pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.08480 · v1 · pith:OZ3ITNKJnew · submitted 2019-06-20 · ⚛️ physics.optics · physics.comp-ph

Ab-initio calculations of laser-atom interactions reveal harmonics feedback during macroscopic propagation

Nicolas Berti , Pierre B\'ejot , Eric Cormier , J\'er\^ome Kasparian , Olivier Faucher , Jean-Pierre Wolf This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 19:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics physics.comp-ph
keywords ab initio calculationslaser-atom interactionsharmonic generationmacroscopic propagationionization probabilityultrashort laser pulsesfeedback effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

Generated harmonics feed back to alter ionization probability and harmonic yields during macroscopic laser propagation.

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

The paper couples a full 3D ab initio quantum calculation of how an atom's polarization evolves under an intense laser pulse with a separate model that tracks how that pulse travels through a gas over long distances. This combined simulation includes the harmonics the pulse itself generates, up to the eleventh order. The central result is that those harmonics exert a measurable influence back on the propagating pulse. The feedback changes both the chance that atoms lose electrons and the amount of new harmonics that form. Readers interested in intense-laser experiments would care because this loop means simpler models that omit the feedback can give incorrect predictions for ionization and output spectra.

Core claim

By linking the full 3D ab initio quantum evolution of the light pulse polarization in interaction with an atom with a propagation model, the calculations simulate the propagation of ultrashort laser pulses over macroscopic dimensions in the presence of self-generated harmonics up to order 11 and evidence a clear feedback of the generated harmonics on propagation, with an influence on the ionization probability as well as the yield of the harmonic generation itself.

What carries the argument

Coupled 3D ab initio quantum polarization evolution and macroscopic propagation model

If this is right

  • The feedback changes the ionization probability along the propagation path.
  • The feedback modifies the yield of harmonic generation itself.
  • Simulations of macroscopic pulse propagation must retain the harmonic components to capture this effect.
  • The influence appears for harmonics up to at least the eleventh order.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Models of high-harmonic generation sources that treat propagation separately from atomic response may need revision to include this loop.
  • Filamentation or self-focusing experiments in gases could exhibit measurable signatures of the same feedback.
  • The coupled approach could be tested by varying gas pressure or pulse energy to map how the feedback strength scales.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical coupling between the 3D ab initio atomic polarization evolution and the macroscopic propagation model faithfully represents the physics without unaccounted approximations in either component.

What would settle it

A side-by-side comparison of measured ionization rates or harmonic yields in a gas cell with versus without the generated harmonics present, showing divergence that matches the difference between the coupled simulation and an uncoupled propagation run.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1906.08480 by Eric Cormier, Jean-Pierre Wolf, J\'er\^ome Kasparian, Nicolas Berti, Olivier Faucher, Pierre B\'ejot.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Electric field spectrum of a 50 TW/cm2 , 20 fs (FWHM), Gaussian pulse after propagation over 5 mm in hydrogen. Ly denote the Lyman lines. The dotted red line displays the initial spectrum. By definition ρatα0 = χ (1) 0 and 1 + χ (1) 0 2 ≈ q 1 + χ (1) 0 = n0, if χ (1) 0 ≪ 1. Therefore, the propagation equation rewrites: ∂xAez = i  n0 c ω − ω v  Aez + 1 2ǫ0c ez . (11) Since the electric field is linearly … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Temporal evolution of the harmonics along the prop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated propagation of a 50 TW/cm2, 20 fs pulse in atomic hydrogen. Ionization yield (a), intensity of the fundamental (b), 3rd (c), 5th (d), and 9th harmonic (e). (f) Relative phase of the harmonics with regard to the fundamental, calculated with the full spectral range. Dotted lines display the linear dispersion of the 3rd and 5th harmonics [74]. TH intensity is close to its maximum. In spite of a mini… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Electric field close to the centermost positive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We couple the full 3D ab initio quantum evolution of the light pulse polarization in interaction with an atom with a propagation model to simulate the propagation of ultrashort laser pulses over macroscopic dimensions, in the presence of self-generated harmonics up to order 11. We evidence a clear feedback of the generated harmonics on propagation, with an influence on the ionization probability as well as the yield of the harmonic generation itself.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript couples a 3D ab-initio TDSE treatment of the atomic polarization response to a macroscopic propagation model for ultrashort laser pulses. It reports that self-generated harmonics up to order 11 produce a measurable feedback that alters both the ionization probability and the HHG yield during propagation.

