Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 98 references

This paper argues that the back-action on the driving field in high-harmonic generation is enough, by itself, to entangle the emitted harmonic modes, making intermodal entanglement a near-universal feature of HHG.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 19:39 UTC pith:H7GX6F53

load-bearing objection Back-action alone can entangle harmonics in the effective susceptibility model, but the quantitative fit to experiment relies on a perturbation series that is not small in the fitted regime. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.01315 v3 pith:H7GX6F53 submitted 2026-03-01 quant-ph physics.optics

Intermodal entanglement in a quantum optical model of HHG due to the back-action on the driving field

\'Akos Gombk\"ot\H{o} , P\'eter \'Ad\'am , David Theidel , Tam\'as Kiss This is my paper
classification quant-ph physics.optics
keywords high-harmonic generationquantum entanglementpump depletionback-actionnonclassical lightsusceptibility modelCBS inequalitylogarithmic negativity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that the entanglement seen between harmonics in high-harmonic generation can be explained by a single generic mechanism: the back-action on the driving field as it loses photons. Using an effective quantum-optical Hamiltonian in which the material enters only through susceptibilities, the authors show that pump depletion forces the quantum state away from the usual product of coherent states, and that the leading corrections produce Bell-state-like correlations between harmonic modes. They argue this makes intermodal entanglement a near-universal feature of HHG rather than a material-specific effect, and they fit their model to published data on silicon, zinc oxide, and gallium arsenide. If right, the result matters because it turns a measured signal of nonclassicality into a concrete, testable prediction about where and how harmonic photons become entangled.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the leading corrections to the coherent-state product ansatz, computed from the susceptibility Hamiltonian, are a back-action term that depletes the pump (proportional to t², modifying the pump's photon statistics) and a second-order term (proportional to t³) that creates a single photon in one harmonic jointly with a modified pump state. After undoing the displacement, the state is an entangled superposition in the displaced number-state basis; for two harmonics this contains a Bell-state-like component. The authors interpret this as showing that harmonic-harmonic entanglement is a generic consequence of pump depletion, without needing conditioning or m

What carries the argument

The effective Hamiltonian H = ℏω A†A + Σ_n ℏω n a†_n a_n + ℏ Σ_n χ_n (A^n a†_n + (A†)^n a_n), where A is the pump mode, a_n the nth harmonic, and χ_n the material's nth-order susceptibility. The paper treats the material as a classical continuum, so all quantum effects come from the photon-exchange terms. The analytic procedure is a perturbative expansion in powers of χ_n t around the uncorrelated coherent-state solution, using time-dependent unitary transformations; the first-order term captures pump depletion, and the second-order term couples that depletion to single-photon excitations of the harmonics, which is what generates the Bell-type intermodal correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The material is a memoryless, lossless medium well described by instantaneous susceptibilities, so the only possible source of quantum correlation is the photon exchange between the pump and the harmonics.

What would settle it

Measure the CBS ratio R between the 3rd and 5th harmonics while driving so weakly that the pump photon number change is negligible; the back-action model predicts no violation (R ≤ 1) in that limit, so a persistent R > 1 there would rule out the depletion mechanism as the sole source.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If back-action is the universal mechanism, entanglement between harmonic modes should appear in any HHG setup regardless of the target material, as long as the few-harmonic, single-mode-pump assumptions hold.
  • The model explains the experimentally observed CBS-inequality violations (R > 1) for 3rd/5th harmonics as signatures of entanglement, not just generic nonclassicality.
  • Entanglement arises without conditioning or postselection, strengthening the prospect of using HHG to produce cluster-type multipartite entangled states for measurement-based quantum computation.
  • The perturbative expansion gives explicit scaling: first-order back-action changes the pump statistics (t² terms), and harmonic-harmonic entanglement appears only at third order in the interaction time (t³ terms), fixing the regime where the effect should be measurable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is purely depletion-driven, the same kind of intermodal entanglement should appear in other strongly pumped nonlinear processes, such as depleted third-harmonic generation or optical parametric amplification; testing R > 1 there would check the universality claim beyond HHG.
  • The model implicitly predicts a measurable imprint of the back-action in the pump mode itself — a slight non-Gaussianity and super-Poissonian statistics — which could be probed with homodyne detection; a null result there would weaken the entanglement interpretation.
  • The authors note three harmonic modes can be pairwise entangled simultaneously; a natural extension is to ask whether the state is genuinely multipartite entangled (e.g., violates a three-mode entanglement witness), which would connect directly to cluster-state generation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an effective quantum-optical Hamiltonian for high-harmonic generation in which a single quantized pump mode couples to quantized harmonic modes through effective nth-order susceptibilities (Eq. (1)). Starting from a coherent pump and vacuum harmonics, the authors remove the zero-order coherent-state solution by a unitary displacement (Eqs. (5)-(10)) and solve the Schrödinger equation perturbatively. They obtain the state Eq. (33), containing first-order pump-depletion corrections and second-order pump-harmonic correlations. From this state they derive photon statistics, intermodal correlation functions, the CBS ratio R (Eq. (44)), and harmonic-harmonic logarithmic negativity. They apply the model to perturbative and idealized nonperturbative regimes, and then fit susceptibilities to photon numbers measured in PRX Quantum 5, 040319 for GaAs, ZnO, and Si, reproducing R3,5>1 and predicting entanglement. They conclude that back-action on the driving field is a universal source of intermodal entanglement in HHG.

