pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.13110 · v3 · submitted 2025-10-15 · ⚛️ physics.optics · nlin.AO· quant-ph

Breaking On/Off-coupling Loss Degeneracies via Bidirectional Nonlinear Optics

Bo-Han Wu , Mahmoud Jalali Mehrabad , Mengjie Yu , Dirk Englund This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 07:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics nlin.AOquant-ph
keywords nonlinear opticscoupling efficiencyphotonic integrated circuitsbidirectional tomographymetrologyefficiency calibrationon-chip performance
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Bidirectional nonlinear optical tomography separates input and output coupling efficiencies that linear methods recover only as a product.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper seeks to show that standard linear transmission calibration yields only the product of input and output coupling efficiencies, which systematically biases estimates of on-chip nonlinear performance. Bidirectional nonlinear optical tomography addresses this by pumping complementary nonlinear processes in both forward and backward directions and solving a joint constrained optimization that includes pump fluctuations and detector noise. Monte Carlo validation demonstrates that the resulting efficiency estimates converge unbiased to ground truth and produce narrower distributions for reconstructed on-chip figures of merit. This separation matters for reproducible benchmarking in scalable photonic systems where off-chip data must map accurately to on-chip behavior.

Core claim

BNOT uses forward and backward pumping of complementary nonlinear probes with process-appropriate detection to break the degeneracy of η1 η2 and estimate individual interface efficiencies with tight confidence intervals. The approach links off-chip measurements to on-chip quantities through a compact observation model that incorporates pump fluctuations and detector noise, framing the extraction as a joint constrained optimization. Monte Carlo studies confirm unbiased convergence of the estimated efficiencies to ground truth with low error, and the resulting on-chip nonlinear figures of merit show distributions centered on true values with reduced variance compared to conventional degenerate

What carries the argument

Bidirectional nonlinear optical tomography (BNOT), a direction-aware metrology that pumps complementary nonlinear processes forward and backward to resolve separate interface efficiencies via constrained optimization.

If this is right

  • Individual coupling efficiencies are recovered with tight confidence intervals instead of only their product.
  • Reconstructed on-chip nonlinear figures of merit converge unbiased to ground truth with lower variance.
  • The method applies across different nonlinear processes and photonic platforms without hardware changes.
  • Reproducible, coupling-resolved benchmarking becomes possible for quantum optics and frequency-conversion circuits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same bidirectional data could be reused to track time-varying drifts in individual interface losses during operation.
  • Extending the optimization to multi-port devices would map loss at every facet rather than only the two ends.
  • Platform-agnostic calibration of this form may reduce the spread in reported on-chip efficiencies across different fabrication runs.

Load-bearing premise

The compact observation model that incorporates pump fluctuations and detector noise is complete and accurate enough for the joint constrained optimization to recover the true individual efficiencies without residual mismatch.

What would settle it

Independent experimental measurements of η1 and η2 obtained by a separate calibration technique that agree or disagree with the BNOT estimates within the reported confidence intervals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13110 by Bo-Han Wu, Dirk Englund, Mahmoud Jalali Mehrabad, Mengjie Yu.

Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Efficiency thresholds for squeezing 0 0 0 0.5 1 0 20 10 15 dB SON 15 dB (dB) (a) (b) η(2ω) 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate evaluation of nonlinear photonic integrated circuits requires separating input and output coupling efficiencies (i.e., $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$), yet the conventional linear-transmission calibration method recovers only their product (i.e., $\eta_1\,\eta_2$) and therefore introduces systematic bias when inferring on-chip performance from off-chip data. We present bidirectional nonlinear optical tomography (BNOT), a direction-aware metrology that uses forward and backward pumping of complementary nonlinear probes, with process-appropriate detection, to break the ``degeneracy'' of $\eta_1\,\eta_2$ and estimate individual interface efficiencies with tight confidence intervals. The method links off-chip measurements to on-chip quantities through a compact observation model that explicitly incorporates pump fluctuations and detector noise, and it frames efficiency extraction as a joint constrained optimization. Monte Carlo studies show unbiased convergence of the estimated efficiencies to ground truth with low error across realistic operating regimes. Using these efficiency estimates to reconstruct on-chip nonlinear figures of merit yields distributions centered on the true values with reduced variance, whereas conventional ``degenerate'' calibration is biased and can substantially misestimate on-chip performance. BNOT is hardware-compatible and platform-agnostic, and provides unbiased characterization of off- and on-chip coupling efficiencies across nonlinear processes, enabling reproducible, coupling-resolved benchmarking for scalable systems in quantum optics, frequency conversion, and precision metrology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces bidirectional nonlinear optical tomography (BNOT) as a direction-aware metrology technique to break the degeneracy of the product η1 η2 and recover individual input/output coupling efficiencies in nonlinear photonic integrated circuits. It employs forward and backward pumping of complementary nonlinear probes, incorporates pump fluctuations and detector noise into a compact observation model, and frames efficiency extraction as a joint constrained optimization. Monte Carlo studies are used to demonstrate unbiased convergence to ground truth, low error across regimes, and reduced-variance reconstruction of on-chip nonlinear figures of merit relative to conventional degenerate calibration.

