pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.03607 · v1 · pith:3KFM3SRLnew · submitted 2019-07-08 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph

Time delays from one-photon transitions in the continuum

Jaco Fuchs , Nicolas Douguet , Stefan Donsa , Fernando Martin , Joachim Burgd\"orfer , Luca Argenti , Laura Cattaneo , Ursula Keller This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 00:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph
keywords attosecond photoionizationtime delayscontinuum-continuum transitionsangular momentum dependenceheliumquantum path interferencepump-probe spectroscopy
0
0 comments X

The pith

One-photon transitions between continuum states add angular-momentum-dependent delays up to 12 as near threshold.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper measures how photoelectrons acquire different time delays depending on their angular momentum when ionized by attosecond pulses. In a two-color pump-probe experiment on helium, the authors record angle-resolved interference patterns that arise from four interfering quantum pathways. Fitting these patterns isolates the phase contributed by one-photon jumps between continuum states. This yields a measured delay difference of 12 attoseconds between outgoing s- and d-electrons close to the ionization threshold. Single-active-electron and ab initio calculations reproduce the same delay in both helium and hydrogen, indicating the effect is general.

Core claim

The authors experimentally quantify the dependence of the time delay on the angular momentum of the liberated photoelectrons. For continuum-continuum transitions they measure a delay between outgoing s- and d-electrons as large as 12 as close to the ionization threshold in helium. Both single-active-electron and first-principles ab initio simulations confirm this observation for helium and hydrogen, demonstrating the universality of the observed delays.

What carries the argument

Fitting of angle-dependent interference spectra from a two-color attosecond pump-probe experiment to separate the relative phases of four quantum pathways, isolating the continuum-continuum contribution.

If this is right

  • The total photoionization delay extracted from attosecond pump-probe data must include this angular-momentum-dependent continuum-continuum term.
  • The effect grows larger near the ionization threshold and is independent of the specific target atom or ion.
  • Simulations that omit or misrepresent continuum-continuum phases will mispredict the observed delays.
  • The measured delays supply a direct experimental benchmark for theoretical models of continuum wave-packet propagation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same fitting approach could be applied to other noble gases to test whether the delay scales with atomic number.
  • Accounting for this delay may tighten the uncertainty in extracting bound-state or scattering-phase information from attosecond chronoscopy.
  • In molecules the angular-momentum dependence might couple to vibrational or rotational degrees of freedom and produce additional observable structure.

Load-bearing premise

The fitting procedure applied to the angle-dependent interference pattern correctly disentangles the relative phases of the four contributing quantum pathways without significant crosstalk or unaccounted contributions.

What would settle it

An experiment near the helium ionization threshold that finds no measurable delay difference between s- and d-electrons, or a value inconsistent with 12 as after the same fitting procedure, would falsify the reported continuum-continuum delay.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.03607 by Fernando Martin, Jaco Fuchs, Joachim Burgd\"orfer, Laura Cattaneo, Luca Argenti, Nicolas Douguet, Stefan Donsa, Ursula Keller.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Quantum pathways leading to the same side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Experimental anisotropy parameters of the time re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Simultaneous fit of the sideband anisotropy parame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Difference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Delay [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Attosecond photoionisation time delays reveal information about the potential energy landscape an outgoing electron wavepacket probes upon ionisation. In this study we experimentally quantify, for the first time, the dependence of the time delay on the angular momentum of the liberated photoelectrons. For this purpose, electron quantum-path interference spectra have been resolved in energy and angle using a two-color attosecond pump-probe photoionisation experiment in helium. A fitting procedure of the angle-dependent interference pattern allows us to disentangle the relative phase of all four quantum pathways that are known to contribute to the final photoelectron signal. In particular, we resolve the dependence on the angular momentum of the delay of one-photon transitions between continuum states, which is an essential and universal contribution to the total photoionization delay observed in attosecond pump-probe measurements. For such continuum-continuum transitions, we measure a delay between outgoing s- and d-electrons as large as 12 as close to the ionisation threshold in helium. Both single-active-electron and first-principles ab initio simulations confirm this observation for helium and hydrogen, demonstrating the universality of the observed delays.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first experimental quantification of the angular-momentum dependence of one-photon continuum-continuum time delays in helium using angle- and energy-resolved two-color attosecond pump-probe photoionization. A fitting procedure applied to the measured interference patterns is used to disentangle the relative phases of the four contributing quantum pathways, yielding a delay between outgoing s- and d-electrons as large as 12 as near the ionization threshold. Single-active-electron and ab initio simulations for helium and hydrogen are presented in support of the result and its claimed universality.

