Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Optimizing spin polarization in quantum dot vertical-gain structures through pump wavelength selection

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spin polarization in quantum-dot vertical-cavity gain structures peaks at nearly 5% under 980 nm pumping.

desk verdict Solid direct measurement of pump-wavelength-dependent spin polarization in a QD VECSEL gain structure, but the wavelength comparison is not power-controlled and the 40 ps lifetime rests on borrowed inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07135 v1 pith:HZSJ5DTU submitted 2025-05-11 cond-mat.mes-hall physics.optics

Najm Alhosiny , Sami S. Alharthi , J. Doogan , E. Clarke , T. Ackemann This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.optics PACS 78.67.Hc78.55.Cr42.55.Px72.25.Rb
keywords spinpolarizationquantumdotsvertical-external-cavitysurface-emittinglaserdots-in-a-wellStokesparametersheavy-holeexcitationlifetimeopticalpumping
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

Spin-polarized lasers promise faster, lower-power photonic devices, but delivering polarized carriers into a real laser gain structure is hard. This paper shows that for InAs quantum dots embedded in an InGaAs quantum-well (dots-in-a-well) vertical-cavity structure, the pump wavelength is a strong control knob: circularly polarized pumping at 980 nm produces nearly 5% circular polarization in the 1290 nm photoluminescence, corresponding to an effective spin lifetime of about 40 ps. Pumping at 905-915 nm, closer to the peak quantum-well absorption, gives 2.3-3.4 times less spin polarization. The 980 nm optimum is attributed to absorption at the low-energy edge of the quantum well where heavy-hole states dominate. The result matters because it identifies a practical, room-temperature-compatible route to spin injection for spin-VECSELs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the InAs/InGaAs dots-in-a-well active region embedded in a GaAs vertical-cavity structure, and the central quantitative tool is the slope m of the photoluminescence circular-polarization parameter S3 versus the pump S3. This slope is taken as the maximally achievable spin polarization and converted to an effective spin lifetime through $m = 1/(1 + \tau/\tau_s)$, an identity from a spin-flip rate-equation model for semiconductor lasers that assumes perfect heavy-hole selection rules, with the carrier lifetime $\tau$ fixed at 770 ps from similar samples. The wavelength dependence is read through optical selection rules: absorption into heavy-hole states preserves spin, while light-hole admixture acts with opposite selection rules and reduces polarization.

What would settle it

Measure the carrier recombination lifetime and the heavy-hole/light-hole absorption ratio directly on this DWELL vertical-cavity sample; if the 980 nm slope survives with a different recombination time, the 40 ps effective lifetime and its wavelength trend would shift, and if light-hole absorption contributes at 980 nm, the heavy-hole-only explanation would be ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that in a dots-in-a-well (DWELL) InAs/GaAs quantum-dot vertical-cavity gain structure intended for telecom-wavelength VECSELs, the maximally achievable spin polarization of the 1290 nm photoluminescence depends strongly on the pump wavelength. For fully circularly polarized pumping, the slope of the emission helicity versus pump helicity reaches 0.046 ± 0.005 at 980 nm, corresponding to an effective spin lifetime of about 40 ps; pumping at 905-915 nm gives 2.3-3.4 times lower polarization. The authors attribute the 980 nm peak to absorption at the low-energy edge of the InGaAs quantum well, where heavy-hole states dominate, and treat the 40 ps as an effective lifetime that includes spin relaxation during energy relaxation into the dots.

