Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 173 references

Graphene Electro-Absorption Modulators for Energy-Efficient and High-Speed Optical Transceivers

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graphene electro-absorption modulators hit 80 Gbit/s at 58 fJ/bit.

desk verdict Record bandwidth for graphene EAMs is credible, but the 58fJ/bit energy claim is off by a factor of ~4 and the 80Gbit/s BER is above FEC limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03281 v1 pith:IUWWC7AL submitted 2025-06-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

M. Tiberi , A. Montanaro , C. Wen , J. Zhang , O. Balci , S. M. Shinde , S. Sharma , A. Meersha
show 14 more authors
H. Shekhar J. E. Muench B. R. Conran K. B. K. Teo M. Ebert X. Yan Y. Tran M. Banakar C. Littlejohns G. T. Reed M. Romagnoli A. Ruocco V. Sorianello A. C. Ferrari
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords grapheneelectro-absorptionmodulatorsiliconphotonicsPauliblockingwafer-scaleintegrationopticalinterconnectsenergyperbitO-bandandC-bandelectro-opticbandwidth
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

Modulators are a key energy bottleneck in optical transceivers: reaching Tbit/s interconnects at under 1pJ/bit requires each lane to run above 50GBaud while spending under 100fJ/bit. This paper reports double single-layer graphene electro-absorption modulators made on 200mm silicon-on-insulator wafers, with a measured 67GHz electro-optic bandwidth, 80Gbit/s NRZ data rate in both O and C bands, ~58fJ/bit dynamic energy, and ~0.037dB/Vµm modulation efficiency. If correct, these are the fastest and most energy-efficient scalable graphene amplitude modulators reported, about 1.6 times faster than prior CVD-graphene devices and roughly 16 times better in modulation efficiency, in an active area of ~22µm2. The significance is that a graphene modulator can now compete with SiGe, III-V, and lithium-niobate devices on speed and energy while keeping broadband operation and a CMOS-compatible, wafer-scale process.

What carries the argument

The central object is the double single-layer graphene electro-absorption modulator (DSLG EAM): a SLG/dielectric/SLG capacitor placed on a thin oxide cladding above a silicon waveguide, with 3.5nm hBN plus PE-ALD Al2O3 as the gate dielectric. The operating mechanism is Pauli blocking: gating moves the graphene Fermi level, turning interband absorption on or off, which changes the mode's extinction coefficient; simulations use a graphene surface-conductivity model with $\tau=350$fs, matching the measured $\mu\sim8000$cm$^2$/Vs. The bandwidth claim is carried by a lumped-element RC model, $V_C/V_T=1/(1+i\omega R_T C_T)$, where $C_T$ is the series combination of oxide capacitance $C_{\text{ox}}$ and graphene quantum capacitance $C_Q$, and $R_T$ includes contact, gated, and ungated graphene resistances. This model predicts 70GHz for the 40nm-oxide, 40µm device, close to the measured 67GHz. The energy claim uses $E_{\text{bit}}=CV_{\text{pp}}^2/4$, and the fabrication process is carried by selective CMP/dry-etch planarization that limits SLG to active sections plus two-step Au metallization that reduces contact resistance.

What would settle it

Measure the low-frequency capacitance of the finished 40nm-oxide modulator as a function of bias using an $S_{11}$ measurement, record the actual peak-to-peak voltage at the probe tip during 80Gbit/s transmission, and compute $E_{\text{bit}}=CV_{\text{pp}}^2/4$; if the result exceeds 58fJ/bit by several times, the headline energy claim is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The claim is that voltage applied across two CVD graphene sheets separated by an hBN/Al2O3 dielectric shifts the Fermi level of both sheets, switching their interband absorption through Pauli blocking and modulating light carried in the silicon waveguide's evanescent field. For the 40nm-oxide, 40µm-long design, the authors measure a 3dB electro-optic bandwidth of 67GHz and NRZ eye diagrams at 60 and 80Gbit/s in the C band, with 40Gbit/s demonstrated in the O band. They report static extinction ratios up to ~4.5dB, average ER ~0.12dB/µm for the 20nm-oxide design, modulation efficiency ~0.037dB/Vµm, insertion loss ~0.9dB, and a dynamic energy estimate of ~58fJ/bit from $E_{\text{bit}}=CV_{\text{pp}}^2/4$. The paper concludes that wafer-scale graphene amplitude modulators can now deliver the speed and energy budget needed for Tbit/s, DSP-free NRZ transceivers in data-centre and AI optical networks.

Load-bearing premise

The 58fJ/bit energy figure assumes that the capacitance entering $E_{\text{bit}}=CV_{\text{pp}}^2/4$ is the small effective value the estimate requires, but the paper does not report a direct measurement of that capacitance or of the voltage actually reaching the modulator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 80Gbit/s per lane, 20 modulators on one photonic circuit would form a 1.6Tbit/s transmitter, the configuration the paper proposes for DSP-free NRZ links.
  • Because the same devices operate in the O and C bands, one platform can serve intra-data-centre interconnects at 1.3µm and longer-reach C-band links at 1.55µm without a material change.
  • At ~58fJ/bit and ~0.9dB insertion loss, the modulator sits below the 100fJ/bit component budget the paper identifies as necessary for sub-pJ/bit transceivers.
  • The fabrication flow uses CVD graphene, MOCVD hBN, and 200mm SOI processing, which is compatible with foundry multi-project-wafer runs rather than only bespoke lab fabrication.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that the 58fJ/bit number depends on an effective capacitance that is never directly reported; the geometric capacitance of a 40nm oxide over the 22µm2 active area at the stated ~7V drive would give roughly 370fJ/bit, so either the effective capacitance or the actual on-device voltage swing must be much smaller than the nominal values.
  • A consequence not stated in the paper is that the measured BER at 80Gbit/s, ~8.5e-3, is far above the 1e-12 typically required for FEC-free links, so the DSP-free transceiver vision still depends on receiver improvements or coding despite the modulator's bandwidth.
  • A testable extension would be a low-frequency $S_{11}$ capacitance-voltage measurement on the finished devices, which would convert the energy-per-bit estimate from an assumption into a measured quantity.
  • The paper's own circuit model predicts that reducing post-transfer doping and contact resistance could push the same design toward ~90GHz, making post-transfer doping control the clearest experimental lever for the next generation.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports double-single-layer-graphene electro-absorption modulators fabricated with a wafer-scalable process on 200 mm SOI, claiming a 67 GHz electro-optic bandwidth, 80 Gbit/s NRZ data transmission in the C-band and 40 Gbit/s in the O-band, a dynamic energy consumption of about 58 fJ/bit, a modulation efficiency of about 0.037 dB/V·µm, and low insertion loss. The device design is supported by an RC circuit model whose inputs are independently measured mobility, contact resistance, and dielectric permittivity, and the static extinction-ratio and S21 measurements are reported in detail.

