Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 62 references

Net electron spin rotation in a plane-wave pulse: Holonomy set by the anomalous magnetic moment

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · 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 a relativistic electron crosses a finite plane-wave laser pulse, the net spin rotation is a holonomy fixed by the pulse's vector-potential area and the square of the anomalous magnetic moment.

desk verdict A clean holonomy result for electron spin in a plane-wave pulse, honestly delimited and backed by serious numerics; the radiation-reaction caveat is real but self-acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05698 v1 pith:ZWKK6Z6B submitted 2026-08-06 hep-ph physics.acc-phphysics.opticsphysics.plasm-ph

N. S. Akintsov , A. P. Nevecheria , S. N. Andreev , Qing-Hua Qin This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phphysics.acc-phphysics.opticsphysics.plasm-ph
keywords electronspinanomalousmagneticmomentplane-wavepulseholonomyBMTequationopticalhelicitymemorylaser-spininteraction
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 the net spin rotation surviving after a relativistic electron crosses a finite plane-wave laser pulse is a geometric holonomy, not a radiative effect. The claim is $\Theta_{\rm net}=-\frac12 a_e^2\mathcal{A}$, where $a_e=(g-2)/2$ is the anomalous magnetic moment and $\mathcal{A}$ is twice the signed area that the transverse vector potential traces in the polarization plane. Because the $g=2$ part of the coupling cancels identically, the pulse enters only through the closed curve it draws, and electron energy, carrier frequency, and carrier-envelope phase drop out of the final angle. The area $\mathcal{A}$ is the spin angular momentum the pulse carries per unit area, so the surviving rotation is a direct measure of the light's helicity. A sympathetic reading of the numerical scans is that the area law holds to three to five digits across hundreds of pulse shapes, with the exact zeros at $g=2$ and at linear polarization verified to the roundoff floor.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the interaction-picture reduction of the BMT generator. Factoring out the exact $g=2$ evolution $\Lambda_0=\exp(a_1 N_1+a_2 N_2)$ leaves $d\zeta/d\eta=a_e(\hat{n}\times a_\perp')\times\zeta$, a rotation one-form with constant coefficients on the polarization plane. The net map is the holonomy of the connection $\omega=a_e(\hat{n}\wedge e_1\,da_1+\hat{n}\wedge e_2\,da_2)$ around the closed curve traced by $a_\perp(\eta)$; the non-Abelian Stokes theorem and the second Magnus term deliver the leading angle $-\frac12 a_e^2\mathcal{A}$, and a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ grading fixes the corrections: $O(a_e^4)$ along the axis, $O(a_e)$ tilt of the axis, and $O(a_e^6)$ change of helicity.

