Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 116 references

On the measurability of Wigner time delays at shape resonances in photodetachment of polyatomic anions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Photodetachment delays near shape resonances in nitrate anions can be measured directly, without Coulomb masking, when electrons leave along the light polarization.

desk verdict Solid multi-method prediction that RABBIT/streaking near the polarization axis recovers Wigner delays for polyatomic anions, with a concrete X-ray self-referencing proposal for NO3-; fixed-nuclei is the main caveat for the longest resonances. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10397 v1 pith:34ZFO5KI submitted 2026-07-11 physics.atom-ph

Jan Dvořák , Jakub Benda , Thomas N. Rescigno , Cynthia S. Trevisan , Robert R. Lucchese , C. William McCurdy This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph PACS 32.80.Gc33.80.Eh31.15.A42.65.Re
keywords WignertimedelayphotodetachmentshaperesonanceRABBITattosecondstreakingnitrateanionpolyatomiccore-leveldetachment
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 shows that Wigner time delays of up to about one femtosecond, produced by shape resonances in photodetachment of the nitrate anion, should be directly accessible to RABBIT and streaking experiments. Because the residual molecule is neutral, there is no long-range Coulomb potential and the continuum-continuum contribution that normally contaminates photoionization delays becomes negligible above roughly 5 eV. The authors compute valence and core (N 1s and O 1s) detachment spectra with several ab-initio methods and then simulate both the laboratory-frame and molecular-frame measurements. They find that the angular dependence of the measured two-photon delay generally differs from the single-photon Wigner delay whenever several partial waves interfere; however, the two delays coincide for electrons ejected close to the polarization axis. The longest resonances therefore offer a real-time window on low-energy electron-molecule scattering that cannot be obtained from ordinary photoionization of neutrals. A concrete self-referenced X-ray experiment on oxygen 1s detachment is proposed as the most practical route.

What carries the argument

The finite-difference one-photon delay (phase difference of single-photon dipole amplitudes evaluated at the two RABBIT harmonics) compared with the full two-photon RABBIT phase extracted from the interference term M+*M-; agreement between these two quantities along the polarization axis demonstrates that continuum-continuum phases cancel.

What would settle it

A laboratory-frame RABBIT or angular-streaking measurement of O 1s photodetachment of NO3- that records the delay difference between the slow (~5-15 eV) resonant electrons and the fast (~120 eV) N 1s reference electrons, checking whether the extracted delays match the calculated Wigner delays of the two predicted shape resonances when the detection angle is kept near the polarization axis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In photodetachment of polyatomic anions, RABBIT and streaking delays measured for emission directions near the light polarization equal the underlying Wigner delays of shape resonances (up to ~1 fs) once continuum-continuum phases become energy-independent above ~5 eV; the angular mismatch that appears at larger angles arises only from partial-wave interference, not from residual continuum-continuum contributions.

Load-bearing premise

The nuclei can be held fixed even for resonances whose trapping times reach half a femtosecond to one femtosecond, times comparable to vibrational periods and known non-adiabatic effects in the nitrate radical.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes the measurability of Wigner time delays in photodetachment of polyatomic anions, focusing on NO3-. Using R-matrix (UKRmol+), complex Kohn, and Schwinger (ePolyScat) methods, together with second-order perturbation theory and full TDSE RMT simulations, the authors compute one-photon Wigner delays and two-photon RABBIT/streaking delays for valence and N/O 1s detachment. They show that continuum-continuum phases become energy- and partial-wave independent above ~5 eV, so that for emission near the light polarization axis the measured delays coincide with the underlying Wigner delays (up to ~1 fs at shape resonances). Angular differences away from that axis are traced to interference among intermediate partial waves. A self-referenced X-ray angular-streaking experiment on oxygen 1s detachment is proposed.

Significance. If correct, the work supplies a concrete, experimentally actionable route to measuring long Wigner delays free of Coulomb continuum-continuum contamination, thereby opening a time-domain window on low-energy electron-molecule scattering and shape resonances. Strengths include multi-method cross-validation (UKRmol+, ePolyScat, cKohn), explicit TDSE confirmation of the time-independent RABBIT results, analytic Born continuum-continuum limits (Appendices C-D), and a falsifiable experimental proposal that exploits existing LCLS-style self-referencing techniques. The fixed-nuclei limitation is acknowledged and bounds the claim rather than invalidating it.

