Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 45 references

This paper claims that trions photoexcited in WSe2 transfer as intact charged quasiparticles into an undoped carbon nanotube, producing bright trion emission without free carriers and exceeding doping-based efficiencies by over two orders o

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 23:29 UTC pith:H557XFJK

load-bearing objection Robust trion-like emission in CNT/WSe2 heterostructures is real, but the 'intact trion transfer' mechanism is not yet proven; the conservation argument is too quick and the efficiency metric is uncalibrated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.13490 v1 pith:H557XFJK submitted 2026-02-13 cond-mat.mes-hall

Trion transfer in mixed-dimensional heterostructures

N. Fang , U. Erkilic , Y. R. Chang , S. Fujii , D. Yamashita , C. F. Fong , S. Morito , K. Kanahashi
show 5 more authors
T. Taniguchi K. Watanabe K. Ueno K. Nagashio Y. K. Kato
This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords trion transfermixed-dimensional heterostructurescarbon nanotubesWSe2trion emissionexciton transferreservoir effectcharged excitons
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that trions—excitons bound to an extra charge—can be transferred as intact three-body quasiparticles from a WSe2 layer into an undoped carbon nanotube, producing bright trion emission without any doping. This 'trion transfer' mechanism bypasses the free-carrier Auger quenching that limits conventional trion sources, achieving efficiencies more than two orders of magnitude above doping-based methods. The evidence includes a low-energy emission peak with the diameter-dependent trion binding energy, spatial imaging showing a short trion diffusion length feeding the CNT, and time-resolved PL showing a reservoir effect. The authors argue that charge and spin conservation forbid cross-transfer between excitons and trions, keeping the trion flux pure.

Core claim

The central claim is that photoexcited trions in WSe2 transfer into an adjacent carbon nanotube as intact charged quasiparticles, |T_WSe2> -> |T_CNT>, without first dissociating into free carriers. This produces a bright low-energy emission peak from an undoped, defect-free CNT, with energy separation from the E11 exciton that scales as ~1/d and 1/d^2 as expected for CNT trions. The transfer is resonant with WSe2 excitation, shows a much shorter diffusion length than the A exciton, and is insensitive to gate-induced doping of the CNT, distinguishing it from conventional free-carrier trion formation. The authors report trion emission efficiencies more than two orders of magnitude above the li

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is trion transfer across a mixed-dimensional interface: a 2D WSe2 donor photoexcites trions that diffuse and tunnel into a 1D CNT acceptor as a bound three-body state. The 'trion reservoir effect' arises from dimensional heterogeneity—the 2D donor collects photoexcited trions over a micron-scale area and feeds them into the ~1 nm CNT, concentrating the flux. Charge and spin conservation are invoked to prevent cross channels between excitons and trions, so the transferred flux remains a pure trion population in an otherwise neutral emitter.

Load-bearing premise

The identification of the low-energy CNT peak as a transferred trion, rather than an exciton that transfers into a transiently charged CNT, rests on the assumption that the near-degenerate WSe2 exciton and trion states can be experimentally separated and that charge and spin conservation strictly forbid exciton-to-trion cross transfer.

