Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 129 references

Polaritonic Machine Learning for Graph-based Data Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Feeding point clouds through a polariton condensate lattice before a CNN lifts graph-topology classification from 35–69% to 83–93% accuracy across the paper's benchmark tasks.

desk verdict A defensible proof-of-concept for photonics-based feature embedding in point-cloud classification, but the advertised vortex mechanism is confounded by hand-injected edge barriers and the abstract oversells the results. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10415 v1 pith:ARLL5L4R submitted 2025-07-14 cond-mat.dis-nn physics.opticsquant-ph

Yuan Wang , Stefano Scali , Oleksandr Kyriienko This is my paper
classification cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords exciton-polaritoncondensatesphotonicfeatureengineeringtopologicaldataanalysisBettinumberscliquedetectionpointcloudsconvolutionalneuralnetworksGross-Pitaevskiiequation
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 tries to establish that a photonic system can act as a feature-engineering front end for machine learning on graph-structured data, rather than as a replacement for a neural network. Point clouds are mapped onto a triangular lattice of pump spots; the photoluminescence of the resulting polariton condensate, including quantized vortices, is then fed as an image to a small convolutional network. Across tasks that detect cliques (equivalent to computing first Betti numbers of the associated simplicial complex) and a subtle geometric asymmetry, the photonic preprocessing lifts classification accuracy from roughly 35–69% on bare point-cloud images to roughly 83–93%, with the best configuration depending on the task. The authors read the results as evidence that nonlinear condensation dynamics can encode relational and topological information in an image that a digital classifier can exploit.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-stage embedding. First, Euclidean point clouds are discretized onto a regular triangular mesh and mapped to Gaussian pump spots, with additional sub-threshold barrier spots placed at the midpoints of triangle edges. Second, the generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation coupled to an exciton reservoir [Eqs. (1)–(2)] is propagated to steady state, and the resulting photoluminescence intensity $|\Psi(\mathbf{r},t_f)|^2$ and phase $\arg\Psi(\mathbf{r},t_f)$ become the image inputs. Quantized vortices, integer phase windings of the condensate, form in response to triangular clique-shaped pump arrangements and are presented as the key nonlinear feature encoding graph connectivity. A purely linear photonic equation [Eq. (3)] with resonant pumps along one or many directions serves as the reference feature extractor, isolating the role of interference without condensation nonlinearity.

What would settle it

Take the same source and barrier pump spots used for the polaritonic embedding, switch off the polariton-polariton interactions so the system is linear, and train the same CNN on the resulting images; if accuracy matches or exceeds the reported polaritonic accuracy, then vortex formation is not the decisive feature. A second probe: train the CNN directly on the static pump-intensity profile with no Gross-Pitaevskii evolution and compare against the reported PL-based numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that lattices of exciton-polariton condensates can efficiently embed relational and topological information from point cloud datasets, and that using the resulting photoluminescence images as CNN inputs outperforms physics-agnostic processing. In the authors' simulations, a generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation with an exciton reservoir is pumped by a Gaussian-spot pattern built from the point cloud, and the time-integrated PL and phase profiles become the CNN inputs. For binary clique detection, the polaritonic PL reaches 87.76 ± 10.08% versus 51.51 ± 2.81% for bare graph images; for three-class clique detection, the linear photonic system with $L = 1$ reaches 93.30 ± 2.55% and the polaritonic system 89.31 ± 1.67%, versus 35.07 ± 2.11% for graph images; and for asymmetry detection, the $L = 365$ photonic system reaches 92.47 ± 8.88%, versus 68.93 ± 4.11% for graph images. The paper attributes the polaritonic advantage to the formation of quantized vortices when pump spots form a clique, while also noting that interference features alone are sufficient for some tasks.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed cause of the improvement is nonlinear condensation dynamics, but the polaritonic pump pattern also includes fixed weaker barrier spots at the midpoints of triangle edges, and those barriers are absent from the bare point-image baseline; if those injected edge markers, rather than the condensate's vortices, drive the gain, the specific nonlinear-physics claim would not be established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Photonic systems can be inserted into existing deep-learning pipelines as physics-based feature extractors, so physical preprocessing and digital classification can be combined rather than competing.
  • Because clique counting is NP-complete and first-Betti-number detection on the simplicial complex reduces to clique counting, a photonic embedding that highlights cliques offers a route to treating a combinatorially hard problem with limited training data.
  • The picosecond-scale dynamics of polariton condensation point toward ultrafast graph-processing front ends with potentially lower energy per inference.
  • In tasks where linear interference already delivers the best accuracy, a nonlinear condensate may not be necessary, which broadens the range of platforms that could implement the same embedding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The reported comparison does not isolate the information injected by the fixed barrier spots from the nonlinear condensate dynamics; a control that feeds the static pump profile itself to the CNN would show how much of the gain comes from geometry rather than from physics.
  • The embedding is inherently two-dimensional because the pump profile is planar; extending the approach to higher-dimensional point clouds would require a different encoding, such as projections or multilayer lattices.
  • Some tasks show large run-to-run variance (for example ±10.08% for binary clique detection with polaritonic PL), so the precise ranking of methods may shift with dataset size, architecture, or seeds; the qualitative claim of a large photonic advantage is more robust than the exact ordering.
  • Because the simulations use experimentally motivated parameters, the predicted vortex signatures should be directly measurable in real polariton lattices, and an experiment comparing simulated and measured PL would test whether the feature contrast survives realistic noise.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physics-based feature-engineering pipeline in which 2D point clouds are mapped to pump profiles for either a nonlinear polariton condensate or a linear photonic system, and the resulting photoluminescence (and phase) images are fed to a small CNN for classification. Three classification tasks are studied: clique detection with two classes, clique detection with three classes, and asymmetry detection in a kagome configuration. Table I reports test accuracies averaged over 10 seeds: photonic inputs outperform bare point-cloud images on all three tasks, with best values of 87.8% (polaritonic, 2-class clique), 93.3% (linear L=1, 3-class clique), and 92.5% (linear L=365, asymmetry), versus 51.5%, 35.1%, and 68.9% for graph images. The authors interpret the gain as evidence that condensate lattices embed relational and topological information, with vortex formation as the key nonlinear feature.

