Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Phenomenological rate formulas for over-barrier ionization of hydrogen and helium atoms in strong constant electric fields

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single piecewise rate formula now spans tunneling, near-OBI, and far-OBI for hydrogen and helium.

desk verdict Useful, honest phenomenological rate formulas; the near-OBI interpretation is the real contribution, but the far-OBI part is an interpolation and the angular-average measure needs scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02697 v2 pith:LMSKYBRG submitted 2025-02-04 physics.atom-ph physics.plasm-ph

S. Remme , A. B. Voitkiv , G. Pretzler , C. Müller This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords over-barrierionizationADKtunnelingrateStarkeffectformulahydrogenheliumstrong-fieldlaser-plasmasimulation
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 argues that over-barrier ionization (OBI) of hydrogen and helium is not a separate phenomenon but a continuation of tunneling ionization once the Stark effect and the widening cone of allowed electron emission are included. By adding a Stark-shifted binding energy, a Stark-renormalized wave function, and an angular average over emission directions to the ADK tunneling rate, the authors reproduce established empirical OBI formulas and the numerical rates they fit. For stronger fields they propose a compact four-parameter rational formula that interpolates between the previously known quadratic and linear field scalings. The payoff is a single piecewise rate expression that runs continuously from tunneling through near-OBI to far-OBI, ready for use in laser-plasma simulations.

What carries the argument

The engine of the near-OBI part is an angular averaging over a cone of allowed emission directions. For $\vartheta\leq\vartheta_{\max}$ the combined Coulomb-plus-field potential stays below the Stark-shifted ground-state energy, so the electron can leave over the barrier without tunneling; the paper assumes that each direction in the cone contributes with equal weight and evaluates the modified ADK rate at the reduced field $F\cos\vartheta$. The far-OBI part is carried by the rational fit function $W=aF^b/(c+F^d)$, whose limiting powers reproduce the quadratic and linear scalings found earlier.

What would settle it

Measure or compute, with a full two-electron time-dependent Schroedinger solver, the angle-resolved ionization yield of helium at $F\approx 1.5\,F_c$: if the angular distribution within the cone is strongly peaked near the field axis rather than roughly uniform, the equal-weight average in Eq. (12) is wrong. Likewise, high-precision complex-scaling results for hydrogen at $1.5\,F_c \lesssim F \lesssim 2.5\,F_c$ that lie consistently below the present near-OBI curve would contradict the claim that Eq. (12) accurately extends the ADK rate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the rate of over-barrier ionization in the near-OBI regime is quantitatively captured by the ADK tunneling rate evaluated with a Stark-shifted ionization potential $\kappa'=\sqrt{2(I_p+I_S)}$, multiplied by the Stark-modified wave-function normalization $|N|^2\simeq 1-\beta F^2$, and averaged over emission angles up to $\vartheta_{\max}=\arccos[(F_c/F)(1+I_S/I_p)^2]$. This physically motivated chain explains the functional form of the Tong-Lin and Zhang-Lan-Lu empirical corrections without introducing new free parameters beyond the Stark constants. In the far-OBI regime, the field dependence is described by a four-parameter fit $W_{\mathrm{fOBI}}=aF^b/(c+F^d)$, which for hydrogen gives $W\sim F^{2.27}$ at moderate fields and $W\sim F^{0.83}$ at very high fields, and for helium $W\sim F^{3.46}$ at moderate and $W\sim F^{1.23}$ at very high fields. Joined at a transition field $F_{\mathrm{tr}}$, the two pieces form a compact piecewise formula that is claimed to serve as a reliable analytical ionization-rate model across the whole nonrelativistic field range.

