REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 68 references
High-energy electron-positron beam collisions with large-angle disruptions
T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Electron-positron collisions are governed by a new dimensionless parameter ε equal to the disruption angle; near ε ≳ 1 the beams brake, stop, and reverse, and standard collision codes fail.
desk verdict A real regime with a solid PIC demonstration, but the analytical model's high-ε scalings rest on an unquantified error cancellation. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The mechanism that carries the argument is the pairing of the new parameter $\varepsilon$ with two conservation laws, $\gamma + p_z/mc = 2\gamma_0$ and $\beta_r^2/2 + \beta_z = \beta_{z,0}$, which are identical in form to the invariants of a charged particle in a plane electromagnetic wave. These invariants force any transverse deflection to be paid for by longitudinal momentum, so the deflection angle $\varepsilon$ converts directly into a longitudinal deceleration $-\varepsilon^2/2$; feeding the resulting density and current perturbations, $\delta j_z \propto j_0$ and $\delta j_r \propto \varepsilon j_0$, into Maxwell's equations yields the induced axial electric field $\delta E_{z0} \propto \varepsilon E_0$. The whole effect is packaged in $\varepsilon = \sigma_0/(c\tau_D) = \sqrt{D}\,\sigma_0/\sigma_z$, which is simultaneously the deflection angle, the ratio of beam radius to relativistic skin depth, and (up to a factor $1/4$) the square root of the self-field-to-kinetic-energy density ratio.
What would settle it
Run a fully electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulation of a Gaussian $e^-e^+$ collision with $\varepsilon \approx 1.5$ and measure the maximum longitudinal momentum loss at $t = \tau_D$ and the fraction of particles that reverse direction. The paper's scaling predicts $|\Delta p_z|_{\max}/p_{z,0} \approx 0.28\varepsilon^2$ and substantial reversal; if the measured loss departs strongly from this or no reversal appears, the $\varepsilon$-governed picture is not universal. A second probe is to repeat the same scan with hollow or flat-top density profiles to test whether the stated cancellation between the two neglected effects survives a change of beam shape.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that a single dimensionless parameter, $\varepsilon = \sigma_0/(c\tau_D) = \sqrt{D}\,\sigma_0/\sigma_z$, controls whether transverse and longitudinal dynamics decouple in $e^-e^+$ collisions. This parameter is the physical disruption angle: for $\varepsilon \ll 1$ the particle motion reduces to a harmonic oscillator and the free-streaming approximation holds. As $\varepsilon$ approaches unity, transverse motion becomes relativistic, and through the invariant $\gamma + p_z/mc = 2\gamma_0$ the transverse acceleration draws on longitudinal momentum, producing a braking deceleration $\propto -\varepsilon^2$ and a self-consistent axial electric field $E_z \propto \varepsilon E_0$; for $\varepsilon \gtrsim 1$ the braking stops and reverses a significant fraction of the beams. The paper derives these scalings analytically, validates them against fully electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations over $\varepsilon = 0.01$ to $1.7$, and concludes that conventional beam-beam codes, which assume $v_z = \pm c$ and $E_z = 0$, fail for $\varepsilon \gtrsim 0.1$, overestimate beamstrahlung and pair production, and underpredict luminosity at high $\varepsilon$.
Load-bearing premise
The predictive scalings at high $\varepsilon$ rest on the assumption that two neglected effects cancel almost perfectly: ignoring the longitudinal variation of the induced electric field, which would make the model overestimate the field, and ignoring the field amplification from beam pinching, which would make it underestimate the field. The paper states this cancellation but does not derive it.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- For $\varepsilon \gtrsim 0.1$, radial currents and transverse motion become comparable to their longitudinal counterparts, so the free-streaming approximation underlying conventional beam-beam codes loses validity.
- At $\varepsilon \approx 3.5$, the fully electromagnetic simulation shows periodic pinch ring structures and a population of reversed particles, elongating the collision and giving a luminosity nearly an order of magnitude higher than the conventional code predicts.
