arxiv: 2605.03918 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-05 · ⚛️ physics.acc-ph · physics.plasm-ph

Recognition: unknown

Damping dynamics of the centroid oscillation of a relativistic laser pulse in a plasma channel

Yuhui Xia , Zhenan Wang , Ziyao Tang , Jianghao Hu , Xinyang Liu , Letian Liu , Laifu Man , Zhuo Pan

show 5 more authors

Di Wu Jacob R. Pierce Xueqing Yan Chen Lin Xinlu Xu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 04:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.acc-ph physics.plasm-ph

keywords plasma channelcentroid oscillationrelativistic laser pulsephase mixinglaser wakefield acceleratordamping dynamicsphoton decelerationaxial chirp

0 comments

The pith

Relativistic laser pulses in plasma channels experience rapid damping of their centroid oscillation due to an axial frequency chirp.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper analyzes the centroid motion of an offset laser pulse traveling through a preformed plasma channel using theory and 3D particle-in-cell simulations. Non-relativistic pulses show gradual decay from mode leakage in finite channels and temporal walk-off between fundamental and higher-order modes. Relativistic pulses develop a slice-dependent oscillation frequency because relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration stretch the frequency along the pulse axis. Different axial slices then oscillate out of phase, producing phase mixing that damps the net centroid motion much faster than in the non-relativistic case. This damping directly influences electron-beam pointing stability in channel-guided laser wakefield accelerators.

Core claim

For relativistic laser pulses the slice-based centroid oscillation frequency develops an axial chirp due to relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration; the resulting phase mixing across axial slices produces rapid damping of the overall centroid oscillation. In the non-relativistic regime the same oscillation decays more slowly through mode leakage of a finite channel and temporal walk-off between modes of a finite-duration pulse. An analytical model for the non-relativistic decay mechanisms is derived and confirmed by simulation.

What carries the argument

The axial chirp in slice-based centroid oscillation frequency, generated by relativistic plasma-channel modification together with photon deceleration, that drives phase mixing and net damping across the pulse length.

If this is right

Rapid damping reduces electron-beam pointing jitter in channel-guided laser wakefield accelerators.
Designs of plasma channels for high-energy accelerators must incorporate the relativistic frequency chirp to predict oscillation lifetime.
The non-relativistic analytical model of mode leakage and walk-off decay provides a baseline that relativistic effects strongly modify.
Controlling photon deceleration or channel density gradients offers a route to tune the damping rate.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the chirp strength scales with laser intensity, experiments could deliberately vary pulse energy to control damping and test the phase-mixing picture.
The same axial frequency variation may couple to other propagation instabilities such as self-focusing, suggesting a combined stability analysis for realistic channels.
Extensions to non-ideal or evolving channel profiles could reveal additional damping channels that either reinforce or counteract the relativistic chirp effect.
The damping timescale sets a practical limit on how far a laser pulse can be guided while preserving beam quality, linking directly to accelerator staging requirements.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes an ideal preformed plasma channel whose density profile remains stable and in which higher-order effects such as self-focusing instabilities or non-paraxial propagation do not dominate the centroid dynamics.

What would settle it

A 3D simulation or experiment that records sustained, undamped centroid oscillation for a relativistic pulse propagating in a uniform, stable plasma channel over many oscillation periods would falsify the phase-mixing damping mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.03918 by Chen Lin, Di Wu, Jacob R. Pierce, Jianghao Hu, Laifu Man, Letian Liu, Xinlu Xu, Xinyang Liu, Xueqing Yan, Yuhui Xia, Zhenan Wang, Zhuo Pan, Ziyao Tang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of a laser pulse propagating in a view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Dependence of view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. The evolution of the non-relativistic laser centroid view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Laser slice centroid evolution for view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The centroid dynamics in the relativistic case ( view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The evolution of the relativistic laser centroid under view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Numerical solutions of the Helmholtz equation. (a) view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The centroid oscillation of an offset laser pulse propagating in a preformed plasma channel is investigated through theoretical analysis and three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations. For non-relativistic laser pulses, the mode leakage of a finite channel and the temporal walk-off between the fundamental and high order modes of a finite-duration laser induce a decay in the laser centroid oscillation. An analytical model characterizing these decay mechanisms is derived and validated by simulations. For relativistic laser pulses, the slice-based centroid oscillation frequency develops an axial chirp due to relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration. This chirp leads to phase mixing across different axial slices of the pulse, resulting in a rapid damping of the overall centroid oscillation. Understanding this oscillation damping is crucial for mitigating electron beam pointing jitter and maintaining beam quality in high-energy, channel-guided laser wakefield accelerators.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper isolates a relativistic axial-chirp phase-mixing damping for laser centroid oscillations in plasma channels, backed by an analytical non-rel model and 3D PIC runs, but leaves open whether this dominates over instabilities in realistic setups.