Load-bearing premise

The 40 ps lifetime is computed from the measured polarization using an assumed carrier recombination time of 770 ps from similar samples and the assumption that the pump excites only heavy-hole states; neither is measured on this exact structure.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A DWELL vertical-cavity gain structure can deliver about 5% circular polarization in continuous-wave photoluminescence under fully circular pumping at 980 nm, a level suitable for seeding spin-controlled lasing.
  • Pump wavelength becomes a design parameter: switching from 915 nm to 980 nm sacrifices a factor of 2-3 in quantum efficiency but gains a factor of 2.3-3.4 in spin polarization.
  • The effective spin lifetime of about 40 ps is roughly a factor of two shorter than the 70-80 ps reported for bare InAs/GaAs quantum dots, consistent with the energy-relaxation losses lumped into the effective value.
  • Pumping at 852 nm (GaAs barriers) and 1070 nm (high QD states) produces spin polarization comparable to or higher than at 905-915 nm, identifying those regimes as useful for studying spin relaxation pathways even though they are poor for lasing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A finer scan of pump wavelengths between 950 and 1000 nm should reveal whether the polarization peak tracks the quantum-well absorption edge; circular dichroism or photoluminescence excitation spectroscopy on this sample could confirm the heavy-hole selectivity directly.
  • The 40 ps effective lifetime mixes ground-state spin relaxation with spin loss during carrier relaxation; time-resolved circular photoluminescence or pump-probe Faraday rotation on the same wafer would separate the two and could reveal whether the intrinsic ground-state lifetime exceeds 40 ps.
  • The high polarization observed for 852 nm barrier pumping suggests hot-carrier relaxation into the dots preserves at least part of the spin memory in this DWELL structure, so systematic studies of the relaxation path, not just the absorbing state, could push the polarization ceiling higher.
  • Comparing these slopes with measurements under a magnetic field or with resonant excitation would quantify how much heavy-hole/light-hole mixing in the DWELL limits the polarization below the ideal selection-rule limit.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a study of the circular polarization (Stokes S3) of photoluminescence from InAs quantum dots in a vertical-cavity gain structure intended for VECSELs, under optical pumping at five wavelengths (852, 905, 915, 980, and 1070 nm). The central finding is that the measured spin polarization of the PL depends strongly on the pump wavelength, with a maximum of about 4.6% at 980 nm, which is attributed to excitation of predominantly heavy-hole states at the low-energy edge of the DWELL quantum well. The authors convert the measured slopes of PL-S3 vs pump-S3 into an effective spin lifetime using the Gahl-Balle-San Miguel spin-flip model and a carrier lifetime of 770 ps taken from literature on similar samples, yielding about 40 ps at 980 nm. The paper argues that this wavelength dependence provides a design rule for spin-VECSELs and notes a trade-off between pump efficiency (optimal near 915 nm) and spin polarization (optimal near 980 nm).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a practical and useful design rule for spin-polarized optical pumping of QD-based VECSEL gain structures, with quantitative figures of merit (nearly 5% circular PL polarization and an effective spin lifetime of about 40 ps). The experimental approach has notable strengths: the polarimeter is calibrated with a linearly polarized laser showing S3 of -0.0005 +/- 0.005, the relation between pump S3 and PL S3 is clearly linear and reproducible across runs, and the authors use the slope as a more robust estimator than single helicity points. These strengths make the measurement of an intrinsic wavelength trend plausible. However, the cross-wavelength comparison is not controlled for absorbed pump power or carrier density, and the extraction of the absolute spin lifetime rests on an unmeasured carrier lifetime and an assumed spin-flip model. The paper is therefore a valuable contribution but needs additional control experiments or a more cautious presentation to fully support the wavelength-selection claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Experimental setup and Fig. 3] The five pump wavelengths are used at their respective maximal pump powers, and the reported PL S0 values differ considerably (about 10 pW at 852 nm, 25 pW at 1070 nm, and 25-100 pW at 905-980 nm in the relevant paragraph of the experimental section). The paper also states that the overall quantum efficiency is a factor 2-3 higher at 915 nm than at 980 nm. Since spin polarization in QDs is known to depend on carrier density and local temperature, and since the absorbed carrier density at the five wavelengths differs by large factors, the observed variation in S3 shown in Fig. 3 could be partly or wholly a power-density or heating effect rather than a direct consequence of the pump photon energy (e.g., heavy-hole vs light-hole admixture). The manuscript reports no power-dependence measurement at a fixed wavelength to rule out this confound. This is load-bearing because the central claim that pump wavelength selection tunes spin polarization hinges on comparing the five wavelengths, and a matched-PL-power control (or at least a power series at 980 nm and 915 nm) is needed to separate the wavelength effect from the power-density effect.
  2. [Equation (3) and extraction of effective spin lifetime] The conversion of the measured slope m into an effective spin lifetime uses Eq. (3), m = 1/(1 + tau/tau_s), with tau = 770 ps 'taken to be from measurements on similar samples [57]' and assumes the Gahl-Balle-San Miguel spin-flip model with perfect heavy-hole selection rules. The paper does not measure the carrier recombination lifetime in this specific DWELL vertical-cavity structure, nor does it directly measure the HH/LH mixing or the absorption spectrum at the pump wavelengths. Consequently, the quoted 40 ps effective spin lifetime (and the lifetime trend in Fig. 4) are model-dependent estimates rather than direct measurements. The authors do provide appropriate caution in the text about the effective nature of the lifetime, but the abstract and conclusions present the 40 ps value as a headline result, and the comparison with room-temperature literature values of 70-80 ps relies on an unverified in-sample tau. At minimum, the abstract should state that the lifetime is model-dependent, and ideally the sample-specific carrier lifetime should be measured or the claim scaled back.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There is a typo in the text 'InAs/Gas' (should be 'InAs/GaAs') in the discussion comparing with literature lifetimes; please correct.
  2. [Experimental setup, paragraph on PL powers] The reported PL S0 values for each pump wavelength are given at 'their respective maximal pump powers,' but the actual pump power on the sample for each run is not listed in a table or figure. Adding a table with pump wavelength, incident power, spot size, and PL S0 would make the power-density confound easier to assess.
  3. [Figure 2(b) and data analysis] The text states that linear regression used 'instrumental weighting' (inverse variance) in Microcal OriginPro, but the term is not explained. Please clarify what weights were used and whether the reported error bars are standard errors of the slope or confidence intervals.
  4. [Abstract and Conclusion] The abstract states 'This corresponds to an effective spin lifetime of 40 ps' without explicit caveat. Given the assumptions in Eq. (3), we recommend adding a qualifier such as 'model-dependent' or 'estimated' to this number, and similarly in the conclusion.
  5. [Fig. 2(b)] It would be helpful to include the line of best fit parameters (slope, intercept, and R^2) for the 980-nm example, to allow readers to judge the quality of the linear relation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the wavelength-dependent S3 is a directly measured quantity, and Eq. (3) is an explicitly stated external-model conversion rather than a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

