Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Attosecond streaking sees quantum squeezing in bright light

2026-07-08 07:04 UTC pith:EQBKG56U

load-bearing objection Quantum attosecond streaking: clean formalism, certification claim not yet closed the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.06395 v1 pith:EQBKG56U submitted 2026-07-07 quant-ph physics.optics

Attosecond metrology of bright quantum light

P. Stammer , J. Rivera-Dean , E. Pisanty , M. Lewenstein This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.optics
keywords attosecond streakingquantum opticssqueezed lightquantum metrologyphase-space distributionsbright squeezed vacuumhomodyne detectionshot noise limit
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 extends attosecond streaking — a technique that maps ultrafast optical oscillations onto photoelectron momentum distributions — from classical to quantum fields. The authors derive an exact expression for the streaking trace when the infrared streaking field is in an arbitrary quantum state, showing that the trace becomes an integral over the field's phase-space distribution weighted by interference between different classical streaking amplitudes. In the quasi-classical limit appropriate for strong fields, the trace averages the Husimi Q-function against the classical streaking probability, and the variance of the resulting spectrogram exhibits sub-cycle modulations that directly encode the squeezed quadrature of the field. The paper demonstrates that amplitude-squeezed, phase-squeezed, and bright squeezed vacuum fields each produce distinct streaking signatures, and that these signatures can certify squeezing below the shot-noise limit in intensity regimes where conventional homodyne tomography breaks down due to the dynamic-range problem between signal and reference fields.

Core claim

The central object is the quantum optical streaking trace (QOST), defined as S_Q(p,τ) = ∫d²α d²β P(α,β*) M_α(p,τ) M*_β(p,τ), where P(α,β*) is the generalized P-representation of the IR field and M_α are semi-classical streaking amplitudes. The key physical insight is that the XUV-IR delay τ plays a role analogous to the local oscillator phase in homodyne detection: scanning τ samples different field quadratures on sub-cycle timescales, and the variance of the streaking trace at each delay encodes the quadrature's quantum fluctuations. For bright squeezed vacuum, the mean streaking signal vanishes but distinct 2ω oscillations in the trace variance remain, revealing squeezing. For displaced (s

What carries the argument

The QOST formula S_Q(p,τ) = ∫d²α d²β P(α,β*) M_α M*_β shows that quantum fields produce interference between streaking amplitudes from different coherent-state components (α≠β*), which is absent in classical streaking where the trace is simply |M_α|². In the strong-field quasi-classical limit, this reduces to averaging |M_α|² over the Husimi Q-function Q(α), which still preserves quantum noise information. The delay τ acts as a quadrature selector, analogous to the local oscillator phase in homodyne detection.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that streaking traces can distinguish quantum squeezing from classical mimics rests on replacing the full P-representation interference with a simpler Husimi Q-function average, justified by the claim that coherent-state overlaps decay exponentially for strong fields. If this approximation breaks down at the field intensities and squeezing parameters the paper actually uses, the interference terms that carry the quantum signature may be lost, and the trace would塌

What would settle it

A direct experimental comparison of the streaking trace variance for a bright squeezed vacuum versus a classical thermal field with matched g⁽²⁾(0), showing whether the sub-cycle modulations differ beyond detector noise.

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

If this is right

  • If the streaking trace variance genuinely encodes quadrature squeezing, bright squeezed vacuum sources used in strong-field experiments can be characterized without homodyne detection, bypassing the dynamic-range bottleneck that limits conventional tomography to moderate intensities.
  • The analogy between XUV-IR delay and local oscillator phase suggests that full quadrature tomography could be performed by scanning τ over a complete optical cycle, potentially reconstructing the full Wigner function of bright quantum states.
  • The method could extend to certifying non-Gaussian quantum states of light generated in strong-field processes such as high-harmonic generation, where the output fields are too bright for standard quantum state tomography.
  • If sub-cycle variance modulations are experimentally resolvable, the technique provides a direct time-domain measurement of quantum noise, complementing the frequency-domain information from photon correlation measurements.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's certification claim depends on the quasi-classical limit (Eq. 10) being valid at the squeezing intensities used (I_squ = 5×10⁻⁵ a.u.). If coherent-state overlaps do not decay sufficiently at these intensities, the interference terms distinguishing quantum from classical behavior may be suppressed, and the trace could reduce to a classical mixture average indistinguishable from thermal
  • The paper does not provide a quantitative bound on how much squeezing must be present for the sub-cycle variance modulations to be experimentally distinguishable from detector noise and shot-to-shot fluctuations in the XUV pulse, which would determine the practical sensitivity floor of the method.
  • The claim that g⁽²⁾(0) measurements cannot certify squeezing while streaking can would be strengthened by an explicit construction of a classical field that produces the same streaking trace variance as a squeezed field, or a proof that no such classical mimic exists within the quasi-classical approximation.