read the letter

The punchline is that relativistic laser pulses show faster centroid damping than expected from non-relativistic effects alone, and the authors trace it to an axial frequency chirp across pulse slices that drives phase mixing. The chirp arises from relativistic channel index changes plus photon deceleration, which makes different axial parts of the pulse oscillate at slightly different frequencies and dephase over distance. This is presented as a distinct process from the mode-leakage and walk-off they model for the non-relativistic regime. They derive an analytical expression for the non-relativistic decay and show it matches their 3D PIC simulations, which is the clearest part of the work. The relativistic explanation follows logically once you accept the slice-wise frequency shift, and the simulations appear to reproduce the rapid damping they predict. That combination gives the claim some grounding. The main soft spot is the reliance on an ideal, unchanging preformed parabolic channel. The stress-test concern holds: without a clear parameter boundary (for example, a0 or propagation length) showing that the chirp-induced dephasing rate exceeds growth rates for hosing, self-focusing, or channel erosion, it is hard to know how often this mechanism actually sets the damping in practice. The paper does not seem to supply that demarcation or run cases where those competing effects are deliberately seeded. If the simulations already include some of those effects and still show clean phase-mixing damping, that would tighten the result, but the abstract and description do not make that explicit. This is aimed at the laser-wakefield community working on channel-guided accelerators and beam-pointing stability. Readers who need a concrete mechanism for jitter mitigation will get something usable from the non-relativistic model and the relativistic picture. It is worth sending to peer review. The analysis plus simulations give it enough substance for referees to check the derivations and test the applicability limits, even if revisions are needed on the instability bounds.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates the damping dynamics of the centroid oscillation of an offset laser pulse propagating in a preformed plasma channel, using theoretical analysis and 3D particle-in-cell simulations. For non-relativistic pulses, an analytical model is derived from mode leakage of a finite channel and temporal walk-off between fundamental and higher-order modes, and validated against simulations. For relativistic pulses, the authors attribute rapid damping to an axial chirp in the slice-based centroid oscillation frequency arising from relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration, which induces phase mixing across axial slices of the pulse. The work is motivated by applications to mitigating electron beam pointing jitter in channel-guided laser wakefield accelerators.

Significance. If the relativistic phase-mixing mechanism is robustly established, the paper offers a useful contribution to understanding laser pulse stability in plasma channels, with direct relevance to high-energy LWFA. The non-relativistic analytical model, derived from standard wave equations and validated by simulations, represents a clear, parameter-free strength. The relativistic extension builds on known relativistic plasma effects but would gain from explicit demarcation against competing processes. Overall, the combination of derivation and 3D PIC validation adds value to the field if the central attribution holds.

major comments (2)

[§4] §4 (relativistic regime): The central claim that axial frequency chirp from relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration produces phase mixing and rapid damping is load-bearing. However, the analysis assumes a fixed parabolic channel profile under paraxial propagation; no quantitative comparison is provided showing that the dephasing timescale is shorter than the growth rates of instabilities such as hosing, self-focusing, or channel erosion for the simulated a0 and propagation lengths. This leaves open the possibility that competing effects dominate before phase mixing completes.
[§3.2] §3.2 (non-relativistic model validation): While the analytical decay model is presented as independent, the simulation parameters (e.g., channel radius, pulse duration) are not explicitly shown to lie in the regime where mode leakage and walk-off dominate over other numerical or physical effects; a sensitivity test varying these would confirm the model's robustness.

minor comments (3)

[Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent simulation plots): Error bars or ensemble statistics from multiple runs are not shown, making it difficult to assess the statistical significance of the reported damping rates.
[Relativistic analysis] Notation: The definition of the local slice centroid frequency (likely in Eq. (X) of the relativistic section) could be clarified with an explicit expression relating it to the relativistic index and photon deceleration.
[Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the range of a0 separating the non-relativistic and relativistic regimes analyzed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript on the damping dynamics of centroid oscillations of relativistic laser pulses in plasma channels. The comments raise valid points about strengthening the evidence for the relativistic phase-mixing mechanism and the robustness of the non-relativistic model validation. We address each major comment below, explaining our position and the revisions we will incorporate.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: §4 (relativistic regime): The central claim that axial frequency chirp from relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration produces phase mixing and rapid damping is load-bearing. However, the analysis assumes a fixed parabolic channel profile under paraxial propagation; no quantitative comparison is provided showing that the dephasing timescale is shorter than the growth rates of instabilities such as hosing, self-focusing, or channel erosion for the simulated a0 and propagation lengths. This leaves open the possibility that competing effects dominate before phase mixing completes.

Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for timescale comparisons to confirm the dominance of phase mixing. The 3D PIC simulations inherently include competing processes such as hosing, self-focusing, and channel evolution, yet exhibit the rapid damping that quantitatively matches the axial chirp predicted from relativistic channel modification and photon deceleration. The fixed parabolic profile is used only in the analytical derivation for tractability under paraxial approximation; the simulations do not impose this restriction. In the revised manuscript, we will add explicit estimates of the dephasing timescale (from the slice-dependent frequency variation) versus the growth rates of hosing, self-focusing, and channel erosion for the simulated a0 values and propagation lengths. This will show that phase mixing completes faster than significant instability growth, supporting our attribution while acknowledging the approximation in the theory. revision: partial
Referee: §3.2 (non-relativistic model validation): While the analytical decay model is presented as independent, the simulation parameters (e.g., channel radius, pulse duration) are not explicitly shown to lie in the regime where mode leakage and walk-off dominate over other numerical or physical effects; a sensitivity test varying these would confirm the model's robustness.

Authors: We agree that demonstrating the parameter regime more explicitly would strengthen the validation. The analytical model is derived from the standard paraxial wave equation for a finite-radius channel, yielding mode leakage and temporal walk-off as the decay mechanisms without reliance on simulation specifics. In the revised manuscript, we will expand §3.2 to include a discussion of the relevant regime (channel radius comparable to but larger than the laser spot size, pulse duration allowing significant walk-off) and add sensitivity tests by varying channel radius and pulse duration in additional simulations. These will confirm that the observed decay rates match the model predictions when mode leakage and walk-off dominate, while other effects (e.g., numerical dispersion) remain subdominant. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained; analytical models derived from standard effects and validated by independent simulations

full rationale

The paper derives its non-relativistic damping model directly from mode leakage of a finite channel and temporal walk-off between fundamental and higher-order modes, presenting an explicit analytical characterization that is then validated against 3D PIC simulations. The relativistic axial chirp is attributed to established relativistic modifications of the channel index and photon deceleration, producing phase mixing across slices; these are standard plasma-physics inputs rather than quantities fitted or defined within the paper itself. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no load-bearing self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior author work. The overall damping result therefore rests on independent derivation plus external numerical confirmation rather than circular re-labeling of inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard domain assumptions of laser-plasma physics rather than new free parameters or invented entities; the analytical model for decay is built from mode decomposition and relativistic propagation effects already present in the literature.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The plasma channel is preformed with a stable, guiding density profile that supports well-defined transverse modes.
Invoked throughout the setup for both non-relativistic and relativistic analyses of centroid oscillation.
standard math The laser pulse can be decomposed into a fundamental mode plus higher-order modes whose leakage and walk-off govern non-relativistic decay.
Used to derive the analytical decay model for the non-relativistic case.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5479 in / 1549 out tokens · 72935 ms · 2026-05-07T04:00:35.748946+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references

[1]

