Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Towards Topological Protection based millimetre wave devices

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Topological microwaves gain a low-reflection launcher and a coupler

desk verdict A pragmatic engineering paper: a solid matched circular-waveguide launcher for topological metawaveguides, plus a plausible but under-justified two-mechanism coupled-mode picture for a hybrid directional/contra-directional coupler. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05036 v1 pith:YAZOOUWJ submitted 2019-08-14 physics.app-ph physics.optics

Gian Guido Gentili , Giuseppe Pelosi , Francesco S. Piccioli , Stefano Selleri This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phphysics.optics PACS 78.67.Pt41.20.Jb42.70.Qs84.40.Dc
keywords MicrowaveTopologicalInsulatorsCoupledModesIntegratedPhotonicsmetawaveguidecircularwaveguidelaunchercontra-directionalcouplerimpedancematchinghelicaledge
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 shows how topologically protected microwave waveguides can be connected to ordinary circular waveguides and to each other, turning a phenomenon prized for refusing to interact into a working device platform. The authors design a modal launcher whose reflection stays below -10 dB across 1.1 GHz, about 73% of the bulk bandgap, and use it to verify that a sharply bent topological waveguide transmits as well as a straight one. They then place two topological metawaveguides close together and explain the resulting coupling as the interplay of two mechanisms, spin (inter-modal) and inter-spin (modal) coupling. On that basis they demonstrate a proof-of-concept hybrid directional and contra-directional coupler that routes power to different ports depending on frequency. If these results hold, topological waveguides become feasible building blocks for millimetre-wave devices such as beam splitters, interferometers, and routers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of coupled topological metawaveguides, together with the circular-waveguide launcher used to reach them. The launcher rests on the degenerate TE x,y 11 modes of a circular waveguide, transformed into left and right circular polarization via the matrix $T=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{bmatrix}1&j\\1&-j\end{bmatrix}$, with a two-iris matching network tuned by genetic-algorithm optimization and mode-matching simulation; it converts a waveguide mode to a single quasi-spin direction and suppresses cross-polarization. The coupling analysis reduces the full 16 coupled-mode equations for the double interface to two mechanisms: spin (inter-modal) coupling between same-spin counter-propagating modes of the two waveguides, which is phase-matched only near the degeneracy point and opens the avoided-crossing gap that enables contra-directional coupling; and inter-spin (modal) coupling between opposite-spin co-propagating modes, allowed by the partial loss of topological protection in the finite central region, which splits the modes into symmetric/antisymmetric supermodes with coupling length $L_0 = \pi/\Delta_{sa}$. Separation $N_s$ controls the contra-directional bandwidth, and interaction length $L_c$ controls the directional splitting ratio.

