Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 59 references

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

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A photon-accelerator-seeded Compton scheme produces multi-GeV gamma rays with high brilliance and polarization from existing 10 GeV beams and few-TW lasers.

desk verdict Clean three-stage simulation proposal that puts multi-GeV polarized Compton gammas on existing 10 GeV linacs; numbers hold under the stated PIC+LMA chain, with the only real soft spot being experimental density-ramp control. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02373 v2 pith:2ASEQ6EZ submitted 2026-07-02 physics.plasm-ph physics.acc-ph

Michael J. Quin , Stepan S. Bulanov , Arkady Gonoskov , Christopher D. Murphy , Mattias Marklund , Alexander G. R. Thomas , Thomas G. Blackburn This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.acc-ph
keywords photonaccelerationinverseComptonscatteringplasmawakefieldpolarizedgammaraysmulti-GeVphotonsmirrorlinearQED
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

Existing linacs near 10 GeV and optical lasers cannot supply the center-of-mass energy needed for multi-GeV polarized gamma rays via linear inverse Compton scattering of unpolarized electrons. The paper proposes to first up-shift an optical laser pulse to the extreme ultraviolet by co-propagating it inside a beam-driven plasma wake with a tailored density down-ramp, then reflect the XUV pulse from a plasma mirror onto a trailing electron bunch. Particle-in-cell and Monte-Carlo QED simulations show that the resulting flash reaches a peak brilliance of 10^25 photons per second per square millimetre per square milliradian in 0.1 percent bandwidth, together with 95 percent circular or 77 percent linear polarization at photon energies near 7 GeV. The scheme therefore converts facilities already in hand into sources of polarized multi-GeV gamma rays that can feed spin-polarized positron production and precision tests of light-by-light scattering.

What carries the argument

Photon acceleration: an optical laser pulse is frequency-upshifted by an order of magnitude while trapped in the refractive-index gradient of a plasma wakefield whose phase velocity is matched to the laser group velocity by a millimetre-scale density down-ramp; the resulting monochromatic XUV pulse is then back-reflected onto a trailing electron beam.

What would settle it

A full end-to-end particle-in-cell simulation (or a scaled laboratory experiment) that includes a realistic density ramp, plasma-mirror formation and reflectivity, and free-space divergence, and then checks whether the XUV amplitude at the collision still yields multi-GeV photons above the claimed brilliance and polarization thresholds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Numerical simulations of a three-stage process—photon acceleration of an optical pulse inside a 10 GeV beam-driven plasma wake, plasma-mirror reflection, and subsequent linear Compton collision with a trailing 10 GeV bunch—demonstrate that the emitted gamma-ray flash can simultaneously reach multi-GeV energies, a peak brilliance of order 10^25 photons/s mm^{2} mrad^{2} 0.1 % BW, and high polarization (95 % circular or 77 % linear) while remaining inside the linear regime of Compton scattering.

Load-bearing premise

A carefully shaped millimetre-scale plasma density ramp must keep enough of the laser pulse phase-locked inside the wake for the full propagation distance so that, after imperfect mirror reflection and free-space divergence, the XUV intensity at the collision point remains high enough for useful gamma-ray yield.

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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a multi-GeV polarized Compton γ-ray source that first frequency-upshifts an optical laser pulse by photon acceleration in a 10-GeV beam-driven plasma wakefield, reflects the resulting XUV pulse from a plasma mirror, and collides it with a trailing 10-GeV electron bunch. PIC simulations (FBPIC) of a tailored density down-ramp demonstrate a ×10 frequency upshift over ~4 mm, producing a relativistically intense XUV pulse (a′₀ ~ 0.1 after reflection and divergence). Subsequent Monte-Carlo QED simulations (Ptarmigan, locally monochromatic approximation) of the head-on collision yield a peak brilliance of order 10²⁵ photons/s mm² mrad² 0.1% BW, a Compton edge near 7 GeV, and high polarization (95% circular or 77% linear) inherited from the seed laser. The scheme is argued to be accessible at existing linac + few-TW laser facilities and to open routes to spin-polarized positrons and light-by-light scattering tests.

