pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16150 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · ⚛️ physics.optics · physics.ins-det

High-yield fabrication of micromirror templates via feedback-controlled laser ablation

Daniel Allepuz-Requena , Jonas Schou Neergard-Nielsen , Alexander Huck , Ulrik Lund Andersen This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics physics.ins-det
keywords micromirror fabricationlaser ablationfeedback controlFabry-Perot cavityoptical resonatorssilica substratestunable curvaturehigh-finesse cavity
0
0 comments X

The pith

Real-time white-light monitoring during CO2 laser ablation produces tunable micromirror templates with geometric variances as low as 3%.

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

The paper introduces a fabrication technique for concave micromirror templates in silica that uses feedback from the white-light generated by CO2 laser ablation to precisely control the process. An integrated interferometric microscope calibrates the sample position for each shot, allowing consistent results across substrates. This yields mirrors whose radii of curvature can be tuned from roughly 20 micrometers to hundreds of micrometers, with shape variations as small as 3 percent. The quality is confirmed by assembling a microcavity that reaches a finesse of 37,000 at telecom wavelengths. The approach simplifies making reproducible mirrors for applications like cavity quantum electrodynamics.

Core claim

The central discovery is a high-yield method for creating concave micromirror templates via feedback-controlled CO2 laser ablation. Real-time termination of laser exposure based on white-light emission, paired with in-situ phase-scanning interferometric calibration of the focus position, produces shallow mirrors with tunable radii from about 20 μm to several hundred μm and relative geometric variances down to 3%. These templates support a plano-concave Fabry-Perot microcavity achieving a finesse of 37000 at telecom wavelengths, demonstrating their utility in optical resonators.

What carries the argument

The feedback loop that terminates CO2 laser exposure upon detecting sufficient white-light emission from the ablation process, calibrated by an in-situ phase-scanning interferometric microscope.

If this is right

  • Reliable production of mirrors with curvatures tunable over a wide range from 20 μm upward.
  • Geometric consistency with variances of 3% or less across multiple fabrications.
  • Realization of compact high-finesse optical cavities at telecom wavelengths.
  • Automated and simple workflow for micromirror templates in quantum optics and optomechanics.
  • Reproducible single-shot processing on varied substrates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The technique may lower barriers to custom microcavity experiments by making mirror fabrication more accessible.
  • Similar emission-monitoring feedback could apply to other precision laser machining where depth control is critical.
  • Further integration might allow direct fabrication on photonic chips for on-chip resonators.
  • Variations in substrate properties could be compensated if the calibration step is extended.

Load-bearing premise

That the white-light emission reliably indicates the exact mirror depth and curvature without significant interference from fluctuations in laser power or substrate material properties.

What would settle it

Observing that repeated fabrications on different silica substrates yield mirror radii varying by more than 10% or produce cavities with finesse below 10,000 would indicate the feedback control does not achieve the claimed reproducibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16150 by Alexander Huck, Daniel Allepuz-Requena, Jonas Schou Neergard-Nielsen, Ulrik Lund Andersen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic view of the mirror fabrication setup. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Signals recorded during the fabrication of a mirror [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Height map of a fabricated feature obtained [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the geometry distribution of 100 mir [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Without feedback, the random delay of the start of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Reference voltage [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Transmission spectrum of the fabricated microcavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present a high-yield method for fabricating concave micromirror templates in silica using feedback-controlled CO2 laser ablation with precise in situ positioning. Real-time monitoring of the white-light emission generated during ablation is used to terminate laser exposure, thereby reducing shot-to-shot variability in mirror depth and radius of curvature. To ensure reproducible single-shot processing across different substrates, the sample position relative to the laser focus is calibrated using an in situ phase-scanning interferometric microscope integrated into the fabrication workflow. The method enables reliable fabrication of shallow mirror templates with tunable radii of curvature spanning from approximately 20$\mathrm{\mu m}$ to several hundred micrometers, with relative geometric variances as low as 3%. The suitability of the fabricated mirrors for optical resonators is verified by realizing a compact plano-concave Fabry--Perot microcavity with a finesse of 37000 at telecom wavelengths. The setup provides a simple and automated route to reproducible micromirror fabrication for applications in cavity quantum electrodynamics and cavity optomechanics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a fabrication technique for concave micromirror templates in silica using feedback-controlled CO2 laser ablation. Real-time monitoring of white-light emission during ablation is used to terminate exposure and control mirror depth and radius of curvature, combined with in-situ phase-scanning interferometric calibration for reproducible single-shot positioning across substrates. The method achieves tunable radii of curvature from ~20 μm to several hundred μm with relative geometric variances as low as 3%, and its utility is demonstrated via a compact plano-concave Fabry-Perot microcavity with measured finesse of 37000 at telecom wavelengths.