Significance. If the mechanism were cleanly established, the paper would be a useful demonstration of optical feature engineering for graph-structured data, with a concrete end-to-end CNN benchmark and a comparison between nonlinear and linear photonic embeddings. The out-of-sample CNN results are genuine empirical benchmarks rather than fits, and the authors state that code will be released, which are strengths. However, the central mechanistic claim is currently confounded by engineered barrier spots, the Betti-number/clique equivalence is imprecise, and the abstract overstates the polaritonic results. The contribution as a controlled demonstration of a polariton-specific advantage requires additional baselines and clarifications.

major comments (4)
  1. [Model: polaritonic lattices; SM Fig. S1; Table I] The pump embedding includes sub-threshold barrier spots at the midpoints of every triangle edge: 'In addition to the source terms, we add sub-threshold pumps that can introduce barrier spots' and these barriers 'appear in the middle of the triangle edges.' SM Fig. S1 confirms that the complete pump configuration is a triangular lattice of source spots plus barrier spots on every triangle edge. These barrier spots are absent from the 'Graph images' baseline. For clique detection, the barrier spots lie exactly at the midpoints of triangle edges, so they directly encode the presence of a triangle in the input image; a CNN can reach high accuracy by detecting barrier-spot triangles without using any condensate dynamics. The linear photonic systems also include barrier spots (SM Fig. S2), and the best 3-class and asymmetry accuracies are achieved by linear systems (L=1: 93.30%; L=365: 92.47%), which is consistent with the injected-edge-information explanation. No control is reported in which the same barrier/edge information is added to the baseline image, nor is there an ablation in which the barriers are removed from the photonic embedding. Therefore the claim in the first paragraph of Results that the polaritonic boost 'can be traced to the formation of vortices' is not supported by the numerical experiments as designed.
  2. [Model: point cloud and graph analysis] The sentence 'the evaluation of β1 equates to solving the clique counting problem' is asserted without proof and is not generally correct. For a planar clique complex built from a triangular mesh, the first Betti number is not equal to the number of 3-cliques; it counts independent cycles modulo triangle boundaries (for a connected complex, β1 = E − V + 1 − T, where T is the number of filled triangular faces). The subsequent claim that the CNN is addressing an NP-complete clique-counting problem is therefore overstated: the benchmarks classify small, predefined configurations with zero, one, or two triangles. Please replace the equivalence with a precise statement of the actual homology computation and rephrase the complexity framing accordingly.
  3. [Abstract; Table I] The abstract states that 'photonic machine learning achieves over 90% accuracy for Betti number classification and clique detection tasks.' Table I shows that the only entries above 90% are the linear photonic systems: L=1 with 3-class clique detection at 93.30%, L=365 with 3-class clique detection at 90.97%, and L=365 with asymmetry detection at 92.47%. The polaritonic entries are 87.76%, 89.31%, and 83.13%. The abstract should distinguish photonic from polaritonic performance and should not imply that the nonlinear polaritonic results exceed 90%. The same issue appears in the Conclusions, where 'around 90% accuracy' is attributed to the photonic models without specifying that the highest values come from the linear systems.
  4. [Table I; Results] Several accuracy differences used to support the performance hierarchy have large standard deviations from only 10 runs. For example, in the 2-class clique task, the polaritonic result (87.76±10.08%) and the L=1 photonic result (80.57±13.04%) overlap substantially; in the asymmetry task, the L=365 result (92.47±8.88%) and the polaritonic result (83.13±2.88%) have raw differences that are not shown to be statistically significant. Please report confidence intervals or significance tests (e.g., paired tests across seeds) before claiming that one embedding 'substantially outperforms' another or that a 'performance hierarchy shifts' between configurations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction; Fig. 2; Ref. [92]] There are several typos: 'feature engineeting' in the Introduction, 'Photoluminescenece' in the Fig. 2 caption, and 'recognintion' in Ref. [92].
  2. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) uses N for 'the number of activated source spots,' which clashes with the reservoir density N(r,t) in Eqs. (1)-(2); a different symbol such as N_s would avoid confusion.
  3. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) contains an unmatched closing parenthesis ('same as in Eq. (1))') and uses both ψ and Ψ for the same field; please make the notation consistent.
  4. [Supplementary Material: Datasets preparation] The SM states that datasets are 'randomly sampled from 14 of the 39 available source points within the lattice.' Please clarify how the point clouds themselves are generated, how the average distance between data points is computed for each sample, and how the mesh edge length is chosen, since this determines the filtration interpretation and affects reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the reported accuracies are genuine out-of-sample CNN benchmarks, and the polariton-mechanism claim is confounded by hand-injected barrier/edge features but does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The GPE simulations (Eqs. 1-2) and the linear-photonic model (Eq. 3) produce fixed PL images that are then fed to a CNN; the CNN is trained on 70% of the data and evaluated on a held-out 15% split, so the 87-93% test accuracies in Table I are genuine predictions rather than fitted re-statements of the input. No parameter is fitted to the test set, and no predicted quantity is defined in terms of the output. The self-citations [111,112] provide context on quantum TDA and are not load-bearing for the present benchmarks. The genuine weakness is a constructional confound: the pump profile includes sub-threshold barrier spots 'appearing in the middle of the triangle edges, facilitating vortex creation' (Model: polaritonic lattices), so for clique detection the static barrier pattern already marks the relevant edges and triangle midpoints, while the 'Graph images' baseline contains only bare point clouds. Thus the improvement over bare CNNs could be caused by manually injected edge information rather than by nonlinear polariton vortex dynamics. This is a missing-control/correctness issue, not a case of a result being equivalent to its input by definition, and therefore it does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is dominated by hand-chosen embedding parameters (spot width, pump rates, barrier placement, mesh scale, lattice geometry, twist size) rather than by fitted physical constants. The physical constants (mass, interaction strengths, decay rates) are taken from the cited InGaAs literature. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Barrier spot placement at triangle-edge midpoints = midpoint of each triangle edge; sub-threshold pump 11 ps^-1 um^-2
    Hand-chosen to facilitate vortex creation; injects edge geometry into the pump profile, potentially carrying clique information independently of nonlinear dynamics.
  • Gaussian spot width (FWHM) = 3.0 um (sigma ~1.274 um)
    Controls spot overlap and interaction between neighboring condensates; affects all PL images and classification results.
  • Source pump rate p = 15 ps^-1 um^-2
    Set above condensation threshold; determines whether nonlinear and vortex features appear.
  • Mesh edge length / filtration distance = average distance between data points (edge 2 epsilon)
    Defines which points become nearest neighbors and thereby which cliques and triangles exist; central to the point cloud to graph mapping.
  • Twist extension in asymmetry task = 2.0 um
    Hand-set distortion defining task difficulty; may be calibrated to yield nontrivial but learnable differences.
  • Kagome lattice geometry = source center-to-edge 10 um, inner barrier spacing 4 um, lattice constant ~17.3 um
    Hand-chosen pattern whose geometry determines vortex formation and interference features.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The generalized Gross-Pitaevskii equation with reservoir (Eqs. (1)-(2)) is a valid model of nonequilibrium polariton condensates in an InGaAs microcavity.
    All photonic features are generated from numerical solutions of this model; no experimental validation is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The regular triangular mesh and nearest-neighbor graph faithfully approximate the point cloud, and the first Betti number equals the number of 3-cliques for this construction.
    The beta1-to-clique equivalence is asserted without proof in the 'Model: point cloud and graph analysis' section and is not generally true; the classification tasks only test small clique counts.
  • ad hoc to paper Barrier spots placed at triangle-edge midpoints do not themselves carry label information beyond what is already in the point cloud.
    The embedding adds edge midpoints that the bare point-image baseline lacks; if these barriers are informative, the comparison is confounded.
  • domain assumption The numerical GPE solutions with the supplied parameters converge to the true dynamics of the modeled system.
    No convergence tests, grid sizes, timesteps, or numerical error estimates are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polaritonic Machine Learning for Graph-based Data Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ARLL5L4R

