Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Proceedings of the Erice Workshop: A new baseline for the hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory HALHF

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a 5 km hybrid plasma–RF collider can serve as a Higgs factory, reaching 250 GeV centre-of-mass collisions at 1.2e34 cm−2 s−1 luminosity with both beams polarized.

desk verdict Useful but over-sold HALHF baseline: cost claim unverifiable, luminosity depends on unproven kickers and plasma staging. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11072 v3 pith:C5YXLOHG submitted 2025-01-19 physics.acc-ph hep-exphysics.plasm-ph

Brian Foster , Erik Adli , Timothy L. Barklow , Mikael Berggren , Stewart Boogert , Jian Bin Ben Chen , Richard D'Arcy , Pierre Drobniak
show 16 more authors
Sinead Farrington Spencer Gessner Mark J. Hogan Daniel Kalvik Antoine Laudrain Carl A. Lindstr{o}m Benno List Jenny List Xueying Lu Gudrid Moortgat Pick Kristjan Põder Andrei Seryi Kyrre Sjobak Maxence Thèvenet Nicholas J. Walker Jonathan Wood
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phhep-exphysics.plasm-ph PACS 29.20.-c52.38.Kd
keywords HALHFplasma-wakefieldaccelerationlinearcolliderHiggsfactorybeamstagingluminositypositronpolarizationacceleratordesign
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 argues that a full-luminosity Higgs factory does not need a 20–30 km tunnel. Its new baseline for HALHF places 250 GeV electron–positron collisions at $1.2\times10^{34}\,\mathrm{cm}^{-2}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ luminosity in a facility about 4.9 km long, by accelerating the electron beam through 48 plasma-wakefield stages at 1 GV/m while a conventional cool-copper linac supplies the 41.7 GeV positron beam. Separating the drive-beam and positron linacs removes a known weakness of the original design, lowers the energy asymmetry, and adds positron polarization and two interaction points. The authors claim that the machine, though longer and costlier than the original HALHF proposal, remains significantly smaller and cheaper than other mature Higgs factory designs.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is staged plasma-wakefield acceleration: high-charge driver bunches from a 4 GeV L-band linac, shaped by delay loops and combiner rings, excite wakefields in 48 separate plasma cells, and each cell transfers energy to the 1.6 nC electron witness bunch at a transformer ratio of 2. Interstage transport uses nonlinear plasma lenses, which give achromatic, point-to-point imaging needed to preserve the small vertical beam size, and undulating delay chicanes with RF deflectors and fast kickers distribute the drive bunches to the stages. The positron side is carried by a separate cool-copper S-band linac, which is what allows the beam energies and the timing structure to be optimised independently. A multidimensional Bayesian optimiser over a cost model—construction, running costs, maintenance, and a carbon tax—ties these pieces together into the 4.9 km baseline.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a two-stage experiment at the baseline working point ($6\times10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$, 1 GV/m, 4 GeV drivers, 1.6 nC witness, nonlinear-lens interstage optics): if the vertical beam size or energy spread after the second cell exceeds the $0.32\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ / $0.15\%$ budget under realistic drive-beam jitter, the luminosity and energy reach of the baseline collapse. A second decisive measurement is the plasma temperature rise and energy transport over a 10 µs, 100-bunch train; if the deposited energy cannot be carried away within the assumed cooling envelope, the 38.4 kW/m per-stage heat-load assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery is a self-consistent parameter set for a hybrid, asymmetric linear collider, chosen by Bayesian optimisation of construction and operating costs. The electron arm is a 48-stage plasma-wakefield linac, each stage 7.8 m long at 1 GV/m with $6\times10^{14}$ cm$^{-3}$ plasma, accelerating 375 GeV electrons; the positron arm is a liquid-nitrogen-cooled copper S-band linac at 40 MV/m delivering 41.7 GeV positrons, for a centre-of-mass boost of 1.67. The new baseline puts luminosity at $1.2\times10^{34}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ and site length at 4.9 km, with both beams polarised and two interaction points. The authors state that the cost optimum is shallow, and that lowering the plasma gradient by reducing plasma density an order of magnitude relative to the original baseline is deliberately conservative because it relaxes the least-understood element of the facility. Their conclusion is that, with this parameter set, HALHF remains substantially smaller and cheaper than other mature Higgs factory designs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that 48 plasma stages in a row can add energy to the electron beam without smearing its transverse size and energy spread beyond the values assumed in the luminosity calculation, and that each metre of plasma can shed the assumed 38.4 kW of waste heat; the paper itself notes that multi-stage simulations are still under development and that little is known about where the deposited plasma energy goes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 250 GeV e+e− Higgs factory could fit in a roughly 5 km site, instead of the tens of kilometres typical of mature designs.
  • Both lepton beams can be polarized, which the paper says materially extends the physics reach of the Higgs program, using an undulator-based positron source.
  • Two interaction points let two detectors share the luminosity, and the design can be extended to 380 GeV and 550 GeV collision energies at 6.5 km and 8.4 km lengths.
  • The driver linac converges on a design already developed for an earlier linear-collider project, meaning much of the drive-beam and combiner-ring technology is already well studied.
  • Plasma acceleration is assigned a deliberately conservative 1 GV/m per stage, giving headroom to increase gradient once operational experience is gained.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors do not draw is that the shallow cost minimum makes near-term beam-quality demonstration more valuable than gradient records: derating plasma performance would cost little, whereas failure to preserve beam quality would invalidate the luminosity estimate.
  • Their own admission that energy transport in the plasma is poorly understood implies that thermal management, not acceleration itself, may be the gating technology; a direct temperature measurement over a bunch train would separate the two.
  • If staging is demonstrated, the same 48-stage architecture transfers directly to a multi-TeV gamma-gamma collider, making HALHF a pathfinder technology for energy-frontier machines, not merely a Higgs factory.
  • The existence of a warm-copper fallback positron linac shows the facility cost is not hostage to cryogenic positron technology; the cryogenic option is a performance choice, not a necessity.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. This proceedings paper reports the outcome of the HALHF collaboration's October 2024 Erice workshop and defines a new facility baseline. The main design changes relative to the original HALHF concept are the separation of the drive-beam and positron linacs, a reduced centre-of-mass boost (γ = 1.67, with 375 GeV electrons colliding with 41.7 GeV positrons), an increase to 48 plasma-wakefield stages operating at 1 GV/m with plasma density 6×10^14 cm^-3, the addition of positron polarization and two interaction points, and the use of a cool-copper S-band positron linac. The headline results, given in Table 2 and Section 10, are 250 GeV centre-of-mass collisions at 1.2×10^34 cm^-2 s^-1 within a 4.9 km site, stated to be 'significantly smaller and cheaper than other mature Higgs factory designs.' The paper also documents working-group discussions on SWFA alternatives, the beam-delivery system, the positron source, staging optics, driver distribution via fast-kicker chicanes, beam-quality preservation, spin polarization, and plasma heating and cooling, and it identifies a substantial list of open R&D items.

