Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Temporal Fourier optics recovers hidden polaritonic states that ordinary scattering spectra cannot resolve.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 03:13 UTC pith:2JBAQHC6

load-bearing objection The method is a repackaged Fourier deconvolution, and the intensity-only data prevent the central claim of recovered true polariton states from being validated, though the experiments and controls are solid enough to deserve refereeing. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.13957 v2 pith:2JBAQHC6 submitted 2026-07-15 physics.optics physics.app-phquant-ph

Temporal Fourier Optics Reveals Hidden Hybridized Light-Matter States

Juan-Feng Zhu , Wenjie Zhou , Shihao Feng , Zicheng Song , Ruicong Zhang , Cheng-Wei Qiu , Rengming Liu , Lin Wu This is my paper
classification physics.optics physics.app-phquant-ph
keywords temporal Fourier opticstemporal point-spread functionspectral broadeningstrong light-matter couplingpolaritonsRabi splittingplasmonic nanocavitycomplex-frequency excitation
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 paper argues that spectral broadening does not destroy information; it encodes hidden resonances in the temporal envelope of a measured spectrum. The authors establish a temporal point-spread function (TPSF) and show that multiplying the time-domain signal by an exponential gain, then transforming back, reconstructs the underlying spectrum. Across three plasmonic platforms—single-molecule Au nanosphere dimers, Au@Ag nanorods, and nanotriangles with J-aggregates—this recovers upper and lower polariton branches invisible in the raw data, with coupling strengths matching theory. The approach is simpler than complex-frequency synthesis and works on ordinary dark-field scattering spectra.

Core claim

The central claim is that a measured spectrum Y(ω) is the convolution of the intrinsic spectrum X(ω) with a temporal point-spread function H_t(ω)=F[e^{-γ|t|}], the Fourier counterpart of temporal decay. Because convolution in frequency is multiplication in time, the intrinsic response is recovered by compensating decay in the time domain before a final Fourier transform. The authors implement this with a Wiener-regularized exponential gain and show that it resolves hidden polaritonic branches in systems whose raw spectra appear as single broadened peaks, yielding Rabi splittings such as 136 meV (g = 68 meV) for the AuND–MB system. The recovered spectra agree quantitatively with complex-frequ

What carries the argument

The temporal point-spread function (TPSF) is the Fourier transform of the effective temporal attenuation u_t(t) = e^{-γ(t-t_start)}Θ(t-t_start). It encodes the space–time Fourier correspondence: just as a spatial aperture broadens momentum via convolution with a spatial PSF, temporal attenuation broadens frequency via convolution with the TPSF. The inverse step is a Wiener-regularized gain W(t)=e^{-γ|t|}/(e^{-2γ|t|}+η) applied to the time-domain representation of the measured spectrum, which suppresses noise while compensating decay.

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction rests on treating the measured, intensity-only scattering spectrum as the complex amplitude spectrum of a signal that decayed with a single exponential rate γ; if the real decay is multi-exponential, inhomogeneous, or phase-inconsistent, the exponential gain can create or distort peaks rather than recover genuine states.

What would settle it

Measure the same sample with a phase-sensitive technique (e.g., interferometric scattering or time-domain autocorrelation) to obtain the true time-domain envelope; if the envelope deviates measurably from a single exponential e^{-γt}, or if the TPSF-reconstructed peak positions shift when γ is varied across the claimed plateau, the central claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Strong-coupling parameters (Rabi splitting, coupling strength g) can be extracted from ordinary single-particle scattering spectra that do not resolve two peaks.
  • The recovery is stable over a broad range of compensation factors; detuned molecular controls remain single-peaked, indicating the split is not an artifact of parameter choice.
  • TPSF reproduces the results of complex-frequency excitation without requiring engineered temporal waveforms or an explicit dispersion model, making dissipation-compensated spectroscopy straightforward.
  • Because the framework reduces to a Fourier convolution identity, it should transfer to any linear time-invariant wave system—microwave, acoustic, elastic, mechanical—where finite lifetimes broaden spectra.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The equivalence with complex-frequency synthesis suggests that TPSF inherits both the power and the peril of that viewpoint: overcompensation will eventually manufacture narrow artifacts, so the empirical plateau in g versus γ is doing essential work; a fully reliable implementation would need an independent measure of γ.
  • The model treats the recorded intensity as the magnitude of a complex Lorentzian spectrum; if phase information were added (e.g., via interferometric detection), the TPSF assumption could be tested directly and the reconstruction sharpened.
  • A natural test of the hidden-state interpretation is to measure the same cavities with ultrafast pump–probe or time-resolved photoluminescence: the recovered polariton branches should appear as beating features at the corresponding frequencies.
  • The method might be applied to other 'hidden' spectral features beyond Rabi splitting—such as weak modes near strong resonances or Fano profiles in metasurfaces—provided the single-exponential decay model remains adequate.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a 'temporal Fourier optics' (TPSF) framework for post-processing measured scattering spectra. The idea is to interpret spectral broadening as the Fourier-domain consequence of temporal attenuation, compensate that attenuation by multiplying the inverse-Fourier-transformed spectrum by a regularized exponential gain, and then Fourier-transform back to obtain an effective 'intrinsic' spectrum. The authors apply this procedure to dark-field scattering spectra of single-molecule Au nanosphere dimer cavities and Au@Ag nanorod/nanotriangle J-aggregate cavities, reporting that previously hidden upper and lower polariton branches are recovered. They support the method with an empty-cavity control, a detuned molecular control, a γ-robustness scan, and a comparison with synthetic-frequency reconstruction, and they quote extracted coupling strengths such as g = 68 meV for the AuND–MB system.

