Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 53 references

Near-zero-index behavior in indium antimonide revealed by phase-corrected terahertz reflection spectroscopy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Kramers-Kronig phase-correction method for reflection-mode terahertz spectroscopy determines the sample misalignment analytically, and with it undoped InSb shows refractive index $n<1$ from 1 to 2 THz and group velocity down to $0.08\,c$.

desk verdict Useful analytical phase-correction method for reflection THz-TDS, but the InSb n<1 claim rests on an untested constancy assumption and needs referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.21073 v1 pith:MR6JLVHX submitted 2024-12-30 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Kasturie D. Jatkar , Tien-Tien Yeh , Matteo Pancaldi , Stefano Bonetti This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords terahertztime-domainspectroscopyreflectiongeometryKramers-Kronigrelationsphasecorrectioncomplexrefractiveindexnear-zero-indexmaterialindiumantimonidegroupvelocity
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 develops an analytical phase-correction procedure for terahertz time-domain spectroscopy in reflection geometry. The inverse Kramers-Kronig relation is used to find and remove the micrometer-scale sample-to-reference misalignment that otherwise corrupts the measured phase. The method is validated on silicon, retrieving its known refractive index within 2.5% across 0.25–3.5 THz and within 0.6% from 1–2 THz. Applied to undoped indium antimonide, the corrected data show the real refractive index $n$ falling below 1 between about 1 and 2 THz, reaching a minimum of 0.691 at 1.58 THz near the plasma frequency, with the group-velocity amplitude dropping to $0.08\,c$ at 2 THz. If correct, this is a direct observation of near-zero-index behavior in an unstructured bulk semiconductor, and it makes quantitative reflection THz spectroscopy practical for opaque and strongly dispersive materials.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the modified inverse Kramers-Kronig relation, Eqs. (5) and (7), applied to a single measured reflection waveform. It combines the measured phase with the measured reflectivity amplitude through a finite-range principal-value integral, producing a discrepancy $\Delta_m$ that depends on the misplacement $l$ through the analytic term $\frac{2l\omega}{\pi c \cos\theta}\ln\left|\frac{\omega_{\mathrm{end}}-\omega}{\omega_{\mathrm{end}}+\omega}\right|$, with the finite-cutoff error collected into a constant $C+C'$. Fitting this form yields $l$, and Eq. (1) then removes the misplacement from the phase. The key identity doing the work is that the measured amplitude is independent of misplacement while the reconstructed amplitude is not, so their difference isolates $l$.

What would settle it

Refit Eq. (7) to the same InSb data twice, using only 0.25–2 THz and only 2–4 THz. If the recovered misplacement $l$ and the resulting $n(\omega)$ curve agree within uncertainty, the constant-cutoff assumption holds; if they disagree, the $n<1$ feature is an artifact of a frequency-varying cutoff error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the inverse Kramers-Kronig relation can be turned into a quantitative phase-correction tool for reflection terahertz time-domain spectroscopy. Because the measured reflectivity amplitude $\left|\tilde r_m\right|$ is insensitive to sample misplacement while the phase is not, comparing the measured amplitude with the amplitude reconstructed from the measured phase through a finite-range Kramers-Kronig integral yields an analytic expression for the misplacement $l$ (Eq. 7). Fitting this expression recovers controlled shifts of 0.1–100 µm to within about 0.1 µm, and once the phase is corrected the Fresnel relations give the full complex refractive index. On undoped InSb, the corrected data show $n<1$ between 1.05 and 1.95 THz with a minimum of 0.691 at 1.58 THz, $\operatorname{Re}(\varepsilon)=0$ near 1.99 THz where $n=k=1.08$, and group-velocity amplitude $0.08\,c$ at 2 THz. The paper identifies this as near-zero-index behavior native to the material's plasma response rather than to any structuring.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the error caused by stopping the Kramers-Kronig integral at 4 THz is the same at every frequency; if that error varies with frequency for a strongly dispersive material like InSb, the fitted sample misplacement will absorb the variation and the corrected phase—including the reported $n<1$ band—could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reflection-mode THz-TDS can become a routine quantitative probe for opaque or strongly dispersive materials, since alignment error is removed analytically from one waveform rather than by iterative numerical algorithms.
  • The silicon benchmark—accuracy better than 2.5% over 0.25–3.5 THz and 0.6% over 1–2 THz—sets a quantitative standard for corrected-phase refractive-index extraction.
  • Undoped InSb can serve as a natural, unstructured near-zero-index material in the terahertz range, with $n$ as low as 0.691 and group-velocity amplitude down to $0.08\,c$.
  • Because InSb's plasma frequency is tunable by doping and temperature, the $n<1$ band and the slow-light window can be shifted in frequency without fabricating metamaterials.
  • The companion paper's extension to arbitrary incidence angle and polarization broadens the same phase correction to anisotropic samples and thin films.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The only strongly dispersive validation is a Drude fit to the same InSb reflectivity, so the constant-$C+C'$ assumption is not independently tested; a misalignment-free measurement (for example, ellipsometry) at the same frequencies would settle whether the $n<1$ band is genuine.
  • Refitting Eq. (7) on disjoint sub-bands is a cheap internal check: if the recovered $l$ changes between 0.25–2 THz and 2–4 THz, the frequency-independent cutoff-error assumption fails.
  • The $0.08\,c$ figure is a single-frequency group-velocity amplitude; because InSb has sizable extinction $k$ near the plasma edge, the net delay of a broadband pulse may be much weaker, so a pulse-propagation calculation would be needed to judge slow-light practicality.
  • The same one-scan phase correction could be applied to pump-probe or asynchronous THz measurements where sample position drifts during acquisition, turning stage drift into a correctable parameter.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a phase-correction method for broadband terahertz time-domain spectroscopy in reflection geometry. The method uses an inverse Kramers-Kronig relation over a finite frequency range, with the truncation error and the sample-to-reference misplacement l treated as fit parameters in an analytical expression (Eq. 7). The authors validate the approach on silicon, recovering its known refractive index, and then apply it to undoped InSb, reporting a refractive index n < 1 between 1.05 and 1.95 THz, with a minimum n = 0.691 at 1.58 THz and a group velocity as low as 0.08c near 2 THz. The central claims are the validity of the phase-correction method and the direct observation of near-zero-index behavior in InSb.

