Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 47 references

Modulation of sub-optical cycle photocurrents in an ultrafast near-infrared scanning tunnelling microscope

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Fast electronic CEP modulation plus lock-in detection isolates the coherent sub-cycle part of the photocurrent in a near-infrared STM, turning a ~0.5% ripple into a 100%-modulated, sign-inverting signal.

desk verdict A solid near-IR lightwave-STM method paper with a novel fast CEP modulation readout, but the residual-AM purity claim needs a quantitative check before the central isolation result is fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16357 v1 pith:HBGM74GD submitted 2025-07-22 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Andrea Rossetti , Florian Pagnini , Majdi Assaid , Christoph Schoenfeld , Alfred Leitenstorfer , Markus Ludwig , Daniele Brida This is my paper
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords ultrafastscanningtunnellingmicroscopycarrier-envelopephaselightwave-drivenSTMsingle-cyclenear-infraredpulseslock-indetectionsub-cyclephotocurrentscoherentcontrolphotoemission
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

Scanning tunnelling microscopes illuminated by single-cycle near-infrared pulses ought to combine atomic spatial resolution with sub-femtosecond temporal resolution, but the coherent portion of the tunnelling current is buried under a much larger phase-independent background (multiphoton photoemission, thermal expansion, and other intensity-driven signals). This paper shows that the coherent part can be isolated by modulating the carrier-envelope phase (CEP) electronically at frequencies above 100 Hz and demodulating the photocurrent with a lock-in amplifier. The demodulated signal is proportional to $dI/d\phi$ and exhibits 100% modulation with full inversion around zero, against only about 0.5% modulation of the total photocurrent: a 200-fold contrast enhancement and an order-of-magnitude faster acquisition. If correct, this provides a practical readout for lightwave-driven near-IR STM with the feedback loop engaged, a step toward attosecond-resolved scanning probe microscopy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is 'electronic CEP modulation' combined with 'derivative sampling'. The pump current of the first erbium-fiber amplifier is modulated at $\nu_{CEP}>100$ Hz, imprinting a sinusoidal CEP shift $\delta\phi\simeq 0.1\pi$; driving the second amplifier in saturation is intended to suppress the accompanying power modulation. A slow wedge sweep sets the CEP working point $\phi_0$, and a lock-in amplifier demodulates the current at $\nu_{CEP}$. The Taylor-expansion identity above turns the lock-in output into a direct measurement of $dI/d\phi$, so the method reads out the slope of the photocurrent-phase curve rather than the current itself; this is what rejects the phase-independent background and isolates sub-cycle dynamics.

What would settle it

With the electronic CEP modulation running at $\nu_{CEP}>100$ Hz, place a fast photodiode in the beam after the second amplifier (or, inside the STM, use a large-gap multiphoton photoemission channel that is insensitive to CEP) and measure the amplitude modulation at $\nu_{CEP}$. If the residual power modulation at that frequency is large enough to produce a lock-in signal comparable to the observed 100% inversion, the claim that the demodulated signal is purely $dI/d\phi$ fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that sampling the STM current with a small, fast CEP dither yields a lock-in signal proportional to the CEP derivative of the photocurrent, $I(\phi_0+\delta\phi\sin 2\pi\nu_{CEP}t)\simeq I(\phi_0)+(dI/d\phi)|_{\phi_0}\delta\phi\sin 2\pi\nu_{CEP}t$, and that this signal is purely the coherent sub-cycle contribution. All phase-independent channels—multiphoton photoemission, photo-assisted tunnelling, thermal gap modulation—are rejected because they do not oscillate at $\nu_{CEP}$. The authors demonstrate the method on an isolated tip and at tunnel-gap distances, finding that the CEP-oscillation amplitude roughly doubles as the tip approaches the sample, and that the demodulated photocurrent shows complete contrast inversion while the total photocurrent varies by only about 0.5%. They therefore conclude that coherent field-driven tunnelling at near-infrared carrier frequencies can be detected directly and rapidly with the STM feedback loop engaged.

