Attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy in monolayer hexagonal boron nitride

Chenkai Zhu; Fulong Dong; Jiayu Yan; Rongxiang Zhang; Xiaohui Zhao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy in monolayer hexagonal boron nitride

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the fishbone structure in the attosecond transient absorption spectrum of monolayer hBN is set jointly by interband transition dipole moments and the Berry connection, and that it oscillates with the pump period…

desk verdict Real new result — analytical separation of TDM and Berry-connection contributions to the T-periodic fishbone in hBN ATAS — with a central claim supported by a clean numerical switch-off but a derivation weakened by an unquantified frozen-M approximation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.10813 v2 pith:OHYE6SYA submitted 2025-05-16 physics.atom-ph

Jiayu Yan , Chenkai Zhu , Rongxiang Zhang , Xiaohui Zhao , Fulong Dong This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph

keywords attosecondtransientabsorptionspectroscopyhexagonalboronnitridefishbonestructureBerryconnectiontransitiondipolemomenttight-bindingmodeltime-dependentdensityfunctionaltheorytwo-banddensity-matrixequations

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 tries to establish what generates the fishbone structure seen in attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy of monolayer hBN. Simulating with two independent methods, it finds a fishbone near the M-point gap whose modulation period equals the pump laser period, unlike the half-period structure reported for graphene. To explain it, the paper reduces the problem to a single electron at the M point and derives an analytical spectrum. The analytical result is that both the interband transition dipole moments and the Berry connection are needed; the two contributions enter with opposite signs, so the full fishbone is their partial cancellation. The paper also claims that increasing the gap energy strengthens the ATAS signal, which the analytics and numerics agree on.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a single-electron model pinned at one inequivalent M point, with the UV probe treated as a delta function. The argument runs through the time-dependent current $j_{k_M}(t,t_d)$, whose phase integral $\int_0^t [\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)+E_I(t',t_d)A_x(\mathbf{k}_M)]\,dt'$ produces Bessel functions $J_0(c)$ and $J_1(c)$ with $c=A_x(\mathbf{k}_M)A_{I0}f_I(t_d)$. A Taylor expansion of the interband dipole matrix element $D^{vc,y}_{\mathbf{k}_t}$ around $\mathbf{k}_M$ to leading order splits the current into three terms, creating zeroth-, first-, and second-order sidebands at $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)$, $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)\pm\omega_I$, and $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)\pm2\omega_I$. The first-order term dominates, and that is what makes the fishbone repeat with the pump period.

What would settle it

Run the two-band density-matrix equations with the same pump and probe parameters but keep the full $k$-dependence of $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_t)$ and $A_x(\mathbf{k}_t)$ along the IR-driven trajectory $\mathbf{k}_t=\mathbf{k}_M+A(t,t_d)e_x$. If the resulting spectrum still shows clean sidebands at $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)\pm\omega_I$ with Bessel-function weights, the pinning assumption is validated; if the sidebands shift or a $T/2$ component appears, the assumption is the limiting step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in monolayer hBN, the fishbone structure observed in ATAS around the M-point gap is determined jointly by two quantities: the interband transition dipole moments $D^{vc,y}_{\mathbf{k}_t}$ and the $x$-component of the Berry connection $A_x(\mathbf{k}_t)$. It further claims that the fishbone oscillates with the pump period $T$, unlike the $T/2$-period fishbone seen in graphene, because the dominant first-order term in the analytical spectrum carries $\sin(\omega_I t_d)$ and $\cos(\omega_I t_d)$ sidebands at $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)\pm\omega_I$. When the Berry connection is artificially set to zero, the remaining TDM-only spectrum has opposite sign at fixed $(\omega,t_d)$ and larger amplitude, showing that the two contributions interfere destructively in the full spectrum. Finally, the paper claims that ATAS intensity increases with gap energy, matching analytical coefficients that grow with $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)$.