What would settle it

Feed an LCP signal into one port of the coupler with $N_s=5$ and $L_c=30a_0$ and measure the power returning to the input port and leaving the bar port across 22.1-22.5 GHz; if a non-negligible fraction of the input returns as reflection or appears at the bar output in the anticrossing band, the neglected same-waveguide couplings are not negligible and the claimed spin-locked contra-directional coupling fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a local breaking of topological protection is not a defect but a design tool. A circular-waveguide launcher, optimized by standard impedance-matching methods, couples the degenerate TE11 modes of a conventional circular waveguide to the quasi-spin modes of a bianisotropic topological metawaveguide with reflection below -10 dB over 1.1 GHz, and the resulting two-port measurements show LCP-to-RCP transmission with maximum total losses of 1 dB over a 4.4% fractional bandwidth, while the unwanted spin is attenuated by more than 20 dB. When two such waveguides of opposite handedness are separated by a small number of rods, the authors show that their interaction splits into spin coupling, which opens an avoided crossing and produces contra-directional power transfer between counter-propagating modes, and inter-spin coupling, which produces symmetric and antisymmetric supermodes and directional coupling. A coupler with five interstitial rods and a coupling length of 30 lattice constants gives roughly 50% splitting below 22.1 GHz, a complete cross state above 22.5 GHz, and near-unitary contra-directional transmission between 22.1 and 22.5 GHz. The paper thereby claims a practical interface and a coupling-based topological device on this platform.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted behaviour rests on the assumption that coupling between different modes of the same topological metawaveguide is negligible, so that the full 16-equation coupled-mode problem reduces to spin and inter-spin couplings alone; if those neglected same-guide couplings become significant at the chosen separations, the device would not behave as described.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The launcher converts the topological waveguide into a standard two-port microwave component, so S-parameters measured with a network analyser can characterize topological propagation, including around sharp bends.
  • Because straight and sharply bent topological waveguides transmit nearly identically inside the matching band, topological protection is directly observable as bend-loss immunity in a practical measurement setup.
  • The hybrid coupler routes power among three ports by frequency: directional splitting below 22.1 GHz, a complete cross state above 22.5 GHz, and contra-directional transfer between 22.1 and 22.5 GHz.
  • Contra-directional coupling is built in by the waveguides' spin symmetries, so no Bragg grating or detuning between waveguides is required, and spin conservation prevents self back-coupling.
  • A 50/50 topological splitter of this kind could serve as a beam splitter in quantum-optics experiments on a topological platform, as the authors note.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The launcher design separates the aperture transition from the impedance-matching network, so the same matching procedure should transfer to planar or slot antennas; testing that generalization would be a direct extension of the paper's method.
  • The exponential dependence of contra-directional bandwidth on inter-waveguide separation, which the paper reports, implies that fabrication tolerances on $N_s$ will be the limiting factor for narrowband versions of the coupler; this sensitivity is an editorial inference, not analysed in the paper.
  • A natural next step the paper leaves open is replacing the ideal eigenmode excitations with the matched circular-waveguide launchers at every port; the resulting full-device S-parameters would show whether the coupling picture survives end-to-end integration.
  • Because the model keeps only spin and inter-spin couplings, deliberately breaking the symmetry between the two waveguides should reactivate the neglected couplings and could tune the cross-state frequency; this offers a testable lever not explored in the paper.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a simulation-based design study for two millimetre-wave components built on a bianisotropic topological metawaveguide. In Section I the authors design a circular-waveguide launcher, using an optimized iris matching network, and report a reflection coefficient below -10 dB over 1.1 GHz (about 73% of the bulk bandgap) and LCP-to-RCP transmission with maximum total losses of 1 dB over a 4.4% fractional bandwidth for both straight and sharply bent waveguides. In Section II they study two coupled topological waveguides and propose that the interaction is governed by only two mechanisms: spin (inter-modal, same-spin) coupling producing a contra-directional band near the degeneracy frequency, and inter-spin (modal, opposite-spin) coupling producing directional coupling away from it. This leads to a hybrid directional/contra-directional coupler, simulated in CST, with approximately 50% splitting below 22.1 GHz, a complete cross state above 22.5 GHz, and near-unitary contra-directional transmission between 22.1 and 22.5 GHz.