Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Emission enhanced exciton-polariton condensates with optical feedback

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Delayed optical feedback raises polariton condensate emission by up to 110% near threshold.

desk verdict Delayed optical feedback clearly enhances a polariton condensate, but the paper doesn't yet distinguish coherent seeding from incoherent re-pumping. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20235 v1 pith:BALHZRBR submitted 2025-07-27 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall

R. Mirek , M. Furman , A. Opala , M. Król , W. Pacuski , J. Szczytko , H. Sigur{ḥsson , B. Piętka This is my paper
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hall
keywords exciton-polaritoncondensateopticalfeedbackdelayedloopnonresonantpumpingstimulatedscatteringrate-equationmodelmicrocavityneuromorphicphotonics
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 reports that re-injecting a polariton condensate's own emission after a fixed delay—an optical feedback loop—raises the condensate's integrated output intensity by up to about 110% when the nonresonant pump is near threshold. The enhancement appears as a sharp resonance versus the feedback delay, and its size depends on pump power. The authors explain the effect with a classical rate-equation model in which the delayed feedback field coherently seeds the condensate and triggers stimulated scattering from an excitonic reservoir, analogous to resonant pump-probe amplification. If the interpretation holds, it shows that strong-coupling condensates respond sensitively to external optical feedback, opening a path to recurrent optical networks with weighted delayed signals.

What carries the argument

The central object is the delayed feedback seed αψ(t − t_FB) added to the condensate amplitude equation: the cavity's own coherent emission, attenuated by strength α and delayed by t_FB, is re-injected into the condensate mode. It sits inside a classical rate-equation model that couples the condensate population to two excitonic reservoirs—an inactive high-momentum reservoir n_I that converts into an active bottleneck reservoir n_R, which scatters into the condensate at rate R. The model also includes a blueshift potential U(t) = g_C |ψ|² + 2g_R(n_R + n_I) that shifts the condensate energy; the paper shows that larger blueshifts reduce the enhancement, indicating that the feedback must remain resonant with the blueshifted state to work.

What would settle it

A straightforward test is to inject spectrally filtered feedback: if the ≈110% enhancement persists when the seed is detuned far outside the condensate emission line, the coherent-seed mechanism is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that delayed optical feedback of the condensate's own emission acts as a resonant seed for a nonresonantly pumped polariton microcavity, lowering the condensation threshold and enhancing the time-integrated cavity emission by up to ≈110% near threshold. The paper obtains this by connecting a fraction of the cavity emission through a feedback arm whose round-trip time matches the laser repetition period, then measuring the enhancement factor η = (⟨I_F⟩ − ⟨I⟩)/⟨I⟩ as a function of pump power and delay τ. The enhancement peaks at τ ≈ −18.6 ps, a negative delay interpreted as the time the condensate takes to build up after the pump pulse, and diminishes at higher pump powers where the nonresonant pump alone can trigger condensation. A rate-equation model for the condensate amplitude ψ(t) coupled to active and inactive excitonic reservoirs, with a feedback term αψ(t − t_FB), reproduces the main features of the enhancement versus power and delay, although it inverts the build-up/decay asymmetry seen in experiment, which the authors attribute to over-simplified reservoir depletion.