Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A simple model for entangled photon generation in resonant structures

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In low-gain SPDC, a resonant structure's photon-pair spectrum is the non-resonant pair spectrum times a purely linear filter of the structure.

desk verdict Useful factorization for etalon SPDC, but the stated low-gain criterion misses cavity enhancement. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05516 v3 pith:2SOBYBIO submitted 2025-01-09 quant-ph physics.optics

Nicholas J. Sorensen , Vitaliy Sultanov , Maria V. Chekhova This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords spontaneousparametricdown-conversionresonantstructuresetalonphoton-pairspectralowgainlithiumniobateentangledphotonsourcesquantumstateengineering
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

Under low parametric gain, the photon-pair spectrum emitted by a resonant structure can be written as the product of two independent pieces: the spectrum the same nonlinear material would emit without any resonances, and a filtering function that depends only on the structure's linear optical response and on how the photons are collected. The paper derives this factorization, $P_{\text{res}} = P \times S$, for the specific case of an etalon, starting from the rigorous scattering-matrix theory of spontaneous parametric down-conversion in layered media. It then shows that the simplified model agrees perfectly with the full theory in the low-gain regime, deviates when the parametric gain becomes large, and matches measured spectra of photon pairs generated in a 10.15 µm lithium niobate etalon. The practical payoff is that designing resonant sources of entangled photon pairs no longer requires solving the full nonlinear quantum scattering problem for every candidate structure; the generation part and the resonant filtering part can be computed separately.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linearized interaction matrix $\hat{w}$ of the layered-medium scattering formalism: in the low-gain limit, the off-diagonal elements become $\pm\beta^{(\pm)}\mathrm{sinc}(\Delta/2)$ and the diagonal elements become unity, so amplification is replaced by first-order conversion. Feeding this matrix into the scattering relation $A_{\rm out} = \hat{\tau}_2 \hat{w}(\hat{I}-\hat{\rho}\hat{w})^{-1}\hat{\tau}_1 A_{\rm in} - \hat{\rho}^\dagger$ and dropping terms beyond $|\beta|^4$ yields the factorization into the phase-matching factor $P \propto \mathrm{sinc}^2(\Delta/2)$ and the resonant filter $S$, which is a coherent sum of Airy-type amplitudes. This is the mechanism that separates generation from spectral selection.

What would settle it

Measure the SPDC spectrum of the same nonlinear etalon with and without resonant faces (index-matched), and check whether the ratio of the two spectra is independent of pump power over the range where $|\beta^{(\pm)}|^2\ll1$. If the ratio changes with pump power within that range, or if the measured forward/backward spectra disagree with the Airy-type filter computed from Fresnel coefficients, the factorization claim is falsified. A sharper version is to compute the $R^2$ difference as in Fig. 2c and locate the pump power at which simplified and rigorous spectra separate, then verify that this power coincides with the onset of $|\beta^{(\pm)}|^2\sim1$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SPDC in a resonant structure factorizes under low gain: the pair-emission spectral density is the non-resonant SPDC spectrum $P$ multiplied by a linear filter $S$ built from the etalon's transmission and reflection coefficients, as expressed in Eqs. (29) and (34)-(36). The filter is not simply an Airy transmission function; it is the coherent sum of contributions from forward- and backward-propagating pump fields, each multiplied by etalon-enhanced signal and idler field amplitudes such as $a^{(+)}_{1,2}=t_2^{(s,i)}/(1-r_1^{(s,i)}r_2^{(s,i)}e^{i2\phi})$. The authors show that this expression, which is accurate to order $O(|\beta^{(\pm)}|^4)$, follows from the rigorous scattering-matrix interaction matrix when the parametric interaction term is linearized, and they demonstrate that in the low-gain regime the simplified and rigorous spectra coincide while in the high-gain regime the factorization fails.

