bauer_2018 ========== J\. H\. Bauer and M\. Deng, "Numerical tests of theoretical models describing ionization of H\(1s\) atom by linearly polarized flat pulse of laser radiation", Chin\. Phys\. B 27, 093202 \(2018\) `Source record `__ · :doc:`Catalogue ` · :doc:`Review register ` DOI: `10\.1088/1674\-1056/27/9/093202 `__ **Source kind:** theory **Recorded technique:** Numerical solution of the time\-dependent Schrodinger equation \(TDSE\) of atomic hydrogen in its ground state \(Z = 1, m = 0\: 'Since the azimuthal dipole selection rule is Delta m = 0 for linearly polarized radiation, m = 0 in this work', p\. 2\) in a linearly polarised field, in the nonrelativistic dipole approximation and the length gauge, by a generalized pseudospectral method 'extended to perform an optimal spatial grid discretization' \(ref\. 31, Tong and Chu, Chem\. Phys\. 217, 119 \(1997\)\); the results are said to be the same as velocity\-gauge calculations with QPROP \(ref\. 32\), not shown \(p\. 2\)\. The grid, the time step, the partial waves and the absorber are not stated\. The pulse, '2\-10\-2' \(p\. 3\)\: 'The peak field is constant for 10 cycles with two\-cycle sin^2 \(of the vector potential A\(t\)\) turn\-on and turn\-off time \(so the total duration of nonzero laser field is 14 cycles\)'; its carrier phase is not stated\. The intensity is I = F^2 in atomic units, F the plateau's peak field \(p\. 1\: 'F\_BSI = 0\.063 a\.u\.', '2\.5 F\_BSI = 0\.156 a\.u\. \.\.\. corresponds to the laser intensity I = F^2 = 8\.6 x 10^14 W/cm^2'; 1 au = 3\.51 x 10^16 W/cm^2, checked\)\. The probabilities are of the ground state, excitation and ionisation 'after the end of the pulse' \(p\. 3\); how the ionisation probability is computed \(one minus the bound populations, or otherwise\) is not stated\: the three sum to 1 within 0\.0012 in Figs\. 1 and 2 \(checked\)\. Compared with five cycle\-averaged rate models integrated over the pulse, P = 1 \- exp\(\-int w dt\) \('numerical integration of respective ionization rates over the exact laser pulse profile', p\. 4\)\: the WKB Keldysh model \(Eq\. 7's Coulomb factor in the length\-gauge S\-matrix rate, ref\. 36 Eq\. 32b\), F^\-2 x SFA \(Reiss; ref\. 10 Eq\. 45 times 1/F^2\), the TDWKB Keldysh model \(Eq\. 8, ref\. 35 Eq\. 19\), Popruzhenko et al\. \(ref\. 19\) and the PPT theory\. **Materials in structured entries:** H **Dataset quantities:** ionization\_yield, ionization\_yield\_spectrum **Contents:** 5 datasets; 0 formulas. Curation notes -------------- PDF pages 2\-9 = journal pages 093202\-1 to \-8 \(PDF page 1 is the journal's cover sheet\)\. Identity checked on PDF page 2 \(2026\-10\-02\)\: 'Numerical tests of theoretical models describing ionization of H\(1s\) atom by linearly polarized flat pulse of laser radiation', Jaroslaw H Bauer \(Uniwersytet Lodzki\) and Min Deng \(Tsinghua University\), '\(Received 27 April 2018; revised manuscript received 2 July 2018; published online 28 August 2018\)', Chin\. Phys\. B Vol\. 27, No\. 9 \(2018\) 093202, DOI 10\.1088/1674\-1056/27/9/093202\. WHAT IS PRINTED\. No table and no supplement\: the TDSE results are in Figs\. 1, 2 and 5\-8 only, all vector drawings \(matplotlib; text labels\)\. Fig\. 1 \(p\. 093202\-4, omega = 0\.057 au\) and Fig\. 2 \(0\.114 au\)\: ground\-state \(black open circles\), ionisation \(blue filled circles\) and excitation \(red squares\) probabilities against the peak intensity, 0\-4 x 10^14 W/cm^2, linear axes, 44 and 39 simulations\: 'Each circle or square corresponds to a single TDSE simulation\. B\-splines are used to display the curves\.' Fig\. 