Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 66 references

Spin dependent fluorescence mediated by anti-symmetric exchange in triplet exciton pairs

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Anti-symmetric exchange between triplet excitons explains the magnetic-field dependence of optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) in TIPS-ADT crystals.

desk verdict Interesting and plausible, but the specific claim that DMI is the coupling behind the ODMR anomaly is underdetermined; the same dynamic symmetry breaking invoked to justify the DMI would also generate an antisymmetric fine-structure term that the model leaves out. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07038 v1 pith:QETZHPCB submitted 2025-02-10 physics.chem-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.opticsquant-ph

Yan Sun , M. Monteverde , V. Derkach , T. Chaneliere , E. Aldridge , J. E. Anthony , A.D. Chepelianskii This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-phcond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.opticsquant-ph PACS 76.70.Hb71.35.-y
keywords Dzyaloshinskii-Moriyainteractiontripletexcitonpairsingletfissiontriplet-tripletannihilationopticallydetectedmagneticresonanceTIPS-ADTspindynamicsavoidedcrossing
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 the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI), an antisymmetric exchange coupling between two spins, controls spin-dependent fluorescence in crystals of the singlet-fission material TIPS-ADT. As a photogenerated triplet pair separates, its singlet-born population crosses triplet and quintet manifolds; a nonzero DMI turns those crossings into avoided crossings, opening non-radiative triplet-triplet annihilation channels that spin conservation would normally forbid. The authors show that this mechanism quantitatively reproduces the measured magnetic-field dependence of optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) amplitudes in TIPS-ADT. If correct, it means spin-orbit coupling of the DMI type must be included when modelling triplet pair separation, fission, and annihilation in organic semiconductors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the antisymmetric exchange term H_DM = F · (S_a × S_b) added to the triplet-pair Hamiltonian. Because it is antisymmetric under exchange of the two triplets, it couples the symmetric singlet/quintet manifolds to the antisymmetric triplet manifold, opening gaps at level crossings that are forbidden in the symmetric Hamiltonian. The paper combines this with a dissipative Schrödinger equation i∂t|ψ> = H(t)|ψ> − γ_T P_T |ψ>, where P_T projects onto the triplet manifold, to model the population flow during the time-dependent exchange decay J(t); the resulting Landau-Zener population transfer at the avoided crossings determines the final triplet sublevel populations P_0, P_±1 that set the ODMR amplitudes.

What would settle it

Measure the ODMR amplitude versus magnetic field in a TIPS-ADT crystal where dynamic inversion symmetry breaking is suppressed (for example, by attaching the two chromophores in a rigid covalent dimer with a center of inversion) or at a temperature where the two triplets are vibrationally equivalent; if the drop at B≈7D/9 and the vanishing at B=D persist, DMI is not the cause. Alternatively, a direct spectroscopic determination of the DMI splitting at the avoided crossing would settle the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anomalous magnetic-field behaviour of the ODMR signal in TIPS-ADT single crystals is caused by DMI-induced avoided crossings during geminate triplet pair separation. With the magnetic field aligned along the fine-structure axis, the single-triplet spin eigenstates do not change with field, so the ODMR amplitude is set by spin-population dynamics rather than eigenfunction mixing. The paper shows that the singlet pair state |S>_TT, populated by singlet fission, crosses the triplet manifold when B > 7D/9, and crosses it exactly at J=0 at B=D; with a finite DMI vector F in the pair Hamiltonian, these crossings become anticrossings and transfer population into the triplet manifold, where it is lost to non-radiative TTA. A numerical model including a dissipative term that projects onto the triplet manifold, averaged over dissociation rates and dipole orientations, reproduces the measured drop beginning at about 390 G, the vanishing at B≈500 G, and the partial recovery at higher fields, with a best-fit DMI amplitude of about 100 MHz.