Significance. If the numerical chain holds under realistic experimental conditions, the work supplies a concrete, polarization-preserving route to multi-GeV γ rays that does not require multi-PW lasers or multi-10-GeV electrons. The combination of documented PIC and LMA-QED codes, fully specified parameters (Appendices A–C), and direct comparison with an optical-seeded baseline (Fig. 4) makes the claim falsifiable and reproducible. The high circular polarization at the kinematic edge is particularly valuable for polarized-positron production and for vacuum-birefringence experiments. The result therefore sits at a useful intersection of plasma photonics and strong-field QED and is of clear interest to the community.

major comments (2)
  1. The central performance numbers (Compton edge ~7 GeV, a′₀ ≈ 0.1, brilliance 10²⁵) rest on the assumption that a millimetre-scale tailored density down-ramp keeps the optical pulse phase-locked inside the accelerating region for the full 4 mm while capturing a sufficient photon fraction (Appendix A and the paragraph preceding Fig. 2). Although similar ramps have been realized in gas cells, the manuscript does not quantify the sensitivity of the final XUV spectrum or a′₀ to realistic density-profile errors, shot-to-shot jitter, or residual dephasing. A short parameter scan or error-budget estimate would strengthen the claim that the quoted brilliance and polarization remain accessible under laboratory conditions.
  2. Appendix B asserts that the driver ionizes the Kapton surface several femtoseconds before the XUV arrives and that the resulting plasma is sufficiently overdense (n_pm/n′_c ≈ 1.8) for specular reflection at R = 70 %. The argument is order-of-magnitude only; no PIC or hydrodynamic estimate of the pre-plasma scale length relative to λ′₀ ≈ 80 nm is provided. Because even a modest pre-plasma can degrade reflectivity or introduce wavefront distortion that reduces the on-axis a′₀ at the collision point, a more quantitative treatment (or a cited experimental benchmark at comparable intensity and wavelength) is needed to close this link in the chain.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 3 caption labels both panels (c) and (f) as “(c)”; the second should be (f).
  2. Eq. (1) is written for circular polarization; the linear-polarization replacement a′²₀ o ½ a′²₀ is mentioned only in the text. Placing the cycle-averaged form explicitly in the equation would avoid ambiguity.
  3. The Stokes-parameter definitions and the precise meaning of the over-bar in S̄₁, S̄₃ are given only by reference to Ptarmigan. A one-sentence clarification in the main text would help readers who do not consult the code paper.
  4. In the Discussion the optical-seeded Compton edge is stated as 1.5 GeV while Eq. (1) with the initial laser parameters yields a slightly different number; a brief consistency check would remove the discrepancy.
  5. Typographical: “ACCELERA TION” in the section heading (extra space); “wavefrontbehindthedriver” (missing spaces) in Sec. II.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: brilliance, polarization and Compton-edge values are direct Monte-Carlo/PIC outputs under independently stated beam, plasma and laser parameters, not forced by construction or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims (peak brilliance ~10^25, circular polarization 95 %, linear polarization 77 %, multi-GeV Compton edge) are obtained by running FBPIC photon-acceleration simulations followed by Ptarmigan LMA-QED collision simulations; the numerical values are therefore outputs, not inputs. Beam charge, plasma density profile, laser a0, wavelength and duration are fixed a priori (Appendix A); the frequency up-shift, reflected a'0, photon spectrum, Stokes parameters and brilliance (Eqs. 1–2, D1–D2) follow from those runs. Self-citations (Sandberg–Thomas photon-acceleration theory, Blackburn et al. Ptarmigan/LMA) supply only the simulation tools and the known density-ramp technique; they do not insert the target observables by definition or uniqueness theorem. No free parameters are fitted to gamma-ray data, no ansatz is smuggled that forces the reported numbers, and the polarization formulae are cross-checked against independent linear-QED results. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and exhibits no circular reduction.

