Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Experimental Demonstration of Exceptional Points of Degeneracy in Linear Time Periodic Systems and Exceptional Sensitivity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A single time-modulated LC resonator hosts an exceptional point whose frequency shift scales as the square root of a small capacitance perturbation.

desk verdict A credible first experimental demonstration of EPDs in a single time-modulated resonator, with a sensitivity experiment that shows the expected square-root trend but rests on an unmeasured calibration that should be checked before the quantitative claim is taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08516 v3 pith:E5SEWQ3D submitted 2019-08-22 physics.app-ph

Hamidreza Kazemi , Mohamed Y. Nada , Alireza Nikzamir , Franco Maddaleno , Filippo Capolino This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-ph
keywords exceptionalpointofdegeneracylineartime-periodicsystemsingle-resonatorsensorPuiseuxseriestime-varyingcapacitancesquare-rootsensitivityLCresonatorcapacitivesensing
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 reports the first experimental demonstration that a single LC resonator, with one capacitor periodically switched between two values, can host an exceptional point of degeneracy (EPD): a parameter setting where two resonance modes coalesce into one. At the EPD, a small relative capacitance change $\delta$ shifts the resonance frequency as $\sqrt{\delta}$ rather than $\delta$, so a 1% perturbation yields roughly a 10% frequency shift. The authors built a circuit in which a multiplier synthesizes the time-varying capacitor, verified the predicted dispersion diagram and the linear-in-time voltage growth that marks the EPD, and showed that measured frequency shifts follow the square-root law down to at least $\delta=0.003$. If correct, this gives a route to exceptionally sensitive capacitive sensing with a single resonator, tuned simply by adjusting a modulation frequency instead of matching gain and loss in two coupled resonators.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $2\times2$ state transition matrix $\Phi(T_m,0)$ that maps the resonator state, capacitor charge and inductor current, over one modulation period $T_m$. At the EPD, $\Phi$ is non-diagonalizable with a degenerate eigenvalue $\lambda_e=\pm1$, so its $n$-th power grows linearly in the period index $n$; this algebraic growth produces the observed linear voltage rise. The sensitivity law comes from a first-order Puiseux expansion of the perturbed eigenvalues, with coefficient $\alpha_1$ determined by the derivative of $\det[\Phi(\delta)-\lambda I]$. The physical implementation replaces the physical time-varying capacitor with a fixed capacitor $C_0$ and a four-quadrant multiplier that realizes $C(t)=C_0(1-v_p(t)/V_0)$, so the two capacitance levels $C_1$ and $C_2$ are set by the pump voltage levels and the EPD is tuned by the pump frequency $f_m$.

