Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Strong-field ionization in particle-in-cell simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under conservation of the magnetic quantum number, the dominant pathway for ionizing argon's 2p/2s shell is nonsequential, and PIC simulations that use it outperform the standard sequential model.

desk verdict A technically careful PIC ionization upgrade whose central physical assumption—m-conservation—is plausible but unvalidated, so treat the claimed precision gains as conditional. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11672 v2 pith:XYFJILZT submitted 2025-01-20 physics.plasm-ph

A.A. Mironov , E.G. Gelfer , I.I. Tupitsyn , A. Beck , M. Jirka , O. Klimo , S. Meuren , G. Oberreit
show 6 more authors
T. Smorodnikova R. Taïeb S. Weber C. Riconda M. Grech S.V. Popruzhenko
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.65.Rr52.50.Jm
keywords strong-fieldionizationparticle-in-cellsimulationsequentialapproximationnonsequentialpathwaymagneticquantumnumbertunnelingrateargonbarriersuppression
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

Multiple ionization of atoms in intense laser fields is usually modeled in particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations as strictly sequential, with electrons removed outermost-first and the magnetic quantum number m set to zero. This paper argues that if m is instead conserved, that picture breaks down for close-lying subshells: in argon the m=0 inner 2s electron can leave before the |m|=1 outer 2p electrons, making the dominant ionization pathway nonsequential. The paper identifies the dominant nonsequential pathway by comparing candidate pathways with rate equations, implements it in a PIC code, and shows it reproduces the full multi-pathway solution. The standard sequential m=0 model underestimates the saturation field for Ar16+ by 13%, and its errors for Ar14+ and Ar15+ exceed 50%. Getting this right matters because charge-state distributions control plasma response, electron injection, and intensity diagnostics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the standard analytic tunneling rate known as the PPT formula, with its strong dependence on the magnetic quantum number m: for |m|>0 the rate carries a suppression factor $(2/F)^{-|m|}$, so m=0 sublevels ionize much faster than |m|=1 or |m|=2 sublevels. The scheme assumes m is conserved during multiple ionization, orders electrons within each subshell by increasing |m|, and multiplies the rate by a degeneracy factor $g_{|m|}$ equal to the number of electrons sharing that |m|. The dominant pathway—the actual sequence of electronic configurations followed—is identified beforehand by solving rate equations for candidate pathways, then encoded as a fixed extraction order in the PIC loop. Replacing the sequential order with this dominant nonsequential pathway is the mechanism that improves the accuracy.

What would settle it

Measure the residual charge-state distribution of low-density argon (initially Ar8+) after a 0.8 µm, 10-cycle pulse as a function of peak intensity near $10^{18}$–$10^{20}$ W/cm2: the nonsequential pathway predicts Ar16+ saturation (95% population) at a0≈3.20 and the sequential model at a0≈2.77. If the measured saturation point follows the sequential value, or if Ar14+ and Ar15+ populations appear at the sequential thresholds, the m-conservation and nonsequential-pathway claim is contradicted. Detection of the predicted inner-shell hole states via their X-ray relaxation lines would provide a second independent check.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that sequential ionization—electrons coming off in order of increasing ionization potential—is not the dominant pathway for ionizing close-lying subshells once the magnetic quantum number m is taken into account, and that PIC simulations should instead use the dominant nonsequential pathway. In the argon 2p62s2 shell, the sequential order leaves 2p electrons with |m|=1, whose tunneling rate is suppressed by a factor of order F, while the 2s electrons with m=0 have only slightly higher ionization potentials. The rates therefore cross, so an inner 2s electron is extracted before the remaining outer 2p electrons. Solving the rate equations for all twelve relevant pathways shows that two nonsequential pathways dominate, and using either one alone is a good approximation to the full solution. Implemented in a PIC code, this scheme reproduces the rate-equation results, whereas the standard sequential model shifts the Ar16+ saturation field by 13% and produces errors above 50% for Ar14+ and Ar15+.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the magnetic quantum number m of a bound electron is conserved while the atom is multiply ionized by the laser field; if recollisions, collisions, or core coupling mix m values, the |m|-dependent suppression factors change and the identified nonsequential pathways need not dominate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Charge-state distributions predicted by PIC simulations of intense-laser interactions will change for multi-electron atoms with close-lying subshells, with thresholds shifting to higher intensities when the dominant nonsequential pathway is used.
  • Saturation-field estimates for states like Ar16+ move by 13%, and intermediate charge states Ar14+ and Ar15+ can be off by more than 50% under the sequential approximation; simulations for diagnostics should be re-checked.
  • The 1s shell in argon is almost insensitive to the ionization-model choice, so intensity measurements based on deep inner-shell ionization remain robust.
  • Barrier-suppression corrections mainly affect outer shells and shift thresholds; they matter less than the nonsequential-pathway choice for the 2p/2s shell.
  • The method preserves the computational cost of the original PIC ionization loop because only the precomputed extraction order and m-dependent rates are changed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same m-conservation logic likely applies to other atoms with close-lying p and s subshells, such as neon and heavier noble gases, though the specific dominant pathway must be re-derived for each element.
  • If the dominant nonsequential pathway is right, strong-field ionization should produce inner-shell hole states (for example Ar12+ with a 2s vacancy) as transient species, which could be detected by X-ray emission during relaxation.
  • A natural extension would be to allow the dominant pathway to change during the pulse instead of fixing one; in regimes where several pathways compete, the single-pathway approximation sets the achievable accuracy floor.
  • Because the predictions hinge on m conservation, any process that mixes m values—recollisions, collisions, or core coupling—would alter the suppression factors and could restore sequential behavior; a controlled low-density experiment is the cleanest way to test this.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the implementation of strong-field tunnel ionization in particle-in-cell (PIC) codes. Starting from the PPT ionization rates, the authors argue that the standard sequential-ionization picture, especially with the common m = 0 approximation, is inadequate when close-lying subshells (e.g., Ar 2p/2s) are involved. They propose an algorithm that identifies a dominant nonsequential ionization pathway, implements it in the PIC code SMILEI together with m- and |m|-dependent rates, and benchmarks it against rate-equation solutions. The method is demonstrated on the ionization of argon by a 0.8 µm, 10-cycle pulse. The paper also analyzes barrier-suppression-ionization extensions (Tong-Lin and KAG) and their effect on simulated ion populations.

