Attosecond-Resolved Photoionization Dynamics and Interference-Enhanced Photoelectron Circular Dichroism in Chiral Molecules

Peixiang Lu; Xu Zhang; Yang Li; Yueming Zhou; Zheming Zhou

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Attosecond-Resolved Photoionization Dynamics and Interference-Enhanced Photoelectron Circular Dichroism in Chiral Molecules

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that a circularly polarized RABBITT scheme on randomly oriented chiral molecules resolves a 25-attosecond forward-backward photoionization delay and an interference-boosted photoelectron circular dichroism.

desk verdict A solid model-calculation Letter predicting interference-enhanced PECD and 25-as chiral delays in circular RABBITT, but the central delay extraction is deferred to a missing Supplemental—worth refereeing with that caveat. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03572 v1 pith:X7SSZ4XJ submitted 2025-05-06 physics.atom-ph

Zheming Zhou , Yang Li , Xu Zhang , Yueming Zhou , Peixiang Lu This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph

keywords photoelectroncirculardichroismRABBITTattosecondtimedelaychiralmoleculescontinuum-continuumtransitionsinterferometrycircularlypolarizedpulsestime-dependentSchrödingerequation

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

This paper predicts that a circularly polarized RABBITT experiment on randomly oriented chiral molecules can do what single-photon chiral probes cannot: read the phase of the ejected electron wavepacket. The two photoionization pathways contributing to each sideband interfere, and that interference magnifies photoelectron circular dichroism (PECD) while creating a measurable difference between the emission times of electrons ejected forward and backward along the laser axis. Both effects grow when the infrared field counter-rotates with the XUV field, reaching about 8% PECD and up to 25 attoseconds of forward-backward delay in the model system. If the prediction holds, RABBITT becomes a coherent-control tool for chiral photoelectron wavepackets and a probe of the long-range chiral potential.

What carries the argument

The engine of the paper is circular RABBITT: a circularly polarized XUV pulse train ionizes the molecule, and a synchronized circular IR field adds or removes one photon to create sidebands. Each sideband is a superposition of an absorption path and an emission path, and the paper analyzes their interference through the anisotropy parameters $\beta_{lm}$ of the angle-resolved sideband distribution. The parameter $\beta_{32}$ is the lynchpin: it vanishes for an achiral ensemble, so it alone controls the forward-backward asymmetry of the RABBITT phase, while $\beta_{22}$ and $\beta_{42}$ set the overall size of the differential delay. The counter-rotating geometry enlarges $|\beta_{32}|$ while shrinking $|\beta_{22}|$, making the chiral phase asymmetry relatively larger. These parameters feed the explicit relation $\Delta\tau_{f/b} \approx M\sin(\delta_{22}-\delta_{32})|\beta_{32}A_{32}P_3^2(\sin\theta')|/\left[\omega|\beta_{22}A_{22}P_2^2(\sin\theta')+\beta_{42}A_{42}P_4^2(\sin\theta')|\right]$, which connects the measured delay to the chiral part of the continuum-continuum transition.

What would settle it

Run the proposed measurement on a real randomly oriented chiral molecule, such as methyloxirane or camphor, with counter-rotating circular XUV and IR pulses: the central prediction fails if the sideband PECD does not exceed the one-photon main-peak PECD, or if the extracted forward-backward sideband delay is consistent with zero within a few attoseconds of experimental uncertainty.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that two-photon interferometry with circularly polarized light exposes enantiosensitive phase information that one-photon PECD leaves hidden. Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a model chiral molecule and averaging over all molecular orientations, the authors find that each sideband in a circular RABBITT trace carries a $2\varphi$ oscillation whose phase encodes the photoionization time delay. That delay differs for electrons emitted toward the laser source and away from it, and the difference reverses when molecular handedness is swapped. They also show that the absorption and emission pathways forming each sideband interfere, generating odd-parity anisotropy terms that enhance PECD beyond the single-photon value and make it oscillate with azimuthal angle. A counter-rotating IR field generates these odd-parity wavepackets more efficiently, which is why the enhanced PECD and the up-to-25-attosecond forward-backward delay are largest in that geometry.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hinges on the four-nucleus model potential (charges $-5$, $+2$, $+2$, $+2$ arranged chirally) faithfully representing the long-range chiral continuum-continuum interactions of a real molecule; if those long-range interactions differ in sign or strength, the predicted 25-attosecond delay and the enhanced PECD will not transfer to experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Sideband PECD in the counter-rotating geometry exceeds 8%, several times the main-peak values, so two-pathway interference acts as a chiral-signal amplifier.
The forward-backward delay of up to 25 attoseconds flips sign with enantiomer, offering a phase-based tag for molecular handedness.
IR helicity controls the parity of the photoelectron wavepacket: counter-rotating fields preferentially create odd-parity continuum states, which enlarges the chiral response.
Because the delay is read from the angle-resolved sideband oscillation rather than a time-delay scan, the scheme sidesteps intensity-dependent complications of strong-field chiral interferometry.
Continuum-continuum transitions become a sensitive probe of the long-range chiral potential, complementing the strong-field regime where that contribution was previously negligible.

