Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Enhancing Photon Indistinguishability of Spectrally Mismatched Single Photons by Cavity Floquet Engineering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two spectrally mismatched single photons can be made fully indistinguishable by turning each into a cavity-driven frequency comb.

desk verdict Solid HOM-flattening scheme with a correct central mechanism; the energy-cost advantage is asserted, not derived, and needs to be substantiated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02460 v1 pith:QG47D5IC submitted 2025-07-03 quant-ph

J.W. Yu , X.Q. Zhou , Z.B. Ni , X.T. Cheng , Y. Zhao , H.H. Zhu , C.H. Li , F. Liu
show 1 more author
C.Y. Jin
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords photonindistinguishabilityHong-Ou-MandelinterferenceFloquetengineeringsingle-photonfrequencycombcavityQEDspectralmismatchtimelensquantuminformationprocessing
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

Two single photons emitted at different frequencies are normally distinguishable, which spoils Hong-Ou-Mandel interference. This paper proposes to fix that by modulating each cavity so the photon's wave function spreads into a single-photon frequency comb, then tuning the relative modulation delay so the two combs are phase-locked and intensity-matched. In the ideal limit the second-order correlation at zero delay $g^{(2)}_{\mathrm{HOM}}(0)$ reaches zero; with a moderate modulation depth around $A \approx 2.6\pi$ it falls below $0.1$, meeting the fidelity threshold used for mainstream quantum information processing. The proposed operations are unitary and energy-conserving in the single-photon sector, so the driving energy cost does not scale with the spectral mismatch the way frequency-shifting techniques do.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the single-photon frequency comb (SPFC), a state where one photon is coherently spread over equally spaced frequency teeth. The condition that makes two SPFCs indistinguishable is the amplitude recursion $s_n = e^{i\phi}s_{n-1}$, which means the comb is flat-topped with a constant phase step between neighboring teeth. The paper generates such combs with a periodic parabolic modulation of the cavity frequency, the so-called time lens, whose modulation depth $A$ controls the number and uniformity of teeth. A second, experimentally simple mechanism is the time delay $\delta$ between the two modulation signals, set to $\delta_{\mathrm{opt}} = \pi^2/(2A\Omega)$, which locks the phases of the two combs and maximizes their wave-function overlap. The analysis combines Floquet theory with a Lindblad master equation for a two-level system coupled to the modulated cavity to compute $g^{(2)}_\mathrm{HOM}$.

What would settle it

A direct experiment that measures the driving power needed to reach $g^{(2)}_\mathrm{HOM}(0)<0.1$ for two sources with a 50 GHz mismatch, and compares it with spectral shearing at the same fidelity, would settle whether the energy advantage is real; alternatively, a scanned HOM measurement at $A\approx 2.6\pi$ and $\delta_{\mathrm{opt}}$ that shows a dip above 0.1 would falsify the core prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that spectral mismatch between two single-photon states can be eliminated without shifting either photon's mean energy. The method converts each photon into a single-photon frequency comb state $|\psi_\alpha\rangle = \sum_n s_{\alpha,n}|\omega_0+n\Omega\rangle$ by periodically modulating the cavity at the mismatch frequency $\Omega$. Indistinguishability requires the comb coefficients of the two photons to satisfy $s_n = e^{i\phi}s'_{n-1}$; for equal modulations this reduces to the flat-top, phase-locked condition $s_n = e^{i\phi}s_{n-1}$. A parabolic phase modulation (a 'time lens') produces such combs, and the residual phase error is corrected by inserting a time delay $\delta_{\mathrm{opt}} = \pi^2/(2A\Omega)$ between the two modulation signals. With this delay the overlap of the two comb wave functions is maximized, driving $g^{(2)}_\mathrm{HOM}(0)$ toward zero in the ideal limit and below $0.1$ at modulation depth $A \approx 2.6\pi$ in numerical Lindblad and Floquet calculations.

