Tunable quantum light by modulated free electrons

Claus Ropers; Rudolf Haindl; Valerio Di Giulio

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Tunable quantum light by modulated free electrons

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 Shaping a free electron's energy spectrum before it emits into a photonic mode lets experimenters synthesize specified quantum light states—squeezed vacuum, cat, and triangular cat—with near-perfect fidelity.

desk verdict Solid new formalism with honest caveats in the text, but the abstract's near-100% fidelity claims rest on an idealized delta-function energy filter that the paper never tests for finite resolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16771 v1 pith:YMAYQUH7 submitted 2025-01-28 quant-ph cond-mat.otherphysics.optics

Valerio Di Giulio , Rudolf Haindl , Claus Ropers This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phcond-mat.otherphysics.optics

keywords quantumlightstatesynthesisfree-electronopticsinelasticelectron-lightscatteringenergypost-selectioncatstatessqueezedvacuumelectroncoherencefactorphotonnumberengineering

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 a theoretical framework that tracks the light emitted when a beam of free electrons, pre-shaped by laser-based inelastic electron-light scattering (IELS), passes a photonic structure, including the effect of an energy filter placed after the interaction. The central result is a closed formula for the output light density matrix and a single-electron identity showing that after a narrow post-selection of an energy sideband, the photon-number amplitudes factor into a coherent-state amplitude times a shifted copy of the electron's energy coefficients. From that identity, the authors argue that any finite-support quantum light state can be synthesized by shaping the electron spectrum, and they demonstrate near-100% fidelity generation of squeezed vacuum, cat, and triangular cat states using a single IELS stage, sometimes with laterally patterned fields. They also show that without post-filtering, N-electron emission statistics can be tuned from Poissonian to super-Poissonian, and that pre-filtering a strongly modulated electron can raise its coherence enough to produce coherent states with roughly 90% purity. A fair reader would care because this points to a practical, single-pass route from standard electron microscopes to tailored nonclassical light.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the input–output relation of Eq. (2): the post-interaction light density matrix is a superposition of coherent states |α + β0 j(z_N)⟩ weighted by the N-electron density matrix and the detector response function F. Here j(z_N) is the ω0-frequency component of the classical current formed by the electrons, β0 is the electron-photon coupling strength, and F represents the post-selection window in final electron momentum. In the single-electron, sharply filtered limit, this collapses to the synthesis identity α_{p,n} ∝ ⟨n|β0⟩ c_{n+s}, where c_ℓ are the energy coefficients imprinted by IELS modulation (for example, Bessel functions J_ℓ(2|β|) for a single stage) and s labels the selected sideband. The projected coherence factor, a momentum-windowed Fourier transform of the electron Wigner function, carries the electron information when the filtering window is finite.