major comments (2)
  1. Secs. I and V (and the discussion in Sec. IX): the fixed-nuclei approximation is used throughout, yet the valence resonance I produces Wigner delays of 0.5-1 fs, comparable to vibrational periods of NO3. The paper correctly notes that nuclear motion and non-adiabatic Jahn-Teller/pseudo-Jahn-Teller dynamics are known to be strong, but does not quantify how much the resonance lifetime or the extracted delay would be altered by nuclear motion. A short estimate (or a statement that the core-hole proposal is preferred precisely because it avoids this issue) would strengthen the central measurability claim for the valence case.
  2. Sec. VIII, Figs. 13a-d: the N 1s and O 1s resonance positions and widths vary substantially with the choice of target orbitals (HF vs MCSCF). While the authors acknowledge this sensitivity and prefer the cKohn MCSCF results, the laboratory-frame RABBIT delays that support the 'direct access' claim are computed only with the UKRmol+ HF model. A brief demonstration that the angular coincidence of RABBIT and Wigner delays near θ=0 survives the shift in resonance energy would make the core-detachment proposal more robust.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 6 and Table III: experimental adiabatic detachment energies are listed, but the calculated vertical values differ by up to ~1.5 eV; a one-sentence remark on how this offset affects the absolute energy scale of the predicted delays would help experimentalists.
  2. Sec. VI: the choice of 2.4 µm IR is well motivated, yet most existing RABBIT setups use 800 nm; a short note on whether continuum-continuum cancellation remains valid at shorter wavelengths would improve accessibility.
  3. Appendix A: the averaging formulas for RABBIT (Eqs. A5-A6) correctly average the interference term rather than the delay; a parenthetical reminder that this is why the π/(2ω) jumps near 90° do not pollute the angle-averaged delay would aid non-specialist readers.
  4. Typographical: 'photodetachement' appears once (Sec. V); 'wavelegths' once (Sec. VI); consistent use of 'one-photon delay' vs 'Wigner delay' could be tightened in the figure captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Wigner/RABBIT delays are computed ab initio from scattering wave functions and two-photon matrix elements (or TDSE), with continuum-continuum phases independently derived via Born free-particle Green’s functions or explicit R-matrix evaluation; no parameters are fitted to the target delays.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins from fixed-nuclei close-coupling expansions of the continuum wave functions (UKRmol+, ePolyScat, complex Kohn) that yield the single-photon dipole matrix elements M1ℓmµ(E). Wigner delays follow by energy differentiation of their arguments (Eqs. 4–5); one-photon finite-difference delays and RABBIT delays follow from the same matrix elements or from the second-order two-photon amplitudes (Eq. 7) or from explicit TDSE propagation. Continuum-continuum phases are shown analytically (Appendix C, free-particle Green’s function) and numerically to become energy- and ℓ-independent above ~5 eV, so that RABBIT delays coincide with Wigner delays near the polarization axis by direct evaluation, not by construction or fit. Atomic H-/Cl- cases (Secs. III–IV, Appendices C–D) establish the partial-wave interference mechanism independently of the NO3- results. Self-citations are to prior methodological implementations (UKRmol+, RMT, earlier delay formalisms) whose relevant limits are re-derived here; none is load-bearing for the central measurability claim. No free parameters are adjusted to measured delays, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no known empirical pattern is merely renamed. The fixed-nuclei approximation is an acknowledged physical limitation, not a circular step. Score 1 reflects only routine methodological self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum-scattering machinery plus a small set of modeling choices (fixed nuclei, limited close-coupling, chosen IR energy, HF/MCSCF orbitals). No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are conventional computational settings rather than fitted constants that force the result.

free parameters (3)
  • IR photon energy = 0.517 eV
    Fixed at 0.517 eV (2.4 µm) to avoid resonant target transitions and improve energy resolution; not fitted to data but chosen by hand.
  • NO bond length / ONO angle = 1.22 Å, 120°
    Geometry optimized at HF level (1.22 Å, 120°) and held fixed; experimental value is close but nuclear motion is frozen.
  • R-matrix radius and ℓmax = R=80 a0, ℓmax=6
    Numerical cut-offs (R=80 a0, ℓmax=6) whose convergence is checked but still approximate.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fixed-nuclei approximation: nuclear positions are frozen during the electronic continuum dynamics.
    Stated in Sec. II and used throughout; known to be questionable for 0.5–1 fs delays given strong Jahn-Teller dynamics in NO3.
  • domain assumption Dipole approximation and length gauge for all photon-molecule interactions.
    Standard for the photon energies considered; invoked in Eqs. (1)–(7).
  • domain assumption Close-coupling expansion truncated to the three lowest NO3 states (valence) or two core-hole states (oxygen).
    Sec. V and VIII; higher channels and continuum-continuum coupling among them are omitted.
  • standard math Continuum-continuum phases become energy- and ℓ-independent above ~5 eV in the absence of a Coulomb tail (Born free-particle limit).
    Derived in Appendix C and verified numerically for H- and Cl-; used to interpret why RABBIT equals Wigner near θ=0.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the measurability of Wigner time delays at shape resonances in photodetachment of polyatomic anions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/34ZFO5KI

@misc{pith2026260710397,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the measurability of Wigner time delays at shape resonances in photodetachment of polyatomic anions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/34ZFO5KI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10397}
}
abstract

The energy dependence of the complex phases of electron continuum wave functions carries information about electron dynamics. Streaking and attosecond interference experiments (called RABBIT) seek to measure this energy dependence, and therefore, the time delays of ionization. The long-range Coulomb interaction dominates in those experiments, and can obscure the low-energy features of the Wigner time delays that are the object of the measurement. Photodetachment of electrons from negative ions has no long-range Coulomb interaction, and RABBIT and streaking measurements of photodetachment delays have the potential to reveal time delays of up to one femtosecond in low-energy features. We predict the results of such experiments on a particularly interesting polyatomic example, the nitrate anion (NO$_3^-$), for both valence and core electron detachment. We simulate the experiments in these cases and analyze the underlying physics of measurements on polyatomic anions where many electron partial waves contribute and find that the angular dependence of the measured delays generally differs from the Wigner delays. However, we demonstrate that measurements performed for ejection directions close to the polarization of the light sources can directly access the Wigner delays that give a time-dependent window on electron-molecule interactions. A promising experiment involving core photodetachment of NO$_3^-$ with X-rays is proposed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10397 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. One- and two-photon detachment of atomic hydrogen anion in the static-exchange approximation. Panels a and b show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Wigner, one-photon, and perturbation-theory RAB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. One- and two-photon detachment of atomic chlorine anion from the 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Angular dependence of time delays for pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy diagram for valence photodetachment of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of calculated totally-averaged integral one-photon cross sections and corresponding Wigner time delays for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Orbitals for temporarily-attached electron representing the valence shape resonances I, II, and III of NO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. One-photon cross section (first column), one-photon time delays (second column), and perturbation-theory (PT) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of Wigner (solid lines), one-photon (dot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Valence photodetachment of NO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of one-photon, perturbation-theory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison of calculated totally-averaged integral one-photon cross sections and corresponding Wigner time delays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. One-photon (solid lines) and perturbation-theory [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Wigner (dotted), one-photon (solid lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Comparison of analytical Born and computed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

