Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Using the approximative positive-P (APP) representation, the driving field is replaced by an incoherent mixture of coherent states, and the paper proves that, for emitters without dipole correlations, neither quadrature squeezing below vacu

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 04:39 UTC pith:PO4RFW5Z

load-bearing objection A careful, rigorous warning about the APP approximation; the no-go proof is conditional on no dipole correlations, and the abstract overstates that scope. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2602.04370 v1 pith:PO4RFW5Z submitted 2026-02-04 quant-ph

Limitations of an approximative phase-space description in strong-field quantum optics

Rasmus Vesterager Gothelf , Lars Bojer Madsen , Christian Saugbjerg Lange This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords high-order harmonic generationstrong-field quantum opticsapproximative positive-P representationHusimi functionquadrature squeezingphoton statisticssub-Poissonian lightcoherent-state expansion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper takes apart a widely used shortcut for modeling strong-field processes driven by nonclassical light: expanding the driving field as a mixture of coherent states (the APP representation). It shows that this approximation is not merely numerically convenient — it actively destroys the quantum-optical information one might want to compute. Under the assumption that a coherent driver produces coherent harmonic emission (no dipole correlations), the paper proves that the approximate state can never yield quadrature variance below 1/4 or g(2)(0) below 1. That means predicted absences of squeezing or sub-Poissonian statistics carry no physical meaning without a separate error estimate. A solvable one-band model confirms the point: the spectrum is captured accurately, but the quadrature variance develops an error that grows with emitter number and pulse duration.

Core claim

The central claim is that the APP representation, rho_APP(t)=∫d²α Q(α)|ψ_α(t)⟩⟨ψ_α(t)|, treats the driving field as if it were a stochastically fluctuating classical laser. For a medium in which the transition currents are diagonal, so that a coherent driver produces a coherent output, the paper proves the inequality |⟨a²⟩_APP−⟨a⟩_APP²| ≤ ⟨a†a⟩_APP−|⟨a⟩_APP|², which forces the minimum quadrature variance to be at least 1/4, and shows g(2)_APP(0)≥1. Consequently the approximation can never predict sub-Poissonian statistics or squeezing below the vacuum floor, even when the true field would show these features. For a coherently driven one-band solid, where the exact emitted state is known to b

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the APP representation (Eq. 11), obtained by replacing the positive-P kernel with a delta function in Eq. (10), so the true state becomes rho_APP(t)=∫d²α Q(α)|ψ_α(t)⟩⟨ψ_α(t)|, with Q the Husimi function of the driving field. Because Q is positive and smooth, the driver is effectively an incoherent mixture of coherent states — a classical ensemble. Combined with the coherent-in-coherent-out assumption (diagonal transition currents, j^α_{m,n}∝δ_{m,n}), this reduces all field moments to integrals over the classical amplitudes γ^α_n, and the proof follows from the integral triangle inequality. In the one-band benchmark, the exact coherent amplitudes are Bessel-function

Load-bearing premise

The proof that APP can never show squeezing or sub-Poissonian light assumes the emitter has no dipole correlations, so a coherent driver produces exactly coherent harmonic emission; if that condition fails, the no-go statement is not established.

