Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 88 references

Design of monolithic microcavities for enhancing organic quantum emitters

T0 review · 2 major / 3 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 proposes three monolithic microcavity designs for organic single molecules—a concave Fabry–Perot, a micropillar, and a circular Bragg grating—that in simulation exceed 80% collection efficiency and Purcell enhancement above 20…

desk verdict Solid simulation-level design study with one real soft spot: the CBG's >90% ZPL purity claim rests on a two-rate model the authors admit is violated for that design. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12081 v1 pith:X3YAODL4 submitted 2026-08-12 quant-ph

Tim Hebenstreit , Jaime Gimeno Balaguer , Fridtjof Betz , Felix Binkowski , Maja Colautti , Jan Renger , Costanza Toninelli , Sven Burger
show 1 more author
Stephan Götzinger
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords singleorganicmoleculeszero-phononlinePurcellenhancementmonolithicmicrocavitysingle-photonsourcedistributedBraggreflectorcirculargratingBayesianoptimization
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

Single organic molecules emit most of their light on a broad phonon sideband, and until now they have resisted integration into monolithic microcavities because clean-room processing damages them. The paper proposes three rigid, passively stable microcavity designs—a concave-mirror Fabry–Perot, a micropillar, and a circular Bragg grating—each matched to a placement method that avoids harming the organic crystal. Finite-element simulations give Purcell factors from 23 to 160 and free-space collection efficiencies above 80 percent. Using a two-rate model, the paper converts these numbers into a claim that more than 90 percent of collected photons originate from the molecule's zero-phonon line. This matters because it is the missing step toward practical, narrowband organic single-photon sources.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cavity-modified effective Franck-Condon factor $\alpha'$ (Eq. 1), which is the paper's bridge from a simulated Purcell factor to a spectral-purity claim: it assumes the cavity multiplies only the desired 0-0 zero-phonon radiative rate, with the phonon sideband, other vibronic lines, and non-radiative decay unchanged. The second object is the pair of figures of merit $F_P=P_{\mathrm{tot}}/P_b$ and $\eta=P_{\mathrm{NA}}/P_{\mathrm{tot}}$ extracted from finite-element solutions of Maxwell's equations with a horizontal dipole on the symmetry axis. The optimization loop binds the two: Bayesian search over geometry, accelerated by rational approximation of spectra (the AAA algorithm, a data-driven rational fit), drives the simulated $F_P$ and $\eta$ until they satisfy $F_P>20$ and $\eta>80\%$.

What would settle it

Fabricate one of the three cavities, excite a single molecule on resonance, and measure the spectrum of the collected light; if the zero-phonon-line fraction of collected photons is below about 90 percent, Eq. (1)'s assumption fails. A simulation-level check is to compute the full vibronic spectrum through the cavity response and compare the collected spectral composition with the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that these are the first proposed monolithic microcavity designs predicted to deliver Purcell-enhanced emission from single organic molecules, with all three meeting the stated targets of simulated collection efficiency $\eta>80\%$ and Purcell enhancement $F_P>20$. The Fabry–Perot design reaches $F_P\approx160$, $Q\approx34\,000$, $V_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx16(\lambda_0/n)^3$ and $\eta\approx98\%$ at NA 0.75; the micropillar reaches $F_P\approx23$ and $\eta\approx83\%$; the circular Bragg grating reaches $F_P\approx52$, $Q\approx900$, $V_{\mathrm{eff}}\approx1.3(\lambda_0/n)^3$ and $\eta\approx96\%$. The paper's effective Franck-Condon formula, $\alpha' = F_P\alpha_{\mathrm{FC}}/[\alpha_{\mathrm{FC}}(F_P-1)+1/QE]$, turns $F_P=20$ together with $\alpha_{\mathrm{FC}}\approx0.33$ and $QE=85\%$ into a prediction that more than 90 percent of collected photons come from the 0-0 zero-phonon line.

