Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 44 references

Optimal Planning and Machine Learning for Responsive Tracking and Enhanced Forecasting of Wildfires using a Spacecraft Constellation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes combining an optimal satellite-scheduling solver with machine-learning fire-spread predictions so CYGNSS can collect 98–100% of usable wildfire observations and deliver burnt-area and soil-moisture products to firefighte

desk verdict The supplied full text is an unrelated trapped-ion physics paper; none of the wildfire/CYGNSS claims in the abstract appear anywhere in the body, so the submission as it stands is unevaluable. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06687 v2 pith:GJ2RFGRB submitted 2025-08-08 cs.RO

Sreeja Roy-Singh , Vinay Ravindra , Richard Levinson , Mahta Moghaddam , Jan Mandel , Adam Kochanski , Angel Farguell Caus , Kurtis Nelson
show 3 more authors
Samira Alkaee Taleghan Archana Kannan Amer Melebari
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords wildfiretrackingCYGNSSGNSS-Rsatellitetaskingmixedintegerprogrammingmachinelearningburntareamappingfirespreadforecasting
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 is trying to establish a complete concept of operations for wildfire monitoring from a satellite constellation: use a Mixed Integer Program to schedule joint observation and downlink for every spacecraft, use machine-learning fire-spread predictions to tell the scheduler where to look, process the collected specular GPS-reflectometry signals into burnt-area maps and soil moisture, and feed those products into operational fire-spread and danger models. The target platform is CYGNSS, a constellation of passive microwave receivers that can see through clouds and smoke. The abstract claims the scheduler captures 98–100% of available observation opportunities; that its ML fire predictions correlate with ground truth more than 40% better than existing state-of-the-art models; and that including CYGNSS data raises burn-prediction accuracy by 13%, with high-resolution data adding another 15% to recall, all within an expected latency of 6–30 hours rather than multiple days. A sympathetic reader would take this as a concrete path toward making a weather- and ocean-focused satellite system into a near-real-time wildfire intelligence network.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are: (1) a Mixed Integer Program that couples each satellite's observation and downlink decisions so the whole constellation's tasking is optimized as one problem; (2) ML fire-spread models whose predictions set the planner's objective; and (3) specular GNSS-R measurements from CYGNSS — passive microwave reflections of GPS signals off the surface — which penetrate clouds and smoke. Ground-side neural nets convert those reflections into Burnt Area Maps and soil-moisture fields, which are then assimilated into a numerical fire-spread model and operational fire-danger maps. The MIP carries the scheduling claim; the ML retrieval chain carries the accuracy and recall gain

What would settle it

On the two named fire events, rebuild the burnt-area maps from CYGNSS data with and without the claimed high-resolution inputs and compare against independent burned-area reference maps, using a temporal holdout so the 2024 and 2025 fires are not in training data. If adding CYGNSS does not improve burn-prediction accuracy by roughly 13%, or high-resolution data does not improve recall by another 15%, the performance claim fails. A second check: compare CYGNSS delay-Doppler observables over burned versus unburned pixels with similar soil moisture and vegetation; if no systematic signal differen

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bottleneck in satellite wildfire monitoring is not the sensor but the tasking and data pipeline. On the author's account, a Mixed Integer Program can schedule observation and downlink across the whole CYGNSS constellation so quickly that 98–100% of usable fire-overpass opportunities are collected. Machine-learning predictions of fire spread, more than 40% better correlated with ground truth than current models, drive the planner's objective. The two named case studies — the 2024 Texas Smokehouse Creek fire and the 2025 Los Angeles fires — are presented as the first high-resolution CYGNSS observations of active fires, used to create Burnt Area Maps by ML,

