Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Isolated attosecond spatio-temporal optical vortices: Interplay between the topological charge and orbital angular momentum scaling in high harmonic generation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read High harmonic generation driven by a spatio-spectral optical vortex produces extreme-ultraviolet harmonic STOVs whose topological charge stays at one unit instead of scaling with harmonic order, enabling synthesis into an isolated…

desk verdict A credible theoretical prediction that SSOV-driven HHG keeps topological charge constant across harmonics, with a thin-jet assumption that needs a finite-jet check. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.07465 v2 pith:KJGI4YSI submitted 2025-06-09 physics.optics

Rodrigo Martin-Hernandez , Luis Plaja , Carlos Hernandez-Garcia , Miguel A. Porras This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords spatiotemporalopticalvortexspatio-spectralhighharmonicgenerationtopologicalchargeorbitalangularmomentumattosecondpulsesextremeultravioletlighthouseeffect
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 claims that the familiar rule of vortex up-conversion in high harmonic generation — that the harmonic order multiplies the topological charge — can be broken. When the driving field is a spatio-spectral optical vortex (SSOV), formed by focusing a spatiotemporal vortex, each far-field extreme-ultraviolet harmonic is still a spatiotemporal vortex but carries the same unit topological charge as the driver, with opposite sign, rather than a charge proportional to harmonic order. Because all harmonics share the same singularity, they can be superposed into an attosecond pulse that is itself a spatiotemporal vortex; adding angular chirp isolates that pulse into a single roughly 290-attosecond STOV. The paper further argues that topological-charge scaling and orbital-angular-momentum conservation are distinct: the average intrinsic orbital angular momentum per photon scales with harmonic order in all three studied driver types, but for STOV and SSOV drivers it is generally not conserved, so linear charge scaling is not a general test of OAM up-conversion.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spatio-spectral optical vortex (SSOV) — the frequency-domain counterpart of a spatiotemporal vortex (STOV, a light field whose phase singularity line runs transverse to propagation), realized at the focus as a tilted-Hermite lobulated field with a π-phase step. High harmonic generation multiplies that phase step by the harmonic order q, while the non-perturbative amplitude factor |E|^{q_eff} reshapes the intensity profile; free propagation to the far field then turns each harmonic into an EUV STOV of unit |ℓ|. The second mechanism is the decomposition of transverse OAM into intrinsic and extrinsic parts about the energy or photon centroid, which allows the paper to compare topological charge (a phase-winding count) with OAM per photon (an energy-weighted field moment) and to show they do not track each other for STOV/SSOV drivers.

