Nanoscale spontaneous light sources are promising alternatives to lasers for high-speed optical communications and interconnections through energy-efficient integrated circuits. Yet, developing the spontaneous light sources faster than lasers is hampered by the detection means (e.g., time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy). Here, by coupling monolayer WSe2 to individual plasmonic nanocavities, we achieved an efficient spontaneous light source with potential ultrafast modulation bandwidth and superior brightness. The ultrafast radiative decay rates can be determined and derived solely from the experimental parameters by combining the coupling strength and the photoluminescence enhancement in a single nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. As a result, the hybrid light source has a radiative lifetime down to 350 fs, indicating a potential modulation bandwidth up to 440 GHz, which is 10 times of the traditional semiconductor lasers. Furthermore, the quantum yield is enhanced by a factor of over 300-folds up to 20.8% through making full use of the highly confined nanocavity mode. The nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid we built provides a promising approach for constructing high-speed light-emitting devices.

Compact optical interconnects have been considered as a promising solution/platform for on-chip communication and information processing with modulation bandwidth and energy efficiency superior to traditional electrics.1–3 With high output power and fast modulation speed, lasers are generally considered as candidate light sources for building efficient optical links.4–6 However, downscaling the lasers to subwavelength scale brings additional challenges, including high lasing threshold and gain compression effects. On the other hand, previously ignored light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are recently proposed as a suitable alternative to the lasers with higher energy efficiency and lower fabrication requirements.7–10 By coupling the light-emitting materials to optical nanocavities with extreme light confinement,11,12 their slow intrinsic spontaneous emission rate can be largely enhanced by the Purcell effect.13–18 The Purcell-enhanced nano-light sources show potential modulation speed comparable with or even faster than the lasers.9,19 With a smaller footprint and simpler structure, such nanoLEDs are not limited by lossy cavities and can efficiently operate at room temperature without a threshold or gain compression.9 

Developing Purcell-enhanced nanoLEDs with modulation speed faster than the lasers (>50 GHz) requires a spontaneous emission lifetime less than several picoseconds and even sub-picoseconds. This requirement is hard to be achieved using traditional emitters (such as molecules and quantum dots) with nanosecond-scale spontaneous emission lifetime. Even after the efficient coupling to the optical nanocavities with large Purcell enhancement, the lifetime is still at the range of several to hundreds of picoseconds.14,15,17,19 In contrast, transition metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) are recently demonstrated to have distinctive optical and optoelectronic properties, including strong exciton effect.20 This makes the TMDs a powerful candidate for LEDs' sources with high quantum yield and intrinsic spontaneous emission lifetime down to few picoseconds.21,22 The total decay lifetime of excitons in TMDs can be further accelerated by plasmonic nanocavities to even tens of femtoseconds.18,23,24 However, such an ultrafast decay lifetime within ∼100 nm diameter is hard to be characterized using conventional time-resolved techniques. Zhang et al. developed a method to determine the ultrafast total decay rate in nanocavities through simultaneously obtaining photoluminescence (PL) and Raman spectra.18 Yet, the radiative decay channel remains unrevealed, hampering the development of such kind of ultrafast light source toward practical applications.

In this work, we constructed a Purcell-enhanced ultrafast spontaneous light source by coupling a monolayer WSe2 to the gap region of a nanocube-over-mirror (NCOM) nanocavity. In this hybrid nanosystem, the gap plasmon mode is tailored to match the excitons of WSe2 spatially and spectrally, reaching a moderate plasmon–exciton coupling with 40.1 meV Rabi splitting. Enabled by such measurable coupling strength and PL enhancement, we developed a practical model to determine the radiative lifetime of the hybrid nanosystem. The results show that the radiative lifetime can be controlled from ∼20 ps to 350 fs in the nanocavity, indicating the potential modulation bandwidth up to 440 GHz. In addition, our light sources also show high brightness with more than 300 times enhanced quantum yield compared to the bare WSe2. Our results not only manifest the potential of developing a bright spontaneous emission source with superior modulation bandwidth but also practically promote the further quantitative study of femtosecond-scale ultrafast emission beyond the time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy limit.

