Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Nonlinear Response via Sublinear Optics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper demonstrates that tracking control can force a hydrogen atom to emit light whose intensity scales as a fractional power of the driving field, a response lying outside the conventional integer-order nonlinear optics hierarchy.

desk verdict Novel target family and WPCD benchmark, but the sublinear-response claim rests on an unverified basis in the tracking regime — worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19154 v1 pith:3BGWHLLF submitted 2026-07-21 quant-ph

Mykhaylo Khoma , Valeriia Bilokon , Elvira Bilokon , Denys I. Bondar This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords sublinearopticalresponsetrackingcontrolhydrogenatomwave-packetcontinuumdiscretizationnonlinearopticsstrong-fieldphysicsdipoleaccelerationfractionalpower-law
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

The paper shows that a hydrogen atom can be driven by a self-consistently determined laser field to produce an optical response that scales as a sublinear power of the applied field, such as a cube root. This is achieved by solving a nonlinear algebraic equation at each time step that enforces a prescribed relation between the dipole acceleration and the driving field. The authors argue this constitutes a general route to engineering optical nonlinearities beyond the perturbative expansion. The demonstration relies on a compact wave-packet representation of the continuum that treats bound and ionized states on equal footing.

What carries the argument

The tracking equation (Eq. 7) is the central object: a nonlinear algebraic relation that determines the instantaneous driving field from the expectation value of the Coulomb force, ⟨F_z⟩ = ⟨Ψ|−∂V_0/∂z|Ψ⟩. Solving this equation self-consistently at every time step converts a desired response law into a concrete field waveform. The computation of ⟨F_z⟩, including continuum contributions, is made feasible by the wave-packet continuum discretization (WPCD) basis, which represents continuum states as square-integrable energy-bin superpositions, allowing bound and continuum states to be treated in a single finite Hilbert space.

What would settle it

An independent converged three-dimensional time-dependent Schrödinger equation simulation of the same tracking field, using a substantially larger or different basis, that fails to reproduce the target power law would cast doubt on the claim. Alternatively, a laboratory measurement of the emitted field scaling showing a deviation from the prescribed fractional power for a driven hydrogen-like system would falsify the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sublinear optical response, described by R_target(t) = α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} with ν > 1, can be realized by tracking control. By requiring the dipole acceleration R(t) = d⟨p_z⟩/dt to equal the target, the driving field is obtained at each instant from the tracking equation α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} + E = ⟨Ψ|F_z|Ψ⟩, whose right-hand side depends on the evolving quantum state. The paper reports that the achieved response collapses onto the target power law for multiple exponents (ν = 3, 5, 7) and strengths (α = 0.03, 0.04, 0.05), demonstrating that a single quantum system can exhibit a family of distinct sublinear responses.

Load-bearing premise

The finite 512-state wave-packet basis is assumed to faithfully represent the hydrogen continuum throughout the tracking dynamics, a regime that may involve more intense and complex fields than the modest benchmark pulse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, optical responses can be designed to follow arbitrary power laws, including fractional and sign-dependent scalings, in a single atomic system rather than by fabricating new materials.
  • Sublinear responses enhance the relative strength of weak fields while compressing strong ones, which could enable dynamic-range compression and improved weak-signal detection in optical sensing.
  • The tracking-control framework offers a systematic way to analyze non-integer optical responses that may emerge naturally in engineered materials, such as strained graphene.
  • The WPCD basis provides an efficient numerical tool for strong-field optics and quantum control, potentially making converged continuum-inclusive simulations routine.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same self-consistent tracking mechanism could be applied to engineer other non-analytic response functions, such as logarithmic or saturating scalings, by replacing the power-law target in Eq. (5).
  • The requirement of full knowledge of ⟨F_z⟩ from the instantaneous wavefunction suggests the scheme may be sensitive to decoherence or many-body effects; in real experiments, feedback or robust control might be needed.
  • A natural extension is to translate the engineered sublinear response from the atomic dipole to macroscopic media, where collective effects and propagation could alter the effective field–response relation.
  • The divergence of the derivative of |E|^{1/ν} at zero crossing is circumvented here by a variable transformation; similar regularizations could be important for other singular targets.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to use quantum tracking control to make the dipole acceleration of a hydrogen atom follow a prescribed sublinear power-law response, R_target(t) = α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν}, with ν>1. The field is not prescribed; instead, at each time step the algebraic equation α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} + E = ⟨Ψ|F_z|Ψ⟩ is solved and the resulting E(t) is used to propagate the Schrödinger equation. The propagation is performed in a wave-packet continuum discretization (WPCD) basis containing 512 states. The authors benchmark the WPCD basis against a converged TDSE for HHG at E0=0.02 a.u., verify the Ehrenfest relations for a benchmark pulse, and then show that for several α and ν the computed response R(t)=d⟨p_z⟩/dt collapses onto the target curve. They conclude that tracking control is a general route to engineering optical responses beyond conventional polynomial nonlinearities.

