Polariton-Assisted Inelastic Tunneling through a Quantum Well

David Hagenm\"uller; Guido Pupillo; Th\'eophile Seck; Yanko Todorov

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Polariton-Assisted Inelastic Tunneling through a Quantum Well

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cavity polaritons imprint inelastic sidebands on the tunnel current of a doped quantum well in the slow-injection regime, giving an electrical probe of strong light–matter coupling.

desk verdict A careful NEGF derivation of polariton-assisted inelastic tunneling with a physically sound qualitative mechanism, but the headline quantitative claims rest on a pseudo-equilibrium QW distribution that neglects radiative populations, so the numbers are not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29171 v1 pith:BAHSJWWS submitted 2026-07-31 cond-mat.mes-hall

Théophile Seck , Yanko Todorov , Guido Pupillo , David Hagenmüller This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords polariton-assistedtunnelingintersubbandpolaritonsnonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionsquantumwelltransportstronglight–mattercouplinginelasticspectroscopycavityelectrodynamicsslow-injectionregime

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that cavity polaritons should be visible in the charge current through a doped quantum well inside a double-metal cavity, contrary to what equilibrium linear-response theory had suggested. Using a nonequilibrium Green's function formalism, it derives compact current expressions valid for strong collective coupling and shows that when the carrier injection rate drops below roughly 2g²/κ—the cavity-induced electronic broadening—the current–voltage curve develops inelastic satellite sidebands. These sidebands sit at voltages matching resonant and anti-resonant polariton emission, and their amplitudes are set by the single-electron coupling and cavity quality factor. Under resonant illumination the inelastic channels are strongly enhanced, offering a realistic route to detecting cavity-induced transport modifications in semiconductor heterostructures.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the radiative broadening function Γ_rad (Eq. 4), which dresses the quantum-well electron states through coupling to the polaritonic propagator P^r (Eq. 5). The paper evaluates Γ_rad in the polariton-pole approximation, replacing the full propagator by its residues at the lower and upper polariton frequencies, which yields analytical broadening functions (Eq. 6) and, after enforcing in-plane momentum conservation, closed-form elastic and inelastic current components (Eqs. 7–8). The inelastic component is what produces the sidebands; its bias dependence is governed by the condition E_inj(V) = E_n′ ± ω_σ. A second piece of machinery is the pseudoequilibrium approxi

What would settle it

Measure the current–voltage characteristic of a doped GaAs quantum well in a double-metal wire cavity with injection rate Γ tuned below and above 2g²/κ; the prediction is that sidebands appear at voltages set by E_n′ + ω_± and E_n′ − ω_± only in the slow-injection regime, with amplitudes scaling as g²/[κ(Δ±ω_σ)²]. Absence of the sidebands, or a dependence on collective coupling Ω instead of g²/κ, would falsify the central claim. As a theoretical check, recompute the current with a fully self-consistent quantum-well distribution that includes radiative populations; if the sidebands are suppress

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that cavity polaritons, the collective excitations of the intersubband transition and the cavity photon mode, leave resolvable fingerprints in the steady-state electron current through the quantum well. In the slow-injection regime defined by Γ < Γ_rad ≈ 2g²/κ, the current–voltage characteristic acquires satellite peaks at E_inj(V) = E_n′ + ω_σ and anti-resonant features at E_inj(V) = E_n′ − ω_σ, where ω_± are the lower and upper polariton frequencies split by the collective Rabi splitting. The inelastic peak amplitudes scale as J_inel ~ J0 D_L g²/[κ(Δ±ω_σ)²], so they grow with the single-electron coupling strength g and the cavity quality factor (1/κ) rather than with t

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes the quantum well's electron distribution is fixed only by tunnelling injection and extraction, neglecting populations induced by the cavity field itself; the paper admits this closure is not conserving in the strict many-body sense, so the sideband amplitudes and the visibility threshold Γ < 2g²/κ rest on that assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Nonequilibrium transport becomes a practical electrical probe of intersubband polaritons: the Rabi splitting can be read directly off current–voltage curves.
The earlier equilibrium linear-response conclusion that cavity-induced transport features are negligible does not apply in the slow-injection regime.
Sideband amplitudes are controlled by single-electron coupling g and cavity loss κ, so measurements can separate single-particle and collective physics by varying the electron density.
Resonant illumination converts the dark features into a stimulated-emission-assisted tunneling signal, providing a controllable on/off switch for the effect.
The mechanism suggests reported cavity-induced conductivity enhancements in organic semiconductors may be explained by polariton-assisted inelastic tunneling rather than by modified equilibrium properties.

Reading between the lines

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

If the sidebands follow the predicted g²/[κ(Δ±ω_σ)²] scaling, the same device could be used as a spectrometer: scanning bias reveals the polariton density of states directly, no optical detection needed.
The anti-resonant sidebands' insensitivity to Ω until the deep-strong-coupling regime could be exploited as a clean measurement of the single-electron coupling g, since those features stay put while the resonant ones move.
A fully self-consistent treatment that includes radiative populations in the quantum-well distribution (beyond the paper's pseudoequilibrium closure) would test the quantitative sideband amplitudes; if they shift significantly, the visibility threshold Γ < 2g²/κ may need revision under strong drive.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a solid within-field theory paper that extends the familiar Wingreen-Jacobsen-Wilkins and Tien-Gordon inelastic-tunneling machinery to collective intersubband polaritons, and it does so cleanly. The qualitative picture is on firm ground: in the slow-injection regime, the current-voltage characteristic develops sidebands at the polariton frequencies, and the sideband amplitudes are controlled by the single-electron coupling and cavity quality factor, not the collective Rabi splitting. That is a useful and credible result, and it reconciles the equilibrium linear-response null result with the possibility of nonequilibrium signatures. The paper is also unusually self-aware: the SM explicitly discloses the pseudo-conserving nature of the scheme, the neglect of radiative populations, and the restrictions of the model.

