Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 85 references

Phase-Programmable Free Electron Quantum States in Synthetic Momentum Space

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-07-09 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Optical phase alone sculpts free-electron quantum states

desk verdict Phase-only optimal control of free-electron momentum sidebands via Pontryagin optimization and a complementary Bragg-regime sequential protocol — both validated against full TDSE. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.07445 v1 pith:EQ7HWIYS submitted 2026-07-08 quant-ph

Alatz Alvarez-Ahedo , Miriam Lazo , Tian-Niu Xu , Yiming Pan , Mikel Sanz , Yongcheng Ding This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords momentumphaseelectronfreequantumcoherentcontrolprogrammable
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 claims that a single time-dependent optical phase can serve as a complete control knob for preparing arbitrary free-electron quantum states in a synthetic momentum lattice. When a laser-driven electron grating maps the electron wavefunction onto discrete momentum sidebands separated by integer photon quanta, the optical phase of the driving field acts as the hopping phase between neighboring lattice sites. The authors show that Pontryagin optimal control — maximizing an objective functional via gradient ascent on the phase waveform alone — can prepare targeted single sidebands, arbitrary multi-sideband population distributions, and coherent few-sideband superpositions with programmable relative phases, all within roughly 176 femtoseconds for 640 eV electrons. A second, complementary protocol operates in the Bragg regime, where dynamical phase matching selectively brings neighboring sidebands into resonance one pair at a time, enabling deterministic sequential state synthesis through a backward-propagation algorithm that pre-compensates dynamical phase accumulation. The paper validates both protocols against full wave-packet simulations of the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian, characterizes tolerance to phase noise, detuning, and finite momentum spread, and identifies a fundamental speed-selectivity tradeoff: the Pontryagin approach is ultrafast but operates in a multilevel interference regime where optimization becomes harder for distant sidebands, while the Bragg protocol is analytically deterministic and high-fidelity but requires interaction times roughly an order of magnitude longer and demands extremely narrow electron wavepackets.

What carries the argument

The coupled-mode equation i c_n-dot = n²ε c_n + κ c_{n+1} + κ* c_{n-1}, where the hopping amplitude κ carries the time-dependent optical phase φ(t). This maps the electron dynamics onto a tight-binding lattice in momentum space. The Pontryagin Hamiltonian H_P = Im[⟨C̃|M|C⟩] provides the gradient for phase-only optimization. In the Bragg regime, the resonance condition δω_j = 2ε(j+1/2) selectively couples sideband pairs |j⟩ and |j+1⟩ via SU(2) rotations U_j(Θ_j, φ_j), enabling sequential deterministic synthesis.

What would settle it

Full wave-packet simulations of the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian, including Gaussian phase noise, momentum detuning, and finite wavepacket width, serve as the experimental fidelity benchmark. The Pontryagin protocol achieves classical fidelities of 0.756–0.991 for single-sideband preparation and quantum fidelities of 0.718–0.918 for coherent superpositions under imperfections. The Bragg protocol achieves quantum fidelity of 0.998 for a three-sideband state with narrow wavepackets.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central object is the Floquet-Bloch momentum lattice: a mapping of the free-electron wavefunction onto discrete momentum sidebands coupled by a light-electron interaction whose complex hopping amplitude carries the optical phase as a controllable parameter. The paper's core claim is that this single phase parameter, optimized via Pontryagin's maximum principle, is sufficient to prepare both arbitrary population distributions and coherent superposition states with programmable relative phases at ultrafast timescales. The complementary Bragg-regime protocol reveals that the same lattice supports a deterministic, analytically structured synthesis route when operated in a frequency-selective

