Linear and nonlinear vibrational excitation driven by molecular polaritons

Abraham Nitzan; Angel Rubio; Carlos M. Bustamante; Franco P. Bonaf\'e; Maxim Sukharev; Michael Ruggenthaler; Richard Richardson; Wenxiang Ying

arxiv: 2604.15685 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

Linear and nonlinear vibrational excitation driven by molecular polaritons

Wenxiang Ying , Carlos M. Bustamante , Franco P. Bonaf\'e , Richard Richardson , Michael Ruggenthaler , Maxim Sukharev , Angel Rubio , Abraham Nitzan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph

keywords molecular polaritonsvibrational excitationHolstein-Tavis-Cummings modelpulsed optical drivingscaling relationsstimulated Raman processlight-matter couplingenergy redistribution

0 comments

The pith

Pulsed driving of molecular polaritons produces vibrational excitation through separate linear and nonlinear channels that follow quadratic and quartic scaling with field amplitude.

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

The paper establishes that transient optical pulses applied to molecules strongly coupled to a cavity mode redistribute energy into vibrations according to two distinct mechanisms. One mechanism contributes excitation that scales linearly with pulse intensity, while the other contributes a term that scales quadratically with intensity. Both the single-excitation approximation and a mean-field treatment of collective coupling produce the same scaling relations despite their different microscopic assumptions. The nonlinear channel is traced to an intrapulse process in which the pulse bandwidth overlaps the upper and lower polariton branches and drives a stimulated Raman-like transition. These results supply a unified account of how pulse parameters control the partitioning of energy among electronic, photonic, and vibrational degrees of freedom.

Core claim

Within the field-driven Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model, vibrational excitation under pulsed illumination separates into linear and nonlinear contributions that exhibit quadratic and quartic scaling with driving-field amplitude (equivalently linear and quadratic dependence on incident intensity). The two descriptions examined—single-excitation approximation and mean-field collective coupling—yield identical scaling laws. The nonlinear component originates in a polariton-mediated intrapulse stimulated Raman-like process that becomes active once the pulse spectrum spans both upper and lower polariton frequencies.

What carries the argument

The Holstein-Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian under pulsed driving, which couples electronic, photonic, and vibrational modes and permits decomposition of the excitation into amplitude-squared and amplitude-fourth contributions.

If this is right

Adjusting pulse intensity alone can switch the dominant channel of vibrational excitation between linear and nonlinear regimes.
A single broadband pulse suffices to activate the Raman-like channel without requiring a conventional multi-pulse sequence.
Energy partitioning among electronic, photonic, and vibrational degrees of freedom can be predicted reliably across different levels of approximation.
Ultrafast polariton experiments can be interpreted by decomposing observed vibrational signals into the two identified intensity scalings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Pulse-shaping protocols could be designed to favor one scaling regime over the other and thereby steer the outcome of polariton-mediated chemical reactions.
The same intensity-dependent decomposition may appear in other collective light-matter platforms once a suitable broadband drive is applied.
Time-resolved vibrational spectroscopy performed at varying pulse intensities would directly map the crossover from linear to nonlinear behavior.

Load-bearing premise

The Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model together with the single-excitation approximation and mean-field treatment remains accurate for the full range of pulse durations and intensities examined.

