Time-resolved ARPES in pumped excitonic systems: Floquet physics induced by excitonic fields

Adolfo Avella (Dipartimento di Fisica 'E.R. Caianiello'; Amir Eskandari-asl; I-84084 Fisciano (SA); Italy); Universit\`a degli Studi di Salerno

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 103 references

Time-resolved ARPES in pumped excitonic systems: Floquet physics induced by excitonic fields

T0 review · 4 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 claims that after resonant photoexcitation, coherent oscillation of the excitonic order parameter acts as an internal field that imprints Floquet sidebands on the electron spectrum, and that these sidebands persist after the pump

desk verdict DPOA applied to HF-interacting pumped semiconductors is a useful methodological extension with clean sideband classification, but the experimental corroboration is softer than claimed because the mean-field dynamics have no dephasing and the numerics ship no convergence checks. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19242 v1 pith:NSDJNAL6 submitted 2026-07-21 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.other

Amir Eskandari-asl , Adolfo Avella (Dipartimento di Fisica 'E.R. Caianiello' , Università degli Studi di Salerno , I-84084 Fisciano (SA) , Italy) This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.other

keywords time-resolvedARPESexcitonsFloquetsidebandsHartree-Fockpump-probeexcitonicinsulatortwo-dimensionalsemiconductorultrafastdynamics

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 aims to show that after an intense pump pulse resonantly excites an excitonic mode in a semiconductor, the excitonic order parameter keeps oscillating and acts as its own time-periodic field, producing Floquet sidebands in time-resolved photoemission even after the laser is off. The authors compute this in a two-dimensional two-band model with Coulomb interactions at the Hartree-Fock level, using an operator-based real-time method. They distinguish these exciton-field sidebands from conventional laser-driven Floquet sidebands and from sidebands caused by residual interband coherences. If true, this gives a clean fingerprint of coherent excitonic dynamics and a computationally light route to a signal previously seen in expensive simulations and in experiment.

What carries the argument

The engine is the time-dependent Hartree-Fock self-energy, specifically its off-diagonal element ΔΓ(t), which serves as the excitonic order parameter. Within the authors' operator-based real-time evolution, the pump dresses the bands while it is on; once it is off, ΔΓ(t) continues to oscillate at the excitonic frequency, acting as an internal oscillating field that generates Floquet sidebands. The key variable is the Fourier peak |ΔΓ(ω)|, whose frequency and amplitude encode the pump-induced shift of the excitonic resonance and the strength of the sideband.

What would settle it

If a beyond-mean-field simulation of this model that includes dephasing shows the ΔΓ(t) oscillation damping within tens of femtoseconds, the sidebands would vanish; likewise, a TR-ARPES experiment on a monolayer transition-metal dichalcogenide pumped at the 1s exciton resonance that sees no post-pump sideband would contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the oscillating off-diagonal Hartree-Fock self-energy—the 'excitonic field'—is sufficient to produce the Floquet sidebands seen in the post-pump TR-ARPES spectrum. In the semiconducting phase, pumping near the equilibrium excitonic resonance leaves the order parameter oscillating at a pump-intensity-dependent frequency, and this oscillation dresses the valence band with a parallel sideband that is strongest at the zone center. In the excitonic-insulator phase, the pump partially melts the equilibrium order and the same mechanism yields sidebands parallel to both occupied bands. The authors also identify a second, distinct class of sidebands arising from residual coh

Load-bearing premise

The post-pump coherence that drives the sidebands rests entirely on the Hartree-Fock mean-field approximation, which neglects dephasing, screening dynamics, and correlation-induced decay.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

TR-ARPES at positive pump-probe delays can distinguish exciton-mediated Floquet dressing from laser-field dressing, because only the former survives after the pulse.
The excitonic frequency is pump-intensity tunable: stronger pulses shift the effective resonance, so sideband positions encode pump fluence.
The Mexican-hat renormalization of the valence band emerges as a natural consequence of the oscillating mean field, offering a measurable band-structure signature.
In the excitonic-insulator phase, TR-ARPES sidebands running parallel to occupied bands provide a probe of pump-induced melting and recovery of excitonic order.
The same framework extends to local-interaction models, indicating the phenomenology does not rely on the long-range character of the Coulomb potential.

Reading between the lines

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

The pump-intensity dependence of the excitonic frequency suggests a mean-field nonlinearity that could be used to extract the electron-hole interaction strength from a series of TR-ARPES measurements at different fluences.
If dephasing were added, the post-pump sidebands would likely persist only for a time set by the inverse exciton linewidth; the paper's prediction of near-infinite coherence is its most exposed point, so a time-resolved measurement of sideband lifetime is a natural next test.
The same oscillating-order-parameter mechanism should apply to other collective modes (spin waves, charge order) pumped resonantly, suggesting TR-ARPES as a general probe of coherent order-parameter dynamics.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The part worth keeping is the method application: DPOA extended to a self-consistent HF two-band model, with the TR-ARPES signal reduced to a Q-matrix convolution. That is genuinely cheap and lets the authors separate exciton-field sidebands from band-resonance sidebands by looking at the post-pump regime where only the HF self-energy oscillates. The local-interaction limit is a nice control: because the self-energy becomes k-independent but the sideband stays strongest near Γ, the small-detuning argument does real work. The Mexican-hat flattening at higher pump amplitude is also consistent with the cited experiment.