5 \(p\. \-5, 0\.057 au\) and Fig\. 6 \(0\.114 au\)\: the TDSE ionisation probability \('Gray solid curve'; grey markers on it, not mentioned in the caption\) with the five models' curves, \(a\) log\-log, \(b\) linear; captions\: 'There are exactly the same data in Figs\. 5\(a\) and 5\(b\)', 'TDSE data are the same as those in Fig\. 1' \(Fig\. 6\: 'in Fig\. 2'\)\. Figs\. 7 \(p\. \-5\) and 8 \(p\. \-6\)\: the three probabilities against the frequency omega, 0\.04\-0\.65 au, at F = 0\.02 and 0\.063 au, 'exact numerical TDSE results presented here \(with the help of B\-splines\)'\: curves only, the simulations' frequencies not shown\. 'lambda = 800 nm \(omega = 0\.057 a\.u\.\) and lambda = 400 nm \(omega = 0\.114 a\.u\.\)' \(p\. 3\); 800 nm is 0\.05695 au, 0\.057 au is 799\.4 nm; the figures print omega\. EXTRACTED \(2026\-10\-02\) by tools/extract/bauer\_2018\.py from the vector drawings, whose docstring describes the reading\: the axes calibrated from the frames' own ticks and text labels \(every tick within 0\.021 pt of its fitted scale; Figs\. 7 and 8's x axes, labelled at 10^\-1 only, from the log pattern of 13 ticks\), the markers' centres, the curves' vertices\. Fig\. 5\(a\)\: 35 TDSE markers, 7\.99e12\-3\.20e14 W/cm^2, P 1\.54e\-7 to 0\.998 \(fig5a\_tdse\_H\_800nm\)\. Fig\. 1\: 44 ionisation markers, 4\.9e12\-4\.0e14 W/cm^2, P to 0\.0001 \(fig1\_tdse\_H\_800nm\)\. Fig\. 6\(a\)\: 38 TDSE markers, 1\.0e13\-4\.0e14 W/cm^2, P 5\.75e\-5 to 0\.977 \(fig6a\_tdse\_H\_400nm; Fig\. 2's 39th simulation, 5e12 W/cm^2, lies left of the axis\)\. Figs\. 7 and 8\: the blue ionisation curve's 640 and 4511 vertices, omega 0\.040\-0\.645 au \(fig7\_tdse\_H\_spectrum\_F002, fig8\_tdse\_H\_spectrum\_F0063\); Fig\. 8's drawing is dense \(vertices 0\.03\-0\.16 pt apart, many at a repeated x\)\: every vertex is kept, only exact repeats of the vertex before dropped \(zero\-length segments and the joints of its 12 pieces\)\. FIG\. 5\(a\) IS NOT FIG\. 1 \(finding, the script's report\)\. Fig\. 5\(b\)'s 43 markers are Fig\. 1's \(the same intensities within 6e10 W/cm^2, probabilities within 0\.0003\) and Fig\. 6\(b\)'s 39 and Fig\. 6\(a\)'s 38 are Fig\. 2's \(6\(a\) within 0\.75 % where P \>= 0\.03\), as the captions say\. Fig\. 5\(a\)'s are not\: other intensities \(0\.80, 1\.00, 1\.04, 1\.20, 1\.28, 1\.40, 1\.52, 1\.60, 1\.76, 1\.80, 2\.08, 2\.20, 2\.40, 2\.60, 2\.80, 2\.96, 3\.00, 3\.84, 4\.72, 5\.60, 6\.47, 7\.35, 8\.23, 9\.11 x 10^13, then 1\.0, 1\.2, \.\.\., 2\.8, 3\.2 x 10^14 W/cm^2, against Fig\. 1's 0\.05, 0\.10, 0\.12, \.\.\. 0\.25, 0\.30, \.\.\. 1\.0, 1\.1, \.\.\. 2\.0, 2\.2, 2\.3, 2\.5, 3\.0, 3\.5, 4\.0 x 10^14\) and, at the intensities both have, other probabilities \(5\(a\) against Fig\. 1\: 1\.0e14 0\.0985/0\.0937, 1\.2e14 0\.188/0\.197, 1\.4e14 0\.313/0\.261, 1\.6e14 0\.472/0\.393, 1\.8e14 0\.653/0\.641, 2\.0e14 0\.852/0\.797, 2\.2e14 0\.828/0\.805\), saturating at 0\.998 where Fig\. 1 holds 0\.984\-0\.989\. Its grey curve is another too \(1\.4e14\: 0\.311 against 5\(b\)'s 0\.279\)\. Fig\. 8 sides with Fig\. 5\(a\)\: its ionisation at omega = 0\.057 au \(F = 0\.063 au, 1\.393e14 W/cm^2\) is 0\.317, Fig\. 5\(a\)'s markers there 0\.309, Fig\. 1's 0\.260; and Fig\. 7's at 0\.057 au \(F = 0\.02 au, 1\.404e13\) 1\.81e\-6, Fig\. 