Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 47 references

Beam Routing through Excitons in Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Monolayers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In monolayer WSe2, the dark exciton's out-of-plane dipole sends cathodoluminescence sideways, making dipole orientation a routing mechanism without nanostructures.

desk verdict Genuinely new angle-resolved CL species identification, with a plausible dark-exciton large-angle emission claim that would be stronger with fit error bars and an independent spectroscopic check. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12105 v1 pith:FVBLV6L6 submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics

Yonas Lebsir , Jacob Terndrup Heiden , Jorge Barcia Rodríguez , Maria Papadopoulou , Kenji Watanabe , Takashi Taniguchi , N. Asger Mortensen , Sergii Morozov
show 1 more author
Nicolas Ubrig
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics
keywords cathodoluminescenceangle-resolvedspectroscopydarkexcitonstransitionmetaldichalcogenidesWSe2monolayersdipoleorientationbeamroutinghBNencapsulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that directional light routing at the nanoscale can be achieved by the intrinsic excitonic transitions of a semiconductor, without any nanostructured surfaces. Using low-temperature angle-resolved cathodoluminescence on hBN-encapsulated monolayers of WSe2, MoSe2, and MoTe2, the authors resolve the bright exciton, the trion, and the spin-forbidden dark exciton of WSe2 by their characteristic angular emission profiles. The dark exciton, whose transition dipole points out of the monolayer plane, emits preferentially at large angles, whereas the in-plane dipoles of the bright exciton and trion radiate mainly toward the surface normal. If correct, this turns a normally 'dark' electronic state into a built-in directional light source and provides a material-level mechanism for nanoscale beam routing.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is angle-resolved low-temperature cathodoluminescence spectroscopy of hBN-encapsulated monolayer TMDs, combined with the transition-dipole orientation of each excitonic species. An electron beam generates carriers in hBN that relax into the monolayer; a parabolic mirror with numerical aperture 0.97 collects emission as a function of emission angle, and each spectrum is decomposed into three Voigt peaks corresponding to the neutral exciton, trion, and dark exciton. The normalized spectral weight removes angle-dependent collection efficiency and reveals that the in-plane-dipole species peak near the surface normal while the dark exciton grows toward large angles, the signature of an out-of-plane dipole. The load-bearing identity is the spin-forbidden dark exciton's out-of-plane dipole, which converts a normally dark state into a directional emitter when excited by the electron beam.

What would settle it

Refit the measured angle-resolved spectra with realistic added noise using a two-peak model without the 1.69 eV feature, and also measure polarization at collection angles above 50 degrees: if the large-angle feature can be absorbed into the neutral-exciton tail or turns out to be s-polarized rather than p-polarized, the dark-exciton routing claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that cathodoluminescence can distinguish excitonic species in transition metal dichalcogenide monolayers not only by emission energy but also by angular emission profile, establishing transition dipole orientation as a mechanism for exciton-selective nanoscale beam routing. In WSe2, the neutral exciton at about 1.73 eV and the trion at about 1.71 eV have in-plane dipoles and emit mainly near the surface normal, while a feature at about 1.69 eV assigned to the spin-forbidden dark exciton grows with emission angle above roughly 25 degrees, matching an out-of-plane dipole. The paper further shows that the local dielectric environment, namely hBN thickness, substrate material, and a nearby graphene layer, acts as a passive control on the balance between neutral and charged exciton emission, reshaping the routed spectrum without electrostatic gating.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on identifying the 1.69 eV emission as the spin-forbidden dark exciton, inferred from its roughly 40 meV separation below the neutral exciton and its appearance only at large angles; if that feature is instead a defect-bound state or phonon replica with out-of-plane character, the beam-routing story does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark-exciton states in TMD monolayers can act as directional emitters at large angles with no grating, antenna, or waveguide structuring.
  • Angle-resolved cathodoluminescence becomes a species-resolving probe: each exciton species carries an angular fingerprint set by its transition dipole orientation.
  • The hBN encapsulation thickness and adjacent graphene act as passive controls that shift weight between neutral and charged exciton emission, letting substrate engineering tune both emission energy and angular channel.
  • Because the dark exciton is the lowest-energy state in WSe2 and remains resolved to about 100 K, it provides a spectrally isolated directional channel for compact photonic devices.
  • Electron-beam excitation reaches out-of-plane dipoles that normal-incidence optical excitation cannot, extending the probe of dark states to spatially local regions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the angular fingerprint is as robust as the three-peak fits suggest, the same angle-resolved cathodoluminescence could identify dark-exciton character in other monolayer semiconductors and in moire superlattices, where dark states are predicted but hard to access optically.
  • Coupling the out-of-plane dark-exciton channel to a waveguide or polariton structure could yield on-chip beam routing in which the emitting species itself selects the guided direction, an extension beyond the free-space angular measurement reported here.
  • A polarization-resolved variant would be a sharp test: an out-of-plane dipole should emit predominantly p-polarized light at large angles, while an in-plane defect state would not follow the same polarization-angle pattern.
  • Electrostatic gating of the same WSe2 stack should shift the trion-to-exciton balance in a way comparable to the passive graphene contact, providing a direct electrical check of the proposed environment control.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports low-temperature, angle-resolved cathodoluminescence (CL) measurements on hBN-encapsulated monolayer WSe2, MoSe2, and MoTe2. In WSe2 the spectra are decomposed into three Voigt lines plus a low-order polynomial background and assigned to the bright exciton X0, the trion XT, and the spin-forbidden dark exciton XD on the basis of a ~20 meV XT shift, a ~40 meV XD splitting, and the angular dependence of the fitted intensities. The authors show that X0 and XT emit predominantly near the surface normal while XD appears only at large emission angles, and they support this with a simplified electromagnetic simulation. They additionally demonstrate that the local hBN thickness and an adjacent graphene layer change the trion-to-exciton CL ratio, and they conclude that intrinsic excitonic transition dipoles can act as exciton-selective nanoscale beam routers without nanostructuring.

