Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

The role of dark polariton states for electronic strong coupling in molecules

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that higher excitation manifolds of the Tavis-Cummings model make polaritonic reactions entropically favorable: dark polariton states outnumber dark states by c/(1−c), overturning the single-excitation 1/N suppression.

desk verdict A correct combinatorial observation about dark polariton counts, but the step from state counting to reaction favorability is an assumption the dynamics don't yet back. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20798 v1 pith:RV3X4ZJT submitted 2025-04-29 quant-ph physics.chem-ph

Lucas Borges , Thomas Schnappinger , Markus Kowalewski This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.chem-ph
keywords polaritonicchemistrydarkpolaritonstatesTavis-Cummingsmodelhigherexcitationmanifoldsentropicsuppressionstronglight-mattercoupling1/NproblemLindbladdynamics
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

The paper studies what happens to polaritonic reactions when the molecular ensemble is allowed to carry more than one excitation at a time. In the single-excitation Tavis-Cummings picture, two polariton states face N−1 dark states, so reactions are entropically suppressed in what is often called the 1/N problem. The authors show that in higher excitation manifolds a second family of hybrid states—dark polaritons, formed by exciting dark states—supplies a large number of nearly degenerate reactive states. Counting these states gives an entropic ratio that grows as c/(1−c), where c is the relative excitation number, so the suppression weakens as excitation number increases. They conclude that dark polaritons, not multi polaritons, are what allow polaritonic reactions to proceed, while noting that their analysis uses small ensembles without energetic disorder or nuclear degrees of freedom.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian with conserved total excitation number Nx and cooperation number S, which decomposes eigenstates into dark states, multi polaritons (S = N/2), and dark polaritons (S < N/2 with nonzero photon character). The load-bearing identity is Eq. (9): N_DP/N_D ≈ c/(1−c), obtained by counting degenerate eigenstates through a binomial-coefficient argument. This ratio converts state counting into an entropic statement about reaction-channel availability and is what overturns the single-excitation intuition. The model is extended by a third optically dark molecular state |t⟩ coupled to |e⟩, representing photochemical processes such as singlet fission or triplet-triplet annihilation, with dissipative channels provided by cavity decay and spontaneous emission.

What would settle it

A direct test is a Lindblad simulation in which the degenerate dark-polariton groups are artificially removed from the density of states, for example by projecting the dynamics onto S = N/2 only, and the reaction yield from a mixed Nx = 3 initial state is recomputed: if the yield does not drop, the entropic advantage attributed to dark polaritons is not load-bearing. An experimental counterpart would be to measure reaction yield as a function of the excitation fraction c and check for the predicted c/(1−c) enhancement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For N two-level molecules in a cavity with Nx excitations, the dark-polariton manifold generated from dark states with Nx−1 excitations outnumbers dark states by approximately N_DP/N_D ≈ c/(1−c), with c = Nx/N. This ratio is the statistical weight that decides whether polariton states can react before being trapped in dark states. Hence, while multi polaritons (S = N/2) are nondegenerate and suffer from the 1/N problem, dark polaritons (S < N/2) provide the combinatorial abundance that makes higher-excitation manifolds entropically favorable. The effective collective coupling of these dark polariton groups scales as sqrt(2S), so for small c the Rabi splitting remains close to the maximum while the number of available reactive states grows. The paper supports this picture with Lindblad master-equation dynamics of two-level and three-level molecular ensembles, showing that cavity decay can accelerate the decay of excited manifolds provided some fraction of the sample is excited.