Significance. If the numerical demonstration is supported by a convergence study in the tracking regime, the paper provides a valuable proof-of-principle: a feedback-determined waveform can make a single quantum system exhibit a sublinear optical response that lies outside the standard integer-order susceptibility expansion. The derivation from Ehrenfest's theorem is clean, and the WPCD basis is a computationally efficient tool that appears well suited to this problem. The paper also includes useful validation steps, namely the HHG benchmark and the Ehrenfest consistency check. The main limitation is that the headline result, the collapse of the response onto the target power law, is enforced by construction through Eq. (7); the physically nontrivial content is whether the self-consistent tracking field, when applied to the real atom, would produce the same response. That question hinges on the fidelity of the 512-state WPCD basis in the tracking regime, which is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (7) and Figs. 3–4] The agreement between R(t) and R_target(t) in Figs. 3(a) and 4 is imposed by construction. Since the propagation uses the field E(t) obtained by solving Eq. (7), and since Eq. (6) is the Ehrenfest relation in the same finite basis, R(t)=⟨F_z⟩−E(t) equals α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} automatically (up to numerical solution of the algebraic equation and the ODE integrator). Thus Figs. 3–4 verify that the solver works, not that hydrogen physically realizes a sublinear response. This is not fatal, but the physical claim must be reframed: the nontrivial assertion is that the E_track(t) generated by this procedure, when applied to the true atom, would indeed produce the target response. That requires the WPCD basis to be faithful for the tracking trajectories, which is only indirectly supported by the current benchmarks.
  2. [Sec. II A and Sec. III] No convergence study is reported for the tracking trajectories. The WPCD basis is fixed at nmax=17, Lmax=6, and 60 continuum bins per ℓ, and the only external benchmark is an HHG spectrum at E0=0.02 a.u. (Fig. 1). The tracking fields shown in Fig. 3(b) are self-consistent and can be more intense and spectrally broader than the benchmark pulse, so the HHG validation does not bound the truncation error in the tracking regime. The authors should report how the R-versus-E_track curves in Fig. 4 change as nmax, Lmax, and the number of continuum bins are increased, and ideally compare one tracking trajectory against a converged TDSE calculation. Without this, the sublinear response could be a basis artifact.
  3. [Sec. II B and Fig. 2] The Ehrenfest verification in Fig. 2 is performed for a benchmark pulse, not for a tracking pulse, and the text does not specify the driving parameters, the basis, or the magnitude of the discrepancy. Since the tracking algorithm relies sensitively on the identity R=⟨F_z⟩−E, and since finite bases violate Ehrenfest theorems (as the text itself notes), the relevant check is the Ehrenfest violation for the actual E_track(t) used in Figs. 3–4. A quantification of the discrepancy for a tracking run is needed to support the claim that the tracking equation is physically meaningful.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III, Fig. 2] Please specify the pulse parameters and basis used for the Ehrenfest verification. The statement that 'the small discrepancy visible in Fig. 2 can be further reduced by using a lower intensity' is vague; the discrepancy should be quantified.
  2. [Sec. IV] The claim of 'orders-of-magnitude speedup over converged three-dimensional TDSE calculations' is not supported by any timing or memory comparison in the paper. Please provide quantitative performance data or soften the claim.
  3. [References [45] and [50]] References [45] and [50] have empty parentheses; the Jupyter notebook and GitHub repository URLs or DOIs are missing. These are needed to verify the reproducibility claims.
  4. [Sec. II B] The statement 'a solution of Eq. (7) always exists' is true, but it would be helpful to give a one-line argument: the function E ↦ E+α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} is continuous, odd-like, and surjective onto R. The uniqueness of the solution is also worth stating explicitly.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The word 'prove' in Section IV and 'prove that a quantum system can be driven' in the Introduction overstate the numerical demonstration. The existence of a tracking field is established by construction, but the physical realization is a computational demonstration. I suggest using 'show' or 'demonstrate' throughout.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The sublinear-response demonstration is enforced by construction via Eq. (7): the target R–E law is inserted into the Ehrenfest relation, so Figs. 3–4 verify the solver rather than independently predicting the response.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II B, Eq. (7); Sec. III, Figs. 3 and 4]
    "The tracking control ensures R(t)=R_target(t). Hence, substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (6) and solving for E(t) yields the tracking equation, αsgn(E)|E(t)|^{1/ν}+E(t)=⟨Ψ(t)|F_z|Ψ(t)⟩ ... As seen, the two curves coincide to numerical precision throughout the entire propagation window, confirming that the tracking equation (7) is satisfied at every time step."

