Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Single-photon ionization of H$_2^+$ in near-circular laser fields with lower photon energy

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The photoelectron momentum distribution from single-photon ionization of aligned $\mathrm{H}_2^+$ rotates in near-circular laser fields, an effect tied to the two-center Coulomb potential and absent for atoms.

desk verdict New-looking offset angle in H2+ single-photon ionization PMD, but it rests entirely on soft-core TDSE without a smoothing-parameter convergence check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07432 v1 pith:PZ64JE2J submitted 2025-05-12 physics.atom-ph physics.optics

Z. Y. Chen , S. Q. Shen , M. Q. Liu , J. Y. Che , Y. J. Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.optics
keywords single-photonionizationH2+photoelectronmomentumdistributionoffsetanglenear-circularlaserfieldstwo-centerCoulombpotentialattoclockzeptoseconddynamics
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 claims that single-photon ionization of aligned $\mathrm{H}_2^+$ in a low-intensity, near-circular laser field with photon energy just above the ionization threshold produces a photoelectron momentum distribution that is rotated by an offset angle $\theta$. The rotation appears for both long-range and short-range two-center Coulomb potentials, while a model atom with the same ionization potential shows no rotation. The paper traces the effect to the Coulomb potential near the two nuclei, which delays the electron's response to the rotating laser field. If the claim is right, the offset angle becomes a measurable window onto the near-nucleus molecular potential and onto attosecond-scale single-photon ionization dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central object is the offset angle $\theta$ between the PMD maximum and the $p_x = 0$ axis in the laser-polarization plane. The argument is carried by 2D and 3D numerical solution of the TDSE for $\mathrm{H}_2^+$ with soft-core two-center Coulomb potentials (screening $\rho = 0$ and $\rho = 0.5$, effective charge $Z$ tuned to keep the ionization potential at $I_p = 1.1$ a.u.), with the angle extracted by a Gaussian fit to the angular distribution of local maxima. Analytic models with plane-wave, Coulomb-corrected plane-wave, single-center Coulomb, and two-center Coulomb continuum states serve as comparisons that fail to reproduce the rotation, pointing to the near-nucleus two-center Coulomb interaction as the mechanism. The paper also invokes the attoclock-style relation $\theta \approx \omega \tau$ to translate the angle into an electron response time.