- The induced axial field $E_z \propto \varepsilon E_0$ creates momentum and energy losses $\propto \varepsilon^2$, with on-axis particles losing about $\varepsilon^2/4$ of their energy, reshaping the luminosity spectrum toward both very high and very low center-of-mass energies.
- Because the braking effect lowers the perpendicular Lorentz force and the quantum parameter $\chi$, conventional codes overestimate beamstrahlung and pair production, by about 15% in pair yield and 21% in mean pair energy in the benchmarked case.
- The interplay between strong-field QED and $\varepsilon$-governed dynamics is characterized by a second parameter $\kappa$; for $\kappa \gtrsim 0.1$ the braking can reverse currents and limit further SF-QED losses.
Reading between the lines
- This suggests that collision parameter scans for future collider designs could be organized around $\varepsilon$ rather than only $D$ and $\chi$, with $\varepsilon \gtrsim 0.3$ flagged as the point where radial currents begin to dominate the field dynamics.
- The paper's stated cancellation between two neglected effects is unlikely to be profile-independent; a dedicated particle-in-cell scan varying beam density profile would reveal whether the $\varepsilon^2$ law is a universal scaling or an artifact of the uniform and Gaussian profiles studied here.
- The analogy between $\varepsilon$ and the ratio of laser spot size to Rayleigh length implies the same braking-induced axial-field mechanism could appear in tightly focused laser pulses in vacuum, where paraxial models normally ignore the axial field.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces a dimensionless parameter ε that characterizes transverse disruption in high-energy e−e+ collisions. For a uniform cylindrical beam model, the authors derive a harmonic-oscillator description valid for ε ≪ 1, a perturbative solution for finite ε, and a prediction that longitudinal momentum and energy losses scale as ε^2 while an induced longitudinal field scales as ε. They validate these scalings against OSIRIS PIC simulations for 0.01 ≤ ε ≤ 1.7 and compare PIC with GUINEA-PIG at ε = 3.5, concluding that legacy beam-beam codes, based on the free-streaming approximation, fail for ε ≳ 1 and overestimate beam-beam effects and underestimate luminosity.
Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a qualitatively new regime of beam-beam interaction that is relevant to future high-energy lepton colliders and to scenarios where beamstrahlung dynamically increases the effective disruption. The analytical scalings are parameter-free apart from a profile factor, and the authors provide a broad PIC scan with reproducible-looking parameters in the appendices. The controlled comparison with GUINEA-PIG, including the demonstration of apparent superluminal radial velocities in the legacy code, is a useful stress test. However, the quantitative predictive power of the model at ε ≳ 1 rests on an asserted cancellation of two errors that is not derived, and the most dramatic claims—beam reversal, code failure, and order-of-magnitude luminosity differences—depend on that unquantified cancellation and on a small number of high-ε simulation cases.
major comments (4)
- [Sec. III, paragraph after Fig. 2(d)] The key load-bearing assertion is that the model's overestimation of δEz from neglecting ∂δEz/∂s is 'nearly perfectly balanced' by the neglected pinch-driven field amplification. No expression is given for the pinch amplification, no residual-error estimate is provided, and the high-ε validation points in Appendix C (ε = 1.08 and ε = 1.7) use σ0 ∼ σz, where the ∂δEz/∂s ≈ 0 assumption is explicitly invalid. Because Eq. (41), Eq. (42), and the claim that legacy codes overestimate beam-beam effects all rely on this cancellation, the manuscript should either derive the pinch correction and quantify the residual error, or validate the ε² scalings in a geometry with σ0 ≪ σz at ε ≳ 1. As written, the agreement in Fig. 3 is evidence for a cancellation in the tested geometry, not a demonstration of a general scaling law.
