Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Inverse Design of 3D Nanophotonic Devices with Structural Integrity Using Auxiliary Thermal Solvers

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 Adding a fictitious heat-diffusion penalty to 3D topology optimization forces printed nanophotonic devices to be connected in material and void, with only a few percent loss in optical performance.

desk verdict A useful, well-executed method paper whose 'guarantee' of structural integrity overstates what a soft, volume-integrated heat constraint can actually ensure. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05900 v3 pith:W6EFXY75 submitted 2025-01-10 physics.optics physics.comp-ph

Oliver Kuster , Yannick Augenstein , Roberto Narváez Hernández , Carsten Rockstuhl , Thomas Jebb Sturges This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.comp-ph
keywords inversedesigntopologyoptimization3Dadditivemanufacturingnanophotonicsstructuralintegrityconnectivityconstraintheat-diffusionsolveradjointmethod
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 claims that the main obstacle to moving nanophotonic inverse design from 2D to 3D is structural, not optical: free-floating chunks and enclosed voids appear naturally when only the electromagnetic response is optimized, and either flaw ruins a 3D-printed part. The authors' fix is to run two auxiliary heat-diffusion simulations alongside the electromagnetic solver, treating written material (and separately the void) as heat sources that must conduct heat to anchored boundary sinks. Minimizing the integrated temperature of those fictitious problems pushes the optimizer to connect every material region and every void channel. They report that the resulting focusing element reaches $L_{EM}=16.7\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ against $17.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ for the optics-only design, and the waveguide coupler reaches $150\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-1}$ against $152\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-1}$: a small optical price for guaranteed connectivity. If this holds, it supplies a design pipeline whose outputs are directly printable 3D nanostructures.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a pair of auxiliary heat-diffusion solvers used as connectivity constraints. For each sub-problem, the paper solves Poisson's equation $-\kappa(\hat{\rho})\nabla^2 u = q$ over the design region, with heat sources placed on the material (to enforce material connectivity) or on the void (to prevent cavities), with Dirichlet zero-temperature patches acting as heat sinks at chosen boundary locations, and with the integrated temperature $L_{\mathrm{heat}}=\int_D u\,dV$ as the penalized scalar. The thermal conductivity values are fictitious; the solver is chosen because it is differentiable and cheap. A softplus renormalization of each sub-objective switches off thermal optimization once its threshold is crossed, leaving the optimizer free to improve the electromagnetic figure of merit.

What would settle it

Print the two optimized devices and inspect them with X-ray tomography or cross-sectioning: any free-floating fragment, collapsed thin neck, or enclosed void would refute the claim that the heat constraint guarantees structural integrity. Alternatively, compute the heat metric for a deliberately fragile structure with a long thin neck and check whether its integrated temperature still falls below the threshold; if it does, the metric is not discriminating.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a scalar heat-dissipation metric, evaluated with a plain Poisson solver, is a sufficient stand-in for the structural requirements of two-photon polymerization printing in 3D. With material density $\hat{\rho}$ mapped to a fictitious thermal conductivity, the paper solves $-\kappa\nabla^2 u = q$ twice: once with heat sources $q=\hat{\rho}$ and sinks on anchor patches such as waveguide ports and a support frame, and once with $q=1-\hat{\rho}$ and sinks on the remaining boundary. It defines $L_{\mathrm{heat}} = \int_D u\,dV$ as the connectivity figure of merit and adds it to the objective through a softplus renormalization, so thermal terms stop pulling once chosen thresholds are crossed. The paper asserts that all designs produced this way possess structural integrity in the material and the void, and that in both demonstrated devices the enforced connectivity costs only a few percent of optical performance.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method rests on the assumption that a low integrated temperature in a fictitious heat-diffusion problem is a faithful and sufficient proxy for real mechanical stability and for the absence of any photoresist-trapping cavity in the printed part, and the paper gives no mechanical simulation or fabrication test of that link.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both demonstrated devices, a focusing element and a 90-degree waveguide coupler, are fully connected in material and void, while the optics-only control designs contain free-floating regions and (for the focusing element) cavities.
  • The optical penalty for enforced connectivity is small: $16.7$ versus $17.4\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-3}$ for focusing and $150$ versus $152\,\mu\mathrm{m}^{-1}$ for coupling.
  • Once connectivity thresholds are crossed, the softplus cutoff removes the thermal sub-objectives from the optimization, so no further thermal performance is wasted and the optimizer focuses on optics.
  • Void connectivity prevents trapping undeveloped photoresist, a failure mode specific to 3D nanoprinting, so the resulting structures are more realistic fabrication blueprints.
  • The extra computational cost is modest: two heat forward and adjoint solves per optimization step on top of the electromagnetic solve, which keeps designs with around two million parameters feasible on one GPU.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same fictitious-heat trick should transfer to other physics where global connectivity matters, such as electrical or fluidic networks, provided sink positions can be chosen from the intended function.
  • The paper stops at digital blueprints; actually printing the two designs and inspecting mechanical stability and resist removal would be the immediate next test of the method.
  • The heat metric's guarantee is only as strong as the finite-element mesh: features thinner than the mesh could pass the thermal test yet still collapse mechanically, so a resolution study on deliberately fragile structures would sharpen the claim.
  • A natural extension would be to replace heuristically chosen thermal thresholds with thresholds derived from measured polymer mechanical properties, turning the connectivity constraint into a quantitative strength constraint.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a topology-optimization pipeline for 3D nanophotonic devices that augments the electromagnetic adjoint objective with two fictitious heat-diffusion problems: one treats the printed material as a heat source and the void as a heat sink, and the other treats the void as a heat source and selected domain boundaries as heat sinks. The integrated steady-state temperature (Eq. 7) is minimized, renormalized by hand-set thresholds, passed through a softplus function, and combined with the electromagnetic figure of merit via an l2 norm. The method is demonstrated on a focusing element and a waveguide coupler, with reported optical penalties of 16.7 versus 17.4 µm^-3 and 150 versus 152 µm^-1 relative to EM-only designs. The supplementary material includes parameter sweeps, random-initialization tests, a resolution-convergence study, and an analysis of local minima.

