Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Low-Loss and Low-Power Silicon Ring Based WDM 32$\times$100 GHz Filter Enabled by a Novel Bend Design

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A silicon bend whose curvature and curvature derivative are both continuous cuts ring loss 22-fold, enabling the first 32-channel ring WDM filter.

desk verdict A genuinely impressive device paper whose headline loss-reduction numbers mix width profiles and whose theoretical optimality claim rests on a heuristic loss model, but the direct Euler comparison and the 32-channel filter make it worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15025 v1 pith:BTXYBQ7U submitted 2024-11-22 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Qingzhong Deng , Ahmed H. El-Saeed , Alaa Elshazly , Guy Lepage , Chiara Marchese , Pieter Neutens , Hakim Kobbi , Rafal Magdziak
show 16 more authors
Jeroen De Coster Javad Rahimi Vaskasi Minkyu Kim Yeyu Tong Neha Singh Marko Ersek Filipcic Pol Van Dorpe Kristof Croes Maumita Chakrabarti Dimitrios Velenis Peter De Heyn Peter Verheyen Philippe Absil Filippo Ferraro Yoojin Ban Joris Van Campenhout
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords siliconphotonicsringresonatorwaveguidebendTOPICwavelengthdivisionmultiplexingwhisperinggallerymodethermaltuningcurvaturecontinuity
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

The paper claims that the loss of a waveguide bend is governed by two competing terms—sidewall scattering, which grows with curvature, and mode-transition loss, which grows with the rate of change of curvature—and that a bend whose curvature and curvature derivative are both continuous is the low-loss optimum. Guided by this optimization, the authors design the TOPIC bend, a segment built from third-order-polynomial transitions joined to a circular arc, and show experimentally that it loses 0.017 dB per 180° turn versus 0.378 dB for a circular bend and 0.293 dB for an Euler bend. That loss saving is what lets silicon ring resonators shrink to 0.7 µm radius, keeping a single guided mode with a 10.48 THz free spectral range, and lets a 2 µm ring host an integrated doped-silicon heater that tunes at 5.85 mW/π. Using these rings and spiral phase shifters, the paper demonstrates the first silicon ring-based 32×100 GHz WDM filter, with 1.91 dB average insertion loss—double the channel count of prior silicon ring filters. The broader claim is that nearly all circular bends in integrated photonics can be replaced by TOPIC bends, shrinking systems and cutting tuning power.

What carries the argument

The TOPIC (third-order polynomial interconnected circular) bend: a mirror-symmetric curve made of two cubic-curvature transition segments joined by a circular arc, so that curvature and curvature derivative are continuous everywhere. The carrier of the argument is the loss functional Loss = ∫(A + Bκ + C dκ/ds + D(dκ/ds)²) ds, whose Euler–Lagrange solution κ'' = constant predicts the optimal transition; the TOPIC bend implements the relaxed version (linear κ'') for straight-circular junctions. A one-parameter family, the transition angle θp, trades mode-transition loss against sidewall-scattering loss, and using different θp for the inner and outer boundaries generates a varying-width bend that confines light against the outer wall—enabling the integrated heater without added optical loss.

What would settle it

Measure the insertion loss of 180° bends that have the same radius, width, and endpoints but different curvature derivative profiles (TOPIC cubic transition, Euler, sinusoidal, and a piecewise-linear κ' profile), fabricated on the same wafer with identical sidewall roughness; the model predicts loss should order strictly by the smoothness of κ and κ'. A single measurement where a bend with a discontinuous κ' outperforms TOPIC would refute the central claim. Alternatively, full 3D Maxwell simulation of the exact fabricated TOPIC geometry, including measured sidewall roughness, could check whether the predicted 22× loss reduction is really caused by the curvature profile rather than by the width variation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a design rule for low-loss waveguide bends: a bend that connects two waveguides should keep both curvature κ and its derivative κ' continuous along the entire path, with κ' varying linearly with arc length (κ'' = constant), because that profile minimizes the sum of sidewall-scattering loss (linear in κ) and mode-transition loss (quadratic in κ'). Since a straight-to-circular junction with κ' = 0 at both ends cannot satisfy the exact optimum, the authors relax the condition to 'no abrupt variation in κ''' and choose a cubic-curvature transition given by κ = (3Rcθp s² − s³)/(4Rc⁴θp³). The TOPIC bend consists of two such transitions connected through a circular arc, giving continuous κ and κ' everywhere; by using different transition angles for inner and outer boundaries, the bend becomes varying-width, excites a whispering-gallery mode, and lets a doped silicon heater sit inside the bend without touching the optical field. Measured bend losses confirm the ordering predicted by the model, and the ring and filter demonstrations follow from the bend's low loss and compact radius.

