Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Influence of Kerr Anisotropy in Parametric Amplification

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 One 1-mm MgO crystal both amplifies a femtosecond pulse 2000-fold and rotates its polarization to 88 degrees from the seed.

desk verdict Worth refereeing for the experimental result, but the model is partly tuned and needs an unexplained 14-degree offset; the rotation itself is likely real. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06871 v1 pith:WXUTSWLY submitted 2025-06-07 physics.optics

Nathan G Drouillard , Fadi Farook , Meerna Albert , Rachel Durling , Jordan Saad , Jeffrey G Rau , TJ Hammond This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics PACS 42.65.Yj42.25.Ja42.65.Ky
keywords Kerrinstabilityamplificationcross-polarizedwavegenerationMgOcrystalthird-ordernonlinearsusceptibilitypolarizationrotationfemtosecondpulsecontrastenhancementfour-wavemixing
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

Kerr instability amplification is four-wave parametric gain driven by an intense femtosecond pump, and this paper asks whether the crystal's Kerr anisotropy can be used at the same time, so that the amplified seed also emerges with a rotated polarization. The answer reported is yes: in a 1 mm MgO(100) crystal, a linearly polarized seed is amplified 2000-fold while its polarization rotates to $88\pm4$ degrees from the pump and seed direction, and the measured polarization contrast improves by more than six orders of magnitude. The authors show the rotation is controlled by pump intensity and crystal length, saturating near 60–70 degrees once the combined parameter $\gamma=2\pi n_2 I_p L/\lambda_p$ crosses roughly $\pi$. If correct, this makes a single parametric amplification stage also act as a cross-polarized wave generator, a combination that would simplify contrast enhancement and polarization control in high-power femtosecond laser systems.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the third-order susceptibility tensor of cubic MgO, whose non-zero components $\chi_{xxxx}$, $\chi_{xxyy}$, $\chi_{xyyx}$, $\chi_{xyxy}$ reduce, under the paper's frequency-independence and Kleinman symmetry assumptions, to two numbers: $\chi_{xxxx}$ and $\chi_{xxyy}$. The $\chi_{xxyy}$ term is what couples the two transverse polarizations, producing cross-phase modulation and energy exchange that rotate the amplified field; the ratio $\chi_{xxyy}/\chi_{xxxx}=0.54$ is fitted from the gain difference between the (100) and (110) orientations. Propagation is modeled with the Forward Maxwell Equation in one transverse dimension, and the intensity- and length-dependent rotation is organized by the parameter $\gamma=2\pi n_2 I_p L/\lambda_p$, with a threshold near $\gamma\sim\pi$ above which the polarization jumps from near zero to beyond 45 degrees and then saturates.

