Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 55 references

A universal framework for nonlinear frequency combs under electro-optic modulation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single evolution equation with a genuinely periodic pump supersedes the mean-field model for electro-optic combs and reduces to a discrete-time Hamiltonian whose bands mirror the drive waveform.

desk verdict A serious and genuinely new framework for strong-coupling EO combs, but the load-bearing derivation is in the missing SI and the excitation condition is asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.21059 v3 pith:PM4HUY7S submitted 2025-11-26 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Yanyun Xue , Xianpeng Lv , Guangxing Wu , Tianqi Lei , Chenyang Cao , Yiming Lei , Min Wang , Zhendong Zhu
show 4 more authors
Yan Li Qihuang Gong Di Zhu Yaowen Hu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords nonlinearfrequencycombselectro-opticmodulationstrong-couplingregimeLugiato-LefeverequationIntegrationHamiltoniansyntheticdimensionband-wavecorrespondenceKerrsolitons
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

This paper tries to establish a universal starting point, the general evolution equation (GEE), for nonlinear frequency combs in cavities driven by arbitrary electro-optic modulation — including the strong-coupling regime where modulation strength exceeds the cavity's free spectral range and the standard mean-field Lugiato–Lefever equation (LLE) breaks down. The load-bearing move is the pump: the GEE injects the periodic round-trip pump, whereas the LLE's mean-field treatment, the paper argues, artificially reinjects energy and imposes a wrong repetition rate. In the electro-optic-only limit the GEE reduces to a discrete-time Integration Hamiltonian, and the condition that singles out excited modes yields the band–wave correspondence: the synthetic band structure is a scaled, mirrored copy of the applied microwave waveform. The paper reports experimental confirmation on both a fiber cavity and an integrated thin-film lithium niobate chip, and uses the formalism to demonstrate triangular-wave sideband engineering, single-sideband comb control, and a soliton band-drifting mechanism that makes Kerr-soliton addressing deterministic. A sympathetic reader would care because the framework turns a microwave waveform into a designed comb spectrum and, if correct, supersedes the LLE as the foundation for strong-coupling electro-optic and hybrid EO–Kerr comb modeling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Integration Hamiltonian Ĥig, a discrete-time operator obtained by integrating the GEE over one cavity round trip and transforming to the longitudinal-mode basis; its couplings Wm are Fourier coefficients of a round-trip transmission function, reducing for sinusoidal drive to Bessel-function couplings. It converts a continuously pumped cavity into a stationary band problem and makes the synthetic frequency dimension explicit without a rotating-wave approximation. Its companion is the band–wave correspondence E(φ)/ħ = ω0 − πfR V(−φ/ωR)/Vπ − nωR, mapping the local modulation voltage onto ωR-separated synthetic bands.

What would settle it

Simulate the printed GEE and Ĥig side by side: numerically integrate the GEE for a triangular drive with Ω0 between one and two free spectral ranges, and compare the steady-state spectrum with the solution of the discrete-time Heisenberg equation from Eqs. (4)–(5); any mismatch refutes the reduction. Independently, measure the band structure in a fiber EO cavity by sweeping detuning Δ at fixed drive and check that transmission resonances lie on E(φ)/ħ = ω0 − πfR V(−φ/ωR)/Vπ − nωR for the appropriate n; the paper asserts this universal relation, so a measured band that is not a scaled mirror im

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims the mean-field Lugiato–Lefever equation fails for electro-optic combs once modulation strength Ω0 exceeds the free spectral range ωR, since its pump reinjects energy. The replacement general evolution equation (GEE) uses a genuinely round-trip-periodic pump and reduces, in the pure-EO limit, to a discrete-time Heisenberg equation with an Integration Hamiltonian Ĥig whose couplings Wm are Fourier coefficients of a round-trip transmission function. The excitation condition Ĥig = 0 yields the band–wave correspondence E(φ)/ħ = ω0 − πfR V(−φ/ωR)/Vπ − nωR: synthetic bands mirror the drive waveform. Fiber and chip experiments match, and the formalism yields single-sideband control

