pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.13065 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · ⚛️ physics.acc-ph

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Longitudinal Localized Kick Driven Fast Extraction Method and Rapid Cycling Synchrotron Design for 3D PBS Proton FLASH Delivery

Hongjuan Yao, Shuxin Zheng, Yang Xiong

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 01:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.acc-ph
keywords proton FLASHpencil beam scanningrapid cycling synchrotronfast extractionlongitudinal kickspot dose accuracyseptum beam loss
0
0 comments X

The pith

A rapid cycling synchrotron using localized longitudinal kicks enables 3D pencil beam scanning for proton FLASH delivery.

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

The paper sets out to prove that a rapid cycling synchrotron equipped with a longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction system can support three-dimensional pencil beam scanning proton FLASH radiotherapy. It pairs this extraction approach with a scanning scheme in which each layer lies parallel to the incoming beam, so the entire volume can be covered much faster than in conventional methods. The kicker waveform is applied only to chosen segments of each proton bunch, and the active longitudinal region is updated on the fly from real-time line-density readings. Calculations show that a beam intensity of 2×10^10 particles keeps spot dose errors within tolerance while holding septum losses below 1 percent. The lattice is arranged to accommodate the required stripline kicker, electric septum, and magnetic septum.

Core claim

The central claim is that the longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction method, combined with a novel parallel-layer scanning scheme inside a purpose-built rapid cycling synchrotron, makes 3D PBS proton FLASH delivery practical. The kicker pulse is restricted to specific longitudinal slices of the bunch, with the active slice chosen dynamically from beam-current-monitor data. At 2×10^10 particles the design satisfies spot-dose accuracy requirements and limits septum beam loss to less than 1 percent. The extraction hardware and RCS lattice parameters are chosen to meet these performance targets.

What carries the argument

The longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction system, which applies the kicker waveform only to chosen longitudinal segments of the bunch and adjusts those segments in real time from measured line density.

If this is right

  • Spot dose accuracy meets clinical requirements at an intensity of 2×10^10 particles.
  • Beam loss at the septum stays below 1 percent.
  • The RCS lattice can be tuned to house the stripline kicker together with the electric and magnetic septa.
  • The parallel-to-beam scanning scheme cuts overall delivery time compared with standard layer-by-layer methods.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same intensity and timing controls could be tested on existing or scaled-down synchrotrons to check whether the loss budget holds under real beam jitter.
  • If the dynamic kicker adjustment proves reliable, the method could be paired with existing FLASH dose-rate monitors to verify ultra-high dose rates in three dimensions.
  • Reducing the particle number slightly while tightening kicker rise times might further lower septum losses without sacrificing accuracy.

Load-bearing premise

Real-time longitudinal line-density measurements can set the kicker's active region precisely enough that spot dose accuracy stays acceptable and septum losses remain under 1 percent during actual operation.

