zhao_2016#
S.-F. Zhao, A.-T. Le, C. Jin, X. Wang and C. D. Lin, “Analytical model for calibrating laser intensity in strong-field-ionization experiments”, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023413 (2016)
Source record · Catalogue · Review register
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.023413
Source kind: theory
Recorded technique: Numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger equation (TDSE) of a one-electron model atom in a linearly polarised field, in the length gauge (Eqs. 1-4, p. 2), by the time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method (refs. 59, 60): ‘The truncated radii are r_max = 400 a.u., r_0 = 390 a.u., the total spatial grid points N = 800, time step dt = 0.1 a.u., and up to 80 partial waves are used’, with the absorbing function cos^0.25[pi (r - r_0)/2(r_max - r_0)] for r >= r_0 (Eq. 5). The potential, Eq. (3): V(r) = -[1 + beta (a_1 e^(-a_2 r) + a_3 r e^(-a_4 r) + a_5 e^(-a_6 r))]/r, beta = 1 for real atoms; He, Ne and Ar with Tong and Lin’s parameters (ref. 57, tong_2005), Xe with the parameters the text prints (text_potential_Xe), Kr with Garvey et al.’s potential (ref. 58, Phys. Rev. A 12, 1144 (1975), not given here), H the bare Coulomb potential (not written out). The ionisation probability is P_tot = 1 - sum_n |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 over all the bound states at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6). Compared with the ‘improved PPT’ cycle-averaged rate (Eq. 7, Popruzhenko et al. 2008, ref. 47: PPT with the Coulomb factor (1 + 2 gamma/e)^(-2 Z_c/kappa)) and the ADK rate, P = 1 - exp(-int w dt) (Eq. 13).
Materials in structured entries: Ar, H, He, Kr, Ne, Xe
Dataset quantities: ionization_model_parameter, ionization_yield
Contents: 10 datasets; 0 formulas.
Curation notes#
PDF pages 1-10 = journal pages 023413-1 to -10. Identity checked on the first page (2026-10-01): ‘Analytical model for calibrating laser intensity in strong-field-ionization experiments’, Song-Feng Zhao, Anh-Thu Le, Cheng Jin, Xu Wang and C. D. Lin (Kansas State University; Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou; Nanjing University of Science and Technology), Phys. Rev. A 93, 023413 (2016), ‘(Received 28 September 2015; published 11 February 2016)’, DOI 10.1103/PhysRevA.93.023413.
WHAT IS PRINTED. No table of the calculations: the TDSE probabilities, the PPT and ADK curves and the correction factors are in Figs. 1-4 only (vector drawings; no supplement). Printed numbers (all checked against the figures, below): the correction factor ‘The average of the correction factors is taken to be 1.49’ (Fig. 1 caption; the text: ‘For simplicity, we took the average correction factor to be 1.49 for an 800-nm laser’, p. 2); Fig. 2’s legends ‘PPTX1.42’ (600 nm), ‘PPTX1.49’ (800), ‘PPTX1.36’ (1000), ‘PPTX1.26’ (1200) (read on the page; glyphs, not text); the text on Fig. 1(b): ‘the value oscillates with laser wavelength. By drawing a smooth curve again, the correction is between 1.1 and 1.4’; on Fig. 1(c): ‘a fictitious Ar atom where the parameter beta in Eq. (3) has been adjusted such that the ionization potential from the 3p shell is ranging from 8 to 16 eV. The smoothed correction factor thus derived covers from 1.4 to 1.1. These two results indicate the correction factor typically is within about a factor of 2’ (p. 2); on Fig. 1(a): ‘The correction factor oscillates