Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 64 references

Quantum Theory of X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 The paper claims that the Siegert relation, the standard link between intensity autocorrelation and density dynamics in light scattering, breaks down for X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS) of quantum electron systems: even a…

desk verdict New XPCS formalism and generalized Siegert relation are real; the claimed observable 'quantum breakdown' is a 1/N correction that the paper never quantifies, and the Kitaev signature is a toy without finite-size scaling. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03635 v1 pith:3JR6WZRG submitted 2024-12-04 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Phum Siriviboon , Chu-Liang Fu , Michael Landry , Ryotaro Okabe , Denisse Córdova Carrizales , Yao Wang , Mingda Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords X-rayphotoncorrelationspectroscopySiegertrelationfour-pointdensityexchangenon-interactingFermigasKitaevchainMajoranazeromodeshigher-ordercorrelations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper develops a microscopic quantum theory of X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS) starting from the electron-photon interaction Hamiltonian, rather than assuming the classical Gaussian-scatterer picture behind the Siegert relation. It aims to show that in a quantum electron system the measured two-photon correlation is not given by the Siegert formula, even for a non-interacting Fermi gas, because fermionic exchange contributes an extra fourth-order density correlation channel. It also proposes four experimental configurations whose signals map onto distinct four-point density correlation functions, and derives a generalized two-momentum Siegert relation. If correct, XPCS becomes a route to directly measure exchange-correlation and possibly topological signatures that lower-order spectroscopies miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second-quantized electron-photon scattering Hamiltonian in the minimal-coupling scheme, combined with coherent photon states that encode arbitrary beam time profiles. From it the paper defines four XPCS configurations—two classical intensity autocorrelations and two Hanbury Brown-Twiss-style two-photon correlations—and shows that in the plane-wave approximation the quantum configurations reduce to time-ordered fourth-order electron density correlation functions. The analysis then rests on a cumulant decomposition of that four-point correlation into three channels: the Siegert (disconnected) channel, an opposite-momentum channel, and an exchange-correlation (connected) channel, which supports the generalized Siegert ratio.

