Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Letter of Intent for the LUXE Experiment

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 LUXE is a proposed experiment to collide the 17.5 GeV electron beam of the European XFEL, or photons produced from it, with laser pulses of up to 300 TW, reaching a quantum parameter above 3 and aiming to open the non-perturbative regime…

desk verdict A serious, well-motivated LoI for a strong-field QED experiment, with the expected gaps for a proposal: no new physics result, an unvalidated background-suppression target, and an unfinished draft section. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00860 v1 pith:SLR5JWP7 submitted 2019-09-02 physics.ins-det hep-exphysics.acc-ph

H. Abramowicz , M.Altarelli , R. A{ss}mann , T. Behnke , Y.Benhammou , O.Borysov , M. Borysova , R. Brinkmann
show 29 more authors
F. Burkart K. Bü{ss}er O. Davidi W. Decking N. Elkina H.Harsh A.Hartin I. Hartl B.Heinemann T. Heinzl N. TalHod M. Hoffmann A. Ilderton B. King A. Levy J. List A. R. Maier E. Negodin G. Perez I. Pomerantz A. Ringwald C. Rödel M. Saimpert F. Salgado G. Sarri I. Savoray T. Teter M. Wing M. Zepf
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-dethep-exphysics.acc-ph
keywords strong-fieldquantumelectrodynamicsnonlinearComptonscatteringBreit-WheelerpairproductionSchwingercriticalfieldX-rayfree-electronlaserhigh-powertridentLUXEexperiment
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

LUXE is a proposed experiment to collide the 17.5 GeV electron beam of the European XFEL, or high-energy photons produced from it, with a laser pulse of up to 300 TW, reaching values of the quantum parameter $\chi_e$ above 3, beyond any previous experiment. The paper argues that this will open the non-perturbative regime of quantum electrodynamics: rates that at low laser intensity follow a power law in $\xi$ should, at high intensity, bend over to an exponential behaviour of the kind Schwinger's theory predicts for vacuum pair creation. The letter backs this with a technical design covering beam extraction, laser system and diagnostics, and detectors for electrons, positrons and photons, together with Monte Carlo projections showing measurable yields from about $10^{-2}$ to hundreds of positrons per laser shot. A sympathetic reader would take the central claim to be that strong-field QED is now experimentally accessible with existing accelerator and laser technology, and that LUXE is a realistic vehicle for measuring the transition from perturbative to non-perturbative physics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two dimensionless ratios: $\xi = eE_L/(m_e\omega_L)$, the laser intensity parameter that counts how many laser photons effectively participate, and $\chi_i = \xi\,\eta_i$, the quantum parameter that measures the laser field in the particle's rest frame in units of the Schwinger critical field $E_{\mathrm{cr}}=m_e^2/e$. The experiment is built around scanning $\xi$ at fixed electron energy, with $\chi_e$ reaching about 3.3 for 17.5 GeV electrons in a 300 TW, 3 $\mu$m focus. The signature to be measured is a bend in the rate-versus-intensity curve, from $\xi^{2n_*}$ to $\chi e^{-8/(3\chi)}$, and the technical apparatus—bunch extraction from the XFEL, shot-by-shot laser intensity tagging, and a dipole spectrometer with silicon pixel, calorimeter and Cherenkov detectors—exists to make that rate measurement at signal levels down to $10^{-2}$ per shot.

