Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 23 references

Empirical scaling laws for self-focused laser pulses in nitrogen plasmas

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Self-focusing in dense nitrogen plasmas makes the peak laser field, depletion length, plasma-channel radius, and wakefield amplitude follow four empirical scaling laws in density and energy.

desk verdict Useful scalings for a relevant LPA regime, but the central fit equation doesn't match the data as printed; it needs a correction before the claims hold together. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04827 v1 pith:T4Z6QCV5 submitted 2025-06-05 physics.plasm-ph

Lorenzo Martelli , Igor Andriyash , Jonathan Wheeler , Henri Kraft , Xuan Quyen Dinh , Cédric Thaury This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords empiricalscalinglawslaserself-focusingparticle-in-cellsimulationsnitrogenplasmawakefieldaccelerationchannelpumpdepletionhigh-chargeelectronbeams
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

The paper uses three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations to study a 1 J-class, 30 fs, 800 nm laser pulse entering a nitrogen plasma with electron densities from 0.02 to 0.18 times the critical density. It finds that self-focusing confines the pulse to a waist near half the plasma wavelength, boosting the normalized vector potential in the plasma well above its vacuum value. On this basis it proposes an empirical formula for the maximum vector potential, $a_{P,\max} \approx 91 \sqrt{n_e/n_c}\,E_L(\mathrm{J})\,(1-n_e/n_c)$, together with companion formulas for the depletion length, plasma-channel radius, and peak wakefield amplitude. These scalings matter because this dense-nitrogen regime has recently produced electron beams with more than 10 nC per bunch, a key step toward high-average-current laser-plasma accelerators.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the coupling between relativistic self-focusing and plasma ionization. Because every simulated case exceeds the critical power for self-focusing, the pulse compresses until its waist is about half the plasma wavelength, and since the focused intensity scales with the plasma density, $a_{P,\max}$ grows with $n_e/n_c$. The numerical workhorse is an azimuthal-decomposed, Fourier-Bessel particle-in-cell method retaining modes $m=0$–$2$, with nitrogen preionized to N$^{3+}$ and further ionization to at least N$^{5+}$ described by a tunnel-ionization model; the extraction of $a_{P,\max}$, depletion length, channel radius, and wakefield amplitude from these runs is what the empirical fits encode.

What would settle it

Run a fully Cartesian three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulation with no azimuthal-mode truncation for a 30 fs, 800 nm, 1 J pulse in $n_e=0.06\,n_c$ nitrogen and extract $a_{P,\max}$; if the result does not match Eq. (1) within the run-to-run spread, the empirical law is not robust.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in this strongly self-focused regime, the laser dynamics collapse onto simple empirical scalings. The beam waist oscillates around $\lambda_p/2$, so the transverse intensity and hence the normalized vector potential grow with plasma density; the paper fits this growth as Eq. (1), plus a depletion length that scales as $L_{pd}(\mu\mathrm{m})\approx16\,n_c/n_e$, a channel radius $r_c\approx2.4\,E_L^{1/4}(n_e/n_c)^{-1/4}(1-n_e/n_c)^{1/2}$ $\mu$m, and a peak wakefield $E_c\approx4.1\times10^4\,E_L^{1/4}(n_e/n_c)^{3/4}(1-n_e/n_c)^{1/2}$ GV/m. The paper argues that replacing the vacuum amplitude $a_0$ with $a_{P,\max}$ in established blowout formulas accounts for the stronger focusing and matches the simulated channel radius and wakefield, including the distinct structure where K-shell electrons accumulate on axis and screen the longitudinal field.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation model—nitrogen preionized to N$^{3+}$, tunnel ionization to at least N$^{5+}$, and only three azimuthal modes—faithfully represents the strongly self-focused nitrogen plasma; if any of these is off, the fitted exponents in the four scaling laws would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At fixed laser energy, raising $n_e/n_c$ increases $a_{P,\max}$ roughly as $\sqrt{n_e/n_c}$ while shortening the depletion length as $n_c/n_e$; these opposing trends define a usable density–energy window for high-charge acceleration.
  • Replacing the vacuum amplitude $a_0$ with $a_{P,\max}$ in standard blowout formulas corrects the predicted channel radius and wakefield, so the paper provides a direct upgrade path for existing design estimates.
  • The K-shell electron loading creates a channel with a defocusing radial wakefield and a screened on-axis longitudinal field, so electron injection and beam dynamics in this regime differ materially from a clean spherical blowout cavity.
  • The stated ranges, $E_L=0.05$–$1$ J and $n_e/n_c=0.02$–$0.18$, let a user immediately estimate whether a given 1 J-class system reaches $a_P>1$ and for how long, which sets the expected accelerated charge.
  • The depletion-length scaling $L_{pd}\propto n_c/n_e$ is density-dominated rather than amplitude-dominated in this range, identifying plasma density rather than laser energy as the main control on how far acceleration can extend.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the fitted parameter range, the functional form of Eq. (1) suggests a sharp test at the high-density edge $n_e/n_c\gtrsim0.2$, where the $(1-n_e/n_c)$ factor should strongly suppress further growth of $a_{P,\max}$; the paper does not explore that edge.
  • If the K-shell loading is the cause of the channel and the screened wakefield, then choosing a different high-Z gas or a different initial ionization state could tune those structures; this knob is implied by the mechanism but not tested here.
  • The azimuthal truncation to $m=0$–$2$ leaves open how much of the sidelobe and beam-breakup dynamics is fully resolved; a full three-dimensional Cartesian simulation of the same cases would confirm the scalings or reveal higher-order-mode corrections.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a particle-in-cell simulation study of 30 fs, 800 nm laser pulses (0.05-1 J, waist 3 µm) interacting with dense nitrogen plasmas (0.02-0.18 n_c), using the FBPIC code with azimuthal modes m=0-2 and an ADK ionization model. From the simulations it derives empirical scaling laws for the maximum laser vector potential in plasma, the pump depletion length, the radius of a plasma channel formed by the self-focused pulse, and the peak wakefield amplitude. These laws are proposed as practical design tools for high-charge, high-average-current laser-plasma accelerators operating in dense nitrogen. The central formula is Eq. (1), a_P,max ≈ 91 sqrt(n_e/n_c) E_L(J) (1 - n_e/n_c), from which the channel radius and wakefield scalings are obtained by substitution into Lu's blowout relations.

