Relaxed Phase-Matching Constraints in Zero-Index Waveguides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The utility of all parametric nonlinear optical processes is hampered by phase-matching requirements. Quasi-phase-matching, birefringent phase matching, and higher-order-mode phase matching have all been developed to address this constraint, but the methods demonstrated to date suffer from the inconvenience of only being phase matched for a single, specific arrangement of beams, typically copropagating, resulting in cumbersome experimental configurations and large footprints for integrated devices. Here, we experimentally demonstrate that these phase-matching requirements may be satisfied in a parametric nonlinear optical process for multiple, if not all, configurations of input and output beams when using low-index media. Our measurement constitutes the first experimental observation of direction-independent phase matching for a medium sufficiently long for phase matching to be relevant. We demonstrate four-wave mixing from spectrally distinct co- and counterpropagating pump and probe beams, the backward generation of a nonlinear signal, and excitation by an out-of-plane probe beam. These results explicitly show that the unique properties of low-index media relax traditional phase-matching constraints, which can be exploited to facilitate nonlinear interactions and miniaturize nonlinear devices, thus adding to the established exceptional properties of low-index materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".