    Eq. (7) is obtained by requiring R=R_target (Eq. 5) and using the exact Ehrenfest identity R=⟨F_z⟩−E (Eq. 6). Thus any waveform that solves Eq. (7) at each time step yields R(t)=α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} identically in the model; the agreement in Figs. 3(a) and 4 is a check that the algebraic equation was solved, not an independent confirmation that hydrogen exhibits sublinear response. The physical content is the existence and character of E_track(t) and whether the finite 512-state WPCD basis faithfully represents the dynamics under that self-consistent field; the paper's HHG benchmark is for a different, prescribed 0.02 a.u. pulse, and no convergence study for tracking trajectories is reported, so the tracking-regime claim rests on an unverified truncation assumption.

full rationale

The central demonstration is partially circular by construction: the paper defines the desired sublinear law in Eq. (5), substitutes it into the Ehrenfest relation to obtain the tracking equation (7), and then solves that equation at every time step. Therefore the observed agreement between R(t) and R_target(t) in Figs. 3 and 4 is guaranteed by the design of the control field, up to the accuracy of the numerical root solve and propagation. This does not make the whole paper worthless: the nontrivial computational achievement is the self-consistent determination of E_track(t) and the use of the WPCD basis to do so. The paper also provides independent support for the basis through the HHG benchmark against an external TDSE calculation and the Ehrenfest consistency check. However, those benchmarks are performed for a prescribed 0.02 a.u. pulse, not for the tracking fields, which can be more complex and intense; without a convergence study in the tracking regime, the physical claim that hydrogen 'realizes' the sublinear response rests on an unverified representation of the continuum. No load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem is present; the WPCD method is cited from external authors, and the one self-citation (Ref. [48]) is not used to force the central result. Overall, the headline 'sublinear response' is an input enforced by Eq. (7), giving a partial circularity score of 6 rather than a fully independent first-principles prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-mechanics modeling (single active electron, dipole approximation, Larmor identification of response), on the finite WPCD basis truncation, and on a hand-chosen pump that seeds ⟨F_z⟩≠0. The target parameters α and ν are chosen design inputs, not fitted to external data; their values define the demonstration.

free parameters (4)
  • Target scaling constant α = 0.03, 0.04, 0.05 (a.u.)
    Hand-chosen design parameter in Eq. (5); defines the target sublinear response and affects the dynamic range; not fitted to external data.
  • Sublinearity exponent ν = 3, 5, 7
    Hand-chosen values of the exponent in Eq. (5); the paper's central demonstration shows tracking for these values only.
  • Pump pulse parameters = E0=0.05 a.u., ω≈0.114 a.u., Ncycles=5, duration 300 a.u.
    Chosen to seed a state with ⟨F_z⟩≠0; the initial state determines the accessible tracking dynamic range.
  • WPCD basis truncation = nmax=17, Lmax=6, 60 continuum bins (512 states)
    Finite basis chosen for computation; no convergence study is reported for tracking simulations, so the result depends on this truncation.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Ehrenfest theorem d⟨p_z⟩/dt = ⟨F_z⟩ − E(t) holds in the finite-dimensional basis
    Used to derive Eq. (6) and the tracking equation (7); Section II B. The paper verifies it approximately in Section III, but it is assumed as governing dynamics.
  • domain assumption Single-active-electron, dipole approximation, nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation for hydrogen
    Hamiltonian (1); standard strong-field atomic physics idealization.
  • domain assumption Larmor formula: emitted field ∝ d⟨p_z⟩/dt
    Sec. II B defines optical response R(t) as dipole acceleration; no radiation reaction is included.
  • domain assumption Wave-packet continuum discretization from Refs [37,38] faithfully represents continuum dynamics in finite basis
    Section II A; relied on for all results, validated only indirectly by Fig 1 HHG benchmark.
  • ad hoc to paper Initial state after pump has nonzero ⟨F_z⟩ in the required direction and sufficient magnitude for tracking
    Section III: if ⟨F_z⟩=0 the tracking equation traps at E=0; the pump is a hand-selected seed.
  • standard math Uniqueness/existence of solutions of Eq. (7)
    Function E + α sgn(E)|E|^{1/ν} is strictly increasing and surjective; paper states 'a solution always exists'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Response via Sublinear Optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3BGWHLLF