What would settle it

A clean falsification would be a high-precision positron-rate scan over $\xi$ at 17.5 GeV showing a single power law from the lowest point to $\xi\approx 16$ with no measurable bend toward exponential behaviour; the paper's central claim stands or falls on whether the bend appears where predicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that a single experiment can map the transition to non-perturbative strong-field QED by scanning the laser intensity parameter $\xi$ while measuring nonlinear Compton scattering, nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production, and trident production. The predicted rates switch from the multiphoton power law $P\propto \xi^{2n_*}$ to the non-analytic form $P\propto \chi_\gamma e^{-8/(3\chi_\gamma)}$, and LUXE is designed to resolve that bend and extract the exponent to about 10% precision. In the photon-laser mode, the positron yield is projected to rise from about $7\times 10^{-3}$ to 350 per shot across the intensity scan, providing a direct experimental handle on vacuum pair production without needing a static field at the Schwinger critical value.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that detector backgrounds from stray particles can be suppressed below 0.1 positrons per laser shot, because the low-intensity end of the measurement uses signal rates as small as 0.01 events per shot.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A successful measurement of the rate bend would provide the first direct experimental evidence in QED of a non-perturbative regime at small coupling, a phenomenon previously seen experimentally only in strongly coupled theories such as QCD.
  • It would test Schwinger's predicted non-analytic dependence of pair production on field strength, extracting the exponent of the exponential rate to about 10%.
  • It would separate one-step from two-step trident production by comparing the measured positron signal with the two-step prediction, settling whether the older Weizsäcker-Williams estimate was reliable.
  • It would give a laboratory probe of vacuum properties relevant to astrophysical settings and could search for new scalar or photon self-interactions beyond the Standard Model.
  • If backgrounds can be held at 0.1 positrons per laser shot, the projected 5–10% precision at low $\xi$ makes the full scan meaningful; if backgrounds reach one event per shot, the low-intensity points degrade to roughly 40% uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not developed in the letter is to repeat the same $\xi$ scan at two electron energies, such as 14 GeV and 17.5 GeV: since $\chi$ scales with electron energy while $\xi$ does not, agreement of the normalized rate curves in $\chi$ would confirm that the quantum parameter is the true ruling variable, while disagreement would expose pulse-shape or beam systematic effects.
  • The experiment could be extended to a pure photon-photon scattering mode with the electron beam absent, where the Standard Model Heisenberg-Euler signal is tiny and any measurable excess would point to axion-like particles or other new physics; the letter notes the BSM sensitivity but does not quantify a discovery reach for such a mode.
  • The same infrastructure could be turned into a more direct quantum-radiation-reaction measurement by reconstructing the full electron energy loss across the interaction, not just counting positrons; the letter lists radiation reaction as an early-phase goal but not as a primary precision observable.
  • The shot-by-shot intensity tagging scheme, if it reaches its stated 0.1% goal, would allow the experiment to bin data by actual laser intensity rather than by nominal setting, effectively turning laser intensity fluctuations from a systematic into a measured handle.
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. This Letter of Intent proposes the LUXE experiment at the European XFEL, which would collide the high-energy electron beam, or bremsstrahlung photons derived from it, with a high-power Ti:sapphire laser (30–300 TW). The physics goal is to study strong-field QED in the non-perturbative regime: nonlinear Compton scattering, nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production, and trident production, with planned access to laser intensity parameters up to ξ ≈ 16 and quantum parameters up to χ ≈ 3, well beyond the SLAC E144 experiment. The manuscript describes the accelerator extraction scheme, laser specifications and diagnostics, detector concepts based on silicon pixel trackers, calorimeters, and Cherenkov counters, as well as a schedule. It presents Monte Carlo based projections for positron rates versus ξ and claims statistical precision better than 5% per measurement point with systematic uncertainties at a similar level.

Significance. If the projected performance is met, LUXE would provide the first controlled exploration of all-order, small-coupling non-perturbative QED, directly testing the predicted transition from power-law scaling in ξ to the exponential non-perturbative regime. The proposal is notably well grounded experimentally: it builds on the E144 measurements, reuses mature detector technologies (ALPIDE, LumiCal, and Cherenkov prototypes) with existing test-beam results, and makes concrete falsifiable predictions for rate scalings. The technical integration with the European XFEL infrastructure is described in realistic detail. However, the central quantitative claim of 5–10% precision measurements across the full ξ range is not yet supported by an error budget; two load-bearing feasibility items—the secondary positron background suppression and the in-situ peak-field calibration—remain unvalidated or incomplete in the manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.3] The low-ξ portion of the physics program depends on an unvalidated background suppression goal. The text states that fewer than 20 secondary positrons with E > 1 GeV per 1.5×10^9 beam electrons enter the detector acceptance and that it is 'anticipated that they can be rejected based on precision tracking information', with the 'goal' of reducing this to less than 0.1 positrons per laser shot. No tracking rejection algorithm, expected efficiency, or systematic validation is presented for the required factor of more than 200 suppression. This matters because Table 5 lists the expected γB–laser positron rate at ξ = 1.2 as 1×10^-2 per shot and Table 4 lists the e–laser positron rate at ξ = 0.26 as below 0.01 per shot, and the text itself states that at a background of 1 event per shot the 0.01-rate measurement degrades to 40% precision. The claimed 5–10% precision across the power-law-to-exponential transition therefore rests on an unverified background assumption.
  2. [Sec. 4.4] The section on determining the peak electric field in focus is not in a reviewable state: it contains duplicated draft text, placeholder instructions such as 'insert picture with kinematics of the Compton scattering and explanations', and an unedited derivation of the Compton-edge calibration method in Eqs. (11)–(14) with undefined notation. Since the ξ-scale of every rate projection depends on the absolute in-focus field calibration, the statements that 'an absolute calibration of better than 5%' is achievable in the early phase and that 0.1% absolute accuracy appears realistic are not supported by the manuscript as presented.
  3. [Sec. 1 and Sec. 4.6] The claimed 5% systematic uncertainty is not backed by an error budget. The Executive Summary states that statistical precision will be better than 5% and that 'systematic uncertainties are expected to be at a similar level', while Sec. 4.6 assumes that the peak achievable intensity is 'no more than 40% of the theoretical value' without assigning an uncertainty to this in-focus energy fraction or to the pulse duration and focal-spot FWHM that enter ξ. These quantities propagate directly into every predicted rate and into the comparison with theory; a quantitative sensitivity analysis or covariance budget is needed before the precision claim can be assessed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 7] The conclusions state that LUXE 'has the potential to pioneer an new regime of quantum physics'; 'an new' should read 'a new'.
  2. [Sec. 6] The schedule entry '2025-2027: Commissioning an data taking with 300 TW laser' contains a typo; 'an' should be 'and'.
  3. [Table 3] The row 'Dimensionless peak intensity, ξ2' appears to be missing the entry for the 30 TW, 8 µm column (values 6.2 and 16 are shown for the two 300 TW columns); please clarify the intended entries.
  4. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption states 'No uncertainties are shown' while the text says the statistical precision is expected to be 'between about 10% at low ξ and ≪1% at high ξ'; adding the corresponding uncertainty bands or error bars would make the projection more interpretable, even if preliminary.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: LUXE's sensitivity projections use external, parameter-free strong-field QED rates; the overlapping-authorship citations are contextual and not the source of the predicted scaling.

