Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Toward triggered generation of indistinguishable single-photons from MoTe$_2$ quantum emitters

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bilayer MoTe2 quantum emitters demonstrate the first two-photon interference in the near-infrared, with Hong-Ou-Mandel visibilities reaching ~10% and up to ~40% with temporal post-selection.

desk verdict First HOM measurement in MoTe2, but the headline indistinguishability claim rests on a marginal raw visibility and error-bar-free post-selection. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20743 v1 pith:4R5EUZMQ submitted 2025-08-28 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph

Pawe{l} Wyborski , Athanasios Paralikis , Pietro Metuh , Martin A. Jacobsen , Christian Ruiz , Niels Gregersen , Battulga Munkhbat This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sciquant-ph PACS 42.50.Ar42.50.Ex78.67.-n
keywords single-photonsourcesMoTe2quantumemittersHong-Ou-Mandelinterferencephotonindistinguishabilitystrainengineeringnear-infraredemissionStarktuning
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 tries to establish that bilayer MoTe2, a molybdenum-based 2D semiconductor emitting in the near-infrared, can host deterministic single-photon emitters whose photons are partially indistinguishable. Using strain wrinkles created by nanopillars plus electron-beam defect activation, the authors make emitters in the 1090–1200 nm range with high linear polarization, sub-nanosecond lifetimes, high single-photon purity, and Stark tunability. The central result is the first Hong-Ou-Mandel two-photon interference measurement from MoTe2 emitters, with a visibility of about 10% and up to about 40% when only photons within a sub-200 ps time window are selected. This is claimed as the highest photon indistinguishability reported for any TMD-based quantum emitter and the first in the near-infrared, a step toward telecom-compatible single-photon sources.

What carries the argument

The central objects are strain-engineered nanopillars in a three-pointed star shape that create nanowrinkles in bilayer MoTe2, where localized exciton states form, and the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer with a 12.5-ns delay line used to measure photon indistinguishability via coincidence peak areas. The temporal filtering analysis (varying the integration window of the zero-delay peak) is the mechanism that exposes the fast coherence component and produces the headline visibility values.

What would settle it

Measure the HOM visibility at an excitation power where the pulsed g(2)(0) is below 0.05 (so re-excitation is negligible) and compare the full 12.5-ns integration window with the sub-200-ps filtered window; a persistent gap between them would show the filtered visibility is inflated by discarding multi-photon events that a triggered source must suppress.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate that bilayer MoTe2 quantum emitters, created deterministically by nanopillar-induced strain and e-beam defect activation, produce triggered single photons in the 1090–1200 nm range with purity g(2)(0) < 0.1, lifetimes as short as 130 ps, and Stark shifts over ~3 meV. Most notably, pulsed excitation generates pairs of consecutively emitted photons that interfere in a Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer, yielding a raw visibility of 10.5 ± 5.4% and over 30% when the coincidence integration is temporally filtered to below 200 ps. They interpret the strong time-filter dependence as consistent with theoretical predictions and as evidence that coherence is limited by fast dephasi