Load-bearing premise

The whole derivation assumes the rigorous scattering-matrix treatment of SPDC in the etalon is correct to first order in the parametric interaction; if the linearization $|\beta^{(\pm)}|^2\ll1$ fails, the product form $P_{\rm res}=P\times S$ no longer holds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For an etalon, spectra in all four emission combinations (forward-forward, backward-backward, and mixed) are given by closed-form products of a sinc phase-matching factor and Airy-type amplitudes; this makes source design a matter of evaluating Eqs. (29) and (34)-(36).
  • The model's region of validity is stated precisely: it holds when $|\beta^{(\pm)}|^2\ll1$, so designers know when a fuller calculation is needed.
  • Because $S$ depends only on linear response and collection, the same resonant-structure filter can be reused across different pump wavelengths and nonlinear materials.
  • The approach is proposed as a template for metasurfaces, nanowires, and nanoresonators: identify the resonant field enhancement and out-coupling, and the pair spectrum follows from the same multiplication law.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A consequence the paper leaves implicit: if $P$ and $S$ factorize, one could experimentally retrieve the linear filter $S$ by measuring the pair spectrum of a resonant structure and dividing out the known non-resonant spectrum, then use that extracted $S$ as a fast design tool for related structures.
  • Because the factorization separates material response from geometry, it suggests that optimized nonlinear materials and optimized resonant geometries could be developed independently and combined modularly; this is an editorial extrapolation, not stated in the paper.
  • A testable extension would be to compare the predicted factorization for a metasurface against full numerical simulations in the low-gain regime, since the paper only validates the etalon case.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a simplified model for spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in resonant structures, in which the photon-pair spectrum factorizes as Pres = P × S (Eq. 1), with P the non-resonant emission spectrum and S a spectral filtering function set by the linear resonant properties of the structure and the collection scheme. The model is derived for etalons in Appendix B from a rigorous scattering-matrix theory (Appendix A) by expanding the interaction matrix to first order in the parametric interaction term β(±) and discarding higher-order terms. The authors validate the simplified model against the full theory in the low-gain regime (Fig. 2) and against measurements of a 10.15 μm lithium niobate etalon in three collection schemes (Fig. 3 and Fig. 8), finding good agreement after accounting for fitted collection-efficiency envelopes.

Significance. If the factorization holds under a well-defined condition, the model would provide a practical design tool for nanophotonic SPDC sources, considerably reducing the computational cost of predicting pair-emission spectra in resonant structures such as metasurfaces. The paper is commendable for deriving the factorization from a first-principles scattering-matrix formalism, for making the non-experimental plotting code available, and for testing the model against an independent experiment. The central derivation is transparent and the low-gain agreement with the rigorous theory is a useful consistency check. However, the stated validity condition is incomplete: the expansion is performed in powers of β without accounting for resonance enhancement of the discarded terms, so the claimed range of applicability to high-finesse structures is not currently supported.