What would settle it

Measure the capacitance $C(t)$ actually presented by the multiplier circuit while the pump high level is swept over the range used in the sensitivity plot, using a direct impedance or bridge measurement; if the true $\delta$ deviates from the assumed linear map, the claimed $\sqrt{\delta}$ scaling and sensitivity enhancement are not established by the current data. Alternatively, apply a known, independently calibrated capacitance change at fixed pump voltage and check that the FFT peaks shift by the predicted $\sqrt{\delta}$ amount.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an exceptional point of degeneracy can be induced in a single linear time-periodic LC resonator by periodically modulating one capacitance value, and that operating at this EPD makes the resonance frequency exceptionally sensitive to perturbations. Theoretically, the two resonances of the unperturbed time-periodic system coalesce at the EPD, so the state transition matrix becomes a Jordan block; a small perturbation $\delta$ to the capacitance $C_1$ splits the degeneracy with a Puiseux expansion $\lambda_p(\delta)=\lambda_e+(-1)^p\alpha_1\sqrt{\delta}$, giving a detected frequency shift $\Delta f\propto\sqrt{\delta}$. Experimentally, the authors observe both EPD types, at the center and at the edge of the fundamental Brillouin zone, in the dispersion diagram, measure the linear voltage growth characteristic of the degenerate state, and demonstrate that capacitance perturbations as small as 0.3% produce clearly resolvable frequency shifts. The authors argue that this single-resonator EPD is easier to realize and tune than PT-symmetric two-resonator EPDs and that its shifted resonances remain real-valued for a one-sided capacitance perturbation, a practical advantage for sensor readout.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the calibration that a 5 mV increase in the pump voltage's high level corresponds exactly to a relative capacitance change of $\delta=0.01$, which follows from the ideal multiplier equation and was not verified by directly measuring the capacitance seen by the circuit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sensor can be built from a single LC tank with an off-the-shelf multiplier, and the EPD is reached simply by tuning the pump frequency instead of matching gain and loss.
  • At the EPD, a relative capacitance perturbation $\delta$ produces a frequency shift proportional to $\sqrt{\delta}$, so a 1% perturbation yields roughly a 10% shift, well above the noise floor observed in the measurements.
  • The linear voltage growth at the EPD gives a time-domain signature that can confirm EPD operation and could serve as a second readout channel.
  • Because only the modulation frequency needs adjusting, component tolerances in $L$ and $C$ do not prevent reaching the EPD; the sensor can be retuned in situ.
  • Unlike a PT-symmetric two-resonator sensor perturbed on one side, this single-resonator EPD keeps the split resonance frequencies real-valued for a capacitance perturbation, simplifying frequency readout.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the pump-to-capacitance calibration is verified by direct measurement, the same circuit could be packaged as a compact capacitive sensor for pressure, humidity, or biochemical mass, where the quantity of interest changes an effective capacitance.
  • The same time-periodic EPD mechanism should extend to higher-order EPDs, for example by using more than two capacitance levels in one modulation cycle, with frequency shifts scaling as $\delta^{1/m}$ and potentially larger sensitivity.
  • The experiments leave open a systematic noise study: quantifying how the reset duty cycle, measurement window, and multiplier noise floor affect the minimum resolvable $\delta$ would test whether the $\sqrt{\delta}$ advantage survives at very low signal levels.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration of a second-order exceptional point of degeneracy (EPD) in a single LC resonator whose capacitance is modulated in time through a piecewise-constant pump voltage and an analog multiplier. The authors verify the EPD by two signatures: the measured dispersion diagram of the resonance frequencies versus modulation frequency, and the observed linear growth of the time-domain capacitor voltage at the predicted EPD modulation frequencies. They then perturb the high level of the pump voltage and report that the resonance frequency shifts follow the square-root Puiseux law Δf ∝ √δ, concluding that this provides a single-resonator, easily tunable EPD-based sensor that avoids the precise gain/loss balancing needed in PT-symmetric coupled-resonator schemes. The theoretical framework is a state-transition-matrix analysis carried over from the authors' prior paper [32]; the experimental realization and the sensitivity measurement are the new contributions.

Significance. If the sensitivity result withstands scrutiny, this would be a valuable experimental confirmation that EPDs in linear time-periodic systems can be realized in a single resonator and that the associated fractional frequency shift can be observed in a realistic noisy electronic circuit. The paper has clear strengths: the EPD existence is supported by two independent signatures (the dispersion diagram and the time-domain growth), the frequency-shift prediction in Fig. 5(a) is not a fit because α1 is calculated, and the authors candidly acknowledge the ongoing debate around EPD-enhanced sensing and address the role of noise. The main weakness is that the perturbation δ is not measured but inferred from the ideal multiplier relation, so the quantitative aspect of the exceptional-sensitivity claim is not yet established. The experimental demonstration is also somewhat incremental relative to the authors' earlier theory paper [32], but the hardware realization is a meaningful step toward practical EPD sensors.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.B; Supplemental Eqs. (6)-(10)] The x-axis of Fig. 5(a) is set by assuming an exact linear relation between the pump high-level voltage and the capacitance perturbation δ. The authors infer δ from the ideal multiplier equation C(t)=C0(1−vp(t)/V0) with V0=1.05 V taken from the AD835 datasheet, but no direct measurement of the synthesized capacitance is reported (for example, by measuring ic(t)/[dv/dt] at Node A). A constant multiplier gain or offset error would scale all δ values and move the green triangles off the theoretical curve while preserving the √δ functional form, and a nonlinearity (e.g. multiplier saturation or switch nonidealities) could produce a spurious sub-linear dependence. Because the central sensing claim is the quantitative Δf∝√δ behavior, the δ calibration must be independently measured and the resulting curves must be shown with uncertainties before the 'excellent agreement' assertion in Section III.B is supported.
  2. [Section III.B and Fig. 5] The sensitivity demonstration reports no quantitative uncertainty. The green triangles in Fig. 5(a) have no error bars, and the text does not state the FFT frequency resolution, the linewidths of the measured peaks, or the run-to-run repeatability across reset cycles. The claim that a δ=0.003 perturbation is 'distinguishable' requires a quantitative comparison between the peak separation and the peak width/noise floor. As written, the data support a qualitative √δ-like trend but do not fully substantiate the quantitative sensitivity enhancement claimed in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (9)] The rendered formula for α1 is garbled in the manuscript text ('/radical√p/radicalver√ex/...'); the production version should be checked carefully so that the Puiseux coefficient expression is readable.
  2. [Section III.A and Fig. 4(a)] The slight shift between the theoretical and experimental dispersion curves is attributed to parasitics and tolerances, but no quantitative estimate is given; a number (e.g. the frequency offset at the EPD) would make the 'good agreement' statement more concrete.
  3. [Section III.B] The sentence 'each 5 mV change in the positive level of the pump voltage will result in 1% change of the C1 capacitor value' relies on the ideal multiplier model and would be better accompanied by a statement of the measured C(t) or at least by a discussion of how the actual multiplier gain and offset were characterized.
  4. [Figure 5 caption] The phrase 'Proof of exceptional sensitivity' is stronger than the evidence presented; 'Demonstration' or 'Measurement' would be more appropriate.
  5. [Supplemental Material, Section I] The derivation leading to C(t)=C0(1−vp(t)/V0) ignores the switching transients in vp(t); it would be helpful to state explicitly that the relation is valid away from the switching instants and to comment on any charge-injection effects from the reset switches.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the theoretical EPD and Puiseux prediction are taken from prior work but independently tested by parameter-free comparison with measured FFT peaks.

