Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Experimental demonstration of Flying-Focus enhanced Thomson scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A moving-focus laser more than doubled the x-ray photons from a Thomson scattering source.

desk verdict First chromatic flying-focus Thomson scattering at relativistic intensity, with a real caveat: the factor-of-two enhancement is against a simulated baseline, not a measured conventional-focus arm. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15805 v1 pith:II5Q6LU6 submitted 2026-07-17 physics.optics physics.plasm-ph

E. Gerstmayr , C. Mariani , R. Fitzgarrald , M. VanDusen-Gross , C. Berger , Q. Chen , A. Di Piazza , M.S. Formanek
show 18 more authors
D.H. Froula C.G.R. Geddes A.J. Gonsalves B. Greenwood R. Jacob A. Lu A. McIlvenny K. Nakamura L. Obst-Huebl J.P. Palastro A. Picksley K. Poder D. Ramsey H.G. Rinderknecht G. Sarri A.G.R Thomas J. van Tilborg M.J.V. Streeter
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.plasm-ph
keywords flyingfocusThomsonscatteringspatiotemporalpulseshapinglaserwakefieldacceleratorx-raysourcegroupdelaydispersionchromaticaberrationinverseCompton
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 reports the first experimental demonstration of a flying-focus laser pulse enhancing relativistic Thomson scattering. A chromatic flying focus—a pulse whose focal point moves because its colors focus at different times and places—was programmed to follow a counterpropagating electron bunch from a laser wakefield accelerator. By tuning the group delay dispersion to match the focus velocity to the electron trajectory, the interaction lasted roughly a picosecond at moderate intensity (a0 ~ 0.7) instead of tens of femtoseconds at high intensity (a0 ~ 5.2). The authors claim this more than doubled the number of detected photons in the 0.1–1.0 MeV range compared with the spectrum computed for equivalent focusing without spatiotemporal control, while reducing nonlinear spectral broadening and divergence. A sympathetic reader would care because the work shows a relatively simple route to spatiotemporal control at relativistic intensity and projects large gains in brightness for all-optical x-ray and gamma sources.

What carries the argument

The central object is a two-dimensional chromatic flying focus: the final lens's longitudinal chromatic aberration makes the focal length wavelength-dependent, an angular dispersion from the compressor tilts the resulting line focus, and group delay dispersion sets when each color arrives, so the focal point moves along a programmable angled trajectory. The paper uses the electron bunch itself as a relativistic probe: the x-ray yield as a function of GDD, and the width of the synchronization scan, verify that the focus velocity matches the electron trajectory. The modeling chain computes the laser field near focus from measured near-field properties and phase terms, integrates the field stre

What would settle it

Take the same electron bunches and the same 0.5 J scattering pulse, remove the angular dispersion and GDD so the pulse is fully compressed at a0 ~ 5.2, and measure the on-axis Thomson spectrum in 0.1–1.0 MeV. If the photon count does not fall below the flying-focus case by roughly a factor of two, the enhancement claim is not established. A softer test: compare the model's predicted timing-sensitivity curve at beta ~ 16900 fs^2 against a precision delay scan to verify the velocity match independently.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a chromatic flying-focus laser pulse, velocity-matched to a counterpropagating laser-wakefield-accelerated electron bunch, enhances the number of photons detected in the 0.1–1.0 MeV range by more than a factor of two compared with the x-ray spectrum computed for equivalent focusing without spatiotemporal control. The experiment tunes the group delay dispersion of a scattering pulse that already carries longitudinal chromatic aberration and angular dispersion; the measured x-ray yield peaks at a specific GDD, and the timing sensitivity is also maximal there, matching simulations. The matched flying-focus pulse has roughly a 1 ps duration and a0 ~ 0.7, keeping the ele