Load-bearing premise

The purity prediction rests on the assumption that the cavity multiplies only the desired zero-phonon radiative rate and leaves the phonon sideband, other vibronic lines, and non-radiative decay completely unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A working device of any of the three designs would produce emission whose collected spectrum is dominated by the zero-phonon line, so organic single-photon sources no longer need open, actively stabilized cavities.
  • The Purcell-shortened excited-state lifetime means higher repetition rates and relaxed conditions for photon indistinguishability, bringing organic emitters closer to quantum network deployment.
  • Because each design pairs with a distinct placement method—channel filling, crystal placement, or nanoprinting—a laboratory can choose the architecture that matches its fabrication capabilities.
  • The optimization approach transfers to other molecules and host crystals, since the relevant parameters are refractive index and photophysical constants, so the same targets can be set for other emission wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 90 percent purity figure is derived from a rate model, not from a simulation of the emitted spectrum through each cavity; a full vibronic-spectrum simulation would test whether the sideband is really untouched.
  • Because the circular Bragg grating's enhancement bandwidth is about 1 nm, the authors' own caveat implies that at least part of the phonon sideband is enhanced, so indistinguishable-photon performance may be better in the two DBR designs.
  • A useful next experimental step is to measure the lifetime reduction and collected zero-phonon-line fraction of a fabricated device and compare the ratio to Eq. (1); the predicted relation is geometry-independent, so a single measurement would validate the rate model across all three designs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents finite-element-method (FEM) design studies of three monolithic microcavity geometries for DBT molecules in organic crystals: a DBR-based Fabry-Perot cavity, a DBR micropillar, and a circular Bragg grating (CBG) cavity. For each design it reports the simulated Purcell factor (FP = 160, 23, 52), free-space collection efficiency into NA 0.75 (η = 98%, 83%, 96%), quality factor, mode volume, and resonance bandwidth. Using a two-rate model, Eq. (1), the authors convert the condition FP > 20 into the statement that more than 90% of the collected photons originate from the 00ZPL, and they conclude that all three designs meet the stated targets and are the first proposed designs for Purcell-enhanced emission from single organic molecules integrated into monolithic microcavities. The optimization workflow uses Bayesian optimization and AAA rational approximation, and the source code is deposited in an open-access repository.

Significance. If the computed figures hold and the spectral-purity argument is completed, the paper would provide a useful, reproducible design blueprint for organic single-photon sources, with clear fabrication routes and quantitative robustness scans. The FEM results are internally consistent: each headline Purcell factor matches the textbook LDOS bound (e.g., FP = 160 versus ~161.5 for the Fabry-Perot design, 23 versus ~22.8 for the micropillar, 52 versus ~52.6 for the CBG), the free parameters are listed explicitly, and the simulation code is openly archived. The main gap is that the central purity target is not directly simulated, and for the CBG it is in tension with the paper's own admission of phonon-sideband enhancement. The significance is therefore conditional on a spectral calculation, or on a suitably narrowed claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Main text, Eqs. (1), (3), (5); Discussion] The headline claim that more than 90% of the collected photons originate from the 00ZPL is not established by the present simulations. Eq. (1) is a rate-equation result for the fraction of emitted photons in the 00ZPL (α'), not for collected photons, and Eq. (5) is evaluated at the design wavelength only. The collected-photon purity also depends on how efficiently phonon-sideband photons are collected into the same numerical aperture, which is never computed. Please provide a spectrally resolved calculation of the collected power, or state and justify an explicit assumption that sideband emission is not collected.
  2. [SI Sec. 2.1, Eq. (S3); CBG section] The two-rate model assumes γ'_o = γ_o, i.e., that the cavity only multiplies the desired radiative rate. The manuscript itself states for the CBG that the ~1 nm Purcell bandwidth 'leads to the enhancement of a part of the phonon sideband accompanying the 00ZPL,' and the Discussion repeats that indistinguishability may be limited by sideband enhancement. Consequently, for the CBG, the α' value obtained from Eq. (1) is an upper bound rather than a prediction, and the claim that all three designs meet the >90% 00ZPL purity target is not supported. A quantitative spectral simulation of emission through the CBG, or a revised claim for the CBG, is needed.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 lists the CBG bandwidth as 0.9 nm while the text and the CBG section say approximately 1 nm; please harmonize the numbers.
  2. [CBG section, robustness analysis] The phrase 'robustness analysis to maintain β > 90%' is unclear: with Eq. (2) and the stated α_FC ≈ 0.33 and QE = 0.85, β > 90% requires FP > 33, which is stricter than the FP > 20 design threshold; please clarify whether this analysis refers to η, to FP, or to a different quantity.
  3. [Conclusion] The claim that these are 'the first proposed designs predicted to deliver Purcell-enhanced emission from single organic molecules integrated into monolithic microcavities' should be supported by a literature comparison or tempered; reference [19] already demonstrates structuring of a polymer containing organic nanocrystals, and CBG cavities for quantum dots are well established.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FEM-computed Purcell factors feed an explicit rate-equation model; the CBG sideband caveat is a modeling limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central numbers are FEM simulation outputs, not fitted parameters. Equation 4 (FP = Ptot/Pb) and Equation 5 (eta = PNA/Ptot) are direct Maxwell-solver results for each geometry; the optimized FP values (160, 23, 52) are genuine outputs of Bayesian optimization, not chosen to force the 90% purity claim. Equation 1 is an explicitly derived rate-equation expression (SI Sec. 2.1) whose key assumption is stated: 'It is assumed that [the cavity] only multiplies the desired radiative rate' (SI Eq. S3). The threshold FP > 20 is obtained by evaluating this same model with literature values alpha_FC ~ 0.33 and QE = 85%, and the reported >90% 00ZPL fraction is the same model evaluated at the simulated FP. This is a model-based prediction, not an identity: nothing in the FEM simulation forces Equation 1 to hold, and the model is not fitted to the simulation. The only self-citation of note is SI ref [1] (Wang et al., same group) used for the FP notation convention and the beta-factor comparison; it is not load-bearing for any design conclusion. The genuine weakness is the paper's own concession in the CBG section: 'the bandwidth of the Purcell enhancement is wider... This leads to the enhancement of a part of the phonon sideband accompanying the 00ZPL,' which means the CBG purity estimate uses Equation 1 outside its stated assumption. That is a correctness/validation risk for the CBG claim, not a circular derivation, because the rate-equation model and the FEM simulations are independent inputs. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central results rest on FEM simulations plus the two-rate model in Eq. 1. No new physical entities are introduced. The main load-bearing inputs are the optimized geometries (which are the paper's contribution), the literature values of alpha_FC and QE, and the two-rate spectral assumption that converts simulated FP into the purity headline. The CBG analytical leakage rate alpha is an explicitly illustrative value used only in SI plots.