Load-bearing premise

The whole theory rests on the assumption that real bend loss is exactly the integral of A + Bκ + Cκ' + Dκ'^2 with fixed coefficients along the bend; if that decomposition is not accurate, the theoretical derivation of the TOPIC curve has no force, even though the experimental comparison to Euler bends would still stand.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rings with radii 1.2–2 µm keep roundtrip loss near 0.05 dB while providing FSR ≥ 3.2 THz, enough for 32 channels at 100 GHz spacing.
  • The 0.7 µm ring with FSR 10.48 THz shows that ultra-compact rings need not excite higher-order modes, opening a path to even wider-FSR filters.
  • Because TOPIC bends support arbitrary bend angles and integrated heaters, the design can replace circular bends throughout integrated photonic circuits, reducing system footprint and heater power.
  • The demonstrated 32×100 GHz filter with 283 GHz/mW tuning efficiency doubles the channel count of silicon ring WDM filters at lower insertion loss, suggesting 64-channel or denser filters are feasible with the same bend.
  • The bend-loss model, if correct, provides a quantitative design rule—not just a heuristic—for transition shapes in any integrated waveguide platform.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the loss decomposition holds, the same Euler–Lagrange optimization could be applied to transitions between waveguides of different widths or to multimode waveguides, yielding analogous smooth-curvature design rules for mode converters and crossings.
  • The 'no abrupt variation in κ''' relaxation is a choice; one could test alternatives such as minimizing the maximum curvature derivative, or minimizing radiation loss computed from Maxwell's equations, to see whether the cubic transition is truly globally optimal or merely a practical one.
  • The paper attributes nearly all loss reduction to continuous κ and κ'; because the varying-width bend also changes the mode shape and field intensity at sidewalls, an experiment separating width-optimization effects from curvature-smoothness effects would sharpen the causal story.
  • If TOPIC bends truly replace circular bends everywhere, then many other components—directional couplers, multimode interferometers, spirals—could inherit the same heater-integration and footprint advantages, but the paper demonstrates only rings, interleavers, and a spiral phase shifter so far.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'third-order polynomial interconnected circular' (TOPIC) bend whose defining feature is a continuous curvature and continuous curvature derivative, claimed to be derived from a general loss-optimization principle. The authors report experimental comparisons in silicon nitride showing lower bend loss than circular, Euler, and traditional varying-width bends, and then use TOPIC bends in silicon ring resonators to demonstrate a 0.7 μm radius single-mode ring, a thermal tuning power of 5.85 mW/π for rings with FSR≥3.2 THz, and a 32×100 GHz ring-based WDM filter with insertion loss 1.91±0.28 dB. The manuscript includes a derivation of the optimal curvature condition, a geometric construction of the TOPIC curve, and a series of experimental validations on imec platforms.