What would settle it

Measure the photon-number distribution or Wigner function of the emitted mode after post-selecting the s-th electron sideband with a tunable energy window δ_d; if the state's purity falls significantly as δ_d σ_t v rises through roughly 1, or the number coefficients deviate from |⟨n|β0⟩ c_{n+s}|² divided by the appropriate normalization, then the pure-state identity of Eq. (11) is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is that electron energy shaping is directly transferable to the photon-number wavefunction of emitted light. In the ideal post-selected limit, Eq. (11) gives α_{p,n} proportional to ⟨n|β0⟩ c_{n+s}: the output state's nth photon amplitude is the product of the coherent-state coefficient at amplitude β0 and the electron's (n+s)th IELS energy coefficient. Because the electron coefficients c_ℓ can be engineered by a single strong IELS interaction, by propagation over Talbot distances, or by laterally patterning the coupling into concentric sectors, this identity becomes a synthesis recipe. A single IELS stage at high coupling naturally supplies Bessel-function coefficients whose asymptotic cosine form recreates a cat state, and optimizing a few patterned sectors yields squeezed and triangular cat states at fidelities near unity. The framework's Eq. (2) also gives the general multi-electron density matrix with arbitrary post-filtering, showing that precise energy measurement purifies the light state even when electron arrival times fluctuate, provided each electron's coherence time spans several optical cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the electron's final energy is post-selected with a filter narrow compared with the inverse electron coherence time while the electron coherence still spans many optical cycles; if real spectrometers cannot be that sharp—and the paper's own examples quote success probabilities as low as 0.1%—the output light state is no longer pure and the quoted fidelities drop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single unstructured IELS stage plus energy post-selection can generate cat states with fidelity near 100% when the coupling |β| is large enough that (n_max+s)^2/2 ≪ |β|, at success probabilities around 1%.
Patterning the IELS field into six concentric sectors allows on-demand synthesis of squeezed vacuum, cat, and triangular cat states with about 99% fidelity and post-selection probabilities between 10% and 0.1%.
Pre-filtering a strongly modulated electron (|β| ≈ 20) over a roughly 20 eV window yields a coherence factor near 0.95 and coherent light with purity around 90%.
Without post-filtering, the emitted light from N modulated electrons can be tuned from Poissonian to super-Poissonian statistics; for vanishing coherence factor the fluctuations approach ΔI²/I ≈ 1 + I_N, the thermal-light signature.
Because the output coefficients factor as ⟨n|β0⟩ c_{n+s}, any light state with finitely supported photon-number coefficients can in principle be synthesized by suitable electron shaping c_ℓ.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper mentions the superradiant N-electron route only as future work; if implemented, the effective coupling Nβ0 could relax the demanding single-electron β0 ≈ 1 requirement and make the scheme accessible to shorter interaction structures.
The purity result relies on σ_t ω0 ≫ 1, so the scheme is most natural at optical and near-infrared frequencies; extending it to THz or microwave modes would require longer-coherence electron sources or a different purification mechanism.
Equation (2) suggests a two-way street: full tomography of the emitted light could in principle reconstruct the N-electron density matrix ρ_e(z_N, z'_N), an inverse use of the same formula that the paper notes but does not pursue.
A quantitative experimental test could map fidelity versus filter width δ_d σ_t v and should show a sharp drop near unity, telling experimenters the energy resolution target needed for each target state.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The first thing you should know: the core of this paper is a genuinely new and compact input-output relation, Eq. (2), for the optical density matrix after N shaped electrons interact with a single mode and are then energy-filtered. The projected coherence factor is a useful concept, and the single-stage schemes for cat, squeezed, and triangular cat states are not in the prior literature. I walked through the derivation of Eq. (2) from the linear Hamiltonian and through the purification limit, Eq. (11). The steps hold; the approximations are stated, and the self-citations point to real prior work.

What the paper does well: it does not hide the cost of its schemes. It reports post-selection probabilities of 10% down to 0.1% and explicitly says the strong quantum features need beta0 > 1, which existing experiments have not reached (the best quoted numbers are about 0.32 and 0.99).

Where it gets soft: the near-100% fidelity figures for cat and squeezed states are computed directly from Eq. (11), which assumes an ideal delta-function post-selection window (Eq. C2 in the limit delta_d sigma_t v << 1 and sigma_t omega0 >> 1). The stress-test note is right: for any finite spectrometer resolution the Erf terms no longer factorize, the density matrix becomes mixed, and the purity drops. The paper quotes success probabilities but never plots fidelity or purity against the filter width delta_d. That is not a minor technical detail because the post-filter is the operation that defines the state. If the finite window cannot be pushed well below the required width at acceptable count rates, the central claim fails. The abstract's 'fidelity close to 100%' is an overstatement without a resolution budget.

Also, the fidelity targets are truncated at n_max=10, so the quoted fidelities are against a finite-support target. The paper acknowledges this in the text, but it means the 99-100% numbers are upper bounds.

Bottom line: the theory is coherent and worth taking seriously; the ideal-limit derivation is correct; the gap is experimental reach, specifically finite filter resolution and beta0 > 1. This is a strong theory paper that needs revision to qualify the headline claims and add a resolution-fidelity curve. It deserves serious peer review.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical framework for the optical state emitted when N pre-modulated free electrons interact linearly with a single optical mode, explicitly including the action of an electron spectrometer for energy post-filtering. The central input-output relation is Eq. (2), which expresses the post-filtered light density matrix as a weighted superposition of coherent states whose amplitudes are determined by multi-electron currents; a number-state representation in terms of projected coherence factors is given in Eq. (6). For a single electron in the limits of narrow post-selection and multi-cycle electron coherence, the authors show that the output purifies and its coefficients factor as alpha_{p,n} proportional to <n|beta0> c_{n+s} (Eq. (11)). This result is used to propose generation of coherent states via pre-filtering, cat states via a single IELS stage, and optimized squeezed-vacuum, cat, and triangular-cat states via laterally patterned IELS with M concentric sectors, with claimed fidelities near 100%. The paper also studies N-electron intensity statistics and identifies regimes of Poissonian and super-Poissonian emission.