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline presupposes that the specular GPS-reflectometry signal CYGNSS receives over an active fire contains a retrievable fire imprint — burnt area and soil moisture — that the ML models can cleanly separate from other surface variability; the abstract asserts the two case studies prove this, but the supplied text contains no retrieval chain, validation, or error analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, wildfire products — burnt-area maps, soil moisture, fire-spread forecasts — could refresh on a 6–30 hour cycle rather than the current multi-day delivery.
  • An automated solver could task a constellation like CYGNSS without human planning, capturing nearly every usable overpass that the ML objective identifies.
  • Burn prediction accuracy and recall would gain measurably from a data source that works through clouds and smoke, where optical fire monitoring is blind.
  • The schedule-and-learn pipeline is claimed to be globally generalizable and scalable, so the same concept could apply to future GNSS-R constellations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial note: the full text supplied under this paper's identifier is an unrelated quantum-optics manuscript, not the wildfire paper. The abstract is the only evidence for the stated percentages, and they cannot be checked against this text.
  • If the CYGNSS retrieval premise holds, the same GNSS-R observables could be tested for other hazards hidden from optical sensors, such as flooding under cloud, volcanic ash, or oil spills, where the surface dielectric signature changes.
  • A strict temporal holdout — training ML burn-prediction models on fires before 2024 and testing on the Smokehouse Creek and LA 2025 events — would be the direct way to confirm the reported 13% and 15% gains are not leakage from training on those same fires.
  • Because the scheduler's objective comes from an ML fire-spread forecast, the 98–100% capture figure is only as good as the forecast; a mispredicted perimeter could send the constellation to the wrong pixels even with a provably optimal solver.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This submission is titled in its abstract as 'Optimal Planning and Machine Learning for Responsive Tracking and Enhanced Forecasting of Wildfires using a Spacecraft Constellation.' The abstract proposes a concept of operations for wildfire monitoring with CYGNSS, a Mixed Integer Program scheduling joint observations and downlinks, ML-based fire prediction and burnt-area maps (BAM), assimilation into WRF, and case studies on the TX Smokehouse Creek 2024 and LA 2025 fires. It claims 98–100% observation capture, >40% correlation improvement over state of the art, 13% accuracy and 15% recall gains, and 6–30 h latency. The supplied full text, however, is a different paper: 'Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves' by Ricardo, Diniz, and Villas-Bôas, arXiv:2508.06683v1 [quant-ph]. Its Sections I–III and Appendix A concern trapped-ion quantum optics (Jaynes–Cummings and Carrier interactions, phonon/photon interference, an ion-chain transistor/filter). It contains no mention of wildfires, CYGNSS, GNSS-R, MIP scheduling, machine learning, burnt-area mapping, soil moisture, WRF, USGS fire-danger maps, or the two case studies. Because the body is the only place where methods, data, and results could be evaluated, the abstract's claims are unsupported in the submitted manuscript.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were substantiated, the contribution would be significant: a scalable planner capturing nearly all CYGNSS observation opportunities and an ML retrieval/assimilation pipeline with materially better fire prediction and shorter delivery latency would be useful for operational wildfire monitoring. The manuscript as submitted, however, does not contain the corresponding technical content. There are no equations, no algorithm definitions, no datasets, no validation experiments, no error bars, and no code/reproducibility artifacts for the claimed pipeline. In its current form the submission cannot be assessed on scientific merit; the central object of evaluation is absent.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Full Text] Every quantitative claim in the abstract—98–100% observation capture, >40% correlation gain, 13% accuracy boost, 15% recall boost, 6–30 h latency—is unsupported by the supplied body. The full text, Sections I–III and Appendix A, is a trapped-ion quantum-optics paper with no CYGNSS, wildfire, scheduling, or machine-learning content. There are no equations, tables, figures, or experiments corresponding to the abstract's claims, so the central claims cannot be checked.
  2. [Case-study and data claims] The abstract asserts that the TX Smokehouse Creek 2024 and LA fires 2025 case studies are 'the first high-resolution data collected by CYGNSS of active fires' and that including CYGNSS data boosts burn prediction accuracy by 13% and high-resolution data boosts recall by 15%. The body contains no dataset description, no preprocessing or retrieval chain, no validation protocol, and no error analysis for these case studies. As submitted, these claims are unverifiable assertions.
  3. [ML evaluation independence] The abstract's evaluation numbers are tied to the two case-study fires around which the pipeline is developed. No train/test split, ablation, cross-validation, or independent test set is described anywhere in the manuscript. Since the body does not report the experimental design, it is impossible to determine whether the models were evaluated on data independent of their development; the current text provides no evidence of such independence.
  4. [GNSS-R fire-signal premise] The concept presupposes that specular GNSS-R reflections received by CYGNSS over active fires carry a retrievable fire signal that can be converted into burnt-area and soil-moisture products. The body provides no retrieval algorithm, no physical model, and no validation of this premise. Without this, the stated accuracy/recall gains have no demonstrated physical or observational basis in the submitted text.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Title and metadata] The title of the supplied body, 'Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves,' differs entirely from the topic of the abstract. The submission lacks a single consistent title.
  2. [arXiv identifier/header] The body carries the header 'arXiv:2508.06683v1 [quant-ph] 8 Aug 2025,' whereas the abstract corresponds to arXiv:2508.06687. This metadata inconsistency should be resolved before any further consideration.
  3. [References] The body's reference list consists entirely of quantum-optics and trapped-ion works and contains no citations to CYGNSS, wildfire remote sensing, MIP scheduling, or ML-based fire prediction. The abstract's claims are left without contextual support.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: supplied full text is a different paper (quant-ph), so no derivation chain exists to evaluate.