Load-bearing premise

The central claim rests on a simulated counterfactual: the 'equivalent focusing without spatiotemporal control' baseline is a modeled fully compressed pulse (a0 = 5.2, 35 fs), not a measured conventional-focus Thomson spectrum under identical electron-bunch conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The factor-of-two enhancement in 0.1–1.0 MeV photons is a direct result; if correct, it makes flying-focus Thomson scattering the first demonstrated spatiotemporal-control-enhanced x-ray source.
  • Keeping a0 around or below 1 preserves linear electron motion, so the x-ray spectrum stays comparatively narrow and collimated; for a high-quality 250 MeV bunch this projects to a threefold increase in angularly integrated spectral density at 1 MeV and a 25-fold increase in spectral brightness.
  • The interaction at a finite angle protects the laser chain from back-reflections and leaves a clear path for the x-ray beam, which is convenient for applications.
  • For a 10 J laser and a 1 GeV electron bunch, the projected brightness reaches the order of 3e24 photons per square millimeter per square milliradian per second per 0.1 percent bandwidth at 10 MeV, with spectral density up by almost an order of magnitude.
  • The GDD scan itself, with a clear maximum and matching timing sensitivity, is direct evidence that the focal velocity was matched to the electron bunch.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The enhancement factor is established relative to a simulated fully compressed pulse, not a measured conventional-focus Thomson spectrum; a direct measurement of the same electron bunches scattering from a conventionally focused pulse would be the cleanest confirmation.
  • The electron-bunch-as-probe method could be reused: measured x-ray spectra and delay scans are sensitive to local field structure, so a similar setup could characterize other structured-light geometries.
  • Because the flying-focus interaction keeps scattering linear, the x-ray spectral shape is more predictable, which could simplify source modeling and tuning for applications like MeV radiography or nuclear resonance fluorescence.
  • The same two-dimensional flying-focus control, if it scales, might be transferred to ion acceleration or THz generation, where extended and angled interaction regions are also limiting.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment at the BELLA HTT facility in which a 0.5 J scattering laser is shaped into a two-dimensional chromatic flying focus using longitudinal chromatic aberration from a singlet lens, angular dispersion from a rotated compressor grating, and group delay dispersion from grating separation. The focal velocity is tuned to match a counterpropagating LWFA electron bunch (interaction angle 168.9°). The measured Thomson x-ray signal versus GDD peaks at β = (16200 ± 900) fs², and the timing-sensitivity maximum occurs at β = (16900 ± 900) fs², consistent with velocity matching. The matched case yields (3.6 ± 1.0) × 10⁷ photons above 20 keV on the detector, and the measured spectrum agrees in shape with Ptarmigan simulations. The authors claim more than a factor-of-two enhancement in 0.1–1.0 MeV photons on the detector compared with a simulated fully compressed pulse without spatiotemporal control, and they project order-of-magnitude improvements for higher-energy systems.

