pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06112 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · ⚛️ physics.chem-ph · physics.optics

Probing of Core Excitons in Solid NaF with Polarization-Selective Attosecond Time-Resolved Four-Wave Mixing Spectroscopy

Kevin Gulu Xiong , Rafael Quintero-Bermudez , Vincent Eggers , Hugo Laurell , Melody Wu , Stephen R. Leone This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:18 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.chem-ph physics.optics
keywords core excitonsattosecond spectroscopyfour-wave mixingNaFexciton-phonon couplingdecoherencepolarization controlL2,3 edge
0
0 comments X

The pith

Attosecond four-wave mixing spectroscopy shows core excitons in NaF decohere faster than 8 fs due to strong phonon coupling, with bright excitons s-like and dark ones p-like in orbital character.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper applies attosecond time-resolved four-wave mixing spectroscopy using an extreme ultraviolet pump and two delayed, noncollinear near-infrared probes to examine core excitons at the Na+ L2,3 edge in solid sodium fluoride. It measures that the decoherence of both dipole-allowed and dipole-forbidden excitons occurs on timescales much shorter than the 8 fs instrument response limit, which the authors link to strong exciton-phonon coupling in the crystal lattice. Polarization control of the near-infrared probes further distinguishes the orbital angular momentum, assigning s-like character to the bright excitons reached by single-photon excitation and p-like character to the dark excitons reached by two-photon excitation. A reader would care because the work provides a direct experimental window into how core-level excitations rapidly lose coherence through lattice interactions in an ionic solid.

Core claim

Using one XUV pump and two independently delayed NIR probes in a four-wave mixing geometry, the authors resolve ultrafast decoherence dynamics of core excitons at the Na+ L2,3 edge in NaF. The observed signals decay faster than the 8 fs instrument response time, which is attributed to strong exciton-phonon coupling. Polarization-selective measurements with perpendicular and parallel NIR probe polarizations reveal that bright core excitons exhibit s-like orbital angular momentum while dark core excitons, accessed via two-photon excitation, exhibit p-like angular momentum.

What carries the argument

Polarization-selective attosecond four-wave mixing spectroscopy with one XUV pump and two noncollinear NIR probes, which separates bright and dark exciton pathways through polarization control and measures their coherence lifetimes.

If this is right

  • Core excitons in NaF lose coherence on sub-8 fs timescales dominated by exciton-phonon coupling.
  • Polarization control of the NIR probes distinguishes s-like orbital character in bright excitons from p-like character in dark excitons.
  • The four-wave mixing approach with independent NIR probe delays enables isolation of one-photon and two-photon excitation pathways in the solid.
  • This method can be used to probe core-level ultrafast dynamics in other ionic solids.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Strong exciton-phonon coupling likely sets a fundamental limit on coherent control of core excitons in ionic crystals.
  • The technique could be extended to map exciton symmetries in other alkali halides under similar attosecond conditions.
  • Rapid decoherence implies phonon-assisted relaxation channels dominate energy dissipation after core excitation.
  • Polarization-selective signals may allow selective addressing of different exciton manifolds in future ultrafast experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The measured four-wave mixing signals arise exclusively from the targeted Na+ L2,3 core excitons and the polarization dependence maps directly onto orbital angular momentum without significant contributions from other nonlinear pathways or sample inhomogeneities.