The illustration of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid is shown in Fig. 1(a). (Details about the samples are shown in supplementary material Section 1 and Section 7.) By situating an 85 nm Ag nanocube over an ultrasmooth Au film, the NCOM nanocavity was constructed. The nanogap between the nanocube and the Au film consists of a 4 nm Al2O3 layer and monolayer WSe2. The size of the nanocube and the thickness of the Al2O3 layer are selected to ensure that the plasmon is in resonance with excitons in WSe2.23 The fundamental plasmon mode of the NCOM nanocavity is located in the gap region, providing considerable electric field enhancement to enhance light–matter interaction.15,23Figure 1(c) shows the simulation on the electric field distribution of the fundamental plasmon mode in the gap region using a full wave finite element method. (Details are shown in supplementary material Section 7.) The xy-plane electric field distribution at emission wavelength (750 nm) has a field enhancement up to 80 times. Figure 1(d) shows the PL (excited by 633 nm laser) and dark-field (DF) scattering characterization of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid when the nanocavity plasmon and excitons are in resonant. The mode splitting of the scattering spectra and great PL enhancement are simultaneously achieved in a single nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. This indicates that the plasmon–exciton coupling is at the border between strong and weak coupling regimes, where the PL brightness reaches its maximum.25 The electric field enhancement at excitation wavelength (633 nm) has negligible effect on the PL process, because the excitation wavelength is away from the resonant with the emission wavelength. (Details are shown in supplementary material section 2.) Thus, the PL enhancement is mainly contributed from the emission enhancement.

FIG. 1.

(a) The schematic of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrids. (b) The SEM image of the silver nanocube. The scale bar represents 100 nm. (c) The simulated electric field enhancement of the fundamental plasmon mode in the NCOM nanocavity at the emission (750 nm) wavelength. The simulation was acquired in the central plane of WSe2, as marked by a dashed line in (a). (d) The PL of the bare monolayer WSe2 (blue line) and nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid (red line). The dark-field scattering spectra (gray line) of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid.

FIG. 1.

(a) The schematic of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrids. (b) The SEM image of the silver nanocube. The scale bar represents 100 nm. (c) The simulated electric field enhancement of the fundamental plasmon mode in the NCOM nanocavity at the emission (750 nm) wavelength. The simulation was acquired in the central plane of WSe2, as marked by a dashed line in (a). (d) The PL of the bare monolayer WSe2 (blue line) and nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid (red line). The dark-field scattering spectra (gray line) of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid.

Close modal

To map the energy dispersion of the hybrid for quantifying the plasmon–exciton coupling, we gradually deposited Al2O3 layers over the sample to continuously shift the wavelength of the plasmon resonance.23 (Details are shown in supplementary material Section 3.) We collected the dark-field scattering spectra from the single NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid to eliminate the deviation coming from the statistics on different samples.26,27Figures 2(a) and 2(b) show the experimental and simulated mapping of dark-field scattering of the single NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid under every Al2O3 deposition thickness (from 4 to 32 nm). So, we can quantify the strength g of the coupling between excitons (resonant at E0) and nanocavity mode (resonant at Ecav) according to the Jaynes–Cummings model.28,29 The energy of the hybrid states is E±=12(E0+Ecav)±g2+14δ2, where δ=EcavE0 is the detuning between excitons and nanocavity mode. By fitting the dark-field scattering data in Fig. 2(a) with the coupled-oscillator model, we can map the energy dispersion of the hybrids to quantify the coupling strength. (Details about the fitting are shown in supplementary material Section 3.) The resulting energy dispersion in Fig. 2(c) shows avoided-crossing behavior, and we can get Rabi splitting Ω=2g=40.1meV. In addition, the full-widths at half-maximum of the plasmon (γcav) and the excitons (γ0) are 119.8 and 42.8 meV, respectively. So, the Rabi splitting achieved (∼40.1 meV) is smaller than 1/2 γcav+γ0,30 which means that the coupling achieved here does not exceed the strong coupling condition.

FIG. 2.

The experimental (a) and simulated (b) normalized scattering mapping of the single NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid under Al2O3 deposition thickness from 4 to 32 nm. (c) Energy dispersion of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. (d) PL enhancement in response to the energy detuning in the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. The inset is the PL imaging of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid at 4, 16.5, and 32 nm Al2O3 deposition.

FIG. 2.

The experimental (a) and simulated (b) normalized scattering mapping of the single NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid under Al2O3 deposition thickness from 4 to 32 nm. (c) Energy dispersion of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. (d) PL enhancement in response to the energy detuning in the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. The inset is the PL imaging of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid at 4, 16.5, and 32 nm Al2O3 deposition.