Significance. If the baseline holds, HALHF would be the first self-consistent layout of a plasma-wakefield-based Higgs factory delivering ILC-class luminosity from a roughly 5 km facility, and the reduced boost and lower plasma density are sensible responses to earlier community criticism. The manuscript's strengths are its candour and process transparency: Section 1 openly names unstudied areas (damping rings), Section 4.2.4 reports that positron-yield simulations are still pending, Section 7.1 states that multi-stage ABEL start-to-end simulations are under development and that ion-motion and tolerance studies are ongoing, and Section 8.3 acknowledges that little is known about plasma energy transport. The use of a Bayesian optimiser over a stated cost metric is a reasonable methodology at this design stage, and the convergence of the drive-beam linac to a CLIC-like design (Section 10) is a reassuring sanity check.

major comments (6)
  1. [Table 2, Sec. 10] The luminosity value of 1.2×10^34 cm^-2 s^-1 is asserted without any derivation and without stating the luminosity formula, hourglass factor, or disruption enhancement. Evaluating the standard expression L = f_coll N+ N- / (4π σx* σy*) with the tabulated parameters (f_coll = 16 kHz, N = 1×10^10, σx* = 636 nm, σy* = 6.6 nm) yields about 3×10^33 cm^-2 s^-1, a factor of roughly four below the claimed value; reaching 1.2×10^34 requires an enhancement factor of about 4 that is nowhere stated or justified. Please present the luminosity calculation explicitly, including the beam-beam enhancement and any efficiency cuts, or revise the claim, since this is the central number of the abstract and of Section 11.
  2. [Sec. 7.1, Table 2] The baseline assumes normalized emittances of 90/0.32 μm and 0.15% rms energy spread at the IP after 48 plasma stages, and these values directly set the luminosity. The text states, however, that multi-stage simulations are only 'planned to be done' in the ABEL framework, that ABEL is 'under development,' that its ion-motion model is 'currently under development,' and that tolerance studies are 'ongoing.' The emittance and energy-spread columns of Table 2 should therefore be labelled as target values, with the best available single- or few-stage simulation evidence and a tolerance budget presented, or the headline luminosity should be presented as conditional on demonstrated beam-quality preservation.
  3. [Sec. 6.2, Sec. 10] The 16 kHz average collision rate (160 bunches per 2.56 μs train at 100 Hz) depends on the fast-kicker and undulating-chicane driver-distribution scheme, which is a critical-path component: the text itself notes the need for 1-4 ns rise/fall times repeated 'hundreds of times with a period that is sub-100 ns,' that 'having many such complex devices (one per stage) could be troublesome,' that kicker stability 'will also need to be very high,' and that 'another solution is potentially required.' The sceptical concern that the luminosity claim may not account for these repetition-rate and stability limits therefore lands. The baseline adopts this scheme without stating the consequence for luminosity if kicker performance falls short (e.g., a reduced bunch train), and this constraint should be carried explicitly into the baseline risk register and a sensitivity statement on the luminosity claim.
  4. [Sec. 10, Abstract] The abstract's claim that HALHF 'remains significantly smaller and cheaper than other mature Higgs factory designs currently under discussion' is not assessable from this manuscript. The optimisation is driven by an internal cost model whose 'parts ... remain preliminary,' and the cost outputs are withheld ('it would be premature to release estimates'), so no cost comparison with other designs is presented. Either include the cost-model inputs and normalised cost comparisons, or explicitly mark the cost advantage as a qualitative expectation that is not part of the quantitative baseline claims.
