Dynamics of the spontaneous emission factor in multiple quantum well nanowire lasers

Arti Agrawal; Charlene J. Lobo; Christopher G Poulton; Parya Reyhanian

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Dynamics of the spontaneous emission factor in multiple quantum well nanowire lasers

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 beta factor of quantum well nanowire lasers is dynamic, not fixed, and peaks at 0.19 for 15 nm wells.

desk verdict A plausible extension of dynamic beta-factor modeling to MQW nanowire lasers, but the headline 15 nm optimum depends on an unvalidated photonic-DOS ansatz and a malformed Lorentzian that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11523 v1 pith:FXR4KCIK submitted 2026-08-12 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Parya Reyhanian , Christopher G Poulton , Arti Agrawal , Charlene J. Lobo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph PACS 42.55.Px42.50.Pq78.67.Uh

keywords spontaneousemissionfactorbetamultiplequantumwellnanowirelasersphotonicdensityofstateslaserrateequationswidthcarrierdependenceInGaAs/GaAs

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

Multiple quantum well (MQW) nanowire lasers are usually modelled with a constant spontaneous emission factor β, fitted after the fact. This paper derives β from the electronic transitions between conduction and valence bands in the quantum wells together with the nanowire cavity's photonic density of states, and argues that β is a dynamic quantity that changes with carrier density, quantum well thickness, and material composition. In the specific In0.2Ga0.8As/GaAs nanowire studied, β rises from about 0.02 at low carrier density to a peak of 0.110 at the threshold carrier density, and an optimum quantum well width of 15 nm raises the peak to 0.19, nearly double the static value. If this is right, constant-β rate equations misrepresent the threshold transition and the light-in–light-out curve, and well width becomes a real design lever.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the photonic density of states ansatz of Eq. (9): the total photonic DOS is the free-space continuum $8\pi n_{\mathrm{cav}}^3 E^2 / h^3 c^3$ plus a discrete sum of Lorentzians $\sum_j (1/V_j) \mathcal{L}(E - E_j, \Gamma_j)$, one per cavity mode. This PDOS enters the spontaneous emission spectrum through the Einstein B coefficient, and the Fermi functions $f_c$ and $f_v$ carry the carrier-density dependence through the quasi-Fermi levels. The β factor is the ratio of the area under the lasing-mode spectrum to the area under the total spectrum, so everything—band filling, quantum well quantization, and cavity confinement—feeds into β through this ratio.

What would settle it

A direct check is to compute the full photonic Green's function, including leaky modes, for the 200 nm diameter, 2.2 µm nanowire and compare β(N) with Eq. (9); a large discrepancy at 15 nm wells would falsify the optimum. A cheaper experimental test is to fabricate wires with well widths of 10, 15, 19, and 25 nm, measure the L-L curve at 5 K, and check whether the 15 nm device shows the steepest threshold jump and highest β as fitted from the slope.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that β is not a fixed parameter but a carrier-density-dependent quantity set by the balance between Purcell-enhanced emission into the lasing cavity mode and emission into all other channels. The paper computes β as the ratio of the spontaneous emission rate into one cavity mode to the total rate, including the free-space continuum, with both rates evaluated from Einstein A and B coefficients and Fermi–Dirac occupation of quantized well states. For the 200 nm diameter, 2.2 µm long nanowire with ten 19 nm In0.2Ga0.8As wells, the model matches the experimental lasing wavelength (958 nm vs 959 nm) and threshold (1.5 vs 1.6 µJ/cm² per pulse) of the reference device, and predicts that β peaks just above threshold and that a 15 nm well width maximizes β at 0.19, almost double the static value 0.111. The authors conclude that constant-β models are systematically misleading for these lasers around threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation hinges on the assumption that the nanowire's photonic environment is just the free-space continuum plus a few cleanly separated cavity resonances; if the true leaky modes mix with those resonances, the predicted β curve and the 15 nm optimum would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Constant-β rate-equation models misrepresent the threshold transition: dynamic β predicts a larger jump in emitted pulse energy and a steeper L-L slope at threshold.
Quantum well width is an exploitable design parameter: 15 nm maximizes β at 0.19 for this structure, nearly double the static value.
β peaks just above the threshold carrier density $7.92 \times 10^{23} \, \mathrm{m}^{-3}$, so operation near threshold channels the largest fraction of spontaneous emission into the lasing mode.
Composition (Indium fraction 10–30%) has a much weaker effect on the optimal β than well width does.
The model reproduces the experimental lasing wavelength and threshold of the reference MQW nanowire laser, supporting its use for design.

