Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Holographic detection of parity in atomic and molecular orbitals

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 Orbital parity is directly readable from photoelectron holograms: fan and carpet fringes dephase by π between odd-parity Ar and even-parity N2, while spider fringes stay in phase, traced to quantum-orbit initial phases.

desk verdict A solid differential-holography paper that credibly links fan/carpet dephasing between Ar and N2 to initial-orbital parity; the main soft spot is a single-point check of the continuum-phase cancellation, but the TDSE agreement and prefactor maps carry most of the weight. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03860 v2 pith:P7EJP6FG submitted 2019-08-11 physics.atom-ph

HuiPeng Kang , Andrew S. Maxwell , Daniel Trabert , XuanYang Lai , Sebastian Eckart , Maksim Kunitski , Markus Schoffler , Till Jahnke
show 3 more authors
XueBin Bian Reinhard Dorner Carla Figueira de Morisson Faria
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords photoelectronholographyorbitalparityCoulombquantum-orbitstrong-fieldapproximationionizationdifferentialholograminterferencecarpetsfan-shapedstructuresmolecularsymmetry
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 sets out to show that photoelectron holography—the interference pattern formed by electrons ionized by an intense laser—carries a direct, readable imprint of the parity of the orbital from which the electron was removed. It demonstrates this by measuring, under identical laser conditions, argon (odd-parity 3p orbital) and nitrogen molecules (even-parity HOMO): the fan-shaped and carpet-like holographic fringes are dephased by $\pi$ between the two targets, while the spider-like fringes remain in phase. Full-dimensional time-dependent Schrödinger equation and Coulomb quantum-orbit strong-field approximation (CQSFA) simulations reproduce the observations, and the CQSFA traces the dephasing to parity-dependent initial phases of interfering Coulomb-distorted quantum orbits, not to the continuum propagation. If correct, the method reads orbital parity directly from holographic fringes without sculpted fields and over a broad momentum range, and it extends to any holographic structure and to molecular orbitals beyond the HOMO.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Coulomb quantum-orbit strong-field approximation (CQSFA), in which the ionization amplitude is a coherent sum over saddle-point quantum orbits, each carrying a continuum action phase $\mathrm{Re}[S]$ and a prefactor phase $\Phi_{0,s}$ that contains the tunneling matrix element with the initial bound state. Orbits are classified into four types by their path relative to the core and detector: type I proceeds directly to the detector, types II and III leave on one side and turn around, and type IV passes around the core. The load-bearing rule is geometric: when the two interfering orbit types are released on opposite sides of the target, the prefactor phase differs by $\pi$ for an odd-parity orbital and by 0 for an even-parity orbital; when they are released on the same side, there is no parity-dependent difference. This rule maps fan fringes to the I–II pair, spider fringes to the II–III pair, and carpet fringes to the III–IV pair, converting a measured fringe shift into a statement about bound-state parity.