Significance. If the reported scaling laws were quantitatively correct, they would be practically useful for the design of 1 J-class laser-plasma accelerator stages in dense nitrogen, where the laser self-focuses and enhances the vector potential beyond its vacuum value. The paper addresses a relevant and under-explored regime, and the use of a state-of-the-art, azimuthally decomposed PIC code with realistic ionization physics is a strength. However, the central formula Eq. (1) as printed does not reproduce the paper's own simulation point reported in Sec. 3, so the quantitative significance of the paper cannot be assessed until this is corrected. The derived formulas Eqs. (4) and (6) are also not independently validated against data outside the fitting campaign.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (1)] Evaluating Eq. (1) for the simulation discussed in Sec. 3 (E_L = 0.12 J, n_e/n_c = 0.06) gives a_P,max ≈ 91 × 0.245 × 0.12 × 0.94 ≈ 2.5, whereas the text reports a_P,max ≈ 6 for this case; for E_L = 1 J the same formula gives ≈ 21, matching the reported value. This inconsistency is load-bearing because Eq. (1) is the foundation from which Eqs. (4) and (6) are derived: those equations contain E_L^{1/4}, which implies the intended form is a_P,max ∝ sqrt(E_L), not the printed linear E_L(J). The authors must correct Eq. (1) and correspondingly re-derive the coefficients in Eqs. (4) and (6), then redo the comparisons shown in Figs. 2, 5, and 6.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (6) and Fig. 6] The validation claim at the highest density is not supported: for E_L = 1 J and n_e/n_c = 0.18, Eq. (6) gives 10 TV/m whereas the simulation is reported to reach 13.2 TV/m, a deviation of about 25%. The text states that this 'proves the good agreement' with the numerical results, but the discrepancy is larger than in the other cases. Please report all validation points as numerical values, state whether 13.2 TV/m is the true maximum, and quantify the residuals of the fit.
  3. [Secs. 2-3, validation methodology] Eqs. (1) and (3) are fitted to the PIC results, and Eqs. (4) and (6) are then checked against the same PIC campaign from which Eq. (1) was obtained. Because the channel radius and wakefield are different observables, these checks are useful consistency tests of Lu's relations in this regime, but they are not independent validations of the functional forms. The wording 'proving the good agreement' overstates the strength of the evidence; independent simulations outside the fitted parameter range, or experimental data, would be needed to establish predictive power.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is dimensionally ambiguous: L_pd ∝ (a_0 + K)/(n_e/n_c) combines the dimensionless quantity a_0 + K with a length on the left-hand side; the proportionality constant and the units of K should be stated explicitly so that Eq. (3) follows cleanly.
  2. [Sec. 3, around Fig. 1] The quantity a_P,max is defined only loosely as the maximum value 'shortly after the density ramp'; please state precisely over which propagation distance the maximum is evaluated, since Eq. (1) is a fit to this definition.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption says the red colormap represents 'the laser envelope' while the text describes it as the normalized vector potential a_P; please make the terminology consistent.
  4. [Sec. 3, text after Eq. (2)] The statement 'K ≫ a_0 for a_0 ∈ [2,10]' discards the a_0 dependence in Eq. (2); please show residuals or a comparison with an a_0-dependent fit in Fig. 3 to justify this neglect.
  5. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (1)] The sentence 'the factor (1 - n_e/n_c) for other phenomenons such as laser depletion, reflection and dispersion' contains a typo ('phenomenons' should be 'phenomena') and would benefit from a more specific physical justification of the functional form.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: Eq. (1) is an explicit fit, and Eqs. (4)/(6) are transparent substitutions of that fit into Lu's formulas; the only circular flavor is in-sample validation against the same simulation campaign.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3, Eq. (1) and Fig. 2; Eqs. (4), (6) and Fig. 6]
    "The dashed lines in Fig. 2 have been obtained with Eq. (1), proving the good agreement with the numerical results."