What would settle it

Measure the output polarization angle versus crystal length in MgO(100) at a fixed pump intensity; if the length at which the rotation jumps from near zero to beyond 45 degrees does not match the $\gamma\approx\pi$ condition computed with the fitted Kerr coefficients, the proposed mechanism is incomplete. A direct plasma diagnostics measurement showing significant free-electron density at 15 TW/cm2 would also falsify the assumption that plasma effects are negligible.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the same third-order Kerr nonlinearity that produces broadband parametric gain in MgO also rotates the polarization when the pump is aligned with the (100) crystal axis, and that this rotation is large enough to produce orthogonally polarized amplified pulses. Experimentally, with a vertically polarized pump and seed in MgO(100), the amplified spectrum around 595 nm is rotated by 60 degrees while amplified 20-fold at $7\,\mathrm{TW/cm^2}$; at higher intensity a 0.5 mm crystal gives 5500-fold amplification with a 65-degree rotation and a gain of $20.0\,\mathrm{mm^{-1}}$. In a 1 mm crystal at $7\,\mathrm{TW/cm^2}$ the rotation reaches $88\pm4$ degrees with 2000-fold amplification, i.e. nearly orthogonal to the seed. Rotating the crystal to the (110) axis removes the rotation but raises the gain to 45000-fold ($24.2\,\mathrm{mm^{-1}}$), which the authors attribute to the orientation dependence of the Kerr coefficient; fitting the two orientations gives $\chi_{xxyy}=0.54\chi_{xxxx}$ and $n_2(100)=3.0\times10^{-20}\,\mathrm{m^2/W}$. The same mechanism produces a measured polarization contrast improvement exceeding six orders of magnitude, and simulations with a Forward Maxwell Equation reproduce the qualitative behavior, including the pump- and length-dependent rotation.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim assumes that at 7 to 19 TW/cm2 the only important nonlinearity is the instantaneous third-order Kerr response, so that multiphoton absorption, higher-order susceptibilities, and plasma formation are too weak to change the polarization dynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single parametric amplification stage can now generate femtosecond pulses whose polarization is orthogonal to the seed, demonstrated at 2000x gain in 1 mm MgO(100).
  • Pulse contrast in high-power laser systems can be improved by more than six orders of magnitude without a separate cross-polarized wave generation stage.
  • The rotation angle is controllable through pump intensity and crystal length via the parameter $\gamma$, with a sharp threshold near $\gamma\sim\pi$, giving a practical design rule for polarization control.
  • The amplified seed polarization acts as a probe of the pump pulse's own nonlinear polarization dynamics inside the crystal, opening an observable for studying extreme-intensity propagation.
  • The measured gain difference between MgO(100) and MgO(110) fixes the Kerr anisotropy ratio $\chi_{xxyy}/\chi_{xxxx}=0.54$, an input that can refine models of high-harmonic generation and other strong-field processes in MgO.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: if the $\gamma\sim\pi$ threshold is a universal feature of cubic Kerr materials, then crystals with larger anisotropy (such as BaF2) should reach 90-degree rotation at lower intensities or shorter lengths; a comparative length-scaling experiment across cubic crystals would test this directly.
  • Inference: the experimentally observed hypersensitivity of the output angle to pump polarization near 0 degrees suggests the system sits near a dynamical instability that the current one-transverse-dimension, frequency-independent model smooths away; a full three-dimensional vector simulation including pump depletion might reproduce the $\pm1$-degree-to-$\pm60$-degree amplification.
  • Inference: because the seed follows the pump polarization, a time-gated measurement of the amplified seed's polarization could map the pump's own nonlinear rotation inside the crystal, effectively turning KIA into a self-probing diagnostic for extreme-intensity propagation.
  • Inference: the paper's fitted anisotropy ratio assumes Kleinman symmetry and no plasma contribution; if subsequent measurements at 15–19 TW/cm2 show a pump-intensity-dependent $\chi_{xxyy}/\chi_{xxxx}$, that would indicate the onset of higher-order nonlinearities, and the contrast-enhancement scheme would need to be operated below that threshold.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports experiments in which intense femtosecond pump pulses in MgO crystals amplify a supercontinuum seed while rotating its polarization. The authors measure 5500x and 45000x amplification in the (100) and (110) orientations, respectively, rotations up to 88 degrees, and more than six orders of magnitude contrast improvement. They propose a vector Kerr-instability model with an anisotropic third-order susceptibility, fit n2(100) and chi_xxyy/chi_xxxx, and simulate gain, polarization rotation, pump-polarization dependence, and pulse contrast. The paper also explores intensity and length scaling of the rotation and discusses applications to pulse contrast enhancement.

Significance. The experimental observations are novel and potentially useful: a single-stage combination of parametric amplification and cross-polarized wave generation, with a new polarization observable in the extreme-intensity regime. The contrast-enhancement claim is striking and, if fully supported, would be of practical interest for high-power laser systems. The authors are appropriately candid about the model's limitations, which is to their credit. However, the model support for the central mechanism is weakened by parameter fitting and by the need to introduce a 14-degree pump offset to reproduce the rotation; the independent experimental polarization measurements prevent a harsher verdict.

