Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Spatiotemporal plasma hologram

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An ionization-created plasma grating can record and reconstruct the full spatiotemporal structure of an intense laser pulse, and the paper presents the first experimental demonstration of it.

desk verdict First experimental 4D plasma hologram with strong internal consistency; the central linearity assumption is the main soft spot, needing a fuller off-peak test. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12993 v1 pith:KTMEWNHJ submitted 2025-05-19 physics.plasm-ph

Zhaohui Wu , Hao Peng , Xiaoming Zeng , Zhaoli Li , Xiaodong Wang , Xiao Wang , Jie Mu , Yanlei Zuo
show 4 more authors
Kainan Zhou Nathaniel J. Fisch C. Riconda S. Weber
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords plasmahologramgratingultrashortlaserpulsespatiotemporalmeasurementBraggdiffractionionizationLaguerre-Gaussianbeamopticaldatastorage
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 reports the first experimental realization of a four-dimensional plasma hologram: a gas is ionized by the standing wave formed between a long object pulse and a counterpropagating short reference pulse, leaving a plasma grating that stores the object pulse's spatial and temporal structure. A later probe beam diffracts from this grating, and the first-order light reconstructs both the beam's transverse profile and its temporal waveform. The authors demonstrate this for Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian beams and show that spectral features deliberately encoded into the object pulse are recovered in the diffracted signal. If correct, the method gives a single-shot, background-free measurement of ultraintense laser focus structure and a transient plasma-based optical memory that can operate at intensities where ordinary solid optics would be damaged. That is the practical payoff: a holographic element that does not melt.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the ionization-interference plasma grating: the standing wave of the object and reference pulses ionizes the gas with spatial period $\Lambda$, and because the plasma density follows the ionization probability, the refractive index acquires a Fourier component at the grating period. The readout relation is the Bragg diffraction efficiency $\eta \simeq n_1^2\pi^2 L^2/(\lambda^2 \cos^2\theta_B)$, combined with the simulated result that the first-order Fourier component of the ionization probability is approximately linear in $\sqrt{I_0}$ for object intensities above $10^{14}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$; this makes $\eta \propto I_0$, so the first-order diffracted probe faithfully maps the object intensity. A focused probe reads individual transverse slices of the grating, while an unfocused probe gives a single-shot longitudinal/temporal projection; combining these yields the four-dimensional field. The stored grating decays by ambipolar expansion with diffracted signal proportional to $(e^{-2tC_s/\Lambda})^2$, where $C_s$ is the ion acoustic speed, accounting for the observed 30-40 ps lifetime.

What would settle it

Measure the first-order diffracted signal versus object peak intensity over a wider range and in different gases and polarizations with an independent intensity calibration; if the diffracted signal deviates from linearity where the MO-PPT simulation predicts it, or if the retrieved beam profile disagrees with a directly measured reference, the central reconstruction claim would be falsified. A second check would be to read the same grating repeatedly with low-intensity probes: if the diffracted waveform changes from read to read, the readout is perturbing the stored information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a volume plasma grating produced by interference-induced ionization can record and later reproduce the complete spatiotemporal field of an intense laser pulse. The grating is written by a long object pulse and a counterpropagating short reference pulse of the same central wavelength; their standing wave ionizes the gas, creating an electron-density grating whose refractive-index modulation encodes the object intensity and, through the beam's phase, its wavefront. A frequency-doubled probe pulse incident at the Bragg angle diffracts off the grating, and the intensity of the first-order beam is proportional to the object intensity, so the diffracted light carries the stored image. The authors reconstruct focused cross-sections and longitudinal structure of Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian pulses, recover pulse durations between 0.4 and 1.1 ps, retrieve a multi-peak temporal waveform matching the object spectrum, observe laser focus propagation through plasma, and measure a grating lifetime of 30-40 ps with diffraction efficiency near 2%.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the assumption that, above $10^{14}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$, the first Fourier component of the ionization probability is nearly proportional to the square root of the object intensity, so the diffracted signal is proportional to the object intensity; if that proportionality fails for the gas, polarization, or pulse duration used, the reconstructed profiles would be distorted.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The reconstructed beam waists match the input Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian modes, and the vortex ring shifts when the spiral phase plate is tilted, so the grating records spatial phase, not just intensity.
  • Temporal retrieval is demonstrated by matching input durations of 0.4, 0.8, and 1.1 ps to retrieved values of 0.4, 0.75, and 1.0 ps, and by recovering a multi-peak 4 ps waveform from the object spectrum.
  • Because the probe can cover the whole grating in one shot with no background, the method can directly observe how an intense focus focuses and diverges while propagating through plasma.
  • The grating lifetime of 30-40 ps and compatibility with high repetition rates translate into plasma-based optical switching and transient analog memory.
  • The measured diffraction efficiency near 2% can be increased by making the grating thicker, raising the gas density, or reducing the probe angle, following the scaling in Eq. (1).

