Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

In angle-resolved photoemission, a trion resonance appears one electron–exciton binding energy below the conduction-band minimum, and mass-imbalanced trions produce two valley-separated peaks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Trions in doped monolayer TMDs are predicted to show ARPES peaks one electron–exciton binding energy below the conduction-band minimum, with mass-imbalanced trions producing a characteristic double-peak structure.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection First theory of trion ARPES signatures in TMDs; the energy-conservation logic and the mass-imbalance double-peak prediction are solid, but the quantitative 8/31 meV values rest on an unbenchmarked variational ansatz. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2511.11448 v1 pith:5MQYH5DY submitted 2025-11-14 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

ARPES signatures of trions in van der Waals materials

Giuseppe Meneghini , Maja L\"owe , Raul Perea-Causin , Jan Philipp Bange , Wiebke Bennecke , Marcel Reutzel , Stefan Mathias , Ermin Malic This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 71.35.-y79.60.-i
keywords trionARPEScharged excitontransition metal dichalcogenidesWSe2excitonic correlationstwo-dimensional semiconductorsphotoemission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 what charged excitons (trions) look like in angle-resolved photoemission (ARPES), a question that has been open for doped two-dimensional semiconductors. Working on n-doped WSe2, the authors predict that the trion ARPES resonance sits only tens of meV below the conduction-band minimum — one electron–exciton binding energy, not the full trion binding energy — and that it disperses very weakly, because the residual exciton is heavy. They further predict a distinctive double peak for trions whose two electrons come from valleys with different effective masses: ejecting one or the other electron leaves excitons with different binding energies, so the same trion yields two features at different valleys (~8 meV below the K′ minimum and ~31 meV below the Λ minimum). The response sharpens the case that ARPES can fingerprint many-body Coulomb complexes and offers temperature-dependent signatures that experiments can look for.

Core claim

For an n-doped WSe2 monolayer, the ARPES signal from a trion appears one electron–exciton binding energy ΔE_T_e below the conduction-band minimum, not one full trion binding energy, because energy conservation in photoemission only requires removing the ejected electron from the trion while the residual exciton stays bound. For mass-imbalanced trions such as T_{K↑K′↑Λ↑}, the two electrons bind to the residual exciton with different energies — 8 meV at the K′ valley and 31 meV at the Λ valley — producing two distinct peaks at different valleys. The spectral shape is nearly flat due to the heavy exciton mass, in contrast to the valence-band-curvature shape of neutral exciton peaks.

What carries the argument

The generalized Wannier equation for two electrons and one hole supplies trion wavefunctions and binding energies; inserting trion and exciton operators into Fermi’s golden rule yields the ARPES intensity with matrix elements that give the conditional probability of ejecting each electron. The central identity is the energy-conservation relation E_k,e − hν = E_ci − |ΔE_T_ei| − ħ²k²/(2M_X), which shows that the peak position is set by the electron–exciton binding energy and the flat dispersion by the exciton mass.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume that after one electron is ejected, the remaining electron–hole pair is always a fully bound exciton; the unbound continuum is dismissed as quickly forming an exciton, and two-electron ejection is ignored as a multi-photon process — if the unbound channel carries significant spectral weight, the peak positions and flat dispersions would not match measured ARPES.