Significance. If the method is sound and the InSb result is robust, the paper makes a useful contribution to THz reflection spectroscopy, particularly because it offers a non-iterative, analytically based way to correct phase errors caused by sample misplacement. The claim of direct experimental observation of near-zero-index behavior in an undoped, readily available semiconductor is potentially interesting for the metamaterials and slow-light communities. The silicon validation supports the basic methodology for a weakly dispersive material. However, the quantitative validation claims are internally inconsistent, the InSb validation rests on a Drude model fitted to the same dataset, and the central n < 1 result depends on a frequency-independence assumption for the truncation error that is neither tested nor independently verified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §4 (silicon results, Fig. 3a)] The stated accuracy figures are inconsistent with the reported values. The abstract claims accuracy better than 2.5% over 0.25–3.5 THz and better than 0.6% in 1–2 THz, but the text reports n_Si,exp ≈ 3.33 versus literature n_Si ≈ 3.42, which is a 2.6% error, and n_Si,exp ≈ 3.39 in the 1–2 THz range, which is a 0.88% error. Both claims are contradicted by the numbers. This is a load-bearing issue for the method validation, not a presentation detail.
  2. [Eq. (7) and the InSb analysis (Figs. 2, 3)] The derivation of Eq. (7) approximates the finite-bandwidth inverse-Kramers-Kronig reconstruction error as a frequency-independent constant C + C'. For InSb, which shows strong dispersion across the measured band (0.25–4 THz) with a plasma edge near 2 THz, the truncation error can retain significant frequency dependence. If C + C' varies over the fit range, the free parameter l will absorb that variation, biasing the corrected phase via Eq. (1) and consequently the extracted n and k via Eq. (8). The paper does not test this assumption independently; the only in-band validation for InSb is agreement with a Drude model whose parameters were themselves fitted to the measured reflectivity amplitude at the same nominal zero shift. That comparison checks the amplitude, not the phase, and is therefore circular with respect to the phase-correction claim. The authors should either provide an independent phase reference for a strongly dispersive material or perform a numerical sensitivity analysis (e.g., using a synthetic Drude response with known l and assessing how a frequency-dependent C + C' biases the recovered n).
  3. [No uncertainty quantification throughout, especially Fig. 3(b) and Fig. 4] No error bars, confidence intervals, or repeated-measurement statistics are reported for any extracted quantity. This is particularly important because the n < 1 region is only about 0.9 THz wide and the minimum n is 0.691; if the total uncertainty in n is comparable to |1 - n|, the near-zero-index claim becomes unsupported. The stated zero-shift misplacement recovery of 0.29 µm also indicates a systematic offset that, at 1 THz, corresponds to a phase error of order 0.012 rad, and its impact on n is not quantified. The authors should provide an uncertainty budget, ideally including the effect of the choice of reference frequency ω', the fit range, and the low-pass filter used for the group velocity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'where, the amplitude of the group velocity goes as low as 0.08c' contains an unnecessary comma and is grammatically awkward; it should read 'where the amplitude of the group velocity goes as low as 0.08c'.
  2. [InSb fit description, text before Fig. 2] The sentence 'while for InSb, the range 0.25 – 3.5 THz is used since.' ends with the dangling word 'since' and is incomplete; it should either be completed with a justification for the restricted fit range or rewritten.
  3. [Eq. (7) and companion paper] The derivation of the constants C and C' is not self-contained in this Letter; the authors refer to the companion paper [35] for details. While acceptable for a Letter, a brief statement of the origin and assumptions of these constants would help readers assess the method independently.
  4. [Figure 4] The phase and group velocities are computed after applying a low-pass filter to the complex refractive index, but the filter parameters and the sensitivity of the 0.08c minimum to these parameters are not described. This should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

