Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Attosecond Transient Absorption Study of Coherent Hole Oscillation in Ar+

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The relative phases of the 23 fs oscillations in nine Ar+ absorption lines encode the signs of the transition dipole moments, so attosecond transient absorption can extract dipole sign information that static line intensities cannot give.

desk verdict Solid ATAS measurement of Ar+ coherence with a real phase-prediction success, but the headline ν8 dipole-sign claim rests on an ad hoc flip and lacks independent verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10261 v1 pith:PEWOBNK2 submitted 2025-08-14 physics.atom-ph physics.opticsquant-ph

Nisnat Chakraborty , Miguel Alarcon , Michael P. McDonnell , Karl Hauser , Islam Shalaby , Dipayan Biswas , James K. Wood , Nikolay V. Golubev
show 1 more author
Arvinder Sandhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-phphysics.opticsquant-ph
keywords attosecondtransientabsorptionspin-orbitcoherenceargoncationstrong-fieldionizationtransitiondipolemomentsholedynamicsACStarkcontrolphaseanalysis
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

An intense mid-infrared pulse ionizes argon, leaving a hole in the 3p shell and a coherent superposition of the two spin-orbit split ground states of Ar+. A delayed extreme-ultraviolet pulse probes nine absorption lines whose strengths oscillate at the 23 fs period set by the 0.177 eV splitting. By comparing the phases of these oscillations, the paper shows that each line's phase offset is governed by the sign of the product of the two transition dipoles that connect the initial states to the probed final state, together with overlap of nearby Lorentzian lines. This makes attosecond transient absorption sensitive to dipole sign information that static line intensities cannot provide. The measured phases also expose a sign error in the hydrogenic model for one transition, ν8, which is corrected by flipping that dipole's sign.

What carries the argument

The key object is the perturbative transient-absorption cross-section $\sigma(\omega,\tau)$ (Eq. (2)), specifically its oscillating part (Eqs. (7) and (10)): terms like $|c_1||c_2|\,\mu_{1f}\mu_{f2}\,L_{f1}(\omega)\sin[\epsilon_{12}\tau+\phi_{f1}(\omega)]$ show that each line's beat phase is set by the common initial-state coherence $\epsilon_{12}$ plus a frequency-dependent phase from the Lorentzian denominator, with an overall sign from the dipole product $\mu_{1f}\mu_{f2}$. This formula carries the argument because it converts measured phase offsets into statements about dipole signs.

What would settle it

Compute the Ar+ 3p→3d dipole matrix elements including electron correlation and check the sign of the ν8 transition dipole; if the sign agrees with the hydrogenic model, the paper's ad hoc sign flip and its phase interpretation are contradicted. Alternatively, remeasure the ν8 oscillation with a probe narrow enough to remove overlap with the neighboring line; if the fractional phase offset persists, the overlap mechanism is not the sole explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the relative phases and intensities of the 23 fs beats in the nine Ar+ absorption lines are not free parameters: in the perturbative limit the oscillating part of the cross section is a sum over pathways k→f→j, each weighted by the dipole product $\mu_{kf}\mu_{fj}$ and by a Lorentzian line-shape phase $\phi_{fk}(\omega)$. When two lines share the same final state and are well separated, the oscillation phase is either 0 or $\pi$ depending on the sign of the dipole product; when lines overlap, the Lorentzian tails mix the phases, producing fractional offsets such as $3\pi/4$. The paper demonstrates both effects experimentally and reproduces them with time-dependent S

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that every measured phase offset between oscillation lineouts is produced solely by the dipole sign products and Lorentzian line overlap, with the global ionization phase, lifetimes, initial populations, and probe parameters fixed correctly—so the ν8 mismatch is blamed on a wrong dipole sign rather than on an unmodeled neutral transition or an incorrect global phase; the paper itself notes in the Conclusion that a more comprehensive treatment including th

