where $\Omega$ is the Rabi splitting and $E(\beta)_0$ is the injection energy at zero gate voltage. Hopfield coefficients from a two-mode model connect the measured transmission minima to this energy-matching condition. This mechanism turns a small voltage change into a large transmission change without a resonant cavity, which is why the active area can be small and the energy cost low.

What would settle it

Measure the actual electrical power delivered to the gate while modulating at 1 GHz, including gate-capacitance charging current and RF drive dissipation, and compare the measured energy per bit with the claimed ~3 fJ/bit; if the dynamic energy is much larger, the record claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single gate electrode on a waveguide of field-induced dipolaritons acts as a high-speed optical transistor: applying a few volts shifts the polariton energy under the gate into the middle of the lower-to-middle polariton gap, blocking propagation, while returning the voltage restores transmission. Modulation follows the electrical pulse with rise and fall times as short as 0.5 ns and 1 ns, indicating a bandwidth beyond 1 GHz that the authors attribute to the electrical pulse generator rather than the device. The paper reports record-low energy consumption of about 2.5 fJ per bit at 1 GHz, split into an electrical term of about 1.3 fJ/bit from measured leakage currents and an optical term of about 1.2 fJ/bit from the ~5000-photon requirement of the nonlinearity. It further argues that the same electrically tunable nonlinearity enables few-photon operations, making each node a candidate for reconfigurable quantum and neuromorphic circuits.

Load-bearing premise

The headline energy figure assumes that the power drawn at 1 GHz equals the near-DC leakage current times voltage plus the photon energy from a prior experiment, rather than a directly measured dynamic power at speed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photonic circuits could gain electrically programmable nodes operating above 1 GHz with per-node energies around 3 fJ/bit, far below the all-optical polariton transistor baseline cited in the paper.
  • The demonstrated 10 µm gate and 25 µm² active area suggest dense integration, and the paper projects sub-micron footprints by shortening the gate and side-etching the channel.
  • The same platform supports electrically tunable nonlinearities, including few-photon switching and two-photon blockade, so one node type could serve both linear routing and quantum operations.
  • Reducing propagation loss from the current 4–10 dB/cm to the projected 0.4 dB/cm via AlGaAs-on-insulator integration would make deep circuits more practical.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The ~3 fJ/bit figure is a quasi-static estimate: the electrical term is computed from DC leakage currents at a 50% duty cycle and the optical term from a photon number taken from prior work, so dynamic gate-capacitance charging and RF drive losses are not included.
  • The >1 GHz bandwidth is inferred because the optical response follows the electrical pulse generator; the intrinsic device limit remains untested until faster drivers are used.
  • The 1 µm² footprint projection assumes that shortening the gate and side-etching the channel preserve the extinction ratio and leakage currents; it is an extrapolation, not a demonstration.
  • The 1.2 fJ/bit optical term assumes the ~5000-photon nonlinearity holds at the modulation speeds and densities used here, which was not directly measured in this experiment.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a waveguide exciton-dipolariton (DWEP) electro-optic switch. A 200 µm × 5 µm GaAs waveguide with 12 quantum wells and a 10 µm ITO gate is used to modulate polariton transmission via the quantum-confined Stark effect. The authors characterize DC transmission versus gate voltage, extract a switching-voltage model, and perform pulsed measurements with a 4 MHz carrier. They report rise times as short as 0.5 ns and fall times as short as 1 ns, dynamic extinction ratios up to 15 dB, and an extrapolated energy consumption of about 2.5–3 fJ/bit at 1 GHz. The paper claims a GHz-rate bandwidth, a record-low energy per bit, and a compact footprint of 25 µm², positioning the platform for reconfigurable photonic circuits.