Significance. If the main assumption of magnetic-quantum-number conservation holds, the paper identifies a real and practically important limitation of standard PIC field-ionization modules: for close-lying subshells the dominant ionization path can be nonsequential, and using the sequential/m = 0 ansatz can shift saturation fields by tens of percent. The authors provide a useful open-source implementation, careful convergence checks (128 points per wavelength, 8192 particles per cell), and detailed error quantification. The claim that switching to a dominant nonsequential pathway significantly improves simulation precision is, however, conditional on an unvalidated physical assumption; the numerical implementation itself is benchmarked internally against rate equations that share the same assumption. The paper is therefore a valuable contribution to PIC ionization modeling, but its central quantitative conclusions require stronger or more carefully qualified support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV D, Eq. (19), Table II] The m-conservation assumption is load-bearing for the entire pathway-selection procedure, but it is not tested in the regime of interest. The justification given (small Keldysh parameter; dilute-gas experiments on photoelectron circular currents) supports adiabatic following of the slowly varying laser field, not conservation of m for bound electrons through the sudden removal of another electron. After each ionization step the residual ion is a multi-electron open-shell system (e.g., 2p^5, 2s2p^5) whose physical states are superpositions of single-electron m assignments. The fixed ordering of Table II and the degeneracy factor g_|m| in Eq. (19) are a single-particle ansatz. If spin-orbit or electron-correlation coupling mixes sublevels, the (2/F)^|m| suppression in Eq. (6) no longer tracks the actual sublevel populations, the rate ordering in Fig. 2 changes, and the 13% (Ar16+) and >50% (Ar14+/Ar15+) errors quoted in Sec. V B may be artifacts of the assumption rather than physical limitations of the sequential model. I recommend that the authors either provide a direct test of m-conservation in the multi-electron high-intensity case (e.g., comparison with configuration-resolved TDSE calculations or ion-yield experiments for argon), or explicitly re-frame the quantitative error estimates as conditional on m-conservation and quantify the sensitivity by also running an alternative m-redistribution model.
  2. [Sec. V B and Fig. 10] The statement that for pathway 1 the absolute error is 'below 0.1 at maximum' is contradicted by the authors' own Fig. 10: the listed maximum absolute errors for pathway 1 include 0.149 (Ar10+), 0.135 (Ar11+), 0.163 (Ar13+), 0.125 (Ar14+), and 0.136 (Ar15+). Since this error estimate is used to justify the claim that pathway 1 is a reliable approximation to the full 12-pathway solution and to select it as the dominant pathway for the PIC implementation, the discrepancy needs to be corrected and the conclusion re-assessed. The claim that 'pathway 1 provides a higher precision result in a wide range of a0' should be restated with the actual error magnitudes.
  3. [Sec. V C and Fig. 7] The 'precision improvement' of the nonsequential model is established by benchmarking against a rate-equation solution that uses the same PPT rates and the same m-conservation assumption. The agreement between PIC and rate equations therefore validates the Monte Carlo implementation, not the physical accuracy of the improved model. The statement in the abstract and Sec. VI that the proposed algorithm 'significantly improves the precision in simulations' should be qualified: it improves agreement with a particular rate-equation model that itself rests on the m-conservation hypothesis. Without external validation (experimental charge-state distributions or independent quantum calculations), the improvement is internal to the model family considered.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to the 'PIC code SMILE', while the body and references correctly use 'SMILEI'. Please correct the name.
  2. [Table I] The table caption contains the typo 'agron' instead of 'argon'.
  3. [Appendix B] The text contains the typo 'respsectively' instead of 'respectively'.
  4. [Sec. VI] The text says 'a similar reconsideration ... can be made for heaver atoms'; 'heaver' should be 'heavier'.
  5. [Sec. III C 2, Eq. (16)] The discussion of the Nuter et al. model correctly notes the missing N/(2l+1) factor, but it would be helpful to explicitly define N as the number of electrons in the l-shell at the moment of ionization, since N changes as the shell is depleted.
  6. [Sec. V C 2 / Fig. 5] The caption of Fig. 5 says 'In all cases except plot 4, the initial state is neutral argon'; this is correct, but the text in Sec. V C 2 should state more prominently that the Tong-Lin simulation starts from Ar8+ because starting from neutral argon with the TL suppression produces unphysical blocking of ionization. The current explanation is somewhat buried.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 'improved precision' claim is benchmarked against a rate-equation reference built from the same m-conservation assumption; the underlying PPT rates are external, so the circularity is partial and validation-level.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V B (rate-equation benchmark), Section V C 1 (PIC validation), Eqs. (18)-(19), Fig. 4, Appendix B; assumption stated in Section IV D]
    "Assuming conservation of m, we demonstrated that the dependence of the rates on m is of principal importance and makes nonsequential ionization pathways more probable than the sequential one. ... We use Eq. (19) for the transition probability rates in Eqs. (18) and account for the dependence on the m number as discussed in Section IV D. ... Then for Ar16+, saturation is reached at a0 = 2.77 for sequential ionization and at a0 = 3.20 in the 12-pathway case ... The former underestimates the saturation field by 13%."

