Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

Degenerate four-wave mixing in a CPT-symmetric coupler with intermodal dispersion

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frequency-dependent intercore coupling confines the only same-branch degenerate four-wave-mixing channel to the neighborhood of the CPT-breaking exceptional point, where a single pump can drive two sideband pairs simultaneously.

desk verdict Solid analytic core with an overbroad localization claim that a concrete counterexample refutes; worth peer review with mandatory revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08628 v1 pith:CNOV5IZ7 submitted 2026-08-09 physics.optics nlin.PS

Nguyen Duc Anh Quan , Do Duc Tho , Marek Trippenbach , Nguyen Thi Dung , Tran Thi Hai , Nguyen Viet Hung This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsnlin.PS PACS 42.65.Hw42.65.Wi
keywords degeneratefour-wavemixingCPTsymmetrybalancedgainandlossintermodaldispersionKerrdual-corecouplerexceptionalpointphasematchingnon-Hermitianoptical
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

Degenerate four-wave mixing in a two-core optical coupler with balanced gain and loss is normally organized by the linear spectrum; this paper shows that when the intercore coupling itself depends on frequency, the symmetry becomes $\mathcal{CPT}$ and the resonance structure changes. Within a normalized weak-dispersion regime, only four branch triples can satisfy the degenerate phase-matching condition. Three of them are interbranch channels that persist over broad parameter regions, while the only same-branch channel appears just below the $\mathcal{CPT}$-breaking threshold, where the two linear eigenmodes nearly coalesce. In that narrow window a single pump can satisfy two distinct nonzero sideband separations at once, so two signal–idler pairs are generated simultaneously; pulse simulations confirm the coexistence and show a multifrequency cascade. A reduced three-wave model captures the early dynamics away from the threshold but becomes inaccurate near eigenmode coalescence, which matters because few-mode descriptions are commonly used for such non-Hermitian systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the frequency-dependent coupling operator $\widehat K=\kappa_0+i\kappa_1\partial_\tau-\kappa_2\partial_\tau^2$, whose Fourier symbol $\widehat K(\omega)=1+\kappa_1\omega+\kappa_2\omega^2$ sets the two-branch spectrum $\beta_s(\omega)=-\omega^2+s\sqrt{\widehat K(\omega)^2-\gamma^2}$ and the exceptional-point boundary $\gamma_{\rm CPT}=1-\kappa_1^2/(4\kappa_2)$. This operator makes the system invariant under the combined operation $\mathcal{CPT}$ (temporal parity, time reversal, and core exchange) rather than ordinary $\mathcal{PT}$, and it removes Galilean invariance so that the pump frequency is a genuine control parameter. The phase-matching analysis reduces the degenerate matching equation to a cubic in $Q=\delta^2/4$ by squaring; because squaring can introduce spurious roots and erase the branch labels, every candidate root must be checked against the original unsquared equation. The nonlinear side of the argument uses biorthogonal dual modes $\ell_s^\dagger=r_s^T/(e^{-is\phi}\cos\phi)$ to project the Kerr source onto the non-Hermitian branches, yielding three-wave amplitudes whose overlap coefficients $\Lambda_j$ vary with frequency; in the frequency-independent limit these coefficients reduce to those of the earlier $\mathcal{PT}$-coupler model, and near the exceptional point the factor $\cos\phi\to0$ makes the projection ill-conditioned.

