Tailoring optical Schr\"odinger cat states via orientation-dependent high-harmonic generation in $\rm{H}_2^+$

Ahai Chen; Wei-Chao Jiang; Yuhai Jiang; Ziyang Gan

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Tailoring optical Schr\"odinger cat states via orientation-dependent high-harmonic generation in $\rm{H}_2^+$

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Molecular orientation angle θ provides a continuously tunable, structurally intrinsic control parameter for engineering optical Schrödinger cat states via high-harmonic generation in H2+.

desk verdict New idea, solid orientation physics, but the post-selected-state coherence factor is internally inconsistent and needs fixing before the quantitative claims hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21248 v1 pith:RN6PACZL submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.comp-phphysics.optics

Ziyang Gan , Wei-Chao Jiang , Ahai Chen , Yuhai Jiang This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.comp-phphysics.optics PACS 42.50.-p42.65.Ky

keywords Schrödingercatstateshigh-harmonicgenerationmolecularorientationH2+two-centerinterferenceWignerfunctionquantumstateengineeringpost-selection

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 demonstrates theoretically that the angle between the driving laser field and the molecular axis of H2+ controls the amplitude of a selected high-harmonic mode, and hence the morphology of the optical state left in that mode after post-selecting on a photon. Because the orientation dependence is set by complementary dipole selection rules for low-order resonance peaks and by two-center destructive interference in the plateau, sweeping θ drives continuous kitten-to-cat transitions whose direction differs between channels. The claimed control is decoupled from laser intensity, focal geometry, and molecular density, offering a structurally intrinsic knob for quantum-state engineering that atomic targets lack.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditioned harmonic field state |Ψ_q(θ)> = (|β_q(θ)> - c|0_q>)/√N_q, whose Wigner function is evaluated via displaced parity. Its character is set by the TDSE-derived harmonic mode amplitude β_q(θ), which the molecule's orientation modulates through two mechanisms: resonance-enhanced bound-bound transitions operating under complementary selection rules (|cosθ| for the σ–σ channel, |sinθ| for the σ–π channel), and two-center destructive interference governed by the de Broglie condition R cos θ*(q) = π√(2qω_L) for plateau orders. The global coherence factor c = e^{-γ} collects the radiation into all non-conditioned modes and is assumed orientation-independent.

What would settle it

Compute γ(θ)=|δα_L(θ)|² + Σ_{q'≠q}|β_{q'}(θ)|² from the same TDSE dipoles; if it varies by more than a small amount over 0°–90°, the Wigner normalization and interference amplitude acquire θ-dependence, altering the crossover angles. Alternatively, an experiment on the q=55 harmonic around the predicted θ*≈50° should find the single-photon Wigner floor only at the true |β_55|-minimum, locating the actual kitten angle.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that the post-selected state of a given harmonic mode q after conditioning on at least one photon has the form |Ψ_q(θ)> ∝ |β_q(θ)> - c|0_q>, whose nonclassical character is governed entirely by the single amplitude |β_q(θ)|: small |β_q| gives a single-photon-like kitten, O(1) gives a two-component cat, and large |β_q| washes out interference. The paper computes β_q(θ) from TDSE dipoles for H2+ and shows that θ controls |β_q| through two physically distinct mechanisms: the 1σg→1σu resonance is forbidden at 90° and scales as |cosθ|, driving a cat-to-kitten transition with increasing θ, while the 1σg→1πu resonance scales as |sinθ| and gives the opposite crossover; in the plate

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the global coherence factor c = e^{-γ}, which collects the energy radiated into the fundamental and all other harmonic modes, is essentially independent of molecular orientation; if γ actually varies with θ, the interference amplitude and normalization become θ-dependent and the apparent kitten/cat boundaries would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At a fixed orientation, switching the XUV filter between the two resonance peaks (orders q_σ and q_π) toggles the output between a genuine cat and a tight single-photon-like kitten with no other experimental change.
Sweeping θ from 0° to 90° continuously compresses the cat ring into the analytical single-photon Wigner function for the σ–σ channel, and expands it in the opposite direction for the σ–π channel.
For the q=55 plateau harmonic, tuning θ through the predicted interference angle near 50° drives a reentrant cat→kitten→cat sequence, with the kitten at minimum reaching the single-photon Wigner floor of -2/π in the x=0 cut.
Because θ*(q) depends on harmonic order, choosing different plateau orders yields different interference angles, giving a two-dimensional (θ,q) control space.
The conditioning success probability N_q(θ) is appreciable for cat-regime plateau orders, mitigating post-selection cost compared with low-amplitude atomic kitten schemes.

