MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414620204 · doi:10.1103/66rj-jbqw

Exciton Formation in Two-Dimensional Semiconductors

2025· article· en· W4414620204 on OpenAlexaff
K. Mourzidis, Vishwas Jindal, M. M. Glazov, A. Balocchi, C. Robert, D. Lagarde, P. Renucci, Laurent Lombez, Takashi Taniguchi, Kenji Watanabe, T. Amand, S. Francoeur, X. Marie

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review X · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
Topic2D Materials and Applications
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalRegroupement Québécois sur les Matériaux de Pointe
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsExcitonExcitationBiexcitonSemiconductorLuminescencePolarization (electrochemistry)Photoluminescence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The optical properties of atomically thin semiconductors are dominated by excitons, tightly bound electron-hole pairs, which give rise to particularly rich and remarkable physics. Despite their importance, the microscopic formation mechanisms of excitons remain very poorly understood due to the complex interplay of concurrent phenomena occurring on an ultrafast timescale. Here, we investigate the exciton formation processes in 2D materials based on transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) monolayers using a technique based on the control of excitation light polarization. It allows us to distinguish between the two competing models of exciton formation: geminate and bimolecular formation. The geminate process is the direct formation of the exciton from the initially photogenerated electron-hole pair before the loss of correlation between them, whereas the bimolecular process corresponds to the random binding of free-electron-hole pairs from the initially photogenerated plasma. These processes control the exciton formation time. Our findings reveal that the luminescence intensity is higher by up to 40% for circularly polarized excitation compared to linearly polarized excitation for laser energy above the free-carrier gap. We show that this spin-dependent exciton emission is a fingerprint of the bimolecular formation process. Importantly, we observe that exciton linear polarization (valley coherence) persists even for laser excitation energies exceeding the gap. We demonstrate that it is the result of a fraction of excitons formed by a geminate process. This shows that two formation processes coexist for excitation energies above the gap, where both mechanisms operate concurrently. Similar results obtained on the two most emblematic materials of the TMD semiconductor family, <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <a:mrow> <a:msub> <a:mrow> <a:mi>WSe</a:mi> </a:mrow> <a:mn>2</a:mn> </a:msub> </a:mrow> </a:math> and <c:math xmlns:c="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <c:mrow> <c:msub> <c:mrow> <c:mi>MoS</c:mi> </c:mrow> <c:mn>2</c:mn> </c:msub> </c:mrow> </c:math> monolayers, confirm this dual formation mechanism. These findings overturn the prevailing simplistic view of purely geminate or bimolecular exciton formation and provide crucial insights into exciton physics and means to preserve spin or valley coherence. Our methodology can be applied to a broader range of semiconductor for investigating the intricate interplay between nonresonant excitation conditions, Coulomb interactions, electron-phonon couplings, excitonic dynamics, and quantum coherence.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review XSame topic2D Materials and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207