Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 59 references

An S-matrix formalism computes nonclassical scattering from arbitrary assemblies of layered and eccentric plasmonic nanospheres.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

An S-matrix formalism extends nonlocal plasmonics to aggregates of layered nanospheres, validated against BEM and physically checked on a sodium trimer.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid semi-analytical solver for nonclassical response of multi-sphere aggregates, with convincing BEM validation for a core-shell case; the multi-particle claim is only qualitatively checked and the longitudinal translation theorem is under-sourced. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.04589 v1 pith:ZTA6K43R submitted 2025-09-04 physics.comp-ph

An S-matrix Formalism for the Nonclassical Optical Response of Plasmonic Sphere Aggregates

Xin Zheng , Christos Mystilidis , Christos Tserkezis , Guy A. E. Vandenbosch , Xuezhi Zheng This is my paper
classification physics.comp-ph
keywords nanoplasmonicsnonlocal optical responsehydrodynamic Drude modelGNORsurface response modelS-matrixspherical wave expansionmultiple scattering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 aims to extend semi-analytic Mie-like scattering to multiple nonclassical nanospheres, where each sphere may contain several eccentric, concentric, or non-concentric spherical layers and the metal response is described by the nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model (NLHDM), its diffusive variant GNOR, or the surface response model (SRM). The central construction is a per-interface S-matrix that relates incoming to outgoing spherical-wave coefficients; interactions among interfaces are handled by translation addition theorems that, for nonlocal media, also translate longitudinal waves. If correct, the method gives near-field and absorption spectra for deep-nanometer plasmonic aggregates without a general-purpose numerical discretization, at a fraction of the cost. The paper supports the claim by comparing absorption cross sections and near fields with a boundary-element solver on a three-interface geometry with two embedded spheres, reporting absorption errors below 4% and average near-field errors near 1%, and by reproducing expected spectral shifts for a sodium trimer.

Core claim

The discovery is a constructive algorithm: for each spherical interface in a collection of nonoverlapping spheres, build the interface S-matrix by matching transverse and, where relevant, longitudinal spherical-wave expansions under the correct boundary conditions—two Maxwell continuity conditions plus additional boundary conditions for nonlocal media, or Feibelman-parameter quantum-corrected boundary conditions for the SRM. Assembling all interfaces yields the linear system of Eq. (9), whose solution gives outgoing-wave coefficients on every interface and hence the field anywhere. The physically new element is the translation of longitudinal waves between different centers, Eq. (17), which

What carries the argument

The central object is the per-interface S-matrix S_p, which maps expansion coefficients of the incoming field (from inside and outside) to coefficients of the outgoing field. Fields are expanded in vector spherical wave functions M, N, and, in nonlocal media, L (longitudinal waves with wavenumber kappa). Interaction between interfaces is carried by translation matrices T_pq built from the addition theorem: for transverse waves the standard A and B coefficients, and for longitudinal waves the alpha coefficients of Eq. (17). The system in Eq. (9) collects these pieces and is solved by GMRES after equilibration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the translation addition theorem for longitudinal waves, Eq. (17), which is stated rather than proved: it assumes a longitudinal spherical wave centered at one point can be re-expanded as a sum of longitudinal waves centered at another point with the same kind of coefficients as the transverse case, and that no transverse-longitudinal mixing occurs under translation.

