Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Ghost Imaging with Free Electron-Photon Pairs

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Ghost imaging inside a transmission electron microscope reconstructs complex patterns from electron–photon coincidences at about 2-micrometer resolution.

desk verdict First 2D ghost image from electron-photon pairs in a TEM, with a credible few-micron resolution; needs a direct PSF check and a toned-down 'quantum' label before it's solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.14950 v3 pith:UW2JWT3Y submitted 2025-09-18 quant-ph physics.optics

Sergei Bogdanov , Alexander Preimesberger , Harsh Mishra , Dominik Hornof , Thomas Spielauer , Florian Thajer , Max Maurer , Pia Falb
show 6 more authors
Leo Stöger Thomas Schachinger Friedrich Bleicher Michael S. Seifner Isobel C. Bicket Philipp Haslinger
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords ghostimagingcoincidencecathodoluminescencetransitionradiationtransmissionelectronmicroscopyelectron-photonpairsquantumtime-correlatedsingle-photoncounting
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

The paper sets out to show that ghost imaging—reconstructing an image from correlations between two particles, only one of which has touched the object—can be carried out inside a transmission electron microscope using an electron and the single photon it emits. The authors generate electron–cathodoluminescence photon pairs from a thin silicon membrane, place a transmission mask in the photon path, and use time-stamped coincidence filtering to keep only electrons whose partner photon passed through the mask. They reconstruct the mask shape with a spatial resolution of 2.03 ± 0.06 micrometers, including fine features of a cat-shaped pattern. If correct, this is the first two-dimensional ghost image formed by an electron and its corresponding photon, and it extends quantum-optics imaging techniques into electron microscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electron–cathodoluminescence photon pair generated by transition radiation in a thin silicon membrane. Because the photon is emitted from the exact electron entrance/exit point, the photon's position in the optical image plane is a proxy for the electron's position in the sample plane. The experiment isolates these pairs by energy filtering the electrons to 2-3 eV loss and by requiring photon and electron detection times to match within ±25 ns, removing uncorrelated background. A parabolic mirror with numerical aperture about 0.58, a free-space optical relay, and a transmission mask in the photon image plane turn 'did the photon pass?' into a binary spatial tes

What would settle it

Remove the mask and record the photon image on a camera simultaneously with the position-resolved electron detection. If the conditional spread of photon position given electron position is larger than the 0.87 µm standard deviation implied by the fitted point-spread function, then the claimed 2 µm resolution cannot be attributed to the electron–photon correlation and must come from something else, such as the optics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that transition-radiation cathodoluminescence photons carry a tight position correlation with the electron that emitted them—the photon is emitted from the precise point where the electron enters or exits the membrane—and that this correlation is strong enough to form a useful two-dimensional image. A 200 keV electron beam passes through a 50 nm silicon membrane; the emitted photons are collected by a parabolic mirror and imaged onto a mask, so a photon reaching the bucket detector tells which spatial region the parent electron passed through. The electrons are energy-filtered to select those that lost 2-3 eV (i.e., emitted a visible photon) and detected on a position-re