Close modal

To check the light-emitting capability of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid, we perform the PL experiment. The PL can be enhanced only at the WSe2 region within the nanocavity. Yet, the area of WSe2 overlapped with the NCOM nanocavity (Scav) is much smaller than which we collected (S0). So, the real enhancement factor (EF) of the PL emitted from WSe2 enhanced by the nanocavity should be calculated according to EF=IcavI0I0S0Scav, where Icav(I0) represents the PL counts with (without) the nanocube. As shown in Fig. 2(d), the PL can be enhanced by a factor of 1350 when the excitons and nanocavity mode are almost in resonant (for 16.5 nm Al2O3 coating over the sample). By collecting the PL spectra of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid at every Al2O3 deposition thickness, we get the relation between the PL enhancement against the detuning. The results show that the PL enhancement can be controlled from 26 to 1350 times through continuously changing the detuning with the Al2O3 deposition method. The PL imaging results also demonstrate the great light-emitting capacity of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid. (Details are shown in supplementary material Section 4.)

Benefiting from the extreme confined plasmon mode, the total decay lifetime of the excitons in TMDs can be accelerated down to tens of femtosecond by the NCOM nanocavities.18 This indicates an ultrafast Purcell-enhanced spontaneous emission beyond the limit of time-resolved fluorescence spectroscopy.31,32 Therefore, developing an experimental method to evaluate and prove the radiative decay lifetime is as significant as achieving it in such hybrids composed of plasmonic nanocavities and monolayer TMDs.

Here, we come up with a method to spectrally determine the radiative lifetime in our nanocavity-WSe2 hybrids. The PL rate of the excitons in the nanocavity γ PL can be expressed as the product of the excitation rate γ exc and the quantum yield γ PL = γ exc η, where η = γ r / γ. Then the enhancement of the PL is33,
γ PL γ 0 PL = γ exc γ 0 exc γ r γ 0 r 1 / γ 1 / γ 0 ,
(1)
where the parameters with subscripts “0” represent the corresponding parameters in free-space without the nanocavity enhancement. As we have mentioned, the Rabi splitting achieved (∼40.1 meV) is smaller than 1/2  γ cav + γ 0, i.e., the light–matter interaction here fails to meet the strong coupling condition. So, the light–matter interaction here can be considered as a perturbation to the Fermi golden rule. Thus, the total decay rate of emitters in the nanocavity γ can be expressed as
γ = 2 π 2 | W i f | 2 D ( ω ) .
(2)
Here, for the dipole-approximate exciton, we can introduce the notation W if = μ · E = g, where μ is the transition dipole moment of the exciton and E is the local electric field.34 Since the nanocavity mode can be treated as Lorentzian line shape with full width γ cav, the photonic density of the states is D ( ω ) = 2 / π γ cav. So, the total decay rate can be expressed as γ = 4 g 2 γ cav. By inserting this relation into Eq. (1), we can find that the radiative decay rate can be written as
γ r = γ PL γ 0 PL η 0 γ cav ( 2 g ) 2 / γ exc γ 0 exc ,
(3)
where η 0 is the intrinsic quantum yield of the monolayer WSe2. Therefore, the radiative emission rate is determined by the excitation enhancement γ exc / γ 0 exc, decay rate of the nanocavity mode γ cav, quantum yield of the bare WSe2 η 0, PL enhancement γ PL / γ 0 PL, and coupling strength g.
We next performed the quantum yield measurement of the monolayer WSe2 for calculating the radiative lifetime. The quantum yield can be calculated by η=Iem/(Iexcfabs), where Iem and Iexc are the emission and excitation photon counts, respectively. fabs represents the absorption efficiency of the monolayer WSe2. IPL=αIem is the PL photon counts readout from the PL spectra, where α is the collection efficiency of the setup from back aperture of the objective to the spectrometer. Iexc can be obtained by Iexc=βPexc, where Pexc is the laser power of the excitation and β is the conversion parameter from the laser power to the readout photon counts. Therefore, the quantum yield can be obtained by
η=IPL/(αβPexcfabs).
(4)
To get the parameter (αβ), we use the same configuration as the PL measurements to collect the reflected light after the 633 nm laser illumination on a reflection mirror. So αβ=Iref/Pref, where Iref and Pref are the readout photon counts and the excitation power of the laser, respectively. According to the relation, we have introduced, and the quantum yield of the monolayer WSe2η0 is 0.065%, which is in consistent with other work.35 (The details are shown in supplementary material Section 5.) Such a poor quantum yield mainly origins from the high density of the defects and the mediocre electronic quality.36 Higher quantum yield may be obtained by recovering defects with chemical treatment.37 

