Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

The orientation of a dc electric field can be recovered from the polarization-dependent amplitudes of Stark-split Rydberg EIT resonances.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

Polarization-dependent amplitudes of Stark-split Rydberg EIT resonances can reveal static electric field orientation, enabling vector dc electrometry.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid demonstration that dc Stark-split Rydberg EIT peak areas track electric field orientation; the missing piece is a direct test of the longitudinal-angle dependence, which is handed to us by a model with a known blind spot. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.09676 v1 pith:ZKHXQQEJ submitted 2026-01-14 physics.atom-ph

Static dc electric field orientation effects on two-photon Rydberg EIT

Rob Behary , William Torg , Mykhailo Vorobiov , Nicolas DeStefano , Adam Vernon , Charles T. Fancher , Neel Malvania , Eugeniy E. Mikhailov
show 2 more authors
Seth Aubin Irina Novikova
This is my paper
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.60.+i42.50.Gy
keywords Rydberg EITStark splittingelectric field vectorpolarization selection ruleselectromagnetically induced transparencyRb vaporfluorescence imagingvector electrometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 the orientation of a static dc electric field can be reconstructed from the polarization-dependent amplitudes and areas of Stark-split Rydberg EIT resonances. By rotating the polarizations of the two EIT lasers and observing which |mJ| resonance grows or shrinks, the authors extract both the azimuthal and longitudinal angles of the field. They demonstrate this for a uniform field and for the inhomogeneous field near a biased wire, using fluorescence imaging to map the field in space. If correct, this turns a standard scalar Rydberg electrometer into a vector electrometer that does not perturb the field with a local oscillator. The central tool is a semi-analytical model of transition dipole weights; exact numerical calculations validate it for the |mJ|=5/2 and 1/2 peaks.

Core claim

The core claim is that the relative orientation between a static dc electric field and the laser polarization leaves a measurable fingerprint in the EIT spectrum: the |mJ|=5/2 peak of the 46D5/2 Rydberg manifold is strongest when the laser polarization is perpendicular to the field and vanishes when parallel, while the |mJ|=1/2 peak behaves oppositely. The authors argue that by synchronously rotating the two laser polarizations and tracking these peak areas, one can determine the azimuthal angle of the field; the longitudinal angle is inferred from how strongly the polarization dependence is reduced as the field tips toward the propagation direction. They support this with a semi-analytical

What carries the argument

The mechanism is two-photon Rydberg EIT in rubidium vapor, where a 780 nm probe and 480 nm coupling laser excite a 46D5/2 Rydberg state that is split into |mJ|=1/2, 3/2, 5/2 sublevels by a dc Stark shift. Polarization selection rules — π transitions (Δm=0) versus σ± transitions (Δm=±1) — make the amplitude of each Stark-split EIT resonance depend on the angle between the field and the laser polarizations. The paper's central object is a semi-analytical model that computes each transition dipole moment as a sum of hyperfine-to-fine-structure matrix elements weighted by the projection of the laser polarization onto the field-axis frame, then builds EIT spectra as sums of Gaussians; this model

Load-bearing premise

The entire longitudinal (θE) reconstruction rests on the semi-analytical model, because the experimental setup cannot tilt the electric field to verify the model's θE predictions directly — and that same model is known to fail qualitatively for the |mJ|=3/2 peak.

