Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 105 references

Probing topological Floquet states in graphene with ultrafast terahertz scanning tunneling microscopy

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A terahertz scanning tunneling microscope can directly image the light-induced topological gaps and chiral edge states of driven graphene at atomic scale.

desk verdict Sound theory proposal for THz-STM as a Floquet probe; the predictions are concrete and the caveats are acknowledged, but the 'direct detection' claim is conditional on the idealized junction. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.14875 v2 pith:BIOFJRQI submitted 2026-02-16 cond-mat.mes-hall

Nils Jacobsen , Michael Schüler , Angel Rubio , Martin Wolf , Melanie Müller , Michael A. Sentef This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords THz-STMFloquettopologicalinsulatorgraphenelocaldensityofstateschiraledgenonequilibriumGreen'sfunctionsquasiparticleinterferencetime-resolvedtunnelingspectroscopy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper proposes ultrafast THz-STM as a real-space, energy-resolved probe of Floquet topological states in graphene. The authors derive a nonequilibrium tunneling formula in which the cycle-averaged rectified current reduces to a convolution of the Floquet local density of states with a Fermi function, so the measured dQ/dV spectrum directly maps the Floquet LDOS. Applied to bulk graphene, this resolves the dynamical gaps opened by circularly polarized drive; applied to nanoribbons, it images chiral edge states and shows the width at which edge protection breaks down. The point matters because existing probes average over large areas and cannot see nanoscale inhomogeneity or local edge modes in driven materials.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is a nonequilibrium Green's-function formalism for time-dependent tunneling, in which the tip self-energy is local in space and carries the THz bias as a time-dependent phase, and the substrate acts as a thermal reservoir in the wide-band limit. In the Floquet steady state, the cycle-averaged current is expressed in a Floquet replica space as a convolution of the occupied and total Floquet LDOS at the tip position; this is the identity that turns a THz-STM rectified current into a local, energy-resolved Floquet spectrum. Around it sits the minimal-coupling substitution of the vector potential into the graphene hopping phases, which produces a circularly-polarized-drive mass ter

What would settle it

A THz-STM experiment on undriven graphene, or on graphene driven with linearly polarized light at the same intensity, should show no conductance dip at half the photon energy; the Floquet interpretation predicts that dip only for circularly polarized drive. Equally, reversing the pump helicity should move the edge-state conductance peaks and reverse the impurity-induced LDOS asymmetry. If instead the same spectral features appear for all polarizations, the signal is a junction artifact rather than a Floquet gap.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a THz-STM junction, driven by a THz bias pulse while the sample is dressed by a circular pump, records a rectified charge whose derivative with respect to peak bias reproduces the Floquet local density of states. In the steady-state limit the cycle-averaged current is exactly a convolution of the occupied Floquet LDOS and the full Floquet LDOS, with the tip acting as a local, energy-resolved filter at a single lattice site. The authors demonstrate that this gives a plateau and a conductance dip at the Floquet hybridization gap, edge-localized conductance peaks in ribbons down to about thirty unit cells wide, and Fourier-visible scattering patterns that reconstruct t

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume the pump can be treated as a spatially homogeneous in-plane plane wave inside the sample with no field in the tunneling gap, so that tip-induced near-field gradients, out-of-plane pump components, and photon-assisted junction dressing do not distort the measured current.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • THz-STM can resolve the Floquet bulk gap locally, in real space, rather than averaged over macroscopic areas.
  • Chiral Floquet edge states appear as conductance peaks at ribbon edges and vanish when the ribbon narrows below the localization length, giving a concrete width scale for edge protection.
  • Floquet quasiparticle interference maps reconstruct the edge-state band dispersion and can image the absence of backscattering.
  • A chiral impurity creates a helicity-dependent LDOS enhancement or suppression that identifies the chirality of the edge mode.
  • The tunneling formalism applies to any periodically driven sample, not only graphene, so the same protocol can probe other driven quantum materials.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the local probe works as claimed, it should reveal nanoscale patches of topological and trivial Floquet regions in inhomogeneous samples, since the signal is site-specific; the authors note such patches are expected but do not simulate them.
  • The rectified-charge readout effectively integrates over a bias window set by the THz pulse; comparing different pulse shapes could separate instantaneous-bias artifacts from true Floquet LDOS, a testable extension the paper only sketches.
  • The gap signatures could be used as a quantitative pump-helicity detector: reversing circular polarization should flip the sign of the edge-state dichroism, providing a direct check.
  • Extending to cavity-modified environments, as the paper's discussion anticipates, would let the nanogap act as a tunable electromagnetic reservoir that shapes the Floquet dressing itself.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes THz-STM as a real-space, energy-resolved probe of Floquet topological states in graphene. The authors derive a nonequilibrium Green's-function tunneling formalism for time-periodic and pulsed drives, reducing the cycle-averaged current in the Floquet steady state to a convolution of the sample Floquet LDOS [Eq. (19)]. They then apply this formalism to bulk graphene and zigzag nanoribbons, predicting that dynamical Floquet gaps appear as dips in dQ_rect/dV_pk, that chiral edge states can be imaged at ribbon boundaries, that Floquet quasiparticle interference can reconstruct edge-mode dispersions, and that a chiral impurity produces a helicity-dependent LDOS signature. The paper is clearly written, the derivations follow standard Meir-Wingreen/NEGF methods, and the numerical parameters are stated transparently, including a candid admission that some ribbon calculations use driving parameters that are not experimentally realistic.