What would settle it

Search the unbroken-$\mathcal{CPT}$ weak-dispersion domain on a grid finer than the paper's, for instance $0<\kappa_1<1$, $0<\kappa_2<1$ with $\gamma$ well below $\gamma_{\rm CPT}$, and solve the unsquared matching equation (12) for the $(+,+,+)$ configuration; finding a positive sideband separation far from the threshold, or a pulse simulation showing same-branch sidebands there, would disprove the claimed near-threshold confinement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that intermodal dispersion—the frequency dependence of the coupling between the two cores—reorganizes degenerate four-wave-mixing resonances in a balanced gain–loss coupler, and that the reorganization is controlled by $\mathcal{CPT}$ symmetry. With coupling $\widehat K=\kappa_0+i\kappa_1\partial_\tau-\kappa_2\partial_\tau^2$ normalized to $\kappa_0=1$, the linear branches are $\beta_s(\omega)=-\omega^2+s\sqrt{\widehat K(\omega)^2-\gamma^2}$, $s=\pm1$, and the spectrum remains real only for $\gamma\le\gamma_{\rm CPT}=1-\kappa_1^2/(4\kappa_2)$. In the weak-dispersion domain $0<\kappa_1<1$, $0<\kappa_2<1$, an analytic exclusion argument leaves exactly four branch triples as possible degenerate phase-matching configurations. The three interbranch triples persist broadly, but the same-branch configuration with all waves on the upper branch occurs only in a narrow strip around the exceptional point. At the representative point $\kappa_1=0.01$, $\kappa_2=0.6$, $\gamma=\gamma_{\rm CPT}-10^{-5}$, $\omega_p=-0.3$, the unsquared matching equation has two positive sideband separations, $\delta_1\simeq0.9033$ and $\delta_2\simeq1.7809$, so one pump drives two signal–idler pairs at the same time. Full pulse simulations confirm both resonances and reveal secondary-wave generation and a multifrequency cascade near coalescence, while the biorthogonal three-wave reduction reproduces only the initial exchange.

Load-bearing premise

The localization of configuration (IV) to the threshold region rests on finite numerical scans over $0<\kappa_1<1$ and $0<\kappa_2<1$ rather than on an analytic proof, so a same-branch resonance far from the exceptional point in an unscanned part of the weak-dispersion domain would falsify that specific claim while leaving the existence of the channel and the two-resonance example intact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only four branch triples can satisfy degenerate four-wave mixing in the weak-dispersion domain, with three interbranch channels persisting over broad parameter regions and the same-branch channel confined to the neighborhood of the $\mathcal{CPT}$ threshold.
  • Near the exceptional point, one pump can simultaneously satisfy two distinct nonzero sideband separations, so two signal–idler pairs coexist in a single degenerate process.
  • Because the dispersive coupling breaks Galilean invariance, shifting the pump frequency changes not just a reference frame but the actual conversion amplitude, walk-off, and eigenmode phases.
  • The biorthogonal three-wave model is reliable away from the exceptional point but breaks down near coalescence, where secondary waves grow early and the modal basis becomes ill-conditioned; the breakdown is a signature of the spectral degeneracy, not a finite-pulse artifact.
  • Output conversion-efficiency maps in the $(\kappa_1,\kappa_2)$ plane show that configuration (I) responds over a broad region while configuration (II) is selective, indicating that first- and second-order coupling dispersion play different dynamical roles.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-threshold localization of the same-branch channel extends beyond the scanned grid, then tuning the gain–loss coefficient $\gamma$ toward the exceptional point becomes a practical switch for multichannel four-wave mixing: even a small change in balance turns a one-resonance system into a two-pair generator.
  • The coexistence of two sideband separations close to coalescence suggests that the difference $\delta_2-\delta_1$ could serve as a sensitive spectral indicator of distance from the exceptional point, a use the paper does not pursue.
  • The multifrequency cascade seen in configuration (IV) hints that cascaded mixing near a non-Hermitian degeneracy could generate broadband spectra from a single narrowband pump; this would need to be tested by extending the simulations to longer propagation distances and different pump amplitudes.
  • The same analytical machinery—branch exclusion plus unsquared root checking—could be applied to other non-Hermitian wave systems with dispersive coupling, including anti-$\mathcal{PT}$ couplers, to see whether same-branch resonances always cluster at spectral degeneracies.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies degenerate four-wave mixing in a dual-core Kerr coupler with balanced gain and loss and frequency-dependent intercore coupling. It introduces the CPT symmetry of the model, derives the two-branch linear spectrum and the real-spectrum threshold, reduces the degenerate phase-matching condition to a cubic equation for the squared sideband separation, and classifies the allowed branch configurations after excluding four triples analytically in Appendix A. The paper then validates the predicted resonances with direct pulse simulations, demonstrates that a single pump can satisfy two distinct sideband resonances near the exceptional point, and compares the full dynamics with a biorthogonally projected three-wave model, honestly reporting where the reduced model fails.

