Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Magnetic-field control of Fermi polaron fine structure and polarization in strained monolayer semiconductors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Zeeman splitting of attractive Fermi polarons in doped monolayer semiconductors is set by two renormalized g factors, g_X plus or minus a mass-ratio term, not by the bare trion g factor.

desk verdict Fermi polaron g-factor renormalization (g1,2 = g_X ± ξ g_c) is a clean, parameter-free result that likely explains measured intra-/intervalley trion g-factor differences; the high-field predictions are shakier because orbital Landau effects are neglected, but the paper is worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03853 v1 pith:EGYJBCO3 submitted 2026-08-04 cond-mat.mes-hall

Zakhar A. Iakovlev This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords FermipolaronSuristetrontransitionmetaldichalcogenidemonolayersZeemaneffectg-factorrenormalizationuniaxialstrainvalleypolarizationcirculardichroism
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

The paper predicts that in doped monolayer semiconductors, the Zeeman splitting of attractive Fermi polarons is not the bare trion splitting: correlations with the valley-resolved Fermi sea renormalize the $g$ factor by a mass-ratio coefficient $\xi$, giving $g_1=g_X+\xi g_c$ for intravalley and $g_2=g_X-\xi g_c$ for intervalley polarons in W-based materials. This renormalization is density-independent at small fields, so it survives in the $E_F\to0$ limit, and it changes sign between the two polaron branches. A critical field $B_{\rm crit}=2E_F/(|g_c|\mu_B)$ fully valley-polarizes the electron sea, switching the radiative doublet to a single circularly polarized state. With uniaxial strain added, the Zeeman and strain-induced pseudo-Zeeman splittings compete, producing a quadratic-to-linear Zeeman crossover and continuously tunable elliptical polarization. The theory also computes absorption and reflection spectra, including circular and linear dichroism, giving concrete experimental signatures.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the attractive Fermi polaron, a four-particle quasiparticle composed of an exciton plus a Fermi-sea electron-hole pair, described by the Hamiltonian in Eq. (6) and the wavefunction in Eq. (8). Its energy is fixed by the self-consistent equation $E^\sigma=\varepsilon^\sigma_0+\Sigma^\sigma(E^\sigma)$, where the exciton self-energy $\Sigma$ sums the interaction with electrons in each valley; in the trion-pole approximation this reduces to the compact form in Eq. (45) with the coefficients $\alpha$, $\beta$, and the mass-ratio factor $\xi$ of Eq. (40), which carries the entire $g$-factor renormalization. For strain, the central object is the tensor Green's function $\hat G_s(E)$ of Eq. (50) and the effective two-level Hamiltonian $H_{1,2}=(-E_{T1,2}+\xi E_F)\hat 1+\frac{\Delta E^{(s)}_{FP}}{2}\hat\sigma_x+\frac{\Delta E^{W}_{FP1,2}}{2}\hat\sigma_z$, which treats the magnetic field as a $\sigma_z$ term and the strain as a $\sigma_x$ pseudomagnetic term on the polaron pseudospin. This Hamiltonian yields the analytic splittings, Stokes parameters, and crossover fields used throughout the paper.

What would settle it

Measure the energy and circular polarization of the two attractive Fermi polaron absorption lines in a gate-tunable WSe$_2$ monolayer as a function of $B$ at fixed electron density below $B_{\rm crit}$; the central prediction fails if either line splits with the bare trion slope $g_X\mu_B$, if both circularly polarized lines remain above $B_{\rm crit}$, or if the small-field Zeeman slopes change with electron density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Eq. (41): in the small-field regime $|B|<B_{\rm crit}$, the Zeeman splittings of the two attractive Fermi polaron doublets in W-based monolayers are $\Delta E^{W}_{FP1,2}=g_{1,2}\mu_B B$ with $g_1=g_X+\xi g_c$ and $g_2=g_X-\xi g_c$, where $\xi$ is a negative coefficient fixed by the electron-to-exciton mass ratio through Eq. (40). Correlations between the exciton and the Fermi sea thus shift the polaron $g$ factor away from the trion value $g_X$, with opposite signs for the intra- and intervalley branches, and the shift is independent of electron density at small fields. At $B_{\rm crit}=2E_F/(|g_c|\mu_B)$ the resident electrons become fully valley polarized, so only one circularly polarized polaron state remains and the density dependence of the splitting has a kink. Under uniaxial strain, the same doublets first shift quadratically in $B$ while remaining nearly linearly polarized, then cross over to linear Zeeman splitting with elliptical polarization. The paper derives these behaviors from the Green's-function self-energy approach and a simplified two-level effective Hamiltonian, and works out their signatures in absorption, reflection, and both circular and linear dichroism.

