Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 75 references

Ultrafast nonlinear dynamics of indium tin oxide nanocrystals probed via fieldoscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Transmission through ITO nanocrystals near their epsilon-near-zero wavelength can be modulated reversibly by about 10% at one-megahertz repetition, with irreversible damage setting in above 3.3 mJ/cm2, and fieldoscopy resolves this…

desk verdict Direct field-resolved look at ITO nanocrystal switching at 1 MHz with a genuine subtraction-based claim that needs a null test and error bars before the numbers can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.21518 v1 pith:2HCSZF3M submitted 2025-08-29 physics.optics cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Andreas Herbst , Anchit Srivastava , Kilian Scheffter , Soyeon Jun , Steffen Gommel , Luca Rebecchi , Sidharth Kuriyil , Andrea Rubino
show 3 more authors
Nicolo Petrini Ilka Kriegel Hanieh Fattahi
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticscond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords indiumtinoxidenanocrystalsepsilon-near-zerofieldoscopyultrafastopticalswitchinglocalizedsurfaceplasmonresonancesub-cycledynamicsmegahertzrepetitionrate
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 reports that films of indium tin oxide (ITO) nanocrystals can act as ultrafast optical switches in the 2–2.5 µm band when driven at a one-megahertz repetition rate. Using fieldoscopy, a field-resolved detection method with 90-attosecond timing precision, the authors measure the transmitted electric field directly and isolate the sample response by subtracting the field transmitted through the bare substrate. They find that the ITO transmission can be modulated reversibly by about 10% for excitation fluences up to 1.2 mJ/cm2, that the modulation becomes fully irreversible above 3.3 mJ/cm2 (reaching depths near 20%), and that higher fluences suppress the contribution of the first optical cycle of the pulse. If correct, this establishes colloidal ITO nanocrystals as a scalable, solution-processable switch platform compatible with terahertz-rate optical communication.

What carries the argument

The central object is fieldoscopy, an electric-field sampling measurement in which a short probe pulse upconverts the transmitted excitation field in a thin nonlinear crystal, and a balanced detector reads the cross-polarised sum-frequency signal while the probe delay is scanned, giving about 90 attoseconds of temporal resolution and 110 dB dynamic range. The sample response is defined as $E_{\mathrm{Response}}(t) = (E_R(t)-E_S(t))/\max(|E_R(t)|)$, the difference between the substrate and ITO transmitted fields after aligning their cross-correlation in a pre-pulse window; this subtraction is what turns the raw field traces into an effective interferometric measurement of ITO attenuation and dephasing. The ITO response itself is carried by the localized surface plasmon resonance of the nanocrystals, whose epsilon-near-zero band sits in the 120–150 THz range of the excitation spectrum.