    The '12-pathway' reference solution is constructed with Eq. (19), which implements the g_|m| degeneracy and the m-conservation ansatz of Section IV D, using the same PPT rates as all compared models. The dominant nonsequential pathway is then selected by the same rate-equation framework: Appendix B states that 'pathway 1' is chosen because it is the best one-pathway approximation to the full 12-pathway solution. The PIC 'improvement' is subsequently measured by matching that same rate-equation solution. The 13% (Ar16+) and >50% (Ar14+/15+) 'errors' therefore quantify differences between two implementations of the same m-conservation ansatz, not accuracy against an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's ionization rates are the standard PPT formulas (Eq. 6) with external literature support, and the m-dependent suppression plus g_|m| factors (Eq. 19) are presented as an explicit assumption in Section IV D ('We assume that during the interaction with the field, m is conserved for electrons residing on the atomic levels'), supported by adiabaticity arguments and dilute-gas experiments rather than derived. No parameter is fitted to external data and no imported uniqueness theorem is used, so the core physics is not circular by definition. The circularity is in the validation of the claimed 'significantly improves precision' result: the reference '12-pathway' rate-equation solution uses Eq. (19) under the same m-conservation assumption, and the nonsequential pathway 1 is selected precisely for its closeness to that solution. The later PIC implementation uses the same rates and the same pathway, so the 'perfect match' between the nonsequential PIC and the rate equations is a consistency check, not an independent prediction. The quoted 13% and >50% errors are consequently internal model-to-model differences whose external validity depends entirely on the untested m-conservation assumption. Because the rate formulas and the m-dependence are independently sourced, the central derivation is not a pure restatement of its inputs; the partial circularity is confined to the accuracy-improvement claim, giving a score of 4 rather than a higher value.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on the standard PPT/ADK rate formulas and on several explicit modeling assumptions, chiefly conservation of magnetic quantum number m and single-pathway dominance. No new physical entities are introduced. The BSI corrections introduce empirical parameters adopted from prior literature.

free parameters (3)
  • Tong-Lin suppression parameter alpha = 6
    Empirical suppression factor in Eq. (14); chosen following Refs. [53,62] for an estimate, not fitted to argon data. Affects BSI-modified rates in PIC tests.
  • KAG piecewise constants alpha1, alpha2 = alpha1=2.4, alpha2=0.8
    Empirical constants in Eq. (15) adopted from Refs. [64,83]; used for BSI extrapolation in PIC tests.
  • Hartree Cn*l for neutral argon set to 1 = 1
    Eq. (11) fails for neutral states; the implementation sets Cn*l=1 manually (Appendix A). This hand-chosen value has a minor effect on deep-shell ionization.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption PPT tunneling rate Eq. (6) accurately describes single-electron ionization in the quasi-static tunneling regime under conditions (1) and (2)
    The whole analysis builds on the PPT/ADK rates; validity conditions are stated in Section III A (a)-(d).
  • domain assumption The magnetic quantum number m is conserved for bound electrons during the ionization sequence
    Assumed in Section IV D to justify ordering electrons by |m| and the degeneracy factor; if m mixing occurs, the nonsequential pathway selection changes.
  • domain assumption Ionization is a single-electron process with no correlation or recollision; recollision is suppressed for intensities above about 10^16 W/cm2
    Condition (2) in Section II; recollision would invalidate the sequential independent-electron picture.
  • domain assumption A single dominant ionization pathway can represent the full multi-pathway dynamics
    Reformulated condition II in Section IV D; validated for argon by comparing 1-2 pathways vs 12 pathways in rate equations, but not guaranteed for heavier atoms.
  • domain assumption Excited ionic states produced by nonsequential ionization do not relax during the femtosecond laser pulse
    Stated in Section IV C: relaxation occurs on ns-ps timescales, negligible during the laser-ion interaction.
  • domain assumption Ionization potentials and excitation energies for argon ionic states are accurately known from Ref. [89]
    Used to compute ionization potentials for nonsequential pathways in Table I.
  • standard math Hartree asymptotic coefficients Eq. (11) or tabulated HF values reliably give Cn*l in Eq. (6)
    Appendix A compares exact, Hartree, ADK, and Cn*l=1; the choice affects rates modestly for deep shells.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong-field ionization in particle-in-cell simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYFJILZT

@misc{pith2026250111672,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong-field ionization in particle-in-cell simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYFJILZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11672}
}
read the original abstract

The inclusion of the process of multiple ionization of atoms in high-intensity electromagnetic fields into particle-in-cell (PIC) codes applied to the simulation of laser-plasma interactions is a challenging task. In this paper, we first revisit ionization rates as given by the Perelomov-Popov-Terent'yev formulas within the paradigm of sequential tunnel ionization. We analyze the limit of validity and possible inconsistencies of this approach. We show that a strongly limiting factor to a precise description of ionization is the competing contribution of different sequential ionization processes. To solve this an algorithm is proposed that allows to find the dominant nonsequential path of tunnel ionization, and significantly improves the precision in simulations. This novel procedure is implemented in the PIC code SMILE, and includes the dependence of the ionization rates on the magnetic quantum number of the level. The sensitivity to variations in the ionization model is studied via full simulations of the ionization of an argon target by an incident high-intensity laser pulse. Finally, we analyze generalizations of the Perelomov-Popov-Terent'yev rate developed to describe the barrier suppression ionization in high fields and discuss the necessity and possibility of including these extensions in PIC simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11672 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Major ionization pathways for multiple ionization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time evolution of the ion populations nZ /n0 in a thin argon target prepared in the state Ar8+ (so that initially n8/n0 = 1 , nZ = 0 for Z > 8) irradiated by a 10-cycle laser pulse. The curves are obtained by solving the rate equations (18) in 1D for a different choice of pathways, see also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Evolution of ion populations nZ /n0 extracted from 1D PIC simulations of a thin argon target irradiated by a 10- cycle laser pulse. In all cases except plot 4, the initial state is neutral argon, while the results of plot 4 are for argon pre￾ionized up to the Ar8+ state. Plots show the results obtained within different approximations (see the legends). 12-pathway solution. The absolute error for most curves shown in… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Relative error of an ion population maximum lo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of the ionization rates on the field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ion profiles as a function of the laser pulse peak [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Absolute error for the ion populations presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Absolute error for the ion populations presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. THz emission from multiple ionized plasma

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A photocurrent model with high ionization states reproduces spectral and energy scaling in two-color plasma THz generation and enables 0.2 mJ, >1% conversion with a Ti:sapphire laser.

  2. Phenomenological rate formulas for over-barrier ionization of hydrogen and helium atoms in strong constant electric fields

    physics.atom-ph 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Over-barrier ionization rates for hydrogen and helium are reproduced by ADK-style formulas modified with Stark shifts, wavefunction renormalization, and angular averaging, combined with a fitted far-field rate formula.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Electrons within a fixed l-subshell are ordered by increasing the value of |m| (namely, the outermost electrons on the have m = 0).6

  2. [2]

    (6) depends on the magnetic number m with the quantization axis in the polarization direction of the electric field

    Dependence on the magnetic quantum number m The PPT rate in Eq. (6) depends on the magnetic number m with the quantization axis in the polarization direction of the electric field. The main |m|-dependent factor (2 /F )−|m| stems from the fact that for m ̸= 0 the bound state wave function is zero in the polariza- tion direction. Since fast tunnel ionizatio...

  3. [3]

    (10)], the semiclassical formula (6) becomes less accurate as it has been discussed in the previous subsection

    BSI regime With the growth of the laser field strength relative to the barrier suppression field ∼ EBS [see Eq. (10)], the semiclassical formula (6) becomes less accurate as it has been discussed in the previous subsection. This flaw is the most difficult to fix with controllable accuracy (see discussion in the previous subsection). However, the sit- uati...

  4. [4]

    sequential, |m| ≥0

    Successive ionization of levels with close ionization potentials Finally, the adopted scheme discards the possibility that levels with higher ionization potentials can be ion- ized before those with lower ionization potentials (see the second fundamental constraint in Section II). In the semiclassical domain, this assumption is generally well justified fo...

  5. [5]

    The factor g|m| is the number of electrons left on a subshell with a given value of |m|, see Table II below

  6. [6]

    pathway 1

    The order of electron extraction is set by the dom- inant ionization pathway. The dominant pathway for a given initial electronic con- figuration of an atom/ion should be identified individu- ally, for example, by analyzing the rate dependence on the field strength (as in Section IV C), or by solving the system of rate equations for different pathways. Th...

  7. [7]

    PPT, nonsequential

    Nonsequential ionization and |m| ≥0 First, we confirm that PIC simulations provide results identical to those obtained from the rate equation so- lution. The top plots in Figs. 5 and 6 labelled “PPT, nonsequential” show the simulation results obtained with our improved module for ionization in the PIC loop: the rates are calculated via Eq. (6) with Cn∗l g...

  8. [8]

    Tong-Lin BSI

    Barrier suppression ionization Let us now consider the effect of BSI. Results of the two BSI models are shown in panels labeled “Tong-Lin BSI” and “KAG BSI” in Figs. 5 and 6. In simulations, we take the full model “PPT, nonsequential” and modify it by using Eqs. (14) and (15), respectively. We set the TL model parameter to α = 6.10 10 We are not aware of ...

