Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 70 references

Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper predicts that x-ray flashes from laser-solid interactions are strongly linearly polarized, making polarization a diagnostic for the strong-field QED plasma regime.

desk verdict A useful diagnostic proposal built on solid QED rates, but the headline claim about background discrimination is untested and needs work before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18078 v1 pith:P7FEPL2N submitted 2025-07-24 physics.plasm-ph

Q. Qian , C.P. Ridgers , S.V. Bulanov , T. Grismayer , P. Hadjisolomou , D. Seipt , M. Vranic , A.G.R. Thomas This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.-r52.65.Rr
keywords nonlinearinverseComptonscatteringstrong-fieldQEDplasmasx-raypolarimetrylaser-solidinteractionparticle-in-cellsimulationsbremsstrahlungbackgroundlinearpolarizationlocally-constantcrossedfieldapproximation
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

This paper predicts that the bright x-ray flash produced when a multi-petawatt laser strikes a solid target is strongly linearly polarized, and that this polarization can be used to recognize radiation from strong-field quantum electrodynamics (QED) processes. At a laser intensity of $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$ on an aluminium target, the model and particle-in-cell simulations put the polarization of flash photons above 10 keV at more than 65%, rising above 80% for harder photons. The authors argue that this contrasts with the largely unpolarized bremsstrahlung background, so x-ray polarimetry could be the diagnostic that reveals the QED-plasma regime at intensities already available in experiments. The claim is supported by a simplified analytical model and by simulations using a polarization-resolved emission algorithm, which agree in trend though not in detail.

What carries the argument

The central object is the polarization-resolved nonlinear Compton scattering rate in the locally-constant crossed field approximation (LCFA), written as a spectrum $F_{\mathrm{NLC}} = F_0 + \boldsymbol{\xi}\cdot\mathbf{F}$ in terms of a photon Stokes vector $\boldsymbol{\xi}$. The paper compresses the emission-frame polarization state into a single vector $\mathbf{P}$ and rotates it into the observation basis defined by the laser polarization direction and the photon momentum. Around this, the paper builds a simplified analytic model that integrates the polarization-resolved spectrum over the electron energy evolution during the laser pulse, and a Monte Carlo implementation in a particle-in-cell code that stochastically samples photon energy, electron spin, and photon Stokes parameters. Both are used to compute the degree of linear polarization as a function of photon energy and laser intensity.

What would settle it

An experiment at $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$ that measures the linear polarization of photons above 10 keV as a function of angle around a solid aluminium target, with time resolution separating the roughly 100 fs flash from the picosecond bremsstrahlung; if the flash polarization falls below about 65% or matches the bremsstrahlung angular dependence, the diagnostic claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that nonlinear inverse Compton scattering (NLCS) of laser-accelerated electrons in a dense plasma produces an x-ray flash whose linear polarization is a robust, energy-dependent signature of the QED-plasma regime. For a linearly polarized laser with normalized vector potential $a_0$ between 15 and 40 impinging on a solid aluminium target, the simulated degree of linear polarization of the flash is 60--100% for photons above given thresholds; specifically, for $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$ ($a_0 = 25$), photons with energy above 10 keV are more than 65% polarized and higher-energy photons exceed 80%. The degree of polarization increases with photon energy and decreases with laser intensity. The paper concludes that this polarization, measured against the essentially unpolarized bremsstrahlung background, allows the NLCS x-ray flash to be identified at lower intensities than intensity-based discrimination alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the bremsstrahlung background is sufficiently unpolarized, or so distinct in angular pattern, that the polarized NLCS flash can be isolated by taking several measurements around the target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At intensities near $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$, x-ray polarimetry can identify NLCS flashes without waiting for higher intensities where the flash already outshines the background.
  • Energy-resolved polarization measurements give a direct, intensity-dependent fingerprint of the QED emission process, since polarization rises with photon energy and falls with laser strength.
  • Multi-angle measurements around the target can separate the nearly isotropic polarized NLCS signal from the anisotropic polarized component of bremsstrahlung.
  • The polarization spectrum provides a test bed for spin- and polarization-resolved emission models embedded in particle-in-cell codes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the polarization degree decreases as laser intensity rises, the diagnostic may be most discriminating at the lower end of multi-petawatt intensities, where the bremsstrahlung background otherwise dominates.
  • A polarimeter that resolves both angle and photon energy could not only flag the QED regime but also constrain the electron energy distribution and the quantum parameter $\chi_e$ in the plasma, quantities the paper treats as inputs.
  • Extending the same polarized-emission algorithm to pair-producing regimes would test whether polarization survives when multiphoton Breit-Wheeler pair cascades are active, which the present parameter range excludes.
  • The angular isotropy argument suggests an experimental design with several polarimeters or a rotating detector; if bremsstrahlung polarization at specific angles is stronger than assumed, the number of required measurement angles would grow.
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. The manuscript studies the polarization of hard photons generated by nonlinear inverse Compton scattering (NLCS) in a dense plasma irradiated by a multi-PW laser. It presents a simplified analytic model built on the locally-constant crossed-field approximation (LCFA) and a spin- and polarization-resolved implementation in the OSIRIS PIC code. Comparing the two for a0 = 15-40 (I ~ 10^21 W/cm^2) on solid Al, it predicts that NLCS x-rays above 10 keV are 65-75% linearly polarized, with polarization increasing with photon energy. The paper then proposes x-ray polarimetry as a diagnostic to distinguish the NLCS flash from bremsstrahlung background. The latter diagnostic claim is the main vulnerable point of the manuscript.

