Maxwell-Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) Simulation for Coupled Laser-Electron Dynamics in a Metal Irradiated by Ultrashort Intense Laser Pulses

Kenichi L. Ishikawa; Mizuki Tani; Tomohito Otobe; Yasushi Shinohara

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Maxwell-Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) Simulation for Coupled Laser-Electron Dynamics in a Metal Irradiated by Ultrashort Intense Laser Pulses

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper builds a Maxwell-Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck simulation and shows electron-electron collisions change absorption most under p-polarized light while energy travels deeper than the laser's skin depth.

desk verdict A well-built method extension (Vlasov + Uehling-Uhlenbeck + Maxwell) whose headline polarization-dependent absorption result is plausible but not yet nailed down, because it leans on an imported collision cross-section and lacks error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02865 v1 pith:SK5ZT5DD submitted 2025-02-05 physics.plasm-ph physics.optics

Mizuki Tani , Tomohito Otobe , Yasushi Shinohara , Kenichi L. Ishikawa This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-phphysics.optics

keywords Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeckequationelectron-electronscatteringultrashortlaserpulsesaluminumthinfilmpseudoparticlemethodMaxwell-VUUcouplingpolarization-dependentabsorptionenergytransportdepth

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 tries to add electron-electron scattering to a semiclassical simulation of intense laser pulses hitting a metal, without paying the full cost of time-dependent density functional theory. It takes a Vlasov-equation solver based on pseudoparticles and adds the Uehling-Uhlenbeck collision integral, which represents two-body fermion collisions with stochastic Monte Carlo sampling and Pauli blocking, then couples the electron dynamics to Maxwell's equations so the laser pulse can propagate. Applied to aluminum films, the simulation finds that electron-electron scattering raises the absorbed energy more under p-polarized light (roughly 2.5 eV in the studied 4-nm film) than under s-polarization (roughly 0.5 eV), and it traces this asymmetry to the non-uniform surface Coulomb potential. It also finds that kinetic energy is deposited deeper than the optical penetration depth, matching the behavior inferred from earlier ablation experiments. If the collision model is sound, the method provides a cost-effective way to study non-equilibrium laser-metal dynamics that TDDFT currently handles only with difficulty.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) equation: the usual Vlasov equation for the electron phase-space distribution with an added collision integral $I_{UU}$ that describes elastic two-body electron-electron scattering with fermionic statistics. In the pseudoparticle implementation, the distribution is represented by many Gaussian-smoothed classical particles, and the collision integral is realized by Monte Carlo sampling of pairs whose separation is smaller than an impact parameter set by a screened-Coulomb total cross section that depends only on electron density; proposed post-collision momenta are accepted with a Pauli-blocking rate built from the local momentum occupation. The electron dynamics are then coupled to Maxwell's equations through the current density, with the laser field treated in the length gauge and absorbing boundary conditions for the electromagnetic field. This combination lets the same simulation describe both the microscopic collision physics and the propagation of the laser pulse through a finite-thickness slab.