Reading between the lines

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

If γ(θ) were measured or computed and found to vary appreciably with orientation, the normalization and interference term would acquire θ-dependence; a direct calculation of γ(θ) would be the quickest test of the paper's central assumption.
The same selection rules and interference condition should carry over to other oriented diatomic molecules, so a near-term neutral-molecule experiment with existing alignment techniques could test the predicted crossover directions.
The two-dimensional control space suggests using simultaneous conditioning on multiple harmonic orders to synthesize superpositions beyond single-mode cats, an avenue the paper raises but does not develop.
Because the orientation knob is largely orthogonal to intensity and density knobs, combining it with other approaches could produce cats with both controlled separation and controlled photon number, potentially exceeding the photon-number benchmarks of atomic schemes.

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

Dear X,

You should know two things about this paper: the core idea is genuinely new and worth engaging, and the post-selected state derivation contains a real inconsistency that the authors need to fix before the quantitative claims can be trusted.

What's new: using H2+ orientation θ as a continuous control for HHG-generated optical cat states. The two mechanisms—complementary σ–σ/σ–π selection rules at resonance-enhanced low harmonics and two-center interference in the plateau—are individually known, but combining them with quantized HHG to steer a kitten–cat crossover is a fresh step. The parameter-free formula for the interference angle, Eq. (9), checked against TDSE, is a nice touch. The paper is clearly written and credits the right prior work (Lewenstein, Rivera-Dean, Stammer, and the H2+ analysis in Ref [33]).

Soft spots, in order of severity. First, the coherence factor c in Eq. (10). The paper defines c = e^{−γ} with γ summing over all modes except q. But starting from their own product state Eq. (6), applying the projector I_q − |0_q⟩⟨0_q| gives a relative vacuum amplitude e^{−|β_q|²/2}, not a global c. With their adopted c ≈ 0.1, the forbidden-orientation limit β_q → 0 would be vacuum-dominated, whereas they claim it approaches the single-photon Fock state. That limit only works if c → 1 as β_q → 0. So either their γ is wrong or the state in Eq. (10) is not the actual post-selected state. This is not cosmetic: the Wigner functions in Figs. 3–4 all depend on this c, and the claim that c's value merely rescales negativity is false if c is β_q-dependent. They need to re-derive c or reformulate the state.

Second, the abstract's 'decoupled from laser intensity, focal geometry, and molecular density' is overstated. Eq. (8) shows β_q ∝ N g(ω_L), so the absolute kitten/cat threshold does depend on those parameters. What is orientation-independent is the shape of the θ-sweep relative to the threshold, but that's a weaker claim. Third, the TDSE-derived |β_q(θ)| are presented without error bars or convergence tests. That's minor for a theory paper but worth adding.