but is within about a factor of 2 over the intensity range shown. The oscillation is due to the ionization probability from the TDSE calculations [61]’ (p. 2). Fig. 2 (p. 5): ‘ionization probabilities from the PPT and TDSE agree very well, whether the correction factor for PPT is used or not’, and ‘to read laser intensity from the PPT with and without the correction factor would amount to only a few percents in the retrieved peak laser intensity’ (p. 6). Fig. 3 (p. 6): ‘The uncorrected PPT probabilities are in good agreement with those from the TDSE in general’; ‘at gamma = 1.5, error from the ADK model is already a factor of about 10’. Conclusions (p. 9): the PPT model fits ‘the single-electron TDSE results and the experimental data over a broad range of laser intensities from the typical multiphoton regime to the tunneling ionization regime without the need of introducing a normalization factor’, and ‘is quite adequate for a broad range of Keldysh parameters where strong-field-ionization probability is significant (say higher than 10^-6)’. The recommendation: use the PPT (Eq. 7) without a factor in place of ADK. The pulses: ‘A Gaussian pulse with duration of 15 fs (FWHM)’ (Fig. 2) and ‘a Gaussian pulse with FWHM of 15 fs’ at 800 nm (Ar, Kr, Xe) and 400 nm (He, Ne) (Fig. 3); whether the FWHM is of the intensity or of the field, the carrier-envelope phase and Fig. 1’s pulse are not stated. The model atoms’ ionisation energies are not printed (Fig. 1(c)’s last point lies at 15.76 eV, Ar’s), nor which m of the p-shell atoms was propagated.
THE CORRECTION FACTOR IS ON THE RATE. Fig. 2’s insets plot the PPT (red stars) and ‘PPTX<factor>’ (black line): the line is 1 - (1 - P)^factor of the stars’ P, the factor multiplying the rate (the integral of Eq. 13), not the probability: at 800 nm, 1.3e14 W/cm^2, P = 0.0687 and the line 0.1006, a factor of 1.485 on the rate but 1.464 on P. Solved from the line, the factors are (where P >= 0.02) 1.42-1.44 (600 nm), 1.48-1.50 (800), 1.355-1.365 (1000), 1.255-1.265 (1200), the legends’ 1.42, 1.49, 1.36, 1.26 (the script’s checks).
EXTRACTED (2026-10-01) by tools/extract/zhao_2016.py from the vector drawing of Figs. 2 and 3 (p. 3), whose docstring describes the reading: the axes calibrated from the frames’ own ticks (Fig. 2: x 2 ... 14 x 10^13 W/cm^2, 186.4 pt per decade, y 10^-9 to 1, 13.49 pt per decade; Fig. 3: y 10^-7 to 1, 10.57 pt per decade, x 93-116 pt per decade), every tick within 0.07 pt of its fitted scale, the labels’ glyphs at the long ticks (checked); the TDSE markers’ centres (blue open circles), the legends’ excluded. Fig. 2: 25 points per wavelength at 2.0, 2.5, ..., 14.0 x 10^13 W/cm^2 (on that grid within 0.1 %). Fig. 3: equally spaced intensities, He 32 points 1.91e14-1.46e15 W/cm^2, Ne 31 points 9.6e13-8.6e14, Ar 41 points 4.0e13-2.5e14, Kr 37 points 2.0e13-1.53e14, Xe 29 points 1.17e13-8.6e13; He’s first point (1.908e14) is centred 2.1 pt left of the axis’s start (2e14) and Kr’s last (1.529e14) 0.9 pt beyond its end (1.5e14): read on the axis extended. Not curated as data: Fig. 2’s and 3’s PPT and ADK curves (models; optmat has its own), Fig. 2’s insets (the same TDSE points, a check), Fig. 4 (PPT/TDSE and ADK/TDSE of Fig. 3’s data), Fig. 5 (Awasthi et al. 2008’s H2 SAE-TDSE, awasthi_2008), Figs. 6-12 (measurements of others, molecular PPT), Tables I and II (molecules’ structure coefficients and geometries).
