Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

Generation-Resolved Signatures in QED Cascades: Diagnostics for Ultraintense Laser Parameters

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By tracking individual cascade generations, this paper claims that the fraction of backward-emitted photons and the positron spectral-peak energy, measured after a laser–electron collision, can simultaneously determine the laser amplitude a

desk verdict Solid simulation proposal for a two-observable laser diagnostic; forward physics is consistent, but the inversion is only locally validated and needs a global noise test before the headline claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03331 v1 pith:TNO26UNR submitted 2026-08-04 physics.plasm-ph

Ke-Jia Wei , Feng Wan , Hao-Tian Wang , Yan-Xi Wu , He Yuan , Jian-Xing Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords QEDcascadestrong-fieldultraintenselaserdiagnosticsradiationreactionnonlinearBreit-Wheelerphotonpolarizationpositronspectrumamplitude
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 argues that a QED cascade initiated by a 10 GeV electron bunch colliding head-on with an ultraintense laser pulse (a0 = 200–1000, duration 2–12 laser periods) leaves enough information in the final particles to infer the laser's peak amplitude and pulse duration. By labeling particles by cascade generation, the simulation identifies two measurable quantities—the fraction of photons emitted backward (Fr) and the positron spectral-peak energy (epsilon_+^peak)—whose simulated iso-contours intersect to give (a0, tau). The paper also finds a scaling relation $a0^{2}$ tau (proportional to laser pulse energy) that organizes both the maximum cascade generation and Fr. If correct, this turns the cascade itself into a post-interaction, shot-resolved diagnostic for the strong-field QED regime where conventional optical and atomic diagnostics fail.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a generation-resolved Monte Carlo model of shower-type QED cascades: particles are labeled by the number of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler steps since the seed electron, and nonlinear Compton and Breit-Wheeler events are sampled from spin- and polarization-resolved LCFA rates. The diagnostic uses the simulated observable map O = (Fr, epsilon_+^peak) as a function of p = (a0, tau); local inversion is achieved by intersecting iso-contours, with the Jacobian J = dO/dp used to propagate measurement errors into parameter uncertainties.

What would settle it

Run the same Monte Carlo with synthetic noise added to Fr and epsilon_+^peak at sigma_F = 0.01 and sigma_E = 0.01 GeV, reconstruct (a0, tau) at every grid point, and check whether the recovered values are unbiased and unique; if the scatter exceeds the linearized prediction or multiple intersections appear across the parameter space, the diagnostic as proposed would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that generation-resolved, spin- and polarization-dependent Monte Carlo simulations of shower-type QED cascades show radiation reaction strongly suppresses high-generation yields, so the cascade is truncated early. The positron spectrum softens monotonically with increasing a0, and the average photon polarization xi3 increases with pulse duration tau because Breit-Wheeler pair production preferentially depletes photons with xi3 < 0. The diagnostic claim is that a measured pair (Fr, epsilon_+^peak) selects one iso-contour from each observable map, and their intersections provide candidate solutions for (a0, tau). Over most of the scanned parameter space the two contour