major comments (1)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (18) and the condition |β(±)|^2 ≪ 1] The low-gain criterion used throughout the paper and stated explicitly after Eq. (17) ("|β(±)|² ≪ 1") is not sufficient for resonant structures with high finesse. In the expansion of U = τ2 w(I − ρw)⁻¹ τ1 − ρ†, write w = I + μ with μ = O(β). The Neumann expansion of (I − ρw)⁻¹ = [(I − ρ) − ρμ]⁻¹ contains at second order in μ terms with two extra factors of (I − ρ)⁻¹ relative to the first-order terms. Near an etalon resonance, (I − ρ)⁻¹ scales as 1/(1 − R), so the ratio of the discarded second-order amplitude to the retained first-order amplitude is of order β/(1 − R), not β². The correct condition for the factorization (Eq. 1) to hold is therefore |β|/(1 − R) ≪ 1 (equivalently, |β| times the finesse ≪ 1), not |β|² ≪ 1. For example, an etalon with R = 0.99 and |β| = 0.01 satisfies |β|² = 10⁻⁴ but has β/(1 − R) ≈ 1, where the factorization is expected to fail. Since the paper's scope explicitly includes resonant nanostructures such as metasurfaces, which can have very high finesse, the derivation must be sharpened either by deriving the finesse-weighted condition or by showing that the factorization survives the resonance enhancement. The low-finesse etalon used in the experiment (R ≈ 0.2–0.4) does not probe this distinction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3 and Fig. 8] The experimental comparison uses two fitted or estimated parameters: a Gaussian envelope for the wavelength-dependent collection and detection efficiency, and the forward/backward collection-efficiency ratio ηf/ηb = 0.4 estimated by inspection. Because these are not predicted a priori, the experimental agreement is a shape-level validation of the etalon peak positions and relative intensities rather than a strictly predictive test. Reporting a quantitative goodness-of-fit (e.g., χ² or R²) for the spectra in Fig. 3d would strengthen the claim of agreement.
  2. [After Eq. (1)] The text says that the filtering function S depends only on the resonant properties of the structure and the collection scheme, but in the etalon derivation S also depends on the pump resonance through the β(±) amplitudes and the etalon-enhanced pump fields E0(±). The wording should be clarified to say that S is independent of the non-resonant generation spectrum P but may include linear resonant effects at the pump, signal, and idler frequencies.
  3. [Fig. 2c] The top panel label "SPDC gain" is undefined; specify whether it is |β|², the total pair generation rate, or another quantity. Similarly, the "r-squared difference" axis would benefit from an explicit definition (e.g., 1 − R²) so that the reader knows whether high values indicate agreement.
  4. [Appendix B, around Eqs. (24)–(25)] The statement "It is easy to show that these equations also hold in the case that Δ/2 ≪ 1" is imprecise; it should read "in the limit Δ/2 → 0" or "for |Δ|/2 ≪ 1," and the equivalence of the two detuning limits should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simplified model is a first-order reduction of the rigorous scattering theory, and the experimental comparison is an external test with transparently fitted normalization, not a self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The central factorization Pres = P × S (Eq. 1) is not an input or a fitted ansatz; it is derived in Appendix B from the rigorous scattering-matrix expression U = τ2 w(I − ρw)^{-1}τ1 − ρ† (Eq. 18) by linearizing w in the parametric interaction β and retaining terms through |β|^2 (Eqs. 24–28, 29). The resulting 'perfect agreement' between the simplified and rigorous models in Fig. 2b is therefore a mathematical consistency check, not a circular prediction: the simplified form is a controlled low-gain approximation of the same theory, and the comparison validates the approximation order. No load-bearing argument rests on a self-citation: the rigorous etalon theory is attributed to Kitaeva, Klyshko, and Taubin [25] and Kitaeva and Penin [26], who are not authors of this paper. The experimental comparison (Fig. 3d, Fig. 8) is external; the only fitted quantities are a Gaussian envelope for wavelength-dependent collection/detection efficiency and a relative collection-efficiency scale ηf/ηb estimated from the raw data (Appendix D), which are explicitly disclosed and do not determine the etalon spectral filtering shape S. The skeptic's concern that the low-gain condition should be β/(1−R) << 1 rather than |β|^2 << 1 is a technical validity issue about the approximation's error bounds, not a circularity, since the paper does not define the prediction in terms of that criterion. The paper also candidly limits the model to low gain, single nonlinear sources, and etalon geometry (Appendices B, Conclusion). Score 1 reflects only the minor fitted experimental normalization; no circular step of the enumerated kinds is load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-optics modeling: uniform vacuum fluctuations, the Kitaeva-Penin scattering formalism, and the low-gain linearization. The only fitted quantities are experimental efficiency envelopes and a calibration regression. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Gaussian envelope for wavelength-dependent collection and detection efficiency = Not reported; fitted to measured spectra
    Used to scale the simplified model spectra to the experimental coincidence rates in Fig. 3d and Fig. 8. The envelope parameters are fitted to the data, so the overall spectral envelope is not an independent prediction.
  • Forward-to-backward collection efficiency ratio eta_f/eta_b = 0.4
    Estimated by inspection of the raw spectral coincidence measurements (Appendix D). This rescales the model predictions for each detection scheme and is not independently measured.
  • Time-delay to wavelength regression coefficients for fiber dispersion calibration = Not reported; linear regression fit in Fig. 7
    The two-photon fiber spectroscopy calibration maps arrival-time delay to wavelength using a regression over filtered measurements. This calibration affects the wavelength axis of the experimental spectra compared to the model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Vacuum fluctuations are uniformly distributed in wavevector space in the non-resonant material, so the unperturbed pair-generation spectrum P follows the standard plane-wave phase-matching result.
    Invoked in the Introduction and Appendix C as the basis for the non-resonant spectrum P in Eq. (1) and Eq. (37).
  • domain assumption The rigorous scattering-matrix theory of Kitaeva and Penin (Refs. [25, 26]) correctly describes SPDC in layered media.
    The derivation of the simplified model starts from Eqs. (2) to (23), which are taken from Refs. [25, 26] without re-derivation.
  • domain assumption The low parametric gain condition |beta^(+)|^2 << 1 holds, allowing the interaction matrix w to be expanded to first order in beta.
    This is the explicit validity condition of the simplified model (Appendix B); the paper's own high-gain simulations show the factorization breaks down when it fails.
  • domain assumption The nonlinear layer is non-absorbing, and birefringence effects vanish because signal and idler modes have definite polarizations and lie in a single plane.
    Stated in Appendix A to simplify the Fresnel boundary conditions and the interaction matrix.
  • domain assumption The slab is thick enough that phase matching prevents direct generation of counter-propagating photon pairs; the model applies only to co-propagating pairs (single nonlinear source).
    Stated in Appendices A and B. The authors explicitly note that deeply subwavelength films with counter-propagating pairs require a more general model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A simple model for entangled photon generation in resonant structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2SOBYBIO

