Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Photoelectron combs in ionization: Influence of rescattering and nondipole effects

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rigorous TDSE solutions for XUV pulse trains show photoelectron combs whose angle-dependent peaks, degraded N² coherence, and high-field double-hump structure go beyond both dipole and first-order nondipole approximations.

desk verdict Solid 2D numerical study of XUV pulse-train ionization with exact minimal coupling, but the headline double-hump and the rescattering attribution need more support before I'd take them at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.04253 v1 pith:445XG7LR submitted 2025-11-06 physics.atom-ph

J. Z. Kamiński , K. Krajewska This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords photoelectroncombsXUVpulsetrainsnondipoleeffectsrescatteringtime-dependentSchrödingerequationradiationpressurestrong-fieldapproximationatomicionization
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 establishes how photoelectron combs produced when a train of identical extreme-ultraviolet pulses ionizes a hydrogen atom are changed when the laser field's spatial and temporal dependence is treated exactly, rather than by the usual dipole or first-order nondipole approximations. Its central claims are: the comb peaks shift with the electron's emission angle because of radiation pressure; the coherent N² enhancement predicted by a quasi-relativistic strong-field approximation is not realized in the full calculation because the residual atomic potential (rescattering) degrades the interference; and at strong fields the angle-integrated energy spectrum acquires a double-hump substructure that both approximations miss. If correct, this means quantitative predictions for XUV pulse-train ionization need to go beyond first-order nondipole treatments and must include the parent-ion interaction.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on three components: (i) a Fraunhofer-type formula, Eq. (19), derived in the quasi-relativistic strong-field approximation (QRSFA), predicting coherent N_rep² enhancement and (N_rep−2) secondary maxima for a train of N_rep identical pulses; (ii) the exact minimal-coupling Hamiltonian, Eq. (20) with Eq. (21), where the vector potential depends on the retarded time t − x2/c (field propagation), solved with the Suzuki-Trotter split-step Fourier method on a 2D grid; and (iii) the analytic estimate, Eq. (25), for the angle-dependent energy of the major peak, which the exact numerics reproduce. The atomic potential is a soft-Coulomb model fitted to the 3D hydrogen ground state,

What would settle it

Repeat the exact TDSE calculation with the Coulomb tail of the model potential replaced by a short-range potential that supports the same bound state: if the N_rep² coherent scaling and zeros are restored and the double-hump disappears, the paper's attribution to rescattering is supported; if the decoherence persists, the mechanism is not rescattering. Alternatively, a 3D calculation or an angle-resolved measurement at |eA0| ≈ 7p0 could confirm or refute the double-hump.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For ionization of a two-dimensional hydrogen model by a train of identical XUV pulses, with the laser field represented by a propagating plane wave in the minimal-coupling Hamiltonian and the TDSE solved numerically, the photoelectron momentum and energy distributions display comb structures. The comb maxima follow an angle-dependent energy shift, Eq. (25), reflecting radiation pressure. Deviating from the Fraunhofer prediction of the quasi-relativistic strong-field approximation, the combs do not scale like N_rep² and their zeros become minima; the authors attribute this loss of coherence to rescattering, which is included automatically because the atomic potential acts over the whole inter