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the probe intensity is kept too low to disturb the grating, several low-intensity probes within the 30-40 ps lifetime should each diffract a copy of the stored field; the paper suggests memory applications but does not demonstrate repeated readout.
  • The same writing geometry could be run in reverse as a beam shaper: engineering the object-reference interference pattern would imprint a chosen spatiotemporal profile onto the probe, extending the method from measurement to active control.
  • The linear response is demonstrated only from 0.5 to $4\times 10^{14}\,\mathrm{W/cm^2}$ in air; extending it to other gases, polarizations, and higher intensities, where inner-shell ionization begins, would tell whether the technique scales to petawatt-class pulses.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first claimed experimental realization of a four-dimensional plasma hologram. A long, chirped 'object' pulse and a counterpropagating short 'reference' pulse interfere in air, creating an ionization grating whose first-order Fourier component is argued to be proportional to the square root of the object intensity. A delayed 420-nm probe diffracts from this grating, and the first-order signal is used to reconstruct transverse spatial profiles, longitudinal/temporal profiles, and artificially encoded spectral structure. The authors demonstrate reconstruction of Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian foci, single-shot retrieval of a multi-peak temporal waveform, and agreement with an MO-PPT ionization model and a plasma-expansion model for the grating lifetime.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a substantial advance: it extends plasma holography from spatial-only to spatiotemporal recording, offers a single-shot background-free route to measuring intense-laser focus structure, and suggests a damage-resistant, high-repetition-rate optical memory or switch. The paper's internal consistency checks are genuine strengths: the Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian transverse reconstructions, the recovery of input pulse durations, the matching of a multi-peak spectral profile to the retrieved temporal shape, and the consistency with MO-PPT and expansion modeling all support the plausibility of the observed grating readout. The main load-bearing weakness is the linearity assumption behind Eq. (1), which is referenced to an unavailable supplement and calibrated only at the peak of the focus; the readout geometry for temporal retrieval is also underdescribed.

major comments (3)
  1. [After Eq. (1); Fig. 4(e)] The proportionality η ∝ I0 is the load-bearing step of the holographic retrieval, but it rests on the assertion that the first-order Fourier component of the MO-PPT ionization probability P is approximately linear in √I0 for intensities above 10^14 W/cm², with the supporting simulation relegated to a supplement that is not included in the manuscript as provided. The calibration in Fig. 4(e) compares only the peak diffracted intensity with the peak object intensity over 0.5–4×10^14 W/cm²; it does not test the local response across a real focus, where the intensity falls continuously to zero. For a Gaussian focus with a 4×10^14 W/cm² peak, roughly 25% of the integrated power lies below 10^14 W/cm², outside the claimed linear regime. If the local response is nonlinear or threshold-like there, the reconstructed beam waist and temporal lineouts would be systematically narrowed or distorted. Please include the supplement and either provide a local calibration of the first-order ionization response as a function of local intensity or demonstrate by simulation that the reconstruction fidelity is insensitive to the low-intensity wings for the actual focusing parameters.
  2. [Single-shot readout; Fig. 3] The description of the single-shot temporal readout is incomplete. The text states that a uniform unfocused probe projects 'temporal and spatial information' longitudinally and transversely onto the CCD, but it does not explain how a probe with a 10-nm bandwidth at a fixed Bragg angle can read out the chirped grating over the full object spectrum, nor how the temporal axis is calibrated. Since temporal retrieval is central to the claimed 4D capability, please provide the readout geometry, the Bragg-matching condition for a chirped grating, and the explicit mapping between CCD position and (x, y, t). Without this, the temporal reconstructions in Fig. 4 cannot be reproduced or independently assessed.
  3. [Figs. 2 and 4(d)] The reconstructed spatial and temporal profiles are not compared with an independent measurement, and the figures do not report uncertainties. The phase-plate tilt check is only qualitative, and the multi-peak waveform in Fig. 4(d) is compared with the input spectrum rather than with a separately characterized spatiotemporal measurement. Please provide quantitative fidelity metrics (for example, RMS deviation between reconstructed and independently characterized profiles) and specify the dominant uncertainties, including CCD noise, calibration of the linearity assumption, and any spatial/temporal calibration of the readout.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1) derivation] The expression 'n ≃ ne/2nc' is inconsistent with n = sqrt(1 - ne/nc) ≈ 1 - ne/(2nc); what is meant is presumably that the index modulation amplitude is ne/(2nc). Please correct the wording.
  2. [Reference 22] Reference 22 is cited as 'Optica 107, 095004 (2011)'; this appears to be Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 095004 (2011).
  3. [Fig. 4 labels] In Fig. 4, the y-axis label reads 'The peak diffractive intensity(A.U.)' and should read 'The peak diffracted intensity (A.U.)'; the spectrum axis in Fig. 4(c) lacks units.
  4. [Sentence before Eq. (1)] The sentence 'As plasma density is proportional to the interference intensity' is at odds with the nonlinear MO-PPT ionization model invoked immediately afterward; please rephrase to distinguish the small-modulation expansion from a global proportionality.
  5. [Affiliations and prose] The affiliations contain corrupted glyphs ('Universit /dieresis.ts1¦', '/dieresis.ts1¦cole Polytechnique'), and the phrase 'the supplement materia' in the experimental setup paragraph is incomplete; a full proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor self-referential linearity check; central reconstruction validated independently.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Text around Fig. 4(e), paragraph beginning 'To calibrate the relationship...']
    "To verify this, we measured the peak intensity of the diffracted light for object intensities within the same range, (0.5 − 4) × 1014W/ cm2, which agrees well with the MO-PPT model and the linear fitting curve, as shown in Fig.4(e)."