What would settle it

Measure angle-resolved photoemission on a gated n-type WSe2 monolayer at ~10 K, resolved around the K and Λ valleys. The central claim predicts a sharp, nearly flat trion feature ~12 meV below the conduction-band minimum at K for the mass-balanced trion and, at elevated temperature, valley-separated peaks at ~8 meV (K′) and ~31 meV (Λ) below the respective band minima. Failing to find a flat feature near the conduction-band minimum — or finding a trion peak hundreds of meV below it, at the full trion binding energy — would refute the energy-conservation account.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Trion features should appear tens of meV below the conduction-band minimum, well separated from the deeper exciton resonances, so ARPES can distinguish charged from neutral excitons by energy position alone.
  • The nearly flat, heavy-exciton-mass dispersion gives a second, shape-based criterion that does not depend on exact binding-energy values.
  • Mass-imbalanced trions such as T_{K↑K′↑Λ↑} should show two peaks at different valleys, split by the difference of electron–exciton binding energies (23 meV in the WSe2 example).
  • Thermal occupation of the three lowest trion states produces a multiplet of up to four peaks within ~50 meV, so temperature-dependent ARPES can assign which trion states contribute.
  • The same formalism applies to other doped 2D semiconductors and, by electron–hole symmetry, to p-type doping.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because the ARPES peak position directly measures ΔE_T_e, ARPES could become a quantitative probe of electron–exciton binding energies versus carrier density, complementing optical measurements that see only trion recombination energies.
  • Beyond the paper: the valley-resolved double peak effectively converts a single trion state into a local calibration of the effective-mass difference between K′ and Λ electrons in the same monolayer.
  • Beyond the paper: if the neglected unbound electron–hole continuum contributes appreciable spectral weight, the sharp predicted peak will be broadened or shifted; this is testable by comparing ARPES line shapes at different doping levels or photon energies.
  • Beyond the paper: the same three-particle wavefunction machinery could be extended to predict ARPES fingerprints of charged biexcitons or other higher-order Coulomb complexes in doped monolayers.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a first-principles-based (Wannier/variational) theory for the ARPES response of trions in n-doped monolayer WSe2. Solving Fermi's golden rule with exciton and trion eigenstates, the authors show that a trion resonance appears one electron–exciton binding energy below the relevant conduction-band minimum, with a nearly flat dispersion set by the residual exciton mass; by contrast, the neutral-exciton peak lies one exciton binding energy below the CBM and follows the valence band. For mass-imbalanced trions such as T_{K↑K′↑Λ↑}, the two inequivalent electron ejection channels yield two peaks at different valleys, separated by ~23 meV (8 meV at K′, 31 meV at Λ). A temperature-dependent multiplet of peaks is predicted, with thermally activated contributions from the three lowest trion states.

Significance. If correct, this is the first concrete ARPES fingerprint for charged excitons in TMDs, with a falsifiable double-peak structure and a clear energy-scale separation from neutral-exciton features. The central energy-conservation result is robust and transparent, and the double-peak mechanism follows directly from the mass-imbalanced trion's internal structure. A notable strength is that the double-peak splitting is independent of the total trion variational energy to the extent that it equals the difference of exciton binding energies, so the main quantitative risk is partly contained. However, the absolute peak positions and relative peak intensities depend on a five-parameter variational trion wavefunction whose accuracy is not benchmarked, and the predicted sharp line shape assumes bound-exciton final states with unquantified continuum weight.