Load-bearing premise

The headline indistinguishability claim rests on the assumption that the temporally filtered Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility (sub-200 ps window, values above 30% without error bars) is a fair, directly comparable measure of single-photon indistinguishability, equivalent to the unfiltered raw visibilities quoted for other TMD emitters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If emission can be shifted further with thicker flakes or modified strain, MoTe2 sources could reach the telecom O- and C-bands, making them directly useful for fiber-based quantum networks.
  • The ~3 meV Stark tuning provides a concrete path to spectrally matching two spatially separated emitters, a prerequisite for remote entanglement and interference between independent sources.
  • The strong time-filter dependence of the HOM visibility implies that suppressing fast dephasing—via cavity Purcell enhancement or resonant excitation—could substantially raise the usable indistinguishability.
  • The reproducible fabrication across multiple samples indicates a scalable route to arrays of tunable near-infrared single-photon emitters.
  • The measured linewidth-to-transform-limit ratio R ~ 55 shows these emitters approach transform-limited coherence without cavity integration, suggesting headroom for improvement with photonic structuring.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The sub-200 ps post-selected visibility of ~40% may not translate to the usable indistinguishability required for linear-optics quantum computing, which relies on interference of simultaneous photons from independent sources; a two-source HOM test would be a stricter benchmark.
  • The same strain-and-defect fabrication method could plausibly be transferred to other molybdenum-based TMDs or multilayer MoTe2 to target the 1310 nm and 1550 nm telecom windows, since emission energy shifts with layer count.
  • Bias-induced shortening of the radiative lifetime at nearly constant linewidth suggests electric-field control of oscillator strength could become a general coherence-engineering tool for 2D emitters.
  • The paper's comparison to prior WSe2 emitters uses the filtered visibility value; a fair platform comparison would require identical integration windows across materials.
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 reports a deterministic fabrication route to quantum emitters in bilayer MoTe2, combining strain engineering with electron-beam defect activation. The emitters show narrow (nominally resolution-limited) emission lines around 1090–1200 nm, strong linear polarization, sub-nanosecond lifetimes, single-photon purity with g(2)(0) < 0.2, and Stark tuning over ~3 meV. The central novelty claim is the first demonstration of two-photon (HOM) interference from a TMD emitter in the near-infrared, with a raw visibility of V = 10.5 ± 5.4% and a post-selected visibility above 30% for sub-200 ps integration windows.

Significance. If the HOM claim were robust, this would be an important step: it would establish MoTe2 as a telecom-adjacent single-photon platform and report the first measured photon indistinguishability for any TMD emitter in the near-infrared. The paper has clear strengths: a reproducible fabrication protocol, systematic comparison of above-band and quasi-resonant excitation, data on encapsulation and electrostatic biasing, and a direct measurement of two-photon interference. The single-photon purity, Stark tuning, and lifetime data are internally consistent and credible. However, the headline indistinguishability claim is statistically fragile, and the paper's own supporting data (g(2)(0) < 0.35 under HOM excitation) weaken it further.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VI, Fig. 5b] The raw HOM visibility is V = 10.5 ± 5.4%, i.e. only ~1.9σ above zero. This does not meet the conventional 3σ threshold for a detection. The abstract and Discussion ('first demonstration of photon indistinguishability', 'highest reported indistinguishability for any TMD') are therefore not supported by the raw data. The authors should either acquire substantially more statistics, report the result as an upper limit/preliminary indication, or present a clearly justified Bayesian or multi-measurement error analysis.
  2. [§VI, Fig. 5c] The post-selected visibility >30% for integration windows below 200 ps is presented without error bars, and the choice of window appears to be made after seeing the data. This is a selection effect. Moreover, comparing this filtered value to raw, unfiltered visibilities from other TMD sources (e.g., WSe2 in ref. 33) is not a like-for-like comparison; temporal filtering removes the very multi-photon and re-excitation events that lower the raw visibility. The claim of 'highest reported indistinguishability' should either be based on the unfiltered value or clearly labeled as a post-selected, non-on-demand figure of merit.
  3. [Supporting Note S6 and §VI] The authors note that under the pulsed quasi-resonant excitation used for HOM, the fitted g(2)(0) is below 0.35, and they attribute the reduced visibility partly to elevated g(2)(0). A g(2)(0) as high as 0.35 implies substantial multi-photon or background emission, which directly caps the achievable HOM visibility. The paper should quantify this effect, e.g., by applying a background-correction model to the HOM signal, or by explicitly stating that the raw HOM value is an upper bound contaminated by non-single-photon events. Without this, the interpretation of the 10% raw visibility is ambiguous.
  4. [§V, Supporting Note S11] The linewidth-to-lifetime ratio R is a central figure used to claim 'approaching the transform-limited regime' (R down to ~55). However, the measured linewidths are at the instrument resolution limit (Wexp ~150 µeV vs. resolution ~140–160 µeV), so Wexp cannot actually resolve changes in the true linewidth. The observed reduction of R from 100 to 55 is driven entirely by the measured lifetime shortening, not by a measured narrowing of the emission line. The claim should be rephrased as an upper bound on R, and the resolution-limited nature of Wexp should be explicitly propagated into the uncertainty on R. The current wording overstates what the data establish.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§IV] Typo: 'yeilds' should be 'yields'.
  2. [§V] In the description of the bias dependence, 'Start effect' should be 'Stark effect'.
  3. [Fig. 5a] The cross-polarized data are 'slightly time-shifted for clarity'. This should be stated in the caption and the shift amount given, otherwise the reader may misread the coincidence peak positions.
  4. [Fig. 5c] The plot has no error bars and no indication of how the integration windows were chosen. At minimum, error bars from Poissonian counting statistics should be added.
  5. [§III] The IQE values (0.81, 0.66, 0.37) are extracted from bunching fits and on/off times using a specific blinking model. The model dependence should be stated more explicitly, and the uncertainty in the IQE estimates should be given.
  6. [References] Ref. 41 is cited as 'Tunable and low-noise wse2 quantum emitters' (arXiv:2507.03355). If this is the source of the WSe2 HOM visibility ~2% comparison, the comparison should be made explicit in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: all headline quantities are directly measured; fitted parameters are interpretations, not predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claims — HOM visibility, g(2)(0), lifetimes, linewidths, Stark shifts — are experimentally measured quantities, not derived from a fitted theory. The HOM visibility is obtained by direct integration of coincidence peak areas in co- and cross-polarized configurations (Fig. 5b), and the temporal-filtering values are post-processing analyses of the same measured histogram (Fig. 5c), not outputs of a model that was fit to the data. Derived quantities such as R = Wexp/Wrad, the internal quantum efficiency estimated from bunching amplitudes, and the coherence time tau_c = 63 ± 12 ps extracted from the HOM fit are standard parameter extractions used for interpretation; they are not renamed as independent predictions of the headline results. The paper's self-citations (refs. 34, 41, 53, 56, 61) concern fabrication methods, interferometer implementation, simulation methodology, and theoretical context; none is load-bearing for the indistinguishability demonstration itself. The raw HOM visibility is modest (10.5 ± 5.4%) and the post-selected values lack error bars, but those are statistical and interpretational concerns, not circularity. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independently predicted quantity. Therefore no circular step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, forces, or conserved quantities. The central claims rest on standard quantum-optics models (transform-limited linewidth, background-limited g(2), classical dipole simulation) and on the material-specific assumption that the observed narrow lines are strain-localized quantum emitters. The fitted parameters are standard characterization outputs, not a predictive theory.

