Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Multiphoton ionization distributions beyond the dipole approximation: Retardation versus recoil corrections

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A propagating laser pulse's recoil effect, not field retardation, controls the directional shifts of multiphoton photoelectron peaks.

desk verdict Solid numerical study of nondipole multiphoton ionization, but the analytic derivation of the key peak-shift formula has a sign error that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17996 v1 pith:T7Q2EL3H submitted 2024-12-23 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

J. Z. Kamiński , K. Krajewska This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph
keywords nondipoleeffectsmultiphotonionizationVolkovstaterecoilcorrectionretardationphotoelectronmomentumdistributionstrong-fieldpropagatinglaserpulse
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 asks what breaks the dipole picture of multiphoton ionization when the driving laser pulse propagates in space instead of being treated as a spatially uniform oscillating field. By solving the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation for a hydrogen-like atom driven by a flat-top pulse, the authors show that multiphoton energy peaks become angle-dependent: they shift red for some emission directions and blue for others. Using a leading-order relativistic expansion of the Volkov electron state, they trace this directionality to the electron recoiling off the laser pulse (the Nordsieck correction), while the field-retardation correction only produces a tiny redshift. If this is right, the distinct roles of the two nondipole effects are cleanly separated, and the size of the angle-dependent shift is fixed by a simple formula involving the ponderomotive energy and the photoelectron energy.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the leading-order relativistic expansion of the electron Volkov state, Eq. (33), in which the nonrelativistic Volkov phase is augmented by two 1/c terms. The first, pi_p(t) n·x, is the retardation correction coming from the space- and time-dependence of the field; the second, $Phi_p^{{(0)}}$(t) n·p/(m_e c), is called the recoil or Nordsieck correction. For photoelectrons emitted along the polarization axis the recoil term vanishes exactly, which isolates the retardation redshift; for other angles the recoil term produces the sinusoidal quasi-energy shift of Eq. (36). The numerical stripe tilt is matched by applying that formula with a constant-amplitude plane-wave assumption inside the flat-top pulse.

What would settle it

For a chosen multiphoton peak, compute the peak energy as a function of emission angle in the full 2D TDSE and test whether it follows $E_n(\phi_p)=E_n-U_p\sqrt{2E_n/(m_e c^2)}\sin\phi_p$; a deviation larger than the next-order $1/c^2$ contribution, or a persisting tilt when the Nordsieck term is artificially removed from the strong-field-approximation phase, would overturn the recoil-dominated reading.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the dipole approximation the multiphoton peaks of the photoelectron energy-angular distribution appear as vertical stripes in polar coordinates: for a given peak, the energy does not depend on the electron emission angle. When the same pulse is treated as a wave propagating along the x2-direction, the stripes tilt, so the peak energy acquires a sinusoidal dependence on the emission angle. The paper's central result is an analytic formula for this dependence, E_n(phi_p) = E_n - U_p sqrt(2 m_e E_n)/(m_e c) sin phi_p, obtained from the leading 1/c expansion of the Volkov state (the exact electron state in a plane-wave field, ignoring the binding potential). Through this formula the tilt is attributed almost entirely to the electron recoil (Nordsieck) term in the Volkov phase, with the retardation term contributing only a small energy redshift that is most clearly seen for emission along the polarization axis. For stronger pulses the sinusoidal shift grows until it exceeds half the photon frequency, and the angle-integrated multiphoton peaks wash out even though they remain visible in the dipole approximation; the rescattering plateau also shrinks because the propagating pulse pushes the electron wave packet away from the ion.

