Exciton–polaritons in optical cavities exhibit strong nonlinearities predominantly because of the third-order Kerr-like interactions mediated by the excitonic component. Under quasi-resonant excitation, depending on the energy of the incident laser, it results in the optical limiting or bistable behavior. The latter phenomenon is manifested by the hysteresis loop observed in the input–output power characteristics, when a cavity is quasi-resonantly driven by a laser field. The direction of the loop is typically counterclockwise when increasing and subsequently decreasing the optical power. In this work, we demonstrate the optical bistability with an inverted hysteresis direction. It is observed in an exfoliated CdTe-based semiconductor microcavity when the frequency of the pumping laser is tuned slightly below the lower polariton mode. This unusual behavior is caused by the interplay of the suppression of strong coupling and the redshift of the lower polariton mode energy when increasing the incident power. We show that under these conditions, the polariton microcavity can be used as an optical limiter. All of the experimental observations, the shape and the direction of the hysteresis and the optical limiting behavior, are fully supported by a theoretical model.

The resonant nonlinear effects are extensively explored in optical microcavities due to their variety and wide range of applications.1,2 Two of the most fascinating phenomena include optical bistability and optical limiting.

Bistability is a property of a system that has two stable, stationary states for a certain range of conditions. It is a widely studied phenomenon in nonlinear physics. It can occur in systems that exhibit memory.3,4 Bistability manifests itself by the formation of a hysteresis loop when the parameters of the system are adiabatically changed. Concerning optical systems, the bistable behavior arises when a nonlinear medium is incorporated in an optical resonator,4 which has been widely studied in different configurations.5–7 Apart from that, the optical bistability appears also in diverse systems, e.g., cold atoms,8–10 lasers,11–13 photonic structures,14,15 VCSELs,16–18 semiconductor monolayers,19 metallic gratings,20 and semiconductor microcavities in the strong coupling regime. In this work, we concentrate solely on the last system. We report on the observation of clockwise hysteresis loop, in contrast to the typical behavior for this kind of structures.

Semiconductor microcavity containing quantum wells (QWs) is an example of an optical resonator with strong nonlinear effects. In the strong light–matter coupling regime, cavity photons mix with excitons, forming quasiparticles called exciton–polaritons (in short, polaritons). Polaritons, despite their photonic origin, strongly interact with each other via Coulomb interactions due to the excitonic component.

The optical bistability in microcavities in the strongly coupled regime can result from the bleaching of light–matter coupling, as theoretically predicted.21 On the other hand, bistability more frequently results from the Kerr-type nonlinearity due to polariton–polariton interactions.1,2,22–24 It can be realized under various experimental conditions, typically with quasi-resonant pumping.22,23,25 Moreover, taking into account the polariton spin degree of freedom and polarization of incident light, a multistable behavior has been observed.26,27 Additionally, the bi- or multistability of the polariton condensate can also be observed for the non-resonant excitation of the system.28–30 

Bistability has been widely studied because of the possible applications of this effect in optical logic circuits,31,32 Ising-model simulators,33,34 optical switches,35,36 or the construction of optical transistors.36,37 The spin multistability of polaritons can be used to construct a complete architecture of photonic logic gates.38 

In the majority of experiments performed in microcavities based on III–V semiconductors,22,39 bistability appears in the form of a hysteresis loop, when the structure is pumped by a laser with energy detuned slightly above the lower polariton mode. In such a configuration, the polariton energy blueshifts with an increase in the pump power and the system switches to a higher transmission state when the polariton energy becomes locked to the laser energy. With a subsequent reduction in the incident power, the system remains locked in the higher transmission state for a certain range of power before switching to the lower transmission state. This range of bistability corresponds to a hysteresis loop in the input–output characteristics. According to the description above, it results in a counterclockwise dependence in the diagram of the output power as a function of the input power.

In this work, we describe the inverted type of bistability that we created in a CdTe-based microcavity. To show the novelty of our results, it is useful to compare the experimental input–output power characteristics measured at two different laser energies. Figure 1(a) illustrates the dispersion relation of polariton modes, with quasi-resonant laser energies marked with (1) and (2). When the energy of the laser is above the lower polariton mode energy, as in the case of (1), the measured input–output power characteristics are presented in Fig. 1(b). It exhibits a counterclockwise direction and qualitatively resembles the hysteresis loop reported previously in the literature.22,39 However, when the laser energy is below the lower polariton energy, as in the case of (2), the system develops another hysteresis loop, which exhibits an unexpected shape. This new type of optical bistability with an inverted (clockwise) hysteresis direction is shown in Fig. 1(c). As the input power is increased, the transmitted light intensity increases linearly. Furthermore, the system abruptly switches from the strong coupling regime to the weak coupling regime, which is observed as a sudden drop in the transmitted light intensity. As the excitation power is then reduced, the system remains in the weakly coupled state for a certain range of input power. This leads to the formation of a hysteresis loop with a clockwise direction, opposite to the optical bistability observed due to the Kerr-like nonlinearity.

FIG. 1.

Types of bistability observed in the system. (a) Dispersion relation of polariton modes (red lines) resulting from the strong coupling between the cavity photon and quantum well exciton (dashed black lines). The colored dotted lines mark two different laser energies (1) and (2). (b) Optical input–output characteristics with a counterclockwise hysteresis loop measured at laser energy (1). (c) Optical input–output characteristics with a clockwise triangular hysteresis loop measured at laser energy (2).

FIG. 1.

Types of bistability observed in the system. (a) Dispersion relation of polariton modes (red lines) resulting from the strong coupling between the cavity photon and quantum well exciton (dashed black lines). The colored dotted lines mark two different laser energies (1) and (2). (b) Optical input–output characteristics with a counterclockwise hysteresis loop measured at laser energy (1). (c) Optical input–output characteristics with a clockwise triangular hysteresis loop measured at laser energy (2).

Close modal

Moreover, from the point of view of applications, the measured input–output characteristics exhibit a behavior that is essential for the so-called optical limiters.40–42 Optical limiting is an effect where the transmitted light intensity does not increase above a certain threshold pumping power. Optical limiters are useful elements in photonic systems that allow low light intensities to pass but simultaneously protect sensitive elements by blocking high laser intensities. Various physical effects can be used in optical limiters: multi-photon absorption,43–45 reverse saturated absorption,46,47 self-defocusing,48 or nonlinear scattering.49,50 Optical limiting can be realized in a wide range of structures, such as photonic crystals,51 micro-ring resonators,52 waveguides,53,54 microcavities,43,55 or microcavities in the strong coupling regime.2,56

This work is organized as follows: Sec. II describes the preparation of the sample, with an emphasis on the exfoliation process of a CdTe-based microcavity from a GaAs substrate. The experimental results are presented in Sec. III. These consist of the results from quasi-resonant transmission intensity studies at different energies of the incident laser and the angle-resolved luminescence as a function of excitation power. We theoretically explain all the effects in terms of suppression of strong coupling and polariton energy reduction and compare them with the case of Kerr-type interactions in Sec. IV.

