Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Ultrafast programmable Bragg reflection in photonic integrated circuits

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Periodically poled lithium niobate waveguides act as voltage-programmable Bragg mirrors, switching from transparent to near-total reflection at gigahertz speeds.

desk verdict Voltage-activated DBR in poled TFLN is a genuinely new device capability with solid supporting data; the main quantitative claims rest on fits and an unverified poling-quality assumption, but the core result holds up and deserves serious referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14565 v1 pith:WAUMV6NE submitted 2026-07-16 physics.optics

Yunxiang Song , Pawan Ratra , Danxian Liu , Jiayu Yang , Zhongshu Liu , Urban Senica , Salma Mohideen , Mingjie Zhang
show 7 more authors
Xudong Li Donald Witt Joshua Mornhinweg Norman Lippok Eric Mazur Federico Capasso Marko Lončar
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords electro-opticBraggreflectorperiodicallypoledlithiumniobateprogrammablephotonicsdistributedthin-filmgigahertzmodulationferroelectricdomainengineeringintegrated
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 demonstrates a new type of distributed Bragg reflector on a photonic chip whose reflectivity is set by an applied voltage rather than fixed by fabrication. The device uses a periodically poled thin-film lithium niobate waveguide: the periodic reversal of ferroelectric domains reverses the sign of the linear electro-optic coefficient, so a uniform electric field creates a periodic refractive-index grating with subwavelength resolution. Because the grating is induced electro-optically, it can switch between transparent and near-perfectly reflecting states at gigahertz speeds, and the operating wavelength is set by the poling period. The paper reports voltage-controlled reflectivity from zero to near-unity, a stable center wavelength, and roughly 1 GHz modulation bandwidth, which matters for reconfigurable photonic circuits, tunable lasers, and quantum optical devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the electro-optic nonlinear ferroelectric grating: a periodically poled thin-film lithium niobate waveguide where alternating domains have opposite signs of χ(2) and therefore opposite linear electro-optic coefficients. A bias voltage across the waveguide produces a push-pull periodic index modulation (period Λ = λ0/2neff) that acts as a Bragg grating, with coupling strength κ proportional to voltage. The key is that the spatial resolution of the index modulation is set by domain reversal, not by electrode geometry or thermal diffusion, enabling subwavelength-scale grating periods with no etched structural perturbation.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the electro-optic response in individual domains (e.g., phase-sensitive near-field microscopy under a uniform applied bias) that fails to show opposite and nearly equal index changes between adjacent domains would disprove the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that alternating ferroelectric domains in a thin-film lithium niobate waveguide form a programmable index grating under an applied bias. Because the electro-optic coefficient changes sign with domain orientation, a uniform field makes adjacent domains experience opposite index shifts, creating an index profile whose depth is proportional to voltage. The device behaves as a distributed Bragg reflector whose coupling constant κ = αV grows linearly with bias, so reflectivity follows tanh²(α(V−V0)L) and can be driven from essentially zero to unity with tens of volts. The authors demonstrate this with a 6-mm-long third-order poled waveguide, observing near-unity reflectiv

