Robust Pulse-Pumped Quadratic Soliton Assisted by Third-Order Nonlinearity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In their manuscript, the authors report a theoretical investigation of a synchronously pumped optical parametric oscillator. The studied OPO is operated in the degenerate regime to produce pulses at half of the driver frequency. A coupled difference equation system was solved numerically, considering second and third order nonlinear effects. The main goal of the paper to study how the third order nonlinearity affects the OPO operation. They examined the effect of the laser power, the cavity detuning, pulse duration and the measure of the third order nonlinear coefficient. The main conclusion of the paper is that the present of the third order nonlinearity although decreases the conversion efficiency but stabilizes the operation.

The subject of the manuscript fits into the scope of the journal. I found the manuscript to be mainly well written and good understandable. The presented data are well organized and support the author’s claims. It is suitable for publication and only two minor corrections would be advantageous.

1)     The texts in line 53 and line 62 are contradictory. Please correct that omega_0 or 2omega_0 means fundamental frequency.

2)     When the authors write about Fig. 2 in line 86/98 then Fig. 3 is near, when write about Fig. 3 then Fig. 4 is nearby. It would be practical to rearrange the figures to be closer to the corresponding text to improve readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors study the quadratic soliton in a degenerate optical parametric oscillator driven synchronously by the pulse pump with the third-order nonlinearity. Their simulation verifies that the robustness of quadratic soliton generation is enhanced when the system experiences a perturbation from pump power, cavity detuning, and pump pulse width. Here are some suggestions:

1.     The authors mainly consider the effect of third-order nonlinearity, but ignore the third-order dispersion, should the authors consider the corresponding higher-order dispersion when considering the effect of higher-order nonlinearity? Have the authors performed a small number of numerical simulations for the effect of third-order dispersion?

2.     The authors are suggested to compare and discussion some recent works that can be potentially applied in Carbon Nano-Onions, (i.e. Ultrafast Science, 2022, 9870325, 6, 2022; Ultrafast Science, 2022, Article 9895418, 51, 2022; Ultrafast Science, 2022, 9893418, 9, 2022; Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 023905 2018; Laser Photon. Rev. 13, 1800333, 2019).

3.     Is it reasonable for the authors to use these simulation parameters? Are there actual values that can be used as a reference?

4.     The authors explore the regularity of the changes and whether the range of parameters chosen for the comparison could be extended a bit, for example, the pump pulse-width, the peak power of pump. etc.

5.     Could the authors clarify more about the significance of the regulation in the frequency combs, especially the role of each of these parameters in the regulation of the frequency combs?

6.     Some related articles that can be discussed in the manuscript: (Optics & Laser Technology 156(2):108592, 2022; Optics Communications 285(6):1356–1361, 2012).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In this manuscript titled “Robust pulse-pumped quadratic soliton assisted by third-order nonlinearity,” Wang et al. propose that the quadratic soliton in a degenerate optical parametric oscillator driven synchronously by the pulse pump with the third-order nonlinearity. Their results verify that the robustness of quadratic soliton generation is enhanced when the system experiences a perturbation from pump power, cavity detuning, and pump pulse width and provide a new way of manipulating frequency comb in resonant microphotonic structures. I would like to bring up the following points (in random order) for consideration by the authors.

1.      In Eq. (3) and Eq. (4), a parameter  is not explained, please explain the practical implication of this parameter so that readers can understand it better.

2.      Is it possible for this device to be rolled out to more integrated chip scale platforms, for example microresonators?

3.      It is suggested that the figures be positioned close to their corresponding text content to improve the convenience of reading?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors corrected and improved the manuscript. I find it suitable for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors should check the whole manuscript before final version for publish.

    1. some spelling and grammar mistake It should be corrected.

    2. The annotation of some figures is modified. (i.e. In temporal domain, It should be "power" rather than "peak power"; In the frequency domain, The "spectrum“ should be replaced by ”intensity“.)

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have made changes to the article, I believe the manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Photonics.