Significance. If the headline claims hold, this is a substantial advance for graphene-based silicon photonic modulators: wafer-scale integration of CVD graphene, a directly measured 67 GHz electro-optic bandwidth, and a modulation efficiency of 0.037 dB/V·µm on par with the best exfoliated-graphene devices. The RC model is a strength because it uses independently characterized transport and dielectric parameters rather than fitting the measured bandwidth. The two load-bearing weaknesses are the unsubstantiated 58 fJ/bit energy claim and the high bit-error-rate at the advertised 80 Gbit/s data rate; both affect the central 'fastest and most efficient' conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table I and 'Dynamic characterization'] The energy-per-bit values in Table I are not supported by the reported device parameters. For the 40 nm-gate-oxide device, the stated active area of 22 µm², the measured relative permittivity of about 6.9, and the stated drive condition Vpp≈7 V imply a geometric capacitance of about 34 fF and hence CVpp²/4 ≈ 410 fJ/bit, not 58 fJ/bit. The manuscript does not report the effective capacitance C used in the E_bit=CVpp²/4 formula, nor the actual peak-to-peak voltage delivered to the modulator as opposed to the DAC output. The same issue affects the 20 nm-oxide device (26 fJ/bit with a 13 µm² area implies Vpp≈1.6 V, while the DC sweep in Fig. 8a uses about 10 V). Please report the measured modulator capacitance and the on-device voltage swing, or revise the energy claims and the '~3x lower energy' comparison.
  2. [Table IV and 'Bandwidth and data transmission'] The headline '80Gbit/s NRZ data rate' is based on a filtered BER of 8.5×10^-3 for the 40 µm modulator, which is above typical FEC thresholds (for example, KP4-FEC pre-FEC BER is about 2.4×10^-4, and even HD-FEC is about 3.8×10^-3). With this BER, the 80 Gbit/s link is not error-free under standard forward error correction. The paper should state the BER threshold assumed and either demonstrate a lower BER with a defined FEC or qualify the data-rate claim accordingly.
  3. [Abstract and 'Graphene integration' / Table I] The abstract claims '~0.037dB/Vµm modulation efficiency, ~16 times better than previous demonstrations based on graphene', but the text (Section 'Graphene integration' and Table I) states that the same value of 0.037 dB/V·µm was already reported for exfoliated-graphene/hBN devices in Ref. [76]. The 16× improvement applies only to the CVD-graphene modulator of Ref. [75]. Please specify the comparator explicitly in the abstract and in the main text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The table header lists 'CVpp²/4 [fJ/bit]' but the table does not report C or Vpp for any device; adding these columns would make the energy comparison reproducible and would directly address the energy-claim issue.
  2. [Abstract and 'Bandwidth and data transmission'] The claim of 'operation in both O and C bands' is correct, but the O-band demonstration is limited to 40 Gbit/s while the C-band demonstration reaches 80 Gbit/s; please state this asymmetry explicitly in the abstract or conclusions.
  3. [Eq. (3)] In the Kubo-formula expression, the denominator of the second term contains '(ω − 12Γ)2', which appears to be a typographical error for '(ω − i2Γ)2' or a missing imaginary unit; please correct and check the notation.
  4. [Fig. 9b and 'Bandwidth and data transmission'] The S21 curve is extrapolated from -55.5 to -58.5 dB to determine f3dB=67 GHz; please state the fitting range, the uncertainty of the extrapolation, and how the photodiode and probe responses were subtracted.
  5. [Dynamic characterization set-up] There are typographical errors in the setup description: 'groud-signal' should be 'ground-signal' and 'Porbe' should be 'Probe'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EO-BW and ER simulations use independently measured parameters and are validated against measured data; the energy claim is under-reported but not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The EO-BW prediction (Fig. 2d,e) is obtained from a lumped RC model with independently measured inputs—Hall-bar mobility μ≈8,000 cm²/Vs, TLM contact resistances 215–995 Ω·µm, and measured hBN/Al2O3 permittivity—and predicts f3dB≈70 GHz, which is then compared with the measured 67 GHz; the measured S21 is not an input to the model. The ER-versus-EF simulation uses Kubo-formula conductivity and measured doping/EF, and is compared with measured static ER, not fitted to it. The dynamic measurements (80 Gbit/s NRZ, O/C band) are directly measured and benchmarked against external Si, Ge, III-V, LN, and plasmonic modulators. The many self-citations (Ferrari, Romagnoli, Sorianello, etc.) are for background, fabrication platform, and prior device results; they are not used to justify the present claims. The one significant weakness—the 58 fJ/bit energy claim—is a reporting gap rather than circularity: the paper quotes Vpp≈7 V, active area 22 µm², and 40 nm oxide but never reports the effective capacitance C or actual modulator voltage used in E_bit=CVpp²/4, and geometric capacitance would give several hundred fJ/bit; however, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard graphene conductivity and RC circuit models, on measured material parameters from Hall bars, TLM structures, and capacitors, and on a few hand-adjusted inputs such as the effective capacitance implied by 58fJ/bit, the chosen contact resistance, and the inferred cladding thickness. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Effective capacitance for E_bit = Not stated; implied ~4.7 fF for the 40nm device
    E_bit=CVpp^2/4 with 58fJ/bit and Vpp~7V implies C~4.7fF, while the geometric capacitance for 22um2 area and 40nm oxide is ~30fF. The paper reports no measured capacitance and no explicit voltage at the capacitor.
  • R_C for the optimized 40nm design = 600 Ohm*um
    Used in the Fig. 2e simulation that predicts ~70GHz EO-BW. The measured TLM range is 215-995 Ohm*um, so a value inside the range is chosen rather than measured on the modulator itself.
  • Cladding thickness t_cladding = ~10 nm
    Inferred by matching the measured ER to the Fig. 1d simulation, not directly measured on the fabricated devices.
  • Fermi level operating points = 0.4 eV gated, 0.2 eV ungated
    Chosen as quadrature and residual doping values for the RC and ER simulations. They are consistent with Raman-derived ranges but are still hand-picked inputs.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kubo formula for the graphene optical conductivity (Eq. 3) with Fermi-Dirac occupation
    Used to compute SLG absorption and the ER vs EF curves in Fig. 1c. This is standard condensed-matter physics, not specific to this paper.
  • domain assumption Lumped-element RC model is valid when device length <100um and RF wavelength is 1-3mm
    Invoked in the Device Design section to calculate the modulator frequency response from lumped resistances and capacitances.
  • standard math Pauli blocking sets the transparency condition at 2EF > hc/lambda
    Used to distinguish the electro-absorption and transparency regimes in Fig. 1c and Fig. 8.
  • domain assumption E_bit=CVpp^2/4 is the energy per bit of a capacitively driven modulator
    Cites Miller (Ref. 45). It assumes a linear capacitor and ideal charging, which is standard but not directly measured here.
  • domain assumption Hall-bar mobility and TLM contact resistances are representative of the SLG sections inside the modulator
    The RC simulations use mu~8000cm2/Vs and contact resistances from test structures rather than from the modulator itself.
  • standard math Beer-Lambert evanescent decay and the confinement factor (Eq. 2) describe the SLG-mode overlap
    Used to simulate ER versus cladding thickness and to motivate the thin-cladding design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Graphene Electro-Absorption Modulators for Energy-Efficient and High-Speed Optical Transceivers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IUWWC7AL