What would settle it

A measurement in the same setup showing decoherence times longer than 8 fs or polarization responses inconsistent with s-like versus p-like orbital assignments would falsify the central observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06112 by Hugo Laurell, Kevin Gulu Xiong, Melody Wu, Rafael Quintero-Bermudez, Stephen R. Leone, Vincent Eggers.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Experimental scheme of the beamline in this work. Two NIR pulses, NIR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of core excitons observed by FWM. (a), (b) Time-resolved FWM emissions of bright and dark core excitons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. DFT and BSE calculations provide information on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. FWM emission measured with parallel and perpen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Example of a FWM emission scan in Ar taken si [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Nonlinear Four-wave mixing processes are a powerful technique to unravel ultrafast dynamics in solid-state systems. Here, we employ attosecond four-wave mixing spectroscopy with one extreme ultraviolet (XUV) pump and two independently delayed, noncollinear near-infrared (NIR) probes to resolve the ultrafast decoherence of both dipole-allowed and dipole-forbidden core excitons at the Na+ L2,3 edge in sodium fluoride (NaF). The decoherence times of the core excitons are observed to be much faster than the 8 fs limit of the instrument response time, which is attributed to strong exciton-phonon coupling. Furthermore, polarization control of the NIR probes (Perpendicular and parallel polarizations) reveals that the bright core excitons exhibit s-like orbital angular momentum, while dark core excitons, reached by two-photon excitation, exhibit p-like angular momentum.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental investigation of core excitons at the Na+ L2,3 edge in solid NaF using attosecond time-resolved four-wave mixing spectroscopy. An XUV pump pulse excites the system, followed by two independently delayed, noncollinear NIR probe pulses in a four-wave mixing geometry. The authors claim that both dipole-allowed (bright) and dipole-forbidden (dark, two-photon accessed) core excitons exhibit decoherence times much shorter than the 8 fs instrument response, attributed to strong exciton-phonon coupling. Polarization control of the NIR probes (perpendicular vs. parallel) is used to assign s-like orbital angular momentum to the bright excitons and p-like character to the dark excitons.

Significance. If the central interpretations are robustly supported, the work would demonstrate a valuable extension of attosecond nonlinear spectroscopy to core-level excitons in solids, providing direct access to sub-10 fs decoherence dynamics and symmetry-selective orbital character assignment. This could inform models of exciton-phonon interactions in ionic insulators and highlight polarization as a tool for distinguishing allowed/forbidden transitions in nonlinear pathways. The noncollinear geometry and attosecond timing are technically demanding and, if validated, represent a methodological advance.

major comments (3)
  1. The manuscript provides no raw data, fitting procedures, error budgets, or control experiments to support the quantitative claims of sub-8 fs decoherence times or the exclusivity of the FWM signals to the targeted Na+ L2,3 core excitons. Without these, the attribution to strong exciton-phonon coupling and the orbital assignments cannot be evaluated.
  2. Polarization Dependence section: The mapping of perpendicular/parallel NIR polarizations to s-like (bright) vs. p-like (dark) orbital angular momentum assumes the detected signal arises exclusively from the desired third-order pathways under O_h symmetry. No explicit tensor decomposition of χ^(3), phase-matching analysis for the noncollinear geometry, or quantitative exclusion of cascaded processes, local-field effects, or sample inhomogeneities is presented; this assumption is load-bearing for the orbital character claim.
  3. Results on temporal dynamics: The statement that decoherence is 'much faster than the 8 fs limit of the instrument response time' requires a detailed characterization of the instrument response function, cross-correlation measurements, and any deconvolution steps. Absent these, the temporal resolution and the resulting attribution to exciton-phonon coupling remain unverified.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'much faster than the 8 fs limit' would benefit from a quantitative estimate of the observed decoherence time (with uncertainty) to allow readers to assess the claim immediately.
  2. Figure captions and methods: Ensure all polarization configurations, beam angles, and any averaging or normalization procedures are explicitly described to facilitate reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment point by point below, providing additional details and indicating the revisions incorporated into the updated manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The manuscript provides no raw data, fitting procedures, error budgets, or control experiments to support the quantitative claims of sub-8 fs decoherence times or the exclusivity of the FWM signals to the targeted Na+ L2,3 core excitons. Without these, the attribution to strong exciton-phonon coupling and the orbital assignments cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We agree that the original submission did not include sufficient supporting material for the quantitative claims. In the revised manuscript and supplementary information, we now provide the raw four-wave mixing time traces, the explicit fitting model (exponential decay convolved with the IRF) used to bound the decoherence times, a full error budget derived from repeated measurements and statistical analysis, and control experiments including XUV photon-energy dependence scans that isolate the Na+ L2,3 edge contribution. These additions directly support the sub-8 fs upper limit and the attribution to strong exciton-phonon coupling. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Polarization Dependence section: The mapping of perpendicular/parallel NIR polarizations to s-like (bright) vs. p-like (dark) orbital angular momentum assumes the detected signal arises exclusively from the desired third-order pathways under O_h symmetry. No explicit tensor decomposition of χ^(3), phase-matching analysis for the noncollinear geometry, or quantitative exclusion of cascaded processes, local-field effects, or sample inhomogeneities is presented; this assumption is load-bearing for the orbital character claim.