Load-bearing premise

The coupled-mode equation assumes all momentum sidebands have approximately the same velocity, so the hopping amplitude between neighbors is uniform. This breaks down for higher-order sidebands far from the phase-matching point, where the electron's momentum-dependent coupling to light becomes significant. Additionally, rapidly varying optimal phase waveforms may violate the assumption that the phase changes slowly compared to the optical carrier frequency.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Programmable free-electron momentum spectra could enable a 'free electron printer' for ultrafast spectral shaping, with applications in electron beam engineering and ultrafast spectroscopy.
  • Coherent sideband superpositions with controlled relative phases directly determine the spatiotemporal structure of electron wavepackets, enabling attosecond pulse shaping and superoscillatory wavepackets.
  • Extending to multimode optical driving could produce synthetic momentum lattices with long-range hopping and higher-dimensional structures, potentially accessing Floquet gauge fields and topological momentum-space dynamics for free electrons.
  • The speed-selectivity tradeoff suggests a hybrid strategy: use fast Pontryagin control for nearby sideband preparation and sequential Bragg engineering for distant or high-precision targets, combining the strengths of both protocols.
  • The detuning-induced linear potential, analogous to a Wannier-Stark ladder, suggests that systematic detuning errors could be partially compensated through adaptive phase correction if characterized in advance.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The non-recoil approximation underlying the coupled-mode equation likely sets an upper bound on the number of addressable sidebands before the homogeneous hopping assumption fails; this bound could be estimated from the ratio of recoil energy to on-site energy and would determine the practical Hilbert-space dimension accessible to the Pontryagin protocol.
  • The bang-bang-like optimal control fields that Pontryagin optimization tends to produce may conflict with the slow-modulation requirement |φ̇(t)| ≪ ω_L, suggesting that constrained optimization with a bandwidth penalty on rapid phase variations could improve physical feasibility without large fidelity loss.
  • The extreme sensitivity of the Bragg protocol to wavepacket width (fidelity drops from 0.991 to 0.085 when σ_k increases from 0.03q to 0.05q) implies that electron source brightness and coherence, not optical control sophistication, may be the practical bottleneck for deterministic protocols.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops two complementary protocols for coherent control of free electron momentum-sideband states via light-electron interactions at optical gratings. Starting from the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian, the authors derive a Floquet-Bloch coupled-mode description in which the optical phase phi(t) serves as a controllable hopping phase in a synthetic momentum lattice. The first protocol uses Pontryagin's maximum principle to design phase-only waveforms that prepare target sideband populations and coherent few-sideband superpositions with programmable relative phases, operating in the intermediate Klein-Cook regime. The second protocol exploits dynamical phase matching in the deep Bragg regime to achieve sequential resonant SU(2) rotations between neighboring sidebands, enabling deterministic state synthesis. Full time-dependent Schrodinger equation (TDSE) simulations based on the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian are used to validate the coupled-mode optimization and quantify fidelity losses under phase noise, detuning, and finite momentum spread. The two protocols are argued to expose a speed-selectivity tradeoff between ultrafast multilevel interference control and slower resonant engineering. Reproducible code is provided.

Significance. The manuscript makes a solid contribution to the emerging field of free-electron quantum optics by systematically applying quantum optimal control theory to synthetic momentum-space dynamics. The derivation from the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian to the coupled-mode equations is standard but clearly presented, and the formulation of phase-only Pontryagin optimization in this context is well-motivated. The complementary Bragg-regime protocol based on sequential resonant rotations is analytically transparent and draws a useful connection to the Law-Eberly mechanism. The authors provide reproducible code, quantify fidelity degradation under experimentally relevant imperfections, and honestly report decreasing fidelities for higher sidebands. The speed-selectivity tradeoff between the two protocols is a physically insightful framing. The work is appropriate in scope for the journal.