What would settle it

A direct test would measure the far-field spatiotemporal phase of individual harmonics (orders 13–21) from an SSOV-driven gas jet and reconstruct each harmonic's topological charge; if the charge changes with q or the central singularity disappears as the gas-jet position is scanned along the focus, the non-scaling and attosecond-STOV claims fail. A complementary calculation would rerun the numerical model with the intrinsic dipole phase artificially amplified or with a short-pulse driver near cutoff; if the unit-charge singularity breaks apart into q-dependent charges, the claimed mechanism is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, driving HHG with the spatio-spectral counterpart of a STOV produces far-field EUV harmonic STOVs with non-scaling topological charge ℓ_q = −ℓ. The up-conversion rule E_q ≈ |E|^{q_eff} $e^{{iq arg(E)}}$ $e^{{iφ_int}}$ multiplies the driver's π-step phase structure by q, and propagation to the far field recovers a distorted STOV of unit |ℓ| for every harmonic; the paper shows the 13th and 15th harmonics both exhibit single-charged singularities, and their superposition forms an attosecond pulse train whose central pulse has a fork-like dislocation, i.e., an attosecond STOV. Imprinting a rotating wavefront (lighthouse effect) separates the train so only the attosecond STOV propagates on axis. The OAM analysis shows the average intrinsic l-OAM per photon scales as qℓ for LG drivers, and the average intrinsic t-OAM per photon scales linearly with q for STOV/SSOV drivers, yet is not generally q times the driver value, making intrinsic t-OAM non-conserved except at the focus where symmetries enforce it.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the standard HHG up-conversion rule that the qth harmonic's phase is q times the driving phase plus a subdominant intrinsic dipole phase; if that π-step phase structure is not faithfully multiplied by q — for example because the dipole phase gradients or macroscopic propagation distort it — the far-field harmonics could acquire a q-dependent topological charge or lose the central singularity, and the attosecond STOV would not form.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Far-field harmonics from an SSOV-driven source share one vortex charge, so they can be coherently combined into a single EUV pulse carrying a spatiotemporal phase singularity; the paper demonstrates this for harmonics 13–19.
  • Adding the lighthouse angular chirp separates the attosecond pulse train in space; only the pulse with the singularity stays on axis, yielding an isolated ~290-as STOV.
  • The common practice of inferring OAM up-conversion from a linear ℓ_q = qℓ scaling is valid for LG-type longitudinal vortices but not for STOV/SSOV drivers, where total t-OAM is zero and the intrinsic t-OAM per photon scales with q but is not q times the driver's.
  • The gas-jet axial position becomes a control parameter: placing the jet at the focus conserves intrinsic t-OAM, while moving it before or after the focus produces continuous, non-conserved intrinsic t-OAM values with the same topological charge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed experimentally, this would give a source of isolated attosecond pulses with a controllable transverse vortex structure in the EUV, a regime where standard optics cannot imprint such topology; possible uses include probing chiral or topological electronic dynamics with sub-femtosecond resolution.
  • The decoupling of topological charge from OAM suggests that other non-perturbative up-conversion processes driven by STOV-type fields may also show non-scaling charges, so the ℓ_q = qℓ rule should be checked case by case rather than assumed.
  • Because the dipole phase populates satellite singularities near cutoff, engineering the driving intensity profile or using different trajectory classes could reduce satellite vortices and produce a cleaner isolated STOV; this is a testable extension of the paper's central mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies high-harmonic generation (HHG) driven by spatio-spectral optical vortices (SSOVs), i.e., by the spatio-spectral fields produced when a focused STOV degenerates into a tilted-Hermite lobulated field at the gas jet. Using full-quantum strong-field-approximation simulations combined with far-field propagation, together with a simple elemental model, the authors report that each high-order harmonic in the far field is a spatiotemporal vortex with the same topological charge as the driver (non-scaling charge, ℓq = −ℓ), in contrast to the conventional ℓq = qℓ scaling for Laguerre-Gaussian and STOV drivers. This enables synthesis of an attosecond STOV pulse train, and with the lighthouse effect an isolated ~290 as STOV pulse. The paper further argues that the average intrinsic orbital angular momentum per photon scales with harmonic order q in all these processes, but that the intrinsic t-OAM is not generally conserved in STOV/SSOV-driven HHG, contradicting the common identification of charge scaling with OAM conservation.

Significance. If the central result is correct, it is significant: it provides a route to EUV/attosecond spatiotemporal vortices, which existing ℓq = qℓ scaling makes impossible, and it separates two notions—topological charge scaling and OAM per-photon scaling—that are often conflated. The paper's strengths include the use of full SFA simulations with macroscopic far-field propagation, consistency with an elemental model, the demonstration of the OAM analysis under two different centroid definitions (energy and photon centroids in the supplementary), and explicit numerical results for the isolated attosecond STOV pulse. These features make the central non-scaling-charge claim credible within the modeled geometry.

