Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Asymmetric Textured Image Sensors Based on Antenna Theory as Designed by Nature

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An elliptical deformation of a CMOS light-trapping pyramid changes absorption by 0.02%, which the paper reads as locating the threshold where passive non-reciprocity can emerge.

desk verdict The paper's central claim—that a 0.02% absorption change in a linear FDTD simulation defines a geometric threshold for non-reciprocity—is unsupported because the simulation cannot test the nonlinear chi(2) mechanism and the enhancement estimate rests on a dimensionally inconsistent scaling relation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12729 v1 pith:RPNFOT45 submitted 2026-08-13 physics.optics cond-mat.mes-hall

Julian Juhi-Lian Ting This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mes-hall PACS 42.25.-p87.15.-v85.60.Gz
keywords bio-inspirednanoantennapassivenon-reciprocityCMOSimagesensorsinvertedpyramidtextureLorentzreciprocitygeometricasymmetryfinite-differencetime-domainbacteriallightharvesters
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 that the location and scale of geometric asymmetry, not just its presence, control whether a passive structure can approach non-reciprocal light trapping. It deforms the base of a symmetric inverted-pyramid CMOS image sensor texture into an ellipse modeled on bacterial light-harvesting complexes, then compares the two textures by finite-difference time-domain simulation. The linear response changes by only 0.02% in average absorption, which the paper interprets as evidence that the intense field at the symmetric apex shields the base asymmetry; the asymmetry would have to move to the apex, and to molecular scales, for the 5–15% enhancement predicted by perturbation theory to appear. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution as a design rule: macroscopic Lorentz reciprocity stays robust where a symmetric apex concentrates the field, so non-reciprocity, if it exists, must be engineered at the sharpest and smallest features.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the inverted-pyramid texture with its sharp apex, plus the specific asymmetric modification: an elliptical base with long-axis factor $r_x = r_{\mathrm{cone}}\times 1.0043$ and short-axis factor $r_y = r_{\mathrm{cone}}\times 0.9957$, preserving cross-sectional area while matching the eccentricity $\delta = (b-c)/c \approx 13.6\%$ of a bacterial light-harvesting ring. On the theory side, the machinery is symmetry-breaking perturbation theory: an asymmetric molecular potential $V(\mathbf{r}) \neq V(-\mathbf{r})$ makes the second-order susceptibility $\chi^{(2)}$ nonzero, producing an optical ratchet current and the scaling estimate $\chi^{(2)}_{\mathrm{ellip}} \approx \chi^{(1)}(\xi L/d_{\mathrm{atom}})$ with $\xi\approx0.073$, $L\approx100\,\AA$, $d_{\mathrm{atom}}\approx1\,\AA$, from which the 5–15% enhancement follows. In the numerical experiments, apex field concentration carries the interpretation: the same sharp apex that enhances absorption also hides base asymmetry, which is why the linear response changes by only 0.02%.