major comments (2)
  1. [Double-peaked signal from mass-imbalanced trions / SM Eq. (7)] The reported ΔE_K=8 meV and ΔE_Λ=31 meV are obtained from ε_b,T values computed with the five-parameter variational ansatz (SM Eq. 7). The manuscript gives no convergence study, benchmark, or uncertainty estimate for this ansatz, which is a central input for the 'quantitative criteria' claimed in the conclusion. I note that the splitting ΔE_Λ−ΔE_K equals the difference of the two exciton binding energies (same ε_b,T enters both), so this particular fingerprint is less sensitive to the trion variational error; the authors should state this cancellation explicitly and provide error estimates for the absolute ΔE values and for the matrix elements |G|^2 that set the double-peak intensity ratio.
  2. [Microscopic model paragraph and Eq. (3)] The final state is restricted to a free electron plus a bound 1s exciton; unbound electron–hole continuum final states are excluded by the statement 'we expect an exciton to be formed quickly.' In the sudden approximation, the spectral weight is determined by the overlap of the trion initial state with the final scattering eigenstate, not by the subsequent relaxation. The continuum channel, if significant, would contribute a background below the bound peak and broaden the apparent line shape. The authors should estimate the continuum weight (e.g., by projecting the trion wavefunction onto the full exciton continuum or by a sum-rule/overlap argument) or explicitly state it as a limitation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Microscopic model] The trion notation T_{K↑K′↑Λ↑} should be defined with an explicit ordering (hole, e1, e2) in the main text; currently it is only inferable from the SM.
  2. [Eq. (4)] State clearly that k is the photoelectron momentum and M_X is the residual exciton mass; the same symbol k is used for relative momenta in earlier equations.
  3. [Fig. 3] The solid black line denoting the conduction-band minimum is mentioned in the text but not labeled directly in both panels; adding explicit labels would improve clarity.
  4. [Temperature evolution / Fig. 4] The connection between the ARPES tail and the 'recoil effect' in optical spectra [46] is terse; a sentence explaining the analogy would be helpful.
  5. [SM: Theoretical approach] The optical matrix element M is assumed momentum-independent; a one-sentence justification or a reference would be useful.
  6. [General] The predicted ARPES peaks are delta-function-like; the manuscript notes the experimental energy-resolution challenge late in the text, but the main figures would benefit from an explicit statement that no instrumental broadening is included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the trion ARPES peak positions follow from energy conservation using Wannier/variational binding energies, none of which are fitted to ARPES data.

full rationale

The manuscript contains no circular derivation. The central observable—the trion ARPES peak position—is obtained from the golden-rule expression in Eq. (3), and Eq. (4) follows from energy conservation with the explicitly stated total energies E_{Q,X} and E_{Q,T}. The quantity ΔE_T_ei is defined as ε_b,T − ε_b,X, and the final relation E_{k,e} − hν = E_ci − |ΔE| is an algebraic consequence, not an input fitted to ARPES. The numerical ΔE values (8, 12, 14, 31 meV) are produced by solving the Wannier equations for excitons (SM Eq. 2) and the generalized Wannier equation with the variational ansatz for trions (SM Eqs. 6–7), which are stated in the SM rather than hidden; they are not extracted from the ARPES spectrum. The paper's self-citations (refs. 30, 31, 37) supply the variational method and previously computed trion ordering, but the ARPES formalism and the energy-conservation peak-position rule are derived here and would hold for any trion binding energies. Acknowledged approximations—neglecting the unbound electron–hole final state (Microscopic model), two-electron multi-photon emission, exchange splittings, and the unquantified variational error—are correctness/robustness caveats, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing claim rests on a self-citation alone. Hence score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles or forces are introduced. The central prediction is computed from a prior effective-mass model and variational trion solver; the binding energies are not fit to ARPES data, but the claimed quantitative peak positions inherit the uncertainties of those approximations.

free parameters (1)
  • Trion variational wavefunction parameters (a, b, c, d, C) = not tabulated; minimized per state
    The numerical binding energies ΔE_e (12, 14, 8, 31 meV) that set the predicted peak positions are outputs of a variational ansatz whose functional form and coefficients are chosen to minimize the trion energy. No uncertainty is given for this choice.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Effective-mass Wannier model with a statically screened Coulomb potential describes excitons and trions in WSe2 monolayers.
    Used in Eqs. (2)–(6) of the main text and SM; all quantitative results depend on this material model.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-exponential variational ansatz for the trion wavefunction is accurate enough for binding energies and ARPES matrix elements.
    SM Eq. (7); the ansatz is inherited from ref. [31] but its accuracy for the specific ARPES matrix-element integrals is not independently checked.
  • domain assumption Low-doping regime: band renormalization and finite carrier-density effects are neglected.
    Main text: 'we focus on the low carrier-density and low-doping regime...'; this is load-bearing because the same doping creates trions and could renormalize bands.
  • domain assumption After photoemission, unbound electron–hole pairs quickly form excitons, and multi-electron emission is negligible.
    Microscopic model paragraph; this justifies keeping only the bound-exciton final state in the delta function of Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Electron–hole exchange splitting, which lifts spin-valley degeneracy, is negligible.
    Main text: 'typically small splitting is neglected'; affects which states are degenerate and the exact peak weights.
  • domain assumption Thermalized Boltzmann occupation of trion states.
    Used for the room-temperature spectra; non-equilibrium occupations would change the relative peak intensities.
  • domain assumption The photoemission dipole matrix element is approximated as band- and momentum-independent.
    SM below Eq. (11); affects the relative intensities of the two double-peak channels.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ARPES signatures of trions in van der Waals materials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MQYH5DY