What would settle it

A direct pump-probe experiment that tracks the charge in the CNT after excitation at the trion resonance: if a transient electron or hole population appears concurrently with the low-energy emission (e.g., via transient photocurrent or time-resolved charge sensing), the pure trion-transfer interpretation would be falsified. Alternatively, tuning the donor-acceptor band offset to a type-II alignment should extinguish the trion peak if transfer requires type-I resonance.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Trion emission no longer requires doping; any neutral, defect-free emitter can serve as a trion source via transfer.
  • The efficiency gain (more than 100x) suggests trion-based optoelectronic devices could operate without the nonradiative losses from excess carriers.
  • The invariance of trion emission to gate voltage in the heterostructure implies robustness for transistor-embedded emitters.
  • Extends energy-transfer paradigms from two-body (exciton) to three-body quasiparticles, enabling study of trion physics in clean 1D systems.
  • The reservoir effect may enable dense trion populations in 1D, motivating superfluorescence or coherent transport proposals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If trion transfer is real, a similar mechanism may work for other charged quasiparticles (e.g., charged biexcitons) in mixed-dimensional stacks, provided the donor has a bound population.
  • The assumption that the extra charge tunnels back after emission implies the CNT remains neutral on average; this could be tested by measuring PL recovery over time or by transient charge sensing.
  • The purity of the trion flux could be improved by selecting a donor with larger trion binding energy to separate T_WSe2 from X_WSe2 in energy, enabling selective excitation.
  • The claimed 100x efficiency benchmark depends on the normalization to excitation power density; a fair comparison with doping-based methods under identical collection conditions would strengthen the quantitative claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports a low-energy photoluminescence peak (T_CNT) in suspended carbon nanotube (CNT)/WSe2 heterostructures, appearing when exciting near the WSe2 A-exciton/trion resonance. The peak is assigned to trion emission in the CNT, and the authors propose a mechanism of intact trion transfer from the WSe2 donor into the CNT acceptor (|T_WSe2⟩ → |T_CNT⟩). This is claimed to occur without doping the CNT, to be insensitive to gate-induced free carriers, and to achieve trion emission efficiencies more than two orders of magnitude above conventional doping-based methods. The paper includes PL excitation maps, spatial imaging, time-resolved PL, gate-modulation experiments, and comparison with electrostatically and chemically doped CNTs.