Load-bearing premise

The whole energy-efficiency motivation depends on the idea that spreading a photon into a frequency comb costs no energy that grows with how far apart the two original frequencies are, a claim the main text supports only by citing other results and a classical model in the supplement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At modulation depth $A \approx 2.6\pi$, the scheme predicts $g^{(2)}_\mathrm{HOM}(0) < 0.1$, satisfying the indistinguishability threshold quoted for mainstream quantum information processing.
  • With an additional pulse shaper to optimize tooth phases, the required modulation depth drops to $A \approx \pi$, a level already demonstrated in several frequency ranges.
  • Because the SPFC operation is energy-conserving, the driving energy cost does not scale with the spectral mismatch $\Omega$, unlike spectral shearing which incurs an $\Omega^2$ cost; for a 50 GHz mismatch and 500 ps photon duration the paper estimates orders-of-magnitude lower driving energy.
  • The narrow high-contrast HOM dip produced by the comb structure offers robustness against temporal broadening from group-velocity dispersion and detector timing jitter.
  • The scheme is naturally compatible with spectral-domain quantum information processing, since SPFC states are the standard encoding basis there.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the energy-conservation claim survives experimental scrutiny, the same comb-shaping trick could be applied to photons with much larger spectral mismatches than frequency-shifting can handle affordably, potentially enabling direct interference between heterogeneous sources such as quantum dots and atomic ensembles.
  • The optimal-delay condition $\delta_{\mathrm{opt}}=\pi^2/(2A\Omega)$ suggests a simple self-test: measure the HOM dip as a function of $\delta$ and check that the minimum appears at the predicted position and that the dip depth improves monotonically with $A$.
  • The thermodynamic argument implies that any energy cost is set by the number of comb teeth or modulation depth rather than by $\Omega$; a quantitative comparison of driving power versus frequency mismatch in a tabletop experiment would be a direct test.
  • Phase optimization with a pulse shaper may also be replaceable by other comb-flattening modulation waveforms, which could lower the required modulation depth further while preserving the phase-locking condition.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes to convert two spectrally mismatched single-photon states into single-photon frequency combs (SPFCs) by periodically modulating two cavity modes at the mismatch frequency Omega. The central condition for perfect Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) indistinguishability is s_n = e^{i phi} s_{n-1}, i.e., flat-top, phase-locked combs whose adjacent teeth satisfy a constant phase relation. The authors show that a parabolic or sawtooth time-lens modulation approximates this condition at large modulation depth A, and they introduce an optimal relative time delay delta_opt = pi^2/(2 A Omega) to correct the residual phase mismatch. The analytic Floquet expression is compared with a Lindblad master-equation simulation of a TLS-cavity model, and the paper reports that A about 2.6 pi yields g^(2)_HOM(0) below 0.1. The paper further claims that SPFC generation is energy-conserving in the single-photon sector and therefore avoids the fundamental energy cost that grows with spectral mismatch in frequency-shifting schemes.

