Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Quasiperiodic nondipole ionization dynamics in the x-ray stabilization regime

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 In the x-ray stabilization regime, the ionization yield oscillates with pulse duration, driven by slow Coulomb-induced orbiting of the continuum electron wave packet along the laser propagation direction.

desk verdict Plausible new mechanism for yield oscillations in x-ray stabilization, but the observable predictions rest on a 2D soft-core model with no dimensional-convergence check—worth a serious referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.06762 v3 pith:7YIIJTDQ submitted 2026-02-06 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Aleksandr V. Boitsov , Karen Z. Hatsagortsyan , Christoph H. Keitel This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords quasiperiodicionizationyieldstabilizationregimenondipoleeffectsCoulombmomentumtransferx-rayfree-electronlaserFoldy-WouthuysenKramers-Hennebergerpotentialphotonsharing
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 argues that when an atom is ionized by a very intense, high-frequency x-ray pulse—parameters where the electron quiver amplitude exceeds the atomic size and the ionization probability normally saturates—the yield is not monotonic in pulse length. Instead it oscillates quasiperiodically as the pulse is stretched, with a period set by a slow Coulomb-induced wobble of the ionized electron wave packet along the laser propagation direction. In the nondipole regime this orbiting, not the usual dynamic interference, is the controlling mechanism; the Coulomb force periodically slows the drifting packet at turning points, transferring momentum back toward the laser source. The authors further analyze how absorbed photon momentum is shared between photoelectron and ion, finding that for the near-zero-energy peak the photoelectron can end up moving opposite to the laser propagation direction because of Coulomb momentum transfer. If true, pulse-duration-dependent yield oscillations and direction-reversed photoelectrons become observable signatures of nondipole stabilization physics at upcoming x-ray free-electron lasers.

What carries the argument

The central object is an Ehrenfest-equation description of the wave-packet expectation values ⟨x(t)⟩, ⟨z(t)⟩, with the Coulomb force averaged over the fast laser-driven motion. Splitting motion into fast oscillations (quiver amplitude α0, drift) and slow motion in the Kramers-Henneberger potential gives a harmonic oscillator for the slow propagation-direction coordinate with frequency Ω = sqrt(Z)/(a_s²+α0²)^{3/4}. This slow oscillator, together with the Coulomb momentum transfer ⟨p_C⟩ = -∫⟨∇V⟩dt, links pulse duration to yield and to the sign of the photoelectron momentum.

What would settle it

Measure the ionization yield of He-like ions as a function of pulse duration at ~400 eV photon energy and intensities around 10^21 W/cm² (or run a 3D TDSE calculation with the same parameters): if the yield does not show quasiperiodic dips and peaks with period scaling like (a_s²+α0²)^{3/4}/sqrt(Z), the central claim is refuted. Equivalently, verifying that near-zero-energy photoelectrons have negative average momentum along propagation at a0≈0.2 would test the Coulomb-momentum-transfer sign reversal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In nondipole stabilization ionization, the competition between the laser-induced drift of the continuum electron wave packet along the propagation direction and the Coulomb attraction of the core produces slow quasiperiodic oscillations of the packet's mean position and energy. Because most ionization occurs during pulse turn-on/off, the phase of this slow oscillation at switch-off determines how much of the packet is recaptured, so the ionization yield oscillates with pulse duration at frequency Ω ≈ sqrt(Z)/(a_s² + α0²)^{3/4}. Dynamic interference explains the dipole-case oscillation, but fails when the nondipole drift is present; there the Coulomb momentum transfer during the slow orbiting