Significance. The conceptual mechanism is attractive and the derivation is internally consistent: entanglement between harmonics is generated solely by depletion/back-action, with no material-specific quantum dynamics. The analytical formulas provide a useful reference for future work. The calculation is not circular in the narrow sense: the susceptibilities are fitted to mean photon numbers, and R>1 and E>0 then follow from the Hamiltonian structure rather than being inserted by hand. However, the quantitative support for universality is weakened by two issues: the perturbative expansion is not controlled in the fitted regime, and the model's idealizations exclude several processes that could modify or dominate real HHG entanglement. A clear domain-of-validity statement and an estimate of omitted contributions are needed before the broad conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.C, Eqs. (57)-(62)] The perturbative state (33) and observables (38)-(43) are obtained by truncating the iteration of Eq. (15). The expansion parameter is lambda_n = chi_n |alpha0|^n tau (cf. the zero-order harmonic amplitude in Eq. (2)). Using the fitted chi_n and tau = T/2 = pi/omega, lambda_3 for GaAs is about 0.25 at the transition and reaches about 1.1 at |alpha0|=2; for ZnO lambda_3 about 0.67 at |alpha0|=2; for Si lambda_5 about 0.6-0.7 at |alpha0|=2. These values are not much smaller than 1, so omitted higher-order corrections are not negligible in the regime where R3,5>1 and E3,5 are reported. The paper acknowledges the fit/validity trade-off in Sec. V.C but gives no estimate of the omitted terms. Please compute the next-order contribution (or otherwise bound it) for R3,5 and E3,5 at representative intensities, or restrict the quantitative conclusions to the small-lambda regime.
  2. [Abstract / Sec. VI] The conclusion that intermodal entanglement is 'a universal phenomenon associated with HHG' is stronger than the model can support. The model assumes a classical, memoryless medium represented only by susceptibilities, a single-mode pump with a rectangular envelope, no material excitation, and no harmonic-harmonic or multi-mode effects (Sec. II). The calculation establishes sufficiency of the back-action mechanism within this effective model, not material independence. Please either temper the universality statement to the domain of validity of Eq. (1), or add a comparison with a material-resolved/multi-mode treatment that shows the mechanism survives those effects. As written, the abstract's promise is not matched by the evidence.
  3. [Sec. V.C, Eqs. (54)-(62)] The empirical support rests on a fit with many free parameters (chi_3, chi_5, transition amplitudes alpha(3), alpha(5), exponents epsilon_n, and ratio C3/C5). No sensitivity analysis is given, so it is not clear whether the reproduced R3,5 behaviour (and the associated E3,5) is a robust prediction of the model or a consequence of parameter choice. Since the same data are used to fix the susceptibilities and to test the model, this is not an independent confirmation. Please report the sensitivity of R3,5 and E3,5 to the fitted parameters, or explicitly state that the comparison is illustrative rather than a validation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. V.A, text near Fig. 3] The callout 'Fig. 3(e)' for logarithmic negativity should be 'Fig. 3(c)'.
  2. [Sec. V.B, text near Fig. 5] The callouts 'Fig. 3(a)', 'Fig. 3(b)', and 'Fig. 3(c)' refer to panels of Fig. 5, not Fig. 3.
  3. [Sec. V.C, text near Fig. 6] The phrase 'such as in Fig. 6(d)' discussing R3,5 should probably refer to Fig. 6(c); Fig. 6(d) shows logarithmic negativity.
  4. [Eq. (33) and Appendix B] The lower summation limit n1 is used but never introduced in the main text; for clarity, define n1 or replace it with the explicit lowest harmonic order used.
  5. [Fig. 1 caption] '10'th' should be '10th', and the set notation 'n ∈ 3, ...10' should be written as 'n = 3, ..., 10'.
  6. [References] Several references are dated 2025-2026 (e.g., Refs. [63], [65], [94]); please ensure all are publicly accessible and that citation dates are consistent with the submission date.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the core entanglement derivation is self-contained; the experimental R comparison is an acknowledged fit, not a hidden prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation starts from the explicitly stated effective Hamiltonian (Eq. 1) and arrives at the displaced-number-state superposition (Eq. 33) by a direct perturbative calculation. The conclusion that back-action on the pump creates harmonic-harmonic entanglement follows from the structure of the Hamiltonian and the truncated state, not from the experimental data; this part is mathematically self-contained and not circular. The comparison to the experiment in Sec. V.C is an explicitly labeled fitting procedure: Eq. (47) determines the susceptibilities from measured harmonic intensities, and the paper says it 'fit[s] the susceptibilities through the measured mean photons per pulse' and that the parameters were 'chosen so that the ratio ... correspond[s] to the measured values.' The resulting R3,5 curves are therefore fitted reproductions rather than independent predictions, and the single use of the word 'predicts' for the Si target occurs after fitting the same material's susceptibilities. This weakens the evidential weight of the experimental agreement, but it is not a circular reduction: R3,5 is not equal by construction to the fitted harmonic intensities, and the paper openly acknowledges the fit-fidelity/validity trade-off. The self-citation of Ref. [97] for the Hamiltonian is attribution of a previously introduced model, not an unverified load-bearing uniqueness claim. The perturbative control issue (chi_n|alpha0|^n tau reaching O(1) in the experimental fits) and the back-transfer limitation are validity concerns, not circularity. Overall, no step in the derivation equates the output to its inputs by definition.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities, but the phenomenological susceptibilities are free parameters fitted to experimental harmonic intensities. The central 'universality' conclusion rests on the domain assumption that an instantaneous multi-photon susceptibility Hamiltonian captures HHG's essential quantum features.