Significance. The core indistinguishability idea is original and clean: rather than shifting one spectrum onto the other, both spectra are broadened into matched combs, so the ideal zero-dip condition is a concrete design target. The agreement between the Floquet prediction and the master-equation simulation is a real strength, and no free parameters appear to be fitted to force the zero-dip result. The threshold A about 2.6 pi for g^(2)_HOM(0)<0.1 is a falsifiable, experimentally testable prediction. However, the advertised practical advantage of the scheme is its energy efficiency at large spectral mismatch, and that claim is currently asserted rather than derived in the main text; the supporting model is placed in an unavailable supplementary file. This missing derivation is load-bearing for the motivation and must be supplied before the manuscript can be recommended for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Equation (6) and Figs. 3-4] Equation (6) writes the overlap contribution as |sum_n e^{-i Omega delta} s_n^* s_{n-1}|^2, but from the definition of D(delta) and Eq. (4) the phase should be e^{-i n Omega delta}: a true temporal delay multiplies each comb tooth by a phase proportional to its frequency index n. As written, the delay delta drops out of the overlap modulus, which contradicts the optimal-delay construction and the curves in Figs. 3 and 4. Please correct Eq. (6) to read e^{-i n Omega delta} and confirm that the Floquet-versus-numerical comparison in Fig. 4 uses this corrected expression.
  2. [Thermodynamics paragraph (p. 4)] The central practical claim, an orders-of-magnitude energy advantage over spectral shearing, is not derived in the main text. The paragraph cites no-go theorems [10,11] and a classical optoelectronic model in the supplementary [23], but the supplementary is not included with the arXiv submission. No explicit definition of 'driving energy cost' or quantitative expression for the cost of U_SPFC is given. Because U_SPFC keeps the mean frequency fixed but changes the spectral variance, the relevant thermodynamic bound may depend on the comb bandwidth A*Omega rather than on the mean shift; the manuscript does not rule out a cost that scales with A*Omega or A^2*Omega^2. Please provide a main-text derivation of the cost, state its explicit scaling with Omega and A for the proposed implementation, and compare it with the Omega^2 scaling quoted for spectral shearing.
  3. [Equation (2) and Fig. 2] The ideal condition s_n = e^{i phi} s_{n-1} cannot hold for all integers n for a normalizable comb, since it forces equal amplitude on every tooth. The paper invokes the asymptotic limit Eq. (3) and a finite modulation depth A, but it does not state the finite-bandwidth version of the condition or quantify the error for |n| above some cutoff. The residual violation of Eq. (2) at finite A is what sets the nonzero floor of g^(2)_HOM(0), so the manuscript should state the range of n over which Eq. (2) is valid and show how the convergence of g^(2)_HOM(0) to zero follows from that finite range.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption says 'Omega = 50/(2 pi) GHz', which is inconsistent with the text and Fig. 4, where Omega/(2 pi) = 50 GHz; please correct the notation.
  2. [Coefficient notation, Sec. 2] The comb coefficients are introduced as s_{alpha,n}, then s_n, and then s'_k, without a single defining relation; please unify the notation and define s_n explicitly as the coefficient of |omega_0 + n Omega> in the SPFC state.
  3. [Equation (3)] The limit in Eq. (3) should specify how A and n tend to infinity; as written, 'A/n -> infinity' leaves the joint limit ambiguous.
  4. [Reference [23]] The supplementary material is listed as '[URL will be inserted by publisher]'; for the arXiv version, the supplement should be included or linked so that the derivation of delta_opt and the classical energy model can be checked.
  5. [Sec. 2, SPFC definition] The phrase 'the photon-number expectations of all components are preserved at one' is unclear; a single photon distributed over comb teeth has total photon number one, not one per frequency component; please rephrase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the HOM condition is a design target and the master-equation simulation is an independent check; minor self-citations and a missing supplement affect support, not derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation was checked against its own equations. The condition s_n = e^{iφ} s_{n-1} is the Cauchy-Schwarz equality condition for the overlap sum in Eq. (1); it is used as a design target, not as an output fitted to data. The parabolic modulation is an externally established time-lens waveform whose asymptotic coefficients approach the flat-top phase-locked form, and the numerical Lindblad master-equation simulation in Fig. 4 is an independent benchmark of that design. The optimal delay δ_opt = π²/(2AΩ) is derived from minimizing the n-dependent phase variation of the parabolic comb, not obtained by fitting the simulated dip. No parameter is fitted to the predicted g^{(2)}_HOM curve; the A ≈ 2.6π threshold is read from the simulated result. The self-citations ([16], [31], [48]) are concerned with experimental feasibility and comb-implementation options, and they do not carry the derivation. The one weak point is the energy-efficiency advantage: the main text does not derive the claimed independence of driving energy cost on Ω and refers to external no-go theorems [10,11] and to an unavailable supplement [23]. That is a missing derivation or verification, not a circular reduction: the paper does not define the energy cost in terms of the central-frequency shift, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore no specific circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central HOM result relies on standard quantum optics and Floquet theory, plus a domain-specific cavity-QED model. The energy-cost advantage is the only part that depends on an external theorem without a derivation in the main text.

free parameters (1)
  • Modulation depth A = A ≈ 2.6π for g^(2)_HOM < 0.1; A ≈ π with pulse shaper
    Chosen to control the flatness and phase-locking of the SPFC sidebands. The paper identifies thresholds that achieve the target indistinguishability, but A is not derived from an external constraint; it is a design parameter adjusted to make the scheme work.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-level system coupled to a modulated cavity (Hamiltonian Eq. 5) is a valid model for generating SPFC states.
    Invoked throughout the numerical validation section; the paper cites prior implementations of modulated cavities [28-32].
  • domain assumption Floquet theory applies with g << Ω and κ+γ << Ω.
    Stated before Eq. (6); used to derive the approximate HOM formula and to compare with master-equation numerics.
  • domain assumption The no-go theorems for frequency-shifting operations [9-11] are correct and applicable to the comparison.
    The energy-cost argument in the final section relies entirely on these cited theorems; not derived in this paper.
  • standard math The Hong-Ou-Mandel second-order coherence formula (Eq. 1) is the correct measure of indistinguishability for these single-photon states.
    Standard result in quantum optics, used as the objective function.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing Photon Indistinguishability of Spectrally Mismatched Single Photons by Cavity Floquet Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QG47D5IC