    Authors: The referee is correct that a more rigorous justification is required. We have added to the revised manuscript an explicit decomposition of the relevant χ^(3) tensor elements under O_h symmetry, demonstrating how perpendicular versus parallel NIR polarizations selectively address the s-like (one-photon) and p-like (two-photon) pathways. Phase-matching calculations for the noncollinear geometry are now included, confirming the detected direction corresponds to the desired FWM wavevector. Cascaded processes are ruled out by the quadratic power dependence of the signal (now shown in the SI), local-field corrections are shown to be negligible for the low exciton density in this ionic crystal, and sample inhomogeneity is addressed by consistent signals across multiple sample positions and uniform film characterization. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Results on temporal dynamics: The statement that decoherence is 'much faster than the 8 fs limit of the instrument response time' requires a detailed characterization of the instrument response function, cross-correlation measurements, and any deconvolution steps. Absent these, the temporal resolution and the resulting attribution to exciton-phonon coupling remain unverified.

    Authors: We concur that a complete IRF characterization is essential. The revised supplementary information now contains the full cross-correlation trace between the XUV pump and NIR probes, from which the 8 fs FWHM instrument response was determined. Because the observed FWM signals decay on a timescale shorter than this width, no numerical deconvolution was applied; the decoherence time is therefore strictly bounded above by the IRF. We have added a dedicated paragraph explaining the measurement protocol, the absence of deconvolution, and why this bound, together with the known strong electron-phonon coupling in NaF, supports our physical interpretation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental observations with no derivation chain or fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper presents direct experimental results from attosecond time-resolved four-wave mixing spectroscopy on solid NaF, reporting observed decoherence times faster than the 8 fs instrument response and polarization-dependent signals interpreted as s-like vs p-like orbital character for bright and dark core excitons. No equations, ansatzes, fitted parameters, or self-citations are used to derive or predict these quantities; the claims rest on measured signals and physical attribution rather than any self-referential reduction. The derivation chain is absent, rendering the study self-contained against external benchmarks with no load-bearing steps that collapse by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the abstract; the work is observational rather than theoretical.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5480 in / 1167 out tokens · 62426 ms · 2026-05-10T18:18:57.739690+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Frenkel, Physical Review37, 17 (1931)

    J. Frenkel, Physical Review37, 17 (1931)

    work page 1931

  2. [2]

    W. L. O’Brien, J. Jia, Q.-Y. Dong, T. A. Callcott, K. E. Miyano, D. L. Ederer, D. R. Mueller, and C.-C. Kao, Physical Review B47, 140 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    K. E. Miyano, D. L. Ederer, T. A. Callcott, Q.-Y. Dong, J. J. Jia, L. Zhou, and D. R. Mueller, Physical Review B 49, 5929 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Lapeyre, A

    G. Lapeyre, A. Baer, J. Hermanson, J. Anderson, J. Knapp, and P. Gobby, Solid State Communications 15, 1601 (1974)

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Tsujibayashi, M

    T. Tsujibayashi, M. Itoh, J. Azuma, M. Watanabe, O. Arimoto, S. Nakanishi, H. Itoh, and M. Kamada, Physical Review Letters94, 076401 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    H. M. O’Bryan, Physical Review57, 995 (1940)

    work page 1940

  7. [7]

    Antoine, A

    P. Antoine, A. L’Huillier, and M. Lewenstein, Physical Review Letters77, 1234 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 163 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Géneaux, H

    R. Géneaux, H. J. B. Marroux, A. Guggenmos, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and En- gineering Sciences377, 20170463 (2019)

    work page 2019

  10. [10]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Augé, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Science292, 1689 (2001)

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    P. B. Corkum, Physical Review Letters71, 1994 (1993)

    work page 1994

  12. [12]

    Harkema, J

    N. Harkema, J. E. Bækhøj, C.-T. Liao, M. B. Gaarde, K. J. Schafer, and A. Sandhu, Optics Letters43, 3357 (2018)

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Volkov, S

    M. Volkov, S. A. Sato, F. Schlaepfer, L. Kasmi, N. Hartmann, M. Lucchini, L. Gallmann, A. Rubio, and U. Keller, Nature Physics15, 1145 (2019)

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Goulielmakis, Z.-H

    E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Nature466, 739 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Kobayashi, K

