Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Observation of non-Markovian Radiative Phenomena in Structured Photonic Lattices

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The flat band of a Lieb lattice drives an artificial emitter into non-Markovian decay, with oscillatory re-excitation, as seen in photonic waveguide arrays.

desk verdict Plausible and visually convincing observation of flat-band-enhanced non-Markovian emitter dynamics in a photonic waveguide array, but the central 'equal V2' claim needs direct characterization of V2(λ) before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09261 v2 pith:POT3TIQR submitted 2025-01-16 quant-ph physics.optics

Rodrigo A. Vicencio , Fabiola G.L. Carcamo-Macaya Diego Román-Cortés , Pablo Solano This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords non-MarkoviandynamicsphotonicwaveguidearraysLieblatticeflatbandstructuredreservoirquantumemitteranalogwavelengthscanmethodlight-mattercoupling
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 reports a tabletop optical analog of a quantum emitter decaying into a structured reservoir, and claims that the flat band of a Lieb lattice turns an otherwise Markovian weak-coupling decay into non-Markovian dynamics with oscillatory re-excitation. In the analog, a single waveguide plays the emitter, the surrounding lattice plays the reservoir, and light propagation along the waveguide plays time. The authors compare square and Lieb reservoirs, find quasi-exponential decay for the square lattice in weak coupling and Rabi-like oscillations in strong coupling, and find that the Lieb lattice shows clear memory effects even when the emitter-reservoir coupling is weak. They trace the effect to the flat band's vanishing group velocity and large density of states, which hold excitation near the emitter and feed it back. If the claim stands, flat-band reservoirs become a practical way to get strong-coupling-style behavior without requiring large coupling strengths.

What carries the argument

The key object is the photonic waveguide array as a quantum-optical analog: one evanescently coupled waveguide acts as the emitter, the surrounding lattice acts as the reservoir, and the discrete linear Schr\"odinger equation maps propagation distance $z$ to the emitter's evolution time. The experimental enabling device is the wavelength scan: because inter-waveguide coupling increases with wavelength, sweeping $\lambda$ is treated as a linear sweep of effective distance through $\lambda = \lambda_0 + \alpha z$, so a single 5-cm sample yields a continuous time trace. On the reservoir side, the Lieb lattice provides a flat band at zero energy, whose zero group velocity and concentrated density of states keep the emitted excitation localized near the emitter and send part of it back, producing the oscillatory re-excitation that the paper identifies as non-Markovian.