Reading between the lines

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

If β's carrier-density dependence is as strong as computed, then rate-equation fits that treat β and spontaneous lifetime as independent constants will trade off errors in both; fitting β from L-L curves alone may hide the dynamic effect.
The same PDOS-plus-Lorentzian machinery could be applied to other high-index-confined cavities, such as quantum-dot micropillars or photonic crystal nanolasers, where β is also usually fitted; the optimal-width argument suggests geometry can be tuned to push β higher.
A direct testable extension: grow otherwise identical nanowires with well widths of 10, 15, 19, and 25 nm and measure threshold jump and L-L slope at 5 K; the 15 nm device should show the steepest threshold transition if the model is right.
The model's temperature is fixed at 5 K and nonradiative recombination is neglected; incorporating temperature-dependent bandgaps would likely shift the optimum width, so the 15 nm value is a low-temperature design point, not a universal optimum.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper does something genuinely new: it computes a carrier-density-dependent spontaneous emission factor for MQW nanowire lasers using a 2D electronic DOS, and shows that beta peaks near threshold and depends on quantum-well width. That is a real extension of Romeira et al.'s bulk-gain treatment, and the derivation from Einstein coefficients is standard but cleanly laid out. The rate-equation implementation with beta(N) is sensible, and the authors are honest about the model's limitations. The validation reproduces the experimental threshold and emission wavelength from ref [15], which is a useful sanity check but not a strong test of the photonic-DOS model. The soft spots are real but fixable. The Lorentzian in Eq. (6) as typeset is not a Lorentzian: E^2 - (Gamma/2)^2 in the denominator is missing the (E-E_cv) term and has the wrong sign for a broadening function. If that is just an OCR/transcription artifact, it still needs correcting because it sits in every spectral integral. More substantively, Eq. (9)'s ansatz adds Lorentzian cavity modes to the homogeneous-medium free-space DOS. For a 200 nm nanowire with n=3.7 in air, the actual continuum of radiation and leaky modes is strongly modified by the waveguide boundary. The stress-test note is right: the denominator of beta, and therefore the claimed optimum width of 15 nm, could shift or vanish if the true continuum differs substantially from the free-space term. The authors explicitly limit the model to modes 'cleanly separated from the free-space continuum,' but they do not quantify the error budget. The validation only checks threshold and wavelength, which are insensitive to the continuum; both static and dynamic beta give the same threshold in Fig. 12, so the predicted steeper slope is not experimentally confirmed either. The central argument—that beta is dynamic and peaks near threshold—holds up as a model claim. The specific numbers, especially the 0.19 maximum and the 15 nm optimum, should be treated as predictions requiring a robustness check, not as established results. The paper deserves a serious referee. A competent referee should ask for the Eq. (6) fix and a sensitivity analysis of beta to the background DOS, ideally comparing against a full electromagnetic LDOS calculation for the nanowire. If that check survives, this is a solid contribution to the nanolaser modeling literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives the spontaneous emission factor β for multiple quantum well (MQW) nanowire lasers from the Einstein-coefficient formalism, combining finite-element cavity simulations with a model photonic density of states. The central claim is that β is a dynamic quantity depending on carrier density, quantum-well width, and composition, rather than a constant fit parameter; for the In0.2Ga0.8As/GaAs nanowire of Ref. [15] the model predicts an optimal well width of 15 nm with a maximum β of 0.19, nearly double the static value of 0.111, and shows that dynamic β changes the shape and threshold of the light-in-light-out curve. The model is validated against the experimental lasing wavelength (958 nm versus 959 nm) and threshold (1.5 versus 1.6 μJ/cm² per pulse) of Ref. [15].