Significance. If the quantitative enhancement is established, this would be the first demonstration of a chromatic flying-focus pulse at relativistic intensity used to enhance Thomson scattering, with clear relevance to compact x-ray/γ sources. The GDD scan and timing-sensitivity measurements are direct, parameter-light evidence of velocity matching, and the careful diagnostic calibration and use of an established simulation code (Ptarmigan) are strengths. However, the headline factor-of-two rests on a simulated counterfactual baseline, and the model used to generate that baseline is partly amplitude-scaled and angle-fitted to the same experiment. The qualitative velocity-matching claim is well supported; the quantitative enhancement claim is not yet experimentally anchored.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, 'Enhanced photon yield and spectral brightness'; Fig. 4] The central claim of 'more than a factor of two' compares the measured flying-focus spectrum to a simulated fully compressed pulse (a0=5.2, τ=35 fs), not to a measured conventional-focus Thomson spectrum. The GDD scan includes β=0, but that point retains LCA and angular dispersion and is presented only in arbitrary units; it does not provide the absolute baseline used in Fig. 4. Since the simulated relative-yield curves are amplitude-scaled to the data for β < −5000 fs² (Methods) and the line-focus angle is fitted (8.5° vs 11.1° design), the absolute normalization of the baseline is not independently anchored. Please either provide a measured fully compressed-pulse spectrum (or a calibrated β=0 reference) or perform a systematic scan over the fitted parameters (θ, x0, electron bunch size, divergence/energy spread) showing that the factor of two is robust. The peak position and timing sen
  2. [Methods, 'Numerical modelling of relative yield'] The model is amplitude-scaled to best fit the data for β < −5000 fs² for each angle, and the electron spatiotemporal offset x0 is chosen to maximize the integral for each θ and GDD. This makes the agreement in Fig. 2 a fit, not an independent prediction. In addition, the best-fit angle (8.5 ± 0.6)° differs from the measured design angle (11.1 ± 0.8)°; the authors argue the yield is insensitive to this, but the same fitted angle is used in the Ptarmigan simulations underlying Fig. 4. Please state explicitly which parameters are free/fitted and which are predicted, and quantify how the fitted θ and x0 values propagate into the simulated spectra.
  3. [Results, 'Enhanced photon yield and spectral brightness'] The rms electron bunch size of 8 µm is inferred by combining the optical model with the measured photon yield. This is not a direct measurement at the interaction plane, and the same model is used to generate the matched flying-focus spectrum that is scaled to the data. Because the compressed-pulse case has a much larger angular divergence (16 mrad vs 6 mrad), the ratio within the central ±3.2 mrad detector acceptance is sensitive to the electron bunch divergence and energy spread, which were only measured intermittently (Methods, 'Electron diagnostics'). Please provide a sensitivity analysis of the factor-of-two to the 26% charge fluctuation, the ±2° line-focus alignment uncertainty, and the inferred bunch size.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] Typo: 'when the the trajectory' should be 'when the trajectory'.
  2. [Results, 'Spatial alignment and synchronization'] Typo: 'The focal velocity was then set by by changing the grating separation' has a duplicated 'by'.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption ends with an unpolished line break ('... flying-focus case .'). Please clean up the formatting and ensure the sentence is complete.
  4. [Methods, 'X-ray diagnostics'] The statement that the spectral-shape parameters E_crit, μ, ν are 'free parameters' is useful, but consider explicitly noting that these parameters are not used in the Ptarmigan comparison to avoid confusion about the role of Eq. (1).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial circularity in the relative-yield model calibration; central GDD and timing measurements remain direct and independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results 'Matching focal velocity to the electron bunch' / Methods 'Numerical modelling of relative yield' (Fig. 2)]
    "The model predictions, based on scattering calculations of test particles propagating through the simulated field, are shown for the best fitting flying focus angle of 8.5◦ (solid line) ... To compare to the measured x-ray signals, the total energy was normalized and scaled to match the experimental measurements for β < −5000 fs2 for each value of θ."

    The simulated yield curves in Fig. 2 are not independent predictions: their absolute amplitude is scaled to the same experimental dataset used for the comparison, and the line-focus angle (8.5◦) is a best fit to those data. The resulting 'model consistency' is therefore partly a restatement of the fit rather than a first-principles confirmation. This does not make the directly measured GDD peak circular, but it removes the model as independent validation of the yield-versus-GDD curve.

full rationale

The central velocity-matching observations—x-ray maximum at β=(16200±900) fs2 and timing sensitivity at β=(16900±900) fs2—are direct measurements, not products of the model. The timing-sensitivity measurement is an independent observable that was not used to fit the line-focus angle. No self-definitional, uniqueness-imported, or self-citation-load-bearing circularity is present: the flying-focus concept is adopted from prior work, but the experimental claims do not reduce to those citations. The main quantitative claim—enhancement by more than a factor of two in 0.1–1.0 MeV photons—rests on a simulated uncompressed baseline (red curve in Fig. 4) rather than a measured conventional-focus spectrum. The blue matched-focus spectrum is explicitly scaled to the measured total photon yield, while the red curve is a Ptarmigan simulation. The paper does not exhibit a reduction in which the factor-of-two is inserted as an input; the red calculation uses stated laser and electron-bunch parameters. Thus the enhancement claim is a model-dependent counterfactual comparison and a validation/robustness concern, not circularity by construction. The one genuine circularity-adjacent step is the calibration of the relative-yield model: amplitude scaling to the β<−5000 fs2 data and fitting of the line-focus angle to the same dataset. This affects the strength of the claim that simulations independently confirm the GDD dependence, but it does not annul the direct experimental peak or the independent timing sensitivity. Overall, the central claim has independent experimental content, so the score is 3 rather than 6 or higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The 'flying focus' is an engineered intensity structure built from known optics (LCA + angular dispersion + GDD). The free parameters and domain assumptions listed are the main things the central claim pulls from modeling and fitting rather than from direct measurement.

