Exact results for scattering on ultra-short plane wave backgrounds

Anton Ilderton

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 52 references

Exact results for scattering on ultra-short plane wave backgrounds

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives exact closed forms for the total probabilities of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering in delta-function plane-wave pulses, and shows that at high intensity these probabilities grow…

desk verdict Exact closed-form probabilities for pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering in delta-function pulses are solid within the stated model, though the abstract stretches the high-intensity scaling claim beyond what is actually proven. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02484 v1 pith:GRE2CLLB submitted 2019-09-05 hep-ph hep-th

Anton Ilderton This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-th

keywords nonlinearBreit-WheelerpairproductionComptonscatteringdelta-functionpulseFurrypicturehigh-intensityscalingplanewavebackgroundclosed-formprobabilitylocallyconstantfieldapproximation

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 establishes exact, closed-form results for two basic strong-field QED processes, nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering, when the background plane wave is compressed to a delta-function pulse. For a single delta pulse the total pair production probability is evaluated in closed form (Eq. 13), and it is independent of the incoming photon's energy. At high intensity that probability grows as $\frac{\alpha}{3\pi}+\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\log a_0$, while the total nonlinear Compton probability in two alternating-sign pulses grows as $\frac{12\alpha}{\pi}\log^2 a_0$. Because these results are exact, they provide direct tests of the conjecture that Furry-picture perturbation theory breaks down at high intensity through power-law scaling: in these ultra-short pulses the scaling is logarithmic, not power-law. The paper argues that, despite the ultraviolet-unphysical delta model, the high-intensity scaling it finds is the relevant one for ultra-short pulses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the singular-pulse limit: a sech$^2$ electric field of width $1/\omega$ and fixed area $ma_0$ becomes a Dirac-delta electric field, so the vector potential becomes a Heaviside step function (Eq. 5). In that limit the $S$-matrix element $\mathcal{M}$ stops being an integral and becomes the difference of the integrand evaluated on either side of the jump, Eq. (9), which is what makes the whole calculation tractable. For two pulses, the additional ingredient is a $4\sin^2$ interference factor carrying the accumulated phase between the kicks; whether this factor can be averaged to $2$ decides whether interference survives integration and determines the single- versus double-logarithmic scaling. The final-state integrals are finished with variable changes and half-angle substitutions, leading to Eqs. (13), (15), and (31).

What would settle it

Evaluate the total probabilities for a finite-width pulse such as the sech$^2$ pulse of Eq. (4) at large but finite $a_0$, and compare the scaling with Eqs. (15) and (31). If taking $\omega\to\infty$ before $a_0\to\infty$ and the reverse order give different leading behaviour (for instance, a power law for finite $\omega$), the delta-pulse scaling is an artifact of the singular limit.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the infinite set of phase integrals that normally make plane-wave scattering amplitudes computable only numerically collapses in the delta-pulse limit. The full amplitude reduces to a difference of boundary terms across the jump of the vector potential, $M = \frac{\mathrm{Spin}_<}{i\Phi'_<} - \frac{\mathrm{Spin}_>}{i\Phi'_>}$, and all final-state integrals can then be done exactly. For a single delta pulse the total nonlinear Breit-Wheeler probability is given in closed form by Eq. (13), independent of initial photon energy, with asymptotic behavior $P\simeq \frac{\alpha}{3\pi} + \frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\log a_0$ for $a_0\gg 1$. For two alternating-sign delta pulses, representing an oscillating field, the total nonlinear Compton probability has leading behavior $P\sim \frac{12\alpha}{\pi}\log^2 a_0$. The paper reads these results as explicit counterexamples, in the ultra-short-pulse limit, to the power-law scaling in $a_0^{2/3}$ predicted by constant-crossed-field results and the locally constant field approximation, and hence as evidence that the conjectured breakdown of Furry-picture perturbation theory does not set in through that mechanism in these backgrounds.

