Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Higgs-mediated optical amplification in a non-equilibrium superconductor

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Excited Higgs mode can amplify light reflected from a superconductor

desk verdict Theoretical mechanism is clean and likely right; experimental support is suggestive but hinges on a depth-profile inversion that the paper itself admits does not show R>1 in the raw data. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10879 v1 pith:SUVIUPNK submitted 2019-08-28 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.str-el

Michele Buzzi , Gregor Jotzu , Andrea Cavalleri , J. Ignacio Cirac , Eugene A. Demler , Bertrand I. Halperin , Mikhail D. Lukin , Tao Shi
show 2 more authors
Yao Wang Daniel Podolsky
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.str-el
keywords HiggsmodeparametricamplificationphotoinducedsuperconductivityK3C60terahertzpump-probespectroscopynon-equilibriumsuperconductoridlergenerationopticalconductivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes that the Higgs mode—the coherent oscillation of the superconducting order-parameter amplitude—can act as an optical parametric amplifier. If a metal is quenched into a transient superconducting state faster than the Higgs period, the superfluid density oscillates at the Higgs frequency $\omega_H$; that oscillation modulates the refractive index, so a delayed probe beam at frequency $\omega_1 < \omega_H$ returns with reflectivity $R > 1$ and generates an idler beam at $\omega_H - \omega_1$. The authors solve Maxwell's equations for this time-modulated superconductor and obtain exact reflection amplitudes, Eqs. (20)–(21), predicting broadband amplification throughout the gap. They then report pump–probe measurements on K3C60: with a 100 fs mid-infrared pump the inferred local reflectivity reaches about 1.04–1.06 below 10 meV, while a 1.8 ps pump produces only the saturated $R = 1$ of the transient superconductor. The effect would matter because it offers a collective-mode route to amplifying and entangling terahertz light.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a time-dependent London equation in which the superfluid stiffness oscillates at the Higgs frequency, $\Lambda(t) = \Lambda_s + \Lambda_m e^{-i\omega_H t} + \Lambda_m^* e^{i\omega_H t}$. Substituting this into Maxwell's equations with evanescent waves of the form $(E_1 e^{-i\omega_1 t} + E_2^* e^{i\omega_2 t}) e^{\kappa z}$ couples the signal and idler modes through the off-diagonal block proportional to $\Lambda_m$; requiring the determinant to vanish fixes the two decay constants $\kappa_\pm$, and matching boundary conditions at the surface gives the main results: the reflection coefficient $r$ in Eq. (20) and the idler amplitude $r_{12}$ in Eq. (21). The coupling is the diamagnetic term $H_{\mathrm{dia}} \propto n_s A^2$, which for oscillating $n_s$ acts like a beam-splitter interaction $h a^\dagger_{\omega_1} a^\dagger_{\omega_2} + \mathrm{h.c.}$; the frequency-matching condition $\omega_1 + \omega_2 = \omega_H$ is the identity that carries the argument. No phase matching is needed because the coupled modes share a single spatial decay, which is why the gain is broadband rather than resonant.

What would settle it

Measure the time-resolved reflected probe spectrum with frequency resolution in a geometry where the pump and probe penetration depths are matched (for example, a thin K3C60 film on a transparent substrate): if the raw, uncorrected reflectivity stays at or below 1 while the current analysis predicts $R > 1$, the amplified reflectivity is an artifact of the depth-inversion model. Alternatively, look for the idler beam at $\omega_2 = \omega_H - \omega_1$; its complete absence at the predicted efficiency would rule out the parametric mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coherently excited Higgs mode converts one incoming photon at frequency $\omega_1$ into an amplified reflected photon at the same frequency plus a second 'idler' photon at $\omega_2 = \omega_H - \omega_1$, so that the reflected intensity at $\omega_1$ exceeds the incident intensity. The microscopic source is the diamagnetic coupling $H_{\mathrm{dia}} \propto n_s A^2$: with superfluid density oscillating as $n_s = n_{s,0} + \delta n \cos(\omega_H t)$, the $A^2$ term contains $h a^\dagger_{\omega_1} a^\dagger_{\omega_2} + \mathrm{h.c.}$, and bosonic stimulation by the $N$ incoming photons gives a factor $\sqrt{N+1}$. Because the probe field inside the superconductor is evanescent, there is no phase-matching constraint, and $R = |r|^2 > 1$ holds for every $0 < \omega_1 < \omega_H$ in the lossless limit, with a maximum at $\omega_H/2$ and a small gain set by $(|\Lambda_m|^2/\Lambda_s^2)(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{out}} \omega_H^2 / 4 \varepsilon_s \omega_{ps}^2)$. The same calculation yields the idler amplitude $r_{12}$. In K3C60, the theory reproduces the measured complex conductivity with $\omega_H \approx 24\,\mathrm{meV}/\hbar$ and a Higgs modulation amplitude $\Lambda_m/\Lambda_s$ that grows from 0.2 to 0.47 as the pump duration is shortened from 1.8 ps to 100 fs; the paper notes explicitly that the raw reflected signal does not itself exceed unity and that the $R > 1$ values are inferred after correcting for the shorter penetration depth of the pump.