What would settle it

Take a pristine area of the same ITO-coated substrate and expose it once to the 1.2 mJ/cm2 train, recording the full response field and the low-fluence OFF trace; then expose the same spot repeatedly. If the reversible switch is real, the first exposure should be reversible, and only repeated exposure beyond 3.3 mJ/cm2 should produce the permanent 20% change. If a single exposure at 1.2 mJ/cm2 already leaves a changed OFF response, the 10% reversible claim collapses. Independently, measuring the transmitted power with a thermal power meter while the beam is chopped at 1 MHz would confirm the 10% modulation depth without relying on field subtraction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that near its epsilon-near-zero wavelength, a dip-coated multilayer of 14-nm ITO nanocrystals on glass exhibits a nonlinear transmission response fast enough and strong enough for practical all-optical switching: at 1 MHz repetition, two-cycle 10.7-fs pulses spanning 1.5–2.5 µm bleach the localized surface plasmon resonance, increasing transmission by about 10% reversibly up to 1.2 mJ/cm2, and by up to about 20% irreversibly above 3.3 mJ/cm2. The field-resolved measurement shows the response rising during the first optical cycle and peaking in the second, with the first-cycle contribution diminishing at higher fluence; the resolved transient persists for about 400 fs. The paper argues this combination of high duty cycle, fast recovery, substantial modulation depth, and full reversibility in the lower fluence range is what an effective optical switch requires.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement assumes that the bare-substrate reference area is optically identical to the ITO-coated area apart from the nanocrystal film, so that subtracting the two field traces, after aligning them in a pre-pulse window, cancels all substrate, filter, dispersion, and water-vapour contributions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reversible 10% modulation at 1 MHz means the ITO nanocrystal film can be switched on and off hundreds of thousands of times per second without measurable degradation up to 1.2 mJ/cm2.
  • Because the modulation spans 120–200 THz (2–2.5 µm), the same film could serve as a broadband modulator rather than a narrow-line filter.
  • The roughly 400 fs transient response implies that after each switching event the film recovers before the next pulse arrives at 1 MHz, which is what keeps the duty cycle high.
  • The measured damage boundary at 3.3 mJ/cm2, with peak intensity near 1.8 TW/cm2, sets an explicit operating limit for device design.
  • Fieldoscopy resolves the sub-cycle sequence of bleaching: the first optical cycle contributes less at high fluence, showing that the nonlinearity is not a simple instantaneous Kerr effect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to use the 25 fs earlier arrival of the substrate back-reflection under the ITO film as a direct readout of the fluence-dependent refractive index of the nanocrystal layer.
  • The reduced first-cycle contribution at high fluence may be a fingerprint of cumulative carrier heating rather than purely instantaneous electronic nonlinearity; varying the carrier-envelope phase of the two-cycle pulse would test that separation.
  • Fieldoscopy's ability to resolve sub-cycle responses in the short-wavelength infrared could be carried over to other epsilon-near-zero materials, such as cadmium-oxide nanocrystals, to map their reversible modulation range in a single measurement series.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports fieldoscopy measurements of the ultrafast nonlinear transmission response of colloidal ITO nanocrystals excited by two-cycle, CEP-stable pulses at 1 MHz repetition rate near their epsilon-near-zero wavelength. The central experimental claims are that the transmitted-field modulation is reversible up to a fluence of 1.2 mJ/cm2 with a modulation depth of 10%, becomes fully irreversible above 3.3 mJ/cm2, reaches modulation depths up to 20%, and that the sub-cycle field response shows a fluence-dependent reduction of the first-cycle contribution. The analysis is based on subtracting the field transmitted through a bare substrate region from that transmitted through an ITO-coated region, followed by Fourier analysis of the response and before/after comparison to assess reversibility.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work would be a valuable demonstration of a scalable, high-repetition-rate ultrafast optical switch platform based on ITO nanocrystals and would extend field-resolved metrology to the near-infrared plasmonic response of a relevant material. The experiment is direct in design, and the modulation depth and spectral response are defined from measured field transients rather than from a fitted model, which is a structural strength. The paper also includes a useful reversibility protocol and identifies a clear fluence boundary between reversible and irreversible operation. However, the quantitative thresholds and the reversibility boundary currently rest on a reference-subtraction procedure that has not been validated as robust against substrate inhomogeneity, alignment bias, or temporal-window choice, and the reported modulation depths and weighted-mean-frequency shifts lack uncertainty quantification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Fig. 2b] The central observable, EResponse(t) = (ER(t) - ES(t))/max(|ER(t)|), is obtained from two spatially separated regions of the sample that are translated into the focus with a manual three-way stage (Methods, Section 4). The claim of 10% reversible modulation up to 1.2 mJ/cm2 and full irreversibility beyond 3.3 mJ/cm2 therefore assumes that the bare-substrate reference and the ITO-coated region are optically identical except for the ITO film. This is not demonstrated. The manuscript reports no null experiment in which two bare-substrate positions are processed through the same subtraction and alignment pipeline, and it does not quantify the effect of the 25 fs shift of the back-surface reflection (SI Fig. 8) on the main-pulse window. Without such a control or an error budget, the subtraction could generate or bias the apparent response. I request a null test on two substrate positions and an uncertainty estimate for the 10% and 20% modulation-depth values.
