Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Nonreciprocal magnetic-field-induced second harmonic generation of exciton polaritons in ZnSe

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reversing a magnetic field more than doubles the second-harmonic intensity of the y' exciton-polariton component in ZnSe; the cause is interference of crystallographic and field-induced SHG, with the phase set by exciton damping.

desk verdict A real first observation with a quantitative story that doesn't add up; send to referees but expect major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12572 v1 pith:MB4VCV37 submitted 2025-07-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

J. Mund , D. R. Yakovlev , A. Farenbruch , N. V. Siverin , M. A. Semina , M. M. Glazov , E. L. Ivchenko , M. Bayer This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords secondharmonicgenerationnonreciprocalopticsexcitonpolaritonsZnSeZeemaneffectexternalmagneticfieldVoigtgeometrynonlinearmagneto-optics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper reports that second harmonic generation (SHG) at the 1S exciton-polariton resonance in bulk ZnSe depends on the direction of an external magnetic field even though the light path is unchanged. In the $k \parallel [111]$ geometry, the $y'$-polarized resonance component is more than doubled in intensity at $-10\,\mathrm{T}$ and shows no intensity change at $+10\,\mathrm{T}$, while the $x'$ component changes by only about 25%. The authors explain the nonreciprocity as interference between the crystallographic SHG, allowed by the zinc-blende point group, and a magnetic-field-induced SHG channel produced by the Zeeman mixing of the $y'$ and $z'$ exciton states. The relative phase of the two channels is controlled by the exciton damping; if damping were zero, the linear-in-field interference term would vanish and the response would be reciprocal. The paper claims this is the first observation of nonreciprocal SHG in semiconductor crystals and the first for exciton-polaritons.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a linear-in-$B$ interference between two SHG channels: the crystallographic channel $\chi_0$ (two-photon excitation of the $|y\rangle$ state) and the Zeeman-induced channel $\chi_1$ (excitation of the $|z\rangle$ state admixed into $|\tilde y\rangle$). The microscopic model uses the effective Hamiltonian $H=\Delta L_z^2 + g\mu_B \mathbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{L}$ in the Cartesian basis $x\parallel[1\bar10]$, $y\parallel[11\bar2]$, $z\parallel[111]$, which yields $\chi_1=-(i g\mu_B B)/(2\hbar\omega-E_z+i\Gamma)\,\chi_0$ and $\chi_2=0$. The relative phase between $\chi_0$ and $\chi_1$ is governed by the damping $\Gamma$: the cross term in the intensity, $1+2g\mu_B B\Gamma/(\Delta^2+\Gamma^2)$, is odd in $B$ only when $\Gamma\neq0$. This is what converts an otherwise reciprocal $\propto B^2$ magneto-SHG response into a nonreciprocal one. A secondary set of $k\cdot B$ magneto-spatial dispersion terms (coefficients $\gamma_1,\gamma_2$ in Eq. A12 of the paper) can add a phase-locked contribution that would also break reciprocity, but the measured anisotropy diagrams indicate the Zeeman-mixing path dominates.