Significance. If correct, the polarization signature would provide an experimentally accessible observable for identifying strong-field QED plasma production at currently available intensities, and the paper's quantitative predictions (Tables 1-3) are falsifiable. The use of established LCFA rates and the absence of ad hoc free parameters are strengths. However, the paper's central diagnostic claim requires a quantitative treatment of the unpolarized or partially polarized bremsstrahlung background, which is absent.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 4] The headline diagnostic claim is not quantitatively supported. The measured quantity in an experiment is the polarization of the total detected x-ray flux, not that of the simulated NLCS component alone. Writing P_tot = (F_NLCS P_NLCS + F_brem P_brem)/(F_NLCS + F_brem), the paper simulates only F_NLCS and P_NLCS (Figs. 1-5, Tables 1-3) and gives no model or simulation for F_brem and P_brem in the target geometry. The authors themselves cite Refs. 52-54, which indicate that at about 10^21 W/cm^2 the bremsstrahlung flux can exceed the NLCS flux; under that condition a 70%-polarized NLCS flash can be diluted well below the quoted >65% level even for moderate P_brem. Without a quantitative background calculation, the central statement that polarimetry distinguishes the NLCS flash from background sources is not established. The diagnostic claim should either be supported by a background model or substantially softened.
  2. [Sec. 1 and Fig. 2] The argument for separating bremsstrahlung from NLCS by taking several measurements around the target rests on the assertion that polarized bremsstrahlung is anisotropic while polarized NLCS light is 'basically isotropic'. This assertion is not quantified and is in tension with the paper's own Fig. 2, which shows strong angular structure in both the NLCS photon density and the polarization degree (lower-energy photons predominantly backward, higher-energy photons predominantly forward). To make the proposed measurement scheme concrete, the authors need to specify the angular coverage and demonstrate that the angular polarization pattern of the background is distinguishable from that of the NLCS component in the presence of the target and preplasma geometry.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 and Eqs. (7), (16)] The comparison in Sec. 3.2 is described as a benchmark, but the analytic model and the PIC simulation are not independent. Both use the same polarization-resolved LCFA spectrum F_NLC (Eqs. 7 and 16), taken from Ref. 39, and the OSIRIS module is the authors' own implementation (Ref. 42). The agreement therefore demonstrates numerical self-consistency of the implementation rather than independent validation of the predicted polarization. I recommend framing the comparison as a consistency check and, where possible, comparing against an independent code or analytic calculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 6 (Data Availability)] The sentence 'The data required to reproduce the results presented in this paper is available at [1]' refers to a reference entry rather than a data repository; please provide a working DOI or URL.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 and Tables 1-3] The text says Figs. 3 and 5 are from the simplified model, while the table captions call the same figures simulation results; please clarify which curves correspond to the model and which to the PIC runs.
  3. [Table 1] The >100 keV photon yield is nonmonotonic in a0 (4.4e11 at a0=25, 1.16e11 at a0=30, 3.35e11 at a0=40) despite the monotonically increasing >10 keV yields; please explain or correct this apparent inconsistency.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The text states that the explored intensity range is a0 = 10-50, but the simulations and tables list only a0 = 15, 20, 25, 30, 40; please reconcile the text with the data shown.
  5. [Sec. 2.2 and Eq. (20)] After Eq. (20), the assumption epsilon = a0 m_e c^2 implies chi_e approximately 0.0026 at a0=25, which is much smaller than the 500 MeV normalization used in Eq. (20); please clarify how the electron energy is estimated in the model.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization prediction follows from an external QED spectrum; the model-PIC comparison is internal consistency, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is: an external polarization-resolved NLCS spectrum from Torgrimsson (Ref. 39), given in Eqs. (7)-(16); a simplified analytic model (Sec. 2.2) that integrates this spectrum over a model electron trajectory; and an OSIRIS PIC implementation (Sec. 3.1) that samples the same spectrum inside self-consistent plasma fields. The output polarization, Eqs. (24)-(25), is an evaluation of the input QED spectrum, not a quantity used to define that spectrum; no parameter is fitted to the claimed >65% result. The model-PIC agreement therefore tests consistency between the reduced model and the code, not an independent physical benchmark, but sharing the same emission rate is not a circular reduction because the PIC simulation adds plasma dynamics, field structure, and stochastic sampling. The only self-citation, Ref. 42, describes the code implementation and is not used to justify the physics. The Sec. 1 and Sec. 4 claim that bremsstrahlung can be separated by angular measurements is an untested assumption and a correctness/falsifiability concern, not a circularity: the paper does not define NLCS emission as 'polarized' in a way that presupposes the conclusion, and it explicitly concedes bremsstrahlung can be polarized at some angles. Accordingly, no step reduces to its own input, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the LCFA-based QED rates, the collinear emission approximation, unpolarized initial electron spins, and the assumed separability of the bremsstrahlung background. The analytic model also idealizes the interaction as a plane wave with a uniform focal spot. None of these is new to this paper; they are standard domain assumptions, but the background separability assumption is the most fragile.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption LCFA validity: photon formation length is small (a0 >> 1) and the laser electric field is much smaller than the Schwinger field.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1, assumptions (i) and (ii); underlies all QED emission rates used in the model and PIC.
  • domain assumption Collinear emission approximation: emitted photons propagate along the parent lepton's momentum (gamma >> 1).
    Used in Sec. 2.1 to fix the photon direction and in the PIC module (Sec. 3.1) to assign photon momentum; breaks down for non-ultrarelativistic electrons.
  • domain assumption Initial electron spins are unpolarised.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2; allows the model to reduce the polarisation to a single linear Stokes parameter ξ3.
  • domain assumption Pair production is negligible in the parameter range studied.
    Stated in Sec. 3 before Sec. 3.1; if pair cascades became significant, the photon spectrum and polarisation diagnostic would be modified.
  • domain assumption Bremsstrahlung background is unpolarised or separable by angular measurements.
    The paper asserts this in Sec. 1 and Sec. 4, but does not simulate the background; Ref 59 shows bremsstrahlung can be polarised at some angles, so separation rests on the anisotropy argument.
  • domain assumption Interaction is approximated as a plane wave with a uniform spot intensity in the analytic model.
    The analytic model in Sec. 2.2 ignores the transverse intensity profile and plasma self-fields; PIC includes them, so the model is only a scaling estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7FEPL2N