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    C. K. Birdsall and A. B. Langdon, Plasma physics via computer simulation (CRC press, Boca Raton, 2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence- Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, et al., Contempo- rary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma modelling, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 57, 113001 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Gonoskov, S

    A. Gonoskov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Muraviev, A. Sergeev, I. Surmin, and E. Wallin, Extended particle-in-cell schemes for physics in ultrastrong laser fields: Review 19 and developments, Phys. Rev. E 92, 023305 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    J. M. Dawson, Particle simulation of plasmas, Rev. Mod. Phys. 55, 403 (1983)

    1983

  5. [13]

    Pukhov and J

    A. Pukhov and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Relativistic magnetic self-channeling of light in near-critical plasma: three- dimensional particle-in-cell simulation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3975 (1996)

    1996

  6. [14]

    R. A. Fonseca, J. Vieira, F. Fi´ uza, A. Davidson, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, and L. O. Silva, Exploiting multi- scale parallelism for large scale numerical modelling of laser wakefield accelerators, Plasma Phys. Control. Fu- sion 55, 124011 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Takizuka and H

    T. Takizuka and H. Abe, A binary collision model for plasma simulation with a particle code, J. Comput. Phys. 25, 205 (1977)

    1977

  8. [16]

    C. K. Birdsall, Particle-in-cell charged-particle simula- tions, plus Monte Carlo collisions with neutral atoms, PIC-MCC, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 19, 65 (1991)

    1991

  9. [17]

    Nanbu, Theory of cumulative small-angle collisions in plasmas, Phys

    K. Nanbu, Theory of cumulative small-angle collisions in plasmas, Phys. Rev. E 55, 4642 (1997)

    1997

  10. [18]

    P´ erez, L

    F. P´ erez, L. Gremillet, A. Decoster, M. Drouin, and E. Lefebvre, Improved modeling of relativistic collisions and collisional ionization in particle-in-cell codes, Phys. Plasmas 19, 10.1063/1.4742167 (2012)

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Sentoku, K

    Y. Sentoku, K. Mima, T. Taguchi, S. Miyamoto, and Y. Kishimoto, Particle simulation on x-ray emissions from ultra-intense laser produced plasmas, Phys. Plas- mas 5, 4366 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Vyskoˇ cil, O

    J. Vyskoˇ cil, O. Klimo, and S. Weber, Simulations of bremsstrahlung emission in ultra-intense laser interac- tions with foil targets, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60, 054013 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Martinez, M

    B. Martinez, M. Lobet, R. Duclous, E. d’Humi` eres, and L. Gremillet, High-energy radiation and pair produc- tion by Coulomb processes in particle-in-cell simulations, Phys. Plasmas 26, 10.1063/1.5118339 (2019)

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    I. V. Sokolov, N. M. Naumova, J. A. Nees, G. A. Mourou, and V. P. Yanovsky, Dynamics of emitting electrons in strong laser fields, Phys. Plasmas 16, 10.1063/1.3236748 (2009)

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Sironi and A

    L. Sironi and A. Spitkovsky, Synthetic spectra from particle-in-cell simulations of relativistic collisionless shocks, Astrophys. J. 707, L92 (2009)

    2009

  16. [24]

    Bussmann, H

    M. Bussmann, H. Burau, T. E. Cowan, A. Debus, A. Huebl, G. Juckeland, T. Kluge, W. E. Nagel, R. Pausch, F. Schmitt, et al., Radiative signatures of the relativistic kelvin-helmholtz instability, SC’23: Pro- ceedings of the International Conference for High Perfor- mance Comput...

    2013

  17. [25]

    Duclous, J

    R. Duclous, J. G. Kirk, and A. R. Bell, Monte Carlo calculations of pair production in high-intensity laser– plasma interactions, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 015009 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    E. N. Nerush, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, N. V. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, Laser field ab- sorption in self-generated electron-positron pair plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 035001 (2011)

    2011

  19. [27]

    B. M. Penetrante and J. N. Bardsley, Residual energy in plasmas produced by intense subpicosecond lasers, Phys. Rev. A 43, 3100 (1991)

    1991

  20. [28]

    Chessa, P

    P. Chessa, P. Mora, and T. M. Antonsen Jr, Numerical simulation of short laser pulse relativistic self-focusing in underdense plasma, Phys. Plasmas 5, 3451 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    D. L. Bruhwiler, D. A. Dimitrov, J. R. Cary, E. Esarey, W. Leemans, and R. E. Giacone, Particle-in-cell simula- tions of tunneling ionization effects in plasma-based ac- celerators, Phys. Plasmas 10, 2022 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    A. J. Kemp, R. E. Pfund, and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Model- ing ultrafast laser-driven ionization dynamics with Monte Carlo collisional particle-in-cell simulations, Phys. Plas- mas 11, 5648 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Nuter, L

    R. Nuter, L. Gremillet, E. Lefebvre, A. L´ evy, T. Ceccotti, and P. Martin, Field ionization model implemented in particle in cell code and applied to laser-accelerated car- bon ions, Phys. Plasmas 18, 10.1063/1.3559494 (2011)

    2011 doi

  24. [32]

    Lobet, E

    M. Lobet, E. d’Humi` eres, M. Grech, C. Ruyer, X. Davoine, and L. Gremillet, Modeling of radiative and quantum electrodynamics effects in PIC simulations of ultra-relativistic laser-plasma interaction, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 688, 012058 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Fedeli, A

    L. Fedeli, A. Huebl, F. Boillod-Cerneux, T. Clark, K. Gott, C. Hillairet, S. Jaure, A. Leblanc, R. Lehe, A. Myers, et al., Pushing the frontier in the design of laser-based electron accelerators with groundbreaking mesh-refined particle-in-cell simulations on exascale-class su...