What would settle it

Simulate or fabricate an asymmetric inverted-pyramid array with the elliptical deformation moved to the apex, and compare absorption against a symmetric array at the same lattice constant (0.64 µm) over 0.7–1.0 µm; the paper's threshold claim predicts a change well above 0.02%, so finding no change would falsify the placement argument. A two-port transmission measurement with illumination direction reversed would separately settle whether passive non-reciprocity exists at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an elliptically deformed base on an inverted-pyramid CMOS texture, copied from bacterial light harvesters, sits at the structural boundary of passive non-reciprocity. The paper's numerical comparison gives a 0.02% absorption difference between circular and elliptical bases, and the paper argues this near-null is informative: the sharp symmetric apex concentrates the electric field and masks the base asymmetry, so macroscopic Lorentz reciprocity remains intact at the simulated scale. That defines a geometric threshold: deformations placed at field-concentrating apices at smaller scales should be able to trigger non-reciprocal scattering, whereas base-level changes cannot. The companion perturbation argument estimates, from symmetry breaking in the molecular potential and a resulting nonlinear quadratic susceptibility, a potential efficiency enhancement of 5–15%, which the paper treats as an upper bound that the linear simulation cannot directly access.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a simulation solving linear Maxwell equations with ordinary bulk material constants can reveal whether molecular-scale geometric asymmetry produces non-reciprocity; if the proposed nonlinear molecular mechanism cannot appear in a linear solve, then the 0.02% absorption change does not test the 5–15% hypothesis and the geometric-threshold conclusion rests on an untested bridge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A design rule follows: to get non-reciprocal light trapping, geometric asymmetry must be placed at the field-concentrating apex, not at the base of the texture.
  • The 5–15% enhancement remains a theoretical upper bound; it is not contradicted by the 0.02% linear result, because the two calculations operate in different regimes.
  • The elliptical-base texture keeps stable absorption under oblique illumination up to 30 degrees, so the asymmetric design does not sacrifice angular robustness.
  • At the simulated scale, Lorentz reciprocity holds, so any device claiming passive non-reciprocity must demonstrate it with smaller features or explicit nonlinearity, not just a base ellipse.
  • The gap between the 5–15% prediction and the 0.02% linear change is itself the paper's evidence for a scale-dependent onset of reciprocity breaking.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate test the author did not run: deform the apex instead of the base in the same simulation setup; the paper's logic predicts a much larger absorption change, while a null result would falsify the placement threshold.
  • A true non-reciprocity check needs a direction-swapped measurement, such as front versus back illumination or a two-port transmission test; the 0.02% linear change cannot by itself establish non-reciprocity, since the linear solver is reciprocal by construction.
  • The scaling estimate $\chi^{(2)}\approx\chi^{(1)}\xi L/d_{\mathrm{atom}}$ is dimensionally fragile, so the 5–15% range should be read as an order-of-magnitude guess rather than a quantitative prediction.
  • The same 'where is the field concentrated' criterion could apply to other bio-inspired textures, such as leaf or petal replicas, suggesting that shape placement matters as much as shape choice for light trapping.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that an elliptical deformation of the base of an inverted-pyramid CMOS texture, inspired by bacterial light harvesters, probes the structural boundary of passive non-reciprocity. A perturbation-theory argument estimates a 5--15% absorption enhancement, but MEEP FDTD simulations yield only a 0.02% change in mean substrate absorption between the modified circular and elliptical cones. The paper interprets this near-zero change as evidence that macroscopic Lorentz reciprocity remains robust at the investigated scale, and concludes that asymmetric deformations must be engineered at field-concentrating apices to trigger microscopic non-reciprocity. The central claim is that the simulation defines a geometric threshold for the onset of non-reciprocal light trapping.