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on two derivations that appear only in the missing supplementary information: the reduction of the round-trip-integrated GEE to the discrete-time Heisenberg equation with Ĥig, and the choice of Ĥig = 0 as the excitation condition that yields the band–wave correspondence; a reader of the main text alone cannot check either step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong-coupling EO and EO–Kerr simulations built on the mean-field LLE misrepresent the dynamics through artificial pump reinjection; GEE-based simulation restores the natural round-trip pump and, the paper argues, resolves the long-standing discrepancy between Kerr theory, simulation, and experiment.
  • Comb spectra in pure-EO cavities can be computed by solving a discrete-time Heisenberg equation with Ĥig — no rotating-wave approximation needed — and the paper's measured spectra and coupling strengths |Wm| on fiber and lithium-niobate chips match those solutions.
  • Because the synthetic bands mirror the drive waveform, tailoring the waveform tailors the spectrum: symmetric triangular waves concentrate coupling at a single dominant order m0 ≈ 4Ω0/ωR, asymmetric triangular waves give directional coupling, and slope-dominant dynamics enable single-sideband EO comb generation.
  • Soliton addressing becomes deterministic when the band slope is steep enough: extra Kerr solitons drift with velocity vd = −d2k/3 and collide with the contracting modulation-instability boundary, relaxing the required dispersion and pump power; stronger EO modulation enlarges this addressing regime.
  • Strong-coupling band overlap lets EO pulses and Kerr solitons coexist in one cavity, a regime the paper reports observing for the first time, and the GEE provides the model for further hybrid EO–Kerr comb exploration on thin-film lithium niobate.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read as an inverse-design rule, the band–wave correspondence suggests that any target band shape can be reached by synthesizing V(t) from the inverted relation V(−φ/ωR) = (Vπ/πfR)(ω0 − nωR − E(φ)/ħ); the paper demonstrates one corner of this space (triangular waves) but does not test arbitrary-waveform synthesis.
  • Because the GEE's pump is strictly round-trip-periodic, the cavity is a time-periodic (Floquet) system; computing the topological invariants of the synthetic bands and testing their survival under Kerr nonlinearity is a natural next step the paper points toward but does not perform.
  • The soliton-drift law vd = −d2k/3 is a clean quantitative prediction that could be tested in isolation: track a soliton's arrival-time shift during a detuning sweep in a fiber cavity and compare with the predicted velocity, separating the drift mechanism from the spectral fits reported.
  • The paper's outlook extends the GEE to χ(2) effects such as second-harmonic generation and parametric down-conversion; if the periodic-pump structure survives those additions, the framework would cover microcombs well beyond the EO–Kerr systems demonstrated here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a general evolution equation (GEE) for nonlinear frequency combs under arbitrary electro-optic modulation, intended to replace the mean-field Lugiato–Lefever equation in strong-coupling regimes. From the GEE the authors derive a discrete-time Integration Hamiltonian, an energy-band picture, and a 'band–wave correspondence' that maps modulation waveforms to synthetic band structures. They report experimental validation in fiber and thin-film lithium niobate platforms, use triangular-wave modulation to demonstrate directional coupling and single-sideband comb generation, and extend the framework to Kerr soliton dynamics with a 'soliton band-drifting' theory and addressing scheme. The central claims are that the GEE is universal, that the Integration Hamiltonian provides a rigorous frequency-domain formalism, and that the band–wave correspondence enables programmable spectral control.