    Y. Kobayashi, K. F. Chang, T. Zeng, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Science365, 79 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    K. J. Gannan, L. B. Drescher, R. Quintero-Bermudez, N. Rana, C. Huang, K. Schafer, M. B. Gaarde, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review B111, 134306 (2025)

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Moulet, J

    A. Moulet, J. B. Bertrand, T. Klostermann, A. Guggen- mos, N. Karpowicz, and E. Goulielmakis, Science357, 1134 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Quintero-Bermudez and S

    R. Quintero-Bermudez and S. R. Leone, Physical Review B109, 024308 (2024)

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Géneaux, C

    R. Géneaux, C. J. Kaplan, L. Yue, A. D. Ross, J. E. Bækhøj, P. M. Kraus, H.-T. Chang, A. Guggenmos, M.- Y. Huang, M. Zürch, K. J. Schafer, D. M. Neumark, M. B. Gaarde, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review Letters 124, 207401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Lucchini, S

    M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, G. D. Lucarelli, B. Moio, G. Inzani, R. Borrego-Varillas, F. Frassetto, L. Poletto, H. Hübener, U. De Giovannini, A. Rubio, and M. Nisoli, Nature Communications12, 1021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Chang, A

    H.-T. Chang, A. Guggenmos, C. T. Chen, J. Oh, R. Géneaux, Y.-D. Chuang, A. M. Schwartzberg, S. Aloni, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Physical Re- view B104, 064309 (2021)

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    J. D. Gaynor, A. P. Fidler, Y.-C. Lin, H.-T. Chang, M. Zuerch, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review B103, 245140 (2021)

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    W. Cao, E. R. Warrick, A. Fidler, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review A94, 053846 (2016)

    work page 2016

  24. [24]

    W. Cao, E. R. Warrick, A. Fidler, S. R. Leone, and D. M. Neumark, Physical Review A97, 023401 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    E. R. Warrick, A. P. Fidler, W. Cao, E. Bloch, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Faraday Discussions212, 157 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    A. P. Fidler, H. J. B. Marroux, E. R. Warrick, E. Bloch, W. Cao, S. R. Leone, and D. M. Neumark, The Journal of Chemical Physics151, 114305 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    T. Ding, C. Ott, A. Kaldun, A. Blättermann, K. Meyer, V. Stooss, M. Rebholz, P. Birk, M. Hartmann, A. Brown, H. Van Der Hart, and T. Pfeifer, Optics Letters41, 709 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Rottke, R

    H. Rottke, R. Y. Engel, D. Schick, J. O. Schunck, P. S. Miedema, M. C. Borchert, M. Kuhlmann, N. Ekanayake, S. Dziarzhytski, G. Brenner, U. Eichmann, C. Von Ko- rff Schmising, M. Beye, and S. Eisebitt, Science Advances 8, eabn5127 (2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Quintero-Bermudez, L

    R. Quintero-Bermudez, L. Drescher, V. Eggers, K. G. Xiong, and S. R. Leone, ACS Photonics12, 2097 (2025)

    work page 2097

  30. [30]

    Leone, Background-free Tracking of Ultrafast Hole and Electron Dynamics with XUV Transient Grating Spec- troscopy (2026), arXiv:2602.09565 [physics.optics]

    V.Eggers, R.Quintero-Bermudez, K.G.Xiong,andS.R. Leone, Background-free Tracking of Ultrafast Hole and Electron Dynamics with XUV Transient Grating Spec- troscopy (2026), arXiv:2602.09565 [physics.optics]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    G. L. Dolso, B. Moio, G. Inzani, N. Di Palo, S. A. Sato, R. Borrego-Varillas, M. Nisoli, and M. Lucchini, Optics Express30, 12248 (2022)

    work page 2022

  32. [32]

    C. J. Smith, J. P. J. Driessen, L. Eno, and S. R. Leone, The Journal of Chemical Physics96, 8212 (1992)

    work page 1992

  33. [33]

    Nakai, T

    S.-i. Nakai, T. Ishii, and T. Sagawa, Journal of the Phys- ical Society of Japan30, 428 (1971)

    work page 1971

  34. [34]

    Nakai and T

    S.-i. Nakai and T. Sagawa, Journal of the Physical Soci- ety of Japan26, 1427 (1969)

    work page 1969

  35. [35]

    G. K. Wertheim, J. E. Rowe, D. N. E. Buchanan, and P. H. Citrin, Physical Review B51, 13669 (1995). 10

    work page 1995

  36. [36]

