Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Sideband-Resolved 4H-SiC Optomechanical Resonators with Interference-Engineered Anchor-Loss Suppression

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First sideband-resolved optomechanical resonators on 4H-SiC are demonstrated, with optical Q above one million and mechanical Q up to 15,100 at room temperature.

desk verdict The sideband-resolved and OMIT results are real and worth citing; the anchor-loss-engineering story is not nailed down by the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26199 v1 pith:QHRB6PUT submitted 2026-07-28 physics.optics

Xirui Gou , William Privratsky , Wenhan Sun , Yuncong Liu , Hamed Abiri , Philip X.-L.Feng , Qing Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords 4H-siliconcarbidecavityoptomechanicssideband-resolvedoptomechanicallyinducedtransparencyanchorlossmicrodiskresonatormechanicalqualityfactorintegratedphotonics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports the first sideband-resolved cavity optomechanical resonators built on the 4H-SiC platform. The devices combine million-level intrinsic optical quality factors, gigahertz-frequency mechanical modes, and room-temperature mechanical quality factors up to 15,100, giving a sideband-resolution factor above seven. The central engineering insight is that anchor loss has a local minimum at a moderate undercut ratio, so high mechanical quality can be achieved without the fragile, aggressive undercutting that usually limits yield. The paper also reports the first observation of optomechanically induced transparency in integrated 4H-SiC, confirming coherent photon–phonon coupling in this material. If correct, this establishes 4H-SiC as a practical, scalable platform for integrated cavity optomechanics.

What carries the argument

The central object is a 4H-SiC on insulator microdisk supporting a whispering-gallery optical mode and a fundamental radial breathing mechanical mode. The mechanism that carries the argument is interference-engineered anchor-loss suppression: finite-element simulations show a local maximum of the anchor-loss-limited mechanical quality factor (Q_anchor) at an undercut ratio around 60%, attributed to destructive interference of laterally propagating elastic waves. This local maximum is what lets the device keep a large pedestal and high mechanical Q simultaneously, and it is probed experimentally by measuring Q_m across multiple timed undercut steps.

What would settle it

Measure the actual undercut width of devices after each etch step using cross-sectional electron microscopy and correlate it with the measured Q_m values; if the Q_m peak occurs at an undercut ratio substantially different from the simulated ~60%, or if vacuum measurements show that surface loss rather than anchor loss sets the room-temperature Q_m, the interference-engineered anchor-loss explanation is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that pedestal-supported 4H-SiC microdisks can operate in the sideband-resolved regime (mechanical frequency exceeding optical cavity linewidth) by exploiting a local minimum in anchor loss versus undercut ratio. Simulated and measured mechanical quality factors show a pronounced peak near 60% undercut, where anchor loss drops by over an order of magnitude. This allows the pedestal to remain relatively large and mechanically robust while achieving Q_m up to 15,100 at 1.587 GHz, an f_m·Q_m product of about 24 THz. The same devices exhibit optical Q_i above 10^6, and a coherent optomechanical interaction is confirmed through a transparency window whose