Load-bearing premise

The entire reconstruction relies on the assumption, taken from earlier work rather than measured in this experiment, that the cathodoluminescence photon is emitted from the precise point where the electron enters or exits the membrane, so that the photon's position faithfully reports the electron's position; if that correlation were not tight, the ghost image would blur or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The technique produces the first two-dimensional quantum ghost image of a non-trivial mask inside a TEM, with enough resolution to resolve the cat's eyes, ears, and tail (features of order a few micrometers on the sample).
  • Because only the photon touches the mask and only the electron is spatially resolved, the image is formed without placing any absorber in the electron path, a property relevant for radiation-sensitive samples.
  • Energy filtering and coincidence selection suppress background from electrons that did not emit a photon, improving signal-to-noise and allowing higher beam currents and shorter acquisition times.
  • Adaptive masks (e.g., digital micromirror devices) and spatially resolved photon detection should allow post-selection shaping of electron wave functions, with implications for programmed and low-dose imaging.
  • The electron optics contribution to blur is negligible compared with the photon optics, so resolution gains are expected from improving the photon collection path.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The stated resolution is set at the TEM sample plane, but the mask is in the photon image plane; if the electron–photon position correlation is tighter than the measured 0.87 µm standard deviation, then the 2 µm resolution is dominated by aberrations in the parabolic mirror and relay optics, so better optics should improve the image directly.
  • Editorial inference: The paper does not measure the joint position correlation itself; one could test the scheme's premise by imaging the photon beam onto a camera while simultaneously recording electron positions with the mask removed, and checking that the conditional photon-position spread matches the fit.
  • Editorial inference: The ±25 ns coincidence window and 50 ns timing resolution mean the demonstrated pairs are not shown to be quantum-correlated in a way that violates classical bounds; the same imaging protocol would likely work with classically correlated pairs, so the 'quantum' enhancement aspect remains a separate question the paper does not settle.
  • Editorial inference: A natural next experiment would replace the static cat mask with a programmable spatial light modulator, enabling rapid switching and computational post-selection schemes without re-aligning the microscope.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a coincidence (ghost) imaging experiment using electron–cathodoluminescence photon pairs in a transmission electron microscope. A 200 keV electron beam passes through a 50 nm Si membrane; the emitted CL photons are collected by a custom parabolic mirror, transmitted through a mask in an external image plane, and detected by a single-photon counting module. The transmitted electrons are energy-filtered and detected by a time-stamped Timepix3 camera. Coincidence filtering between electron and photon timestamps reconstructs the mask pattern in the electron image. The authors demonstrate a clear ghost image of a cat-shaped mask and quantify the resolution with a grating target fitted by a Gaussian PSF model, obtaining 2.03 ± 0.06 μm FWHM. They claim this is the first two-dimensional ghost image formed from the spatial correlations between an electron and its corresponding photon.

Significance. The central qualitative claim—that coincidence selection of electron–photon pairs reconstructs a complex 2D pattern—is well supported by the cat image and the grating line structure. The experiment integrates a substantial custom apparatus (parabolic mirror, optical viewport, energy filter, Timepix3 detector) and collects more than 10^5 coincidence events. The resolution claim, however, rests on a fit with several open parameters and on an inherited assumption about the electron–photon position correlation. The resolution figure is an output, not an input, and should be substantiated by a direct PSF measurement or a robustness analysis. If confirmed, the work is a meaningful step toward quantum-inspired imaging in electron microscopy.