major comments (3)
  1. [Amplification and Polarization Rotation (p. 8)] The simulation cannot reproduce the observed 65-degree or 88-degree rotation with the nominal pump-seed configuration: the text states that 'the initial pump polarization must be rotated to 14 degrees in the MgO(100) case to rotate the polarization by 61 degrees, significantly more than we experimentally measured.' Since the experiment is performed with pump and seed nominally vertical (0 degrees, with approximately 4 degrees uncertainty), a model requiring a 14-degree offset is not a faithful representation of the configuration. This is load-bearing because the fitted chi_xxyy/chi_xxxx = 0.54 is inferred from gain and rotation data that the model can only match under a changed initial condition. Please either explain the physical origin of the offset, re-fit without this degree of freedom, or present the rotation as an experimentally observed phenomenon whose mechanism is not captured by the current model.
  2. [Amplification and Polarization Rotation (pp. 7-8)] The parameters n2(100) = 3.0e-20 m2/W and chi_xxyy = 0.54 chi_xxxx are chosen to match the measured (100) and (110) gains, and the quoted simulated amplification values of 6300x and 45000x are therefore consequences of the fit rather than independent predictions. The paper states that 'We find better agreement in our simulations with experiment when n2(100) = 3.0e-20 m2/W; using the above gain ratio leads to chi_xxyy = 0.54 chi_xxxx.' This circularity should be acknowledged explicitly, and the sensitivity of the conclusions to the fitted values should be quantified, ideally by reporting fit residuals and confidence intervals.
  3. [Power and Length Scaling (p. 11) and Amplification and Polarization Rotation (p. 8)] The model omits multiphoton absorption, higher-order nonlinear susceptibilities, and plasma effects at peak intensities of 7-19 TW/cm2, as the authors acknowledge in the statement that 'the gain at such high intensities will require a more complete physical understanding, including multiphoton absorption anisotropy, higher order nonlinear susceptibilities, and plasma effects.' These omissions matter because the inferred chi_xxyy/chi_xxxx ratio is extracted from gain and rotation data taken in exactly this intensity range. Please provide quantitative estimates, such as an upper bound on the plasma-induced refractive-index change via Eq. (9) with an estimated electron density, so that the reader can judge whether the neglected terms are small compared with the Kerr terms.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The word 'occuring' should be 'occurring'.
  2. [Amplification and Polarization Rotation (p. 6)] The text states 'I_p = 7e16 m2/W'; the units appear to be inverted, as intensity should be expressed in W/m2 (or TW/cm2).
  3. [Theory (p. 4) and Amplification and Polarization Rotation (p. 8)] The manuscript gives two values for chi_xxyy/chi_xxxx: 0.482 from the literature n2 in the Theory section, and 0.54 from the fit later. The relationship between these values should be stated explicitly, since the simulations appear to use the fitted value.
  4. [Initial Polarization Dependence (p. 12)] The paper reports that a 1-degree change in pump polarization rotates the amplified polarization by 60 degrees in experiment but not in simulation; this is a major qualitative discrepancy that is acknowledged but should be highlighted in the Conclusions as an unresolved limitation of the model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Simulated gain agreement is calibrated to measured gains; the model's central rotation is not reproduced from the nominal 0° configuration without an ad hoc 14° offset.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, 'Amplification and Polarization Rotation' (Fig. 3 discussion)]
    "We find better agreement in our simulations with experiment when n2(100) = 3.0×10−20 m2/W; using the above gain ratio leads to χ(3)xxyy = 0.54χ(3)xxxx (i.e. n2(110) = 3.7×10−20 m2/W). Using these values of the angle-dependent Kerr nonlinearity, we show good agreement with simulations in Fig. 3(b)."

    The two simulation parameters are not independently fixed: n2(100) is chosen for 'better agreement' with the measured amplification, and the anisotropy ratio χxxyy/χxxxx is derived from the measured gain ratio g(110)/g(100) = 1.21. The simulations using these fitted values are then said to 'show good agreement' with the same measured gains (6300× for MgO(100), 45000× for MgO(110)). The gain agreement is therefore a calibration check, not an independent prediction. The rotation was not directly fitted, but reproducing even that required adding an unmeasured 14° pump-polarization offset rather than using the described 0° geometry, so the model's validation is substantially tied to inputs derived from the data it is used to 'confirm.'

full rationale

The central experimental observation—2000× amplification into the orthogonal polarization in 1 mm MgO(100), together with intensity- and length-dependent rotation—is a direct measurement and does not depend on the model, so the paper's headline claim is not circular. The circularity is confined to the simulation validation: the nonlinear coefficients used in the simulations are adjusted to, and derived from, the measured gain values, and the simulations are then presented as agreeing with those same measurements. The model's inability to generate the observed rotation from the stated pump/seed 0° geometry without an additional 14° input offset is a serious mechanism gap, but it is a correctness risk rather than a circular step. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem was found; citations to prior KIA work provide the propagation framework rather than the fitted result. Overall, the derivation chain is partially circular for the gain comparison, but the independent experimental rotation measurement keeps the paper from being wholly circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experimental observation is direct and does not depend on the tensor model. The quantitative interpretation, however, rests on two fitted parameters and several simplifying assumptions about the chi(3) tensor, propagation, and neglected plasma and higher-order effects. These are acknowledged in the text.

