The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.06325 · v1 · pith:XC3RL7PJ · submitted 2026-07-07 · physics.atom-ph

Ionization-free femtosecond UV pulse filamentation resulting from non-perturbative Kerr effect saturation due to transient photoexcitation of molecules

V. V. Strelkov , A. V. Shutov , V. D. Zvorykin This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 09:44 UTCglm-5.2pith:XC3RL7PJrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification physics.atom-ph PACS 42.65.Jx42.65.Hw33.80.-b
keywords laser filamentationUV filamentsKerr effect saturationtransient molecular excitationnonlinear refractive indextime-dependent Schrödinger equationphotoionizationatmospheric optics
0
0 comments X

The pith

UV laser filaments in air are limited by molecular excitation, not plasma

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that the standard model of laser filamentation—in which free electrons generated by photoionization counteract the self-focusing Kerr effect—does not apply to ultraviolet (248 nm) femtosecond pulses in atmospheric gases. The authors measure filament intensities and electron densities in air, nitrogen, and oxygen, finding that the electron densities are four to five orders of magnitude too low to balance Kerr self-focusing. Through numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for a model nitrogen molecule, they show that the nonlinear refractive index saturates and then decreases at intensities around 1–4 TW/cm², not because of ionization, but because UV photons transiently excite molecules out of their ground state. As molecules populate excited states, the refractive index drops: ground-state molecules with positive polarizability disappear, and excited molecules contribute negative polarizability at UV frequencies. This transient excitation—effective because only two or three UV photons are needed for resonant molecular excitation—limits self-focusing without significant plasma formation. The model reproduces the counterintuitive experimental observation that oxygen filaments are roughly three times more intense than nitrogen or air filaments, a result incompatible with plasma-based explanations.

Core claim

The mechanism that stops self-focusing in UV femtosecond filaments is transient nonlinear photoexcitation of molecules (population of bound excited states during the pulse), not photoionization plasma defocusing. The polarizability of the gas saturates because UV photons efficiently excite molecules via near-resonant transitions, depleting the ground state and introducing negative polarizability from excited states—this occurs at intensities far below those required for significant ionization.

What carries the argument

The central object is the transient nonlinear excitation probability p_ex^(nl)(I, τ, t), calculated from a 3D TDSE solution for a model molecular potential tuned to mimic nitrogen's three lowest energy levels. This probability enters an effective polarizability formula (Eq. 3) where the ground-state contribution (positive Kerr) is weighted by (1 - p_ex^(nl)) and the excited-state contribution (negative, approximated as free-electron-like) is weighted by p_ex^(nl). The ratio n2/n4 ≈ 4 TW/cm² extracted from this model feeds a simple filament intensity prediction (Eq. 6).

If this is right

  • UV filament intensities and propagation lengths can be tuned by choosing gases or wavelengths that shift molecular resonance conditions, since the limiting mechanism is resonant excitation rather than ionization.
  • The plasma-free nature of UV filaments means lower energy deposition and gas heating, potentially enabling longer propagation distances than IR filaments for atmospheric applications.
  • The pulse-duration dependence of the saturation intensity implies that filament properties can be controlled by chirping or stretching UV pulses, a knob absent in the plasma-defocusing picture.
  • The model's success in reproducing the oxygen-to-nitrogen intensity ratio suggests that molecular spectroscopy data (transition energies, cross-sections) can serve as design parameters for predicting filament behavior in arbitrary gas mixtures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If transient excitation is the dominant saturation mechanism, then gases with no near-resonant two- or three-photon transitions at the laser wavelength should exhibit either much higher filament intensities or a different limiting mechanism entirely—a testable prediction not explored in this paper.
  • The assumption that the n2/n4 ratio for nitrogen applies to oxygen and air is strong; oxygen has different electronic structure and transition pathways, so measuring this ratio directly for O2 would either confirm or challenge the model's predictive power.
  • The finding that absorption (residual excitation after the pulse) is low while transient excitation during the pulse is high suggests a regime where the gas acts as a saturable absorber that recovers—this could be relevant for UV pulse shaping or passive mode-locking analogies in gas-phase optics.