What would settle it

Directly vary the electric field orientation (e.g., rotate the capacitor plates or use a three-axis electrode arrangement) and measure the |mJ|=5/2 and |mJ|=1/2 peak areas as a function of known θE; if the measured curves deviate from the semi-analytical model as much as the |mJ|=3/2 peak does, the reconstructed longitudinal angle is unreliable.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A Rydberg EIT setup can serve as a vector electrometer for dc fields, returning both magnitude and direction from frequency shifts and polarization-dependent peak areas.
  • Fluorescence-based detection extends this to spatial mapping of inhomogeneous fields, as demonstrated by reconstructing the field near a biased wire.
  • Because no local oscillator field is added, the method avoids disturbing charge distributions, unlike interferometric vector rf field sensors.
  • Ambiguities remain: the method cannot distinguish φE from φE+180° nor θE from 180°−θE; a magnetic field or other symmetry-breaking axis would be needed to resolve them.
  • The |mJ|=3/2 resonance is not captured by the semi-analytical model in all geometries, so current vector extraction relies on the other two peaks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors' own admission that the semi-analytical model fails for the |mJ|=3/2 peak, combined with the impossibility of directly varying the field orientation, suggests the longitudinal angle reconstruction is the least tested part of the method; a tilting-field experiment would be a direct check.
  • The method could be extended to lower principal quantum numbers, where the authors note the |mJ|=5/2 resonance becomes more attractive, potentially improving sensitivity in field-gradient environments.
  • Adding a known magnetic field to break the inversion symmetry could resolve the φE+180° and θE−180° ambiguities, at the cost of a more complex Stark–Zeeman model.
  • If the model's θE dependence is validated, the same polarization-rotation technique could be applied to plasma-sheath and electron-beam charge distributions, where the authors list these as targets.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports measurements of two-photon Rydberg EIT in warm Rb vapor under a static dc electric field, focusing on how the amplitudes and areas of the Stark-split EIT resonances depend on the relative orientation of the laser polarization and the electric field. The authors present two complementary theoretical descriptions: a computationally light semi-analytic model based on dipole matrix elements and ARC Stark maps, and a full density-matrix calculation. They validate both against laboratory maps of EIT peak areas as a function of laser polarization angles. They then apply fluorescence-based EIT imaging to the inhomogeneous field near a biased wire, extracting spatial maps of field magnitude and comparing measured mJ = 1/2 peak areas with the semi-analytic model's predictions for the longitudinal angle θE and azimuthal angle φE. The paper concludes that simultaneous analysis of Stark shifts and polarization-dependent EIT amplitudes may enable vector electrometry of electrostatic fields.

Significance. If fully established, the proposed method would provide a route to dc vector electric-field sensing in vapor cells, with applications to electron-beam characterization, plasma diagnostics, and field imaging. The paper's main strength is its experimental maps of EIT peak areas versus polarization orientation, which are compared with two independent models; importantly, the exact density-matrix calculation reproduces the |mJ|=3/2 peak that the semi-analytic model misses, lending credibility to the overall theoretical framework. The use of ARC-generated Stark maps and the explicit treatment of hyperfine structure are also positive features. However, the central vector-electrometry claim is only partially supported: the azimuthal angle is directly extracted from polarization scans, but the longitudinal-angle θE dependence is never independently verified and rests on a model whose failure for one of the three resonances is acknowledged. The paper is honest about this limitation, but the conclusion currently goes beyond what is experimentally demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Fig. 4(b)] The longitudinal-angle θE dependence is the load-bearing pillar of the 'vector electrometry' claim, yet it is not independently verified. The authors state in Section V that 'we cannot directly vary the orientation of the electric field' and must 'rely on the semi-analytical model for this information.' The θE values used in Fig. 4(b1) are not measured but computed from the point-charge approximation of Eq. (7). Because the same semi-analytic model is shown in Section IV to fail for the |mJ|=3/2 peak, its predictions for the unmeasured θE dependence are not sufficiently reliable to support full vector reconstruction. The paper should either validate the θE dependence with the exact density-matrix model of Appendix A, or restrict the demonstrated capability to azimuthal-angle sensing and frame the longitudinal reconstruction as a promising but unverified extension.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (2)-(4) and Fig. 2(d)] The exclusion of the |mJ|=3/2 peak from the analysis is problematic in the context of the later θE claims. The semi-analytic model 'does not fully capture' the 3/2 peak, and the paper disregards that resonance. However, this is the same model that subsequently provides the only theoretical basis for the θE dependence in Fig. 4(b2). The reader cannot assess whether the θE predictions suffer from the same missing physics that causes the 3/2 failure. The paper should quantify the discrepancy between the semi-analytic and exact models for the 3/2 peak, and ideally show the exact model's prediction for the θE dependence of the 1/2 and 5/2 peaks to confirm that the semi-analytic result is trustworthy for the angles used.
  3. [Eq. (5) and Fig. 4] The point-charge approximation for the wire field is used to compute both φE and θE, but this approximation is acknowledged to break down close to the wire: the authors attribute the Δy = 0 deviation to 'our assumption that the wire acts as a point charge breaks down this close to the wire.' Since the closest wire position is precisely the one with the largest field gradients and the most demanding test of the model, the quantitative θE values in Fig. 4(b1) are uncertain for that configuration. The paper should either verify the approximation against a finite-wire charge-distribution calculation or exclude the Δy = 0 case from the quantitative comparison and state the valid range of the reconstruction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V heading] The heading contains a typo: 'LONGITUDINALL Y VARYING' should read 'LONGITUDINALLY VARYING.'
  2. [Fig. 2] The color maps (b), (d), (f) would benefit from a shared color scale or at least a color bar, since the text makes comparisons between experiment and theory that are difficult to quantify from the current figure.
  3. [Eq. (2) and Section IV] The dependence of the modeled spectrum on the laser polarization angles φr and φb is not explicit in Eq. (2). It would be helpful to state directly that the dipole matrix elements in Eqs. (3) and (4) implicitly carry the polarization-angle dependence, and to define the sign conventions for φr and φb in the figure captions.
  4. [Appendix A] The exact numerical model depends on several parameters (γt, decay rates, and Doppler averaging), but the manuscript does not give the numerical values used for the plots. A short table of the parameters would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the EIT peak-area angular dependence is computed from dipole matrix elements and geometric weights, not fitted to the orientation data; self-citations are not load-bearing uniqueness claims.