Significance. The experimental results are substantial: the 32×100 GHz silicon ring-based WDM filter, the compact rings, and the low tuning power are demonstrated with wafer-scale statistics and cut-back measurements, and the comparison between TOPIC and Euler bends at the same geometry is a direct, falsifiable test of the claimed mechanism. These demonstrations are of clear practical interest for silicon photonics. However, the paper's central theoretical claim — that continuous curvature and continuous curvature derivative are 'theoretically derived to be essential' — rests on a phenomenological loss model and an ad hoc relaxation, so the theory, as presented, does not establish the asserted fundamental optimality. The experimental evidence is strong enough to support a revised version, but the theoretical narrative needs to be either substantially strengthened or appropriately moderated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1) and Supplementary Note 3] The loss functional Loss = ∫(A + Bκ + Cκ' + Dκ'^2)ds is assumed without derivation from Maxwell's equations or a mode-coupling model, and the coefficients A, B, C, D are treated as constants independent of κ and κ'. The Euler–Lagrange result κ'' = constant, and consequently the cubic curvature profile of the TOPIC bend, follow directly from this specific quadratic form. The paper refers to this as 'rigorous derivations' and 'theoretically derived to be essential', but the derivation is valid only within the assumed phenomenological model. The authors should either derive the loss model from a more fundamental starting point, or explicitly present the model as a heuristic and demonstrate its predictive power on more than one geometry.
  2. [Abstract and Section 4, Fig. 4] The headline claims of 'more than 22 times' and 'more than 14 times' loss reduction compare the varying-width TOPIC bend (with Wmax = 1.4 μm) to constant-width circular (0.378 dB) and Euler (0.293 dB) bends, or to the traditional varying-width bend (0.242 dB). Because the varying width itself reduces sidewall scattering loss independently of the curvature-derivative effect, this comparison does not isolate the contribution of the continuous curvature derivative. The constant-width TOPIC versus Euler comparison (0.212 dB vs 0.293 dB) is the appropriate apples-to-apples test, and the abstract should not mix baselines.
  3. [Section 2, text following Eq. (3)] The relaxation from 'no variation in κ''' to 'no abrupt variation in κ''' is ad hoc. The paper states that a linear variation of κ'' with respect to s is used as the 'relaxed optimal solution', but no argument is given for why the cubic curvature profile is optimal among all smooth profiles satisfying the same boundary conditions, nor is the domain of validity of the quadratic-in-κ' loss model discussed for large curvature excursions. This weakens the claim that the TOPIC curve is the 'theoretically derived' optimal design; the experimental comparison to the Euler bend still stands, but the theoretical uniqueness claim requires stronger justification.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Please specify the exact baselines for the '22×' and '14×' reduction claims; the current wording ('including the widely used Euler bend') is ambiguous because the 14× value in the text is relative to the traditional varying-width bend, not to the Euler bend.
  2. [Section 3, Fig. 5] The ring roundtrip loss of ~0.05 dB at R = 1.2 μm is impressive, but the paper does not compare against a circular or Euler ring at the same radius; such a comparison would directly support the claim that the TOPIC bend enables the compact ring performance.
  3. [Section 2, Eq. (5)] The parameter Rc is defined implicitly by the system of equations; please state explicitly that it is solved numerically (or provide a closed-form solution if one exists), so that readers can reproduce the baseline generation.
  4. [Section 4, Fig. 4a] The statement that the measured loss 'agrees well with the theoretical expectations' is not supported by a plotted model curve; including the predicted loss from the model would make the comparison quantitative.
  5. [Section 5 and Conclusion] The phrases 'rigorous analysis' and 'theoretically derived to be essential' are stronger than the presented evidence supports; please temper these claims to be consistent with the heuristic nature of the loss model.
  6. [General] There are several typographical errors, including 'tunning' (Section 3 and Methods) and 'ahcieve' (Supplementary Note 5), which should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TOPIC bend follows from a stated loss model and is tested against external measurements; the heuristic loss functional is an assumption, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: Eq. (1) postulates a bend-loss functional Loss = integral(A + Bκ + Cκ' + Dκ'^2) with constant coefficients; Euler-Lagrange minimization gives κ''=constant (Eq. 2); because a straight-to-circular junction has κ'=0 at both ends, the authors relax this to 'no abrupt variation in κ''' and adopt a cubic curvature profile (Eq. 4). This is a model-based design rule, not a fit to the ring or filter data. The experimental claims are external falsifiable tests: SiN bend cut-back measurements compare TOPIC with circular, Euler, and traditional varying-width bends; ring spectra give FSR, roundtrip loss, and tuning power; and the 32x100 GHz filter spectra are direct measurements. The TOPIC-vs-Euler comparison is not encoded in the design rule and could have falsified the curvature-derivative hypothesis. Self-citations (conference reports [59,60], the ring loss-extraction model [62], and the directional coupler paper [67]) are supporting or methodological and are not the load-bearing justification for the optimality claim. The main weakness is that Eq. (1) is a heuristic loss decomposition rather than a derivation from Maxwell's equations, and the 'no abrupt variation in κ''' relaxation is ad hoc; if that functional is wrong, the theoretical optimality claim collapses. That is a correctness/overclaim risk, not a circularity: the claimed result does not reduce by construction to its own inputs, nor is any fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a heuristic loss model and an ad hoc relaxation. The TOPIC geometry is then fully determined from those assumptions, with two transition angles used as fitting knobs adjusted by simulation and measurement. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Inner TOPIC transition angle θp,i = 43.2° (default), 42.5° (optimized for R=2 µm)
    Sets the trade-off between mode transition loss and sidewall scattering loss in the varying-width bend; chosen initially from simulation, then adjusted based on ring roundtrip loss measurements for the 2 µm ring.
  • Outer TOPIC transition angle θp,o = 62.35° (default), 65° (optimized for R=2 µm)
    Same trade-off for the outer boundary; optimized along with the inner angle for the 2 µm ring.
  • Coupling gaps and straight segment lengths = gaps 100-158 nm; straight lengths 0.754-1.128 µm
    Adjusted to achieve ring-bus coupling ratio of about 0.09 and channel spacing in WDM filters. These are engineering design parameters, not part of the bend loss derivation.
assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper Total bend loss is given by Eq. 1: Loss = ∫(A + Bκ + Cκ' + Dκ'^2)ds with constant coefficients A, B, C, D.
    Introduced in Section 2 without derivation from Maxwell's equations; the quadratic-in-κ' form is motivated by simulated mode overlap data but the coefficients are unspecified.
  • ad hoc to paper The optimal condition κ'' = constant, and the relaxation to linear variation of κ'', determine the TOPIC curve.
    The relaxation is stated without justification; it is the step that leads to the cubic polynomial transition and is not a consequence of the Euler-Lagrange equation alone.
  • standard math Euler-Lagrange calculus of variations
    Used to minimize the loss functional in Note 3 of the Supplementary Information.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-Loss and Low-Power Silicon Ring Based WDM 32$\times$100 GHz Filter Enabled by a Novel Bend Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BTXYBQ7U