What would settle it

Experimentally, drive HHG in a solid with a bright squeezed vacuum and measure the quadrature variance of a harmonic mode; a direct measurement finding variance below 1/4 would demonstrate the approximation's failure, while the APP calculation would sit at or above 1/4. Conversely, a calculation in the one-band model with a Fock-state driver comparing exact g(2)(0) with the APP value would settle the photon-statistics mischaracterization quantitatively.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Published APP-based predictions of HHG spectra remain on safe ground: the relative spectral error vanishes as O(1/|α|²) for strong driving.
  • APP-based claims about the absence of squeezing or sub-Poissonian statistics in HHG from no-dipole-correlation media cannot be taken as physical statements; they are structural artifacts of the representation.
  • For the one-band solid, the APP error in the quadrature variance scales quadratically with the number of emitters and grows with pulse duration, so even 'small' few-emitter errors can become large in macroscopic targets.
  • Any quantitative use of APP for quantum-optical observables must be accompanied by a system-specific error analysis; otherwise the sign of the nonclassicality (e.g., super- vs. sub-Poissonian) can be flipped.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If dipole correlations are present (atoms, multi-band solids, correlated materials), the no-go proof does not apply; the APP could either miss genuine nonclassicality or, in principle, accidentally mimic some features, and the paper's universal wording is stronger than what is proved.
  • The mechanism — a positive smooth mixture of coherent states — suggests a testable rule of thumb: any observable that is linear or convex in the coherent-state expectation values may survive APP, while fluctuation measures that involve subtracting a mean from a variance are the ones that get corrupted.
  • A concrete extension: compute the exact g(2)(0) of emitted harmonics for a multi-band or atomic model driven by a Fock or squeezed state, where the coherent-in-coherent-out assumption fails, and compare with APP; this would delimit where the proved no-go ends and uncontrolled error begins.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the 'approximative positive P' (APP) representation, a coherent-state expansion used to model strong-field processes driven by nonclassical light. The authors first derive the APP state as an incoherent mixture of coherent states with the Husimi function as weight. Under the assumption that a coherent driver produces coherent harmonic emission (no dipole correlations), they prove that the APP representation cannot yield sub-Poissonian statistics or quadrature squeezing below the vacuum level, either for the driving field or for the emitted harmonic field. They then benchmark the approximation on a one-band solid model with an exact analytic solution, deriving closed-form expressions for the APP-induced error in the quadrature variance, and show numerically that this error scales with pulse duration and emitter density. The paper concludes that APP predictions of quantum-optical observables need error quantification before physical interpretation.