What would settle it

Measure g(2) on a clean non-interacting Fermi gas (for example a simple metal) with two momentum transfers q1 and q2; if the intensity autocorrelation follows the ordinary Siegert relation and shows no exchange oscillation at frequency q1·q2/m, the claimed quantum breakdown would be ruled out. For the Kitaev prediction, repeat the DMRG calculation on chains of length 100, 200, and 400; if the phase-distinguishing oscillations vanish or shift with system size, the signature is a finite-size effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Siegert relation, the standard link between intensity autocorrelation and density-density correlation in dynamic light scattering, fails for XPCS in quantum electron systems. Starting from minimal coupling and a coherent-state description of the X-ray beam, the authors derive the two-photon correlation as a fourth-order electron density correlation and decompose it by cumulant expansion into a Siegert term, an opposite-momentum term, and an exchange-correlation term. The exchange term does not vanish even in a non-interacting Fermi gas, producing an oscillatory signature at frequency $\mathbf{q}_1\cdot\mathbf{q}_2/m$, so the standard relation is replaced by a generalized form $g_2 = 1 + |g_1|^2 + |\tilde{g}_1|^2$. They also compute the four-point correlation for a 1D Kitaev chain with DMRG and report distinct oscillatory patterns between trivial and topological phases.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the computed exchange and topological signatures are large enough to survive in an actual XPCS measurement, while the exchange term is suppressed relative to the Siegert term by a factor of 1/N and the Kitaev-chain pattern is computed only on a 50-site chain without finite-size scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standard XPCS analysis that applies the Siegert relation to electron systems will mis-estimate the correlation magnitude, because the exchange channel adds an oscillatory contribution even without electron-electron interactions.
  • The two quantum XPCS configurations access fourth-order density correlations directly, going beyond the intensity autocorrelation measured in conventional setups.
  • The generalized two-momentum Siegert relation gives a baseline for future two-detector XPCS experiments, with the opposite-momentum term as a probe of broken spatial translational symmetry.
  • The Kitaev-chain calculation suggests XPCS can distinguish topological from trivial phases even when single-particle spectra look identical, offering a higher-order probe for Majorana physics.
  • The theory applies to any coherent X-ray source by construction, including synchrotron continuous beams and free-electron-laser pulse trains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 1/N suppression of the exchange channel relative to the Siegert disconnected terms implies the cleanest test of the quantum breakdown would be in few-electron systems, nanostructures, or small momentum transfers where the disconnected background is reduced.
  • If the exchange oscillation survives in real materials, the same formalism could extend to neutron scattering with spin-resolved density correlations, giving a higher-order, spin-sensitive analogue of XPCS.
  • The proposed two-photon configurations could be combined with pulse trains to encode time resolution in the delay between pulses, potentially measuring equilibrium exchange correlations without ultrafast detector timing.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript develops a microscopic quantum theory of X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS) starting from a minimal-coupling electron-photon Hamiltonian and coherent-state photon probes. It proposes four XPCS configurations, two of which are intensity autocorrelation setups and two of which are HBT-inspired two-photon correlation setups, and connects the quantum two-photon observable to fourth-order electron density correlation functions. The authors decompose the four-point density correlation into Siegert, opposite-momentum, and exchange-correlation channels, derive a generalized two-momentum Siegert relation, and compute the exchange-correlation channel for a non-interacting Fermi gas and for the Kitaev chain. They conclude that the Siegert relation breaks down even in a non-interacting Fermi gas due to exchange effects and that XPCS can distinguish topological from trivial Kitaev phases.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the paper would provide a first-principles foundation for XPCS and extend it to higher-order electron correlations, with potential applications in quantum materials and topological systems. The derivation from the electron-photon Hamiltonian, the explicit coherent-state treatment of the X-ray probe, and the cumulant decomposition into distinct physical channels are genuine strengths; the Fermi-gas calculation has no fitted parameters, and the DMRG calculation uses a public tensor-network library. The generalized two-momentum Siegert relation is a concrete, in-principle falsifiable prediction. However, the experimental significance claimed in the abstract rests on relative magnitudes that are never quantified, and the Kitaev-chain topological signature is computed without finite-size control. These gaps are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (39) and (47)] The central claim that the exchange-correlation channel causes an observable Siegert breakdown is not supported by a magnitude estimate. In the non-interacting Fermi gas, the Siegert term in Eq. (39) is a product of two two-point density correlations and is O(N^2), while the exchange term in Eq. (47) is a single sum over the Fermi sea and is O(N); the normalized correction to g^(2) is therefore O(1/N). For a realistic coherent X-ray volume with N ~ 10^6-10^12, this correction is 10^-6 to 10^-12, far below typical XPCS contrast and photon-shot-noise limits. Figure 3 normalizes C_SR and C_XC separately, which removes the absolute scale and makes the two channels appear comparable. Unless the authors identify a regime in which the ratio is enhanced (small N, singular density of states, or a kinematic factor), the abstract's statement that XPCS can directly probe exchange-correlation effects through this channel is unsupported.
  2. [Sec. III, Eqs. (36)-(37)] The comparison with the Siegert relation is made only for the time-delay component C(t1,t2,t2,t1), but the measured G^(2) in Eq. (36) is a sum over all combinations t_i in {t,t'} with the coefficients in Eq. (37), including equal-time terms with weight 3/4. The paper does not estimate the magnitude of the neglected pulse-averaged terms, nor does it show that they are suppressed by the pulse-width condition sigma_pr << T_g. Without such an estimate, the identification of the time-delay component as the operative XPCS observable is not demonstrated.