Significance. If the central assumption were valid, the method would be a useful, simple post-processing tool for recovering obscured spectral features in strongly dissipative systems, with broad applicability in spectroscopy and nanophotonics. The paper's strengths are its experimental breadth (three distinct cavity platforms), the inclusion of negative controls, the demonstration of a γ-plateau, and the clear mathematical framing of the intended procedure. However, the central claim rests on treating measured dark-field scattering spectra as complex amplitude spectra. Since the experiments record intensity-only spectra with a CCD, the inverse Fourier transform used in Eq. (11) is an autocorrelation of the field, not the temporal response y(t) of Eq. (11). This is a load-bearing issue: the exponential gain applied to an autocorrelation sharpens a power spectrum but does not, without additional phase information, evaluate the complex-frequency response X(ω−iγ). The controls and the synthetic-frequency comparison use the same intensity-only pipeline, so they do not independently validate recovery of the true polariton energies. The paper is potentially interesting, but the current manuscript does

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Eq. (3)–(6); §3.2, Eq. (11)–(12)] The reconstruction model assumes that the measured scattering spectrum Y(ω) is the complex amplitude spectrum of a temporal response y(t)=x(t)u_t(t), so that inverse Fourier transform gives y(t) and multiplication by e^{γt} evaluates X(ω−iγ). But dark-field scattering with a CCD records the real intensity spectrum I(ω)=|Y(ω)|^2, not Y(ω). The inverse Fourier transform of I(ω) is the autocorrelation R(τ)=∫ y*(t)y(t+τ)dt, not y(t). Applying the regularized gain W(t)=e^{-γ|t|}/(e^{-2γ|t|}+η) to R(τ) sharpens the measured power spectrum, but it is not equivalent to analytic continuation to complex frequency. In particular, the positions of peaks after this operation are not guaranteed to coincide with the poles of the underlying susceptibility. The paper needs to address this phase/intensity distinction explicitly: either show that the procedure is valid for intensity-only data under well-st
  2. [§5.1, Fig. 4c; §3.2, Eq. (12)] The compensation parameter γ is not determined independently. Section 5.1 states that γ=55×10^12 rad/s is adopted because it is 'the smallest compensation factor that consistently resolves the hidden polaritonic branches.' Since the claimed output of the method is precisely the resolved polaritonic branches, this choice is circular: γ is selected to produce the target feature. The γ-plateau in Fig. 4c shows some insensitivity, but it is a plateau beginning at the value where the branches first appear; the recovered g is therefore partly selected by the criterion. Similarly, the Wiener parameter η=1/SNR with SNR=100 is introduced without a measured signal-to-noise estimate or a sensitivity analysis. The authors should provide an independent calibration of γ (e.g., from the measured linewidth of an uncoupled cavity or from a model of the temporal decay), and should report how g varies over
  3. [§5.2, Fig. 4d; Fig. S6] The comparison with synthetic-frequency reconstruction is presented as independent validation ('excellent agreement'), but the synthetic-frequency reconstruction is applied to the same intensity-only scattering spectra as the TPSF procedure. If the synthetic-frequency method also treats the measured intensity as an analytic signal and applies a similar exponential kernel, then the agreement reflects the shared input and shared regularization philosophy rather than independent confirmation of the recovered polariton energies. The authors should clarify whether the synthetic-frequency reconstruction uses complex amplitude data or intensity data, and, if the latter, why intensity-only data are sufficient for recovering X(ω−iγ). Without this clarification, Fig. 4d is not an independent physical validation.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (12); §2.3, Eq. (5)] The model in §2.3 uses a causal, one-sided exponential attenuation u_t(t)=e^{-γ(t-t_start)}Θ(t−t_start), whose Fourier transform is a complex Lorentzian amplitude. The reconstruction in §3.2 instead uses a two-sided loss kernel L(t)=e^{-γ|t|} applied to the inverse Fourier transform of the measured spectrum. These are not the same object: the one-sided kernel is appropriate for a causal temporal response, while the two-sided kernel is appropriate for an autocorrelation of a stationary process. The paper should reconcile this inconsistency and state clearly whether the algorithm is designed for amplitude spectra or intensity spectra. This is more than a notational issue; it affects the form of the deconvolution kernel and the physical interpretation of the reconstructed quantity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (11)] The workflow in Eq. (11) is written as a chain of operations, but the notation is ambiguous about whether Y(ω) is the raw measured spectrum or the normalized scattering intensity. Please define the normalization and the units of the spectrum explicitly.
  2. [§5.1, Fig. 4a,b] The artifact near 720 nm at large γ is attributed to 'numerical fluctuations,' but no quantitative noise model is given. A short discussion of the sensitivity to the spectral sampling window and baseline subtraction would help the reader assess the robustness of the reconstruction.
  3. [§3.3, Fig. 2c] The statement that the recovered splitting 'agrees well with the theoretical prediction' from Ref. [34] would be more convincing if the comparison were quantified (e.g., with a theory curve or a cited uncertainty range for g). Currently the agreement is qualitative.
  4. [§4, Fig. 3] For the Au@Ag systems, no explicit γ values are reported for the reconstructions shown in Figs. 3b–e. Since γ is a free parameter, the paper should report the chosen γ values and the sensitivity of the recovered splittings to those choices for each platform.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