Load-bearing premise

The argument treats the count of dark-polariton eigenstates as the statistical weight for reaction channels, assuming those states are dynamically as accessible as the polariton states for driving a reaction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At small excitation fractions, the ratio c/(1−c) already makes bright states abundant: for c = 0.01 the dark-polariton to dark-state ratio is roughly 1:100, while the Rabi splitting remains about 99% of its maximum, so reactions can benefit from collective coupling without fully exciting the sample.
  • The effective Rabi splitting for dark-polariton groups scales with sqrt(2S) and is nearly independent of Nx, so the entropic gain at higher excitation numbers does not require sacrificing the collective coupling strength.
  • In the three-level model, population transfer from a dark state |t⟩ proceeds through the lower polariton branch, and the cavity accelerates the decay compared with the cavity-free case even when a large fraction of the population is trapped in dark states.
  • Dark states disappear for manifolds with Nx > N/2 + 1, but dark polaritons remain available and continue to dominate the density of states in higher manifolds.
  • Transitions between excitation manifolds are constrained by ΔNx = ±1 and ΔS = 0, so the entropic advantage of dark polaritons is tied to the specific cascade of states that dissipative dynamics can reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the entropic counting is right, rate theories built on the first excitation manifold are not just quantitatively off but miss the dominant reaction channel; a testable extension would be to insert the ratio c/(1−c) as a pre-factor in a rate expression and compare it with exact dissipative dynamics.
  • The argument suggests a statistical-mechanics picture in which only a fraction c of the ensemble participates in the collective reactive state while the rest acts as a reservoir, potentially connecting the density-of-states ratio to an effective temperature or chemical potential of excitations—something the paper does not develop.
  • The same Tavis-Cummings counting argument could be carried over to vibrational strong coupling, where the molecular modes are bosonic rather than spin-like; the degeneracy structure will differ, and checking whether a similar c/(1−c) enhancement survives would test the generality of the mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the higher excitation manifolds of the Tavis-Cummings model and an extended three-level molecular model to argue that dark polariton states provide a large density of states that makes polaritonic reactions entropically more favorable when more than one excitation is present. The authors derive a combinatorial estimate for the ratio of dark polaritons to dark states (Eq. 9, N_DP/N_D ≈ c/(1−c) for relative excitation number c), present eigenvalue diagrams for N = 8, and show Lindblad master-equation dynamics for pure and mixed initial states in two- and three-level systems. The central claim is that the dark-polariton manifold overcomes the '1/N problem' in polaritonic chemistry.

Significance. If the entropic argument is correct, the result would offer a concrete mechanism by which polaritonic chemistry could escape the severe suppression coming from the single-excitation dark-state count, with direct relevance to experiments involving many excited molecules (e.g., triplet–triplet annihilation). The derivation leading to Eq. (9) is parameter-free, transparent, and internally consistent, and the eigenvalue decomposition in Figs. 2–3 clearly illustrates the dark-polariton structure. The main weakness is that the paper equates an eigenstate-counting ratio with a reaction-favorability statement without a quantitative yield or rate calculation; the provided dynamics show large dark-state trapping and do not establish the asserted efficiency increase. The claim is plausible but incomplete as presented.

