Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Non-Hermitian spectral changes in the scattering of partially coherent radiation by periodic structures

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding balanced gain and loss to a periodic grating lets a partially coherent light beam keep diffraction side-peaks that an ordinary grating would wash out.

desk verdict Correct within its model, but the strong-gain predictions rest on an unjustified first-order Born approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.00645 v1 pith:6WD3T3PJ submitted 2019-08-01 physics.optics

Paulo A. Brandão , S. B. Cavalcanti This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics PACS 42.25.Kb42.25.Fx
keywords partialcoherencePTsymmetryspectraldensityBornapproximationperiodicmediagainandlossdiffractionnon-Hermitianoptics
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 asks what happens to the spectrum of partially coherent light when it scatters from a periodic medium that is symmetric under the combined operations of parity inversion and time reversal, a PT-symmetric grating with balanced gain and loss. Working in the first-order Born approximation, the authors derive a closed formula for the far-field spectral density of the scattered radiation. The formula shows that the two secondary diffraction maxima have amplitudes proportional to $(v_r + v_i)^2$ and $(v_r - v_i)^2$, where $v_r$ and $v_i$ are the real and imaginary parts of the grating potential, while the central maximum is independent of the loss/gain parameter. Consequently, tuning $v_i$ moves spectral weight between the side peaks, and in the low-coherence regime, where a Hermitian grating's side peaks disappear entirely, a non-Hermitian grating keeps them visible. If correct, this gives a way to control and improve the visibility of diffraction patterns without changing the grating geometry.

What carries the argument

The carrier of the argument is the Fourier decomposition of the PT-symmetric potential, $v(x) = \frac{1}{2} + v_r\cos(2\pi x/a) + i v_i\sin(2\pi x/a)$, whose only nonzero Fourier coefficients are $c_0 = 1/2$ and $c_{\pm 1} = (v_r \pm v_i)/2$. Inserting this expansion into the spectral-density integral of Eq. (1), together with a Gaussian spectral degree of coherence of width $\sigma$, turns the problem into three closed-form Gaussian integrals. The resulting expression, Eq. (6), displays the three peaks directly, with the squared coefficients $|c_{\pm 1}|^2 = (v_r \pm v_i)^2/4$ controlling the secondary maxima; hence the gain/loss parameter $v_i$ enters as a continuous tuning knob for the diffraction pattern.

