Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Witnessing Spin-Orbital Entanglement using Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Paired x-ray spectra can witness spin–orbital entanglement in quantum materials.

desk verdict Genuinely new RIXS witness protocol, but the 'purely experimental' QFI hides a ground-state-dependent phase — worth a serious referee, needs a fix and an end-to-end demonstration. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.06718 v2 pith:GMRWDJ6H submitted 2025-12-07 quant-ph cond-mat.str-el

Zecheng Shen , Shuhan Ding , Zijun Zhao , Francesco A. Evangelista , Yao Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcond-mat.str-el
keywords resonantinelasticx-rayscatteringspin-orbitalentanglementquantumFisherinformationwitnessk-produciblestatescupratespolarization-resolvedspectroscopymultipartite
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 proposes that two RIXS spectra, recorded with reversed momentum and swapped polarizations, encode the quantum Fisher information of a Hermitian generator for spin–orbital excitations. Comparing this experimentally accessible quantity against a bound for k-producible states yields a direct witness of multipartite spin–orbital entanglement. The method uses only Stokes scattering, avoiding the exponentially suppressed anti-Stokes channel, and remains workable when photon polarizations are not fully resolved, albeit with a looser bound. If correct, it turns standard RIXS beamlines into instruments for entanglement detection in quantum materials like cuprates.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hermitian generator O_q(ε_i, ε_s, φ_q) = (1/√2)[e^{iφ_q} T_q(ε_i, ε_s) + e^{-iφ_q} T_q†(ε_i, ε_s)], built from the non-Hermitian RIXS scattering operator T_q. With the phase choice φ̄ = π/4 − ½ Arg⟨T_q²⟩, the QFI of Ō_q becomes the sum of integrals of two spectra: I(q, ε_i, ε_s, ω) and I(−q, ε_s, ε_i, ω). The k-producible bound then depends on the local eigenvalue spread (λ_max − λ_min) of the transformed dipole-transition matrix, which can be computed from quantum chemistry for specific materials.

What would settle it

Compute the QFI from Eq. (11) for a system whose ground state is known to be 1-producible (e.g., independent sites) and check whether it stays below the k=1 bound for all momenta; an exceedance would falsify the construction. Alternatively, if two choices of ⟨T_q²⟩ for the same material lead to materially different inferred QFI, the protocol is not self-contained.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any spin–orbital system, the quantum Fisher information of a specially constructed Hermitian operator Ō_q equals twice the integrated intensity of two RIXS spectra: I(q, ε_i, ε_s, ω) and I(−q, ε_s, ε_i, ω). Comparing this experimentally accessible quantity to the k-producible bound F_Q ≤ k Σ_j (λ_max^j − λ_min^j)^2 yields a witness: if the measured QFI exceeds the bound for a state that is k-producible, the state must involve at least k+1 entangled spin–orbital sites. The construction relies on a phase choice that eliminates a third term in the QFI expression; this phase is fixed by the argument of the ground-state expectation ⟨T_q²⟩.

Load-bearing premise

The phase that makes the QFI formula purely experimental must come from a theoretical estimate of the ground-state expectation ⟨T_q²⟩; if that estimate is wrong, the measured quantity no longer corresponds to the QFI of a Hermitian generator and the entanglement witness breaks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pair of RIXS measurements with reversed momentum and swapped polarizations yields an entanglement witness for spin–orbital systems using only Stokes scattering.
  • The QFI bound for k-producible states provides a quantitative depth: exceeding the bound certifies at least (k+1)-partite spin–orbital entanglement.
  • Varying momentum and polarization creates a family of entanglement probes, analogous to multiple Bell tests, with geometry-dependent bounds.
  • For polarization-unresolved measurements, a relaxed bound with a material-dependent offset linear in system size still detects multipartite entanglement.
  • The protocol can be applied to cuprates, where quantum-chemistry calculations specify the geometry-dependent k=1 bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The phase choice in Eq. (10) relies on a theoretical estimate of ⟨T_q²⟩; an experimental protocol that infers this phase from the spectra themselves (e.g., via multiple conjugate geometries) would make the witness fully model-free.
  • The same construction could be extended to other degrees of freedom, such as charge or valley, wherever RIXS-like operators are non-Hermitian.
  • If the assumption of local particle-number conservation is relaxed (e.g., in metallic systems), the current bound requires a fermionic treatment; the paper's local Hilbert-space separability may be a limiting but potentially removable condition.
  • The QFI bound is determined by local dipole matrix elements; the method could be tested by controlled calculations on small spin–orbital clusters where exact entanglement properties are known.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a protocol for witnessing spin–orbital entanglement in condensed-matter systems using resonant inelastic x-ray scattering (RIXS). Working in the ultrashort core-hole lifetime (UCL) limit, the authors construct a Hermitian operator O_q from the non-Hermitian RIXS scattering operator T_q and its conjugate, and show that the quantum Fisher information (QFI) of this operator can be written as the sum of two polarization-reversed, momentum-reversed RIXS spectral integrals. They then apply the Hyllus k-producible bound to certify at least (k+1)-partite spin–orbital entanglement. The paper also computes the resulting bounds for cuprates using both atomic and X2C-CASSCF electronic-structure inputs, and proposes a relaxation of the bound for measurements without full polarization resolution.