Significance. If the intact-trion-transfer mechanism is correct, it would establish a conceptually new way to generate trion emission in an undoped, defect-free emitter, with potential implications for trion-based optoelectronics and spintronics. The experimental work is extensive, covering multiple chiralities, WSe2 thicknesses, gating, and Nb doping, and the data quality appears high. However, the central mechanistic claim rests on the ability to separate near-degenerate exciton and trion states in WSe2, and the quantitative efficiency comparison uses a non-absolute metric with 'best samples' selection. These issues must be resolved before the paper's main conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Trion transfer in mixed-dimensional heterostructures' (paragraph on charge conservation)] The exclusion of the cross-channel |X_WSe2⟩ → |T_CNT⟩ on the basis of charge and spin conservation is not valid. Charge conservation alone does not forbid an exciton transferring to the CNT while a carrier tunnels separately from WSe2, because total charge is still conserved. Spin conservation similarly allows this sequential path if the transferred carrier carries the appropriate spin. Since |X_WSe2⟩ and |T_WSe2⟩ are nearly degenerate (approximately 20 meV separation at room temperature), the PLE resonance cannot identify the initial state. The narrow spatial profile of T_CNT compared with E11 under X/T excitation (Fig. 2h) is suggestive but not decisive: a local, fast charge-capture step at the CNT could also produce a narrow T_CNT profile from a broad exciton population. The authors should directly demonstrate that the trion moves as a single charged entity across the interface, for e
  2. [Section 'Trion transfer overcoming free-charge-induced nonradiative limits' and Fig. 3i] The claimed 'more than two orders of magnitude' efficiency improvement uses a metric of integrated PL intensity normalized to excitation power density, not to absorbed photon flux. In the transfer configuration, the excitation is at the WSe2 A-exciton resonance, where absorption by the WSe2 flake is strong; in the doping-based configurations, excitation is at E22 of the CNT, whose absorption cross-section is far smaller. The apparent enhancement may therefore largely reflect the difference in effective absorption rather than a higher trion-generation efficiency. The authors should either normalize by absorbed power, or explicitly reframe the claim as 'brightness per incident power' and justify that metric from a device perspective. Additionally, the comparison relies on the 'best samples,' which is not a robust statistical claim; the full distribution of efficiencies across all heterostr
  3. [Section 'Trion transfer in mixed-dimensional heterostructures' (Monte Carlo estimates)] The quantitative statements that '~20% of trions excited in WSe2 transfer to the CNT' and that the 'trion transfer time is estimated to be 1.3 ps' are based on Monte Carlo simulations whose parameters and sensitivity are not described in the main text. These values appear to be fitted to the same data (diffusion lengths from Eq. 2, time-resolved PL lifetimes) that they are used to explain, which makes the 'reservoir effect' partly self-confirming. The Supplementary Note 4 must provide the model details, the parameter values, and a sensitivity analysis to show that the 20% fraction and 1.3 ps time are robust. If the main claims do not depend on these precise numbers, the authors should say so explicitly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 1h and Eq. 1] The fit of Eq. 1 to the diameter dependence uses constants A = 60 meV·nm and B = 67 meV·nm². Please state clearly whether these are fixed from independent measurements on surfactant-wrapped CNTs or are fitting parameters. If they are fitted, provide the uncertainty in A and B and a goodness-of-fit assessment.
  2. [Section on spatial imaging (Fig. 2)] The labels 'T_WSe2 ex. T_CNT em.' are confusing because the same excitation energy is used for both the exciton and trion donor states. Clarify how the two images at 1.653 eV are obtained and whether they are truly independent or differ only in detection energy.
  3. [Time-resolved PL (Supplementary Note 3)] The main text states that the T_CNT lifetime increases from 26 ps to 281 ps in the heterostructure, but the measurement conditions and analysis (e.g., deconvolution with the instrument response, excitation power) are not given. Briefly summarize these in the main text, and note whether the lifetimes are single-exponential.
  4. [Comparison with diffusion lengths from the literature] The comparison of the measured diffusion lengths (1.0 µm for excitons, 0.15 µm for trions) with values from ref. [34] is useful, but note that ref. [34] is for monolayer MoS2, not WSe2. The authors should acknowledge the material dependence of diffusion.
  5. [Fig. 4d] The T_CNT peak area versus gate voltage is shown without error bars. Since this is a key demonstration of gate insensitivity, add error bars from repeated measurements or note the single-scan nature.
  6. [Conclusion section] The final discussion mentions trion superfluorescence, trion-mediated optical gain, and trion-based quantum computing as potential applications. These are speculative and should be framed as an outlook rather than as conclusions of the present work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity by construction: the trion-transfer claim rests on independent measurements and external comparisons, not on fits or self-citations that reduce to the claim itself.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain: assignment of the low-energy peak to CNT trions uses the diameter-dependent splitting trend (Eq. 1) with constants A=60 meV·nm and B=67 meV·nm² that are fitted to the same measured ΔE values. This is calibration, not a prediction from fitted parameters to the same data; the functional form is taken from prior external work on CNT trions [33], and the paper presents the fit as a reproduction, not as an independent derivation of the peak assignment. The trion-transfer mechanism itself is supported by distinct observations: PLE resonance near WSe2 states, spatial broadening differences for E11 vs T_CNT (Fig. 2), time-resolved lifetimes, Monte Carlo transfer-rate estimates, and the gate/doping insensitivity experiments. The diffusion lengths in Eq. 2 are fit parameters used to quantify the reservoir effect, but they are not the source of the transfer claim. Self-citations ([7], [8], [29], [32], [35], [37]) supply methodology, known exciton-transfer results, and prior trion spectroscopy; they do not carry a load-bearing circular argument or impose a uniqueness theorem. The charge/spin conservation discussion is a physics-validity concern rather than a circularity. I find no step where an output is equivalent by construction to an input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an experimental inference. It relies on spectral assignment (Eq. 1, fitted A/B), fits of diffusion lengths (Eq. 2), and the assumption that near-degenerate exciton and trion states can be separated. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • A (trion binding constant) = 60 meV·nm
    Fitted to reproduce the ΔE vs 1/d trend in Eq. 1 for trion assignment; taken as comparable to surfactant-wrapped CNT values [33].
  • B (singlet-triplet splitting constant) = 67 meV·nm^2
    Fitted in Eq. 1 together with A; used to identify the low-energy peak as a CNT trion.
  • Exciton diffusion length L_exc = 1.0 μm
    Best fit of the 1D diffusion equation (Eq. 2) to the PL line profile; used to support the exciton reservoir interpretation.
  • Trion diffusion length L_trion = 0.15 μm
    Best fit of Eq. 2 to the trion-emission line profile; used to argue for a short-distance trion reservoir feeding the CNT.
  • Trion transfer fraction = ~20%
    From Monte Carlo simulations in Supplementary Note 4; not shown in main text and likely uses fitted lifetimes/diffusion lengths, making it partly self-confirming.
  • Trion transfer time = 1.3 ps
    Estimated from Monte Carlo simulation; claimed comparable to fast exciton transfer processes [8,9,36].
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Type-I band alignment of the CNT/WSe2 heterostructures with resonant tunneling transfer
    Assumed from [8] and inferred from the appearance of transfer resonances; underpins the |T_WSe2>→|T_CNT> pathway.
  • standard math Charge conservation forbids |T_WSe2>→|E11> and |X_WSe2>→|T_CNT>
    Used to separate exciton and trion transfer channels; assumes the trion transfers as a charged composite rather than as energy plus separate charge motion.
  • domain assumption Spin conservation restricts transitions between spin-singlet bright excitons and spin-doublet trions
    Invoked to forbid population intermixing; assumes bright excitons are singlet and trions are doublet in this system.
  • domain assumption The 0.817 eV peak is a CNT trion, not a K-momentum exciton
    Identification rests on ΔE = 0.106 eV vs the expected ~0.140 eV for K-momentum excitons [31] and on Eq. 1 scaling with fitted A/B; if wrong, the entire trion-transfer interpretation collapses.
  • domain assumption CNTs are defect-free and undoped
    Needed to claim the emitter is intrinsic; inferred from bright E11, narrow linewidth, and high linear polarization rather than from direct electrical measurement in most samples.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16714 in / 12648 out tokens · 114091 ms · 2026-08-02T23:29:52.912783+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trion transfer in mixed-dimensional heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H557XFJK