Significance. If the quantitative predictions hold, the paper makes a useful design statement: quantum-well width is an exploitable parameter for maximizing the spontaneous emission factor, and constant-β rate-equation models misrepresent the threshold transition in MQW nanowire lasers. The derivation from Einstein coefficients is transparent and does not fit β post hoc, which is a genuine strength relative to earlier constant-β treatments. However, the predictive value of the headline numbers rests on an unvalidated ansatz for the total photonic density of states, and central equations are typeset in a form that cannot be used as printed. The strengths of the paper are its clear physical framework and the reproduction of the two experimental observables; the weaknesses are the missing validation of the mode-density denominator and the equation-level errors, both of which are load-bearing for the claimed 15 nm optimum.

major comments (3)

[Section II.A, Eq. (6)] The Lorentzian line-shape function is printed as Ł(E,Γin) = (Γin/2) / [E^2 − (Γin/2)^2]. This is not a Lorentzian: on the real axis it can become negative and it diverges. Since Eq. (7), Eq. (8), and Eq. (11) all use this kernel, every spontaneous emission spectrum and all gain values depend on it. The correct homogeneous-broadening kernel should have denominator (E − E_cv)^2 + (Γin/2)^2, not E^2 − (Γin/2)^2. Please correct the typo, or if the implementation uses the printed form, recompute all spectra and β values and check the agreement with Ref. [15].
[Section II.A, Eq. (9) and Section V] The total photonic density of states is modeled as the homogeneous-medium free-space DOS, 8πn_cav^3E^2/(h^3c^3), plus a discrete sum of Lorentzian cavity modes. For a 200-nm-diameter nanowire of refractive index 3.7 surrounded by air, the true electromagnetic continuum, including leaky modes, is not the homogeneous free-space DOS. Because β is the ratio of emission into the lasing mode to the total emission into all modes, this ansatz directly sets every numerical β value and therefore the claimed optimum at L_z = 15 nm. The validation in Appendix 3, based on the 958 nm emission peak and the 1.5 versus 1.6 μJ/cm² threshold, constrains the gain spectrum and the rate equations but does not test the denominator of Eq. (3). The limitation is acknowledged in Section V, but the central quantitative claim would require either a comparison of Eq. (9) with a full electromagnetic LDOS calculation for this geometry, or a reformulation of the 15 nm optimum as an explicit model-conditional prediction.
[Section IV.A, Eq. (14)] The hole Fermi function is typeset without a k_BT in the denominator and with unbalanced parentheses: as printed, f_v(Ecv) = 1 / [1 + exp(−(m*_v/m*_c)(Ecv − Eg) − F_v)], which is dimensionally inconsistent with Eq. (13) and cannot be the distribution used in the 5 K calculations. Since f_c and f_v control the carrier-density dependence of β, gain, and the spontaneous emission spectra, the correct expression must be stated explicitly. This is not a purely cosmetic issue; it affects reproducibility of all density-dependent results.

minor comments (6)

[Section III.A] The HE11b mode is said to have a resonant frequency of 312.85 GHz; for a wavelength near 958 nm the frequency is approximately 313 THz, so the unit should be THz.
[Section II.A, Eq. (3)] The sentence following Eq. (3) says 'Here, R_spon is the rate of spontaneous emissions into the ith mode'; the symbol should be R_i_spon, because R_spon is used for the total rate in the denominator.
[Section II.A, Eq. (8)] The phrase 'N_ph^j(E) is the photonic density of states (PDOS) n for the lasing mode' contains a stray 'n' and should simply say 'for the lasing mode'.
[Section IV.B] The text says the static value 0.111 is 'calculated from Eqn. 3'; it should refer to Eq. (2), consistent with Section IV.A.
[Section IV.A] The sentence 'At carrier densities of N_c = 1×10^23 m−3 and below (red line in Fig. 7)' is confusing because the red line is the static β value, not a carrier-density curve; please rephrase to distinguish the dynamic curve from the static reference line.
[Appendix 3] The statement 'Lasing is observed for N_c > 10^23 m−3' should use the threshold carrier density N_c = 7.92×10^23 m−3 given earlier, or otherwise explain the inequality sign.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dynamic beta factor is computed from a microscopic spontaneous-emission model, not fitted, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing methods reference.