What would settle it

Solve the TDSE, or perform the experiment, with the exact two-center Coulomb potential of $\mathrm{H}_2^+$ (no soft-core smoothing and no $Z$ rescaling) at $R = 2$ a.u., $\omega = 2$ a.u. and $I = 1\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$: the predicted offset angle should be close to $6.4^\circ$ for the long-range case and should still vanish for the atomic model. A qualitatively different angle, or an angle that appears for the atom, would falsify the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation in two and three dimensions, the authors find that the photoelectron momentum distribution of aligned $\mathrm{H}_2^+$ in a near-circular laser field with $\omega = 2$ a.u. and intensity $I = 1\times 10^{13}$ W/cm$^2$ is rotated clockwise by an offset angle $\theta$. For internuclear distance $R = 2$ a.u., $\theta = 6.4^\circ$ with the long-range Coulomb potential and $19.9^\circ$ with the short-range one. The angle is almost independent of laser intensity, increases with $R$ up to a characteristic distance and then decreases, and grows as the laser frequency decreases; the same behavior appears in 2D and 3D. The rotation persists for short-range molecular potentials and disappears for a model atom with the same ionization potential, which distinguishes it from the attoclock rotation that requires a long-range potential. The PWA, CWA, SCC and TCC analytic continuum models do not reproduce the rotation, so the paper attributes it to the two-center Coulomb potential near the nuclei and, assuming $\theta \approx \omega \tau$, reads off a response time $\tau \approx 1.34$ attoseconds for the $R = 2$ a.u. case.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the soft-core model potentials, with the nuclear charge adjusted at each internuclear distance to freeze the ionization potential at 1.1 a.u., faithfully representing the real two-center Coulomb field of $\mathrm{H}_2^+$ so that the rotation is physical rather than an artifact of the smoothing or the charge adjustment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurable offset angle in the PMD can serve as a diagnostic of the two-center Coulomb potential near the nuclei of aligned molecules in single-photon ionization.
  • The characteristic dependence of the offset angle on internuclear distance and laser frequency provides a handle for retrieving molecular structure from photoelectron spectra.
  • Because the rotation persists for short-range molecular potentials and vanishes for atoms, it distinguishes molecular single-photon ionization from both atomic ionization and attoclock tunneling.
  • Reproducing the angle quantitatively will require continuum wave functions that include the Coulomb field of both nuclei, since PWA, CWA, SCC and TCC all fail.
  • If the $\theta \approx \omega \tau$ mapping holds, the angle gives a direct estimate of the electron's response time, here about 1.34 attoseconds at $R = 2$ a.u., pointing toward sub-femtosecond and zeptosecond time-resolved probing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the offset angle could be measured in HD$^+$ or D$_2^+$; if it tracks the internuclear geometry and reduced mass, it would confirm a molecular-geometry clock rather than a continuum artifact.
  • A testable extension is to check whether the extracted response time $\tau = \theta/\omega$ is independent of $\omega$; a genuine ionization delay would give a flat $\tau$, while a $\tau$ that changes with $\omega$ would point to an interference or continuum-structure origin.
  • If the short-range result is robust, a pure double-well model without Coulomb tails should reproduce the rotation, isolating the two-center geometry as the cause.
  • The relation $\theta \approx \omega \tau$ could be compared with the Wigner time delay of the photoionization continuum, offering a link between the offset angle and established scattering delays.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports 2D and 3D time-dependent Schrödinger equation simulations of single-photon ionization of aligned H2+ in low-intensity, near-circular, high-frequency laser fields (I = 1×10^13 W/cm^2, ω = 2 a.u.). The central observation is an offset angle of the photoelectron momentum distribution in the laser polarization plane for H2+ with both long-range and short-range model Coulomb potentials, while the offset vanishes for a model atom with the same ionization potential. The authors compare the TDSE results with SFA/PWA, CWA, SCC, and TCC amplitudes, none of which reproduce the rotation, and they attribute the effect to the two-center Coulomb potential near the nuclei. They also map the offset angle versus intensity, internuclear distance, and frequency, and propose attosecond/zeptosecond time-resolved probing through the relation θ ≈ ωτ.