Load-bearing premise

The argument requires that a nonzero DMI vector F exists between the two triplet excitons in TIPS-ADT, even though the crystal is centrosymmetric; the paper assumes dynamic inversion symmetry breaking because the two triplets occupy different vibrational or excited states during separation, but no independent evidence or measured value for F is given beyond the fit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DMI must be added to spin Hamiltonians for geminate triplet pairs in organic semiconductors whenever the pair can transiently break inversion symmetry during separation.
  • The magnetic-field dependence of ODMR amplitudes can be used as a quantitative probe of DMI strength in organic triplet-pair systems; here the best fit is F ≈ 100 MHz.
  • Spin-forbidden TTA channels are not always forbidden: antisymmetric exchange can activate them, changing fission and annihilation yields in field-dependent ways.
  • The weak σ± asymmetry observed in the experiment is naturally explained by the DMI-induced gap hierarchy at the three avoided crossings, without invoking hyperfine-induced asymmetry.
  • Materials with almost identical triplet sites (one molecule per unit cell) can still display DMI effects through dynamic symmetry breaking during pair separation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If DMI is the operative mechanism, then engineered breaking of inversion symmetry between the two triplet sites (e.g. in covalent dimers with asymmetric bridges) should shift the field B=7D/9 at which ODMR begins to drop, offering a design handle on fission/annihilation spin dynamics.
  • The model's dependence on dJ/dt implies that time-resolved measurements of triplet-pair dissociation (e.g. transient absorption with magnetic-field control) could directly test the predicted Landau-Zener transfer rates, a test the paper does not perform.
  • The same DMI-induced TTA channel may affect photon upconversion and singlet-fission solar cells by adding a field-tunable loss pathway; the paper's ODMR approach could be extended to other fission materials to search for it.
  • Because the DMI vector is assumed randomly oriented, the model predicts that aligning the magnetic field away from the fine-structure axis should change the avoided-crossing gaps and hence the ODMR field dependence; this is a testable extension the paper leaves open.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports ODMR measurements on TIPS-ADT crystals at 4 K with the magnetic field aligned along the fine-structure axis, showing that the σ± ODMR amplitudes drop as B approaches 7D/9, vanish at B = D, and partially recover for B > D without a strong σ± asymmetry. The authors propose that a Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) between the two triplet excitons opens avoided crossings with the triplet manifold during geminate pair separation, creating an additional non-radiative triplet-triplet annihilation channel. The spin dynamics are modelled with the Hamiltonian in Eqs. (1)–(2) and the dissipative Schrödinger equation in Eq. (3), and the numerical results are compared with the experiment in Fig. 4 using a DMI amplitude of 100 MHz.