For LWFA, a channel with wcore wch ≳2 is essential to ensure that L1/e,0,0 Lp ≫1

They increase rapidly with increasingw core, consis- tent with the fact that a wider channel provides stronger confinement of the laser. For LWFA, a channel with wcore wch ≳2 is essential to ensure that L1/e,0,0 Lp ≫1. Since a laser pulse with a finite duration ofτ L = 42 fs is considered here, the temporal walk-off of these two modes can also lead to a d...
[2]

Tajima and J

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

1979
[3]

Faure, Y

J. Faure, Y. Glinec, A. Pukhov, S. Kiselev, S. Gordienko, E. Lefebvre, J.-P. Rousseau, F. Burgy, and V. Malka, Nature431, 541 (2004)

2004
[4]

Geddes, C

C. Geddes, C. Toth, J. Van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. Schroeder, D. Bruhwiler, C. Nieter, J. Cary, and W. Leemans, Nature431, 538 (2004)

2004
[5]

S. P. Mangles, C. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, A. G. R. Thomas, J. Collier, A. E. Dangor, E. Divall, P. Foster, J. Gallacher, C. Hooker,et al., Nature431, 535 (2004)

2004
[6]

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,et al., Matter and Radiation at Extremes9 (2024)

2024
[7]

Picksley, J

A. Picksley, J. Stackhouse, C. Benedetti, K. Nakamura, H. Tsai, R. Li, B. Miao, J. Shrock, E. Rockafellow, H. Milchberg,et al., Physical Review Letters133, 255001 (2024)

2024
[8]

W. Wang, W. Li, J. Liu, Z. Zhang, R. Qi, C. Yu, J. Liu, M. Fang, Z. Qin, C. Wang,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 124801 (2016)

2016
[9]

L. Ke, K. Feng, W. Wang, Z. Qin, C. Yu, Y. Wu, Y. Chen, R. Qi, Z. Zhang, Y. Xu,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 214801 (2021)

2021
[10]

W. Wang, K. Feng, L. Ke, C. Yu, Y. Xu, R. Qi, Y. Chen, Z. Qin, Z. Zhang, M. Fang,et al., Nature595, 516 (2021)

2021
[11]

Labat, J

M. Labat, J. C. Cabada˘ g, A. Ghaith, A. Irman, A. Berlioux, P. Berteaud, F. Blache, S. Bock, F. Bou- vet, F. Briquez,et al., Nature Photonics17, 150 (2023)

2023
[12]

S. K. Barber, F. Kohrell, C. E. Doss, K. Jensen, C. Berger, F. Isono, Z. Eisentraut, S. Schr¨ oder, A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 055001 (2025)

2025
[13]

Z. Jin, M. Kando, Y.-J. Gu, K. Huang, N. Nakanii, I. Daito, Z. Lei, S. Sato, H. Sano, T. Muto, S. Yamamoto, and T. Hosokai, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013207 (2026)

2026
[14]

Jiang, K

H. Jiang, K. Feng, R. Hu, Q. Zhan, W. Wang, and R. Li, Phys. Rev. Res.8, 013204 (2026)

2026
[15]

Schroeder, F

C. Schroeder, F. Albert, C. Benedetti, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler, S. Bulanov, E. Campbell, N. Cook, B. Cros, M. Downer,et al., Journal of Instrumentation 18, T06001 (2023)

2023
[16]

C. G. Durfee and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 2409 (1993)

1993
[17]

W. P. Leemans, B. Nagler, A. J. Gonsalves, C. T´ oth, K. Nakamura, C. G. Geddes, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and S. M. Hooker, Nature physics2, 696 (2006)

2006
[18]

Leemans, A

W. Leemans, A. Gonsalves, H.-S. Mao, K. Nakamura, C. Benedetti, C. Schroeder, C. T´ oth, J. Daniels, D. Mit- telberger, S. Bulanov,et al., Physical Review Letters 113, 245002 (2014)

2014
[19]

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,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 084801 (2019)

2019
[20]

B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, L. Feder, R. C. Hollinger, J. Mor- rison, R. Nedbailo, A. Picksley, H. Song, S. Wang, J. J. Rocca, and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. X12, 031038 (2022)

2022
[21]

Picksley, J

A. Picksley, J. Chappell, E. Archer, N. Bourgeois, J. Cowley, D. R. Emerson, L. Feder, X. J. Gu, O. Jakob- sson, A. J. Ross, W. Wang, R. Walczak, and S. M. Hooker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 245001 (2023)

