Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Bistability of Exciton-Photon Microcavities in the Ultrastrong-Coupling Regime

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ultrastrong coupling preserves the standard Kerr-oscillator bistability condition but renormalizes the effective detuning and nonlinearity, shifting the turning points and hysteresis window.

desk verdict A clean, internally consistent extension of Kerr bistability to ultrastrong coupling, but the main quantitative claim rests on an imported full-quadrature Kerr form that may not describe excitonic microcavities. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20688 v1 pith:Z7R4THBW submitted 2026-07-22 quant-ph physics.atm-clus

Rashed Aljasmi , Hisham Sati , Hichem Eleuch This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atm-clus PACS 42.65.Pc42.50.Pq71.36.+c
keywords ultrastrongcouplingpolaritonbistabilityKerrnonlinearityHopfield-Bogoliubovtransformationinput-outputrelationhysteresisexcitonicmicrocavityoptical
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 asks whether optical bistability—a hallmark of driven nonlinear cavities—survives when light–matter coupling becomes so strong that the rotating-wave approximation fails. It answers that bistability does survive, but with renormalized parameters: counter-rotating processes and the diamagnetic A² term change the lower-polariton frequency and effective Kerr nonlinearity, so the standard bistability criterion |Δ̃₁| > (√3/2)κ₁ still holds while the turning points and hysteresis width shift relative to the strong-coupling prediction. The authors derive a single-mode effective Hamiltonian for the lower polariton, obtain a cubic input–output relation, and map the S-shaped bistable region as a function of coupling strength, decay rate, and Kerr nonlinearity. This matters because ultrastrong-coupling materials are now experimentally available, giving concrete predictions for switching thresholds and memory windows in such devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective single-mode lower-polariton Hamiltonian obtained by a Hopfield–Bogoliubov diagonalization of the full quantum Rabi model (including counter-rotating terms and the diamagnetic A² term), followed by a rotating-frame average in the polariton basis. The Kerr interaction is kept in its full quadrature form, (J_bω_c/6)(b + b†)⁴, which after transformation produces a polariton Kerr term with coefficient U_LP = J_bω_c|C₁|⁴. This coefficient, together with the 2U_LP frequency shift, carries the ultrastrong renormalization; all subsequent bistability results follow from the cubic input–output relation I_in(n) = n[(Δ̃₁ + 2U_LP n)² + κ₁(g)²/4].

What would settle it

A single input–output measurement in an ultrastrong microcavity (g/ω_x ≳ 0.2) with known Kerr coefficient J_b and loss rate κ₀ would settle the claim: the two turning-point drive intensities should obey I_in(n) = n[(Δ̃₁ + 2U_LP n)² + κ₁(g)²/4] with U_LP = J_bω_c|C₁|⁴. If the observed turning points instead match the number-conserving Kerr form J_bω_c b†²b², the full-quadrature renormalization is not the operative mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the ultrastrong-coupling regime the driven lower polariton still behaves as a Kerr oscillator, but with an effective detuning Δ̃₁ = ω₁ − ω_d + 2U_LP and an effective nonlinearity U_LP = J_bω_c|C₁|⁴, where C₁ is the exciton weight obtained from the Hopfield–Bogoliubov transformation. Consequently, the semiclassical bistability condition |Δ̃₁| > (√3/2)κ₁(g) retains exactly its standard Kerr-oscillator form, while the turning-point populations n_{c,±} = (−4Δ̃₁ ± √(4Δ̃₁² − 3κ₁(g)²))/(12U_LP) and the hysteresis window acquire a g-dependence that differs from the rotating-wave approximation. The paper further shows that the strong-coupling approximation overest