What would settle it

Measure $I(+B)-I(-B)$ for the $y'$ component as a function of temperature between 5 K and 200 K, where the 1S damping $\Gamma$ grows. The model predicts that this difference scales as $\Gamma/(\Delta^2+\Gamma^2)$, rising to a maximum when $\Gamma\approx\Delta$ and then declining; observing instead a monotonic increase, or a nonreciprocity in the $k\parallel[001]$ geometry beyond the pure $B^2$ term, would contradict the interference-plus-damping explanation and point to the magneto-spatial dispersion terms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that nonreciprocal magnetic-field-induced SHG in ZnSe arises from the interference of the crystallographic second-order susceptibility $\chi_0$ with a field-induced contribution $\chi_1$, with the exciton damping $\Gamma$ setting the phase that allows a linear-in-$B$ term to survive in the intensity. In the $k \parallel [111]$ geometry, the magnetic field mixes the $y'$ and $z'$ exciton-polariton states as $|\tilde y\rangle \approx |y\rangle + i\,g\mu_B B_x/\Delta\, |z\rangle$; the $z'$ state is two-photon active through $E_x^2+E_y^2$ but emits no SHG at $B=0$ because it is polarized along the light propagation direction. Phenomenologically, the second-harmonic polarization reads $P_y^{2\omega}=(\chi_0+\chi_1 B_x)(E_x^2-E_y^2)+\chi_1 B_x(E_x^2+E_y^2)$ with $\chi_1 = -i\,g\mu_B B/(2\hbar\omega - E_z + i\Gamma)\,\chi_0$ and $\chi_2=0$. For $\Gamma=0$ the phases of $\chi_0$ and $\chi_1$ differ by $\pi/2$ and the $B$-linear term cancels in the intensity; only nonzero damping produces the cross term visible as different SHG intensities for opposite field directions. The experimental signature is that the $y'$ component's SHG intensity is more than doubled at $-10\,\mathrm{T}$ and unchanged at $+10\,\mathrm{T}$, the $x'$ component stays nearly field independent, and the $k\parallel[001]$ geometry, where crystallographic SHG is forbidden, shows no nonreciprocity.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation depends on assigning the lower-energy split line to the $x'$ exciton-polariton component and the higher-energy line to the $y'$ component, and on the assumption that the $z'$ state is not detected because it is polarized along the light direction; if that assignment, the magneto-spatial dispersion terms, or field-induced changes in the fundamental-beam polarization contributed to the detected signal, the inferred phase between the crystallographic and field-induced signals, and hence the sign and size of the nonreciprocity, would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reversing the magnetic field direction with a fixed light path is equivalent to reversing the light path through the crystal, so the measured intensity difference is a true optical nonreciprocity at the exciton-polariton resonance.
  • Because crystallographic SHG is forbidden along $k\parallel[001]$, that geometry shows no nonreciprocity even though field-induced SHG is present, confirming that interference of two channels, not a single field-induced channel, is required.
  • Tied to the 1S exciton binding energy of 20 meV, the effect is expected to survive up to roughly 200 K in ZnSe, far above the N\'eel temperature of the antiferromagnets where nonreciprocal SHG was previously observed.
  • The same interference mechanism should operate in other noncentrosymmetric semiconductors with pronounced exciton-polariton effects; the paper specifically points to ZnO and Cu2O, where higher exciton binding energies could push the effect toward room temperature.
  • Measuring the nonreciprocity of the $y'$ component gives a direct probe of the Zeeman mixing of the $y'$ and $z'$ exciton-polariton states, i.e., of the longitudinal-transverse splitting $\Delta$ and the exciton $g$-factor.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the predicted temperature dependence $\Gamma/(\Delta^2+\Gamma^2)$ for $I(+B)-I(-B)$ could be checked by raising the lattice temperature from 5 K toward 200 K; the difference should peak near $\Gamma\approx\Delta$ and then decline.
  • Beyond the paper, the same Hamiltonian predicts that increasing the longitudinal-transverse splitting $\Delta$ suppresses the effect, while raising damping up to $\Gamma\sim\Delta$ enhances it, giving a design rule for materials that show this nonreciprocity.
  • A testable extension: reverse only the light propagation direction at fixed $\mathbf{B}$; the Zeeman mechanism predicts the same intensity asymmetry as reversing $\mathbf{B}$ at fixed $\mathbf{k}$, whereas magneto-spatial dispersion terms would produce a different dependence on crystal axes.
  • The $\gamma_1$ magneto-spatial dispersion channel enters with the same phase as $\chi_0$ rather than with the $i$-phase of the Zeeman term, so tilting the light direction away from [111] should shift the phase of the nonreciprocity; detecting such a shift would separate that contribution from the pure Zeeman mechanism.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports magnetic-field-dependent second harmonic generation (SHG) at the 1S exciton-polariton resonance in bulk ZnSe. For kω ∥ [111] with B perpendicular to k, the authors observe that the SHG intensity of the y′ exciton-polariton component is strongly nonreciprocal in B: it is roughly doubled at B = −10 T and nearly unchanged at B = +10 T, while the x′ component changes only weakly and symmetrically. The effect is absent for kω ∥ [001], where crystallographic SHG is symmetry-forbidden. The authors develop a phenomenological model in which the SHG intensity is I = |A + CB + C′B²|² and attribute the nonreciprocity to interference between crystallographic and magnetic-field-induced SHG contributions, with phases set by exciton damping. A microscopic model based on B-induced mixing of the y′ and z′ exciton states is presented in Appendix A. The paper claims the first observation of nonreciprocal SHG in semiconductor crystals and the first for exciton-polaritons.

