Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

SH-SAW Acousto-Electric Amplifier in Epitaxial InGaAs on Lithium Niobate on Insulator

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper demonstrates a compact acoustoelectric amplifier in which a bonded InGaAs film on lithium niobate amplifies one direction of a shear-horizontal surface acoustic wave while attenuating the reverse, achieving a stable 32 dB/mm non-

desk verdict Real fabrication and a useful passivation result, but the 'amplifier' title overclaims: no net gain and no reverse-bias control, so the AE attribution is not yet locked down. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28888 v1 pith:DY6HJOWY submitted 2026-07-30 physics.app-ph cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Chuan Tian , Christopher Heidelberger , Siddhartha Ghosh This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords acoustoelectriceffectsurfaceacousticwaveshear-horizontalSAWlithiumniobateoninsulatorInGaAsnon-reciprocalRFdeviceswaferbondingin-bandfull-duplex
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 tries to establish that a shear-horizontal surface acoustic wave can be amplified—rather than merely delayed or filtered—by drifting electrons in a bonded InGaAs film on a lithium-niobate-on-insulator (LNOI) substrate. The central demonstration is non-reciprocal transmission: with a DC bias on the semiconductor channel, forward-traveling acoustic waves gain energy from the carriers while reverse waves are damped. The authors report a stable passivated-device non-reciprocity of 32 dB/mm at 1.11 GHz (30 V bias, 64 mW consumed), with unpassivated devices reaching 174 dB/mm as upper bounds across 1.1–2.8 GHz. They also show that the mode-dependent electromechanical coupling sets the achievable gain, that unintentional epitaxial doping (~1e17 cm^-3, two orders above target) is the dominant limiter, and that bare InGaAs surface oxidation destroys the response within weeks unless passivated by InP or ALD Al2O3. If correct, this is a compact, low-power path toward non-reciprocal RF components and loss-compensated acoustic delay lines for in-band full-duplex wireless.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the acoustoelectric gain relation (Eq. 1), which extends the classical separated-medium amplifier to a thin semiconductor film separated from a high-K2 piezoelectric by a thin dielectric bonding layer. Gain arises when the carrier drift velocity vd = μE exceeds the acoustic phase velocity va; the numerator scales with frequency ω, conductivity, and electromechanical coupling K2, while the denominator contains a dielectric-relaxation term (1+ω/ωa)^2 that damps gain at high frequency. The same coefficient set is used to convert Hall-measured carrier density and mobility into predicted non-reciprocity, and FEM-simulated K2 values for the three modes are used to compar

What would settle it

Measure the electromechanical coupling of modes I–III directly on an IDT resonator on the same LNOI stack (for example, by admittance fitting or by comparison with a bare-LNOI reference) and compare with Table II; a significant mismatch would change the predicted gain ranking and the doping-limitation conclusion. Alternatively, grow a channel with carrier density near the 3×10^15 cm^-3 design target and check whether non-reciprocity rises toward the model's ~487 dB/mm bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the acoustoelectric effect in an epitaxial InGaAs channel wafer-bonded to X-cut lithium niobate on insulator produces measurable, bias-dependent, mode-dependent non-reciprocity in SH-SAW transmission. The measured S21−S12 contrast follows the K2-plus-frequency trend of the analytical AE gain model: modes with larger simulated electromechanical coupling (fundamental SH-SAW K2≈21.8%, second-order SH-SAW K2≈13.9%) yield far larger non-reciprocity than the longitudinal-leaky mode (K2≈3.94%). Hall-effect characterization of the transferred film gives n≈1e17 cm^-3, μ≈8000 cm^2/V·s; inserting these into the gain formula reproduces the passivated device's 32 d