What would settle it

An experimental plot of vibrational population versus incident pulse intensity that deviates from the predicted combination of linear and quadratic dependence would falsify the scaling relations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15685 by Abraham Nitzan, Angel Rubio, Carlos M. Bustamante, Franco P. Bonaf\'e, Maxim Sukharev, Michael Ruggenthaler, Richard Richardson, Wenxiang Ying.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Field-driven polariton dynamics under the SE approximation. Time–frequency representations of the driving field using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Field-driven vibronic dynamics under the SE approximation. Here, the Rabi frequency Ω and vibrational frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Polariton-vibrational energy exchange under the SE approximation. Here, the vibrational frequency is taken identical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Effect of the number of molecules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Following our recent numerical study [arXiv:2601.16299 (2026)], we investigate vibrational excitation induced by transient optical driving in molecular ensembles strongly coupled to a cavity mode using the field-driven Holstein--Tavis--Cummings model. We analyze how pulsed excitation redistributes energy among electronic, photonic, and vibrational degrees of freedom in molecular polaritons. Vibrational dynamics are examined over a broad range of pulse durations and intensities within both the single-excitation approximation and a mean-field description of collective light--matter coupling. Despite their distinct formulations and microscopic descriptions, these two approaches yield consistent scaling relations for vibrational excitation. In particular, we disentangle linear and nonlinear contributions to vibrational excitation, which are reflected in distinct quadratic and quartic scaling behaviors with respect to the driving field amplitude (that is, linear and quadratic dependence on the incident pulse intensity). The microscopic origin of the nonlinear component is identified as a polariton-mediated intrapulse stimulated Raman-like process, enabled by a pulse spectral bandwidth large enough to overlap both upper and lower polaritons (rather than a conventional multi-pulse scheme). These results establish a unified framework for understanding vibrational excitation under pulsed polariton driving and provide guidance for the interpretation and control of ultrafast polariton experiments. Discrepancies between the mean-field and single-excitation approaches under certain pulsed conditions are identified and analyzed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper separates linear and nonlinear vibrational excitation in polaritons with consistent scalings from two models, but the single-excitation approximation may not fully support the claimed Raman mechanism.

read the letter

The paper's central result is that vibrational excitation under pulsed driving of molecular polaritons splits into a linear channel that goes as the square of the field amplitude and a nonlinear channel that goes as the fourth power, with the latter coming from a stimulated Raman-like process that happens within a single pulse when its spectrum covers both upper and lower polaritons. This builds directly on the authors' prior numerical study by making the separation explicit and by identifying the microscopic origin. The fact that the single-excitation approximation and the mean-field description produce matching scaling relations is the strongest part of the work; it suggests the scalings are not an artifact of one particular truncation. The potential weakness is whether the single-excitation approximation can actually support the proposed Raman mechanism. That approximation limits the Hilbert space to states with at most one excitation, so any process that requires virtual population of two-polariton states might be cut off. The abstract notes discrepancies between the two methods for certain pulse parameters, and it would be important to see whether those discrepancies appear in the intensity regime where the quartic term dominates. If the nonlinear scaling is carried mostly by the mean-field results, the claim of consistency needs to be qualified. The numerics appear to be done on a named model without obvious fitting, which is good. Still, more information on convergence with respect to the number of molecules or basis size would strengthen the case. This paper is aimed at theorists and experimentalists working on polariton chemistry and ultrafast vibrational control. A reader who wants guidance on how to interpret intensity-dependent signals in cavity-modified spectroscopy will find the scaling relations and the proposed mechanism useful. I would recommend sending it for peer review. The topic is current, the consistency check is worthwhile, and the identified mechanism can be tested experimentally even if the single-excitation limitation requires further discussion.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates vibrational excitation in molecular ensembles strongly coupled to a cavity using the field-driven Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model under pulsed optical driving. It compares the single-excitation approximation with a mean-field treatment of collective light-matter coupling across a range of pulse durations and intensities. The central result is that both approaches produce consistent scaling relations for vibrational excitation: quadratic scaling with driving-field amplitude (linear in intensity) for the linear contribution and quartic scaling (quadratic in intensity) for the nonlinear contribution. The nonlinear term is attributed to a polariton-mediated intrapulse stimulated Raman-like process enabled by spectral overlap of the upper and lower polaritons.

