Non-perturbative Effects in Attosecond Four-Wave Mixing Spectra

Arvinder Sandhu; Coleman Cariker; Luca Argenti; Nathan Harkema; Sergio Yanez-Pagans

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 25 references

Non-perturbative Effects in Attosecond Four-Wave Mixing Spectra

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The double-peak delay structure in attosecond four-wave-mixing spectra of argon arises from Rabi cycling between bright and dark autoionizing states.

desk verdict A plausible new NCFWM double-peak observable with a sensible Rabi-cycling interpretation, but the quantitative validation is softer than the 'excellent agreement' claim suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00808 v1 pith:RMIECQCT submitted 2024-12-01 physics.atom-ph

Sergio Yanez-Pagans , Nathan Harkema , Arvinder Sandhu , Coleman Cariker , Luca Argenti This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph

keywords attosecondtransientabsorptionnon-collinearfour-wavemixingautoionizingstatesRabioscillationsAutler-Townessplittingargonextremeultravioletdark

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

The paper studies argon's nonlinear optical response to a sequence of extreme-ultraviolet (XUV), collinear infrared (IR), and non-collinear delayed IR pulses. It claims that the non-collinear four-wave-mixing (NCFWM) signal, which reports transitions from dark autoionizing states near the $3s^{-1}4p$ resonance, develops a double-peak structure as the delay of the angled probe is scanned. The central dip appears when the dressing IR pulse is driving Rabi oscillations between the bright $3s^{-1}4p$ state and the dark $3s^{-1}5s/3d$ states, because the dark-state amplitude changes sign during the probe pulse and the contributions to the final $3s^{-1}6p$ transition interfere destructively. Ab initio simulations reproduce both the dip and the widening of the peak separation as the dressing intensity increases. If correct, this shows that NCFWM can expose strong-field dynamics of dark autoionizing states that are invisible in collinear transient absorption.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Rabi cycling between dark and bright autoionizing states, equivalently the Autler-Townes splitting of the dressed states into polaritons. The dressing IR field periodically exchanges amplitude between the bright $3s^{-1}4p$ resonance and the nearly degenerate dark $3s^{-1}5s/3d$ states, while the angled probe reads the dark-state amplitude via the transition to $3s^{-1}6p$. When the probe samples a sign change of the dark-state coefficient, the integrated transition amplitude cancels; when it samples a constant-sign amplitude, the signal peaks. The collective signal is then obtained by phase-matched volume integration of single-atom dipole spectra over the apparent delay $\tau_2 + y\theta/c$ introduced by the non-collinear geometry.

What would settle it

Measure the NCFWM signal while scanning the dressing-laser intensity over a wider range and simultaneously recording the Autler-Townes splitting; the Rabi-cycling explanation predicts that the two-peak separation should track the Rabi frequency (roughly the square root of intensity) and that the central dip should deepen once half the splitting exceeds the probe bandwidth. A single-peaked signal at moderate intensities, or a peak separation that does not scale with the independently measured Autler-Townes splitting, would rule out the mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We show that the background-free non-collinear four-wave-mixing signal from laser-dressed argon carries a direct signature of non-perturbative radiative coupling. Instead of following the convolution of the two IR pulse envelopes, the signal is suppressed when the angled probe overlaps the peak of the dressing pulse, leaving two peaks whose separation grows with dressing intensity. The suppression is caused by Rabi cycling between the $3s^{-1}4p$ bright autoionizing state and the $3s^{-1}5s/3d$ dark states: as the dark-state coefficients change sign during the probe pulse, the transition amplitude to the $3s^{-1}6p$ state accumulates destructively. Ab initio time-dependent Schrödinger simulations reproduce the measured double-peak structure and its intensity dependence, and test simulations that exclude either dark state show the effect does not require both.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison between theory and experiment assumes that every atom in the interaction region feels the same peak laser intensity and that the four-wave-mixing signal is linear in the amplitude of both infrared fields, so the measured signal can be constructed by adding single-atom responses across the beam profile.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