What would settle it

Recompute the same simulations with a collision cross section calibrated to aluminum-specific electron scattering (for example, derived from TDDFT or from measured electron-energy-loss data) and compare the p- versus s-polarization absorbed-energy gap: if the roughly 2.5 eV versus 0.5 eV difference shrinks or disappears, the density-only screened-Coulomb collision model is the load-bearing assumption that failed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that adding dynamic electron-electron scattering to the semiclassical Vlasov description changes the predicted laser-metal interaction in two measurable ways. First, the Uehling-Uhlenbeck collision term increases absorbed energy significantly for p-polarized light while leaving s-polarization nearly unchanged; the paper attributes this to electrons driven perpendicular to the surface experiencing the strongly non-uniform surface Coulomb potential, which converts collisional momentum redistribution into extra energy uptake. Second, in the coupled Maxwell-VUU runs on a 16-nm aluminum film, the kinetic energy gain extends beyond the region where the laser field is strong, showing that excited electrons transport energy along the optical axis within the few-femtosecond pulse; electron-electron scattering slows that energy current but does not change the depth profile much, suggesting kinetic energy is converted into potential energy. Together the two results make the case that the Maxwell-VUU scheme is a viable semiclassical alternative to TDDFT that includes fermionic two-body collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the collision model adopted for electron-electron scattering—a screened-Coulomb cross section depending only on density plus a local rule that rejects collisions into already-occupied states—correctly describes femtosecond-scale scattering in laser-heated aluminum; if it does not, the polarization-dependent absorption and deep energy transport results would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For p-polarized femtosecond pulses on aluminum, ignoring electron-electron scattering underestimates the absorbed energy by about 2.5 eV in the studied 4-nm film, so collision physics should be included when modeling polarization-dependent laser processing.
Energy is carried beyond the optical penetration depth during the pulse itself, giving a microscopic mechanism for the deeper effective penetration depths inferred from ablation-rate measurements.
Electron-electron scattering suppresses energy flow along the optical axis by redirecting electron motion transversely, yet leaves the depth profile of kinetic energy gain almost unchanged, indicating a collision-assisted conversion of kinetic into potential energy.
Because the method couples the electron dynamics to Maxwell's equations, it can treat targets whose thickness is comparable to or larger than the laser wavelength, which the previous collisionless Vlasov simulator could not.
The Pauli-blocked collision term gives the semiclassical approach access to fermionic two-body collisions whose description in TDDFT is limited, positioning the method as a lower-cost complement for non-equilibrium laser-material studies.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural stress test would be to swap the density-only screened-Coulomb cross section for an aluminum-specific scattering rate and see whether the predicted p/s absorption asymmetry survives; the paper's mechanism predicts the asymmetry should track how strongly the surface potential deviates from a uniform background.
The model could be checked experimentally by comparing depth-resolved damage or ablation thresholds in thin aluminum films for p- and s-polarized femtosecond pulses; the collision-enhanced absorption should appear as a polarization contrast before thermal equilibrium sets in.
The same Maxwell-VUU machinery could be turned on dielectrics and semiconductors, where electron-electron collisions are commonly invoked for avalanche ionization, to test whether collision-driven carriers can outrun the optical field penetration in those materials as well.
A direct way to quantify robustness is to rerun the same pulses with different random seeds and pseudoparticle densities; the size of the resulting spread would show how stable the roughly 2.5 eV versus 0.5 eV gap is.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid method-extension paper, not yet a solid quantitative results paper. The VUU collision term added to the previous Vlasov scheme, coupled with Maxwell propagation, is genuinely new and implemented with care. The polarization-dependent absorption asymmetry is the headline, but it rests on an imported collision cross-section and no reported statistical error bars, so I would treat it as suggestive rather than established. The energy-transport-beyond-optical-depth result appears already in the collisionless simulations, so it is more robust.

What is actually new: combining the Uehling-Uhlenbeck collision integral with the pseudoparticle Vlasov scheme and Maxwell propagation for solid metal films. The linear-response damping comparison (Vlasov vs Vlasov-UU) is a clean demonstration that the collision term is doing something, and the appendix on finite-width pseudoparticle corrections shows more care than is typical for this kind of code paper. The method is clearly described, though no code or data is shipped. The self-citation is appropriate: the extension builds directly on the authors' earlier Vlasov work and on the cluster-physics collision model from Ref. [43].

Soft spots, in order. First, the central claim—electron-electron scattering increases absorbed energy by ~2.5 eV for p-polarization versus ~0.5 eV for s-polarization—depends entirely on the screened-Coulomb cross-section taken from Ref. [43], which was developed for laser-excited metal clusters. No aluminum-specific validation, no comparison to Fermi-liquid theory, and no TDDFT benchmark is given. That cross-section directly scales the magnitude of the effect, so the quantitative asymmetry is unconstrained. Second, no error bars or multiple-seed runs are reported for the stochastic collision sampling. The paper states Ns = 10000 is sufficient from prior work, but that prior work did not include collisions in the slab geometry; the ~2 eV difference could in principle be statistical noise. Third, the collisionless versus collisional comparison in Fig. 5 shows nearly identical kinetic energy distributions, which is a bit odd alongside the absorption difference; the authors attribute the difference to potential-energy conversion, but that is post-hoc interpretation without direct evidence.

The energy-transport result is on firmer ground: it appears in the collisionless Maxwell-Vlasov run and is only slightly modified by collisions, so it does not depend on the contested collision model.

