Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Two-photon Interference of Biphotons Emitted by Overlapping Resonances in Metasurfaces

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single metasurface emits photon pairs from two overlapping resonances that interfere in the spectral domain, producing a Fano-shaped spectrum.

desk verdict A genuine advance in quantum metasurfaces, but the two-photon interference claim is fit-supported rather than independently confirmed. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11850 v1 pith:VGQAYO6U submitted 2025-01-21 quant-ph physics.optics

Jiho Noh , Tomás Santiago-Cruz , Chloe F. Doiron , Hyunseung Jung , Jaeyeon Yu , Sadhvikas J. Addamane , Maria V. Chekhova , Igal Brener This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords two-photoninterferencespontaneousparametricdown-conversionquantumopticalmetasurfacequasi-boundstateinthecontinuumMieresonancegalliumarsenide(110)polarizationerasureFanospectralcontour
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports the first observation of two-photon interference in the spectral domain between photon pairs emitted by two different resonances inside a single metasurface. The device is a [110]-oriented gallium arsenide metasurface that supports a high-quality quasi-bound-state-in-the-continuum resonance and a low-quality in-plane Mie resonance at overlapping wavelengths, both of which generate photon pairs through spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Because the two resonances emit pairs with different polarizations, the authors use a polarization analyzer to project both channels onto one polarization, erasing the which-resonance information. When the two contributions are balanced, the measured spectrum shows a Fano-shaped dip that matches the modulus square of the sum of two Lorentzian amplitudes, the signature of quantum interference. The same device also produces biphotons at a rate more than an order of magnitude higher per milliwatt and nanometer than previously reported metasurface sources, which is what made the effect observable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the polarization analyzer combined with the indistinguishability criterion for two-photon interference. The analyzer, a half-wave plate followed by a polarizing beamsplitter, projects the biphotons from the high-Q quasi-bound-state-in-the-continuum and the low-Q Mie resonance onto the same polarization state, so the experimental record no longer contains which-resonance information. The predicted joint-detection spectrum is then $I(\lambda)=|A_1 L_1(\lambda)-e^{i\phi} A_2 L_2(\lambda)|^2$, where $L_1$ and $L_2$ are Lorentzian line shapes for the two resonances, and the fit yields $\phi=\pi$, producing the Fano-like dip. The platform that makes this observable is the [110]-oriented GaAs metasurface, whose crystal orientation improves the overlap between the $\chi^{(2)}$ tensor and the resonance field profiles, raising SPDC brightness by more than an order of magnitude.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the balanced SPDC spectrum with an incoherent model that adds the two Lorentzian intensities, weighted by the analyzer transmission, instead of adding their amplitudes. If this classical model reproduces the near-zero Fano dip with the same or fewer free parameters, the evidence for coherent two-photon interference collapses; experimentally, recording the two analyzer outputs separately instead of combining them would show whether the dip requires the outputs to be combined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that biphotons born from spatially overlapping but distinct resonances in one nonlinear metasurface can be made indistinguishable and then interfere, and that this interference appears as a Fano contour in the SPDC spectrum. The authors obtain this by exploiting [110]-oriented GaAs, whose nonlinear tensor orientation enhances the SPDC emission from both a high-Q quasi-bound-state-in-the-continuum and a low-Q Mie mode. A half-wave plate and polarizing beamsplitter in the detection arm project the two biphoton polarizations onto a common state; once the which-resonance label is erased, the joint detection probability is given by the modulus square of the sum of the two resonance amplitudes, not by the sum of their intensities. The control measurement without the analyzer shows no Fano dip, and the paper claims this is the first such quantum interference observed in a metasurface.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the Fano-shaped dip observed in the balanced SPDC spectrum is caused by quantum interference between the two biphoton channels after the polarization analyzer erases their distinguishability, rather than by the analyzer itself imprinting a classical spectral line shape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Metasurface sources can now generate biphoton states with engineered spectral interference features without external interferometers or multiple spatially separated crystals.
  • The demonstrated polarization-erasure mechanism gives a practical knob for switching a metasurface source between distinguishable and indistinguishable biphoton emission on demand.
  • The [110]-GaAs platform's order-of-magnitude brightness improvement should make coincidence-based quantum protocols feasible at milliwatt pump powers.
  • Spectral-domain two-photon interference could be used to synthesize Fano-shaped two-photon spectra for quantum sensing or frequency-bin entanglement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test, not performed in the paper, is to verify that the interference phase $\phi$ remains $\pi$ across multiple devices and pump detunings; a stable $\pi$ would indicate a robust mechanism rather than an incidental fit.
  • The same erasure strategy should extend to pairs of high-Q resonances or to quasi-bound-state-in-the-continuum plus higher-order Mie modes, which would allow multiplexed biphoton frequency-bin states from a single chip.
  • Because the Fano dip is a spectral-domain cousin of a which-path eraser, time-resolved coincidence measurements are expected to show a corresponding bunching or antibunching signature whose Fourier transform is the Fano profile.