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the re-injected light enters as a coherent seed that resonantly stimulates scattering into the condensate, rather than acting as additional incoherent pumping or heating; the paper does not independently calibrate the feedback fraction or verify the seed's spectral overlap with the blueshifted condensate mode.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the seed mechanism is correct, the effective condensation threshold is lowered, so weaker nonresonant pumps can produce coherent polariton emission.
  • The sharp delay resonance implies that matching feedback delay to the condensate build-up time gives a tunable, picosecond-scale amplification response, useful for timing-sensitive photonic circuits.
  • The reduction of enhancement at high pump power and at large blueshift shows that the feedback gain is self-limited by interactions, acting as a classical optical blockade.
  • The same feedback loop can be extended to multiple spatially separated condensates, where weighted delayed signals from previous pulses drive each condensate's response, the basis for recurrent neuromorphic optical networks.
  • The measured build-up and decay times of the enhancement give direct access to the relative lifetimes of the exciton reservoir and the condensate, offering a simple probe of carrier relaxation dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the re-injected light is truly a coherent seed, the enhancement should be sensitive to the relative phase and frequency of the feedback field; varying the feedback arm length by half a wavelength (or spectrally filtering the seed) would test this prediction directly.
  • The model's inverted asymmetry (fast simulated decay vs slow experimental decay) suggests a slower, more gradual reservoir depletion than the single gain-clamping term R|ψ|² allows; time-resolved reservoir photoluminescence could discriminate between the model and the real dynamics.
  • A natural extension is to measure the enhancement versus feedback strength α and compare it quantitatively with the model after independently calibrating the feedback fraction; this would place the mechanism on firmer footing beyond the single α = 0.05 value used here.
  • Because the enhancement depends on the condensate's interaction-induced blueshift, the feedback method could be used as a sensitive detector of the local exciton density, mapping the reservoir dynamics in space and time.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental and theoretical study of a nonresonantly pumped polariton microcavity coupled to a delayed optical feedback loop. The main observation is that re-injecting part of the condensate emission into the cavity increases the time-integrated output intensity by up to approximately 110% near the condensation threshold, with a sharp resonant enhancement as a function of the feedback delay, peaking near tau = -18.6 ps. The authors propose a classical rate-equation model for the condensate and two excitonic reservoirs, in which the feedback enters as a coherent amplitude term alpha*psi(t-tFB) in Eq. (2). They argue that the model reproduces the pump-power dependence and the resonant delay dependence, and they discuss the role of the blueshift in reducing enhancement. The paper concludes that the method can be extended to coupled polariton condensates for neuromorphic computing.