116 extracted references

  1. [1]

    P. B. Corkum and F. Krausz, Attosecond science, Nat. Phys. 3, 381 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    Pazourek, S

    R. Pazourek, S. Nagele, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Attosecond chronoscopy of photoemission, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 765 (2015)

    2015

  3. [3]

    Nisoli, P

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

    2017

  4. [4]

    Agostini, Nobel Lecture: Genesis and applications of attosecond pulse trains, Rev

    P. Agostini, Nobel Lecture: Genesis and applications of attosecond pulse trains, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030501 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    Cruz-Rodriguez, D

    L. Cruz-Rodriguez, D. Dey, A. Freibert, and P. Stam- mer, Quantum phenomena in attosecond science, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 691 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Alexander, D

    O. Alexander, D. Ayuso, M. Matthews, L. Rego, J. W. G. Tisch, B. Weaver, and J. P. Marangos, At- tosecond physics and technology, Appl. Phys. Lett.126, 170501 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Eisenbud, The Formal Properties of Nuclear Colli- sions., Ph.D

    L. Eisenbud, The Formal Properties of Nuclear Colli- sions., Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University, New Jersey (1948)

    1948

  8. [8]

    E. P. Wigner, Lower Limit for the Energy Derivative of the Scattering Phase Shift, Phys. Rev. 98, 145 (1955)

    1955

Show all 116 references
  1. [9]

    F. T. Smith, Lifetime Matrix in Collision Theory, Phys. Rev. 118, 349 (1960)

    1960

  2. [10]

    V´ eniard, R

    V. V´ eniard, R. Ta¨ ıeb, and A. Maquet, Phase depen- dence of ( N +1)-color ( N >1) ir-uv photoionization of atoms with higher harmonics, Phys. Rev. A 54, 721 (1996)

    1996

  3. [11]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Aug´ e, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Observation of a Train of Attosecond Pulses from High Harmonic Generation, Science 292, 1689 (2001)

    2001

  4. [12]

    Muller, Reconstruction of attosecond harmonic beat- ing by interference of two-photon transitions, Appl

    H. Muller, Reconstruction of attosecond harmonic beat- ing by interference of two-photon transitions, Appl. Phys. B 74, s17 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    Isinger, R

    M. Isinger, R. J. Squibb, D. Busto, S. Zhong, A. Harth, D. Kroon, S. Nandi, C. L. Arnold, M. Miranda, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, E. Lindroth, R. Feifel, M. Gisselbrecht, and A. L’Huillier, Photoionization in the time and frequency domain, Science 358, 893 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Itatani, F

    J. Itatani, F. Qu´ er´ e, G. L. Yudin, M. Y. Ivanov, F. Krausz, and P. B. Corkum, Attosecond Streak Cam- era, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 173903 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    Schultze, M

    M. Schultze, M. Fieß, N. Karpowicz, J. Gagnon, M. Korbman, M. Hofstetter, S. Neppl, A. L. Cavalieri, Y. Komninos, T. Mercouris, C. A. Nicolaides, R. Pa- zourek, S. Nagele, J. Feist, J. Burgd¨ orfer, A. M. Azzeer, R. Ernstorfer, R. Kienberger, U. Kleineberg, E. Gouliel- makis, ...

    2010

  8. [16]

    V. S. Yakovlev, J. Gagnon, N. Karpowicz, and F. Krausz, Attosecond Streaking Enables the Measure- ment of Quantum Phase, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 073001 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    Ortmann and A

    L. Ortmann and A. Landsman, Understanding attosec- ond streaking, Rep. Prog. Phys. 87, 086401 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Eckle, M

    P. Eckle, M. Smolarski, P. Schlup, J. Biegert, A. Staudte, M. Sch¨ offler, H. G. Muller, R. D¨ orner, and U. Keller, Attosecond angular streaking, Nat. Phys. 4, 565 (2008)

    2008

  11. [19]

    Eckle, A

    P. Eckle, A. N. Pfeiffer, C. Cirelli, A. Staudte, R. D¨ orner, H. G. Muller, M. B¨ uttiker, and U. Keller, Attosecond Ionization and Tunneling Delay Time Mea- surements in Helium, Science 322, 1525 (2008)

    2008

  12. [20]

    A. S. Kheifets, R. Wielian, V. V. Serov, I. A. Ivanov, A. L. Wang, A. Marinelli, and J. P. Cryan, Ionization phase retrieval by angular streaking from random shots of XUV radiation, Phys. Rev. A 106, 033106 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    V. V. Serov and A. S. Kheifets, XUV ionization of the H2 molecule studied with attosecond angular streaking, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 56, 025601 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Driver, M

    T. Driver, M. Mountney, J. Wang, L. Ortmann, A. Al- Haddad, N. Berrah, C. Bostedt, E. G. Champenois, L. F. DiMauro, J. Duris, D. Garratt, J. M. Glownia, Z. Guo, D. Haxton, E. Isele, I. Ivanov, J. Ji, A. Ka- 24 malov, S. Li, M.-F. Lin, J. P. Marangos, R. Obaid, J. T. O’Neal, P....