What would settle it

Measure the far-field angular spectral density of a shallow PT-symmetric grating at fixed $v_r$, sweeping $v_i$ from 0 to values above $v_r$, and check that the outer secondary peak intensity follows $(v_r - v_i)^2$ and vanishes exactly at $v_i = v_r$; any residual intensity at that point, or a growth of the central peak with $v_i$, would contradict Eq. (6).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is the closed-form spectral density for a PT-symmetric sinusoidal grating, Eq. (6): the far-field spectrum consists of a central peak, independent of $v_i$, plus two secondary peaks at $\theta_{\mathrm{in}}$ and $\theta_{\mathrm{ext}}$ whose amplitudes are $(v_r+v_i)^2$ and $(v_r-v_i)^2$. At the symmetry-breaking threshold $v_i = v_r$, the outer secondary maximum vanishes completely and the inner one grows to match the central peak, producing a twin-peak spectrum. When the coherence length drops to $\sigma = 5/k$, a Hermitian grating loses its secondary maxima, but the non-Hermitian grating retains them, and in the strong-gain limit $v_i \gg v_r$ the central maximum becomes negligible, leaving a symmetric pair of secondary maxima whose amplitude grows as $v_i^2$. The same analysis shows that a purely lossy modulated potential produces none of these effects, indicating that gain is the decisive ingredient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the first-order Born approximation remains valid for all gain/loss strengths considered, including the strong-gain limit $v_i \gg v_r$ where the scattered spectral density grows as $v_i^2$ and may no longer be weak compared with the incident field; the paper gives no small-parameter condition for this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Setting $v_i = v_r$ makes the outer secondary maxima vanish, transferring their energy to the inner pair, which become as intense as the central peak.
  • In the low-coherence regime $\sigma = 5/k$, a Hermitian grating shows no secondary maxima, but a PT-symmetric grating with the same geometry does; the appearance of side peaks becomes a signature of the non-Hermitian nature of the lattice.
  • The far-field spectral density shows no divergent symmetry-breaking point as $v_i$ passes $v_r$; in the strong-gain limit it grows as $v_i^2$ and develops a symmetric twin-peak profile in which the central maximum is negligible.
  • Tuning $v_i$ at fixed geometry and fixed coherence gives continuous control of spectral diffraction intensities, which the authors suggest could be useful in spectroscopy and grating diffraction research.
  • A purely lossy realization of the same profile does not produce any of these effects, so gain, not merely absorption, is required.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because Eq. (6) is frequency-resolved through the incident spectrum, the angular reshaping should also appear as a change in the scattered spectrum's shape at fixed observation angle; a frequency-resolved angular scan would map the $(v_r \pm v_i)^2$ weights directly.
  • The Fourier-coefficient argument extends naturally to higher harmonics: a grating with additional Fourier components would produce additional side peaks with analogous $|c_n|^2$ weights, so the same loss/gain tuning could sculpt multi-peak angular patterns rather than only two side peaks.
  • Since the derivation assumes a weakly scattering structure, a natural experimental test would use a shallow-index PT-symmetric photonic lattice; with stronger gratings, multiple-scattering corrections could alter the exact $(v_r \pm v_i)^2$ scalings, so the clean prediction is best tested in the weak-scattering limit.
  • The claim that visible secondary maxima persist in low-coherence light could serve as a coherence-resilient diagnostic: for beams with unknown coherence, the appearance of side peaks at a PT-symmetric grating would reveal the lattice's non-Hermitian character even when the incident coherence is too low for an ordinary grating to resolve its structure.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies scattering of partially coherent radiation by a one-dimensional PT-symmetric periodic medium. Within the first-order Born approximation, the authors derive an analytic expression for the far-field spectral density, Eq. (6), for a potential of the form v(x) = 1/2 + vr cos(2πx/a) + i vi sin(2πx/a). They show that the amplitudes of the two first-order diffraction maxima scale as (vr - vi)^2 and (vr + vi)^2, while the central maximum is independent of vi. In the low-coherence regime (σ = 5/k), the Hermitian lattice (vi = 0) loses its secondary maxima as distinct peaks, whereas the non-Hermitian lattice can retain them for sufficient gain/loss strength. The strong-gain limit vi ≫ vr is described by Eq. (9), and the authors claim there is no indication of a divergent symmetry-breaking behavior. A pure-loss configuration with v(x) = vr + i vi sin^2(πx/a) is shown not to produce the asymmetric effects, indicating the importance of gain.