What would settle it

Take two nonlocal metal spheres embedded in a nonlocal host and solve the same geometry with an independent volume-discretization solver (e.g., finite elements) over a sweep of gap sizes and wavelengths; if absorption spectra or near-field maps deviate from the S-matrix prediction by more than the roughly 4% and 1% error levels reported for the single benchmark geometry, the longitudinal translation step of Eq. (17) is the suspect.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Nonclassical response of aggregates with multiple non-concentric spherical interfaces can be computed semi-analytically, including cases where local and nonlocal media meet at either side of an interface.
  • The same machinery covers the SRM through Feibelman d-parameters, so spill-out effects enter as modified boundary conditions rather than extra wave types.
  • For the tested geometry, absorption cross sections agree with a boundary-element solver to within 4% and average near-field errors are below 1%.
  • Physical patterns follow: NLHDM blue-shifts resonances and reduces gap field enhancement, while SRM red-shifts them, consistent with earlier findings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the longitudinal translation step holds up, this approach could combine with existing multiple-scattering T-matrix codes to model nonclassical metasurfaces or disordered aggregates of many spheres, not just trimers.
  • A natural next check is to verify Eq. (17) numerically by comparing two-sphere nonlocal-host cases against an independent volume-discretization solver across a range of gaps and frequencies; that would isolate the longitudinal translation coefficients as the most novel part.
  • The formalism is frequency-domain but otherwise agnostic to the electron-gas model, so it could plausibly be extended to anisotropic nonlocal responses or to time-domain excitations without changing the S-matrix assembly.
  • The reported runtime comparison hints that such semi-analytic solvers may be especially useful for parameter sweeps and inverse design in deep-nanometer plasmonics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a semi-analytical multiple-scattering S-matrix formalism for aggregates of nanospheres with nonconcentric spherical interfaces, supporting local media, the nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model (NLHDM) and its diffusive variant (GNOR), and the surface response model (SRM). Per-interface S-matrices are combined through translation addition theorems for transverse and longitudinal spherical waves, yielding a linear system (Eq. 9) for all expansion coefficients. The method is validated against an in-house BEM solver for a 10 nm Au sphere containing two 4 nm Ag eccentric cores in local-local, local-nonlocal, and nonlocal-nonlocal configurations; absorption cross sections agree within 4% and average near-field errors are about 1%. A Na trimer study reproduces the expected NLHDM blueshift and SRM redshift as the interparticle gap shrinks.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, the paper extends semi-analytical T/S-matrix methods from single or concentric layered spheres to multiple, nonconcentric spherical interfaces with nonclassical response models. This is a useful tool for computational mesoscopic electromagnetics and can serve as a benchmark for BEM and related methods. Strengths include the absence of fitted parameters (material data are taken from tabulated sources), a quantitative comparison against a different discretization (BEM), and physical checks of nonlocal/SRM spectral shifts. The main weaknesses are the under-supported longitudinal translation theorem and the fact that the numerical reference is an in-house, same-group BEM; an independent benchmark would substantially increase confidence.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix, Eqs. (17)/(22)] The longitudinal-wave translation theorem is asserted without proof. The text refers to [50], Appendix D, for A, B, and alpha, but the vector addition theorem in that appendix is for the transverse wave functions M and N; the L functions are gradients of scalar Helmholtz solutions and require the scalar addition theorem. The manuscript neither derives alpha nor proves that L translations do not mix with M and N. Since these alpha blocks enter the T_{pq} matrix in Eq. (28) and hence the main system (9) for every nonlocal-nonlocal coupling, this is a load-bearing gap. The nonlocal-nonlocal BEM validation (Sec. III-A) is only one geometry and may be insensitive if the longitudinal contribution is small. Please add a derivation (or an exact reference to the scalar addition theorem), state the explicit dependence of alpha on kappa, and clarify the decoupling of the longitudinal block.
  2. [Sec. III-A, Fig. 3; Sec. III-B, Fig. 6] The absorption cross sections are computed on observation spheres of radius 9.9 nm, just inside the outer interfaces. This excludes a 0.1 nm shell from the integration volume. For the trimer SRM case, the paper itself notes (Sec. III-B) that the rigorous observation surface is just outside the spheres because of the Feibelman boundary jumps. The authors argue the resonance position is insensitive, but the reported <4% absorption comparison is only meaningful if the BEM reference computes the same quantity with the same observation surface. Please specify the exact integration surfaces, the Poynting-vector expression used (including any nonlocal energy-flux corrections), and justify the inside-sphere approximation at the claimed accuracy level.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix, around Eq. (27)] The text says (26) is rewritten in matrix form, but Eq. (27) uses the full vector of a, b, and c coefficients; it should refer to Eqs. (24)-(26). Please correct.
  2. [Appendix, Table 1] The table appears to contain a duplicated entry (o,-;o,+) in the bottom row. The row/column labels and the corresponding T-matrix arguments should be checked carefully.
  3. [Sec. III-B] The Feibelman parameters d_perp and d_parallel for the Na/vacuum interface are never stated. For reproducibility, please give the values used (and their source), or state clearly how they are obtained from the cited references.
  4. [Sec. III-A] The statement that n_max=19 and the BEM mesh are 'high enough' is not quantified. A short convergence test for the absorption cross section and near field would make the validation more robust.
  5. [General] The GNOR model is introduced in Eqs. (2)-(3) but no GNOR numerical example is provided. One sentence on how the diffusion parameter D enters the S-matrix would clarify the claimed generality.
  6. [Sec. I and Sec. III] The comparison is made with an in-house BEM from the same group. A comparison with an independent semi-analytical or published full-wave result for at least one case would strengthen the claim of validity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the S-matrix derivation is self-contained given standard boundary conditions and addition theorems; the asserted longitudinal-wave translation is an omitted-proof/rigor issue, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The per-interface S-matrix is constructed by matching field expansions at each spherical interface with the stated boundary conditions (Eqs. (5)-(8)), not from the quantities later predicted (absorption cross sections, near fields). The multiple-scattering system in Eq. (9) follows from the S-matrix definition (10) and the translation relations (13), whose transverse-wave coefficients are taken from the standard external textbook [50]. The only non-standard element is the longitudinal-wave translation in Eq. (17), which is stated without proof and attributed to Appendix D of [50]; this is an omitted proof or potential correctness risk, but it is not circular, since the coefficients alpha are defined by the expansion itself and would be falsified by the nonlocal-nonlocal BEM comparison if misapplied. The numerical validation uses an in-house BEM solver from the same group, so it is not fully independent; however, no parameter of the S-matrix algorithm is fitted to the BEM output, and the reported errors (maximum 4% in absorption, average below 1% in near field) are genuine comparisons. The trimer physical check is a consistency check against known physical trends, not a derivation of the target result from itself. The self-citations [26] and [43] point to prior published solvers or a different discretization, and the central claim does not reduce to them by construction. Overall, no step in the derivation is equivalent to its own inputs by definition or by fitted parameter reuse.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The method depends on published mesoscopic models, standard addition theorems, and the authors' prior S-matrix derivations. The main unstated input is the set of Feibelman d-parameters used for the sodium SRM simulations.