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

The claim is a numerical prediction from established plasma and QED codes; the free parameters are the usual simulation knobs (beam charge, density ramp shape, mirror reflectivity) chosen to realise a workable operating point rather than fitted to gamma-ray data. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • plasma density peak np0 = 8e19 cm^{-3}
    Set by hand to 8×10^19 cm^{-3} so that a 4 mm down-ramp yields a ×10 frequency up-shift; not derived from first principles.
  • driver charge Q and length l = 4.7 nC, 0.3 µm
    Chosen as 4.7 nC and 0.3 µm to give areal density A≈0.5 and efficient photon capture; free design parameters.
  • plasma-mirror reflectivity R = 0.7
    Assumed 70 % on the basis of typical Kapton-tape measurements; multiplies the final a′0 and therefore the gamma yield.
  • initial laser a0 and duration = a0=1 or 0.707, τ0=8.2 fs
    Set to a0=1 (linear) or 1/√2 (circular) and 8.2 fs FWHM to stay near the linear regime after up-shift; free choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Locally monochromatic approximation of QED remains valid for a′0 ≲ 1 and formation lengths of order the XUV wavelength.
    Invoked throughout Section III and Appendix C to justify the Ptarmigan emission rates.
  • domain assumption A millimetre-scale density down-ramp can be engineered so that the wake phase velocity continuously matches the laser group velocity.
    Stated in Section II and Appendix A; required for the ×10 frequency up-shift.
  • domain assumption Space-charge forces inside the trailing beam are negligible compared with the ponderomotive force of the XUV pulse.
    Explicitly assumed in the first paragraph of Section III.
  • standard math Standard Maxwell and Lorentz equations plus the Klein-Nishina cross-section (with recoil) govern the collision.
    Background of all rate calculations; no modification claimed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Brilliant multi-GeV Compton gamma-ray source seeded by a photon accelerator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ASEQ6EZ

@misc{pith2026260702373,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Brilliant multi-GeV Compton gamma-ray source seeded by a photon accelerator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ASEQ6EZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02373}
}
read the original abstract

High-brilliance sources of polarized gamma rays are widely sought after to pump and probe matter at subatomic length scales. However, existing accelerator facilities and optical lasers cannot reach a sufficiently high center-of-mass energy to produce polarized, multi-GeV gamma rays from unpolarized electrons via inverse Compton scattering. Here we propose a scheme where the optical laser photons are first "accelerated" to the extreme ultraviolet in a beam-driven plasma wakefield, then reflected by a plasma mirror back onto a trailing electron beam, producing a flash of gamma rays. Numerical simulations demonstrate this light source can achieve a high peak-brilliance (10^25 photons/s mm^2 mrad^2 0.1% BW) and a high degree of circular (95 %) or linear (77 %) polarization at multi-GeV photon energies, paving the way for the production of spin-polarized positrons and tests of light-by-light scattering.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02373 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of photon-accelerator-seeded Compton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of linearly polarized laser pulse during photon acceleration. (a) Transverse profile of initial laser pulse. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Compton [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of collision with optical and XUV laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    role, but recoil from photon emission will strongly affect the electron dynamics [39, 40]

    The final XUV laser pulse is relativistically intense, with a normalized amplitude in the order of unity. role, but recoil from photon emission will strongly affect the electron dynamics [39, 40]. Numerical simulations are performed with the particle- tracking code Ptarmigan [37] to model the collision of the reflected XUV pulse and trailing beam (see App...