Significance. If the results are valid, the paper extends Wolf's theory of partially coherent scattering from periodic media to PT-symmetric (complex) potentials and provides a closed-form, parameter-free expression for the spectral density. The algebra from Eq. (1) to Eq. (6) is consistent, the Hermitian limit vi = 0 reproduces the known result of ref. 21, and the amplitude scalings (vr ± vi)^2 are exact consequences of the Fourier coefficients in the model. The prediction that gain/loss can restore diffraction peaks in the low-coherence regime is concrete and testable, and the pure-loss comparison offers a useful cross-check. However, the physical significance is tempered by the fact that the first-order Born approximation is used without a stated validity condition, particularly in the strong-gain regime where the predictions of Eq. (9) may not be reliable.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eqs. (1) and (9), and the paragraph after Eq. (9)] The first-order Born approximation is introduced at Eq. (1) without any statement of its validity condition, and the same approximation underlies the strong-gain limit (9) and the claim that no divergent symmetry-breaking behavior occurs. For the parameters used in Fig. 2(c) (vr = vi = 0.5), the Fourier coefficients (vr ± vi)/2 are of order unity, so the scattering is not weak and higher-order Born terms may contribute. Please specify the small parameter that justifies keeping only the first Born term (for example, that the scattered field amplitude is much smaller than the incident amplitude), and either restrict the physical claims to that regime or explicitly state that Eq. (9) is a formal limit of the first-order model and may not describe the actual strong-gain system.
  2. [Discussion of Fig. 2, Eq. (6) with vi = 0] The statement that the Hermitian secondary maxima 'disappear' in the low-coherence regime (σ = 5/k) is imprecise: Eq. (6) with vi = 0 still has sideband terms with amplitude vr^2 = 0.25, but these contributions do not appear as distinct local maxima because of the tails of the central Gaussian. As the non-Hermitian visibility of sidebands is a central claim, please provide a cross-section of the spectral density at fixed frequency (or a quantitative criterion for what counts as a discernible maximum) for both the Hermitian and non-Hermitian cases.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, first paragraph] The text contains typos: 'Nowadays, is has been well established' should read 'it has been well established,' and 'syntethic' should be 'synthetic.'
  2. [Eq. (6) and Fig. 1 caption] The angle θ is defined as arccos(s·x), which lies in [0, π], but the text refers to θ = ±π/2, ±π/3, etc.; please clarify the convention (e.g., considering both signs of s_x).
  3. [Eq. (9) and Fig. 3] The text says 'vi ≫ vr = 0.5' but does not state the actual value of vi used in the figure; please specify the value and note that Eq. (9) is obtained by neglecting the first term in Eq. (6), which requires vi^2 ≫ 1.
  4. [Notation] The notation S(∞)(r;ω) in Eq. (6) becomes S∞(θ,ω) in Eq. (9); please use a consistent notation throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (6) and the amplitude relations follow by direct substitution from the assumed potential and coherence model; the only self-citation is background and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The paper starts from Wolf's standard scattering formula (Eq. 1), assumes a Gaussian spectral degree of coherence (Eq. 2), and chooses an explicit PT-symmetric potential (Eq. 3) whose Fourier coefficients are c±1 = (vr ± vi)/2 and c0 = 1/2 (Eq. 4). Substitution into Eq. (5) and evaluating the Gaussian integrals yields the closed-form spectral density in Eq. (6). The amplitude relations in Eq. (8), the invariance of the central maximum, and the vi ≫ vr limit of Eq. (9) are all immediate algebraic consequences of Eq. (6) and the chosen coefficients; they are not fitted to data, nor are they assumed as inputs. The low-coherence visibility claim for non-Hermitian lattices is a direct consequence of evaluating the Gaussian factors at the relevant diffraction angles with σ = 5/k, not an independent prediction equivalent to the model's definition. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The only self-citation (ref. 28) is used to describe the usual PT-symmetry-breaking growth of propagating amplitudes, and the paper explicitly contrasts and disclaims its relevance to the present scattering setup; it is not load-bearing for Eq. (6). Concerns about the validity of the first-order Born approximation for strong gain are correctness or applicability risks, not circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Born approximation, the Gaussian coherence model, and the specific truncated Fourier form of the PT-symmetric potential. These are stated assumptions rather than fitted quantities; no data are used. The parameters vr, vi, sigma, a, omega0, delta are chosen for illustration, not fitted.

free parameters (6)
  • vr = 0.5 (in plots)
    Real part amplitude of the PT-symmetric potential; with vi determines the weights (vr ± vi)² of the diffraction peaks.
  • vi = 0, 0.25, 0.5, and vi >> 0.5 in plots
    Imaginary part amplitude; the central non-Hermitian tuning parameter whose variation is claimed to control the spectral density profile.
  • sigma = 10/k and 5/k
    Transverse coherence length of the incident field; varying it moves between high- and low-coherence regimes.
  • lattice period a = 2 lambda (in plots)
    Sets the diffraction angles via 2π/a.
  • central frequency omega0 = 3.54e15 rad/s (lambda0 = 532 nm)
    Center of the incident Gaussian spectrum; used for the figures.
  • bandwidth delta = 0.1 omega0
    Width of the incident Gaussian spectrum.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The scattering is weak enough that the first-order Born approximation is valid (Eq. 1).
    All results derive from the Born approximation; no validity condition is given, especially for gain media with large vi.
  • domain assumption The incident field is a stationary random process with a Gaussian spectral degree of coherence (Eq. 2).
    Standard model from coherence theory [27].
  • domain assumption The medium is a one-dimensional periodic grating represented by V(r) = v(x) δ(y) δ(z).
    Idealized geometry following [21].
  • ad hoc to paper The PT-symmetric potential is given by the truncated Fourier series v(x) = 1/2 + vr cos(2πx/a) + i vi sin(2πx/a) (Eq. 3).
    A specific choice; the conclusions about amplitude changes depend on having only c0 and c±1 nonzero.
  • domain assumption The incident spectral density is Gaussian (Eq. 7).
    Chosen for numerical illustration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-Hermitian spectral changes in the scattering of partially coherent radiation by periodic structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6WD3T3PJ