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation assumes that a finite flat-top laser pulse behaves locally like a constant-amplitude plane wave, so that the angle-dependent peak shift computed for plane waves applies to the real pulse; if pulse fronts, edges, or the two-dimensional geometry break that picture, the separation of recoil and retardation effects would have to be redone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a given multiphoton line, emission directions with a positive component along the pulse propagation direction should show a redshift, and opposite directions a blueshift, with amplitude $U_p\sqrt{2E_n}/(m_e c)$.
  • When the shift amplitude $\Omega_n$ exceeds $\omega/2$, the angle-integrated energy distribution loses resolved multiphoton structure; this serves as the paper's quantitative boundary between moderate and strong pulses.
  • The retardation correction is most visible for electrons emitted along the polarization axis and shows up as a small redshift of the peak, consistent with earlier x-ray pulse studies.
  • The double-hump shape seen on intermediate-energy peaks combines the dipole-approximation sidelobes with the tilted-stripe geometry of the propagating pulse.
  • At higher intensity the rescattering plateau shrinks and eventually fades, because the propagating pulse separates the electron wave packet from the parent ion before in-pulse rescattering can occur.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the paper's interpretation is right, angle-resolved photoelectron spectra could be fit directly to $E_n(\phi_p)=E_n-\Omega_n\sin\phi_p$; a residual angle dependence beyond this sinusoidal form would signal corrections beyond the leading $1/c$ order.
  • Because the same Volkov expansion is dimension-independent, one would expect analogous tilted stripes and the same recoil-versus-retardation split in three dimensions, with the emission angle measured relative to the propagation axis.
  • The moderate/strong boundary $\Omega_n=\omega/2$ offers a parameter-free diagnostic: once the predicted shift for a peak of interest exceeds half the photon energy, propagation corrections can no longer be treated as a small perturbation of the dipole spectrum.
  • The paper's statement that higher-order relativistic corrections are beyond its scope suggests a natural extension: repeating the analysis at x-ray photon energies, where the leading $1/c$ approximation is known to be insufficient, would show whether the recoil term continues to dominate the directionality or whether higher-order terms alter the sinusoidal shift.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies nondipole effects in multiphoton ionization of a two-dimensional hydrogen-like model atom driven by a linearly polarized flat-top laser pulse propagating along x2. The authors solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation with a Suzuki-Trotter split-step method, treating the propagating vector potential A(t - x2/c) exactly, and compare the results with those obtained in the dipole approximation. For moderate and strong intensities, they observe that the multiphoton stripes in the energy-angle photoelectron distributions become tilted, and individual peaks exhibit angle-dependent red and blue shifts. They attribute the tilt to the electron recoil (Nordsieck) correction and the small polarization-direction shift to retardation, quantified by Eq. (36), E_n(phi_p) = E_n - U_p sqrt(2 m_e E_n)/(m_e c) sin(phi_p). They also report double-hump structures, angular distribution asymmetries, and the gradual disappearance of multiphoton peaks for strong propagating pulses.

Significance. The numerical treatment of a genuinely propagating laser pulse beyond the dipole approximation is a useful contribution, and the central directional effect is directly visible in the comparison between propagating-pulse and dipole distributions. The paper's main strength is that it produces a simple, falsifiable analytic prediction, Eq. (36), for the angle-dependent peak shift. If the derivation of that formula is repaired and the post hoc fitting in the strong-field section is addressed, the conclusion that the recoil term governs the directional dependence of photoelectron energy spectra would be of significant interest to the strong-field ionization community. The explicit numerical parameters and the machine-checkable split-step scheme are also positive features.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (32)-(36)] The derivation of Eq. (36) is not valid as printed. With n·p = p0 − p·n defined before Eq. (32), the recoil term in Eq. (33) reads (i/m_e c) Phi_p^(0)(t) (p0 − p·n). Inserting p0 = m_e c + E_p/c + ... produces a zeroth-order contribution i Phi_p^(0)(t), which doubles the nonrelativistic Volkov phase, and a first-order contribution −(i/m_e c) Phi_p^(0)(t)(p·n − E_p/c), which has the opposite sign to the first-order term obtained by directly expanding Eq. (32). Thus Eq. (36) does not follow from Eqs. (33)-(34) as written. The authors should either correct the definition of n·p in Eq. (33), present the actual expansion of Eq. (32), or derive Eq. (36) directly from the nonrelativistic TDSE, and they should state the sign convention explicitly.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 7] The strong-pulse comparison is not a parameter-free test of Eq. (36). The dipole reference energies E^(d)_1 = 95.8E0 and E^(d)_2 = 99.8E0 are first used to draw the white lines in Fig. 7(b); when these do not follow the stripes, the authors change to E^(p)_1 = 95.5E0 and E^(p)_2 = 99.5E0 for the red lines. The zero-angle offset is therefore adjusted to the propagating-pulse data. This tests only the sinusoidal angular shape and the tilt amplitude, not the absolute peak positions. The authors should either compute the expected zero-angle redshift from the retardation term or explicitly state that E^(p)_1 and E^(p)_2 are fit parameters.
  3. [Sec. II C and Figs. 4 and 8] No quantitative convergence or uncertainty information is reported. The text says convergence is checked by varying parameters, but no convergence data, error bars, or resolution estimates are given. Since the central quantitative claims rely on small energy shifts (for example, the tiny redshift in Figs. 4(b) and 8(b) and the red/blue shifts in Figs. 4(c,d) and 8(c,d)), the authors should provide a convergence test for the peak positions and estimate the numerical uncertainty of the reported shifts.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and abstract] There is a spurious space in 'ap proximation' in the title; the phrase 'moderate and a high intensity' is also awkward and could be rephrased.
  2. [Sec. I, Fig. 1] The differences between panels (a) and (b) of Fig. 1 are said to be hardly visible; a difference plot or a color-scale annotation would help the reader identify the nondipole changes before moving to the polar-coordinate figures.
  3. [Sec. III, Fig. 4] The solid and dashed curves are identified only in the main text; adding a legend or explicit line labels in the figure panels would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (33)] The symbol n·p is overloaded: it is first defined as p0 − p·n, then used inside a small correction in Eq. (33), where it introduces a large zeroth-order term. A separate symbol, such as q = p·n, would clarify the expansion.
  5. [Sec. II C] The paper does not report the total norm after propagation; it gives only the ground-state population and the escape probability. A norm-conservation check would be a useful validation of the numerical scheme.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the angle-dependent peak shift in Eq. (36) is a genuine benchmark, not a restatement of the numerical input.