@misc{pith2026241115025,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-Loss and Low-Power Silicon Ring Based WDM 32$\times$100 GHz Filter Enabled by a Novel Bend Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BTXYBQ7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15025}
}
abstract

Ring resonators are crucial in silicon photonics for various applications, but conventional designs face performance trade-offs. Here a third-order polynomial interconnected circular (TOPIC) bend is proposed to revolutionize the ring designs fundamentally. The TOPIC bend has a unique feature of continuous curvature and curvature derivative, which is theoretically derived to be essential for waveguide loss optimization. With the TOPIC bend, the silicon ring resonators demonstrated here have achieved three records to the best of our knowledge: the smallest radius (0.7 $\mathrm{\mu m}$) for silicon rings resonating with single guided mode, the lowest thermal tuning power (5.85 mW/$\pi$) for silicon rings with FSR $\geq$3.2 THz, and the first silicon ring-based WDM 32$\times$100 GHz filter. The filter has doubled the channel amount compared to the state of the art, and meanwhile achieved low insertion loss (1.91 $\pm$ 0.28 dB) and low tuning power (283 GHz/mW). Moreover, the TOPIC bend is not limited to ring applications, it can also be used to create bends with an arbitrary angle, with the advantages of ultra-compact radius and heater integration, which are expected to replace all circular bends in integrated photonics, greatly reducing system size and power consumption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15025 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The schematic of the WGM-based add-drop ring resonator with doped Si heaters. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The optical mode distortion in waveguide bends. a,d, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The schematics of TOPIC bend design. a,d, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The measured insertion loss of different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The measured FSR and roundtrip loss of add-drop rings constructed with TOPIC bends. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The doped silicon heaters embedded in TOPIC bends. a, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The measured spectra of the WDM 32×100 GHz filter based on TOPIC bends. a,b, The optical microscope image (a) and the measured transmission spectra (b) of the proposed silicon ring-based WDM 32×100 GHz filter. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. Y. Siew, B. Li, F. Gao, H. Y. Zheng, W. Zhang, P. Guo, S. W. Xie, A. Song, B. Dong, L. W. Luo, C. Li, X. Luo, G.-Q. Lo, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2021, 39, 13 4374

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    H. Li, Z. Xuan, R. Kumar, M. Sakib, J. Sharma, C.-M. Hsu, C. Ma, H. Rong, G. Balamurugan, J. Jaussi, In 2021 European Conference on Optical Communication ( ECOC ) . 2021 1--3, ://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9605947

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    A. H. Atabaki, S. Moazeni, F. Pavanello, H. Gevorgyan, J. Notaros, L. Alloatti, M. T. Wade, C. Sun, S. A. Kruger, H. Meng, K. Al Qubaisi, I. Wang, B. Zhang, A. Khilo, C. V. Baiocco, M. A. Popovi \' c , V. M. Stojanovi \' c , R. J. Ram, Nature 2018, 556, 7701 349

