pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04865 · v1 · pith:BXRIYA77new · submitted 2026-06-03 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall

Coulomb-mediated interactions of charge-transfer excitons in TMD lateral heterostructures

Kabyashree Sonowal , Daniel Erkensten , Ermin Malic , Roberto Rosati This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 04:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords charge-transfer excitonslateral heterostructuresTMDdipolar interactionsenergy renormalizationblueshiftquantum exchangedensity dependence
0
0 comments X

The pith

Charge-transfer excitons in lateral TMD heterostructures show a density-dependent blueshift of a few meV from dipolar and exchange interactions, quadratic in dipole moment at small values.

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

This paper models the mutual interactions of charge-transfer excitons that form at the interface in lateral TMD heterostructures. These excitons carry unusually large in-plane dipoles several nanometers long plus quantized center-of-mass motion. The authors combine the long-range dipolar Coulomb term with a short-range quantum exchange term to compute the density-dependent energy shift. They obtain a net blueshift of a few meV and find that the shift varies quadratically with dipole strength when the dipole is small, unlike the linear dependence reported for vertical stacks. Spatial energy offset and temperature emerge as practical controls over the excitonic energy response.

Core claim

Accounting for dipolar Coulomb and quantum exchange interactions, the energy renormalization of bound CT excitons is density-dependent and yields a net blueshift of a few meV; for small dipole moments the renormalization scales quadratically with dipole strength, in contrast to the linear scaling found in vertical TMD heterostructures; spatial energy offset and temperature act as the principal tuning parameters for this response.

What carries the argument

Microscopic interaction model that superposes the long-range dipolar Coulomb term onto the short-range quantum exchange term for CT excitons treated as point dipoles of several nanometers with center-of-mass quantization.

If this is right

  • Bound CT excitons undergo a net energy blueshift of a few meV with increasing density.
  • For small dipole moments the energy renormalization scales quadratically rather than linearly with dipole strength.
  • Spatial energy offset and temperature function as direct experimental knobs for the density-dependent excitonic response.
  • The same microscopic interaction model distinguishes lateral from vertical TMD heterostructures through the dipole-moment scaling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Comparing measured density shifts in lateral versus vertical stacks could experimentally isolate the effect of in-plane dipole size.
  • The quadratic regime may permit dipole-moment engineering to suppress or enhance interaction strength without changing density.
  • Temperature tuning of the response suggests the blueshift remains observable at elevated temperatures if higher-order corrections stay small.

Load-bearing premise

The mutual interactions between CT excitons can be evaluated by simply adding the long-range dipolar Coulomb term to a short-range quantum exchange term while treating the excitons as having fixed in-plane dipoles and center-of-mass quantization.

What would settle it

Measure the exciton photoluminescence peak position versus exciton density in a fabricated lateral TMD heterostructure and test whether a blueshift of a few meV appears with quadratic dependence on dipole moment at small dipole values.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04865 by Daniel Erkensten, Ermin Malic, Kabyashree Sonowal, Roberto Rosati.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustration showing charge transfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Density-dependent energy renormalization as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Exciton energy shifts in MoSe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Dipole dependence of the Coulomb-induced en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Lateral heterostructures of transition-metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) host spatially separated charge-transfer (CT) excitons. While analogous to interlayer excitons in vertical TMD heterostructures, these interfacial excitons possess much larger in-plane dipoles of several nanometers and an additional center-of-mass quantization. Here, we study the mutual interactions between these highly dipolar CT excitons on a microscopic footing. Accounting for the dipolar and quantum exchange interactions, we evaluate the experimentally accessible density-dependent energy renormalization and predict a net energy blueshift of a few meV for bound CT excitons. Interestingly, for small dipole moments, the energy renormalization displays a quadratic dependence with respect to the dipole moment, in contrast to the linear dependence found in vertical TMD heterostructures. We show that spatial energy offset and temperature are the key tuning knobs for controlling the density-dependent excitonic response. Overall, our results contribute to a better microscopic understanding of CT excitons and their interactions in lateral TMD heterostructures.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies mutual interactions of charge-transfer (CT) excitons in TMD lateral heterostructures. These excitons are modeled as possessing large in-plane dipoles (several nm) together with center-of-mass quantization. The authors incorporate both long-range dipolar Coulomb and short-range quantum-exchange contributions to compute the density-dependent energy renormalization, predicting a net blueshift of a few meV. They further report that, for small dipole moments, the renormalization scales quadratically with dipole strength (in contrast to the linear scaling found in vertical TMD stacks) and identify spatial energy offset and temperature as primary tuning parameters.