    The load-bearing relation η ∝ I0 (Eq. 1) rests on the claimed linearity of the first-order ionization response. The check in Fig. 4(e) uses the very same measured peak-diffracted vs. peak-object intensities to which a linear fitting curve is drawn, so agreement with that curve is tautological. If the only evidence were this fit, the reconstruction would reduce to the fit. However, the same figure also compares with the independent MO-PPT simulation, and Figs. 2–4(a)–(d) validate reconstruction against independently imposed phase-plate rings and spectral shapes, so the circularity is confined to a minor self-referential confirmation.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks. The plasma-grating diffraction efficiency (Eq. 1) uses a standard Kogelnik-type formula and a stated MO-PPT linear-response assumption; the spatial reconstruction is tested by tilting a spiral phase plate, an externally controlled input; the temporal reconstruction is checked against a separately measured spectrum and independent delay-scan autocorrelation; the grating-decay model (Eq. 2) uses an independently estimated electron temperature. The self-citations (e.g., refs. 2 and 10) are contextual prior work, not load-bearing uniqueness claims. The main caveat is that the linearity premise is deferred to an absent supplement ("see the supplement material") and the in-figure validation includes a linear fit to the same data. That is a minor self-referential check, not a definitional reduction, so score 2.

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

The central derivation relies on the ionization-probability linearity, the uniform illumination of reference and probe beams, and the standard Bragg formula for the grating. No new particles or forces are introduced, and no explicit free parameters are fitted; the only adjustable scale in Fig. 4(e) is a proportionality constant in arbitrary units.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bragg diffraction efficiency for a sinusoidal refractive-index grating is eta approximately n1^2 pi^2 L^2 / (lambda^2 cos^2 theta_B).
    Used to relate the diffracted probe intensity to the grating modulation depth at Eq. (1).
  • domain assumption Electron density is proportional to the ionization probability P(I) and ne is much less than nc, so the refractive index is approximated as ne/(2 nc).
    Converts the interference intensity pattern into a refractive-index modulation; assumes single ionization and negligible recombination on the probe timescale.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-order Fourier component of the ionization probability P(I0) responds linearly to the square root of I0 for intensities above 10^14 W/cm^2.
    Asserted from simulation results without derivation in the main text; this is the load-bearing linearity that makes the diffracted signal proportional to the object intensity.
  • domain assumption The reference pulse and probe are sufficiently uniform over the object focal region so that the diffracted signal contains only the object field information.
    The reference focal diameter is five times larger than the object diameter, but the probe uniformity is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spatiotemporal plasma hologram." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KTMEWNHJ

@misc{pith2026250512993,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spatiotemporal plasma hologram},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KTMEWNHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12993}
}
read the original abstract