@misc{pith2026251111448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ARPES signatures of trions in van der Waals materials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MQYH5DY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.11448}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) has recently emerged as a direct probe of excitonic correlations in two-dimensional semiconductors, resolving their dispersion and dynamics in energy-momentum space, including dark exciton states inaccessible to optical techniques. However, the ARPES fingerprint of charged excitons (trions), which plays a key role in all doped and gated 2D material systems, has remained unknown so far. We present a first theoretical analysis of trion signatures in monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenides, highlighting how the additional charge carrier modifies the spectral position and shape relative to neutral excitons in ARPES spectra. Interestingly, we further predict that mass-imbalanced trions yield a characteristic double-peak structure, clearly separated in energy and line shape from neutral excitons. The predicted temperature dependence of these features offers guidance for experimental investigations aimed at identifying trionic states, thereby establishing a framework for ARPES studies of many-body Coulomb complexes in doped two-dimensional semiconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.11448 by Ermin Malic, Giuseppe Meneghini, Jan Philipp Bange, Maja L\"owe, Marcel Reutzel, Raul Perea-Causin, Stefan Mathias, Wiebke Bennecke.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of exciton and trion con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. ARPES intensity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Room temperature ARPES intensity for a n-doped [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Temperature dependence of the K and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Light-induced trion-exciton competition revealed by ultrafast photoemission

    cond-mat.str-el 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Undoped Ta2NiS5 photoexcited by 800 nm light develops a momentum-localized in-gap feature that rate-equation analysis assigns to a fluence-tunable mixture of trions and excitons, with trions forming without a photoexc...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Damascelli, Z

    A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Reviews of modern physics75, 473 (2003). 6

    2003

  2. [2]

    J. A. Sobota, Y. He, and Z.-X. Shen, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025006 (2021)

    2021

  3. [3]

    Boschini, M

    F. Boschini, M. Zonno, and A. Damascelli, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 015003 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    Reutzel, G

    M. Reutzel, G. M. Jansen, and S. Mathias, Advances in Physics: X9, 2378722 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Christiansen, M

    D. Christiansen, M. Selig, E. Malic, R. Ernstorfer, and A. Knorr, Physical Review B100, 205401 (2019)

    2019

  6. [6]

    Madéo, M

    J. Madéo, M. K. Man, C. Sahoo, M. Campbell, V. Pa- reek, E. L. Wong, A. Al-Mahboob, N. S. Chan, A. Kar- makar, B. M. K. Mariserla,et al., Science370, 1199 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    M. K. Man, J. Madéo, C. Sahoo, K. Xie, M. Campbell, V. Pareek, A. Karmakar, E. L. Wong, A. Al-Mahboob, N. S. Chan,et al., Science Advances7, eabg0192 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Wallauer, R

    R. Wallauer, R. Perea-Causin, L. Münster, S. Zajusch, S. Brem, J. Güdde, K. Tanimura, K.-Q. Lin, R. Huber, E. Malic,et al., Nano Letters21, 5867 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    S. Dong, M. Puppin, T. Pincelli, S. Beaulieu, D. Chris- tiansen, H. Hübener, C. W. Nicholson, R. P. Xian, M. Dendzik, Y. Deng,et al., Natural sciences1, e10010 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Schmitt, J