@misc{pith2026250603281,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Graphene Electro-Absorption Modulators for Energy-Efficient and High-Speed Optical Transceivers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IUWWC7AL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03281}
}
abstract

The increasing demand for energy-efficient hardware for artificial intelligence (AI) and data centres requires integrated photonic solutions delivering optical transceivers with Tbit/s data rates and energy consumption$<$1pJ/bit. Here, we report double single-layer graphene electro-absorption modulators on Si optimized for energy-efficient and ultra-fast operation, demonstrating 67GHz bandwidth and 80Gbit/s data rate, in both O and C bands, using a fabrication tailored for wafer-scale integration. We measure a data rate$\sim$1.6 times larger than previously reported for graphene. We scale the modulator's active area down to 22$\mu$m$^2$, achieving a dynamic power consumption$\sim$58fJ/bit, $\sim$3 times lower than previous graphene modulators and Mach-Zehnder modulators based on Si or lithium niobate. We show devices with$\sim$0.037dB/V$\mu$m modulation efficiency,$\sim$16 times better than previous demonstrations based on graphene. This paves the way to wafer-scale production of graphene modulators on Si useful for Tbit/s optical transceivers and energy-efficient AI

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03281 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

173 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [76]

    Performance comparison between AMs based on Si, III -V (InGaAsP), LN and graphene

    DSLG EAM 7.8 4.4 5.2 C 0.037 160 60 × 0.45 39 40 *20 nm t Ox DSLG EAM 1 3 1 C 0.037 26 20 × 0.65 17 20 *40 nm t Ox DSLG EAM 0.9 4 1.2 C 0.01 58 40 × 0.55 67 >80 TABLE I. Performance comparison between AMs based on Si, III -V (InGaAsP), LN and graphene. *This work. variable optical conductivity[67], giving rise to electro- optic effects exploitable in datac...

  2. [75]

    DSLG EAM 20 3 1.3 C 0.0025 - 120 × 0.65 29 50

  3. [1]

    Ossieur, B

    P. Ossieur, B. Moeneclaey, G. Coudyzer, J. Lambrecht, J. Craninckx, E. Martens, J. Van Driessche, C. Bruyn- steen, J. De Busscher, J. Declercq, Y. Gu, S. Niu, T. Pannier, N. Singh, L. Van Severen, L. Bogaert, D. Maes, T. Vanackere, E. Vissers, J. Zhang, S. Kumari, R. M. Oldenbeuving, X. Zhang, G. Van Elzakker, J. Van Campenhout, P. Absil, B. Kuyken, X. Yi...

    2025

  4. [2]

    https://epochai.org/data/large-scale-aimodels

    Epoch AI, Data on large-scale AI models . https://epochai.org/data/large-scale-aimodels . Accessed 23 Feb 2025

    2025

  5. [3]

    Ethernet Alliance, Ethernet Roadmap (Ethernet Al- liance, 2024)

    2024

  6. [4]

    https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024/executive-summ

    International Energy Agency, Elec- tricity 2024 Executive Summary . https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2024/executive-summ

    2024

  7. [5]

    Ishii, R

    A. Ishii, R. Wells, IEEE Hot Chips 34 Symposium (2022)

    2022

  8. [6]

    Maniotis, D

    P. Maniotis, D. M. Kuchta, Journal of Optical Commu- nications and Networking 16, A143 (2024)

    2024

Show all 173 references
  1. [7]

    Cheng, M

    Q. Cheng, M. Bahadori, M. Glick, S. Rumley, K. Bergman, Optica 5, 1354 (2018)

    2018

  2. [8]

    Ossieur, B

    P. Ossieur, B. Moeneclaey, J. Lambrecht, J. Cran- inckx, E. Martens, J. Van Driessche, J. Declerq, S. Niu, T. Pannier, Y. Gu, J. Zhang, T. Vanackere, D. Maes, R. Oldenbeuving, X. Zhang, J. Van Campenhout, P. Absil, B. Kuyken, X. Yin, G. Torfs, G. Roelkens, J. Bauwelinck, 49th ...

    2023

  3. [9]

    X. Zhou, R. Urata, H. Liu, J. Lightwave Technol. 38, 475 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Goodwin, IBM, What is latency? (2023)

    M. Goodwin, IBM, What is latency? (2023). https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/latency. Ac- cessed 9 April 2025

    2023

  5. [11]

    Mukherjee, Medium, How many A100 40GB or 80GB needed to hold GPT3 model or LLaMA to train? (2024)

    S. Mukherjee, Medium, How many A100 40GB or 80GB needed to hold GPT3 model or LLaMA to train? (2024). Accessed 9 April 2025

    2024

  6. [12]

    J. G. Proakis, M. Salehi. Digital communications (McGraw-hill, 2008)

    2008

  7. [13]

    C. A. Brackett, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 8, 948 (1990)

    1990

  8. [14]

    Kumar, and M

    S. Kumar, and M. J. Deen, Fiber Optic Communica- tions : Fundamentals and Applications. (Wiley, Hobo- ken, 2014)

    2014

  9. [15]

    Kikuchi, Journal of Lightwave Technology 34, 157 (2016)

    K. Kikuchi, Journal of Lightwave Technology 34, 157 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    Benedetto, E

    S. Benedetto, E. Biglieri, Principles of Digital Trans- mission: With Wireless Applications (Springer, 1999)

    1999

  11. [17]

