Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Compton photons at the GeV scale from self-aligned collisions with a plasma mirror

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single laser pulse, self-aligned by a plasma mirror, produces Compton photons up to the GeV scale with a 100% collision success rate.

desk verdict A credible GeV-scale demonstration of plasma-mirror Compton scattering whose 'nonclassical scaling' claim rests on fitted laser strengths rather than independent measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19337 v1 pith:F3EZ2GE7 submitted 2024-12-26 physics.plasm-ph physics.acc-ph

Aimé Matheron , Jean-Raphaël Marquès , Vincent Lelasseux , Yinren Shou , Igor A. Andriyash , Vanessa Ling Jen Phung , Yohann Ayoul , Audrey Beluze
show 29 more authors
Ioan Dăncuş Fabien Dorchies Flanish D'Souza Mathieu Dumergue Mickaël Frotin Julien Gautier Fabrice Gobert Marius Gugiu Santhosh Krishnamurthy Ivan Kargapolov Eyal Kroupp Livia Lancia Alexandru Lazăr Adrien Leblanc Mohamed Lo Damien Mataja François Mathieu Dimitrios Papadopoulos Pablo San Miguel Claveria Kim Ta Phuoc Anda-Maria Talposi Sheroy Tata Călin A. Ur Daniel Ursescu Lidia Văsescu Domenico Doria Victor Malka Petru Ghenuche Sebastien Corde
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.acc-ph PACS 52.38.Kd12.20.-m
keywords Comptonscatteringlaser-plasmaacceleratorplasmamirrorstrong-fieldQEDnonlinearGeVgammaraysquantumparameterSchwingerfield
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

This paper reports an experimental demonstration that a single laser pulse can generate very high energy photons—up to the GeV scale—by combining a laser-plasma accelerator with a plasma mirror in a self-aligned geometry. Because the same pulse drives the electron beam and is then reflected back to collide with it, the laser–electron overlap is automatic, giving a 100% collision success rate across consecutive shots. The measured photon spectra, characterized by critical energies of about 0.14 GeV and 0.55 GeV at two multi-petawatt facilities, deviate from the classical $\gamma_e^2 a_0$ scaling in a way that is consistent with quantum electrodynamic effects at a quantum parameter $\chi \simeq 0.3$. If correct, this provides a simple, reliable route to studying strong-field QED processes such as nonlinear Compton scattering without the alignment challenges of multi-beam experiments.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the plasma-mirror self-aligned Compton source: a single laser pulse first drives a laser wakefield accelerator in a gas jet and then, after being reflected by a plasma mirror (a thin foil ionized by the pulse front), counterpropagates against the just-accelerated electrons, guaranteeing a head-on collision. The argument runs through the quantum parameter $\chi = E^*/E_S$, the electric field in the electron rest frame normalized to the Schwinger field, and the critical photon energy $\omega_c$ that characterizes the nonlinear Compton spectrum. Classical synchrotron-like scaling predicts $\omega_c \propto \gamma_e^2 a_0$, while QED recoil suppresses this growth; comparing the measured $\omega_c$ at two facilities against this scaling is what exposes the quantum deviation. The spectral inference itself is carried by the pixelated LYSO detector's depth–energy response, modeled with FLUKA and inverted by a maximum-likelihood expectation-maximization algorithm.

What would settle it

Directly measure the reflected laser pulse intensity at the collision point, for example by characterizing the plasma-mirror reflectivity and focusing geometry to determine the effective $a_0$, then recompute the classical $\hbar \omega_c \propto \gamma_e^2 a_0$ scaling; if the measured critical energies at the two facilities match the classical scaling within experimental uncertainties, the claimed nonclassical deviation would be disproved.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors demonstrate experimentally that Compton photons with critical energies up to 0.55 GeV—and photon energies exceeding 1 GeV—can be generated in a self-aligned single-laser Compton scattering scheme. A single intense laser pulse drives a laser-plasma accelerator, then is backreflected by a plasma mirror (a thin foil ionized by the pulse pedestal) so that it collides with the accelerated electrons automatically. Comparing the two experiments, the increase in critical photon energy with electron energy is a factor of about 4 (from 0.14 to 0.55 GeV), whereas the classical $\gamma_e^2 a_0$ scaling would predict a factor of about 6 given the measured electron energies and fitted laser strengths ($a_0 = 8$ and $a_0 = 5$). The slower growth is attributed to quantum effects and radiation-reaction recoil in nonlinear Compton scattering, placing the experiments in the moderately quantum regime with electron quantum parameter $\chi \simeq 0.15$–$0.3$. The claim is supported by a full spectral analysis using FLUKA-based detector response modeling and iterative spectral unfolding, cross-checked against QED simulations with the Ptarmigan code.