@misc{pith2026190800645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-Hermitian spectral changes in the scattering of partially coherent radiation by periodic structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6WD3T3PJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.00645}
}
read the original abstract

The physical aspects of partially coherent radiation interacting with deterministic non-Hermitian periodic materials remain largely unexplored in the statistical optics literature. Here, we consider the scattering of partially coherent radiation by a deterministic periodic medium, symmetric under the simultaneous transformations of parity inversion and time reversal, that is, a parity-time (PT)-symmetric periodic medium. Taking into account light fluctuations, one is able to describe the spectrum changes on propagation and the influence of the coherence-driven angular divergence effect. The far-field spectral density profile is found to depend crucially on the loss/gain properties of the material, giving rise to unexpected and contrasting spectral diffraction profiles when compared to the Hermitian ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.00645 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Color online) Normalized scattered spectral density of partially coherent radiation with σ = 10 × (1/k). (a) Hermitian scattering with vi = 0. Non-Hermitian scattering with (b) vi = 0.25 and (c) vi = 0.5. The real part of the potential function is vr = 0.5, the incident spectrum is described by Eq. (7) with ω0 = 3.54 × 1015 rad/s (λ0 = 532 nm), δ = 0.1ω0 and a = 2λ. The white dashed lines are fixed at θ = ± π 2 . T… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Color online) Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Color online) Normalized spectral density of the scat￾tered wavefield in the regime where vi ≫ vr. (a) Hermitian lattice with vi = 0 and (b) non-Hermitian lattice with vi ≫ vr described by Eq. (9). The coherence length σ is the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  2. [2]

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and H. F . Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 1 (2002)

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    C. M. Bender, S. Boettcher, and P . N. Meisinger, J. Math. Ph ys. 40, 2201 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    C. M. Bender, Reports on Prog. Phys. 70, 947 (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [6]

    Mostafazadeh, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. 43, 205 (2002)

    2002

  6. [7]

    Mostafazadeh, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. 43, 2814 (2002)

    2002

  7. [8]

    Mostafazadeh, J

    A. Mostafazadeh, J. Math. Phys. 43, 3944 (2002)

    2002

  8. [9]

    Longhi, Epl

    S. Longhi, Epl. 120 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 56 references
  1. [10]

    Ruschhaupt, F

    A. Ruschhaupt, F . Delgado, and J. G. Muga, J. Phys. A: Math . Gen. 38 (2005)

    2005

  2. [11]

    C. E. Rüter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodou lides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, Nat. Phys. 6, 192 (2010)

    2010

  3. [12]

    M. V . Berry, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 244007 (2008)

    2008

  4. [13]

    Z. Lin, H. Ramezani, T . Eichelkraut, T . Kottos, H. Cao, an d D. N. Christodoulides, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 213901 (2011)

    2011

  5. [14]

    Regensburger, C

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. Onishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, Nature. 488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  6. [15]

    Feng, Y .-L

    L. Feng, Y .-L. Xu, W. S. Fegadolli, M.-H. Lu, J. E. B. Olive ira, V . R. Almeida, Y .-F . Chen, and A. Scherer, Nat. Mater.12, 108 (2013)

    2013

  7. [16]

    Longhi, Phys

    S. Longhi, Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 81, 1 (2010)

    2010

  8. [17]

    Graefe and H

    E.-M. Graefe and H. F . Jones, Phys. Rev. A 84, 013818 (2011)

    2011

  9. [18]

    D. M. Tsvetkov, V . A. Bushuev, V . V . Konotop, and B. I. Mant syzov, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053844 (2018)

    2018

  10. [19]

    Achilleos, Y

    V . Achilleos, Y . Aurégan, and V . Pagneux, Phys. Rev. Lett . 119, 243904 (2017)

    2017

  11. [20]

    O. V . Shramkova and G. P . Tsironis, J. Opt. 18, 105101 (2016)

    2016

  12. [21]

    Wolf, Opt

    E. Wolf, Opt. Lett. 38, 4023 (2013)

    2013

  13. [22]

    Gao, Y .-M

    F . Gao, Y .-M. Liu, X.-D. Tian, C.-L. Cui, and J.-H. Wu, Opt . Express 26, 33818 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    T . Shui, W. X. Y ang, S. Liu, L. Li, and Z. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A 97, 33819 (2018)

    2018

  15. [24]