Significance. If the headline claims are substantiated, this would be a meaningful advance: electrically controlled sub-nanosecond polariton modulation with few-fJ/bit energy and a small footprint would compare favorably with integrated LN, Si, and plasmonic modulators in Table I. The direct measurements (sub-ns transition times, up to 15 dB dynamic extinction, DC extinction to 25 dB) are valuable and support the feasibility of fast switching. However, the two central quantitative claims — GHz-rate operation and the ~3 fJ/bit record — rest on inference rather than direct measurement: the GHz bandwidth is extrapolated from 4 MHz pulse data, and the energy figure is computed from static leakage currents and a photon number taken from a prior paper. The switching-voltage model also uses fitting parameters, so its agreement with data is partly a fit. The paper is internally consistent and the extrapolations are clearly laid out, but the abstract and conclusion present them as established results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, 'Energy consumption'; SM, 'Energy per operation calculation'] The headline ~3 fJ/bit energy is not measured at speed. The electrical term E_op,avg = 1.29 fJ/bit is obtained by scaling the quasi-static leakage currents I_on = 0.46 µA and I_off = 0.85 µA with a 50% duty cycle at f = 1 GHz. This assumes frequency-independent ohmic leakage and omits dynamic gate-capacitance charging (CΔV² per transition), RF drive loss, and high-frequency displacement current. Since the pulsed modulation data were acquired at a 4 MHz carrier with 15–20 ns pulses, the 1 GHz extrapolation is unsupported. The optical term of 1.2 fJ/bit uses N_ph = 5000 from Ref. [28], not a measurement on this device. The abstract's 'record-low total energy consumption ~3 fJ/bit' and the Discussion's 'overall power consumption smaller than 3 fJ/bit' are therefore not established for the demonstrated operating condition.
  2. [Main text, 'Bandwidth'; Fig. 3(a,b)] The claim of 'GHz-rate electrical modulation' and 'bandwidth exceeding 1 GHz' in the abstract and Discussion is inferred, not demonstrated. The measured rise and fall times (0.5 ns and 1 ns) were obtained at a 4 MHz carrier with pulse durations of 15–20 ns. The authors state that the electrical pulse generator limits the response, but this only shows that the device can follow a slower envelope with fast edges; it does not demonstrate sustained modulation at 1 GHz, where pulse duration, duty cycle, and driver bandwidth all matter. A direct measurement at, for example, 1 GHz or a complete equivalent-circuit analysis with the measured S-parameters would be needed to support the headline claim.
  3. [Eq. (1); SM Eqs. (S3)–(S7)] The switching-voltage model is presented as a 'model prediction' in the main text and Fig. 1(h), but the SM states that the Rabi frequency parameters Ω(VG=0) = 11 meV and σ_Ω = 4 V are 'fitting parameter for our system,' and α' = 1.53 meV/V² is taken from Ref. [28]. Consequently the agreement between the red lines and the data in Fig. 1(h) is partly a fit, not an independent prediction. The text should either explicitly identify these as fitted parameters in the main text or provide an independent determination of Ω(VG) and σ_Ω. This is a load-bearing point because the non-monotonic ΔVG behavior is the key evidence for the switching mechanism.
  4. [Table I] Table I lists an extinction ratio of 25 dB for this work, but the dynamic extinction measurements in Fig. 3(c) reach at most 15 dB, and the table footnote refers to 'DC measurements of ER in Fig. 3'. Using the DC value in a comparison table that otherwise reports dynamic modulator performance is misleading. The table should report the measured dynamic ER (or explicitly label which entries are DC and which are dynamic) so that the comparison with [32–34] is apples-to-apples.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] The title uses 'femto-joul per bit' and the abstract 'Femto-Joule'; these should be standardized to 'femtojoule per bit'.
  2. [Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction, 'neuromprphic computing', and the phrase '103J/node/operation' lacks a superscript or space (should likely be 10^3 J).
  3. [Table I footnote] The footnote '† projected' for the DWEP active area is not defined in the table caption; the main text says 'down to 25 µm²', but the table indicates this is a projection. Please clarify whether 25 µm² is measured or projected.
  4. [Fig. 1(h)] The red lines in Fig. 1(h) are labeled 'model prediction', but because the model uses fitted Rabi parameters as noted in Major Comment 3, the figure caption should say 'model with fitted parameters' or similar.
  5. [SM, Eq. (S7)] The symbols V_on^G and V_off^G are used in Eq. (S7) but are not defined consistently with the main text, where V_G^off and V_G^on appear; please unify the notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The paper's central energy and speed claims rest on measurements; the only circular element is the 'model prediction' in Fig. 1(h), which uses parameters explicitly fitted to the system.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Main text Eq. (1) and Fig. 1(h); Supplementary Eq. (S7) in 'Voltage modulation for DWEP switching - model']
    "The model, presented in detail in the SM, agrees well with the data, as is shown by the red lines in Fig.1(g,h). ... where σΩ and Ω(VG = 0) are fitting parameter for our system, with values of 11 meV and 4 V, respectively. The experimental data and the model are shown together in Fig. 1(h)."