Significance. If the connectivity/structural-integrity claim were established at the level asserted, this would be a practically useful contribution: the auxiliary solver is differentiable, computationally cheap relative to the EM solve, and the two demonstrations show only modest optical penalties. The public code, the resolution-convergence check, and the random-initialization sweep are good practices and increase confidence in the numerical side of the work. However, the central claim is currently stronger than the evidence: the thermal metric is a soft, volume-integrated penalty rather than a hard connectivity constraint, and the paper validates the outcome with the same metric that was optimized, without independent mechanical simulation, fabrication, or a quantitative connectivity check. The contribution is better framed as a heuristic that encourages connectivity than as a guarantee of structural integrity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3 (and Section 1)] The central validation that "all designs using an auxiliary heat-dissipation solver possess structural integrity" rests entirely on the same thermal quantity that was minimized (Eq. 7) and on visual inspection of rendered structures; there is no independent connectivity check (e.g., connected-component analysis of the final binarized density), no mechanical simulation, and no fabrication test. Because the heat objective is used as the evidence for the claim, the argument is circular in an important sense: the optimizer is being used to certify its own output. The authors should either add an external verification step or explicitly reframe the contribution as a soft-connectivity heuristic whose strict guarantees are not asserted.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eqs. (6)-(7)] L_heat = ∫_D u dV is an extensive quantity, so the penalty contributed by a disconnected region scales with its volume. With κ_min = 10^-5, a small material island or enclosed void near the 100 nm minimum feature size can have a high local temperature, but its integrated contribution can still be orders of magnitude below the thresholds L_thresh_material and L_thresh_void, which are calibrated on the uniform ρ = 0.5 initial design. The paper therefore does not establish that the thermal threshold excludes all disconnected features, and it provides no estimate of the smallest defect volume or neck width that is reliably suppressed. This gap is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 3 claim that connectivity is "ensured" rather than merely promoted.
  3. [Section 3.2 and Supplementary Section 9] The blanket statement in Section 3.1 that all heat-solver designs possess structural integrity is in tension with the waveguide-coupler results: the supplementary text states that several non-trivial heat-solver designs "do not qualify as fully connected in a strict sense" because they connect the heat sinks without connecting the input to the output waveguides. Please clarify whether the claim applies only to material/void connectivity and state the threshold regime in which the guarantee is intended to hold.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] The Gaussian kernel w(σ) is written without a normalization factor; as a discrete convolution it will change the mean density. Please specify the normalized kernel or state that normalization is applied before the convolution.
  2. [Throughout] Terminology is inconsistent: the abstract calls the second device a "waveguide junction," Section 3.2 calls it a "waveguide coupler," and Fig. 5 and the Discussion call it a "waveguide crossing." These should be unified.
  3. [Author contributions] There is a typo in the author contributions: "surpervised" should be "supervised."

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'structural integrity' result is reported through the same normalized heat objective that the optimizer minimizes, so that part of the central claim is self-definitional; the optical comparisons are independent and non-circular.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2 (Eq. 8, softplus discussion) and Section 3.1 (Results)]
    "We introduce a threshold value L thresh material where the heat-dissipation is good enough that the material has a high probability of being fully connected. Therefore, the sign of L n material provides a binary measure of whether the device is connected enough or not. [...] all designs using an auxiliary heat-dissipation solver possess structural integrity in the material and the void."