full rationale

The projection chain is: define ξ and χ; adopt standard strong-field QED rates (Ritus asymptotic form, Volkov-dressed Compton and Breit-Wheeler rates); generate events with a Monte Carlo calculation 'similar to those described in Refs. [27,48]'; pass the events through a detector simulation; and arrive at the rate tables and scaling curves. For circularity, the predicted rate-versus-ξ scaling would have to be imposed by the experimental inputs, or by a self-citation that is itself the unverified conclusion. Neither occurs here. The rates are parameter-free functions of ξ and χ with no parameter fitted to LUXE data, and the strong-field QED machinery is benchmarked against SLAC E144 observations of nonlinear Compton scattering and multiphoton Breit-Wheeler pair production, so it is externally falsifiable rather than defined in terms of the target measurement. Refs. [27,48] do have overlapping authors, but they are used as event-generator sources, not as uniqueness theorems or authority-based constraints that forbid alternatives. The ξ value for the physics plots is not obtained by fitting the pair-production rate: Sec. 2.3 states that the average ξ is calculated from the known pulse shape and energy, and Sec. 4.4 adds independent cross-calibration concepts including PTB traceable standards and classical ponderomotive scattering. The Compton-edge-shift cross-check uses the same mass-shift formula as one of the physics observables, but this is a calibration cross-check, not the derivation of the power-law-to-exponential prediction. Two manuscript caveats should be flagged as completeness or feasibility risks rather than circularity: Sec. 4.4 is an unfinished draft containing 'insert picture with kinematics...' placeholders that leaves the ξ-calibration claim partially unsupported, and Sec. 2.3's goal of suppressing background to below 0.1 positrons per laser shot is an explicitly stated target, with the paper itself quantifying the 40% precision degradation if the background reaches 1 event per shot. Neither caveat reduces the claimed scientific result to its inputs, so the circularity burden remains low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility projections depend on assumed laser and beam parameters, on the validity of established strong-field QED rates for the generation of simulated events, and on the performance of planned diagnostics that are not yet demonstrated. All of these are listed as free parameters or domain assumptions above. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • In-focus laser energy fraction = 40%
    Sets the ξ values in all sensitivity projections; the paper assumes typical high-power systems achieve 30-40 percent of the laser energy within the FWHM focal spot (Sec. 4.1 and 4.6).
  • Laser pulse duration = 30 fs
    Chosen operational parameter that determines peak intensity and ξ; discussed in Sec. 4.1.
  • Laser focal spot FWHM = 8 µm (phases A and B), 3 µm (phase C)
    Sets peak intensity and ξ; design choice from Table 3.
  • Electron bunch charge and energy = 0.25 nC at 17.5 GeV
    Assumed XFEL beam parameters; all particle rates scale with these values (Sec. 3 and Table 2).
  • Background suppression target = <0.1 positrons per laser shot
    Required for low-ξ measurements; stated as a goal, not demonstrated (Sec. 2.3).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Standard strong-field QED rates for nonlinear Compton, Breit-Wheeler, and trident processes in intense laser fields.
    Used to generate the simulated event rates in Sec. 2.3; these are established results from the prior literature (Refs. 27, 34, 48), not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The European XFEL will provide beam parameters as specified, including up to 17.5 GeV, 1.5e9 electrons per bunch, and 10 Hz trains.
    Assumed throughout the letter; facility performance is stated by the collaboration and not independently verified here.
  • domain assumption GEANT4 and FLUKA simulations reliably model backgrounds and detector response for the proposed geometry.
    Used to estimate backgrounds and converter spectra in Secs. 2.3 and 5.2.1; no experimental verification is provided in this paper.
  • domain assumption The laser shot-to-shot intensity can be tagged to sub-0.1% precision and cross-calibrated to 5% absolute accuracy.
    Planned diagnostics, not yet demonstrated, are needed to interpret rate measurements as functions of ξ (Secs. 4.3 and 4.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Letter of Intent for the LUXE Experiment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SLR5JWP7