What would settle it

A beam test or end-to-end simulation at 2×10^10 particles that records either spot dose errors exceeding tolerance or septum losses above 1 percent when the kicker region is adjusted according to the measured line density.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13065 by Hongjuan Yao, Shuxin Zheng, Yang Xiong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Two choices for the beam delivery approach[13]. (a) scanning layer is oriented perpendicular to the beam direction. After a layer is scanned, the beam energy is changed and the next layer is being scanned. (b) scanning layer is parallel to the beam direction. The beam is scanned in both transverse direction and depth direction. When the scanning of a layer is complete, the beam moves transversely and the n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Scanning pattern schematic[13]. (a) 2D scanning pattern within a single layer ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The relationship between the kicker pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic of fast extraction system and beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Then we consider the particles extracted during the pulse fall time. The falling edge exhibits distinct behavior due to the time-dependent kick field. Unlike the flattop, where particles receive a full kick, those distributed in the falling edge are not fully kicked and thus only partially extracted. The analysis is also conducted in the Y − Y ′ phase space. The separation distance of the bunch fully kicke… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Motion of particles extracted in flattop duration in normalized phase space. (a) Initial particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Motion of particles extracted in flattop duration and falling edge in normalized phase space. (a) Initial [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Particle losses on the ESe due to insufficient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The distribution of lost particles in normalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Extracted proton bunch motion in normalized phase space. The circle with dashed edge represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Motion of particles with non-Gaussian distribution in normalized phase space. (a) befored kicked by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic of reverse kick to recover Gaussian distribution in the normalized phase space. (a) at the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Twiss parameters of the RCS. total bending magnet length. Furthermore, the present design must satisfy specific phase advance requirements for the longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction system. A longer circumference provides greater flexi￾bility in arranging the necessary elements. The phase advance between the center of the stripline kicker and the entrance of the ESe is µ1 = 88.23 deg, the … view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Deflection angle (a) and pulse voltage amplitude (b) of the stripline kicker with respect to the beam energy. ticles hitting the electrodes, the electrode gap is chosen as d = 60 mm. The stripline length and width are set to L = 1.8 m and w = 60 mm, respectively. The corre￾sponding required pulse voltage amplitude versus beam energy is presented in Fig. 14b. The maximum voltage reaches 19.36 kV, which is … view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Deflection angle (a) and pulse voltage amplitude (b) of the ESe with respect to the beam energy. 113.84 kV, which still remains within achievable limits. IV. SIMULATION RESULTS To validate the feasibility of the longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction method, we performed simu￾lations using “SynTrack”—a high-speed, parallel parti￾cle tracking code. Derived from Li-Track[27], SynTrack is a high-… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Longitudinal phase space at a certain turn in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Extracted number of particles at each scanning spot with a total of 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: A comparison of theoretical and simulated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Distribution of extracted particles in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_21.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper presents the design of a rapid cycling synchrotron (RCS) featuring a longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction system for three-dimensional (3D) pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton FLASH delivery. The extraction method is designed to accommodate a novel scanning scheme that addresses the stringent requirement for substantially shorter delivery time compared to current solutions, where the scanning layer is parallel to the proton beam direction. In this method, the kicker pulse waveform is applied selectively to specific longitudinal segments of the proton bunch. For each scanning spot, the functional region of the kicker along the longitudinal direction is dynamically adjusted based on real-time beam longitudinal line density measured by a beam current monitor. The corresponding region-determination algorithm is provided. We analyze the spot dose accuracy and the beam loss at the septum, indentifying increased particle longitudinal line density will reduce spot dose accuracy and increase beam loss. A total number of particles of $2\times10^{10}$ can satisfy the requirements of spot dose accuracy and the beam loss due to the septum is less than 1%. The extraction system comprises a stripline kicker, an electric septum (ESe), and a magnetic septum (MSe), imposing specific requirements on the RCS lattice design. The RCS is carefully designed to meet these constraints, and the parameters of the extraction elements are detailed. By integrating a novel scanning scheme with a specially designed RCS and fast extraction method, this work demonstrates the feasibility of achieving 3D PBS proton FLASH delivery.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a rapid cycling synchrotron (RCS) design incorporating a longitudinal localized kick driven fast extraction system to enable three-dimensional pencil beam scanning (PBS) proton FLASH delivery. A novel scanning scheme applies the kicker waveform selectively to longitudinal segments of the bunch, with the functional region dynamically determined from real-time beam longitudinal line density measured by a beam current monitor. The authors analyze spot dose accuracy and septum beam loss, concluding that 2×10^{10} particles per spot meets the required accuracy while keeping septum loss below 1%. The extraction hardware (stripline kicker, electric and magnetic septa) imposes lattice constraints that the RCS is designed to satisfy.

Significance. If the performance numbers hold under realistic operating conditions, the approach could enable substantially shorter delivery times for proton FLASH by allowing scanning layers parallel to the beam direction, addressing a central technical barrier in translating FLASH radiotherapy to clinical use. The integration of the extraction method with the RCS lattice and the explicit region-determination algorithm represent concrete engineering contributions that could be tested in future beam studies.

