Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Quantum tomography of inelastic electron scattering \emph{via} orbital angular momentum states

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By restricting tomography to the orbital angular momentum subspace, the paper reconstructs the post-scattering density matrix of an electron beam from OAM-resolved EELS and angular EFTEM data, recovering dipole selection rules and quantifyi

desk verdict Clever experiment, honest about underdetermination, but 'full tomography' and the dipole eigenstates are largely products of the priors, not the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.29565 v1 pith:U7KTULQM submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Amir H. Tavabi , Alessio D'Errico , Paolo Rosi , Giovanni Bertoni , Enzo Rotunno , Luca Belsito , Alberto Roncaglia , Stefano Frabboni
show 5 more authors
Gian Carlo Gazzadi Peter Tiemeijer Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski Ebrahim Karimi Vincenzo Grillo
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumstatetomographyorbitalangularmomentumelectronenergy-lossspectroscopyOAMsorterinelasticscatteringdensitymatrixvolumeplasmonsdipoleselectionrules
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 that quantum state tomography—normally a tool of quantum optics and metrology—can be applied to inelastic electron scattering in a transmission electron microscope by working in the discrete orbital angular momentum (OAM) subspace. Using an OAM sorter and a structured petal beam (a coherent superposition of m=±4 vortex states) scattered from amorphous carbon, the authors recover an 11×11 density matrix for the post-scattering electron state in a 10 eV energy window. The key claim is that the eigenstates of this matrix are the actual inelastic transition channels, so dipole (Δm=±1) and quadrupole (Δm=±2) selection rules emerge from the data rather than being assumed. A sympathetic reader would care because this would turn EELS from a spectrum-based probe into a full quantum-state diagnostic of electron-matter interactions, quantifying coherence loss and symmetry breaking in one measurement.

What carries the argument

The central object is the density matrix ρℓℓ′ in the OAM basis {|m⟩} with m∈{−5,…,5}, and the device that makes it accessible is the OAM sorter: an electron-optical log-polar coordinate transformer that maps azimuthal angle to a linear coordinate and OAM to a conjugate momentum. The reconstruction is carried out by a modified maximum-likelihood estimator that enforces positivity through a Cholesky parametrisation and balances four cost terms—fit to the OAM spectrum, fit to the angular profile, approximate m↔−m symmetry, and proximity to the elastic probe state. The eigenstates of the reconstructed matrix are interpreted, via a first-order perturbation argument, as the final states of Fermi's

What would settle it

Reconstruct a known state: prepare a carbon film scattering experiment with a probe that is a known incoherent mixture of m=+4 and m=−4 rather than a coherent petal beam. If the constrained inversion still produces eigenstates with Δm=±1 structure, the priors are fabricating the selection rules.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that full quantum-state tomography of an inelastically scattered electron beam is achievable in the OAM basis using two complementary measurements: OAM-resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy and angular energy-filtered images of the beam after it passes through an OAM sorter. From these, a constrained maximum-likelihood inversion produces the post-scattering density matrix. Diagonalising that matrix reveals eigenstates that the paper identifies with physical transition channels—an unperturbed probe state, rotated coherent variants, and states shifted by one or two units of OAM—so the dipole selection rules of plasmon scattering appear automatically. The measured purity f