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the FEM-simulated electromechanical coupling coefficients and the analytical gain model accurately describe this bonded geometry; if either is wrong, the mode ranking and the conclusion that excess doping is the dominant limitation would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Correcting the channel doping toward the 3×10^15 cm^-3 design target should raise fundamental-mode non-reciprocity toward the model's roughly 487 dB/mm ideal bound and lower zero-bias insertion loss.
  • Passivated devices sustain 32 dB/mm at 1.11 GHz at 64 mW, making them viable as compact non-reciprocal elements in in-band full-duplex self-interference-cancellation front ends.
  • Mode engineering—choosing wavelength and mode order to sit in high-K2 regimes—can spread acoustoelectric gain across 1–3 GHz, since the second-order SH-SAW mode shows the largest normalized amplification.
  • Any practical passivation must be co-optimized with gain, because the protecting layer redistributes the piezoelectric field away from the channel even as it prevents oxidation-driven aging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If epitaxial doping can be suppressed, the same platform should cross from non-reciprocal attenuation contrast into net amplification (forward S21 above 0 dB), which would enable loss-compensated delay lines; the paper stops at non-reciprocity values rather than net gain.
  • The identified oxidation-aging mechanism is not platform-specific: any bare III-V channel relying on surface carrier response is vulnerable, so the InP or Al2O3 passivation recipe likely transfers to other acoustoelectric hybrids.
  • The field-confinement role of the buried oxide suggests the dielectric stack itself can be tuned (for example, SiO2 thickness) to trade off K2, confinement, and passivation loss—an extension the paper leaves implicit.
  • Hall-based doping diagnosis could be turned into an in-line process monitor: measuring carrier density on co-located test structures predicts AE gain before full device measurement, accelerating epitaxial process development.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports fabrication and characterization of a shear-horizontal surface-acoustic-wave (SH-SAW) acoustoelectric amplifier built from an epitaxial InGaAs film bonded to X-cut LNOI via an Al2O3-mediated process. The central experimental claim is bias-dependent non-reciprocal transmission: for a 3-μm-wavelength device, the paper reports S21−S12 contrasts of about 160 dB/mm, 19.1 dB/mm, and 174 dB/mm for three acoustic modes in fresh unpassivated devices, and a stable 32 dB/mm fundamental-mode contrast in a passivated device at 30 V bias. The authors attribute the non-reciprocity to acoustoelectric gain, support the mode-dependence with FEM-simulated K2 values inserted into an analytical gain model, use Hall measurements to diagnose an unintentional background doping of ~1e17 cm−3, and identify ambient surface oxidation as a degradation mechanism mitigated by InP or ALD Al2O3 passivation.