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Phase-resolved attosecond transient absorption can determine the relative signs of transition dipole moments connecting a coherent pair of initial states to final states, information inaccessible from line intensities alone.
  • The analytic perturbative formulas give a simple map from measured phase offsets to dipole sign products, so the method does not require a full numerical simulation for interpretation.
  • A measured 0/$\pi$ phase flip between spectral regions is a direct consequence of a dipole sign flip, making such phase flips a diagnostic for sign changes across Rydberg series.
  • A strong MIR control pulse induces transient AC Stark shifts and changes in a neutral autoionizing line while leaving the ionic coherence's phase and period unaltered, supporting non-destructive optical control of electronic coherences.
  • The sign error found for the ν8 dipole in the hydrogenic model implies that high-lying ionic states need correlated electronic-structure treatment rather than hydrogenic radial integrals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the same phase-ratio diagnostic could be applied to other spin-orbit-split ions to map sign patterns of dipole moments across Rydberg series, providing a benchmark set for atomic-structure codes.
  • Beyond the paper: because phase offsets depend on Lorentzian line spacing, shaped or narrowband probes might tune the overlap and, in principle, engineer beats with designed phases.
  • Beyond the paper: if the global strong-field-ionization phase is actually state-dependent, the extracted dipole signs would be contaminated; this assumption is testable with pump-polarization or intensity scans.
  • Beyond the paper: the demonstrated robustness of the superposition to a strong MIR control pulse suggests a path toward all-optical, non-destructive control of spin-orbit coherence in atomic ions.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an attosecond transient absorption study of Ar+ prepared by strong-field ionization with an intense mid-infrared pulse. Nine absorption lines from the 3p^5 spin-orbit doublet to nd final states are observed to oscillate with the 23 fs period set by the 0.177 eV spin-orbit splitting. The authors characterize the relative phases of these oscillations, show that some phase offsets follow from the sign products of transition dipole moments and from Lorentzian line overlap, and support their interpretation with both a perturbative analytic model and full TDSE simulations. They also demonstrate that a delayed MIR control pulse induces transient AC Stark shifts and modifies neutral autoionizing features without permanently altering the ionic coherence. The central claim is that the measured phases reveal sign information about transition dipole moments, specifically that the ν8 dipole sign is opposite to the prediction of the hydrogenic model used in the calculations.