Load-bearing premise

The analytical derivation assumes that, over the range of crystal momentum the infrared field sweeps through, the energy gap and the Berry connection stay fixed at their M-point values, so only the dipole matrix element changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

ATAS of monolayer hBN should show dominant sidebands at $\varepsilon_{cv}(\mathbf{k}_M)\pm\omega_I$, so time-delay traces at the M-point gap are expected to oscillate once per pump cycle.
A measurement or simulation that suppresses the Berry connection ($A_x=0$) should produce an inverted and stronger fishbone, directly testing the destructive interference between the two contributions.
Because the analytical first-order coefficient $|F_0J_1(c)-F_2J_0(c)|$ grows with the gap, wider-gap hBN-like systems should exhibit brighter ATAS fishbones at fixed pump intensity.
The M-point single-electron description suffices for the qualitative fishbone, so the full Brillouin-zone sum is not needed to understand the leading spectral feature.

Reading between the lines

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

If the IR amplitude is raised enough that the Bloch oscillation leaves the flat-gap neighborhood of M, the pinning assumption should break down; a visible signature would be a growing $T/2$ component or energy-shifted sidebands beyond the Bessel prediction.
The same derivation could be re-run for other hexagonal monolayers with broken inversion symmetry, where the sign and magnitude of $A_x$ would control whether the $T$-period sidebands appear constructively or destructively.
Polarizing the pump along the $y$ direction instead of $x$ should remove the $A_x$ entry into $c$, providing an experimental knob to separate the two contributions without altering the band structure.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper has a real new result — analytical separation of interband transition-dipole and Berry-connection contributions to the T-periodic fishbone in hBN's ATAS — and the numerical switch-off experiment supports that conclusion. The main weakness is an unquantified frozen-M approximation in the derivation, which is fixable rather than fatal.

The genuinely new piece is Eqs. (9)–(12): closed-form ATAS expressions at the M point with TDM coefficients F1, F2 and the Berry-connection phase c = A_x(k_M) A_0 f_I(t_d) inside Bessel functions. The T-periodic fishbone comes from the J1(c) term, which disappears when you set A_x = 0. That matches the clean numerical experiment in Fig. 2(c,d), where turning off A(k) in the TBDME changes the amplitude and sign of the fishbone, explaining the enhanced intensity in Fig. 2(b) vs (c). So the central claim — both TDMs and the Berry connection matter — is supported by numerical evidence that does not rely on the analytical approximation, not just by the approximation itself.

The soft spot is the passage after Eq. (6), where ε_cv(k_t) and A_x(k_t) are frozen at their M-point values while only the TDM is Taylor-expanded. The authors state this but never quantify it. The IR excursion A0 ≈ 0.08 a.u. is not tiny: the second-order variation of the gap over that range can be ~0.001 a.u. (a quarter of the linewidth Γ0 = 0.004), and the Berry connection may shift by tens of percent. If so, the coefficients in Eqs. (10)–(12) change by that amount. The paper compares the analytical Fig. 4 to the numerical single-electron Fig. 3 only qualitatively, so the accuracy of the frozen approximation is unproven. A referee should ask for a quantitative error estimate or an overlay of Eq. (9) with the exact single-electron result. The stress-test worry that the Berry-connection attribution could be an artifact is overstated, precisely because the A=0 numerical experiment doesn't depend on the frozen approximation — but the analytical decomposition's quantitative reliability is legitimately in question.

Minor issues: the gap-energy 'prediction' is a self-consistency check, not an independent test, since the analytical coefficients come from the same tight-binding model; no code or data are deposited; TDDFT convergence details are thin. None of these undercut the mechanism.