The soft spots are what you would expect from a purely mean-field, parameter-heavy study. Most important: the time evolution is unitary, so any coherence generated by the pump persists forever. The post-pump oscillations in Fig. 3 and the sidebands at t_pr = 40 fs are guaranteed by the absence of dephasing, recombination, or screening. Calling this a quantitative corroboration of Ref. [82] is therefore an overreach. A realistic dephasing time on the order of tens of femtoseconds could move or wash out the sideband intensity maximum. The paper needs an estimate of the HF error or a beyond-HF test before that claim is secure.

Second, there are no convergence studies, no benchmarks against the TD-aGW results, no code, no data. For a method paper that emphasizes efficiency, a runtime comparison and a k-grid/timestep convergence check would substantially raise confidence. The parameter choices are numerous and the quantitative claims (1.20 eV shifting to 1.35 eV, 0.06–0.20 eV shifts in the ΔΓ peak) rest entirely on unshown numerical output.

One apparent criticism is not a real flaw: using a weak impulsive pump to find the equilibrium excitonic frequency and then pumping at that frequency is standard resonance determination, not circularity. The paper explicitly notes that for weak pumps the extracted frequency is an intrinsic system property. That part is fine.

Minor: Fig. 5's caption says V = 6 eV while the text and Fig. 1(b) indicate V = 15 eV; a typo, but one that should be caught.

The physics is plausible, the method is clearly presented, and the sideband classification will be useful to people simulating pump-probe spectra of excitonic systems. It deserves a serious referee, but with the expectation that the authors add dephasing estimates, convergence checks, and temper the experimental-corrobation claim.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Dynamical Projective Operatorial Approach (DPOA) to pumped excitonic systems, incorporating Coulomb interactions at the Hartree-Fock (HF) level. It derives the time evolution of the single-particle density matrix and the TR-ARPES signal, and applies the formalism to a prototypical two-dimensional two-band semiconductor. The authors compute the equilibrium phase diagram, define an equilibrium excitonic frequency via the response to a weak impulsive pump, and then show that pumping at or near this frequency produces post-pump Floquet sidebands in the TR-ARPES spectrum, which they attribute to coherent oscillations of the HF self-energy ('excitonic field'). They distinguish these from band-resonance-induced sidebands, analyze the local interaction limit, and claim corroboration of the experimental findings of Ref. [82].

Significance. The framework offers an efficient route to TR-ARPES simulations in interacting systems, and the compact expressions for the signal [Eqs. (20)-(22)] are a useful contribution. The separation of exciton-field-induced and band-resonance-induced sidebands is conceptually valuable. However, the physical conclusions are weakened by two structural issues: the unitary HF dynamics contain no dephasing channel, so post-pump coherence and sidebands are guaranteed by the mean-field approximation; and the excitonic frequency used as the pump resonance is defined from the same model's response, making the central 'resonant excitation' claim partly self-referential. Quantitative predictions also lack convergence documentation. If these concerns are addressed, the paper could provide a sound mean-field demonstration, but the current experimental-corroboration claim is not quantitatively secured.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II.C, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The evolution matrix P(k,t) satisfies iℏ∂tP = ΞP with Hermitian Ξ, so P is unitary and the single-particle density matrix evolves unitarily. Any coherence generated by the pump persists indefinitely; there is no dephasing, recombination, or screening channel. Therefore the post-pump oscillations in Fig. 3(a) and the sidebands at t_pr=40 fs in Figs. 2 and 4 are an inescapable consequence of the mean-field dynamics, not a nontrivial physical prediction. To claim quantitative corroboration of Ref. [82], the authors must include a dephasing/dissipation channel or provide an estimate of realistic dephasing times and show that the sidebands survive at comparable probe delays.
[Sec. III.B and III.C] The equilibrium excitonic frequency is defined as the maximum of |ΔΓ(ω)| obtained from the same HF model under a weak impulsive pump. The later finding that pumping at that frequency produces strong sidebands is therefore a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The pump-amplitude-induced shift of the sideband maximum (1.20→1.35 eV) is not circular, but the claim that the effect is 'resonant with an excitonic mode' relies on a frequency extracted from the same observable. The authors should state this explicitly or define ω_exc from an independent linear-response/Bethe-Salpeter calculation.
[Sec. III.B, Fig. 1] The protocol for extracting ω_exc states that robustness 'has been verified' but no supporting data are shown. More importantly, no convergence study is reported for the k-grid (64×64), time step, pump/probe durations, or the Fourier-analysis window (25–55 fs with Hann windowing). Since the central quantitative claims—sideband maxima at 1.20, 1.23, and 1.35 eV and the shifts of 0.06–0.20 eV—are extracted from these numerics, the absence of a convergence analysis leaves the quantitative predictions unsupported.
[Sec. II.B and III] The entire analysis is performed in the HF approximation with a density-density interaction restricted to valence-conduction terms (Eqs. 7 and 13). This approximation neglects screening dynamics, correlation, and dephasing. The paper gives no estimate of the HF error or a comparison with a beyond-HF method (e.g., exact diagonalization on a small cluster or TD-GW). Such a comparison would be needed to assess whether the excitonic frequencies and their pump-induced shifts are robust physical quantities or mean-field artifacts.