major comments (2)
  1. [RESULTS / Fig. 3] The reported FWHM of 2.03 ± 0.06 μm is obtained by convolving an ideal grating image with a Gaussian PSF and fitting the model with several free parameters, including 'the precise location of the sample relative to the mirror and the standard deviation of the Gaussian function' as well as distortion parameters. The paper does not present a model-independent measurement of the joint electron-photon point-spread function, e.g., a pinhole or sharp-edge ghost-image scan. A broader intrinsic correlation could be absorbed by other fit parameters, so the quoted statistical uncertainty likely underestimates the systematic error. Please add a direct PSF measurement or a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the fitted σ is robust to parameter degeneracy.
  2. [Experimental Setup / Fig. 1] The key assumption that the CL photon is emitted from the precise point at which the electron enters or exits the membrane is stated but not tested in this manuscript; it is inherited from refs. [18,42]. Because the resolution claim is presented at the TEM sample plane and linked to the joint electron-photon state, this assumption is load-bearing. An in-situ verification (e.g., imaging a small emitter or pinhole target in coincidence) would remove the risk of circularity in relying on a fitted model to validate the correlation width.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Results] The g(2)(τ) temporal cross-correlation function is mentioned but never defined. Please provide a definition or equation, and state the coincidence window explicitly in relation to the histogram in Fig. 1(C).
  2. [Fig. 3(A)] The caption states that the image was rotated and smoothed with a Gaussian filter for presentation after fitting. Please specify the rotation angle and the smoothing kernel width, and clarify that the fit was performed on the unprocessed data.
  3. [Results] The demagnification factor is quoted as ~19× for the cat mask and 16× for the grating target. The discrepancy is not explained; please clarify whether this arises from different mask-to-mirror distances or an effective optical magnification.
  4. [Conclusion] The phrase 'quantum ghost images' is used without defining the nonclassical character of the electron-photon pairs. If the term is intended loosely, consider rephrasing to 'coincidence ghost imaging' or add a sentence justifying the quantum terminology.
  5. [References] Ref. [42] is cited as an arXiv preprint for the back-projection model and post-processing. If this work has been published or updated, please update the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ghost image is formed by coincidence selection and the resolution is a fitted output, not an input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the demonstration of two-dimensional ghost imaging with electron-photon pairs. The image reconstruction is not parameterized by any fitted quantity: electron positions are time-correlated with bucket-detected photons, and the coincidence-filtered electron image displays the mask pattern directly (Fig. 2). The resolution value 2.03±0.06 µm is obtained by fitting a Gaussian point-spread function convolved with the known grating target to the measured ghost image; it is an output of a standard calibration procedure, not an input that forces the conclusion. The strong electron-photon position correlation is invoked from prior work [18,42], but the present data independently evidence the correlation: the cat and grating patterns appear only in the coincidence-filtered electron images, demonstrating spatial correlation between electron and photon positions. The back-projection model from [42] is a supporting analysis tool for quantifying resolution, not the target result. No equation in the paper reduces to its own inputs, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Concerns about whether the position correlation is tight enough are empirical robustness questions, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard physics of transition radiation and on prior work by the same group [18,42]. No new physical entities are postulated. The resolution value is a fitted parameter rather than a first-principles prediction.

free parameters (2)
  • Gaussian PSF standard deviation (resolution fit) = 0.87 +/- 0.03 um (FWHM 2.03 +/- 0.06 um)
    The resolved line spread is modeled as a Gaussian and its standard deviation is left open in the least-absolute error fit to the grating data (Results, 'To derive the ideal target image...').
  • Back-projection model parameters (sample-mirror location etc.) = not specified
    Several parameters describing the precise location of the sample relative to the mirror and the mirror distortion model are optimized in the fit and not reported (Results).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Transition radiation from a swift electron in a thin membrane produces a CL photon emitted from the precise point of electron entry/exit, giving strong spatial correlation.
    Invoked in the abstract and Experimental Setup to justify the ghost imaging mechanism; the correlation is not directly verified in this paper but is supported by prior work [18,42].
  • domain assumption Energy filtering (2-3 eV loss) and a +/-25 ns coincidence window isolate single electron-photon pairs from the same emission event, rejecting uncorrelated background.
    Described in Experimental Setup; the effectiveness is inferred from the resulting image but not quantified with a background model.
  • domain assumption The analytical back-projection model of [42] correctly describes the photon optical system including parabolic mirror distortions.
    Used in Results to derive the ideal grating image for the resolution fit; the paper states the model is 'as described in [42]' without re-deriving it.
  • domain assumption The electron optics of the TEM project the electron wave function to the detector plane with negligible distortion.
    Taken for granted in the Experimental Setup and Conclusion; standard for TEM, not tested here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ghost Imaging with Free Electron-Photon Pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UW2JWT3Y

@misc{pith2026250914950,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ghost Imaging with Free Electron-Photon Pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UW2JWT3Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.14950}
}
abstract

