Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

On efficiency of double ionization of a three-electron atom in moderate laser field intensities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the early double-ionization knee in a three-electron atom arises because the inner D electron escapes first, rescatters off the remaining UU ion, excites a bound electron, and the laser then ionizes that excited state.

desk verdict The inner-orbital D-electron RESI explanation for the early knee is plausible and worth taking seriously, but the paper's own admitted low-field TDI(0-U-D) channel and fitted normalizations mean the Conclusions overclaim with 'undoubtedly'. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22151 v1 pith:WSOO3OGA submitted 2025-06-27 physics.atom-ph

Dmitry Efimov This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords doubleionizationnon-sequentialrecollision-excitationwithsubsequentthree-electronatomreduced-dimensionalitymodelquantitativerescatteringtheorystrong-fieldapproximationinner-orbitaltunneling
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 explains why a three-electron atom in a strong short laser field double-ionizes more readily at moderate intensities than comparable two-electron atoms. The author argues that the inner electron, despite its high ionization potential, tunnels out first at an enhanced rate, rescatters off the remaining ion, excites a bound outer electron, and the laser field then ionizes the excited state. A semi-analytic decomposition built from a rescattering wavepacket, excitation cross sections, and two-electron ab initio runs reproduces the three-electron yield curve and traces the low-intensity part of the knee to this recollision-excitation channel. If the claim is right, correlation-enhanced inner-orbital ionization is a real and identifiable engine of non-sequential double ionization.

What carries the argument

The central object is a modular decomposition of the total double-ionization yield, $P_{tot} = P_{SDI} + P_{RESI} + P_{dir}$ (Eq. 20), applied separately to the scenario where the D electron is ionized first and the scenario where a U electron is ionized first. The RESI yield is built from Eq. (22), the product of a recollisional excitation rate, obtained by convolving the second-order strong-field approximation rescattering wavepacket with the differential excitation cross section of the single ion, and the laser-assisted ionization rate of the excited ionic state, taken from two-electron ab initio simulations. The direct channel uses the corresponding ionization cross section (Eq. 24). This machinery lets the author attribute each portion of the knee to a specific physical process.

What would settle it

In the same three-electron ab initio model, recompute the double-ionization yield with the first excited state of the UU ion removed from the excitation sum in Eq. (22); if the low-field part of the knee survives, the RESI attribution is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the low-intensity portion of the double-ionization knee in the one-dimensional three-electron atom is produced by recollision-excitation with subsequent ionization (RESI) after the inner D electron, the electron with spin different from the other two, is laser-ejected first. Although the D electron has a large ionization potential ($I_p = 1.21$ a.u., compared with $0.39$ a.u. for the outer U electrons), electron correlation stretches its orbital, giving it a surprisingly high tunneling rate on the order of $10^{-2}$ relative to the U electron. The returning D electron rescatters off the remaining UU ion, exciting one of the bound U electrons to a low-lying state with excitation energies $0.37$ and $0.66$ a.u., and the laser then ionizes that excited state. The semi-analytic model of Eqs. (20)-(24) reproduces the ab initio yield curve and shows that sequential ionization takes over in the middle of the knee, while the first-U scenario dominates only at high fields.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that double ionization of the three-electron atom can be fully split into two independent scenarios, each described by a two-electron ion plus a single rescattering electron, so that the third electron never participates during the second ionization step.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • RESI after laser-induced escape of the D electron is the mechanism behind the low-field part of the three-electron knee; direct recollision ionization is negligible there.
  • Sequential ionization of the UU ion shapes the middle of the knee, and only above $F=0.35$ a.u. does the first-U scenario dominate through sequential ionization.
  • The same decomposition explains why the TDI(0-D-U) channel tracks the RESI curve and why the RII(0-UD) channel dominates at low fields despite small direct-ionization cross sections.
  • In a full three-dimensional treatment, the recollision intensity would be lower, so the early part of the knee should be diminished and smoothed while the sequential middle part should remain.
  • The unexplained low-field TDI(0-U-D) yield has very similar intensity to TDI(0-D-U), consistent with a doubly excited neutral complex that decays without memory of which electron was recolliding.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct ab initio calculation of the absolute D-electron tunneling yield would remove the $10^{-2}$ normalization constant and turn the semi-analytic prediction into a parameter-free test.
  • If the doubly-excited-neutral-complex pathway is real, it implies that in multi-electron atoms the spin of the recolliding electron is not a good quantum number for the second ionization step, which could be probed with spin-tagged measurements in three-dimensional models.
  • The enhanced inner-orbital ionization rate should be a general feature: any multi-electron atom whose inner orbital is stretched by exchange interaction may show a low-intensity RESI knee, even when the inner electron's field-free ionization potential is high.
  • A three-dimensional extension of the model could test whether the early knee survives angle averaging; if it does, the effect would become a diagnostic for correlation-enhanced inner-shell tunneling.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies double ionization in a one-dimensional model of a three-electron atom with two same-spin (U) electrons and one opposite-spin (D) electron, exposed to strong short laser pulses. It combines channel-resolved ab initio time-dependent Schrödinger equation (TDSE) simulations with a semi-analytic model based on Quantitative Rescattering Theory (QRS), second-order strong-field approximation (SFA2), and two-electron ab initio calculations for the ionic fragments. The semi-analytic model decomposes double ionization into sequential, recollision-excitation (RESI), and direct-impact channels for two scenarios: first-U and first-D escape. The central claim is that the low-field portion of the double-ionization knee is dominated by RESI in which the D electron tunnels out first, rescatters off the remaining UU ion, excites a bound electron, and the laser subsequently ionizes that excited state. The paper also discusses an unexplained TDI(0-U-D) yield at F < 0.10 a.u. and tentatively attributes it to RESI through doubly excited states of the neutral atom.