full rationale

The paper's theoretical framework (state transition matrix, EPD condition, Jordan-block linear growth, and Puiseux expansion) is taken from the same group's earlier work [32] and from general results [33,34], but the experimental content is an independent test of that framework. The EPD is identified by two independent observables: the dispersion diagram (measured resonance frequencies versus modulation frequency) and the linear growth of the capacitor voltage in the time domain. The sensitivity comparison in Fig. 5 is parameter-free: the Puiseux coefficient α1 = j2.65 is calculated from the state transition matrix, and the experimental frequency shifts are obtained from FFT peaks of the measured voltage waveform. The relative perturbation δ is set by changing the pump-voltage high level and converted to a capacitance change using the ideal multiplier relation C(t) = C0(1 − vp(t)/V0) with V0 = 1.05 V from the AD835 datasheet. This calibration is not directly measured and could be a source of experimental error, but it is not circular: the measured frequencies are not used to define δ or to fit the theoretical curve, so the √δ prediction remains falsifiable. Self-citation of [32] is for the Floquet formalism, which this experiment independently validates; no equation reduces to its own input and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced; the synthetic time-varying capacitor is a circuit realization using a known multiplier. The free parameters are minimal, with the only fitted numbers being illustrative curve coefficients in Fig. 2. The main assumptions are Floquet theory, the ideal multiplier model for the time-varying capacitor, the Puiseux expansion, and the treatment of losses as a small perturbation.

free parameters (1)
  • Fitting coefficients for simulated energy growth in Fig. 2 = a=0.01, b=0.23, c=1.74
    Used to illustrate the quadratic energy growth in a simulation (Fig. 2); these coefficients are not used in the central claim and do not affect the experimental sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Floquet theory: the state transition matrix Phi(Tm,0) determines the evolution and its eigenvalues are exp(j2π f Tm)
    Invoked in Sec. II to define resonance frequencies and to identify degeneracies of the monodromy matrix.
  • domain assumption The time-varying capacitor is exactly modeled as C(t)=C0(1-vp(t)/V0) with an ideal multiplier and no bandwidth limitations
    Used in Sec. III and Supplement I to derive the system matrix; the physical AD835 multiplier has finite bandwidth, offset, and nonlinearity that are not included in the model.
  • standard math The Puiseux series expansion for eigenvalues near an EPD (Ref. [33]) is valid and truncated at first order in sqrt(delta)
    Eq. (8)-(10) rely on the Puiseux series from Welters (Ref. [33]); this is a standard perturbation result for non-diagonalizable matrices.
  • domain assumption The system is approximately lossless except for a small series resistance, so the EPD condition can be applied with a small imaginary part
    Used in Sec. II to locate EPDs and in Sec. III to argue that frequency shifts are approximately real; actual losses from the inductor and switches are only partially represented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental Demonstration of Exceptional Points of Degeneracy in Linear Time Periodic Systems and Exceptional Sensitivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/E5SEWQ3D

@misc{pith2026190808516,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental Demonstration of Exceptional Points of Degeneracy in Linear Time Periodic Systems and Exceptional Sensitivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/E5SEWQ3D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08516}
}
read the original abstract