Significance. If corrected, the paper would be a useful contribution: the analytic classification of resonant branch configurations, the explicit exclusion proof in Appendix A, the identification of a coexisting double sideband resonance, and the documented breakdown of the few-mode description near the exceptional point are all concrete and checkable. The analysis is largely parameter-free in its central derivation, and the simulations independently confirm the predicted roots. The main advertised distinction, however, is that same-branch configuration (IV) appears only close to the CPT-breaking threshold; this claim is contradicted by an explicit counterexample inside the stated parameter domain, so the paper needs a substantive revision rather than minor polishing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV.A, Eq. (12); Abstract; Section VII] The claim that the same-branch configuration (IV) is confined to the immediate neighborhood of the CPT-breaking threshold is false as stated. Take κ1=0.01, κ2=0.9, γ=0.5, and ωp=-κ1/(2κ2), which lies inside the stated normalized domain (0<κ1<1, 0<κ2<1, κ1^2<4κ2, and γ<γ_CPT≈0.99997). Because bK(ω) is symmetric about ω*, ε(ω) is even there, and Eq. (12) with s1=s3=s4=+ reduces to F(t)=ε(ω*+t)-ε(ω*)-t^2=0 with t=δ/2. Near t=0, F(t)≈(mκ2/ε(ω*)-1)t^2, where m=1-κ1^2/(4κ2) and ε(ω*)=sqrt(m^2-γ^2); with these numbers mκ2>ε(ω*), so F>0 for small t. For large t, ε(ω*+t)≈κ2 t^2 and F(t)→(κ2-1)t^2-ε(ω*)<0, so a positive root exists. Thus a valid intrabranch resonance occurs at γ=0.5, about half of γ_CPT, far from the threshold. The same argument works at κ1=0 with ωp=0. The abstract and Section VII must be corrected to remove the claimed near-threshold exclusivity; the localization statement should either be replaced by an explicit existence condition or explicitly restricted to the sampled grid in Figs. 2(c) and 8.
  2. [Section VI.C and Appendix A] The manuscript's own limitation is that Appendix A excludes four branch triples but never proves the nonexistence of configuration (IV) away from the threshold; the near-threshold localization is asserted from finite numerical scans. Since the counterexample above is outside the scanned grid, the paper should state that the occurrence of configuration (IV) is not limited to the threshold region and should present the existence condition as an open problem or as a new analytic result if one can be derived.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title and abstract contain the typographical join "aCPT-symmetric"; it should read "a CPT-symmetric".
  2. [Figure 2(c) caption] The caption lists several curves (green, cyan, red dashed, black dashed) but the legend in the figure is not reproduced in the text; please ensure each line is unambiguously labeled in the figure itself.
  3. [Section VI.E, Fig. 11] The hatched strip is said to belong to the unbroken-CPT domain but was not included in the numerical grid; please state the grid resolution and the exact boundary of the hatched region so the reader can assess the sampling claims.
  4. [Equation (13) and surrounding text] The typeset equation (13) and coefficients a0 through a3 are missing superscripts in several places (for example B^2 γ^2 and ε_p^2); please correct the notation so the polynomial can be checked without referring to the source LaTeX.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-matching classification, branch exclusions, and coexistence results are derived from the stated model and checked by independent pulse propagation.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Equation (12) is obtained directly from the linear spectrum β_s(ω) = -ω^2 + s ε(ω), and the four allowed branch configurations are established analytically in Appendix A using monotonicity and convexity of ε(ω), with surviving roots validated against the unsquared matching equation. The two-root coexistence near the CPT threshold, δ1 ≈ 0.9033 and δ2 ≈ 1.7809, is a numerical solution of Eq. (12) for stated parameters, not a fitted quantity. The pulse simulations integrate the same coupled equations (1)-(2) with seeded sidebands, so they provide an independent dynamical check rather than a restatement of the root-finding. The reduced three-wave model is derived within the paper via the biorthogonal projection ℓ_s^† of Eq. (10), with coefficients (18)-(20) computed from the model; Ref. [21] supplies only the nondispersive limit and Ref. [23] serves as an analogy. Refs. [21]-[23] are not used to force the central classification or coexistence claims. The possible counterexample to the localization of configuration (IV) would, if valid, be a correctness or falsifiability concern about a numerical-scan conclusion, not a circularity of the derivation.