Load-bearing premise

The diagnostic assumes that the measured pair (Fr, epsilon_+^peak) corresponds to a locally unique, well-conditioned intersection of the two contour families, with uncorrelated Gaussian measurement errors of 0.01 in Fr and 0.01 GeV in the peak energy; the paper does not inject noise into synthetic data to verify reconstruction performance over the full parameter grid, and real detector acceptances or backgrounds could break this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the diagnostic holds, a single post-interaction shot can constrain both a0 and tau to the precision shown in Fig. 10 without needing separate optical or atomic measurements.
  • The scaling Fr ~ a0^2 tau makes the backward-photon fraction a proxy for total laser pulse energy, while epsilon_+^peak isolates the amplitude dependence, so the two observables complement each other.
  • The generation-resolved framework can be applied to other cascade setups to separate the contributions of successive generations to spectra, angular distributions, and polarization signals.
  • The demonstrated correlation between Gmax and a0^2 tau means the maximum generation number itself can be read as a coarse laser-energy indicator in experiments with particle counting.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is a full noise-injection study across the 17x21 parameter grid to map where the inversion is globally unique; the paper only tests local uniqueness via a linearized Jacobian.
  • Adding the average photon polarization <xi3> as a third observable could break residual degeneracies where Fr and epsilon_+^peak contours are nearly parallel, since xi3 is primarily tau-sensitive.
  • The diagnostic could be extended to unknown focal waist or electron-beam energy by including them in the parameter vector, provided additional observables are added.
  • Because Fr is organized by a0^2 tau, a two-measurement strategy that varies the electron energy might separate intensity from pulse energy in existing facilities.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a generation-resolved Monte Carlo study of spin- and polarization-dependent QED cascades in head-on collisions of 10 GeV electron bunches with ultraintense laser pulses (a0 = 200–1000, τ = 2T0–12T0). It identifies two final-state observables—the backward-photon fraction F_r and the positron spectral peak energy ε_+^peak—that respond differently to a0 and τ, and proposes using intersections of their simulated iso-contours as a post-interaction laser diagnostic. The paper also reports an approximate a0^2τ dependence for the maximum cascade generation G_max and for F_r, and interprets the τ-dependence of the average photon polarization through polarization-selective NBW depletion. The manuscript includes an LCFA validity estimate, a plasma-field check, a 17×21 parameter scan, and a local Jacobian error-propagation analysis.

Significance. If the proposed inversion is robust, the paper offers a novel, post-interaction method to constrain laser amplitude and pulse duration in the strong-field QED regime, where conventional diagnostics become unreliable. Strengths include explicit LCFA validity quantification (Eq. (6)), an estimate showing plasma collective fields are negligible, a systematic parameter scan, and a clear physical interpretation of the generation-resolved signatures. The two-observable diagnostic idea is original and potentially useful for future ultraintense-laser experiments. However, the central claim is conditional on global uniqueness of the contour intersections and on the accuracy of the simulation-based calibration; neither is established in the present version. These issues are numerical and can be addressed with additional tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V, Eq. (13)] The central claim that a measured pair (F_r, ε_+^peak) uniquely diagnoses (a0, τ) by contour intersection is supported only by local Jacobian linearization. The text admits degeneracies exist 'over most of the scanned parameter space' without specifying where, and no test injects synthetic noise into the observables and runs the full intersection inversion. If the F_r and ε_+^peak contour families become nearly parallel or intersect more than once in any region of the claimed a0=200–1000, τ=2T0–12T0 range, the inversion can yield multiple or biased solutions. Please provide a global uniqueness map and a noise-injection test over the full parameter grid, reporting success rate, bias, and number of solutions for representative measurement errors.
  2. [Sec. V, Eqs. (14)–(17)] The quantitative precision estimate in Fig. 10 is built on assumed independent Gaussian measurement uncertainties σ_F=0.01 and σ_E=0.01 GeV. The paper calls these benchmarks and acknowledges that systematic uncertainties from detector acceptance, backgrounds, and calibration may dominate, but the conclusion that the joint measurement 'can provide simultaneous local constraints' relies on them. No sensitivity analysis is given for correlated errors, larger σ_F, or systematic shifts. Please either restrict the claim to an ideal benchmark or add a robustness study showing how Fig. 10 changes under more realistic uncertainty models.
  3. [Sec. III and Sec. V] The observable maps used to build the diagnostic are generated by a single Monte Carlo implementation (Ref. 53) and are not benchmarked against an independent code or against experimental data in any overlapping regime. The LCFA validity estimate (Eq. (6)) checks one approximation but does not validate the full spin- and polarization-resolved rates or the shower algorithm. Because the proposed diagnostic is entirely calibrated by this simulation, model dependence is a central risk. At minimum, the authors should compare representative observables with an independent QED cascade code, or state clearly which model uncertainties enter the calibration and how they would affect the inferred (a0, τ).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] Typo: 'we shows' should be 'we show'.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (9)] The notation d^2W/(du,dη) is nonstandard; consider d^2W/(du dη) or a semicolon to separate differential arguments.
  3. [Sec. II and Sec. V] The 1% threshold defining G_max is a model-defined free parameter. The text should explicitly state whether the proposed diagnostics (F_r and ε_+^peak) are insensitive to this threshold, since G_max itself is threshold-dependent.
  4. [Sec. V] The text '10^3–10^3.5' appears as '103–103.5' due to formatting; fix superscript.
  5. [Sec. V, Fig. 9(c)] The contour values used for the intersection procedure should be labeled directly on the figure or in a legend, since the current panels make it hard to read which iso-contour corresponds to which observable value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the diagnostic maps are forward-model outputs, not fits or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the simulated observables F_r and epsilon_+^peak, as functions of (a0, tau), can be inverted by contour intersection to infer laser parameters. This is a standard forward-model inverse problem: the observables are defined independently of the parameters (Eq. 11 and the positron peak energy as a spectral feature), and the maps in Figs. 8-9 are generated by Monte Carlo simulation with fixed input parameters, not by fitting F_r or epsilon_+^peak to a0 or tau. The a0^2 tau contours are explicitly overlays for guidance, and the paper acknowledges the correspondence is approximate. The local Jacobian error propagation (Eqs. 12-17) is a precision estimate using benchmark measurement uncertainties, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation, Ref. 53 for the Monte Carlo procedure, supports the forward simulation but does not itself force the diagnostic conclusion, and it is not invoked as a uniqueness theorem. The paper honestly flags robustness limitations ("Over most of the scanned parameter space", benchmark rather than facility-specific uncertainties), which are validation concerns, not circularity. No step reduces by construction to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its free parameters are the threshold that defines Gmax and the benchmark measurement uncertainties used to estimate diagnostic precision. The physical assumptions are standard for strong-field QED cascade simulations: LCFA, prescribed field, negligible plasma effects, and literature transition rates. The ad hoc measurement-error model is the least externally constrained input.