    The red lines labeled as model prediction are generated by Eq. (S7), which computes ΔVG using a Rabi frequency Ω(VG) = Ω(0) exp(−VG^2/2σΩ^2) whose zero-field value and voltage width are explicitly called 'fitting parameter for our system'. The polarizability α'=1.53 meV/V^2 is imported from Ref. [28], a prior paper by the same group. Fitting these parameters to the device means the agreement in Fig. 1(h) is not an independent first-principles test; the 'prediction' is partly constructed from the same system and data it is said to predict. The measured transmission curves, pulse responses, and current values used for the fJ/bit estimate are separate empirical inputs, so the central energy and speed claims are not themselves circular.

full rationale

The headline claims of GHz-rate modulation and ~3 fJ/bit are grounded in measurements: pulsed transmission traces at 4 MHz with 0.5–1 ns rise/fall times, DC extinction ratios, and measured device currents. The energy-per-bit estimate is a transparent calculation from quasi-static leakage currents and a photon-number estimate taken from Ref. [28]; this is an extrapolation and a correctness risk, but not circular, because those quantities are measured inputs rather than the claimed result. The switching-voltage model in Eq. (1)/SM Eq. (S7), however, is presented as a 'model prediction' while depending on two parameters explicitly labeled as fitting parameters for the system and on a self-cited polarizability; that is a fitted-input-called-prediction step. It does not force the central energy or speed results, so the overall circularity score is moderate rather than severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The headline energy value rests on system-specific fitted parameters (alpha', Rabi parameters) inherited from prior work, and on a quasi-static energy estimate that ignores dynamic RF contributions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • QW hh-exciton polarizability alpha' = 1.53 meV/V^2
    Taken from Ref. [28] and used in Eq. (1) and SM Eq. (S5)-(S7) to relate gate voltage to exciton energy shift; it is a system-specific fitted value, not measured here.
  • Rabi frequency parameters (Omega0, sigmaOmega) = Omega0=11 meV, sigmaOmega=4 V
    SM states these are 'fitting parameter for our system'; used in the model of DeltaVG in Eq. (S7) and Fig. 1(h).
  • Optical pulse photon number Nph = 5000 photons per 500 ps pulse
    From Ref. [28], used in SM Eq. (S8) to estimate 1.2 fJ/bit optical energy; not measured in this work.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Minimal transmission occurs when the gate-shifted LP energy is at the center of the LP-MP gap, DeltaE(DeltaVG)=Omega(VG).
    Main text Fig. 1(b) and Eq. (1); this mechanism is inherited from Ref. [28].
  • domain assumption Low-frequency currents and DC energies remain representative at 1 GHz; dynamic gate-capacitance charging and RF drive losses are negligible.
    SM 'Energy per operation calculation' uses I_on=0.46 uA, I_off=0.85 uA with 50% duty cycle at 1 GHz; no high-frequency current or capacitance measurement is reported.
  • domain assumption The electrical pulse generator, not the DWEP device, limits the measured rise/fall times, so the device can exceed 1 GHz.
    Main text 'Bandwidth' paragraph concludes >GHz from optical signals following the pulse generator with 0.5 ns transitions; no 1 GHz bit pattern was measured.
  • domain assumption The two-mode WEP model with hh and lh excitons and their QCSE shift is sufficient to describe the switching voltages.
    Main text says 'we employ a two-mode WEP model' to derive Eq. (1), simplifying the full three-mode polariton structure.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast electrical control of dipolariton-based optical circuits with a few femto-joul per bit power consumption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLUEXVIW

@misc{pith2026250200878,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast electrical control of dipolariton-based optical circuits with a few femto-joul per bit power consumption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLUEXVIW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00878}
}
abstract

The next generation of photonic circuits will require programmable, ultrafast, and energy-efficient components on a scalable platform for quantum and neuromorphic computing. Here, we present ultrafast electrical control of highly nonlinear light-matter hybrid quasi-particles, called waveguide exciton-dipolaritons, with extremely low power consumption. Our device performs as an optical transistor with a GHz-rate electrical modulation at a record-low total energy consumption $\sim$3 fJ/bit and a compact active area of down to 25 $\mu$m$^2$. This work establishes waveguide-dipolariton platforms for scalable, electrically reconfigurable, ultra-low power photonic circuits for both classical and quantum computing and communication.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00878 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Setup and electric field dependence of experiments with gated-DWEP devices: (a) Schematic diagram of the device structure, with the ITO electrode divided into three parts: the gate VG and the unbiased channel. The incident laser excites the sample at θ(E) to satisfy the WEP dispersion. The transmitted light is a function of the field amplitude VG. (b) Energy diagram for the polariton switching. Top Panel: schematic … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pulse Modulation: (a) Illustration of the device response to a square voltage modulation of the gate. (b) and (c) Time-resolved measurement of the transmitted signal at 8 and 2 MHz, respectively. The bottom panel plots the raw data from the streak camera, while the top panel plots the integrated amplitude. (d) and (e) Normalized time-domain pulse transmission (blue dots) for two different polariton energies E = −13.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Bandwidth, Extinction, and Power con￾sumption: (a) and (b) Extracted transition times (rise and fall) as a function of the excited WEP energy. The lines are guides to the eye. The error bars represent the fit un￾certainty values. The dashed line marks the input voltage transition time. (c) Extinction ratios as a function of ex￾cited WEP energy. The line is a guide to the eye. A dashed black line marks the minimal re… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Electrically Con- trolled Photonic Circuits of Field-Induced Dipolari- tons with Huge Nonlinearities

    Dror Liran, Ronen Rapaport, Jiaqi Hu, Nathanial Ly- dick, Hui Deng, and Loren Pfeiffer. Electrically Con- trolled Photonic Circuits of Field-Induced Dipolari- tons with Huge Nonlinearities. Physical Review X , 14(3):031022, 8 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Why i am optimistic about the silicon- photonic route to quantum computing.APL Photonics, 2(3), 3 2017

    Terry Rudolph. Why i am optimistic about the silicon- photonic route to quantum computing.APL Photonics, 2(3), 3 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Miller, Joyce Poon, Dirk Englund, Francesco Morichetti, and Andrea Melloni

    Wim Bogaerts, Daniel Pérez, José Capmany, David A.B. Miller, Joyce Poon, Dirk Englund, Francesco Morichetti, and Andrea Melloni. Pro- grammable photonic circuits. Nature 2020 586:7828 , 586(7828):207–216, 10 2020

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Peter L. McMahon. The physics of optical computing. Nature Reviews Physics 2023 5:12 , 5(12):717–734, 10 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Elshaari, Wolfram Pernice, Kartik Srinivasan, Oliver Benson, and Val Zwiller

    Ali W. Elshaari, Wolfram Pernice, Kartik Srinivasan, Oliver Benson, and Val Zwiller. Hybrid integrated quantum photonic circuits. Nature Photonics 2020 14:5, 14(5):285–298, 4 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    Dietrich, Andrea Fiore, Mark G