free parameters (1)
  • Feibelman d_perp and d_parallel for Na/vacuum interface = Not reported
    The SRM trimer calculations in Section III.B depend on these inputs; the paper does not state the values, making the results dependent on an unspecified choice.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Per-interface S-matrix from OpenSANS [43] is correct for all local/nonlocal material combinations
    Section II.B states the S-matrix is derived in previous works and used without re-derivation; all interface cases (local-local, local-nonlocal, nonlocal-local, nonlocal-nonlocal) rely on it.
  • standard math Longitudinal vector spherical waves translate via scalar addition coefficients (Eq. 17)
    Appendix, Eq. (17) states L_nm translation with alpha; no proof is given, but it follows from the scalar addition theorem if L is the gradient of a scalar wave.
  • domain assumption Sauter ABC (Eq. 5) and nonlocal-nonlocal ABCs (Eq. 6) are the correct boundary conditions
    Section II.A imports these from [54], [55]; they are model assumptions for NLHDM/GNOR.
  • domain assumption SRM quantum-corrected boundary conditions (Eqs. 7-8) with Feibelman parameters describe mesoscopic surface response
    Section II.A; the model is taken from [3], [40], [56].
  • ad hoc to paper Absorption cross-section for SRM can be computed on an observation sphere just inside the particle without biasing the resonance position
    Section III.B acknowledges the rigorous placement is outside but uses interior spheres, arguing resonance position is 'not much affected'.
  • ad hoc to paper Multipole series truncated at n_max=19 are converged for the tested structures
    Section III.A states n up to 19 and claims convergence for both solvers; no systematic convergence curve is shown.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An S-matrix Formalism for the Nonclassical Optical Response of Plasmonic Sphere Aggregates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZTA6K43R

@misc{pith2026250904589,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An S-matrix Formalism for the Nonclassical Optical Response of Plasmonic Sphere Aggregates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZTA6K43R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04589}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

A computational method for the scattering of light by multiple nonclassical plasmonic nanospheres, each of which has multiple (non-)concentric dielectric or metallic layers, is presented. The electromagnetic (EM) response of the free electrons in the metals is described by three popular mesoscopic models: the nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model (NLHDM) and its diffusive variant, namely the generalized nonlocal optical response (GNOR) model, as well as the surface response model (SRM). The main equation behind the method is set up by detailing the evaluation of the S-matrix for each individual spherical interface and the interactions amongst the interfaces. The algorithm is numerically validated by comparing with an in-house boundary element method (BEM) solver for a spherical NP with two smaller embedded spheres, and physically checked on a trimer configuration, where the responses from the NLHDM and SRM are contrasted with the local response model (LRM). In both cases a very good agreement is seen regarding frequency shifts and field enhancements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04589 by Christos Mystilidis, Christos Tserkezis, Guy A. E. Vandenbosch, Xin Zheng, Xuezhi Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An illustration of 𝑁 interacting nanospheres. In the figure, there are 𝑁 nanospheres. The subscripts 1 and 2 represent the inner and outer region of each IF, respectively. The arrows indicate whether the waves are converging or diverging with respect to the origin 𝑂. The superscripts “+” and “-” mark the wave amplitudes that are associated with the waves diverging along or converging against the radial dir… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of a core-shell structure in vacuum. The structure has three spherical IFs. The outermost one is centered at 𝑂 (the origin of the coordinate system) and its radius 𝑅ଵ is 10 nm. The two inner IFs are centered at 𝐫ଶ = (−5,0,0) nm and 𝐫ଷ = (+5,0,0) nm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fig.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of a trimer structure in vacuum. The structure has three spherical IFs. The origin 𝑂 of the coordinate system is set at the middle of the IF centered at 𝐫ଵ and the IF centered at 𝐫ଶ , and the radius of each sphere is 𝑅 = 10 nm. The gap 𝑑 between each nanoparticle changes from 1 nm to 5 nm with 1 nm as a step. Face 1 marks a cut in the 𝑦 − 𝑧 plane, whose size is 10 nm by 10 nm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the electric field distribution along a cut made on the x-y plane. (a) – (c) are obtained from the proposed method, while (d) – (f) are from the in-house BEM. The three rows correspond to the three cases studied in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Near-field mapping of the trimer structure for the SRM, the NLHDM and the LRM, respectively, at the main resonant frequencies for the case that the gap size is 1 nm (see (a)) and for the case that the gap size is 5 nm (see (b)). The magnitude of the electric field is plotted on a cut (the cut is on the 𝑥𝑦 plane) with the size of 50 nm by 50 nm [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A near-field mapping at Face 1 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Third Edition). 1999. Accessed: July 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://archive.org/details/john-david-jackson-classical- electrodynamics-wiley-1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Mesoscopic electrodynamics at metal surfaces: — From quantum-corrected hydrodynamics to microscopic surface-response formalism,