Load-bearing premise

The electric field is modelled as a Dirac delta function, and the paper assumes that the high-intensity scaling of real finite-duration pulses follows from this singular model, without proving the infinite-intensity and infinite-shortness limits commute.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a single delta pulse, the total pair production probability is independent of the initial photon energy; in finite ultra-short pulses it should depend only weakly on that energy.
The high-intensity growth is logarithmic, not a power law, so the constant-field and locally-constant-field-approximation based argument for a breakdown of Furry-picture perturbation theory does not apply in this ultra-short limit.
In two-pulse oscillating backgrounds, interference cancels from the integrated pair production probability, which becomes twice the single-pulse result, but it survives in nonlinear Compton scattering, producing the double-logarithmic $\log^2 a_0$ scaling.
The closed-form probabilities give exact benchmarks against which numerical methods and approximations such as the locally constant field approximation can be tested in short pulses.
By the optical theorem, the results also give the imaginary part of one-loop forward scattering amplitudes for the photon in pair production and for the electron in Compton scattering.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not prove that the limits $\omega\to\infty$ and $a_0\to\infty$ commute; if they do not, finite ultra-short pulses could still show power-law scaling at sufficiently high intensity. A direct check would be a finite-width pulse calculation at large $a_0$.
The double logarithm in Compton scattering suggests that repeated alternating kicks generically strengthen the intensity growth by one power of log relative to a single kick; multi-pulse sequences, which the paper says are straightforward to construct, would provide a clean test.
The energy independence of the total pair probability in a delta pulse implies that total-yield measurements in extremely short pulses are poor energy diagnostics, whereas the interference parameter $\theta$ governing the two-pulse spectrum retains energy information.
If the logarithmic scaling survives finite-pulse corrections, it would soften the practical concern about Furry-picture breakdown: perturbation theory in the background would remain under better control in short pulses than constant-field estimates suggest.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: the paper delivers real exact results. Ilderton evaluates the S-matrix for delta-function plane-wave pulses, reducing it to clean jump terms, and then performs all final-state integrals for nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering. Equations (13), (21), and (31) are new closed-form total probabilities, and the high-a0 asymptotics—single log for pair production, log^2 for two-pulse Compton—genuinely do not follow the LCFA/constant-field power law. The derivations are carefully laid out, with stated substitutions and consistent small- and large-a0 limits. The two-peak emission spectra come with a simple physical explanation. This is a useful benchmark for a regime where people usually rely on numerics or LCFA.

The soft spot is the one the stress-test flags. The delta-function background is unphysical in the UV, and the exact probability (13) is independent of initial photon energy because the delta pulse contains all frequencies—that feature is an artifact of the model. The paper says this is not an issue for the high-intensity scaling, citing refs [37,38], but it does not demonstrate that the ω→∞ and a0→∞ limits commute or that finite-pulse corrections preserve the logarithm. So the rigorous statement is: for delta pulses, the scaling is logarithmic. The extrapolation to physical ultra-short pulses is plausible but not proven. The abstract should say so; right now it reads as if the conjecture-relevant scaling is settled for real pulses when the paper explicitly defers the NR-conjecture implications to future work.

I do not think this is fatal. The exact results stand on their own as exact results for a well-defined background, and the conclusions are honest about the model's limitations. The citation pattern is normal; earlier delta-pulse work and LCFA critiques are acknowledged. Who gets value: people working on strong-field QED, LCFA validity, and the NR conjecture—they should read this.

My recommendation: send to peer review. A good referee can ask for a softened abstract and an explicit discussion of finite-pulse corrections; the core calculation deserves to be in the literature.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents exact calculations of nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering in plane-wave backgrounds modelled as delta-function pulses. The S-matrix amplitude reduces to a jump condition (Eq. (9)), and for a single delta pulse the total pair-production probability is obtained in closed form (Eq. (13)); its high-intensity expansion is logarithmic, P ~ α/3π + (4/3)(α/π) log a0 (Eq. (15)). For two alternating-sign delta pulses, pair production retains the single logarithmic scaling while nonlinear Compton scattering is claimed to scale as P ~ (12α/π) log^2 a0 (Eq. (31)). The paper interprets the absence of power-law scaling as evidence against the conjectured high-intensity breakdown of Furry-picture perturbation theory.