Walking the paper's derivation chain, the central observable is the Stokes parameter S3 of the QD photoluminescence as a function of pump helicity, measured directly at five pump wavelengths. The slopes m are obtained by linear regression of PL S3 versus pump S3 (Fig. 2b), and Fig. 3 reports those measured slopes; the wavelength trend is an empirical result, not defined in terms of itself. Equation (3), m = 1/(1 + tau/tau_s), converts the measured slope into an effective spin lifetime using an externally reported carrier lifetime tau = 770 ps [57] and the standard Gahl–Balle–San Miguel spin-flip model with perfect heavy-hole selection rules [15]. This conversion is not circular: tau_s is an algebraic function of the measured m and the assumed tau, and the paper explicitly identifies the assumption burden (perfect HH selection, external carrier lifetime, lumping of relaxation during energy relaxation). The attribution of the 980-nm maximum to dominant heavy-hole absorption is an interpretation supported by band-edge arguments [24], not an output forced by Eq. (3). Self-citations to Ref. [7] (sample context and prior spin-VECSEL work) and Ref. [56] (use of the same conversion) are contextual and non-load-bearing; the slope data and wavelength comparison are measured in this paper, and the cited works do not define the present result. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The principal caveats noted in the paper—nonsimultaneous sigma+ and sigma− acquisition, unequal absorbed pump densities across wavelengths, the assumed carrier lifetime, and the perfect-selection-rule model—are experimental and modeling limitations relevant to correctness risk, not evidence of circularity. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces one borrowed free parameter (tau = 770 ps) and several domain assumptions (HH-only spin-flip model, linear slope extrapolation, HH-dominated 980 nm absorption). It proposes no new physical entities. The central measurement, the S3 slope itself, is direct and not fitted to the target result, but the derived lifetime cannot be independently audited without a lifetime measurement on the actual sample.