free parameters (3)
  • Gmax termination threshold = 1% of seed-electron population
    Defines the maximum cascade generation; chosen by hand in Sec. II, affects the reported Gmax scaling in Fig. 8 and the claim that a0^2 tau governs Gmax.
  • Assumed measurement uncertainty sigma_F = 0.01
    Assumed standard uncertainty of the backward-photon fraction for error propagation in Sec. V; not derived from a detector model.
  • Assumed measurement uncertainty sigma_E = 0.01 GeV
    Assumed standard uncertainty of the positron spectral-peak energy; benchmark values, not measured.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Local constant field approximation is valid: chi_e / a0^3 << 1, with maximum value ~2e-6 over the scanned range
    Invoked in Sec. II to use angle-integrated LCFA rates for NCS and NBW; justified by Eqs. (4)-(6).
  • domain assumption The laser field is a prescribed, non-depleted, linearly polarized Gaussian pulse with fixed waist w0=5 um and no aberrations; cascade back-reaction on the field is neglected
    Used throughout Sec. III-V; the authors note this approximation requires assessment at higher amplitudes (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption Plasma collective fields are negligible in the dilute-beam regime
    Estimated in Sec. III from maximum pair density, giving E_sep/E0 < 4e-4.
  • ad hoc to paper Uncorrelated Gaussian measurement errors for Fr and epsilon_+^peak
    Assumed in the error propagation analysis, Eq. (15); not tied to a specific detector design.
  • standard math Spin and polarization-resolved transition probabilities from Refs. 23, 51, 53 are correct
    The Monte Carlo sampling relies on these literature rates; no independent numerical verification is provided in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generation-Resolved Signatures in QED Cascades: Diagnostics for Ultraintense Laser Parameters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TNO26UNR

@misc{pith2026260803331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generation-Resolved Signatures in QED Cascades: Diagnostics for Ultraintense Laser Parameters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TNO26UNR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03331}
}
abstract