Load-bearing premise

The whole quantitative picture rests on 2D soft-core simulations with Z=2 and a specific pulse envelope; if 3D dynamics or envelope details change the slow-oscillation phase and recapture, the predicted yield oscillations and their periods could differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The ionization yield in the stabilization regime is a quasiperiodic function of pulse duration, with period growing with field strength and saturating near a0≈0.24.
  • At a0≳0.1, the nondipole Coulomb momentum transfer reverses the average propagation-direction momentum of near-zero-energy photoelectrons; the ion carries the compensating momentum.
  • The oscillation period formula Ω = sqrt(Z)/(a_s²+α0²)^{3/4} gives a parameter-free prediction that can be checked against pulse-duration scans.
  • Increasing the pulse duration does not simply increase ionization; depending on the slow-oscillation phase, longer pulses can yield less ionization.
  • For a0≳a0^(th)≈0.24 the slow-oscillation picture breaks down and the yield rises smoothly to saturation as drift dominates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A 3D generalization could alter the quantitative period because wave-packet spreading and phase-space volume differ; if the 2D result is robust, the same Ω-scaling should emerge but with modified constants.
  • The slow-orbiting mechanism may also appear in attosecond-pulse or mid-infrared strong-field contexts whenever the drift and Coulomb forces compete on timescales of many optical cycles, not just x-ray stabilization.
  • A non-destructive measurement could target the ion rather than the photoelectron: the predicted oscillation of the ion's average momentum (and its sign change near a0≈0.1) is a complementary observable.
  • Because the yield modulations are tied to pulse turn-on/off, pulses with smoother envelopes may wash out the oscillations; the predicted contrast depends on the switching time relative to the Coulomb period.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies nondipole strong-field ionization of a model hydrogen-like helium atom in the high-frequency stabilization regime, using a 2D numerical solution of a Foldy–Wouthuysen-transformed Dirac equation with a soft-core potential. The central claim is that the ionization yield is not a monotonic function of pulse duration but exhibits quasiperiodic oscillations. In the dipole regime the oscillations are attributed to dynamic interference, while in the nondipole regime they are attributed to a slow Coulomb-induced oscillation of the continuum electron wave packet along the laser propagation direction, described by a derived scaling frequency Omega = sqrt(Z)/(a_s^2 + alpha0^2)^(3/4). The paper also analyzes photon momentum sharing, reporting that the average final momentum of zero-energy photoelectrons can be opposite to the laser propagation direction at larger field parameters.