Reading between the lines

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

The 8% PECD and 25-attosecond delay are computed for a model potential; a real molecule could shift the magnitudes, but the qualitative prediction of an interference-enhanced, helicity-controlled chiral delay should survive if long-range chiral interactions are the active ingredient.
Because lower-energy sidebands show larger delays, scanning harmonic order or IR wavelength could map the radial extent of the chiral potential.
The same odd-parity interference mechanism should apply to other enantiosensitive observables, such as photoelectron momentum dichroism or spin-resolved detection, where the $\beta_{l2}$ terms could be isolated separately.
Three-sideband RABBITT schemes, already discussed for atoms, could resolve the phase of chiral continuum-continuum transitions without relying on the model's specific parameters.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Here's the bottom line. This is a competent computational Letter with a genuinely new observable: it applies circular RABBITT to a randomly oriented chiral molecule and shows that sideband angular distributions carry a 2φ phase whose extracted forward-backward delay is enantiosensitive, and that the two-pathway interference enhances PECD—more so for counter-rotating IR. The TDSE machinery (single-center expansion, finite-element DVR, split-Lanczos) is appropriate, and the orientation average is checked by reducing the Euler-angle grid. That's real work and the central qualitative claims are internally consistent.

What's new is the combination, not the ingredients. The model molecule is reused from Ref [11], but the specific predictions—forward-backward delay differences up to 25 as and helicity-dependent enhancement to 8% PECD—are not in the cited literature. The spherical-harmonic decomposition in Eqs. (2)-(6) is a legitimate analysis tool for the simulated angular distributions, not curve fitting dressed as a theorem.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test lands. The paper says the photoionization delay can be read from the φ-oscillation without a time-delay scan, and defers the proof to Supplemental [51], which is not in this arXiv posting. Every delay number in the Letter depends on that equivalence. I don't see an internal contradiction, and the claim is plausible in weak-field RABBITT, but the authors should either include the derivation or show a direct delay-scan calculation for the same model. Without that, the 25 as and the PECD enhancement are model-dependent inferences rather than independently checkable predictions.

Two smaller caveats. First, the results are for one four-center effective potential with no benchmark against measured chiral photoionization, so 'experimentally feasible' is a plausible hypothesis, not a demonstrated one. Second, there are no uncertainty estimates for the 8% PECD or the 25 as delay; that is minor for a theory Letter but worth asking about. No code or data files are included either, which limits reproducibility—common for Letters, but still.

The citation pattern looks fine. Ref [51] is the authors' own Supplemental, but that is only a problem because the proof is missing, not because self-citation is inherently bad.