What would settle it

Integrate the Landau-Lifshitz equation with radiation reaction for a circularly polarized Gaussian pulse at $\gamma=1$, $a_0=75$, $N=32$ and compare the final spin angle with $-\frac12 a_e^2\mathcal{A}\simeq0.4$ rad; a deviation larger than the paper's estimated 6% would falsify the exact holonomy law for real pulses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Thomas-Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi spin transport in a plane wave can be factored exactly into a $g=2$ part that integrates to the identity for a finite pulse and a residual rotation driven by the anomaly alone. In the interaction picture based on that $g=2$ evolution, the BMT equation becomes parallel transport by a connection with constant coefficients on the polarization plane, and the pulse's finiteness enters only by closing the curve $a_\perp(\eta)$. The holonomy of that connection around the closed curve is the net rotation about the propagation direction, $\Theta_{\rm net}=-\frac12 a_e^2\mathcal{A}(1+O(a_e^2 a_0^2))$, with $\mathcal{A}=\int(a_x a_y' - a_y a_x')\,d\eta$. The same functional is, up to a positive constant, the spin angular momentum the pulse carries per unit area, identifying the rotation as a helicity measurement. The paper proves the order of the remainder with a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ grading and verifies the cancellation at $g=2$ over 180 pulse configurations and the area law over 89 more.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the electron's spin follows the classical BMT equation with a constant vacuum anomaly and no radiation reaction or photon emission, so that the four-velocity returns to its initial value after the pulse; the paper's own estimate puts the radiation-reaction distortion at 6-30% at the best classical point, and an integration of the Landau-Lifshitz equation would be needed to settle it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $g=2$ the net rotation is identically zero for every finite plane-wave pulse, so the surviving signal is purely anomalous and scales as $a_e^2$.
  • Linearly polarized pulses give exactly zero net rotation at any $g$ and any amplitude, since the potential curve degenerates to a segment.
  • The final angle is independent of electron energy, carrier-envelope phase, and the rate at which the curve is traced; chirp and envelope shape matter only through the signed area $\mathcal{A}$.
  • In a focused beam a $g$-independent Thomas-Wigner background reappears at order $1/(kw_0)^2$ and dominates the anomalous signal unless $w_0\gtrsim16\lambda$ at $\gamma=10$ or $270\lambda$ at $\gamma=1$.
  • The exact zeros at $g=2$ and at linear polarization provide structure-preserving spin integrators with reference cases that require no converged solution for comparison.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not pursue it, but if the area law survives radiation-reaction corrections, the holonomy becomes a helicity metrology tool: with $a_e$ known, a measurement of the final transverse spin orientation fixes the pulse's signed area $\mathcal{A}$ and hence its spin angular momentum per unit area.
  • An implicit quantum extension is an $O(a_e^2)$ geometric contribution to the spin-flip amplitude at the order beyond the known first-order result, with a coefficient fixed by $\mathcal{A}$.
  • The paper flags it only as a limitation, but a phase-dependent dressed anomaly would restore a first-order term $\int a_e(\eta)\,\hat{n}\wedge da_\perp\neq0$, turning the law into a probe of field dressing once $\chi$ is not tiny.
  • Synthesizing the signal-to-background budget, the practical window is narrow but clean: at high $\gamma$ the focusing background axis separates from the signal, while at $\gamma\sim1$ radiation is harmless but the background shares the signal axis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives and verifies a closed-form expression for the net spin rotation of an electron after crossing a finite plane-wave pulse. In the interaction picture built on the exact g=2 evolution, the Thomas-BMT equation reduces to parallel transport by a connection with constant coefficients on the polarization plane. The pulse enters only through the closed curve traced by the transverse vector potential, and the net rotation is the holonomy of that connection: Theta_net = -1/2 a_e^2 A, with a_e=(g-2)/2 and A twice the signed area enclosed by the curve. The authors identify A with the spin angular momentum carried by the pulse per unit area, verify the g=2 null result over 180 pulse configurations and the area law over 89 further configurations with unfitted numerics, analyze the finite-focusing corrections in a Lax-Louisell-McKnight model, and give a full, unfavorable signal-to-background budget for possible laboratory observation.

Significance. If the result stands, this is a clean and nontrivial theoretical statement: the g=2 part cancels identically, so the net rotation is an anomalous-magnetic-moment effect determined by a single geometric functional of the pulse. The derivation is unusually complete: the interaction-picture series terminates after three commutators, the residual null rotations cancel through the algebraic identities (S13), the first-order term vanishes by endpoint closure, and the Z_2 grading fixes the remainder structure. The numerical verification is strong and honestly reported, with tolerance floors and independent implementations; the code and data are deposited. The radiation-reaction and constant-anomaly assumptions are explicitly stated and quantified, and the absence of an experimental window is acknowledged in full rather than hidden. These are strengths that make the paper suitable for publication without further substantive work.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section III C] The abstract uses the symbol \mathcal{A} for the signed area while the main text and Eq. (10) use A; the notation should be unified in the final version.
  2. [Section VI, Eq. (13)] The sentence "Eq. (10) holds to 1% for w0 > 5.2lambda" is based on the c_psi=0 convention of the Lax-Louisell-McKnight field model; although the factor-of-three systematic uncertainty is disclosed in Sec. S5.7, a parenthetical qualification at the point of use in the main text would prevent the bound from being over-read as rigorous.
  3. [Section III C, Eq. (12)] The resummation in Eq. (12) is introduced before the plateau length is defined in the main text; since the correct reading is A/a0^2 rather than the raw plateau length, a brief definition or a forward reference to Sec. S2.4 would make the equation unambiguous.
  4. [Section V, Figure 1 caption] The caption states "All 42 points" for the open-symbol zero-area families, while the main text reports scans of 180 and 89 configurations; clarifying how the 42 plotted points relate to the full scan would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (10) is derived from the BMT equation with no fitted parameter, and the numerical tests compare integration against an unfitted prediction.