Coincidence imaging, also known as ghost imaging, is a technique that exploits correlations between two particles to reconstruct information about a specimen. The particle that relays the spatial information about the object remains completely non-interacting, while the particle used to probe the object is not spatially resolved. While ghost imaging has been primarily implemented on photonic platforms, it becomes particularly intriguing when applied to particles with fundamentally different properties, such as massive, charged electrons and massless, neutral photons, especially considering the role of both particles as cornerstones of highly advanced microscopic platforms. In this work, we investigate coincidence imaging using electron-cathodoluminescence photon pairs generated within a transmission electron microscope. Utilizing a custom-built free-space cathodoluminescence setup, we demonstrate ghost imaging of complex patterns. We are able to obtain a spatial resolution down to 2 $\mu$m, paving the way for adaptation of quantum-enhanced imaging techniques from photonic quantum optics to electron microscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.14950 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experimental setup for electron-photon pair coincidence (ghost) imaging. (A) Schematic of a TEM equipped with an electron energy filter (spectrometer). A 200 keV electron beam interacts with a 50 nm thick silicon membrane, generating correlated electron-CL photon pairs. For ghost imaging, we exploit the strong position correlation of the transition radiation CL photon, which is emitted from the precise point at whic… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cat ghost images. (A) Raw electron beam image recorded on the TP3 electron detector. (B) Ghost image of the cat-shaped mask, reconstructed from electron-photon coincidences. Due to the optical system the cat shaped mask is demagnified by a factor of ∼ 19 on the electron sample plane. (C) Scanning Electron Microscope image of the fabricated cat-shaped transmission mask. or contamination deposited on the membrane samp… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

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

  1. Studying electron beam coherence using plasmon interference

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cathodoluminescence from different lateral regions of an extended electron beam adds incoherently, while a single electron can coherently excite two nearby pillars; a quantum eraser geometry is proposed to restore int...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [42]

    Preimesberger, S

    A. Preimesberger, S. Bogdanov, I. C. Bicket, P. Rembold, and P. Haslinger, Experimental Ver- ification of Electron-Photon Entanglement (2025), arXiv:2504.13163 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Reimer and H

    L. Reimer and H. Kohl,Transmission Electron Mi- croscopy: Physics of Image Formation, Springer Series in Optical Sciences (Springer, New York, 2008)

    2008

  3. [2]

    Ishikawa, S

    R. Ishikawa, S. Morishita, T. Tanigaki, N. Shibata, and Y. Ikuhara, Microscopy72, 78 (2022)

    2022

  4. [3]

    D. A. Muller, L. F. Kourkoutis, M. Murfitt, J. H. Song, H. Y. Hwang, J. Silcox, N. Dellby, and O. L. Krivanek, Science319, 1073 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    Suenaga, M

    K. Suenaga, M. Tencé, C. Mory, C. Colliex, H. Kato, T. Okazaki, H. Shinohara, K. Hirahara, S. Bandow, and S. Iijima, Science290, 2280 (2000)

    2000

  6. [5]

    Varela, S

    M. Varela, S. D. Findlay, A. R. Lupini, H. M. Chris- ten, A. Y. Borisevich, N. Dellby, O. L. Krivanek, P. D. Nellist, M. P. Oxley, L. J. Allen, and S. J. Pennycook, Physical Review Letters92, 095502 (2004)

    2004

  7. [6]

    Löffler, M

    S. Löffler, M. Bugnet, N. Gauquelin, S. Lazar, E. Ass- mann, K. Held, G. A. Botton, and P. Schattschneider, Ultramicroscopy177, 26 (2017)

    2017

  8. [7]

    Bugnet, M

    M. Bugnet, M. Ederer, V. K. Lazarov, L. Li, Q. M. Ramasse, S. Löffler, and D. M. Kepaptsoglou, Physical Review Letters128, 116401 (2022)

    2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    Llopart, J

    X. Llopart, J. Alozy, R. Ballabriga, M. Campbell, R. Casanova, V. Gromov, E. Heijne, T. Poikela, E. Santin, V. Sriskaran, L. Tlustos, and A. Vitkovskiy, Journal of Instrumentation17, C01044 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    A.H.Zewail,TheJournalofPhysicalChemistryA104, 5660 (2000)