full rationale

The paper's central analytic result, Eq. (36), predicts the angle-dependent location of multiphoton peaks in a propagating pulse. Its inputs are the dipole-approximation peak energy E_n, the ponderomotive energy U_p, and fundamental constants; none of these inputs is the quantity being predicted, namely the angular tilt of the stripes. In the moderate-intensity case the red curves are drawn using E_n values read from the dipole calculation and then compared with the propagating-pulse TDSE stripes, which is a legitimate transfer of a parameter between two scenarios. In the strong-intensity case the authors shift the reference energies from the dipole values (95.8, 99.8 E0) to the propagating-pulse values (95.5, 99.5 E0); this is a post hoc adjustment of the vertical offset only, attributable to retardation, and it does not determine the sinusoidal angular dependence, whose amplitude is fixed by Eq. (37). The SFA phase formula (33) is cited to the authors' previous work, but it is an explicit 1/c expansion of the standard Volkov solution (31)-(32) with stated assumptions, and the numerical method of Sec. II A is described in the text rather than imported as a black box. There is no self-citation chain that forces the conclusion, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem invoked from the authors' prior work. A possible sign inconsistency in the printed O(1/c) expansion is a correctness concern, not a circularity, because the predicted angular dependence is independently checkable against the TDSE stripes.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central nondipole-shift formula Eq. (36)-(37) has no fitted constants beyond U_p and the dipole peak energy E_n, but the numerical demonstration relies on a tuned 2D model potential and several modeling assumptions. The strong-pulse overlay in Sec. V uses a small fitted offset. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda_V = 0.46
    Effective atomic number Z(x)=1-lambda_V exp(-x^2/b_V^2) is tuned so the model ground-state energy EB is close to -0.5 E0 (Sec. II B). This tunes the binding potential, not the nondipole shift.
  • a_V = 0.1 a0
    Softening radius in the erf(x/a_V) factor chosen to regularize the Coulomb singularity; a model parameter, not derived.
  • b_V = 10 a0
    Range of the Z(x) correction in the model potential; a model parameter, not derived.
  • E^(p)_1, E^(p)_2 = 95.5 E0, 99.5 E0
    In Sec. V, the dipole-based reference energies 95.8 E0 and 99.8 E0 do not match the propagating-pulse stripes, so the authors shift them by -0.3 E0 to fit the numerical pattern and attribute the shift to retardation. This is a post-hoc offset.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A single-active-electron nonrelativistic Schrodinger equation with minimal coupling to a classical propagating pulse is an adequate model for multiphoton ionization.
    Used throughout Sec. II; ignores multi-electron effects, spin, and the quantum nature of the laser field.
  • ad hoc to paper The model potential V(x) with erf softening and Z(x) approximates a hydrogen-like atom with EB approximately -0.5 E0.
    Sec. II B; the parameters a_V, b_V, lambda_V are tuned to mimic hydrogen, not derived from first principles.
  • domain assumption The laser pulse is a plane wave propagating along x2 with vector potential A(t - x2/c) and a super-Gaussian envelope that is effectively flat for the central cycles.
    Sec. II B; no focusing, depletion, or back-reaction of the field is included.
  • domain assumption The leading-order 1/c expansion of the Klein-Gordon Volkov state is sufficient for the photoelectron energies and intensities considered.
    Sec. IV, Eq. (33); the authors acknowledge in Sec. VI that higher-order relativistic corrections matter for x-ray pulse parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper For a finite flat-top pulse, the constant-amplitude plane-wave quasi-energy picture can be applied locally.
    Sec. IV, paragraph before Eq. (36): 'let us assume that the laser field has a constant amplitude A0; thus, enabling us to employ the quasi-energy picture.'
  • domain assumption The strong-field approximation (lowest-order Born approximation with Volkov states) describes the high-energy portion of the photoelectron spectrum.
    Sec. I and Sec. IV; used to interpret the numerical momentum distributions in terms of multiphoton peaks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiphoton ionization distributions beyond the dipole approximation: Retardation versus recoil corrections." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7Q2EL3H