@misc{pith2026190900860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Letter of Intent for the LUXE Experiment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SLR5JWP7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00860}
}
read the original abstract

This Letter of Intent describes LUXE (Laser Und XFEL Experiment), an experiment that aims to use the high-quality and high-energy electron beam of the European XFEL and a powerful laser. The scientific objective of the experiment is to study quantum electrodynamics processes in the regime of strong fields. High-energy electrons, accelerated by the European XFEL linear accelerator, and high-energy photons, produced via Bremsstrahlung of those beam electrons, colliding with a laser beam shall experience an electric field up to three times larger than the Schwinger critical field (the field at which the vacuum itself is expected to become unstable and spark with spontaneous creation of electron-positron pairs) and access a new regime of quantum physics. The processes to be investigated, which include nonlinear Compton scattering and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production, are relevant to a variety of phenomena in Nature, e.g. in the areas of astrophysics and collider physics and complement recent results in atomic physics. The setup requires in particular the extraction of a minute fraction of the electron bunches from the European XFEL accelerator, the installation of a powerful laser with sophisticated diagnostics, and an array of precision detectors optimised to measure electrons, positrons and photons. Physics sensitivity projections based on simulations are also provided.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00860 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic layout of European XFEL tunnels and buildings. The fan of tunnels inside the red dashed lines is a possible future development, not built yet. The purple arrows point to the annex of the XS1 shaft where the LUXE experiment is foreseen to be installed. The location of the bunch extraction upstream of the whole system of undulators, X-ray transport lines and experimental stations, and the steering of the bun… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative diagrams for the dominant processes in the e–laser and γB–laser setup. A sketch of the experiment layout is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Sketch of the experimental setup for the e–laser setup (top) and the γB–laser setup (bottom). The electron beam comes from the left. In both setups a shielding is deployed before the laser-beam interaction point (IP). A dipole magnet and a set of detectors are shown behind the IP. In the γB–laser setup a converter and additional detectors are shown before the shielding. The location of the beam dump is different for… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (24 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Diagrams for processes occurring in the interaction of high energy photons and electrons with intense optical laser beams. Time proceeds from left to right. Double lines denote laser dressed (Volkov) electrons (if arrow in positive time direction) and positrons (if arr…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Leading order diagram for the laser stimulated trident process. Cutting through the internal photon line produces the processes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The χ and ξ parameter space accessible by various experiments. The three red lines show the parameters accessible to LUXE for three electron beam energies. Indicated are the parameters corresponding to the foreseen laser configurations of LUXE: a 30 TW laser focused to…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Nonlinear Compton-scattered photon energy spectrum for 6×109 electrons in a circularly-polarised quasi-monochromatic background pulse of duration 35 fs. The two-step trident process, which proceeds via an on-shell photon, depends on the spectrum of nonlinear Compton sc…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Simulated positron energy spectrum for ξ = 0.26 and ξ = 2.6 and a 10 µm tungsten wire (see Sec. 5) and 1.5×109 electrons per bunch. The primary objective for the γB +nγL process is the measurement of the positron rate as a function of the ξ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: Positron energy spectra for the pair-production (for E = 17.5 GeV and 14 GeV) and the two-step trident processes for ξ = 2.6. Right: Horizontal position of the positron at the detector plane after the magnet for the same samples. of 9 Hz4 , 24h are needed to meas…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Number of positrons per laser shot versus the mean value of ξ in the γB–laser (for Ebeam = 17.5 and 14.0 GeV) and the two-step trident process in the e–laser setup. No uncertainties are shown. It is expected that the statistical precision achieved will be between abou…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematic drawing of the European XFEL fan. The location foreseen of the LUXE experiment is circled in red. The XT1 and XT2 beamlines are those serving the SASE2 and SASE1 undulators, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: CAD model of the end of the European XFEL accelerator tunnel and the shaft building with the two existing beamlines XT1 and XT2 to the undulators (SASE1 and SASE2) and the XS1 annex, where the LUXE experiment can be installed. The beam extraction and the beam line tow…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Design of the beamline extraction. The different magnets (kicker, dipole, quadrupole) are shown in different colors. The new kicker magnet which kicks out one bunch towards LUXE is indicated. The horizontal and vertical scales are in units of m. The LUXE experiment st…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Schematic drawing of the beam dump. 17/33 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: An ultrashort, low-energy laser pulse is stretched in time, amplified up to the required energy, and then compressed back. This way, light level is kept below the amplifying media’s damage threshold. The result is high-peak power, fs-scale duration laser pulses [PITH…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: A typical optical layout of a high contrast HPLS. components set out on a conventional optical table and must therefore be re-aligned routinely and are open to variety of effects varying performance. This contrasts with sealed, turnkey systems which exist in different…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Schematic of the proposed intensity tagging diagnostics. The laser beam will be transported and attenuated on the path to the diagnostics. 4.4 Determination of the Peak Electric Field in Focus 3 FIG. 2: Angular distribution of electrons which are initially at rest for…
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Distribution of particles scattered o c. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Comparison of Bremsstrahlung spectra obtained from theoretical formula in the PDG [61] and with GEANT4 [49–51] simulations for a tungsten target of 35 µm (1%X0) thickness. The green line shows the γ spectrum after imposing limits on position in the transverse plane to…
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Schematic of the area around the photon target during γB–laser running. After the target, a high-field dipole magnet is placed to separate electron–positron pairs produced in the target as well as the electrons from the initial beam which underwent Bremsstrahlung to s…
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Left: Number of electrons versus x. Right: Ratio of the reconstructed photon energy to the true photon energy: (Ebeam −Ee)/Eγ . Less than 2% of the events have values (Ebeam −Ee)/Eγ > 1.25. Here, Eγ is the true energy of the highest energy photon in the event. The pos…
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Schematic of the detector system to measure e +e − pairs produced at the IP for the (left) γB–laser and (right) e–laser setup. In both cases, the electrons and positrons are separated by a dipole magnet. In the γB–laser setup, electrons and positrons are measured in a…
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: shows the number of electrons and positrons as function of the impact position at the first silicon tracker plane for ξ = 2.5 for the γB–laser and the e–laser setup. It is seen that they are in the horizontal plane in the range 5 < |x| < 60 cm and in the vertical plan…
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Schematic of the forward photon spectrometer. Photons from the IP are incident on a wire target with some converting to e +e − pairs which are then separated by a dipole magnet. The spectra of electrons and positrons are measured in a detector system consisting of tra…
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: A schematic cross-section view of the ALPIDE pixel. The ionisation charge generated by the incident charged particle in the 25µm thick epitaxial layer is collected by the n-well. A region in the epitaxial layer gets depleted as indicated in white by applying the bias …
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Detector plane assembly. The total thickness of the detector module is 650 µm. Edep, MIP 0 100 200 300 400 500 dE/dN 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 1 GeV 2 GeV 3 GeV 4 GeV 5 GeV [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_28.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Two-channel prototype of a gas Cherenkov detector developed for Compton polarimetry [67], which serves as basis for the Cherenkov detectors for LUXE. used for contingency, although the actual data rates would not require this. Each of the detector PCs will then be con…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Searching for long-lived ALPs with a laser-assisted optical dump