full rationale

The central law Theta_net = -1/2 a_e^2 A is obtained by a direct reduction of the Thomas-BMT equation: the g=2 propagator closes by Eq. (1), the interaction-picture one-form has constant coefficients, the first-order term vanishes by endpoint closure, and the Magnus/non-Abelian Stokes evaluation yields the area term. None of these steps defines Theta_net in terms of A or fits A to the spin data; A is computed from the pulse potential and the rotation is integrated independently from Eq. (2). The numerical verification uses 180 g=2 null configurations and 89 area-law configurations against Eq. (10) with no fitted parameter. The paper explicitly attributes the g=2 cancellation to earlier work (Kupersztych; Ilderton-King-Tang) and the area/helicity reading to Oblak-Seraj, but the derivation of the electron result does not lean on those citations as inputs; it reproduces and extends them. The focused-beam coefficient is labeled measured, not predicted, and its model dependence (c_psi) is disclosed. The radiation-reaction and constant-anomaly limitations are stated in Secs. VII-VIII and quantified, so they are scope restrictions rather than circular inputs. No self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem imported from the authors is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central plane-wave claim uses four explicit assumptions, all stated in the paper: classical BMT with no radiation reaction, exact plane-wave background with a_perp(+/-infinity)=0, constant vacuum anomaly, and standard holonomy evaluation tools. The focused-beam section introduces one modeling constant c_psi that is not fitted but is a convention with an unquantified physical choice. No invented entities are needed.

free parameters (1)
  • LLM focused-beam expansion constant c_psi = 0 (chosen by convention)
    Homogeneous paraxial solution in the Lax-Louisell-McKnight model; changing to 1 shifts the r_2 deviation coefficient by a factor of about 3 (Sec. S5.7). It appears only in the focused-beam estimates, not in the plane-wave holonomy law.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Spin evolves by the classical BMT equation with no Stern-Gerlach force, no radiation reaction, and no electric dipole moment.
    Section II A: this is the starting dynamical law; the paper argues BMT is exact for plane waves from Dirac-Pauli theory, but radiation reaction is omitted and estimated in Section VII.
  • domain assumption Background is an exact plane wave with k^2=0, k dot a = 0, and a_perp(+infinity) = a_perp(-infinity) = 0.
    Section II A and Eq. (1): finiteness of the pulse is essential for the curve to close and for the holonomy to be well-defined.
  • domain assumption Anomaly a_e is constant at its vacuum value throughout the pulse.
    Section II A and Section VIII: phase-dependent dressing would leave integral a_e(eta) nhat wedge da_perp nonzero and restore a first-order term; the paper keeps a_e constant.
  • standard math Non-Abelian Stokes theorem and Magnus expansion give the holonomy of the constant-curvature connection.
    Section III C and S2.3: standard results used to evaluate the ordered exponential around the closed curve.
  • standard math Null-rotation symmetry ISO(2)_k lets any initial momentum be reduced to head-on geometry without changing the rotation angle.
    Section II B and S3.2: group-theoretic reduction used to justify the head-on normalization; the rotation angle is a conjugation invariant.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Net electron spin rotation in a plane-wave pulse: Holonomy set by the anomalous magnetic moment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZWKK6Z6B