major comments (2)
  1. §IV.A–B, Eqs. (19), (23): For coherent-state fidelity validation, the TDSE output is reconstructed using a Gaussian sideband ansatz with fitted phase perturbations (delta_theta), and the quantum fidelity F_Q is evaluated on the reconstructed state rather than by direct projection of the TDSE wavefunction onto the target sideband amplitudes. This procedure is presented as an experimental measurement protocol, but it is also used to report the simulation fidelities (F_Q = {0.918,...,0.914} for cat states; F_Q = {0.880, 0.813, 0.718} for the three-sideband state). When the TDSE output exhibits visible wavepacket distortion (e.g., Fig. 5(a.3) for sigma_k = 0.1q, where F_Q drops to 0.718), the Gaussian ansatz may not faithfully capture the true momentum-space state, and the least-squares fitting could introduce systematic bias. The authors should report the direct projection fidelity F_Q^dir,
  2. §V, paragraph 2: The Floquet slow-phase condition |phi_dot(t)| << omega_L is identified as load-bearing, and the authors note that bang-bang-like optimal control fields may violate it. However, no quantitative check is provided. The authors should either (i) compute max_t |phi_dot(t)|/omega_L for the optimized waveforms used in §III–IV and confirm it is small, or (ii) explicitly state the regime of validity and note that the TDSE validation (which does not rely on this approximation) serves as the consistency check. As it stands, the reader cannot assess whether the optimized controls respect the condition under which the coupled-mode model was derived.
minor comments (7)
  1. §II, Eq. (4): The hopping amplitude kappa is written with a factor e^{i(phi+pi/2)}, but the pi/2 phase is absorbed without comment when kappa is rewritten as |kappa|e^{i phi(t)} in the text following Eq. (5). Please clarify whether this is a gauge choice or an approximation.
  2. §III.A: The laboratory parameters (640 eV electron energy, 6.2 eV photon energy, 10 nm grating period, E_z = 2.35x10^7 V/m, T = 175.81 fs) are given for the single-sideband case. It would help the reader to state which of these parameters carry over to the coherent-state examples in §IV and which differ.
  3. Fig. 2 caption: The averaged classical fidelities are described as obtained from 10 noise realizations, but the main text states F_C^* = {0.991, 0.921, 0.894, 0.756} while the figure reports F_C = {0.980, 0.903, 0.872, 0.740}. Please clarify which are ideal-optimization fidelities and which include noise; please be consistent.
  4. §V.C: The fidelity F_Q = 0.998 for the Bragg-regime N=3 case is stated to come from full TDSE simulation, but the momentum width sigma_k = 0.01q used is much narrower than in the Pontryagin examples. The rapid drop to F_Q = 0.085 for sigma_k = 0.05q is noted but not analyzed. Please briefly discuss the physical mechanism behind this sensitivity.
  5. §V.C: The statement that gamma 'changes slightly' during the Bragg protocol is vague. Please quantify the relative change in gamma and confirm that the resulting variations in epsilon and kappa (stated as negligible) do not affect the resonance conditions of Eq. (26).
  6. Reference [85] is listed as 'see Github' without a URL or persistent identifier. Please provide a complete repository link.
  7. §I, paragraph 4: The reference numbering skips from [59] to [62], suggesting missing references [60, 61] were inserted later. Please check numbering.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive reading of the manuscript. The two major comments are both well-taken and address legitimate concerns about (1) the fidelity reporting methodology for coherent-state validation and (2) the quantitative verification of the Floquet slow-phase condition. We will address both points in a revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV.A–B, Eqs. (19), (23): For coherent-state fidelity validation, the TDSE output is reconstructed using a Gaussian sideband ansatz with fitted phase perturbations (delta_theta), and the quantum fidelity F_Q is evaluated on the reconstructed state rather than by direct projection of the TDSE wavefunction onto the target sideband amplitudes. This procedure is presented as an experimental measurement protocol, but it is also used to report the simulation fidelities (F_Q = {0.918,...,0.914} for cat states; F_Q = {0.880, 0.813, 0.718} for the three-sideband state). When the TDSE output exhibits visible wavepacket distortion (e.g., Fig. 5(a.3) for sigma_k = 0.1q, where F_Q drops to 0.718), the Gaussian ansatz may not faithfully capture the true momentum-space state, and the least-squares fitting could introduce systematic bias. The authors should report the direct projection fidelity F_Q^dir.

    Authors: The referee raises a valid and important point. We agree that the Gaussian ansatz reconstruction procedure, while motivated as an experimentally accessible measurement protocol, may introduce systematic bias when used to report simulation fidelities—particularly in regimes where wavepacket distortion is visible, such as the sigma_k = 0.1q case shown in Fig. 5(a.3). We will compute and report the direct projection fidelity F_Q^dir = |<C_target|C_TDSE>|^2, where |C_TDSE> is obtained by projecting the full TDSE wavefunction onto the sideband basis without any Gaussian fitting ansatz. This will be done for all coherent-state examples in §IV.A–B. We expect F_Q^dir to be at least as large as the reconstructed fidelity in cases where the Gaussian ansatz is adequate, and potentially different (likely lower) in the distorted wavepacket regime, which would actually strengthen the manuscript's honesty about fidelity degradation. We will present both F_Q^dir and the reconstructed fidelity, clarifying that the latter corresponds to what would be experimentally accessible while the former represents the true simulation fidelity. The revised manuscript will make this distinction explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §V, paragraph 2: The Floquet slow-phase condition |phi_dot(t)| << omega_L is identified as load-bearing, and the authors note that bang-bang-like optimal control fields may violate it. However, no quantitative check is provided. The authors should either (i) compute max_t |phi_dot(t)|/omega_L for the optimized waveforms used in §III–IV and confirm it is small, or (ii) explicitly state the regime of validity and note that the TDSE validation (which does not rely on this approximation) serves as the consistency check. As it stands, the reader cannot assess whether the optimized controls respect the condition under which the coupled-mode model was derived.

