Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Quantum sensing and metrology with free electrons

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Free electrons can amplify optical phase sensing tenfold and generate high-NOON states at megahertz rates, the paper argues.

desk verdict The phase-sensing core is cleanly derived and the coupler design is plausible, but the headline NOON-state rate is overstated because mode filtering is counted as free, so the abstract's 10^8 Hz claim does not hold as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.06124 v1 pith:QVPCJPH6 submitted 2025-05-09 quant-ph

Cruz I. Velasco , F. Javier García de Abajo This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph MSC 81V8081P4078A60 PACS 42.50.Ex03.65.Ta42.50.St
keywords free-electronquantumopticswaveguideelectron-photoncouplingNOONstatessensingopticalphasemeasurementelectronbeamsplitterdisplacementoperatorsuper-resolution
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 proposes that free electrons, guided by electron optics and strongly coupled to waveguided photons, can serve as both generators and probes of nonclassical light, replacing fragile high-photon-number photonic states with electron currents that are easier to measure. The central claim is that a single electron passing near an optical waveguide can excite dozens of photons in one guided mode, and that this coupling, combined with electron beam splitters, makes optical phase measurements ten times more sensitive than current technology and enables NOON states with tens of photons at megahertz rates. A sympathetic reader would care because it opens a practical route to quantum-enhanced sensing and metrology without needing to create or detect high-number photonic states directly.

What carries the argument

The enabling ingredient is the electron–photon displacement operator Ŝintn(βn) = e−βn ân + βn* ân†, which describes how a single electron coherently displaces each waveguide mode by amplitude βn. The coupling amplitude βn is proportional to the spatial Fourier transform of the mode field along the electron trajectory, Eq. (1). The strength comes from aloof reflection geometry: an electron travels parallel to a rectangular diamond waveguide at a grazing angle, kept away from the surface by a DC electric field, so that it couples to evanescent guided-mode fields over millimeter-scale effective interaction lengths while avoiding inelastic losses. This displacement operator, combined with electron beam splitters and phase shifters, is what converts electron-path interference into optical-phase information and produces NOON-state heralding.

What would settle it

Measure the electron energy-loss spectrum of 200 keV electrons grazing a diamond waveguide at b = 60 nm with EDC = 10 V/mm; if the integrated loss probability in the fundamental mode is far below the predicted ⟨N0⟩ ≈ 40, or if the loss spectrum shows substantial broadening or inelastic background, the displacement-operator coupling and the derived sensitivity enhancement would not hold. Alternatively, a two-path electron interferometer with the waveguide in both arms should show the predicted current oscillations with φℓ whose period is set by Neff rather than by a single-photon phase; failure to observe that scaling would falsify the effective-photon-number amplification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that grazing-angle reflection of energetic free electrons from a dielectric optical waveguide creates a strong, coherent electron–photon interaction, described by a displacement operator with coupling amplitude βn. Starting from the photonic vacuum, this produces a Poissonian distribution of photon-number states with average number ⟨Nn⟩ = |βn|2, reaching up to about 40 photons in the fundamental mode for 200 keV electrons. By splitting the electron into two paths, recombining them, and measuring only the electron current, the paper derives an interference signal I ∝ 1 + exp[−Σn⟨Nn⟩(1 − cos φℓn)] cos(φe + Σn⟨Nn⟩ sin φℓn), which for small phases reduces to a dependence on an effective photon number Neff ≈ 7⟨N0⟩. This yields a tenfold sensitivity enhancement over current technology for optical-phase measurements. For NOON-state generation, two separate waveguides are excited by the two electron paths; post-selecting electrons that lost energy N0ℏω0 heralds the state (|N0,0⟩ + |0,N0⟩)/√2 with probability P0,N0, giving rates of about 108 Hz for N0 = 10–20.