- [Eqs. (35)–(36)] Equation (35) is a second-order linear inhomogeneous ODE, so its general solution contains two integration constants. The displayed solution, Eq. (36), includes a homogeneous term proportional to sin(2σz t/(σ0 τcol)) with coefficient −ε²/2, but the initial conditions or other physical constraints that fix this coefficient are never stated. The coefficient affects δEz and therefore the Ez-induced momentum and energy losses in Eqs. (37)–(42). The authors should either derive the coefficient from the initial data or show that the chosen value follows from the matched asymptotic solution, otherwise the quantitative predictions (41) and (42) are not fully determined by the model.
- [Sec. IV and Appendix D] The headline legacy-code-failure claim is based on a single representative case with ε = 3.5 in Sec. IV but ε = 3.6 in Appendix D. This inconsistency should be corrected. More importantly, the case has σz = σ0, and no scan over σ0/σz or over D is presented for the GUINEA-PIG comparison, nor are convergence checks or sensitivity studies reported. Since the comparison is used to conclude an order-of-magnitude luminosity discrepancy and to state that legacy codes 'overestimate beam-beam effects', the manuscript should show that these conclusions are robust to geometry, resolution, and numerical parameters rather than an artifact of a single stress-test point.
- [Fig. 3 and Sec. VI] The quantitative validation in Fig. 3 is for the maximum momentum loss at t = τD. However, the paper's central regime claim includes complete stopping and reversal of beam propagation, which occurs for t > τD and is illustrated in Fig. 2(d) and Sec. IV. No quantitative comparison between the theoretical model and PIC is provided for the reversed fraction, the post-reversal phase-space evolution, or the integrated luminosity at times beyond τD. The ε² scalings are therefore not directly shown to govern the late-time regime on which the most dramatic conclusions rest.
minor comments (3)
- [Sec. IV vs. Appendix D] The value of ε for the high-ε benchmark case is 3.5 in the main text and 3.6 in Appendix D; the two should be made consistent.
- [Sec. V, paragraph on laser focusing] The phrase 'coefficient' contains a typographical artifact and should read 'coefficient'.
- [Eq. (7)] The engineering formula for ε would be clearer if the definitions of the quantities in the square brackets, including the geometric factor η for Gaussian beams, were stated immediately around the equation rather than only in the text following it.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the central ε-scalings are parameter-free analytical results validated against external PIC simulations, and the disclosed high-ε error cancellation is a robustness caveat rather than a fitted input.
full rationale
The paper's core claims do not reduce to their inputs. The new parameter ε is defined in Eq. (6) as σ0/(cτD), and Eq. (10) then shows that the harmonic-oscillator deflection angle equals ε by direct substitution; this makes the abstract's statement that particles are deflected 'at angles equal to ε' a definitional consequence of the oscillator model, not an independently fitted prediction. This does not, however, drive the substantive results: the braking scalings Δβz ∼ -ε²/2, the momentum-loss scaling in Eq. (41), and the Ez amplitude in Eqs. (35)-(36) are derived from the perturbation solution and Maxwell's equations rather than fitted to simulation data. The PIC data from OSIRIS are external to the model, and Fig. 3 compares the simulation points against a parameter-free theoretical curve. The parabolic radial profile for δEz in Eq. (34) is explicitly imported from PIC ('Numerical simulations indicate...'), which slightly reduces the independence of the profile validation, but the amplitude equation is solved rather than fit, so the central scaling remains a genuine prediction. The Sec. III disclosure that high-ε agreement relies on a 'nearly perfectly balanced' cancellation between neglecting ∂δEz/∂s and pinch-driven field amplification is an unquantified correctness caveat, not a circular step: no fitted coefficient is renamed as a prediction, and the cancellation is presented as a limitation rather than used as an input. Self-citations to Refs. [2-4] supply field equations, profile transforms, and context, but the central regime claim and scalings are not obtained by trusting those citations; they are benchmarked against PIC and GUINEA-PIG. The GUINEA-PIG failure is a simulation outcome, not a premise. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against the external benchmarks, and no circular reduction is exhibited.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- η (profile factor) =
