Revealing the anisotropic charge-density-wave order of TiSe$_2$ through high harmonic generation

Igor Tyulnev; Jens Biegert; Julita Poborska; Lenard Vamos; Lin Zhang; Maciej Lewenstein; Ravindra W. Chhajlany; Tobias Grass; Utso Bhattacharya

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Revealing the anisotropic charge-density-wave order of TiSe$_2$ through high harmonic generation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a tiny anisotropy in the three charge-density-wave order parameters of TiSe2 explains the asymmetric high-harmonic spectra observed at low temperature.

desk verdict Solid high-temperature geometry mechanism; the low-temperature anisotropy claim is a fitted input, not a revealed property. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13329 v2 pith:2NBUSK2X submitted 2024-12-17 cond-mat.str-el

Lin Zhang , Igor Tyulnev , Lenard Vamos , Julita Poborska , Utso Bhattacharya , Ravindra W. Chhajlany , Tobias Grass , Jens Biegert

show 1 more author

Maciej Lewenstein

This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.str-el

keywords TiSe2charge-density-wavehighharmonicgenerationpolarization-resolvedHHGmean-fieldmodeltime-dependentSchrödingerequationtriple-QCDWanisotropy

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 argues that the polarization-dependent high-harmonic generation (HHG) spectra of the layered material TiSe2 are explained by a simplified phenomenological mean-field model of its charge-density-wave (CDW) phase. Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for an 8×8 Bloch Hamiltonian, the model reproduces the measured single-peaked third- and seventh-harmonic and double-peaked fifth-harmonic polarization curves. At low temperature, the strongly asymmetric spectra are captured only when the three CDW order parameters differ by about 0.1 percent, a weak anisotropy attributed to strain or disorder. If this is right, HHG polarimetry becomes a sensitive all-optical probe of CDW anisotropy.

What carries the argument

The machinery is an 8×8 momentum-dependent mean-field Hamiltonian in the reduced Brillouin zone, built from a two-band tight-binding model of TiSe2 and three CDW order parameters $\Delta Q_1$, $\Delta Q_2$, $\Delta Q_3$. The harmonic spectrum is computed by integrating the velocity-gauge density-matrix equation $i\hbar\, d\rho/dt = [H(k + eA(t)/\hbar; \{\Delta Q_i(t)\}), \rho]$, with a dephasing step in the adiabatic basis. Two geometric elements do the explanatory work: the projection of the 45°-incident laser vector potential onto the crystal plane makes the in-plane field strength vary with polarization angle, and a small crystal-axis offset $\alpha = 5^\circ$ accounts for the weak high-temperature asymmetry. Adding the tiny CDW anisotropy then produces the strong low-temperature asymmetry.

What would settle it

Directly measure the three CDW order parameters at low temperature, for example by X-ray diffraction or scanning tunneling microscopy, and check whether $\Delta Q_1$, $\Delta Q_2$, and $\Delta Q_3$ differ by roughly 0.1 percent in the direction the model requires; alternatively, apply a controlled uniaxial strain and test whether the H5 peak-height asymmetry follows the predicted relation between strain and harmonic polarization curves.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that three ingredients together shape the HHG response of TiSe2: the hexagonal band structure, the 45-degree incidence geometry of the driving laser, and a weak anisotropy among the three CDW order parameters. In the low-temperature phase, the measured intensity distributions of H3, H5, and H7 as functions of polarization angle are matched by a mean-field solution with $\Delta Q_1 = 0.1148\,\mathrm{eV}$, $\Delta Q_2 = 0.1147\,\mathrm{eV}$, and $\Delta Q_3 = 0.1146\,\mathrm{eV}$. This one-part-in-a-thousand breaking of the three-fold CDW symmetry tilts the harmonic peak heights in just the way the experiment shows, while the single- versus double-peaked structures are produced by projecting the 45°-incident field onto the material plane. The paper therefore attributes the low-temperature harmonic asymmetry to anisotropic CDW order.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on the assumption that the real sample's three CDW order parameters are statically anisotropic by the specific tiny amounts chosen, with the anisotropy attributed to strain or disorder but never independently measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is correct, polarization-resolved HHG can reveal anisotropy in CDW order parameters at the 0.1 percent level, a sensitivity that linear optical probes do not obviously provide.
The 45-degree incidence geometry is an essential part of the explanation: it converts the intrinsic three-peaked harmonic pattern into the single-peaked H3/H7 and double-peaked H5 curves seen experimentally.
The high-temperature H5 asymmetry arises from a crystal-axis offset of about 5 degrees, whereas the low-temperature asymmetry requires CDW anisotropy and cannot be explained by the offset alone.
The same simulation scheme could be applied to other triple-Q CDW materials, predicting harmonic polarization curves that would test whether their order parameters are similarly anisotropic.