We studied a CdTe-based semiconductor microcavity in a transmission configuration. The growth of such microcavities has been carried out in two types of substrates: CdTe57–59 and GaAs,60 but both are nontransparent in the spectral region of excitons in CdTe QWs. For this reason, the substrate (in our case, GaAs) has to be removed after growth.

Typically, during the preparation of the semiconductor microcavity samples for transmission measurements, the substrate is mechanically thinned and polished.61 Another approach is chemical etching, which has been performed on microcavities62 and on other layered devices.63 

Within this work, the sample was prepared using a novel approach based on the lift-off method utilizing a sacrificial buffer layer.64 The additional sacrificial layer, grown between the microcavity structure and the GaAs substrate, allows for the water exfoliation process to remove the nontransparent substrate and create a transmissive structure.65 The microcavities prepared in this way retain a high optical quality, as evidenced by the observation of the strong coupling regime and polariton condensation (see the supplementary material).

In the investigated sample, a 90 nm MgTe sacrificial buffer layer was grown between the substrate and the microcavity structure. The water exfoliation method used to dissolve the hygroscopic MgTe layer and for detaching the cavity from the substrate utilized in this work is schematically presented in Fig. 2. At first, the semiconductor structure was glued to a transparent sapphire (Al2O3) surface. The size of the sapphire was larger than the microcavity. A drop of glue was placed on the sample. Then, the sapphire surface was placed on it so that the nontransparent GaAs substrate was on top, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The stack was pressed against the sapphire. The excess glue flowing to the sides was removed with a toothpick to allow water to reach the MgTe layers in order to degrade the sacrificial layer [Fig. 2(b)]. The structure was then placed in a beaker with water and left for 24 h [Fig. 2(c)]. After that, the sample was dried with nitrogen gas and left under ambient conditions for another 24 h. Next, the nontransparent GaAs was detached, as shown in Fig. 2(d), leaving the microcavity structure glued to the sapphire, as presented in Fig. 2(e). Thanks to the use of the lift-off method, a CdTe-based microcavity, grown on the nontransparent GaAs, was finally secured on a transparent sapphire substrate.

FIG. 2.

Process of creating a transmissive microcavity based on CdTe. (a) The transparent Al2O3 substrate sticking to the cavity, (b) the cavity with the new substrate attached, (c) the cavity immersed in deionized water for about 24 h, (d) piling off the nontransparent substrate, and (e) the exfoliated cavity on the transparent substrate.

FIG. 2.

Process of creating a transmissive microcavity based on CdTe. (a) The transparent Al2O3 substrate sticking to the cavity, (b) the cavity with the new substrate attached, (c) the cavity immersed in deionized water for about 24 h, (d) piling off the nontransparent substrate, and (e) the exfoliated cavity on the transparent substrate.

Close modal

In detail, the investigated semiconductor optical microcavity structure consisted of two Bragg mirrors (DBRs), each made of 20 pairs of alternating CdTe layers alloyed with magnesium and zinc. The 600 nm thick cavity between the DBRs was formed by a (Cd,Zn,Mg)Te layer. Within the cavity layer, 6 CdTe:Mn QWs were placed at the maxima of the electric field distribution.

The transmissive semiconductor microcavity obtained by the wet exfoliation process was located in a cryostat at a temperature of 4.5 K.

Measurements were performed to determine the dependence of the intensity of the light transmitted through the sample on the power of the incident laser beam. Such input–output optical power characteristics were collected at various energies of the laser, tuned in the spectral region of the lower polariton mode. A linearly polarized continuous wave laser beam from a tunable Ti:sapphire source was focused on the sample using a lens with a focal length f = 25.4 mm. The diameter of the laser spot on the sample was around 12 µm. The transmitted signal was collected with a 50× microscope objective with a numerical aperture of NA = 0.55. The incident and transmitted laser powers were simultaneously measured by two detectors: one placed before the cryostat and the second one behind the sample. The laser power was changed in the range from single microwatts to tens of milliwatts. The incident power was automatically adjusted in a continuous manner with the angle of a half-wave plate mounted on a programmable rotation stage before a linear polarizer.

The input–output power characteristics, measured for different laser energies, are shown in Fig. 3. Detuning is defined as the energy difference between the laser energy and the minimum of the lower polariton branch, δ = EPELP(k = 0). In the case of laser energy (1), at δ = 4.1 meV, a hysteresis loop was observed in the 30–40 mW input power range. While increasing the power of the incident laser, the system abruptly switched to a higher transmission state at around 38 mW. While reducing the incident optical power, the system switched to a lower transmission state at around 33 mW, forming a hysteresis loop with a counterclockwise direction. Although the observed input–output characteristics resemble the optical bistability originating from the Kerr-like nonlinearity of lower polaritons, in our system, it has a different origin. As will be discussed in detail in Sec. IV C, here, it is a result of the energy crossing between the laser and the strongly redshifting upper polariton mode. As the laser energy is detuned closer to the lower polariton, this hysteresis loop shifts toward higher pumping powers.

FIG. 3.

Dependence of the optical power transmitted through the sample on the input power measured for various energies of the incident laser. The lines numbered (1) and (2) show the input–output characteristics of two different types of optical bistability for laser energies corresponding to Figs. 1(b) and 1(c). The plots are spaced out in the vertical direction so that the first dependence in the figure is in the original scale. The lines are labeled with the detuning between the laser energy and the lower polariton mode minimum δ.

FIG. 3.

Dependence of the optical power transmitted through the sample on the input power measured for various energies of the incident laser. The lines numbered (1) and (2) show the input–output characteristics of two different types of optical bistability for laser energies corresponding to Figs. 1(b) and 1(c). The plots are spaced out in the vertical direction so that the first dependence in the figure is in the original scale. The lines are labeled with the detuning between the laser energy and the lower polariton mode minimum δ.

Close modal

As the energy was decreased to approach the minimum of the lower polariton branch, the bistable behavior for the input power around 30 mW moved away from the measured range of pumping powers. Under these conditions, the system acts as an optical limiter. For laser detuning δ = 1.0 meV above the lower polariton mode, the transmitted light intensity increases almost linearly with the input power up to 7.5 mW. Then, the optical limiting occurs, with the transmitted power being almost independent of the excitation intensity. At δ = 0 meV, the range of linear input–output dependence increases to 10 mW. For higher pump intensities, the output power slightly decreases and saturates.

When the laser energy is tuned below the minimum of the lower polariton mode, a qualitatively different phenomenon emerges. We observe a new hysteresis loop with the direction inverted with respect to the common counterclockwise hysteresis. It has a triangular shape and stems from a cusp formed at the maximum of transmitted power. The appearance of a new type of hysteresis is the result of physical processes that will be discussed in detail alongside our theoretical model in Sec. IV. As the pumping power was increased, for δ = −1.0 meV, the transmitted laser power increased linearly up to 15.8 mW, when it abruptly switched to a lower transmission state. The switching is related to the transition of the system from the strong coupling to the weak coupling regime (Sec. IV C). With a further increase in the incident laser power, the transmitted light intensity slowly decreased. However, when the incident laser power was decreased, the system remained in a lower transmission state until 13.6 mW, completing the clockwise hysteresis loop. As the energy of the incident laser was tuned further down below the lower polariton mode [δ = −2.1 meV, (2)], the bistability range broadened and shifted to higher input powers.