Significance. If the derivations are correct, this would be a substantial advance: it offers a unified framework for strong-coupling electro-optic and hybrid EO–Kerr combs, connects frequency-domain EO comb physics to synthetic dimensions, and proposes a concrete mechanism for waveform-programmable spectral control. The experimental work is a real asset: two complementary platforms, triangular-wave sideband engineering, and single-sideband generation are demonstrated, and the soliton addressing simulations produce falsifiable predictions. However, the manuscript as submitted defers all key derivations to a missing SI and asserts the central excitation condition, so the validity of the main claims cannot currently be assessed from the text alone. The paper's significance is therefore conditional on the supplied derivation and verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Formalism of Integration Hamiltonian, Eqs. (2)–(5)] The central reduction from the GEE to the discrete-time Heisenberg equation and the Integration Hamiltonian is asserted, with details deferred to the SI, which is not included. In particular, the transformation from the operator Eq. (3) to the longitudinal-mode basis Eq. (4), the Fourier-series expansion of T(φ), and the neglect of dispersion and Kerr terms are not shown. Since the spectra in Fig. 2b and the coupling strengths |W_m| in Fig. 2c are computed from these equations, the quantitative experimental agreement cannot be checked. Please include the full derivation and state all assumptions.
  2. [Band-wave correspondence] The statement 'The excitation condition of mode φ is Ĥ_ig(φ,t)=0' is asserted without derivation. Ĥ_ig is an operator, and setting it to zero is a c-number condition on the round-trip phase integral; it is not shown to be equivalent to the resonance condition of the discrete-time Heisenberg equation (5) or to the response peak of the GEE. The band–wave correspondence E(φ)/ℏ = ω0 − π f_R V(t=−φ/ω_R)/Vπ − nω_R is the load-bearing step for the programmable-spectral-control claim and for the band-overlap interpretation in Figs. 3 and 4. Either derive this condition from the GEE or state it explicitly as an additional postulate, and validate it numerically (e.g., weakly probe each azimuthal mode in the GEE and compare the resonant frequency with the predicted band).
  3. [Experimental validation, Figs. 2–4] The experimental sections do not provide the full parameters needed to reproduce or quantitatively assess the claims: fiber cavity length/finesse, TFLN quality factors (loaded and intrinsic), coupling rates, fiber coupling efficiency, detuning Δ, pump power, dispersion D2, and modulation waveform parameters are not tabulated. Agreement between theory and experiment is described qualitatively as 'agree well' or 'consistent', without error bars, residuals, or a fitting metric. Given the universality claim, please provide a full parameter table and a quantitative comparison for the spectra and coupling strengths.
  4. [Soliton band-drifting, Eq. (7) and Fig. 5] The derivation of the soliton drifting velocity v_d = −d2 k/3 and the soliton-addressing condition is deferred to the 'Supplement'/'SI', which is missing. The phase diagrams and the claim of EO pulse–Kerr soliton co-excitation rely on these results. Please provide the perturbative Lagrangian derivation, the simulation parameters (Q_i, D2, pumping and sweeping rates, noise model), and the definition of the 'probability of successful soliton addressing' used in Fig. 5c.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1)] Several symbols are used before definition or are ambiguous: t_R, α, V_local(φ,t) = V(t−φ/ω_R) vs. V(t) later in the BWC expression, and the distinction between Ω0 and Ω(φ,t). Please define all symbols at first use.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The operator ordering in the integrand a†(φ,t)a(φ,t) and the transition from the integral over φ to the Bessel-function series should be shown explicitly; also check the m=0 term sign convention.
  3. [Section 'Band-wave correspondence'] The phrase 'multiple ω_R-separated bands precisely replicate the shape of the modulation wave' is descriptive; please clarify what is plotted in Fig. 3 (axes, units, and which experimental waveform was used).
  4. [Figures] Figure axes are often unlabeled or lack units (e.g., Fig. 3 band structure, Fig. 5 phase diagrams). Figure 5e should explain the red horizontal lines and the meaning of each panel in the caption.
  5. [References] Reference [34] is a Tidy3D simulation notebook; it should be cited as a software/online resource with proper author and access information. References to 'SI' and 'Supplement' must be included in the submission for review.
  6. [Throughout] There are minor typographical inconsistencies in subscripts and Hamiltonian notation (e.g., Ĥ_ig vs. H_ig, Ω vs. Ω(φ,t)). These should be harmonized.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The band–wave correspondence is obtained by declaring the excitation condition Ĥ_ig=0; the waveform-to-band mapping is a rearrangement of this defining equation, so the central spectral-control claim partially reduces to the ansatz.

