Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Low-energy photoelectron structures for arbitrary ellipticity of a strong laser field

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-energy photoelectron structures (LES) can form at any ellipticity of the driving laser if the Keldysh parameter is large enough, because nonadiabatic recollision dynamics compensate the elliptical drift.

desk verdict Solid numerics and a plausible new mechanism for LES in elliptical fields, but the analytic regime boundaries don't survive contact with the paper's own RD point. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11144 v1 pith:MY2PTTLY submitted 2025-01-19 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Q. Z. Lv , M. Klaiber , P.-L. He , K. Z. Hatsagortsyan , C. H. Keitel This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords low-energystructuresellipticallypolarizedlaserfieldnonadiabaticstrong-fieldapproximationrecollisionphotoelectronmomentumdistributionCoulombfocusingattoclockKeldyshparameter
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 investigates strong-field ionization of atoms by elliptically polarized laser pulses in the nonadiabatic regime, where the Keldysh parameter γ is not small. It argues that low-energy structures (LES) — sharp low-energy features in the photoelectron momentum distribution that were previously associated with linearly polarized fields — appear for arbitrary ellipticity, including nearly circular polarization, once γ is sufficiently large. The authors identify three interaction regimes — recollisionless, recollision-enabled, and recollision-dominated — with boundaries given by balancing the elliptical drift against nonadiabatic initial momenta and Coulomb momentum transfer. If correct, this means attoclock measurements at high ellipticity cannot assume recollisions are absent, and elliptical holography in the nonadiabatic regime will carry additional distortions.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the nonadiabatic classical-trajectory Monte Carlo (naCTMC) simulation, matched to the under-the-barrier motion through the nonadiabatic strong-field approximation (SFA). At the tunnel exit the transverse momentum distribution is shifted to $p_{\perp,e}=\epsilon\gamma\kappa/6$ and widened beyond the adiabatic value, where $\kappa=\sqrt{2I_p}$ with ionization potential $I_p$. These initial conditions, together with an estimated Coulomb momentum transfer $\delta p_C^y$ from Eq. (3), determine whether an electron can be focused to near-zero final momentum. The regime boundaries follow from two balance equations: Eq. (1) states that the elliptical drift, the shifted initial momentum, the nonadiabatic momentum width, and the Coulomb momentum transfer nearly cancel for the recollision-enabled transition, and Eq. (2) states the same cancellation for the peak of the wave packet for the recollision-dominated transition. The identified trajectories are anomalous slow recollisions and hybrid recollisions, in which Coulomb momentum transfer accumulates gradually rather than only at a brief rescattering instant.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to compute the photoelectron momentum distribution with a short-range potential (for example a Yukawa core) instead of the full Coulomb potential under the same elliptical field and nonadiabatic parameters: if the zero-energy LES peak persists, the Coulomb bunching mechanism is not responsible, and if it disappears, the paper's mechanism is confirmed. Experimentally, measuring the PMD at, say, ω=0.1, γ≈4, and ε≈0.8 should show a distinct peak at zero energy in the pz-integrated spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that in the nonadiabatic regime (Keldysh parameter γ ≳ 1, where γ measures how far the ionization is from adiabatic tunneling) the elliptical drift of the electron can be compensated by the modified initial transverse momentum and by Coulomb momentum transfer during recollision, so LES form for any ellipticity, including nearly circular polarization. The photoelectron momentum distribution is classified into three regimes — recollisionless, recollision-enabled, and recollision-dominated — with boundaries given by Eqs. (1)–(2), which balance the elliptical drift against the nonadiabatic initial momentum spread and the Coulomb momentum transfer. The responsible trajectories are anomalous slow recollisions and hybrid recollisions, in which the Coulomb momentum transfer accumulates gradually along the whole trajectory rather than only at a brief rescattering encounter, producing phase-space bunching in the polarization plane and Coulomb focusing along the propagation direction.