    The normalized thermal objective is L_n_material = (L_material - L^thresh_material)/L^thresh_material, and the softplus-combined objective (Eqs. 10 and 12) deliberately stops optimizing the thermal term once L_n < 0. 'Fully connected' is therefore defined as L_n < 0. Any converged design with L_n < 0 is then reported as possessing 'structural integrity in the material and the void.' This is a restatement of the optimized quantity, not an independent test: no mechanical simulation, fabrication experiment, or quantitative connectivity analysis of the final geometries is provided, and the paper itself hedges that the heat proxy is only 'typically sufficient' for mechanical stability. The optical benchmark (LEM) is independent, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

The electromagnetic part of the paper is self-contained: L_EM is evaluated with an FDFD Maxwell solver and compared against an optical-only baseline, so the reported focusing (16.7 vs 17.4 um^-3) and waveguide-coupler (150 vs 152 um^-1) trade-offs are genuine, externally benchmarked results. The circularity is confined to the structural-integrity claim. Section 2.1 defines 'how well connected' a structure is as the integrated temperature of a fictitious Poisson problem, and Section 2.2 defines the sign of the renormalized heat objective as 'a binary measure of whether the device is connected enough or not.' The full objective then stops optimizing the thermal sub-objectives once this sign is negative. When Section 3.1 states that all designs using the auxiliary heat solver 'possess structural integrity,' this is the same normalized heat quantity restated, not a prediction checked against an independent standard. The visual inspection of selected designs in Figs. 3 and 5 provides some independent evidence, which prevents the score from being higher. Self-citations such as [44] are not load-bearing: the thermal formulation is fully written out in the present paper. The main weakness is therefore a self-referential validation of the connectivity guarantee, not a fabricated or fitted optical result.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method's free parameters are optimization hyperparameters (thresholds, dummy thermal conductivities, filter width). They are not fitted to produce the optical results, but they do control the trade-off between connectivity and optical performance, and the paper shows the method is sensitive to them. The deeper assumption that heat diffusion is a faithful stand-in for structural integrity is unvalidated and is the main source of correctness risk.

free parameters (6)
  • L_thresh_material = initial L_n approximately 0.5 (focusing), 1 (coupler)
    Hand-chosen per device; if too small, optimizer converges to all-void solutions; the paper sweeps this value.
  • L_thresh_void = initial L_n approximately 0.5 (focusing), 1 (coupler)
    Same as above for the void connectivity simulation.
  • L_thresh_EM and L_max_EM = chosen so that initial L_n_EM is approximately 1
    Set the balance between optical and thermal objectives; determined from prior EM-only runs.
  • fictitious thermal conductivities kappa_min and kappa_max = 1e-5 and 1 MW/(um K)
    kappa_min greater than zero regularizes the Poisson equation; the values are fictitious and chosen ad hoc.
  • Gaussian filter sigma = 2.3 px (about 100 nm)
    Set to enforce a 100 nm minimum feature size, a fabrication constraint.
  • softplus linear cutoff = 0.4
    Numerical choice for switching softplus to linear; values below 0 decay exponentially.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Heat diffusion with material as source and boundary patches as sinks is a valid proxy for mechanical connectivity and absence of cavities.
    Sections 1 and 2.1. The paper calls it 'typically sufficient' but supplies no mechanical or experimental test, so this is the load-bearing domain assumption.
  • domain assumption A small but non-zero background conductivity kappa_min prevents temperature blow-up for disconnected regions.
    Section 2.1. Without it the Poisson problem with pure Neumann boundaries except the sink patches would not be well-posed for isolated islands.
  • standard math The FDFD Maxwell solver (jaxwell) gives accurate fields for low-index polymer structures at the chosen resolution.
    Used for all EM figures of merit; the supplementary resolution study supports convergence at 10-40 px/um.
  • domain assumption Gaussian filtering plus soft-threshold binarization with beta up to 30 preserves fabricability.
    Section 2.1. No fabricated sample verifies this, but the approach is standard in topology optimization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inverse Design of 3D Nanophotonic Devices with Structural Integrity Using Auxiliary Thermal Solvers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6EFXY75

@misc{pith2026250105900,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inverse Design of 3D Nanophotonic Devices with Structural Integrity Using Auxiliary Thermal Solvers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6EFXY75}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05900}
}
read the original abstract