@misc{pith2026260805698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Net electron spin rotation in a plane-wave pulse: Holonomy set by the anomalous magnetic moment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZWKK6Z6B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05698}
}
abstract

We compute the spin rotation that survives after a relativistic electron has crossed a plane-wave laser pulse of finite duration. In the interaction picture built on the exact $g=2$ evolution, the Thomas-Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi equation becomes parallel transport by a connection with constant coefficients on the polarization plane, and the pulse enters only through the closed curve that the transverse vector potential traces there. The net rotation is the holonomy of that connection: an angle $-\frac{1}{2}a_e^2\mathcal{A}$ about the propagation direction, with $a_e=(g-2)/2$ the anomaly and $\mathcal{A}$ twice the signed area enclosed by the curve. That area is the spin angular momentum the pulse carries per unit area, so the rotation measures the helicity of the light. Reduction of the residual dynamics to a rotation coupled through the anomaly alone is an exact result of the 1960s [Ternov, Bagrov, and Klimenko, Sov. Phys. J. 11, 29 (1968); Bagrov and Gitman, The Dirac Equation and its Solutions (De Gruyter, Berlin, 2014), Sec. 5.3], which yields two closed-form cases; the area law is the general second order that those two cases bound. The same area governs the orientation memory of a neutral magnetic dipole [Oblak and Seraj, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044037 (2024)] with a coupling of order unity. For a charged electron on a Volkov orbit the coupling $g/2$ cancels identically, which suppresses the rotation by $1.3\times10^{-6}$ and leaves a channel with no $g$-independent part. We verify the cancellation at $g=2$ over 180 pulse configurations and the area law over 89 more. Finite focusing restores that part at second order in $1/kw_0$, and it exceeds the anomalous signal unless $w_0\gtrsim16\lambda$ at $\gamma=10$, or $270\lambda$ at $\gamma=1$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Net spin rotation in a plane-wave pulse against the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Departure from the holonomy for a focused Gaus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (12) of the main text, with the sense of rotation of Eq

    Transforming back subtracts one turn per unit phase, and the net rotation 14 about ˆnhas magnitude Θcirc = q 1 +a 2ea2 0 −1 ∆η,(S21) Eq. (12) of the main text, with the sense of rotation of Eq. (S20). Expanding fora ea0 ≪1 returns 1 2 a2 ea2 0∆η= 1 2 a2 eA. Ata 0 = 1 anda e = 0.05 the integrator gives 2.3193×10 −2, the resummation 2.3193×10 −2, and the ar...

    work page

  2. [2]

    the effect is there but small

    The two differ by a factor of two in A, and the numbers quoted elsewhere in this document use Eq. (S2). The expansion parameter isa ea0, nota e. With the physical anomalya ea0 = 1.16×10 −3a0, so Eq. (S20) is accurate to 10−2 up toa 0 ∼100. Abovea ea0 ∼1 the net rotation becomes linear ina e, which no laboratory field reaches. S3. INV ARIANCE PROPER TIES S...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Del Sorbo, D

    D. Del Sorbo, D. Seipt, T. G. Blackburn, A. G. R. Thomas, C. D. Murphy, J. G. Kirk, and C. P. Ridgers, Phys. Rev. A96, 043407 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Seipt, D

    D. Seipt, D. Del Sorbo, C. P. Ridgers, and A. G. R. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A98, 023417 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Y.-F. Li, R. Shaisultanov, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, F. Wan, C. H. Keitel, and J.-X. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 154801 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    D. Y. Ivanov, G. L. Kotkin, and V. G. Serbo, Eur. Phys. J. C36, 127 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rep.1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Bargmann, L