    Chagnon, J

    M. Chagnon, J. Lightwave Technol. 37, 1779 (2019)

    2019

  12. [18]

    https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.15.13/10269/

    IEEE Standard for Multi-Gigabit per Second Optical Wireless Communications (OWC), with Ranges up to 200 m, for Both Stationary and Mobile Devices (2023). https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.15.13/10269/

    2023

  13. [19]

    J. M. Estar` an, H. Mardoyan, F. Jorge, O. Ozolins, A. Udalcovs, A. Konczykowska, M. Riet, B. Duval, V. Nod- jiadjim, J. Dupuy, X. Pang, U. Westerngren, J. Chen, S. Popov, S. Bigo, J. Lightwave Technol. 37, 178 (2019)

    2019

  14. [20]

    Li, Advances in Optics and Photonics 1, 279 (2009)

    G. Li, Advances in Optics and Photonics 1, 279 (2009)

    2009

  15. [21]

    Cheng, C

    J. Cheng, C. Xie, Y. Chen, X. Chen, M. Tang and S. Fu, Optical Fiber Communications Conference and Ex- hibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, 1 (2019)

    2019

  16. [22]

    Nagarajan, I

    R. Nagarajan, I. Lyubomirsky, O. Agazzi, Journal of Lightwave Technology 39, 5221 (2021)

    2021

  17. [23]

    J. Wei, Q. Cheng, R. V. Penty, I. H. White, D. G. Cunningham, IEEE Communications Magazine 3, 182 (2015)

    2015

  18. [24]

    K. L. Lee, B. Sedighi, R. S. Tucker, H. Chow, P. Vetter, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking 4, A59 (2012)

    2012

  19. [25]

    (IEA, 2021)

    International Energy Agency, Net Zero Emission by 2050 Scenario . (IEA, 2021). https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-and-climate-model/net-zero-emissions-by-2050-scenario-nze

    2021

  20. [26]

    https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks

    International Energy Agency, Data Cen- tres and Data Transmission Networks . https://www.iea.org/energy-system/buildings/data-centres-and-data-transmission-networks . Accessed on 9 April 2025

    2025

  21. [27]

    Reuters, Global data center industry to emit 2.5 bil- lion tons of CO2 through 2030, Morgan Stanley says https://www.reuters.com/markets/carbon/global-data-center-industry-emit-25-billion-tons-co2-through-20 30-morgan-s Accessed on 9 April 2025

    2025

  22. [28]

    https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000098434/ethernet-products.html#primary-cont ent

    Intel, Intel® 25G Ethernet Media Guide (2024). https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000098434/ethernet-products.html#primary-cont ent

    2024

  23. [29]

    https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/interfaces-modules/transceiver-modules/implementatio n-optics-wp

    Cisco, Understanding FEC and Its Implemen- tation in Cisco Optics , White paper (2022). https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/interfaces-modules/transceiver-modules/implementatio n-optics-wp

    2022

  24. [30]

    (2017–2022)

    IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Standard – Clauses 91, 119, etc. (2017–2022). https://www.ieee802.org/3/dc/comments/P8023_D3p0_comments_working_by_id_r2.pdf

    2017

  25. [31]

    G. T. Reed, G. Mashanovich, F. Y. Gardes, and D. J. Thomson, Nat. Photon. 4, 518 (2010)

    2010

  26. [32]

    R. Ho, P. Amberg, E. Chang, P. Koka, J. Lexau, G. Li, F. Y. Liu, H. Schwetman, I. Shubin, H. D. Thacker, X. Zheng, J. E. Cunningham, A. V. Krishnamoorthy, IEEE Micro 33, 68 (2013)

    2013

  27. [33]

    Z. Zhou, B. Yin, Q. Deng, X. Li, J. Cui, Photonics Res. 3, B28 (2015)

    2015

  28. [34]

    K. Li, D. J. Thomson, L. Zhou, W. Zhang, S. Liu, W. Cao, C. G. Littlejohns, X. Yan, M. Ebert, M. Banakar, D. Tran, F. Meng, L. Wang, Z. He, F. Zhang, S. Yu, G. T. Reed, IEEE Silicon Photonics Conference (SiPhoton- ics), Tokyo Bay, Japan, 2024

    2024

  29. [35]

    Verbist, M

    J. Verbist, M. Verplaetse, J. Lambrecht, S. A. Sriv- inasan, P. De Heyn, T. De Keulenaer, R. Pierco, A. Vyncke, P. Absil, X. Yin, G. Torfs, J. Van Campenhout, G. Roelkens, and J. Bauwelinck, Optical Fiber Com- munication Conference, OSA Technical Digest (online) (Optica Publis...

    2018

  30. [36]

    C. Cole, I. Lyubomirsky, A. Ghiasi and V. Telang, IEEE Communications Magazine 51, 50 (2013)

    2013

  31. [37]

    Forestieri, M

    E. Forestieri, M. Secondini, F. Fresi, G. Meloni, L. Pot ´ ı and F. Cavaliere, Journal of Lightwave Technology 35, 3174 (2017)

    2017

  32. [38]

    Plabst, T

    D. Plabst, T. Prinz, T. Wiegart, T. Rahman, N. Sto- janovic, S. Calabr` o, N. Hanik, G. Kramer, Journal of Lightwave Technology 40, 3602 (2022)

    2022

  33. [39]

    https://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/

    IEEE P802.3bs, 200 Gb/s and 400 Gb/s Ethernet Task Force (2018). https://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/

    2018

  34. [40]

    IEEE Standard for Ethernet - Amendment 10: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers, and Man- agement Parameters for 200 Gb/s and 400 Gb/s Oper- ation, IEEE Std 802.3bs-2017, 1 (2017)

    2017

  35. [41]

    https://www.ieee802.org/3/df/

    IEEE P802.3df, 400 Gb/s and 800 Gb/s Ethernet Task Force (2024). https://www.ieee802.org/3/df/

    2024

  36. [42]

    R. A. Soref and B.R Bennett, IEEE J. Quantum Elec- tron. 23, 123 (1987)

    1987

  37. [43]

    J. Wei, N. Stojanovic, C. Xie, Optics Letters 43, 3148 (2018)

    2018

  38. [44]

    Sorianello, A

    V. Sorianello, A. Montanaro, M. A. Giambra, N. Ligato, W. Templ, P. Galli, M. Romagnoli, ACS Photonics, 10, 1446 (2023)

    2023

  39. [45]