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme assumes that periodic poling actually reverses the linear electro-optic coefficient—not just the second-order nonlinearity—through the full depth of the waveguide, with a roughly 50% duty cycle, so a uniform applied field creates equal and opposite index shifts in neighboring domains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Voltage-controlled Bragg reflection with zero-to-near-unity range enables electrically reconfigurable mirrors for integrated lasers, allowing in-situ output power optimization and Q-switching.
  • Gigahertz-speed reflectivity modulation makes these gratings useful as high-speed modulators, optical switches, and tunable filters in telecom-band photonic circuits.
  • Since the grating period is set by poling, the center wavelength is programmable by design, as demonstrated by devices spanning roughly 1526–1608 nm from different periods.
  • The approach can extend to first-order poled devices with periods near 200 nm, promising higher efficiency and shorter wavelengths (including visible) when integrated with emitters.
  • Combining electro-optic modulation with the periodic χ(2) spatial profile opens space-time modulation physics, such as magnetic-free nonreciprocity and optical field amplification.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the linear electro-optic coefficient is indeed periodically reversed with high fidelity, the same device concept could be extended to other ferroelectric thin films (e.g., barium titanate) to push operating speeds toward tens of gigahertz, limited mainly by electrode RC constants.
  • The ability to set the index modulation profile purely by domain engineering implies that aperiodic or chirped domain patterns could create arbitrarily programmable spectral filters or photonic-crystal-like structures, a generalization the paper hints at but does not develop.
  • The observed zero-bias reflectivity and offset voltage suggest the device can serve as a sensitive diagnostic of ferroelectric domain fidelity—the linear EO response maps directly to domain structure, so residual reflections measure duty-cycle and inversion quality.
  • The demonstrated 1 GHz bandwidth is RC-limited, not fundamental; traveling-wave electrode designs could extend modulation speeds far beyond this, making these gratings competitive with conventional electro-optic modulators.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an electro-optically programmable distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) in a periodically poled thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) waveguide. The device applies a bias voltage across a ferroelectric domain grating; the periodic reversal of the linear electro-optic coefficient produces a voltage-controlled push-pull index grating, turning the waveguide into a DBR. Static characterization shows reflectivity tunable from near zero to near-unity, a stable center wavelength, long-term operation, and linear center-wavelength tuning with poling period. High-frequency measurements show RC-limited 3-dB roll-offs near 1 GHz in both reflection and transmission, with detuning controls confirming that the modulation originates from the dynamic DBR response.

Significance. If the mechanism is fully validated, this is an important advance: it provides a path to actively programmable DBRs with subwavelength index-modulation resolution set by ferroelectric domains, a capability that is difficult to achieve with thermo-optic, electro-optic, or mechanical tuning. The experimental evidence is broad: voltage-swept spectra, tanh^2 voltage scaling, wavelength stability, period-based wavelength tuning, long-term stability, and gigahertz-speed modulation with appropriate control measurements. The simulated coupling constant from geometry and bulk electro-optic coefficients is a useful design tool. However, the quantitative claims rest on the assumption that periodic poling produces complete reversal of the linear electro-optic coefficient with ~50% duty cycle; this is inferred from SHG contrast rather than directly measured, and the paper acknowledges a 35% discrepancy between the measured and simulated coupling efficiency. The core concept is plausible and the data support it, but the efficiency and mechanism claims are not yet fully secured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II (Fig. 2c)] The paper infers 'near-complete domain inversion' from confocal SHG microscopy. SHG probes the sign and magnitude of the second-order nonlinearity, but the DBR mechanism in Section I relies on reversal of the linear electro-optic coefficient. The two are related but can be decoupled by domain-wall space charge, incomplete inversion, or duty-cycle asymmetry. This is not a merely academic concern: the electrical data show V0=-5.16 V, residual zero-bias reflectivity, and a measured alpha about 35% below the simulated value. Please provide a direct measurement of the linear EO response per domain (e.g., spatially resolved phase/Pockels measurement) or a quantitative model of poling nonideality that reproduces these observations. Without this, the link between poling quality and the quoted tuning efficiency is not established.
  2. [Section III (Fig. 3c)] The fit to R=tanh^2(alpha(V-V0)L) yields alpha=11.95 (m*V)^-1 and V0=-5.16 V. The manuscript compares this with a simulated alpha=18.34 (m*V)^-1 obtained after 'accounting for film thickness nonuniformity,' but it does not report the effective grating length used, the fit residuals, or confidence intervals. A simple internal consistency check is missing: at V=0, the fitted parameters imply R=tanh^2(11.95*5.16*0.006) ~ 0.13, which should be compared with the measured zero-bias reflectivity. Please provide these details so the reader can judge whether the 35% discrepancy is physically meaningful or a consequence of how the effective length is folded into alpha.
  3. [Section III (Fig. 3b)] The film-thickness nonuniformity is used to explain the double-peaked transfer function and to reduce the theoretical alpha from 27.54 to 18.34 (m*V)^-1. However, the claim that the simulations 'accurately reproduce' the data is not quantified; no residual plot, error metric, or sensitivity analysis is shown. Because this correction directly changes the benchmark against which the measured alpha is compared, please include a quantitative comparison (e.g., overlay with residuals) and a sensitivity analysis of the adjusted alpha to the assumed thickness profile and to the effective-grating-length reduction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV (Fig. 4b)] The text refers to 'EOS 21' where the standard notation is S21; please correct.
  2. [Abstract / Section III] The phrase 'from zero to near-unity' could be misread as starting at zero applied voltage. The data indicate that the reflectivity minimum occurs at the offset voltage V0 ~ -5 V, not at 0 V. Please make this explicit.
  3. [Section II (Fig. 2c)] The domain duty-cycle extraction from SHG is reported as 'roughly 50%' but no uncertainty or analysis of the extraction method is given. Please provide the error bars and describe the procedure in the main text or SI.
  4. [Section III (Fig. 3c)] The gaps in the reflectivity-versus-voltage data are attributed to 'conditions of near-zero reflectivity,' but it would be helpful to state the threshold below which the reflectivity cannot be reliably identified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central claim is an experimental observation; simulated and fitted EO efficiencies are independent, and no equation reduces to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observed voltage-controlled reflectivity and gigahertz-speed modulation, not a quantity derived from a fitted parameter. The tanh^2 scaling in Fig. 3c is standard coupled-mode theory for a uniform index grating and is used to parameterize the measured reflectivity-vs-voltage curve; it is not used to generate the data. The simulated coupling constant alpha = 27.54 (m.V)^-1 (ideal) and 18.34 (m.V)^-1 after accounting for measured thickness nonuniformity is computed from bulk electro-optic coefficients, device geometry, and simulated field overlap, independently of the measured reflectivity. The fitted alpha 11.95 (m.V)^-1 is then compared against that independent prediction, so the resulting discrepancy is a meaningful test rather than a circular fit. The assumption that periodic poling reverses the linear EO coefficient relies on known Pockels physics and on SHG domain imaging; the admitted residual zero-bias reflection and incomplete-domain-inversion discrepancy are limitations and correctness risks, not circular steps. Self-citations (e.g., [37], [48]) support scalability or periodic-poling capability only and are not load-bearing for the derivation. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstrations depend on standard coupled-mode theory and Pockels electro-optics, plus device-specific assumptions (uniform poling duty cycle, electrode-field overlap, zero-bias uniformity) that are only partially verified. The fitted parameters α, V0, effective length, and RC bandwidth absorb important unknowns.