    N. A. Mortensen, “Mesoscopic electrodynamics at metal surfaces: — From quantum-corrected hydrodynamics to microscopic surface-response formalism,” Nanophotonics, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 2563–2616, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1515/nanoph-2021-0156

    work page doi:10.1515/nanoph-2021-0156 2021

  3. [3]

    A general theoretical and experimental framework for nanoscale electromagnetism,

    Y. Yang et al., “A general theoretical and experimental framework for nanoscale electromagnetism,” Nature, vol. 576, no. 7786, pp. 248–252, Dec. 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1803-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1803-1 2019

  4. [4]

    Interfering Plasmons in Coupled Nanoresonators to Boost Light Localization and SERS,

    A. Xomalis, X. Zheng, A. Demetriadou, A. Martínez, R. Chikkaraddy, and J. J. Baumberg, “Interfering Plasmons in Coupled Nanoresonators to Boost Light Localization and SERS,” Nano Lett., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 2512–2518, Mar. 2021, doi: 10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04987

    doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c04987 2021

  5. [5]

    Detecting mid-infrared light by molecular frequency upconversion in dual-wavelength nanoantennas,

    A. Xomalis et al., “Detecting mid-infrared light by molecular frequency upconversion in dual-wavelength nanoantennas,” Science, vol. 374, no. 6572, pp. 1268–1271, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1126/science.abk2593

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abk2593 2021

  6. [6]

    Quantum Mechanics in Plasmonic Nanocavities: from Theory to Applications,

    T. Ding, C. Tserkezis, C. Mystilidis, G. A. E. Vandenbosch, and X. Zheng, “Quantum Mechanics in Plasmonic Nanocavities: from Theory to Applications,” Adv. Phys. Res., vol. 4, no. 4, p. 2400144, 2025, doi: 10.1002/apxr.202400144

    work page doi:10.1002/apxr.202400144 2025

  7. [7]

    Quantum plasmonics pushes chiral sensing limit to single molecules: a paradigm for chiral biodetections,

    C. Zhang et al., “Quantum plasmonics pushes chiral sensing limit to single molecules: a paradigm for chiral biodetections,” Nat. Commun., vol. 15, no. 1, p. 2, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-023- 42719-z

    doi:10.1038/s41467-023- 2024

  8. [8]

    Harnessing plasmon-exciton energy exchange for flexible organic solar cells with efficiency of 19.5%,

    J.-D. Chen et al., “Harnessing plasmon-exciton energy exchange for flexible organic solar cells with efficiency of 19.5%,” Nat. Commun., vol. 16, no. 1, p. 3829, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41467- 025-59286-0

    doi:10.1038/s41467- 2025

  9. [9]

    Bias-Free Solar-to-Hydrogen Conversion in a BiVO4/PM6:Y6 Compact Tandem with Optically Balanced Light Absorption,

    C. G. Ferreira, C. Sansierra, F. Bernal-Texca, M. Zhang, C. Ros, and J. Martorell, “Bias-Free Solar-to-Hydrogen Conversion in a BiVO4/PM6:Y6 Compact Tandem with Optically Balanced Light Absorption,” ENERGY Environ. Mater., vol. 7, no. 4, p. e12679, 2024, doi: 10.1002/eem2.12679

    work page doi:10.1002/eem2.12679 2024

  10. [10]

    Plasmonics for improved photovoltaic devices,

    H. A. Atwater and A. Polman, “Plasmonics for improved photovoltaic devices,” Nat. Mater., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 205–213, Mar. 2010, doi: 10.1038/nmat2629