@misc{pith2026250718078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7FEPL2N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18078}
}
abstract

Creating a plasma dominated by strong-field QED (SFQED) effects is a major goal of new multi-PW laser facilities. This is motivated by the fact that the fundamental dynamics of such plasmas is poorly understood and plays an important role in the electrodynamics of extreme astrophysical environments such as pulsar magnetospheres. The most obvious observable for which such a regime has been reached is the production of a bright flash of x-rays, but distinguishing this from other sources of hard x-rays (e.g., bremsstrahlung) is a major challenge. Here we show that the photons from the X-ray flash are highly polarised, as compared to the unpolarised background, i.e., polarisation is an indicator that the SFQED plasma has really produced. For a laser of intensity $10^{21}$ Wcm$^{-2}$ impinging on a solid Al target, the photons of the flash with energy $>10$\thinspace keV are $>65\%$ polarised.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18078 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top row: Photon density in the x-y simulation plane for photons with energies above (a) 10 keV, (b) 100 keV, and (c) 1 MeV, shown after the laser pulse is fully reflected from the target. Bottom row: Spatial distribution of the photon linear polarization degree, ⟨ξ3⟩, for the same energy thresholds—(d) 10 keV, (e) 100 keV, and (f) 1 MeV. Here, ⟨ξ3⟩ = 1 corresponds to photons fully polarized along the laser’s polariz… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) Angle-resolved photon density distribution, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Number of NLCS x-ray photons with energies above [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum of NLCS x-ray photon polarization in laser–solid target interactions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Degree of polarization of NLCS x-ray photons with energies above [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    These ‘QED-plasmas’ are found in extreme astrophysical environments, such as pulsar magnetospheres [6, 7], but have yet to be realised in the laboratory