Significance. If the result holds, this is an important cautionary contribution to strong-field quantum optics, where the APP representation is increasingly used to compute observables from HHG driven by nonclassical light. The central inequalities in Sec. III A are rigorous under the stated assumption, and the one-band benchmark is analytic, with explicit appendix derivations and a check that the highest-order term controls the error. The paper also clearly identifies why classical observables like the spectrum are well captured while fluctuation-based observables are not. The main value lies in giving the community a precise limitation of a widely used approximation, together with a quantitative estimate of the error in a concrete model.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. III A] The Abstract claims, without qualification, that 'neither sub-Poissonian photon statistics nor quadrature squeezing below vacuum fluctuations can be captured by the approximative phase-space description' for the emitted HHG field. However, the proof in Sec. III A (Eqs. 20-24) is explicitly conditional on the coherent-in-coherent-out assumption (j_{m,n} ∝ δ_{m,n}, no dipole correlations, Sec. II C). The Introduction and Conclusion properly qualify the statement, but the Abstract does not. For systems with dipole correlations, such as atomic or multi-band models, the emitted state from a coherent driver is not coherent, and the no-go theorem does not apply. The Abstract should be revised to state the condition, e.g., 'for electronic models in which dipole correlations are neglected,' to avoid overstating the theorem's scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (22)] There appears to be a typographical error in the displayed integrand: the equality should involve (γ_α - ⟨a⟩_APP)^2 rather than the expression currently shown. Please check that the equation matches the derivation in the surrounding text.
  2. [Eqs. (46)-(47) and (B12)-(B13)] The term 'nm_2 + nm_2' likely should be 'n m_1 + n m_2'; the same apparent typo appears in both the main text and Appendix B.
  3. [Fig. 2] The y-axis label contains corrupted unicode/LaTeX control sequences (e.g., '/uni00000014/...'). The figure should be regenerated with proper text rendering.
  4. [Sec. III C 3] In the paragraph on scaling, there is a broken unicode artifact ('pulse duration /uni00000014/...'). This is likely a LaTeX compilation issue and should be fixed.
  5. [Sec. I] The phrase 'interpreted with fitting skepticism' is a bit awkward; consider 'with appropriate skepticism.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the no-go theorem is a stated consequence of the APP definition and the explicitly assumed coherent-in-coherent-out condition, benchmarked against exact analytic results.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The APP representation is explicitly defined in Eqs. (8)-(11) as a diagonal mixture of coherent states weighted by the Husimi function. In Sec. III A, the impossibility of sub-Poissonian statistics and squeezing below vacuum is derived from this definition together with the explicitly stated coherent-in-coherent-out assumption (no dipole correlations, Eqs. (15)-(16)). The inequalities (22)-(24) follow directly from Q(alpha) >= 0 and do not invoke any fitted parameter or external conclusion. The paper itself acknowledges that this failure is expected from the definition: 'one might expect this already from Eq. (11)' and that the APP 'is essentially an approximation on the driving field state.' The quantitative one-band benchmark in Sec. III C re-derives the exact coherent-state solution from the model Hamiltonian (Eqs. (31)-(39)) and compares it with the APP expressions; parameters from Ref. [18] are used only for numerical illustration, not as inputs to the no-go theorem. Self-citations (Refs. [3,17,18]) supply the model and the approximation under study, but the central error estimates and no-go inequalities are derived analytically and checked against exact results. The abstract's unqualified phrasing about the emitted HHG field is a scope/correctness concern because the proof is conditional on neglecting dipole correlations, not a circularity. No prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input, and no load-bearing self-citation replaces a derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper adds no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on standard phase-space quantum optics, on the no-dipole-correlation assumption for the general no-go theorem, and on a renormalization choice for the one-band numerical benchmark. The central theorem is conditional on the coherent-in-coherent-out assumption.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption No dipole correlations: transition currents j^α_{m,n}(t) ∝ δ_{m,n}, so coherent driving produces coherent harmonic emission (coherent-in-coherent-out).
    Invoked in Sec. II C and Sec. III A. Exact for the one-band model; widely assumed for other systems; all general impossibility statements are proved under this condition.
  • domain assumption The APP representation is obtained by replacing the Gaussian in the PP–Husimi relation with a delta function (Eq. 10), making the driving-field state a positive mixture of coherent states.
    This is the definition of the method under study, adopted from Ref. [17]; the paper's no-go results are for this specific approximation.
  • domain assumption Dipole approximation and neglect of the A² term in the light-matter Hamiltonian (Sec. II A).
    Standard strong-field approximation used to derive Eq. (2); inherited from Refs. [1,3].
  • domain assumption Time-periodic infinite pulse with delta-function harmonic peaks; G_n renormalized by matching to a finite 20-cycle sin² pulse.
    Sec. III C 1, Eq. (36). This regularizes the infinite-pulse amplitude and affects the absolute error size, though not the reported scaling.
  • standard math Hudson's theorem and the optical equivalence theorem.
    Used in App. A and Sec. III B to connect Wigner negativity to nonclassicality and to evaluate exact anti-normally ordered moments.
  • domain assumption Leading-order truncation: the highest-order term in |α| dominates the squeezing error; verified by the next-highest-order term.
    Sec. III C 3 and Fig. 2; necessary for the quantitative error estimate in the one-band model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22347 in / 24931 out tokens · 254432 ms · 2026-08-03T04:39:19.487327+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In recent years, strong-field processes such as high-order harmonic generation (HHG) and above-threshold ionization driven by nonclassical states of light have become an increasingly popular field of study. The theoretical modeling of these processes often applies an approximate phase-space expansion of the nonclassical driving field in terms of coherent states, which has been shown to accurately predict the harmonic spectrum. However, its accuracy for the computation of quantum optical observables like the degree of squeezing and photon statistics has not been thoroughly considered. In this work, we introduce this approximative phase-space description and discuss its accuracy, and we find that it mischaracterizes the quantum optical properties of the driving laser by making it an incoherent mixture of classical states. We further show that this error in the driving field description maps onto the light emitted from HHG, as neither sub-Poissonian photon statistics nor quadrature squeezing below vacuum fluctuations can be captured by the approximative phase-space description. Lastly, to benchmark the approximative phase-space description, we consider the quantum HHG from a one-band model, which yields an exact analytical solution. Using the approximative phase-space representation with this specific model, we find a small quantitative error in the quadrature variance of the emitted field that scales with pulse duration and emitter density. Our results show that using this approximative phase-space description can mischaracterize quantum optical observables. Attributing physical meaning to such results should therefore be accompanied by a quantitative analysis of the error.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.04370 by Christian Saugbjerg Lange, Lars Bojer Madsen, Rasmus Vesterager Gothelf.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Illustration of (a) a pulse of BSV and (b) multiple [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Relative error in quadrature variance in harmonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Heralded ultrafast generation of macroscopic quantum states in matter with bright squeezed vacuum light