Load-bearing premise

The entire regime map and the 'any ellipticity' conclusion rest on the nonadiabatic strong-field-approximation initial conditions at the tunnel exit — the shifted transverse momentum and the widened width — together with the approximate Coulomb momentum transfer of Eq. (3) being accurate enough to locate the recollision region; if those modeling assumptions fail, the boundaries in Fig. 2 would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LES appear in the photoelectron spectrum for any ellipticity once γ is large enough, so the attoclock assumption that large ellipticity suppresses recollision fails in the nonadiabatic regime.
  • The (ε, γ) plane is divided into recollisionless, recollision-enabled, and recollision-dominated regimes, with boundaries set by Eqs. (1)–(2) and dependent on laser frequency.
  • The recollision picture is modified: anomalous slow recollisions and hybrid recollisions, with gradually accumulated Coulomb momentum transfer, replace the sudden rescattering picture.
  • In recollision-dominated conditions the PMD peak is at the LES, not at the lobe, so the attoclock offset angle is meaningful only in the recollisionless regime.
  • Strong-field elliptical holography at nonadiabatic conditions faces extra distortion from LES, complicating retrieval of interference fringes and structural information.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: the regime boundaries should shift with the target's ionization potential and charge because both the nonadiabatic width and $\delta p_C^y$ scale with these; comparing different atoms under the same field would map the boundary shift.
  • The same mechanism may explain part of the anomalously large offset angles observed in attoclock experiments in the deep nonadiabatic regime, because the LES phase-space bunching moves the PMD peak away from the simple Coulomb-shifted trajectory.
  • If the picture holds, few-cycle elliptical fields with high γ could serve as a controllable source of slow electrons, since the LES peak position and dominance are tunable through ε and γ.
  • The phase-space Jacobian argument implies that peak positions in strong-field PMDs generally do not correspond to the most probable initial trajectory whenever Coulomb effects are strong, a caution for trajectory-based retrieval methods beyond the attoclock.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies strong-field ionization of hydrogen in elliptically polarized laser fields in the nonadiabatic regime (γ ≳ 1) using numerical TDSE solutions and nonadiabatic classical-trajectory Monte Carlo (naCTMC) simulations whose initial conditions are obtained from the nonadiabatic SFA. It reports low-energy structures (LES) at arbitrary ellipticity when the Keldysh parameter is sufficiently large, classifies the interaction into recollisionless (RL), recollision-enabled (RE), and recollision-dominated (RD) regimes, and attributes LES to anomalous and hybrid recollisions leading to Coulomb bunching in the polarization plane. Approximate analytic conditions for the regime boundaries are given in Eqs. (1)-(3) and plotted in Fig. 2.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper substantially extends the recollision-based LES mechanism from linear to arbitrary elliptical polarization in the nonadiabatic regime, with implications for attoclock calibration and holographic imaging. The use of direct TDSE for hydrogen, the independent naCTMC approach, and the comparison with first-order SFA to isolate Coulomb effects are genuine strengths that give the qualitative regime classification at the computed points credibility. The main weakness is the analytic regime-boundary construction, which is not benchmarked and appears inconsistent with one of the paper's own TDSE points; because the 'any ellipticity' conclusion is extrapolated beyond the computed points via those boundaries, this issue is load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (2)-(3) and Fig. 2] The self-consistent evaluation of Eq. (3) does not reproduce the paper's own RD classification. At the TDSE point (ω = 0.1, γ = 4, ε = 1, hydrogen), Eq. (2) requires δp_y^C = εE0/ω + p_y,e ≈ 0.25 + 0.667 = 0.917 a.u., using p_y,e = εγκ/6. Solving Eq. (3) as described in the text, with x(t) ≈ (E0/ω)t, y_r ≈ δp_y^C/ω, Z = κ = 1, and the lower cutoff x_e = E0/ω² = 2.5 a.u., gives a self-consistent δp_y^C ≈ 0.46 a.u.; even the most favorable cutoff-free version of the same integral gives at most √(2ωγ) ≈ 0.89 a.u., still below 0.917 a.u. Thus, within the approximations stated in the text, Eq. (2) cannot place the point (ω = 0.1, γ = 4, ε = 1) in the RD regime, even though Fig. 1(f) classifies it as RD. This indicates that the straight-line and single-period approximations in Eq. (3) are not adequate for locating the regime boundaries, and the curves in Fig. 2 are not validated by the TDSE data they are meant to describe. Because the 'any ellipticity' conclusion is extrapolated via these curves, this is a central technical issue that needs to be fixed or explicitly de-emphasized.
  2. [Regime boundaries and the 'any ellipticity' claim] The abstract and conclusion state that LES arises 'at any ellipticity ... if the Keldysh parameter is sufficiently large.' The direct TDSE/naCTMC evidence covers only a handful of (ε, γ) points, most of them at ε = 0.7-1 for γ up to 4. The extension to arbitrary ellipticity rests entirely on the analytic regime curves of Fig. 2, whose derivation is the unbenchmarked Eq. (3) problem above. I ask the authors to either (i) validate the boundaries against naCTMC across a denser (ε, γ) grid, including small ε at large γ, or (ii) restrict the conclusion to the parameter range actually simulated and present the analytic curves as indicative. As written, the extrapolation is disproportionate to the evidence.