Load-bearing premise

The inference of the quantum parameter $\chi$ and the nonclassical scaling rests on fitted laser strength parameters ($a_0 = 8$ and $a_0 = 5$) that are chosen so that QED simulations match the measured photon spectra rather than being directly measured at the collision point; if the actual $a_0$ differs, the expected classical scaling ratio changes and the inferred $\chi$ shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong-field QED effects such as nonlinear Compton scattering can be studied in a single-laser setup, free from the shot-to-shot alignment fluctuations of multi-beam collisions.
  • The measured slowdown in the scaling of the critical photon energy with electron energy is a direct signature of quantum recoil and radiation reaction in the moderately quantum regime ($\chi$ up to about 0.3).
  • With electron beams of about 5 GeV and fitted $a_0 \approx 5$, the higher-energy experiment produces on the order of 10^8 Compton photons beyond 1 GeV, comparable to multi-beam experiments but with a roughly four times larger critical energy.
  • The self-aligned geometry can be extended to pure light-by-light scattering by deflecting the electrons away and colliding the GeV photons with an additional multi-petawatt laser.
  • The 100% collision success rate and automatic alignment make this scheme a practical and precise platform for future QED investigations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct measurement of the reflected laser spot size and energy at the collision point would fix the effective $a_0$ without simulation fitting, allowing the inferred quantum parameter $\chi$ and the classical/QED scaling ratio to be verified independently.
  • By varying the plasma-mirror position or the gas-jet density, one could scan the effective $a_0$ and electron energy across a range of $\chi$ values in a single campaign, producing a detailed experimental map of the transition from classical to quantum scaling.
  • The same self-aligned geometry could be extended to measure the angular distribution of the GeV photons, which also carries signatures of quantum emission and could be compared against local-constant-field approximation predictions.
  • If applied at a future exawatt-scale laser, the plasma-mirror approach might push $\chi$ beyond 1 into the multi-photon Breit–Wheeler regime, potentially allowing pair creation studies in a compact setup.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental campaign at the Apollon and ELI-NP laser facilities in which a single laser pulse first drives a laser-plasma accelerator and is then reflected by a plasma mirror back onto the electron beam, producing nonlinear inverse Compton photons. The authors measure gamma-ray depth profiles with a pixelated LYSO detector, unfold photon spectra, and extract critical photon energies hbar_omega_c = 0.14 +/- 0.03 GeV (Apollon) and 0.55 +/- 0.1 GeV (ELI-NP). They compare these values with classical and QED (Ptarmigan) simulations and claim that the factor-of-four increase in critical energy between the two facilities deviates from the classical gamma_e^2 a0 scaling, indicating the onset of the moderately quantum regime with chi ~ 0.15-0.3. The paper emphasizes the self-aligned, single-laser geometry and reports a 100% collision success rate.