Significance. If it holds, the paper's central result is valuable: exact, parameter-free closed forms for total probabilities in strong-field QED, obtained without numerical integration, and explicit high-intensity asymptotics that differ qualitatively from constant-crossed-field and LCFA predictions. The derivations are detailed, the small- and large-a0 expansions of Eq. (13) are consistent, and the interference structure for two pulses is worked out exactly. The paper also provides a clear semiclassical picture of the spectral peaks. The main limitation is that all exact results are for the singular delta-pulse background, and the extrapolation of the high-intensity scaling to physical ultra-short pulses is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (2)

[§I, Eq. (5); §IV] The delta-pulse limit (5) is the mathematical basis of every exact result, but the physical extrapolation in the abstract and conclusions requires that the high-a0 scaling be robust under reintroducing a finite pulse width ω. The paper explicitly acknowledges that the delta pulse is 'unphysical in the UV' and asserts, citing [37,38], that this 'is however not an issue for the highintensity scaling', but no argument, bound, or numerical check is given. Eq. (13) is independent of the initial photon energy precisely because the delta background contains all frequency modes; hence the log a0 in (15) and the log^2 a0 in (31) could, for physical pulses, be controlled by the UV content of the pulse rather than by the strong-field dynamics relevant to the Narozhny-Ritus conjecture. Please demonstrate with the sech^2 pulse (4) at finite ω, or by an explicit bound, that the leading logarithmic coefficients are independent of ω, or restrict the abstract's claim to the delta-pulse model.
[§III.A, Eqs. (26)-(31)] The derivation of (31) uses the asymptotic expansion (26) of the s-integral for large x=(1+v^2)/b, but the subsequent t-integral extends over all t up to a0a*, including the region x≲1 (v≲√b, t≳a0^2/b). In I2 the leading log^2 a0 is built up from log t/t over a large t range, so the b-dependent and small-x pieces of the exact s-integral are not automatically negligible; the text's statement that the v-integral is 'strongly peaked' around v≈1 and v≈a0 is not quantified. Please provide an explicit split of the v-integral or an error bound from the exact Sine/Cosine-integral representation showing that the neglected region contributes only subleading O(log a0) terms, and state the parameter regime (for example a0^2 ≫ b, with b fixed) in which the b-independent formula (31) is intended to hold.

minor comments (6)

[Introduction and §II] There are typographical errors: 'perturabtive' in the Introduction and 'poistron' in §II should be corrected.
[Eq. (13) and Eq. (21)] The argument of the logarithm in (13) is presented with ambiguous line breaks; please write it as a single fraction and state explicitly that 'pair' in (21) denotes this same argument.
[§III.A, Eq. (23)] The parameter b appears in the interference factor before it is defined; introduce b = n.p/(Δφ m^2) explicitly before Eq. (23).
[§II.B, after Eq. (18)] The statement that the two-pulse pair-production probability becomes approximately twice the single-delta result would be clearer if written explicitly, e.g. P ≃ 2α/3π + (8α/3π) log a0.
[Eq. (16)] The denominators in the two boundary terms appear asymmetric: Spin< is divided by Φ'< while Spin> is divided by iΦ'>. Please confirm whether the first denominator should also contain i, as in Eq. (9), or whether this is a typographical artifact.
[Fig. 2] The left panel would benefit from a statement identifying which peak corresponds to q⊥=0 and which to q⊥=a⊥, since the color scale alone is not explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exact delta-pulse probabilities and log scalings are derived from the stated background and standard Furry-picture QED, not assumed as inputs.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The amplitudes follow from Volkov solutions and the modified LSZ prescription cited only for method, and the total probabilities (13), (21) and the asymptotic scalings (15), (31) are obtained by explicitly performing the integrals and taking limits. Eq. (15) is a large-a0 expansion of the exact closed form (13); Eq. (31) follows from the stated asymptotic expansion (26) together with the identified dominant v-integral region. No parameter in these formulas is fitted and no target probability enters the setup. The only salient self-citations are [20,24] for the LSZ treatment of unipolar fields and [38] in the concluding caveat that the UV-unphysical delta pulse is 'not an issue for the highintensity scaling'; even if that robustness assertion is underdemonstrated, the central results do not depend on it, so it is a validity/limitation concern, not circularity. Accordingly no step equates an output with an input by construction.