The main soft spot is not hidden, but it is load-bearing. The quantitative predictions--sideband heights, the visibility threshold, and the illumination enhancement in Fig. 3--all go through Eq. (6) with the factor [1 - f_QW], where f_QW is determined by tunneling alone (Sigma_tot = Sigma_tun). The SM admits this neglects radiatively induced populations, and the scheme is only pseudo-conserving, not Phi-derivable. Main-text footnote [43] overstates this by saying the scheme guarantees current conservation; that inconsistency should be fixed. The worry is not semantic: under resonant illumination, the pump populates the cavity and can change the QW subband occupations. If f_QW is underestimated, the [1 - f_QW] factor is overestimated, which inflates the apparent sideband amplitudes and the enhancement factor. The dark-signature route is also fragile: the figures use a hand-chosen Gamma = 0.01 meV, and the paper itself notes that with realistic gamma_el = 10 meV the dark features vanish. So the practical observability path is the illuminated regime--exactly where the radiative-population neglect is least justified. No independent check or error estimate is provided for this approximation.

None of this makes the central argument wrong. The mechanism is standard inelastic tunneling, properly dressed, and the paper does not try to conjure new physics where it is not needed. But the specific numbers that an experiment would measure are not established. A referee should ask for a self-consistent calculation of the QW distribution under illumination, or at least a quantitative estimate of the neglected radiative populations and how they affect the sideband heights and threshold.

Who this is for: anyone working on cavity-modified transport, intersubband polaritons, or inelastic tunneling spectroscopy in semiconductor heterostructures. It deserves a serious referee and probably publication after revision. The internal contradiction between footnote [43] and the SM should be fixed, and the quantitative robustness question should be addressed head-on. I would bring it to a reading group and would cite it if I worked in this area.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers electronic transport through a doped two-subband quantum well coupled to a cavity mode, using a nonequilibrium Green's function formalism. The central object is the radiative self-energy/broadening produced by the polaritonic propagator: in the strong-coupling, slow-injection regime the current formula separates into an elastic quasiparticle term and an inelastic term, giving sidebands at E_inj(V)=E_{n'}+ω_σ and E_{n'}-ω_σ, with amplitudes controlled by the single-electron coupling g, the cavity loss κ, and the detuning denominators (Δ±ω_σ)^2. The paper further argues that resonant illumination strongly enhances these sidebands, providing a realistic experimental route despite large electronic broadening. The authors contrast their nonequilibrium result with the equilibrium linear-response conclusion of Ref. [25] that cavity-induced transport features are negligible.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims survive scrutiny, this is a useful and timely contribution: it provides compact, causally well-defined current formulas (Eqs. (7)--(8)) and a concrete, falsifiable prediction (sidebands at polariton energies with amplitudes scaling as g^2/κ, visible for Γ<2g^2/κ). The SM derivation is explicit and traceable: the e.o.m./Langreth machinery, the polariton-pole approximation, and the Kramers--Kronig-based energy shifts are all presented in detail. The paper also correctly identifies that equilibrium linear-response conclusions need not apply out of equilibrium. The main weakness is that the quantitative sideband amplitudes and the illumination enhancement factor are computed with a pseudo-equilibrium closure for the QW distribution that, by the authors' own statement in SM Sec. VI, neglects radiatively induced populations and is not conserving in the Baym sense. Because the broadening in Eqs. (4) and (6) is proportional to [1-f_QW], this closure directly controls the central numbers in Figs. 1 and 3.

major comments (4)