Significance. If the quantum-regime interpretation holds, this would be a notable step toward table-top strong-field QED studies: the plasma-mirror concept removes alignment and synchronization issues of multibeam Compton experiments, and the extension to GeV photons with chi up to ~0.3 is significant. The experimental evidence is multi-diagnostic (foil-position scan, no-plasma-mirror reference shots, LYSO depth profiles, electron spectra) and the analysis uses open, established codes (FLUKA, Ptarmigan). However, the central nonclassical-scaling and chi claims are not yet established with the necessary rigor: they depend on a0 values that are adjusted to fit the QED simulations to the data, and the significance of the deviation from classical scaling is not quantified with proper error propagation. The paper is potentially important, but the interpretive claims require additional analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods, Numerical modeling; Figs. 3(f)-(g)] The claim that the experiments enter the moderately quantum regime (chi ~ 0.15-0.3) and exhibit nonclassical scaling rests on the comparison between measured critical photon energies and classical/QED simulations. In Methods, Numerical modeling, the authors state that the laser strength parameter a0 is varied to obtain a reasonable agreement between the QED simulations and the experimental measurements, yielding a0 = 8 and a0 = 5. These values are not independently measured; they are fit parameters. Since a0 enters directly into chi = 2 gamma_e a0 hbar_omega_l / (m_e c^2) and into the classical gamma_e^2 a0 scaling, the agreement with the QED simulation and the derived chi are partly a fit rather than a prediction. The paper should provide a sensitivity analysis over the plausible range of a0 (including focusing and reflection uncertainties) and, ideally, an independent constraint on the reflected-pulse intensity at the collision point to establish the nonclassical scaling robustly.
  2. [Fig. 3(d)-(e) and main text] The nonclassical scaling is quantified by comparing the measured critical photon energies, hbar_omega_c = 0.14 +/- 0.03 GeV (Apollon) and 0.55 +/- 0.1 GeV (ELI-NP), whose ratio is about 3.9. Propagating the stated 1-sigma uncertainties under the usual independence assumption gives a ratio of 3.9 +/- 1.1, so the classical expectation of about 6 is within roughly 2 sigma; the deviation is not highly significant. Moreover, the classical expectation itself uses the fitted a0 values (with no quoted uncertainty) and the maximum electron energies, whereas the electron spectra are broadband and the appropriate energy moment should be used. The manuscript should propagate uncertainties through the ratio, assess the sensitivity to the choice of gamma_e, and then moderate or strengthen the claim of a substantial deviation accordingly.
  3. [Methods, Numerical modeling] The simulation model assumes a counterpropagating Gaussian laser pulse in free space with a0 as the only varied laser parameter. Effects of the plasma mirror on the reflected pulse—such as reduced reflectivity, wavefront distortion, or temporal contrast—are not characterized or included. These effects directly change the effective a0 at the collision point, so the absence of a sensitivity analysis over these parameters leaves the chi values and the classical-versus-QED comparison unconstrained. The conclusion that the data rule out classical theory is therefore not uniquely supported without either an independent measurement of the reflected-pulse intensity or a scan over the plausible reflected-pulse parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The word 'Plank' appears twice as 'reduced Plank constant' and should be 'Planck'.
  2. [Methods, Electron and gamma-ray diagnostics] The text writes 'CDD and CMOS cameras' and '16-bit CDD camera'; these should be 'CCD'.
  3. [Introduction] The phrase 'withhundred positrons observed' is missing a space and an 's'; it should read 'with hundreds of positrons observed'.
  4. [Introduction] The phrase 'are requiring a sensitive overlap' is grammatically awkward; consider 'require a sensitive overlap'.
  5. [Methods, Spectral analysis] The statement that the reconstruction is made 'without any assumption on the final spectral shape' should be clarified, because the iterative MLEM method still requires a stopping criterion and the low-energy part is acknowledged to oscillate; please state the convergence criterion and its influence on the extracted critical energy.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusion] The term 'foolproof collisions' is informal; consider 'reliable' or 'automatically overlapped' to match the technical style of the rest of the manuscript.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The nonclassical-scaling and chi inference rest on a0 values fitted to the measured spectra, so the quantum-regime claim is partially constructed from the fit rather than independently predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Methods, Numerical modeling; main text around Figs. 3(f)-(g) and the conclusion]
    "the laser strength parameter a0 is varied to obtain a reasonable agreement between the QED simulations and the experimental measurements. ... A reasonable agreement is found between the experiment and the QED simulation using a laser strength parameter a0 = 8 for the Apollon Compton shot ... and a0 = 5 for the ELI-NP Compton shot ... . ... our experiments are entering the moderately quantum regime with χ ≃ 0.15 (Apollon, corresponding to 1.6 GeV electron energy and a0 = 8) and χ ≃ 0.3 (ELI-NP, corresponding to 5 GeV electron energy and a0 = 5)"

    The a0 values are not measured at the collision point; they are tuned until the QED simulations reproduce the measured photon spectra. The same fitted a0 values are then inserted into the classical γ_e^2 a0 scaling to claim that the observed factor ~4 increase deviates from the classical ×6 prediction, and into χ ∝ γ_e a0 to claim entry into the moderately quantum regime. Therefore the nonclassical-scaling signature and the inferred χ are not independent predictions but are conditioned on the fitted laser-strength parameters. A different pair of a0 values, still consistent with the stated vacuum estimates (a0 ~3 and ~6) and with self-focusing/reflection uncertainties, could shift the classical ratio toward the observed value and lower χ, weakening or removing the nonclassical signature.