Load-bearing premise

The near-OBI rate rests on a geometric heuristic: within the emission cone every angle is weighted equally, and the rate at an oblique angle is the modified ADK rate at the reduced field $F\cos\vartheta$; this uniform-cone model has no microscopic derivation and is justified only by the numerical agreement it produces. The helium treatment also relies on an effective nuclear charge $Z_S=1.44$ extracted from the 1s-2p transition energy rather than on a two-electron calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Equation (17) can replace ad hoc gluing of ADK, Tong-Lin, and linear far-OBI formulas in particle-in-cell plasma codes, removing known mismatches at regime boundaries.
  • Because the quadratic Stark shift already accounts for roughly 3/8 of the Tong-Lin exponential correction, adding an explicit Stark shift to the Tong-Lin formula would double-count the effect.
  • The near-OBI formula reproduces the Zhang-Lan-Lu rate for hydrogen up to about $2.5\,F_c$ and the Scrinzi numerical rates for helium, so both species can be covered by the same physically motivated procedure.
  • The far-OBI formula reproduces the numerical hydrogen data of Bauer and Mulser at high fields where the quadratic fit fails, and stays close to the linear Kostyukov-Golovanov scaling at $F\gtrsim F_a$.
  • Because the near-OBI formula arises from physically motivated modifications rather than purely empirical fits, it offers a starting point for estimating OBI rates in atomic species where no dedicated numerical data exist.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the uniform-cone angular average is right, angle-resolved electron momentum spectra in the near-OBI regime should be roughly flat within the cone and sharply suppressed outside it; a strong forward peaking would indicate the equal-weight assumption is too crude.
  • The same Stark-plus-cone construction could be extended to other atoms and to molecules by using tabulated polarizabilities and ionization potentials, although the paper only demonstrates hydrogen-like and helium cases.
  • The analogy drawn with strong-field pair production suggests that rational-function fits like Eq. (16) could also describe the transition from exponential to power-law scaling in pair-creation rates, with a similar interpolation between limiting regimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes phenomenological, analytically compact rate formulas for over-barrier ionization (OBI) of hydrogen and helium in static electric fields. In the near-OBI regime, the authors modify the ADK tunneling rate by including the second-order Stark shift in the binding energy, a normalization correction from the Stark-distorted wave function, and an average over a widened cone of emission angles. In the far-OBI regime, a four-parameter rational fit is introduced and matched to numerical results, and a piecewise formula combining the near- and far-OBI expressions is presented. The paper also discusses applications to plasma simulations and analogies to strong-field pair production.

Significance. The paper's value is in providing a transparent, physically motivated interpolation between tunneling and OBI and a compact piecewise expression useful for simulation codes. Strengths include the explicit decomposition of the near-OBI correction into Stark and angular contributions, the reproduction of the exponential structure of the Tong-Lin factor, and the honest caveat that the treatment is phenomenological. The main limitations are the unstated choice of angular averaging measure, the circularity of using the same data for fitting and validation in the far-OBI regime, and the absence of continuity control in the piecewise formula. If these are addressed, the formulas would be a useful practical resource.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (12)] The average over the emission cone is taken with a uniform polar-angle measure, dϑ/ϑ_max, without derivation. Since ϑ_max reaches about 0.96 rad at F = 2F_c for hydrogen (Eq. (11)) and the modified ADK rate falls steeply with 1/cosϑ, the choice of measure materially changes the result; a solid-angle average ∫_0^{ϑ_max} W(F cosϑ, κ′) sinϑ dϑ / (1 − cosϑ_max) would weight large angles differently. The physical statement that the electron has a 'free choice' of directions suggests equal probability per solid angle, not per polar angle. Because Eq. (12) is the central mechanism claimed to reproduce the near-OBI data, the authors should justify the measure or show that the comparison in Figs. 3 and 4 is insensitive to it.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (16), Figs. 5 and 6] The far-OBI formula is fitted to the Bauer-Mulser numerical data for hydrogen and the Scrinzi et al. data for helium, plus two evaluation points of Eq. (4), and the same datasets are then shown in Figs. 5 and 6 as evidence of agreement. As validation this is circular; the agreement only demonstrates the quality of the interpolation. An out-of-sample test (for example, against the MCTDHF results of Lötstedt et al., which are cited but not plotted) or a clear statement that these are fit-quality comparisons rather than independent predictions is required for the central claim that the far-OBI formulas 'closely agree with available numerical data'.
  3. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (17), Tables I and II] The piecewise formula is claimed to give a smooth transition, but no continuity condition is imposed at F_tr. For hydrogen at F_tr = 2.5F_c, using Tables I and II together with Eq. (1), the near-OBI branch (13) evaluates to roughly 0.27 a.u. and the far-OBI branch (16) to roughly 0.07 a.u., a factor-of-four jump. The authors should enforce continuity (for instance by adjusting one parameter) or state that a discontinuity is intended; as written, the 'smooth transition' claim in Sec. IV A is not supported.
  4. [Sec. II.D, helium paragraph] The helium near-OBI model relies on an effective nuclear charge Z_S ≈ 1.44 for the Stark shift and β ≈ 0.551, chosen from the 1s-2p transition energy. This choice directly determines I_S and the normalization correction, and hence the near-OBI rate in Fig. 4. No sensitivity study is given to show how the agreement depends on Z_S; the statement that this 'serves to catch the main physical properties' is an assertion. Given the paper's phenomenological goal, a sensitivity test (for example, varying Z_S over a plausible range) or a comparison with an independent helium polarizability calculation would strengthen the claim.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.D and Fig. 4] The parameters used for Eq. (4) in the helium case are not given; since Eq. (4) is used as a reference curve, the reader cannot reproduce the comparison.
  2. [Tables I and II] No fitting uncertainties or goodness-of-fit measures are reported, so the quality of the fits and the sensitivity of the piecewise formula to the parameter values cannot be assessed.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption reads 'Eq.(17' without a closing parenthesis; also 'focussing' in the abstract and introduction should be 'focusing'.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Far-OBI formula (16) is fitted to the very numerical data and empirical points that are later presented as validating its 'predictions'; the near-OBI model itself is not circularly derived.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Eq. (16), Table II, Fig. 5 (hydrogen far-OBI)]
    "In order to determine the fit parameters for hydrogen, we use the predictions from the empirical formula (4) by Zhang et al. for F = 3.5Fc and 4Fc, and the numerical rates computed by Bauer and Mulser for higher field strengths 0.6 ≲ F/Fa ≲ 4 (see Fig. 6 in [6]). ... Our rate prediction also matches well the numerical data of Bauer and Mulser (cyan marker points) at higher fields."