Significance. If quantitatively validated, this would be a notable experimental result: a clean, spectrally resolved demonstration of magnetic-field-direction-dependent SHG at an exciton-polariton resonance, with a control geometry that supports the interference interpretation. The raw spectral observation—the nonreciprocal intensity at ±10 T in the [111] geometry—appears robust and is largely independent of the model. The paper also gives credit for including explicit symmetry arguments, rotational anisotropy data, and a microscopic model. However, the quantitative support for the claimed mechanism is currently not convincing: the reported fit parameters are internally inconsistent with the stated field dependence, and the microscopic model as written predicts an effect roughly two orders of magnitude smaller than observed. These issues are load-bearing for the central mechanistic claim, so the paper needs substantial revision before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (4), Fig. 3(b)] The reported fit parameters are inconsistent with the stated nonreciprocity. The text says the y′ component is “more than doubled” at −10 T and shows “no change in intensity” at +10 T, and it earlier quotes χ1/χ0 ≈ −0.024/T for the linear-in-B susceptibility ratio. However, the Fit-2 parameters reported in §IV are C/A = 0.02/T and C′/A = 7.9×10⁻⁴/T². Taking A real, Eq. (4) gives I(+10 T) = |1 + 0.2 + 0.079|² ≈ 1.64 and I(−10 T) = |1 − 0.2 + 0.079|² ≈ 0.77, i.e., the opposite asymmetry from what is described. Since the sign (and in general the phase) of C/A is exactly the quantity used to extract the relative phase of the crystallographic and magnetic-field-induced SHG contributions, this inconsistency must be resolved. Please report the fitted complex ratios C/A and C′/A unambiguously, state the sign convention for B, and show the resulting fit curve together with the data.
  2. [Appendix A, Eq. (A11)] The microscopic model as presented cannot quantitatively account for the observed effect. Using the paper's own values—Δ ≈ 5 meV, Γ ≈ 0.09 meV (half of the 0.18 meV FWHM), g ≈ 1, and B = 10 T—the linear-in-B intensity correction in Eq. (A11), 2gμB B Γ/(Δ² + Γ²), is of order 4×10⁻³, i.e., about 0.4%. The observed effect is a near doubling of the intensity, and the C′B² term in Eq. (4) is even in B and cannot produce the asymmetry. Thus the Zeeman-mixing mechanism as formulated does not explain the magnitude of the nonreciprocity. The paper must either provide values of g and Δ (with justification) that make Eq. (A11) compatible with the data, or quantitatively include the magneto-spatial dispersion terms γ1 and γ2 from Eq. (A12), or identify another mechanism. Without this, the central claim that the interference of crystallographic and magnetic-field-induced SHG explains the observation is not quantitatively validated.
  3. [§III, §IV, Appendix A] The assignment of the two magnetic-field-split lines to the x′ and y′ polariton components, and specifically the claim that the y′ state is mixed with the longitudinal z′ state while z′ does not contribute to the detected SHG, is central to the inferred phase relationship. This assignment should be checked against the measured splitting. With the quoted Δ ≈ 5 meV and g ≈ 1, the Zeeman-induced second-order shift of the y′ level is (gμB B)²/Δ ≈ 0.07 meV at B = 10 T, whereas the observed splitting between the two lines is 0.23 meV. The paper should explain whether the additional splitting comes from polariton dispersion, magneto-spatial dispersion, or other terms; otherwise the inferred phase and the extracted C/A ratio rest on an unvalidated assignment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§I] The definition of “nonreciprocal” should be stated explicitly. The manuscript opens with the source–detector exchange definition of reciprocity, but the experiment compares I(+B) and I(−B) at fixed k. These are related but not identical notions; please clarify the definition used and how the B-reversal measurement establishes nonreciprocity.
  2. [Fig. 3] The caption refers to “Fit 1” and “Fit 2” in panel (b), but the printed figure does not clearly distinguish the two curves. Please use distinct line styles and clearly label them, and consider showing the residuals of both fits.
  3. [§V] The sentence “We are firm, that the nonreciprocal SHG can be observed in a manifold of semiconductor crystals” should be rephrased as an evidence-based statement about the generality of the mechanism, rather than an assertion of certainty.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including “Among then are GaAs,” “metalic multilayers,” “surfces and interfaces,” and “due toits cubic noncentrosymmetric crystal lattice.” These should be corrected before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nonreciprocal SHG observation and the [001] control geometry are independent of the fitted model, and the fit parameters are transparently labeled as fits rather than predictions.