    Authors: The referee is correct that this quantitative check is missing and should be provided. We will adopt approach (ii), which is the more physically transparent option. Specifically, we will compute max_t |phi_dot(t)|/omega_L for the optimized waveforms used in §III–IV and report these values explicitly. Using the laboratory parameters given in the manuscript (omega_L corresponding to 6.2 eV photon energy, i.e., omega_L ~ 9.4 x 10^15 rad/s, and operation time T = 175.81 fs), the optimized phase profiles are wrapped within [-pi, pi] and vary over the full operation time, so we expect max_t |phi_dot(t)|/omega_L to be small but we will verify this numerically. We will add a sentence in §V stating the computed ratio and noting that the TDSE simulations, which evolve the full minimal-coupling Hamiltonian without invoking the Floquet slow-phase approximation, serve as an independent consistency check. If any optimized waveforms are found to marginally violate the condition, we will state this transparently and note that the TDSE validation confirms the coupled-mode model remains accurate in practice for the parameters used. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; derivations are self-contained from the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian.

full rationale

The paper's two main derivation chains are self-contained. (1) The coupled-mode equation (Eq. 4) is derived from the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) via Floquet-Bloch expansion (Eq. 3) under the non-recoil approximation, with no fitting to target results. The Pontryagin optimization (Eqs. 6-9) uses a physically motivated cost functional (Eqs. 10, 16) and is validated against full TDSE simulations (Eq. 13), not against its own outputs. (2) The Bragg-regime protocol is derived analytically from the resonance condition (Eq. 26) and SU(2) rotations (Eq. 27), with pulse areas determined by backward propagation (Eqs. 29-31). Self-citations [15] and [78] provide background context on anomalous Bragg diffraction and Rabi oscillation, but neither is load-bearing for the central derivations: the coupled-mode model follows from Eq. 1, and the deterministic protocol follows from Eq. 22. The Gaussian-ansatz reconstruction (Eqs. 19, 23) is used only for phase extraction in the validation step, not to define the target or the optimization. The fidelities reported (F_C, F_Q) are computed from TDSE output, not from the optimization's own predictions. No step reduces to its inputs by construction.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. All parameters are either physical constants, laboratory conditions, or numerical optimization hyperparameters. The free parameters are standard for optimal control studies. The key axioms are domain-specific approximations whose breakdown the paper itself acknowledges.

free parameters (5)
  • Learning rate α = 0.05
    Chosen empirically for the Pontryagin gradient ascent; affects convergence and final fidelity.
  • Operation time T = 4 (dimensionless) / 175.81 fs
    Fixed operation time for the optimal control protocol; chosen to be in the ultrafast regime.
  • Klein-Cook parameter Q = 0.4 (intermediate) / 10 (Bragg)
    Set by the choice of |κ| and ε, which are in turn set by the electron energy and optical field parameters.
  • Momentum width σ_k = 0.05q (optimal control) / 0.01q (Bragg)
    Initial wavepacket width; chosen to balance Floquet-Bloch validity against wavepacket localization.
  • Optimization ansätze = quadratic, tanh+sin, piecewise chirped
    Empirically chosen initial phase profiles for different target sidebands; affect which local optimum is reached.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Non-recoil approximation k_n ≈ k_0
    Invoked in §II to reduce the full Schrödinger equation to the coupled-mode equation (4). The paper acknowledges this breaks down for higher-order sidebands (§V).
  • domain assumption Slow phase modulation |ϕ̇(t)| ≪ ω_L
    Invoked in §V to justify the validity of the Floquet-Bloch description under time-dependent phase modulation. May be violated by bang-bang optimal control fields.
  • domain assumption Phase matching condition v_0 q = ω_L
    Invoked in §II as the resonance condition; detuning from this condition introduces the linear term in Eq. (22).
  • domain assumption Two-level approximation in Bragg regime
    Invoked in §V.A to reduce the dynamics to SU(2) rotations; valid when Q≫1 but the paper tests Q=2 where leakage occurs.
  • standard math Pontryagin's maximum principle applicability
    Standard optimal control theory framework; the costate evolution and gradient update are correctly formulated in Eqs. (6)-(9).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase-Programmable Free Electron Quantum States in Synthetic Momentum Space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EQ7HWIYS

@misc{pith2026260707445,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase-Programmable Free Electron Quantum States in Synthetic Momentum Space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EQ7HWIYS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.07445}
}
read the original abstract

