Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35208075›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Analytical Methods for Causality Evaluation of Photonic Materials.

Tomasz P Stefański, Jacek Gulgowski, Kosmas L Tsakmakidis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tomasz P StefańskiFaculty of Electronics, Telecommunications, and Informatics, Gdansk University of Technology, 80-233 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-3952-5731
Jacek GulgowskiThe Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics, University of Gdansk, 80-308 Gdansk, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-7706-9263
Kosmas L TsakmakidisSection of Condensed Matter Physics, Department of Physics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Panepistimioupolis, GR-157 84 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-2141-1338

Funding

General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) and the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) No. 1819
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We comprehensively review several general methods and analytical tools used for causality evaluation of photonic materials. Our objective is to call to mind and then formulate, on a mathematically rigorous basis, a set of theorems which can answer the question whether a considered material model is causal or not. For this purpose, a set of various distributional theorems presented in literature is collected as the distributional version of the Titchmarsh theorem, allowing for evaluation of causality in complicated electromagnetic systems. Furthermore, we correct the existing material models with the use of distribution theory in order to obtain their causal formulations. In addition to the well-known Kramers-Krönig (K-K) relations, we overview four further methods which can be used to assess causality of given dispersion relations, when calculations of integrals involved in the K-K relations are challenging or even impossible. Depending on the given problem, optimal approaches allowing us to prove either the causality or lack thereof are pointed out. These methodologies should be useful for scientists and engineers analyzing causality problems in electrodynamics and optics, particularly with regard to photonic materials, when the involved mathematical distributions have to be invoked.

Indexed as

causalitydistribution theoryfractional calculusKramers–Krönig relationsPaley-Wiener theoremphotonic materialsTitchmarsh theorem

Identifiers

PMID35208075
PMCPMC8879234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.