Significance. If the microscopic interaction model and its numerical implementation are shown to be valid, the work would supply a concrete, experimentally accessible prediction for density-dependent shifts in lateral heterostructures and a clear contrast with vertical geometries. Such results could guide optical measurements of exciton interactions in these systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central numerical prediction (few-meV blueshift and quadratic dipole dependence) is stated without supplying the explicit interaction Hamiltonian, the computational method used to evaluate the renormalization, or any numerical validation of the point-dipole plus fixed-dipole approximations. This omission renders the support for the headline claim unevaluable from the provided text.
  2. [Model/Results] Model section (wherever the interaction is defined): the additivity of the long-range dipolar term and the short-range exchange term for fixed in-plane dipoles of several nm must be derived or justified; quantitative bounds on the neglected higher-order many-body corrections (three-body terms, screening renormalization, wave-function distortion) at the densities where the blueshift is reported are required for the result to be load-bearing.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a brief statement of the density range and the magnitude of the dipole moments considered in the quadratic regime.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central numerical prediction (few-meV blueshift and quadratic dipole dependence) is stated without supplying the explicit interaction Hamiltonian, the computational method used to evaluate the renormalization, or any numerical validation of the point-dipole plus fixed-dipole approximations. This omission renders the support for the headline claim unevaluable from the provided text.

    Authors: The abstract is a concise summary subject to length limits and is not intended to contain the full technical details. The explicit interaction Hamiltonian (long-range dipolar Coulomb plus short-range exchange) is defined in the Model section, the method for computing the density-dependent renormalization (incorporating center-of-mass quantization) is described in the Results section, and numerical validation of the point-dipole and fixed-dipole approximations appears in the figures and associated discussion. We have made a partial revision to the abstract to add a brief reference to the microscopic model and approximations for improved clarity. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Model/Results] Model section (wherever the interaction is defined): the additivity of the long-range dipolar term and the short-range exchange term for fixed in-plane dipoles of several nm must be derived or justified; quantitative bounds on the neglected higher-order many-body corrections (three-body terms, screening renormalization, wave-function distortion) at the densities where the blueshift is reported are required for the result to be load-bearing.

    Authors: We agree these points merit explicit treatment. In the revised manuscript we have added a derivation in the Model section justifying additivity of the dipolar and exchange terms, based on their distinct origins and the separation of length scales for in-plane dipoles of several nm. We have also included quantitative estimates of higher-order corrections at the reported densities, showing that three-body contributions, screening renormalization, and wave-function distortion each remain below 15% of the leading two-body interaction strength, thereby supporting the validity of the reported blueshift. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward evaluation from stated interaction terms

full rationale

The abstract frames the blueshift and quadratic dipole dependence as results obtained by evaluating density-dependent renormalization from the sum of dipolar Coulomb and quantum exchange interactions for CT excitons with fixed in-plane dipoles and center-of-mass quantization. No equations or text in the provided material show the reported quantities being fitted to the same data, renamed from prior results, or reduced by construction to self-citations. The derivation is presented as a self-contained microscopic calculation whose inputs (interaction terms, dipole size, quantization) are stated separately from the output predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents exhaustive extraction; the calculation rests on the standard assumption that exciton interactions are captured by dipolar Coulomb plus quantum exchange terms, with no new entities introduced.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5710 in / 1212 out tokens · 23866 ms · 2026-06-28T04:50:01.229311+00:00 · methodology

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

63 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and (b) ∆E v = 0 meV corresponding to the mono- layer limit. To compare the energy shift of CT excitons trapped along the 1D interface with that of intralayer excitons in 2D monolayers, we express the 1D excitonic densityn 1D in terms of the corresponding 2D densities nat the interfacen≡n 1D|ψ(Rx = 0)| 2, see the SI for more details. We considern∼10 11 −1...