Significance. If the DMI interpretation is correct, the paper identifies a previously unexplored role for anti-symmetric exchange in triplet-pair photophysics. The 7D/9 onset is a genuine parameter-free prediction in the sense that D is measured independently, and the preserved σ± symmetry is a useful negative test that excludes pure hyperfine mixing. The numerical model is transparent and the qualitative mechanism is physically plausible. However, the quantitative agreement in Fig. 4 is obtained with a fitted DMI amplitude and several assumed microscopic parameters, and the symmetry justification for the existence of DMI is thin. The central claim is therefore credible but not uniquely established by the presented data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2) and the following paragraph] The non-zero DMI vector F is the load-bearing premise of the paper, but its justification is a postulated dynamic inversion symmetry breaking with no independent support. In the centrosymmetric P-1 structure of TIPS-ADT a static DMI is symmetry-forbidden, and the statement that the two triplets occupy different vibrational or excited states during separation is not referenced or quantified. More importantly, the same dynamic asymmetry would generically make the zero-field-splitting tensors of the two triplets inequivalent, producing a term such as δ(S_z,a^2 − S_z,b^2) that is antisymmetric under exchange and couples the symmetric singlet/quintet manifolds to the antisymmetric triplet manifold. Equation (1) assumes identical D tensors for both triplets, so this competing term is excluded by construction. As a result, the simulated agreement in Fig. 4 may be absorbing a symmetry-breaking mechanism that is not DMI. I recommend adding an independent estimate of F (for example, from broadband ODMR or ab initio calculations) and a quantitative estimate of the associated D-tensor asymmetry, or explicitly reframing the claim as one possible antisymmetric-coupling mechanism rather than a unique identification of DMI.
  2. [Fig. 4 and the quantitative model section] The 7D/9 threshold is a parameter-free prediction, but the quantitative drop and partial recovery are reproduced only after choosing F = 100 MHz and assuming d = 1.4 nm, a hyperfine variance of 30 MHz, dJ/dt in the range 20–60 MHz/ns, |J(0)| = 10 GHz, and a normalization of the theoretical curves to unity at low field. These choices are not constrained by independent measurements, and no sensitivity analysis over F is reported. I therefore read the agreement in Fig. 4 as a fit rather than a prediction of the DMI amplitude. The paper would be strengthened by reporting a fit procedure with uncertainties, a scan over F, or a comparison with an independent DMI measurement, so that the reader can assess how sharply the data constrain the mechanism.
  3. [Eq. (3) and the TTA interpretation] The dissipative term −γ_T P_T assumes that any population transferred into the triplet manifold is immediately lost through non-radiative TTA, with no dependence on the spin state, the instantaneous exchange energy, or the magnetic field. This assumption is central to the interpretation that avoided crossings with the triplet manifold reduce the ODMR signal, but no independent kinetic or lifetime data are provided to justify it. Since the theoretical curves are normalized to unity at low field, the comparison in Fig. 4 tests only the relative shape of the population differences, not the absolute TTA yield. I recommend stating explicitly that γ_T is an effective parameter and, if possible, testing sensitivity to its value or measuring the TTA yield independently.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) assumes identical zero-field-splitting tensors for the two triplets; since the text later invokes a dynamic asymmetry between the triplets, this assumption should be stated explicitly at the point where it is made.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'the cross between the |S>_TT and |T>_TT branches' should read 'the crossing', and the state labels |T−1>_TT and |Q−2>_TT should be defined consistently with the main text.
  3. [Section 4] The sentence 'The population in P0 starts to drop at B >7D/9' should refer to the population P_0 of the |T0> state; P_0 should be defined before first use.
  4. [Experimental section] The experimental linewidths are quoted as approximately 45 MHz and 55 MHz and the hyperfine variance as 30 MHz, but no error bars, number of measured crystals, or averaging procedure are given for the ODMR data.
  5. [Units] The text states that B and D are used in the same units, but B is given in Gauss and D in GHz; a short conversion statement would help the reader.
  6. [General] The paper does not include a data availability statement or a statement about whether the simulation code will be made available; adding these would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central DMI mechanism is tested against independent experimental data; the only fitted parameter (F=100 MHz) is not presented as a prediction.

full rationale

No significant circularity found. The paper's load-bearing theoretical content is the derivation of the 7D/9 crossing threshold and the B=D vanishing from the triplet-pair Hamiltonian with an independently known D; these features are not tautological outputs of the model. The DMI magnitude F=100 MHz is explicitly an estimated/fitted value, not a parameter-free prediction, so the agreement between simulation and experiment does not reduce to an input by construction. The dynamic inversion-symmetry-breaking premise and the omission of a possible competing fine-structure asymmetry are physical-assumption and underdetermination concerns, not circular reasoning. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears in the argument.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on a fitted DMI amplitude and a speculative symmetry-breaking argument. The remaining parameters (hyperfine field, dipolar distance, exchange decay rate) are also assumed rather than measured, so the quantitative agreement is achieved with several adjustable inputs. The parameter-free prediction of the 7D/9 onset and the absence of sigma-plus/sigma-minus asymmetry are the main non-circular elements.

