Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 30 references

Selective Bond Breaking in CO$_2^{2+}$ Induced by Photoelectron Recoil

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

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

Pith's one-line read Photoelectron recoil decides which of two identical bonds breaks in CO₂²⁺.

desk verdict First credible recoil-driven bond-selective dissociation, but the non-mass-weighted fragmentation axis biases the internal-frame asymmetry; reanalysis needed before citing numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15177 v1 pith:74QPP5EI submitted 2025-06-18 physics.atom-ph

J. Weiherer , N. Melzer , M. Kircher , A. Pier , L. Kaiser , J. Kruse , N. Anders , J. Stindl
show 11 more authors
L. Sommerlad O. D. McGinnis M. Schmidt J. Drnec F. Trinter M. S. Schöffler L. Ph. H. Schmidt N. Sisourat S. Eckart T. Jahnke R. Dörner
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords photoelectronrecoilbond-selectivedissociationCO2dicationnondipoleeffectssymmetrybreakingcoreionizationCOLTRIMSAuger-Meitnerdecay
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

After a high-energy photon removes a core electron from $\mathrm{CO}_2$, the departing electron imparts a recoil kick to the remaining molecular ion. This paper shows experimentally that this kick determines which of the two equivalent carbon–oxygen bonds breaks when the dication subsequently dissociates into $\mathrm{CO}^+$ and $\mathrm{O}^+$. At 20 keV the bond-cleavage preference reaches about 25%, and because the photoelectron tends to be emitted forward, the effect appears in the laboratory frame as a net backward emission of $\mathrm{O}^+$ and forward emission of $\mathrm{CO}^+$. The result realizes the long-predicted idea that the momentum transferred in photoionization can directly drive nuclear motion and break the symmetry of a symmetric molecule.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the recoil momentum transfer $\vec{Q} = \vec{k}_\gamma - \vec{k}_e - \vec{k}_{eA}$ from the photoelectron (and, to a lesser extent, the Auger electron and photon) to the ionized core. This impulse excites a coherent superposition of the symmetric (gerade) and antisymmetric (ungerade) stretching modes of the linear $\mathrm{CO}_2$ molecule; the relative phase of these two excitations determines which of the two equivalent bonds breaks. The experimental observable is the asymmetry parameter $A(\cos\beta) = [N(\cos\beta)-N(-\cos\beta)]/[N(\cos\beta)+N(-\cos\beta)]$, where $\beta$ is the angle between $\vec{Q}$ and the fragmentation direction $\vec{k}_{\mathrm{rel}} = \tfrac{1}{2}(\vec{k}_{\mathrm{O}^+}-\vec{k}_{\mathrm{CO}^+})$. The forward-bent photoelectron angular distribution at 20 keV provides the fixed laboratory axis that converts the internal bond selection into the observed lab-frame nondipole fragmentation.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the coincident ion momenta defining the fragmentation axis as the relative velocity $\vec{v}_{\mathrm{rel}} = \vec{k}_{\mathrm{O}^+}/m_{\mathrm{O}^+} - \vec{k}_{\mathrm{CO}^+}/m_{\mathrm{CO}^+}$ instead of the momentum difference. If the reported ~25% asymmetry at $\cos\beta \approx \pm 1$ persists under this redefinition, the recoil-steering claim is confirmed; if it collapses toward zero, the observed bond selectivity is an artifact of the unequal-mass kinematic mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the recoil momentum of the photoelectron, transferred to the atomic core from which it is emitted, steers the dissociation of $\mathrm{CO}_2^{2+}$ into $\mathrm{CO}^+ + \mathrm{O}^+$: the bond that is stretched by the momentum transfer breaks preferentially. Using coincident detection of the Auger electron and both ionic fragments in a COLTRIMS reaction microscope (a momentum-resolving coincidence technique), the authors