Significance. If the effect is robust, it identifies a new single-photon-ionization observable that distinguishes molecules from atoms and is sensitive to internuclear distance and photon energy. The 2D/3D consistency and the systematic parameter scans are genuine strengths, and the paper is honest in stating that existing analytical models do not reproduce the effect and that further theory is needed. At present, however, the numerical evidence is not yet sufficient to establish that the offset is a real molecular Coulomb effect rather than a regularization artifact of the soft-core model, and the quantitative time-resolution claims are premature. The offset-angle predictions as functions of R and ω are falsifiable and could motivate future experiments, which adds to the paper's value if the numerical robustness is established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II.A, Eq. (1), and Fig. 1] The central result is obtained exclusively with the regularized potential V(r) = -Z e^{-ρ r1}/sqrt(ξ + r1^2) - Z e^{-ρ r2}/sqrt(ξ + r2^2), with ξ = 0.5 and Z adjusted to keep Ip = 1.1 a.u. The paper reports no test of the dependence on ξ or on the Z rescaling. Because the emitted electron has momentum p ≈ 1.34 a.u. (kinetic energy ω - Ip = 0.9 a.u.), its continuum wavefunction samples the near-nucleus region where the soft-core regularization is most severe. A convergence check in ξ (for example ξ = 0.1, 0.2, 1.0) and, if feasible, a comparison with a non-soft-core two-center calculation or an independent numerical method are needed to exclude a purely numerical origin for the rotation. This check is load-bearing for the claim that the offset angle is a molecular Coulomb effect.
  2. [Section II.A (offset angle extraction) and Fig. 5] The offset angle θ is obtained by a Gaussian fit of the angle distribution of local maxima, but no error bars, fit-quality measures, or sensitivity analyses are reported. Figure 5 presents smooth trends of θ versus R and ω, including a peak at a characteristic distance Rc; without uncertainties or convergence checks with respect to grid spacing, time step, and pulse duration, the reader cannot distinguish a genuine physical trend from numerical scatter. Please provide error estimates for θ and show representative fits for at least the key data points in Fig. 5.
  3. [Section III (discussion of θ ≈ ωτ) and Section IV] The mapping θ ≈ ωτ is imported from attoclock and is explicitly introduced as an assumption ('If we assume that the response time τ in single-photon ionization is also proportional to the offset angle θ with the relation θ ≈ ωτ as in attoclock'). The abstract and conclusion nevertheless use this relation to claim a 'high resolution of several attoseconds or even zeptoseconds.' This is a speculative extrapolation: for single-photon ionization there is no derivation connecting the offset angle to a response time. Either provide a derivation or clearly mark the time-resolution claims as an outlook rather than a result.
  4. [Section II.B, Fig. 2, and Section IV] The failure of PWA, CWA, SCC, and TCC to reproduce the rotation is presented as evidence that a more accurate molecular continuum wavefunction is needed. This is a valid negative result, but it does not by itself establish the physical origin: the same failure would occur if the TDSE offset were an artifact of the model potential or of the Z adjustment. The conclusion in Section IV that 'this phenomenon is closely related to the effect of the Coulomb potential around these two atomic centers' is stronger than the evidence supports until the robustness checks in the first major comment are provided.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figures 3, 4, and 6] In the submitted text, the figure labels in Figs. 3, 4, and 6 appear as garbled strings (for example '/s45 /s50 /s48'); please replace the figure files with correctly rendered labels.
  2. [References] Reference [46] lists the journal volume as '2212'; please verify the correct volume and page numbers. Reference [24] is an unpublished arXiv preprint; please cite the published version if one is available.
  3. [Eqs. (9) and (10)] In Eqs. (9) and (10), θ' is defined as the angle between the momentum and the molecular axis, while θ0 is the angle between the momentum and ex; because the molecule is aligned along ex, the two angles coincide, which makes the notation confusing. Please use a single angle or give explicit separate definitions.
  4. [Section III (mechanism discussion)] The qualitative explanations for the R and ω dependence are introduced with 'may be as follows' and are not tested by the calculations. Please mark them explicitly as hypotheses rather than conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the offset angle is a direct TDSE observable, and the central conclusion is not reduced to fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim is the computed offset angle in the TDSE photoelectron momentum distribution. The numerical observable is obtained directly from the simulated wavefunction via a Gaussian fit to local maxima, not from any model parameter. The effective charge Z is adjusted to hold Ip=1.1 a.u., but this calibration fixes the input Hamiltonian and does not by construction determine the PMD rotation; the offset angle varies with R and omega in a way that is not encoded in the fit. The SFA, CWA, SCC, and TCC amplitudes are independent analytical models, and their failure to reproduce the TDSE rotation is evidence against circularity, not evidence for it. The only self-cited ingredient is the interpretive relation theta approx omega*tau taken from attoclock work by the same group; the paper explicitly labels this as an assumption and says further theory studies are needed, so it is not load-bearing for the existence or dependence of the angle. Concerns about the soft-core potential being an artifact are model-validity questions, not circularity, and the 2D/3D comparison provides a consistency check. No fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain.

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

The key free parameters are the model potential parameters (Z, rho, xi), which are chosen to match a single property (Ip) or by convention. The offset angle is not fitted, but the model fidelity is an unvalidated assumption. The time interpretation is ad hoc.

free parameters (3)
  • Effective nuclear charge Z = Z=1 for R=2 a.u.; Z=0.85 for model atom (R=0)
    Adjusted to reproduce ionization potential Ip=1.1 a.u. for each internuclear distance (Sec. II.A). This is a model parameter, not fitted to the offset angle.
  • Screening parameter rho for short-range potential = 0.5
    Chosen by hand to define the short-range Coulomb potential; the central finding (offset angle for short-range H2+) depends on this choice.
  • Soft-core smoothing parameter xi = 0.5
    Standard smoothing parameter in 2D soft-core potentials; not varied or justified against real H2+.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The soft-core potential with adjusted Z and smoothing xi=0.5 accurately represents the electronic structure of H2+ for the purposes of single-photon ionization.
    Invoked in Sec. II.A when setting the Hamiltonian; the validity of this potential for the continuum wave function is not established.
  • standard math The saddle-point and rotating-wave approximations in the SFA are valid for this single-photon regime (omega > Ip).
    Used in Sec. II.B to derive Eqs. (3)-(6); these are standard approximations.
  • ad hoc to paper The relation between the offset angle and the response time is theta = omega*tau, imported from attoclock.
    Assumed in Sec. III ('If we assume that the response time tau in single-photon ionization is also proportional to the offset angle theta with the relation theta approx omega tau as in attoclock'). This is not derived and is used for the proposed application.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single-photon ionization of H$_2^+$ in near-circular laser fields with lower photon energy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZ64JE2J