  5. [Sec. 4.2.4, Table 2] The positron-source yield is load-bearing for the luminosity: Table 2 assumes N+ = 1×10^10 per bunch, which requires 3-4 positrons per incident electron, but Sec. 4.2.4 states this 'should be achievable and is currently being studied,' with the CAIN-based detailed simulations still in progress. The baseline should state the yield assumption and the sensitivity of luminosity to it, or list the luminosity as conditional on the positron-source performance.
  6. [Sec. 8.1, Table 2] The efficiency assumptions in the new baseline are inconsistent with the evidence cited in the text: Sec. 8.1 quotes a demonstrated combined efficiency of 24% (57% driver-to-plasma times 42% plasma-to-beam), whereas Table 2 assumes 80% driver-to-wake and 50% wake-to-beam, i.e., 40% driver-to-beam overall. Since efficiency directly sets the wall-plug power and the plasma heat load (38.4 kW/m in Table 2), the paper should either justify the staged efficiencies with simulation or experiment, or analyse how luminosity, power, and cooling scale if only the demonstrated 24% is reached.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 2] Several entries have lost their scientific-notation formatting: 'Bunch population 10 10 1 3 1 3 1 3' should read 1×10^10, and 'Driver bunch population 10 10 5.0' should read 5×10^10; the table layout makes these entries difficult to read and should be reformatted.
  2. [Sec. 8.4] The cooling requirement is quoted as '100 kW/m ... an order of magnitude higher than the cooling rates expected at CLIC' in Sec. 8.4, whereas Table 2 lists 38.4 kW/m for the new baseline; the section should clarify which baseline it refers to and use consistent numbers.
  3. [Fig. 12, Sec. 10] The liquid-nitrogen plant power is given as 2.5 MW at 77 K in Fig. 12 but as 16.6 MW in the text of Sec. 10; these should be reconciled, noting that the latter is closer to the 17.9 MW cooling power in Table 2.
  4. [References] The manuscript relies on a 'paper in preparation' [60], a private communication [34], and a grant record [62] for statements feeding into parameter choices; for a proceedings these should be flagged or replaced by citable documents where possible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; HALHF baseline parameters are an optimised design point with self-consistent bookkeeping, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no claim that an equation or simulation output is both input and result. The 250 GeV c.o.m. energy (375 GeV e- plus 41.7 GeV e+), the 4.9 km site length, and the 1.2e34 cm^-2 s^-1 luminosity are arithmetic consequences of the parameter table (Table 2), not outputs of a fit to the target values. The Bayesian optimisation in Sec. 10 minimises a cost model; the resulting statement that the parameter choice is 'close to the optimum' is a claim about the optimiser and its metric, not a scientific prediction derived from itself. Self-citations [1] and [2] introduce the original HALHF concept and upgrade options, but the load-bearing elements of the new baseline (separate drive-beam and positron linacs, 48 plasma stages, 1 GV/m gradient, cool-copper S-band positron linac, ILC-based positron source) are justified by external references and workshop discussion, not by invoking the authors' prior work as an unassailable uniqueness theorem. Genuine limitations are acknowledged in the text: multi-stage ABEL simulations 'are planned to be done' (Sec. 7.1), fast kickers 'could be troublesome' (Sec. 6.2), and 'little is known about how this energy is transported within the plasma' (Sec. 8.3). These are correctness and readiness risks, which the skeptic correctly identifies, but they are not circularity: the assumptions are stated as assumptions, not disguised as predictions. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no target quantity is built into a definition or a prior citation. The paper is therefore self-contained as a design-study proposal, with no circular derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The design's parameters are almost entirely chosen by an internal Bayesian optimisation and by hand, and the central feasibility claims rest on unvalidated domain assumptions about plasma staging, beam quality, positron source yield, and the cost model.

