Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 68 references

Cascaded Raman lasing in a lithium tetraborate (LB4) whispering gallery mode resonator

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 millimeter-sized lithium tetraborate whispering gallery mode resonator, cut from a single crystal, acts as a Raman laser with a quality factor of 2.0 × 10^9 at 517 nm and produces four cascaded Stokes lines from 537 to 608 nm with a…

desk verdict A clean materials demonstration of the first LB4 WGM Raman laser with cascade and a competitive threshold; the headline numbers rest on a plausible but not airtight mode assignment and power calibration. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19131 v1 pith:BEZHSKCJ submitted 2024-11-28 physics.optics

Chengcai Tian , Florian Sedlmeir , Jervee Punzalan , Petra Becker , Ladislav Bohatý , Keith C. Gordon , Richard Blaikie , Harald G. L. Schwefel This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords lithiumtetraboratewhisperinggallerymoderesonatorstimulatedRamanscatteringcascadedlasingqualityfactorsingle-pointdiamondturningvisiblelasersourceStokeslines
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 reports the first Raman laser built from a lithium tetraborate (LB4) whispering gallery mode resonator. The authors machined a millimeter-sized LB4 disk with a 2.97 mm radius and measured a quality factor of 2.0 × $10^{9}$ at 517 nm, the highest reported for LB4. When pumped with about 7 mW of green light, the resonator emits four cascaded Stokes lines at 537.1 nm, 558.8 nm, 582.4 nm, and 608.2 nm, each shifted by about 720 cm⁻¹. The first-order Stokes line has a threshold of 0.69 mW and a slope efficiency of 7.2%. The paper argues that LB4's low visible absorption and high Raman gain make it a viable platform for compact Raman sources spanning the visible to near-infrared.

What carries the argument

The central object is the LB4 whispering gallery mode resonator itself: a millimeter-sized, diamond-turned disk that confines light by total internal reflection, giving a high Q factor (2.0 × $10^{9}$ at 517 nm) and a small mode volume. The SRS process uses the 720 cm⁻¹ A₁ Raman mode of the planar BO₃ groups, whose high gain (>1.8 cm/GW) lowers the threshold. Because the SRS threshold scales as mode volume divided by Q², the identification of the fundamental (q = 1, p = 0) mode—selected by its smallest free spectral range and better coupling contrast—is what makes the 0.69 mW threshold meaningful.

What would settle it

Measure the first-order Stokes power as a function of the power actually coupled into the resonator using a calibrated fiber taper or by monitoring the resonance dip depth in real time at high pump powers; if the resulting threshold differs substantially from 0.69 mW, the mode assignment or the constant-contrast assumption is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

A diamond-turned LB4 whispering gallery mode resonator with a Q factor of 2.0 × $10^{9}$ at 517 nm is demonstrated, and under 7 mW of pump power it produces four cascaded Stokes orders from 537 nm to 608 nm with a 720 cm⁻¹ shift. The first-order Stokes lasing threshold is 0.69 mW with a slope efficiency of 7.2% (8.6% after accounting for collection losses). This is claimed as the first LB4 WGMR Raman laser; the high Q also yields previously unreported absorption coefficients of 0.010 m⁻¹ at 517 nm, 0.011 m⁻¹ at 795 nm, and 0.095 m⁻¹ at 1550 nm.