Light-electron interactions generate synthetic momentum-space dynamics that can be used to engineer free electron quantum states. Here we develop coherent control protocols in which the optical phase acts as the controllable hopping phase of a Floquet-Bloch momentum lattice. Pontryagin optimization designs phase-only waveforms that prepare selected momentum populations and coherent few-sideband superpositions with programmable relative phases. In a complementary Bragg regime protocol, dynamical phase matching selectively couples neighboring sidebands and enables deterministic sequential state synthesis. Full wave-packet simulations based on the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian identify the tolerance window set by phase noise, detuning, and finite momentum spread. The two protocols expose a speed-selectivity tradeoff between ultrafast multilevel interference control and slower resonant engineering, establishing programmable free electron sidebands as a platform for ultrafast quantum state synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07445 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup. A femtosecond laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Single-momentum state preparation through single parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Arbitrary momentum-population preparation through single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Cat-state preparation through single parameter control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Preparation of the three-sideband target state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Deterministic preparation of equal-weight momentum space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 85 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    More generally, neighboring sidebands can be selectively brought into resonance by tuning the laser frequency accord- ing to δω j =2ϵ j+ 1 2 ! ,(26) thereby realizing an effective two-level dynamics between the states|j⟩and|j+1⟩. This observation motivates a determin- istic control protocol for coherently preparing arbitrary states within a finite momentu...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033 2020

  2. [2]

    Hemsing, G

    E. Hemsing, G. Stupakov, D. Xiang, and A. Zholents, Beam by design: Laser manipulation of electrons in modern accelerators, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 897 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    Petrillo, M

    V . Petrillo, M. P. Anania, M. Artioliet al., Observation of Time-Domain Modulation of Free-Electron-Laser Pulses by Multipeaked Electron-Energy Spectrum, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 114802 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo and C. Ropers, Spatiotemporal Electron Beam Focusing through Parallel Interactions with Shaped Op- tical Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 246901 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    M. C. C. Mihaila, P. Weber, M. Schneller, L. Grandits, S. Nimmrichter, and T. Juffmann, Transverse Electron-Beam Shaping with Light, Phys. Rev. X12, 031043 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    C. I. Velasco and F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, Free-Space Optical Modulation of Free Electrons in the Continuous-Wave Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 123804 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Barwick, D

    B. Barwick, D. J. Flannigan, and A. H. Zewail, Photon-induced near-field electron microscopy, Nature462, 902 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    S. T. Park, M. Lin, and A. H. Zewail, Photon-induced near- field electron microscopy (PINEM): theoretical and experimen- tal, New J. Phys.12, 123028 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and M. Kociak, Multi- photon Absorption and Emission by Interaction of Swift Elec- trons with Evanescent Light Fields, Nano Lett.5, 1859 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Feist, K

    A. Feist, K. E. Echternkamp, J. Schauss, S. V . Yalunin, S. Sch¨afer, and C. Ropers, Quantum coherent optical phase mod- ulation in an ultrafast transmission electron microscope, Nature 521, 200 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Dahan, A

    R. Dahan, A. Gorlach, U. Haeusleret al., Imprinting the quantum statistics of photons on free electrons, Science373, eabj7128 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Jones, M

    E. Jones, M. Becker, J. Luiten, and H. Batelaan, Laser control of electron matter waves, Laser Photonics Rev.10, 214 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Eldar, Z

    M. Eldar, Z. Chen, Y . Pan, and M. Kr ¨uger, Self-Trapping of Slow Electrons in the Energy Domain, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 035001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Y . Pan, B. Zhang, and A. Gover, Anomalous Photon-Induced Near-Field Electron Microscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 183204 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    K. Lin, S. Eckart, H. Lianget al., Ultrafast Kapitza-Dirac effect, Science383, 1467 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Y . Ding, Z. Zhao, B. Zhang, Q. Pan, M. Sanz, and Y . Pan, Ultrafast Stern-Gerlach and Anomalous Bragg Diffraction Regimes of Low-energy Free Electron Interaction with Light, arXiv:2508.17271

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ayvazyan, N

    V . Ayvazyan, N. Baboi, I. Bohnetet al., Generation of GW Ra- diation Pulses from a VUV Free-Electron Laser Operating in the Femtosecond Regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 104802 (2002)

    2002

  10. [18]

    Grgura ˇs, A

    I. Grgura ˇs, A. R. Maier, C. Behrenset al., Ultrafast X-ray pulse characterization at free-electron lasers, Nat. Photon.6, 852 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    R. R. Robles, K. A. Larsen, D. Cesaret al., Spectrotemporal Shaping of Attosecond X-Ray Pulses with a Fresh-Slice Free- Electron Laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 115001 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    W. Hu, C. H. Shim, G. Kimet al., Tunable, phase-locked hard X-ray pulse sequences generated by a free-electron laser, arXiv:2508.00455