Significance. If established, the claimed scale-dependent threshold for passive non-reciprocity would be a striking result connecting molecular asymmetry to CMOS device engineering. The paper is also transparent about its computational setup and acknowledges the role of discretization error. However, the evidence does not support the central claim: the simulation solves linear, reciprocal Maxwell equations and measures only absorption, while the proposed non-reciprocity mechanism is nonlinear; and the theoretical estimate rests on a dimensionally inconsistent scaling relation. The paper therefore cannot deliver the threshold claim it advertises, and the gap between theory and simulation is not a presentation issue but a fundamental mismatch.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eqs. (2)-(3); Section IV] The non-reciprocity mechanism is nonlinear: Eq. (2) equates the Lorentz reciprocity integral to a volume integral of nonlinear currents J_NL, and Eq. (3) invokes optical rectification, a chi(2) effect. The MEEP simulations, however, solve linear Maxwell equations with bulk Lorentzian permittivities, and no chi(2) term appears in the simulation equations. The computed 0.02% absorption change is therefore a linear, reciprocal effect and cannot confirm or refute the hypothesized non-reciprocity, nor can it support the conclusion that "macroscopic Lorentz reciprocity remains robust" or that a "geometric threshold" exists.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (7)] The scaling relation chi(2)_ellip ≈ chi(1) * xi * L / d_atom is dimensionally inconsistent: chi(2) has units of m/V, whereas the right-hand side is dimensionless (chi(1), xi, and L/d_atom are all dimensionless). This equation is the only quantitative bridge from molecular asymmetry to the predicted 5--15% enhancement, so the enhancement estimate has no valid derivation. The authors appear to have mixed the eccentricity parameter (Eq. 4) and the asymmetry parameter (Eq. 5) without a systematic perturbation expansion.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 3 and accompanying text] The asymmetry test is not referenced against the original MEEP cone: the modified circular cone gives a mean textured-substrate absorption of 0.186292, whereas the original MEEP cone gives 0.204413, a difference of about 8.8%. The reported 0.02% change is computed relative to the modified circular cone, so the baseline already differs substantially from the published reference geometry. The paper itself concedes that the deformation "might well be overridden by discretization error," and this baseline discrepancy makes the claimed subtle asymmetry effect even less interpretable.
  4. [Abstract and Section IV conclusion] The paper reports only absorption and reflection coefficients, and never computes any direct measure of non-reciprocity (e.g., opposite-propagation transmission differences or angular momentum flux). A 0.02% linear absorption contrast does not constitute evidence about Lorentz reciprocity, and the abstract's phrase "defining a clear geometric threshold for microscopic non-reciprocity" is not supported by the data or the simulation methodology.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II heading] The section heading "MA THEMA TICAL" contains a typographical error; it should read "MATHEMATICAL."
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the work "numerically validates" the bio-inspired concept, but the simulation does not validate the non-reciprocity hypothesis; it only reports a linear absorption change. Rephrasing to "numerically explores" would be more accurate.
  3. [Figure 3 caption and Section V] The caption of Figure 3 states that the horizontal axis spans 0.7 to 1.0 µm, while Section V says the range is 0.7--1.1 µm; these two statements should be made consistent.
  4. [Table I and Data Availability] Table I lists "This W ork" with an extra space, and the Data Availability statement says "My manuscript has no associated data" despite the paper's reliance on a specific MEEP simulation; providing the simulation parameters or a repository link would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 'threshold for microscopic non-reciprocity' is read out of a linear FDTD solver that cannot contain the χ(2) mechanism, and the '5–15% enhancement' is scaled from the same bacterial asymmetry used as design input, with the non-reciprocity premise itself carried by self-citation.

  1. self definitional [Section IV (Results), paragraph after Figure 3; Table I]
    "The near-zero change (0.02%) captured by FDTD does not invalidate this hypothesis; rather, it reveals a geometric shielding mechanism. In our inverted pyramidal cone array, the intense local electromagnetic field is almost exclusively concentrated at the sharp, symmetric apex. Because our structural modification (breaking the circular symmetry into an ellipse) was introduced at the base area of the cone, the field distribution at the apex remained largely undisturbed."

    The theory part of the paper requires a nonlinear current J_NL = ∂P_NL/∂t (Eq. 2) and optical rectification (Eq. 3) to break reciprocity. But the MEEP FDTD simulation solves the linear Maxwell equations with bulk Lorentzian permittivities from refs. [20,23,24]; no χ(2) term is present. A linear, passive, time-invariant system is Lorentz-reciprocal by theorem, so the absence of a non-reciprocal effect is guaranteed by the solver before execution. The 0.02% absorption change is a linear impedance effect, not a test of the χ(2) mechanism.

  2. other [Section II (Mathematical Description), Eq. (7) and following sentence]
    "Based on symmetry-breaking perturbation theory, the potential energy an electron experiences is V(r)≈V0+δ·Vperturb(x,y,z). The approximated χ(2) can be estimated by the scaling relation to χ(2)_ellip≈χ(1)·(ξ·L/d_atom), in which d_atom represents the characteristic length of an atom, 1 Å; L is the character length of the structure, about 100 Å. The enhancement thus calculated is estimated to be 5% - 15% across the entire spectral range."