free parameters (3)
  • HOM coherence time tau_c = 63 +/- 12 ps
    Extracted from the HOM dip fitting model in Section VI; used to explain why full-window visibility is low and to motivate temporal filtering.
  • Internal quantum efficiency (IQE) = 0.66-0.88 for QEA under bias, 0.37 for hBN emitter
    Estimated from the bunching amplitude in g(2) fits (Sections III-V); used to support claims of blinking suppression and improved purity under bias.
  • Bunching time constants tau_B = 10.6 ns (QR, 0V), 4.6 ns (+5V), 2.0 ns (+10V), 9 ns (hBN)
    Fit parameters in the second-order autocorrelation model; used to characterize blinking dynamics and the effect of bias.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Room-temperature PL spectra reliably identify bilayer MoTe2 flakes before transfer
    Methods section 'Exfoliation & Transferring' states thicknesses were confirmed via room-temperature PL under 650 nm LED excitation. No AFM, Raman, or other thickness verification is reported, yet emitter properties are attributed to bilayer MoTe2.
  • domain assumption Strain wrinkles plus e-beam-induced defects create the localized quantum emitters
    Sections II-III attribute narrow emission lines to strain-localized single-photon emitters based on prior TMD work (refs. 21, 25, 34). The atomic-scale defect structure is not directly imaged or otherwise independently verified in this paper.
  • domain assumption Wrad = h/(2*pi*tau) is the relevant transform-limited linewidth for these emitters
    Used in Sections III and V to compute R = Wexp/Wrad. This assumes the emitter behaves as an ideal two-level system with a single radiative lifetime; multi-level structure or phonon-broadened emission would invalidate the comparison.
  • standard math The background-limited g(2)(0) formula from Brouri et al. applies to these measurements
    Section III compares measured g(2)(0) values to predictions from signal-to-background ratios using the standard model in Ref. [47] for a single emitter plus Poissonian background.
  • standard math Classical point-dipole simulation captures extraction efficiency
    Methods 'Optical simulation' solves Maxwell's equations in the frequency domain using a classical dipole model from Ref. [61]; this is used to motivate the DBR design and extraction efficiency estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward triggered generation of indistinguishable single-photons from MoTe$_2$ quantum emitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4R5EUZMQ