@misc{pith2026260719154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Response via Sublinear Optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3BGWHLLF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19154}
}
read the original abstract

Sublinear optical response, in which the emitted field scales as a fractional power of the driving field, lies beyond the conventional perturbative hierarchy of nonlinear optics. Here, we show that such a response can be engineered in a hydrogen atom using tracking control. Rather than prescribing the driving waveform, the field is determined self-consistently from the evolving quantum state to enforce a chosen relation between the optical response and the applied field. We demonstrate accurate tracking for multiple exponents and scaling strengths, establishing that a single atomic system can be driven to realize a family of distinct sublinear responses. The calculations are enabled by a compact wave-packet continuum discretization that treats bound and continuum states on equal footing and is applied here, to the best of our knowledge, for the first time to strong-field optics and quantum control. These results establish tracking control as a general route to engineering optical responses beyond conventional polynomial nonlinearities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19154 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Numerical verification of the Ehrenfest theorems. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Tracking control for a cube-root response with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Bloembergen,Nonlinear Optics, G - Refer- ence,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (World Scientific, 1996)

    N. Bloembergen,Nonlinear Optics, G - Refer- ence,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (World Scientific, 1996)

    1996

  2. [2]

    Y. R. Shen,Principles of nonlinear optics(Wiley- Interscience,New York, NY, USA, 1984)

    1984

  3. [3]

    R. W. Boyd,Nonlinear optics, 3rd ed. (Academic Press, Amsterdam ; Boston, 2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    J. A. Armstrong, N. Bloembergen, J. Ducuing, and P. S. Pershan, Interactions between Light Waves in a Nonlin- ear Dielectric, Phys. Rev.127, 1918 (1962)

    1918

  5. [5]

    P. A. Franken, A. E. Hill, C. W. Peters, and G. Weinreich, Generation of Optical Harmonics, Phys. Rev. Lett.7, 118 (1961)

    1961

  6. [6]

    McPherson, G

    A. McPherson, G. Gibson, H. Jara, U. Johann, T. S. Luk, I. A. McIntyre, K. Boyer, and C. K. Rhodes, Studies of multiphoton production of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation in the rare gases, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B4, 595 (1987)

    1987

  7. [7]

    Ferray, A

    M. Ferray, A. L’Huillier, X. F. Li, L. A. Lompre, G. Main- fray, and C. Manus, Multiple-harmonic conversion of 1064 nm radiation in rare gases, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics21, L31 (1988)

    1988

  8. [8]

    Seres, E

    J. Seres, E. Seres, A. J. Verhoef, G. Tempea, C. Streli, P. Wobrauschek, V. Yakovlev, A. Scrinzi, C. Spielmann, and F. Krausz, Source of coherent kiloelectronvolt X- rays, Nature433, 596 (2005)

    2005

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Attosecond physics, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    A. I. Kuznetsovet al., Roadmap for Optical Metasur- faces, ACS Photonics11, 816 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    G. Li, S. Zhang, and T. Zentgraf, Nonlinear photonic metasurfaces, Nature Reviews Materials2, 17010 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    K. L. Koshelev, P. Tonkaev, and Y. S. Kivshar, Nonlinear chiral metaphotonics: a perspective, Advanced Photonics 5, 064001 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Schulzet al., Roadmap on photonic metasurfaces, Ap- plied Physics Letters124, 260701 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Zograf, A