The central mechanism—orientation controlling |β_q| via selection rules and two-center interference—is defensible. With a corrected c, the qualitative crossover presumably survives, but the curves in Figs. 3–4 would shift. This deserves a serious referee: the idea is solid enough to fix rather than reject. If I were the editor, I'd send it out, with a clear request to address the coherence factor.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using the molecular orientation angle θ of H2+ relative to the laser polarization as a continuous control knob for engineering optical Schrödinger cat states in HHG. The authors combine TDSE simulations of the orientation-dependent dipole with the quantized-HHG multimode coherent-state framework, and analyze the Wigner functions of post-selected harmonic modes. Two conditioning strategies are considered: resonance-enhanced low-order harmonics (1σg→1σu and 1σg→1πu channels), which give opposite kitten–cat crossovers as θ varies, and a plateau harmonic (q=55), which gives a reentrant cat→kitten→cat transition controlled by two-center interference. The central claim is that θ, together with harmonic order q, provides a two-dimensional control space for cat-state morphology that is decoupled from intensity, focal geometry, and density.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this would introduce a genuinely new structural control parameter for strong-field quantum-state engineering, complementary to the atomic intensity/density/cutoff knobs in Refs. [12–14]. The two-channel selection-rule complementarity and the order-dependent two-center-interference motif are physically appealing, and the use of TDSE-computed dipoles for the orientation-dependent amplitudes is a strength. The interference condition, once corrected, would be a parameter-free prediction, and the closed-form Wigner expression is useful. However, the post-selection coherence factor underlying the Wigner functions is not derived consistently from the stated multimode state, and the claimed decoupling from other experimental knobs is not demonstrated. The qualitative framework may survive a corrected calculation, but the present evidence is not yet sufficient.

major comments (3)

[§II B, Eq. (10); Figs. 3(d), 4(g)] The post-selected state is not correctly derived. Acting with P̂q = I_q − |0_q⟩⟨0_q| on the product state Eq. (6) gives, up to normalization, (|β_q⟩ − e^{−|β_q|²/2}|0_q⟩) ⊗ (all other modes). The vacuum amplitude is e^{−|β_q|²/2}, not the global factor c = e^{−γ} with γ = |δα_L(θ)|² + Σ_{q′≠q}|β_{q′}(θ)|²; the projector does not act on the other modes, so γ should not appear. The adopted constant c ∼ 10^{−1} makes the β_q → 0 limit of Eq. (10) proportional to (1−c)|0_q⟩, i.e. vacuum-dominated, whereas the text and Eq. (14) claim the single-photon Fock-state limit with Wigner floor −2/π. Thus the Wigner functions in Figs. 3 and 4 are computed with an unsupported coherence factor. Please derive c directly from Eq. (6) plus P̂q (or provide the specific derivation from Ref. [14]) and recalculate; the natural replacement c = e^{−|β_q|²/2} may preserve the qualitative crossovers but will chang
[§II A, Eq. (9); §III B] The two-center destructive-interference condition is printed as R cos θ*(q) = π√(2qω_L). For the parameters used in Sec. III B (R = 2 a.u., q = 55, ω_L = 0.05696 a.u.), the right-hand side is about 7.86 a.u., giving cos θ* > 3.9; no real θ* exists. The claimed value θ*(55) ≈ 50°–54° corresponds instead to R cos θ*(q) = π / √(2qω_L). The equation is missing the reciprocal. Please correct Eq. (9), or, if a different definition involving, e.g., the ionization potential is intended, state it explicitly. As written, the parameter-free prediction of the plateau control mechanism is not reproducible.
[§II C and abstract/conclusion] The assertion that the global coherence factor c is 'essentially orientation-independent' is not supported by any computation of γ(θ) = |δα_L(θ)|² + Σ_{q′≠q}|β_{q′}(θ)|². Since c enters N_q and the interference term in Eq. (12) together with β_q-dependent exponentials, the location and sharpness of the kitten–cat crossover can in principle depend on c; the statement that 'its precise value ... leaves the crossover entirely unaffected' needs a quantitative γ(θ) estimate or an explicit robustness scan over c. Relatedly, the abstract/conclusion claim that the crossover is 'decoupled from the laser intensity, focal geometry, and molecular density' is not demonstrated: each channel is shown at a single intensity only, and no density or focal-geometry variation is presented. Either provide such scans or soften the claim to 'demonstrated at fixed intensity, focal geometry, and density.'

minor comments (5)

