Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Strong field physics in open quantum systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A heat-bath model corrects the intense-laser ionization overestimate that plagued the relaxation time approximation, while showing dephasing ionization survives only in extreme regimes.

desk verdict A closed-form heat-bath ionization model that improves on RTA and yields a plausible phase diagram, but the second-order truncation is unverified precisely in the region where enhancement is claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10240 v1 pith:S2VX2XUI submitted 2025-02-14 physics.optics cond-mat.otherquant-ph

Neda Boroumand , Adam Thorpe , Graeme Bart , Andrew Parks , Mohamad Toutounji , Giulio Vampa , Thomas Brabec , Lu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.otherquant-ph
keywords strong-fieldionizationspin-bosonmodeldephasingrelaxationtimeapproximationopenquantumsystemssemiconductorBlochequationsheatbathattosecondscience
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 argues that the standard relaxation time approximation (RTA), which models dephasing with a single time constant, badly overestimates laser-induced ionization in solids, and replaces it with a closed-form open-quantum-system model in which the electronic two-band system is coupled to a heat bath. Using a Dyson expansion truncated at second order, the conduction-band population reduces to a double time integral whose only bath influence is the correlation function defined by a spectral density and temperature. Applied to zinc oxide driven by mid-infrared pulses, the model finds that dephasing can still enhance ionization by orders of magnitude, but only at high local temperatures and for bath cutoff frequencies in the optical-phonon or collective-excitation range; at low temperature with strong coupling, the bath suppresses ionization. This matters because ionization initiates most strong-field processes in materials, from machining to attosecond spectroscopy, and the new model keeps many-body physics at low computational cost.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the strong field spin-boson (SFSB) model: a two-band electron system linearly coupled to bosonic oscillator modes representing the heat bath, transformed by a polaron transformation and treated through a Dyson expansion truncated at second order, with the bath traced out. The closed-form result is Eq. (3), where all bath effects enter only through the correlation function of Eq. (5), whose real part gives decoherence and whose imaginary part gives a dynamic bandgap shift. The spectral density and its cutoff frequency encode the type of environment, while temperature enters through a coth factor. This structure isolates the phase of the bath response as the key control, since setting the imaginary part to zero changes low-temperature suppression into enhancement.