Load-bearing premise

All magnetic-field effects are treated as Zeeman shifts of the bands, with orbital (Landau) effects dropped under the condition $|eB/(M_e c)|\tau_e\ll1$; in high-mobility monolayers at low temperature this condition can break at fields of a few tesla, and then the renormalized $g$ factors and the valley-polarization threshold derived here would no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In W-based monolayers, the intravalley and intervalley attractive polaron lines should show Zeeman slopes $g_X+\xi g_c$ and $g_X-\xi g_c$ rather than a single trion slope, a direct magneto-optical test.
  • Because the renormalized $g$ factor is density-independent at small fields (and survives $E_F\to0$), lowering the electron density should not push the slopes back toward the bare trion value as long as $B<B_{\rm crit}$.
  • Above $B_{\rm crit}$, only one circularly polarized polaron state remains in each radiative doublet, so the number of observed transitions drops by half and the splitting versus density shows a kink at the threshold.
  • Under uniaxial strain, each doublet first exhibits a quadratic Zeeman shift while staying nearly linearly polarized, then crosses to linear Zeeman splitting with elliptical polarization; the crossover field is set by the relative size of strain splitting and $g\mu_B B$.
  • Mo-based monolayers have only an intervalley polaron, with $g_{\rm Mo}=g_X+\xi g_c$, providing a cleaner single-line test of the same renormalization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to look for the same mass-ratio factor $\xi$ in the magnetic-field dependence of the Fermi polaron spectral continuum and oscillator-strength redistribution, since the self-energy that produces Eq. (41) also controls those quantities.
  • The two-level $\sigma_x$-versus-$\sigma_z$ picture implies that sweeping $B$ and strain moves the polaron doublet along a full pseudospin trajectory, so the predicted elliptical polarization could be used as a continuously tunable polarization rotor; the paper itself does not propose this application.
  • The kink in the density dependence at $B_{\rm crit}$ could be turned into a spectroscopic measurement of the conduction-band $g_c$ that is independent of transport measurements, by tracking the threshold as electron density is tuned.
  • If orbital (Landau) effects become visible before $B_{\rm crit}$ in a given sample, the one-state regime would acquire additional structure; the Zeeman-only prediction should then be tested at fields below the first Landau gap or in samples with short momentum relaxation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Green's-function theory of attractive Fermi polarons (Suris tetrons) in doped TMDC monolayers in a perpendicular magnetic field, with and without uniaxial strain. Starting from a band model with valley-dependent Zeeman shifts, it derives the exciton self-energy, obtains the Fermi polaron energy in the single-pole approximation, and predicts a correlation-induced renormalization of the polaron g-factor: Eqs. (41b,c) give g1 = g_X + ξ g_c for intravalley and g2 = g_X − ξ g_c for intervalley attractive polarons, with ξ a mass-ratio coefficient. It also predicts a critical magnetic field B_crit = 2E_F/(|g_c| μ_B) for full valley polarization, a quadratic-to-linear Zeeman crossover in strained samples, and circular/linear dichroism in absorption and reflection. The central derivation is presented in closed form, and the simplified two-level model is compared with the full Green's-function numerics in Fig. 4.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides parameter-free, experimentally testable predictions: the polaron g-factor differs from the bare trion g-factor by a calculable correlation correction of either sign, and the difference is independent of density in the small-field regime. This goes beyond the bare-trin model and connects to known experiments on inter- and intravalley trion g-factors. The derivation uses material inputs g_X, g_c and masses from prior measurements, not the target result, and the analytic formulas are a genuine strength. The finite-field predictions, especially B_crit and the field dependence in Figs. 2-5, are nevertheless tied to a Zeeman-only, constant-density-of-states assumption that is not quantitatively justified in the regime where the predictions are made.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A, Eqs. (4)-(6) and Sec. III A 2, Eqs. (35)-(37)] The Zeeman-only premise is asserted with the criterion |eB/(M_e c)| τ_e << 1, but no estimate of τ_e is given and the criterion is not tested against the parameters used in Figs. 2-5. For hBN-encapsulated TMDC monolayers with mobilities of 10^3-10^4 cm^2/Vs, τ_e ~ 0.1-2 ps, so at B = 1 T one has ω_c τ_e ~ 0.1-1 and at B_crit = 8 T, ω_c τ_e ~ 1-10; the inequality is not satisfied. In the paper's own example (N_e = 8×10^10 cm^-2, m* = 0.4m0), E_F ≈ 0.48 meV while ℏω_c ≈ 3.7 meV at B = 8 T, so the constant 2D density of states used for \tilde E_F^τ and B_crit is not controlled. This affects the valley-filling formulas (35)-(37), the self-energy integral in Eq. (13), and the finite-field splittings and dichroism shown in Figs. 2-5. Only the strict B→0 derivative leading to Eq. (41) is protected from this criticism. Please add a quantitative validity estimate for τ_e and either restrict the finite-field claims to the regime where the criterion holds or incorporate Landau quantization.
  2. [Eq. (24) and the text immediately after it] The manuscript states that the additional term ∝ E_F^2 in Eq. (24) 'exceeds the accuracy' of the derivation but is retained for better agreement with numerics. Because Eq. (24) enters the simplified two-level splitting Eq. (54), which is compared with the full numerical solution of Eq. (55) in Fig. 4(a), the agreement shown cannot be interpreted as a clean validation of the analytic model; it may be produced partly by an uncontrolled term. The authors should either remove the beyond-accuracy term and repeat the comparison, or provide a controlled derivation that justifies it.
  3. [Sec. III B, Fig. 4(b), Eqs. (52)-(56)] The text admits that 'three out of four states are in reasonable agreement with the model, while one state remains mostly linearly polarized.' Since the simplified two-level Hamiltonian of Eq. (52) is used as the paper's main analytical tool for the strain-Zeeman interplay, this is a clear limitation of the model, not just a numerical detail. The manuscript should state explicitly the regime of validity of Eq. (52) and explain why one of the four states is not captured, rather than leaving this as an unexplained exception in the figure caption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III A 2, text below Eq. (41)] The statement that the g-factor renormalization 'appears even at E_F → 0' is imprecise because B_crit ∝ E_F: in the limit E_F → 0, the regime |B| < B_crit shrinks to B = 0. The intended meaning is presumably the low-density limit at fixed small field; please rephrase.
  2. [Sec. II B, Eq. (17)] The quantity S_s is used in Eq. (17) before its definition in Eq. (18); defining S_s before Eq. (17) would improve readability.
  3. [Conclusion, Sec. V] There is a typo in the conclusion: 'Fermi plaron states' should be 'Fermi polaron states'.
  4. [Abstract and Sec. III B] The term 'pseudo-Zeeman splitting' is used for the strain-induced splitting; since the same term appears in the literature for other effects, a brief clarifying definition at first use would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central g-factor renormalization is computed from a parameter-free self-energy and material inputs, not fitted or self-referential.