  2. [Section 2 vs. Fig. 2 caption] The temporal alignment of ES(t) and ER(t) is described inconsistently: the main text states that cross-correlation is maximized in the window from -60 fs to -10 fs, while the Fig. 2 caption states -80 fs to 10 fs. A window that is mostly pre-pulse noise, or one that includes the main-pulse edge, can bias the difference field and therefore the amplitude and spectrum of the response. The authors should specify the exact alignment procedure, justify the chosen window, and show the sensitivity of the extracted modulation depth and spectral phase to the window boundaries.
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 4d and Fig. 4a-4b] The reversibility criterion is qualitative. The text describes the behavior at 550 uJ/cm2 as 'qualitatively unchanged' and at 1.2 mJ/cm2 as showing a 'slight alteration of the spectral distribution', but no quantitative metric is defined for reversibility, no error bars are given for the modulation-depth curve in Fig. 4d, and no repeated measurements are reported to establish that the before/after traces are statistically indistinguishable. Since the reversible/irreversible boundary at 1.2-3.3 mJ/cm2 is one of the main claims, the authors should define a quantitative reversibility criterion, such as a threshold on the normalized difference between the 'OFF' and initial low-fluence responses, and report its fluence dependence with uncertainties.
  4. [Section 2, Fig. 4c and SI Fig. 9a] The claim of a fluence-dependent redshift of the weighted mean frequency is load-bearing for the interpretation of bleaching and the transition to irreversibility, but the paper provides no error bars on the weighted-mean-frequency estimates and no statistical test comparing different fluences. Similarly, the statement that the relative contribution of the first optical cycle weakens with increasing fluence (conclusion and SI Fig. 11) is presented without a quantitative estimator or uncertainty. Please provide a defined metric for the first-cycle contribution and its fluence dependence, along with measurement repeatability.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are typographical errors, including 'nanocrytals' in Section 2 and 'powerermeter' in the SI caption of Fig. 9, which should be corrected.
  2. [Affiliations] The affiliation 'Funtional Nanosystems, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia' contains a typo ('Funtional' should be 'Functional'); please correct it.
  3. [Section 2, Fig. 2d] The definition of the spectral response, DeltaI(omega)/IR(omega) = (IR - IS)/IR, is presented in the text but the symbols DeltaI and IR are not explicitly defined in the figure or its caption; a short definition in the caption would improve readability.
  4. [Section 4, Methods] The description of the reference area says the film on one side of the cover glass was removed, while later the sample is described as having a section of exposed substrate that was not dipped. These two statements should be reconciled so the reader understands whether the reference is an uncoated region of the same substrate or a region where the coating was removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the modulation-depth and reversibility claims are defined directly from measured field differences, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain supplying the result.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (reversible 10% modulation up to 1.2 mJ/cm2, irreversibility beyond 3.3 mJ/cm2) are obtained by arithmetic on measured electric fields: EResponse(t) = (ER(t)-ES(t))/max|ER(t)|, and the modulation depth is the integrated intensity difference normalized by the reference. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction; the thresholds are read off the same defined quantity. The only salient self-citations are to the authors' earlier fieldoscopy papers [32,53] for the detector's sensitivity and jitter, but the method is also described in the Methods section and the measured transients are presented directly; the central result does not reduce to that citation. The paper does contain an acknowledged reference-area mismatch (25 fs shift of the back-surface reflection between ITO and bare substrate, SI Fig. 8) and an inconsistency in the stated cross-correlation alignment window (-60 to -10 fs in main text vs -80 to 10 fs in the Fig. 2 caption). These are correctness or control-experiment concerns about the substrate subtraction, not circularity: the difference-field definition does not presuppose the magnitude or reversibility of the ITO response. Hence no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The measurement is self-contained: no free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated. It relies on the validity of reference subtraction, the LSPR interpretation of ITO, and the previously demonstrated fieldoscopy detection scheme.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption ITO nanocrystal LSPR near 2 um is responsible for the measured attenuation in the response spectra.
    Invoked in Results and Discussion when interpreting the attenuation between 120 and 150 THz as LSPR; no independent model is derived here.
  • domain assumption Subtracting electric fields from ITO-coated and uncoated substrate after temporal alignment cancels all linear substrate and filter contributions.
    Defines EResponse in Figure 2b; if false, modulation depth and reversibility statements are compromised.
  • domain assumption Fieldoscopy yields a faithful, linear representation of the transmitted electric field with 90 as timing jitter.
    Relies on the authors' prior Nature Photonics 2024 fieldoscopy calibration reported as reference [32].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultrafast nonlinear dynamics of indium tin oxide nanocrystals probed via fieldoscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2HCSZF3M