Reading between the lines

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

Controlled uniaxial strain experiments on TiSe2 would provide a direct test: if strain is the source of the anisotropy, the H5 peak-height asymmetry should vary systematically with applied strain.
The apparent sensitivity to order-parameter differences of about 0.1% suggests that HHG polarimetry might also detect CDW domain patterns or inhomogeneous strain, since different regions would contribute different effective anisotropies.
An alternative mechanism, such as laser-induced dynamics of the order parameters or multi-band effects, would weaken the static-anisotropy conclusion; measuring the harmonic response as a function of pulse duration or intensity could distinguish static from dynamic symmetry breaking.
The mechanism of amplifying a tiny ground-state symmetry breaking through the nonlinear optical response may generalize to other correlated phases, where HHG asymmetry could act as a fingerprint of hidden order.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the good news. The paper's high-temperature story is convincing and useful. The authors show that the measured HHG polarization pattern—single-peaked H3 and H7, double-peaked H5—comes from the 45-degree incidence geometry projecting the laser field onto the sample plane, not from any exotic CDW physics. Fig. 5 backs this up by showing the peak structure is stable across laser frequencies and amplitudes. That is a genuine insight and will be referenced.

The low-temperature conclusion is another story. The claim that HHG reveals an anisotropic CDW order rests on choosing the CDW order parameters to be slightly anisotropic (DeltaQ1=0.1148, DeltaQ2=0.1147, DeltaQ3=0.1146 eV). The authors are transparent about this—they say they 'chose' these values to reproduce the left/right peak behavior—but that means the agreement in Fig. 4 is a fit, not a prediction. The differences are ~0.1 meV, about 0.09% of the order parameter. At that level, any symmetry-breaking perturbation (uniaxial strain, domain imbalance, laser-induced alignment shift) could generate the same asymmetry. The paper does not compute those alternatives, so the specific attribution to static CDW anisotropy is underdetermined.

There is also a reproducibility issue: the dephasing time tau introduced after Eq. (4) is never specified. Dephasing is known to change harmonic intensities and angular distributions; omitting it leaves the calculation incomplete. And there is no goodness-of-fit statistic; the curves are normalized per harmonic, so 'excellent match' is visual.

The paper also notes its own limitations (the paragraph after Eq. 3 acknowledges the tight-binding caveats and multi-band effects), which is honest. I am not saying the low-T mechanism is wrong—it is plausible. But it is a consistency check, not a revelation.

Who is this for? People working on HHG as a probe of phase transitions and the CDW community. They will get value from the high-T geometry mechanism and from the cautionary example of how easy it is to fit HHG angular data.

Recommendation: This deserves peer review. It is technically sound, well-structured, and the high-T result is a real contribution. A referee should push for (1) reporting tau, (2) quantifying the fit, (3) either measuring the anisotropy independently or reframing the low-T claim as a consistency check that motivates future experiments, and (4) testing at least one alternative symmetry-breaking mechanism. With those revisions, the paper would be publishable.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a phenomenological mean-field tight-binding model for the CDW phase of TiSe2 and computes high-harmonic generation (HHG) spectra by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation in the velocity gauge. The authors show that the experimentally observed polarization dependence of H3, H5, and H7 in the high-temperature (semimetal) phase is reproduced when the actual 45-degree incidence geometry is used, with the H5 double peak emerging from the projection of the laser field onto the material plane. For the low-temperature CDW phase, they reproduce the asymmetric H5/H7 polarization traces by introducing a small static anisotropy among the three CDW order parameters, ΔQ1 = 0.1148 eV, ΔQ2 = 0.1147 eV, and ΔQ3 = 0.1146 eV, together with a crystal-axis offset. The central claim is that this agreement reveals an anisotropic CDW order in the low-temperature phase.

Significance. The high-temperature part of the paper is a valuable and robust result: the simplification to a two-dimensional tight-binding model together with the 45-degree incidence geometry explains the qualitative peak structure of H3, H5, and H7 without ad hoc symmetry breaking, and Fig. 5 shows that this conclusion is stable over a range of laser frequencies and amplitudes. If the low-temperature inference could be strengthened, the paper would establish HHG polarimetry as a genuinely informative probe of CDW anisotropy. However, as it stands, the low-temperature claim is not yet established: the specific anisotropy of the CDW order parameters is inserted by hand to match the data rather than extracted from it, and the dephasing time that controls the harmonic intensities is undisclosed. The paper is therefore a useful contribution with a promising framework, but its flagship conclusion requires further work before it can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)