Significance. If the central assignment holds, the paper establishes a new and potentially general mechanism for directional emission from unpatterned 2D semiconductors: the out-of-plane transition dipole of the dark exciton produces a large-angle CL channel that is inaccessible under normal-incidence optical excitation. The angle-resolved CL methodology, the multi-sample consistency, the temperature dependence, and the dielectric-environment tuning are notable strengths, and the angular trends are qualitatively reproduced by an independent simulation. The work is falsifiable and could influence nanophotonics and 2D-material spectroscopy. However, the load-bearing identification of the 1.69 eV feature as the intrinsic dark exciton is not yet sufficiently supported because the angular profile is used both as evidence for the assignment and as the claimed phenomenology, and because the three-Voigt decomposition lacks quantified uncertainties.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Fig. 2b, and Eq. (w(j))] The identification of the 1.69 eV feature as the spin-forbidden dark exciton is load-bearing for the central routing claim, but it is currently underdetermined. The text argues that this feature is XD because it appears only above ~25 degrees and sits ~40 meV below X0; the same large-angle behavior is then presented as the routing phenomenon. This creates a self-referential element: the angular dependence is simultaneously the evidence for the assignment and the effect being claimed. The three-Voigt decomposition is not accompanied by uncertainties, confidence intervals, or covariance information, so the small-angle amplitude of the 1.69 eV shoulder buried under X0 is poorly constrained, and the rise of w(XD) in Fig. 3a could be a fitting artifact. I ask the authors to report fit uncertainties and to test explicitly whether an alternative out-of-plane emitter (defect-bound exciton, phonon replica, or beam-induced localized state) can be excluded by additional diagnostics, for example polarization-resolved CL, excitation-density dependence, or sample-to-sample statistics on the 40 meV splitting.
  2. [Fig. 3 and the normalization w(j)] The polar plots in Fig. 3 contain no error bars, and the dashed simulation is described only as 'simplified' with no parameters or goodness-of-fit measure in the main text. The normalized weight w(j)=I(j)/(I(X0)+I(XT)+I(XD)) removes common angle-dependent detection efficiency only if all three resonances are affected equally, an assumption that is not justified; for example, if the detection efficiency varies strongly with angle near the mirror cutoff, the apparent increase of w(XD) could be exaggerated. The authors should propagate fitting uncertainties through w(j), show the raw intensity trends before normalization, and provide a more transparent description of the simulation (stack geometry, dipole orientation, and inclusion of hBN and substrate) so the reader can judge whether the predicted large-angle pattern is unique to an out-of-plane dipole.
  3. [§4, Fig. 4] The claim that hBN thickness tunes the trion-to-exciton balance is based on visual correlation in a single sample, and the spectra in Fig. 4b are normalized to their own maxima, which obscures absolute intensity changes. If this environmental-tuning result is intended as a quantitative finding, the authors should provide statistics across samples, a measure of the spatial correlation, and a discussion of possible systematic effects such as local beam-current variations or thickness-dependent carrier generation that are not captured by the simplified Monte Carlo argument.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2b] The axis label 'Voigt /f_it' appears corrupted and should be replaced with a readable label such as 'Intensity' or a legend describing the fit components.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption and main text] The gray shaded area indicating the cutoff angle of the parabolic mirror is not quantified; please give the numerical cutoff angle and state how data beyond it are handled.
  3. [Main text near 'first identification'] The sentence claiming 'the first identification of individual excitonic species from the angular distribution of their cathodoluminescence' should be supported by an explicit comparison with prior angle-resolved CL studies of excitonic emitters, or softened, since 'first' claims require a documented literature search.
  4. [Fig. 3 normalization] The text says the normalization accounts for the instrument response, but Eq. (w(j)) only divides by the total fitted intensity; the actual instrument-response correction should be stated explicitly, including whether it was applied to each resonance before computing w(j).
  5. [§2, trion assignment] The assignment of the 1.71 eV shoulder to the trion is based on a ~20 meV shift with no independent diagnostic; a sentence giving the expected trion binding energy or a comparison with the local carrier density would strengthen the case.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the dark-exciton assignment has a mild self-referential element but rests on independent energy-splitting and simulation evidence.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained: the central claim is an experimental observation of angle-resolved cathodoluminescence from TMD monolayers, and the species-resolved angular profiles are compared with an independent electromagnetic simulation of dipole emission (Fig. 3, dashed lines), not with any parameter fitted to the same data. The assignment of the 1.69 eV feature to the spin-forbidden dark exciton XD is supported by the approximately 40 meV splitting below X0, quoted as agreeing with established literature values (refs [10,17,21]), which is an external constraint independent of the angular-profile measurement. There is a mild self-referential element: the large-angle appearance of the 1.69 eV feature is used as one piece of evidence for the XD assignment, and the reported large-angle profile of XD is the same observation. However, this is an identification underdetermination and robustness concern rather than a logical reduction by construction; the energy splitting and the forward simulation provide independent content. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own prior work, and the self-citations (refs [26,27,30]) are not load-bearing for the central claim. Therefore no significant circularity is found; the residual concern is the lack of error bars on the three-peak decomposition, which affects confidence in the assignment but does not make the argument circular.