free parameters (5)
  • Model amplitude scaling = 1 (per angle, normalized for beta < -5000 fs^2)
    Each simulated yield-vs-GDD curve is scaled to best fit the experimental data in the beta < -5000 fs^2 region, removing absolute predictivity.
  • Line-focus angle theta = 8.5 deg +/- 0.6 deg from counter-propagating (design 11.1 deg)
    Selected by Monte Carlo fitting to the measured x-ray signal vs GDD; changes the beta at which focus velocity matches the electron trajectory.
  • Electron spatiotemporal offset x0 = not quoted; chosen to maximize integral of a(x(t))^2 dt
    Per GDD and angle, the offset is chosen to maximize simulated radiated energy, absorbing residual alignment uncertainty.
  • Spectral shape parameters E_crit, mu, nu = not quoted; fitted to spectrometer stack
    Empirical free parameters in Eq. (1) used to retrieve absolute spectrum/photon number; authors state it is not a test of an emission model.
  • Electron bunch transverse rms size at interaction plane = 8 um
    Inferred by matching measured average photon yield to the optical model; yield is about 5% of zero-size bunch expectation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Fourier/Fresnel propagation of the customized LASY field accurately represents the focused flying-focus pulse.
    Methods: near-field supergaussian (order 3.58, 23.4 mm width), 21 nm spectrum, 0.5 J, LCA phase, angular-dispersion shift, GDD phase; Fraunhofer FFT to focal plane and Fresnel propagation over interaction region.
  • domain assumption Classical Larmor radiation from a point test charge is sufficient to estimate relative Thomson yield.
    Methods: total radiated energy estimated by integrating Larmor power over 200 time samples; no QED or collective plasma effects on the scatter pulse at a0 ~ 0.7.
  • domain assumption The electron bunch trajectory is ballistic and the intermittently measured broadband spectrum/divergence represents the interaction shots.
    Electron diagnostics: 80-115 MeV spectral gap linearly interpolated; electron beam not measured simultaneously with x-rays; stability affirmed over 10 hours.
  • domain assumption Ptarmigan simulations, including quantum radiation reaction, give faithful x-ray spectra for both flying-focus and conventional-focus cases.
    Results: Ptarmigan spectrum scaled by measured photon yield and angularly filtered to +/-3.2 mrad to infer linear interaction and to construct the conventional-focus comparison.
  • domain assumption The empirical spectral parametrization dN/dE = A(E/Ecrit)^mu exp[-(E/Ecrit)^nu] with fitted Ecrit, mu, nu faithfully retrieves absolute photon number from the stacked scintillator detector.
    Methods: three free parameters fitted by nonlinear least squares; calibration via Geant4 and bremsstrahlung; ~35% systematic error.
  • domain assumption A fully compressed, unshaped pulse with a0=5.2 is the correct counterfactual for 'equivalent focusing without spatiotemporal control'.
    Figure 4 and Discussion: red spectrum from 35 fs, a0=5.2 matches a conventional geometry; not measured in the experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental demonstration of Flying-Focus enhanced Thomson scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/II5Q6LU6

@misc{pith2026260715805,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental demonstration of Flying-Focus enhanced Thomson scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/II5Q6LU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15805}
}
read the original abstract