2023
[22]

J. E. Shrock, E. Rockafellow, B. Miao, M. Le, R. C. Hollinger, S. Wang, A. J. Gonsalves, A. Picksley, J. J. Rocca, and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 045002 (2024)

2024
[23]

Lahaye, K

R. Lahaye, K. Oubrerie, O. Kononenko, J. Gautier, I. A. Andriyash, and C. Thaury, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams28, 091301 (2025)

2025
[24]

N. A. Hafz, T. M. Jeong, I. W. Choi, S. K. Lee, K. H. Pae, V. V. Kulagin, J. H. Sung, T. J. Yu, K.-H. Hong, T. Hosokai,et al., Nature Photonics2, 571 (2008). 9

2008
[25]

J. E. Ralph, K. A. Marsh, A. E. Pak, W. Lu, C. E. Clayton, F. Fang, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 175003 (2009)

2009
[26]

J. E. Ralph, C. E. Clayton, F. Albert, B. B. Pollock, S. F. Martins, A. E. Pak, K. A. Marsh, J. L. Shaw, A. Till, J. P. Palastro, W. Lu, S. H. Glenzer, L. O. Silva, W. B. Mori, C. Joshi, and D. H. Froula, Physics of Plasmas 17, 056709 (2010)

2010
[27]

Kneip, S

S. Kneip, S. R. Nagel, S. F. Martins, S. P. D. Mangles, C. Bellei, O. Chekhlov, R. J. Clarke, N. Delerue, E. J. Divall, G. Doucas,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 035002 (2009)

2009
[28]

C. E. Clayton, J. E. Ralph, F. Albert, R. A. Fonseca, S. H. Glenzer, C. Joshi, W. Lu, K. A. Marsh, S. F. Mar- tins, W. B. Mori,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 105003 (2010)

2010
[29]

J. S. Liu, C. Q. Xia, W. T. Wang, H. Y. Lu, C. Wang, A. H. Deng, W. T. Li, H. Zhang, X. Y. Liang, Y. X. Leng,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 035001 (2011)

2011
[30]

B. B. Pollock, C. E. Clayton, J. E. Ralph, F. Albert, A. Davidson, L. Divol, C. Filip, S. H. Glenzer, K. Her- poldt, W. Lu,et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 045001 (2011)

2011
[31]

X. Wang, R. Zgadzaj, N. Fazel, Z. Li, S. A. Yi, X. Zhang, W. Henderson, Y.-Y. Chang, R. Korzekwa, H.-E. Tsai, et al., Nature Communications4, 1988 (2013)

1988
[32]

H. T. Kim, K. H. Pae, H. J. Cha, I. J. Kim, T. J. Yu, J. H. Sung, S. K. Lee, T. M. Jeong, and J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 165002 (2013)

2013
[33]

Feder, B

L. Feder, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, A. Goffin, and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043173 (2020)

2020
[34]

Esarey and W

E. Esarey and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. E59, 1082 (1999)

1999
[35]

Benedetti, C

C. Benedetti, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas19, 053101 (2012)

2012
[36]

Benedetti, F

C. Benedetti, F. Rossi, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. E92, 023109 (2015)

2015
[37]

T. R. Clark and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 357 (1998)

1998
[38]

T. R. Clark and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. E61, 1954 (2000)

1954
[39]

T. M. Antonsen, Jr. and P. Mora, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 4440 (1995)

1995
[40]

A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, C. Lin, J. Osterhoff, S. Shiraishi, C. B. Schroeder, C. G. R. Geddes, C. T´ oth, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas17, 056706 (2010)

2010
[41]

S. G. Rykovanov, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 145003 (2015)

2015
[42]

Rykovanov, J

S. Rykovanov, J. Wang, V. Y. Kharin, B. Lei, C. Schroeder, C. Geddes, E. Esarey, and W. Leemans, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams19, 090703 (2016)

2016
[43]

C. B. Schroeder, C. Benedetti, S. Bulanov, D. Terzani, S. Schroeder, and J. Osterhoff, presented at the International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders (LCWS/FLC 2025), ADEIT, Valencia, Spain (2025), oct. 20–24, 2025