@misc{pith2026260213490,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trion transfer in mixed-dimensional heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H557XFJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.13490}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Charged excitons, or trions, offering unique spin and charge degrees of freedom, have primarily been investigated in doped systems where charges are long considered indispensable. Here, we present an alternative route to ultra-efficient trion emission from an intrinsic, defect-free semiconductor via a transfer mechanism. By exciting trions in two-dimensional tungsten-diselenide donors and transferring them into one-dimensional carbon-nanotube acceptors in mixed-dimensional heterostructures, we circumvent the usual carrier requirement, overcoming intrinsic Auger-quenching limitations. Benefitting from a reservoir effect induced by dimensional heterogeneity, this process achieves trion emission efficiencies increased by over 100-fold compared to conventional doping-based approaches, and remains robust across diverse doping conditions. Our findings extend the exciton transfer paradigm to the three-body quasiparticles, offering a new platform for advancing excitonic physics and trion-based optoelectronic/spintronic applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.13490 by C. F. Fong, D. Yamashita, K. Kanahashi, K. Nagashio, K. Ueno, K. Watanabe, N. Fang, S. Fujii, S. Morito, T. Taniguchi, U. Erkilic, Y. K. Kato, Y. R. Chang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Universal trion emission in CNT/WSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. PL excitation images for revealing trion transfer process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison between free-carrier induced trions and transfer-induced trions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Trion transfer in gated CNT/WSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Trion transfer in CNT/doped WSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references

  1. [1]

    A. A. High, E. E. Novitskaya, L. V. Butov, M. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Control of exciton fluxes in an exci- tonic integrated circuit, Science321, 229 (2008)

    2008

  2. [2]