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Y. Yin, H. Yu, D. Tu, X. Huang, Z. Yu, H. Guan, Z. Li, Photonics 2023, 10, 2 183

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Park, K.-J

    S. Park, K.-J. Kim, I.-G. Kim, G. Kim, Optics Express 2011, 19, 14 13531

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Y. Liu, F. Gambini, S. Pinna, G. G. Meena, R. Moreira, E. Preisler, J. Klamkin, In 2022 Conference on Lasers and Electro - Optics ( CLEO ) , volume 8. Optica Publishing Group, ISSN 2160-8989, 2022 STh4K.3

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    R. A. Cohen, O. Amrani, S. Ruschin, Nature Photonics 2018, 12, 11 706

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    A. M. Prabhu, A. Tsay, Z. Han, V. Van, IEEE Photonics Journal 2010, 2, 3 436

    work page 2010

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Q. Xu, D. Fattal, R. G. Beausoleil, Optics Express 2008, 16, 6 4309

    2008

  2. [10]

    D. Liu, C. Zhang, D. Liang, D. Dai, Optics Express 2019, 27, 2 416

    2019

  3. [11]

    M. S. Nawrocka, T. Liu, X. Wang, R. R. Panepucci, Applied Physics Letters 2006, 89, 7

    2006

  4. [12]

    A. M. Prabhu, A. Tsay, Z. Han, V. Van, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 2009, 21, 10 651

    2009

  5. [13]

    J. H. Song, T. D. Kongnyuy, P. D. Heyn, S. Lardenois, R. Jansen, X. Rottenberg, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 2021, 33, 6 313

    2021

  6. [14]

    H. P. Bazargani, J. Flueckiger, L. Chrostowski, J. Aza \ n a, In 2015 Conference on Lasers and Electro - Optics ( CLEO ) , volume 35. OSA, 2015 JTu5A.58

    2015

  7. [15]

    Novick, K

    A. Novick, K. Jang, A. Rizzo, R. Parsons, K. Bergman, In OFC, volume 29 of OFC. Optica Publishing Group, 2023 Th3A.3

    2023

  8. [16]

    M. H. Khan, H. Shen, Y. Xuan, L. Zhao, S. Xiao, D. E. Leaird, A. M. Weiner, M. Qi, Nature Photonics 2010, 4, 2 117

    2010

  9. [17]

    C. Sun, E. Timurdogan, M. R. Watts, V. Stojanovi \' c , In 2013 Optical Interconnects Conference . IEEE, ISSN 2376-8665, 2013 54--55

    2013

  10. [18]

    Timurdogan, C

    E. Timurdogan, C. M. Sorace-Agaskar, G. Leake, D. D. Coolbaugh, M. R. Watts, In Advanced Photonics 2013. OSA , 2013 IT5A.7

    2013

  11. [19]

    M. R. Watts, Optics Letters 2010, 35, 19 3231

    2010

  12. [20]

    Watts, W

    M. Watts, W. Zortman, D. Trotter, G. Nielson, D. Luck, R. Young, In Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics/International Quantum Electronics Conference, volume 435. OSA, 2009 CPDB10

    2009

  13. [21]

    Zhang, J

    L. Zhang, J. Chen, W. Ma, G. Chen, R. Li, W. Li, J. An, J. Zhang, Y. Wang, G. Gou, C. Liu, Z. Qi, N. Xue, Optics Express 2023, 31, 2 2792

    2023

  14. [22]

    T. Sun, M. Xia, Optics Express 2022, 30, 7 10293

    2022

  15. [23]

    Y. Deng, S. Ren, K. Fan, J. M. Malof, W. J. Padilla, Optics Express 2021, 29, 5 7526

    2021

  16. [24]

    D. Yi, Y. Zhang, H. K. Tsang, Optics Letters 2021, 46, 4 876

    2021

  17. [25]

    Liang, H

    G. Liang, H. Huang, A. Mohanty, M. C. Shin, X. Ji, M. J. Carter, S. Shrestha, M. Lipson, N. Yu, Nature Photonics 2021, 15, 12 908

    2021

  18. [26]

    Zhang, L

    L. Zhang, L. Jie, M. Zhang, Y. Wang, Y. Xie, Y. Shi, D. Dai, Photonics Research 2020, 8, 5 684

    2020

  19. [27]

    Z. Yu, X. Sun, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2020, 38, 23 6623

    2020

  20. [28]