full rationale

The central prediction, Eq. (41), is obtained by solving the self-consistent Fermi polaron equation (10) with the valley-resolved self-energy (A2) and expanding at small density and field; it depends only on the material inputs g_X, g_c, the masses, and the computed mass-ratio coefficient xi of Eq. (40). No parameter is fitted to the target Zeeman splitting, and the critical-field formula (36) follows directly from the valley-filling condition (37) rather than from the predicted g-factors. The strain part imports Eq. (24) from the authors' prior work [53], but that is a previously published, experimentally benchmarked result [54] and is not used to derive Eq. (41); the combined-field results are additionally cross-checked against the numerical solution of Eq. (55). The paper's neglect of orbital Landau quantization (Sec. II A: 'We neglect orbital effects of the magnetic field due to the small electron scattering time tau_e (|eB/M_e c|tau_e << 1)') is a physical validity limitation that could affect B_crit and the finite-field dependence at high mobilities, but it is an assumption about the regime of applicability, not a circular reduction of the output to the input. Hence no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to reproduce the target results; the coefficients α, β, and ξ are closed-form functions of the mass ratio. Material parameters such as masses, g factors, and trion binding energies are inputs from prior experiments or calculations. The central g-factor prediction is a parameter-free consequence of the model given these inputs, so the axiom ledger contains only standard domain assumptions and one fragile physical assumption about orbital effects.

free parameters (3)
  • phenomenological damping ℏγ = 0.2 meV (Fig. 2), 0.1 meV (Fig. 5)
    Linewidth used in absorption and reflection spectra. Chosen by hand for plot appearance, not part of the central g-factor prediction.
  • strain-induced splitting ℏΩ_X = 1 meV (Figs. 4-5)
    Typical strain splitting used as a representative value for numerical plots. Scales the pseudo-Zeeman term but is not fitted to target data.
  • radiative decay rate Γ0 = 0.65 ps^-1 (taken from Ref. [68])
    Experimental value imported for spectral plots; not a fitted parameter of the theory.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Valleys K+ and K- are connected by time-reversal symmetry, with spin-valley locked band structure and only the topmost valence subband retained.
    Standard TMDC band structure model used throughout Sec. II; justifies the two-valley exciton and electron operators.
  • domain assumption Energy hierarchy Eq. (1): trion binding energy E_T is much larger than |E_T1 - E_T2|, μ_B B, ℏΩ_X, and E_F.
    Used for expansions and the single-trion-pole approximation in Sec. III A and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Orbital effects of the magnetic field are negligible: |eB/(M_e c)|τ_e << 1, so only Zeeman shifts are included.
    Stated in Sec. II A before Eq. (4). This is the weakest assumption: it fails for high-mobility samples at moderate fields where Landau quantization appears.
  • domain assumption The Fermi polaron state contains at most one electron-hole pair excited in the Fermi sea (Suris tetron ansatz).
    Adopted in Sec. II A, Eq. (8); standard zero-temperature low-density Fermi polaron approximation.
  • domain assumption Uniaxial strain couples excitons in K+ and K- valleys only, while single electrons and holes remain Kramers degenerate.
    Sec. II B, Eq. (14): strain-induced Hamiltonian acts only on integer-spin excitons, not on half-integer-spin carriers.
  • domain assumption The magnetic field does not change the interaction constants V1 and V2 or the internal trion structure.
    Sec. II A: 'assuming that the field does not affect the parameters V1 and V2'. Justified for fields much smaller than the trion binding energy scale.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic-field control of Fermi polaron fine structure and polarization in strained monolayer semiconductors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGYJBCO3

@misc{pith2026260803853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic-field control of Fermi polaron fine structure and polarization in strained monolayer semiconductors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGYJBCO3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03853}
}
abstract