TPSF reconstruction is an inverse filter whose free gain is chosen to expose polariton branches; the reported g is then validated by self-citations, not by independent ground truth.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [§2.5, Eq. (11)]
    "In the absence of noise, the intrinsic response can formally be recovered through x(t) = y(t)/ut(t). For the exponential attenuation model introduced in Eq. (5), ut(t) = e−γt, this inverse operation is equivalent to compensating the temporal attenuation with an exponential gain factor, x˜(t) = y(t)eγt, where x˜(t) denotes the reconstructed temporal response. The corresponding reconstructed spectrum is subsequently obtained through X˜(ω) = F[x˜(t)]."

    The 'reconstructed intrinsic spectrum' X˜(ω) is defined as the inverse of the assumed exponential attenuation applied to the measured spectrum Y(ω). By construction, X˜(ω) is a filtered, sharpened version of the same measured data; it contains no information that was not already in Y(ω) under the assumed kernel. Whether the sharpened peaks correspond to true polariton states depends entirely on the untested assumption that the measured scattering spectrum can be treated as a complex amplitude spectrum Y(ω)=X(ω)⊗H_t(ω). Calling the inverse-filtered output 'hidden hybridized states' is therefore reading back the input through the chosen filter, not an independent prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [§5.1 (Robustness of TPSF Reconstruction)]
    "Considering both the stability of the recovered coupling strength and the absence of reconstruction artifacts, γ = 55×10^12 rad/s is adopted for the AuND–MB system. This value corresponds to the smallest compensation factor that consistently resolves the hidden polaritonic branches while avoiding overcompensation-induced distortions."

    The free compensation parameter γ is not determined independently. It is selected using the criterion that the hidden polaritonic branches become resolved. Since increasing γ sharpens the measured spectrum and the chosen γ is the smallest value that produces two branches, the appearance of the two peaks and the resulting g=68 meV are selected-for features rather than parameter-free predictions. The plateau in Fig. 4c shows that once the branches appear the extracted g is stable, but it does not break the circularity because the threshold for selecting γ is already 'branches resolved.'

  3. self citation load bearing [§3.3 (Recovering Hidden Single-Molecule Rabi Splitting)]
    "This value agrees well with the theoretical prediction for the deterministic single-molecule plasmon–exciton system [34], providing independent validation of the reconstructed spectrum."

    Reference [34] is the authors' own prior work (Rengming Liu and Lin Wu are authors of both papers). This same-group calculation is used as 'independent validation' of the central recovered coupling strength. Since the validation source is a self-citation rather than an external, independently reproduced result, it does not provide the independent confirmation claimed. The TPSF mathematics does not depend on [34], but the assertion that the recovered g is the true coupling is supported partly by this self-referential comparison.