To better understand the observed phenomenon, the laser energy was adjusted to the minimum energy of the lower polariton mode, which corresponds to the appearance of the inverted hysteresis. The measured input–output characteristics in Fig. 4(a) show the switching between the strong and weak coupling at 18 mW, accompanied by a sudden drop in the transmitted light intensity. The experimental setup was then modified to allow for angle-resolved measurements by Fourier space imaging of the light emitted from the microcavity (for details, see the supplementary material). The weak luminescence from the microcavity was directed to the slit of the spectrometer, and the high intensity of transmitted laser light was cut out with a bandpass filter.

FIG. 4.

(a) Input–output power characteristics collected for the laser energy tuned to the minimum of the lower polariton mode (δ = 0). The green dots mark the input power values for which luminescence dispersions with an angular resolution were measured. (b)–(d) Normalized luminescence spectral maps obtained from the cavity transmission for three different pumping powers. Polariton modes as well as photon and exciton modes were fitted in the maps (red lines). This allowed us to show how the coupling strength in the system changes with pumping power. Spectra (b)–(c) correspond to the strong coupling regime, while dispersion relation (d) shows the situation after the system went into the weak coupling regime. The hatched region in (b)–(d) marks the spectral region covered up by the bandpass filter.

FIG. 4.

(a) Input–output power characteristics collected for the laser energy tuned to the minimum of the lower polariton mode (δ = 0). The green dots mark the input power values for which luminescence dispersions with an angular resolution were measured. (b)–(d) Normalized luminescence spectral maps obtained from the cavity transmission for three different pumping powers. Polariton modes as well as photon and exciton modes were fitted in the maps (red lines). This allowed us to show how the coupling strength in the system changes with pumping power. Spectra (b)–(c) correspond to the strong coupling regime, while dispersion relation (d) shows the situation after the system went into the weak coupling regime. The hatched region in (b)–(d) marks the spectral region covered up by the bandpass filter.

Close modal

The acquired polariton dispersion relations at different excitation powers are presented in Figs. 4(b)4(d). In Fig. 4(b), which shows the dispersion relation for 6.79 mW input power, two modes of upper and lower polaritons are clearly visible. A Rabi splitting of 7 meV was obtained from the coupled oscillator model [see Eq. (A.1) in the  Appendix] fitted to the measured angle-resolved spectra. The corresponding modes of the upper and lower polaritons are marked with the red lines, while the corresponding bare cavity photon and exciton energies are depicted with the black dashed lines. Similarly, in Fig. 4(c), which corresponds to the power just before the transition to the lower transmission state, both polariton modes can be seen. The coupling strength decreased to 3 meV, but the system remains in the strong coupling regime. In Fig. 4(d), for a power just above the transition (20.21 mW), only a single mode with a parabolic dispersion is visible. The system transitioned from the strong to weak coupling regime as the light–matter coupling strength decreased below the linewidth of polariton modes.

To summarize the experimental results, the investigated exfoliated optical microcavity based on CdTe demonstrated a new type of optical bistability, where the energy of the incident laser was set below the minimum energy of the lower polariton mode. The intensity of the transmitted light formed a hysteresis loop with a clockwise direction. A decrease in the Rabi splitting in the cavity was observed when increasing the pumping power. The switching between the two bistable states was accompanied by the transition between the strong and weak coupling regimes. In addition, as for high excitation powers, the transmitted power decreased, the system can find application as an optical limiter.

In order to explain the formation of the inverted hysteresis, the quasi-resonant excitation of an optical semiconductor microcavity was also investigated theoretically. At first, a two-component model is used to obtain the optical input–output characteristics when the system is driven in the spectral vicinity of lower and upper polariton modes. Next, following the experimental observations, we include in the theoretical model the effects of suppression of the coupling strength66 and additionally assume an energy redshift of polariton components.67,68 Furthermore, we point out the differences between the inverted hysteresis and the nonlinear optical response of a microcavity with interactions mediated by excitons only. It should be noted that the standard two-component model is insufficient to describe the inverted hysteresis.

The evolution of photonic ψC(t) and excitonic ψX(t) components of polaritons was determined using coupled mean-field equations,69,70
iddtψC=(EC(k)iγC)ψC+ΩR2ψX+FeiωPt,
(1)
iddtψX=(EX(k)iγX+gX|ψX|2)ψX+ΩR2ψC,
(2)
where EC,X(k)=EC,X0+2k22mC,X* are the dispersion relations of cavity photons and quantum well excitons (indices C and X, respectively). The parameters γC,X are the loss coefficients of the two components. The Rabi frequency that defines the coupling strength between excitons and photons is given by ΩR. The last term in the first equation describes the external laser pumping with energy EP = ℏωP and amplitude F. The parameter gX represents the strength of the third-order (Kerr-like) nonlinearity due to the interactions between excitons, which has been crucial in the description of bistability.22 

The model has already been used to explore Rabi oscillations,71–74 optical parametric scattering,75,76 multistability,77,78 and dynamic modification of light–matter coupling,66,79 due to the presence of two degrees of freedom. In this work, it is used to simulate the intensity of the transmitted light for varying intensity and energy of the driving field.

We begin our analysis with the standard model of bistability where the loss of strong coupling is neglected and the exciton–exciton interactions are the only source of nonlinearity. The calculated optical field density in a microcavity for two different laser energies obtained using Eqs. (1) and (2) is shown in Fig. 5. The simulated density of the photonic field in the steady-state |ψCSS|2 is proportional to the intensity of the transmitted light. The amplitude of the pumping field F was continuously varied upward from zero to the maximum value and then back to zero. In Fig. 5(a), the detuning between the laser energy and the energy of lower polariton mode was set to δ = 2.09 meV, for EP = −4.25 meV (EPELP), which resulted in an “S-shaped” hysteresis between the photonic component density and the external optical input. This input–output counterclockwise hysteresis is expected for lower polaritons and has been widely studied theoretically and experimentally.1,2,22

FIG. 5.

Hysteresis in the model without the loss of strong coupling for the pump energy near the lower (a) and the upper (b) polariton branches at k = 0. The red dots show the density of the photonic component in steady states for increasing and decreasing laser field amplitude |F|. The arrows indicate the direction of the hysteresis. In both cases, the system remains in the lower branch of the hysteresis loop when the laser field intensity is adiabatically increased. The simulation parameters are ΩR = 10.5 meV, EX = 0 meV, EC = −2 meV, γC = 0.5 ps−1, γX = 0.5 ps−1, gX = 0.02 meV μm2, EUP = 4.34 meV, and ELP = −6.34 meV.

FIG. 5.