The theory of attractive Fermi polaron energy spectrum fine structure and polarization in doped two-dimensional semiconductors in external magnetic field is developed. Fermi polaron $g$ factor renormalization due to correlations with the valley-polarized Fermi sea of resident charge carriers is calculated. We study the competition between Zeeman and strain-induced splittings in monolayers under uniaxial strain. The control of strain, magnetic field and electron density allows continuous tuning of energy splitting and eigenstate polarization. Linearly polarized strain-induced split doublet exhibits quadratic Zeeman shift changing to linear Zeeman splitting with elliptical polarization with the increase of magnetic field. We identify a critical magnetic field above which resident charge carriers become fully valley polarized and only one circularly polarized Fermi polaron state remains. Within the Green's function approach we calculate energy levels and Stokes parameters of attractive Fermi polaron states and introduce a simplified effective two-level model allowing us to study analytically the interplay of Zeeman and pseudo-Zeeman splitting. We calculate absorption and reflection spectra, including circular and linear dichroism in the trion spectral range. These results show that real and strain-induced pseudomagnetic fields provide complementary tools for controlling the optical response of many-body excitonic quasiparticles in two-dimensional semiconductors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03853 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Intervalley Fermi polaron in W-based TMDC mono [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a,c) Circular dichroism of absorption Pc(E), Eq. (43), and (b,d) absorption spectra of unpolarized light A, Eq. (44), as a function of magnetic field for W-based TMDC. (a,b) Small doping Ne = 1010 cm−2 , Bcrit = 1 T, (c,d) mod￾erate doping Ne = 8·1010 cm−2 , Bcrit = 8 T. The parameters are ET 1 = 22 meV, ET 2 = 18 meV, Me = Mh = 0.4m0, gX = −4, gc = 2 and ℏγ = 0.2 meV. The numerical results and analytical derivatio… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circular dichroism of absorption Pc(E), Eq. (43), in the spectral range of attractive Fermi polarons at magnetic field B = 10 T for (a) W-based TMDC and (b) Mo-based TMDC. Red and cyan lines show inter- and intravalley Fermi polaron levels in W-based TMDC, Eq. (47), brown lines show intervalley Fermi polaron levels in Mo-based TMDC, Eq. (48). Dashed lines show R-polarized sublevels, dashed-dotted lines show L-polari… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The Fermi polaron radiative doublet splitting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Circular dichroism of absorption Pc(E), Eq. (43), (b) linear dichroism of absorption Pl(E) = A X − AY  /A, (c) absorption spectrum of unpolarized light A, Eq. (30), as a function of magnetic field for strained W-based TMDC. (d) Circu￾lar dichroism of reflection, (…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Trion The trion energy is found from the condition [39, 60] VστSστ k (0) = 1.(31) In the absence of magnetic field, the trion binding en- ergy is determined by the exciton energy ET1,2 =E X exp 1 DV1,2 ,(32) whereD= (M eMX)/(2πℏ2MT ) is the exciton-electron reduced density of states (M T =M e +MX is the trion mass), andEX plays a role of cutoff energy in ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    +” for intervalley Fermi polaron (τ=l) and “−

    Fermi polaron We need to estimate the exciton self-energy depending on the total electron densityN e accounting for both val- leys. For brevity, we express all results in terms of Fermi energy EF = πℏ2 Me Ne,(35) that corresponds to the chemical potentialµwithout ex- ternal magnetic field, Fig. 1a. Magnetic field shifts the energies of conduction bands, t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    (A1) Finally, using the energy scale assumptions (1), we can estimate the self-energy Σστ 0 (Eσ 0 ) = MT MX 2 ET,στ ×ln 1 +MX MT ˜Eτ F Eσ 0−εσ 0 +ET,στ− MT MX ˜Eτ F ! .(A2)

    W-based TMDC To calculate the self-energy, we estimate Sστ 0 (q) =−Dln EX −(Eσ 0−εσ 0 )− MX ℏ2q2 2MeMT + MT MX ˜Eτ F . (A1) Finally, using the energy scale assumptions (1), we can estimate the self-energy Σστ 0 (Eσ 0 ) = MT MX 2 ET,στ ×ln 1 +MX MT ˜Eτ F Eσ 0−εσ 0 +ET,στ− MT MX ˜Eτ F ! .(A2)

    work page

  4. [4]

    For exciton inK − valley the self-energy is ΣL Mo,0 EL 0 = MT MX 2 ET ×ln 1 +MX MT ˜Er F EL 0−εL 0 +ET− MT MX ˜Er F ! .(A3b) Appendix B: Strained TMDC monolayers