@misc{pith2026250821518,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultrafast nonlinear dynamics of indium tin oxide nanocrystals probed via fieldoscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2HCSZF3M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.21518}
}
read the original abstract

Scalable, high-speed, small-footprint photonic switching platforms are essential for advancing optical communication. An effective optical switch must operate at high duty cycles with fast recovery times, while maintaining substantial modulation depth and full reversibility. Colloidal nanocrystals, such as indium tin oxide (ITO), offer a scalable platform to meet these requirements. In this work, the transmission of ITO nanocrystals near their epsilon-near-zero wavelength is modulated by two-cycle optical pulses at a repetition rate of one megahertz. The modulator exhibits a broad bandwidth spanning from 2 um to 2.5 um. Sensitive fieldoscopy measurements resolve the transient electric-field response of the ITO for the first time, showing that the modulation remains reversible for excitation fluences up to 1.2 mJ/cm2 with a modulation depth of 10%, and becomes fully irreversible beyond 3.3 mJ/cm2, while reaching modulation depth of up to 20%. Field sampling further indicates that at higher excitation fluences, the relative contribution from the first cycle of the optical pulses is reduced. These findings are crucial for the development of all-optical switching, telecommunications, and sensing technologies capable of operating at terahertz switching frequencies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21518 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Top-view scanning electron microscopy (SEM) micrograph of ITO nanocrystal thin film. b) Statistical eval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Electric field of the transmitted excitation pulses from the ITO and substrate sample at the fluence of 75 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Normalized Wigner–Ville distribution for the substrate (reference) and the sample responses at fluences be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) Reversibility response of the optical switching at the fluence of 550 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Irreversibility of the optical switching at the fluence of 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: SI. a) Representative TEM image of the ITO nanocrystals batch employed for film deposition. b) Absorbance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: SI. Spectral response of the sample calculated within the time windows a) 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: SI. The reflection of the excitation pulse at the substrate–air interface appears in the measured electric field at a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: SI. a) Weighted mean frequency of the response. It can be seen that the red shift of the absorption disappears [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: SI. Normalized Wigner–Ville distribution (WVD) of the substrate and sample responses at fluences between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SI. Nonlinearity and reproducibility of the optical switching of the ITO nanocrystals at fluences beyond 3.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 73 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kinsey, C

    N. Kinsey, C. DeVault, J. Kim, M. Ferrera, V. Shalaev, A. Boltasseva, Optica 2015, 2, 7 616

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Sennary, J

    M. Sennary, J. Shah, M. Yuan, A. Mahjoub, V. Pervak, N. V. Golubev, M. T. Hassan, Nature Communications 2025, 16, 1 4335

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    L. A. Sweatlock, K. Diest, Optics Express 2012, 20, 8 8700

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    P. Guo, R. D. Schaller, J. B. Ketterson, R. P. Chang, Nature Photonics 2016, 10, 4 267