Load-bearing premise

The reported threshold and efficiency rest on identifying the measured mode as the fundamental (q = 1, p = 0) mode and on assuming the coupling contrast used to compute incoupled power does not change significantly as pump power rises and the resonance thermally shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LB4 WGMRs can act as compact Raman lasers in the visible, with a first-order threshold below 1 mW.
  • Because the Q factor at 795 nm is about 1 × 10^9, the threshold for cascaded SRS at near-infrared wavelengths should be similar, extending the source into the NIR for biomedical and sensing applications.
  • The Q factor values imply absorption coefficients of 0.010 m⁻¹ at 517 nm, 0.011 m⁻¹ at 795 nm, and 0.095 m⁻¹ at 1550 nm, with the latter two being reported for the first time.
  • The four cascaded Stokes lines span 537 to 608 nm with a constant 720 cm⁻¹ spacing, offering a multi-wavelength coherent source from a single resonator.
  • The low visible absorption and high damage threshold open the route to UV-visible nonlinear conversion in LB4 WGMRs, potentially down to 250 nm.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the mode assignment holds, the same resonator should also support second-harmonic generation and other χ⁽²⁾ processes, because LB4's nonlinear coefficients and high Q are compatible; this would make LB4 a multi-functional platform in one cavity.
  • The 168 cm⁻¹ Raman branch, noted but not characterized because it is masked by the pump, could provide much smaller frequency shifts, enabling dense frequency combs in the visible if the pump background is suppressed.
  • A straightforward stress test would be to pump at 795 nm with a tunable laser to verify the predicted similar Raman threshold, or to replace prism coupling with a fiber taper to independently verify the incoupled power.
  • Since the threshold scales as V/Q², reducing the mode volume (smaller disks) or further polishing to raise Q should push the threshold into the microwatt range, comparable to the 3 µW CaF₂ record.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports the fabrication and characterization of a lithium tetraborate (LB4) whispering gallery mode resonator (WGMR) fabricated by single-point diamond turning and manual polishing. The authors measure a quality factor of up to 2.0 × 10^9 at 517 nm for a TM mode, infer absorption coefficients at 517, 795, and 1550 nm, and demonstrate cascaded stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) up to the fourth order (537.1 to 608.2 nm) when pumping near 7 mW at 517 nm. They identify the first-order SRS threshold as 0.69 mW, with a slope efficiency of 7.2% (and an approximately 8.6% value appears in the main text). The paper claims the highest Q factor reported for LB4 and the first LB4 WGM Raman laser.

Significance. If the quantitative claims hold, the result is significant: it introduces LB4 as a promising crystalline WGM material with high visible Q factors, provides new absorption data at 795 and 1550 nm, and demonstrates a cascaded Raman laser with a low threshold and a wide tuning span. The strengths include a standard under-coupled Lorentzian Q measurement, direct observation of four Raman peaks at the expected 720 cm^-1 shifts, and a threshold curve consistent with the stated threshold. The data availability statement supports reproducibility. The main risks are the identification of the fundamental mode and the pump-power calibration, which affect the headline threshold and efficiency values; these are addressed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3 and Supplement §2] The identification of the mode used for SRS as the fundamental (q=1, p=0) mode is not conclusively established. In Figure S2, two modes share the smallest FSR (9.739 GHz), and mode 2 is selected as fundamental solely because of its higher coupling contrast (32%) and the argument that a Gaussian beam should favor the fundamental mode. However, the authors state in the same supplement that p=0 and p>0 modes are discriminated by single-lobe versus two-lobe far-field emission patterns, and no such far-field measurement is reported for mode 2. If the selected mode is actually a higher-order polar mode, its mode volume is larger, so the reported threshold of 0.69 mW and slope efficiency of 7.2% would not characterize the fundamental mode. Please provide the far-field pattern measurement for the SRS mode, or explicitly caveat the reported values and give a mode-volume uncertainty estimate.
  2. [§4 and Supplement §3] The incoupled pump power is defined as the product of the mode contrast (32%) and the incident power inside the prism (P0), but this contrast is assumed constant for the entire power sweep up to 14 mW, while the manuscript attributes the high-power rollover to thermal mode distortion. A pump-dependent contrast would bias both the threshold (x-intercept of the linear fit in Figure 4) and the slope efficiency. Furthermore, the main text reports an efficiency of approximately 8.6% for the first-order SRS, whereas the supplement and abstract report 7.2%; these two numbers must be reconciled. Please measure the mode contrast as a function of pump power or restrict the linear fit to the power range where constant contrast is verified, and correct the efficiency inconsistency.
  3. [Figure 4] The reported threshold of 0.69 mW and slope efficiency of 0.072 are quoted without propagation of the photodiode noise error bars shown in the figure. Since the threshold is a central quantitative claim, please provide the linear fit parameters with uncertainties and a confidence interval for the x-intercept, rather than a point estimate with three significant figures.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typos and wording issues: 'maks' should be 'makes' in the Introduction; 'exciatation' should be 'excitation' in §3; 'polarizaiton' should be 'polarization' in the Figure 1 caption; 'crystaline' should be 'crystalline' in §1; and 'tuning' in the Supplement's Figure S5 caption should be 'turning'.
  2. [Introduction and Supplement §1] The Raman shift values are inconsistent: the main text states 160 cm^-1 while the supplement states 168 cm^-1, and the main text states 720 cm^-1 while the supplement states 721 cm^-1. Please harmonize these numbers to a single value with a clear reference.
  3. [Figure 4 and Figure S4] The fit equations in the figures are formatted with an exclamation mark instead of a minus sign (e.g., 'PS =0:072Pin!0:051 mW' should be 'PS = 0.072 Pin - 0.051 mW'). This is a typesetting error that should be corrected.
  4. [Supplement §2] The theoretical FSR calculation uses a radius adjusted to 2.97075 mm to match the smallest measured FSR (9.739 GHz). Please state the uncertainty on the independently measured radius (2.97 ± 0.01 mm) and justify the adjustment, as this affects the mode-number assignment.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SRS threshold and slope efficiency are directly measured quantities, and the supporting formulas are used with independently characterized inputs.