Significance. If the central attribution holds, the paper offers a counterintuitive and physically interesting mechanism: an inner-orbital electron, despite its large ionization potential, can dominate the double-ionization knee because exchange and correlation stretch its orbital and because the UU ion has a low excitation threshold. The ab initio channel-resolved yields provide a valuable benchmark for reduced-dimensionality strong-field models, and the modular QRS-type decomposition is a useful template for multi-electron systems. A notable strength is the explicit discussion of the model's limitations, including the factor-of-five discrepancy with the ab initio total yield and the invocation of neutral doubly-excited states to explain a low-field channel. However, because that same missing channel contributes to the knee region, the strong attribution in the Conclusions is not supported. The paper is a solid contribution to a specialized modeling literature, but the headline claim requires qualification or additional quantitative support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III E and Sec. IV] The Conclusion states that the left part of the double-ionization knee 'can be undoubtedly explained by the RESI occurring after the laser-induced escape of the D electron.' This overstates the evidence. In Sec. III E the authors concede that the semi-analytic model cannot explain the relatively high TDI(0-U-D) yield for F < 0.10 a.u. and invoke RESI through doubly excited states of the neutral atom, with loss of spin memory, to account for comparable intensities of TDI(0-U-D) and TDI(0-D-U). That neutral-resonance channel is absent from Eqs. (20)-(24), and it lies in the same low-field region as the claimed first-D RESI knee. The semi-analytic total yield also falls below the ab initio total by up to a factor of about 5 (Fig. 6b). The available evidence therefore supports at most that first-D RESI is a significant contributor, not that it uniquely or undoubtedly explains the knee. The language should be softened and, ideally, the possible contribution of the neutral-resonance channel should be estimated or argued to be subdominant in the knee region.
  2. [Eqs. (21)-(22) and Sec. II C] The absolute magnitude of the first-D sequential and RESI yields is anchored to the same ab initio data the model is meant to explain. In Sec. III C, P_first el in Eq. (21) is set to the constant 10^-2 taken from the maximum of the ab initio SI(D) curve (Fig. 3). In Sec. II C, the SFA2 wavepacket for the D electron is normalized by matching its ionization yield to the ab initio SI(D) value at F = 0.07 a.u., with the justification that double ionization is small there. These normalizations mean that the predicted magnitude of the first-D channels inherits fitted inputs rather than being independently computed. While the field dependence of RESI is largely determined by the cross sections and wavepacket shape, the quantitative claim in Fig. 6 (agreement to within a factor of 5) is weakened by this calibration. The authors should either provide a sensitivity analysis for the choice of P_first el and the normalization point, or test the model against a channel-specific observable not used in the calibration.
  3. [Eqs. (20)-(24)] The semi-analytic decomposition into independent first-U and first-D scenarios, each built from a two-electron ion plus a single rescattering electron, excludes processes in which the third electron participates during the second ionization. The paper itself provides direct evidence for such processes: in Sec. III E it proposes that RESI through doubly excited states of the neutral atom explains the low-field TDI(0-U-D) yield. This channel is not represented in Eqs. (20)-(24), which only include excitation of the ground-state ion followed by field ionization of the excited ion (Eq. 22). As a result, the model cannot distinguish between first-D RESI and neutral-resonance-mediated RESI, and the claim that the early knee is 'dominated' by first-D RESI is not secure. The authors should either incorporate or explicitly bound the contribution of the neutral doubly-excited pathway, or rephrase the attribution as one scenario consistent with the data rather than the established mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. I] In the Introduction, 'Creating a descent theory' appears to be a typo for 'decent theory'.
  2. [Sec. II C] The symbol PDtunn is used for both the D-electron and U-electron tunneling yields, but for the U-electron scenario the text states PDtunn(F)=1. Renaming the latter, e.g., PUtunn, would avoid confusion.
  3. [Sec. III C] The phrase 'the later quantity' should be 'the latter quantity', referring to the maximum of the D-electron ionization yield.
  4. [Sec. III D] The text says 'violet lines in Fig. 4', but Fig. 4 shows violet circles for the single-ionization yields; the figure caption and text should be made consistent.
  5. [Sec. III D] In Eq. (21), the symbol Pfirst el. is introduced without a precise definition of its normalization; the text later clarifies it, but a parenthetical definition at first use would improve readability.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The semi-analytic model's channel magnitudes inherit calibrated ab initio inputs, so the first-D RESI attribution of the early knee is only partially independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III D, Eq. (21) and Fig. 6(a)]
    "For the first D electron and the UU ion, the direct extraction of P_first el. is not possible since the numerically obtained SI(D) does not correspond directly to the laser-induced yield of the D electron due to the comparable magnitude of double ionization involving this electron. In the first approximation we set it equal to 10^-2 after the maximum value of SI(D) in Fig. 3."