Significance. The manuscript has clear strengths: the derivation of Eq. (2) from the linear electron-photon Hamiltonian is self-contained, with the main approximations (no-recoil, single-mode, neglect of the non-resonant phase chi) explicitly stated; Eq. (11) is a simple and testable design rule for converting electron energy shaping into light-state synthesis; and the exact finite-filter expression Eq. (C2) is provided, so the conditions for purity are not hidden. If the idealized filtering limit can be approached at acceptable count rates, the proposed schemes would offer a practical, on-chip-compatible route to nonclassical light from free electrons, and the PCF formalism is a useful contribution for describing post-selected electron-light interactions. The main risk is that the headline 'fidelity close to 100%' claims are computed in the ideal delta-function post-selection limit, while the paper does not provide a resolution budget showing that the required filtering sharpness is compatible with the quoted post-selection probabilities of 0.1% to 10%.

major comments (2)

[Sec. II.C/II.D, Eq. (C2), Eq. (11), Figs. 4-5] Equation (11) is obtained from Eq. (C2) by taking delta_d sigma_t v << 1 and sigma_t omega_0 >> 1, so that the Erf terms factorize and the density matrix becomes pure. All fidelity numbers reported in Figs. 4 and 5 are computed from Eq. (11) via Eq. (C3) and therefore inherit this ideal-filter assumption. For any finite spectrometer window, the off-diagonal elements of rho_p acquire combinations of c_l with l != n + s and the output becomes mixed. Since the paper quotes post-selection probabilities between 10% and 0.1% but never plots fidelity or purity as a function of delta_d, the central claim of 'fidelity close to 100%' is not yet supported under realistic filtering conditions. A resolution budget is needed: the required delta_d (or equivalently the energy width hbar delta_d v) should be compared with achievable spectrometer resolution, and fidelity/purity should be plotted versus delta_d for at least one representative case in Figs. 4 and 5.
[Sec. II.C and Appendix C.2, Eq. (C3)] The statement in Sec. II.C that 'any target light state with finite support can be synthesized through appropriate shaping of the electron energy coefficients c_l' is stronger than what the derivation supports. As the authors themselves note below Eq. (C3), physical electron states require lim_{n->infinity} alpha_{p,n}/<n|beta_0> = 0, so the target coefficients must decay faster than those of a coherent state; otherwise the required c_l are not normalizable. In addition, the optimization in Sec. II.D is restricted to the first n_max = 10 coefficients and to the specific coefficient family of Eq. (12), so the reported near-100% fidelities are fidelities to truncated targets under a restricted ansatz. The abstract and discussion state the general synthesis result without these qualifications; please make the scope explicit wherever the headline claim is made.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (5)] The expression for the coherence factor contains a typographical artifact: M_{m omega_0/v} = i^m sign{sin(2 pi m d / z_T)|}^m (...) has an absolute-value bar and exponent in an unclear position; please rewrite the formula with unambiguous brackets.
[References] Reference [36] is listed as 'Electrons herald non-classical light (2024)' without a journal or arXiv identifier, and reference [39] points to a Supplementary Information that is not included with the manuscript; please complete these citations.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption states 'post-sample asymmetric spectrum above panels (c-e)' and 'symmetric spectrum above panels (h-j)', but the spectra appear in the sketched insets rather than above the Wigner panels; please clarify the layout description.
[Discussion, Sec. III] The phrase 'lambda_e/NA2' should be typeset as lambda_e / NA^2; the current notation is ambiguous.
[Eq. (12)] The prefactor (a/pi) in the definition of c_l is stated to be irrelevant to the optimization, but the normalization convention of c_l is not explicit; please state the normalization condition used after Eq. (12).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the synthesis relation is derived self-contained, and the ideal-filter assumptions are stated idealizations rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central input-output relation is derived in-paper from the linear electron-photon Hamiltonian, leading to Eq. (2), expanded to Eq. (6), simplified to Eq. (8), and reduced to Eq. (11) under the stated limits delta_d sigma_t v << 1 and sigma_t omega_0 >> 1 (Appendix C). The relation alpha_{p,n} proportional to <n|beta_0> c_{n+s} is not definitionally equivalent to the target states; the target states enter only as objective functions in an optimization over IELS parameters. The cat-state formula in Appendix C.2 is obtained from the standard Bessel-function IELS coefficients and an asymptotic expansion, not by fitting to a target. The lateral-IELS coefficient formula Eq. (12) is re-derived from scalar diffraction rather than imported as a uniqueness claim. Self-citations such as [26], [27], and [50] supply standard methods or prior design approaches, but the load-bearing formulas are written out in the paper and are consistent with external literature. The finite post-filter window idealization (Eq. C2, delta_d sigma_t v << 1) is a stated limiting assumption, and the paper explicitly reports low post-selection probabilities; if that assumption fails, the fidelities would degrade, but this is a robustness or correctness issue, not circular reasoning. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formalism adds no free fit parameters; the main ledger entries are domain assumptions about single-mode coupling, no-recoil, uncorrelated electrons, and ideal post-selection, plus design parameters (beta_i, n_max) that set the claimed fidelities.