Significance. If the numerical coupling is shown to be free of discretization or split-step artifacts and the feedback survives convergence tests, the result would strengthen the case for self-consistent inclusion of harmonic back-action in macroscopic HHG simulations, affecting quantitative predictions of ionization and conversion efficiency.

major comments (2)
  1. [Numerical method / propagation coupling] The description of the iterative coupling between the TDSE polarization and the propagation operator (likely in the Methods or Numerical Implementation section) must explicitly state whether the atomic response is recomputed at each spatial step using the full field (fundamental plus harmonics up to order 11) or only the fundamental; the former is required to claim genuine nonlinear feedback rather than linear superposition.
  2. [Results / feedback quantification] Convergence of the reported feedback with respect to propagation step size, transverse grid spacing, and harmonic bandwidth cutoff must be demonstrated; without such tests the influence on ionization probability and HHG yield could arise from inconsistent discretization or artificial dispersion in the envelope equation.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the central finding but supplies no quantitative measure (e.g., percentage change in ionization or yield) or error estimate; a brief numerical illustration should be added.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable suggestions. Below we address each major comment in detail.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Numerical method / propagation coupling] The description of the iterative coupling between the TDSE polarization and the propagation operator (likely in the Methods or Numerical Implementation section) must explicitly state whether the atomic response is recomputed at each spatial step using the full field (fundamental plus harmonics up to order 11) or only the fundamental; the former is required to claim genuine nonlinear feedback rather than linear superposition.

    Authors: The coupling in our simulations recomputes the atomic polarization response using the complete electric field at each propagation step, incorporating the fundamental frequency as well as the harmonics up to the 11th order. This approach is what enables the observation of the nonlinear feedback effect. We agree that the description in the manuscript could be more explicit on this point and will revise the Numerical Implementation section to clearly state that the full field is used for the TDSE solution at every spatial step. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results / feedback quantification] Convergence of the reported feedback with respect to propagation step size, transverse grid spacing, and harmonic bandwidth cutoff must be demonstrated; without such tests the influence on ionization probability and HHG yield could arise from inconsistent discretization or artificial dispersion in the envelope equation.

    Authors: We recognize the importance of demonstrating numerical convergence to rule out artifacts. While our primary results were obtained with parameters that we believe are sufficient, we did not include explicit convergence tests for all mentioned quantities in the original submission. We will perform additional convergence studies and include them in the revised manuscript to confirm that the feedback effects are robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: simulation output from coupled TDSE-propagation model

full rationale

The paper reports results from numerically coupling a 3D ab-initio TDSE atomic response to a macroscopic propagation equation that includes harmonics up to order 11. The claimed feedback on ionization probability and HHG yield is an emergent output of this direct simulation rather than any algebraic reduction, parameter fit, or self-referential definition. No equations are presented that equate a derived quantity to its own input by construction, and the approach contains no load-bearing self-citations or ansatz smuggling. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as a numerical experiment.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics for the atomic response and standard numerical methods for propagation; no free parameters or invented entities are mentioned in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 3D ab initio quantum evolution of the light pulse polarization accurately captures the atomic response under the simulated conditions.
    Invoked as the foundation for coupling to the propagation model.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5608 in / 1092 out tokens · 45400 ms · 2026-05-25T19:28:09.154999+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    593 a.u. the hydrogen polarizability at 800 nm) we can write t he previous equation as: ∂x ˜Az = i ( ωc −ω v ) ˜Az + ˜/bbPz + iωǫ0ρatα0 ˜Az 2ǫ0c , (9) then ∂x ˜Az = i [ ω c ( 1 + ρatα0 2 ) −ω v ] ˜Az + 1 2ǫ0c ˜/bbPz. (10) 3 11 ω / ω0 10 8 10 10 10 12 10 14 10 16 Spectrum (arb. units) Ly α Ly β Ly γ Ly δ 1 3 5 7 9 Figure 1: Electric field spectrum of a 50 T...

