MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tunnel Ionization Dynamics of Bound Systems in Laser Fields: How Long Does It Take for a Bound Electron to Tunnel?

2013· article· en· W2326248841 on OpenAlexaff
Chris McDonald, Gianfranco Orlando, Giulio Vampa, Thomas Brabec

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTunnel ionizationElectronIonizationLaserAtomic physicsPhysicsDynamics (music)Nuclear physicsQuantum mechanicsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical method is developed by which the tunnel ionization dynamics of bound systems in laser fields can be isolated from the total wave function, as given by the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. The analysis of the numerical data for a step function field reveals the following definition for the tunnel time. It is the time it takes the ground state to develop the underbarrier wave function components necessary for reaching the static field ionization rate. This definition is generalized to time varying laser fields. The tunnel time is found to scale with the Keldysh tunnel time. Our Letter establishes the physical meaning of the tunnel time, its relation to the Keldysh tunnel time, and suggests how it can be measured.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207