Significance. If the reported consistency between approximations and the mechanism identification prove robust, the work would establish a useful framework for separating linear and nonlinear vibrational pathways in transient polariton driving. This could inform the interpretation of ultrafast experiments and suggest routes for controlling vibrational excitation via cavity coupling. The cross-validation of scalings from two distinct formulations is a methodological strength, and the focus on intrapulse (single-pulse) Raman processes rather than multi-pulse schemes adds practical relevance.

major comments (3)

Abstract and the section analyzing discrepancies between approaches: The abstract states that the two methods yield consistent scaling relations yet notes discrepancies under certain pulsed conditions. The paper must quantify whether these discrepancies grow with intensity precisely in the regime used to extract the quartic coefficient; if so, the claim that the nonlinear scaling is approximation-independent is not secured.
Section identifying the microscopic origin of the nonlinear component (the discussion of the polariton-mediated intrapulse stimulated Raman-like process): The single-excitation manifold restricts the Hilbert space to at most one electronic or photonic quantum. It is not evident how this truncation permits the two-polariton virtual or real population needed for the claimed Raman pathway. The manuscript should supply an explicit effective Hamiltonian or perturbative derivation showing how the quartic term arises inside the single-excitation approximation.
Methods section on model approximations and validity range: The Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model with single-excitation and mean-field treatments is applied over a broad parameter space of pulse durations and intensities. No bounds or diagnostic checks are provided for where higher-order corrections (e.g., multi-excitation or non-mean-field fluctuations) become necessary; such checks are required because the quartic term is intensity-dependent and the central claim rests on the approximations remaining valid.

minor comments (2)

Figure captions and scaling plots: The legends and captions should explicitly state the fitting ranges, number of data points, and uncertainty on the extracted quadratic and quartic coefficients.
Notation: The distinction between field amplitude and pulse intensity is used interchangeably in places; consistent use of symbols (e.g., E_0 for amplitude, I for intensity) would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation and rigor of our results.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and the section analyzing discrepancies between approaches: The abstract states that the two methods yield consistent scaling relations yet notes discrepancies under certain pulsed conditions. The paper must quantify whether these discrepancies grow with intensity precisely in the regime used to extract the quartic coefficient; if so, the claim that the nonlinear scaling is approximation-independent is not secured.

Authors: We agree that explicit quantification is required to secure the claim. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated analysis (new figure and accompanying text) showing the relative discrepancy between the single-excitation and mean-field results as a function of driving-field amplitude, specifically within the intensity window used to extract the quartic coefficient. This will demonstrate that the discrepancies remain small and do not alter the reported scaling relations in the relevant regime. revision: yes
Referee: Section identifying the microscopic origin of the nonlinear component (the discussion of the polariton-mediated intrapulse stimulated Raman-like process): The single-excitation manifold restricts the Hilbert space to at most one electronic or photonic quantum. It is not evident how this truncation permits the two-polariton virtual or real population needed for the claimed Raman pathway. The manuscript should supply an explicit effective Hamiltonian or perturbative derivation showing how the quartic term arises inside the single-excitation approximation.

Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting the need for a clearer microscopic derivation. Although real two-polariton population is excluded, the quartic term can emerge from virtual, higher-order time-dependent processes within the single-excitation manifold when the pulse bandwidth overlaps the upper and lower polaritons. In the revision we will insert an explicit perturbative derivation (new subsection or appendix) that obtains the effective quartic contribution directly from the time-dependent driving Hamiltonian projected onto the single-excitation space, thereby confirming the intrapulse Raman-like mechanism without violating the truncation. revision: yes
Referee: Methods section on model approximations and validity range: The Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model with single-excitation and mean-field treatments is applied over a broad parameter space of pulse durations and intensities. No bounds or diagnostic checks are provided for where higher-order corrections (e.g., multi-excitation or non-mean-field fluctuations) become necessary; such checks are required because the quartic term is intensity-dependent and the central claim rests on the approximations remaining valid.

Authors: We accept that explicit validity bounds are essential. The revised Methods section (and a new appendix) will include quantitative estimates of the onset of multi-excitation population (based on the ratio of the driving Rabi frequency to the collective coupling strength) together with diagnostic checks that monitor the size of neglected terms across the scanned parameter space. These additions will delineate the intensity and pulse-duration regime in which both approximations remain reliable for the reported scalings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; scalings observed from numerical simulations of named model