Significance. If the predictions are robust, the paper offers a genuinely new route to nanoscale, energy-resolved probing of light-induced topological states, complementing trARPES and transport. The formal reduction to a Floquet-LDOS expression is useful and likely to be adopted by others. The paper is also honest about its main limitations, which is a strength. However, the headline claim of 'direct local detection' depends on an idealized separation between the optical pump and the STM junction that is acknowledged but not quantified, and the ribbon-width results are obtained for strongly exaggerated gap parameters. These issues do not invalidate the formalism, but they do mean that the paper currently reads as a proof-of-principle proposal rather than an experimentally calibrated prediction.

major comments (2)
  1. [§III B, Fig. 3] The nanoribbon simulations use E0 = 10 MV/cm and ℏΩ = 1.5 eV, which the authors themselves state cannot be achieved in realistic experimental settings. The claim that edge-state protection breaks down below N = 10 is therefore parameter-specific. Since the edge-state decay length scales as ξ ~ 2ℏv_F/Δ, the crossover ribbon width for a realistic Floquet gap of order 10 meV would be orders of magnitude larger than the N = 10 value shown in Fig. 3(c). I do not object to proof-of-principle parameters, but the manuscript should either provide the scaling of the breakdown width with Δ, or clearly state that the N = 10 threshold is an artifact of the numerical parameters and not a prediction for experiments.
  2. [§III D, Fig. 5] The proposed 'smoking-gun' chirality probe uses a Haldane-like complex next-nearest-neighbor hopping iγ' with γ' = 0.7 eV localized to a single edge-adjacent hexagon. This is an ad hoc impurity model, and the chosen coupling is comparable to the artificially large Floquet gap used in the ribbon calculations. The predicted circular dichroism in the LDOS could depend sensitively on the impurity strength, spatial extent, and exact realization (magnetic adatom versus strain-induced gauge flux versus Haldane mass patch). A sensitivity analysis with respect to γ' and impurity position is needed before this can be presented as a robust experimental signature.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B4)] The T-matrix expression in Eq. (B4) is notationally unclear: the objects v, v∞, and the projector |0⟩⟨0| have different dimensionalities, and the final equality appears to conflate a scalar defect strength with the full Floquet-replica structure. Please define all quantities carefully.
  2. [§III A, Eq. (27)] The definition of V_pk as max[V_DC + V_THz(t)] depends on the carrier-envelope phase φ_CEP. The text states φ_CEP = 2π/3 but then describes the amplitude as V0. Please clarify how V_pk is computed for a non-zero CEP and how it is related to the plotted horizontal axis.
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The blue curves in Fig. 3(b) are described as 'the THz probe pulse with variable amplitude', but the vertical axis of the quasienergy spectrum is in energy units. The caption should explain that the bias waveforms are overlaid schematically and not to scale.
  4. [§III C] The term 'Floquet quasiparticle interference' is used for standing-wave patterns generated by hard-wall backscattering in a narrow ribbon, which differs from conventional impurity-induced QPI. Please define the term explicitly at first use and justify why the same name is appropriate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the paper's predictions are forward simulations from stated drive parameters, with no fitted observables and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper derives a nonequilibrium Green's-function tunneling formula (Eq. 19) from standard Meir–Wingreen theory and a wide-band-limit tip self-energy. The result is an analytical identity expressing the cycle-averaged current in terms of the Floquet LDOS. No target observable is used to adjust parameters: the Floquet gaps and edge-state features are computed directly from the Peierls-substituted graphene Hamiltonian at explicitly stated drive amplitudes and photon energies, and the simulated current/conductance is then evaluated from the same Green's functions. This is a self-consistent forward calculation, so the appearance of conductance dips near eV = ħΩ/2 is a derived consequence of the model, not an input extracted from data. The tunneling formalism is cited to independent prior work (Refs. 64, 69–72), and author self-citations (e.g., Refs. 32, 85, 100) are peripheral and not load-bearing for the central derivation. The paper explicitly flags the idealized in-plane homogeneous pump assumption and neglect of junction dressing as a 'central challenge' (Sec. IV) rather than concealing it; this is a correctness/feasibility limitation, not a circular step. There is no self-definitional reduction, no fitted-input-called-prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no renaming of a known result as a new one.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions depend on several chosen numerical inputs (pump amplitudes, photon energies, reservoir broadenings, probe-pulse waveforms, impurity coupling, hard-wall potential) rather than on any fit to experimental data. The most consequential modeling assumptions are the idealized plane-wave pump with no near-field junction dressing and the use of experimentally unrealistic drive parameters for the ribbon edge-state simulations. These are clearly disclosed in the text but mean the paper is a feasibility demonstration, not a direct experimental protocol. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (9)