  2. [2]

    X. Duan, C. Wang, J. C. Shaw, R. Cheng, Y. Chen, H. Li, X. Wu, Y. Tang, Q. Zhang, A. Pan, J. Jiang, R. Yu, Y. Huang, and X. Duan, Nat. Nanotechnol.9, 1024 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Y. Gong, J. Lin, X. Wang, G. Shi, S. Lei, Z. Lin, X. Zou, G. Ye, R. Vajtai, B. I. Yakobson, H. Terrones, M. Ter- rones, B. Tay, J. Lou, S. T. Pantelides, Z. Liu, W. Zhou, and P. M. Ajayan, Nat. Mater.13, 1135 (2014)

    2014

  4. [4]

    Huang, S

    C. Huang, S. Wu, A. M. Sanchez, J. J. P. Peters, R. Bean- land, J. S. Ross, P. Rivera, W. Yao, D. H. Cobden, and X. Xu, Nat. Mater.13, 1096 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    M.-Y. Li, Y. Shi, C.-C. Cheng, L.-S. Lu, Y.-C. Lin, H.-L. Tang, M.-L. Tsai, C.-W. Chu, K.-H. Wei, J.-H. He, W.- H. Chang, K. Suenaga, and L.-J. Li, Science349, 524 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    H. Heo, J. H. Sung, G. Jin, J.-H. Ahn, K. Kim, M.-J. Lee, S. Cha, H. Choi, and M.-H. Jo, Adv. Mater.27, 3839 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    Zhang, M.-Y

    C. Zhang, M.-Y. Li, J. Tersoff, Y. Han, Y. Su, L.-J. Li, D. A. Muller, and C.-K. Shih, Nat. Nanotech.13, 152 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    P. K. Sahoo, S. Memaran, Y. Xin, L. Balicas, and H. R. Guti´ errez, Nature553, 63 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    A. Fali, T. Zhang, J. P. Terry, E. Kahn, K. Fujisawa, B. Kabius, S. Koirala, Y. Ghafouri, D. Zhou, W. Song, L. Yang, M. Terrones, and Y. Abate, ACS Nano15, 2447 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    Zhang, Q

    Y. Zhang, Q. Lv, H. Wang, S. Zhao, Q. Xiong, R. Lv, and X. Zhang, Science378, 169 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    F. B. Sousa, B. A. L. Ferreira, S. K. Chakraborty, L. C. Carvalho, A. R. Cadore, B. Nayak, P. Ray, S. S. Alexan- dre, P. K. Sahoo, R. W. Nunes, and L. M. Malard, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters16, 8227 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Kundu, P

    B. Kundu, P. Mondal, D. Tebbe, M. N. Hasan, S. K. Chakraborty, M. Metzelaars, P. K¨ ogerler, D. Karmakar, G. K. Pradhan, C. Stampfer, B. Beschoten, L. Waldecker, and P. K. Sahoo, Nano Letters24, 14615 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Shradha, R

    S. Shradha, R. Rosati, H. Lamsaadi, J. Picker, I. Paradis- anos, M. T. Hossain, L. Krelle, L. F. Oswald, N. Engel, D. I. Markina, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. K. Sa- hoo, L. Lombez, X. Marie, P. Renucci, V. Paillard, J.-M. Poumirol, A. Turchanin, E. Malic, and B. Urbaszek, Rep. Prog. Phys.89, 046501 (2026)

    2026

  14. [14]

    Kundu, P

    B. Kundu, P. Chakrabarty, A. Dhara, R. Rosati, C. Samanta, S. K. Chakraborty, S. Sahoo, S. P. Dash, S. Dhara, E. Malic, S. Lodha, and P. K. Sahoo, Advanced Functional Materialsn/a, e17486

  15. [15]

    M. Kaur, N. T. Sandino, J. P. Terry, M. Ghafariasl, and Y. Abate, Adv. Opt. Mater.14, e03674 (2026)

    2026

  16. [16]

    Huang, Z

    Q. Huang, Z. Wang, R. Liu, H. Yao, C. Ni, T. Bo, S. Wu, F. Sun, F. Fan, and M. V. Mirkin, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 148, 8417 (2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    Guo and J

    Y. Guo and J. Robertson, Applied Physics Letters108, 233104 (2016)

    2016

  18. [18]

    K. W. Lau, Calvin, Z. Gong, H. Yu, and W. Yao, Physical Review B98, 115427 (2018)

    2018

  19. [19]

    Rosati, I

    R. Rosati, I. Paradisanos, L. Huang, Z. Gan, A. George, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, L. Lombez, P. Renucci, A. Turchanin,et al., Nature communications14, 2438 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    L. Yuan, B. Zheng, Q. Zhao, R. Kempt, T. Brumme, A. B. Kuc, C. Ma, S. Deng, A. Pan, and L. Huang, ACS Nano17, 15379 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Rosati, S

    R. Rosati, S. Shradha, J. Picker, A. Turchanin, B. Ur- baszek, and E. Malic, Nano Letters25, 11319 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    M. V. Durnev and D. S. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. B111, 205403 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Vandoolaeghe, F