Significance. If the central claims hold, BNOT would provide a practical, platform-agnostic route to coupling-resolved characterization that reduces systematic bias in inferring on-chip performance from off-chip data. This addresses a recurring metrology bottleneck in quantum optics, frequency conversion, and precision metrology. The Monte Carlo validation with unbiased convergence and variance reduction constitutes a clear methodological strength that supports reproducibility claims within the simulated setting.

major comments (2)
  1. [Monte Carlo validation and observation-model description] The manuscript presents only Monte Carlo studies and does not include real experimental data, measured error bars, or the explicit full observation-model equations; this leaves the practical applicability and robustness against unmodeled effects unverified beyond the assumed generative model.
  2. [Compact observation model and constrained optimization] The observation model assumes forward and backward processes are exactly complementary once pump fluctuations and detector noise are included; any directional asymmetry (e.g., wavelength-dependent scattering or coupling drift differing by propagation direction) would shift the optimization minimum away from true efficiencies while still yielding apparently tight Monte Carlo intervals under the model.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Clarify the precise definition of the constrained optimization objective and the handling of any additional free parameters introduced by the bidirectional framing.
  2. [Monte Carlo studies] Add explicit statements on the range of pump-power fluctuations and detector-noise levels explored in the Monte Carlo ensemble.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript presents only Monte Carlo studies and does not include real experimental data, measured error bars, or the explicit full observation-model equations; this leaves the practical applicability and robustness against unmodeled effects unverified beyond the assumed generative model.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the manuscript relies on Monte Carlo simulations for validation rather than experimental data. This approach was chosen to rigorously test the method under controlled conditions with known ground truth. To address the lack of explicit equations, we have expanded the Methods section to include the full observation model equations. We agree that experimental validation is important for practical applicability and have added a discussion on how the method can be implemented experimentally, including considerations for measured error bars. Robustness to unmodeled effects is indeed a point for future work, but the current results establish the method's performance within the model. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The observation model assumes forward and backward processes are exactly complementary once pump fluctuations and detector noise are included; any directional asymmetry (e.g., wavelength-dependent scattering or coupling drift differing by propagation direction) would shift the optimization minimum away from true efficiencies while still yielding apparently tight Monte Carlo intervals under the model.

    Authors: The referee raises an important point regarding potential directional asymmetries not captured by the model. Our observation model does assume complementarity between forward and backward processes, with noise terms accounting for fluctuations. We have revised the manuscript to include a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion section highlighting this assumption and recommending experimental verification of directional symmetry (e.g., via bidirectional linear measurements). While the Monte Carlo results show tight intervals under the model, we explicitly note that unaccounted asymmetries could introduce bias, and suggest model extensions for such cases. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