full rationale

The derivation of beta is self-contained: Eq. (8) computes beta as the ratio of spontaneous emission integrals into the lasing mode and into all modes, using Einstein A/B coefficients (Appendix 1), Fermi occupation factors, the 2D electronic DOS, and the PDOS ansatz Eq. (9). No beta value is fitted; the carrier-density, QW-width, and composition dependencies are consequences of the Fermi functions and quantized subbands appearing in the integrands. The only self-citation (Ref. [19]) is a computational-methods chapter used for FEM and is not load-bearing; the cavity modes and validation are anchored to the independent external experiment of Ref. [15]. Although eta, Gamma, and V_a in the rate equations are taken from Ref. [15], so the threshold/L-L validation is a consistency check rather than a strong independent prediction, these parameters do not enter the microscopic beta computation. The agreement of dynamic beta (0.110) with the Yamamoto static estimate (0.111) is an independent cross-check based on common device parameters, not a re-use of a fitted beta. The PDOS approximation in Eq. (9) is explicitly stated as a limitation to well-confined modes; that is a validation/correctness caveat, not circularity. No derived quantity reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central β derivation uses material constants and the intraband scattering time; the rate-equation validation additionally uses η, Γ, and V_a inherited from the experimental paper. No new entities are introduced. The most fragile inputs are the mode-density ansatz (Eq. 9) and the constant intraband scattering time.

free parameters (4)

η = 4.84×10^-4
Fraction of pump power that excites carriers in the rate equation (Eq. 39); taken from ref [15], likely fitted to that experiment's threshold.
Γ = 0.0864
Optical confinement factor in the rate equations; taken from ref [15]; scales stimulated emission and the photon coupling term.
V_a = 6.59×10^-21 m^3
Active region volume; taken from ref [15]; scales carrier and photon densities in the rate equations.
τ_in = 1×10^-12 s
Intraband scattering lifetime that sets the Lorentzian broadening width Γ_in in Eqs. (6)-(7); taken from ref [20], assumed constant over all carrier densities and energies.

assumptions (8)

standard math Einstein A and B coefficient relations, including A/B = N_ph (Eq. 20), from Chuang [23] apply to the QW active medium.
Used to derive spontaneous emission spectra (Eqs. 5-8); standard quantum optics of two-level systems.
standard math Fermi-Dirac statistics with quasi-Fermi levels computed from carrier density (Eqs. 13-16).
Underpins occupation factors f_c(1-f_v) and gain; standard semiconductor statistics.
domain assumption Transitions are dominated by heavy-hole interactions (ref [25]).
Justifies using a single reduced mass and momentum matrix element; cited to empirical data.
domain assumption Only transitions between electron and hole states with equal subband quantum numbers contribute (overlap integral).
Inserted to restrict the sum in Eq. 28; the paper notes overlap factors are zero for the first two and very small thereafter.
domain assumption Total photonic density of states is the free-space term plus a discrete sum of Lorentzian cavity modes that are cleanly separated from the continuum (Eq. 9).
This is the load-bearing mode-density ansatz; the paper itself limits its validity in Section V.
domain assumption Nonradiative lifetime is much longer than radiative lifetime.
Justified by surface passivation; allows omission of nonradiative recombination in rate equations.
domain assumption Intraband scattering linewidth Γ_in is constant at 1 ps across all carrier densities and energies.
Uses a single lifetime from ref [20]; no data supporting constancy.
domain assumption Only the HE11b mode is the lasing mode and other cavity modes are negligible for the numerator of β.
COMSOL shows two modes, HE11a and HE11b; the model keeps only HE11b in the lasing channel.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamics of the spontaneous emission factor in multiple quantum well nanowire lasers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXR4KCIK

@misc{pith2026260811523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamics of the spontaneous emission factor in multiple quantum well nanowire lasers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXR4KCIK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11523}
}