[Section V, Fig. 4] The central low-temperature conclusion is obtained by choosing the CDW order-parameter anisotropy to reproduce the experiment. The green curves in Fig. 4 are generated with ΔQ1 = 0.1148 eV, ΔQ2 = 0.1147 eV, and ΔQ3 = 0.1146 eV, and the corresponding interaction strengths UQ1 = -1.80965 eV, UQ2 = -1.80935 eV, UQ3 = -1.80905 eV; the text states that this choice is made so that the left H5 peak becomes higher than the right peak. Since these values are not independently measured and no inversion or fitting residual is reported, the statement that the model 'reveals' an anisotropic CDW order is circular: the asymmetry is an input, not an output. Please either perform a quantitative parameter scan and show that the experimental data uniquely select this small anisotropy within the model, or reframe the claim as 'can be reproduced by' and discuss the degeneracy with other symmetry-breaking mechanisms.
[Section III, after Eq. (4)] The dephasing time tau, introduced in the phenomenological dephasing step after Eq. (4), is never specified anywhere in the manuscript. Harmonic intensities and their angular distributions are strongly sensitive to tau, so omitting its value makes the theoretical curves in Figs. 3, 4, 5, and 6 unreproducible. Please report the value of tau used for every calculation, and ideally show a short convergence check with respect to tau.
[Section III, Eq. (4) and Section V] It is unclear whether the CDW order parameters ΔQi(t) in Eq. (4) are updated self-consistently during the laser pulse or frozen at their initial self-consistent values. The text says the Hamiltonian depends on the 'time-evolved' order parameter and gives the self-consistency expression, but the numerical implementation is not described. If the order parameters are frozen, then the low-temperature anisotropy is imposed at t=0 and the calculation does not demonstrate that the CDW order responds to or is revealed by the laser field. Please specify the update procedure and state explicitly whether ΔQi(t) is evolved in the simulations shown.
[Section V, low-temperature discussion] The paper dismisses alternative symmetry-breaking sources for the low-temperature H5 asymmetry—such as disorder, residual strain, surface inhomogeneity, domain population imbalance, or multiband effects—without computing them. Since the fitted anisotropy is only about 0.1 meV, many small perturbations could in principle produce the same H5 peak-height reversal, and the authors' argument that the high-temperature data constrain these effects is qualitative rather than quantitative. To support the uniqueness of the CDW-anisotropy interpretation, please provide at least one concrete counter-check, such as a calculation with a uniaxial strain correction to the tight-binding hoppings or a domain-population imbalance, showing that these alternatives do not reproduce the observed low-temperature asymmetry.

minor comments (5)

[Section II] There is a typo in the text: 'paramter' should be 'parameter' in the sentence introducing the mean-field order parameter.
[Section V, Fig. 3 caption] The caption does not identify which shaded region corresponds to experimental error bars; please label the experimental data and the error bars explicitly in the figure.
[Section V, α discussion] The experimental offset angle is quoted as 7° ± 2°, but the simulations use α = 5°. A brief comment on why 5° was chosen and how the result depends on α would clarify the fit.
[Section VI] The conclusion says the anisotropic CDW 'could be induced by the possible onset of strain,' but the body text offers no calculation or estimate for the strain magnitude needed to produce the 0.1 meV anisotropy. Adding such an estimate would help the reader judge the plausibility of the proposed mechanism.
[Appendix B] The word 'stability' in the appendix is used loosely: Fig. 5 demonstrates robustness with respect to laser parameters, and Fig. 6 demonstrates persistence of the asymmetry when the anisotropy is increased, but no quantitative criterion for 'stable' is given. Please define what level of variation is considered acceptable.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The low-temperature anisotropic-CDW claim is produced by manually inserting the anisotropy that the paper then claims to reveal; the high-temperature geometry explanation is independent and non-circular.

fitted input called prediction [Section V (Practical 45°-incident laser geometry), Fig. 4 and surrounding text.]
"For the green lines shown in Fig. 4, we introduced a slight anisotropy in the CDW order parameters, i.e., ΔQ1 = 0.1148 eV, ΔQ2 = 0.1147 eV, and ΔQ3 = 0.1146 eV ... The shape of the obtained HHG spectra reproduces the behavior observed in Ref. [54]. Particularly, the left peak now is higher than the right peak."