Load-bearing premise

The derivation stands or falls on treating the exciton–exciton interaction as the full quadrature term J_bω_c(b + b†)⁴/6 with a constant coupling g; if the physical nonlinearity is number-conserving in the bare exciton basis or g saturates with density, the renormalized nonlinearity U_LP and the predicted shifts change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard Kerr-oscillator bistability criterion remains valid in the ultrastrong regime; only the effective parameters need renormalization.
  • Increasing g lowers the lower-polariton frequency, makes the effective detuning more negative, and moves the S-shaped bistable region to higher drive intensities while broadening the hysteresis window.
  • The strong-coupling (RWA) approximation overestimates the bistable width at large g, so the full ultrastrong model is needed beyond small coupling.
  • Larger lower-polariton decay κ₁(g) shrinks and eventually removes bistability, while a larger Kerr coefficient J_b lowers the critical drive intensities.
  • The explicit g-dependence of Δ̃₁ and U_LP provides a device-level knob for tuning switching thresholds and hysteresis widths, relevant for all-optical switching and optical memory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the physical exciton–exciton interaction is number-conserving in the bare exciton basis rather than full-quadrature, the renormalized U_LP and the 2U_LP shift would differ; computing the alternative prediction and locating the left turning point could experimentally distinguish the two forms.
  • Beyond the paper: the authors' own validity conditions imply that when the Kerr-induced energy scale approaches the inter-branch splitting, cross-Kerr coupling between lower and upper polaritons should enter and likely produce a richer stability landscape—this is flagged but not explored.
  • Beyond the paper: the 2U_LP shift in the effective detuning suggests that bistability could appear even when the drive frequency is tuned above the bare polariton frequency, a testable prediction that does not require strong negative detuning.
  • Beyond the paper: the results suggest that the same g-tunability used to engineer switching thresholds could also be used to probe the microscopic origin of the Kerr nonlinearity, since U_LP's dependence on the Hopfield coefficients differs between the full-quadrature and number-conserving models.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a coherently driven exciton–photon microcavity with a Kerr nonlinearity in the ultrastrong-coupling regime. Starting from the Hopfield–Rabi Hamiltonian with the A² term and a full-quadrature Kerr interaction, the authors perform a Hopfield–Bogoliubov diagonalization, reduce to a single lower-polariton mode, and derive an effective driven Kerr oscillator with renormalized detuning Δ̃1 = ω1−ωd+2U_LP and nonlinearity U_LP = J_bω_c|C1|^4. A semiclassical input–output relation (Eq. 27) and linear-stability analysis yield the standard criterion |Δ̃1| > (√3/2)κ1(g), with coupling-dependent turning points. The paper compares this USC model with a strong-coupling (RWA) approximation, showing that the hysteresis window shifts and narrows as g increases, while recovering the SC limit at small g.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions are accepted, the paper provides a clean and explicit analytical framework for USC polariton bistability. Its strengths are the detailed Bogoliubov derivation (Appendix A), the explicit validity checks for the lower-polariton reduction and the polariton-basis RWA, and the falsifiable predictions for turning-point and hysteresis shifts as functions of g. The result that the Kerr criterion retains its standard form while the effective parameters acquire g-dependence is a useful, non-obvious structural conclusion. However, the physical relevance of the central quantitative prediction depends on the unproven full-quadrature Kerr form, which is the main risk.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (3)] The central quantitative claim—U_LP = J_bω_c|C1|^4 and 2U_LP in Eq. (18), feeding Eqs. (27)–(30) and Fig. 3—rests on the full-quadrature Kerr term (b+b†)^4 imported from Ref. [50], a qubit–nonlinear-resonator analysis. For the dilute excitonic microcavity described in Sec. 2, the exciton–exciton interaction is number-conserving, b†²b². The USC breakdown of the RWA does not alter the bare interaction form; counter-rotating polariton terms already arise from the Hopfield–Bogoliubov transformation. With a number-conserving Kerr term, U_LP becomes J_bω_c(|B1|²+|B1'|²)² and the 2U_LP shift in Eq. (18) changes, modifying the predicted g-dependence of the turning points and hysteresis width. Please derive or justify the full-quadrature form for excitons, or present the number-conserving case and compare its predictions.
  2. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3] The 'SC approximation [28]' is not defined explicitly. The quantitative deviation ΔI = I↑ − I↓ and the conclusion that USC is required at large g depend on the precise SC Hamiltonian, its mapping of U_LP and κ1, and the treatment of the drive in that limit. Without these equations, Fig. 3(b) is not reproducible. Please state the SC model used to generate the dashed curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (19), (41)] The numerical check gives max{|F0A1|, U_LP n}/(2ωd) ≲ 0.26, which is not ≪1. The text calls Eq. (19) a sufficient condition, so this is acceptable in principle, but the marginal value deserves a comment on whether 0.26 is safely below the breakdown scale of the polariton-basis RWA.