@misc{pith2026250820743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward triggered generation of indistinguishable single-photons from MoTe$_2$ quantum emitters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4R5EUZMQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20743}
}
abstract

Single-photon sources operating in the telecom band are fundamental components for long-distance optical quantum communication and information processing. Two-dimensional (2D) transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) offer a promising platform for such sources, but their development has been hindered by limited spectral range and poor single-photon indistinguishability. Here, we demonstrate a reproducible and systematic approach for generating near-infrared (1090-1200 nm) quantum emitters in bilayer MoTe$_2$ using deterministic strain and defect engineering. These emitters exhibit strong linear polarization (DOLP $>70\%$), sub-nanosecond lifetimes ($\tau \leqslant$ ~450 ps), high single-photon purity ($g^{(2)}(0)<0.1$), and resolution-limited emission ($\sim$200 $\mu$eV). Electrostatic biasing enables Stark tuning over a $\sim$3 meV range, reduced photon bunching, and significantly shortened radiative lifetimes, yielding narrow emission with ratios of experimental to transform-limited linewidths as low as $R\sim55$. Most notably, two-photon interference measurements reveal a Hong-Ou-Mandel visibility of $V_\text{HOM}\sim $10$\%$, and up to $V_\text{HOM}\sim$ 40$\%$ with post-selection by temporal filtering, representing the highest reported indistinguishability for any TMD quantum emitters and the first such demonstration in the near-infrared regime. These results establish MoTe$_2$ as a viable platform for tunable, low-noise, high-purity single-photon sources with promising indistinguishability, paving the way for their integration into telecom-compatible quantum photonic technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.20743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. A. Vajner, L. Rickert, T. Gao, K. Kaymazlar, and T. Heindel, Adv. Quantum Technol.5, 2100116 (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Maring, A

    N. Maring, A. Fyrillas, M. Pont, E. Ivanov, P. Stepanov, N. Margaria, W. Hease, A. Pishchagin, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, T. H. Au, S. Boissier, E. Bertasi, A. Baert, M. Valdivia, M. Billard, O. Acar, A. Brieussel, R. Mezher, S. C. Wein, A. Salavrakos, P. Sinnott, D. A. Fioretto, P.-E. Emeriau, N. Belabas, S. Mansfield, P. Senellart, J. Senellart, and N. Som...

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Y. Yu, S. Liu, C.-M. Lee, P. Michler, S. Reitzenstein, K. Srinivasan, E. Waks, and J. Liu, Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 1389 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Holewa, A

    P. Holewa, A. Reiserer, T. Heindel, S. Sanguinetti, A. Huck, and E. Semenova, Nanophotonics 14, 1729 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    T. Gao, M. von Helversen, C. Antón-Solanas, C. Schnei- der, and T. Heindel, npj 2D Mater. Appl.7, 4 (2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Brotons-Gisbert, J

    M. Brotons-Gisbert, J. P. Martínez-Pastor, G. C. Balles- teros, B. D. Gerardot, and J. F. Sánchez-Royo, Nanopho- tonics 7, 253 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 021001 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Stührenberg, B

    M. Stührenberg, B. Munkhbat, D. G. Baranov, J.Cuadra, A.B.Yankovich, T.J.Antosiewicz, E.Olsson, and T. Shegai, Nano Lett.18, 5938 (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Schröder, P