@misc{pith2026250710415,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polaritonic Machine Learning for Graph-based Data Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ARLL5L4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10415}
}
read the original abstract

Photonic and polaritonic systems offer a fast and efficient platform for accelerating machine learning (ML) through physics-based computing. To gain a computational advantage, however, polaritonic systems must: (1) exploit features that specifically favor nonlinear optical processing; (2) address problems that are computationally hard and depend on these features; (3) integrate photonic processing within broader ML pipelines. In this letter, we propose a polaritonic machine learning approach for solving graph-based data problems. We demonstrate how lattices of condensates can efficiently embed relational and topological information from point cloud datasets. This information is then incorporated into a pattern recognition workflow based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), leading to significantly improved learning performance compared to physics-agnostic methods. Our extensive benchmarking shows that photonic machine learning achieves over 90\% accuracy for Betti number classification and clique detection tasks - a substantial improvement over the 35\% accuracy of bare CNNs. Our study introduces a distinct way of using photonic systems as fast tools for feature engineering, while building on top of high-performing digital machine learning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10415 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Workflow for point cloud classification based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Datasets are processed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Examples of pump profiles for linear (a,g,m) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, Deep learning, Nature 521, 436 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention is all you need, inAdvances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Vol. 30 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    T. B. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. Ka- plan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. M. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M.Litwin, S.Gray, B.Chess, J.Clark, C.Berner, S.Mc- Candlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei...

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Jumper, R

    J. Jumper, R. Evans, A. Pritzel, T. Green, M. Fig- urnov, O. Ronneberger, K. Tunyasuvunakool, R. Bates, A. Žídek, A. Potapenko,et al., Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold, Nature 596, 583 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    S.H.Rudy, S.L.Brunton, J.L.Proctor,andJ.N.Kutz, Data-driven discovery of partial differential equations, Science Advances3, e1602614 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    H. Wang, T. Fu, Y. Du, W. Gao, K. Huang, Z. Liu, P. Chandak, S. Liu, P.VanKatwyk, A.Deac, A.Anand- kumar, K. Bergen, C. P. Gomes, S. Ho, P. Kohli, J. Lasenby, J. Leskovec, T. Liu, A. Manrai, D. Marks, B. Ramsundar, L. Song, J. Sun, J. Tang, P. Veličković, M. Welling, L. Zhang, C. W. Coley, Y. Bengio, and M. Zitnik, Scientific discovery in the age of artif...

    2023

  7. [7]

    Tabakhi, M

    S. Tabakhi, M. N. I. Suvon, P. Ahadian, and H. Lu, Multimodal learning for multi-omics: A survey, World Scientific Annual Review of Artificial Intelligence 1, 6 2250004 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Krizhevsky, I

    A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks, Advances in neural information processing systems25 (2012)

    2012

Show all 129 references
  1. [9]

    O’Shea and R

    K. O’Shea and R. Nash, An introduction to con- volutional neural networks (2015), arXiv:1511.08458 [cs.NE]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Ströfer, Michelén, J.-L

    C. Ströfer, Michelén, J.-L. Wu, H. Xiao, and E. Pa- terson, Data-driven, physics-based feature extraction from fluid flow fields using convolutional neural net- works, Communications in Computational Physics25, 625 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. M. Bronstein, J. Bruna, T. Cohen, and P. Veličković, Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges (2021), arXiv:2104.13478 [cs.LG]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zhang and Y

    M. Zhang and Y. Chen, Link prediction based on graph neural networks, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems(2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Sevilla, L

    J. Sevilla, L. Heim, A. Ho, T. Besiroglu, M. Hobbhahn, and P. Villalobos, Compute trends across three eras of machine learning, CoRRabs/2202.05924 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    International Energy Agency, Data centres will use twice as much energy by 2030—driven by ai, Nature (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    D.R.MuirandS.Sheik,Theroadtocommercialsuccess for neuromorphic technologies, Nature Communications 16, 3586 (2025)

    2025

  8. [16]

    Brunner, B

    D. Brunner, B. J. Shastri, M. A. Al Qadasi, H. Bal- lani, S. Barbay, S. Biasi, P. Bienstman, S. Bilodeau, W. Bogaerts, F. Böhm, G. Brennan, and et al., Roadmap on neuromorphic photonics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07917 10.48550/arXiv.2501.07917 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Finocchio, S