    Mo-based TMDC The exciton self-energy in Mo-based TMDCs inK +- valley is ΣR Mo,0 ER 0 = X q V2 1−V 2SRl 0 (q) = MT MX 2 ET ×ln 1 +MX MT ˜El F ER 0 −εR 0 +ET− MT MX ˜El F ! ,(A3a) where we omit index 2 for the single existing interval- ley trion energyE T and write the expressions at zero wavevector. For exciton inK − valley the self-energy is ΣL Mo,0 EL 0...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Self-energies in W-based TMDC Using the energy scales from Eq. (1), we derive the ex- citon self-energy taking into account both magnetic field and strain-induced valley-mixing effects Σστ s,0 (E) = MT MX 2 ET,στ 2 × " 1 +δσ′τ ∆τ ln 1 + MX MT ˜Eτ F E+E T− ∆τ 2 − MT MX ˜Eτ F ! + 1 +δστ ∆τ ln 1 + MX MT ˜Eτ F E+E T + ∆τ 2 − MT MX ˜Eτ F !# , (B1) where we int...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Fermi polaron energies in Mo-based TMDC The attractive Fermi polaron doublet energies for Mo- based TMDCs in a magnetic field below the critical value, |B|<B crit, are EMo s =−E T +ξE F±   εL 0 +ξ ˜Er F− ˜El F 2 !2 +α 2 ˜Er F ˜El F ℏΩX 2ET 2 −α εL 0 +ξ ˜Er F− ˜El F 2 ! ˜Er F− ˜El F ℏΩX 2ET 2#1/2 . (B5) Above the critical magnetic field,|B|> B crit, at f...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Hawrylak, Optical properties of a two-dimensional electron gas: Evolution of spectra from excitons to Fermi- edge singularities, Physical Review B44, 3821 (1991)

    P. Hawrylak, Optical properties of a two-dimensional electron gas: Evolution of spectra from excitons to Fermi- edge singularities, Physical Review B44, 3821 (1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Ivchenko,Optical Spectroscopy of Semiconductor Nanostructures(Alpha Science International Ltd., Har- row, UK, 2005) p

    E. Ivchenko,Optical Spectroscopy of Semiconductor Nanostructures(Alpha Science International Ltd., Har- row, UK, 2005) p. 427

    2005

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Klingshirn, Electrons in a Periodic Crystal, inSemi- conductor Optics(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007) pp

    C. Klingshirn, Electrons in a Periodic Crystal, inSemi- conductor Optics(Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007) pp. 163–242

    2007

  2. [10]

    K. F. Mak, K. He, C. Lee, G. H. Lee, J. Hone, T. F. Heinz, and J. Shan, Tightly bound trions in monolayer MoS2, Nature Materials12, 207 (2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    S. A. Safwan and N. El–Meshed, Excitons and Trions in Semiconductor Quantum Dots, inQuantum Dots - The- ory and Applications(IntechOpen, 2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    Barua, S

    K. Barua, S. G. Nusser, S. Gumber, N. R. Favate, E. Daggett, M.-J. Sun, J. D. Hood, J. Cao, C. W. Li, O. V. Prezhdo, and L. Huang, Many-Body Exciton Inter- actions, Coherence, and Transport in Perovskite Quan- tum Dots, Nano Letters26, 6766 (2026)

    2026

  5. [13]

    Van Tuan, S.-F

    D. Van Tuan, S.-F. Shi, X. Xu, S. A. Crooker, and H. Dery, Six-Body and Eight-Body Exciton States in Monolayer WSe 2, Physical Review Letters129, 076801 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Klenovsk´ y, Coulomb correlated multiparticle states of weakly confining GaAs quantum dots, Physical Review B113, 125410 (2026)

    P. Klenovsk´ y, Coulomb correlated multiparticle states of weakly confining GaAs quantum dots, Physical Review B113, 125410 (2026)

    2026

  7. [15]

    G. V. Astakhov, D. R. Yakovlev, V. P. Kochereshko, W. Ossau, W. Faschinger, J. Puls, F. Henneberger, S. A. Crooker, Q. McCulloch, D. Wolverson, N. A. Gip- pius, and A. Waag, Binding energy of charged excitons in ZnSe-based quantum wells, Physical Review B65, 165335 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    Bayer, G

    M. Bayer, G. Ortner, O. Stern, A. Kuther, A. A. Gor- bunov, A. Forchel, P. Hawrylak, S. Fafard, K. Hinzer, T. L. Reinecke, S. N. Walck, J. P. Reithmaier, F. Klopf, and F. Sch¨ afer, Fine structure of neutral and charged excitons in self-assembled In(Ga)As/(Al)GaAs quantum dots...

    2002

  9. [17]

    Kossacki, H

    P. Kossacki, H. Boukari, M. Bertolini, D. Ferrand, J. Cib- ert, S. Tatarenko, J. A. Gaj, B. Deveaud, V. Ciulin, and M. Potemski, Photoluminescence of p-doped quantum wells with strong spin splitting, Physical Review B70, 195337 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    G ladysiewicz, L

    A. G ladysiewicz, L. Bryja, A. W´ ojs, and M. Potemski, Ef- fect of free carriers and impurities on the density of states and optical spectra of two-dimensional magnetoexcitons, Physical Review B74, 115332 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    D. Y. Oberli, M. Byszewski, B. Chalupar, E. Peluc- chi, A. Rudra, and E. Kapon, Coulomb correlations of charged excitons in semiconductor quantum dots, Phys- ical Review B80, 165312 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Rudno-Rudzi´ nski, M

    W. Rudno-Rudzi´ nski, M. Burakowski, J. P. Reithmaier, A. Musia l, and M. Benyoucef, Magneto-Optical Charac- terization of Trions in Symmetric InP-Based Quantum Dots for Quantum Communication Applications, Mate- rials14, 942 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    U. N. Huynh, Y. Liu, A. Chanana, D. R. Khanal, P. C. Sercel, J. Huang, and Z. V. Vardeny, Transient quantum beatings of trions in hybrid organic tri-iodine perovskite single crystal, Nature Communications13, 1428 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Klein, M

    J. Klein, M. Florian, A. H¨ otger, A. Steinhoff, A. Del- homme, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, F. Jahnke, A. W. Holleitner, M. Potemski, C. Faugeras, A. V. Stier, and 14 J. J. Finley, Trions in MoS 2 are quantum superpositions of intra- and intervalley spin states, Physical Review...