    Eq. (1) is deduced from the FBPIC dots in Fig. 2, so the dashed-line "agreement" is a fit evaluated on its own training data. Eqs. (4) and (6) are then obtained by inserting this fitted Eq. (1) into Lu's blowout radius and wakefield formulas, and the validation in Fig. 6 uses densities/energies from the same campaign used to fit Eq. (1). The derived radius/wakefield scalings therefore inherit the fitted functional form, and agreement with these simulations is in-sample rather than an independent test. Because radius and wakefield are distinct observables from the fitted aP,max, this is partial circularity, not identity.

full rationale

The paper is an explicitly empirical PIC study: Eq. (1) is described as deduced from the FBPIC dots, Eq. (3) is presented as a fit, and Eqs. (4) and (6) are obtained by explicitly substituting Eq. (1) into Lu's cited blowout formulas. None of these steps hides a fitted parameter as an independent prediction or imports a self-cited uniqueness theorem. The only circular flavor is in-sample validation: the dashed lines 'proving good agreement' in Fig. 2 are the fit evaluated on the training data, and the Fig. 6 'validation' of Eqs. (4)/(6) uses densities and energies from the same simulation campaign that produced the fitted aP,max values. Since channel radius and wakefield are independent observables from the fitted laser amplitude, some transfer of content exists, so this is not a by-construction identity. Self-citations (Refs. [12,13]) provide context for the high-charge-beam motivation and are not load-bearing for the scaling derivations. Separately, as a correctness matter rather than circularity, Eq. (1) as printed evaluates to about 2.5 at E_L = 0.12 J and n_e/nc = 0.06 while the text reports aP,max about 6; this numerical inconsistency does not change the circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constant 91 and depletion constant 16 are fitted to simulation outputs; Eqs. (4) and (6) inherit the fitted 91 through substitution into known blowout formulas. No new physical entities are introduced. The scaling forms themselves are ad hoc model choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Coefficient 91 in Eq. (1) = 91
    Chosen to match the FBPIC values of aP,max in Fig. 2; no fit uncertainty or residuals are reported.
  • Constant K in Eq. (2) = not reported
    Numerically determined and then dropped under K much greater than a0, making the reduction to Eq. (3) untraceable.
  • Coefficient 16 in Eq. (3) = 16 micrometers per unit nc/ne
    Fit to the pump depletion length data in Fig. 3; no uncertainty is given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Lu's blowout scalings r_b = 2 sqrt(a0)/k_p and E0 = 96 sqrt(a0 n_e) are valid for this configuration when a0 is replaced by aP,max.
    Eqs. (4) and (6) are obtained by substitution into Refs. [22]; the paper does not justify that the blowout formulas apply to channel-like structures with K-shell electrons on axis.
  • domain assumption FBPIC with three azimuthal modes m=0-2 and the stated grid resolves self-focusing, beam breakup, and wakefields.
    No convergence scan or comparison to higher-mode runs is presented.
  • domain assumption The ionization model (preionized N+3, further ionization to N+5, K-shell ADK) reproduces the experimental high-charge regime of Refs. [12,13].
    No benchmark against experimental data is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The empirical scaling form in Eq. (1), including the (1 - ne/nc) factor, is an adequate representation of the data.
    The form is chosen to fit the dots; no derivation or model selection is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Empirical scaling laws for self-focused laser pulses in nitrogen plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T4Z6QCV5