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the observed non-monotonic mechanical quality factor versus undercut step is actually caused by the simulated anchor-loss peak, but the undercut widths are inferred from timed etches rather than measured directly, and the simulation depends on assumed elastic constants and on anchor loss dominating other dissipation at the peak.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sideband-resolved operation unlocks coherent optomechanical effects in 4H-SiC, including ground-state cooling, optomechanically induced transparency, and coherent wavelength conversion, which were previously out of reach in this material.
  • The anchor-loss engineering strategy removes the need for extreme undercut ratios, so fabrication yield improves from below 20% to a regime where many devices survive; this makes the platform scalable to arrays and integrated photonic circuits.
  • The f_m·Q_m product of roughly 24 THz is among the highest reported for undercut microdisk optomechanical resonators, making the device competitive with optomechanical crystals for both classical and quantum applications.
  • With a Purcell factor estimated above 5000, the same microdisks can enhance emission from embedded 4H-SiC color centers, pointing toward hybrid quantum systems that couple photons, phonons, and spins in one device.
  • The demonstrated optomechanically induced transparency provides a standard, power-tunable tool for measuring optomechanical cooperativity, which can be used to benchmark future improvements in coupling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same undercut-engineering principle may transfer to other pedestal-supported microdisk platforms (e.g., silicon or diamond), where anchor loss also shows non-monotonic behavior, potentially improving yield without sacrificing mechanical Q.
  • If surface losses indeed cap Q_m around 1.5–1.6×10^4, then further gains in mechanical Q would require surface passivation or vacuum operation, not just deeper undercuts; the paper's data suggest this direction implicitly.
  • The measured g0 of about 40 kHz is modest compared to optomechanical crystals, so future work could focus on mode-shape engineering (e.g., slot or phononic shields) to raise single-photon cooperativity while preserving the fabrication-friendly anchor design.
  • A direct testable extension: varying the oxide thickness or disk thickness should shift the undercut ratio at which the Q_anchor peak occurs, allowing a predictive design rule for other wavelengths or mechanical frequencies.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports 4H-SiC microdisk optomechanical resonators that operate in the sideband-resolved regime. The devices combine a compact radius (2.5–2.7 μm) with a designed undercut ratio around 60%, near a simulated local maximum of the anchor-loss-limited mechanical quality factor. Measured intrinsic optical Q exceeds 1×10^6, the fundamental radial breathing mode at 1.587 GHz has Q_m = 15,100 (f_m·Q_m ≈ 24 THz), and the sideband-resolution factor exceeds 7. The authors observe optomechanically induced transparency (OMIT) and extract a cooperativity C ≈ 0.88 at 0.85 mW on-chip power, a single-photon cooperativity C_0 ≈ 3.0×10^-4, and a vacuum coupling rate g_0/2π ≈ 40 kHz, consistent with their prior phonon-lasing results. They claim the first sideband-resolved 4H-SiC optomechanical resonator and the first OMIT observation in integrated 4H-SiC.

Significance. The optical and OMIT measurements are direct and internally consistent: the two independent OMIT extraction routes (Eqs. S2 and S4) agree with each other, and the extracted C is corroborated by the theoretical estimate. The sideband-resolution factor, the f_m·Q_m product, and the room-temperature demonstration place 4H-SiC microdisks among competitive integrated optomechanical platforms. The central engineering claim, however, is weaker than the abstract suggests: the measured Q_m is an order of magnitude below the simulated anchor-loss peak, and the authors themselves state in SI Sec. 2 that surface-related losses likely dominate. The 'interference-engineered anchor-loss suppression' mechanism therefore is not established by the reported measurements.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.5, SI Sec. 2, Fig. 4] The central anchor-loss narrative is not supported by the reported measurements. The simulated Q_anchor peak is ~150k in Fig. 4(a,b), whereas measured Q_m is 15.1–16.4k. SI Sec. 2 reports that a deeply undercut (>85%) device has Q_m = 16.4k, essentially the same; the text itself concludes that 'other dissipation mechanisms, such as surface-related losses, are likely to dominate'. Therefore Fig. 5(c) shows only how anchor loss modulates a surface-loss-limited baseline; it cannot validate the magnitude or the lateral-interference origin of the Q_anchor peak. To substantiate the title/abstract claim, the authors should either isolate the anchor-loss contribution (e.g., by comparing devices with different surface treatments or by extracting Q_anchor from the difference) or substantially soften the claim.
  2. [§2.5, Fig. 5(c)] The experimental undercut axis is inferred from timed BOE etches (1.45→1.72 μm) and optical-microscope monitoring rather than from direct measurement of each device's undercut width. The mapping of the three devices' maximum Q_m onto the simulated Q_anchor peak of Fig. 4(a) depends on this inferred axis, with a reported pedestal-radius tolerance of ±50 nm. If the true undercut differs by more than ~50 nm, or if undercut-dependent surface losses shift the measured maximum, the non-monotonic Q_m data cannot be attributed to anchor loss. Direct imaging (e.g., SEM of cross-sections or cleaved devices) and an uncertainty statement for the undercut widths are needed.
  3. [§2.4, Fig. 4(c)] Fig. 4(c) varies only the oxide thickness and shows that the Q_anchor peak is largely insensitive to it, which rules out a vertical quarter-wave condition. It does not, however, test the lateral-interference hypothesis. The interpretation that the peak arises from destructive interference of laterally propagating elastic waves is an assumption supported only by the FEM model. This is acceptable as a design hypothesis, but the phrase 'interference-engineered' in the title and abstract implies experimental confirmation that is not yet present. The authors should either provide a direct test of the lateral-wave mechanism or rephrase the claim as a simulation-guided design strategy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §2.4] The terminology is inconsistent: the abstract and text refer to a 'local minimum in anchor loss', while Fig. 4(a) shows a local maximum in Q_anchor. Please use a consistent description, e.g., 'local maximum of Q_anchor' or 'local minimum of the anchor-loss rate'.
  2. [Table 1] The footnote indicates that some C_0 and Q_m values were measured under cryogenic or vacuum conditions. The text should explicitly caution readers that a direct comparison of C_0 across different measurement conditions is not meaningful, especially when benchmarking the room-temperature ambient value reported here.
  3. [Fig. 6(d)] The cooperativity is extracted from only four optical powers, with no error bars or fit residuals shown. Please include uncertainties in the extracted C values and, if possible, additional power points to demonstrate the linear C-versus-P_in scaling.
  4. [§2.1, §2.2] Fig. 1(b) assumes a device-layer thickness of 450 nm, but the fabrication process results in a final SiC thickness of approximately 470 nm. Please clarify whether the simulations use 450 or 470 nm, and comment on the sensitivity of Q_rad and RBM frequency to this 20 nm difference.
  5. [SI Sec. 3, Eq. S1] The two-photon detuning Ω is defined, but the sign convention for the probe-pump detuning is not explicitly given. Defining the sign convention and the exact relation Ω = ω_probe − ω_pump − ω_m would help readers reproduce the fit.
  6. [§3, SI Table S1] The agreement between the OMIT-extracted C and C_theory uses g_0 ≈ 40 kHz from Ref. [5], a prior paper by the same group. This is a consistency check rather than an independent confirmation. Please state explicitly that the OMIT fits themselves (Eqs. S2 and S4) do not use g_0, and provide the uncertainty in g_0 from Ref. [5] so the reader can assess the agreement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: measured observables and independent simulations support the claims