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat2629 2010

  11. [11]

    A room-temperature organic polariton transistor,

    A. V. Zasedatelev et al., “A room-temperature organic polariton transistor,” Nat. Photonics, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 378–383, June 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41566-019-0392-8

    doi:10.1038/s41566-019-0392-8 2019

  12. [12]

    Nonlocality in photonic materials and metamaterials: roadmap,

    F. Monticone et al., “Nonlocality in photonic materials and metamaterials: roadmap,” Opt. Mater. Express, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 1544–1709, July 2025, doi: 10.1364/OME.559374

    work page doi:10.1364/ome.559374 2025

  13. [13]

    Unusual resonances in nanoplasmonic structures due to nonlocal response,

    S. Raza, G. Toscano, A.-P. Jauho, M. Wubs, and N. A. Mortensen, “Unusual resonances in nanoplasmonic structures due to nonlocal response,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 84, no. 12, p. 121412, Sept. 2011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.121412

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.121412 2011

  14. [14]

    A generalized non-local optical response theory for plasmonic nanostructures,

    N. A. Mortensen, S. Raza, M. Wubs, T. Søndergaard, and S. I. Bozhevolnyi, “A generalized non-local optical response theory for plasmonic nanostructures,” Nat. Commun., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 3809, May 2014, doi: 10.1038/ncomms4809

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms4809 2014

  15. [15]

    Projected Dipole Model for Quantum Plasmonics,

    W. Yan, M. Wubs, and N. Asger Mortensen, “Projected Dipole Model for Quantum Plasmonics,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 115, no. 13, p. 137403, Sept. 2015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.137403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.137403 2015

  16. [16]

    Quantum Corrections in Nanoplasmonics: Shape, Scale, and Material,

    T. Christensen, W. Yan, A.-P. Jauho, M. Soljačić, and N. A. Mortensen, “Quantum Corrections in Nanoplasmonics: Shape, Scale, and Material,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 118, no. 15, p. 157402, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.157402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.118.157402 2017

  17. [17]

    Computational Plasmonics: Boundary Integral Equation Methods in Scattering Problems,

    C. Mystilidis, G. Vandenbosch, and X. Zheng, “Computational Plasmonics: Boundary Integral Equation Methods in Scattering Problems,” in More Adventures in Contemporary Electromagnetic Theory, F. Chiadini and V. Fiumara, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025, pp. 195–222. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-83131- 7_9

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83131- 2025

  18. [18]

    Computational Techniques for Mesoscopic Electromagnetics

    C. Mystilidis, " Computational Techniques for Mesoscopic Electromagnetics", PhD dissertation, KU Leuven, 2025 [Online]. Available: https://kuleuven.limo.libis.be/discovery/fulldisplay/lirias4226910/ 32KUL_KUL:Lirias

    work page 2025

  19. [19]

    Full Hydrodynamic Model of Nonlinear Electromagnetic Response In Metallic Metamaterials (Invited Paper),

    M. Fang, Z.-X. Huang, W. E. I. Sha, X. Y. Z. Xiong, and X.-L. Wu, “Full Hydrodynamic Model of Nonlinear Electromagnetic Response In Metallic Metamaterials (Invited Paper),” Prog. Electromagn. Res., vol. 157, pp. 63–78, 2016, doi: 10.2528/PIER16100401

    work page doi:10.2528/pier16100401 2016

  20. [20]

    Probing the Ultimate Limits of Plasmonic Enhancement,

    C. Ciracì et al., “Probing the Ultimate Limits of Plasmonic Enhancement,” Science, vol. 337, no. 6098, pp. 1072–1074, Aug. 2012, doi: 10.1126/science.1224823

    doi:10.1126/science.1224823 2012

  21. [21]

    Rivière, Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Solving Elliptic and Parabolic Equations

    B. Rivière, Discontinuous Galerkin Methods for Solving Elliptic and Parabolic Equations. in Frontiers in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2008. doi: 10.1137/1.9780898717440

    doi:10.1137/1.9780898717440 2008

  22. [22]

    Numerical solution of nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model for arbitrary shaped nano-plasmonic structures using Nédélec finite elements,

    K. R. Hiremath, L. Zschiedrich, and F. Schmidt, “Numerical solution of nonlocal hydrodynamic Drude model for arbitrary shaped nano-plasmonic structures using Nédélec finite elements,” J. Comput. Phys., vol. 231, no. 17, pp. 5890–5896, July 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.jcp.2012.05.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.05.013 2012

  23. [23]

