Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Generating high quality ultra-relativistic electron beams using an evolving electron beam driver

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Letting the drive beam focus as it propagates through plasma controllably lowers the wake phase velocity and traps background electrons, producing bunches with normalized brightness above $10^{20}$ A/m$^2$/rad$^2$.

desk verdict A credible new injection mechanism for plasma wakefields, with solid but partially calibrated PIC support; the beam quality numbers should be read with the 5% exclusion and the quasi-static model's fit in mind. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02689 v2 pith:4PONBPSI submitted 2019-09-06 physics.plasm-ph

Thamine Dalichaouch , Xinlu Xu , Fei Li , Adam Tableman , Frank Tsung , Weiming An , Warren Mori This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords plasmawakefieldaccelerationelectronself-injectionbeambrightnessblowoutregimeCourant-Snyderparameterswakephasevelocityparticle-in-cellsimulationloading
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

Plasma wakefield accelerators produce extremely large fields, but controlled injection of background electrons into the wake usually requires a sharp density ramp or an auxiliary laser. This paper proposes a single-beam alternative: as the electron drive beam focuses, its spot size shrinks and the plasma bubble behind it lengthens, which lowers the wake phase velocity until fast sheath electrons are trapped. Using particle-in-cell simulations, the authors show that at plasma densities around $10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ the injected bunches can have peak normalized brightness above $10^{20}$ A/m$^2$/rad$^2$, projected energy spreads below one percent over the middle of the bunch, and slice emittances near 10 nm. If correct, this gives accelerator designers a tunable, hardware-simple injection mechanism, with the Courant-Snyder parameters of the drive beam as the control knobs.

What carries the argument

The central identity is $\beta_\phi \approx 1 - \frac{dL_b}{d\sigma_r}\frac{d\sigma_r}{dz}$, which converts the spot-size evolution of the drive beam into a controlled drop in the wake phase velocity. The other load-bearing object is the phase-space map $d\xi_f/dz_i \approx \kappa\, d\sigma_r/dz_i$, a consequence of $L_b$ being a monotonic function of $\sigma_r$; it is what makes the injected bunch's longitudinal phase space flat enough for low slice energy spreads. The focusing schedule itself is parameterized by Courant-Snyder (CS) parameters ($\beta$, $\alpha$, $\gamma$), which describe the transverse beam envelope and its divergence and thus set how fast the spot shrinks and where the injection window opens and closes.