    D. Schmitt, J. P. Bange, W. Bennecke, A. AlMutairi, G.Meneghini, K.Watanabe, T.Taniguchi, D.Steil, D.R. Luke, R. T. Weitz,et al., Nature608, 499 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    J. P. Bange, P. Werner, D. Schmitt, W. Bennecke, G. Meneghini, A. AlMutairi, M. Merboldt, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Steil,et al., 2D Materials10, 035039 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    Meneghini, M

    G. Meneghini, M. Reutzel, S. Mathias, S. Brem, and E. Malic, ACS Photonics10, 3570 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    J. P. Bange, D. Schmitt, W. Bennecke, G. Menegh- ini, A. AlMutairi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Steil, S. Steil, R. T. Weitz,et al., Science Advances10, eadi1323 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    Werner, W

    P. Werner, W. Bennecke, J. P. Bange, G. Menegh- ini, D. Schmitt, M. Merboldt, A. M. Seiler, A. AlMu- tairi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.06074 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Hagel, S

    J. Hagel, S. Brem, C. Linderälv, P. Erhart, and E. Malic, Physical Review Research3, 043217 (2021)

    2021

  16. [16]

    Bennecke, I

    W. Bennecke, I. Gonzalez Oliva, J. P. Bange, P. Werner, D. Schmitt, M. Merboldt, A. M. Seiler, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Steil,et al., Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Robert, X

    S.Brem, A.Ekman, D.Christiansen, F.Katsch, M.Selig, C. Robert, X. Marie, B. Urbaszek, A. Knorr, and E. Malic, Nano letters20, 2849 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    E. Liu, J. van Baren, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, Y.-C. Chang, and C. H. Lui, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 032007 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    M. He, P. Rivera, D. Van Tuan, N. P. Wilson, M. Yang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, H. Yu, H. Dery, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature Communi- cations11, 618 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Rosati, K

    R. Rosati, K. Wagner, S. Brem, R. Perea-Causin, E. Wi- etek, J. Zipfel, J. D. Ziegler, M. Selig, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe,et al., ACS Photonics7, 2756 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    V. Funk, K. Wagner, E. Wietek, J. D. Ziegler, J. Förste, J. Lindlau, M. Förg, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Chernikov,et al., Physical Review Research3, L042019 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Mueller and E

    T. Mueller and E. Malic, npj 2D Materials and Applica- tions2, 1 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    K. F. Mak, K. He, C. Lee, G. H. Lee, J. Hone, T. F. Heinz, and J. Shan, Nature materials12, 207 (2013)

    2013

  24. [24]

    J. S. Ross, S. Wu, H. Yu, N. J. Ghimire, A. M. Jones, G. Aivazian, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, D. Xiao, W. Yao, et al., Nature communications4, 1474 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    Singh, G

    A. Singh, G. Moody, K. Tran, M. E. Scott, V. Overbeck, G. Berghäuser, J. Schaibley, E. J. Seifert, D. Pleskot, N. M. Gabor,et al., Physical Review B93, 041401 (2016)

    2016

  26. [26]

    Plechinger, P

    G. Plechinger, P. Nagler, A. Arora, R. Schmidt, A. Chernikov, A. G. Del Águila, P. C. Christianen, R. Bratschitsch, C. Schüller, and T. Korn, Nature com- munications7, 12715 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Courtade, M

    E. Courtade, M. Semina, M. Manca, M. M. Glazov, C. Robert, F. Cadiz, G. Wang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. Pierre, W. Escoffier, E. L. Ivchenko, P. Renucci, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Phys. Rev. B 96, 085302 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Sidler, P

    M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M.Kroner, E.Demler, andA.Imamoglu,NaturePhysics 13, 255 (2017)

    2017

  29. [29]

    Arora, T

    A. Arora, T. Deilmann, T. Reichenauer, J. Kern, S. Michaelis de Vasconcellos, M. Rohlfing, and R. Brats- chitsch, Physical review letters123, 167401 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Perea-Causin, S

    R. Perea-Causin, S. Brem, and E. Malic, Physical Re- view B106, 115407 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Perea-Causin, S