    Halevi’s extension of the Euler-Drude model for plasmonic systems,

    G. Wegner, D.-N. Huynh, N. A. Mortensen, F. Intravaia, and K. Busch, “Halevi’s extension of the Euler-Drude model for plasmonic systems,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 107, no. 11, p. 115425, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.107.115425

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.107.115425 2023

  24. [24]

    A hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for solving nonlocal optical response models,

    L. Li, S. Lanteri, N. A. Mortensen, and M. Wubs, “A hybridizable discontinuous Galerkin method for solving nonlocal optical response models,” Comput. Phys. Commun., vol. 219, pp. 99–107, Oct. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.05.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2017.05.012 2017

  25. [25]

    Optical response of noble metal nanostructures: quantum surface effects in crystallographic facets,

    A. R. Echarri, P. a. D. Gonçalves, C. Tserkezis, F. J. G. de Abajo, N. A. Mortensen, and J. D. Cox, “Optical response of noble metal nanostructures: quantum surface effects in crystallographic facets,” Optica, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 710–721, May 2021, doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.412122

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.412122 2021

  26. [26]

    A Boundary Integral Equation Formalism for Modeling Multiple Scattering of Light from 3D Nanoparticles Incorporating Nonlocal Effects,

    X. Zheng, C. Mystilidis, A. Xomalis, and G. A. E. Vandenbosch, “A Boundary Integral Equation Formalism for Modeling Multiple Scattering of Light from 3D Nanoparticles Incorporating Nonlocal Effects,” Adv. Theory Simul., vol. 5, no. 12, p. 2200485, 2022, doi: 10.1002/adts.202200485

    work page doi:10.1002/adts.202200485 2022

  27. [27]

    A Boundary Integral Equation Scheme for Simulating the Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Response of Metallic Antennas at Deep-Nanometer Scales,

    X. Zheng, M. Kupresak, R. Mittra, and G. A. E. Vandenbosch, “A Boundary Integral Equation Scheme for Simulating the Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Response of Metallic Antennas at Deep-Nanometer Scales,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 4759– 4771, Sept. 2018, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2018.2851290

    work page arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    Comparative analysis of theories accounting for quantum effects in plasmonic nanoparticles,

    Y. Eremin and V. Lopushenko, “Comparative analysis of theories accounting for quantum effects in plasmonic nanoparticles,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., vol. 331, p. 109268, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2024.109268

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Discrete sources method for modeling the nonlocal optical response of a nonspherical particle dimer,

    Y. Eremin, A. Doicu, and T. Wriedt, “Discrete sources method for modeling the nonlocal optical response of a nonspherical particle dimer,” J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf., vol. 217, pp. 35–44, Sept. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jqsrt.2018.05.026 2018

  30. [30]

    Linearized Fluid Model for Plasmon Oscillations in Metallic Nanoparticles,

    G. Miano, G. Rubinacci, A. Tamburrino, and F. Villone, “Linearized Fluid Model for Plasmon Oscillations in Metallic Nanoparticles,” IEEE Trans. Magn., vol. 44, no. 6, pp. 822–825, June 2008, doi: 10.1109/TMAG.2007.915835

    work page arXiv 2008

  31. [31]

    A Potential-Based Formalism for Modeling Local and Hydrodynamic Nonlocal Responses From Plasmonic Waveguides,

    X. Zheng, M. Kupresak, V. V. Moshchalkov, R. Mittra, and G. A. E. Vandenbosch, “A Potential-Based Formalism for Modeling Local and Hydrodynamic Nonlocal Responses From Plasmonic Waveguides,” IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag., vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 3948–3960, June 2019, doi: 10.1109/TAP.2019.2907807

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    A Potential-Based Boundary Element Implementation for Modeling Multiple Scattering from Local and Nonlocal Plasmonic Nanowires,

    C. Mystilidis, X. Zheng, A. Xomalis, and G. A. E. Vandenbosch, “A Potential-Based Boundary Element Implementation for Modeling Multiple Scattering from Local and Nonlocal Plasmonic Nanowires,” Adv. Theory Simul., vol. 6, no. 3, p. 2200722, 2023, doi: 10.1002/adts.202200722

    work page doi:10.1002/adts.202200722 2023

  33. [33]

    Green’s function surface-integral method for nonlocal response of plasmonic nanowires in arbitrary dielectric environments,

    W. Yan, N. A. Mortensen, and M. Wubs, “Green’s function surface-integral method for nonlocal response of plasmonic nanowires in arbitrary dielectric environments,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 88, no. 15, p. 155414, Oct. 2013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.88.155414

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.88.155414 2013

  34. [34]

    Nanoscale electromagnetism with the boundary element method,

    U. Hohenester and G. Unger, “Nanoscale electromagnetism with the boundary element method,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 105, no. 7, p. 075428, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.105.075428