    Equation (21) defines the sequential-ionization yield as a product P_first el P_SI of ion. For the first-D scenario, P_first el is not computed but set to 10^-2, the maximum of the ab initio SI(D) curve in Fig. 3. The resulting SDI(D) channel in Fig. 6(a) is therefore a rescaling of an ab initio single-ionization input, so its magnitude and the middle-knee contribution it produces are built in rather than predicted. This is a non-central component of the model, but it is a genuine fitted-input-as-prediction step.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. II C (wavepacket normalization) and Sec. III D, Eq. (22)]
    "Because of that, we calibrate the SFA values by demanding that the D-electron ionization yields for both methods should be the same for F = 0.07, where the double ionization outcome is small compared to single ionization (see Fig. 3), and thus the ionization yield corresponds to the tunneling yield. The tunneling yield of the D-electron is connected with the amplitude as PDtunn ≃ 2 ∫ I(p) dp."

    The RESI first-D channel in Eq. (22) uses a D-electron wavepacket W(p) whose overall scale is fixed by requiring the SFA single-ionization yield to match the ab initio SI(D) curve at F = 0.07. Because F = 0.07 lies inside the low-field knee region that the paper attributes to first-D RESI, the absolute magnitude of the proposed dominant channel is an input from the very same ab initio model, not a prediction. The field dependence of the curve (thresholds, cross-section energy dependence) is computed independently, so the circularity is partial; but the 'undoubtedly' conclusion overstates what a single-point calibration can establish.