We present a generation-resolved analysis of shower-type, spin- and polarization-dependent quantum electrodynamics (QED) cascades initiated by head-on collisions of ultraintense laser pulses ($a_0 = 200$--$1000$) with $10$~GeV electron bunches. Using a Monte Carlo model that tracks cascade evolution across distinct generations, we shows that radiation reaction strongly suppresses high-generation yields. The positron energy spectrum exhibits a systematic softening with increasing $a_0$, and the average photon polarization $\overline{\xi}_3$ increases with pulse duration $\tau$ due to polarization-selective depletion in nonlinear Breit--Wheeler pair production. We identify a scaling relation $a_0^2\tau$ that governs both the maximum cascade generation $G_{\max}$ and the fraction of backward-emitted photons $F_r$, thereby establishing experimentally accessible diagnostics for laser intensity and pulse duration using two observables: $F_r$ and the positron peak energy $\varepsilon_+^{\rm peak}$. These generation-dependent signatures suggest a potential shot-resolved, post-interaction approach for characterization of ultraintense laser parameters in the strong-field QED regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of a laser–electron interaction producing a generation-resolved QED cascade and its diagnostics. A relativistic electron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) and (b) Generation-resolved cumulative yields of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Generation-resolved cumulative particle yields as functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a1) – (a3) Angle-resolved accumulative photon density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) shows that increasing a0 broadens the positron en￾ergy spectrum and shifts its peak, ε peak + , toward lower ener￾gies, as summarized in [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Generation-resolved yield ratios versus the laser amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Heatmap of the maximum cascade generation number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Relative error of the diagnosed laser amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Heatmap of the fraction of backward-emitted photons, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Blandford, R. D. and Znajek, R. L. , title =. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. , volume =. 1977 , doi =

    1977

  2. [2]

    Ford, A. L. and Keenan, B. D. and Medvedev, M. V. , title =. Phys. Rev. D , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  3. [3]

    Timokhin, A. N. and Harding, A. K. , title =. Astrophys. J. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  4. [4]

    Coherent emission from

    Cruz, F. Coherent emission from. Astrophys. J. Lett. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  5. [5]

    Bell, A. R. and Kirk, John G. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2008 , doi =

    2008

  6. [6]

    and King, B

    Seipt, D. and King, B. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  7. [7]

    and Del Sorbo, Dario and Thomas, Alec G

    Seipt, Daniel and Ridgers, Christopher P. and Del Sorbo, Dario and Thomas, Alec G. R. , title =. New J. Phys. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    and Del Sorbo, D

    Slade-Lowther, C. and Del Sorbo, D. and Ridgers, C. P. , title =. New J. Phys. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    work page 2019

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Song, Huai-Hang and Tamburini, Matteo , title =. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  2. [10]

    and King, B

    Sarri, G. and King, B. and Blackburn, T. and Ilderton, A. and Boogert, S. and Bulanov, S. S. and Bulanov, S. V. and Di Piazza, A. and Ji, L. and Karbstein, F. and Keitel, C. H. and Krajewska, K. and Malka, V. and Mangles, S. P. D. and Mathieu, F. and McKenna, P. and Meuren, S....

    2025

  3. [11]

    1969 , doi =

    Pulsar Electrodynamics , journal =. 1969 , doi =

    1969

  4. [12]

    Medin, Zach and Lai, Dong , title =. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  5. [13]

    , title =

    Piran, T. , title =. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 2004 , doi =

    2004

  6. [14]

    and Zhang, B

    Kumar, P. and Zhang, B. , title =. Phys. Rep. , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  7. [15]

    Ravasio, M. E. and Ghirlanda, G. and Ghisellini, G. , title =. Astron. Astrophys. , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  8. [16]

    Qu, Kenan and Fisch, Nathaniel J , title =. Phys. Plasmas , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  9. [17]

    , title =

    Qu, Kenan and Griffith, Alec and Fisch, Nathaniel J. , title =. Phys. Rev. E , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  10. [18]

    High Power Laser Part

    Huang, Hairong and Zhang, Liangqi and Liu, Weiyuan and Yu, Tongpu and Luo, Wen , title =. High Power Laser Part. Beams , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  11. [19]

    Sampath, Archana and Tamburini, Matteo , title =. Phys. Plasmas , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  12. [20]

    Fedotov, A. M. and Narozhny, N. B. and Mourou, G. and Korn, G. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  13. [21]

    and Vranic, M

    Grismayer, T. and Vranic, M. and Martins, J. L. and Fonseca, R. A. and Silva, L. O. , title =. Phys. Rev. E , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  14. [22]

    and Blackburn, T

    Gonoskov, A. and Blackburn, T. G. and Marklund, M. and Mourou, G. and Sergeev, A. and Bulanov, S. S. and Korn, G. , title =. Rep. Prog. Phys. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  15. [23]