free parameters (3)
  • n2(100), Kerr coefficient for MgO(100) = 3.0e-20 m2/W
    Set below the literature value of 3.90e-20 m2/W (ref [1]) to improve simulation agreement with the measured gain in MgO(100). See Section 'Amplification and Polarization Rotation'.
  • chi_xxyy / chi_xxxx susceptibility anisotropy ratio = 0.54
    Chosen so that the gain ratio g(110)/g(100) = 1.21 matches the measured 45000x versus 5500x gains. This value is not independently measured and directly sets the simulated rotation magnitude.
  • Initial pump polarization offset in simulation = 14 degrees
    Added in the MgO(100) simulation to reproduce the measured 61 degree rotation. The experimental pump was vertically polarized, so this offset is not an experimental condition and indicates a model deficiency.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The third-order susceptibility of MgO (space group m3m) has only the tensor components chi_xxyy, chi_xyyx, chi_xyxy, and chi_xxxx.
    Invoked in Eq. (2) to write the nonlinear polarization. This is standard group-theory content for cubic m3m crystals.
  • domain assumption Frequency independence and Kleinman symmetry: chi_xyyx = chi_xyxy = chi_xxyy.
    Stated after Eq. (2): 'We assume that the nonlinear susceptibility is frequency independent... we can further simplify using chi_xyyx = chi_xxyy.' Valid only far from resonances and may break down near multiphoton or plasma conditions.
  • domain assumption The interaction is confined to the xy plane because the relative pump-seed angle is about 3 degrees inside the sample.
    Stated in Theory: 'we assume that the nonlinearity is only in the xy plane to simplify the calculations.' This ignores possible z-polarized components.
  • domain assumption Forward Maxwell's Equation with one transverse dimension is adequate for pulse propagation.
    Eq. (3) is used with the statement 'We simulate only one transverse dimension, that is nabla_perp^2 = d^2/dx^2.' This omits full 3D diffraction and self-focusing details.
  • domain assumption Plasma and higher-order nonlinearities are not dominant in the 7 to 19 TW/cm2 regime.
    The paper states plasma is expected above 15 TW/cm2 but no significant change is observed; however the model ignores these effects. The authors also acknowledge that a more complete physical understanding is needed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of Kerr Anisotropy in Parametric Amplification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXUTSWLY

@misc{pith2026250606871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of Kerr Anisotropy in Parametric Amplification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXUTSWLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06871}
}
abstract

Four-wave parametric amplification can be extended to the TW/cm$^2$ regime using femtosecond pump pulses to amplify nearly octave spanning pulses with gain $> 20$~mm$^{-1}$, which we call Kerr instability amplification. Cross-polarized wave generation exploits Kerr anisotropy to induce a transient intensity-dependent polarization evolution. In this work, we combine Kerr instability amplification with cross-polarized wave generation to simultaneously amplify and rotate the output polarization of a signal beam, and we explore laser and crystal parameters to control the resulting polarization. In 1~mm MgO(100), we amplify linearly polarized light by $2000\times$ orthogonal to the pump and seed polarization. The parametric amplification and polarization rotation offers excellent pulse contrast enhancement for future high-power laser systems. Furthermore, the polarization provides an additional observable to study the nonlinear dynamics occuring in this extreme ultrafast light-matter interaction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) The rock-salt MgO crystal structure with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Linearly polarized supercontinuum seed spectrum filtered to span the visible region. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Polar plot (radius is amplification magnitude order) of crystal orientation dependence on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The nonlinear polarization rotation improves pulse contrast. (a) We measure the contrast [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Pump power scaling of rotation in 0.2 mm thick MgO(100). The rotation saturates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measured amplified beam polarization depends on the initial pump polarization. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adair, L

    R. Adair, L. L. Chase, and S. A. Payne, Nonlinear refractive index of optical crystals, Phys. Rev. B39, 3337 (1989)

    work page 1989

  2. [2]

    Stephens and I

    R. Stephens and I. Malitson, Index of refraction of magnesium oxide, J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. 49, 249 (1952)

    work page 1952

  3. [3]

    N. B. Manson, W. V. der Ohe, and S. L. Chodos, Second-order raman spectrum of mgo, Phys. Rev. B3, 1968 (1971)

    work page 1971

  4. [4]

    Korobenko, T

    A. Korobenko, T. J. Hammond, C. Zhang, A. Y. Naumov, D. M. Villeneuve, and P. B. Corkum, High-harmonic generation in solids driven by counter-propagating pulses, Opt. Express46, 32630 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Y. S. You, D. A. Reis, and S. Ghimire, Anisotropic high-harmonic generation in bulk crystals, Nat. Phys.13, 345 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Heinrich, M