  3. [Eqs. (1)-(2) and nonadiabatic SFA inputs] The conditions in Eqs. (1) and (2) depend on Δ⊥^(na) and p_y,e, which the text says are 'derived explicitly from the nonadiabatic SFA' but no explicit expressions are given in the main text. Since these quantities determine the Fig. 2 boundaries, the manuscript should either provide the formulas in the main text or point to specific equations in the Supplemental Material; otherwise the boundaries cannot be reproduced or checked by the reader.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3)] Equation (3) as typeset appears to have a square root in the denominator; if the intended Coulomb force is y/r^3, the denominator should be (x²+y²)^{3/2}. Please clarify the typo or the derivation.
  2. [Fig. 2] The legend states that cycles and squares indicate the PMD parameters of Fig. 1, but the (ω = 0.1, γ = 4, ε = 0.8) TDSE point shown in Fig. 3 is not marked. Adding it would help the reader connect the TDSE evidence to the regime map.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'complete range of ellipticity' in the abstract overstates the finite set of computed ellipticities; 'a broad range of ellipticity' would be more accurate.
  4. [Eq. (1) and Δ⊥^(na)] The text gives Δ⊥^(na) only in the small-ε limit; Eq. (1) uses it for arbitrary ε. Please state how Δ⊥^(na) is evaluated for general ellipticity, or note the range of validity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central LES result rests on independent TDSE calculations and a TDSE-vs-SFA comparison, while the regime conditions are explicit physical criteria rather than fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, that low-energy structures arise at any ellipticity for sufficiently large Keldysh parameter, is anchored in numerical TDSE solutions, which are an independent benchmark not derived from the paper's model. The attribution of LES to recollisions is supported by the direct comparison with first-order SFA: SFA does not produce LES (Fig. 3(c,d)), whereas TDSE does, and the naCTMC reproduces the TDSE features while identifying the responsible trajectories. This constitutes an external, falsifiable check rather than a circular reduction. The regime conditions, Eqs. (1)-(2), are derived from the physical criterion py,f ≈ 0, with each term defined independently: the elliptical drift εE0/ω, the nonadiabatic initial transverse momentum shift py,e, the tunnel-exit width Δ⊥^(na), and the Coulomb momentum transfer δpC_y from Eq. (3). These quantities are not fitted to the TDSE classification; Eq. (3) is a self-consistent estimate for δpC_y. Even if the estimate is quantitatively inaccurate at certain parameters, as the skeptic's numerical check suggests, that is a correctness risk, not a circularity. The self-citations to the authors' previous work (Refs. [56], [69], [72], [73]) supply the nonadiabatic SFA initial conditions and pulse-shape methodology, but these are prior derivations rather than assertions of the target result, and the resulting naCTMC is validated against TDSE. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction, and no 'uniqueness theorem' or ansatz is smuggled in solely via self-citation. Accordingly, the paper exhibits at most minor, non-load-bearing self-citation, consistent with a low circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard TDSE for hydrogen, the nonadiabatic SFA initial conditions for tunnel exit, and a classical trajectory treatment of the post-tunneling Coulomb dynamics. No numerically fitted free parameters were identified; the pulse shape and phase-space window choices are modeling choices rather than fitted numbers. Two new recollision categories are introduced as explanatory constructs.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math TDSE with a single-active-electron hydrogen atom and the stated vector potential provides the reference photoelectron momentum distribution.
    The paper benchmarks all other methods against TDSE, so the correctness of the TDSE implementation is assumed as standard numerical quantum mechanics.
  • domain assumption The nonadiabatic SFA initial conditions at the tunnel exit (shifted transverse momentum and widened distribution) faithfully represent the under-the-barrier electron dynamics for gamma > 1.
    The naCTMC method and the analytic regime conditions (Eqs. (1)-(2)) use these distributions; if the shift is wrong, the regime boundaries and LES mechanism change.
  • domain assumption After tunnel exit, classical trajectory propagation with the Coulomb potential reproduces the quantum Coulomb bunching responsible for LES.
    The paper's mechanistic explanation is built on naCTMC trajectories; classical Coulomb scattering is assumed to capture the bunching seen in TDSE.
  • ad hoc to paper The Coulomb momentum transfer estimate in Eq. (3), with x(t) approximately (E0/omega)t and yr approximately py,r/omega, is accurate enough for locating the RL/RE and RE/RD boundaries.
    These linearized trajectory approximations are introduced specifically for this estimate and are not derived from a controlled expansion.
  • domain assumption The 8-cycle smooth pulse shape f(t) does not qualitatively alter the LES and regime classification.
    Pulse edge effects are known to matter at gamma > 1, and the authors rely on the chosen smooth envelope to suppress them; the sensitivity analysis is in the supplemental material.
invented entities (2)
  • anomalous slow recollision
    purpose: Explains the dominant contribution to nonadiabatic LES from short trajectories with vanishing longitudinal velocity at recollision, where the tunnel-exit coordinate and asymptotic momentum have the same sign.
    Introduced in this paper based on naCTMC trajectory analysis; it is a classification, not an independently measured object.
  • hybrid recollision
    purpose: Explains LES at high ellipticity where Coulomb momentum transfer accumulates continuously from tunnel exit to recollision rather than only during a brief rescattering event.
    Introduced in this paper to describe the nonadiabatic recollision dynamics at finite ellipticity; no direct experimental handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Low-energy photoelectron structures for arbitrary ellipticity of a strong laser field." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MY2PTTLY