[§III B] The text refers to 'through Eq. 14' when discussing the order-dependent interference angle; the correct cross-reference is Eq. (9).
[§II C] The sentence 'Writing the normalized post-selected density operator as ...' is duplicated verbatim.
[Fig. 1 caption] Missing closing parenthesis/punctuation: 'θ = 0° (parallel) θ = 90° (perpendicular)' should read 'θ = 0° (parallel) and θ = 90° (perpendicular)'.
[§II A] The sentence describing the harmonic extraction is incomplete: 'After the laser pulse, HHG is obtained by ....' Please complete the description (e.g., window function, dipole acceleration vs. length form, and any filtering).
[§II B / §III] No numerical values of |β_q(θ)| are reported, although the kitten/cat/classical classification is defined by |β_q| ≪ 1, |β_q| ∼ O(1), and |β_q| ≫ 1. Please provide the actual amplitudes at the plotted θ values, or at least in a table, to make the assignments in Figs. 3 and 4 quantitatively verifiable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the orientation-driven crossover is carried by independently TDSE-computed harmonic amplitudes, not by fitted constants or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The claimed control mechanism is derived by combining TDSE-computed dipoles (Eqs. 3–8) with the external quantized-HHG state (Eq. 6) and an analytic post-selection expression (Eqs. 10–13) taken from Refs. [12–14], which are not the present authors' work. The θ-dependence of all plotted Wigner functions enters solely through the TDSE-derived amplitude β_q(θ); no parameter is fitted to the kitten/cat crossover, and the interference angle θ*(q) is a parameter-free formula (Eq. 9) that is checked against, not extracted from, the TDSE. The main caveat is flagged by the paper itself in Sec. II C: the global coherence factor c is 'not pinned down by the present theory' and is assigned c∼10^{-1}. Starting from the paper's own product state (Eq. 6) and projector P_q, the correct vacuum coefficient would be e^{-|β_q|^2/2}, not a fixed orientation-independent c; with c∼10^{-1} the β_q→0 limit would be vacuum-like rather than the Fock-state limit of Eq. 14. This is an internal consistency / missing-derivation problem and a correctness risk, but it is not circular: it does not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs, and it does not encode or pre-fit the orientation-dependent crossover direction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the imported quantized-HHG post-selection formalism, standard molecular selection rules, the two-center interference condition, a hand-set coherence parameter c, and the assumed orientation-independence of c. The TDSE numerics are converged per the paper's claim but without a reported convergence study.

free parameters (2)

global coherence factor c = ~10^{-1}
Set by hand for all plots in Figs. 3-4; represents the radiative loss to non-conditioned modes. Not computed from γ(θ); the paper argues the crossover is insensitive to its value but provides no quantitative check.
overall phase-matching/mode-volume scale N g(ω_L) = unspecified
Multiplies every β_q in Eq. (8); sets the absolute scale that determines whether |β_q| falls in the kitten (≪1), cat (~1), or classical (≫1) regime. The paper notes it 'is not pinned down by the present theory' (Sec. II C).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The quantized HHG multi-mode product state |Φ⟩=|α_L+δα_L⟩⊗⊗|β_q⟩ with coherent displacements and the post-selection projector P̂_q = 𝟙 − |0⟩⟨0| correctly describe the optical state after HHG in a molecule.
Imported from Refs [12-14,25], Eqs. (6)-(10). Load-bearing because the entire state analysis rests on it.
domain assumption The harmonic amplitude β_q(θ) is faithfully extracted from the TDSE dipole via Eq. (8), i.e., the Lewenstein emission model for molecules.
Used in Eqs. (7)-(8); the central quantity |β_q(θ)| is computed from the single-molecule TDSE dipole; macroscopic propagation effects are absorbed into N and g.
ad hoc to paper c is orientation-independent because fundamental depletion and plateau background are 'weakly anisotropic'.
Sec. II C; asserted without computing γ(θ); enters all Wigner functions through the interference term.
domain assumption The non-odd resonance peaks are bound–bound resonances (1σ_g→1σ_u and 1σ_g→1π_u) whose amplitudes scale strictly as cosθ and sinθ, with no significant continuum-recombination contribution.
Sec. III A and Fig. 2(a); underpins the complementary crossover claim.
domain assumption The two-center interference condition R cosθ* = π√(2qω_L) (Eq. (9)) determines the plateau minimum.
Standard two-slit recombination condition from Refs [28-30,36]; used to predict θ*(55).
domain assumption TDSE numerical parameters (box 800 a.u., |m|max=80, basis orders 15/60, Δt=0.0045) give converged β_q(θ).
Sec. II A; no convergence study is reported in the text.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tailoring optical Schr\"odinger cat states via orientation-dependent high-harmonic generation in $\rm{H}_2^+$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RN6PACZL