What would settle it

Evaluate the same two-band spin-boson dynamics with a numerically converged method that includes all orders of the bath coupling and compare the high-temperature ionization ratio; if the enhancement predicted here disappears or changes sign, the second-order truncation is the culprit. Conversely, a pump-probe experiment on zinc oxide with controlled local temperature and electron-bath coupling could test whether enhancement appears only above roughly $10^{4}$ K.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Eq. (3), with the heat-bath correlation function of Eq. (5), is a closed-form strong-field ionization model that fixes the pathological behavior of the relaxation time approximation, which overestimates ionization by up to nine orders of magnitude. The correlation function is responsible for both effects: at high temperature its real part dominates and produces dephasing ionization enhancement, while at low temperature its imaginary part acts as a dynamic addition to the bandgap and produces dephasing suppressed ionization. The paper states directly that the SFSB fixes the pathological ionization behavior, and that ionization enhancement through dephasing still persists, but only in fairly extreme parameter ranges.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the second-order Dyson expansion, keeping only the dominant term, is accurate: if higher-order multi-boson transitions matter, especially at high temperature, the predicted dephasing ionization could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The relaxation time approximation's nine-order-of-magnitude ionization overestimation is traced to its high-temperature linear-time correlation function; heat-bath models without this unphysical tail do not show the problem.
  • Dephasing ionization survives in the SFSB model only at high local temperatures and for bath cutoffs in the optical phonon or collective electronic excitation range, not for acoustic phonons.
  • At low temperature and strong coupling, dephasing suppresses ionization by orders of magnitude, an effect the paper names dephasing suppressed ionization.
  • Heat-bath effects are strongest at moderate field strengths where multiphoton ionization dominates; at high fields tunneling outruns the bath and the influence vanishes.
  • The closed form allows many-body dephasing to be folded into strong-field and attosecond modeling with minimal extra computational cost.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the model reduces the environment to a spectral density and temperature, the same closed-form equation could be fitted to measured ionization yields to infer effective bath parameters, effectively making the heat bath a spectroscopic probe of electron-phonon and electron-plasmon coupling.
  • The imaginary part of the correlation function acting as a dynamic bandgap suggests a route to coherent control: engineering the bath spectrum, for example through cavities, could enhance or suppress ionization at will.
  • The suppression regime may be relevant to damage experiments, since materials at moderate temperature under strong coupling would ionize less than a closed-system model predicts, shifting the onset of ablation.
  • The paper's second-order truncation could be tested against a fermionic-bath treatment, since electron-electron scattering is explicitly left out; differences would mark where the bosonic approximation breaks down.
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. This paper develops a 'strong field spin-boson' (SFSB) model for laser-induced ionization in semiconductors, treating the environment as a bosonic heat bath linearly coupled to the electron two-band Hamiltonian (Eq. (1)). After a polaron transformation and a change to the interaction picture, the conduction-band population is expressed in closed form in Eq. (3), with the bath entering through the correlation function C(t1-t2) of Eq. (5). The authors show that a Debye spectral density recovers the relaxation time approximation in the high-temperature limit, compare several spectral densities, and map the ionization ratio η = nc(jo≠0)/nc(jo=0) over temperature, cutoff frequency, and coupling strength. The main claims are that SFSB removes the RTA's strong overestimation of ionization, that dephasing ionization survives only at high temperatures and for optical-phonon or collective-excitation baths, and that a new dephasing suppressed ionization appears at low temperature and strong coupling. The model is intended as a low-cost, semi-phenomenological framework with parameter ranges taken from the literature rather than fitted to the target ionization.