  3. [Sec. II.D, Eqs. (23)-(24)] The classical XPCS observables in Eqs. (23) and (24) are quoted without derivation. Since the paper's central comparison between classical and quantum XPCS relies on these observables, and since the manuscript claims a derivation from the electron-photon Hamiltonian, the derivation of the intensity autocorrelation from the same second-order perturbation theory, or an explicit reference establishing it, should be provided. As written, the reader cannot verify that the classical observable is the correct limit of the quantum expression.
  4. [Sec. IV.B, Fig. 4] The Kitaev-chain results are presented for a single open chain with N=50 and no finite-size scaling. Open boundary conditions break translational invariance, so q1 and q2 are not conserved quantum numbers and the 'momentum-dependent' oscillatory pattern may be a finite-size or boundary artifact. In addition, the parameters (t, Delta, mu) are varied simultaneously between the trivial and topological regimes, so the comparison does not isolate the topological invariant. Finite-size scaling of the oscillation period and amplitude, and a controlled comparison at fixed band structure (for example, varying only the phase parameter while keeping the single-particle dispersion identical), are needed before the claimed topological signature can be accepted.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and title contain typos: 'elecron' should be 'electron' and 'oscillatary' should be 'oscillatory'.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Eq. (47)] Equation (47) lists three Green's-function products plus 'time-reversal terms'; the time-reversal terms should be written explicitly or defined, since they are needed to reproduce the plotted C_XC.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (37)] The coefficients 1/4, 3/4, and 0 in Eq. (37) are stated without derivation; a short derivation of the pulse-shape integrals would help the reader understand the pulse-averaging procedure.
  4. [Fig. 3 caption] The condition in the Fig. 3 caption, |q_i - k_F - sqrt(2m omega_i)| < k_F for the nonzero region of C_SR, is not derived in the text and should be justified.
  5. [Sec. IV.B] In Sec. IV.B, the scalar q1 and q2 used in Fig. 4 are not defined for a finite open chain; the Fourier convention and normalization used in the DMRG calculation should be stated.
  6. [References] Reference [43] is cited as an arXiv preprint; please cite the published version if one is available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the XPCS correlation functions and generalized Siegert relation follow from the stated electron-photon Hamiltonian via perturbation theory and cumulant decomposition, with concrete model calculations independent of the conclusions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section II starts from the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian (Eqs. (1), (5)) and constructs the coherent photon state (Eqs. (6)-(11)); the single-photon intensity is reduced to a two-point electron density correlation (Eq. (22)); the two-photon correlation is reduced to a four-point density correlation (Eq. (31)); and the cumulant decomposition (Eqs. (32)-(35)) is then used to identify the Siegert, opposite-momentum, and exchange-correlation channels. The generalized Siegert relation (Eq. (42)) is a direct consequence of this decomposition together with Isserlis' theorem [41], not an input fitted to data. The claimed 'quantum breakdown' is supported by an explicit computation in a non-interacting Fermi gas: C_XC is evaluated from the Green's functions of Eq. (45) through Eq. (47), and the resulting nonzero oscillatory signal (Figs. 3(d)-(f)) is a calculation, not an assumption. The Kitaev-chain part uses DMRG on Eq. (48) and reports the computed four-point correlation; no fitted parameter is promoted to a prediction. Self-citations [16, 22, 24] are contextual background and do not carry the derivation. The genuine weaknesses are correctness or impact concerns, not circularity: the caption of Fig. 3 separately normalizes C_XC and C_SR ('C_XC (C_SR) are normalized with averaged C_XC (C_SR) at t2 - t1 -> infinity'), which conceals the absolute scale of the exchange-correlation channel relative to the Siegert channel, and Section IV.B states 'DMRG is performed on a N=50 chain' without finite-size scaling. These caveats weaken the experimental-relevance claim but do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation relies on standard many-body perturbation theory and the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian; no fitted parameters are used for the central claim. The Kitaev chain parameters are model parameters for a toy demonstration, not fitted values. No new entities such as particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Kitaev chain parameters t, Delta, mu = e.g., t=Delta=0.1, mu=1.0 (trivial); t=Delta=0.5, mu=0.2 (topological)
    Chosen by hand to realize trivial and topological phases; the claimed topological signature depends on these choices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Minimal-coupling electron-photon interaction Hamiltonian and weak-field perturbative expansion to second order (Sec. II A, Eq. (14)).
    Underlies all correlation function derivations; valid when the X-ray field is much weaker than atomic fields.
  • domain assumption Plane-wave electron orbitals so the scattering matrix element reduces to the electron density (Sec. II E, Eqs. (20)-(21)).
    Standard for non-resonant X-ray scattering but ignores band-structure matrix element variations.
  • domain assumption Neglect of photon absorption and emission terms, keeping only the scattering term (Sec. II A, Eq. (5)).
    Valid for non-resonant X-ray energies.
  • standard math Wick's theorem and cumulant decomposition of the four-point density correlation (Sec. III, Eqs. (32)-(35)).
    Used to separate Siegert, opposite momenta, and exchange-correlation channels.
  • domain assumption Spatial and temporal translational symmetry for the standard Siegert reduction (Sec. III, Eq. (39)).
    Defines the homogeneous limit; broken symmetry leads to the 'classical breakdown' term.
  • domain assumption 1D Kitaev chain mean-field model represents a topological superconductor (Sec. IV B, Eq. (48)).
    Toy model; the paper's topological signature claim depends on this model's relevance to real materials.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Theory of X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3JR6WZRG