    quant-ph 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    Quadrature-heralded bright squeezed vacuum light filters matter into macroscopic Dicke states and, with counter-rotating terms, GHZ-like spin cat states.

  2. Heralded ultrafast generation of macroscopic quantum states in matter with bright squeezed vacuum light

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bright squeezed vacuum light with quadrature heralding prepares Gaussian-weighted superpositions and accelerates the zero-polarization Dicke state in resonant two-level ensembles, with counter-rotating terms enabling ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    III A, we showed that the APP representation does not capture the nonclassical properties of light, if present, and in Sec

    Exact results In Sec. III A, we showed that the APP representation does not capture the nonclassical properties of light, if present, and in Sec. III B, we considered the quantitative error this introduces to the driving field. However, as argued in Ref. [27], this does not immediately imply that the error in the observables of the generated field is of s...

  2. [2]

    III C 1 above for the coherently driven one-band model using the APP representation and compare them to the exact calculations

    APP predictions We now calculate the same observables as considered in Sec. III C 1 above for the coherently driven one-band model using the APP representation and compare them to the exact calculations. In Eq. (40), the exact expression of the expectation value⟨ˆa† nˆan⟩=⟨γ α n |ˆa† nˆan|γα n ⟩is given for a coherent driv- ing fieldα. To obtain the APP e...

  3. [3]

    For the full expressions, see Eq

    Numerical results To estimate the error in the quadrature variance quan- titatively, we consider the highest-order nonvanishing terms in the quadrature squeezing calculated using the APP expressions. For the full expressions, see Eq. (42) and App. B. The highest-order nonvanishing term inside the sum overm 1 andm 2 in the expansion of Eq. (45) is of order...

  4. [4]

    Gorlach, O

    A. Gorlach, O. Neufeld, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, The quantum-optical nature of high har- monic generation, Nature Communications11, 4598 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Lewenstein, M

    M. Lewenstein, M. F. Ciappina, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera- Dean, P. Stammer, T. Lamprou, and P. Tzallas, Gener- ation of optical Schr¨ odinger cat states in intense laser– matter interactions, Nature Physics17, 1104 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    C. S. Lange, T. Hansen, and L. B. Madsen, Electron- correlation-induced nonclassicality of light from high- order harmonic generation, Physical Review A109, 033110 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    C. S. Lange and L. B. Madsen, Hierarchy of approxima- tions for describing quantum light from high-harmonic generation: A Fermi-Hubbard-model study, Phys. Rev. A111, 013113 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    C. S. Lange, T. Hansen, and L. B. Madsen, Excitonic enhancement of squeezed light in quantum-optical high- harmonic generation from a Mott insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 043603 (2025)

    2025

  9. [9]

    S. Yi, N. D. Klimkin, G. G. Brown, O. Smirnova, S. Patchkovskii, I. Babushkin, and M. Ivanov, Genera- tion of massively entangled bright states of light during harmonic generation in resonant media, Phys. Rev. X15, 011023 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewenstein, High Photon Number Entangled States and Coherent State Superposition from the Extreme Ultraviolet to the Far Infrared, Physical Review Letters128, 123603 (2022)