Who should read it: anyone working on attosecond chiral metrology or RABBITT extensions. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review, with the explicit request to provide the Supplemental and an internal cross-check. Would I bring it to reading group? Maybe, if we can get the Supplemental. This is a useful proposal but not yet a robustly verified one.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) calculations of circularly polarized RABBITT photoionization of a model chiral molecule. The authors find that the sideband photoelectron angular distributions in the polarization plane exhibit 2φ oscillations whose phase encodes a photoionization time delay, and that this delay differs between forward- and backward-emitted electrons. They also find that the interference of the two RABBITT pathways produces an enhanced photoelectron circular dichroism (PECD), reaching about 8% in the counter-rotating configuration, and a forward–backward differential delay of up to 25 as. The results are interpreted through a spherical-harmonic decomposition of the angular distribution (Eqs. (2)–(6)), with the counter-rotating IR field showing larger effects. The paper concludes that the helicity of the IR field provides coherent control over the parity of chiral photoelectron wave packets.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper introduces a promising interferometric route to phase-resolved chiral photoionization, and it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions (25 as differential delay, 8% PECD, helicity dependence) that could be tested with existing circular attosecond sources. The numerical work is state-of-the-art: single-center expansion, finite-element DVR, split-Lanczos propagation, and orientation averaging with a stated convergence check. The analytic decomposition of the sideband angular distribution into spherical-harmonic coefficients is a useful framework for interpreting both amplitude (PECD) and phase (delay) information. The predicted counter-rotating enhancement is an interesting and nontrivial result that connects continuum–continuum transitions to the long-range chiral potential.

major comments (3)

[Supplemental Material [51] and Eqs. (4)–(6)] The central delay-extraction method rests on an equivalence that is not demonstrated in the manuscript. The text states that 'the photoionization time delay can be determined via φ-resolved photoelectron angular distribution without time-delay scanning' and defers the proof to Supplemental Material [51], which is not included in the arXiv posting. Every subsequent quantitative statement—the RABBITT phase δ(θ) in Eq. (4), the Legendre decomposition in Eq. (5), and the approximate forward–backward delay in Eq. (6)—assumes that the phase of the 2φ oscillation of the sideband yield is exactly the phase obtained from a conventional XUV–IR delay scan. If this equivalence holds only under additional restrictions (e.g., weak IR field, negligible coupling between sidebands, or particular harmonic phases), the reported 25 as delay and the interference-enhanced PECD could be artifacts of the extraction procedure. The authors should either include the derivation in the main text or provide a direct numerical cross-check: perform a conventional RABBITT delay scan for the same model molecule and compare the extracted τ(θ) with the φ-derived τ(θ). This is a load-bearing point because the quantitative predictions depend on it.
[Methods: numerical convergence and uncertainty] The paper reports quantitative predictions (up to 25 as differential delay and 8% PECD) without uncertainty estimates or a documented convergence study for the key numerical parameters. The text only says that orientation averaging 'has been verified by decreasing angular spacings' but gives no convergence data. It also does not specify the radial box size, the maximum angular momentum l_max in the single-center expansion, the number of finite elements, the absorption radius, or the pulse durations and envelopes. For a claim at the 25 as level, small numerical inaccuracies in the continuum wavefunction or in the angular sampling could be of the same order as the predicted effect. The authors should provide convergence curves for Δτ_f/b and the PECD as functions of l_max, radial grid spacing, box size, and orientation quadrature, and report realistic error estimates for the quoted numbers.
[Model potential and generality of conclusions] All predictions are obtained for a single four-center effective potential V(r) = Σ_i -Z_i/|r-R_i| with Z = (-5, +2, +2, +2) a.u. and nuclear positions at 0, x̂, 2ŷ, 3ẑ. The abstract and concluding paragraph generalize to 'chiral molecules' and state that the findings are 'experimentally feasible', but no benchmarking against measured chiral photoionization (e.g., single-photon PECD magnitudes or molecular RABBITT delays) is provided. The long-range chiral continuum–continuum interaction, which the paper identifies as the physical origin of the enhancement, may be sensitive to the details of the Coulomb tail and to the molecular electronic structure beyond a four-point-charge model. This is not an internal inconsistency, but it is a correctness risk for the transferability of the 25 as and 8% numbers. A concrete test would be to compare the model's single-photon PECD against experimental values from Refs. [4,6,9] or to repeat the calculation with an ab initio chiral potential for a small real molecule such as methyloxirane or fenchone.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (3) and text before it] The definition of PECD in the text uses I(θ,φ) and I(π−θ,φ), while Eq. (3) writes PECD directly as a ratio of Legendre sums; it would help to state explicitly that the numerator and denominator in Eq. (3) correspond to I(θ,φ)−I(π−θ,φ) and I(θ,φ)+I(π−θ,φ), respectively, after orientation averaging.
[Fig. 2 caption and Sec. II] The phrase 'main peak PECDs remain isotropic' (text near Fig. 2) is misleading: the main-peak PECD is independent of φ at fixed θ, but it varies with θ. Please rephrase to 'φ-independent' rather than 'isotropic'.
[Eq. (4) and parameter M] The sign convention for M=±1 is introduced only in the sentence following Eq. (4). It would be clearer to define M immediately after Eq. (4) and to write the co-rotating case first, to match the order of Figs. 1(a)–1(d).
[Fig. 1 caption] The caption lists XUV and IR intensities and the IR wavelength but not the pulse durations, the number of XUV harmonics, or the chirp parameters. Since these affect the sideband intensities, please include the full pulse parameters in the text or caption.
[Title] The title contains a typographical artifact: 'Interf erence' should be 'Interference'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central delay and PECD claims are TDSE outputs for a model chiral potential, while the Ref. [51] equivalence is a proof obligation rather than an internal reduction.