    T. Heinrich, M. Taucer, O. Kfir, P. B. Corkum, A. Staudte, C. Ropers, and M. Sivis, Chiral high-harmonic generation and spectroscopy on solid surfaces using polarization-tailored strong fields, Nat. Commun.12, 3723 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Zhang, T

    Y. Zhang, T. Huang, L. Li, P. Lan, and P. Lu, Intensity and wavelength dependence of anisotropic nonlinear absorption inside mgo, Opt. Quantum Electron.53, 158 (2021). 14

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Hussain, F

    M. Hussain, F. Lima, W. Boutu, H. Merdji, M. Fajardo, and G. O. Williams, Demonstration of nonperturbative and perturbative third-harmonic generation in mgo by altering the electronic structure, Phys. Rev. A105, 053103 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Ghosh, N

    S. Ghosh, N. G. Drouillard, and T. J. Hammond, Supercontinuum amplification by kerr in- stability, Phys. Rev. A109, 043508 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    N. G. Drouillard and T. J. Hammond, Novel and simple method for broadband stimulated raman spectroscopy (2025), submitted

    2025

  3. [11]

    Wabnitz, Modulational polarization instability of light in a nonlinear birefringent dispersive medium, Phys

    S. Wabnitz, Modulational polarization instability of light in a nonlinear birefringent dispersive medium, Phys. Rev. A38, 2018 (1988)

    1988

  4. [12]

    Millot and S

    G. Millot and S. Wabnitz, Nonlinear polarization effects in optical fibers: polarization attrac- tion and modulation instability [invited], J. Opt. Soc. Am. B31, 2754 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    J. F. L. Freitas, C. J. S. de Matos, M. B. C. e Silva, and A. S. L. Gomes, Impact of phase modulation and parametric gain on signal polarization in an anomalously dispersive optical fiber, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B24, 1469 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Lin and P

    Q. Lin and P. Agrawal, Vector theory of four-wave mixing: polarization effects in fiber-optic parametric amplifiers, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B21, 1216 (2004)

    2004

  7. [15]

    Guasoni and S

    M. Guasoni and S. Wabnitz, Nonlinear polarizers based on four-wave mixing in high- birefringence optical fibers, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B29, 1511 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Minkovski, S

    N. Minkovski, S. Saltiel, G. Petrov, O. Albert, and J. Etchepare, Polarization rotation induced by cascaded third-order processes, Opt. Lett.27, 2025 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Minkovski, G

    N. Minkovski, G. Petrov, S. Saltiel, O. Albert, and J. Etchepare, Nonlinear polarization ro- tation and orthogonal polarization generation experienced in a single-beam configuration, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B21, 1659 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    Jullien, O

    A. Jullien, O. Albert, G. Ch´ eriaux, J. Etchepare, S. Kourtev, N. Minkovski, and S. M. Saltiel, Nonlinear polarization rotation of elliptical light in cubic crystals, with application to cross- polarized wave generation, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B22, 2635 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Jullien, O

    A. Jullien, O. Albert, F. Burgy, G. Hamoniaux, J.-P. Rousseau, J.-P. Chambaret, F. Aug´ e- Rochereau, G. Ch´ eriaux, and J. Etchepare, 10-10 temporal contrast for femtosecond ultrain- tense lasers by cross-polarized wave generation, Opt. Lett.30, 920 (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Jullien, L

    A. Jullien, L. Canova, O. Albert, D. Boschetto, L. Antonucci, Y.-H. Cha, J. P. Rousseau, P. Chaudet, G. Ch´ eeriaux, J. Etchepare, S. Kourtev, N. Minkovski, and S. M. Saltiel, Spectral 15 broadening and pulse duration reduction during cross-polarized wave generation: influence...

    2007

  13. [21]

    B. Zhao, X. Zhang, C. Lv, Q. Liu, J. Zhang, M. Ma, and G. Yang, Improved cross polarized wave generation with an aperture, AIP Advances12, 055128 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    L. P. Ramirez, D. Papadopoulos, M. Hanna, A. Pellegrina, F. Friebel, P. Georges, and F. Druon, Compact, simple, and robust cross polarized wave generation source of few-cycle, high-contrast pulses for seeding petawatt-class laser systems, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B , 2607 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    Buberl, A

    T. Buberl, A. Alismail, H. Wang, N. Karpowicz, and H. Fattahi, Self-compressed, spectral broadening of a yb:yag thin-disk amplifier, Opt. Express24, 10286 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Allegre, J