  • Pump field amplitude E0 = 350 kV/cm (bulk); 10 MV/cm (ribbons)
    Sets the Floquet gap sizes (Delta1 proportional to E0^2, Delta2 proportional to E0); the ribbon value is chosen to localize edge states within N<=70 and is explicitly stated to be experimentally unrealistic (Sec. III B).
  • Pump photon energy hbar*Omega = 0.4 eV (bulk); 1.5 eV (ribbons)
    Determines the positions of the Floquet hybridization gaps at epsilon=+-hbar Omega/2; 1.5 eV is an unrealistically large photon energy used to make the ribbon simulations computationally feasible.
  • Reservoir broadenings Gamma_s, Gamma_t = 10/20 meV (Gamma_s); 0.2/0.4 meV (Gamma_t)
    WBLA couplings set the spectral broadening and the tunneling current scale; chosen ad hoc for the bulk and ribbon protocols.
  • Temperature T = 8 K (bulk); 16 K (ribbons)
    Sets the Fermi functions in the tip and substrate reservoirs; chosen to keep thermal broadening small relative to the simulated gaps.
  • THz probe pulse parameters = sigma_probe=80/50 fs, nu=3 THz, phi_CEP=2pi/3
    The probe waveform controls the rectified-charge lineshape and the energy window over which Q_rect integrates; central to the THz-STS interpretation.
  • Static bias mu_s/mu_t = mu_t=0.125/0.55 eV, mu_s=0
    Centers the tunneling energy window on the Floquet gap so the gap appears in the simulated conductance spectra.
  • Chiral impurity coupling gamma' = 0.7 eV
    Haldane-like complex next-nearest-neighbor hopping chosen comparable to the light-induced topological gap to produce a clearly resolvable dichroic LDOS response (Sec. III D).
  • Hard-wall potential V_infinity = 10^7 eV
    Numerical device used to restrict the ribbon along x and induce backscattering for Floquet QPI; not intended as a physical potential.
  • Ribbon width N = 70, 50, 30, 10 unit cells
    Width scan defines the edge-state hybridization scale; the accessible range is limited by computational cost.
assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Graphene electron dynamics is described by a non-interacting tight-binding model with Peierls substitution for the pump field.
    Used in Eqs. (22) and (B6); neglects electron-electron interactions, phonons, and heating effects beyond reservoir coupling.
  • domain assumption Tip and substrate reservoirs are described by the wide-band limit with featureless spectral functions and thermal equilibrium occupations.
    Eqs. (11)-(14) fix the self-energies; standard but limits validity for realistic frequency-dependent tip/substrate couplings.
  • domain assumption The tip backaction on the sample dynamics is negligible because the substrate coupling is much stronger than the tip coupling.
    Sec. II B: the tip embedding term is included only when evaluating the current, not in the time evolution of G^<; requires Gamma_s >> Gamma_t.
  • domain assumption The circularly polarized pump is a homogeneous in-plane plane wave and the pump field is zero inside the vacuum tunneling gap.
    Sec. II A: the authors state this idealized setting 'has not yet been experimentally realized'; near-field effects, tip-induced polarization distortions, and out-of-plane pump components are ignored.
  • domain assumption Under continuous-wave driving the system reaches a Floquet steady state via reservoir dissipation.
    Sec. II B 2: requires the drive heating to be balanced by coupling to reservoirs; used for all Floquet band-structure and QPI calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper A local chiral impurity can be modeled by Haldane-like complex next-nearest-neighbor hopping i*gamma' within a single edge-adjacent hexagon.
    Sec. III D: a minimal stand-in for magnetic adatoms, intercalants, or strain-induced gauge flux; chosen to locally break time-reversal symmetry.
  • domain assumption Edge-state backscattering in the QPI setup can be modeled by an infinite hard-wall potential and treated with the Floquet T-matrix formalism.
    Sec. III C and Appendix B: an idealized interferometric device approximating geometric kinks or boundaries.
  • standard math Fermi functions can be accurately represented by a Pade pole expansion with Npole=80 and the time propagation is convergent with the stated time steps.
    Appendix A: numerical approximation used by the time-linear scheme; convergence is asserted but not shown in the paper.
  • standard math Truncating the Floquet replica space at 10 replicas is sufficient for all reported results.
    Appendix B: 'We checked convergence of all Floquet computations and found replica cut-offs <=10 to be sufficient in all reported cases.'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing topological Floquet states in graphene with ultrafast terahertz scanning tunneling microscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIOFJRQI

@misc{pith2026260214875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing topological Floquet states in graphene with ultrafast terahertz scanning tunneling microscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIOFJRQI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.14875}
}
read the original abstract

Floquet control of band topology is a central theme in ultrafast quantum materials science. Established experimental probes of light-induced topological states include ultrafast transport and time- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, each with important strengths but also well-known limitations. Here we propose ultrafast terahertz scanning tunneling microscopy (THz-STM) as a real space energy-resolved probe of Floquet physics. We show that THz-STM enables direct local detection of bulk Floquet gaps and distinct Floquet edge state signatures. We derive a nonequilibrium Green's-function formalism for time-dependent tunneling that directly extends standard STM theory and provides an intuitive interpretation of rectified ultrafast tunneling currents. We apply the approach to bulk graphene and graphene nanoribbons of variable width. For the bulk, we show that THz-STM provides direct spectroscopic access to Floquet-induced gap openings, and we contrast pulsed pump-probe protocols with the continuous-wave Floquet steady-state limit. For finite ribbons, we demonstrate time- and space-resolved imaging of Floquet-induced topological edge states and identify the ribbon-width scale below which edge state protection breaks down. We further show how band structures of graphene nanoribbons and Floquet chiral edge modes can be reconstructed via Floquet quasiparticle interference. Finally we demonstrate that chiral impurities that break time-reversal symmetry induce characteristic spatial THz-STM signatures that can be used as a direct probe of Floquet edge state chirality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.14875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Experimental geometry for measuring topological Floquet states in graphene by THz-STM. A circular pump pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Measurement protocols for lightwave-driven tunneling spectroscopy of Floquet states. (a) Idealized configuration with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Floquet edge states in a graphene nanoribbon. (a) Real-space schematic: Zigzag ribbon with counter-propagating edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Edge state interferometry in a narrow nanoribbon. (a) Spectral function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Polarization-dependent Floquet LDOS near a chiral defect. The chiral defect is implemented by Haldane-like complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The result is an adaption of the Meir-Wingreen formula [64, 69], and has been applied to similar tunneling problems in previous studies [70–72]

    Real-time formalism In the following section, we sketch the derivation of the nonequilibrium tunneling formula. The result is an adaption of the Meir-Wingreen formula [64, 69], and has been applied to similar tunneling problems in previous studies [70–72]. We model the ultrafast STM measurements within the nonequilibrium Green’s function formalism. Here, ...

  2. [2]

    Berry- flux

    Floquet tunneling formalism As an instructive limiting case, we consider a continuous-wave (CW) drive modeled by the time- periodic Hamiltonian ˆh(t) = ˆh(t+T) and ignore the time dependence of the bias by settingV THz(t) = 0. The reser- voir coupling allows the heat from the drive to be dissi- pated such that a Floquet steady state is attained [73– 80]. ...

    2024

  3. [3]

    I. Radu, K. Vahaplar, C. Stamm, T. Kachel, N. Pontius, H. A. D¨ urr, T. A. Ostler, J. Barker, R. F. L. Evans, R. W. Chantrell, A. Tsukamoto, A. Itoh, A. Kirilyuk, T. Rasing, and A. V. Kimel, Nature472, 205 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Nature Mater 16, 1077 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    De La Torre, D

    A. De La Torre, D. M. Kennes, M. Claassen, S. Gerber, J. W. McIver, and M. A. Sentef, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 041002 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    T. F. Nova, A. S. Disa, M. Fechner, and A. Cavalleri, Science364, 1075 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    A. S. Disa, M. Fechner, T. F. Nova, B. Liu, M. F¨ orst, D. Prabhakaran, P. G. Radaelli, and A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys.16, 937 (2020). 16

    2020

  8. [8]

    X. Wang, C. Xiao, H. Park, J. Zhu, C. Wang, T. Taniguchi, K. Watanabe, J. Yan, D. Xiao, D. R. Gamelin, W. Yao, and X. Xu, Nature604, 468 (2022)

    2022

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    Wandel, F

    S. Wandel, F. Boschini, E. H. da Silva Neto, L. Shen, M. X. Na, S. Zohar, Y. Wang, S. B. Welch, M. H. Seaberg, J. D. Koralek, G. L. Dakovski, W. Hettel, M.-F. Lin, S. P. Moeller, W. F. Schlotter, A. H. Reid, M. P. Minitti, T. Boyle, F. He, R. Sutarto, R. Liang, D. Bonn, W. Har...