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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops a quantum-optical theory of attosecond streaking, in which the infrared streaking field is treated as a quantum state rather than a classical field. Starting from the dipole coupling Hamiltonian [Eq. (3)] and the generalized P-representation [Eq. (8)], the authors derive an exact expression for the quantum optical streaking trace (QOST) [Eq. (9)] and its quasi-classical limit [Eq. (10)] in terms of the Husimi Q-function. They then compute streaking traces for bright squeezed vacuum, amplitude-squeezed, and phase-squeezed states (Figs. 2–3), showing distinct sub-cycle modulations in the trace variance that correlate with the squeezed and anti-squeezed quadratures. Finally, they compare against two classical competitor fields [Eqs. (11)–(12), Fig. 4] and argue that the QOST provides a certification method for squeezing below the shot-noise limit in regimes where conventional homodyne tomography fails.

Significance. The derivation of Eq. (9) from the dipole Hamiltonian and generalized P-representation is clean and follows standard quantum-optical methods; the formalism is self-contained and internally consistent. The identification of sub-cycle variance modulations as a signature of quadrature squeezing in attosecond streaking is a genuinely new observation with potential experimental relevance, particularly given recent progress in bright squeezed vacuum sources [Refs. 37–41]. The quasi-classical limit [Eq. (10)] is a reasonable starting point for strong-field regimes. However, the central claim of squeezing certification is not yet supported by a witness, inequality, or systematic comparison against the strongest classical mimics, and no retrieval procedure is provided. These gaps are load-bearing for the paper's stated contribution.

major comments (4)
  1. The central claim of this paper is that the QOST certifies quantum squeezing below the shot-noise limit. However, all computed results (Figs. 2–4) use Eq. (10), the quasi-classical limit, in which the exact expression [Eq. (9)] reduces to a Husimi Q-function average of classical streaking intensities. The paper acknowledges that this limit drops the alpha ≠ beta* interference terms — the genuinely non-classical part of Eq. (9) — and argues that 'quantum noise is still taken into account via Q(alpha).' This is true in principle: the Q-function of a squeezed state has sub-vacuum variance (after accounting for vacuum smoothing), and no positive classical P-function can reproduce it. But the paper does not close the loop. No certification witness, inequality, or bound is provided that demonstrates the QOST distinguishes squeezed states from all classical probability distributions P_cl(alpha)
  2. The classical competitor fields in Eqs. (11)–(12) and Fig. 4 are not the strongest possible mimics. These fields incorporate only the anti-squeezed quadrature fluctuations (via CEP jitter or amplitude modulation) while omitting the squeezed quadrature entirely. A proper classical competitor would be a thermal or phase-diffused field with the same mean photon number and g²(0) as the squeezed state, which could partially reproduce the variance modulations shown in Figs. 2–3. Without such a comparison, the claim that the QOST has 'distinct features from classical light' (Conclusion) is not established. The authors should either construct a stronger classical mimic and show that the QOST still distinguishes it, or provide an explicit witness inequality that no classical distribution can reproduce.
  3. No retrieval or inversion procedure is given to extract squeezing parameters (r, theta) from a measured S_Q(p, tau). The abstract states that the method allows one to 'extract the properties of the squeezed field quadrature,' and the Conclusion describes the scheme as an 'alternative approach towards quantum tomography.' Without specifying how the extraction is performed — what observables of S_Q(p, tau) map to which squeezing parameters, and with what precision — this claim is unsupported. At minimum, the authors should identify which features of the trace (e.g., variance modulation depth, phase of the 2omega oscillation) quantitatively determine r and theta.
  4. The validity of the quasi-classical limit [Eq. (10)] for the specific parameters used (I_squ = 5×10⁻⁵ a.u.) is asserted by citation to Refs. [57, 78] but not verified within the manuscript. Ref. [78] (Gothelf et al., 2026) explicitly discusses limitations of this phase-space approximation in strong-field quantum optics. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of the error incurred by replacing the full P-representation average [Eq. (9)] with the Q-function average [Eq. (10)] at the stated intensity, or show sensitivity of the key features (sub-cycle variance modulations) to this approximation by comparing Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) for at least one parameter set.
minor comments (6)
  1. The abstract states the method can 'measure quantum squeezing below the shot noise limit, thereby overcoming the problem of tomographically measuring bright quantum light.' This is stronger than what is demonstrated; consider softening to 'providing an alternative approach to' or 'opening a route towards.'
  2. In the paragraph following Eq. (10), the text reads 'the show how the quantum optical streaking trace allows to measure quantum fluctuations of light' — should read 'we show how.'
  3. Fig. 2 caption: the IR pulse envelope f(t) is used in Eqs. (11)–(12) but its functional form (Gaussian, sin², flat-top) is not stated for any of the computed traces. This should be specified for reproducibility.
  4. The physical parameters (I_squ, I_coh/I_squ, Omega, pulse duration) are scattered across figure captions. Consolidating them in a single table or a 'Parameters' paragraph would improve readability.
  5. The claim that g²(0) measurements 'can not certify quantum squeezing' is stated multiple times in nearly identical language (Introduction and 'Measuring the quantum noise of light' section). The repetition could be condensed.
  6. Ref. [15] is cited as a PhD thesis (Stammer, 2026). If the arguments about the limitations of semi-classical descriptions are load-bearing, peer-reviewed alternatives should be cited where available.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

