Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Phase alignment in a lattice of exciton-polaritonic Bose-Einstein condensates

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A lattice of exciton-polariton condensates retains coherent phase order at temperatures that destroy a single condensate, with an order switch from in-phase to checkerboard as temperature rises.

desk verdict Plausible but under-supported numerical claims about lattice-protected polariton coherence; needs parameters and ensemble statistics before it can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07999 v1 pith:OZN7YW4X submitted 2025-05-12 cond-mat.quant-gas nlin.CDquant-ph

N.V. Kuznetsova , D.V. Makarov , N.A. Asriyan , A.A. Elistratov This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.quant-gasnlin.CDquant-ph
keywords exciton-polaritoncondensatescondensatelatticesnon-MarkovianreservoirmemorystochasticGross-PitaevskiiequationphaseorderingcrossoverferromagneticandantiferromagneticordermodulationalinstabilityMarkovembedding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether coupling between separate exciton-polariton condensate spots protects their phase coherence against thermal noise. Using a stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii equation (the standard condensate wave-function model) with non-Markovian reservoir memory, it argues that a square lattice of incoherently pumped spots keeps a macroscopically ordered phase pattern at temperatures up to 50 K, where a single spot fails to condense at all. The model also predicts a temperature-controlled crossover: low temperatures favor an in-phase (ferromagnetic) ordering of the spots, while higher temperatures favor a checkerboard (antiferromagnetic) ordering, and the switch comes with a drop in steady-state condensate density. If right, this makes polariton lattices a tunable platform for studying order in open quantum systems and for building stable phase-coherent devices.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Markov embedding of non-Markovian reservoir memory. The reservoir's memory kernel (the retarded self-energy) is approximated by an exponential $e^{-\gamma_{\rm eff}(t-t')}$ whose decay rate $\gamma_{\rm eff}$ grows linearly with temperature; introducing an auxiliary field $\phi(r,t)$ converts the integro-differential equations into a closed set of time-local differential equations. This makes large-scale stochastic simulations feasible and lets the authors sweep temperature. A second piece is the coupling of lattice spots through outflowing matter waves, which locks the phases of neighboring condensates and, near the steady state, yields a negative effective nonlinearity $\alpha_{\rm eff}<0$; the authors argue that this suppresses the modulational instability responsible for single-spot fragmentation.

What would settle it

A homodyne interferometry measurement on an incoherently pumped 2x2 or 3x3 polariton lattice over 5-50 K: observing no long-range phase pattern above the single-spot condensation temperature, or no density drop coinciding with the in-phase-to-checkerboard switch, would refute the central claim. Alternatively, a two-time pump-probe measurement showing a non-exponential reservoir memory at 50 K would undercut the model's foundation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, on the paper's own terms, is that the phase order of a polariton condensate lattice is temperature-governed and collectively stabilized. In numerical solutions of the non-Markovian stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii equations, 2x2 and 3x3 lattices reach steady states with well-defined relative phases at 50 K, a temperature at which an isolated pumping spot shows no condensate. The steady-state ordering changes from in-phase (ferromagnetic) at 5 K to alternating-phase (antiferromagnetic) at 20 K, accompanied by a lower condensate density. The authors trace the protection to suppression of the modulational instability that would otherwise destroy a single condensate: near the steady state the effective nonlinearity becomes attractive, and the lattice geometry stabilizes the resulting pattern.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the reservoir's memory of the past decays as a simple exponential whose rate rises linearly with temperature; if the real memory at tens of kelvin is not exponential, the predicted lattice order and its temperature flip could be artifacts of that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Incoherently pumped polariton lattices of only a few spots (2x2 and 3x3) can serve as coherent many-spot sources at temperatures where single-spot condensation is absent.
  • Temperature becomes a control knob for choosing between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic phase patterns, with a measurable density change marking the crossover.
  • The lattice protection mechanism operates with as few as four spots, suggesting that collective stabilization does not require an extended lattice.
  • The model's suppression of modulational instability in finite lattices offers a route to stable multispot condensates for polariton simulators and optical devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the effective attractive nonlinearity is the stabilizer, varying lattice geometry or spot spacing should move the temperature window for order, a prediction that can be checked without new physics.
  • Beyond the paper: the ferromagnetic/antiferromagnetic crossover resembles order selection in XY-type models, so the same two-temperature story may appear in other driven-dissipative condensate lattices even where the microscopic reservoir is Markovian.
  • Beyond the paper: the density jump accompanying the ordering switch could serve as an experimental readout that is easier to measure than phase interferometry.
  • Beyond the paper: the exponential-memory approximation should be stress-tested by repeating the simulations with a realistic non-exponential kernel at 50 K; if order survives, the mechanism is genuine, and if not, the prediction is an artifact.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies a two-dimensional lattice of incoherently pumped exciton-polariton condensates using a stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a non-Markovian coupling to the excitonic reservoir. After reducing the memory integral to a time-local system via a Markov-embedding auxiliary field φ, the authors numerically simulate 2×2 and 3×3 lattices at T = 5, 20, and 50 K. They report (i) an in-phase (“ferromagnetic”) phase configuration at 5 K and a checkerboard (“antiferromagnetic”) configuration at 20 K, accompanied by a change in steady-state condensate density; (ii) that the lattice retains spatial coherence at 50 K where a single spot does not condense; and (iii) a stability argument in Sec. V that in the steady state φ = Cψ with small real C leads to an effective attractive nonlinearity, α_eff < 0, which they associate with suppression of modulational instability. The abstract and conclusions frame the lattice stabilization as the main result.