Hysteresis in the model without the loss of strong coupling for the pump energy near the lower (a) and the upper (b) polariton branches at k = 0. The red dots show the density of the photonic component in steady states for increasing and decreasing laser field amplitude |F|. The arrows indicate the direction of the hysteresis. In both cases, the system remains in the lower branch of the hysteresis loop when the laser field intensity is adiabatically increased. The simulation parameters are ΩR = 10.5 meV, EX = 0 meV, EC = −2 meV, γC = 0.5 ps−1, γX = 0.5 ps−1, gX = 0.02 meV μm2, EUP = 4.34 meV, and ELP = −6.34 meV.

Close modal

Although the calculated hysteresis may seem to match the experimental results for laser energy (1) in Fig. 1(b), we encounter qualitative differences for other values of laser detuning. In simulations for excitation with energy EP = 6 meV (EPEUP), slightly above the resonance with the upper dispersion branch, when δ = 12.34 meV, another hysteresis loop with a “triangular” shape, as shown in Fig. 5(b), is encountered. This nontrivial dependence of the polariton response can be explained by the influence of the Kerr-like nonlinearity on the energy spectrum. The Kerr nonlinearity results in a blueshift of the polariton mode energy with increasing input power.

This effect is analyzed by calculating the response of polaritons to a coherent laser field with a fixed intensity and varying energy (see the  Appendix). The calculated energy spectra obtained for two laser amplitudes F1 and F2 are shown in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b). Figure 6(a) presents the polariton dispersion when the system is excited with a laser field with energy EP = 6 meV and a low amplitude F1. In this case, the energy blueshift ΔB=gR|ψXSS|2 is negligibly small and the difference between the exciton and photon energies at k = 0 is equal to 2 meV. The solid lines in Figs. 6(a) and 6(b) indicate the analytically calculated dispersion of the lower and upper polariton branches when EX=EX0+ΔB (see the  Appendix). Figure 6(b) presents the energy spectrum of the system excited with the same energy as in (a) but with a higher laser field amplitude F2 (F1 < F2). In this case, the energy blueshift induced by the interactions significantly modifies the polariton energy.

FIG. 6.

(a) and (b) Simulated spectrum of a polariton system excited with laser at energy EP = 6 meV and amplitudes F1 and F2 marked in Fig. 5(b). We assume that the exciton effective mass and the cavity photon effective mass are mC*=5105me0 and mX*=5101me0, respectively, where me0 is the free electron mass. (c) Hopfield coefficients of the upper polariton excited with an optical pump with amplitudes F1 (left) and F2 (right).

FIG. 6.

(a) and (b) Simulated spectrum of a polariton system excited with laser at energy EP = 6 meV and amplitudes F1 and F2 marked in Fig. 5(b). We assume that the exciton effective mass and the cavity photon effective mass are mC*=5105me0 and mX*=5101me0, respectively, where me0 is the free electron mass. (c) Hopfield coefficients of the upper polariton excited with an optical pump with amplitudes F1 (left) and F2 (right).

Close modal

The triangular shape of the hysteresis in Fig. 5(b) can be understood as an effect of the modification of the polariton composition. Figure 6(c) shows the photonic (CU) and excitonic (XU) Hopfield coefficients for the upper polariton branch.80 The upper polaritons become more excitonic for small wave vectors as the optical pump intensity is increased. The calculated difference between the excitonic Hopfield coefficients for upper polaritons at k = 0 for pump powers F2 and F1 was ∼0.26, which explains why the density of the photonic field decreases when increasing the pump power. For laser energy close to the lower polariton mode, an opposite mechanism explains the increase in the photonic component density [Fig. 5(a)].

We note that, in contrast to the experimental observation, the directions of both hysteresis loops in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b) are counterclockwise. To reproduce the experimental clockwise (inverted) hysteresis direction, the model has to be extended to include the effects of the loss of strong coupling and the thermal energy redshift.

To reproduce the experimental observations, we modified the set of equations in the following form:
iddtψC=(ẼCiγC)ψC+Ω̃2ψX+FeiωPt,
(3)
iddtψX=(ẼXiγX+gX|ψX|2)ψX+Ω̃2ψC.
(4)
The newly introduced ẼC,X terms reflect the effect of the energy redshift of the photon and exciton components, induced by the thermal effects.67,68 The assumption of the energy redshift was required to successfully describe the inverted hysteresis loops. It was assumed that the heating of the sample changes energies quadratically as a function of the pump amplitude, or equivalently, linearly as a function of light intensity. The resulting effective energy of the photon and exciton is given by
ẼC,X=EC,XβC,X|F|2,
(5)
where βC,X is a phenomenological constant describing the strength of the thermal effects. Phenomenologically, we observe that both exciton and photon modes are redshifted by approximately the same amount for a given pump power (βCβX). It should be noted that the thermal energy shifts for the photonic and excitonic modes usually differ in semiconductors. This effect is strongly dependent on the material properties of the system.67 
The model can also take into account that the density of excitons is locally increased for high-power excitations. In the critical case, the distance between excitons can be comparable to their Bohr radii. At this point, the Pauli exclusion results in the phase space filling effect, which leads to the reduction in the light–matter coupling.69 Therefore, the effective Rabi frequency Ω̃ can be written as
Ω̃=ΩR0e(β1nR+β2|ψX|2),
(6)
where |ψX|2 and nRα|F|2γX are the coherent exciton density and the density of incoherent, thermally excited carriers, α is the scaling parameter (for more details, see the supplementary material), and ΩR0 is the value of the Rabi splitting in the case when saturation effects are negligible. The parameters β1 and β2 describe how the density of coherent and incoherent carriers affects the reduction in the light–matter coupling.

The response of the polariton system obtained using Eqs. (3) and (4) is shown in Fig. 7. In the simulation, it was assumed that the loss of strong coupling is the most prominent nonlinear phenomenon in the system (compared to the effect of nonlinear exciton–exciton interactions). This assumption is fulfilled when gXβ2ΩR. Figure 7(a) shows the hysteresis arising when the system is excited by a laser source with energy close to the upper polariton mode with δ = 7.34 meV (EP = 1 meV). The calculated hysteresis loop has the same direction as in the experimental results obtained for laser energy close to the upper polariton. The measured input–output characteristics in Fig. 1(b) have the same direction and the overall shape of the hysteresis loop.

FIG. 7.

Hysteresis loops in the model with the loss of strong coupling and thermal energy redshift. The counterclockwise upper polariton (a) and clockwise lower polariton (b) hysteresis for EP = 1 meV and EP = −6.9 meV, respectively. The arrows indicate the direction of the hysteresis. The simulation parameters are ΩR = 10.5 meV, EX = 0 meV, EC = −2 meV, γC = 0.5 ps−1, γX = 0.5 ps−1, gX = 0.02 meV μm2, k = 0 µm−1, β = 0.24, β1 = 0.001, β2 = 0.165, α = 1, EUP = 4.34 meV, and ELP = −6.34 meV.

FIG. 7.

Hysteresis loops in the model with the loss of strong coupling and thermal energy redshift. The counterclockwise upper polariton (a) and clockwise lower polariton (b) hysteresis for EP = 1 meV and EP = −6.9 meV, respectively. The arrows indicate the direction of the hysteresis. The simulation parameters are ΩR = 10.5 meV, EX = 0 meV, EC = −2 meV, γC = 0.5 ps−1, γX = 0.5 ps−1, gX = 0.02 meV μm2, k = 0 µm−1, β = 0.24, β1 = 0.001, β2 = 0.165, α = 1, EUP = 4.34 meV, and ELP = −6.34 meV.