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A laser-assisted optical dump could probe ALP-electron couplings down to ~10^-6 (10^-7) GeV^-1 with 16.5 (125) GeV electron beams, and when both couplings are present the Primakoff process improves the electron-coupli...

  2. Soft photon approximation in a laser field: applications

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Soft-photon factors with exact phase treatment give O(ω/ε)-accurate multi-photon Compton amplitudes in a laser field, outperforming classical theory and enabling efficient N-photon calculations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, “Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons”,Z. Phys. 98 (1936), no. 11-12, 714–732, arXiv:physics/0605038

    arXiv 1936

  2. [2]

    On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization

    J. Schwinger, “On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization”, Phys. Rev. 82 (1951), no. 3, 664–679

    work page 1951

  3. [3]

    Observation of nonlinear effects in Compton scattering

    E144 Collaboration, “Observation of nonlinear effects in Compton scattering”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3116–3119

    work page 1996

  4. [4]

    Positron production in multi - photon light by light scattering

    D. L. Burke et al., “Positron production in multi - photon light by light scattering”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1626–1629

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Strong Field Laser Physics

    T. Brabec, “Strong Field Laser Physics”, Springer Series on Optical Sciences 134 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment Using a One-Electron Quantum Cyclotron

    B. C. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D’Urso, and G. Gabrielse, “New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment Using a One-Electron Quantum Cyclotron”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 030801. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.99,039902(2007)]

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED

    G. Gabrielse et al., “New Determination of the Fine Structure Constant from the Electron g Value and QED”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 030802. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.99,039902(2007)]

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    New method of computing the contributions of graphs without lepton loops to the electron anomalous magnetic moment in QED

    S. V olkov, “New method of computing the contributions of graphs without lepton loops to the electron anomalous magnetic moment in QED”, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017), no. 9, 096018, arXiv:1705.05800

    arXiv 2017

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    The Muon (g-2) Theory Value: Present and Future

    T. Blum et al., “The Muon (g-2) Theory Value: Present and Future”,arXiv:1311.2198

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    The Muon g-2 in Progress