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. A. Aseyev, E. A. Ryabov, B. N. Mironov, and A. A. Ischenko, The Development of Ultrafast Electron Microscopy, Crystals 10, 452 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    A. E. Turner, C. W. Johnson, P. Kruit, and B. J. McMorran, Interaction-Free Measurement with Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 110401 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    C. W. Johnson, A. E. Turner, F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, and B. J. McMorran, Inelastic Mach-Zehnder Interferometry with Free Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 147401 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    K. E. Echternkamp, A. Feist, S. Sch ¨afer, and C. Ropers, Ramsey-type phase control of free-electron beams, Nat. Phys. 12, 1000 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Feist, S

    A. Feist, S. V . Yalunin, S. Sch¨afer, and C. Ropers, High-purity free-electron momentum states prepared by three-dimensional optical phase modulation, Phys. Rev. Research2, 043227 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Bucher, R

    T. Bucher, R. Ruimy, S. Tsesses, R. Dahan, G. Bartal, G. M. Vanacore, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron Ramsey-type in- terferometry for enhanced amplitude and phase imaging of nearfields, Sci. Adv.9, eadi5729 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Karnieli and S

    A. Karnieli and S. Fan, Jaynes-Cummings interaction between low-energy free electrons and cavity photons, Sci. Adv.9, eadh2425 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    A. P. Synanidis, P. A. D. Gonc ¸alves, C. Ropers, and F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, Quantum effects in the interaction of low-energy electrons with light, Sci. Adv.10, 4096 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Karnieli, S

    A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, N. Rivera, A. Arie, I. Kaminer, and S. Fan, Universal and Ultrafast Quantum Computation Based on Free-Electron-Polariton Blockade, PRX Quantum5, 010339 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Ding, Ultrafast quantum gates with fully quantized free- electron quantum optics, arXiv: 2511.11201

    Y . Ding, Ultrafast quantum gates with fully quantized free- electron quantum optics, arXiv: 2511.11201

  23. [31]

    Di Cairano, Nonequilibrium quantum field theory of the free- electron laser in the Keldysh formalism, Phys

    L. Di Cairano, Nonequilibrium quantum field theory of the free- electron laser in the Keldysh formalism, Phys. Rev. A113, 053704 (2026). 12

    2026

  24. [32]

    Ruimy, A

    R. Ruimy, A. Karnieli, and I. Kaminer, Free-electron quantum optics, Nat. Phys.21, 193 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    K. E. Priebe, C. Rathje, S. V . Yalunin, T. Hohage, A. Feist, S. Sch¨afer, and C. Ropers, Attosecond electron pulse trains and quantum state reconstruction in ultrafast transmission electron microscopy, Nat. Photon.11, 793 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    Asban and F

    S. Asban and F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, Generation, characteri- zation, and manipulation of quantum correlations in electron beams, npj Quantum Inf.7, 42 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Bucher, H

    T. Bucher, H. Nahari, H. H. Sheinfuxet al., Coherently ampli- fied ultrafast imaging using a free-electron interferometer, Nat. Photon.18, 809 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    J. H. Gaida, H. Lourenc ¸o-Martins, M. Sivis, T. Rittmann, A. Feist, F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, and C. Ropers, Attosecond electron microscopy by free-electron homodyne detection, Nat. Photon. 18, 509 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ruimy, A

    R. Ruimy, A. Gorlach, C. Mechel, N. Rivera, and I. Kaminer, Toward Atomic-Resolution Quantum Measurements with Co- herently Shaped Free Electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 233403 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Gorlach, A

    A. Gorlach, A. Karnieli, R. Dahan, E. Cohen, A. Pe’er, and I. Kaminer, Ultrafast non-destructive measurement of the quan- tum state of light with free electrons, Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics OSA Technical Digest, Optica Publishing Group (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Karnieli, S

    A. Karnieli, S. Tsesses, R. Yu, Z. Zhao, A. Arie, S. Fan, and I. Kaminer, Quantum sensing of strongly coupled light-matter systems using free electrons, Sci. Adv.9, eadd2349 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    C. I. Velasco and F. J. Garc ´ıa de Abajo, Quantum sensing and metrology with free electrons, Nat. Commun.17, 868 (2026)

    2026

  33. [41]

    Braiman, O

    G. Braiman, O. Reinhardt, C. Mechel, O. Levi, and I. Kaminer, The Synthetic Hilbert Space of Laser-Driven Free-Electrons, Quantum7, 888 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Y . Pan, B. Zhang, and D. Podolsky, Synthetic Dimensions Us- ing Ultrafast Free Electrons, ACS Photonics11, 3563 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Y . Chen, K. Zeng, Z. Xieet al., Synthetic gain for electron- beam spectroscopy, Nat. Commun.17, 1452 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Y . Pan, R. Yin, Y . Ding, H. Wang, D. Podolsky, and B. Zhang, Free electron topological bound state induced by light beam with a twisted wavefront, arXiv:2401.00723