full rationale

The paper derives its scaling relations (quadratic and quartic in field amplitude) directly from numerical simulations of the field-driven Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model under single-excitation and mean-field treatments. These are reported as observed outcomes across parameter ranges, with consistency between the two approaches serving as cross-check rather than tautological input. The self-citation to prior work provides background on the model but does not bear the load of the central claims or force the scalings by definition. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no ansatz is smuggled, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to close the chain. The derivation remains self-contained against the stated model and approximations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the field-driven Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model and the validity of the single-excitation and mean-field approximations for the pulse regimes studied.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The Holstein-Tavis-Cummings model captures the essential light-matter-vibration physics of the system
The entire analysis is performed within this model.
domain assumption Single-excitation approximation and mean-field description remain valid over the studied range of pulse durations and intensities
The paper compares results from both and reports consistency.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5568 in / 1404 out tokens · 44092 ms · 2026-05-10T08:06:09.920689+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Instead, the relevant excitations correspond to thenormal modesof the coupled cavity–polarization dynamics

Mean-field normal modes Within the MF framework, true quantum polariton eigenstates are absent due to the neglect of light–matter entanglement. Instead, the relevant excitations correspond to thenormal modesof the coupled cavity–polarization dynamics. In the weak-excitation regime, and neglecting dissipation and nuclei motion, the linearized MF equations ...

work page
[2]

Polariton

Numerical results in the exciton–photon number basis Since the MF description is formulated solely in terms of collective excitonic and photonic DOF, a direct comparison with the SE dynamics requires expressing the SE results in the same representation. To this end, Figure S1 presents the same field-driven dynamics as Fig. 2 of the main text, but projecte...

work page
[3]

S34) are populated, leading to temporal beating at the frequency difference Ω =ω + −ω −

MF normal modes beating drives vibration excitation Under broadband excitation, both MF normal modes with frequenciesω ± (see Eq. S34) are populated, leading to temporal beating at the frequency difference Ω =ω + −ω −. This beating manifests in the excited-state population Pex(t) (see Eq. S23) as an oscillatory component in short-time regime (before the v...

work page
[4]

One observes that the resonance of the ground-state vibrational responseP g,ν=1 is extremely sharp (due to the nature of resonant driven oscillator), as shown in Fig

Broadband excitation drives both MF normal modes – beating occurs Under an ultrashort, broadband pulse excitation (that both MF normal modes are excited), the MF normal mode beating acts as a time-dependent driving force on the vibrational coordinate, as discussed in the previous section. One observes that the resonance of the ground-state vibrational res...

work page
[5]

Resonance peak shift due to vibronic coupling induced frequency renormalization We emphasize that imposing the bare resonance condition Ω =νdoes not guarantee true vibrational resonance once vibronic coupling is included. The coupling to vibrational sidebands renormalizes the effective bright-sector normal-mode frequencies through a vibrational self-energ...

work page
[6]

S3h remains qualitatively similar to that in Fig

Narrowband excitation drives one MF normal mode only – beating is absent Under a long-pulse excitation, the resonance behavior of⟨P e,ν⟩in Fig. S3h remains qualitatively similar to that in Fig. S3d, whereas⟨P g,ν ⟩no longer exhibits a pronounced resonance structure, as shown in Fig. S3g. This indicates that while the electronic DOF are well captured by co...

work page
[7]

A sharp Tukey-window turn-on (∼1 fs, see Fig

Light–matter beating restores resonant vibration excitation To further demonstrate this mechanism, Figure S5 presents MF dynamics under a short-turn-on, long-duration pulse that is commonly used in Maxwell-based simulations [5]. A sharp Tukey-window turn-on (∼1 fs, see Fig. S5a inner panel) is employed to simultaneously excite both MF normal modes, while ...

work page
[8]

S38 does not care about whether the vibration mode is quantum S14 or classical

Classical nuclei still works We further demonstrate that the resonant vibrational activation does not depend on whether the nuclear DOF are treated quantum mechanically or classically, as Eq. S38 does not care about whether the vibration mode is quantum S14 or classical. Within the MF framework, the effective single-molecule Hamiltonian with classical nuc...

work page
[9]

1 of the main text (within the zero- and one-excitation manifold)