What would settle it

Compute the CQSFA $\mathrm{Re}[S]$ differences between Ar and N2 at many transverse momenta across the fan and carpet regions (beyond the single $p_\perp = 0.1$ a.u. curve shown in the Appendix): if the Ar–N2 residual reaches a substantial fraction of $\pi$, the differential signal is no longer dominated by bound-state parity and the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relative phase of the two electron-wave-packet branches that form a holographic fringe encodes the parity of the initial bound state, and that this phase can be isolated by a differential measurement against a companion target. For an interfering pair of quantum orbits that leave opposite sides of the target—types I and II for the fan structure, types III and IV for the carpet structure—the prefactor phase differs by $\pi$ for an odd-parity orbital and by 0 for an even-parity orbital; for a pair released on the same side, such as types II and III forming the spider structure, there is no parity-dependent shift. The measured differential hologram of Ar and N2 shows exactly this pattern: fan and carpet fringes out of phase, spider fringes in phase, matching both the TDSE and CQSFA. The paper therefore concludes that the parity of an atomic or molecular orbital can be inferred from the dephasing of holographic patterns, in contrast with the earlier assumption that such parity information is washed out by continuum propagation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the continuum-propagation phase difference between the relevant orbit types is nearly identical for Ar and N2, so the differential signal is dominated by the initial-state (parity) phase; the paper checks this cancellation at one transverse momentum ($p_\perp = 0.1$ a.u.) only, and if it fails the observed dephasing could come from target-specific continuum dynamics rather than bound-state parity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fan and carpet holographic fringes become a direct readout of orbital parity for any target paired with a reference atom or molecule of known parity.
  • Spider fringes are parity-blind and can serve as an internal control confirming that the differential method is working.
  • Because the method needs no sculpted fields and no restricted momentum window, it extends parity detection to molecules that are hard to align and to orbitals beyond the HOMO.
  • The observation that rescattering carpets retain parity information contradicts the common assumption that the parity phase of the returning wave packet is smeared out during continuum propagation.
  • The same orbit-pair phase rule should predict which holographic structures in any target are parity-sensitive: only interferences between orbits leaving opposite sides of the target will dephase.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: the same differential strategy could probe other bound-state phase properties, such as nodal structure or alignment-dependent phases, by choosing a companion whose only relevant difference is the property of interest.
  • Because the parity rule is geometric rather than target-specific, one could search for new holographic interference structures whose orbit pairs switch sides, making them newly parity-sensitive.
  • A pump-probe version of this measurement could turn the fan/carpet dephasing into a time-resolved symmetry signal, tracking parity changes during charge migration or ultrafast structural dynamics.
  • Since the N2 signal is dominated by molecules aligned along the laser polarization even without alignment, the method likely transfers to heavier polyatomic molecules where full alignment is experimentally prohibitive.
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 introduces a differential photoelectron-holography method in which argon is used as a companion atom to retrieve the parity of the highest-occupied molecular orbital of N2. The authors measure, with a COLTRIMS reaction microscope and a mixed Ar/N2 gas jet, photoelectron momentum distributions at 788 nm and compare them. They report that fan-shaped and carpet-like holographic interference structures appear dephased between Ar and N2, while spider-like structures remain in phase. This behavior is reproduced by full-dimensional TDSE simulations and by Coulomb quantum-orbit strong-field approximation (CQSFA) calculations. Using the CQSFA phase decomposition, the authors attribute the dephasing to the different parities of the Ar 3p orbital (odd) and the N2 HOMO (even), through the phase of the prefactor C(t0,s) rather than the continuum-propagation phase Re[S]. The paper argues that the method is general and could be used to extract bound-state phase information from holographic structures over a broad momentum range.

Significance. If the central attribution is correct, this is a valuable result: it provides a relatively simple, Coulomb-aware route to parity information in atomic and molecular orbitals that does not require sculpted fields and is not restricted to a narrow momentum window. The work combines a comparative experiment with two independent theoretical treatments, and the CQSFA gives a transparent orbit-by-orbit phase decomposition. Strengths of the paper include the use of a mixed gas jet to reduce systematic uncertainties in the differential measurement, the absence of parameters fitted to the measured holograms, and the explicit computation of the prefactor-phase diagrams in the appendix, which visually show the expected π shifts for fan and carpet structures and their absence for spider structures. The main weakness is that the key cancellation assumption for the continuum-propagation phase, which is load-bearing for the parity inference, is verified only at a single transverse momentum and with an omitted supporting calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Fig. 4] The premise that the continuum-propagation phase differences Re[S] between trajectory types are nearly identical for Ar and N2 is checked only for p_perp = 0.1 a.u. The fan region is close to threshold, but the carpet region analyzed in Fig. 3 spans p_perp = 0.55–0.95 a.u., and the type-III/type-IV orbits that form the carpet are rescattering trajectories that pass close to the core. The text states that "similar features for other values of p_perp" were found, but no such data are shown. Since the parity attribution depends on the differential signal being dominated by the initial-state prefactor phase, the authors should quantify Re[S](Ar) - Re[S](N2) over the full momentum interval used in the analysis, and in particular in the carpet region. Without this, the observed dephasing could in principle originate from target-specific continuum dynamics rather than from bound-state parity.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (3)] The statement that simulations without the prefactor C(t0,s) "reveal practically identical features for Ar and N2 (not shown here)" is an omitted supporting calculation for the central cancellation claim. Because the CQSFA uses a common -1/r potential for both targets, this comparison validates cancellation only within the CQSFA model; it does not control for the target-specific short-range potentials of Ar and N2, which could affect the near-core rescattering trajectories. The authors should show this comparison and quantify the residual difference in Re[S] relative to the π parity phase that they extract.
  3. [Sec. IV, Figs. 2 and 3] The differential hologram [DAr - DN2]/[DAr + DN2] is presented without error bars or a statistical significance estimate for the phase contrast between odd- and even-order ATI rings in the carpet region. The parity conclusion rests on the assignment of minima and maxima to Ar versus N2, so the authors should at least provide a quantitative estimate of the uncertainty in the normalized difference, including count statistics and any background or normalization effects, to support the claim that the observed dephasing is statistically robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III A] The phrase "In the resent study" should read "In the present study."
  2. [Sec. V] In the conclusion, "we are interestd in measuring" should read "we are interested in measuring."
  3. [Fig. 5] The caption of Fig. 5 would be clearer if the panels (a1), (b1), (c1), etc., were explicitly labeled in the figure itself, since the text refers to them by row and column.
  4. [Appendix B] The prefactor-phase diagrams in Fig. 5 are computed for N2 aligned along the laser polarization, while the experiment is randomly aligned. The argument that the ionization probability is maximal for this alignment and decreases rapidly for other angles is plausible, but a quantitative statement or a separate alignment-averaged phase check would strengthen the link between the aligned CQSFA phase diagrams and the randomly aligned experimental data.
  5. [References] Reference [45] is cited as an arXiv preprint; if a published version exists, it should be cited in its final form.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: known orbital parities are inputs to forward CQSFA/TDSE calculations, and the observed differential-hologram dephasing is compared rather than fitted.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to the measured holograms and then relabel it as a prediction. The parity of the Ar 3p orbital and the N2 HOMO is a known input; the CQSFA prefactor phase Φ0,s is computed from Eq. (3) using those known orbitals, and the resulting fan/carpet π dephasing versus in-phase spider fringes is compared with the measured differential hologram and with independent TDSE solutions. The claim that continuum-propagation phases Re[S] cancel between Ar and N2 is supported by an explicit calculation in Appendix A, and the statement that removing the prefactor leaves the two targets practically identical is an internal control, not a fit. Self-citations to the authors' CQSFA work [10,12,45] supply the interpretive model, but the model's central predictions are validated here against experimental data and TDSE, so the citations are not the only load-bearing evidence. The main weakness, that the Re[S] cancellation is shown at p_perp = 0.1 a.u. rather than across the full fan/carpet range, is a robustness/correctness limitation, not a circular step: the parity inference would be under-supported if continuum phases differ materially between targets, but the paper does not define parity in terms of the observed dephasing.