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

The central claim rests on a classical electrodynamics model, a literature-based assignment of the dark exciton energy and dipole, a specific carrier-transfer mechanism for CL, and a chosen spectral decomposition. None of these are newly invented entities or fitted physical constants.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The angular emission of an electric dipole in a layered medium is described by classical electromagnetic theory, as implemented in the simulation.
    Used to calculate the dashed curves in Fig. 3 for comparison with measured polar profiles.
  • domain assumption For monolayer WSe2, the spin-forbidden dark exciton lies approximately 40 meV below the bright exciton and has an out-of-plane transition dipole.
    Taken from refs [10,17,21] and used to assign the 1.69 eV feature to XD.
  • domain assumption Electron-beam excitation in hBN generates carriers that transfer into the TMD monolayer and form excitons.
    Invoked in Fig. 1b to explain how CL excites the TMD excitons.
  • ad hoc to paper The CL spectra can be decomposed into three Voigt profiles plus a low-order polynomial background.
    The fitting model is chosen by the authors; its uniqueness is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beam Routing through Excitons in Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Monolayers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FVBLV6L6

@misc{pith2026260812105,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beam Routing through Excitons in Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Monolayers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FVBLV6L6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12105}
}
abstract

Routing light at the nanoscale typically relies on nanostructured surfaces to imprint directionality on the emission. Using low-temperature, angle-resolved cathodoluminescence spectroscopy, we show that the intrinsic excitonic transitions of a semiconductor can themselves produce routed emission. We probe monolayers of WSe$_2$, MoSe$_2$, and MoTe$_2$ and resolve the excitonic species of monolayer WSe$_2$ -- the bright exciton, the trion, and the spin-forbidden dark exciton -- through their distinct angular emission profiles. While the in-plane transition dipoles of the bright exciton and trion radiate predominantly toward the surface normal, the out-of-plane dipole of the dark exciton, inaccessible under normal-incidence optical excitation, produces a directional emission channel at large angles. We further tune the balance between neutral and charged exciton emission through the local dielectric environment. Our results establish dark excitons in TMD monolayers as a platform for directional light emission in compact photonic architectures without additional nanostructuring.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12105 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bharadwaj, B