minor comments (5)

[Fig. 5 caption] The caption states 'V=15 eV, excitonic-insulator phase' but the parenthetical text says '(V=6 eV, κ=0.2)'. This is inconsistent; the correct value appears to be V=15 eV.
[Eq. (10)] The notation Ξ0(k) + Ξpu(k,t) = T_k(t) + e E_pu(t)·D_k(t) mixes momentum and Wannier bases. It would be clearer to write the right-hand side after the generalized Peierls substitution of Eq. (11), or to explicitly state the basis.
[Sec. III.A] The text says the BZ is sampled by a uniform grid of 64×64 k-points 'including the Γ point'. If Γ is included, the grid may not be uniform in the usual Monkhorst-Pack sense; please clarify.
[Fig. 2] In panels (b), (d), and (f), the horizontal gray line denotes the equilibrium excitonic energy, but it is not labeled in the figure. Adding a legend or label would improve readability.
[Sec. III.C] The word 'dubbed' appears repeatedly in the text describing pump parameters and sideband types; consider using more formal terminology.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Resonant-pump sideband maximum is largely the equilibrium |ΔΓ| response peak restated; the amplitude-shift predictions are genuine, so circularity is partial.

self definitional [Sec. III.B ('Equilibrium Excitonic Frequency For the Semiconducting Phase'); Sec. III.C, Fig. 2(a)-(b) discussion]
"Then, we compute Δ̃Γ(ω) and find the frequency ω_exc for which |Δ̃Γ(ω_exc)| is maximum among all positive ℏω smaller than the energy band gap at Γ. The quantity ℏω_exc is the main equilibrium excitonic energy of the system. [Sec. III.C:] the time dependence ... must originate from the only other time-dependent term, namely the HF self-energy ... Consequently, the Floquet sidebands observed in the post-pump TR-ARPES spectrum are uniquely due to the excitonic field."

The equilibrium excitonic frequency is defined as the frequency at which the |ΔΓ(ω)| response to a weak impulsive pump is maximal. The paper's mechanism states that post-pump sidebands are driven solely by the oscillating HF self-energy ΔΓ(t). For weak pumps, the pump frequency giving the strongest sideband is therefore the frequency at which |ΔΓ| is maximal—the very definition of ω_exc. The paper reports this as a finding ('reaching its maximum intensity for ℏω_pu = 1.20 eV. This value is very close to 1.19 eV, the ... equilibrium excitonic frequency'), so the output (optimal pump frequency) is the input definition restated via the stated mechanism, not an independent prediction. The intensity-dependent shifts (1.23, 1.35 eV; |ΔΓ| at 1.29/1.55 eV) and sideband structure are genuine output

full rationale

The flagged step is the only load-bearing reduction found. The paper measures the equilibrium excitonic frequency by locating the |ΔΓ(ω)| response peak (Sec. III.B), then, relying on its own stated mechanism that post-pump Floquet sidebands are uniquely driven by the oscillating HF self-energy, reports the strongest sideband at ℏω_pu = 1.20 eV, 'very close to' that definitional 1.19 eV frequency. Because the sideband driver and the defining observable are the same quantity, this weak-pump 'prediction' of the resonant pump frequency is a consistency check entailed by the definition rather than an independent derivation. I find no other circularity: the TR-ARPES signal (Eqs. 18-22) is a distinct functional of the evolution P(k,t); the amplitude-dependent resonance shifts (1.23, 1.35 eV) and offset |ΔΓ| peaks (1.29, 1.55 eV) emerge from the self-consistent dynamics with no parameters fitted to data; and no experimental values enter the calculation. The persistence of post-pump oscillations is guaranteed by the unitary mean-field evolution (Eq. 12 with Hermitian Ξ, no dephasing channel); this limits the strength of the claimed corroboration of Ref. [82] and is a correctness/robustness risk rather than circularity. Citations to the authors' prior DPOA work (Refs. [60-63]) supply the published derivation machinery, not the target result, so they are not load-bearing in a circular way. Score 4 reflects one partially self-definitional 'prediction' while the central computations remain self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends entirely on the HF mean-field approximation and on a set of hand-picked model parameters (V, κ, D, A0, τpu). No new physical entities are invented, but the free parameters are numerous enough that the 'predictions' are better described as model demonstrations.

free parameters (4)