    Christof P. Dietrich, Andrea Fiore, Mark G. Thomp- son, Martin Kamp, and Sven Höfling. GaAs in- tegrated quantum photonics: Towards compact and multi-functional quantum photonic integrated circuits. Laser & Photonics Reviews , 10(6):870–894, 11 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [6]

    Berloff, Matteo Silva, Kirill Kalinin, Alexis Askitopoulos, Julian D

    Natalia G. Berloff, Matteo Silva, Kirill Kalinin, Alexis Askitopoulos, Julian D. Töpfer, Pasquale Cilibrizzi, Wolfgang Langbein, and Pavlos G. Lagoudakis. Re- alizing the classical XY Hamiltonian in polariton simu- lators. Nature Materials 2017 16:11 , 16(11):1120–1126, 9 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [7]

    Kartashov, Kirill A

    Sergey Alyatkin, Carles Milián, Yaroslav V. Kartashov, Kirill A. Sitnik, Ivan Gnusov, Julian D. Töpfer, Helgi Sigurðsson, and Pavlos G. Lagoudakis. Antiferromag- netic Ising model in a triangular vortex lattice of quan- tum fluids of light.Science advances, 10(34):eadj1589, 8 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 38 references
  1. [8]

    Shastri, Alexander N

    Bhavin J. Shastri, Alexander N. Tait, T. Ferreira de Lima, Wolfram H.P. Pernice, Harish Bhaskaran, C. D. Wright, and Paul R. Prucnal. Photonics for artificial intelligence and neuromorphic computing.Nature Pho- tonics 2021 15:2 , 15(2):102–114, 1 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    Dario Ballarini, Antonio Gianfrate, Riccardo Panico, Andrzej Opala, Sanjib Ghosh, Lorenzo Dominici, Vin- cenzo Ardizzone, Milena De Giorgi, Giovanni Lerario, Giuseppe Gigli, Timothy C. H. Liew, Michal Ma- tuszewski, andDaniele Sanvitto. PolaritonicNeuromor- phic Computing Outp...

    2020

  3. [10]

    Fusion-based quantum computation

    Sara Bartolucci, Patrick Birchall, Hector Bombín, Hugo Cable, Chris Dawson, Mercedes Gimeno-Segovia, Eric Johnston, Konrad Kieling, Naomi Nickerson, Mihir Pant, Fernando Pastawski, Terry Rudolph, and Chris Sparrow. Fusion-based quantum computation. Nature Communications 2023 1...

    2023

  4. [11]

    Exciton-polariton Bose-Einstein condensation.Reviews of Modern Physics , 82(2):1489–1537, 5 2010

    Hui Deng, Hartmut Haug, and Yoshihisa Yamamoto. Exciton-polariton Bose-Einstein condensation.Reviews of Modern Physics , 82(2):1489–1537, 5 2010

    2010

  5. [12]

    Ballarini, M

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

    2013

  6. [13]

    A. Amo, T. C.H. Liew, C. Adrados, R. Houdré, E. Gi- acobino, A. V. Kavokin, and A. Bramati. Exciton- polariton spin switches. Nature Photonics, 4(6):361– 366, 6 2010

    2010

  7. [14]

    The road towards polaritonic devices

    Daniele Sanvitto and Stéphane Kéna-Cohen. The road towards polaritonic devices. Nature Materials , 15(10):1061–1073, 10 2016

    2016

  8. [15]

    Realization of an all optical exciton-polariton router

    Félix Marsault, Hai Son Nguyen, Dimitrii Tanese, Aris- tide Lemaître, Elisabeth Galopin, Isabelle Sagnes, Al- berto Amo, and Jacqueline Bloch. Realization of an all optical exciton-polariton router. Applied Physics Let- ters, 107(20):201115, 11 2015

    2015

  9. [16]