Significance. If the claimed effect is real, it is of genuine interest for upcoming x-ray free-electron laser experiments: it predicts a non-monotonic pulse-duration dependence of the stabilization yield and a counterintuitive negative photoelectron momentum along the propagation direction. The paper has real strengths: the slow-oscillation frequency Eq. (15) is derived from an explicit model rather than fitted, the nondipole interpretation is cross-checked against independent quantum yields, and the Coulomb-momentum-transfer diagnostics in Sec. V provide a useful interpretive tool. However, the numerical evidence is entirely two-dimensional, the Ehrenfest closure assumptions are uncontrolled, and no convergence checks are reported. The significance is therefore conditional: the mechanism is plausible and clearly presented, but it is not yet quantitatively established for three-dimensional atoms.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II / Conclusion; Eq. (A11)] The entire numerical evidence is obtained in a 2D soft-core model V(x,z)=Z/sqrt(x^2+z^2+a_s^2) with Z=2 and a_s=sqrt(3)/Z, and the Conclusion explicitly states that the authors solve "the 2D problem." No 3D calculation, dimensional-convergence check, or argument for the fidelity of the 2D reduction is given. In 3D, the singular Coulomb potential and the extra y degree of freedom change the time-averaged KH potential and allow transverse spreading, both of which can modify the drift–Coulomb competition quantified in Eqs. (16)–(19). Since the observable predictions for XFEL experiments are for real three-dimensional atoms, this omission is load-bearing. A 3D calculation for at least one representative parameter set, or a controlled dimensional-reduction estimate, is needed.
  2. [Sec. IV C, Eqs. (5), (6), (8), Fig. 9] The central mechanism is established through Ehrenfest equations with two ad hoc closures: a smoothed potential for a0 below about 0.1 and force-at-expectation-values above. The only quantitative support is the qualitative period agreement in Fig. 9. The paper itself notes that for a0 > 0.2 the quantum period saturates while the classical solution of Eq. (12) gives an increasing period, and explains this by unbound trajectories without quantitative evidence. A direct comparison of the Ehrenfest <z(t)> with the TDSE expectation values in Fig. 5, or an estimate of the error in closure (8), is required to support the "slow orbiting" mechanism.
  3. [Appendix A, Fig. 1] No convergence analysis is reported for the main observable. The ionization-yield modulation is a relatively small effect on a mean yield of order 1%, and no grid spacing, box size, time-step, or projection details are given to exclude numerical artifacts. The coordinate-scaling method is validated in Ref. [53], but the convergence of this particular observable is not demonstrated there. Please provide convergence tests and numerical error estimates.
  4. [Sec. III, Eqs. (1)–(2)] The dynamic-interference explanation of the dipole-regime oscillations is partly circular as written. The frequency Omega is introduced as 2pi/T "according to Fig. 2"—i.e., the observed yield period is inserted into the model—and the same symbol T appears to denote both the pulse duration and the oscillation period. Equation (2) then reproduces the spectral peak positions, but this is not an independent confirmation. The conjectured connection to KH bound-state dynamics (Ref. [54]) should either be derived or clearly labeled as a hypothesis. Please clarify the notation and the logical status of the model.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (5) and Appendix Eq. (A13)] The sign of V in Eq. (5) is inconsistent with the atomic potential -Z/r given in Appendix A. If V is meant to denote the absolute value of the potential, please state this explicitly.
  2. [Sec. III, after Eq. (2)] The expression "n = -T/T" in the discussion of Eq. (2) appears to contain a typo, likely involving a ratio of the oscillation period to the pulse duration. Please define the admissible values of n.
  3. [Fig. 10 caption] "ZRP" should read "ZEP."
  4. [Sec. V] The statement that for the ZEP "the total momentum of the absorbed photons is approximately vanishing" needs a brief justification; the ZEP is a multiphoton peak and one would not generally expect n omega/c to vanish.
  5. [Fig. 9] The description of line colors (blue/magenta/red) and line styles in the text and caption should be checked for consistency, and the threshold a0^(th) should be marked in the figure.
  6. [Introduction] There is a typesetting artifact in the definition of the strong-field parameter: "a0 BE 0/(c omega)" should be a0 = E0/(c omega).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Nondipole mechanism is independently derived, but the dipole explanation in Eq. (2) imports the observed yield-oscillation period as its input frequency.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Eq. (2) (dipole dynamic-interference model)]
    "The oscillations seem to have a constant period T≈8T0≈3.59 a.u. ... The spectra in Fig. 3 are recovered introducing the phase φ=Ωt ... with frequency Ω=2π/T=1.75 a.u., according to Fig. 2. Then, the PED is given by S(ε)=S1(ε)+S1(ε)e^{i(ε−Ω)T} ... The simple heuristic model of Eq. (2) recovers the numerically obtained spectral shape ... and ensures that the first peak in the case of the maximum ionization yield is closer to zero than in the case of the minimum, as observed in the PEDs."

    The yield-oscillation period T≈8T0 is read off the same Fig. 2 that the model is meant to explain. Setting Ω=2π/T inserts this observed period into the model; Eq. (2) then reproduces the PED and the alternating maxima/minima of the yield with that period. The model therefore does not independently derive or predict the oscillation frequency—it is fitted from the data it is used to explain. The authors themselves label it a 'simple heuristic model' and defer the origin of the e^{-iΩT} term to 'probably stems from the bound state periodic dynamics in the KH potential', so no independent derivation of Ω is supplied.