    E. Y. Paik, L. Zhang, G. W. Burg, R. Gogna, E. Tutuc, and H. Deng, Interlayer exciton laser of extended spa- tial coherence in atomically thin heterostructures, Nature 576, 80 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    L. A. Jauregui, A. Y. Joe, K. Pistunova, D. S. Wild, A. A. High, Y. Zhou, G. Scuri, K. De Greve, A. Sushko, C.-H. Yu,et al., Electrical control of interlayer exciton dynam- ics in atomically thin heterostructures, Science366, 870 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    O. V. Kozlov, Y.-S. Park, J. Roh, I. Fedin, T. Nakotte, and V. I. Klimov, Sub–single-exciton lasing using charged quantum dots coupled to a distributed feedback cavity, Science365, 672 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    D. M. Coles, N. Somaschi, P. Michetti, C. Clark, P. G. Lagoudakis, P. G. Savvidis, and D. G. Lidzey, Polariton- mediated energy transfer between organic dyes in a strongly coupled optical microcavity, Nat. Mater.13, 712 (2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Achermann, M

    M. Achermann, M. A. Petruska, S. Kos, D. L. Smith, D. D. Koleske, and V. I. Klimov, Energy-transfer pump- ing of semiconductor nanocrystals using an epitaxial quantum well, Nature429, 642 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Otsuka, N

    K. Otsuka, N. Fang, D. Yamashita, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, and Y. K. Kato, Deterministic transfer of optical-quality carbon nanotubes for atomically defined technology, Nat. Commun.12, 3138 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Fang, Y.-R

    N. Fang, Y.-R. Chang, D. Yamashita, S. Fujii, M. Maruyama, Y. Gao, C. F. Fong, K. Otsuka, K. Na- gashio, S. Okada,et al., Resonant exciton transfer in mixed-dimensional heterostructures for overcoming di- mensional restrictions in optical processes, Nat. Com- mun.14, 8152 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    Kozawa, A

    D. Kozawa, A. Carvalho, I. Verzhbitskiy, F. Giustiniano, Y. Miyauchi, S. Mouri, A. Castro Neto, K. Matsuda, and G. Eda, Evidence for fast interlayer energy trans- fer in MoSe2/WS2 heterostructures, Nano Lett.16, 4087 (2016). 10

    2016

  10. [10]

    S. Han, R. Deng, Q. Gu, L. Ni, U. Huynh, J. Zhang, Z. Yi, B. Zhao, H. Tamura, A. Pershin,et al., Lanthanide-doped inorganic nanoparticles turn molecu- lar triplet excitons bright, Nature587, 594 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    Tabachnyk, B

    M. Tabachnyk, B. Ehrler, S. G´ elinas, M. L. B¨ ohm, B. J. Walker, K. P. Musselman, N. C. Greenham, R. H. Friend, and A. Rao, Resonant energy transfer of triplet excitons from pentacene to PbSe nanocrystals, Nat. Mater.13, 1033 (2014)

    2014

  12. [12]

    S. M. Menke, W. A. Luhman, and R. J. Holmes, Tai- lored exciton diffusion in organic photovoltaic cells for enhanced power conversion efficiency, Nat. Mater.12, 152 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    A. Ren, H. Wang, W. Zhang, J. Wu, Z. Wang, R. V. Penty, and I. H. White, Emerging light-emitting diodes for next-generation data communications, Nat. Electron. 4, 559 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    B. E. Hardin, E. T. Hoke, P. B. Armstrong, J.-H. Yum, P. Comte, T. Torres, J. M. J. Fr´ echet, M. K. Nazeerud- din, M. Gr¨ atzel, and M. D. McGehee, Increased light harvesting in dye-sensitized solar cells with energy relay dyes, Nat. Photonics3, 406 (2009)

    2009

  15. [15]

    I. L. Medintz, H. T. Uyeda, E. R. Goldman, and H. Mat- toussi, Quantum dot bioconjugates for imaging, labelling and sensing, Nat. Mater.4, 435 (2005)