Significance. If the central attribution is correct, this is a valuable engineering advance: it demonstrates a wafer-bonded InGaAs/LNOI platform for bias-tunable, non-reciprocal acoustic devices with multi-GHz bandwidth, and it goes beyond a bare demonstration by identifying the dominant material limit (elevated carrier density) with an independent Hall measurement. The mode ordering, the passivation-stability study, and the explicit use of Hall data without free fitting to the AE model are strengths. However, the missing reverse-bias control means the load-bearing claim that the observed S21−S12 asymmetry is acoustoelectric gain is not yet secured; this can be addressed experimentally and is therefore a basis for major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A, Fig. 3] The paper never shows that reversing the DC drift bias reverses the sign of S21−S12. For an acoustoelectric mechanism, reversing VDC must swap the roles of forward and reverse waves, so S21(+V)−S12(+V) should be approximately opposite to S21(−V)−S12(−V) at each mode frequency. The current data show only forward-bias sweeps and a monotonic increase in non-reciprocity. Without this control, the asymmetry could in part be caused by bias-dependent transducer/contact impedance, current-induced heating, or gating of a passive fabrication asymmetry. Please provide zero-bias reciprocal baseline and negative-bias measurements for at least the fundamental mode.
  2. [Table II, §IV-A, Abstract] There is an inconsistency between the abstract, which describes the 174 dB/mm value as an 'upper bound,' and the body text, which states that peak contrasts of approximately 160, 19.1, and 174 dB/mm 'were measured' for modes I, II, and III. The abstract's wording suggests these values are not direct measurements or are corrected upper limits, while Table II labels the same numbers as 'Mea. NR.' Please clarify what was actually measured, what correction or upper-bound interpretation is being applied, and provide uncertainty estimates. This matters because the quantitative headline claims (32 dB/mm and 174 dB/mm) are central to the paper's significance.
  3. [§II Eq. (1), Table II, Fig. 4] The calculated non-reciprocity values used to validate the mode-dependence rely on FEM-simulated K2 values and on the analytical gain expression of Ref. [31], which is by a co-author. The measured values are roughly a factor of 3 below the calculated values for all modes, and the model parameters are not independently measured. This does not by itself invalidate the ranking of modes, but it weakens the claim that the K2–frequency trend is quantitatively validated. Please provide an independent estimate of K2 (e.g., from IDT admittance or resonator measurements) or clearly state that the comparison is only a self-consistent trend check, not a quantitative validation.
  4. [§IV-C] The Hall-based consistency check is described qualitatively as reproducing the measured passivated non-reciprocity 'within an order of magnitude' (32 dB/mm), but the manuscript does not show the calculated value obtained by inserting the Hall n and μ into Eq. (1), nor does it compare this against the unpassivated-mode data. Since the claim that excess doping is the dominant limitation rests on this calculation, please present the explicit numbers, the assumed dielectric thicknesses, and the sensitivity of the result to the uncertainty in Hall n and μ.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II Eq. (2)] The expression for ω_a appears dimensionally incomplete as written: ε_g v_a/ε_ph has units of velocity, not frequency. The dielectric gap thickness h is introduced in the text but does not appear in the formula. Please correct the equation and define all symbols consistently.
  2. [Fig. 3] The frequency- and time-gating procedure is mentioned but no parameters are given. Please specify the gating window, filter type, and how feedthrough and triple-transit contributions were separated, since the reported S21−S12 values are extracted after gating.
  3. [Table I / §IV-C] The Hall measurement assumes a unity Hall factor. Since the extracted n is central to the doping diagnostic, please state the resulting systematic uncertainty or justify the unity assumption for this InGaAs carrier density.
  4. [§I and §IV-C] The manuscript uses 'X-cut LNOI' but does not specify the SAW propagation direction relative to the crystallographic axes. Shear-horizontal coupling and K2 are strongly orientation-dependent on LN; please report the in-plane orientation of the IDTs.
  5. [Table II] No uncertainty bars or statistics are given for the measured non-reciprocity values. A single-device demonstration is reasonable for a first report, but the precision of the 32/160/174 dB/mm numbers should be stated, particularly because they are quoted in the abstract.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrase 'reported as upper bounds' in the abstract is ambiguous and inconsistent with Table II, as noted in the major comments. Please rephrase so the reader knows whether the numbers are measured or corrected upper-limit estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AE-gain consistency check uses independently measured Hall parameters and measured S-parameters, and the paper explicitly labels the model comparison a consistency check rather than a validation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: formulate AE gain with Eq. (1) (taken from Ref. [31]); compute K2 for three modes by FEM simulation; measure S21-S12 under bias; insert Hall-measured n and mu into Eq. (1) and compare to measured non-reciprocity on the same device. None of these steps fits a parameter to the quantity being 'predicted.' The Hall n and mu are measured on co-located test structures, not extracted from the S-parameters; the K2 values are simulated from the geometry, not inferred from the measured gain; and the 'Calculated NR' values in Table II use the design target density (3e15 cm^-3, 8740 cm^2/Vs) and are explicitly called ideal upper bounds. The only model comparison on actual devices is the order-of-magnitude consistency check (32 dB/mm fundamental mode), and the paper explicitly states this 'is a consistency check that identifies excess carrier density as the dominant limitation rather than serving as a numerical validation of the framework.' The self-citation [31] for the gain formulation is not circular: the formula is given explicitly, derives from the classical Kino-Reeder AE theory cited externally, and is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or hidden ansatz. The passivation/aging conclusions are supported by the reversible NH4OH treatment and I-V behavior, independent of the AE model. The absence of a reverse-bias sign-reversal control is a legitimate experimental-design concern about attribution of the non-reciprocity, but it is not a circularity of the derivation. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration rests on a borrowed analytical model, simulated K2 inputs, and Hall data from co-located test structures. No free parameter is fit to the AE non-reciprocity data; the main quantitative uncertainties are the K2 simulation and the order-of-magnitude model agreement.