New bidirectional observation model and constrained optimization are independent of self-cited priors

full rationale

The paper introduces a compact observation model that explicitly incorporates pump fluctuations and detector noise, then frames efficiency extraction as a joint constrained optimization over forward and backward nonlinear measurements. This construction does not reduce by its own equations to a previously fitted product η1η2 or to any self-cited result; the Monte Carlo validation is presented as external numerical evidence rather than a tautology. Any self-citations to prior nonlinear-optics work are peripheral and do not carry the load of the central claim that bidirectional probing breaks the degeneracy. The derivation therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard metrology assumptions about noise statistics and the existence of complementary nonlinear processes; no new physical entities are postulated and no free parameters are explicitly fitted beyond the optimization itself.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Forward and backward pumping of complementary nonlinear probes can be performed independently without introducing direction-dependent instabilities or additional loss channels.
    Required for the bidirectional measurements to isolate η1 and η2 separately.
  • domain assumption The compact observation model that includes pump fluctuations and detector noise is an adequate description of the physical system.
    Invoked when framing efficiency extraction as joint constrained optimization.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5790 in / 1443 out tokens · 37191 ms · 2026-05-18T07:06:39.149793+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    BNOT ... uses forward and backward pumping of complementary nonlinear probes ... to break the 'degeneracy' of η1 η2 and estimate individual interface efficiencies ... frames efficiency extraction as a joint constrained optimization.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/BranchSelection.lean branch_selection unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    The off-chip squeezing level ... and SHG efficiency ... expressed as SOFF(x1,x2) and EOFF(x1,x2) ... optimization: argmin e²sqz + e²shg

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Second-harmonic generation In the SHG process, the pump field at frequencyωis treated as a strong, undepleted classical drive such that ⟨ˆaω⟩ ≈A ω remains constant along the waveguide and the non-linear coupling strength of SHG is gSHG = 2ωd eff n2ω c s ℏωS 2ω ϵ0 S 2ω L , whered eff=2d 33/πis the effective nonlinear coefficient under quasi-phase-matching,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    r 2 ˆa2 ω Z L 0 dz ei∆k z ! −ˆa†2 ω Z L 0 dz e−i∆k z !!# =exp

    Squeezed light Squeezed-light generation in the PPLN waveguide arises from the SPDC process in which the 2ωpump is converted into photon pairs atω. Under strong pumping, the 2ωmode is treated as a classical undepleted drive, ⟨ˆa2ω⟩ ≈A 2ω, which leads to dˆaω dz =r e −i∆kz − Γω 2 ˆaω + p Γω ˆvω,(A9) wherer≡g SQZ A2ω Ldenotes the on-chip squeezing level, co...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Monte Carlo simulation parameters of the PPLN waveguide in squeezing and SHG processes

    nonlinear coefficient L1 mm Poling length of PPLN ω193 THz Pumping frequency (or 2ω) (or 386 THz) at 1550 nm (or 775 nm) nω 2.14 Refractive index of LiN (orn 2ω) (or 2.2) atω(or 2ω) Sω 1µm 2 Mode area of the field (orS 2ω) (or 0.8µm 2) in PPLN waveguide Γω 5 dB/m [53] Propagation loss (orΓ 2ω) (or 10 dB/m) σsqz 0.1 dB Squeezing (or SHG) (orσ shg) (or 20 %...

    work page

  4. [4]

    R. W. Boyd, A. L. Gaeta, and E. Giese, inSpringer Handbook of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics (Springer, 2008) pp. 1097–1110

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Leuthold, C

    J. Leuthold, C. Koos, and W. Freude, Nature Photonics4, 535 (2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Nehra, R

    R. Nehra, R. Sekine, L. Ledezma, Q. Guo, R. M. Gray, A. Roy, and A. Marandi, Science377, 1333 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Williams, R

    J. Williams, R. Nehra, E. Sendonaris, L. Ledezma, R. M. Gray, R. Sekine, and A. Marandi, Nanophotonics13, 3535 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    P.-K. Chen, I. Briggs, S. Hou, and L. Fan, Optics Letters 47, 1506 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Shen, P.-Y

    Y . Shen, P.-Y . Hsieh, S. K. Sridhar, S. Feldman, Y .-C. Chang, T. A. Smith, and A. Dutt, Optica12, 302 (2025)

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Aghaee Rad, T

    H. Aghaee Rad, T. Ainsworth, R. Alexander, B. Al- tieri, M. Askarani, R. Baby, L. Banchi, B. Baragiola, J. Bourassa, R. Chadwick,et al., Nature638, 912 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Y . Pang, J. E. Castro, T. J. Steiner, L. Duan, N. Tagliavac- che, M. Borghi, L. Thiel, N. Lewis, J. E. Bowers, M. Lis- cidini,et al., PRX Quantum6, 010338 (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Shen, P.-Y