@misc{pith2026250507432,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single-photon ionization of H$_2^+$ in near-circular laser fields with lower photon energy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZ64JE2J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07432}
}
abstract

We study single-photon ionization of aligned H$_2^+$ in low-intensity near-circular laser fields with lower photon energy numerically and analytically. The photoelectron momentum distribution (PMD) within the laser polarization plane, obtained by numerical simulations, shows a remarkable offset angle, which changes with changing the internuclear distance and the laser frequency. This phenomenon is different from that observed in recent experiments [Science 370, 339 (2020)] which is related to the PMD along the propagation direction of the laser. This phenomenon holds even for H$_2^+$ with short-range Coulomb potentials but disappears for atoms, different from that observed in attoclock experiments. We show that the molecular Coulomb potential near the two atomic centers plays an important role here and theory models associated with more accurate continuum wave function of the molecule are needed for reproducing this phenomenon. This phenomenon can be useful for ultrafast probing of molecules with high resolution of several attoseconds or even zeptoseconds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07432 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PMDs of H+ 2 with R = 2 a.u. and model atom obtained with 2D-TDSE in low-intensity high-frequency EPL laser fields. (a) and (c): H+ 2 and model atom with the short￾range potential; (b) and (d): H+ 2 and model atom with the long-range potential. The laser parameters used here are I = 1 × 1013W/cm2 and ω = 2 a.u.. The white dash-dotted lines in (a) and (b) indicate the offset angles of the PMD. The red dashed line in … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Same as Fig. 3 but obtained with SFA (the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. PMDs of H+ 2 with R = 2 a.u. obtained with 3D-TDSE for short-range (a) and long-range (b) Coulomb potentials in a low-intensity high-frequency EPL field with I = 1 × 1013W/cm2 and ω = 2 a.u.. In (c) and (d), we also compare the offset angles in PMDs for 2D and 3D cases of H + 2 with R = 2 a.u. and model atom with short-range (c) and long-range (d) Coulomb potentials, obtained with differ￾ent laser frequencies ω at I… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Agostini, F

    P. Agostini, F. Fabre, G. Mainfray, G. Petite and N. K. Rahman, Free-Free Transitions Following Six-Photon Ionization of Xenon Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1127 (1979)

    work page 1979

  2. [2]

    B. Yang, K. J. Schafer, B. Walker, K. C. Kulander, P. Agostini and L. F. DiMauro, Intensity-dependent scatter- ing rings in high order above-threshold ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3770 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    G. G. Paulus, W. Becker, W. Nicklich and H. Walther, Rescattering effects in above-threshold ionization: a clas - sical model, J. Phys. B 27, L703 (1994)

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    M.Lewenstein, K. C. Kulander, K. J. Schafer and P. H. Bucksbaum, Rings in above-threshold ionization: A qua- siclassical analysis, Phys. Rev. A 51, 1495 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [5]

    Becker, F

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

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Niikura, F

    H. Niikura, F. L´ egar´ e, R. Hasbani, M. Yu. Ivanov, D. M. Villeneuve and P. B. Corkum, Probing molecular dy- namics with attosecond resolution using correlated wave packet pairs, Nature 421, 826 (2003)

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Zeidler, A

    D. Zeidler, A. Staudte, A. B. Bardon, D. M. Villeneuve, R. D¨ orner and P. B. Corkum, Controlling attosecond double ionization dynamics via molecular alignment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 203003 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Becker, X

    W. Becker, X. Liu, P. J. Ho and J. H. Eberly, Theories of photoelectron correlation in laser-driven multiple atomi c ionization, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1011 (2012). 8

    work page 2012

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    McPherson, G

    A. McPherson, G. Gibson, H. Jara, U. Johann, T. S. Luk, I. A. McIntyre, K. Boyer and C. K. Rhodes, Studies of multiphoton production of vacuum-ultraviolet radiation in the rare gases, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 595 (1987)

    1987

  2. [10]