We have quantified the 2g (40.1 meV), γ cav (119.8 meV), η 0 (0.065%), and the γ PL / γ 0 PL [Fig. 2(d)] based on the measured dark-field scattering and PL spectra. After simulating the enhancement of the excitation γ exc / γ 0 exc at every energy detuning [Fig. 3(a)], we can deduce the radiative lifetime of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrids according to Eq. (3). As shown in Fig. 3(a), the radiative lifetime can be controlled from ∼20 ps to 350 fs when changing the energy detuning by in situ scanning the plasmon resonances. The minimum radiative lifetime is ∼350 fs when the nanocavity mode and the excitons are nearly on resonance. Such a spontaneous emission source exceeds a nearly 3 THz emission rate, which is much faster than the former nanocavity-quantum dot hybrids (90 GHz).17 We further calculate the modulation bandwidth of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid according to the relation f 3 dB 1 2 π 1 ( 1 / γ cav ) 2 + ( 1 / γ r ) 2.19 The maximum modulation bandwidth exceeds 440 GHz. Such a modulation speed is much superior to the semiconductor lasers, indicating the possible applications with no need for coherent light such as short-distance on-chip or intra-chip communications.9 

FIG. 3.

(a) The excitation enhancement (blue) and radiative lifetime (orange) in the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid against the detuning. (b) The quantum yield of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid in response to the detuning.

FIG. 3.

(a) The excitation enhancement (blue) and radiative lifetime (orange) in the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid against the detuning. (b) The quantum yield of the NCOM nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid in response to the detuning.

Close modal

Apart from the radiative lifetime, the quantum yield is another important parameter to quantify the light-emitting devices. So, we then measure the quantum yield η of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid according to the method introduced in Eq. (4). As shown in Fig. 3(b), the quantum yield reaches as high as 20.8%, which is enhanced by more than 300 times compared to WSe2 on quartz. The η of WSe2 is effectively controlled by the spectrally tunable nanocavity from 0.4% to 20.8%. The coupling strength of the plasmon–exciton coupling in plasmonic nanocavities will be increased if decreasing the mode volume of the nanocavity mode, leading to the enhancement of the quantum yield. Yet, the smaller mode volume results in the stronger nonradiative decay of the excitons, because they are closer to the metals. Therefore, the maximum quantum yield will be likely obtained before entering the strong coupling regime, i.e., in the intermediate coupling regime. That is why such a magnificent quantum yield enhancement can be obtained in our nanocavity-WSe2 hybrids.

The ultrafast radiative lifetime and high quantum efficiency of nanocavity-WSe2 hybrids are mainly due to the plasmon-enhanced radiative decay rate, which could be theoretically accounted for by a temporal coupled-mode theory.38 In a hybridized system consisting of two or more bare modes, the interaction between the open system and the environment continuum could be expressed by a temporal coupled-mode theory, in which the coupled system (dressed states) would exchange the energy with the continuum via ports [as shown in Fig. 4(a)]. For the exciton-coupling in the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid, the multiple excitons were treated as a collective giant oscillator with frequency ω 0 and oscillation amplitude x 0, while the nanocavity plasmon mode were treated as an oscillator with amplitude x cav, frequency ω cav. The energy stored in the oscillators would be x cav 2 and | x 0 2. Two modes were coupled with a coupling strength g, while the two modes radiatively exchange energy with the environment continuum from the port (s-) with radiative decay rates γ cav r and γ 0 r. Nonradiative decay into heat bath could also be included through nonradiative decay rates γ cav nr and γ 0 nr. Under the single-plasmonic mode approximation, the equation of motion of the coupled-mode theory could be written as
{ x ̇ cav = i ( ω cav + i γ cav ) x cav + i g x 0 , x ̇ 0 = i ( ω 0 + i γ 0 ) x 0 + i g x cav , s = 2 γ cav r x cav + 2 γ 0 r x 0 .
(5)
FIG. 4.

(a) The diagrammatic sketch of the temporal coupled-mode formalism. (b) The calculated radiative LDOS of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid against the energy detuning at every Al2O3 deposition thickness. The gray dot represents the maximum LDOS at every deposition thickness.

FIG. 4.