major comments (4)
  1. [Main text, 'Advanced numerical simulations' paragraph after Fig. 1] The central result is obtained with an 'infinitesimally thin atomic hydrogen gas-jet' placed at the focus. The claim that this is 'validated against experimental results [40]' refers to a different driven configuration (STOV-driven HHG), and the finite longitudinal extent of a real gas jet, with intensity and phase variations along z and the resulting z-interference, is not tested for SSOV drivers. Because the non-scaling ℓq depends on the far-field harmonic phase preserving the q-multiplied π-step, a finite-medium or phase-mismatch test (or a quantitative argument for why the thin-jet limit is representative) is needed before the attosecond-STOV claim can be taken as robust.
  2. [Main text, same paragraph] The statement that 'Atomic hydrogen is used for computational simplicity, but the results presented here are universal to any noble gas' is an assertion with no supporting comparison or scaling argument. The nonlinear dipole response, ionization dynamics, and macroscopic phase matching differ among noble gases, so universality is not automatic. Either provide HHG simulations (even with the same SFA model for another noble gas) or retract/qualify the universality claim.
  3. [Main text, Eq. after Fig. 1 and Supplemental Sec. 3] The main text states that the intrinsic dipole phase ϕint 'plays here a secondary role (see Sup. Matt)', but Supplemental Fig. 2 shows that the dipole phase is non-negligible for the 15th harmonic and increasingly important near cutoff (q_cutoff = 27), where the TSM without dipole phase fails to reproduce the full simulations. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the far-field vortex structure, including satellite singularities, is exactly what the dipole phase modifies. The paper should either revise the 'secondary role' wording or explicitly specify the regime in which the dipole phase is secondary and how the central non-scaling charge survives.
  4. [Main text, bottom panel of Fig. 1 and discussion of satellite singularities] The paper describes 'several single-charged phase singularities' and a 'distorted STOV of unit |ℓ| with a number of satellite phase singularities', yet the claim is summarized as ℓq = −ℓ. If the full far-field harmonic contains additional singularities, the total topological charge of the field is not simply −ℓ; ℓq must be defined for the central singularity only, and the charges of the satellites must be accounted for. This ambiguity matters for the attosecond-STOV synthesis, since the satellites are part of the harmonic field and could merge with or alter the central singularity under different macroscopic conditions. Please define ℓq precisely and state the net charge including satellites.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'spatio-temoral' should be 'spatio-temporal'.
  2. [Main text, paragraph before Fig. 3] The sentence 'The scaling properties ... are shown in Fig. 3 ... are shown in Fig. 3' contains a duplicated ending; remove the repetition.
  3. [Main text, Conclusion] Grammatical error: 'there no exist general conservation laws' should be 'there exist no general conservation laws'.
  4. [Supplemental Sec. 1] Typographical errors in the supplementary: 'intrisinc' should be 'intrinsic', 'centroind' should be 'centroid', and 'the later' should be 'the latter'.
  5. [Supplemental Sec. 1.2] The notation for the vacuum permittivity is inconsistent: both ε0 and ϵ0 are used for the same constant; please unify.
  6. [References] Reference [40] is cited as 'in press' with an arXiv identifier; if it has now been published in Nature Photonics, update the citation with volume and page information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-scaling topological charge and OAM scaling are consequences of the stated HHG phase-upconversion rule and are independently confirmed by parameter-free full simulations.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The input is the focused STOV/SSOV driver field from Eqs. (1)-(2) (citing Porras, Nanophotonics 2025) and the standard HHG phase-upconversion rule Eq ~ |E|^{q_eff} e^{iq arg(E)} e^{i phi_int}. From this rule, the harmonic phase of an odd-order harmonic inherits the pi-step of the ST-THL driver, and the known propagation result that a pi-step field becomes a unit-charge STOV in the far field yields the non-scaling topological charge l_q = -l. This is a logical consequence of the model, not a fit: q is the harmonic order, q_eff is taken from the literature, and phi_int is modeled with the standard mu model. The same phase rule gives linear-in-q scaling of the intrinsic OAM per photon through the OAM integrals in the Supplement, again without fitted parameters. Crucially, the paper checks these analytic consequences against full three-dimensional simulations of the quantum dipole response and macroscopic far-field propagation, and the symbols and solid lines agree in Fig. 3. The simulations themselves are validated against the authors' previous experimental STOV-HHG work, which is external data and therefore independent support. The self-citations to Porras and Porras & Jolly supply mathematical propagation formulas and OAM definitions; none of these cited works contains the target HHG result, so the argument does not reduce to a self-citation chain. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no quantity used in the derivation is defined in terms of the claimed outcome. The remaining concern about the thin-jet approximation is a validity or robustness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims require no new free parameters fitted to the outcomes. The non-scaling topological charge and the q-linear intrinsic OAM scaling follow from the standard up-conversion rule and the field shapes. Hand-chosen simulation parameters (η, β) and the adopted q_eff parameter are listed for completeness; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • q_eff = ≈3.5 (adopted from ref. [51])
    Phenomenological exponent in the elemental HHG model; not fitted to this paper's data, but used to argue amplitude distortion and OAM scaling.
  • η (inhomogeneity parameter) = 2.0
    Hand-chosen value for the SSOV driver to make the harmonic intensity distribution more uniform around the singularity; the non-scaling charge result also holds for η=1.
  • β (lighthouse angular chirp rate) = 1.56e-2 μm^-1 fs^-1
    Hand-chosen chirp rate to angularly separate the attosecond pulse train so the STOV pulse is isolated on axis; used for the isolation demonstration.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Harmonic emission is described by E_q ≈ |E|^q_eff e^{i q arg(E)} e^{i φ_int}, with constant q_eff.
    Standard HHG up-conversion rule used to explain why the SSOV π-step phase is preserved with q multiplication; location: main text after Fig. 1.
  • domain assumption A focused STOV degenerates into a ST-THL field at focus (a SSOV in the spectral domain) and evolves to an opposite-charge STOV in the far field, following Eq. (2) from ref. [47].
    The entire scheme relies on this propagation behavior of the driving field; location: Eqs. (1)-(2) and Fig. 1(a).
  • domain assumption Intrinsic t-OAM is defined via energy centroid or photon centroid decomposition following refs. [4,5,54].
    The claims on OAM scaling and non-conservation are with respect to these definitions; different centroid choices change the numbers but not the qualitative conclusion, as shown in the supplementary.
  • ad hoc to paper Atomic hydrogen simulation results are universal to any noble gas.
    Asserted in the simulation parameters paragraph without comparative noble-gas calculations.
  • domain assumption The lighthouse effect (angular chirp in the y direction) separates attosecond pulses while preserving the on-axis STOV.
    Technique from refs. [41-44], applied in Fig. 2(d)-(f) to isolate the attosecond STOV.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic dipole phase is secondary for the central spatiotemporal singularity.
    Supplemental Section 3 shows it mainly populates satellite singularities; this support is itself model-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Isolated attosecond spatio-temporal optical vortices: Interplay between the topological charge and orbital angular momentum scaling in high harmonic generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KJGI4YSI