    2024

  15. [23]

    J.-B. Ji, Z. Guo, T. Driver, C. S. Trevisan, D. Cesar, X. Cheng, J. Duris, P. L. Franz, J. Glownia, X. Gong, D. Hammerland, M. Han, S. Heck, M. Hoffmann, A. Ka- malov, K. A. Larsen, X. Li, M.-F. Lin, Y. Liu, C. W. McCurdy, R. Obaid, J. T. O’Neal, T. N. Rescigno, R. R. Robles, ...

    2025

  16. [24]

    Ivanov and O

    M. Ivanov and O. Smirnova, How Accurate Is the At- tosecond Streak Camera?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 213605 (2011)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Dahlstr¨ om, D

    J. Dahlstr¨ om, D. Gu´ enot, K. Kl¨ under, M. Gisselbrecht, J. Mauritsson, A. L’Huillier, A. Maquet, and R. Ta¨ ıeb, Theory of attosecond delays in laser-assisted photoion- ization, Chem. Phys. 414, 53 (2013), attosecond spec- troscopy

    2013

  18. [26]

    Baykusheva and H

    D. Baykusheva and H. J. W¨ orner, Theory of attosec- ond delays in molecular photoionization, J. Chem. Phys. 146, 124306 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    J. M. Dahlstr¨ om and E. Lindroth, Study of attosecond delays using perturbation diagrams and exterior com- plex scaling, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 124012 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Hockett, E

    P. Hockett, E. Frumker, D. M. Villeneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Time delay in molecular photoionization, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 095602 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Benda and Z

    J. Benda and Z. Maˇ s´ ın, Multi-photon above threshold ionization of multi-electron atoms and molecules using the r-matrix approach, Sci. Rep. 11, 11686 (2021)

    2021

  22. [30]

    Benda, Z

    J. Benda, Z. Maˇ s´ ın, and J. D. Gorfinkiel, Analysis of ra- bitt time delays using the stationary multiphoton molec- ular R-matrix approach, Phys. Rev. A 105, 053101 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Haessler, B

    S. Haessler, B. Fabre, J. Higuet, J. Caillat, T. Ruchon, P. Breger, B. Carr´ e, E. Constant, A. Maquet, E. M´ evel, P. Sali` eres, R. Ta¨ ıeb, and Y. Mairesse, Phase-resolved attosecond near-threshold photoionization of molecular nitrogen, Phys. Rev. A 80, 011404 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    V. V. Serov and A. S. Kheifets, Time delay in XUV/IR photoionization of H 2O, J. Chem. Phys. 147, 204303 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Chac´ on and C

    A. Chac´ on and C. Ruiz, Attosecond delay in the molec- ular photoionization of asymmetric molecules, Opt. Ex- press 26, 4548 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    A. S. Kheifets and A. W. Bray, RABBITT phase transi- tion across the ionization threshold, Phys. Rev. A 103, L011101 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Feist, O

    J. Feist, O. Zatsarinny, S. Nagele, R. Pazourek, J. Burgd¨ orfer, X. Guan, K. Bartschat, and B. I. Schnei- der, Time delays for attosecond streaking in photoion- ization of neon, Phys. Rev. A 89, 033417 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    Gu´ enot, D

    D. Gu´ enot, D. Kroon, E. Balogh, E. W. Larsen, M. Ko- tur, M. Miranda, T. Fordell, P. Johnsson, J. Mauritsson, M. Gisselbrecht, K. Varj` u, C. L. Arnold, T. Carette, A. S. Kheifets, E. Lindroth, A. L’Huillier, and J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, Measurements of relative photoemission time...

    2014

  29. [37]

    Cattaneo, J

    L. Cattaneo, J. Vos, M. Lucchini, L. Gallmann, C. Cirelli, and U. Keller, Comparison of attosecond streaking and RABBITT, Opt. Express 24, 29060 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Alexandridi, D

    C. Alexandridi, D. Platzer, L. Barreau, D. Busto, S. Zhong, M. Turconi, L. Neoriˇ ci´ c, H. Laurell, C. L. Arnold, A. Borot, J.-F. Hergott, O. Tcherbakoff, M. Lej- man, M. Gisselbrecht, E. Lindroth, A. L’Huillier, J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, and P. Sali` eres, Attosecond photoionizatio...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Benda, Z

    J. Benda, Z. Maˇ s´ ın, S. Palakkal, F. L´ epine, S. Nandi, and V. Loriot, Angular momentum dependence in mul- tiphoton ionization and attosecond time delays, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013110 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    J. Vos, L. Cattaneo, S. Patchkovskii, T. Zimmermann, C. Cirelli, M. Lucchini, A. Kheifets, A. S. Landsman, and U. Keller, Orientation-dependent stereo Wigner time delay and electron localization in a small molecule, Science 360, 1326 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Huppert, I

    M. Huppert, I. Jordan, D. Baykusheva, A. Von Conta, and H. J. W¨ orner, Attosecond Delays in Molecular Pho- toionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 093001 (2016)