Significance. If correct, this protocol would significantly extend spectrum-based entanglement witnesses from spin-only probes to spin–orbital systems, addressing a genuinely important gap in the experimental characterization of quantum materials. The algebraic construction is self-contained and the paper provides concrete, material-specific numerical estimates for the bounds, including realistic ab initio inputs. The extension to polarization-unresolved measurements is practically valuable. However, the central claim of purely experimental accessibility of the QFI is qualified by a hidden state-dependent input, and the derivation of the mixed-polarization bound is not fully presented in the main text. These issues are fixable but require additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (10)–(11) and surrounding text] The statement that the QFI is 'expressible purely through experimentally accessible RIXS spectra' (just before Eq. (11)) is overstated. Equation (11) holds only for the phase choice φ̄_q = π/4 − ½ Arg⟨T_q²⟩. This phase depends on the ground-state expectation value ⟨T_q²⟩, i.e., on the very state whose entanglement is being certified. If the theoretical estimate of ⟨T_q²⟩ is inaccurate, the third term in Eq. (8) does not vanish and the measured right-hand side of Eq. (11) is not the QFI of the Hermitian operator Ō_q, so the k-producible bound Eq. (12) cannot be applied. This is a load-bearing gap, not a wording issue. Please state the theoretical input explicitly, quantify the effect of a phase error, or provide a robust alternative—e.g., averaging the QFI for the two phases φ = π/4 and φ = −π/4, whose sum cancels the ⟨T_q²⟩ term without requiring Arg⟨T_q²⟩.
  2. [Eq. (15) and mixed-polarization section] The mixed-polarization bound Eq. (15) is central to the paper's claim that the protocol remains useful without full polarization resolution, but its derivation is deferred to the Supplemental Material. As written, the bound contains a material-dependent offset 2N max λ([T†,T]) that is linear in N and independent of k. For a k-producible state the first term scales as O(kN), so the offset may dominate unless the commutator term is small. The main text does not provide a quantitative comparison of these two terms for the cuprate examples shown in Fig. 3. Please include the derivation and report the numerical size of the offset relative to the k-producible bound in the computed geometries. Without this, the practical usefulness of Eq. (15) as an entanglement witness is not demonstrated.
  3. [Eqs. (3)–(5) and UCL approximation] The entire protocol relies on the ultrashort core-hole lifetime limit, yet the paper does not discuss how finite-Γ corrections affect the witness quantitatively. The authors note that finite-lifetime corrections make the RIXS operator non-Hermitian (Ref. [22]), but the magnitude of the error in Eq. (11) under realistic conditions is not estimated. Since RIXS experiments always have finite core-hole lifetimes, please provide a bound or a numerical estimate of the deviation introduced by the UCL approximation, or explicitly frame the witness as valid only when this approximation is controlled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Text following Eq. (8)] The phrase 'The second term, ⟨T†_q T_q⟩_c, is not captured by Eq. (6)' appears to have a typo: the second term in Eq. (8) is ⟨T_q T†_q⟩_c, not ⟨T†_q T_q⟩_c.
  2. [Page 2, near Eq. (4)] 'electron langauge' should be 'electron language'.
  3. [Abstract and introduction] The abstract says 'relaxed QFI bounds applicable to measurements lacking full polarization resolution.' The word 'relaxed' is appropriate, but the main text should define precisely what is lost in the mixed-polarization case relative to the polarization-resolved case; the current statement in Fig. 3 caption is somewhat implicit.
  4. [Footnote 45] The normalization discussion is important, but it would be clearer to state in the main text that the absolute intensity calibration is a prerequisite for applying Eq. (11). Currently it appears only as a footnote.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the central QFI construction is self-contained. Minor caveat: the phase in Eq. (10) requires a ground-state estimate of <T_q^2>, so Eq. (11) is not purely experimental; self-citations are non-load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation chain (Eqs. 5-12) is an algebraic construction: O_q in Eq. (7) is Hermitian by definition, Eq. (8) is the standard QFI of that generator, Eq. (9) identifies the conjugate measurement as T†, and Eq. (11) follows by substituting the measured spectral integrals. The k-producible bound in Eq. (12) is an external, parameter-free theorem from Hyllus et al., and the material-specific matrices are obtained from independent ab initio dipole integrals (Eq. 13), not fitted to the RIXS spectra. The paper's self-citations [29,36] are used only as motivation for the UCL approximation and for the modeling of core-hole effects; they are not a uniqueness theorem nor the source of the witness bound. One caveat is flagged but is not full circularity: the phase φ̄ in Eq. (10) is chosen using the ground-state expectation <T_q^2>, so the phrase 'expressible purely through experimentally accessible RIXS spectra' before Eq. (11) overstates experimental autonomy. If the theoretical estimate of <T_q^2> is wrong, the third term in Eq. (8) does not vanish and the measured RHS is not the QFI of the Hermitian generator used for the bound. This is an external-input robustness issue rather than a logical reduction of the result to its inputs; the derivation itself is self-contained. Score 2 reflects the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations and this overstatement.

