Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 26 references

Second harmonic generation with 48% conversion efficiency from cavity polygon modes in a monocrystalline lithium niobate microdisk resonator

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Cavity polygon modes in a lithium niobate microdisk achieve 48.08% second-harmonic conversion efficiency without any domain engineering.

desk verdict Potentially significant efficiency result, but the 48% claim contradicts the paper's own fit; needs major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18870 v1 pith:MROGVWGQ submitted 2024-11-28 physics.optics

Chao Sun , Jielei Ni , Chuntao Li , Jintian Lin , Renhong Gao , Jianglin Guan , Qian Qiao , Qifeng Hou
show 5 more authors
Xiaochao Luo Xinzhi Zheng Lingling Qiao Min Wang Ya Cheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords secondharmonicgenerationthin-filmlithiumniobatemicrodiskresonatorpolygonmodesnaturalquasi-phasematchingd33nonlinearcoefficienthigh-Qmicrocavitymodaloverlap
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 second harmonic generation in a monocrystalline X-cut thin-film lithium niobate microdisk can reach an absolute conversion efficiency of 48.08% without any ferroelectric domain engineering. The key move is to form 'polygon modes'—cavity modes with a square spatial pattern whose two parallel sides sit perpendicular to the crystal's optical axis—so the largest nonlinear coefficient $d_{33}$ is used, and the sign of the effective nonlinearity reverses every half circuit around the cavity, mimicking periodic poling. This natural quasi-phase matching, together with measured intrinsic Q factors above $3\times10^7$ and a modal overlap around 80%, lets a 4.599 mW on-chip pump at 1560.6 nm produce 2.211 mW of second harmonic at 780.3 nm. The authors claim this is the highest efficiency reported for domain-inversion-free SHG in thin-film lithium niobate microresonators, approaching the 52% record of periodically poled devices.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cavity polygon mode, a square-shaped superposition of whispering-gallery modes created by the weak perturbation of the tapered fiber. The carrying mechanism is the quarter-cycle sign flip of the effective nonlinear coefficient $d_{\text{eff}}(\theta) = -d_{22}\cos^3\theta + 3d_{31}\cos^2\theta\sin\theta + d_{33}\sin^3\theta$, which takes the values $-2.46$, $-41.7$, $2.46$, and $41.7$ pm/V in successive quarter-circumferences of the square pattern. This periodic sign inversion acts like the domain inversion of a periodically poled crystal, providing an additional momentum that compensates the natural phase mismatch $\Delta k = 2k_F - k_{\text{SHG}} \approx 1.416\times10^6$ m$^{-1}$. The high modal overlap (about 80–86%) between the pump and second-harmonic polygon modes and the ultrahigh Q factors (loaded pump Q of $2.69\times10^6$ and intrinsic Q of $3.86\times10^7$) allow this quasi-phase-matched gain to accumulate to the reported efficiency.

What would settle it

Measure the fiber-to-microdisk coupling efficiency independently (for example, by fitting the transmission dip or adding a drop port) and collect the second harmonic emitted in all directions with an integrating sphere; if the true on-chip pump power is below 4.599 mW or the total generated SHG differs from the collected 2.211 mW, the reported 48.08% absolute conversion efficiency would not hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In an X-cut thin-film lithium niobate microdisk, a weak perturbation from a coupled tapered fiber recombines near-degenerate whispering-gallery modes into polygon modes with a square intensity profile. Because two sides of the square are aligned perpendicular to the crystal's optical axis, TE-polarized light experiences the large $d_{33}$ coefficient along those segments, and the effective nonlinear coefficient $d_{\text{eff}}$ changes sign every half cycle of the round trip. The resulting natural quasi-phase matching supplies the momentum that compensates the phase mismatch between the 1560 nm pump and the 780 nm second harmonic, while the polygon modes sit away from the rough sidewall and retain intrinsic Q factors of about $3.86\times10^7$ at the pump and $3.43\times10^7$ at the harmonic. The authors report a measured SHG power of 2.211 mW from an on-chip pump power of 4.599 mW, giving an absolute conversion efficiency of 48.08%, with a linearly fitted normalized efficiency of 7.5% per milliwatt that they state is underestimated because it counts only the light collected by the tapered fiber.