    X. Y . Zhu, Y . L. Xu, Y . Zou, X. C. Sun, C. He, M. H. Lu, X. P . Liu , and Y . F . Chen, Appl. Phys. Lett.109 (2016)

    2016

  16. [25]

    Wolf, Phys

    E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2220 (1989)

    1989

  17. [26]

    Dušek, Phys

    M. Dušek, Phys. Rev. E 52, 6833 (1995)

    1995

  18. [28]

    Brandão and S

    P . Brandão and S. Cavalcanti, Phys. Rev. A 96 (2017)

    2017

  19. [29]

    Berry and D

    M. Berry and D. O’Dell, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 31, 2093 (1998). Letter Optics Letters 5 FULL REFERENCES

    1998

  20. [30]

    Real spectra in non-hermit ian hamil- tonians having PT symmetry,

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, “Real spectra in non-hermit ian hamil- tonians having PT symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243–5246 (1998)

    1998

  21. [31]

    Complex Extensi on of Quantum Mechanics,

    C. M. Bender, D. C. Brody, and H. F . Jones, “Complex Extensi on of Quantum Mechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 1–4 (2002)

    2002

  22. [32]

    PT -symme tric quan- tum mechanics,

    C. M. Bender, S. Boettcher, and P . N. Meisinger, “PT -symme tric quan- tum mechanics,” J. Math. Phys. 40, 2201–2229 (1999)

    1999

  23. [33]

    Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamiltonian s,

    C. M. Bender, “Making sense of non-Hermitian Hamiltonian s,” Reports on Prog. Phys. 70, 947–1018 (2007)

    2007

  24. [34]

    C. M. Bender, PT Symmetry: In Quantum and Classical Physics (World Scientific Publishing, 2018)

    2018

  25. [35]

    Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT symmetr y: The nec- essary condition for the reality of the spectrum of a non-Her mitian Hamiltonian,

    A. Mostafazadeh, “Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT symmetr y: The nec- essary condition for the reality of the spectrum of a non-Her mitian Hamiltonian,” J. Math. Phys. 43, 205–214 (2002)

    2002

  26. [36]

    Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT -symmet ry. II: A com- plete characterization of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians wit h a real spec- trum,

    A. Mostafazadeh, “Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT -symmet ry. II: A com- plete characterization of non-Hermitian Hamiltonians wit h a real spec- trum,” J. Math. Phys. 43, 2814–2816 (2002)

    2002

  27. [37]

    Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT -symmet ry III: Equiv- alence of pseudo-Hermiticity and the presence of antilinea r symme- tries,

    A. Mostafazadeh, “Pseudo-Hermiticity versus PT -symmet ry III: Equiv- alence of pseudo-Hermiticity and the presence of antilinea r symme- tries,” J. Math. Phys. 43, 3944–3951 (2002)

    2002

  28. [38]

    Parity-time symmetry meets photonics: A new t wist in non- Hermitian optics,

    S. Longhi, “Parity-time symmetry meets photonics: A new t wist in non- Hermitian optics,” Epl. 120 (2017)

    2017

  29. [39]

    Physical real ization of PT -symmetric potential scattering in a planar slab waveguide,

    A. Ruschhaupt, F . Delgado, and J. G. Muga, “Physical real ization of PT -symmetric potential scattering in a planar slab waveguide,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38 (2005)

    2005

  30. [40]

    Observation of parity-time symmetry i n optics,

    C. E. Rüter, K. G. Makris, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodou lides, M. Segev, and D. Kip, “Observation of parity-time symmetry i n optics,” Nat. Phys. 6, 192–195 (2010)

    2010

  31. [41]

    Optical lattices with PT symmetry are not tr ansparent,

    M. V . Berry, “Optical lattices with PT symmetry are not tr ansparent,” J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41, 244007 (2008)

    2008

  32. [42]

    Unidirectional invisibility induced b y P T -symmetric periodic structures,

    Z. Lin, H. Ramezani, T . Eichelkraut, T . Kottos, H. Cao, an d D. N. Christodoulides, “Unidirectional invisibility induced b y P T -symmetric periodic structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 213901 (2011)

    2011

  33. [43]

    Parity–time synthetic p hotonic lat- tices,

    A. Regensburger, C. Bersch, M.-A. Miri, G. Onishchukov, D. N. Christodoulides, and U. Peschel, “Parity–time synthetic p hotonic lat- tices,” Nature. 488, 167 (2012)

    2012

  34. [44]