    2023

  2. [2]

    H. R. Weller, M. W. Ahmed, H. Gao, W. Tornow, Y. K. Wu, M. Gai, and R. Miskimen, Prog. Part. Nuclear Phys. 62, 257 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    J. Yan, J. M. Mueller, M. W. Ahmed, H. Hao, S. Huang, J. Li, V. N. Litvinenko, P. Liu, S. F. Mikhailov, V. G. Popov, M. H. Sikora, N. A. Vinokurov, and Y. K. Wu, Nat. Photon.13, 629 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Adhikariet al., Nucl

    S. Adhikariet al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A987, 164807 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Muramatsu, M

    N. Muramatsu, M. Yosoi, T. Yorita, Y. Ohashi, J. Ahn, S. Ajimura, Y. Asano, W. Chang, J. Chen, S. Daté, T. Gogami, H. Hamano, T. Hashimoto, T. Hiraiwa, T. Hotta, T. Ishikawa, Y. Kasamatsu, H. Katsuragawa, R. Kobayakawa, H. Kohri, S. Masumoto, Y. Matsumura, M. Miyabe, K. Mizutani, Y. Morino, T. Nakano, T. Nam, M. Niiyama, Y. Nozawa, H. Ohkuma, H. Ohnishi, ...

    2022

  6. [6]

    S. S. Bulanov, C. Benedetti, D. Terzani, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, T. Blackburn, and M. Mark- lund, A high-intensity laser-based positron source (2023), arXiv:2311.10836 [physics.plasm-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Joshi, W

    C. Joshi, W. B. Mori, and M. J. Hogan, Nat. Phys.21, 885 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Abramowiczet al., Eur

    H. Abramowiczet al., Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.235, 1641 (2026)

    2026

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Marklund and P

    M. Marklund and P. K. Shukla, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 591 (2006)

    2006

  2. [10]

    King and T

    B. King and T. Heinzl, High Power Laser Sci. Eng.4, e5 (2016)

    2016

  3. [11]

    Z. Bai, T. Blackburn, O. Borysov, O. Davidi, A. Hartin, B. Heinemann, T. Ma, G. Perez, A. Santra, Y. Soreq, and N. T. Hod, Phys. Rev. D106, 115034 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Abramowiczet al., Eur

    H. Abramowiczet al., Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top.230, 2445 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Yakimenko, L

    V. Yakimenko, L. Alsberg, E. Bong, G. Bouchard, C. Clarke, C. Emma, S. Green, C. Hast, M. J. Hogan, J. Seabury, N. Lipkowitz, B. O’Shea, D. Storey, G. White, and G. Yocky, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 101301 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    Di Piazza, C

    A. Di Piazza, C. Müller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012)

    2012

  7. [15]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rep.1010, 1 (2023), advances in QED with intense background fields

    2023

  9. [17]

    Mirzaie, C

    M. Mirzaie, C. I. Hojbota, D. Y. Kim, V. B. Pathak, T. G. Pak, C. M. Kim, H. W. Lee, J. W. Yoon, S. K. Lee, Y. J. Rhee, M. Vranic, Ó. Amaro, K. Y. Kim, J. H. Sung, and C. H. Nam, Nat. Photon.18, 1212 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Matheron, J.-R

    A. Matheron, J.-R. Marquès, V. Lelasseux, Y. Shou, I. A. Andriyash, V. L. J. Phung, Y. Ayoul, A. Beluze, I. Dăncuş, F. Dorchies, F. D’Souza, M. Dumergue, M. Frotin, J. Gautier, F. Gobert, M. Gugiu, S. Krishna- murthy, I. Kargapolov, E. Kroupp, L. Lancia, A. Lazăr, A. Leblanc, ...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Gerstmayr, B

    E. Gerstmayr, B. Kettle, M. J. V. Streeter, L. Tudor, O. J. Finlay, L. E. Bradley, R. Fitzgarrald, T. Foster, P. Gellersen, A. E. Gunn, O. Lawrence, P. P. Rajeev, B. K. Russell, D. R. Symes, C. D. Murphy, A. G. R. Thomas, C. P. Ridgers, G. Sarri, and S. P. D. Man- gles, High b...