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

The central claim rests on standard Furry-picture QED plus one domain assumption: replacing finite-duration pulses by delta-function backgrounds. No parameters are fitted to data (a0 is the input intensity parameter; εIR is a regulator). No new entities are postulated. The key unexamined burden is the singular UV structure of the delta pulse; the paper asserts it does not affect the high-intensity scaling, citing [37,38].

assumptions (4)

standard math Volkov solutions exactly describe charged fermions in an arbitrary plane-wave background
Used throughout Sect. I.A to build the S-matrix elements (Eq. 2); cited [1,4-7].
standard math The modified LSZ prescription of refs [20,24] is valid for unipolar fields with non-vanishing asymptotic potential
Invoked in Sect. I.A to regulate boundary terms and derive Eq. (3).
domain assumption The background electric field can be modelled as a Dirac delta function, the ω→∞ limit of a sech^2 pulse, with potential a Heaviside step (Eq. 5)
This is the defining model of the paper; all exact results (13), (21), (31) are for this singular background.
standard math The asymptotic large-argument expansion (26) and the limiting form (30) capture the leading-order large-a0 behaviour
Used in Sect. III.A to extract the log^2 a0 scaling; the paper argues the v-integral is dominated by the v≈a0 region.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact results for scattering on ultra-short plane wave backgrounds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GRE2CLLB

@misc{pith2026190902484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact results for scattering on ultra-short plane wave backgrounds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GRE2CLLB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02484}
}

read the original abstract

We give exact results for the emission spectra of both nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and nonlinear Compton scattering in ultra-intense, ultra-short duration plane wave backgrounds, modelled as delta-function pulses. This includes closed form expressions for total scattering probabilities. We show explicitly that these probabilities do not exhibit the power-law scaling with intensity associated with the conjectured breakdown of (Furry picture) perturbation theory, instead scaling logarithmically in the high-intensity limit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02484 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. The electric field (left) and potential (right) for a unipolar field. In the considered limit, the electric field becomes a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential emission probability ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

[1]

The essential diﬀerence is clearly only in the dependence on the smalls cutoﬀ

logεIR ) , (21) in which “pair” indicates precisely the same argument as for pair production (13). The essential diﬀerence is clearly only in the dependence on the smalls cutoﬀ. The leading behaviour fora0≫ 1 is again logarithmic, PNLC∼ 2α π (1 + logεIR)− 4α π ( 3 4 + logεIR) loga0 . (22) By the optical theorem, and replacingεIR with a detector resolution...

work page 2019
[2]

D. M. Volkov,94, 250 (1935)

work page 1935
[3]

V. G. Bagrov and D. M. Gitman,Exact solutions of relativistic wave equations(1990)

work page 1990
[4]

Heinzl and A

T. Heinzl and A. Ilderton, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 113202 (2017), arXiv:1701.09166 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017
[5]

V. I. Ritus, J. Russ. Laser Res.6, 497 (1985)

1985
[6]

Di Piazza, C

A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012), arXiv:1111.3886 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2012
[7]

King and T

B. King and T. Heinzl, High Power Laser Science and Engineering4, e5 (2016), arXiv:1510.08456 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016
[8]

Seipt, inProceedings, Quantum Field Theory at the Limits: from Strong Fields to Heavy Quarks (HQ 2016): Dubna, Russia, July 18-30, 2016(2017) pp

D. Seipt, inProceedings, Quantum Field Theory at the Limits: from Strong Fields to Heavy Quarks (HQ 2016): Dubna, Russia, July 18-30, 2016(2017) pp. 24–43, arXiv:1701.03692 [physics.plasm-ph]

arXiv 2017

Show all 52 references

[9]