3D additive manufacturing enables the fabrication of nanophotonic structures with subwavelength features that control light across macroscopic scales. Gradient-based optimization offers an efficient approach to design these complex and non-intuitive structures. However, expanding this methodology from 2D to 3D introduces complexities, such as the need for structural integrity and connectivity. This work introduces a multi-objective optimization method to address these challenges in 3D nanophotonic designs. Our method combines electromagnetic simulations with an auxiliary heat-diffusion solver to ensure continuous material and void connectivity. By modeling material regions as heat sources and boundaries as heat sinks, we optimize the structure to minimize the total temperature, thereby penalizing disconnected regions that cannot dissipate thermal loads. Alongside the optical response, this heat metric becomes part of our objective function. We demonstrate the utility of our algorithm by designing two 3D nanophotonic devices. The first is a focusing element. The second is a waveguide junction, which connects two incoming waveguides for two different wavelengths into two outgoing waveguides, which are rotated by 90{\deg} to the incoming waveguides. Our approach offers a design pipeline that generates digital blueprints for fabricable nanophotonic materials, paving the way for practical 3D nanoprinting applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05900 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sketch of our design procedure. The initial design, expressed in terms of a material density ρ ∈ [0,1], is mapped to three dif￾ferent material distributions. Firstly, it is mapped to the permittivity ε(ρ) of the dielectric material to be printed, from which we cal￾culate the electromagnetic response. Additionally, a fictitious heat-diffusion through the system is studied in two dedicated auxiliary simulations by ass… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Different focusing devices designed with structural integrity. A parameter sweep is done by varying the threshold value for L thresh material while L threshold void is constant (red) and by varying the threshold value for L thresh void while L thresh material is constant (black). Their per￾formance as focusing devices, evaluated using LEM is compared to a device designed by maximizing only LEM (blue dotted line). So… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Best performing focusing device with enforced structural integrity, shown from different angles: Tilted (a), top view (b), and side view (c). The electric field distribution |Ex| is shown in (d). In contrast, when considering only LEM in the optimiza￾tion, the resulting structure is free-floating. We can achieve structural integrity only after adding the auxiliary thermal solvers. The best performing device with str… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Different waveguide couplers designed with structural integrity. A parameter sweep is done by varying the threshold value for L thresh material while L threshold void is constant (red) and by varying the threshold value for L thresh void while L thresh material is cons…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Best performing waveguide crossings with enforced struc￾tural integrity, shown from different angles: Tilted (a), top view (b), and side view (c). The electric field distributions |E 1 x | and |E 2 x | with the device are shown in (d). lution with ρ = 1 everywhere in t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the optimized design. It can be clearly seen, that the center of the design is free floating, without any ad￾ditional support structures. What cannot be seen is, that the design also contains cavities. These cavities can be seen in the animations provided in the …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Two optimizations of a focusing device. The optimization was conducted until convergence for a low threshold value, lead￾ing to a trivial solution (roughly after 60 iterations). Then the op￾timization is continued from the previously found local minimum by increasing t…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evaluation of the impact of the spatial resolution in the FDFD simulation on the results. The figure shows the relative error of the electromagnetic objective function of the focusing device and the waveguide coupler as shown in main manuscript depending on the spatia…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: a) - c) Different solutions found for the waveguide cou￾pler which are not completely trivial (e.g. only void) but have little to no influence on the electromagnetic performance. d) shows a device where one of the ingoing waveguides is connected to its outgoing wavegu…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Softplus function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A practical review on promoting connectivity in topology optimization

    physics.app-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A review and practical comparison of five connectivity constraints for topology optimization finds no universal best, with guidance on computational cost, monotonicity, tunability, and consistency.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [44]

    Inverse Design of Nanophotonic Devices with Structural Integrity.ACS Photonics, 7(8):2190–2196, August 2020

    Yannick Augenstein and Carsten Rockstuhl. Inverse Design of Nanophotonic Devices with Structural Integrity.ACS Photonics, 7(8):2190–2196, August 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [1]

    Three-dimensional optical laser lithography beyond the diffraction limit.Laser & Photonics Reviews, 7(1):22–44, 2013

    Joachim Fischer and Martin Wegener. Three-dimensional optical laser lithography beyond the diffraction limit.Laser & Photonics Reviews, 7(1):22–44, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [2]

    3D Laser Micro- and Nanoprinting: Chal- lenges for Chemistry.Angewandte Chemie International Edi- tion, 56(50):15828–15845, 2017

    Christopher Barner-Kowollik, Martin Bastmeyer, Eva Blasco, Guillaume Delaittre, Patrick Müller, Benjamin Richter, and Martin Wegener. 3D Laser Micro- and Nanoprinting: Chal- lenges for Chemistry.Angewandte Chemie International Edi- tion, 56(50):15828–15845, 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [3]