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

The central claim rests on the coupled-mode model and the weak-dispersion, unbroken-CPT domain, plus the biorthogonal projection used for the reduced model. No numerical susceptibility is fit to data, and no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • kappa1 = 0.01 to 0.3 (scans over 0<kappa1<1)
    First-order coupling dispersion; chosen in the weak-dispersion domain, not fitted to data; controls spectral asymmetry and walk-off.
  • kappa2 = 0.001 to 0.6 (scans over 0<kappa2<1)
    Second-order coupling dispersion; required positive for an all-real CPT spectrum; chosen to generate examples and maps.
  • gamma = 0.3 to gamma_CPT (0.4375 and 0.43749 used)
    Gain/loss coefficient; must lie below gamma_CPT for unbroken symmetry; near-threshold values are used for configuration (IV).
  • pump frequency omega_p = 0, 2.3, -3.75, -0.3
    Retained as an independent control because Galilean invariance is broken; values were selected to hit phase-matching roots.
  • pulse amplitudes and width = Ap=0.12-0.24, As=0.05-0.11, T0=40
    Input seeds are small enough to display seeded FWM; values are numerical choices, not fitted constants.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two identical dispersive waveguides with balanced gain and loss and equal Kerr coefficients, so the governing equations are CPT-invariant.
    Introduced in Section II, Eqs. (1)-(3); all results are conditional on this model.
  • domain assumption Weak-dispersion ordering 0<kappa1<1 and 0<kappa2<1 after normalizing kappa0=1, so coupling dispersion is a perturbation over the pulse spectrum.
    Stated in Section II and used in the numerical scans; the analytic Appendix A needs only kappa1^2<4kappa2 and 0<kappa2<1.
  • domain assumption Unbroken-CPT domain with kappa1^2<4kappa2 and 0<=gamma<=gamma_CPT, so the linear spectrum is real and epsilon(omega) is defined.
    Section III, Eq. (7). The branch classification is conditional on this domain.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation in the three-wave reduction drops rapidly oscillating Kerr products.
    Section VI D, before Eq. (17); used to derive the reduced model and its breakdown.
  • standard math Biorthogonal projection onto the nonorthogonal eigenmodes is valid away from the exceptional point; at coalescence the denominator cos(phi) vanishes.
    Section III, Eq. (10); the paper explicitly relies on it and identifies its breakdown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Degenerate four-wave mixing in a CPT-symmetric coupler with intermodal dispersion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CNOV5IZ7

@misc{pith2026260808628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Degenerate four-wave mixing in a CPT-symmetric coupler with intermodal dispersion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CNOV5IZ7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08628}
}
abstract

Four-wave mixing provides a simple setting in which dispersion, nonlinearity, and non-Hermiticity compete to select resonant energy-transfer channels. We study degenerate four-wave mixing in a Kerr dual-core coupler with balanced gain and loss and frequency-dependent intercore coupling. The dispersive coupling changes the symmetry from conventional $\mathcal{PT}$ symmetry to a combined $\mathcal{CPT}$ symmetry and reshapes the two-branch linear spectrum. We determine the unbroken-$\mathcal{CPT}$ domain and classify the branch configurations that can satisfy the degenerate phase-matching condition. In the parameter ranges examined, three resonant channels persist over broad regions, whereas a same-branch channel appears only close to the symmetry-breaking threshold. In this near-threshold regime, a single pump can simultaneously satisfy two distinct nonzero sideband resonances. Direct pulse simulations confirm the predicted resonances and reveal secondary-wave generation and multifrequency cascades near eigenmode coalescence. A reduced three-wave model captures the initial dynamics away from the exceptional point but loses accuracy as the modal basis becomes ill-conditioned. These results show how dispersive coupling reorganizes resonances, group-velocity mismatch, and nonlinear energy exchange in a non-Hermitian wave system, and they identify the exceptional-point region as a regime where a few-mode description can break down.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08628 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Linear dispersion relations for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Graphical solutions of Eq. (12). (a) Configurations (I)–(III) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Group velocities of the phase-matched waves as functions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Configuration (I) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: This is the time-domain realization of the multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Configuration (I) with the parameters of Fig. 4 except [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Configuration (I) at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Configuration (II), 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Configuration (IV), 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Two simultaneous configuration-(IV) channels with the parameters of Fig. 8. The pump amplitude is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Comparison of the full pulse simulations (solid curves) and the plane-wave model (dashed curves): (a) configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Output FWM fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A1) becomes 2t2 + 2E0 +E + +E − = 0, which is impossible because every term is nonnegative andt >0