    Sturm, D

    C. Sturm, D. Tanese, H.S. Nguyen, H. Flayac, E. Ga- lopin, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, D. Solnyshkov, A. Amo, G. Malpuech, and J. Bloch. All-optical phase modu- lation in a cavity-polariton Mach–Zehnder interferome- ter. Nature Communications, 5(1):3278, 2 2014

    2014

  10. [17]

    T. Gao, P. S. Eldridge, T. C. H. Liew, S. I. Tsint- zos, G. Stavrinidis, G. Deligeorgis, Z. Hatzopoulos, and P. G. Savvidis. Polariton condensate transistor switch. Physical Review B, 85(23):235102, 6 2012

    2012

  11. [18]

    Sannikov, Anton V

    Denis A. Sannikov, Anton V. Baranikov, Anton D. Putintsev, Mikhail Misko, Anton V. Zasedatelev, Ull- rich Scherf, and Pavlos G. Lagoudakis. Room temper- ature, cascadable, all-optical polariton universal gates. Nature Communications 2024 15:1 , 15(1):1–7, 6 2024

    2024

  12. [19]

    Masharin, Tatiana Oskolkova, Furkan Isik, Hilmi Volkan Demir, Anton K

    Mikhail A. Masharin, Tatiana Oskolkova, Furkan Isik, Hilmi Volkan Demir, Anton K. Samusev, and Sergey V. Makarov. Giant Ultrafast All-Optical Modulation Based on Exceptional Points in Exciton-Polariton Per- ovskite Metasurfaces. ACS Nano, 18(4):3447–3455, 1 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Jacqmin, I

    T. Jacqmin, I. Carusotto, I. Sagnes, M. Abbarchi, D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, E. Galopin, A. Lemaître, J.Bloch, andA.Amo. Directobservation ofDiraccones and a flatband in a honeycomb lattice for polaritons. Physical Review Letters, 112(11):116402, 3 2014

    2014

  14. [21]

    Room temperature exciton-polariton neural network with perovskite crys- tal

    Andrzej Opala, Krzysztof Tyszka, Mateusz K¸ edziora, Magdalena Furman, Amir Rahmani, Stanisław Świer- czewski, Marek Ekielski, Anna Szerling, Michał Ma- tuszewski, and Barbara Pi¸ etka. Room temperature exciton-polariton neural network with perovskite crys- tal. ArXiv 2412.108...

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    P. M. Walker, L. Tinkler, M. Durska, D. M. Whittaker, I. J. Luxmoore, B. Royall, D. N. Krizhanovskii, M. S. Skolnick, I. Farrer, and D. A. Ritchie. Exciton polari- tons in semiconductor waveguides.Applied Physics Let- ters, 102(1), 2013

    2013

  16. [23]

    Electrically controlled mutual interactions of flying waveguide dipo- laritons

    Itamar Rosenberg, Yotam Mazuz-Harpaz, Ronen Ra- paport, Kenneth West, and Loren Pfeiffer. Electrically controlled mutual interactions of flying waveguide dipo- laritons. Physical Review B, 93(19):195151, 5 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Fully Guided Electri- cally Controlled Exciton Polaritons

    Dror Liran, Itamar Rosenberg, Ken West, Loren Pfeif- fer, and Ronen Rapaport. Fully Guided Electri- cally Controlled Exciton Polaritons. ACS Photonics , 5(11):4249–4252, 2018

    2018

  18. [25]

    P. M. Walker, L. Tinkler, B. Royall, D. V. Skryabin, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, M. S. Skolnick, and D. N. Krizhanovskii. Dark Solitons in High Velocity Waveg- uide Polariton Fluids. Physical Review Letters , 119(9):097403, 8 2017. 7

    2017

  19. [26]

    D.G. Suarez-Forero, Riminucci F., Ardizzone V., Kar- powicz N., Maggiolini E., Macorini G., Lerario G., Todisco F., De Giorgi M., Dominici L., Ballarini D., Gigli G., Lanotte A.S., West K., Baldwin K., Pfeiffer L., and Sanvitto D. Enhancement of Parametric Effects in Polariton...