    2022

  15. [23]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, A. Kudlis, and I. A. Shelykh, Two- dimensional trion in a magnetic field revisited, Physical Review B109, 035307 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Kudlis, I

    A. Kudlis, I. Aleksandrov, Z. Alisultanov, K. Varga, I. Shelykh, and V. Shahnazaryan, Theory of magnetotrion-polaritons in transition metal dichalco- genide monolayers, npj 2D Materials and Applications 8, 77 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    S. Jain, M. Glazov, and A. Arora, Excited-State Trions in a Quantum Well, Physical Review Letters134, 246902 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    T. C. Berkelbach, M. S. Hybertsen, and D. R. Reich- man, Theory of neutral and charged excitons in mono- layer transition metal dichalcogenides, Physical Review B88, 045318 (2013)

    2013

  19. [27]

    Courtade, M

    E. Courtade, M. Semina, M. Manca, M. M. Glazov, C. Robert, F. Cadiz, G. Wang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. Pierre, W. Escoffier, E. L. Ivchenko, P. Renucci, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Charged excitons in monolayer WSe 2: Experiment and theory, Physical Review B96,...

    2017

  20. [28]

    Wagner, Z

    K. Wagner, Z. A. Iakovlev, J. D. Ziegler, M. Cuccu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, M. M. Glazov, and A. Chernikov, Diffusion of Excitons in a Two- Dimensional Fermi Sea of Free Charges, Nano Letters 23, 4708 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Srivastava, M

    A. Srivastava, M. Sidler, A. V. Allain, D. S. Lembke, A. Kis, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Valley Zeeman effect in ele- mentary optical excitations of monolayer WSe 2, Nature Physics11, 141 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    MacNeill, C

    D. MacNeill, C. Heikes, K. F. Mak, Z. Anderson, A. Korm´ anyos, V. Z´ olyomi, J. Park, and D. C. Ralph, Breaking of Valley Degeneracy by Magnetic Field in Monolayer MoSe2, Physical Review Letters114, 037401 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Aivazian, Z

    G. Aivazian, Z. Gong, A. M. Jones, R.-L. Chu, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, C. Zhang, D. Cobden, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Magnetic control of valley pseudospin in mono- layer WSe2, Nature Physics11, 148 (2015)

    2015

  24. [32]

    G. Wang, L. Bouet, M. M. Glazov, T. Amand, E. L. Ivchenko, E. Palleau, X. Marie, and B. Urbaszek, Magneto-optics in transition metal diselenide monolay- ers, 2D Materials2, 034002 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Deilmann, P

    T. Deilmann, P. Kr¨ uger, and M. Rohlfing, Ab Initio Stud- ies of Exciton g Factors: Monolayer Transition Metal Dichalcogenides in Magnetic Fields, Physical Review Let- ters124, 226402 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Y. Li, J. Ludwig, T. Low, A. Chernikov, X. Cui, G. Arefe, Y. D. Kim, A. M. van der Zande, A. Rigosi, H. M. Hill, S. H. Kim, J. Hone, Z. Li, D. Smirnov, and T. F. Heinz, Valley Splitting and Polarization by the Zeeman Effect in Monolayer MoSe2, Physical Review Letters113, 266804 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    E. Liu, J. van Baren, Z. Lu, M. M. Altaiary, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Smirnov, and C. H. Lui, Gate Tunable Dark Trions in Monolayer WSe2, Physical Review Letters 123, 027401 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Zinkiewicz, A

    M. Zinkiewicz, A. O. Slobodeniuk, T. Kazimierczuk, P. Kapu´ sci´ nski, K. Oreszczuk, M. Grzeszczyk, M. Bartos, K. Nogajewski, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Faugeras, P. Kossacki, M. Potemski, A. Babi´ nski, and M. R. Molas, Neutral and charged dark excitons in monolayer WS 2, ...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Scherzer, L

    J. Scherzer, L. Lackner, B. Han, B. Polovnikov, L. Husel, J. G¨ oser, Z. Li, J.-C. Drawer, M. Esmann, C. Bennen- hei, F. Eilenberger, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. S. Baimuratov, C. Schneider, and A. H¨ ogele, Correlated magnetism of moir´ e exciton-polaritons on a triangu- la...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    T. P. Lyons, D. J. Gillard, C. Leblanc, J. Puebla, D. D. Solnyshkov, L. Klompmaker, I. A. Akimov, C. Louca, P. Muduli, A. Genco, M. Bayer, Y. Otani, G. Malpuech, and A. I. Tartakovskii, Giant effective Zeeman splitting in a monolayer semiconductor realized by spin-selective st...

    2022

  31. [39]

    M. S. G. Feuer, A. R.-P. Montblanch, M. Y. Sayyad, C. M. Purser, Y. Qin, E. M. Alexeev, A. R. Cadore, B. L. T. Rosa, J. Kerfoot, E. Mostaani, R. Kal¸ eba, P. Ko- lari, J. Kopaczek, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. C. Fer- rari, D. M. Kara, S. Tongay, and M. Atat¨ ure, Identifi- c...