2025
[44]

R. A. Fonseca, S. L. O., T. F. S., D. V. K., L. W., R. C., M. W. B., D. S., L. S., K. T.,et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science2331, 342 (2002)

2002
[45]

P. Yu, X. Xu, V. K. Decyk, W. An, J. Vieira, F. S. Tsung, R. A. Fonseca, W. Lu, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Journal of Computational Physics266, 124 (2014)

2014
[46]

P. Yu, X. Xu, A. Davidson, A. Tableman, T. Dalichaouch, F. Li, M. D. Meyers, W. An, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk,et al., Journal of Computational Physics316, 747 (2016)

2016
[47]

F. Li, P. Yu, X. Xu, F. Fiuza, V. K. Decyk, T. Dalichaouch, A. Davidson, A. Tableman, W. An, F. S. Tsung,et al., Computer Physics Communications214, 6 (2017)

2017
[48]

X. Xu, F. Li, F. S. Tsung, T. N. Dalichaouch, W. An, H. Wen, V. K. Decyk, R. A. Fonseca, M. J. Hogan, and W. B. Mori, Journal of Computational Physics413, 109451 (2020)

2020
[49]

X. Xu, P. Yu, S. F. Martins, F. S. Tsung, V. K. De- cyk, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, W. Lu, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Computer Physics Communications184, 2503 (2013)

2013
[50]

Danson, D

C. Danson, D. Hillier, N. Hopps, and D. Neely, High Power Laser Science and Engineering3, e3 (2015)

2015
[51]

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, and et al., High Power Laser Science and Engineering7, e54 (2019)

2019
[52]

Isono, J

F. Isono, J. van Tilborg, S. K. Barber, J. Natal, C. Berger, H.-E. Tsai, T. Ostermayr, A. Gonsalves, C. Geddes, and E. Esarey, High Power Laser Science and Engineering9, e25 (2021)

2021
[53]

Berger, S

C. Berger, S. Barber, F. Isono, K. Jensen, J. Natal, A. Gonsalves, and J. van Tilborg, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams26, 032801 (2023)

2023
[54]

Amodio, D

A. Amodio, D. Wang, C. Berger, H.-E. Tsai, S. K. Bar- ber, J. van Tilborg, A. Picksley, Z. Eisentraut, N. R. Vora, M. Logantha, and et al., High Power Laser Sci- ence and Engineering13, e35 (2025)

2025
[55]

J. W. Wang, C. B. Schroeder, R. Li, M. Zepf, and S. G. Rykovanov, Scientific Reports7, 16884 (2017)

2017
[56]

B. Lei, T. Teter, J. W. Wang, V. Y. Kharin, C. B. Schroeder, M. Zepf, and S. G. Rykovanov, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 071302 (2019)

2019
[57]

Mori, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics33, 1942 (1997)

W. Mori, IEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics33, 1942 (1997)

1942
[58]

X. L. Xu, J. F. Hua, F. Li, C. J. Zhang, L. X. Yan, Y. C. Du, W. H. Huang, H. B. Chen, C. X. Tang, W. Lu, P. Yu, W. An, C. Joshi, and W. B. Mori, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 035003 (2014)

2014
[59]

H. Lu, J. Liu, J. Cai, X. Wu, J. Zhang, Q. Ma, Z. Wang, Y. Xia, W. Ma, C. Lin, Z. Nie, J. Yu, X. Xu, and X. Yan, Physics of Plasmas32, 023104 (2025)

2025
[60]

H. Lu, Q. Ma, Y. Xia, Z. Wang, Y. Chen, L. Liu, Z. Yang, D. Cai, Z. Gong, X. Xu, and X. Yan, Physics of Plasmas 32, 073110 (2025)

2025
[61]

Sprangle, J

P. Sprangle, J. Krall, and E. Esarey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3544 (1994)

1994
[62]

F. Li, K. G. Miller, X. Xu, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. An, R. A. Fonseca, and W. B. Mori, Computer Physics Communications258, 107580 (2021)

2021
[63]

B. Miao, L. Feder, J. E. Shrock, A. Goffin, and H. M. Milchberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 074801 (2020)

2020