Significance. If the phase extraction holds, the result isolates a previously unmeasured universal contribution to attosecond photoionization delays and demonstrates its angular-momentum dependence, with direct implications for the interpretation of RABBITT and similar measurements. The provision of both SAE and first-principles simulations that reproduce the extracted delay adds weight to the claim of universality across targets.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and fitting procedure description] The central 12 as s–d delay is obtained exclusively from a four-amplitude, four-phase fit to the angle-dependent interference spectra. No information is given on the condition number of the design matrix, the covariance of the fitted phases, or recovery tests on synthetic data that include realistic noise levels and possible higher-order pathways. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the reported relative phase (and therefore the extracted delay) is unique or robust against crosstalk. This directly affects the load-bearing claim in the abstract.
  2. [Results and discussion of experimental data] The manuscript states agreement between experiment and ab initio simulations but supplies neither the raw angle-resolved spectra, the precise functional form of the fit (including any constraints or regularization), nor a quantitative error analysis or χ² landscape for the extracted phases. These omissions prevent independent verification of the quoted 12 as value and its uncertainty.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to “all four quantum pathways that are known to contribute,” but does not explicitly list the pathways or their angular-momentum assignments; a short enumeration would improve clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the photon energies or sideband orders used for the delay extraction to allow direct comparison with the simulations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and fitting procedure description] The central 12 as s–d delay is obtained exclusively from a four-amplitude, four-phase fit to the angle-dependent interference spectra. No information is given on the condition number of the design matrix, the covariance of the fitted phases, or recovery tests on synthetic data that include realistic noise levels and possible higher-order pathways. Without these, it is not possible to assess whether the reported relative phase (and therefore the extracted delay) is unique or robust against crosstalk. This directly affects the load-bearing claim in the abstract.

    Authors: We agree that additional details on the fitting procedure are needed to demonstrate robustness. In the revised manuscript we will report the condition number of the design matrix, the covariance matrix of the fitted phases, and the outcomes of recovery tests on synthetic data that include realistic noise levels together with an assessment of possible higher-order pathways. These additions will confirm that the extracted relative phase and the reported 12 as delay are stable against crosstalk. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion of experimental data] The manuscript states agreement between experiment and ab initio simulations but supplies neither the raw angle-resolved spectra, the precise functional form of the fit (including any constraints or regularization), nor a quantitative error analysis or χ² landscape for the extracted phases. These omissions prevent independent verification of the quoted 12 as value and its uncertainty.

    Authors: We acknowledge that greater transparency is required. The revised manuscript will include the raw angle-resolved spectra (in the supplement), the exact functional form of the fit with all constraints and regularization, and a quantitative error analysis that presents the χ² landscape for the extracted phases. These changes will enable independent verification of the 12 as value and its uncertainty. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental fit extracts measured delay; result not forced by definition or self-citation

full rationale

The paper reports a direct experimental measurement of s-d continuum-continuum delays (up to 12 as) obtained by fitting angle-resolved interference spectra to a four-pathway model. The abstract and description present this as data analysis that disentangles phases, with independent single-active-electron and ab initio simulations confirming the result for He and H. No quoted equations reduce the extracted delay to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation chain supplies a uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz is smuggled in. The central claim therefore remains an independent empirical observation rather than a tautological renaming or self-referential prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard quantum mechanics of photoionization and the assumption that four pathways dominate the signal; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard atomic photoionization theory and quantum path interference apply to the helium system under the experimental conditions.
    The disentangling of phases via fitting assumes established selection rules and pathway contributions hold.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5747 in / 1110 out tokens · 22728 ms · 2026-05-25T00:38:11.587324+00:00 · methodology