full rationale

The paper's central attribution of the early knee to first-D RESI is not entirely circular: the relative size of RESI(UD) versus RESI(UU), the threshold jumps, and the energy dependence of the excitation and ionization cross sections are computed independently from ion eigenstates and SFA, not read off the target double-ionization data. However, the absolute scale of the first-D RESI curve is calibrated to the ab initio SI(D) curve at F = 0.07, a point within the knee range, so the model's ability to match the low-field knee magnitude is partly by construction. Equation (21) similarly injects the 10^-2 factor taken from the same SI(D) curve into the sequential channel. In addition, Sec. III E itself concedes that a neutral doubly-excited RESI channel, with spin-memory loss, is needed to explain the low-field TDI(0-U-D) yield, a pathway absent from Eqs. (20)-(24); this undermines the 'undoubtedly' claim but is a completeness/correctness caveat rather than an additional circularity. Weighing these issues, the paper contains partial circularity in the fitted magnitudes of the predicted channels while preserving independent content in the threshold structure and relative channel shapes, so a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central mechanism rests on several model assumptions and normalization choices. Most are standard within strong-field physics, but the quantitative channel decomposition is anchored by values taken from the same ab initio simulation it aims to explain, which is the main source of circularity burden.

free parameters (5)
  • D-orbital SFA2 wavepacket normalization constant = Calibrated so that SFA D-electron ionization yield equals ab initio SI(D) at F = 0.07 a.u.
    Imposed after Eq. (14); fixes the absolute rescattering flux for all first-D RESI and direct-ionization yields, so those channel magnitudes inherit the ab initio input.
  • First-D sequential yield factor P_D = 0.01 (1e-2)
    In Eq. (21), P_first for the D electron is taken as the maximum ab initio SI(D) value from Fig. 3 rather than computed independently; the alternative normalization in Fig. 6b is also fitted at F = 0.07.
  • Elastic scattering potential exponent alpha = 1.55
    Hand-chosen in Sec. II C for V_elastic(r) = -exp(-alpha |r|); it controls the cross section in Eq. (8) and hence the wavepacket W(pr) and all recollision channel magnitudes.
  • Initial orbital decay constants beta_D and beta_U = beta_D = 1.50, beta_U = 0.75
    Fit to exponential tails of orbitals extracted from the three-electron ground state and used as initial states in SFA2, affecting the spectral content and magnitude of the wavepackets.
  • Ionic ground-state depletion factor |c0|^2 = Replaced by the ab initio UU single-ion single-ionization yield
    In Eqs. (17) and (18), |c0|^2 is approximated this way because the paper states that precise evaluation is complicated; this directly affects the size of excitation and direct-ionization cross sections.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Saddle-point approximation reduces the three-fold SFA2 integral in Eq. (12) to the two-dimensional integral in Eq. (14), and the resulting integral is accurate enough for wavepacket construction.
    Invoked in Sec. II C; standard in SFA2, but its accuracy for the 1D model with a short five-cycle pulse is not verified by comparison with the full integral.
  • domain assumption QRS factorization in Eq. (5): the final rescattered electron momentum distribution factorizes into a laser-driven wavepacket and a field-free elastic cross section, with backscattering alone retained.
    Imported from the QRS framework [33,34]; central to all RESI and direct-channel yields, and its validity for this 1D soft-core model is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The partially antisymmetric three-electron ground state factorizes as Psi(r1,r2,r3) = Psi1(r1,r2) phi0(r3), and the D and U orbital wavefunctions can be extracted as exponential tails with exponents beta_D = 1.50 and beta_U = 0.75.
    Used in Sec. II C to build SFA2 initial states; depends on the spin-symmetry model of the atom and the Dyson-orbital approximation for the U electron.
  • domain assumption The 1D three-electron soft-core model with lines at fixed angles captures the physical mechanism of the double-ionization knee, and conclusions about the knee shape transfer to 3D atoms.
    The whole paper works in reduced dimensionality; Sec. IV extrapolates to 3D while noting that recollision is overestimated in 1D.
  • ad hoc to paper Ionic ground-state depletion |c0|^2 in the excitation and direct-ionization cross sections can be approximated by the UU single-ion single-ionization yield.
    Chosen in Sec. II D because precise time-dependent depletion is described as complicated; it affects the absolute size of all recollision channels.
  • ad hoc to paper The first-D electron tunneling yield entering Eq. (21) can be set to the constant 1e-2 taken from the maximum of the ab initio SI(D) curve.
    Used in Sec. III D for the first-D sequential channel; the paper admits the absolute value is hard to compute and tries an alternative normalization in Fig. 6b, also fitted.
  • domain assumption The geometric RII/TDI channel classification of the ab initio simulation maps onto the physical SDI/RESI/direct classification through a short-time-delay interpretation.
    Defended in Sec. III E; the mapping is qualitative and is used to connect the semi-analytic channel yields to the numerical RII/TDI curves.
invented entities (1)
  • Doubly excited neutral complex (recolliding electron captured into a doubly excited state of the neutral atom)
    purpose: Invoked in Sec. III E to explain the unexplained low-field TDI(0-U-D) magnitude, where spin information would be scrambled.
    No independent signature, decay rate, or prediction is provided. The paper calls it a 'reasonable hypothesis' and does not implement it in the semi-analytic model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On efficiency of double ionization of a three-electron atom in moderate laser field intensities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WSOO3OGA