full rationale

The central derivation chain (Eqs. 2–4) computes Stark-split EIT peak areas as sums of Gaussian resonances whose amplitudes are products of transition dipole matrix elements d_mF1→mF2 and d_mF2→mJ3, with angular weights w(θE, φE) obtained by projecting the electric field onto the laser polarization axis. No orientation-dependent parameter is fitted to data. The uniform-field experiment independently varies the laser polarization while the electric field direction is set by the capacitor geometry (field along x), and the exact density-matrix calculation, which includes the full hyperfine structure, reproduces the measured angular maps including the problematic |mJ| = 3/2 peak. The wire-field analysis uses the point-charge approximation (Eqs. 5–7) only to compute θE and φE from geometry; the semi-analytic model is then compared with the measured fluorescence peak areas rather than tuned to them. The paper explicitly acknowledges the limitation that θE cannot be independently varied in the current apparatus and that the semi-analytic model is the only source for the longitudinal dependence; this is an unvalidated assumption and a potential correctness risk, not a case of a prediction being equivalent by construction to its input. Self-citations ([18], [19], [25], [27]) support experimental techniques and applications, and the ARC-based Stark maps and dipole elements are external inputs. Thus, no circular step meeting the quoted-equation or fitted-parameter standard is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No fundamentally new entities are introduced. The main assumptions are standard atomic-physics inputs (Stark shifts, selection rules) plus modeling simplifications (incoherent ladder sum, point-charge wire). The free parameters are mostly scale/dephasing choices that do not directly encode the orientation being measured. The point-charge approximation is the most ad hoc element, and its breakdown is acknowledged.

free parameters (3)
  • γ_EIT = not specified
    Gaussian width in the semi-analytic model (Eq. 2); likely taken from experimental linewidth. Affects peak widths but not the relative areas used for orientation reconstruction.
  • γ_t (transit dephasing) = not specified
    Dephasing rate in the exact numerical model (Appendix A, Eq. A7). Not stated how it was chosen; if adjusted to match experimental spectra, the model-validation argument is weakened.
  • Overall peak-area scaling = not specified
    The semi-analytic model outputs unnormalized dipole-weight sums; comparing to experimental areas requires an overall scale factor that is not discussed.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Quadratic dc Stark shift hΔf = -(1/2) α_{|mJ|} E² with polarizabilities from ARC
    Used throughout (Eq. 1) to convert frequency shifts to field magnitude; taken from prior literature and ARC without independent verification in this paper.
  • standard math Electric field defines the quantization axis; only Δm=0,±1 optical transitions allowed
    Underpins the entire polarization-dependence mechanism (Section II).
  • domain assumption Semi-analytic model treats each mF ladder independently as an incoherent sum (Eq. 2)
    The model neglects interference between excitation paths and full hyperfine coherence, which the authors acknowledge causes failure for the |mJ|=3/2 peak (Section IV).
  • domain assumption Low-field regime with no Rydberg state mixing
    Stated in Section II: the quadratic shift and selection rules hold 'at least for relatively low electric field amplitudes that do not produce Rydberg state mixing'.
  • ad hoc to paper Point-charge approximation for the biased wire field (Eq. 5)
    The wire is treated as a point charge q0 despite being a 1.4 cm cylinder; the authors note this breaks down close to the wire (Δy=0).
  • standard math Doppler averaging over thermal velocity distribution and Lindblad decoherence model
    Appendix A uses standard Doppler broadening and Lindblad formalism; no new physics introduced.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Static dc electric field orientation effects on two-photon Rydberg EIT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKHXQQEJ

@misc{pith2026260109676,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Static dc electric field orientation effects on two-photon Rydberg EIT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKHXQQEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.09676}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We examine the influence of a static dc electric field on Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT) resonances that involve highly excited Rydberg states. Our focus is on how these resonances are altered when the relative orientation between the laser polarization and the external electric field vectors are varied. We experimentally demonstrate characteristic variations in the amplitude of the Stark-split EIT resonances, which can be explained by the selection rules in various geometries. We also present a simplified semi-analytical model that closely resembles the experimental observations. We use these findings to obtain information about the spatially inhomogeneous electric field, produced by a biased wire, using EIT fluorescence measurements that agrees with the expected angular dependencies. These results suggest that simultaneous analysis of frequency shifts and amplitudes of Rydberg EIT resonances may enable vector electrometry of electrostatic fields, necessary for many quantum sensing applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.09676 by Adam Vernon, Charles T. Fancher, Eugeniy E. Mikhailov, Irina Novikova, Mykhailo Vorobiov, Neel Malvania, Nicolas DeStefano, Rob Behary, Seth Aubin, William Torg.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Simplified energy level configuration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Experimental arrangement for uniform electric field measurements. The electric field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Fluorescence based electric field magnitude measure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    T. F. Gallagher,Rydberg Atoms, Cambridge Monographs on Atomic, Molecular and Chemical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

    1994

  2. [2]

    C. L. Holloway, M. T. Simons, J. A. Gordon, A. Di- enstfrey, D. A. Anderson, and G. Raithel, Electric field metrology for si traceability: Systematic measure- ment uncertainties in electromagnetically induced trans- parency in atomic vapor, Journal of Applied Physics121, 233106 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Schlossberger, N

    N. Schlossberger, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, A. P. Ro- tunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, M. T. Simons, A. A. Sheikh, E. B. Norrgard, S. P. Eckel, and C. L. Holloway, Rydberg states of alkali atoms in atomic vapour as si- traceable field probes and communications receivers, Na- ture Reviews Physics6, 606 (2024)

    2024

  4. [4]

    P. K. Elgee, J. C. Hill, K.-J. E. LeBlanc, G. D. Ko, P. D. Kunz, D. H. Meyer, and K. C. Cox, Satellite radio detec- tion via dual-microwave rydberg spectroscopy, Applied Physics Letters123, 084001 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    C. T. Fancher, D. R. Scherer, M. C. S. John, and B. L. S. Marlow, Rydberg atom electric field sensors for commu- nications and sensing, IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering2, 1 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    C. G. Wade, N. ˇSibali´ c, N. R. De Melo, J. M. Kondo, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Real-time near-field terahertz imaging with atomic optical fluorescence, Na- ture Photonics11, 40 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    L. A. Downes, L. Torralbo-Campo, and K. J. Weath- erill, A practical guide to terahertz imaging using ther- mal atomic vapour, New Journal of Physics25, 035002 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    L. A. Downes, A. R. MacKellar, D. J. Whiting, C. Bourgenot, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Full- field terahertz imaging at kilohertz frame rates using atomic vapor, Phys. Rev. X10, 011027 (2020)

    2020

  9. [9]

    Schlossberger, A

    N. Schlossberger, A. P. Rotunno, S. P. Eckel, E. B. Norrgard, D. Manchaiah, N. Prajapati, A. B. Artusio- Glimpse, S. Berweger, M. T. Simons, D. Shylla, W. J. Watterson, C. Patrick, A. Meraki, R. Talashila, A. Younes, D. S. La Mantia, and C. L. Holloway, Primary quantum thermometry of mm-wave blackbody radiation via induced state transfer in rydberg states...

    2025

  10. [10]