@misc{pith2026241203635,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Theory of X-ray Photon Correlation Spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3JR6WZRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03635}
}
read the original abstract

Characterizing quantum materials is essential for understanding their microscopic interactions and advancing quantum technology. X-ray photon correlation spectroscopy (XPCS) with coherent X-ray sources offers access to higher-order correlations, but its theoretical basis, the Siegert relation, is derived from dynamical light scattering with independent classical scatterers, and its validity for XPCS remains unexamined. Here we present a microscopic quantum theory of XPCS derived from elecron-photon interaction Hamiltonians, introducing four configurations tied to distinct fourth-order electron-density correlation functions. We examine the validity of the Siegert relation and derive a generalized Siegert relation. Notably, the Siegert relation breaks down even in non-interacting Fermi gas due to exchange interactions. Furthermore, density matrix renormalization group calculations on 1D Kitaev chain reveal oscillatary signatures that can distinguish topologically trivial phases from topological phases with Majorana zero modes. Our work provides a robust theoretical foundation for XPCS and highlights the value of higher-order correlations in advanced X-ray and neutron sources for probing quantum materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03635 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (c) is whether the autocorrelation of photon inten￾sity is performed at the same photon momentum transfer (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic of the breakdown of the Siegert rela [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Calculated XPCS-accessible time domain four-point density correlation of non-interacting Fermi gas. (a-c) Schematics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probing topological phase of a 1D Kitaev chain us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The schematics of C ρρρρ q1q2 calculation from the orig￾inal MPS state with ρq1 , ρq2 , and the time evolution. transform on s˜ X k∥ s˜εin (ωk∥ )e −iωk∥ t → V σbeam Z dω 2πc s˜εin (ωk∥ )e −iωk∥ t = sεin (t)e −iωint . (B13) We thus have ⟨Iq1ε1 (t)⟩ = 1 ℏ 2 Z t t0 dt1 Z …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The rise of quantum materials, Nature Physics12, 105 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Keimer and J

    B. Keimer and J. Moore, The physics of quantum mate- rials, Nature Physics13, 1045 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Giustino, J

    F. Giustino, J. H. Lee, F. Trier, M. Bibes, S. M. Win- ter, R. Valentí, Y.-W. Son, L. Taillefer, C. Heil, A. I. Figueroa, et al., The 2021 quantum materials roadmap, Journal of Physics: Materials3, 042006 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    A. K. Geim, Graphene: status and prospects, science 324, 1530 (2009)

    work page 2009

  5. [5]

    Y. Cao, V. Fatemi, A. Demir, S. Fang, S. L. Tomarken, J. Y. Luo, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. Kaxiras,et al., Correlated insulator be- haviour at half-filling in magic-angle graphene superlat- tices, Nature556, 80 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    M. R. Norman, The challenge of unconventional super- conductivity, Science332, 196 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Stewart, Unconventional superconductivity, Advances in Physics66, 75 (2017)

    G. Stewart, Unconventional superconductivity, Advances in Physics66, 75 (2017)

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    P.W.Phillips, N.E.Hussey,andP.Abbamonte,Stranger than metals, Science377, eabh4273 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    J. G. Checkelsky, B. A. Bernevig, P. Coleman, Q. Si, and S. Paschen, Flat bands, strange metals and the kondo effect, Nature Reviews Materials , 1 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Colloquium: topological insulators, Reviews of modern physics82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Topological insulators and su- perconductors, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Weyl and dirac semimetals in three-dimensional solids, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015001 (2018). 15