Coulomb interaction strength V and screening κ = V=6 eV, κ=0.2 (semiconducting); V=15 eV, κ=0.2 (excitonic insulator); local limit Vloc=2 eV, 4 eV
These values are chosen by hand to produce a desired phase diagram and excitonic frequency; they are not derived from ab initio calculations or fitted to a specific material.
Local dipole moment D = D=0.1 nm
Introduced ad hoc to break centrosymmetry and make excitons bright; the paper acknowledges a similar effect could be achieved by other symmetry-breaking terms.
Pump amplitude A0 and duration τpu = A0=0.1, 0.25, 0.5 V·fs/nm; τpu=10 fs
These are scanned parameters, not predictions; the strength of the effects depends on them.
Probe pulse duration τpr = not explicitly stated
The probe envelope width is a free parameter that affects the TR-ARPES line shapes, but its value is not given in the text.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Hartree-Fock approximation with a restricted density-density Coulomb interaction
The entire formalism is HF; the paper asserts this captures excitonic bound states but gives no comparison with beyond-HF or exact results.
standard math Non-equilibrium Green's function expressions for TR-ARPES (Eqs. 16-18) are taken from the authors' prior work without derivation
The expressions for GR and G< in terms of the evolution matrix P are stated as results from Ref. [60].
domain assumption The system is assumed to remain in a single Slater determinant at all times (mean-field ansatz)
The SPDM evolves via Eq. 13, which is the mean-field evolution; all correlations beyond HF are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Time-resolved ARPES in pumped excitonic systems: Floquet physics induced by excitonic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NSDJNAL6

@misc{pith2026260719242,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Time-resolved ARPES in pumped excitonic systems: Floquet physics induced by excitonic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NSDJNAL6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19242}
}

read the original abstract

We develop a theoretical framework based on the Dynamical Projective Operatorial Approach (DPOA) to study the time- and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (TR-ARPES) of pumped excitonic systems. Including Coulomb electron-electron interactions at the Hartree-Fock (HF) level, our formalism captures the formation of excitonic bound states under the application of pump pulses. Considering a prototypical two-dimensional two-band semiconductor, we analyze the equilibrium phase diagram, which shows the expected transition from a semiconducting to an excitonic-insulator phase as the Coulomb interaction strength or its range increase. Out of equilibrium, we find that when the pump frequency is resonant with an excitonic mode, coherent oscillations of the excitonic order parameter persist after the pump pulse subsides and give rise to clear Floquet sidebands in the TR-ARPES spectrum. These exciton-field-induced sidebands are distinct from those originating from the pump laser field. We also identify band-resonance-induced sidebands arising from residual coherences at momenta where the band gap is resonant with the pump frequency. Finally, we analyze the local Coulomb interaction limit. Our results corroborate recent experimental observations of exciton-field-induced Floquet-like sidebands and establish DPOA as an efficient and accurate method for simulating ultrafast phenomena in interacting electron systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19242 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Results for V = 6 eV, semiconducting phase. (a), (c), (e) Post-pump TR-ARPES signal at the Γ point as a function of pump frequency for pump amplitudes A0 = 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 V · fs/nm, respectively. Horizontal dashed lines mark CB and VB energies at Γ; vertical short-dashed lines indicate the pump frequency resonant with the equilibrium band gap at Γ. (b), (d), (f) Corresponding amplitude |∆˜ Γ(ω)| as a function of… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (a), we plot ∆˜ Γ(t) as a function of time. The vertical dashed lines mark t = ±τpu = ±10 fs, indicating the temporal region where the pump pulse envelope is appreciably nonzero, thereby clarifying when the pump pulse is turned on and off. Both the real and imaginary parts of ∆˜ Γ(t) oscillate after the application of the pump pulse, while before its application they are zero, as the system is initially in the semi… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Results for V = 6 eV, semiconducting phase. k-resolved post-pump TR-ARPES signal along the highsymmetry path in the BZ for the large pump amplitude A0 = 0.5 V·fs/nm, corresponding to vertical cuts in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Results for V = 15 eV, excitonic-insulator phase. (a), (c), (e) Post-pump TR-ARPES signal at the Γ point as a function of pump frequency ℏωpu for the excitonic-insulator phase (V = 6 eV, κ = 0.2) and pump amplitudes A0 = 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 V · fs/nm, respectively. Blac…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Results for V = 15 eV, excitonic-insulator phase. (a) Equilibrium k-resolved ARPES signal along the highsymmetry path in the BZ for the excitonic-insulator phase (no pump). (b) Post-pump k-resolved TR-ARPES signal for ℏωpu = 3.5 eV and A0 = 0.5 V · fs/nm, showing exci…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Results for the local interaction. (a) Equilibrium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Influence of the dipole strength D on the post-pump TR-ARPES signal at Γ. (a) Post-pump TR-ARPES signal at the Γ point for the semiconducting phase with D = 0, counterpart of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

103 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[82]

McIveret al., Nature Physics16, 38 (2020)

J. McIveret al., Nature Physics16, 38 (2020)

2020
[1]

Start with an initial guessρ(0) (k)for allk
[2]

ConstructΞ (k)from the currentρ(k)using Eq. 7
[3]

DiagonalizeΞ (k)via a unitary transformationU k to obtain its eigenvalues, stored in a vector¯ξ(k): U † k ·Ξ (k)·U k =diag ¯ξ(k) .(A3)
[4]

In this diagonal basis, the density matrix is diago- nal with entries given by the Fermi–Dirac distribu- tion at inverse temperatureβ= 1 kBT: ¯ρ(k) =diag fβ ¯ξ(k) .(A4)
[5]

Transform back to the original band basis: ρ(1) (k) =U k ·¯ρ(k)·U † k.(A5)
[6]

Otherwise, mixthetwoaccording toρ (0) (k)→r mixρ(0) (k) + (1−r mix)ρ (1) (k)with a mixing parameter0≤r mix <1, and return to step 2