[SM Sec. VI; main-text Footnote [43]] There is a direct internal contradiction. SM Sec. VI states that the pseudo-equilibrium distribution f_QW=(Γ_L F_k f_L+Γ_R f_R)/(Γ_L F_k+Γ_R) is obtained by setting Σ_tot=Σ_tun, that radiatively induced populations are neglected, that the scheme yields only 'pseudo-conservation' (J_L+J_R=0), and that it 'is not Φ-derivable and thus is not conserving in the sense of Baym'. Main-text footnote [43] claims the same scheme 'guarantees current conservation'. This is not a wording issue: f_QW enters Eq. (6) through 1-f_QW, and hence controls the inelastic amplitudes in Eq. (8) and the illumination enhancement in Fig. 3(b). Neglecting the radiative contribution to f_QW is exactly the approximation that needs to be justified when the pump is supposed to populate cavity photons and modify QW occupations. The authors should either solve the Keldysh equation for f_QW including Σ_rad, or provide an e
[Eq. (6); SM Eqs. (IX.5)-(IX.7); Fig. 3] The main-text Eq. (6) writes Γ_rad^n(k,ω) as a single [1-f_QW] term, but the SM's exact broadening, Eq. (IX.5), contains both a 1-f_QW (emission) term and an f_QW (absorption) term at E_inj-(E_{n'}-ω_σ). The reduction to a single term uses the dark-parameter argument that f_QW=0 near the relevant poles (SM Eq. (IX.7)). Under resonant illumination, and especially for the low-bias 'absorption' feature in Fig. 3(a), this argument is no longer automatically valid, and the f_QW used is still the tunneling-only pseudo-equilibrium one. The paper should either use the full Eq. (IX.5) with an updated f_QW for the illuminated case, or explicitly show that the f_QW term remains negligible throughout the drive range plotted in Fig. 3. Without this, the identification and amplitude of the absorption sideband are not fully supported.
[Fig. 1(c),(d); Fig. 3(a),(b); γ_el paragraph] The claimed 'realistic route' rests on a very narrow numerical window. The dark-signature figures use Γ=0.01 meV, and the authors themselves state that with a realistic γ_el=10 meV the dark features vanish. Under illumination, only a single broadening value (γ_el=10 meV) is shown. Since the visibility threshold Γ<Γ_rad~2g^2/κ is a central quantitative claim, the paper should show how the sideband peak currents in Fig. 3(b) behave as γ_el is varied (at least one smaller and one larger value), and state the corresponding range of validity for the illumination-enhancement route. This is needed to justify the word 'observable' in the abstract and conclusions.
[SM Sec. X (laser model)] The identification of the laser drive with a coherent state in a single free-space mode, with flux Φ related to the incident intensity I_L, is introduced rather quickly and then used to produce Fig. 3. The conversion from |α_L|^2 to I_L involves the free-space density of states and an unspecified quantization volume; the SM notes that Φ is 'not the correct physical quantity' but proceeds to identify it with the laser power. The authors should specify the full conversion chain (beam waist, mode area, density of states) used for the x-axis of Fig. 3(b), and state the sensitivity of the enhancement factor to this convention. This is not necessarily wrong, but it is essential for reproducibility of a quantitative prediction.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (6)] The sentence 'both Eq. (6) and the corresponding energy shift are proportional to 1-f_QW' is only true for the emission contribution; the full broadening has an f_QW contribution. Please rephrase to avoid ambiguity.
[Fig. 1(d)] The caption says Ω is varied 'with fixed g'; since Ω=g√N, varying the electron density changes N. It would help to state explicitly that the density is tuned while g and all other device parameters remain fixed.
[References] Refs. [42] and [43] are used for the pseudo-equilibrium closure; the SM correctly refers to Jauho-Wingreen-Meir for the local distribution function ansatz, but the main text should cite the SM for the explicit form of f_QW and its limitations, so the reader does not take 'guarantees current conservation' at face value.
[Notation] The symbols D_L and D are used for the injector bandwidth and the diamagnetic coefficient, respectively; in Eq. (1) and in the caption of Fig. 1 these are close enough visually to be confusing. Please use distinct names (e.g., Δ_SL for the miniband width).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: sideband positions follow from the assumed polariton spectral function via standard inelastic-tunneling logic, and the transport derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived forward from the model Hamiltonian rather than by fitting or by importing a result equivalent to the conclusion. The radiative self-energy is computed from the dressed photon (polaritonic) propagator, Eq. (III.12) of the SM, whose poles are the polariton frequencies ω±. The inelastic current sidebands appear where this self-energy is maximal, E_inj(V) = E_n' + ω_σ, as stated after Eq. (8). This is the standard inelastic-tunneling logic: the boson/polariton spectral function is an input, and the T(E) sideband is the output. The polariton frequencies are not extracted from the transport calculation; they are determined by the input collective coupling Ω = g√N. The amplitude scalings J_inel ∼ J0 DL g²/[κ(Δ±ω_σ)²] are obtained by evaluating the derived expressions, not by imposing the desired result. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed a prediction. The pseudo-equilibrium closure f_QW = (Γ_L F_k f_L + Γ_R f_R)/(Γ_L F_k + Γ_R) is an approximation with a stated limitation in SM Sec. VI: it neglects radiatively induced populations and is not Φ-derivable, hence not conserving in the Baym sense. That is a correctness/robustness concern, not a circularity, because the transport result does not reduce to the closure by construction and the authors explicitly identify the approximation. The few self-citations (e.g., SM refs. [5,6] for the light-matter SCBA) are methodological and not load-bearing: the relevant self-energy is re-derived in the SM, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported solely from the authors' prior work. Accordingly, no circular step satisfying the quoted-evidence standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is built from physical device inputs (cavity geometry, doping, ISB transition) taken from the ISB polariton literature; nothing is fitted to transport data because no experiment is analyzed. The hand-chosen injection rate Γ = 0.01 meV and lifetime γ_el = 10 meV (from Ferreira–Bastard) together select the slow-injection regime that makes the dark sidebands visible. The central approximations are standard NEGF (Markovian contacts, first-order SCBA), one domain restriction (Q2DEG, miniband narrower than broadening), and two paper-specific closures (pseudo-equilibrium f_QW; polariton-pole propagator), the first explicitly non-conserving. No invented entities.

free parameters (5)