full rationale

The supplied full text is not the paper described in the abstract. The abstract for arXiv:2508.06687 claims a CYGNSS wildfire-monitoring concept using a Mixed Integer Program planner, ML-based fire prediction, burnt-area maps, soil-moisture integration, and specific quantitative results (98-100% observation capture, >40% correlation improvement, 13% and 15% accuracy/recall boosts, 6-30h latency). The provided body, however, is titled 'Interference Between Electromagnetic and Mechanical Waves', carries the header 'arXiv:2508.06683v1 [quant-ph] 8 Aug 2025', and is a trapped-ion quantum-optics paper studying Jaynes-Cummings and Carrier interactions. It contains no mention of CYGNSS, wildfires, MIP scheduling, machine learning, burnt-area mapping, soil moisture, the TX Smokehouse Creek fire, or the LA fires. Consequently, there is no derivation chain in the provided text whose outputs could be compared to its inputs; the abstract's claims are entirely unsupported by the body. This is a completeness/integrity failure (the wrong manuscript was supplied), not a circularity of the kind where a prediction reduces by construction to its fitted inputs or to a self-citation. On the requested 0-10 circularity scale, the correct finding is 0: no circular step can be identified because the claimed derivation is absent.

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

The provided text permits no audit of the actual wildfire pipeline. The free parameters listed are inferred from the abstract: any MIP scheduler requires objective weights, and the reported ML gains are outputs of fitted models whose configuration is undisclosed. The concept rests on domain assumptions (GNSS-R fire detectability, representativeness of two case studies, operational benefit of assimilating new products) that are asserted, not demonstrated, in the available text. No new physical entities are proposed; the new products (BAM, neural-net fire-spread broadcast) are pipeline artifacts, not independent entities.

free parameters (3)
  • MIP scheduling objective weights (observation value vs. downlink and timing trade-offs) = not reported
    The abstract says a mixed-integer program schedules joint observation and downlink; the value of each observation is derived from ML fire predictions, so objective weights or scoring functions must exist but are undisclosed.
  • ML model parameters for fire prediction, BAM generation, and WRF burn-map assimilation = not reported
    The quantitative performance numbers in the abstract (40% correlation, 13% accuracy, 15% recall, 98-100% capture) are outputs of fitted models; no training configuration or hyperparameters are given.
  • Expected end-to-end latency (6-30h) = 6-30 hours
    The abstract presents a 6-30h latency window as an expected performance figure with no budget model, sizing analysis, or simulation shown in the available text; it is an asserted design number.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption CYGNSS GNSS-R specular reflections over active fires carry a fire-relevant signal extractable to burnt-area and soil-moisture products
    The entire concept depends on this; the abstract asserts 'first high-resolution data collected by CYGNSS of active fires' with no retrieval or validation details in the provided text.
  • domain assumption The two case-study fires (TX Smokehouse Creek 2024, LA 2025) support the claimed gains and the results generalize globally
    Evaluation of the 13% and 15% improvements rests on two events, and 'globally generalizable' is claimed; no cross-validation or error analysis appears in the abstract or body.
  • domain assumption Existing decision support tools (WRF, USGS fire danger maps) accept and benefit from the new assimilated products
    Assimilation is claimed, but compatibility, error propagation, and operational uptake are not demonstrated in the available text.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Planning and Machine Learning for Responsive Tracking and Enhanced Forecasting of Wildfires using a Spacecraft Constellation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJ2RFGRB