@misc{pith2026250111144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Low-energy photoelectron structures for arbitrary ellipticity of a strong laser field},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MY2PTTLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11144}
}
abstract

Previous attoclock experiments measuring the photoelectron momentum distribution (PMD) via strong-field ionization in an elliptically polarized laser field have shown anomalously large offset angles in the nonadiabatic regime with large Keldysh parameters ($\gamma$). We investigate the process theoretically in the complete range of ellipticity ($\epsilon$) and large range of $\gamma$, employing numerical solutions of time-dependent Schr\"odinger equation and nonadiabatic classical-trajectory Monte Carlo simulations matched with the under-the-barrier motion via the nonadiabatic strong field approximation. We show the formation of low-energy structures (LES) at any ellipticity value when the Keldysh parameter is sufficiently large. Three regimes of the interaction in the ($\epsilon$-$\gamma$)-space of parameters are identified via the characteristic PMD features. The significant modification of the recollision picture in the nonadiabatic regime, with so-called anomalous and hybrid slow recollisions, is shown to be behind the LES, inducing extreme nonlinear Coulomb bunching in the phase-space in the polarization plane. Our findings elucidate subtle features of the attosecond electron dynamics in strong-field ionization at extreme conditions and indicate limitations on attosecond imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11144 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PMDs showing the emergence of LES: First row for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The derivation of the conditions is outlined below after [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PMD for ω = 0.1, γ = 4, and ϵ = 0.8: (a)-(b) via TDSE; (c)-(d) via first-order SFA; (a),(c) PMD cut at pz = 0; (b),(d) PMD integrated over pz ; (e) The momentum distribution in the propagation direction pz via TDSE for the PMD point at the LES [green point in (b)] and at the lobe [(blue point in (b)]; (f) The maximum probability for each pr = q p 2 x + p 2 y , via TDSE (solid line) and first-order SFA (dashed line) … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: naCTMC simulations in the nonadiabatic regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The formation of LES in the case of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. B. Corkum, Plasma perspective on strong field multiphoton ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