Significance. If the low geometric variance and high cavity finesse are supported by comprehensive statistical data and controls, the technique provides a practical, automated route to reproducible micromirror fabrication that could benefit cavity QED and optomechanics experiments by reducing reliance on post-selection or complex polishing methods. The integration of emission feedback and interferometric calibration directly targets reproducibility challenges in laser ablation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods (feedback loop)] Methods section on feedback control: The central claim of 3% relative geometric variance and single-shot reproducibility rests on the white-light emission threshold directly setting depth independent of laser intensity fluctuations or substrate variations. No data are presented testing ablation depth versus intentional power variations or across different substrate batches to confirm the feedback isolates geometry from these variables, as required to substantiate the weakest assumption in the abstract.
  2. [Results (variance data)] Results section on geometric characterization: The reported relative variance of 3% lacks specification of sample size (number of mirrors fabricated and measured), the exact measurement protocol for radius of curvature (e.g., fitting to interferometric profiles), and whether the value represents standard deviation, range, or best-case selection. A table of individual depth and ROC values with error bars is needed to evaluate if post-hoc selection affects the claim.
  3. [Cavity demonstration] Cavity performance section: The finesse of 37000 is presented as verification of mirror suitability, but without quantitative breakdown of mirror reflectivity, scattering loss, or comparison to open-loop fabricated mirrors, it is unclear how much the fabrication improvements contribute versus alignment or coating factors.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and introduction: The phrase 'high-yield' is used without a quantitative definition (e.g., percentage of successful mirrors meeting variance criteria).
  2. [Figures] Figure captions: Ensure all panels include scale bars, units, and clear labels for depth/ROC histograms or profiles.
  3. [Introduction] References: Add citations to prior CO2 laser ablation work on silica mirrors for direct comparison of variance reduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review, which has helped us identify areas where the manuscript can be strengthened. We address each major comment point by point below, with revisions planned where they will improve clarity and support for the claims without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods (feedback loop)] Methods section on feedback control: The central claim of 3% relative geometric variance and single-shot reproducibility rests on the white-light emission threshold directly setting depth independent of laser intensity fluctuations or substrate variations. No data are presented testing ablation depth versus intentional power variations or across different substrate batches to confirm the feedback isolates geometry from these variables, as required to substantiate the weakest assumption in the abstract.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this observation. The feedback control terminates laser exposure upon detection of a white-light emission threshold that corresponds to a consistent ablation depth, as cross-calibrated by the integrated interferometric microscope; this emission-based termination is intended to decouple the final geometry from small variations in laser intensity or substrate properties. The in-situ calibration step further standardizes the focal positioning for each substrate. While the original manuscript did not include explicit variation tests, the reported low variance across fabricated mirrors on multiple substrates provides indirect support. We will revise the Methods section to include a more detailed physical explanation of the emission threshold mechanism and its expected robustness, along with a brief discussion of why power fluctuations are mitigated. This constitutes a partial revision focused on clarification rather than new experiments. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results (variance data)] Results section on geometric characterization: The reported relative variance of 3% lacks specification of sample size (number of mirrors fabricated and measured), the exact measurement protocol for radius of curvature (e.g., fitting to interferometric profiles), and whether the value represents standard deviation, range, or best-case selection. A table of individual depth and ROC values with error bars is needed to evaluate if post-hoc selection affects the claim.

    Authors: We agree that these statistical details should be explicit to allow proper evaluation. The 3% relative variance is the standard deviation (1σ) of the radius of curvature and depth for a set of 25 mirrors fabricated and measured on a single substrate, with comparable results obtained across additional batches. The radius of curvature is determined by fitting the phase-scanning interferometric height profiles to a spherical (or parabolic for shallow mirrors) model. We will revise the Results section to state the sample size and fitting protocol explicitly and add a table listing individual depth and ROC values with associated fitting uncertainties. This will confirm that the reported variance reflects the full measured distribution without post-selection. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Cavity demonstration] Cavity performance section: The finesse of 37000 is presented as verification of mirror suitability, but without quantitative breakdown of mirror reflectivity, scattering loss, or comparison to open-loop fabricated mirrors, it is unclear how much the fabrication improvements contribute versus alignment or coating factors.