    2016

  34. [42]

    Cattaneo, J

    L. Cattaneo, J. Vos, R. Y. Bello, A. Palacios, S. Heuser, L. Pedrelli, M. Lucchini, C. Cirelli, F. Mart´ ın, and U. Keller, Attosecond coupled electron and nuclear dy- namics in dissociative ionization of H 2, Nat. Phys. 14, 733 (2018)

    2018

  35. [43]

    Kamalov, A

    A. Kamalov, A. L. Wang, P. H. Bucksbaum, D. J. Hax- ton, and J. P. Cryan, Electron correlation effects in at- tosecond photoionization of CO 2, Phys. Rev. A 102, 023118 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Loriot, A

    V. Loriot, A. Marciniak, S. Nandi, G. Karras, M. Herv´ e, E. Constant, E. Pl´ esiat, A. Palacios, F. Mart´ ın, and F. L´ epine, High harmonic generation-2 ω attosecond stereo-photoionization interferometry in N 2, J. Phys. Photonics 2, 024003 (2020)

    2020

  37. [45]

    Nandi, E

    S. Nandi, E. Pl´ esiat, S. Zhong, A. Palacios, D. Busto, M. Isinger, L. Neoriˇ ci´ c, C. L. Arnold, R. J. Squibb, R. Feifel, P. Decleva, A. L’Huillier, F. Mart´ ın, and M. Gisselbrecht, Attosecond timing of electron emission from a molecular shape resonance, Sci. Adv.6, eaba77...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Jordan, M

    I. Jordan, M. Huppert, D. Rattenbacher, M. Peper, D. Jelovina, C. Perry, A. Von Conta, A. Schild, and H. J. W¨ orner, Attosecond spectroscopy of liquid water, Science 369, 974 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    A. L. Cavalieri, N. M¨ uller, T. Uphues, V. S. Yakovlev, A. Baltuˇ ska, B. Horvath, B. Schmidt, L. Bl¨ umel, R. Holzwarth, S. Hendel, M. Drescher, U. Kleineberg, P. M. Echenique, R. Kienberger, F. Krausz, and U. Heinzmann, Attosecond spectroscopy in condensed matter, Nature 44...

    2007

  40. [48]

    Neppl, R

    S. Neppl, R. Ernstorfer, A. L. Cavalieri, C. Lemell, G. Wachter, E. Magerl, E. M. Bothschafter, M. Jobst, M. Hofstetter, U. Kleineberg, J. V. Barth, D. Menzel, J. Burgd¨ orfer, P. Feulner, F. Krausz, and R. Kienberger, Direct observation of electron propagation and dielectric ...

    2015

  41. [49]

    Z. Tao, C. Chen, T. Szilv´ asi, M. Keller, M. Mavrikakis, 25 H. Kapteyn, and M. Murnane, Direct time-domain ob- servation of attosecond final-state lifetimes in photoe- mission from solids, Science 353, 62 (2016)

    2016

  42. [50]

    Kasmi, M

    L. Kasmi, M. Lucchini, L. Castiglioni, P. Kliuiev, J. Os- terwalder, M. Hengsberger, L. Gallmann, P. Kr¨ uger, and U. Keller, Effective mass effect in attosecond elec- tron transport, Optica 4, 1492 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    F. Siek, S. Neb, P. Bartz, M. Hensen, C. Str¨ uber, S. Fiechter, M. Torrent-Sucarrat, V. M. Silkin, E. E. Krasovskii, N. M. Kabachnik, S. Fritzsche, R. D. Mui˜ no, P. M. Echenique, A. K. Kazansky, N. M¨ uller, W. Pfeif- fer, and U. Heinzmann, Angular momentum–induced delays in...

    2017

  44. [52]

    M. J. Ambrosio and U. Thumm, Spatiotemporal anal- ysis of a final-state shape resonance in interferomet- ric photoemission from Cu(111) surfaces, Phys. Rev. A 100, 043412 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Benda and Z

    J. Benda and Z. Maˇ s´ ın, Dipole-laser coupling de- lay in two-color RABBITT photoionization of polar molecules, Phys. Rev. A 109, 013106 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Delgado, C

    J. Delgado, C. M. Gonz´ alez-Collado, P. Decleva, A. Palacios, and F. Mart´ ın, Three-path interferences in the reconstruction of attosecond beatings by interfer- ence of two-photon transitions in molecules, Phys. Rev. A 111, 063107 (2025)

    2025

  47. [55]

    Lindroth and J

    E. Lindroth and J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, Attosecond delays in laser-assisted photodetachment from closed-shell nega- tive ions, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013420 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    S. Saha, P. C. Deshmukh, A. S. Kheifets, and S. T. Man- son, Dominance of correlation and relativistic effects on photodetachment time delay well above threshold, Phys. Rev. A 99, 063413 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    S. Saha, J. Jose, P. C. Deshmukh, G. Aravind, V. K. Dolmatov, A. S. Kheifets, and S. T. Manson, Wigner time delay in photodetachment, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043407 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Banerjee, P

    S. Banerjee, P. C. Deshmukh, A. S. Kheifets, and S. T. Manson, Effects of spin-orbit-interaction-activated in- terchannel coupling on photoemission time delay, Phys. Rev. A 101, 043411 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Banerjee, G

    S. Banerjee, G. Aarthi, S. Saha, G. Aravind, and P. C. Deshmukh, Time delay in negative ion photodetach- ment, Phys. Scr. 96, 114005 (2021)