What would settle it

Fabricate two Lieb samples with different physical lengths, or cleave one sample, and image the output at fixed wavelength for several propagation distances; if the re-excitation pattern in $z$ does not match the wavelength-scan curve under the same $\lambda_0$ and $\alpha$, the effective-time interpretation fails. Also measure $V_2(\lambda)$ across the scan range; a strong wavelength dependence would let coupling changes mimic genuine temporal oscillations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spectral structure of a two-dimensional reservoir, not the bare coupling strength, controls whether an emitter's decay is Markovian, and that a flat band is a particularly strong controller. For a Lieb lattice, whose bands include a dispersionless band at zero energy, the paper argues and shows that a weakly coupled emitter repeatedly exchanges excitation with a compact localized state residing on the A and C sublattices, producing oscillations in the emitter's remaining power rather than a smooth decay. These oscillations are the observed signature of non-Markovianity: the emitter's current state depends on its past because the reservoir stores and returns the excitation. The experiment demonstrates this in an all-optical waveguide-array setup, where varying the excitation wavelength from 650 to 800 nm acts as a proxy for increasing propagation distance, and hence for advancing time. On the author's terms, this is an observation of non-Markovian radiative phenomena in structured photonic lattices, with the Lieb lattice's flat band the enhancing ingredient.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that scanning the excitation wavelength is exactly equivalent to letting the same system evolve for a longer time, and that the linear calibration established for the square lattice remains valid for the Lieb lattice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weak coupling to a flat-band reservoir can mimic strong-coupling dynamics, so coherent exchange between an emitter and a reservoir does not require a large emitter-reservoir coupling constant.
  • The wavelength-scan method turns one fabricated sample into a full set of effective propagation times, making 2D reservoir studies feasible without many length-controlled samples.
  • Because the analog is linear and single-particle, it can be extended to many indistinguishable emitters coupled to a common structured reservoir, opening the same non-Markovian physics to collective effects.
  • Lieb-lattice compact localized states are the memory-storing modes in this experiment; reservoirs engineered around other localized or dispersionless bands should show similar re-excitation dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test that would separate the flat-band mechanism from calibration artifacts is to measure the emitter-reservoir coupling $V_2(\lambda)$ across the scan range; if it varies strongly with wavelength, part of the observed oscillation could come from changing coupling rather than from genuine temporal memory.
  • The wavelength-to-time mapping was validated on a square lattice and then assumed for the Lieb geometry; re-checking the mapping with a fixed wavelength on several physical lengths would close that gap and is within reach of the same fabrication technique.
  • The single-particle linear platform cannot test whether these memory signatures survive photon-photon interactions; observing non-Markovian effects with interacting photons would require a nonlinear or strongly correlated extension not present in this experiment.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an all-optical waveguide-array experiment intended to emulate the single-excitation decay dynamics of a quantum emitter coupled to two-dimensional structured reservoirs. A femtosecond-written array of evanescently coupled waveguides acts as the reservoir, and one additional waveguide plays the role of the emitter. The authors use a wavelength-scan method in which varying the excitation wavelength λ over 600–800 nm is interpreted as varying an effective propagation distance z (and hence time) through a linear mapping. They compare square and Lieb lattices and report that the Lieb flat band produces stronger non-Markovian signatures, namely re-population of the emitter waveguide and Rabi-like oscillations, even in the weak-coupling regime. The paper also claims to validate the wavelength-scan technique for 2D lattices by comparing measured participation ratios with numerical simulations.