free parameters (2)

Lateral IELS couplings beta_i (M concentric sectors) = amplitudes and phases in Fig. 7; |beta_i| up to about 14
Chosen by random-search plus steepest-descent optimization to maximize fidelity to truncated target states; they are proposed experimental controls, but the near-100% fidelity claims are conditional on these values being physically realizable.
Truncation order n_max for target light states = 10
Target cat, squeezed, and triangular cat states are truncated to their first n_max Fock coefficients; reported fidelities are against these truncated targets, so '100% fidelity' does not mean exact overlap with the infinite-dimensional states.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption No-recoil approximation and linearized electron dispersion for keV electrons (E0 >> hbar omega0).
Invoked in Appendix A to write the scattering operator as exp[beta0(b a-dagger - b-dagger a)]; standard and well justified in TEM, but a premise of the whole formalism.
domain assumption The photonic structure couples the electron to a single, high-Q optical mode with negligible coupling to other modes.
Needed for single-mode density matrix; phase-matching and spectral isolation are assumed, and strong coupling beta0 >= 1 is not currently demonstrated.
domain assumption For statistical examples, N electrons are uncorrelated with factorizing density matrix.
Used to compute intensity fluctuations and PCF; justified by large temporal spacing, but recent experiments show Coulomb correlations can occur.
domain assumption Electron coherence time sigma_t satisfies sigma_t omega0 >> 1, with incoherent arrival-time distribution of width Delta_t >> sigma_t.
Critical for the purity result under post-filtering (Appendix B, Eq. B6); TEM electrons have coherence times of several optical cycles, but the claim 'regardless of c_l' depends on this.
domain assumption Post-filtering is described by a detector function and can approach a delta function around the selected sideband.
Purity and Eq. (11) use the limit delta_d sigma_t v << 1; finite spectrometer resolution degrades purity, and success probabilities are 0.1-1%.
standard math Bessel function asymptotic expansion J_n(2|beta|) approximately (pi|beta|)^-1/2 cos(2|beta| - n pi/2 - pi/4) for (n_max+s)^2 << 2|beta|.
Used in Appendix C to show natural cat-state formation; standard mathematics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tunable quantum light by modulated free electrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMAYQUH7

@misc{pith2026250116771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tunable quantum light by modulated free electrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMAYQUH7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16771}
}

read the original abstract

Nonclassical states of light are fundamental in various applications, spanning quantum computation to enhanced sensing. Fast free electrons, which emit light into photonic structures through the mechanism of spontaneous emission, represent a promising platform for generating diverse types of states. Indeed, the intrinsic connection between the input electron wave function and the output light field suggests that electron-shaping schemes, based on light-induced scattering, facilitates their synthesis. In this article, we present a theoretical framework capable of predicting the final optical density matrix of a generic N-electron state that can also account for post-sample energy filtering. By using such framework, we study the modulation-dependent fluctuations of the N-electron emission and identify regions of Poissonian and super-Poissonian statistics. In the single-electron case, we show how coherent states with nearly 90% purity can be formed by pre-filtering a portion of the spectrum after modulation, and how non-Gaussian states are generated after a precise energy measurement. Furthermore, we present a strategy combining a single-stage electron modulation and post-filtering to harness tailored light states, such as squeezed vacuum, cat, and triangular cat states, with fidelity close to 100%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16771 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Tomographic reconstruction of free-electron quantum states
quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Reanalysis of archival attosecond electron pulse-train data using maximum likelihood, Bayesian, and deep learning tomography yields pulse durations of 203 to 245 attoseconds, about three times shorter than the origina...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Such fluctuations are responsible for the random arrival times at which the electrons reach the sample plane

PCF for electrons with stochastic arrival times In SEM/TEM, the coherence time of each electron σt is typically several times smaller than its classi- cal (or incoherent) uncertainty ∆ t acquired by the electron ensemble through the random fluctuations of the electron source and of the instrumentation. Such fluctuations are responsible for the random arri...
[2]