Bottom line: worth a serious referee. The physics is interesting, the analytical treatment advances beyond the graphene papers, and the central claim is well supported at the qualitative level. Send it to review with a request to quantify the frozen-M approximation and add reproducibility data.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy (ATAS) of monolayer hexagonal boron nitride using two independent methods: time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) and two-band density-matrix equations (TBDMEs) in a tight-binding model of gapped graphene. The authors identify a fishbone structure near the M-point gap that oscillates with the pump period T, in contrast to the T/2-periodic fishbones previously reported in graphene. To explain the feature, they reduce the model to a single electron at the M point and, under several approximations (delta-function UV pulse, frozen M-point gap and Berry connection, leading-order Taylor expansion of the interband dipole), derive analytic expressions for the ATAS sidebands at ε_cv(k_M) and ε_cv(k_M) ± ω_I, ±2ω_I. By artificially setting the Berry-connection difference A(k) = D_cc - D_vv to zero, they decompose the spectrum into TDM-dominated and Berry-connection-dominated parts and conclude that both play dominant roles. Finally, they study the dependence of the ATAS on the gap energy and report that the intensity increases with the gap, in agreement with their analytical coefficients.

Significance. If the central attribution is correct, the paper provides a useful analytical framework for interpreting fishbone structures in two-dimensional symmetry-broken materials and offers a concrete contrast with the T/2-periodic graphene case. The main strengths are the combined use of TDDFT and TBDME, the closed-form analytical expressions reproducing the sideband structure and period, and the clean numerical decomposition of TDM and Berry-connection contributions. The identification of the Berry connection as an important ingredient in ATAS of hBN is a physically interesting and potentially impactful claim. However, the analytical reduction rests on approximations that are not quantitatively controlled, and the gap-energy 'prediction' is essentially a self-consistency check within the same tight-binding model; these issues are addressed in the major comments.

major comments (3)

[Sec. III B, Eq. (6)] The derivation of Eq. (6) assumes ε_cv(k_t) = ε_cv(k_M) and A_x(k_t) = A_x(k_M) throughout the IR-driven Bloch oscillation, but the paper gives no quantitative justification for this freezing. The IR excursion is A_I0 ≈ 0.08 a.u., which is not asymptotically small on the scale of the M-point band structure: the second-order variation of ε_cv over this range is comparable to the linewidth Γ0 = 0.004 a.u., and the fractional variation of A_x(k_t) may be tens of percent. Because the Berry-connection term enters through c = A_x(k_M) A_I0 f_I(t_d) ≈ 0.137 with J1(c) ≈ 0.068, an unquantified 20-30% error in the effective c would change the claimed Berry-connection coefficient F0 J1(c) by a comparable amount. I request a quantitative error analysis, for example a comparison of Eq. (9) with an exact numerical solution of the same single-electron TBDME as a function of t_d and Δg, together with a statement of the parameter range in which the frozen-M approximation is controlled.
[Sec. III D and Abstract] The claim of agreement with an 'analytical prediction' for the gap-energy dependence is overstated, because the analytical coefficients in Figs. 5(a), 5(f), and 5(k) and the numerical spectra in Figs. 5(b)-(e), 5(g)-(j), and 5(l)-(o) are all computed from the same tight-binding Hamiltonian with the same Δg and essentially the same M-point single-electron reduction. The agreement is therefore a self-consistency check of the analytical reduction rather than an independent validation. The wording should be changed to 'analytical expectation' or 'internal consistency' unless an independent test is added, such as DFT band structures with different gaps or a different model Hamiltonian.
[Sec. III C, Figs. 3 and 4] The support for the central claim that both the interband TDMs and the Berry connection are dominant rests on visual qualitative similarity between the analytical spectra of Eq. (9) and the single-electron numerical result in Fig. 3, and between Eqs. (13)-(14) and the decomposed numerical spectra in Figs. 2(c)-(d). No quantitative measure of agreement is reported, such as sideband peak amplitudes, line-shape cross-correlations, or the relative weights of the F2 and F0 J1 terms. Given that at t_d = 0 the two central coefficients are F2 J0(c) ≈ 0.103 F0 and F0 J1(c) ≈ 0.068 F0, a quantitative comparison is needed to establish that the delta-function, frozen-M, and truncation approximations preserve these relative weights and hence the asserted dominance.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (2)] There is a typographical error in the Fourier-transform definition: the exponent should read e^{-iωt} dt rather than the garbled 'e^{-iωtdt}'.
[Abstract and Introduction] The abstract contains 'based the tight-binding approximation' and should read 'based on the tight-binding approximation'; in the Introduction, 'the aﬀect of interband TDMs' should be 'the effect of interband TDMs'.
[Sec. II A, Eqs. (5a)-(5b)] The sentence describing Eq. (5a) as 'obtained by isolating the influence of the Berry connection' is misleading; the spectrum is obtained by setting A(k) = 0, i.e., by removing the Berry connection, not by isolating it. This wording should be clarified to avoid confusion with Eq. (5b).
[Sec. III A] The statement that the M' point has zero y-component of the interband dipole is central to the period-T conclusion, but it is only asserted in the main text and deferred to the Supplemental Material. A brief justification of this selection rule should be given in the main text, since the full-BZ numerical result in Fig. 2(b) is otherwise the only evidence for the period.
[Sec. III D] The sentence 'the spectral intensities ... is enhanced' should be 'the spectral intensities ... are enhanced', and the phrase 'in the same tend' should be corrected to 'in the same trend'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, and the central Berry-connection claim is supported by controlled numerical decomposition and an independent TDDFT benchmark.