    G. Zograf, A. Y. Polyakov, M. Bancerek, T. J. An- tosiewicz, B. K¨ u¸ c¨ uk¨ oz, and T. O. Shegai, Combining ul- trahigh index with exceptional nonlinearity in resonant transition metal dichalcogenide nanodisks, Nature Pho- tonics18, 751 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. T. Wang, P. Tonkaev, K. Koshelev, F. Lai, S. Kruk, Q. Song, Y. Kivshar, and N. C. Panoiu, Resonantly en- hanced second- and third-harmonic generation in dielec- tric nonlinear metasurfaces, Opto-Electronic Advances7, 230186 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    S. Park, J. Yu, G. Boehm, M. A. Belkin, and J. Lee, Electrically tunable third-harmonic generation using in- tersubband polaritonic metasurfaces, Light: Science & Applications13, 169 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    M. Z. Alam, I. D. Leon, and R. W. Boyd, Large optical nonlinearity of indium tin oxide in its epsilon-near-zero region, Science352, 795 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Reshef, E

    O. Reshef, E. Giese, M. Z. Alam, I. D. Leon, J. Upham, and R. W. Boyd, Beyond the perturbative description of the nonlinear optical response of low-index materials, Opt. Lett.42, 3225 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    X. Niu, X. Hu, S. Chu, and Q. Gong, Epsilon-Near-Zero Photonics: A New Platform for Integrated Devices, Ad- vanced Optical Materials6, 1701292 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Reshef, I

    O. Reshef, I. De Leon, M. Z. Alam, and R. W. Boyd, Nonlinear optical effects in epsilon-near-zero media, Na- ture Reviews Materials4, 535 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Yanget al., High-harmonic generation from an epsilon-near-zero material, Nature Physics15, 1022 (2019)

    Y. Yanget al., High-harmonic generation from an epsilon-near-zero material, Nature Physics15, 1022 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Fomra, A

    D. Fomra, A. Ball, S. Saha, J. Wu, M. Sojib, A. Agrawal, H. J. Lezec, and N. Kinsey, Nonlinear optics at ep- silon near zero: From origins to new materials, Applied Physics Reviews11, 011317 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    J. Wu, M. Clementi, C. Huang, F. Ye, H. Fu, L. Lu, S. Zhang, Q. Li, and C.-S. Br` es, Thermo-optic epsilon-near-zero effects, Nature Communications15, 794 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Gross, H

    P. Gross, H. Singh, H. Rabitz, K. Mease, and G. Huang, Inverse quantum-mechanical control: A means for de- sign and a test of intuition, Physical Review A47, 4593 (1993)

    1993

  17. [25]

    W. Zhu, M. Smit, and H. Rabitz, Managing singular be- havior in the tracking control of quantum dynamical ob- servables, J. Chem. Phys.110, 1905 (1999)

    1905

  18. [26]

    C. P. Koch, U. Boscain, T. Calarco, G. Dirr, S. Fil- ipp, S. J. Glaser, R. Kosloff, S. Montangero, T. Schulte- Herbr¨ uggen, D. Sugny, and F. K. Wilhelm, Quantum op- timal control in quantum technologies. Strategic report on current status, visions and goals for research in Eu...

    2022

  19. [27]

    A. G. Campos, D. I. Bondar, R. Cabrera, and H. A. Rabitz, How to Make Distinct Dynamical Systems Ap- pear Spectrally Identical, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 1 (2017), 1611.02699

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Magann, T.-S

    A. Magann, T.-S. Ho, and H. Rabitz, Singularity-free quantum tracking control of molecular rotor orientation, Phys. Rev. A98, 043429 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    McCaul, C

    G. McCaul, C. Orthodoxou, K. Jacobs, G. H. Booth, and D. I. Bondar, Driven imposters: Controlling expec- tations in many-body systems, Physical Review Letters 124, 183201 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    McCaul, C

    G. McCaul, C. Orthodoxou, K. Jacobs, G. H. Booth, and D. I. Bondar, Controlling arbitrary observables in 6 correlated many-body systems, Physical Review A101, 053408 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    McCaul, A

    G. McCaul, A. F. King, and D. I. Bondar, Optical indis- tinguishability via twinning fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 113201 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Masur, D

    J. Masur, D. I. Bondar, and G. McCaul, Dynamical Generation of Epsilon-Near-Zero Behaviour via Track- ing and Feedback Control (2023), arXiv:2301.12069 [physics.optics]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alqattan, D