Who this is for: researchers working on semiclassical simulation of ultrafast laser–metal interactions. A serious referee should engage with this; the method is worth scrutiny and the quantitative claims need either uncertainty estimates or validation before being quoted as established results. My recommendation: send it to peer review, and require the authors to either provide error bars and sensitivity checks on the collision cross-section, or soften the polarization-asymmetry claim to be qualitative.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends a previously developed semiclassical Vlasov pseudoparticle method for laser-driven aluminum by adding the Uehling-Uhlenbeck two-body collision term and by coupling the Vlasov equation to Maxwell's equations. The resulting Maxwell-Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (Maxwell-VUU) approach is applied to bulk and slab aluminum. The central reported results are that electron-electron scattering increases absorbed energy more under p-polarization than under s-polarization, and that kinetic energy is transported beyond the optical penetration depth in a 16 nm aluminum film. The paper is framed as a cost-effective semiclassical alternative to TDDFT that can include fermionic two-body collisions.

Significance. If validated, the Maxwell-VUU scheme would be a useful tool for studying non-equilibrium laser-metal interactions, with the advantage of including explicit two-body fermionic collisions, a process that is difficult to capture in TDDFT. The paper has genuine strengths: the governing equations are presented clearly, the collisional and collisionless runs serve as a meaningful control, and the energy-transport-beyond-optical-depth result appears already in the collisionless simulations and is therefore more robust than the polarization-dependent absorption claim. The main limitation is that the quantitative polarization asymmetry rests on a collision model imported from metal-cluster physics with no aluminum-specific validation and no statistical error analysis. The paper would be significantly strengthened by controlled benchmarks, seed-averaged results, and a quantitative test of the proposed surface-potential mechanism.

major comments (4)

[II.A (paragraph introducing sigma_tot)] The total scattering cross section sigma_tot is taken from Ref. [43] as a screened-Coulomb cross section that 'solely depends on the electron density.' Since the magnitude of the electron-electron scattering correction in Fig. 3 scales directly with sigma_tot, and no comparison is made to aluminum-specific electron-electron scattering rates, Fermi-liquid theory, or TDDFT, the central quantitative claim about polarization-dependent absorption is not yet supported. A benchmark of the collision model against known aluminum scattering rates or a TDDFT calculation would be needed to establish the physical validity of the ~2 eV asymmetry.
[III.B (Figs. 3(a)-(b))] The absorbed-energy difference attributed to electron-electron scattering (~2.5 eV for p-polarization versus ~0.5 eV for s-polarization) is reported without error bars, multiple-seed runs, or any noise analysis of the stochastic Monte Carlo collision sampling described in Section II.A. Because the sampling is stochastic, the reader cannot determine whether the 2 eV polarization asymmetry exceeds statistical uncertainty. The paper should report standard deviations over independent random seeds and specify the total number of physical electrons and pseudoparticles used in the slab runs, along with the normalization of the absorbed energy shown in Fig. 3.
[III.B (paragraph after Fig. 3)] The proposed mechanism for the polarization asymmetry—that the surface density of states lowers Pauli blocking and that the non-uniform surface Coulomb potential enhances collisional dissipation under p-polarization—is qualitative. Equation (14) only demonstrates that elastic collisions under a uniform external potential conserve the final energy; it does not establish that surface nonuniformity converts collision events into enhanced absorption. A controlled comparison using a jellium slab, or systematically modifying the surface potential, would directly test this mechanism, similar to the jellium comparison already presented for the linear-response current in Fig. 2.
[II.A and Appendix A] The stochastic collision algorithm is not specified to the level needed to verify that it converges to the Uehling-Uhlenbeck equation. The text does not state how the collision probability depends on relative velocity and time step, and the impact-parameter criterion b = sqrt(sigma_tot/(pi N_s)) is introduced without derivation. In addition, the energy current Q(t) in Eq. (10) and Fig. 6 is affected by the finite momentum smoothing width d_p, as shown in Eq. (A21), but the value of d_p is not reported and the condition d_p << p is not checked. Without these details, the quantitative energy-current results are difficult to assess and reproduce.

minor comments (5)