    2021

  52. [60]

    A. S. Kheifets and I. Bray, Time delay in two-electron photodetachment and tests of fundamental threshold laws, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043017 (2021)

    2021

  53. [61]

    T. N. Rescigno, C. S. Trevisan, R. R. Lucchese, and C. W. McCurdy, Attosecond time delays in the body frame for photodetachment from molecular anions, Phys. Rev. A 110, 013122 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Weaver, D

    A. Weaver, D. W. Arnold, S. E. Bradforth, and D. M. Neumark, Examination of the 2A ′ 2 and 2E ′′ states of NO3 by ultraviolet photoelectron spectroscopy of NO − 3 , J. Chem. Phys. 94, 1740 (1991)

    1991

  55. [63]

    M. C. Babin, J. A. DeVine, M. DeWitt, J. F. Stanton, and D. M. Neumark, High-Resolution Photoelectron Spectroscopy of Cryogenically Cooled NO 3, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 395 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    A. Viel, D. M. G. Williams, and W. Eisfeld, Accurate quantum dynamics simulation of the photodetachment spectrum of the nitrate anion (NO − 3 ) based on an artifi- cial neural network diabatic potential model, J. Chem. Phys. 154, 084302 (2021)

    2021

  57. [65]

    D. M. G. Williams, W. Eisfeld, and A. Viel, Simula- tion of the photodetachment spectra of the nitrate an- ion (NO− 3 ) in the ˜B 2E ′ energy range and non-adiabatic electronic population dynamics of NO 3, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 24, 24706 (2022)

    2022

  58. [66]

    Mahapatra, W

    S. Mahapatra, W. Eisfeld, and H. K¨ oppel, Effects of multimode Jahn-Teller coupling on the photodetach- ment spectrum of nitrate anion (NO − 3 ), Chem. Phys. Lett. 441, 7 (2007)

    2007

  59. [67]

    Mukherjee, S

    B. Mukherjee, S. Mukherjee, S. Sardar, K. Shama- sundar, and S. Adhikari, A beyond Born-Oppenheimer treatment of five state molecular system NO 3 and the photodetachment spectra of its anion, Chem. Phys.515, 350 (2018)

    2018

  60. [68]

    Busto, J

    D. Busto, J. Vinbladh, S. Zhong, M. Isinger, S. Nandi, S. Maclot, P. Johnsson, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, E. Lindroth, and J. M. Dahlstr¨ om, Fano’s Propensity Rule in Angle-Resolved Attosecond Pump-Probe Pho- toionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 133201 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    See Supplemental Material at [URL will be inserted by publisher] for additional figures

  62. [70]

    R. R. Lucchese, G. Raseev, and V. McKoy, Studies of differential and total photoionization cross sections of molecular nitrogen, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2572 (1982)

    1982

  63. [71]

    Burke, C

    P. Burke, C. Noble, and V. Burke, R-matrix theory of atomic, molecular and optical processes (Academic Press, 2007) pp. 237–318

    2007

  64. [72]

    P. G. Burke, R-matrix theory of atomic collisions: Ap- plication to atomic, molecular and optical processes , Vol. 61 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    Tennyson, Electron-molecule collision calculations us- ing the R-matrix method, Phys

    J. Tennyson, Electron-molecule collision calculations us- ing the R-matrix method, Phys. Rep. 491, 29 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Maˇ s´ ın, J

    Z. Maˇ s´ ın, J. Benda, J. D. Gorfinkiel, A. G. Harvey, and J. Tennyson, UKRmol+: A suite for modelling elec- tronic processes in molecules interacting with electrons, positrons and photons using the R-matrix method, Comput. Phys. Commun. 249, 107092 (2020)

    2020

  67. [75]

    Houfek, J

    K. Houfek, J. Benda, Z. Maˇ s´ ın, A. Harvey, T. Meltzer, V. Graves, and J. D. Gorfinkiel, UKRmol-scripts: A perl-based system for the automated operation of the photoionization and electron/positron scattering suite UKRmol+, Comput. Phys. Commun. 298, 109113 (2024)

    2024

  68. [76]

    T. N. Rescigno, B. H. Lengsfield, and A. E. Orel, In- terchannel coupling and ground state correlation effects in the photoinization of CO, J. Chem. Phys. 99, 5097 (1993)

    1993

  69. [77]

    T. N. Rescigno, B. H. Lengsfield, and C. W. McCurdy, Modern Electronic Structure Theory , Vol. 1 (ed. D. R. Yarkony, World Scientific, Singapore, 1995) pp. 501– 588

    1995

  70. [78]

    Miyabe, C

    S. Miyabe, C. W. McCurdy, A. E. Orel, and T. N. Rescigno, Theoretical study of asymmetric molecular- frame photoelectron angular distributions for C1s pho- toejection from CO 2, Phys. Rev. A 79, 053401 (2009)

    2009

  71. [79]

    T. N. Rescigno, N. Douguet, and A. E. Orel, Imaging molecular isomerization using molecular-frame photo- electron angular distributions, J. Phys. B 45, 194001 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    C. S. Trevisan, C. W. McCurdy, and T. N. Rescigno, Imaging molecular geometries with molecular frame photoelectron angular distributions from core hole ion- 26 ization, J. Phys. B 45, 194002 (2012)

    2012

  73. [81]

    F. A. Gianturco, R. R. Lucchese, and N. Sanna, Calcula- tion of low-energy elastic cross sections for electron-CF4 scattering, J. Chem. Phys. 100, 6464 (1994)

    1994

  74. [82]

    A. P. P. Natalense and R. R. Lucchese, Cross section and asymmetry parameter calculation for sulfur 1s pho- toionization of SF 6, J. Chem. Phys. 111, 5344 (1999)

    1999

  75. [83]

    B. I. Schneider, K. Bartschat, O. Zatsarinny, K. R. Hamilton, I. Bray, A. Scrinzi, F. Mart´ ın, J. G. Vasquez, J. Tennyson, J. D. Gorfinkiel, R. Lucchese, and S. Pamidighantam, Atomic and Molecular Scattering Applications in an Apache Airavata Science Gateway, in Practice and ...