We report the experimental demonstration of a spatiotemporally engineered "Flying-Focus" laser pulse for enhanced x-ray generation in relativistic Thomson scattering. A combination of longitudinal chromatic aberration, angular dispersion, and group delay dispersion was applied to an ultrashort relativistically intense laser pulse to control the motion of its focal point. Precise tuning of the group delay dispersion was used to match the velocity of the focus to the trajectory of a counterpropagating electron bunch, produced by a laser wakefield accelerator. This prolonged the Thomson scattering interaction while reducing nonlinear effects, leading to an enhanced x-ray yield. The approach has the potential to increase the spectral density and brightness of the x-ray beam by orders of magnitude compared to equivalent focusing without spatiotemporal control. This experiment establishes a new technique for structured-light control at high intensity, demonstrating the realization of dynamic intensity structures that enhance light-matter interactions and for the generation of ultra-bright radiation sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15805 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A two-dimensional flying focus enables an extended overlap between the focal point and electron bunch. a) Illustration of the experimental geometry with example electron spectra from 200 consecutive shots (inset left) produced by the laser wakefield accelerator. A secondary laser pulse was modified to generate an angled chromatic flying focus that tracked the location of the near-counterpropagating electron bunch. W… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Optimization of the flying-focus velocity. The measured x-ray signal from Thomson scattering (in ar￾bitrary units) as a function of GDD (β) for the scattering laser, showing that the x-ray signal is maximized when the the trajectory of the flying focus matches that of the elec￾tron bunch. Vertical error bars are the rms shot-to-shot fluctuations, while the horizontal error bars represent cal￾ibration uncertainties. … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Measured and simulated x-ray spectra in￾cident on the detector. Measured x-ray spectra from Thomson scattering (median shown in black, with individ￾ual shots in grey and median absolute deviation in shaded region) in good agreement with the simulated emission spec￾trum (from Ptarmigan) for a matched flying focus (blue), scaled by the measured photon yield. The simulated spec￾trum from a fully compressed laser pulse … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Flying-focus enhancement of x-ray spec￾trum and brightness. a) The angularly integrated x-ray spectra from Thomson scattering simulations using Ptarmi￾gan [25] for two example configurations. In one example (dashed lines), a Ee = 250(±1.5%) MeV electron bunch with 1 mr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Stable electron bunch performance over 10 hours of operation. Average electron spectra (solid lines) and standard deviation (shaded bands), measured at the beginning of the shot day (grey), and after 4 (brown) and 10 hours (beige), respectively. The region between the …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scintillator-based diagnostics measuring Thomson x-ray profile and spectrum. a) X-ray profiler measures transverse distribution of x-ray beam truncated by the beam pipe. b) Spectrometer measures the penetration depth zspec of the x-ray beam entering from the left into …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Trends in relativistic laser– matter interaction: The promises of structured light,

    MarcoPiccardo, MihailO.Cernaianu, JohnP.Palastro, Alexey Arefiev, Cédric Thaury, Jorge Vieira, Dustin H. Froula, and Victor Malka, “Trends in relativistic laser– matter interaction: The promises of structured light,” Optica12, 732–752 (2025)

    2025

  2. [2]

    Control- ling the velocity of ultrashort light pulses in vacuum through spatio-temporal couplings,

    A. Sainte-Marie, O. Gobert, and F. Quéré, “Control- ling the velocity of ultrashort light pulses in vacuum through spatio-temporal couplings,” Optica4, 1298– 1304 (2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Spa- tiotemporalcontroloflaserintensity,

    Dustin H. Froula, David Turnbull, Andrew S. Davies, Terrance J. Kessler, Dan Haberberger, John P. Palas- tro, Seung-WhanBahk, IldarA.Begishev, RobertBoni, Sara Bucht, Joseph Katz, and Jessica L. Shaw, “Spa- tiotemporalcontroloflaserintensity,” NaturePhotonics 12, 262–265 (2018)

    2018

  4. [4]

    Controlling the velocity of a femtosec- ond laser pulse using refractive lenses,

    SpencerW.Jolly, OlivierGobert, AntoineJeandet, and Fabien Quéré, “Controlling the velocity of a femtosec- ond laser pulse using refractive lenses,” Optics Express 28, 4888–4897 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Dephasingless Laser Wakefield Acceleration,

    J. P. Palastro, J. L. Shaw, P. Franke, D. Ramsey, T. T. Simpson, and D. H. Froula, “Dephasingless Laser Wakefield Acceleration,” Physical Review Letters124, 134802 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Phase-locked laser-wakefield electron acceleration,

    C. Caizergues, S. Smartsev, V. Malka, and C. Thaury, “Phase-locked laser-wakefield electron acceleration,” Nature Photonics14, 475–479 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Radiation reaction enhancement in flying focus pulses,

    M. Formanek, D. Ramsey, J. P. Palastro, and A. Di Pi- azza, “Radiation reaction enhancement in flying focus pulses,” Physical Review A105, L020203 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bubble regime,