    F. Schröder, P. Wyborski, M. Xiong, G. Kountouris, B. Munkhbat, M. Wubs, P. T. Kristensen, J. Mørk, and N. Stenger, Strong coupling between a dielectric nanocavity and a monolayer transition metal dichalco- genide (2025), arXiv:2502.06529 [physics.optics]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B. Han, J. M. Fitzgerald, L. Lackner, R. Rosati, M. Es- mann, F. Eilenberger, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. Syperek, E. Malic, and C. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 076902 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Peyskens, C

    F. Peyskens, C. Chakraborty, M. Muneeb, D. Van Thourhout, and D. Englund, Nat. Commun.10, 4435 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Errando-Herranz, E

    C. Errando-Herranz, E. Schöll, R. Picard, M. Laini, S. Gyger, A. W. Elshaari, A. Branny, U. Wennberg, S. Barbat, T. Renaud, M. Sartison, M. Brotons-Gisbert, C. Bonato, B. D. Gerardot, V. Zwiller, and K. D. Jöns, ACS Photonics8, 1069 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    A. R.-P. Montblanch, M. Barbone, I. Aharonovich, M. Atatüre, and A. C. Ferrari, Nat. Nanotechnol.18, 555 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Tonndorf, R

    P. Tonndorf, R. Schmidt, R. Schneider, J. Kern, M.Buscema, G.A.Steele, A.Castellanos-Gomez, H.S.J. van der Zant, S. Michaelis de Vasconcellos, and R. Brats- chitsch, Optica2, 347 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    Kumar, A

    S. Kumar, A. Kaczmarczyk, and B. D. Gerardot, Nano Lett. 15, 7567 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Palacios-Berraquero, D

    C. Palacios-Berraquero, D. M. Kara, A. R.-P. Mont- blanch, M. Barbone, P. Latawiec, D. Yoon, A. K. Ott, M. Loncar, A. C. Ferrari, and M. Atatüre, Nat. Commun. 8, 15093 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Branny, S

    A. Branny, S. Kumar, R. Proux, and B. D. Gerardot, Nat. Commun.8, 15053 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    L. N. Tripathi, O. Iff, S. Betzold, Ł. Dusanowski, M. Em- merling, K. Moon, Y. J. Lee, S.-H. Kwon, S. Höfling, and C. Schneider, ACS Photonics5, 1919 (2018)

    1919

  11. [19]

    M. R. Rosenberger, C. K. Dass, H.-J. Chuang, S. V. Sivaram, K. M. McCreary, J. R. Hendrickson, and B. T. Jonker, ACS Nano13, 904 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Chakraborty, N

    C. Chakraborty, N. R. Jungwirth, G. D. Fuchs, and A. N. Vamivakas, Phys. Rev. B99, 045308 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Parto, S

    K. Parto, S. I. Azzam, K. Banerjee, and G. Moody, Nat. Commun. 12, 3585 (2021). 12

    2021

  14. [22]

    C. E. Stevens, H.-J. Chuang, M. R. Rosenberger, K. M. McCreary, C. K. Dass, B. T. Jonker, and J. R. Hendrick- son, ACS Nano16, 20956 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    A. M. Kumar, D. Yagodkin, R. Rosati, D. J. Bock, C.Schattauer, S.Tobisch, J.Hagel, B.Höfer, J.N.Kirch- hof, P. Hernández López, K. Burfeindt, S. Heeg, C. Gahl, F. Libisch, E. Malic, and K. I. Bolotin, Nat. Commun. 15, 7546 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    F. C. M. Wu, S.-H. Wu, B. Fang, X. Li, J. Zheng, J. A. C. Incorvia, and E. T. Yu, Nano Lett.25, 10983 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Linhart, M

    L. Linhart, M. Paur, V. Smejkal, J. Burgdörfer, T. Mueller, and F. Libisch, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 146401 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Y.-M. He, G. Clark, J. R. Schaibley, Y. He, M.-C. Chen, Y.-J. Wei, X. Ding, Q. Zhang, W. Yao, X. Xu, C.-Y. Lu, and J.-W. Pan, Nat. Nanotechnol.10, 497 (2015)