NCFWM becomes a background-free probe of dark autoionizing states even when a strong dressing field couples them to bright resonances, extending the technique beyond the perturbative regime of earlier lifetime measurements.
The two-peak separation provides an intensity-dependent marker tied to the dressed-state Rabi frequency, usable for calibrating the peak intensity in the interaction region.
At large delays the signal still carries the exponential decay of the dark states, so lifetimes and strong-field coupling can be extracted from the same dataset.
The agreement with ab initio simulations validates the simplified volume-averaging procedure, including treating the probe transition as linear, for strongly dressed atoms.
With improved resolution, transitions to the non-resonant continuum should image the full Autler-Townes splitting of dark autoionizing states, which is difficult to see in collinear absorption spectra.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension beyond the paper is to scan the carrier frequency or detuning of the dressing pulse: the Rabi-cycling model predicts an asymmetric double-peak structure whose relative peak heights follow the detuning-dependent dark-state amplitudes.
The same double-peak and dip signature should appear in any resonantly coupled bright-dark pair, so the observable could serve as a general ultrafast diagnostic of coherent population exchange.
Because the dip width is set by the Rabi period, time-resolved NCFWM could in principle reconstruct the time-dependent phase of the dark-state amplitude, mapping the Rabi oscillation waveform rather than only its frequency.
At higher intensities, where focal-volume intensity variation becomes significant, the constant-peak-intensity averaging used here may smear the two-peak separation; spatially resolved detection would test how much this matters.

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

Colleague,

The genuinely new thing here is the double-peak structure in the NCFWM delay trace and its attribution to Rabi cycling between the bright 3s⁻¹4p and dark 3s⁻¹3d/5s states. Prior NCFWM work was perturbative and used for lifetimes; this is the first look at the non-perturbative regime. The interpretation is well supported by the ab initio simulations, not just by curve-fitting: the double peak emerges from the full TDSE calculation, and the center minimum is directly traced to a sign change in the dark-state coefficients during the probe pulse (Fig. 4). That's a clean mechanistic explanation.

They also get credit for the selective-exclusion tests, which show the double peak persists when either dark state is removed, and for matching the Autler-Townes splitting in ATAS to calibrate intensities, which avoids the worst circularity. The intensity scaling of the peak separation is a nice qualitative prediction that the simulations reproduce.

The soft spots are mostly in the quantitative comparison. The nominal experimental intensities (6.9 and 37.6 GW/cm²) are over an order of magnitude smaller than the theoretical intensities needed to match the ATAS splitting (80 and 160 GW/cm²). That gap is acknowledged but not explained. The theoretical curves are horizontally shifted and rescaled, and no error bars are shown on the experimental traces. That makes the 'excellent agreement' claim hard to evaluate; at most I'd say the qualitative shape is reproduced.

The more substantive concern is the volume averaging in Appendix A. They assume every atom sees the same peak intensities and that the NCFWM response is linear in the IR1 and IR2 amplitudes. The linearity in IR2 is probably fine, but the constant-intensity assumption is exactly where the double-peak mechanism is sensitive: the peak separation scales with the local Rabi frequency, so a transverse intensity spread would blur the minima. They are aware of this and argue the single-intensity ATAS simulation is adequate, but ATAS is a different observable. I think this is the load-bearing approximation for the quantitative comparison, and it needs more justification, e.g., a sensitivity study with a few intensity bins.

All that said, the central qualitative result has a clear physical explanation and is unlikely to be an artifact. The paper is a solid step forward and deserves a serious referee. It should be accepted for review, though I'd want the volume-averaging assumption and the intensity calibration addressed before publication.