@misc{pith2026250604827,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Empirical scaling laws for self-focused laser pulses in nitrogen plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T4Z6QCV5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04827}
}
abstract

We investigate the interaction between a superintense laser pulse and a nitrogen plasma with densities exceeding $10^{19}\,$cm$^{-3}$, using particle-in-cell simulations. Such configurations have recently demonstrated the capability to produce highly charged electron beams (i.e., $>10\,$nC) with $1\,$J-class lasers, a significant step toward high-average-current laser-plasma accelerators. Our study focuses on analyzing the impact of laser self-focusing on laser dynamics, leading to scaling laws that characterize beam diffraction, wakefield amplitude and plasma structures, providing important insights of this interaction regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04827 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FBPIC results for ne = 0.06 nc. The gray colormap represents density snapshots at (a) EL = 0.12 J and at (b) EL = 1 J. The red colormap represents the laser envelope, expressed in terms of the normalized vector potential in plasma aP . The insets refer to the laser transverse profile along the green dashed line. (c-d) Beam waist and normalized vector potential in plasma for EL = 0.12 J and EL = 1 J [PITH_FULL_IMAGE… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Maximum normalized vector potential in plasma for different plasma densities and laser energies. The dots refer to the values obtained through FBPIC simulations, while the discontinuous lines have been obtained empirically. able to deduce the following empirical law for the maximum normalized vector potential in plasma: aP,max ≈ 91 p ne/nc × EL(J) (1 − ne/nc), (1) where the factor p ne/nc accounts for the reduced be… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Pump depletion length for different densities, across different a0’s. The dots represent the numerical results, while the dashed lines are a fit of the form Lpd(µm) ≈ 16 nc/ne. Concerning the structures in plasma, the numerical analysis underlines the formation of a long and rapidly changing channel-like structure shortly after the end of the density ramp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (1 − 4) Plasma density snapshots of four consecutive iterations. The gray and green colormaps refer to the L- and K-shell electron density. In red we depict aP . These panels allow to observe the generation of a channel-like structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (b), instead, illustrates the radial wakefield map (Er) and the longitudinal wakefield (Ez) corresponding to the iteration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Results with EL = 1 J and (a1-2) ne = 0.06 nc and (b1-2) ne = 0.18 nc. (a2, b2) Radial wakefield in blue and red, while the black curve refers to the longitudinal wakefield. 4. Conclusion In this paper, we conduct a detailed numerical campaign to investigate laser diff…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tajima T and Dawson J M 1979Phys. Rev. Lett.43(4) 267–270 URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.267

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.43.267

  2. [2]

    Lundh O, Lim J, Rechatin C, Ammoura L, Ben-Ismail A, Davoine X, Gallot G, Goddet J P, Lefebvre E and Malka V 2011Nature Physics7219–222 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ nphys1872

    work page

  3. [3]

    Couperus J P, Pausch R, K¨ ohler A, Zarini O, Debus A, Garten M, Gebhardt R, Herrmannsd¨ orfer T, Huebl A, Radebeul E, Zeil K, Kaluza M C and Schramm U 2017Nature Communications8 487 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00592-7

    doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00592-7

  4. [4]

    Kurz T, Heinemann T, Gilljohann M F, Debus A, Ding H, Huebl A, Wood J G, Lindstrøm C A, Diaz M A, Arbon R D, Rumbol R D, Shaw B H, Knetsch A, Hidding B and Schramm U 2021 Nature Communications122895 URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23000-7

    doi:10.1038/s41467-021-23000-7 2021

  5. [5]

    Winkler P, Trunk M, H¨ ubner L, Marchetti B and Maier A 2025Nature640907–910 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08772-y

    doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08772-y

  6. [6]

    Wood J C, Chapman D J, Poder Ket al.2018Scientific Reports811010 URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41598-018-29347-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-018-29347-0

  7. [7]

    Vozenin M C, Bourhis J and Durante M 2022Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology19791–803 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-022-00697-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41571-022-00697-z

  8. [8]

    2410.05086

    Flacco A, ´Emilie Bayart, Giaccaglia C, Monzac J, Romagnani L, Cavallone M, Patriarca A, DeMarzi L, Fouillade C, Heinrich S, Lamarre-Jouenne I, Parodi K, R¨ osch T, Schreiber J and Tischendorf L 2024arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05086URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2410.05086