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Sommer, E

    A. Sommer, E. Bothschafter, S. Sato, C. Jakubeit, T. Latka, O. Razskazovskaya, H. Fattahi, M. Jobst, W. Schweinberger, V. Shirvanyan, et al., Nature 2016, 534, 7605 86

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    D. Hui, H. Alqattan, S. Zhang, V. Pervak, E. Chowdhury, M. T. Hassan, Science Advances 2023, 9, 8 eadf1015

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    D. Hui, H. Alqattan, S. Yamada, V. Pervak, K. Yabana, M. T. Hassan, Nature Photonics 2022, 16, 1 33

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    M. Z. Alam, I. De Leon, R. W. Boyd, Science 2016, 352, 6287 795

    work page 2016

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    D. K. Kim, Y. Lai, B. T. Diroll, C. B. Murray, C. R. Kagan, Nature communications 2012, 3, 1 1216

    2012

  2. [10]

    M. Abb, Y. Wang, C. De Groot, O. L. Muskens, Nature communications 2014, 5, 1 4869

    2014

  3. [11]

    G. Ni, L. Wang, M. Goldflam, M. Wagner, Z. Fei, A. McLeod, M. Liu, F. Keilmann, B. \"O zyilmaz, A. Castro Neto, et al., Nature Photonics 2016, 10, 4 244

    2016

  4. [12]

    J.-H. Choi, H. Wang, S. J. Oh, T. Paik, P. Sung, J. Sung, X. Ye, T. Zhao, B. T. Diroll, C. B. Murray, et al., Science 2016, 352, 6282 205

    2016

  5. [13]

    Kim, K.-S

    T.-H. Kim, K.-S. Cho, E. K. Lee, S. J. Lee, J. Chae, J. W. Kim, D. H. Kim, J.-Y. Kwon, G. Amaratunga, S. Y. Lee, et al., Nature photonics 2011, 5, 3 176

    2011

  6. [14]

    A. T. Fafarman, S.-H. Hong, H. Caglayan, X. Ye, B. T. Diroll, T. Paik, N. Engheta, C. B. Murray, C. R. Kagan, Nano Letters 2013, 13, 2 350

    2013

  7. [15]

    Kriegel, F

    I. Kriegel, F. Scotognella, L. Manna, Physics Reports 2017, 674 1

    2017

  8. [16]

    N. J. Halas, S. Lal, W.-S. Chang, S. Link, P. Nordlander, Chemical Reviews 2011, 111, 6 3913

    2011

  9. [17]

    Garcia, R

    G. Garcia, R. Buonsanti, E. L. Runnerstrom, R. J. Mendelsberg, A. Llordes, A. Anders, T. J. Richardson, D. J. Milliron, Nano Letters 2011, 11, 10 4415

    2011

  10. [18]

    Scotognella, G

    F. Scotognella, G. Della Valle, A. R. Srimath Kandada, M. Zavelani-Rossi, S. Longhi, G. Lanzani, F. Tassone, The European Physical Journal B 2013, 86, 4 154

    2013

  11. [19]

    J. M. Luther, P. K. Jain, T. Ewers, A. P. Alivisatos, Nature Materials 2011, 10, 5 361

    2011

  12. [20]

    J. Wu, Z. T. Xie, Y. Sha, H. Y. Fu, Q. Li, Photon. Res. 2021, 9, 8 1616, publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    2021

  13. [21]

    Issah, J

    I. Issah, J. Pietila, T. Kujala, M. Koivurova, H. Caglayan, M. Ornigotti, Physical Review A 2023, 107, 2 023501

    2023

  14. [22]

    K. Kim, Z. M. Sherman, A. Cleri, W. J. Chang, J.-P. Maria, T. M. Truskett, D. J. Milliron, Nano Letters 2023, 23, 16 7633

    2023

  15. [23]

    J. Bohn, T. S. Luk, C. Tollerton, S. W. Hutchings, I. Brener, S. Horsley, W. L. Barnes, E. Hendry, Nature communications 2021, 12, 1 1017

    2021

  16. [24]