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

The paper contributes no ad hoc parameters or new entities. It relies on established but approximate strong-field frameworks and on the stated cancellation of continuum phases between Ar and N2. The absence of fitted free parameters is a plus; the unquantified approximations are a caveat.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A bound orbital's parity determines the sign of the initial wavefunction under inversion, producing a pi phase difference between orbits leaving opposite sides of the target.
    Central physical picture in Sec. II and Table I; used to connect prefactor phase to orbital parity.
  • domain assumption Continuum propagation phases Re[S] for corresponding orbit types are nearly equal for Ar and N2 because their ionization potentials are close (Ar 15.76 eV, N2 15.58 eV) and their long-range Coulomb tails are similar.
    Load-bearing premise of the differential method; checked in Appendix A but only for selected momenta.
  • domain assumption The CQSFA saddle-point evaluation with trajectory types I-IV is a valid description of strong-field ionization including Coulomb distortion.
    The entire interpretation relies on this framework from the authors' earlier papers [10,43].
  • domain assumption For N2, the HOMO is the only active orbital and its ionization is dominated by internuclear alignment along the laser polarization, so random-alignment averaging does not wash out the parity signal.
    Used in Sec. III A, IV, and Appendix B to justify comparing fixed-alignment CQSFA results with randomly aligned molecules.
  • domain assumption A single-active-electron model potential for Ar and a -1/r potential for both targets in CQSFA capture the relevant continuum dynamics.
    Approximations stated in Sec. III A and III B; their effect on the extracted phase is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic detection of parity in atomic and molecular orbitals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7EJP6FG

@misc{pith2026190803860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic detection of parity in atomic and molecular orbitals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7EJP6FG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03860}
}
abstract

We introduce a novel and concise methodology to detect the parity of atomic and molecular orbitals based on photoelectron holography, which is more general than the existing schemes. It fully accounts for the Coulomb distortions of electron trajectories, does not require sculpted fields to retrieve phase information and, in principle, is applicable to a broad range of electron momenta. By comparatively measuring the differential photoelectron spectra from strong-field ionization of N$_{2}$ molecules and their companion atoms of Ar, some photoelectron holography patterns are found to be dephased for both targets. This is well reproduced by the full-dimensional time-dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation and the Coulomb quantum-orbit strong-field approximation (CQSFA) simulation. Using the CQSFA, we trace back our observations to different parities of the 3$p$ orbital of Ar and the highest-occupied molecular orbital of N$_{2}$ via interfering Coulomb-distorted quantum orbits carrying different initial phases. This method could in principle be used to extract bound-state phases from any holographic structure, with a wide range of potential applications in recollision physics and spectroscopy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03860 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of dominant trajectories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Blow-up of the experimental normalized mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) and (b) Measured photoelectron momentum dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Calculated diagrams of the difference between Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Calculations for difference between Re[ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 104, 254 (1956)

