Control of resonant ionization as a function of time delay between two XUV few-femtosecond pulses. Quantitative application to helium

Cleanthes A. Nicolaides; Theodoros Mercouris; Yannis Komninos

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Control of resonant ionization as a function of time delay between two XUV few-femtosecond pulses. Quantitative application to helium

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the height of the interference photoelectron peak in two-photon resonant ionization of helium can be controlled by the time delay between two few-femtosecond XUV pulses.

desk verdict First-principles prediction of time-delay control of two-XUV-photon resonant ionization in He; the central delay curve is credible but rests on an unquantified basis-convergence claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07552 v1 pith:PKCW6UFX submitted 2019-08-20 physics.atom-ph physics.chem-ph

Theodoros Mercouris , Yannis Komninos , Cleanthes A. Nicolaides This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-phphysics.chem-ph

keywords time-delaycontroltwo-photonresonantionizationheliumXUVfemtosecondpulsesphotoelectronspectrumpathinterferencetime-dependentSchrödingerequationstate-specificexpansion

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

The paper claims that the ionization yield of helium in a two-color, two-photon resonant scheme can be steered by the time delay between two few-femtosecond extreme-ultraviolet pulses. Specifically, the height of the photoelectron peak at energy $\omega_1+\omega_2-E_{\rm ion}$ grows when the higher-frequency pulse arrives after the lower-frequency one and shrinks when it arrives before it. This is established by solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation without perturbation theory using helium wavefunctions that cover bound states through $1s7g$ and energy-normalised continuum states up to 2.0 a.u. with angular momenta $\ell=0$–4. The results are checked against second-order time-dependent perturbation theory, and the practical point is that time delay, rather than carrier-envelope phase, can serve as a usable control parameter for XUV pulses.

What carries the argument

The state-specific expansion approach: the time-dependent wavefunction is expanded in a basis of state-specific bound states up to $1s7g$ and energy-normalised continuum states up to 2.0 a.u. with angular momenta $\ell=0$–4, and the coupled equations of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation are integrated nonperturbatively. This supplies the reference photoelectron spectra. A complementary second-order time-dependent perturbation theory calculation with the same Gaussian pulse envelopes is used to identify which intermediate $^1P^o$ states carry the interference; it shows that continuum intermediate states contribute significantly at 20-cycle durations, and that perturbation theory becomes unreliable at about 80 cycles or at intensities near $10^{14}$ W/cm$^2$.

What would settle it

Measure the helium photoelectron spectrum with two XUV pulses at 58.4 nm and 52.2 nm, intensities near $10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$, durations of 3–8 fs, and delays of −4.8, −2.4, 0, +2.4 and +4.8 fs; if the central peak at $E_{12}$ fails to decrease for negative delays and to increase for positive delays, or if a converged calculation with a larger basis reverses the trend, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the interference between two resonant two-photon ionization paths—He $1s^2 \to 1s2p\,^1P^o$ driven by $\omega_1$ and He $1s^2 \to 1s4p\,^1P^o$ driven by $\omega_2$, both ending in the same continuum states $1s\varepsilon s$ and $1s\varepsilon d$—produces a photoelectron peak at $E_{12}=\omega_1+\omega_2-E_{\rm ion}$ whose magnitude depends systematically on the pulse delay $\Delta t$. For pulses of about 20 field cycles at intensities near $10^{12}$ W/cm$^2$, the peak height decreases for negative delays of 2–5 fs, where the $\omega_2$ pulse precedes the $\omega_1$ pulse, and increases for positive delays. The $\omega_1+\omega_1$ and $\omega_2+\omega_2$ peaks stay essentially independent of delay, so the effect is specific to the cross term. The explanation given is that the continuum dipole matrix elements from $1s2p$ are larger than those from $1s4p$ and the second pulse is stronger, so the pulse order sets how much population reaches the continuum through each resonant path and therefore how the interference peak is modulated.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative reliability of the predicted peak heights rests on the completeness of the state-specific basis—bound states through $1s7g$ and continuum through 2.0 a.u. with angular momenta up to $\ell=4$—since the paper reports 'very good' convergence without presenting quantitative convergence data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