Load-bearing premise

The experimental evidence for amplification rests on the assumption that the pump-induced change in refractive index at each depth is proportional to the local pump intensity and falls off exponentially with depth; the raw reflected signal alone never exceeds unit reflectivity, so if that depth profile is wrong the inferred $R > 1$ and negative $\sigma_1$ could be artifacts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A superconducting sample with a coherently excited Higgs mode should emit an idler beam at $\omega_H - \omega_1$ whenever a probe at $\omega_1$ is reflected; detecting that idler would be a direct fingerprint of the mechanism and would fix $\omega_H$ in transient states where the gap is hidden.
  • The amplification window is the whole range $0 < \omega_1 < \omega_H$, with maximum gain at $\omega_H/2$; materials with a larger ratio $\omega_H/\omega_{ps}$, or probe geometries such as oblique incidence, should show proportionally stronger amplification.
  • In K3C60, shortening the pump from 1.8 ps to 100 fs at fixed fluence increases the inferred Higgs modulation from $\Lambda_m/\Lambda_s \approx 0.2$ to 0.47, while the superfluid density changes only mildly—so the pulse duration, not the total energy, is what launches the amplifying mode.
  • The same parametric process should generate entangled photon pairs at THz frequencies, with the pump intensity, duration, and incidence angle controlling the entanglement properties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive next experiment would detect the idler at $\omega_2 = \omega_H - \omega_1$; its presence would separate Higgs-mediated amplification from other parametric processes and would provide a time-resolved Higgs spectrometer for photoinduced superconductors.
  • Because Eq. (1) requires only an amplitude mode with broken-symmetry coupling to photons, the mechanism should transfer to charge-density-wave, spin-density-wave, and excitonic condensates; testing the scaling of gain with their amplitude-mode frequency would reveal whether the Higgs mode is special or one instance of a general collective-mode amplifier.
  • The raw-versus-inferred discrepancy in the K3C60 data suggests a simple control: repeat the measurement on a film thin enough, or with a pump that penetrates as deeply as the probe, that the pumped region is nearly homogeneous; then $R > 1$ should be visible in the raw reflection, removing the layer-model assumption.
  • In the theory, the $\omega_3 = \omega_1 + \omega_H$ mixing channel is assumed negligible; a frequency-resolved measurement in the range between the gap and the mid-infrared absorption would test that assumption directly and constrain the quasiparticle contribution to the nonlinear response.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that, following a rapid quench into a transient superconducting state, coherent oscillations of the order-parameter amplitude (the Higgs mode) parametrically amplify an incident THz probe. Concretely, the authors take the superfluid density to be time-modulated, Lambda(t) = Lambda_s + Lambda_m exp(-i omega_H t) + c.c., and solve Maxwell's equations with a London constitutive relation. For probe frequencies omega_1 < omega_H this yields reflection coefficient R > 1 at the signal frequency and generation of an idler at omega_2 = omega_H - omega_1, with the closed-form results in Eqs. (20)-(24). The manuscript also reports pump-probe data on K3C60: after inverting the measured reflection change with a multilayer model that accounts for the pump/probe penetration-depth mismatch, the 100-fs-pump data are claimed to show an inferred local reflectivity of up to ~1.06 and negative sigma_1 below ~10 meV, whereas 1.8-ps-pump data show R ~ 1. A fit with omega_H = 24 meV and two free parameters per pulse duration (Lambda_s and Lambda_m/Lambda_s) reproduces the inferred optical conductivity. The paper concludes that the effect disappears when the quench becomes slower than the Higgs-mode period, consistent with the proposed parametric mechanism.