    2018

  5. [13]

    Manna, Y

    K. Manna, Y. Sun, L. Muechler, J. Kübler, and C. Felser, Heusler, weyl and berry, Nature Reviews Materials3, 244 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev

    X.-G. Wen, Colloquium: Zoo of quantum-topological phases of matter, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 041004 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Sato and Y

    M. Sato and Y. Ando, Topological superconductors: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 076501 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Mandal, N

    M. Mandal, N. C. Drucker, P. Siriviboon, T. Nguyen, A. Boonkird, T. N. Lamichhane, R. Okabe, A. Chotrat- tanapituk, and M. Li, Topological superconductors from a materials perspective, Chemistry of Materials35, 6184 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Quantum spin liquids: a re- view, Reports on Progress in Physics80, 016502 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Y. Zhou, K. Kanoda, and T.-K. Ng, Quantum spin liquid states, Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 025003 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Broholm, R

    C. Broholm, R. Cava, S. Kivelson, D. Nocera, M. Nor- man, and T. Senthil, Quantum spin liquids, Science367, eaay0668 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Clark and A

    L. Clark and A. H. Abdeldaim, Quantum spin liquids from a materials perspective, Annual Review of Materials Research 51, 495 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Merchant, S

    A. Merchant, S. Batzner, S. S. Schoenholz, M. Aykol, G. Cheon, and E. D. Cubuk, Scaling deep learning for materials discovery, Nature624, 80 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Okabe, M

    R. Okabe, M. Cheng, A. Chotrattanapituk, N. T. Hung, X. Fu, B. Han, Y. Wang, W. Xie, R. J. Cava, T. S. Jaakkola, Y. Cheng, and M. Li, Structural constraint integration in generative model for discovery of quan- tum material candidates (2024), arXiv:2407.04557 [cond- mat.mtrl-sci]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Pan and S

    H. Pan and S. Das Sarma, Physical mechanisms for zero- bias conductance peaks in majorana nanowires, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 013377 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Cheng, R

    M. Cheng, R. Okabe, A. Chotrattanapituk, and M. Li, Machine learning detection of majorana zero modes from zero-bias peak measurements, Matter (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Bourgeois-Hope, F

    P. Bourgeois-Hope, F. Laliberté, E. Lefrançois, G. Gris- sonnanche, S. R. de Cotret, R. Gordon, S. Kitou, H. Sawa, H. Cui, R. Kato, L. Taillefer, and N. Doiron- Leyraud, Thermal conductivity of the quantum spin liq- uid candidate etme3Sb[Pd(dmit)2]2: No evidence of mo- bile ga...

    2019

  18. [26]

    Zhang, M

    H. Zhang, M. A. McGuire, A. F. May, H.-Y. Chao, Q. Zheng, M. Chi, B. C. Sales, D. G. Mandrus, S. E. Nagler, H. Miao, F. Ye, and J. Yan, Stacking disorder and thermal transport properties ofα−rucl3, Phys. Rev. Mater. 8, 014402 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Sears, Y

    J. Sears, Y. Shen, M. J. Krogstad, H. Miao, J. Yan, S. Kim, W. He, E. S. Bozin, I. K. Robinson, R. Os- born, S. Rosenkranz, Y.-J. Kim, and M. P. M. Dean, Stacking disorder inα−rucl3 investigated via x-ray three- dimensionaldifferencepairdistributionfunctionanalysis, Phys. Rev....