full rationale

The paper's central results are direct measurements. Optical Q is extracted from transmission linewidths (Fig. 3); mechanical frequency and Q_m are read from thermal-noise ESA spectra (Fig. 5b); the sideband-resolved ratio and OMIT window follow directly from those spectra. The anchor-loss comparison is not circular: Q_anchor vs undercut ratio is an independent FEM calculation (Fig. 4a), the measured undercut axis is set by timed BOE etches rather than by fitting the Q_m data, and the agreement in Fig. 5(c) is explicitly qualitative. The OMIT cooperativity is extracted by two independent standard formulas, Eq. S2 and Eq. S4, which agree with each other. The only same-group citation is Ref. [5], used as a consistency benchmark for g0/2pi~40 kHz in the SI (Table S1, Eq. S3). This is an internal consistency check and not a derivation of the main claims; moreover it rests on a prior experimental measurement, so it does not constitute a constructional circularity. The SI's own admission that the measured Q_m (~1.5-1.6x10^4) is not anchor-loss limited (SI Sec. 2) weakens the anchor-loss narrative evidentially, but an evidence limitation is not a circular reduction. No load-bearing step equates a prediction to an input by definition.

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

The central claims rest on three classes of input: literature material constants and a linear-elastic FEM model for the anchor-loss peak (the main load-bearing simulation); the standard OMIT model with γ_m and κ measured on the same device; and g0/2π ≈ 40 kHz imported from the authors' own prior phonon-lasing paper [5] for the theoretical cooperativity. No number is fitted globally across devices — Q_m, Q_opt, and OMIT parameters are per-device measurements — so the parameter count is modest for an experimental paper. No new physical entities are introduced; the anchor-loss resonance is a geometric feature of the existing pedestal/oxide/disk system.