    2022

  2. [10]

    X. Li, T. Qiu, J. Zhang, E. Baldini, J. Lu, A. M. Rappe, and K. A. Nelson, Science364, 1079 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Kogar, A

    A. Kogar, A. Zong, P. E. Dolgirev, X. Shen, J. Straqua- dine, Y.-Q. Bie, X. Wang, T. Rohwer, I.-C. Tung, Y. Yang, R. Li, J. Yang, S. Weathersby, S. Park, M. E. Kozina, E. J. Sie, H. Wen, P. Jarillo-Herrero, I. R. Fisher, X. Wang, and N. Gedik, Nat. Phys.16, 159 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Buzzi, D

    M. Buzzi, D. Nicoletti, S. Fava, G. Jotzu, K. Miyagawa, K. Kanoda, A. Henderson, T. Siegrist, J. Schlueter, M.- S. Nam, A. Ardavan, and A. Cavalleri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 197002 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Fausti, R

    D. Fausti, R. I. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri, Science331, 189 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Mitrano, A

    M. Mitrano, A. Cantaluppi, D. Nicoletti, S. Kaiser, A. Perucchi, S. Lupi, P. Di Pietro, D. Pontiroli, M. Ricc` o, S. R. Clark, D. Jaksch, and A. Cavalleri, Na- ture530, 461 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Matsuyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier, and A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys.16, 38 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    E. Rowe, B. Yuan, M. Buzzi, G. Jotzu, Y. Zhu, M. Fech- ner, M. F¨ orst, B. Liu, D. Pontiroli, M. Ricc` o, and A. Cavalleri, Nat. Phys.19, 1821 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Y. H. Wang, H. Steinberg, P. Jarillo-Herrero, and N. Gedik, Science342, 453 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Kitagawa, T

    T. Kitagawa, T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu, and E. Demler, Physical Review B84, 235108 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Physical Review B79, 081406 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    N. H. Lindner, G. Refael, and V. Galitski, Nature Phys 7, 490 (2011)

    2011

  13. [21]

    G. Usaj, P. M. Perez-Piskunow, L. E. F. Foa Torres, and C. A. Balseiro, Physical Review B90, 115423 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    M. S. Rudner, N. H. Lindner, E. Berg, and M. Levin, Phys. Rev. X3, 031005 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    P. M. Perez-Piskunow, G. Usaj, C. A. Balseiro, and L. E. F. F. Torres, Phys. Rev. B89, 121401 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    M. S. Rudner and N. H. Lindner, Nat Rev Phys2, 229 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    P. M. Perez-Piskunow, L. E. F. Foa Torres, and G. Usaj, Phys. Rev. A91, 043625 (2015)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Sub-picosecond ultrafast transport was finally used to provide evidence for the light-induced anomalous Hall effect [15]

    platforms, the experimental verification in quantum materials is much more challenging due to issues of heat- ing, dissipation, and the lack of straightforward prob- ing techniques [27]. Sub-picosecond ultrafast transport was finally used to provide evidence for the light-indu...

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Oka and S

    T. Oka and S. Kitamura, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics10, 387 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    M. C. Rechtsman, J. M. Zeuner, Y. Plotnik, Y. Lumer, D. Podolsky, F. Dreisow, S. Nolte, M. Segev, and A. Sza- meit, Nature496, 196 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Jotzu, M

    G. Jotzu, M. Messer, R. Desbuquois, M. Lebrat, T. Uehlinger, D. Greif, and T. Esslinger, Nature515, 237 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Aeschlimann, S

    S. Aeschlimann, S. A. Sato, R. Krause, M. Ch´ avez- Cervantes, U. De Giovannini, H. H¨ ubener, S. Forti, C. Coletti, K. Hanff, K. Rossnagel, A. Rubio, and I. Gierz, Nano Lett.21, 5028 (2021)

    2021

  23. [31]

    S. A. Sato, J. W. McIver, M. Nuske, P. Tang, G. Jotzu, B. Schulte, H. H¨ ubener, U. De Giovannini, L. Mathey, M. A. Sentef, A. Cavalleri, and A. Rubio, Physical Re- view B99, 214302 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Nuske, L

    M. Nuske, L. Broers, B. Schulte, G. Jotzu, S. A. Sato, A. Cavalleri, A. Rubio, J. W. McIver, and L. Mathey, Phys. Rev. Research2, 043408 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Boschini, M