    2023

  20. [28]

    Stana, M

    M. Stana, M. Leitner, M. Ross, and B. Sepiol, Studies of atomic diffusion in ni–pt solid solution by x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 25, 065401 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    X. Lu, S. Mochrie, S. Narayanan, A. Sandy, and M. Sprung, Temperature-dependent structural arrest of silica colloids in a water–lutidine binary mixture, Soft Matter 6, 6160 (2010)

    2010

  22. [30]

    A. Das, P. M. Derlet, C. Liu, E. M. Dufresne, and R. Maaß, Stress breaks universal aging behavior in a metallic glass, Nature communications10, 5006 (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Campi, A

    G. Campi, A. Bianconi, B. Joseph, S. K. Mishra, L.Müller, A.Zozulya, A.A.Nugroho, S.Roy, M.Sprung, and A. Ricci, Nanoscale inhomogeneity of charge density waves dynamics in la2- xsrxnio4, Scientific reports12, 15964 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Ricci, G

    A. Ricci, G. Campi, B. Joseph, N. Poccia, D. Innocenti, C.Gutt, M.Tanaka, H.Takeya, Y.Takano, T.Mizokawa, et al., Intermittent dynamics of antiferromagnetic phase in inhomogeneous iron-based chalcogenide superconduc- tor, Physical review B101, 020508 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    R. H. Brown and R. Q. Twiss, Correlation between pho- tons in two coherent beams of light, Nature 177, 27 (1956)

    1956

  26. [34]

    Kujala, W

    N. Kujala, W. Freund, J. Liu, A. Koch, T. Falk, M. Planas, F. Dietrich, J. Laksman, T. Maltezopoulos, J. Risch, et al., Hard x-ray single-shot spectrometer at the european x-ray free-electron laser, Review of Scien- tific Instruments91 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    Freericks, H

    J. Freericks, H. Krishnamurthy, and T. Pruschke, The- oretical description of time-resolved photoemission spec- troscopy: Application to pump-probe experiments, Phys- ical review letters102, 136401 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Y. Wang, T. P. Devereaux, and C.-C. Chen, Theory of time-resolvedramanscatteringincorrelatedsystems: Ul- trafast engineering of spin dynamics and detection of thermalization, Physical Review B98, 245106 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    J. K. Freericks, O. P. Matveev, A. M. Shvaika, and T. P. Devereaux, Nonresonant pump/probe electronic raman scattering within nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory, in Ultrafast Bandgap Photonics III, Vol. 10638 (SPIE, 2018) pp. 7–14

    2018

  30. [38]

    Freericks, and T

    Y.Chen, Y.Wang, C.Jia, B.Moritz, A.M.Shvaika, J.K. Freericks, and T. P. Devereaux, Theory for time-resolved resonantinelasticx-rayscattering,PhysicalReviewB 99, 104306 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Y. Wang, Y. Chen, C. Jia, B. Moritz, and T. P. De- vereaux, Time-resolved resonant inelastic x-ray scatter- ing in a pumped mott insulator, Physical Review B101, 165126 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Isserlis, On a formula for the product-moment coeffi- cient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables, Biometrika12, 134 (1918)

    L. Isserlis, On a formula for the product-moment coeffi- cient of any order of a normal frequency distribution in any number of variables, Biometrika12, 134 (1918)

    1918

  34. [42]

    Siegert, On the fluctuations in signals returned by many independently moving scatterers (Radiation Lab- oratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1943)

    A. Siegert, On the fluctuations in signals returned by many independently moving scatterers (Radiation Lab- oratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1943)

    1943

  35. [43]

    Mihaila, Lindhard function of a d-dimensional fermi gas, arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.5337 (2011)

    B. Mihaila, Lindhard function of a d-dimensional fermi gas, arXiv preprint arXiv:1111.5337 (2011)

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Unpaired majorana fermions in quantum wires, Physics-uspekhi44, 131 (2001)

    2001

  37. [45]

    S. R. White, Density matrix formulation for quantum renormalizationgroups,Phys.Rev.Lett. 69,2863(1992)

    1992

  38. [46]

    Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev

    U. Schollwöck, The density-matrix renormalization group, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 259 (2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Fishman, S

    M. Fishman, S. R. White, and E. M. Stoudenmire, The ITensor Software Library for Tensor Network Calcula- tions, SciPost Phys. Codebases , 4 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by in- terference, Phys. Rev. Lett.59, 2044 (1987). 16

    1987

  41. [49]

    Zehnder, Ein neuer interferenzrefraktor (1891)