Significance. If the mechanism is realized, this is a qualitatively new functionality: a collective amplitude mode acting as a parametric amplifier, with idler generation and potential applications as a THz photon-pair source. The theoretical derivation in Section III is transparent, internally coherent, and analytically explicit; Eq. (24) usefully separates the parametric intensity dependence, |Lambda_m|^2/Lambda_s^2, from the geometric suppression set by the penetration depth. The experimental support, however, is indirect and model-dependent: the reported above-unity reflectivity is not present in the raw reflected signal and appears only after the Appendix A inversion that assumes a specific depth profile for the pump-induced refractive-index change. The paper contains no error bars, no sensitivity analysis, and no independent calibration of the profile. The work would be a strong contribution if the experimental claim can be placed on firmer footing, or if the theory is explicitly presented as the main result with the K3C60 data as a preliminary, consistency-checking observation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2) and Fig. 6] The central experimental evidence for R > 1 is not contained in the raw data. The paper explicitly concedes in Appendix A that "we do not actually observe amplification in the raw reflected signal" and that amplification "would have been observed if the pump pulse were able to penetrate more deeply." The inversion that produces the reported surface reflectivity uses Eq. (A2) together with the assumed profile Delta n(omega, z) = Delta n(omega) exp(-alpha z), where the pump-induced change is taken proportional to the local pump intensity. Since the probe penetration depth (600-900 nm) is three to four times larger than the pump penetration depth (~220 nm), the depth-correction factor is large, and small errors in alpha, in the exponential form, or in the assumption that a single profile applies to all probe frequencies can move the inferred surface reflectivity from below unity to above unity. No error bars, sensitivity analysis, or independent determination of the profile are provided. To support the experimental claim, the authors need either a sensitivity study over a range of physically plausible profiles and alpha values, or a calibration of the depth profile by an independent measurement; otherwise the above-unity reflectivity remains an artifact of the model assumptions.
  2. [Section V, Table I, and Fig. 5] The pulse-duration dependence that is used to argue for a non-adiabatic quench is confounded by peak-intensity variation. The fluence is held constant, so the 100 fs pulse has approximately an order of magnitude higher peak intensity than the 1.8 ps pulse. Table I reports Lambda_s/Lambda_s,eq = 1.17 for 100 fs versus 1.05 for 1.8 ps, and the text states that the shorter pulses "drive the superconductivity more strongly." Consequently, the monotonic increase of Lambda_m/Lambda_s (0.20 to 0.47) and the appearance of inferred amplification for the shortest pulse may partly reflect the stronger effective pump strength rather than the faster quench relative to the Higgs period. The assertion that the effect disappears when the onset of the excitation becomes slower than the Higgs-mode period is therefore not uniquely established by this dataset. The authors should either match peak intensities by adjusting fluence, or model the intensity dependence explicitly and show that the quench-rate interpretation survives.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (5), and Section V fit] The theory takes Lambda_m as an input and does not compute it from a quench model. Eq. (5) postulates a sinusoidal modulation of the superfluid density, and the experimental fit then adjusts Lambda_m/Lambda_s and omega_H to match the observed reflectivity. Since R > 1 follows by construction for any nonzero Lambda_m, the agreement of the fit does not by itself confirm that a coherent Higgs mode is the physical origin of the inferred negative dissipation. The manuscript states that the discussion is agnostic about the microscopic mechanism, but the conclusion that the data "support these predictions" needs more than an unconstrained fit parameter. A decisive test would be direct detection of the idler at omega_2 = omega_H - omega_1, which the paper notes is not measured; in the absence of idler detection, the authors should clearly state that the experiment constrains the model only after assuming that a Higgs-like modulation exists, and they should discuss what independent microscopic estimate of Lambda_m is compatible with the fitted values.
  4. [Section IV and V, assumption on pulse-energy-only final state] The interpretation of the pulse-duration dependence rests on the assumption, introduced in Section IV, that the effective final-state Hamiltonian for the low-energy electrons depends only on the total pulse energy and not on its duration. This assumption is contradicted in part by the paper's own findings, because Table I shows that Lambda_s/Lambda_s,eq changes from 1.05 to 1.17 as the pulse duration is shortened even though the total energy is held fixed. The text acknowledges the contradiction and attributes it to stronger nonlinear driving, but then the subsequent step that treats Lambda_m/Lambda_s as a pure quench-rate diagnostic is not justified. The authors should either provide a theoretical argument that separates the intensity effect from the rate effect, or reduce the claim to a qualitative statement that shorter pulses produce larger fitted modulations without attributing the entire effect to non-adiabaticity.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, experimental geometry] The text first says the sample was "excited at normal incidence" and later says the probe pulses "strike the sample at near normal incidence, with a 7 degree incidence angle." Please clarify which geometry applies to the pump and probe, respectively, and whether any refractive correction at the diamond interface was accounted for in the multilayer inversion.
  2. [Figs. 4 and 5] The figures show no error bars or confidence intervals. At minimum, the authors should report the statistical uncertainty in the inferred reflectivity and superfluid density, especially because the main conclusion rests on the difference between 1.04 and 1.00.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (24)] The phrase "the amplification is proportional to the intensity of the modulation" is slightly misleading because Lambda_m in Eq. (24) is an amplitude; the expression is proportional to |Lambda_m|^2, which is the modulation intensity. Consider rewording to avoid confusion.
  4. [References] Reference 45 is listed only as "Y. Wang, D. Podolsky, and E. A. Demler (2019)" without a title or journal, and reference 11 is a preprint without an archive identifier. Please complete these citations.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the key amplification amplitude Λm/Λs is fitted to the same reflectivity data used to claim R>1, and the above-unity reflectance appears only after a depth-profile inversion, not in raw data.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, 'Comparison of theory and experiment', Eq. (20) and Table I]
    "We find that it is possible to describe the experimental data well by taking ωH = 24 meV/ℏ. Then, for each value of τ, there are only two parameters we allow to change, the superfluid density Λs and the amplitude of Higgs modulations, Λm/Λs."