CHECKS (the script’s checks(), 2026-10-01). (1) Fig. 2’s insets, a linear axis labelled 6.0x10^13 ... 1.2x10^14 W/cm^2, put the same TDSE points (6.0 ... 13.0 x 10^13) at the same intensities within 0.1 % and the same probabilities within 1.6 % where P >= 0.01 (the largest difference, 600 nm at 1.3e14; 7e-4 absolute below): this confirms the main panels’ x axis, whose ticks are read as consecutive multiples of 10^13 W/cm^2 with one labelled long tick. (2) The Keldysh-parameter arrows (‘gamma=2’, ‘gamma=1.3’, ... read on the page) lie within 1.1 % (Fig. 2, hydrogen’s gamma with I_p = 0.5 hartree) and 1.3 % (Fig. 3, each gas’s ionisation energy) of the intensity of the printed gamma: an independent check of every x axis. (3) Fig. 1(a)’s dashed ‘Fitting with a constant’ lies at 1.4896 (‘1.49’); the solid curve averages 1.490 over 6.0e13-1.2e14 W/cm^2. (4) Fig. 1(b)’s averages at 600, 800, 1000 and 1200 nm read 1.4199, 1.4900, 1.3595, 1.2600: the legends’ 1.42, 1.49, 1.36, 1.26. (5) The insets’ ‘PPTX’ lines give the legends’ factors (above). (6) The extracted points drawn on the rendered page and inspected (2026-10-01): every TDSE marker captured once, the legends’ excluded.
FIG. 1 (p. 2, read by the script, NOT DATA: no quantity holds a ratio of a calculation to a model). (a) ‘The correction factor (TDSE/PPT) for the two cycle-averaged ionization probabilities of H atom versus laser intensity’, 800 nm: a smooth curve (1428 vertices) from 2.26 at 6.0e13 W/cm^2 down to 1.12 at 1.2e14, oscillating: minima 1.81 (6.5e13), 1.34 (8.05e13), 1.33 (9.0e13), 1.22 (1.03e14), maxima 2.09 (7.2e13), 1.52 (8.5e13), 1.45 (9.45e13), 1.26 (1.09e14); its mean over intensity 1.490. Fig. 2(b)’s TDSE/PPT (below) at the same intensities agrees with it within 3 % at 6.5, 7.0 and 8.5e13 W/cm^2 but not between: 1.63 against 1.34 at 8.0e13, 1.52 against 1.26 at 1.0e14, the coarser points of Fig. 2 sampling the oscillation differently, or another pulse (Fig. 1’s is not stated). (b) ‘The average correction factor of H atom versus laser central wavelength’ (red circles, two decimals as read; nm: factor): 600: 1.42, 650: 1.32, 700: 1.34, 750: 1.26, 800: 1.49, 850: 1.24, 900: 1.22, 950: 1.13, 1000: 1.36, 1050: 1.09, 1100: 1.10, 1150: 1.07, 1200: 1.26, 1250: 1.02, 1300: 1.03, 1350: 1.02, 1400: 1.19, 1450: 1.00, 1500: 1.14, 1550: 0.98, 1600: 1.09; the ‘Polynomial fit’ from 1.42 at 600 nm to 1.05 at 1600 nm. Over which intensities each average is taken (and the pulse) is not stated. (c) ‘The average correction factor of the scaled Ar atom versus ionization potential’, 800 nm (eV: factor): 8.0: 1.00, 8.5: 1.45, 8.75: 1.67, 9.0: 1.60, 9.25: 1.61, 9.5: 1.61, 9.6: 1.70, 9.7: 1.64, 9.8: 1.21, 9.9: 1.16, 10.0: 1.12, 10.5: 1.50, 11.0: 1.30, 11.5: 1.34, 12.0: 1.27, 12.5: 1.21, 13.0: 1.30, 13.5: 1.13, 14.0: 1.12, 14.5: 1.09, 15.0: 1.05, 15.76: 1.06; the fit from 1.44 at 8 eV to 1.10 at 14.6 eV and 0.93 at 16 eV. Every value read lies within 0.0006 of a two-decimal number. The averages oscillate by up to 0.3 between neighbours (channel closings); only the smoothed trend is meaningful.