    Rebecchi, I

    L. Rebecchi, I. Martin, I. M. Albo, P. Ranjan, T. Gatti, F. Scotognella, A. Rubino, I. Kriegel, Chemistry – A European Journal 2025, 31, 8 e202401711

    2025

  17. [25]

    Q. Guo, Y. Cui, Y. Yao, Y. Ye, Y. Yang, X. Liu, S. Zhang, X. Liu, J. Qiu, H. Hosono, Advanced Materials 2017, 29, 27 1700754

    2017

  18. [26]

    M. A. Blemker, S. L. Gibbs, E. K. Raulerson, D. J. Milliron, S. T. Roberts, ACS Photonics 2020, 7, 5 1188

    2020

  19. [27]

    D. B. Tice, S.-Q. Li, M. Tagliazucchi, D. B. Buchholz, E. A. Weiss, R. P. H. Chang, Nano Lett. 2014

    2014

  20. [28]

    B. T. Diroll, P. Guo, R. P. H. Chang, R. D. Schaller, ACS Nano 2016, 10, 11 10099

    2016

  21. [29]

    M. P. Fischer, N. Maccaferri, K. Gallacher, J. Frigerio, G. Pellegrini, D. J. Paul, G. Isella, A. Leitenstorfer, P. Biagioni, D. Brida, Optica 2021, 8, 6 898

    2021

  22. [30]

    Scheffter, J

    K. Scheffter, J. Will, C. Riek, H. Jousselin, S. Coudreau, N. Forget, H. Fattahi, Ultrafast Science 2024, 4 0062

    2024

  23. [31]

    Herbst, K

    A. Herbst, K. Scheffter, M. M. Bidhendi, M. Kieker, A. Srivastava, H. Fattahi, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Srivastava, A

    A. Srivastava, A. Herbst, M. M. Bidhendi, M. Kieker, F. Tani, H. Fattahi, Nature Photonics 2024, 18, 12 1320

    2024

  25. [33]

    W. Cho, S. I. Hwang, C. H. Nam, M. R. Bionta, P. Lassonde, B. E. Schmidt, H. Ibrahim, F. L \'e gar \'e , K. T. Kim, Scientific Reports 2019, 9, 1 16067

    2019

  26. [34]

    S. B. Park, K. Kim, W. Cho, S. I. Hwang, I. Ivanov, C. H. Nam, K. T. Kim, Optica 2018, 5, 4 402

    2018

  27. [35]

    Sederberg, D

    S. Sederberg, D. Zimin, S. Keiber, F. Siegrist, M. S. Wismer, V. S. Yakovlev, I. Floss, C. Lemell, J. Burgd \"o rfer, M. Schultze, F. Krausz, N. Karpowicz, Nature Communications 2020, 11, 1 430

    2020

  28. [36]

    Zimin, M

    D. Zimin, M. Weidman, J. Sch\" o tz, M. F. Kling, V. S. Yakovlev, F. Krausz, N. Karpowicz, Optica 2021, 8, 5 586

    2021

  29. [37]

    Y. Liu, S. Gholam-Mirzaei, J. E. Beetar, J. Nesper, A. Yousif, M. Nrisimhamurty, M. Chini, Photon. Res. 2021, 9, 6 929

    2021

  30. [38]

    Y. Liu, J. E. Beetar, J. Nesper, S. Gholam-Mirzaei, M. Chini, Nature Photonics 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Beckh, P

    C. Beckh, P. Sulzer, N. Fritzsche, C. Riek, A. Leitenstorfer, Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 2021, 42, 6 701

    2021

  32. [40]

    Alismail, H

    A. Alismail, H. Wang, G. Barbiero, N. Altwaijry, S. A. Hussain, V. Pervak, W. Schweinberger, A. M. Azzeer, F. Krausz, H. Fattahi, Science Advances 2020, 6, 7 eaax3408

    2020

  33. [41]