Significance. If the phase interpretation is correct, the work establishes a genuinely new observable: relative phases of ATAS oscillations carry dipole-sign information that is not accessible from static line intensities. The analytic expressions in Sec. III B and Appendix B are valuable and connect cleanly to the TDSE simulations, which reproduce the measured spectrograms visually. The control-pulse demonstration of coherence preservation under a strong Stark field is also interesting and potentially useful. However, the dipole-sign claim rests on an ad hoc sign flip for ν8 and on a fitted global phase, and the phase extraction is presented without uncertainties. The significance is therefore conditional: the paper demonstrates a promising method, but the headline claim about measuring dipole signs is not yet established at the confidence level implied by the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV A, Fig. 5] The central claim that the measured phases reveal that the ν8 dipole has the opposite sign to the hydrogenic prediction is supported by an ad hoc sign flip, not by an independent calculation or measurement. The dipole model in Appendix A, Eq. (A4), uses hydrogenic radial functions with Z=2 and imposes δ_{LpL'p}δ_{SpS'p}, so it neglects electron correlation and channel mixing. A wrong radial integral or an inaccurate line-overlap treatment could produce phase shifts similar to those attributed to the sign flip. The authors should supply an independent high-level calculation of the dipole signs (e.g., GRASP2K) or a systematic sensitivity study varying dipole magnitudes, lifetimes, and line positions to demonstrate that the phase observable uniquely fixes the ν8 sign. As written, the claim is a fit parameter, not a prediction.
  2. [Sec. III B and Figs. 4, 5] The phase analysis depends on the global phase φ, introduced in Sec. III B and adjusted to "better match" the data. If φ is fitted separately for different regions or lines, it can absorb model errors and undermine the relative-phase interpretation. The manuscript does not state how φ was determined, whether it is common to all lines, or what its uncertainty is. In addition, no error bars or confidence intervals are given for the experimentally extracted phases; Figs. 4 and 5 show scatter but no quantitative phase fits. The paper should describe the phase-extraction procedure, including the fitting function and the uncertainty propagation from the measured lineouts, before claiming that a π or 3π/4 phase offset is physically significant.
  3. [Eq. (10) and Sec. IV A] The two-final-state formula in Eq. (10) is used to interpret all R3 phase offsets under the assumptions that only the two spin-orbit initial states and two final states contribute, that the initial populations are equal, that the probe is Gaussian with fixed width, and that the ionization step can be compressed into a global phase. The Conclusion explicitly states that "theoretical assignment of a physical meaning to the phases of oscillations would also require a more comprehensive treatment of the atom encompassing the ionization step." This is a load-bearing limitation. The abstract and Sec. IV A should be moderated to say that the data are consistent with the dipole-sign interpretation, not that they reveal the sign with certainty, unless the omitted physics is shown to be negligible for the specific phase observables.
  4. [Sec. IV A, Figs. 3-5] The agreement between the "improved" theory and the experimental lineouts is described as remarkable, but it is assessed only visually. A quantitative comparison is needed, particularly for the ν8 and ν9 lines where the original model fails and the sign flip is introduced. The paper should report the phase residuals between experiment and theory, the goodness of fit, and the sensitivity of the conclusion to the assumed linewidths, lifetimes, and probe parameters. Without this, the reader cannot distinguish a robust phase measurement from a multi-parameter fit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The parameter in the Gaussian envelope is written as "FWMH" but should be "FWHM".
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The meaning of the φ values in the caption is ambiguous. Are these the global phase used in the calculation, the fitted phase of the lineout, or the phase offset relative to ν1? Please clarify.
  3. [Sec. III A] The assumption of an equal linear superposition of the six magnetic sublevels is stated without justification. Since strong-field ionization can populate magnetic sublevels unequally, a brief argument or a reference is needed, especially because initial populations enter Eq. (10) and affect the lineoverlap phases.
  4. [Fig. 6] The panel labels (a'), (a), and (a'') are visually confusing. It would help to label them explicitly as "before control," "during control," and "after control" in the figure itself or in a clearer caption.
  5. [Appendix B, Eq. (B12)] The notation τ12 for the phase of c*_1 c_2 is introduced but not used consistently with the main-text Eqs. (7) and (10). Please align the notation between the main text and the appendix.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Ad hoc ν8 sign flip is fitted to the measured phase it is then said to reveal; only the R1/R2 phase flip is a genuine prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV A (two-pulse experiment), paragraph introducing the ad hoc ν8 sign change (near Fig. 5)]
    "To correct a potential inaccuracy of our approach in obtaining the phases in region R3, we made an ad hoc change to the sign of the dipole moment for transition ν8 in Tab. I. The lineouts of the absorption lines computed with this “improved” version of our computational scheme are depicted by solid lines in Fig. 5. The agreement between the “improved” model and the experimental data is remarkable."

    The paper's central claim is that measured oscillation phases reveal the sign of the ν8 dipole (abstract: "The analysis of phase relations between the oscillations reveals important information about transition dipole moments"; Sec. IV A: ATAS is capable of probing "signs of the dipole moments"). But the ν8 sign is not predicted: it is the single parameter flipped by hand ('ad hoc change') to make the calculated lineout phase match the measured phase, which is then cited as the evidence for the sign. In Eq. (10), the product μ1f2μf22 controls in/out-of-phase character; flipping that sign flips the line by π, exactly the observed ν8/ν9 discrepancy. The 'remarkable' agreement of the 'improved' theory is therefore achieved by construction: the fit parameter is reported as the finding. The Con

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III B (ATAS theory), last paragraph]
    "Furthermore, we introduce a global phase φ, arising as a result of the SFI, such that c∗ kcj = |ck||cj|eiφ, which we will adjust to shift the overall signal to better match the experimentally measured spectra."