@misc{pith2026250622151,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On efficiency of double ionization of a three-electron atom in moderate laser field intensities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WSOO3OGA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22151}
}
read the original abstract

We study double ionization in a one-dimensional model of a three-electron atom exposed to strong short laser fields. The corresponding ab initio simulations reveal a characteristic ``knee'' in the ionization yield at lower field intensities than in comparable two-electron systems. To understand the origin of this shift, a quantitative semi-analytic model for double ionization of a three-electron atom has been created. In this model, ionization is treated as a combination of different scenarios and channels. Each channel is simulated with either Quantitative Rescattering Theory (QRS) or two-electron ab initio model. Analysis of the semi-analytical results indicates that the shifted part of the ``knee'' is dominated by a recollision-excitation channel in which the rescattering electron initially escapes the parent atom from an inner orbital. This counterintuitive phenomenon is then discussed and explained.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22151 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Level schemes for different ionization scenarios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Differential direct ionization (ocher curve) and exci [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Ionization Yields in dependence on laser field am [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Yields of single ionization of UU (a) and UD (b) single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Double Ionization Yields in dependence on laser field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [38]

    suggests that it accounts for electrons that escape the atom simultaneously or with a small time delay. Thus, if there is actually a nonessential delay between recollision- ally induced excitation and laser-assisted ionization of the corresponding excited state, such a process can tech- nically count as RII. This explains the domination of the RII(0-UD) y...

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Becker, F

    W. Becker, F. Grasbon, R. Kopold, D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, G. G. Paulus, and H. Walther, in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , Vol. 48, edited by B. Bederson and H. Walther (Academic Press, 2002) pp. 35–98

    work page 2002

  3. [2]

    Benda and Z

    J. Benda and Z. Maˇ s ´ ın, Sci. Rep.11, 11686 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Platz, S

    A. Platz, S. Hell, Y. Zhang, B. Ying, G. G. Paulus, and M. K¨ ubel, Phys. Rev. A108, 053106 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    M. G. Pullen, B. Wolter, X. Wang, X.-M. Tong, M. Sclafani, M. Baudisch, H. Pires, C. D. Schr¨ oter, J. Ullrich, T. Pfeifer, R. Moshammer, J. H. Eberly, and J. Biegert, Phys. Rev. A 96, 033401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    J. S. Prauzner-Bechcicki, K. Sacha, B. Eckhardt, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. A 71, 033407 (2005)

    work page 2005

  7. [6]

    K¨ ubel, K

    M. K¨ ubel, K. J. Betsch, N. G. Kling, A. S. Alnaser, J. Schmidt, U. Kleineberg, Y. Deng, I. Ben-Itzhak, G. G. Paulus, T. Pfeifer, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, M. F. Kling, and B. Bergues, New J. Phys. 16, 033008 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Becker, X