    1956

  2. [2]

    R. R. Freeman, P. H. Bucksbaum, H. Milchberg, S. Darack, D. Schumacher, and M. E. Geusic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 1092 (1987)

    work page 1987

  3. [3]

    Muth-B¨ ohm, A

    J. Muth-B¨ ohm, A. Becker, and F. H. M. Faisal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2280 (2000)

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Meckel, D

    M. Meckel, D. Comtois, D. Zeidler, A. Staudte, D. Paviˇ ci´ c, H. C. Bandulet, H. P´ epin, J. C. Kieffer, R. D¨ orner, D. M. Villeneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Science 320, 1478 (2008)

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Meckel, A

    M. Meckel, A. Staudte, S. Patchkovskii, D. M. Vil- leneuve, P. B. Corkum, R. D¨ orner, and M. Spanner, Nat. Phys. 10, 594 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    M. M. Liu, M. Li, C. Wu, Q. Gong, A. Staudte, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 163004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Kunitski, N

    M. Kunitski, N. Eicke, P. Huber, J. Khler, S. Zeller, J. Voigtsberger, N. Schlott, K. Henrichs, H. Sann , F. Trin- ter, L. Ph.H. Schmidt, A. Kalinin, M. S. Sch¨ offler, T. Jahnke, M. Lein, R.D¨ orner Nat. Commun.10 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    X. Xie, S. Roither, D. Kartashov, E. Persson, D. G. Arb´ o, L. Zhang, S. Gr¨ afe, M. S. Sch¨ offler, J. Burgd¨ orfer, A. Baltuˇ ska, and M. Kitzler, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 193004 (2012)

    work page 2012

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Ph. A. Korneev, S. V. Popruzhenko, S. P. Goreslavski, T.-M. Yan, D. Bauer, W. Becker, M. K¨ ubel, M. F. Kling, C. R¨ odel, M. W¨ unsche, and G. G. Paulus, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 223601 (2012)

    2012

  2. [10]

    X. Y. Lai, C. Poli, H. Schomerus, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, Phys. Rev. A 92, 043407 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    A. S. Maxwell, A. Al-Jawahiry, T. Das, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023420 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    A. S. Maxwell and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, J. Phys. B 51, 124001 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Huismans et al., Science 331, 61 (2011)

    Y. Huismans et al., Science 331, 61 (2011)

    2011

  6. [14]

    Figueira de Morisson Faria and A

    C. Figueira de Morisson Faria and A. S. Maxwell, Rep. Prog. Phys. 83, 034401 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    P. B. Corkum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1994 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    Y. Zhou, O. I. Tolstikhin, and T. Morishita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 173001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    M. He, Y. Li, Y. Zhou, M. Li, W. Cao, and P. Lu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 133204 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    S. Walt, N. Ram, M. Atala, N. Shvetsov-Shilovski, A. von Conta, D. Baykusheva, M. Lein, and H. W¨ orner, Nat. Commun. 8, 15651 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    Rudenko et al., J

    A. Rudenko et al., J. Phys. B 37, L407 (2004)

    2004

  12. [20]

    C. M. Maharjan et al., J. Phys. B 39, 1955 (2006)

    2006

  13. [21]

    Marchenko, H

    T. Marchenko, H. G. Muller, K. J. Schafer and M. J. J. Vrakking, J. Phys. B 43, 095601 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    D. G. Arb´ o, S. Yoshida, E. Persson, K. I. Dimitriou, and J. Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 143003 (2006)

    2006

  15. [23]

    Chen, Toru Morishita, Anh-Thu Le, M

    Z. Chen, Toru Morishita, Anh-Thu Le, M. Wickenhauser, X. M. Tong, and C. D. Lin, Phys. Rev. A 74, 053405 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    D. G. Arb´ o, Konstantinos I. Dimitriou, Emil Pers- son, and Joachim Burgd¨ orfer, Phys. Rev. A 78, 013406 (2008)

    2008

  17. [25]