At moderate XUV intensities and few-femtosecond pulse durations, pulse delay becomes a practical control parameter for two-photon resonant ionization, with observable peak-height changes for delays of 1–5 fs.
The $\omega_1+\omega_1$ and $\omega_2+\omega_2$ photoelectron peaks remain essentially delay-independent, so the interference peak at $E_{12}$ provides a clean experimental readout of the two-path interference.
Second-order time-dependent perturbation theory with finite Gaussian pulses reproduces the nonperturbative result for 20- and 40-cycle pulses, but fails near 80 cycles because the pulses approach the continuous-wave limit where the perturbative amplitude diverges.
At intensities near $10^{14}$ W/cm$^2$, the spectrum broadens and acquires additional peaks, so the clean delay-control picture is limited to the moderate-intensity regime.
With Rabi periods near 70 fs and pulse durations below one full Rabi cycle, the delay dependence is not obscured by Rabi oscillations, making the predicted control robust in the few-femtosecond regime.

Reading between the lines

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

The same time-delay knob should transfer to inner-shell excitations or transitions in positive ions, where shorter-wavelength XUV pulses would be needed; the design rule would be to choose the pulse with the stronger continuum coupling to arrive second.
The sensitivity of the interference peak to sub-pulse-duration delays suggests a practical diagnostic: measuring the $E_{12}$ peak height as a function of delay could characterise the relative timing and jitter of two FEL pulses.
A systematic convergence study varying the continuum-energy grid spacing, the maximum continuum energy, and the highest angular momentum would quantify the uncertainty of the predicted peak heights and test whether higher-$\ell$ channels alter the delay dependence.
The asymmetry between positive and negative delays implies that the temporal order of the two colors encodes directional information about the relative dipole strengths, which could be exploited in time-resolved spectroscopy of autoionising or inner-shell states.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a look, worth a referee. The genuinely new thing is quantitative: for helium, two XUV pulses tuned through 1s2p and 1s4p, a nonperturbative SSEA solution of the TDSE predicts the E12 photoelectron peak height varies monotonically with few-fs delay—negative delay lowers it, positive delay raises it. The interference scheme is Chen-Shapiro-Brumer's, and the authors say so; the contribution is the first-principles He numbers, the parameter map across 20–80 cycle pulses, and the honest delineation of where SOTDPT breaks down.

What it does well: it is not a fit. The delay dependence comes from direct integration of the TDSE with state-specific bound and energy-normalized continuum functions, and the physical explanation in terms of Rabi frequencies, matrix elements, and pulse ordering is transparent and consistent. The SOTDPT cross-check at Δt=0 cleanly shows the continuum contribution at 20 cycles, its reduced role at 40, and the failure of perturbation theory at 80; the strong-field warning (loss of clarity at 10^14 W/cm^2, SOTDPT off by ~60) is a useful self-imposed bound. The citation pattern is honest: prior scheme is credited, and the heavy self-citation points to their own published methods, which is normal in this kind of calculation.

Soft spots, in proportion. The stress test is right about the central one: convergence of the SSEA basis (discrete up to 1s7g, continuum to 2.0 a.u., l=0–4) is asserted as 'very good' with no quantitative data. At 20 cycles the pulse bandwidth covers several Rydberg spacings, so the E12 peak height could shift with a larger basis; whether the sign of the delay slope survives is probably yes, but the quantitative numbers in Figs. 2–4 are not pinned down. The SOTDPT comparison is computed at Δt=0 only—Eq. (8) is specialized to that case—so it checks the peak height at zero delay, not the delay curve that is the main claim. That leaves the central prediction with one theory behind it. Also minor: no numerical data or code are released, and the figures in the arXiv version are hard to read, so independent verification requires re-implementing their method.