full rationale

The mathematical core of TPSF is a deconvolution/inverse filter: Eq. (11) and Eq. (12) define the reconstructed spectrum as the measured spectrum multiplied in the time domain by the inverse of an assumed exponential decay kernel. Such an operation is legitimate if the forward model is known and the data contain the required complex amplitude information. The circularity arises in how the result is presented and used. First, the experiment records intensity-only dark-field scattering spectra with a CCD; the model treats Y(ω) as a complex amplitude spectrum and applies the inverse filter to the intensity data. The Fourier transform of an intensity spectrum is an autocorrelation, not the complex temporal response y(t) in Eq. (11), so the reconstructed peaks are primarily sharpened power-spectrum features. Second, the free parameter γ is chosen in §5.1 as the smallest value that resolves the polariton branches, so the appearance of the branches is the selection criterion, making the 'prediction' partly fitted. Third, the agreement with synthetic-frequency reconstruction in §5.2 uses the same measured data and a conceptually similar inverse procedure, so it is not an independent benchmark. The negative controls (bare AuND, PF-coupled AuND) and the γ-plateau are good-faith checks and demonstrate that the filter does not arbitrarily split a single Lorentzian; this prevents a higher score. However, the central claim that TPSF reveals the true hidden polariton states and the true coupling g is not independently established: the reconstructed branches reduce, by construction, to an inverse-filtered version of the measured spectrum with a gain parameter selected to expose them, and the external agreement invoked is largely from the authors' own prior work. Score 6 reflects this partial circularity: the central 'prediction' is strongly shaped by the assumed model and chosen parameter, though not wholly vacuous thanks to the controls.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central reconstruction relies on an assumed single-exponential broadening model and on treating intensity spectra as complex amplitude spectra; neither is independently established. The free parameters γ and η are chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced; the TPSF is a defined mathematical construct.

free parameters (2)
  • Effective temporal decay/compensation rate γ = 55×10^12 rad/s for the AuND–MB system; swept 0–200×10^12 rad/s; values for Au@Ag samples not stated
    Central parameter in Eq. (12). Chosen post hoc in §5.1 as the smallest γ that 'consistently resolves' the polariton branches; no independent measurement of the effective decay rate is provided.
  • Wiener regularization parameter η = 1/SNR = SNR = 100 assumed unless otherwise specified
    Introduced in Eq. (12) to suppress noise amplification; the assumed SNR affects reconstructed linewidths and contrast but is not estimated from the measured data.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption All spectral broadening is equivalent to homogeneous exponential temporal attenuation u_t(t) = e^{-γ(t-t_start)}Θ(t-t_start) (Eqs. 5–6).
    This underpins the entire inverse filter; real broadening includes inhomogeneous, instrumental, and non-Lorentzian contributions that may not be representable by a single exponential decay.
  • domain assumption Measured scattering spectrum obeys the amplitude convolution Y(ω) = X(ω) ⊗ H_t(ω), where X(ω) is the intrinsic complex spectrum (Eq. 11 and §2.3).
    Dark-field scattering records intensity, not complex field; applying amplitude convolution to power spectra requires an unstated minimum-phase or autocorrelation assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper η = 1/SNR with SNR = 100 yields a faithful reconstruction.
    The regularization constant is chosen by assumption; no noise characterization or sensitivity analysis for η is given.
  • domain assumption Resolved peak splitting at near resonance equals 2g (Ω_R = 2g), identifying the recovered peaks as polariton branches.
    Used in §3.3 to convert spectral peak separation into coupling strength; assumes the near-resonant coupled-mode model is the correct description.
  • standard math Fourier transform and convolution theorem with the exp(-iωt) time-harmonic convention.
    Standard mathematical background invoked throughout the derivation.
invented entities (1)
  • Temporal point-spread function (TPSF) no independent evidence
    purpose: Formalize spectral broadening as convolution with a temporal attenuation kernel, motivating the deconvolution procedure.
    A mathematical relabeling of the exponential decay kernel; it introduces no new physical degree of freedom and makes no falsifiable prediction beyond the deconvolution output.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17937 in / 17873 out tokens · 188598 ms · 2026-08-02T03:13:05.709978+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Spectral measurements provide fundamental insights into wave systems by revealing resonances, mode hybridization, and light-matter interactions. However, intrinsic dissipation and measurement-related spectral broadening often obscure the spectral signatures of the underlying hybridized light-matter states. Here, we establish a temporal Fourier optics framework based on a space-time Fourier correspondence, which interprets spectral broadening as the Fourier counterpart of temporal attenuation. This perspective introduces a temporal point-spread function (TPSF) that enables direct, synthesis-free reconstruction of the underlying spectral response from experimentally measured spectra by compensating for effective temporal decay before transformation back to the frequency domain. We experimentally validate the framework using deterministic single-molecule Au nanosphere dimers and open Au@Ag nanorod- and nanotriangle-based plasmonic nanocavities coupled to J-aggregate excitons. Across these distinct platforms, TPSF consistently resolves hidden upper and lower polaritonic branches, revealing hybridized light-matter states and strong coupling that remain inaccessible in conventional scattering spectra. The reconstructed spectra agree closely with the recently developed complex-frequency formalism while providing a substantially simpler and experimentally accessible implementation. More broadly, temporal Fourier optics establishes a general framework for recovering dissipation-obscured spectral information, opening new opportunities for spectroscopy, imaging, sensing, and inverse wave measurements across photonics and wave physics.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Physical review letters69(23), 3314 (1992)