  2. [Eq. (22)] The MBC expression κ1(g) = κ0/[1+(ωx/ω1)²] is derived for an infinitely thin metallic mirror. As written it appears universal; please clarify the class of microcavities for which this form applies and whether the conclusions are sensitive to this choice.
  3. [Sec. 4] The phrase 'microscopic description' overstates the status of Eq. (3), which is a phenomenological Kerr model imported from a qubit context. Consider rephrasing as 'model description' or adding an explicit disclaimer about the phenomenological nature of the Kerr term.
  4. [Eq. (29)] The argument that nc,± > 0 requires Δ̃1 < 0 is correct but could be stated more explicitly, since it relies on the discriminant bound in addition to the sign of the first term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the USC-renormalized detuning and Kerr coefficient are derived algebraically from the assumed Hopfield–Rabi–Kerr Hamiltonian; the only self-citation is the non-load-bearing SC comparison baseline.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the paper starts from an explicit input Hamiltonian (Eqs. 1–4), including the full-quadrature Kerr term H_Kerr = (J_b ω_c/6)(b+b†)^4 (Eq. 3) adopted from Ref. [50]. The Hopfield–Bogoliubov transformation in Appendix A diagonalizes the quadratic Hamiltonian and gives the polariton coefficients A_n, B_n, A'_n, B'_n. The lower-polariton reduction (Eqs. 11–16) then projects the Kerr term to (J_b ω_c/6)(C_1 P_1 + C_1^* P_1†)^4 with C_1 = B_1 + B_1^{'*}. The effective single-mode Hamiltonian (Eq. 17) with U_LP = J_b ω_c |C_1|^4 and Δ̃_1 = ω_1 − ω_d + 2U_LP is a direct algebraic consequence: the 2U_LP linear shift comes from the six equal-number operator orderings in the fourth-power expansion, whose normal-ordered sum contains both 6 P_1†^2 P_1^2 and 12 P_1† P_1, multiplied by the 1/6 prefactor. No fitted parameter is introduced and no target result is used to set constants. The semiclassical equation (Eq. 24), the input–output relation (Eq. 27), the turning points (Eq. 29), and the bistability criterion (Eq. 30) follow by straightforward algebra from that Hamiltonian. The only self-citation is Ref. [28] (Baas, Karr, Eleuch, Giacobino), used as the strong-coupling comparison baseline in Fig. 3 and as background; it is not an input to the central USC derivation, and the standard bistability criterion is rederived in Eqs. 28–30 rather than imported. The full-quadrature Kerr form from Ref. [50] is a modeling assumption whose physical applicability to excitonic microcavities could be questioned, but the paper explicitly adopts it as an input rather than deriving the target predictions from it; that is a correctness/modeling concern, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard Hopfield–Rabi diagonalization with the TRK-fixed A² term. The main non-standard inputs are the full-quadrature Kerr form and the MBC dissipation formula, both imported from prior work rather than derived here. No numerical fitting is used; plotted parameters are illustrative scans.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Excitons are treated as structureless bosons and the light–matter coupling g is constant, valid in the dilute regime.
    Section 2 states this explicitly; phase-space filling and coupling saturation are excluded.
  • domain assumption The excitonic Kerr nonlinearity has the full-quadrature form H_Kerr = (J_b ω_c / 6)(b + b†)^4 (Eq. 3), following Ref. [50].
    This determines U_LP = J_b ω_c |C1|^4 and the 2U_LP frequency shift in Eq. (18). No microscopic derivation for excitonic microcavities is given.
  • standard math The Thomas–Reiche–Kuhn sum rule fixes the diamagnetic coefficient as D = g²/ω_x.
    Invoked in Section 2 after Eq. (2), citing refs. [42–46].
  • domain assumption Dissipation is Markovian and the lower-polariton decay rate is κ1(g) = κ0 / [1 + (ω_x/ω_1)²] from the Maxwell-boundary-condition analysis for an infinitely thin metallic mirror (Eq. 22).
    This g-dependent linewidth enters the bistability criterion; it is platform-specific.
  • domain assumption The upper polariton branch can be neglected because the inter-branch splitting and detunings are large compared with drive and Kerr scales (Eqs. 39–40).
    The validity conditions are stated and checked only for the plotted parameter range.
  • domain assumption A rotating-wave approximation is valid in the polariton basis, requiring max{|F0A1|, U_LP n} ≪ 2ω_d (Eq. 19).
    This drops terms oscillating at 2ω_d and 4ω_d; strong driving would invalidate the effective Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Semiclassical mean-field factorization of higher-order correlators, Eq. (23).
    Used to convert the Lindblad master equation into the cubic equation of motion; neglects quantum fluctuations.
  • standard math Linear stability is determined by the 2×2 fluctuation matrix M (Eqs. 32–38).
    Standard linearization of the semiclassical equations around a steady state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bistability of Exciton-Photon Microcavities in the Ultrastrong-Coupling Regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7R4THBW