free parameters (1)
  • Carrier recombination lifetime tau = 770 ps (from Ref. [57], not measured for this sample)
    Used in Eq. (3) to translate the measured slope into the 40 ps effective spin lifetime; a different tau would rescale all quoted lifetimes and the wavelength trend.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Stokes parameter definitions (S0, S3 in Eqs. (1)-(2)) correctly represent the measured polarization state.
    The interpretation of helicity relies on standard Stokes polarimetry, not a new formalism.
  • domain assumption PL circular polarization S3 tracks ground-state carrier spin polarization via optical selection rules.
    The paper treats the measured slope as the maximally achievable spin polarization of the PL, assuming recombination preserves the carrier spin memory.
  • domain assumption Equation (3) from the heavy-hole-only spin-flip model captures the relation between slope m and effective spin lifetime.
    The conversion to tau_s assumes perfect optical selection rules and no HH/LH mixing; the paper explicitly states this follows from the spin-flip model in Ref. [15].
  • ad hoc to paper Carrier lifetime tau = 770 ps measured on similar InAs QD samples (Ref. [57]) applies to this DWELL vertical-cavity structure.
    This value is borrowed rather than measured here; it directly sets the scale of the quoted effective spin lifetime.
  • domain assumption Absorption at 980 nm is dominated by heavy-hole states of the InGaAs quantum well.
    The central mechanism attribution is based on expected band structure, not on absorption spectroscopy or direct HH/LH resolved measurements.
  • domain assumption The slope of PL S3 versus pump S3 is linear and extrapolates to the maximally achievable spin polarization at perfect pump helicity.
    The paper fits linear regressions and interprets S3(pump = +/-1) as the achievable polarization, assuming the linear relation extends over the full range.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing spin polarization in quantum dot vertical-gain structures through pump wavelength selection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HZSJ5DTU

@misc{pith2026250507135,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing spin polarization in quantum dot vertical-gain structures through pump wavelength selection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HZSJ5DTU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07135}
}
read the original abstract

Spintronic applications require an efficient injection of spin-polarized carriers. We study the maximally achievable spin polarization in InAs quantum dots in a vertical-cavity gain structure to be used in telecoms-wavelength vertical-external-cavity surface-emitting lasers via measurement of the Stokes parameter of the photoluminescence emission around 1290 nm. Using five pump wavelengths between 850 and 1070 nm, the observed spin polarization depends strongly on the pump wavelength with the highest polarization of nearly 5% found for excitation at 980 nm. This corresponds to an effective spin lifetime of 40 ps and is attributed to the dominant excitation of heavy holes only.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07135 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (b) shows the complete experimental setup. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of the half-VCSEL used in this study, (b) the experimental setup. The insets show (left): the PL of the sample (pumped with 980 nm, resolution bandwidth (RBW) 10 nm, averaged over 50 runs), (right): schematic diagram of energy states in the QD DWELL system, with excitation by the variable wavelength pump (blue arrows) into (1) QD excited state,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (b) shows an example of the relation between pump S3 and PL S3 when pumping with 980 nm. S3 at each point is averaged over a 20 nm range and the error bar shown is the standard deviation of the distribution, i.e. represents only the statistical uncertainty. It can be seen from the figure that there is a clear linear relationship between the S3 of the pump light in the sample and the S3 of the PL, which again provide… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [57]

    M. Lumb, E. Clarke, E. Harbord, P. Spencer, R. Murray, F. Masia, P. Borri, W. Langbein, C. Leburn, C. Jappy, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 041101 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3186081