    The four parameters in Eq. (16) are adjusted to the Zhang et al. evaluation points and to the Bauer-Mulser numerical rates, with the latter read off from Fig. 6 of [6]. The same Bauer-Mulser points are then shown in Fig. 5 as if they independently confirmed the formula ('Our rate prediction also matches well...'). The agreement is therefore an in-sample property of the fit, not an independent prediction, so this part of the validation is circular by construction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III, Eq. (16), Table II, Fig. 6 (helium far-OBI)]
    "The fit parameters entering WfOBI are listed in Tab. II; they have been obtained based on the numerical results of Scrinzi et al. [7]. Our corresponding analytical rate prediction of the form (16) reaches very good agreement with these 'exact' numerical data in the full range of considered field strengths."

    For helium, the parameters of Eq. (16) are obtained by fitting to the numerical results of Scrinzi et al., and then the same numerical results are cited as demonstrating 'very good agreement' with the formula. The match is forced by the fitting procedure rather than being a test of the formula, so the claimed validation reduces to reporting the quality of the fit.

full rationale

The near-OBI construction is not circular: Eq. (12) combines independently determined inputs (the second-order Stark shift, the perturbative normalization correction, and the geometric cone angle) and is then compared with empirical formulas and numerical data without fitting those data. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; the cited empirical formulas and numerical rates are external. The circularity is confined to the far-OBI section: Eq. (16) is explicitly a four-parameter fit to the Bauer-Mulser and Scrinzi data (plus two Zhang et al. points), yet Figs. 5 and 6 and the surrounding text present agreement with those same data as validation of a 'prediction.' Because the central far-OBI claim ('analytical rate formulas ... closely agree with available numerical data') is supported only by in-sample agreement, the score is 6 rather than lower. The near-OBI results retain independent content, so the paper is not wholly circular.

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

The central near-OBI prediction is essentially parameter-free beyond known atomic constants (beta about 4.912 for H is from perturbation theory), but the helium treatment introduces an effective charge Z_S chosen by hand, and the far-OBI regime is entirely governed by four fitted parameters per atom. The angular-averaging rule in Eq. (12) is a new heuristic that is not derived from the Schrodinger equation.

free parameters (4)
  • far-OBI hydrogen fit parameters a, b, c, d = 2.12576, 2.27298, 0.39435, 1.44093
    Adjusted to Bauer-Mulser numerical rates and two evaluation points of the Zhang et al. formula; they determine the entire far-OBI hydrogen rate in Eq. (16).
  • far-OBI helium fit parameters a, b, c, d = 1.11521, 3.46003, 0.35354, 2.23355
    Adjusted to Scrinzi et al. numerical helium rates; determine the far-OBI helium rate.
  • near-OBI compact-form parameters a1~, a2~, a3~ (H and He) = H: 0.047769, -0.745282, -0.114022; He: 0.042177, -0.762430, 0.039149
    Fit to the authors' own angular-averaged rate (12) to produce the compact form (13) used in the piecewise formula; not fitted to external data, but they are the coefficients that enter the final near-OBI expression.
  • helium effective Stark charge Z_S = 1.44
    Chosen so that the 1s-2p transition energy reproduces the helium Stark shift; an ad hoc modeling choice for applying the hydrogen-like Stark formulas to helium.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The ADK tunneling formula (Eq. 1) accurately describes the tunneling regime F << Fc.
    The paper builds all near-OBI rates by modifying ADK; if ADK fails at the fields used (up to about 2.5Fc), the modifications inherit that error.
  • ad hoc to paper The ionization rate for oblique emission angles is given by the tunneling formula at the projected field F cos(theta).
    Eq. (12) integrates W~nOBI(F cos(theta), kappa') over theta in [0, theta_max]; the physical justification is only geometric intuition, not a derivation.
  • domain assumption The numerical rates from Bauer-Mulser, Scrinzi et al., and Maltsev et al. are accurate exact benchmarks.
    The paper uses these external numerical results as ground truth for both fitting and validation; if those rates have systematic errors, the fitted formulas inherit them.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenological rate formulas for over-barrier ionization of hydrogen and helium atoms in strong constant electric fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LMSKYBRG