    Y . Shen, P.-Y . Hsieh, D. Srinivasan, A. Henry, G. Moille, S. K. Sridhar, A. Restelli, Y .-C. Chang, K. Srinivasan, T. A. Smith,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.03734 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    A. Dutt, K. Luke, S. Manipatruni, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussen- zveig, and M. Lipson, Physical Review Applied3, 044005 (2015)

    work page 2015

  14. [14]

    Z. Yang, M. Jahanbozorgi, D. Jeong, S. Sun, O. Pfis- ter, H. Lee, and X. Yi, Nature Communications12, 4781 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    S. Liu, K. Zhou, Y . Zhang, A. Hariri, N. Reynolds, B.- H. Wu, and Z. Zhang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10445 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    S. Liu, M. W. Puckett, J. Wu, A. Hariri, . T. . Y . Zhang, A.-R. Al-Hallak, R. Yusuf, and Z. Zhang, Optics Letters 50, 5775 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    X. Lu, G. Moille, A. Rao, D. A. Westly, and K. Srinivasan, Nature Photonics15, 131 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    M. J. Mehrabad, L. Xu, G. Moille, C. J. Flower, S. Sarkar, A. Padhye, S.-C. Ou, D. G. Suárez-Forero, M. Ghafariasl, Y . Chembo,et al., Science390, 612 (2025)

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    D. J. Dean, T. Park, H. S. Stokowski, L. Qi, S. Robison, A. Y . Hwang, J. Herrmann, M. M. Fejer, and A. H. Safavi- Naeini, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.26425 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    F. Yang, J. Lu, M. Shen, G. Yang, and H. X. Tang, Optica 11, 1050 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Cernansky and A

    R. Cernansky and A. Politi, APL Photonics5(2020)

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    X. Ji, F. A. Barbosa, S. P. Roberts, A. Dutt, J. Cardenas, Y . Okawachi, A. Bryant, A. L. Gaeta, and M. Lipson, Op- tica4, 619 (2017)

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    T. C. Briles, S.-P. Yu, T. E. Drake, J. R. Stone, and S. B. Papp, Physical Review Applied14, 014006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    C. J. Flower, M. Jalali Mehrabad, L. Xu, G. Moille, D. G. Suarez-Forero, O. Örsel, G. Bahl, Y . Chembo, K. Srini- vasan, S. Mittal,et al., Science384, 1356 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    L. Xu, M. J. Mehrabad, C. J. Flower, G. Moille, A. Restelli, D. G. Suarez-Forero, Y . Chembo, S. Mit- tal, K. Srinivasan, and M. Hafezi, Science Advances11, eadw7696 (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Kashiwazaki, T

    T. Kashiwazaki, T. Yamashima, K. Enbutsu, T. Kazama, A. Inoue, K. Fukui, M. Endo, T. Umeki, and A. Furusawa, Applied Physics Letters122(2023)

    work page 2023

  27. [27]

    C. Wang, M. Zhang, M. Yu, R. Zhu, H. Hu, and M. Lon- car, Nature communications10, 978 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    M. A. Guidry, D. M. Lukin, K. Y . Yang, and J. Vuˇckovi´c, Optica10, 694 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Fukui, A

    K. Fukui, A. Tomita, A. Okamoto, and K. Fujii, Physical review X8, 021054 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    B.-H. Wu, R. N. Alexander, S. Liu, and Z. Zhang, Physical Review Research2, 023138 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Feldmann, N

    J. Feldmann, N. Youngblood, C. D. Wright, H. Bhaskaran, and W. H. P. Pernice, Nature569, 208 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Mesaritakis, V

    C. Mesaritakis, V . Papataxiarhis, and D. Syvridis, Journal of the Optical Society of America B30, 3048 (2013)

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    Bandyopadhyay, R

    S. Bandyopadhyay, R. Hamerly, and D. Englund, Optica 8, 1247 (2021)

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    Microring Perceptron Sensing for Low-Power Radio-Frequency Detection with Quantum-Compatible Photonic Preprocessing

    B.-H. Wu, S.-Y . Ma, S. K. Vadlamani, H. Choi, and D. En- glund, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16119 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Lomonte, M