free parameters (5)
  • DMI amplitude F = 100 MHz
    Chosen to match the measured ODMR magnetic-field dependence (Fig. 4); no independent measurement of DMI is provided.
  • Dipole-dipole distance d = 1.4 nm
    Assumed second-neighbor molecular distance; affects the dipolar coupling at avoided crossings.
  • Hyperfine field variance = 30 MHz
    Gaussian random magnetic field amplitude, chosen comparable with the measured ODMR linewidth.
  • Exchange decay rate dJ/dt = 20-60 MHz/ns
    Assumed range for the dissociation rate, randomly distributed; controls Landau-Zener transfer.
  • Initial exchange energy |J(0)| = 10 GHz
    Chosen sufficiently far from level crossings so the initial state is the unperturbed singlet pair.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The triplet pair is described by the Hamiltonian H0 in Eq. (1) with fine structure, Zeeman, dipole-dipole, and exchange terms.
    Standard spin Hamiltonian for two coupled triplet excitons; the paper uses it without derivation.
  • domain assumption The geminate triplet pair is initialized in the singlet state |S>_TT with large antiferromagnetic exchange J(0).
    Singlet fission creates a spin-correlated pair; this is a standard initial condition.
  • domain assumption The exchange energy J(t) decreases monotonically to zero as the pair separates, and the spin evolution follows the adiabatic eigenstates except at avoided crossings.
    Landau-Zener dynamics for a time-dependent Hamiltonian; assumes no other spin relaxation during dissociation.
  • ad hoc to paper Population transfer into the triplet manifold results in fast non-radiative triplet-triplet annihilation, modeled by the dissipative term -gamma_T P_T in Eq. (3).
    The TTA loss rate and its completeness are not derived; the model treats any triplet-manifold population as lost.
  • ad hoc to paper A non-zero DMI exists between the two triplets because of dynamic inversion symmetry breaking during separation.
    The centrosymmetric crystal structure would forbid a static DMI; the paper postulates a temporary symmetry breaking without independent evidence.
invented entities (1)
  • Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction vector F in the triplet pair
    purpose: Couples the singlet and quintet manifolds to the triplet manifold, turning level crossings into avoided crossings and enabling TTA.
    The DMI amplitude is fitted to the ODMR data; no direct measurement or independent prediction is provided. Its existence rests on a postulated dynamic symmetry breaking.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin dependent fluorescence mediated by anti-symmetric exchange in triplet exciton pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QETZHPCB

@misc{pith2026250207038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin dependent fluorescence mediated by anti-symmetric exchange in triplet exciton pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QETZHPCB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07038}
}
read the original abstract

Singlet fission and triplet-triplet annihilation (TTA) are spin-dependent phenomena critical to optoelectronics. The dynamics of spin populations during geminate triplet pair separation are crucial for controlling fission and TTA rates. We show that the Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction (DMI) induces level crossings between spin manifolds, affecting spin populations and TTA rates in crystalline fission semiconductors. By investigating spin-dependent fluorescence in a triplet exciton pair with the magnetic field aligned along the fine structure tensor, we isolate the effect of DMI, as the triplet wavefunctions remain unaffected by the field. Our results reveal that DMI introduces additional TTA pathways that are forbidden by spin conservation, explaining the observed evolution of optically detected magnetic resonance signals with varying magnetic field. This study highlights the significant impact of DMI on the optical properties of triplet excitons, advancing our understanding of spin dynamics in these systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07038 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Optically detected magnetic resonance (ODMR) signal from a TIPS-ADT crystal was measured with the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The energy diagram of the lowest energy states of a triplet pair as a function of the exchange energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The energy diagram of the lowest energy states of a triplet pair as a function of the exchange energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A comparison is made between the ODMR magnetic field dependence for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. W. Tang and S. A. VanSlyke, Organic electroluminescent diodes, Applied physics letters 51, 913 (1987)

    work page 1987

  2. [2]

    J. H. Burroughes, D. D. Bradley, A. Brown, R. Marks, K. Mackay, R. H. Friend, P. L. Burns, and A. B. Holmes, Light- emitting diodes based on conjugated polymers, nature 347, 539 (1990)

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    R. H. Friend, R. Gymer, A. Holmes, J. Burroughes, R. Marks, C. Taliani, D. Bradley, D. D. Santos, J.-L. Bredas, M. L¨ ogdlund,et al. , Electroluminescence in conjugated polymers, Nature 397, 121 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Baldo, M