What would settle it

A concrete check: run two particle-in-cell simulations with identical drive beams, one with the spot size allowed to shrink and one with it held constant; if the constant-spot-size run also traps electrons, spot-size evolution is not the injection mechanism. Quantitatively, track the bubble length $L_b$ during an evolving-driver run and compare it with the value predicted from the non-evolving-driver curve $L_b(\sigma_r)$ using the instantaneous spot size; a lag longer than about a plasma period would refute the quasi-static assumption behind Eq. (2).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the wake phase velocity can be deliberately reduced by continuously focusing the drive beam. The bubble (ion-column) length $L_b$ is a decreasing function of the spot size $\sigma_r$ in the blowout regime, so while the beam shrinks the bubble grows; the phase velocity follows $\beta_\phi \approx 1 - \frac{dL_b}{d\sigma_r}\frac{d\sigma_r}{dz}$. When the corresponding $\gamma_\phi$ falls below the forward gamma $\gamma_{z,m}$ of the fastest sheath electrons, background electrons are trapped at the back of the wake, and injection stops once $\sigma_r$ is so small that $L_b$ saturates. The simulations demonstrate this in two focusing regimes, one dominated by vacuum diffraction with Courant-Snyder focusing and one dominated by the plasma ion column, and they show a one-to-one mapping between initial and final longitudinal positions that yields low slice energy spreads. Final bunches achieve projected energy spreads of about 1% or less over the middle section, slice energy spreads near 0.5 MeV, and normalized brightnesses of roughly $10^{20}$ to $10^{21}$ A/m$^2$/rad$^2$ for plasma densities near $10^{19}$ to $10^{20}$ cm$^{-3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the plasma bubble length depends only on the drive beam's instantaneous spot size, not on its history; if the bubble remembers earlier spot sizes or is stretched by the injected electrons themselves, the predicted injection window and brightness numbers would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At plasma densities around $10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$, the simulated bunches reach peak normalized brightness above $10^{20}$ A/m$^2$/rad$^2$ with slice emittances near 10 nm, putting them in the range sought for X-ray free-electron-laser drivers.
  • Because the injection window is set by the Courant-Snyder parameters, operators could tune charge and energy spread by adjusting the initial focusing of the drive beam rather than by engineering the plasma density profile.
  • The monotonic $L_b(\sigma_r)$ relation gives a one-to-one mapping from initial to final longitudinal position, which the paper uses to explain the low slice energy spreads over a large fraction of the bunch.
  • The method needs only one electron drive beam and no auxiliary laser or density ramp, so it simplifies the hardware needed for controlled injection in beam-driven plasma accelerators.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not in the paper, is to combine spot-size focusing with a mild density down-ramp; if the quasi-static mapping holds, the two contributions to the bubble growth should add, widening or fine-tuning the injection window.
  • The same phase-velocity-reduction principle may apply to laser drivers whose focal spot evolves through plasma refraction, but the analogy is not direct because lasers are not described by Courant-Snyder parameters; a testable variant would look for the same saturation signature in a self-focused laser wakefield.
  • The brightness values scale with $n_0$, so the advantage is most visible at high plasma density; an experiment at $10^{19}$ cm$^{-3}$ with roughly 100 kA, few-femtosecond drive beams would directly test whether the simulated slice parameters survive realistic beam asymmetries, which the paper probes only up to 15% spot-size asymmetry.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and demonstrates, via OSIRIS quasi-3D particle-in-cell simulations, a controllable injection scheme for plasma-wakefield accelerators in which the drive electron beam's spot size decreases during propagation, elongating the plasma cavity and reducing the wake phase velocity to trigger trapping. Two regimes are considered: case A, where the spot-size evolution is dominated by vacuum diffraction, and case B, where the plasma ion channel focuses the driver. The central diagnostics are the predicted injection window based on Eq. (2) and Fig. 2, the one-to-one mapping between initial and final beam slices expressed in Eq. (4), and the reported beam-quality metrics: normalized slice emittances near 10 nm, slice currents up to tens of kA, projected energy spreads below 1% over the middle of the injected beam, and normalized brightnesses above 10^20 A/m^2/rad^2 at densities around 10^19 cm^-3. The authors also note simulations with up to 15% spot-size asymmetry, which preserve injection with reduced brightness.