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

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    Brabec and F

    T. Brabec and F. Krausz, Intense few-cycle laser fields: Frontiers of nonlinear optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 72, 545 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Becker, F

    W. Becker, F. Grasbon, R. Kopold, D. B. Milo˘sevi´c, G. G. Paulus, and H. Walther, Above-threshold ionization: from classical fea- tures to quantum e ffects, Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48, 35 (2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [5]

    Agostini and L

    P. Agostini and L. F. DiMauro, The physics of attosecond light pulses, Rep. Prog. Phys. 67, 813 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Attosecond physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 163 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Meckel, D

    M. Meckel, D. Comtois, D. Zeidler, A. Staudte, D. Pavicic, H. C. Bandulet, H. Pepin, J. C. Kie ffer, R. Dorner, D. M. Vil- leneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Laser-Induced Electron Tunneling and Diffraction, Science 320, 1482 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    Huismans, A

    Y . Huismans, A. Rouz ´ee, A. Gijsbertsen, J. H. Jungmann, A. S. Smolkowska, P. S. W. M. Logman, F. L´epine, C. Cauchy, S. Zamith, T. Marchenko, J. M. Bakker, G. Berden, B. Redlich, A. F. G. van der Meer, H. G. Muller, W. Vermin, K. J. Schafer, M. Spanner, M. Y . Ivanov, O. Smirnova, D. Bauer, S. V . Popruzhenko, and M. J. J. Vrakking, Time-resolved holog...

    work page 2011

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of attosec- ond pulse trains, Rev

    P. Agostini, Nobel lecture: Genesis and applications of attosec- ond pulse trains, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030501 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    L’Huillier, Nobel lecture: The route to attosecond pulses, Rev

    A. L’Huillier, Nobel lecture: The route to attosecond pulses, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030503 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Krausz, Nobel lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev

    F. Krausz, Nobel lecture: Sub-atomic motions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 030502 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Brabec, M

    T. Brabec, M. Y . Ivanov, and P. B. Corkum, Coulomb focusing in intense field atomic processes, Phys. Rev. A 54, R2551 (1996)

    1996

  5. [13]

    Comtois, D

    D. Comtois, D. Zeidler, H. P ´epin, J. C. Kie ffer, D. M. Vil- leneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Observation of coulomb focusing in tunnelling ionization of noble gases, J. Phys. B 38, 1923 (2005)

    2005

  6. [14]

    G. L. Yudin and M. Y . Ivanov, Physics of correlated double ionization of atoms in intense laser fields: Quasistatic tunneling limit, Phys. Rev. A 63, 033404 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    Rudenko, K

    A. Rudenko, K. Zrost, T. Ergler, A. B. V oitkiv, B. Najjari, V . L. B. de Jesus, B. Feuerstein, C. D. Schr ¨oter, R. Moshammer, and J. Ullrich, Coulomb singularity in the transverse momentum distribution for strong-field single ionization, J. Phys. B 38, L191 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Ludwig, J

    A. Ludwig, J. Maurer, B. W. Mayer, C. R. Phillips, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Breakdown of the dipole approximation in strong- field ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 243001 (2014)

    2014

  9. [17]

    Dan ˇek, K

    J. Dan ˇek, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Analytical approach to Coulomb focusing in strong-field ionization. I. Nondipole effects, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063409 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Willenberg, J

    B. Willenberg, J. Maurer, U. Keller, J. Dan ˇek, M. Klaiber, N. Teeny, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Holographic interferences in strong-field ionization beyond the dipole approx- imation: The influence of the peak and focal-volume-averaged laser intensities, Phys. Re...