    M. Baldo, M. E. ThompSOn, and S. Forrest, High-efficiency fluorescent organic light-emitting devices using a phosphores- cent sensitizer, Nature 403, 750 (2000)

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    Uoyama, K

    H. Uoyama, K. Goushi, K. Shizu, H. Nomura, and C. Adachi, Highly efficient organic light-emitting diodes from delayed fluorescence, Nature 492, 234 (2012)

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Zhang, J

    Q. Zhang, J. Li, K. Shizu, S. Huang, S. Hirata, H. Miyazaki, and C. Adachi, Design of efficient thermally activated delayed fluorescence materials for pure blue organic light emitting diodes, Journal of the American Chemical Society 134, 14706 (2012)

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Matsushima, F

    T. Matsushima, F. Bencheikh, T. Komino, M. R. Leyden, A. S. Sandanayaka, C. Qin, and C. Adachi, High performance from extraordinarily thick organic light-emitting diodes, Nature 572, 502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    J. Song, H. Lee, E. G. Jeong, K. C. Choi, and S. Yoo, Organic light-emitting diodes: pushing toward the limits and beyond, Advanced Materials 32, 1907539 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    F. Li, A. J. Gillett, Q. Gu, J. Ding, Z. Chen, T. J. Hele, W. K. Myers, R. H. Friend, and E. W. Evans, Singlet and triplet to doublet energy transfer: improving organic light-emitting diodes with radicals, Nature Communications 13, 2744 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Schmidt and J

    J. Schmidt and J. Van der Waals, Optical detection of zero-field transitions in phosphorescent triplet states, Chemical Physics Letters 2, 640 (1968)

    1968

  3. [11]

    R. H. Clarke, Triplet state ODMR spectroscopy: techniques and applications to biophysical systems (John Wiley & Sons, 1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    Wrachtrup, C

    J. Wrachtrup, C. Von Borczyskowski, J. Bernard, M. Orrit, and R. Brown, Optical detection of magnetic resonance in a single molecule, Nature 363, 244 (1993)

    1993

  5. [13]

    K¨ ohler, J

    J. K¨ ohler, J. A. Disselhorst, M. Donckers, E. J. Groenen, J. Schmidt, and W. E. Moerner, Magnetic resonance of a single molecular spin, Nature 363, 242 (1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    J. Shinar, Optically detected magnetic resonance studies of luminescence-quenching processes in π-conjugated materials and organic light-emitting devices, Laser & Photonics Reviews 6, 767 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Oxborrow, J

    M. Oxborrow, J. D. Breeze, and N. M. Alford, Room-temperature solid-state maser, Nature 488, 353 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Bogatko, P

    S. Bogatko, P. D. Haynes, J. Sathian, J. Wade, J.-S. Kim, K.-J. Tan, J. Breeze, E. Salvadori, A. Horsfield, and M. Oxborrow, Molecular design of a room-temperature maser, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 120, 8251 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    A. Mena, S. K. Mann, A. Cowley-Semple, E. Bryan, S. Heutz, D. R. McCamey, M. Attwood, and S. L. Bayliss, Room- temperature optically detected coherent control of molecular spins, Physical review letters 133, 120801 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Mermer, G

    ¨O. Mermer, G. Veeraraghavan, T. Francis, Y. Sheng, D. Nguyen, M. Wohlgenannt, A. K¨ ohler, M. K. Al-Suti, and M. S. Khan, Large magnetoresistance in nonmagnetic π-conjugated semiconductor thin film devices, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 72, 205202 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Sheng, T

    Y. Sheng, T. Nguyen, G. Veeraraghavan, ¨O. Mermer, M. Wohlgenannt, S. Qiu, and U. Scherf, Hyperfine interaction and magnetoresistance in organic semiconductors, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 74, 045213 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    Bobbert, T