    G. Finocchio, S. Bandyopadhyay, P. Lin, G. Pan, J. Yang, R. Tomasello, C. Panagopoulos, M. Carpen- tieri, V. Puliafito, J. Åkerman, H. Takesue, A. R. Trivedi, S. Mukhopadhyay, K. Roy, V. K. Sangwan, M. C. Hersam, A. Giordano, J. Grollier, and K. Roy, Roadmap for unconventional...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Sheik and D

    S. Sheik and D. R. Muir, The hardware is the software, Neuron 111, 1 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Serra-Garcia, Turing-complete mechanical processor via automated nonlinear system design, Phys

    M. Serra-Garcia, Turing-complete mechanical processor via automated nonlinear system design, Phys. Rev. E 100, 042202 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    P. L. McMahon, The physics of optical computing, Na- ture Reviews Physics5, 717 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    T. Li, J. Zhang, R. Sun, Y. Huang, W. Xu, S. Yang, Z. Zhu, and H. Chen, Optical neural networks: progress and challenges, Light: Science & Applications 13, 10.1038/s41377-024-01590-3 (2024)

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    B. J. Shastri, A. N. Tait, T. F. de Lima, W. H. P. Pernice, H. Bhaskaran, C. D. Wright, and P. R. Prucnal, Photonics for artificial intelligence and neuromorphic computing, Advanced Photonics 7, 10.1117/1.AP.7.2.024001 (2020)

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    X. Lin, Y. Rivenson, N. T. Yardimci, M. Veli, M. Jar- rahi, and A. Ozcan, All-optical machine learning us- ing diffractive deep neural networks, Science361, 1004 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    Feldmann, N

    J. Feldmann, N. D. Youngblood, M. Karpov, C. K- send, P. March, A. Monette, N. Qi, T. Rheinhardt, P. Hundt, W. H. P. Pernice, H. Bhaskaran, C. D. Wright, M. Le Gallo, and E. Eleftheriou, Parallel convo- lutional processing using an integrated photonic neural network, Nature 58...

    2021

  17. [25]

    L. G. Wright, T. Onodera, M. M. Stein, T. Wang, D. T. Schachter, Z. Hu, and P. L. McMahon, Deep physical neural networks trained with backpropagation, Nature 601, 549 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    S. Pai, Z. Sun, T. W. Hughes, T. Park, B. Bartlett, I. A. D. Williamson, M. Minkov, M. Milanizadeh, N. Abebe, F. Morichetti, A. Melloni, S. Fan, O. Sol- gaard, and D. A. B. Miller, Experimentally realized in situ backpropagation for deep learning in photonic neu- ral networks,...

    2023

  19. [27]

    T. Wang, M. M. Sohoni, L. G. Wright, T. Onodera, M. M. Stein, D. T. Schachter, Z. Hu, and P. L. McMa- hon, Image sensing with multilayer nonlinear optical neural networks, Nature Photonics17, 408 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    L. G. Wright, T. Onodera, M. M. Stein, T. Wang, D. T. Schachter, Z. Hu, and P. L. McMahon, An optical neu- ral network using less than 1 photon per multiplication, NatureCommunications 13,10.1038/s41467-021-27774- 8 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    S. Choi, Y. Salamin, C. Roques-Carmes, R. Dangovski, D. Luo, Z. Chen, M. Horodynski, J. Sloan, S. Z. Uddin, andM.Soljačić,Photonicprobabilisticmachinelearning using quantum vacuum noise, Nature Communications 15, 10.1038/s41467-024-51509-0 (2024)

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Brückerhoff-Plückelmann, H

    F. Brückerhoff-Plückelmann, H. Borras, B. Klein, A. Varri, M. Becker, J. Dijkstra, M. Brückerhoff, C. D. Wright, M. Salinga, H. Bhaskaran, B. Risse, H. Frön- ing, and W. H. P. Pernice, Probabilistic photonic com- puting with chaotic light, Nature Communications15, 10.1038/s414...

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Z. Zhan, H. Wang, Q. Liu, and X. Fu, Photonic diffrac- tive generators through sampling noises from scatter- ingmedia,NatureCommunications 15,10.1038/s41467- 024-55058-4 (2024)

    2024 doi

  24. [32]

    D. N. Basov, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. J. Schuck, X. Zhu, A. Rubio, A. Cavalleri, and et al., Polaritonic quantum matter, Nanophotonics 11, 2025 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    H.Deng, H.Haug,andY.Yamamoto,Exciton-polariton bose-einstein condensation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1489 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Quantum fluids of light, Re- views of Modern Physics85, 299 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    B.Deveaud,Polaritoninteractionsinsemiconductormi- crocavities, Comptes Rendus Physique17, 874 (2016), polariton physics / Physique des polaritons

    2016

  28. [36]

    Estrecho, T

    E. Estrecho, T. Gao, N. Bobrovska, D. Comber-Todd, M. D. Fraser, M. Steger, K. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, J. Levinsen, M. M. Parish, T. C. H. Liew, M. Ma- tuszewski, D. W. Snoke, A. G. Truscott, and E. A. Ostrovskaya, Direct measurement of polariton-polariton interaction strength i...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Tassone and Y

    F. Tassone and Y. Yamamoto, Exciton-exciton scatter- ingdynamicsinasemiconductormicrocavityandstimu- lated scattering into polaritons, Phys. Rev. B59, 10830 (1999)

    1999

  30. [38]

    Shahnazaryan, I

    V. Shahnazaryan, I. Iorsh, I. A. Shelykh, and O. Kyri- ienko, Exciton-exciton interaction in transition-metal dichalcogenide monolayers, Phys. Rev. B 96, 115409 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Yagafarov, D

    T. Yagafarov, D. Sannikov, A. Zasedatelev, K. Geor- 7 giou, A. Baranikov, O. Kyriienko, I. Shelykh, L. Gai, Z. Shen, D. Lidzey, and P. Lagoudakis, Mechanisms of blueshifts in organic polariton condensates, Communi- cations Physics 3, 18 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    K. W. Song, S. Chiavazzo, and O. Kyriienko, Micro- scopic theory of nonlinear phase space filling in polari- tonic lattices, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023033 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Genco, C