read the original abstract

The spontaneous emission factor - often known as the \b{eta} factor - is an important quantity in the description of quantum well lasers, influencing both the threshold power as well as the general shape of the light in-light out (L-L) curve. Past work on modelling multiple quantum well (MQW) nanowire laser devices has typically assumed that the \b{eta} factor is a constant parameter that can either be estimated or fit in a post-hoc manner. However, the \b{eta} factor can be derived from the transitions between valence and conduction bands in semiconductor quantum wells, together with knowledge of the cavity modes. Here we investigate the dynamic nature of the \b{eta} factor for MQW nanowire lasers, and show how it can be computed. We also examine the dependence of the spontaneous emission rate and spontaneous emission factor \b{eta} on the charge carrier density, quantum well thickness, and composition, and discuss the impact on laser threshold and operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11523 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** illustrates the hexagonal nanowire laser cavity, which has length of 2.2 µ m and diameter 200 nm, and is composed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Cross-section from the 3D cavity simulation of the In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Three discrete electron (Ec1, Ec2, Ec3) and hole (Ev1, Ev2, Ev3) energy levels within the conduction and valence bands of each QW. III. METHODS A. Cavity Simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Relationship between different terms in the total spontaneous emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Spontaneous emission spectrum (Rspon) for quantum well widths Lz equal to 10-25 nm at a carrier density of Nc = 1027m−3 . modes of the nanowire cavity or to the free space mode continuum than to the lasing mode, and the contribution of the denominator of Eqn. 3 increas…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Spontaneous emission spectrum from the lasing mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Light in-light out curve at 5 K for the MQW nanowire laser illustrated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Dependence of β on Indium fraction (0.10-0.30) and thickness (Lz=5-25 nm) of the quantum wells. factor, and gain for a semiconductor multiple quantum well laser. Previous work in this area has generally assumed β to be constant; here we show strongly varying behavior …

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: with Fig. 2b of Ref. [15] it can be seen that nanowire emission spectrum calculated with our model is centred at wavelength ∆λem = 958 nm, in agreement with the experimental results. Further, we calculate the laser threshold which can be obtained from the light in-li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[15]

Ultralow threshold, single-mode ingaas/gaas multiquantum disk nanowire lasers,

X. Zhang, R. Yi, N. Gagrani, Z. Li, F. Zhang, X. Gan, X. Yao, X. Yuan, N. Wang, J. Zhao et al., “Ultralow threshold, single-mode ingaas/gaas multiquantum disk nanowire lasers,” ACS Nano, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 9126–9133, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Site-controlled growth of monolithic ingaas/inp quantum well nanopillar lasers on silicon,

F. Schuster, J. Kapraun, G. N. Malheiros-Silveira, S. Deshpande, and C. J. Chang-Hasnain, “Site-controlled growth of monolithic ingaas/inp quantum well nanopillar lasers on silicon,” Nano letters, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2697–2702, 2017

work page 2017
[2]

Near- infrared hybrid plasmonic multiple quantum well nanowire lasers,

J. Wang, W. Wei, X. Yan, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, and X. Ren, “Near- infrared hybrid plasmonic multiple quantum well nanowire lasers,” Optics Express, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 9358–9367, 2017

work page 2017
[3]

Effect of structural parameters and applied external fields on the third harmonic generation coefficient of algaas/gaas three-step quantum well,

M. Sayrac, H. Dakhlaoui, W. Belhadj, and F. Ungan, “Effect of structural parameters and applied external fields on the third harmonic generation coefficient of algaas/gaas three-step quantum well,” The European Physical Journal Plus, vol. 139, no. 1, p. 57, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Strong amplified spontaneous emission from high quality gaas1-xsbx single quantum well nanowires,

X. Yuan, D. Saxena, P. Caroff, F. Wang, M. Lockrey, S. Mokkapati, H. H. Tan, and C. Jagadish, “Strong amplified spontaneous emission from high quality gaas1-xsbx single quantum well nanowires,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 121, no. 15, pp. 8636–8644, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Ultrafast photodetection in the quantum wells of single algaas/gaas- based nanowires,

N. Erhard, S. Zenger, S. Mork ¨otter, D. Rudolph, M. Weiss, H. J. Krenner, H. Karl, G. Abstreiter, J. J. Finley, G. Koblm ¨uller et al., “Ultrafast photodetection in the quantum wells of single algaas/gaas- based nanowires,” Nano Letters, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 6869–6874, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Optical cavity effects in zno nanowire lasers and waveguides,

J. C. Johnson, H. Yan, P. Yang, and R. J. Saykally, “Optical cavity effects in zno nanowire lasers and waveguides,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 107, no. 34, pp. 8816–8828, 2003

work page 2003
[7]

Microcavity semiconductor laser with enhanced spontaneous emission,

Y . Yamamoto, S. Machida, and G. Bj ¨ork, “Microcavity semiconductor laser with enhanced spontaneous emission,” Physical Review A, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 657, 1991

work page 1991

Show all 26 references

[8]