Load-bearing premise

The argument's load-bearing premise is that the fast modulation of the first amplifier's pump current changes only the carrier-envelope phase, with the saturated second amplifier suppressing any accompanying pulse-energy modulation below the level that would masquerade as a phase-driven lock-in signal at the CEP modulation frequency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The near-IR lightwave-driven STM can be operated with the feedback loop engaged, because the CEP dither at $\nu_{CEP}>100$ Hz is faster than the $\sim$100 Hz feedback bandwidth and therefore not compensated by gap adjustments.
  • The derivative readout rejects all phase-independent background, so the coherent signal can be measured without subtracting the multiphoton and thermal contributions.
  • Acquisition times drop by roughly an order of magnitude relative to slow mechanical CEP sweeps, making long-term stabilized measurements practical.
  • The observed doubling of the CEP-oscillation amplitude as the gap shrinks supports field-driven tunnelling across the junction as the source of the coherent signal.
  • The 100% modulation with full inversion gives a sensitive, sign-discriminating handle for setting and stabilizing the CEP at the junction.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, a direct junction-level measurement of residual amplitude modulation at $\nu_{CEP}$ would turn the saturated-amplifier suppression argument from a plausibility into a tested bound; the integrated-spectrum Fourier comparison in the paper is not a quantitative junction-level test.
  • The same derivative-sampling readout could be transferred to other scanning-probe modulation dithers (bias, polarization, pump current) wherever the observable is a smooth background-dominated function of the modulated parameter.
  • A systematic study of the sign-inversion pattern on controlled asymmetric versus symmetric tips could provide a quantitative check of the theoretical prediction that a perfectly symmetric junction shows full CEP inversion.
  • Applied to synthesized two-colour waveforms, the derivative signal could serve as a field-sampling observable, mapping the sub-cycle electric-field waveform rather than only the CEP.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an ultrafast scanning tunnelling microscopy experiment driven by near-infrared single-cycle pulses, with two intertwined claims. First, CEP-dependent (coherent) photocurrents are observed across the STM junction, with a small sinusoidal modulation as the CEP is slowly swept by wedge insertion. Second, the authors introduce an 'electronic CEP modulation' scheme in which the pump current of the first Er:fiber amplifier is modulated at frequencies above 100 Hz, and the photocurrent is demodulated with a lock-in amplifier. They argue that this isolates the derivative dI/dphi of the photocurrent with respect to CEP, yielding a signal that shows full sign inversion and a claimed 200-fold enhancement in modulation depth relative to the total photocurrent, while remaining compatible with an engaged STM feedback loop. The central experimental evidence is the sign-flipping demodulated signal in Figure 4c, whose period matches the wedge calibration.