Load-bearing premise

The model potential is calibrated to reproduce nitrogen's energy levels, and the resulting saturation ratio (n2/n4 ≈ 4 TW/cm²) is assumed without independent calculation to apply equally to oxygen and air, which have different molecular structures and transition pathways.

What would settle it

If direct measurement of the nonlinear refractive index saturation in oxygen at 248 nm showed a substantially different n2/n4 ratio than 4 TW/cm², the model's prediction of the threefold oxygen intensity excess would lose its quantitative basis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06325 by A. V. Shutov, V. D. Zvorykin, V. V. Strelkov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a) Experimental set-up. (b) Measured transverse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The normalized polarizability α/α0 calculated numerically via Eq. (1) for different pulse durations (black curves), and analytically for a 25 fs long pulse taking into ac￾count only the lowest-order (i. e. cubic) Kerr effect (dashed dark yellow line), the cubic Kerr effect and ionization (solid red curve), the cubic Kerr effect and nonlinear nonperturba￾tive photo-excitation via Eq. (3) (solid blue curve).… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The normalized transient polarizability (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The simplified level structure of the N2 molecule (right) and the level structure of the model potential (left). The red arrows show the UV photons. Vh is a harmonic potential: Vh(r) = Ω2 r 2 /2, VC (r) is a (shifted) Coulomb potential: VC (r) = V0 − 1/r, where V0 = Ip + 3Ω/2, (10) Ip, Ω, δ, R0 are constants. The potential V (r) given by Eq. (9) has the follow￾ing properties: for all r (except for a narrow… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The imaginary part of the polarizability (solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The coefficients obtained approximating numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Our experimental and numerical study of filamentation of the 248 nm 100 fs pulses in air, nitrogen, and oxygen at atmospheric pressure shows that the densities of photoelectrons in the filaments are not sufficient to limit Kerr self-focusing. The simulations explain this result, showing that the nonlinear refractive index growth with the UV intensity is saturated due to transient photoexcitation of a molecule, not the photoionization. Correct simulation of the observed filament intensity ratio in different gases validates the suggested mechanism of the femtosecond UV pulses filamentation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents an experimental and numerical study of femtosecond UV (248 nm) pulse filamentation in air, N2, and O2 at atmospheric pressure. The central experimental finding is that measured photoelectron densities in the filaments are 4–5 orders of magnitude too low to compensate Kerr self-focusing via plasma defocusing (Table I). The authors propose an alternative mechanism: saturation of the nonlinear refractive index due to transient (non-perturbative) molecular photoexcitation, which depopulates the ground state and populates excited states with negative polarizability in the UV. The theoretical framework uses a 3D TDSE model potential calibrated to N2's three lowest electronic levels, from which the ratio n2/n4 ≈ 4 TW/cm² is extracted and used in Eq. (6) to predict filament intensities. The model reproduces the qualitative trend (O2 intensity ~3× higher than N2/air) but overestimates absolute intensities by a factor of ~3.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuine gap in the filamentation literature: the mechanism limiting self-focusing in UV filaments is not well understood, and the standard plasma-defocusing model is quantitatively inconsistent with observed electron densities. The experimental demonstration that n2*Iexp exceeds Ne/2Ncr by 4–5 orders of magnitude (Table I) is a clean, load-bearing result. The proposed alternative mechanism—transient molecular excitation saturating the Kerr effect—is physically motivated and supported by TDSE calculations. The authors provide open data [41] and a clearly documented model potential (Supplement A), which strengthens reproducibility. The prediction that O2 should exhibit higher filament intensity than N2 (counterintuitive under plasma-defocusing models) and its qualitative confirmation is a falsifiable claim that adds value. However, the theoretical leg of the argument rests on a single-gas-calibrated model parameter applied to all three gases, which limits the strength of the quantitative validation.