@misc{pith2026250607465,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Isolated attosecond spatio-temporal optical vortices: Interplay between the topological charge and orbital angular momentum scaling in high harmonic generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KJGI4YSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.07465}
}
read the original abstract

The propagation properties and the nature of the transverse orbital angular momentum (t-OAM) of spatiotemporal optical vortices (STOVs) open new scenarios in high-harmonic generation (HHG), where the richness of the topological charge and OAM up-conversion are exposed. Through advanced numerical simulations, we demonstrate that HHG driven by spatio-spectral optical vortices produces far-field, extreme-ultraviolet STOV harmonics with non-scaling topological charge, i.e., with the same topological charge. This allows for the generation of attosecond STOVs, in contrast to previous works of HHG driven by STOVs, where the topological charge scales with the harmonic order. Our findings evidence that the scaling of the topological charge in HHG driven by spatio-temoral topological fields is not generally connected to that of the up-converted OAM. The up-converted intrinsic OAM does scale with generality with harmonic order in HHG, albeit this scaling does not necessarily imply its conservation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.07465 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Conceptual depiction of the intensity of a focused [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Generation of attosecond EUV-STOV pulses from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparative of the harmonic average OAM per photon scali [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparative of the harmonic average intrinsic, PC-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Effect of the intrinsic dipole phase into the far-field EUV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [40]

    Extreme-ultraviolet spatiotemporal vortices via high harmonic generation

    R. Mart ´ ın-Hern´ andez, G. Gui, L. Plaja, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, C.-T. Liao, M. A. Porras, and C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, Nature Photonics, in press. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01716 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [6]

    Jhajj, I

    N. Jhajj, I. Larkin, E. W. Rosenthal, S. Zahedpour, J. K. Wahlstrand, and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. X 6, 031037 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [7]

    S. W. Hancock, S. Zahedpour, A. Goffin, and H. M. Milchberg, Optica 6, 1547 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [8]

    Chong, C

    A. Chong, C. Wan, J. Chen, and Q. Zhan, Nature Pho- tonics 14, 350 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [9]