    D. A. Zimin, V. S. Yakovlev, N. Karpowicz 2022, 8, 51 eade1029

    2022

  34. [42]

    M. R. Bionta, F. Ritzkowsky, M. Turchetti, Y. Yang, D. Cattozzo Mor, W. P. Putnam, F. X. K \"a rtner, K. K. Berggren, P. D. Keathley, Nature Photonics 2021, 15, 6 456

    2021

  35. [43]

    Korobenko, K

    A. Korobenko, K. Johnston, M. Kubullek, L. Arissian, Z. Dube, T. Wang, M. K\" u bel, A. Y. Naumov, D. M. Villeneuve, M. F. Kling, P. B. Corkum, A. Staudte, B. Bergues, Optica 2020, 7, 10 1372

    2020

  36. [44]

    A. S. Kowligy, H. Timmers, A. J. Lind, U. Elu, F. C. Cruz, P. G. Schunemann, J. Biegert, S. A. Diddams, Science Advances 2019, 5, 6 eaaw8794

    2019

  37. [45]

    C. Riek, P. Sulzer, M. Seeger, A. S. Moskalenko, G. Burkard, D. V. Seletskiy, A. Leitenstorfer, Nature 2017, 541, 7637 376

    2017

  38. [46]

    Saito, N

    N. Saito, N. Ishii, T. Kanai, J. Itatani, Opt. Express 2018, 26, 19 24591

    2018

  39. [47]

    Keiber, S

    S. Keiber, S. Sederberg, A. Schwarz, M. Trubetskov, V. Pervak, F. Krausz, N. Karpowicz, Nature Photonics 2016, 10, 3 159, publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2016

  40. [48]

    Y. Liu, S. Gholam-Mirzaei, D. Khatri, T.-C. Truong, T. D. Journigan, C. Cabello, C. Lantigua, A. Staudte, P. B. Corkum, M. Chini, Optica 2024, 11, 6 846

    2024

  41. [49]

    Kubullek, M

    M. Kubullek, M. A. Silva-Toledo, R. E. Mainz, F. Scheiba, R. de Q. Garcia, F. Ritzkowsky, G. M. Rossi, F. X. Kärtner, Ultrafast Science 2025, 5 0081

    2025

  42. [50]

    K.-F. Wong, W. Li, Z. Wang, V. Wanie, E. Månsson, D. Hoeing, J. Blöchl, T. Nubbemeyer, A. Azzeer, A. Trabattoni, H. Lange, F. Calegari, M. F. Kling, Nano Letters 2024, 24, 18 5506

    2024

  43. [51]

    o hme, G. Rain \`o , M. V. Kovalenko, H. J. W \

    D. A. Zimin, I. Cherniukh, S. C. B \"o hme, G. Rain \`o , M. V. Kovalenko, H. J. W \"o rner, arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11727 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mamaikin, Y.-L

    M. Mamaikin, Y.-L. Li, E. Ridente, W. T. Chen, J.-S. Park, A. Y. Zhu, F. Capasso, M. Weidman, M. Schultze, F. Krausz, et al., Optica 2022, 9, 6 616

    2022

  45. [53]

    Srivastava, K

    A. Srivastava, K. Scheffter, S. Jun, A. Herbst, H. Fattahi, Applied Physics Letters 2024, 125, 20 204101

    2024

  46. [54]

    G. V. Hartland, Chemical reviews 2011, 111, 6 3858

    2011

  47. [55]

    J.-H. Yoo, A. Lange, J. Bude, S. Elhadj, Optical Materials Express 2017, 7, 3 817

    2017

  48. [56]

    L. Peng, Y. Zhao, X. Liu, Y. Liu, Z. Cao, M. Zhu, J. Shao, R. Hong, C. Tao, D. Zhang, Optical Materials Express 2019, 9, 2 911

    2019

  49. [57]

    Huang, D

    J. Huang, D. Liu, L. Chen, N. Li, L. Miao, C. Zhao, Optics Letters 2022, 47, 24 6413

    2022

  50. [58]