major comments (3)
  1. The transferability of the n2/n4 ratio from the N2-calibrated TDSE model to O2 and air is not fully supported. The model potential (Eq. 9, Supplement A) is tuned to reproduce N2's three lowest electronic states (A³Σu⁺, C³Πu, and Rydberg states, see Fig. 4), and the resulting n2/n4 ≈ 4 TW/cm² is used in Eq. (6) for all three gases. The paper states: 'We assume that this ratio can be used for air and oxygen as well.' This is load-bearing because Eq. (6) predicts filament intensities in all three gases from this single ratio. O2 has a substantially different electronic structure (Ip = 12.07 eV vs. 15.58 eV for N2), different term symmetries, and different resonant excitation pathways at 248 nm. Since the saturation mechanism is attributed to 2–3 photon resonant excitation of specific molecular states (Fig. 4, Supplement A), the saturation intensity—and thus n2/n4—could differ in O2. The ~3×
  2. Table I: The theoretical intensities Ith systematically exceed experimental values Iexp by a factor of ~3 across all three gases (N2: 0.6 vs. 0.23; O2: 1.8 vs. 0.7; air: 0.8 vs. 0.21 TW/cm²). The authors attribute this to 'assumptions used in our TDSE approach' but do not identify which assumptions are responsible or whether the discrepancy is systematic (e.g., the model potential, the pulse duration dependence, or the neglect of higher-order terms in Eq. 4). A factor-of-3 systematic offset raises the question of whether the n2/n4 ratio itself is accurately determined, or whether the qualitative agreement in the O2/N2 intensity ratio is fortuitous (since that ratio also depends on the different n2 values and critical powers, not solely on n2/n4). The authors should discuss whether the overestimate could indicate that n2/n4 is transferable.
  3. Eq. (6) and the surrounding derivation assume that the filament intensity is set by the condition P_eff_cr = P, i.e., the effective critical power equals the beam power. This gives I = (n2/2n4)(1 − Pcr/P). However, this derivation neglects diffraction, losses, and the dynamic nature of self-focusing. For a 100 fs pulse, the intensity evolves in time and space, and the simple static balance may not capture the clamping intensity. The authors should justify why this quasi-static approximation is adequate, or at minimum discuss its limitations and how it affects the predicted Ith values.
minor comments (6)
  1. Table I: The N2 filament diameter is listed as '300±30' but appears to be formatted ambiguously in the text; the uncertainty should be clearly stated in the table header or footnote.
  2. Fig. 2: The legend is dense and partially overlapping with data. Consider using a cleaner legend layout or moving some entries to the caption.
  3. The phrase 'the cubic Kerr effect' is used throughout, but the standard terminology is 'third-order Kerr effect' or 'χ⁽³⁾ nonlinearity.' The current phrasing may confuse readers.
  4. Supplement A, Eq. (9): The model potential parameters (Ip = 0.581, Ω = 0.228, δ = 0.2, R0 = 10) are given in atomic units but this is only stated at the start of the supplement. A reminder would help readers.
  5. Reference [41] points to a GitHub repository for data. The repository should be checked to ensure it contains the raw experimental data (filament profiles, energy measurements) and not just processed results.
  6. p. 3, 'the saturation intensity decreases with pulse duration varying from approximately 4 TW/cm² for 50 fs and shorter pulses down to approximately 1.5 TW/cm² for a 100 fs pulse.' This is a key result but is stated without much physical explanation. A brief sentence on why longer pulses saturate at lower intensities would strengthen the manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies the load-bearing assumptions in our theoretical framework. Below we respond to each major comment. We agree that all three points warrant additional discussion in the revised manuscript, and we will revise accordingly. We also identify one point that we cannot fully resolve within the scope of the present work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Transferability of n2/n4 from N2-calibrated TDSE model to O2 and air. The model potential is tuned to N2 electronic structure, and the resulting n2/n4 ≈ 4 TW/cm² is used for all three gases. O2 has different Ip, term symmetries, and resonant pathways, so n2/n4 could differ.