    The main prediction of amplification, Eq. (24), is Rmax = 1 + |Λm|^2/Λs^2 · ϵoutωH^2/(4ϵsωps^2). Thus any nonzero fitted Λm produces R>1, and Λm/Λs is fitted to the same transient reflectivity/conductivity data from which the inferred R≈1.04–1.06 is read. The existence and rough magnitude of above-unity reflectivity are therefore built into the fit rather than independently predicted. The fit can test the model's line shapes and frequency dependence, but it cannot independently establish the central amplification claim, because the amplification amplitude is an adjustable input. The pulse-duration trend in Table I (Λm/Λs = 0.2, 0.37, 0.47) is likewise extracted from the data, not predicted before fitting.

full rationale

The theoretical part of the paper is a self-contained scattering calculation: from the London equation with a time-modulated stiffness Λ(t)=Λs+Λm e^{-iωHt}+c.c., Maxwell's equations lead to Eqs. (20)–(24). This is not circular by itself because the modulation amplitude Λm is an explicit input, and the paper candidly states in Sec. II that it is 'agnostic about the specific microscopic mechanism... assuming that Higgs oscillations have been coherently excited.' However, the experimental validation is partially circular. The key parameter that controls amplification, Λm/Λs, is one of only two free parameters fitted to the very reflectivity/conductivity data from which the inferred R≈1.04–1.06 is obtained (Sec. V, Table I). Since Eq. (24) scales R−1 with |Λm|^2/Λs^2, the existence and rough magnitude of the above-unity reflectivity are put in by the fit, not independently predicted. What survives is the frequency-dependent line shape and the qualitative pulse-duration trend, but even the latter is read from fitted values. A separate, non-circular but load-bearing limitation is that the raw data do not show R>1: Appendix A states 'while we do not actually observe amplification in the raw reflected signal, our analysis suggests that amplification would have been observed if the pump pulse were able to penetrate more deeply into the sample.' Thus the experimental support rests on the assumed exp(−αz) depth profile and on the proportionality between pump intensity and refractive-index change. No self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is used to force the conclusion; the circularity is concentrated in the fit-to-prediction step.