Dinu, Phys

V. Dinu, Phys. Rev.A87, 052101 (2013), arXiv:1302.1513 [hep-ph]. 9

2013 arXiv
[10]

82,655820203(2016),arXiv:1601.00442 [hep-ph]

D.Seipt, V.Kharin, S.Rykovanov, A.Surzhykov, andS.Fritzsche,J.PlasmaPhys. 82,655820203(2016),arXiv:1601.00442 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[11]

Dinu and G

V. Dinu and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rev.D99, 096018 (2019), arXiv:1811.00451 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[12]

W. H. Furry,81, 115 (1951)

1951
[13]

V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP30, 1181 (1970)

1970
[14]

Morozov and N

D. Morozov and N. Narozhny, Sov. Phys. JETP45, 23 (1977)

1977
[15]

N. B. Narozhnyi, Phys. Rev.D20, 1313 (1979)

1979
[16]

N. B. Narozhnyi, Phys. Rev.D21, 1176 (1980)

1980
[17]

Morozov and N

D. Morozov and N. Narozhny, Sov. Phys. JETP53, 1103 (1981)

1981
[18]

A. M. Fedotov,Proceedings, LPHYS’16: Yerevan, Armenia, July 11-15, 2016, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.826, 012027 (2017), arXiv:1608.02261 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[19]

NP-QED Workshop, SLAC, August 2019 – https://conf.slac.stanford.edu/npqed-2019/

2019
[20]

A. M. Fedotov and A. A. Mironov, Phys. Rev.A88, 062110 (2013), arXiv:1310.7258 [hep-ph]

2013 arXiv
[21]

V. Dinu, T. Heinzl, and A. Ilderton, Phys. Rev.D86, 085037 (2012), arXiv:1206.3957 [hep-ph]

2012 arXiv
[22]

S. J. Brodsky, H.-C. Pauli, and S. S. Pinsky, Phys. Rept.301, 299 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9705477 [hep-ph]

1998 arXiv
[23]

Heinzl, Lect

T. Heinzl, Lect. Notes Phys.572, 55 (2001), arXiv:hep-th/0008096 [hep-th]

2001 arXiv
[24]

B. L. G. Bakkeret al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.251-252, 165 (2014), arXiv:1309.6333 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[25]

T. W. B. Kibble, Phys. Rev.138, B740 (1965)

1965
[26]

Boca and V

M. Boca and V. Florescu, Phys. Rev.A80, 053403 (2009)

2009
[27]

Ilderton, Phys

A. Ilderton, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 020404 (2011), arXiv:1011.4072 [hep-ph]

2011 arXiv
[28]

V. Dinu, T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rev.D89, 125003 (2014), arXiv:1312.6419 [hep-ph]

2014 arXiv
[29]

V. V. Kozlov, N. N. Rosanov, C. De Angelis, and S. Wabnitz, Phys. Rev. A84, 023818 (2011)

2011
[30]

P. C. Aichelburg and R. U. Sexl, General Relativity and Gravitation2, 303 (1971)

1971
[31]

Penrose, inGeneral relativity: Papers in honour of J.L

R. Penrose, inGeneral relativity: Papers in honour of J.L. Synge, edited by L. O’Raifeartaigh (1972) pp. 101–115

1972
[32]

Dray and G

T. Dray and G. ’t Hooft, Nuclear Physics B253, 173 (1985)

1985
[33]

Klimcik, Phys

C. Klimcik, Phys. Lett.B208, 373 (1988)

1988
[34]

Ferrari, P

V. Ferrari, P. Pendenza, and G. Veneziano, General Relativity and Gravitation20, 1185 (1988)

1988
[35]

Adamo, E

T. Adamo, E. Casali, L. Mason, and S. Nekovar, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 015004 (2018), arXiv:1706.08925 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[36]

M. E. Peskin and D. V. Schroeder,An Introduction to quantum ﬁeld theory(Addison-Wesley, Reading, USA, 1995)

1995
[37]

Gradshteyn and I

I. Gradshteyn and I. Ryzhik,Table of Integrals, Series, and Products(Academic Press, San Diego, 2007)

2007
[38]