    2005

  16. [16]

    Cnops, B

    K. Cnops, B. P. Rand, D. Cheyns, B. Verreet, M. A. Empl, and P. Heremans, 8.4% efficient fullerene-free or- ganic solar cells exploiting long-range exciton energy transfer, Nat. Commun.5, 3406 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    M. J. A. Schuetz, M. G. Moore, and C. Piermarocchi, Trionic optical potential for electrons in semiconductors, Nat. Phys.6, 919 (2010)

    2010

  18. [18]

    Venanzi, M

    T. Venanzi, M. Cuccu, R. Perea-Causin, X. Sun, S. Brem, D. Erkensten, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, E. Malic, M. Helm,et al., Ultrafast switching of trions in 2D ma- terials by terahertz photons, Nat. Photonics18, 1344 (2024)

    2024

  19. [19]

    K. F. Mak, K. He, C. Lee, G. H. Lee, J. Hone, T. F. Heinz, and J. Shan, Tightly bound trions in monolayer MoS2, Nat. Mater.12, 207 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Kheng, R

    K. Kheng, R. T. Cox, M. Y. d’Aubign´ e, F. Bassani, K. Saminadayar, and S. Tatarenko, Observation of neg- atively charged excitons X − in semiconductor quantum wells, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1752 (1993)

    1993

  21. [21]

    Mouri, Y

    S. Mouri, Y. Miyauchi, and K. Matsuda, Tunable pho- toluminescence of monolayer MoS 2 via chemical doping, Nano Lett.13, 5944 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    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 WSe 2, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 027401 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Anderson, J

    E. Anderson, J. Cai, A. P. Reddy, H. Park, W. Holtzmann, K. Davis, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, T. Smole´ nski, A. Imamo˘ glu,et al., Trion sensing of a zero-field composite Fermi liquid, Nature635, 590 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

    Javaux, B

    C. Javaux, B. Mahler, B. Dubertret, A. Shabaev, A. V. Rodina, A. L. Efros, D. R. Yakovlev, F. Liu, M. Bayer, G. Camps,et al., Thermal activation of non-radiative Auger recombination in charged colloidal nanocrystals, Nat. Nanotechnol.8, 206 (2013)

    2013

  25. [25]

    D.-H. Lien, S. Z. Uddin, M. Yeh, M. Amani, H. Kim, J. W. Ager III, E. Yablonovitch, and A. Javey, Electrical suppression of all nonradiative recombination pathways in monolayer semiconductors, Science364, 468 (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Sidler, P

    M. Sidler, P. Back, O. Cotlet, A. Srivastava, T. Fink, M. Kroner, E. Demler, and A. Imamoglu, Fermi polaron- polaritons in charge-tunable atomically thin semiconduc- tors, Nat. Phys.13, 255 (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    E. Liu, J. van Baren, Z. Lu, T. Taniguchi, K. Watan- abe, D. Smirnov, Y.-C. Chang, and C. H. Lui, Exciton- polaron Rydberg states in monolayer MoSe 2 and WSe 2, Nat. Commun.12, 6131 (2021)

    2021

  28. [28]

    Ishii, M

    A. Ishii, M. Yoshida, and Y. K. Kato, Exciton diffusion, end quenching, and exciton-exciton annihilation in indi- vidual air-suspended carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B91, 125427 (2015)

    2015

  29. [29]

    Ishii, M

    A. Ishii, M. Yoshida, and Y. K. Kato, High efficiency dark-to-bright exciton conversion in carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. X9, 041048 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    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 WSe 2, Nat. Com- mun.10, 2330 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Kozawa, S

    D. Kozawa, S. Fujii, and Y. K. Kato, Intrinsic process for upconversion photoluminescence via K-momentum– phonon coupling in carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B110, 155418 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Tanaka, K