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3186081 2009

  2. [1]

    Lindemann, G

    M. Lindemann, G. Xu, T. Pusch, R. Michalzik, M. R. Hofmann, I. Zutić, and N. C. Gerhardt, Ultrafast spin-lasers, Nature 568, 212 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Žutić, J

    I. Žutić, J. Fabian , and S. Das Sarma , Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [3]

    Hövel, N

    S. Hövel, N. Gerhardt, M. Hofmann, J. Yang, D. Reuter, and A. Wieck, Electron. Lett. 41, 251 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1049/el:20057675

    work page doi:10.1049/el:20057675 2005

  5. [4]

    Hövel, A

    S. Hövel, A. Bischoff, N. Gerhardt, M. Hofmann, T. Ackemann, A. Kroner, and R. Michalzik, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 041118 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2839381 10

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2839381 2008

  6. [5]

    Hövel, N

    S. Hövel, N. Gerhardt, M. Hofmann, F. -Y. Lo, A. Ludwig, D. Reuter, A. Wieck, E. Schuster, H. Wende, W. Keune, O. Petracic, and K. Westerholt, App l. Phys. Lett. 93, 021117 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2957469

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2957469 2008

  7. [6]

    Frougier, G

    J. Frougier, G. Baili, M. Alouini, I. Sagnes, H. Jaffrès, A. Garnache, C. Deranlot, D. Dolfi, and J.- M. George, Appl. Phys. Lett. 103, 252402 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4850676

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4850676 2013

  8. [7]

    Alharthi, J

    S. Alharthi, J. Orchard, E. Clarke, I. Henning, and M. Adams, Appl. Phys. Lett. 107, 151109 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4933334

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4933334 2015

Show all 60 references
  1. [8]

    Schires, R

    K. Schires, R. Al Seyab, A. Hurtado, V.-M. Korpijärvi, M. Guina, I. D. Henning, and M. J. Adams, Opt. Express 20, 3550 (2012)

    2012

  2. [9]

    Gerhardt, S

    N. Gerhardt, S. Hövel, M. Hofmann, J. Yang, D. Reuter, and A. Wieck, Electron. Lett. 42, 88 (2006)

    2006

  3. [10]

    Rudolph, S

    J. Rudolph, S. Döhrmann, D. Hägele, M. Oestreich, and W. Stolz, Appl. Phys. Lett. 87, 241117 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2146064

    2005 doi

  4. [11]

    J. Lee, S. Bearden, E. Wasner, and I. Žutic, Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 042411 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4892071

    2014 doi

  5. [12]

    Cemlyn, M

    B. Cemlyn, M. Adams, E. Harbord, N. Li, I. Henning, R. Oulton, V.-M. Korpijärvi, and M. Guina, Semicond. Sci. Tech. 33, 094005 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6641/aad42e

    2018 doi

  6. [13]

    M. J. Adams and D. Alexandropoulos, IEEE Photon. J. 4, 1124 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/JPHOT.2012.2204868

    2012

  7. [14]

    N. Li, D. Alexandropoulos, H. Susanto, I. Henning, and M. Adams, Electronics 5, 83 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    A. Gahl, S. Balle, and M. S. Miguel, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 35, 342 (1999)

    1999

  9. [16]

    Tselios, P

    C. Tselios, P. Georgiou, C. Politi, A. Hurtado, and D. Alexandropoulos, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 59, 1 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    Höpfner, M

    H. Höpfner, M. Lindemann, N. C. Gerhardt, and M. R. Hofmann, Appl. Phys. Lett. 104, 022409 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4862330

    2014 doi

  11. [18]

    Drong, J

    M. Drong, J. Perina Jr, T. Fördös, H. Y. Jaffrès, K. Postava, and H.-J. Drouhin, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033509 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.033509

    2023 doi

  12. [19]

    S. S. Alharthi, Results Phys. 42, 106007 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2022.106007

    2022

  13. [20]