Load-bearing premise

The physical content of the result—dipole transitions, symmetry breaking, transition channels—rides on the soft priors of near-probe proximity and approximate m↔−m symmetry being strong enough to select the true density matrix among the many that fit only 32 independent measurements in a 120-parameter space.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EELS gains a basis-independent observable: the post-scattering density matrix, rather than only an energy-loss spectrum or a set of angular projections.
  • Selection rules for the sample interaction—dipole Δm=±1, quadrupole Δm=±2—can be read from the eigenmode decomposition without being imposed in the reconstruction.
  • Coherence loss under inelastic scattering becomes quantitatively measurable through the purity of the reconstructed state (0.54 to 0.21 in the carbon plasmon case).
  • Post-selecting a specific final electron OAM state would, by entanglement, prepare a correlated vortex excitation in the sample—a route to structured surface plasmon polaritons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's interpretation would vary the energy window: narrowing the traced-over energy range should raise the recovered purity if the apparent decoherence is partly an artifact of partial tracing, exactly as the paper suggests.
  • The same OAM-tomography pipeline could be applied to other inelastic signals—phonon scattering, core losses, or excitons—where final states are not known in advance; the eigenstate decomposition would supply them.
  • One could also prepare a deliberately decohered probe with known statistics and run the reconstruction; if the dipole eigenstates still appear, they are being created by the soft constraints rather than revealed by the data.
  • The small splitting between the second and third eigenvalues might be mapped as a function of probe focus or sample thickness, offering a way to detect the delocalisation effects the Monte Carlo plane-wave model intentionally omits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a quantum-tomography measurement of the orbital-angular-momentum (OAM) degree of freedom of an electron beam after inelastic scattering from an amorphous carbon film. The authors combine OAM-resolved EELS and angular EFTEM profiles, then reconstruct an 11×11 density matrix using constrained maximum-likelihood estimation with soft priors. Diagonalization yields eigenstates that they interpret as transition channels: the leading eigenstate matches the input probe, and subsequent eigenstates show Δm=±1 (dipole) and weaker Δm=±2 structures. A Monte Carlo model based on momentum-space translation qualitatively reproduces part of the eigenstate structure. The Conclusions assert that "full EELS quantum-state tomography is achieved in a discrete orbital-angular-momentum basis" and that the reconstruction "automatically recovers" dipole selection rules and symmetry breaking.

Significance. If the reconstructed density matrix were actually determined by the data, the approach would introduce a genuinely new observable for EELS: eigenstate decomposition of the post-scattering electron state would connect selection rules, coherence, and sample excitations. The experimental apparatus—OAM sorter combined with energy filtering—is nontrivial, and the manuscript is unusually candid in stating that the inversion is underdetermined. The constrained MLE implementation and the Monte Carlo model are clearly described. However, the central interpretive claims are not supported by the number of independent measurements; the soft constraints play a leading role in producing the reported eigenstate structure, and the simulation model is ad hoc. The paper's value at present is as a proof of principle for the measurement scheme rather than as a demonstration of full tomography.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results and Conclusions] The paper's own count (Results: "120 independent real parameters" versus "11 coefficients from the OAM-resolved EELS data and approximately 21 from the angular intensity profile") shows that the measurement map has a null space of dimension roughly 88. The Conclusions claim that "Full EELS quantum-state tomography is achieved in a discrete orbital-angular-momentum basis" is therefore unsupported by the data alone. The inversion is closed by the soft constraints in Eq. S1, not by the measurements. Please either add the missing projective measurements needed for information completeness or rephrase the core claim as a regularized/constrained reconstruction. This is not a presentation issue; it determines what the eigenstates mean physically.
  2. [Supplementary Eq. S1, Uprobe and Eq. S3] The implemented Uprobe penalizes differences of moduli |ρ_ll'| − |ρ^(0)_ll'|, not the trace-distance closeness promised in the main text. Since ρ^(0) is essentially supported on m=±4 and m=0 (Eq. S3) and the optimizer is initialized at ρ^(0), the leading eigenstate's resemblance to the probe is expected by construction. The observed Δm=±1 eigenstates can also emerge from the interplay between Uprobe and the data terms without the data requiring them. Please report reconstructions without Uprobe, with substantially varied λ3, and with different initializations, and quantify how the eigenstate spectrum and purity change. The statement that these eigenstates are "not imposed as a prior" is insufficient without this sensitivity analysis.
  3. [Eq. (2) and Monte Carlo section] The simulation treats inelastic scattering as an incoherent average over plane-wave momentum translations with q=k_p and explicitly ignores delocalization and shape factors. This model is adopted for analytical tractability, not derived from the microscopic dielectric response of amorphous carbon. The Δm=±1 dipole structure in the simulated eigenstates therefore reflects the angular-momentum structure of the translation model as much as the physics of plasmon scattering. To support the dipole-selection-rule claim, test the robustness of the eigenstate decomposition against a more realistic interaction kernel—for example, a finite-width momentum distribution, a q-dependent coupling, or the measured angular dependence of the EELS signal. As written, the simulation is partly circular.
  4. [Reconstruction algorithm and Fig. 2] No identifiability or null-space analysis is provided. Repeating the optimization ten times with experimental errors (Fig. 2 caption) only samples the optimizer's basin around the same prior; it does not probe the null space of the measurement map. Please characterize the family of density matrices consistent with the data—for example, by randomizing null-space directions, computing the condition number of the relevant Fisher information, or benchmarking the algorithm on simulated data with a known true state. Without this, the reported purity (P=0.21), the ordering of eigenstates, and the claimed symmetry breaking cannot be distinguished from artifacts of regularization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Eq. S1] Typo: "contraint" should be "constraint."
  2. [Supplementary Eq. S3] The 0.14 amplitude of the |0⟩ component in the probe model is introduced without immediate justification; the origin in the hologram amplitude modulation should be stated at the equation, not only in the later derivation.
  3. [Results, vortex plasmon paragraph] The speculation about generating vortex plasmons or SPPs with nonzero topological charge is a forward-looking proposal. It should be clearly marked as such and separated from the demonstrated experimental results.
  4. [Fig. 2-D caption] The caption calls the eigenstate decomposition "qualitative." Since the full complex coefficients are in the Supplementary Information, a quantitative statement of the dominant components (e.g., weights or overlap with |±4⟩) would make the figure self-contained.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Leading eigenstate is pinned by the probe-similarity prior, and the claimed dipole eigenstates are selected by priors in an explicitly under-determined inversion, not independently determined by the data.