full rationale

The central predictions are obtained by solving the TDSE for the model chiral potential of Ref. [11] with orientation averaging; the paper does not fit any parameter to the predicted time delays or PECD values. Equations (2)-(6) decompose the computed photoelectron angular distributions into spherical-harmonic coefficients and are used for interpretation, not as inputs that force the claimed results. The one self-referential element is Ref. [51], the authors' Supplemental Material, which supplies the two-photon transition matrix and the claimed equivalence between delay-scanning RABBITT and the phi-resolved angular phase; the main text states that "the photoionization time delay can be determined via phi-resolved photoelectron angular distribution without time-delay scanning [51]" and Ref. [51] promises "the equivalence of the analysis based on scanning time delay and angle-resolved momentum distributions." This is an omitted proof in the main text: if the equivalence failed, the interpretation of the azimuthal phase as a photoionization delay would be unsupported. However, the computed photoelectron angular distributions themselves are independent of that interpretation, and no equation in the paper reduces a prediction to a fitted input or to the self-citation by construction. Therefore the derivation is self-contained apart from the Ref. [51] proof obligation, which does not constitute circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on the chosen model potential, the single-active-electron approximation, and the perturbative RABBITT analysis. These are reasonable but not externally benchmarked, so they limit how far the quantitative results can be generalized.

free parameters (2)

Model chiral potential parameters = Z1=-5.0 a.u.; Z2=Z3=Z4=2.0 a.u.; R1=0, R2=x, R3=2y, R4=3z
Chosen by hand to define the model chiral molecule, not calibrated to a real molecule. All quantitative predictions (PECD magnitude, time delays) depend on this potential.
Laser pulse parameters = I_XUV=1e12 W/cm2, I_IR=1e11 W/cm2, lambda=800 nm, HH19-HH27
Chosen to realize a perturbative RABBITT regime. The quantitative values of PECD and delays may shift with different intensities, wavelength, or harmonic range.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The single-active-electron time-dependent Schrodinger equation in velocity gauge with the dipole approximation describes the photoionization dynamics.
Invoked in the Methods paragraph to compute photoelectron momentum distributions; ignores multi-electron correlation and nondipole effects, untested for this model.
ad hoc to paper The effective chiral potential V(r) = sum_i -Z_i/|r - R_i| with four nuclei is an adequate representation of a chiral molecule.
Adopted from Ref [11] without benchmarking against any real molecule; the central predictions depend on this choice.
domain assumption Orientation averaging by numerical quadrature over Euler angles with spacing pi/6 converges.
Used in Eq (1); the text says convergence was verified but gives no numbers or figures to support the statement.
domain assumption The IR field is weak enough that RABBITT two-photon pathways dominate and the sideband angular distribution can be expanded in spherical harmonics with m = 0, +/-2.
Underlies Eqs (2)-(6); pulse intensities are chosen to be perturbative, but no systematic intensity scan is shown.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attosecond-Resolved Photoionization Dynamics and Interference-Enhanced Photoelectron Circular Dichroism in Chiral Molecules." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X7SSZ4XJ