    Weisbuch, C., Nishioka, M., Ishikawa, A., Arakawa, Y.: Observation of the cou- pled exciton-photon mode splitting in a semiconductor quantum microcavity. Physical review letters69(23), 3314 (1992)

    1992

  2. [2]

    Nature535(7610), 127– 130 (2016)

    Chikkaraddy, R., De Nijs, B., Benz, F., Barrow, S.J., Scherman, O.A., Rosta, E., Demetriadou, A., Fox, P., Hess, O., Baumberg, J.J.: Single-molecule strong coupling at room temperature in plasmonic nanocavities. Nature535(7610), 127– 130 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Nature communications11(1), 487 (2020)

    Bitton, O., Gupta, S.N., Houben, L., Kvapil, M., Křápek, V., Šikola, T., Haran, G.: Vacuum rabi splitting of a dark plasmonic cavity mode revealed by fast electrons. Nature communications11(1), 487 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Journal of the Optical Society of America B17(10), 1795–1802 (2000)

    Dorrer, C., Belabas, N., Likforman, J.-P., Joffre, M.: Spectral resolution and sam- pling issues in fourier-transform spectral interferometry. Journal of the Optical Society of America B17(10), 1795–1802 (2000)

    2000

  5. [5]

    Physical Review A90(4), 042506 (2014)

    Rohart, F., Mejri, S., Sow, P.L.T., Tokunaga, S.K., Chardonnet, C., Darquié, B., Dinesan, H., Fasci, E., Castrillo, A., Gianfrani, L.,et al.: Absorption-line-shape recoverybeyondthedetection-bandwidthlimit:Applicationtothe precisionspec- troscopic measurement of the boltzmann constant. Physical Review A90(4), 042506 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Scientific Reports9(1), 6140 (2019)

    Török, P., Foreman, M.R.: Precision and informational limits in inelastic optical spectroscopy. Scientific Reports9(1), 6140 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Nature Com- munications13(1), 691 (2022)

    Mazelanik, M., Leszczyński, A., Parniak, M.: Optical-domain spectral super- resolution via a quantum-memory-based time-frequency processor. Nature Com- munications13(1), 691 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Science381(6659), 766–771 (2023)

    Guan, F., Guo, X., Zeng, K., Zhang, S., Nie, Z., Ma, S., Dai, Q., Pendry, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, S.: Overcoming losses in superlenses with synthetic waves of complex frequency. Science381(6659), 766–771 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Nature Materials23(4), 506–511 (2024)

    Guan,F.,Guo,X.,Zhang,S.,Zeng,K.,Hu,Y.,Wu,C.,Zhou,S.,Xiang,Y.,Yang, X., Dai, Q.,et al.: Compensating losses in polariton propagation with synthesized complex frequency excitation. Nature Materials23(4), 506–511 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Elight4(1), 1 (2024)

    Zeng, K., Wu, C., Guo, X., Guan, F., Duan, Y., Zhang, L.L., Yang, X., Liu, N., Dai, Q., Zhang, S.: Synthesized complex-frequency excitation for ultrasensitive molecular sensing. Elight4(1), 1 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    Physical review letters83(20), 4204 (1999) 22

    Imamog, A., Awschalom, D.D., Burkard, G., DiVincenzo, D.P., Loss, D., Sherwin, M., Small, A.,et al.: Quantum information processing using quantum dot spins and cavity qed. Physical review letters83(20), 4204 (1999) 22

    1999

  12. [12]

    Nature physics5(9), 633–636 (2009)

    Verstraete, F., Wolf, M.M., Ignacio Cirac, J.: Quantum computation and quantum-state engineering driven by dissipation. Nature physics5(9), 633–636 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    Nature410(6832), 1067–1070 (2001)

    Pan, J.-W., Simon, C., Brukner, Č., Zeilinger, A.: Entanglement purification for quantum communication. Nature410(6832), 1067–1070 (2001)

    2001

  14. [14]

    Nature Photonics8(9), 685–694 (2014)

    Chang, D.E., Vuletić, V., Lukin, M.D.: Quantum nonlinear optics—photon by photon. Nature Photonics8(9), 685–694 (2014)

    2014

  15. [15]

    Nature Reviews Physics1(1), 19–40 (2019)

    Frisk Kockum, A., Miranowicz, A., De Liberato, S., Savasta, S., Nori, F.: Ultra- strong coupling between light and matter. Nature Reviews Physics1(1), 19–40 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Nature432(7014), 200–203 (2004)

    Yoshie, T., Scherer, A., Hendrickson, J., Khitrova, G., Gibbs, H., Rupper, G., Ell, C., Shchekin, O., Deppe, D.: Vacuum rabi splitting with a single quantum dot in a photonic crystal nanocavity. Nature432(7014), 200–203 (2004)

    2004

  17. [17]

    Nano Letters22(12), 4686–4693 (2022)