    Experimental demonst ration of a unidirectional reflectionless parity-time metamaterial at optical fre- quencies,

    L. Feng, Y .-L. Xu, W. S. Fegadolli, M.-H. Lu, J. E. B. Olive ira, V . R. Almeida, Y .-F . Chen, and A. Scherer, “Experimental demonst ration of a unidirectional reflectionless parity-time metamaterial at optical fre- quencies,” Nat. Mater. 12, 108–113 (2013)

    2013

  35. [45]

    Spectral singularities and Bragg scatterin g in complex crystals,

    S. Longhi, “Spectral singularities and Bragg scatterin g in complex crystals,” Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 81, 1–6 (2010)

    2010

  36. [46]

    P T -symmetric sinusoidal optical lat- tices at the symmetry- breaking threshold,

    E.-M. Graefe and H. F . Jones, “ P T -symmetric sinusoidal optical lat- tices at the symmetry- breaking threshold,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 013818 (2011)

    2011

  37. [47]

    Broadband quasi-P T -symmetry sustained by inhomogeneous broad- ening of the spectral line,

    D. M. Tsvetkov, V . A. Bushuev, V . V . Konotop, and B. I. Mant syzov, “Broadband quasi-P T -symmetry sustained by inhomogeneous broad- ening of the spectral line,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 053844 (2018)

    2018

  38. [48]

    Scattering by finite periodic P T -symmetric structures,

    V . Achilleos, Y . Aurégan, and V . Pagneux, “Scattering by finite periodic P T -symmetric structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 243904 (2017)

    2017

  39. [49]

    Scattering properti es ofPT- sym- metric layered periodic structures,

    O. V . Shramkova and G. P . Tsironis, “Scattering properti es ofPT- sym- metric layered periodic structures,” J. Opt. 18, 105101 (2016)

    2016

  40. [50]

    Diffraction of radiation of any state of spatia l coherence on media with periodic structure,

    E. Wolf, “Diffraction of radiation of any state of spatia l coherence on media with periodic structure,” Opt. Lett. 38, 4023 (2013)

    2013

  41. [51]

    In trinsic link of asymmetric reflection and diffraction in non-Hermitian gra tings,

    F . Gao, Y .-M. Liu, X.-D. Tian, C.-L. Cui, and J.-H. Wu, “In trinsic link of asymmetric reflection and diffraction in non-Hermitian gra tings,” Opt. Express 26, 33818 (2018)

    2018

  42. [52]

    Asymmetric d iffraction by atomic gratings with optical PT symmetry in the Raman-Nath r egime,

    T . Shui, W. X. Y ang, S. Liu, L. Li, and Z. Zhu, “Asymmetric d iffraction by atomic gratings with optical PT symmetry in the Raman-Nath r egime,” Phys. Rev. A 97, 33819 (2018)

    2018

  43. [53]

    Asymmetric diffraction based on a passive parity-ti me grating,

    X. Y . Zhu, Y . L. Xu, Y . Zou, X. C. Sun, C. He, M. H. Lu, X. P . Liu, and Y . F . Chen, “Asymmetric diffraction based on a passive parity-ti me grating,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 109 (2016)

    2016

  44. [54]

    Correlation-induced doppler-type frequency shifts of spectral lines,

    E. Wolf, “Correlation-induced doppler-type frequency shifts of spectral lines,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 2220–2223 (1989)

    1989

  45. [55]

    Diffraction of partially coherent beams on th ree- dimensional periodic structures and the angular shifts of t he diffraction maxima,

    M. Dušek, “Diffraction of partially coherent beams on th ree- dimensional periodic structures and the angular shifts of t he diffraction maxima,” Phys. Rev. E 52, 6833–6840 (1995)

    1995

  46. [56]

    Wolf, Introduction to the Theory of Coherence and Polarization of Light (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    E. Wolf, Introduction to the Theory of Coherence and Polarization of Light (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

    2007

  47. [57]

    Bragg-induced power osci llations in PT -symmetric periodic photonic structures,

    P . Brandão and S. Cavalcanti, “Bragg-induced power osci llations in PT -symmetric periodic photonic structures,” Phys. Rev. A 96 (2017)

    2017

  48. [58]

    Diffraction by volume gratings w ith imaginary potentials,

    M. Berry and D. O’Dell, “Diffraction by volume gratings w ith imaginary potentials,” J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 31, 2093 (1998)

    1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.