Close modal

Within the same model, Fig. 7(b) shows the response of the photonic component that arises when the laser energy was set below the lower polariton branch when EP = −6.9 meV and δ = −0.55 meV. In this case, the hysteresis shape was triangular and was characterized by the rapid depletion of the photon field density at a critical value of the pump power. The direction of the hysteresis was opposite compared to the examples shown in Fig. 5. The hysteresis arising near the lower polariton resulted from the competition between the loss of strong coupling, exciton–exciton interactions, and thermal energy redshift of excitons and cavity photons. The simulated behavior was once again in good agreement with the experimental results. The initial increase in the transmitted light intensity with a sudden decrease in the transmittance and the resulting clockwise hysteresis loop are observed in Fig. 1(c).

To summarize, the quasi-resonant laser transmission was investigated in an exfoliated II–VI semiconductor microcavity. With increasing laser power, the polariton modes exhibited suppression of the exciton–photon coupling strength, as evidenced by the angle-resolved measurements. For varying excitation power, the transmitted light intensity showed a bistable behavior with hysteresis loops. For the incident laser energy above the lower polariton mode, the hysteresis loop resembled the behavior reported in GaAs-based structures, where it originates from the lower polariton energy blueshift due to Kerr-like nonlinearities. Here, the bistability arose from the energy redshift of the upper polariton mode. Most importantly, when the laser energy was set below the lower polariton mode, the system exhibited a different kind of bistable behavior, showing a hysteresis loop with the opposite direction. As a function of increasing pumping power, the transmittance decreased sharply. We suggest that this transmittance blocking phenomenon can be used in an efficient optical limiter.

All the observed properties were taken into account in the theoretical analysis. Starting from the two-component model with the Kerr-like nonlinear term, the well-known hysteresis loop was observed for the system driven with a laser tuned at the energy above the lower polariton mode. However, contrary to the experimental results, hysteresis loops due to both upper and lower polaritons exhibited the same (counterclockwise) direction.

To explain the experimental results, the model was extended to take into account the polariton energy redshift and Rabi energy reduction. The simulated input–output characteristics changed significantly. Depending on the energy of the driving field, the hysteresis loops exhibited clockwise or counterclockwise directions, in full agreement with the experimental observations.

See the supplementary material for additional details of the experimental setup, determination of microcavity quality factor, polariton condensation, and reservoir density in simulations.

This work was supported by National Science Centre, Poland—M.F., M. Ma., and B.P. received funding under Grant No. 2020/37/B/ST3/01657, R.M. received funding under Grant No. 2019/33/N/ST3/02019, and A.O. received funding under Grant No. 2019/35/N/ST3/01379.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

M. Furman: Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Visualization (equal); Writing – original draft (equal). A. Opala: Formal analysis (supporting); Methodology (lead); Writing – original draft (equal). M. Król: Investigation (supporting); Writing – original draft (equal). K. Tyszka: Investigation (supporting). R. Mirek: Investigation (supporting). M. Muszyński: Investigation (supporting); Visualization (supporting). B. Seredyński: Resources (supporting). W. Pacuski: Resources (lead). J. Szczytko: Supervision (supporting). M. Matuszewski: Methodology (supporting); Supervision (supporting); Writing – review & editing (equal). B. Piętka: Funding acquisition (equal); Methodology (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal).