full rationale

The analytical expressions (Eqs. 6, 8-14) are derived from the same tight-binding Hamiltonian used in the TBDME simulations, so the analytical-vs-numerical agreement in Figs. 4 and 5 is a consistency check of the single-M-point, frozen-gap approximation rather than an independent validation. This is not circular: no parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted, and the comparison validates an approximation, not the input model. The central attribution of the fishbone structure to both interband transition dipole moments and the Berry connection is supported by the controlled numerical experiment in Eqs. (4)-(5), where the Berry connection A(k) is set to zero and the resulting change in the spectrum is computed; this decomposition is independent of the analytical derivation. The TDDFT simulation provides an external benchmark for the main fishbone structure. The only self-citations (Refs. [20] and [24]) are used for motivation and comparison (the T/2 vs T periodicity of graphene and prior hBN high-harmonic context) and are not load-bearing for the paper's conclusions. The frozen-M assumptions stated in Sec. III B, right after Eq. (6) — 'we have used the conditions of εcv(kt) = εcv(kM) and Ax(kt) = Ax(kM)' — are an unquantified approximation with possible correctness risk, but a limitation of an approximation is not an equivalence-by-construction between input and output. The paper does not present that assumption as an external theorem, and the single-electron numerical results in Fig. 3 provide a test of the simplified model.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the gapped-graphene tight-binding model and a set of analytical approximations (delta-function UV pulse, neglected IR interband coupling, frozen M-point parameters). The only genuinely adjustable numerical input is Δg, which is set by DFT and then scanned.

free parameters (1)

Δg (gap parameter in tight-binding model) = 0.17 a.u.
Chosen to match the DFT band gap at the K point; the paper then varies Δg to study gap-energy dependence.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Monolayer hBN is described by a gapped-graphene tight-binding model with only nearest-neighbor hopping.
Used throughout; the model is stated to qualitatively describe hBN electronic structure.
ad hoc to paper The UV probe can be approximated as a delta function in time.
Assumed in the analytical derivation (Sec III B) to simplify the excitation step.
ad hoc to paper IR-induced interband transitions are neglected, i.e., E_I · D_cv ≈ 0.
Assumed in the analytical model so that only one-photon UV excitation and IR intraband dynamics are kept.
ad hoc to paper ε_cv(k_t) = ε_cv(k_M) and A_x(k_t) = A_x(k_M) during Bloch oscillations.
Stated in Sec III B (and Supplemental) to make the integral in Eq. (6) tractable.
ad hoc to paper The interband dipole D_kt_vc,y is Taylor-expanded to leading order in the vector potential.
Retaining only leading second-order terms, as described in Sec III B and Supplemental Sec I.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy in monolayer hexagonal boron nitride." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OHYE6SYA