5\(a\)'s 2\.09e\-6\. Which calculation the 5\(a\) markers are, and why Fig\. 1 differs, is not stated; both are curated, as separate datasets\. OTHER CHECKS \(the script's checks\(\), 2026\-10\-02\)\. \(1\) The dashed I\_BSI lines of Figs\. 5 and 6 lie at 1\.3703e14\-1\.3705e14 W/cm^2, the printed 'I\_BSI = 1\.37 x 10^14 W\.cm^\-2' \(F\_BSI = 1/16 au\)\: a check of every intensity axis\. \(2\) The text's pairs F, I agree with I = F^2 in atomic units \(0\.156 au and 8\.6e14; 0\.063 and 1\.37e14; 0\.053 and 1\.0e14; 0\.107 and 4\.0e14; 0\.038 and 5e13; 0\.027 and 2\.5e13 W/cm^2\), so the abscissa is the plateau's peak intensity, cycle\-averaged convention\. \(3\) In Figs\. 1 and 2 the ground\-state, excitation and ionisation probabilities sum to 1\.0005\-1\.0012\. \(4\) The text on Figs\. 1 and 2\: at 0\.057 au 'the excitation is negligible \(less than 10%\)'\: at most 0\.069 \(1\.6e14\); at 0\.114 au it 'can reach a level of up to 30% near I = 1\.5 x 10^14'\: 0\.29 at 1\.5e14, at most 0\.34 at 1\.7e14; 'Near I = 3\.5 x 10^14 \.\.\. some 10% of atoms which become excited'\: 0\.15; 'Above I = 4\.0 x 10^14 the H\(1s\) atom becomes nearly fully ionized'\: 0\.989 and 0\.973 at 4\.0e14\. \(5\) Fig\. 7's excitation humps at omega = 0\.379 and 0\.457 au, the text's 0\.375 \(E\_2 \- E\_1\) and 0\.444 \(E\_3 \- E\_1\); Fig\. 8's at 0\.118 and 0\.228, the text's 'near omega = 0\.114' and 0\.228; Fig\. 8's excitation exceeds the ionisation over 0\.347\-0\.506 au, which covers the text's '~0\.37 a\.u\. \<= omega \<= ~0\.47 a\.u\.' \(and over 0\.111\-0\.131\)\. These check Figs\. 7 and 8's frequency axes\. \(6\) The text's thresholds\: ionisation of '1% or so' from ~5 x 10^13 \(0\.057 au\) and ~2\.5 x 10^13 W/cm^2 \(0\.114 au\)\: Fig\. 5\(a\) 0\.0094 at 5\.6e13, Fig\. 1 0\.0048 at 5\.0e13 and 0\.0091 at 5\.5e13, Fig\. 6\(a\) 0\.0095 at 2\.5e13\. \(7\) The extracted points drawn on the rendered pages and inspected \(2026\-10\-02\)\: every marker captured once, the curves followed\. THE CURVES ARE SMOOTHING B\-SPLINES\. In Figs\. 5 and 6 the grey TDSE curve does not pass through its own markers\: it departs from them by up to 5\-11 % where P \>= 0\.1 and up to 18 % below \(Fig\. 5\(a\); 0\.072\-0\.108 in the other panels where P \>= 0\.02\)\. Figs\. 7 and 8's curves are drawn the same way through simulations at frequencies not shown, so their structure between simulations is the spline's, and a value read from them can miss the simulation by as much\: their uncertainty, 20 %, is that judgement, not the digitising \(0\.2 %\)\. Fig\. 7 against Fig\. 6\(a\) at omega = 0\.114 au and the same field\: 2\.95e\-4 against 4\.43e\-4; Fig\. 8\: 0\.150 against 0\.141\. NOT CURATED\. The excitation and ground\-state probabilities \(Figs\. 1 and 2's markers at the same intensities as the ionisation; Figs\. 7 and 8's curves\)\: no quantity of the vocabulary holds an excitation or survival probability\. Fig\. 7 \(F = 0\.02 au\)\: the ground state above 0\.95 below omega = 0\.34 au, dipping at the resonances near 0\.375 and 0\.444 au, where the excitation reaches 0\.84 and 0\.21; the excitation exceeds the ionisation over 0\.090\-0\.113, 0\.151\-0\.276 and 0\.310\-0\.508 au; Fig\. 8 \(F = 0\.063 au\)\: excitation humps at 0\.118 \(0\.31; 'the states \(n, l\) with l = 3, l = 1, and n = 6, 7, 8'\) and 0\.228 au \(0\.089; 'the state \(3, 2\)'\), and 0\.82\-0\.92 near 0\.38\-0\.45 au \('the states \(2, 1\) and \(3, 1\)'\)\. Text\: at 0\.114 au and 1\.5e14 'mainly the states with l = 3 and l = 1 \(and some spread in n\) are populated', near 3\.5e14 'l = 2'\. The models' curves \(Figs\. 