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.105.075428 2022

  35. [35]

    A Computational Maxwell Solver for Nonlocal Feibelman Parameters in Plasmonics,

    L. Huber and U. Hohenester, “A Computational Maxwell Solver for Nonlocal Feibelman Parameters in Plasmonics,” J. Phys. Chem. C, vol. 129, no. 5, pp. 2590–2598, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c07387

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c07387 2025

  36. [36]

    Dedicated Boundary Element Modeling for Nanoparticle-on-Mirror Structures Incorporating Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Effects,

    X. Zheng, “Dedicated Boundary Element Modeling for Nanoparticle-on-Mirror Structures Incorporating Nonlocal Hydrodynamic Effects,” Adv. Theory Simul., vol. 5, no. 12, p. 2200480, 2022, doi: 10.1002/adts.202200480

    work page doi:10.1002/adts.202200480 2022

  37. [37]

    Extinction properties of thin metallic nanowires,

    R. Ruppin, “Extinction properties of thin metallic nanowires,” Opt. Commun., vol. 190, no. 1, pp. 205–209, Apr. 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0030-4018(01)01063-X

    work page doi:10.1016/s0030-4018(01)01063-x 2001

  38. [38]

    Optical Properties of a Plasma Sphere,

    R. Ruppin, “Optical Properties of a Plasma Sphere,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 31, no. 24, pp. 1434–1437, Dec. 1973, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.31.1434

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.31.1434 1973

  39. [39]

    Nonlocal Response of Metallic Nanospheres Probed by Light, Electrons, and Atoms,

    T. Christensen, W. Yan, S. Raza, A.-P. Jauho, N. A. Mortensen, and M. Wubs, “Nonlocal Response of Metallic Nanospheres Probed by Light, Electrons, and Atoms,” ACS Nano, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1745–1758, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1021/nn406153k

    work page doi:10.1021/nn406153k 2014

  40. [40]

    Plasmon–emitter interactions at the nanoscale,

    P. A. D. Gonçalves, T. Christensen, N. Rivera, A.-P. Jauho, N. A. Mortensen, and M. Soljačić, “Plasmon–emitter interactions at the nanoscale,” Nat. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 366, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13820-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13820-z 2020

  41. [41]

    Nonlocal effects in plasmon-emitter interactions,

    M. H. Eriksen, C. Tserkezis, N. A. Mortensen, and J. D. Cox, “Nonlocal effects in plasmon-emitter interactions,” Nanophotonics, vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 2741–2751, July 2024, doi: 10.1515/nanoph- 2023-0575

    doi:10.1515/nanoph- 2024

  42. [42]

    Numerical tool to take nonlocal effects into account in metallo-dielectric multilayers,

    J. Benedicto, R. Pollès, C. Ciracì, E. Centeno, D. R. Smith, and A. Moreau, “Numerical tool to take nonlocal effects into account in metallo-dielectric multilayers,” JOSA A, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1581– 1588, Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1364/JOSAA.32.001581

    work page doi:10.1364/josaa.32.001581 2015

  43. [43]

    OpenSANS: A Semi-Analytical solver for Nonlocal plasmonicS,

    C. Mystilidis, X. Zheng, and G. A. E. Vandenbosch, “OpenSANS: A Semi-Analytical solver for Nonlocal plasmonicS,” Comput. Phys. Commun., vol. 284, p. 108609, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2022.108609

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Optical response of cylindrical multilayers in the context of hydrodynamic convection-diffusion model,

    T. Dong, Y. Shi, L. Lu, F. Chen, X. Ma, and R. Mittra, “Optical response of cylindrical multilayers in the context of hydrodynamic convection-diffusion model,” J. Appl. Phys., vol. 120, no. 12, p. 123102, Sept. 2016, doi: 10.1063/1.4963105

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4963105 2016

  45. [45]

    Investigation on plasmonic responses in multilayered nanospheres including asymmetry and spatial nonlocal effects,

    T. Dong, Y. Shi, H. Liu, F. Chen, X. Ma, and R. Mittra, “Investigation on plasmonic responses in multilayered nanospheres including asymmetry and spatial nonlocal effects,” J. Phys. Appl. Phys., vol. 50, no. 49, p. 495302, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.1088/1361- 6463/aa9257

    doi:10.1088/1361- 2017

  46. [46]

    Nonlocal response of plasmonic core–shell nanotopologies excited by dipole emitters,

    M. Kupresak, X. Zheng, R. Mittra, G. A. E. Vandenbosch, and V. V. Moshchalkov, “Nonlocal response of plasmonic core–shell nanotopologies excited by dipole emitters,” Nanoscale Adv., vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 2346–2355, 2022, doi: 10.1039/D1NA00726B

    work page doi:10.1039/d1na00726b 2022

  47. [47]