full rationale

The central nondipole claim does not reduce to a fit. The Coulomb-induced slow-oscillation frequency Ω=sqrt(Z)/(a_s^2+α_0^2)^{3/4} in Eq. (15) is obtained from an Ehrenfest model with the soft-core potential and is then compared with the quantum oscillation period in Fig. 9; the comparison is a genuine independent check, not an input. Similarly, the CMT/back-propagation analysis in Sec. V provides an independent classical test of the momentum-sharing sign change. The one concrete circular step is the dipole-zone explanation: Eq. (2) uses Ω=2π/T 'according to Fig. 2', i.e., the observed oscillation period is inserted into the model that is then said to 'ensure' the observed maxima/minima. This is a fitted input presented as explanatory, but it concerns the secondary dipole regime, not the paper's main nondipole mechanism. The 2D soft-core limitation (Conclusion: 'we solve numerically 2D problem') is a validity/correctness concern, not a circularity, and the self-citation of the numerical method [53] is not load-bearing in a definitional sense. Overall circularity is therefore partial and localized, not central: score 4.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical result is produced by a complex solver built on a self-cited method and a 2D soft-core model. The analytical explanation of the nondipole period uses a parameter-free scaling (Eq. 15) but depends on a hand-chosen soft-core parameter. The dipole explanation uses a data-derived frequency. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • Soft-core parameter a_s = sqrt(3)/Z ≈ 0.866 a.u. (for Z=2)
    Chosen to regularize the 2D Coulomb potential; enters the oscillation frequency (Eq. 15) and the KH-force expansion, so the reported period depends on this hand-picked value.
  • Dipole beat frequency Ω = 2π/T ≈ 1.75 a.u. for the Fig. 2(d) case
    Extracted from the observed yield oscillation period and inserted into the dynamic-interference model Eq. (2); the model then 'recovers' the spectral modulation, making this a fitted input to the explanation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Foldy-Wouthuysen Hamiltonian truncated at O(o²/ℓ²) with spin terms partially neglected is accurate for the studied parameters
    Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)-(A11); validity hinges on a0·o/λ ≪ 1 and a smooth envelope; no independent benchmark is shown.
  • domain assumption Coordinate scaling method of Ref. [53] propagates the wavefunction correctly
    Appendix A and Fig. 11 show the envelope is smooth, but the accuracy of the method is established in a self-cited paper; no shipped code is provided.
  • domain assumption A 2D soft-core potential V=-Z/sqrt(x²+z²+a_s²) represents the atomic interaction for observable predictions
    Sec. II and Appendix A; the paper chooses Z=2 for a pronounced Coulomb effect and solves in 2D; 3D dynamics are never checked.
  • ad hoc to paper Ehrenfest equations with the Coulomb force replaced by a smoothed potential (Eq. 6) or by the force at expectation values (Eq. 8) capture the wave-packet slow dynamics
    Sec. IV C; these replacements are approximations not derived from the TDDE and are validated only by qualitative period agreement.
  • ad hoc to paper Ionization during a long pulse can be modeled as two time-separated sources f1(t)+f1(t-T)e^{-iΩT} with ionization 'happening in a half-way of switching on'
    Sec. III, Eqs. (1)-(2); heuristic model, and the frequency Ω is taken from the observed yield oscillation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quasiperiodic nondipole ionization dynamics in the x-ray stabilization regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7YIIJTDQ

@misc{pith2026260206762,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quasiperiodic nondipole ionization dynamics in the x-ray stabilization regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7YIIJTDQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.06762}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in strong x-ray laser techniques enable the study of nonlinear multiphoton ionization in extreme high-frequency fields. Although the stabilization regime in such fields is theoretically established, its modified properties in the nondipole regime for long laser pulses remains unknown. Here, we numerically investigate the strong-field ionization of an atom in a long XUV laser pulse in the nondipole regime. Our study of the time-dependent quantum dynamics reveals a quasiperiodic modulation of the ionization yield as a function of pulse duration. We demonstrate that the Coulomb-field-induced slow oscillation of the ionized electron wave packet during the interaction is responsible for the observed modulation of the ionization yield. Furthermore, we scrutinize the unusual photon momentum sharing between the photoelectron and the ion in this extreme regime. These effects are observable in upcoming x-ray free-electron laser facilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06762 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. are recovered introducing the phase ϕ = Ωt for the ionization contribution at switching-off the laser pulse, which effectively takes into account the periodic character of the ionization process with frequency Ω = 2π/T = 1.75 a.u., FIG. 4. Photoelectron momentum distributions (PED) in the nondipole regime. PED for different pulse durations indicated in the inset: a0 = 0.11. The dipole calculations are shown by the d… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. The comparison of the envelope function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [53]

    Jiang and J

    W.-C. Jiang and J. Burgd¨orfer, Dynamic interference as signature of atomic stabilization, Opt. Express26, 19921 (2018)

    2018

  2. [54]

    M.-X. Wang, H. Liang, X.-R. Xiao, S.-G. Chen, W.-C. Jiang, and L.-Y . Peng, Nondipole effects in atomic dynamic interference, Phys. Rev. A98, 023412 (2018)

    2018

  3. [1]

    [55], is included in the slow dynamics. Since ¨ZL =0, the electron slow motion as a result of competition of the laser induced drift and the Coulomb attraction is described as ¨Z=−∂ ZV(Z,α 0) (12) where the laser induced drift is accounted for via the initial condition ˙Z(0)= vzd. Here, the overline indicates averaging over the fast oscillations. V(Z,α 0)...