4 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies that the formalism is internally consistent and that the sub-cycle variance modulations are a genuinely new observation. The main concerns center on (i) the absence of an explicit certification witness or inequality, (ii) the classical competitors being insufficiently strong, (iii) the lack of a retrieval procedure for squeezing parameters, and (iv) the unverified validity of the quasi-classical limit at the stated intensity. We agree that these are substantive points. Below we address each in turn, indicating where revisions will be made and where we respectfully push back.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim of squeezing certification is not supported by a witness, inequality, or systematic comparison against all classical probability distributions. The quasi-classical limit drops the genuinely non-classical interference terms, and the paper does not close the loop.

    Authors: We partially agree with the referee. The referee is correct that the manuscript does not currently provide an explicit certification witness or inequality. We will revise the manuscript to include one. Specifically, we note that in the quasi-classical limit [Eq. (10)], the QOST is given by S_Q(p,tau) = integral d^2 alpha Q(alpha) |M_alpha(p,tau)|^2, where Q(alpha) is the Husimi Q-function. For a squeezed state, the Q-function has sub-vacuum variance in the squeezed quadrature (after accounting for the 1/2 vacuum contribution inherent to Q). No positive classical P-function can reproduce a Q-function with sub-vacuum quadrature variance. The key observation is that the variance of the streaking trace, Var[S_Q(p,tau)], as a function of delay tau, directly samples the quadrature variance of the IR field. At delays where the streaking field probes the squeezed quadrature, the trace variance drops below the value obtained for a coherent state of the same mean photon number. This provides a direct witness: if Var[S_Q(p,tau_squeezed)] < Var[S_coh(p,tau_squeezed)] for the same mean photon number, the field cannot be described by any positive classical P-distribution. We will add this as an explicit inequality in the revised manuscript, together with a quantitative evaluation showing the violation for the parameters used in Figs. 2-3. We acknowledge that the current manuscript text does not make this argument explicit, and this is a genuine gap that we will close. However, we respectfully note that the physical mechanism is already present in the computed results: the sub-vacuum variance modulations in Figs. 2-3 are a direct consequence of the sub-vacuum quadrature fluctuations of the Q-function, which no classical distribution can reproduce. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The classical competitor fields in Eqs. (11)-(12) and Fig. 4 are not the strongest possible mimics. A thermal or phase-diffused field with the same mean photon number and g^(2)(0) could partially reproduce the variance modulations. Without such a comparison, the claim of distinct features from classical light is not established.

    Authors: We agree that the classical competitors in Eqs. (11)-(12) are not the strongest possible mimics, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly. The referee's suggestion of a thermal or phase-diffused field with matched mean photon number and g^(2)(0) is well-taken. We will construct such a competitor and compare its QOST against the squeezed-state QOST. Our expectation, which we will verify quantitatively, is that a thermal field with the same g^(2)(0) will reproduce the anti-squeezed quadrature fluctuations but cannot reproduce the sub-vacuum variance in the squeezed quadrature. This is because a thermal state's Q-function has isotropic (or at minimum, never sub-vacuum) quadrature variance, whereas the squeezed state's Q-function has sub-vacuum variance in one quadrature. The streaking trace variance at the appropriate delay directly probes this. Therefore, while a thermal mimic may partially reproduce some features (e.g., the enhanced variance along the anti-squeezed quadrature), it will fail to reproduce the reduced variance along the squeezed quadrature. We will show this explicitly in a revised Fig. 4 or an additional figure. We concede that the current competitors, which only incorporate the anti-squeezed quadrature, are insufficient to establish the full claim, and we thank the referee for this important point. revision: yes