    Kyle G Miller, Jacob R Pierce, Manfred V Ambat, Jes- sica L Shaw, Kale Weichman, Warren B Mori, Dustin H Froula, and John P Palastro, “Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bubble regime,” Scientific Reports13, 21306 (2023)

    2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Enhancement of vacuum birefringence with pump laser of flying focus,

    Bufan Jin and Baifei Shen, “Enhancement of vacuum birefringence with pump laser of flying focus,” Physical Review A107, 062213 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Laser Wakefield Acceleration of Ions with a Transverse Flying Focus,

    Zheng Gong, Sida Cao, John P. Palastro, and Matthew R. Edwards, “Laser Wakefield Acceleration of Ions with a Transverse Flying Focus,” Physical Review Letters133, 265002 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Signatures of vacuum birefringence in low-power flying focus pulses,

    Martin Formanek, John P. Palastro, Dillon Ramsey, Stefan Weber, and Antonino Di Piazza, “Signatures of vacuum birefringence in low-power flying focus pulses,” Phys. Rev. D109, 056009 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    High- dose femtosecond-scale gamma-ray beams for radiobi- ological applications,

    C A McAnespie, M J V Streeter, M Rankin, P Chaud- hary, S J McMahon, K M Prise, and G Sarri, “High- dose femtosecond-scale gamma-ray beams for radiobi- ological applications,” Physics in Medicine & Biology 67, 085010 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Nonlinear thomson scattering with ponderomotive control,

    Dillon Ramsey, Bernardo Malaca, Antonino Di Piazza, Martin Formanek, Philip Franke, Dustin H Froula, Miguel Pardal, Tanner T Simpson, Jorge Vieira, Kath- leen Weichman,et al., “Nonlinear thomson scattering with ponderomotive control,” Physical Review E105, 065201 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    Enhancedthomson scattering x-ray sources with flying focus laser pulse,

    Hansheng Ye, Yuqiu Gu, Quanping Fan, Xiaohui Zhang, Shaoyi Wang, Fang Tan, Jie Zhang, Yue Yang, YonghongYan, JiaxingWen,et al.,“Enhancedthomson scattering x-ray sources with flying focus laser pulse,” AIP Advances13(2023), 10.1063/5.0130819

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Non- linear Thomson scattering of intense laser pulses from beams and plasmas,

    Eric Esarey, Sally K. Ride, and Phillip Sprangle, “Non- linear Thomson scattering of intense laser pulses from beams and plasmas,” Physical Review E48, 3003–3021 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    High-order multi- photon thomson scattering,

    Wenchao Yan, Colton Fruhling, Grigory Golovin, Daniel Haden, Ji Luo, Ping Zhang, Baozhen Zhao, Jun Zhang, Cheng Liu, Min Chen,et al., “High-order multi- photon thomson scattering,” Nature Photonics11, 514– 520 (2017). 7

    2017

  9. [17]

    Quasi-monoenergetic femtosecond photon sources from thomson scattering using laser plasma accelerators and plasma channels,

    SG Rykovanov, CGR Geddes, JL Vay, CB Schroeder, Eric Esarey, and WP Leemans, “Quasi-monoenergetic femtosecond photon sources from thomson scattering using laser plasma accelerators and plasma channels,” Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics47, 234013 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    Ionization Waves of Arbitrary Ve- locity,

    D. Turnbull, P. Franke, J. Katz, J. P. Palastro, I. A. Be- gishev, R. Boni, J. Bromage, A. L. Milder, J. L. Shaw, and D. H. Froula, “Ionization Waves of Arbitrary Ve- locity,” Physical Review Letters120, 225001 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Spatio-temporal cou- plings for controlling group velocity in longitudinally pumped seeded soft X-ray lasers,

    Adeline Kabacinski, Eduardo Oliva, Fabien Tissandier, Julien Gautier, Michaela Kozlová, Jean-Philippe God- det, Igor A. Andriyash, Cédric Thaury, Philippe Zeitoun, and Stéphane Sebban, “Spatio-temporal cou- plings for controlling group velocity in longitudinally pumped seeded ...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Direct observation of a wakefield gener- ated with structured light,