  1. self definitional [Results, 'Experimental results'; Supplementary Eq. S1 and 'Density matrix reconstruction via constrained maximum-likelihood estimation' (Uprobe; initialization)]
    "First, the dominant eigenstate closely matches the input probe state, which is consistent with the reconstruction constraint that the post-scattering state remains close to the elastic reference. ... Uprobe = Σ_{ℓ,ℓ′} ||ρ_{ℓℓ′}|−|ρ^{(0)}_{ℓℓ′}||^2 ... The initial probe was modelled as ... |ψ0⟩ = N(|−4⟩ + |+4⟩ + 0.14|0⟩)."

    The cost Uprobe minimizes the distance between |ρ_{ℓℓ′}| and |ρ^{(0)}_{ℓℓ′}|, and ρ^{(0)}=|ψ0⟩⟨ψ0| is the input probe state; the optimizer is initialised from this same elastic-state matrix. The dominant eigenstate of ρ^{(0)} is |ψ0⟩ itself. Therefore the finding that the reconstructed dominant eigenstate 'closely matches the input probe state' is forced by the definition of the prior, not an independent validation of the tomography.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Results, 'Experimental results' (underdetermination statement and eigenstate analysis, Fig. 2-D)]
    "The inverse problem is therefore under-determined. We introduce additional a priori information ... This result was not imposed as a prior assumption in the reconstruction and arises as an outcome of data-driven density matrix analysis."

    With 11 OAM coefficients and about 21 angular Fourier coefficients for 120 independent real density-matrix parameters, the angular intensity fixes only sums of the form Σ_ℓ ρ_{ℓ,ℓ−k}; the remaining freedom is resolved by Uprobe, Usym, and initialization at ρ^{(0)}. The Δm=±1 eigenstates presented as data-driven selection rules are therefore selected by the priors in an under-determined fit; calling them 'not imposed as a prior' does not show that the data require them.