  1. self definitional [Section 'Band-wave correspondence and direction-control of EO coupling', immediately after Eq. (5); Eq. (3) defines Ĥ_ig.]
    "The discrete timescale Integration Hamiltonian requires a well-defined energy band. The excitation condition of mode φ is Ĥ_ig(φ, t) = 0, which defines a shifted eigenenergy ω0 → ω0(φ) for each mode yielding the energy band: E(φ)/ℏ = ω0(φ) = ω0 − π f_R V(t=−φ/ω_R)/Vπ − nω_R (see SI for details). This expression establishes a direct band–wave correspondence (BWC): multiple ω_R-separated bands precisely replicate the shape of the modulation wave V(t)."

    The band–wave correspondence is not obtained from the discrete-time Heisenberg equation (5); it is introduced by declaring the 'excitation condition' to be Ĥ_ig=0. Because Ĥ_ig in Eq. (3) already contains the round-trip integral of Ω(φ,t), i.e. of the modulation waveform V, setting this operator to zero and solving for E(φ) is an algebraic restatement of the defining condition, not an independent prediction of the GEE. The subsequent triangular-wave sideband engineering and 'programmable spectral control' claims inherit this construction. The missing SI could in principle supply an independent derivation, but the submitted main text exhibits the reduction directly.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular: the GEE is a stated model with a periodic pump; the Integration Hamiltonian (Eq. 3) is obtained by direct integration of the GEE, and the spectral-domain form (Eqs. 4–5) is a Fourier-series transformation. Experimental spectra and coupling strengths in Fig. 2 provide external benchmarks against the theory, and there is no fitted-input-called-prediction. The self-citation to ref. 27 is contextual and not load-bearing. The central circular/definitional step is the band–wave correspondence: the energy band E(φ) is defined by imposing Ĥ_ig=0, an equation that by construction contains the modulation waveform, so the claimed waveform-to-band relation and the spectral-control conclusions built on it reduce to that chosen excitation condition. This is partial circularity, not a full equivalence of the whole framework, because the GEE/Ĥ_ig formalism and the experimental comparisons remain independent content. The repeated 'see SI' deferrals are a verifiability gap, not themselves circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The main load-bearing free parameters do not appear in the main text; conversely the results rely heavily on the unstated SI derivations. The dominant burden is the excitation-condition step, which decides the band-wave correspondence. Reasonable in principle, but undeveloped in the main text. The lack of explicit SI and measured parameters shifts the engineering read of the paper toward medium confidence.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The GEE in Eq. (1), including the periodic delta-coupled pump √κ e a in t R δ(t − φ/ω R), is the correct continuous-time evolution for a modulated cavity, including in the strong-coupling regime.
    The GEE is the foundational model; its correctness is the central assertion of the paper (Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption The discrete-time Heisenberg equation Eq. (2) exactly follows from the GEE, and Δa/t R with Δa = a(φ,t + t R) − a(φ,t) correctly encodes the evolution of the sampled field.
    This step is stated in the main text and “see SI”; it is the bridge from the continuous-time GEE to the Integration Hamiltonian, and is not derived in the available text.
  • domain assumption The mode-coupling Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) and its linewidth-independent coefficients W m capture the full comb dynamics, with the said Fourier-series transmission function T(φ).
    The transformation to the longitudinal-mode basis is delegated to the SI; the main text asserts the validity of the frequency-domain formalism without RWA.
  • ad hoc to paper The excitation condition Ĥig(φ,t) = 0 defines the band structure and implies the band-wave correspondence.
    This condition is not derived from a fundamental principle or from the Hamiltonian equations; it is announced as the definition of the shifted eigenenergy. It is an ad hoc modeling choice whose justification would need to come from an explicit diagonalization or variational principle in the SI.
  • domain assumption The soliton-drifting velocity formula v d = −d 2 k / 3 from a perturbative Lagrangian method correctly describes Kerr-soliton motion on the EO-deformed band.
    Only the result Eq. (7) is shown in the main text; the Lagrangian derivation is deferred to the supplement, so the assumption that the variational ansatz applies to this driven dissipative system cannot be verified from the text.
  • domain assumption The loss and dispersion parameters (κ, D 2, g) in the GEE are taken as given and standard from cavity/LL theory.
    The cavity model relies on standard macro variables for ring resonators, which is a mild domain assumption, not specific to this paper.
invented entities (2)
  • Integration Hamiltonian Ĥig independent evidence
    purpose: A compact discrete-time Hamiltonian that is claimed to generate the discrete-time Heisenberg equation and yield the comb spectra and band structure.
    The Hamiltonian is defined by Eq. (3) and is checked against the measured comb spectra and coupling strengths in Fig. 2, giving a falsifiable handle.
  • Band-wave correspondence (BWC) independent evidence
    purpose: A structural relationship between the modulation waveform V(t) and the synthetic energy band E(k); the core design principle of the paper.
    It predicts that measured bands reproduce the waveform and that band overlaps occur at V > Vπ thresholds, both of which are experimentally investigated in Fig. 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A universal framework for nonlinear frequency combs under electro-optic modulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PM4HUY7S