free parameters (6)
  • Fabry-Perot cavity height h = 1175.2 nm
    Bayesian-optimized cavity length for DBT:p-DCB at 744 nm; the resonance wavelength shifts linearly with h (SI Fig. S1b), so the headline FP=160 holds only at this height.
  • Micropillar diameter D and height h = 4040 nm, 1332.3 nm
    Optimized pillar geometry; SI Fig. S2d shows collection efficiency oscillates with D due to leaky-mode interference, so the headline FP=23 and eta=83% depend on this exact diameter.
  • CBG disk radius R_disk, period p, ridge width w = 450 nm, 570 nm, 178 nm
    Optimized CBG parameters; the paper shows Purcell enhancement appears only in narrow R_disk ranges and the resonance wavelength shifts with R_disk (Fig. S5c), making these values load-bearing.
  • Franck-Condon branching alpha_FC = 0.33 (cited range 30-40 percent)
    Input from prior DBT spectroscopy [9-11]; Eq. 1 converts FP into the 90 percent purity claim, and the conversion is sensitive to this value.
  • Internal quantum efficiency QE = 0.85
    Input from the literature; it appears in the denominator of Eq. 1 (1/QE) and in Eq. 2, so the 'FP > 20 suffices' threshold depends on it.
  • CBG analytical leakage rate alpha = 2 per micrometer (order of magnitude)
    Hand-set illustration value in SI Sec. 5.1.4, explicitly 'not directly experimentally accessible'; it is used only in analytical figures, not in the main FEM results.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The cavity multiplies only the desired 0-0 radiative rate; sideband, other vibronic, and non-radiative rates are unchanged (SI Eq. S3).
    The 90 percent spectral-purity claim is computed from this assumption; the paper concedes it is violated for the CBG's 1 nm bandwidth, which enhances part of the phonon sideband.
  • domain assumption Weak-coupling Purcell regime: the cavity changes spontaneous-emission rates without coherent emitter-cavity dynamics.
    Stated in SI Sec. 2.1 as a condition of the derivation; it is plausible at these Q values, but no g/kappa or cooperativity check is given.
  • domain assumption The emitter is an ideal point dipole on the symmetry axis, positioned and oriented for maximum coupling in the headline FP values.
    Each headline FP equals the textbook LDOS bound (3/(4pi^2))(lambda/n)^3 Q/Veff; position tolerances are partially given (r < 1.1 um for the FP cavity, +-175 nm vertical for the CBG), but orientation and spectral-mismatch tolerances are not quantified for the two DBR designs.
  • standard math JCMsuite FEM correctly solves the time-harmonic Maxwell problem with the 2D cylindrical-symmetry azimuthal decomposition.
    The solver is commercial and cited [35], [36]; no independent cross-check or convergence study is provided beyond mesh-selection statements in the SI.
  • domain assumption Tabulated refractive indices (TiO2, SiO2, Ag, anthracene, p-DCB, PMMA, PVA) hold at cryogenic temperature and are loss-free where not stated.
    Tables S1-S3: ellipsometer-measured for the FP stack, literature values elsewhere; the reported Q=34000 assumes negligible absorption at 744 nm.
  • domain assumption The proposed fabrication routes (channel filling of p-DCB, FIB-curved top DBR, sublimated crystal stacking, nanoprinting of DBT:Ac) are compatible with the simulated geometries.
    Each step is individually supported by cited prior work, but the complete monolithic assembly has not been demonstrated, and fabrication tolerances are asserted rather than measured.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design of monolithic microcavities for enhancing organic quantum emitters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X3YAODL4