free parameters (5)
  • chi_n susceptibilities (GaAs, ZnO, Si) = Piecewise functions, e.g., chi3(GaAs)=0.069 for |alpha0|<=1.05, then 0.069*(1.05/|alpha0|)^0.7; chi5(Si)=4.31 for |alpha
    Fitted so that the zeroth-order model reproduces the measured harmonic intensities from Ref. [1]. These parameters directly determine all predicted correlation and entanglement values.
  • Transition amplitudes alpha(n) = e.g., 1.05, 0.735, 1.3, 0.377, 1.35, 0.06 (Eqs. 57-62)
    Chosen to match the observed transition between perturbative and nonperturbative regimes for each material and harmonic.
  • Pulse duration / interaction time tau = T/2 in the experimental fits; 1.5T and 2T in the idealized regimes
    The interaction time is set by hand; it scales the susceptibilities and controls the perturbative parameter.
  • Perturbative exponent p and constant C = p=0.3 in Fig. 2; C not specified explicitly
    Used to model the exponential spectral decrease in the perturbative regime; chosen by hand.
  • Cutoff harmonic order N = 11 in all figures
    Choice of N truncates the model; results depend on N, especially for high harmonic orders.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The material can be replaced by classical, effective susceptibilities; the material quantum state is ignored and no energy is stored in the target.
    Introduced in Sec. II: the material is 'a classical continuum, represented solely through effective susceptibilities'. This is load-bearing for the universal claim.
  • domain assumption The driving field is a single quantized mode with a rectangular (monochromatic) pulse envelope.
    The model takes a single pump mode and assumes a constant interaction time tau, corresponding to a rectangular carrier envelope (stated in Sec. V.A and V.B). Real HHG pulses have finite spectra and temporal structure.
  • domain assumption Only odd-order harmonics contribute (due to inversion symmetry and monochromatic drive).
    Assumed in Sec. V for the model calculations; the paper notes it can be relaxed, but it is used for the figures.
  • standard math Standard quantum-optical properties of coherent states, displaced number states, the Wigner function, and logarithmic negativity via partial transpose are valid.
    Background results used throughout Sec. IV and Appendix B; these are standard.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 29371 in / 13764 out tokens · 140341 ms · 2026-08-02T19:39:06.134121+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Preparation of nonclassical light with special quantum properties is essential for quantum technologies. High-harmonic generation (HHG) is a process which not only enables the creation of attosecond pulses but also has the potential to generate light with intricate quantum properties. In a recent experiment [PRX Quantum 5. 040319], nonclassical inter-harmonic correlations have been measured from a HHG source between low-order harmonics. In this work, we theoretically investigate entanglement between different harmonics within an effective, phenomenological quantum optical model. This model implements a significant degree of simplification regarding the processes within the target material, treating the material through susceptibilities, as it is usual in quantum optics. Such an approach yields a general description of HHG in the few-harmonic generation regime, permitting the implications that can be derived within it to hold broadly within the domain of validity. We find that entanglement is produced as a result of the often neglected back-action. We can qualitatively reproduce experimentally measured nonclassicalities, which suggests that intermodal entanglement can, to an extent, be considered a universal phenomenon associated with HHG, rather than a result of using specific material targets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.01315 by \'Akos Gombk\"ot\H{o}, David Theidel, P\'eter \'Ad\'am, Tam\'as Kiss.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Deviation in the Wigner function of the 10’th har [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Single-mode physical quantities characterizing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Two-mode physical quantities. Intermodal corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time-evolution of the photon correlation functions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two-mode physical quantities. Intermodal correla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Physical quantities as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Physical quantities as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Physical quantities as function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Theidel et al., PRX Quantum 5, 040319 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.5.040319