@misc{pith2026260720688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bistability of Exciton-Photon Microcavities in the Ultrastrong-Coupling Regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7R4THBW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20688}
}
abstract

We investigate a coherently driven exciton--photon microcavity with Kerr nonlinearity in the ultrastrong-coupling regime. When the lower and upper polariton branches are well separated in energy, the full Hopfield--Rabi--Kerr model reduces to an effective single-mode description of the lower polariton. We analyze the stability of the lower-polariton steady states. We show that the resulting bistability is qualitatively similar to that in the strong-coupling regime. However, in the ultrastrong-coupling regime counter-rotating processes and the diamagnetic $A^{2}$ term renormalize the polariton spectrum and composition, changing the effective detuning $\tilde{\Delta}_{1}$ and nonlinearity $U_{\mathrm{LP}}$ $g$-dependency beyond the strong-coupling (RWA) picture. As a result, although the semiclassical bistability criterion keeps its standard Kerr--oscillator form, the turning points and hysteresis window are shifted relative to the strong-coupling prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20688 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Upper (UP) and lower (LP) polariton eigenfrequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Input–output curves of the driven lower polariton, obtained from the nonlinear relation in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison between the full ultrastrong-coupling (USC) response and the strong [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references

  1. [50]

    Physical Review A105(2), 023719 (2022)

    Mauceri, F., Mercurio, A., Savasta, S., Di Stefano, O.: Ultrastrong coupling of a qubit with a nonlinear optical resonator. Physical Review A105(2), 023719 (2022)

    2022

  2. [28]

    Physical Review A69(2), 023809 (2004)

    Baas, A., Karr, J.P., Eleuch, H., Giacobino, E.: Optical bistability in semiconductor microcav- ities. Physical Review A69(2), 023809 (2004)

    2004

  3. [1]

    Physical review letters69(23), 3314 (1992)

    Weisbuch, C., Nishioka, M., Ishikawa, A., Arakawa, Y.: Observation of the coupled exciton- photon mode splitting in a semiconductor quantum microcavity. Physical review letters69(23), 3314 (1992)