    F. Jegerlehner, “The Muon g-2 in Progress”, Acta Phys. Polon. B49 (2018) 1157, arXiv:1804.07409

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Muon (g-2) Technical Design Report

    Muon g-2 Collaboration, “Muon (g-2) Technical Design Report”,arXiv:1501.06858

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    An X-ray pulsar with a superstrong magnetic field in the soft gamma-ray repeater SGR 1806-20

    C. Kouveliotou et al., “An X-ray pulsar with a superstrong magnetic field in the soft gamma-ray repeater SGR 1806-20.”, Nature 393 (1998) 235–237

    1998

  5. [13]

    End Effects in Quantum Beamstrahlung

    M. Bell and J. S. Bell, “End Effects in Quantum Beamstrahlung”, Part. Accel. 24 (1988) 1. [,1(1987)]

    1988

  6. [14]

    Quantum Beamstrahlung: Prospects for a Photon-photon Collider

    R. Blankenbecler and S. D. Drell, “Quantum Beamstrahlung: Prospects for a Photon-photon Collider”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61 (1988) 2324. [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.62,116(1989)]

    1988

  7. [15]

    On energy levels in systems withZ > 137

    I. Pomeranchuk and Y . Smorodinsky, “On energy levels in systems withZ > 137”, J. Phys. USSR 9 (1945) 97

    1945

  8. [16]

    Proposal for experimental studies of nonlinear quantum electrodynamics

    K. T. McDonald, “Proposal for experimental studies of nonlinear quantum electrodynamics”,

  9. [17]

    Exploring high-intensity QED at ELI

    T. Heinzl and A. Ilderton, “Exploring high-intensity QED at ELI”, Eur. Phys. J. D55 (2009) 359–364, arXiv:0811.1960

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses

    D. Strickland and G. Mourou, “Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses”, Opt. Commun. 55 (1985), no. 6, 447–449. [Erratum: Opt. Commun.56,219(1985)]

    1985

  11. [19]

    New Strong-Field QED Effects at ELI: Nonperturbative Vacuum Pair Production

    G. V . Dunne, “New Strong-Field QED Effects at ELI: Nonperturbative Vacuum Pair Production”,Eur. Phys. J. D55 (2009) 327–340, arXiv:0812.3163

    2009 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems

    A. Di Piazza, C. Muller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, “Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 1177, arXiv:1111.3886. 31/33

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Experimental evidence of radiation reaction in the collision of a high-intensity laser pulse with a laser-wakefield accelerated electron beam

    J. M. Cole et al., “Experimental evidence of radiation reaction in the collision of a high-intensity laser pulse with a laser-wakefield accelerated electron beam”, Phys. Rev. X8 (2018), no. 1, 011020, arXiv:1707.06821

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Experimental Signatures of the Quantum Nature of Radiation Reaction in the Field of an Ultraintense Laser

    K. Poder et al., “Experimental Signatures of the Quantum Nature of Radiation Reaction in the Field of an Ultraintense Laser”, Phys. Rev. X8 (2018), no. 3, 031004, arXiv:1709.01861

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Extreme Light Infrastructure - Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP) European Research Centre

    N. V . Zamfir, “Extreme Light Infrastructure - Nuclear Physics (ELI-NP) European Research Centre”,EPJ Web Conf. 66 (2014) 11043

    2014

  16. [24]

    Trident pair production in a constant crossed field

    B. King and H. Ruhl, “Trident pair production in a constant crossed field”, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013), no. 1, 013005, arXiv:1303.1356

    2013 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Special analytical properties of ultrastrong coherent fields

    H. R. Reiss, “Special analytical properties of ultrastrong coherent fields”, Eur. Phys. J. D55 (2009) 365–374

    2009

  18. [26]

    Complete QED theory of multiphoton trident pair production in strong laser fields

    H. Hu, C. Muller, and C. H. Keitel, “Complete QED theory of multiphoton trident pair production in strong laser fields”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 080401, arXiv:1002.2596

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Measuring the Boiling Point of the Vacuum of Quantum Electrodynamics

    A. Hartin, A. Ringwald, and N. Tapia, “Measuring the Boiling Point of the Vacuum of Quantum Electrodynamics”, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019), no. 3, 036008, arXiv:1807.10670

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Experimental evidence of quantum radiation reaction in aligned crystals

    T. N. Wistisen, A. Di Piazza, H. V . Knudsen, and U. I. Uggerhøj, “Experimental evidence of quantum radiation reaction in aligned crystals”, Nature Commun. 9 (2018), no. 1, 795, arXiv:1704.01080

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6-GeV electrons with intense laser pulses

    C. Bamber et al., “Studies of nonlinear QED in collisions of 46.6-GeV electrons with intense laser pulses”, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 092004

    1999

  22. [30]

    Three lectures on the physics of small x and high gluon density

    L. D. McLerran, “Three lectures on the physics of small x and high gluon density”, AIP Conf. Proc. 490 (1999), no. 1, 42–79, arXiv:hep-ph/9903536