    A. Genco, C. Louca, C. Cruciano, K. W. Song, C. Trovatello, G. D. Blasio, G. Sansone, S. Ran- derson, P. Claronino, R. Jayaprakash, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. G. Lidzey, O. Kyriienko, S. D. Conte, A. I. Tartakovskii, and G. Cerullo, Femtosecond switching of strong light-mat...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Richard, I

    M. Richard, I. Frérot, S. Ravets, J. Bloch, C. Anton- Solanas, F. Claude, Y. Zhou, M. Morassi, A. Lemaître, I. Carusotto, and A. Minguzzi, Excitonic oscillator- strengthsaturationdominatespolariton-polaritoninter- actions (2025), arXiv:2501.07899 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Togan, H.-T

    E. Togan, H.-T. Lim, S. Faelt, W. Wegscheider, and A. Imamoglu, Enhanced interactions between dipolar polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 227402 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Rosenberg, D

    I. Rosenberg, D. Liran, Y. Mazuz-Harpaz, K. West, L. Pfeiffer, and R. Rapaport, Strongly interacting dipolar-polaritons, Science Advances 4, 10.1126/sci- adv.aat8880 (2018)

    2018 doi

  37. [45]

    Datta, M

    B. Datta, M. Khatoniar, P. Deshmukh, F. Thouin, R. Bushati, S. De Liberato, S. Kéna-Cohen, and V. M. Menon, Highly nonlinear dipolar exciton- polaritons in bilayer mos2, Nature Communications13, 10.1038/s41467-022-33940-3 (2022)

    2022 doi

  38. [46]

    Louca, A

    C. Louca, A. Genco, S. Chiavazzo, T. P. Lyons, S. Ran- derson, C. Trovatello, P. Claronino, R. Jayaprakash, X. Hu, J. Howarth, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Dal Conte, R. Gorbachev, D. G. Lidzey, G. Cerullo, O. Kyriienko, and A. I. Tartakovskii, Interspecies exci- ton interact...

    2023

  39. [47]

    E. R. Christensen, A. Camacho-Guardian, O. Cotlet, A. Imamoglu, M. Wouters, G. M. Bruun, and I. Caru- sotto, Microscopic theory of polariton-polariton interac- tions, Phys. Rev. B110, 195435 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    J. Gu, V. Walther, L. Waldecker, A. Zakharov, P. Álvarez-Sánchez, W. Sigle, A. Janot, T. Schätz, D. Jaksch, D. N. Krizhanovskii, and A. I. Tartakovskii, Enhanced nonlinear interaction of polaritons via exci- tonic rydberg states in monolayer wse2, Nature Com- munications 12, 1...

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Makhonin, A

    M. Makhonin, A. Delphan, K. W. Song, P. Walker, T. Isoniemi, P. Claronino, K. Orfanakis, S. K. Rajen- dran, H. Ohadi, J. Heckötter, M. Assmann, M. Bayer, A. Tartakovskii, M. Skolnick, O. Kyriienko, and D. Krizhanovskii, Nonlinear rydberg exciton-polaritons in cu2o microcavitie...

    2024

  42. [50]

    Shahnazaryan, I

    V. Shahnazaryan, I. A. Shelykh, and O. Kyriienko, At- tractivecoulombinteractionoftwo-dimensionalrydberg excitons, Phys. Rev. B93, 245302 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    R. P. A. Emmanuele, M. Sich, O. Kyriienko, V. Shah- nazaryan, F. Withers, A. Catanzaro, P. M. Walker, F. A. Benimetskiy, M. S. Skolnick, A. I. Tartakovskii, I.A.Shelykh,andD.N.Krizhanovskii,Highlynonlinear trion-polaritons in a monolayer semiconductor, Nature Communications 11...

    2020

  44. [52]

    L. B. Tan, O. Cotlet, A. Bergschneider, R. Schmidt, P. Back, Y. Shimazaki, M. Kroner, and A. m. c. İmamoğlu, Interacting polaron-polaritons, Phys. Rev. X 10, 021011 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Kyriienko, D

    O. Kyriienko, D. N. Krizhanovskii, and I. A. Shelykh, Nonlinear quantum optics with trion polaritons in 2d monolayers: Conventional and unconventional photon blockade, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 197402 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    K. Wei, Q. Liu, Y. Tang, Y. Ye, Z. Xu, and T. Jiang, Charged biexciton polaritons sustaining strong nonlin- earity in 2d semiconductor-based nanocavities, Nature Communications 14, 5310 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Zhang, F

    L. Zhang, F. Wu, S. Hou, Z. Zhang, Y.-H. Chou, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. R. Forrest, and H. Deng, Van der waals heterostructure polaritons with moiré- induced nonlinearity, Nature591, 61 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Y. Luo, Q. Guo, X. Deng, S. Ghosh, Q. Zhang, H. Xu, and Q. Xiong, Manipulating nonlinear exciton polari- tons in an atomically-thin semiconductor with artificial potential landscapes, Light: Science & Applications12, 220 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Camacho-Guardian and N

    A. Camacho-Guardian and N. R. Cooper, Moiré- induced optical nonlinearities: Single- and multiphoton resonances, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 207401 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    S. A. Herrera-González, H. A. Lara-García, G. Pirruc- cio, D. A. Ruiz-Tijerina, and A. Camacho-Guardian, Moiré excitons and exciton-polaritons: A review (2025), arXiv:2507.05204 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2025

  51. [59]

    K. W. Song and O. Kyriienko, Electrically tunable and enhanced nonlinearity of moiré exciton polaritons in transition metal dichalcogenide bilayers, Phys. Rev. Lett. , (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Takemura, S

    N. Takemura, S. Trebaol, M. Wouters, M. T. Portella- Oberli, and B. Deveaud, Polaritonic feshbach resonance, Nature Physics 10, 500 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Navadeh-Toupchi, N

    M. Navadeh-Toupchi, N. Takemura, M. D. Anderson, D. Y. Oberli, and M. T. Portella-Oberli, Polaritonic cross feshbach resonance, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 047402 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Kasprzak, M

    J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szymańska, R. André, J. L. Staehli, V. Savona, P. B. Littlewood, B. Deveaud, and L. S. Dang, Bose–einstein condensation of exciton polaritons, Nature 443, 409 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    Schneider, A