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

The energy spectrum of the exciton–polariton system for a specific value of coherent pump intensity F was obtained numerically, integrating the time evolution of the photonic component given by Eq. (1). This procedure was repeated for the given value of polariton wave vector k = kx and laser energy EP = ℏωP. The dispersion from Fig. 6(a) was obtained realizing 51 200 simulations, performed using the four-order Runge–Kutta method, for different values of (kx, EP) from the range kx ∈ (−6, 6) µm−1 and EP ∈ (−10, 30) meV. The time window of each simulation (0, tmax) was equal to tmax = 80τC and was enough to achieve a steady state of the system. Each simulation was obtained for 3200 algorithm iterations with a time step dt = 0.025 ps. The analytical dispersion relations of exciton–polaritons, shown as the red lines, were obtained using the following formula:
EUP,LP=12EX(k)+EC(k)i(γC+γX)±2ΩR2+(Δi(γCγX))2+ΔB,
(A1)
where Δ = EC(k) − EX(k) is the detuning and ΔB is the numerically calculated value of blueshift (see the details in the main text). The corresponding Hopfield coefficients for the upper polaritons are given by80 
|XU(k)|2=1121ΔΔB(ΔΔB)2+2ΩR2,
(A2)
|CU(k)|2=1121+ΔΔB(ΔΔB)2+2ΩR2.
(A3)
1.
A.
Kavokin
,
J. J.
Baumberg
,
G.
Malpuech
, and
F. P.
Laussy
,
Microcavities
(
Oxford University Press
,
2017
).
2.
I.
Carusotto
and
C.
Ciuti
, “
Quantum fluids of light
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
85
,
299
366
(
2013
).
3.
A.
Szöke
,
V.
Daneu
,
J.
Goldhar
, and
N. A.
Kurnit
, “
Bistable optical element and its applications
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
15
,
376
379
(
1969
).
4.
H.
Gibbs
,
Optical Bistability: Controlling Light with Light
(
Elsevier
,
2012
).
5.
H. M.
Gibbs
,
S. L.
McCall
, and
T. N. C.
Venkatesan
, “
Differential gain and bistability using a sodium-filled Fabry–Perot interferometer
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
36
,
1135
1138
(
1976
).
6.
H. M.
Gibbs
,
S. L.
McCall
,
T. N. C.
Venkatesan
,
A. C.
Gossard
,
A.
Passner
, and
W.
Wiegmann
, “
Optical bistability in semiconductors
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
35
,
451
453
(
1979
).
7.
Z.
Geng
,
K. J. H.
Peters
,
A. A. P.
Trichet
,
K.
Malmir
,
R.
Kolkowski
,
J. M.
Smith
, and
S. R. K.
Rodriguez
, “
Universal scaling in the dynamic hysteresis, and non-Markovian dynamics, of a tunable optical cavity
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
124
,
153603
(
2020
).
8.
A.
Joshi
,
A.
Brown
,
H.
Wang
, and
M.
Xiao
, “
Controlling optical bistability in a three-level atomic system
,”
Phys. Rev. A
67
,
041801
(
2003
).
9.
S.
Gupta
,
K. L.
Moore
,
K. W.
Murch
, and
D. M.
Stamper-Kurn
, “
Cavity nonlinear optics at low photon numbers from collective atomic motion
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
99
,
213601
(
2007
).
10.
H.
Gothe
,
T.
Valenzuela
,
M.
Cristiani
, and
J.
Eschner
, “
Optical bistability and nonlinear dynamics by saturation of cold Yb atoms in a cavity
,”
Phys. Rev. A
99
,
013849
(
2019
).
11.
N. K.
Dutta
,
G. P.
Agrawal
, and
M. W.
Focht
, “
Bistability in coupled cavity semiconductor lasers
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
44
,
30
32
(
1984
).
12.
R.
Roy
and
L.
Mandel
, “
Optical bistability and first order phase transition in a ring dye laser
,”
Opt. Commun.
34
,
133
136
(
1980
).
13.
P.
Jung
,
G.
Gray
,
R.
Roy
, and
P.
Mandel
, “
Scaling law for dynamical hysteresis
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
65
,
1873
1876
(
1990
).
14.
M.
Soljačić
,
M.
Ibanescu
,
C.
Luo
,
S. G.
Johnson
,
S.
Fan
,
Y.
Fink
, and
J. D.
Joannopoulos
, “
All-optical switching using optical bistability in nonlinear photonic crystals
,” in
Photonic Crystal Materials and Devices
(
SPIE
,
2003
), Vol. 5000, pp.
200
214
.
15.
A.
Majumdar
and
A.
Rundquist
, “
Cavity-enabled self-electro-optic bistability in silicon photonics
,”
Opt. Lett.
39
,
3864
3867
(
2014
).
16.
H.
Kawaguchi
, “
Bistable laser diodes and their applications: State of the art
,”
IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron.
3
,
1254
1270
(
1997
).
17.
C. F.
Marki
,
D. R.
Jorgesen
,
H.
Zhang
,
P.
Wen
, and
S. C.
Esener
, “
Observation of counterclockwise, clockwise and butterfly bistabilty in 1550 nm VCSOAs
,”
Opt. Express
15
,
4953
4959
(
2007
).
18.
A.
Hurtado
,
A.
Quirce
,
A.
Valle
,
L.
Pesquera
, and
M. J.
Adams
, “
Power and wavelength polarization bistability with very wide hysteresis cycles in a 1550 nm-VCSEL subject to orthogonal optical injection
,”
Opt. Express
17
,
23637
23642
(
2009
).
19.
H.
Xie
,
S.
Jiang
,
J.
Shan
, and
K. F.
Mak
, “
Valley-selective exciton bistability in a suspended monolayer semiconductor
,”
Nano Lett.
18
,
3213
3220
(
2018
).
20.
C.
Min
,
P.
Wang
,
C.
Chen
,
Y.
Deng
,
Y.
Lu
,
H.
Ming
,
T.
Ning
,
Y.
Zhou
, and
G.
Yang
, “
All-optical switching in subwavelength metallic grating structure containing nonlinear optical materials
,”
Opt. Lett.
33
,
869
871
(
2008
).
21.
A.
Tredicucci
,
Y.
Chen
,
V.
Pellegrini
,
M.
Börger
, and
F.
Bassani
, “
Optical bistability of semiconductor microcavities in the strong-coupling regime
,”
Phys. Rev. A
54
,
3493
3498
(
1996
).
22.
A.
Baas
,
J. P.
Karr
,
H.
Eleuch
, and
E.
Giacobino
, “
Optical bistability in semiconductor microcavities
,”
Phys. Rev. A
69
,
023809
(
2004
).
23.
F.
Claude
,
M. J.
Jacquet
,
R.
Usciati
,
I.
Carusotto
,
E.
Giacobino
,
A.
Bramati
, and
Q.
Glorieux
, “
High-resolution coherent probe spectroscopy of a polariton quantum fluid
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
129
,
103601
(
2022
).
24.
N. A.
Gippius
,
S. G.
Tikhodeev
,
V. D.
Kulakovskii
,
D. N.
Krizhanovskii
, and
A. I.
Tartakovskii
, “
Nonlinear dynamics of polariton scattering in semiconductor microcavity: Bistability vs stimulated scattering
,”
Europhys. Lett.
67
,
997
(
2004
).
25.
E. A.
Cotta
and
F. M.
Matinaga
, “
Bistability double-crossing curve effect in a polariton-laser semiconductor microcavity