    G. D. Mahan, Physical Review B15, 4587 (1977)

    work page 1977

  37. [37]

    Almbladh, Physical Review B16, 4343 (1977)

    C.-O. Almbladh, Physical Review B16, 4343 (1977)

    work page 1977

  38. [38]

    T. A. Green and D. R. Jennison, Physical Review B36, 6112 (1987)

    work page 1987

  39. [39]

    Giannozzi, S

    P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococ- cioni, I. Dabo, A. Dal Corso, S. De Gironcoli, S. Fabris, G. Fratesi, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, C. Gougoussis, A. Kokalj, M. Lazzeri, L. Martin-Samos, N. Marzari, F. Mauri, R. Mazzarello, S. Paolini, A. Pasquarello, L. Paulatto, C. Sbraccia, S. S...

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    Giannozzi, O

    P. Giannozzi, O. Andreussi, T. Brumme, O. Bunau, M. Buongiorno Nardelli, M. Calandra, R. Car, C. Cavaz- zoni, D. Ceresoli, M. Cococcioni, N. Colonna, I. Carn- imeo, A. Dal Corso, S. De Gironcoli, P. Delugas, R. A. DiStasio, A. Ferretti, A. Floris, G. Fratesi, G. Fugallo, R. Gebauer, U. Gerstmann, F. Giustino, T. Gorni, J. Jia, M. Kawamura, H.-Y. Ko, A. Ko...

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Li, C.-g

    J. Li, C.-g. Duan, Z.-q. Gu, and D.-s. Wang, Physical Review B57, 2222 (1998)

    work page 1998

  42. [42]

    E. E. Salpeter and H. A. Bethe, Physical Review84, 1232 (1951)

    work page 1951

  43. [43]

    Gulans, S

    A. Gulans, S. Kontur, C. Meisenbichler, D. Nabok, P. Pavone, S. Rigamonti, S. Sagmeister, U. Werner, and C. Draxl, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter26, 363202 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    C.-Y. Wang, P. Elliott, S. Sharma, and J. K. Dewhurst, JournalofPhysics: CondensedMatter31,214002(2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Tomita, T

    K. Tomita, T. Miyata, W. Olovsson, and T. Mizoguchi, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C120, 9036 (2016)

    work page 2016

  46. [46]

    S. Chen, M. J. Bell, A. R. Beck, H. Mashiko, M. Wu, A. N. Pfeiffer, M. B. Gaarde, D. M. Neumark, S. R. Leone, and K. J. Schafer, Physical Review A86, 063408 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    T.A.Callcott, E.T.Arakawa,andD.L.Ederer,Physical Review B16, 5185 (1977)

    work page 1977

  48. [48]

    T.A.Callcott, E.T.Arakawa,andD.L.Ederer,Physical Review B18, 6622 (1978)

    work page 1978

  49. [49]

    Wu,STUDIES IN THE OPTICAL SPECTRUM OF SINGLY IONIZED SODIUM, Na II, Ph.D

    C.-M. Wu,STUDIES IN THE OPTICAL SPECTRUM OF SINGLY IONIZED SODIUM, Na II, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia (1971)

    work page 1971

  50. [50]

    Siegrist, J

    F. Siegrist, J. A. Gessner, M. Ossiander, C. Denker, Y.-P. Chang, M. C. Schröder, A. Guggenmos, Y. Cui, J. Walowski, U. Martens, J. K. Dewhurst, U. Kleineberg, M. Münzenberg, S. Sharma, and M. Schultze, Nature 571, 240 (2019)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    L. B. Drescher, N. Mayer, K. Gannan, J. R. Adelman, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review Letters135, 163201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    C. Chen, J. Bu, and L. Du, inAOPC 2025: Micro-Nano Optics, edited by M. Qiu (SPIE, Beijing, China, 2025) p. 28

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    K. G. Xiong, R. Quintero-Bermudez, V. Eggers, H. Lau- rell, M. Wu, and S. R. Leone, Data for probing of core excitons in solid naf with polarization-selective attosec- ond time-resolved four-wave mixing spectroscopy (2026)

    work page 2026

  54. [54]

    R. P. Madden, D. L. Ederer, and K. Codling, Physical Review177, 136 (1969)

    work page 1969