The paper's central claim is that HHG 'reveals a strong asymmetry due to the anisotropic CDW order in the low temperature phase.' The only model input that generates this asymmetry is the hand-introduced anisotropy ΔQ1 > ΔQ2 > ΔQ3; the paper explicitly says it 'introduced' these values and that the resulting spectra 'reproduce' the observed left-peak-higher behavior. The paper also states that it 'chosen the order parameters with ΔQ1 > ΔQ3' precisely to enhance H5/H7 for θ < 90°. These values are not independently measured, derived from ab initio calculation, or obtained by a stated inversion procedure; they are selected by inspecting the experimental curve.

full rationale

The high-temperature part of the paper is not circular: the single-peak H3/H7 and double-peak H5 structure are explained by combining an external tight-binding band structure with the experimentally used 45° incidence geometry and a crystal-axis offset α = 5° that is consistent with the independently reported experimental offset of 7° ± 2°. The low-temperature part, however, reduces to a fitted input for the central claim. To match the observed H5/H7 asymmetry, the authors introduce anisotropic CDW order parameters ΔQ1 = 0.1148 eV, ΔQ2 = 0.1147 eV, and ΔQ3 = 0.1146 eV, and then describe the resulting agreement as reproducing the experiment. The paper even states that these values were 'chosen' to produce the desired band-gap asymmetry. Thus the 'prediction' of low-temperature asymmetry is forced by the assumed anisotropy rather than independently revealed by the HHG calculation. The experimental reference [54] is a self-citation, but using one's own measured data as a benchmark is not itself circular; the circularity lies in promoting the fitted anisotropy to a revealed physical property. The absence of a reported dephasing time and the lack of goodness-of-fit statistics are additional reproducibility concerns, but they are not circularity arguments. Overall, the geometry-driven high-temperature explanation is self-contained, while the low-temperature anisotropic-CDW inference is partially circular, giving a score of 6.

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

The central explanatory content is carried by an existing tight-binding band structure and a mean-field CDW ansatz from earlier literature. The genuinely new element, the tiny anisotropy of the CDW order parameters, is an ad hoc input chosen to reproduce the experimental asymmetry, alongside an unreported dephasing time. The model therefore demonstrates consistency rather than providing an independent measurement of the anisotropy.

free parameters (5)

CDW order parameter anisotropy (Delta_Q1, Delta_Q2, Delta_Q3) = Delta_Q1 = 0.1148 eV, Delta_Q2 = 0.1147 eV, Delta_Q3 = 0.1146 eV (low T)
Chosen ad hoc in Sec. V to reproduce the measured low-temperature HHG asymmetry; no independent measurement fixes these values.
Effective interaction strengths U_Q1, U_Q2, U_Q3 = -1.80965 eV, -1.80935 eV, -1.80905 eV (anisotropic case)
Phenomenological parameters tuned so that the self-consistent solution yields the chosen Delta_Q values; Sec. V.
Dephasing time tau = not reported
Introduced in Sec. III as a phenomenological decoherence rate; no value is given, yet it affects the computed harmonic intensities and relative peak heights.
Crystal axis offset alpha = 5 degrees
Used to reproduce the high-T asymmetry; lies within the experimentally stated 7 +/- 2 degrees uncertainty, but the exact value is chosen by hand.
Laser parameters A0, omega, ncyc = A0 = 1.2 hbar/ea, hbar omega = 0.4 eV, ncyc = 8
Chosen close to the experimental values and shown to be robust in Fig. 5; they are inputs rather than fitted to the target curve.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The valence and conduction band dispersions are taken from the published tight-binding model of Ref. [57].
The HHG calculation depends on the accuracy of this band structure; the paper uses it as an input (Appendix A).
domain assumption The CDW order parameter follows the mean-field temperature dependence Delta(T) = Delta0 sqrt(1 - (T/Tc)^2) with Delta0 = 115 meV.
Assumed from Ref. [58] and used in Eq. (2); the time-dependent order parameter is evolved self-consistently from this ansatz.
domain assumption Only the highest valence band and lowest conduction band are kept, and the material is treated as a 2D single surface layer.
Sec. II states that multi-orbital and multi-band effects are ignored; the laser is assumed to interact mainly with the surface layer.
domain assumption Dephasing of coherences in the adiabatic basis with a single time tau is a valid description of the material's scattering.
Sec. III introduces this phenomenological dephasing without a microscopic derivation and without specifying tau.
standard math Minimal coupling k -> k + eA/hbar and the dipole approximation describe the laser-matter interaction.
Standard strong-field approximations used in the velocity-gauge TDSE of Sec. III.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing the anisotropic charge-density-wave order of TiSe$_2$ through high harmonic generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2NBUSK2X