@misc{pith2026250503572,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attosecond-Resolved Photoionization Dynamics and Interference-Enhanced Photoelectron Circular Dichroism in Chiral Molecules},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X7SSZ4XJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03572}
}

read the original abstract

Chiral molecules exhibit enantiosensitive light-matter interactions, with photoelectron circular dichroism (PECD) serving as a sensitive probe of molecular chirality through the asymmetry in the photoelectron wavepacket amplitude. Here, we demonstrate a photoelectron interferometric approach to access the phase of the photoelectron wavepacket and uncover attosecond dynamics in chiral molecule photoionization. Using circularly polarized attosecond XUV pulse trains synchronized with IR fields, we reveal distinct time delays between forward- and backward-ejected photoelectrons in a randomly oriented ensemble of chiral molecules. Moreover, we predict a pronounced enhancement of PECD due to the interference of the two photoionization pathways. The forward-backward time delay difference and the PECD are more prominent when the IR field counter-rotates with the XUV field. These results imply the counter-rotating IR field is more efficient in generating odd-parity photoelectron wavepackets in continuum-continuum transitions, highlighting the critical role of long-range chiral potential. Our work demonstrates a way of coherent control over the chiral photoelectron wavepackets, providing a route to enhance chiral signals and manipulate ultrafast chiral dynamics on attosecond time scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03572 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Angle-resolved photoelectron distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Anisotropy parameters for enantiomer(+) in co- and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[11]

Fehre, S

K. Fehre, S. Eckart, M. Kunitski, C. Janke, D. Trabert, M. Hofmann, J. Rist, M. Weller, A. Hartung, L. P. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, H. Braun, T. Baumert, J. Stohner, P. V. Demekhin, M. S. Sch¨ oﬄer, and R. D¨ orner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 083201 (2021)

work page 2021
[51]

Jiang and X.-Q

W.-C. Jiang and X.-Q. Tian, Opt. Express 25, 26832 (2017)

work page 2017
[1]

Berova, K

N. Berova, K. Nakanishi, and R. W. Woody, Circu- lar Dichroism: Principles and Applications (Wiley, New York, NY, 2009)

work page 2009
[2]

2(d) and 2(h)

Interference terms also appear in the denominator, and thus the PECD shows irregular oscillation with ϕ in Figs. 2(d) and 2(h). These results indicate that PECD in chiral molecules can be greatly enhanced through interference. Now, we turn to the photoionization time delay, which directly reﬂects the phase of the photoelectrons. We ob- tain this informati...

work page
[3]

B¨ owering, T

N. B¨ owering, T. Lischke, B. Schmidtke, N. M¨ uller, T. Khalil, and U. Heinzmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1187 (2001)

2001
[4]

(6) The anisotropy parameter β32 governs the forward- backward asymmetry of the time delay

The diﬀer- ential time delay can be approximated as [ 51] ∆ τf /b ≈ M sin(δ22 − δ32) |β32A32P2 3(sinθ′)| ω |β22A22P2 2(sinθ′) +β42A42P2 4(sinθ′)|. (6) The anisotropy parameter β32 governs the forward- backward asymmetry of the time delay. For an achiral molecule ensemble,β32 is strictly zero after the molecular orientation average [ 51], resulting in a va...

work page
[5]

Ritchie, Phys

B. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. A 12, 567 (1975); 13, 1411 (1976); 14, 359 (1976)

work page 1975
[6]

G. A. Garcia, L. Nahon, S. Daly, and I. Powis, Nat. Com- mun. 4, 2132 (2013)

work page 2013

Show all 62 references

[7]

Nahon, G

L. Nahon, G. A. Garcia, and I. Powis, J. Electron Spec- trosc. Relat. Phenom. 204, 322 (2015)

2015
[8]

Ferr´ e, C

A. Ferr´ e, C. Handschin, M. Dumergue, F. Burgy, A. Comby, D. Descamps, B. Fabre, G. A. Garcia, R. G´ eneaux, L. Merceron, E. M´ evel, L. Nahon, S. Petit, B. Pons, D. Staedter, S. Weber, T. Ruchon, V. Blanchet, and Y. Mairesse, Nat. Photon. 9, 93 (2015)

2015
[9]

Turchini, J

S. Turchini, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 29, 503001 (2017)

2017
[10]