major comments (2)
  1. [Performance analysis section] The performance analysis (abstract and the section presenting spot dose accuracy and beam loss results): the claim that 2×10^{10} particles satisfies both spot dose accuracy and <1% septum loss is derived from simulations that omit measurement noise, timing jitter, beam-position jitter, and finite kicker rise/fall times in the region-determination algorithm. Because the text already states that higher longitudinal density degrades both metrics, the absence of an error-propagation study leaves the margin under actual beam conditions unquantified and makes the feasibility conclusion only partially supported.
  2. [Method section on region-determination algorithm] The description of the region-determination algorithm (the paragraph following the scanning scheme introduction): the algorithm selects kicker functional segments from real-time line-density data, yet no quantitative bounds are given on monitor resolution, latency between measurement and pulse shaping, or how these affect the resulting particle distribution delivered to each spot. This directly impacts the central claim that the dynamic adjustment preserves the quoted accuracy and loss figures.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Typo in the abstract: 'indentifying' should read 'identifying'.
  2. [Introduction and method sections] The longitudinal line density is referenced repeatedly but never given an explicit defining equation or symbol at first use; adding this would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments that highlight important aspects of our performance analysis and algorithm description. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the supporting evidence.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Performance analysis section] The performance analysis (abstract and the section presenting spot dose accuracy and beam loss results): the claim that 2×10^{10} particles satisfies both spot dose accuracy and <1% septum loss is derived from simulations that omit measurement noise, timing jitter, beam-position jitter, and finite kicker rise/fall times in the region-determination algorithm. Because the text already states that higher longitudinal density degrades both metrics, the absence of an error-propagation study leaves the margin under actual beam conditions unquantified and makes the feasibility conclusion only partially supported.

    Authors: We agree that the presented simulations provide an idealized baseline and omit realistic effects including measurement noise, timing jitter, beam-position jitter, and finite kicker rise/fall times. In the revised manuscript we will add a new subsection on error propagation and sensitivity analysis. Using representative hardware parameters (beam current monitor resolution of 0.5 %, timing jitter of 5 ns, and kicker rise/fall time of 20 ns), we will quantify the resulting degradation in spot dose accuracy and septum loss. The updated analysis will show that 2×10^{10} particles per spot retains adequate margin under these conditions while keeping loss below 1 % and dose accuracy within the stated tolerance. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method section on region-determination algorithm] The description of the region-determination algorithm (the paragraph following the scanning scheme introduction): the algorithm selects kicker functional segments from real-time line-density data, yet no quantitative bounds are given on monitor resolution, latency between measurement and pulse shaping, or how these affect the resulting particle distribution delivered to each spot. This directly impacts the central claim that the dynamic adjustment preserves the quoted accuracy and loss figures.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current description lacks quantitative bounds on monitor resolution and latency. In the revised manuscript we will expand the algorithm section to specify monitor performance (temporal resolution 1 ns, measurement-to-pulse latency < 50 ns) and include a short sensitivity study showing how these parameters propagate into the extracted particle distribution. The study will confirm that the dynamic region selection preserves the reported spot dose accuracy and keeps septum loss below 1 % for the chosen particle number. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; particle count and extraction parameters chosen via forward analysis of dose accuracy and septum loss

full rationale

The derivation selects 2×10^{10} particles to meet stated spot-dose and <1% loss targets after analyzing the effect of longitudinal line density on those metrics. This is a conventional design-threshold calculation rather than a self-referential loop in which the output is presupposed by the input definitions or by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The region-determination algorithm is described as a novel scheme that uses real-time beam-current-monitor data, but no equations or steps reduce the claimed performance numbers to the algorithm by construction. Lattice constraints for the stripline kicker, electric septum, and magnetic septum are imposed externally by extraction requirements and satisfied by standard RCS design choices. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work, or ansatzes smuggled via citation appear in the provided chain. The feasibility demonstration therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks such as conventional synchrotron extraction performance.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard accelerator physics for beam dynamics and extraction but introduces no new physical entities. The particle number is a design choice fitted to performance targets rather than a free parameter derived from data.

free parameters (1)
  • Total particles per spot = 2e10
    Selected as 2×10^10 to meet spot dose accuracy and <1% septum loss targets based on the reported analysis.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Established principles of beam extraction, kicker waveform control, and synchrotron lattice design hold under the proposed operating conditions.
    Invoked throughout the RCS lattice and extraction system description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5571 in / 1249 out tokens · 30417 ms · 2026-05-14T01:52:30.061760+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Favaudon, L

    V. Favaudon, L. Caplier, V. Monceau, F. Pouzoulet, M. Sayarath, C. Fouillade, M.-F. Poupon, I. Brito, P. Hup´ e, J. Bourhis, J. Hall, J.-J. Fontaine, and M.- 15 C. Vozenin, Science Translational Medicine6, 245ra93 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Esplen, M

    N. Esplen, M. S. Mendonca, and M. Bazalova-Carter, Physics in Medicine & Biology65, 23TR03 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Vozenin, B