Details on quantum dynamics propagation within the SE subspace Within the SE framework, the full system dynamics is described by a time-dependent wavefunction|Ψ(t)⟩prop- agated under the field-driven HTC Hamiltonian in Eq. 1 of the main text (within the zero- and one-excitation manifold). We perform direct time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equation (TDSE) simu...

work page
[10]

In particular, we are interested in the following observables, a

Observables of interest All observables are evaluated as expectation values or overlap probabilities with respect to|Ψ(t)⟩. In particular, we are interested in the following observables, a. Polaritonic and dark-state populations.The two polaritonic eigenstates|+⟩and|−⟩are defined in Eq. 7 of the main text. The corresponding polariton populations are evalu...

work page
[11]

In practice, we choosetp = 100 fs for the ultrashort- pulse excitation andt p = 1000 fs for the long-pulse excitation

Time-averaging Furthermore, time-averaged observables are obtained by averaging the corresponding time-dependent quantities over a post-pulse time window [t p, tmax], wheret max = 2 ps is the total propagation time andt p denotes a plateau time after which the external driving field has sufficiently decayed. In practice, we choosetp = 100 fs for the ultra...

work page
[12]

Tavis and F

M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Exact solution for an N-molecule—radiation-field Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev.170, 379 (1968)

work page 1968
[13]

T. E. Li, A. Nitzan, and J. E. Subotnik, Polariton relaxation under vibrational strong coupling: Comparing cavity molecular dynamics simulations against Fermi’s golden rule rate, J. Chem. Phys.156, 134106 (2022)

work page 2022
[14]

Fowler-Wright, B

P. Fowler-Wright, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Efficient Many-Body Non-Markovian Dynamics of Organic Polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 173001 (2022)

work page 2022
[15]

B. Cui, M. Sukharev, and A. Nitzan, Comparing semiclassical mean-field and 1-exciton approximations in evaluating optical response under strong light–matter coupling conditions, J. Chem. Phys.158, 164113 (2023)

work page 2023
[16]

C. M. Bustamante, F. P. Bonaf´ e, R. Richardson, M. Ruggenthaler, W. Ying, A. Nitzan, M. Sukharev, and A. Rubio, Collective rabi-driven vibrational activation in molecular polaritons (2026), arXiv:2601.16299 [physics.comp-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

[1] [1]

Instead, the relevant excitations correspond to thenormal modesof the coupled cavity–polarization dynamics

Mean-field normal modes Within the MF framework, true quantum polariton eigenstates are absent due to the neglect of light–matter entanglement. Instead, the relevant excitations correspond to thenormal modesof the coupled cavity–polarization dynamics. In the weak-excitation regime, and neglecting dissipation and nuclei motion, the linearized MF equations ...

work page

[2] [2]

Polariton

Numerical results in the exciton–photon number basis Since the MF description is formulated solely in terms of collective excitonic and photonic DOF, a direct comparison with the SE dynamics requires expressing the SE results in the same representation. To this end, Figure S1 presents the same field-driven dynamics as Fig. 2 of the main text, but projecte...

work page

[3] [3]

S34) are populated, leading to temporal beating at the frequency difference Ω =ω + −ω −

MF normal modes beating drives vibration excitation Under broadband excitation, both MF normal modes with frequenciesω ± (see Eq. S34) are populated, leading to temporal beating at the frequency difference Ω =ω + −ω −. This beating manifests in the excited-state population Pex(t) (see Eq. S23) as an oscillatory component in short-time regime (before the v...

work page

[4] [4]

One observes that the resonance of the ground-state vibrational responseP g,ν=1 is extremely sharp (due to the nature of resonant driven oscillator), as shown in Fig

Broadband excitation drives both MF normal modes – beating occurs Under an ultrashort, broadband pulse excitation (that both MF normal modes are excited), the MF normal mode beating acts as a time-dependent driving force on the vibrational coordinate, as discussed in the previous section. One observes that the resonance of the ground-state vibrational res...

work page

[5] [5]