free parameters (1)
  • FEM-simulated K2 for modes I/II/III = 21.8% / 3.94% / 13.9%
    Electromechanical coupling coefficients used in Eq. (1) to compute 'calculated NR' in Table II. They are simulation outputs used as inputs to the model, not measured from the AE devices, so the mode-dependence conclusion inherits simulation accuracy.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Eq. (1) from Ref. [31] (Kino-Reeder-style AE gain model) is valid for the bonded InGaAs/dielectric/LNOI geometry.
    The model is cited, not derived; all gain/non-reciprocity calculations and the doping-limitation conclusion rely on it. Section II.
  • domain assumption FEM-simulated K2 values and field distributions represent the fabricated devices.
    Table II and Fig. 4 use simulated K2 to predict mode ranking; no measured K2 or independent verification is reported. Section IV-A.
  • domain assumption Hall measurements on co-located passivated test structures are representative of the channel in the AE device.
    The conclusion that elevated carrier density (1e17 cm-3) explains the reduced gain assumes the Hall sample matches the active channel. Section IV-C.
  • ad hoc to paper The elevated background doping is caused by unintentional contamination during MOCVD growth.
    No SIMS or chemical verification is shown; the attribution is inferred from the two passivated samples agreeing and from growth history. Section IV-C.
  • domain assumption Surface oxidation is the aging mechanism because NH4OH immersion restores the AE response.
    The reversibility experiment is indirect evidence; no surface spectroscopy is provided. Section IV-B.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SH-SAW Acousto-Electric Amplifier in Epitaxial InGaAs on Lithium Niobate on Insulator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DY6HJOWY

@misc{pith2026260728888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SH-SAW Acousto-Electric Amplifier in Epitaxial InGaAs on Lithium Niobate on Insulator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DY6HJOWY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28888}
}
read the original abstract

This work demonstrates shear-horizontal surface acoustic wave (SH-SAW) acoustoelectric (AE) amplification on an epitaxial InGaAs / X-cut lithium niobate on insulator (LNOI) heterostructure formed by Al2O3-mediated wafer bonding. Deployable passivated devices show a stable fundamental-mode non-reciprocity of 32 dB/mm at 1.11 GHz (30 V bias, 64 mW consumed), while unpassivated devices reach 174 dB/mm across 1.1-2.8 GHz, reported as upper bounds. Device characterization establishes the role of mode-dependent K^2 in determining the achievable gain. Hall-effect measurements of the transferred InGaAs serve as a quantitative diagnostic: the extracted carrier density, elevated by unintentional silicon doping during epitaxy, accounts for the absolute AE gain when inserted into the analytical model and identifies epitaxial process control as a clear lever for further enhancement. We further identify ambient oxidation of the bare InGaAs surface as a distinct aging mechanism that extinguishes the AE response within weeks, and show that an InP or ALD Al2O3 passivation layer suppresses it, at the cost of redistributing the piezoelectric field away from the channel. These results establish InGaAs-on-LNOI as a compact, low-power platform for non-reciprocal RF components and acoustoelectric delay lines, with strong relevance to in-band full-duplex (IBFD) transceivers and spectrum-efficient wireless front ends.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references

  1. [31]