A. F. Ordonez and O. Smirnova, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063428 (2018)

2018
[12]

Ph. V. Demekhin, A. N. Artemyev, A. Kastner, and T. Baumert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253201 (2018)

2018
[13]

Rozen, A

S. Rozen, A. Comby, E. Bloch, S. Beauvarlet, D. Descamps, B. Fabre, S. Petit, V. Blanchet, B. Pons, N. Dudovich, and Y. Mairesse, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031004 (2019)

2019
[14]

Ayuso, O

D. Ayuso, O. Neufeld, A. F. Ordonez, P. Decleva, G. Lerner, O. Cohen, M. Ivanov, and O. Smirnova, Nat. Photon. 13, 866 (2019)

2019
[15]

Svoboda, N

V. Svoboda, N. B. Ram, D. Baykusheva, D. Zindel, M. D. J. Waters, B. Spenger, M. Ochsner, H. Herburger, J. Stohner, and H. J. W¨ orner, Sci. Adv.8, eabq2811 (2022)

2022
[16]

Mayer, S

N. Mayer, S. Patchkovskii, F. Morales, M. Ivanov, and 6 O. Smirnova, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 243201 (2022)

2022
[17]

Wanie, E

V. Wanie, E. Bloch, E. P. M ˚ ansson, L. Colaizzi, S. Ryabchuk, K. Saraswathula, A. F. Ordonez, D. Ayuso, O. Smirnova, A. Trabattoni, V. Blanchet, N. B. Amor, M.-C. Heitz, Y. Mairesse, B. Pons and F. Calegari. Na- ture 630, 109 (2024)

2024
[18]

R. E. Goetz, A. Blech, C. Allison, C. P. Koch, L. Green- man, arXiv:2104.07522

arXiv
[19]

Dreissigacker and M

I. Dreissigacker and M. Lein, Phys. Rev. A 89, 053406 (2014)

2014
[20]

Beaulieu, A

S. Beaulieu, A. Ferr´ e, R. G´ eneaux, R. Canonge, D. Descamps, B. Fabre, N. Fedorov, F. L´ egar´ e, S. Petit, T. Ruchon, V. Blanchet, Y. Mairesse, and B. Pons, New J. Phys. 18, 102002 (2016)

2016
[21]

Fehre, S

K. Fehre, S. Eckart, M. Kunitski, C. Janke, D. Trabert, J. Rist, M. Weller, A. Hartung, M. Pitzer, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, R. D¨ orner, and M.S. Sch¨ oﬄer, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033045 (2019)

2019
[22]

X. B. Planas, A. Ord´ o˜ nez, M. Lewenstein, and A. S. Maxwell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 233201 (2022)

2022
[23]

Hofmann, D

M. Hofmann, D. Trabert, A. Geyer, N. Anders, J. Kruse, J. Rist, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, M. Kunitski et al., Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043176 (2024)

2024
[24]

Beaulieu, S

S. Beaulieu, S. Larroque, D. Descamps, B. Fabre, S. Pe- tit, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, B. Pons, and Y. Mairesse, Phys. Rev. A 110, 013103 (2024)

2024
[25]

Beaulieu, A

S. Beaulieu, A. Comby, A. Clergerie, J. Caillat, D. Descamps, N. Dudovich, B. Fabre, R. G´ eneaux, F. L´ egar´ e, S. Petit, B. Pons, G. Porat, T. Ruchon, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, V. Blanchet, and Y. Mairesse, Science 358, 1288 (2017)

2017
[26]

Bloch, S

E. Bloch, S. Larroque, S. Rozen, S. Beaulieu, A. Comby, S. Beauvarlet, D. Descamps, B. Fabre, S. Petit, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, A. J. Uzan, V. Blanchet, N. Dudovich, B. Pons, and Y. Mairesse, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041056 (2021)

2021
[27]

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

2001
[28]

Kl¨ under, J

K. Kl¨ under, J. M. Dahlstrom, 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)

2011
[29]

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)

2013
[30]

Gruson, L

V. Gruson, L. Barreau, ´A. Jim´ enez-Galan, F. Risoud, J. Caillat, A. Maquet, B. Carr´ e, F. Lepetit, J.-F. Her- gott, T. Ruchon, L. Argenti, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, F. Mart ´ ın, and P. Sali` eres, Science 354, 734 (2016)