    The absolute phase anchoring the comparison is a free parameter ('which we will adjust to shift the overall signal to better match the experimentally measured spectra'), and the experimental phases in Figs. 4–5 are themselves obtained by fitting sine lineouts ('experimental fit'; φ=0, π, 3π/4 in Fig. 4; φ=-π/4, π/4, π/4, 0 in Fig. 5). Although φ is nominally global and cannot by itself create the relative ν1–ν8 3π/4 offset, the value of φ is fitted to the same spectra whose relative phases constitute the claim, and the residual relative phase is then reproduced by flipping the ν8 sign. A parameter-free prediction would require the ionization-step wavefunction phase to be computed, which the authors explicitly defer: "theoretical assignment of a physical meaning to the phases of oscillation

full rationale

Score 5: partial circularity. The R1/R2 phase-flip prediction is genuinely independent: the hydrogenic dipole model of Appendix A yields opposite signs for the R1 vs R2 dipole products, and Eq. (10) then predicts the observed π phase flip between ν1 and ν3 with no parameter adjustment ('according to our estimations of the relevant dipoles (see Appendix A), the relative sign between the dipoles in the region R1 is flipped compared to the R2 lines... Accordingly, the oscillations in the region R1 are out of phase compared to those in region R2'). This gives external, independent content to part of the claim that ATAS carries dipole-sign information for well-separated lines. However, the specific ν8 dipole-sign result—the paper's headline novelty—reduces to a fit: the sign is changed ad hoc to match the measured ν8/ν9 phases, and the 'improved' agreement is then presented as a measurement outcome. The global phase φ is also adjusted to match the spectra, and the experimental phases are extracted by fitting lineouts. The Conclusion's disclaimer ('We were able to find system parameters that reproduce the experimentally measured oscillations... theoretical assignment of a physical meaning to the phases... would require a more comprehensive treatment of the atom encompassing the ionization step') confirms that the ν8 claim is a parameterized reproduction rather than a parameter-free prediction. No other circular patterns (uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation, renaming known results, self-citation chain) are present: Appendix B explicitly re-derives Eq. (2) from perturbation theory, and the self-citations (Refs. [26], [37]) are not load-bearing for the dipole-sign claim. Because the circular fit concerns one specific parameter in a model whose other phase relations are independently predicted, the paper does not fully collapse—but the central ν8 finding is not independently verified.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's main added assumptions are the equal-population initial superposition, the hydrogenic dipole model with Z = 2, and the reduced Hilbert space; the two fitted parameters (global phase φ, sign of ν8 dipole) are the most consequential for the central dipole-sign claim.

free parameters (6)
  • Global phase φ = chosen to match experimental spectra (not quoted numerically)
    Introduced in Sec. III B as c*_k c_j = |c_k||c_j| e^{iφ} and 'adjusted to shift the overall signal to better match the experimentally measured spectra.' This is a fit parameter.
  • Sign of dipole moment for ν8 = flipped from the hydrogenic model value
    Sec. IV A: 'we made an ad hoc change to the sign of the dipole moment for transition ν8 in Tab. I' to improve agreement with measured phases. A discrete parameter fitted to data.
  • Exponential decay time for Fourier filter = 40 fs
    Sec. III C: applied to the dipole moment in the TDSE to mimic finite lifetimes and converge the Fourier transform. This sets effective linewidths in the simulation.
  • MIR intensity = 20 TW/cm2
    Table II lists the MIR intensity used in simulations; chosen to match experimental conditions.
  • XUV harmonic intensities = 5e-4 TW/cm2 each
    Table II lists probe intensities; chosen to approximate a weak probe in the simulation.
  • XUV FWHM = 3 fs
    Table II lists probe duration; chosen to match the experimental harmonic pulse train.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Initial ionic state is an equal linear superposition of the six spin-orbit states of Ar+ 3s2 3p5 (2P3/2 and 2P1/2)
    Sec. III A: 'We assume an equal linear superposition of those six initial states as there no reason to favor any of the magnetic quantum numbers due to the symmetry of the experiment.'
  • ad hoc to paper Transition dipole moments are evaluated with the hydrogenic approximation and effective nuclear charge Z = 2
    Appendix A, Eq. (A4): radial integrals approximated by hydrogen-like orbitals with Z = 2; electron correlation neglected. This is the model later corrected ad hoc for ν8.
  • domain assumption Weak-probe first-order perturbation theory is valid for the XUV probe
    Appendix B derives Eq. (2) assuming first-order perturbation; all phase analysis in Sec. IV A rests on this expression.
  • domain assumption Fields are Gaussian, linearly polarized along z, with zero carrier-envelope phase
    Sec. III C, Eq. (4): all fields assumed Gaussian with zero CEP and fixed polarization.
  • domain assumption The reduced Hilbert space reproduces the full 3238-state TDSE results
    Sec. III C: 'the reduced model produced the absorption cross-section visually indistinguishable from the one obtained with the full system' while being computationally cheaper.
  • domain assumption NIST energies and state assignments are accurate
    Sec. III A and Table I rely on the NIST Atomic Spectra Database for level energies and configurations.
  • domain assumption Dipole approximation is valid for MIR and XUV interactions
    Sec. III C: 'Assuming the validity of the dipole approximation, we constructed the total Hamiltonian...'