Intensity fluctuations generated by N uncorrelated electrons From Eq. (2), we can compute the amount of light emitted IN = ⟨ˆa†ˆa⟩ ≡ ⟨ˆn⟩ and its fluctuations ∆ IN = ⟨ˆn2⟩ − ⟨ˆn⟩2 by N modulated electrons with random times of arrival and large coherence times. This is easily done by utilizing the properties of the coherence state to obtain IN = β2 0 N + N...
[3]

Nelayah, O

J. Nelayah, O. St´ ephan, M. Kociak, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, L. Henrard, I. Pastoriza-Santos, L. M. Liz- Marz´ an, and C. Colliex, Microsc. Microanal.13, 144 (2007)

work page 2007
[4]

Coherence factor of a modulated electron after energy filtering We want now to analyze the CF Mk =´ ∞ −∞ dzρe(z, z) eikz/M0 (the factor M0 has been added for normalizing the electron density matrix), for a modulated Gaussian electron at the exit of an en- ergy filter [ 73]. In order to do it, we firstly need to compute the electron state after the filteri...
[5]

Natural synthesis of cat states after a single unstructured inelastic electron-light scattering (IELS) interaction When an electron traverses an electric field distri- bution ⃗E(r, t) = ⃗E(r)e−iωLt + c.c., arising from the scattering of a laser pulse of photon energy ℏωL onto a nanostructure, its initial wave function ψ0(z, t) un- dergoes inelastic electr...
[6]

Energy coefficients in the interaction region In this section, we report a variation of the method presented in Ref. [ 26] to produce approximated elec- tron energy coefficients cℓ as close as possible to the ones needed to crate a given target light state αtarg n , according to the relation in Eq. (C3). This method leverages a wide electron beam traversi...
[7]

A maximum number of iterations of 2000 for the steepest descent together with 3000 random initial conditions ensured convergence of the results

Optimization method To find the optimal electron states capable of syn- thesizing the quantum light states analyzed in this work, the IELS coefficients βi and the propagation distance d are found by employing a random search al- gorithm combined with a steepest descent method. A maximum number of iterations of 2000 for the steepest descent together with 3...

2000
[8]

O. L. Krivanek, T. C. Lovejoy, N. Dellby, T. Aoki, R. W. Carpenter, P. Rez, E. Soignard, J. Zhu, P. E. Batson, M. J. Lagos, et al., Nature 514, 209 (2014)

2014

Show all 88 references

[9]

F. S. Hage, D. M. Kepaptsoglou, Q. M. Ramasse, and L. J. Allen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 016103 (2019)

2019
[10]

O. L. Krivanek, N. Dellby, J. A. Hachtel, J.-C. Idrobo, M. T. Hotz, B. Plotkin-Swing, N. J. Bacon, A. L. Bleloch, G. J. Corbin, M. V. Hoffman, et al., Ultrami- croscopy 203, 60 (2019)

2019
[11]

Hohenester, H

U. Hohenester, H. Ditlbacher, and J. R. Krenn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 106801 (2009)

2009
[12]

H. Duan, A. I. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, M. Bosman, S. A. Maier, and J. K. W. Yang, Nano Lett. 12, 1683 (2012)

2012
[13]

Krehl, G

J. Krehl, G. Guzzinati, J. Schultz, P. Potapov, D. Pohl, J. Martin, J. Verbeeck, A. Fery, B. B¨ uchner, and A. Lubk, Nat. Commun. 9, 4207 (2018)

2018
[14]

N. Li, X. Guo, X. Yang, R. Qi, T. Qiao, Y. Li, R. Shi, Y. Li, K. Liu, Z. Xu, et al., Nat. Mater. 20, 43 (2021)

2021
[15]

D. T. L. Alexander, V. Flauraud, and F. Demming- Jansen, ACS Nano 15, 16501 (2021)

2021
[16]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 209 (2010)

2010
[17]

Meuret, H

S. Meuret, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, W. S´ ebastien, F. Houdellier, and A. Arnaud, ACS Photonics 11, 977 (2024)

2024
[18]

Barwick, D

B. Barwick, D. J. Flannigan, and A. H. Zewail, Nature 462, 902 (2009)

2009
[19]

and transverse [20, 21] full three-dimensional wave function of an electron beam (e-beam). In this con- text, a general IELS interaction with laser frequency ωL near a plane positioned at z along the propagation axis, brings an electron traveling with velocity v into the super...