Significance. If the isolation claim is correct, this is a valuable methodological step for lightwave-driven STM at near-infrared frequencies: it provides a way to read out the small coherent, sub-cycle component of the tunnelling current while suppressing slow thermal artifacts and allowing the feedback loop to remain active. The derivative-sampling idea is simple and attractive, and the use of an f-2f interferometer to calibrate the CEP shift is a strength. The sign-flipping lock-in trace in Figure 4c is internally consistent with a pure derivative response and is not explained by a simple DC offset. However, the central quantitative claims—'100% modulation with full inversion around zero' and a '200-fold enhancement'—rest on the assumption that the electronic modulation produces a pure CEP modulation with negligible residual amplitude modulation at the lock-in frequency. That assumption is not quantitatively supported by the data presented, and the nonlinearity of the junction amplifies the risk of AM contamination.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Figure 3e] The central claim that the demodulated signal is proportional to dI/dphi requires that the electronic CEP modulation does not introduce a significant residual amplitude modulation at the lock-in frequency. The manuscript supports this with an integrated-spectrum Fourier comparison showing 'no appreciable difference' between modulation on and off, but this is not a quantitative bound. Given the 7th-order power-law dependence of the isolated-tip photocurrent reported in Figure 2b, a residual power modulation of only about 0.07% at nu_CEP would produce a photocurrent modulation of about 0.5%, comparable to the entire coherent signal being extracted. The comparison must be quantified as an upper bound on residual AM, ideally measured at the STM junction or at least at the laser output with a specified noise floor, before the isolation claim in Eq. (1) can be considered established.
  2. [Sections 3 and 4, Figure 3b and Eq. (1)] The CEP modulation amplitude delta_phi = 0.1 pi is characterized at a modulation frequency of 0.2 Hz using the f-2f interferometer, but the lock-in experiments are performed at nu_CEP > 100 Hz. The pump-to-CEP transfer function, including its amplitude roll-off and phase delay, is not measured at the operating frequency. If the actual delta_phi at >100 Hz differs from 0.1 pi, the calibration of the derivative signal and the claimed '200-fold enhancement' are not quantitatively meaningful. At minimum, the authors should report the lock-in reference settings and either measure delta_phi at the operating frequency or provide an explicit argument that the transfer function is flat up to the lock-in frequency.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 4c] The key experimental evidence for the isolation method is the demodulated photocurrent trace in Figure 4c, but the manuscript provides no error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical test for the zero crossing and the sine fit. The gray individual scans show substantial scatter, and the fit is described only as a 'guide to the eye.' The claims of '100% modulation with full inversion around zero' and a '200-fold enhancement of modulation depth' are therefore not supported by a quantitative uncertainty analysis. The authors should report the lock-in time constant, the number of independent averages, the noise floor of the detection, and a meaningful uncertainty on the fitted amplitude and phase, ideally including a comparison of the in-phase and quadrature components to exclude a constant AM vector.
  4. [Section 2, Figure 2d] The paper claims that as the tip-sample distance is reduced from the isolated-tip regime to tunnelling proximity, the CEP-modulated current amplitude 'doubles,' and this is used to support the interpretation that field-driven tunnelling sets in at small gaps. However, Figure 2d shows no error bars on the extracted amplitudes, and the exponential fits are only guides to the eye. Given that the underlying data in Figure 2c are noisy at small gaps, the doubling could be within the scatter. This claim should either be quantified with propagated uncertainties or softened to a qualitative observation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, text near Figure 2c] The sentence 'The results of the measurements are shown in figure 2b' should refer to Figure 2c, since Figure 2b shows the power-law fit for the isolated tip.
  2. [Section 4, first paragraph] The phrase 'Analogously to the measurements discussed in figure 1c' appears to reference the wrong figure; the CEP-sweep measurements are shown in Figure 2c, not Figure 1c.
  3. [Section 3, text near Figure 3e] The text refers to 'figure 3d' for the integrated spectral intensity, but the figure caption and panels show no panel d; the integrated-spectrum Fourier analysis is in panel e. The citation should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3, first paragraph] There is a typo in the sentence 'We will address this aspect this in the remainder of this work'; the duplicated 'this' should be removed.
  5. [Section 2, text near Figure 2b] The sentence 'The photocurrent is acquired directly from the transimpedance amplifier (no lock-in detection) and averaged over 30 successive CEP sweeps' is clear, but later in Section 4 the text says the total photocurrent modulation was 'around 0.5% in the retracted case (figure 2b, top panel)'; this should reference Figure 2c or 2d, as Figure 2b has no top panel.
  6. [References] Reference [40] (C. Lin et al., ACS Photonics) is a duplicate of reference [22]; the duplicate citation should be removed or replaced with the appropriate source.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (1) is a Taylor expansion, CEP calibration uses an independent f-2f interferometer, and prior self-citations supply the laser instrument rather than the conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Equation (1) is an explicit first-order Taylor expansion, I(phi0 + delta_phi sin(omega t)) proportional to (dI/dphi) sin(omega t), not a fitted or assumed result; the lock-in output is defined as the demodulated component, so the experiment measures the predicted quantity rather than constructing it from the same data. The CEP shift induced by the pump-current modulation is independently characterized with an f-2f interferometer (Fig. 3b) and a measured linear transfer relation (Fig. S1), separate from the STM junction readout. The wedge-based CEP control is re-characterized in this work and cited prior work [19,36] is used for instrument provenance, not as a uniqueness theorem or as the target conclusion. The possible residual amplitude modulation at nu_CEP is a quantitative validation gap and a correctness risk, not a circular step: the paper's central claim is not forced by construction, and the lock-in derivative signal is checked against the expected CEP periodicity of the wedge sweep. No load-bearing reduction of Eq. (1) to its inputs, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain carrying the conclusion were found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The experiment relies on a standard Taylor expansion, an assumed pure-CEP modulation, and literature values for field enhancement and work function. It introduces no new physical entities; the free parameters are a fitted multiphoton exponent and a chosen modulation amplitude.