    V. Bargmann, L. Michel, and V. L. Telegdi, Phys. Rev. Lett.2, 435 (1959)

    1959

  2. [10]

    I. M. Ternov, V. G. Bagrov, and Y. Klimenko, Sov. Phys. J.11, 29 (1968)

    1968

  3. [11]

    Chakrabarti, Nuovo Cimento A56, 604 (1968)

    A. Chakrabarti, Nuovo Cimento A56, 604 (1968)

    1968

  4. [12]

    V. G. Bagrov and D. M. Gitman,Exact Solutions of Rel- ativistic Wave Equations, Mathematics and Its Appli- cations (Soviet Series), Vol. 39 (Kluwer Academic, Dor- drecht, 1990) Chap. 8, pp. 249–259

    1990

  5. [13]

    V. G. Bagrov and D. M. Gitman,The Dirac Equation 23 TABLE S10. Mechanisms that do and do not break Eq. (S20). Rows marked measured were computed here; rows marked estimated rest on published scalings and were not integrated. Θ pw denotes the plane-wave holonomy− 1 2 a2 eA. Mec...

  6. [14]

    A. B. Balakin, V. R. Kurbanova, and W. Zimdahl, Precession of a particle with anomalous magnetic mo- ment in electromagnetic and gravitational pp-wave fields (2002), Grav. Cosmol. Suppl.8, No. 2, 6 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0209099

    2002

  7. [15]

    Oblak and A

    B. Oblak and A. Seraj, Phys. Rev. D109, 044037 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    Seraj and T

    A. Seraj and T. Neogi, Phys. Rev. D107, 104034 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    L. H. Thomas, Nature (London)117, 514 (1926)

    1926

  10. [18]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    M. Wen, H. Bauke, and C. H. Keitel, Sci. Rep.6, 31624 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    M. Wen, C. H. Keitel, and H. Bauke, Phys. Rev. A95, 042102 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Barducci and R

    A. Barducci and R. Giachetti, J. Phys. A41, 215301 (2008)

    2008

  14. [22]

    Di Piazza and T

    A. Di Piazza and T. P˘ atuleanu, Phys. Rev. D104, 076003 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    D. M. Wolkow, Z. Phys.94, 250 (1935)

    1935

  16. [24]

    Kupersztych, Nuovo Cimento B31, 1 (1976)

    J. Kupersztych, Nuovo Cimento B31, 1 (1976)

    1976

  17. [25]

    Wigner, Ann

    E. Wigner, Ann. Math.40, 149 (1939)

    1939

  18. [26]

    M. W. Walser, D. J. Urbach, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, S. X. Hu, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A65, 043410 (2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  20. [28]

    Wilczek and A

    F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett.52, 2111 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    M. B. Halpern, Phys. Rev. D19, 517 (1979)

    1979

  22. [30]

    Broda, Non-Abelian Stokes theorem in action (2001), published inModern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, 2nd ed., edited by M

    B. Broda, Non-Abelian Stokes theorem in action (2001), published inModern Nonlinear Optics, Part 2, 2nd ed., edited by M. W. Evans (Wiley, 2001), pp. 429–468, arXiv:math-ph/0012035

    2001 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Magnus, Commun

    W. Magnus, Commun. Pure Appl. Math.7, 649 (1954)

    1954

  24. [32]

    Blanes, F

    S. Blanes, F. Casas, J. A. Oteo, and J. Ros, Phys. Rep. 470, 151 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    I. A. Aleksandrov, D. A. Tumakov, A. Kudlis, V. M. Shabaev, and N. N. Rosanov, Phys. Rev. A102, 023102 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    N. N. Rosanov, M. V. Arkhipov, and R. M. Arkhipov, Phys. Usp.67, 1129 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bauke, S

    H. Bauke, S. Ahrens, and R. Grobe, Phys. Rev. A90, 052101 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Ilderton, B