    Authors: The referee raises a legitimate concern. We acknowledge that the statement 'We assume that this ratio can be used for air and oxygen as well' is insufficiently justified in the current manuscript. We will expand this discussion in the revision. Our reasoning is as follows: the ratio n2/n4 is determined by the saturation intensity of the nonlinear polarizability, which in turn is governed by the transient molecular excitation probability at the pulse midpoint. For 248 nm photons (5 eV), both N2 and O2 possess electronic states accessible via 2–3 photon excitation, and in both cases the excited-state polarizability at UV frequencies is negative (since the lowest transition frequency for further excitation from these states lies below the field frequency). The saturation intensity is therefore set primarily by the pulse duration and the general condition that 2–3 UV photons resonantly couple the ground state to excited states—a condition satisfied for both N2 and O2, albeit via different specific transitions. This is why we expect the ratio to be of the same order. However, we agree that a quantitative difference in n2/n4 between N2 and O2 is plausible given the different ionization potentials (12.07 vs. 15.58 eV) and term structures. A TDSE calculation with a model potential calibrated to O2 would be needed to settle this definitively, and this is beyond the scope of the present paper. We will state this limitation explicitly in the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Table I: Ith systematically exceeds Iexp by a factor of ~3 across all gases. The authors attribute this to 'assumptions used in our TDSE approach' but do not identify which assumptions. The question is raised whether n2/n4 is accurately determined or whether the qualitative O2/N2 agreement is fortuitous.

    Authors: The referee is correct that our attribution of the factor-of-3 discrepancy to 'assumptions used in our TDSE approach' is too vague. We will revise this section to identify the specific sources of the discrepancy. We believe the most likely contributors are: (i) the single-active-electron model potential does not capture multi-electron effects that may modify the nonlinear response; (ii) the model potential reproduces only three low-lying electronic states of N2, while higher states and continuum states may contribute to the saturation behavior; (iii) the quasi-static balance condition (Eq. 6) neglects diffraction and pulse dynamics (see our response to the third comment); (iv) the expansion in Eq. (4) truncates at the n4 term, while Fig. 6 in Supplement D shows that for 100 fs pulses the coefficients begin to depend on Imax near saturation, indicating that higher-order terms are not entirely negligible. Regarding whether the qualitative O2/N2 agreement is fortuitous: the ratio Ith(O2)/Ith(N2) from Eq. (6) depends on the experimental n2 values (which differ by a factor of ~4 between O2 and N2, from Table I) and on the critical powers, not solely on n2/n4. If n2/n4 were the same for both gases, the intensity ratio would be set by n2 and Pcr/P. The fact that the experimental n2 values already capture the O2/N2 difference means that the qualitative agreement is not purely a consequence of the n2/n4 assumption—it is partly an independent result. However, we cannot rule out that a different n2/n4 for O2 would modify the quantitative ratio. We will add this discussion to the revised manuscript. revision: partial

  3. Referee: Eq. (6) and the surrounding derivation assume a quasi-static balance P_eff_cr = P, neglecting diffraction, losses, and the dynamic nature of self-focusing for a 100 fs pulse. The authors should justify the quasi-static approximation or discuss its limitations.

    Authors: The referee is right that Eq. (6) is a simplified quasi-static estimate and not a full propagation model. We will add a discussion of its limitations. The justification for using Eq. (6) as a first-order estimate is that the clamping intensity in filamentation is set by the point at which the effective nonlinear refractive index drops enough that self-focusing can no longer overcome diffraction. The condition P_eff_cr = P captures this balance at the beam axis. However, this approach neglects several effects: (i) diffraction, which would lower the actual clamping intensity below the quasi-static prediction—consistent with our Ith values being systematically higher than Iexp; (ii) temporal dynamics, since the 100 fs pulse has a time-varying intensity profile and the saturation is transient (as shown in Fig. 3); (iii) energy losses due to residual molecular excitation (discussed in Supplement C, where we show these are modest but nonzero); (iv) the spatial profile of the beam, since the balance condition is applied at peak intensity rather than integrated over the transverse profile. The systematic factor-of-3 overestimate of Ith relative to Iexp is consistent with diffraction and dynamic effects lowering the actual clamping intensity below the quasi-static prediction. We note that a full 3D propagation simulation incorporating the TDSE-derived nonlinear response would be the proper way to predict clamping intensities, but this is computationally demanding and beyond the scope of the present work. We will state these limitations clearly in the revision. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • We cannot definitively rule out the possibility that the qualitative O2/N2 intensity ratio agreement is partly fortuitous, because we have not performed a TDSE calculation with a model potential calibrated to O2. Such a calculation would be required to determine whether n2/n4 for O2 differs significantly from the N2 value. This is a genuine limitation of our current theoretical framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central experimental claim is independently grounded, and the theoretical prediction uses a TDSE-derived ratio that is not fitted to the target data.