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier

    A. Accardi et al., “Electron Ion Collider: The Next QCD Frontier”, Eur. Phys. J. A52 (2016), no. 9, 268, arXiv:1212.1701

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    FCC Physics Opportunities

    FCC Collaboration, “FCC Physics Opportunities”, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019), no. 6, 474

    2019

  25. [33]

    Physics case of the very high energy electron–proton collider, VHEeP

    A. Caldwell, F. Keeble, E. S. Dore, and M. Wing, “Physics case of the very high energy electron–proton collider, VHEeP”, PoS DIS2017 (2018) 083, arXiv:1708.08707

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Quantum effects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electromagnetic field

    V . I. Ritus, “Quantum effects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense electromagnetic field”,J. Russ. Laser Res. 6 (1985), no. 5, 497–617

    1985

  27. [35]

    Interaction of Intense Laser Beams with Electrons

    L. S. Brown and T. W. B. Kibble, “Interaction of Intense Laser Beams with Electrons”, Phys. Rev. 133 (1964) A705–A719

    1964

  28. [36]

    Signatures of High-Intensity Compton Scattering

    C. Harvey, T. Heinzl, and A. Ilderton, “Signatures of High-Intensity Compton Scattering”, Phys. Rev. A79 (2009) 063407, arXiv:0903.4151

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Intensity-Dependent Electron Mass Shift in a Laser Field: Existence, Universality, and Detection

    C. Harvey, T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, “Intensity-Dependent Electron Mass Shift in a Laser Field: Existence, Universality, and Detection”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 100402, arXiv:1203.6077

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Finite size effects in stimulated laser pair production

    T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, “Finite size effects in stimulated laser pair production”, Phys. Lett. B692 (2010) 250–256, arXiv:1002.4018

    2010 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Photon polarisation in electron-seeded pair-creation cascades

    B. King, N. Elkina, and H. Ruhl, “Photon polarisation in electron-seeded pair-creation cascades”, Phys. Rev. A87 (2013) 042117, arXiv:1301.7001

    2013 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Trident pair production in strong laser pulses

    A. Ilderton, “Trident pair production in strong laser pulses”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 020404, arXiv:1011.4072

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Trident pair production in plane waves: Coherence, exchange, and spacetime inhomogeneity

    V . Dinu and G. Torgrimsson, “Trident pair production in plane waves: Coherence, exchange, and spacetime inhomogeneity”, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 3, 036021, arXiv:1711.04344

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Effect of interference on the trident process in a constant crossed field

    B. King and A. M. Fedotov, “Effect of interference on the trident process in a constant crossed field”, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 1, 016005, arXiv:1801.07300

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Nonlinear trident pair production in an arbitrary plane wave: a focus on the properties of the transition amplitude

    F. Mackenroth and A. Di Piazza, “Nonlinear trident pair production in an arbitrary plane wave: a focus on the properties of the transition amplitude”, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 11, 116002, arXiv:1805.01731

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Vacuum polarization correction to elastic electron and muon scattering in an intense field and pair electro- and muoproduction

    V . I. Ritus, “Vacuum polarization correction to elastic electron and muon scattering in an intense field and pair electro- and muoproduction”, Nucl. Phys. B44 (1972) 236–252

    1972

  37. [45]

    Virtual axion-like particle complement to Euler-Heisenberg-Schwinger action

    S. Evans and J. Rafelski, “Virtual axion-like particle complement to Euler-Heisenberg-Schwinger action”, Phys. Lett. B791 (2019) 331–334, arXiv:1810.06717. 32/33

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Phenomenology of relaxion-Higgs mixing

    T. Flacke et al., “Phenomenology of relaxion-Higgs mixing”, JHEP 06 (2017) 050, arXiv:1610.02025

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Probing ALPs and the Axiverse with Superconducting Radiofrequency Cavities

    Z. Bogorad, A. Hook, Y . Kahn, and Y . Soreq, “Probing ALPs and the Axiverse with Superconducting Radiofrequency Cavities”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019), no. 2, 021801, arXiv:1902.01418

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Strong field QED in lepton colliders and electron/laser interactions

    A. Hartin, “Strong field QED in lepton colliders and electron/laser interactions”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A33 (2018), no. 13, 1830011, arXiv:1804.02934

    2018 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Recent developments in Geant4

    J. Allison et al., “Recent developments in Geant4”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A835 (2016) 186–225

    2016

  42. [50]

    Geant4 developments and applications

    J. Allison et al., “Geant4 developments and applications”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci. 53 (2006) 270

    2006

  43. [51]

    GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit

    GEANT4 Collaboration, “GEANT4: A Simulation toolkit”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250–303

    2003

  44. [52]