For a reading group, it's a good example of how to combine ab initio theory with a new observable, but the experimental-theory comparison should be taken with a grain of salt.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a joint experimental and ab initio study of non-collinear four-wave mixing (NCFWM) in argon driven by an XUV pump, a collinear IR dressing pulse (IR1), and a delayed non-collinear IR probe (IR2). The measured NCFWM signal around the 3s^-1 4p bright state and the 3s^-1 5s/3d dark states exhibits a double-peak structure in the IR2 delay, with the central minimum deepening and the peak separation increasing with IR1 intensity. The authors attribute this to Rabi cycling between the dark states and the bright resonance, which causes the dark-state amplitudes to change sign during the probe pulse and leads to destructive interference in the 3s^-1 5s/3d -> 3s^-1 6p transition amplitude. Ab initio time-dependent Schrodinger calculations with the NewStock code reproduce the double peak and its intensity-growth trend; the mechanism is supported by simulations with one dark state removed and by the time-dependent phases of the state coefficients (Fig. 4). Appendix A develops a volume-integral model of the collective NCFWM signal, in which the single-atom response is integrated over the spatial delay of the angled probe under a constant-intensity, linear-response approximation.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, the work demonstrates that background-free NCFWM can access strong-field (non-perturbative) coupling of dark autoionizing states, extending the technique beyond the perturbative regime. The main strengths are: (i) the mechanism is directly evidenced by the sign change of the state-coefficient phases in Fig. 4, not merely inferred from line shapes; (ii) the qualitative intensity scaling of the peak separation is a falsifiable prediction reproduced by ab initio simulation; (iii) the calculations are calibrated using an independent observable (the Autler-Townes splitting in ATAS) rather than by fitting the NCFWM signal. The load-bearing weakness is the approximate treatment of the collective volume response in Appendix A: the assumptions of a single peak intensity and of linearity in both IR amplitudes are not consistent with the strong-IR1 regime that the paper studies, and they have not been tested for their effect on the predicted peak separation.

major comments (3)

[Appendix A (equation after Eq. (A7))] The volume integral for the collective NCFWM signal factors the IR amplitudes as E_NCFWM_z proportional to A_IR1 A_IR2 ... p_z(...), which rests on the assumption that the NCFWM signal is linear in the amplitude of these two fields. The same paragraph, however, states that the response is certainly not linear with respect to the IR dressing pulse, and the central mechanism of the paper is precisely the nonlinear Rabi cycling driven by IR1. Since p_z computed by the TDSE already contains the full non-perturbative IR1 dynamics, separating A_IR1 from p_z is not justified. This is not a cosmetic approximation: the predicted peak separation depends on the local Rabi frequency, i.e., on A_IR1. The authors need to perform the volume average with the full intensity dependence of p_z, or at least demonstrate numerically that the factorization error is small for the intensities used in Fig. 3.
[Appendix A, uniform-intensity assumption] The assumption that all the atoms in the interaction region experience the same laser intensity is in direct tension with the Gaussian transverse profiles adopted in Eq. (A6). In the experiment the peak intensity of IR1 has considerable uncertainty, and the central observable (the separation between the two peaks) scales with the IR1 Rabi frequency. Different atoms therefore contribute different peak separations and different depths of the central minimum. The resulting collective signal must be evaluated as an average over the beam profile, or at least checked for sensitivity to w_IR1 and to the assumed peak intensity. Calibration against the ATAS Autler-Townes splitting does not settle this, since ATAS is a single-atom spectral response, not the phase-matched delay-integrated NCFWM signal.
[Section IV, Fig. 3(c,f)] The quantitative support for "excellent agreement" is weakened by the number of adjustments: the theoretical intensities are set to 80/40 and 160/80 GW/cm^2 to match the Autler-Townes splitting, while the nominal experimental intensities are 6.9/5.2 and 37.6/19.0 GW/cm^2; the theoretical traces are rescaled to lie in [0,1] and are horizontally shifted. No error bars are shown on the experimental delay traces, and no analysis is given of how the inferred peak separation depends on the calibration and shift choices. Because the intensity scaling of the peak separation is the paper's central falsifiable claim, the authors should report the calibration uncertainty and show the robustness of the extracted separation to it.