  4. [2]

    Calculate ˆφ(px,p z,˜z,t)= R t 0 r 1+ (px− e c A(t′,˜z)) 2 m2c2 + p2z m2c2 dt′ for every reference value ˜z∈[−L z,L z]

  5. [3]

    Interpolate ˆφ(px,p z,˜z,t) to get ˆφ(px,p z,z,t)

  6. [4]

    Calculate critical points x0(px,p z)= − ∂ˆφ ∂p x and z0(p x,p z)=− ∂ˆφ ∂p z

  7. [5]

    Calculate the phase asφ(x)| x=x0(p) =ˆφ(p)px 0(p)

  8. [6]

    Since the set of points{x0,z 0} is non uniform and does not make up a grid but rather a mesh, it complicates an interpolation φ(x,z )→φ (x′,z′)

    Rescale x′ = β(t)x and z′ = β(t)z. Since the set of points{x0,z 0} is non uniform and does not make up a grid but rather a mesh, it complicates an interpolation φ(x,z )→φ (x′,z′). One can use different technics for the solving of optimization problem in order to interpolate from the 2D non uniform mesh to the other non unifrom mesh. 13 FIG. 11. The compar...

Show all 62 references
  1. [7]

    Becker, F

    W. Becker, F. Grasbon, R. Kopold, D. B. Milo˘sevi´c, G. G. Paulus, and H. Walther, Above-threshold ionization: from classical fea- tures to quantum effects, Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys.48, 35 (2002)

    2002

  2. [8]

    Agostini and L

    P. Agostini and L. F. DiMauro, The physics of attosecond light pulses, Rep. Prog. Phys.67, 813 (2004)

    2004

  3. [9]

    P. B. Corkum and F. Krausz, Attosecond science, Nature Phys. 3, 381 (2007)

    2007

  4. [10]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Attosecond physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  5. [11]

    Krausz, Nobel lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev

    F. Krausz, Nobel lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030502 (2024)

    2024

  6. [12]

    L’Huillier, Nobel lecture: The route to attosecond pulses, Rev

    A. L’Huillier, Nobel lecture: The route to attosecond pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 030503 (2024)

    2024

  7. [13]

    Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of attosec- ond pulse trains, Rev

    P. Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of attosec- ond pulse trains, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 030501 (2024)

    2024

  8. [14]

    Altarelli, The european x-ray free-electron laser: toward an ultra-bright, high repetition-rate x-ray source, High Power Laser Science and Engineering3, e18 (2015)

    M. Altarelli, The european x-ray free-electron laser: toward an ultra-bright, high repetition-rate x-ray source, High Power Laser Science and Engineering3, e18 (2015)

    2015

  9. [15]

    Bostedt, S

    C. Bostedt, S. Boutet, D. M. Fritz, Z. Huang, H. J. Lee, H. T. Lemke, A. Robert, W. F. Schlotter, J. J. Turner, and G. J. Williams, Linac coherent light source: The first five years, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 015007 (2016)

    2016

  10. [16]

    Yabashi, H

    M. Yabashi, H. Tanaka, T. Tanaka, H. Tomizawa, T. To- gashi, M. Nagasono, T. Ishikawa, J. R. Harries, Y . Hikosaka, A. Hishikawa, K. Nagaya, N. Saito, E. Shigemasa, K. Ya- manouchi, and K. Ueda, Compact XFEL and AMO sciences: SACLA and SCSS, J. Phys. B46, 164001 (2013)

    2013

  11. [17]

    J. Fan, Y . Tong, Y . Nie, andet al., First commissioning results of the coherent scattering and imaging endstation at the shanghai soft x-ray free-electron laser facility, Nucl. Sci. Techn.33, 114 (2022)

    2022

  12. [18]

    Walker and A

    S. Walker and A. Landsman, Above-threshold ionization with x-ray free-electron lasers, Commun. Phys7, 353 (2024)

    2024

  13. [19]