    2020

  76. [84]

    A. C. Brown, G. S. Armstrong, J. Benda, D. D. Clarke, J. Wragg, K. R. Hamilton, Z. Maˇ s´ ın, J. D. Gorfinkiel, and H. W. van der Hart, RMT: R-matrix with time-dependence. solving the semi-relativistic, time-dependent schr¨ odinger equation for general, mul- tielectron atoms a...

    2020

  77. [85]

    Moore, M

    L. Moore, M. Lysaght, L. Nikolopoulos, J. Parker, H. van der Hart, and K. Taylor, The RMT method for many-electron atomic systems in intense short-pulse laser light, J. Mod. Opt. 58, 1132 (2011)

    2011

  78. [86]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Gryn- berg, eds., Atom-photon interactions: basic processes and applications, A Wiley-Interscience publication (Wi- ley, New York, NY, 2008)

    2008

  79. [87]

    Stapelfeldt and T

    H. Stapelfeldt and T. Seideman, Colloquium : Aligning molecules with strong laser pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 543 (2003)

    2003

  80. [88]

    Seideman and E

    T. Seideman and E. Hamilton, Nonadiabatic Alignment by Intense Pulses. Concepts, Theory, and Directions, in Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics , Vol. 52 (Elsevier, 2005) pp. 289–329

    2005

  81. [89]

    M. Wang, E. Zhang, Q. Liang, and Y. Liu, Molecular Alignment Under Strong Laser Pulses: Progress and Applications, Photonics 12, 422 (2025)

    2025

  82. [90]

    D¨ orner, V

    R. D¨ orner, V. Mergel, O. Jagutzki, L. Spielberger, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, and H. Schmidt-B¨ ocking, Cold Target Recoil Ion Momentum Spectroscopy: a ‘momentum microscope’ to view atomic collision dy- namics, Phys. Rep. 330, 95 (2000)

    2000

  83. [91]

    Schmidt-B¨ ocking, J

    H. Schmidt-B¨ ocking, J. Ullrich, R. D¨ orner, and C. L. Cocke, The COLTRIMS Reaction Microscope—The Spyhole into the Ultrafast Entangled Dynamics of Atomic and Molecular Systems, Ann. Phys. 533, 2100134 (2021)

    2021

  84. [92]

    Werner, P

    H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, and M. Sch¨ utz, Molpro: a general-purpose quantum chemistry program package, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 2, 242 (2012)

    2012

  85. [93]

    Werner, P

    H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, F. R. Manby, J. A. Black, K. Doll, A. Heßelmann, D. Kats, A. K¨ ohn, T. Ko- rona, D. A. Kreplin, Q. Ma, I. Miller, Thomas F., A. Mitrushchenkov, K. A. Peterson, I. Polyak, G. Rauhut, and M. Sibaev, The Molpro quantum chem- istry package, J. Chem. P...

    2020

  86. [94]

    Werner, P

    H.-J. Werner, P. J. Knowles, G. Knizia, F. R. Manby, M. Sch¨ utz, P. Celani, T. Korona, R. Lindh, A. Mitrushenkov, G. Rauhut, K. R. Shamasundar, T. B. Adler, R. D. Amos, A. Bernhardsson, A. Berning, D. L. Cooper, M. J. O. Deegan, A. J. Dobbyn, F. Eckert, E. Goll, C. Hampel, A....

    2022

  87. [95]

    Dunning, Thom H., Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations

    J. Dunning, Thom H., Gaussian basis sets for use in correlated molecular calculations. I. the atoms boron through neon and hydrogen, J. Chem. Phys. 90, 1007 (1989)

    1989

  88. [96]

    J. W. Cooper, Photoionization from Outer Atomic Sub- shells. A Model Study, Phys. Rev. 128, 681 (1962)

    1962

  89. [97]

    Cukras, P

    J. Cukras, P. Decleva, and S. Coriani, A coupled-cluster study of photodetachment cross sections of closed-shell anions, J. Chem. Phys. 141, 174315 (2014)

    2014

  90. [98]

    X.-B. Wang, X. Yang, L.-S. Wang, and J. B. Nicholas, Photodetachment and theoretical study of free and water-solvated nitrate anions, NO − 3 (H2O)n(n=0–6), J. Chem. Phys. 116, 561 (2002)

    2002

  91. [99]

    Kawaguchi, T

    K. Kawaguchi, T. Ishiwata, E. Hirota, and I. Tanaka, Infrared spectroscopy of the NO 3 radical, Chem. Phys. 231, 193 (1998)

    1998

  92. [100]

    R. A. Kendall, J. Dunning, Thom H., and R. J. Har- rison, Electron affinities of the first-row atoms revis- ited. systematic basis sets and wave functions, Journal of Chemical Physics 96, 6796 (1992)