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

The central derivation postulates a sinusoidally modulated superfluid density and computes the resulting optical response; the modulation amplitude is not derived. The experiment fits Lambda_m, Lambda_s, and omegaH to the measured spectra, and the key inversion from raw data to local properties relies on an assumed depth profile. The photoinduced superconducting state and the prompt establishment of the Mexican-hat potential are assumed rather than demonstrated.

free parameters (3)
  • Higgs modulation amplitude Lambda_m/Lambda_s = 0.2 (1800 fs), 0.37 (1000 fs), 0.47 (100 fs)
    The amplitude of the oscillating superfluid-density modulation is not derived; it is fitted per pulse duration to reproduce the measured reflectivity and conductivity (Section V, Table I).
  • Superfluid density scale Lambda_s/Lambda_s,eq = 1.05 (1800 fs), 1.11 (1000 fs), 1.17 (100 fs)
    Varied per pulse duration to fit the low-frequency imaginary conductivity. Its increase with decreasing pulse duration indicates that the final state is not independent of pump duration.
  • Higgs frequency omegaH = 24 meV/hbar
    Not directly measured; chosen so that the theoretical reflectivity curves match the data. Independent estimates only bound it near 20-30 meV/hbar (Section V).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A sudden optical quench promptly establishes the Mexican-hat potential for the superconducting order parameter and coherently excites the Higgs mode.
    Introduction: 'we posit that the Mexican hat effective potential for the superconducting order parameter is established promptly after optical excitation'. The microscopic mechanism of photo-induced superconductivity is not understood, and this postulate is required for large Higgs oscillations.
  • domain assumption The time-dependent London equation j=Lambda(t) v_s, with Lambda(t)=Lambda_s+Lambda_m e^{-i omegaH t}+c.c., is a valid starting approximation for the THz current response.
    Section III, Eqs. (4)-(5). The paper states this is used 'under the assumption that it is at least a good starting approximation for the frequencies of interest'. The gap dependence of Lambda and the modulation are asserted, not derived.
  • domain assumption The photoinduced transient state in K3C60 is a superconductor with a gapped conductivity and divergent imaginary conductivity.
    Section IV interprets the transient optical properties as a superconductor. The identification of light-induced superconductivity in K3C60 was itself a subject of active debate, and the Higgs-amplification interpretation depends on this identification.
  • domain assumption The omega3 = omega1 + omegaH mixing channel is negligible.
    Section III: 'we assume that excitation of the omega3 mode is negligible, and we omit it entirely from our considerations'. If this channel is not weak, the reflection and conversion amplitudes differ.
  • ad hoc to paper The final low-energy Hamiltonian depends only on total pulse energy, not pulse duration.
    Section IV: 'we assume as a first approximation that the effective final state Hamiltonian experienced by the low-energy electrons depends only on the total pulse energy'. This assumption underpins the interpretation that pulse duration controls quench speed.
  • ad hoc to paper The pump-induced change in refractive index is proportional to the pump intensity in each layer and decays exponentially with depth.
    Appendix A: 'the pump-induced changes in the refractive index are proportional to the pump intensity in the layer, i.e. n(omega,z)=n0(omega)+Delta n(omega) e^{-alpha z}'. This model converts raw reflection data into the inferred local surface reflectivity that exceeds 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higgs-mediated optical amplification in a non-equilibrium superconductor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUVIUPNK

@misc{pith2026190810879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higgs-mediated optical amplification in a non-equilibrium superconductor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUVIUPNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10879}
}
abstract

The quest for new functionalities in quantum materials has recently been extended to non-equilibrium states, which are interesting both because they exhibit new physical phenomena and because of their potential for high-speed device applications. Notable advances have been made in the creation of metastable phases and in Floquet engineering under external periodic driving. In the context of non-equilibrium superconductivity, examples have included the generation of transient superconductivity above the thermodynamic transition temperature, the excitation of coherent Higgs mode oscillations, and the optical control of the interlayer phase in cuprates. Here, we propose theoretically a novel non-equilibrium phenomenon, through which a prompt quench from a metal to a transient superconducting state could induce large oscillations of the order parameter amplitude. We argue that this oscillating mode could act as a source of parametric amplification of the incident radiation. We report experimental results on optically driven K$_3$C$_{60}$ that are consistent with these predictions. The effect is found to disappear when the onset of the excitation becomes slower than the Higgs mode period, consistent with the theory proposed here. These results open new possibilities for the use of collective modes in many-body systems to induce non-linear optical effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10879 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Schematic potential in a broken symmetry state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows R = |r| 2 and R12 = |r12| 2 as a function of ω1, in the case ωH < ωps, where ωps = p Λs/(ε0s) is the superconducting plasma frequency of the mate￾rial. Note that, in the absence of dissipation, there is amplification R > 1 over the entire range 0 < ω1 < ωH, and the maximum amplification occurs at ω1 = ωH/2. One can study the effect of dissipation by writing (ω) = ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ��� ���� ���� ���� ���� (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Sketch of the experimental geometry. K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Reflectivity and complex optical conductivity (sample-diamond interface) of K [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Inferred local transient reflectivity (sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The left panel shows raw data for the reflectivity (sample-diamond interface), in equilibrium and after photoexcitation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Optical conductivity of the normal state at equilib [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Quantum Hall effect induced by electron-phonon interaction