2025 arXiv
[20]

S. T. Park, M. Lin, and A. H. Zewail, New J. Phys. 12, 123028 (2010)

2010
[21]

Henke, A

J.-W. Henke, A. S. Raja, A. Feist, G. Huang, G. Arend, Y. Yang, F. J. Kappert, R. N. Wang, M. M¨ oller, J. Pan, et al., Nature 600, 653 (2021)

2021
[22]

Kurman, R

Y. Kurman, R. Dahan, H. H. Sheinfux, K. Wang, M. Yannai, Y. Adiv, O. Reinhardt, L. H. G. Tizei, S. Y. Woo, J. Li, et al., Science 372, 1181 (2021)

2021
[23]

Y. Auad, E. J. C. Dias, M. Tenc´ e, J.-D. Blazit, X. Li, L. F. Zagone, O. St´ ephan, L. H. G. Tizei, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and M. Kociak, Nat. Commun. 14, 4442 (2023)

2023
[24]

J. H. Gaida, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, M. Sivis, T. Rittmann, A. Feist, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and C. Ropers, Nat. Photon. 18, 509 (2024)

2024
[25]

Yang, J.-W

Y. Yang, J.-W. Henke, A. S. Raja, F. J. Kappert, G. Huang, G. Arend, Z. Qiu, A. Feist, R. N. Wang, A. Tusnin, et al., Science 383, 168 (2024)

2024
[26]

Feist, K

A. Feist, K. E. Echternkamp, J. Schauss, S. V. Yalunin, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, Nature521, 200 (2015)

2015
[27]

G. M. Vanacore, G. Berruto, I. Madan, E. Pomarico, P. Biagioni, R. J. Lamb, D. McGrouther, O. Reinhardt, I. Kaminer, B. Barwick, et al., Nat. Mater. 18, 573 (2019)

2019
[28]

Y. Fang, J. Kuttruff, D. Nabben, and P. Baum, Science 385, 183 (2024)

2024
[29]

K. E. Priebe, C. Rathje, S. V. Yalunin, T. Hohage, A. Feist, S. Sch¨ afer, and C. Ropers, Nat. Photon.11, 793 (2017)

2017
[30]

Koz´ ak, N

M. Koz´ ak, N. Sch¨ onenberger, and P. Hommelhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 103203 (2018)

2018
[31]

Morimoto and P

Y. Morimoto and P. Baum, Nat. Phys. 14, 252 (2018)

2018
[32]

S. V. Yalunin, A. Feist, and C. Ropers, Phys. Rev. Research 3, L032036 (2021)

2021
[33]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo and C. Ropers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 246901 (2023)

2023
[34]

Di Giulio and F

V. Di Giulio and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Optica 7, 1820 (2020)

2020
[35]

Di Giulio, M

V. Di Giulio, M. Kociak, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Optica 6, 1524 (2019)

2019
[36]

Karnieli, S

A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, Z. Zhao, A. Arie, S. Fan, and I. Kaminer, Science Advances 9, eadd2349 (2023)

2023
[37]

Abad-Arredondo and A

J. Abad-Arredondo and A. I. Fern´ andez-Dom ´ ınguez, Nanophotonics 13, 2015 (2024)

2024
[38]

A. B. Hayun, O. Reinhardt, J. Nemirovsky, A. Karnieli, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Sci. Adv. 7, eabe4270 (2021)

2021
[39]

Kfir, Phys

O. Kfir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 103602 (2019)

2019
[40]

Di Giulio and F

V. Di Giulio and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Nanophotonics 11, 4659 (2022)

2022
[41]

X. M. Benda˜ na, A. Polman, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, Nano Lett. 11, 5099 (2011)

2011
[42]

Feist, G

A. Feist, G. Huang, G. Arend, Y. Yang, J.-W. Henke, A. S. Raja, F. J. Kappert, R. N. Wang, H. Louren¸ co- Martins, Z. Qiu, et al., Science 377, 777 (2022)

2022
[43]

Arend, G

G. Arend, G. Huang, A. Feist, Y. Yang, J.-W. Henke, Z. Qiu, H. Jeng, A. S. Raja, R. Haindl, R. N. Wang, et al., Electrons herald non-classical light(2024)

2024
[44]

Gottesman, A

D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, and J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012310 (2001)

2001
[45]

Dahan, G

R. Dahan, G. Baranes, A. Gorlach, R. Ruimy, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Phys. Rev. X 13, 031001 (2023)

2023
[46]

See Supplementary Information for further details
[47]

Di Giulio, O

V. Di Giulio, O. Kfir, C. Ropers, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, ACS Nano 15, 7290 (2021)

2021
[48]

Di Giulio, E

V. Di Giulio, E. Akerboom, and A. P. F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, ACS Nano 18, 14255 (2024)

2024
[49]