    D. A. B. Miller, Opt. Express 20, A293 (2012)

    2012

  40. [46]

    Rahim, A

    A. Rahim, A. Hermans, B. Wohlfeil, D. Petousi, B. Kuyken, D. Van Thourhout, R. G. Baets, Adv. Pho- tonics 3, 024003 (2021)

    2021

  41. [47]

    Si MZM 6.8 - 2.15 C - - 124 × 0.835 110 112

  42. [48]

    J. Zhou, J. Wang, L. Zhu, Q. Zhang, J. Hong, Opti- cal Fiber Communications Conference and Exhibition (OFC), San Diego, CA, USA, pp. 1-3 (2019)

    2019

  43. [49]

    Si RM - - 3.8 O - 5 - 77 128

  44. [50]

    Y. Yuan, Y. Peng, W. V. Sorin, S. Cheung, Z. Huang, D. Liang, M. Fiorentino, R. G. Beausoleil, Nat. Commun 15, 918 (2024)

    2024

  45. [51]

    Si RM 0.9 16 - O 0.053 6.3 72 49 180

  46. [52]

    Ge 4.9 4.6 3.8 L 0.05 12.8 40 × 0.6 >50 56

  47. [53]

    Ge 5.7 14.1 5 L 0.1 6.3 40 × 0.6 >67 >80

  48. [54]

    Ge 6.9 12.6 2.2 L 0.04 - 25 × 1 >67 110

  49. [55]

    III-V 5 15 - C 0.037 - 200 33 80

  50. [56]

    LN 2.5 40 5 C 0.001 170 5000 >70 100

  51. [57]

    Plasmonic RM 1.5 5.2 - C 0.13 29 10 × 0.1 176 220

  52. [58]

    C. Han, Z. Zheng, H. Shu, M. Jin, J. Qin, R. Chen, Y. Tao, B. Shen, B. Bai, F. Yang, Y. Wang, H. Wang, F. Wang, Z. Zhang, S. Yu, C. PengX. Wang. Sci. Adv. 9, 1 (2023)

    2023

  53. [59]

    Debnath, D

    K. Debnath, D. J. Thomson, W. Zhang, A. Z. Khokhar, C. Littlejohns, J. Byers, L. Mastronardi, M. K. Husain, K. Ibukuro, F. Y. Gardes, Photonics Res. 6, 373 (2018)

    2018

  54. [60]

    Sakib, P

    M. Sakib, P. Liao, C. Ma, R. Kumar, D. Huang, G. Su, X. Wu, S. Fathololoumi, H. Rong, Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics (CLEO) , (2021)

    2021

  55. [61]

    L. V. Keldysh, J. Exptl. Theoret. Phys.(USSR) 33, 994 (1957)

    1957

  56. [62]

    D. W. U. Chan, H. K. Tsang, Optics Letters Vol, 49, 6477 (2024)

    2024

  57. [63]

    S. A. Srinivasan, M. Pantouvaki, S. Gupta, H. T. Chen, P. Verheyen, G. Lepage, G. Roelkens, K. Saraswat, D. Van Thourhout, P. Absil, J. Van Campenhout, J. Light- wave Technol. 34, 419 (2016)

    2016

  58. [64]

    Y. Liu, J. Sun, R. Song, X. Li, J. Wang, S. Wang, Y. Yu, W. Yue, Y. Cai, M. Yu, Opt. Express 30, 34276 (2022)

    2022

  59. [65]

    X. Hu, D. Wu, Y, Zhang, H. Zhang, D. Chen, M. Liu, J. Liu, L. Wang, X. Xiao, S. Yu, Optical Fiber Commu- nication Conference (OFC), (2022)

    2022

  60. [66]

    Shahin, J

    M. Shahin, J. Rahimi Vaskasi, J. Van Kerrebrouck, P. Ossieur, X. Yin, J. Bauwelinck, G. Roelkens, G. Mor- thier, IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 31, 533 (2019)

    2019

  61. [67]

    M. He, M. Xu, Y. Ren, J. Jian, Z. Ruan, Y. Xu, S. Gao, S. Sun, X. Wen, L. Zhou, L. Liu, C. Guo, H. Chen, S. Yu, L. Liu, X. Cai, Nat. Photonics 13, 359 (2019)

    2019

  62. [68]

    Eppenberger, A

    M. Eppenberger, A. Messner, B. I. Bitachon, W. Heni, T. Blatter, P. Habegger, M. Destraz, E. De Leo, N. Meier, N. Del Medico, C. Hoessbacher, B. Baeuerle, J. Leuthold, Nat. Photon. 17, 360 (2023)

    2023

  63. [69]

    Thomson, A

    D. Thomson, A. Zilkie, J. E. Bowers, T. Komljenovic, G. T. Reed, L. Vivien, D. Marris-Morini, E. Cassan, L. Virot, J. M. F´ ed´ eli, J. Opt. (United Kingdom) 18, (2016)

    2016

  64. [70]

    F. H. L. Koppens, T. Mueller, P. Avouris, A. C. Fer- rari, M. S. Vitiello, M. Polini, Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 780 (2014)

    2014

  65. [71]

    S. Janz, S. Dedyulin, D. X. Xu, M. Vachon, S. Wang, R. Cheriton, J. Weber, Opt. Express 32, 551 (2024)

    2024

  66. [72]

    M. Liu, X. Yin, and X. Zhang, Nano Letters 12, 1482 (2012)

    2012

  67. [73]

    J. S. Weiner, D. A. B. Miller, D. S. Chemia, Appl. Phys. Lett. 50, 842 (1987)

    1987

  68. [74]

    Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 7th Ed., Wiley, (1996)

    C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics, 7th Ed., Wiley, (1996)

    1996

  69. [77]

    A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nat. Mater. 6, 183 (2007)

    2007

  70. [78]

    Z. Q. Li, E. A. Henriksen, Z. Jiang, Z. Hao, M. C. Mar- tin, P. Kim, H. L. Stormer, D. N. Basov, Nat. Phys. 4, 532 (2008)

    2008

  71. [79]

    R. R. Nair, P. Blake, A. N. Grigorenko, K. S. Novoselov, T. J. Booth, T. Stauber, N. M. R. Peres, A. K. Geim, Science 320, 1308 (2008)

    2008

  72. [80]

    F. Wang, Y. Zhang, C. Tian, C. Girit, A. Zettl, M. Crommie, and Y. R. Shen, Science 320, 206 (2008)

    2008

  73. [81]