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the circular-waveguide launcher would solve a practical interface problem for topological waveguides, and the coupled-waveguide analysis would identify a compact, bend-immune route to routing and beam splitting. The paper's strengths are its concrete, reproducible design parameters; the use of a standard impedance-matching optimization for the launcher; the explicit presentation of the coupler study as a proof of concept; and the recognition that local breaking of topological protection is what enables coupling. The quantitative claims, however, rest entirely on full-wave simulations with no convergence study, and the coupler interpretation depends on a truncated coupled-mode model that is not validated against the simulations. These issues are fixable but central to the paper's main claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, opening paragraph and Fig. 5] The reduction from the full 16 coupled-mode equations to only spin and inter-spin couplings is the load-bearing assumption of the coupler section. The stated justification, that couplings between different modes of the same TPMW can be neglected 'because of their orthogonality in the uncoupled case', is not a valid coupled-mode-theory argument: orthogonality of eigenmodes of the isolated guides does not prevent a perturbation from inducing coupling between those modes, and the paper itself states in Section II.b that topological order is partially lost in the central region, so the uncoupled eigenbasis is not the appropriate basis there. Since the predicted absence of self back-coupling and the clean separation into directional and contra-directional regimes depend on this truncation, the authors should either derive the truncation from the full 16-mode system with explicit expressions for all neglected coefficients, or extract the coupling coefficients from the simulated geometry and show that the neglected terms are numerically small.
  2. [Section II.c and Fig. 7c] The coupler transmittances are defined from averaged field intensities recorded by six probes per port rather than from S-parameters or a modal projection. This procedure cannot cleanly separate co-directional from contra-directional power, can mask standing-wave and reflection effects, and does not quantify the impedance match at the ports. Consequently the claims of approximately 50% splitting, a complete cross state, and 'almost unitary' contra-directional transmission are not quantitatively established. The authors should report de-embedded S-parameters or modal power fluxes at all ports, including return loss, for the coupler.
  3. [Section I and Section II.c] No convergence or mesh-independence study is reported for any of the CST full-wave simulations. The quantitative headline numbers (below -10 dB over 1.1 GHz, 1 dB insertion loss over 4.4% bandwidth, the gap widths in Fig. 7a, and the transmission values in Fig. 7c) are all simulation-derived; a mesh refinement sweep showing stability of the S-parameters or of an energy-norm error estimate is needed to establish that these numbers are converged.
  4. [Section II.b and Section II.c] There is an unresolved tension between the statement that the central region partially loses topological order and the later use of spin conservation to forbid self back-coupling. If the perturbation is strong enough to break spin orthogonality, which is invoked to allow inter-spin coupling, the same perturbation could in principle induce back-coupling into the input waveguide. The manuscript should specify which symmetry, if any, survives in the coupled region and why it prohibits self back-coupling while permitting inter-spin transfer.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'omeomorphic' (should be 'homeomorphic'), 'eneregy' (should be 'energy'), 'T opological' in the section heading, 'deg 120' (should be '120 degrees'), and 'mediating' where 'averaging' is meant. A careful copy edit is needed.
  2. [Section I.a, Eq. (2)] The CP-basis S-parameter transformation relies on reference 30; the convention for the rotation direction of outgoing waves should be restated in the text so that Eq. (2) is self-contained and the reader does not have to consult the cited paper.
  3. [Section I.b] The manuscript says the authors 'observe' transmission and reflection behavior, but the results are simulations, not measurements; the wording should be changed to 'simulate' or 'model' throughout.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption mentions circles and triangles for straight and bent waveguides, but the text and legend are not explicit about which symbol corresponds to which case; please define this unambiguously.
  5. [References] Reference 28 is listed as 'to be presented' and should be updated to a published or archival version if available, or removed if it never appears.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the launcher and coupler results are full-wave simulation outputs, not derivations from their own claims.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are the low-reflection circular-waveguide launcher (Section I) and the hybrid directional/contra-directional topological coupler (Section II). Neither is obtained by fitting a parameter to the claimed output or by defining a quantity in terms of the target. The reflection coefficient below -10 dB over 1.1 GHz is the result of a genetic-algorithm optimization with mode-matching and CST full-wave simulation, and the coupler transmission spectra are computed from fully simulated field intensities; the only simplification is the Section II reduction of the 16 coupled-mode problem to spin and inter-spin couplings. That truncation is an approximation with stated physical justification (orthogonality of uncoupled modes, spin conservation), and the paper presents the coupler as a qualitative proof of concept, not as a derivation of the simulation from the approximation. The self-citations (refs. 30 and 35) are used for the standard CP S-parameter basis transformation and for earlier rotating-source excitation; they are supporting tools and are not load-bearing for the claimed results. The cited topological metawaveguide platform (refs. 7 and 8) is external prior work. Under the review rules, concerns about the validity of the two-mechanism truncation are correctness risks, not circularity, and no equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on established topological-photonics principles (bulk-edge correspondence, quasi-spin uncoupling) and on numerically optimized design parameters. The optimized launcher and coupler dimensions are fitted to simulation objectives; the coupled-mode model is a simplification with no rigorous derivation; and all quantitative output depends on unverified commercial-solver simulations.