free parameters (4)
  • α (EO coupling per volt) = 11.95 (m·V)^−1 (fitted DC); simulated ideal 27.54 and nonuniformity-adjusted 18.34 (m·V)^−1
    Fitted from reflectivity-vs-voltage data via tanh^2(α(V−V0)L) in Fig. 3c; used to claim DC EO efficiency.
  • V0 (offset voltage) = −5.16 V
    Fitted zero-bias offset that absorbs residual reflection/space-charge effects; needed for symmetric fit in Fig. 3c.
  • 3-dB EO bandwidth (RC-limited fit) = 1.024 GHz (reflection), 1.035 GHz (transmission)
    Fitted from VNA S21 magnitude vs frequency in Fig. 4b; basis for the gigahertz-speed claim.
  • Effective grating length reduction = Not specified; adjusts simulated α from 27.54 to 18.34 (m·V)^−1
    Introduced in Section III to account for film-thickness nonuniformity; a fitted modeling correction rather than a directly measured quantity.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Coupled-mode/slowly-varying envelope DBR theory: R=tanh^2(κL) for a uniform grating with coupling κ.
    Standard DBR coupled-mode result; used for fitting and simulation in Sections I and III.
  • domain assumption Electro-optic index shift is proportional to applied field and changes sign with ferroelectric domain orientation (Pockels effect in LN).
    Core mechanism of the programmable grating; assumed in Section I and simulations, validated indirectly by SHG.
  • domain assumption At zero bias, poling leaves linear refractive index uniform (no residual grating).
    Claimed in Section I; partially contradicted by small zero-bias reflection, attributed to space-charge/duty cycle, so the premise is approximate.
  • domain assumption Coplanar electrode field overlaps the guided optical mode with uniform amplitude along the grating.
    Needed for κ=αV proportionality; supported by the simulated field profile in Fig. 1d.
  • domain assumption Film-thickness variation enters only through local effective-index change; the waveguide remains single-mode and lossless enough for the transfer-function model.
    Used to reconcile double-peaked spectra and lower measured α in Section III and Fig. 3b.
  • domain assumption The S21 frequency response is limited by an RC circuit and not by optical cavity or photodetector dynamics.
    Used in Fig. 4b to extract the 1 GHz 3-dB bandwidth from VNA measurements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast programmable Bragg reflection in photonic integrated circuits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAUMV6NE