    1992

  4. [2]

    Nature Photonics9(1), 30–34 (2015)

    Liu, X., Galfsky, T., Sun, Z., Xia, F., Lin, E.-c., Lee, Y.-H., Kéna-Cohen, S., Menon, V.M.: Strong light–matter coupling in two-dimensional atomic crystals. Nature Photonics9(1), 30–34 (2015)

    2015

  5. [3]

    Nature communications6(1), 8579 (2015)

    Dufferwiel, S., Schwarz, S., Withers, F., Trichet, A.A., Li, F., Sich, M., Del Pozo-Zamudio, O., Clark, C., Nalitov, A., Solnyshkov, D.D.,et al.: Exciton–polaritons in van der waals heterostructures embedded in tunable microcavities. Nature communications6(1), 8579 (2015)

    2015

  6. [4]

    Scientific re- ports6(1), 33134 (2016)

    Flatten, L.C., He, Z., Coles, D.M., Trichet, A.A., Powell, A.W., Taylor, R.A., Warner, J.H., Smith, J.M.: Room-temperature exciton-polaritons with two-dimensional ws2. Scientific re- ports6(1), 33134 (2016)

    2016

  7. [5]

    Nature395(6697), 53–55 (1998)

    Lidzey, D.G., Bradley, D., Skolnick, M., Virgili, T., Walker, S., Whittaker, D.: Strong exciton– photon coupling in an organic semiconductor microcavity. Nature395(6697), 53–55 (1998)

    1998

  8. [6]

    Advanced Optical Materials1(11), 827–833 (2013)

    Kéna-Cohen, S., Maier, S.A., Bradley, D.D.: Ultrastronglycoupledexciton–polaritonsinmetal- clad organic semiconductor microcavities. Advanced Optical Materials1(11), 827–833 (2013)

    2013

Show all 54 references
  1. [7]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, 10th anniver- sary edition edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

    2010

  2. [8]

    Hanson, R., Awschalom, D.D.: Coherentmanipulationofsinglespinsinsemiconductors.Nature 453(7198), 1043–1049 (2008)

    2008

  3. [9]

    Nature Photonics6(9), 605–609 (2012)

    Volz, T., Reinhard, A., Winger, M., Badolato, A., Hennessy, K.J., Hu, E.L., Imamoğlu, A.: Ultrafast all-optical switching by single photons. Nature Photonics6(9), 605–609 (2012)

    2012

  4. [10]

    Nature photonics7(3), 219–222 (2013)

    Stute, A., Casabone, B., Brandstätter, B., Friebe, K., Northup, T., Blatt, R.: Quantum-state transfer from an ion to a photon. Nature photonics7(3), 219–222 (2013)

    2013

  5. [11]

    Reviews of modern physics89(3), 035002 (2017)

    Degen, C.L., Reinhard, F., Cappellaro, P.: Quantum sensing. Reviews of modern physics89(3), 035002 (2017)

    2017

  6. [12]

    Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72(11), 115303 (2005)

    Ciuti, C., Bastard, G., Carusotto, I.: Quantum vacuum properties of the intersubband cavity polariton field. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics72(11), 115303 (2005)

    2005

  7. [13]

    Nature Reviews Physics1(1), 19–40 (2019)

    Frisk Kockum, A., Miranowicz, A., De Liberato, S., Savasta, S., Nori, F.: Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter. Nature Reviews Physics1(1), 19–40 (2019)

    2019

  8. [14]

    Reviews of Modern Physics91(2), 025005 (2019)

    Forn-Díaz, P., Lamata, L., Rico, E., Kono, J., Solano, E.: Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction. Reviews of Modern Physics91(2), 025005 (2019)

    2019

  9. [15]

    Optics letters29(11), 1209–1211 (2004)