0.24 (uniform), 0.15 (Gaussian)
assumptions (4)
- domain assumption Undisrupted self-fields of a uniform cylindrical beam are linear in r (Eq. 1)
- domain assumption Harmonic oscillator solution (Eq. 9) is a valid zeroth order for the perturbation expansion at finite ε
- domain assumption ∂δEz/∂s ≃ 0 for high-aspect-ratio beams (σ0 ≪ σz)
- standard math Maxwell's equations and relativistic Lorentz force
invented entities (2)
-
ε parameter
independent evidence
-
κ parameter
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of High-energy electron-positron beam collisions with large-angle disruptions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PD52FR4Y
@misc{pith2026260810988,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: High-energy electron-positron beam collisions with large-angle disruptions},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PD52FR4Y}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10988}
}
abstract
We show that the beam and field dynamics in high-energy electron-positron ($e^-e^+$) collisions are characterized by a new dimensionless parameter introduced as $\varepsilon$ in this study. The disruption effect deflects the particles transversely at angles equal to $\varepsilon$. The particles simultaneously undergo deceleration of longitudinal velocities (a ``braking effect"). The deceleration scales as $\propto \varepsilon^2$. A longitudinal electric field is further provoked, whose amplitude scales as $\propto \varepsilon$. We identify $\varepsilon \gtrsim 1$ (with large-angle disruptions) as a novel extreme regime, where the transverse motion becomes strongly relativistic. The braking effect completely stops and further reverses the beam propagation. Our theoretical model is in excellent agreement with electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations. The previous beam-beam studies, including legacy numerical codes, apply only to the $\varepsilon \ll 1$ regime. They fail to capture the correct beam features and collision luminosities, and overestimate beam-beam effects (including beamstrahlung and pair production) for considerable $\varepsilon$, thus demonstrating the need for fully electromagnetic particle-in-cell codes to study these regimes.
Figures
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
As illustrated in the lineout plots (right column), the theoretical predictions for the transverse current δjr, ra- dial field δEr, and longitudinal field δEz are in excellent agreement with the PIC simulation results. The snapshot is taken in the early interaction stage ( t < τ D), before the beam pinch significantly deforms the beam profiles. The longit...
-
[2]
For finite values of ε < 1, we present an analytical solution indicating that braking effect and energy gain scale with ε2
-
[3]
For ε ≪ 1, transverse deflection remains negligible compared to longitudinal motion, simplifying the particle dynamics to a harmonic oscillator. How- ever, as ε exceeds 0.1, transverse motion transitions to relativistic speeds, thereby inducing nonlinear dynamics
-
[4]
These features are missing in the GUINEA-PIG simulations
Analysis of high- ε collisions, conducted through PIC simulations, reveals intricate ring structures and elongated beams, attributed to significant par- ticle reversal resulting from intense deceleration. These features are missing in the GUINEA-PIG simulations
-
[5]
Collective dynamics of beams, including phenom- ena such as density pinch and current generation, are jointly governed by D and ε. During collisions, an axial electric field Ez is produced, scaling as Ez ≃ εE0, which results in substantial momentum and energy losses
-
[6]
Luminosity exhibits a rapid increase in the high- ε regime, primarily due to extended collision dura- tions and pronounced and more sustainable beam pinch. Furthermore, the influence of ε on the lumi- nosity spectrum demonstrates that while it enables a high luminosity at high center-of-mass energies Ecm by mitigating SF-QED effects, it concurrently resul...
arXiv 2022
-
[7]
Interplay between SF-QED and dynamics governed by ε is characterized by another parameter κ intro- duced in this study. For κ ≳ 0.1, the ε-governed dynamics become pronounced, potentially leading to beam and current reversal and restricting quan- tum processes
-
[8]
ε = 1 .7: σ0 = 55 .72 nm , σz = 45 .07 nm , N0 = 2.25 × 1011, n0 = 5.11 × 1026 cm−3 The simulations described above yield the results pre- sented in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3. These simulations are conducted in Cartesian coor- dinates (x, y, s), with the electron and positron beams propagating in +s and −s directions, respectively. Here, we provide detai...