,”
Phys. Rev. B
76
,
073308
(
2007
).
26.
N. A.
Gippius
,
I. A.
Shelykh
,
D. D.
Solnyshkov
,
S. S.
Gavrilov
,
Y. G.
Rubo
,
A. V.
Kavokin
,
S. G.
Tikhodeev
, and
G.
Malpuech
, “
Polarization multistability of cavity polaritons
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
98
,
236401
(
2007
).
27.
T. K.
Paraïso
,
M.
Wouters
,
Y.
Léger
,
F.
Morier-Genoud
, and
B.
Deveaud-Plédran
, “
Multistability of a coherent spin ensemble in a semiconductor microcavity
,”
Nat. Mater.
9
,
655
660
(
2010
).
28.
L.
Pickup
,
K.
Kalinin
,
A.
Askitopoulos
,
Z.
Hatzopoulos
,
P. G.
Savvidis
,
N. G.
Berloff
, and
P. G.
Lagoudakis
, “
Optical bistability under nonresonant excitation in spinor polariton condensates
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
120
,
225301
(
2018
).
29.
Y.
del Valle-Inclan Redondo
,
H.
Sigurdsson
,
H.
Ohadi
,
I. A.
Shelykh
,
Y. G.
Rubo
,
Z.
Hatzopoulos
,
P. G.
Savvidis
, and
J. J.
Baumberg
, “
Observation of inversion, hysteresis, and collapse of spin in optically trapped polariton condensates
,”
Phys. Rev. B
99
,
165311
(
2019
).
30.
H.
Sigurdsson
, “
Hysteresis in linearly polarized nonresonantly driven exciton–polariton condensates
,”
Phys. Rev. Res.
2
,
023323
(
2020
).
31.
T. C. H.
Liew
,
A. V.
Kavokin
, and
I. A.
Shelykh
, “
Optical circuits based on polariton neurons in semiconductor microcavities
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
101
,
016402
(
2008
).
32.
T. C. H.
Liew
,
A. V.
Kavokin
,
T.
Ostatnický
,
M.
Kaliteevski
,
I. A.
Shelykh
, and
R. A.
Abram
, “
Exciton–polariton integrated circuits
,”
Phys. Rev. B
82
,
033302
(
2010
).
33.
M.
Foss-Feig
,
P.
Niroula
,
J. T.
Young
,
M.
Hafezi
,
A. V.
Gorshkov
,
R. M.
Wilson
, and
M. F.
Maghrebi
, “
Emergent equilibrium in many-body optical bistability
,”
Phys. Rev. A
95
,
043826
(
2017
).
34.
O.
Kyriienko
,
H.
Sigurdsson
, and
T. C. H.
Liew
, “
Probabilistic solving of NP-hard problems with bistable nonlinear optical networks
,”
Phys. Rev. B
99
,
195301
(
2019
).
35.
I. A.
Shelykh
,
T. C. H.
Liew
, and
A. V.
Kavokin
, “
Spin rings in semiconductor microcavities
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
100
,
116401
(
2008
).
36.
H.
Suchomel
,
S.
Brodbeck
,
T. C. H.
Liew
,
M.
Amthor
,
M.
Klaas
,
S.
Klembt
,
M.
Kamp
,
S.
Höfling
, and
C.
Schneider
, “
Prototype of a bistable polariton field-effect transistor switch
,”
Sci. Rep.
7
,
5114
(
2017
).
37.
D.
Ballarini
,
M.
De Giorgi
,
E.
Cancellieri
,
R.
Houdré
,
E.
Giacobino
,
R.
Cingolani
,
A.
Bramati
,
G.
Gigli
, and
D.
Sanvitto
, “
All-optical polariton transistor
,”
Nat. Commun.
4
,
1778
(
2013
).
38.
T.
Espinosa-Ortega
and
T. C. H.
Liew
, “
Complete architecture of integrated photonic circuits based on AND and NOT logic gates of exciton polaritons in semiconductor microcavities
,”
Phys. Rev. B
87
,
195305
(
2013
).
39.
A.
Baas
,
J.-P.
Karr
,
M.
Romanelli
,
A.
Bramati
, and
E.
Giacobino
, “
Optical bistability in semiconductor microcavities in the nondegenerate parametric oscillation regime: Analogy with the optical parametric oscillator
,”
Phys. Rev. B
70
,
161307
(
2004
).
40.
L. W.
Tutt
and
T. F.
Boggess
, “
A review of optical limiting mechanisms and devices using organics, fullerenes, semiconductors and other materials
,”
Prog. Quantum Electron.
17
,
299
338
(
1993
).
41.
R.
Gadhwal
and
A.
Devi
, “
A review on the development of optical limiters from homogeneous to reflective 1-D photonic crystal structures
,”
Opt. Laser Technol.
141
,
107144
(
2021
).
42.
R.
Gadhwal
,
P.
Kaushik
, and
A.
Devi
, “
A review on 1D photonic crystal based reflective optical limiters
,”
Crit. Rev. Solid State Mater. Sci.
48
,
93
111
(
2023
).
43.
J. H.
Vella
,
J. H.
Goldsmith
,
A. T.
Browning
,
N. I.
Limberopoulos
,
I.
Vitebskiy
,
E.
Makri
, and
T.
Kottos
, “
Experimental realization of a reflective optical limiter
,”
Phys. Rev. Appl.
5
,
064010
(
2016
).
44.
E.
Makri
,
H.
Ramezani
,
T.
Kottos
, and
I.
Vitebskiy
, “
Concept of a reflective power limiter based on nonlinear localized modes
,”
Phys. Rev. A
89
,
031802
(
2014
).
45.
G. S.
He
,
L.-S.
Tan
,
Q.
Zheng
, and
P. N.
Prasad
, “
Multiphoton absorbing materials: Molecular designs, characterizations, and applications
,”
Chem. Rev.
108
,
1245
1330
(
2008
).
46.
J. W.
Perry
,
K.
Mansour
,
I.-Y. S.
Lee
,
X.-L.
Wu
,
P. V.
Bedworth
,
C.-T.
Chen
,
D.
Ng
,
S. R.
Marder
,
P.
Miles
,
T.
Wada
,
M.
Tian
, and
H.
Sasabe
, “
Organic optical limiter with a strong nonlinear absorptive response
,”
Science
273
,
1533
1536
(
1996
).
47.
D.
Dini
,
M. J. F.
Calvete
, and
M.
Hanack
, “
Nonlinear optical materials for the smart filtering of optical radiation
,”
Chem. Rev.
116
,
13043
13233
(
2016
).
48.
R. C. C.
Leite
,
S. P. S.
Porto
, and
T. C.
Damen
, “
The thermal lens effect as a power-limiting device
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
10
,
100
101
(
1967
).
49.
L.
Vivien
,
P.
Lançon
,
D.
Riehl
,
F.
Hache
, and
E.
Anglaret
, “
Carbon nanotubes for optical limiting
,”
Carbon
40
,
1789
1797
(
2002
).
50.
D. J.
Hagan
, “
Optical limiting
,” in
Handbook of Optics, Third Edition Volume IV: Optical Properties of Materials, Nonlinear Optics, Quantum Optics (Set)
,
3rd ed.
, edited by
M.
Bass
,
C.
Decusatis
,
J. M.
Enoch
,
V.
Lakshminarayanan
,
G.
Li
,
C.
MacDonald
,
V. N.
Mahajan
, and
E.
Van Stryland
(
McGraw-Hill Education
,
2009
), Chap. 13.
51.
S.
Husaini
,
H.
Teng
, and
V. M.
Menon
, “
Enhanced nonlinear optical response of metal nanocomposite based photonic crystals
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
101
,
111103
(
2012
).
52.
S.
Yan
,
J.
Dong
,
A.
Zheng
, and
X.
Zhang
, “
Chip-integrated optical power limiter based on an all-passive micro-ring resonator
,”
Sci. Rep.
4
,
6676
(
2014
).
53.
M.
Heinrich
,
F.
Eilenberger
,
R.
Keil
,
F.
Dreisow
,
E.
Suran
,
F.
Louradour
,
A.
Tünnermann
,
T.
Pertsch
,
S.
Nolte
, and
A.
Szameit
, “
Optical limiting and spectral stabilization in segmented photonic lattices
,”
Opt. Express
20
,
27299