Di Giulio and F

V. Di Giulio and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, New J. Phys. 22, 103057 (2020)

2020
[50]

O. Kfir, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, G. Storeck, M. Sivis, T. R. Harvey, T. J. Kippenberg, A. Feist, and C. Rop- ers, Nature 582, 46 (2020)

2020
[51]

Y. Adiv, H. Hu, S. Tsesses, R. Dahan, K. Wang, Y. Kurman, A. Gorlach, H. Chen, X. Lin, G. Bartal, et al., Phys. Rev. X 13, 011002 (2023)

2023
[52]

Aguilar, H

F. Aguilar, H. Louren¸ co-Martins, D. Montero, X. Li, M. Kociak, and A. Campos, J. Phys. Chem. C 127, 22252 (2023)

2023
[53]

Akerboom, V

E. Akerboom, V. Di Giulio, N. J. Schilder, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and A. Polman, ACS Nano 18, 13560 (2024)

2024
[54]

Kumar, J

S. Kumar, J. Lim, N. Rivera, W. Wong, Y. S. Ang, L. K. Ang, and L. J. Wong, Science Advances 10, eadm9563 (2024)

2024
[55]

Karnieli, N

A. Karnieli, N. Rivera, A. Arie, and I. Kaminer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 060403 (2021)

2021
[56]

Haindl, A

R. Haindl, A. Feist, T. Domr¨ ose, M. M¨ oller, J. H. Gaida, S. V. Yalunin, and C. Ropers, Nat. Phys. 19, 1410 (2023)

2023
[57]

F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo and V. Di Giulio, ACS Photonics 8, 945 (2021)

2021
[58]

O. Kfir, V. Di Giulio, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and C. Ropers, Sci. Adv. 7, eabf6380 (2021)

2021
[59]

Schwarz and H

H. Schwarz and H. Hora, Appl. Phys. Lett. 15, 249 (1969)

1969
[60]

Gover, Phys

A. Gover, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 8, 030701 (2005). 17

2005
[61]

Gover, E

A. Gover, E. Dyunin, Y. Lurie, Y. Pinhasi, and M. V. Krongauz, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 8, 030702 (2005)

2005
[62]

W. P. Leemans, C. G. R. Geddes, J. Faure, C. T´ oth, J. Van Tilborg, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, G. Fubiani, D. Auerbach, B. Marcelis, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 074802 (2003)

2003
[63]

Bonifacio and F

R. Bonifacio and F. Casagrande, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B2 2, 250 (1985)

1985
[64]

Bonifacio and F

R. Bonifacio and F. Casagrande, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelera- tors, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment 239, 36 (1985)

1985
[65]

H. P. Freund and T. M. A. Jr., Principles of Free Electron Lasers(Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2018)

2018
[66]

Zhang, R

B. Zhang, R. Ianconescu, A. Friedman, J. Scheuer, M. Tokman, Y. Pan, and A. Gover, Reports on Progress in Physics 88, 017601 (2024)

2024
[67]

Wigner, Phys

E. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

1932
[68]

S. T. Park, O.-H. Kwon, and A. H. Zewail, New Jour- nal of Physics 14, 053046 (2012)

2012
[69]

F. O. Kirchner, A. Gliserin, F. Krausz, and P. Baum, Nat. Photon. 8, 52 (2014)

2014
[70]

Feist, N

A. Feist, N. Bach, T. D. N. Rubiano da Silva, M. M¨ aller, K. E. Priebe, T. Domr¨ ase, J. G. Gatzmann, S. Rost, J. Schauss, S. Strauch, et al., Ultramicroscopy 176, 63 (2017)

2017
[71]

Haindl, V

R. Haindl, V. D. Giulio, A. Feist, and C. Ropers, arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.09044 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[72]

Zhao, X.-Q

Z. Zhao, X.-Q. Sun, and S. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 233402 (2021)

2021
[73]

Mandel and E

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quan- tum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)

1995
[74]

Chergui and A

M. Chergui and A. H. Zewail, ChemPhysChem 10, 28 (2009)

2009
[75]

P. K. Suri and D. J. Flannigan, Chem. Mater. 27, 3178 (2015)

2015
[76]

P. Baum, J. Appl. Phys. 122, 223105 (2017)

2017
[77]

Aharonov, D

Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 1351 (1988)

1988
[78]