Significance. If established, the claims would be significant: they suggest that the coupling between condensate spots via outflowing matter waves can protect phase order against thermal fluctuations well above the single-spot condensation temperature, and that reservoir temperature can switch the lattice between FM and AFM order. This would be a useful theoretical prediction for experiments using multi-spot incoherent pumping. The manuscript also has methodological strengths: Markov embedding turns the non-Markovian problem into a solvable time-local stochastic system, and the use of the scintillation index and g(1)(Δr,t) gives concrete coherence diagnostics. However, the present evidence does not yet establish the headline results.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II (Eqs. (4)–(19)) and Section IV] The simulations are not reproducible because the parameter values are never stated. The model contains α_c, α_r, γ_cav, γ_exR, ρ_0, m_eff, and the temperature-dependent memory rate γ_eff(T), but none of these is given numerically; only the pump-spot radius (2.5 μm) and spacing (10 μm) are specified. Without this information the reader cannot check whether the reported temperature scales (5–50 K) are physically reasonable, whether the FM/AFM density change is within the model's parameter regime, or whether Eq. (42) indeed gives α_eff < 0. A parameter table (or a precise pointer to values used in Refs. [15,16]) is required.
  2. [Section IV, Figs. 1 and 2] The FM-to-AFM crossover is inferred from one “typical” realization at T = 5 K and one at T = 20 K. Since the model is stochastic (noise terms in Eqs. (4), (13), (23)) and the text itself notes that phase configurations are path-dependent, a crossover claim requires an order parameter (e.g., staggered nearest-neighbor phase correlation) evaluated over an ensemble of independent runs. No number of runs, no histogram, and no error bars are given; the temperature dependence could therefore be a sampling artifact of near-degenerate FM/AFM configurations (cf. Refs. [9,26]).
  3. [Section V, Eqs. (40)–(42)] The stability mechanism rests on an ansatz φ = Cψ with “C purely real and small” that is justified only by an appeal to numerical simulation, and the conclusion α_eff = dμ/dρ_1 < 0 is then stated without the algebra. The sign of α_eff depends on α_r, α_c, and dρ_2/dρ_1 obtained from Eq. (41); none of these is quantified. As it stands, the derivation does not establish the claimed effective attractive nonlinearity, and the connection to lattice stabilization is not made explicit.
  4. [Section V, last paragraph] The paper attributes lattice stability to “suppression of modulational instability,” but the preceding calculation finds α_eff < 0, which is the regime where modulational instability is usually expected (Ref. [30]). No analysis of the lattice modes, no growth-rate computation, and no comparison of single-spot versus lattice MI is provided. The causal explanation is therefore speculative (as the abstract itself acknowledges with “probably”), and it should be either substantiated or clearly separated from the numerical observation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV] The word “checkboard” should be “checkerboard”; the spelling error appears in the abstract and in the text.
  2. [Section III] The first sentence contains a duplicated “the” (“using the the step-wise scheme”), and “abcense” should be “absence.”
  3. [Eq. (24)] The stochastic increment is written with ΔzΔy in the denominator, whereas the grid spacing elsewhere is introduced as Δx and Δy; this looks like a typo.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The autocorrelation ⟨η*_cav(r,t′)η_cav(r,t′)⟩ uses the same time argument on both fields; it should involve two different spacetime arguments or an explicitly corrected convention.
  5. [Figs. 1 and 2] The captions say “at different time instants” but do not state which times are shown; this makes it impossible to identify the early and late stages from the figures alone.
  6. [Eq. (38)] The ensemble average appears to be taken inside the ratio rather than on numerator and denominator separately; as written, the normalization is ambiguous. Please clarify the definition.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Lattice-stability 'explanation' reuses simulation-fitted C to derive αeff<0, and the exponential-memory model is imported from the authors' own prior work.