@misc{pith2026241213329,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing the anisotropic charge-density-wave order of TiSe$_2$ through high harmonic generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2NBUSK2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13329}
}

abstract

Titanium diselenide (TiSe$_{2}$) is a transition-metal dichalcogenide material that undergoes a charge-density-wave (CDW) transition at $T_{c}\approx 200\,\mathrm{K}$. In a recent experiment [I. Tyulnev {\it et al.}, Commun. Mater. 6, 152 (2025)], the high harmonic generation (HHG) spectra of this material has been studied, which exhibits asymmetric behavior with respect to the polarization angle of the incident light and provides a new perspective to the CDW phase transition. In this work, we work out a theoretical explanation for the experimentally observed behavior of HHG spectra. We propose a simplified phenomenological mean-field model for this material, based on which the HHG spectra is calculated through the time-dependent Schr{\" o}dinger equation. This model correctly describes the measured intensity distribution of the third-, fifth-, and seventh-order harmonic generation as a function of polarization direction and reveals a strong asymmetry due to the anisotropic CDW order in the low temperature phase. Our work provides a basis for applying high harmonic spectroscopy to reveal a new perspective on the nature of CDW orders.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13329 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** HHG spectra as a function of polarization angle for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Normalized HHG spectra of the high temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Particularly, the left peak in H5 is lower than the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Normalized HHG spectra of the low temperature [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: HHG spectra of the low temperature CDW phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

[1]

P. B. Corkum, Plasma perspective on strong field multi- photon ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1994 (1993)

1993
[2]

Lewenstein, P

M. Lewenstein, P. Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, and P. B. Corkum, Theory of high-harmonic generation by low-frequency laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994)

1994
[3]

Krausz and M

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

2009
[4]

Schultz and M

T. Schultz and M. Vrakking, Attosecond and XUV Physics: Ultrafast Dynamics and Spectroscopy (Wiley, New York, 2014)

work page 2014
[5]

Ghimire, A

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Observation of high-order harmonic generation in a bulk crystal, Nat. Phys.7, 138 (2011)

2011
[6]

Schubert, M

O. Schubert, M. Hohenleutner, F. Langer, B. Urbanek, C. Lange, U. Huttner, D. Golde, T. Meier, M. Kira, S. W. Koch, and R. Huber, Sub-cycle control of tera- hertz high-harmonic generation by dynamical Bloch os- cillations, Nat. Photonics8, 119 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

Hohenleutner, F

M. Hohenleutner, F. Langer, O. Schubert, M. Knorr, U. Huttner, S. W. Koch, M. Kira, and R. Huber, Real- time observation of interfering crystal electrons in high- harmonic generation, Nature523, 572 (2015)

2015
[8]

T. T. Luu, M. Garg, S. Y. Kruchinin, A. Moulet, M. T. Hassan, and E. Goulielmakis, Extreme ultraviolet high- harmonic spectroscopy of solids, Nature521, 498 (2015)

2015

Show all 60 references

[9]

Vampa, T

G. Vampa, T. J. Hammond, N. Thiré, B. E. Schmidt, F. Légaré, C. R. McDonald, T. Brabec, and P. B. Corkum, Linking high harmonics from gases and solids, Nature 522, 462 (2015)

2015
[10]

Ndabashimiye, S

G. Ndabashimiye, S. Ghimire, M. Wu, D. A. Browne, K. J. Schafer, M. B. Gaarde, and D. A. Reis, Solid- state harmonics beyond the atomic limit, Nature 534, 520 (2016)

2016
[11]

H. Liu, Y. Li, Y. S. You, S. Ghimire, T. F. Heinz, and D. A. Reis, High-harmonic generation from an atomically thin semiconductor, Nat. Phys.13, 262 (2016)

2016
[12]

Y. S. You, D. Reis, and S. Ghimire, Anisotropic high- harmonic generation in bulk crystals, Nat. Phys.13, 345 (2016)

2016
[13]

Yoshikawa, T

N. Yoshikawa, T. Tamaya, and K. Tanaka, High- harmonic generation in graphene enhanced by elliptically polarized light excitation, Science356, 736 (2017)

2017
[14]

Ghimire and D

S. Ghimire and D. A. Reis, High-harmonic generation from solids, Nat. Phys.15, 10 (2018)

2018
[15]

Langer, M

F. Langer, M. Hohenleutner, C. P. Schmid, C. Poell- mann, P. Nagler, T. Korn, C. Schüller, M. S. Sherwin, U. Huttner, J. T. Steiner, S. W. Koch, M. Kira, and R. Huber, Lightwave-driven quasiparticle collisions on a subcycle timescale, Nature533, 225 (2016)

2016
[16]

Reimann, S

J. Reimann, S. Schlauderer, C. P. Schmid, F. Langer, S. Baierl, K. A. Kokh, O. E. Tereshchenko, A. Kimura, C. Lange, J. Güdde, U. Höfer, and R. Huber, Subcycle observation of lightwave-driven Dirac currents in a topo- logical surface band, Nature562, 396 (2018)