    H. Alqattan, D. Hui, V. Pervak, and M. T. Hassan, At- tosecond light field synthesis, APL Photonics7, 041301 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    McCaul, P

    G. McCaul, P. Peng, M. O. Martinez, D. R. Lindberg, D. Talbayev, and D. I. Bondar, Superoscillations Deliver Superspectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 153803 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    P. Peng, D. R. Lindberg, G. McCaul, D. I. Bondar, and D. Talbayev, Super-sensing: 100-fold enhancement in THz time-domain spectroscopy contrast via super- oscillating waveform shaping, APL Photonics10, 086107 (2025)

    2025

  28. [36]

    McCaul, M

    G. McCaul, M. Runge, M. Woerner, D. Talbayev, T. El- saesser, and D. I. Bondar, Tuning the terahertz response of liquids by creating polar many-body excitations, Phys. Rev. A112, L011101 (2025)

    2025

  29. [37]

    O. A. Rubtsova, V. I. Kukulin, and V. N. Pomerantsev, Wave-packet continuum discretization for quantum scat- tering, Annals of Physics360, 613 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    V. N. Pomerantsev, V. I. Kukulin, O. A. Rubtsova, and S. K. Sakhiev, Fast GPU-based calculations in few-body quantum scattering, Computer Physics Communications 204, 121 (2016)

    2016

  31. [39]

    I. B. Abdurakhmanov, A. S. Kadyrov, and I. Bray, Wave- packet continuum-discretization approach to ion-atom collisions: Nonrearrangement scattering, Physical Re- view A94, 022703 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    S. B. S. Miller, A. Ekstr¨ om, and C. Forss´ en, Wave-packet continuum discretisation for nucleon-nucleon scattering predictions, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics49, 024001 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ ohnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Singularit¨ aten und die zugeh¨ origen Entwicklungen willk¨ urlicher Funktionen, Mathematische Annalen68, 220 (1910)

    H. Weyl, ¨Uber gew¨ ohnliche Differentialgleichungen mit Singularit¨ aten und die zugeh¨ origen Entwicklungen willk¨ urlicher Funktionen, Mathematische Annalen68, 220 (1910)

    1910

  34. [42]

    Bethe, Quantenmechanik der Ein- und Zwei- Elektronenprobleme, inHandbuch der Physik, Vol

    H. Bethe, Quantenmechanik der Ein- und Zwei- Elektronenprobleme, inHandbuch der Physik, Vol. XXIV, edited by H. Geiger and K. Scheel (Springer, Berlin, 1933) zweite ed., pp. 273–560

    1933

  35. [43]

    E. P. Wigner,Group Theory and its Application to the Quantum Mechanics of Atomic Spectra(Academic Press, New York, London, 1959)

    1959

  36. [44]

    Patchkovskii and H

    S. Patchkovskii and H. Muller, Simple, accurate, and efficient implementation of 1-electron atomic time- dependent Schr¨ odinger equation in spherical coordinates, Computer Physics Communications199, 153 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Jupyter notebook for benchmarking the utilized wpcd basis ()

  38. [46]

    Ehrenfest, Bemerkung ¨ uber die angen¨ aherte G¨ ultigkeit der klassischen Mechanik innerhalb der Quanten- mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik45, 455 (1927)

    P. Ehrenfest, Bemerkung ¨ uber die angen¨ aherte G¨ ultigkeit der klassischen Mechanik innerhalb der Quanten- mechanik, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik45, 455 (1927)

    1927

  39. [47]

    L. E. Ballentine, Y. Yang, and J. P. Zibin, Inadequacy of Ehrenfest’s theorem to characterize the classical regime, Phys. Rev. A50, 2854 (1994)

    1994

  40. [48]

    D. I. Bondar, R. Cabrera, and H. A. Rabitz, Conceptual inconsistencies in finite-dimensional quantum and clas- sical mechanics, Physical Review A88, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.88.012116 (2013)

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    Ornigotti, L

    M. Ornigotti, L. Ornigotti, and F. Biancalana, Genera- tion of half-integer harmonics and efficient THz-to-visible frequency conversion in strained graphene, APL Photon- ics6, 060801 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Github for nonlinear response via sublinear optics ()

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.