    Huang, Z

    S. Huang, Z. Li, J. Li, N. Zhang, X. Lu, K. Dorfman, J. Liu, and J. Yao, Sci- ence Advances 10, eadn6206 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adn6206

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn6206 2024

  6. [10]

    H. Wang, C. Guo, W. Jin, A. Y. Song, and S. Fan, Optica 8, 966 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [11]

    Spatiotemporal vortex strings of light

    S. Huang, N. Zhang, X. Lu, J. Liu, and J. Yao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08407 (2023)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  8. [12]

    P. Huo, W. Chen, Z. Zhang, Y. Zhang, M. Liu, P. Lin, H. Zhang, Z. Chen, H. Lezec, W. Zhu, et al., Nature Communications 15, 3055 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 61 references
  1. [13]

    F. Sun, W. Wang, H. Dong, J. He, Z. Shi, Z. Lv, Q. Zhan, Y. Leng, S. Zhuang, and R. Li, Physical Review Research 6, 013075 (2024)

    2024

  2. [14]

    C. Wan, Y. Shen, A. Chong, and Q. Zhan, eLight 2, 22 (2022)

    2022

  3. [15]

    G. Gui, N. J. Brooks, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, 6 and C.-T. Liao, Nature Photonics 15, 608 (2021)

    2021

  4. [16]

    Hancock, S

    S. Hancock, S. Zahedpour, and H. Milchberg, Optica 8, 594 (2021)

    2021

  5. [17]

    Wang, Y.-Y

    H. Wang, Y.-Y. Chen, X. Zhang, and B. Shen, Opt. Express 31, 36810 (2023)

    2023

  6. [18]

    X. Gao, Y. Zhao, J. Wang, Y. Lu, J. Zhang, J. Fan, and M. Hu, Chin. Opt. Lett. 21, 080004 (2023)

    2023

  7. [19]

    McPherson, G

    A. McPherson, G. Gibson, H. Jara, U. Johann, T. S. Luk, I. A. McIntyre, K. Boyer, and C. K. Rhodes, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 595 (1987)

    1987

  8. [20]

    Ferray, A

    M. Ferray, A. L’Huillier, X. F. Li, L. A. Lompre, G. Main- fray, and C. Manus, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 21, L31 (1988)

    1988

  9. [21]

    Popmintchev, M.-C

    T. Popmintchev, M.-C. Chen, D. Popmintchev, P. Arpin, S. Brown, S. Alisauskas, G. Andriukaitis, T. Balciu- nas, O. D. M¨ ucke, A. Pugzlys, A. Baltuska, B. Shim, S. E. Schrauth, A. Gaeta, C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, L. Plaja, A. Becker, A. Jaron-Becker, M. M. Mur- nane, and H. C....

    2012 doi

  10. [22]

    Farkas and C

    G. Farkas and C. T´ oth, Physics Letters A 168, 447 (1992)

    1992

  11. [23]

    Antoine, A

    P. Antoine, A. L’Huillier, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1234 (1996)

    1996

  12. [24]

    I. P. Christov, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1251 (1997)

    1997

  13. [25]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mul- lot, F. Aug´ e, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Science 292, 1689 (2001), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1059413

    2001 doi

  14. [26]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, C. Spielmann, G. A. Rei- der, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P. Corkum, U. Heinzmann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Nature 414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  15. [27]

    Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, A

    C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, A. Pic´ on, J. San Rom´ an, and L. Plaja, Physical review letters 111, 083602 (2013)

    2013

  16. [28]

    Gariepy, J

    G. Gariepy, J. Leach, K. T. Kim, T. J. Hammond, E. Frumker, R. W. Boyd, and P. B. Corkum, Physical review letters 113, 153901 (2014)

    2014

  17. [29]

    G´ eneaux, A

    R. G´ eneaux, A. Camper, T. Auguste, O. Gobert, J. Cail- lat, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, and T. Ruchon, Nature Communications 7, 12583 (2016)

    2016

  18. [30]

    A. K. Pandey, A. de las Heras, T. Larrieu, J. San Rom´ an, J. Serrano, L. Plaja, E. Baynard, M. Pittman, G. Dovil- laire, S. Kazamias, et al., ACS Photonics 9, 944 (2022)