  3. Referee: No retrieval or inversion procedure is given to extract squeezing parameters (r, theta) from a measured S_Q(p, tau). The abstract and conclusion claim extraction of squeezing properties and an alternative to tomography, but no procedure is specified.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript does not provide a retrieval procedure, and that the claims in the abstract and conclusion are not fully supported without one. We will address this in revision. Concretely, the mapping from the QOST to squeezing parameters is as follows: (i) The phase theta of the squeezing is determined by the delay tau at which the variance modulation reaches its minimum — this corresponds to the streaking field probing the squeezed quadrature, and the mapping between tau and the quadrature angle is given by the known IR frequency omega. (ii) The squeezing parameter r is determined by the depth of the variance modulation, specifically by the ratio Var[S_Q(p,tau_squeezed)] / Var[S_Q(p,tau_anti-squeezed)], which is a monotonic function of r for the parameter regime considered. We will provide an explicit calibration curve showing this mapping for the parameters used in the manuscript. We acknowledge that a full retrieval protocol, including error analysis and robustness to noise, is beyond the scope of this work and would constitute a follow-up study. We will therefore temper the language in the abstract and conclusion to accurately reflect what is demonstrated (the sensitivity of the QOST to squeezing parameters and the identification of the relevant observables) versus what remains for future work (a complete retrieval protocol with precision bounds). revision: partial

  4. Referee: The validity of the quasi-classical limit [Eq. (10)] for I_squ = 5x10^-5 a.u. is asserted by citation but not verified. Ref. [78] discusses limitations of this approximation. The authors should provide a quantitative error estimate or compare Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) for at least one parameter set.

    Authors: We agree that this should be verified within the manuscript rather than relying solely on citations. We will add a quantitative comparison between the full expression [Eq. (9)] and the quasi-classical limit [Eq. (10)] for at least one parameter set corresponding to the parameters used in Figs. 2-3. The physical basis for expecting agreement is that for large mean photon numbers, the coherent state overlaps in the P-representation decay exponentially, suppressing the alpha != beta* interference terms. At I_squ = 5x10^-5 a.u., the mean photon number is large enough that this suppression is expected to be significant. However, we acknowledge that Ref. [78] raises legitimate concerns about the regime of validity, and the intensity used here is in a regime where the approximation may not be trivially justified. We will compute both expressions and show the difference quantitatively, either confirming the validity of the approximation or delineating the regime where it breaks down. If discrepancies are found, we will discuss their impact on the key features (sub-cycle variance modulations). This is a fair and important request, and we will comply. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained with standard tools, minor self-citations for context