    2023

  32. [40]

    D. K. Efimkin and A. H. MacDonald, Many-body theory of trion absorption features in two-dimensional semicon- ductors, Physical Review B95, 035417 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    D. K. Efimkin and A. H. MacDonald, Exciton-polarons in doped semiconductors in a strong magnetic field, Physi- cal Review B97, 235432 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Massignan, R

    P. Massignan, R. Schmidt, G. E. Astrakharchik, A. ˙Imamoglu, M. Zwierlein, J. J. Arlt, and G. M. Bruun, Polarons in atomic gases and two-dimensional semicon- ductors, Reviews of Modern Physics 10.1103/4nng-bb9z (2026), arXiv:2501.09618 [cond-mat.quant-gas]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    T. P. Lyons, S. Dufferwiel, M. Brooks, F. Withers, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. S. Novoselov, G. Burkard, and A. I. Tartakovskii, The valley Zeeman effect in inter- and intra-valley trions in monolayer WSe2, Nature Com- munications10, 2330 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Plechinger, P

    G. Plechinger, P. Nagler, A. Arora, A. Granados del ´Aguila, M. V. Ballottin, T. Frank, P. Steinleitner, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, P. C. M. Christianen, R. Brats- chitsch, C. Sch¨ uller, and T. Korn, Excitonic Valley Ef- fects in Monolayer WS 2 under High Magnetic Fields, Nano Let...

    2016

  37. [45]

    M. M. Glazov, Optical properties of charged excitons in two-dimensional semiconductors, The Journal of Chemi- cal Physics153, 034703 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Z. Peng, X. Chen, Y. Fan, D. J. Srolovitz, and D. Lei, Strain engineering of 2D semiconductors and graphene: From strain fields to band-structure tuning and pho- tonic applications, Light: Science & Applications9, 190 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Schmidt, I

    R. Schmidt, I. Niehues, R. Schneider, M. Dr¨ uppel, T. Deilmann, M. Rohlfing, S. M. de Vasconcellos, A. Castellanos-Gomez, and R. Bratschitsch, Reversible uniaxial strain tuning in atomically thin WSe 2, 2D Ma- terials3, 021011 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    C. W. Nicholson, M. Rumo, A. Pulkkinen, G. Kremer, B. Salzmann, M.-L. Mottas, B. Hildebrand, T. Jaouen, T. K. Kim, S. Mukherjee, K. Ma, M. Muntwiler, F. O. von Rohr, C. Cacho, and C. Monney, Uniaxial strain- induced phase transition in the 2D topological semimetal 15 IrTe2, Co...

    2021

  41. [49]

    Niehues, T

    I. Niehues, T. Deilmann, J. Kutrowska-Girzycka, A. Taghizadeh, L. Bryja, U. Wurstbauer, R. Brats- chitsch, and J. Jadczak, Uniaxial strain tuning of Ra- man spectra of a ReS 2 monolayer, Physical Review B 105, 205432 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    S. A. Ali, B. Ahmed, A. Javed, M. U. Muzaffar, A. Bano, and A. Ulhaq, Room temperature polarization-resolved Raman and photoluminescence in uniaxially strained lay- ered MoS2, Applied Physics Letters125, 231902 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    E. B. Yutomo, F. A. Noor, and T. Winata, Uniaxial strain effects on the electronic and thermoelectric prop- erties of SnSe monolayer: A density functional theory study, Computational and Theoretical Chemistry1248, 115184 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Grimberg, S

    L. Grimberg, S. Kostyukovets, N. Basu, and M. G. Harats, Angular Emission Properties of Strained Transition-Metal Dichalcogenides in the Low Strain Regime, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces18, 29337 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Evangelista, A

    I. Evangelista, A. Saboor, M. Zubair, I. Chatratin, R. Hu, D. Q. Ho, S. Khalid, I. Fampiou, and A. Janotti, Ef- fects of uniaxial strain on monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenides revisited (2026), arXiv:2603.14138 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    2026

  46. [54]

    X. Chen, Y. Guan, A. Ghazaryan, S. Sun, L. Yu, R. Lv, A. Volosniev, Z. Sun, and J. Wu, Anomalous valley Hall dynamics of exciton-polaritons (2026), arXiv:2601.15631 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2026

  47. [55]

    Finkelstein, H

    G. Finkelstein, H. Shtrikman, and I. Bar-Joseph, Negatively and positively charged excitons in GaAs/AlxGa1−xAs quantum wells, Physical Review B 53, R1709 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    M. M. Glazov, T. Amand, X. Marie, D. Lagarde, L. Bouet, and B. Urbaszek, Exciton fine structure and spin decoherence in monolayers of transition metal dichalcogenides, Physical Review B89, 201302 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    M. M. Glazov, F. Dirnberger, V. M. Menon, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, D. Bougeard, J. D. Ziegler, and A. Chernikov, Exciton fine structure splitting and linearly polarized emission in strained transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers, Physical Review B106, 125303 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    Jasi´ nski, A

    J. Jasi´ nski, A. Balgarkashi, V. Piazza, D. Dede, A. Sur- rente, M. Baranowski, D. K. Maude, M. Banerjee, R. Frisenda, A. Castellanos-Gomez, A. Fontcuberta i Morral, and P. Plochocka, Strain induced lifting of the charged exciton degeneracy in monolayer MoS 2 on a GaAs nanome...