full rationale

The paper's central experimental claim — that plasma defocusing is insufficient to limit Kerr self-focusing — is independently grounded in measured electron densities (Table I: n2*Iexp exceeds Ne/2Ncr by 4-5 orders of magnitude). This result does not depend on the TDSE model. The theoretical prediction of filament intensities via Eq. (6) uses the ratio n2/n4 ≈ 4 TW/cm², which is derived from the TDSE numerical solution (Supplement D, Fig. 6) for a model N2 potential. This ratio is not fitted to the experimental filament intensities; it is obtained from an ab initio TDSE calculation. The paper then applies this ratio to O2 and air by assumption ('We assume that this ratio can be used for air and oxygen as well'), which is a physical modeling assumption (arguably unjustified, as the reader notes) but not a circularity: the prediction I_th for each gas depends on the independently measured n2 and Pcr for that gas, combined with the single TDSE-derived ratio. The ~3x systematic overestimate of I_th vs Iexp and the correct reproduction of the O2/N2 intensity ratio are not forced by construction. Self-citations ([42], [43]) refer to the TDSE numerical method and model potential construction, which are methodological tools rather than load-bearing claims whose validity depends on the present paper's results. The TDSE method is a standard numerical approach, and the model potential parameters are tuned to N2 spectroscopic data (not to the filament intensities being predicted). No step in the derivation chain reduces to its own inputs by construction. The transferability assumption for n2/n4 is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Score 1 reflects the minor methodological self-citations that are not load-bearing for the central claim.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model potential is a computational tool, not a new physical entity. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are postulated. The free parameters are all in the model potential and are tuned to reproduce known N2 spectroscopic data. The key ad hoc assumption is the transferability of the N2-derived n2/n4 ratio to O2 and air.

free parameters (5)
  • Ip (model potential) = 0.581 a.u.
    Ionization potential parameter of the model potential, tuned to match N2 (15.58 eV actual vs 15.62 eV model).
  • Omega (model potential) = 0.228 a.u.
    Harmonic potential frequency, tuned to match the first excited state energy of N2.
  • delta (model potential) = 0.2
    Controls smoothness of harmonic-to-Coulomb transition; tuned to reproduce N2 level structure.
  • R0 (model potential) = 10
    Controls distance for Coulomb-like behavior; tuned to reproduce N2 level structure.
  • I(weak) (nonlinear excitation baseline) = 0.1 TW/cm^2
    Reference intensity for defining nonlinear excitation probability in Eq. (2); chosen as a regime where linear response dominates.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The single-electron model potential (Eq. 9) adequately represents the multi-electron nitrogen molecule for nonlinear optical response.
    Supplement A: The model is a single-electron potential tuned to three N2 levels; multi-electron dynamics are not included.
  • ad hoc to paper The n2/n4 ratio derived from the N2 model applies to air and oxygen.
    Main text: 'We assume that this ratio can be used for air and oxygen as well.' This is stated without independent justification.
  • domain assumption The polarizability of the excited molecule equals that of a free electron in the UV field.
    Eq. (3) and surrounding text: 'we roughly assume that the polarizability of the excited molecule is equal to that of the free electron.' Justified by the argument that the lowest transition frequency for further excitation is below the field frequency.
  • domain assumption The filament intensity can be estimated from the condition P_eff_cr = P using the n2 - 2*n4*I expansion.
    Eq. (6): This assumes the intensity is in the regime where the quadratic expansion (Eq. 4) is valid, which may not hold near saturation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 15583 in / 2883 out tokens · 626153 ms · 2026-07-08T09:44:45.162695+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    and the Kerr nonlinearity increases; using published data [10, 29, 30] for the latter nonlinearity, one finds that the balance between lowest-order Kerr and plasma contributions to the refractive index requires 35 times higher electron concentration for the 248 nm pulse than for 800 nm pulse of the same intensity. Such high electron concentrations not onl...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    (3) the first term describes the decrease of the refractive index due to (the nonlinear) depopulation of the ground state

    In Eq. (3) the first term describes the decrease of the refractive index due to (the nonlinear) depopulation of the ground state. The second term de- scribes the polarizability of the (nonlinearly) populated excited states: we roughly assume that the polarizabil- ity of the excited molecule is equal to that of the free electron. Such an assumption is reas...