Show all 68 references
-
[9]
ε = 0 .01: σ0 = 4 .44 nm , σz = 565 .7 nm , N0 = 1.14 × 108, n0 = 3.25 × 1024 cm−3
-
[10]
ε = 0 .043: σ0 = 8 .88 nm , σz = 282 .85 nm , N0 = 9.1 × 108, n0 = 1.3 × 1025 cm−3
-
[11]
ε = 0 .067: σ0 = 11 .1 nm , σz = 226 .28 nm , N0 = 1.78 × 109, n0 = 2.03 × 1025 cm−3
-
[12]
ε = 0 .12: σ0 = 14 .8 nm , σz = 169 .71 nm , N0 = 4.21 × 109, n0 = 3.61 × 1025 cm−3
-
[13]
ε = 0 .27: σ0 = 22 .2 nm , σz = 113 .14 nm , N0 = 1.42 × 1010, n0 = 8.12 × 1025 cm−3
-
[14]
ε = 0 .48: σ0 = 29 .6 nm , σz = 84 .86 nm , N0 = 3.36 × 1010, n0 = 1.44 × 1026 cm−3 17
-
[15]
ε = 1 .08: σ0 = 44 .4 nm , σz = 56 .57 nm , N0 = 1.14 × 1011, n0 = 3.25 × 1026 cm−3
-
[16]
A linear collider vision for the future of particle physics,
H. Abramowicz, E. Adli, F. Alharthi, and et al ., “A linear collider vision for the future of particle physics,” Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 235, 1641 (2026)
2026
-
[17]
Beam-beam phenomena in linear colliders,
Kaoru Yokoya and Pisin Chen, “Beam-beam phenomena in linear colliders,” in Frontiers of Particle Beams: Inten- sity Limitations: Proceedings of a Topical Course Held by the Joint US-CERN School on Particle Accelerators at Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, USA 7–14 November 1...
1990
-
[18]
Bright γ rays source and nonlinear breit-wheeler pairs in the collision of high density particle beams,
F. Del Gaudio, T. Grismayer, R. A. Fonseca, W. B. Mori, and L. O. Silva, “Bright γ rays source and nonlinear breit-wheeler pairs in the collision of high density particle beams,” Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 023402 (2019)
2019
-
[19]
Signa- tures for strong-field qed in the quantum limit of beam- strahlung,
W. L. Zhang, T. Grismayer, and L. O. Silva, “Signa- tures for strong-field qed in the quantum limit of beam- strahlung,” Phys. Rev. A 108, 042816 (2023)
2023
-
[20]
Anomalous pinch in electron-electron beam collision,
W. Zhang, T. Grismayer, and L. O. Silva, “Anomalous pinch in electron-electron beam collision,” Phys. Rev. Ac- cel. Beams 28, 091001 (2025)
2025
-
[21]
Disruption-induced kink instability in the leptonic beam collision driven by qed effects,
W. Zhang, T. Grismayer, R.A. Fonseca, and L. Silva, “Disruption-induced kink instability in the leptonic beam collision driven by qed effects,” (2021), poster presented at the 47th EPS Conference on Plasma Physics
2021
-
[22]
Beamstrahlung- enhanced disruption in beam–beam interaction,
A. S. Samsonov, E. N. Nerush, I. Yu. Kostyukov, M. Fil- ipovic, C. Baumann, and A. Pukhov, “Beamstrahlung- enhanced disruption in beam–beam interaction,” New J. Phys. 23, 103040 (2021)
2021
-
[23]
Prospect of studying nonperturbative qed with beam-beam col- lisions,
V. Yakimenko, S. Meuren, F. Del Gaudio, C. Bau- mann, A. Fedotov, F. Fiuza, T. Grismayer, M. J. Hogan, A. Pukhov, L. O. Silva, and G. White, “Prospect of studying nonperturbative qed with beam-beam col- lisions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 190404 (2019)
2019
-
[24]
Modern and future colliders,
V. Shiltsev and F. Zimmermann, “Modern and future colliders,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 015006 (2021)
2021
-
[25]
Future colliders for the high-energy frontier,
Heather M. Gray, “Future colliders for the high-energy frontier,” Reviews in Physics 6, 100053 (2021)
2021
-
[26]
Mounet, ed., European Strategy for Particle Physics - Accelerator R &D Roadmap , CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs (CERN, Geneva, 2022)
N. Mounet, ed., European Strategy for Particle Physics - Accelerator R &D Roadmap , CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs (CERN, Geneva, 2022)
2022
-
[27]
On the feasibility of future colliders: report of the snowmass’21 implementation task force,
Thomas Roser, Reinhard Brinkmann, Sarah Cousineau, Dmitri Denisov, Spencer Gessner, Steve Gourlay, Philippe Lebrun, Meenakshi Narain, Katsunobu Oide, Tor Raubenheimer, John Seeman, Vladimir Shiltsev, Jim Strait, Marlene Turner, and Lian-Tao Wang, “On the feasibility of future ...