  1. other [Section V, Eqs. (40)-(42)]
    "Also, in the steady state we have φ(r,t) = Cψ(r,t), where C is some complex-valued constant. Results of numerical simulation show that for the steady states observed C is purely real and small, C ≪ 1. Then one can easily find the relation between ρ1 and ρ2: ... Using this relation, we find the effective nonlinearity parameter αeff = dµ/dρ1 < 0"

    C is read off from the very simulated steady states that Section V aims to explain, then fed through Eq. (41) to obtain αeff < 0. The sign of αeff is therefore not an independent mechanism: it is a function of the fitted parameter C and of the same densities ρ1, ρ2 that characterize the observed state. Invoking this αeff to conclude that 'we observe suppression of modulational instability' restates the observation as its own cause; no separate, parameter-free stability calculation is given. The explanation is post hoc and adds no independent predictive content.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section II, Eqs. (11)-(12)]
    "For low temperatures functions ΣR(t,t′) and ΣK(t,t′) can be approximated by the exponentials ... where γeff depends on temperature linearly [15]."

    The exponential memory kernel with γeff(T) linear is the foundation of the Markov-embedding reduction and of all simulation results. Eqs. (11)-(12) import this ansatz from Ref. [15] (Alliluev, Makarov, Asriyan, Elistratov, Lozovik), i.e., the authors' own prior numerical work, rather than deriving it in this paper. Since the FM/AFM crossover and the lattice stabilization are outputs of that imported model, the central premise is supported by a self-citation that is itself numerical and not independently verified here. This is load-bearing, although the simulated phenomena remain non-trivial outputs.

full rationale

The headline numerical facts—FM order at 5 K, AFM at 20 K, ordered lattice at 50 K—are genuine outputs of the stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii/Markov-embedding simulation and are not by construction equal to the input equations. The absence of an order parameter or realization statistics is a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity. Circularity enters in two places. First, the model's central premise (exponential reservoir memory with γeff(T) linear, Eqs. (11)-(12)) is taken from Ref. [15], which shares authors with this paper and is itself a numerical/semi-empirical study; no independent derivation is supplied. Second, Section V's explanation of lattice stabilization extracts C = φ/ψ from the simulated steady state, uses Eq. (41) to obtain αeff<0, and then invokes that sign to account for the same observed suppression of modulational instability. The explanation is therefore post hoc and adds no independent predictive content. Because the main numerical observations are not themselves fitted-parameter predictions, the paper is only partially circular (score 5), not fully forced by definition.

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

The central results are numerical outputs of a model whose key inputs (memory rate, pump strength, coupling constants) are not specified in the paper, so the reader cannot judge whether the FM/AFM crossover and high-temperature lattice coherence are robust or tuned. The stability explanation adds a self-referential constant C taken from the same simulations.

free parameters (4)
  • gamma_eff(T)
    Memory decay rate of the exponential reservoir kernel, assumed to depend linearly on temperature (Section II). Its values are never reported, so all temperature-dependent results depend on this unstated input.
  • C = C << 1, purely real
    Steady-state ratio phi = C psi (Eq. 40), extracted from the simulations. Used to derive alpha_eff < 0 in the stability analysis, so the explanatory mechanism is tied to a parameter read off the same data.
  • rho0
    Pump amplitude scale in Pincoh = gamma_exR rho0 sum w(r - r_ij). The value is not given, despite controlling the steady-state density and the competition between FM and AFM orders.
  • alpha_c, alpha_r, gamma_cav, gamma_exR
    The coupling strengths and decay rates of the model are never assigned numerical values in the text, so the reported dynamics at 5, 20, and 50 K cannot be reproduced or checked for consistency with experimental parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The excitonic reservoir self-energies can be approximated as exponentials (Eqs. 11-12) with gamma_eff increasing linearly with temperature.
    This converts the non-Markovian model into a Markov-embeddable form; if the approximation fails at 50 K, the claimed lattice stabilization could be an artifact of the approximation.
  • standard math Markov embedding with the auxiliary field phi (Eqs. 15-17) exactly reproduces the exponential-memory dynamics.
    The embedding is algebraically exact for exponential kernels, but the original self-energy is only approximately exponential, so the embedding inherits the approximation error.
  • ad hoc to paper In the steady state, phi = C psi with C real and small (Eq. 40).
    This assumption is not derived from the governing equations; it is read off the simulations and is the hinge of the effective nonlinearity argument in Section V.
  • domain assumption The steady state is governed by a nonlinear Schrodinger equation with effective attractive nonlinearity (alpha_eff < 0, Eq. 42), leading to modulational instability that is suppressed in lattices.
    The suppression of modulational instability in lattices is invoked from the literature (Refs. [30,31]) rather than demonstrated by a direct linear stability calculation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase alignment in a lattice of exciton-polaritonic Bose-Einstein condensates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OZN7YW4X