(a) The diagrammatic sketch of the temporal coupled-mode formalism. (b) The calculated radiative LDOS of the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid against the energy detuning at every Al2O3 deposition thickness. The gray dot represents the maximum LDOS at every deposition thickness.

Close modal
The power of the hybridized system emission would be |s|2. When considering such a plexcitonic PL situation, the exciton's oscillator was “pressed” to have an initial displacement and stored energy, mimicking the two-level system on an excited state. When assuming the plasmons having a much larger interacting cross section with the photons than the excitons (i.e., γcavrγ0r), the rightmost term in s- could be omitted. The PL emission could be simplified into P=|s|2=2γcavr|xcav|2. Noted that the coupled-mode theory only describes the emission process, the excitation enhancement is not included. The emission power could be derived from Eq. (5), P(ω)=2γcavr|x0(0)(ω+ω̃0)(ωω̃0)g(ωω+)[1Im(ω+)+i[ωRe(ω+)]1Im(ω)+i[ωRe(ω)]]|2, in which the dressed states ω±=(ω̃cav+ω̃0)2±4g2+(ω̃cavω̃0)22 and the complex frequencies denote ωcav,0=ωcav,0+iγcav,0. Similarly, we could describe the photoluminescence P0=s,02 from a bare excitonic material without nanostructure, which reads
{ẋ0=i(ω0+γ0)x0,s,0=2γ0rx0.
(6)
When the excitons have the same initial condition [same x0(0)], we could calculate the enhancement of radiation decay by
PP0=|s|2|s,0|2.
(7)
Since the coupling strengths g of the single nanocavity under different Al2O3 coatings only show slight changes (supplementary material Section 3), we could have the radiative decay enhancement as shown in Fig. 4(b). The radiative decay enhancement is modified by changing the detuning, which is in accordance with the radiative lifetime we deduced in Fig. 3(a). Two orders of the magnitude of the radiative decay enhancement can be achieved when the plasmon and exciton are in resonant, accounting for the ultrafast radiative lifetime at sub-picoseconds from the nanocavity-WSe2 hybrid.

In conclusion, we achieved a high-speed and efficient light-emitting source based on plasmonic nanocavities-WSe2 hybrids. The exciton–plasmon coupling is in the intermediate regime to obtain an extreme usage of the radiative enhancement instead of the nonradiative channel. The quantum efficiency is demonstrated to be 20.8%, which is over 300 times to the bare monolayer WSe2. By simultaneously obtaining the coupling strength and the PL enhancement in a single nanocavity, the radiative lifetime of the hybrid is evaluated to be 350 fs with theoretical modulation bandwidth up to 440 GHz. Such a high-speed spontaneous nano-light source is crucial to build up nanoLEDs faster than the lasers.

See the supplementary material for details on the optical characterization, simulation on the excitation and emission enhancement, the fitting results of the dark field scattering spectra, PL imaging, quantum yield measurement, and calculation of scattering spectra with temporal coupled-mode theory and the methods.

We greatly appreciate the support received from the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2021YFA1401100), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91850207, 12204315, and 12104317), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2021M692200), and the Science and Technology Innovation Commission of Shenzhen (Grant No. 20200810143204002).

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

J.S., H.H., and Y.L. conceived the idea and designed the project. H.X. supervised the project. J.S. and Y.X. prepared the samples. J.S. performed the spectroscopy experiments. H.H. performed the theoretical modeling. J.S., H.H., and J.T. analyzed the data. J.S., H.H., and W.C. wrote the manuscript. All authors discussed and commented on the manuscript.

Jiawei Sun: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (lead); Formal analysis (equal); Funding acquisition (equal); Writing – original draft (lead); Writing – review & editing (equal). Huatian Hu: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (supporting); Formal analysis (equal); Writing – original draft (supporting). Wen Chen: Writing – review & editing (equal). Yuhao Xu: Data curation (supporting). Jibo Tang: Formal analysis (supporting). Yang Li: Conceptualization (equal); Funding acquisition (equal). Hongxing Xu: Funding acquisition (equal); Supervision (lead).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