3\-6\: rates against F in Figs\. 3 and 4; probabilities in Figs\. 5 and 6\)\: optmat has its own; the text\: WKB Keldysh and F^\-2 x SFA \(Reiss\) agree best with the TDSE at low intensity, Popruzhenko et al\. and PPT 'for higher peak intensities \.\.\. \(\>= ~0\.1\)', TDWKB underestimates small and overestimates large probabilities; 'the agreement \.\.\. is better in Fig\. 5\(a\) than in Fig\. 6\(a\)'\. Fig\. 5\(b\)'s and 6\(b\)'s markers \(Figs\. 1's and 2's\), Fig\. 2 \(Fig\. 6\(a\)'s simulations, on a linear axis\)\. WHAT THE TDSE YIELD IS\. The probability that the one electron of hydrogen \(infinite nuclear mass assumed, not stated\) is ionised after the 14\-cycle pulse; the plateau, 10 cycles of constant peak field, makes the abscissa close to a constant\-intensity exposure \(S\-matrix theories assume one\: 'turn\-on and turn\-off time are much shorter than the flat part of the pulse', p\. 3\)\. The TDSE's numerical accuracy is not stated\. REGISTER\. Curated in TC\-834; the comparison with optmat's hydrogen model is optmat\.gas\.ionisation\_validation\.hydrogen\_yields \(TC\-833\)\. **Recorded bibliographic identity status:** VALIDATED. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents. Datasets -------- bauer\_2018/fig5a\_tdse\_H\_800nm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "fig5a_tdse_H_800nm", "material": "H", "file": "H/bauer_2018__fig5a_tdse_H_800nm.csv", "table": "fig_e778f524ee82", "digitised": "vector", "quantity": "ionization_yield", "unit": "1", "abscissa": "intensity", "abscissa_unit": "W/cm2", "use": "check", "uncertainty": { "relative": 0.01, "level": "not stated" }, "parameters": { "wavelength_nm": 800, "omega_au": 0.057, "pulse_fs": 37.33, "pulse_fs_definition": "total duration of the nonzero field, 14 cycles of omega = 0.057 au ('the total duration of nonzero laser field is 14 cycles', p. 093202-3); the plateau 10 cycles, 26.66 fs", "pulse_envelope": "flat top: 2-cycle sin^2 turn-on and turn-off of the vector potential, 10-cycle plateau ('2-10-2')", "pulse_cycles": 14, "polarization": "linear", "cep": "not stated", "intensity_definition": "I = F^2 in atomic units (3.51e16 W/cm^2), F the plateau's peak field", "measure": "the probability of ionisation after the end of the pulse; how it is computed is not stated (with the ground-state and excitation probabilities it sums to 1, Figs. 1 and 2)", "electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)", "orbital": "1s, m = 0", "potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (Z = 1)", "model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5, "method": "TDSE, generalized pseudospectral method with optimal spatial grid (Tong and Chu 1997), length gauge, dipole approximation; grid, time step and partial waves not stated" } } Fig\. 5\(a\), p\. 093202\-5, the grey markers on the 'Gray solid curve' \('exact numerical TDSE results'\)\: the TDSE ionisation probability of H\(1s\) after the 2\-10\-2 pulse at omega = 0\.057 au against the plateau's peak intensity, 35 points, 7\.99e12\-3\.20e14 W/cm^2, 1\.54e\-7 to 0\.998, read from the vector drawing \(log\-log\)\. NOT the simulations of Fig\. 1 that the caption says it shows\: other intensities and, at those both have, probabilities up to 20 % apart \(fig1\_tdse\_H\_800nm; the record's notes\); Fig\. 