    F. Boschini, M. Zonno, and A. Damascelli, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 015003 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Saathoff, L

    G. Saathoff, L. Miaja-Avila, M. Aeschlimann, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, Physical Review A77, 022903 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    Merboldt, M

    M. Merboldt, M. Sch¨ uler, D. Schmitt, J. P. Bange, W. Bennecke, K. Gadge, K. Pierz, H. W. Schumacher, D. Momeni, D. Steil, S. R. Manmana, M. A. Sentef, M. Reutzel, and S. Mathias, Nat. Phys.21, 1093 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    D. Choi, M. Mogi, U. De Giovannini, D. Azoury, B. Lv, Y. Su, H. H¨ ubener, A. Rubio, and N. Gedik, Nat. Phys. 21, 1100 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    Y. Chen, Y. Wang, M. Claassen, B. Moritz, and T. P. Devereaux, npj Quantum Mater.5, 84 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    J.-H. Chen, C. Jang, S. Adam, M. S. Fuhrer, E. D. Williams, and M. Ishigami, Nature Phys4, 377 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Zhang, V

    Y. Zhang, V. W. Brar, C. Girit, A. Zettl, and M. F. Crommie, Nature Phys5, 722 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    Deshpande, W

    A. Deshpande, W. Bao, F. Miao, C. N. Lau, and B. J. LeRoy, Phys. Rev. B79, 205411 (2009)

    2009

  33. [41]

    M. L. Teague, A. P. Lai, J. Velasco, C. R. Hughes, A. D. Beyer, M. W. Bockrath, C. N. Lau, and N.-C. Yeh, Nano Lett.9, 2542 (2009)

    2009

  34. [42]

    Choi, S.-H

    S.-M. Choi, S.-H. Jhi, and Y.-W. Son, Phys. Rev. B81, 081407 (2010)

    2010

  35. [43]

    Brihuega, P

    I. Brihuega, P. Mallet, C. Bena, S. Bose, C. Michaelis, L. Vitali, F. Varchon, L. Magaud, K. Kern, and J. Y. Veuillen, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 206802 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    E. Wang, X. Lu, S. Ding, W. Yao, M. Yan, G. Wan, K. Deng, S. Wang, G. Chen, L. Ma, J. Jung, A. V. Fedorov, Y. Zhang, G. Zhang, and S. Zhou, Nature Phys 12, 1111 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    S. Y. Zhou, G.-H. Gweon, A. V. Fedorov, P. N. First, W. A. de Heer, D.-H. Lee, F. Guinea, A. H. Castro Neto, and A. Lanzara, Nature Mater6, 770 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Bielinski, R

    N. Bielinski, R. Chari, J. May-Mann, S. Kim, J. Zwet- tler, Y. Deng, A. Aishwarya, S. Roychowdhury, C. Shekhar, M. Hashimoto, D. Lu, J. Yan, C. Felser, V. Madhavan, Z.-X. Shen, T. L. Hughes, and F. Mah- mood, Nat. Phys.21, 458 (2025)

    2025

  39. [47]

    Berthod,Spectroscopic Probes of Quantum Matter (IOP Publishing, 2018)

    C. Berthod,Spectroscopic Probes of Quantum Matter (IOP Publishing, 2018)

    2018

  40. [48]

    D. A. Lovey, G. Usaj, L. E. F. Foa Torres, and C. A. Balseiro, Phys. Rev. B93, 245434 (2016)

    2016

  41. [49]

    T. L. Cocker, V. Jelic, R. Hillenbrand, and F. A. Heg- mann, Nat. Photon.15, 558 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    M¨ uller, Progress in Surface Science , 100727 (2023)

    M. M¨ uller, Progress in Surface Science , 100727 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    T. L. Cocker, V. Jelic, M. Gupta, S. J. Molesky, J. A. J. Burgess, G. D. L. Reyes, L. V. Titova, Y. Y. Tsui, M. R. Freeman, and F. A. Hegmann, Nature Photonics7, 620 (2013)

    2013

  44. [52]

    T. L. Cocker, D. Peller, P. Yu, J. Repp, and R. Huber, Nature539, 263 (2016). 17

    2016

  45. [53]

    Yoshioka, I

    K. Yoshioka, I. Katayama, Y. Minami, M. Kitajima, S. Yoshida, H. Shigekawa, and J. Takeda, Nature Pho- ton10, 762 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Peller, L

    D. Peller, L. Z. Kastner, T. Buchner, C. Roelcke, F. Al- brecht, N. Moll, R. Huber, and J. Repp, Nature585, 58 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    L. Wang, Y. Xia, and W. Ho, Science376, 401 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Sheng, A.-C