    2019

  11. [19]

    C. I. Blaga, F. Catoire, P. Colosimo, G. G. Paulus, H. G. Muller, A. P., and L. F. DiMauro, Strong-field photoionization revisited, Nat. Phys. 5, 1745 (2009)

    2009

  12. [20]

    F. H. M. Faisal, Strong-field physics: Ionization surprise, Nat. Phys. 5, 319 (2009)

    2009

  13. [21]

    C. Y . Wu, Y . D. Yang, Y . Q. Liu, Q. H. Gong, M. Wu, X. Liu, X. L. Hao, W. D. Li, X. T. He, and J. Chen, Characteristic spec- trum of very low-energy photoelectron from above-threshold ionization in the tunneling regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 043001 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Liu and K

    C. Liu and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Origin of unexpected low energy structure in photoelectron spectra induced by midinfrared strong laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 113003 (2010)

    2010

  15. [23]

    T.-M. Yan, S. V . Popruzhenko, M. J. J. Vrakking, and D. Bauer, Low-energy structures in strong field ionization revealed by quantum orbits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253002 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    K¨astner, U

    A. K¨astner, U. Saalmann, and J. M. Rost, Electron-energy bunch- ing in laser-driven soft recollisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 033201 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Lemell, K

    C. Lemell, K. I. Dimitriou, X.-M. Tong, S. Nagele, D. V . Kar- tashov, J. Burgd ¨orfer, and S. Gr ¨afe, Low-energy peak struc- ture in strong-field ionization by midinfrared laser pulses: Two- dimensional focusing by the atomic potential, Phys. Rev. A 85, 011403 (2012)

    2012

  18. [26]

    Becker, S

    W. Becker, S. P. Goreslavski, D. B. Miloˇsevi´c, and G. G. Paulus, Low-energy electron rescattering in laser-induced ionization, J. Phys. B 47, 204022 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Wolter, M

    B. Wolter, M. G. Pullen, M. Baudisch, M. Sclafani, M. Hemmer, A. Senftleben, C. D. Schr ¨oter, J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, and J. Biegert, Strong-field physics with mid-ir fields, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021034 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    G. G. Paulus, F. Zacher, H. Walther, A. Lohr, W. Becker, and M. Kleber, Above-threshold ionization by an elliptically po- larized field: Quantum tunneling interferences and classical dodging, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 484 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    Kopold, D

    R. Kopold, D. B. Miloˇsevi´c, and W. Becker, Rescattering pro- cesses for elliptical polarization: A quantum trajectory analysis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3831 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    G. G. Paulus, F. Grasbon, A. Dreischuh, H. Walther, R. Kopold, and W. Becker, Above-threshold ionization by an elliptically po- larized field: Interplay between electronic quantum trajectories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3791 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    M¨oller, Y

    M. M¨oller, Y . Cheng, S. D. Khan, B. Zhao, K. Zhao, M. Chini, G. G. Paulus, and Z. Chang, Dependence of high-order- harmonic-generation yield on driving-laser ellipticity, Phys. Rev. A 86, 011401 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    X. Lai, C. Wang, Y . Chen, Z. Hu, W. Quan, X. Liu, J. Chen, Y . Cheng, Z. Xu, and W. Becker, Elliptical polarization favors long quantum orbits in high-order above-threshold ionization of noble gases, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 043002 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    N. I. Shvetsov-Shilovski, S. P. Goreslavski, S. V . Popruzhenko, and W. Becker, Ellipticity effects and the contributions of long orbits in nonsequential double ionization of atoms, Phys. Rev. A 77, 063405 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Wang and J

    X. Wang and J. H. Eberly, Effects of elliptical polarization on strong-field short-pulse double ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 103007 (2009)

    2009

  27. [35]

    Wang and J

    X. Wang and J. H. Eberly, Elliptical polarization and probability of double ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 083001 (2010)

    2010

  28. [36]

    L. V . Keldysh, Ionization in the field of a strong electromagnetic wave, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.47, 1945 (1964)

    1964

  29. [37]

    Maurer, B

    J. Maurer, B. Willenberg, J. Danˇek, B. W. Mayer, C. R. Phillips, L. Gallmann, M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, C. H. Keitel, and U. Keller, Probing the ionization wave packet and recollision dynamics with an elliptically polarized strong laser field in the nondipole regime, P...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Liu and K