full rationale

The nonreciprocal SHG at k∥[111] is a raw experimental result (Figs. 2 and 3) and does not derive from the model. The phenomenological expression I=|A+CB+C'B^2|^2 is used as a fit, with the constants explicitly quoted as fitted values ('Fit 2 ... calculated after Eq. (4) with C'/A≈7.9×10−4/T^2, and C/A=0.02/T'), not as parameter-free predictions. The microscopic model (Appendix A) derives χ1 from Zeeman mixing and gives the independent structural result χ2=0, consistent with the absence of nonreciprocity in the x' component; the [001] control (no crystallographic SHG, no nonreciprocity) is an external falsifiable check. Self-citations to Ref. [20] concern sample properties and polariton dispersion and are not load-bearing for the nonreciprocity mechanism. Therefore no step in the derivation chain reduces by construction to its inputs. Separately, the stated fit coefficients are numerically inconsistent with the qualitative claim: Eq. (4) with C/A=+0.02/T gives I(+10T)=1.64 and I(-10T)=0.77, opposite to 'more than doubled' at -10T and 'no change' at +10T, and the microscopic estimate (A11) is far smaller than the observed effect. These are correctness and consistency matters, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on several material parameters (χ0, χ1, χ2, C, C', Δ, Γ, γ1, γ2) that are not derived from first principles. The central fitted values are χ1/χ0 and the coefficients of Eq. (4); Δ and Γ are taken from prior polariton dispersion knowledge and are not independently measured in this work.

free parameters (5)
  • χ1/χ0 (linear-in-B susceptibility ratio) = -0.024/T (stated; sign appears inconsistent with C/A)
    Fitted to the magnetic-field dependence of the y' component SHG intensity, Fig. 3(b); enters Eq. (3) and Section IV.
  • C/A (coefficient of the B-linear term in Eq. (4)) = 0.02/T as printed
    Fit 2 parameter in I = |A + CB + C'B^2|^2; as printed it gives the opposite asymmetry to the reported data.
  • C'/A (coefficient of the B^2 term in Eq. (4)) = 7.9e-4/T^2
    Fit 2 parameter accounting for the high-field behavior, related to diamagnetic or B^2 susceptibility contributions.
  • χ2 (linear-in-B susceptibility for x-polarization) = 0 (set to zero)
    Concluded negligible from comparison of Figs. 3(a) and 3(b); the microscopic model gives χ2 = 0.
  • γ1, γ2 (magneto-spatial dispersion coefficients) = not quantified
    Introduced in Eq. (A12) as additional B-linear terms; no values are extracted, so they remain unconstrained model parameters.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption ZnSe has Td point group symmetry, so SHG in the electric-dipole approximation is described by a χ(2) tensor with a single independent component χxyz.
    Used in Section III and Eq. (1) to explain why zero-field SHG is absent for k along [001] and present for k along [111].
  • domain assumption The nonlinear polarization can be written as P = χ0 + χ1B + χ2B terms with only the x and y components contributing to the detected signal.
    Eq. (3) is the starting point for all fits; the z component is omitted due to the transversality of the radiated field.
  • domain assumption The macroscopic response is governed by the 1S exciton-polariton Hamiltonian H = ΔL_z^2 + gμ_B B·L (Eq. A1), with two-photon matrix elements to remote bands.
    Defines the microscopic model; assumes no other B-linear coupling beyond the Zeeman term and the optional k·B terms in Eq. (A12).
  • domain assumption Finite exciton damping Γ is required for the B-linear term to affect the SHG intensity.
    Eqs. (A10)-(A11); if Γ = 0, the phases of χ0 and χ1 differ by ±π/2 and the B-linear contribution vanishes in the intensity.
  • domain assumption The z-polarized exciton-polariton state is longitudinal for k parallel to z and does not emit in the detection direction.
    Used to exclude the z' component from the detected SHG and to justify mixing only between the y' and z' states.
  • domain assumption The measured SHG intensity is proportional to |P^{2ω}|^2 without correcting for magnetic-field-induced changes in the fundamental beam polarization or phase matching.
    Underlies Eqs. (A9)-(A11); the paper does not model propagation effects of the fundamental beam through the sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonreciprocal magnetic-field-induced second harmonic generation of exciton polaritons in ZnSe." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MB4VCV37

@misc{pith2026250712572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonreciprocal magnetic-field-induced second harmonic generation of exciton polaritons in ZnSe},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MB4VCV37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12572}
}
abstract