free parameters (3)
  • Optical coupling ratio η (= κ_ex/κ) = ≈ 0.031
    Extracted from the optical transmission dip depth; enters the OMIT cooperativity extraction via Eq. S2, so the transparency contrast depends on it.
  • Vacuum optomechanical coupling g0/2π = ≈ 40 kHz (from Ref. [5], prior work by same group)
    Input to C_theory (Eq. S3); not fitted in this paper but inherited from the authors' own phonon-lasing measurement, making the C_theory≈C_est agreement partially self-referential.
  • Undercut width UW (undercut ratio) = 1.45–1.72 μm (~55–70%)
    Estimated from cumulative BOE etch time rather than measured directly; this is the x-axis of the central Q_m-vs-undercut validation (Figs. 5c–e).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linear-elastic FEM correctly computes anchor-loss-limited Q for the suspended microdisk geometry
    Sec. 2.4, Fig. 4a — the entire anchor-loss engineering claim rests on this simulation, with no mesh-convergence data and only qualitative trend agreement with experiments.
  • domain assumption Literature material parameters for 4H-SiC and SiO2 (elastic constants, refractive index n≈2.6) apply to the fabricated films
    Used in all FEM simulations (Figs. 1b–c, 4) and the Purcell estimate (Eq. S5); device-layer thickness 470–630 nm is assumed from etch calibration.
  • standard math Standard cavity-optomechanics OMIT model (Eqs. S1–S4, Refs. [11,29]) is valid for this device
    Sec. 3 / SI Sec. 3 — cooperativity values are extracted by fitting this model; no modification for multi-mode or thermal effects is discussed.
  • ad hoc to paper The Q_anchor peak is caused by destructive interference of laterally propagating elastic waves
    Sec. 2.4 final paragraph — stated as the mechanism ('we attribute...'), supported only by exclusion of the vertical quarter-wave interference (Fig. 4c oxide-thickness insensitivity), not by direct wave-decomposition evidence.
  • standard math Mode assignment by matching measured FSR to FEM eigenmode spectra
    Sec. 2.3 — resonances identified as TE00/TM00 by FSR comparison with simulation; standard practice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sideband-Resolved 4H-SiC Optomechanical Resonators with Interference-Engineered Anchor-Loss Suppression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QHRB6PUT

@misc{pith2026260726199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sideband-Resolved 4H-SiC Optomechanical Resonators with Interference-Engineered Anchor-Loss Suppression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QHRB6PUT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26199}
}
abstract

Sideband-resolved cavity optomechanical resonators provide a powerful platform for coherent photon--phonon interactions, enabling applications ranging from quantum state transduction and optomechanically induced transparency to precision sensing and microwave photonics. Achieving this regime in integrated microresonators, however, requires simultaneously realizing a narrow optical cavity linewidth, a high-frequency mechanical mode, and low mechanical dissipation. Here, we report the first sideband-resolved optomechanical resonators based on the 4H silicon carbide (4H-SiC) platform. By combining compact microdisk geometries with interference-engineered anchor-loss suppression, we simultaneously achieve intrinsic optical quality factors exceeding $1\times10^6$, room-temperature mechanical quality factors up to $1.51\times10^4$, and a sideband-resolution factor greater than seven. Systematic numerical and experimental studies reveal that a local minimum in anchor loss enables high mechanical quality factors without requiring aggressive undercutting, substantially improving fabrication yield and device robustness. We further demonstrate the first observation of optomechanically induced transparency in integrated 4H-SiC resonators, confirming coherent cavity optomechanical interactions in this material platform. These results establish 4H-SiC as a promising platform for integrated cavity optomechanics and provide a practical route toward scalable photon--phonon devices for classical and quantum photonic technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26199 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Sideband-resolved 4H-SiC microdisk optomechanical resonator design. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the experimental setup used to characterize the optical and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Optical characterization of fabricated 4H-SiC microdisk resonators. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Simulation of anchor-loss-limited mechanical quality factor in suspended [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental characterization of anchor-loss suppression in fabricated 4H-SiC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Optomechanically induced transparency (OMIT) measurement. (a) Exper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Cavity optomechanics,

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, “Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391–1452 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,