    2025

  12. [20]

    Wu, Y.-F

    X.-Z. Wu, Y.-F. Li, Y.-Y. Chen, and Y.-T. Li, Commun. Phys.8, 156 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Chopineau, A

    L. Chopineau, A. Denoeud, A. Leblanc, E. Porat, P.Mar- tin, H.Vincenti,and F.Quéré, Nat.Phys.17, 968 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    R. J. L. Timmis, C. R. J. Fitzpatrick, J. P. Kennedy, H. M. Huddleston, E. Denis, A. James, C. Baird, D. Symes, D. McGonegle, E. Atonga, H. Martin, J. Rebenstock, J. Neely, J. Lee, J. Redfern, N. Bourgeois, O. Finlay, R. Ruskov, S. Astbury, S. Hawkes, Z. Zhang, M. Zepf, K. Kru...

    2026

  15. [23]

    S. V. Bulanov, T. Esirkepov, and T. Tajima, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 085001 (2003)

    2003

  16. [24]

    Lamač, P

    M. Lamač, P. Valenta, U. Chaulagain, J. Nejdl, T. M. Jeong, and S. V. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. Res.8, L022009 8 (2026)

    2026

  17. [25]

    S. C. Wilks, J. M. Dawson, W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, and M. E. Jones, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 2600 (1989)

    1989

  18. [26]

    J. T. Mendonça,Theory of Photon Acceleration, 1st ed. (CRC Press, 2000)

    2000

  19. [27]

    C. D. Murphy, R. Trines, J. Vieira, A. J. W. Reitsma, R. Bingham, J. L. Collier, E. J. Divall, P. S. Foster, C. J. Hooker, A. J. Langley, P. A. Norreys, R. A. Fonseca, F. Fiuza, L. O. Silva, J. T. Mendonça, W. B. Mori, J. G. Gallacher, R. Viskup, D. A. Jaroszynski, S. P. D. Ma...

    2006

  20. [28]

    Esarey, C

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1229 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    R. T. Sandberg and A. G. R. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 085001 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Sandberg and A

    R. Sandberg and A. G. R. Thomas, Phys. Rev. E109, 025210 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, F. Li, B. K. Russell, W. B. Mori, A. G. R. Thomas, and J. P. Palastro, Commun. Phys.8, 229 (2025)

    2025

  24. [32]

    B. K. Russell, C. P. Ridgers, S. S. Bulanov, K. G. Miller, C. Arran, T. G. Blackburn, S. V. Bulanov, G. M. Grittani, J. P. Palastro, Q. Qian, and A. G. R. Thomas, Reaching extreme fields in laser-electron beam collisions with XUV laser light (2025), arXiv:2506.01727 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Storey, C

    D. Storey, C. Zhang, P. San Miguel Claveria, G. J. Cao, E. Adli, L. Alsberg, R. Ariniello, C. Clarke, S. Corde, T. N. Dalichaouch, C. E. Doss, H. Ekerfelt, C. Emma, E. Gerstmayr, S. Gessner, M. Gilljohann, C. Hast, A. Knetsch, V. Lee, M. Litos, R. Loney, K. A. Marsh, A. Mather...

    2024

  26. [34]

    C. A. Lindstrøm, S. Corde, R. D’Arcy, S. Gess- ner, M. Gilljohann, M. J. Hogan, and J. Oster- hoff, Beam-driven plasma-wakefield acceleration (2025), arXiv:2504.05558 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Ta Phuoc, S

    K. Ta Phuoc, S. Corde, C. Thaury, V. Malka, A. Tafzi, J. P. Goddet, R. C. Shah, S. Sebban, and A. Rousse, Nat. Photon.6, 308 (2012)

    2012

  28. [36]

    H.-E. Tsai, X. Wang, J. M. Shaw, Z. Li, A. V. Are- fiev, X. Zhang, R. Zgadzaj, W. Henderson, V. Khudik, G. Shvets, and M. C. Downer, Phys. Plasmas22, 023106 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    Heinzl, B