    Aaron Liberman, Anton Golovanov, Slava Smartsev, Sheroy Tata, Igor A Andriyash, Salome Benracassa, Eitan Y Levine, Yang Wan, Eyal Kroupp, and Vic- tor Malka, “Direct observation of a wakefield gener- ated with structured light,” Nature Communications 16, 10957 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    First Electron Acceleration in a Tunable-Velocity Laser Wakefield,

    Aaron Liberman, Anton Golovanov, Slava Smartsev, Anda-Maria Talposi, Sheroy Tata, and Victor Malka, “First Electron Acceleration in a Tunable-Velocity Laser Wakefield,” (2025), 10.48550/arXiv.2509.21098, arXiv:2509.21098 [physics]

    2025 doi

  14. [22]

    Dephasingless laser wakefield accelera- tion of electrons using a flying focus,

    C. D. Arrowsmith, K. G. Miller, M. V. Ambat, S.- W. Bahk, I. A. Begishev, J. Bromage, S. Bucht, N. Dauphin, C. Dorrer, C. Jeon, J. Kendrick, I. A. La- Belle, L. S. Mack, A. L. Martin, C. Mileham, S. Qin, J. J. Pigeon, A. Raymond, M. Romanofsky, H. G. Rinderknecht, R.G.Roides, ...

    2026 doi

  15. [23]

    Flying focus with arbitrary directionality for spatiotemporal control of laser intensity,

    Sida Cao, Devdigvijay Singh, Lavonne S. Mack, John P. Palastro, and Matthew R. Edwards, “Flying focus with arbitrary directionality for spatiotemporal control of laser intensity,” Phys. Rev. Appl.25, 064060 (2026)

    2026

  16. [24]

    Stable and tunable MeV gamma-ray gener- ation via dual-laser inverse Thomson scattering from a laser-plasma accelerator,

    Hai-En Tsai, Tobias M. Ostermayr, Robert E. Jacob, Qiang Chen, Benjamin J. Greenwood, Robert Ettel- brick, AnthonyJ.Gonsalves, KeiNakamura, LionaFan- Chiang, Ocean Zhou, Sam K. Barber, Fumika Isono, Scott J. Thompson, James T. Johnson, Jay D. Hix, Ed- ward Seabury, David L. Ch...

    2026

  17. [25]

    Simulations of laser-driven strong-field QED with Ptarmigan: Re- solving wavelength-scale interference andγ-ray polar- ization,

    T. G. Blackburn, B. King, and S. Tang, “Simulations of laser-driven strong-field QED with Ptarmigan: Re- solving wavelength-scale interference andγ-ray polar- ization,” Physics of Plasmas30, 093903 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Greater than 1000-fold Gain in a Free-Electron Laser Driven by a Laser-Plasma Accelerator with High Reli- ability,

    S. K. Barber, F. Kohrell, C. E. Doss, K. Jensen, C. Berger, F. Isono, Z. Eisentraut, S. Schröder, A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, G. R. Plateau, R. A. Van Mourik, M. Gracia-Linares, L. Labun, B. M. Hegelich, S. V. Milton, C. G. R. Geddes, J. Osterhoff, C. B. Schroeder, E. H. Esa...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Optimal Beam Load- ing in a Laser-Plasma Accelerator,

    Manuel Kirchen, Sören Jalas, Philipp Messner, Paul Winkler, Timo Eichner, Lars Hübner, Thomas Hülsen- busch, Laurids Jeppe, Trupen Parikh, Matthias Schnepp, and Andreas R. Maier, “Optimal Beam Load- ing in a Laser-Plasma Accelerator,” Physical Review Letters126, 174801 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Ultralow emittance electron beams from a laser-wakefield accelerator,

    R. Weingartner, S. Raith, A. Popp, S. Chou, J. Wenz, K. Khrennikov, M. Heigoldt, A. R. Maier, N. Ka- jumba, M. Fuchs, B. Zeitler, F. Krausz, S. Karsch, and F. Grüner, “Ultralow emittance electron beams from a laser-wakefield accelerator,” Phys. Rev. ST Ac- cel. Beams15, 111302 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide,

    Colin N. Danson, Constantin Haefner, Jake Bromage, Thomas Butcher, Jean-Christophe F. Chanteloup, Enam A. Chowdhury, Almantas Galvanauskas, Leonida A. Gizzi, Joachim Hein, David I. Hillier, Nicholas W. Hopps, Yoshiaki Kato, Efim A. Khazanov, Ryosuke Kodama, Georg Korn, Ruxin L...