@misc{pith2026260812081,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design of monolithic microcavities for enhancing organic quantum emitters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X3YAODL4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12081}
}
read the original abstract

Single organic molecules are a well-established platform for high-quality single-photon generation: they can emit lifetime-limited photons with high purity and indistinguishability. However, their emission is accompanied by a pronounced red-shifted phonon sideband and higher-order vibrational peaks, which reduce the fraction of photons emitted into the desired narrowband zero-phonon line. The standard approach to suppressing this unwanted emission is to integrate the emitter into a monolithic photonic nanostructure that provides Purcell enhancement. However, incorporating organic materials using clean-room techniques has proven challenging, and has in fact so far prevented their integration into monolithic microcavities altogether. As a result, efficient, narrowband organic single-photon sources for applications in quantum information processing have remained elusive despite their considerable promise. Here, we propose three monolithic microcavity designs tailored to provide sufficient Purcell enhancement for organic quantum emitters. The Purcell effect induced by these cavities preferentially enhances emission into the 0-0 zero-phonon line, increasing spectral purity, photon extraction, and shortening the excited-state lifetime, which in turn relaxes the requirements for generating indistinguishable photons. The cavities have been optimized using Bayesian optimization and the adaptive Antoulas-Anderson (AAA) algorithm for rational approximation, which offer global optimization and the efficient reconstruction of spectra from scattering simulations, respectively. These structures are compatible with both standard clean-room processing and single-molecule preparation techniques. Therefore, they offer a clear route to realize high-quality, practically monochromatic organic single-photon light sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12081 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Monolithic DBR-based Fabry–Perot cavity for DBT:p-DCB. a Schematic cross-section with planar bottom DBR and concave top DBR (R = 50 µm). b Simulated resonant Purcell enhancement (FP ≈ 160, ≈ 0.02 nm bandwidth) and collection η ≈ 98 % into NA = 0.75. c Normalized field intensity showing h ≈ 5 2 λ0/n, Veff ≈ 16(λ0/n) 3 , and Q ≈ 34000. d Collection vs. numerical aperture, with emission mainly within NA ≲ 0.3. Inset: f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DBR-based micropillar cavity for DBT:Ac nanocrystals. a Cross-section and design parameters of the structure. b Simulated Purcell enhancement and collection efficiency into NA = 0.75. c Normalized field intensity of the dominant eigenmode with Veff ≈ 34(λ0/n) 3 and Q ≈ 10200. d The collection efficiency as a function of the numerical aperture. The inset shows the energy radiated to the far-field. derives from a simp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Circular Bragg grating cavity for nanoprinted DBT:Ac. a CBG cross-section and design parameters. b Simulated Purcell enhancement FP ≈ 52 (bandwidth ≈ 1 nm) and free-space collection efficiency η ≈ 96 % into NA = 0.75. c Normalized field intensity with Veff ≈ 1.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Pazzagli, Sofia and Tiribilli, Bruno and Nocentini, Sara and Cataliotti, Francesco S

    Colautti, Maja and Lombardi, Pietro and Trapuzzano, Marco and Piccioli, Francesco S. and Pazzagli, Sofia and Tiribilli, Bruno and Nocentini, Sara and Cataliotti, Francesco S. and Wiersma, Diederik S. and Toninelli, Costanza , doi =. 2020 , journal =

    2020

  2. [2]

    2021 , journal =

    Tomm, Natasha and Javadi, Alisa and Antoniadis, Nadia Olympia and Najer, Daniel and L. 2021 , journal =. doi:10.1038/s41565-020-00831-x , issn =

    doi:10.1038/s41565-020-00831-x 2021

  3. [3]

    2011 , journal =

    Davan. 2011 , journal =. doi:10.1063/1.3615051 , issn =

    doi:10.1063/1.3615051 2011

  4. [4]

    and Steinmetz, T

    Hunger, D. and Steinmetz, T. and Colombe, Y. and Deutsch, C. and H. 2010 , journal =. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065038 , issn =

    doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/6/065038 2010

  5. [5]

    2025 , journal =

    Rickert, Lucas and Zo. 2025 , journal =. doi:10.1515/nanoph-2024-0519 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1515/nanoph-2024-0519 2025

  6. [6]

    and Keni, Arya D

    Lange, Christian M. and Keni, Arya D. and Agarwal, Ishita and Daggett, Emma and Mansukhani, Adhyyan S. and Kundu, Ankit and Cerjan, Benjamin and Huang, Libai and Hood, Jonathan D. , doi =. 2026 , journal =

    2026

  7. [7]

    and Delley, Y

    Toninelli, C. and Delley, Y. and St. 2010 , journal =. doi:10.1063/1.3456559 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3456559 2010