[III.B] In Section III.B, 'totoal' should be 'total', and in the caption of Fig. 4, 'ploted' should be 'plotted'.
[Title page] The line 'PACS numbers: Valid PACS appear here' is a placeholder and should be removed or filled with actual PACS codes.
[Eq. (4)] The sign convention in the Poisson equation for the Hartree potential, Delta V_H = -4 pi e n_e, should be clarified. With e denoting the elementary positive charge and n_e the electron density, the electron charge density is -e n_e, and the usual convention would give Delta V_H = +4 pi e n_e. Please reconcile the sign or define the convention used.
[Fig. 3] The normalization of the absorbed energy in Fig. 3 is not stated; please clarify whether the values are per electron, per atom, per simulation cell, or total energy of the slab.
[Fig. 5] The label 'scaled maximum laser field intensity along optical axis' should be clarified to indicate whether it is the laser intensity or the field envelope, and whether the scaling is relative to the peak value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the VUU collision term and Maxwell coupling are solved forward, and the reported absorption and transport results are outputs, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central simulation is a forward solve of the coupled Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck and Maxwell equations, with the Uehling-Uhlenbeck collision integral implemented through a screened-Coulomb cross section taken from Ref. [43] and Pauli-blocking acceptance sampling. The reported quantities—current damping time, absorbed energy under s- and p-polarization, and kinetic-energy depth distribution—are all outputs of this time evolution, not parameters fitted to reproduce those outputs. The p/s absorption asymmetry is not imposed by any fitted parameter; it emerges from the same equations applied to different polarizations in the presence of the non-uniform surface Coulomb potential. The energy-transport-beyond-optical-depth claim appears already in the collisionless results (Fig. 5), so it does not reduce to the collision model. The paper cites the authors' own prior work (Ref. [42]) for the pseudoparticle method, ground-state preparation, and previous Vlasov validation, but the new physics introduced here—electron-electron collisions and Maxwell propagation—is not taken from that reference. Ref. [43] is an independent source for the collision cross-section; even if that cross-section is not benchmarked for aluminum, that is a model-validation and correctness concern, not a circularity. No equation in the paper defines the predicted quantity in terms of itself, and no fitted input is renamed as a prediction. The lack of statistical error bars for the Monte Carlo collision sampling weakens quantitative robustness but does not constitute circular reasoning.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger lists no result-fitted free parameters. The numerical parameters (pseudoparticle number, smoothing widths, collision cross-section) are chosen from prior work or numerical convenience, and the main quantitative claims are not obtained by fitting to target data. The axioms are the semiclassical VUU modeling framework, the local potential approximation, the stochastic collision implementation, and the standard Maxwell solver. No new physical entities are postulated; pseudoparticles are a computational device.

free parameters (4)

Pseudo-particles per electron N_s = 10000
Chosen in Section II.A to suppress statistical noise; directly sets collision sampling statistics and cost, yet no convergence or error-bar study is reported.
Real-space smoothing width d_r = Not stated in text; defined in Eq. (7)
Gaussian kernel width for density representation; affects effective potential and collision pair selection; specific value is deferred to Ref. [42].
Momentum-space smoothing width d_p = Not stated in text; defined in Eq. (8)
Gaussian kernel width in momentum; Appendix A shows finite d_p adds a constant shift to kinetic energy and affects heat current, but no value or sensitivity test is given.
Collision cross section sigma_tot and impact parameter b = Screened Coulomb expression depending only on local electron density, Ref. [43]
Controls the rate of electron-electron collisions in the Monte Carlo step; imported from cluster physics and not validated against aluminum-specific data in this paper.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption VUU equation (Eq. 1) is a valid semiclassical kinetic description of laser-driven electron dynamics in a metal, with the collision integral IUU representing Pauli-blocked two-body scattering.
This is the central modeling framework; it assumes a one-body distribution plus binary collisions is sufficient for the questions studied.
domain assumption The effective potential is local: ionic pseudopotentials plus Hartree potential plus LDA exchange-correlation (Eqs. 2-3).
Used for the Thomas-Fermi ground state and time propagation; LDA is an uncontrolled approximation for out-of-equilibrium dynamics.
domain assumption Collision events are implemented by stochastic Monte Carlo sampling with total cross section from a screened Coulomb potential that depends only on local electron density (Section II.A, Ref. [43]).
This imported collision model sets the e-e scattering rate and is not validated against aluminum-specific data in this paper.
standard math Maxwell's equations in the vector-potential form (Eq. 11) with Mur absorbing boundaries describe laser propagation.
Standard electromagnetic solver; the coupling to the electron system through J(r,t) is the key modeling choice.
standard math Elastic collisions under a uniform external potential conserve the sum of kinetic energies at collision time (Eq. 14).
Used to argue that non-uniform surface potential is responsible for the p-polarization collisional absorption enhancement; the identity holds algebraically under the stated assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Maxwell-Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) Simulation for Coupled Laser-Electron Dynamics in a Metal Irradiated by Ultrashort Intense Laser Pulses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SK5ZT5DD

