> This method achieved an energy conversion efficiency of about 130%, exceeding the traditional 100% limit

I am extraordinarily confident that it did not.

> In practical terms, this means about 1.3 molybdenum-based metal complexes were activated for every photon absorbed, surpassing the conventional limit and demonstrating that more energy carriers were generated than incoming photons.

... Which is not the same thing as a >100% energy conversion efficiency (which would imply an infinite-energy-generating pump)

So it seems that their definition of 100% means 1 excited state per incoming photon, and then they use a material that converts a single high energy excited state produced by one photon into 2 half as energetic excited states...but then they apply the definition that just counts any excited state per incoming photon to juice their numbers.

So more like 65% energy conversion efficiency at best.

> achieved an energy conversion efficiency of about 130%

No it did not. Please find a science correspondent who at least passed high school physics.

More information at https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1120166 , paper at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.5c20500