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain (Eqs. 3→4→7→8→9→10) is mathematically self-contained at each step. The generalized P-representation (Eq. 8) cites the external Drummond & Gardiner [73], and its uniqueness/positivity properties cite [74–76], all external. The exact QOST (Eq. 9) is a direct substitution of Eq. (8) into the trace definition (Eq. 4/7). The quasi-classical limit (Eq. 10) — the load-bearing approximation — cites self-authored works [44, 63, 64] but also external citations [77, 78], with the specific overlap-decay argument citing the external [57]. No parameters are fitted to data and then presented as predictions: the Q-functions for squeezed states are known analytical objects, and the streaking traces in Figs. 2–4 are forward computations from Eq. (10). The certification claim (distinguishing quantum from classical fields) is a correctness/completeness concern — no witness or bound is provided, and the classical mimics in Eqs. (11–12) omit the squeezed quadrature — but this is not circularity: the paper does not define its certification criterion in terms of the quantity it claims to certify. The self-citations present are contextual background in strong-field quantum optics and are not the sole support for any load-bearing mathematical step. Score 1 reflects the presence of minor self-citations that do not undermine the derivation's independence.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. The formalism uses standard quantum optical objects (P-representation, Husimi Q-function, squeezed states, coherent states) applied to the known attosecond streaking framework. The free parameters are all numerical choices for the demonstration calculations, not fundamental constants or fitted quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • Squeezing intensity I_squ = 5e-5 a.u.
    Chosen for numerical demonstration, not derived from first principles.
  • Coherent-to-squeezed intensity ratio I_coh/I_squ = ~6
    Chosen for displaced squeezed state examples in Fig. 3.
  • XUV central frequency Omega = 3.3 a.u.
    Chosen to match helium ionization threshold.
  • IR pulse duration (FWHM) = 5 fs
    Chosen for numerical demonstration.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The dipole coupling H_I(t) = -d . E_Q(t) with the field operator Eq. (3) fully captures the electron-field interaction in the streaking regime.
    Invoked in the section 'Quantum optical theory of attosecond metrology.' This is standard in strong-field physics but neglects magnetic and relativistic effects.
  • domain assumption The quasi-classical limit of the positive P-function (replacing P(alpha,beta*) by Q(alpha)) is valid for the field intensities and squeezing parameters used.
    Invoked between Eqs. (9) and (10). The paper cites Refs. [57, 78] for this, but Ref. [78] explicitly discusses limitations of this approximation.
  • domain assumption The XUV pulse can be treated as a coherent state |beta_X> that is not entangled with the IR field.
    Stated in the quantum optical theory section. This is a modeling choice; in HHG-generated XUV, the harmonics can be entangled with the driving field (Refs. 50, 54).
  • standard math Single-active-electron approximation: the electronic state |psi(t0)> is a single bound state and ionization produces a single continuum electron.
    Standard in attosecond streaking theory, invoked implicitly throughout.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15230 in / 2937 out tokens · 487160 ms · 2026-07-08T07:04:23.788373+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Attosecond metrology is the ability to measure ultrafast optical light-wave oscillations, yet its approach has been limited to classical fields. Hence, the influence of the fluctuations of a quantum field on attosecond measurements has remained unexplored. Here, we close this gap by showing that the attosecond streaking measurement of bright quantum light is sensitive to quantum fluctuations of the optical field on the attosecond timescale. The distinct sub-cycle modulations allow to extract the properties of the squeezed field quadrature in regimes where conventional state tomography approaches reach their limitation. With the full quantum optical attosecond streaking scheme developed here, we provide a certification method that can measure quantum squeezing below the shot noise limit, thereby overcoming the problem of tomographically measuring bright quantum light. This opens the way towards quantum optical metrology of field fluctuations with attosecond temporal resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06395 by E. Pisanty, J. Rivera-Dean, M. Lewenstein, P. Stammer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ). Quantum optical theory of attosecond metrology.– In the following we present the formalism to describe attosec￾ond streaking measurements of an arbitrary light field. The light field can be in a classical state, for instance de￾scribed by the coherent state |α⟩, or quantum state such as a bright squeezed vacuum |ξ⟩. To this end, we de￾rive analytical expressions for the delay-dependent at￾tosecond strea… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (c). However, what we can see is that these fields lead to distinct streaking traces compared to a classi￾cal field Acl = f(t)A0 cos(ωt), with non-trivial modu￾lations in their distribution. This can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, C. Spielmann, G. A. Rei- der, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P . Corkum, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Attosecond metrology, Na- ture414, 509 (2001)

    work page 2001

  2. [2]

    Drescher, M

    M. Drescher, M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, G. Tempea, C. Spielmann, G. A. Reider, P . B. Corkum, and F. Krausz, X-ray pulses approaching the attosecond frontier, Science 291, 1923 (2001)

    work page 1923

  3. [3]

    Kienberger, E

    R. Kienberger, E. Goulielmakis, M. Uiberacker, A. Bal- tuska, V . Yakovlev, F. Bammer, A. Scrinzi, T. Wester- walbesloh, U. Kleineberg, U. Heinzmann,et al., Atomic transient recorder, Nature427, 817 (2004). 6

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Attosecond physics, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 163 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Mairesse and F

    Y. Mairesse and F. Qu ´er´e, Frequency-resolved optical gating for complete reconstruction of attosecond bursts, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics71, 011401 (2005)

    work page 2005

  6. [6]

    Qu ´er´e, Y

    F. Qu ´er´e, Y. Mairesse, and J. Itatani, Temporal characteri- zation of attosecond xuv fields, Journal of Modern Optics 52, 339 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Schultze, M

    M. Schultze, M. Fieß, N. Karpowicz, J. Gagnon, M. Korb- man, M. Hofstetter, S. Neppl, A. L. Cavalieri, Y. Komni- nos, T. Mercouris,et al., Delay in photoemission, Science 328, 1658 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Itatani, F