Significance. If the coherent-seeding mechanism were firmly established, this would be a useful new experimental capability for polariton systems, connecting optical-feedback control to the strong-coupling regime and potentially enabling recurrent signaling between condensates. The manuscript includes a plausible rate-equation framework and the experimental data show a clear, reproducible-looking enhancement effect. The main strength is the experimental observation itself, which is internally consistent across power scans and delay scans. However, the current evidence does not uniquely establish the proposed mechanism over an incoherent reservoir-pumping alternative, and the model fails to reproduce a key temporal asymmetry of the measured enhancement. The significance of the work is therefore conditional on additional calibration and model discrimination, but the experimental result is likely of interest to the polariton and nanophotonics communities.

major comments (4)
  1. [Theory, Eq. (2)] The feedback term alpha*psi(t-tFB) with alpha = 0.05 is the load-bearing assumption of the paper, but the feedback fraction is never independently calibrated. Appendix B characterizes the laser light reflected from the sample, not the condensate photoluminescence that is actually fed back during the experiment. Without a measurement of the coupled feedback fraction and the spectral overlap between the returned light and the blueshifted condensate mode, the model's agreement is at least partly a fitted outcome, and the observed enhancement could equally arise from an incoherent resonant excitation that adds carriers to the reservoir. Please provide an independent calibration of the feedback power at the sample and the spectrum of the returning light, and test an incoherent-feedback alternative against the data.
  2. [Results, Fig. 5(d)] The simulation produces a slow build-up and fast decay of the enhancement as a function of delay, which the authors explicitly state is opposite to the measured behavior (fast build-up, slow decay). The simulated peak is also at tau approximately -6 ps, compared with the experimental value of -18.6 ps. This discrepancy concerns a central experimental feature, and it directly contradicts the Conclusions statement that the model "explains nearly all features of the study." The model needs to be modified to reproduce the correct temporal asymmetry, or the claims about the model's explanatory power must be substantially scaled back.
  3. [Results, Figs. 2-4] No error bars or statistical uncertainties are shown for the measured enhancement factors eta. The enhancement definition in Eq. (1) involves integrated intensities, but the number of experimental realizations and the integration procedure are not specified for the polariton data. Without uncertainty estimates, the 110% maximum and the sharp resonant peak in the delay scan cannot be quantitatively assessed. Please add error bars from repeated measurements or clearly state the reproducibility of the data.
  4. [Results, Fig. 3 and Eq. (1)] The interpretation of the enhancement peak as coherent seeding relies on the assumption that the feedback light is a phase-coherent copy of the condensate field. However, the experimental feedback path contains a long-pass filter and a reflection from a translation-stage mirror, and no measurement of the coherence or polarization of the returned light relative to the condensate is reported. The manuscript should either provide such a characterization or explicitly acknowledge that the observed enhancement could be caused by an incoherent threshold-lowering effect, and explain how the data discriminate between these possibilities.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction: "excitaiton" should be "excitation" in the sentence about nonresonant excitation schemes.
  2. [Results, Experimental setup] The text states "A negative delay tau < corresponds to a feedback seed arriving before the next pump pulse," but the inequality is incomplete; it should read "tau < 0".
  3. [Theory, Eq. (4)] The experiment uses a repetition period of t1 = 13 ns (76 MHz), while the Theory section states "the full t1 = 12 ns gap between pump pulses." This numerical inconsistency should be corrected.
  4. [Figure captions] Several figure captions in the arXiv version contain uninterpretable Unicode glyph sequences (e.g., "uni00000014/uni00000013..."), which seriously impair readability and should be fixed in the final manuscript.
  5. [Introduction] The term "quasiresonantly seeds" is used in the Introduction, but no spectral measurement of the feedback light relative to the condensate energy is presented. Either add such a measurement or rephrase to avoid implying a resonance that is not directly evidenced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the experimental enhancement is measured directly, and the rate-equation model is a forward simulation whose delay asymmetry contradicts the data, so it is not reverse-engineered from the claimed result.

full rationale

The central claim is an experimental observation: feeding a delayed portion of the condensate emission back into the cavity increases the integrated output intensity by up to about 110% near threshold (Figs. 2 and 3). This measurement is independent of the model; it is a direct comparison of cavity PL with and without the feedback arm. The rate-equation model in Eqs. (2)-(4) contains the coherent feedback term αψ(t−tFB), which is the hypothesized physical mechanism rather than a fitted restatement of the measured enhancement. The paper states fixed parameter values (R = 0.005 ps^-1, α = 0.05, κ = 0.05 ps^-1, γC = 1 ps^-1) and does not report fitting them to the enhancement data; they are assigned from material constants and prior work. Most importantly, the simulation's delay asymmetry is opposite to the experiment: the authors write that 'opposite to our measurements, the simulation depicts a slow build-up and fast decay' and conclude 'a more precise rate-equation model is needed.' This failure on a key measured feature is strong evidence that the model was not tuned to reproduce the central result, and it reinforces that the enhancement observation stands on its own. The same-group citations [30] and [31] supply material parameters, but they are not load-bearing for the experimental claim: even if those values were incorrect, the measured feedback-induced enhancement and its delay resonance would remain. The possibility that an incoherent reservoir-pumping mechanism could also explain the data is a scientific underdetermination concern, not a definitional circularity. The paper's derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to its main claim.