full rationale

This is an experimental paper with no derivation that presupposes its target result. The headline claims—Q factor, absorption coefficient, SRS threshold, slope efficiency, and cascaded Stokes wavelengths—are obtained by measurement and standard analysis. The Q factor is determined from a Lorentzian fit to an undercoupled mode with calibrated modulation sidebands; the absorption coefficient is then inferred from the textbook relation Q_intrinsic = 2πn/(λα), which is not an input to the Q measurement. The SRS threshold is read off from a linear fit of measured first-order Stokes power versus incoupled pump power (PS = 0.072 Pin − 0.051 mW), not from a theory curve that assumes the threshold. The cascaded Stokes peaks are directly observed by spectrometry and match the measured Raman-shift values of the LB4 sample. Mode identification uses measured FSRs and coupling contrasts, with the physical FSR values computed from the WGM dispersion relation; the cited references for this procedure (Schunk et al. 2014, Sedlmeir's thesis, Breunig et al. 2013) include overlapping authors, but they supply standard experimental methods and dispersion formulas, not the target result, and the q = 1 assignment is checked against the theoretical FSR after a slight radius adjustment. The incoupled power is calibrated as the product of the low-power mode contrast and the incident power inside the prism; this is a measurement-calibration assumption, and any uncertainty would affect accuracy of the threshold value, not make the claim circular. The inconsistency between the stated 8.6% and 7.2% unidirectional efficiency, and the absence of the far-field p=0 discrimination check, are correctness or reproducibility concerns rather than circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is invoked from the authors' prior work. The paper is self-contained against direct experimental evidence and external benchmarks.

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

The paper does not introduce new theoretical constructs or fitted parameters. It relies on standard WGM theory and prior material data. The key paper-specific assumption is the identification of the fundamental mode, which affects the quantitative threshold claims. The free-parameter list is empty because the fitted slope and intercept in Figure 4 are measurement results, not parameters used to derive the central claim.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Whispering-gallery modes have Lorentzian line shapes, so linewidths determined by Lorentzian fitting yield the Q factor.
    Used in Section 3 to extract Q = 2.0 x 10^9 from a fitted linewidth of 289 kHz.
  • domain assumption The mode labeled '2' in the supplementary (Figure S2) is the fundamental mode (q=1, p=0), identified by its smallest FSR and highest coupling contrast.
    This mode assignment is load-bearing for the threshold and efficiency measurements: the stated values are for the fundamental mode.
  • standard math Q_intrinsic = 2πn/(λα) relates material absorption to the measured Q factor.
    Used in Section 3 to convert measured Q values into absorption coefficients α at 517 nm, 795 nm, and 1550 nm.
  • standard math The SRS threshold is proportional to mode volume and inversely proportional to Q^2, following the model in Ref. [50].
    Invoked in Section 3 to justify the focus on fundamental modes and the low threshold.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cascaded Raman lasing in a lithium tetraborate (LB4) whispering gallery mode resonator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BEZHSKCJ

@misc{pith2026241119131,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cascaded Raman lasing in a lithium tetraborate (LB4) whispering gallery mode resonator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BEZHSKCJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19131}
}
abstract