1.
D. A. B.
Miller
,
Proc. IEEE
88
,
728
749
(
2000
).
2.
C.
Sun
,
M. T.
Wade
,
Y.
Lee
,
J. S.
Orcutt
,
L.
Alloatti
,
M. S.
Georgas
,
A. S.
Waterman
,
J. M.
Shainline
,
R. R.
Avizienis
,
S.
Lin
,
B. R.
Moss
,
R.
Kumar
,
F.
Pavanello
,
A. H.
Atabaki
,
H. M.
Cook
,
A. J.
Ou
,
J. C.
Leu
,
Y. H.
Chen
,
K.
Asanovic
,
R. J.
Ram
,
M. A.
Popovic
, and
V. M.
Stojanovic
,
Nature
528
,
534
538
(
2015
).
3.
D. A. B.
Miller
,
J. Lightwave Technol.
35
,
346
396
(
2017
).
4.
K. C. Y.
Huang
,
M.-K.
Seo
,
T.
Sarmiento
,
Y.
Huo
,
J. S.
Harris
, and
M. L.
Brongersma
,
Nat. Photonics
8
,
244
249
(
2014
).
5.
R. M.
Ma
and
R. F.
Oulton
,
Nat. Nanotechnol.
14
,
12
22
(
2019
).
6.
B.
Romeira
and
A.
Fiore
,
Proc. IEEE
108
,
735
748
(
2020
).
7.
G.
Shambat
,
B.
Ellis
,
A.
Majumdar
,
J.
Petykiewicz
,
M. A.
Mayer
,
T.
Sarmiento
,
J.
Harris
,
E. E.
Haller
, and
J.
Vuckovic
,
Nat. Commun.
2
,
539
(
2011
).
8.
M. S.
Eggleston
and
M. C.
Wu
,
Nano Lett.
15
,
3329
3333
(
2015
).
9.
K. L.
Tsakmakidis
,
R. W.
Boyd
,
E.
Yablonovitch
, and
X.
Zhang
,
Opt. Express
24
,
17916
17927
(
2016
).
10.
Y.
Zhao
,
V.
Wang
, and
A.
Javey
,
Matter
3
,
1832
1844
(
2020
).
11.
J. J.
Baumberg
,
J.
Aizpurua
,
M. H.
Mikkelsen
, and
D. R.
Smith
,
Nat. Mater.
18
,
668
678
(
2019
).
12.
J.
Sun
,
Y.
Li
,
H.
Hu
,
W.
Chen
,
D.
Zheng
,
S.
Zhang
, and
H.
Xu
,
Nanoscale
13
,
4408
4419
(
2021
).
13.
S.
Noda
,
M.
Fujita
, and
T.
Asano
,
Nat. Photonics
1
,
449
458
(
2007
).
14.
A.
Kinkhabwala
,
Z. F.
Yu
,
S. H.
Fan
,
Y.
Avlasevich
,
K.
Mullen
, and
W. E.
Moerner
,
Nat. Photonics
3
,
654
657
(
2009
).
15.
G. M.
Akselrod
,
C.
Argyropoulos
,
T. B.
Hoang
,
C.
Ciraci
,
C.
Fang
,
J. N.
Huang
,
D. R.
Smith
, and
M. H.
Mikkelsen
,
Nat. Photonics
8
,
835
840
(
2014
).
16.
M. S.
Eggleston
,
K.
Messer
,
L.
Zhang
,
E.
Yablonovitch
, and
M. C.
Wu
,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
112
,
1704
1709
(
2015
).
17.
T. B.
Hoang
,
G. M.
Akselrod
,
C.
Argyropoulos
,
J.
Huang
,
D. R.
Smith
, and
M. H.
Mikkelsen
,
Nat. Commun.
6
,
7788
(
2015
).
18.
Y.
Zhang
,
W.
Chen
,
T.
Fu
,
J.
Sun
,
D.
Zhang
,
Y.
Li
,
S.
Zhang
, and
H.
Xu
,
Nano Lett.
19
,
6284
6291
(
2019
).
19.
E. K.
Lau
,
A.
Lakhani
,
R. S.
Tucker
, and
M. C.
Wu
,
Opt. Express
17
,
7790
7799
(
2009
).
20.
G.
Wang
,
A.
Chernikov
,
M. M.
Glazov
,
T. F.
Heinz
,
X.
Marie
,
T.
Amand
, and
B.
Urbaszek
,
Rev. Mod. Phys.
90
,
021001
(
2018
).
21.
G. M.
Akselrod
,
T.
Ming
,
C.
Argyropoulos
,
T. B.
Hoang
,
Y.
Lin
,
X.
Ling
,
D. R.
Smith
,
J.
Kong
, and
M. H.
Mikkelsen
,
Nano Lett.