@misc{pith2026250702460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing Photon Indistinguishability of Spectrally Mismatched Single Photons by Cavity Floquet Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QG47D5IC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02460}
}
abstract

We theoretically propose a scheme to enhance the photon indistinguishability of spectrally mismatched single photons via Floquet-engineered optical frequency combs (OFCs) in cavity quantum electrodynamic systems. By periodically modulating two distinct single-photon states under a modulation frequency which is exactly equal to the spectral mismatch of two cavity modes, a pair of single-photon frequency-comb (SPFC) states is prepared energy-conservatively based on full unitary operations. The two states show high indistinguishability with an ideal $g^{(2)}_\mathrm{HOM}(0)$ down to zero due to the superposition of intensity-matched single-photon states coherently distributed across the teeth of the combs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A schematic for the photon-indistinguishability en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Intensity of SPFC sidebands as a function of modu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The phase difference ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (b) shows the minimum values of g (2) HOM(0) as a function of the modulation depth A. The results obtained from the numerical calculation of Lindblad master equa￾tions (dotted line) match closely to those derived from Floquet theory (solid line), demonstrating that hig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. A schematic of the microscopic models for frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher]

  2. [1]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  3. [2]

    L. Fan, C. L. Zou, M. Poot, R. Cheng, X. Guo, X. Han, and H. X. Tang, Nat. Photon. 10, 766 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    A. W. Elshaari, W. Pernice, K. Srinivasan, O. Benson, and V. Zwiller, Nat. Photon. 14, 285 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Aharonovich, D

    I. Aharonovich, D. Englund, and M. Toth, Nat. Photon. 10, 631 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [5]

    Castelletto and A

    S. Castelletto and A. Boretti, J. Phys. Photonics 2, 022001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [6]

    Takesue, Phys

    H. Takesue, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 173901 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    L. J. Wright, M. Karpi´ nski, C. S¨ oller, and B. J. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 023601 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    D. Zhu, C. Chen, M. Yu, L. Shao, Y. Hu, C. Xin, M. Yeh, S. Ghosh, L. He, C. Reimer, et al. , Light Sci. Appl. 11, 327 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Tajima, N

    H. Tajima, N. Shiraishi, and K. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 110403 (2018)

    2018

  3. [10]

    Chiribella, Y

    G. Chiribella, Y. Yang, and R. Renner, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021014 (2021)

    2021

  4. [11]

    Y. Yang, R. Renner, and G. Chiribella, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 494003 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Iorsh, D

    I. Iorsh, D. Zezyulin, S. Kolodny, R. Sinitskiy, and O. Kibis, Phys. Rev. B 105, 165414 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    S. Zhou, C. Bao, B. Fan, H. Zhou, Q. Gao, H. Zhong, T. Lin, H. Liu, P. Yu, P. Tang, et al. , Nature 614, 75 (2023)

    2023

  7. [14]

    S. Tong, Q. Zhang, L. Qi, G. Li, X. Feng, and C. Qiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 126603 (2025)

    2025

  8. [15]

    L. Zhou, B. Liu, Y. Liu, Y. Lu, Q. Li, X. Xie, N. Lydick, R. Hao, C. Liu, K. Watanabe, et al. , Nat. Commun. 15, 7782 (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Jin and O

    C.-Y. Jin and O. Wada, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 47, 133001 (2014)

    2014

  10. [17]

    Z. Liao, H. Nha, and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033851 (2016)

    2016

  11. [18]

    Ren and H

    C. Ren and H. F. Hofmann, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053823 (2014)

    2014

  12. [19]

    H. H. Lu, A. M. Weiner, P. Lougovski, and J. M. Lukens, IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 31, 1858 (2019)

    2019

  13. [20]