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

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The convergence of the fit to the correct set of pa- rameters has been checked by performing the same fit- ting procedure on sets of simulated data. Making use of both the angle-dependent phase and amplitude of the RABBITT interference pattern we can thus determine the amplitudes and relative phases of all four quantum paths contributing to any given sideba...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The electric fields are treated in the dipole approximation

    on a spatial FEDVR grid [40] thereby solving the full two-electron TDSE for atomic helium from first princi- ples [41, 42]. The electric fields are treated in the dipole approximation. Both, the ab initio and the SAE simula- tion employ an IR pulse with central wavelength of 790 nm and a Gaussian envelope with 8 fs FWHM. The spec- tral amplitude and phase o...

    work page

  3. [3]

    with respect to the scattering phase is due to the fact that, unlike for the bc-transition, the cc-transition in the two-photon scenario probes the potential landscape not for the full half-scattering but only at large distances where the centrifugal potential is weaker, yet still leads to clearly resolvable effects at low energies. Observation (ii) then c...

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 98, 145 (1955)

    work page 1955

  5. [5]

    F. T. Smith, Phys. Rev. 118, 349 (1960)

    work page 1960

  6. [6]

    J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, D. Gu´ enot, K. Kl¨ under, M. Gissel- brecht, J. Mauritsson, A. L’Huillier, A. Maquet, and R. Ta¨ ıeb, Chem. Phys.414, 53 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Pazourek, S

    R. Pazourek, S. Nagele, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 765 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Sabbar, S

    M. Sabbar, S. Heuser, R. Boge, M. Lucchini, T. Carette, E. Lindroth, L. Gallmann, C. Cirelli, and U. Keller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 133001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Huppert, I

    M. Huppert, I. Jordan, D. Baykusheva, A. von Conta, and H. J. W¨ orner, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 093001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Er- ratum: Resonance Effects in Photoemission Time Delays [Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 133001 (2015),

    M. Sabbar, S. Heuser, R. Boge, M. Lucchini, T. Carette, E. Lindroth, L. Gallmann, C. Cirelli, and U. Keller, “Er- ratum: Resonance Effects in Photoemission Time Delays [Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 133001 (2015),” (2017)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    A. L. Cavalieri, N. M¨ uller, T. Uphues, V. S. Yakovlev, A. Baltuˇ ska, B. Horvath, B. Schmidt, L. Bl¨ umel, R. Holzwarth, S. Hendel, M. Drescher, U. Kleineberg, P. M. Echenique, R. Kienberger, F. Krausz, and U. Heinzmann, Nature 449, 1029 (2007)

    work page 2007

  12. [12]

    Schultze, M

    M. Schultze, M. Fiess, N. Karpowicz, J. Gagnon, M. Korbman, M. Hofstetter, S. Neppl, A. L. Cavalieri, Y. Komninos, T. Mercouris, C. A. Nicolaides, R. Pa- zourek, S. Nagele, J. Feist, J. Burgd¨ orfer, A. M. Azzeer, R. Ernstorfer, R. Kienberger, U. Kleineberg, E. Gouliel- makis, F. Krausz, and V. S. Yakovlev, Science 328, 1658 (2010)

    work page 2010

  13. [13]

    Sansone, F

    G. Sansone, F. Kelkensberg, J. F. P´ erez-Torres, F. Morales, M. F. Kling, W. Siu, O. Ghafur, P. Johnsson, M. Swoboda, E. Benedetti, F. Ferrari, F. L´ epine, J. L. Sanz-Vicario, S. Zherebtsov, I. Znakovskaya, A. Lhuillier, M. Y. Ivanov, M. Nisoli, F. Mart´ ın, and M. J. Vrakking, Nature 465, 763 (2010)