full rationale

The experimental OAM-EELS and angular EFTEM data are real, and the paper openly acknowledges that the inversion is under-determined (11+~21 observables vs 120 parameters). That admission is the key to the circularity: the reconstruction is completed by the soft constraints in Eq. S1, especially Uprobe, which ties the solution to the elastic probe density matrix ρ^{(0)} and initialises the optimization there. Consequently the paper's own confirmation that the dominant eigenstate matches the input probe state is a direct consequence of the constraint, not independent evidence; and the Δm=±1 'dipole' eigenstates are not shown to be uniquely determined by the measurements. Because the paper does not provide identifiability, null-space, or sensitivity analysis, the conclusion that the tomography 'automatically recovers' dipole selection rules goes beyond what the data alone can establish. This is partial circularity: the prior inputs are renamed as data-driven outcomes. The sorter calibration and elastic-state baseline are independent resources, and the raw spectra are not fabricated, so I do not rate this as fully circular (8-10).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The reconstruction depends on several unverified modeling simplifications and on hand-chosen regularization weights; the most important are the tracing over radial/energy degrees of freedom and the priors used to make the inverse problem solvable.

free parameters (4)
  • λ1, λ2, λ3 regularization weights
    In Supplementary Eq. (S1), these weights balance OAM fit, angular fit, symmetry, and probe-similarity constraints. Their values are not reported, yet they determine how much the reconstruction is pulled toward the elastic-state prior and thus shape the eigenstate decomposition and purity.
  • 0.14 amplitude of |0⟩ in probe model = 0.14
    The initial probe is modeled as N(|−4⟩+|+4⟩+0.14|0⟩) in the Supplementary Information. This coefficient is chosen to match the imperfect realized petal beam and enters the reference density matrix used in the probe-similarity constraint.
  • OAM truncation |ℓ|≤5 = 5
    The density matrix is restricted to d=11. This truncation is chosen by hand; it excludes higher-order modes, and the paper notes that fine angular features lie beyond this truncated basis.
  • kp,max(ΔE) momentum cutoff
    In Eq. (2), the integration cutoff is determined by energy loss via the plasmon dispersion but is not concretely specified; it controls the simulation's OAM redistribution.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard density-matrix formalism and weak-interaction (first-order) scattering assumptions
    Used throughout; the reduced density matrix after tracing over the sample/environment is assumed to describe the electron state.
  • domain assumption No coherence between different transferred momenta q and q′ (δ(q−q′) in Eq. S4 and Eq. 2)
    The plasmon is modeled as a plane wave; this delta function is imposed, not derived, and it discards coherence between different momentum transfers.
  • domain assumption OAM sorter conformal mapping remains valid for partially coherent beams
    The paper states this "appears to remain valid" but provides no proof; the reconstruction depends on interpreting measured intensities as OAM/angular projections.
  • domain assumption Radial degree of freedom is negligible or can be traced out
    Stated in Results: "on the assumption that contributions from different radial modes are either negligible or effectively traced out"; radial mixing near the sorter needle is acknowledged as a limitation.
  • ad hoc to paper Post-scattering state is close to the elastic-state density matrix and approximately m-symmetric
    These are the priors U_probe and U_sym used to make the underdetermined inversion solvable; they directly shape the output eigenstates.
  • ad hoc to paper Plasmon interaction can be treated as dispersion-limited plane-wave momentum exchange without delocalization or shape factors
    Used in the Monte Carlo model (Eq. 2 and Supplementary Information); the authors acknowledge this simplification.
invented entities (1)
  • Vortex plasmon / surface plasmon polariton with nonzero topological charge
    purpose: Proposed as a state that could be prepared by post-selecting the electron OAM after inelastic scattering
    Speculated in the Discussion; no experimental measurement or external falsifiable prediction is provided, so it remains a proposal, not a demonstrated entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum tomography of inelastic electron scattering \emph{via} orbital angular momentum states." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U7KTULQM

@misc{pith2026260729565,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum tomography of inelastic electron scattering \emphvia orbital angular momentum states},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U7KTULQM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.29565}
}
read the original abstract