Resonance peak shift due to vibronic coupling induced frequency renormalization We emphasize that imposing the bare resonance condition Ω =νdoes not guarantee true vibrational resonance once vibronic coupling is included. The coupling to vibrational sidebands renormalizes the effective bright-sector normal-mode frequencies through a vibrational self-energ...

work page

[6] [6]

S3h remains qualitatively similar to that in Fig

Narrowband excitation drives one MF normal mode only – beating is absent Under a long-pulse excitation, the resonance behavior of⟨P e,ν⟩in Fig. S3h remains qualitatively similar to that in Fig. S3d, whereas⟨P g,ν ⟩no longer exhibits a pronounced resonance structure, as shown in Fig. S3g. This indicates that while the electronic DOF are well captured by co...

work page

[7] [7]

A sharp Tukey-window turn-on (∼1 fs, see Fig

Light–matter beating restores resonant vibration excitation To further demonstrate this mechanism, Figure S5 presents MF dynamics under a short-turn-on, long-duration pulse that is commonly used in Maxwell-based simulations [5]. A sharp Tukey-window turn-on (∼1 fs, see Fig. S5a inner panel) is employed to simultaneously excite both MF normal modes, while ...

work page

[8] [8]

S38 does not care about whether the vibration mode is quantum S14 or classical

Classical nuclei still works We further demonstrate that the resonant vibrational activation does not depend on whether the nuclear DOF are treated quantum mechanically or classically, as Eq. S38 does not care about whether the vibration mode is quantum S14 or classical. Within the MF framework, the effective single-molecule Hamiltonian with classical nuc...

work page

[9] [9]

1 of the main text (within the zero- and one-excitation manifold)

Details on quantum dynamics propagation within the SE subspace Within the SE framework, the full system dynamics is described by a time-dependent wavefunction|Ψ(t)⟩prop- agated under the field-driven HTC Hamiltonian in Eq. 1 of the main text (within the zero- and one-excitation manifold). We perform direct time-dependent Schr¨ odinger equation (TDSE) simu...

work page

[10] [10]

In particular, we are interested in the following observables, a

Observables of interest All observables are evaluated as expectation values or overlap probabilities with respect to|Ψ(t)⟩. In particular, we are interested in the following observables, a. Polaritonic and dark-state populations.The two polaritonic eigenstates|+⟩and|−⟩are defined in Eq. 7 of the main text. The corresponding polariton populations are evalu...

work page

[11] [11]

In practice, we choosetp = 100 fs for the ultrashort- pulse excitation andt p = 1000 fs for the long-pulse excitation

Time-averaging Furthermore, time-averaged observables are obtained by averaging the corresponding time-dependent quantities over a post-pulse time window [t p, tmax], wheret max = 2 ps is the total propagation time andt p denotes a plateau time after which the external driving field has sufficiently decayed. In practice, we choosetp = 100 fs for the ultra...

work page

[12] [12]

Tavis and F

M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Exact solution for an N-molecule—radiation-field Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev.170, 379 (1968)

work page 1968

[13] [13]

T. E. Li, A. Nitzan, and J. E. Subotnik, Polariton relaxation under vibrational strong coupling: Comparing cavity molecular dynamics simulations against Fermi’s golden rule rate, J. Chem. Phys.156, 134106 (2022)

work page 2022

[14] [14]

Fowler-Wright, B

P. Fowler-Wright, B. W. Lovett, and J. Keeling, Efficient Many-Body Non-Markovian Dynamics of Organic Polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 173001 (2022)

work page 2022

[15] [15]

B. Cui, M. Sukharev, and A. Nitzan, Comparing semiclassical mean-field and 1-exciton approximations in evaluating optical response under strong light–matter coupling conditions, J. Chem. Phys.158, 164113 (2023)

work page 2023

[16] [16]

C. M. Bustamante, F. P. Bonaf´ e, R. Richardson, M. Ruggenthaler, W. Ying, A. Nitzan, M. Sukharev, and A. Rubio, Collective rabi-driven vibrational activation in molecular polaritons (2026), arXiv:2601.16299 [physics.comp-ph]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026