    Li, J.-Y., Li, W., Liu, J., Zhong, J., Liu, R., Chen, H., Wang, X.-H.: Room- temperaturestrongcouplingbetweenasinglequantumdotandasingleplasmonic nanoparticle. Nano Letters22(12), 4686–4693 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Science advances5(7), 5931 (2019)

    Park, K.-D., May, M.A., Leng, H., Wang, J., Kropp, J.A., Gougousi, T., Pelton, M., Raschke, M.B.: Tip-enhanced strong coupling spectroscopy, imaging, and control of a single quantum emitter. Science advances5(7), 5931 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Physical review letters118(23), 237401 (2017)

    Liu, R., Zhou, Z.-K., Yu, Y.-C., Zhang, T., Wang, H., Liu, G., Wei, Y., Chen, H., Wang, X.-H.: Strong light-matter interactions in single open plasmonic nanocavities at the quantum optics limit. Physical review letters118(23), 237401 (2017)

    2017

  20. [20]

    Physical Review Letters128(16), 167402 (2022)

    Niu, Y., Xu, H., Wei, H.: Unified scattering and photoluminescence spectra for strong plasmon-exciton coupling. Physical Review Letters128(16), 167402 (2022)

    2022

  21. [21]

    Acs Photonics 5(1), 24–42 (2018)

    Baranov, D.G., Wersall, M., Cuadra, J., Antosiewicz, T.J., Shegai, T.: Novel nanostructures and materials for strong light–matter interactions. Acs Photonics 5(1), 24–42 (2018)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Nanophotonics14(7), 885–898 (2025)

    Zhou, W.-J., Lu, Y.-W., Liu, J.-F., Liu, R., Ang, L.K., Hess, O., Wu, L.: Spatio- spectral localized modal coupling for room-temperature quantum coherence protection. Nanophotonics14(7), 885–898 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Nature432(7014), 197– 200 (2004) 23

    Reithmaier, J.P., Sęk, G., Löffler, A., Hofmann, C., Kuhn, S., Reitzenstein, S., Keldysh, L., Kulakovskii, V., Reinecke, T., Forchel, A.: Strong coupling in a single quantum dot–semiconductor microcavity system. Nature432(7014), 197– 200 (2004) 23

    2004

  24. [24]

    Nature 395(6697), 53–55 (1998)

    Lidzey, D.G., Bradley, D., Skolnick, M., Virgili, T., Walker, S., Whittaker, D.: Strong exciton–photon coupling in an organic semiconductor microcavity. Nature 395(6697), 53–55 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    Nature physics 6(11), 860–864 (2010)

    Wertz, E., Ferrier, L., Solnyshkov, D., Johne, R., Sanvitto, D., Lemaître, A., Sagnes, I., Grousson, R., Kavokin, A.V., Senellart, P.,et al.: Spontaneous forma- tion and optical manipulation of extended polariton condensates. Nature physics 6(11), 860–864 (2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Nature445(7130), 896–899 (2007)

    Hennessy, K., Badolato, A., Winger, M., Gerace, D., Atatüre, M., Gulde, S., Fält, S., Hu, E.L., Imamoğlu, A.: Quantum nature of a strongly coupled single quantum dot–cavity system. Nature445(7130), 896–899 (2007)

    2007

  27. [27]

    ACS photonics2(1), 130–136 (2015)

    Long, J.P., Simpkins, B.S.: Coherent coupling between a molecular vibration and fabry–perot optical cavity to give hybridized states in the strong coupling limit. ACS photonics2(1), 130–136 (2015)

    2015

  28. [28]

    Nature443(7112), 671–674 (2006)

    Aoki, T., Dayan, B., Wilcut, E., Bowen, W.P., Parkins, A.S., Kippenberg, T., Vahala, K., Kimble, H.: Observation of strong coupling between one atom and a monolithic microresonator. Nature443(7112), 671–674 (2006)

    2006

  29. [29]

    Physical Review Letters126(23), 233602 (2021)

    Will, E., Masters, L., Rauschenbeutel, A., Scheucher, M., Volz, J.: Coupling a sin- gle trapped atom to a whispering-gallery-mode microresonator. Physical Review Letters126(23), 233602 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Nano Letters20(3), 1766–1773 (2020)

    Vasista, A.B., Barnes, W.L.: Molecular monolayer strong coupling in dielectric soft microcavities. Nano Letters20(3), 1766–1773 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Photonics Insights5(1), 01–01 (2026)

    Song, D., Lu, Z., Guo, Q., Zhang, T., Ji, J., Zhang, Y., Ding, T., Govorov, A.O., Dong, Z., Zhang, S.,et al.: Enhanced light–matter interaction in plasmonic nanocavities: principle, challenge, and perspective. Photonics Insights5(1), 01–01 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Nature communications 7(1), 11823 (2016)