free parameters (2)
  • Power-law exponent n (multiphoton order) = n ~ 7
    Fitted as a free parameter to the isolated-tip photocurrent versus pulse energy in Figure 2b; used to argue that multiphoton photoemission is the dominant large-gap channel.
  • CEP modulation amplitude delta_phi = 0.1 pi peak-to-peak
    Chosen by the authors to stay in the linear Taylor regime; the derivative-sampling readout in Equation (1) depends on this choice, although the main conclusion is not highly sensitive to the exact value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption First-order Taylor expansion of I(phi0 + delta_phi sin(2 pi nu t)) is valid for delta_phi = 0.1 pi
    Used to derive Equation (1), the proportionality between the lock-in signal and dI/dphi. If higher-order terms contribute, the demodulated signal is not exactly the derivative.
  • domain assumption Modulating EDFA1 pump current changes only CEP, not the pulse envelope at the junction; EDFA2 runs in saturation and suppresses power variations
    Central to claiming the lock-in signal is purely CEP-coherent; supported only by an integrated-spectrum comparison in Section 3, not by a quantitative residual-amplitude measurement.
  • domain assumption The near-infrared pulse is non-resonant with tip and sample, so the waveform is maintained in the near-field, with a field enhancement factor of about 10
    Used in Section 2 to estimate strong-field conditions at the junction; the enhancement factor is taken from reference [37].
  • domain assumption Photocurrent is a deterministic function of CEP at fixed pulse energy and gap
    Needed for the CEP-sweep and derivative-sampling interpretations; ignores shot-to-shot stochasticity and possible memory effects in the junction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modulation of sub-optical cycle photocurrents in an ultrafast near-infrared scanning tunnelling microscope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBGM74GD

@misc{pith2026250716357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modulation of sub-optical cycle photocurrents in an ultrafast near-infrared scanning tunnelling microscope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBGM74GD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16357}
}
read the original abstract

Lightwave-driven scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) at near-IR frequencies promises an unprecedented combination of atomic spatial resolution and temporal resolution approaching the attosecond range. To achieve this goal, high-sensitivity optical control and detection of sub-cycle tunnelling currents must be achieved at the STM junction. Here, we demonstrate the generation and detection of coherent ultrafast currents across the junction of an STM illuminated by near-infrared single-cycle pulses. We introduce a novel modulation scheme that avoids time-dependent thermal loading while selectively isolating carrier-envelope phase (CEP)-dependent photocurrents. All artifacts arising from periodic modulation of laser power and thermal coupling are efficiently suppressed, enabling a clean readout of the coherent portion of the ultrafast tunneling current.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.16357 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Conceptual representation of a lightwave-driven STM. b) Sketch of the potential energy landscape of the process depicted in a). The laser electric field 𝐸𝐿 (𝑡) bends the junction barrier by a potential energy difference 𝑒𝑉𝐿 (𝑡). The voltage transient causes an imbalance between the Fermi levels 𝐸𝐹,𝑡 and 𝐸𝐹,𝑠 of tip and sample, causing a current 𝐼𝑡 to flow across the junction within sub-optical-cycle timescales. c… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gap-size dependence of coherent photoemission a) Sketch of the setup. b) Photocurrent from the isolated tip (𝛥𝑧 = 1 𝜇𝑚) as function of the incoming pulse energy. The resulting graph is well reproduced by a 7-th order power law fit (dashed line), suggesting that a multi-photon process is the dominant photoemission mechanism. c) Photocurrent flowing across the STM junction for different values of the carrier-envelope … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Electronic modulation of the CEP. a) Sketch of the setup. The CEP is controlled by modulating the pump [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Isolation of phase-dependent photocurrents using the derivative sampling method. a) Schematic representation of the experiment. b) Pictorial representation of the derivative sampling method. The CEP is modulated using a 0.1𝜋 sinusoidal phase profile around ϕ0 (pink osc…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction The fundamental interactions governing the properties of condensed matter take place at sub - nanometric lengths and characteristic times between the attosecond-scale motion of electronic wavepackets and tens to hundreds of femtosecond lattice dynamics. The synthesis of ultrafast optical transients across wide portions of the electromagnetic ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    preamplifier