Load-bearing premise

The 48.08% absolute efficiency depends on the unshown calibration that the on-chip pump power was 4.599 mW and that the collected 2.211 mW of second harmonic represents the generated signal; if coupling or collection was misestimated, the efficiency would change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Domain-inversion-free SHG in thin-film lithium niobate reaches efficiencies comparable to quasi-phase-matched PPLN microresonators (48.08% versus 52%) at sub-5 mW on-chip pump powers.
  • Polygon modes provide a route to access $d_{33}$ in X-cut lithium niobate without poling, avoiding domain-wall fabrication complexity and associated scattering loss.
  • The measured intrinsic Q factors, about $3.86\times10^7$ at 1560 nm and $3.43\times10^7$ at 780 nm, make the polygon-mode microdisk a strong platform for other cavity nonlinear optics at low power.
  • Because only the SHG collected by the tapered fiber was counted, the authors' fitted 7.5%/mW normalized efficiency is a lower bound, implying the internal conversion efficiency is higher than the measured 48.08%.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the on-chip power calibration is confirmed, the same polygon-mode scheme could be applied to other $\chi^{(2)}$ processes such as spontaneous parametric down-conversion or optical parametric oscillation, where high Q, high overlap, and $d_{33}$ access could yield low-threshold sources.
  • The formation of polygon modes depends on the tapered-fiber perturbation, which suggests the method might transfer to other crystal cuts or nonlinear materials if the square pattern can be oriented to the dominant tensor component.
  • Since the reported efficiency was limited by collecting only the fiber-coupled SHG, a device with an optimized out-coupler or drop port could realistically approach or exceed the 52% PPLN record without domain inversion.
  • The linear growth of conversion efficiency with pump power reported here is typical of unsaturated SHG; testing at higher pump powers should reveal saturation or roll-off and would map the device's power-handling range.
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 paper reports ultra-efficient second harmonic generation (SHG) in an X-cut thin-film lithium niobate microdisk, claiming 48.08% absolute conversion efficiency at an on-chip pump power of 4.599 mW. The mechanism is attributed to cavity polygon modes with a square-shaped intensity pattern, which the authors argue provides natural quasi-phase-matching through sign reversals of the effective nonlinear coefficient d_eff as light circulates. The paper also reports high loaded and intrinsic Q factors, a high modal overlap factor, and compares the result favorably with prior domain-inversion-free and PPLN microresonator SHG demonstrations.