2018
[17]

Baudisch, A

M. Baudisch, A. Marini, J. D. Cox, T. Zhu, F. Silva, S. Teichmann, M. Massicotte, F. Koppens, L. S. Levitov, F. J. García de Abajo, and J. Biegert, Ultrafast nonlin- ear optical response of Dirac fermions in graphene, Nat. Commun. 9, 1018 (2018)

2018
[18]

A. J. Uzan, G. Orenstein, Á. Jiménez-Galán, C. Mc- Donald, R. E. F. Silva, B. D. Bruner, N. D. Klimkin, V. Blanchet, T. Arusi-Parpar, M. Krüger, A. N. Rubtsov, O. Smirnova, M. Ivanov, B. Yan, T. Brabec, and N. Dudovich, Attosecond spectral singularities in solid- state high-ha...

2020
[19]

Vampa, T

G. Vampa, T. Hammond, N. Thiré, B. Schmidt, F. Lé- garé, C. McDonald, T. Brabec, D. Klug, and P. Corkum, All-Optical Reconstruction of Crystal Band Structure, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 193603 (2015)

2015
[20]

A. A. Lanin, E. A. Stepanov, A. B. Fedotov, and A. M. Zheltikov, Mapping the electron band structure by intra- band high-harmonic generation in solids, Optica4, 516 (2017)

2017
[21]

T. T. Luu and H. J. Wörner, Measurement of the Berry curvature of solids using high-harmonic spectroscopy, Nat. Commun. 9, 916 (2018)

2018
[22]

Yao, X.-P

Y.-Y.Lv, J.Xu, S.Han, C.Zhang, Y.Han, J.Zhou, S.-H. Yao, X.-P. Liu, M.-H. Lu, H. Weng, Z. Xie, Y. B. Chen, J. Hu, Y.-F. Chen, and S. Zhu, High-harmonic generation in Weyl semimetal β-WP2 crystals, Nat. Commun. 12, 6437 (2021)

2021
[23]

Langer, M

F. Langer, M. Hohenleutner, U. Huttner, S. W. Koch, M. Kira, and R. Huber, Symmetry-controlled temporal structure of high-harmonic carrier fields from a bulk crys- tal, Nat. Photonics11, 227 (2017)

2017
[24]

Langer, C

F. Langer, C. P. Schmid, S. Schlauderer, M. Gmitra, J. Fabian, P. Nagler, C. Schüller, T. Korn, P. G. Hawkins, J. T. Steiner, U. Huttner, S. W. Koch, M. Kira, and R.Huber,Lightwavevalleytronicsinamonolayeroftung- sten diselenide, Nature557, 76 (2018)

2018
[25]

Neufeld, D

O. Neufeld, D. Podolsky, and O. Cohen, Floquet group theory and its application to selection rules in harmonic generation, Nat. Commun.10, 405 (2019)

2019
[26]

Heinrich, M

T. Heinrich, M. Taucer, O. Kfir, P. B. Corkum, A. Staudte, C. Ropers, and M. Sivis, Chiral high- 9 harmonic generation and spectroscopy on solid surfaces using polarization-tailored strong fields, Nat. Commun. 12, 3723 (2021)

2021
[27]

L. Yue, R. Hollinger, C. B. Uzundal, B. Nebgen, Z. Gan, E. Najafidehaghani, A. George, C. Spielmann, D. Kar- tashov, A. Turchanin, D. Y. Qiu, M. B. Gaarde, and M. Zuerch, Signatures of Multiband Effects in High- Harmonic Generation in Monolayer MoS2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 1474...

2022
[28]

Vampa, C

G. Vampa, C. McDonald, G. Orlando, D. Klug, P. Corkum, and T. Brabec, Theoretical Analysis of High- Harmonic Generation in Solids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 073901 (2014)

2014
[29]

Huttner, M

U. Huttner, M. Kira, and S. W. Koch, Ultrahigh Off- Resonant Field Effects in Semiconductors, Laser Photon- ics Rev. 11, 1700049 (2017)

2017
[30]

S. Y. Kruchinin, F. Krausz, and V. S. Yakovlev, Collo- quium: Strong-field phenomena in periodic systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 021002 (2018)

2018
[31]

C. Yu, S. Jiang, and R. Lu, High order harmonic gen- eration in solids: a review on recent numerical methods, Adv. Phys. X4, 1562982 (2019)

2019
[32]

Yue and M

L. Yue and M. B. Gaarde, Introduction to theory of high- harmonic generation in solids: tutorial, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 535 (2022)

2022
[33]