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

The central derivation has no fitted parameters; the only numerical freedom is the experimental calibration of RIXS intensity. The assumptions are standard approximations (UCL, zero-T, local particle conservation) plus the phase-choice premise; no new entities are posited.

free parameters (1)
  • RIXS intensity normalization factor (f0 / overall scaling) = calibrated experimentally against canonical doping levels (not specified)
    Footnote 45: RIXS measures photon counts rather than absolute cross-sections; the scaling must be calibrated for quantitative QFI, though it cancels in the dimensionless presentation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Ultrashort core-hole lifetime (UCL) approximation Γ→∞, so RIXS final state simplifies to T_q|G⟩/Γ
    Invoked above Eq. (5) to map spectral integrals to ⟨T†T⟩c; real RIXS has finite Γ and lifetime corrections become severe (Ref. 22).
  • domain assumption Local Hilbert space factorizes as ⊗_i(H_spin_i ⊗ H_orb_i) with no inter-site tunneling and strictly conserved local particle number
    Eq. (1) and the paragraph after it; if violated, a fermionic witness formalism is required.
  • domain assumption Zero-temperature pure-state ground state; only Stokes (ω>0) RIXS response contributes; anti-Stokes processes are exponentially suppressed and neglected
    Used in Eq. (6) and in the construction of Ō; finite temperature would introduce Boltzmann factors into the spectral integral.
  • standard math Hyllus et al. bound F_Q ≤ k Σ_j(λ_max−λ_min)² holds for k-producible spin-orbital states
    Refs. 14–15; the local operators are the single-site T̄ matrices.
  • domain assumption The phase φ̄ = π/4 − ½Arg⟨T_q²⟩ is known from theory so that Re[e^{2iφ}⟨T²⟩]=0
    Eq. (10); requires a ground-state expectation value not obtainable from the two RIXS spectra.
  • domain assumption Truncation of the orbital Hilbert space to the valence 3d manifold (N_orb=5 in cuprates)
    Footnote 23 notes truncation breaks exact spin-orbital separability, yet the k-producible bound relies on the truncated local space.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Witnessing Spin-Orbital Entanglement using Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GMRWDJ6H

@misc{pith2026251206718,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Witnessing Spin-Orbital Entanglement using Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GMRWDJ6H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.06718}
}
abstract