2023
-
[28]
Particle colliders: options for the us and in- ternationally,
V. Shiltsev, “Particle colliders: options for the us and in- ternationally,” in Proc. IPAC’24, IPAC’24 - 15th Inter- national Particle Accelerator Conference No. 15 (JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, 2024) pp. 3944–3949
2024
-
[29]
Exploring the quantum universe: Pathways to in- novation and discovery in particle physics,
Shoji Asai, Amalia Ballarino, Tulika Bose, and et al., “Exploring the quantum universe: Pathways to in- novation and discovery in particle physics,” (2023), arXiv:2407.19176 [hep-ex]
2023 arXiv
-
[30]
Review of particle physics,
S. Navas, C. Amsler, T. Gutsche, and et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024)
2024
-
[31]
Design initiative for a 10 tev pcm wakefield col- lider,
Spencer Gessner, Jens Osterhoff, Carl A. Lindstrøm, and et al. , “Design initiative for a 10 tev pcm wakefield col- lider,” (2025), arXiv:2503.20214 [physics.acc-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[32]
Relativistic plasma physics in super- critical fields,
P. Zhang, S. S. Bulanov, D. Seipt, A. V. Arefiev, and A. G. R. Thomas, “Relativistic plasma physics in super- critical fields,” Phys. Plasmas 27, 050601 (2020)
2020
-
[33]
or 3D [ 27, 44] electrostatic solvers give very similar results. In cases where ε is not initially negligible, or is dynamically increased through SF-QED effects, colli- sion simulations should employ more self-consistent field solver and particle pusher to accurately capture ...
-
[34]
Report on the advanced linear collider study group (alegro) workshop 2024,
J. Vieira, B. Cros, P. Muggli, and et al., “Report on the advanced linear collider study group (alegro) workshop 2024,” (2024), arXiv:2408.03968 [physics.acc-ph]
2024
-
[35]
Report on the advanced linear col- lider study group (alegro) workshop 2026,
L. Verra, P. Muggli, B. Cross, E. Adli, R. Babjak, T. Barklow, F. Bencivenga, C. Benedetti, C. Benedetti, M. Buscher, S. S. Bulanov, A. Caldwell, G. Chen, O. Chubenko, R. D’Arcy, S. Diederichs, K. Downham, J. Farmer, M. Ferrario, A. Ferran Pousa, A. Formenti, M. Fuchs, S. Gess...