Purcell effect in the stimulated and sponta- neous emission rates of nanoscale semiconductor lasers,

B. Romeira and A. Fiore, “Purcell effect in the stimulated and sponta- neous emission rates of nanoscale semiconductor lasers,” IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 1–12, 2018

2018
[9]

Room-temperature lasing in a single nanowire with quantum dots,

J. Tatebayashi, S. Kako, J. Ho, Y . Ota, S. Iwamoto, and Y . Arakawa, “Room-temperature lasing in a single nanowire with quantum dots,” Nature Photonics, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 501–505, 2015

2015
[10]

Telecom-band multiwavelength vertical emitting quantum well nanowire laser arrays,

X. Zhang, F. Zhang, R. Yi, N. Wang, Z. Su, M. Zhang, B. Zhao, Z. Li, J. Qu, J. M. Cairney et al., “Telecom-band multiwavelength vertical emitting quantum well nanowire laser arrays,” Light: Science & Applications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 230, 2024

2024
[11]

Ultralow threshold surface emitting ultra- violet lasers with semiconductor nanowires,

M. F. Vafadar and S. Zhao, “Ultralow threshold surface emitting ultra- violet lasers with semiconductor nanowires,” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 6633, 2023

2023
[12]

Low-threshold near-infrared gaas-algaas core-shell nanowire plasmon laser,

J. Ho, J. Tatebayashi, S. Sergent, C. F. Fong, S. Iwamoto, and Y . Arakawa, “Low-threshold near-infrared gaas-algaas core-shell nanowire plasmon laser,” ACS Photonics, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 165–171, 2015

2015
[13]

Quantum-dot nano- cavity lasers with purcell-enhanced stimulated emission,

N. Gregersen, T. Suhr, M. Lorke, and J. Mørk, “Quantum-dot nano- cavity lasers with purcell-enhanced stimulated emission,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 100, no. 13, 2012

2012
[14]

M. R. Shahgoli, Design, fabrication and characterisation of III-V nanowire random lasers. The Australian National University (Australia), 2021

2021
[16]

Heterostructure and q-factor engineering for low-threshold and persistent nanowire lasing,

S. Skalsky, Y . Zhang, J. A. Alanis, H. A. Fonseka, A. M. Sanchez, H. Liu, and P. Parkinson, “Heterostructure and q-factor engineering for low-threshold and persistent nanowire lasing,” Light: Science & Applications, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 43, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi...

2020 doi
[17]

Emission from quantum- dot high-microcavities: transition from spontaneous emission to lasing and the effects of superradiant emitter coupling,

S. Kreinberg, W. W. Chow, J. Wolters, C. Schneider, C. Gies, F. Jahnke, S. H ¨ofling, M. Kamp, and S. Reitzenstein, “Emission from quantum- dot high-microcavities: transition from spontaneous emission to lasing and the effects of superradiant emitter coupling,” Light: Science ...

2017
[18]

Laser oscillation in a strongly coupled single-quantum-dot–nanocavity system,

M. Nomura, N. Kumagai, S. Iwamoto, Y . Ota, and Y . Arakawa, “Laser oscillation in a strongly coupled single-quantum-dot–nanocavity system,” Nature Physics, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 279–283, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1518

2010 doi
[19]

Computational methods,

A. Agrawal, P. Reyhanian, C. J. Lobo, and C. G. Poulton, “Computational methods,” in On-Chip Photonics, ser. Nanophotonics, A. Karabchevsky and A. Choudhary, Eds. Elsevier, 2024, pp. 55–89. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ B9780323917650000104

2024
[20]

Phonon-assisted capture and intradot auger relaxation in quantum dots,

R. Ferreira and G. Bastard, “Phonon-assisted capture and intradot auger relaxation in quantum dots,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 74, no. 19, pp. 2818–2820, 05 1999. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.124024

1999 doi
[21]

Empirical expressions for the alloy composition and temperature dependence of the band gap and intrinsic carrier density in gaxin1xas,

S. Paul, J. B. Roy, and P. K. Basu, “Empirical expressions for the alloy composition and temperature dependence of the band gap and intrinsic carrier density in gaxin1xas,” Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 827–829, 01 1991. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/1...