Load-bearing premise

The model treats the electron and waveguide as a closed, lossless system, assuming guided modes have zero linewidth, electron-hole pair excitation is negligible under the grazing-angle reflection, and the electron's perpendicular trajectory broadening does not degrade the coherent displacement amplitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Optical-phase measurements could reach tenfold-enhanced sensitivity using only electron current detection, without photon counting or energy-resolved electron detection.
  • Waveguided NOON states with tens of photons could be generated at megahertz rates, orders of magnitude above all-optical methods that currently struggle even at N = 5.
  • The same displacement-operator picture applies to any waveguide geometry whose guided modes extend into vacuum, so the proposal generalizes beyond the specific diamond waveguide.
  • Because the electron–photon state is entangled by energy, tracing out the electron leaves photonic states mutually incoherent, which the paper argues makes the scheme robust to electron energy spread.
  • The configuration where both interactions occur along a single electron path (Fig. 4b) yields the same sensitivity enhancement, offering an alternative that avoids path-dependent coupling asymmetries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The tenfold sensitivity claim depends on Neff ≈ 7⟨N0⟩; if lower-order modes can be selectively excited or suppressed, the effective photon number could be tuned further, potentially exceeding the quoted factor even with the same electron current.
  • One testable extension is to replace the homogeneous waveguide with a photonic-crystal or slot waveguide whose modes lie closer to the vacuum light line, increasing decay length λ⊥n and hence interaction length and ⟨Nn⟩.
  • The NOON-state generation rate of ~108 Hz assumes 109 electrons per second and a pure Poissonian distribution; using electron pulses synchronized to the waveguide could in principle raise the heralding efficiency, though timing jitter would need to be quantified.
  • The protocol measures optical phase without photon detection, so it could be paired with existing free-electron interferometry setups as a direct experimental test; observing the predicted current oscillations as a function of φe and φℓ would confirm the displacement-operator mechanism.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a class of free-electron–waveguide systems in which a grazing-angle, aloof electron reflection from a dielectric waveguide interacts strongly with guided optical modes, producing dozens of photons per electron. The authors derive the joint electron–light state (Eq. (4)) from a displacement-operator formalism and use it in two protocols: (i) a phase-sensing scheme in which an electron is split into two paths that both interact with the same waveguide, and the optical phase is read out from the electron current alone (Eq. (5)); and (ii) a NOON-state generation scheme in which two waveguide arms are each excited by one electron path and the NOON state is heralded by energy-resolved electron detection. The central quantitative claims are a tenfold enhancement of optical-phase sensitivity using currently attainable technology and generation of waveguided NOON states with N = 10–20 photons at ~10^8 Hz rates based on electron post-selection.