    C. Schneider, A. Rahimi-Iman, N. Y. Kim, J. Fis- cher, I. G. Savenko, M. Amthor, M. Lermer, A. Wolf, L. Worschech, V. D. Kulakovskii, I. A. Shelykh, M. Kamp, S. Reitzenstein, A. Forchel, Y. Yamamoto, and S. Höfling, An electrically pumped polariton laser, Nature 497, 348 (2013)

    2013

  56. [64]

    Kavokin, T

    A. Kavokin, T. C. H. Liew, C. Schneider, P. G. Lagoudakis, S. Klembt, and S. Hoefling, Polariton con- densates for classical and quantum computing, Nature Reviews Physics 4, 435 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    B. Han, H. Shan, K. W. Song, L. Lackner, M. Es- mann, V. Solovyeva, F. Eilenberger, J. Regner, Z. Sofer, O. Kyriienko, and C. Schneider, Exciton-polariton con- densate in the van der waals magnet crsbr (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    K. G. Lagoudakis, M. Wouters, M. Richard, A. Baas, I. Carusotto, R. André, L. S. Dang, and B. Deveaud- Plédran, Quantized vortices in an exciton–polariton 8 condensate, Nature Physics4, 706 (2008)

    2008

  59. [67]

    A. Amo, D. Sanvitto, F. P. Laussy, D. Ballarini, E. d. Valle, M. D. Martin, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, D. N. Krizhanovskii, M. S. Skolnick, C. Tejedor, and L. Viña, Collective fluid dynamics of a polariton condensate in a semiconductor microcavity, Nature457, 291 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Sanvitto, F

    D. Sanvitto, F. M. Marchetti, M. H. Szymańska, G. Tosi, M. Baudisch, F. P. Laussy, D. N. Krizhanovskii, M. S. Skolnick, L. Marrucci, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, C. Tejedor, and L. Viña, Persistent currents and quan- tized vortices in a polariton superfluid, Nature Physics 6, 527 (2010)

    2010

  61. [69]

    D. N. Krizhanovskii, D. M. Whittaker, R. A. Bradley, K. Guda, D. Sarkar, D. Sanvitto, L. Vina, E. Cerda, P. Santos, K. Biermann, R. Hey, and M. S. Skolnick, Effect of interactions on vortices in a nonequilibrium po- laritoncondensate,Phys.Rev.Lett. 104,126402(2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    Roumpos, M

    G. Roumpos, M. D. Fraser, A. Löffler, S. Höfling, A. Forchel, and Y. Yamamoto, Single vortex–antivortex pair in an exciton-polariton condensate, Nature Physics 7, 129 (2011)

    2011

  63. [71]

    X. Ma, B. Berger, M. Aßmann, R. Driben, T. Meier, C. Schneider, S. Höfling, and S. Schumacher, Realiza- tion of all-optical vortex switching in exciton-polariton condensates, Nature Communications11, 897 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    rotating bucket

    I. Gnusov, S. Harrison, S. Alyatkin, K. Sitnik, J. Töpfer, H. Sigurdsson, and P. Lagoudakis, Quantum vortex for- mation in the “rotating bucket” experiment with polari- ton condensates, Science Advances9, eadd1299 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    Alyatkin, C

    S. Alyatkin, C. Milián, Y. V. Kartashov, K. A. Sit- nik, I. Gnusov, J. D. Töpfer, H. Sigurðsson, and P. G. Lagoudakis, Antiferromagnetic ising model in a trian- gular vortex lattice of quantum fluids of light, Science Advances 10, eadj1589 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    M. Sich, D. N. Krizhanovskii, M. S. Skolnick, A. V. Gor- bach, R. Hartley, D. V. Skryabin, E. A. Cerda-Méndez, K. Biermann, R. Hey, and P. V. Santos, Observation of bright polariton solitons in a semiconductor microcav- ity, Nature Photonics6, 50 (2012)

    2012

  67. [75]

    P. M. Walker, L. Tinkler, D. V. Skryabin, A. Yulin, B. Royall, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, M. S. Skolnick, and D. N. Krizhanovskii, Ultra-low-power hybrid light– mattersolitons,NatureCommunications 6,8317(2015)

    2015

  68. [76]

    T. C. H. Liew, O. A. Egorov, M. Matuszewski, O. Kyri- ienko, X. Ma, and E. A. Ostrovskaya, Instability- induced formation and nonequilibrium dynamics of phase defects in polariton condensates, Phys. Rev. B 91, 085413 (2015)

    2015

  69. [77]

    Maître, G

    A. Maître, G. Lerario, A. Medeiros, F. Claude, Q. Glo- rieux, E. Giacobino, S. Pigeon, and A. Bramati, Dark- soliton molecules in an exciton-polariton superfluid, Phys. Rev. X10, 041028 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, P. St-Jean, S. Ravets, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Microcavity polaritons for topo- logical photonics, Opt. Mater. Express11, 1119 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    Yamamoto, Exciton–polariton condensates near the dirac point in a triangular lattice, New Journal of Physics 15, 035032 (2013)

    N.Y.Kim, K.Kusudo, A.Löffler, S.Höfling, A.Forchel, and Y. Yamamoto, Exciton–polariton condensates near the dirac point in a triangular lattice, New Journal of Physics 15, 035032 (2013)

    2013

  72. [80]

    Jacqmin, I

    T. Jacqmin, I. Carusotto, I. Sagnes, M. Abbarchi, D. D. Solnyshkov, G. Malpuech, E. Galopin, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, and A. Amo, Direct observation of dirac cones and a flatband in a honeycomb lattice for polaritons, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 116402 (2014)

    2014

  73. [81]

    C. E. Whittaker, E. Cancellieri, P. M. Walker, D. R. Gulevich, H. Schomerus, D. Vaitiekus, B. Royall, D. M. Whittaker, E. Clarke, I. V. Iorsh, I. A. Shelykh, M. S. Skolnick, and D. N. Krizhanovskii, Exciton polaritons in a two-dimensional lieb lattice with spin-orbit coupling,...