    A Dedicated Modeling Scheme for Nonclassical Optical Response From the Nanosphere-on-Mirror Structure,

    X. Yan, C. Tserkezis, N. A. Mortensen, G. A. E. Vandenbosch, and X. Zheng, “A Dedicated Modeling Scheme for Nonclassical Optical Response From the Nanosphere-on-Mirror Structure,” IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 2095–2109, Apr. 2024, doi: 10.1109/TMTT.2024.3355983

    work page arXiv 2095

  48. [48]

    Self- Similar Plasmonic Nanolenses: Mesoscopic Ensemble Averaging and Chiral Light–Matter Interactions,

    N. Kyvelos, N. A. Mortensen, X. Zheng, and C. Tserkezis, “Self- Similar Plasmonic Nanolenses: Mesoscopic Ensemble Averaging and Chiral Light–Matter Interactions,” J. Phys. Chem. C, vol. 129, no. 7, pp. 3635–3645, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c07319

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.4c07319 2025

  49. [49]

    Quantum-informed plasmonics for strong coupling: the role of electron spill-out,

    I. J. Bundgaard, C. Nicolaisen. Hansen, P. E. Stamatopoulou, and C. Tserkezis, “Quantum-informed plasmonics for strong coupling: the role of electron spill-out,” JOSA B, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1144– 1152, May 2024, doi: 10.1364/JOSAB.512129

    work page doi:10.1364/josab.512129 2024

  50. [50]

    W. C. Chew, Waves and Fields in Inhomogeneous Media. IEEE Press, 1995

    work page 1995

  51. [51]

    Hydrodynamic model for the degenerate free-electron gas: Generalization to arbitrary frequencies,

    P. Halevi, “Hydrodynamic model for the degenerate free-electron gas: Generalization to arbitrary frequencies,” Phys. Rev. B, vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 7497–7499, Mar. 1995, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.51.7497

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.51.7497 1995

  52. [52]

    Nonlocal study of ultimate plasmon hybridization,

    S. Raza, M. Wubs, S. I. Bozhevolnyi, and N. A. Mortensen, “Nonlocal study of ultimate plasmon hybridization,” Opt. Lett., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 839–842, Mar. 2015, doi: 10.1364/OL.40.000839

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.40.000839 2015

  53. [53]

    Finite-size and quantum effects in plasmonics: manifestations and theoretical modelling [Invited],

    P. E. Stamatopoulou and C. Tserkezis, “Finite-size and quantum effects in plasmonics: manifestations and theoretical modelling [Invited],” Opt. Mater. Express, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 1869–1893, May 2022, doi: 10.1364/OME.456407

    work page doi:10.1364/ome.456407 2022

  54. [54]

    (Frank) Forstmann and R

    F. (Frank) Forstmann and R. Gerhardts, Metal optics near the plasma frequency. Berlin ; New York : Springer-Verlag, 1986. Accessed: Aug. 08, 2025. [Online]. Available: http://archive.org/details/metalopticsnearp0109fors

    work page 1986

  55. [55]

    Electrodynamics at Metal Boundaries with Inclusion of Plasma Waves,

    F. Forstmann and H. Stenschke, “Electrodynamics at Metal Boundaries with Inclusion of Plasma Waves,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 38, no. 23, pp. 1365–1368, June 1977, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1365

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.38.1365 1977

  56. [56]

    Surface electromagnetic fields,

    P. J. Feibelman, “Surface electromagnetic fields,” Prog. Surf. Sci., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 287–407, Jan. 1982, doi: 10.1016/0079- 6816(82)90001-6

    doi:10.1016/0079- 1982

  57. [57]

    Babaze et al., “Quantum surface effects in the electromagnetic coupling between a quantum emitter and a plasmonic nanoantenna: time-dependent density functional theory vs

    A. Babaze et al., “Quantum surface effects in the electromagnetic coupling between a quantum emitter and a plasmonic nanoantenna: time-dependent density functional theory vs. semiclassical Feibelman approach,” Opt. Express, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 21159– 21183, June 2022, doi: 10.1364/OE.456338

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.456338 2022

  58. [58]

    Optical properties of metallic films for vertical-cavity optoelectronic devices,

    A. D. Rakić, A. B. Djurišić, J. M. Elazar, and M. L. Majewski, “Optical properties of metallic films for vertical-cavity optoelectronic devices,” Appl. Opt., vol. 37, no. 22, pp. 5271–5283, Aug. 1998, doi: 10.1364/AO.37.005271

    doi:10.1364/ao.37.005271 1998

  59. [59]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics. Cengage Learning, 2011

    work page 2011

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.