    J. Itatani, F. Qu ´er´e, G. L. Yudin, M. Y. Ivanov, F. Krausz, and P . B. Corkum, Attosecond streak camera, Physical re- view letters88, 173903 (2002)

    work page 2002

  9. [9]

    Kitzler, N

    M. Kitzler, N. Milosevic, A. Scrinzi, F. Krausz, and T. Brabec, Quantum theory of attosecond xuv pulse mea- surement by laser dressed photoionization, Physical re- view letters88, 173904 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    Goulielmakis, M

    E. Goulielmakis, M. Uiberacker, R. Kienberger, A. Bal- tuska, V . Yakovlev, A. Scrinzi, T. Westerwalbesloh, U. Kleineberg, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher,et al., Direct measurement of light waves, Science305, 1267 (2004)

    work page 2004

  11. [11]

    P . B. Corkum and F. Krausz, Attosecond science, Nature Physics3, 381 (2007)

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    L’Huillier, Nobel lecture: The route to attosecond pulses, Rev

    A. L’Huillier, Nobel lecture: The route to attosecond pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 030503 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of at- tosecond pulse trains, Rev

    P . Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of at- tosecond pulse trains, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 030501 (2024)

    work page 2024

  14. [14]

    Krausz, Nobel lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev

    F. Krausz, Nobel lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 030502 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Stammer,Photons and Information – A modern approach to strong-field quantum optics, Ph.D

    P . Stammer,Photons and Information – A modern approach to strong-field quantum optics, Ph.D. thesis, ICFO (2026)

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum theory of field-quadrature measurements, Physical review A47, 642 (1993)

    work page 1993

  17. [17]

    Breitenbach and S

    G. Breitenbach and S. Schiller, Homodyne tomography of classical and non-classical light, Journal of Modern Optics 44, 2207 (1997)

    work page 1997

  18. [18]

    Leonhardt and H

    U. Leonhardt and H. Paul, Measuring the quantum state of light, Progress in Quantum Electronics19, 89 (1995)

    work page 1995

  19. [19]

    A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 299 (2009)

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    W. P . Schleich,Quantum optics in phase space(John Wiley & Sons, 2015)

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    J. P . Dowling and K. P . Seshadreesan, Quantum optical technologies for metrology, sensing, and imaging, Journal of Lightwave Technology33, 2359 (2015)

    work page 2015

  22. [22]

    J. P . Dowling and G. J. Milburn, Quantum technology: the second quantum revolution, Philos. Trans. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci.361, 1655 (2003)

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Physical Review D23, 1693 (1981)

    work page 1981

  24. [24]

    Schnabel, N

    R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P . K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astron- omy, Nature Communications1, 121 (2010)

    work page 2010

  25. [25]

    B. J. Lawrie, P . D. Lett, A. M. Marino, and R. C. Pooser, Quantum sensing with squeezed light, Acs Photonics6, 1307 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Weedbrook, S

    C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ıa-Patr´on, N. J. Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Gaussian quan- tum information, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 621 (2012)

    work page 2012

  27. [27]

    S. L. Braunstein and P . Van Loock, Quantum information with continuous variables, Reviews of Modern Physics 77, 513 (2005)

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    V . C. Usenko, A. Ac ´ın, R. All ´eaume, U. L. Andersen, E. Diamanti, T. Gehring, A. A. Hajomer, F. Kanitschar, C. Pacher, S. Pirandola,et al., Continuous-variable quan- tum communication, Reviews of Modern Physics98, 015003 (2026)

    work page 2026

  29. [29]

    D. F. Walls, Squeezed states of light, Nature306, 141 (1983)

    work page 1983

  30. [30]

    Breitenbach, S

    G. Breitenbach, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, Measurement of the quantum states of squeezed light, Nature387, 471 (1997)

    work page 1997

  31. [31]

    M. G. Raymer and M. Beck, 7 experimental quantum state tomography of optical fields and ultrafast statistical sam- pling, inQuantum State Estimation(Springer, 2004) pp. 235–295

    work page 2004

  32. [32]

    Tiedau, E

    J. Tiedau, E. Meyer-Scott, T. Nitsche, S. Barkhofen, T. J. Bartley, and C. Silberhorn, A high dynamic range optical detector for measuring single photons and bright light, Optics express27, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Knyazev, K

    E. Knyazev, K. Y. Spasibko, M. V . Chekhova, and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum tomography enhanced through para- metric amplification, New Journal of Physics20, 013005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  34. [34]