    D. Theidel et al., PRX Quantum 5, 040319 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PRXQuantum.5.040319

    2024

  2. [2]

    Asavanant and A

    W. Asavanant and A. Furusawa, Phys. Rev. A 109, 040101 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    S. M. Barnett et al., Prog. Quantum Elec- tron. 54, 19 (2017), ISSN 0079-6727, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/S0079672717300277

    2017

  4. [4]

    X. Shi, W. W. Lee, A. Karnieli, L. M. Lohse, A. Gorlach, 18 L. W. W. Wong, T. Salditt, S. Fan, I. Kaminer, and L. J. Wong, Prog. Quantum Electron. 102, 100577 (2025), ISSN 0079-6727, URL https://www.sciencedirect. com/science/article/pii/S0079672725000254

    2025

  5. [5]

    P. D. Drummond and M. Hillery, The Quantum The- ory of Nonlinear Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  6. [6]

    Ferray, A

    M. Ferray, A. L’Huillier, X. Li, L. Lompre, G. Mainfray, and C. Manus, J. Phys. B 21, L31 (1988)

    1988

  7. [7]

    R. M. Potvliege and R. Shakeshaft, Phys. Rev. A 40, 3061 (1989), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.40.3061

    1989

  8. [8]

    Ghimire, A

    S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Nat. Physics 7, 138 (2011)

    2011

  9. [10]

    Bergou and S

    J. Bergou and S. Varró, J. Phys. A 14, 2281 (1981)

    1981

  10. [11]

    Kuchiev and V

    M. Kuchiev and V. Ostrovsky, J. Phys. B 32, L189 (1999)

    1999

  11. [12]

    J. Gao, F. Shen, and J. Eden, Phys. Rev. A 61, 043812 (2000)

    2000

  12. [13]

    L. Gao, X. Li, P. Fu, and R. Guo, Phys. Rev. A 61, 063407 (2000)

    2000

  13. [14]

    J. B. Bertrand, H. J. Wörner, H.-C. Bandulet, E. Bisson, M. Spanner, J.-C. Kieffer, D. M. Vil- leneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 023001 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.106.023001

    2011

  14. [15]

    C. Yu, J. Zhang, Z.-W. Sun, Z. Sun, and D.-S. Guo, Front. Phys. 10, 1 (2015)

    2015

  15. [16]

    I. K. Kominis, G. Kolliopoulos, D. Charalambidis, and P. Tzallas, Phys. Rev. A 89, 063827 (2014)

    2014

  16. [17]