We report on the optical second harmonic generation (SHG) on the 1S exciton-polariton resonance in bulk ZnSe that is subject to an external magnetic field applied perpendicular to the light wave vector $\mathbf k$ (Voigt geometry). For the symmetry allowed geometry with the $\mathbf{k}\parallel[111]$ crystal axes, the nonreciprocal dependence of the SHG intensity on the magnetic field direction is found. It is explained by an interference of the crystallographic and magnetic-field-induced SHG signals. Relative phases of these signals are evaluated from the rotational anisotropy diagrams. Phenomenological and microscopic models of the effect are developed. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first experimental observation of the nonreciprocal SHG in semiconductor crystals, and the first one for exciton-polaritons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12572 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) shows SHG signal for the sample geometry k ω ∥ z ∥ [001], B ∥ x ∥ [100] and y ∥ [010]. At zero magnetic field no SHG signal is observed at the energy of the 1S exciton-polariton resonance. In fact, we do not observe it in the whole spectral range below and above the exciton resonance. This can be readily understood by the fact that, at B = 0, the χ (2) tensor, which describes the SHG process, has only one indepe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Naturally, this contribution is polarized paral￾lel to the magnetic field and experiences relatively weak diamagnetic shift. The higher energy resonance corre￾sponds to the y ′ , i.e. [11¯2], component of the 1S exciton, which is getting mixed with the z ′ component by the Zee￾man effect. It is polarized perpendicular to the magnetic field and, therefore, shifted by the Zeeman effect in ad￾dition to the diamagnetic … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: (a) Two-photon excitation and one-photon emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. J. Potton, Reciprocity in optics, Rep. Prog. Phys.67, 717 (2004)

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    The parameter χ0 describes the crystallographic SHG generation, Eq

    + χ1Bx(Eω x 2 + Eω y 2). The parameter χ0 describes the crystallographic SHG generation, Eq. (1), and two parametersχ1 and χ2 de- scribe the linear-in-B contributions, Eq. (2). In Eqs. (3) we have included only x- and y-components of the po- larization because only those components contribute to the measured signal due to the transversality of the electri...

    work page

  3. [3]

    A. K. Zvezdin and V. A. Kotov,Modern Magnetooptics and Magnetooptical Materials(Institute of Physics Pub- lishing, Bristol/Philadelphia, 1997)

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    Caloz, A

    C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-L´ eger, Electromagnetic nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. Applied10, 047001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Y. R. Shen,The Principles of Nonlinear Optics(Wiley, New York, 1984)

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    Faraday, Experimental researches in electricity

    M. Faraday, Experimental researches in electricity. Nine- teenth series, Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London 136, 1 (1846)

    work page

  7. [7]

    J. Mund, D. R. Yakovlev, A. N. Poddubny, R. M. Dubrovin, M. Bayer, and R. V. Pisarev, Toroidal non- reciprocity of optical second harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. B 103, L180410 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear Optics (Academic/Elsevier, Burlington, 2008)

    work page 2008

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Sun, Y. Yi, T. Song, G. Clark, B. Huang, Y. Shan, S. Wu, D. Huang, C. Gao, Z. Chen, M. McGuire, T. Cao, D. Xiao, W.-T. Liu, W. Yao, X. Xu, and S. Wu, Giant nonreciprocal second-harmonic generation from antifer- romagnetic bilayer CrI3, Nature 572, 497 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Toyoda, M

    S. Toyoda, M. Fiebig, T.-h. Arima, Y. Tokura, and N. Ogawa, Nonreciprocal second harmonic generation in a magnetoelectric material, Sci. Adv.7, eabe2793 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    T. V. Murzina, E. A. Ganshina, S. V. Guschin, T. V. Misuryaev, and O. A. Aktsipetrov, Nonlinear magneto- optical Kerr effect and second harmonic generation inter- ferometry in Co–Cu granular films Appl. Phys. Lett.73, 3769 (1998)

    1998

  4. [12]

    R.Vollmer, H.Regensburger, Y.Z.Wu, andJ.Kirschner, Magnetization induced second harmonic generation from ultrathin metallic multilayers, Phys. Stat. Sol. (a)188, 1513 (2001)

    2001

  5. [13]

    I. A. Kolmychek, V. V. Radovskaya, K. A. Lazareva, E. E. Shalygina, N. S. Gusev, A. I. Maidykovskii, and T. V. Murzina, Magnetic-field-induced optical second- harmonic generation study of Co/Pt and Co/Ta inter- faces, JETP 130, 555 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Kirilyuk and T

    A. Kirilyuk and T. Rasing, Magnetization-induced- second-harmonic generation from surfaces and interfaces, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B22, 148 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    S¨ anger, D