    T. Heinzl, B. King, and A. J. MacLeod, Phys. Rev. A 102, 063110 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    T. G. Blackburn, B. King, and S. Tang, Phys. Plasmas 30, 093903 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Najmudin, J

    O.Kononenko, N.Lopes, J.Cole, C.Kamperidis, S.Man- gles, Z. Najmudin, J. Osterhoff, K. Poder, D. Rusby, D. Symes, J. Warwick, J. Wood, and C. Palmer, Nuclear Instrum. Methods A829, 125 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,The Classical Theory of Fields, 2nd ed. (Elsevier, Oxford, 1975)

    1975

  33. [41]

    V. I. Ritus, Journal Sov. Laser Res.6, 497 (1985)

    1985

  34. [42]

    Goldman and V

    I. Goldman and V. Khoze, Phys. Lett. B29, 426 (1969)

    1969

  35. [43]

    Har-Shemesh and A

    O. Har-Shemesh and A. D. Piazza, Opt. Lett.37, 1352 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    T. G. Blackburn, D. Seipt, S. S. Bulanov, and M. Mark- lund, Phys. Plasmas25, 083108 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    T. G. Blackburn, D. Seipt, S. S. Bulanov, and M. Mark- lund, Phys. Rev. A101, 012505 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Gonoskov, A

    A. Gonoskov, A. Bashinov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, A. Kim, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Mu- raviev, and A. Sergeev, Phys. Rev. X7, 041003 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Magnusson, A

    J. Magnusson, A. Gonoskov, M. Marklund, T. Z. Esirke- pov, J. K. Koga, K. Kondo, M. Kando, S. V. Bulanov, G. Korn, and S. S. Bulanov, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 254801 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    Marklund, T

    M. Marklund, T. G. Blackburn, A. Gonoskov, J. Mag- nusson, S. S. Bulanov, and A. Ilderton, High Power Laser Sci. Eng.11, e19 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Del Gaudio, T

    F. Del Gaudio, T. Grismayer, R. A. Fonseca, W. B. Mori, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams22, 023402 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Benedetti, M

    A. Benedetti, M. Tamburini, and C. H. Keitel, Nat. Pho- ton.12, 319 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Hajima and M

    R. Hajima and M. Fujiwara, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 19, 020702 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    R. Lehe, M. Kirchen, I. A. Andriyash, B. B. Godfrey, and J.-L. Vay, Comput. Phys. Commun.203, 66 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Gruse, N

    J.-N. Gruse, N. C. Lopes, R. J. Shalloo, J. A. Hills, A. Alejo, T. L. Audet, M. P. Backhouse, N. Bourgeois, E. Gerstmayr, S. P. D. Mangles, K. Põder, P. P. Rajeev, S. Rozario, G. Sarri, M. J. V Streeter, J. C. Wood, and Z. Najmudin, New J. Phys.27, 124302 (2025)

    2025

  46. [54]

    B. H. Shaw, S. Steinke, J. van Tilborg, and W. P. Lee- mans, Phys. Plasmas23, 063118 (2016)

    2016

  47. [55]

    Huebl, S

    M.Thévenet, I.A.Andriyash, L.Fedeli, A.FerranPousa, A. Huebl, S. Jalas, M. Kirchen, R. Lehe, R. J. Shalloo, A. Sinn, and J.-L. Vay, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser.3124, 012014 (2025)

    2025

  48. [56]

    S. Kim, C. Müller, and A. B. Voitkiv, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 213202 (2026)

    2026

  49. [57]

    M. J. Berger, J. S. Coursey, M. A. Zucker, and J. Chang, NIST Standard Reference Database 124 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    T. G. Blackburn, A. J. Macleod, and B. King, New J. Phys.23, 085008 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    T. G. Blackburn and B. King, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 44 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.