    2022

  19. [31]

    Turpin, L

    A. Turpin, L. Rego, A. Pic´ on, J. S. Rom´ an, and C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, Scientific Reports7, 43888 (2017)

    2017

  20. [32]

    Gauthier, P

    D. Gauthier, P. R. Ribiˇ c, G. Adhikary, A. Camper, C. Chappuis, R. Cucini, L. DiMauro, G. Dovillaire, F. Frassetto, R. G´ eneaux, et al., Nature Communications 8, 14971 (2017)

    2017

  21. [33]

    F. Kong, C. Zhang, F. Bouchard, Z. Li, G. G. Brown, D. H. Ko, T. Hammond, L. Arissian, R. W. Boyd, E. Karimi, et al., Nature communications 8, 14970 (2017)

    2017

  22. [34]

    K. M. Dorney, L. Rego, N. J. Brooks, J. San Rom´ an, C.- T. Liao, J. L. Ellis, D. Zusin, C. Gentry, Q. L. Nguyen, J. M. Shaw, A. Pic´ on, L. Plaja, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, and C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, Nature Photonics 13, 123 (2019)

    2019

  23. [35]

    Pisanty, L

    E. Pisanty, L. Rego, J. San Rom´ an, A. Pic´ on, K. M. Dor- ney, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, L. Plaja, M. Lewen- stein, and C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 203201 (2019)

    2019

  24. [36]

    de las Heras, A

    A. de las Heras, A. K. Pandey, J. S. Rom´ an, J. Serrano, E. Baynard, G. Dovillaire, M. Pittman, C. G. Durfee, L. Plaja, S. Kazamias, O. Guilbaud, and C. Hern´ andez- Garc ´ ıa, Optica9, 71 (2022)

    2022

  25. [37]

    Luttmann, M

    M. Luttmann, M. Vimal, M. Guer, J.-F. Hergott, A. Z. Khoury, C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, E. Pisanty, and T. Ru- chon, Science Advances 9, eadf3486 (2023)

    2023

  26. [38]

    de las Heras, D

    A. de las Heras, D. Schmidt, J. San Rom´ an, J. Serrano, J. Barolak, B. Ivanic, C. Clarke, N. Westlake, D. E. Adams, L. Plaja, et al., Optica 11, 1085 (2024)

    2024

  27. [39]

    Y. Fang, S. Lu, and Y. Liu, Physical Review Letters 127, 273901 (2021)

    2021

  28. [41]

    Vincenti and F

    H. Vincenti and F. Qu´ er´ e, Physical review letters 108, 113904 (2012)

    2012

  29. [42]

    J. A. Wheeler, A. Borot, S. Monchoc´ e, H. Vincenti, A. Ricci, A. Malvache, R. Lopez-Martens, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Nature Photonics 6, 829 (2012)

    2012

  30. [43]

    K. Kim, C. Zhang, T. Ruchon, J. Hergott, T. Auguste, D. Villeneuve, P. Corkum, and F. Qu´ er´ e, Nature Pho- tonics 7, 651 (2013)

    2013

  31. [44]

    Hammond, G

    T. Hammond, G. G. Brown, K. T. Kim, D. Villeneuve, and P. Corkum, Nature Photonics 10, 171 (2016)

    2016

  32. [45]

    O’Neil, I

    A. O’Neil, I. MacVicar, L. Allen, and M. Padgett, Phys- ical Review Letters 88, 053601 (2002)

    2002

  33. [46]

    M. A. Porras, Optics Letters 48, 367 (2023)

    2023

  34. [47]

    M. A. Porras, Nanophotonics (2025), 10.1515/nanoph- 2024-0544

    2025 doi

  35. [48]

    Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, J

    C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, J. A. P´ erez-Hern´ andez, J. Ramos, E. C. Jarque, L. Roso, and L. Plaja, Physical Review A 82, 1 (2010)

    2010

  36. [49]

    Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, A

    C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, A. Turpin, J. S. Rom´ an, A. Pic´ on, R. Drevinskas, A. Cerkauskaite, P. G. Kazansky, C. G. Durfee, and I. nigo J. Sola, Optica 4, 520 (2017)

    2017

  37. [50]