Significance. If the central claims were fully supported, this would be a notable advance in on-chip frequency conversion without electric-field poling, leveraging d_33 and high-Q polygon modes. The paper includes direct spectral measurements, CCD images of the modal patterns, and Q-factor characterizations, which are useful experimental evidence. However, the absolute efficiency number is internally inconsistent with the reported normalized efficiency, the on-chip pump calibration is not described, and the proposed quasi-phase-matching picture is quantitatively inconsistent with the stated phase mismatch. The significance of the work is therefore contingent on resolving these load-bearing issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Fig. 2(c,d)] The reported absolute efficiency is internally inconsistent with the reported normalized efficiency. The text states that the linear fit in Fig. 2(d) gives 7.5%/mW and that at an on-chip pump power of 4.599 mW the SHG power was 2.211 mW, yielding 48.08%. If conversion efficiency is defined as P_SHG/P_pump, then the same data point implies a slope of 10.45%/mW relative to the zero-pump origin, about 39% larger than the stated fit; alternatively, 7.5%/mW predicts 34.5% at 4.599 mW. The authors must reconcile this discrepancy, for example by reporting the fit range, stating whether the 4.599 mW point was included in the fit, or providing the full dataset with residuals.
  2. [§2.3] The text says that the 7.5%/mW normalized efficiency is underestimated because only the SHG power output from the tapered fiber was collected with low coupling efficiency, yet the same collected power is used without correction to compute the 'absolute conversion efficiency' of 48.08%. This is self-contradictory: if the measured SHG power is only a fraction of the generated SHG, then the measured ratio 2.211 mW/4.599 mW is a lower bound, not an absolute efficiency, unless an unstated collection-efficiency correction was applied. The paper needs to specify what quantity is being reported and how it was calibrated.
  3. [§2.3, §2.4, Fig. 2] The on-chip pump power of 4.599 mW is never derived. Section 2.4 reports a loaded Q of 2.69×10^6 and a transmission of 74.1%, but this is insufficient: the taper–microdisk coupling efficiency, fiber insertion loss, and any power calibration against a reference detector are not described. Without this calibration, the absolute efficiency and the pump-power dependence in Fig. 2(c,d) cannot be assessed.
  4. [§2.5, Eq. (2), Fig. 4] The proposed natural quasi-phase-matching mechanism is quantitatively inconsistent with the paper's own phase-mismatch value. With Δk = 1.4159×10^6 m^-1, the coherence length is L_c = π/Δk ≈ 2.22 μm. The sign of d_eff changes only twice per round trip, so the sign-reversal period is the full cavity perimeter (π × 57.28 μm ≈ 180 μm), or at best half that if one counts both sign changes of the two-level amplitude. This period is tens of coherence lengths, so the momentum provided by the sign flips (2π/180 μm ≈ 3.5×10^4 m^-1) is more than an order of magnitude too small to compensate Δk. The authors' own statement that |E_SHG| oscillates with ~18.5 periods within each half-cycle confirms that no net quasi-phase-matched growth occurs on the scale of the sign-flip period; the mechanism as described cannot explain the claimed efficiency.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §2.3] The modal overlap factor is given as ~80% in the abstract but 86% in Section 2.3; the discrepancy should be reconciled.
  2. [§2.4] The phrase 'play important poles' should read 'play important roles'.
  3. [§2.1] There is a typo: 'carried put' should be 'carried out'.
  4. [§2.5, Eq. (2)] In Eq. (2), the notation Δk(z) is used while z also appears as the integration variable; please define the convention clearly, e.g., whether Δk is treated as piecewise constant over each segment.
  5. [Fig. 2(c,d)] The figures would benefit from axis labels, error bars, and a statement of which points were included in the linear fit shown in Fig. 2(d).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Headline efficiency is an in-paper measured ratio, not a fit or self-citation chain, but the mechanism leans on same-group refs [19]-[21] for the modal overlap, and the 48.08% figure is inconsistent with the paper's own 7.5%/mW fit at 4.599 mW.

  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract; Section 2.3 ('Ultra-efficient SHG'), overlap claims citing refs [19]-[21].]
    "Moreover, the pump and second harmonic polygon modes share high modal overlap factor of ~80%. Consequently, SHG from cavity polygon modes with absolute conversion efficiency as high as 48.08% was realized at an on-chip pump level of only 4.599 mW (Abstract); 'the modal overlap factor among these polygon modes within the same square mode family reaches up to 86%19-21' (Sec. 2.3)."

    The abstract's 'Consequently' makes the ~80-86% modal overlap a stated cause of the 48.08% result, but no in-paper calculation or measurement of the pump/SHG overlap for this device is given; Sec. 2.3 imports the 86% value from refs [19]-[21], all prior works of the same group (co-author overlap: Gao, Lin, Wang, Qiao, Cheng on each). The in-paper evidence (measured Q factors, square-pattern CCD images) does not determine the overlap value, and the 80% (Abstract) and 86% (Sec. 2.3) figures are never reconciled. The premise that distinguishes this scheme from earlier <10%-overlap results is therefore supported only by self-citation, so the causal explanation of the headline efficiency is partly circular even though the efficiency number itself is measured.