Tunneling/injection rate Γ = 0.01 meV (Figs. 1–2)
Hand-chosen and central to the visibility of the dark sidebands; with realistic γ_el≈10 meV the dark features disappear.
Electronic lifetime broadening γ_el = 10 meV
Taken from Ref. [41] (GaAs QW phonon + impurity scattering); used only in the illuminated calculation (Fig. 3).
Single-electron coupling g/Δ = ~0.006 (g≈0.9 meV)
From dipole oscillator strength and cavity mode volume via SM Eq. (I.10); a physical input, but its value controls all sideband amplitudes.
Cavity quality factor Q = 10 (κ = ω_cav/Q ≈ 15 meV)
Chosen to make the strong-coupling condition Ω ≫ κ hold; sideband amplitudes scale as g²/κ.
Electron density / Fermi-level placement = ρ ≈ 7×10^11 cm^-2, Fermi level between subbands
Tuned (Fig. 1d) to position the Fermi level between subbands and to vary the collective coupling Ω at fixed g.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Two-subband truncation; Coulomb interactions neglected (main text p.1; SM Sec. I).
Interactions are argued to only renormalize the ISB frequency 'as expected' [29]; this removes electron-electron vertex corrections from the transport problem.
domain assumption Markovian, momentum-independent, equal injection/extraction rates Γ_L = Γ_R = Γ (SM Sec. II).
Needed for the compact current formula Eq. (3); unequal or energy-dependent rates would change sideband amplitudes.
domain assumption Quasi-2D injector limit: miniband bandwidth 4t ≪ Γ_n (SM Sec. II, Q2DEG figure-of-merit).
The slow-injection regime premise; the entire simplification to Eqs. (7)–(8) relies on it.
ad hoc to paper Pseudo-equilibrium QW distribution f_QW with radiatively induced populations neglected (SM Eqs. VI.3, IX.6).
Disclosed as giving only pseudo-conservation; not Φ-derivable in Baym's sense; enters the radiative self-energy in Eqs. (4), (6).
standard math First-order self-consistent Born approximation: vertex corrections discarded (SM Eq. III.10).
Standard for electron-boson transport (Wingreen et al.); multi-photon corrections claimed ∝ (g²/κ)².
domain assumption Polariton-pole approximation for the dressed photon propagator (SM Sec. VII).
Valid in strong coupling where polariton peaks are well separated; the abstract's 'arbitrary coupling exceeding loss rates' rests on it.
domain assumption Zero temperature; lead occupations are Θ(μ_η − ω).
Standard for THz/IR ISB devices; thermal smearing is ignored.
ad hoc to paper Laser drive modeled as a coherent state in a single free-space mode with flux Φ identified with intensity I_L (SM Sec. X).
Phenomenological mapping; the delta-function drive self-energy (Eq. X.5) requires a regularization convention for the free-space DOS.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polariton-Assisted Inelastic Tunneling through a Quantum Well." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BAHSJWWS

@misc{pith2026260729171,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polariton-Assisted Inelastic Tunneling through a Quantum Well},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BAHSJWWS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29171}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate electronic transport through a doped quantum well strongly interacting with a photonic mode confined in a double-metal cavity. Using a nonequilibrium Green's function formalism, we derive compact expressions for the current valid for arbitrary collective light--matter coupling strengths exceeding the relevant loss rates. We show that cavity polaritons leave observable transport signatures when the carrier injection rate is smaller than the cavity-induced electronic broadening. In this regime, the current--voltage characteristics exhibit inelastic sidebands associated with resonant and anti-resonant polariton emission, which are strongly enhanced under resonant illumination. Our results provide a realistic route to detecting cavity-induced modifications of charge transport in semiconductor heterostructures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29171 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Polariton-assisted inelastic tunneling in the dark. (a) A doped quantum well (QW) with electron density ρ is embedded in an array of mid-infrared wire cavities. The fundamental mode of each cavity (quality factor Q = ωcav/κ, where κ is the cavity decay rate) couples resonantly to N = ρ wLres electrons through the intersubband transition ∆ = E2 − E1 = 150 meV, with single-electron coupling strength g. Electrons t… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Cavity-induced radiative processes. (a) Photonic density of states, Im P r , without (black) and with (dashed red) light–matter coupling. (b) Equilibrium radiative broadening function (right) and associated inelastic tunneling channels (left). Red (dashed orange) arrows denote resonant (anti-resonant) light–matter processes. Parameters are as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Transport under illumination. (a) Current–voltage characteristics under resonant lower-polariton excitation. Arrows indicate the inelastic sidebands. Here IL denotes the incident laser intensity. (b) Peak current of the lower-polariton sidebands as a function of laser intensity. Parameters are the same as in (a), with γel = 10 meV [41], corresponding to γel/(2g 2 /κ) ∼ 102 , and a sample area (beam waist) of 2500 µm… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[43]

While the partially self-consistent scheme employed here guarantees current conservation, it does not account for multi-photon emission processes. Such processes are ex- pected to contribute only at higher order, with correc- tions to the self-energy scaling at least as(g2/κ)2, and should therefore remain negligible for realistic parameter values
[25]

Amelio, L

I. Amelio, L. Korosec, I. Carusotto, and G. Mazza, Opti- cal dressing of the electronic response of two-dimensional semiconductors in quantum and classical descriptions of cavity electrodynamics, Physical Review B104, 235120 (2021)

2021
[1]