    2018

  74. [82]

    Kyriienko, H

    O. Kyriienko, H. Sigurdsson, and T. C. H. Liew, Prob- abilistic solving ofnp-hard problems with bistable non- linear optical networks, Phys. Rev. B99, 195301 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    Dusel, S

    M. Dusel, S. Betzold, O. A. Egorov, S. Klembt, J. Ohmer, U. Fischer, S. Höfling, and C. Schneider, Room temperature organic exciton–polariton conden- sate in a lattice, Nature Communications 11, 2863 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Betzold, J

    S. Betzold, J. Düreth, M. Dusel, M. Emmerling, A. Bieganowska, J. Ohmer, U. Fischer, S. Höfling, and S. Klembt, Dirac cones and room temperature polari- ton lasing evidenced in an organic honeycomb lattice, Advanced Science11, 2400672 (2024)

    2024

  77. [85]

    Kędziora, A

    M. Kędziora, A. Opala, R. Mastria, L. De Marco, M. Król, K. Łempicka-Mirek, K. Tyszka, M. Ekielski, M. Guziewicz, K. Bogdanowicz, A. Szerling, H. Sigurðs- son, T. Czyszanowski, J. Szczytko, M. Matuszewski, D. Sanvitto, and B. Piętka, Predesigned perovskite crys- tal waveguides...

    2024

  78. [86]

    Cristofolini, A

    P. Cristofolini, A. Dreismann, G. Christmann, G. Franchetti, N. G. Berloff, P. Tsotsis, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis, and J. J. Baumberg, Optical superfluid phase transitions and trapping of polariton condensates, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 186403 (2013)

    2013

  79. [87]

    N. G. Berloff, M. Silva, K. Kalinin, A. Askitopoulos, J. D. Töpfer, P. Cilibrizzi, W. Langbein, and P. G. Lagoudakis, Realizing the classical xy hamiltonian in polariton simulators, Nature Materials16, 1120 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Alyatkin, H

    S. Alyatkin, H. Sigurdsson, A. Askitopoulos, J. D. Töpfer, and P. G. Lagoudakis, Quantum fluids of light in all-optical scatterer lattices, Nature Communications 12, 5571 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    Alyatkin, H

    S. Alyatkin, H. Sigurðsson, Y. V. Kartashov, I. Gnusov, K. Sitnik, J. D. Töpfer, and P. G. Lagoudakis, All- optical triangular and honeycomb lattices of exci- ton–polaritons, Applied Physics Letters 124, 062105 (2024)

    2024

  82. [90]

    Zaremba, M

    M. Zaremba, M. Kędziora, L. Stańco, K. Piskorski, K. Kosiel, A. Szerling, R. Mazur, W. Piecek, A. Opala, H.Sigurðsson,andB.Piętka,Opticallytrappedexciton- polariton condensates in a perovskite microcavity, Ad- vanced Optical Materials13, 2500304 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Opala and M

    A. Opala and M. Matuszewski, Harnessing exciton- polaritons for digital computing, neuromorphic comput- ing, and optimization, Opt. Mater. Express 13, 2674 (2023)

    2023

  84. [92]

    Opala, S

    A. Opala, S. Ghosh, T. C. Liew, and M. Matuszewski, Neuromorphic computing in ginzburg-landau polariton- lattice systems, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 064029 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    Ballarini, A

    D. Ballarini, A. Genco, G. Dagvadorj, A. Gianfrate, L. Dominici, K. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, G. Gigli, M. H. Szymanska, and D. Sanvitto, Polaritonic neuromorphic computing outperforms linear classifiers, Nano Letters 20, 3506 (2020)

    2020

  86. [94]

    Mirek, A

    R. Mirek, A. Opala, P. Comaron, M. Furman, M. Król, K. Tyszka, B. Seredyński, D. Ballarini, D. Sanvitto, 9 T. C. H. Liew, W. Pacuski, J. Suffczyński, J. Szczytko, M. Matuszewski, and B. Piętka, Neuromorphic bina- rized polariton networks, Nano Letters21, 3715 (2021), pMID: 33635656

    2021

  87. [95]

    Mirek, A

    R. Mirek, A. Opala, M. Furman, M. Król, K. Tyszka, B. Seredyński, W. Pacuski, J. Suffczyński, J. Szczytko, M. Matuszewski, and B. Piętka, Neural networks based on ultrafast time-delayed effects in exciton polaritons, Phys. Rev. Appl.17, 054037 (2022)

    2022

  88. [96]

    Sedov and A

    E. Sedov and A. Kavokin, Polariton lattices as binarized neuromorphic networks, Light: Science & Applications 14, 52 (2025)

    2025

  89. [97]

    Opala, K

    A. Opala, K. Tyszka, M. Kędziora, M. Furman, A. Rah- mani, S. Świerczewski, M. Ekielski, A. Szerling, M. Ma- tuszewski, and B. Piętka, Room temperature exciton- polariton neural network with perovskite crystal (2024), arXiv:2412.10865 [physics.optics]

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Matuszewski, A

    M. Matuszewski, A. Opala, R. Mirek, M. Furman, M. Król, K. Tyszka, T. Liew, D. Ballarini, D. San- vitto, J. Szczytko, and B. Piętka, Energy-efficient neural network inference with microcavity exciton polaritons, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 024045 (2021)

    2021

  91. [99]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. Opala, M. Matuszewski, T. Paterek, and T. C. H. Liew, Quantum reservoir processing, npj Quan- tum Information 5, 35 (2019)

    2019

  92. [100]

    Ghosh, A

    S. Ghosh, A. Opala, M. Matuszewski, T. Paterek, and T. C. H. Liew, Reconstructing quantum states withquantumreservoirnetworks,IEEETransactionson NeuralNetworksandLearningSystems 32,3148(2021)

    2021

  93. [101]

    Ghosh, K

    S. Ghosh, K. Nakajima, T. Krisnanda, K. Fujii, and T. C. H. Liew, Quantum neuromorphic computing with reservoir computing networks, Advanced Quantum Technologies 4, 2100053 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Krisnanda, H

    T. Krisnanda, H. Xu, S. Ghosh, and T. C. H. Liew, Tomographic completeness and robustness of quantum reservoir networks, Phys. Rev. A107, 042402 (2023)

    2023

  95. [103]

    Kuriakose, P

    T. Kuriakose, P. M. Walker, T. Dowling, O. Kyriienko, I. A. Shelykh, P. St-Jean, N. C. Zambon, A. Lemaître, I. Sagnes, L. Legratiet, A. Harouri, S. Ravets, M. S. Skolnick, A. Amo, J. Bloch, and D. N. Krizhanovskii, Few-photon all-optical phase rotation in a quantum-well microp...