@misc{pith2026250507999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase alignment in a lattice of exciton-polaritonic Bose-Einstein condensates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OZN7YW4X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07999}
}
read the original abstract

Dynamics of exciton-polariton Bose-Einstein condensate is examined by means of the stochastic Gross-Pitaevskii equation including non-Markovian coupling to the excitonic reservoir. Attention is concentrated on properties of the condensate lattice created by laser beams providing incoherent pumping of the reservoir. It is shown that phase ordering of the lattice depends on temperature. The crossover between the in-phase (``ferromagnetic'') and the checkboard (``antiferromagnetic'') orders is accompanied by variation of the steady-state condensate density. Also it is shown that the condensate lattices can retain ordered pattern for temperatures which are much higher than the critical temperature of a single spot, probably due to suppression of the modulational instability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Snapshots of spatial density (panels (a) and (b)) and phase (panels (c) and (d)) distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Snapshots of spatial density (panels (a) and (b)) and phase (panels (c) and (d)) distribu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Snapshots of spatial density (upper panels) and phase (lower panels) distributions at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The scintillation index vs time. Panel (a) corresponds to the single spot, panel (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Kuznetsova, D.V

    N.V. Kuznetsova, D.V. Makarov, A.V. Slunyaev, E.N. Pelinovsky, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, V. 191, 115896 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    R. Su, S. Ghosh, J. Wang, S. Liu, C. Diederichs, T.C.H. Liew, Q. Xiong. Nature Physics, V. 16, 301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Gavrilov, Physics-Uspekhi, V

    S.S. Gavrilov, Physics-Uspekhi, V. 63, 123 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [3]

    Kasprzak, M

    J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. Keeling, F.M. Marchetti, M.H. Szyma´ nska, R. Andr´ e, J. Staehli, V. Savona, P.B. Littlewood, B. Deveaud, L.S. Dang, Nature, V. 443, 409 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [4]

    Timofeev, Low Temperature Physics, V

    V.B. Timofeev, Low Temperature Physics, V. 38, 541 (2012). 16

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Hu, J. Wu, R. Su, Z. Chen, Q. Xiong, H. Deng, Progress in Quantum Electronics, V. 83, 100399 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [6]

    F. Chen, H. Li, H. Zhou, S. Luo, Z. Sun, Z. Ye, F. Sun, J. Wang, Y. Zheng, X. Chen, Huailiang Xu, Hongxing Xu, T. Birnes, Z. Chen, J. Wu, Physical Review Letters, V. 129, 057402 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Jacquet, M

    M. Jacquet, M. Joly, F. Claude, L. Giacomelli, Q. Glorieux, A. Bramati, I. Carusotto, E. Gi- acobino, European Physical Journal D, V. 76, 152 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [8]

    Zvyagintseva, H

    D. Zvyagintseva, H. Sigurdsson, V.K. Kozin, I. Iorsh, I.A. Shelykh, V. Ulyantsev, O. Kyriienko, Communications Physics, V. 5, 8 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Berloff, M

    N.G. Berloff, M. Silva, K. Kalinin, A. Askitopoulos, J.D. T¨ opfer, P. Cilibrizzi, W. Langbein, P.G. Lagoudakis, Nature Materials, V. 16, 1120 (2017)

    2017

  3. [10]

    Kalinin, N.G

    K.O. Kalinin, N.G. Berloff, New Journal of Physics, V. 20, 113023 (2018)