A. A. Anappara, A. Tredicucci, F. Beltram, G. Biasiol, and L. Sorba, Tunnel-assisted manipulation of intersub- band polaritons in asymmetric coupled quantum wells, Applied Physics Letters89, 171109 (2006)

2006
[2]

Limbacher, M

B. Limbacher, M. Kainz, S. Schoenhuber, M. Wen- clawiak, C. Derntl, A. Andrews, H. Detz, G. Strasser, A. Schwaighofer, B. Lendl,et al., Resonant tunnel- ing diodes strongly coupled to the cavity field, Applied Physics Letters116(2020)

2020
[3]

Sapienza, A

L. Sapienza, A. Vasanelli, R. Colombelli, C. Ciuti, Y. Chassagneux, C. Manquest, U. Gennser, and C. Sir- tori, Electrically injected cavity polaritons, Physical Re- view Letters100, 136806 (2008)

2008
[4]

De Liberato and C

S. De Liberato and C. Ciuti, Quantum theory of elec- tron tunneling into intersubband cavity polariton states, Physical Review B79, 075317 (2009)

2009
[5]

Vigneron, S

P.-B. Vigneron, S. Pirotta, I. Carusotto, N.-L. Tran, G. Biasiol, J.-M. Manceau, A. Bousseksou, and R. Colombelli, Quantum well infrared photo-detectors operating in the strong light-matter coupling regime, Ap- plied Physics Letters114, 131104 (2019)

2019
[6]

K. Unterrainer, Photon-assisted tunneling in semicon- ductor quantum structures, inIntersubband Transitions in Quantum Wells: Physics and Device Applications II, Semiconductors and Semimetals, Vol. 66, edited by H. C. Liu and F. Capasso (Academic Press, 1999) Chap. 3, pp. 127–186

1999

Show all 76 references

[7]

Carusotto and C

I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 299 (2013)

2013
[8]

F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Ma- nipulating matter by strong coupling to vacuum fields, Science373, eabd0336 (2021)

2021
[9]

Schlawin, D

F. Schlawin, D. M. Kennes, and M. A. Sentef, Cavity quantum materials, Applied Physics Reviews9, 011312 (2022)

2022
[10]

Orgiu, J

E. Orgiu, J. George, J. A. Hutchison, E. Devaux, J. F. Dayen, B. Doudin, F. Stellacci, C. Genet, J. Schachen- mayer, C. Genes, G. Pupillo, P. Samorì, and T. W. Ebbe- sen, Conductivity in organic semiconductors hybridized with the vacuum field, Nat. Mater.14, 1123 (2015)

2015
[11]

Hagenmüller, J

D. Hagenmüller, J. Schachenmayer, S. Schütz, C. Genes, and G. Pupillo, Cavity-enhanced transport of charge, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 223601 (2017)

2017
[12]

Hagenmüller, S

D. Hagenmüller, S. Schütz, J. Schachenmayer, C. Genes, and G. Pupillo, Cavity-assisted mesoscopic transport of fermions: Coherent and dissipative dynamics, Phys. Rev. B97, 205303 (2018)

2018
[13]

Nagarajan, J

K. Nagarajan, J. George, A. Thomas, E. Devaux, T. Chervy, S. Azzini, K. Joseph, A. Jouaiti, M. W. Hos- seini, A. Kumar, C. Genet, N. Bartolo, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Conductivity and photoconductivity of a p-type organic semiconductor under ultra-strong cou- pling, ACS Na...

2020
[14]

Kumar, S

S. Kumar, S. Biswas, U. Rashid, K. S. Mony, G. Chan- drasekharan, F. Mattiotti, R. M. A. Vergauwe, D. Ha- 6 genmuller, V. Kaliginedi, and A. Thomas, Extraordinary electrical conductance through amorphous nonconduct- ing polymers under vibrational strong coupling, Journal of th...

2024
[15]

Ciuti, Cavity-mediated electron hopping in disordered quantum Hall systems, Physical Review B104, 155307 (2021)

C. Ciuti, Cavity-mediated electron hopping in disordered quantum Hall systems, Physical Review B104, 155307 (2021)

2021
[16]

Arwas and C

G. Arwas and C. Ciuti, Quantum electron transport con- trolled by cavity vacuum fields, Physical Review B107, 045425 (2023)

2023
[17]

Rokaj, J

V. Rokaj, J. Wang, J. Sous, M. Penz, M. Ruggenthaler, and A. Rubio, Weakened topological protection of the quantum hall effect in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 196602 (2023)

2023
[18]

Rokaj, M

V. Rokaj, M. Penz, M. A. Sentef, M. Ruggenthaler, and A.Rubio,Polaritonichofstadterbutterflyandcavitycon- trol of the quantized hall conductance, Phys. Rev. B105, 205424 (2022)

2022
[19]

Appugliese, J

F. Appugliese, J. Enkner, G. L. Paravicini-Bagliani, M. Beck, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, G. Scalari, C. Ciuti, and J. Faist, Breakdown of topological protection by cav- ity vacuum fields in the integer quantum hall effect, Sci- ence375, 1030 (2022)

2022
[20]

Enkner, L

J. Enkner, L. Graziotto, F. Appugliese, V. Rokaj, J. Wang, M. Ruggenthaler, C. Reichl, W. Wegscheider, A. Rubio, and J. Faist, Testing the renormalization of the von klitzing constant by cavity vacuum fields, Phys- ical Review X14, 021038 (2024)