    2022

  96. [104]

    Delteil, T

    A. Delteil, T. Fink, A. Schade, S. Höfling, C. Schnei- der, and A. İmamoğlu, Towards polariton blockade of confined exciton–polaritons, Nature Materials 18, 219 (2019)

    2019

  97. [105]

    Muñoz-Matutano, A

    G. Muñoz-Matutano, A. Wood, M. Johnsson, X. Vidal, B. Q. Baragiola, A. Reinhard, A. Lemaître, J. Bloch, A. Amo, G. Nogues, B. Besga, M. Richard, and T. Volz, Emergence of quantum correlations from interacting fibre-cavity polaritons, Nature Materials18, 213 (2019)

    2019

  98. [106]

    C. Ying, T. Cai, S. Luo, S. Zheng, G. Ke, D. He, Y. Shen, and T.-Y. Liu, Do transformers really perform bad for graph representation? (2021), arXiv:2106.05234 [cs.LG]

    2021 arXiv

  99. [107]

    L. Ma, C. Lin, D. Lim, A. Romero-Soriano, P. K. Doka- nia, M. Coates, P. H. S. Torr, and S. Lim, Graph induc- tive biases in transformers without message passing, in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Ma- chine Learning (ICML), Proceedings of Machine Learn- in...

    2023

  100. [108]

    Wasserman, Topological data analysis (2016), arXiv:1609.08227 [stat.ME]

    L. Wasserman, Topological data analysis (2016), arXiv:1609.08227 [stat.ME]

    2016 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Lloyd, S

    S. Lloyd, S. Garnerone, and P. Zanardi, Quan- tum algorithms for topological and geometric anal- ysis of data, Nature Communications 7, 10.1038/n- comms10138 (2016)

    2016 doi

  102. [110]

    Hayakawa, Quantum algorithm for persistent betti numbers and topological data analysis, Quantum6, 873 (2022)

    R. Hayakawa, Quantum algorithm for persistent betti numbers and topological data analysis, Quantum6, 873 (2022)

    2022

  103. [111]

    Scali, C

    S. Scali, C. Umeano, and O. Kyriienko, Quantum topo- logical data analysis via the estimation of the den- sity of states, Physical Review A 110, 10.1103/phys- reva.110.042616 (2024)

    2024 doi

  104. [112]

    Scali, C

    S. Scali, C. Umeano, and O. Kyriienko, The topology of data hides in quantum thermal states, APL Quantum 1, 10.1063/5.0209201 (2024)

    2024 doi

  105. [113]

    Edelsbrunner and J

    H. Edelsbrunner and J. Harer,Computational Topology (American Mathematical Society, 2009)

    2009

  106. [114]

    Chazal and B

    F. Chazal and B. Michel, An introduction to topolog- ical data analysis: Fundamental and practical aspects for data scientists, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence4, 10.3389/frai.2021.667963 (2021)

    2021

  107. [115]

    Ho-Le, Finite element mesh generation methods: a review and classification, Computer-Aided Design 20, 27–38 (1988)

    K. Ho-Le, Finite element mesh generation methods: a review and classification, Computer-Aided Design 20, 27–38 (1988)

    1988

  108. [116]

    Boissonnat and A

    J.-D. Boissonnat and A. Ghosh, Manifold reconstruc- tion using tangential delaunay complexes, Discrete & Computational Geometry 51, 221–267 (2013)

    2013

  109. [117]

    A. Mota, J. Knap, and M. Ortiz, Fracture and fragmen- tation of simplicial finite element meshes using graphs, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engi- neering 73, 1547–1570 (2007)

    2007

  110. [118]

    C. T. Lee, J. B. Moody, R. E. Amaro, J. A. Mccam- mon, and M. J. Holst, The implementation of the col- ored abstract simplicial complex and its application to mesh generation, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software 45, 1–20 (2019)

    2019

  111. [119]

    R. E. Bank, A. H. Sherman, and A. Weiser, Some refine- ment algorithms and data structures for regular local mesh refinement, Scientific Computing, Applications of Mathematics and Computing to the Physical Sciences 1, 3 (1983)

    1983

  112. [120]

    good-enough approximation

    In this step, several optimizations and exceptions might arise [127], for example, the best mapping to minimize the overall approximation, multiple data points ending up on the same vertex in the mesh, etc. Since the prob- lem is tangential to the main message of the paper, we...

  113. [121]

    J. W. Moon and L. Moser, On cliques in graphs, Israel Journal of Mathematics3, 23–28 (1965)

    1965

  114. [122]

    R. M. Karp, Reducibility among combinatorial prob- lems, inComplexity of Computer Computations, edited by R. E. Miller and J. W. Thatcher (Plenum, New York,

  115. [123]

    LeCun, B

    Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, Backpropaga- tion applied to handwritten zip code recognition, Neural computation 1, 541 (1989)

    1989

  116. [124]

    Ioffe and C

    S. Ioffe and C. Szegedy, Batch normalization: Accelerat- ing deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift, in International conference on machine learning (pmlr, 2015) pp. 448–456

    2015

  117. [125]

    M. Lin, Q. Chen, and S. Yan, Network in network, arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4400 (2013)

    2013 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Wouters and I

    M. Wouters and I. Carusotto, Excitations in a nonequi- 10 librium bose-einstein condensate of exciton polaritons, Physical review letters99, 140402 (2007)

    2007

  119. [127]

    Bern and P

    M. Bern and P. Plassmann, Mesh generation, inHand- book of Computational Geometry (Elsevier, 2000) p. 291–332

    2000

  120. [128]

    J.Hopfield,Theoryofthecontributionofexcitonstothe complex dielectric constant of crystals, Physical Review 112, 1555 (1958)

    1958

  121. [129]

    D. P. Kingma, Adam: A method for stochastic opti- mization, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014). 11 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Datasets preparation We consider a planar stack of InGaAs quantum wells with slightly negatively detuned cavities [88]. The de- tuning between the exci...

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.