Significance. If the central claims survive scrutiny, the SFSB model is a useful intermediate between the oversimplified relaxation time approximation and full many-body simulations, and its predictions are testable through engineered baths, pump-probe schemes, and temperature/coupling scans. The paper deserves credit for not fitting any parameter to the target ionization: jo, ωc, and T are scanned over literature-motivated ranges, and the use of multiple spectral densities and the inclusion of the imaginary part of the bath correlation function strengthen the qualitative picture. The closed form of Eq. (3) makes the model easy to adopt, and the predicted crossover from enhancement to suppression as a function of T and jo is a concrete, falsifiable prediction. However, the central quantitative claims are not yet established because the second-order Dyson truncation underlying Eq. (3) is not validated in the regimes that drive the conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theory, Eq. (3); Results, Fig. 3a] The central result is the closed-form conduction-band population in Eq. (3), obtained by a Dyson expansion truncated at second order and retaining only the 'dominant contribution.' The paper explicitly acknowledges in the Theory section that in the high-temperature limit multi-boson transitions 'could become relevant but are ignored here.' This caveat is load-bearing: the claimed ionization enhancement in Fig. 3a occurs at high T, and the claimed suppression occurs at strong coupling (jo > 1), precisely the regime where a second-order truncation is least controlled. No estimate of the discarded higher-order terms, no convergence check, and no comparison with an independent non-perturbative method is provided. I request either an explicit bound on the omitted contributions over the parameter ranges of Figs. 2-4 or a benchmark calculation (for example, hierarchy equations of motion, a tensor-network simulation, or exact diagonalization of a small bath) demonstrating that the truncation reproduces the non-perturbative dynamics in the enhancement and suppression regions.
  2. [Theory; Results, Figs. 2-4] The derivation of Eq. (3), the trace over bath modes, and the 3D-to-1D validation are all deferred to Supplementary Sections I-III and Fig. S4. Because the submitted text does not include those supplementary materials, the two central consistency checks of the model (the closed-form integration and the claim that the 1D Γ-M calculation reproduces 3D relative ionization changes) cannot be verified from the manuscript itself. I would like to see the main steps of the derivation and the 3D/1D comparison included in the main text or supplied as part of the review package.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Conclusion] The sentence 'In addition, a simple fermionic heat bath.' appears to be a fragment; please complete or remove it.
  2. [Results, Fig. 2 paragraph] The phrase 'as detected by experiments' after describing negligible low-T changes lacks a citation; please provide a reference or soften the claim.
  3. [Theory, Eq. (5)] The approximate correlation function in Eq. (5) does not state the normalization of J(ω) and the frequency domain of integration; please specify these explicitly.
  4. [Fig. 4c] The right vertical axis label 'Ionization log10[n_c(j_o=0,t=∞)]' is ambiguous; clarify the normalization of the pink curve and its relation to the left axis.
  5. [Theory, Debye limit] The recovery of the RTA in the high-T Debye limit is a consistency check by construction (T2 = ℏ/(2πk_B T j_o)); the text could state this more explicitly to avoid a reader mistaking it for an independent derivation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ionization prediction follows from a heat-bath Hamiltonian and scanned parameters, not from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: Hamiltonian (1) is the spin-boson model; after the polaron transformation (2) and a second-order Dyson expansion, the conduction-band population is Eq. (3), and the environment enters only through the spectral-density integral C(t1-t2) in Eq. (5). The parameters jo, omega_c, and T are inputs scanned over physically motivated ranges; they are not fitted to the ionization nc that the paper reports. The Debye/RTA relation T2 = hbar/(2 pi k_B T j_o) is the high-temperature limit of C for the Debye spectral density, so the 'recovery' of RTA in Fig. 2b is a consistency check, not a prediction forced by construction. Refs. [10] and [33] have overlapping authors, but they supply the baseline closed-system formula and the RTA-failure motivation; the new suppression/enhancement phase diagram depends on the bath correlation function and is not contained in those citations. The paper's own caveat that multi-boson transitions are neglected at high T and the absence of an exact-method benchmark are correctness/accuracy risks, not circularity: an uncontrolled truncation is not the same as defining the prediction in terms of the input. No parameter is renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem is invoked. Hence no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the spin-boson representation of the environment, a second-order Dyson truncation, a choice of spectral density with scanned parameters, and a 1D band-structure shortcut. None of these are fitted to the target ionization; they are model inputs. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • j_o (heat bath coupling strength) = scanned 0 to 5; representative 0.1, 1, 5
    Controls the amplitude of the spectral density J(omega); physical range spans 1e-3 to several, per literature; not fitted to ionization data.
  • omega_c (spectral density cutoff frequency) = scaled to laser frequency: 0.01 omega_0, 0.1 omega_0, 2.1 omega_0
    Sets the memory time of the bath; chosen to represent acoustic phonons, optical phonons, and collective electronic excitations.
  • T (local temperature of heat bath) = scanned 1 K to 3e4 K
    The central control parameter for enhancement versus suppression; assumed constant during the pulse.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The single active electron in a two-band semiconductor can be treated as a two-level system coupled linearly to a bosonic heat bath through the sigma_z term in Eq. (1).
    This is the spin-boson model; it restricts the environment to pure dephasing and does not include heat-bath-driven band transitions.
  • domain assumption The heat bath remains in thermal equilibrium at a fixed temperature T throughout the laser pulse.
    The correlation function Eq. (5) uses the equilibrium coth function; the authors note real systems are not always in thermal equilibrium and can be extended with a two-temperature model.
  • ad hoc to paper The polaron transformation and the interaction-picture Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) are exact, and the subsequent Dyson expansion can be truncated at second order, retaining only the dominant term that gives Eq. (3).
    The main text states this without proof and defers to the supplementary material; the truncation is load-bearing for the quantitative predictions.
  • domain assumption The environment's effect can be captured by a spectral density J(omega) with two parameters (coupling j_o and cutoff omega_c), and the Ohmic form is representative.
    Different spectral densities are compared, but no first-principles J(omega) for ZnO is derived; results are parameter scans.
  • domain assumption Collective electronic excitations such as excitons and plasmons can be treated as bosonic modes despite the fermionic nature of electrons.
    The paper asserts this is a good approximation and cites Refs. [25,45,50].
  • ad hoc to paper A one-dimensional Brillouin zone along the Gamma-M direction reproduces the three-dimensional results for relative changes in ionization.
    The paper states this without showing the full 3D comparison; the quantitative ionization ratios are computed in 1D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong field physics in open quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S2VX2XUI