2024
[21]

Bacciconi, H

Z. Bacciconi, H. B. Xavier, I. Carusotto, T. Chanda, and M. Dalmonte, Theory of fractional quantum hall liq- uids coupled to quantum light and emergent graviton- polaritons, Phys. Rev. X15, 021027 (2025)

2025
[22]

Enkner, L

J. Enkner, L. Graziotto, D. Boriçi, F. Appugliese, C. Re- ichl, G. Scalari, N. Regnault, W. Wegscheider, C. Ciuti, and J. Faist, Tunable vacuum-field control of fractional andintegerquantumhallphases,Nature641,884(2025)

2025
[23]

Mattiotti, G

F. Mattiotti, G. Pupillo, J. Dubail, and D. Hagen- müller, Enhanced localization length in a disordered one-dimensional band via cavity coupling to delocal- ized states, arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.12224 (2026), arXiv:2606.12224 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

2026 arXiv
[24]

Naudet-Baulieu, N

C. Naudet-Baulieu, N. Bartolo, G. Orso, and C. Ciuti, Dark vertical conductance of cavity-embedded semicon- ductor heterostructures, New Journal of Physics21, 093061 (2019)

2019
[26]

Bajoni, E

D. Bajoni, E. Semenova, A. Lemaître, S. Bouchoule, E. Wertz, P. Senellart, and J. Bloch, Polariton light- emitting diode in a gaas-based microcavity, Physical Re- view B77, 113303 (2008)

2008
[27]

P. Jouy, A. Vasanelli, Y. Todorov, L. Sapienza, R. Colombelli, U. Gennser, and C. Sirtori, Intersub- band electroluminescent devices operating in the strong- coupling regime, Physical Review B82, 045322 (2010)

2010
[28]

Feuillet-Palma, Y

C. Feuillet-Palma, Y. Todorov, R. Steed, A. Vasanelli, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, and C. Sirtori, Extremely sub- wavelength thz metal-dielectric wire microcavities, Opt. Express20, 29121 (2012)

2012
[29]

Todorov and C

Y. Todorov and C. Sirtori, Intersubband polaritons in the electrical dipole gauge, Phys. Rev. B85, 045304 (2012)

2012
[30]

See Supplemental Material for details about the deriva- tion of the NEGF formalism and the derivation of the current formula, as well as resonant approximation for the polaritonic propagator and derivation of the analyti- cal formula
[31]

Ciuti, G

C. Ciuti, G. Bastard, and I. Carusotto, Quantum vac- uum properties of the intersubband cavity polariton field, Physical Review B72, 115303 (2005)

2005
[32]

N. S. Wingreen, K. W. Jacobsen, and J. W. Wilkins, Res- onant tunneling with electron-phonon interaction: An exactly solvable model, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 1396 (1988)

1988
[33]

N. S. Wingreen, K. W. Jacobsen, and J. W. Wilkins, Inelastic scattering in resonant tunneling, Phys. Rev. B 40, 11834 (1989)

1989
[34]

Meir and N

Y. Meir and N. S. Wingreen, Landauer formula for the current through an interacting electron region, Phys. Rev. Lett.68, 2512 (1992)

1992
[35]

Haug and A.-P

H. Haug and A.-P. Jauho,Quantum Kinetics in Trans- port and Optics of Semiconductors, 2nd ed. (Springer, 2008)

2008
[36]

Jonson, Quantum-mechanical resonant tunneling in the presence of a boson field, Phys

M. Jonson, Quantum-mechanical resonant tunneling in the presence of a boson field, Phys. Rev. B39, 5924 (1989)

1989
[37]

E. V. Anda and F. Flores, The role of inelastic scatter- ing in resonant tunnelling heterostructures, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter3, 9087 (1991)

1991
[38]

J. H. Davies, S. Hershfield, P. Hyldgaard, and J. W. Wilkins, Current and rate equation for resonant tunnel- ing, Phys. Rev. B47, 4603 (1993)

1993
[39]

Hyldgaard, S

P. Hyldgaard, S. Hershfield, J. H. Davies, and J. W. Wilkins, Resonant tunneling with an electron-phonon in- teraction, Annals of Physics236, 1–42 (1994)

1994
[40]

Galperin, M

M. Galperin, M. A. Ratner, and A. Nitzan, Inelastic electron tunneling spectroscopy in molecular junctions: Peaks and dips, The Journal of Chemical Physics121, 11965–11979 (2004)

2004
[41]

R.FerreiraandG.Bastard,Evaluationofsomescattering times for electrons in unbiased and biased single- and multiple-quantum-well structures, Physical Review B40, 1074–1086 (1989)

1989
[42]

Jauho, N

A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Time- dependent transport in interacting and noninteract- ing resonant-tunneling systems, Phys. Rev. B50, 5528 (1994)

1994
[44]

Hyldgaard, S

P. Hyldgaard, S. Hershfield, J. Davies, and J. Wilkins, Resonant tunneling with an electron-phonon interaction, Annals of Physics236, 1 (1994)

1994
[45]

L. E. Henrickson, Nonequilibrium photocurrent modeling in resonant tunneling photodetectors, Journal of Applied Physics91, 6273–6281 (2002)