InSb n<1 is directly measured, but the 'Drude prediction' used for validation is fit to the same reflectivity, and the phase-correction fit's truncation-error ansatz is delegated to the authors' companion paper.

  1. fitted input called prediction [p.3 Fig. 2(b) text and p.4 'in agreement with the prediction from the Drude model']
    "In Fig. 2(b), the black dashed line is obtained from fitting the data at l = 0 to the Drude model for the measured reflectivity. The extracted parameters are ε∞ = 18.16, ωp/2π = 2.005 THz, and γ/2π = 0.26 THz, consistent with the values reported in Ref. [36,45]. ... The data also show an accurate extraction of the response of InSb over a broad frequency range, with a clear signature of the plasma edge at around 2 THz, in agreement with the prediction from the Drude model."

    The Drude curves are repeatedly called a 'prediction,' but the model parameters were obtained by fitting the measured reflectivity of the same InSb sample at the same nominal zero shift. The comparison of the extracted refractive index and velocities to this model therefore contains a component that is the model checked against its own fitting target. The phase channel is not part of the fit, so the comparison has some independent content, but the label 'prediction' overstates the out-of-sample status of the Drude reference. This is a partial fitted-input-called-prediction issue, not the derivation of the central n<1 value.

  2. self citation load bearing [p.3 Eqs. (6)-(7), text citing companion paper [35]]
    "However, as detailed in the companion paper [35], we show that this method is less robust in extracting the correct phase than the inverse Kramers-Kronig relation. ... where the approximate analytical solution has been obtained thanks to Eq. (1), and C represents the integration error introduced for reducing the upper limit of the integration range to ωend [35]. ... The calculated ∆m is fitted using the analytical formula in the second line of Eq. (7), where l and C + C′ are used as free parameters."

    The load-bearing approximation that the finite-range Kramers-Kronig truncation error can be absorbed into a frequency-independent C + C′ is not derived in this Letter; it is delegated to the authors' own companion paper, arXiv:2412.18662. The free-parameter fit for l in Eq. (7) assumes this approximation, and the corrected phase used to obtain the InSb n<1 signature is generated by that fitted l. For the strongly dispersive InSb case, the only in-band validation is the Drude model that was itself fitted to the same measured reflectivity, so the constant-truncation-error ansatz is supported by an in-sample check and a same-author citation rather than by an independent out-of-sample test.

full rationale

The central claim—experimental observation of n<1 in InSb between 1 and 2 THz—is not obtained by fitting a Drude model. It is computed directly from the measured reflection amplitude and from a phase that has been corrected using the fitted misplacement l. That calculation is not definitionally tied to the Drude parameters, so the paper does not reduce entirely to its inputs. The score of 4 reflects two supporting links that are partially circular. First, the Drude model used as the 'prediction' for InSb is fitted to the same sample's measured reflectivity at the same nominal zero shift; the amplitude part of the agreement is forced by the fit, and only the phase part carries independent weight. Second, the correctness of the phase-correction fit rests on the frequency-independent C + C′ approximation in Eq. (7), whose derivation is delegated to the authors' own companion paper, and whose validity for a strongly dispersive material like InSb is not independently established here. The Si validation is a genuine external benchmark and shows the method works for a nearly dispersionless sample; however, it does not close the in-sample circularity of the InSb validation chain. The assumed frequency-independence of the truncation error is a correctness risk as well, but the circular component is the use of a same-sample Drude fit and a same-author companion-paper derivation as the primary support for the dispersive-sample phase correction.