  8. [8]

    , arxivid =

    Greuter, Lukas and Starosielec, Sebastian and Najer, Daniel and Ludwig, Arne and Duempelmann, Luc and Rohner, Dominik and Warburton, Richard J. , arxivid =. 2014 , journal =. doi:10.1063/1.4896415 , issn =

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4896415 2014

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    2024 , journal =

    Lombardi, Pietro and Georgieva, Hristina and Hirt, Franziska and Mony, Juergen and Duquennoy, Rocco and Emadi, Ramin and Aparicio, Maria Guadalupe and Colautti, Maja and L. 2024 , journal =. doi:10.1002/QUTE.202400107 , issn =

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    and Van Daele, Peter and Moerman, Ingrid and Verstuyft, Steven and De Mesel, Kurt and Baets, Roel , doi =

    Taillaert, Dirk and Bogaerts, Wim and Bienstman, Peter and Krauss, Thomas F. and Van Daele, Peter and Moerman, Ingrid and Verstuyft, Steven and De Mesel, Kurt and Baets, Roel , doi =. 2002 , journal =

    2002

  3. [11]

    and Welch, David F

    Hardy, A. and Welch, David F. and Streifer, William , doi =. 1989 , journal =

    1989

  4. [12]

    2023 , journal =

    Couteau, Christophe and Barz, Stefanie and Durt, Thomas and Gerrits, Thomas and Huwer, Jan and Prevedel, Robert and Rarity, John and Shields, Andrew and Weihs, Gregor , doi =. 2023 , journal =

    2023

  5. [13]

    2021 , journal =

    Garcia-Santiago, Xavier and Burger, Sven and Rockstuhl, Carsten and Schneider, Philipp Immanuel , arxivid =. 2021 , journal =. doi:10.1109/JLT.2020.3023450 , issn =

    2021

  6. [14]

    2012 , journal =

    Ates, Serkan and Sapienza, Luca and Davanco, Marcelo and Badolato, Antonio and Srinivasan, Kartik , arxivid =. 2012 , journal =. doi:10.1109/JSTQE.2012.2193877 , issn =

    2012

  7. [15]

    and Mathew, Annie and Bishop, Samuel G

    Hekmati, Reza and Hadden, John P. and Mathew, Annie and Bishop, Samuel G. and Lynch, Stephen A. and Bennett, Anthony J. , arxivid =. 2023 , journal =. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32359-0 , isbn =

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    Fan, Shanhui and Villeneuve, P. R. and Joannopoulos, J. D. and Haus, H. A. , doi =. 1998 , journal =

    1998

  9. [17]

    2024 , journal =

    Levenson-Falk, Eli M and Shanto, Sadman Ahmed and Olejniczak, Adam and Rakovich, Yury and Krivenkov, Victor and Zhou, Yueguang and Kountouris, George and Wang, Yujing and Yvind, Kresten and M. 2024 , journal =. doi:10.1088/2633-4356/AD7FC1 , issn =

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    2018 , journal =

    Rezai, Mohammad and Wrachtrup, Jörg and Gerhardt, Ilja , doi =. 2018 , journal =

    2018

  11. [19]

    2017 , journal =

    Wang, Daqing and Kelkar, Hrishikesh and Martin-Cano, Diego and Utikal, Tobias and G. 2017 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021014 , issn =

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    2014 , journal =

    Faez, Sanli and T. 2014 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.213601 , issn =

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    doi:10.25560/79341 , month =

    2020 , author =. doi:10.25560/79341 , month =

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    and Androvitsaneas, P

    Dlaka, D. and Androvitsaneas, P. and Young, A. and Ma, Q. and Harbord, E. and Oulton, Ruth , arxivid =. 2024 , journal =. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/AD7635 , issn =

    2024 doi

  15. [23]

    2022 , journal =

    Barbiero, Andrea and Huwer, Jan and Skiba-Szymanska, Joanna and M. 2022 , journal =. doi:10.1364/oe.452328 , issn =

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    and Hepp, S

    Kolatschek, S. and Hepp, S. and Sartison, M. and Jetter, M. and Michler, P. and Portalupi, S. L. , doi =. 2019 , journal =

    2019

  17. [25]

    2017 , journal =

    He, Yu-Ming and Liu, Jin and Maier, Sebastian and Emmerling, Monika and Gerhardt, Stefan and Davan. 2017 , journal =. doi:10.1364/OPTICA.4.000802 , issn =

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    and Haws, Cori and Davanco, Marcelo and Song, Jindong and Sapienza, Luca and Srinivasan, Kartik , arxivid =