    Rapid assembly of small materials building blocks (voxels) into large functional 3d metamaterials.Advanced Functional Materials, 30(26):1907795, 2020

    Vincent Hahn, Pascal Kiefer, Tobias Frenzel, Jingyuan Qu, Eva Blasco, Christopher Barner-Kowollik, and Martin We- gener. Rapid assembly of small materials building blocks (voxels) into large functional 3d metamaterials.Advanced Functional Materials, 30(26):1907795, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    A multi-photon (7× 7)-focus 3D laser printer based on a 3D-printed diffractive optical element and a 3D-printed multi-lens array.Light: Advanced Manufacturing, 4(1):28–41, 2024

    Pascal Kiefer, Vincent Hahn, Sebastian Kalt, Qing Sun, Yolita M Eggeler, and Martin Wegener. A multi-photon (7× 7)-focus 3D laser printer based on a 3D-printed diffractive optical element and a 3D-printed multi-lens array.Light: Advanced Manufacturing, 4(1):28–41, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    The physics of 3D printing with light.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(2):99–113, 2024

    Paul Somers, Alexander Münchinger, Shoji Maruo, Christophe Moser, Xianfan Xu, and Martin Wegener. The physics of 3D printing with light.Nature Reviews Physics, 6(2):99–113, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Gehring, M

    H. Gehring, M. Blaicher, W. Hartmann, P. Varytis, K. Busch, M. Wegener, and W. H. P. Pernice. Low-loss fiber-to-chip couplers with ultrawide optical bandwidth.APL Photonics, 4(1):010801, January 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Richards, Paul V

    Leander Siegle, Dajie Xie, Corey A. Richards, Paul V. Braun, and Harald Giessen. Diffractive microoptics in porous silicon oxide by grayscale lithography.Optics Express, 32(20):35678–35688, September 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Marathe, Lei Xiang, Rouyan Chen, Rodney Kirk, Joanne T

    Pavel Ruchka, Alok Kushwaha, Jessica A. Marathe, Lei Xiang, Rouyan Chen, Rodney Kirk, Joanne T. M. Tan, Christina A. Bursill, Johan Verjans, Simon Thiele, Robert Fitridge, Robert A. McLaughlin, Peter J. Psaltis, Harald Giessen, and Jiawen Li. 3D-printed axicon enables extended...

    2024

  2. [9]

    3D direct laser writing of highly absorptive photoresist for miniature optical apertures.Advanced Functional Materials, 33(39):2211159, 2023

    Michael D Schmid, Andrea Toulouse, Simon Thiele, Si- mon Mangold, Alois M Herkommer, and Harald Giessen. 3D direct laser writing of highly absorptive photoresist for miniature optical apertures.Advanced Functional Materials, 33(39):2211159, 2023

    2023

  3. [10]

    Cross-shaped resonators for BICs in mid-IR fabricated using multiphoton lithography

    S Papamakarios, I Katsantonis, M Kafesaki, KL Tsak- makidis, and M Farsari. Cross-shaped resonators for BICs in mid-IR fabricated using multiphoton lithography. In2024 Eighteenth International Congress on Artificial Materials for Novel Wave Phenomena (Metamaterials), pages 1–3...

    2024

  4. [11]

    Poly- meric optical metasurfaces by two-photon lithography: Prac- tical designs for beam steering

    O Tsilipakos, G Perrakis, M Farsari, and M Kafesaki. Poly- meric optical metasurfaces by two-photon lithography: Prac- tical designs for beam steering. In2024 Eighteenth Inter- national Congress on Artificial Materials for Novel Wave Phenomena (Metamaterials), pages 1–3. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    Koulouklidis, Maria Manousidaki, Gordon Zyla, Christina Daskalaki, Stelios Tzortzakis, Maria Kafesaki, and Maria Farsari

    Savvas Papamakarios, Odysseas Tsilipakos, Ioannis Kat- santonis, Anastasios D. Koulouklidis, Maria Manousidaki, Gordon Zyla, Christina Daskalaki, Stelios Tzortzakis, Maria Kafesaki, and Maria Farsari. Cactus-like metamaterial struc- tures for electromagnetically induced transp...