2002
[46]

Aeberhard, Nonequilibrium green’s function theory of coherent excitonic effects in the photocurrent response of semiconductor nanostructures, Physical Review B86, 115317 (2012)

U. Aeberhard, Nonequilibrium green’s function theory of coherent excitonic effects in the photocurrent response of semiconductor nanostructures, Physical Review B86, 115317 (2012)

2012
[47]

P. K. Tien and J. P. Gordon, Multiphoton process ob- served in the interaction of microwave fields with the tunnelingbetweensuperconductorfilms,PhysicalReview 7 129, 647–651 (1963)

1963
[48]

P. S. S. Guimarães, B. J. Keay, J. P. Kaminski, S. J. Allen, P. F. Hopkins, A. C. Gossard, L. T. Florez, and J.P.Harbison,Photon-mediatedsequentialresonanttun- neling in intense terahertz electric fields, Physical Review Letters70, 3792–3795 (1993)

1993
[49]

C. L. Foden and D. M. Whittaker, Quantum electrody- namic treatment of photon-assisted tunneling, Physical Review B58, 12617–12620 (1998)

1998
[50]

Drexler, J

H. Drexler, J. Scott, S. Allen, K. Campman, and A. Gos- sard, Photon-assisted tunneling in a resonant tunneling diode: Stimulated emission and absorption in the thz range, Applied Physics Letters67, 2816 (1995)

1995
[51]

Platero and R

G. Platero and R. Aguado, Photon-assisted transport in semiconductor nanostructures, Physics Reports395, 1–157 (2004)

2004
[52]

Kawano, T

Y. Kawano, T. Fuse, S. Toyokawa, T. Uchida, and K. Ishibashi, Terahertz photon-assisted tunneling in car- bon nanotube quantum dots, Journal of Applied Physics 103, 034307 (2008)

2008
[53]

Espinosa-Ortega, O

T. Espinosa-Ortega, O. Kyriienko, O. V. Kibis, and I. A. Shelykh, Semiconductor cavity qed: Band gap induced by vacuum fluctuations, Physical Review A89, 062115 (2014)

2014
[54]

Morina, O

S. Morina, O. V. Kibis, A. A. Pervishko, and I. A. Shelykh, Transport properties of a two-dimensional elec- tron gas dressed by light, Physical Review B91, 155312 (2015)

2015
[55]

Valmorra, K

F. Valmorra, K. Yoshida, L. C. Contamin, S. Mes- selot, S. Massabeau, M. R. Delbecq, M. C. Dartiailh, M.M.Desjardins, T.Cubaynes, Z.Leghtas, K.Hirakawa, J. Tignon, S. Dhillon, S. Balibar, J. Mangeney, A. Cot- tet, and T. Kontos, Vacuum-field-induced thz transport gap in a carb...

2021
[56]

Lagrée, M

M. Lagrée, M. Jeannin, G. Quinchard, O. Ouznali, A. Evirgen, V. Trinité, R. Colombelli, and A. Delga, Di- rect polariton-to-electron tunneling in quantum cascade detectors operating in the strong light-matter coupling regime, Physical Review Applied17, 044021 (2022)

2022
[57]

Pisani, D

F. Pisani, D. Gacemi, A. Vasanelli, L. Li, A. G. Davies, E. Linfield, C. Sirtori, and Y. Todorov, Electronic trans- port driven by collective light-matter coupled states in a quantum device, Nature Communications14, 3914 (2023)

2023
[58]

M. H. Devoret, D. Esteve, H. Grabert, G.-L. Ingold, H. Pothier, and C. Urbina, Effect of the electromag- netic environment on the coulomb blockade in ultrasmall tunnel junctions, Physical Review Letters64, 1824–1827 (1990)

1990
[59]

S. M. Girvin, L. I. Glazman, M. Jonson, D. R. Penn, and M. D. Stiles, Quantum fluctuations and the single- junction coulomb blockade, Physical Review Letters64, 3183–3186 (1990)

1990
[60]

Iqbal, Y

U. Iqbal, Y. Todorov, and C. Mora, Dynamical coulomb blockade: An all electrical probe of the ultrastrong light- matter coupling regime, Physical Review Research6, 033097 (2024). Supplemental Material:Polariton-assisted Inelastic Tunneling through a Quantum Well in the Strong ...

2024
[61]

(VII.5) With the polariton dispersion in USC (at resonnance,ω c = ∆ 21),ω σ = q ∆2 21 + 2Ω2 12 +σ p (∆2 21 + 2Ω2 12)2 −∆ 2 21. We now perform the polariton-pole approximation : the propagator is separated between it’s value around the upper polaritonic peak and the lower polar...
[62]

Feuillet-Palma, Y

C. Feuillet-Palma, Y. Todorov, R. Steed, A. Vasanelli, G. Biasiol, L. Sorba, and C. Sirtori, Extremely sub-wavelength thz metal-dielectric wire microcavities, Opt. Express20, 29121 (2012)

2012
[63]

Wacker, Semiconductor superlattices: a model system for nonlinear transport, Physics Reports357, 1–111 (2002)

A. Wacker, Semiconductor superlattices: a model system for nonlinear transport, Physics Reports357, 1–111 (2002)

2002
[64]