The physical properties of a quantum system, whether pure or mixed, are described fully by its density matrix. Recovery of the density matrix through projective measurements -- referred to as quantum state tomography -- is a cornerstone of quantum optics and metrology. The implementation of this approach in transmission electron microscopy, in particular for the characterisation of an electron beam after inelastic scattering, has remained a longstanding challenge as a result of the complexity of scanning high-dimensional phase spaces, with the number of required measurements growing quadratically with space dimensionality. Here, we introduce a simplified approach by restricting tomography to the electron orbital angular momentum (OAM) subspace. By using an electron optical device known as an OAM sorter, we discretise the phase space into a finite set of measurable states, thus significantly reducing the experimental and computational burden. The resulting measurements suffice to probe essential features of inelastic scattering. We demonstrate the technique by studying the inelastic scattering of a structured electron probe exciting volume plasmons in a carbon film. The combined use of a structured beams and OAM-resolved quantum tomography reveals symmetry-breaking effects and offers insight into the coherence and evolution of the scattered quantum states. Analysis of the diagonalised density matrices further reveals the nature of the induced state transitions, demonstrating the power of the approach for quantum tomography of electron scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29565 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Quantum Mechanics

    Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Bernard Diu, and Franck Lalo ¨e. Quantum Mechanics. Wiley, 1991

    1991

  2. [2]

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction.Nature, 474(7350):188–191, 2011

    JeffS Lundeen, Brandon Sutherland, Aabid Patel, Corey Stew- art, and Charles Bamber. Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction.Nature, 474(7350):188–191, 2011

    2011

  3. [3]

    Quantum enhanced phase retrieval.Optica, 3(2):193–199, 2016

    Liat Liberman, Yonatan Israel, Eilon Poem, and Yaron Silber- berg. Quantum enhanced phase retrieval.Optica, 3(2):193–199, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert

    David Gross, Yi-Kai Liu, Steven T. Flammia, Stephen Becker, and Jens Eisert. Quantum state tomography via compressed sensing.Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:150401, Oct 2010

    2010

  5. [5]

    D. Ahn, Y . S. Teo, H. Jeong, F. Bouchard, F. Hufnagel, E. Karimi, D. Koutn ´y, J. ˇReh´aˇcek, Z. Hradil, G. Leuchs, and L. L. S´anchez-Soto. Adaptive compressive tomography with no a priori information.Phys. Rev. Lett., 122:100404, Mar 2019

    2019

  6. [6]

    Biphoton state reconstruction via phase retrieval methods.Optica, 11(8):1115–1123, 2024

    Nazanin Dehghan, Alessio D’Errico, Francesco Di Colandrea, and Ebrahim Karimi. Biphoton state reconstruction via phase retrieval methods.Optica, 11(8):1115–1123, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Schattschneider, M

    P. Schattschneider, M. Nelhiebel, and B. Jouffrey. Density ma- trix of inelastically scattered fast electrons.Physical Review B, 59(16):10959–10969, 1999

    1999

  8. [8]

    Schattschneider, M

    P. Schattschneider, M. Nelhiebel, H. Souchay, and B. Jouffrey. The physical significance of the mixed dynamic form factor. Micron, 31(4):333–345, 2000. 9

    2000

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Gerchberg and W.O

    R.W. Gerchberg and W.O. Saxton. A Practical Algorithm for the Determination of Phase from Image and Diffraction Plane Pictures.Optik, 35(2):237–246, 1972

    1972

  2. [10]

    J. R. Fienup. Phase retrieval algorithms: a comparison.Applied Optics, 21(15):2758, aug 1982

    1982

  3. [11]

    A. J. Rodenburg. Ptychography and related diffractive imag- ing methods.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Soci- ety of London. Series A: Physical and Engineering Sciences, 339(1655):521–553, 1992

    1992

  4. [12]

    Tate, Jiwoong Park, Sol M

    Yi Jiang, Zhen Chen, Yimo Han, Pratiti Deb, Hui Gao, Saien Xie, Prafull Purohit, Mark W. Tate, Jiwoong Park, Sol M. Gruner, Veit Elser, and David A. Muller. Electron ptychog- raphy of 2D materials to deep sub-ångstr¨om resolution.Nature, 559(7714):343–349, jul 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    Martinez, Martin Simson, Martin Huth, Henning Ryll, Heike Soltau, Ryusuke Sagawa, Yukihito Kondo, Colin Ophus, Peter Ercius, Lei Jin, Andr´as Kov´acs, and Peter D