    2024

  6. [13]

    Ferreira, Matthias Zeisberger, and Markus A

    Diana Pereira, Marta S. Ferreira, Matthias Zeisberger, and Markus A. Schmidt. Spatially controlled phase modulation - selective higher-order mode excitation in 3D nanoprinted on- Chip hollow-core waveguides.ACS Photonics, 11(8):3178– 3186, 2024

    2024

  7. [14]

    Bauer, C

    J. Bauer, C. Crook, and T. Baldacchini. A sinterless, low- temperature route to 3D print nanoscale optical-grade glass. Science, 380(6648):960–966, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Free-standing microscale photonic lantern spatial mode (De-) multiplexer fabricated using 3D nanoprinting

    Yoav Dana, Yehudit Garcia, Aleksei Kukin, Lauren Dal- lachiesa, Sterenn Guerrier, Nicolas K Fontaine, and Dan M Marom. Free-standing microscale photonic lantern spatial mode (De-) multiplexer fabricated using 3D nanoprinting. Light: Science & Applications, 13(1):126, 2024

    2024

  9. [16]

    3D laser nanoprinting of functional mate- rials

    Shao-Feng Liu, Zheng-Wei Hou, Linhan Lin, Zhengcao Li, and Hong-Bo Sun. 3D laser nanoprinting of functional mate- rials. Advanced Functional Materials, 33(39):2211280, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Inverse-designed 3D laser nanoprinted phase masks to extend the depth of field of imaging systems

    Thomas Jebb Sturges, Markus Nyman, Sebastian Kalt, Kauri Pälsi, Panu Hilden, Martin Wegener, Carsten Rockstuhl, and Andriy Shevchenko. Inverse-designed 3D laser nanoprinted phase masks to extend the depth of field of imaging systems. ACS Photonics, 11(9):3765–3773, 2024

    2024

  11. [18]

    Ring- in-ring beam shaping based on a 3D nanoprinted microlens on fiber tip

    Chenyang Su, Dejun Liu, Zhuorong Li, Yalong Tai, Ziyi Huang, Weijia Bao, Yiping Wang, and Changrui Liao. Ring- in-ring beam shaping based on a 3D nanoprinted microlens on fiber tip. In2024 14th International Symposium on Com- munication Systems, Networks and Digital Signal Pro...

    2024

  12. [19]

    Spiegel, and Eva Blasco

    Philipp Mainik, Christoph A. Spiegel, and Eva Blasco. Recent advances in multi-photon 3D laser printing: Ac- tive materials and applications.Advanced Materials, 36(11):2310100, 2024

    2024

  13. [20]

    Maier, and Markus A

    Johannes Bürger, Jisoo Kim, Thomas Weiss, Stefan A. Maier, and Markus A. Schmidt. On-chip twisted hollow-core light cages: Enhancing planar photonics with 3D nanoprint- ing, 2024

    2024

  14. [21]

    Hao Wang, Cheng-Feng Pan, Chi Li, Kishan S Menghra- jani, Markus A Schmidt, Aoling Li, Fu Fan, Yu Zhou, Wang Zhang, Hongtao Wang, et al. Two-photon polymerization 12 Oliver Kuster, Yannick Augenstein, Roberto Narváez Hernández, Carsten Rockstuhl, and Thomas Jebb Sturges, Inver...

    2024

  15. [22]

    Fully printed electrolyte- gated transistor formed in a 3D polymer reservoir with laser printed drain/source electrodes.Advanced Materials Tech- nologies, 8(22):2300893, 2023

    Gabriel Cadilha Marques, Liang Yang, Yan Liu, Vanessa Wollersen, Torsten Scherer, Ben Breitung, Martin Wegener, and Jasmin Aghassi-Hagmann. Fully printed electrolyte- gated transistor formed in a 3D polymer reservoir with laser printed drain/source electrodes.Advanced Material...

    2023

  16. [23]

    Multi-photon 3d laser micro-printed plastic scintillators for applications in low-energy particle physics

    Jannis Weinacker, Sebastian Kalt, Anton Huber, Nathanael Gutknecht, Jonathan Ludwig Günter Schneider, Niclas Max- imilian Bojanowski, Tom Geigle, Markus Steidl, and Mar- tin Wegener. Multi-photon 3d laser micro-printed plastic scintillators for applications in low-energy parti...

    2024

  17. [24]

    Christiansen and Ole Sigmund

    Rasmus E. Christiansen and Ole Sigmund. Inverse design in photonics by topology optimization: Tutorial.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 38(2):496, February 2021

    2021

  18. [25]

    Piggott, Weiliang Jin, Jelena Vucković, and Alejandro W

    Sean Molesky, Zin Lin, Alexander Y. Piggott, Weiliang Jin, Jelena Vucković, and Alejandro W. Rodriguez. Inverse de- sign in nanophotonics.Nature Photonics, 12(11):659–670, November 2018

    2018

  19. [26]

    Inverse design meets nanopho- tonics: From computational optimization to artificial neural network

    Jaebum Noh, Trevon Badloe, Chihun Lee, Jooyeong Yun, Sunae So, and Junsuk Rho. Inverse design meets nanopho- tonics: From computational optimization to artificial neural network. Intelligent Nanotechnology, pages 3–32, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Deep learning enabled inverse design in nanophotonics