major comments (3)
  1. [Main text, Fig. 5(b) and following discussion] The mixed three-level initial state, described as the case closest to incoherent experimental preparation, leaves about 98% of the population in dark states after 1 ps with no significant ground-state population. This does not demonstrate that the large dark-polariton state count translates into enhanced reactivity. The text states that 'the overall efficiency increases strongly for Nx > 1 compared to Nx = 1 (see the supplemental material)', but no Nx = 1 trace appears in the main text, and the provided SI contains no such baseline—only no-cavity and varying-cet plots. Please provide a direct, same-parameter comparison of ground-state yield or integrated decay rate for Nx = 1 versus Nx = 3 (and, ideally, Nx = 2), or explicitly restrict the central claim to a statement about the density of states rather than reaction efficiency.
  2. [Eq. (9) and its interpretation] Eq. (9) counts eigenstates within a fixed excitation manifold, but a dissipative reaction rate is governed by transition amplitudes and the ΔS = 0 selection rule, not by state multiplicity alone. For dark polaritons the collective coupling scales with sqrt(2S), and the dynamics show they decay preferentially into dark states of the same S. Without a rate or yield calculation connecting the combinatorial ratio to an observable, the identification of N_DP/N_D with an 'entropic advantage' is an assumption. Please quantify the fraction of the initial mixed-state population that reaches the ground state via the dark-polariton channels and show that it exceeds the Nx = 1 baseline, or provide a separate rate-theory argument for why the state count controls the reaction yield.
  3. [SI S2 and Sec. 'Generalization to large N'] All dynamics are for N = 8 with Nx = 3, and the Hamiltonian is truncated at the third excitation manifold (SI S2). The central generalization to large N (Eq. 9 and the discussion of c = 0.01) is asymptotic and cannot be checked by the simulations. Please add a finite-size scaling study over N (e.g., N = 4, 6, 8, 12) for at least one observable such as the ground-state population at 1 ps or the effective decay rate, to substantiate the claim that the combinatorial advantage is robust and not an artifact of the small N = 8 system.
minor comments (5)
  1. [SI S1, text above Eq. (S5)] Typo: 'homogeouns' should be 'homogeneous'.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption contains 'mixed stats' in '(b) an initial state that represents a mixed stats'; it should read 'mixed state'.
  3. [SI S3, paragraph before Fig. S8] The sentence 'All other parameters are identical to Fig. .' has a missing figure number; it should refer to the main-text figure or a specific SI figure.
  4. [Eq. (S6)] The notation 'Nx,TC/2−S' is ambiguous; parentheses clarifying the intended grouping would improve readability.
  5. [References] References [11] and [51] are incomplete: [11] has no title or journal, and [51] shows only journal and page; please complete the bibliographic entries.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the central state-counting ratio is derived from the Hamiltonian's eigenstate structure, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim rests on Eq. (9), N_DP/N_D ≈ c/(1−c), which is not an input or a fitted parameter but is derived in the Supplemental Material from elementary linear algebra: dark states are obtained as the null space of the collective-coupling condition β_j = 0, with the count M − M' equal to the binomial difference in Eq. (S5), and the large-N ratio follows in Eq. (S7). This is a parameter-free combinatorial consequence of the Tavis–Cummings eigenstate structure, not a restatement of an assumed conclusion. The open-system dynamics in Figs. 4–5 use explicitly stated parameters (κ = 0.02 fs⁻¹, Γ = 0.001 fs⁻¹, √N g_c = 0.5 eV, c_et = 0.05 eV) and do not feed back into Eq. (9); no fitted value is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations appear only for simulation tooling and prior extensions of TC models (Refs. [42]–[45], [68]) and are not load-bearing for the counting claim. One supporting-completeness concern should be noted but it is not circularity: the statement that 'the overall efficiency increases strongly for Nx > 1 compared to Nx = 1 (see the supplemental material [59])' is not backed by an Nx = 1 trace in the provided SI, since the SI shows only no-cavity and varying-c_et dynamics. That is a missing-baseline/correctness issue, not a reduction of the derivation to its own inputs. The derivation is self-contained against its stated assumptions, so the circularity burden is not met.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. Dark polaritons and multi polaritons are established states in the TC model. All parameters are chosen for illustration rather than fitted to experiments.

free parameters (9)
  • sqrt(N) * g_c (collective coupling) = 0.5 eV
    Sets collective strong coupling and brings the lower polariton near the |t> state; chosen ad hoc, not derived from a specific molecule.
  • omega_c (cavity frequency) = 4.3 eV
    Set equal to omega_eg for resonance; arbitrary reference scale.
  • omega_eg (molecular excitation energy) = 4.3 eV
    Reference energy for the two-level and three-level models; illustrative.
  • omega_et (|e>-|t> detuning) = 0.4 eV
    Places |t> near the lower polariton branch; chosen to enable e-t transfer.
  • c_et (|e>-|t> coupling) = 0.05 eV
    Non-adiabatic or internal-conversion coupling; perturbative regime, gives an 83 fs transfer timescale.
  • kappa (cavity decay rate) = 0.02 fs^-1
    Fast decay modeling a Fabry-Perot cavity with Q about 100; illustrative.
  • Gamma (spontaneous decay rate) = 0.001 fs^-1
    Slow molecular emission; illustrative.
  • N (number of molecules) = 8
    Size chosen for exact diagonalization; large-N scaling relies on asymptotic formulas.
  • N_x (initial excitation number) = 3
    Demonstrates the higher excitation manifold with Nx/N = 0.375; no experimental preparation mechanism is specified.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Rotating wave approximation in the TC Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) is valid for the strong-coupling parameters used.
    Neglects counter-rotating terms; standard for near-resonant cavity QED.
  • standard math The number of dark states equals C(N,Nx) - C(N,Nx-1) because the constraint system beta_j=0 has full rank.
    Relies on linear algebra of homogeneous systems (refs [60,61]); the rank is not explicitly proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption The phenomenological Lindblad master equation (Eq. 8) with collapse operators a and sigma_i^- adequately describes dissipation.
    Standard for strong coupling; cited to refs [57,58].
  • domain assumption The three-level |g>, |e>, |t> model with optically dark |t> and no direct decay represents photochemical reactions such as singlet fission or triplet-triplet annihilation.
    The paper states this is a model system; no ab initio molecular parameters are used.
  • domain assumption The initial state can be prepared with three excitations in |e> or |t>.
    Needed for all dynamics; the paper does not describe an experimental preparation scheme.
  • standard math Large-N asymptotic formulas (Eq. S7) are accurate in the limit Nx << N and S << N/2.
    Uses factorial asymptotics; extrapolation from N=8 to large N is not numerically checked.
  • standard math The cooperation number S is conserved in the absence of dissipation and classifies the eigenstates.
    Follows from angular momentum algebra of the Dicke and Tavis-Cummings model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The role of dark polariton states for electronic strong coupling in molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RV3X4ZJT