    Y.-D. Yoon, C. Roh, G. Gwak, and Y.-S. Ra, Effi- cient ultrafast homodyne detection of quantum light, arXiv:2605.14858 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Stammer, J

    P . Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, P . Tzallas, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Colloquium: Quantum optics of intense light–matter interaction, arXiv:2510.19045 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    K. Y. Spasibko, D. A. Kopylov, V . L. Krutyanskiy, T. V . Murzina, G. Leuchs, and M. V . Chekhova, Multiphoton Effects Enhanced due to Ultrafast Photon-Number Fluc- tuations, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 223603 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    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)

    work page 1960

  38. [38]

    Heimerl, A

    J. Heimerl, A. Mikhaylov, S. Meier, H. H ¨ollerer, I. Kaminer, M. Chekhova, and P . Hommelhoff, Multipho- ton electron emission with non-classical light, Nat. Phys. 20, 945 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    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 Physics21, 1899 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Lemieux, S

    S. Lemieux, S. A. Jalil, D. N. Purschke, N. Boroumand, T. Hammond, D. Villeneuve, A. Naumov, T. Brabec, and G. Vampa, Photon bunching in high-harmonic emission controlled by quantum light, Nature Photonics19, 767 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    Y. Kern, I. Nisim, M. Birk, A. Rasputnyi, D. Behar, Z. Chen, I. Kaminer, P . Sidorenko, O. Cohen, and M. Kr ¨uger, Single-shot pulse retrieval of femtosecond bright squeezed vacuum, Optica13, 395 (2026)

    work page 2026

  42. [42]

    Stammer, On the limitations of the semi-classical pic- ture in high harmonic generation, Nature Physics20, 1040 (2024)

    P . Stammer, On the limitations of the semi-classical pic- ture in high harmonic generation, Nature Physics20, 1040 (2024)

    work page 2024

  43. [43]

    Cruz-Rodriguez, D

    L. Cruz-Rodriguez, D. Dey, A. Freibert, and P . Stammer, Quantum phenomena in attosecond science, Nat. Rev. Phys.6, 691 (2024)

    work page 2024

  44. [44]

    Rivera-Dean, P

    J. Rivera-Dean, P . Stammer, M. Ciappina, and M. Lewen- 7 stein, Structured squeezed light allows for high-harmonic generation in classical forbidden geometries, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 013801 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Stammer, C

    P . Stammer, C. Granados, and J. Rivera-Dean, Fluctuation-induced symmetry breaking in high harmonic generation for bicircular quantum light, arXiv:2603.24377 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Lewenstein, P

    M. Lewenstein, P . Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’huillier, and P . B. Corkum, Theory of high-harmonic generation by low-frequency laser fields, Physical Review A49, 2117 (1994)

    work page 1994

  47. [47]

    Antoine, A

    P . Antoine, A. L’huillier, and M. Lewenstein, Attosecond pulse trains using high–order harmonics, Physical Re- view Letters77, 1234 (1996)

    work page 1996

  48. [48]

    Lewenstein, M

    M. Lewenstein, M. F. Ciappina, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera-Dean, P . Stammer, T. Lamprou, and P . Tzallas, Generation of op- tical Schr ¨odinger cat states in intense laser–matter inter- actions, Nature Physics17, 1104 (2021)

    work page 2021

  49. [49]

    Gorlach, O

    A. Gorlach, O. Neufeld, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, The quantum-optical nature of high harmonic generation, Nat. Commun.11, 4598 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    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 opti- cal field modes in high harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 143603 (2024)

    work page 2024

  51. [51]

    S. Yi, N. D. Klimkin, G. G. Brown, O. Smirnova, S. Patchkovskii, I. Babushkin, and M. Ivanov, Generation of massively entangled bright states of light during har- monic generation in resonant media, Physical Review X 15, 011023 (2025)

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    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)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    C. S. Lange and L. B. Madsen, Hierarchy of approxima- tions for describing quantum light from high-harmonic generation: A fermi-hubbard-model study, Physical Re- view A111, 013113 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    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)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Gombk ¨ot˝o, P

    ´A. Gombk ¨ot˝o, P . F ¨oldi, and S. Varr ´o, Quantum-optical description of photon statistics and cross correlations in high-order harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. A104, 033703 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Theory of quantum optics and optical coherence in high harmonic generation