    2022

  26. [34]

    F. Niel, C. Riconda, F. Amiranoff, R. Duclous, and M. Grech, From quantum to classical modeling of ra- diation reaction: A focus on stochasticity effects, Phys. Rev. E 97, 043209 (2018a)

    2018

  27. [35]

    F. Niel, C. Riconda, F. Amiranoff, M. Lobet, J. Derouil- lat, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, and M. Grech, From quantum to classical modeling of radiation reaction: a focus on the radiation spectrum, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60, 094002 (2018b)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Fl´ e, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, et al., Smilei: A collaborative, open-source, multi-purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation, Comput. Phys. Comm. 222, 351 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    C. S. Brady and T. D. Arber, An ion acceleration mech- anism in laser illuminated targets with internal elec- tron density structure, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 015001 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Bastrakov, R

    S. Bastrakov, R. Donchenko, A. Gonoskov, E. Efimenko, A. Malyshev, I. Meyerov, and I. Surmin, Particle-in-cell plasma simulation on heterogeneous cluster systems, J. Comput. Sci. 3, 474 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Burau, R

    H. Burau, R. Widera, W. H¨ onig, G. Juckeland, A. Debus, T. Kluge, U. Schramm, T. E. Cowan, R. Sauerbrey, and M. Bussmann, PIConGPU: a fully relativistic particle- in-cell code for a GPU cluster, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 38, 2831 (2010)

    2010

  32. [40]

    V. A. Vshivkov, N. M. Naumova, F. Pegoraro, and S. Bu- lanov, Nonlinear electrodynamics of the interaction of ultra-intense laser pulses with a thin foil, Phys. Plasmas 5, 2727 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    T. V. Liseykina and D. Bauer, Plasma-formation dynam- ics in intense laser-droplet interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 145003 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. Bu- lanov, Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045001 (2022). 20

    2022

  35. [43]

    S. V. Popruzhenko and A. M. Fedotov, Dynamics and radiation of charged particles in ultra-intense laser fields, Phys.-Uspekhi 193, 491 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in QED with intense background fields, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Possibility of Prolific Pair Pro- duction with High-Power Lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 200403 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, G. Mourou, and G. Korn, Limitations on the attainable intensity of high power lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 080402 (2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Azamoum, G

    Y. Azamoum, G. A. Becker, S. Keppler, G. Duchateau, S. Skupin, M. Grech, F. Catoire, S. Hell, I. Tamer, M. Hornung, M. Hellwing, A. Kessler, F. Schorcht, and M. C. Kaluza, Optical probing of ultrafast laser-induced solid-to-overdense-plasma transitions, Light: Sci. Appl. 13, 1...

    2024

  40. [48]

    T. Hall, R. Hooper, N. Patel, and J. L. Pacheco, Tun- nel ionization within a one-dimensional, undriven plasma sheath, AIP Advances 13, 055315 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Bernert, S

    C. Bernert, S. Assenbaum, F.-E. Brack, T. E. Cowan, C. B. Curry, M. Garten, L. Gaus, M. Gauthier, S. G¨ ode, I. Goethel, S. H. Glenzer, T. Kluge, S. Kraft, F. Kroll, M. Kuntzsch, J. Metzkes-Ng, M. Loeser, L. Obst- Huebl, M. Rehwald, H.-P. Schlenvoigt, C. Schoenwaelder, U. Schr...

    2022

  42. [50]

    P. Wang, Z. Gong, S. G. Lee, Y. Shou, Y. Geng, C. Jeon, I. J. Kim, H. W. Lee, J. W. Yoon, J. H. Sung, S. K. Lee, D. Kong, J. Liu, Z. Mei, Z. Cao, Z. Pan, I. W. Choi, X. Yan, C. H. Nam, and W. Ma, Super-heavy ions acceleration driven by ultrashort laser pulses at ultrahigh inte...

    2021

  43. [51]

    McGuffey, A

    C. McGuffey, A. G. R. Thomas, W. Schumaker, T. Mat- suoka, V. Chvykov, F. J. Dollar, G. Kalintchenko, V. Yanovsky, A. Maksimchuk, K. Krushelnick, V. Y. By- chenkov, I. V. Glazyrin, and A. V. Karpeev, Ionization Induced Trapping in a Laser Wakefield Accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett...

    2010

  44. [52]

    A. Pak, K. A. Marsh, S. F. Martins, W. Lu, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Injection and Trapping of Tunnel-Ionized Electrons into Laser-Produced Wakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 025003 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    B. B. Pollock, C. E. Clayton, J. E. Ralph, F. Albert, A. Davidson, L. Divol, C. Filip, S. H. Glenzer, K. Her- poldt, W. Lu, K. A. Marsh, J. Meinecke, W. B. Mori, A. Pak, T. C. Rensink, J. S. Ross, J. Shaw, G. R. Tynan, C. Joshi, and D. H. Froula, Demonstration of a narrow ener...