    Romagnoli, V

    M. Romagnoli, V. Sorianello, M. Midrio, F. H. Koppens, C. Huyghebaert, D. Neumaier, P. Galli, W. Templ, A. D’Errico, and A. C. Ferrari, Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 392 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Bonaccorso, Z

    F. Bonaccorso, Z. Sun, T. Hasan, and A. C. Ferrari, Nat. Photonics 4, 611 (2010)

    2010

  75. [83]

    M. Liu, X. Yin, E. Ulin-Avila, B. Geng, T. Zentgraf, L. Ju, F. Wang, and X. Zhang, Nature 474, 64 (2011)

    2011

  76. [84]

    C. T. Phare, Y. H. D. Lee, J. Cardenas, M. Lipson, Nat. Photon. 9, 511 (2015)

    2015

  77. [85]

    Sorianello, M

    V. Sorianello, M. Midrio, G. Contestabile, I. As- selberghs, J. Van Campenhout, C. Huyghebaert, I. Goykhman, A. K. Ott, A. C. Ferrari, and M. Romag- noli, Nat. Photonics 12, 40 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    M. A. Giambra, V. Sorianello, V. Miseikis, S. Marconi, A. Montanaro, P. Galli, S. Pezzini, C. Coletti, and M. Romagnoli, Opt. Express 27, (2019)

    2019

  79. [87]

    Agarwal, B

    H. Agarwal, B. Terr´ es, L. Orsini, A. Montanaro, V. So- rianello, M. Pantouvaki, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, D. V. Thourhout, M. Romagnoli et al. , Nat. Commun. 12, 8 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    H. F. Y. Watson, A. Ruocco, M. Tiberi, J. E. Muench, O. Balci, S. M. Shinde, S. Mignuzzi, M. Pantouvaki, D. Van Thourhout, R. Sordan, A. Tomadin, M. Romagnoli, A. C. Ferrari, ACS Nano 18, 30269 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    J. E. Muench, A. Ruocco, M. A. Giambra, V. Miseikis, D. Zhang, J. Wang, H. F. Watson, G. C. Park, S. Akha- van, V. Sorianello et al. , Nano Lett. 19, 7632 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    Schuler, J

    S. Schuler, J. E. Muench, A. Ruocco, O. Balci, D. van Thourhout, V. Sorianello, M. Romagnoli, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, I. Goykhman et al. , Nat. Commun. 12, 3733 (2021)

    2021

  83. [91]

    Miseikis, S

    V. Miseikis, S. Marconi, M. Giambra, A. Montanaro, L. Martini, F. Fabbri, S. Pezzini, G. Piccinini, S. Forti, B. Terres, I. Goykhman, L. Hamidouche, P. Legagneux, V. Sorianello, A. C. Ferrari, F. H. L. Koppens, M. Romag- noli, C. Coletti, ACS Nano 14, 11190 (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Marconi, M

    S. Marconi, M. A. Giambra, A. Montanaro, V. Miˇ seikis, S. Soresi, S. Tirelli, P. Galli, F. Buchali, W. Templ, C. Coletti et al. , Nat. Commun. 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  85. [93]

    Z. Sun, T. Hasan, F. Torrisi, D. Popa, G. Privitera, F. Wang, F. Bonaccorso, D. M. Basko, and A. C. Ferrari, ACS Nano 4, 803, (2010)

    2010

  86. [94]

    Montanaro, S

    A. Montanaro, S. Mzali, J. Mazellier, O. Bezencenet, C. Larat, S. Molin, L. Morvan, P. Legagneux, D. Dolfi, B. Dlubak, P. Seneor, M. Martin, S. Hofmann, J. Robert- son, A. Centeno, A. Zurutuza, Nano Letters 16, 2988 (2016)

    2016

  87. [95]

    Montanaro, W

    A. Montanaro, W. Wei, D. De Fazio, U. Sassi, G. Soavi, P. Aversa, A. C. Ferrari, H. Happy, P. Legagneux, and E. Pallecchi, Nat. Commun. 12, 1 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    Montanaro, G

    A. Montanaro, G. Piccinini, V. Miˇ seikis, V. Sorianello, M. A. Giambra, S. Soresi, L. Giorgi, A. D’Errico, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, S. Pezzini, C. Coletti, M. Ro- magnoli, Nat. Commun. 14, 6471 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    Montanaro, M

    A. Montanaro, M. Tiberi, A. Boschi, G. Ducournau, V. Miseikis, S. Soresi, S. Pascale, C. Wen, J. Zhang, M. G. Frecassetti, P. Galli, H. Happy, S. Pezzini, A. C. Ferrari, M. Romagnoli, C. Coletti, V. Sorianello, International Topical Meeting on Microwave Photonics (2024)

    2024

  90. [98]

    Banszerus, M

    L. Banszerus, M. Schmitz, S. Engels, J. Dauber, M. Oellers, F. Haupt, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Beschoten, and C. Stampfer, Sci. Adv. 1, 1 (2015)

    2015

  91. [99]

    D. G. Purdie, N. M. Pugno, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, A. C. Ferrari, and A. Lombardo, Nat. Commun. 9, 1 (2018)

    2018

  92. [100]

    De Fazio, D

    D. De Fazio, D. G. Purdie, A. K. Ott, P. Braeuninger- Weimer, T. Khodkov, S. Goossens, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, P. Livreri, F. H. L. Koppens et al. , ACS Nano 13, 8926 (2019)

    2019

  93. [101]

    Banszerus, M

    L. Banszerus, M. Schmitz, S. Engels, M. Goldsche, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Beschoten, and C. Stampfer, Nano Lett. 16, 1387 (2016)

    2016

  94. [102]

    Banszerus, T

    L. Banszerus, T. Sohier, A. Epping, F. Win- kler, F. Libisch, F. Haupt, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, K. M¨ uller-Caspary, N. Marzariet al. , arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.09523 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  95. [103]

    M. B. Prince, Phys. Rev. 92, 681 (1953)

    1953

  96. [104]

    Adachi, John Wiley & Sons (1992)

    S. Adachi, John Wiley & Sons (1992)

    1992

  97. [105]

    A. Koma, J. Cryst. Growth 201, 236 (1999)

    1999

  98. [106]

    J. W. Suk, A. Kitt, C. W. Magnuson, Y. Hao, S. Ahmed, J. An, A. K. Swan, B. B. Goldberg, R. S. Ruoff, ACS Nano 5, 6916 (2011)

    2011

  99. [107]

    Ye, and J

    H. Ye, and J. Yu, Sci. Technol. Adv. Mater. 15, 024601 (2014)

    2014

  100. [108]