show the bond-selection asymmetry reaches about 25% for both C 1s and O 1s core ionization at 20 keV photon energy. They further show the effect survives averaging over molecular orientations: because the 20 keV photoelectron angular distribution is strongly forward-bent, the recoil direction is tied to the light propagation axis, producing a nondipole laboratory-frame asymmetry in which $\mathrm{O}^+$ is emitted preferentially opposite the light and $\mathrm{CO}^+$ along it. This is presented as experimental verification of the long-standing prediction that momentum transfer in photoionization can directly excite nuclear motion and thereby break the symmetry of an initially symmetric molecule.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the momentum difference of the two fragments points along the broken bond despite their unequal masses, so a mismatch between that direction and the true breakup axis could create an apparent asymmetry even if bond breaking is random.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At high photon energies, the bond that is stretched by the recoil breaks preferentially, so a single photon can select one of two identical C–O bonds in $\mathrm{CO}_2$ with a contrast of up to about 25%.
  • Because the photoelectron distribution is forward-directed at 20 keV, the internal bond selection becomes a laboratory-frame nondipole signature: $\mathrm{O}^+$ ions are emitted preferentially backward and $\mathrm{CO}^+$ ions forward along the light propagation direction.
  • The effect directly drives nuclear motion rather than preparing an electronic superposition, establishing a new route to symmetry breaking in symmetric molecules.
  • For gases in extended environments, such as the Earth's atmosphere or interstellar clouds, X-ray-irradiated $\mathrm{CO}_2$ would produce a directed flux of $\mathrm{CO}^+$ along the light direction and $\mathrm{O}^+$ opposite, with possible consequences for local ion chemistry.
  • The recoil-driven bond selection is expected to generalize to more complex symmetric molecules, where it could generate chiral fragmentation patterns from achiral precursors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next experiment is to scan the photon energy: the photoelectron momentum scales approximately as $\sqrt{E_\gamma}$, so the bond-selection asymmetry should grow with energy and approach zero in the low-energy dipole limit, providing a quantitative test of the recoil picture.
  • Extending the measurement to isotopically labeled $\mathrm{CO}_2$ (for example, $^{13}\mathrm{C}^{16}\mathrm{O}_2$) would change the fragment mass ratio and would test whether the directional preference follows the recoil momentum of the ionized atom, as the mechanism implies.
  • For a molecule with three or more equivalent bonds, the recoil axis should select a bond depending on the angle between the recoil and each bond, and the resulting fragmentation pattern in the laboratory frame could encode the molecular orientation; this would generalize the present one-dimensional result into a potential tool for orientation probing.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports a COLTRIMS experiment on CO2 at 20 keV photon energy, triggering O 1s or C 1s ionization, Auger-Meitner decay to CO2^2+, and dissociation into CO+ and O+. The authors define an asymmetry parameter A(cos beta) where beta is the angle between the inferred recoil momentum transfer Q and the vector k_rel = (k_O+ - k_CO+)/2. They find a sign-dependent bond-breaking asymmetry: for C 1s ionization, positive A for cos beta < 0; for O 1s, positive A for cos beta > 0. They also observe a lab-frame asymmetry in which CO+ is emitted preferentially along the photon propagation direction and O+ opposite to it, and they attribute both effects to photoelectron recoil, following a prediction by Liu et al. (Ref. [20]).