We present the experimental demonstration of the occurrence of exceptional points of degeneracy (EPDs) in a single resonator by introducing a linear time-periodic variation of one of its components, in contrast to EPDs in parity time (PT)-symmetric systems that require two coupled resonators with precise values of gain and loss. In the proposed scheme, only the tuning of the modulation frequency is required that is easily achieved in electronic systems. The EPD is a point in a system parameters' space at which two or more eigenstates coalesce, and this leads to unique properties not occurring at other non-degenerate operating points. We show theoretically and experimentally the existence of a second order EPD in a time-varying single resonator. Furthermore, we measure the sensitivity of the proposed system to a small structural perturbation and show that the operation of the system at an EPD dramatically boosts its sensitivity performance to very small perturbations. Also, we show experimentally how this unique sensitivity induced by an EPD can be used to devise new exceptionally-sensitive sensors based on a single resonator by simply applying time modulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08516 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Linear time-periodic LC resonator with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between the time-average energy stored [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Schematic of the LTP-varying LC resonator us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Theoretical (solid lines) and experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Proof of exceptional sensitivity. Experimental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Schematic of the time-varying LC resonator circuit based on the capacitor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The three switches used for establishing the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Kazemi, M

    H. Kazemi, M. Y. Nada, T. Mealy, A. F. Abdelshafy, and F. Capolino, Phys. Rev. Applied11, 014007 (2019)

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    P.-J. Chen, S. Saati, R. Varma, M. S. Humayun, and Y.- C. Tai, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems19, 721 (2010)

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    P.-Y. Chen, M. Sakhdari, M. Hajizadegan, Q. Cui, M. M.-C. Cheng, R. El-Ganainy, and A. Alu, Nature Electronics 1, 297 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [3]

    T. Q. Trung, S. Ramasundaram, B.-U. Hwang, and N.- E. Lee, Advanced materials28, 502 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [4]

    Y.Feng, L.Xie, Q.Chen, andL.-R.Zheng,IEEESensors Journal 15, 3201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  6. [5]

    P.-J. Chen, D. C. Rodger, S. Saati, M. S. Humayun, and Y.-C. Tai, Journal of Microelectromechanical Sys- tems 17, 1342 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [6]

    Yvanoff and J

    M. Yvanoff and J. Venkataraman, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation57, 885 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [7]

    L. Y. Chen, B. C.-K. Tee, A. L. Chortos, G. Schwartz, V. Tse, D. J. Lipomi, H.-S. P. Wong, M. V. McConnell, and Z. Bao, Nature communications5, 5028 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    S.Corrie, J.Coffey, J.Islam, K.Markey, andM.Kendall, Analyst 140, 4350 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    Tseng, B

    P. Tseng, B. Napier, L. Garbarini, D. L. Kaplan, and F. G. Omenetto, Advanced Materials30, 1703257 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Y. J. Zhang, H. Kwon, M.-A. Miri, E. Kallos, H. Cano- Garcia, M. S. Tong, and A. Alu, Physical Review Ap- plied 11, 044049 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    Kazemi, A

    H. Kazemi, A. Hajiaghajani, M. Y. Nada, M. Dautta, M. Alshetaiwi, P. Tseng, and F. Capolino, arXiv:1909.03344 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    M.A.K.Othman, F.Yazdi, A.Figotin, andF.Capolino, Phys. Rev. B93, 024301 (2016)

    2016

  6. [13]

    M. Y. Nada and F. Capolino, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B37, 2319 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Veysi, M

    M. Veysi, M. A. K. Othman, A. Figotin, and F. Capolino, Physical Review B97, 195107 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Hodaei, M.-A

    H. Hodaei, M.-A. Miri, M. Heinrich, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan, Science346, 975 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Oshmarin, F

    D. Oshmarin, F. Yazdi, M. A. Othman, J. Sloan, M. Rad- far, M.M.Green, andF.Capolino,IETCircuits, Devices & Systems (2019)

    2019

  10. [17]

    Schindler, A

    J. Schindler, A. Li, M. C. Zheng, F. M. Ellis, and T. Kot- tos, Physical Review A84, 040101 (2011)

    2011

  11. [18]

    Chitsazi, H

    M. Chitsazi, H. Li, F. Ellis, and T. Kottos, Physical Review Letters 119, 093901 (2017)

    2017

  12. [19]

    Sakhdari, M

    M. Sakhdari, M. Hajizadegan, Y. Li, M. Cheng, J. C. H. Hung, and P.-Y. Chen, IEEE Sensors Journal18, 9548 (2018)

    2018

  13. [20]

    Sakhdari, M

    M. Sakhdari, M. Hajizadegan, Q. Zhong, D. Christodoulides, R. El-Ganainy, and P.-Y. Chen, Physical Review Letters 123 (2019), 10.1103/phys- revlett.123.193901