    A. G. Krause, M. Winger, T. D. Blasius, Q. Lin, and O. Painter, “A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,” Nat. Photonics6, 768–772 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Optomechanical dissipative solitons,

    J. Zhang, B. Peng, S. Kim, F. Monifi, X. Jiang, Y. Li, P. Yu, L. Liu, Y.-x. Liu, A. Alù, and L. Yang, “Optomechanical dissipative solitons,” Nature600, 75–80 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    An integrated low phase noise radiation-pressure-driven optomechanical oscillator chipset,

    X. Luan, Y. Huang, Y. Li, J. F. McMillan, J. Zheng, S.-W. Huang, P.-C. Hsieh, T. Gu, D. Wang, A. Hati, D. A. Howe, G. Wen, M. Yu, G. Lo, D.-L. Kwong, and C. W. Wong, “An integrated low phase noise radiation-pressure-driven optomechanical oscillator chipset,” Sci. Reports4, 6842 (2014)

    2014

  5. [5]

    Chip-Scale Optomechanical Frequency Comb with a 1–70 GHz Span,

    X. Gou, W. Privratsky, W. Sun, Y. Liu, H. Abiri, and Q. Li, “Chip-Scale Optomechanical Frequency Comb with a 1–70 GHz Span,” Nano Lett.25, 17644–17649 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    Optical transduction and routing of microwave phonons in cavity-optomechanical circuits,

    K. Fang, M. H. Matheny, X. Luan, and O. Painter, “Optical transduction and routing of microwave phonons in cavity-optomechanical circuits,” Nat. Photonics10, 489–496 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscillator into its quantum ground state,

    J. Chan, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gröblacher, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, “Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscillator into its quantum ground state,” Nature478, 89–92 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Microwave-to-optics conversion using a mechanical oscillator in its quantum ground state,

    M. Forsch, R. Stockill, A. Wallucks, I. Marinković, C. Gärtner, R. A. Norte, F. van Otten, A. Fiore, K. Srinivasan, and S. Gröblacher, “Microwave-to-optics conversion using a mechanical oscillator in its quantum ground state,” Nat. Phys.16, 69–74 (2020)

    2020

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Purcell-enhanced spin–phonon coupling with a single colour centre,

    G. Joe, M. Haas, K. Kuruma, C. Jin, D. D. Kang, S. W. Ding, C. Chia, H. Warner, B. Pingault, B. Machielse, S. Meesala, and M. Lončar, “Purcell-enhanced spin–phonon coupling with a single colour centre,” Nature653, 378–383 (2026). Table S1. Summary of the key parameters of the2...

    2026

  2. [10]

    Resolved-sideband cooling of a micromechanical oscillator,

    A. Schliesser, R. Rivière, G. Anetsberger, O. Arcizet, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Resolved-sideband cooling of a micromechanical oscillator,” Nat. Phys.4, 415–419 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Electromagnetically induced transparency and slow light with optomechanics,

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini, T. P. M. Alegre, J. Chan, M. Eichenfield, M. Winger, Q. Lin, J. T. Hill, D. E. Chang, and O. Painter, “Electromagnetically induced transparency and slow light with optomechanics,” Nature472, 69–73 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Si3N4 optomechanical crystals in the resolved-sideband regime,

    M. Davanço, S. Ates, Y. Liu, and K. Srinivasan, “Si3N4 optomechanical crystals in the resolved-sideband regime,” Appl. Phys. Lett.104, 041101 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    High-efficiency low-noise optomechanical crystal photon-phonon transducers,

    S. Sonar, U. Hatipoglu, S. Meesala, D. P. Lake, H. Ren, and O. Painter, “High-efficiency low-noise optomechanical crystal photon-phonon transducers,” Optica12, 99–104 (2025)

    2025

  6. [14]

    Optomechanical crystals,

    M. Eichenfield, J. Chan, R. M. Camacho, K. J. Vahala, and O. Painter, “Optomechanical crystals,” Nature462, 78–82 (2009)

    2009

  7. [15]

    Clampedandsideband-resolvedsiliconoptomechanicalcrystals,

    J.Kolvik,P.Burger,J.Frey,andR.V.Laer,“Clampedandsideband-resolvedsiliconoptomechanicalcrystals,”Optica 10, 913–916 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Single-crystal diamond low-dissipation cavity optomechanics,