free parameters (7)
  • Center-of-mass boost = 1.67
    Chosen by Bayesian optimisation balancing cost and power; original was 2.13.
  • Plasma density = 6e14 cm^-3
    Reduced by an order of magnitude from original to lower required gradient and relax tolerances; result of optimisation.
  • Number of plasma stages = 48
    Selected in optimisation; more stages lower peak power but add length and overhead.
  • Transformer ratio = 2
    Assumed to be practical; higher ratio reduces drive energy at cost of bunch charge and wakefields.
  • Driver-to-beam efficiency = 40%
    Combined 80% driver-to-wake and 50% wake-to-beam, based on separate experiments; used in power and luminosity estimates.
  • Accelerating gradient in positron linac = 40 MV/m
    Conservative choice for cool-copper S-band; fallback at 25 MV/m.
  • Bunches per train = 160
    Optimised against luminosity and modulator cost.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Plasma wakefield acceleration at 1 GV/m with transformer ratio 2 and 40% efficiency is achievable in a 7.8 m stage with 4 GeV, 8 nC drivers.
    This is the core feasibility premise, taken from scaling of experiments and simulations cited in the paper, not demonstrated at HALHF parameters.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear plasma lenses can provide achromatic point-to-point imaging between stages.
    Quoted from Ref. [42] (own work), not yet experimentally demonstrated.
  • domain assumption The undulator-based polarised positron source reaches 3-4 e+/e- with adequate polarisation.
    Needed for positron polarisation; studies 'currently being carried out' (Sec. 4.2.4), yield not yet estimated.
  • ad hoc to paper The internal cost model used by the Bayesian optimiser is an accurate representation of construction, running, and carbon costs.
    The model is not described or released; the paper says only that some parts 'remain preliminary'.
  • domain assumption Cooled-copper S-band structures sustain 40 MV/m average gradient at 77 K with 11% wall-plug-to-beam efficiency.
    Borrowed from C3 proposal [6]; conservative for HALHF but still unproven at this scale.
  • domain assumption Plasma sources can confine and replenish 6e14 cm^-3 plasmas over 5 m stages at 100 Hz with manageable cooling.
    Acknowledged as beyond state of the art: cooling rates an order of magnitude above CLIC (Sec. 8.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Proceedings of the Erice Workshop: A new baseline for the hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory HALHF." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5YXLOHG