    2000

  3. [10]

    J. H. Gaida, H. Lourenço-Martins, M. Sivis, T. Rittmann, A. Feist, F. J. García de Abajo, and C. Ropers, Nature Photonics18, 509 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Baum and A

    P. Baum and A. H. Zewail, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences104, 18409 (2007). 6

    2007

  5. [12]

    Solà-Garcia, K

    M. Solà-Garcia, K. W. Mauser, M. Liebtrau, T. Co- enen, S. Christiansen, S. Meuret, and A. Polman, ACS Photonics8, 916 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    Varkentina, Y

    N. Varkentina, Y. Auad, S. Y. Woo, A. Zobelli, L. Bocher, J.-D. Blazit, X. Li, M. Tencé, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi, O. Stéphan, M. Kociak, and L. H. G. Tizei, Science Advances8, eabq4947 (2022)

    2022

  7. [14]

    Varkentina, Y

    N. Varkentina, Y. Auad, S. Y. Woo, F. Castioni, J.-D. Blazit, M. Tencé, H.-C. Chang, J. Chen, K. Watan- abe, T. Taniguchi,et al., Applied Physics Letters123, 223502 (2023)

    2023

  8. [15]

    Yanagimoto, N

    S. Yanagimoto, N. Yamamoto, T. Yuge, H. Saito, K. Akiba, and T. Sannomiya, Communications Physics 6, 260 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Meuret, L

    S. Meuret, L. H. G. Tizei, T. Auzelle, R. Songmuang, B. Daudin, B. Gayral, and M. Kociak, ACS Photonics 3, 1157 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    F. J. G. d. Abajo, A. Polman, C. I. Velasco, M. Kociak, L. H. G. Tizei, O. Stéphan, S. Meuret, T. Sannomiya, K. Akiba, Y. Auad, A. Feist, C. Ropers, P. Baum, J. H. Gaida, M. Sivis, H. Lourenço-Martins, L. Ser- afini, J. Verbeeck, B. M. Ferrari, C. J. R. Duncan, M. G. Bravi, I....

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Preimesberger, D

    A. Preimesberger, D. Hornof, T. Dorfner, T. Schachinger, M. Hrtoň, A. Konečná, and P. Haslinger, Physical Review Letters134, 096901 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    T. R. Harvey, N. Rubiano da Silva, J. H. Gaida, M. Möller, A. Feist, S. Schäfer, and C. Ropers, MRS Bulletin46, 711 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    C. Liu, F. Ai, S. Reisbick, A. Zong, A. Pofelski, M.- G. Han, F. Camino, C. Jing, V. Lomakin, and Y. Zhu, Nature Materials24, 406 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    Weßels, S

    T. Weßels, S. Däster, Y. Murooka, B. Zingsem, V. Mi- gunov, M. Kruth, S. Finizio, P.-H. Lu, A. Kovács, A. Oelsner, K. Müller-Caspary, Y. Acremann, and R. E. Dunin-Borkowski,Ultramicroscopy233,113392(2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Jaroš, J

    A. Jaroš, J. Toyfl, A. Pupić, B. Czasch, G. Boero, I. C. Bicket, and P. Haslinger, Electron spin resonance spec- troscopy in a transmission electron microscope (2024), arXiv:2408.16492 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Feist, G

    A. Feist, G. Huang, G. Arend, Y. Yang, J.-W. Henke, A. S. Raja, F. J. Kappert, R. N. Wang, H. Lourenço- Martins, Z. Qiu,et al., Science377, 777 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Meuret, L