8 agrees with this dataset at 0\.057 au\. 1 %\: the digitising \(the y scale's ticks within 0\.021 pt of a 10\.9 pt\-per\-decade scale, 0\.45 %; Fig\. 6\(a\), drawn the same way, agrees with Fig\. 2 within 0\.75 %\); the intensities read 0\.05\-0\.1 % low of round values\. The TDSE's own accuracy is not stated\. bauer\_2018/fig1\_tdse\_H\_800nm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "fig1_tdse_H_800nm", "material": "H", "file": "H/bauer_2018__fig1_tdse_H_800nm.csv", "table": "fig_917161e2757b", "digitised": "vector", "quantity": "ionization_yield", "unit": "1", "abscissa": "intensity", "abscissa_unit": "W/cm2", "use": "check", "uncertainty": { "absolute": 0.001, "level": "not stated" }, "parameters": { "wavelength_nm": 800, "omega_au": 0.057, "pulse_fs": 37.33, "pulse_fs_definition": "total duration of the nonzero field, 14 cycles of omega = 0.057 au ('the total duration of nonzero laser field is 14 cycles', p. 093202-3); the plateau 10 cycles, 26.66 fs", "pulse_envelope": "flat top: 2-cycle sin^2 turn-on and turn-off of the vector potential, 10-cycle plateau ('2-10-2')", "pulse_cycles": 14, "polarization": "linear", "cep": "not stated", "intensity_definition": "I = F^2 in atomic units (3.51e16 W/cm^2), F the plateau's peak field", "measure": "the probability of ionisation after the end of the pulse; how it is computed is not stated (with the ground-state and excitation probabilities it sums to 1 within 0.0012)", "electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)", "orbital": "1s, m = 0", "potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (Z = 1)", "model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5, "method": "TDSE, generalized pseudospectral method with optimal spatial grid (Tong and Chu 1997), length gauge, dipole approximation; grid, time step and partial waves not stated" } } Fig\. 1, p\. 093202\-4, 'ionization \(blue solid curve\)', its markers \('Each circle or square corresponds to a single TDSE simulation'\)\: the TDSE ionisation probability of H\(1s\) after the 2\-10\-2 pulse at omega = 0\.057 au against the plateau's peak intensity, 44 points, 4\.9e12\-4\.0e14 W/cm^2, read from the vector drawing on a linear axis \(0 to 1, 101 pt per unit\)\: to 0\.0001, not resolved below about 0\.002 \(the lowest 14 points read 0\.0002\-0\.0005, the true values far smaller\)\. Fig\. 5\(b\) repeats these markers \(within 0\.0003\); Fig\. 5\(a\), said to, does not \(fig5a\_tdse\_H\_800nm; the record's notes\)\. The intensities 4\.93e12, 9\.92e12, \.\.\. read 0\.0007e14 W/cm^2 low of the printed grid's 0\.05, 0\.10, \.\.\. \(a 0\.03 pt offset\)\. 0\.001 absolute\: the digitising \(the three probabilities sum to 1\.0005\-1\.0012, Fig\. 5\(b\)'s copy within 0\.0003\)\. The TDSE's own accuracy is not stated\. bauer\_2018/fig6a\_tdse\_H\_400nm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "fig6a_tdse_H_400nm", "material": "H", "file": "H/bauer_2018__fig6a_tdse_H_400nm.csv", "table": "fig_79b9623bd88f", "digitised": "vector", "quantity": "ionization_yield", "unit": "1", "abscissa": "intensity", "abscissa_unit": "W/cm2", "use": "check", "uncertainty": { "relative": 0.01, "level": "not stated" }, "parameters": { "wavelength_nm": 400, "omega_au": 0.114, "pulse_fs": 18.66, "pulse_fs_definition": "total duration of the nonzero field, 14 cycles of omega = 0.114 au ('the total duration of nonzero laser field is 14 cycles', p. 093202-3); the plateau 10 cycles, 13.33 fs", "pulse_envelope": "flat