    2015

  19. [27]

    Srivastava, M

    A. Srivastava, M. Sidler, A. V. Allain, D. S. Lembke, A. Kis, and A. İmamoğlu, Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 491 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Koperski, K

    M. Koperski, K. Nogajewski, A. Arora, V. Cherkez, P. Mallet, J.-Y. Veuillen, J. Marcus, P. Kossacki, and M. Potemski, Nat. Nanotechnol.10, 503 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    G. D. Shepard, O. A. Ajayi, X. Li, X.-Y. Zhu, J. Hone, and S. Strauf, 2D Mater.4, 021019 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Y. Luo, G. D. Shepard, J. V. Ardelean, D. A. Rhodes, B. Kim, K. Barmak, J. C. Hone, and S. Strauf, Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 1137 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Q. Wang, J. Maisch, F. Tang, D. Zhao, S. Yang, R. Joos, S. L. Portalupi, P. Michler, and J. H. Smet, Nano Lett. 21, 7175 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Sortino, P

    L. Sortino, P. G. Zotev, C. L. Phillips, A. J. Brash, J. Cambiasso, E. Marensi, A. M. Fox, S. A. Maier, R. Sapienza, and A. I. Tartakovskii, Nat. Commun.12, 6063 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Drawer, V

    J.-C. Drawer, V. N. Mitryakhin, H. Shan, S. Stephan, M. Gittinger, L. Lackner, B. Han, G. Leibeling, F. Eilenberger, R. Banerjee, S. Tongay, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Lienau, M. Silies, C. Anton-Solanas, M. Esmann, and C. Schneider, Nano Lett. 23, 8683 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Paralikis, C

    A. Paralikis, C. Piccinini, A. A. Madigawa, P. Metuh, L. Vannucci, N. Gregersen, and B. Munkhbat, npj 2D Mater. Appl.8, 59 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Kumar, M

    S. Kumar, M. Brotóns-Gisbert, R. Al-Khuzheyri, A. Branny, G. Ballesteros-Garcia, J. F. Sánchez-Royo, and B. D. Gerardot, Optica3, 882 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    R. S. Daveau, T. Vandekerckhove, A. Mukherjee, Z. Wang, J. Shan, K. F. Mak, A. N. Vamivakas, and G. D. Fuchs, APL Photonics5, 096105 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    von Helversen, L

    M. von Helversen, L. Greten, I. Limame, C.-W. Shih, P. Schlaugat, C. Antón-Solanas, C. Schneider, B. Rosa, A. Knorr, and S. Reitzenstein, 2D Mater. 10, 045034 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Piccinini, A

    C. Piccinini, A. Paralikis, J. F. Neto, A. A. Madigawa, P. Wyborski, V. Remesh, L. Vannucci, N. Gregersen, and B. Munkhbat, Commun. Phys.8, 158 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    H. Kim, J. S. Moon, G. Noh, J. Lee, and J.-H. Kim, Nano Lett. 19, 7534 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    E. J. Lenferink, T. LaMountain, T. K. Stanev, E. Gar- vey, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and N. P. Stern, ACS Photonics 9, 3067 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Paralikis, P

    A. Paralikis, P. Wyborski, P. Metuh, N. Gregersen, and B. Munkhbat, Tunable and low-noise wse2 quantum emitters for quantum photonics (2025), arXiv:2507.03355 [physics.optics]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    H. Zhao, M. T. Pettes, Y. Zheng, and H. Htoon, Nat. Commun. 12, 6753 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    L. C. Flatten, L. Weng, A. Branny, S. Johnson, P. R. Dolan, A. A. P. Trichet, B. D. Gerardot, and J. M. Smith, Appl. Phys. Lett.112, 191105 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Cadiz, P

    C.Robert, R.Picard, D.Lagarde, G.Wang, J.Echeverry, F. Cadiz, P. Renucci, A. Högele, T. Amand, X. Marie, et al., Phys. Rev. B94, 155425 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Moody, J