    work page

  3. [3]

    is constant and thus it is not affected by the absorption either. In Fig. 2 in the main text we also present the sum of the cubic Kerr and the contribution of free electrons. The latter is calculated as (1−ρ)α el, whereρ=<Ψ(r, t= τ /2)|Ψ(r, t=τ /2)>is the norm of the wave function at the center of the laser pulse (at timet=τ /2). The norm decreases in tim...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Brodeur, C

    A. Brodeur, C. Y. Chien, F. A. Ilkov, S. L. Chin, O. G. Kosareva, and V. P. Kandidov, Moving focus in the prop- agation of ultrashort laser pulses in air, Opt. Lett.22, 304 (1997)

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Mlejnek, E

    M. Mlejnek, E. M. Wright, and J. V. Moloney, Dynamic spatial replenishment of femtosecond pulses propagating in air, Opt. Lett.23, 382 (1998)

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Couairon and L

    A. Couairon and L. Berge, Modeling the filamentation of ultra-short pulses in ionizing media, Physics of Plasmas 7, 193 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Berge, S

    L. Berge, S. Skupin, R. Nuter, J. Kasparian, and J.-P. Wolf, Ultrashort filaments of light in weakly ionized, op- tically transparent media, Reports on Progress in Physics 70, 1633 (2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [8]

    Couairon and A

    A. Couairon and A. Mysyrowicz, Femtosecond filamen- tation in transparent media, Physics Reports441, 47 (2007)

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Kosareva, J.-F

    O. Kosareva, J.-F. Daigle, N. Panov, T. Wang, S. Hos- seini, S. Yuan, G. Roy, V. Makarov, and S. L. Chin, Ar- rest of self-focusing collapse in femtosecond air filaments: higher order kerr or plasma defocusing?, Opt. Lett.36, 1035 (2011)

    work page 2011

  10. [10]

    S. L. Chin, T. J. Wang, C. Marceau, J. Wu, J. S. Liu, O. Kosareva, N. Panov, Y. P. Chen, J. F. Daigle, S. Yuan, A. Azarm, W. W. Liu, T. Seideman, H. P. Zeng, M. Richardson, L. R., and X. Z. Z., Advances in intense femtosecond laser filamentation in air, Laser Physics22, 1 (2012)

    work page 2012

  11. [11]

    S. V. Chekalin and V. P. Kandidov, From self-focusing light beams to femtosecond laser pulse filamentation, Phys. Usp.56, 123 (2013)

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    M´ echain, A

    G. M´ echain, A. Couairon, Y.-B. Andr´ e, C. D’Amico, M. Franco, B. Prade, S. Tzortzakis, A. Mysyrowicz, and R. Sauerbrey, Long-range self-channeling of infrared laser pulses in air: a new propagation regime without ioniza- tion, Appl. Phys. B79, 379–382 (2004)

    work page 2004

  13. [13]

    Loriot, E

    V. Loriot, E. Hertz, O. Faucher, and B. Lavorel, Mea- surement of high order kerr refractive index of major air components, Opt. Express17, 13429 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    B´ ejot, J

    P. B´ ejot, J. Kasparian, S. Henin, V. Loriot, T. Vieil- lard, E. Hertz, O. Faucher, B. Lavorel, and J.-P. Wolf, Higher-order kerr terms allow ionization-free filamenta- tion in gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 103903 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Ettoumi, P

    W. Ettoumi, P. B´ ejot, Y. Petit, V. Loriot, E. Hertz, O. Faucher, B. Lavorel, J. Kasparian, and J.-P. Wolf, Spectral dependence of purely-kerr-driven filamentation in air and argon, Phys. Rev. A82, 033826 (2010)

    work page 2010

  16. [16]

    Nurhuda, A

    M. Nurhuda, A. Suda, and K. Midorikawa, Generaliza- tion of the kerr effect for high intensity, ultrashort laser pulses, New Journal of Physics10, 053006 (2008)

    work page 2008

  17. [17]

    Teleki, E

    A. Teleki, E. M. Wright, and M. Kolesik, Microscopic model for the higher-order nonlinearity in optical fila- ments, Phys. Rev. A82, 065801 (2010)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Br´ ee, A