    Vulcan 20-20 Upgrade , year =

  16. [24]

    Overview---Shanghai Superintense Ultrafast Laser Facility , year =

  17. [25]

    Exawatt Center for Extreme Light Studies (XCELS) , year =

  18. [26]

    Yoon, J. W. and Kim, Y. G. and Choi, I. and Sung, J. H. and Lee, H. W. and Lee, S. K. and Nam, C. H. , title =. Optica , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  19. [27]

    and others , title =

    Radier, C. and others , title =. High Power Laser Sci. Eng. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  20. [28]

    Li, A. X. and Qin, C. Y. and Zhang, H. and Li, S. and Fan, L. L. and Wang, Q. S. and Xu, T. J. and Wang, N. W. and Yu, L. H. and Xu, Y. and others , title =. High Power Laser Sci. Eng. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  21. [29]

    and Chaulagain, U

    Jourdain, N. and Chaulagain, U. and Havl. The. Matter Radiat. Extremes , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  22. [30]

    Papadopoulos, D. N. and Zou, J. P. and Le Blanc, C. and Ch. The. High Power Laser Sci. Eng. , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  23. [31]

    and Oliveira, P

    Buck, S. and Oliveira, P. and Angelides, T. and Galimberti, M. , title =. Photonics , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  24. [32]

    and others , title =

    Wang, X. and others , title =. Ultrafast Sci. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  25. [33]

    and Haefner, Constantin and Bromage, Jake and Butcher, Thomas and Chanteloup, Jean-Christophe F

    Danson, Colin N. and Haefner, Constantin and Bromage, Jake and Butcher, Thomas and Chanteloup, Jean-Christophe F. and others , title =. High Power Laser Sci. Eng. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  26. [34]

    Mironov, A. A. and Narozhny, N. B. and Fedotov, A. M. , title =. Phys. Lett. A , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  27. [35]

    Bulanov, S. S. and Schroeder, C. B. and Esarey, E. and Leemans, W. P. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2013 , doi =

    2013

  28. [36]

    Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems , journal =

    Di Piazza, Antonino and M. Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems , journal =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  29. [37]

    and Tamburini, M

    Di Piazza, A. and Tamburini, M. and Meuren, S. and Keitel, C. H. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  30. [38]

    and Lompre, L

    L'huillier, A. and Lompre, L. A. and Mainfray, G. and Manus, C. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 1983 , doi =

    1983

  31. [39]

    and Salvail, J

    Smeenk, C. and Salvail, J. Z. and Arissian, L. and Corkum, P. B. and Hebeisen, C. T. and Staudte, A. , title =. Opt. Express , volume =. 2011 , doi =

    2011

  32. [40]

    Zhao, Song-Feng and Le, Anh-Thu and Jin, Cheng and Wang, Xu and Lin, C. D. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  33. [41]

    Ciappina, M. F. and Popruzhenko, S. V. and Bulanov, S. V. and Ditmire, T. and Korn, G. and Weber, S. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  34. [42]

    Ciappina, M. F. and Peganov, E. E. and Popruzhenko, S. , title =. Matter Radiat. Extremes , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  35. [43]

    Pullen, M. G. and Wallace, W. C. and Laban, D. E. and Palmer, A. J. and Hanne, G. F. and Grum-Grzhimailo, A. N. and Bartschat, K. and Ivanov, I. and Kheifets, A. and Wells, D. and Quiney, H. M. and Tong, X. M. and Litvinyuk, I. V. and Sang, R. T. and Kielpinski, D. , title =. ...