    V . C. Reed and K. Burnett, Ionization of atoms in intense laser pulses using the kramers-henneberger transformation, Phys. Rev. A42, 3152 (1990)

    1990

  14. [20]

    Patel, N

    A. Patel, N. J. Kylstra, and P. L. Knight, Effect of laser pulse shapes on the stabilization of a model atom,32, 5759 (1999)

    1999

  15. [21]

    Gavrila, Atomic stabilization in superintense laser fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 35, R147 (2002)

    M. Gavrila, Atomic stabilization in superintense laser fields, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 35, R147 (2002)

    2002

  16. [22]

    H. A. Kramers,Collected Scientific Papers (North-Holland, Am- sterdam, 1956) p. 272

    1956

  17. [23]

    W. C. Henneberger, Perturbation method for atoms in intense light beams, Phys. Rev. Lett.21, 838 (1968)

    1968

  18. [24]

    Azizi, U

    S. Azizi, U. Saalmann, and J. M. Rost, Zero-energy photoelectric effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 103201 (2025)

    2025

  19. [25]

    D. A. Telnov and S.-I. Chu, Relativistic ionization probabilities and photoelectron distributions of hydrogenlike ions in super- strong electromagnetic fields, Phys. Rev. A104, 023111 (2021)

    2021

  20. [26]

    Protopapas, C

    M. Protopapas, C. H. Keitel, and P. L. Knight, Relativistic mass shift effects in adiabatic intense laser field stabilization of atoms, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 29, L591 (1996)

    1996

  21. [27]

    L. N. Gaier and C. H. Keitel, Relativistic classical monte carlo simulations of stabilization of hydrogenlike ions in intense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A65, 023406 (2002)

    2002

  22. [28]

    Staudt and C

    A. Staudt and C. H. Keitel, Stabilization of helium in intense high-frequency laser pulses beyond the dipole approximation, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 36, L203 (2003)

    2003

  23. [29]

    Protopapas, C

    M. Protopapas, C. H. Keitel, and P. L. Knight, Atomic physics with super-high intensity lasers, Reports on Progress in Physics 14 60, 389 (1997)

    1997

  24. [30]

    C. H. Keitel and P. L. Knight, Monte carlo classical simulations of ionization and harmonic generation in the relativistic domain, Phys. Rev. A51, 1420 (1995)

    1995

  25. [31]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. M¨uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  26. [32]

    https://lcls.slac.stanford.edu/machine/parameters ()

  27. [33]

    Dondera and H

    M. Dondera and H. Bachau, Exploring above-threshold ioniza- tion of hydrogen in an intense x-ray laser field through nonper- turbative calculations, Phys. Rev. A85, 013423 (2012)

    2012

  28. [34]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Above- threshold ionization beyond the dipole approximation, Phys. Rev. A71, 033408 (2005)

    2005

  29. [35]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Relativistic ionization rescattering with tailored laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 74, 051803 (2006)

    2006

  30. [36]

    Førre, J

    M. Førre, J. P. Hansen, L. Kocbach, S. Selstø, and L. B. Madsen, Nondipole ionization dynamics of atoms in superintense high- frequency attosecond pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 043601 (2006)

    2006

  31. [37]

    Zhou and S.-I

    Z. Zhou and S.-I. Chu, Multiphoton above-threshold ioniza- tion in superintense free-electron x-ray laser fields: Beyond the dipole approximation, Phys. Rev. A87, 023407 (2013)

    2013

  32. [38]

    Ludwig, J

    A. Ludwig, J. Maurer, B. W. Mayer, C. R. Phillips, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Breakdown of the dipole approximation in strong- field ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 243001 (2014)

    2014

  33. [39]

    I. A. Ivanov, Spin-flip processes and nondipole effects in above- threshold ionization of hydrogen in ultrastrong laser fields, Phys. Rev. A96, 013419 (2017)

    2017

  34. [40]

    Sommerfeld and G

    A. Sommerfeld and G. Schur, ¨Uber den photoeffekt in der k-schale der atome, insbesondere ¨uber die voreilung der photoelektronen, Annalen der Physik396, 409 (1930), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/andp.19303960402

    1930 doi

  35. [41]