    M. Mitchell, B. Khanaliloo, D. P. Lake, T. Masuda, J. P. Hadden, and P. E. Barclay, “Single-crystal diamond low-dissipation cavity optomechanics,” Optica3, 963–970 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Diamond optomechanical crystals,

    M. J. Burek, J. D. Cohen, S. M. Meenehan, N. El-Sawah, C. Chia, T. Ruelle, S. Meesala, J. Rochman, H. A. Atikian, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, M. D. Lukin, O. Painter, and M. Lončar, “Diamond optomechanical crystals,” Optica3, 1404–1411 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Lithium niobate piezo-optomechanical crystals,

    W. Jiang, R. N. Patel, F. M. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, C. J. Sarabalis, J. D. Witmer, R. V. Laer, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, “Lithium niobate piezo-optomechanical crystals,” Optica6, 845–853 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Two-dimensional gallium phosphide optomechanical crystal in the resolved-sideband regime,

    S. Tamaki, M. B. Kristensen, T. Martel, R. Braive, and A. Schliesser, “Two-dimensional gallium phosphide optomechanical crystal in the resolved-sideband regime,” Opt. Express32, 48500–48508 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Integrated quantum photonics with silicon carbide: challenges and prospects,

    D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, and J. Vučković, “Integrated quantum photonics with silicon carbide: challenges and prospects,” PRX Quantum1, 020102 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    Electricalandopticalcontrolofsinglespinsintegratedinscalablesemiconductor devices,

    C. P. Anderson, A. Bourassa, K. C. Miao, G. Wolfowicz, P. J. Mintun, A. L. Crook, H. Abe, J. U. Hassan, N. T. Son, T.Ohshima,andD.D.Awschalom,“Electricalandopticalcontrolofsinglespinsintegratedinscalablesemiconductor devices,” Science366, 1225–1230 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator for integrated quantum and nonlinear photonics,

    D. M. Lukin, C. Dory, M. A. Guidry, K. Y. Yang, S. D. Mishra, R. Trivedi, M. Radulaski, S. Sun, D. Vercruysse, G. H. Ahn, and J. Vučković, “4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator for integrated quantum and nonlinear photonics,” Nat. Photonics14, 330–334 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Octave-spanning microcomb generation in 4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator photonics platform,

    L. Cai, J. Li, R. Wang, and Q. Li, “Octave-spanning microcomb generation in 4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator photonics platform,” Photonics Res.10, 870–876 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Ultracompact 4H-silicon carbide optomechanical resonator with f m ·Q m exceeding 1013 Hz,

    Y. Liu, W. Sun, H. Abiri, P. X.-L. Feng, and Q. Li, “Ultracompact 4H-silicon carbide optomechanical resonator with f m ·Q m exceeding 1013 Hz,” Photonics Res.13, 2531–2538 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    High-frequency silicon optomechanical oscillator with an ultralow threshold,

    W. C. Jiang, X. Lu, J. Zhang, and Q. Lin, “High-frequency silicon optomechanical oscillator with an ultralow threshold,” Opt. Express20, 15991–15996 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Directly accessing the single-soliton state of a Kerr microcomb and its universal scaling law [Invited],

    W. Sun, J. Li, R. Wang, and Q. Li, “Directly accessing the single-soliton state of a Kerr microcomb and its universal scaling law [Invited],” Opt. Mater. Express14, 2938–2948 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    High-Q silicon optomechanical microdisk resonators at gigahertz frequencies,

    X. Sun, X. Zhang, and H. X. Tang, “High-Q silicon optomechanical microdisk resonators at gigahertz frequencies,” Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 173116 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Silicon carbide microdisk resonator,

    X. Lu, J. Y. Lee, P. X.-L. Feng, and Q. Lin, “Silicon carbide microdisk resonator,” Opt. Lett.38, 1304–1306 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Optomechanically induced transparency,

    S. Weis, R. Rivière, S. Deléglise, E. Gavartin, O. Arcizet, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Optomechanically induced transparency,” Science330, 1520–1523 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.