TDSE OVER PPT FROM FIG. 2 (the script’s tdse_over_ppt(), reported; the PPT taken from the ‘PPTX’ line with the factor removed from the rate; ratios of P, those of the rates within 4 %): the ratio is not a constant but falls with intensity at every wavelength, oscillating: 600 nm 4.8 at 2e13 W/cm^2, 1.9-2.0 at 7-9e13, 1.3-1.6 at 1.1-1.35e14; 800 nm 5.3 at 2e13, 2.4-2.5 at 4-5.5e13, 1.5 at 9e13, 1.1-1.3 at 1.15-1.35e14; 1000 nm 3.6 at 2e13, 1.4-1.8 at 6-9e13, 1.1-1.3 at 1.1-1.35e14; 1200 nm 3.9 at 2e13, 1.5-1.9 at 6-7e13, 0.96-1.14 at 1.2-1.35e14. Hydrogen’s Keldysh parameter over Fig. 2’s 2.0e13-1.4e14 W/cm^2: 3.2-1.2 (600 nm), 2.4-0.90 (800), 1.9-0.72 (1000), 1.6-0.60 (1200). Over which intensities the printed factors are averaged is not stated (Fig. 1(a)’s 800 nm curve spans 6-12 x 10^13 W/cm^2, where gamma is 1.4-0.97); Fig. 2’s points over the insets’ 6-13 x 10^13 (gamma 1.8-1.2, 1.4-0.94, 1.1-0.75, 0.92-0.62) average 1.72, 1.56, 1.39 and 1.29 against the printed 1.42, 1.49, 1.36, 1.26: the coarse points sample the oscillation differently (at 800 nm Fig. 1(a)’s finer curve averages 1.49).
THE PPT CURVES REPRODUCED (2026-10-01, a calculation outside the record, with optmat.gas.ionisation_rates: short_range_rate_au with channel_sum = ‘sum’, times coulomb_factor ‘popruzhenko’, hydrogen I_p = 0.5, |C|^2 = 4, l = m = 0, integrated over a Gaussian of 15 fs FWHM of the intensity): Fig. 2’s PPT (the PPTX line with the factor removed) is 0.98 times it on average at every wavelength (0.92-1.00 over 2.0-1.35e14 W/cm^2). With the smooth channel integral it scatters 0.57-1.59 at 600 nm; with 15 fs as the FWHM of the field (10.6 fs of the intensity) the PPT is 1.38-1.40 times higher. So the paper’s Eq. (7) is optmat’s PPT with Popruzhenko’s factor and the discrete channel sum, and its 15 fs is the FWHM of the intensity (inferred, not stated).
THE XE POTENTIAL (text p. 2, text_potential_Xe): ‘For a Xe atom, a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4, a_5, and a_6 are taken to be 51.355 5, 2.111 6, -99.927 5, 3.737 2, 1.644 5 and 0.430 6, respectively’ (the digits grouped by thin spaces); Z_c = 1 (Eq. 3, beta = 1); 1 + a_1 + a_5 = 54.0000, xenon’s nuclear charge (checked). zhang_2014’s Table I row for Xe (tableI_Xe, of unstated origin) is this potential rounded to three decimals (51.356, 2.112, -99.927, 3.737, 1.644, 0.431). No source is cited for it here either.
WHAT THE TDSE YIELD IS. The probability that the one electron of the model atom has left (Eq. 6), not the yield of the real atom (no rule for equivalent electrons, no other m), as for travers_2026_trecx. The TDSE’s numerical accuracy is not stated; the datasets’ uncertainty is the digitising (2 %).
Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.