    2013

  36. [44]

    , title =

    Gao, J. , title =. Appl. Phys. Lett. , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  37. [45]

    Galkin, A. L. and Kalashnikov, M. P. and Klinkov, V. K. and Korobkin, V. V. and Romanovsky, M. Y. and Shiryaev, O. B. , title =. Phys. Plasmas , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  38. [46]

    and Di Piazza, A

    Har-Shemesh, O. and Di Piazza, A. , title =. Opt. Lett. , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  39. [47]

    and Andreev, A

    Kalashnikov, M. and Andreev, A. and Ivanov, K. and Galkin, A. and Korobkin, V. and Romanovsky, M. and Shiryaev, O. and Schnuerer, M. and Braenzel, J. and Trofimov, V. , title =. Laser Part. Beams , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  40. [48]

    Vais, O. E. and Bochkarev, S. G. and Ter-Avetisyan, S. and Bychenkov, V. Y. , title =. Quantum Electron. , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  41. [49]

    Ivanov, K. A. and Tsymbalov, I. N. and Vais, O. E. and Bochkarev, S. G. and Volkov, R. V. and Bychenkov, V. Y. and Savel'ev, A. B. , title =. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  42. [50]

    Maier, A. R. and Delbos, N. M. and Eichner, T. and H. Decoding Sources of Energy Variability in a Laser-Plasma Accelerator , journal =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  43. [51]

    and Huault, M

    Ravichandran, S. and Huault, M. and Lera, R. and He, C. Z. and Longman, A. and Fedosejevs, R. and Roso, L. and Hill, W. T. III , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  44. [52]

    Xie, Bo , title =. Appl. Phys. B , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  45. [53]

    Matter Radiat

    Xu, Shirui and Pan, Zhuo and Gao, Ying and Zhao, Jiarui and Chen, Shiyou and Mei, Zhusong and Chen, Xun and Peng, Ziyang and Liu, Xuan and Liang, Yulan and Xu, Tianqi and Song, Tan and Wu, Qingfan and Zhang, Yujia and Liu, Zhipeng and Zhang, Zihao and Chen, Haoran and Han, Qih...

    2025

  46. [54]

    Perevalov, S. E. and Pukhov, A. M. and Starodubtsev, M. V. and Soloviev, A. A. , title =. Matter Radiat. Extremes , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  47. [55]

    Aleksandrov, I. A. and Andreev, A. A. , title =. Phys. Rev. A , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  48. [56]

    Lu, Z. W. and Hou, X. D. and Wan, F. and Salamin, Y. I. and Lv, C. and Zhang, B. and Wang, F. and Xu, Z. F. and Li, J. X. , title =. Matter Radiat. Extremes , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  49. [57]

    and Walmsley, I

    Iaconis, C. and Walmsley, I. A. , title =. Opt. Lett. , volume =. 1998 , doi =

    1998

  50. [58]

    Radunsky, A. S. and Ivanov, A. A. and Zheltikov, A. M. , title =. Opt. Lett. , volume =. 2006 , doi =

    2006

  51. [59]

    Itatani, J. and Qu. Attosecond Streak Camera , journal =. 2002 , doi =

    2002

  52. [60]

    Mairesse, Y. and Qu. Frequency-resolved optical gating for complete reconstruction of attosecond bursts , journal =. 2005 , doi =

    2005

  53. [61]

    and Wan, Feng and Keitel, Christoph H

    Li, Yan-Fei and Shaisultanov, Rashid and Hatsagortsyan, Karen Z. and Wan, Feng and Keitel, Christoph H. and Li, Jian-Xing , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  54. [62]

    Ridgers, C. P. and Kirk, J. G. and Duclous, R. and Blackburn, T. G. and Brady, C. S. and Bennett, K. and Arber, T. D. and Bell, A. R. , title =. J. Comput. Phys. , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  55. [63]

    Elkina, N. V. and Fedotov, A. M. and Kostyukov, I. Y. and Legkov, M. V. and Narozhny, N. B. and Nerush, E. N. and Ruhl, H. , title =. Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams , volume =. 2011 , doi =

    2011

  56. [64]

    Green, D. G. and Harvey, C. N. , title =. Comput. Phys. Commun. , volume =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  57. [65]

    McMaster, W. H. , title =. Rev. Mod. Phys. , volume =. 1961 , doi =

    1961

  58. [66]

    Baier, V. N. and Katkov, V. M. and Fadin, V. S. , title =. 1973 , publisher =

    1973

  59. [67]

    Thomas, L. H. , title =. Nature , volume =. 1926 , doi =

    1926

  60. [68]