    Introduction New multi-PW power lasers are on the verge of creating an entirely new state in the laboratory dominated by the interplay of strong-field quantum electrodynamics (QED) processes and ultra-relativistic plasma effects [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. These ‘QED-plasmas’ are found in extreme astrophysical environments, such as pulsar magnetospheres [6, 7], but ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Polarised photon emission in laser-plasma interactions Hard photon emission can be described using the Locally-constant Crossed Field Approximation (LCF A) [60, 14]

    Model for hard photon polarisation 2.1. Polarised photon emission in laser-plasma interactions Hard photon emission can be described using the Locally-constant Crossed Field Approximation (LCF A) [60, 14]. We will briefly summarise this model here for convenience. We make two key assumptions. (i) The photon formation length is small, valid for a0 ≫ 1. (ii...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The OSIRIS framework has recently been extended to account for the polarization of high-energy photons

    Comparison of hard photon polarisation model to PIC simulations To evaluate our model’s predictions for the degree of polarization of emitted NLCS x-ray photons, we carried out particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations using theOSIRIS code [63, 64]. The OSIRIS framework has recently been extended to account for the polarization of high-energy photons. Additional...

    work page

  4. [4]

    This stands in clear contrast to x-rays produced by other mechanisms, such as bremsstrahlung, which typically exhibit much lower polarization

    Conclusions By employing a newly developed emission module in the OSIRIS PIC code, we demonstrate that keV photons generated via nonlinear Compton scattering (NLCS) in > 1 PW laser-plasma interactions are highly polarized, with degrees of polarization exceeding 80%. This stands in clear contrast to x-rays produced by other mechanisms, such as bremsstrahlu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    22-42963L

    Acknowledgment This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant 2108075, NSF- GACR collaborative grant 2206059 from the NSF, and Czech Science Foundation Grant No. 22-42963L. C. P. R. was supported by UK EPSRC grant number EP/V049461/1 and funding from ELI-ERIC. T.G. and M.V. are supported by FCT (Portugal) Grants No. CEECIND/04050/2021 an...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Data Availability The data required to reproduce the results presented in this paper is available at

    work page

  7. [7]

    Ridgers C P, Brady C S, Duclous R, Kirk J G, Bennett K, Arber T D, Robinson A P L and Bell A R 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(16) 165006 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.165006 Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas 15

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.165006 2012

  8. [8]

    Ridgers C P, Brady C S, Duclous R, Kirk J G, Bennett K, Arber T D and Bell A R 2013 Physics of Plasmas 20 056701 ISSN 1070-664X ( Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4801513/13860205/056701 1 online.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4801513

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4801513/13860205/056701 2013

Show all 70 references
  1. [9]

    Fedotov A, Ilderton A, Karbstein F, King B, Seipt D, Taya H and Torgrimsson G 2023 Physics Reports 1010 1–138 ISSN 0370-1573 advances in QED with intense background fields URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370157323000352

    2023

  2. [10]

    Gonoskov A, Blackburn T G, Marklund M and Bulanov S S 2022 Rev. Mod. Phys. 94(4) 045001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045001

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Plasmas 30 093103 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158264

    Hadjisolomou P, Jeong T M, Kolenaty D, Macleod A J, Olˇ sovcov´ a V, Versaci R, Ridgers C P and Bulanov S V 2023 Phys. Plasmas 30 093103 URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158264

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Timokhin A N 2010 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 408 2092–2114 ISSN 0035-8711 ( Preprint https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-pdf/408/4/2092/4220523/mnras0408-2092.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x