Significance. If the quantitative results hold, this is a striking demonstration of direct nuclear control by photoelectron recoil, with implications for photochemistry in atmospheres and for chiral fragmentation. The experiment uses triple coincidences, and the sign reversal between C 1s and O 1s is a useful diagnostic that, together with the lab-frame pattern, supports the existence of the effect. The lab-frame asymmetry is a falsifiable prediction that cannot be explained by a simple center-of-mass boost. However, the central observable A(cos beta) is constructed from a non-mass-weighted fragmentation axis, which creates a correctness risk that must be resolved before the quantitative 25% claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Definition of k_rel (text after Fig. 1 and Fig. 1 caption)] The fragmentation direction is defined as k_rel = 1/2(k_O+ - k_CO+). For fragments of unequal mass (O+: 16 u, CO+: 28 u), the physical relative momentum is p_rel = (m_CO k_O+ - m_O k_CO+)/(m_O + m_CO), and the two vectors differ by k_rel = p_rel - (3/22)Q, where Q = k_O+ + k_CO+. Since Q is the measured recoil of the dication and is large (tens of a.u.), this kinematic mixing biases the angle beta: for an isotropic p_rel distribution, the k_rel definition produces an apparent excess of events at negative cos beta, of exactly the sign observed for C 1s in Fig. 1(b). The reported asymmetry parameter, including the up-to-25% value and the C 1s channel, is therefore not a clean measure of bond-breaking asymmetry. Please re-analyze the data using the mass-weighted relative momentum p_rel, or provide a justification for why the unweighted definition is appropriate.
  2. [Experimental methods (paragraph 2) and Fig. 1(b)] The paper reports no control measurement in the dipole regime (e.g., at lower photon energy where the recoil is negligible) and no systematic-error analysis; the error bars in Fig. 1 are statistical only. A control experiment would be needed to exclude instrumental asymmetries, detector acceptance, and residual background from Compton scattering as contributors to A(cos beta). Because the central quantitative claim is an asymmetry of up to 25%, this missing control is a load-bearing gap.
  3. [Fig. 2(a) and associated text] The lab-frame asymmetry is the strongest evidence for the effect, since the kinematic mixing identified above cannot produce O+ backward and CO+ forward simultaneously. However, the figure caption states that the angular distribution is of the 'ionic fragments relative momenta' without specifying whether the mass-weighted relative momentum was used. For consistency and for quantitative comparison with theory, the analysis in Fig. 2 should use p_rel = (m_CO k_O+ - m_O k_CO+)/(m_O + m_CO) rather than k_rel.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Text following Fig. 1] The statement that 'the asymmetry for O 1s ionization is even more pronounced' should be supported by a fitted amplitude or a representative value of A at a given cos beta, since the y-axis in Fig. 1 is in relative units without a numeric scale.
  2. [Second-to-last paragraph before Conclusion] The relation k_e ≈ sqrt(2 m_e c k_gamma), used to explain the amplification mechanism, is introduced without derivation or reference; a short derivation or citation would make the argument self-contained.
  3. [Fig. 3 and accompanying text] The statement that the total initial energy is 'approximately independent of cos beta' is not fully consistent with the visible KER variation in Fig. 3; a quantitative estimate of how the recoil-modified initial geometry or vibrational state depends on beta would clarify the discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bond-breaking asymmetry is an unparameterized measured observable, compared against external predictions by Liu et al.

full rationale

The central result is an experimental asymmetry parameter A(cos beta) defined directly from coincidence counts: A = (N(cos beta) - N(-cos beta))/(N(cos beta) + N(-cos beta)). No parameter is fitted to these data and then renamed a prediction; the asymmetry is the raw measured quantity. The photoelectron momentum is reconstructed by momentum conservation from measured fragment and Auger-electron momenta, which is a physical constraint, not a circular input. The comparison made in the paper is to the external theoretical prediction of Liu et al. [20], and the experimental setup is taken from prior work [24] without importing the effect under study. Self-citations appear only for apparatus, COLTRIMS methodology, and earlier related measurements; none carries the load of the new claim. The one potential concern noted by the reader is the use of k_rel = 1/2(k_O+ - k_CO+) rather than the mass-weighted relative velocity as the fragmentation axis. That is a kinematic modeling choice and could affect the quantitative interpretation of beta, but it is not a circular step: the asymmetry is still defined from measured events, not derived from an assumed outcome. The reported effect could in principle disagree with the isotropic-bond-breaking null hypothesis, and the paper presents the measured asymmetry as data rather than as a consequence of its own definitions. No equation in the paper reduces to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