@misc{pith2026250210240,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong field physics in open quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S2VX2XUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10240}
}
read the original abstract

Dephasing is the loss of phase coherence due to the interaction of an electron with the environment. The most common approach to model dephasing in light-matter interaction is the relaxation time approximation. Surprisingly, its use in intense laser physics results in a pronounced failure, because ionization {is highly overestimated.} Here, this shortcoming is corrected by developing a strong field model in which the many-body environment is represented by a heat bath. Our model reveals that ionization enhancement and suppression by several orders of magnitude are still possible, however only in more extreme parameter regimes. Our approach allows the integration of many-body physics into intense laser dynamics with minimal computational and mathematical complexity, thus facilitating the identification of novel effects in strong-field physics and attosecond {science}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10240 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of under-resonantly driven, open two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ionization ratio as a function of cutoff frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [33]

    Thorpe, N

    A. Thorpe, N. Boroumand, A. Parks, E. Goulielmakis, and T. Brabec, Physical Review B107, 075135 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  3. [2]

    Goulielmakis and T

    E. Goulielmakis and T. Brabec, Nature Photonics 16, 411 (2022)

    2022

  4. [3]

    Haug and S

    H. Haug and S. W. Koch, Quantum theory of the op- tical and electronic properties of semiconductors (world scientific, 2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    May and O

    V. May and O. Kühn, Charge and energy transfer dy- namics in molecular systems (John Wiley & Sons, 2023)

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Vampa, C

    G. Vampa, C. McDonald, G. Orlando, D. Klug, P. Corkum, and T. Brabec, Physical review letters113, 073901 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [6]

    Du and C

    T.-Y. Du and C. Ma, Physical Review A105, 053125 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    W. M. Witzel, M. S. Carroll, A. Morello, Ł. Cywiński, and S. Das Sarma, Physical review letters105, 187602 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 67 references
  1. [8]

    J. P. Paz, S. Habib, and W. H. Zurek, Physical Review D 47, 488 (1993)

    1993

  2. [9]

    Yu and J

    T. Yu and J. Eberly, Physical Review B 68, 165322 (2003)

    2003

  3. [10]

    McDonald, A

    C. McDonald, A. B. Taher, and T. Brabec, Journal of Optics 19, 114005 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksperim. i Teor. Fiz.47 (1964)

    1964

  5. [12]

    S. Y. Kruchinin, Physical Review A100, 043839 (2019)

    2019

  6. [13]

    Cai, Scientific reports10, 88 (2020)

    X. Cai, Scientific reports10, 88 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    R. R. Gattass and E. Mazur, Nature photonics2, 219 (2008). 7

    2008

  8. [15]

    M. F. Yanik, H. Cinar, H. N. Cinar, A. D. Chisholm, Y. Jin, and A. Ben-Yakar, Nature432, 822 (2004)

    2004

  9. [16]

    Farsari and B

    M. Farsari and B. N. Chichkov, Nature photonics3, 450 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Schiffrin, T

    A. Schiffrin, T. Paasch-Colberg, N. Karpowicz, V. Apalkov, D. Gerster, S. Mühlbrandt, M. Korb- man, J. Reichert, M. Schultze, S. Holzner,et al., Nature 493, 70 (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    Boolakee, C