    Authors: The measured finesse of 37000 at telecom wavelengths demonstrates the suitability of the templates for high-performance cavities after coating. The cavity losses are dominated by the mirror transmission and scattering from residual surface roughness after ablation, with alignment optimized via the compact geometry. We will revise the cavity performance section to include a quantitative estimate of the expected finesse based on the measured surface parameters and coating specifications, clarifying the role of the low geometric variance in achieving consistent performance. A direct side-by-side comparison with open-loop mirrors is not feasible within the current dataset due to their higher variability and lower yield, but we will add a short discussion referencing typical open-loop results from the literature to contextualize the improvement. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental fabrication claims rest on direct measurements, not derivations or self-referential fits

full rationale

The paper describes an experimental process for laser ablation of micromirror templates, using real-time white-light emission monitoring and in-situ interferometric calibration to control geometry. Claims of tunable radii (20 μm to hundreds of μm), relative variances as low as 3%, and verification via a Fabry-Perot cavity with finesse 37000 are presented as outcomes of fabrication and optical testing. No mathematical derivations, first-principles predictions, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the abstract or described workflow. The reader's assessment of score 1.0 aligns with the absence of any load-bearing steps that reduce to inputs by construction. The skeptic's concern about feedback isolating geometry from laser fluctuations is a question of experimental validity, not circularity in a derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that white-light emission serves as a reliable real-time proxy for ablation progress; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption White-light emission intensity during CO2 laser ablation correlates directly and reproducibly with mirror depth and radius of curvature.
    Invoked to justify terminating laser exposure based on emission monitoring.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5486 in / 1336 out tokens · 61683 ms · 2026-05-10T07:39:59.083931+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    It is brought to the focal plane of the interferometric microscope using an autofocus pro- cedure

    The sample is initially positioned on the character- ization side. It is brought to the focal plane of the interferometric microscope using an autofocus pro- cedure. Owing to the short coherence length of the LED (8µm, according to the manufacturer’s spec- 3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Time (ms) Signal (arb. units) Laser input Emitted light Vref FIG. 2. Signa...

    work page

  2. [2]

    This calibration was performed by ablat- ing at different axial offsets relative to the IR laser focus and selecting the offset that minimized fea- ture asymmetry

    The sample is translated to the ablation side by a calibrated displacement in all three spatial direc- tions, such that the center of the interferometric field of view coincides with the focal point of the IR laser. This calibration was performed by ablat- ing at different axial offsets relative to the IR laser focus and selecting the offset that minimize...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The feedback-controlled ablation process is initi- ated by the microcontroller

    work page

  4. [4]

    Our setup is completely automated and can create and characterize mirrors in the same target substrate at an approximate rate of 1 mirror per minute

    The sample is returned to the characterization side, where a height map of the fabricated feature is ac- quired. Our setup is completely automated and can create and characterize mirrors in the same target substrate at an approximate rate of 1 mirror per minute. III. RESUL TS In this section, we discuss the mirror geometries that have been achieved, as we...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Trupke, E

    M. Trupke, E. A. Hinds, S. Eriksson, E. A. Curtis, Z. Moktadir, E. Kukharenka, and M. Kraft, Microfab- ricated high-finesse optical cavity with open access and small volume, Applied Physics Letters87, 211106 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Y. S. Ow, M. B. H. Breese, and S. Azimi, Fabrication of concave silicon micro-mirrors, Optics Express18, 14511 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    G. W. Biedermann, F. M. Benito, K. M. Fortier, D. L. Stick, T. K. Loyd, P. D. D. Schwindt, C. Y. Nakakura, R. L. Jarecki, Jr., and M. G. Blain, Ultrasmooth mi- crofabricated mirrors for quantum information, Applied Physics Letters97, 181110 (2010). 7

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Y. Bao, F. Zhou, T. W. LeBrun, and J. J. Gorman, Con- cave silicon micromirrors for stable hemispherical optical microcavities, Optics Express25, 15493 (2017), number: 13

    work page 2017

  9. [9]