@misc{pith2026260714565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast programmable Bragg reflection in photonic integrated circuits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAUMV6NE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14565}
}
read the original abstract

Distributed Bragg reflectors (DBRs) are foundational building blocks of classical and quantum photonic technologies. However, their optical responses are typically fixed upon fabrication, limiting circuit robustness, reconfigurability, and functionality in applications from high-speed communications to quantum computing. Here, we demonstrate photonic chip-based programmable DBRs at telecommunications wavelengths, which are formed by electro-optically inducing refractive index contrast between periodic ferroelectric domains in thin-film lithium niobate waveguides. We achieve voltage-controlled Bragg reflection from zero to near-unity, and gigahertz-speed reflectivity modulation. Our results bring DBRs into the ultrafast programmable regime, opening new opportunities in topological photonics, cavity quantum electrodynamics, integrated lasers, and optical interconnects. The interplay between nanoscale ferroelectric domain engineering and strong electro-optic nonlinearity establishes a new design strategy for nanophotonic devices, otherwise inaccessible in bulk media.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. b illustrates our concept: coplanar electrodes supply a control electric field across a periodically-poled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references

  1. [1]

    C. Sun, M. T. Wade, Y. Lee, J. S. Orcutt, L. Alloatti, M. S. Georgas, A. S. Waterman, J. M. Shainline, R. R. Avizienis, S. Lin,et al., Nature528, 534 (2015)

    2015

  2. [2]

    Rizzo, A

    A. Rizzo, A. Novick, V. Gopal, B. Y. Kim, X. Ji, S. Daudlin, Y. Okawachi, Q. Cheng, M. Lipson, A. L. Gaeta,et al., Nature Photonics17, 781 (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    PsiQuantum team, Nature641, 876 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    Zhang, R

    Y. Zhang, R. Broberg, A. Zhu, G. Li, L. Ge, J. M. Smith, and L. Feng, Science389, 940 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    Bogaerts, D

    W. Bogaerts, D. P´ erez, J. Capmany, D. A. Miller, J. Poon, D. Englund, F. Morichetti, and A. Melloni, Na- ture586, 207 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    T. Wu, M. Menarini, Z. Gao, and L. Feng, Nature Pho- tonics17, 710 (2023)

    2023

  7. [7]

    Yanagimoto, B

    R. Yanagimoto, B. A. Ash, M. M. Sohoni, M. M. Stein, Y. Zhao, F. Presutti, M. Jankowski, L. G. Wright, T. On- odera, and P. L. McMahon, Nature649, 330 (2026)

    2026

  8. [8]

    P´ erez, I

    D. P´ erez, I. Gasulla, L. Crudgington, D. J. Thomson, A. Z. Khokhar, K. Li, W. Cao, G. Z. Mashanovich, and J. Capmany, Nature communications8, 636 (2017)

    2017

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    N. C. Harris, J. Carolan, D. Bunandar, M. Prabhu, M. Hochberg, T. Baehr-Jones, M. L. Fanto, A. M. Smith, C. C. Tison, P. M. Alsing,et al., Optica5, 1623 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Marpaung, J

    D. Marpaung, J. Yao, and J. Capmany, Nature photonics 13, 80 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    P´ erez-L´ opez, A