    T. Boolakee, C. Heide, A. Garzón-Ramírez, H. B. Weber, I. Franco, and P. Hommelhoff, Nature605, 251 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Chlouba, R

    T. Chlouba, R. Shiloh, S. Kraus, L. Brückner, J. Litzel, and P. Hommelhoff, Nature622, 476 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Korolev, T

    V. Korolev, T. Lettau, V. Krishna, A. Croy, M. Zuerch, C. Spielmann, M. Waechtler, U. Peschel, S. Graefe, G. Soavi,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.12929 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Segal and A

    D. Segal and A. Nitzan, Physical review letters 94, 034301 (2005)

    2005

  15. [22]

    A. J. Leggett, S. Chakravarty, A. T. Dorsey, M. P. Fisher, A. Garg, and W. Zwerger, Reviews of Modern Physics 59, 1 (1987)

    1987

  16. [23]

    Thorwart, E

    M. Thorwart, E. Paladino, and M. Grifoni, Chemical Physics 296, 333 (2004)

    2004

  17. [24]

    C. K. Lee, J. Moix, and J. Cao, The Journal of chemical physics 136 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4722336

    2012 doi

  18. [25]

    Lambert, S

    N. Lambert, S. Ahmed, M. Cirio, and F. Nori, Nature communications 10, 3721 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    L. Wang, M. F. Ciappina, T. Brabec, and X. Liu, Phys- ical Review Letters133, 113804 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    G. D. Mahan,Many-particle physics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  21. [28]

    Würger, Physical Review B57, 347 (1998)

    A. Würger, Physical Review B57, 347 (1998)

    1998

  22. [29]

    Nicolin and D

    L. Nicolin and D. Segal, The Journal of chemical physics 135 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3655674

    2011 doi

  23. [30]

    Morreau and E

    A. Morreau and E. Muljarov, Physical Review B100, 115309 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Bundgaard-Nielsen, J

    M. Bundgaard-Nielsen, J. Mørk, and E. V. Denning, Physical Review B103, 235309 (2021)

    2021

  25. [32]

    H. Liu, L. Zhu, S. Bai, and Q. Shi, The Journal of chemical physics 140 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4870035

    2014 doi

  26. [34]

    Meier and D

    C. Meier and D. J. Tannor, The Journal of chemical physics 111, 3365 (1999)

    1999

  27. [35]

    D. M. Rouse, E. M. Gauger, and B. W. Lovett, Physical Review B 105, 014302 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    A. Tóth, S. Borbély, Y. Zhou, and A. Csehi, Physical Review A 107, 053101 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    B. J. Sussman, American Journal of Physics 79, 477 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    J. Chen, D. Tzou, and J. Beraun, International journal of heat and mass transfer49, 307 (2006)

    2006

  31. [39]

    Mozafarifard, Y

    M. Mozafarifard, Y. Liao, Q. Nian, and Y. Wang, Inter- national Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer202, 123759 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Carpene, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 74, 024301 (2006)

    E. Carpene, Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 74, 024301 (2006)

    2006

  33. [41]

    Yamamoto, Y

    T. Yamamoto, Y. Tokura, and T. Kato, Physical Review B 106, 205419 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Anto-Sztrikacs and D

    N. Anto-Sztrikacs and D. Segal, New Journal of Physics 23, 063036 (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Franchini, M

    C. Franchini, M. Reticcioli, M. Setvin, and U. Diebold, Nature Reviews Materials6, 560 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Magazzù, P

    L. Magazzù, P. Forn-Díaz, R. Belyansky, J.-L. Orgiazzi, M. Yurtalan, M. R. Otto, A. Lupascu, C. Wilson, and M. Grifoni, Nature communications9, 1403 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    J.T.DevreeseandA.S.Alexandrov,ReportsonProgress in Physics 72, 066501 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    C. Chen, K. P. Nuckolls, S. Ding, W. Miao, D. Wong, M. Oh, R. L. Lee, S. He, C. Peng, D. Pei,et al., Nature 636, 342 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Lugovskoi, M