Significance. If the claims hold, the phase protocol would introduce a genuinely new metrology platform in which free-electron current measurements, rather than photon detection, provide phase sensitivity with an effective photon number Neff = Σ⟨Nn⟩ωn/ω0 that can be several hundred. The coupler design, based on BEM electrodynamics, is physically concrete and the derivation of Eq. (5) is mathematically consistent. The NOON-generation scheme, if valid at the stated rates, would be orders of magnitude faster than all-optical high-NOON sources. The paper is also commendable for stating its idealizations explicitly (closed lossless system, negligible electron-hole pair generation, neglect of trajectory broadening). However, as detailed below, the NOON-rate claim rests on a probability-counting error, and the tenfold sensitivity claim is not supported by a noise model.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section II.D and Fig. 3c] The 'dressed' NOON-state generation probability P0,N0 is not a valid heralded probability. The protocol of Fig. 3a herald the state by detecting an electron that has lost exactly N0ℏω0. Since every higher-order mode n≠0 has frequency ωn > ω0, energy conservation forces Nn = 0 for all n≠0 whenever the total loss is N0ℏω0. Therefore the heralded pure-NOON probability necessarily includes the factor ∏_{n≠0} e^{-Pn} for the absence of higher-mode photons. Filtering out higher modes after generation cannot increase the heralding probability, because the electron energy measurement already projects onto a definite total photon energy; a filter that removes n≠0 photons either succeeds with probability ∏_{n≠0} e^{-Pn} or, if it only attenuates, decoheres the mode-0 superposition. With the waveguide parameters of Fig. 1 (⟨N0⟩≈40 and appreciable ⟨N1⟩, ⟨N2⟩, ...), the factor exp(-Σ_{n≠0} Pn) is many orders of magnitude below unity, so the quoted ~10^8 Hz for N0 = 10–20 is unsupported. The correct rate is the 'pure single' curve of Fig. 3c, and the abstract's central NOON-rate claim must be revised accordingly.
  2. [Section II.E and Abstract] The claimed 'tenfold' enhancement of phase sensitivity is not derived. The analysis in Section II.E shows only that the maximum slope of the current satisfies ΔI ∝ Neff Δφℓ. Sensitivity, however, is a statistical statement: one must specify the noise in the measured current (e.g., electron shot noise), the number of electrons used, and the comparison baseline (e.g., a conventional optical Mach–Zehnder with the same photon number, or a single-pass electron measurement without coupling). Without such a model, the factor Neff≈7⟨N0⟩ is a signal-amplification factor, not a sensitivity enhancement. The abstract's 'tenfold' claim is therefore not substantiated by the equations presented.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A] The manuscript states that trajectory broadening and electron-hole pair generation are neglected; since the 'closed, lossless' assumption is load-bearing for the coherent displacement picture, the authors should provide a quantitative estimate (or a physically motivated bound) of how these effects degrade the quoted rates and phase sensitivity for the specific parameters b = 60 nm and EDC = 10 V/mm.
  2. [Section II.A and Methods] There are several typographical errors: 'neglible', 'amplidude', 'Poissian', and 'accummulated' should be corrected. The reference list also contains a duplicate arXiv number (refs. 32 and 33 both list arXiv:2403.1307).
  3. [Fig. 3c] The 'dressed single' probability, as defined, is not a heralded pure-NOON probability; labeling it as such in the figure and text is misleading. The figure caption should state explicitly that the dressed curve assumes post-generation filtering that is not accounted for in the heralding probability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the phase-sensitivity formula and NOON-state rates follow from a first-principles coherent-displacement model with independently computed coupling amplitudes.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are self-contained rather than circular. The electron–photon coupling amplitudes βn are computed from Eq. (1) using boundary-element-method electrodynamics ([35,36]), which is an independent numerical calculation and is not fitted to the phase signal or NOON rate. The quantum state after interaction is taken from the standard displacement-operator result cited as [10], but that result is displayed explicitly in Eqs. (2)–(4) and is a parameter-free consequence of the interaction Hamiltonian, not an assumption equivalent to the paper's conclusions. Equation (5) for the electron-current phase response is derived in the Methods by summing the squared amplitudes over all photon-number states, with no fitted parameters. The NOON-state generation probability is likewise a direct Poissonian product following from Eq. (4). Although the paper relies on several self-citations, they are not load-bearing in a circular way: they provide standard or independently reproducible results, and the 'dressed' NOON-rate treatment is a potential correctness issue about filtering higher-order modes, not a circular reduction of a prediction to its input. Overall, no step exhibits a prediction that is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The claims rest on standard coherent-state/displacement-operator results from prior work, on BEM electrodynamic simulations, and on an idealized lossless closed electron-waveguide system. Design parameters (b, EDC, waveguide dimensions, electron energy) are hand-chosen inputs rather than fitted to the target result. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • b (minimum electron-surface distance) = 60 nm
    Hand-chosen to keep inelastic losses negligible while preserving guided-mode coupling; enters Leff exponentially and sets <N0>.
  • EDC (repulsive DC field) = 10 V/mm
    Hand-chosen to produce the parabolic grazing trajectory; together with b and v it determines Leff.
  • Diamond waveguide dimensions = W = 600 nm, h = 800 nm
    Hand-chosen geometry that sets the guided-mode dispersion and the phase-matching photon energies.
  • Electron kinetic energy = 200 keV
    Operating point used for the quoted <N0> ~ 40 and Leff values; phase-matching frequencies depend on v.
  • Effective interaction length Leff_0 (optimized) = chosen to maximize P0,N0 in Fig. 3
    In the NOON-generation estimate, the coupler is tuned so the Poisson mean matches the target N0, which is equivalent to tuning a free parameter to maximize the claimed rate.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Closed, lossless electron-waveguide system: guided modes have zero linewidth, electron-hole pair generation is negligible, and energy is transferred only between electron motion and guided modes.
    Invoked in Section II.B and II.A; if losses or decoherence enter, the electron-photon entanglement and the coherent-state phases in Eq. (5) are degraded.
  • domain assumption Electron wave function factorizes into parallel and perpendicular parts, with perpendicular details irrelevant except for path labels.
    Section II.B; the perpendicular trajectory broadening is explicitly neglected.
  • domain assumption Incident electrons are monochromatized with energy spread small compared to photon energies, so electron final energy uniquely labels the photonic state.
    Section II.B; used to herald NOON states and to justify tracing the electron in current measurements.
  • standard math Phase-matching condition omega = k_parallel v and evanescent decay length of guided modes.
    Standard EELS/waveguide theory (Refs [20,35]); used to compute Pn and Leff.
  • standard math Coherent-state displacement formalism for electron-light interaction, Eqs. (2)-(4).
    Taken from Ref [10]; the Poissonian photon statistics and beta amplitudes follow from this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum sensing and metrology with free electrons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVPCJPH6