    Coherent photoemission across the STM junction The laser system employed in this work is a home-made Er:fiber source operating at a repetition rate of 40 MHz [33], [34] . A schematic representation of the setup is shown in figure 2a. Starting from the amplified output of an Er:fiber oscillator, the CEP of the pulse train is passively stabilized via spectr...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Towards actual experiments, the ability to i solate sub-cycle coherent photocurrents from potentially largely dominant background signals is crucial

    Electronic modulation of the carrier-envelope-phase We recognize the observation of field -driven signatures in the STM current as a critical step toward realizing lightwave -driven STM at near -infrared frequencies, demonstrating that sub - cycle optical control of the tunneling current is achievable in this spectral range. Towards actual experiments, th...

    work page

  4. [4]

    derivative sampling

    Direct isolation of coherent photocurrents After having characterized the electronic CEP modulation, we apply it to detect coherent photocurrents across the STM junction. The linear relation between the diode pump current and the CEP shift (figure SI1) opens several possibilities on how to implement the CEP modulation at the STM junction. Here we propose ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Lux-Ultra- Fast

    Conclusions In this work , we investigated coherent photoemission across the junction of a scanning tunnelling microscope illuminated by CEP -stable single -cycle near-IR laser transients. To quantify the magnitude of field -driven effects at the junction, we first characterized its CEP dependence based on a slow mechanical modulation technique that is kn...

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Nanoscale terahertz scanning probe microscopy,

    T. L. Cocker, V. Jelic, R. Hillenbrand, and F. A. Hegmann, “Nanoscale terahertz scanning probe microscopy,” Aug. 01, 2021, Nature Research. doi: 10.1038/s41566-021-00835-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s41566-021-00835-6 2021

  7. [7]

    Broadly tunable ultrafast pump-probe system operating at multi-kHz repetition rate,

    A. Grupp et al., “Broadly tunable ultrafast pump-probe system operating at multi-kHz repetition rate,” Journal of Optics (United Kingdom), vol. 20, no. 1, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1088/2040-8986/aa9b07

    work page doi:10.1088/2040-8986/aa9b07 2018

  8. [8]

    Pump-probe spectroscopy study of ultrafast temperature dynamics in nanoporous gold,

    M. Ortolani, A. Mancini, A. Budweg, D. Garoli, D. Brida, and F. De Angelis, “Pump-probe spectroscopy study of ultrafast temperature dynamics in nanoporous gold,” Phys Rev B, vol. 99, no. 3, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.99.035435

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.99.035435 2019

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    Ultrafast hot-carrier dynamics in ultrathin monocrystalline gold,

    C. O. Karaman, A. Y. Bykov, F. Kiani, G. Tagliabue, and A. V. Zayats, “Ultrafast hot-carrier dynamics in ultrathin monocrystalline gold,” Nat Commun, vol. 15, no. 1, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-44769-3

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Probing free-carrier and exciton dynamics in a bulk semiconductor with two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy,

    J. Allerbeck, T. Deckert, L. Spitzner, and D. Brida, “Probing free-carrier and exciton dynamics in a bulk semiconductor with two-dimensional electronic spectroscopy,” Phys Rev B, vol. 104, no. 20, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.104.L201202

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in Ferromagnetic Nickel,

    E. Beaurepaire, J.-C. Merle, A. Daunois, and J.-Y. Bigot, “Ultrafast Spin Dynamics in Ferromagnetic Nickel,” 1996

    1996

  4. [13]

    All-optical subcycle microscopy on atomic length scales,

    T. Siday et al., “All-optical subcycle microscopy on atomic length scales,” Nature, vol. 629, no. 8011, pp. 329–334, May 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41586- 024-07355-7

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    Ultrafast dynamics of surface plasmons in InAs by time- resolved infrared nanospectroscopy,