    P. Bobbert, T. Nguyen, F. Van Oost, v. B. Koopmans, and M. Wohlgenannt, Bipolaron mechanism for organic magne- toresistance, Physical review letters 99, 216801 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    J. Wang, A. Chepelianskii, F. Gao, and N. C. Greenham, Control of exciton spin statistics through spin polarization in organic optoelectronic devices, Nature communications 3, 1191 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    N. J. Harmon and M. E. Flatt´ e, Organic magnetoresistance from deep traps, Journal of Applied Physics 116 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Gobbi and E

    M. Gobbi and E. Orgiu, The rise of organic magnetoresistance: materials and challenges, Journal of Materials Chemistry C 5, 5572 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Wiltschko and R

    W. Wiltschko and R. Wiltschko, Magnetic orientation and magnetoreception in birds and other animals, Journal of com- parative physiology A 191, 675 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    C. T. Rodgers and P. J. Hore, Chemical magnetoreception in birds: the radical pair mechanism, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 353 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals, Nature 558, 50 (2018)

    H. Mouritsen, Long-distance navigation and magnetoreception in migratory animals, Nature 558, 50 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    M. C. Hanna and A. J. Nozik, Solar conversion efficiency of photovoltaic and photoelectrolysis cells with carrier multipli- cation absorbers, Journal of Applied Physics 100, 074510 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2356795

    2006 doi

  20. [28]

    M. J. Y. Tayebjee, A. A. Gray-Weale, and T. W. Schmidt, Thermodynamic limit of exciton fission solar cell efficiency, The 8 Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 3, 2749 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Ehrler, M

    B. Ehrler, M. W. B. Wilson, A. Rao, R. H. Friend, and N. C. Greenham, Singlet exciton fission-sensitized infrared quantum dot solar cells, Nano Letters 12, 1053 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    J. Lee, P. Jadhav, P. D. Reusswig, S. R. Yost, N. J. Thompson, D. N. Congreve, E. Hontz, T. Van Voorhis, and M. A. Baldo, Singlet exciton fission photovoltaics, Accounts of Chemical Research 46, 1300 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    D. N. Congreve, J. Lee, N. J. Thompson, E. Hontz, S. R. Yost, P. D. Reusswig, M. E. Bahlke, S. Reineke, T. V. Voorhis, and M. A. Baldo, External quantum efficiency above 100% in a singlet-exciton-fission–based organic photovoltaic cell, Science 340, 334 (2013), https://...

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Kunzmann, M

    A. Kunzmann, M. Gruber, R. Casillas, J. Zirzlmeier, M. Stanzel, W. Peukert, R. R. Tykwinski, and D. M. Guldi, Sin- glet fission for photovoltaics with 130 injection efficiency, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 57, 10742 (2018), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10...

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Einzinger, T

    M. Einzinger, T. Wu, J. F. Kompalla, H. L. Smith, C. F. Perkinson, L. Nienhaus, S. Wieghold, D. N. Congreve, A. Kahn, M. G. Bawendi, and M. A. Baldo, Sensitization of silicon by singlet exciton fission in tetracene, Nature 571, 90 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    D. Di, L. Yang, J. M. Richter, L. Meraldi, R. M. Altamimi, A. Y. Alyamani, D. Credgington, K. P. Musselman, J. L. MacManus-Driscoll, and R. H. Friend, Efficient triplet exciton fusion in molecularly doped polymer light-emitting diodes, Advanced Materials 29, 1605987 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Keivanidis, S

    P. Keivanidis, S. Baluschev, T. Miteva, G. Nelles, U. Scherf, A. Yasuda, and G. Wegner, Up-conversion pho- toluminescence in polyfluorene doped with metal(ii)–octaethyl porphyrins, Advanced Materials 15, 2095 (2003), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adma.200305717

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    T. N. Singh-Rachford and F. N. Castellano, Photon upconversion based on sensitized triplet–triplet annihilation, Coordi- nation Chemistry Reviews 254, 2560 (2010), 18th International Symposium on the Photochemistry and Photophysics of Coordination Compounds Sapporo, 2009