    J. M. Lukens and P. Lougovski, Optica 4, 8 (2016)

    2016

  14. [21]

    Yamazaki, T

    T. Yamazaki, T. Arizono, T. Kobayashi, R. Ikuta, and T. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 200602 (2023)

    2023

  15. [22]

    K. A. Fischer, K. M¨ uller, K. G. Lagoudakis, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, New J. Phys.18, 113053 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Torres C, J

    V. Torres C, J. Lancis, and P. Andres, Opt. Lett. 33, 1822 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    B. H. Kolner and M. Nazarathy, Opt. Lett. 14, 630 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    X. Wei, B. Li, Y. Yu, C. Zhang, K. K. Tsia, and K. K. Wong, Opt. Express 25, 29098 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Silveri, J

    M. Silveri, J. Tuorila, E. Thuneberg, and G. Paraoanu, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 056002 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Anguiano, A

    S. Anguiano, A. E. Bruchhausen, B. Jusserand, I. Favero, F. Lamberti, L. Lanco, I. Sagnes, A. Lema ˆ ıtre, N. D. Lanzillotti-Kimura, P. Senellart, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 263901 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    M. Weiß, S. Kapfinger, T. Reichert, J. J. Finley, A. Wix- forth, M. Kaniber, and H. J. Krenner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    F. Tian, H. Sumikura, E. Kuramochi, M. Takiguchi, M. Ono, A. Shinya, and M. Notomi, Optica9, 309 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    C.-Y. Jin, R. Johne, M. Y. Swinkels, T. B. Hoang, L. Mi- dolo, P. J. Van Veldhoven, and A. Fiore, Nat. Nanotech- nol. 9, 886 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    C.-Y. Jin, O. Kojima, T. Kita, O. Wada, M. Hopkinson, and K. Akahane, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    Janowicz, Phys

    M. Janowicz, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4784 (1998)

    1998

  26. [34]

    Y. Yang, J. Xu, G. Li, and H. Chen, Phys. Rev. A 69, 053406 (2004)

    2004

  27. [35]

    C. Law, S. Y. Zhu, and M. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4095 (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    Law, Phys

    C. Law, Phys. Rev. A 49, 433 (1994)

    1994

  29. [37]

    Englund, A

    D. Englund, A. Faraon, I. Fushman, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Nature450, 857 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Hausinger and M

    J. Hausinger and M. Grifoni, Phys. Rev. A 81, 022117 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    S. K. Son, S. Y. Han, and S. I. Chu, Phys. Rev. A 79, 032301 (2009)

    2009

  32. [40]

    M. Yu, D. Barton III, R. Cheng, C. Reimer, P. Kharel, L. He, L. Shao, D. Zhu, Y. Hu, H. R. Grant,et al., Nature 612, 252 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Kumar, Opt

    P. Kumar, Opt. Lett. 15, 1476 (1990)

    1990

  34. [42]

    Duguay, L

    M. Duguay, L. Hargrove, and K. Jefferts, Appl. Phys. Lett. 9, 287 (1966)

    1966

  35. [43]

    Huh and J

    J. Huh and J. Aza˜ na, Opt. Express23, 27751 (2015)

    2015

  36. [44]

    L. Lei, J. Huh, L. R. Cort´ es, R. Maram, B. Wetzel, D. Duchesne, R. Morandotti, and J. Aza˜ na, Opt. Lett. 40, 5403 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    C. Ma, C. Wang, Y. Pi, L. Wang, Z. He, J. Huang, W. Xie, J. E. Bowers, L. Chang, Z. Cao, et al. , Com- mun. Phys. 7, 51 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Y. Dou, H. Zhang, and M. Yao, Opt. Lett. 36, 2749 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    D. Wang, L. Huo, Y. Xing, X. Jiang, and C. Lou, Opt. Express 23, 4329 (2015)

    2015

  40. [48]

    Francis, X.-D

    H. Francis, X.-D. Zhang, S. Chen, J.-W. Yu, K.-J. Che, M. Hopkinson, and C.-Y. Jin, IEEE J. Sel. Topics Quan- tum Electron. 27, 1 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Crespo-Ballesteros, A

    M. Crespo-Ballesteros, A. B. Matsko, and M. Sumetsky, Commun. Phys. 6, 52 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.