    2022

  11. [11]

    Theidel, V

    D. Theidel, V. Cotte, R. Sondenheimer, V. Shiriaeva, M. Froidevaux, V. Severin, A. Merdji-Larue, P. Mosel, S. Fr¨ ohlich, K.-A. Weber, U. Morgner, M. Kovacev, J. Biegert, and H. Merdji, Evidence of the quantum opti- cal nature of high-harmonic generation, PRX Quantum 5, 040319 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    C. S. Lange, E. E. Lassen, R. V. Gothelf, and L. B. Madsen, High-Order Harmonic Generation with Beyond-Semiclassical Emitter Dynamics: A Strong-Field Quantum Optical Heisenberg Picture Approach (2025), arXiv:2512.14174 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Manceau, K

    M. Manceau, K. Y. Spasibko, G. Leuchs, R. Filip, and M. V. Chekhova, Indefinite-Mean Pareto Photon Distri- bution from Amplified Quantum Noise, Physical Review Letters123, 123606 (2019)

    2019

  14. [14]

    I. N. Agafonov, M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, Two- color bright squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. A82, 011801 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    T. S. Iskhakov, A. M. P´ erez, K. Y. Spasibko, M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, Superbunched bright squeezed vacuum state, Opt. Lett.37, 1919 (2012)

    1919

  16. [16]

    A. M. P´ erez, T. S. Iskhakov, P. Sharapova, S. Lemieux, O. V. Tikhonova, M. V. Chekhova, and G. Leuchs, Bright squeezed-vacuum source with 1.1 spatial mode, Opt. Lett.39, 2403 (2014)

    2014

  17. [17]

    Chekhova, G

    M. Chekhova, G. Leuchs, and M. ˙Zukowski, Bright squeezed vacuum: Entanglement of macroscopic light beams, Optics Communications337, 27 (2015), macro- scopic quantumness: theory and applications in optical sciences. 15

    2015

  18. [18]

    M. A. Finger, T. S. Iskhakov, N. Y. Joly, M. V. Chekhova, and P. S. J. Russell, Raman-free, noble-gas- filled photonic-crystal fiber source for ultrafast, very bright twin-beam squeezed vacuum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 143602 (2015)

    2015

  19. [19]

    P. R. Sharapova, G. Frascella, M. Riabinin, A. M. P´ erez, O. V. Tikhonova, S. Lemieux, R. W. Boyd, G. Leuchs, and M. V. Chekhova, Properties of bright squeezed vac- uum at increasing brightness, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013371 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Gorlach, M

    A. Gorlach, M. E. Tzur, M. Birk, M. Kr¨ uger, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, High-harmonic generation driven by quantum light, Nature Physics19, 1689 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    R. V. Gothelf, C. S. Lange, and L. B. Madsen, High-order harmonic generation in a crystal driven by quantum light, Phys. Rev. A111, 063105 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Stammer, Absence of quantum optical coherence in high harmonic generation, Physical Review Research6, L032033 (2024)

    P. Stammer, Absence of quantum optical coherence in high harmonic generation, Physical Review Research6, L032033 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Even Tzur, M

    M. Even Tzur, M. Birk, A. Gorlach, M. Kr¨ uger, I. Kaminer, and O. Cohen, Photon-statistics force in ultrafast electron dynamics, Nature Photonics17, 501 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Wang and X.-B

    Y.-B. Wang and X.-B. Bian, High-order harmonic gen- eration in quantum light by a generalized von Neumann lattice method, Phys. Rev. A111, 043111 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Petrovic, P

    L. Petrovic, P. Stammer, M. Lewenstein, and J. Rivera- Dean, Generation of circular polarized high-order harmonics from single color quantum light (2026), arXiv:2601.01611 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Rasputnyi, Z