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

The method relies on two fitted parameters per measurement (l and C+C') and a third set of Drude parameters fitted to the InSb data for validation. The axioms are the validity of the inverse Kramers-Kronig relation for the reflection coefficient, the constancy of the truncation error, the insensitivity of the amplitude to misalignment, and standard Fresnel equations. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Sample-to-reference misplacement l = Si: -0.14, +11.21, +101.18 µm; InSb: 0.29, 10.1, 100.06 µm
    Fitted as a free parameter in Eq. (7) to correct the measured phase. The nominal shifts were 0, 10, and 100 µm.
  • Integration offset C + C' = Si: 0.59, 1.78, 11.27; InSb: 0.49, 1.52, 11.02
    Fitted as a second free parameter in Eq. (7) to absorb the finite-range truncation error.
  • Drude parameters for InSb comparison = ε∞ = 18.16, ωp/2π = 2.005 THz, γ/2π = 0.26 THz
    Fitted to the measured reflectivity of InSb at l=0 and used as the dashed reference line and as the comparison model for the extracted n,k. These parameters are not used in the phase correction itself, but they are the benchmark for the InSb validation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The inverse Kramers-Kronig relation (Eq. 3) is valid for the complex reflection coefficient of the measured materials.
    The relation links phase to amplitude under causality and minimum-phase conditions. The paper invokes it in Eqs. (4)-(7) without discussing minimum-phase bounds for InSb.
  • ad hoc to paper The truncation error term C + C' in Eq. (7) is effectively frequency-independent over the fit range.
    The fit isolates l from a constant offset. If C varies with frequency, the fitted l and corrected phase are biased. The paper does not quantify C(ω).
  • domain assumption The measured amplitude |r_m(ω)| is independent of misalignment l.
    Stated in the text and visible in Fig. 1; the amplitude is robust to positional shifts, so |r_m| can be treated as the true amplitude.
  • standard math Normal-incidence Fresnel equations (Eq. 8) relate r to n and k.
    Standard result used for both Si and InSb extraction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Near-zero-index behavior in indium antimonide revealed by phase-corrected terahertz reflection spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MR6JLVHX

@misc{pith2026241221073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Near-zero-index behavior in indium antimonide revealed by phase-corrected terahertz reflection spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MR6JLVHX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.21073}
}
abstract

We developed a phase correction method for broadband terahertz time-domain spectroscopy in reflection geometry, which allows us to obtain quantitative and accurate values for the complex refractive index of materials. The process is analytical, based on the Kramers-Kronig relations, and does not require any computationally intensive algorithms. We validate it by extracting the refractive index of silicon, obtaining the nominal value with an accuracy better than 2.5\% over the 0.25--3.5 THz range, and better than 0.6\% in the 1--2 THz range. We use the method to experimentally observe that an undoped InSb crystal shows a refractive index of $n<1$ between 1 and 2 THz, in proximity to the plasma frequency of the material where, the amplitude of the group velocity goes as low as 0.08$c$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.21073 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Calculated reflection coefficients for (a) Si and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Phase velocity (green solid line) and (b) group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hirashita, P

    H. Hirashita, P. M. Koch, S. Matsushita, S. Takakuwa, M. Nakamura, K. Asada, H. B. Liu, Y. Urata, M.-J. Wang, W.-H. Wang, et al., Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Japan 68, R1 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    S. S. Dhillon, M. S. Vitiello, E. H. Linfield, A. G. Davies, M. C. Hoffmann, J. Booske, C. Paoloni, M. Gensch, P. Weightman, G. P. Williams, et al., Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50, 043001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    J. A. Spies, J. Neu, U. T. Tayvah, M. D. Capobianco, B. Pattengale, S. Ostresh, and C. A. Schmuttenmaer, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 124, 22335 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    C. Seo, J. Kim, S. Eom, K. Kim, and H.-R. Park, Jour- nal of the Korean Physical Society 10.1007/s40042-022- 00403-3 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1007/s40042-022- 2022

  5. [5]

    J. B. Baxter and G. W. Guglietta, Ana- lytical Chemistry 83, 4342 (2011), eprint: https://doi.org/10.1021/ac200907z

    doi:10.1021/ac200907z 2011

  6. [6]