    L. Zehnder, Ein neuer interferenzrefraktor (1891)

  42. [50]

    Mach, Ueber einen interferenzrefraktor, Zeitschrift für Instrumentenkunde 12, 89 (1892)

    L. Mach, Ueber einen interferenzrefraktor, Zeitschrift für Instrumentenkunde 12, 89 (1892)

  43. [51]

    Hirosawa, T

    K. Hirosawa, T. Iwama, N. Sakamoto, H. Masunaga, and T. Hoshino, In situ observation of the structure and dynamics of a polymer solution through nonsolvent- induced phase separation by x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. Mater.7, 045605 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    B. M. Yavitt, L. Wiegart, D. Salatto, Z. Huang, M. K. Endoh, S. Poeller, S. Petrash, and T. Koga, Structural dynamics in uv curable resins resolved by in situ 3d print- ing x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, ACS Applied Polymer Materials2, 4096 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Grübel, G

    G. Grübel, G. Stephenson, C. Gutt, H. Sinn, and T. Tschentscher, Xpcs at the european x-ray free elec- tron laser facility, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Ma- terials and Atoms262, 357 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Roseker, H

    W. Roseker, H. Franz, H. Schulte-Schrepping, A. Ehnes, O. Leupold, F. Zontone, S. Lee, A. Robert, and G. Grü- bel, Development of a hard x-ray delay line for x-ray pho- ton correlation spectroscopy and jitter-free pump–probe experiments at x-ray free-electron laser sources, Jo...

    2011

  47. [55]

    Oka and H

    T. Oka and H. Aoki, Photovoltaic hall effect in graphene, Phys. Rev. B79, 081406 (2009)

    2009

  48. [56]

    Kitagawa, T

    T. Kitagawa, T. Oka, A. Brataas, L. Fu, and E. Dem- ler, Transport properties of nonequilibrium systems un- der the application of light: Photoinduced quantum hall insulatorswithout landaulevels,Phys.Rev.B 84,235108 (2011)

    2011

  49. [57]

    Bukov, L

    M. Bukov, L. D’Alessio, and A. Polkovnikov, Universal high-frequency behavior of periodically driven systems: from dynamical stabilization to floquet engineering, Ad- vances in Physics64, 139 (2015)

    2015

  50. [58]

    J. W. McIver, B. Schulte, F.-U. Stein, T. Matsuyama, G. Jotzu, G. Meier, and A. Cavalleri, Light-induced anomalous hall effect in graphene, Nature physics 16, 38 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Fausti, R

    D. Fausti, R. Tobey, N. Dean, S. Kaiser, A. Dienst, M. C. Hoffmann, S. Pyon, T. Takayama, H. Takagi, and A. Cavalleri, Light-induced superconductivity in a stripe- ordered cuprate, science331, 189 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    Mitrano, A

    M. Mitrano, A. Cantaluppi, D. Nicoletti, S. Kaiser, A. Perucchi, S. Lupi, P. Di Pietro, D. Pontiroli, M. Riccò, S. R. Clark,et al., Possible light-induced superconductiv- ityink3c60athightemperature,Nature 530,461(2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    J. P. Horwath, X.-M. Lin, H. He, Q. Zhang, E. M. Dufresne, M. Chu, S. K. Sankaranarayanan, W. Chen, S. Narayanan, and M. J. Cherukara, Ai-nerd: Elucida- tion of relaxation dynamics beyond equilibrium through ai-informed x-ray photon correlation spectroscopy, Na- ture Communica...

    2024

  54. [62]

    Andrejevic, T

    N. Andrejevic, T. Zhou, Q. Zhang, S. Narayanan, M. J. Cherukara, and M. K. Y. Chan, Data-driven discovery of dynamics from time-resolved coherent scattering (2023), arXiv:2311.14196 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Fannes, B

    M. Fannes, B. Nachtergaele, and R. F. Werner, Finitely correlated states on quantum spin chains, Communica- tions in mathematical physics144, 443 (1992)

    1992

  56. [64]

    Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys

    G. Vidal, Efficient simulation of one-dimensional quan- tum many-body systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040502 (2004)

    2004

Pith tools

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