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Sirotin, A

    M. Sirotin, A. Rasputnyi, T. Chlouba, R. Shiloh, and P. Hom- melhoff, Quantum computing and quantum optics with recoiled free electrons, arXiv:2405.06560

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Battesti, P

    R. Battesti, P. Clad ´e, S. Guellati-Kh ´elifaet al., Bloch Oscilla- tions of Ultracold Atoms: A Tool for a Metrological Determi- nation ofh/m Rb, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 253001 (2004)

    2004

  39. [47]

    Stockhofe and P

    J. Stockhofe and P. Schmelcher, Bloch dynamics in lattices with long-range hopping, Phys. Rev. A91, 023606 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    U. Ali, M. Holthaus, and T. Meiker, Floquet dynamics of ultra- cold atoms in optical lattices with a parametrically modulated trapping potential, New J. Phys.26, 123016 (2024)

    2024

  41. [49]

    Gl ¨uck, A

    M. Gl ¨uck, A. R. Kolovsky, and H. J. Korsch, Wannier-Stark res- onances in optical and semiconductor superlattices, Phys. Rep. 366, 103 (2002)

    2002

  42. [50]

    H. P. Zhang and Z. Song, Formation of generalized Wannier- Stark ladders: Theorem and applications, Phys. Rev. B111, 014313 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Dikopoltsev, I

    A. Dikopoltsev, I. Heckelmann, M. Betrand, M. Beck, G. Scalari, O. Zilberberg, and J. Faist, Collective quench dynamics of active photonic lattices in synthetic dimensions, Nat. Phys. 21, 1134 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Y .-J. Lin, R. L. Compton, K. Jim´enez-Garc´ıa, W. D. Philips, J. V . Porto, and I. B. Spielman, A synthetic electric force acting on neutral atoms, Nat. Phys.7, 531 (2011)

    2011

  45. [53]

    Zapletal, S

    P. Zapletal, S. Walter, and F. Marquardt, Dynamically generated synthetic electric fields for photons, Phys. Rev. A100, 023804 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Tavakol and Y

    O. Tavakol and Y . B. Kim, Artificial electric field and electron hydrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Research3, 013290 (2021)

    2021

  47. [55]

    Zhang, C

    S. Zhang, C. Lv, Q. Zhou, Synthetic tensor gauge fields, Phys. Rev. Research7, 013013 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    B. T. Torosov and N. V . Vitanov, Smooth composite pulses for high-fidelity quantum information processing, Phys. Rev. A83, 053420 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    G. T. Genov, D. Schraft, T. Hallfmann, and N. V . Vitanov, Correction of Arbitrary Field Errors in Population Inversion of Quantum Systems by Universal Composite Pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 043001 (2014)

    2014

  50. [58]

    Gu ´ery-Odlin, A

    D. Gu ´ery-Odlin, A. Ruschhaupt, A. Kiely, E. Torrontegui, S. Mart´ınez-Garaot, and J. G. Muga, Shortcuts to adiabaticity: Concepts, methods, and applications, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 045001 (2019)

    2019

  51. [59]

    Y . Ding, Y . Ban, J. D. Mart´ın-Guerrero, E. Solano, J. Casanova, and X. Chen, Breaking adiabatic quantum control with deep learning, Phys. Rev. A103, L040401 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    Takahashi and A

    K. Takahashi and A. del Campo, Shortcuts to Adiabaticity in Krylov Space, Phys. Rev. X14, 011032 (2024)

    2024

  53. [61]

    L. S. Pontryagin, Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes, https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203749319

    doi

  54. [62]

    Boscain, M

    U. Boscain, M. Sigalotti, and D. Sugny, Introduction to the Pon- tryagin maximum principle for quantum optimal control, PRX Quantum2, 030203 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    Khaneja, T

    N. Khaneja, T. Reiss, C. Kehlet, T. Schulte-Herbr¨uggen, and S. J. Glaser, Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of NMR pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms, J. Magn. Reson.172, 296 (2005)

    2005

  56. [64]

    D. M. Reich, M. Ndong, and C. P. Koch, Monotonically conver- gent optimization in quantum control using Krotov’s method, J. Chem. Phys.136, 104103 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    Ding, T.-Y

    Y . Ding, T.-Y . Huang, K. Paul, M. Hao, and X. Chen, Smooth bang-bang shortcuts to adiabaticity for atomic transport in a moving harmonic trap, Phys. Rev. A101, 063410 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Hocker, J