    2019 doi

  14. [21]

    Wiersig, Physical Review Letters112, 203901 (2014)

    J. Wiersig, Physical Review Letters112, 203901 (2014)

    2014

  15. [22]

    Wiersig, Physical Review A93, 033809 (2016)

    J. Wiersig, Physical Review A93, 033809 (2016)

    2016

  16. [23]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Kha- javikhan, Nature 548, 187 (2017)

    2017

  17. [24]

    W. Chen, S. Kaya Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang, Nature548, 192 (2017)

    2017

  18. [25]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Physical Review Letters 80, 5243 (1998)

    1998

  19. [26]

    Stehmann, W

    T. Stehmann, W. D. Heiss, and F. G. Scholtz, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General37, 7813 (2004)

    2004

  20. [27]

    M. Y. Nada, H. Kazemi, A. F. Abdelshafy, F. Yazdi, D. Oshmarin, T. Mealy, A. Figotin, and F. Capolino, in 2018 18th Mediterranean Microwave Symposium (MMS) (IEEE, 2018) pp. 108–111

    2018

  21. [28]

    M. Y. Nada, M. A. K. Othman, and F. Capolino, Phys- ical Review B96, 184304 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    M. A. K. Othman, M. Veysi, A. Figotin, and F. Capolino, Physics of Plasmas23, 033112 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    A.FigotinandI.Vitebskiy,PhysicalReviewE 72(2005), 10.1103/physreve.72.036619

    2005 doi

  24. [31]

    M. Y. Nada, A. F. Abdelshafy, T. Mealy, F. Yazdi, H. Kazemi, A. Figotin, and F. Capolino, in 2018 In- ternational Conference on Electromagnetics in Advanced Applications (ICEAA) (IEEE, 2018) pp. 627–629

    2018

  25. [33]

    Welters, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Ap- plications 32, 1 (2011)

    A. Welters, SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Ap- plications 32, 1 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    J. A. Richards,Analysis of periodically time-varying sys- tems (Springer, New York, 1983)

    1983

  27. [35]

    Parametric amplifier,

    A. Ashkin, J. S. Cook, W. H. Louisell, and C. F. Quate, “Parametric amplifier,” (1960), US Patent 2,958,001

    1960

  28. [36]

    Cassedy and A

    E. Cassedy and A. Oliner, Proceedings of the IEEE51, 1342 (1963)

    1963

  29. [37]

    E. M. T. J. R. C. Honey, IEEE Transactions on Mi- crowave Theory and Techniques8, 351 (1960)

    1960

  30. [38]

    J.-C. Lee, H. Taylor, and K. Chang, IEEE Microwave and Guided Wave Letters7, 267 (1997)

    1997

  31. [39]

    Yamamoto, K

    T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, M. Watanabe, K. Matsuba, T. Miyazaki, W. D. Oliver, Y. Nakamura, and J. S. Tsai, Applied Physics Letters93, 042510 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    Langbein, Physical Review A98, 023805 (2018)

    W. Langbein, Physical Review A98, 023805 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Zhang, W

    M. Zhang, W. Sweeney, C. W. Hsu, L. Yang, A. Stone, and L. Jiang, Physical Review Letters 123, 180501 10 (2019)

    2019

  34. [42]

    Lau and A

    H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, Nature Communications9, 4320 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Wiersig, Nature Communications11, 2454 (2020)

    J. Wiersig, Nature Communications11, 2454 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Wiersig, Physical Review A101, 053846 (2020)

    J. Wiersig, Physical Review A101, 053846 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Z. Xiao, H. Li, T. Kottos, and A. Alù, Physical Review Letters 123, 213901 (2019). Experimental Demonstration of Exceptional Points of Degeneracy in Linear Time Periodic Systems and Exceptional Sensitivity Hamidreza Kazemi, Mohamed Y. Nada, Alireza Nikzamir, Franco Maddaleno, ...

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kazemi, M

    H. Kazemi, M. Y. Nada, T. Mealy, A. F. Abdelshafy, and F. Capolino, Phys. Rev. Applied 11, 014007 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    250 MHz, Voltage Output, 4-Quadrant Multiplier, Analog Devices (2019), rev. E

    2019

  40. [48]

    Surface Mount Ceramic Capacitor Products, A VX Corpo- ration (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Shielded Power Inductors-MSS7348, Coilcraft Inc. (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Power-Off Protection±5 V, +12 V, Quad SPST Switches with 5 Ohms On Resistance, Analog Devices (2019), rev. 0

    2019

Pith tools

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