    C. Br´ ee, A. Demircan, and G. Steinmeyer, Saturation of the all-optical kerr effect, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 183902 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Volkova, A

    E. Volkova, A. Popov, and O. Tikhonova, Nonlinear po- larization response of an atomic gas medium in the field of a high-intensity femtosecond laser pulse, Jetp Lett.94, 519–524 (2011)

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    E. A. Volkova, A. M. Popov, and O. V. Tikhonova, Po- larisation response of a gas medium in the field of a high- intensity ultrashort laser pulse: high order kerr nonlin- 8 earities or plasma electron component?, Quantum Elec- tronics42, 680 (2012)

    work page 2012

  21. [21]

    K¨ ohler, R

    C. K¨ ohler, R. Guichard, E. Lorin, S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, L. Berg´ e, and S. Skupin, Saturation of the nonlinear refractive index in atomic gases, Phys. Rev. A 87, 043811 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    B´ ejot, E

    P. B´ ejot, E. Cormier, E. Hertz, B. Lavorel, J. Kasparian, J.-P. Wolf, and O. Faucher, High-field quantum calcula- tion reveals time-dependent negative kerr contribution, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 043902 (2013)

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    Schwarz, P

    J. Schwarz, P. Rambo, J.-C. Diels, M. Kolesik, E. M. Wright, and J. V. Moloney, Ultraviolet filamentation in air, Optics Communications180, 383 (2000)

    work page 2000

  24. [24]

    Tzortzakis, B

    S. Tzortzakis, B. Lamouroux, A. Chiron, S. Moustaizis, D. Anglos, M. Franco, B. Prade, and A. Mysyrowicz, Femtosecond and picosecond ultraviolet laser filaments in air: experiments and simulations, Optics Communica- tions197, 131 (2001)

    work page 2001

  25. [25]

    Couairon and L

    A. Couairon and L. Berg´ e, Light filaments in air for ul- traviolet and infrared wavelengths, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 135003 (2002)

    work page 2002

  26. [26]

    Daigle, A

    J.-F. Daigle, A. Jaron-Becker, S. Hosseini, T.-J. Wang, Y. Kamali, G. Roy, A. Becker, and S. L. Chin, Intensity clamping measurement of laser filaments in air at 400 and 800 nm, Phys. Rev. A82, 023405 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Smetanin, A

    I. Smetanin, A. Levchenko, A. Shutov, N. Ustinovskii, and V. Zvorykin, Role of coherent resonant nonlinear pro- cesses in the ultrashort krf laser pulse propagation and filamentation in air, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms369, 87 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    D. E. Shipilo, N. A. Panov, E. S. Sunchugasheva, D. V. Mokrousova, A. V. Shutov, V. D. Zvorykin, N. N. Usti- novskii, L. V. Seleznev, A. B. Savel’ev, O. G. Kosareva, S. L. Chin, and A. A. Ionin, Fifteen meter long uninter- rupted filaments from sub-terawatt ultraviolet pulse in air, Opt. Express25, 25386 (2017)

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    D. E. Shipilo, N. R. Vrublevskaya, I. A. Nikolaeva, L. V. Seleznev, D. V. Pushkarev, G. E. Rizaev, M. V. Levus, A. A. Ionin, N. A. Panov, and O. G. Kosareva, Long- wavelength spectral shift in an ultraviolet filament, Phys. Rev. A112, 023516 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    V. D. Zvorykin, A. V. Shutov, and N. N. Ustinovskii, Re- view of nonlinear effects under tw-power ps pulses ampli- fication in garpun-mtw ti:sapphire-krf laser facility, Mat- ter and Radiation at Extremes5, 045401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Rastegari and J.-C

    A. Rastegari and J.-C. Diels, Investigation of uv filaments and their applications, APL Photonics6, 060803 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    M. Shaw, C. Hooker, and D. Wilson, Measurement of the nonlinear refractive index of air and other gases at 248 nm, Optics Communications103, 153 (1993)

    work page 1993

  33. [33]

    E. T. J. Nibbering, G. Grillon, M. A. Franco, B. S. Prade, and A. Mysyrowicz, Determination of the inertial contri- bution to the nonlinear refractive index of air, n2, and o2 by use of unfocused high-intensity femtosecond laser pulses, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B14, 650 (1997)