    Son, Journal of Applied Physics 105, 102033 (2009)

    J.-H. Son, Journal of Applied Physics 105, 102033 (2009)

    work page 2009

  7. [7]

    A. I. Nikitkina, P. Y. Bikmulina, E. R. Gafarova, N. V. Kosheleva, Y. M. Efremov, E. A. Bezrukov, D. V. But- naru, I. N. Dolganova, N. V. Chernomyrdin, O. P. Cherkasova, et al., Journal of Biomedical Optics 26, 10.1117/1.JBO.26.4.043005 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jbo.26.4.043005 2021

  8. [8]

    Kim, T.-I

    G.-R. Kim, T.-I. Jeon, and D. Grischkowsky, Optics Ex- press 25, 25422 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Harter, Nature Photonics 14, 8 (2020)

    T. Harter, Nature Photonics 14, 8 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    M. C. Kemp, P. F. Taday, B. E. Cole, J. A. Cluff, A. J. Fitzgerald, and W. R. Tribe (Orlando, FL, 2003) p. 44

    2003

  3. [11]

    Palka, M

    N. Palka, M. Szustakowski, M. Kowalski, T. Trzcinski, R. Ryniec, M. Piszczek, W. Ciurapinski, M. Zyczkowski, P. Zagrajek, and J. Wrobel, in 2012 19th International Conference on Microwaves, Radar & Wireless Commu- nications, Vol. 1 (2012) p. 265–270

    2012

  4. [12]

    Afsah-Hejri, P

    L. Afsah-Hejri, P. Hajeb, P. Ara, and R. J. Ehsani, Com- prehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 18, 1563 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Feng and C

    C.-H. Feng and C. Otani, Critical Reviews in Food Sci- ence and Nutrition 61, 2523 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Sal´ en, M

    P. Sal´ en, M. Basini, S. Bonetti, J. Hebling, M. Krasil- nikov, A. Y. Nikitin, G. Shamuilov, Z. Tibai, V. Zhauner- chyk, and V. Goryashko, Physics Reports 836-837, 1 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    J. L. M. van Mechelen, D. van der Marel, C. Grimaldi, A. B. Kuzmenko, N. P. Armitage, N. Reyren, H. Hage- mann, and I. I. Mazin, Physical Review Letters 100, 226403 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    Kojima, N

    S. Kojima, N. Tsumura, M. W. Takeda, and S. Nishizawa, Physical Review B 67, 035102 (2003)

    2003

  9. [17]

    Y. Wu, J. Duan, W. Ma, Q. Ou, P. Li, P. Alonso- Gonz´ alez, J. D. Caldwell, and Q. Bao, Nature Reviews Physics 10.1038/s42254-022-00472-0 (2022)

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Neeraj, N

    K. Neeraj, N. Awari, S. Kovalev, D. Polley, N. Zhou Hagstr¨ om, S. S. P. K. Arekapudi, A. Semisalova, K. Lenz, B. Green, J.-C. Deinert, I. Ilyakov, M. Chen, M. Bawatna, V. Scalera, M. d’Aquino, C. Serpico, O. Hellwig, J.-E. Wegrowe, M. Gensch, and S. Bonetti, Nature Physics 17...

    2021

  11. [19]

    Unikandanunni, R

    V. Unikandanunni, R. Medapalli, E. E. Fullerton, K. Carva, P. M. Oppeneer, and S. Bonetti, Applied 6 Physics Letters 118, 232404 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    H. J. Qin, K. Zakeri, A. Ernst, L. M. Sandratskii, P. Buczek, A. Marmodoro, T. H. Chuang, Y. Zhang, and J. Kirschner, Nature Communications 6, 6126 (2015)

    2015

  13. [21]

    E. A. Mashkovich, K. A. Grishunin, R. M. Dubrovin, A. K. Zvezdin, R. V. Pisarev, and A. V. Kimel, Science 374, 1608 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    K. Dona, J. Liu, N. Kurinsky, D. Miller, P. Barry, C. Chang, and A. Sonnenschein, Journal of Instrumenta- tion 17 (06), P06014

  15. [23]

    Sch¨ utte-Engel, D

    J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, D. J. E. Marsh, A. J. Millar, A. Sekine, F. Chadha-Day, S. Hoof, M. Ali, K.-C. Fong, E. Hardy, and L. ˇSmejkal, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparti- cle Physics 2021 (08), 066, arXiv:2102.05366 [cond-mat, physics:hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Withayachumnankul, Engineering Aspects of Tera- hertz Time-Domain Spectroscopy, Ph.D