free parameters (7)
  • launcher hole radius ratio rin/r = 2.25
    Chosen by maximizing the forward power ratio eta at the TPMW interface; a design parameter fitted via simulation.
  • iris thickness t = 0.5 mm
    Optimized with a genetic algorithm to match the CWG to the TPMW window; affects reflection bandwidth.
  • iris distances d1, d2 = 6.75 mm, 7.65 mm
    Double-iris matching network geometry optimized for broadband matching.
  • iris radii r1, r2 = 0.62 rwg, 0.66 rwg
    Optimized matching network radii.
  • inter-waveguide separation Ns = 5 rods
    Chosen for the proof-of-concept coupler to balance CD bandwidth and directional coupling strength.
  • coupling length Lc = 30 a0
    Chosen to give approximately 50% splitting in the directional regime and near-unity CD transmission; controls the splitting ratio.
  • CD bandwidth decay constant b = 0.04735
    Exponential fit to simulated data in Fig. 7a showing the secondary gap bandwidth versus distance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Bulk-edge correspondence: the number of edge modes equals the difference in topological invariants across the interface.
    Used to predict two unidirectional modes per spin at the TPMW interface; a standard topological photonics principle but assumed, not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption The two quasi-spin sectors (RCP/LCP) are uncoupled in the unperturbed TPMW, so spin-Chern numbers are separately defined and spin is conserved during propagation.
    Foundational to the whole design: if spin mixing were present in the unperturbed waveguide, the spin-locked propagation and the launcher's CP selection would fail. Invoked in the 'Topological Properties' section and throughout.
  • ad hoc to paper The coupled TPMW system can be described by only spin (inter-modal, same-spin) and inter-spin (modal, opposite-spin) couplings, neglecting intra-waveguide and higher-order cross-waveguide couplings.
    Section II states: 'the problem can be dramatically simplified by neglecting couplings between different modes of the same TPMW... and dividing the inter-TPMW couplings into only two distinct phenomena.' This is a simplifying assumption central to the coupler explanation.
  • domain assumption Full-wave simulations (CST MWS) with matched impedance boundary conditions and the mode-matching method are converged and accurate.
    All quantitative claims (S-parameters, transmission spectra, dispersion) rely on these simulations; no convergence study or experimental validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Topological Protection based millimetre wave devices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAZOOUWJ

@misc{pith2026190805036,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Topological Protection based millimetre wave devices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAZOOUWJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05036}
}
read the original abstract

Feasibility of Topological Metawaveguides supporting helical propagation in the microwave range has been recently proven. The advantages of unidirectional propagation supported by such waveguides however can only be exploited in real devices if topological modes are endowed with the capability to interact within themselves as well as with trivial modes. Here we show a modal launcher to interface a topological metawaveguide with conventional circular waveguides with negligible reflection and we exploit the properties of coupled topological modes to show a proof of concept of a topological contra-directional coupler.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05036 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of TPhC, a0 = 10mm, r = 1.725a0, g = 0.15a0, h = a0. (b) Photonic Band Structure (PBS) of the TPhC with the complete PBG highlighted. (c) Topological interface between two z-symmetry reversed TPhCs. The number of unidirectional edge modes for every spin state is given by the difference between the confining spin-Chern Numbers. tors. Among all existing proposals we base our results upon the bianisotropi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (color online) Top: PBS of the topological interface. Arrows are spin states and signs are modal effective index sign. Bottom: Electric field amplitude in the longitudinal and transverse direction for the TPHEMs. The spin state is determined by the time evolution of the electric field in the air gap region. built, it is unpractical, if not nearly impossible, to build such sources inside the structure. Indeed in the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (color online) left: Absolute value of the Poynting vector for a TPHEM propagating from a CWG launcher to a second one placed at a distance of 9a0. right: Schematic of the CWG launcher. sition over a relatively large bandwidth thus obtaining low loss excitation of helical modes both for injection and extraction of a test signal. In spite of its simplicity, our approach is easily generalized for any antenna geometry,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (color online) (a) Ratio between Fw and total outgoing power as a function of excitation frequency. (b) Solid lines: LCP-to-RCP transmission of the straight (circles) and bent (triangles) TPMWs. Dash-point: Single port co and cross polarization reflection coefficients.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (color online) (a) Double topological interface with N = 5 interstitial rods. Spin up modes have different propagation directions in the two TPMWs (b) left: Ψ↑ eigenmodes of the left interface couple to Ψ↑ eigenmodes of the right interface when phased matched, causing …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (color online) PBS of the double interface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (color online) (a) Normalized bandwidth of the secondary frequency gap as a function of inter-guide separation. TPMWs. (b) Directional Coupler Structure: Red and greed dots represent rods with the air gap in opposite position. Blue lines indicates TPMWs. (c) Transmissi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Wang , author Y

    author author Z. Wang , author Y. Chong , author J. D. \ Joannopoulos , \ and\ author M. Solja c i \' c ,\ @noop journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 100 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Wang , author Y

    author author Z. Wang , author Y. Chong , author J. D. \ Joannopoulos , \ and\ author M. Solja c i \' c ,\ 10.1038/nature08293 journal journal Nature \ volume 461 ,\ pages 772 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nature08293 2009

  3. [3]

    author author F. D. M. \ Haldane \ and\ author S. Raghu ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.013904 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 100 ( year 2008 ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.013904 NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.013904 2008

  4. [4]

    author author A. B. \ Khanikaev , author S. Hossein Mousavi , author W. K. \ Tse , author M. Kargarian , author A. H. \ MacDonald , \ and\ author G. Shvets ,\ 10.1038/nmat3520 journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 12 ,\ pages 233 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nmat3520

  5. [5]

    author author M. C. \ Rechtsman , author J. M. \ Zeuner , author Y. Plotnik , author Y. Lumer , author D. Podolsky , author F. Dreisow , author S. Nolte , author M. Segev , \ and\ author A. Szameit ,\ 10.1038/nature12066 journal journal Nature \ volume 496 ,\ pages 196 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nature12066

  6. [6]

    Lu , author J

    author author L. Lu , author J. D. \ Joannopoulos , \ and\ author M. Solja c i \' c ,\ 10.1038/nphoton.2014.248 journal journal Nature Photonics \ volume 8 ,\ pages 821 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.248 2014

  7. [7]

    Ma , author A

    author author T. Ma , author A. B. \ Khanikaev , author S. H. \ Mousavi , \ and\ author G. Shvets ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.127401 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 114 ( year 2015 ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.127401 NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.127401 2015

  8. [8]

    Lai , author T

    author author K. Lai , author T. Ma , author X. Bo , author S. Anlage , \ and\ author G. Shvets ,\ 10.1038/srep28453 journal journal Scientific Reports \ volume 6 ( year 2016 ),\ 10.1038/srep28453 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/srep28453 2016

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    author author M. C. \ Rechtsman , author Y. Lumer , author Y. Plotnik , author A. Perez-Leija , author A. Szameit , \ and\ author M. Segev ,\ 10.1109/PIERS.2016.7734548 journal journal 2016 Progress in Electromagnetic Research Symposium (PIERS) \ volume 3 ,\ pages 974 ( year 2...

