Low‐Threshold Exciton‐Polariton Condensation via Fast Polariton Relaxation in Organic Microcavities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In organic microcavities, a macroscopic condensate of exciton‐polaritons can be formed at high‐exciton polariton densities. The threshold for forming this condensate is proportional to the relaxation rate from initially excited excitons to these polaritons and the lifetime of the lowest energy polariton states. Although the influence of the lower polariton (LP) lifetime on the threshold has been studied, the relationship between the polariton relaxation rate and the threshold has not been fully explored. In this study, a room‐temperature polariton condensate is demonstrated at a threshold pump fluence of 9.7 ± 0.1 µJ cm−2, in a microcavity containing 4,4″‐bis((E)‐4‐(3,6‐bis(2‐ethylhexyl)‐(9H‐carbazol‐9‐yl))styryl)‐1,1″‐biphenyl (BSBCz‐EH). By using a semiclassical model to describe the polariton kinetics, it is revealed that this low threshold results from the rapid relaxation rate from the dark exciton reservoir to the set of the LP states forming the condensate, with an effective rate Wep ≈ 2.0 × 10−5 cm3 s−1. These results show that accelerating polariton relaxation is possible and is an important factor for realizing low‐threshold polariton condensates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".