    Argenti, S

    L. Argenti, S. Chattopadhyay, M. Chini, N. Douguet, and C. Marante, in ATTO 8th International Confer- ence on Attosecond Science and Technology (Book of Abstracts) (2022), URL https://sciences.ucf.edu/ physics/atto/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2022/ 06/ATTOVIII_BOA_June21.pdf

    2022

  17. [18]

    Gombkötő, S

    A. Gombkötő, S. Varró, Z. Keresztes, B. Gábor, and P. Földi, in Kvantumelektronika 2021: IX. Szimpózium a hazai kvantumelektronikai kutatások eredményeirl (University of Szeged, Szeged, 2021), pp. 64–68, URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:234339486

    2021

  18. [19]

    Argenti, M

    L. Argenti, M. Chini, and L. Fang, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Attosecond Science and Technology (Springer, 2024), ISBN 0930-8989

    2024

  19. [20]

    Stammer and M

    P. Stammer and M. Lewenstein, Acta Phys. Pol. A 143, S42 (2023), URL https://appol.ifpan.edu.pl/ index.php/appa/article/view/143_s42

    2023

  20. [21]

    Rivera-Dean, P

    J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, A. S. Maxwell, T. Lam- prou, A. F. Ordóñez, E. Pisanty, P. Tzallas, M. Lewen- stein, and M. F. Ciappina, Quantum Optical Analysis of High-Order Harmonic Generation in Semiconductors (????), chap. 7, pp. 139–183

  21. [22]

    Rivera, Nanophotonics 14, 1837 (2025), URL https: //doi.org/10.1515/nanoph-2024-0605

    N. Rivera, Nanophotonics 14, 1837 (2025), URL https: //doi.org/10.1515/nanoph-2024-0605

    work page doi:10.1515/nanoph-2024-0605 2025

  22. [23]

    Földi, I

    P. Földi, I. Magashegyi, A. Gombkötő, and S. Varró, Photonics 8, 263 (2021), ISSN 2304-6732

    2021

  23. [24]

    Varró, Photonics 8, 269 (2021), ISSN 2304-6732

    S. Varró, Photonics 8, 269 (2021), ISSN 2304-6732

    2021

  24. [25]

    Bhattacharya, T

    U. Bhattacharya, T. Lamprou, A. S. Maxwell, A. Or- dóñez, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, M. F. Ciappina, M. Lewenstein, and P. Tzallas, Rep. Prog. Phys. 86, 094401 (2023), URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6633/acea31

    2023

  25. [26]

    Y. S. Aklilu and K. Varga, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043119 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.110.043119

    2024

  26. [27]

    C. S. Lange and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013113 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.111.013113

    2025

  27. [28]

    Mun, S.-H

    J.-H. Mun, S.-H. Jang, and S. K. Nam, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043115 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.043115

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.043115 2024

  28. [29]

    Rivera-Dean, T

    J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciap- pina, P. Tzallas, M. Lewenstein, and P. Stammer, Phys. Rev. A 112, 013110 (2025), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/11vz-9gcz

    work page doi:10.1103/11vz-9gcz 2025

  29. [30]

    Lamprou, P

    T. Lamprou, P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, N. Tsatrafyl- lis, M. F. Ciappina, M. Lewenstein, and P. Tzallas, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 58, 132001 (2025), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/add9fe

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6455/add9fe 2025

  30. [31]

    Tsatrafyllis et al., Phys

    N. Tsatrafyllis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 193602 (2019)

    2019

  31. [32]

    Rasputnyi, Z

    A. Rasputnyi, Z. Chen, M. Birk, O. Cohen, I. Kaminer, M. Krüger, D. Seletskiy, M. Chekhova, and F. Tani, Nat. Phys. 20, 1960 (2024), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41567-024-02659-x

    doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02659-x 1960

  32. [33]

    Nayak et al., Nat

    A. Nayak et al., Nat. Commun. 16, 1428 (2025), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56759-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56759-0 2025

  33. [34]

    Lemieux, S

    S. Lemieux, S. A. Jalil, D. N. Purschke, N. Boroumand, T. J. Hammond, D. M. Villeneuve, A. Nau- mov, T. Brabec, and G. Vampa, Nature Photon- ics 19, 767 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41566-025-01673-6