@misc{pith2026250510813,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy in monolayer hexagonal boron nitride},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OHYE6SYA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.10813}
}

read the original abstract

We simulate the attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy (ATAS) of monolayer hexagonal boron nitride (hBN) using the time-dependent density functional theory and two-band density-matrix equations within the tight-binding approximation. The simulation results from the two methods are qualitatively consistent. We focus on the fishbone structure around the gap energy of the M point, which exhibits a temporal period equal to that of the pump laser. To gain deeper insight into this structure, we simplify the two-band model to a single-electron model located at the M point, allowing us to derive an analytical expression that can qualitatively reproduce the numerical results. By isolating the influence of the Berry connection on the ATAS, our analytical results reveal that both the interband transition dipole moments and the Berry connection play important roles in the fishbone structure of the ATAS. Moreover, we also have investigated the dependence of ATAS on the gap energy based the tight-binding approximation. The results demonstrate that the ATAS intensity is enhanced as the gap energy increases, in agreement with our analytical prediction. Our study may shed light on the generation mechanism of the fishbone structure of the ATAS in hBN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.10813 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) ATAS as a function of the time delay in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Numerical ATAS calculated using the single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: (a) Analytical spectra ∆SkM(ω, td) calculated using Eq. (9). The horizontal dashed lines indicate the energy εcv(kM). (b) Analytical spectra ∆S A=0 kM (ω, td) calculated using Eq. (13). (c) Analytical spectra ∆S A kM (ω, td) calculated using Eq. (14). These analytica…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) Analytical coefficient F0J1(c) at td = 0 as a function of the gap energy. (b)-(e) Numerical spectra ∆S A(ω, td) calculated using Eq. (5b) for gap energies of ∆g = 0.05 a.u., 0.1 a.u., 0.15 a.u., and 0.20 a.u., respectively. (f) Same as (a), but for the analytical c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Goulielmakis, Zhi-Heng Loh, A

E. Goulielmakis, Zhi-Heng Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Real- time observation of valence electron motion, Nature 466, 739 (2010)

2010
[2]

M. B. Gaarde, C. Buth, J. L. Tate, and K. J. Schafer, Transient absorption and reshaping of ultrafast XUV light by laser-dressed helium, Phys. Rev. A 83, 013419 (2011)

2011
[3]

A. R. Beck, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Probing ultrafast dynamics with attosecond transient absorption, Chem. Phys. Lett. 624, 119 (2015)

2015
[4]

M. Wu, S. Chen, S. Camp, K. J. Schafer, and M. B. Gaarde, Theory of strong-ﬁeld attosecond transient ab- sorption, J. Phys. B 49, 062003 (2016)

2016
[5]

H. Wang, M. Chini, S. Chen, C.-H. Zhang, F. He, Y. Cheng, Y. Wu, U. Thumm, and Z. Chang, attosecond time-resolved autoionization of Argon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 143002 (2010)

2010
[6]

Holler, F

M. Holler, F. Schapper, L. Gallmann, U. Keller, Attosec- ond electron wave-packet interference observed by tran- sient absorption, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 123601 (2011)

work page 2011
[7]

Chini, B

M. Chini, B. Zhao, H. Wang, Y. Cheng, S. X. Hu, and Z. Chang, Subcycle ac Stark shift of Helium excited states probed with isolated attosecond pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 073601 (2012)

2012
[8]

S. Chen, M. Wu, M. B. Gaarde, and K. J. Schafer, Quan- tum interference in attosecond transient absorption of laser-dressed helium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033408 (2013)

2013

Show all 34 references

[9]

Z. Q. Yang, D. F. Ye, T. Ding, T. Pfeifer, and L. B. Fu, Attosecond XUV absorption spectroscopy of doubly ex- cited states in helium atoms dressed by a time-delayed femtosecond infrared laser, Phys. Rev. A 91, 013414 (2015)

2015
[10]

P. Peng, C. Marceau, M. Herv´ e, P. B. Corkum, A. Y. Naumov, and D. M. Villeneuve, Symmetry of molecu- lar Rydberg states revealed by XUV transient absorption spectroscopy, Nat. Commun. 10, 5269 (2019)

2019
[11]

P. Peng, Y. Mi, M. Lytova, M. Britton, X. Ding, A. Y. Naumov, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Villeneuve, Coherent control of ultrafast extreme ultraviolet transient absorp - tion, Nat. Photonics 16, 45 (2022)