@misc{pith2026250105516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A simple model for entangled photon generation in resonant structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2SOBYBIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05516}
}
read the original abstract

The ability to engineer pairs of entangled photons is essential to quantum information science, and generating these states using spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) in nano- and micrometer-scale materials offers numerous advantages. To properly engineer such sources, a reliable model describing nano- and micrometer-scale SPDC is necessary; however, such a theoretical description remains a challenge. Here, we propose and derive a simplified model to describe SPDC in resonant structures, which considers the generation of photon pairs and the resonant enhancement of spectral bands to be separate processes, even though they actually occur simultaneously. We compare our simplified model to both the rigorous theory of SPDC in an etalon - a simple example of a resonant structure - and our experiments on SPDC in etalons and find agreement for low-gain SPDC. By simplifying the calculations required to generate photon pairs, our model promises to make designing complex resonant structures easier, and it promises to hasten the iteration of designs across the field of quantum state engineering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Decoupling photon-pair generation and spectral en￾hancement in nonlinear resonant structures. a) Generation of photon pairs via SPDC in thin films is primarily dependent on energy and momentum conservation. b) Adding a resonant structure like an etalon changes the photon pair spectrum. The processes of photon-pair generation and resonant band selection can be treated sequentially in the case of low para￾metric gain.… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. b, top. The frequency-angular spectrum shown b) rigorous model simple model non-resonant non-resonant low gain low gain high gain high gain a) lithium niobate silicon c) air spectral density (au) 500 µm10.15 µm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detection of photon pairs generated in a lithium niobate etalon. a) Different measurement schemes, shown by different colors. b) Distribution of the time delay between the arrivals of the two photons for the case of forward emission. c) Real coincidence rate as a function of the 788 nm-wavelength pump power. The inset gives the second-order correlation function g (2)(0) as a function of pump power. The g (2)(0) valu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Geometry of the waves involved in SPDC in an etalon. The z-direction defines the incident direction of the pump wave. Though the signal and idler modes are depicted parallel to the z-axis, we consider angled modes inside the resonator by calculating the angle-dependent…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental setup used to generate and detect the photon pairs: DM – dichroic mirror, short pass; FBS – fiber beamsplitter; HWP – half-wave plate; L1 – lens, 15 mm focal length (actually a 15 mm parabolic mirror); L2 – lens, 60 mm focal length; L3 – lens, 30 mm focal …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The raw, time-delayed coincidence measurements in the three measurement schemes: forward (left), backward (middle), and forward/backward (right). 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Calculated regression (solid line) from a series of filtered measurements (scatter points). backward detection schemes) to temporally delay the photon arrival by dispersion, producing the data shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The raw spectral coincidence measurements showing the relative coincidence rates for each of the three measurement schemes: forward (left), backward (middle), and forward/backward (right). We also plot the relative coincidence rates predicted by the simplified model (b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Entangled pho- tons from subwavelength nonlinear films,