    Thomas, L. H. , title =. Philos. Mag. , volume =. 1927 , doi =

    1927

  61. [69]

    and Michel, L

    Bargmann, V. and Michel, L. and Telegdi, V. L. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 1959 , doi =

    1959

  62. [70]

    Zhu, X. Z. and Li, B. Y. and Liu, F. and Li, J. L. and Bi, Z. W. and Ge, X. L. and Deng, H. Y. and Zhang, Z. Y. and Cui, P. L. and Lu, L. and Yan, W. C. and Yuan, X. H. and Chen, L. M. and Cao, Q. and Liu, Z. Y. and Sheng, Z. M. and Chen, M. and Zhang, J. , title =. Phys. Rev....

    2023

  63. [71]

    and Willingale, L

    Babjak, R. and Willingale, L. and Arefiev, A. and Vranic, M. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  64. [72]

    and Gorlova, D

    Tsymbalov, I. and Gorlova, D. and Ivanov, K. and Starodubtseva, E. and Volkov, R. and Tsygvintsev, I. and Kochetkov, Y. and Korneev, P. and Polonski, A. and Savel'ev, A. , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  65. [73]

    and Wan, F

    Lv, C. and Wan, F. and Salamin, Y. I. and Zhao, Q. and Ababekri, M. and Xu, R. R. and Li, J. X. , title =. Adv. Sci. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  66. [74]

    2022 , issn =

    Generation of arbitrarily polarized GeV lepton beams via nonlinear Breit-Wheeler process , journal =. 2022 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.fmre.2021.11.022 , author =

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    DeLong and David N

    Rick Trebino and Kenneth W. DeLong and David N. Fittinghoff and John N. Sweetser and Marco A. Krumb. Measuring ultrashort laser pulses in the time-frequency domain using frequency-resolved optical gating , journal =. 1997 , volume =

    1997

  68. [76]

    Space--time characterization of ultrashort laser pulses: A perspective , journal =

    Benjam. Space--time characterization of ultrashort laser pulses: A perspective , journal =. 2024 , volume =

    2024

  69. [77]

    Di Piazza and M

    A. Di Piazza and M. Tamburini and S. Meuren and C. H. Keitel , title =. Phys. Rev. A , year =

  70. [78]

    Samuele Montefiori and Matteo Tamburini , title =. Comput. Phys. Commun. , year =

  71. [79]

    High Power Laser Sci

    Colin Nicholas Danson and Leonida Antonio Gizzi and David Hillier , title =. High Power Laser Sci. Eng. , year =

  72. [80]

    Fedotov and A

    A. Fedotov and A. Ilderton and F. Karbstein and B. King and D. Seipt and H. Taya and G. Torgrimsson , title =. Phys. Rep. , year =

  73. [81]

    High Power Laser Sci

    Efim Khazanov and Andrey Shaykin and Igor Kostyukov and Vladislav Ginzburg and Ivan Mukhin and Ivan Yakovlev and Alexander Soloviev and Ivan Kuznetsov and Sergey Mironov and Artem Korzhimanov and Denis Bulanov and Ilya Shaikin and Anton Kochetkov and Alexey Kuzmin and Mikhail ...

  74. [82]

    C. D. Arrowsmith and P. Simon and P. J. Bilbao and A. F. A. Bott and others , title =. Nat. Commun. , year =

  75. [83]

    High Power Laser Sci

    Yutong Li and Liming Chen and Min Chen and Feng Liu and Yuqiu Gu and Bing Guo and Jianfei Hua and Taiwu Huang and Yuxin Leng and Fei Li and Lu Li and Ruxin Li and Chen Lin and Wei Lu and Zhihui Lyu and Wenjun Ma and Xiaonan Ning and Yujie Peng and Yang Wan and Jinguang Wang an...

  76. [84]

    Pouyez and T

    M. Pouyez and T. Grismayer and M. Grech and C. Riconda , title =. Phys. Rev. Lett. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  77. [85]

    Borysov , collaboration =

    O. Borysov , collaboration =. The Strong-Field. PoS , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  78. [86]

    F. C. Salgado and others , title =. New J. Phys. , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.