full rationale

The core measurements are self-contained: the LYSO depth profiles are unfolded with FLUKA-based detector responses and synchrotron fits yield ℏωc = 0.14 ± 0.03 GeV and 0.55 ± 0.1 GeV, while the electron spectra are measured with a magnetic spectrometer. These parts are not circular. However, the paper's central scientific claim — that the experiments enter the moderately quantum regime (χ up to ~0.3) and exhibit nonclassical scaling — relies on the QED simulations of Ptarmigan. The Methods section explicitly states that a0 is varied to obtain reasonable agreement with the measurements, yielding a0 = 8 (Apollon) and a0 = 5 (ELI-NP). These fitted values are then reused to compute the classical scaling ratio (×6) and the quantum parameter χ. Because the same fitted parameter controls both the simulation agreement and the inferred quantum deviation, the agreement between the QED simulation and the data is partly by construction, and the nonclassical-scaling claim is not an independent falsifiable prediction. The absence of an independent measurement of the reflected-pulse intensity at the collision point, and the lack of a sensitivity analysis over a0, mean this limitation is acknowledged only implicitly by the fitting procedure. The paper does cite prior work by overlapping authors (e.g., Ref. [31]) but only as context for the concept and the three-orders-of-magnitude improvement; that self-citation is not load-bearing. Overall, the measured photon energies and spectral shapes provide independent content, but the headline quantum-regime conclusion is partially constructed from the fitted a0 inputs, giving a score of 6 on the circularity scale.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim of GeV-scale photon generation rests on standard experimental diagnostics and simulations. The main free parameters are the effective laser strengths a0, which are fitted to data, and the critical photon energies from spectral fitting. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • a0_Apollon = 8
    Effective laser strength parameter in QED simulation, varied to match measured Apollon photon spectrum (Fig. 3d).
  • a0_ELINP = 5
    Effective laser strength parameter in QED simulation, varied to match measured ELI-NP photon spectrum (Fig. 3e).
  • hbar_omega_c_Apollon = 0.14 ± 0.03 GeV
    Critical photon energy from synchrotron fit to unfolded spectrum (Fig. 3d).
  • hbar_omega_c_ELINP = 0.55 ± 0.1 GeV
    Critical photon energy from synchrotron fit to unfolded spectrum (Fig. 3e).
  • Simulation input electron spectrum = Gaussian combination matched to output spectrum
    The input spectrum in Ptarmigan is constructed so the simulated output electron spectrum matches the measured one (Methods).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Local constant field approximation (LCFA) is valid for the simulated laser-electron collisions.
    Ptarmigan simulations use LCFA; the paper states LCFA and LMA agree except at low photon energies (Methods).
  • domain assumption The reflected laser pulse can be modeled as a Gaussian pulse in free space with a single effective a0.
    Numerical modeling assumes a counterpropagating Gaussian laser pulse; plasma mirror reflectivity and self-focusing are absorbed into a0 (Methods).
  • domain assumption Bremsstrahlung background is small enough to not affect the spectral analysis.
    Comparison shots without plasma mirror show small background, but no quantitative subtraction is shown (Fig. 2 and text).
  • domain assumption The LYSO detector response computed with FLUKA is accurate for unfolding.
    The detector response matrix from FLUKA Monte-Carlo is used in the MLEM spectral reconstruction (Methods).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Compton photons at the GeV scale from self-aligned collisions with a plasma mirror." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F3EZ2GE7

@misc{pith2026241219337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Compton photons at the GeV scale from self-aligned collisions with a plasma mirror},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F3EZ2GE7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19337}
}
abstract

With today's multi-petawatt lasers, testing quantum electrodynamics (QED) in the strong field regime, where the electric field exceeds the Schwinger critical field in the rest frame of an electron, becomes within reach. Inverse Compton scattering of an intense laser pulse off a high-energy electron beam is the mainstream approach, resulting in the emission of high-energy photons that can decay into Breit-Wheeler electron-positron pairs. Here, we demonstrate experimentally that very high energy photons can be generated in a self-aligned single-laser Compton scattering setup, combining a laser-plasma accelerator and a plasma mirror. Reaching up to the GeV scale, photon emission via nonlinear Compton scattering exhibits a nonclassical scaling in the experiment that is consistent with electric fields reaching up to a fraction $\chi\simeq0.3$ of the Schwinger field in the electron rest frame. These foolproof collisions guaranteed by automatic laser-electron overlap provide a new approach for precise investigations of strong-field QED processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Brilliant multi-GeV Compton gamma-ray source seeded by a photon accelerator