@misc{pith2026250420798,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The role of dark polariton states for electronic strong coupling in molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RV3X4ZJT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20798}
}
read the original abstract

Polaritonic chemistry investigates the possible modification of chemical and photochemical reactions by means of strong light-matter coupling in optical cavities, as demonstrated in numerous experiments over the last few years. These experiments are typically interpreted in terms of the Jaynes-Cummings or Tavis-Cummings models under the assumption that the molecular ensemble is only excited by a single photon. In such a model, two polariton states compete with an overwhelming number of dark states, inhibiting polaritonic reactions entropically. We analyze the higher excitation manifolds of the Tavis-Cummings model along with a three-level system that resembles photochemical reactions. We demonstrate that allowing for more than a single excitation makes the reaction of the involved polaritons entropically more favorable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20798 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Three-level system scheme. Left panel: bare levels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Energy diagrams for the eigenvalues ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Energy diagrams for the eigenvalues ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) shows the time evolution of 8 two-level molecules, starting in a pure state with Tr ρ 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Dynamics of a three-level system with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. G. Baranov, M. Wers¨ all, J. Cuadra, T. J. Antosiewicz, and T. Shegai, ACS Photonics 5, 24 (2018)

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Herrera and J

    F. Herrera and J. Owrutsky, J. Chem. Phys. 152, 100902 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    D. N. Basov, A. Asenjo-Garcia, P. James Schuck, X. Zhu, and A. Rubio, Nanophotonics 10, 549 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    F. J. Garcia-Vidal, C. Ciuti, and T. W. Ebbesen, Science 373, eabd0336 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    S´ anchez-Barquilla, A

    M. S´ anchez-Barquilla, A. I. Fer´ andez-Dom´ ınguez, J. Feist, and F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, ACS Photonics9, 1830 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    T. E. Li, B. Cui, J. E. Subotnik, and A. Nitzan, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 73, 43 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Ruggenthaler, N

    M. Ruggenthaler, N. Tancogne-Dejean, J. Flick, H. Ap- pel, and A. Rubio, Nature Reviews Chemistry 2, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Fregoni, F

    J. Fregoni, F. J. Garcia-Vidal, and J. Feist, ACS Pho- tonics 9, 1096 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. Dunkelberger, B. S. Simpkins, I. Vurgaftman, and J. C. Owrutsky, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 73, 429 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Mandal, M

    A. Mandal, M. A. D. Taylor, B. M. Weight, E. R. Koessler, X. Li, and P. Huo, Chem. Rev. 123, 9786 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Bhuyan and J

    R. Bhuyan and J. Mony,

  4. [12]

    Hirai, J

    K. Hirai, J. A. Hutchison, and H. Uji-I, Chem. Rev. 123, 8099 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    B. Gu, Y. Gu, V. Y. Chernyak, and S. Mukamel, Acc. Chem. Res. 56, 2753 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Xiang and W

    B. Xiang and W. Xiong, Chem. Rev. (2024), 10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00662

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Orgiu, J

    E. Orgiu, J. George, J. A. Hutchison, E. Devaux, J. F. Dayen, B. Doudin, F. Stellacci, C. Genet, J. Schachen- mayer, C. Genes, G. Pupillo, P. Samor` ı, and T. W. Ebbe- sen, Nat. Mater. 14, 1123 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Eizner, L

    E. Eizner, L. A. Mart´ ınez-Mart´ ınez, J. Yuen-Zhou, and S. K´ ena-Cohen, Science Advances5, eaax4482 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Polak, R

    D. Polak, R. Jayaprakash, T. P. Lyons, L. A. Mart´ ınez- Mart´ ınez, A. Leventis, K. J. Fallon, H. Coulthard, D. G. Bossanyi, K. Georgiou, A. J. Petty, Ii, J. Anthony, H. Bronstein, J. Yuen-Zhou, A. I. Tartakovskii, J. Clark, and A. J. Musser, Chem. Sci. 11, 343 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Sokolovskii, R