  • If the brightness enhancement transfers to wider-bandgap materials, the remaining photoluminescence background could be suppressed, making these metasurfaces viable for imaging with undetected photons.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports [110]-oriented GaAs quantum optical metasurfaces (QOMs) with enhanced spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) and claims the first observation of two-photon interference in the spectral domain between biphotons emitted by two spatially overlapping resonances (a high-Q quasi-BIC and a low-Q in-plane Mie mode) in the same metasurface. The authors benchmark SHG against [001]-GaAs metasurfaces, characterize SPDC via coincidence histograms and time-of-flight spectra, and show a Fano-shaped SPDC spectrum when a polarization analyzer erases distinguishability between the two biphoton channels. The central claim is supported by a fit to a coherent sum of two Lorentzian amplitudes with seven free parameters.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, this would be an important advance for quantum metasurfaces: it demonstrates that SPDC from distinct overlapping resonances in a single nanostructured device can be coherently superposed, and it provides a practical efficiency benchmark for QOMs. The paper has clear strengths: the measured g(2)(0) exceeds two, the SPDC rate scales linearly with pump power, the [110]-vs-[001] SHG comparison is a useful control, and the with-analyzer versus without-analyzer comparison is a meaningful step toward isolating the quantum interference. However, the interference claim currently rests on a seven-parameter fit with an internal linewidth inconsistency, and the main control experiment does not isolate the erasure of distinguishability from changes in pump polarization. These issues are load-bearing for the headline claim, so the manuscript needs revision before the result can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Eq. (S1), Table S2; Fig. 3(c)] The fitted qBIC linewidth Γ1 = 14.2 ± 0.9 nm from Table S2 is not reconciled with the directly measured ED-qBIC SPDC peak FWHM of 6.4 nm in Fig. 3(c). Since the measured width of 6.4 nm already includes the 4.3 nm time-of-flight resolution, a true Lorentzian linewidth of 14.2 nm would produce a broader, not narrower, observed peak; no convolution, joint-spectrum, or collection-efficiency argument is given to bridge this factor-of-two discrepancy. This matters because the fitted linewidth is an amplitude parameter in the interference model of Eq. (S1), so the claim that the Fano contour is produced by the actual measured resonance is not yet supported. In addition, the denominator in Eq. (S1) contains (λ−λ1)²−Γ1²/4; with the minus sign the expression does not describe a Lorentzian intensity profile and has poles at λ1±Γ1/2, so the fit formula should be corrected to a proper complex Lorentzian or the sign convention should be explained.
  2. [Main text: 'Finally...'; Fig. S3] The distinguishing control in Fig. S3 removes the polarization analyzer and simultaneously rotates the pump polarization. The absence of a Fano dip in Fig. S3 could therefore be caused by a change in the relative excitation of the qBIC and Mie modes rather than by the lack of erasure of photon distinguishability. The paper should provide a control with the analyzer removed while keeping the pump polarization identical to that of Fig. 4(c), or otherwise model the expected classical spectral shape at that pump polarization.
  3. [Fig. 4(c) and Eq. (S1)] The interference fit uses seven free parameters and no stated constraints from independent measurements. With this number of parameters, a symmetric Fano contour can be generated even if the resonance parameters are mis-specified, as the linewidth discrepancy above indicates. To make the fit a genuine test of the indistinguishability hypothesis, the authors should fix λ1, Γ1, λ2, and Γ2 to independently measured values (e.g., from Fig. 3(c) and linear transmission or SHG spectra), leaving only amplitudes and the relative phase as free parameters, or alternatively compare quantitatively with a classical polarization-filtering model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 2 and main text] The sentence referring to 'green circles in Figure 1(c)' should refer to Figure 2(c), where the [001]-GaAs SHG data are shown.
  2. [Fig. 3(e) discussion] The text says the in-plane Mie contribution was subtracted using 'the measured SPDC spectrum shown in Figure 3(d)', but for QOM-A the relevant spectrum is Figure 3(c); Figure 3(d) is the QOM-B spectrum.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'allows the QOMs support the simultaneous generation' should read 'allows the QOMs to support the simultaneous generation'; similar grammatical slips occur in the Introduction.
  4. [Final paragraph] The text contains 'zinc-materials materials'; this should be corrected to 'zinc-blende materials' or a similar intended phrase.
  5. [Eq. (S1) and Table S2] Please state explicitly whether Γ in Eq. (S1) denotes the FWHM or the half-width, and include units for all fitted parameters in Table S2.
  6. [Fig. S3 caption] The caption does not state that the analyzer was removed for these traces; please specify the analyzer configuration explicitly in the caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the central interference claim is supported by new measurements and a control, while the seven-parameter fit is not presented as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an experimental observation rather than a derivation from inputs that already contain the result. The Fano contour in Figure 4(c) is generated by fitting Eq. S1, the modulus square of two Lorentzian amplitudes, with seven free parameters; because the parameters are extracted from the same data, the perfect agreement is a fit rather than an independent test of the interference hypothesis, but the paper explicitly labels it a fit, not a prediction. The control measurement without the polarization analyzer (Figure S3) provides separate, qualitative evidence that the dip is associated with erasing distinguishability, even though that control also changes the pump polarization and is therefore not perfectly isolated. Self-citations to the authors' prior work [24,31] are used for design continuity and for the expectation that the two modes emit different polarizations, but the interference claim does not reduce to those citations because the coincidence spectra, power dependence, and analyzer control are new independent measurements. The internal tension between the fitted qBIC linewidth (14.2 nm, Table S2) and the directly measured SPDC peak width (6.4 nm, Figure 3(c)) is a correctness or modeling risk, not a circularity. No equation-to-equation reduction, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness argument imported from the authors' prior work were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central result rests on fitting a two-Lorentzian interference model to the measured spectrum with seven free parameters, and on the quantum-mechanical indistinguishability assumption. The efficiency benchmark relies on comparison to previously published values rather than a same-setup control.