Who is this for? AMO theorists working on XUV/FEL coherent control and experimentalists planning two-color XUV delay scans. A serious referee could push for convergence metrics and data tables, but desk rejection would be wrong. I'd engage with it.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using the time delay between two XUV femtosecond pulses to control two-photon resonant ionization of helium, with each pulse resonant with a different intermediate state (1s2p and 1s4p). The authors solve the helium time-dependent Schrödinger equation nonperturbatively using the state-specific expansion approach (SSEA) and compare the results with second-order time-dependent perturbation theory (SOTDPT). The central prediction is that the photoelectron peak at the sum energy E12 = ω1+ω2−Eion depends significantly on the delay: negative delays (ω2 before ω1) decrease the peak height, while positive delays increase it. Calculations are presented for pulse durations of about 20, 40, and 80 field cycles at moderate intensities, and for a strong-field case at 40 cycles. The results are interpreted physically in terms of pulse ordering and the relative magnitudes of the bound–continuum dipole matrix elements.

Significance. If correct, the predicted delay-dependent asymmetry of the E12 photoelectron peak offers a concrete, potentially observable signature of two-color interference in helium, with direct relevance to ongoing FEL and HHG experiments. The work is a genuine nonperturbative calculation that includes both discrete and continuum channels, and the comparison with SOTDPT at zero delay provides a useful internal consistency check. The transparent explanation in terms of matrix elements and field amplitudes is a clear strength. However, the quantitative character of the central claim is not yet fully demonstrated, because no convergence study is presented for the basis used in the SSEA, and the independent SOTDPT comparison is restricted to zero delay.

major comments (3)

[Section II.A] The central prediction of the delay dependence (Section III.A, Figs. 2–4) rests on the completeness of the expansion in Eq. (7). The manuscript states that 'the convergence of the SSEA calculations was very good' and lists the basis: discrete states up to 1s7g, continuum up to 2.0 a.u., angular momenta l=0–4, and about 10,000 coupled equations, but no quantitative convergence data are shown. Given that the 20-cycle pulse bandwidths (0.76 eV and 0.62 eV) exceed or are comparable to the spacing between adjacent 1snp Rydberg states (e.g., 1s4p–1s5p = 0.30 eV), contributions from higher-n and higher-l states and from the discretized continuum could affect the E12 amplitude. The authors should demonstrate that the E12 peak height and its dependence on Δt are stable against variations of n_max, l_max, and E_max, or provide a quantitative estimate of the truncation error.
[Section III.A] The only independent cross-check of the nonperturbative results is the SOTDPT comparison, but the paper explicitly states 'For reasons of economy, we present only the case with Δt=0'. This means the central claim—the variation of the E12 peak height with time delay—is not validated by an independent method. The authors should extend the SOTDPT calculation to the finite delays displayed in Figs. 2–4 and compare the peak height as a function of Δt. Without such a comparison (or an equivalent check), the quantitative delay dependence remains a single-method result whose reliability is not established.
[Section II.A] The energy-normalized scattering orbitals are computed 'in the frozen core of the He+ 1s state'. The accuracy of this frozen-core approximation for the bound–free matrix elements that determine the E12 amplitude is not addressed. The authors should justify that this approximation is adequate for the stated quantitative predictions, for example by comparing with a calculation that includes core polarization or channel coupling, or by citing prior validation of the same approximation for helium two-photon ionization.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (8)] Equation (8) is extremely difficult to read as typeset; the nested integrals and summations are garbled. It should be rewritten with clear definitions of all states and matrix elements so that the SOTDPT formula is actually verifiable.
[Throughout] The notation for the excited states, e.g., '1 2s p1 oP', is unconventional and prone to misreading. Standard notation such as 1s2p ^1P^o would improve clarity.
[Section III.A] The paper states that the left and right peaks (ω1+ω1 and ω2+ω2) are 'essentially independent of Δt' but provides no quantitative evidence for this claim. A brief statement of the observed variation with Δt would be helpful.
[Figures 2–6] The figures should include clear axis labels with units (a.u. or eV) and the value of Δt corresponding to each curve, so that the quantitative content can be read directly from the figures.
[Abstract] The abstract says control is achieved at 'clearly defined exit energies corresponding to the sums of photon frequencies' for all three pairs, but the reported control applies mainly to the interference peak E12; the other peaks are said to be essentially independent of Δt. The wording should be adjusted to reflect this.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the delay asymmetry is a TDSE output, not a refit or a renamed input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the delay-dependent height of the E12 interference peak (Figs. 2-4), is obtained by nonperturbatively solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, Eq. (1), via the state-specific expansion, Eq. (7). This is a direct dynamical calculation, not a fit to the target peak heights. The field amplitudes in Eq. (6) are chosen by hand so that the two Rabi frequencies are roughly equal, but that choice does not by construction determine the sign or magnitude of the delay asymmetry; the asymmetry emerges from the time-dependent dynamics. The SOTDPT formula, Eq. (8), is an independent lowest-order check used mainly at Δt = 0; the delay scan is not derived from Eq. (8) nor from the Rabi-equalization condition. Self-citations to the SSEA method [12] and to the earlier He cross-section work [2] are ordinary methodological references; [2] is itself benchmarked against FEL measurements, so it provides independent support rather than a self-referential premise. The only notable weakness is in Section II.A, where convergence is asserted without quantitative convergence data ('the convergence of the SSEA calculations was very good'); this is a numerical robustness and correctness concern, not circularity, because the calculation is not defined in terms of the quantity it predicts. No step reduces by construction to its own input, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The calculation uses no new physical entities. The free parameters are the pulse parameters and time delays, all chosen by hand. The main load-bearing axioms are the completeness of the numerical basis and the frozen-core treatment of the continuum.