    S. Sheng, A.-C. Oeter, M. Abdo, K. Lichtenberg, M. Hentschel, and S. Loth, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 043001 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Roelcke, L

    C. Roelcke, L. Z. Kastner, M. Graml, A. Biereder, J. Wilhelm, J. Repp, R. Huber, and Y. A. Gerasimenko, Nature Photonics 10.1038/s41566-024-01390-6 (2024)

    2024 doi

  50. [58]

    V. N. Rai, J. Sim, F. Faaber, N. Bogdanoff, S. Trishin, P. Wiechers, T. S. Seifert, T. Kampfrath, C. Lotze, and K. J. Franke, Science Advances11, eadz6549 (2025)

    2025

  51. [59]

    L. E. P. L´ opez, A. Vaitsi, V. Sleziona, F. Schulz, M. Wolf, and M. M¨ uller, Atomic-scale ultrafast dynam- ics of local charge order in a THz-induced metastable state of 1T-TaS2 (2025), arXiv:2505.20541 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Sheng, M

    S. Sheng, M. Abdo, S. Rolf-Pissarczyk, K. Lichtenberg, S. Baumann, J. A. J. Burgess, L. Malavolti, and S. Loth, Nat. Phys.20, 1603 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    Jelic, K

    V. Jelic, K. Iwaszczuk, P. H. Nguyen, C. Rathje, G. J. Hornig, H. M. Sharum, J. R. Hoffman, M. R. Freeman, and F. A. Hegmann, Nature Phys13, 591 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Yoshida, H

    S. Yoshida, H. Hirori, T. Tachizaki, K. Yoshioka, Y. Arashida, Z.-H. Wang, Y. Sanari, O. Takeuchi, Y. Kanemitsu, and H. Shigekawa, ACS Photonics6, 1356 (2019)

    2019

  55. [63]

    Yoshida, Y

    S. Yoshida, Y. Arashida, H. Hirori, T. Tachizaki, A. Taninaka, H. Ueno, O. Takeuchi, and H. Shigekawa, ACS Photonics8, 315 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Kimura, R

    K. Kimura, R. Tamaki, M. Lee, X. Ouyang, S. Kus- aba, R. B. Jaculbia, Y. Kawada, J. Jung, A. Muranaka, H. Imada, I. Katayama, J. Takeda, and Y. Kim, Science 387, 1077 (2025)

    2025

  57. [65]

    Jelic, S

    V. Jelic, S. Adams, D. Maldonado-Lopez, I. A. Bu- liyaminu, M. Hassan, J. L. Mendoza-Cortes, and T. L. Cocker, Nat. Photon.19, 1048 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    S. E. Ammerman, V. Jelic, Y. Wei, V. N. Breslin, M. Hassan, N. Everett, S. Lee, Q. Sun, C. A. Pignedoli, P. Ruffieux, R. Fasel, and T. L. Cocker, Nat Commun 12, 6794 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    N. S. Wingreen, A.-P. Jauho, and Y. Meir, Physical Re- view B48, 8487 (1993)

    1993

  60. [68]

    Avraham, J

    N. Avraham, J. Reiner, A. Kumar-Nayak, N. Morali, R. Batabyal, B. Yan, and H. Beidenkopf, Advanced Ma- terials30, 1707628 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    J.-X. Yin, S. H. Pan, and M. Zahid Hasan, Nat Rev Phys3, 249 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Mallet, I

    P. Mallet, I. Brihuega, S. Bose, M. M. Ugeda, J. M. G´ omez-Rodr ´ ıguez, K. Kern, and J. Y. Veuillen, Physical Review B86, 045444 (2012)

    2012

  63. [71]

    S. E. Ammerman, Y. Wei, N. Everett, V. Jelic, and T. L. Cocker, Physical Review B105, 115427 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    Gianluca Stefanucci, Robert van Leeuwen,Nonequilib- rium Many-Body Theory of Quantum Systems(Cam- bridge University Press, 2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    D. E. Liu, A. Levchenko, and R. M. Lutchyn, Physical Review B95, 115303 (2017)

    2017

  66. [74]

    Y. Kwok, G. Chen, and S. Mukamel, Nano Letters19, 7006 (2019)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Tuovinen, Y

    R. Tuovinen, Y. Pavlyukh, E. Perfetto, and G. Ste- fanucci, Physical Review Letters130, 246301 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    H. Aoki, N. Tsuji, M. Eckstein, M. Kollar, T. Oka, and P. Werner, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 779 (2014)

    2014

  69. [77]

    Dehghani, T

    H. Dehghani, T. Oka, and A. Mitra, Phys. Rev. B90, 195429 (2014)

    2014

  70. [78]