@misc{pith2026241217996,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiphoton ionization distributions beyond the dipole approximation: Retardation versus recoil corrections},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7Q2EL3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17996}
}
read the original abstract

We study nondipole effects in multiphoton ionization of a two-dimensional hydrogen-like atom by a flat-top laser pulse of varied intensity. For this purpose, we solve numerically a two-dimensional Schr\"odinger equation treating a propagating laser pulse exactly. The resulting distributions are then compared to those calculated in the dipole approximation. A directional dependence of the energy-angular photoelectron distributions is demonstrated numerically in the case of a propagating laser pulse of a moderate and a high intensity. It is analytically interpreted based on the leading order relativistic expansion of the electron Volkov state, showing a significant contribution of the electron recoil to that behavior. In contrast, the retardation correction originating from the space- and time-dependence of the laser field leads to a tiny redshift of the photoelectron energy spectra. Other features of ionization distributions are also analyzed, including the sidelobes and the double-hump structures of multiphoton peaks, or their disappearance for intense propagating laser pulses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17996 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Photoelectron momentum distributions plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The same as in Fig. 1(a) but presented in the polar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as in Fig. 1(b) but in the polar coordi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Photoelectron momentum distributions in the po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Photoelectron marginal distributions plotted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The same as in Fig. 6, but for the laser pulse propa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The same as in Fig. 4, but for the strong laser pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The same as in Fig. 5, but for the strong laser pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In this case, the envelope remains nearly constant for (Nosc−2) cycles and so the laser pulse resembles a flat-top pulse

    35 and Nenv = 12 are chosen such that A(t) vanishes for t < 0 and t >2πN osc/ω within the accuracy of our numerical calculations. In this case, the envelope remains nearly constant for (Nosc−2) cycles and so the laser pulse resembles a flat-top pulse. The remaining parameters, A0 and Nosc, will be defined below. C. Numerical details Our numerical calculatio...

    work page

  2. [2]

    L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1945 (1964)

    work page 1964

  3. [3]

    F. H. M. Faisal, J. Phys. B 6, L89 (1973)

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    For the mask function M0(x) we select the same values as above, R1 = 30a0 and R2 = 90a0

    07. For the mask function M0(x) we select the same values as above, R1 = 30a0 and R2 = 90a0. Note that we have to decrease the number of laser pulse cycles as compared to the moderately intense pulse considered in Sec. III, in order to keep the same order of magnitude for the electron wave function leakage from the integration region. The current laser pu...

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    G. A. Mourou, T. Tajima, and S. V. Bulanov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 78, 309 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Førre, J

    M. Førre, J. P. Hansen, L. Kocbach, S. Selstø, and L. B. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 043601 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    L. Geng, H. Liang, K. Krajewska, L.-Y. Peng, and Q. Gong, Phys. Rev. A 104, L021102 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Agostini, F

    P. Agostini, F. Fabre, G. Mainfray, G. Petite, and N. K. Rahman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1127 (1979)

    1979

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    H. R. Reiss, Phys. Rev. A 22, 1786 (1980)

    1980

  2. [10]

    D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, G. G. Paulus, D. Bauer, and W. Becker, J. Phys. B. 39, R203 (2006)

    2006

  3. [11]