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Attosecond Transient Absorption Study of Coherent Hole Oscillation in Ar+." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEWOBNK2

@misc{pith2026250810261,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Attosecond Transient Absorption Study of Coherent Hole Oscillation in Ar+},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEWOBNK2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10261}
}
read the original abstract

We report on the observation, characterization, and control of the electron dynamics in ionized argon atoms. We utilized an intense mid-infrared (MIR) pulse to create a coherent superposition of the spin-orbit split ground state of the ion. A weak extreme ultraviolet (XUV) pulse then probes the hole oscillation through time-resolved transient absorption spectroscopy. We investigated several 3p to nd transitions accessible with our XUV high harmonics which show a 23fs beat corresponding to the energy separation between the initially populated states. The experimental attosecond transient absorption signals for different pathways were simulated using detailed TDSE simulations and perturbative analytic calculations. The analysis of phase relations between the oscillations reveals important information about transition dipole moments in the system. In addition, we employed another strong MIR pulse to achieve transient control over the absorption by inducing Stark shifts of the states without affecting the electronic coherences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.10261 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic of the transient absorption spectroscopy setup. A commercial Yb-based laser, coupled with a 2.75 m long [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic representation of the experiment for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Experimentally measured (left column) and theoretically simulated (right column) time-resolved transient absorption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Lineouts from Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimentally measured (dots) and theoretically simulated (lines) absorption lineouts for the transitions connecting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Experimentally measured (top panels) and theoretically simulated (bottom panels) absorption spectra of argon ions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum attomicroscopy: imaging quantum chemistry in action

    physics.chem-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations predict inner-valence ionization of thymine–adenine and cytosine–guanine base pairs launches sub-femtosecond charge migration across the hydrogen-bonded interface, and a scanning-tunneling-based 'Q-attomic...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Krausz and M

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

    2009

  2. [2]

    H. J. W¨ orner, C. A. Arrell, and N. Banerji, Charge migra- tion and charge transfer in molecular systems, Structural Dynamics 4, 061508 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Santra, V

    R. Santra, V. S. Yakovlev, T. Pfeifer, and Z.-H. Loh, Theory of attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy of strong-field-generated ions, Phys. Rev. A 83, 033405 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Wirth, M

    A. Wirth, M. T. Hassan, I. Grguraˇ s, J. Gagnon, A. Moulet, T. T. Luu, S. Pabst, R. Santra, Z. A. Alahmed, A. M. Azzeer, V. S. Yakovlev, V. Pervak, F. Krausz, and E. Goulielmakis, Synthesized light tran- sients, Science 334, 195 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    Ferray, A

    M. Ferray, A. L’Huillier, X. F. Li, L. A. Lompre, G. Main- fray, and C. Manus, Multiple-harmonic conversion of 1064 nm radiation in rare gases, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 21, L31 (1988)