Podszus and A

T. Podszus and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev.D99, 076004 (2019), arXiv:1812.08673 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[39]

Ilderton, Phys

A. Ilderton, Phys. Rev.D99, 085002 (2019), arXiv:1901.00317 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[40]

C. N. Harvey, A. Ilderton, and B. King, Phys. Rev.A91, 013822 (2015), arXiv:1409.6187 [physics.plasm-ph]

2015 arXiv
[41]

Di Piazza, M

A. Di Piazza, M. Tamburini, S. Meuren, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. A98, 012134 (2018)

2018
[42]

Ilderton, B

A. Ilderton, B. King, and D. Seipt, Phys. Rev.A99, 042121 (2019), arXiv:1808.10339 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[43]

B. King, B. M. Dillon, K. A. Beyer, and G. Gregori, (2019), arXiv:1905.05201 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv
[44]

Hebenstreit, R

F. Hebenstreit, R. Alkofer, G. V. Dunne, and H. Gies, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 150404 (2009), arXiv:0901.2631 [hep-ph]

2009 arXiv
[45]

Akkermans and G

E. Akkermans and G. V. Dunne, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 030401 (2012), arXiv:1109.3489 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[46]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev.D78, 085011 (2008), arXiv:0805.3993 [hep-ph]

2008 arXiv
[47]

Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 061602 (2010), arXiv:1004.0476 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[48]

Z. Bern, T. Dennen, Y.-t. Huang, and M. Kiermaier, Phys. Rev.D82, 065003 (2010), arXiv:1004.0693 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[49]

477–557, arXiv:1506.00974 [hep-th]

J.J.M.Carrasco,in Proceedings, Journeys Through the Precision Frontier: Amplitudes for Colliders (TASI 2014): Boulder, Colorado, June 2-27, 2014(WSP, 2015) pp. 477–557, arXiv:1506.00974 [hep-th]

2014 arXiv
[50]

Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, and R. Roiban, arXiv:1909.01358 [hep-th]

1909 arXiv
[51]

Adamo, E

T. Adamo, E. Casali, L. Mason, and S. Nekovar, JHEP02, 198 (2019), arXiv:1810.05115 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Adamo and A

T. Adamo and A. Ilderton, JHEP06, 015 (2019), arXiv:1903.01491 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The essential diﬀerence is clearly only in the dependence on the smalls cutoﬀ

logεIR ) , (21) in which “pair” indicates precisely the same argument as for pair production (13). The essential diﬀerence is clearly only in the dependence on the smalls cutoﬀ. The leading behaviour fora0≫ 1 is again logarithmic, PNLC∼ 2α π (1 + logεIR)− 4α π ( 3 4 + logεIR) loga0 . (22) By the optical theorem, and replacingεIR with a detector resolution...

work page 2019

[2] [2]

D. M. Volkov,94, 250 (1935)

work page 1935

[3] [3]

V. G. Bagrov and D. M. Gitman,Exact solutions of relativistic wave equations(1990)

work page 1990

[4] [4]

Heinzl and A

T. Heinzl and A. Ilderton, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 113202 (2017), arXiv:1701.09166 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2017

[5] [5]

V. I. Ritus, J. Russ. Laser Res.6, 497 (1985)

1985

[6] [6]

Di Piazza, C

A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Rev. Mod. Phys.84, 1177 (2012), arXiv:1111.3886 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2012

[7] [7]

King and T

B. King and T. Heinzl, High Power Laser Science and Engineering4, e5 (2016), arXiv:1510.08456 [hep-ph]

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

Seipt, inProceedings, Quantum Field Theory at the Limits: from Strong Fields to Heavy Quarks (HQ 2016): Dubna, Russia, July 18-30, 2016(2017) pp

D. Seipt, inProceedings, Quantum Field Theory at the Limits: from Strong Fields to Heavy Quarks (HQ 2016): Dubna, Russia, July 18-30, 2016(2017) pp. 24–43, arXiv:1701.03692 [physics.plasm-ph]

arXiv 2017