    Santhosh, K., Bitton, O., Chuntonov, L., Haran, G.: Vacuum rabi splitting in a plasmonic cavity at the single quantum emitter limit. Nature communications 7(1), 11823 (2016)

    2016

  33. [33]

    ACS Photonics 5(10), 3970–3976 (2018)

    Han, X., Wang, K., Xing, X., Wang, M., Lu, P.: Rabi splitting in a plasmonic nanocavity coupled to a ws2 monolayer at room temperature. ACS Photonics 5(10), 3970–3976 (2018)

    2018

  34. [34]

    Nature Communications15(1), 4103 (2024)

    Liu, R., Geng, M., Ai, J., Fan, X., Liu, Z., Lu, Y.-W., Kuang, Y., Liu, J.-F., Guo, L., Wu, L.: Deterministic positioning and alignment of a single-molecule exciton in plasmonic nanodimer for strong coupling. Nature Communications15(1), 4103 (2024)

    2024

  35. [35]

    Nature 24 nanotechnology10(1), 2–6 (2015)

    Khurgin, J.B.: How to deal with the loss in plasmonics and metamaterials. Nature 24 nanotechnology10(1), 2–6 (2015)

    2015

  36. [36]

    Physical Review B112(20), 201406 (2025)

    Liu, R., Zhu, J.-F., Ai, J., Zhou, W., Liu, G., Feng, S., Li, W., Liu, J.-F., Wu, L.: Spectral localization of single-nanoparticle plasmons through photonic substrate engineering. Physical Review B112(20), 201406 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Progress in optics51, 349–468 (2008)

    Braat, J.J., Haver, S., Janssen, A.J., Dirksen, P.: Assessment of optical systems by means of point-spread functions. Progress in optics51, 349–468 (2008)

    2008

  38. [38]

    Physical Review Letters130(14), 143601 (2023)

    Li, W., Liu, R., Li, J., Zhong, J., Lu, Y.-W., Chen, H., Wang, X.-H.: Highly efficient single-exciton strong coupling with plasmons by lowering critical inter- action strength at an exceptional point. Physical Review Letters130(14), 143601 (2023)

    2023

  39. [39]

    Physical Review B103(23), 235430 (2021)

    Liu, R., Liao, Z., Yu, Y.-C., Wang, X.-H.: Relativity and diversity of strong coupling in coupled plasmon-exciton systems. Physical Review B103(23), 235430 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Science387(6741), 4128 (2025)

    Kim, S., Krasnok, A., Alù, A.: Complex-frequency excitations in photonics and wave physics. Science387(6741), 4128 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    Nature Communications13(1), 7668 (2022)

    Gu, Z., Gao, H., Xue, H., Li, J., Su, Z., Zhu, J.: Transient non-hermitian skin effect. Nature Communications13(1), 7668 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Nature communications15(1), 2741 (2024)

    Hinney, J., Kim, S., Flatt, G.J., Datta, I., Alù, A., Lipson, M.: Efficient excitation and control of integrated photonic circuits with virtual critical coupling. Nature communications15(1), 2741 (2024)

    2024

  43. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18224 (2025)

    Xu, S., Kim, S., Vitalone, R.A., Yang, B., Swann, J., Renzi, E.M., Lin, Y., Handa, T., Zhu, X.-Y., Hone, J., et al.: Space-time duality in polariton dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18224 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Nature Communications (2026)

    Xue, B., Zhang, R., Zhu, Y., Sun, Y., Chen, X., Alù, A., Wan, W.: Lasing- like dynamics with virtual gain driven by complex-frequency excitations. Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  45. [45]

    Science Advances11(39), 0783 (2025)

    Wu, C., Yang, S., Zeng, K., Dai, X., Duan, Y., Zhang, S., Ma, P., Guo, X., Zhang, S., Yang, X.,et al.: Physics-informed deep learning for plasmonic sensing of nanoscale protein dynamics in solution. Science Advances11(39), 0783 (2025)

    2025

  46. [46]

    Nature Physics, 1–6 (2026)

    Guan, F., Lin, Z., Chen, S., Wen, X., Li, T., Zhang, S.: High-order virtual gain for optical loss compensation in plasmonic metamaterials. Nature Physics, 1–6 (2026)

    2026

  47. [47]

    Nanophotonics15(9), 70125 (2026)

    Zhang, S., Hang, Z.H.: Loss compensation and coherent virtual absorption via virtual complex frequency wave excitation. Nanophotonics15(9), 70125 (2026)

    2026

  48. [48]

    Nature Communications (2026)

    Chen, Y., Zeng, K., Xie, Z., Sha, Y., Chen, Z., Zhang, X., Yang, S., Gong, S., 25 Chen, Y., Duan, H., et al.: Synthetic gain for electron-beam spectroscopy. Nature Communications (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02211 (2026)