@misc{pith2026250202865,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Maxwell-Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) Simulation for Coupled Laser-Electron Dynamics in a Metal Irradiated by Ultrashort Intense Laser Pulses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SK5ZT5DD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02865}
}

read the original abstract

The description of electron-electron scattering presents challenges in the microscopic modeling of the interaction of ultrashort intense laser pulses with solids. We extend the semiclassical approach based on the Vlasov equation [Phys. Rev. B 104, 075157(2021)] to account for dynamic electron-electron scattering by introducing the Vlasov-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (VUU) equation. We further couple the VUU equation with Maxwell's equations to describe the laser pulse propagation. We apply the present approach to simulate laser-electron interactions in bulk and thin-film aluminum, focusing on energy absorption and transport. Our calculation results reveal that electron-electron scattering affects energy absorption more significantly under p-polarization than under s-polarization, highlighting the role of the non-uniform surface potential. Our simulations also show that the energy transport extends beyond the optical penetration depth, which is consistent with observations in previous laser ablation experiments. The developed Maxwell-VUU approach is expected to advance the understanding of intense laser-material interactions not only as a cost-effective alternative to the time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT), but also by incorporating fermionic two-body collisions whose description is limited in TDDFT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02865 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Time evolution of charge current density after impul [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Absorbed energy under (a) s-polarized light and (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Time evolution of energy gain is illustrated. Total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Kinetic energy gain distribution calculated by coll [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Time evolution of energy current density in x- and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

[43]

M. Tani, T. Otobe, Y. Shinohara, and K. L. Ishikawa, Semiclassical description of electron dynamics in ex- tended systems under intense laser ﬁelds, Physical Re- view B 104, 075157 (2021)

work page 2021
[1]

Ghimire, A

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Observation of high-order harmonic generation in a bulk crystal, Nature physics 7, 138 (2011)

work page 2011
[2]

center of mass (c.m.)

that accounts for Pauli blocking, where fp denotes the local momentum occupation. Here σtot denotes total scattering cross section that is derived as that by screened Coulomb potential which solely depends on the electron density (details are given in Ref. [43]). If the collision event mentioned above is not accepted, a new pair will be sampled, and the s...

work page
[3]

Vampa, T

G. Vampa, T. Hammond, N. Thir´ e, B. Schmidt, F. L´ egar´ e, C. McDonald, T. Brabec, and P. Corkum, Linking high harmonics from gases and solids, Nature 522, 462 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

Y. S. You, D. A. Reis, and S. Ghimire, Anisotropic high- harmonic generation in bulk crystals, Nature physics 13, 345 (2017)

2017
[5]

Ndabashimiye, S

G. Ndabashimiye, S. Ghimire, M. Wu, D. A. Browne, K. J. Schafer, M. B. Gaarde, and D. A. Reis, Solid- state harmonics beyond the atomic limit, Nature 534, 520 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Morimoto, Y

Y. Morimoto, Y. Shinohara, M. Tani, B.-H. Chen, K. L. Ishikawa, and P. Baum, Asymmetric single-cycle control of valence electron motion in polar chemical bonds, Op- tica 8, 382 (2021)

work page 2021
[7]

Schaefer, H

C. Schaefer, H. M. Urbassek, and L. V. Zhigilei, Metal ablation by picosecond laser pulses: A hybrid simulation, Physical review B 66, 115404 (2002)

work page 2002

Show all 51 references

[8]

Kerse, H

C. Kerse, H. Kalaycıo˘ glu, P. Elahi, B. C ¸ etin, D. K. Kesim, ¨O. Ak¸ caalan, S. Yava¸ s, M. D. A¸ sık, B.¨Oktem, H. Hoogland, R. Holzwarth, and F. ¨O. Ilday, Ablation- cooled material removal with ultrafast bursts of pulses, Nature 537, 84 (2016)

2016
[9]

Colombier, P

J.-P. Colombier, P. Combis, F. Bonneau, R. Le Harzic, and E. Audouard, Hydrodynamic simulations of metal ablation by femtosecond laser irradiation, Physical re- view B 71, 165406 (2005)

2005
[10]

Schmidt, W

V. Schmidt, W. Husinsky, and G. Betz, Dynamics of laser desorption and ablation of metals at the threshold on the femtosecond time scale, Physical review letters 85, 3516 (2000)