    The '5-15% enhancement' is not derived from a fitted dataset or a validated first-principles calculation; it is Eq. (7) evaluated with ξ=(b−c)/(b+c)≈0.073 and δ≈13.6% taken from the same Rhodopseudomonas palustris light-harvesting complex [22] that is the source of the design. The predicted magnitude is thus a re-expression of the biological geometry used as input, multiplied by an assumed length ratio L/d_atom = 100. No independent calibration or benchmark is given for this ratio. Calling this a 'theoretical upper bound prediction' while using the model system's own eccentricity as the scaling constant makes the enhancement estimate a restatement of the ansatz rather than a derived consequence.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section I (Introduction), first paragraph; Section II (Mathematical Description), first sentence]
    "In several previous papers rather than relying on traditional optical ray theory we employed antenna theory and considered improvement in efficiency using non-reciprocity [8]. ... We analyzed in our previous paper how to create non-reciprocity."

    The load-bearing premise that bacterial light harvesters are non-reciprocal nanoantennas, and that geometric asymmetry can produce passive non-reciprocity, is imported from the author's prior work [8], which is not code-reproduced, machine-checked, or otherwise independently verified in this manuscript. The current paper's Eqs. (2)-(3) are textbook nonlinear-optics statements, but the specific application to passive 'microscopic non-reciprocity' and the interpretation of the FDTD null as evidence of a threshold rely on [8]. Because the linear FDTD simulation cannot test the χ(2) mechanism, the prior paper remains the only support for the central hypothesis, and the discussion uses [8]'s framework to reinterpret the null as a confirmation. This is self-citation doing load-bearing work.

full rationale

The raw FDTD absorption values and angular scans are legitimate linear-optics simulations, and the paper openly reports the 8.8% baseline discrepancy and concedes the deformation 'might well be overridden by discretization error.' The circularity is concentrated in the interpretive and theoretical layers. First, the claimed 'geometric threshold for microscopic non-reciprocity' is extracted from a simulator that cannot contain the χ(2) non-reciprocity mechanism: the null is true by construction of a linear reciprocal solver, so using it as evidence of 'apex shielding' is a self-fulfilling interpretation. Second, the '5-15% theoretical prediction' is just Eq. (7) evaluated with the bacterial asymmetry that also defines the design; no independent calibration is provided, so the prediction is a re-labeling of the input parameter. Third, the non-reciprocity premise itself is carried by the author's earlier paper [8], which is not independently verified. These combine to make the central non-reciprocal claim partially circular, while the linear absorption computation remains an ordinary, reproducible FDTD result. Score is 6 rather than 8 because the FDTD numbers are not fabricated and the paper labels the simulation 'Linear'; the circularity is in the non-reciprocity interpretation and the 'prediction,' not in the raw solver output.