    Configuration(+,−,−) For (s1, s3, s4) = (+,−,−), Eq. (A1) becomes 2t2 + 2E0 +E + +E − = 0, which is impossible because every term is nonnegative andt >0. 15

    work page

  2. [2]

    Configurations(+,−,+)and(+,+,−) For (+,−,+), E− −E + = 2E0 + 2t2 >0.(A2) Ifω p ≥ω ∗, monotonicity aboutω ∗ givesE + ≥E −, con- tradicting Eq. (A2). It remains to takeω p < ω∗ and definey=ω ∗ −ω p >0 and fγ(r) = p (m+κ 2r2)2 −γ 2, r≥0. Then Eq. (A2) is equivalent to Dγ(y, t) =fγ(y+t)−f γ(|y−t|)−2f γ(y)−2t 2 = 0.(A3) For 0≤γ < m, all denominators below are ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The linear con- tribution cancels exactly because each carrier factor rsj (ωj)eiβj z−iωj τ already satisfies the linear eigenvalue problem

    Terms whose longitudinal or temporal phases do not match are rapidly oscillating and are dropped in the rotating-wave approximation. The linear con- tribution cancels exactly because each carrier factor rsj (ωj)eiβj z−iωj τ already satisfies the linear eigenvalue problem. The approximation therefore isolates the reso- nant nonlinear exchange without alter...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Configuration(−,−,−) For (−,−,−), Eq. (A1) requires E+ +E − −2E 0 =−2t 2 <0.(A6) Forγ < m, direct differentiation gives ε′′(ω) = 2κ2 h bK 3 −3 bKγ 2 + 2mγ2 i bK 2 −γ 2 3/2 ≥0.(A7) Indeed, the bracket is an increasing function of bK≥m≥ γand at bK=mequalsm(m 2 −γ 2)≥0. Thusεis convex for everyγ < m. Atγ=m,ε m is the finite pointwise limit of these convex fu...

    work page

  5. [6]

    G. P. Agrawal,Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 6th ed. (Aca- demic Press, 2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [7]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics, 4th ed. (Academic Press, 2020)

    2020

  7. [8]

    Inter-modal four-wave mixing study in a two-mode fiber,

    S. M. M. Friiset al., “Inter-modal four-wave mixing study in a two-mode fiber,” Opt. Express24, 30338–30349 (2016), doi: 10.1364/OE.24.030338

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.24.030338 2016

  8. [9]

    Intermodal four-wave mixing in sil- icon waveguides,

    S. Signoriniet al., “Intermodal four-wave mixing in sil- icon waveguides,” Photon. Res.6, 805–814 (2018), doi: 10.1364/PRJ.6.000805

    work page doi:10.1364/prj.6.000805 2018

Show all 26 references
  1. [10]

    Intermodal Bragg-scattering four wave mixing in silicon waveguides,

    C. Lacavaet al., “Intermodal Bragg-scattering four wave mixing in silicon waveguides,” J. Lightwave Technol.37, 1680–1685 (2019), doi: 10.1109/JLT.2019.2901401

    2019

  2. [11]

    Theory of intermodal four-wave mix- ing with random linear mode coupling in few-mode fibers,

    Y. Xiaoet al., “Theory of intermodal four-wave mix- ing with random linear mode coupling in few-mode fibers,” Opt. Express22, 32039–32059 (2014), doi: 10.1364/OE.22.032039

    2014 doi

  3. [12]

    Intermodal dispersion in two-core op- tical fibers,

    K. S. Chiang, “Intermodal dispersion in two-core op- tical fibers,” Opt. Lett.20, 997–999 (1995), doi: 10.1364/OL.20.000997

    1995 doi

  4. [13]

    Propagation of short optical pulses in directional couplers with Kerr nonlinearity,

    K. S. Chiang, “Propagation of short optical pulses in directional couplers with Kerr nonlinearity,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B14, 1437–1443 (1997), doi: 10.1364/JOSAB.14.001437

    1997 doi

  5. [14]

    Influ- ence of intermodal dispersion on the switching of soli- tons at different wavelengths in twin-core fiber cou- plers,

    C. R. Paiva, A. L. Topa, and A. M. Barbosa, “Influ- ence of intermodal dispersion on the switching of soli- tons at different wavelengths in twin-core fiber cou- plers,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B16, 1636–1641 (1999), doi: 10.1364/JOSAB.16.001636