    W. Becker, X. Liu, P. J. Ho, and J. H. Eberly, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1011 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    J. L. Krause, K. J. Schafer, and K. C. Kulander, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3535 (1992)

    1992

  2. [9]

    Theidel, V

    D. Theidel, V. Cotte, R. Sondenheimer, V. Shiriaeva, M. Froidevaux, V. Severin, A. Merdji-Larue, P. Mosel, S. Fr¨ ohlich, K.-A. Weber, U. Morgner, M. Kovacev, J. Biegert, and H. Merdji, PRX Quantum 5, 040319 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    Su´ arez, A

    N. Su´ arez, A. Chac´ on, J. A. P´ erez-Hern´ andez, J. Biegert, M. Lewenstein, and M. F. Ciappina, Phys. Rev. A 95, 033415 (2017)

    2017

  4. [11]

    X. Feng, S. Gilbertson, H. Mashiko, H. Wang, S. D. Khan, M. Chini, Y. Wu, K. Zhao, and Z. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 183901 (2009)

    2009

  5. [12]

    J. Yan, W. Qin, Y. Chen, W. Decking, P. Dijkstal, M. Guetg, I. Inoue, N. Kujala, S. Liu, T. Long, N. Mirian, and G. Geloni, Nat. Photonics 18, 1293 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    C. R. J. Fitzpatrick, J. P. Kennedy, B. Dromey, and M. Yeung, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, L012020 (2024)

    2024

  7. [14]

    Borrego-Varillas, M

    R. Borrego-Varillas, M. Lucchini, and M. Nisoli, Reports on Progress in Physics 85, 066401 (2022)

    2022

  8. [15]

    Jiang, S.-G

    W.-C. Jiang, S.-G. Chen, L.-Y. Peng, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 043203 (2020)

    2020

  9. [16]

    Y. Wang, S. Yu, R. Sun, H. Kang, S. Xu, X. Lai, W. Quan, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 223202 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

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

    2005

  11. [18]

    Abu-samha and L

    M. Abu-samha and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. A 81, 033416 (2010)

    2010

  12. [19]

    Lafon, J

    R. Lafon, J. L. Chaloupka, B. Sheehy, P. M. Paul, P. Agostini, K. C. Kulander, and L. F. DiMauro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2762 (2001)

    2001

  13. [20]

    Nisoli, P

    M. Nisoli, P. Decleva, F. Calegari, A. Palacios, and F. Mart ´ ın, Chem. Rev.117, 10760 (2017)

    2017

  14. [21]

    J. S. Parker, B. J. S. Doherty, K. T. Taylor, K. D. Schultz, C. I. Blaga, and L. F. DiMauro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 12 133001 (2006)

    2006

  15. [22]

    Colgan, A

    J. Colgan, A. Emmanouilidou, and M. S. Pindzola, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.063001 (2013)

    2013 doi

  16. [23]

    M. B. Peters, V. P. Majety, and A. Emmanouilidou, Phys. Rev. A (Coll. Park.) 103, 043109 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Jiang and F

    H. Jiang and F. He, Phys. Rev. A 104, 023113 (2021)

    2021

  18. [25]

    Jiang, D

    H. Jiang, D. Efimov, F. He, and J. S. Prauzner-Bechcicki, Phys. Rev. A 105, 053119 (2022)

    2022

  19. [26]

    G. P. Katsoulis, M. B. Peters, and A. Emmanouilidou, Phys. Rev. A (Coll. Park.) 109, 033106 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Thiede, B

    J. Thiede, B. Eckhardt, D. Efimov, J. Prauzner- Bechcicki, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. A 98, 10.1103/PhysRevA.98.031401 (2018)

    2018 doi

  21. [28]

    C. Ruiz, L. Plaja, and L. Roso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 063002 (2005)

    2005

  22. [29]

    Jiang, Z.-H

    H. Jiang, Z.-H. Zhang, Y. Li, C. Ruiz, and F. He, Ultra- fast Sci 3, 10.34133/ultrafastscience.0028 (2023)

    2023 doi

  23. [30]