Entanglement plays a central role in quantum technologies, yet its characterization and control in materials remain challenging. Recent developments in spectrum-based entanglement witnesses have enabled new strategies for quantifying many-body entanglement in macroscopic materials. Here, we develop a protocol for detecting spin-orbital entanglement using experiment-accessible resonant inelastic x-ray scattering (RIXS). Central to our approach is the construction of a Hermitian generator from experimentally measurable spectra, which allows us to compute the quantum Fisher information (QFI) available in spin--orbital systems. The resulting QFI provides upper bounds for $k$-producible states and thus serves as a robust witness of spin-orbital entanglement. To account for realistic experimental limitations, we further extend our framework to include relaxed QFI bounds applicable to measurements lacking full polarization resolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.06718 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustration of the local Hilbert space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) RIXS experimental geometry. Incident and scattered pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a,b) QFI bounds for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [22]

    T. Ren, Y . Shen, S. F. TenHuisen, J. Sears, W. He, M. H. Up- ton, D. Casa, P. Becker, M. Mitrano, M. P. Dean, and R. M. Konik,Witnessing Quantum Entanglement Using Resonant In- elastic X-ray Scattering, arXiv:2404.05850 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Keimer and J

    B. Keimer and J. E. Moore,The Physics of Quantum Materials, Nat. Phys.13, 1045 (2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    D. N. Basov, R. D. Averitt, and D. Hsieh,Towards Properties on Demand in Quantum Materials, Nat. Mater.16, 1077 (2017)

    2017

  4. [3]

    G ¨uhne, G

    O. G ¨uhne, G. T ´oth, and H. J. Briegel,Multipartite Entangle- ment in Spin Chains, New J. Phys.7, 229 (2005)

    2005

  5. [4]

    Brukner, V

    C. Brukner, V . Vedral, and A. Zeilinger,Crucial Role of Quan- tum Entanglement in Bulk Properties of Solids, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012110 (2006)

    2006

  6. [5]

    Amico, R

    L. Amico, R. Fazio, A. Osterloh, and V . Vedral,Entanglement in Many-Body Systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.80, 517 (2008)

    2008

  7. [6]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, E. Dagotto, and D. A. Tennant,Witnessing Entanglement and Quantum Correlations in Condensed Mat- ter: A Review, Adv. Quantum Technol.8, 2400196 (2025)

    2025

  8. [7]

    Hauke, M

    P. Hauke, M. Heyl, L. Tagliacozzo, and P. Zoller,Measuring Multipartite Entanglement through Dynamic Susceptibilities, Nat. Phys.12, 778 (2016)

    2016

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Mathew, S

    G. Mathew, S. L. Silva, A. Jain, A. Mohan, D. Adroja, V . Sakai, C. Tomy, A. Banerjee, R. Goreti, R. Singh, and D. Jaiswal- Nagar,Experimental Realization of Multipartite Entanglement via Quantum Fisher Information in a Uniform Antiferromag- netic Quantum Spin Chain, Phys. Rev...

    2020

  2. [9]

    Laurell, A

    P. Laurell, A. Scheie, C. J. Mukherjee, M. M. Koza, M. En- derle, Z. Tylczynski, S. Okamoto, R. Coldea, D. A. Tennant, and G. Alvarez,Quantifying and Controlling Entanglement in the Quantum Magnet Cs 2CoCl4, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 037201 (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    Menon, N

    V . Menon, N. E. Sherman, M. Dupont, A. O. Scheie, D. A. Ten- nant, and J. E. Moore,Multipartite Entanglement in the One- dimensional Spin-1/2 Heisenberg Antiferromagnet, Phys. Rev. B107, 054422 (2023)

    2023

  4. [11]

    Scheie, E

    A. Scheie, E. Ghioldi, J. Xing, J. Paddison, N. Sherman, M. Dupont, L. Sanjeewa, S. Lee, A. Woods, D. Abernathy, et al., Proximate spin liquid and fractionalization in the trian- gular antiferromagnet kybse2, Nature Physics20, 74 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Y . Fang, M. Mahankali, Y . Wang, L. Chen, H. Hu, S. Paschen, and Q. Si,Amplified Multipartite Entanglement Witnessed in a Quantum Critical ¡etal, Nat. Commun.16, 2498 (2025)