    E. Lomonte, M. Stappers, L. Krämer, W. H. Pernice, and F. Lenzini, Scientific Reports14, 4256 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    S. E. Hansen, G. Arregui, A. N. Babar, M. Albrechtsen, B. V . Lahijani, R. E. Christiansen, and S. Stobbe, Optics Express31, 17424 (2023)

    work page 2023

  37. [37]

    W. D. Sacher, T. Barwicz, B. J. Taylor, and J. K. Poon, Optics Express22, 10938 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    Yakar, E

    O. Yakar, E. Nitiss, J. Hu, and C.-S. Brès, Physical Review Letters131, 143802 (2023), see Supplemental Material for comparison of backward and forward SHG conditions

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    C. Wang, C. Langrock, A. Marandi, M. Jankowski, M. Zhang, B. Desiatov, M. M. Fejer, and M. Lonˇcar, Op- tica5, 1438 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Vahlbruch, M

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schn- abel, Physical review letters117, 110801 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Ad- hikari,et al., Nature Photonics7, 613 (2013)

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Larsen, J

    M. Larsen, J. Bourassa, S. Kocsis, J. Tasker, R. Chad- wick, C. González-Arciniegas, J. Hastrup, C. Lopetegui- González, F. Miatto, A. Motamedi,et al., Nature , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini, S. Gröblacher, J. T. Hill, J. Chan, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, Nature500, 185 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    A. Dutt, S. Miller, K. Luke, J. Cardenas, A. L. Gaeta, P. Nussenzveig, and M. Lipson, Optics letters41, 223 (2016)

    work page 2016

  45. [45]

    Zhang, M

    Y . Zhang, M. Menotti, K. Tan, V . Vaidya, D. Mahler, L. Helt, L. Zatti, M. Liscidini, B. Morrison, and Z. Ver- non, Nature communications12, 2233 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    T. Park, H. S. Stokowski, V . Ansari, S. Gyger, K. K. S. Multani, O. T. Celik, A. Y . Hwang, D. J. Dean, F. M. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, M. M. Fejer, and A. H. Safavi- Naeini, Science Advances10, eadl1814 (2024). 9

    work page 2024

  47. [47]

    Zhang, M

    Y . Zhang, M. Menotti, K. Tan, V . D. Vaidya, D. H. Mahler, L. G. Helt, L. Zatti, M. Liscidini, B. Morrison, and Z. Ver- non, Nature Communications12, 10.1038/s41467-021- 22540-2 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-021- 2021

  48. [48]

    M. Zhao, W. Kusolthossakul, and K. Fang, OSA Contin- uum3, 952 (2020)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Kashiwazaki, N

    T. Kashiwazaki, N. Takanashi, T. Yamashima, T. Kazama, K. Enbutsu, R. Kasahara, T. Umeki, and A. Furusawa, APL Photonics5(2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    B. L. Higgins, D. W. Berry, S. D. Bartlett, H. M. Wiseman, and G. J. Pryde, Nature450, 393 (2007)

    work page 2007

  51. [51]

    Wiebe, C

    N. Wiebe, C. Granade, C. Ferrie, and D. G. Cory, Physical Review Letters112, 190501 (2014)

    work page 2014

  52. [52]

    Lumino, E

    A. Lumino, E. Polino, A. S. Rab, G. Milani, N. Spagnolo, N. Wiebe, and F. Sciarrino, Physical Review Applied10, 044033 (2018)

    work page 2018

  53. [53]

    J. Wang, S. Paesani, R. Santagati, S. Knauer, A. A. Gen- tile, N. Wiebe, M. Petruzzella, J. L. O’Brien, J. G. Rarity, A. Laing, and M. G. Thompson, Nature Physics13, 551 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    Zheng, Q

    J. Zheng, Q. Wang, L. Feng, Y . Ding, X. Xu, X. Ren, C. Li, and G. Guo, Physical Review Applied22, 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.22.054011 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevapplied.22.054011 2024

  55. [55]

    P. Ying, H. Tan, J. Zhang, M. He, M. Xu, X. Liu, R. Ge, Y . Zhu, C. Liu, and X. Cai, Optics Letters46, 1478 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Kashiwazaki, T

    T. Kashiwazaki, T. Yamashima, N. Takanashi, A. Inoue, T. Umeki, and A. Furusawa, Applied Physics Letters119 (2021). 10

    work page 2021