    2010

  5. [13]

    Cruz F, Grismayer T, Chen A Y, Spitkovsky A and Silva L O 2021 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 919 L4 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac2157

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Ta Phuoc K, Corde S, Thaury C, Malka V, Tafzi A, Goddet J P, Shah R C, Sebban S and Rousse A 2012 Nature Photonics 6 308–311 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2012.82

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Sarri G, Corvan D J, Schumaker W, Cole J M, Di Piazza A, Ahmed H, Harvey C, Keitel C H, Krushelnick K, Mangles S P D, Najmudin Z, Symes D, Thomas A G R, Yeung M, Zhao Z and Zepf M 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113(22) 224801 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.224801

    2014 doi

  8. [16]

    Poder K, Tamburini M, Sarri G, Di Piazza A, Kuschel S, Baird C D, Behm K, Bohlen S, Cole J M, Corvan D J, Duff M, Gerstmayr E, Keitel C H, Krushelnick K, Mangles S P D, McKenna P, Murphy C D, Najmudin Z, Ridgers C P, Samarin G M, Symes D R, Thomas A G R, Warwick J and Zepf M 2...

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    Cole J M, Behm K T, Gerstmayr E, Blackburn T G, Wood J C, Baird C D, Duff M J, Harvey C, Ilderton A, Joglekar A S, Krushelnick K, Kuschel S, Marklund M, McKenna P, Murphy C D, Poder K, Ridgers C P, Samarin G M, Sarri G, Symes D R, Thomas A G R, Warwick J, Zepf M, Najmudin Z an...

    2018 doi

  10. [19]

    Mirzaie M, Hojbota C I, Kim D Y, Pathak V B, Pak T G, Kim C M, Lee H W, Yoon J W, Lee S K, Rhee Y J, Vranic M, Amaro O, Kim K Y, Sung J H and Nam C H 2024 Nature Photonics 18(11) 1212–1217

    2024

  11. [20]

    Bell A R and Kirk J G 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 101(20) 200403 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.200403

    2008 doi

  12. [21]

    Fedotov A M, Narozhny N B, Mourou G and Korn G 2010 Phys. Rev. Lett. 105(8) 080402 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.080402

    2010 doi

  13. [22]

    Kirk J G, Bell A R and Arka I 2009 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 51 085008 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/51/8/085008

    2009 doi

  14. [23]

    Elkina N V, Fedotov A M, Kostyukov I Y, Legkov M V, Narozhny N B, Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas 16 Nerush E N and Ruhl H 2011 Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14(5) 054401 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.14.054401

    2011 doi

  15. [24]

    Ridgers C, Kirk J, Duclous R, Blackburn T, Brady C, Bennett K, Arber T and Bell A 2014 Journal of Computational Physics 260 273–285 ISSN 0021-9991 URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999113008061

    2014

  16. [25]

    Gonoskov A, Bastrakov S, Efimenko E, Ilderton A, Marklund M, Meyerov I, Muraviev A, Sergeev A, Surmin I and Wallin E 2015 Phys. Rev. E 92(2) 023305 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.92.023305

    2015 doi

  17. [26]

    Grismayer T, Vranic M, Martins J L, Fonseca R A and Silva L O 2016 Physics of Plasmas 23 056706 ISSN 1070-664X ( Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4950841/15946479/056706 1 online.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4950841

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    Nerush E N, Kostyukov I Y, Fedotov A M, Narozhny N B, Elkina N V and Ruhl H 2011Phys. Rev. Lett. 106(3) 035001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035001

    doi

  19. [28]

    Brady C S, Ridgers C P, Arber T D and Bell A R 2013 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 55 124016 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/55/12/124016

    2013 doi

  20. [29]

    Capdessus R, King M, Del Sorbo D, Duff M, Ridgers C P and McKenna P 2018 Scientific Reports 8 9155 ISSN 2045-2322 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27122-9

    2018 doi

  21. [30]

    Liu W Y, Luo W, Yuan T, Yu J Y, Chen M and Sheng Z M 2017 Physics of Plasmas 24 103130 ISSN 1070-664X ( Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5001457/14900873/103130 1 online.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5001457

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    Grismayer T, Vranic M, Martins J L, Fonseca R A and Silva L O 2017 Phys. Rev. E 95(2) 023210 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.023210