    The FLUKA Code: Developments and Challenges for High Energy and Medical Applications

    T. T. Böhlen et al., “The FLUKA Code: Developments and Challenges for High Energy and Medical Applications”, Nucl. Data Sheets 120 (2014) 211–214

    2014

  45. [53]

    Extraction and XTD20 Transfer Line: Conceptual Design Report

    F. Burkart and W. Decking, “Extraction and XTD20 Transfer Line: Conceptual Design Report”

  46. [54]

    Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses

    D. Strickland and G. Mourou, “Compression of amplified chirped optical pulses”, Optics communications 55 (1985), no. 6, 447–449

    1985

  47. [55]

    10ˆ10 temporal contrast for femtosecond ultraintense lasers by cross-polarized wave generation

    A. Jullien et al., “10ˆ10 temporal contrast for femtosecond ultraintense lasers by cross-polarized wave generation”, Optics letters 30 (2005), no. 8, 920–922

    2005

  48. [56]

    Picosecond optical parametric chirped pulse amplifier as a preamplifier to generate high-energy seed pulses for contrast enhancement

    I. Musgrave et al., “Picosecond optical parametric chirped pulse amplifier as a preamplifier to generate high-energy seed pulses for contrast enhancement”, Applied optics 49 (2010), no. 33, 6558–6562

    2010

  49. [57]

    https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-41/ag-412.html

    PTB Braunschweig. https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/fachabteilungen/abt4/fb-41/ag-412.html

  50. [58]

    Space-time characterization of ultra-intense femtosecond laser beams

    G. Pariente et al., “Space-time characterization of ultra-intense femtosecond laser beams”, Nature Photonics 10 (2016) 547–553

    2016

  51. [59]

    Large-Scale Optical Synchronization System of the European XFEL

    J. Müller et al., “Large-Scale Optical Synchronization System of the European XFEL”, in Proc. 29th Linear Accelerator Conference (LINAC’18), Beijing, China, 16-21 September 2018, pp. 253–256. JACoW Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland, Jan., 2019

    2018

  52. [60]

    Few Femtosecond Facility-Wide-Synchronization of the European XFEL

    S. Schulz et al., “Few Femtosecond Facility-Wide-Synchronization of the European XFEL”, in to appear in Proceedings of the 39 the International Free-Electron Laser Conference (Hamburg), in press. 2019. https://fel2019.vrws.de/papers/web04.pdf

    2019

  53. [61]

    Review of Particle Physics

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, “Review of Particle Physics”, Phys. Rev. D98 (2018), no. 3, 030001

    2018

  54. [62]

    Technical Design Report for the Upgrade of the ALICE Inner Tracking System

    ALICE Collaboration, “Technical Design Report for the Upgrade of the ALICE Inner Tracking System”, J. Phys. G41 (2014) 087002

    2014

  55. [63]

    Expression of Interest for an ALICE ITS Upgrade in LS3

    ALICE Collaboration, “Expression of Interest for an ALICE ITS Upgrade in LS3”, Technical Report ALICE-PUBLIC-2018-013, Oct, 2018. http://cds.cern.ch/record/2644611

    2018

  56. [64]

    Charged particle detection performances of CMOS pixel sensors produced in a 0.18νm process with a high resistivity epitaxial layer

    S. Senyukov et al., “Charged particle detection performances of CMOS pixel sensors produced in a 0.18νm process with a high resistivity epitaxial layer”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A730 (2013) 115–118, arXiv:1301.0515

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    ALPIDE, the Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor for the ALICE ITS upgrade

    ALICE Collaboration, “ALPIDE, the Monolithic Active Pixel Sensor for the ALICE ITS upgrade”, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A824 (2016) 434–438

    2016

  58. [66]

    Performance and Moli‘ere radius measurements using a compact prototype of LumiCal in an electron test beam

    H. Abramowicz et al., “Performance and Moli‘ere radius measurements using a compact prototype of LumiCal in an electron test beam”, arXiv:1812.11426

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Design and Construction of a Cherenkov Detector for Compton Polarimetry at the ILC

    C. Bartels et al., “Design and Construction of a Cherenkov Detector for Compton Polarimetry at the ILC”, JINST 7 (2012) P01019, arXiv:1011.6314

    2012 arXiv

  60. [68]

    A calibration system for Compton polarimetry ate+e− linear colliders

    B. V ormwald, J. List, and A. Vauth, “A calibration system for Compton polarimetry ate+e− linear colliders”, JINST 11 (2016), no. 01, P01014, arXiv:1509.03178

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A Quartz Cherenkov Detector for Compton-Polarimetry at Futuree+e− Colliders

    J. List, A. Vauth, and B. V ormwald, “A Quartz Cherenkov Detector for Compton-Polarimetry at Futuree+e− Colliders”, JINST 10 (2015), no. 05, P05014, arXiv:1502.06955. 33/33

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

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