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

The central theory rests on a semiclassical single-mode treatment with a coherent feedback seed and multiple hand-set rates. The key free parameters are alpha, R, kappa and the decay rates; the feedback strength in particular directly controls the magnitude of the enhancement and is not independently measured. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Feedback strength alpha = 0.05
    Feedback coupling strength in Eq. (2); no independent calibration is reported, and this parameter directly controls the magnitude of the simulated enhancement.
  • Stimulated scattering rate R = 0.005 ps^-1
    Stimulated scattering rate into the condensate; chosen by hand to match threshold and enhancement, not derived from sample parameters.
  • Reservoir conversion rate kappa = 0.05 ps^-1
    Conversion rate from inactive to active reservoir; hand-set value contributing to the reservoir dynamics.
  • Decay rates gamma_C, gamma_R, gamma_I = 1, 0.2, 0.01 ps^-1
    Polariton and exciton reservoir decay rates; values are typical estimates, not measured for this specific sample.
  • Langevin noise amplitude eta_bar P0 = not quantified
    Amplitude of the white noise term in Eq. (2); controls spontaneous scattering level and is not independently measured.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The condensate is described by a scalar, single-mode mean field psi = <psi_hat> with Langevin noise.
    Invoked in Eq. (2); neglects polarization, multimode structure and quantum correlations beyond white noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The feedback is a coherent amplitude copy alpha*psi(t-tFB) of the previous condensate field.
    Eq. (2) uses constant alpha = 0.05 with no independent measurement; actual re-injected emission is spectrally broad and partly incoherent.
  • domain assumption Reservoir dynamics are captured by two populations n_I and n_R with rates kappa, gamma_I, gamma_R.
    Eqs. (3)-(4); values are chosen to match typical polariton timescales, not derived from sample properties.
  • ad hoc to paper Stimulated scattering into the condensate scales as R*n_R*|psi|^2 with R constant.
    Eqs. (2)-(3); R = 0.005 ps^-1 is hand-set.
  • domain assumption The nonresonant pump only excites the inactive reservoir n_I.
    Eq. (4); this skips carrier generation and relaxation channels, which the authors note shifts the peak delay in the simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Emission enhanced exciton-polariton condensates with optical feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BALHZRBR

@misc{pith2026250720235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Emission enhanced exciton-polariton condensates with optical feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BALHZRBR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20235}
}
read the original abstract

Optical feedback is a well-known method of controlling laser dynamics, which has been widely studied in photonic systems to induce complex behaviors such as chaos or enhanced coherence. However, its application to systems in the strong light-matter coupling regime remains unexplored. In this work, we introduce a delayed optical feedback loop into a nonresonantly pumped polariton condensate. By feeding part of the emission back into the cavity to seed the next condensate, we observe a strong increase in the output intensity, up to 110%. We explain this effect using a classical rate equation model for the condensate coupled to excitonic reservoirs. Our results evidence that polariton condensates can respond strongly to optical feedback, congruent with well known polariton amplification techniques using resonant pump-probe setups. Our method opens new possibilities for using polariton feedback to connect multiple condensates and can be an essential step toward neuromorphic computing based on recurrent signaling in photonic systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20235 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scheme of the experiment. Pulses from nonresonant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feedback enhancement of the cavity emission. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Enhancement of the polariton PL as a function of feedback delay and increasing pumping power going from left to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Decay and (b) build-up of the enhancement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Simulations of the experiment. (a) An example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimental setup with additional feedback path, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Panel (a) shows the signal intensity for different delays between the pulses. The bright red dots show the stability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lang and K

    R. Lang and K. Kobayashi, External optical feedback effects on semiconductor injection laser properties, IEEE J. Quantum Electron.16, 347 (1980)

    work page 1980

  2. [2]

    M. C. Soriano, J. García-Ojalvo, C. R. Mirasso, and I. Fischer, Complex photonics: Dynamics and applica- tions of delay-coupled semiconductors lasers, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 421 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Sciamanna and K

    M. Sciamanna and K. A. Shore, Physics and applications of laser diode chaos, Nat. Photonics9, 151 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Albert, C

    F. Albert, C. Hopfmann, S. Reitzenstein, C. Schnei- der, S. Höfling, L. Worschech, M. Kamp, W. Kinzel, A. Forchel, and I. Kanter, Observing chaos for quantum- dot microlasers with external feedback, Nat. Commun. 2, 366 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Holzinger, C

    S. Holzinger, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, X. Porte, and S. Reitzenstein, Quantum-dot micropillar lasers subject to coherent time-delayed optical feedback from a short external cavity, Sci. Rep.9, 631 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Ciuti, P

    C. Ciuti, P. Schwendimann, and A. Quattropani, Theory of polariton parametric interactions in semiconductor mi- crocavities, Semicond. Sci. Technol.18, S279 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    J. J. Baumberg and P. G. Lagoudakis, Parametric am- plification and polariton liquids in semiconductor micro- cavities, Phys. Status Solidi B242, 2210 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Kavokin, T

    A. Kavokin, T. C. H. Liew, C. Schneider, P. G. Lagoudakis, S. Klembt, and S. Hoefling, Polariton con- densates for classical and quantum computing, Nat. Rev. Phys. 4, 435 (2022). 7 x107 Figure 7. Panel (a) shows the signal intensity for different delays between the pulses. The bright red dots show the stability of the laser during the experiment, dark red...