    C. Liu and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Coulomb focusing in above- threshold ionization in elliptically polarized midinfrared strong laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 85, 023413 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Shafir, H

    D. Shafir, H. Soifer, C. V ozzi, A. S. Johnson, A. Hartung, Z. Dube, D. M. Villeneuve, P. B. Corkum, N. Dudovich, and A. Staudte, Trajectory-resolved coulomb focusing in tunnel ion- ization of atoms with intense, elliptically polarized laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 023005 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    A. S. Landsman, C. Hofmann, A. N. Pfei ffer, C. Cirelli, and U. Keller, Unified Approach to Probing Coulomb E ffects in Tunnel Ionization for Any Ellipticity of Laser Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 263001 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    M. Li, Y . Liu, H. Liu, Q. Ning, L. Fu, J. Liu, Y . Deng, C. Wu, L.- Y . Peng, and Q. Gong, Subcycle Dynamics of Coulomb Asym- metry in Strong Elliptical Laser Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 023006 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Eckle, M

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

    2008

  35. [43]

    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 measurements in helium, Science322, 1525 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    A. N. Pfeiffer, C. Cirelli, M. Smolarski, D. Dimitrovski, M. Abu- samha, L. B. Madsen, and U. Keller, Attoclock reveals natural coordinates of the laser-induced tunnelling current flow in atoms, Nature Phys. 8, 76 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    A. S. Landsman, M. Weger, J. Maurer, R. Boge, A. Ludwig, S. Heuser, C. Cirelli, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Ultrafast resolution of tunneling delay time, Optica 1, 343 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Camus, E

    N. Camus, E. Yakaboylu, L. Fechner, M. Klaiber, M. Laux, Y . Mi, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, T. Pfeifer, C. H. Keitel, and R. Moshammer, Experimental evidence for wigner’s tunneling time, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 023201 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    U. S. Sainadh, H. Xu, X. Wang, A. Atia-Tul-Noor, W. C. Wallace, N. Douguet, A. Bray, I. Ivanov, K. Bartschat, A. Kheifets, R. T. Sang, and I. V . Litvinyuk, Attosecond angular streaking and tunnelling time in atomic hydrogen, Nature 568, 75 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    I. A. Ivanov and A. S. Kheifets, Strong-field ionization of He by elliptically polarized light in attoclock configuration, Phys. Rev. A 89, 021402 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    W. Quan, V . V . Serov, M. Wei, M. Zhao, Y . Zhou, Y . Wang, X. Lai, A. S. Kheifets, and X. Liu, Attosecond molecular angular streaking with all-ionic fragments detection, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 223204 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    V . V . Serov, A. W. Bray, and A. S. Kheifets, Numerical attoclock on atomic and molecular hydrogen, Phys. Rev. A 99, 063428 (2019)

    2019

  43. [51]

    V . V . Serov, J. Cesca, and A. S. Kheifets, Numerical and labo- ratory attoclock simulations on noble-gas atoms, Phys. Rev. A 103, 023110 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    S. P. Goreslavski, G. G. Paulus, S. V . Popruzhenko, and N. I. Shvetsov-Shilovski, Coulomb asymmetry in above-threshold ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 233002 (2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    R. Boge, C. Cirelli, A. S. Landsman, S. Heuser, A. Ludwig, J. Maurer, M. Weger, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Probing nona- diabatic effects in strong-field tunnel ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 103003 (2013)

    2013

  46. [54]

    A. W. Bray, S. Eckart, and A. S. Kheifets, Keldysh-rutherford model for the attoclock, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 123201 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    Douguet and K

    N. Douguet and K. Bartschat, Photoelectron momentum dis- tributions in the strong-field ionization of atomic hydrogen by few-cycle elliptically polarized optical pulses, Phys. Rev. A 106, 053112 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    Klaiber, , K

    M. Klaiber, , K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Tunneling dynamics in multiphoton ionization and attoclock calibration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 083001 (2015)

    2015

  49. [57]