    Perez, Edgar F. and Haws, Cori and Davanco, Marcelo and Song, Jindong and Sapienza, Luca and Srinivasan, Kartik , arxivid =. 2025 , journal =. doi:10.1002/QUTE.202300149 , issn =

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.01661 , keyword =

    2025 , author =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2506.01661 , keyword =

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    and Singla, Raksha and Pont, Mathias and Descampeaux, Maxime and Bernard, Alice and Pishchagin, Anton and Morassi, Martina and Lema

    Margaria, Nico and Pastier, Florian and Bennour, Thinhinane and Billard, Marie and Ivanov, Edouard and Hease, William and Stepanov, Petr and Adiyatullin, Albert F. and Singla, Raksha and Pont, Mathias and Descampeaux, Maxime and Bernard, Alice and Pishchagin, Anton and Morassi...

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    2009 , journal =

    Trebbia, J-b and Ruf, H and Tamarat, Ph and Lounis, B and Michler, P and Kiraz, A and Becher, C and Schoenfeld, W V and Petroff, P M and Zhang, L D and Hu, E and Imamoglu, A , doi =. 2009 , journal =

    2009

  22. [30]

    2024 , journal =

    Betz, Fridtjof and Hammerschmidt, Martin and Zschiedrich, Lin and Burger, Sven and Binkowski, Felix , doi =. 2024 , journal =

    2024

  23. [31]

    2022 , journal =

    Colom, Rémi and Binkowski, Felix and Betz, Fridtjof and Kivshar, Yuri and Burger, Sven , arxivid =. 2022 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023189 , issn =

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2023 , journal =

    den Hoed, Frank Marco and Ottomaniello, Andrea and Tricinci, Omar and Ceseracciu, Luca and Carlotti, Marco and Raffa, Patrizio and Mattoli, Virgilio , doi =. 2023 , journal =

    2023

  25. [33]

    2016 , journal =

    Maser, Andreas and Gmeiner, Benjamin and Utikal, Tobias and G. 2016 , journal =. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2016.63 , issn =

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2025 , journal =

    Smith, Warren and de Mar. 2025 , journal =. doi:10.1063/5.0285237 , issn =

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    2006 , journal =

    Taillaert, Dirk and Van Laere, Frederik and Ayre, Melanie and Bogaerts, Wim and Van Thourhout, Dries and Bienstman, Peter and Baets, Roel , doi =. 2006 , journal =

    2006

  28. [36]

    and Lien, Yu Hung and Polisseni, Claudio and Grandi, Samuele and Kho, Kiang Wei and Clark, Alex S

    Major, Kyle D. and Lien, Yu Hung and Polisseni, Claudio and Grandi, Samuele and Kho, Kiang Wei and Clark, Alex S. and Hwang, J. and Hinds, E. A. , doi =. 2015 , journal =

    2015

  29. [37]

    2022 , journal =

    Gin. 2022 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.033601 , issn =

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    2023 , journal =

    Rickert, Lucas and Betz, Fridtjof and Plock, Matthias and Burger, Sven and Heindel, Tobias , arxivid =. 2023 , journal =. doi:10.1364/OE.486060 , issn =

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    and Basch

    Musavinezhad, Mohammad and Renger, Jan and Zirkelbach, Johannes and Utikal, Tobias and Hail, Claudio U. and Basch. 2024 , journal =. doi:10.1021/ACSNano.4C02003 , issn =

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    2022 , journal =

    Zirkelbach, Johannes and Mirzaei, Masoud and Deperasi. 2022 , journal =. doi:10.1063/5.0081297 , issn =

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    2016 , journal =

    Unsleber, Sebastian and He, Yu-Ming and Gerhardt, Stefan and Maier, Sebastian and Lu, Chao-Yang and Pan, Jian-Wei and Gregersen, Niels and Kamp, Martin and Schneider, Christian and H. 2016 , journal =. doi:10.1364/OE.24.008539 , issn =

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    2014 , journal =

    Schumann, Martin and B. 2014 , journal =. doi:10.1038/lsa.2014.56 , issn =

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    2025 , journal =

    Nobakht, Jahangir and Pscherer, André and Renger, Jan and G. 2025 , journal =. doi:10.1073/PNAS.2505161122 , issn =

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    and Ehrl, M

    Kiraz, A. and Ehrl, M. and Hellerer, Th and M. 2005 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.223602 , issn =

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    2015 , journal =

    Lodahl, Peter and Mahmoodian, Sahand and Stobbe, Soren , arxivid =. 2015 , journal =. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.87.347 , issn =

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    2008 , journal =

    Burger, Sven and Zschiedrich, Lin and Pomplun, Jan and Schmidt, Frank , doi =. 2008 , journal =

    2008

  39. [47]

    and Ristanovi

    Colautti, Maja and Piccioli, Francesco S. and Ristanovi. 2020 , journal =. doi:10.1021/ACSNano.0C05620 , issn =