    R. Perea-Causin, S. Brem, O. Schmidt, and E. Malic, Physical Review Letters132, 036903 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Weinelt, M

    M. Weinelt, M. Kutschera, T. Fauster, and M. Rohlfing, Physical review letters92, 126801 (2004)

    2004

  33. [33]

    T. C. Berkelbach, M. S. Hybertsen, and D. R. Reichman, Phys. Rev. B88, 045318 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    S. Brem, M. Selig, G. Berghaeuser, and E. Malic, Scien- tific reports8, 1 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    C. Fey, P. Schmelcher, A. Imamoglu, and R. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. B101, 195417 (2020)

    2020

  36. [36]

    Berghäuser and E

    G. Berghäuser and E. Malic, Physical Review B89, 125309 (2014)

    2014

  37. [37]

    Perea-Causin, S

    R. Perea-Causin, S. Brem, F. Buchner, Y. Lu, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, J. M. Lupton, K.-Q. Lin, and E. Malic, Nature Communications15, 6713 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    M. M. Glazov, The Journal of Chemical Physics153 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Malic, M

    E. Malic, M. Selig, M. Feierabend, S. Brem, D. Chris- tiansen, F.Wendler, A.Knorr, andG.Berghäuser,Phys- ical Review Materials2, 014002 (2018)

    2018

  40. [40]

    Yu, G.-B

    H. Yu, G.-B. Liu, P. Gong, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Nature communications5, 3876 (2014)

    2014

  41. [41]

    Drüppel, T

    M. Drüppel, T. Deilmann, P. Krüger, and M. Rohlfing, Nature Communications8, 2117 (2017)

    2017

  42. [42]

    M. Yang, L. Ren, C. Robert, D. Van Tuan, L. Lombez, B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, and H. Dery, Phys. Rev. B105, 085302 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    Asymmetric trions in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,

    A. Christianen and A. Imamoglu, “Asymmetric trions in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,” (2025), arXiv:2507.16643 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Rustagi and A

    A. Rustagi and A. F. Kemper, Physical Review B97, 235310 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Kormányos, G

    A. Kormányos, G. Burkard, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, V. Zó- lyomi, N. D. Drummond, and V. Fal’ko, 2D Materials2, 022001 (2015)

    2015

  46. [46]

    Zipfel, K

    J. Zipfel, K. Wagner, M. A. Semina, J. D. Ziegler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Glazov, and A. Chernikov, Physical Review B105, 075311 (2022). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We acknowledge financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) through the priority pro- gram 535247173 SPP 2244 and the regular project 542873285. Calculations were conducted ...

    2022

  47. [47]

    Analytical approach to excitonic properties of mos 2,

    Gunnar Bergh¨ auser and Ermin Malic, “Analytical approach to excitonic properties of mos 2,” Physical Review B 89, 125309 (2014)

    2014

  48. [48]

    Exciton relaxation cascade in two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides,

    Samuel Brem, Malte Selig, Gunnar Berghaeuser, and Ermin Malic, “Exciton relaxation cascade in two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenides,” Scientific reports8, 1–8 (2018)

    2018

  49. [49]

    Trion photoluminescence and trion stability in atomically thin semiconductors,

    Raul Perea-Causin, Samuel Brem, Ole Schmidt, and Ermin Malic, “Trion photoluminescence and trion stability in atomically thin semiconductors,” Physical Review Letters132, 036903 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Theory of neutral and charged excitons in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,

    Timothy C. Berkelbach, Mark S. Hybertsen, and David R. Reichman, “Theory of neutral and charged excitons in monolayer transition metal dichalcogenides,” Phys. Rev. B88, 045318 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    Angle-resolved photoemission studies of the cuprate superconductors,

    Andrea Damascelli, Zahid Hussain, and Zhi-Xun Shen, “Angle-resolved photoemission studies of the cuprate superconductors,” Reviews of modern physics75, 473 (2003)

    2003

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.