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

The central claim rests on a hand-tuned elliptical deformation in MEEP, an unproven perturbation scaling for chi(2), a transfer of bacterial geometry to a CMOS pyramid, and the unsupported assumption that a linear FDTD absorption scan can probe non-reciprocity. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • MEEP ellipse axis factors = rx = r_cone * 1.0043, ry = r_cone * 0.9957
    Hand-chosen to imitate bacterial light-harvester eccentricity. The resulting standard eccentricity is about 13%, but the bacterial LH1 complex has standard eccentricity about 50%; the paper's own delta formula gives 13.6% for bacteria while the MEEP axes differ by only 0.86% in radius.
  • Enhancement estimate = 5% to 15%
    The 5-15% efficiency enhancement is asserted after Eq. 7 with no derivation connecting chi(2) to absorption or enhancement.
  • Characteristic lengths L and d_atom = L ~ 100 A, d_atom = 1 A
    Chosen constants in the scaling relation Eq. 7. The relation is dimensionally inconsistent because chi(2) and chi(1) have different units in SI.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Linear, time-invariant, passive systems obey Lorentz reciprocity; non-reciprocity requires nonlinearity or broken time-reversal symmetry.
    The paper invokes this standard theorem as the baseline it tries to challenge, using the reciprocity surface integral in Eq. 2.
  • domain assumption Structural asymmetry at molecular scale directly produces a nonzero chi(2) via V(r) not equal to V(-r).
    The paper imports this from nonlinear optics (ref. [19]) and applies it to a CMOS pyramid base without showing that the base acts as a molecular-scale potential. Section II after Eq. 1.
  • ad hoc to paper The scaling chi(2)_ellip approximately chi(1) * xi * L / d_atom (Eq. 7) is valid.
    This scaling is introduced without derivation, is dimensionally inconsistent, and is the only bridge between the biological geometry and the 5-15% enhancement estimate.
  • domain assumption FDTD with bulk Lorentzian permittivities is a valid tool to test sub-wavelength molecular-scale non-reciprocity.
    The paper claims macroscopic continuum models become invalid at molecular scale (Section II) yet runs MEEP with bulk Si and SiO2 optical constants (Section III, refs. [20,23,24]). This contradiction is unflagged.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetric Textured Image Sensors Based on Antenna Theory as Designed by Nature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RPNFOT45

@misc{pith2026260812729,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetric Textured Image Sensors Based on Antenna Theory as Designed by Nature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RPNFOT45}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12729}
}
read the original abstract

This work numerically validates the application of bio-inspired concepts on CMOS derived from bacterial photosynthetic light harvesters. We investigate a modification of symmetric inverted pyramid array CMOS image sensors into an asymmetrically shaped texture to explore the structural boundary of passive non-reciprocity. Diverging from traditional macroscopic continuum assumptions, we analyze whether structural asymmetry at sub-wavelength scales can induce non-reciprocal scattering under passive, linear, and time-invariant conditions. A theoretical framework based on perturbation theory is developed, estimating a potential efficiency enhancement of 5\% to 15\%. Numerical simulations performed via the MEEP finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) platform reveal that the linear response is highly localized, showing a subtle 0.02\% change. This suggests that macroscopic Lorentz reciprocity remains robust at the investigated scale due to apex field concentration, defining a clear geometric threshold for microscopic non-reciprocity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12729 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The geometry used in MEEP Project 4 for calculating the CMOS image sensor [20]. A silicon dioxide glass microlens [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. According to experimental data, the major axis of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a)-(b) Original circular cone from MEEP project 4, (c)-(d) modified circular cone, and (e)-(f) proposed asymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Calculated silicon substrate optical absorption curves under oblique incident illumination ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    J. J.-L. Ting, Non-reciprocal light-harvesting nanoantennae made by nature, J. Appl. Phys.125, 144702 (2019), arXiv:1702.06671

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [1]

    Yablonovitch and G

    E. Yablonovitch and G. Cody, Intensity enhancement in textured optical sheets for solar cells, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices29, 300 (1982)

    work page 1982

  3. [2]

    Yablonovitch, Intensity Enhancement in Textured Optical Sheets for Solar Cells., Conf

    E. Yablonovitch, Intensity Enhancement in Textured Optical Sheets for Solar Cells., Conf. Rec. IEEE Photovolt. Spec. Conf. , 501 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [3]

    Redfield, Multiple-pass thin-film silicon solar cell, Appl

    D. Redfield, Multiple-pass thin-film silicon solar cell, Appl. Phys. Lett.25, 647 (1974)

    work page 1974

  5. [4]

    J. B. Pendry, Negative refraction makes a perfect lens, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3966 (2000)

    2000

  6. [5]

    N. Yu, P. Genevet, M. a. Kats, F. Aieta, J.-P. Tetienne, F. Capasso, and Z. Gaburro, Light Propagation with Phase Reflection and Refraction, Science (80-. ).334, 333 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [6]