    2024

  34. [35]

    Theidel, V

    D. Theidel, V. Cotte, P. Heinzel, H. Griguer, M. Weis, R. Sondenheimer, and H. Merdji, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033223 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/6r6n-pxfp

    2025

  35. [36]

    Lamprou et al., Photonics 8, 192 (2021), ISSN 2304- 6732

    T. Lamprou et al., Photonics 8, 192 (2021), ISSN 2304- 6732

    2021

  36. [37]

    Cruz-Rodríguez, D

    L. Cruz-Rodríguez, D. Dey, A. Freibert, and P. Stam- mer, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 691 (2024), URL https://doi. org/10.1038/s42254-024-00769-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s42254-024-00769-2 2024

  37. [38]

    Gombkötő, P

    A. Gombkötő, P. Földi, and S. Varró, Phys. Rev. A 104, 033703 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.033703

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.033703 2021

  38. [39]

    Gombkötő, Ph.D

    A. Gombkötő, Ph.D. thesis, University of Szeged (2021), URL https://doktori.bibl.u-szeged.hu/id/ eprint/10993/1/main3final.pdf

    2021

  39. [40]

    S. Yi, N. D. Klimkin, G. G. Brown, O. Smirnova, S. Patchkovskii, I. Babushkin, and M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. X 15, 011023 (2025), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.15.011023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.15.011023 2025

  40. [41]

    Rivera-Dean et al., Phys

    J. Rivera-Dean et al., Phys. Rev. B 109, 035203 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 109.035203

    doi:10.1103/physrevb 2024

  41. [42]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 123603 (2022), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.123603

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.123603 2022

  42. [44]

    Pizzi, A

    A. Pizzi, A. Gorlach, N. Rivera, A. Nunnenkamp, and 19 I. Kaminer, Nat. Phys. 19, 551 (2023)

    2023

  43. [45]

    Berkheim, E

    J. Berkheim, E. Bordo, E. Ragonis, L. Meren- sky, and A. Fleischer, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 043138 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.5.043138

    2023

  44. [46]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. S. Maxwell, T. Lam- prou, J. Argüello-Luengo, P. Tzallas, M. F. Ciap- pina, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 143603 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.132.143603

    2024

  45. [47]

    Gonoskov, R

    I. Gonoskov, R. Sondenheimer, C. Hünecke, D. Kar- tashov, U. Peschel, and S. Gräfe, Phys. Rev. B 109, 125110 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.109.125110

    2024

  46. [49]

    E. S. Andrianov and O. I. Tolstikhin, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023115 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.023115

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.110.023115 2024

  47. [52]

    Gorlach, O

    A. Gorlach, O. Neufeld, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, Nat. Commun. 11, 4598 (2020)

    2020

  48. [53]

    Gombkötő, Acta Phys

    A. Gombkötő, Acta Phys. Pol. A 143, 347 (2023), URL http://appol.ifpan.edu.pl/index.php/appa/ article/view/143_347

    2023

  49. [54]

    C. S. Lange, T. Hansen, and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. A 109, 033110 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.033110

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.033110 2024

  50. [55]

    S. Wang, S. Yu, X. Lai, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033010 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033010

    2024

  51. [56]

    Lewenstein, M

    M. Lewenstein, M. Ciappina, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera- Dean, P. Stammer, T. Lamprou, and P. Tzallas, Nat. Phys. 17 (2021)

    2021

  52. [57]

    Rivera-Dean, P

    J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, E. Pisanty, T. Lamprou, P. Tzallas, M. Lewenstein, and M. Ciappina, J. Comput. Electron. 20, 1 (2021)

    2021

  53. [58]

    Stammer, T

    P. Stammer, T. Fernández Martos, M. Lewenstein, and G. Rajchel-Mieldzio, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 045047 (2024), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 2058-9565/ad7881

    2024

  54. [59]

    Lamprou, J

    T. Lamprou, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, M. Lewen- stein, and P. Tzallas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 013601 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.134.013601

    2025

  55. [61]

    E. S. Andrianov and O. I. Tolstikhin, Phys. Rev. A 112, 013117 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/3gjp-f7br

    work page doi:10.1103/3gjp-f7br 2025

  56. [62]

    Argüello-Luengo, J

    J. Argüello-Luengo, J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, A. S. Maxwell, D. M. Weld, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewen- stein, PRX Quantum 5, 010328 (2024), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXQuantum.5.010328