2000
[11]

Leitz, B

K.-H. Leitz, B. Redlingsh¨ ofer, Y. Reg, A. Otto, and M. Schmidt, Metal ablation with short and ultrashort laser pulses, Physics Procedia 12, 230 (2011)

2011
[12]

B. N. Chichkov, C. Momma, S. Nolte, F. Von Al- vensleben, and A. T¨ unnermann, Femtosecond, picosec- ond and nanosecond laser ablation of solids, Applied physics A 63, 109 (1996)

1996
[13]

X. Liu, D. Du, and G. Mourou, Laser ablation and mi- cromachining with ultrashort laser pulses, IEEE journal of quantum electronics 33, 1706 (1997)

1997
[14]

Amoruso, G

S. Amoruso, G. Ausanio, R. Bruzzese, M. Vitiello, and X. Wang, Femtosecond laser pulse irradiation of solid tar- gets as a general route to nanoparticle formation in a vacuum, Physical Review B 71, 033406 (2005)

2005
[15]

E. G. Gamaly, The physics of ultra-short laser interact ion with solids at non-relativistic intensities, Physics Repo rts 508, 91 (2011)

2011
[16]

Medvedev, H

N. Medvedev, H. O. Jeschke, and B. Ziaja, Nonthermal phase transitions in semiconductors induced by a fem- tosecond extreme ultraviolet laser pulse, New Journal of Physics 15, 015016 (2013)

2013
[17]

R. R. Gattass and E. Mazur, Femtosecond laser micro- machining in transparent materials, Nature photonics 2, 219 (2008)

2008
[18]

Mirza, N

I. Mirza, N. M. Bulgakova, J. Tom´ aˇ st ´ ık, V. Mich´ alek, O. Haderka, L. Fekete, and T. Mocek, Ultrashort pulse laser ablation of dielectrics: Thresholds, mechanisms, role of breakdown, Scientiﬁc reports 6, 1 (2016)

2016
[19]

Rethfeld, D

B. Rethfeld, D. S. Ivanov, M. E. Garcia, and S. I. Anisimov, Modelling ultrafast laser ablation, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 50, 193001 (2017)

2017
[20]

Rudenko, J.-P

A. Rudenko, J.-P. Colombier, and T. E. Itina, From ran- dom inhomogeneities to periodic nanostructures induced in bulk silica by ultrashort laser, Physical Review B 93, 075427 (2016)

2016
[21]

Chimier, O

B. Chimier, O. Ut´ eza, N. Sanner, M. Sentis, T. Itina, P. Lassonde, F. L´ egar´ e, F. Vidal, and J. Kieﬀer, Dam- age and ablation thresholds of fused-silica in femtosecond regime, Physical Review B 84, 094104 (2011)

2011
[22]

Lorazo, L

P. Lorazo, L. J. Lewis, and M. Meunier, Thermodynamic pathways to melting, ablation, and solidiﬁcation in ab- sorbing solids under pulsed laser irradiation, Physical Re - view B 73, 134108 (2006)

2006
[23]

Thorstensen and S

J. Thorstensen and S. Erik Foss, Temperature dependent ablation threshold in silicon using ultrashort laser pulse s, Journal of Applied Physics 112, 103514 (2012)

2012
[24]

Kondo, S

T. Kondo, S. Matsuo, S. Juodkazis, V. Mizeikis, and H. Misawa, Multiphoton fabrication of periodic struc- tures by multibeam interference of femtosecond pulses, Applied Physics Letters 82, 2758 (2003)

2003
[25]

A. K. Upadhyay, N. A. Inogamov, B. Rethfeld, and H. M. Urbassek, Ablation by ultrashort laser pulses: Atomistic and thermodynamic analysis of the processes at the ab- lation threshold, Physical Review B 78, 045437 (2008)

2008
[26]

Ivanov, A

D. Ivanov, A. Kuznetsov, V. Lipp, B. Rethfeld, B. Chichkov, M. Garcia, and W. Schulz, Short laser pulse nanostructuring of metals: direct comparison of molecu- lar dynamics modeling and experiment, Applied Physics A 111, 675 (2013)

2013
[27]

T. E. Itina, K. Gouriet, L. V. Zhigilei, S. No¨ el, J. Her- mann, and M. Sentis, Mechanisms of small clusters pro- duction by short and ultra-short laser ablation, Applied Surface Science 253, 7656 (2007)