    A. Lugovskoi, M. Katsnelson, and A. Rudenko, Physical Review Letters 123, 176401 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Y. Wu, X. Yu, J. Hasaien, F. Hong, P. Shan, Z. Tian, Y. Zhai, J. Hu, J. Cheng, and J. Zhao, Nature commu- nications 15, 9683 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Errea, F

    I. Errea, F. Belli, L. Monacelli, A. Sanna, T. Koretsune, T. Tadano, R. Bianco, M. Calandra, R. Arita, F. Mauri, et al., Nature 578, 66 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Caruso and F

    F. Caruso and F. Giustino, Physical Review B94, 115208 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Goano, F

    M. Goano, F. Bertazzi, M. Penna, and E. Bel- lotti, Journal of Applied Physics 102 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2794380

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Vampa, C

    G. Vampa, C. McDonald, G. Orlando, P. Corkum, and T. Brabec, Physical Review B91, 064302 (2015)

    2015

  45. [53]

    Vampa, T

    G. Vampa, T. Hammond, N. Thiré, B. Schmidt, F. Lé- garé, C. McDonald, T. Brabec, D. Klug, and P. Corkum, Physical review letters115, 193603 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Dufft, A

    D. Dufft, A. Rosenfeld, S. Das, R. Grunwald, and J. Bonse, Journal of Applied Physics 105 (2009), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3074106

    2009 doi

  47. [55]

    Mishchenko, N

    A. Mishchenko, N. Prokof’Ev, A. Sakamoto, andB. Svis- tunov, Physical Review B62, 6317 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    Fiedler, L

    S. Fiedler, L. O. L. C. Lem, C. Ton-That, M. Schleuning, A. Hoffmann, and M. R. Phillips, Scientific reports10, 2553 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    A. Koch, H. Mei, J. Rensberg, M. Hafermann, J. Salman, C. Wan, R. Wambold, D. Blaschke, H. Schmidt, J. Salfeld, et al. , Advanced Photonics Research 4, 2200181 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    Y. E. Kesim, E. Battal, and A. K. Okyay, AIP Advances 4 (2014), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4887520

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    P. P. Hofer, M. Perarnau-Llobet, L. D. M. Miranda, G. Haack, R. Silva, J. B. Brask, and N. Brunner, New Journal of Physics19, 123037 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    L. V. Keldysh, SOVIET PHYSICS JETP20 (1964)

    1964

  53. [61]

    A. S. Landsman, M. Weger, J. Maurer, R. Boge, A. Lud- wig, S. Heuser, C. Cirelli, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Optica 1, 343 (2014)

    2014

  54. [62]

    Klaiber, K.Z

    M. Klaiber, K.Z. Hatsagortsyan, andC.H.Keitel, Phys- ical Review Letters114, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  55. [63]

    Y. Wei, Z. Liao, and X.-h. Wang, Physics Letters A526, 129965 (2024)

    2024

  56. [64]

    Najer, I

    D. Najer, I. Söllner, P. Sekatski, V. Dolique, M. C. Löbl, D. Riedel, R. Schott, S. Starosielec, S. R. Valentin, A. D. Wieck, et al., Nature 575, 622 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Di Giulio, E

    V. Di Giulio, E. Akerboom, A. Polman, and F. J. García de Abajo, ACS nano (2024), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c12977

    2024 doi

  58. [66]

    Akerboom, V

    E. Akerboom, V. Di Giulio, N. J. Schilder, F. J. Gar- ciía de Abajo, and A. Polman, ACS nano (2024), https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.3c12972

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    Michishita and R

    Y. Michishita and R. Peters, Physical Review Letters 124, 196401 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.