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    N. R. Vrublevskaya, D. E. Shipilo, I. A. Nikolaeva, N. A. Panov, and O. G. Kosareva, Nonlinear response of diluted gases to an ultraviolet femtosecond pulse, JETP Letters 117, 408–413 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Zvorykin, S

    V. Zvorykin, S. Goncharov, A. Ionin, D. Mokrousova, S. Ryabchuk, L. Seleznev, E. Sunchugasheva, N. Usti- novskii, and A. Shutov, Experimental capabilities of the garpun mtw ti : sapphire krf laser facility for investi- gating the interaction of subpicosecond uv pulses with targets, Quantum Electronics47, 319 (2017)

    work page 2017

  36. [36]

    A. V. Shutov, N. N. Ustinovskii, I. V. Smetanin, D. V. Mokrousova, S. A. Goncharov, S. V. Ryabchuk, E. S. Sunchugasheva, L. V. Seleznev, A. A. Ionin, and V. D. Zvorykin, Major pathway for multiphoton air ionization at 248nm laser wavelength, Applied Physics Letters111, 224104 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    A. V. Shutov, N. N. Ustinovskii, I. V. Smetanin, D. V. Mokrousova, S. A. Goncharov, S. V. Ryabchuk, E. S. Sunchugasheva, L. V. Seleznev, A. A. Ionin, and V. D. Zvorykin, Erratum: Major pathway for multiphoton air ionization at 248nm laser wavelength [appl. phys. lett. 111, 224104 (2017)], Applied Physics Letters113, 189902 (2018)

    work page 2017

  38. [38]

    Lehmberg, C

    R. Lehmberg, C. Pawley, A. Deniz, M. Klapisch, and Y. Leng, Two-photon resonantly-enhanced negative non- linear refractive index in xenon at 248 nm, Optics Com- munications121, 78 (1995)

    work page 1995

  39. [39]

    Spott, A

    A. Spott, A. Jaron-Becker, and A. Becker, Time- dependent susceptibility of a helium atom in intense laser pulses, Phys Rev A96, 053404 (2017)

    work page 2017

  40. [40]

    E. A. Volkova, A. M. Popov, and O. V. Tikhonova, Non- linear polarization response of a gaseous medium in the regime of atom stabilization in a strong radiaion field, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics116, 372 (2013)

    work page 2013

  41. [41]

    E. M. Belenov, P. G. Kryukov, A. V. Nazarkin, and I. V. Smetanin, Photoionization of a gas by an ultrashort laser pulse with two-photon excitation of an intermediate level, Soviet Journal of Quantum Electronics22, 1113 (1992)

    work page 1992

  42. [42]

    V. A. Isakov, A. P. Kanavin, and I. V. Smetanin, Self- induced focusing and defocusing of femtosecond pulses in Raman-active media, inNonlinear Spectroscopy and Ul- trafast Phenomena, Vol. 2797, edited by V. V. Shuvalov and A. M. Zheltikov, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE, 1996) pp. 18 – 24

    work page 1996

  43. [43]

    V. D. Zvorykin, A. A. Ionin, A. O. Levchenko, L. V. Se- leznev, D. V. Sinitsyn, I. V. Smetanin, N. N. Ustinovskii, and A. V. Shutov, Directed transfer of microwave ra- diation in sliding-mode plasma waveguides produced by ultraviolet laser in atmospheric air, Appl. Opt.53, I31 (2014)

    work page 2014

  44. [44]

    V. V. Strelkov, A. V. Shutov, and V. D. Zvorykin, https://github.com/strelkov74/data-for-femtosecond- uv-pulses-filamentation.git, Github (2026)

    work page 2026

  45. [45]

    V. V. Strelkov, A. F. Sterjantov, N. Y. Shubin, and V. T. Platonenko, XUV generation with several-cycle laser pulse in barrier-suppression regime, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.39, 577 (2006)

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    V. V. Strelkov, Dark and bright autoionizing states in resonant high-order harmonic generation: Simulation via a one-dimensional helium model, Physical Review A107, 053506 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Lofthus and P

    A. Lofthus and P. H. Krupenie, The spectrum of molecu- lar nitrogen, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data6, 113 (1977)

    work page 1977