free parameters (4)

F1 (field amplitude of ω1 pulse) = 0.00534 a.u. (I1 = 1e12 W/cm2)
Chosen by hand to make the Rabi frequency for the 1s-1s2p transition comparable to the other path; it is an input knob, not fitted to data.
F2 (field amplitude of ω2 pulse) = 0.015 a.u. (I2 = 8e12 W/cm2)
Chosen larger than F1 because the 1s-1s4p dipole matrix element is smaller; used to equalize the Rabi frequencies (Ω2 ≈ 0.002 a.u.).
Pulse durations τ1, τ2 (FWHM) = 3-16 fs depending on set (20, 40, 80 cycles)
Chosen to cover few-femtosecond regimes; these are input parameters of the demonstration, not fitted to data.
Time delays Δt = 0, ±1.2, ±2.4, ±4.8, -7.3, +7.3, +16.9, -24.2 fs (per figure)
The control variable being scanned; not a fitted parameter.

assumptions (4)

standard math The time evolution is governed by the TDSE with the multipolar electric Hamiltonian in the length form (Eq. 1-2).
Standard nonrelativistic quantum mechanics; the Hamiltonian and dipole approximation are taken from Loudon [13].
domain assumption The two pulses are modelled as Gaussian envelopes with fixed carrier frequencies (Eq. 3), with no chirp or CEP dynamics.
FEL/XUV pulses are approximated as transform-limited Gaussian pulses; real pulses have jitter and phase noise not included.
ad hoc to paper The state-specific expansion basis (discrete 1snl up to 1s7g, continuum up to 2.0 a.u., l=0-4) is sufficiently complete for convergence.
The paper states convergence was 'very good' but gives no quantitative convergence test; this is a load-bearing numerical assumption.
domain assumption Scattering orbitals are computed in the frozen core of He+ 1s.
This is an approximation to the full two-electron continuum; its accuracy for these two-photon amplitudes is not tested independently in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Control of resonant ionization as a function of time delay between two XUV few-femtosecond pulses. Quantitative application to helium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PKCW6UFX

@misc{pith2026190807552,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Control of resonant ionization as a function of time delay between two XUV few-femtosecond pulses. Quantitative application to helium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PKCW6UFX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07552}
}

read the original abstract

It is shown that it is feasible to use ultrashort time delay between two XUV femtosecond pulses in order to control two photon resonant ionization. The proposal is demonstrated on the spectrum of Helium, in terms of nonperturbative solutions of the time dependent Schroedinger equation. Comparison with results from second order time dependent perturbation theory provides additional insight.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Young, K