@misc{pith2026260721248,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tailoring optical Schr\"odinger cat states via orientation-dependent high-harmonic generation in $\rmH_2^+$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RN6PACZL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21248}
}

abstract

We theoretically demonstrate that the molecular orientation angle $\theta$ provides a structurally intrinsic, continuously tunable control parameter for engineering optical Schr\"{o}dinger cat states via high-harmonic generation (HHG) in H$_2^+$. Coupling time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation simulations to the fully quantized HHG framework, we evaluate the Wigner functions of the post-selected harmonic-mode states under two complementary conditioning strategies. Conditioning on resonance-enhanced low-order harmonics exploits the complementary dipole selection rules of the $1\sigma_g\to1\sigma_u$ and $1\sigma_g\to1\pi_u$ transitions, driving a kitten-cat crossover whose direction is opposite in the two channels as $\theta$ is varied. Conditioning on plateau harmonics instead exploits two-center destructive interference, producing a reentrant cat$\to$kitten$\to$cat transition controlled by the order-dependent interference angle $\theta^*(q)$. In both cases the crossover is decoupled from the laser intensity, focal geometry, and molecular density, offering a degree of control with no counterpart in atomic targets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21248 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Schematic of the orientation-controlled cat-state-generation scheme. An intense linearly polarized 800-nm laser pulse, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Orientation dependence of the HHG response of H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Post-selected Wigner functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Post-selected Wigner functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

[33]

Rivera-Dean, P

J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, A. S. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, P. Tzallas, M. Lewenstein, and M. F. Ciap- pina, Quantum-optical analysis of high-order harmonic generation in h 2 + molecules, Phys. Rev. A109, 033706 (2024)

2024
[14]

Stammer, J

P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewenstein, High photon number entangled states and coherent state su- perposition from the extreme ultraviolet to the far in- frared, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 123603 (2022)

2022
[1]

Mourou, Nobel lecture: Extreme light physics and application, Rev

G. Mourou, Nobel lecture: Extreme light physics and application, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 030501 (2019)

2019
[2]

Strickland, Nobel lecture: Generating high-intensity ultrashort optical pulses, Rev

D. Strickland, Nobel lecture: Generating high-intensity ultrashort optical pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 030502 (2019)

2019
[3]

Stammer, On the limitations of the semi-classical pic- ture in high harmonic generation, Nat

P. Stammer, On the limitations of the semi-classical pic- ture in high harmonic generation, Nat. Phys.20, 1040 (2024)

2024
[4]

Stammer, Absence of quantum optical coherence in high harmonic generation, Phys

P. Stammer, Absence of quantum optical coherence in high harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032033 (2024)

2024
[5]

Rasputnyi, Z

A. Rasputnyi, Z. Chen, M. Birk, O. Cohen, I. Kaminer, M. Kr¨ uger, D. Seletskiy, M. Chekhova, and F. Tani, High- harmonic generation by a bright squeezed vacuum, Na- ture Physics20, 1960 (2024)

1960
[6]

Heimerl, A

J. Heimerl, A. Mikhaylov, S. Meier, H. H¨ ollerer, I. Kaminer, M. Chekhova, and P. Hommelhoff, Multi- photon electron emission with non-classical light, Nature Physics20, 945 (2024)

2024

Show all 36 references

[7]

Heimerl, A

J. Heimerl, A. Rasputnyi, J. P¨ olloth, S. Meier, M. Chekhova, and P. Hommelhoff, Quantum light drives electrons strongly at metal needle tips, Nature Physics 21, 1899 (2025)

2025
[8]

H. Liu, H. Zhang, X. Wang, and J. Yuan, Atomic dou- ble ionization with quantum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 123202 (2025)

2025
[9]