    P. Bharadwaj, B. Deutsch, and L. Novotny, Advances in Optics and Photonics1, 438 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    D. K. Gramotnev and S. I. Bozhevolnyi, Nature Photonics4, 83 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Yu and F

    N. Yu and F. Capasso, Nature Materials13, 139 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Coenen, F

    T. Coenen, F. Bernal Arango, A. F. Koenderink, and A. Polman, Nature Communications5, 3250 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    R. J. Coles, D. M. Price, J. E. Dixon, B. Royall, E. Clarke, P. Kok, M. S. Skolnick, A. M. Fox, and M. N. Makhonin, Nature Communications7, 11183 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    S. J. Smith and E. M. Purcell, Physical Review92, 1069 (1953)

    work page 1953

  7. [7]

    Yamamoto, F

    N. Yamamoto, F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, and V . Myroshnychenko, Physical Review B91, 125144 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    E. J. C. Dias, A. Rodr ´ıguez Echarri, T. P. Rasmussen, F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, and J. D. Cox, Light: Science & Applications 15, 218 (2026)

    work page 2026

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Spitzer, A

    F. Spitzer, A. N. Poddubny, I. A. Akimov, V . F. Sapega, L. Klompmaker, L. E. Kreilkamp, L. V . Litvin, R. Jede, G. Kar- czewski, M. Wiater, T. Wojtowicz, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Nature Physics14, 1043 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    G. Wang, A. Chernikov, M. M. Glazov, T. F. Heinz, X. Marie, T. Amand, and B. Urbaszek, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 021001 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Mueller and E

    T. Mueller and E. Malic, npj 2D Materials and Applications2, 29 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Xiao, G.-B

    D. Xiao, G.-B. Liu, W. Feng, X. Xu, and W. Yao, Physical Review Letters108, 196802 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    X. Xu, W. Yao, D. Xiao, and T. F. Heinz, Nature Physics10, 343 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Z. Ye, T. Cao, K. O’Brien, H. Zhu, X. Yin, Y . Wang, S. G. Louie, and X. Zhang, Nature513, 214 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    Robert, D

    C. Robert, D. Lagarde, F. Cadiz, G. Wang, B. Lassagne, T. Amand, A. Balocchi, P. Renucci, S. Tongay, B. Urbaszek, and X. Marie, Physical Review B93, 205423 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Selig, G

    M. Selig, G. Bergh¨auser, A. Raja, P. Nagler, C. Sch¨uller, T. F. Heinz, T. Korn, A. Chernikov, E. Malic, and A. Knorr, Nature Communications7, 13279 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Zhang, T

    X.-X. Zhang, T. Cao, Z. Lu, Y .-C. Lin, F. Zhang, Y . Wang, Z. Li, J. C. Hone, J. A. Robinson, D. Smirnov, S. G. Louie, and T. F. Heinz, Nature Nanotechnology12, 883 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    M. R. Molas, C. Faugeras, A. O. Slobodeniuk, K. Nogajewski, M. Bartos, D. M. Basko, and M. Potemski, 2D Materials4, 021003 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Dijkstra, A

    A. Dijkstra, A. Ben Mhenni, D. Van Tuan, E. C ¸etiner, M. Schur- Wilkens, J. Kim, L. Steiner, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, M. Bar- bone, N. P. Wilson, H. Dery, and J. J. Finley, Nature Communi- cations16, 9743 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    J. A. Schuller, S. Karaveli, T. Schiros, K. He, S. Yang, I. Kymis- sis, J. Shan, and R. Zia, Nature Nanotechnology8, 271 (2013)

    2013

  13. [21]

    G. Wang, C. Robert, M. Glazov, F. Cadiz, E. Courtade, T. Amand, D. Lagarde, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. Urbaszek, and X. Marie, Physical Review Letters119, 047401 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Scharf, G

    B. Scharf, G. Xu, A. Matos-Abiague, and I. ˇZuti´c, Physical Review Letters119, 127403 (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Molas, A

    M. Molas, A. Slobodeniuk, T. Kazimierczuk, K. Nogajew- ski, M. Bartos, P. Kapu ´sci´nski, K. Oreszczuk, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, C. Faugeras, P. Kossacki, D. Basko, and M. Potem- ski, Physical Review Letters123, 096803 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Feierabend, S

    M. Feierabend, S. Brem, A. Ekman, and E. Malic, 2D Materials 8, 015013 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Robert, B

    C. Robert, B. Han, P. Kapuscinski, A. Delhomme, C. Faugeras, T. Amand, M. R. Molas, M. Bartos, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Urbaszek, M. Potemski, and X. Marie, Nature Communica- tions11, 4037 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Boroviks, S