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    P. G. Savvidis, J. J. Baumberg, R. M. Stevenson, M. S. Skolnick, D. M. Whittaker, and J. S. Roberts, Angle- resonant stimulated polariton amplifier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1547 (2000)

    2000

  2. [10]

    Huang, F

    R. Huang, F. Tassone, and Y. Yamamoto, Experimental evidence of stimulated scattering of excitons into micro- cavity polaritons, Phys. Rev. B61, R7854 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    Houdré, C

    R. Houdré, C. Weisbuch, R. P. Stanley, U. Oesterle, and M. Ilegems, Nonlinear emission of semiconductor micro- cavities in the strong coupling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2793 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    J. Zhao, A. Fieramosca, R. Bao, W. Du, K. Dini, R. Su, J. Feng, Y. Luo, D. Sanvitto, T. C. H. Liew, and Q. Xiong, Nonlinear polariton parametric emission in an atomically thin semiconductor based microcavity, Nat. Nanotechnol. 17, 396 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    A. Amo, T. C. H. Liew, C. Adrados, R. Houdré, E. Gi- acobino, A. V. Kavokin, and A. Bramati, Exciton– polariton spin switches, Nat. Photonics4, 361 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Dreismann, H

    A. Dreismann, H. Ohadi, Y. del Valle-Inclan Redondo, R. Balili, Y. G. Rubo, S. I. Tsintzos, G. Deligeorgis, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis, and J. J. Baumberg, A sub-femtojoule electrical spin-switch based on optically trapped polariton condensates, Nat. Mater. 15, 1074 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    J. Feng, J. Wang, A. Fieramosca, R. Bao, J. Zhao, R. Su, Y. Peng, T. C. H. Liew, D. Sanvitto, and Q. Xiong, All-optical switching based on interacting exciton polari- tons in self-assembled perovskite microwires, Sci. Adv.7, eabj6627 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    A. V. Zasedatelev, A. V. Baranikov, D. Sannikov, D. Ur- bonas, F. Scafirimuto, V. Y. Shishkov, E. S. Andrianov, Y. E. Lozovik, U. Scherf, T. Stöferle, R. F. Mahrt, and P. G. Lagoudakis, Single-photon nonlinearity at room temperature, Nature 597, 493–497 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    D. G. Suárez-Forero, F. Riminucci, V. Ardizzone, A. Gi- anfrate, F. Todisco, M. D. Giorgi, D. Ballarini, G. Gigli, K. Baldwin, L. Pfeiffer, and D. Sanvitto, Ultrafast, low- energy, all-optical switch in polariton waveguides (2021), arXiv:2110.05704 [physics.optics]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    F. Chen, H. Li, H. Zhou, S. Luo, Z. Sun, Z. Ye, F. Sun, J. Wang, Y. Zheng, X. Chen, H. Xu, H. Xu, T. Byrnes, Z. Chen, and J. Wu, Optically controlled femtosecond polariton switch at room temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 057402 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    J. De, X. Ma, F. Yin, J. Ren, J. Yao, S. Schumacher, Q. Liao, H. Fu, G. Malpuech, and D. Solnyshkov, Room- temperature electrical field-enhanced ultrafast switch in organic microcavity polariton condensates, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 145, 1557 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    T. Gao, P. S. Eldridge, T. C. H. Liew, S. I. Tsintzos, G. Stavrinidis, G. Deligeorgis, Z. Hatzopoulos, and P. G. Savvidis, Polariton condensate transistor switch, Phys. Rev. B 85, 235102 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Antón, T