    2016

  2. [10]

    author author A. B. \ Khanikaev \ and\ author G. Shvets ,\ 10.1038/s41566-017-0048-5 journal journal Nature Photonics \ volume 11 ,\ pages 763 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Ozawa , author H

    author author T. Ozawa , author H. M. \ Price , author A. Amo , author N. Goldman , author M. Hafezi , author L. Lu , author M. C. \ Rechtsman , author D. Schuster , author J. Simon , author O. Zilberberg , \ and\ author I. Carusotto ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015006 journal jou...

    doi

  4. [12]

    author author C. L. \ Kane \ and\ author E. J. \ Mele ,\ @noop journal journal Science \ volume 314 ,\ pages 1692 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    2006

  5. [13]

    author author B. A. \ Bernevig , author T. L. \ Hughes , \ and\ author S.-C. \ Zhang ,\ 10.1126/science.1133734 journal journal Science \ volume 314 ( year 2006 ),\ 10.1126/science.1133734 NoStop

    2006 doi

  6. [14]

    author author M. Z. \ Hasan \ and\ author C. L. \ Kane ,\ 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.3045 journal journal Reviews of Modern Physics \ volume 82 ,\ pages 3045 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010 doi

  7. [15]

    author author M. S. \ Rudner , author N. H. \ Lindner , author E. Berg , \ and\ author M. Levin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.3.031005 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 3 ,\ pages 031005 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  8. [16]

    Nathan \ and\ author M

    author author F. Nathan \ and\ author M. S. \ Rudner ,\ 10.1088/1367-2630/17/12/125014 journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 17 ,\ pages 125014 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    2015 doi

  9. [17]

    author author J. D. \ Joannopoulos ,\ @noop title Photonic crystals \ ( publisher Princeton University Press ,\ year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008

  10. [18]

    Longhi ,\ 10.1002/lpor.200810055 journal journal Laser & Photonics Reviews \ volume 3 ,\ pages 243 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    author author S. Longhi ,\ 10.1002/lpor.200810055 journal journal Laser & Photonics Reviews \ volume 3 ,\ pages 243 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    2009 doi

  11. [19]

    Ma \ and\ author G

    author author T. Ma \ and\ author G. Shvets ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.165102 journal journal Physical Review B \ volume 95 ( year 2017 ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevB.95.165102 NoStop

    2017 doi

  12. [20]

    Quelle , author C

    author author A. Quelle , author C. Weitenberg , author K. Sengstock , \ and\ author C. M. \ Smith ,\ 10.1088/1367-2630/aa8646 journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 19 ,\ pages 113010 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017 doi

  13. [21]

    Yves , author R

    author author S. Yves , author R. Fleury , author T. Berthelot , author M. Fink , author F. Lemoult , \ and\ author G. Lerosey ,\ 10.1038/ncomms16023 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 8 ,\ pages 16023 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi

  14. [22]

    author author L. J. \ Maczewsky , author J. M. \ Zeuner , author S. Nolte , \ and\ author A. Szameit ,\ 10.1038/ncomms13756 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 8 ( year 2017 ),\ 10.1038/ncomms13756 NoStop

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Mukherjee , author A

    author author S. Mukherjee , author A. Spracklen , author M. Valiente , author E. Andersson , author P. Öhberg , author N. Goldman , \ and\ author R. R. \ Thomson ,\ 10.1038/ncomms13918 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 8 ( year 2017 ),\ 10.1038/ncomms13918 NoStop

    doi

  16. [24]

    Ma \ and\ author G

    author author T. Ma \ and\ author G. Shvets ,\ 10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/025012 journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 18 ,\ pages 25012 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Barik , author H

    author author S. Barik , author H. Miyake , author W. DeGottardi , author E. Waks , \ and\ author M. Hafezi ,\ 10.1088/1367-2630/18/11/113013 journal journal New Journal of Physics \ volume 18 ,\ pages 113013 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    author author L. J. \ Maczewsky , author B. H \"o ckendorf , author M. Kremer , author T. Biesenthal , author M. Heinrich , author A. Alvermann , author H. Fehske , \ and\ author A. Szameit ,\ @noop journal journal arXiv e-prints \ ,\ eid arXiv:1812.07930 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http...