L. Young, K. Ueda, M. Gühr, P. H. Bucksbaum, M. Simon, S. Mukamel, N. Rohringer, K. C. Prince, C. Masciovecchio, M. Meyer, A. Rudenko, D. Rolles, C. Bostedt, M. Fuchs, D. A. Reis, R. Santra, H. Kapteyn, M. Murnane, H. Ibrahim , F. Légaré, M. Vrakking , M. Isinger , D. Kroon, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, H. J. Wörner and S. R. Leone, Roadmap of ultrafas...

work page 2018
[2]

Mercouris, Y

Th. Mercouris, Y. Komninos and C. A. Nicolaides, EUV two-photon-ionization cross sections of helium from the solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and comparison with measurements using free-electron lasers, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063406 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

T. Sato, A. Iwasaki, K. Ishibashi, T.Okino, K. Yamanouchi, J. Adachi, A. Yagishita, H. Yazawa, F. Kannari, M. Aoyma, K. Yamakawa, K. Midorikawa, H. Nakano, M. Yabashi, M. Nagasono, A. Higashiya and T. Ishikawa, Determination of the absolute two-photon ionization cross section of He by an XUV free electron laser, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 161001 (2011)

work page 2011
[4]

Fushitani, Y

M. Fushitani, Y. Hikosaka, A. Matsuda, T. Endo, E. Shigemasa, M. Nagasono, T. Sato, T.Togashi, M. Yabashi, T. Ishikawa, and A. Hishikawa, Nonresonant EUV-UV two-color two- photon ionization of He studied by single-shot photoelectron spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 88, 063422 (2013)

work page 2013
[5]

K. C. Prince, E. Allaria, C. Callegari, R. Cucini, G. De Ninno, S. Di Mitri, B. Diviacco, E. Ferrari, P. Finetti, D. Gauthier, L. Giannessi, N. Mahne, G. Penco, O. Plekan, L. Raimondi, P. Rebernik, E. Roussel, C. Svetina, M. Trovò, M. Zangrando, M. Negro, P. Carpeggiani, M. Reduzzi, G. Sansone, A. N. Grum-Grzhimailo, E.V. Gryzlova, S.I. Strakhova, K. Bart...

work page 2016
[6]

Shapiro and P

M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Coherent control of atomic, molecular and electronic processes, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 42, 287 (2000). 23

work page 2000
[7]

Mercouris and C

Th. Mercouris and C. A. Nicolaides, Solution of the many-electron, many-photon problem for strong fields: Application to Liin one- and two-color laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 67, 063403 (2003); Th. Mercouris, C. Haritos and C. A. Nicolaides, Interference generalized cros-section for the multiphoton detachment of in dichromatic fields, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. O...

work page 2003
[8]

Demekhin, A

P. Demekhin, A. Artemyev, A. Kastner and T. Baumert, Photoelectron circular dichroism with two overlapping laser pulses of carrier frequencies and linearly polarized in two mutually orthogonal directions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253201 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 18 references

[9]

Z. Chen, M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Interference control of photodissociation branching ratios. Two-color frequency tuning of intense laser fields, Chem. Phys. Lett. 228, 289 (1994)

1994
[10]

S. T. Pratt, Interference effects in the two-photon ionization of nitric oxide, J. Chem. Phys. 104, 5776 (1996)

1996
[11]

Wang and D

F. Wang and D. S. Elliott, Product-state control through interfering two-photon ionization routes, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3065 (1997)

1997
[12]

Mercouris, Y

Th. Mercouris, Y. Komninos and C. A. Nicolaides, The state-specific expansion approach to the solution of the polyelectronictime-dependent Schrödinger equation for atoms and molecules in unstable states, Adv. Quantum Chem.60, 333 (2010)

2010
[13]

Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 2nd ed

R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 2nd ed. Clarendon, Oxford, (1983)

1983
[14]

Komninos, Th

Y. Komninos, Th. Mercouris and C. A. Nicolaides, Theory and computation of electromagnetic transition matrix elements in the continuous spectrum of atoms, Eur. Phys. J. D 71, 8 (2017)