@misc{pith2026250506124,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum sensing and metrology with free electrons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVPCJPH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.06124}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum properties of matter and radiation can be leveraged to surpass classical limits of sensing and detection. Quantum optics does so by creating and measuring nonclassical light. However, better performance requires higher photon-number states, which are challenging to generate and detect. Here, we combine photons and free electrons to solve the problem of generating and detecting high-number states well beyond those reachable with light alone and further show that an unprecedented level of sensitivity and resolution is gained based on the measurement of free-electron currents after suitably designed electron-light interaction events. Our enabling ingredient is the strong electron-light coupling produced by aloof electron reflection on an optical waveguide, leading to the emission or absorption of a high number of guided photons by every single electron. We theoretically demonstrate that, by combining electron-beam splitters with two electron-waveguide interactions, the sensitivity to detect optical-phase changes can be enhanced tenfold using currently attainable technology. We further show that waveguided NOON states comprising tens of photons can be generated at megahertz rates based on electron post-selection after electron-waveguide interaction. These results inaugurate a disruptive quantum technology relying on free electrons and their strong interaction with waveguided light.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.06124 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.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

  1. Spin Squeezing in Electron Microscopy

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Spin squeezing of free electrons in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer is proposed as a way to push phase measurement accuracy in electron microscopy below the shot-noise limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Giovannetti, S

    V . Giovannetti, S. LLoyd, and L. Maccone, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 010401 (2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    P. J. Dowling, Contemp. Phys. 49, 125 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Israel, S

    Y . Israel, S. Rosen, and Y . Silberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 103604 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    D’Angelo, M

    M. D’Angelo, M. V . Chekhova, and Y . Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 013602 (2001)

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    Bergmann and P

    M. Bergmann and P. van Loock, Phys. Rev. A94, 012311 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    I. Afek, O. Ambar, and Y . Silberberg, Science328, 879 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    F. J. García de Abajo and V . Di Giulio, ACS Photonics8, 945 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    In addition, free electrons exhibit wave-like behavior that ∗ javier.garciadeabajo@nanophotonics.es manifests in diffraction, interference, and superposition

    light using ultrafast electron microscopy techniques [11– 19]. In addition, free electrons exhibit wave-like behavior that ∗ javier.garciadeabajo@nanophotonics.es manifests in diffraction, interference, and superposition. These attributes have been exploited for the electron-b...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Di Giulio, M

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

    2019

  4. [12]

    Barwick, D

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

    2009

  5. [13]

    F. J. García de Abajo, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and M. Kociak, Nano Lett. 10, 1859 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    Feist, K

    A. Feist, K. E. Echternkamp, J. Schauss, S. V . Yalunin, S. Schäfer, and C. Ropers, Nature 521, 200 (2015)

    2015

  7. [15]

    K. E. Priebe, C. Rathje, S. V . Yalunin, T. Hohage, A. Feist, S. Schäfer, and C. Ropers, Nat. Photonics 11, 793 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