    T. Santiago-Cruz, V . Sultanov, H. Zhang,et al., “Entangled pho- tons from subwavelength nonlinear films,” Opt. Lett. 46, 653 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Flat-optics generation of broadband photon pairs with tunable polarization entanglement,

    V . Sultanov, T. Santiago-Cruz, and M. V . Chekhova, “Flat-optics generation of broadband photon pairs with tunable polarization entanglement,” Opt. Lett. 47, 3872 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Ultrathin quantum light source with van der Waals NbOCl2 crystal,

    Q. Guo, X.-Z. Qi, L. Zhang, et al., “Ultrathin quantum light source with van der Waals NbOCl2 crystal,” Nature613, 53–59 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    A tunable transi- tion metal dichalcogenide entangled photon-pair source,

    M. A. Weissflog, A. Fedotova, Y. Tang,et al., “A tunable transi- tion metal dichalcogenide entangled photon-pair source,” Nat. Commun. 15 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Entangled photon-pair generation in nonlinear thin-films,

    E. A. Santos, M. A. Weissflog, T. Pertsch, et al., “Entangled photon-pair generation in nonlinear thin-films,” Nanophotonics (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Forward and back- ward switching of nonlinear unidirectional emission from GaAs nanoantennas,

    L. Xu, G. Saerens, M. Timofeeva, et al., “Forward and back- ward switching of nonlinear unidirectional emission from GaAs nanoantennas,” ACS Nano 14, 1379–1389 (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Spontaneous photon-pair generation from a dielectric nanoantenna,

    G. Marino, A. S. Solntsev, L. Xu,et al., “Spontaneous photon-pair generation from a dielectric nanoantenna,” Optica 6, 1416 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Far-field polarization engineering from nonlinear nanoresonators,

    M. A. Weissflog, M. Cai, M. Parry,et al., “Far-field polarization engineering from nonlinear nanoresonators,” Laser & Photonics Rev. 16 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Nonlinear nanores- onators for Bell state generation,

    M. A. Weissflog, R. Dezert, V . Vinel,et al., “Nonlinear nanores- onators for Bell state generation,” Appl. Phys. Rev. 11, 011403 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    Background-free near- infrared biphoton emission from single GaAs nanowires,

    G. Saerens, T. Dursap, I. Hesner, et al., “Background-free near- infrared biphoton emission from single GaAs nanowires,” Nano Lett. 23, 3245–3250 (2023). 10 1400 1600 1800 wavelength,–(nm) 0 1 2 3coincidence rate (cps/mW) 1400 1600 1800 wavelength,–(nm) 1400 1600 1800 waveleng...

    2023

  3. [11]

    Photon pairs from resonant metasurfaces,

    T. Santiago-Cruz, A. Fedotova, V . Sultanov,et al., “Photon pairs from resonant metasurfaces,” Nano Lett. 21, 4423–4429 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Enhanced gener- ation of nondegenerate photon pairs in nonlinear metasurfaces,

    M. Parry, A. Mazzanti, A. N. Poddubny,et al., “Enhanced gener- ation of nondegenerate photon pairs in nonlinear metasurfaces,” Adv. Photonics 3 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Resonant metasurfaces for generating complex quantum states,