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.5 of 10

    Photon acceleration of an optical pulse to XUV in a beam-driven plasma wake, followed by plasma-mirror reflection and Compton scattering, yields multi-GeV gamma rays with 10^25 brilliance and high polarization.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Danson, D

    C. Danson, D. Hillier, N. Hopps, and D. Neely, Petawatt class lasers worldwide, High Power Laser Sci. Eng.3, e3 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    C. N. Danson, C. Haefner, J. Bromage, T. Butcher, J.- C. F. Chanteloup, E. A. Chowdhury, A. Galvanauskas, L. A. Gizzi, J. Hein, D. I. Hillier,et al., Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 7, e54 (2019)

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, Realization of laser in- tensity over1023 W/cm2, Optica 8, 630 (2021)

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Radier, O

    C. Radier, O. Chalus, M. Charbonneau, S. Thambirajah, G. Deschamps, S. David, J. Barbe, E. Etter, G. Matras, S. Ricaud, et al., 10 PW peak power femtosecond laser pulses at ELI-NP, High Power Laser Sci. Eng.10, e21 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    A. I. Nikishov and V. I. Ritus, Pair Production by a Photon and Photon Emission by an Electron in the Field of an Intense Electromagnetic Wave and in a Constant Field, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 529 (1964)

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    Erber, High-Energy Electromagnetic Conversion Pro- cesses in Intense Magnetic Fields, Rev

    T. Erber, High-Energy Electromagnetic Conversion Pro- cesses in Intense Magnetic Fields, Rev. Mod. Phys.38, 626 (1966)

    work page 1966

  7. [7]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  8. [8]

    Tajima and J

    T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Laser electron accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 267 (1979)

    1979

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Faure, Y

    J. Faure, Y. Glinec, A. Pukhov, S. Kiselev, S. Gordienko, E. Lefebvre, J.-P. Rousseau, F. Burgy, and V. Malka, A laser–plasma accelerator producing monoenergetic elec- tron beams, Nature431, 541 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    C. G. R. Geddes, C. Toth, J. van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, D. Bruhwiler, C. Nieter, J. Cary, and W. P. Leemans, High-quality electron beams from a laser wakefield accelerator using plasma-channel guiding, Na- ture 431, 538 (2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    S. P. D. Mangles, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, A. G. R. Thomas, J. L. Collier, A. E. Dangor, E. J. Divall, P. S. Foster, J. G. Gallacher, C. J. Hooker, D. A. Jaroszynski, A. J. Langley, W. B. Mori, P. A. Norreys, F. S. Tsung, R. Viskup, B. R. Walton, and K. Krushelnick, Monoen- ...

    2004

  4. [12]

    A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. H. de Raadt, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanov, J. van Tilborg, C. G. R. Ged- des, C. B. Schroeder, C. Tóth, E. Esarey, K. Swanson, L. Fan-Chiang, G. Bagdasarov, N. Bobrova, V. Gasilov, G. Korn, P. S...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Aniculaesei, T

    C. Aniculaesei, T. Ha, S. Yoffe, L. Labun, S. Milton, E. McCary, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, O. Z. Labun, R. Sain, A. Hannasch, R. Zgadzaj, I. Pagano, J. A. Franco-Altamirano, M. L. Ringuette, E. Gaul, S. V. Luedtke, G. Tiwari, B. Ersfeld, E. Brunetti, H. Ruhl, T. Ditmire, S....

    2023

  6. [14]

    Picksley, J

    A. Picksley, J. Stackhouse, C. Benedetti, K. Nakamura, H. E. Tsai, R. Li, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, E. Rock- afellow, H. M. Milchberg, C. B. Schroeder, J. van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, and A. J. Gon- salves, Matched guiding and controlled injection in dark- current-fre...