    cond-mat.str-el 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Strong electron-phonon coupling can spontaneously turn a 2D Dirac semimetal into a Chern insulator with quantized Hall response.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Nasu , title Photoinduced phase transitions ( publisher World Scientific , year 2004 )

    author K. Nasu , title Photoinduced phase transitions ( publisher World Scientific , year 2004 )

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    Rini , author A

    author M. Rini , author A. Cavalleri , author R. W. Schoenlein , author R. L \'o pez , author L. C. Feldman , author R. F. Haglund , author L. A. Boatner , and author T. E. Haynes , journal Optics letters volume 30 , pages 558 ( year 2005 )

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    author V. R. Morrison , author R. P. Chatelain , author K. L. Tiwari , author A. Hendaoui , author A. Bruh \'a cs , author M. Chaker , and author B. J. Siwick , journal Science volume 346 , pages 445 ( year 2014 )

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Stojchevska , author I

    author L. Stojchevska , author I. Vaskivskyi , author T. Mertelj , author P. Kusar , author D. Svetin , author S. Brazovskii , and author D. Mihailovic , journal Science volume 344 , pages 177 ( year 2014 )

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Zhang , author X

    author J. Zhang , author X. Tan , author M. Liu , author S. W. Teitelbaum , author K. W. Post , author F. Jin , author K. A. Nelson , author D. Basov , author W. Wu , and author R. D. Averitt , journal Nature materials volume 15 , pages 956 ( year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Fausti , author R

    author D. Fausti , author R. I. Tobey , author N. Dean , author S. Kaiser , author A. Dienst , author M. C. Hoffmann , author S. Pyon , author T. Takayama , author H. Takagi , and author A. Cavalleri , journal Science volume 331 , pages 189 ( year 2011 )

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Mitrano , author A

    author M. Mitrano , author A. Cantaluppi , author D. Nicoletti , author S. Kaiser , author A. Perucchi , author S. Lupi , author P. Di Pietro , author D. Pontiroli , author M. Ricc \`o , author S. R. Clark , et al. , journal Nature volume 530 , pages 461 ( year 2016 )

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Pressure tuning of light-induced superconductivity in K3C60

    author A. Cantaluppi , author M. Buzzi , author G. Jotzu , author D. Nicoletti , author M. Mitrano , author D. Pontiroli , author M. Ricc \`o , author A. Perucchi , author P. Di Pietro , and author A. Cavalleri , journal Nature Physics volume 14 , pages 837 ( year 2018 ), 1705.05939

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    author D. N. Basov , author R. D. Averitt , and author D. Hsieh , journal Nature Materials volume 16 , pages 1077 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  2. [10]

    Oka and author S

    author T. Oka and author S. Kitamura , journal Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics volume 10 , pages 387 ( year 2019 ), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013423 , ://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-conmatphys-031218-013423

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    McIver , author B

    author J. McIver , author B. Schulte , author F.-U. Stein , author T. Matsuyama , author G. Jotzu , author G. Meier , and author A. Cavalleri ( year 2018 )

    2018

  4. [12]

    author Y. H. Wang , author H. Steinberg , author P. Jarillo-Herrero , and author N. Gedik , journal Science volume 342 , pages 453 ( year 2013 ), ISSN issn 0036-8075

    2013

  5. [13]

    Hu , author S

    author W. Hu , author S. Kaiser , author D. Nicoletti , author C. R. Hunt , author I. Gierz , author M. C. Hoffmann , author M. Le Tacon , author T. Loew , author B. Keimer , and author A. Cavalleri , journal Nature Materials volume 13 , pages 705 ( year 2014 ), 1308.3204

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Mankowsky , author A

    author R. Mankowsky , author A. Subedi , author M. F \"o rst , author S. O. Mariager , author M. Chollet , author H. T. Lemke , author J. S. Robinson , author J. M. Glownia , author M. P. Minitti , author A. Frano , et al. , journal Nature volume 516 , pages 71 ( year 2014 ), ...