top: 2-cycle sin^2 turn-on and turn-off of the vector potential, 10-cycle plateau ('2-10-2')", "pulse_cycles": 14, "polarization": "linear", "cep": "not stated", "intensity_definition": "I = F^2 in atomic units (3.51e16 W/cm^2), F the plateau's peak field", "measure": "the probability of ionisation after the end of the pulse; how it is computed is not stated (with the ground-state and excitation probabilities it sums to 1 within 0.0012, Fig. 2)", "electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)", "orbital": "1s, m = 0", "potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (Z = 1)", "model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5, "method": "TDSE, generalized pseudospectral method with optimal spatial grid (Tong and Chu 1997), length gauge, dipole approximation; grid, time step and partial waves not stated" } } Fig\. 6\(a\), p\. 093202\-5, the grey markers on the TDSE curve\: the TDSE ionisation probability of H\(1s\) after the 2\-10\-2 pulse at omega = 0\.114 au against the plateau's peak intensity, 38 points, 1\.0e13\-4\.0e14 W/cm^2, 5\.75e\-5 to 0\.977, read from the vector drawing \(log\-log\)\. The simulations of Fig\. 2 \(its ionisation markers, within 8e10 W/cm^2 in intensity, Fig\. 2's linear axis, and 0\.75 % in probability where P \>= 0\.03, Fig\. 2's resolution; its 5e12 W/cm^2 point lies left of this axis\)\. Non\-monotonic\: 0\.180 at 1\.1e14, 0\.117 at 1\.3e14 \(excitation to l = 3 and l = 1 states takes up to 0\.34, Fig\. 2\), 0\.941, 0\.941, 0\.833, 0\.977 at 2\.5, 3\.0, 3\.5, 4\.0e14\. 1 %\: the digitising \(the agreement with Fig\. 2\); the intensities read up to 0\.1 % low of round values\. The TDSE's own accuracy is not stated\. bauer\_2018/fig7\_tdse\_H\_spectrum\_F002 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "fig7_tdse_H_spectrum_F002", "material": "H", "file": "H/bauer_2018__fig7_tdse_H_spectrum_F002.csv", "table": "fig_ab49da534666", "digitised": "vector", "quantity": "ionization_yield_spectrum", "unit": "1", "abscissa": "wavelength", "abscissa_unit": "hartree", "use": "check", "uncertainty": { "relative": 0.2, "level": "not stated" }, "parameters": { "intensity_w_cm2": 14040000000000.0, "field_au": 0.02, "intensity_definition": "I = F^2 in atomic units (3.51e16 W/cm^2), F = 0.02 au the plateau's peak field", "pulse_cycles": 14, "pulse_envelope": "flat top: 2-cycle sin^2 turn-on and turn-off of the vector potential, 10-cycle plateau ('2-10-2'); the duration scales as 1/omega", "polarization": "linear", "cep": "not stated", "measure": "the probability of ionisation after the end of the pulse, drawn as a B-spline through the TDSE simulations ('with the help of B-splines'); the simulations' frequencies not shown", "electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)", "orbital": "1s, m = 0", "potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (Z = 1)", "model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5, "method": "TDSE, generalized pseudospectral method with optimal spatial grid (Tong and Chu 1997), length gauge, dipole approximation; grid, time step and partial waves not stated" } } Fig\. 7, p\. 093202\-5, 'ionization \(blue solid curve\)'\: the TDSE ionisation probability of H\(1s\) after the 2\-10\-2 pulse at the peak field F = 0\.02 au against the frequency omega \(au, the photon energy in hartree\), the curve's 640 vertices, omega 0\.040\-0\.645 au \(1140\-71 nm\), 3\.6e\-7 to 0\.058, read from the vector drawing \(log\-log; the x axis labelled at 10^\-1 only, checked by the excitation humps at the text's 0\.375 and 0\.444 au\)\. A B\-spline through simulations at frequencies not shown\: its structure between them is the spline's, and in Figs\. 