Load-bearing premise

The loss of coherence and the double-hump are attributed to rescattering without isolating it from other residual-potential effects such as Coulomb phase distortion or ground-state depletion, and the quantitative predictions rely on a 2D atomic model whose 3D fidelity is not checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-order nondipole treatments are quantitatively insufficient for intense XUV pulse trains; the exact treatment is needed for photoelectron spectra at high field strength.
  • The comb spacing (density of peaks) is controlled by the time delay between pulses, so delay is a practical knob for tuning comb structures.
  • The angle-dependent peak shift is a direct observable signature of radiation pressure and is already present, approximately, in the first-order nondipole approximation.
  • The N_rep² coherent enhancement predicted without the atomic potential is an upper bound; real combs degrade as more pulses are added, and zeros fill in.
  • The double-hump substructure at |eA0|=7p0 provides a distinct experimental signature that would discriminate between theoretical approaches.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The attribution of decoherence to rescattering could be tested directly by repeating the calculation with a short-range (e.g., Yukawa or zero-range) potential; if the N_rep² scaling is restored, the Coulomb tail is implicated; if not, the cause lies elsewhere (e.g., Coulomb phase distortion).
  • The double-hump structure suggests that at high field, electrons emitted at different angles contribute peaks at slightly different energies after angle integration; a velocity-map or angle-resolved measurement in an XUV-pump XUV-probe setup could resolve it.
  • The 2D model's fidelity to 3D physics is not established; extending the exact treatment to 3D would confirm the magnitudes of the predicted shifts and the double-hump.
  • If the rescattering interpretation holds, it links these comb spectra to the same electron-return dynamics known from IR strong-field rescattering, implying that XUV pulse trains could be used as a clean probe of rescattering without the usual IR ponderomotive complications.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 2D TDSE study of hydrogen-like ionization by a train of identical XUV pulses, with the laser field treated through the exact minimal coupling Hamiltonian A(x,t) rather than the dipole or first-order nondipole approximations. It also derives a QRSFA Fraunhofer formula for N_rep identical pulses and uses it as the reference for comb structure. The central claims are: (i) photoelectron momentum and energy distributions exhibit comb peaks whose energies shift with emission angle according to Eq. (25); (ii) the coherent N²_rep enhancement and exact zeros of the QRSFA prediction are degraded when the residual atomic potential is included, an effect the paper attributes to rescattering; and (iii) at |eA0|=7p0 the angle-integrated energy distribution develops a double-hump substructure not reproduced by dipole or first-order nondipole treatments. The numerical comparisons share the same potential and field, and the comb spacing is checked against computed, not fitted, ⟨Up⟩.