2022
[12]

Schultze, K

M. Schultze, K. Ramasesha, C. D. Pemmaraju, S. A. Sato, D. Whitmore, A. Gandman, J. S. Prell, L. J. Borja, D. Prendergast, and K. Yabana, Attosecond band-gap dynamics in silicon, Science 346, 1348 (2014)

2014
[13]

Lucchini, S

M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, A. Ludwig, J. Herrmann, M. Volkov, L. Kasmi, Y. Shinohara, K. Yabana, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Attosecond dynamical Franz- Keldysh eﬀect in polycrystalline diamond, Science 353, 916 (2016)

2016
[14]

Schlaepfer, M

F. Schlaepfer, M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, M. Volkov, L. Kasmi, N. Hartmann, A. Rubio, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Attosecond optical-ﬁeld-enhanced carrier injec- tion into the GaAs conduction band, Nat. Phys. 14, 560 (2018)

2018
[15]

Volkov, S

M. Volkov, S. A. Sato, F. Schlaepfer, L. Kasmi, N. Hart- mann, M. Lucchini, L. Gallmann, A. Rubio, and U. Keller, Attosecond screening dynamics mediated by elec- tron localization in transition metals, Nat. Phys. 15, 1145 (2019)

2019
[16]

Otobe, Attosecond electro-optic eﬀect in zinc sulﬁd e induced by a laser ﬁeld, Phys

T. Otobe, Attosecond electro-optic eﬀect in zinc sulﬁd e induced by a laser ﬁeld, Phys. Rev. A 100, 033401 (2019)

2019
[17]

Lucchini, S

M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, G. D. Lucarelli, B. Moio, G. Inzani, R. Borrego-Varillas, F. Frassetto, L. Poletto, H. H¨ ubener, U. De Giovannini, A. Rubio, and M. Nisoli, Unravelling the intertwined atomic and bulk nature of localised excitons by attosecond spectroscopy, Nat. Com- ...

2020
[18]

Uchida, T

K. Uchida, T. Otobe, T. Mochizuki, C. Kim, M. Yoshita, H. Akiyama, L. N. Pfeiﬀer, K. W. West, K. Tanaka, and H. Hirori, Subcycle Optical Response Caused by a Tera- hertz Dressed State with Phase-Locked Wave Functions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 277402 (2016)

2016
[19]

Cistaro, L

G. Cistaro, L. Plaja, F. Mart ´ ın, and A. Pic´ on, Attosec - ond x-ray transient absorption spectroscopy in graphene, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 013144 (2021)

2021
[20]

F. Dong, J. Liu, Fishbone resonance structure in the attosecond transient absorption spectrum of graphene, Phys. Rev. A 106, 063107 (2022)

2022
[21]

Otobe, Y

T. Otobe, Y. Shinohara, S. A. Sato, and K. Yabana, Fem- tosecond time-resolved dynamical Franz-Keldysh eﬀect, Phys. Rev. B 93, 045124 (2016)

2016
[22]

Yamada and K

S. Yamada and K. Yabana, Symmetry properties of at- tosecond transient absorption spectroscopy in crystallin e dielectrics, Phys. Rev. B 101, 165128 (2020)

2020
[23]

Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, R

´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, R. E. F. Silva, O. Smirnova, and M. Ivanov, Lightwave control of topological properties in 2D materials for sub-cycle and non-resonant valley manipu- lation, Nat. Photonics 14, 728 (2020)

2020
[24]

F. Dong, J. Yan, and X. Song, Tunneling displacement of electron-hole pairs in high-order harmonic generation for monolayer hexagonal boron nitride, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043104 (2024)

2024
[25]

Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, M

S, Mitra, ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, M. Aulich, M. Neuhaus, R. E. F. Silva, V. Pervak, M. F. Kling, and S. Biswas, Light- wave-controlled Haldane model in monolayer hexagonal boron nitride, Nature 628, 752 (2024)

2024
[26]