R. E. F. Silva, I. V. Blinov, A. N. Rubtsov, O. Smirnova, and M. Ivanov, High-harmonic spectroscopy of ultra- fast many-body dynamics in strongly correlated systems, Nat. Photonics 12, 266 (2018)

2018
[34]

Tancogne-Dejean, M

N. Tancogne-Dejean, M. A. Sentef, and A. Rubio, Ultra- fast Modification of HubbardU in a Strongly Correlated Material: Ab initio High-Harmonic Generation in NiO, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 097402 (2018)

2018
[35]

Orthodoxou, A

C. Orthodoxou, A. Zaïr, and G. H. Booth, High har- monicgenerationintwo-dimensionalMottinsulators,npj Quantum Materials 6, 76 (2021)

2021
[36]

Murakami, S

Y. Murakami, S. Takayoshi, A. Koga, and P. Werner, High-harmonic generation in one-dimensional Mott insu- lators, Phys. Rev. B103, 035110 (2021)

2021
[37]

Murakami, K

Y. Murakami, K. Uchida, A. Koga, K. Tanaka, and P.Werner,AnomalousTemperatureDependenceofHigh- Harmonic Generation in Mott Insulators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 157401 (2022)

2022
[38]

Uchida, G

K. Uchida, G. Mattoni, S. Yonezawa, F. Nakamura, Y. Maeno, and K. Tanaka, High-Order Harmonic Gen- eration and Its Unconventional Scaling Law in the Mott-Insulating Ca2RuO4, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 127401 (2022)

2022
[39]

Kanega, T

M. Kanega, T. N. Ikeda, and M. Sato, Linear and nonlin- ear optical responses in Kitaev spin liquids, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, L032024 (2021)

2021
[40]

Alcalà , U

J. Alcalà , U. Bhattacharya, J. Biegert, M. Ciappina, U. Elu, T. Graß, P. T. Grochowski, M. Lewenstein, A. Palau, T. P. H. Sidiropoulos, T. Steinle, and I. Tyul- nev, High-harmonic spectroscopy of quantum phase tran- sitions in a high-Tc superconductor, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. ...

2022
[41]

C.Shao, H.Lu, X.Zhang, C.Yu, T.Tohyama,andR.Lu, High-Harmonic Generation Approaching the Quantum CriticalPointofStronglyCorrelatedSystems,Phys.Rev. Lett. 128, 047401 (2022)

2022
[42]

F. J. Di Salvo, D. E. Moncton, and J. V. Waszczak, Electronic properties and superlattice formation in the semimetal tise2, Phys. Rev. B14, 4321 (1976)

1976
[43]

Morosan, H

E. Morosan, H. W. Zandbergen, B. S. Dennis, J. W. G. Bos, Y. Onose, T. Klimczuk, A. P. Ramirez, N. P. Ong, and R. J. Cava, Superconductivity in CuxTiSe2, Nat. Phys. 2, 544 (2006)

2006
[44]

S. Y. Li, G. Wu, X. H. Chen, and L. Taillefer, Single- Gap s-Wave Superconductivity near the Charge-Density- Wave Quantum Critical Point inCuxTiSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 107001 (2007)

2007
[45]

A. F. Kusmartseva, B. Sipos, H. Berger, L. Forró, and E. Tutiš, Pressure Induced Superconductivity in Pristine 1T-TiSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 236401 (2009)

2009
[46]

Y. I. Joe, X. M. Chen, P. Ghaemi, K. D. Finkelstein, G. A. de la Peña, Y. Gan, J. C. T. Lee, S. Yuan, J. Geck, G. J. MacDougall, T. C. Chiang, S. L. Cooper, E. Frad- kin, and P. Abbamonte, Emergence of charge density wave domain walls above the superconducting dome in 1T-TiSe2...

2014
[47]

L. J. Li, E. C. T. O’Farrell, K. P. Loh, G. Eda, B. Özy- ilmaz, and A. H. Castro Neto, Controlling many-body states by the electric-field effect in a two-dimensional ma- terial, Nature 529, 185 (2015)

2015
[48]

H. Luo, W. Xie, J. Tao, I. Pletikosic, T. Valla, G. S. Sahasrabudhe, G. Osterhoudt, E. Sutton, K. S. Burch, E. M. Seibel, J. W. Krizan, Y. Zhu, and R. J. Cava, Dif- ferences in Chemical Doping Matter: Superconductivity in Ti1−xTaxSe2 but Not in Ti1−xNbxSe2, Chem. Mater. 28, 19...