Ifρ (1) (k)issufficientlyclosetoρ (0) (k)forallk, the solutionisfound. Otherwise, mixthetwoaccording toρ (0) (k)→r mixρ(0) (k) + (1−r mix)ρ (1) (k)with a mixing parameter0≤r mix <1, and return to step 2. The final converged density matrix is denotedρeq (k). Appendix B: The effects of asymmetry induced by the local dipole moment In this appendix, we examin...
[7]

Inzani, L

G. Inzani, L. Adamska, A. Eskandari-asl, N. Di Palo, G. L. Dolso, B. Moio, L. J. D’Onofrio, A. Lamperti, A. Molle, R. Borrego-Varillas,et al., Nature Photonics 17, 1059 (2023)

2023

Show all 103 references

[8]

Brabec and F

T. Brabec and F. Krausz, Reviews of Modern Physics 72, 545 (2000)

2000
[9]

Krausz and M

F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Reviews of modern physics81, 163 (2009)

2009
[10]

Krausz and M

F. Krausz and M. I. Stockman, Nature Photonics8, 205 (2014)

2014
[11]

Calegari, G

F. Calegari, G. Sansone, S. Stagira, C. Vozzi, and M. Nisoli, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics49, 062001 (2016)

2016
[12]

Gandolfi, G

M. Gandolfi, G. L. Celardo, F. Borgonovi, G. Ferrini, A. Avella, F. Banfi, and C. Giannetti, Physica Scripta 92, 034004 (2017)

2017
[13]

Borrego-Varillas, M

R. Borrego-Varillas, M. Lucchini, and M. Nisoli, Reports on Progress in Physics85, 066401 (2022). 13

2022
[14]

Schmitt, P

F. Schmitt, P. S. Kirchmann, U. Bovensiepen, R. G. Moore, L. Rettig, M. Krenz, J.-H. Chu, N. Ru, L. Per- fetti, D. Lu,et al., Science321, 1649 (2008)

2008
[15]

Inzani, A

G. Inzani, A. Eskandari-asl, L. Adamska, B. Moio, G. L. Dolso, N. D. Palo, L. J. D’Onofrio, A. Lamperti, A. Molle, C. A. Rozzi, R. Borrego-Varillas, M. Nisoli, S. Pittalis, A. Avella, and M. Lucchini, IL NUOVO CI- MENTO C46, 1 (2023)

2023
[16]

Inzani, A

G. Inzani, A. Eskandari-asl, G. L. Dolso, N. Di Palo, B. Moio, A. Lamperti, A. Molle, G. Isella, J. Frigerio, E. Napolitani,et al., Nature Photonics , 1 (2026)

2026
[17]

Zürch, H.-T

M. Zürch, H.-T. Chang, L. J. Borja, P. M. Kraus, S. K. Cushing, A. Gandman, C. J. Kaplan, M. H. Oh, J. S. Prell, D. Prendergast, C. D. Pemmaraju, D. M. Neu- mark, and S. R. Leone, Nature Communications8, 15734 (2017)

2017
[18]

Zürch, H.-T

M. Zürch, H.-T. Chang, P. M. Kraus, S. K. Cushing, L. J. Borja, A. Gandman, C. J. Kaplan, M. H. Oh, J. S. Prell, D. Prendergast, C. D. Pemmaraju, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Structural Dynamics4, 044029 (2017)

2017
[19]

C. J. Kaplan, P. M. Kraus, A. D. Ross, M. Zürch, S. K. Cushing, M. F. Jager, H.-T. Chang, E. M. Gullikson, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Phys. Rev. B97, 205202 (2018)

2018
[20]

Perfetti, P

L. Perfetti, P. A. Loukakos, M. Lisowski, U. Bovensiepen, M. Wolf, H. Berger, S. Biermann, and A. Georges, New Journal of Physics10, 053019 (2008)

2008
[21]

Zürch, H.-T

M. Zürch, H.-T. Chang, P. M. Kraus, S. K. Cushing, L. J. Borja, A. Gandman, C. J. Kaplan, M. H. Oh, J. S. Prell, D. Prendergast,et al., Structural Dynamics4, 044029 (2017)

2017
[22]

Schultze, E

M. Schultze, E. M. Bothschafter, A. Sommer, S. Holzner, W. Schweinberger, M. Fiess, M. Hofstetter, R. Kien- berger, V. Apalkov, V. S. Yakovlev,et al., Nature493, 75 (2013)

2013
[23]

Stojchevska, I

L. Stojchevska, I. Vaskivskyi, T. Mertelj, P. Kusar, D. Svetin, S. Brazovskii, and D. Mihailovic, Science344, 177 (2014)

2014
[24]

Schultze, K

M. Schultze, K. Ramasesha, C. Pemmaraju, S. Sato, D. Whitmore, A. Gandman, J. S. Prell, L. Borja, D. Prendergast, K. Yabana,et al., Science346, 1348 (2014)

2014
[25]

Lucchini, S

M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, A. Ludwig, J. Herrmann, M. Volkov, L. Kasmi, Y. Shinohara, K. Yabana, L. Gall- mann, and U. Keller, Science353, 916 (2016)

2016
[26]

Mashiko, K

H. Mashiko, K. Oguri, T. Yamaguchi, A. Suda, and H. Gotoh, Nature physics12, 741 (2016)

2016
[27]