    2021

  20. [27]

    Strongly interacting dipolar-polaritons

    Itamar Rosenberg, Dror Liran, Yotam Mazuz-Harpaz, Kenneth West, Loren Pfeiffer, and Ronen Rapaport. Strongly interacting dipolar-polaritons. Science Ad- vances, 4(10):eaat8880, 10 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    Integrated quantum polariton inter- ferometry

    Davide Nigro, Vincenzo D’Ambrosio, Daniele Sanvitto, and Dario Gerace. Integrated quantum polariton inter- ferometry. Communications Physics 2022 5:1 , 5(1):1– 10, 2 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    E. R. Christensen, A. Camacho-Guardian, O. Cotlet, A. Imamoglu, M. Wouters, G. M. Bruun, and I. Caru- sotto. Microscopic theory of polariton-polariton inter- actions. Physical Review B, 110(19):195435, 11 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Baldwin, Loren Pfeif- fer, Hui Deng, and Ronen Rapaport

    Yoad Ordan, Dror Liran, Kirk W. Baldwin, Loren Pfeif- fer, Hui Deng, and Ronen Rapaport. Electrically tun- able quantum correlations of dipolar polaritons with micrometer-scale blockade radii.ArXiv 2411.12059, 11 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators operating at CMOS-compatible voltages

    Cheng Wang, Mian Zhang, Xi Chen, Maxime Bertrand, Amirhassan Shams-Ansari, Sethumadhavan Chan- drasekhar, PeterWinzer, andMarkoLončar. Integrated lithium niobate electro-optic modulators operating at CMOS-compatible voltages. Nature, 562(7725):101– 104, 10 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    G. T. Reed, G. Mashanovich, F. Y. Gardes, and D. J. Thomson. Silicon optical modulators. Nature Photon- ics, 4(8):518–526, 8 2010

    2010

  26. [34]

    Elder, Larry R

    Christian Haffner, Wolfgang Heni, Yuriy Fedoryshyn, Arne Josten, Benedikt Baeuerle, Claudia Hoessbacher, Yannick Salamin, Ueli Koch, Nikola Dordevic, Pol Mousel, Romain Bonjour, Alexandros Emboras, David Hillerkuss, Pascal Leuchtmann, Delwin L. Elder, Larry R. Dalton, Christia...

    2016

  27. [35]

    GaAs high-speed devices: physics, technology, and circuit applications

    CYChangandFKai. GaAs high-speed devices: physics, technology, and circuit applications . wiley, 1st edition edition, 1994

    1994

  28. [36]

    de Cea, A

    M. de Cea, A. H. Atabaki, and R. J. Ram. Energy harvesting optical modulators with sub-attojoule per bit electrical energy consumption.Nature Communica- tions, 12(1):2326, 4 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Peters, Warren Jin, Chao Xiang, Songtao Liu, Gregory Moille, Su Peng Yu, Xingjun Wang, Kartik Srinivasan, Scott B

    Lin Chang, Weiqiang Xie, Haowen Shu, Qi Fan Yang, Boqiang Shen, Andreas Boes, Jon D. Peters, Warren Jin, Chao Xiang, Songtao Liu, Gregory Moille, Su Peng Yu, Xingjun Wang, Kartik Srinivasan, Scott B. Papp, Kerry Vahala, and John E. Bowers. Ultra-efficient fre- quency comb gene...

    2020

  30. [38]

    Integration of Single-Photon Sources and Detectors on GaAs

    Giulia Digeronimo, Maurangelo Petruzzella, Simone Birindelli, Rosalinda Gaudio, Sartoon Fattah Poor, Frank Van Otten, and Andrea Fiore. Integration of Single-Photon Sources and Detectors on GaAs. Pho- tonics, 3(4):55, 10 2016. 1 Supplementary Information The Supplementary Info...

    2016

Pith tools

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