    Finkelstein, S

    R. Finkelstein, S. Bali, O. Firstenberg, and I. Novikova, A practical guide to electromagnetically induced trans- parency in atomic vapor, New Journal of Physics25, 035001 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    M. T. Simons, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, A. K. Robin- son, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, Rydberg atom- based sensors for radio-frequency electric field metrology, sensing, and communications, Measurement: Sensors18, 100273 (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    P. K. Elgee, K. C. Cox, J. C. Hill, P. D. Kunz, and D. H. Meyer, Complete three-dimensional vector polarimetry with a rydberg-atom rf electrometer, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 064012 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, Y. O. Dudin, V. L. Velichansky, A. S. Zibrov, and S. A. Zibrov, Vector mag- netometry based on electromagnetically induced trans- parency in linearly polarized light, Phys. Rev. A82, 033807 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    K. Cox, V. I. Yudin, A. V. Taichenachev, I. Novikova, and E. E. Mikhailov, Measurements of the magnetic field vector using multiple electromagnetically induced trans- parency resonances in Rb vapor, Phys. Rev. A83, 015801 (2011), arXiv:1011.0503 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    M. G. Maldonado, O. Rollins, A. Toyryla, J. A. McK- elvy, A. Matsko, I. Fan, Y. Li, Y.-J. Wang, J. Kitching, I. Novikova, and E. E. Mikhailov, Sensitivity of a vec- tor atomic magnetometer based on electromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Express32, 25062 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. K¨ ubler, and J. P. Shaffer, Atom-based vector microwave electrometry us- ing rubidium rydberg atoms in a vapor cell, Phys. Rev. 9 Lett.111, 063001 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    Y. Chen, C. Yuen, D. Arumugam, C. M. S. See, M. Debbah, and L. Hanzo, Polarization-aware doa detec- tion relying on a single rydberg atomic receiver (2025), arXiv:2508.17179 [cs.IT]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Schlossberger, T

    N. Schlossberger, T. McDonald, K. Su, R. Talashila, R. Behary, C. L. Patrick, D. Hammerland, E. E. Mikhailov, S. Aubin, I. Novikova, C. L. Holloway, and N. Prajapati, Two-dimensional imaging of electromag- netic fields via light-sheetfluorescence imaging with ryd- berg atoms, Opt. Lett.50, 7312 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Behary, K

    R. Behary, K. Su, N. DeStefano, M. Vorobiov, T. Averett, A. Camsonne, S. Zhang, C. T. Fancher, N. Malvania, E. E. Mikhailov, S. Aubin, and I. Novikova, Electron beam characterization via quantum coherent electric field imaging, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L042042 (2025)

    2025

  20. [20]

    Patrick, N

    L. Patrick, N. Schlossberger, D. F. Hammerland, N. Pra- japati, T. McDonald, S. Berweger, R. Talashila, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, and C. L. Holloway, Imaging of induced surface charge distribution effects in glass vapor cells used for rydberg atom-based sensors, A VS Quantum Science 7, 024401 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Schlossberger, R

    N. Schlossberger, R. Talashila, N. Prajapati, and C. L. Holloway, Angle-of-arrival detection of radio-frequency waves via rydberg-atom fluorescence imaging of standing waves in a glass vapor cell, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024056 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    G. Pati, D. Mechael, F. K. Fatemi, and R. Tripathi, Millimeter wave imaging using autler-townes splitting in- duced fluorescence from rydberg atoms in rubidium va- por (2025), arXiv:2510.11918 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    L. Ma, E. Paradis, and G. Raithel, Dc electric fields in electrode-free glass vapor cell by photoillumination, Opt. Express28, 3676 (2020)

    2020

  24. [24]

    ˇSibali´ c, J

    N. ˇSibali´ c, J. Pritchard, C. Adams, and K. Weatherill, Arc: An open-source library for calculating properties of alkali rydberg atoms, Computer Physics Communica- tions220, 319 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    K. Su, R. Behary, S. Aubin, E. E. Mikhailov, and I. Novikova, Two-photon rydberg eit resonances in non- collinear beam configurations, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B42, 757 (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Schlossberger, A

    N. Schlossberger, A. P. Rotunno, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, N. Prajapati, S. Berweger, D. Shylla, M. T. Simons, and C. L. Holloway, Zeeman-resolved autler-townes splitting in rydberg atoms with tunable resonances and a single transition dipole moment, Phys. Rev. A109, L021702 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    Vorobiov, R

    M. Vorobiov, R. Behary, W. Torg, N. DeStefano, S. Mordijck, E. T. Jr., S. C. Thakur, C. T. Fancher, N. Malvania, S. Aubin, E. E. Mikhailov, and I. Novikova, Non-perturbative 2d spatial measurements of electric fields within a plasma sheath (2025), arXiv:2511.12322 [physics.plasm-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    V. P. Gavrilenko, H. J. Kim, T. Ikutake, J. B. Kim, M. D. Bowden, and K. Muraoka, Method to measure the elec- tric field vector in an argon glow discharge using laser po- larization spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. E63, 047401 (2001)

    2001

  29. [29]

    B. Dash, X. Xiang, D. Feng, E. Paradis, and G. Raithel, Electric field diagnostics in a continuous rf plasma using rydberg-eit (2025), arXiv:2512.16867 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.