free parameters (7)
  • qBIC Lorentzian amplitude A1 = 33 ± 2 a.u.
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1 for the interference curve in Figure 4(c), Table S2.
  • qBIC center wavelength lambda1 = 1581.1 ± 0.2 nm
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1, near twice the pump wavelength.
  • qBIC linewidth Gamma1 = 14.2 ± 0.9 nm
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1 for the high-Q resonance.
  • Mie Lorentzian amplitude A2 = 380 ± 80 a.u.
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1 for the broad Mie resonance.
  • Mie center wavelength lambda2 = 1450 ± 40 nm
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1 for the broad pedestal.
  • Mie linewidth Gamma2 = 400 ± 60 nm
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1 for the low-Q Mie resonance.
  • Relative phase phi = pi
    Fit parameter in Eq. S1; reported as precisely pi but it is fitted, not independently predicted.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption SPDC from each resonance has a Lorentzian spectral amplitude
    Used in Eq. S1 to fit the interference spectrum.
  • domain assumption When polarization distinguishability is erased, biphoton amplitudes from the two resonances add coherently before squaring (Feynman criterion)
    This is the central quantum hypothesis; the paper tests it by fitting and control measurements.
  • domain assumption The time-of-flight coincidence spectrum is proportional to the biphoton spectral density
    2-km fiber spools map arrival-time differences to wavelengths; calibration assumes known dispersion and detector jitter.
  • domain assumption The [110] GaAs orientation enhances SPDC through improved chi(2) mode overlap
    Basis for the platform choice; supported by SHG measurements and COMSOL simulations, but SPDC enhancement is inferred.
  • domain assumption Measured g(2)>2 implies biphoton generation despite photoluminescence background
    Peak-to-background ratio in the coincidence histograms is used to confirm biphoton emission.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two-photon Interference of Biphotons Emitted by Overlapping Resonances in Metasurfaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VGQAYO6U