    2017 doi

  23. [32]

    Slade-Lowther C, Del Sorbo D and Ridgers C P 2019 New Journal of Physics 21 013028 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aafa39

    2019 doi

  24. [33]

    Liseykina, Tatyana V, Macchi, Andrea and Popruzhenko, Sergey V 2021 Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136 170 URL https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-020-01030-2

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    Timokhin A N and Harding A K 2015 The Astrophysical Journal 810 144 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/144

    2015 doi

  26. [35]

    Chernoglazov A, Philippov A and Timokhin A 2024 The Astrophysical Journal Letters 974 L32 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ad7e24

    2024 doi

  27. [36]

    Seipt D, Ridgers C P, Del Sorbo D and Thomas A G R 2021 New Journal of Physics 23 053025 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/abf584

    2021 doi

  28. [37]

    Zhang P, Ridgers C P and Thomas A G R 2015 New Journal of Physics 17 043051 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/17/4/043051

    2015 doi

  29. [38]

    Kirk J G, Bell A R and Ridgers C P 2013 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 55 095016 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/55/9/095016

    2013 doi

  30. [39]

    Del Sorbo D, Blackman D R, Capdessus R, Small K, Slade-Lowther C, Luo W, Duff M J, Robinson A P L, McKenna P, Sheng Z M, Pasley J and Ridgers C P 2018 New Journal of Physics 20 033014 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/aaae61

    2018 doi

  31. [40]

    Del Sorbo D, Seipt D, Blackburn T G, Thomas A G R, Murphy C D, Kirk J G and Ridgers C P 2017 Phys. Rev. A 96(4) 043407 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.96.043407

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    Del Sorbo D, Seipt D, Thomas A G R and Ridgers C P 2018 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60 064003 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aab979

    2018 doi

  33. [42]

    Seipt D, Del Sorbo D, Ridgers C P and Thomas A G R 2018 Phys. Rev. A 98(2) 023417 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.023417

    2018 doi

  34. [43]

    Li Y F, Shaisultanov R, Hatsagortsyan K Z, Wan F, Keitel C H and Li J X 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(15) 154801 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.154801

    2019 doi

  35. [44]

    Seipt D and King B 2020 Phys. Rev. A 102(5) 052805 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.052805 Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas 17

    2020 doi

  36. [45]

    Torgrimsson G 2021 New Journal of Physics 23 065001 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/abf274

    2021 doi

  37. [46]

    Seipt D, Samuelsson M and Blackburn T 2025 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 67 035002 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/adaa77

    2025 doi

  38. [47]

    Wan F, Lv C, Xue K, Dou Z K, Zhao Q, Ababekri M, Wei W Q, Li Z P, Zhao Y T and Li J X 2023 Matter and Radiation at Extremes 8 064002 ISSN 2468-2047 ( Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/mre/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0163929/18227384/064002 1 5.0163929.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10...

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    Qian Q, Seipt D, Vranic M, Grismayer T E, Blackburn T G, Ridgers C P and Thomas A G R 2023 Physics of Plasmas 30 103107 ISSN 1070-664X ( Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0165788/18185329/103107 1 5.0165788.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0165788

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    Zhu X L, Liu W Y, Yu T P, Chen M, Weng S M, Wang W M and Sheng Z M 2024 Phys. Rev. Lett. 132(23) 235001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.235001

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    Chen P, Horton-Smith G, Ohgaki T, Weidemann A and Yokoya K 1995 Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 355 107–110 ISSN 0168-9002 gamma-Gamma Colliders URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/sci...

    1995

  42. [51]

    Nakamura T, Koga J K, Esirkepov T Z, Kando M, Korn G and Bulanov S V 2012 Phys. Rev. Lett. 108(19) 195001 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.195001

    2012 doi

  43. [52]

    E T I C, F N, A J D, P M, S B, D U, I D, O C M, V T M, P G, D S, A B, M R, M Z, G S, B D and C H 2016 Romanian Reports in Physics 68 S145–1231

    2016

  44. [53]

    Altarelli M, Assmann R, Burkart F, Heinemann B, Heinzl T, Koffas T, Maier A R, Reis D, Ringwald A and Wing M 2019 Summary of strong-field qed workshop ( Preprint 1905.00059) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.00059