    2025

  6. [13]

    Mazza, S

    F. Mazza, S. Biswas, X. Yan, A. Prokofiev, P. Steffens, Q. Si, F. F. Assaad, and S. Paschen,Quantum Fisher Information in a Strange Metal, arXiv:2403.12779 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Hyllus, W

    P. Hyllus, W. Laskowski, R. Krischek, C. Schwemmer, W. Wieczorek, H. Weinfurter, L. Pezz´e, and A. Smerzi,Fisher Information and Multiparticle Entanglement, Phys. Rev. A85, 022321 (2012)

    2012

  8. [15]

    T ´oth and I

    G. T ´oth and I. Apellaniz,Quantum Metrology from a Quantum Information Science Perspective, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.47, 424006 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    Costa de Almeida and P

    R. Costa de Almeida and P. Hauke,From entanglement Certifi- cation with Quench Dynamics to Multipartite Entanglement of Interacting Fermions, Phys. Rev. Res.3, L032051 (2021)

    2021

  10. [17]

    J. S. Davis and D.-H. Lee,Concepts Relating Magnetic Interac- tions, Intertwined Electronic Orders, and Strongly Correlated Superconductivity, PNAS110, 17623 (2013)

    2013

  11. [18]

    L. J. P. Ament, M. van Veenendaal, T. P. Devereaux, J. P. Hill, and J. van den Brink,Resonant Inelastic X-ray Scattering Stud- ies of Elementary Excitations, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 705 (2011)

    2011

  12. [19]

    Tohyama,Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering in Strongly Correlated Electron Systems, J

    T. Tohyama,Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering in Strongly Correlated Electron Systems, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phe- nom.200, 209 (2015)

    2015

  13. [20]

    Mitrano, S

    M. Mitrano, S. Johnston, Y .-J. Kim, and M. Dean,Exploring Quantum Materials with Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering, Phys. Rev. X14, 040501 (2024). 6

    2024

  14. [21]

    F. M. de Groot, M. W. Haverkort, H. Elnaggar, A. Juhin, K.-J. Zhou, and P. Glatzel,Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering, Nat. Rev. Methods Primers4, 45 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    There- fore, a truncated orbital Hilbert space provides an equivalent description only if it covers all relevant excitations

    A projection operator is inherently non-unitary and generally breaks the separability between spin and orbital sectors. There- fore, a truncated orbital Hilbert space provides an equivalent description only if it covers all relevant excitations

  16. [24]

    Schliemann, J

    J. Schliemann, J. I. Cirac, M. Ku´s, M. Lewenstein, and D. Loss, Quantum Correlations in Two-Fermion Systems, Phys. Rev. A 64, 022303 (2001)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Ghirardi, L

    G. Ghirardi, L. Marinatto, and T. Weber,Entanglement and Properties of Composite Quantum Systems: A Conceptual and Mathematical Analysis, J. Stat. Phys.108, 49 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Ghirardi and L

    G. Ghirardi and L. Marinatto,General Criterion for the Entan- glement of Two Indistinguishable Particles, Phys. Rev. A70, 012109 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Eckert, J

    K. Eckert, J. Schliemann, D. Bruß, and M. Lewenstein,Quan- tum Correlations in Systems of Indistinguishable Particles, Ann. Phys.299, 88 (2002)

    2002

  20. [28]

    C. V . Kraus, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and G. Giedke,Pairing in Fermionic Systems: A Quantum-Information Perspective, Phys. Rev. A79, 012306 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    T. Liu, L. Xu, J. Liu, and Y . Wang,Entanglement Witness for In- distinguishable Electrons using Solid-State Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. X15, 011056 (2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Gel’mukhanov and H

    F. Gel’mukhanov and H. ˚Agren,Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scat- tering with Symmetry-Selective Excitation, Phys. Rev. A49, 4378 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Butorin, J.-H

    S. Butorin, J.-H. Guo, M. Magnuson, P. Kuiper, and J. Nord- gren,Low-Energy d-d Excitations in MnO Studied by Reso- nant X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B54, 4405 (1996)