@misc{pith2026250806687,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Planning and Machine Learning for Responsive Tracking and Enhanced Forecasting of Wildfires using a Spacecraft Constellation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJ2RFGRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06687}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a novel concept of operations using optimal planning methods and machine learning (ML) to collect spaceborne data that is unprecedented for monitoring wildfires, process it to create new or enhanced products in the context of wildfire danger or spread monitoring, and assimilate them to improve existing, wildfire decision support tools delivered to firefighters within latency appropriate for time-critical applications. The concept is studied with respect to NASA's CYGNSS Mission, a constellation of passive microwave receivers that measure specular GNSS-R reflections despite clouds and smoke. Our planner uses a Mixed Integer Program formulation to schedule joint observation data collection and downlink for all satellites. Optimal solutions are found quickly that collect 98-100% of available observation opportunities. ML-based fire predictions that drive the planner objective are greater than 40% more correlated with ground truth than existing state-of-art. The presented case study on the TX Smokehouse Creek fire in 2024 and LA fires in 2025 represents the first high-resolution data collected by CYGNSS of active fires. Creation of Burnt Area Maps (BAM) using ML on data from active fires and BAM assimilation into NASA's Weather Research and Forecasting Model using neural nets to broadcast fire spread are novel outcomes. BAM and CYGNSS obtained soil moisture are integrated for the first time into USGS fire danger maps. Inclusion of CYGNSS data in ML-based burn predictions boosts accuracy by 13%, and inclusion of high-resolution data boosts ML recall by another 15%. The proposed workflow has an expected latency of 6-30h, improving on the current delivery time of multiple days. All components in the proposed concept are shown to be computationally scalable and globally generalizable, with sustainability considerations such as edge efficiency and low latency on small devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Freegarde, Introduction to the Physics of Waves (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    T. Freegarde, Introduction to the Physics of Waves (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    D ¨orfler, M

    W. D ¨orfler, M. Hochbruck, D. Hundertmark, W. Re- ichel, A. Rieder, R. Schnaubelt, and B. Sch ¨orkhuber, eds., Mathematics of Wave Phenomena, Trends in Mathematics (Springer International Publishing, 2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    D. H. Towne, Wave Phenomena (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967)

    work page 1967

  4. [4]

    Hecht, Optics, 5th ed

    E. Hecht, Optics, 5th ed. (Pearson Education, Boston, MA, 2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of optics: Electromagnetic the- ory of propagation, interference and diffraction of light, Perga- mon Press, Oxford, 1959

    work page 1959

  6. [6]

    N. Bohr, I. on the constitution of atoms and molecules, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophi- cal Magazine and Journal of Science 26, 1 (1913), https://doi.org/10.1080/1478644130863495

    work page doi:10.1080/1478644130863495 1913

  7. [7]

    W. H. Zurek, Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – revisited (2003), arXiv:quant-ph/0306072 [quant- ph]

    arXiv 2003

  8. [8]

    DE BROGLIE, Waves and quanta, Nature 112, 540 (1923)

    L. DE BROGLIE, Waves and quanta, Nature 112, 540 (1923)

    work page 1923

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    De Broglie, Louis, Recherches sur la th ´eorie des quanta, Ann. Phys. 10, 22 (1925)

    1925

  2. [10]

    R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, and R. B. Lindsay, The feynman lectures on physics, vol. 3: Quantum mechanics, Physics Today 19, 80 (1966), https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article- pdf/19/11/80/7460815/80 1 online.pdf

    1966

  3. [11]

    C. J. Villas-Boas, C. E. M ´aximo, P. J. Paulino, R. P. Bachelard, and G. Rempe, Bright and dark states of light: The quantum origin of classical interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 133603 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    C. M. Diniz, F. R. Henrique, B. S. de Souza, L. Misoguti, P. H. D. Ferreira, and C. J. V . B ˆoas, Pulsed laser as a contin- uous particle stream (2025), arXiv:2412.19746 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    R. J. Glauber, Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  6. [14]

    R. J. Glauber, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  7. [15]

    R. J. Glauber, Nobel lecture: One hundred years of light quanta, Reviews of Modern Physics 78, 1267 (2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    R. J. Glauber, Quantum theory of optical coherence: selected papers and lectures (2007), John Wiley & Sons

    2007

  9. [17]

    B. J. Eggleton, C. G. Poulton, P. T. Rakich, M. J. Steel, and G. Bahl, Brillouin integrated photonics, Nature Photonics 13, 664 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini and O. Painter, Proposal for an optome- chanical traveling wave phonon–photon translator, New Journal of Physics 13, 013017 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    M. S. Tame, K. R. McEnery, S ¸. K.¨Ozdemir, J. Lee, S. A. Maier, and M. S. Kim, Quantum plasmonics, Nature Physics 9, 329 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity op- tomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Verhagen, S

    E. Verhagen, S. Del´eglise, S. Weis, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kip- penberg, Quantum-coherent coupling of a mechanical oscillator to an optical cavity mode, Nature 482, 63 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quan- tum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Q. Xie, H. Zhong, M. T. Batchelor, and C. Lee, The quantum rabi model: solution and dynamics, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical 50, 113001 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    Monroe, D