Significance. If the λ-to-z mapping is fully validated, the result would be a valuable experimental platform for simulating structured-reservoir quantum optics, extending photonic-lattice analogue simulations to 2D flat-band reservoirs. The qualitative comparison of square and Lieb lattices, the use of the participation ratio to characterize wave-packet spreading, and the explicit connection to flat-band compact localized states are strengths. The paper is also honest about the single-particle limitation of the platform. The significance is currently compromised by the lack of characterization of the wavelength dependence of the emitter–reservoir coupling and by the fact that the mapping is calibrated on a phase-insensitive bulk observable rather than on the emitter-site observable that carries the central non-Markovian claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, Fig. 3(e)] The linear transformation λ = λ0 + αz is introduced as an 'adjustment' to make discrete simulations match experiment, but α and λ0 are not reported in the main text, and the calibration observable is the participation ratio R for bulk square and Lieb excitations. Fig. 4(d), which contains the central non-Markovian revival claim, is a different observable (fraction of power in the QE waveguide) and a different geometry (Lieb, with A- and B-site coupling). The mapping needs to be validated directly for the QE-site amplitude and for the Lieb geometry, or the quantitative interpretation of the λ axis as a time axis is not secured.
  2. [Fig. 3(d) and Fig. 4(d)] Vx(λ) varies substantially over the scan range, yet V2(λ), the emitter–reservoir coupling, and the ratio V2/V1 are not reported as functions of λ. If V2/V1 drifts with wavelength, the scan sweeps the coupling regime rather than evolving the same Hamiltonian in time; the re-population near λ ≈ 800 nm could then be a wavelength-tuned resonance with the flat-band compact state rather than a fixed-coupling non-Markovian re-excitation. The authors should characterize V2(λ), show that V2/V1 is constant (or apply a rescaling that accounts for drift), and provide a direct simulation of the curves in Fig. 4(d) using the same fitted mapping.
  3. [Eq. (1) and following paragraph] The stated analogy between λ and z requires that a change in wavelength rescale the entire Hamiltonian by a common factor, not alter the normalized couplings. The text only establishes Vx(λ); it does not show that the ratios Vx/V1, Vy/V1, and V2/V1 are wavelength independent. A quantitative statement of the Hamiltonian rescaling, or a demonstration that the non-Markovian signatures persist in constant-coupling propagation experiments at several fixed wavelengths, is needed.
  4. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4(d)] For the Lieb weak-coupling A-site curve, the text asserts that the compact state 'excites back the QE' and that this is observed near λ ≈ 800 nm; however, no numerical simulation of the QE-power curve is shown for this configuration. Adding the simulated QE power versus z/λ using the calibrated α would make the claim falsifiable and would allow the reader to assess whether the position and amplitude of the revival are quantitatively reproduced.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The text should spell 'waveguide array' consistently rather than 'PW A'; 'Lets us consider' should be 'Let us consider'; and 'monotonous' should be 'monotonic'.
  2. [References] The same reference is cited twice as [35] and [37] (Lederer et al.); please consolidate the duplicated entry.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The number of lattice sites N in Eq. (2) is not defined in the main text, and the factor 2√N is not derived; please clarify the normalization and the conditions under which the cosine solution applies.
  4. [Fig. 4] The output intensity profiles in Fig. 4 would be easier to interpret with color bars or scale bars, and the caption should state which V2/V1 value corresponds to each curve at the central wavelength.
  5. [Sec. 3, calibration text] The claim that the wavelength-scan technique is validated for 2D lattices would be easier to evaluate if λ0, α, and their uncertainties were given in the main text rather than only in the Supplemental Material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the λ→z mapping is calibrated on bulk diffraction observables and then applied to the independent QE-site signal, so the claimed non-Markovian revivals are not forced by the calibration itself.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is: (i) model (1) gives the standard waveguide-array analogue of a QE coupled to a structured reservoir; (ii) the wavelength-scan method is calibrated by comparing the participation ratio R(λ) from experiment with R(z) from numerical simulations for bulk excitations, yielding the linear transformation λ = λ0 + αz; (iii) this calibrated mapping is then used to interpret the measured power fraction remaining at the QE waveguide as a function of propagation distance. This is not circular: the calibration uses a phase-insensitive, spatially integrated bulk observable R, whereas the claimed non-Markovian signature is the re-population of the QE site, which is not an input to the fit. The raw non-monotonicity in the QE power versus wavelength (Figs. 4c and 4d) is experimental data; the linear mapping only changes the horizontal axis and does not generate or erase that non-monotonicity. The conclusion that the Lieb flat band enhances non-Markovianity is supported by the band structure and DOS arguments, by the compact-state localization physics, and by the data at nominal equal V2; it does not reduce to a fitted parameter. Self-citations appear for fabrication methods, flat-band lattice physics, and the wavelength-scan technique, but these are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the present measurements. The paper itself notes that the wavelength-scan method is 'rather new' and probes its validity; any concern that V2(λ) may drift with wavelength is a physical-validity caveat about the mapping, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs. No step was found where an equation or fitted parameter is definitionally identical to the claimed outcome.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a tight-binding model, a time-propagation analogy, a fitted wavelength-to-time calibration, and a finite-size assumption. The free parameters are calibration constants and the V2 strength; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Wavelength-to-propagation mapping (α, λ0) = not specified in main text
    The transformation λ = λ0 + αz is adjusted to align discrete numerical simulations with experimental wavelength scans; it underlies the interpretation of wavelength sweeps as temporal evolution.
  • QE-reservoir coupling V2 = V2/V1 ≈ 1.5 (strong) and ≈ 0.5 (weak); absolute values not reported
    The distance between the emitter waveguide and the lattice sets V2; the claim of equal V2 for square and Lieb cases is not quantitatively documented, and the wavelength dependence of V2 is not characterized.
  • Coupling dispersion coefficients a, b, c in Vx(λ) = a + bλ + cλ^2 = values not given
    The quadratic fit to the measured coupling versus wavelength is used to justify the linear approximation Vx ∝ λ, which supports the wavelength-time analogy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The fabricated arrays are described by the tight-binding Hamiltonian with uniform on-site energies and nearest-neighbor couplings V1 and V2.
    All numerical simulations and the interpretation of the experiment use model (1); the paper does not quantify disorder, next-nearest-neighbor coupling, or on-site detuning of the emitter waveguide.
  • domain assumption Classical light propagation through the waveguide array is a faithful analog of single-excitation quantum dynamics of an emitter coupled to a reservoir.
    Standard discrete linear Schrödinger equation analogy cited from prior work; the paper restricts to linear optics and the single-particle sector.
  • ad hoc to paper The wavelength scan method maps monotonically to propagation distance via a linear transformation.
    Introduced in this paper; validated numerically for a square geometry only, then applied to Lieb lattices.
  • domain assumption Finite reservoir sizes (361 square sites, 280 Lieb sites) are large enough that observed oscillations are not dominated by boundary reflections.
    The paper computes density of states for these finite lattices but does not analyze finite-size effects on the decay dynamics; boundary-induced revivals could mimic flat-band non-Markovianity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Observation of non-Markovian Radiative Phenomena in Structured Photonic Lattices." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/POT3TIQR