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Matsunaga , author Y

    author R. Matsunaga , author Y. I. Hamada , author K. Makise , author Y. Uzawa , author H. Terai , author Z. Wang , and author R. Shimano , journal Physical review letters volume 111 , pages 057002 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  8. [16]

    Matsunaga , author N

    author R. Matsunaga , author N. Tsuji , author H. Fujita , author A. Sugioka , author K. Makise , author Y. Uzawa , author H. Terai , author Z. Wang , author H. Aoki , and author R. Shimano , journal Science volume 345 , pages 1145 ( year 2014 )

    2014

  9. [17]

    Matsunaga , author N

    author R. Matsunaga , author N. Tsuji , author K. Makise , author H. Terai , author H. Aoki , and author R. Shimano , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 96 , eid 020505 ( year 2017 ), 1703.02815

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Katsumi , author N

    author K. Katsumi , author N. Tsuji , author Y. I. Hamada , author R. Matsunaga , author J. Schneeloch , author R. D. Zhong , author G. D. Gu , author H. Aoki , author Y. Gallais , and author R. Shimano , journal Physical Review Letters volume 120 , eid 117001 ( year 2018 ), 1...

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dienst , author E

    author A. Dienst , author E. Casandruc , author D. Fausti , author L. Zhang , author M. Eckstein , author M. Hoffmann , author V. Khanna , author N. Dean , author M. Gensch , author S. Winnerl , et al. , journal Nature Materials volume 12 , pages 535 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  12. [20]

    Rajasekaran , author E

    author S. Rajasekaran , author E. Casandruc , author Y. Laplace , author D. Nicoletti , author G. D. Gu , author S. R. Clark , author D. Jaksch , and author A. Cavalleri , journal Nature Physics volume 12 , pages 1012 ( year 2016 ), 1511.08378

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sooryakumar and author M

    author R. Sooryakumar and author M. Klein , journal Physical Review Letters volume 45 , pages 660 ( year 1980 )

    1980

  14. [22]

    Littlewood and author C

    author P. Littlewood and author C. Varma , journal Physical Review B volume 26 , pages 4883 ( year 1982 )

    1982

  15. [23]

    Varma , journal Journal of Low Temperature Physics volume 126 , pages 901 ( year 2002 )

    author C. Varma , journal Journal of Low Temperature Physics volume 126 , pages 901 ( year 2002 )

    2002

  16. [24]

    Sherman , author U

    author D. Sherman , author U. S. Pracht , author B. Gorshunov , author S. Poran , author J. Jesudasan , author M. Chand , author P. Raychaudhuri , author M. Swanson , author N. Trivedi , author A. Auerbach , et al. , journal Nature Physics volume 11 , pages 188 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  17. [25]

    uegg , author B. Normand , author M. Matsumoto , author A. Furrer , author D. F. McMorrow , author K. W. Kr\

    author C. R\"uegg , author B. Normand , author M. Matsumoto , author A. Furrer , author D. F. McMorrow , author K. W. Kr\"amer , author H. U. G\"udel , author S. N. Gvasaliya , author H. Mutka , and author M. Boehm , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 100 , pages 205701 ( year 20...

    2008 doi

  18. [26]

    Ren , author Z

    author Y. Ren , author Z. Xu , and author G. Lupke , journal The Journal of Chemical Physics volume 120 , pages 4755 ( year 2004 )

    2004

  19. [27]

    author J. P. Pouget , author B. Hennion , author C. Escribe-Filippini , and author M. Sato , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 43 , pages 8421 ( year 1991 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.43.8421

    1991 doi

  20. [28]

    Yusupov , author T

    author R. Yusupov , author T. Mertelj , author V. Kabanov , author S. Brazovskii , author P. Kusar , author J. Chu , author I. Fisher , and author D. Mihailovic , journal Nature Physics ( year 2010 )

    2010

  21. [29]

    Endres , author T

    author M. Endres , author T. Fukuhara , author D. Pekker , author M. Cheneau , author P. Schau , author C. Gross , author E. Demler , author S. Kuhr , and author I. Bloch , journal Nature volume 487 , pages 454 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  22. [30]