    Kunert, Y

    B. Kunert, Y. Mols, M. Baryshniskova, N. Waldron, A. Schulze and R. Langer, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 33, 093002 (2018)

    2018

  101. [109]

    P. A. Gabrys, S. E. Seo, M. X. Wang, E. Oh, R. J. Macfarlane, C. A. Mirkin, Nano Lett. 18, 579 (2918)

  102. [110]

    J. S. Park, M. Tang, S. Chen, H. Liu, Crystals 10, 1163 (2020)

    2020

  103. [111]

    Sorianello, G

    V. Sorianello, G. Contestabile, M. Romagnoli, J. Light. Technol 38, 2782 (2020)

    2020

  104. [112]

    Sorianello, G

    V. Sorianello, G. Contestabile, M. Midrio, M. Pantou- vaki, I. Asselbergs, J. Van Campenhout, C. Huyghe- baerts, A. D’Errico, P. Galli, M. Romagnoli, Opt. Ex- press 25, 19371 (2017)

    2017

  105. [113]

    Sorianello, G

    V. Sorianello, G. Contestabile, M. Midrio, M. Pantou- vaki, I. Asselbergs, J. Van Campenhout, C. Huyghe- baerts, M. Romagnoli, IEEE Photonics Technology Let- ters, 31, 955 (2019)

    2019

  106. [114]

    C. G. Littlejohns, D. J. Rowe, H. Du, K. Li, W. Zhang, W. Cao, T. D. Bucio, X. Yan, M. Ba- nakar, D. Tran et al. , Applied Sciences 10, 1 (2020). https://www.cornerstone.sotonfab.co.uk/

    2020

  107. [115]

    P. R. Wallace Phys. Rev. 71, 622 (1947)

    1947

  108. [116]

    Droscher, P

    S. Droscher, P. Roulleau, F. Molitor, P. Studerus, C. Stampfer, K. Ensslin, T. Ihn, Phys. Scr. T146, 014009 (2012)

    2012

  109. [117]

    Martin, N

    J. Martin, N. Akerman, G. Ulbricht, T. Lohmann, J. H. Smet, K. von Klitzing, A. Yacoby, Nature Phys. 4, 144 (2008)

    2008

  110. [118]

    S. M. Sze, Physics of Semiconductor Devices (Wiley, 2006)

    2006

  111. [119]

    A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009)

    2009

  112. [120]

    Sorianello, G

    V. Sorianello, G. De Angelis, T. Cassese, M. Midrio, M. Romagnoli, M. Mohsin, M. Otto, D. Neumaier, I. Asselberghs, J. Van Campenhout et al. , Opt. Express 24, 29984 (2016)

    2016

  113. [121]

    Hect, Optics (5th Edition, Pearson, 2017)

    E. Hect, Optics (5th Edition, Pearson, 2017)

    2017

  114. [122]

    T.; Knights, A

    Reed, G. T.; Knights, A. P. Silicon Photonics: An In- troduction; Wiley: Chichester, 2004

    2004

  115. [123]

    Beer, Annalen der physik 162, 78 (1852)

    A. Beer, Annalen der physik 162, 78 (1852)

  116. [124]

    J. T. Robinson, K. Preston, O. Painter, M. Lipson, Opt. Express 16, 16659 (2008)

    2008

  117. [125]

    https://www.lumerical.com/

    Lumerical Inc. https://www.lumerical.com/

  118. [126]

    M. A. Giambra, V. Miseikis, S. Pezzini, S. Marconi, A. Montanaro, F. Fabbri, V. Sorianello, A. C. Ferrari, C. Coletti, M. Romagnoli, ACS Nano 15, 3171 (2021)

    2021

  119. [127]

    —R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 570 (1957)

    1957

  120. [128]

    V. P. Gusynin, S. G. Sharapov, and J. P. Carbotte, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 19, 25 (2007)

    2007

  121. [129]

    G. W. Hanson, J. Appl. Phys. 103, 64302 (2008)

    2008

  122. [130]

    L. A. Falkovsky, S. S. Pershoguba, Phys. Rev. B - Con- dens. Matter Mater. Phys. 76, 1 (2007)

    2007

  123. [131]

    Pisana, M

    S. Pisana, M. Lazzeri, C. Casiraghi, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, A. C. Ferrari, and F. Mauri, Nat. Mater. 6, 198 (2007)

    2007

  124. [132]

    Sorianello, M

    V. Sorianello, M. Midrio, M. Romagnoli, Opt. Express 23, 6478 (2015)

    2015

  125. [133]

    D. M. Pozar, Microwave engineering , John Wiley % Sons (2011)

    2011

  126. [134]

    Bahl, Lumped elements for RF and Microwave cir- cuits, Artech (2023)

    I. Bahl, Lumped elements for RF and Microwave cir- cuits, Artech (2023)

    2023

  127. [135]

    A. Das, S. Pisana, B. Chakraborty, S. Piscanec, S. K. Saha, U. V. Waghmare, K. S. Novoselov, H. R. Krish- namurthy, A. K. Geim, A. C. Ferrari et al. , Nat. Nan- otechnol. 3, 210 (2008)

    2008

  128. [136]

    Nagashio, T

    K. Nagashio, T. Nishimura, K. Kita, A. Toriumi IEEE Int.Electron Devices Meet. 1 (2009)

    2009

  129. [137]

    R. S. Sundaram, M. Steiner, H. Y. Chiu, M. Engel, A. A. Bol, R. Krupke, M. Burghard, K. Kern, and P. Avouris, Nano Letters 11, 3833 (2011)

    2011

  130. [138]

    Cusati, G

    T. Cusati, G. Fiori, A. Gahoi, V. Passi, M. C. Lemme, A. Fortunelli, G. Iannaccone, Sci. Rep. 7, 5109 (2017)

    2017

  131. [139]

    Miseikis and C

    V. Miseikis and C. Coletti, Appl. Phys. Lett. 119, 050501 (2021)

    2021

  132. [140]

    Miseikis, F

    V. Miseikis, F. Bianco, J. David, M. Gemmi, V. Pelle- grini, M. Romagnoli, and C. Coletti, 2D Materials 4, (2017)

    2017

  133. [141]

    W. Wu, L. A. Jauregui, Z. Su, Z. Liu, J. Bao, Y. P. Chen, Q. Yu, Advanced Materials 23, 4898 (2011)

    2011

  134. [142]

    X. Li, W. Cai, J. An, S. Kim, J. Nah, D. Yang, R. Piner, A. Velamakanni, I. Jung, E. Tutuc et al. , Science 324, 1312 (2009)