Lithium tetraborate (LB4) is a lithium borate compound and recently has shown renewed interest due to its exceptional linear and nonlinear optical properties. Its wide transparency range, spanning from 0.16$\mu m$ to 3.5$\mu m$, and low loss in the visible range make LB4 highly popular in applications of harmonics generation and deep ultraviolet radiation. Also, LB4 is a good Raman-active material due to its high Raman gain. Here, a millimeter sized LB4 whispering gallery mode resonator (WGMR) is machined using single point diamond cutting, which has, to the best of our knowledge, the highest reported quality ($Q$) factor of $2.0 \times 10^9$ at 517 nm. Then, stimulated Raman scattering (SRS) was investigated in this LB4 WGMR. When pumped with about 7 mW at 517 nm, four cascaded SRS peaks with wavelengths ranging from 537 nm to 608 nm are demonstrated, which can be clearly observed using an optical grating. Among them, the first order SRS is characterized and has a threshold of 0.69 mW with a slope efficiency of 7.2 %. This is the first implementation of a LB4 whispering gallery mode Raman laser, which will facilitate usages of LB4 WGMR as compact Raman lasing source in future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19131 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of experimental setup. A green laser, generated using third harmonic of a telecom seed laser, goes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. One transverse magnetic (TM, electric field vertical to the symmetry axis of our WGMR) mode at under coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cascaded SRS recorded by OceanOptics in LB4 WGMR. The leftmost peak is the pump laser at 517 nm. These [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: First order SRS intensity changes with the power in fundamental mode (dots with error bars due to noise of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. T. Tran, H. Yu, J. M. Rondinelli, K. R. Poeppelmeier, P. S. Halasyamani, Chemistry of Materials 2016, 28, 15 5238

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Petrov, F

    V. Petrov, F. Rotermund, F. Noack, R. Komatsu, T. Sugawara, S. Uda, Journal of Applied Physics 1998, 84, 11 5887

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Komatsu, T

    R. Komatsu, T. Sugawara, K. Sassa, N. Sarukura, Z. Liu, S. Izumida, Y. Segawa, S. Uda, T. Fukuda, K. Yamanouchi, Applied Physics Letters 1997, 70, 26 3492

    work page 1997

  4. [4]

    T. Kwon, J. Ju, J. Cha, J. Kim, S. Yun, Materials Letters 1994, 20, 3-4 211

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    Sugawara, R

    T. Sugawara, R. Komatsu, S. Uda, Solid State Communications 1998, 107, 5 233

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    D. N. Nikogosyan, Nonlinear optical crystals: a complete survey, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Takahashi, G

    M. Takahashi, G. Masada, I. Sekine, M. Cadatal, T. Shimizu, N. Sarukura, C. Byeon, V. Fedorov, S. Mirov, A. Dergachev, et al., Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 2009, 48, 11R 112502

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    D. V. Strekalov, C. Marquardt, A. B. Matsko, H. G. Schwefel, G. Leuchs, Journal of Optics 2016, 18, 12 123002

    work page 2016

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Krogh-Moe, Acta Crystallographica 1962, 15, 3 190

    J. Krogh-Moe, Acta Crystallographica 1962, 15, 3 190

    1962

  2. [10]

    Krogh-Moe, Acta Crystallographica Section B: Structural Crystallography and Crystal Chemistry 1968, 24, 2 179

    J. Krogh-Moe, Acta Crystallographica Section B: Structural Crystallography and Crystal Chemistry 1968, 24, 2 179

    1968

  3. [11]

    Tsutsui, Y

    N. Tsutsui, Y. Ino, K. Imai, N. Senguttuvan, M. Ishii, Journal of Crystal Growth 2000, 211, 1-4 271

    2000

  4. [12]

    Tsutsui, Y

    N. Tsutsui, Y. Ino, K. Imai, N. Senguttuvan, M. Ishii, Journal of Crystal Growth 2001, 229, 1-4 283

    2001

  5. [13]

    Kasprowicz, J

    D. Kasprowicz, J. Kroupa, A. Majchrowski, E. Michalski, M. Drozdowski, J. \.Z mija, Crystal Research and Technology: Journal of Experimental and Industrial Crystallography 2003, 38, 3-5 374

    2003

  6. [14]

    Furusawa, O

    S.-i. Furusawa, O. Chikagawa, S. Tange, T. Ishidate, H. Orihara, Y. Ishibashi, K. Miwa, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 1991, 60, 8 2691

    1991

  7. [15]

    R. W. Boyd, A. L. Gaeta, E. Giese, In Springer Handbook of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 1097--1110. Springer, 2008

    2008

  8. [16]