    Bissbort , author S

    author U. Bissbort , author S. G\"otze , author Y. Li , author J. Heinze , author J. S. Krauser , author M. Weinberg , author C. Becker , author K. Sengstock , and author W. Hofstetter , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 106 , pages 205303 ( year 2011 )

    2011

  23. [31]

    Denny , author S

    author S. Denny , author S. Clark , author Y. Laplace , author A. Cavalleri , and author D. Jaksch , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 114 , pages 137001 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  24. [32]

    author D. M. Kennes , author E. Y. Wilner , author D. R. Reichman , and author A. J. Millis , journal Nat. Phys. volume 13 , pages 479 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  25. [33]

    Nava , author C

    author A. Nava , author C. Giannetti , author A. Georges , author E. Tosatti , and author M. Fabrizio , journal Nat. Phys. volume 14 , pages 154 ( year 2018 )

    2018

  26. [34]

    Babadi , author M

    author M. Babadi , author M. Knap , author I. Martin , author G. Refael , and author E. Demler , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 96 , pages 014512 ( year 2017 )

    2017

  27. [35]

    author R. A. Barankov , author L. S. Levitov , and author B. Z. Spivak , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 93 , pages 160401 ( year 2004 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.160401

    2004 doi

  28. [36]

    author E. A. Yuzbashyan , author O. Tsyplyatyev , and author B. L. Altshuler , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 96 , pages 097005 ( year 2006 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.097005

    2006 doi

  29. [37]

    author R. A. Barankov and author L. S. Levitov , journal Phys. Rev. Lett. volume 96 , pages 230403 ( year 2006 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.230403

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    Calabrese , author F

    author P. Calabrese , author F. H. L. Essler , and author M. Fagotti , journal Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment volume 2012 , pages P07016 ( year 2012 )

    2012

  31. [39]

    author A. A. Clerk , author M. H. Devoret , author S. M. Girvin , author F. Marquardt , and author R. J. Schoelkopf , journal Reviews of Modern Physics volume 82 , pages 1155 ( year 2010 )

    2010

  32. [40]

    Podolsky , author A

    author D. Podolsky , author A. Auerbach , and author D. P. Arovas , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 84 , pages 174522 ( year 2011 )

    2011

  33. [41]

    Ou , journal Physical Review A volume 78 , pages 023819 ( year 2008 )

    author Z. Ou , journal Physical Review A volume 78 , pages 023819 ( year 2008 )

    2008

  34. [42]

    author H. Y. Hwang , author S. Fleischer , author N. C. Brandt , author B. G. Perkins Jr , author M. Liu , author K. Fan , author A. Sternbach , author X. Zhang , author R. D. Averitt , and author K. A. Nelson , journal Journal of Modern Optics volume 62 , pages 1447 ( year 2015 )

    2015

  35. [43]

    Graf , author G

    author M. Graf , author G. Scalari , author D. Hofstetter , author J. Faist , author H. Beere , author E. Linfield , author D. Ritchie , and author G. Davies , journal Applied Physics Letters volume 84 , pages 475 ( year 2004 )

    2004

  36. [44]

    author D. C. Mattis and author J. Bardeen , journal Phys. Rev. volume 111 , pages 412 ( year 1958 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.111.412

    1958 doi

  37. [45]

    Wang , author D

    author Y. Wang , author D. Podolsky , and author E. A. Demler ( year 2019 )

    2019

  38. [46]

    Cartella , author T

    author A. Cartella , author T. F. Nova , author M. Fechner , author R. Merlin , and author A. Cavalleri , journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences volume 115 , pages 12148 ( year 2018 ), ISSN issn 0027-8424

    2018

  39. [47]

    author H. Y. Liu , author I. Gierz , author J. C. Petersen , author S. Kaiser , author A. Simoncig , author A. L. Cavalieri , author C. Cacho , author I. C. E. Turcu , author E. Springate , author F. Frassetto , et al. , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 88 , pages 045104 ( year 2013 )

    2013

  40. [48]

    author M. J. Rice and author H.-Y. Choi , journal Phys. Rev. B volume 45 , pages 10173 ( year 1992 ), ://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.45.10173

    1992 doi

  41. [49]

    Born and author E

    author M. Born and author E. Wolf , title Principles of Optics ( publisher Pergamon Press , year 1970 ), edition 4th ed

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.