    Yokota and H

    N. Yokota and H. Yasaka, Micromachines 12, 573 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    Jiang, S

    L. Jiang, S. -S. Deng, W. -J. Song, M. -L. Zou, X. -H. Jia, Y. -Q. Tang, M. -Y. Bao, and J. -T. Lv, Appl. Phys. B 130, 75 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00340-024-08217-w

    2024 doi

  15. [22]

    Mühlnickel, J

    L. Mühlnickel, J. A. Ja urigue, L. C. Jaurigue, and K. Lüdge, Commun. Phys. 7, 370 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-024-01858-5

    2024 doi

  16. [23]

    Y. Yang, Y. Huang, P. Zhou, and N. Li, Opt. Commun. 574, 131225 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optcom.2024.131225

    2025

  17. [24]

    N. C. Gerhardt and M. R. Hofmann, Adv. Opt. Technol. 2012, 268949 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/268949

    2012 doi

  18. [25]

    Bhattacharya, D

    P. Bhattacharya, D. Basu, A. Das, and D. Saha, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 26, 014002 (2011)

    2011

  19. [26]

    Huang, V

    Y. Huang, V. Polojärvi, S. Hiura, P. Höjer, A. Aho, R. Isoaho, T. Hakkarainen, M. Guina, S. Sato, J. Takayama, A. Murayama, I. A. Buyanova , and W. M. Chen, Nat. Photonics 15, 475 (2021)

    2021

  20. [27]

    H. Lu, Z. V. Vardeny, and M. C. Beard, Nat. Rev. Chem. 6, 470 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    P. A. Dainone, N. F. Prestes, P. Renucci, A. Bouché, M. Morassi, X. Devaux, M. Lindemann, J.- M. George, H. Jaffrès, A. Lemaitre , et al., Nature 627, 783 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024- 07125-5

    2024 doi

  22. [29]

    Yokota, R

    N. Yokota, R. Takeuchi, H. Yasaka, and K. Ikeda, IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 29, 711 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/LPT.2017.2681129

    2017

  23. [30]

    Holub, J

    M. Holub, J. Shin, D. Saha, and P. Bhattacharya, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 146603 (2007). 11

    2007

  24. [31]

    S. Iba, S. Koh, K. Ikeda, and H. Kawaguchi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 081113 (2011) . https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3554760

    2011 doi

  25. [32]

    Fujino, S

    H. Fujino, S. Koh, S. Iba, T. Fujimoto, and H. Kawaguchi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 131108 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3112576

    2009 doi

  26. [33]

    Tackeuchi, R

    A. Tackeuchi, R. Ohtsubo, K. Yamaguchi, M. Murayama, T. Kitamura, T. Kuroda, and T. Takagahara, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 3576 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1737068

    2004 doi

  27. [34]

    A. V. Khaet skii and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 61, 12639 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.12639

    2000 doi

  28. [35]

    Cortez, O

    S. Cortez, O. Krebs, S. Laurent, M. Senes, X. Marie, P. Voisin , R. Ferreira, G. Bastard, f. J. Gérard, and T. Amand, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 207401 (2002)

    2002

  29. [36]

    Harbord, P

    E. Harbord, P. Spencer, E. Clarke, and R. Murray, Phys. Rev. B 80, 195312 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.80.195312

    2009 doi

  30. [37]

    Marcinkevicius, J

    S. Marcinkevicius, J. Siegert, and Q. X. Zhao, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 054310 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2337776

    2006 doi

  31. [38]

    Gündogdu, K

    K. Gündogdu, K. Hall, T. F. Boggess, D. Deppe, an d O. Shchekin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 2793 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1695637

    2004 doi

  32. [39]

    Lombez, P

    L. Lombez, P. Renucci, P. Braun, H. Carrère, X. Marie, T. Amand, B. Urbaszek, J. Gauffier, P. Gallo, T. Camps, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 081111 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2709889

    2007 doi

  33. [40]