Significance. If the physical attributions survive, this is a useful step beyond first-order nondipole treatments of XUV-pulse-train ionization: it provides an exact-field numerical benchmark, a clean analytic Fraunhofer framework, and a falsifiable prediction for the angle-dependent comb shift. The numerical methodology appears careful (small leakage, Suzuki-Trotter split-step, controlled convergence), and the demonstration that the angle-dependent shift follows Eq. (25) with independently computed ⟨Up⟩ is a genuine strength. However, the two strongest interpretive conclusions—that the loss of coherence is due to rescattering, and that the angle-integrated double-hump is a beyond-first-order nondipole effect—are not yet isolated from alternative mechanisms, including a 2D density-of-states artifact. The 2D limitation is acknowledged but leaves quantitative transferability open.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (10) and (19)] There is a periodicity mismatch in the Fraunhofer derivation. Eq. (10) assumes the pulse shape f(φ) has period 2π in the phase φ=k·x, but the numerically used pulses in Eq. (23) have Nosc carrier cycles and duration 2πNosc/ω. The phase advance between successive pulses is therefore 2πNoscF(p), not 2πF(p), so Eqs. (18)-(19) should contain sin[πNrep Nosc F]/sin[πNosc F] rather than sin[πNrep F]/sin[πF]. As printed, Eq. (19) predicts major comb maxima at F∈Z, i.e. energy spacing ΔE=ω, whereas the paper's own Figs. 3-4 and the surrounding text state and observe ΔE=ω/Nosc. This is not a purely typographical issue: the claimed match to the secondary-peak count and comb spacing depends on having Nosc in the interference factor. The derivation should be corrected, or the phase variable explicitly redefined.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. VI] The statement that the loss of coherence of the comb structures is 'attributed to rescattering' is not supported by the evidence shown. The numerical comparison is QRSFA (no residual potential) versus full TDSE (with the potential in the entire interaction region), so any residual-potential effect—Coulomb distortion of the outgoing wave packet, soft-core scattering, or depletion—could produce the observed deviations from N²_rep scaling and the filling of the zeros. No short-range-potential calculation, no classical return-trajectory analysis, and no momentum/angle gate diagnostic is presented to isolate rescattering from these alternatives. Since this attribution appears in the abstract and conclusions, it is load-bearing for the mechanism claim; it should either be demonstrated or substantially weakened.
  3. [Sec. V, Eq. (28) and Fig. 11(b)] The double-hump in the angle-integrated energy distribution is not yet protected against a 2D phase-space artifact. With a peak-energy shift of the form Eq. (25), a narrow ridge in 2D polar coordinates integrates over φ as ∫dφ δ(E-E_p + A_p sinφ) ∝ 1/sqrt(A_p²-(E-E_p)²), which produces two edge singularities—a double-hump—whereas the corresponding 3D integral over cosθ gives a flat box. Since the exact TDSE is 2D and the 3D transferability is asserted only for the Fraunhofer formula (Sec. II.C), not for this angle-integrated observable, the double-hump cannot yet be used as evidence that the exact treatment goes beyond first-order nondipole dynamics. The authors should either compute the 3D analogue (at least for one comb peak), or show with a synthetic ridge model that the 2D angular measure alone does not produce the observed substructure.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (25)] The symbol Ep appears both as the reference energy at ϕp=0 and as the variable energy on the left; using a distinct symbol (e.g., E_p^0 or E̅_p) would avoid an apparent circularity.
  2. [Sec. III.B and Fig. 4 caption] The text says 'we recognize (Nrep−2) secondary peaks and (Nrep−1) minima'; for Nrep=3 and 5 this is correct, but for Nrep=2 there are no secondary peaks, which is stated later. A sentence unifying this would help.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (27)] Eq. (27) gives ⟨Up⟩ for a delayed train; it would be clearer to show the corresponding scaling factor (2/5) as arising from the reduced duty cycle, not simply state it.
  4. [General] The phrase 'N²_rep-like enhancement' is used with inconsistent typography; use N_rep² consistently. There are also several minor grammatical slips (e.g., 'as as long as', 'the dashed blue envelopes') that a copyedit would catch.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (19) is derived from a stated Volkov ansatz, Eq. (25) is parameter-free and not fitted, and the TDSE results actually falsify parts of the SFA prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central analytical input is the Fraunhofer formula, Eq. (19), which is derived in Sec. II from the QRSFA Volkov ansatz with stated assumptions that do not include the target results. It predicts N_rep^2 enhancement and zeros, and the exact TDSE results in Figs. 4, 5, and 7 show that these predictions fail (spectra do not scale as N_rep^2; zeros become minima). The numerics therefore are not rigged to reproduce the analytical input. The angle-dependent peak shift, Eq. (25), is cited from the authors' prior work but is parameter-free: the only input, <U_p>, is computed from the pulse shape via Eq. (26), and the red comparison curves are not least-squares fits. The double-hump structure in Fig. 11(b) and the decoherence are discrepancies relative to both the QRSFA formula and the dipole/first-order nondipole approximations, not quantities defined through those approximations. The attribution of loss of coherence to rescattering is a mechanistic interpretation rather than a circular reduction, although the paper does not isolate the rescattering mechanism. The admitted restriction to a 2D model (Sec. VI) is a transferability/external-validity concern, especially for the angle-integrated observable in Eq. (28), but it is not a definitional circularity. No self-citation uniqueness theorem, imported ansatz, or fitted-input-called-prediction step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The free parameters are the 2D soft-core potential parameters, one of which (λV) is fitted to match 3D hydrogen's ground-state energy; they affect quantitative spectra but likely not the qualitative comb/shift/double-hump structure. The axioms are mostly standard SFA assumptions and the 2D-model transferability assumption, both stated. The main unstated dependence is on the numerical details deferred to Refs. [20,22].