Significance. If the reported simulation results are robust, the proposed method is a valuable new addition to the PWFA injection toolbox: it offers a controllable way to lower the wake phase velocity without a density down-ramp or a second driver, and the achieved slice emittances and brightnesses are competitive with state-of-the-art injection schemes. Strengths of the paper include the systematic scan over the driver charge parameter Λ, the explicit comparison between non-evolving and evolving drivers, the quasi-static model connecting wake length to spot size, the presentation of full phase-space maps for the injected beams, and the numerical treatment of asymmetries. The work also makes a concrete, falsifiable prediction about FACET-II-class drive parameters, which is useful for experimental planning. The main caveats concern quantitative support for the analytical model and the sensitivity of the headline beam-quality numbers to post-simulation selection and resolution choices.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (3)] The second equality in Eq. (3) does not follow algebraically from the preceding expression. Using the paper's own definition β* ≡ σ0²/ǫ and the case A parameters (γb=20000, ǫn=41.9 c/ωp, β*=βi/(1+αi²)≈19.0 c/ωp, dLb/dσr≈-1.76), the printed formula γφ≈√[γb/(-dLb/dσr σ0/(2ǫn))] gives γφ≈2180, not the stated γφ≈5.2. The correct reduction with σ'r=-√(ǫ/β*)=-ǫ/σ0 gives γφ≈√[σ0/(2|dLb/dσr|ǫ)]=√[γb σ0/(2|dLb/dσr|ǫn)]≈5.2. Since Eq. (3) is used to locate the injection window in Fig. 3(a), this algebra needs to be corrected and the derivation shown explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (2) and Fig. 2(c)] The analytical prediction of γφ and the injection window assumes that dLb/dσr measured from non-evolving-driver simulations applies instantaneously to the evolving driver. Figure 2(c) itself shows that ΔLb in the evolving case A (dashed black) deviates from the quasi-static curves, an effect the text attributes to beam loading from injected electrons. The size of this deviation over the relevant σr range (0.81√Λ to 0.21√Λ) is not quantified. If the deviation is significant, the predicted γφ and hence the predicted injection interval in Fig. 3(a) would shift. Please either quantify dLb/dσr directly from the evolving simulation and compare it with the quasi-static value, or demonstrate that the injection window is insensitive to the observed ΔLb deviation.
  3. [Fig. 4 caption and beam-quality metrics] The headline values—projected energy spreads of 1.1% and 0.7%, brightness values above 10^20 A/m^2/rad^2, and the comparison across Λ—are computed after excluding approximately 5% of the injected electrons. The manuscript does not state how this exclusion is performed (e.g., which particles are discarded, whether the cut is on initial or final phase space, or whether it is applied separately to each slice). Because the central claim of 'high quality' depends on these metrics, the selection rule must be specified precisely, and a sensitivity check (for example, varying the retained fraction between 90% and 99%) should be reported. Without this, the quantitative claims are not reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General notation] The symbol γ is used both for the Courant-Snyder parameter and for the Lorentz factor; although γb is introduced for the latter, the distinction is easy to miss in Eq. (3) and surrounding text. Please use distinct notation or state the convention explicitly.
  2. [Fig. 1 caption] There is a typographical error: 'for for electron drivers' should read 'for electron drivers'. Please proofread the captions and title.
  3. [Fig. 4 units] The units on the brightness axes, Bn [(n0 cm^-3) A/m^2/rad^2], are confusing. Since n0 is the plasma density, this notation makes the plotted quantity depend on the simulation density. Please state clearly in the text or caption that the reported values are multiplied by n0 in cm^-3 to obtain the standard normalized brightness units.
  4. [Simulation setup] No resolution or particle-number convergence study is reported, despite the introduction of a customized finite-difference solver and the sensitivity of injection to numerical effects. A brief statement on convergence (grid size, time step, and macro-particle number) would materially strengthen confidence in the quantitative beam-quality numbers.
  5. [FACET II extrapolation] The sentence 'These parameters match the simulations presented here for n0 ∼ 10^19 cm^-3' is not documented. Please show explicitly how the anticipated FACET II drive-bunch current (50–150 kA), duration (~3 fs), and other parameters map onto the dimensionless quantities Λ, σz, and ǫn used in the simulations.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The analytic injection-window and phase-space 'predictions' are built from dLb/dσr and κ measured from the same quasi-static PIC scans that define the wake response, so the model output partly reduces to its own simulation input; the full-PIC beam-quality claims remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Near Eq. (2) and Fig. 3(a), in the section on calculating γφ]
    "We assume that dLb/dσr = d(ΔLb)/dσr depends only on the instantaneous spot size σr and, therefore, can be calculated directly from Fig. 2(c). ... From Fig. 2(c) we can see that dLb/dσr ≈ −1.76 for kpσr = 0.5√Λ and Λ = 6; therefore, γφ (≈ 5.2) can be significantly reduced from γb making injection possible."

    The quantity γφ presented as the wake phase velocity is obtained by inserting dLb/dσr read off the non-evolving-driver PIC scans in Fig. 2(c) into Eq. (2), and the injection window in Fig. 3(a) is then located by comparing this γφ with γz,m taken from the same Fig. 2(d) scans. The predicted onset and termination of injection are therefore crossings of two curves generated from the same quasi-static simulation family, not an independent derivation of injection for the evolving driver. The quasi-static input is the very quantity that the model is supposed to explain, so the 'prediction' reduces partly to that input.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Eq. (4) and the paragraph following it]
    "dξf/dzi ≈ dLb/dzi ≈ κ dσr/dzi (4) where κ is the average of d(ΔLb)/dσr over the range 0.3−0.7√Λ c/ωp when Λ=6 in Fig. 2(c)."