    W. Withayachumnankul, Engineering Aspects of Tera- hertz Time-Domain Spectroscopy, Ph.D. thesis, The Uni- versity of Adelaide, Australia (2009)

    2009

  17. [25]

    P. U. Jepsen, Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Tera- hertz Waves 40, 395 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Pashkin, M

    A. Pashkin, M. Kempa, H. Nˇ emec, F. Kadlec, and P. Kuˇ zel, Review of Scientific Instruments 74, 4711 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    Neshat and N

    M. Neshat and N. P. Armitage, Optics Express 20, 29063 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    T. Mori, H. Igawa, and S. Kojima, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 54, 012006 (2014)

    2014

  21. [29]

    E. M. Vartiainen, Y. Ino, R. Shimano, M. Kuwata- Gonokami, Y. P. Svirko, and K.-E. Peiponen, Journal of Applied Physics 96, 4171 (2004)

    2004

  22. [30]

    E. M. Vartiainen and K.-E. Peiponen, Reports on Progress in Physics 76, 066401 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Gornov, E

    E. Gornov, E. M. Vartiainen, and K.-E. Peiponen, Ap- plied Optics 45, 6519 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Lucarini, Y

    V. Lucarini, Y. Ino, K.-E. Peiponen, and M. Kuwata- Gonokami, Physical Review B 72, 125107 (2005)

    2005

  25. [33]

    K. F. Palmer, M. Z. Williams, and B. A. Budde, Applied Optics 37, 2660 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Granot, Y

    E. Granot, Y. Ben-Aderet, and S. Sternklar, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 25, 609 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Jatkar, T.-T

    K. Jatkar, T.-T. Yeh, M. Pancaldi, and S. Bonetti (2024), arXiv:2412.18662

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. C. Howells and L. A. Schlie, Applied Physics Letters 69, 550 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    D. Y. Smith, Journal of the Optical Society of America 67, 570 (1977)

    1977

  30. [38]

    Lovell, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 7, 4378 (1974)

    R. Lovell, Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 7, 4378 (1974)

    1974

  31. [39]

    D. M. Roessler, British Journal of Applied Physics 16, 1777 (1965)

    1965

  32. [40]

    P. L. Nash, R. Bell, and R. Alexander, Journal of Modern Optics 42, 1837 (1995)

    1995

  33. [41]

    Peiponen, E

    K.-E. Peiponen, E. M. Vartiainen, and T. Asakura, in Progress in Optics, Vol. 37 (Elsevier, 1997) pp. 57–94

    1997

  34. [42]

    J. E. Bertie and Z. Lan, The Journal of Chemical Physics 105, 8502 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    J. Dai, J. Zhang, W. Zhang, and D. Grischkowsky, Jour- nal of the Optical Society of America B 21, 1379 (2004)

    2004

  36. [44]

    Ro/nne, L

    C. Ro/nne, L. Thrane, P.-O. ˚Astrand, A. Wallqvist, K. V. Mikkelsen, and S. R. Keiding, The Journal of Chemical Physics 107, 5319 (1997)

    1997

  37. [45]

    Houver, L

    S. Houver, L. Huber, M. Savoini, E. Abreu, and S. L. Johnson, Optics Express 27, 10854 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    J. Wu, Z. T. Xie, Y. Sha, H. Y. Fu, and Q. Li, Photonics Research 9, 1616 (2021)

    2021

  39. [47]

    Chang, J.-J

    T.-W. Chang, J.-J. Wu, and C.-J. Wu, Progress In Elec- tromagnetics Research 131, 153 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Liberal and N

    I. Liberal and N. Engheta, Nature Photonics 11, 149 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Kinsey, C

    N. Kinsey, C. DeVault, A. Boltasseva, and V. M. Shalaev, Nature Reviews Materials 4, 742 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Vertchenko, M

    L. Vertchenko, M. Nikitin, and A. Lavrinenko, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 40, 1467 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    M. Z. Alam, I. De Leon, and R. W. Boyd, Science 352, 795 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Chochol, K

    J. Chochol, K. Postava, M. ˇCada, M. Vanwolleghem, L. Halagaˇ cka, J.-F. Lampin, and J. Piˇ stora, AIP Ad- vances 6, 115021 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    S. Law, R. Liu, and D. Wasserman, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B, Nanotechnology and Microelec- tronics: Materials, Processing, Measurement, and Phe- nomena 32, 052601 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

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