@misc{pith2026250111850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two-photon Interference of Biphotons Emitted by Overlapping Resonances in Metasurfaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VGQAYO6U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11850}
}
abstract

Two-photon interference, a quantum phenomenon arising from the principle of indistinguishability, is a powerful tool for quantum state engineering and plays a fundamental role in various quantum technologies. These technologies demand robust and efficient sources of quantum light, as well as scalable, integrable and multifunctional platforms. In this regard, quantum optical metasurfaces (QOMs) are emerging as promising platforms for quantum light generation, namely biphotons via spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC), and its engineering. Due to the relaxation of phase matching, SPDC in QOMs allows different channels of biphoton generation, such as those supported by overlapping resonances, to occur simultaneously. In previously reported QOMs, however, SPDC was too weak to observe such effects. Here we develop QOMs based on [110]-oriented GaAs that provide more than an order of magnitude enhancement in SPDC rate, after accounting for the spectral bandwidth, compared to any other QOMs studied to date. This boosted efficiency allows the QOMs support the simultaneous generation of SPDC from several spectrally overlapping optical modes. Using polarization components in the interferometer analyzer, we intentionally erase the distinguishability between the biphotons from a high-$Q$ quasi-bound-state-in-the-continuum resonance and a low-$Q$ Mie resonance, which results in the first-time observation of two-photon interference in the spectral domain in these types of devices. This quantum interference can considerably enrich the generation of entangled photons in metasurfaces. Their advanced multifunctionality, improved nonlinear response, ease of fabrication and compact footprint of [110]-GaAs QOMs position them as promising platforms to fulfill the requirements for photonic quantum technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram of two-photon interference of biphotons emitted by spatially over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Measured white-light transmission spectra of QOM-A and (b) QOM-B for incident [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a-b) Coincidence histograms of SPDC from QOM-A and QOM-B, respectively. In both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Measured SPDC spectra from QOM-A with the polarization analyzer added to the SPDC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Thin-film Al0.30Ga0.70As (111) as a flat source of high-purity orthogonally polarized entangled photons

    physics.optics 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 1.8 micrometer Al0.30Ga0.70As (111) film pumped at 788 nm emits orthogonally polarized telecom photon pairs at 0.24 Hz/mW/nm, a record for thin-film SPDC sources, with about 30% of detected photons belonging to pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Stobi´ nska, A

    M. Stobi´ nska, A. Buraczewski, M. Moore, W. R. Clements, J. J. Renema, S. W. Nam, T. Ger- rits, A. Lita, W. S. Kolthammer, A. Eckstein, and I. A. Walmsley, Sci. Adv. 5, eaau9674 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Qiang, X

    X. Qiang, X. Zhou, J. Wang, C. M. Wilkes, T. Loke, S. O’Gara, L. Kling, G. D. Marshall, R. Santagati, T. C. Ralph, J. B. Wang, J. L. O’Brien, M. G. Thompson, and J. C. F. Matthews, Nat. Photonics 12, 534 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Knill, R

    E. Knill, R. Laflamme, and G. J. Milburn, Nature 409, 46 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    J. B. Spring, B. J. Metcalf, P. C. Humphreys, W. S. Kolthammer, X.-M. Jin, M. Barbieri, A. Datta, N. Thomas-Peter, N. K. Langford, D. Kundys, J. C. Gates, B. J. Smith, P. G. R. Smith, and I. A. Walmsley, Science 339, 798 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    Tillmann, B

    M. Tillmann, B. Daki´ c, R. Heilmann, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, and P. Walther, Nat. Photonics 7, 540 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    J. Bao, Z. Fu, T. Pramanik, J. Mao, Y. Chi, Y. Cao, C. Zhai, Y. Mao, T. Dai, X. Chen, X. Jia, L. Zhao, Y. Zheng, B. Tang, Z. Li, J. Luo, W. Wang, Y. Yang, Y. Peng, D. Liu, D. Dai, Q. He, A. L. Muthali, L. K. Oxenløwe, C. Vigliar, S. Paesani, H. Hou, R. Santagati, J. W. Silverstone, A. Laing, M. G. Thompson, J. L. O’Brien, Y. Ding, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Na...