2016
[31]

Donsa, N

S. Donsa, N. Douguet, J. Burgd¨ orfer, I. Bˇ rezinov´ a, and L. Argenti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 133203 (2019)

2019
[32]

S¨ orng ˚ ard, J

J. S¨ orng ˚ ard, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, and E. Lindroth, J. Phys. B. 53, 134003 (2020)

2020
[33]

Jiang, G

W. Jiang, G. S. J. Armstrong, L. Han, Y. Xu, Z. Zuo, J. Tong, P. Lu, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, K. Ueda, A. C. Brown, H. W. van der Hart, X. Gong, and J. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 203201 (2023)

2023
[34]

Huppert, I

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

2016
[35]

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

2018
[36]

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)

2018
[37]

Nandi, E

S. Nandi, E. Pl´ esiat, S. Zhong, A. Palacios, D. Busto, M . Isinger, L. Neoriˇ ci´ c, C. L. Arnold, R. J. Squibb, R. Feifel, P. Decleva, A. L’Huillier, F. Mart ´ ın, and M. Gisselbrecht, Sci. Adv. 6, eaba7762 (2020)

2020
[38]

Loriot, A

V. Loriot, A. Boyer, S. Nandi, C. M. Gonz´ alez-Collado, E. Pl´ esiat, A. Marciniak, C. L. Garcia, Y. Hu, M. Lara- Astiaso, A. Palacios, P. Decleva, F. Mart ´ ın, and F. L´ epine, Nat. Phys.20, 765 (2024)

2024
[39]

C. M. Gonz´ alez-Collado, L. Cattaneo, E. Pl´ esiat, J. J . Omiste, J. Vos, J. Gonz´ alez-V´ azquez, P. Decleva, U. Keller, A. Palacios, and F. Mart ´ ın, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033342 (2024)

2024
[40]

Fleischer, O

A. Fleischer, O. Kﬁr, T. Diskin, P. Sidorenko, and O. Cohen, Nat. Photon. 8, 543 (2014)

2014
[41]

Lambert, B

G. Lambert, B. Vodungbo, J. Gautier, B. Mahieu, V. Malka, S. Sebban, P. Zeitoun, J. Luning, J. Perron, A. Andreev, S. Stremoukhov, F. Ardana-Lamas, A. Dax, C. P. Hauri, A. Sardinha, and M. Fajardo, Nat. Commun. 6, 6167 (2015)

2015
[42]

Huang, C

P.-C. Huang, C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, J.-T. Huang, P.-Y. Huang, C.-H. Lu, L. Rego, D. D. Hickstein, J. L. Ellis, A. Jaron-Becker, A. Becker, S.-D. Yang, C. G. Durfee, L. Plaja, H. C. Kapteyn, M. M. Murnane, A. H. Kung, and M.-C. Chen, Nat. Photon. 12, 349 (2018)

2018
[43]

M. Han, J. B. Ji, K. Ueda, H. J. W¨ orner, Optica 10, 1044 (2023)

2023
[44]

J. M. N. Djiokap, Nat. Phys. 19, 154 (2023)

2023
[45]

Ph. V. Demekhin, A. Ehresmann, and V. L. Sukhorukov, J. Chem. Phys. 134, 024113 (2011)

2011
[46]

A. N. Artemyev, A. D. M¨ uller, D. Hochstuhl, and Ph. V. Demekhin, J. Chem. Phys. 142, 244105 (2015)

2015
[47]

N. M. Novikovskiy, A. N. Artemyev, D. V. Rezvan, B. M. Lagutin, and Ph. V. Demekhin, J. Phys. B 55, 175001 (2022)

2022
[48]

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

2000
[49]

Peng, W.-C

L.-Y. Peng, W.-C. Jiang, J.-W. Geng, W.-H. Xiong, and Q. Gong, Phys. Rep. 575, 1 (2015)

2015
[50]

Liang, M

J. Liang, M. Han, Y. Liao, J-B. Ji, C. S. Leung, W.-C. Jiang, K. Ueda, Y. Zhou, P. Lu, and H. J. W¨ orner, Nat. Photon. 18, 311 (2024)