    L’Huillier, K

    A. L’Huillier, K. J. Schafer and K. C. Kulander, The- oretical aspects of intense field harmonic generation, J. Phys. B 24, 3315 (1991)

    1991

  3. [11]

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

    1993

  4. [12]

    Lewenstein, Ph

    M. Lewenstein, Ph. Balcou, M. Yu. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier , and P. B. Corkum, Theory of high-harmonic generation by low-frequency laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994)

    1994

  5. [13]

    Corkum, F

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

    2007

  6. [14]

    Krausz and M

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

    2009

  7. [15]

    Schultze, M

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

    2010

  8. [16]

    Eckle, A

    P. Eckle, A. N. Pfeiffer, C. Cirelli, A. Staudte, R. D¨ orn er, H. G. Muller, M. Buttiker, U. Keller, Attosecond Ioniza- tion and Tunneling Delay Time Measurements in Helium, Science 322, 1525 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Hofmann, A

    C. Hofmann, A. S. Landsman and U. Keller, Attoclock revisited on electron tunnelling time, J. Mod. Opt. 66, 1052 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    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 tunnelin g current flow in atoms, Nat. Phys. 8, 76-80 (2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    R. Boge, C. Cirelli, A. S. Landsman, S. Heuser, A. Lud- wig, J. Maurer, M. Weger, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Probing Nonadiabatic Effects in Strong-Field Tunnel Ion- ization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 103003 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

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

    2013

  13. [21]

    A. S. Landsman, M. Weger, J. Maurer, R. Boge, A. Lud- wig, S. Heuser, C. Cirelli, L. Gallmann, and U. Keller, Ultrafast resolution of tunneling delay time, Optica 1, 343-349 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Torlina, F

    L. Torlina, F. Morales, J. Kaushal, I. Ivanov, A. Kheife ts, A. Zielinski, A. Scrinzi, H. G. Muller, S. Sukiasyan, M. Ivanov, and O. Smirnova, Interpreting attoclock mea- surements of tunneling times, Nat. Phys. 11, 503 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    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 tunneling time in atomic hydrogen, Nature (London) 568, 75-77 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    J. Y. Che, C. Chen, W. Y. Li, S. Wang, X. J. Xie, J. Y. Huang, Y. G. Peng, G. G. Xin, and Y. J. Chen, Re- sponse time of photoemission at quantum-classic bound- ary, arXiv:2111.08491

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. Y. Che, J. Y. Huang, F. B. Zhang, C. Chen, G. G. Xin, and Y. J. Chen, Roles of laser ellipticity in attoclocks, Phys. Rev. A 107, 043109 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

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

    2010

  19. [27]

    M. Li, J. Geng, H. Liu, Y. K. Deng, C. Y. Wu, L. Y. Peng, Q. H. Gong and Y. Q. Liu, Classical-Quantum cor- respondence for above-threshold ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 113002 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    X. Y. Lai, C. Poli, H. Schomerus, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, Influence of the Coulomb potential on above-threshold ionization: a quantum-orbit analysis be- yond the strong-field approximation, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043407 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    N. I. Shvetsov-Shilovski, M. Lein, L. B. Madsen, E. R¨ as¨ anen, C. Lemell, J. Burgd¨ orfer, D. G. Arb´ o, K. T˝ ok´ esi, Semiclassical two-step model for strong-field ion- ization, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013415 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    X. J. Xie, C. Chen, G. G. Xin, J. Liu, and Y. J. Chen, Coulomb-induced ionization time lag after electrons tun- nel out of a barrier, Opt. Express 28, 33228 (2020)

    2020

  23. [31]

    Y. G. Peng, J. Y. Che, F. B. Zhang, X. J. Xie, G. G. Xin, and Y. J. Chen, Response time of an electron inside a molecule to light in strong-field ionization, Opt. Express 32, 12734 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    S. Q. Shen, Z. Y. Chen, S. Wang , J. Y. Che, and Y. J. Chen, Coulomb effects on strong-field ionization of stretched H + 2 , Phys. Rev. A 110, 033106 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    G. Sven, T. Daniel, F. Kilian, S. Nico, P. Andreas, K. Leon, K. Max, W. Miriam, E. Sebastian, Ph. H. S. Lothar, T. Florian, J. Till et al., Zeptosecond birth time delay in molecular photoionization, Science 370, 339 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    I. A. Ivanov, A. S. Kheifets, and K. T. Kim, Effect of the finite speed of light in ionization of extended molecular systems, Sci. Rep. 11, 21457 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Trabert, S