Volkov, S

M. Volkov, S. A. Sato, A. Niedermayr, A. Rubio, L. Gall- mann, and U. Keller, Floquet-Bloch resonances in near- petahertz electroabsorption spectroscopy of SiO 2, Phys. 8 Rev. B 107, 184304 (2023)

2023
[27]

Yamada, K

S. Yamada, K. Yabana, and T. Otobe, Subcycle control of valley-selective excitations via the dynamical Franz- Keldysh eﬀect in a WSe 2 monolayer, Phys. Rev. B 108, 035404 (2023)

2023
[28]

Kim, Ultrafast transient absorption spectroscopy o f strongly correlated Mott insulators, Phys

Y. Kim, Ultrafast transient absorption spectroscopy o f strongly correlated Mott insulators, Phys. Rev. B 108, 035122 (2023)

2023
[29]

C. A. Ullrich, Time-Dependent Density-Functional The- ory: Concepts and Applications (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2011)

2011
[30]

Marques, E

M. Marques, E. Gross, Time-dependent density func- tional theory, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. 55, 427 (2004)

2004
[31]

G. L. Breton, A. Rubio, and N. Tancogne-Dejean, High- harmonic generation from few-layer hexagonal boron ni- tride: Evolution from monolayer to bulk response, Phys. Rev. B 98, 165308 (2018)

2018
[32]

Nourbakhsh, N

Z. Nourbakhsh, N. Tancogne-Dejean, H. Merdji, and A. Rubio, High harmonics and isolated attosecond pulses from MgO, Phys. Rev. Appl. 15, 014013 (2021)

2021
[33]

Andrade, D

X. Andrade, D. A. Strubbe, U. D. Giovannini, A. H. Larsen, M. J. T. Oliveira, J. Alberdi-Rodriguez, A. Varas, I. Theophilou, N. Helbig, M. Verstraete, L. Stella, F. Nogueira, A. Aspuru-Guzik, A. Castro, M. A. L. Mar- ques, and A. Rubio, Real-space grids and the octopus code as...

2015
[34]

Castro, M

A. Castro, M. A. L. Marques, and A. Rubio, Propagators for the time-dependent kohn-sham equations. J. Chem. Phys. 121, 3425 (2004). [†] xhzhao123@163.com [*] ﬂdonghb@126.com

2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Goulielmakis, Zhi-Heng Loh, A

E. Goulielmakis, Zhi-Heng Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Real- time observation of valence electron motion, Nature 466, 739 (2010)

2010

[2] [2]

M. B. Gaarde, C. Buth, J. L. Tate, and K. J. Schafer, Transient absorption and reshaping of ultrafast XUV light by laser-dressed helium, Phys. Rev. A 83, 013419 (2011)

2011

[3] [3]

A. R. Beck, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Probing ultrafast dynamics with attosecond transient absorption, Chem. Phys. Lett. 624, 119 (2015)

2015

[4] [4]

M. Wu, S. Chen, S. Camp, K. J. Schafer, and M. B. Gaarde, Theory of strong-ﬁeld attosecond transient ab- sorption, J. Phys. B 49, 062003 (2016)

2016

[5] [5]

H. Wang, M. Chini, S. Chen, C.-H. Zhang, F. He, Y. Cheng, Y. Wu, U. Thumm, and Z. Chang, attosecond time-resolved autoionization of Argon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 143002 (2010)

2010

[6] [6]

Holler, F

M. Holler, F. Schapper, L. Gallmann, U. Keller, Attosec- ond electron wave-packet interference observed by tran- sient absorption, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 123601 (2011)

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Chini, B

M. Chini, B. Zhao, H. Wang, Y. Cheng, S. X. Hu, and Z. Chang, Subcycle ac Stark shift of Helium excited states probed with isolated attosecond pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 073601 (2012)

2012

[8] [8]

S. Chen, M. Wu, M. B. Gaarde, and K. J. Schafer, Quan- tum interference in attosecond transient absorption of laser-dressed helium atoms, Phys. Rev. A 87, 033408 (2013)

2013