    2019

  22. [30]

    All-optical nonlinear compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser,

    Mohammad Mirzaie, Calin Ioan Hojbota, Do Yeon Kim, Vishwa Bandhu Pathak, Tae Gyu Pak, Chul Min Kim, Hwang Woon Lee, Jin Woo Yoon, Seong Ku Lee, Yong Joo Rhee,et al., “All-optical nonlinear compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser,” Na- ture Photonics18, 1212–12...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Nuclear res- onance fluorescence imaging in non-intrusive cargo in- spection,

    William Bertozzi and Robert J. Ledoux, “Nuclear res- onance fluorescence imaging in non-intrusive cargo in- spection,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms The Application of Accelerators in Research and Indu...

    2005

  24. [32]

    Matter from light-light scattering via Breit-Wheeler events produced by two interacting Compton sources,

    Illya Drebot, D. Micieli, E. Milotti, V. Petrillo, E. Tassi, and L. Serafini, “Matter from light-light scattering via Breit-Wheeler events produced by two interacting Compton sources,” Physical Review Accelerators and Beams20, 043402 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Broadband single- shot electron spectrometer for gev-class laser-plasma- based accelerators,

    K Nakamura, W Wan, N Ybarrolaza, D Syversrud, J Wallig, and WP Leemans, “Broadband single- shot electron spectrometer for gev-class laser-plasma- based accelerators,” Review of Scientific Instruments79 (2008), 10.1063/1.2929672

    2008 doi

  26. [34]

    A spectrometer for ultra- short gamma-ray pulses with photon energies greater 8 than 10 MeV,

    K. T. Behm, J. M. Cole, A. S. Joglekar, E. Gerst- mayr, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, T. G. Blackburn, M. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, S. Kuschel, S. P. D. Mangles, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. Sarri, G. M. Samarin, D. Symes, J. W...

    2018

  27. [35]

    Measurements of X-ray Imaging Per- formance of Granular Phosphors With Direct-Coupled CMOS Sensors,

    Min Kook Cho, Ho Kyung Kim, Thorsten Graeve, Se- ung Man Yun, Chang Hwy Lim, Hyosung Cho, and Jung-Min Kim, “Measurements of X-ray Imaging Per- formance of Granular Phosphors With Direct-Coupled CMOS Sensors,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science 55, 1338–1343 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    High brightness multi-MeV photon source driven by a petawatt-scale laser wakefield accelerator,

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

    2025 doi

  29. [37]

    Experimental Evidence of Ra- diation Reaction in the Collision of a High-Intensity Laser Pulse with a Laser-Wakefield Accelerated Elec- tron Beam,

    J. M. Cole, K. T. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. G. Black- burn, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, M. J. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. S. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. R. Symes, A. G. R. Thom...

    2018

  30. [38]

    Lasy: Laser manipulations made easy,

    Maxence Thévenet, Igor A. Andriyash, Luca Fedeli, Ángel Ferran Pousa, Axel Huebl, Sören Jalas, Manuel Kirchen, Remi Lehe, Rob J. Shalloo, Alexander Sinn, and Jean-Luc Vay, “Lasy: Laser manipulations made easy,” (2024), arXiv:2403.12191 [physics.optics]. METHODS Flying-focus se...

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    into the beam path of the electrons. The measured detector response was compared with Geant4 modelling to obtain a correction factor [34], accounting for crys- tal and imaging defects, and an absolute calibration of the deposited energy in the detector [36]. The most significa...

  32. [40]

    We use this expression as an empirical fitting approach to capture the simulated and retrieved spectral shapes, rather than as a test of a particular emission model

    by allowing independent variation of the low-energy slope and high-energy cut-off. We use this expression as an empirical fitting approach to capture the simulated and retrieved spectral shapes, rather than as a test of a particular emission model. The data was background subt...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.