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Wang and X.-B

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

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Pizzi, A

    A. Pizzi, A. Gorlach, N. Rivera, A. Nunnenkamp, and I. Kaminer, Light emission from strongly driven many- body systems, Nature Physics19, 551 (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Photon anti-bunching in high harmonic generation

    P . Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, and M. Lewenstein, Photon anti-bunching in high harmonic generation, arXiv:2606.17620 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    C. S. Lange, T. Hansen, and L. B. Madsen, Excitonic En- hancement of Squeezed Light in Quantum-Optical High- Harmonic Generation from a Mott Insulator, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 043603 (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    de-la Pe ˜na, O

    S. de-la Pe ˜na, O. Neufeld, M. Even Tzur, O. Cohen, H. Ap- pel, and A. Rubio, Quantum electrodynamics in high- harmonic generation: Multitrajectory ehrenfest and ex- act quantum analysis, J. Chem. Theory Comput.21, 283 (2025)

    work page 2025

  62. [62]

    Quantum engineering of high harmonic generation

    N. Boroumand, A. Thorpe, G. Bart, L. Wang, D. N. Purschke, G. Vampa, and T. Brabec, Quantum engineer- ing of high harmonic generation, arXiv:2505.22536 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Rivera-Dean, L

    J. Rivera-Dean, L. Petrovic, M. Lewenstein, and P . Stam- mer, Attosecond quantum optical interferometry, Reports on Progress in Physics89, 047901 (2026)

    work page 2026

  64. [64]

    Weak measurement in strong laser field physics

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Lamprou, J

    T. Lamprou, J. Rivera-Dean, P . Stammer, M. Lewenstein, and P . Tzallas, Nonlinear optics using intense optical co- herent state superpositions, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 013601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  66. [66]

    Quantum optical photoelectron interferometry

    J. Dubois, V . Cotte, R. Ta ¨ıeb, C. L ´evˆeque, J. Caillat, P . Dave, P . Sali`eres, D. Bresteau, C. Bourassin-Bouchet, A. L’Huillier,et al., Quantum optical photoelectron inter- ferometry, arXiv:2606.13447 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    F. A. Mele, A. A. Mele, L. Bittel, J. Eisert, V . Giovannetti, L. Lami, L. Leone, and S. F. Oliviero, Learning quantum states of continuous-variable systems, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    Rasputnyi, I

    A. Rasputnyi, I. Karuseichyk, G. Leuchs, F. Tani, D. Selet- skiy, and M. Chekhova, Kerr-induced non-gaussianity of a bright ultrafast quantum state, Optica13, 1232 (2026)

    work page 2026

  69. [69]

    V . S. Yakovlev, F. Bammer, and A. Scrinzi, Attosecond streaking measurements, Journal of Modern Optics52, 395 (2005)

    work page 2005

  70. [70]

    V . S. Yakovlev, J. Gagnon, N. Karpowicz, and F. Krausz, Attosecond streaking enables the measurement of quan- tum phase, Physical Review Letters105, 073001 (2010)

    work page 2010

  71. [71]

    Stammer, J

    P . Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, A. Ord ´o˜nez, M. F. Ciappina, P . Tzallas, and M. Lewen- stein, Quantum electrodynamics of intense laser-matter interactions: a tool for quantum state engineering, PRX Quantum4, 010201 (2023)

    work page 2023

  72. [72]

    Fabre and N

    C. Fabre and N. Treps, Modes and states in quantum op- tics, Reviews of Modern Physics92, 035005 (2020)

    work page 2020

  73. [73]

    P . D. Drummond and C. W. Gardiner, Generalised P- representations in quantum optics, J. Phys. A13, 2353 (1980)

    work page 1980

  74. [74]

    Gilchrist, C

    A. Gilchrist, C. Gardiner, and P . Drummond, Positive p representation: Application and validity, Physical Review A55, 3014 (1997)

    work page 1997

  75. [75]

    M. Kim, F. De Oliveira, and P . Knight, Properties of squeezed number states and squeezed thermal states, Physical Review A40, 2494 (1989)

    work page 1989

  76. [76]

    Olsen and A

    M. Olsen and A. Bradley, Numerical representation of quantum states in the positive-p and wigner representa- tions, Optics Communications282, 3924 (2009)

    work page 2009

  77. [77]

    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)

    work page 2023

  78. [78]

    R. V . Gothelf, L. B. Madsen, and C. S. Lange, Limitations of an approximative phase-space description in strong- field quantum optics, Physical Review A113, 063107 (2026)

    work page 2026