    2010

  29. [37]

    Y. Y. Cheng, T. Khoury, R. G. C. R. Clady, M. J. Y. T. Tayebjee, N. J. Ekins-Daukes, M. J. Crossley, and T. W. Schmidt, On the efficiency limit of triplet–triplet annihilation for photochemical upconversion, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 12, 66 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    A. K. Pandey, Highly efficient spin-conversion effect leading to energy up-converted electroluminescence in singlet fission photovoltaics, Scientific Reports 5, 7787 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    C. Gao, W. W. H. Wong, Z. Qin, S.-C. Lo, E. B. Namdas, H. Dong, and W. Hu, Application of triplet–triplet annihila- tion upconversion in organic optoelectronic devices: Advances and perspectives, Advanced Materials 33, 2100704 (2021), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10...

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    D. G. Bossanyi, Y. Sasaki, S. Wang, D. Chekulaev, N. Kimizuka, N. Yanai, and J. Clark, Spin statistics for triplet–triplet annihilation upconversion: Exchange coupling, intermolecular orientation, and reverse intersystem crossing, JACS Au 1, 2188 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    M. J. Y. Tayebjee, S. N. Sanders, E. Kumarasamy, L. M. Campos, M. Y. Sfeir, and D. R. McCamey, Quintet multiexciton dynamics in singlet fission, Nature Physics 13, 182 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    L. R. Weiss, S. L. Bayliss, F. Kraffert, K. J. Thorley, J. E. Anthony, R. Bittl, R. H. Friend, A. Rao, N. C. Greenham, and J. Behrends, Strongly exchange-coupled triplet pairs in an organic semiconductor, Nature Physics 13, 176 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    S. L. Bayliss, L. R. Weiss, A. Mitioglu, K. Galkowski, Z. Yang, K. Yunusova, A. Surrente, K. J. Thorley, J. Behrends, R. Bittl, et al., Site-selective measurement of coupled spin pairs in an organic semiconductor, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 5077 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    S. L. Bayliss, L. R. Weiss, A. Rao, R. H. Friend, A. D. Chepelianskii, and N. C. Greenham, Spin signatures of exchange- coupled triplet pairs formed by singlet fission, Physical Review B 94, 045204 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Wakasa, M

    M. Wakasa, M. Kaise, T. Yago, R. Katoh, Y. Wakikawa, and T. Ikoma, What can be learned from magnetic field effects on singlet fission: Role of exchange interaction in excited triplet pairs, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 119, 25840 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Chakraborty, K

    I. Chakraborty, K. J. Bodurtha, N. J. Heeder, M. P. Godfrin, A. Tripathi, R. H. Hurt, A. Shukla, and A. Bose, Massive electrical conductivity enhancement of multilayer graphene/polystyrene composites using a nonconductive filler, ACS applied materials & interfaces 6, 16472 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Huang, I

    Y. Huang, I. A. Buyanova, C. Phansa, M. E. Sandoval-Salinas, D. Casanova, W. K. Myers, N. C. Greenham, A. Rao, W. M. Chen, and Y. Puttisong, Competition between triplet pair formation and excimer-like recombination controls singlet fission yield, Cell Reports Physical Science ...

    2021

  40. [48]

    T. Yago, M. Tashiro, K. Hasegawa, M. Gohdo, S. Tsuchiya, T. Ikoma, and M. Wakasa, Triplet–triplet annihilation via the triplet channel in crystalline 9, 10-diphenylanthracene, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 13, 8768 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Yunusova, S

    K. Yunusova, S. Bayliss, T. Chaneli` ere, V. Derkach, J. Anthony, A. Chepelianskii, and L. Weiss, Spin fine structure reveals biexciton geometry in an organic semiconductor, Physical Review Letters 125, 097402 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Y. Sun, M. Monteverde, V. Derkach, J. Anthony, and A. Chepelianskii, Cascade of multiexciton states generated by singlet fission, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 15, 12098 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Y. Sun, L. Weiss, V. Derkach, J. Anthony, M. Monteverde, and A. Chepelianskii, Spin-dependent recombination mecha- nisms for quintet biexcitons generated through singlet fission, Physical Review B 108, 155405 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Kraffert, R