    I. Sokolovskii, R. H. Tichauer, D. Morozov, J. Feist, and G. Groenhof, Nat. Commun. 14, 6613 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Balasubrahmaniyam, A

    M. Balasubrahmaniyam, A. Simkhovich, A. Golombek, G. Sandik, G. Ankonina, and T. Schwartz, Nat. Mater. 22, 338 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    Wallner, C

    L. Wallner, C. Remnant, and O. Vendrell, J. Phys. Chem. A (2024), 10.1021/acs.jpca.4c04207

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    Koessler, A

    E. Koessler, A. Mandal, A. Musser, T. Krauss, and P. Huo, ChemRxiv (2025), 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025- s1r54

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Esteso, L

    V. Esteso, L. Cali´ o, H. Espin´ os, G. Lavarda, T. Torres, J. Feist, F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, G. Bottari, and H. M´ ıguez, Sol. RRL 5, 2100308 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    F. Wu, D. Finkelstein-Shapiro, M. Wang, I. Rosenkampff, A. Yartsev, T. Pascher, T. C. Nguyen-Phan, R. Cogdell, K. B¨ orjesson, and T. Pullerits, Nat. Commun. 13, 6864 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    D. M. Coles, N. Somaschi, P. Michetti, C. Clark, P. G. Lagoudakis, P. G. Savvidis, and D. G. Lidzey, Nat. Mater. 13, 712 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    Zhong, T

    X. Zhong, T. Chervy, S. Wang, J. George, A. Thomas, J. A. Hutchison, E. Devaux, C. Genet, and T. W. Ebbe- sen, Angew. Chem. Weinheim Bergstr. Ger. 128, 6310 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Zhang, Y

    B. Zhang, Y. Gu, V. M. Freixas, S. Sun, S. Tretiak, J. Jiang, and S. Mukamel, J. Am. Chem. Soc. (2024), 10.1021/jacs.4c06727

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Fukushima, S

    T. Fukushima, S. Yoshimitsu, and K. Murakoshi, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 144, 12177 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Thomas, L

    A. Thomas, L. Lethuillier-Karl, K. Nagarajan, R. M. A. Vergauwe, J. George, T. Chervy, A. Shalabney, E. De- vaux, C. Genet, J. Moran, and T. W. Ebbesen, Science 363, 615 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    W. Ahn, J. F. Triana, F. Recabal, F. Herrera, and B. S. Simpkins, Science 380, 1165 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev. 51, 652 (1937)

    1937

  23. [31]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  24. [32]

    E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  25. [33]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Lett. A 25, 714 (1967)

    1967

  26. [34]

    Ruggenthaler, J

    M. Ruggenthaler, J. Flick, C. Pellegrini, H. Appel, I. V. Tokatly, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. A 90, 012508 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    T. S. Haugland, E. Ronca, E. F. Kjønstad, A. Rubio, and H. Koch, Phys. Rev. X 10, 041043 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    R. H. Tichauer, J. Feist, and G. Groenhof, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 104112 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    J. A. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, R. F. Ribeiro, and J. Yuen-Zhou, New Journal of Physics23, 063081 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Cui and A

    B. Cui and A. Nizan, J. Chem. Phys. 157, 114108 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Zhou, H.-T

    Z. Zhou, H.-T. Chen, J. E. Subotnik, and A. Nitzan, Phys. Rev. A (Coll. Park.) 108, 023708 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    J. B. P´ erez-S´ anchez, A. Koner, N. P. Stern, and J. Yuen- Zhou, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 120, e2219223120 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Groenhof, C

    G. Groenhof, C. Climent, J. Feist, D. Morozov, and J. J. Toppari, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 10, 5476 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Davidsson and M

    E. Davidsson and M. Kowalewski, J. Phys. Chem. A124, 4672 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Davidsson and M

    E. Davidsson and M. Kowalewski, J. Chem. Phys. 159, 044306 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Gudem and M

    M. Gudem and M. Kowalewski, J. Phys. Chem. A 125, 1142 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Borges, T

    L. Borges, T. Schnappinger, and M. Kowalewski, J. Chem. Phys. 161 (2024), 10.1063/5.0214362

    2024 doi

  38. [46]

    I. S. Ulusoy and O. Vendrell, J. Chem. Phys. 153, 044108 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Antoniou, F