Datasets#
zhao_2016/fig2a_tdse_H_600nm#
{
"id": "fig2a_tdse_H_600nm",
"material": "H",
"file": "H/zhao_2016__fig2a_tdse_H_600nm.csv",
"table": "fig_962af80d9355",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 600,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('A Gaussian pulse with duration of 15 fs (FWHM)', Fig. 2 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)",
"orbital": "1s",
"potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (not written out; Eq. 3 with the a_i zero)",
"model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5,
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 2(a), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of atomic hydrogen (Eq. 6: 1 - the bound-state populations at the end of the pulse) at 600 nm against the peak intensity, 25 points, 2.0e13-1.4e14 W/cm^2, 4.56e-5 to 0.167, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). The PPT with Popruzhenko et al.’s Coulomb factor is below it by a factor 4.8 at 2e13 W/cm^2, 1.9-2.0 at 7-9e13 and 1.3-1.6 at 1.1-1.35e14 (the legend’s average factor 1.42). 2 %: the digitising (the inset’s reading of the same points agrees within 1.6 %; the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum is 1.2 %); the intensity to 0.1 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig2b_tdse_H_800nm#
{
"id": "fig2b_tdse_H_800nm",
"material": "H",
"file": "H/zhao_2016__fig2b_tdse_H_800nm.csv",
"table": "fig_962af80d9355",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 800,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('A Gaussian pulse with duration of 15 fs (FWHM)', Fig. 2 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)",
"orbital": "1s",
"potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (not written out; Eq. 3 with the a_i zero)",
"model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5,
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 2(b), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of atomic hydrogen (Eq. 6) at 800 nm against the peak intensity, 25 points, 2.0e13-1.4e14 W/cm^2, 4.46e-6 to 0.0983, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). The PPT with Popruzhenko et al.’s Coulomb factor is below it by a factor 5.3 at 2e13 W/cm^2, 2.4-2.5 at 4-5.5e13 and 1.1-1.3 at 1.15-1.35e14; Fig. 1(a)’s ‘correction factor’ at 800 nm averages 1.49 over 6e13-1.2e14 (the legend’s factor). 2 %: the digitising (the inset’s reading agrees within 1.5 %; the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum is 1.2 %); the intensity to 0.1 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig2c_tdse_H_1000nm#
{
"id": "fig2c_tdse_H_1000nm",
"material": "H",
"file": "H/zhao_2016__fig2c_tdse_H_1000nm.csv",
"table": "fig_962af80d9355",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 1000,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('A Gaussian pulse with duration of 15 fs (FWHM)', Fig. 2 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)",
"orbital": "1s",
"potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (not written out; Eq. 3 with the a_i zero)",
"model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5,
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 2(c), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of atomic hydrogen (Eq. 6) at 1000 nm against the peak intensity, 25 points, 2.0e13-1.4e14 W/cm^2, 6.93e-7 to 0.0875, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). The PPT with Popruzhenko et al.’s Coulomb factor is below it by a factor 3.6 at 2e13 W/cm^2, 1.4-1.8 at 6-9e13 and 1.1-1.3 at 1.1-1.35e14 (the legend’s average factor 1.36). 2 %: the digitising (the inset’s reading agrees within 1.3 %; the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum is 1.2 %); the intensity to 0.1 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig2d_tdse_H_1200nm#
{
"id": "fig2d_tdse_H_1200nm",
"material": "H",
"file": "H/zhao_2016__fig2d_tdse_H_1200nm.csv",
"table": "fig_962af80d9355",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 1200,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('A Gaussian pulse with duration of 15 fs (FWHM)', Fig. 2 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one electron (atomic hydrogen)",