    2020 doi

  40. [48]

    2021 , journal =

    Shkarin, Alexey and Rattenbacher, Dominik and Renger, Jan and H. 2021 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.133602 , issn =

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    and Burdekin, Paul and Fasoulakis, Anastasios and Devanz, Louise and Bogusz, Dominika P

    Schofield, Ross C. and Burdekin, Paul and Fasoulakis, Anastasios and Devanz, Louise and Bogusz, Dominika P. and Hoggarth, Rowan A. and Major, Kyle D. and Clark, Alex S. , doi =. 2022 , journal =

    2022

  42. [50]

    2019 , journal =

    Ciancico, Carlotta and Sch. 2019 , journal =. doi:10.1021/ACSPhotonics.9B01145 , issn =

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    and Giesz, V

    Somaschi, N. and Giesz, V. and De Santis, L. and Loredo, J. C. and Almeida, M. P. and Hornecker, G. and Portalupi, S. L. and Grange, T. and Ant. 2016 , journal =. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2016.23 , issn =

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    2025 , journal =

    Jimenez, Carlos and Wijitpatima, Setthanat and Reitzenstein, Stephan and Herkommer, Alois , doi =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

  45. [53]

    2018 , journal =

    Schneider, Philipp-Immanuel and Srocka, Nicole and Rodt, Sven and Zschiedrich, Lin and Reitzenstein, Stephan and Burger, Sven and Bj. 2018 , journal =. doi:10.1364/OE.26.008479 , issn =

    2018 doi

  46. [54]

    2023 , journal =

    Rattenbacher, Dominik and Shkarin, Alexey and Renger, Jan and Utikal, Tobias and G. 2023 , journal =. doi:10.1364/OPTICA.502221 , issn =

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    2025 , journal =

    Huang, Tailin and Xu, Miaomiao and Jin, Wei and Liu, Weixi and Chi, Yixuan and Tang, Jianwei and Ren, Penglong and Wei, Shangming and Bai, Zhengxuan and Shi, Yaocheng and Chen, Xue Wen , doi =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

  48. [56]

    Moerner, W. E. and Kador, L. , doi =. 1989 , journal =

    1989

  49. [57]

    2019 , journal =

    Rickert, Lucas and Kupko, Timm and Rodt, Sven and Reitzenstein, Stephan and Heindel, Tobias , doi =. 2019 , journal =

    2019

  50. [58]

    2026 , journal =

    Shkarin, Alexey and G. 2026 , journal =. doi:10.1063/5.0304253/3387395 , issn =

    2026 doi

  51. [59]

    2011 , author =

    Photonic Crystals: Molding the Flow of Light (Second Edition) , isbn =. 2011 , author =

    2011

  52. [60]

    and Furusawa, Akira and Vu

    O'Brien, Jeremy L. and Furusawa, Akira and Vu. 2009 , journal =. doi:10.1038/nphoton.2009.229 , issn =

    2009 doi

  53. [61]

    and Ovvyan, A

    Lombardi, P. and Ovvyan, A. P. and Pazzagli, S. and Mazzamuto, G. and Kewes, G. and Neitzke, O. and Gruhler, N. and Benson, O. and Pernice, W. H.P. and Cataliotti, F. S. and Toninelli, C. , doi =. 2018 , journal =

    2018

  54. [62]

    2019 , journal =

    Wu, Zhen Lin and Qi, Ya Nan and Yin, Xiao Jie and Yang, Xin and Chen, Chang Ming and Yu, Jing Ying and Yu, Jia Chen and Lin, Yu Meng and Hui, Fang and Liu, Peng Li and Liang, Yu Xin and Zhang, Yang and Zhao, Ming Shan , doi =. 2019 , journal =

    2019

  55. [63]

    Chang, William S.C. , doi =. 2015 , journal =

    2015

  56. [64]

    2023 , journal =

    Musavinezhad, Mohammad and Shkarin, Alexey and Rattenbacher, Dominik and Renger, Jan and Utikal, Tobias and G. 2023 , journal =. doi:10.1021/ACS.JPCB.3C01755 , issn =

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    and Rezus, Y

    Lettow, R. and Rezus, Y. L.A. and Renn, A. and Zumofen, G. and Ikonen, E. and G. 2010 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.123605 , issn =

    2010 doi

  58. [66]

    2021 , journal =

    Lu, Chao Yang and Pan, Jian Wei , doi =. 2021 , journal =

    2021

  59. [67]

    2022 , journal =

    Duquennoy, Rocco and Colautti, Maja and Emadi, Ramin and Majumder, Prosenjit and Lombardi, Pietro and Toninelli, Costanza , arxivid =. 2022 , journal =. doi:10.1364/OPTICA.452317 , issn =