    J. H. Song, T. D. Kongnyuy, P. D. Heyn, S. Lardenois, R. Jansen, X. Rottenberg, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2020, 38, 12 3273

    2020

  21. [29]

    Vogelbacher, S

    F. Vogelbacher, S. Nevlacsil, M. Sagmeister, J. Kraft, K. Unterrainer, R. Hainberger, Optics Express 2019, 27, 22 31394

    2019

  22. [30]

    Y. Liu, K. Xu, S. Wang, W. Shen, H. Xie, Y. Wang, S. Xiao, Y. Yao, J. Du, Z. He, Q. Song, Nature Communications 2019, 10, 1 3263

    2019

  23. [31]

    H. Wu, C. Li, L. Song, H.-K. Tsang, J. E. Bowers, D. Dai, Laser & Photonics Reviews 2019, 13, 2 1800119

    2019

  24. [32]

    Bahadori, M

    M. Bahadori, M. Nikdast, Q. Cheng, K. Bergman, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2019, 37, 13 3044

    2019

  25. [33]

    Syahriar, N

    A. Syahriar, N. R. Syahriar, J. S. Djamal, R. R. Saleh, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2019, 1196 012030

    2019

  26. [34]

    Jiang, H

    X. Jiang, H. Wu, D. Dai, Optics Express 2018, 26, 13 17680

    2018

  27. [35]

    Iguchi, Y

    A. Iguchi, Y. Tsuji, T. Yasui, K. Hirayama, IEICE Electronics Express 2018, 15, 11 20180417

    2018

  28. [36]

    Y. Liu, W. Sun, H. Xie, N. Zhang, K. Xu, Y. Yao, S. Xiao, Q. Song, Optics Letters 2018, 43, 11 2482

    2018

  29. [37]

    Z. Yu, Y. Ma, X. Sun, Nanophotonics 2018, 7, 10 1679

    2018

  30. [38]

    Fujisawa, S

    T. Fujisawa, S. Makino, T. Sato, K. Saitoh, Optics Express 2017, 25, 8 9150

    2017

  31. [39]

    J. H. Song, T. D. Kongnyuy, A. Stassen, V. Mukund, X. Rottenberg, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 2016, 28, 20 2164

    2016

  32. [40]

    R. Li, L. Zhou, J. Xie, A. Xie, J. Chen, Applied Optics 2015, 54, 34 10207

    2015

  33. [41]

    X. Li, Q. Deng, Z. Zhou, Optics Letters 2014, 39, 13 3810

    2014

  34. [42]

    J. C. Mikkelsen, W. D. Sacher, J. K. S. Poon, Optics Express 2014, 22, 8 9659

    2014

  35. [43]

    Cherchi, S

    M. Cherchi, S. Ylinen, M. Harjanne, M. Kapulainen, T. Aalto, Optics Express 2013, 21, 15 17814

    2013

  36. [44]

    M. R. Watts, J. Sun, C. DeRose, D. C. Trotter, R. W. Young, G. N. Nielson, Optics Letters 2013, 38, 5 733

    2013

  37. [45]

    T. Chen, H. Lee, J. Li, K. J. Vahala, Optics express 2012, 20, 20 22819

    2012

  38. [46]

    L. H. Gabrielli, D. Liu, S. G. Johnson, M. Lipson, Nature Communications 2012, 3, 1 1217

    2012

  39. [47]

    Biberman, E

    A. Biberman, E. Timurdogan, M. R. Watts, W. A. Zortman, D. C. Trotter, Optics Express 2012, 20, 28 29223

    2012

  40. [48]

    Bogaerts, S

    W. Bogaerts, S. K. Selvaraja, IEEE Photonics Journal 2011, 3, 3 422

    2011

  41. [49]

    W. Yuan, D. C. Hall, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2011, 29, 24 3786

    2011

  42. [50]

    R. N. Sheehan, S. Horne, F. H. Peters, Optical and Quantum Electronics 2008, 40, 14 1211

    2008

  43. [51]

    C. Koos, C. G. Poulton, L. Zimmermann, L. Jacome, J. Leuthold, W. Freude, IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 2007, 19, 11 819

    2007

  44. [52]

    Z. Hu, Y. Y. Lu, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2007, 25, 10 3161

    2007

  45. [53]

    C. G. Poulton, C. Koos, M. Fujii, A. Pfrang, T. Schimmel, J. Leuthold, W. Freude, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 2006, 12, 6 1306