    D. Trabert, S. Brennecke, K. Fehre, N. Anders, A. Geyer, S. Grundmann, M. S. Sch¨ offler, L. P. H. Schmidt, T. Jahnke, R. D¨ orner, M. Kunitski, and S. Eckart, Angular dependence of the Wigner time delay upon tunnel ion- ization of H 2, Nat. Commun. 12, 1697 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Klaiber, K

    M. Klaiber, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Sub- cycle time-resolved nondipole dynamics in tunneling ion- ization, Phys. Rev. A 105, 053107 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Y. J. Chen, L. B. Fu and J. Liu, Asymmetric molecular imaging through decoding odd-even high-order harmon- ics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 073902 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    T. Zuo, A. D. Bandrauk, P. B. Corkum, Laser-induced electron diffraction: a new tool for probing ultrafast molecular dynamics, Chem. Phys. Lett. 259, 313-320 (1996)

    1996

  31. [39]

    M. Lein, N. Hay, R. Velotta, J. P. Marangos and P. L. Knight, Role of the Intramolecular Phase in High- Harmonic Generation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 183903 (2002)

    2002

  32. [40]

    de Nalda, E

    R. de Nalda, E. Heesel, M. Lein, N. Hay, R. Velotta, E. Springate, M. Castillejo and J. P. Marangos, Role of orbital symmetry in high-order harmonic generation from aligned molecules, Phys. Rev. A 69, 031804(R) (2004)

    2004

  33. [41]

    M. D. Feit, J. A. Fleck, Jr and A. Steiger, Solution of the Schr¨ odinger equation by a spectral method, J. Comput. Phys. 47, 412 (1982)

    1982

  34. [42]

    Wang and Y

    S. Wang and Y. J. Chen, Ionization dynamics of polar molecules in strong elliptical laser fields, Phys. Rev. A 96, 043413 (2017). 9

    2017

  35. [43]

    Keldysh, Ionization in the field of a strong electroma g- netic wave, Sov

    L. Keldysh, Ionization in the field of a strong electroma g- netic wave, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1307 (1965)

    1965

  36. [44]

    F. H. M. Faisal, Multiple absorption of laser photons by atoms, J. Phys. B 6, L89 (1973)

    1973

  37. [45]

    H. R. Reiss, Effect of an intense electromagnetic field on a weakly bound system, Phys. Rev. A 22, 1786 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    J. Y. Che, F. B. Zhang, W. Y. Li, C. Chen, and Y. J. Chen, Single-photon ionization of aligned H + 2 with lower photon energy, New J. Phys. 2212, 00420 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Y. J. Chen and B. Hu, Strong-field approximation for di- atomic molecules: Comparison between the length gauge and the velocity gauge, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033408 (2009)

    2009

  40. [48]

    Joulakian, J

    B. Joulakian, J. Hanssen, R. Rivarola, and A. Motas- sim, Dissociative ionization of H + 2 by fast-electron im- pact: Use of a two-center continuum wave function, Phys. Rev. A 54, 1473 (1996)

    1996

  41. [49]

    M. F. Ciappina, C. C. Chiril˘ a, and M. Lein, Influence of Coulomb continuum wave functions in the description of high-order harmonic generation with H + 2 , Phys. Rev. A 75, 043405 (2007)

    2007

  42. [50]

    Fern´ andez, F

    J. Fern´ andez, F. Yip, T. Rescigno, C. McCurdy, F. Mart ´ ın, Two-center effects in one-photon single ioniza- tion of H + 2 , H 2, and Li + 2 with circularly polarized light, Phys. Rev. A 79, 043409 (2009)

    2009

  43. [51]

    Sali` eres, A

    P. Sali` eres, A. Maquet, S. Haessler, J. Caillat and R. Ta ¨ ıeb, Imaging orbitals with attosecond and ˚ Angstr¨ om resolutions: toward attochemistry? Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 062401 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Cruz-Rodriguez, D

    L. Cruz-Rodriguez, D. Dey, A. Freibert and P. Stammer, Quantum phenomena in attosecond science, Nat. Rev. Phys. 6, 691-704 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.