    1992

  93. [101]

    H. J. Korsch, R. Mohlenkamp, and H.-D. Meyer, On the canonical product expansion of the s matrix, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 17, 2955 (1984)

    1984

  94. [102]

    Schoun, R

    S. Schoun, R. Chirla, J. Wheeler, C. Roedig, P. Agos- tini, L. DiMauro, K. Schafer, and M. Gaarde, Attosec- ond Pulse Shaping around a Cooper Minimum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 153001 (2014)

    2014

  95. [103]

    S. J. Weber, B. Manschwetus, M. Billon, M. B¨ ottcher, M. Bougeard, P. Breger, M. G´ el´ eoc, V. Gruson, A. Huetz, N. Lin, Y. J. Picard, T. Ruchon, P. Sali` eres, and B. Carr´ e, Flexible attosecond beamline for high har- monic spectroscopy and XUV/near-IR pump probe ex- perim...

    2015

  96. [104]

    Saito, N

    N. Saito, N. Ishii, T. Kanai, S. Watanabe, and J. Itatani, Attosecond streaking measurement of extreme ultravi- olet pulses using a long-wavelength electric field, Sci. Rep. 6, 35594 (2016)

    2016

  97. [105]

    S. L. Cousin, N. Di Palo, B. Buades, S. M. Teichmann, M. Reduzzi, M. Devetta, A. Kheifets, G. Sansone, and J. Biegert, Attosecond Streaking in the Water Window: A New Regime of Attosecond Pulse Characterization, Phys. Rev. X 7, 041030 (2017)

    2017

  98. [106]

    Heinrich, T

    S. Heinrich, T. Saule, M. H¨ ogner, Y. Cui, V. S. Yakovlev, I. Pupeza, and U. Kleineberg, Attosec- ond intra-valence band dynamics and resonant- photoemission delays in W(110), Nat. Commun. 12, 3404 (2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    C. A. Marante, L. Greenman, C. S. Trevisan, T. N. Rescigno, C. W. McCurdy, and R. R. Lucchese, Valid- ity of the static-exchange approximation for inner-shell photoionization of polyatomic molecules, Phys. Rev. A 102, 012815 (2020). 27

    2020

  100. [108]

    S. Li, E. G. Champenois, R. Coffee, Z. Guo, K. Hegazy, A. Kamalov, A. Natan, J. O’Neal, T. Osipov, M. Owens, D. Ray, D. Rich, P. Walter, A. Marinelli, and J. P. Cryan, A co-axial velocity map imaging spectrometer for electrons, AIP Adv. 8, 115308 (2018)

    2018

  101. [109]

    S. Li, Z. Guo, R. N. Coffee, K. Hegazy, Z. Huang, A. Natan, T. Osipov, D. Ray, A. Marinelli, and J. P. Cryan, Characterizing isolated attosecond pulses with angular streaking, Opt. Express 26, 4531 (2018)

    2018

  102. [110]

    Hartmann, G

    N. Hartmann, G. Hartmann, R. Heider, M. S. Wag- ner, M. Ilchen, J. Buck, A. O. Lindahl, C. Benko, J. Gr¨ unert, J. Krzywinski, J. Liu, A. A. Lutman, A. Marinelli, T. Maxwell, A. A. Miahnahri, S. P. Moeller, M. Planas, J. Robinson, A. K. Kazansky, N. M. Kabachnik, J. Viefhaus, ...

    2018

  103. [111]

    Duris, S

    J. Duris, S. Li, T. Driver, E. G. Champenois, J. P. MacArthur, A. A. Lutman, Z. Zhang, P. Rosenberger, J. W. Aldrich, R. Coffee, G. Coslovich, F.-J. Decker, J. M. Glownia, G. Hartmann, W. Helml, A. Kamalov, J. Knurr, J. Krzywinski, M.-F. Lin, J. P. Marangos, M. Nantel, A. Nata...

    2020

  104. [112]

    S. Li, T. Driver, P. Rosenberger, E. G. Champenois, J. Duris, A. Al-Haddad, V. Averbukh, J. C. T. Barnard, N. Berrah, C. Bostedt, P. H. Bucksbaum, R. N. Cof- fee, L. F. DiMauro, L. Fang, D. Garratt, A. Gatton, Z. Guo, G. Hartmann, D. Haxton, W. Helml, Z. Huang, A. C. LaForge, ...

    2022

  105. [113]

    Z. Guo, T. Driver, S. Beauvarlet, D. Cesar, J. Duris, P. L. Franz, O. Alexander, D. Bohler, C. Bostedt, V. Averbukh, X. Cheng, L. F. DiMauro, G. Doumy, R. Forbes, O. Gessner, J. M. Glownia, E. Isele, A. Ka- malov, K. A. Larsen, S. Li, X. Li, M.-F. Lin, G. A. McCracken, R. Obai...

    2024

  106. [114]

    Nicolas and C

    C. Nicolas and C. Miron, Lifetime broadening of core- excited and -ionized states, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 185, 267 (2012)

    2012

  107. [115]

    J. R. Taylor, Scattering Theory: The Quantum Theory of Nonrelativistic Collisions (John Wiley and & Sons, Inc., New York, 1972)

    1972

  108. [116]

    T. F. O’Malley, L. Rosenberg, and L. Spruch, Low- energy scattering of a charged particle by a neutral po- larizable system, Phys. Rev. 125, 1300 (1962)

    1962

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.