@misc{pith2026250202697,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenological rate formulas for over-barrier ionization of hydrogen and helium atoms in strong constant electric fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LMSKYBRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02697}
}
read the original abstract

Nonrelativistic over-barrier ionization (OBI) of atoms in strong electric fields is studied, focussing on hydrogen and helium as concrete examples. Our goal is, on the one hand, to develop an intuitive physical picture behind established empirical formulas for the ionization rate. We show that the ionization rate in a near OBI regime can be modelled quantitatively by extending corresponding tunneling rates by the combined action of the Stark effect and a widened electron emission angle. On the other hand, we present analytical rate formulas in a far OBI regime which closely agree with available numerical data. In result, compact rate expressions describing OBI of hydrogen-like and helium atoms in a broad range of applied field strengths are obtained. They can be useful, for example, in numerical laser-plasma simulation codes to describe elementary ionization events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02697 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Total potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Ionization rates for atomic hydrogen from the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Ionization rates for atomic hydrogen from the ground [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: OBI rates for atomic hydrogen in a wide range of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: OBI rates for helium, spanning the range from near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Over-Barrier Ionization Dynamics Studied by Backpropagation

    physics.atom-ph 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Backpropagated classical trajectories separate tunneling from over-barrier ionization in a model helium atom, showing that the over-barrier path sets in at smaller initial transverse electron momentum and at a Stark-s...

  2. THz emission from multiple ionized plasma

    physics.plasm-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A photocurrent model with high ionization states reproduces spectral and energy scaling in two-color plasma THz generation and enables 0.2 mJ, >1% conversion with a Ti:sapphire laser.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. V. Fedorov, Atomic and Free Electrons in a Strong Light Field (World Scientific, Singapore, 1997); D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, G. G. Paulus, D. Bauer and W. Becker, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, R203 (2006); F. Grossmann, Theoretical Femtosecond Physics: Atoms and Molecules in Strong Laser Fields (Springer, 2008)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Agostini and L

    P. Agostini and L. F. DiMauro, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67, 813 (2004); A. Scrinzi, M. Yu. Ivanov, R. Kienberger and D. M. Villeneuve, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 39, R1 (2006); C. Winterfeldt, C. Spielmann, and G. Gerber, Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 117 (2008)

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Hidding, G

    B. Hidding, G. Pretzler, J. B. Rosenzweig, T. K¨ onigstein, D. Schiller, and D. L. Bruhwiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 035001 (2012); A. Deng et al. , Nature Physics 15, 1156 (2019)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    M. V. Ammosov, N. B. Delone, and V. P. Krainov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 91, 2008 (1986) [Sov. Phys. JETP 64, 1191 (1987)]

    work page 1986

  5. [5]

    A. M. Perelomov, V. S. Popov and M. V. Terentev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 50, 1393 (1966) [Sov. Phys. JETP 23, 924 (1966)]; A. M. Perelomov and V. S. Popov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 52, 514 (1967) [Sov. Phys. JETP 25, 336 (1967)]

    work page 1966

  6. [6]

    Bauer and P

    D. Bauer and P. Mulser, Phys. Rev. A 59, 569 (1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [7]

    Scrinzi, M

    A. Scrinzi, M. Geissler and T. Brabec, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 706 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

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

    work page 2005

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    L¨ otstedt, M

    E. L¨ otstedt, M. F. Ciappina, and K. Yamanouchi, Phys. Rev. A 102, 013112 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    E. C. Jones, Z. P. Andreula, and B. C. Walker, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033102 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Zhang, P