    Acoustic wave amplification with thin film silicon bonded on lithium niobate,

    S. Ghosh, “Acoustic wave amplification with thin film silicon bonded on lithium niobate,”Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 32, p. 114001, Sept. 2022. Publisher: IOP Publishing

    2022

  2. [1]

    Kolodziej,In-Band Full-Duplex Wireless Systems Handbook

    K. Kolodziej,In-Band Full-Duplex Wireless Systems Handbook. Artech, 2021

    2021

  3. [2]

    Phononic integrated circuit component design and analysis for surface acoustic waves in scaln on silicon carbide,

    J. Guida and S. Ghosh, “Phononic integrated circuit component design and analysis for surface acoustic waves in scaln on silicon carbide,” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 368– 378, 2025

    2025

  4. [3]

    Gigahertz low- loss and wideband s0 mode lithium niobate acoustic delay lines,

    R. Lu, T. Manzaneque, Y . Yang, M.-H. Li, and S. Gong, “Gigahertz low- loss and wideband s0 mode lithium niobate acoustic delay lines,”IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 1373–1386, 2019

    2019

  5. [4]

    Low Propagation Loss X-Band Impedance Matched Lamb Mode Delay Lines in 30% Scandium Aluminum Nitride,

    G. Giribaldi, J. Guida, S. Ghosh, and M. Rinaldi, “Low Propagation Loss X-Band Impedance Matched Lamb Mode Delay Lines in 30% Scandium Aluminum Nitride,” in2023 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), pp. 1–4, Sept. 2023. 7

    2023

  6. [5]

    Low loss acoustic delay lines based on solidly mounted lithium niobate thin film,

    K.-J. Tseng and M.-H. Li, “Low loss acoustic delay lines based on solidly mounted lithium niobate thin film,”Journal of Microelectrome- chanical Systems, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 449–451, 2020

    2020

  7. [6]

    Design of transversal piezoelectric boundary acoustic wave filter for inverter drive circuit,

    Y . Mitsui, S. Goka, K. Murakami, S. Kakio, and K. Wada, “Design of transversal piezoelectric boundary acoustic wave filter for inverter drive circuit,”Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 64, p. 014002, Jan

  8. [7]

    Saw correlators in linbo3 and gan on sapphire,

    S. Ghosh and J. Cafarella, “Saw correlators in linbo3 and gan on sapphire,” in2018 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium (IFCS), pp. 1–4, 2018

    2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [8]

    Campbell,Surface Acoustic Wave Devices and Their Signal Process- ing Applications

    C. Campbell,Surface Acoustic Wave Devices and Their Signal Process- ing Applications. Academic Press, 2012

    2012

  2. [9]

    Compact Bends and Low-Loss Junctions for S0 Lamb Modes in Fully Etched Scandium Alu- minum Nitride Acoustic Waveguides,

    J. Guida, R. Tetro, M. Rinaldi, and S. Ghosh, “Compact Bends and Low-Loss Junctions for S0 Lamb Modes in Fully Etched Scandium Alu- minum Nitride Acoustic Waveguides,” in2024 IEEE 37th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), pp. 1091– 1094, Jan. 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    The 2026 guided acoustic waves roadmap,

    H. J. Krenner, P. V . Santos, C. Westerhausen,et al., “The 2026 guided acoustic waves roadmap,”Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, vol. 59, no. 9, p. 093001, 2026

    2026

  4. [11]

    Microwave acoustic device integration for in-band full-duplex applications,

    J. Guida, C. Tian, K. E. Kolodziej, and S. Ghosh, “Microwave acoustic device integration for in-band full-duplex applications,”IEEE Journal of Microwaves, pp. 1–9, 2025

    2025

  5. [12]

    Acoustoelectric interactions in acoustic-surface-wave devices,

    G. Kino, “Acoustoelectric interactions in acoustic-surface-wave devices,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 724–748, 1976

    1976

  6. [13]

    Elastic wave propagation in piezoelectric semiconductors,

    A. R. Hutson and D. L. White, “Elastic wave propagation in piezoelectric semiconductors,”Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 33, pp. 40–47, 01 1962