    2022

  51. [59]

    Z. A. Iakovlev and M. M. Glazov, Fermi polaron fine structure in strained van der Waals heterostructures, 2D Materials10, 035034 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    Yagodkin, K

    D. Yagodkin, K. Burfeindt, Z. A. Iakovlev, A. M. Kumar, A. Dewambrechies, O. Y¨ ucel, B. H¨ ofer, C. Gahl, M. M. Glazov, and K. I. Bolotin, Fermi polarons under strain- induced pseudomagnetic fields, Nature Communications 16, 10232 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Blundo, P

    E. Blundo, P. E. F. Junior, A. Surrente, G. Petti- nari, M. A. Prosnikov, K. Olkowska-Pucko, K. Zoll- ner, T. Wo´ zniak, A. Chaves, T. Kazimierczuk, M. Fe- lici, A. Babi´ nski, M. R. Molas, P. C. M. Christianen, J. Fabian, and A. Polimeni, Strain-Induced Exciton Hy- bridizatio...

    2022

  54. [62]

    S. V. Andreev, Controllable fusion of electromagnetic bosons in two-dimensional semiconductors, Physical Re- view B109, 205423 (2024)

    2024

  55. [63]

    Dery and Y

    H. Dery and Y. Song, Polarization analysis of excitons in monolayer and bilayer transition-metal dichalcogenides, Physical Review B92, 125431 (2015)

    2015

  56. [64]

    Schneider, M

    C. Schneider, M. M. Glazov, T. Korn, S. H¨ ofling, and B. Urbaszek, Two-dimensional semiconductors in the regime of strong light-matter coupling, Nature Commu- nications9, 2695 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Z. Lu, D. Rhodes, Z. Li, D. Van Tuan, Y. Jiang, J. Lud- wig, Z. Jiang, Z. Lian, S.-F. Shi, J. Hone, H. Dery, and D. Smirnov, Magnetic field mixing and splitting of bright and dark excitons in monolayer MoSe 2, 2D Materials7, 015017 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    R. A. Suris, Correlation Between Trion and Hole in Fermi Distribution in Process of Trion Photo-Excitation in Doped QWs, inOptical Properties of 2D Systems with Interacting Electrons, edited by W. J. Ossau and R. Suris (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2003) pp. 111–124

    2003

  59. [67]

    Z. A. Iakovlev and M. M. Glazov, Longitudinal- transverse splitting and fine structure of Fermi polarons in two-dimensional semiconductors, Journal of Lumines- cence273, 120700 (2024)

    2024

  60. [68]

    Koperski, M

    M. Koperski, M. R. Molas, A. Arora, K. Nogajewski, M. Bartos, J. Wyzula, D. Vaclavkova, P. Kossacki, and M. Potemski, Orbital, spin and valley contributions to Zeeman splitting of excitonic resonances in MoSe2, WSe2 and WS2 Monolayers, 2D Materials6, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Suris, V

    R. Suris, V. Kochereshko, G. Astakhov, D. Yakovlev, W. Ossau, J. N¨ urnberger, W. Faschinger, G. Landwehr, T. Wojtowicz, G. Karczewski, and J. Kossut, Exci- tons and Trions Modified by Interaction with a Two- Dimensional Electron Gas, physica status solidi (b)227, 343 (2001)

    2001

  62. [70]

    A. V. Koudinov, C. Kehl, A. V. Rodina, J. Geurts, D. Wolverson, and G. Karczewski, Suris Tetrons: Possi- ble Spectroscopic Evidence for Four-Particle Optical Ex- citations of a Two-Dimensional Electron Gas, Physical Review Letters112, 147402 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    A. I. Prazdnichnykh, M. M. Glazov, L. Ren, C. Robert, B. Urbaszek, and X. Marie, Control of the exciton valley dynamics in atomically thin semiconductors by tailoring the environment, Physical Review B103, 085302 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    P. Back, M. Sidler, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, N. Takemura, M. Kroner, and A. Imamo˘ glu, Giant Paramagnetism-Induced Valley Polarization of Electrons in Charge-Tunable Monolayer MoSe 2, Physical Review Letters118, 237404 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Smole´ nski, O

    T. Smole´ nski, O. Cotlet, A. Popert, P. Back, Y. Shi- mazaki, P. Kn¨ uppel, N. Dietler, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, M. Kroner, and A. Imamoglu, Interaction-Induced Shubnikov–de Haas Oscillations in Optical Conductiv- ity of Monolayer MoSe 2, Physical Review Letters123, 097403 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    S. Zhao, Z. Li, Z. A. Iakovlev, P. Ji, T. Jiang, F. Lin, X. Huang, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. M. Glazov, A. S. Baimuratov, and A. H¨ ogele, Strain-Controlled Atomic Reconstruction and Quasi-1D Excitons in Moir´ e Heterostructures, Physical Review Letters136, 176201 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.