2026
-
[36]
Disruption effects from the interaction of round e+e− beams,
Pisin Chen and Kaoru Yokoya, “Disruption effects from the interaction of round e+e− beams,” Phys. Rev. D 38, 987–1000 (1988)
1988
-
[37]
Coherent pair cre- ation in linear colliders,
Pisin Chen and Valery I. Telnov, “Coherent pair cre- ation in linear colliders,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1796–1799 (1989)
1989
-
[38]
Differential luminosity under multiphoton beamstrahlung,
Pisin Chen, “Differential luminosity under multiphoton beamstrahlung,” Phys. Rev. D 46, 1186–1191 (1992)
1992
-
[39]
Strong field processes in beam-beam interactions at the compact linear collider,
J. Esberg, U. I. Uggerhøj, B. Dalena, and D. Schulte, “Strong field processes in beam-beam interactions at the compact linear collider,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 17, 051003 (2014)
2014
-
[40]
W. Herr, ed., Proceedings, CAS - CERN Accelera- tor School: Intensity Limitations in Particle Beams: Geneva, Switzerland, November 02-11, 2015 , CERN Yel- 20 low Reports: School Proceedings, Vol. 3 (CERN, Geneva, 2017)
2015
-
[41]
Efficient high-energy photon production in the supercritical qed regime,
Matteo Tamburini and Sebastian Meuren, “Efficient high-energy photon production in the supercritical qed regime,” Phys. Rev. D 104, L091903 (2021)
2021
-
[42]
Gen- eration of polarized positron beams via collisions of ul- trarelativistic electron beams,
Huai-Hang Song, Wei-Min Wang, and Yu-Tong Li, “Gen- eration of polarized positron beams via collisions of ul- trarelativistic electron beams,” Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033245 (2021)
2021
-
[43]
Beam delivery and beamstrahlung considera- tions for ultra-high energy linear colliders,
Tim Barklow, Spencer Gessner, Mark Hogan, Cho- Kuen Ng, Michael Peskin, Tor Raubenheimer, Glen White, Erik Adli, Gevy Jiawei Cao, Carl A. Lind- strøm, Kyrre Sjobak, Sam Barber, Cameron Geddes, Arianna Formenti, Remi Lehe, Carl Schroeder, Davide Terzani, Jeroen van Tilborg, Jea...
2023
-
[44]
Comparison of warpx and guinea-pig for electron positron collisions,
Bao Nguyen, Arianna Formenti, Remi Lehe, Jean-Luc Vay, Spencer Gessner, and Luca Fedeli, “Comparison of warpx and guinea-pig for electron positron collisions,” (2024), 10.18429/JACOW-IPAC2024-WEPC84
2024 doi
-
[45]
Analytical approximations for beam- strahlung at very high energy electron-positron collid- ers,
Dongxing He, Arianna Formenti, Spencer Gessner, and Michael Peskin, “Analytical approximations for beam- strahlung at very high energy electron-positron collid- ers,” (2025), arXiv:2511.20912 [physics.acc-ph]
2025
-
[46]
Computer sim- ulations of disruption,
W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, and J. J. Su, “Computer sim- ulations of disruption,” in Proceedings of the 1989 IEEE Particle Accelerator Conference, . ’Accelerator Science and Technology (1989) pp. 891–893 vol.2
1989
-
[47]
Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields,
A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, “Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045001 (2022)
2022
-
[48]
Advances in qed with intense background fields,
A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, “Advances in qed with intense background fields,” Physics Reports 1010, 1–138 (2023), advances in QED with intense background fields
2023
-
[49]
thesis, University of Hamburg (1996)
Daniel Schulte, Study of Electromagnetic and Hadronic Background in the Interaction Region of the TESLA Col- lider, Ph.D. thesis, University of Hamburg (1996)
1996
-
[50]
Cain: Conglomérat d’abel et d’interactions non-linéaires,
P. Chen, G. Horton-Smith, T. Ohgaki, A.W. Weide- mann, and K. Yokoya, “Cain: Conglomérat d’abel et d’interactions non-linéaires,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 355, 107–110 (1995)
1995
-
[51]
Instability of compensated beam‐beam collisions,
J. B. Rosenzweig, B. Autin, and Pisin Chen, “Instability of compensated beam‐beam collisions,” AIP Conference Proceedings 193, 324–339 (1989)
1989
-
[52]
Mitigation of the onset of hosing in the linear regime through plasma frequency detuning,
Mariana Moreira, Patric Muggli, and Jorge Vieira, “Mitigation of the onset of hosing in the linear regime through plasma frequency detuning,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 115001 (2023)
2023
-
[53]
Phase- space shaping in wakefield accelerators due to betatron cooling,
Pablo J. Bilbao, Thales Silva, and Luis O. Silva, “Phase- space shaping in wakefield accelerators due to betatron cooling,” (2025), arXiv:2510.24567 [physics.acc-ph]
2025
-
[54]
Paul Gibbon, Short Pulse Laser Interactions with Matter (PUBLISHED BY IMPERIAL COLLEGE PRESS AND DISTRIBUTED BY WORLD SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING CO., 2005) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/p116
2005 doi
-
[55]
Osiris: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators,
R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu, C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Kat- souleas, and J. C. Adam, “Osiris: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators,” in Computational Science — ICCS 20...