    Almeida, V.R., Xu, Q., Barrios, C.A., Lipson, M.: Guiding and confining light in void nanos- tructure. Optics letters29(11), 1209–1211 (2004)

    2004

  10. [16]

    nature425(6961), 944–947 (2003) 15

    Akahane, Y., Asano, T., Song, B.-S., Noda, S.: High-q photonic nanocavity in a two- dimensional photonic crystal. nature425(6961), 944–947 (2003) 15

    2003

  11. [17]

    Nature communications9(1), 713 (2018)

    Zhang, L., Gogna, R., Burg, W., Tutuc, E., Deng, H.: Photonic-crystal exciton-polaritons in monolayer semiconductors. Nature communications9(1), 713 (2018)

    2018

  12. [18]

    Nano Letters 20(7), 5292–5300 (2020)

    Chen, Y., Miao, S., Wang, T., Zhong, D., Saxena, A., Chow, C., Whitehead, J., Gerace, D., Xu, X., Shi, S.-F.,et al.: Metasurface integrated monolayer exciton polariton. Nano Letters 20(7), 5292–5300 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Nature Materials22(8), 970–976 (2023)

    Weber, T., Kühner, L., Sortino, L., Ben Mhenni, A., Wilson, N.P., Kühne, J., Finley, J.J., Maier, S.A., Tittl, A.: Intrinsic strong light-matter coupling with self-hybridized bound states in the continuum in van der waals metasurfaces. Nature Materials22(8), 970–976 (2023)

    2023

  14. [20]

    Nature535(7610), 127–130 (2016)

    Chikkaraddy, R., De Nijs, B., Benz, F., Barrow, S.J., Scherman, O.A., Rosta, E., Demetriadou, A., Fox, P., Hess, O., Baumberg, J.J.: Single-molecule strong coupling at room temperature in plasmonic nanocavities. Nature535(7610), 127–130 (2016)

    2016

  15. [21]

    Reports on Progress in Physics78(1), 013901 (2014)

    Törmä, P., Barnes, W.L.: Strong coupling between surface plasmon polaritons and emitters: a review. Reports on Progress in Physics78(1), 013901 (2014)

    2014

  16. [22]

    Applied Physics Letters104(19) (2014)

    Dufferwiel, S., Fras, F., Trichet, A., Walker, P., Li, F., Giriunas, L., Makhonin, M., Wil- son, L., Smith, J., Clarke, E., et al.: Strong exciton-photon coupling in open semiconductor microcavities. Applied Physics Letters104(19) (2014)

    2014

  17. [23]

    Optics Express31(4), 6849–6861 (2023)

    Chang, J.-F., Zheng, Y.-C., Chiang, C.-Y., Huang, C.-K., Jaing, C.-C.: Ultrastrong coupling in super yellow polymer microcavities and development of highly efficient polariton light-emitting diodes and light-emitting transistors. Optics Express31(4), 6849–6861 (2023)

    2023

  18. [24]

    Nature Communications15(1), 10529 (2024)

    Mischok, A., Siegmund, B., LeRoux, F., Hillebrandt, S., Vandewal, K., Gather, M.C.: Breaking the angular dispersion limit in thin film optics by ultra-strong light-matter coupling. Nature Communications15(1), 10529 (2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    Nature Photonics17(5), 393–400 (2023)

    Mischok, A., Hillebrandt, S., Kwon, S., Gather, M.C.: Highly efficient polaritonic light-emitting diodes with angle-independent narrowband emission. Nature Photonics17(5), 393–400 (2023)

    2023

  20. [26]

    Nature Communications15(1), 3295 (2024)

    Wu, T., Wang, C., Hu, G., Wang, Z., Zhao, J., Wang, Z., Chaykun, K., Liu, L., Chen, M., Li, D.,et al.: Ultrastrong exciton-plasmon couplings in ws2 multilayers synthesized with a random multi-singular metasurface at room temperature. Nature Communications15(1), 3295 (2024)