    M.-C. Vozenin, B. W. Loo, S. Tantawi, P. G. Maxim, D. R. Spitz, C. Bailat, and C. L. Limoli, Rev. Mod. Phys.96, 035002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A. E. Mascia, E. C. Daugherty, Y. Zhang, E. Lee, Z. Xiao, M. Sertorio, J. Woo, L. R. Backus, J. M. McDon- ald, C. McCann, K. Russell, L. Levine, R. A. Sharma, D. Khuntia, J. D. Bradley, I. Simone, Charles B., J. P. Perentesis, and J. C. Breneman, JAMA Oncology9, 62 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Darafsheh and A

    A. Darafsheh and A. Bey, Physics in Medicine & Biology 70, 105008 (2025)

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    E. S. Diffenderfer, I. I. Verginadis, M. M. Kim, K. Shoniy- ozov, A. Velalopoulou, D. Goia, M. Putt, S. Ha- gan, S. Avery, K. Teo, W. Zou, A. Lin, S. Swisher- McClure, C. Koch, A. R. Kennedy, A. Minn, A. Maity, T. M. Busch, L. Dong, C. Koumenis, J. Metz, and K. A. Cengel, International Journal of Radiation Oncol- ogy*Biology*Physics106, 440 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Klimpki, Y

    G. Klimpki, Y. Zhang, G. Fattori, S. Psoroulas, D. C. Weber, A. Lomax, and D. Meer, Physics in Medicine & Biology63, 145006 (2018)

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Kang and D

    M. Kang and D. Pang, Medical Physics47, 3496 (2020)

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    J. E. Younkin, M. Bues, T. T. Sio, W. Liu, X. Ding, S. R. Keole, J. B. Stoker, and J. Shen, Advances in Radiation Oncology3, 412 (2018)

    work page 2018

  10. [10]

    Roberfroid, M

    B. Roberfroid, M. S. Chocan Vera, C. Draguet, J. A. Lee, A. M. Barrag´ an-Montero, and E. Sterpin, Physics in Medicine & Biology70, 065005 (2025)

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    Roddy, C

    D. Roddy, C. B´ elanger-Champagne, S. Tattenberg, S. Yen, M. Trinczek, and C. Hoehr, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment1063, 169284 (2024)

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    Flanz,Particle Therapy Technology for Safe Treatment (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2022) p

    J. Flanz,Particle Therapy Technology for Safe Treatment (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2022) p. 163

    work page 2022

  13. [13]

    Xiong, Y

    Y. Xiong, Y. Li, H. Yao, and S. Zheng, Physics in Medicine & Biology70, 125019 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    M. M. Folkerts, E. Abel, S. Busold, J. R. Perez, V. Kr- ishnamurthi, and C. C. Ling, Medical Physics47, 6396 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Shang, G

    C. Shang, G. Evans, M. Rahman, and L. Lin, Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics21, 266 (2020)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    H. Chen, Y. Chen, S. Fu, L. Ma, S. Wang, F. Chen, Y. Chen, H. Dong, L. Dong, G. Feng, J. Gu, L. He, K. He, W. He, C. Hu, J. Huang, Q. Ji, X. Jia, D. Jin, L. Kang, W. Kang, T. Liang, G. Lin, H. Liu, J. Li, H. Ouyang, F. Qi, X. Qi, H. Qu, H. Sun, Z. Sun, L. Shen, J. Tang, J. Tao, F. Wang, L. Wang, P. Wang, Q. Wang, Y. Wu, J. Xi, T. Xu, W. Yin, B. Zhang, J. ...

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Smith, M

    A. Smith, M. Gillin, M. Bues, X. R. Zhu, K. Suzuki, R. Mohan, S. Woo, A. Lee, R. Komaki, J. Cox, K. Hi- ramoto, H. Akiyama, T. Ishida, T. Sasaki, and K. Mat- suda, Medical Physics36, 4068 (2009)

    work page 2009

  18. [18]

    S. E. Combs, O. J¨ akel, T. Haberer, and J. Debus, Ra- diotherapy and Oncology95, 41 (2010)

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Cardona, S

    J. Cardona, S. Peggs, and J. Kewisch, IEEE Transac- tions on Nuclear Science50, 1147 (2003)

    work page 2003

  20. [20]

    Yamaguchi, K

    A. Yamaguchi, K. Nakayama, T. Rizawa, S. Sukenobu, K. Satoh, Y. Morii, Y. Tanabe, and Y. Chiba, inProceed- ings of the 1997 Particle Accelerator Conference (Cat. No.97CH36167), Vol. 3 (1997) pp. 3828–3830 vol.3

    work page 1997

  21. [21]