@misc{pith2026251121059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A universal framework for nonlinear frequency combs under electro-optic modulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PM4HUY7S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.21059}
}
read the original abstract

Nonlinear frequency combs, including electro-optic and Kerr combs, have become central platforms for chip-scale frequency synthesis. Recent breakthroughs in strong-coupling electro-optic modulation further expanded their accessible nonlinear dynamics, unlocking new phenomena and functionalities, but the underlying foundation remains largely unexplored. Here we establish a universal theoretical and experimental framework for nonlinear combs under arbitrary electro-optic modulation by introducing a general evolution equation (GEE) that transcends the mean-field Lugiato-Lefever equation. The GEE reduces to a discrete-time Integration Hamiltonian that provides a frequency-domain formalism unifying strong-coupling electro-optic modulation with photonic synthetic dimensions. Together with a band-wave correspondence linking modulation waveforms to synthetic band structures, the formalism enables programmable spectral control. We further show compatibility between Kerr nonlinearity and strong-coupling electro-optic modulation, highlighting their cooperative dynamics. Our work provides a foundational model for strong-coupling electro-optics in nonlinear combs, opening a route toward chip-integrated, microwave-programmable comb sources for metrology, spectroscopy, and emerging photonic technologies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., Vahala, K

    Diddams, S. A., Vahala, K. & Udem, T. Optical frequency combs: Coherently uniting the electromagnetic spectrum. Science 369, eaay3676 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Pfeifle, J. et al. Coherent terabit communications with microresonator Kerr frequency combs. Nat. Photonics 8, 375–380 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Marin-Palomo, P. et al. Microresonator-based solitons for massively parallel coherent optical communications. Nature 546, 274–279 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Rizzo, A. et al. Massively scalable Kerr comb-driven silicon photonic link. Nat. Photonics 17, 781–790 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Rizzo, A. et al. Petabit-Scale Silicon Photonic Interconnects With Integrated Kerr Frequency Combs. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 29, 1–20 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    He, J. et al. Programmable electro -optic frequency comb empowers integrated parallel convolution processing. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.18310 (2025)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.18310 2025

  7. [7]

    Feldmann, J. et al. Parallel convolutional processing using an integrated photonic tensor core. Nature 589, 52–58 (2021)

    2021

  8. [8]

    Xu, X. et al. 11 TOPS photonic convolutional accelerator for optical neural networks. Nature 589, 44–51 (2021)

    2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Trocha, P. et al. Ultrafast optical ranging using microresonator soliton frequency combs. Science 359, 887–891 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    Qi, Y . et al. 1.79-GHz acquisition rate absolute distance measurement with lithium niobate electro-optic comb. Nat. Commun. 16, 2889 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    & Vahala, K