15
,
3578
3584
(
2015
).
22.
F.
Withers
,
O.
Del Pozo-Zamudio
,
A.
Mishchenko
,
A. P.
Rooney
,
A.
Gholinia
,
K.
Watanabe
,
T.
Taniguchi
,
S. J.
Haigh
,
A. K.
Geim
,
A. I.
Tartakovskii
, and
K. S.
Novoselov
,
Nat. Mater.
14
,
301
306
(
2015
).
23.
J.
Sun
,
H.
Hu
,
D.
Zheng
,
D.
Zhang
,
Q.
Deng
,
S.
Zhang
, and
H.
Xu
,
ACS Nano
12
,
10393
10402
(
2018
).
24.
J.
Sun
,
H.
Hu
,
D.
Pan
,
S.
Zhang
, and
H.
Xu
,
Nano Lett.
20
,
4953
4959
(
2020
).
25.
J. T.
Hugall
,
A.
Singh
, and
N. F.
van Hulst
,
ACS Photonics
5
,
43
53
(
2018
).
26.
R.
Chikkaraddy
,
B.
de Nijs
,
F.
Benz
,
S. J.
Barrow
,
O. A.
Scherman
,
E.
Rosta
,
A.
Demetriadou
,
P.
Fox
,
O.
Hess
, and
J. J.
Baumberg
,
Nature
535
,
127
130
(
2016
).
27.
J.
Qin
,
Y. H.
Chen
,
Z.
Zhang
,
Y.
Zhang
,
R. J.
Blaikie
,
B.
Ding
, and
M.
Qiu
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
124
,
063902
(
2020
).
28.
J. M.
Raimond
,
M.
Brune
, and
S.
Haroche
,
Rev. Mod. Phys.
73
,
565
582
(
2001
).
29.
J.
Bellessa
,
C.
Bonnand
,
J. C.
Plenet
, and
J.
Mugnier
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
93
,
036404
(
2004
).
30.
D. G.
Baranov
,
M.
Wersäll
,
J.
Cuadra
,
T. J.
Antosiewicz
, and
T.
Shegai
,
ACS Photonics
5
,
24
42
(
2018
).
31.
C.
Robert
,
D.
Lagarde
,
F.
Cadiz
,
G.
Wang
,
B.
Lassagne
,
T.
Amand
,
A.
Balocchi
,
P.
Renucci
,
S.
Tongay
,
B.
Urbaszek
, and
X.
Marie
,
Phys. Rev. B
93
,
205423
(
2016
).
32.
H. H.
Fang
,
B.
Han
,
C.
Robert
,
M. A.
Semina
,
D.
Lagarde
,
E.
Courtade
,
T.
Taniguchi
,
K.
Watanabe
,
T.
Amand
,
B.
Urbaszek
,
M. M.
Glazov
, and
X.
Marie
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
123
,
067401
(
2019
).
33.
P.
Anger
,
P.
Bharadwaj
, and
L.
Novotny
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
96
,
113002
(
2006
).
34.
F.
Marquier
,
C.
Sauvan
, and
J. J.
Greffet
,
ACS Photonics
4
,
2091
2101
(
2017
).
35.
S.
Roy
,
A. S.
Sharbirin
,
Y.
Lee
,
W. B.
Kim
,
T. S.
Kim
,
K.
Cho
,
K.
Kang
,
H. S.
Jung
, and
J.
Kim
,
Nanomaterials (Basel)
10
,
1032
(
2020
).
36.
M.
Amani
,
D. H.
Lien
,
D.
Kiriya
,
J.
Xiao
,
A.
Azcatl
,
J.
Noh
,
S. R.
Madhvapathy
,
R.
Addou
,
S.
Kc
,
M.
Dubey
,
K.
Cho
,
R. M.
Wallace
,
S. C.
Lee
,
J. H.
He
,
J. W.
Ager
,
X.
Zhang
,
E.
Yablonovitch
, and
A.
Javey
,
Science
350
,
1065
1068
(
2015
).
37.
S.
Roy
,
W.
Choi
,
S.
Jeon
,
D.-H.
Kim
,
H.
Kim
,
S. J.
Yun
,
Y.
Lee
,
J.
Lee
,
Y.-M.
Kim
, and
J.
Kim
,
Nano Lett.
18
,
4523
4530
(
2018
).
38.
H.
Hu
,
Z.
Shi
,
S.
Zhang
, and
H.
Xu
,
J. Chem. Phys.
155
,
074104
(
2021
).

Supplementary Material