We present the first experimental realization of a four-dimensional (4D) plasma hologram capable of recording and reconstructing the full spatiotemporal information of intense laser pulses. The holographic encoding is achieved through the interference of a long object pulse and a counter-propagating short reference pulse, generating an ionized plasma grating that captures both spatial and temporal characteristics of the laser field. A first-order diffractive probe enables the retrieval of encoded information, successfully reconstructing the spatiotemporal profiles of Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian beams. The experiment demonstrates the ability to encode artificial information into the laser pulse via spectral modulation and retrieve it through plasma grating diffraction, high-lighting potential applications in ultraintense optical data processing. Key innovations include a single-shot, background-free method for direct far-field spatiotemporal measurement and the obser-vation of laser focus propagation dynamics in plasma. The plasma grating exhibits a stable lifetime of 30-40 ps and supports high repetition rates, suggesting usage for high-speed optical switches and plasmatic analog memory. These advancements establish plasma holography as a robust platform for ultrafast laser manipulation, with implications for secure optical communication, analog computing,and precision spatiotemporal control of high-intensity lasers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12993 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a)Plasma grating created by interfering ionizatio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) and (b), retrieved beam waists of a Gaussian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Propagation process of a Gaussian object focus(a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a)The retrieved temporal shape of the far-field ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    author author M. R. \ Edwards , author N. M. \ Fasano , author A. M. \ Giakas , author M. M. \ Wang , author J. Griff-McMahon , author A. Morozov , author V. M. \ Perez-Ramirez , author N. Lemos , author P. Michel , \ and\ author J. M. \ Mikhailova ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 133 ,\ pages 155101 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Wu , author X

    author author Z. Wu , author X. Zeng , author Z. Li , author Z. Zhang , author X. Wang , author B. Hu , author X. Wang , author J. Mu , author J. Su , author Q. Zhu , author X. Wei , , \ and\ author Y. Zuo ,\ @noop journal journal Matter Radiat. Extremes \ volume 7 ,\ pages 064402 ( year 2022 ) NoStop

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    author author A. A. \ Andreev , author C. Riconda , author V. T. \ Tikhonchuk , \ and\ author S. Weber ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Plasma \ volume 13 ,\ pages 053110 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    author author V. M. \ Malkin , author G. Shvets , \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 82 ,\ pages 4448 ( year 1999 ) NoStop

    work page 1999

  5. [5]

    Ren , author W

    author author J. Ren , author W. Cheng , author S. Li , \ and\ author S. Suckewer ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 3 ,\ pages 732 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    author author R. M. G. M. \ Trines , author F. Fiuza , author R. Bingham , author R. A. \ Fonseca , author L. O. \ Silva , author R. A. \ Cairns , \ and\ author P. A. \ Norreys ,\ @noop journal journal Nat. Phys. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 87 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    Toroker , author V

    author author Z. Toroker , author V. M. \ Malkin , \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 21 ,\ pages 113110 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    author author M. R. \ Edwards , author Z. Toroker , author J. M. \ Mikhailova , \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 22 ,\ pages 074501 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page 2015

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    \ Marqu\' e s , author L

    author author J.-R. \ Marqu\' e s , author L. Lancia , author T. Gangolf , author M. Blecher , author S. Bolanos , author J.Fuchs , author O. Willi , author F. Amiranoff , author R. L. \ Berger , author M. Chiaramello , author S. Weber , \ and\ author C. Riconda ,\ @noop journ...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Wu , author H

    author author Z. Wu , author H. Peng , author X. Zeng , author Z. Li , author Z. Zhang , author X. Wang , author X. Wang , author J. Mu , author Y. Zuo , author J. Su , author H. Cao , author Y. Fu , author C. Riconda , \ and\ author S. Weber ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Turnbull , author P

    author author D. Turnbull , author P. Michel , author T. Chapman , author E. Tubman , author B. B. \ Pollock , \ and\ author C. Y. \ Chen ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 116 ,\ pages 205001 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    2016

  4. [12]

    Turnbull , author C

    author author D. Turnbull , author C. Goyon , author G. E. \ Kemp , author B. B. \ Pollock , author D. Mariscal , author L. Divol , author J. S. \ Ross , author S. Patankar , author J. D. \ Moody , \ and\ author P. Michel ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 118 ,...