    1999 doi

  6. [15]

    Effects of intermodal dispersion on two-nonidentical-core coupler with different radii,

    P. Shum and M. Liu, “Effects of intermodal dispersion on two-nonidentical-core coupler with different radii,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.14, 1106–1108 (2002), doi: 10.1109/LPT.2002.1021984

    2002 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Generalized coupled nonlin- ear equations for the analysis of asymmetric two-core fiber coupler,

    M. Liu and P. Shum, “Generalized coupled nonlin- ear equations for the analysis of asymmetric two-core fiber coupler,” Opt. Express11, 116–119 (2003), doi: 10.1364/OE.11.000116

    2003 doi

  8. [17]

    Stabilization of spatiotemporal solitons in Kerr media by dispersive coupling,

    Y. V. Kartashov, B. A. Malomed, V. V. Konotop, V. E. Lobanov, and L. Torner, “Stabilization of spatiotemporal solitons in Kerr media by dispersive coupling,” Opt. Lett. 40, 1045–1048 (2015), doi: 10.1364/OL.40.001045

    2015 doi

  9. [18]

    Observation of parity–time sym- metry in optics,

    C. E. R¨ uteret al., “Observation of parity–time sym- metry in optics,” Nat. Phys.6, 192–195 (2010), doi: 10.1038/nphys1515

    2010 doi

  10. [19]

    Nonlinear waves inPT-symmetric systems,

    V. V. Konotop, J. Yang, and D. A. Zezyulin, “Nonlinear waves inPT-symmetric systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 035002 (2016), doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.035002

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    Optical solitons inPT-symmetric nonlinear couplers with gain and loss,

    N. V. Alexeeva, I. V. Barashenkov, A. A. Sukhorukov, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Optical solitons inPT-symmetric nonlinear couplers with gain and loss,” Phys. Rev. A85, 063837 (2012), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.063837

    2012 doi

  12. [21]

    Unidirectional nonlinearPT- symmetric optical structures,

    H. Ramezani, T. Kottos, R. El-Ganainy, and D. N. Christodoulides, “Unidirectional nonlinearPT- symmetric optical structures,” Phys. Rev. A82, 043803 (2010), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.82.043803

    2010 doi

  13. [22]

    Anti-parity-time symmetric optical four-wave mix- ing in cold atoms,

    Y. Jiang, Y. Mei, Y. Zuo, Y. Zhai, J. Li, J. Wen, and S. Du, “Anti-parity-time symmetric optical four-wave mix- ing in cold atoms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 193604 (2019), doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.193604

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    Four-wave mixing with anti-parity-time sym- metry in hot 85Rb vapor,

    Z. Niu, Y. Jiang, J. Wen, C. Zhang, S. Du, and I. Novikova, “Four-wave mixing with anti-parity-time sym- metry in hot 85Rb vapor,” Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 044005 (2024), doi: 10.1063/5.0173354

    2024 doi

  15. [24]

    Optical isolators based on nonreciprocal four-wave mixing,

    A. Mu˜ noz de las Heras and I. Carusotto, “Optical isolators based on nonreciprocal four-wave mixing,” Phys. Rev. A106, 063523 (2022), doi: 10.1103/Phys- RevA.106.063523

    2022 doi

  16. [25]

    Four-wave mixing in a parity-time (PT)- symmetric coupler,

    T. Wasak, P. Sza´ nkowski, V. V. Konotop, and M. Trip- penbach, “Four-wave mixing in a parity-time (PT)- symmetric coupler,” Opt. Lett.40, 5291–5294 (2015), doi: 10.1364/OL.40.005291

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    CPT-symmetric coupler with intermodal dis- persion,

    D. A. Zezyulin, Y. V. Kartashov, and V. V. Kono- top, “CPT-symmetric coupler with intermodal dis- persion,” Opt. Lett.42, 1273–1276 (2017), doi: 10.1364/OL.42.001273

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    Four-wave mixing in spin–orbit coupled Bose– Einstein condensates,

    N. V. Hung, P. Sza´ nkowski, V. V. Konotop, and M. Trip- penbach, “Four-wave mixing in spin–orbit coupled Bose– Einstein condensates,” New J. Phys.22, 053019 (2020), doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/ab7fcb

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.