    Khurgin, J.B., Alu, A., Kozlov, V., Lalanne, P.: Revealing sharp spectral features with complex frequency excitations: Challenges and opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.02211 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    nature425(6961), 944–947 (2003)

    Akahane, Y., Asano, T., Song, B.-S., Noda, S.: High-q photonic nanocavity in a two-dimensional photonic crystal. nature425(6961), 944–947 (2003)

    2003

  51. [51]

    Nature Reviews Materials1(9), 16048 (2016)

    Hsu, C.W., Zhen, B., Stone, A.D., Joannopoulos, J.D., Soljačić, M.: Bound states in the continuum. Nature Reviews Materials1(9), 16048 (2016)

    2016

  52. [52]

    APL Quantum 3(2) (2026)

    Reva, S., Li, Z., Gromyko, D., Zhou, W., Shi, Z., Zhou, Z., Koshelev, K., Wu, L.: Bound states in the continuum: A quantum photonic perspective. APL Quantum 3(2) (2026)

    2026

  53. [53]

    Nature materials 13(2), 139–150 (2014)

    Yu, N., Capasso, F.: Flat optics with designer metasurfaces. Nature materials 13(2), 139–150 (2014)

    2014

  54. [54]

    Nature Physics 14(1), 11–19 (2018)

    El-Ganainy, R., Makris, K.G., Khajavikhan, M., Musslimani, Z.H., Rotter, S., Christodoulides, D.N.: Non-hermitian physics and pt symmetry. Nature Physics 14(1), 11–19 (2018)

    2018

  55. [55]

    ACS nano17(5), 4134–4179 (2023)

    Elbanna, A., Jiang, H., Fu, Q., Zhu, J.-F., Liu, Y., Zhao, M., Liu, D., Lai, S., Chua, X.W., Pan, J.,et al.: 2d material infrared photonics and plasmonics. ACS nano17(5), 4134–4179 (2023)

    2023

  56. [56]

    Nature Communications15(1), 3181 (2024)

    Song, Z., Zhu, J.-F., Wang, X., Zhang, R., Min, P., Cao, W., He, Y., Han, J., Wang, T., Zhu, J.,et al.: Origami metamaterials for ultra-wideband and large- depth reflection modulation. Nature Communications15(1), 3181 (2024)

    2024

  57. [57]

    eLight6(1), 7 (2026)

    Zhang, B., Zhang, H., Zhang, F., Liu, W., Yang, Y.: Far-field superresolution imaging via k-space superoscillation. eLight6(1), 7 (2026)

    2026

  58. [58]

    elight5(1), 23 (2025)

    Zhang, Y., Yang, E., Yoon, H.H., Cheng, Q., Sun, Z., Hasan, T., Cai, W.: Reconstructive spectrometers: hardware miniaturization and computational reconstruction. elight5(1), 23 (2025)

    2025

  59. [59]

    Electromagnetic Science (2026)

    Shu, F., Zhou, X., Li, Y., Chen, L., Zhang, J., Zhou, W., Zhang, D., Jin, Z., Hong, Z., Zhang, X., et al.: Observation of broadband terahertz chirality and chiral quasi-bics in silicon membrane metasurfaces. Electromagnetic Science (2026)

    2026

  60. [60]

    ELight2(1), 8 (2022)

    Yin, S., Galiffi, E., Alù, A.: Floquet metamaterials. ELight2(1), 8 (2022)

    2022

  61. [61]

    Physical Review Letters135(6), 066704 (2025) 26

    Rao, J., Wang, Y.-P., Chen, Z., Yao, B., Zhao, K., Wei, C., Wang, C., Li, R., Bai, L., Lu, W.: Time-varying strong coupling and the induced time diffraction of magnon modes. Physical Review Letters135(6), 066704 (2025) 26

    2025

  62. [62]

    Nature Physics19(7), 999–1002 (2023)

    Tirole, R., Vezzoli, S., Galiffi, E., Robertson, I., Maurice, D., Tilmann, B., Maier, S.A., Pendry, J.B., Sapienza, R.: Double-slit time diffraction at optical frequencies. Nature Physics19(7), 999–1002 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    American Institute of Physics (1969)

    Goodman, J.W., Cox, M.E.: Introduction to Fourier optics. American Institute of Physics (1969)

    1969

  64. [64]

    Physical review B6(12), 4370 (1972)

    Johnson, P.B., Christy, R.-W.: Optical constants of the noble metals. Physical review B6(12), 4370 (1972)

    1972

  65. [65]

    Optics Express32(27), 49082–49092 (2024) 27

    Feng, S., Liu, Z., Liu, M., Chen, P., Fan, X., Luo, T., Ai, J., Jiang, L., Liu, R.: Ultrasensitive sulphide detecting by using au (core)-ag (shell) triangular nanoprisms. Optics Express32(27), 49082–49092 (2024) 27

    2024