    K. I. Seetharam, C.-E. Bardyn, N. H. Lindner, M. S. Rudner, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. X5, 041050 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    I. Esin, M. S. Rudner, G. Refael, and N. H. Lindner, Phys. Rev. B97, 245401 (2018)

    2018

  72. [80]

    K. I. Seetharam, C.-E. Bardyn, N. H. Lindner, M. S. Rudner, and G. Refael, Phys. Rev. B99, 014307 (2019)

    2019

  73. [81]

    S. Park, W. Lee, S. Jang, Y.-B. Choi, J. Park, W. Jung, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, G. Y. Cho, and G.-H. Lee, Nature603, 421 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Mori, Annu

    T. Mori, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.14, 35 (2023)

    2023

  75. [83]

    Y. Liu, C. Yang, G. Gaertner, J. Huckabee, A. V. Suslov, G. Refael, F. Nathan, C. Lewandowski, L. E. F. Foa Torres, I. Esin, P. Barbara, and N. G. Kalugin, Nat Commun16, 2057 (2025)

  76. [84]

    Sch¨ uler and S

    M. Sch¨ uler and S. Beaulieu, Communications Physics5, 1 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    McCann and M

    E. McCann and M. Koshino, Reports on Progress in Physics76, 056503 (2013)

    2013

  78. [86]

    F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett.61, 2015 (1988)

    2015

  79. [87]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  80. [88]

    M. A. Sentef, M. Claassen, A. F. Kemper, B. Moritz, T. Oka, J. K. Freericks, and T. P. Devereaux, Nature Communications6, 7047 (2015)

    2015

  81. [89]

    St¨ uhler, A

    R. St¨ uhler, A. Kowalewski, F. Reis, D. Jungblut, F. Dominguez, B. Scharf, G. Li, J. Sch¨ afer, E. M. Han- kiewicz, and R. Claessen, Nat Commun13, 3480 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    Uchoa, V

    B. Uchoa, V. N. Kotov, N. M. R. Peres, and A. H. Cas- tro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 026805 (2008)

    2008

  83. [91]

    Decker, J

    R. Decker, J. Brede, N. Atodiresei, V. Caciuc, S. Bl¨ ugel, and R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. B87, 041403 (2013)

    2013

  84. [92]

    R. R. Nair, I.-L. Tsai, M. Sepioni, O. Lehtinen, J. Keinonen, A. V. Krasheninnikov, A. H. Castro Neto, M. I. Katsnelson, A. K. Geim, and I. V. Grigorieva, Nat Commun4, 2010 (2013)

    2010

  85. [93]

    M. A. H. Vozmediano, M. I. Katsnelson, and F. Guinea, Physics Reports496, 109 (2010)

    2010

  86. [94]

    de Juan, A

    F. de Juan, A. Cortijo, M. A. H. Vozmediano, and A. Cano, Nature Phys7, 810 (2011)

    2011

  87. [95]

    Nandkishore and L

    R. Nandkishore and L. Levitov, Phys. Rev. B82, 115124 (2010)

    2010

  88. [96]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev.115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  89. [97]

    P. K. Tien and J. P. Gordon, Physical Review129, 647 (1963)

    1963

  90. [98]

    Grifoni and P

    M. Grifoni and P. H¨ anggi, Physics Reports304, 229 (1998)

    1998

  91. [99]

    Walther, G

    M. Walther, G. S. Chambers, Z. Liu, M. R. Freeman, and F. A. Hegmann, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B, JOSAB22, 2357 (2005)

    2005

  92. [100]

    M¨ uller, N

    M. M¨ uller, N. Mart ´ ın Saban´ es, T. Kampfrath, and M. Wolf, ACS Photonics7, 2046 (2020)

  93. [101]

    Peller, C

    D. Peller, C. Roelcke, L. Z. Kastner, T. Buchner, A. Neef, J. Hayes, F. Bonaf´ e, D. Sidler, M. Ruggen- thaler, A. Rubio, R. Huber, and J. Repp, Nat. Photonics 15, 143 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    Schlawin, D

    F. Schlawin, D. M. Kennes, and M. A. Sentef, Appl. Phys. Rev.9, 011312 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    M. A. Sentef, J. Li, F. K¨ unzel, and M. Eckstein, Phys. 18 Rev. Res.2, 033033 (2020)

    2020

  96. [104]

    C. J. Eckhardt, G. Passetti, M. Othman, C. Karrasch, F. Cavaliere, M. A. Sentef, and D. M. Kennes, Commun Phys5, 122 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Hu, R.-X

    J. Hu, R.-X. Xu, and Y. Yan, The Journal of Chemical Physics133, 101106 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.