2024
[52]

H. B. Ambalampitiya, J. M. N. Djiokap, Commun. Phys. 7, 359 (2024)

2024
[53]

See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [ 23, 27, 52–56], for details about the two-photon transition ma- trix, the interference of the two pathways, the chiral ob- servables (PECD and photoionization time delays), and the equivalence of the analysis based on scanning ...
[54]

Powis, J

I. Powis, J. Chem. Phys. 112, 301 (2000)

2000
[55]

Baykusheva and H

D. Baykusheva and H. J. W¨ orner, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 124306 (2017)

2017
[56]

R. E. Goetz, C. P. Koch, and L. Greenman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 013204 (2019)

2019
[57]

Ph. V. Demekhin, Phys. Rev. A 99, 063406 (2019)

2019
[58]

Ertel, D

D. Ertel, D. Busto, I. Makos, M. Schmoll, J. Benda, F. Bragheri, R. Osellame, E. Lindroth, S. Patchkovskii, Z. Maˇ s ´ ın, and G. Sansone, J. Phys. Chem. A 128, 1685 (2024)

2024
[59]

M. Han, J. B. Ji, T. Balˇ ci¯ unas, K. Ueda, and H. J. W¨ orner, Nat. Phys.19, 230 (2023). 7

2023
[60]

M. Han, J. B. Ji, C. S. Leung, K. Ueda, H. J. W¨ orner, Sci. Adv. 10, eadj2629 (2024)

2024
[61]

Harth, N

A. Harth, N. Douguet, K. Bartschat, R. Moshammer, and T. Pfeifer, Phys. Rev. A 99, 023410 (2019)

2019
[62]

Bharti, H

D. Bharti, H. Srinivas, F. Shobeiry, A. T. Bondy, S. Saha, K. R. Hamilton, R. Moshammer, T. Pfeifer, K. Bartschat, and A. Harth, Phys. Rev. A 109, 023110 (2021)

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [11]

Fehre, S

K. Fehre, S. Eckart, M. Kunitski, C. Janke, D. Trabert, M. Hofmann, J. Rist, M. Weller, A. Hartung, L. P. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, H. Braun, T. Baumert, J. Stohner, P. V. Demekhin, M. S. Sch¨ oﬄer, and R. D¨ orner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 083201 (2021)

work page 2021

[2] [51]

Jiang and X.-Q

W.-C. Jiang and X.-Q. Tian, Opt. Express 25, 26832 (2017)

work page 2017

[3] [1]

Berova, K

N. Berova, K. Nakanishi, and R. W. Woody, Circu- lar Dichroism: Principles and Applications (Wiley, New York, NY, 2009)

work page 2009

[4] [2]

2(d) and 2(h)

Interference terms also appear in the denominator, and thus the PECD shows irregular oscillation with ϕ in Figs. 2(d) and 2(h). These results indicate that PECD in chiral molecules can be greatly enhanced through interference. Now, we turn to the photoionization time delay, which directly reﬂects the phase of the photoelectrons. We ob- tain this informati...

work page

[5] [3]

B¨ owering, T

N. B¨ owering, T. Lischke, B. Schmidtke, N. M¨ uller, T. Khalil, and U. Heinzmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1187 (2001)

2001

[6] [4]

(6) The anisotropy parameter β32 governs the forward- backward asymmetry of the time delay

The diﬀer- ential time delay can be approximated as [ 51] ∆ τf /b ≈ M sin(δ22 − δ32) |β32A32P2 3(sinθ′)| ω |β22A22P2 2(sinθ′) +β42A42P2 4(sinθ′)|. (6) The anisotropy parameter β32 governs the forward- backward asymmetry of the time delay. For an achiral molecule ensemble,β32 is strictly zero after the molecular orientation average [ 51], resulting in a va...

work page

[7] [5]

Ritchie, Phys

B. Ritchie, Phys. Rev. A 12, 567 (1975); 13, 1411 (1976); 14, 359 (1976)

work page 1975

[8] [6]

G. A. Garcia, L. Nahon, S. Daly, and I. Powis, Nat. Com- mun. 4, 2132 (2013)

work page 2013