minor comments (6)

[Abstract and Sec. II] In the abstract and the introduction, use "a non-collinear delayed IR pulse" instead of "an non-collinear delayed IR pulses".
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains typos: "resultint" should be "resulting" and "correspong" should be "corresponding".
[Sec. II] The word "separaately" should be "separately".
[Section IV] The text "laFigures 3e,f" should read "Figures 3e,f".
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption uses "time intervale" for "time interval," and "AIP" is used without definition; the text elsewhere uses "AIS" for autoionizing state.
[References] Reference [23] is listed as "Physical Review A (Submitted)"; update this citation to the published version or include a preprint identifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the NCFWM double-peak structure is an emergent simulation result, calibrated only to the independent ATAS Autler-Townes splitting.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that the NCFWM delay trace shows a double-peak structure whose separation grows with dressing intensity due to Rabi cycling—is not equivalent to any input. Theoretical intensities are calibrated by matching the Autler-Townes splitting in the ATAS channel ('To calibrate the intensity of the pulses in the simulation, we match the Autler-Townes splitting of the 3s−14p signal, which is directly observable in the experiment [21]'), an observable distinct from the NCFWM signal; the NCFWM delay trace is then computed by solving the TDSE and integrated over the interaction region. The double-peak and its intensity-dependent separation emerge from the simulation rather than being imposed. The interpretation is tested by selectively removing dark states ('we repeated the simulations ... by omitting either of the two intermediate dark states from the configuration space'), which is an ablation, not a circular restatement. The Appendix A linearity and constant-intensity assumptions are explicitly acknowledged approximations ('we will also assume that the NCFWM signal of the laser-dressed atom ... is linear in the amplitude of these two fields'), but they affect the overall amplitude scaling, not the delay-dependent structure that constitutes the claim. The self-citations (refs 20, 21, 23) supply background, methodology details, and the experimental AT-splitting calibration target; they do not import the NCFWM result. No equation in the paper reduces the predicted double-peak separation to the fitted intensity or to any prior result. Thus no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The free parameters are the resonance energy shifts, the IR intensity calibration, and the horizontal shift used in the comparison. The axioms include standard TDSE/dipole approximations, the specific close-coupling model, and two explicitly stated ad hoc assumptions about linearity and uniform intensity in the volume average. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'dark polariton' language is a dressed-state interpretation, not a new particle or force.

free parameters (3)

Resonance energy shifts for 3s^-1 autoionizing states = Not specified (shifted to match experimental values)
In Sec. III: 'In the calculations, the resonance energies are shifted to match the known experimental values.' This tunes the model to experiment before the NCFWM comparison.
Theoretical IR intensities (IIR1, IIR2) = 80/40 and 160/80 GW/cm^2 (vs nominal experimental 6.9/5.2 and 37.6/19.0)
Calibrated to reproduce the Autler-Townes splitting of the ATAS signal (Sec. IV). The factor 10-12 discrepancy with nominal experimental intensities is a large systematic uncertainty.
Horizontal shift applied to theoretical NCFWM traces = Not quantified
In Sec. IV: 'The theoretical data have been horizontally shifted to better compare the separation between peaks.' This is a free alignment used in the comparison.

assumptions (5)

standard math Time-dependent Schrodinger equation within the dipole approximation, velocity gauge
Sec. III: standard non-relativistic light-matter interaction.
domain assumption Close-coupling configuration space with essential states accurately represents argon autoionizing dynamics
Sec. III: relies on NewStock code and MCHF orbitals; full details in refs 20, 23.
ad hoc to paper NCFWM signal is linear in the amplitudes of IR1 and IR2
App. A: 'we will also assume that the NCFWM signal of the laser-dressed atom... is linear in the amplitude of these two fields.' Load-bearing for the volume integral.
ad hoc to paper All atoms in the interaction region experience the same peak laser intensity
App. A: 'we assume that all the atoms in the interaction region experience the same laser intensity.' Justified by prior ATAS agreement, but neglects spatial intensity gradients.
domain assumption Gaussian beam profiles and constant gas density along propagation direction
App. A: assumed for the volume averaging.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-perturbative Effects in Attosecond Four-Wave Mixing Spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMIECQCT

@misc{pith2026241200808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-perturbative Effects in Attosecond Four-Wave Mixing Spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMIECQCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00808}
}

abstract

We study the nonlinear optical response of argon to a four-wave-mixing pulse sequence consisting of an extreme ultraviolet pulse, an overlapping collinear IR and an non-collinear delayed IR pulses. Absorption of an extreme ultraviolet and an IR photon from the collinear beams excites, sequentially, the $3s^{-1}4p$ bright state and the {$3s^{-1}3d/5s$} dark states. The subsequent absorption of an IR photon from the non-collinear beam results in an angled extreme ultraviolet emission whose variation with delay encodes coupling between autoionizing-states, dark-state lifetimes, and non-perturbative effects. Both our measurements and \emph{ab initio} simulations of the angled four-wave-mixing signal show a double-peak structure in delay dependence, in excellent agreement with each other. We attribute the minimum at the center of the signal to the rapid Rabi cycling, driven by the IR pulse, between dark states and the $3s^{-1}4p$ resonance, which results in the destructive interference in the final transition amplitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00808 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Experimental setup employing HHG for XUV pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a,d) Experimental middle NCFWM signal in argon, as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Left panels (a-d): simulations conducted excluding the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

[1]

Goulielmakis, Z.-H

E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V . S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, et al., Nature 466, 739 (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

Gruson, L

V . Gruson, L. Barreau, ´A. Jim´enez-Galan, F. Risoud, J. Caillat, A. Maquet, B. Carr´e, F. Lepetit, J.-F. Hergott, T. Ruchon,et al., Science 354, 734 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Jim´enez-Gal´an, L

´A. Jim´enez-Gal´an, L. Argenti, and F. Mart´ın, Physical Review Letters 113, 263001 (2014)

work page 2014
[4]

Argenti, ´A

L. Argenti, ´A. Jim ´enez-Gal´an, C. Marante, C. Ott, T. Pfeifer, and F. Mart´ın, Physical Review A 91, 061403 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Kotur, D

M. Kotur, D. Guenot, ´A. Jim ´enez-Gal´an, D. Kroon, E. W. Larsen, M. Louisy, S. Bengtsson, M. Miranda, J. Mauritsson, C. Arnold, et al., Nature communications 7, 10566 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Chu and C

W.-C. Chu and C. Lin, Physical Review A 87, 013415 (2013)

work page 2013
[7]

Chu and C

W.-C. Chu and C. Lin, Physical Review A 85, 013409 (2012)

work page 2012
[8]

A. R. Beck, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Chemical Physics Letters 624, 119 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 25 references

[9]

Bernhardt, A

B. Bernhardt, A. R. Beck, X. Li, E. R. Warrick, M. J. Bell, D. J. Haxton, C. W. McCurdy, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review A 89, 023408 (2014)

2014
[10]

Stooß, M

V . Stooß, M. Hartmann, P. Birk, G. D. Borisova, T. Ding, A. Bl¨attermann, C. Ott, and T. Pfeifer, Review of Scientific In- struments 90 (2019)

2019
[11]

A. Chew, N. Douguet, C. Cariker, J. Li, E. Lindroth, X. Ren, Y . Yin, L. Argenti, W. T. Hill III, and Z. Chang, Physical Re- view A 97, 031407 (2018)

2018
[12]

Fano and W

U. Fano and W. Lichten, Physical Review Letters 14, 627 (1965)

1965
[13]