    Sunae So, Trevon Badloe, Jaebum Noh, Jorge Bravo-Abad, and Junsuk Rho. Deep learning enabled inverse design in nanophotonics. Nanophotonics, 9(5):1041–1057, 2020

    2020

  21. [28]

    Deep learning in nano-photonics: inverse design and beyond.Photonics Research, 9(5):B182–B200, 2021

    Peter R Wiecha, Arnaud Arbouet, Christian Girard, and Otto L Muskens. Deep learning in nano-photonics: inverse design and beyond.Photonics Research, 9(5):B182–B200, 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    Radford, Peter R

    Thomas W. Radford, Peter R. Wiecha, Alberto Politi, Ioan- nis Zeimpekis, and Otto L. Muskens. Inverse design of uni- tary transmission matrices in silicon photonic coupled waveg- uide arrays using a neural adjoint model, 2024

    2024

  23. [30]

    Muskens, C

    Peng Dai, Kai Sun, Otto L. Muskens, C. H. de Groot, and Ruomeng Huang. Inverse design of a vanadium dioxide based dynamic structural color via conditional generative adversar- ial networks.Opt. Mater. Express, 12(10):3970–3981, Oct 2022

    2022

  24. [31]

    Data-driven design for metamateri- als and multiscale systems: A review.Advanced Materials, 36(8):2305254, 2024

    Doksoo Lee, Wei (Wayne) Chen, Liwei Wang, Yu-Chin Chan, and Wei Chen. Data-driven design for metamateri- als and multiscale systems: A review.Advanced Materials, 36(8):2305254, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    Deep generative modeling and inverse design of manufac- turable free-form dielectric metasurfaces.ACS Photonics, 10(4):875–883, 2023

    Ibrahim Tanriover, Doksoo Lee, Wei Chen, and Koray Aydin. Deep generative modeling and inverse design of manufac- turable free-form dielectric metasurfaces.ACS Photonics, 10(4):875–883, 2023

    2023

  26. [33]

    Jensen and O

    J.s. Jensen and O. Sigmund. Topology optimization for nano-photonics. Laser & Photonics Reviews, 5(2):308–321, 2011

    2011

  27. [34]

    Bendsøe and Ole Sigmund

    Martin P. Bendsøe and Ole Sigmund. Bibliographical notes. In Martin P. Bendsøe and Ole Sigmund, editors,Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications, pages 305–318. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004

    2004

  28. [35]

    Inverse design and demonstration of broadband grating cou- plers

    Neil V Sapra, Dries Vercruysse, Logan Su, Ki Youl Yang, Jinhie Skarda, Alexander Y Piggott, and Jelena Vučković. Inverse design and demonstration of broadband grating cou- plers. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electron- ics, 25(3):1–7, 2019

    2019

  29. [36]

    Multiscale topology optimization of electromag- netic metamaterials using a high-contrast homogenization method

    Naoki Murai, Yuki Noguchi, Kei Matsushima, and Takayuki Yamada. Multiscale topology optimization of electromag- netic metamaterials using a high-contrast homogenization method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engi- neering, 403:115728, January 2023

    2023

  30. [37]

    Piggott, Jesse Lu, Konstantinos G

    Alexander Y. Piggott, Jesse Lu, Konstantinos G. Lagoudakis, Jan Petykiewicz, Thomas M. Babinec, and Jelena Vučković. Inverse design and demonstration of a compact and broad- band on-chip wavelength demultiplexer.Nature Photonics, 9(6):374–377, June 2015

    2015

  31. [38]

    Exploring the fundamental limits of integrated beam splitters with arbitrary phase via topology optimization.Opt

    Abhishek Nanda, Michael Kues, and Antonio Calà Lesina. Exploring the fundamental limits of integrated beam splitters with arbitrary phase via topology optimization.Opt. Lett., 49(5):1125–1128, March 2024

    2024

  32. [39]

    Topology optimization of dispersive plasmonic nanostructures in the time-domain

    Emadeldeen Hassan and Antonio Calà Lesina. Topology optimization of dispersive plasmonic nanostructures in the time-domain. Opt. Express, 30(11):19557–19572, May 2022

    2022

  33. [40]

    Time-domain topology optimiza- tion of power dissipation in dispersive dielectric and plas- monic nanostructures.IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, January 2025

    Johannes Gedeon, Izzatjon Allayarov, Antonio Calà Lesina, and Emadeldeen Hassan. Time-domain topology optimiza- tion of power dissipation in dispersive dielectric and plas- monic nanostructures.IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, January 2025

    2025

  34. [41]