2016
[49]

T. E. Kidd, T. Miller, M. Y. Chou, and T.-C. Chiang, Electron-Hole Coupling and the Charge Density Wave Transition inTiSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 226402 (2002)

2002
[50]

Rossnagel, L

K. Rossnagel, L. Kipp, and M. Skibowski, Charge- density-wave phase transition in1T − TiSe2 : Excitonic insulator versus band-type Jahn-Teller mechanism, Phys. Rev. B 65, 235101 (2002)

2002
[51]

Cercellier, C

H. Cercellier, C. Monney, F. Clerc, C. Battaglia, L. De- spont, M. G. Garnier, H. Beck, P. Aebi, L. Patthey, H. Berger, and L. Forró, Evidence for an Excitonic In- sulator Phase in1T −TiSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 146403 (2007)

2007
[52]

van Wezel, P

J. van Wezel, P. Nahai-Williamson, and S. S. Sax- ena, Exciton-phonon-driven charge density wave in tise2, Phys. Rev. B81, 165109 (2010)

2010
[53]

Zhu, W.-M

L. Zhu, W.-M. Zhao, Z.-Y. Jia, H. Li, X. Xie, Q.-Y. Li, Q.-W. Wang, L.-G. Dou, J.-G. Hu, Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, S.- L. Yu, J.-X. Li, and S.-C. Li, Electron-Exciton Coupling in 1T-TiSe2 Bilayer, Chin. Phys. Lett.40, 057101 (2023)

2023
[54]

Tyulnev, L

I. Tyulnev, L. Zhang, L. Vamos, J. Poborska, U. Bhat- tacharya, R. W. Chhajlany, T. Grass, S. Mañas-Valero, E. Coronado, M. Lewenstein, and J. Biegert, High har- monic spectroscopy reveals anisotropy of the charge- density-wave phase transition in TiSe2, Commun. Mater. 6, 152 (2025)

2025
[55]

Jérome, T

D. Jérome, T. M. Rice, and W. Kohn, Excitonic Insula- tor, Phys. Rev.158, 462 (1967)

1967
[56]

Monney, H

C. Monney, H. Cercellier, F. Clerc, C. Battaglia, E. F. Schwier, C. Didiot, M. G. Garnier, H. Beck, P. Aebi, H. Berger, L. Forró, and L. Patthey, Spontaneous exci- ton condensation in1T-TiSe2: BCS-like approach, Phys. Rev. B 79, 045116 (2009)

2009
[57]

Kaneko, Y

T. Kaneko, Y. Ohta, and S. Yunoki, Exciton-phonon co- operative mechanism of the triple-q charge-density-wave and antiferroelectric electron polarization intise2, Phys. Rev. B 97, 155131 (2018). 10

2018
[58]

Monney, C

C. Monney, C. Battaglia, H. Cercellier, P. Aebi, and H. Beck, Exciton Condensation Driving the Periodic Lat- tice Distortion of1T-TiSe2, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 106404 (2011)

2011
[59]

D. Moos, H. Jürß, and D. Bauer, Intense-laser-driven electron dynamics and high-order harmonic generation in solids including topological effects, Phys. Rev. A102, 053112 (2020)

2020
[60]

J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Simplified LCAO Method for the Periodic Potential Problem, Phys. Rev.94, 1498 (1954)

1954

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. B. Corkum, Plasma perspective on strong field multi- photon ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 1994 (1993)

1993

[2] [2]

Lewenstein, P

M. Lewenstein, P. Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, and P. B. Corkum, Theory of high-harmonic generation by low-frequency laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994)

1994

[3] [3]

Krausz and M

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

2009

[4] [4]

Schultz and M

T. Schultz and M. Vrakking, Attosecond and XUV Physics: Ultrafast Dynamics and Spectroscopy (Wiley, New York, 2014)

work page 2014

[5] [5]

Ghimire, A

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Observation of high-order harmonic generation in a bulk crystal, Nat. Phys.7, 138 (2011)

2011

[6] [6]

Schubert, M

O. Schubert, M. Hohenleutner, F. Langer, B. Urbanek, C. Lange, U. Huttner, D. Golde, T. Meier, M. Kira, S. W. Koch, and R. Huber, Sub-cycle control of tera- hertz high-harmonic generation by dynamical Bloch os- cillations, Nat. Photonics8, 119 (2014)

work page 2014

[7] [7]

Hohenleutner, F

M. Hohenleutner, F. Langer, O. Schubert, M. Knorr, U. Huttner, S. W. Koch, M. Kira, and R. Huber, Real- time observation of interfering crystal electrons in high- harmonic generation, Nature523, 572 (2015)

2015

[8] [8]

T. T. Luu, M. Garg, S. Y. Kruchinin, A. Moulet, M. T. Hassan, and E. Goulielmakis, Extreme ultraviolet high- harmonic spectroscopy of solids, Nature521, 498 (2015)

2015