    The phase-space mapping that is claimed to agree with the full-PIC injected-electron data uses κ chosen as the average slope of the same quasi-static ΔLb(σr) curve that the model aims to predict. The agreement shown in Fig. 3(b) therefore tests only the locality assumption that the evolving wake follows the instantaneous non-evolving response; the slope itself is imported from the simulation family. The analytic mapping is thus partially calibrated to the wake-elongation behavior it is used to explain, rather than being a parameter-free prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central beam-quality claims (brightness, slice emittance, energy spread) are obtained from full OSIRIS PIC simulations and are not fitted to the analytic model, so the work is not wholly circular. However, the explanatory chain that identifies the injection mechanism is partially circular by construction. The wake phase velocity in Eq. (2), the injection window in Fig. 3(a), and the phase-space mapping in Eq. (4) all use dLb/dσr (or its average κ) measured from non-evolving-driver PIC simulations in Fig. 2(c). The sweeping claim that injection begins near σr ≈ 0.81√Λ and ends near σr ≈ 0.21√Λ is obtained by comparing γφ, computed from those measured slopes, with γz,m from the same surrogate simulations. This is not a first-principles derivation, but rather a re-expression of the quasi-static PIC data. The paper itself acknowledges that in the evolving case A the non-evolving ΔLb curve deviates due to beam loading by injected electrons, which further weakens the assumption that the injection-window computation applies directly. The full-PIC demonstration of high-quality beams remains independent support for the mechanism, which prevents the circularity from being total; the analytic model's 'predictions' are nevertheless partly fitted to the same data they purport to explain.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central mechanism is supported by full PIC simulations, but the analytic model is calibrated with simulation-derived slopes and relies on the quasi-static assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • dLb/dσr at kpσr = 0.5√Λ for Λ=6 = -1.76
    Used in Eq. (3) to compute γφ; value read from simulation curve in Fig. 2(c), not derived analytically.
  • κ (average of d(ΔLb)/dσr over σr range) = Not quoted, computed from Fig. 2(c)
    Used in Eq. (4) for the phase-space mapping; an average over a simulated function.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The OSIRIS quasi-3D PIC algorithm with the stated grid and particle numbers correctly captures the wake dynamics and injection.
    All quantitative claims depend on the fidelity of the OSIRIS simulations; the paper does not provide independent code verification.
  • domain assumption The wake (bubble length) depends only on the instantaneous spot size, not on the history of the spot size evolution.
    Stated before Eq. (2): 'We assume that dLb/dσr = d(ΔLb)/dσr depends only on the instantaneous spot size σr...'
  • standard math The standard blowout scaling and particle-crossing threshold from Lu et al. [34] apply to these parameters.
    Used to interpret the transition from linear wake to blowout and to define the spot scale √Λ c/ωp.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generating high quality ultra-relativistic electron beams using an evolving electron beam driver." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4PONBPSI

@misc{pith2026190902689,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generating high quality ultra-relativistic electron beams using an evolving electron beam driver},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4PONBPSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02689}
}
abstract

A new method of controllable injection to generate high quality electron bunches in the nonlinear blowout regime driven by electron beams is proposed and demonstrated using particle-in-cell simulations. Injection is facilitated by decreasing the wake phase velocity through varying the spot size of the drive beam and can be tuned through the Courant-Snyder (CS) parameters. Two regimes are examined. In the first, the spot size is focused according to the vacuum CS beta function, while in the second, it is focused by the plasma ion column. The effects of the driver intensity and vacuum CS parameters on the wake velocity and injected beam parameters are examined via theory and simulations. For plasma densities of $\sim 10^{19} ~\text{cm}^{-3}$, particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations demonstrate that peak normalized brightnesses $\gtrsim 10^{20}~\text{A}/\text{m}^2/\text{rad}^2$ can be obtained with projected energy spreads of $\lesssim 1\%$ within the middle section of the injected beam, and with normalized slice emittances as low as $\sim 10 ~\text{nm}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02689 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic of self-injection in PWFA. Simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Trajectories of the most energetic sheath electr [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The beam slice parameters of the injected electrons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tajima and J

    T. Tajima and J. M. Dawson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979)

    1979

  2. [2]

    P. Chen, J. M. Dawson, R. W. Huff, and T. Katsouleas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 693 (1985)

    work page 1985

  3. [3]

    M. J. Hogan et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 054802 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Blumenfeld, C

    I. Blumenfeld, C. E. Clayton, F.-J. Decker, M. J. Hogan, C. Huang, R. Ischebeck, R. Iverson, C. Joshi, T. Kat- souleas, N. Kirby, W. Lu, K. A. Marsh, W. B. Mori, P. Muggli, E. Oz, R. H. Siemann, D. Walz, and M. Zhou, Nature 445, 741 EP (2007)

    work page 2007

  5. [5]

    W. P. Leemans et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 245002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    At F ACET II, it is anticipated that drive beams with currents in the range of 50-150 kA and durations of ∼ 3 fs (1 µ m) will be available [35]

    In the results shown, peak brightnesses of at least /greaterorsimilar1021 A/m2/rad2 are achieved across all values of Λ for plasma densities of n0 ∼ 1020 cm−3 with slice currents ranging from 6 − 26 kA. At F ACET II, it is anticipated that drive beams with currents in the range of 50-150 kA and durations of ∼ 3 fs (1 µ m) will be available [35]. These par...

    work page

  7. [7]

    W. P. Leemans, B. Nagler, A. J. Gonsalves, C. T´ oth, K. Nakamura, C. G. R. Geddes, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and S. M. Hooker, Nature Physics 2, 696 EP (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Wang et al