    2017

  5. [13]

    Lehmann \ and\ author K

    author author G. Lehmann \ and\ author K. H. \ Spatschek ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 97 ,\ pages 063201 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    2018

  6. [14]

    Liu , author M

    author author Y. Liu , author M. Durand , author S. Chen , author A. Houard , author B. Prade , author B. Forestier , \ and\ author A. Mysyrowicz ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 105 ,\ pages 055003 ( year 2010 ) NoStop

    2010

  7. [15]

    Vincenti ,\ @noop journal journal Phys

    author author H. Vincenti ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 123 ,\ pages 105001 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  8. [16]

    author author M. R. \ Edwards , author V. R. \ Munirov , author A. Singh , author N. M. \ Fasano , author E. Kur , author N. Lemos , author J. M. \ Mikhailova , author J. S. \ Wurtele , \ and\ author P. Michel ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett \ volume 128 ,\ pages 0650...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Qu \ and\ author N

    author author K. Qu \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevE.110.065211 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 110 ,\ pages 065211 ( year 2024 ) NoStop

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Leblanc , author A

    author author A. Leblanc , author A. Denoeud , author L. Chopineau , author G. Mennerat , author P. Martin , \ and\ author F. Qu\' e r\' e ,\ @noop journal journal Nature physics \ volume 13 ,\ pages 440 ( year 2017 ) NoStop

    2017

  11. [19]

    author author I. Y. \ Dodin \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 88 ,\ pages 165001 ( year 2002 a ) NoStop

    2002

  12. [20]

    author author I. Y. \ Dodin \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ 10.1016/S0030-4018(02)02144-2 journal journal Optics Communications \ volume 214 ,\ pages 83 ( year 2002 b ) NoStop

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    Lehmann \ and\ author K

    author author G. Lehmann \ and\ author K. H. \ Spatschek ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Rev. E \ volume 100 ,\ pages 033205 ( year 2019 ) NoStop

    2019

  14. [22]

    Shi , author W

    author author L. Shi , author W. Li , author Y. Wang , author X. Lu , author L. Ding , \ and\ author H. Zeng ,\ @noop journal journal Optica \ volume 107 ,\ pages 095004 ( year 2011 ) NoStop

    2011

  15. [23]

    Zhang , author Z

    author author C. Zhang , author Z. Nie , author Y. Wu , author M. Sinclair , author C.-K. \ Huang , author K. A. \ Marsh , \ and\ author C. Joshi ,\ @noop journal journal Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion \ volume 63 ,\ pages 095011 ( year 2021 ) NoStop

    2021

  16. [24]

    author author M. R. \ Edwards , author S. Waczynski , author E. Rockafellow , author L. Manzo , author A. Zingale , author P. Michel , \ and\ author H. M. \ Milchberg ,\ @noop journal journal Optica \ volume 10 ,\ pages 1587 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    2023

  17. [25]

    author author D. S. \ Clark \ and\ author N. J. \ Fisch ,\ @noop journal journal Phys. Plasmas \ volume 9 ,\ pages 2772 ( year 2002 ) NoStop

    2002

  18. [26]

    author author D. S. \ Clark ,\ title Investigations of Raman Laser Amplification in Preformed and Ionizing Plasmas ,\ @noop Ph.D. thesis ,\ school Princeton University ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    2003

  19. [27]

    \ Zhao , author L

    author author S.-F. \ Zhao , author L. Liu , \ and\ author X.-X. \ Zhou ,\ 10.1016/j.optcom.2013.09.074 journal journal Optics Communications \ volume 313 ,\ pages 74 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    \ Zhao , author A.-T

    author author S.-F. \ Zhao , author A.-T. \ Le , author C. Jin , author X. Wang , \ and\ author C. D. \ Lin ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.023413 journal journal Physical Review A \ volume 93 ,\ pages 023413 ( year 2016 a ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    \ Zhao , author A.-T

    author author S.-F. \ Zhao , author A.-T. \ Le , author C. Jin , author X. Wang , \ and\ author C. D. \ Lin ,\ 10.1063/1.4953475 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 125 ,\ pages 243301 ( year 2016 b ) NoStop

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    author author V. S. \ Popov ,\ 10.1070/PU2004v047n09ABEH001789 journal journal Physics-Uspekhi \ volume 47 ,\ pages 855 ( year 2004 ) NoStop

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    author author X. M. \ Tong \ and\ author C. D. \ Lin ,\ 10.1088/0953-4075/38/15/006 journal journal Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics \ volume 38 ,\ pages 2593 ( year 2005 ) NoStop

    2005 doi

  24. [32]

    Zhou , author R

    author author Y. Zhou , author R. Lock , author W. Li , author N. Wagner , author M. M. \ Murnane , \ and\ author H. C. \ Kapteyn ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.073902 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 102 ,\ pages 073902 ( year 2009 ) NoStop

    doi

Pith tools

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