    Efimov, A

    D. Efimov, A. Maksymov, M. Ciappina, J. Prauzner- Bechcicki, M. Lewenstein, and J. Zakrzewski, Opt. Ex- press 29, 26526 (2021)

    2021

  24. [31]

    Amini, J

    K. Amini, J. Biegert, F. Calegari, A. Chac´ on, M. Ciap- pina, A. Dauphin, D. Efimov, C. Figueira de Moris- son Faria, K. Giergiel, P. Gniewek, A. Landsman, M. Le- siuk, M. Mandrysz, A. Maxwell, R. Moszy´ nski, L. Ort- mann, J. Antonio P´ erez-Hern´ andez, A. Pic´ on, E. Pisan...

    2019

  25. [32]

    Hashim, R

    S. Hashim, R. Tenney, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, Phys. Rev. A (Coll. Park.) 109, 063110 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    C. D. Lin , Anh-Thu Le, Cheng Jin, Hui Wei, Attosec- ond and Strong-Field Physics: Principles and Applica- tions (Cambridge University Press, 2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Z. Chen, T. Morishita, A.-T. Le, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 043402 (2007)

    2007

  28. [35]

    Z. Chen, Y. Liang, D. H. Madison, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 84, 023414 (2011)

    2011

  29. [36]

    Z. Chen, A. Zhou, T. Morishita, Y. Bai, X. Hao, O. Zat- sarinny, and K. Bartschat, Phys. Rev. A 103, 053102 (2021)

    2021

  30. [37]

    F. Liu, S. Li, Z. Chen, B. B¨ oning, and S. Fritzsche, Phys. Rev. A 106, 043120 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Efimov, J

    D. Efimov, J. Prauzner-Bechcicki, J. Thiede, B. Eck- hardt, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. A 100, 10.1103/PhysRevA.100.063408 (2019)

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    Efimov, J

    D. Efimov, J. Prauzner-Bechcicki, and J. Zakrzewski, Phys. Rev. A 101, 10.1103/PhysRevA.101.063402 (2020)

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    Prauzner-Bechcicki, D

    J. Prauzner-Bechcicki, D. Efimov, M. Mandrysz, and J. Zakrzewski, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 54, 10.1088/1361-6455/abfe00 (2021)

    2021 doi

  34. [45]

    Efimov, A

    D. Efimov, A. Maksymov, J. Zakrzewski, and J. Prauzner-Bechcicki, Phys. Rev. A 108, 10.1103/Phys- RevA.108.033103 (2023)

    2023 doi

  35. [46]

    Micheau, Z

    S. Micheau, Z. Chen, A.-T. Le, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 79, 013417 (2009)

    2009

  36. [47]

    Z. Chen, X. Li, O. Zatsarinny, K. Bartschat, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 97, 013425 (2018)

    2018

  37. [48]

    Lewenstein, P

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

    1994

  38. [49]

    Murray, M

    R. Murray, M. Spanner, S. Patchkovskii, and M. Y. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 173001 (2011)

    2011

  39. [50]

    M. V. Ammosov, N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov, Sov. Phys. JETP 64, 1191 (1986), translated from Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 91, 2008–2013 (1986)

    1986

  40. [51]

    M. Y. Amusia, JETP Lett. 90, 161 (2009)

    2009

  41. [52]

    Torlina, M

    L. Torlina, M. Ivanov, Z. B. Walters, and O. Smirnova, Phys. Rev. A 86, 043409 (2012)

    2012

  42. [53]

    M. G. Kozlov and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 87, 042511 (2013)

    2013

  43. [54]

    Z. Chen, F. Liu, H. Wen, T. Morishita, O. Zatsarinny, and K. Bartschat, Opt. Express 28, 22231 (2020)

    2020

  44. [55]

    Z. Chen, Y. Wang, T. Morishita, X. Hao, J. Chen, O. Zat- sarinny, and K. Bartschat, Phys. Rev. A 100, 023405 (2019)

    2019

  45. [56]

    Q. Liao, A. H. Winney, S. K. Lee, Y. F. Lin, P. Adhikari, and W. Li, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023401 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.