2007
[28]

B. J. Garrison, T. E. Itina, and L. V. Zhigilei, Limit of overheating and the threshold behavior in laser ablation, Physical Review E 68, 041501 (2003)

2003
[29]

Sakabe, M

S. Sakabe, M. Hashida, S. Tokita, S. Namba, and K. Oka- muro, Mechanism for self-formation of periodic grating structures on a metal surface by a femtosecond laser pulse, Physical Review B 79, 033409 (2009)

2009
[30]

Ishino, N

M. Ishino, N. A. Inogamov, S. Tamotsu, V. V. Zhakhovsky, N. Hasegawa, I. Y. Skobelev, A. Y. Faenov, T. A. Pikuz, K. Mikami, T. Kawachi, and M. Nishikino, Study of damage structure formation on aluminum ﬁlm targets by picosecond soft x-ray laser ablation around threshold region...

2018
[31]

Anthes, M

J. Anthes, M. Gusinow, and M. K. Matzen, Experimen- tal observation and numerical simulations of laser-driven ablation, Physical Review Letters 41, 1300 (1978)

1978
[32]

B. J. Simonds, J. Sowards, J. Hadler, E. Pfeif, B. Wilthan, J. Tanner, C. Harris, P. Williams, and J. Lehman, Time-resolved absorptance and melt pool dy- namics during intense laser irradiation of a metal, Phys- ical review applied 10, 044061 (2018)

2018
[33]

Wu and L

C. Wu and L. V. Zhigilei, Microscopic mechanisms of laser spallation and ablation of metal targets from large- scale molecular dynamics simulations, Applied Physics A 9 114, 11 (2014)

2014
[34]

Silaeva, A

E. Silaeva, A. Vella, N. Sevelin-Radiguet, G. Martel, B. Deconihout, and T. Itina, Ultrafast laser-triggered ﬁeld ion emission from semiconductor tips, New Journal of Physics 14, 113026 (2012)

2012
[35]

M. Noda, S. A. Sato, Y. Hirokawa, M. Uemoto, T. Takeuchi, S. Yamada, A. Yamada, Y. Shinohara, M. Yamaguchi, K. Iida, I. Floss, T. Otobe, K.-M. Lee, K. Ishimura, T. Boku, G. F. Bertsch, K. Nobusada, and K. Yabana, Salmon: Scalable ab-initio light–matter simulator for optics and...

2019
[36]

Yabana, T

K. Yabana, T. Sugiyama, Y. Shinohara, T. Otobe, and G. Bertsch, Time-dependent density functional theory for strong electromagnetic ﬁelds in crystalline solids, Physi - cal Review B 85, 045134 (2012)

2012
[37]

A. D. Baczewski, L. Shulenburger, M. Desjarlais, S. Hansen, and R. Magyar, X-ray thomson scattering in warm dense matter without the chihara decomposition, Physical review letters 116, 115004 (2016)

2016
[38]

Otobe, Wavelength dependence of the laser-excitati on process on a silicon surface, Physical Review Applied 13, 024062 (2020)

T. Otobe, Wavelength dependence of the laser-excitati on process on a silicon surface, Physical Review Applied 13, 024062 (2020)

2020
[39]

M. Tani, K. Sasaki, Y. Shinohara, and K. L. Ishikawa, Enhanced energy deposition and carrier generation in silicon induced by two-color intense femtosecond laser pulses, Physical Review B 106, 195141 (2022)

2022
[40]

Kaneshima, Y

K. Kaneshima, Y. Shinohara, K. Takeuchi, N. Ishii, K. Imasaka, T. Kaji, S. Ashihara, K. L. Ishikawa, and J. Itatani, Polarization-resolved study of high harmonics from bulk semiconductors, Physical review letters 120, 243903 (2018)

2018
[41]

Hirori, P

H. Hirori, P. Xia, Y. Shinohara, T. Otobe, Y. Sanari, H. Tahara, N. Ishii, J. Itatani, K. L. Ishikawa, T. Aharen, M. Ozaki, A. Wakamiya, and Y. Kanemitsu, High-order harmonic generation from hybrid organic–inorganic per- ovskite thin ﬁlms, APL Materials 7, 041107 (2019)

2019
[42]