  2. other [Section 2.3, Figs. 2(c) and 2(d); efficiency definition and reported powers.]
    "From the linear fitting, the normalized conversion efficiency is determined to be 7.5%/mW. It is important to note that, this value is underestimated since only the power of the SHG signal output from the tapered fiber was collected with a low coupling efficiency. When the on-chip pump power was further increased to 4.599 mW, the power of the SHG signal was measured to be 2.211 mW, as shown in Figs 2(a) and 2(b). Therefore, the absolute conversion efficiency of SHG is determined to 48.08%."

    The headline number reduces by construction to the ratio of two self-reported powers: 2.211 mW / 4.599 mW = 48.08%. It contradicts the paper's own linear fit, which predicts 7.5%/mW × 4.599 mW = 34.5% at the same pump level — a discrepancy the text never addresses. The preceding sentence admits the collected SHG was under-measured due to 'low coupling efficiency,' yet the same 2.211 mW is used, uncorrected, as the numerator of an 'absolute' efficiency; and the 'on-chip pump' denominator (4.599 mW) is never derived: no input power, taper transmission, or in-coupling efficiency is stated (only loaded Q = 2.69×10^6 and 74.1% transmission appear in Sec. 2.4).

full rationale

The paper's central claim — 48.08% absolute SHG conversion efficiency at 4.599 mW on-chip pump — is an experimental measurement, not a first-principles prediction: it is the direct ratio of the reported collected SHG power (2.211 mW) to the reported on-chip pump power (4.599 mW). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation: Eq. (1), cited to the group's own PRL 2019 (ref. [15]), is the standard X-cut lithium niobate effective-nonlinearity expression for TE waves, and the natural quasi-phase-matching argument is the same group's previously established mechanism applied to a new spatial-mode family rather than a renaming of a known result. The steps that do raise concern: (i) the modal-overlap factor (80% in the Abstract, 86% in Sec. 2.3), presented as a cause ('Consequently') of the headline efficiency, is neither computed nor measured in this paper but imported from refs [19]-[21], all prior same-group works; (ii) the headline 48.08% is internally inconsistent with the paper's own fitted normalized efficiency (7.5%/mW × 4.599 mW = 34.5%), and the text's own admission that the collected SHG suffered 'low coupling efficiency' is never applied to the 2.211 mW used as the numerator, while the 4.599 mW 'on-chip' denominator is never derived (no input-power or coupling calibration stated). Item (ii) is a correctness and consistency defect rather than a circular derivation, but it means the headline number is not robustly supported. Because the efficiency figure itself is measured in-paper with spectra, Q-factor measurements, and mode images, the derivation chain is not forced by definition or by a self-citation chain; the moderate score reflects the load-bearing self-citation for the modal-overlap premise and the unaddressed arithmetic conflict.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the calibration of on-chip pump power and the interpretation of collected SHG power, both of which are not fully specified. The efficiency number is also internally inconsistent with the reported normalized efficiency. The proposed QPM mechanism relies on prior modal overlap simulations and a simplified slab model for mode indices.

free parameters (2)
  • normalized conversion efficiency = 7.5%/mW
    Obtained from a linear fit to the conversion efficiency versus pump power (Fig. 2d). This value is inconsistent with the reported 48.08% efficiency at 4.599 mW, which implies 10.45%/mW.
  • modal overlap factor = ~80% (abstract) / 86% (Section 2.3)
    Adopted from prior simulations by the same group (refs 20,21), not measured directly in this device; used to explain the high efficiency mechanism.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The effective refractive indices of the pump and SH polygon modes equal those of the fundamental TE modes of a 590 nm X-cut TFLN slab waveguide (n_pump=1.9746, n_SHG=2.1504).
    Section 2.4; this determines the phase mismatch Δk=1.4159e6 m^-1. If the actual mode indices differ, the QPM calculation changes.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear coefficient deff as a function of azimuth is given by deff = -d22 cos^3 α + 3 d31 cos^2 α sin α + d33 sin^3 α (Eq. 1), and the field within the polygon mode is uniform so that α changes in discrete steps.
    Section 2.5, Eq. (1); used to compute sign flips and natural QPM.
  • standard math The slowly varying amplitude approximation applies to the SHG growth in Eq. (2).
    Section 2.5 Eq. (2); standard approximation for weak nonlinear interaction.
  • ad hoc to paper The sign inversion of deff every half cycle provides the momentum needed to quasi-phase-match SHG.
    Section 2.5; the quantitative period of sign reversal is not matched to the coherence length, so the claim is not supported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Second harmonic generation with 48% conversion efficiency from cavity polygon modes in a monocrystalline lithium niobate microdisk resonator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MROGVWGQ