Dahan, S

R. Dahan, S. Nehemia, M. Shentcis, O. Reinhardt, Y. Adiv, X. Shi, O. Be’er, M. H. Lynch, Y. Kurman, K. Wang, et al., Nat. Phys. 16, 1123 (2020)

2020
[79]

Koz´ ak, T

M. Koz´ ak, T. Eckstein, N. Sch¨ onenberger, and P. Hom- melhoff, Nat. Phys. 14, 121 (2018)

2018
[80]

Tsuno and D

K. Tsuno and D. Ioanoviciu, Chapter Six - Applica- tion of Wien Filters to Electrons, vol. 176 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2013)

2013
[81]

Verbeeck, D

J. Verbeeck, D. Van Dyck, and G. Van Tendeloo, Spectrochimica Acta Part B: Atomic Spectroscopy 59, 1529 (2004)

2004
[82]

H. Yan, T. Low, W. Zhu, Y. Wu, M. Freitag, X. Li, F. Guinea, P. Avouris, and F. Xia, Nat. Photon. 7, 394 (2013)

2013
[83]

R. Yu, J. D. Cox, J. R. M. Saavedra, and F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, ACS Photonics 4, 3106 (2017)

2017
[84]

Remez, A

R. Remez, A. Karnieli, S. Trajtenberg-Mills, N. Shapira, I. Kaminer, Y. Lereah, and A. Arie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 060401 (2019)

2019
[85]

Pan and A

Y. Pan and A. Gover, J. Phys. Commun. 2, 115026 (2018)

2018
[86]

Abramowitz and I

M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Math- ematical Functions (Dover, New York, 1972)

1972
[87]

C. J. Bouwkamp, Rep. Prog. Phys. 17, 35 (1954)

1954
[88]

I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products(Academic Press, London, 2007)

2007

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Such fluctuations are responsible for the random arrival times at which the electrons reach the sample plane

PCF for electrons with stochastic arrival times In SEM/TEM, the coherence time of each electron σt is typically several times smaller than its classi- cal (or incoherent) uncertainty ∆ t acquired by the electron ensemble through the random fluctuations of the electron source and of the instrumentation. Such fluctuations are responsible for the random arri...

[2] [2]

Intensity fluctuations generated by N uncorrelated electrons From Eq. (2), we can compute the amount of light emitted IN = ⟨ˆa†ˆa⟩ ≡ ⟨ˆn⟩ and its fluctuations ∆ IN = ⟨ˆn2⟩ − ⟨ˆn⟩2 by N modulated electrons with random times of arrival and large coherence times. This is easily done by utilizing the properties of the coherence state to obtain IN = β2 0 N + N...

[3] [3]

Nelayah, O

J. Nelayah, O. St´ ephan, M. Kociak, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, L. Henrard, I. Pastoriza-Santos, L. M. Liz- Marz´ an, and C. Colliex, Microsc. Microanal.13, 144 (2007)

work page 2007

[4] [4]

Coherence factor of a modulated electron after energy filtering We want now to analyze the CF Mk =´ ∞ −∞ dzρe(z, z) eikz/M0 (the factor M0 has been added for normalizing the electron density matrix), for a modulated Gaussian electron at the exit of an en- ergy filter [ 73]. In order to do it, we firstly need to compute the electron state after the filteri...

[5] [5]

Natural synthesis of cat states after a single unstructured inelastic electron-light scattering (IELS) interaction When an electron traverses an electric field distri- bution ⃗E(r, t) = ⃗E(r)e−iωLt + c.c., arising from the scattering of a laser pulse of photon energy ℏωL onto a nanostructure, its initial wave function ψ0(z, t) un- dergoes inelastic electr...

[6] [6]

Energy coefficients in the interaction region In this section, we report a variation of the method presented in Ref. [ 26] to produce approximated elec- tron energy coefficients cℓ as close as possible to the ones needed to crate a given target light state αtarg n , according to the relation in Eq. (C3). This method leverages a wide electron beam traversi...

[7] [7]

A maximum number of iterations of 2000 for the steepest descent together with 3000 random initial conditions ensured convergence of the results

Optimization method To find the optimal electron states capable of syn- thesizing the quantum light states analyzed in this work, the IELS coefficients βi and the propagation distance d are found by employing a random search al- gorithm combined with a steepest descent method. A maximum number of iterations of 2000 for the steepest descent together with 3...

2000

[8] [8]

O. L. Krivanek, T. C. Lovejoy, N. Dellby, T. Aoki, R. W. Carpenter, P. Rez, E. Soignard, J. Zhu, P. E. Batson, M. J. Lagos, et al., Nature 514, 209 (2014)

2014