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Ossiander, F

    M. Ossiander, F. Siegrist, V. Shirvanyan, R. Pazourek, A. Sommer, T. Latka, A. Guggenmos, S. Nagele, J. Feist, J. Burgd¨ orfer, R. Kienberger, and M. Schultze, Nat. Phys. 13, 280 (2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    J. Vos, L. Cattaneo, S. Patchkovskii, T. Zimmermann, C. Cirelli, M. Lucchini, A. Kheifets, A. S. Landsman, and U. Keller, Science (80-. ). 360, 1326 (2018)

    work page 2018

  16. [16]

    Cattaneo, J

    L. Cattaneo, J. Vos, R. Y. Bello, A. Palacios, S. Heuser, L. Pedrelli, M. Lucchini, C. Cirelli, F. Mart´ ın, and U. Keller, Nat. Phys. 14, 733 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Heuser, ´A

    S. Heuser, ´A. Jim´ enez Gal´ an, C. Cirelli, C. Marante, M. Sabbar, R. Boge, M. Lucchini, L. Gallmann, I. Ivanov, A. S. Kheifets, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, E. Lindroth, L. Ar- genti, F. Mart´ ın, and U. Keller, Phys. Rev. A94, 063409 (2016). 9

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Cirelli, C

    C. Cirelli, C. Marante, S. Heuser, C. L. Petersson, ´A. J. Gal´ an, L. Argenti, S. Zhong, D. Busto, M. Isinger, S. Nandi, S. MacLot, L. Rading, P. Johnsson, M. Gis- selbrecht, M. Lucchini, L. Gallmann, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, E. Lindroth, A. L’Huillier, F. Mart´ ın, and U. Keller, Nat. Commun. 9, 955 (2018)

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Miaja-Avila, C

    L. Miaja-Avila, C. Lei, M. Aeschlimann, J. L. Gland, M. M. Murnane, H. C. Kapteyn, and G. Saathoff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 113604 (2006)

    work page 2006

  20. [20]

    Mairesse, D

    Y. Mairesse, D. de Bohan, L. J. Frasinski, H. Merdji, L. C. Dinu, P. Monchicourt, P. Breger, M. Kovacev, R. Taieb, B. Carre, H. G. Muller, P. Agostini, and P. Salieres, Science (80-. ). 302, 1540 (2003)

    work page 2003

  21. [21]

    Cattaneo, J

    L. Cattaneo, J. Vos, M. Lucchini, L. Gallmann, C. Cirelli, and U. Keller, Opt. Express 24, 29060 (2016)

    work page 2016

  22. [22]

    J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, A. L’Huillier, and A. Maquet, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 45, 183001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    Kl¨ under, J

    K. Kl¨ under, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, M. Gisselbrecht, T. Fordell, M. Swoboda, D. Gu´ enot, P. Johnsson, J. Caillat, J. Mauritsson, A. Maquet, R. Ta¨ ıeb, and A. L’Huillier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 143002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    I. A. Ivanov and A. S. Kheifets, Phys. Rev. A 96, 13408 (2017)

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Nagele, R

    S. Nagele, R. Pazourek, J. Feist, K. Doblhoff-Dier, C. Lemell, K. T´ ok´ esi, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 081001 (2011)

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    W¨ atzel, A

    J. W¨ atzel, A. S. Moskalenko, Y. Pavlyukh, and J. Berak- dar, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48, 025602 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    Hockett, J

    P. Hockett, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 154002 (2017)

    work page 2017

  28. [28]

    Busto, J

    D. Busto, J. Vinbladh, S. Zhong, M. Isinger, S. Nandi, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, E. Lindroth, and J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, (2018), arXiv:1811.05341

    work page arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    A. W. Bray, F. Naseem, and A. S. Kheifets, Phys. Rev. A 97, 63404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    X. Zhao, H. Wei, W.-W. Yu, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 98, 053404 (2018)