Haug and A.-P

H. Haug and A.-P. Jauho,Quantum Kinetics in Transport and Optics of Semiconductors, 2nd ed. (Springer, 2008)

2008
[65]

Ciuti, G

C. Ciuti, G. Bastard, and I. Carusotto, Quantum vacuum properties of the intersubband cavity polariton field, Physical Review B72, 115303 (2005)

2005
[66]

Hagenm¨ uller, J

D. Hagenm¨ uller, J. Schachenmayer, S. Sch¨ utz, C. Genes, and G. Pupillo, Cavity-enhanced transport of charge, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 223601 (2017)

2017
[67]

Hagenm¨ uller, S

D. Hagenm¨ uller, S. Sch¨ utz, J. Schachenmayer, C. Genes, and G. Pupillo, Cavity-assisted mesoscopic transport of fermions: Coherent and dissipative dynamics, Phys. Rev. B97, 205303 (2018)

2018
[68]

Pourfath,The Non-Equilibrium Green ’s Function Method for Nanoscale Device Simulation, Computational Microelec- tronics (Springer, Vienna, 2014)

M. Pourfath,The Non-Equilibrium Green ’s Function Method for Nanoscale Device Simulation, Computational Microelec- tronics (Springer, Vienna, 2014)

2014
[69]

Jauho, N

A.-P. Jauho, N. S. Wingreen, and Y. Meir, Time-dependent transport in interacting and noninteracting resonant-tunneling systems, Phys. Rev. B50, 5528 (1994)

1994
[70]

Stefanucci and R

G. Stefanucci and R. van Leeuwen,Nonequilibrium Many-Body Theory of Quantum Systems: A Modern Introduction (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013)

2013
[71]

Bruus and K

H. Bruus and K. Flensberg,Many-body quantum theory in condensed matter physics - an introduction(Oxford University Press, 2004)

2004
[72]

Strinati, Application of the green’s functions method to the study of the optical properties of semiconductors, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento (1978-1999)11, 1–86 (1988)

G. Strinati, Application of the green’s functions method to the study of the optical properties of semiconductors, La Rivista del Nuovo Cimento (1978-1999)11, 1–86 (1988)

1978
[73]

Engelsberg and J

S. Engelsberg and J. R. Schrieffer, Coupled electron-phonon system, Physical Review131, 993–1008 (1963)

1963
[74]

G. D. Mahan,Many-Particle Physics(Springer US, Boston, MA, 2000). 17

2000
[75]

L. E. Henrickson, Nonequilibrium photocurrent modeling in resonant tunneling photodetectors, Journal of Applied Physics 91, 6273–6281 (2002)

2002
[76]

Aeberhard, Nonequilibrium green’s function theory of coherent excitonic effects in the photocurrent response of semi- conductor nanostructures, Physical Review B86, 115317 (2012)

U. Aeberhard, Nonequilibrium green’s function theory of coherent excitonic effects in the photocurrent response of semi- conductor nanostructures, Physical Review B86, 115317 (2012)

2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [43]

While the partially self-consistent scheme employed here guarantees current conservation, it does not account for multi-photon emission processes. Such processes are ex- pected to contribute only at higher order, with correc- tions to the self-energy scaling at least as(g2/κ)2, and should therefore remain negligible for realistic parameter values

[2] [25]

Amelio, L

I. Amelio, L. Korosec, I. Carusotto, and G. Mazza, Opti- cal dressing of the electronic response of two-dimensional semiconductors in quantum and classical descriptions of cavity electrodynamics, Physical Review B104, 235120 (2021)

2021

[3] [1]

A. A. Anappara, A. Tredicucci, F. Beltram, G. Biasiol, and L. Sorba, Tunnel-assisted manipulation of intersub- band polaritons in asymmetric coupled quantum wells, Applied Physics Letters89, 171109 (2006)

2006

[4] [2]

Limbacher, M

B. Limbacher, M. Kainz, S. Schoenhuber, M. Wen- clawiak, C. Derntl, A. Andrews, H. Detz, G. Strasser, A. Schwaighofer, B. Lendl,et al., Resonant tunnel- ing diodes strongly coupled to the cavity field, Applied Physics Letters116(2020)

2020

[5] [3]

Sapienza, A

L. Sapienza, A. Vasanelli, R. Colombelli, C. Ciuti, Y. Chassagneux, C. Manquest, U. Gennser, and C. Sir- tori, Electrically injected cavity polaritons, Physical Re- view Letters100, 136806 (2008)

2008

[6] [4]

De Liberato and C

S. De Liberato and C. Ciuti, Quantum theory of elec- tron tunneling into intersubband cavity polariton states, Physical Review B79, 075317 (2009)

2009

[7] [5]

Vigneron, S

P.-B. Vigneron, S. Pirotta, I. Carusotto, N.-L. Tran, G. Biasiol, J.-M. Manceau, A. Bousseksou, and R. Colombelli, Quantum well infrared photo-detectors operating in the strong light-matter coupling regime, Ap- plied Physics Letters114, 131104 (2019)

2019

[8] [6]

K. Unterrainer, Photon-assisted tunneling in semicon- ductor quantum structures, inIntersubband Transitions in Quantum Wells: Physics and Device Applications II, Semiconductors and Semimetals, Vol. 66, edited by H. C. Liu and F. Capasso (Academic Press, 1999) Chap. 3, pp. 127–186

1999