    C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714 (1995)

    1995

  18. [26]

    Debnath, N

    S. Debnath, N. M. Linke, S.-T. Wang, C. Figgatt, K. A. Lands- man, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Observation of hopping and blockade of bosons in a trapped ion spin chain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 073001 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Shapira, L

    Y . Shapira, L. Peleg, D. Schwerdt, J. Nemirovsky, N. Akerman, A. Stern, A. B. Kish, and R. Ozeri, Fast design and scaling of multi-qubit gates in large-scale trapped-ion quantum computers (2023), arXiv:2307.09566 [quant-ph]

    2023

  20. [28]

    C. A. Polanco and A. W. Ghosh, Enhancing phonon flow through one-dimensional interfaces by impedance matching, Journal of Applied Physics 116, 083503 (2014), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4893789/15143125/083503 1 online.pdf

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    S. Abo, G. Chimczak, A. Kowalewska-Kudłaszyk, J. Pe ˇrina, R. Chhajlany, and A. Miranowicz, Hybrid photon–phonon blockade, Scientific Reports 12, 17655 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    M. A. de Ponte and A. C. Santos, Shortening time scale to re- duce thermal effects in quantum transistors, Scientific Reports 9, 10470 (2019). 7

    2019

  23. [31]

    Y .-X. Chen, T. Yuri, and K. Toyoda, Study of decoherence in radial local phonon hopping within trapped-ion string (2024), arXiv:2411.04765 [quant-ph]

    2024

  24. [32]

    C. M. L ¨oschnauer, J. M. Toba, A. C. Hughes, S. A. King, M. A. Weber, R. Srinivas, R. Matt, R. Nourshargh, D. T. C. All- cock, C. J. Ballance, C. Matthiesen, M. Malinowski, and T. P. Harty, Scalable, high-fidelity all-electronic control of trapped- ion qubits (2024), arXiv:24...

    2024

  25. [33]

    T. R. Tan, J. P. Gaebler, R. Bowler, Y . Lin, J. D. Jost, D. Leibfried, and D. J. Wineland, Demonstration of a dressed- state phase gate for trapped ions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 263002 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Q. Wu, Y . Shi, and J. Zhang, Continuous raman sideband cool- ing beyond the lamb-dicke regime in a trapped ion chain, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023022 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Imamo ¯glu, H

    A. Imamo ¯glu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, Strongly interacting photons in a nonlinear cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1467 (1997)

    1997

  28. [36]

    Z. Wang, H. Qiao, A. N. Cleland, and L. Jiang, Quantum ran- dom access memory with transmon-controlled phonon routing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 210601 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    S. J. M. Habraken, K. Stannigel, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and P. Rabl, Continuous mode cooling and phonon routers for phononic quantum networks, New Journal of Physics 14, 115004 (2012)

    2012

  30. [38]

    H. Sun, Y . Liu, and T. Li, Application perspective of cavity op- tomechanical system, Frontiers in Quantum Science and Tech- nology 10.3389/frqst.2022.1091691 (2023)

    2022

  31. [39]

    W. C. Jiang and Q. Lin, Chip-scale cavity optomechanics in lithium niobate, Scientific Reports 6, 36920 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Meher and S

    N. Meher and S. Sivakumar, A review on quantum information processing in cavities, The European Physical Journal Plus137, 985 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Sharma, Z

    T. Sharma, Z. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Cheng, and K. Yu, Past, present, and future of hybrid plasmonic waveguides for pho- tonics integrated circuits, Nanotechnology and Precision Engi- neering 7, 045001 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Labont ´e, O

    L. Labont ´e, O. Alibart, V . D’Auria, F. Doutre, J. Etesse, G. Sauder, A. Martin, E. Picholle, and S. Tanzilli, Integrated photonics for quantum communications and metrology, PRX Quantum 5, 010101 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Rackauckas and Q

    C. Rackauckas and Q. Nie, Differentialequations.jl–a perfor- mant and feature-rich ecosystem for solving differential equa- tions in julia, Journal of Open Research Software 5, 15 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Bezanson, A

    J. Bezanson, A. Edelman, S. Karpinski, and V . B. Shah, Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing, SIAM review59, 65 (2017). Appendix A: Semiclassical simulation of the quantum system The quantum dynamics were solved using a semiclas- sical approximation to the Hamiltonia...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.