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. M. Cole, K. T. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. G. Black- burn, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, M. J. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. S. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. R. Symes, A. G. R. Thom...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Poder, M

    K. Poder, M. Tamburini, G. Sarri, A. Di Piazza, S. Kuschel, C. D. Baird, K. Behm, S. Bohlen, J. M. Cole, D. J. Corvan, M. Duff, E. Gerstmayr, C. H. Keitel, K. Krushelnick, S. P. D. Mangles, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, D. R. Symes, A. G....

    2018

  9. [17]

    Mirzaie, C

    M. Mirzaie, C. I. Hojbota, D. Y. Kim, V. B. Pathak, T. G. Pak, C. M. Kim, H. W. Lee, J. W. Yoon, S. K. Lee, Y. J. Rhee, M. Vranic, Ó. Amaro, K. Y. Kim, J. H. Sung, and C. H. Nam, All-optical nonlinear compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser, Nature Photon. 18,...

    2024

  10. [18]

    C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. Boege, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyer- hofer, W. Ragg, D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton- Smith, A. C. Odian, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, and A. W. Weide- mann, Observatio...

    1996

  11. [19]

    D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D.Walz, S.C.Berridge, W.M.Bugg, K.Shmakov, A.W. Weidemann, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis, and W. Ragg, Positron ...

    1997

  12. [20]

    Bamber, S

    C. Bamber, S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis, W. Ragg, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, and A. W. Weidemann, St...

    1999

  13. [21]

    Schwoerer, B

    H. Schwoerer, B. Liesfeld, H.-P. Schlenvoigt, K.-U. Amthor, and R. Sauerbrey, Thomson-backscattered x rays from laser-accelerated electrons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 014802 (2006)

    2006

  14. [22]

    Y. Mori, H. Kuwabara, K. Ishii, R. Hanayama, T. Kawashima, and Y. Kitagawa, Head-on inverse comp- ton scattering x-rays with energy beyond 10 kev from laser-accelerated quasi-monoenergetic electron bunches, Appl. Phys. Express5, 056401 (2012)

    2012

  15. [23]

    S. Chen, N. D. Powers, I. Ghebregziabher, C. M. Mahar- jan, C. Liu, G. Golovin, S. Banerjee, J. Zhang, N. Cun- ningham, A. Moorti, S. Clarke, S. Pozzi, and D. P. Um- stadter, Mev-energy x rays from inverse compton scatter- ing with laser-wakefield accelerated electrons, Phys. ...

    2013

  16. [24]

    Sarri, D

    G. Sarri, D. J. Corvan, W. Schumaker, J. M. Cole, A. Di Piazza, H. Ahmed, C. Harvey, C. H. Kei- tel, K. Krushelnick, S. P. D. Mangles, Z. Najmudin, D. Symes, A. G. R. Thomas, M. Yeung, Z. Zhao, and M. Zepf, Ultrahigh brilliance multi-mev γ-ray beams from nonlinear relativistic...

    2014

  17. [25]

    N. D. Powers, I. Ghebregziabher, G. Golovin, C. Liu, S. Chen, S. Banerjee, J. Zhang, and D. P. Umstadter, Quasi-monoenergetic and tunable X-rays from a laser- driven Compton light source, Nature Photon. 8, 28 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    C. Liu, G. Golovin, S. Chen, J. Zhang, B. Zhao, D. Haden, S. Banerjee, J. Silano, H. Karwowski, and D. Umstadter, Generation of 9 mevγ-rays by all-laser- driven compton scattering with second-harmonic laser light, Opt. Lett.39, 4132 (2014)

    2014

  19. [27]

    Khrennikov, J

    K. Khrennikov, J. Wenz, A. Buck, J. Xu, M. Heigoldt, L. Veisz, and S. Karsch, Tunable all-optical quasi- monochromatic thomson x-ray source in the nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 195003 (2015)

    2015

  20. [28]

    Yakimenko, L

    V. Yakimenko, L. Alsberg, E. Bong, G. Bouchard, C. Clarke, C. Emma, S. Green, C. Hast, M. J. Hogan, J. Seabury, N. Lipkowitz, B. O’Shea, D. Storey, G. White, and G. Yocky, Facet-ii facility for advanced accelerator experimental tests, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 101301 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Clarkeet al., FACET-II, International Linear Accel- erator Conference, WE1AA03 (2022)

    C. Clarkeet al., FACET-II, International Linear Accel- erator Conference, WE1AA03 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    H.Abramowicz etal.,Technicaldesignreportfortheluxe experiment, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.233, 1709 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Ta Phuoc, S