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.5.010328 2024

  57. [63]

    Gonoskov, C

    I. Gonoskov, C. Hünecke, and S. Gräfe, Emergence of nonclassical radiation in strongly laser-driven quantum systems (2025)

    2025

  58. [64]

    de-la Peña, H

    S. de-la Peña, H. Appel, A. Rubio, and O. Neufeld, Fully quantum theory of strong-field driven tunable entangled multi-photon states in hhg (2025)

    2025

  59. [65]

    Theidel, M

    D. Theidel, M. Nahra, I. Karuseichyk, H. Griguer, M. Weis, and H. Merdji, Photon anti-bunching and quantum non-gaussianity from high-harmonic genera- tion (2026)

    2026

  60. [66]

    Gombkötő, A

    A. Gombkötő, A. Czirják, S. Varró, and P. Földi, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013853 (2016), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.013853

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.94.013853 2016

  61. [67]

    Gonoskov, N

    I. Gonoskov, N. Tsatrafyllis, I. Kominis, and P. Tzallas, Sci. Rep. 6, 32821 (2016)

    2016

  62. [68]

    Tsatrafyllis, I

    N. Tsatrafyllis, I. Kominis, I. Gonoskov, and P. Tzallas, Nat. Commun. 8, 15170 (2017)

    2017

  63. [69]

    Gombkötő, S

    A. Gombkötő, S. Varrò, P. Mati, and P. Földi, Phys. Rev. A 101, 013418 (2020)

    2020

  64. [70]

    M. E. Tzur, M. Birk, A. Gorlach, I. Kaminer, M. Krüger, and O. Cohen, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033079 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033079

    2024

  65. [71]

    Gorlach, M

    A. Gorlach, M. Tzur, M. Birk, M. Krüger, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, Nat. Phys. 19, 1689 (2023)

    2023

  66. [72]

    M. Tzur, M. Birk, A. Gorlach, M. Krüger, I. Kaminer, and O. Cohen, Nat. Photonics 17, 501 (2023)

    2023

  67. [73]

    Stammer, Nat

    P. Stammer, Nat. Phys. 20, 1040 (2024), URL https: //doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02579-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02579-w 2024

  68. [74]

    Rivera-Dean, P

    J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 013801 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ 4hdl-bdwj

    2025

  69. [75]

    Stammer, Phys

    P. Stammer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L032033 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.6.L032033

    2024

  70. [76]

    R. V. Gothelf, C. S. Lange, and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. A 111, 063105 (2025), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.063105

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.063105 2025

  71. [77]

    de-la Peña, O

    S. de-la Peña, O. Neufeld, M. Even Tzur, O. Cohen, H. Appel, and A. Rubio, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 21, 283 (2025), URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acs. jctc.4c01206

    doi:10.1021/acs 2025

  72. [78]

    Wang and X.-B

    Y.-B. Wang and X.-B. Bian, Phys. Rev. A 111, 043111 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.111.043111

    2025

  73. [79]

    Habibović and D

    D. Habibović and D. B. Milošević, Phys. Rev. A 112, L051103 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/1fsq-ffsv

    2025

  74. [80]

    Stammer, J

    P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, M. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Weak measurement in strong laser field physics (2025)

    2025

  75. [81]

    Petrovic, P

    L. Petrovic, P. Stammer, M. Lewenstein, and J. Rivera- Dean, Generation of circular polarized high-order har- monics from single color quantum light (2026)

    2026

  76. [82]

    Sennary, J

    M. Sennary, J. Rivera-Dean, M. Lewenstein, and M. Hassan, Ultrafast quantum optics with attosecond control (2026)

    2026

  77. [83]

    C. Shao, H. Lu, X. Zhang, C. Yu, T. To- hyama, and R. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 047401 (2022), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.128.047401

    2022

  78. [84]

    C. S. Lange, T. Hansen, and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. 20 A 109, 063103 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.063103

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.109.063103 2024

  79. [85]

    G. J. Iafrate and V. N. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. A 109, 012223 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.109.012223

    2024

  80. [86]

    Z. Peng, H. Hu, J. Liu, J. Liu, Z. Zhao, and J. Yuan, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053119 (2023), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.108.053119

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.108.053119 2023

Showing first 80 references.