    2019 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Doria D, Cernaianu M, Ghenuche P, Stutman D, Tanaka K, Ticos C and Ur C 2020 Journal of Instrumentation 15 C09053 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/09/C09053

    2020 doi

  46. [55]

    Piazza A D, Willingale L and Zuegel J D 2022 Multi-petawatt physics prioritization (mp3) workshop report ( Preprint 2211.13187) URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.13187

    2022 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Shou Y, Wang P, Lee S G, Rhee Y J, Lee H W, Yoon J W, Sung J H, Lee S K, Pan Z, Kong D, Mei Z, Liu J, Xu S, Deng Z, Zhou W, Tajima T, Choi I W, Yan X, Nam C H and Ma W 2023 Nature Photonics 17 137–142 ISSN 1749-4893 URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41566-022-01114-8

    2023 doi

  48. [57]

    Pirozhkov A S, Sagisaka A, Ogura K, Vishnyakov E A, Shatokhin A N, Armstrong C D, Esirkepov T Z, Izquierdo B G, Pikuz T A, Hadjisolomou P, Alkhimova M A, Arran C, Tsygvintsev I P, Valenta P, Pikuz S A, Yan W, Jeong T M, Singh S, Finke O, Grittani G, Nevrkla M, Lazzarini C, Vel...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Morris S, Robinson A and Ridgers C 2021 Physics of Plasmas 28 103304 ISSN 1070-664X (Preprint https://pubs.aip.org/aip/pop/article-pdf/doi/10.1063/5.0055398/19332218/103304 1 5.0055398.pdf) URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0055398

    2021 doi

  50. [59]

    Vyskoˇ cil J, Klimo O and Weber S 2018 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 60 054013 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aab4c3

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    Ingleby C, Morris S, Arran C, Ridgers C and Lancaster K A comparison of the intensity scaling for nonlinear compton scattering and bremsstrahlung x-ray emission article submitted to: High Power Laser Science and Engineering, March 25, 2025

    2025

  52. [61]

    Martinez B, d’Humi` eres E and Gremillet L 2020 Phys. Rev. Res. 2(4) 043341 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043341

    2020 doi

  53. [62]

    Go S, Tsuzuki Y, Yoneda H, Ichikawa Y, Ikeda T, Imai N, Imamura K, Niikura M, Nishimura D, Bright polarised x-ray flashes from dense plasmas 18 Mizuno R, Takeda S, Ueno H, Watanabe S, Saito T Y, Shimoura S, Sugawara S, Takamine A and Takahashi T 2024 Scientific Reports 14 2573

    2024

  54. [63]

    Ilie C 2019 Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 131 111001 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1538-3873/ab2a3a

    2019 doi

  55. [64]

    Schnell M, S¨ avert A, Uschmann I, Reuter M, Nicolai M, K¨ ampfer T, Landgraf B, J¨ ackel O, Jansen O, Pukhov A, Kaluza M C and Spielmann C 2013 Nature Communications 4 2421

    2013

  56. [65]

    Shohet J L, van Hulsteyn D B, Gitomer S J, Kephart J F and Godwin R P 1977 Phys. Rev. Lett. 38(18) 1024–1027 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1024

    1977 doi

  57. [66]

    Ridgers C P, Blackburn T G, Del Sorbo D, Bradley L E, Slade-Lowther C, Baird C D, Mangles S P D, McKenna P, Marklund M, Murphy C D and et al 2017 Journal of Plasma Physics 83 715830502

    2017

  58. [67]

    Ilderton A, King B and Seipt D 2019 Phys. Rev. A 99(4) 042121 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.99.042121

    2019 doi

  59. [68]

    Di Piazza A 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 117(21) 213201 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.213201

    2016 doi

  60. [69]

    Fonseca R A, Silva L O, Tsung F S, Decyk V K, Lu W, Ren C, Mori W B, Deng S, Lee S, Katsouleas T and Adam J C 2002 Osiris: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators Computational Science — ICCS 2002 ed Sloot P M A, Hoe...

    2002

  61. [70]

    Fonseca R A, Martins S F, Silva L O, Tonge J W, Tsung F S and Mori W B 2008 Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 50 124034 URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0741-3335/50/12/124034

    2008 doi

  62. [71]

    Chen Y Y, Hatsagortsyan K Z, Keitel C H and Shaisultanov R 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105(11) 116013 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.116013

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.