    1962

  7. [14]

    A normal mode theory for the rayleigh wave amplifier,

    G. Kino and T. Reeder, “A normal mode theory for the rayleigh wave amplifier,”IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 909–920, 1971

    1971

  8. [15]

    Ultrasonic surface-wave amplification in cadmium sulfide,

    R. M. White and F. W. V oltmer, “Ultrasonic surface-wave amplification in cadmium sulfide,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 8, pp. 40–42, 01 1966

    1966

  9. [16]

    Amplification of surface shear-wave mode in gaas,

    S. Ludvik and C. F. Quate, “Amplification of surface shear-wave mode in gaas,”Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 43, pp. 3619–3622, 09 1972

    1972

  10. [17]

    Acoustoelectric amplification of rayleigh waves in low sheet density algan/gan heterostructures on sapphire,

    S. Ghosh, M. A. Hollis, and R. J. Molnar, “Acoustoelectric amplification of rayleigh waves in low sheet density algan/gan heterostructures on sapphire,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 114, p. 063502, 02 2019

    2019

  11. [18]

    Monolithic acoustic surface-wave amplifier,

    L. A. Coldren and G. S. Kino, “Monolithic acoustic surface-wave amplifier,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 18, pp. 317–319, 04 1971

    1971

  12. [19]

    Giant acoustoelectric effect in gaas/linbo3 hybrids,

    M. Rotter, A. Wixforth, W. Ruile, D. Bernklau, and H. Riechert, “Giant acoustoelectric effect in gaas/linbo3 hybrids,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 73, pp. 2128–2130, 10 1998

    1998

  13. [20]

    High-gain leaky surface acoustic wave amplifier in epitaxial ingaas on lithium niobate heterostructure,

    L. Hackett, A. Siddiqui, D. Dominguez, J. K. Douglas, A. Tauke- Pedretti, T. Friedmann, G. Peake, S. Arterburn, and M. Eichenfield, “High-gain leaky surface acoustic wave amplifier in epitaxial ingaas on lithium niobate heterostructure,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 114, p. 25...

    2019

  14. [21]

    Experimental Observation of Electron- Phonon Interaction in Semiconductor on Solidly Mounted Thin-Film Lithium Niobate,

    S. Ghosh, S. Cho, and R. Lu, “Experimental Observation of Electron- Phonon Interaction in Semiconductor on Solidly Mounted Thin-Film Lithium Niobate,” in2022 IEEE MTT-S International Conference on Microwave Acoustics and Mechanics (IC-MAM), pp. 90–93, July 2022

    2022

  15. [22]

    S-band acoustoelectric amplifier in an ingaas-alscn- sic architecture,

    L. Hackett, X. Du, M. Miller, B. Smith, S. Santillan, J. Montoya, R. Reyna, S. Arterburn, S. Weatherred, T. A. Friedmann, I. Olsson, R. H., and M. Eichenfield, “S-band acoustoelectric amplifier in an ingaas-alscn- sic architecture,”Applied Physics Letters, vol. 124, p. 113503, 03 2024

    2024

  16. [23]

    Process optimization and characterization of dielectric, piezoelectric, and ferro- electric properties of scaln (30%) thin films,

    K. Saha, C. Tian, K. Grosh, S. Ghosh, and M. Rinaldi, “Process optimization and characterization of dielectric, piezoelectric, and ferro- electric properties of scaln (30%) thin films,”Preprints, January 2026

    2026

  17. [24]

    Non-reciprocal acoustoelectric microwave amplifiers with net gain and low noise in continuous operation,

    L. Hackett, M. Miller, S. Weatherred, S. Arterburn, M. J. Storey, G. Peake, D. Dominguez, P. S. Finnegan, T. A. Friedmann, and M. Eichenfield, “Non-reciprocal acoustoelectric microwave amplifiers with net gain and low noise in continuous operation,”Nature Electronics, vol. 6, ...