    work page 2048

  2. [2]

    In contrast, harmonic 9 reaches a peak af ter as little as 0

    5 mm, and then decay. In contrast, harmonic 9 reaches a peak af ter as little as 0 . 2 mm, then decays almost fully till 3 mm, before entering in a new growth cycle. The faster rise and dec ay of the 7 th, and even more of the 9 th harmonics, can be expected to stem from their partial overlap with the Lymann resonances, that strongly affect both their abso...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We attribute the complex evolution of the harmonics pul se shape to their wide band associated with their short durat ion

    5 mm. We attribute the complex evolution of the harmonics pul se shape to their wide band associated with their short durat ion. As a consequence, group-velocity dispersion is significant within each harmonic. The phase matching and the associated (back-) conversion efficiency are therefore di fferent among spectral slices within each harmonic. To get more in...

    work page

  4. [4]

    X. F. Li, A. L’Huillier, M. Ferray, L. A. Lompré, and G. Mai nfray, Physical Review A 39, 5751 (1989)

    work page 1989

  5. [5]

    Brabec and F

    T. Brabec and F. Krausz, Reviews of Modern Physics 72, 545 (2000)

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Agostini and L

    P . Agostini and L. F. DiMauro, Reports on progress in phys ics 67, 813 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Krausz and M

    F. Krausz and M. Ivanov, Reviews of Modern Physics 81, 163 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    S. L. Chin, S. A. Hosseini, W. Liu, Q. Luo, F. Théberge, N. A közbek, A. Becker, V . P . Kandidov, O. G. Kosareva, and H. Schr öder, Canadian Journal of Physics 83, 863 (2005)

    work page 2005

  9. [9]

    Bergé, S

    L. Bergé, S. Skupin, R. Nuter, J. Kasparian, and J.-P . Wol f, Reports on progress in physics 70, 1633 (2007)

    work page 2007

  10. [10]

    Couairon and A

    A. Couairon and A. Mysyrowicz, Physics reports 441, 47 (2007)

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    Wolf, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 026001 (2017)

    J.-P . Wolf, Reports on Progress in Physics 81, 026001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    P . B. Corkum, Physical Review Letters 71, 1994 (1993)

    work page 1994

  13. [13]

    K. J. Schafer, B. Yang, L. F. DiMauro, and K. C. Kulander, Physical review letters 70, 1599 (1993)

    work page 1993

  14. [14]

    Rundquist, C

    A. Rundquist, C. G. Durfee, Z. Chang, C. Herne, S. Backus , M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, Science 280, 1412 (1998)

    work page 1998

  15. [15]

    Popmintchev, M.-C

    T. Popmintchev, M.-C. Chen, A. Bahabad, M. Gerrity, P . S idorenko, O. Cohen, I. P . Christov, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Ka pteyn, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 10516 (2009)

    work page 2009

  16. [16]

    Lewenstein, P

    M. Lewenstein, P . Balcou, M. Y . Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, a nd P . B. Corkum, Physical Review A 49, 2117 (1994)

    work page 1994

  17. [17]

    Priori, G

    E. Priori, G. Cerullo, M. Nisoli, S. Stagira, S. De Silve stri, P . Villoresi, L. Poletto, P . Ceccherini, C. Altucci, R. Bruzzese, et al., Physical Review A 61, 063801 (2000)

    work page 2000

  18. [18]

    M. B. Gaarde, J. L. Tate, and K. J. Schafer, Journal of Phy sics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 41, 132001 (2008)

    work page 2008

  19. [19]