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lapkiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 512, 409 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    A. V. Paterova, S. M. Maniam, H. Yang, G. Grenci, and L. A. Krivitsky, Sci. Adv.6, eabd0460 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Kviatkovsky, H

    I. Kviatkovsky, H. M. Chrzanowski, E. G. Avery, H. Bartolomaeus, and S. Ramelow, Sci. Adv. 6, eabd0264 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    A. S. Clark, M. Chekhova, J. C. F. Matthews, J. G. Rarity, and R. F. Oulton, Appl. Phys. Lett. 118, 060401 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Defienne, W

    H. Defienne, W. P. Bowen, M. Chekhova, G. B. Lemos, D. Oron, S. Ramelow, N. Treps, and D. Faccio, Nat. Photonics 18, 1024 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Mandel, Rev

    L. Mandel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999). 5

    1999

  5. [13]

    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics: Volume 3: Quantum Mechanics(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965)

    1965

  6. [14]

    P. G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A. G. White, I. Appelbaum, and P. H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A 60, R773 (1999)

    1999

  7. [15]

    A. V. Burlakov, M. V. Chekhova, O. A. Karabutova, and S. P. Kulik, Phys. Rev. A 64, 041803 (2001)

    2001

  8. [16]

    Brida, M

    G. Brida, M. V. Chekhova, M. Genovese, M. Gramegna, and L. A. Krivitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 143601 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    M. V. Chekhova and Z. Y. Ou, Adv. Opt. Photonics 8, 104 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    H.-T. Chen, A. J. Taylor, and N. Yu, Reports on Progress in Physics 79, 076401 (2016)

    2016

  11. [19]

    G. Li, S. Zhang, and T. Zentgraf, Nature Reviews Materials 2, 17010 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Krasnok, M

    A. Krasnok, M. Tymchenko, and A. Al` u, Mater. Today (Kidlington) 21, 8 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    B. Sain, C. Meier, and T. Zentgraf, Advanced Photonics 1, 024002 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Vabishchevich and Y

    P. Vabishchevich and Y. Kivshar, Photonics Research 11, B50 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Santiago-Cruz, A

    T. Santiago-Cruz, A. Fedotova, V. Sultanov, M. A. Weissflog, D. Arslan, M. Younesi, T. Pertsch, I. Staude, F. Setzpfandt, and M. V. Chekhova, Nano Letters 21, 4423–4429 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Santiago-Cruz, S

    T. Santiago-Cruz, S. D. Gennaro, O. Mitrofanov, S. Addamane, J. Reno, I. Brener, and M. V. Chekhova, Science 377, 991–995 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    Zhang, J

    J. Zhang, J. Ma, M. Parry, M. Cai, R. Camacho-Morales, L. Xu, D. N. Neshev, and A. A. Sukhorukov, Science Advances 8, eabq4240 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    C. Son, V. Sultanov, T. Santiago-Cruz, A. P. Anthur, H. Zhang, R. Paniagua-Dominguez, L. Krivitsky, A. I. Kuznetsov, and M. V. Chekhova, Nanoscale 15, 2567 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    M. A. Weissflog, J. Ma, J. Zhang, T. Fan, S. Lung, T. Pertsch, D. N. Neshev, S. Saravi, F. Setzpfandt, and A. A. Sukhorukov, Nanophotonics 13, 3563 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    W. Jia, G. Saerens, ¨U.-L. Talts, H. Weigand, R. J. Chapman, L. Li, R. Grange, and Y. Yang, arXiv:2405.03493 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. Ma, T. Fan, T. Haggren, L. V. Molina, M. Parry, S. Shinde, J. Zhang, R. Camacho-Morales, F. Setzpfandt, H. H. Tan, C. Jagadish, D. N. Neshev, and A. A. Sukhorukov, arXiv:2409.10845 (2024). 6