    Inverse design of mie resonators with minimal backscatter- ing, 2024

    Vladimir Igoshin, Alexey Kokhanovskiy, and Mihail Petrov. Inverse design of mie resonators with minimal backscatter- ing, 2024

    2024

  35. [42]

    V. D. Igoshin, A. Y. Kokhanovskiy, and M. I. Petrov. Inverse design of stacked cylinders scatterers by evolutionary opti- mization. In2024 Photonics & Electromagnetics Research Symposium (PIERS), pages 1–5, 2024

    2024

  36. [43]

    Inverse design of compact multimode cavity couplers.Optics express, 26(20):26713–26721, 2018

    Weiliang Jin, Sean Molesky, Zin Lin, Kai-Mei C Fu, and Ale- jandro W Rodriguez. Inverse design of compact multimode cavity couplers.Optics express, 26(20):26713–26721, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Engineering optical forces through Maxwell stress tensor inverse design, 2024

    Beñat Martinez de Aguirre Jokisch, Rasmus Ellebæk Chris- tiansen, and Ole Sigmund. Engineering optical forces through Maxwell stress tensor inverse design, 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Topology optimization framework for designing efficient thermo-optical phase shifters.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 41(2):A18–A31, 2024

    Beñat Martinez de Aguirre Jokisch, Rasmus Ellebæk Chris- tiansen, and Ole Sigmund. Topology optimization framework for designing efficient thermo-optical phase shifters.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 41(2):A18–A31, 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Inverse design of optical mode con- verters by topology optimization: Tutorial.Journal of Optics, 25(8):083501, 2023

    Rasmus E Christiansen. Inverse design of optical mode con- verters by topology optimization: Tutorial.Journal of Optics, 25(8):083501, 2023

    2023

  40. [48]

    Structural topology optimization considering connectivity constraint

    Quhao Li, Wenjiong Chen, Shutian Liu, and Liyong Tong. Structural topology optimization considering connectivity constraint. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 54(4):971–984, October 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Jan-david-fischbach/jaxwell, August 2024

    Jan David Fischbach. Jan-david-fischbach/jaxwell, August 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    Schubert, Alfred K

    Martin F. Schubert, Alfred K. C. Cheung, Ian A. D. Williamson, Aleksandra Spyra, and David H. Alexander. Inverse Design of Photonic Devices with Strict Foundry Fab- rication Constraints.ACS Photonics, 9(7):2327–2336, July 2022

    2022

  43. [51]

    Lalau-Keraly, Samarth Bhargava, Owen D

    Christopher M. Lalau-Keraly, Samarth Bhargava, Owen D. Miller, and Eli Yablonovitch. Adjoint shape optimiza- OliverKuster,YannickAugenstein,RobertoNarváezHernández,CarstenRockstuhl,andThomasJebbSturges,InverseDesignof3DNanophotonicDeviceswithStructuralIntegrityusingAuxiliaryTh...

    2013

  44. [52]

    M. P. Bendsøe. Optimal shape design as a material dis- tribution problem.Structural optimization, 1(4):193–202, December 1989

    1989

  45. [53]

    Topology optimization ap- proaches

    Ole Sigmund and Kurt Maute. Topology optimization ap- proaches. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 48(6):1031–1055, December 2013

    2013

  46. [54]

    Lazarov, Fengwen Wang, and Ole Sigmund

    Mingdong Zhou, Boyan S. Lazarov, Fengwen Wang, and Ole Sigmund. Minimum length scale in topology optimization by geometric constraints.Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 293:266–282, August 2015

    2015

  47. [55]

    On projection methods, convergence and robust formulations in topology optimization.Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 43(6):767–784, June 2011

    Fengwen Wang, Boyan Stefanov Lazarov, and Ole Sigmund. On projection methods, convergence and robust formulations in topology optimization.Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 43(6):767–784, June 2011

    2011

  48. [56]

    Optimizing the trajectories of freeform waveguides using a modal theory

    Maria Paszkiewicz-Idzik, Mariia Sukhova, Willy Dörfler, and Carsten Rockstuhl. Optimizing the trajectories of freeform waveguides using a modal theory. In Daniel G. Smith and Andreas Erdmann, editors,Computational Optics 2024, volume PC13023, page PC1302305. SPIE / Internation...

    2024

  49. [57]

    _x/y". Then we have simulations for the

    Sabaina Irfan, Jae-Yong Kim, and Hamza Kurt. Ultra- compact and efficient photonic waveguide bends with dif- ferent configurations designed by topology optimization. Scientific Reports, 14(1):6453, 2024. Nanophotonics 2025; aop Research Article Oliver Kuster*, Yannick Augenste...

    2024

Pith tools

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