    F. Kraffert, R. Steyrleuthner, S. Albrecht, D. Neher, M. C. Scharber, R. Bittl, and J. Behrends, Charge separation in pcpdtbt: Pcbm blends from an epr perspective, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 118, 28482 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    D. E. Budil and M. C. Thurnauer, The chlorophyll triplet state as a probe of structure and function in photosynthesis, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Bioenergetics 1057, 1 (1991)

    1991

  46. [54]

    El-Sayed, M

    M. El-Sayed, M. Leung, and C. Lin, Pmdr spectroscopy and the geometry of the triplet state, Chemical Physics Letters 9 14, 329 (1972)

    1972

  47. [55]

    Singh, W

    S. Singh, W. J. Jones, W. Siebrand, B. P. Stoicheff, and W. G. Schneider, Laser generation of excitons and fluorescence in anthracene crystals, The Journal of Chemical Physics 42, 330 (1965), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1695695

    1965 doi

  48. [56]

    M. I. Collins, F. Campaioli, M. J. Tayebjee, J. H. Cole, and D. R. McCamey, Quintet formation, exchange fluctuations, and the role of stochastic resonance in singlet fission, Communications Physics 6, 64 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, Journal of physics and chem- istry of solids 4, 241 (1958)

    I. Dzyaloshinsky, A thermodynamic theory of “weak” ferromagnetism of antiferromagnetics, Journal of physics and chem- istry of solids 4, 241 (1958)

    1958

  50. [58]

    Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Physical review 120, 91 (1960)

    T. Moriya, Anisotropic superexchange interaction and weak ferromagnetism, Physical review 120, 91 (1960)

    1960

  51. [59]

    J. C. Dean, R. Zhang, R. K. Hallani, R. D. Pensack, S. N. Sanders, D. G. Oblinsky, S. R. Parkin, L. M. Campos, J. E. Anthony, and G. D. Scholes, Photophysical characterization and time-resolved spectroscopy of a anthradithiophene dimer: exploring the role of conformation in si...

    2017

  52. [60]

    Sundaram, R

    P. Sundaram, R. B. Spencer, A. Tiwari, S. J. Whittaker, T. Mandal, Y. Yang, E. K. Holland, C. J. Kingsbury, M. Klopfen- stein, J. E. Anthony, et al. , Polymer-assisted polymorph transition in melt-processed molecular semiconductor crystals, Chemistry of Materials (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, Quantum technologies with optically interfaced solid-state spins, Nature Photonics 12, 516 (2018)

    2018

  54. [62]

    J. F. Barry, J. M. Schloss, E. Bauch, M. J. Turner, C. A. Hart, L. M. Pham, and R. L. Walsworth, Sensitivity optimization for nv-diamond magnetometry, Reviews of Modern Physics 92, 015004 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    M. K. Bhaskar, R. Riedinger, B. Machielse, D. S. Levonian, C. T. Nguyen, E. N. Knall, H. Park, D. Englund, M. Lonˇ car, D. D. Sukachev, et al., Experimental demonstration of memory-enhanced quantum communication, Nature 580, 60 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Rohart and A

    S. Rohart and A. Thiaville, Skyrmion confinement in ultrathin film nanostructures in the presence of dzyaloshinskii-moriya interaction, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 88, 184422 (2013)

    2013

  57. [65]

    H. Yang, J. Liang, and Q. Cui, First-principles calculations for dzyaloshinskii–moriya interaction, Nature Reviews Physics 5, 43 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Laplane, E

    C. Laplane, E. Zambrini Cruzeiro, F. Fr¨ owis, P. Goldner, and M. Afzelius, High-precision measurement of the dzyaloshinsky- moriya interaction between two rare-earth ions in a solid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 037203 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.