    2024

  21. [27]

    The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters15(6), 1748–1754 (2024)

    Fei, R., Hautzinger, M.P., Rose, A.H., Dong, Y., Smalyukh, I.I., Beard, M.C., Lagemaat, J.: Controlling exciton/exciton recombination in 2-d perovskite using exciton–polariton coupling. The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters15(6), 1748–1754 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Physical Review B89(15), 155308 (2014)

    Lecomte, T., Taj, D., Lemaitre, A., Bloch, J., Delalande, C., Tignon, J., Roussignol, P.: Polariton-polariton interaction potentials determination by pump-probe degenerate scattering in a multiple microcavity. Physical Review B89(15), 155308 (2014)

    2014

  23. [30]

    Physical review letters99(19), 196402 (2007) 16

    Leyder, C., Liew, T.C., Kavokin, A.V., Shelykh, I.A., Romanelli, M., Karr, J.P., Giacobino, E., Bramati, A.: Interference of coherent polariton beams in microcavities:< polarization- controlled optical gates. Physical review letters99(19), 196402 (2007) 16

    2007

  24. [31]

    Nature communica- tions4(1), 2008 (2013)

    Cerna, R., Léger, Y., Paraïso, T.K., Wouters, M., Morier-Genoud, F., Portella-Oberli, M.T., Deveaud, B.: Ultrafast tristable spin memory of a coherent polariton gas. Nature communica- tions4(1), 2008 (2013)

    2008

  25. [32]

    Nature communications4(1), 1778 (2013)

    Ballarini, D., De Giorgi, M., Cancellieri, E., Houdré, R., Giacobino, E., Cingolani, R., Bramati, A., Gigli, G., Sanvitto, D.: All-optical polariton transistor. Nature communications4(1), 1778 (2013)

    2013

  26. [33]

    Chaos, Solitons & Fractals177, 114270 (2023)

    Jabri, H., Eleuch, H.: Optical bistability and multistability with coupled quantum wells in the presence of second-and third-order nonlinearities. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals177, 114270 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85(4), 043824 (2012)

    Sete, E.A., Eleuch, H.: Controllable nonlinear effects in an optomechanical resonator containing a quantum well. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics85(4), 043824 (2012)

    2012

  28. [35]

    Physics Reports463(5-6), 215–320 (2008)

    Combescot, M., Betbeder-Matibet, O., Dubin, F.: Themany-bodyphysicsofcompositebosons. Physics Reports463(5-6), 215–320 (2008)

    2008

  29. [36]

    Reviews of Modern Physics85(1), 299–366 (2013)

    Carusotto, I., Ciuti, C.: Quantum fluids of light. Reviews of Modern Physics85(1), 299–366 (2013)

    2013

  30. [37]

    Physical Review B66(8), 085304 (2002)

    Porras, D., Ciuti, C., Baumberg, J., Tejedor, C.: Polariton dynamics and bose-einstein con- densation in semiconductor microcavities. Physical Review B66(8), 085304 (2002)

    2002

  31. [38]

    Physical Review B52(11), 7810 (1995)

    Houdré, R., Gibernon, J., Pellandini, P., Stanley, R., Oesterle, U., Weisbuch, C., O’Gorman, J., Roycroft, B., Ilegems, M.: Saturation of the strong-coupling regime in a semiconductor microcavity: Free-carrier bleaching of cavity polaritons. Physical Review B52(11), 7810 (1995)

    1995

  32. [39]

    Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics88(16), 165312 (2013)

    Rossbach, G., Levrat, J., Feltin, E., Carlin, J.-F., Butté, R., Grandjean, N.: Impact of satura- tion on the polariton renormalization in iii-nitride based planar microcavities. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics88(16), 165312 (2013)

    2013

  33. [40]

    Communications Physics3(1), 18 (2020)