    X. Wang et al. , Nature Communications 4, 1988 EP (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    N. A. M. Hafz et al. , Nature Photonics 2, 571 EP (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    Litos, E

    M. Litos, E. Adli, W. An, C. Clarke, C. Clayton, S. Corde, J. Delahaye, R. England, A. Fisher, J. Fred- erico, et al. , Nature 515, 92 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    E. Adli, A. Ahuja, O. Apsimon, R. Apsimon, A.-M. Bach- mann, D. Barrientos, F. Batsch, J. Bauche, V. B. Olsen, M. Bernardini, et al. , Nature 561, 363 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Steinke, J

    S. Steinke, J. Van Tilborg, C. Benedetti, C. Geddes, C. Schroeder, J. Daniels, K. Swanson, A. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, N. Matlis, et al. , Nature 530, 190 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. H. de Raadt, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanov, J. van Tilborg, C. G. R. Ged- des, C. B. Schroeder, C. T´ oth, E. Esarey, K. Swanson, L. Fan-Chiang, G. Bagdasarov, N. Bobrova, V. Gasilov, G. Korn, P....

    2019

  6. [14]

    S. Y. Kalmykov, A. Beck, S. A. Yi, V. N. Khudik, M. C. Downer, E. Lefebvre, B. A. Shadwick, and D. P. Um- stadter, Physics of Plasmas 18, 056704 (2011)

    2011

  7. [15]

    H. Xu, W. Yu, P. Lu, V. K. Senecha, F. He, B. Shen, L. Qian, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Physics of Plasmas 12, 013105 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    F. S. Tsung, R. Narang, W. B. Mori, C. Joshi, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 185002 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Barletta et al

    W. Barletta et al. , Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 618, 69 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Oz et al

    E. Oz et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 084801 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    A. Pak, K. A. Marsh, S. F. Martins, W. Lu, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 025003 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    X. L. Xu et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 035003 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Li et al

    F. Li et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 015003 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    L.-L. Yu, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, J.-L. Vay, C. Benedetti, C. G. R. Geddes, M. Chen, and W. P. Leemans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 125001 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    Hidding, G

    B. Hidding, G. Pretzler, J. B. Rosenzweig, T. K¨ onigstein, D. Schiller, and D. L. Bruhwiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 035001 (2012)

    2012

  17. [25]

    Katsouleas, Phys

    T. Katsouleas, Phys. Rev. A 33, 2056 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    Bulanov, N

    S. Bulanov, N. Naumova, F. Pegoraro, and J. Sakai, Phys. Rev. E 58, R5257 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    H. Suk, N. Barov, J. B. Rosenzweig, and E. Esarey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1011 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    X. L. Xu, F. Li, W. An, T. N. Dalichaouch, P. Yu, W. Lu, C. Joshi, and W. B. Mori, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 111303 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Martinez de la Ossa, Z

    A. Martinez de la Ossa, Z. Hu, M. J. V. Streeter, T. J. Mehrling, O. Kononenko, B. Sheeran, and J. Osterhoff, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 20, 091301 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    S. Y. Lee, Accelerator Physics (WORLD SCIENTIFIC, 1999) https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/3977

    1999 doi

  23. [31]

    Lifschitz, X

    A. Lifschitz, X. Davoine, E. Lefebvre, J. Faure, C. Rechatin, and V. Malka, Journal of Computational Physics 228, 1803 (2009)

    2009

  24. [32]

    Davidson, A

    A. Davidson, A. Tableman, W. An, F. Tsung, W. Lu, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, L. Silva, and W. Mori, Journal of Computational Physics 281, 1063 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    F. Li, P. Yu, X. Xu, F. Fiuza, V. K. Decyk, T. Dalichaouch, A. Davidson, A. Tableman, W. An, F. S. Tsung, R. A. Fonseca, W. Lu, and W. B. Mori, Com- puter Physics Communications 214, 6 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    X. Xu, F. Li, F. S. Tsung, T. N. Dalichaouch, W. An, H. Wen, V. K. Decyk, R. A. Fonseca, M. J. Hogan, and W. B. Mori, In preparation

  27. [35]

    W. Lu, C. Huang, M. Zhou, M. Tzoufras, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, and T. Katsouleas, Physics of Plasmas 13, 056709 (2006)

    2006

  28. [36]

    SLAC-R-1072 (2016)

    F ACET-II Technical Design Report No. SLAC-R-1072 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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