@misc{pith2026250111072,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Proceedings of the Erice Workshop: A new baseline for the hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory HALHF},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5YXLOHG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11072}
}
read the original abstract

The HALHF collaboration has discussed a new baseline for the project, taking into account comments from the accelerator community on various aspects of the original design. In particular, these concerned the practicality of the dual-purpose linac to accelerate both colliding positron bunches and the drive beams required for the plasma linac. In addition, many other aspects of the project were also considered; the discussion and conclusions are documented in this paper. Finally, a new baseline is outlined that has been optimised and addresses several weaknesses in the original design, has higher luminosity, reduced centre-of-mass energy boost and additional features such as positron polarization as well as electron polarization. Although HALHF has become longer and more expensive, it remains significantly smaller and cheaper than other mature Higgs factory designs currently under discussion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11072 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic layout of the original baseline for the hybrid asymmetric linear Higgs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic concept and drive-beam timing for a typical scheme for HALHF. Drive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic concept and HALHF machine layout and timing for SWFA with spent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic concept and HALHF machine layout for one example of a “continuous” [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic concept and HALHF machine layout for one example of a “burst” drive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Photon yield (left) and photon energy (right) as a function of the undulator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Positron polarization versus κ-value without collimation but with an optic-matching device generating a peak field on the beam axis of 3.2 T. The blue numbers indicate the required undulator length. From Ref. [32]. with similar characteristics to that required for HALH…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The figure illustrates a possible location for a High Energy Beam Test Facility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic of an achromatic staging optic based on nonlinear plasma lenses. From [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Recoil mass distribution in the process e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) First time step of a PIC simulation with new baseline parameters, performed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Schematic view of the new HALHF baseline, using a cool-copper positron linac. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Schematic view of the new HALHF baseline with the fall-back warm positron linac. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Foster, R

    B. Foster, R. D’Arcy, C. A. Lindstrøm, A hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory based on plasma-wakefield and radio-frequency acceleration, New J. Phys. 25, 093037 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    C. A. Lindstrøm, R. D’Arcy, B. Foster, Status of and upgrade concepts for HALHF: the hybrid, asymmetric, linear Higgs factory, arXiv:2312.04975, to appear in Proc. EAAC Workshop, Elba, 18 - 22 September, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Barklow et al

    T. Barklow et al. , XCC: An X-ray FEL-based γ–γ Collider Higgs Factory ArXiv:2203.08484; Contribution to Snowmass 2021 study

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    T. K. Charles et al., The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) – 2018 Summary Report, CERN Yellow Report. 30

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Walker, Considerations of superconducting linacs, HALHF workshop, Oslo, April 4-5, 2024