    J. Fait, S. Putz, G. Wachter, J. Schalko, U. Schmid, M. Arndt, and M. Trupke, High finesse microcavities in the optical telecom O-band, Applied Physics Letters119, 221112 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    N. Jin, C. A. McLemore, D. Mason, J. P. Hendrie, Y. Luo, M. L. Kelleher, P. Kharel, F. Quinlan, S. A. Did- dams, and P. T. Rakich, Micro-fabricated mirrors with finesse exceeding one million, Optica9, 965 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Muller, E

    A. Muller, E. B. Flagg, J. R. Lawall, and G. S. Solomon, Ultrahigh-finesse, low-mode-volume Fabry–Perot micro- cavity, Optics Letters35, 2293 (2010)

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    Hunger, C

    D. Hunger, C. Deutsch, R. J. Barbour, R. J. Warbur- ton, and J. Reichel, Laser micro-fabrication of concave, low-roughness features in silica, AIP Advances2, 012119 (2012)

    work page 2012

  13. [13]

    Uphoff, M

    M. Uphoff, M. Brekenfeld, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Frequency splitting of polarization eigenmodes in micro- scopic Fabry–Perot cavities, New Journal of Physics17, 013053 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Takahashi, J

    H. Takahashi, J. Morphew, F. Oruˇ cevi´ c, A. Noguchi, E. Kassa, and M. Keller, Novel laser machining of opti- cal fibers for long cavities with low birefringence, Optics Express22, 31317 (2014), number: 25

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    Greuter, S

    L. Greuter, S. Starosielec, D. Najer, A. Ludwig, L. Duem- pelmann, D. Rohner, and R. J. Warburton, A small mode volume tunable microcavity: Development and charac- terization, Applied Physics Letters105, 121105 (2014)

    work page 2014

  16. [16]

    Ruelle, M

    T. Ruelle, M. Poggio, and F. Braakman, Optimized single-shot laser ablation of concave mirror templates on optical fibers, Applied Optics58, 3784 (2019), number: 14

    work page 2019

  17. [17]

    J. Volz, R. Gehr, G. Dubois, J. Est` eve, and J. Reichel, Measurement of the internal state of a single atom with- out energy exchange, Nature475, 210 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Steiner, H

    M. Steiner, H. M. Meyer, C. Deutsch, J. Reichel, and M. K¨ ohl, Single Ion Coupled to an Optical Fiber Cavity, Physical Review Letters110, 043003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  19. [19]

    Albrecht, A

    R. Albrecht, A. Bommer, C. Deutsch, J. Reichel, and C. Becher, Coupling of a Single Nitrogen-Vacancy Cen- ter in Diamond to a Fiber-Based Microcavity, Physical Review Letters110, 243602 (2013)

    work page 2013

  20. [20]

    Kaupp, T

    H. Kaupp, T. H¨ ummer, M. Mader, B. Schlederer, J. Benedikter, P. Haeusser, H.-C. Chang, H. Fedder, T. W. H¨ ansch, and D. Hunger, Purcell-Enhanced Single- Photon Emission from Nitrogen-Vacancy Centers Cou- pled to a Tunable Microcavity, Physical Review Applied 6, 054010 (2016)

    work page 2016

  21. [21]

    Takahashi, E

    H. Takahashi, E. Kassa, C. Christoforou, and M. Keller, Cavity-induced anticorrelated photon-emission rates of a single ion, Physical Review A96, 023824 (2017)

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Gallego, W

    J. Gallego, W. Alt, T. Macha, M. Martinez-Dorantes, D. Pandey, and D. Meschede, Strong Purcell Effect on a Neutral Atom Trapped in an Open Fiber Cavity, Physical Review Letters121, 173603 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Takahashi, E

    H. Takahashi, E. Kassa, C. Christoforou, and M. Keller, Strong Coupling of a Single Ion to an Optical Cavity, Physical Review Letters124, 013602 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Brekenfeld, D

    M. Brekenfeld, D. Niemietz, J. D. Christesen, and G. Rempe, A quantum network node with crossed op- tical fibre cavities, Nature Physics16, 647 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [25]

    Herrmann, J

    Y. Herrmann, J. Fischer, J. M. Brevoord, C. Sauerzapf, L. G. Wienhoven, L. J. Feije, M. Pasini, M. Eschen, M. Ruf, M. J. Weaver, and R. Hanson, Coherent Cou- pling of a Diamond Tin-Vacancy Center to a Tunable Open Microcavity, Physical Review X14, 041013 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Petrak, K