free parameters (3)
  • λV = 0.46 (effective charge screening depth) = 0.46
    Tuned in Sec. III so the 2D soft-core potential supports a ground state near −0.5E0, matching 3D hydrogen. Quantitative spectra depend on it; the paper's qualitative claims are presented as robust across field strengths.
  • aV = 0.1 a0 (soft-core regularization length) = 0.1 a0
    Hand-chosen in Sec. III to soften the Coulomb singularity; sets short-range dynamics that matter for rescattering.
  • bV = 10 a0 (charge-screening range) = 10 a0
    Hand-chosen in Sec. III; controls how far from the nucleus the potential stays Coulombic, hence the rescattering dynamics in the 2D model.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math SFA/Born approximation validity for Eq. (19): the residual potential can be neglected in the final continuum state when Ep >> |E0| or the field dominates (Sec. II.A).
    Used to derive the Fraunhofer formula; the paper's own numerics show this axiom breaks down at low energies (only Ep > 1.3E0 is converged), which is exactly why the observed decoherence is attributed to the potential.
  • domain assumption The 2D model with potential tuned to the 3D hydrogen ground state captures the physics claimed (Sec. III, Eq. (22)).
    All quantitative predictions are 2D; Sec. II.C asserts Eq. (19) holds in 3D, but the numerical claims (double-hump, decoherence size) have no 3D verification.
  • domain assumption Suzuki-Trotter split-step Fourier propagation is converged, with wave-function leakage ≤ 10⁻⁸ (Sec. III).
    Central numerical method; convergence details and grid parameters are in Ref. [20], not reproduced here.
  • domain assumption The mask function removes bound and low-energy components without distorting the photoelectron distribution (Sec. III).
    Momentum distributions (Eq. 24) are obtained from the masked wave function; mask parameters are only in Refs. [20,22].
  • standard math QRSFA Volkov ansatz (Eq. 8) neglects 1/c² corrections (mass correction, spin-orbit); kinetic energy Ep = p²/2me (Sec. II.B).
    Assumption for the analytical comb prediction; stated explicitly by the authors.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photoelectron combs in ionization: Influence of rescattering and nondipole effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/445XG7LR

@misc{pith2026251104253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photoelectron combs in ionization: Influence of rescattering and nondipole effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/445XG7LR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.04253}
}
read the original abstract

Ionization by a sequence of extreme ultraviolet pulses is investigated based on the rigorous numerical solution of the time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation, when the driving laser field is treated exactly. This goes beyond the typically used first-order nondipole approximation and reveals the effects of radiation pressure to its full extent. Specifically, we observe the comb structures in both the momentum and the energy distributions of photoelectrons. The comb peaks are shifted, however, depending on the emission angle of electrons. While similar effect is observed already in the first-order nondipole approximation, with increasing the laser field strength the discrepancy with our exact results becomes more pronounced. Also, we observe the additional substructure of the comb peaks arising in the angle-integrated energy distributions of photoelectrons. Finally, as our numerical calculations account for the atomic potential in the entire interaction region, we observe the loss of coherence of comb structures with increasing the number of laser pulses, that we attribute to rescattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04253 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The electric field [panel (a)] and the vector potent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Photoelectron momentum distributions (24) in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Energy distributions of photoelectrons emitted e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Same as in Fig. 4 but for the low-energy portions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Momentum distributions of photoelectrons plotte [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy spectra of photoelectrons emitted along th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Color mappings of the photoelectron momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the angle-integrated energy dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy distributions of photoelectrons calcula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references

  1. [1]

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

    2001

  2. [2]

    Photoelectron momentum distributions (24) in the Cartesian coordinates for the laser pulse represented in Fi g

    Here, we introduce 5 Figure 2. Photoelectron momentum distributions (24) in the Cartesian coordinates for the laser pulse represented in Fi g. 1 [panel (a)] and for the train comprising of three such pulses [panel (b)]. The distributions are presented in the logarit hmic scale, where the values smaller than εp = 10 −8 are eliminated. the effective atomic n...

    2018

  3. [3]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, Ch. Spielmann, G. A. Rei- der, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P. B. Corkum, U. Heinz- mann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Nature (London) 414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  4. [4]

    Agostini, Rev

    P. Agostini, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030501 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Krausz, Rev

    F. Krausz, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030502 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    L’Huillier, Rev

    A. L’Huillier, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030503 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Remetter, P

    T. Remetter, P. Johnson, J. Mauritsson, K. Varj´ u, Y. Ni, F. L´ epine, E. Gustafsson, M. Kling, J. Khan, R. L´ opez-Martens, K. J. Schafer, M. J. J. Vrakking, and A. L’Huillier, Nat. Phys. 2, 323 (2006)

    2006

  8. [8]

    Liang, M

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

    2024

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    H. R. Reiss, J. Phys. B 47, 204006 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Wang, S.-G

    M.-X. Wang, S.-G. Chen, H. Liang, and L.-Y. Peng, Chin. Phys. B 29, 013302 (2020)

    2020

  3. [11]