    M. Wagner et al., “Ultrafast dynamics of surface plasmons in InAs by time- resolved infrared nanospectroscopy,” Nano Lett, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 4529– 4534, Aug. 2014, doi: 10.1021/nl501558t

    2014 doi

  6. [15]

    Ultrafast and nanoscale plasmonic phenomena in exfoliated graphene revealed by infrared pump-probe nanoscopy,

    M. Wagner et al., “Ultrafast and nanoscale plasmonic phenomena in exfoliated graphene revealed by infrared pump-probe nanoscopy,” Nano Lett, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 894–900, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1021/nl4042577

    2014 doi

  7. [16]

    Imaging surfaces at the space–time limit: New perspectives of time-resolved scanning tunneling microscopy for ultrafast surface science,

    M. Müller, “Imaging surfaces at the space–time limit: New perspectives of time-resolved scanning tunneling microscopy for ultrafast surface science,” Prog Surf Sci, no. xxxx, p. 100727, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.progsurf.2023.100727

    2023

  8. [17]

    Femtosecond Optical-Field-Driven Currents in Few-Nanometer- Size Gaps with Hot Electron Injection into Metallic Leads,

    A. G. Borisov, B. Ma, M. Zapata-Herrera, A. Babaze, M. Krüger, and J. Aizpurua, “Femtosecond Optical-Field-Driven Currents in Few-Nanometer- Size Gaps with Hot Electron Injection into Metallic Leads,” ACS Photonics, 2025, doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.4c02612

    2025 doi

  9. [18]

    Sub-femtosecond electron transport in a nanoscale gap,

    M. Ludwig et al., “Sub-femtosecond electron transport in a nanoscale gap,” Nat Phys, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 341–345, 2020, doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0745- 8

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    Tracking the ultrafast motion of a single molecule by femtosecond orbital imaging,

    T. L. Cocker, D. Peller, P. Yu, J. Repp, and R. Huber, “Tracking the ultrafast motion of a single molecule by femtosecond orbital imaging,” Nature, vol. 539, no. 7628, pp. 263–267, 2016, doi: 10.1038/nature19816

    2016 doi

  11. [20]

    Quantum coherence controls the charge separation in a prototypical artificial light-harvesting system,

    C. Andrea Rozzi et al., “Quantum coherence controls the charge separation in a prototypical artificial light-harvesting system,” Nat Commun, vol. 4, 2013, doi: 10.1038/ncomms2603

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    Subcycle Mid-Infrared Electric-Field-Driven Scanning Tunneling Microscopy with a Time Resolution Higher Than 30 fs,

    Y. Arashida et al., “Subcycle Mid-Infrared Electric-Field-Driven Scanning Tunneling Microscopy with a Time Resolution Higher Than 30 fs,” 2022, doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.2c00995

    2022 doi

  13. [22]

    Attosecond coherent manipulation of electrons in tunneling microscopy,

    M. Garg and K. Kern, “Attosecond coherent manipulation of electrons in tunneling microscopy,” Science (1979), vol. 1098, no. November, p. eaaz1098, 2019, doi: 10.1126/science.aaz1098

    1979 doi

  14. [23]

    Synthesis of a single cycle of light with compact erbium- doped fibre technology,

    G. Krauss et al., “Synthesis of a single cycle of light with compact erbium- doped fibre technology,” Nat Photonics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 33–36, Jan. 2010, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2009.258

    2010 doi

  15. [24]

    Nanoscale coherent phonon spectroscopy,

    S. Liu, A. Hammud, I. Hamada, M. Wolf, M. Müller, and T. Kumagai, “Nanoscale coherent phonon spectroscopy,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org

    2022

  16. [25]

    Sub-cycle optical phase control of nanotunnelling in the single-electron regime,

    T. Rybka, M. Ludwig, M. F. Schmalz, V. Knittel, D. Brida, and A. Leitenstorfer, “Sub-cycle optical phase control of nanotunnelling in the single-electron regime,” Nat Photonics, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 667–670, 2016, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2016.174

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    An ultrafast terahertz scanning tunnelling microscope,

    T. L. Cocker et al., “An ultrafast terahertz scanning tunnelling microscope,” Nat Photonics, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 620–625, 2013, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2013.151