    S. Tanaka, K. Otsuka, K. Kimura, A. Ishii, H. Imada, Y. Kim, and Y. K. Kato, Organic molecular tuning of many-body interaction energies in air-suspended carbon nanotubes, J. Phys. Chem. C123, 5776 (2019)

    2019

  33. [33]

    Matsunaga, K

    R. Matsunaga, K. Matsuda, and Y. Kanemitsu, Observa- tion of charged excitons in hole-doped carbon nanotubes using photoluminescence and absorption spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 037404 (2011)

    2011

  34. [34]

    S. Z. Uddin, H. Kim, M. Lorenzon, M. Yeh, D.-H. Lien, E. S. Barnard, H. Htoon, A. Weber-Bargioni, and A. Javey, Neutral exciton diffusion in monolayer MoS 2, ACS Nano14, 13433 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Machiya, D

    H. Machiya, D. Yamashita, A. Ishii, and Y. K. Kato, Evidence for near-unity radiative quantum efficiency of bright excitons in carbon nanotubes from the purcell ef- fect, Phys. Rev. Res.4, L022011 (2022)

    2022

  36. [36]

    H. Qian, C. Georgi, N. Anderson, A. A. Green, M. C. Hersam, L. Novotny, and A. Hartschuh, Exciton energy transfer in pairs of single-walled carbon nanotubes, Nano Lett.8, 1363 (2008)

    2008

  37. [37]

    Yoshida, A

    M. Yoshida, A. Popert, and Y. K. Kato, Gate-voltage in- duced trions in suspended carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B93, 041402(R) (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    J. S. Ross, S. Wu, H. Yu, N. J. Ghimire, A. M. Jones, G. Aivazian, J. Yan, D. G. Mandrus, D. Xiao, W. Yao, et al., Electrical control of neutral and charged excitons in a monolayer semiconductor, Nat. Commun.4, 1474 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    H. Baek, M. Brotons-Gisbert, A. Campbell, V. Vitale, J. Lischner, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and B. D. Ger- ardot, Optical read-out of Coulomb staircases in a moir´ e superlattice via trapped interlayer trions, Nat. Nanotech- nol.16, 1237 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    J. D. Ziegler, Y. Cho, S. Terres, M. Menahem, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, O. Yaffe, T. C. Berkelbach, and A. Chernikov, Mobile trions in electrically tunable 2D hybrid perovskites, Adv. Mater.35, 2210221 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Tan, S.-H

    Y. Tan, S.-H. Yang, C.-P. Lin, F. J. Vega, J. Cai, H.- Y. Lan, R. Tripathi, S. Sharma, Z. Shang, T.-H. Hou, 11 et al., Monolayer WSe 2 Field-Effect Transistor Perfor- mance Enhancement by Atomic Defect Engineering and Passivation, ACS Nano19, 8916 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Kanahashi, I

    K. Kanahashi, I. Tanaka, T. Nishimura, K. Aso, A. K. A. Lu, S. Morito, L. Chen, T. Kakeya, S. Watanabe, Y. Os- hima,et al., Dimensionality-Induced Transition from De- generate to Nondegenerate States in Nb-Doped WSe 2, ACS Nano19, 10244 (2025)

    2025

  43. [43]

    N. Fang, K. Otsuka, A. Ishii, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, K. Nagashio, and Y. K. Kato, Hexagonal boron nitride as an ideal substrate for carbon nanotube photonics, ACS Photonics7, 1773 (2020)

    2020

  44. [44]

    Fang and K

    N. Fang and K. Nagashio, Accumulation-mode two- dimensional field-effect transistor: Operation mechanism and thickness scaling rule, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 10, 32355 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Yasukochi, T

    S. Yasukochi, T. Murai, S. Moritsubo, T. Shimada, S. Chiashi, S. Maruyama, and Y. K. Kato, Gate-induced blueshift and quenching of photoluminescence in sus- pended single-walled carbon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B84, 121409(R) (2011)

    2011