    Hao Yang, Ian MacLaren, Lewys Jones, Gerardo T. Martinez, Martin Simson, Martin Huth, Henning Ryll, Heike Soltau, Ryusuke Sagawa, Yukihito Kondo, Colin Ophus, Peter Ercius, Lei Jin, Andr´as Kov´acs, and Peter D. Nellist. Electron ptycho- graphic phase imaging of light elements...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Transfer and reconstruction of the density matrix in off-axis electron holography.Ultrami- croscopy, 146:103–116, nov 2014

    Falk R ¨oder and Axel Lubk. Transfer and reconstruction of the density matrix in off-axis electron holography.Ultrami- croscopy, 146:103–116, nov 2014

    2014

  7. [15]

    K. E. Priebe, C. Rathje, S. V . Yalunin, T. Hohage, A. Feist, S. Schafer, and C. Ropers. Attosecond electron pulse trains and quantum state reconstruction in ultrafast transmission electron microscopy.Nature Photonics, 11:793–797, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Bucher, G

    T. Bucher, G. Liao, C. Ropers, and A. Feist. Free-electron ramsey-type interferometry for enhanced amplitude and phase imaging of nearfields.Science Advances, 9(eadi5729), 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    J. H. Gaida, H. Lourenc ¸o-Martins, M. Sivis, S. V . Yalunin, A. Feist, and C. Ropers. Attosecond electron microscopy by free-electron homodyne detection.Nature Photonics, 18:509– 515, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Iwashimizu, M

    C. Iwashimizu, M. Haruta, and H. Kurata. Electron orbital map- ping of srtio3 using electron energy-loss spectroscopy.Applied Physics Letters, 119(23):232902, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Haas and C

    B. Haas and C. T. Koch. Advances in electron microscopy tech- niques.Microscopy and Microanalysis, 28(S1):1–2, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Tavabi, Federico Venturi, Hugo Larocque, Roberto Balboni, Gian Carlo Gazzadi, Stefano Frab- boni, Peng-Han Lu, Erfan Mafakheri, Fr ´ed´eric Bouchard, Rafal E

    Vincenzo Grillo, Amir H. Tavabi, Federico Venturi, Hugo Larocque, Roberto Balboni, Gian Carlo Gazzadi, Stefano Frab- boni, Peng-Han Lu, Erfan Mafakheri, Fr ´ed´eric Bouchard, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, Robert W. Boyd, Martin P. J. Lav- ery, Miles J. Padgett, and Ebrahim Karimi....

    2017

  13. [21]

    Amir H. Tavabi, Paolo Rosi, Enzo Rotunno, Alberto Roncaglia, Luca Belsito, Stefano Frabboni, Giulio Pozzi, Gian Carlo Gaz- zadi, Peng-Han Lu, Robert Nijland, Moumita Ghosh, Peter Tiemeijer, Ebrahim Karimi, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, and Vincenzo Grillo. Experimental Demonstrati...

    2021

  14. [22]

    Roadmap on structured waves.Journal of Optics, 25(10):103001, 2023

    Konstantin Y Bliokh, Ebrahim Karimi, Miles J Padgett, Miguel A Alonso, Mark R Dennis, Angela Dudley, Andrew Forbes, Sina Zahedpour, Scott W Hancock, Howard M Milch- berg, et al. Roadmap on structured waves.Journal of Optics, 25(10):103001, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Radial coherent and in- telligent states¡? a3b2 show [pmg: line-break justify=” yes”/]?¿ of paraxial wave equation.Optics letters, 37(13):2484–2486, 2012

    Ebrahim Karimi and Enrico Santamato. Radial coherent and in- telligent states¡? a3b2 show [pmg: line-break justify=” yes”/]?¿ of paraxial wave equation.Optics letters, 37(13):2484–2486, 2012

    2012

  16. [24]

    Radial quantum number of laguerre- gauss modes.Physical review A, 89(6):063813, 2014