    S. Meuret, L. H. G. Tizei, F. Houdellier, S. We- ber, Y. Auad, M. Tencé, H.-C. Chang, M. Kociak, and A. Arbouet, Applied Physics Letters119, 062106 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    R. F. Egerton, P. Li, and M. Malac, Micron Interna- tional Wuhan Symposium on Advanced Electron Mi- croscopy,35, 399 (2004)

    2004

  19. [26]

    Q. Chen, C. Dwyer, G. Sheng, C. Zhu, X. Li, C. Zheng, and Y. Zhu, Advanced Materials32, 1907619 (2020)

    2020

  20. [27]

    Nogales and J

    E. Nogales and J. Mahamid, Nature628, 47 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Guaita, S

    M. Guaita, S. C. Watters, and S. Loerch, Current Opin- ion in Structural Biology77, 102484 (2022)

    2022

  22. [29]

    Pirandola, B

    S. Pirandola, B. R. Bardhan, T. Gehring, C. Weed- brook, and S. Lloyd, Nature Photonics12, 724 (2018)

    2018

  23. [30]

    Moreau, E

    P.-A. Moreau, E. Toninelli, T. Gregory, and M. J. Pad- gett, Nature Review Physics1, 367 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Defienne, W

    H. Defienne, W. P. Bowen, M. Chekhova, G. B. Lemos, D. Oron, S. Ramelow, N. Treps, and D. Faccio, Nature Photonics18, 1024 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole, S. Ramelow, R. Lapkiewicz, and A. Zeilinger, Nature512, 409 (2014)

    2014

  26. [33]

    X. Y. Zou, L. J. Wang, and L. Mandel, Physical Review Letters67, 318 (1991)

    1991

  27. [34]

    Slussarenko, M

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, Nature Photonics11, 700 (2017)

    2017

  28. [35]

    H. Yu, J. Park, K. Lee, J. Yoon, K. Kim, S. Lee, and Y. Park, Current Applied Physics15, 632 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    Rembold, S

    P. Rembold, S. Beltrán-Romero, A. Preimesberger, S. Bogdanov, I. C. Bicket, N. Friis, E. Agudelo, D. Rätzel, and P. Haslinger, Quantum Science and Technology10, 045003 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    S. A. Koppell, Y. Israel, A. J. Bowman, B. B. Klopfer, and M. A. Kasevich, Applied Physics Letters120, 190502 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Kruit, R

    P. Kruit, R. G. Hobbs, C.-S. Kim, Y. Yang, V. R. Man- frinato, J. Hammer, S. Thomas, P. Weber, B. Klopfer, C. Kohstall, T. Juffmann, M. A. Kasevich, P. Hom- melhoff, and K. K. Berggren, Ultramicroscopy164, 31 (2016)

    2016

  32. [39]

    Mechel, Y

    C. Mechel, Y. Kurman, A. Karnieli, N. Rivera, A. Arie, and I. Kaminer, Optica8, 70 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    Shiloh, T

    R. Shiloh, T. Chlouba, and P. Hommelhoff, Physical Review Letters128, 235301 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    Henke, H

    J.-W. Henke, H. Jeng, and C. Ropers, Physical Review A111, 012610 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Henke, H

    J.-W. Henke, H. Jeng, M. Sivis, and C. Ropers, Obser- vation of quantum entanglement between free electrons and photons (2025), arXiv:2504.13047 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. A52, R3429(R) (1995)

    1995

  37. [45]

    R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. Howell, Physical review letters92, 033601 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    D’Angelo, Y.-H

    M. D’Angelo, Y.-H. Kim, S. P. Kulik, and Y. Shih, Physical Review Letters92, 233601 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    M. J. Padgett and R. W. Boyd, Philosophical Transac- tions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences375, 20160233 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    R. I. Khakimov, B. M. Henson, D. K. Shin, S. S. Hodg- man, R. G. Dall, K. G. H. Baldwin, and A. G. Truscott, Nature540, 100 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    Trimeche, C