    A. Ilderton, B. King, and S. Tang, Phys. Rev. D102, 076013 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    W.-Q. Wei, F. Wan, Y. I. Salamin, J.-R. Ren, K. Z. Hat- sagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, J.-X. Li, and Y.-T. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Research5, 023030 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    V. V. Tikhomirov, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 181801 (2001)

    2001

  31. [39]

    V. V. Tikhomirov, Opt. Spectrosc.94, 900 (2003)

    2003

  32. [40]

    V. N. Baier, Sov. Phys. Usp.14, 695 (1972)

    1972

  33. [41]

    S. R. Mane, Y. M. Shatunov, and K. Yokoya, Rep. Prog. Phys.68, 1997 (2005)

    2005

  34. [42]

    J. D. Lawson, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.26, 4217 (1979)

    1979

  35. [43]

    Esarey, P

    E. Esarey, P. Sprangle, and J. Krall, Phys. Rev. E52, 5443 (1995)

    1995

  36. [44]

    M. Wen, L. Ding, W. Wu, Q. Li, C. Yu, and L. Jin, Eur. Phys. J. D76, 168 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    M. Lax, W. H. Louisell, and W. B. McKnight, Phys. Rev. A11, 1365 (1975)

    1975

  38. [46]

    Y. I. Salamin and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 095005 (2002)

    2002

  39. [47]

    Mackenroth, A

    F. Mackenroth, A. R. Holkundkar, and H.-P. Schlenvoigt, New J. Phys.21, 123028 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    B¨ uscher, A

    M. B¨ uscher, A. H¨ utzen, L. Ji, and A. Lehrach, High Power Laser Sci. Eng.8, e36 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Thomas, A

    J. Thomas, A. H¨ utzen, A. Lehrach, A. Pukhov, L. Ji, Y. Wu, X. Geng, and M. B¨ uscher, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams23, 064401 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Reichwein, Z

    L. Reichwein, Z. Gong, C. Zheng, L. L. Ji, A. Pukhov, and M. B¨ uscher, Rep. Prog. Phys.88, 117001 (2025)

    2025

  44. [52]

    Li, Y.-Y

    Y.-F. Li, Y.-Y. Chen, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 174801 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    X. S. Geng, L. L. Ji, B. F. Shen, B. Feng, Z. Guo, Q. Q. Han, C. Y. Qin, N. W. Wang, W. Q. Wang, Y. T. Wu, X. Yan, Q. Yu, L. G. Zhang, and Z. Z. Xu, New J. Phys. 22, 013007 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Bauke, S

    H. Bauke, S. Ahrens, C. H. Keitel, and R. Grobe, New J. Phys.16, 103028 (2014)

    2014

  47. [55]

    N. N. Rosanov, JETP Lett.113, 145 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Meuren and A

    S. Meuren and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 260401 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Torgrimsson, New J

    G. Torgrimsson, New J. Phys.23, 065001 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Hairer, C

    E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner,Geometric Numer- ical Integration: Structure-Preserving Algorithms for Or- 24 dinary Differential Equations, 2nd ed., Springer Series in Computational Mathematics, Vol. 31 (Springer, Berlin, 2006)

    2006

  51. [59]

    J. M. Sanz-Serna, Acta Numer.1, 243 (1992)

    1992

  52. [60]

    Net electron spin rotation in a plane-wave pulse: Holonomy set by the anomalous magnetic moment

    N. S. Akintsov, A. P. Nevecheria, S. N. Andreev, and Q.-H. Qin, Code and data for the paper “Net electron spin rotation in a plane-wave pulse: Holonomy set by the anomalous magnetic moment” (2026), Zenodo, v1.0.1, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.21758787; repositoryhttps:// github.com/New...

    2026 doi

  53. [61]

    Y. I. Salamin, Appl. Phys. B86, 319 (2007)

    2007

  54. [62]

    Di Piazza, Phys

    A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D103, 076011 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.