    S. Boroviks, S. Zavatski, T. Feichtner, J.-S. Huang, O. J. F. Mar- tin, B. Hecht, and N. A. Mortensen, Optical Materials Express 16, in press (2026)

    2026

  19. [27]

    A. O. Sweedan, K. Zhang, M. Y . Bashouti, and T. Feichtner, Small22, e14856 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 209 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Polman, M

    A. Polman, M. Kociak, and F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, Nature Mate- rials18, 1158 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    S. Ebel, Y . Lebsir, T. Yezekyan, N. A. Mortensen, and S. Moro- zov, Nanophotonics14, 2647 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Zheng, J.-K

    S. Zheng, J.-K. So, F. Liu, Z. Liu, N. Zheludev, and H. J. Fan, Nano Letters17, 6475 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Nayak, S

    G. Nayak, S. Lisi, W. L. Liu, T. Jakubczyk, P. Stepanov, F. Dona- tini, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Bid, J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, V . Bouchiat, J. Coraux, L. Marty, N. Bendiab, and J. Renard, Physical Review Materials3, 114001 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Bonnet, H

    N. Bonnet, H. Y . Lee, F. Shao, S. Y . Woo, J.-D. Blazit, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Zobelli, O. St ´ephan, M. Ko- ciak, S. Gradeˇcak, and L. H. G. Tizei, Nano Letters21, 10178 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Francaviglia, J

    L. Francaviglia, J. Zipfel, J. Carlstroem, S. Sridhar, F. Rimin- ucci, D. Blach, E. Wong, E. Barnard, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Weber-Bargioni, D. F. Ogletree, S. Aloni, and A. Raja, Nanoscale14, 7569 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Taleb, F

    M. Taleb, F. Davoodi, F. K. Diekmann, K. Rossnagel, and N. Talebi, Advanced Photonics Research3, 2100124 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Fiedler, S

    S. Fiedler, S. Morozov, L. Iliushyn, S. Boroviks, M. Thomaschewski, J. Wang, T. J. Booth, N. Stenger, C. Wolff, and N. A. Mortensen, 2D Materials10, 021002 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Bonnet, J

    N. Bonnet, J. Baaboura, F. Castioni, S. Y . Woo, C.-H. Ho, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. H. G. Tizei, and T. Coenen, Nan- otechnology35, 405702 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Ramsden, S

    H. Ramsden, S. Sarkar, Y . Wang, Y . Zhu, J. Kerfoot, E. M. Alexeev, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. Tongay, A. C. Ferrari, and M. Chhowalla, ACS Nano17, 11882 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    M. T. A. Borghi and N. R. Wilson, Nanotechnology35, 465203 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Darbari, P

    S. Darbari, P. Bittorf, L. Multerer, F. Chahshouri, P. Darman, P. Ruchka, H. Giessen, M. Taleb, Y . Abdi, and N. Talebi, ACS Nano20, 21739 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    C. I. Osorio, T. Coenen, B. J. M. Brenny, A. Polman, and A. F. Koenderink, ACS Photonics3, 147 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Robert, T

    C. Robert, T. Amand, F. Cadiz, D. Lagarde, E. Courtade, M. Manca, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, B. Urbaszek, and X. Marie, Physical Review B96, 155423 (2017). 7

    2017

  35. [43]

    L. M. Schneider, S. S. Esdaille, D. A. Rhodes, K. Barmak, J. C. Hone, and A. Rahimi-Iman, Scientific Reports10, 8091 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Akerboom, H

    E. Akerboom, H. Sugimoto, M. Fujii, F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, and A. Polman, Nano Letters25, 14264 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    Y .-C. Wu, B. Dryzhakov, H. Zhao, I. V . Vlassiouk, K. P. Kelley, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, and B. Lawrie, Advanced Functional Materials36, e24575 (2026)

    2026

  38. [46]

    Lorchat, L

    E. Lorchat, L. E. Parra L ´opez, C. Robert, D. Lagarde, G. Froehlicher, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, X. Marie, and S. Berciaud, Nature Nanotechnology15, 283 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    A. Raja, A. Chaves, J. Yu, G. Arefe, H. M. Hill, A. F. Rigosi, T. C. Berkelbach, P. Nagler, C. Sch¨uller, T. Korn, C. Nuckolls, J. Hone, L. E. Brus, T. F. Heinz, D. R. Reichman, and A. Chernikov, Nature Communications8, 15251 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.