    Suh, M.-G. & Vahala, K. J. Soliton microcomb range measurement. Science 359, 884–887 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Papp, S. B. et al. Microresonator frequency comb optical clock. Optica 1, 10 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    Niu, R. et al. An integrated wavemeter based on fully -stabilized resonant electro -optic frequency comb. Commun. Phys. 6, 329 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    J., Gaeta, A

    Kippenberg, T. J., Gaeta, A. L., Lipson, M. & Gorodetsky, M. L. Dissipative Kerr solitons in optical microresonators. Science 361, eaan8083 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Shen, B. et al. Integrated turnkey soliton microcombs. Nature 582, 365–369 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    & Bowers, J

    Chang, L., Liu, S. & Bowers, J. E. Integrated optical frequency comb technologies. Nat. Photonics 16, 95–108 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Zhu, D. et al. Integrated photonics on thin-film lithium niobate. Adv. Opt. Photonics Vol 13 Issue 2 Pp 242-352 https://doi.org/10.1364/AOP.411024 (2021) doi:10.1364/AOP.411024

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Hu, Y . et al. Integrated electro-optics on thin-film lithium niobate. Nat. Rev. Phys. 7, 237– 254 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    & Schwefel, H

    Rueda, A., Sedlmeir, F., Kumari, M., Leuchs, G. & Schwefel, H. G. L. Resonant electro - optic frequency comb. Nature 568, 378–381 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Zhang, M. et al. Broadband electro-optic frequency comb generation in a lithium niobate microring resonator. Nature 568, 373–377 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Hu, Y . et al. High-efficiency and broadband on -chip electro -optic frequency comb generators. Nat. Photonics 16, 679–685 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Zhang, J. et al. Ultrabroadband integrated electro-optic frequency comb in lithium tantalate. Nature 637, 1096–1103 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    & Yang, K

    Song, Y ., Hu, Y ., Lončar, M. & Yang, K. Hybrid Kerr-electro-optic frequency combs on thin-film lithium niobate. Light Sci. Appl. 14, 270 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Englebert, N. et al. Bloch oscillations of coherently driven dissipative solitons in a synthetic dimension. Nat. Phys. 19, 1014–1021 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    K., Tikan, A

    Tusnin, A. K., Tikan, A. M. & Kippenberg, T. J. Nonlinear states and dynamics in a synthetic frequency dimension. Phys. Rev. A 102, 023518 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Wan, S. et al. Self-locked broadband Raman-electro-optic microcomb. Nat. Commun. 16, 4829 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Lei, T. et al. Strong-coupling and high -bandwidth cavity electro -optic modulation for advanced pulse-comb synthesis. Light Sci. Appl. 14, 373 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Song, Y . et al. Universal dynamics and microwave control of programmable cavity electro- optic frequency combs. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.21835 (2025)

    2025 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Dutt, A. et al. Experimental band structure spectroscopy along a synthetic dimension. Nat. Commun. 10, 3122 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Wang, K. et al. Generating arbitrary topological windings of a non-Hermitian band. Science 371, 1240–1245 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    Wang, K., Dutt, A., Wojcik, C. C. & Fan, S. Topological complex-energy braiding of non- Hermitian bands. Nature 598, 59–64 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    A., Prati, F., Gorodetsky, M

    Lugiato, L. A., Prati, F., Gorodetsky, M. L. & Kippenberg, T. J. From the Lugiato–Lefever equation to microresonator-based soliton Kerr frequency combs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 376, 20180113 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    Lugiato, L. A. & Lefever, R. Spatial Dissipative Structures in Passive Optical Systems. Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 2209–2211 (1987)

    1987

  26. [34]

    https://www.flexcompute.com/tidy3d/community/notebooks/DispersionAnalysisEOComb/

    Tidy3D simulation project. https://www.flexcompute.com/tidy3d/community/notebooks/DispersionAnalysisEOComb/. (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Li, G. et al. Direct extraction of topological Zak phase with the synthetic dimension. Light Sci. Appl. 12, 81 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    & Yuan, L