    E Karimi, RW Boyd, P De La Hoz, H De Guise, J ˇReh´aˇcek, Z Hradil, and A Aiello. Radial quantum number of laguerre- gauss modes.Physical review A, 89(6):063813, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    Exploring the quantum nature of the radial degree of freedom of a photon via hong-ou-mandel interference.Physical Review A, 89(1):013829, 2014

    Ebrahim Karimi, Daniel Giovannini, Eliot Bolduc, Nicolas Bent, Filippo M Miatto, Miles J Padgett, and Robert W Boyd. Exploring the quantum nature of the radial degree of freedom of a photon via hong-ou-mandel interference.Physical Review A, 89(1):013829, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Physical meaning of the radial index of laguerre-gauss beams.Physical Review A, 92(6):063841, 2015

    William N Plick and Mario Krenn. Physical meaning of the radial index of laguerre-gauss beams.Physical Review A, 92(6):063841, 2015

    2015

  19. [27]

    W. K. Wootters and B. D. Fields. Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements.Annals of Physics, 191(2):363–381, 1989

    1989

  20. [28]

    Derka, V

    R. Derka, V . Buˇzek, and A. Ekert. Universal algorithm for op- timal estimation of quantum states from finite ensembles via realizable generalized measurement.Physical Review Letters, 80(8):1571–1575, 1998

    1998

  21. [29]

    A. J. Scott. Tight informationally complete quantum mea- surements.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 39(43):13507–13530, 2006

    2006

  22. [30]

    Quantum state tomography with fully symmetric measurements and product measurements.Physical Review A, 84(2):022327, 2011

    Huangjun Zhu and Berthold-Georg Englert. Quantum state tomography with fully symmetric measurements and product measurements.Physical Review A, 84(2):022327, 2011

    2011

  23. [31]

    Experimental realization of quantum tomography of photonic qudits via symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valued measures.Physical Review X, 5(4):041006, 2015

    H Qassim, AA Tahir, D Sych, G Leuchs, LL S ´anchez-Soto, E Karimi, and RW Boyd. Experimental realization of quantum tomography of photonic qudits via symmetric informationally complete positive operator-valued measures.Physical Review X, 5(4):041006, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    On mutually unbiased bases.International journal of quantum information, 8(04):535–640, 2010

    Thomas Durt, Berthold-Georg Englert, Ingemar Bengtsson, and Karol ˙Zyczkowski. On mutually unbiased bases.International journal of quantum information, 8(04):535–640, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Mutu- ally unbiased bases in six dimensions: The four most distant bases.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 83(6):062303, 2011

    Philippe Raynal, Xin L ¨u, and Berthold-Georg Englert. Mutu- ally unbiased bases in six dimensions: The four most distant bases.Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, 83(6):062303, 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Measuring the orbital angular mo- mentum of electron vortex beams using a forked grating.Phys- ical review letters, 111(7):074801, 2013

    Koh Saitoh, Yuya Hasegawa, Kazuma Hirakawa, Nobuo Tanaka, and Masaya Uchida. Measuring the orbital angular mo- mentum of electron vortex beams using a forked grating.Phys- ical review letters, 111(7):074801, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Limitations to the determination of a laguerre–gauss spectrum via projective, phase-flattening measurement.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 31(6):A20–A23, 2014

    Hammam Qassim, Filippo M Miatto, Juan P Torres, Miles J Padgett, Ebrahim Karimi, and Robert W Boyd. Limitations to the determination of a laguerre–gauss spectrum via projective, phase-flattening measurement.Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 31(6):A20–A23, 2014

    2014

  28. [36]

    Efficient sorting of orbital angular momentum states of light.Physical review letters, 105(15):153601, 2010

    Gregorius CG Berkhout, Martin PJ Lavery, Johannes Courtial, Marco W Beijersbergen, and Miles J Padgett. Efficient sorting of orbital angular momentum states of light.Physical review letters, 105(15):153601, 2010

    2010

  29. [37]

    Mohammad Mirhosseini, Mehul Malik, Zhimin Shi, and Robert W. Boyd. Efficient separation of the orbital angu- lar momentum eigenstates of light.Nature Communications, 4(1):2781, dec 2013

    2013

  30. [38]

    Tavabi, Rafal E

    Paolo Rosi, Federico Venturi, Giacomo Medici, Claudia Menozzi, Gian Carlo Gazzadi, Enzo Rotunno, Stefano Frab- boni, Roberto Balboni, Mohammadreza Rezaee, Amir H. Tavabi, Rafal E. Dunin-Borkowski, Ebrahim Karimi, and Vin- cenzo Grillo. Theoretical and practical aspects of the ...