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    He , author X.-C

    author author C. He , author X.-C. \ Sun , author X.-P. \ Liu , author M.-H. \ Lu , author Y. Chen , author L. Feng , \ and\ author Y.-F. \ Chen ,\ 10.1073/pnas.1525502113 journal journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences \ volume 113 ,\ pages 4924 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi

  20. [28]

    author author G. G. \ Gentili , author N. guarducci , author G. Pelosi , author F. Piccioli , \ and\ author S. Selleri ,\ in\ @noop booktitle 2019 Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS) \ ( address Rome (IT) ,\ year to be presented ) NoStop

    2019

  21. [29]

    author author C. D. \ Graves ,\ 10.1109/JRPROC.1956.274912 journal journal Proceedings of the IRE \ volume 44 ,\ pages 248 ( year 1956 ) NoStop

    1956

  22. [30]

    author author G. G. \ Gentili , author G. Pelosi , author F. Piccioli , \ and\ author S. Selleri ,\ 10.1002/mop.31553 journal journal Microwave and Optical Technology Letters \ volume 61 ,\ pages 464 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019 doi

  23. [31]

    Selleri ,\ 10.1109/map.2011.5949360 journal journal IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine \ volume 53 ,\ pages 180 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    author author S. Selleri ,\ 10.1109/map.2011.5949360 journal journal IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine \ volume 53 ,\ pages 180 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  24. [32]

    Agastra , author G

    author author E. Agastra , author G. Pelosi , author S. Selleri , \ and\ author R. Taddei ,\ title Multiobjective optimization techniques , \ in\ 10.1002/047134608X.W8226 booktitle Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering \ ( publisher American Cancer Socie...

    doi

  25. [33]

    Agastra , author G

    author author E. Agastra , author G. Bellaveglia , author L. Lucci , author R. Nesti , author G. Pelosi , author G. Ruggerini , \ and\ author S. Selleri ,\ 10.2528/pier08061806 journal journal Progress In Electromagnetics Research \ volume 83 ,\ pages 335 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    doi

  26. [34]

    Itoh ,\ @noop title Numerical techniques for microwave and millimeter-wave passive structures \ ( publisher J

    author author T. Itoh ,\ @noop title Numerical techniques for microwave and millimeter-wave passive structures \ ( publisher J. Wiley ,\ year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989

  27. [35]

    author author G. G. \ Gentili , author G. Pelosi , author F. Piccioli , \ and\ author S. Selleri ,\ in\ 10.1109/APUSNCURSINRSM.2017.8072072 booktitle 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation & USNC/URSI National Radio Science Meeting \ ( address San Diego ...

    2017

  28. [36]

    author author W. K. \ Burns ,\ 10.1109/50.4098 journal journal Journal of Lightwave Technology \ volume 6 ,\ pages 1051 ( year 1988 ) NoStop

    1988 doi

  29. [37]

    Qiu \ and\ author M

    author author M. Qiu \ and\ author M. Swillo ,\ 10.1016/S1569-4410(03)00003-8 journal journal Photonics and Nanostructures - Fundamentals and Applications \ volume 1 ,\ pages 23 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003 doi

  30. [38]

    Jandieri , author K

    author author V. Jandieri , author K. Yasumoto , \ and\ author J. Pistora ,\ 10.1364/JOSAA.31.000518 journal journal Journal of the Optical Society of America A \ volume 31 ,\ pages 518 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2014 doi

  31. [39]

    Shi , author X

    author author W. Shi , author X. Wang , author C. Lin , author H. Yun , author Y. Liu , author T. Baehr-Jones , author M. Hochberg , author N. A. F. \ Jaeger , \ and\ author L. Chrostowski ,\ 10.1364/OE.21.003633 journal journal Optics Express \ volume 21 ,\ pages 3633 ( year ...

    doi

Pith tools

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