    Taylor, E

    M. Taylor, E. Harbord, P. Spencer, E. Clarke, G. Slavcheva, and R. Murray, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 171907 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3506507

    2010 doi

  34. [41]

    M. W. Taylor, P. Spencer, and R. Murray, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 122404 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4916370

    2015 doi

  35. [42]

    C. Li, G. Kioseoglou, A. Hanbicki, R. Goswami, C. Hellberg, B. Jonker, M. Yasar, and A. Petrou, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 262504 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2827585

    2007 doi

  36. [43]

    Kalevich, I

    V. Kalevich, I. Merkulov, A. Y. Shiryae v, K. Kavokin, M. Ikezawa, T. Okuno, P. Brunkov, A. Zhukov, V. Ustinov, and Y. Masumoto, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045325 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.045325

    2005 doi

  37. [44]

    Laurent, M

    S. Laurent, M. Senes, O. K rebs, V. Kalevich, B. Urbaszek, X. Marie, T. Amand, and P. Voisin, Phys. Rev. B 73, 235302 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.73.235302

    2006 doi

  38. [45]

    Paillard, X

    M. Paillard, X. Marie, P. Renucci, T. Amand, A. Jbeli, and J. Gérard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1634 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.1634

    2001 doi

  39. [46]

    Braun, X

    P.-F. Braun, X. Marie, L. Lombez, B. Urbaszek, T. Amand, P. Renucci, V. Kalevich, K. Kavokin, O. Krebs, P. Voisin, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 116601 (2005)

    2005

  40. [47]

    Kroutvar, Y

    M. Kroutvar, Y. Ducommun, D. Heiss, M. Bichler, D. Schuh, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Nature 432, 81 (2004)

    2004

  41. [48]

    D. Basu, D. Saha , C. Wu, M. Holub, Z. Mi, and P. Bhattacharya, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 091119 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2883953

    2008 doi

  42. [49]

    J. Robb, Y. Chen, A. Timmons, K. Hall, O. Shchekin, and D. Deppe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 153118 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2721380

    2007 doi

  43. [50]

    O. G. Okhotnikov, Semiconductor disk lasers: physics and technology. (Wiley -VCH Verlag GmbH and Co., Weinheim, 2010)

    2010

  44. [51]

    Frougier, G

    J. Frougier, G. Baili, I. Sagnes, D. Dolfi, J. -M. George, and M. Alouini, Opt. Express 23, 9573 (2015)

    2015

  45. [52]

    A. Joly, G. Baili, J.-M. George, I. Sagnes, D. Dolfi, and M. Alouini, Opt. Lett. 49, 3010 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1364/OL.522095

    2024 doi

  46. [53]

    Ustinov, N

    V. Ustinov, N. Maleev, A. Zhukov, A. Kovsh, A. Y. Egorov, A. Lunev, B. Volovik, I. Krestnikov, Y. G. Musikhin, N. Bert, et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 2815 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.124023 12

    1999 doi

  47. [54]

    Schaefer, E

    B. Schaefer, E. Collett, R. Smyth, D. Barrett, and B. Fraher, Am. J. Phys. 75, 163 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2386162

    2007 doi

  48. [55]

    Crowley, S

    M. Crowley, S. Heck, S. Healy, S. Osborne, D. Williams, S. Schulz, and E. O’Reilly, Semicond. Sci. Tech. 28, 015012 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1088/0268-1242/28/1/015012

    2012 doi

  49. [56]

    Beyer, I

    J. Beyer, I. A. Buyanova, S. Suraprapapich, C. Tu, and W. Chen, Appl . Phys. Lett. 98, 203110 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3592572

    2011 doi

  50. [58]

    Sharma, T

    T. Sharma, T. Hosea, S. Sweeney, and X. Tang, J. Appl. Phys. 104, 083109 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3005903

    2008 doi

  51. [59]

    Li and M

    T. Li and M. Dagenais, Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 23, 997 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.2515

    2015 doi

  52. [60]

    Supplementary Material

Pith tools

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