    A. Rasputnyi, Z. Chen, M. Birk, O. Cohen, I. Kaminer, M. Kr¨ uger, D. Seletskiy, M. Chekhova, and F. Tani, High- harmonic generation by a bright squeezed vacuum, Na- ture Physics20, 1960 (2024)

    1960

  27. [27]

    Heimerl, A

    J. Heimerl, A. Mikhaylov, S. Meier, H. H¨ ollerer, I. Kaminer, M. Chekhova, and P. Hommelhoff, Multi- photon electron emission with non-classical light, Nature Physics20, 945 (2024)

    2024

  28. [28]

    Heimerl, A

    J. Heimerl, A. Rasputnyi, J. P¨ olloth, S. Meier, M. Chekhova, and P. Hommelhoff, Quantum light drives electrons strongly at metal needle tips, Nature Physics (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Sennary, J

    M. Sennary, J. Rivera-Dean, M. Lewenstein, and M. T. Hassan, Ultrafast quantum optics with attosecond con- trol (2026), arXiv:2601.08671 [physics]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Weak measurement in strong laser field physics (2025), arXiv:2508.09048 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Rivera-Dean, L

    J. Rivera-Dean, L. Petrovic, M. Lewenstein, and P. Stam- mer, Attosecond quantum optical interferometry (2025), arXiv:2511.01097 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Wang and X

    S. Wang and X. Lai, High-order above-threshold ioniza- tion of an atom in intense quantum light, Phys. Rev. A 108, 063101 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    H. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Wang, and J. Yuan, Atomic dou- ble ionization with quantum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 123202 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    Fang, F.-X

    Y. Fang, F.-X. Sun, Q. He, and Y. Liu, Strong-field ion- ization of hydrogen atoms with quantum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 253201 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Rivera-Dean, P

    J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, C. F. de Morisson Faria, and M. Lewenstein, Microscopic analysis of above- threshold ionization driven by squeezed light (2025), arXiv:2508.01621 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Z. Lyu, F. Sun, Y. Fang, Q. He, and Y. Liu, Effect of pho- ton quantum statistics on electrons in above-threshold ionization, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012072 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    J. M. Gonz´ alez-Monge and J. Feist, High-harmonic gen- eration driven by temporal-mode quantum states of light (2025), arXiv:2512.06602 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Mao, E.-R

    Y.-J. Mao, E.-R. Zhou, Y. Li, P.-L. He, and F. He, Bench- marking Atomic Ionization Driven by Strong Quantum Light (2025), arXiv:2512.15458 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. S. Maxwell, T. Lam- prou, J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, P. Tzallas, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Entanglement and Squeezing of the Optical Field Modes in High Harmonic Generation, Phys- ical Review Letters132, 143603 (2024)

    2024

  40. [40]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, and M. Lewenstein, Theory of quantum optics and optical coherence in high harmonic generation (2025), arXiv:2504.13287 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Walls and G

    D. Walls and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Optics(Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  42. [42]

    P. D. Drummond and C. W. Gardiner, Generalised P- representations in quantum optics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General13, 2353 (1980)

    1980

  43. [43]

    Gerry and P

    C. Gerry and P. Knight,Introductory Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    2004

  44. [44]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy,Quantum Optics(Cam- bridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)

    1997

  45. [45]

    M. E. Tzur, M. Birk, A. Gorlach, I. Kaminer, M. Kr¨ uger, and O. Cohen, Generation of squeezed high-order har- monics, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033079 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    R. L. Hudson, When is the Wigner quasi-probability den- sity non-negative?, Reports on Mathematical Physics6, 249 (1974)

    1974

  47. [47]

    A. T. Andersen, S. V. B. Jensen, and L. B. Madsen, Intra- and intercycle analysis of intraband high-order harmonic generation, Physical Review A109, 063109 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Vampa, C

    G. Vampa, C. R. McDonald, G. Orlando, P. B. Corkum, and T. Brabec, Semiclassical analysis of high harmonic generation in bulk crystals, Physical Review B91, 064302 (2015)

    2015