    K. Ta Phuoc, S. Corde, C. Thaury, V. Malka, A. Tafzi, J. P. Goddet, R. C. Shah, S. Sebban, and A. Rousse, All-optical compton gamma-ray source, Nature Photon. 6, 308 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    H.-E. Tsai, X. Wang, J. M. Shaw, Z. Li, A. V. Are- fiev, X. Zhang, R. Zgadzaj, W. Henderson, V. Khudik, G. Shvets, and M. C. Downer, Compact tunable Comp- ton x-ray source from laser-plasma accelerator and plasma mirror, Phys. Plasmas22, 023106 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Corde, K

    S. Corde, K. Ta Phuoc, G. Lambert, R. Fitour, V. Malka, A. Rousse, A. Beck, and E. Lefebvre, Femtosecond x rays from laser-plasma accelerators, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of ele- mentary particles with an intense electromagnetic field, J. Russ. Laser Res.6, 497 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Papadopoulos, J

    D. Papadopoulos, J. Zou, C. Le Blanc, G. Chériaux, P. Georges, F. Druon, G. Mennerat, P. Ramirez, L. Mar- tin, A. Fréneaux,et al., The apollon 10 pw laser: ex- perimental and theoretical investigation of the temporal characteristics,HighPowerLaserSci.Eng. 4, e34(2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Lureau, G

    F. Lureau, G. Matras, O. Chalus, C. Derycke, T. Mor- bieu, C. Radier, O. Casagrande, S. Laux, S. Ricaud, G. Rey, et al., High-energy hybrid femtosecond laser system demonstrating 2× 10 pw capability, High Power 8 Laser Sci. Eng.8, e43 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    McGuffey, A

    C. McGuffey, A. G. R. Thomas, W. Schumaker, T. Mat- suoka, V. Chvykov, F. J. Dollar, G. Kalintchenko, V. Yanovsky, A. Maksimchuk, K. Krushelnick, V. Y. By- chenkov, I. V. Glazyrin, and A. V. Karpeev, Ionization induced trapping in a laser wakefield accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett...

    2010

  30. [38]

    A. Pak, K. A. Marsh, S. F. Martins, W. Lu, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Injection and trapping of tunnel- ionized electrons into laser-produced wakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 025003 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Rousse, K

    A. Rousse, K. T. Phuoc, R. Shah, A. Pukhov, E. Lefeb- vre, V. Malka, S. Kiselev, F. Burgy, J.-P. Rousseau, D. Umstadter, and D. Hulin, Production of a kev x- ray beam from synchrotron radiation in relativistic laser- plasma interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.93, 135005 (2004)

    2004

  32. [40]

    Ahdida et al., New capabilities of the fluka multi- purpose code, Front

    C. Ahdida et al., New capabilities of the fluka multi- purpose code, Front. Phys.9, 788253 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Battistoni, T

    G. Battistoni, T. Boehlen, F. Cerutti, P. W. Chin, L. S. Esposito, A. Fassò, A. Ferrari, A. Lechner, A. Empl, A. Mairani, A. Mereghetti, P. G. Ortega, J. Ranft, S. Roesler, P. R. Sala, V. Vlachoudis, and G. Smirnov, Overview of the fluka code, Ann. Nucl. Energy82, 10 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    V. Vlachoudis, Flair: A powerful but user friendly graph- icalinterfaceforfluka,InternationalConferenceonMath- ematics, Computational Methods & Reactor Physics 2009 M&C 2009, 790 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    T. G. Blackburn, B. King, and S. Tang, Simulations of laser-driven strong-field qed with ptarmigan: Resolv- ing wavelength-scale interference andγ-ray polarization, Phys. Plasmas 30, 093903 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    L. A. Shepp and Y. Vardi, Maximum likelihood recon- struction for emission tomography, IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 1, 113 (1982)

    1982

  37. [45]

    Lange and R

    K. Lange and R. Carson, Em reconstruction algorithms for emission and transmission tomography, J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr.8, 306 (1984)

    1984

  38. [46]

    Investissements d’Avenir

    M. I. Miller, D. L. Snyder, and T. R. Miller, Maximum- likelihood reconstruction for single-photon emission computed-tomography, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.32, 769 (1985). Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the national research infras- tructure Apollon and LULI for their tech...

    1985

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.