    2018

  4. [11]

    Alyatkin, K

    S. Alyatkin, K. Sitnik, V.K. Danielsson, J.D. T¨ opfer, A. Askitopoulos, H. Sigurdsson, P.G. Lagoudakis, e-print arXiv:2409.16801v1 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Ballarini, A

    D. Ballarini, A. Gianfrate, R. Panico, A. Opala, S. Ghosh, L. Dominici, V. Ardizzone, M. De Giorgi, G. Lerario, G. Gigli, T.C.H. Liew, M. Matuszewski, D. Sanvitto, Nano Letters, V. 20, 3506 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    Ghosh, T.C.H

    S. Ghosh, T.C.H. Liew, npj Quantum Information V. 6, 16 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Makarov, A.A

    D.V. Makarov, A.A. Elistratov, Yu.E. Lozovik, Physics Letters A V. 384, 126942 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    Alliluev, D.V

    A.D. Alliluev, D.V. Makarov, N.A. Asriyan, A.A. Elistratov, Yu.E. Lozovik, Physics Letters A, V. 453, 128492 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    Alliluev, D.V

    A.D. Alliluev, D.V. Makarov, N.A. Asriyan, A.A. Elistratov, Yu.E. Lozovik. J. Low Temp. Phys., V. 214, 331 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    Elistratov, Yu.E

    A.A. Elistratov, Yu.E. Lozovik, Phys. Rev. B, V. 97, 014525 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Asriyan, A.A

    N.A. Asriyan, A.A. Elistratov, Yu.E. Lozovik, Quantum, V. 7, 1144 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    Kuznetsova, D.V

    N.V. Kuznetsova, D.V. Makarov, A.A. Elistratov, N.A. Asriyan, Yu.E. Lozovik, Bull. Rus. Acad. Sci., V. 88, 847 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    Dagvadorj, J.M

    G. Dagvadorj, J.M. Fellows, S. Matyja´ skiewicz, F.M. Marchetti, I Carusotto, M.H. Szyma´ nska, Phys. Rev. X, V. 5, 041028 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Comaron, I

    P. Comaron, I. Carusotto, M.H. Szyma´ nska, N.P. Proukakis, Europhys. Lett. V. 133, 17002 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Carusotto, C

    I. Carusotto, C. Ciuti, Rev. Mod. Phys., V. 85, 299 (2013). 17

    2013

  16. [23]

    De Vega, D

    I. De Vega, D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys., V. 89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    Li, Physics Letters A, V

    X. Li, Physics Letters A, V. 387, 127036 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    Alliluev, D.V

    A.D. Alliluev, D.V. Makarov, Journal of Russian Laser Research, V. 43, 71 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    Ohadi, R.L

    H. Ohadi, R.L. Gregory, T. Freegarde, Y.G. Rubo, A.V. Kavokin, N.G. Berloff, P.G. Lagoudakis, Phys. Rev. X, V. 6, 031032 (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Alyatkin, J.D

    S. Alyatkin, J.D. T¨ opfer, A. Askitopolous, H. Sigurdsson, P.G. Lagoudakis, Phys. Rev. Lett., V. 124, 207402 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    Helluin, L

    F. Helluin, L. Canet, A. Minguzzi, Phys. Rev. B, V. 109, 195304 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Fontaine, D

    Q. Fontaine, D. Squizzato, F. Baboux, I. Amelio, A. Lemaitre, M. Morassi, I. Sagnes, L.L. Gratiet, A. Harouri, M. Wouters, I. Carusotto, A. Amo, M. Richard, A. Minguzzi, L. Canet, S. Ravets, J. Bloch, Nature, V. 608, 687 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Baboux, D

    F. Baboux, D. De Bernardis, V. Goblot, V.N. Gladilin, C. Gomez, E. Galopin, L. Le Gratiet, A. Lemaitre, I. Sagnes, I. Carusotto, M. Wouters, A. Amo, J. Bloch, Optica, V. 5 1163 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Alyatkin, C

    S. Alyatkin, C. Mili´ an, Ya.V. Kartashov, K.A. Sitnik, I. Gnusov, J.D. T¨ opfer, H. Sigurdsson, P.G. Lagoudakis, Science Advances,V 10, 1589 (2024). 18 FIG. 5. Function g(1) plotted as function of ∆ r and t for the single pumping spot at T = (a) 5 K; (b) 20 K; (C) 50 K. 19 FI...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.