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

No free parameters are fitted; the asymmetry is a measured counting ratio. The main uncharged assumptions are momentum reconstruction, the definition of the fragmentation direction, detector symmetry, Compton separation, and Auger-energy site assignment.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Momentum conservation determines the photoelectron momentum from the measured ion sum momentum and Auger electron momentum.
    The inference Q = k_gamma - k_e - k_Auger = p_O+ + p_CO+ assumes no undetected particles contribute to the momentum balance.
  • ad hoc to paper The vector k_rel = 1/2(k_O+ - k_CO+) correctly represents the molecular fragmentation direction.
    For unequal fragment masses this momentum difference is not parallel to the relative velocity; this choice can bias cos-beta distributions.
  • domain assumption Detector and spectrometer acceptances are symmetric enough that the asymmetry parameter is not affected by instrumental biases.
    No control measurement or acceptance correction is reported; the ion arm uses an electrostatic lens, and detection asymmetries are not quantified.
  • domain assumption Compton-scattering events can be cleanly separated from photoionization events by ion sum momentum.
    The paper relies on Fig. 1 of Ref. [28] for this separation; no in-paper validation is shown.
  • domain assumption The Auger electron energy identifies whether the O 1s or C 1s shell was ionized.
    Event sorting by measured Auger energy is required to separate the two ionization-site cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Selective Bond Breaking in CO$_2^{2+}$ Induced by Photoelectron Recoil." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74QPP5EI

@misc{pith2026250615177,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Selective Bond Breaking in CO$_2^2+$ Induced by Photoelectron Recoil},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74QPP5EI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15177}
}
abstract

After core-ionization of CO$_2$, typically an Auger-Meitner decay takes place, leading to the formation of a dicationic molecule that may dissociate into CO$^+$ and O$^+$. We demonstrate experimentally that the recoil momentum of the photoelectron steers, which of the two equivalent bonds breaks during the dissociation. At 20 keV photon energy, we observe an asymmetry of up to 25% for bond cleavage that depends on the emission direction of the photoelectron. Furthermore, we show that this effect leads to a significant nondipole effect in molecular dissociation in the laboratory frame: O$^+$ fragments are more likely to be emitted in the direction opposite to the light propagation than along it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15177 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Bond breaking asymmetry. (a) Sketch of the definition of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Fragmentation asymmetries in the laboratory frame for O 1s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. KER distributions for C 1s (a,c) and O 1s (b,d) photoionization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    L. S. Cederbaum and M. Basler, Physical review letters103, 133001 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    Uphues, Y

    M.F.Kling,C.Siedschlag,A.J.Verhoef,J.I.Khan,M.Schultze, T. Uphues, Y. Ni, M. Uiberacker, M. Drescher, F. Krausz, and M. J. J. Vrakking, Science (New York, N.Y.)312, 246 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [2]

    K. J. Betsch, D. W. Pinkham, and R. R. Jones, Physical review letters105, 223002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    D. Ray, F. He, S. De, W. Cao, H. Mashiko, P. Ranitovic, K. P. Singh, I. Znakovskaya, U. Thumm, G. G. Paulus, M. F. Kling, I. V. Litvinyuk, and C. L. Cocke, Physical review letters103, 223201 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [4]

    T. Endo, H. Fujise, Y. Kawachi, A. Ishihara, A. Matsuda, M. Fushitani, H. Kono, and A. Hishikawa, Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP19, 3550 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    J. Wu, M. Magrakvelidze, L. P. H. Schmidt, M. Kunitski, T. Pfeifer, M. Schöffler, M. Pitzer, M. Richter, S. Voss, H. Sann, H. Kim, J. Lower, T. Jahnke, A. Czasch, U. Thumm, and R. Dörner, Nature communications4, 2177 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    V. V. Serov and A. S. Kheifets, Physical Review A89, 10.1103/PhysRevA.89.031402 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.89.031402 2014