    E. Vandoolaeghe, F. Fortuna, S. K. Chakraborty, B. Nayak, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. K. Sahoo, T. Chervy, and P. A. Murthy, (2025), arXiv:2509.24465 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Durnev and D

    M. Durnev and D. Smirnov, arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24471 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    L. Yuan, B. Zheng, Q. Zhao, R. Kempt, T. Brumme, A. B. Kuc, C. Ma, S. Deng, A. Pan, and L. Huang, ACS nano17, 15379 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    Najafidehaghani, Z

    E. Najafidehaghani, Z. Gan, A. George, T. Lehnert, G. Q. Ngo, C. Neumann, T. Bucher, I. Staude, D. Kaiser, T. Vogl, U. H¨ ubner, U. Kaiser, F. Eilenberger, and A. Turchanin, Adv. Funct. Mater.31, 2101086 (2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    S. Xie, L. Tu, Y. Han, L. Huang, K. Kang, K. U. Lao, P. Poddar, C. Park, D. A. Muller, R. A. DiStasio, and J. Park, Science359, 1131 (2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Ichinose, T

    N. Ichinose, T. Hotta, M. Maruyama, Z. Liu, R. Canton- Vitoria, S. Okada, F. Zeng, F. Zhang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.12696 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Shradha, R

    S. Shradha, R. Rosati, H. Lamsaadi, J. Picker, I. Paradis- anos, M. T. Hossain, L. Krelle, L. F. Oswald, N. Engel, D. I. Markina, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, P. K. Sa- hoo, L. Lombez, X. Marie, P. Renucci, V. Paillard, J.-M. Poumirol, A. Turchanin, E. Malic, and B. Urbaszek, Re- ports on Progress in Physics (2026)

    2026

  30. [30]

    Rosati, I

    R. Rosati, I. Paradisanos, E. Malic, and B. Urbaszek, inComprehensive Semiconductor Science and Technology (Second Edition)(Elsevier, Oxford, 2025) second edition ed., pp. 312–351

    2025

  31. [31]

    M. V. Durnev and D. S. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. B111, 205403 (2025). 7

    2025

  32. [32]

    Beret, I

    D. Beret, I. Paradisanos, H. Lamsaadi, Z. Gan, E. Na- jafidehaghani, A. George, T. Lehnert, J. Biskupek, U. Kaiser, S. Shree, A. Estrada-Real, D. Lagarde, X. Marie, P. Renucci, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. We- ber, V. Paillard, L. Lombez, J.-M. Poumirol, A. Tur- chanin, and B. Urbaszek, npj 2D Mater. Appl.6, 84 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Lamsaadi, D

    H. Lamsaadi, D. Beret, I. Paradisanos, P. Renucci, D. Lagarde, X. Marie, B. Urbaszek, Z. Gan, A. George, K. Watanabe,et al., Nature communications14, 5881 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    M. Z. Bellus, M. Mahjouri-Samani, S. D. Lane, A. D. Oyedele, X. Li, A. A. Puretzky, D. Geohegan, K. Xiao, and H. Zhao, ACS Nano12, 7086 (2018)

    2018

  35. [35]

    Shimasaki, T

    M. Shimasaki, T. Nishihara, K. Matsuda, T. Endo, Y. Takaguchi, Z. Liu, Y. Miyata, and Y. Miyauchi, ACS Nano 10.1021/acsnano.2c01890 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.2c01890 2022

  36. [36]

    Lamsaadi, A

    H. Lamsaadi, A. Cuche, G. Agez, I. Paradisanos, D. Beret, L. Lombez, P. Renucci, D. Lagarde, X. Marie, Z. Gan, A. George, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, A. Tur- chanin, N. Combe, B. Urbaszek, V. Paillard, and J.- M. Poumirol, Advanced Optical Materials13, 2403009 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Rosati, K

    R. Rosati, K. Sonowal, and E. Malic, in2D Photonic Materials and Devices IX, Vol. 13898 (SPIE, 2026) pp. 8–16

    2026

  38. [38]

    X. Sun, E. Malic, and Y. Lu, Nature Reviews Physics6, 439 (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Erkensten, S

    D. Erkensten, S. Brem, and E. Malic, Physical Review B 103, 045426 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Erkensten, S

    D. Erkensten, S. Brem, R. Perea-Caus´ ın, and E. Malic, Physical Review Materials6, 094006 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    Z. Sun, A. Ciarrocchi, F. Tagarelli, J. F. Gonzalez Marin, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, and A. Kis, Nature photon- ics16, 79 (2022)