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    L. Li, Z. Liu, X. Ren, S. Wang, V. Su, M. K. Chen, C. H. Chu, H. Y. Kuo, B. Liu, W. Zang, G. Guo, L. Zhang, Z. Wang, S. Zhu, and D. P. Tsai, Science 368, 1487–1490 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    J. Noh, T. Santiago-Cruz, V. Sultanov, C. F. Doiron, S. D. Gennaro, M. V. Chekhova, and I. Brener, Nano Letters 24, 15356–15362 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Shoji, T

    I. Shoji, T. Kondo, A. Kitamoto, M. Shirane, and R. Ito, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 14, 2268 (1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    S. Liu, P. P. Vabishchevich, A. Vaskin, J. L. Reno, G. A. Keeler, M. B. Sinclair, I. Staude, and I. Brener, Nature Communications 9, 2507 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Sautter, L

    J. Sautter, L. Xu, A. E. Miroshnichenko, M. Lysevych, I. Volkovskaya, D. Smirnova, R. Camacho-Morales, K. Z. Kamali, F. Karouta, K. Vora, H. H. Tan, M. Kauranen, I. Staude, C. Jagadish, D. N. Neshev, and M. Rahmani, Nano Letters 19, 3905–3911 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    L. Xu, G. Saerens, M. Timofeeva, D. Smirnova, I. Volkovskaya, M. Lysevych, R. Camacho- Morales, M. Cai, K. Z. Kamali, L. Huang, F. Karouta, H. H. Tan, C. Jagadish, A. E. Mirosh- nichenko, R. Grange, D. N. Neshev, and M. Rahmani, ACS Nano 14, 1379 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Camacho-Morales, D

    R. Camacho-Morales, D. Rocco, L. Xu, V. F. Gili, N. Dimitrov, L. Stoyanov, Z. Ma, A. Komar, M. Lysevych, F. Karouta, A. A. Dreischuh, H. H. Tan, G. Leo, C. D. Angelis, C. Jagadish, A. E. Miroshnichenko, M. Rahmani, and D. N. Neshev, Advanced Photonics 3, 036002 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    M. Yang, M. A. Weissflog, Z. Fedorova, A. I. Barreda, S. B¨ orner, F. Eilenberger, T. Pertsch, and I. Staude, Nanophotonics 13, 3311 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    C. W. Hsu, B. Zhen, A. D. Stone, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljaˇ ci´ c, Nature Reviews Materials 1, 16048 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    Koshelev, S

    K. Koshelev, S. Lepeshov, M. Liu, A. Bogdanov, and Y. Kivshar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 193903 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Campione, S

    S. Campione, S. Liu, L. I. Basilio, L. K. Warne, W. L. Langston, T. S. Luk, J. R. Wendt, J. L. Reno, G. A. Keeler, I. Brener, and M. B. Sinclair, ACS Photonics 3, 2362 (2016)

    2016

  33. [41]

    P. P. Vabishchevich, S. Liu, M. B. Sinclair, G. A. Keeler, G. M. Peake, and I. Brener, ACS Photonics 5, 1685–1690 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    Valencia, M

    A. Valencia, M. V. Chekhova, A. Trifonov, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 183601 (2002)

    2002

  35. [43]

    J. Ma, J. Zhang, Y. Jiang, T. Fan, M. Parry, D. N. Neshev, and A. A. Sukhorukov, Nano Letters 23, 8091 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    J. Ma, J. Ren, J. Zhang, J. Meng, C. McManus-Barrett, K. B. Crozier, and A. A. Sukhorukov, arXiv:2408.02903 (2024). 7

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Santiago-Cruz, V

    T. Santiago-Cruz, V. Sultanov, H. Zhang, L. A. Krivitsky, and M. V. Chekhova, Optics Letters 46, 653 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    S. D. Gennaro, C. F. Doiron, N. Karl, P. P. Iyer, D. K. Serkland, M. B. Sinclair, and I. Brener, ACS Photonics 9, 1026–1032 (2022). 8

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.