    G. Moody, J. Schaibley, and X. Xu, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, C39 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    L. Yu, M. Deng, J. L. Zhang, S. Borghardt, B. Kardynal, J. Vučković, and T. F. Heinz, Nano Lett.21, 2376 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Brouri, A

    R. Brouri, A. Beveratos, J.-P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, Opt. Lett.25, 1294 (2000)

    2000

  40. [48]

    Klein, M

    J. Klein, M. Lorke, M. Florian, F. Sigger, L. Sigl, S. Rey, J. Wierzbowski, J. Cerne, K. Müller, E. Mitterreiter, et al., Nat. Commun.10, 2755 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Y.-M. He, O. Iff, N. Lundt, V. Baumann, M. Davanco, K. Srinivasan, S. Höfling, and C. Schneider, Nat. Com- mun. 7, 13409 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Iff, Y.-M

    O. Iff, Y.-M. He, N. Lundt, S. Stoll, V. Baumann, S. Höfling, and C. Schneider, Optica4, 669 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Kutrowska-Girzycka, E

    J. Kutrowska-Girzycka, E. Zieba-Ostój, D. Biegańska, M. Florian, A. Steinhoff, E. Rogowicz, P. Mrow- iński, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Gies, S. Ton- gay, C. Schneider, and M. Syperek, Appl. Phys. Rev.9, 041410 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    Androulidakis, K

    C. Androulidakis, K. Zhang, M. Robertson, and S. Taw- fick, 2D Mater.5, 032005 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    A. A. Madigawa, M. A. Jacobsen, C. Piccinini, P. Wyborski, A. Garcia Jr., S. F. C. da Silva, A. Rastelli, B. Munkhbat, and N. Gregersen, Adv. Quantum Technol. , e2500128 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    D. A. Vajner, P. Holewa, E. Zięba-Ostój, M. Wasiluk, M. von Helversen, A. Sakanas, A. Huck, K. Yvind, N. Gregersen, A. Musiał, M. Syperek, E. Semenova, and T. Heindel, ACS Photonics11, 339 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    J. P. Echeverry, B. Urbaszek, T. Amand, X. Marie, and I. C. Gerber, Phys. Rev. B93, 121107 (2016)

    2016

  48. [56]

    Vannucci, J

    L. Vannucci, J. F. Neto, C. Piccinini, A. Paralikis, N. Gregersen, and B. Munkhbat, Phys. Rev. B 109, 245304 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Steinhoff, S

    A. Steinhoff, S. Wilksen, I. Solovev, C. Schneider, and C. Gies, Phys. Rev. B111, 195431 (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Betzold, M

    O.Iff, Q.Buchinger, M.Moczała-Dusanowska, M.Kamp, S. Betzold, M. Davanco, K. Srinivasan, S. Tongay, C. Antón-Solanas, S. Höfling, and C. Schneider, Nano Lett. 21, 4715 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Cai, J.-H

    T. Cai, J.-H. Kim, Z. Yang, S. Dutta, S. Aghaeimeibodi, and E. Waks, ACS Photonics5, 3466 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    Castellanos-Gomez, M

    A. Castellanos-Gomez, M. Buscema, R. Molenaar, V. Singh, L. Janssen, H. S. J. van der Zant, and G. A. Steele, 2D Mater.1, 011002 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Wyborski, A

    P. Wyborski, A. Tuktamyshev, M. A. Jacobsen, A. A. Madigawa, S. Vichi, N. Gregersen, S. Sanguinetti, and B.Munkhbat,Adv.QuantumTechnol.,e2500159(2025)

    2025

  54. [650]

    Both lasers operated in continuous-wave (CW) or pulsed modes, delivering pulses shorter than 100 ps with adjustable repetition rates ranging from 2.5 to 80 MHz

    and a quasi-resonant laser at 1080 nm (LDH-D-C- 1080). Both lasers operated in continuous-wave (CW) or pulsed modes, delivering pulses shorter than 100 ps with adjustable repetition rates ranging from 2.5 to 80 MHz. µPL spectra were acquired using a spectrometer based on a 0.3...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.