    1988

  7. [7]

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

    1994

  8. [8]

    Calegari, G

    F. Calegari, G. Sansone, S. Stagira, C. Vozzi, and M. Nisoli, Advances in attosecond science, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 062001 (2016)

    2016

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Popmintchev, C

    T. Popmintchev, C. Hern´ andez-Garc ´ ıa, F. Dollar, C. A. Mancuso, A. Guggenmos, T. Gaumnitz, M.-C. Chen, C. Gentry, C. Altucci, T. Pfeifer, M. M. Murnane, and H. C. Kapteyn, Attosecond science based on high har- monic generation from gases and solids, Nature Commu- nications...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hentschel, R

    M. Hentschel, R. Kienberger, C. Spielmann, G. A. Rei- der, N. Milosevic, T. Brabec, P. B. Corkum, U. Heinz- mann, M. Drescher, and F. Krausz, Attosecond metrol- ogy, Nature 414, 509 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Mairesse and F

    Y. Mairesse and F. Qu´ er´ e, Frequency-resolved optical gating for complete reconstruction of attosecond bursts, Physical Review A 71, 011401 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Itatani, F

    J. Itatani, F. Qu´ er´ e, G. L. Yudin, M. Y. Ivanov, F. Krausz, and P. B. Corkum, Attosecond streak cam- era, Physical Review Letters 88, 173903 (2002)

    2002

  5. [13]

    P. M. Paul, E. S. Toma, P. Breger, G. Mullot, F. Auge, P. Balcou, H. G. Muller, and P. Agostini, Observation of a train of attosecond pulses from high harmonic generation, Science 292, 1689 (2001)

    2001

  6. [14]

    Mairesse, A

    Y. Mairesse, A. de Bohan, L. J. Frasinski, H. Merdji, L. C. Dinu, P. Monchicourt, P. Breger, M. Kovacev, R. Ta ¨ ıeb, B. Carr´ e, H. G. Muller, P. Agostini, and P. Sali` eres, Attosecond synchronization of high-harmonic soft x-rays, Science 302, 1540 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Rupenyan, P

    A. Rupenyan, P. M. Kraus, J. Schneider, and H. J. W¨ orner, High-harmonic spectroscopy of isoelectronic molecules: Wavelength scaling of electronic-structure and multielectron effects, Physical Review A 87, 033409 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Shalaby, N

    I. Shalaby, N. Chakraborty, S. Yanez-Pagans, J. Wood, D. Biswas, and A. Sandhu, Probing ultrafast excited- state dynamics using euv-ir six-wave-mixing emission spectroscopy, Optics Express 30, 46520 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Yanez-Pagans, N

    S. Yanez-Pagans, N. Harkema, A. Sandhu, C. Cariker, and L. Argenti, Nonperturbative effects in attosec- ond four-wave-mixing spectra, Physical Review A 112, 013107 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Timmers, Z

    H. Timmers, Z. Li, N. Shivaram, R. Santra, O. Vendrell, and A. Sandhu, Coherent electron hole dynamics near a conical intersection, Physical Review Letters113, 113003 (2014)

    2014

  11. [19]

    Biswas, J

    D. Biswas, J. K. Wood, I. Shalaby, and A. S. Sandhu, Ul- trafast dynamics of the rydberg states of co2: Autoioniza- tion and dissociation lifetimes, Physical Review A 110, 043106 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Lucchini, S

    M. Lucchini, S. A. Sato, A. Ludwig, J. Herrmann, M. Volkov, L. Kasmi, Y. Shinohara, K. Yabana, L. Gall- 15 mann, and U. Keller, Attosecond dynamical franz- keldysh effect in polycrystalline diamond, Science 353, 916 (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    K. J. Gannan, L. B. Drescher, R. Quintero-Bermudez, N. Rana, C. Huang, K. Schafer, M. B. Gaarde, and S. R. Leone, Polarization-resolved core exciton dynamics in lif using attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy, Physical Review B 111, 134306 (2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    B. R. de Roulet, L. Drescher, S. A. Sato, and S. R. Leone, Initial electron thermalization in metals measured by at- tosecond transient absorption spectroscopy, Physical Re- view B 110, 174301 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Goulielmakis, Z.-H