5 and 6 such curves depart from their own markers by up to 18 %\. 20 %\: that judgement \(the digitising is 0\.2 %\)\. The pulse is 14 cycles at every omega \(37\.3 fs at 0\.057 au\)\. At omega = 0\.057 au\: 1\.81e\-6 \(Fig\. 5\(a\)'s markers 2\.09e\-6 at 1\.40e13 W/cm^2\); at 0\.114 au\: 2\.95e\-4 \(Fig\. 6\(a\)'s 4\.43e\-4\)\. The TDSE's own accuracy is not stated\. bauer\_2018/fig8\_tdse\_H\_spectrum\_F0063 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .. code-block:: text { "id": "fig8_tdse_H_spectrum_F0063", "material": "H", "file": "H/bauer_2018__fig8_tdse_H_spectrum_F0063.csv", "table": "fig_a558d83e4736", "digitised": "vector", "quantity": "ionization_yield_spectrum", "unit": "1", "abscissa": "wavelength", "abscissa_unit": "hartree", "use": "check", "uncertainty": { "relative": 0.2, "level": "not stated" }, "parameters": { "intensity_w_cm2": 139300000000000.0, "field_au": 0.063, "intensity_definition": "I = F^2 in atomic units (3.51e16 W/cm^2), F = 0.063 au the plateau's peak field as printed ('F = F_BSI = 0.063 a.u.'; F_BSI = 0.0625 au exactly would be 1.371e14 W/cm^2)", "pulse_cycles": 14, "pulse_envelope": "flat top: 2-cycle sin^2 turn-on and turn-off of the vector potential, 10-cycle plateau ('2-10-2'); the duration scales as 1/omega", "polarization": "linear", "cep": "not stated", "measure": "the probability of ionisation after the end of the pulse, drawn as a B-spline through the TDSE simulations ('with the help of B-splines'); the simulations' frequencies not shown", "electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)", "orbital": "1s, m = 0", "potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (Z = 1)", "model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5, "method": "TDSE, generalized pseudospectral method with optimal spatial grid (Tong and Chu 1997), length gauge, dipole approximation; grid, time step and partial waves not stated" } } Fig\. 8, p\. 093202\-6, 'ionization \(blue solid curve\)'\: the TDSE ionisation probability of H\(1s\) after the 2\-10\-2 pulse at the peak field F = F\_BSI = 0\.063 au against the frequency omega \(au, the photon energy in hartree\), the curve's 4511 vertices, omega 0\.040\-0\.645 au, 0\.036 to 0\.735, read from the vector drawing \(log\-log; the x axis labelled at 10^\-1 only, checked by the excitation humps at the text's 0\.114 and 0\.228 au\)\. The drawing is dense \(vertices 0\.03\-0\.16 pt apart, many sharing an x\)\: every vertex is kept, only exact repeats dropped\. A B\-spline through simulations at frequencies not shown \(as Fig\. 7\)\: 20 %, that judgement \(the digitising is 0\.2 %\)\. Whether F is 0\.063 au as printed \(1\.393e14 W/cm^2\) or F\_BSI = 1/16 = 0\.0625 au exactly \(1\.371e14\) is not stated\: 1\.6 % in intensity\. At omega = 0\.057 au\: 0\.317 \(Fig\. 5\(a\)'s markers 0\.309 at 1\.393e14 W/cm^2, Fig\. 1's 0\.260\); at 0\.114 au\: 0\.150 \(Fig\. 6\(a\)'s 0\.141\)\. The TDSE's own accuracy is not stated\. Formulas -------- No formulas are recorded. Corrections ----------- No dataset errata are recorded in this source record. Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the :doc:`review register ` for the checks and decisions.