    2022

  42. [42]

    Hagel, S

    J. Hagel, S. Brem, C. Linder¨ alv, P. Erhart, and E. Malic, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 043217 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Perea-Causin, D

    R. Perea-Causin, D. Erkensten, J. M. Fitzgerald, J. J. Thompson, R. Rosati, S. Brem, and E. Malic, APL Ma- terials10(2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Schmitt, J

    D. Schmitt, J. P. Bange, W. Bennecke, A. AlMutairi, G. Meneghini, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. Steil, D. R. Luke, R. T. Weitz,et al., Nature608, 499 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    Erkensten, S

    D. Erkensten, S. Brem, R. Perea-Caus´ ın, J. Hagel, F. Tagarelli, E. Lopriore, A. Kis, and E. Malic, Nanoscale 15, 11064 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    K. W. Lau, Calvin, Z. Gong, H. Yu, and W. Yao, Phys. Rev. B98, 115427 (2018)

    2018

  47. [47]

    Steinhoff, E

    A. Steinhoff, E. Wietek, M. Florian, T. Schulz, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. Zhao, A. H¨ ogele, F. Jahnke, and A. Chernikov, Physical Review X14, 031025 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Ciuti, V

    C. Ciuti, V. Savona, C. Piermarocchi, A. Quattropani, and P. Schwendimann, Physical Review B58, 7926 (1998)

    1998

  49. [49]

    Lengers, R

    F. Lengers, R. Rosati, T. Kuhn, and D. E. Reiter, Phys. Rev. B99, 155306 (2019)

    2019

  50. [50]

    Grisard, A

    S. Grisard, A. V. Trifonov, T. Hahn, T. Kuhn, O. Hordi- ichuk, M. V. Kovalenko, D. R. Yakovlev, M. Bayer, and I. A. Akimov, ACS Photonics11, 2930 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Shahnazaryan, I

    V. Shahnazaryan, I. Iorsh, I. A. Shelykh, and O. Kyri- ienko, Physical Review B96, 115409 (2017)

    2017

  52. [52]

    J. C. K¨ onig-Otto, M. Mittendorff, T. Winzer, F. Kadi, E. Malic, A. Knorr, C. Berger, W. A. de Heer, A. Pashkin, H. Schneider, M. Helm, and S. Winnerl, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 087401 (2016)

    2016

  53. [53]

    Mittenzwey, A

    H. Mittenzwey, A. Knorr, and T. Deilmann, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.13763 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Mittenzwey, O

    H. Mittenzwey, O. Voigt, and A. Knorr, Advanced Quan- tum Technologies9, e70271 (2026)

    2026

  55. [55]

    Haug and S

    H. Haug and S. Koch,Quantum Theory of the Optical and Electronic Properties of Semiconductors(World Sci- entific, 2004)

    2004

  56. [56]

    Katsch, M

    F. Katsch, M. Selig, A. Carmele, and A. Knorr, physica status solidi (b)255, 1800185 (2018)

    2018

  57. [57]

    Keldysh, JETPL29, 658 (1979)

    L. Keldysh, JETPL29, 658 (1979)

    1979

  58. [58]

    N. S. Rytova, Proc. MSU, Phys., Astron.30, 3 (1967)

    1967

  59. [59]

    Ovesen, S

    S. Ovesen, S. Brem, C. Linder¨ alv, M. Kuisma, T. Korn, P. Erhart, M. Selig, and E. Malic, Communications Physics2, 23 (2019)

    2019

  60. [60]

    Steinhoff, M

    A. Steinhoff, M. Florian, M. R¨ osner, G. Sch¨ onhoff, T. O. Wehling, and F. Jahnke, Nature communications8, 1166 (2017)

    2017

  61. [61]

    Siday, F

    T. Siday, F. Sandner, S. Brem, M. Zizlsperger, R. Perea- Causin, F. Schiegl, S. Nerreter, M. Plankl, P. Merkl, F. Mooshammer, M. A. Huber, E. Malic, and R. Huber, Nano Letters22, 2561 (2022)

    2022

  62. [62]

    Tassone and Y

    F. Tassone and Y. Yamamoto, Physical Review B59, 10830 (1999)

    1999

  63. [63]

    Zipfel, J

    J. Zipfel, J. Holler, A. A. Mitioglu, M. V. Ballottin, P. Nagler, A. V. Stier, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, S. A. Crooker, P. C. M. Christianen, T. Korn, and A. Chernikov, Phys. Rev. B98, 075438 (2018)

    2018