    Q. Zhang, P. Lan, and P. Lu, Phys. Rev. A 90, 043410 (2014)

    2014

  4. [12]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A 110, 023103 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    I. A. Ivanov and Y. K. Ho, Phys. Rev. A 69, 023407 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    I. A. Maltsev, D. A. Tumako, R. V. Popov, and V. M. Shabaev, Opt. Spectrosc. 130, 455 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    I. Yu. Kostyukov and A. A. Golovanov, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043407 (2018)

    2018

  8. [16]

    A pedagogical derivation of the ADK rate is given in C. Z. Bisgaard and L. B. Madsen, Am. J. Phys. 72, 249 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    A more sophisticated treat- ment, which also accounts for the lateral electron motion, leads to a larger value of ( √ 2−1)I 3/2 p ≈ 0.146 a.u

    Equation (2) represents the standard formula for the over-barrier threshold field and results from a one- dimensional consideration. A more sophisticated treat- ment, which also accounts for the lateral electron motion, leads to a larger value of ( √ 2−1)I 3/2 p ≈ 0.146 a.u. in...

    1997

  10. [18]

    (8) in [11]

    As pointed out in [15], a misprinted minus sign needs to be fixed in the exponent of Eq. (8) in [11]

  11. [19]

    Akagi, T

    H. Akagi, T. Otobe, A. Staudte, A. Shiner, F. Turner, R. D¨ orner, D. M. Villeneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Science 325, 1364 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    Holmegaard et al

    L. Holmegaard et al. , Nat. Phys. 6, 428 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    V. H. Trinh, O. I. Tolstikhin, L. B. Madsen, and T. Mor- ishita, Phys. Rev. A 87, 043426 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1965); Sec. 77

    1965

  15. [23]

    Dimitrovski et al

    D. Dimitrovski et al. , Phys. Rev. A 83, 023405 (2011); J. L. Hansen et al. , Phys. Rev. A 83, 023406 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    R. J. Damburg and V. V. Kolosov, J. Phys. B 11, 1921 (1978); see Eq. (47) therein

    1978

  17. [25]

    X. M. Tong, Z. X. Zhao, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 66, 033402 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Gr¨ undler, T

    This Stark shift is in close accordance with the results for the helium polarizability at low field strengths obtained in W. Gr¨ undler, T. Steinke, and P. Walther, J. Comp. Chem. 11, 548 (1990)

    1990

  19. [27]

    D. L. Bruhwiler, D. A. Dimitrov, J. R. Cary, E. Esarey, W. Leemans, and R. E. Giacone, Phys. Plasmas 10, 2022 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Nuter, L

    R. Nuter, L. Gremillet, E. Lefebvre, A. L´ evy, T. Ceccotti, and P. Martin, Phys. Plasmas 18, 033107 (2011)

    2011

  21. [29]

    M. Chen, E. Cormier-Michel, C. G. R. Geddes, D. L. Bruhwiler, L. L. Yu, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, W. P. Leemans, J. Comp. Phys. 236, 220 (2013)

    2013

  22. [30]

    I. I. Artemenko and I. Yu. Kostyukov, Phys. Rev. A 96, 032106 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Ouatu, B

    I. Ouatu, B. T. Spiers, R. Aboushelbaya, Q. Feng, M. W. von der Leyen, R. W. Paddock, R. Timmis, C. Ticos, K. M. Krushelnick, and P. A. Norreys, Phys. Rev. E 106, 015205 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Fl´ e, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai et al. , Comput. Phys. Comm. 222, 351 (2018)

    2018

  25. [33]

    and can, thus, be useful for application in large-scale plasma simulation codes. B. Relation to strong-field pair production The transition of the ionization rate from the tunnel- ing to the near- and far-OBI regimes has a close anal- ogy in other strong-field phenomena. For exa...

  26. [34]

    A. A. Mironov, E. G. Gelfer, I. I. Tupitsyn, A. Beck, M. Jirka, O. Klimo, S. Meuren, G. Oberreit, T. Smorod- nikova, R. Tai¨ eb, S. Weber, C. Riconda, M. Grech, and S. V. Popruzhenko, arXiv:2501.11672

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    V. I. Ritus, J. Sov. Laser Res. 6, 497 (1985)

    1985

  28. [36]

    Golub, S

    A. Golub, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, and C. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D 105, 116016 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    V. P. Yakovlev, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 49, 318 (1965) [Sov. Phys. JETP 22, 223 (1966)]; A. I. Milstein, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, U. D. Jentschura, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A 73, 062106 (2006)

    1965

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.