    I. S¨ anger, D. R. Yakovlev, B. Kaminski, R. V. Pis- arev, V. V. Pavlov, and M. Bayer, Orbital quantization of electronic states in a magnetic field as the origin of second-harmonic generation in diamagnetic semiconduc- tors, Phys. Rev. B74, 165208 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    V. V. Pavlov, A. M. Kalashnikova, R. V. Pisarev, I. S¨ anger, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Magnetic-Field- Induced Second-Harmonic Generation in Semiconductor GaAs, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 157404 (2005). 6

    2005

  9. [17]

    Lafrentz, D

    M. Lafrentz, D. Brunne, A. V. Rodina, V. V. Pavlov, R. V. Pisarev, D. R. Yakovlev, A. Bakin, and M. Bayer, Second-harmonic generation spectroscopy of excitons in ZnO, Phys. Rev. B88, 235207 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    W.Warkentin, J.Mund, D.R.Yakovlev, V.V.Pavlov, R. V. Pisarev, A. V. Rodina, M. A. Semina, M. M. Glazov, E.L.Ivchenko, andM.Bayer, Thirdharmonicgeneration on exciton-polaritons in bulk semiconductors subject to a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B98, 075204 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Farenbruch, J

    A. Farenbruch, J. Mund, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, M. Bayer, M. A. Semina, and M. M. Glazov, Magneto-Stark and Zeeman effect as origin of second harmonic gener- ation of excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B 101, 115201 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    J. Mund, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, High-resolution second harmonic generation spec- troscopy with femtosecond laser pulses on excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B98, 085203 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    J. Mund, A. Farenbruch, D. R. Yakovlev, A. A. Maksi- mov, A. Waag, and M. Bayer, Optical second- and third- harmonic generation on excitons in ZnSe/BeTe quantum wells, Phys. Rev. B102, 125433 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    J. Mund, D. R. Yakovlev, M. A. Semina, and M. Bayer, Optical harmonic generation on the exciton-polariton in ZnSe, Phys. Rev. B102, 045203 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    G. Wang, X. Marie, I. Gerber, T. Amand, D. Lagarde, L. Bouet, M. Vidal, A. Balocchi, and B. Urbaszek, Gi- antenhancementoftheopticalsecond-harmonicemission of WSe2 monolayers by laser excitation at exciton reso- nances, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 097403 (2015)

    2015

  16. [24]

    J. Mund, D. R. Yakovlev, S. Sadofev, C. Meier, and M. Bayer, Second harmonic generation on excitons in ZnO/(Zn,Mg)O quantum wells with built-in electric fields, Phys. Rev. B103, 195311 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Shree, D

    S. Shree, D. Lagarde, L. Lombez, C. Robert, A. Balocchi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, X. Marie, I. C. Gerber, M. M. Glazov, L. E. Golub, B. Urbaszek, and I. Paradisanos, Interlayer exciton mediated second harmonic generation in bilayer MoS2, Nature Commun.12, 6894 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    W. Kim, J. Y. Ahn, J. Oh, J. H. Shim, and S. Ryu, Second-harmonic Young’s interference in atom-thin het- erocrystals, Nano Lett.20, 8825 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    O. V. Gogolin, V. A. Tsvetkov, and E. G. Tsitsishvili, Magnetically induced birefringence in cubic crystals, JETP 60, 593 (1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    R. R. Birss,Symmetry and Magnetism (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966)

    1966

  21. [29]

    Godde, M

    T. Godde, M. M. Glazov, I. A. Akimov, D. R. Yakovlev, H. Mariette, and M. Bayer, Magnetic field induced nuta- tion of exciton-polariton polarization in (Cd,Zn)Te crys- tals, Phys. Rev. B88, 155203 (2013). Appendix A: Microscopic model The effective Hamiltonian of the1S exciton...

    2013

  22. [30]

    B. B. Krichevtsov, R. V. Pisarev, A. A. Rzhevskii, V. N. Gridnev, and H.-J. Weber, Magnetically induced spa- tial dispersion in the cubic magnetic semiconductors Cd1−xMnxTe, JETP87, 553 (1998)

    1998

  23. [110]

    units) x (-10 T) y (0 T) ψ(°) x (+10 T) FIG

    B = 0 T B = 0 T Eω || E2ω 0 90 180 270 360 -0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 Amplitude (arb. units) x (-10 T) y (0 T) ψ(°) x (+10 T) FIG. 4: (a) Two-photon excitation and one-photon emission paths for the three 1S-components. Magnetic field mixes y- and z-component and allows for induced ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.