27310
(
2012
).
54.
U.
Kuhl
,
F.
Mortessagne
,
E.
Makri
,
I.
Vitebskiy
, and
T.
Kottos
, “
Waveguide photonic limiters based on topologically protected resonant modes
,”
Phys. Rev. B
95
,
121409
(
2017
).
55.
A. A.
Ryzhov
, “
Optical limiting performance of a GaAs/AlAs heterostructure microcavity in the near-infrared
,”
Appl. Opt.
56
,
5811
(
2017
).
56.
D.
Sanvitto
and
S.
Kéna-Cohen
, “
The road towards polaritonic devices
,”
Nat. Mater.
15
,
1061
1073
(
2016
).
57.
H.
Ulmer-Tuffigo
,
F.
Kany
,
G.
Feuillet
,
R.
Langer
,
J.
Bleuse
, and
J. L.
Pautrat
, “
Magnetic tuning of resonance in semimagnetic semiconductor microcavities
,”
J. Cryst. Growth
159
,
605
608
(
1996
).
58.
M.
Richard
,
J.
Kasprzak
,
R.
André
,
R.
Romestain
,
L. S.
Dang
,
G.
Malpuech
, and
A.
Kavokin
, “
Experimental evidence for nonequilibrium Bose condensation of exciton polaritons
,”
Phys. Rev. B
72
,
201301
(
2005
).
59.
D. P.
Cubian
,
M.
Haddad
,
R.
André
,
R.
Frey
,
G.
Roosen
,
J. L. A.
Diego
, and
C.
Flytzanis
, “
Photoinduced magneto-optic Kerr effects in asymmetric semiconductor microcavities
,”
Phys. Rev. B
67
,
045308
(
2003
).
60.
J.-G.
Rousset
,
B.
Piętka
,
M.
Król
,
R.
Mirek
,
K.
Lekenta
,
J.
Szczytko
,
J.
Borysiuk
,
J.
Suffczyński
,
T.
Kazimierczuk
,
M.
Goryca
,
T.
Smoleński
,
P.
Kossacki
,
M.
Nawrocki
, and
W.
Pacuski
, “
Strong coupling and polariton lasing in Te based microcavities embedding (Cd, Zn)Te quantum wells
,”
Appl. Phys. Lett.
107
,
201109
(
2015
).
61.
D.
Scalbert
,
M.
Vladimirova
,
A.
Brunetti
,
S.
Cronenberger
,
M.
Nawrocki
,
J.
Bloch
,
A. V.
Kavokin
,
I. A.
Shelykh
,
R.
André
,
D.
Solnyshkov
, and
G.
Malpuech
, “
Polariton spin beats in semiconductor quantum well microcavities
,”
Superlattices Microstruct.
43
,
417
426
(
2008
).
62.
C.
Gourdon
,
G.
Lazard
,
V.
Jeudy
,
C.
Testelin
,
E. L.
Ivchenko
, and
G.
Karczewski
, “
Enhanced Faraday rotation in CdMnTe quantum wells embedded in an optical cavity
,”
Solid State Commun.
123
,
299
304
(
2002
).
63.
S.
Bieker
,
P. R.
Hartmann
,
T.
Kießling
,
M.
Rüth
,
C.
Schumacher
,
C.
Gould
,
W.
Ossau
, and
L. W.
Molenkamp
, “
Removal of GaAs growth substrates from II–VI semiconductor heterostructures
,”
Semicond. Sci. Technol.
29
,
045016
(
2014
).
64.
B.
Seredyński
,
P.
Starzyk
, and
W.
Pacuski
, “
Exfoliation of epilayers with quantum dots
,”
Mater. Today:. Proc.
4
,
7053
7058
(
2017
).
65.
B.
Seredyński
,
M.
Król
,
P.
Starzyk
,
R.
Mirek
,
M.
Ściesiek
,
K.
Sobczak
,
J.
Borysiuk
,
D.
Stephan
,
J.-G.
Rousset
,
J.
Szczytko
,
B.
Piętka
, and
W.
Pacuski
, “
(Cd, Zn, Mg)Te-based microcavity on MgTe sacrificial buffer: Growth, lift-off, and transmission studies of polaritons
,”
Phys. Rev. Mater.
2
,
043406
(
2018
).
66.
L.
Dominici
,
M.
Petrov
,
M.
Matuszewski
,
D.
Ballarini
,
M.
De Giorgi
,
D.
Colas
,
E.
Cancellieri
,
B.
Silva Fernández
,
A.
Bramati
,
G.
Gigli
,
A.
Kavokin
,
F.
Laussy
, and
D.
Sanvitto
, “
Real-space collapse of a polariton condensate
,”
Nat. Commun.
6
,
8993
(
2015
).
67.
I. Y.
Chestnov
,
T. A.
Khudaiberganov
,
A. P.
Alodjants
, and
A. V.
Kavokin
, “
Heat-assisted self-localization of exciton polaritons
,”
Phys. Rev. B
98
,
115302
(
2018
).
68.
D.
Ballarini
,
I.
Chestnov
,
D.
Caputo
,
M.
De Giorgi
,
L.
Dominici
,
K.
West
,
L. N.
Pfeiffer
,
G.
Gigli
,
A.
Kavokin
, and
D.
Sanvitto
, “
Self-trapping of exciton–polariton condensates in GaAs microcavities
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
123
,
047401
(
2019
).
69.
C.
Ciuti
,
P.
Schwendimann
, and
A.
Quattropani
, “
Theory of polariton parametric interactions in semiconductor microcavities
,”
Semicond. Sci. Technol.
18
,
S279
S293
(
2003
).
70.
I.
Carusotto
and
C.
Ciuti
, “
Probing microcavity polariton superfluidity through resonant Rayleigh scattering
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
93
,
166401
(
2004
).
71.
N. S.
Voronova
,
A. A.
Elistratov
, and
Y. E.
Lozovik
, “
Detuning-controlled internal oscillations in an exciton–polariton condensate
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
115
,
186402
(
2015
).
72.
A.
Rahmani
,
D.
Colas
,
N.
Voronova
,
K.
Jamshidi-Ghaleh
,
L.
Dominici
, and
F. P.
Laussy
, “
Topologically driven Rabi-oscillating interference dislocation
,”
Nanophotonics
11
,
2909
2919
(
2022
).
73.
A.
Rahmani
and
L.
Dominici
, “
Detuning control of Rabi vortex oscillations in light–matter coupling
,”
Phys. Rev. B
100
,
094310
(
2019
).
74.
L.
Dominici
,
D.
Colas
,
A.
Gianfrate
,
A.
Rahmani
,
V.
Ardizzone
,
D.
Ballarini
,
M.
De Giorgi
,
G.
Gigli
,
F. P.
Laussy
,
D.
Sanvitto
, and
N.
Voronova
, “
Full-Bloch beams and ultrafast Rabi-rotating vortices
,”
Phys. Rev. Res.
3
,
013007
(
2021
).
75.
A.
Zamora
,
G.
Dagvadorj
,
P.
Comaron
,
I.
Carusotto
,
N. P.
Proukakis
, and
M. H.
Szymańska
, “
Kibble–Zurek mechanism in driven dissipative systems crossing a nonequilibrium phase transition
,”
Phys. Rev. Lett.
125
,
095301
(
2020
).
76.
D.
Sanvitto
,
F. M.
Marchetti
,
M. H.
Szymańska
,
G.
Tosi
,
M.
Baudisch
,
F. P.
Laussy
,
D. N.
Krizhanovskii
,
M. S.
Skolnick
,
L.
Marrucci
,
A.
Lemaître
,
J.
Bloch
,
C.
Tejedor
, and
L.
Viña
, “
Persistent currents and quantized vortices in a polariton superfluid
,”
Nat. Phys.
6
,
527
533
(
2010
).
77.
I.
Iorsh
,
A.
Alodjants
, and
I. A.
Shelykh
, “
Microcavity with saturable nonlinearity under simultaneous resonant and nonresonant pumping: Multistability, Hopf bifurcations and chaotic behaviour
,”
Opt. Express
24
,
11505
11514
(
2016
).
78.
E.
Cancellieri
,
F. M.
Marchetti
,
M. H.
Szymańska
, and
C.
Tejedor
, “
Multistability of a two-component exciton–polariton fluid
,”
Phys. Rev. B
83
,
214507
(
2011
).
79.
C.
Lange
,
E.
Cancellieri
,
D.
Panna
,
D. M.
Whittaker
,
M.
Steger
,
D. W.
Snoke
,
L. N.
Pfeiffer
,
K. W.
West
, and
A.
Hayat
, “
Ultrafast control of strong light–matter coupling
,”
New J. Phys.
20
,
013032
(
2018
).
80.
H.
Deng
,
H.
Haug
, and
Y.
Yamamoto
, “
Exciton–polariton Bose–Einstein condensation
,”
Rev. Mod. Phys.
82
,
1489
1537
(
2010
).

Supplementary Material