    Yagafarov, T., Sannikov, D., Zasedatelev, A., Georgiou, K., Baranikov, A., Kyriienko, O., Shelykh, I., Gai, L., Shen, Z., Lidzey, D.,et al.: Mechanisms of blueshifts in organic polariton condensates. Communications Physics3(1), 18 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Physical Review Research8(1), 012039 (2026)

    Richard, M., Frérot, I., Ravets, S., Bloch, J., Anton-Solanas, C., Claude, F., Zhou, Y., Morassi, M., Lemaître, A., Carusotto, I.,et al.: Excitonic oscillator-strength saturation dominates polariton-polariton interactions. Physical Review Research8(1), 012039 (2026)

    2026

  35. [42]

    Naturwissenschaften13, 627 (1925)

    Thomas, W.: Über die zahl der dispersionselektronen, die einem stationären zustand zugeord- net sind. Naturwissenschaften13, 627 (1925)

    1925

  36. [43]

    Zeitschrift für Physik33(1), 408–412 (1925)

    Kuhn, W.: Über die gesamtstärke der von einem zustande ausgehenden absorptionslinien. Zeitschrift für Physik33(1), 408–412 (1925)

    1925

  37. [44]

    Zeitschrift für Physik34(1), 510–525 (1925)

    Reiche, F., Thomas, W.: Überdiezahlderdispersionselektronen, dieeinemstationärenzustand zugeordnet sind. Zeitschrift für Physik34(1), 510–525 (1925)

    1925

  38. [45]

    Physical Review A91(6), 063840 (2015) 17

    Tufarelli, T., McEnery, K., Maier, S., Kim, M.: Signatures of the a 2 term in ultrastrongly coupled oscillators. Physical Review A91(6), 063840 (2015) 17

    2015

  39. [46]

    IoP Publishing, ??? (2021)

    Larson, J., Mavrogordatos, T.: The Jaynes–Cummings Model and Its Descendants: Modern Research Directions. IoP Publishing, ??? (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    Physical Review A7(3), 831 (1973)

    Wang, Y.K., Hioe, F.: Phase transition in the dicke model of superradiance. Physical Review A7(3), 831 (1973)

    1973

  41. [48]

    Physical Review Letters35(7), 432 (1975)

    Rzażewski, K., Wódkiewicz, K., Żakowicz, W.: Phase transitions, two-level atoms, and the a 2 term. Physical Review Letters35(7), 432 (1975)

    1975

  42. [49]

    Physical Review A19(1), 301 (1979)

    Bialynicki-Birula, I., Rzażewski, K.: No-go theorem concerning the superradiant phase transi- tion in atomic systems. Physical Review A19(1), 301 (1979)

    1979

  43. [51]

    Nanophotonics10(1), 549–577 (2020)

    Basov, D.N., Asenjo-Garcia, A., Schuck, P.J., Zhu, X., Rubio, A.: Polariton panorama. Nanophotonics10(1), 549–577 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics88(1), 013814 (2013)

    Bamba, M., Ogawa, T.: System-environment coupling derived by maxwell’s boundary con- ditions from the weak to the ultrastrong light-matter-coupling regime. Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics88(1), 013814 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    system-environment coupling derived by maxwell’s boundary conditions from the weak to the ultrastrong light-matter-coupling regime

    De Liberato, S.: Comment on “system-environment coupling derived by maxwell’s boundary conditions from the weak to the ultrastrong light-matter-coupling regime”. Physical Review A 89(1), 017801 (2014)

    2014

  46. [54]

    IEEE Photonics Journal6(3), 1–12 (2014) 18

    Nakarmi, B., Hoai, T., Won, Y.-H., Zhang, X.: Analysis of hysteresis width on optical bista- bility for the realization of optical sr flip-flop using smfp-lds with simultaneous inverted and non-inverted outputs. IEEE Photonics Journal6(3), 1–12 (2014) 18

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.