Fang, F.-X

Y. Fang, F.-X. Sun, Q. He, and Y. Liu, Strong-field ion- ization of hydrogen atoms with quantum light, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 253201 (2023)

2023
[10]

Gorlach, M

A. Gorlach, M. E. Tzur, M. Birk, M. Kr¨ uger, N. Rivera, O. Cohen, and I. Kaminer, High-harmonic generation driven by quantum light, Nat. Phys.19, 1689 (2023). 8

2023
[11]

Jiang, S

Z. Jiang, S. Pan, J. Chen, M. Zhu, C. Zhao, Y. Wang, R. Zhang, J. Lu, L. Han, S. Xiong, D. Wu, W. Li, S. Jiang, H. Ni, and J. Wu, Nonlinear atomic tunnelling boosted by bright squeezed vacuum, Nature (London) 654, 356 (2026), 2604.05783

2026 arXiv
[12]

Lewenstein, M

M. Lewenstein, M. F. Ciappina, E. Pisanty, J. Rivera- Dean, P. Stammer, T. Lamprou, and P. Tzallas, Gener- ation of optical Schr¨ odinger cat states in intense laser– matter interactions, Nature Physics17, 1104 (2021)

2021
[13]

Rivera-Dean, T

J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, P. Stam- mer, A. F. Ord´ o˜ nez, A. S. Maxwell, M. F. Ciappina, M. Lewenstein, and P. Tzallas, Strong laser fields and their power to generate controllable high-photon-number coherent-state superpositions, Phys. Rev. A105, 033714 (2022)

2022
[15]

T. C. Ralph, A. Gilchrist, G. J. Milburn, W. J. Munro, and S. Glancy, Quantum computation with optical co- herent states, Phys. Rev. A68, 042319 (2003)

2003
[16]

Gilchrist, K

A. Gilchrist, K. Nemoto, W. Munro, T. Ralph, S. Glancy, S. Braunstein, and G. Milburn, Schr¨ odinger cats and their power for quantum information processing, Jour- nal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, S828 (2004)

2004
[17]

R. T. Thew, K. Nemoto, A. G. White, and W. J. Munro, Qudit quantum-state tomography, Phys. Rev. A66, 012303 (2002)

2002
[18]

B. C. Sanders, Entangled coherent states, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6811 (1992)

1992
[19]

Jeong, W

H. Jeong, W. Son, M. S. Kim, D. Ahn, and i. c. v. Brukner, Quantum nonlocality test for continuous- variable states with dichotomic observables, Phys. Rev. A67, 012106 (2003)

2003
[20]

Ourjoumtsev, R

A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating optical Schr¨ odinger kittens for quantum information processing, Science312, 83 (2006)

2006
[21]

Ourjoumtsev, H

A. Ourjoumtsev, H. Jeong, R. Tualle-Brouri, and P. Grangier, Generation of optical ’Schr¨ odinger cats’ from photon number states, Nature448, 784 (2007)

2007
[22]

Zavatta, S

A. Zavatta, S. Viciani, and M. Bellini, Quantum-to- classical transition with single-photon-added coherent states of light, Science306, 660 (2004)

2004
[23]

Tsatrafyllis, I

N. Tsatrafyllis, I. Kominis, I. Gonoskov, and P. Tzallas, High-order harmonics measured by the photon statistics of the infrared driving-field exiting the atomic medium, Nature Communications8, 15170 (2017)

2017
[24]

A. I. Lvovsky and M. G. Raymer, Continuous-variable optical quantum-state tomography, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 299 (2009)

2009
[25]

Stammer, J

P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, A. Ord´ o˜ nez, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewen- stein, Quantum electrodynamics of intense laser-matter interactions: A tool for quantum state engineering, PRX Quantum4, 010201 (2023)

2023
[26]

Stammer, J

P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, A. S. Maxwell, T. Lam- prou, J. Arg¨ uello-Luengo, P. Tzallas, M. F. Ciappina, and M. Lewenstein, Entanglement and squeezing of the optical field modes in high harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 143603 (2024)

2024
[27]