    N. Walker, Considerations of superconducting linacs, HALHF workshop, Oslo, April 4-5, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Vernieri et al., A ”Cool” route to the Higgs boson and beyond

    C. Vernieri et al., A ”Cool” route to the Higgs boson and beyond. The Cool Copper Collider JINST 18, P07053 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    G. J. Cao et al. , Positron acceleration in plasma wakefields, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27, 034801 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Aicheler et al., A multi-TeV Linear Collider based on CLIC Technology : CLIC Conceptual Design Report, CERN-2012-007

    M. Aicheler et al., A multi-TeV Linear Collider based on CLIC Technology : CLIC Conceptual Design Report, CERN-2012-007

    work page 2012

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Aicheler et al

    M. Aicheler et al. , The Compact Linear Collider (CLIC) – Project Imple- mentation Plan, CERN-2018-004

    2018

  2. [10]

    Zholents et al

    A. Zholents et al. , A Conceptual Design of a Compact Wakefield Accel- erator for a High Repetition Rate Multi User X-Ray Free-Electron Laser Facility, Proceedings of IPAC 2018, pp. 1266–1268

    2018

  3. [11]

    Jing et al

    C. Jing et al. , Continuous and Coordinated Efforts of Structure Wakefield Acceleration (SWF A) Development for an Energy Frontier Machine, Con- tribution to Snowmass 2021 study

    2021

  4. [12]

    Ruber et al., The CTF3 Two-beam Test Stand, Nucl

    R. Ruber et al., The CTF3 Two-beam Test Stand, Nucl. Instrum. Methods A729, 546 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Picard et al

    J. Picard et al. , Generation of 565 MW of X-band power using a meta- material power extractor for structure-based wakefield acceleration, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 25, 051301 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Shao et al., Demonstration of Gradient Above 300 MV/m in Short Pulse Regime Using an X-Band Single-Cell Structure, Proceedings of IPAC 2022, pp

    J. Shao et al., Demonstration of Gradient Above 300 MV/m in Short Pulse Regime Using an X-Band Single-Cell Structure, Proceedings of IPAC 2022, pp. 3134–3137

    2022

  7. [15]

    Adli, A Study of the Beam Physics in the CLIC Drive Beam Decelerator, Ph.D

    E. Adli, A Study of the Beam Physics in the CLIC Drive Beam Decelerator, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oslo (2009)

    2009

  8. [16]

    Adli et al

    E. Adli et al. , X-band rf power production and deceleration in the two- beam test stand of the Compact Linear Collider test facility, Phys. Rev. Spec. Top. - Accel. Beams 14, 081001 (2011)

    2011

  9. [17]

    P. B. Wilson et al. , Bunch Lengthening and Related Effects in SPEAR II, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 24, 1211 (1977)

    1977

  10. [18]

    Seryi, Y

    A. Seryi, Y. Nosochkov, M. Woodley, Beam Delivery Layout for the Next Linear Collider, Proceedings of EPAC 2004, MOPLT137, pp. 860-862

    2004

  11. [19]

    Seryi et al

    A. Seryi et al. , Design of the Beam Delivery System for the International Linear Collider, Proceedings of PAC 2007, pp. 1985-1987. 31

    2007

  12. [20]

    T. Markiewicz, Advanced Collimators for Future Colliders or Status of R&D on Collimators for e +e−LCs & HL-LHC CAS/USPAS Joint Acceler- ator School, Newport Beach, CA (2014)(unpublished)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Seryi et al., Experimental and theoretical progress of linear collider final focus design and ATF2 facility Nucl

    A. Seryi et al., Experimental and theoretical progress of linear collider final focus design and ATF2 facility Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A740 2 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    G. R. White et al., Experimental Validation of a Novel Compact Focusing Scheme for Future Energy-Frontier Linear Lepton Colliders, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 034802 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Raimondi and A

    P. Raimondi and A. Seryi, Novel Final Focus Design for Future Linear Colliders Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3779 (2001)