    2011

  46. [54]

    Thaury, E

    C. Thaury, E. Guillaume, A. Lifschitz, K. Ta Phuoc, M. Hansson, G. Grittani, J. Gautier, J.-P. Goddet, A. Tafzi, O. Lundh, and V. Malka, Shock assisted ion- ization injection in laser-plasma accelerators, Sci. Rep. 5, 16310 (2015)

    2015

  47. [55]

    I. I. Artemenko and I. Y. Kostyukov, Ionization-induced laser-driven QED cascade in noble gases, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032106 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    non- relativistic

    E. A. Chowdhury, C. P. J. Barty, and B. C. Walker, “non- relativistic” ionization of the L-shell states in argon by a “relativistic”’ 10 19 W/cm2 laser field, Phys. Rev. A 63, 042712 (2001)

    2001

  49. [57]

    Yamakawa, Y

    K. Yamakawa, Y. Akahane, Y. Fukuda, M. Aoyama, N. Inoue, and H. Ueda, Ionization of many-electron atoms by ultrafast laser pulses with peak intensities greater than 10 19 W/cm2, Phys. Rev. A 68, 065403 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    A. Link, E. A. Chowdhury, J. T. Morrison, V. M. Ovchin- nikov, D. Offermann, L. Van Woerkom, R. R. Free- man, J. Pasley, E. Shipton, F. Beg, et al., Develop- ment of an in situ peak intensity measurement method for ultraintense single shot laser-plasma experiments at the Sandi...

    2006 doi

  51. [59]

    M. F. Ciappina, S. V. Popruzhenko, S. V. Bulanov, T. Ditmire, G. Korn, and S. Weber, Progress toward atomic diagnostics of ultrahigh laser intensities, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043405 (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    M. F. Ciappina, E. E. Peganov, and S. V. Popruzhenko, Focal-shape effects on the efficiency of the tunnel- ionization probe for extreme laser intensities, Matter Ra- diat. Extrem. 5, 10.1063/5.0005380 (2020)

    2020 doi

  53. [61]

    M. F. Ciappina and S. V. Popruzhenko, Diagnostics of ultra-intense laser pulses using tunneling ionization, Laser Phys. Lett. 17, 025301 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    J. J. MacFarlane, I. E. Golovkin, and P. R. Woodruff, HELIOS-CR–A 1-D radiation-magnetohydrodynamics code with inline atomic kinetics modeling, J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat. Transf. 99, 381 (2006)

    2006

  55. [63]

    M. E. Sherrill, J. Abdallah Jr, G. Csanak, D. P. Kil- crease, E. S. Dodd, Y. Fukuda, Y. Akahane, M. Aoyama, N. Inoue, H. Ueda, et al., Coupled electron and atomic kinetics through the solution of the Boltzmann equation for generating time-dependent X-ray spectra, J. Quant. Spe...

    2006

  56. [64]

    A. M. Perelomov, V. S. Popov, and M. V. Terent’ev, Ionization of atoms in an alternating electric field, Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 924 (1966)

    1966

  57. [65]

    A. M. Perelomov, V. S. Popov, and M. V. Terent’ev, Ionization of atoms in an alternating electric field: II, Sov. Phys. JETP 24, 207 (1967)

    1967

  58. [66]

    A. M. Perelomov and V. S. Popov, Ionization of atoms in an alternating electrical field. III, Sov. Phys. JETP 25, 336 (1967)

    1967

  59. [67]

    V. S. Popov, Tunnel and multiphoton ionization of atoms and ions in a strong laser field (keldysh theory), Phys.- Uspekhi 47, 855 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    S. V. Popruzhenko, Keldysh theory of strong field ioniza- tion: history, applications, difficulties and perspectives, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 204001 (2014)

    2014

  61. [69]

    M. V. Ammosov, N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov, Tun- nel ionization of complex atoms and of atomic ions in an alternating electromagnetic field, Sov. phys. JETP 64, 1191 (1986)

    1986

  62. [70]

    X. M. Tong and C. D. Lin, Empirical formula for static field ionization rates of atoms and molecules by lasers in the barrier-suppression regime, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 38, 2593 (2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    I. Y. Kostyukov and A. Golovanov, Field ionization in short and extremely intense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043407 (2018)

    2018

  64. [72]

    A. A. Golovanov and I. Y. Kostyukov, Formula for the ionisation rate of an atom or ion in a strong electromag- netic field for numerical simulation, Quantum Electron. 21 50, 350 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Ouatu, B

    I. Ouatu, B. Spiers, R. Aboushelbaya, Q. Feng, M. von der Leyen, R. Paddock, R. Timmis, C. Ticos, K. Krushelnick, and P. Norreys, Ionization states for the multipetawatt laser-QED regime, Phys. Rev. E 106, 015205 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    P. B. Corkum, Plasma perspective on strong field multi- photon ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994 (1993)

    1993

  67. [75]

    Krausz and M

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

    2009

  68. [76]

    Krausz, Nobel Lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev

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

    2024

  69. [77]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, J. Wu, S. S. Luo, P. Grugan, and B. C. Walker, Limits of strong field rescattering in the relativistic regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 093001 (2017)

    2017

  70. [78]

    M. Y. Kuchiev, Atomic antenna, JETP Lett. 45 (1987)

    1987

  71. [79]