  8. [7]

    Waitz, D

    M. Waitz, D. Aslitürk, N. Wechselberger, H. K. Gill, J. Rist, F.Wiegandt,C.Goihl,G.Kastirke,M.Weller,T.Bauer,D.Metz, F. P. Sturm, J. Voigtsberger, S. Zeller, F. Trinter, G. Schiwietz, T. Weber, J. B. Williams, M. S. Schöffler, L. P. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, and R. Dörner, Physical review letters116, 043001 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    Although very different in detail, most of these approaches have in com- mon that they control the electronic part of the molecular wave function

    for dissociative ionization through doubly excited states of H2, and asymmetries have also been found for the dissociation of CO2 and CS2 in single photoionization [9–12]. Although very different in detail, most of these approaches have in com- mon that they control the electr...

    1978 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Martín, J

    F. Martín, J. Fernández, T. Havermeier, L. Foucar, T. Weber, K. Kreidi, M. Schöffler, L. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, O. Jagutzki, A. Czasch, E. P. Benis, T. Osipov, A. L. Landers, A. Belkacem, M. H. Prior, H. Schmidt-Böcking, C. L. Cocke, and R. Dörner, Science315, 629 (2007)

    2007

  3. [10]

    Guillemin, P

    R. Guillemin, P. Decleva, M. Stener, C. Bomme, T. Marin, L. Journel, T. Marchenko, R. K. Kushawaha, K. Jänkälä, N. Trcera, K. P. Bowen, D. W. Lindle, M. N. Piancastelli, and M. Simon, Nature communications6, 6166 (2015)

    2015

  4. [11]

    Yoshida, A

    X.-J.Liu,H.Fukuzawa,T.Teranishi,A.DeFanis,M.Takahashi, H. Yoshida, A. Cassimi, A. Czasch, L. Schmidt, R. Dörner, K. Wang, B. Zimmermann, V. McKoy, I. Koyano, N. Saito, and K. Ueda, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 083001 (2008)

    2008

  5. [12]

    Miyabe, C

    S. Miyabe, C. W. McCurdy, A. E. Orel, and T. N. Rescigno, Physical Review A79, 10.1103/PhysRevA.79.053401 (2009)

    2009 doi

  6. [13]

    F. P. Sturm, M. Schöffler, S. Lee, T. Osipov, N. Neumann, H.-K. Kim, S. Kirschner, B. Rudek, J. B. Williams, J. D. Daughhetee, C. L. Cocke, K. Ueda, A. L. Landers, T. Weber, M. H. Prior, A. Belkacem, and R. Dörner, Phys. Rev. A80, 032506 (2009)

    2009

  7. [14]

    Domcke and L

    W. Domcke and L. S. Cederbaum, Journal of Electron Spec- troscopy and Related Phenomena13, 161 (1978)

    1978

  8. [15]

    E. Kukk, K. Ueda, U. Hergenhahn, X.-J. Liu, G. Prümper, H.Yoshida,Y.Tamenori,C.Makochekanwa,T.Tanaka,M.Kita- jima, and H. Tanaka, Physical review letters95, 133001 (2005)

    2005

  9. [16]

    T. D. Thomas, E. Kukk, K. Ueda, T. Ouchi, K. Sakai, T. X. Carroll,C.Nicolas,O.Travnikova,andC.Miron,Physicalreview letters106, 193009 (2011)

    2011

  10. [17]

    Miron, Q

    C. Miron, Q. Miao, C. Nicolas, J. D. Bozek, W. Andrałojć, M. Patanen, G. Simões, O. Travnikova, H. Ågren, and F. Gel’mukhanov, Nature communications5, 3816 (2014)

    2014

  11. [18]