    Tian-Min Yan, S. V. Popruzhenko, M. J. J. Vrakking, and D. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 253002 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    A. S. Maxwell, A. Al-Jawahiry, T. Das, and C. F. Faria, Phys. Rev. A 96, 023420 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Y. Deng, Y. Liu, X. Liu, H. Liu, Y. Yang, C. Wu, and Q. Gong, Phys. Rev. A 84, 065405 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    X. Y. Lai, S. G. Yu, Y. Y. Huang, L. Q. Hua, C. Gong,W. Quan, C. F. Faria, and X. J. Liu, Phys. Rev. A 96, 013414 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    A. S. Maxwell, A. Al-Jawahiry, X. Y. Lai, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, J. Phys. B 51, 044004 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    Ullrich, R

    J. Ullrich, R. Moshammer, A. Dorn, R. D¨ orner, L.P.H. Schmidt, and H. Schmidt-B¨ ocking, Rep. Prog. Phys.66, 1463 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Alnaser, X.M

    A.S. Alnaser, X.M. Tong, T. Osipov, S. Voss, C.M. Ma- harjan, B. Shan, Z. Chang, and C.L. Cocke, Phys. Rev. A 70, 023413 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Jagutzki, A

    O. Jagutzki, A. Cerezo, A. Czasch, R. D¨ orner, M. Hattas, M. Huang, V. Mergel, U. Spillmann, K. Ullmann-Pfleger, T. Weber, H. Schmidt-B¨ ocking, and G. D. W. Smith, IEEE T Nucl. Sci., 49, 2477 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    X. B. Bian, Y. Huismans, O. Smirnova, K. J. Yuan, M. J. J. Vrakking, and A. D. Bandrauk, Phys. Rev. A 84, 043420 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    X. B. Bian and A. D. Bandrauk, Phys. Rev. A. 89, 033423 (2014)

    2014

  27. [35]

    X. M. Tong and C. D. Lin, J. Phys. B 38, 2593 (2005)

    2005

  28. [36]

    V. I. Usachenko and Shih-I. Chu, Phys. Rev. A 71, 063410 (2005)

    2005

  29. [37]

    Kleinert, Path integrals in quantum mechanics, statis- tics, polymer physics, and financial markets , (World Sci- entific, 2009)

    H. Kleinert, Path integrals in quantum mechanics, statis- tics, polymer physics, and financial markets , (World Sci- entific, 2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    D. B. Miloˇ sevi´ c, J. Math. Phys.54, 042101(2013)

    2013

  31. [39]

    Kopold, W

    R. Kopold, W. Becker, and M. Kleber, Opt. Commun. 179, 39 (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Figueira de Morisson Faria, H

    C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, H. Schomerus, and W. Becker, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043413 (2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    S. V. Popruzhenko and D. Bauer, J. Mod. Opt. 55, 2573 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

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

    2014

  35. [43]

    A. S. Maxwell, S. V. Popruzhenko, and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, Phys. Rev. A 98, 063423 (2018). 8

    2018

  36. [44]

    M. W. Schmidt et al., J. Comput. Chem.14, 1347 (1993)

    1993

  37. [45]

    A. S. Maxwell, X.-Y. Lai, R. Sun, X. Liu and C.Figueira de Morisson Faria, arXiv:2003.02239 [atom-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Akagi, T

    H. Akagi, T. Otobe, A. Staudte, A. Shiner, F. Turner, R. Drner, D.M. Villeneuve, and P. B. Corkum, Science 325, 1364 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    Itatani, J

    J. Itatani, J. Levesque, D. Zeidler, H. Niikura, H. P´ epin, J. C. Kieffer, P. B. Corkum, and D. M. Villeneuve, Na- ture (London) 432, 867 (2004)

    2004

  40. [48]

    Smirnova and M

    O. Smirnova and M. Y. Ivanov, in Attosecond and XUV Spectroscopy: Ultrafast Dynamics and Spectroscopy , edited by T. Schultz and M. J. J. Vrakking (Wiley, New York, 2014), pp. 201256

    2014

  41. [49]

    H. Kang, W. Quan, Y. Wang, Z. Lin, M. Wu, H. Liu, X. Liu, B. B. Wang, H. J. Liu, Y. Q. Gu, X. Y. Jia, J. Liu, J. Chen, and Y. Cheng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203001 (2010)

    2010

  42. [50]

    B. B. Augstein and C. Figueira de Morisson Faria, J. Phys. B 44, 055601 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

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