C. Ott, A. Kaldun, P. Raith, K. Meyer, M. Laux, J. Evers, C. H. Keitel, C. H. Greene, and T. Pfeifer, Science 340, 716 (2013)

2013
[14]

Argenti, A

L. Argenti, A. Jim ´enez-Gal´an, C. Marante, C. Ott, T. Pfeifer, and F. Mart´ın, Phys. Rev. A 91, 061403 (2015)

2015
[15]

A. R. Beck, B. Bernhardt, E. R. Warrick, M. Wu, S. Chen, M. B. Gaarde, K. J. Schafer, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, New Journal of Physics 16, 113016 (2014)

2014
[16]

C. Ott, A. Kaldun, L. Argenti, P. Raith, K. Meyer, M. Laux, Y . Zhang, A. Bl ¨attermann, S. Hagstotz, T. Ding, R. Heck, J. Madro˜nero, F. Mart´ın, and T. Pfeifer, Nature516, 374 (2014)

2014
[17]

W. Cao, E. R. Warrick, A. Fidler, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Physical Review A 94, 053846 (2016)

2016
[18]

Bengtsson, E

S. Bengtsson, E. W. Larsen, D. Kroon, S. Camp, M. Miranda, C. Arnold, A. L’Huillier, K. Schafer, M. Gaarde, L. Rippe, et al., Nature Photonics 11, 252 (2017)

2017
[19]

N. G. Puskar, Y .-C. Lin, J. D. Gaynor, M. C. Schuchter, S. Chat- topadhyay, C. Marante, A. P. Fidler, C. L. Keenan, L. Argenti, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033117 (2023)

2023
[20]

Harkema, C

N. Harkema, C. Cariker, E. Lindroth, L. Argenti, and A. Sandhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 023202 (2021)

2021
[21]

Yanez-Pagans, C

S. Yanez-Pagans, C. Cariker, M. Shaikh, L. Argenti, and A. Sandhu, Phys. Rev. A 105, 063107 (2022)

2022
[22]

Carette, J

T. Carette, J. M. Dahlstr ¨om, L. Argenti, and E. Lindroth, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023420 (2013)

2013
[23]

Cariker, S

C. Cariker, S. Yanez-Pagans, N. Harkema, E. Lindroth, A. Sandhu, and L. Argenti, Physical Review A (Submitted)
[24]

Froese Fischer, C

P. Froese Fischer, C. Brage, T. Jonsson, Computational Atomic Structure: An MCHF Approach, 1st ed. (Routledge, 1997)

1997
[25]

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1998)

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Goulielmakis, Z.-H

E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V . S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, et al., Nature 466, 739 (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Gruson, L

V . Gruson, L. Barreau, ´A. Jim´enez-Galan, F. Risoud, J. Caillat, A. Maquet, B. Carr´e, F. Lepetit, J.-F. Hergott, T. Ruchon,et al., Science 354, 734 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Jim´enez-Gal´an, L

´A. Jim´enez-Gal´an, L. Argenti, and F. Mart´ın, Physical Review Letters 113, 263001 (2014)

work page 2014

[4] [4]

Argenti, ´A

L. Argenti, ´A. Jim ´enez-Gal´an, C. Marante, C. Ott, T. Pfeifer, and F. Mart´ın, Physical Review A 91, 061403 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Kotur, D

M. Kotur, D. Guenot, ´A. Jim ´enez-Gal´an, D. Kroon, E. W. Larsen, M. Louisy, S. Bengtsson, M. Miranda, J. Mauritsson, C. Arnold, et al., Nature communications 7, 10566 (2016)

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Chu and C

W.-C. Chu and C. Lin, Physical Review A 87, 013415 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Chu and C

W.-C. Chu and C. Lin, Physical Review A 85, 013409 (2012)

work page 2012

[8] [8]

A. R. Beck, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Chemical Physics Letters 624, 119 (2015)

work page 2015