    2022

  31. [39]

    A compact diffractive sorter 10 for high-resolution demultiplexing of orbital angular momen- tum beams.Scientific Reports, 8(1):10248, jul 2018

    Gianluca Ruffato, Marcello Girardi, Michele Massari, Er- fan Mafakheri, Bereneice Sephton, Pietro Capaldo, Andrew Forbes, and Filippo Romanato. A compact diffractive sorter 10 for high-resolution demultiplexing of orbital angular momen- tum beams.Scientific Reports, 8(1):10248...

    2018

  32. [40]

    First demonstration of angular- momentum-resolved electron energy-loss spectroscopy, jul 2024

    Giovanni Bertoni, Amir Tavabi, Paolo Rosi, Enzo Rotunno, Luca Belsito, Alberto Roncaglia, Stefano Frabboni, Ebrahim Karimi, Peter Tiemeijer, Rafal Dunin-Borkowski, Vincenzo Grillo, and Gian Carlo Gazzadi. First demonstration of angular- momentum-resolved electron energy-loss s...

    2024

  33. [41]

    Verbeeck, D

    J. Verbeeck, D. van Dyck, H. Lichte, P. Potapov, and P. Schattschneider. Plasmon holographic experiments: theo- retical framework.Ultramicroscopy, 102(3):239–255, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    Harscher, H

    A. Harscher, H. Lichte, and J. Mayer. Interference experiments with energy filtered electrons.Ultramicroscopy, 69(3):201– 209, 1997

    1997

  35. [43]

    P. L. Potapov, J. Verbeeck, P. Schattschneider, H. Lichte, and D. van Dyck. Inelastic electron holography as a variant of the feynman thought experiment.Ultramicroscopy, 107(7):559– 567, 2007

    2007

  36. [44]

    Measurement of qubits.Physical Review A, 64(5):052312, 2001

    Daniel FV James, Paul G Kwiat, William J Munro, and An- drew G White. Measurement of qubits.Physical Review A, 64(5):052312, 2001

    2001

  37. [45]

    R. Egerton. Electron energy-loss spectroscopy in the tem.Ul- tramicroscopy, 107(6):575–586, 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    QUANTUM TOMOGRAPHY OF INELASTIC ELECTRON SCATTERING VIA ORBITAL ANGULAR MOMENTUM STATES

    H. Larocque, F. Bouchard, V . Grillo, A. Sit, S. Frabboni, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, M. J. Padgett, R. W. Boyd, and E. Karimi. Mapping atomic orbitals with the transmission electron micro- scope.Physical Review Letters, 117(15):154801, 2016. 11 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR: “QUA...

    2016

  39. [47]

    The condenser-plane image of the probe is shifted laterally according toq

  40. [48]

    The resulting image is converted into log-polar coordinates:θ=atan2(y,x),κ=log(x 2 +y 2)

  41. [49]

    A 2D Fourier transform is applied to obtain the wavefunction in (ℓ,κ) space

  42. [50]

    The final OAM density matrix is obtained by averaging overNrealizations: ρℓℓ′ = 1 N X q ρ(q) ℓℓ′

    The pure-state density matrix is formed and a partial trace over the radial coordinate is performed: ρℓℓ′ = X κ ψ∗(ℓ,κ)ψ(ℓ′,κ). The final OAM density matrix is obtained by averaging overNrealizations: ρℓℓ′ = 1 N X q ρ(q) ℓℓ′. This method accounts for incoherent averaging over ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.