    D. P´ erez-L´ opez, A. Gutierrez, D. S´ anchez, A. L´ opez- Hern´ andez, M. Gutierrez, E. S´ anchez-Gom´ ariz, J. Fern´ andez, A. Cruz, A. Quir´ os, Z. Xie,et al., Nature Communications15, 1563 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Y. Shen, N. C. Harris, S. Skirlo, M. Prabhu, T. Baehr- Jones, M. Hochberg, X. Sun, S. Zhao, H. Larochelle, D. Englund,et al., Nature Photonics11, 441 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    P. L. McMahon, Nature Reviews Physics5, 717 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    T. Dai, A. Ma, J. Mao, Y. Ao, X. Jia, Y. Zheng, C. Zhai, Y. Yang, Z. Li, B. Tang,et al., Nature Materials23, 928 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    A. Ma, T. Dai, G. Li, L. Yuan, J. Capmany, Z. Chen, Q. Gong, and J. Wang, Nature Reviews Physics8, 327 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    K. H. Nielsen, Y. Wang, E. C. Deacon, P. I. Sund, Z. Liu, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, L. Midolo, A. S. Sørensen,et al., Nature Communications16, 11397 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Aharonovich, K

    I. Aharonovich, K. B. Crozier, and D. Neshev, Nature Photonics20, 254 (2026)

    2026

  10. [18]

    X. Wang, W. Shi, H. Yun, S. Grist, N. A. Jaeger, and L. Chrostowski, Optics Express20, 15547 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Dai, Journal of Lightwave Technology35, 572 (2016)

    D. Dai, Journal of Lightwave Technology35, 572 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    Wildi, M

    T. Wildi, M. A. Gaafar, T. Voumard, M. Ludwig, and T. Herr, Optica10, 650 (2023). 8

    2023

  13. [21]

    Hwang, S

    H. Hwang, S. Go, G. Kim, H.-S. Kim, K. Moon, J. J. Ju, H. Lee, and M.-K. Seo, APL Photonics10(2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    Arbabi, Y

    A. Arbabi, Y. M. Kang, C.-Y. Lu, E. Chow, and L. L. Goddard, Applied Physics Letters99(2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    X. Lu, A. McClung, and K. Srinivasan, Nature Photonics 16, 66 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    S.-P. Yu, D. C. Cole, H. Jung, G. T. Moille, K. Srini- vasan, and S. B. Papp, Nature Photonics15, 461 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    A. E. Ulanov, T. Wildi, N. G. Pavlov, J. D. Jost, M. Kar- pov, and T. Herr, Nature Photonics18, 294 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Xiang, P

    C. Xiang, P. A. Morton, and J. E. Bowers, Optics Letters 44, 3825 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Z. Qiu, X. Yang, X. Li, J. Hu, Z. Liu, Y. Zhang, X. Ji, J. Sun, G. Lihachev, Z. Li,et al., Nature654, 57 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Zhang and J

    W. Zhang and J. Yao, Nature Communications9, 1396 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Prencipe, M

    A. Prencipe, M. A. Baghban, and K. Gallo, ACS Pho- tonics8, 2923 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    D. Pohl, A. Messner, F. Kaufmann, M. R. Escale, J. Holzer, J. Leuthold, and R. Grange, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters33, 85 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Siddharth, S

    A. Siddharth, S. Bianconi, R. N. Wang, Z. Qiu, A. S. Voloshin, M. J. Bereyhi, J. Riemensberger, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nature Photonics19, 709 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    S. Xue, M. Li, R. Lopez-Rios, J. Ling, Z. Gao, Q. Hu, T. Qiu, J. Staffa, L. Chang, H. Wang,et al., Light: Sci- ence & Applications14, 209 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    N. A. Nobile, C. Lian, H. Sun, Y.-S. Huang, B. Mills, C. C. Popescu, D. Callahan, J. Hu, C. A. R ´ ıos Ocampo, and N. Youngblood, Optical Materials Express13, 2700 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    W. Liu, S. Xu, and C. Lee, Science389, 806 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    F. Yang, J. Lu, M. Shen, G. Yang, and H. X. Tang, Op- tica11, 1050 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Sabatti, J