    Yu, D., Peng, B., Chen, X., Liu, X.-J. & Yuan, L. Topological holographic quench dynamics in a synthetic frequency dimension. Light Sci. Appl. 10, 209 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Song, W. et al. Breakup and Recovery of Topological Zero Modes in Finite Non-Hermitian Optical Lattices. Phys Rev Lett 123, 165701 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Feng, H. et al. On-chip optical vector analysis based on thin -film lithium niobate single - sideband modulators. Adv. Photonics 6, (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    & Baba, T

    Kamata, M., Hinakura, Y . & Baba, T. Carrier -Suppressed Single Sideband Signal for FMCW LiDAR Using a Si Photonic-Crystal Optical Modulators. J. Light. Technol. Vol 38 Issue 8 Pp 2315-2321 https://opg.optica.org/jlt/abstract.cfm?uri jlt-38-8-2315 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    Shi, P. et al. Optical FMCW Signal Generation Using a Silicon Dual -Parallel Mach - Zehnder Modulator. IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 33, 301–304 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Dong, Y ., Zhu, Z., Tian, X., Qiu, L. & Ba, D. Frequency -Modulated Continuous -Wave LIDAR and 3D Imaging by Using Linear Frequency Modulation Based on Injection Locking. J. Light. Technol. 39, 2275–2280 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    & Dong, Y

    Bo, T., Kim, H., Tan, Z. & Dong, Y . Optical Single-Sideband Transmitters. J. Light. Technol. 41, 1163–1174 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Wang, Y . et al. Ultra-wideband microwave photonic frequency downconverter based on carrier-suppressed single-sideband modulation. Opt. Commun. 410, 799–804 (2018)

    2018

  36. [44]

    Xie, X. et al. Broadband Millimeter-Wave Frequency Mixer Based on Thin-Film Lithium Niobate Photonics. Electromagn. Sci. 3, 0090462-1-0090462–10 (2025)

    2025

  37. [45]

    & Haxha, S

    Paloi, F. & Haxha, S. Analysis of the carrier suppressed single sideband modulation for long distance optical communication systems. Optik 161, 230–243 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    & Hänsch, T

    Ideguchi, T., Poisson, A., Guelachvili, G., Picqué, N. & Hänsch, T. W. Adaptive real-time dual-comb spectroscopy. Nat. Commun. 5, 3375 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    & Swann, W

    Coddington, I., Newbury, N. & Swann, W. Dual-comb spectroscopy. Optica 3, 414 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Dutt, A. et al. On-chip dual-comb source for spectroscopy. Sci. Adv. 4, e1701858 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Y ., Yi, X

    Suh, M.-G., Yang, Q.-F., Yang, K. Y ., Yi, X. & Vahala, K. J. Microresonator soliton dual- comb spectroscopy. Science 354, 600–603 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    & Lončar, M

    Song, Y ., Zhu, X., Zuo, X., Huang, G. & Lončar, M. Stable gigahertz - and mmWave- repetition-rate soliton microcombs on X-cut lithium niobate. Optica 12, 693 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    & Lončar, M

    Song, Y ., Hu, Y ., Zhu, X., Yang, K. & Lončar, M. Octave-spanning Kerr soliton frequency combs in dispersion- and dissipation-engineered lithium niobate microresonators. Light Sci. Appl. 13, 225 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Lv, X. et al. Broadband microwave-rate dark pulse microcombs in dissipation-engineered LiNbO3 microresonators. Nat. Commun. 16, 2389 (2025)

    2025

  45. [53]

    Yasui, T. et al. Adaptive sampling dual terahertz comb spectroscopy using dual free - running femtosecond lasers. Sci. Rep. 5, 10786 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    & Baumann, E

    Fortier, T. & Baumann, E. 20 years of developments in optical frequency comb technology and applications. Commun. Phys. 2, 153 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Continuous -variable quantum computing in the quantum optical frequency comb

    Pfister, O. Continuous -variable quantum computing in the quantum optical frequency comb. J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 53, 012001 (2020). Acknowledgements: Y .X. acknowledges Qixuan Zhou, Cheng Wang, Hanfei Hou, Tong Ge, Junting Bie for helpful discussion. Y .X. acknowledges...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.