Even Tzur, M

M. Even Tzur, M. Birk, A. Gorlach, M. Kr¨ uger, I. Kaminer, and O. Cohen, Photon-statistics force in ul- trafast electron dynamics, Nat. Photonics17, 501 (2023)

2023
[28]

M. Lein, N. Hay, R. Velotta, J. P. Marangos, and P. L. Knight, Role of the intramolecular phase in high- harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 183903 (2002)

2002
[29]

Lein, Molecular imaging using recolliding electrons, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics40, R135 (2007)

M. Lein, Molecular imaging using recolliding electrons, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics40, R135 (2007)

2007
[30]

Itatani, J

J. Itatani, J. Levesque, D. Zeidler, H. Niikura, H. P´ epin, J. C. Kieffer, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Villeneuve, Tomo- graphic imaging of molecular orbitals, Nature432, 867 (2004)

2004
[31]

Vozzi, F

C. Vozzi, F. Calegari, E. Benedetti, J.-P. Caumes, G. Sansone, S. Stagira, M. Nisoli, R. Torres, E. Heesel, N. Kajumba, J. P. Marangos, C. Altucci, and R. Velotta, Controlling two-center interference in molecular high har- monic generation, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 153902 (2005)

2005
[32]

Stapelfeldt and T

H. Stapelfeldt and T. Seideman, Colloquium: Aligning molecules with strong laser pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 543 (2003)

2003
[34]

M. Feit, J. Fleck, and A. Steiger, Solution of the schr¨ odinger equation by a spectral method, Journal of Computational Physics47, 412 (1982)

1982
[35]

Jiang and X

W.-C. Jiang and X. Tian, Efficient split-lanczos propa- gator for strong-field ionization of atoms, Optics Express 25, 26832 (2017)

2017
[36]

D. A. Telnov and S.-I. Chu, Ab initio study of the ori- entation effects in multiphoton ionization and high-order harmonic generation from the ground and excited elec- tronic states of H 2 +, Phys. Rev. A76, 043412 (2007)

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [33]

Rivera-Dean, P

J. Rivera-Dean, P. Stammer, A. S. Maxwell, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, P. Tzallas, M. Lewenstein, and M. F. Ciap- pina, Quantum-optical analysis of high-order harmonic generation in h 2 + molecules, Phys. Rev. A109, 033706 (2024)

2024

[2] [14]

Stammer, J

P. Stammer, J. Rivera-Dean, T. Lamprou, E. Pisanty, M. F. Ciappina, P. Tzallas, and M. Lewenstein, High photon number entangled states and coherent state su- perposition from the extreme ultraviolet to the far in- frared, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 123603 (2022)

2022

[3] [1]

Mourou, Nobel lecture: Extreme light physics and application, Rev

G. Mourou, Nobel lecture: Extreme light physics and application, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 030501 (2019)

2019

[4] [2]

Strickland, Nobel lecture: Generating high-intensity ultrashort optical pulses, Rev

D. Strickland, Nobel lecture: Generating high-intensity ultrashort optical pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys.91, 030502 (2019)

2019

[5] [3]

Stammer, On the limitations of the semi-classical pic- ture in high harmonic generation, Nat

P. Stammer, On the limitations of the semi-classical pic- ture in high harmonic generation, Nat. Phys.20, 1040 (2024)

2024

[6] [4]

Stammer, Absence of quantum optical coherence in high harmonic generation, Phys

P. Stammer, Absence of quantum optical coherence in high harmonic generation, Phys. Rev. Res.6, L032033 (2024)

2024

[7] [5]

Rasputnyi, Z

A. Rasputnyi, Z. Chen, M. Birk, O. Cohen, I. Kaminer, M. Kr¨ uger, D. Seletskiy, M. Chekhova, and F. Tani, High- harmonic generation by a bright squeezed vacuum, Na- ture Physics20, 1960 (2024)

1960

[8] [6]

Heimerl, A

J. Heimerl, A. Mikhaylov, S. Meier, H. H¨ ollerer, I. Kaminer, M. Chekhova, and P. Hommelhoff, Multi- photon electron emission with non-classical light, Nature Physics20, 945 (2024)

2024