2002
-
[56]
Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators,
E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, “Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1229–1285 (2009)
2009
-
[57]
Luminosity spectrum reconstruc- tion at linear colliders,
S. Poss and A. Sailer, “Luminosity spectrum reconstruc- tion at linear colliders,” Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2833 (2014)
2014
-
[58]
A computer simulation code for the beam-beam interaction in linear colliders,
Kaoru Yokoya, “A computer simulation code for the beam-beam interaction in linear colliders,” (1985), kEK- Report-85-9
1985
-
[59]
User’s Manual of CAIN, Version 2.44 (2017)
2017
-
[60]
Simulation of beams or plasmas crossing at relativistic velocity,
J.-L. Vay, “Simulation of beams or plasmas crossing at relativistic velocity,” Phys. Plasmas 15, 056701 (2008)
2008
-
[61]
Linear colliders based on laser-plasma accelerators,
C. B. Schroeder, F. Albert, C. Benedetti, and et al., “Linear colliders based on laser-plasma accelerators,” Journal of Instrumentation 18, T06001 (2023)
2023
-
[62]
Strong-field qed limita- tions on tev-class plasma wakefield accelerators,
Qian Qian, D Seipt, Yong Ma, S S Bulanov, C B Schroeder, and A G R Thomas, “Strong-field qed limita- tions on tev-class plasma wakefield accelerators,” Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 68, 055011 (2026)
2026
-
[63]
Fully plasma-based electron injector for a linear collider or xfel,
T. N. Dalichaouch, X. L. Xu, F. Li, F. S. Tsung, and W. B. Mori, “Fully plasma-based electron injector for a linear collider or xfel,” Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 023118 (2025)
2025
-
[64]
Proton-driven plasma wakefield acceleration for future hep colliders,
Allen Caldwell, John Farmer, Nelson Lopes, Alexan- der Pukhov, Ferdinand Willeke, and Thomas Wilson, “Proton-driven plasma wakefield acceleration for future hep colliders,” (2025), arXiv:2503.21669 [physics.acc- ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[65]
Awake input to the european strategy for particle physics update on behalf of the awake collabora- tion,
E. Gschwendtner, P. Muggli, M. Turner, and A W AKE Collaboration, “Awake input to the european strategy for particle physics update on behalf of the awake collabora- tion,” (2025), arXiv:2504.00577 [physics.acc-ph]
2025 arXiv
-
[66]
Tev electron beams from plasma acceleration via regenerative cascading,
Chaojie Zhang and Chan Joshi, “Tev electron beams from plasma acceleration via regenerative cascading,” (2026), arXiv:2607.07979 [physics.acc-ph]
2026 arXiv
-
[67]
Searches for electroweak states at future plasma wake- field colliders,
So Chigusa, Simon Knapen, Toby Opferkuch, Inbar Sa- voray, Christiane Scherb, and Weishuang Linda Xu, “Searches for electroweak states at future plasma wake- field colliders,” (2025), arXiv:2512.09995 [hep-ph]
2025
-
[68]
Higgs couplings at a future wakefield collider,
Katherine Fraser, Simon Knapen, Kevin Langhoff, and Robert Szafron, “Higgs couplings at a future wakefield collider,” (2026), arXiv:2607.19463 [hep-ph]
2026 arXiv
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.