    A.-T. Le, R. Lucchese, S. Tonzani, T. Morishita, and C. L in, Physical Review A 80, 013401 (2009)

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Jin, A.-T

    C. Jin, A.-T. Le, and C. D. Lin, Physical Review A 83, 023411 (2011)

    work page 2011

  21. [21]

    Kolesik and J

    M. Kolesik and J. V . Moloney, Reports on Progress in Phys ics 77, 016401 (2013)

    work page 2013

  22. [22]

    A. Bahl, V . P . Majety, A. Scrinzi, and M. Kolesik, Optics Letters 42, 2295 (2017), ISSN 0146-9592, 1539-4794, URL https://www.osapublishing.org/abstract.cfm?URI=ol-42-12-2295

    work page 2017

  23. [23]

    Y . Liu, M. Durand, A. Houard, B. Forestier, A. Couairon, and A. Mysyrowicz, Optics Communications 284, 4706 (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    M. B. Gaarde and A. Couairon, Physical review letters 103, 043901 (2009)

    work page 2009

  25. [25]

    Bergé, S

    L. Bergé, S. Skupin, G. Méjean, J. Kasparian, J. Y u, S. Fr ey, E. Salmon, and J. P . Wolf, Physical Review E 71, 016602 (2005)

    work page 2005

  26. [26]

    Aközbek, A

    N. Aközbek, A. Iwasaki, A. Becker, M. Scalora, S. L. Chin , and C. M. Bowden, Physical review letters 89, 143901 (2002)

    work page 2002

  27. [27]

    V ockerodt, D

    T. V ockerodt, D. S. Steingrube, E. Schulz, M. Kretschma r, U. Morgner, and M. Kova ˇcev, Applied Physics B 106, 529 (2012)

    work page 2012

  28. [28]

    Kolesik, E

    M. Kolesik, E. M. Wright, A. Becker, and J. V . Moloney, Ap plied Physics B 85, 531 (2006)

    work page 2006

  29. [29]

    D. S. Steingrube, E. Schulz, T. Binhammer, M. B. Gaarde, A. Couairon, U. Morgner, and M. Kovaˇcev, New Journal of Physics 13, 043022 (2011)

    work page 2011

  30. [30]

    Béjot, G

    P . Béjot, G. Karras, F. Billard, E. Hertz, B. Lavorel, E. Cormier, and O. Faucher, Physical Review Letters 112, 203902 (2014)

    work page 2014

  31. [31]

    Béjot, G

    P . Béjot, G. Karras, F. Billard, J. Doussot, E. Hertz, B. Lavorel, and O. Faucher, Physical Review A 92, 053417 (2015)

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Doussot, P

    J. Doussot, P . Béjot, and O. Faucher, Physical Review A 93, 033857 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Perelomov and V

    A. Perelomov and V . Popov, Soviet Physics JETP 25, 336 (1967)

    work page 1967

  34. [34]

    Béjot, E

    P . Béjot, E. Hertz, B. Lavorel, J. Kasparian, J.-P . Wolf, and O. Faucher, Optics letters 36, 828 (2011)

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Bache, F

    M. Bache, F. Eilenberger, and S. Minardi, Optics letter s 37, 4612 (2012)

    work page 2012

  36. [36]

    A. Paul, R. A. Bartels, R. Tobey, H. Green, S. Weiman, I. P . Christov, M. M. Murnane, H. C. Kapteyn, and S. Backus, Natur e 421, 51 (2003)

    work page 2003

  37. [37]

    E. A. Gibson, A. Paul, N. Wagner, T. Ra’anan, D. Gaudiosi , S. Backus, I. P . Christov, A. Aquila, E. M. Gullikson, D. T. A ttwood, et al., Science 302, 95 (2003)

    work page 2003

  38. [38]

    D. L. Weerawarne, X. Gao, A. L. Gaeta, and B. Shim, Physic al review letters 114, 093901 (2015)

    work page 2015

  39. [39]