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

    2017

  9. [17]

    Morimoto and P

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

    2018

  10. [18]

    Schönenberger, A

    N. Schönenberger, A. Mittelbach, P. Yousefi, J. McNeur, U. Nie- dermayer, and P. Hommelho ff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 264803 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Ryabov, J

    A. Ryabov, J. W. Thurner, D. Nabben, M. V . Tsarev, and P. Baum, Sci. Adv.6, eabb1393 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Dahan, S

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

    2020

  13. [21]

    X. M. Bendaña, A. Polman, and F. J. García de Abajo, Nano Lett. 11, 5099 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    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, J. Liu, O. Kfir, T. J. Kippenberg, and C. Ropers, Science 377, 777 (2022). 8

    2022

  15. [23]

    Huang, N

    G. Huang, N. J. Engelsen, O. Kfir, C. Ropers, and T. J. Kippen- berg, PRX Quantum 4, 020351 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    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, T. J. Kippenberg, and C. Ropers, (2024), 10.48550 /arXiv.2409.11300

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Di Giulio and F

    V . Di Giulio and F. J. García de Abajo, Nanophotonics11, 4659 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    Dahan, G

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

    2023

  19. [27]

    T. P. Rasmussen, A. Rodríguez Echarri, J. D. Cox, and F. J. García de Abajo, Sci. Adv. 10, eadn6312 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Observation of quantum entanglement between free electrons and photons,

    J. W. Henke, H. Jeng, M. Sivis, and C. Ropers, “Observation of quantum entanglement between free electrons and photons,” (2025), arXiv:2504.13047

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Experimental verification of electron-photon en- tanglement,

    A. Preimesberger, S. Bogdanov, I. C. Bicket, P. Rembold, and P. Haslinger, “Experimental verification of electron-photon en- tanglement,” (2025), arXiv:2504.13163

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Laurell, S

    H. Laurell, S. Luo, R. Weissenbilder, M. Ammitzböll, S. Ahmed, H. Söderberg, C. L. M. Petersson, V . Poulain, C. Guo, C. Dit- tel, D. Finkelstein-Shapiro, R. J. Squibb, R. Feifel, M. Gissel- brecht, C. L. Arnold, A. Buchleitner, E. Lindroth, A. F. Kockum, A. L’Huillier, and D....

    2025

  23. [31]

    Gorlach, S

    A. Gorlach, S. Malka, A. Karnieli, R. Dahan, E. Cohen, A. Pe’er, and I. Kaminer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 250801 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Kfir, Phys

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

    2019

  25. [34]

    Strong coupling and single-photon nonlinearity in free-electron quan- tum optics,

    A. Karnieli, C. Roques-Carmes, N. Rivera, and S. Fan, “Strong coupling and single-photon nonlinearity in free-electron quan- tum optics,” (2024), arXiv:2403.1307

    2024

  26. [35]

    Di Giulio, E

    V . Di Giulio, E. Akerboom, A. Polman, and F. J. García de Abajo, ACS Nano 18, 14255 (2024)

    2024

  27. [36]

    F. J. García de Abajo, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 209 (2010)

    2010

  28. [37]

    F. J. García de Abajo and A. Howie, Phys. Rev. B 65, 115418 (2002)

    2002

  29. [38]

    A. A. Lucas, E. Kartheuser, and R. G. Badro, Phys. Rev. B 2, 2488 (1970)

    1970

  30. [39]

    Di Giulio and F

    V . Di Giulio and F. J. García de Abajo, Optica7, 1820 (2020)

    2020

  31. [40]

    Möllenstedt and H

    G. Möllenstedt and H. Düker, Z. Phys. 145, 377 (1956)

    1956

  32. [41]

    Shindo, T

    D. Shindo, T. Tanigaki, and H. S. Park, Adv. Mater.29, 1602216 (2017)

    2017

  33. [42]

    C. W. Johnson, A. E. Turner, and B. J. McMorran, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 043009 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    C. W. Johnson, A. E. Turner, F. J. García de Abajo, and B. J. McMorran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 147401 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.