    M. J. Seaton, Momentum transfer in photo-ionization processes, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 28, 3185 (1995)

    1995

  36. [42]

    C. T. L. Smeenk, L. Arissian, B. Zhou, A. Mysyrowicz, D. M. Villeneuve, A. Staudte, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 193002 (2011)

    2011

  37. [43]

    Klaiber, E

    M. Klaiber, E. Yakaboylu, H. Bauke, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Under-the-barrier dynamics in laser-induced rela- tivistic tunneling, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 153004 (2013)

    2013

  38. [44]

    Chelkowski, A

    S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, and P. B. Corkum, Photon momentum sharing between an electron and an ion in photoion- ization: From one-photon (photoelectric effect) to multiphoton absorption, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 263005 (2014)

    2014

  39. [45]

    Cricchio, E

    D. Cricchio, E. Fiordilino, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Momen- tum partition between constituents of exotic atoms during laser- induced tunneling ionization, Phys. Rev. A92, 023408 (2015)

    2015

  40. [46]

    Chelkowski, A

    S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, and P. B. Corkum, Photon- momentum transfer in multiphoton ionization and in time- resolved holography with photoelectrons, Physical Review A92, 051401 (2015)

    2015

  41. [47]

    Hartung, S

    A. Hartung, S. Eckart, S. Brennecke, J. Rist, D. Trabert, K. Fehre, M. Richter, H. Sann, S. Zeller, K. Henrichs, et al., Magnetic fields alter strong-field ionization, Nat. Phys.15, 1222 (2019)

    2019

  42. [48]

    P.-L. He, M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Nondipole coulomb sub-barrier ionization dynamics and photon momentum sharing, Phys. Rev. A105, L031102 (2022)

    2022

  43. [49]

    X. Mao, H. Ni, K. Lin, P.-L. He, H. Liang, S. Eckart, F. He, K. Ueda, R. D¨orner, and J. Wu, Photon momentum transfer and partitioning: from one to many, Nature Communications16, 5977 (2025)

    2025

  44. [50]

    Toyota, O

    K. Toyota, O. I. Tolstikhin, T. Morishita, and S. Watanabe, Siegert-state expansion in the kramers-henneberger frame: Inter- ference substructure of above-threshold ionization peaks in the stabilization regime, Phys. Rev. A76, 043418 (2007)

    2007

  45. [51]

    Toyota, O

    K. Toyota, O. I. Tolstikhin, T. Morishita, and S. Watanabe, Inter- ference substructure of above-threshold ionization peaks in the stabilization regime, Phys. Rev. A78, 033432 (2008)

    2008

  46. [52]

    P. V . Demekhin and L. S. Cederbaum, Dynamic interference of photoelectrons produced by high-frequency laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 253001 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    L. Geng, H. Liang, K. Krajewska, L.-Y . Peng, and Q. Gong, Laser-induced electron fresnel diffraction by xuv pulses at ex- treme intensity, Phys. Rev. A104, L021102 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    A. J. Silenko, Foldy-wouthyusen transformation and semiclassi- cal limit for relativistic particles in strong external fields, Phys. Rev. A77, 012116 (2008)

    2008

  49. [57]

    step-by- step

    A. Y . Silenko, Comparative analysis of direct and “step-by- step” foldy-wouthuysen transformation methods, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics176, 987 (2013)

    2013

  50. [58]

    A. J. Silenko, General method of the relativistic foldy- wouthuysen transformation and proof of validity of the foldy- wouthuysen hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A91, 022103 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    A. V . Boitsov, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Scaling method for the numerical solution of the strong-field ionization problem in the relativistic regime, Computer Physics Communi- cations310, 109511 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Tasnim Aynul, L

    A. Tasnim Aynul, L. C. Rodriguez, and C. F. d. M. Faria, Quan- tum beating and cyclic structures in the phase-space dynamics of the kramers-henneberger atom, Phys. Rev. A111, 043102 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Y . I. Salamin and F. H. M. Faisal, Harmonic generation by su- perintense light scattering from relativistic electrons, Phys. Rev. A54, 4383 (1996)

    1996

  54. [62]

    https://lcls.slac.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/2024-07/LCLS- Parameters-Run-24.pdf ()

    2024

Pith tools

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