L. J. Borja, M. Zürch, C. D. Pemmaraju, M. Schultze, K. Ramasesha, A. Gandman, J. S. Prell, D. Prendergast, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 33, C57 (2016)

2016
[28]

Hellmann, T

S. Hellmann, T. Rohwer, M. Kalläne, K. Hanff, C. Sohrt, A. Stange, A. Carr, M. Murnane, H. Kapteyn, L. Kipp, et al., Nature communications3, 1069 (2012)

2012
[29]

Schlaepfer, M

F. Schlaepfer, M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, M. Volkov, L. Kasmi, N. Hartmann, A. Rubio, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Nature Physics14, 560 (2018)

2018
[30]

C. J. Kaplan, P. M. Kraus, E. M. Gullikson, L. J. Borja, S. K. Cushing, M. Zürch, H.-T. Chang, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B36, 1716 (2019)

2019
[31]

Geneaux, H

R. Geneaux, H. J. Marroux, A. Guggenmos, D. M. Neu- mark, and S. R. Leone, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A377, 20170463 (2019)

2019
[32]

Neufeld, N

O. Neufeld, N. Tancogne-Dejean, U. De Giovannini, H. Hübener, and A. Rubio, npj Computational Materials 9, 39 (2023)

2023
[33]

Rohwer, S

T. Rohwer, S. Hellmann, M. Wiesenmayer, C. Sohrt, A. Stange, B. Slomski, A. Carr, Y. Liu, L. M. Avila, M. Kalläne,et al., Nature471, 490 (2011)

2011
[34]

C. L. Smallwood, J. P. Hinton, C. Jozwiak, W. Zhang, J. D. Koralek, H. Eisaki, D.-H. Lee, J. Orenstein, and A. Lanzara, Science336, 1137 (2012)

2012
[35]

F. J. Himpsel and D. E. Eastman, Phys. Rev. B18, 5236 (1978)

1978
[36]

Papalazarou, J

E. Papalazarou, J. Faure, J. Mauchain, M. Marsi, A. Taleb-Ibrahimi, I. Reshetnyak, A. van Roekeghem, I. Timrov, N. Vast, B. Arnaud, and L. Perfetti, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 256808 (2012)

2012
[37]

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

2013
[38]

J. C. Johannsen, S. Ulstrup, F. Cilento, A. Crepaldi, M. Zacchigna, C. Cacho, I. C. E. Turcu, E. Springate, F. Fromm, C. Raidel, T. Seyller, F. Parmigiani, M. Gri- oni, and P. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 027403 (2013)

2013
[39]

Rameau, S

J. Rameau, S. Freutel, A. Kemper, M. A. Sentef, J. Freer- icks, I. Avigo, M. Ligges, L. Rettig, Y. Yoshida, H. Eisaki, et al., Nature communications7, 13761 (2016)

2016
[40]

Mexican-hat

of fundamental importance for understanding and engineering materials, providing access to bands above theFermienergybeyondwhatequilibriummeasurements can achieve [45–47]. TR-ARPES can also probe the dressing of bands and the emergence of pump-induced Floquet sidebands [30, 48...

2026 arXiv
[41]

Reimann, S

J. Reimann, S. Schlauderer, C. Schmid, F. Langer, S. Baierl, K. Kokh, O. Tereshchenko, A. Kimura, C. Lange, J. Güdde,et al., Nature562, 396 (2018)

2018
[42]

Smith and M

N. Smith and M. Traum, Physical Review B11, 2087 (1975)
[43]

A. P. Kampf and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. B42, 7967 (1990)

1990
[44]

K. E. Smith and S. D. Kevan, Progress in solid state chemistry21, 49 (1991)

1991
[45]

Damascelli, Z

A. Damascelli, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Reviews of modern physics75, 473 (2003)

2003
[46]

Hüfner,Photoelectron spectroscopy: principles and ap- plications(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

S. Hüfner,Photoelectron spectroscopy: principles and ap- plications(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

2013
[47]

J. A. Sobota, Y. He, and Z.-X. Shen, Reviews of Modern Physics93, 025006 (2021)

2021
[48]

Bovensiepen and P

U. Bovensiepen and P. S. Kirchmann, Laser & Photonics Reviews6, 589 (2012)

2012
[49]

C. L. Smallwood, R. A. Kaindl, and A. Lanzara, EPL (Europhysics Letters)115, 27001 (2016)

2016
[50]

X. Zhou, S. He, G. Liu, L. Zhao, L. Yu, and W. Zhang, Reports on Progress in Physics81, 062101 (2018)

2018
[51]

Boschini, M

F. Boschini, M. Zonno, and A. Damascelli, Reviews of Modern Physics96, 015003 (2024)

2024
[52]

Weinelt, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter14, R1099 (2002)

M. Weinelt, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter14, R1099 (2002)

2002
[53]

P. M. Echenique, R. Berndt, E. V. Chulkov, T. Fauster, A. Goldmann, and U. Höfer, Surface Science Reports52, 219 (2004)

2004
[54]