@misc{pith2026250109261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Observation of non-Markovian Radiative Phenomena in Structured Photonic Lattices},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/POT3TIQR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09261}
}
read the original abstract

The spectral structure of a photonic reservoir shapes radiation phenomena for embedded quantum emitters. We implement an all-optical analog to study such an effect, particularly to observe the non- Markovian radiation dynamics of an emitter coupled to two-dimensional structured reservoirs. Its dynamics is simulated by light propagating through a photonic lattice, acting as a reservoir for an adjacent waveguide that mimics a coupled quantum emitter. We study radiation dynamics in square and Lieb lattices under different coupling regimes and observe how the flat band properties of the Lieb lattice significantly enhances light-matter coupling and non-Markovianity. Our platform opens a path for the experimental exploration of single-photon quantum optical phenomena in structured reservoirs to enhance light-matter interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Light propagating through a three-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a1) Square and (a2) Lieb lattice geometries, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Femtosecond writing technique and (b) white [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Output intensity profiles for a square lattice under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Constructing mode-resolved quantum optical models for emitters in photonic crystals

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A symmetry-constrained method builds minimal photonic lattice models that preserve full position- and polarization-dependent emitter couplings and reproduce macroscopic QED at weak coupling.

  2. Photon-mediated interactions by Floquet photonic lattices

    quant-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Floquet-driven photonic lattices produce π-gap bound states that mediate coherent emitter interactions, including between detuned emitters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    John and J

    S. John and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2418 (1990)

    1990

  2. [2]

    John and T

    S. John and T. Quang, Phys. Rev. A 50, 1764 (1994)

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 347 (2015)

    2015

  4. [4]

    S. Wu, H. Xia, J. Xu, X. Sun, and X. Liu, Advanced Materials 30, 1803362 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 031002 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    John and T

    S. John and T. Quang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3419 (1995)

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    D. G. Angelakis, P. L. Knight, and E. Paspalakis, Con- temporary Physics 45, 303 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Lodahl, S

    P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeu- tel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, Nature 541, 473 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Vats and S

    N. Vats and S. John, Phys. Rev. A 58, 4168 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    Lambropoulos, G

    P. Lambropoulos, G. M. Nikolopoulos, T. R. Nielsen, and S. Bay, Reports on Progress in Physics 63, 455 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 143602 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J

    A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 96, 043811 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    Bello, G

    M. Bello, G. Platero, J. I. Cirac, and A. Gonz´ alez- Tudela, Science Advances 5, eaaw0297 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    V. S. Ferreira, J. Banker, A. Sipahigil, M. H. Matheny, A. J. Keller, E. Kim, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041043 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    A. A. Daniel Leykam and S. Flach, Advances in Physics: X 3, 1473052 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    R. A. V. Poblete, Advances in Physics: X 6, 1878057 (2021)

    2021

  9. [17]

    R. A. Vicencio, C. Cantillano, L. Morales-Inostroza, B. Real, C. Mej ´ ıa-Cort´ es, S. Weimann, A. Szameit, and M. I. Molina, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 245503 (2015)

    2015

  10. [18]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Spracklen, D. Choudhury, N. Goldman, P. ¨Ohberg, E. Andersson, and R. R. Thomson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 245504 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    De Bernardis, Z.-P

    D. De Bernardis, Z.-P. Cian, I. Carusotto, M. Hafezi, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 103603 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Bienias, I