    H. Allegre, J. J. Broughton, T. Klee, Y. Li, K. M. Kowalczyk, N. Thatte, D. Lim, J. P. Marangos, M. M. Matthews, and J. W. G. Tisch, Extension of high-harmonic generation cutoff in solids to 50 ev using mgo, Opt. Lett.50, 1492 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Kourtev, N

    S. Kourtev, N. Minkovski, L. Canova, A. Jullien, O. Albert, and S. M. Saltiel, Improved nonlinear cross-polarized wave generation in cubic crystals by optimization of the crystal orientation, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B26, 1269 (2009)

    2009

  18. [26]

    P. N. Butcher and D. Cotter,The elements of nonlinear optics(Cambridge University Press, 1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    Agrawal,Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 5th ed

    G. Agrawal,Nonlinear Fiber Optics, 5th ed. (Academic Press, 2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Jullien,G´ en´ eration d’impulsions laser ultra-br` eves et ultra-intenses ` a contraste temporel ´ elev´ e, Ph.D

    A. Jullien,G´ en´ eration d’impulsions laser ultra-br` eves et ultra-intenses ` a contraste temporel ´ elev´ e, Ph.D. thesis, Ecole Polytechnique (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    D. C. Hutchings, J. S. Aitchison, and J. M. Arnold, Nonlinear refractive coupling and vector solitons in anisotropic cubic media, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B14, 869 (1997)

    1997

  22. [30]

    Husakou and J

    A. Husakou and J. Herrmann, Supercontinuum generation of higher-order solitons by fission in photonic crystal fibers, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 203901 (2001)

    2001

  23. [31]

    Ghosh, N

    S. Ghosh, N. G. Drouillard, and T. J. Hammond, Single-stage few-cycle pulse amplification, Phys. Rev. A109, 013511 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    N. G. Drouillard and T. J. Hammond, Phase dependence of kerr-based parametric amplifica- tion, Phys. Rev. A110, 023517 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Nesrallah, G

    M. Nesrallah, G. Vampa, G. Bart, P. B. Corkum, C. R. McDonald, and T. Brabec, Theory of kerr instability amplification, Optica5, 271 (2018). 16

    2018

  26. [34]

    P. V. et al, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Manozi and G

    C. Manozi and G. Cerullo, Design criteria for ultrafast optical parametric amplifiers, J. Opt. 18, 103501 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    N. G. Drouillard, J. Saad, and T. J. Hammond, Kerr coefficient measurements at extreme intensities (in preparation)

  29. [37]

    Jullien, S

    A. Jullien, S. Kourtev, O. Albert, G. Ch´ eriaux, J. Etchepare, N. Minkovski, and S. M. Saltiel, Highly efficient temporal cleaner for femtosecond pulses based on cross polarized wave gener- ation in a dual crystal scheme, Appl. Phys. B84, 409–414 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Ricci, A

    A. Ricci, A. Jullien, J.-P. Rousseau, A. Houard, P. Ramirez, D. Papadopoulos, A. Pelligrina, P. Georges, F. Druon, N. Forget, and R. Lopez-Martens, Energy-scalable temporal clean- ing device for femtosecond laser pulses based on cross-polarized wave generation, Rev. Sci. Instr...

    2013

  31. [39]

    Fattahi, H

    H. Fattahi, H. Wang, A. Alismail, G. Arisholm, V. Pervak, A. M. Azzeer, and F. Krausz, Near-phz-bandwidth, phase-stable continua generated from a yb:yag thin-disk amplifier, Opt. Express24, 24337 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Jullien, O

    A. Jullien, O. Albert, G. Ch´ eriaux, J. Etchepare, S. Kourtev, N. Minkovski, and S. M. Saltiel, Two crystal arrangement to fight efficiency saturation in cross-polarized wave generation, Opt. Express14, 2760 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Canova, S

    L. Canova, S. Kourtev, N. Minkovski, A. Jullien, R. Lopez-Martens, O. Albert, and S. M. Saltiel, Efficient generation of cross-polarized femtosecond pulses in cubic crystals with holo- graphic cut orientation, Appl. Phys. Lett.92, 231102 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    C. R. McDonald, G. Vampa, P. B. Corkum, and T. Brabec, Intense-laser solid state physics: Unraveling the difference between semiconductors and dielectrics, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 173601 (2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear Optics; 3rd edition(Elsevier Academic Press, 2008). 17

    2008

Pith tools

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