    2001

  16. [24]

    Resta-L´ opezet al., Status Report of the Baseline Collimation System of the Compact Linear Collider, CLIC-Note-883, (2011) (unpublished)

    J. Resta-L´ opezet al., Status Report of the Baseline Collimation System of the Compact Linear Collider, CLIC-Note-883, (2011) (unpublished)

    2011

  17. [25]

    Andruszkow et

    J. Andruszkow et. al. , TESLA Technical Design Report - Part II The Ac- celerator, The TESLA Technical Design Report - Part II (2001) (unpub- lished)

    2001

  18. [26]

    Moffeit et al

    K. Moffeit et al. , Comparison of 2 mrad and 14/20 mrad Crossing Angle Extraction Lines, SLAC-PUB-11956 (2006)(unpublished)

    2006

  19. [27]

    Cilento et al., Dual beam delivery system serving two interaction regions for the Compact Linear Collider, Phys

    V. Cilento et al., Dual beam delivery system serving two interaction regions for the Compact Linear Collider, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 071001 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Moortgat-Pick et al

    G. Moortgat-Pick et al. , Physics at the e +e− Linear Collider, Eur. Phys. J. C75 371 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    K. S. R. Alharbi, The Impact of a Non-Ideal ILC Helical Undulator on the Photon Beam Parameters and Protection of the Undulator Wall Against Synchrotron Radiation, PhD Thesis, Hamburg University, January, 2024, Hamburg, Germany

    2024

  22. [30]

    Riemann et al

    S. Riemann et al. , Updated status of the undulator-based ILC positron source, Proceedings of LCWS2019, Sendai, Japan (2019)

    2019

  23. [31]

    Moortgat-Pick et al

    G. Moortgat-Pick et al. , R&D for positron sources at high-energy lepton colliders, Proceedings of EPS-HEP2023) 626 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Ushakov et al

    A. Ushakov et al. , Positron Source Simulations for ILC 1 TeV Upgrade, arXiv:1301.1222 (unpublished)

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    B. M. Kincaid, A Short Period Helical Wiggler as an Improved Source of Synchrotron Radiation, J. Appl. Phys. 48 2684 (1977)

    1977

  26. [34]

    Yokoya, T

    K. Yokoya, T. Tauchi, T. Takahashi, Version of CAIN including undulator spectrum (private communication) (2024). 32

    2024

  27. [35]

    C. A. Lindstrøm, Solutions and challenges for a multi-stage plasma acceler- ator, Proceedings of the EuroNNAc Special Topics Workshop, Elba, Italy (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Reis et al., E-320 Progress in FY24 and Plans for FY25, Proceedings of F ACET-II PAC Meeting, SLAC, Stanford, CA (2024)

    D. Reis et al., E-320 Progress in FY24 and Plans for FY25, Proceedings of F ACET-II PAC Meeting, SLAC, Stanford, CA (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Abramowicz et al., Technical Design Report for the LUXE experiment, Eur

    H. Abramowicz et al., Technical Design Report for the LUXE experiment, Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 233, 1709 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Asai et al

    S. Asai et al. , Pathways to Innovation and Discovery in Particle Physics, Particle Physics Project Prioritisation Panel Report P5 Report (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Barklow et al

    T. Barklow et al. , Beam delivery and beamstrahlung considerations for ultra-high energy linear colliders, J. Instrum. 18 P09022 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Yakimenko et al

    V. Yakimenko et al. , Prospect of Studying Nonperturbative QED with Beam-Beam Collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190404 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    H. A. Ali et al. , The Muon Smasher’s Guide, arXiv:2103.14043 (2021)(un- published)

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Drobniak et al

    P. Drobniak et al. , Development of a nonlinear plasma lens for achro- matic transport; arXiv:2411.00925; Proceedings of the Advanced Accel- erator Concepts (AAC) Workshop, Chicago (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Allison et al., Recent developments in GEANT4, Nucl