J. A. Sobota, S.-L. Yang, A. F. Kemper, J. J. Lee, F. T. Schmitt, W. Li, R. G. Moore, J. G. Analytis, I. R. Fisher, P. S. Kirchmann, T. P. Devereaux, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 136802 (2013)

2013
[55]

Broers and L

L. Broers and L. Mathey, Physical Review Research4, 013057 (2022)

2022
[56]

Avigo, R

I. Avigo, R. Cortés, L. Rettig, S. Thirupathaiah, H. S. Jeevan, P. Gegenwart, T. Wolf, M. Ligges, M. Wolf, 14 J. Fink,et al., Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 094003 (2013)

2013
[57]

S.-L. Yang, J. A. Sobota, D. Leuenberger, Y. He, M. Hashimoto, D. H. Lu, H. Eisaki, P. S. Kirchmann, and Z.-X. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 247001 (2015)

2015
[58]

De Giovannini, G

U. De Giovannini, G. Brunetto, A. Castro, J. Walken- horst, and A. Rubio, ChemPhysChem14, 1298 (2013)

2013
[59]

De Giovannini, H

U. De Giovannini, H. Hubener, and A. Rubio, Nano let- ters16, 7993 (2016)

2016
[60]

Wopperer, U

P. Wopperer, U. De Giovannini, and A. Rubio, The Eu- ropean Physical Journal B90, 1 (2017)

2017
[61]

De Giovannini, H

U. De Giovannini, H. Hübener, and A. Rubio, Journal of chemical theory and computation13, 265 (2017)

2017
[62]

C. D. Pemmaraju, F. D. Vila, J. J. Kas, S. A. Sato, J. J. Rehr, K. Yabana, and D. Prendergast, Computer Physics Communications226, 30 (2018)

2018
[63]

Tancogne-Dejean and A

N. Tancogne-Dejean and A. Rubio, Science advances4, eaao5207 (2018)

2018
[64]

De Giovannini, A

U. De Giovannini, A. Castro,et al., Attosecond Molecu- lar Dynamics13, 424 (2018)

2018
[65]

G. S. Armstrong, M. A. Khokhlova, M. Labeye, A. S. Maxwell, E. Pisanty, and M. Ruberti, The European Physical Journal D75, 209 (2021)

2021
[66]

Schüler, J

M. Schüler, J. A. Marks, Y. Murakami, C. Jia, and T. P. Devereaux, Physical Review B103, 155409 (2021)

2021
[67]

Eskandari-asl and A

A. Eskandari-asl and A. Avella, Physical Review B110, 094309 (2024)

2024
[68]

Eskandari-asl and A

A. Eskandari-asl and A. Avella, inAdvances in Ultrafast Condensed Phase Physics IV, Vol. 12992 (SPIE, 2024) pp. 65–68

2024
[69]

Eskandari-asl and A

A. Eskandari-asl and A. Avella, Physical Review A110, 043520 (2024)

2024
[70]

Eskandari-Asl and A

A. Eskandari-Asl and A. Avella, Materials18, 1310 (2025)

2025
[71]

Mancini and A

F. Mancini and A. Avella, Advances in Physics53, 537 (2004)

2004
[72]

Eskandari-asl, J

A. Eskandari-asl, J. I. Facio, O. Janson, A. Avella, and J. van den Brink, Phys. Rev. B112, 024401 (2025)

2025
[73]

A.Eskandari-AslandA.Avella,Materials19,408(2026)

2026
[74]

Eskandari-asl and A

A. Eskandari-asl and A. Avella, Physical Review A113, 013738 (2026)

2026
[75]

Lloyd-Hughes, P

J. Lloyd-Hughes, P. M. Oppeneer, T. Pereira dos Santos, A. Schleife, S. Meng, M. A. Sentef, M. Ruggenthaler, A. Rubio, I. Radu, M. Murnane, X. Shi, H. Kapteyn, B. Stadtmüller, K. M. Dani, F. H. da Jornada, E. Prinz, M. Aeschlimann, R. L. Milot, M. Burdanova, J. Boland, T. Cock...

2021
[76]

de la Torreet al., Reviews of Modern Physics93, 041002 (2021)

A. de la Torreet al., Reviews of Modern Physics93, 041002 (2021)

2021
[77]

F.Giustinoet al.,JournalofPhysics: Materials3,042006 (2020)

2020
[78]

Basov, R

D. Basov, R. Averitt, and D. Hsieh, Nature Materials16, 1077 (2017)

2017
[79]

Hübener, M

H. Hübener, M. Sentef, U. De Giovannini, A. Kemper, and A. Rubio, Nature Communications8, 13940 (2017)

2017
[80]

M.Claassen, C.Jia, B.Moritz,andT.Devereaux,Nature Communications7, 13074 (2016)

2016
[81]

Mahmood, C.-K

F. Mahmood, C.-K. Chan, Z. Alpichshev, D. Gardner, Y. Lee, P. A. Lee, and N. Gedik, Nature Physics12, 306 (2016)

2016
[83]

Aeschlimannet al., Nano Letters21, 5028 (2021)

S. Aeschlimannet al., Nano Letters21, 5028 (2021)

2021
[84]

Keuneckeet al., Physical Review B102, 161403 (2020)

M. Keuneckeet al., Physical Review B102, 161403 (2020)

2020
[85]