    E. Goulielmakis, Z.-H. Loh, A. Wirth, R. Santra, N. Rohringer, V. S. Yakovlev, S. Zherebtsov, T. Pfeifer, A. M. Azzeer, M. F. Kling, S. R. Leone, and F. Krausz, Real-time observation of valence electron motion, Nature 466, 739 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Kobayashi, M

    Y. Kobayashi, M. Reduzzi, K. F. Chang, H. Timmers, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, Selectivity of electronic coherence and attosecond ionization delays in strong-field double ionization, Physical Review Letters 120, 233201 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    D. T. Matselyukh, V. Despr´ e, N. V. Golubev, A. I. Kuleff, and H. J. W¨ orner, Decoherence and revival in attosecond charge migration driven by non-adiabatic dynamics, Na- ture Physics 18, 1206 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    N. V. Golubev, J. c. v. Van ´ ıˇ cek, and A. I. Kuleff, Core- valence attosecond transient absorption spectroscopy of polyatomic molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 123001 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Shalaby, M

    I. Shalaby, M. McDonnell, C. Murphy, N. Chakraborty, K. Gray, J. Wood, D. Biswas, and A. Sandhu, Compara- tive study of spectral broadening and few-cycle compres- sion of yb:kgw laser pulses in gas-filled hollow-core fibers, Optics Continuum 4, 271 (2025)

    2025

  20. [28]

    Kramida, Y

    A. Kramida, Y. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and N. A. Team, Nist atomic spectra database (version 5.12), https:// physics.nist.gov/asd (2024), [Accessed: 2025-04-16]

    2024

  21. [29]

    Plunkett, M

    A. Plunkett, M. A. Alarc´ on, J. K. Wood, C. H. Greene, and A. Sandhu, Raman interferometry between autoion- izing states to probe ultrafast wave-packet dynamics with high spectral resolution, Physical Review Letters 128, 083001 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Tarana and C

    M. Tarana and C. H. Greene, Femtosecond transparency in the extreme-ultraviolet region, Physical Review A 85, 013411 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    M. Wu, S. Chen, S. Camp, K. J. Schafer, and M. B. Gaarde, Theory of strong-field attosecond transient ab- sorption, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 49, 062003 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    J¨ onsson, G

    P. J¨ onsson, G. Gaigalas, J. Biero´ n, C. F. Fischer, and I. Grant, New version: Grasp2K relativistic atomic struc- ture package, Computer Physics Communications 184, 2197 (2013)

    2013

  25. [33]

    Yanez-Pagans, C

    S. Yanez-Pagans, C. Cariker, M. Shaikh, L. Argenti, and A. Sandhu, Multipolariton control in attosecond tran- sient absorption of autoionizing states, Phys. Rev. A105, 063107 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    Harkema, C

    N. Harkema, C. Cariker, E. Lindroth, L. Argenti, and A. Sandhu, Autoionizing polaritons in attosecond atomic ionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 023202 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Cariker, S

    C. Cariker, S. Yanez-Pagans, N. Harkema, E. Lindroth, A. Sandhu, and L. Argenti, Autoionizing polaritons with the jaynes-cummings model, Phys. Rev. A 110, 063119 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    S. H. Autler and C. H. Townes, Stark effect in rapidly varying fields, Physical Review 100, 703 (1955)

    1955

  29. [37]

    Alarc´ on, K

    M. Alarc´ on, K. Hauser, and N. V. Golubev, Control of charge migration in spin-orbit split electronic states of Xe ion using stimulated Raman adiabatic passage technique, manuscript in preparation

  30. [38]

    A. R. Edmonds, Angular momentum in quantum me- chanics, Vol. 4 (Princeton university press, 1996)

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.