@misc{pith2026241118870,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Second harmonic generation with 48% conversion efficiency from cavity polygon modes in a monocrystalline lithium niobate microdisk resonator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MROGVWGQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18870}
}
read the original abstract

Thin-film lithium niobate (TFLN) based optical microresonators offer large nonlinear coefficient d_33 and high light-wave confinement, allowing highly efficient second-order optical nonlinear frequency conversion. Here, we achieved ultra-efficiency second harmonic generation (SHG) from high-Q polygon modes by maximizing the utilization of the highest nonlinear coefficient d_33 in a monocrystalline X-cut TFLN microdisk resonator for the first time. The polygon modes are designed and formed with two parallel sides perpendicular to the optical axis of the lithium niobate crystal by introducing weak perturbations into the microdisk of a tapered fiber, which maximizes the utilization of d_33. The polygon modes exhibit ultrahigh intrinsic Q factors of ~3.86X10(7), due to the fact that polygon modes are located far from the relatively rough sidewall of the microdisk. Moreover, the pump and second harmonic polygon modes share high modal overlap factor of ~80%. Consequently, SHG from cavity polygon modes with absolute conversion efficiency as high as 48.08% was realized at an on-chip pump level of only 4.599 mW without fine domain structures, surpassing the best results (23% and 30%) reported in other two domain-inversion-free phase matching schemes and even approaching the record (52%) in PPLN microresonators.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18870 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Spectrum of the pump laser at 1560.60 nm wavelength. Inset: the optical micrograph of the pump light, showing a square-pattern intensity profile. (b) Spectrum of the second harmonic generated at 780.30 nm. Inset: the optical micrograph of SHG signal, also exhibiting a square-pattern intensity profile. (c) SHG output power varied with on-chip pump powers. (d) The SHG conversion efficiency as a function of the on￾… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. Lu, J. Surya, X. Liu, A. Bruch, Z. Gong, Y. Xu, H. Tang, Optica 2019, 6, 1455

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    X. Wu, Z. Hao, L. Zhang, D. Jia, R. Ma, C. Tao, F. Gao, F. Bo, G. Zhang, J. Xu , Laser Photonics Rev.2024, 18, 2300951

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    R. Luo, Y. He, H. Liang, M. Li, Q. Lin, Optica 2018, 5, 1006

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    H. Jin, F. Liu, P. Xu, J. Xia, M. Zhong, Y. Yuan, J. Zhou, Y. Gong, W. Wang, S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2014, 113, 103601

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    C. Wang, C. Langrock, A. Marandi, M. Jankowski, M. Zhang, B. Desiatov, M. Fejer, M. Lončar, Optica 2018, 5, 1438

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Y. Niu, C. Lin, X. Liu, Y. Chen, X. Hu, Y. Zhang, X. Cai, Y. Gong, Z. Xie, S. Zhu, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2020, 116, 101104

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    J. Lin, F. Bo, Y. Cheng, J. Xu, Photonics Res. 2020, 8, 1910

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Y. Jia, L. Wang, F. Chen, Appl. Phys. Rev. 2021, 8, 011307

    work page 2021

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Z. Xie, F. Bo, J. Lin, H. Hu, X. Cai, X. Tian, Z. Fang, J. Chen, M. Wang, F. Chen, Y. Cheng, J. Xu, S. Zhu, Adv. Phys. X 2024, 9, 2322739