    A. Trimeche, C. Lopez, D. Comparat, and Y. J. Picard, Physical Review Research2, 043295 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    S. Li, F. Cropp, K. Kabra, T. J. Lane, G. Wetzstein, P. Musumeci, and D. Ratner, Physical Review Letters 7 121, 114801 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Kallepalli, L

    A. Kallepalli, L. Viani, D. Stellinga, E. Rotunno, R. Bowman, G. M. Gibson, M.-J. Sun, P. Rosi, S. Frab- boni, R. Balboni, A. Migliori, V. Grillo, and M. J. Pad- gett, Intelligent Computing2022, 0001 (2022)

    2022

  44. [52]

    P. Rosi, L. Viani, E. Rotunno, S. Frabboni, A. H. Tavabi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, A. Roncaglia, and V. Grillo, Physical Review Letters133, 123801 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    Rotunno, S

    E. Rotunno, S. Gargiulo, G. M. Vanacore, C. Mechel, A. H. Tavabi, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, F. Car- bone, I. Madan, S. Frabboni, T. Guner, E. Karimi, I. Kaminer, and V. Grillo, ACS Photonics10, 1708 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    Mancini, V

    S. Mancini, V. Giovannetti, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Physical Review Letters88, 120401 (2002)

    2002

  47. [55]

    Scheucher, T

    M. Scheucher, T. Schachinger, T. Spielauer, M. Stöger- Pollach, and P. Haslinger, Ultramicroscopy241, 113594 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Jannis, C

    D. Jannis, C. Hofer, C. Gao, X. Xie, A. Béché, T. J. Pennycook, and J. Verbeeck, Ultramicroscopy233, 113423 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Mirhosseini, O

    M. Mirhosseini, O. S. Magaña-Loaiza, C. Chen, B. Ro- denburg, M. Malik, and R. W. Boyd, Optics Express 21, 30196 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    Z. Yu, H. Li, T. Zhong, J.-H. Park, S. Cheng, C. M. Woo, Q. Zhao, J. Yao, Y. Zhou, X. Huang, W. Pang, H. Yoon, Y. Shen, H. Liu, Y. Zheng, Y. Park, L. V. Wang, and P. Lai, Innovation3, 10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100292 (2022), publisher: Elsevier

    2022

  51. [59]

    Haslinger, S

    P. Haslinger, S. Nimmrichter, and D. Rätzel, Quantum Science and Technology9, 035051 (2024)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Signorini and L

    S. Signorini and L. Pavesi, AVS Quantum Sci.2, 041701 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Johnson, A

    S. Johnson, A. McMillan, C. Torre, S. Frick, J. Rarity, and M. Padgett, Optics Continuum1, 826 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    D. Li, D. Yang, S. Sun, Y.-G. Li, L. Jiang, H.-Z. Lin, and W.-T. Liu, Optics Express29, 31068 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Saldin, Physics9, 103 (2016)

    D. Saldin, Physics9, 103 (2016)

    2016

  56. [64]

    M. D. Reid, P. D. Drummond, W. P. Bowen, E. G. Cavalcanti, P. K. Lam, H. A. Bachor, U. L. Andersen, and G. Leuchs, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 1727 (2009)

    2009

  57. [65]

    Adachi,The handbook on optical constants of metals: in tables and figures(World Scientific, 2012)

    S. Adachi,The handbook on optical constants of metals: in tables and figures(World Scientific, 2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Jaumann and K

    S. Jaumann and K. Wegener, inWiener Produk- tionstechnik Kongress 2012(Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Institut für Werkzeugmaschinen , 2012)

    2012

  59. [67]

    Kayser, B

    T. Kayser, B. Klusemann, H.-G. Lambers, H. Maier, and B. Svendsen, Materials Science and Engineering: A527, 6568 (2010). 8 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL Parabolic mirror manufacture Our CL photon extraction setup relies on a custom-built miniaturized parabolic mirror designed to fit...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.