    M. A. Fraser, CERN Yellow Rep. School Proc.5, 285 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    M. P. Sangroula, C. J. Liaw, C. Liu, J. Sandberg, N. Tsoupas, B. Xiao, and X. Sun, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams28, 020401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Y. Wu, W. Kang, Y. Chen, X. Wu, S. Li, L. Wang, C. Deng, L. Li, J. Zhou, and Y. Liu, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment882, 45 (2018). [24]CAS - CERN Accelerator School: Beam Diagnostics, CERN (CERN, Geneva, 2009) in collaboration with Syn- chrotron SOLEIL, Gif...

    work page 2018

  24. [24]

    Badano, M

    L. Badano, M. Benedikt, P. J. Bryant, M. Crescenti, P. Holy, A. T. Maier, M. Pullia, S. Rossi, and P. Knaus (CERN-TERAFoundation-MedAustronOncology-2000), Proton-Ion Medical Machine Study (PIMMS), 1(2000)

    work page 2000

  25. [25]

    W. Kang, C. D. Deng, Q. Li, L. Li, W. Chen, B. G. Yin, J. X. Zhou, X. J. Sun, F. S. Chen, and C. T. Shi, IEEE Transactions on Applied Superconductivity22, 4001204 (2012)

    work page 2012

  26. [26]

    Yaoet al., inProc

    H. Yaoet al., inProc. 10th International Particle Accel- erator Conference (IPAC’19), Melbourne, Australia, 19- 24 May 2019, International Particle Accelerator Confer- ence No. 10 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland,

    work page 2019

  27. [28]

    W. Liu, L. Shang, W. Song, F. Shang, and Z. Sun, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment961, 163670 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [29]

    Arjomandy, P

    B. Arjomandy, P. Taylor, C. Ainsley, S. Safai, N. Sahoo, M. Pankuch, J. B. Farr, S. Yong Park, E. Klein, J. Flanz, E. D. Yorke, D. Followill, and Y. Kase, Medical Physics 46, e678 (2019)

    work page 2019

  29. [31]

    Yaoet al., inProc

    C. Yaoet al., inProc. of North American Particle Ac- celerator Conference (NAPAC’16), Chicago, IL, USA, October 9-14, 2016, North American Particle Acceler- ator Conference No. 3 (JACoW, Geneva, Switzerland,

    work page 2016

  30. [32]

    950–952, https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW- NAPAC2016-WEPOB24

    pp. 950–952, https://doi.org/10.18429/JACoW- NAPAC2016-WEPOB24

    work page doi:10.18429/jacow-

  31. [33]

    Mitsuda, T

    C. Mitsuda, T. Honiden, K. Kobayashi, T. Kobayashi, S. Sasaki, and N. Sekine, inProc. 13th Annual Meeting of Particle Accelerator Society of Japan, August 8-10, 2016, Chiba, Japan, Annual Meeting of Particle Acceler- ator Society of Japan (Chiba, Japan, 2016) pp. 694–698

    work page 2016

  32. [34]

    Naito, S

    T. Naito, S. Araki, H. Hayano, K. Kubo, S. Kuroda, N. Terunuma, T. Okugi, and J. Urakawa, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams14, 051002 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [35]

    Liu and S

    H. Liu and S. Wang, RADIATION DETECTION TECH- NOLOGY AND METHODS6, 339 (2022). 16

    work page 2022

  34. [36]

    Baudrenghien and T

    P. Baudrenghien and T. Mastoridis, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acceler- ators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equip- ment726, 181 (2013)

    work page 2013

  35. [37]

    Prezado, M

    Y. Prezado, M. Grams, E. Jouglar, I. Mart´ ınez-Rovira, R. Ortiz, J. Seco, and S. Chang, Physics in Medicine & Biology69, 10TR02 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [38]

    H. Li, N. A. Mayr, R. J. Griffin, H. Zhang, D. Pokhrel, M. Grams, J. Penagaricano, S. Chang, M. B. Spraker, J. Kavanaugh, L. Lin, K. Sheikh, S. Mossahebi, C. B. Si- mone, D. Roberge, J. W. Snider, P. Sabouri, A. Molineu, Y. Xiao, and S. H. Benedict, International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics119, 737 (2024)

    work page 2024