    Becker, S

    W. Becker, S. P. Goreslavski, D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, and G. G. Paulus, J. Phys. B 51, 162002 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    M. C. Suster, J. Derlikiewicz, K. Krajewska, F. C. V´ elez , and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 107, 053112 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    C. J. Joachain, N. J. Kylstra, and R. M. Potvliege, Atoms in Intense Laser Fields (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    N. V. Larionov, S. Y. Ovchinnikov, A. A. Smirnovsky, and A. A. Schmidt, Tech. Phys. 63, 1569 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Cajiao V´ elez, L

    F. Cajiao V´ elez, L. Geng, J. Z. Kami´ nski, L.-Y. Peng, and K. Krajewska, Phys. Rev. A 102, 043102 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    M. C. Suster, J. Derlikiewicz, J. Z. Kami´ nski, and K. Krajewska, Opt. Express 32, 6085 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Sasaki, N

    K. Sasaki, N. Suzuki, and H. Saito, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 150404 (2010)

    2010

  10. [18]

    Y. Hu, K. Liu, Q. Ma, and P. Lu, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 39, 2486 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Shin and H

    S. Shin and H. Metiu, J. Chem. Phys. 102, 9285 (1995)

    1995

  12. [20]

    L. Geng, F. Cajiao V´ elez, J. Z. Kami´ nski, L.-Y. Peng, and K. Krajewska, Phys. Rev. A 104, 033111 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    K. Liu, Y. Hu, Q. Zhang, and P. Lu, Opt. Express 29, 38758 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Chelkowski, A

    S. Chelkowski, A. D. Bandrauk, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. A 92, 051401 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Ma, J.-P

    M.-Y. Ma, J.-P. Wang, W.-Q. Jing, Z. Guan, Z.- H. Jiao, G.-L. Wang, J.-H. Chen, and S.-F. Zhao, Opt. Express 29, 33245 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    Erdmann, P

    M. Erdmann, P. Marquetand, and V. Engel, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 672 (2003)

    2003

  17. [25]

    Bayer, C

    T. Bayer, C. Philipp, K. Eickhoff, and M. Wollenhaupt, Phys. Rev. A 102, 013104 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, A. S. Jaˇ sarevi´ c, D. Habibovi´ c, E. Hasovi´ c, A. ˇCerki´ c, and W. Becker, J. Phys. A 57, 11 393001 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    75E0, whereas in Fig

    75E0 and 31. 75E0, whereas in Fig. 3(b) we draw the corresponding two red lines by applying Eq. (36) with En equal to each of these values. As we see, the red lines very well reproduce theϕ p-dependent peaks in the photo- electron momentum distribution ˜Pm(|p|,ϕ p,T f ). In th...

  20. [28]

    Ehlotzky, A

    F. Ehlotzky, A. Jaro´ n, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rep. 297, 63 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    S. V. Popruzhenko, J. Phys. B 47, 204001 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Kanti, M

    D. Kanti, M. M. Majczak, J. Z. Kami´ nski, L.-Y. Peng, and K. Krajewska, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043112 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Lewenstein, P

    M. Lewenstein, P. Balcou, M. Y. Ivanov, A. L’Huillier, and P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. A 49, 2117 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    D. M. Wolkow, Zeit. Phys. 94, 250 (1935)

    1935

  25. [33]

    Ehlotzky, K

    F. Ehlotzky, K. Krajewska, and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 046401 (2009)

    2009

  26. [34]

    J. E. Vembe, E. A. B. Johnsen, and M. Førre, Phys. Rev. A 109, 013107 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Nordsieck, Phys

    A. Nordsieck, Phys. Rev. 93, 785 (1954)

    1954

  28. [36]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043419 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013402 (2016)

    2016

  30. [38]

    Førre, Phys

    M. Førre, Phys. Rev. A 106, 013104 (2022)

    2022

  31. [39]

    J. E. Vembe and M. Førre, J. Phys. Commun. 8, 085006 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    Førre, Phys

    M. Førre, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053410 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    Førre and S

    M. Førre and S. Selstø, Phys. Rev. A 101, 063416 (2020)

    2020

  34. [43]

    T. K. Lindblom, M. Førre, E. Lindroth, and S. Selstø, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 253202 (2018)

    2018

  35. [74]

    In this case, the probability for the electron to escape the integration region is smaller than 7 × 10− 8, whereas the probability that it stays in the ground state equals 0

    95t0. In this case, the probability for the electron to escape the integration region is smaller than 7 × 10− 8, whereas the probability that it stays in the ground state equals 0. 2. For the mask function M0(x) we take R1 = 30a0 and R2 = 90a0. In Fig. 1 we present the photoel...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.