    C. Antón, T. C. H. Liew, G. Tosi, M. D. Martín, T. Gao, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. S. Eldridge, P. G. Savvidis, and L. Viña, Dynamics of a polariton condensate transistor switch, Appl. Phys. Lett.101, 261116 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Ballarini, M

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

    2013

  15. [23]

    A. V. Zasedatelev, A. V. Baranikov, D. Urbonas, F. Scafirimuto, U. Scherf, T. Stöferle, R. F. Mahrt, and P. G. Lagoudakis, A room-temperature organic polariton transistor, Nat. Photonics13, 378 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Byrnes, N

    T. Byrnes, N. Y. Kim, and Y. Yamamoto, Exciton– polariton condensates, Nat. Phys.10, 803 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    L. S. Dang, D. Heger, R. André, F. Bœuf, and R. Romes- tain, Stimulation of polariton photoluminescence in semi- conductor microcavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 3920 (1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    Senellart, J

    P. Senellart, J. Bloch, B. Sermage, and J. Y. Marzin, Microcavity polariton depopulation as evidence for stim- ulated scattering, Phys. Rev. B62, R16263 (2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    J. Wu, S. Ghosh, R. Su, A. Fieramosca, T. C. H. Liew, and Q. Xiong, Nonlinear parametric scattering of exci- ton polaritons in perovskite microcavities, Nano Lett.21, 3120 (2021). 8

    2021

  20. [28]

    W. Xie, H. Dong, S. Zhang, L. Sun, W. Zhou, Y. Ling, J. Lu, X. Shen, and Z. Chen, Room-temperature polari- ton parametric scattering driven by a one-dimensional polariton condensate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 166401 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    R. M. Stevenson, V. N. Astratov, M. S. Skolnick, D. M. Whittaker, M. Emam-Ismail, A. I. Tartakovskii, P. G. Savvidis, J. J. Baumberg, and J. S. Roberts, Continu- ous wave observation of massive polariton redistribution by stimulated scattering in semiconductor microcavities, P...

    2000

  22. [30]

    Mirek, M

    R. Mirek, M. Furman, M. Król, B. Seredyński, K. Łempicka-Mirek, K. Tyszka, W. Pacuski, M. Ma- tuszewski, J. Szczytko, and B. Piętka, Spin polarization of exciton-polariton condensate in a photonic synthetic effectivemagneticfield,Phys.Rev.B 107,125303(2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Mirek, A

    R. Mirek, A. Opala, M. Furman, M. Król, K. Tyszka, B. Seredyński, W. Pacuski, J. Suffczyński, J. Szczytko, M. Matuszewski, and B. Piętka, Neural networks based on ultrafast time-delayed effects in exciton polaritons, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 054037 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Opala and M

    A. Opala and M. Matuszewski, Harnessing exciton- polaritons for digital computing, neuromorphic comput- ing, and optimization [invited], Opt. Mater. Express13, 2674 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    J. D. Töpfer, I. Chatzopoulos, H. Sigurdsson, T. Cook- son, Y. G. Rubo, and P. G. Lagoudakis, Engineering spa- tial coherence in lattices of polariton condensates, Optica 8, 106 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Liang, H

    S. Liang, H. Alnatah, Q. Yao, J. Beaumariage, K. West, K. Baldwin, L. N. Pfeiffer, N. G. Berloff, and D. W. Snoke, Mirror-mediated long-range coupling and robust phase locking of spatially separated exciton-polariton condensates (2025), arXiv:2506.20924 [physics.optics]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mirek, A

    R. Mirek, A. Opala, P. Comaron, M. Furman, M. Król, K.Tyszka, B.Seredyński, D.Ballarini, D.Sanvitto, T.C. Liew, et al., Neuromorphic binarized polariton networks, Nano Lett. 21, 3715 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Tyszka, M

    K. Tyszka, M. Furman, R. Mirek, M. Król, A. Opala, B. Seredyński, J. Suffczyński, W. Pacuski, M. Ma- tuszewski, J. Szczytko, and B. Piętka, Leaky integrate- and-fire mechanism in exciton–polariton condensates for photonic spiking neurons, Laser Photonics Rev. 17, 2100660 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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