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 · Catalogue · 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#
{
"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#
{
"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#
{
"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#
{
"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#
{
"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 review register for the checks and decisions.