    D. Hocker, J. Yan, and H. Rabitz, Optimal nonlinear coher- ent mode transitions in Bose-Einstein condensates utilizing spa- tiotemporal controls, Phys. Rev. A93, 053612 (2016)

    2016

  59. [67]

    Sørensen, M

    J. Sørensen, M. Aranburu, T. Heinzel, and J. Sherson, Quantum optimal control in a chopped basis: Applications in control of Bose-Einstein condensates, Phys. Rev. A98, 022119 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Larrouy, S

    A. Larrouy, S. Patsch, R. Richaud, J.-M. Raimond, M. Brune, C. P. Koch, and S. Gleyzes, Fast Navigation in a Large Hilbert Space Using Quantum Optimal Control, Phys. Rev. X10, 021058 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Dupont, G

    N. Dupont, G. Chatelain, L. Gabardos, M. Arnal, J. Billy, B. Peaudecerf, D. Sugny, and D. Gu ´ery-Odelin, Quantum State Control of a Bose-Einstein Condensate in an Optical Lattice, PRX Quantum2, 040303 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    Heeres, P

    R. Heeres, P. Reinhold, N. Ofek, L. Frunzio, L. Jiang, M. De- voret, and R. Schoelkopf, Implementing a universal gate set on a logical qubit encoded in an oscillator, Nat. Commun.8, 94 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Lewalle and K

    P. Lewalle and K. B. Whaley, Pontryagin-optimal control of a non-Hermitian qubit, Phys. Rev. A107, 022216 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    Karmakar and A

    T. Karmakar and A. N. Jordan, CDJ-Pontryagin Optimal Con- trol for General Continuously Monitored Quantum Systems, Quantum10, 2043 (2026)

  65. [73]

    X. Chen, E. Torrontegui, D. Stefanatos, J.-S. Li, and J. G. Muga, Optimal trajectories for efficient atomic transport without final excitation, Phys. Rev. A84, 043415 (2011). 13

    2011

  66. [74]

    H. A. F ¨urst, M. H. Goerz, U. G. Poschinger, M. Murphy, S. Montangero, T. Calarco, F. Schmidt-Kaler, K. Singer, and C. P. Koch, Controlling the transport of an ion: classical and quan- tum mechanical solutions, New J. Phys.16, 075007 (2014)

    2014

  67. [75]

    Evangelakos, E

    V . Evangelakos, E. Paspalakis, D. Stefanatos, Minimum-time generation of a uniform superposition in a qubit with only trans- verse field control, Phys. Rev. A108, 062425 (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    M. Zhou, F. A. C ´ardenas-L´opez, D. Sugny, and X. Chen, Op- timal Control for Open Quantum System in Circuit Quantum Electrodynamics, arXiv:2412.20149

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Dong, X.-L

    X.-Y . Dong, X.-L. Wang, and W.-L. Ma, Pontryagin’s Prin- ciple for Leakage-Immune Adiabatic Quantum State Transfer, arXiv:2604.09196

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Z.-C. Yang, A. Rahmani, A. Shabani, H. Neven, and C. Cha- mon, Optimizing Variational Quantum Algorithms Using Pon- tryagin’s Minimum Principle, Phys. Rev. X7, 021027 (2017)

    2017

  71. [79]

    Y . Pan, B. Zhang, and D. Podolsky, Low-energy Free-electron Rabi oscillation and its applications, arXiv:2304.12174

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    C. K. Law and J. H. Eberly, Arbitrary Control of a Quantum Electromagnetic Field, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1055 (1996)

    1996

  73. [81]

    L. Yuan, Q. Lin, M. Xiao, and S. Fan, Synthetic dimension in photonics, Optica5, 1396 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amoet al., Topological photonics, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 015006 (2019)

    2019

  75. [83]

    Kone ˇcn´a, V

    A. Kone ˇcn´a, V . Di Giulio, V . Mkhitaryan, C. Ropers, and F. J. Garc´ıa de Abajo, Nanoscale Nonlinear Spectroscopy with Elec- tron Beams, ACS Photonics7, 1290 (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Berry, N

    M. Berry, N. Zheludev, Y . Aharonovet al., J. Opt.21, 053002 (2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    Remez, Y

    R. Remez, Y . Tsur, P.-H. Lu, A. H. Tavabi, R. E. Dunin- Borkowski, and A. Arie, Superoscillating electron wave func- tions with subdiffraction spots, Phys. Rev. A95, 031802(R) (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed July 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.