    2024

  2. [10]

    Y. Qi, Y. Li, Nanophotonics 2020, 9, 1287

    2020

  3. [11]

    H. Feng, T. Ge, X. Guo, B. Wang, Y. Zhang, Z. Chen, S. Zhu, K. Zhang, W. Sun, C. Huang, Y. Yuan, C. Wang, Nature 2024, 627, 80

    2024

  4. [12]

    H. Du, X. Zhang, H. Lv, J. Lin, L. Wang, F. Chen, Opt. Lett. 2024, 49, 391

    2024

  5. [13]

    T. Yuan, J. Wu, X. Wang, Y. Chen, X. Chen, Adv. Photon. 2024, 6, 056012

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zheng, X

    Y. Zheng, X. Chen, Adv. Phys. X 2021, 6, 1889402

    2021

  7. [15]

    J. Lin, N. Yao, Z. Hao, J. Zhang, W. Mao, M. Wang, W. Chu, R. Wu, Z. Fang, L. Qiao, W. Fang, F. Bo, Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 122, 173903

    2019

  8. [16]

    R. R. Xie, G. Q. Li, F. Chen, G. L. Long, Adv. Opt. Mater. 2021, 9, 2100539

    2021

  9. [17]

    Gholipour Vazimali, S

    M. Gholipour Vazimali, S. Fathpour, Adv. Photonics 2022, 4, 034001

    2022

  10. [18]

    Antisymmetric Nonlinear LNOI Waveguide for Highly Efficient Second Harmonic Generation,

    X. Zhang, C. Sun, B. Xiong, Z. Hao, J. Wang, L. Wang, Y. Han, H. Li, Y. Luo, “Antisymmetric Nonlinear LNOI Waveguide for Highly Efficient Second Harmonic Generation,” in ACP/IPOC(Beijing, 2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    R. Gao, H. Zhang, F. Bo, W. Fang, Z. Hao, N. Yao, J. Lin, J. Guan, L. Deng, M. Wang, L. Qiao, Y. Cheng, New J. Phys. 2021, 23, 123027

    2021

  12. [20]

    J. Lin, S. Farajollahi, Z. Fang, N. Yao, R. Gao, J. Guan, L. Deng, T. Lu, M. Wang, H. Zhang, W. Fang, L. Qiao, Y. Cheng, Adv. Photon. 2022, 4, 036001

    2022

  13. [21]

    B. Fu, R. Gao, N. Yao, H. Zhang, C. Li, J. Lin, M. Wang, L. Qiao, Y. Cheng , Opto-Electron. Adv. 2024, 7, 240061

    2024

  14. [22]

    R. Gao, B. Fu, N. Yao, J. Guan, H. Zhang, J. Lin, C. Li, M. Wang, L. Qiao, Y. Cheng, Laser Photonics Rev. 2023, 17, 2200903

    2023

  15. [23]

    J.-Y. Chen, C. Tang, M. Jin, Z. Li, Z. Ma, H. Fan, S. Kumar, Y. M. Sua, and Y.- P. Huang, Laser Photonics Rev. 2021, 15, 2100091

    2021

  16. [24]

    R. Wu, J. Zhang, N. Yao, W. Fang, L. Qiao, Z. Chai, J. Lin, Y. Cheng, Opt. Lett. 2018, 43, 4116. 13

    2018

  17. [25]

    B. Fu, R. Gao, J. Lin, N. Yao, H. Zhang, M. Wang, L. Qiao, W. Fang, Y. Cheng, Laser Photonics Rev. 2023, 17, 2300116

    2023

  18. [26]

    Farajollahi, Z

    S. Farajollahi, Z. Fang, J. Lin, S. Honari, Y. Cheng, T. Lu, Phys. Rev. A 2023, 108, 033520. 14 Figure 1. The experimental setup for SHG. The lower left inset and lower right inset show the exitation of square modes in the X -cut TFLN microdisk and the SEM image of the TFLN mi...

    2023

Pith tools

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