    M \'e ndez, A

    A. M \'e ndez, A. Garc a-Cabanes, E. Di \'e guez, J. Cabrera, Journal of Applied Physics 1999, 86, 4 2038

    1999

  9. [17]

    Boht \`y , S

    L. Boht \`y , S. Hauss \"u hl, J. Liebertz, Crystal Research and Technology 1989, 24, 11 1159

    1989

  10. [18]

    Kaminskii, L

    A. Kaminskii, L. Bohat \`y , P. Becker, J. Liebertz, H. Eichler, H. Rhee, Laser Physics Letters 2006, 3, 11 519

    2006

  11. [19]

    Takagi, R

    Y. Takagi, R. Kurishima, K. Kurihara, H. Abe, Ferroelectrics 1992, 137, 1 337

    1992

  12. [20]

    Krupych, O

    O. Krupych, O. Mys, T. Kryvyy, V. Adamiv, Y. Burak, R. Vlokh, Applied Optics 2016, 55, 36 10457

    2016

  13. [21]

    Shiosaki, M

    T. Shiosaki, M. Adachi, H. Kobayashi, K. Araki, A. Kawabata, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 1985, 24, S1 25

    1985

  14. [22]

    Senyshyn, B

    A. Senyshyn, B. Schwarz, T. Lorenz, V. Adamiv, Y. V. Burak, J. Banys, R. Grigalaitis, L. Vasylechko, H. Ehrenberg, H. Fuess, Journal of Applied Physics 2010, 108, 9

    2010

  15. [23]

    J. U. F \"u rst, K. Buse, I. Breunig, P. Becker, J. Liebertz, L. Bohat \`y , Optics Letters 2015, 40, 9 1932

    2015

  16. [24]

    A. N. Oraevsky, Quantum Electronics 2002, 32, 5 377

    2002

  17. [25]

    K. J. Vahala, Nature 2003, 424, 6950 839

    2003

  18. [26]

    A. B. Matsko, V. S. Ilchenko, IEEE Journal of selected topics in quantum electronics 2006, 12, 1 3

    2006

  19. [27]

    F \"u rst, D

    J. F \"u rst, D. Strekalov, D. Elser, A. Aiello, U. L. Andersen, C. Marquardt, G. Leuchs, Physical Review Letters 2010, 105, 26 263904

    2010

  20. [28]

    T. J. Kippenberg, R. Holzwarth, S. A. Diddams, Science 2011, 332, 6029 555, publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science

    2011

  21. [29]

    I. S. Grudinin, L. Maleki, Optics Letters 2007, 32, 2 166

    2007

  22. [30]

    Leidinger, B

    M. Leidinger, B. Sturman, K. Buse, I. Breunig, Optics Letters 2016, 41, 12 2823

    2016

  23. [31]

    Woodbury, W

    E. Woodbury, W. Ng, proc. IRE 1962, 50, 11 2347

    1962

  24. [32]

    Eckhardt, R

    G. Eckhardt, R. W. Hellwarth, F. J. McClung, S. E. Schwarz, D. Weiner, E. Woodbury, Physical Review Letters 1962, 9, 11 455

    1962

  25. [33]

    R. C. Prince, R. R. Frontiera, E. O. Potma, Chemical Reviews 2017, 117, 7 5070

    2017

  26. [34]

    K. Hill, B. Kawasaki, D. Johnson, Applied Physics Letters 1976, 29, 3 181

    1976

  27. [35]

    Spillane, T

    S. Spillane, T. Kippenberg, K. Vahala, Nature 2002, 415, 6872 621

    2002

  28. [36]

    T. J. Kippenberg, S. M. Spillane, B. Min, K. J. Vahala, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 2004, 10, 5 1219

    2004

  29. [37]

    I. S. Grudinin, L. Maleki, JOSA B 2008, 25, 4 594

    2008

  30. [38]

    B. Min, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, Optics Letters 2003, 28, 17 1507

    2003

  31. [39]

    H. Rong, S. Xu, O. Cohen, O. Raday, M. Lee, V. Sih, M. Paniccia, Nature Photonics 2008, 2, 3 170

    2008

  32. [40]

    D. Gold, A. Bhadkamkar, S. Carpenter, L. Hogan, M. Dwyer, M. Beede, R. Goldsmith, D. van der Weide, D. Yavuz, Optics Letters 2022, 47, 16 4171

    2022

  33. [41]