    2006

  46. [54]

    Melloni, P

    A. Melloni, P. Monguzzi, R. Costa, M. Martinelli, JOSA A 2003, 20, 1 130

    2003

  47. [55]

    Subramaniam, G

    V. Subramaniam, G. N. D. Brabander, D. H. Naghski, J. T. Boyd, Journal of Lightwave Technology 1997, 15, 6 990

    1997

  48. [56]

    Kitoh, N

    T. Kitoh, N. Takato, M. Yasu, M. Kawachi, Journal of Lightwave Technology 1995, 13, 4 555

    1995

  49. [57]

    Ladouceur, E

    F. Ladouceur, E. Labeye, Journal of Lightwave Technology 1995, 13, 3 481

    1995

  50. [58]

    M. K. Smit, E. C. M. Pennings, H. Blok, Journal of Lightwave Technology 1993, 11, 11 1737

    1993

  51. [59]

    Q. Deng, P. Neutens, R. Magdziak, A. H. El-Saeed, Y. Ban, F. Ferraro, G. Lepage, J. De Coster, D. Velenis, M. Chakrabarti, P. De Heyn, P. Verheyen, P. Van Dorpe, J. Van Campenhout, In 2023 IEEE Silicon Photonics Conference ( SiPhotonics ) . IEEE, ISSN 1949-209X, 2023 TuD3, ://...

    2023

  52. [60]

    Q. Deng, A. H. El-Saeed, A. Elshazly, G. Lepage, C. Marchese, H. Kobbi, R. Magdziak, J. De Coster, N. Singh, M. E. Filipcic, K. Croes, D. Velenis, M. Chakrabarti, P. De Heyn, P. Verheyen, P. Absil, F. Ferraro, Y. Ban, J. Van Campenhout, In Optical Fiber Communication Conferenc...

    2024

  53. [61]

    Heiblum, J

    M. Heiblum, J. H. Harris, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 1975, 11, 2 75

    1975

  54. [62]

    Q. Deng, L. Liu, X. Li, J. Michel, Z. Zhou, Optics Letters 2016, 41, 20 4747

    2016

  55. [63]

    Nakamura, K

    S. Nakamura, K. Sekiya, S. Matano, Y. Shimura, Y. Nakade, K. Nakagawa, Y. Monnai, H. Maki, ACS Nano 2022, 16, 2 2690

    2022

  56. [64]

    Timurdogan, E

    E. Timurdogan, E. S. Hosseini, G. Leake, D. D. Coolbaugh, M. R. Watts, In CLEO : 2013 , volume 19. OSA, ISSN 2160-8989, 2013 CTh4F.2

    2013

  57. [65]

    Horst, W

    F. Horst, W. M. J. Green, S. Assefa, S. M. Shank, Y. A. Vlasov, B. J. Offrein, Optics express 2013, 21, 10 11652

    2013

  58. [66]

    CW - WDM MSA ( Continuous - Wave Wavelength Division Multiplexing Multi - Source Agreement ), ://cw-wdm.org/

  59. [67]

    A. H. El-Saeed, A. Elshazly, H. Kobbi, R. Magdziak, G. Lepage, C. Marchese, J. R. Vaskasi, S. Bipul, D. Bode, M. E. Filipcic, D. Velenis, M. Chakrabarti, P. D. Heyn, P. Verheyen, P. Absil, F. Ferraro, Y. Ban, J. V. Campenhout, W. Bogaerts, Q. Deng, Journal of Lightwave Technol...

    2024

  60. [68]

    , " * write output.state after.block =

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCT...

  61. [69]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  62. [70]

    title Universal relations for coupling of optical power between microresonators and dielectric waveguides

    author Yariv, A. title Universal relations for coupling of optical power between microresonators and dielectric waveguides . journal Electronics Letters volume 36 , pages 321--322 ( year 2000 )

    2000

  63. [71]

    , author Liu, L

    author Deng, Q. , author Liu, L. , author Li, X. , author Michel, J. & author Zhou, Z. title Linear-regression-based approach for loss extraction from ring resonators . journal Optics Letters volume 41 , pages 4747 ( year 2016 ). ://www.osapublishing.org/viewmedia.cfm?uri=ol-4...

    2016

  64. [72]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archive author booktitle chapter edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key keywords month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url doi volume year archivePrefix primaryClass eid adsurl adsnote version label INTEGERS o...

  65. [73]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.