    2023

  18. [25]

    Large coupling acoustic wave resonators based on linbo 3/sio2/si functional substrate,

    T.-H. Hsu, K.-J. Tseng, and M.-H. Li, “Large coupling acoustic wave resonators based on linbo 3/sio2/si functional substrate,”IEEE Electron Device Letters, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1825–1828, 2020

    2020

  19. [26]

    Low loss and wideband surface acoustic wave devices in thin film lithium niobate on insulator (lnoi) platform,

    T.-H. Hsu, F.-C. Su, K.-J. Tseng, and M.-H. Li, “Low loss and wideband surface acoustic wave devices in thin film lithium niobate on insulator (lnoi) platform,” in2021 IEEE 34th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS), pp. 474–477, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    Gold as a promising electrode material for linbo3-on-insulator (lnoi) sh-saw resonators: An experimental study,

    T.-H. Hsu, Z.-Q. Lee, G.-L. Wu, C.-C. Yeh, C.-H. Tsai, and M.-H. Li, “Gold as a promising electrode material for linbo3-on-insulator (lnoi) sh-saw resonators: An experimental study,”IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 71, no. 10, pp. 1...

    2024

  21. [28]

    Thin-film lithium niobate-on- insulator (LNOI) shear horizontal surface acoustic wave resonators,

    T.-H. Hsu, K.-J. Tseng, and M.-H. Li, “Thin-film lithium niobate-on- insulator (LNOI) shear horizontal surface acoustic wave resonators,” Journal of Micromechanics and Microengineering, vol. 31, p. 054003, Apr. 2021

    2021

  22. [29]

    Mobility and capacitance comparison in scaled ingaas versus si trigate mosfets,

    E. G. Marin, F. G. Ruiz, A. Godoy, I. M. Tienda-Luna, and F. G ´amiz, “Mobility and capacitance comparison in scaled ingaas versus si trigate mosfets,”IEEE Electron Device Letters, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 114–116, 2015

    2015

  23. [30]

    Strongly coupled spin waves and surface acoustic waves at room temperature,

    Y . Hwang, J. Puebla, K. Kondou, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, H. Isshiki, C. S. Mu ˜noz, L. Liao, F. Chen, W. Luo, S. Maekawa, and Y . Otani, “Strongly coupled spin waves and surface acoustic waves at room temperature,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 132, p. 056704, Jan 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    SH-SAW amplification in epitaxial InGaAs on LNOI through Al 2O3 bonding,

    C. Tian and S. Ghosh, “SH-SAW amplification in epitaxial InGaAs on LNOI through Al 2O3 bonding,” inProc. 2026 IEEE Int. Freq. Control Symp. (IFCS), (Tampa, FL, USA), May 2026. presented; to be published in IEEE Xplore

    2026

  25. [33]

    Monolithic Growth of Patternable III–V on LiNbO3,

    H. U. Chae, Z. Wu, Y . Yu, H. g. Kim, J. Sanchez Vazquez, C.-H. Lee, M. Yu, and R. Kapadia, “Monolithic Growth of Patternable III–V on LiNbO3,”Crystal Growth & Design, vol. 24, pp. 4466–4472, June 2024. Publisher: American Chemical Society

    2024

  26. [34]

    J. P. Dunsmore,Time Domain Transforms, ch. 4, pp. 211–242. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    57 ghz acoustic resonator with k2 of 7.3 % and q of 56 in thin-film lithium niobate,

    J. Kramer, S. Cho, M. E. Liao, K. Huynh, O. Barrera, L. Matto, M. S. Goorsky, and R. Lu, “57 ghz acoustic resonator with k2 of 7.3 % and q of 56 in thin-film lithium niobate,” in2022 International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), pp. 16.4.1–16.4.4, 2022. 8

    2022

  28. [2025]

    Publisher: IOP Publishing

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.