Hübener, U

H. Hübener, U. De Giovannini, and A. Rubio, Nano Let- ters18, 1535 (2018)

2018
[86]

Zhang and S

R.-X. Zhang and S. Das Sarma, Physical Review Letters 127, 067001 (2021)

2021
[87]

Y.-H. Chan, D. Y. Qiu, F. H. da Jornada, and S. G. Louie, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120, e2301957120 (2023)

2023
[88]

Perfetto and G

E. Perfetto and G. Stefanucci, Physical Review Letters 125, 106401 (2020)

2020
[89]

Pareek, D

V. Pareek, D. R. Bacon, X. Zhu, Y.-H. Chan, F. Bus- solotti, M. G. Menezes, N. S. Chan, J. P. Urquizo, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Perfetto, M. K. L. Man, J. Madéo, G. Stefanucci, D. Y. Qiu, K. E. J. Goh, F. H. da Jornada, and K. M. Dani, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-025-03...

2026 doi
[90]

Perfetto, D

E. Perfetto, D. Sangalli, A. Marini, and G. Stefanucci, Physical Review B94, 245303 (2016)

2016
[91]

Rustagi and A

A. Rustagi and A. F. Kemper, Physical Review B97, 235310 (2018)

2018
[92]

Ohnishi, N

H. Ohnishi, N. Tomita, and K. Nasu, International Jour- nal of Modern Physics B32, 1850094 (2018)

2018
[93]

Christiansen, M

D. Christiansen, M. Selig, E. Malic, R. Ernstorfer, and A. Knorr, Physical Review B100, 205401 (2019)

2019
[94]

J. K. Freericks, H. R. Krishnamurthy, and T. Pruschke, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 136401 (2009)

2009
[95]

Becca, M

F. Becca, M. Tarquini, M. Grilli, and C. Di Castro, Phys. Rev. B54, 12443 (1996)

1996
[96]

A. Nag, M. Zhu, M. Bejas, J. Li, H. C. Robarts, H. Ya- mase, A. N. Petsch, D. Song, H. Eisaki, A. C. Walters, M. García-Fernández, A. Greco, S. M. Hayden, and K.-J. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 257002 (2020)

2020
[97]

Hepting, M

M. Hepting, M. Bejas, A. Nag, H. Yamase, N. Coppola, D. Betto, C. Falter, M. Garcia-Fernandez, S. Agrestini, K.-J. Zhou, M. Minola, C. Sacco, L. Maritato, P. Orgiani, H. I. Wei, K. M. Shen, D. G. Schlom, A. Galdi, A. Greco, and B. Keimer, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 047001 (2022)

2022
[98]

Spałek, M

J. Spałek, M. Fidrysiak, M. Zegrodnik, and A. Biborski, Physics Reports959, 1 (2022)

2022
[99]

Parmenter and W

R. Parmenter and W. Henson, Physical Review B2, 140 (1970)

1970
[100]

Maet al., Nature598, 585 (2021)

L. Maet al., Nature598, 585 (2021)

2021
[101]

Jiaet al., Nature Physics18, 87 (2022)

Y. Jiaet al., Nature Physics18, 87 (2022)

2022
[102]

Kogaret al., Science358, 1314 (2017)

A. Kogaret al., Science358, 1314 (2017)

2017
[103]

Guet al., Nature Physics18, 395 (2022)

J. Guet al., Nature Physics18, 395 (2022)

2022

Pith tools

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

[1] [82]

McIveret al., Nature Physics16, 38 (2020)

J. McIveret al., Nature Physics16, 38 (2020)

2020

[2] [1]

Start with an initial guessρ(0) (k)for allk

[3] [2]

ConstructΞ (k)from the currentρ(k)using Eq. 7

[4] [3]

DiagonalizeΞ (k)via a unitary transformationU k to obtain its eigenvalues, stored in a vector¯ξ(k): U † k ·Ξ (k)·U k =diag ¯ξ(k) .(A3)

[5] [4]

In this diagonal basis, the density matrix is diago- nal with entries given by the Fermi–Dirac distribu- tion at inverse temperatureβ= 1 kBT: ¯ρ(k) =diag fβ ¯ξ(k) .(A4)

[6] [5]

Transform back to the original band basis: ρ(1) (k) =U k ·¯ρ(k)·U † k.(A5)

[7] [6]

Otherwise, mixthetwoaccording toρ (0) (k)→r mixρ(0) (k) + (1−r mix)ρ (1) (k)with a mixing parameter0≤r mix <1, and return to step 2

Ifρ (1) (k)issufficientlyclosetoρ (0) (k)forallk, the solutionisfound. Otherwise, mixthetwoaccording toρ (0) (k)→r mixρ(0) (k) + (1−r mix)ρ (1) (k)with a mixing parameter0≤r mix <1, and return to step 2. The final converged density matrix is denotedρeq (k). Appendix B: The effects of asymmetry induced by the local dipole moment In this appendix, we examin...

[8] [7]

Inzani, L

G. Inzani, L. Adamska, A. Eskandari-asl, N. Di Palo, G. L. Dolso, B. Moio, L. J. D’Onofrio, A. Lamperti, A. Molle, R. Borrego-Varillas,et al., Nature Photonics 17, 1059 (2023)

2023