    P. Antoniou, F. Suchanek, J. F. Varner, and J. J. Foley, 4th, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 9063 (2020). 8

    2020

  40. [48]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, J

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, J. Feist, E. Gonzalo Bad´ ıa, E. Moreno, and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 156402 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    C. A. DelPo, B. Kudisch, K. H. Park, S.-U.-Z. Khan, F. Fassioli, D. Fausti, B. P. Rand, and G. D. Scholes, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 11, 2667 (2020), pMID: 32186878

    2020

  42. [50]

    J. A. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo and J. Yuen-Zhou, The Journal of Chemical Physics 156, 194308 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Siltanen, K

    O. Siltanen, K. Luoma, A. J. Musser, and K. S. Daskalakis, Adv. Opt. Mater. , 2403046 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    C. Ye, S. Mallick, M. Hertzog, M. Kowalewski, and K. B¨ orjesson, J. Am. Chem. Soc.143, 7501 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Dutta, V

    A. Dutta, V. Tiainen, I. Sokolovskii, L. Duarte, N. Markesevi´ c, D. Morozov, H. A. Qureshi, S. Pikker, G. Groenhof, and J. J. Toppari, Nat. Commun. 15, 6600 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2001)

    2001

  47. [55]

    J. Mony, M. Hertzog, K. Kushwaha, and K. B¨ orjesson, J. Phys. Chem. C 122, 24917 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Quesada, Phys

    N. Quesada, Phys. Rev. A 86, 013836 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    Scala, B

    M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, J. Piilo, and S. Man- iscalco, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013811 (2007)

    2007

  50. [58]

    Betzholz, B

    R. Betzholz, B. G. Taketani, and J. M. Torres, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 015005 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    See supplemental material at [url] for the discussion of the dark state ratios, the simulation details, and addi- tional plots of the dynamics

    “See supplemental material at [url] for the discussion of the dark state ratios, the simulation details, and addi- tional plots of the dynamics.”

  52. [60]

    Systems of linear equations,

    S. Andrilli and D. Hecker, “Systems of linear equations,” in Elementary Linear Algebra , edited by S. Andrilli and D. Hecker (Elsevier, 2010) pp. 79–142, sixth edition ed

    2010

  53. [62]

    G. D. Scholes, C. A. DelPo, and B. Kudisch, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 6389 (2020)

    2020

  54. [63]

    Du and J

    M. Du and J. Yuen-Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 096001 (2022)

    2022

  55. [64]

    A. L. Ivanov and H. Haug, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 438 (1995)

    1995

  56. [65]

    R. F. Ribeiro, J. A. Campos-Gonzalez-Angulo, N. C. Giebink, W. Xiong, and J. Yuen-Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063111 (2021)

    2021

  57. [66]

    Takemura, S

    N. Takemura, S. Trebaol, M. D. Anderson, V. Kohnle, Y. L´ eger, D. Y. Oberli, M. T. Portella-Oberli, and B. De- veaud, Phys. Rev. B 92, 125415 (2015)

    2015

  58. [68]

    Kowalewski and P

    M. Kowalewski and P. Seeber, Int. J. Quant. Chem. 122, e26872 (2022)

    2022

  59. [69]

    Wellnitz, G

    D. Wellnitz, G. Pupillo, and J. Schachenmayer, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 054104 (2021)

    2021

  60. [70]

    Wellnitz, G

    D. Wellnitz, G. Pupillo, and J. Schachenmayer, Com- munications Physics 5, 1 (2022)

    2022

  61. [71]

    Mattiotti, J

    F. Mattiotti, J. Dubail, D. Hagenmuller, J. Schachen- mayer, J.-P. Brantut, and G. Pupillo, Phys. Rev. B Con- dens. Matter 109, 064202 (2024). Supporting Information: The role of dark polariton states for electronic strong coupling in molecules Lucas Borges, Thomas Schnappinge...

    2024 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Andrilli and D

    S. Andrilli and D. Hecker, Systems of linear equations, in Elementary Linear Algebra , edited by S. Andrilli and D. Hecker (Elsevier, 2010) pp. 79–142, sixth edition ed

    2010

  63. [73]

    R. E. Cline and R. J. Plemmons, Siam Review 18, 92 (1976)

    1976

  64. [74]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Computer Physics Communications 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  65. [75]

    Kowalewski and P

    M. Kowalewski and P. Seeber, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 122, 10.1002/qua.26872 (2022)

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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