    Loriot, E

    V . Loriot, E. Hertz, O. Faucher, and B. Lavorel, Optics e xpress 17, 13429 (2009)

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    Loriot, E

    V . Loriot, E. Hertz, O. Faucher, and B. Lavorel, Optics E xpress 18, 3011 (2010)

    work page 2010

  41. [41]

    Kolesik, E

    M. Kolesik, E. Wright, and J. Moloney, Optics letters 35, 2550 (2010)

    work page 2010

  42. [42]

    Petrarca, Y

    M. Petrarca, Y . Petit, S. Henin, R. Delagrange, P . Béjot, and J. Kasparian, Optics letters 37, 4347 (2012)

    work page 2012

  43. [43]

    Richter, S

    M. Richter, S. Patchkovskii, F. Morales, O. Smirnova, a nd M. Ivanov, New Journal of Physics 15, 083012 (2013)

    work page 2013

  44. [44]

    J. H. Odhner, D. A. Romanov, E. T. McCole, J. K. Wahlstran d, H. M. Milchberg, and R. J. Levis, Physical review letters 109, 065003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    J. K. Wahlstrand, Y .-H. Cheng, and H. M. Milchberg, Phys ical Review A 85, 043820 (2012)

    work page 2012

  46. [46]

    Köhler, R

    C. Köhler, R. Guichard, E. Lorin, S. Chelkowski, A. D. Ba ndrauk, L. Bergé, and S. Skupin, Physical Review A 87, 043811 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Kosareva, J.-F

    O. Kosareva, J.-F. Daigle, N. Panov, T. Wang, S. Hossein i, S. Y uan, G. Roy, V . Makarov, and S. L. Chin, Optics letters36, 1035 (2011)

    work page 2011

  48. [48]

    A. V . Mitrofanov, A. A. V oronin, D. A. Sidorov-Biryukov , A. Pugžlys, E. A. Stepanov, G. Andriukaitis, T. Flöry, S. Ališauskas, A. B. Fedotov, A. Baltuška, et al., Scientific Reports 5, 8368 (2015), ISSN 2045-2322, URL 9 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep08368

    work page 2015

  49. [49]

    T. C. Rensink, T. M. Antonsen Jr, J. P . Palastro, and D. F. Gordon, Physical Review A 89, 033418 (2014)

    work page 2014

  50. [50]

    V olkova, A

    E. V olkova, A. Popov, and O. Tikhonova, Journal of Exper imental and Theoretical Physics 116, 372 (2013)

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    Schuh, J

    K. Schuh, J. V . Moloney, and S. W. Koch, Physical Review E 93, 013208 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Lu and A

    H. Lu and A. D. Bandrauk, The Journal of Chemical Physics 115, 1670 (2001)

    work page 2001

  53. [53]

    A. D. Bandrauk and H. Shen, The Journal of chemical physi cs 99, 1185 (1993)

    work page 1993

  54. [54]

    A. D. Bandrauk, S. Chelkowski, D. J. Diestler, J. Manz, a nd K.-J. Y uan, Physical Review A 79, 023403 (2009)

    work page 2009

  55. [55]

    Nurhuda, A

    M. Nurhuda, A. Suda, and K. Midorikawa, Physical Review A 66, 041802 (2002)

    work page 2002

  56. [56]

    Nurhuda, A

    M. Nurhuda, A. Suda, and K. Midorikawa, New Journal of Ph ysics 10, 053006 (2008)

    work page 2008

  57. [57]

    P . O. Kano, M. Brio, and J. V . Moloney, Communications in Mathematical Sciences 4, 53 (2006)

    work page 2006

  58. [58]

    Béjot, E

    P . Béjot, E. Cormier, E. Hertz, B. Lavorel, J. Kasparian , J.-P . Wolf, and O. Faucher, Physical review letters 110, 043902 (2013)

    work page 2013

  59. [59]

    Wiehle, B

    R. Wiehle, B. Witzel, H. Helm, and E. Cormier, Physical R eview A 67, 063405 (2003)

    work page 2003

  60. [60]