"orbital": "1s",
"potential": "the Coulomb potential -1/r (not written out; Eq. 3 with the a_i zero)",
"model_ionization_energy_au": 0.5,
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 2(d), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of atomic hydrogen (Eq. 6) at 1200 nm against the peak intensity, 25 points, 2.0e13-1.4e14 W/cm^2, 3.46e-7 to 0.083, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). The PPT with Popruzhenko et al.’s Coulomb factor is below it by a factor 3.9 at 2e13 W/cm^2, 1.5-1.9 at 6-7e13 and 0.96-1.14 at 1.2-1.35e14 (the legend’s average factor 1.26). 2 %: the digitising (the inset’s reading agrees within 1.4 %; the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum is 1.2 %); the intensity to 0.1 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig3a_tdse_He_400nm#
{
"id": "fig3a_tdse_He_400nm",
"material": "He",
"file": "He/zhao_2016__fig3a_tdse_He_400nm.csv",
"table": "fig_2ad80701eb1d",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 400,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('a Gaussian pulse with FWHM of 15 fs', Fig. 3 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one active electron",
"orbital": "1s",
"potential": "Tong and Lin 2005 (ref. 57, tong_2005 Table 1), Eq. (3) with beta = 1",
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 3(a), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of helium in Tong and Lin’s potential (Eq. 6) at 400 nm against the peak intensity, 32 points, 1.91e14-1.46e15 W/cm^2 (equally spaced, 4.1e13 apart; the first centred 2.1 pt before the axis’s start, read on the axis extended), 2.61e-5 to 0.335, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). The yield of the one electron, not of the atom. 2 %: the digitising (the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum against 10.57 pt per decade is 1.5 %); the intensity to 0.2 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig3b_tdse_Ne_400nm#
{
"id": "fig3b_tdse_Ne_400nm",
"material": "Ne",
"file": "Ne/zhao_2016__fig3b_tdse_Ne_400nm.csv",
"table": "fig_2ad80701eb1d",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 400,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('a Gaussian pulse with FWHM of 15 fs', Fig. 3 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one active electron",
"orbital": "2p, m not stated",
"potential": "Tong and Lin 2005 (ref. 57, tong_2005 Table 1), Eq. (3) with beta = 1",
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 3(b), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of neon in Tong and Lin’s potential (Eq. 6) at 400 nm against the peak intensity, 31 points, 9.6e13-8.6e14 W/cm^2 (equally spaced, 2.56e13 apart), 3.38e-5 to 0.314, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). Which m of the 2p shell was propagated is not stated. The yield of the one electron, not of the atom. 2 %: the digitising (the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum against 10.57 pt per decade is 1.5 %); the intensity to 0.2 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig3c_tdse_Ar_800nm#
{
"id": "fig3c_tdse_Ar_800nm",
"material": "Ar",
"file": "Ar/zhao_2016__fig3c_tdse_Ar_800nm.csv",
"table": "fig_2ad80701eb1d",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 800,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('a Gaussian pulse with FWHM of 15 fs', Fig. 3 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one active electron",
"orbital": "3p, m not stated",
"potential": "Tong and Lin 2005 (ref. 57, tong_2005 Table 1), Eq. (3) with beta = 1",
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 3(c), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of argon in Tong and Lin’s potential (Eq. 6) at 800 nm against the peak intensity, 41 points, 4.0e13-2.46e14 W/cm^2 (equally spaced, 5.1e12 apart), 2.23e-5 to 0.289, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). Which m of the 3p shell was propagated is not stated. The yield of the one electron, not of the atom. 2 %: the digitising (the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum against 10.57 pt per decade is 1.5 %); the intensity to 0.2 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig3d_tdse_Kr_800nm#