    J. Allison et al., Recent developments in GEANT4, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  36. [44]

    Adli et al

    E. Adli et al. , A Beam Driven Plasma-Wakefield Linear Collider: From Higgs Factory to Multi-TeV, Proceedings of the 2013 US Community Study on the Future of Particle Physics

    2013

  37. [45]

    Huang et al

    Y. Huang et al. , Ultrafast harmonic rf kicker design and beam dynamics analysis for an energy recovery linac based electron circulator cooler ring, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 19, 084201 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Diederichs et al

    S. Diederichs et al. , Resonant emittance mixing of flat beams in plasma accelerators, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 265003 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Ballarini et al

    F. Ballarini et al. , The FLUKA code: Overview and new developments, EPJ Nuclear Sci. Technol. 10, 16 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Diederichs et al

    S. Diederichs et al. , HiPACE++: A portable, 3D quasi-static particle-in- cell code, Comput. Phys. Comm., 278, 108421 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Borland, ELEGANT: A flexible SDDS-compliant code for accelera- tor simulation

    M. Borland, ELEGANT: A flexible SDDS-compliant code for accelera- tor simulation. Office of Science and Technical Information Report 761286 (2000) (unpublished). 33

    2000

  42. [50]

    Vieira et al., Polarized beam conditioning in plasma based acceleration, Phys

    J. Vieira et al., Polarized beam conditioning in plasma based acceleration, Phys. Rev. St-AB, 14, 071303 (2011)

    2011

  43. [51]

    L. H. Thomas, I. The kinematics of an electron with an axis, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 3, 1 (1927)

    1927

  44. [52]

    Bargmann, L

    V. Bargmann, L. Michel and V.L. Telegdi, Precession of the polarization of particles moving in a homogeneous electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2 435 (1959)

    1959

  45. [53]

    Tzoufras et al., Beam Loading in the Nonlinear Regime of Plasma-Based Acceleration Phys

    M. Tzoufras et al., Beam Loading in the Nonlinear Regime of Plasma-Based Acceleration Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 145002 (2008)

    2008

  46. [54]

    Pe˜ naet al

    F. Pe˜ naet al. , Energy depletion and re-acceleration of driver electrons in a plasma-wakefield accelerator, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043090 (2024)

    2024

  47. [55]

    C. A. Lindstrøm et al., Energy-Spread Preservation and High Efficiency in a Plasma-Wakefield Accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 014801 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Buttensch¨ on, N

    B. Buttensch¨ on, N. Fahrenkamp, O. Grulke, A high power, high density helicon discharge for the plasma wakefield accelerator experiment A W AKE, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 075005 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Ariniello et al.” , Transverse beam dynamics in a plasma density ramp, Phys

    R. Ariniello et al.” , Transverse beam dynamics in a plasma density ramp, Phys. Rev. Acc. Beams 22, 041304 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Torrado et al., Double Pulse Generator for Unipolar Discharges in Long Plasma Tubes for the A W AKE Experiment, IEEE Trans

    N. Torrado et al., Double Pulse Generator for Unipolar Discharges in Long Plasma Tubes for the A W AKE Experiment, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sc, 51, 3619 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Chen, Helicon discharges and sources: a review, Plasma Sources Sci

    F.F. Chen, Helicon discharges and sources: a review, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. 24 014001 (2015)

    2015

  52. [60]

    Loisch et al

    G. Loisch et al. , Paper in preparation

  53. [61]

    Maxon, Spin-polarized electron sources for future linear colliders, Pro- ceedings of LCWS2024, Tokyo, Japan (2024)

    J. Maxon, Spin-polarized electron sources for future linear colliders, Pro- ceedings of LCWS2024, Tokyo, Japan (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    C. A. Lindstrøm et al., SPARTA (ERC StG): Staging of Plasma Accelera- tors for Realizing Timely Applications, European Commission, CORDIS. 34

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.