    2013 doi

  18. [27]

    Real-space coherent manipulation of electrons in a single tunnel junction by single-cycle terahertz electric fields,

    K. Yoshioka et al., “Real-space coherent manipulation of electrons in a single tunnel junction by single-cycle terahertz electric fields,” Nov. 29, 2016, Nature Publishing Group. doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2016.205

    2016 doi

  19. [29]

    Controlling photocurrent channels in scanning tunneling microscopy,

    B. Schröder et al., “Controlling photocurrent channels in scanning tunneling microscopy,” New J Phys, vol. 22, no. 3, 2020, doi: 10.1088/1367- 2630/ab74ac

    2020 doi

  20. [30]

    Laser-induced thermal expansion of a scanning tunneling microscope tip measured with an atomic force microscope cantilever,

    R. Huber, M. Koch, and J. Feldmann, “Laser-induced thermal expansion of a scanning tunneling microscope tip measured with an atomic force microscope cantilever,” Appl Phys Lett, vol. 73, no. 17, pp. 2521–2523, 1998, doi: 10.1063/1.122502

    1998 doi

  21. [31]

    Femtosecond Thermal and Nonthermal Hot Electron Tunneling Inside a Photoexcited Tunnel Junction,

    N. Martín Sabanés, F. Krecinic, T. Kumagai, F. Schulz, M. Wolf, and M. Müller, “Femtosecond Thermal and Nonthermal Hot Electron Tunneling Inside a Photoexcited Tunnel Junction,” ACS Nano, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 14479–14489, 2022, doi: 10.1021/acsnano.2c04846

    2022 doi

  22. [32]

    Probing of optical near-fields by electron rescattering on the 1 nm scale,

    S. Thomas, M. Krüger, M. Förster, M. Schenk, and P. Hommelhoff, “Probing of optical near-fields by electron rescattering on the 1 nm scale,” Nano Lett, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 4790–4794, 2013, doi: 10.1021/nl402407r

    2013 doi

  23. [33]

    Photoassisted scanning tunneling microscopy,

    S. Grafström, “Photoassisted scanning tunneling microscopy,” J Appl Phys, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 1717–1753, 2002, doi: 10.1063/1.1432113

    2002 doi

  24. [34]

    Thermal effects in pulsed laser assisted scanning tunneling microscopy,

    V. Gerstner, A. Thon, and W. Pfeiffer, “Thermal effects in pulsed laser assisted scanning tunneling microscopy,” J Appl Phys, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 2574–2580, 2000, doi: 10.1063/1.372221

    doi

  25. [35]

    Thermal expansion of scanning tunneling microscopy tips under laser illumination,

    S. Grafström, P. Schuller, J. Kowalski, and R. Neumann, “Thermal expansion of scanning tunneling microscopy tips under laser illumination,” J Appl Phys, vol. 83, no. 7, pp. 3453–3460, 1998, doi: 10.1063/1.366556

    1998 doi

  26. [36]

    Gouy phase effects on photocurrents in plasmonic nanogaps driven by single-cycle pulses,

    A. Rossetti, M. Falk, A. Leitenstorfer, D. Brida, and M. Ludwig, “Gouy phase effects on photocurrents in plasmonic nanogaps driven by single-cycle pulses,” Nanophotonics, vol. 13, no. 15, pp. 2803–2809, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1515/nanoph-2023-0897

    2024 doi

  27. [37]

    Carrier-envelope phase effects on the strong-field photoemission of electrons from metallic nanostructures,

    B. Piglosiewicz et al., “Carrier-envelope phase effects on the strong-field photoemission of electrons from metallic nanostructures,” Nat Photonics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 37–42, 2014, doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2013.288

    2014 doi

  28. [38]

    As discussed in the introduction, several mechanisms can contribute to photoemission across a STM gap illuminated by single -cycle NIR pulses

    can be attained at STM gap under the present experimental conditions [11]. As discussed in the introduction, several mechanisms can contribute to photoemission across a STM gap illuminated by single -cycle NIR pulses. For large gap sizes, where beneath -the- barrier contributi...