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Auge, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Science 292, 1689 (2001)

    work page 2001

  32. [32]

    Muller, Appl

    H. Muller, Appl. Phys. B 74, s17 (2002)

    work page 2002

  33. [33]

    Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, F

    ´A. Jim´ enez-Gal´ an, F. Mart´ ın, and L. Argenti, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023429 (2016)

    work page 2016

  34. [34]

    Laurent, W

    G. Laurent, W. Cao, H. Li, Z. Wang, I. Ben-Itzhak, and C. L. Cocke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 083001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  35. [35]

    Cold Target Recoil Ion Momentum Spectroscopy: A ’momen- tum microscope’ to view atomic collision dynamics,

    R. D¨ orner, V. Mergel, O. Jagutzki, L. Spielberger, J. Ull- rich, R. Moshammer, and H. Schmidt-B¨ ocking, “Cold Target Recoil Ion Momentum Spectroscopy: A ’momen- tum microscope’ to view atomic collision dynamics,” (2000)

    work page 2000

  36. [36]

    Lewenstein, P

    M. Lewenstein, P. Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994)

    work page 1994

  37. [37]

    Sabbar, S

    M. Sabbar, S. Heuser, R. Boge, M. Lucchini, L. Gall- mann, C. Cirelli, and U. Keller, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 85, 103113 (2014)

    work page 2014

  38. [38]

    J. J. Mor´ e, in Numer. Anal. (Springer, Berlin, Heidel- berg, 2006) pp. 105–116

    work page 2006

  39. [39]

    A. N. Grum-Grzhimailo, M. N. Khaerdinov, and K. Bartschat, Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 88, 055401 (2013)

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Douguet, A

    N. Douguet, A. N. Grum-Grzhimailo, E. V. Gryzlova, E. I. Staroselskaya, J. Venzke, and K. Bartschat, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033402 (2016)

    work page 2016

  41. [41]

    X. M. Tong and C. D. Lin, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, 2593 (2005)

    work page 2005

  42. [42]

    M. S. Pindzola, F. Robicheaux, S. D. Loch, J. C. Berengut, T. Topcu, J. Colgan, M. Foster, D. C. Griffin, C. P. Ballance, D. R. Schultz, T. Minami, N. R. Badnell, M. C. Witthoeft, D. R. Plante, D. M. Mitnik, J. A. Lud- low, and U. Kleiman, J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 40, R39 (2007)

    work page 2007

  43. [43]

    T. N. Rescigno and C. W. McCurdy, Phys. Rev. A 62, 032706 (2000)

    work page 2000

  44. [44]

    Feist, S

    J. Feist, S. Nagele, R. Pazourek, E. Persson, B. I. Schnei- der, L. A. Collins, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. A 77, 043420 (2008)

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    Donsa, I

    S. Donsa, I. Brezinov´ a, H. Ni, J. Feist, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023413 (2019)

    work page 2019

  46. [46]

    Heinzmann and J

    U. Heinzmann and J. H. Dil, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 24, 173001 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Heinzmann, Springer Ser

    U. Heinzmann, Springer Ser. Opt. Sci. , edited by L. Plaja, R. Torres, and A. Za¨ ır, Springer Series in Opti- cal Sciences, Vol. 177 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013) pp. 231–253

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    Fanciulli, H

    M. Fanciulli, H. Volfov´ a, S. Muff, J. Braun, H. Ebert, J. Min´ ar, U. Heinzmann, and J. H. Dil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 067402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    L. H. Haber, B. Doughty, and S. R. Leone, Phys. Rev. A 84, 013416 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Lucchini, A

    M. Lucchini, A. Ludwig, T. Zimmermann, L. Kasmi, J. Herrmann, A. Scrinzi, A. S. Landsman, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Phys. Rev. A 91, 063406 (2015)

    work page 2015