Sanari, H

Y. Sanari, H. Hirori, T. Aharen, H. Tahara, Y. Shi- nohara, K. L. Ishikawa, T. Otobe, P. Xia, N. Ishii, J. Itatani, S. A. Sato, and Y. Kanemitsu, Role of virtual band population for high harmonic generation in solids, Physical Review B 102, 041125 (2020)

2020
[44]

K¨ ohn, R

J. K¨ ohn, R. Redmer, K.-H. Meiwes-Broer, and T. Fennel, Non-resonant absorption enhancement in laser-excited simple metal clusters through electron-electron collisio ns, Physical Review A 77, 033202 (2008)

2008
[45]

Heraud, M

J. Heraud, M. Vincendon, P.-G. Reinhard, P. M. Dinh, and E. Suraud, Emission and collisional correlation in far-oﬀ equilibrium quantum systems, Eur. Phys. J. D 75 (2021)

2021
[46]

E. A. Uehling and G. E. Uhlenbeck, Transport phenom- ena in Einstein-Bose and Fermi-Dirac gases. I, Phys. Rev. 43, 552 (1933)

1933
[47]

Fiolhais, J

C. Fiolhais, J. P. Perdew, S. Q. Armster, J. M. MacLaren, and M. Brajczewska, Dominant density parameters and local pseudopotentials for simple metals, Physical Review B 51, 14001 (1995)

1995
[48]

J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Self-interaction correctio n to density-functional approximations for many-electron systems, Physical Review B 23, 5048 (1981)

1981
[49]

Mur, Absorbing boundary conditions for the Finite-Diﬀerence approximation of the Time-Domain Electromagnetic-Field equations, IEEE Trans

G. Mur, Absorbing boundary conditions for the Finite-Diﬀerence approximation of the Time-Domain Electromagnetic-Field equations, IEEE Trans. Electro- magn. Compat. EMC 23, 377 (1981)

1981
[50]

A. A. Abrikosov, Fundamentals of the Theory of Metals (North Holland, 2002)

2002
[51]

Miyasaka, M

Y. Miyasaka, M. Hashida, T. Nishii, S. Inoue, and S. Sak- abe, Derivation of eﬀective penetration depth of fem- tosecond laser pulses in metal from ablation rate depen- dence on laser ﬂuence, incidence angle, and polarization, Appl. Phys. Lett. 106, 013101 (2015)

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [43]

M. Tani, T. Otobe, Y. Shinohara, and K. L. Ishikawa, Semiclassical description of electron dynamics in ex- tended systems under intense laser ﬁelds, Physical Re- view B 104, 075157 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Ghimire, A

S. Ghimire, A. D. DiChiara, E. Sistrunk, P. Agostini, L. F. DiMauro, and D. A. Reis, Observation of high-order harmonic generation in a bulk crystal, Nature physics 7, 138 (2011)

work page 2011

[3] [2]

center of mass (c.m.)

that accounts for Pauli blocking, where fp denotes the local momentum occupation. Here σtot denotes total scattering cross section that is derived as that by screened Coulomb potential which solely depends on the electron density (details are given in Ref. [43]). If the collision event mentioned above is not accepted, a new pair will be sampled, and the s...

work page

[4] [3]

Vampa, T

G. Vampa, T. Hammond, N. Thir´ e, B. Schmidt, F. L´ egar´ e, C. McDonald, T. Brabec, and P. Corkum, Linking high harmonics from gases and solids, Nature 522, 462 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [4]

Y. S. You, D. A. Reis, and S. Ghimire, Anisotropic high- harmonic generation in bulk crystals, Nature physics 13, 345 (2017)

2017

[6] [5]

Ndabashimiye, S

G. Ndabashimiye, S. Ghimire, M. Wu, D. A. Browne, K. J. Schafer, M. B. Gaarde, and D. A. Reis, Solid- state harmonics beyond the atomic limit, Nature 534, 520 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Morimoto, Y

Y. Morimoto, Y. Shinohara, M. Tani, B.-H. Chen, K. L. Ishikawa, and P. Baum, Asymmetric single-cycle control of valence electron motion in polar chemical bonds, Op- tica 8, 382 (2021)

work page 2021

[8] [7]

Schaefer, H

C. Schaefer, H. M. Urbassek, and L. V. Zhigilei, Metal ablation by picosecond laser pulses: A hybrid simulation, Physical review B 66, 115404 (2002)

work page 2002