2017
[15]

C. A. Nicolaides, Resonances in the continuum, field-induced nonstationary states, and the state-and property-specific treatment of the many-electron problem, Adv. Quantum Chem. 74, 149 (2017)

2017
[16]

Froese-Fischer, ‘A general multi-configuration Hartree-Fock program’, Comp

C. Froese-Fischer, ‘A general multi-configuration Hartree-Fock program’, Comp. Phys. Comm. 14, 145 (1978). 24

1978
[17]

F. H. M. Faisal, Theory of Multiphoton Processes, Plenum Press, New York, (1987)

1987
[18]

Komninos, Th

Y. Komninos, Th. Mercouris and C. A. Nicolaides, Discrete-resonance-resonance transitions induced by two laser pulses with an ultrashort time delay: A formal analytic solution and quantitative applications, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023428 (2018)

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Young, K

L. Young, K. Ueda, M. Gühr, P. H. Bucksbaum, M. Simon, S. Mukamel, N. Rohringer, K. C. Prince, C. Masciovecchio, M. Meyer, A. Rudenko, D. Rolles, C. Bostedt, M. Fuchs, D. A. Reis, R. Santra, H. Kapteyn, M. Murnane, H. Ibrahim , F. Légaré, M. Vrakking , M. Isinger , D. Kroon, M. Gisselbrecht, A. L’Huillier, H. J. Wörner and S. R. Leone, Roadmap of ultrafas...

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Mercouris, Y

Th. Mercouris, Y. Komninos and C. A. Nicolaides, EUV two-photon-ionization cross sections of helium from the solution of the time-dependent Schrödinger equation, and comparison with measurements using free-electron lasers, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063406 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

T. Sato, A. Iwasaki, K. Ishibashi, T.Okino, K. Yamanouchi, J. Adachi, A. Yagishita, H. Yazawa, F. Kannari, M. Aoyma, K. Yamakawa, K. Midorikawa, H. Nakano, M. Yabashi, M. Nagasono, A. Higashiya and T. Ishikawa, Determination of the absolute two-photon ionization cross section of He by an XUV free electron laser, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 44, 161001 (2011)

work page 2011

[4] [4]

Fushitani, Y

M. Fushitani, Y. Hikosaka, A. Matsuda, T. Endo, E. Shigemasa, M. Nagasono, T. Sato, T.Togashi, M. Yabashi, T. Ishikawa, and A. Hishikawa, Nonresonant EUV-UV two-color two- photon ionization of He studied by single-shot photoelectron spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. A 88, 063422 (2013)

work page 2013

[5] [5]

K. C. Prince, E. Allaria, C. Callegari, R. Cucini, G. De Ninno, S. Di Mitri, B. Diviacco, E. Ferrari, P. Finetti, D. Gauthier, L. Giannessi, N. Mahne, G. Penco, O. Plekan, L. Raimondi, P. Rebernik, E. Roussel, C. Svetina, M. Trovò, M. Zangrando, M. Negro, P. Carpeggiani, M. Reduzzi, G. Sansone, A. N. Grum-Grzhimailo, E.V. Gryzlova, S.I. Strakhova, K. Bart...

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Shapiro and P

M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Coherent control of atomic, molecular and electronic processes, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 42, 287 (2000). 23

work page 2000

[7] [7]

Mercouris and C

Th. Mercouris and C. A. Nicolaides, Solution of the many-electron, many-photon problem for strong fields: Application to Liin one- and two-color laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 67, 063403 (2003); Th. Mercouris, C. Haritos and C. A. Nicolaides, Interference generalized cros-section for the multiphoton detachment of in dichromatic fields, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. O...

work page 2003

[8] [8]

Demekhin, A

P. Demekhin, A. Artemyev, A. Kastner and T. Baumert, Photoelectron circular dichroism with two overlapping laser pulses of carrier frequencies and linearly polarized in two mutually orthogonal directions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253201 (2018)

work page 2018