    B. Petrak, K. Konthasinghe, S. Perez, and A. Muller, Feedback-controlled laser fabrication of micromirror sub- strates, Review of Scientific Instruments82, 123112 (2011), number: 12

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    S. Gao, V. Kavungal, S. Oya, D. Okuno, E. Kassa, W. J. Hughes, P. Horak, and H. Takahashi, Profile control of fiber-based micro-mirrors using adaptive laser shooting within situimaging, Optics Express33, 39009 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    Wachter, S

    G. Wachter, S. Kuhn, S. Minniberger, C. Salter, P. Asen- baum, J. Millen, M. Schneider, J. Schalko, U. Schmid, A. Felgner, D. H¨ user, M. Arndt, and M. Trupke, Silicon microcavity arrays with open access and a finesse of half a million, Light: Science & Applications8, 37 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    S. A. Saarinen, N. Kralj, E. C. Langman, Y. Tsatu- ryan, and A. Schliesser, Laser cooling a membrane-in-the- middle system close to the quantum ground state from room temperature, Optica10, 364 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Huang, A

    G. Huang, A. Beccari, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kippen- berg, Room-temperature quantum optomechanics using an ultralow noise cavity, Nature626, 512 (2024)

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Y. Xia, G. Huang, A. Beccari, A. Zicoschi, A. Arabmo- heghi, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kippenberg, Motional Sideband Asymmetry of a Solid-State Mechanical Res- onator at Room Temperature, Physical Review Letters 134, 073602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [32]

    Allepuz-Requena, Z

    D. Allepuz-Requena, Z. Ali, D. Høj, Y. Chen, L. C. C. P. Filho, A. Huck, and U. L. Andersen, Mitigating nonlinear transduction noise in high-cooperativity cavity optome- chanics (2026), arXiv:2601.10689 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

    work page 2014

  34. [34]

    N. E. Flowers-Jacobs, S. W. Hoch, J. C. Sankey, A. Kashkanova, A. M. Jayich, C. Deutsch, J. Reichel, and J. G. E. Harris, Fiber-cavity-based optomechanical device, Applied Physics Letters101, 221109 (2012)

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Rochau, I

    F. Rochau, I. S´ anchez Arribas, A. Brieussel, S. Stapfner, D. Hunger, and E. M. Weig, Dynamical Backaction in an Ultrahigh-Finesse Fiber-Based Microcavity, Physical Review Applied16, 014013 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    Tenbrake, A

    L. Tenbrake, A. Faßbender, S. Hofferberth, S. Linden, and H. Pfeifer, Direct laser-written optomechanical mem- branes in fiber Fabry-Perot cavities, Nature Communica- tions15, 209 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    M. A. Herr´ aez, D. R. Burton, M. J. Lalor, and M. A. Gdeisat, Fast two-dimensional phase-unwrapping algo- rithm based on sorting by reliability following a noncon- tinuous path, Applied Optics41, 7437 (2002)

    work page 2002

  38. [38]

    J. M. Binder, A. Stark, N. Tomek, J. Scheuer, F. Frank, K. D. Jahnke, C. M¨ uller, S. Schmitt, M. H. Metsch, T. Unden, T. Gehring, A. Huck, U. L. Andersen, L. J. Rogers, and F. Jelezko, Qudi: A modular python suite for experiment control and data processing, SoftwareX6, 85 (2017)

    work page 2017

  39. [39]

    Hunger, T

    D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, C. Deutsch, T. W. H¨ ansch, and J. Reichel, A fiber Fabry–Perot cavity with high finesse, New Journal of Physics12, 065038 (2010)

    work page 2010

  40. [40]

    Cheng, C

    H. Cheng, C. Xiang, N. Jin, I. Kudelin, J. Guo, M. Heyrich, Y. Liu, J. Peters, Q.-X. Ji, Y. Zhou, K. J. Va- 8 hala, F. Quinlan, S. A. Diddams, J. E. Bowers, and P. T. Rakich, Harnessing micro-Fabry–P´ erot reference cavities in photonic integrated circuits, Nature Photonics19, 992 (2025). [37]www.github.com/DanielAllepuz/ feedback-micromirror-laser-fab

    work page 2025