{
"id": "fig3d_tdse_Kr_800nm",
"material": "Kr",
"file": "Kr/zhao_2016__fig3d_tdse_Kr_800nm.csv",
"table": "fig_2ad80701eb1d",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 800,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('a Gaussian pulse with FWHM of 15 fs', Fig. 3 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one active electron",
"orbital": "4p, m not stated",
"potential": "Garvey, Jackman and Green, Phys. Rev. A 12, 1144 (1975) (ref. 58); not given in the paper",
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 3(d), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of krypton in Garvey et al.’s potential (ref. 58; not given in the paper) (Eq. 6) at 800 nm against the peak intensity, 37 points, 2.0e13-1.53e14 W/cm^2 (equally spaced, 3.7e12 apart; the last centred 0.9 pt beyond the axis’s end, read on the axis extended), 1.12e-5 to 0.167, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). Which m of the 4p shell was propagated is not stated. The yield of the one electron, not of the atom. 2 %: the digitising (the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum against 10.57 pt per decade is 1.5 %); the intensity to 0.2 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/fig3e_tdse_Xe_800nm#
{
"id": "fig3e_tdse_Xe_800nm",
"material": "Xe",
"file": "Xe/zhao_2016__fig3e_tdse_Xe_800nm.csv",
"table": "fig_2ad80701eb1d",
"digitised": "vector",
"quantity": "ionization_yield",
"unit": "1",
"abscissa": "intensity",
"abscissa_unit": "W/cm2",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.02,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"wavelength_nm": 800,
"pulse_fs": 15,
"pulse_fs_definition": "FWHM ('a Gaussian pulse with FWHM of 15 fs', Fig. 3 caption); of the intensity or of the field not stated, the paper's PPT curves reproduced with the intensity's (the record's notes)",
"polarization": "linear",
"pulse_envelope": "gaussian",
"cep": "not stated",
"measure": "1 - sum over all bound states of |<phi_n|psi(t_final)>|^2 at the end of the pulse (Eq. 6)",
"electrons": "one active electron",
"orbital": "5p, m not stated",
"potential": "Eq. (3) with beta = 1 and the text's a_1 ... a_6 (text_potential_Xe)",
"method": "TDSE, time-dependent generalized pseudospectral method, length gauge; r_max = 400 au, absorber from r_0 = 390 au, N = 800, dt = 0.1 au, up to 80 partial waves"
}
}
Fig. 3(e), p. 3, ‘TDSE’ (blue open circles): the one-electron TDSE ionisation probability of xenon in the potential of Eq. (3) with the text’s parameters (text_potential_Xe) at 800 nm against the peak intensity, 29 points, 1.17e13-8.6e13 W/cm^2 (equally spaced, 2.66e12 apart), 1.08e-5 to 0.256, read from the vector drawing (the record’s notes). Which m of the 5p shell was propagated is not stated. The yield of the one electron, not of the atom. 2 %: the digitising (the y scale’s 0.07 pt quantum against 10.15 pt per decade is 1.6 %); the intensity to 0.2 %. The TDSE’s own accuracy is not stated.
zhao_2016/text_potential_Xe#
{
"id": "text_potential_Xe",
"material": "Xe",
"quantity": "ionization_model_parameter",
"unit": "au",
"abscissa": "label",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"model": "tong_lin_2005_potential",
"parameter": "a_1 ... a_6 of Eq. (3) (Tong and Lin's Eq. (4) form, Z_c = 1, beta = 1), the row label"
}
}
6 inline points in the source record.
Text, p. 2: ‘For a Xe atom, a_1, a_2, a_3, a_4, a_5, and a_6 are taken to be 51.355 5, 2.111 6, -99.927 5, 3.737 2, 1.644 5 and 0.430 6, respectively’ (the digits grouped by thin spaces, joined here): the single-active-electron potential of Eq. (3), V(r) = -[1 + beta (a_1 e^(-a_2 r) + a_3 r e^(-a_4 r) + a_5 e^(-a_6 r))]/r with beta = 1 (Z_c = 1), atomic units (a_1, a_5 charges, a_3 per bohr, a_2, a_4, a_6 inverse bohr); Tong and Lin’s form (tong_2005 Eq. 4). No source cited for it. 1 + a_1 + a_5 = 54.0000, the nuclear charge (checked). zhang_2014 tableI_Xe is the same potential to three decimals. Used for Fig. 3(e)’s TDSE.
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.