    Bhadkamkar, D

    A. Bhadkamkar, D. Yavuz, S. Carpenter, D. Gold, R. Goldsmith, M. Beede, D. van der Weide 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    M. Yu, Y. Okawachi, R. Cheng, C. Wang, M. Zhang, A. L. Gaeta, M. Lon c ar, Light: Science & Applications 2020, 9, 1 9

    2020

  35. [43]

    G. Paul, W. Taylor, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 1982, 15, 8 1753

    1982

  36. [44]

    Gorelik, A

    V. Gorelik, A. Vdovin, V. Moiseenko, Journal of Russian Laser Research 2003, 24 553

    2003

  37. [45]

    A. E. Elalaoui, A. Maillard, M. Fontana, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2005, 17, 46 7441

    2005

  38. [46]

    Furusawa, S

    S.-i. Furusawa, S. Tange, Y. Ishibashi, K. Miwa, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan 1990, 59, 5 1825

    1990

  39. [47]

    S. Wan, X. Tang, Y. Sun, G. Zhang, J. You, P. Fu, CrystEngComm 2014, 16, 15 3086

    2014

  40. [48]

    Y. V. Burak, V. Adamiv, I. Teslyuk, Functional Materials 2006, 13, 4 591

    2006

  41. [49]

    Stolen, E

    R. Stolen, E. Ippen, Applied Physics Letters 1973, 22, 6 276

    1973

  42. [50]

    Matsko, A

    A. Matsko, A. Savchenkov, R. Letargat, V. Ilchenko, L. Maleki, Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics 2003, 5, 3 272

    2003

  43. [51]

    I. S. Grudinin, phd, California Institute of Technology, 2008, ://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD:etd-05132008-133522

    2008

  44. [52]

    a t Erlangen-N \

    F. Sedlmeir, Ph.D. thesis, Friedrich-Alexander-Universit \"a t Erlangen-N \"u rnberg (FAU), 2016

    2016

  45. [53]

    Dolzhenkova, V

    E. Dolzhenkova, V. Baumer, A. Tolmachev, Crystallography Reports 2006, 51 292

    2006

  46. [54]

    M. L. Gorodetsky, V. S. Ilchenko, JOSA B 1999, 16, 1 147

    1999

  47. [55]

    J. Li, H. Lee, K. Y. Yang, K. J. Vahala, Optics Express 2012, 20, 24 26337

    2012

  48. [56]

    Garrett, W

    C. Garrett, W. Kaiser, W. Bond, Physical Review 1961, 124, 6 1807

    1961

  49. [57]

    M. L. Gorodetsky, A. D. Pryamikov, V. S. Ilchenko, JOSA B 2000, 17, 6 1051, publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    2000

  50. [58]

    u rst, M. F \

    G. Schunk, J. U. F \"u rst, M. F \"o rtsch, D. V. Strekalov, U. Vogl, F. Sedlmeir, H. G. Schwefel, G. Leuchs, C. Marquardt, Optics Express 2014, 22, 25 30795

    2014

  51. [59]

    S.-X. Qian, R. K. Chang, Physical Review Letters 1986, 56, 9 926

    1986

  52. [60]

    J. B. Snow, S.-X. Qian, R. K. Chang, Optics Letters 1985, 10, 1 37

    1985

  53. [61]

    Vanier, Y.-A

    F. Vanier, Y.-A. Peter, M. Rochette, Optics Express 2014, 22, 23 28731

    2014

  54. [62]

    X. Liu, C. Sun, B. Xiong, L. Wang, J. Wang, Y. Han, Z. Hao, H. Li, Y. Luo, J. Yan, et al., Optica 2017, 4, 8 893

    2017

  55. [63]

    J. Li, R. Wang, A. A. Afridi, Y. Lu, X. Shi, W. Sun, H. Ou, Q. Li, ACS photonics 2024

    2024

  56. [64]

    J. Tian, G. Lin, Journal of Lightwave Technology 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    Carmon, L

    T. Carmon, L. Yang, K. J. Vahala, Optics Express 2004, 12, 20 4742

    2004

  58. [66]

    Breunig, B

    I. Breunig, B. Sturman, F. Sedlmeir, H. G. Schwefel, K. Buse, Optics Express 2013, 21 25 30683

    2013

  59. [67]

    , " * 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...

  60. [68]

    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.