1991 doi
[22]

Effective masses of electrons and heavy holes in gaas, inas, alas and their ternary compounds,

W. Nakwaski, “Effective masses of electrons and heavy holes in gaas, inas, alas and their ternary compounds,” Physica B: Condensed Matter, vol. 210, no. 1, pp. 1–25, 1995

1995
[23]

S. L. Chuang, Physics of Optoelectronic Devices, ser. Wiley Series in Pure and Applied Optics. Wiley, 1995, ch. 9

1995
[24]

Inhibited spontaneous emission,

D. Kleppner, “Inhibited spontaneous emission,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 47, pp. 233–236, Jul 1981. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.47.233

1981 doi
[25]

Confinement of light hole valence-band states in pseudomorphic in- gaas/ga(al)as quantum wells,

J. Reithmaier, R. H ¨oger, H. Riechert, P. Hiergeist, and G. Abstreiter, “Confinement of light hole valence-band states in pseudomorphic in- gaas/ga(al)as quantum wells,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 957–959, 09 1990

1990
[26]

Nanolasers grown on silicon,

R. Chen, T.-T. D. Tran, K. W. Ng, W. S. Ko, L. C. Chuang, F. G. Sedgwick, and C. Chang-Hasnain, “Nanolasers grown on silicon,” Nature Photonics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 170–175, 2011

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [15]

Ultralow threshold, single-mode ingaas/gaas multiquantum disk nanowire lasers,

X. Zhang, R. Yi, N. Gagrani, Z. Li, F. Zhang, X. Gan, X. Yao, X. Yuan, N. Wang, J. Zhao et al., “Ultralow threshold, single-mode ingaas/gaas multiquantum disk nanowire lasers,” ACS Nano, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 9126–9133, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Site-controlled growth of monolithic ingaas/inp quantum well nanopillar lasers on silicon,

F. Schuster, J. Kapraun, G. N. Malheiros-Silveira, S. Deshpande, and C. J. Chang-Hasnain, “Site-controlled growth of monolithic ingaas/inp quantum well nanopillar lasers on silicon,” Nano letters, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 2697–2702, 2017

work page 2017

[3] [2]

Near- infrared hybrid plasmonic multiple quantum well nanowire lasers,

J. Wang, W. Wei, X. Yan, J. Zhang, X. Zhang, and X. Ren, “Near- infrared hybrid plasmonic multiple quantum well nanowire lasers,” Optics Express, vol. 25, no. 8, pp. 9358–9367, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [3]

Effect of structural parameters and applied external fields on the third harmonic generation coefficient of algaas/gaas three-step quantum well,

M. Sayrac, H. Dakhlaoui, W. Belhadj, and F. Ungan, “Effect of structural parameters and applied external fields on the third harmonic generation coefficient of algaas/gaas three-step quantum well,” The European Physical Journal Plus, vol. 139, no. 1, p. 57, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [4]

Strong amplified spontaneous emission from high quality gaas1-xsbx single quantum well nanowires,

X. Yuan, D. Saxena, P. Caroff, F. Wang, M. Lockrey, S. Mokkapati, H. H. Tan, and C. Jagadish, “Strong amplified spontaneous emission from high quality gaas1-xsbx single quantum well nanowires,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 121, no. 15, pp. 8636–8644, 2017

work page 2017

[6] [5]

Ultrafast photodetection in the quantum wells of single algaas/gaas- based nanowires,

N. Erhard, S. Zenger, S. Mork ¨otter, D. Rudolph, M. Weiss, H. J. Krenner, H. Karl, G. Abstreiter, J. J. Finley, G. Koblm ¨uller et al., “Ultrafast photodetection in the quantum wells of single algaas/gaas- based nanowires,” Nano Letters, vol. 15, no. 10, pp. 6869–6874, 2015

work page 2015

[7] [6]

Optical cavity effects in zno nanowire lasers and waveguides,

J. C. Johnson, H. Yan, P. Yang, and R. J. Saykally, “Optical cavity effects in zno nanowire lasers and waveguides,” The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, vol. 107, no. 34, pp. 8816–8828, 2003

work page 2003

[8] [7]

Microcavity semiconductor laser with enhanced spontaneous emission,

Y . Yamamoto, S. Machida, and G. Bj ¨ork, “Microcavity semiconductor laser with enhanced spontaneous emission,” Physical Review A, vol. 44, no. 1, p. 657, 1991

work page 1991