    1996

  24. [32]

    Ghiringhelli, N

    G. Ghiringhelli, N. Brookes, E. Annese, H. Berger, C. Dallera, M. Grioni, L. Perfetti, . f. A. Tagliaferri, and L. Braicovich,Low Energy Electronic Excitations in the Layered Cuprates Studied by Copper L 3 Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 117406 (2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Schlappa, U

    J. Schlappa, U. Kumar, K. Zhou, S. Singh, M. Mourigal, V . Strocov, A. Revcolevschi, L. Patthey, H. Rønnow, S. John- ston,et al.,Probing Multi-Spinon Excitations Outside of the Two-Spinon Continuum in the Antiferromagnetic Spin Chain Cuprate Sr2CuO3, Nat. Commun.9, 5394 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    J. Li, L. Xu, M. Garcia-Fernandez, A. Nag, H. Robarts, A. Wal- ters, X. Liu, J. Zhou, K. Wohlfeld, J. van den Brink,et al., Unraveling the Orbital Physics in a Canonical Orbital System KCuF3, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 106401 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    L. J. Ament, G. Ghiringhelli, M. M. Sala, L. Braicovich, and J. van den Brink,Theoretical Demonstration of How the Dis- persion of Magnetic Excitations in Cuprate Compounds can be Determined Using Resonant Inelastic X-ray Scattering, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 117003 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    C. Jia, K. Wohlfeld, Y . Wang, B. Moritz, and T. P. Devereaux, Using RIXS to Uncover Elementary Charge and Spin Excita- tions, Phys. Rev. X6, 021020 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    Haverkort,Theory of Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scatter- ing by Collective Magnetic Excitations, Phys

    M. Haverkort,Theory of Resonant Inelastic X-Ray Scatter- ing by Collective Magnetic Excitations, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 167404 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Schlappa, K

    J. Schlappa, K. Wohlfeld, K. Zhou, M. Mourigal, M. Haverkort, V . Strocov, L. Hozoi, C. Monney, S. Nishimoto, S. Singh,et al., Spin–Orbital Separation in the Quasi-One-Dimensional Mott Insulator Sr2CuO3, Nature485, 82 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    C. E. Matt, D. Sutter, A. Cook, Y . Sassa, M. M˚ansson, O. Tjern- berg, L. Das, M. Horio, D. Destraz, C. Fatuzzo,et al.,Direct Observation of Orbital Hybridisation in a Cuprate Supercon- ductor, Nat. Commun.9, 972 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    J. Yang, H. Sun, X. Hu, Y . Xie, T. Miao, H. Luo, H. Chen, B. Liang, W. Zhu, G. Qu,et al.,Orbital-Dependent Electron Correlation in Double-Layer Nickelate La 3Ni2O7, Nat. Com- mun.15, 4373 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Z. Liu, M. Huo, J. Li, Q. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Dai, X. Zhou, J. Hao, Y . Lu, M. Wang,et al.,Electronic Correlations and Partial Gap in the Bilayer Nickelate La 3Ni2O7, Nat. Commun.15, 7570 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    X. Chen, J. Choi, Z. Jiang, J. Mei, K. Jiang, J. Li, S. Agrestini, M. Garcia-Fernandez, H. Sun, X. Huang,et al.,Electronic and Magnetic Excitations in La 3Ni2O7, Nat. Commun.15, 9597 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Aspect, J

    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger,Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities using Time-Varying Analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1804 (1982)

    1982

  36. [44]

    Brunner, D

    N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V . Scarani, and S. Wehner,Bell Nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys86, 419 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    This normaliza- tion factor can be determined by comparing the fully integrated RIXS intensity, or alternatively, the x-ray absorption signal, with known canonical doping levels

    In practice, RIXS measures the total photon count rather than the absolute cross-section, which introduces an overall scaling factor that must be calibrated experimentally. This normaliza- tion factor can be determined by comparing the fully integrated RIXS intensity, or alter...

  38. [46]

    A. J. Jenkins, H. Liu, J. M. Kasper, M. J. Frisch, and X. Li,Vari- ational Relativistic Two-Component Complete-Active-Space Self-Consistent Field Method, J. Chem. Theory Comput.15, 2974 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.