    T. Santiago-Cruz, S. D. Gennaro, O. Mitrofanov,et al., “Resonant metasurfaces for generating complex quantum states,” Science 377, 991–995 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Spatially entangled photon pairs from lithium niobate nonlocal metasurfaces,

    J. Zhang, J. Ma, M. Parry, et al., “Spatially entangled photon pairs from lithium niobate nonlocal metasurfaces,” Sci. Adv. 8 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Polarization-entangled photon pair generation from an epsilon-near-zero metasurface,

    W. Jia, G. Saerens, Ü.-L. Talts, et al., “Polarization-entangled photon pair generation from an epsilon-near-zero metasurface,” (2024). ArXiv. 2405.03493

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Directionally tunable co- and counterpropagating photon pairs from a nonlinear metasur- face,

    M. A. Weissflog, J. Ma, J. Zhang, et al., “Directionally tunable co- and counterpropagating photon pairs from a nonlinear metasur- face,” Nanophotonics (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Quantum pair gen- eration in nonlinear metasurfaces with mixed and pure photon polarizations,

    J. Noh, T. Santiago-Cruz, V . Sultanov,et al., “Quantum pair gen- eration in nonlinear metasurfaces with mixed and pure photon polarizations,” Nano Lett. 24, 15356–15362 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Microscale generation of entangled photons without momen- tum conservation,

    C. Okoth, A. Cavanna, T. Santiago-Cruz, and M. V . Chekhova, “Microscale generation of entangled photons without momen- tum conservation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 263602 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Idealized einstein- podolsky-rosen states from non–phase-matched parametric down-conversion,

    C. Okoth, E. Kovlakov, F. Bönsel, et al., “Idealized einstein- podolsky-rosen states from non–phase-matched parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 101, 011801 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Polarization engineering of en- tangled photons from a lithium niobate nonlinear metasurface,

    J. Ma, J. Zhang, Y. Jiang,et al., “Polarization engineering of en- tangled photons from a lithium niobate nonlinear metasurface,” Nano Lett. 23, 8091–8098 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Photon pairs bi- directionally emitted from a resonant metasurface,

    C. Son, V . Sultanov, T. Santiago-Cruz,et al., “Photon pairs bi- directionally emitted from a resonant metasurface,” Nanoscale 15, 2567–2572 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Self-consistent optical parameters of intrinsic silicon at 300 wk including temperature coefficients,

    M. A. Green, “Self-consistent optical parameters of intrinsic silicon at 300 wk including temperature coefficients,” Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 92, 1305–1310 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Infrared corrected sellmeier coefficients for congruently grown lithium niobate and 5 mol.% magnesium oxide–doped lithium niobate,

    D. L. Small, D. E. Zelmon, and D. Jundt, “Infrared corrected sellmeier coefficients for congruently grown lithium niobate and 5 mol.% magnesium oxide–doped lithium niobate,” JOSA B, Vol. 14, Issue 12, pp. 3319-3322 14, 3319–3322 (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    D. N. Klyshko, Photons and Nonlinear Optics (Routledge, 2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Theory of para- metric scattering and method of absolute measurement of the brightness of light

    G. K. Kitaeva, D. N. Klyshko, and I. V . Taubin, “Theory of para- metric scattering and method of absolute measurement of the brightness of light.” Sov J Quantum Electron 9, 333–338 (1982)

    1982

  18. [26]

    Parametric frequency conversion in layered nonlinear media,

    G. K. Kitaeva and A. N. Penin, “Parametric frequency conversion in layered nonlinear media,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 98, 272–286 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Entan- gled two-photon wave packet in a dispersive medium,

    A. Valencia, M. V . Chekhova, A. Trifonov, and Y. Shih, “Entan- gled two-photon wave packet in a dispersive medium,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 183601 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Hecht, Optics (Pearson Education, 2016)

    E. Hecht, Optics (Pearson Education, 2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    SPDCTools,

    N. Sorensen, “SPDCTools,” figshare (2025). doi: https://doi. org/10.6084/m9.figshare.28521803.v2. 11

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.