    P. Bienias, I. Boettcher, R. Belyansky, A. J. Koll´ ar, and A. V. Gorshkov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 013601 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    De Bernardis, F

    D. De Bernardis, F. S. Piccioli, P. Rabl, and I. Carusotto, PRX Quantum 4, 030306 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Di Benedetto, A

    E. Di Benedetto, A. Gonzalez-Tudela, and F. Ciccarello, Quantum 9, 1671 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    de Vega and D

    I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 015001 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Quang, M

    T. Quang, M. Woldeyohannes, S. John, and G. S. Agar- wal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5238 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    John and T

    S. John and T. Quang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1888 (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    Florescu and S

    M. Florescu and S. John, Phys. Rev. A64, 033801 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Sinha, P

    K. Sinha, P. Meystre, E. A. Goldschmidt, F. K. Fatemi, S. L. Rolston, and P. Solano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043603 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    S. I. Azzam, K. Parto, and G. Moody, Applied Physics Letters 118, 240502 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Longhi, Laser & Photonics Reviews 3, 243 (2009)

    S. Longhi, Laser & Photonics Reviews 3, 243 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Crespi, S

    A. Crespi, S. Longhi, and R. Osellame, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 163601 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Crespi, F

    A. Crespi, F. V. Pepe, P. Facchi, F. Sciarrino, P. Mat- aloni, H. Nakazato, S. Pascazio, and R. Osellame, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 130401 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Salinas, J

    I. Salinas, J. C. Cornejo, A. Szameit, P. Solano, and R. A. Vicencio, APL Photonics 9, 020801 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Calaj´ o, F

    G. Calaj´ o, F. Ciccarello, D. Chang, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033833 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    Longhi, Opt

    S. Longhi, Opt. Lett. 45, 3297 (2020)

    2020

  27. [36]

    See Supplemental Material at

  28. [37]

    Lederer, G

    F. Lederer, G. I. Stegeman, D. N. Christodoulides, G. As- santo, M. Segev, and Y. Silberberg, Physics Reports 463, 1 (2008)

    2008

  29. [38]

    Szameit, D

    A. Szameit, D. Bl¨ omer, J. Burghoff, T. Schreiber, T. Pertsch, S. Nolte, A. T¨ unnermann, and F. Lederer, Optics Express 13, 10552 (2005)

    2005

  30. [39]

    Guzm´ an-Silva, C

    D. Guzm´ an-Silva, C. Mej ´ ıa-Cort´ es, M. A. Bandres, M. C. Rechtsman, S. Weimann, S. Nolte, M. Segev, A. Szameit, and R. A. Vicencio, New Journal of Physics 16, 063061 (2014)

    2014

  31. [40]

    Szameit, F

    A. Szameit, F. Dreisow, T. Pertsch, S. Nolte, and A. T¨ unnermann, Opt. Express15, 1579 (2007)

    2007

  32. [41]

    D. N. Biggerstaff, R. Heilmann, A. A. Zecevik, M. Gr¨ afe, M. A. Broome, A. Fedrizzi, S. Nolte, A. Szameit, A. G. White, and I. Kassal, Nature Communications 7, 11282 (2016)

    2016

  33. [42]

    C´ aceres-Aravena, B

    G. C´ aceres-Aravena, B. Real, D. Guzm´ an-Silva, P. Vil- doso, I. Salinas, A. Amo, T. Ozawa, and R. A. Vicencio, APL Photonics 8, 080801 (2023)

    2023

  34. [43]

    B. Real, D. Guzm´ an-Silva, and R. A. Vicencio, Phys. Rev. B 109, 064308 (2024)

    2024

  35. [44]

    Rom´ an-Cort´ es, M

    D. Rom´ an-Cort´ es, M. Mazanov, R. A. Vicencio, and M. A. Gorlach, Nano Letters 25, 4291 (2025)

    2025

  36. [45]

    J. Noh, W. A. Benalcazar, S. Huang, M. J. Collins, K. P. 6 Chen, T. L. Hughes, and M. C. Rechtsman, Nature Pho- tonics 12, 408 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.