    2009

  135. [143]

    P. P. Absil, P. De Heyn, H. Chen, P. Verheyen, G. Lepage, M. Pantouvaki, J. De Coster, A. Khanna, Y. Drissi, D. Van Thourhout et al. , in Silicon Photonics X , 93670V, (SPIE, 2015)

    2015

  136. [144]

    D. J. Whitehouse, Surfaces and their measurement (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004)

    2004

  137. [145]

    J. D. Plummer, Silicon VLSI technology fundamentals, practice and modeling . Pearson Education (2000)

    2000

  138. [146]

    J. K. Kang, C. B. Musgrave, J. Chem. Phys. 116, 275 (2002)

    2002

  139. [147]

    S. M. Song, J. K. Park, O. J. Sul, B. J. Cho, Nano Letters 12, 3887 (2012)

    2012

  140. [148]

    Canto, M

    B. Canto, M. Otto, M. J. Powell, V. Babenko, A. O’Mahony, H. C. Knoops, R. S. Sundaram, S. Hofmann, M. C. Lemme, and D. Neumaier, Adv. Mater. Technol. 6, (2021)

    2021

  141. [149]

    Calandrini, K

    E. Calandrini, K. Voronin, O. Balci, M. Barra-Burillo, A. Bylinkin, S. M. Shinde, S. Sharma, F. Casanova, L. E. Hueso, A. Chuvilin, C. McAleese, B. R. Con- ran, X. Wang, K. Teo, V. S. Volkov, A. C. Ferrari, A. Y. Nikitin, R. Hillenbrand, Advanced Materials 35, 2302045 (2023)

    2023

  142. [150]

    Reich, A

    S. Reich, A. C. Ferrari, R. Arenal, A. Loiseau, I. Bello, J. Robertson, Phys. Rev. B 71, 205201 (2005)

    2005

  143. [151]

    A. E. Franke, D. Bilic, D. T. Chang, P. T. Jones, T. J. King, R. T. Howe, and G. C. Johnson, in Proceedings of the IEEE Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS) , 630, (IEEE, 1999)

    1999

  144. [152]

    J. H. Chen, C. Jang, S. Adam, M. S. Fuhrer, E. D. Williams, M. Ishigami, Nat. Phys. 4, 377 (2008)

    2008

  145. [153]

    Bruna, A

    M. Bruna, A. K. Ott, M. Ij¨ a, D. Yoon, U. Sassi, and A. C. Ferrari, ACS Nano 8, 7432 (2014)

    2014

  146. [154]

    Z. H. Ni, L. A. Ponomarenko, R. R. Nair, R. Yang, S. Anissimova, I. V. Grigorieva, F. Schedin, P. Blake, Z. X. Shen, E. H. Hill, K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, Nano Letters 10, 3868 (2010)

    2010

  147. [155]

    Schroder, D. K. Semiconductor Material and Device Characterization 3th edition, Wiley-Blackwell (2006)

    2006

  148. [156]

    Y. Y. Illarionov, T. Knobloch, M. Jech, M. Lanza, D. Akinwande, M. I. Vexler, T. Mueller, M. C. Lemme, G. Fiori, F. Schwierz and T. Grasser, Nat. Commun 11, 3385 (2020)

    2020

  149. [157]

    J. W. Lim, S. J. Yun, Electrochem. Solid-State Lett. 7, F45 (2004)

    2004

  150. [158]

    K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, (2004)

    2004

  151. [159]

    J. F. Buckwalter, M. Meghelli, D. J. Friedman, A. Ha- jimiri, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits 41, 1391 (2006)

    2006

  152. [160]

    P. A. Francese, T. Toifl, M. Braendli, C. Menolfi, M. Kossel, T. Morf, L. Kull, T. M. Andersen, H. Yuek- sel, A. Cevrero, D. Luu, IEEE International Conference on Solid-State Circuits (ISSCC) Digest of Technical Pa- pers, San Francisco, CA, USA, pp. 1-3 (2015)

    2015

  153. [161]

    A. V. Oppenheim, Discrete-time signal processing. Pear- son Education India (1999)

    1999

  154. [162]

    X. Li, W. Cai, J. An, S. Kim, J. Nah, D. Yang, R. Piner, A. Velamakanni, I. Jung, E. Tutuc, S. K. Banerjee, L. Colombo, and R. S. Ruoff, Science 324, 1312 (2009)

    2009

  155. [163]

    S. Jin, M. Huang, Y. Kwon, L. Zhang, B. W. Li, S. Oh, J. Dong, D. Luo, M. Biswal, B. V. Cunning et al. , Science 362, 1021 (2018)

    2018

  156. [164]

    M. Chen, R. C. Haddon, R. Yan, and E. Bekyarova, Mater. Horiz 4, 1054 (2017)

    2017

  157. [165]

    D. M. Basko, S. Piscanec, A. C. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. B 80, 165413 (2009)

    2009

  158. [166]

    Mohiuddin, A

    T. Mohiuddin, A. Lombardo, R. Nair, A. Bonetti, G. Savini, R. Jalil, N. Bonini, D. Basko, C. Galiotis, N. Marzari, K. Novoselov, A. Geim, A. C. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. B 79, 205433 (2009)

    2009

  159. [167]

    A. C. Ferrari, J. C. Meyer, V. Scardaci, C. Casiraghi, M. Lazzeri, F. Mauri, S. Piscanec, D. Jiang, K. S. Novoselov, S. Roth, and A. K. Geim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 187401 (2006)

    2006

  160. [168]

    A. C. Ferrari, and D. M. Basko, Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 235 (2013)

    2013

  161. [169]

    A. C. Ferrari, J. Robertson, Phys. Rev. B 61, 14095 (2000)

    2000

  162. [170]

    L. G. Cancado, A. Jorio, E. H. Martins Ferreira, F. Stavale, C. A. Achete, R. B. Capaz, M. V. O. Moutinho, A. Lombardo, T. S. Kulmala, A. C. Ferrari, Nano Let- ters 11, 3190 (2011)

    2011

  163. [171]

    Nagashio, A

    K. Nagashio, A. Toriumi, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 50, 070108 (2011)

    2011

  164. [172]

    Drude, Annalen der physik 306, 566 (1900)

    P. Drude, Annalen der physik 306, 566 (1900)

    1900

  165. [173]

    Tuncer, Y

    E. Tuncer, Y. V. Serdyuk, S. M. Gubanski, IEEE Trans- actions on Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation 9, 809 (2002)

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.