    L. Rego, K. M. Dorney, N. J. Brooks, Q. L. Nguyen, C.- T. Liao, J. San Rom´ an, D. E. Couch, A. Liu, E. Pisanty, M. Lewenstein, L. Plaja, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, and C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, Science364, eaaw9486 (2019)

    2019

  38. [51]

    L’Huillier, P

    A. L’Huillier, P. Balcou, S. Candel, K. J. Schafer, and K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. A 46, 2778 (1992)

    1992

  39. [52]

    Lewenstein, P

    M. Lewenstein, P. Salieres, and A. L’huillier, Physical Review A 52, 4747 (1995)

    1995

  40. [53]

    M. A. Porras and S. W. Jolly, Phys. Rev. A 109, 033514 (2024)

    2024

  41. [54]

    Bliokh, Physics Letters A 542, 130425 (2025)

    K. Bliokh, Physics Letters A 542, 130425 (2025). Supplemental material for Isolated attosecond spatio-temporal opti cal vortices: interplay between the topological charge and orbital angular moment um scaling in high harmonic generation Rodrigo Mart ´ ın-Hern´ andez1,2, Luis P...

    2025

  42. [55]

    ORBIT AL ANGULAR MOMENTUM FORMULAS Here we summarize and adapt analytical expressions for the OAM of a field pro vided in [1, 2] that are needed for the evaluation of the OAM of the driver and harmonic fields in HHG. For a linearly polarized, paraxial and quasi-monochromatic wav...

  43. [56]

    3 (b) and (c), but taking the photon centroid to extract the intrinsic t-OAM, or phot on centroid-based (PC-based) intrinsic t-OAM

    PHOTON CENTROID-BASED INTRINSIC t-OAM SCALING AND NON-CO NSER V A TION IN HHG We have repeated the whole analysis detailed in the main text on the in trinsic t-OAM per photon scaling and intrinsic t-OAM conservation in the same HHG processes with the STOV and SSOV drivers of F...

  44. [57]

    Although it is funda- mentally a microscopic effect, the dipole phase plays a notable role in understanding the macroscopic spatiotemporal characteristics of the HHG emission [7–9]

    ROLE OF INTRINSIC DIPOLE PHASE The intrinsic dipole phase refers to the phase accumulated by the e lectron during its excursion in the continuum, which is subsequently imprinted into the emitted harmonic radi ation upon recombination step. Although it is funda- mentally a micr...

  45. [58]

    M. A. Porras, Prog. Electromagn. Res. 177, 95 (2023)

    2023

  46. [59]

    Porras, Journal of Optics 26, 095601 (2024)

    M. Porras, Journal of Optics 26, 095601 (2024)

    2024

  47. [60]

    Bliokh, Physical Review A 86, 033824 (2012)

    K. Bliokh, Physical Review A 86, 033824 (2012)

    2012

  48. [61]

    Bliokh, Physical Review Letters 126, 243601 (2021)

    K. Bliokh, Physical Review Letters 126, 243601 (2021)

    2021

  49. [62]

    Bliokh, Physical Review A 107, L031501 (2023)

    K. Bliokh, Physical Review A 107, L031501 (2023)

    2023

  50. [63]

    Bliokh, Physics Letters A 542, 130425 (2025)

    K. Bliokh, Physics Letters A 542, 130425 (2025)

    2025

  51. [64]

    Christov, R

    I. Christov, R. Bartels, H. Kapteyn, and M. Murnane, Physica l Review Letters 86, 5458 (2001)

    2001

  52. [65]

    Wikmark, C

    H. Wikmark, C. Guo, J. Vogelsang, P. W. Smorenburg, H. Coudert -Alteirac, J. Lahl, J. Peschel, P. Rudawski, H. Dacasa, S. Carlstr¨ om,et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 4779 (2019)

    2019

  53. [66]

    C. Guo, A. Harth, S. Carlstr¨ om, Y.-C. Cheng, S. Mikaelsson, E. M ˚ arsell, C. Heyl, M. Miranda, M. Gisselbrecht, M. B. Gaarde, K. J. Schafer, A. Mikkelsen, J. Mauritsson, C. L. Arnold, a nd A. L’Huillier, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 034006 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.