    G. G. Paulus, W. Nicklich, H. Xu, P. Lambropoulos, and H. Walther, Plateau in above threshold ionization spec- tra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2851 (1994)

    1994

  72. [80]

    Becker, X

    W. Becker, X. Liu, P. J. Ho, and J. H. Eberly, Theories of photoelectron correlation in laser-driven multiple atomic ionization, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1011 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    Becker, S

    W. Becker, S. P. Goreslavski, D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, and G. G. Paulus, The plateau in above-threshold ionization: the keystone of rescattering physics, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 51, 162002 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Agostini, Nobel Lecture: Genesis and applications of attosecond pulse trains, Rev

    P. Agostini, Nobel Lecture: Genesis and applications of attosecond pulse trains, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030501 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    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

  76. [84]

    L. V. Keldysh, Ionization in the Field of a Strong Electromagnetic Wave, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 10.1142/9789811279461 0008 (1965)

    1965 doi

  77. [85]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Ionization of systems bound by short-range forces by the field of an electro- magnetic wave, Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 168 (1966)

    1966

  78. [86]

    F. H. M. Faisal, Multiple absorption of laser photons by atoms, Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 6, L89 (1973)

    1973

  79. [87]

    H. R. Reiss, Effect of an intense electromagnetic field on a weakly bound system, Phys. Rev. A 22, 1786 (1980)

    1980

  80. [88]

    A. A. Radzig and B. M. Smirnov, Reference data on atoms, molecules, and ions, Vol. 31 (Springer Science & Business Media, New York, 2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    Vitanov and G

    N. Vitanov and G. Panev, On the asymptotic form of the electron wave function in the atom and the ion, Eu- rophys. Lett. 16, 159 (1991)

    1991

  82. [90]

    D. R. Hartree, The wave mechanics of an atom with a non-coulomb central field. Part I. Theory and methods, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 24, 89 (1928)

    1928

  83. [91]

    Bauer and P

    D. Bauer and P. Mulser, Exact field ionization rates in the barrier-suppression regime from numerical time- dependent Schr¨ odinger-equation calculations, Phys. Rev. A 59, 569 (1999)

    1999

  84. [92]

    Zhang, P

    Q. Zhang, P. Lan, and P. Lu, Empirical formula for over- barrier strong-field ionization, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043410 (2014)

    2014

  85. [93]

    Mironov, https://github.com/ArsenyMironov/ Smilei_ionization

    A. Mironov, https://github.com/ArsenyMironov/ Smilei_ionization

  86. [94]

    Eckart, M

    S. Eckart, M. Kunitski, M. Richter, A. Hartung, J. Rist, F. Trinter, K. Fehre, N. Schlott, K. Henrichs, L. P. H. Schmidt, et al., Ultrafast preparation and detection of ring currents in single atoms, Nat. Phys 14, 701 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Barth and O

    I. Barth and O. Smirnova, Nonadiabatic tunneling in cir- cularly polarized laser fields: Physical picture and calcu- lations, Phys. Rev. A 84, 063415 (2011)

    2011

  88. [96]

    Barth and M

    I. Barth and M. Lein, Numerical verification of the the- ory of nonadiabatic tunnel ionization in strong circularly polarized laser fields, J. Phys. B 47, 204016 (2014)

    2014

  89. [97]

    E. B. Saloman, Energy levels and observed spectral lines of ionized argon, arii through arxviii, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 39, 10.1063/1.3337661 (2010)

    2010 doi

  90. [98]

    M. Chen, E. Cormier-Michel, C. G. R. Geddes, D. L. Bruhwiler, L. L. Yu, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Numerical modeling of laser tunneling ionization in explicit particle-in-cell codes, J. Comput. Phys. 236, 220 (2013)

    2013

  91. [99]

    S. C. Rae and K. Burnett, Detailed simulations of plasma-induced spectral blueshifting, Phys. Rev. A 46, 1084 (1992)

    1992

  92. [100]

    NIST Atomic Spectra Database Ionization Ener- gies, https://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/ASD/ ionEnergy.html

  93. [101]

    X. Li, A. l’Huillier, M. Ferray, L. A. Lompr´ e, and G. Mainfray, Multiple-harmonic generation in rare gases at high laser intensity, Phys. Rev. A 39, 5751 (1989)

    1989

  94. [102]

    S. V. Popruzhenko and D. I. Tyurin, Search for the collec- tive tunneling effect in the ionization of multiply charged Li-like ions by two laser beams of extreme intensity, Bull. Lebedev Phys. Inst. 50, S922 (2023)

    2023

  95. [103]

    D. I. Tyurin, V. V. Strelkov, and S. V. Popruzhenko, Breakdown of sequential tunneling ionization in ultra- short laser pulses, in preparation

  96. [104]

    Clementi and C

    E. Clementi and C. Roetti, Roothaan-Hartree-Fock atomic wavefunctions: Basis functions and their coeffi- cients for ground and certain excited states of neutral and ionized atoms, z ≤ 54, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables 14, 177 (1974)

    1974

  97. [105]

    A. V. Evseev, A. A. Radtsig, and B. M. Smirnov, Asymp- totics of wave-function of an electron in atom and ion, Opt. Spectrosc. 44, 833 (1978)

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.