    Pfeiffer and A

    C. Pfeiffer and A. Grbic, Metamaterial Huygens’ surfaces: Tailoring wave fronts with reflectionless sheets, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 1 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [7]

    Exploring the limits of super-Planckian far-field radiative heat transfer using 2D materials

    V. Fern´ andez-Hurtado, A. I. Fern´ andez-Dom´ ınguez, J. Feist, F. J. Garc´ ıa-Vidal, and J. C. Cuevas, Exploring the Limits of Super-Planckian Far-Field Radiative Heat Transfer Using 2D Materials, ACS Photonics5, 3082 (2018), arXiv:1802.09463

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    R. J. Mart´ ın-Palma and M. Kolle, Biomimetic photonic structures for optical sensing, Opt. Laser Technol.109, 270 (2019)

    2019

  2. [10]

    Schmager, B

    R. Schmager, B. Fritz, R. H¨ unig, K. Ding, U. Lemmer, B. S. Richards, G. Gomard, and U. W. Paetzold, Texture of the Viola Flower for Light Harvesting in Photovoltaics, ACS Photonics4, 2687 (2017). 8

    2017

  3. [11]

    C. Liu, P. Mao, Q. Guo, M. Han, and S. Zhang, Bio-inspired plasmonic leaf for enhanced light-matter interactions, Nanophotonics8, 1291 (2019)

    2019

  4. [12]

    Y. H. Sim, M. J. Yun, S. I. Cha, and D. Y. Lee, Fractal solar cell array for enhanced energy production : applying rules underlying tree shape to photovoltaics, Proc. 10.1098/rspa.2020.0094 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    A. A. Mamun, J. Karim, and M. A. Talukder, Design and analysis of an efficient crystalline silicon-based thin-film solar cell inspired by Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Sol. Energy279, 112777 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zhang, B

    Y. Zhang, B. Jia, and M. Gu, Biomimetic and plasmonic hybrid light trapping for highly efficient ultrathin crystalline silicon solar cells, Opt. Express24, A506 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Caloz, A

    C. Caloz, A. Al` u, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z. L. Deck-L´ eger, Electromagnetic Nonreciprocity, Phys. Rev. Appl.10, 1 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    Pakniyat and J

    S. Pakniyat and J. S. Gomez-Diaz, Magnet-free electromagnetic nonreciprocity in two-dimensional materials, J. Appl. Phys.136, 10.1063/5.0207377 (2024)

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, 19)

  10. [18]

    W. W. Parson, THERMODYNAMICS OF THE PRIMARY REACTIONS OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS, Photochem. Photo- biol.28, 389 (1978)

    1978

  11. [19]

    R. W. Boyd,Non-linear optics, 4th ed. (Academic Press, 2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Yokogawa, I

    S. Yokogawa, I. Oshiyama, H. Ikeda, Y. Ebiko, T. Hirano, S. Saito, T. Oinoue, Y. Hagimoto, and H. Iwamoto, IR sensitivity enhancement of CMOS Image Sensor with diffractive light trapping pixels, Sci. Rep.7, 1 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    A. F. Oskooi, D. Roundy, M. Ibanescu, P. Bermel, J. Joannopoulos, and S. G. Johnson, Meep: A flexible free-software package for electromagnetic simulations by the FDTD method, Comput. Phys. Commun.181, 687 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    A. W. Roszak, T. D. Howard, J. Southall, A. T. Gardiner, C. J. Law, N. W. Isaacs, and R. J. Cogdell, Crystal Structure of the RC-LH1 Core Complex from Rhodopseudomonas palustris, Science (80-. ).302, 1969 (2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Palik,Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids(Academic Press, 1998)

    E. Palik,Handbook of Optical Constants of Solids(Academic Press, 1998)

    1998

  16. [24]

    P. B. Johnson and R. W. Christy, Optical Constant of the Noble Metals, Phys. Rev. B6, 4370 (1972)

    1972

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.