    E. Kukk, T. D. Thomas, D. Céolin, S. Granroth, O. Travnikova, M. Berholts, T. Marchenko, R. Guillemin, L. Journel, I. Ismail, R. Püttner, M. N. Piancastelli, K. Ueda, and M. Simon, Physical review letters121, 073002 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    Kreidi, P

    K. Kreidi, P. V. Demekhin, T. Jahnke, T. Weber, T. Havermeier, X.-J. Liu, Y. Morisita, S. Schössler, L. P. H. Schmidt, M. Schöf- fler, M. Odenweller, N. Neumann, L. Foucar, J. Titze, B. Ul- rich, F. Sturm, C. Stuck, R. Wallauer, S. Voss, I. Lauter, H. K. Kim, M. Rudloff, H. Fu...

    2009

  13. [21]

    J.-C. Liu, V. Vaz da Cruz, S. Polyutov, A. Föhlisch, and F. Gel’mukhanov, Phys. Rev. A100, 053408 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Dörner, V

    R. Dörner, V. Mergel, O. Jagutzki, L. Spielberger, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, and H. Schmidt-Böcking, Physics Reports330, 95 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Schmidt-Böcking, Rep

    J.Ullrich,R.Moshammer,A.Dorn,R.Dörner,L.P.H.Schmidt, and H. Schmidt-Böcking, Rep. Prog. Phys.66, 1463 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Jahnke, T

    T. Jahnke, T. Weber, T. Osipov, A. L. Landers, O. Jagutzki, L. P. H. Schmidt, C. Cocke, M. Prior, H. Schmidt-Böcking, and R. Dörner, J. Electron Spectrosc.141, 229 (2004)

    2004

  17. [25]

    Melzer, M

    N. Melzer, M. Kircher, A. Pier, L. Kaiser, J. Kruse, N. Anders, J. Stindl, L. Sommerlad, D. McGinnis, M. Schmidt, L. Nowak, A.Kügler,I.Dwojak,J.Drnec,F.Trinter,M.S.Schöffler,L.P.H. Schmidt, N. M. Novikovskiy, P. V. Demekhin, T. Jahnke, and R. Dörner, Physical review letters133...

    2024

  18. [26]

    Snigireva, and A

    G.B.M.Vaughan,J.P.Wright,A.Bytchkov,M.Rossat,H.Gley- zolle, I. Snigireva, and A. Snigirev, J. Synchrotron Rad.18, 125 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    Jagutzki, A

    O. Jagutzki, A. Cerezo, A. Czasch, R. Dörner, M. Hattas, Min Huang, V. Mergel, U. Spillmann, K. Ullmann-Pfleger, T. Weber, H. Schmidt-Böcking, and G. D. W. Smith, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science49, 2477 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    Dörner, V

    R. Dörner, V. Mergel, L. Spielberger, M. Achler, K. Khayyat, T. Vogt, H. Bräuning, O. Jagutzki, T. Weber, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, M. Unverzagt, W. Schmitt, H. Khemliche, 5 M.Prior,C.Cocke,J.Feagin,R.Olson,andH.Schmidt-Böcking, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B124, 225 (1997)

    1997

  21. [29]

    Schmidt, N

    M. Schmidt, N. Melzer, M. Kircher, G. Kastirke, A. Pier, L. Kaiser, P. Daum, D. Tsitsonis, M. Astaschov, J. Rist, N. An- ders,P.Roth,K.Lin,J.Drnec,F.Trinter,M.S.Schöffler,L.P.H. Schmidt, N. M. Novikovskiy, P. V. Demekhin, T. Jahnke, and R. Dörner, Physical review letters132, 2...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Grundmann, M

    S. Grundmann, M. Kircher, I. Vela-Perez, G. Nalin, D. Trabert, N. Anders, N. Melzer, J. Rist, A. Pier, N. Strenger, J. Siebert, P. V. Demekhin, L. P. H. Schmidt, F. Trinter, M. S. Schöffler, T. Jahnke, and R. Dörner, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 233201 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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