  29. [39]

    Attosecond physics in photoemission from a metal nanotip,

    M. Krüger, M. Schenk, M. Förster, and P. Hommelhoff, “Attosecond physics in photoemission from a metal nanotip,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, vol. 45, no. 7, 2012, doi: 10.1088/0953- 4075/45/7/074006

    2012 doi

  30. [40]

    Ultrabroadband Er: Fiber lasers,

    D. Brida, G. Krauss, A. Sell, and A. Leitenstorfer, “Ultrabroadband Er: Fiber lasers,” Laser Photon Rev, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 409–428, 2014, doi: 10.1002/lpor.201300194

    2014 doi

  31. [41]

    Passively phase-locked Er:fiber source of single-cycle pulses in the near infrared with electro-optic timing modulation for field-resolved electron control,

    C. Schoenfeld, P. Sulzer, D. Brida, A. Leitenstorfer, and T. Kurihara, “Passively phase-locked Er:fiber source of single-cycle pulses in the near infrared with electro-optic timing modulation for field-resolved electron control,” Opt Lett, vol. 47, no. 14, p. 3552, Jul. 2022, ...

    2022 doi

  32. [42]

    Two-dimensional spectral shearing interferometry for few-cycle pulse characterization and optimization,

    J. R. Birge, R. Ell, and F. X. Kärtner, “Two-dimensional spectral shearing interferometry for few-cycle pulse characterization and optimization,” Springer Series in Chemical Physics, vol. 88, pp. 160–162, 2007, doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-68781-8_51

    2007 doi

  33. [43]

    Optical antenna properties of scanning probe tips: Plasmonic light scattering, tip-sample coupling, and near-field enhancement,

    N. Behr and M. B. Raschke, “Optical antenna properties of scanning probe tips: Plasmonic light scattering, tip-sample coupling, and near-field enhancement,” Journal of Physical Chemistry C, vol. 112, no. 10, pp. 3766– 3773, 2008, doi: 10.1021/jp7098009

    2008 doi

  34. [44]

    Anatomy of strong field ionization,

    M. Y. Ivanov, M. Spanner, and O. Smirnova, “Anatomy of strong field ionization,” J Mod Opt, vol. 52, no. 2–3, pp. 165–184, 2005, doi: 10.1080/0950034042000275360

    2005 doi

  35. [45]

    Determination of the work functions of Pt(lll) and Ir(lll) beyond 1100 K surface temperature,

    M. Kaack and D. Fick, “Determination of the work functions of Pt(lll) and Ir(lll) beyond 1100 K surface temperature,” 1995

    1995

  36. [46]

    Continuous-Wave Multiphoton-Induced Electron Transfer in Tunnel Junctions Driven by Intense Plasmonic Fields,

    C. Lin et al., “Continuous-Wave Multiphoton-Induced Electron Transfer in Tunnel Junctions Driven by Intense Plasmonic Fields,” ACS Photonics, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 3637–3646, 2023, doi: 10.1021/acsphotonics.3c00714

    2023 doi

  37. [47]

    Field-driven photoemission from nanostructures quenches the quiver motion,

    G. Herink, D. R. Solli, M. Gulde, and C. Ropers, “Field-driven photoemission from nanostructures quenches the quiver motion,” Nature, vol. 483, no. 7388, pp. 190–193, 2012, doi: 10.1038/nature10878

    2012 doi

  38. [48]

    Vanishing carrier-envelope-phase-sensitive response in optical-field photoemission from plasmonic nanoantennas,

    P. D. Keathley et al., “Vanishing carrier-envelope-phase-sensitive response in optical-field photoemission from plasmonic nanoantennas,” Nat Phys, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 1128–1133, 2019, doi: 10.1038/s41567-019-0613-6

    2019 doi

  39. [49]

    Ultrafast Photon-Induced Tunneling Microscopy,

    M. Garg, A. Martin-Jimenez, Y. Luo, and K. Kern, “Ultrafast Photon-Induced Tunneling Microscopy,” ACS Nano, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 18071–18084, 2021, doi: 10.1021/acsnano.1c06716. Supporting information Figure S1: Characterization of the CEP shift induced by modulating the pump ...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.