    Maurer and U

    J. Maurer and U. Keller, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 54, 094001 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Førre, J

    M. Førre, J. P. Hansen, L. Kocbach, S. Selstø, and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 043601 (2006)

    2006

  5. [13]

    Brennecke and M

    S. Brennecke and M. Lein, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 51, 094005 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    L. Geng, H. Liang, K. Krajewska, L.-Y. Peng, and Q. Gong, Phys. Rev. A 104, L021102 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Hartung, S

    A. Hartung, S. Brennecke, K. Lin, D. Trabert, K. Fehre, J. Rist, M. S. Sch¨ offler, T. Jahnke, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, M. Kunitski, M. Lein, R. D¨ orner, and S. Eckart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 053202 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Jiang, M.-X

    W.-Ch. Jiang, M.-X. Wang, L.-Y. Peng, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. A105, 023104 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Chelkowski, A

    S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 263005 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Hartung, S

    A. Hartung, S. Eckart, S. Brennecke, J. Rist, D. Trabert , K. Fehre, M. Richter, H. Sann, S. Zeller, K. Henrichs, G. Kastirke, J. Hoehl, A. Kalinin, M. S. Sch¨ offler, T. Jahnke, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, M. Lein, M. Kunitski, and R. D¨ orner, Nat. Phys.15, 1222 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    K. Lin, S. Brennecke, H. Ni, X. Chen, A. Hartung, D. Trabert, K. Fehre, J. Rist, X.-M. Tong, J. Burgd¨ orfer, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, M. S. Sch¨ offler, T. Jahnke, M. Kunitski, 12 F. He, M. Lein, S. Eckart, and R. D¨ orner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 023201 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Y. Liao, Y. Chen, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, L.-W. Pi, P. Lu, and Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023109 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    M. C. Suster, J. Derlikiewicz, K. Krajewska, F. Cajiao V´ elez, J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A107, 053112 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    M. C. Suster, J. Derlikiewicz, J. Z. Kami´ nski, and K. Krajewska, Opt. Express 32, 6085 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski and K. Krajewska, Phys. Rev. A 112, 023105 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    J. Z. Kami´ nski and K. Krajewska, Opt. Express 33, 45294 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    S. X. Hu and L. A. Collins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 073004 (2006)

    2006

  18. [26]

    Liu and M

    C. Liu and M. Nisoli, Phys. Rev. A 86, 053404 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    Jiang, W.-H

    W.-Ch. Jiang, W.-H. Xiong, T.-S. Zhu, L.-Y. Peng, and Q. Gong, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 091001 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Della Pica, J

    R. Della Pica, J. M. Randazzo, S. D. L´ opez, M. F. Ciap- pina, and D. G. Arb´ o, Phys. Rev. A 112, 023111 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Tzallas, E

    P. Tzallas, E. Skantzakis, L. A. A. Nikolopoulos, G. D. Tsakiris, and D. Charalambidis, Nat. Phys. 7, 781 (2011)

    2011

  22. [30]

    Okino, Y

    T. Okino, Y. Furukawa, Y. Nabekawa, S. Miyabe, A. A. Eilanlou, E. J. Takahashi, K. Yamanouchi, K. Mi- dorikawa, Sci. Adv. 1, e1500356 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Lett. A 380, 1247 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Cajiao V´ elez, K

    F. Cajiao V´ elez, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 91, 053417 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Ehlotzky, Can

    F. Ehlotzky, Can. J. Phys. 63, 907 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    Ehlotzky, A

    F. Ehlotzky, A. Jaro´ n, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rep. 297, 63 (1998)

    1998

  27. [35]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043419 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    P.-L. He, D. Lao, and F. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 163203 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    B¨ oning, W

    B. B¨ oning, W. Paufler, and S. Fritzsche, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053404 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Hasibovi´ c and D

    D. Hasibovi´ c and D. B. Milosevi´ c, Phys. Rev. A 106, 033101 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    D. M. Wolkow, Z. Phys. 94, 250 (1935)

    1935

  32. [40]

    J. G. Sletten and M. Førre, Phys. Rev. A 110, 063106 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Klaiber, Q

    M. Klaiber, Q. Z. Lv, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A 105, 063109 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.