    Cormier, D

    E. Cormier, D. Garzella, P . Breger, P . Agostini, G. Chér iaux, and C. Leblanc, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecula r and Optical Physics 34, L9 (2001)

    work page 2001

  61. [61]

    Krüger and N

    M. Krüger and N. Dudovich, Nature Photonics 10, 626 (2016), ISSN 1749-4885, 1749-4893, URL http://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2016.189

    work page 2016

  62. [62]

    Orenstein, O

    G. Orenstein, O. Pedatzur, A. J. Uzan, B. D. Bruner, Y . Ma iresse, and N. Dudovich, Physical Review A 95 (2017), ISSN 2469-9926, 2469-9934, URL http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.95.051401

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.95.051401 2017

  63. [63]

    Hofmann, A

    C. Hofmann, A. Landsman, and U. Keller, Applied Science s 8, 341 (2018), ISSN 2076-3417, URL http://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/8/3/341

    work page 2018

  64. [64]

    Lorin, S

    E. Lorin, S. Chelkowski, and A. Bandrauk, Computer Phys ics Communications 177, 908 (2007)

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Lorin, S

    E. Lorin, S. Chelkowski, and A. Bandrauk, Communicatio ns in Computational Physics 9, 406 (2011)

    work page 2011

  66. [66]

    Lorin, S

    E. Lorin, S. Chelkowski, E. Zaoui, and A. Bandrauk, Phys ica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 241, 1059 (2012), ISSN 01672789, URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0167278912000504

    work page 2012

  67. [67]

    Schuh, M

    K. Schuh, M. Kolesik, E. M. Wright, and J. V . Moloney, Opt ics letters 39, 5086 (2014)

    work page 2014

  68. [68]

    Lorin, M

    E. Lorin, M. Lytova, A. Memarian, and A. Bandrauk, Journ al of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 48, 105201 (2015)

    work page 2015

  69. [69]

    Kolesik, J

    M. Kolesik, J. V . Moloney, and M. Mlejnek, Physical revi ew letters 89, 283902 (2002)

    work page 2002

  70. [70]

    Berti, W

    N. Berti, W. Ettoumi, S. Hermelin, J. Kasparian, and J.- P . Wolf, Physical Review A91, 063833 (2015)

    work page 2015

  71. [71]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloë, Mécanique quantique. Tome I (Hermann, 1973)

    work page 1973

  72. [72]

    G. L. Sleijpen and D. R. Fokkema, Electronic Transactio ns on Numerical Analysis 534, 86 (1993)

    work page 1993

  73. [73]

    G. L. Sleijpen, H. A. V an der V orst, and D. R. Fokkema, Num erical Algorithms 7, 75 (1994)

    work page 1994

  74. [74]

    Bachau, E

    H. Bachau, E. Cormier, P . Decleva, J. Hansen, and F. Mart ín, Reports on Progress in Physics 64, 1815 (2001)

    work page 2001

  75. [75]

    Cormier and P

    E. Cormier and P . Lambropoulos, Journal of Physics B: At omic, Molecular and Optical Physics 30, 77 (1997)

    work page 1997

  76. [76]

    Weideman and B

    J. Weideman and B. Herbst, SIAM Journal on Numerical Ana lysis 23, 485 (1986)

    work page 1986

  77. [77]

    Karplus and H

    M. Karplus and H. Kolker, The Journal of Chemical Physic s 39, 1493 (1963)

    work page 1963

  78. [78]

    Doussot, P

    J. Doussot, P . Béjot, G. Karras, F. Billard, and O. Fauch er, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Phys ics 48, 184005 (2015)

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    Sommer, E

    A. Sommer, E. Bothschafter, S. Sato, C. Jakubeit, T. Lat ka, O. Razskazovskaya, H. Fattahi, M. Jobst, W. Schweinberg er, V . Shirvanyan, et al., Nature 534, 86 (2016)

    work page 2016