    W. Xie, Z. Li, M. Li, Y . Liu, Y . Liu, C. Cao, K. Guo, K. Liu, Y . Zhou, and P. Lu, Observation of attosecond time delays in above-threshold ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 183201 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    L. B. Fu, G. G. Xin, D. F. Ye, and J. Liu, Recollision dynamics and phase diagram for nonsequential double ionization with circularly polarized laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 103601 (2012)

    2012

  51. [59]

    A. N. Pfeiffer, C. Cirelli, A. S. Landsman, M. Smolarski, D. Dim- itrovski, L. B. Madsen, and U. Keller, Probing the longitudinal momentum spread of the electron wave packet at the tunnel exit, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 083002 (2012)

    2012

  52. [60]

    Li, J.-W

    M. Li, J.-W. Geng, M. Han, M.-M. Liu, L.-Y . Peng, Q. Gong, and Y . Liu, Subcycle nonadiabatic strong-field tunneling ionization, Phys. Rev. A 93, 013402 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    M. Han, P. Ge, Y . Fang, X. Yu, Z. Guo, X. Ma, Y . Deng, Q. Gong, and Y . Liu, Unifying tunneling pictures of strong-field ionization with an improved attoclock, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 073201 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    Dubois, C

    J. Dubois, C. Chandre, and T. Uzer, Nonadiabatic effects in the double ionization of atoms driven by a circularly polarized laser pulse, Phys. Rev. E 102, 032218 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Trabert, N

    D. Trabert, N. Anders, S. Brennecke, M. S. Sch¨offler, T. Jahnke, L. P. H. Schmidt, M. Kunitski, M. Lein, R. D¨orner, and S. Eckart, Nonadiabatic strong field ionization of atomic hydrogen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 273201 (2021)

    2021

  56. [64]

    Mauger, C

    F. Mauger, C. Chandre, and T. Uzer, From recollisions to the knee: A road map for double ionization in intense laser fields, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 043005 (2010)

    2010

  57. [65]

    Mauger, C

    F. Mauger, C. Chandre, and T. Uzer, Recollisions and correlated double ionization with circularly polarized light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 083002 (2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Kamor, F

    A. Kamor, F. Mauger, C. Chandre, and T. Uzer, How key periodic orbits drive recollisions in a circularly polarized laser field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 253002 (2013)

    2013

  59. [67]

    Heldt, J

    T. Heldt, J. Dubois, P. Birk, G. D. Borisova, G. M. Lando, C. Ott, and T. Pfeifer, Attosecond real-time observation of recolliding electron trajectories in helium at low laser intensities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 183201 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    See the Supplemental Materials for the details of the applied techniques

  61. [69]

    Klaiber, Q

    M. Klaiber, Q. Z. Lv, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Tunneling ionization in ultrashort laser pulses: Edge effect and remedy, Phys. Rev. A105, 063109 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    V . S. Popov, Tunneling and multiphoton ionization of atoms and ions ina strong laser field (Keldysh theory), Phys. Usp. 47, 855 (2004)

    2004

  63. [71]

    V . D. Mur, S. V . Popruzhenko, and V . S. Popov, Energy and pulse spectra of photoelectrons during ionization by strong laser radiation (elliptical polarization), Zh. Exp. Theor. Fiz. 119, 893 (2001)

    2001

  64. [72]

    Klaiber, E

    M. Klaiber, E. Yakaboylu, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Above- threshold ionization with highly charged ions in superstrong laser fields. I. Coulomb-corrected strong-field approximation, Phys. Rev. A 87, 023417 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    Klaiber, Q

    M. Klaiber, Q. Z. Lv, S. Sukiasyan, D. Bakucz Can ´ario, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Reconciling conflicting ap- proaches for the tunneling time delay in strong field ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 203201 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    M. Yu, K. Liu, M. Li, J. Yan, C. Cao, J. Tan, J. Liang, K. Guo, W. Cao, P. Lan, Q. Zhang, Y . Zhou, and P. Lu, Full experimental determination of tunneling time with attosecond-scale streaking method, Light: Science & Applications 11, 215 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.