    2022 doi

  60. [68]

    2018 , journal =

    Pazzagli, Sofia and Lombardi, Pietro and Martella, Daniele and Colautti, Maja and Tiribilli, Bruno and Cataliotti, Francesco Saverio and Toninelli, Costanza , doi =. 2018 , journal =

    2018

  61. [69]

    2015 , journal =

    Kelkar, Hrishikesh and Wang, Daqing and Mart. 2015 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.4.054010 , issn =

    2015 doi

  62. [70]

    and Hofmann, Clemens and Kol'chenko, Mikhail A

    Nicolet, Aurélien A.L. and Hofmann, Clemens and Kol'chenko, Mikhail A. and Kozankiewicz, Boleslaw and Orrit, Michel , doi =. 2007 , journal =

    2007

  63. [71]

    and Gerhardt, I

    Toninelli, C. and Gerhardt, I. and Clark, A. S. and Reserbat-Plantey, A. and G. 2021 , journal =. doi:10.1038/s41563-021-00987-4 , issn =

    2021 doi

  64. [72]

    and Moerner, W

    Lounis, B. and Moerner, W. E. , doi =. 2000 , journal =

    2000

  65. [73]

    2021 , journal =

    Pscherer, André and Meierhofer, Manuel and Wang, Daqing and Kelkar, Hrishikesh and Mart. 2021 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.133603 , issn =

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    2020 , journal =

    Wei, Shangming and Ren, Penglong and He, Yong and Zhang, Pu and Chen, Xue Wen , arxivid =. 2020 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevApplied.13.064023 , issn =

    2020 doi

  67. [75]

    2016 , journal =

    Gmeiner, Benjamin and Maser, Andreas and Utikal, Tobias and G. 2016 , journal =. doi:10.1039/C6CP01698G , issn =

    2016 doi

  68. [76]

    Verhart, Nico R. and M. 2016 , journal =. doi:10.1002/CPHC.201501087 , issn =

    2016 doi

  69. [77]

    Purcell, E. M. , doi =. 1946 , journal =

    1946

  70. [78]

    2020 , journal =

    Mocza. 2020 , journal =. doi:10.1021/ACSPhotonics.0C01465 , issn =

    2020 doi

  71. [79]

    2018 , journal =

    Nakatsukasa, Yuji and S. 2018 , journal =. doi:10.1137/16M1106122 , issn =

    2018 doi

  72. [80]

    Jordan, Matthew and Langbein, Wolfgang and Bennett, Anthony J. , doi =. 2025 , journal =

    2025

  73. [81]

    1997 , journal =

    Maruo, Shoji and Nakamura, Osamu and Kawata, Satoshi , doi =. 1997 , journal =

    1997

  74. [82]

    2013 , journal =

    Spagnolo, Nicolò and Vitelli, Chiara and Aparo, Lorenzo and Mataloni, Paolo and Sciarrino, Fabio and Crespi, Andrea and Ramponi, Roberta and Osellame, Roberto , arxivid =. 2013 , journal =. doi:10.1038/ncomms2616 , issn =

    2013 doi

  75. [83]

    2021 , journal =

    Lombardi, Pietro and Colautti, Maja and Duquennoy, Rocco and Murtaza, Ghülam and Majumder, Prosenjit and Toninelli, Costanza , arxivid =. 2021 , journal =. doi:10.1063/5.0048567 , issn =

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    2024 , journal =

    Yang, Jiawei and Chen, Yan and Rao, Zhixuan and Zheng, Ziyang and Song, Changkun and Chen, Yujie and Xiong, Kaili and Chen, Pingxing and Zhang, Chaofan and Wu, Wei and Yu, Ying and Yu, Siyuan , arxivid =. 2024 , journal =. doi:10.1038/s41377-024-01384-7 , issn =

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    2019 , journal =

    Wang, Daqing and Kelkar, Hrishikesh and Martin-Cano, Diego and Rattenbacher, Dominik and Shkarin, Alexey and Utikal, Tobias and G. 2019 , journal =. doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0436-5 , issn =

    2019 doi

  78. [86]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.18517 , keyword =

    2026 , author =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.18517 , keyword =

    2026 doi

  79. [87]

    2013 , journal =

    Ding, Fei and St. 2013 , journal =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.87.161116 , issn =

    2013 doi

  80. [88]

    Nano Letters , shortjournal =

    Türschmann, Pierre and Rotenberg, Nir and Renger, Jan and Harder, Irina and Lohse, Olga and Utikal, Tobias and Götzinger, Stephan and Sandoghdar, Vahid , title =. Nano Letters , shortjournal =. 2017 , month =. doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.7b02033 , url =

    2017 doi

Pith tools

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