    A. Sabatti, J. Kellner, R. J. Chapman, and R. Grange, Nanophotonics14, 4729 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Y. Hu, D. Zhu, S. Lu, X. Zhu, Y. Song, D. Renaud, D. Assumpcao, R. Cheng, C. Xin, M. Yeh,et al., Nature Reviews Physics7, 237 (2025)

    2025

  30. [38]

    J. A. Armstrong, N. Bloembergen, J. Ducuing, and P. S. Pershan, Physical Review127, 1918 (1962)

    1918

  31. [39]

    P.-K. Chen, I. Briggs, C. Cui, L. Zhang, M. Shah, and L. Fan, Nature Nanotechnology19, 44 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Nataf, M

    G. Nataf, M. Guennou, J. Gregg, D. Meier, J. Hlinka, E. Salje, and J. Kreisel, Nature Reviews Physics2, 634 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Z. Chen, Q. Xu, K. Zhang, W.-H. Wong, D.-L. Zhang, E. Y.-B. Pun, and C. Wang, Optics Letters46, 1161 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Y. Liu, Z. Qiu, X. Ji, A. Lukashchuk, J. He, J. Riemens- berger, M. Hafermann, R. N. Wang, J. Liu, C. Ronning, et al., Science376, 1309 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Singh, J

    N. Singh, J. Lorenzen, K. Wang, M. A. Gaafar, M. Sinobad, H. Francis, M. Edelmann, M. Geiselmann, T. Herr, S. M. Garcia-Blanco,et al., Nature Photonics 19, 307 (2025)

    2025

  36. [44]

    Q. Guo, B. K. Gutierrez, R. Sekine, R. M. Gray, J. A. Williams, L. Ledezma, L. Costa, A. Roy, S. Zhou, M. Liu, et al., Science382, 708 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    H. Lira, Z. Yu, S. Fan, and M. Lipson, Physical Review Letters109, 033901 (2012)

    2012

  38. [46]

    D. L. Sounas and A. Al` u, Nature Photonics11, 774 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Horsley and J

    S. Horsley and J. Pendry, Physical Review Letters133, 156903 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    C. A. Franken, S. S. Ghosh, C. C. Rodrigues, J. Yang, C. J. Xin, S. Lu, D. Witt, G. Joe, G. Wiederhecker, K.-J. Boller,et al., Nature Communications17, 3651 (2026)

    2026

  41. [49]

    Riedel, H

    D. Riedel, H. Lee, J. F. Herrmann, J. Grzesik, V. Ansari, J.-M. Borit, H. S. Stokowski, S. Aghaeimeibodi, H. Lu, P. J. McQuade,et al., ACS Photonics10, 4236 (2023)

    2023

  42. [50]

    S. W. Ding, M. Haas, X. Guo, K. Kuruma, C. Jin, Z. Li, D. D. Awschalom, N. Delegan, F. J. Heremans, A. A. High,et al., Nature Communications15, 6358 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Davanco, J

    M. Davanco, J. Liu, L. Sapienza, C.-Z. Zhang, J. V. De Miranda Cardoso, V. Verma, R. Mirin, S. W. Nam, L. Liu, and K. Srinivasan, Nature Communications8, 889 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Y. Chen, X. Wang, J. Li, R. Su, K. Xiong, X. Li, Y. Yu, T. Zhang, K. Wu, X. Li,et al., Nature Nanotechnology 21, 516 (2026)

    2026

  45. [53]

    Churaev, R

    M. Churaev, R. N. Wang, A. Riedhauser, V. Snigirev, T. Bl´ esin, C. M¨ ohl, M. H. Anderson, A. Siddharth, Y. Popoff, U. Drechsler,et al., Nature Communications 14, 3499 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Niels, T

    M. Niels, T. Vanackere, E. Vissers, T. Zhai, P. Nenezic, J. Declercq, C. Bruynsteen, S. Niu, A. Moerman, O. Cay- tan,et al., Nature Photonics20, 225 (2026)

    2026

  47. [55]

    G. M. Brodnik, G. Spektor, L. M. Williams, J. Zang, A. R. Carollo, A. Dan, J. A. Black, D. R. Carlson, and S. B. Papp, Nature652, 899 (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.