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.05086

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Rovige L, Huijts J, Andriyash I, Vernier A, Tomkus V, Girdauskas V, Raciukaitis G, Dudutis J, Stankevic V, Gecys P, Ouille M, Cheng Z, Lopez-Martens R and Faure J 2020Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams23(9) 093401

  2. [10]

    Multiscan 3D project, European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 2020 https://multiscan3d-h2020.eu/ Empirical scaling laws for self-focused laser pulses in nitrogen plasmas9

    2020

  3. [11]

    thesis Institut Polytechnique de Paris URLhttps://theses.hal.science/ tel-04791204

    Martelli L 2024Average Current Enhancement of Laser-Plasma Accelerators for Industrial ApplicationsPh.D. thesis Institut Polytechnique de Paris URLhttps://theses.hal.science/ tel-04791204

  4. [12]

    com/doi/abs/10.1002/lpor.202300514

    Feng J, Li Y, Tan J, Wang W, Li Y, Zhang X, Meng Y, Ge X, Liu F, Yan W, Fu C, Chen L and Zhang J 2023Laser & Photonics Reviews172300514 URLhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/abs/10.1002/lpor.202300514

    doi

  5. [13]

    Martelli L, Kononenko O, Andriyash I, Wheeler J, Gautier J, Goddet J P, Tafzi A, Lahaye R, Giaccaglia C, Flacco A, Tomkus V, Mackeviˇ ci¯ ut˙ e M, Dudutis J, Stankevic V, Geˇ cys P, Raˇ ciukaitis G, Kraft H, Dinh X and Thaury C 2025Phys. Rev. Appl.23(3) 034033 URL https://link...

    doi

  6. [14]

    Pellegrina A, Jeandet A, Lavenu L, Ricaud S, Simon-Boisson C, Vernier A, Flacco A and Faure J 2022 High average power TiSa amplifier for high energy, high repetition rate laser plasma acceleratorOptica High-brightness Sources and Light-driven Interactions Congress 2022 (Optica...

    2022

  7. [15]

    Kiani L, Zhou T, Bahk S W, Bromage J, Bruhwiler D, Campbell E M, Chang Z, Chowdhury E, Downer M, Du Q, Esarey E, Galvanauskas A, Galvin T, H¨ afner C, Hoffmann D, Joshi C, Kanskar M, Lu W, Menoni C, Messerly M, Mirov S B, Palmer M, Pogorelsky I, Polyanskiy M, Power E, Reagan B...

    doi

  8. [16]

    Adv.10eadk1947 URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/sciadv.adk1947

    Cohen I, Meir T, Tangtartharakul K, Perelmutter L, Elkind M, Gershuni Y, Levanon A, Arefiev A V and Pomerantz I 2024Sci. Adv.10eadk1947 URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/ 10.1126/sciadv.adk1947

    doi

  9. [17]

    Lehe R, Kirchen M, Jalas S, Jeppe L, Andriyash I, Peters K, Huebl A, omri seemann, Yoffe S, dornmai, de la Ossa A, Zoni E, Grote D, Sta´ nczak-Marikin D, Shalloo R, Isaiah, Poder K, Th´ evenet M, Pausch R, Kuschel S, Seipt D and Hui D X 2023ZenodoURLhttps: //doi.org/10.5281/ze...

    doi

  10. [18]

    Thomas A G R, Najmudin Z, Mangles S P D, Murphy C D, Dangor A E, Kamperidis C, Lancaster K L, Mori W B, Norreys P A, Rozmus W and Krushelnick K 2007Phys. Rev. Lett.98(9) 095004 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.095004

    doi

  11. [19]

    Ammosov M V, Delone N B and Krainov V P 1986 Tunnel Ionization Of Complex Atoms And Atomic Ions In Electromagnetic FieldHigh Intensity Laser Processesvol 0664 ed Alcock J A International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE) pp 138 – 141 URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1117/12.938695

    1986 doi

  12. [20]

    Esarey E, Schroeder C B and Leemans W P 2009Rev. Mod. Phys.81(3) 1229–1285 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1229

    doi

  13. [21]

    Mangles S, Thomas A, Bellei C, Dangor A, Kamperidis C, Kneip S, Nagel S, Willingale L and Najmudin Z 2008Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on361715 – 1721

  14. [22]

    Lu W, Tzoufras M, Joshi C, Tsung F S, Mori W B, Vieira J, Fonseca R A and Silva L O 2007Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams10(6) 061301 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB. 10.061301

    doi

  15. [23]

    Gordienko S and Pukhov A 2005Physics of Plasmas12043109 ISSN 1070-664X URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1063/1.1884126

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.