    Fattahi, H

    H. Fattahi, H. G. Barros, M. Gorjan, T. Nubbemeyer, B. Alsaif, C. Y. Teisset, M. Schultze, S. Prinz, M. Haefner, M. Ueffing, et al., Optica 2014, 1, 1 45

    2014

  51. [59]

    Alismail, H

    A. Alismail, H. Wang, G. Barbiero, N. Altwaijry, S. A. Hussain, V. Pervak, W. Schweinberger, A. M. Azzeer, F. Krausz, H. Fattahi, Science advances 2020, 6, 7 eaax3408

    2020

  52. [60]

    Alismail, H

    A. Alismail, H. Wang, N. Altwaijry, H. Fattahi, Applied Optics 2017, 56, 17 4990

    2017

  53. [61]

    H. Wang, A. Alismail, G. Barbiero, M. Wendl, H. Fattahi, Optics letters 2017, 42, 13 2595

    2017

  54. [62]

    Buberl, A

    T. Buberl, A. Alismail, H. Wang, N. Karpowicz, H. Fattahi, Optics express 2016, 24, 10 10286

    2016

  55. [63]

    A. Li, M. Bahri, R. M. Gray, S. Choi, S. Hoseinkhani, A. Srivastava, A. Marandi, H. Fattahi, APL Photonics 2024, 9, 10

    2024

  56. [64]

    C. J. Saraceno, D. Sutter, T. Metzger, M. A. Ahmed, Journal of the European Optical Society-Rapid Publications 2019, 15, 1 15

    2019

  57. [65]

    Rebecchi, N

    L. Rebecchi, N. Petrini, I. Maqueira Albo, N. Curreli, A. Rubino, Optical Materials: X 2023, 19 100247

    2023

  58. [66]

    Guizzardi, M

    M. Guizzardi, M. Ghini, A. Villa, L. Rebecchi, Q. Li, G. Mancini, F. Marangi, A. M. Ross, X. Zhu, I. Kriegel, F. Scotognella, The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters 2022, 13, 42 9903

    2022

  59. [67]

    Noginov, L

    M. Noginov, L. Gu, J. Livenere, G. Zhu, A. Pradhan, R. Mundle, M. Bahoura, Y. A. Barnakov, V. Podolskiy, Applied Physics Letters 2011, 99, 2

    2011

  60. [68]

    C. Wu, B. Neuner III, J. John, A. Milder, B. Zollars, S. Savoy, G. Shvets, Journal of Optics 2012, 14, 2 024005

    2012

  61. [69]

    C. Wu, A. B. Khanikaev, R. Adato, N. Arju, A. A. Yanik, H. Altug, G. Shvets, Nature materials 2012, 11, 1 69

    2012

  62. [70]

    Tittl, A.-K

    A. Tittl, A.-K. U. Michel, M. Sch \"a ferling, X. Yin, B. Gholipour, L. Cui, M. Wuttig, T. Taubner, F. Neubrech, H. Giessen, Advanced Materials 2015, 27, 31 4597

    2015

  63. [71]

    Kohoutek, A

    J. Kohoutek, A. Bonakdar, R. Gelfand, D. Dey, I. Hassani Nia, V. Fathipour, O. G. Memis, H. Mohseni, Nano letters 2012, 12, 5 2537

    2012

  64. [72]

    Amotchkina, H

    T. Amotchkina, H. Fattahi, Y. A. Pervak, M. Trubetskov, V. Pervak, Optics express 2016, 24, 15 16752

    2016

  65. [73]

    Rebecchi, I

    L. Rebecchi, I. Martin, I. M. Albo, P. Ranjan, T. Gatti, F. Scotognella, A. Rubino, I. Kriegel, Chemistry--A European Journal 2025, 31, 8 e202401711

    2025

  66. [74]

    , " * write output.state after.block =

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution isbn issn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type url volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCT...

  67. [75]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.