Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Phase transition analogs in laser collisions with a dark-field setup

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the direction of quantum-vacuum signal photons emitted in a head-on laser pulse collision can switch from on-axis to off-axis like a phase transition, with the pulse waist ratio as control parameter.

desk verdict Convincing demonstration of a first- vs. second-order transition analog in vacuum emission; the precise critical exponent is softer than the headline, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12495 v2 pith:23ZG4F7O submitted 2024-11-19 hep-ph quant-ph

Holger Gies , Felix Karbstein , Lars Maiwald This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phquant-ph
keywords quantumvacuumnonlinearitylight-by-lightscatteringlaserpulsecollisiondark-fieldschemeemissionpicturephasetransitionanalogcriticalexponentannularflat-topbeam
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that in head-on collisions of two tailored laser pulses, the direction in which quantum-vacuum-induced signal photons are emitted can switch from on-axis to off-axis in a way that mirrors a phase transition. The beam-waist ratio of the two pulses plays the role of a control parameter: for a Gaussian pump the switch is continuous (a second-order analog), while for a flat-top pump the signal develops coexisting central and side peaks and jumps discontinuously (a first-order analog). Fitting the Gaussian case to a power law gives a critical exponent $\beta = 0.372 \pm 0.014$ and a critical waist ratio $w_{0,2,c}/w_{0,1} = 1.9121 \pm 0.0017$, consistent with an analytical infinite-Rayleigh-range estimate. This matters because it converts a tiny quantum-vacuum signal into a sharply located, background-suppressed angular signature that could be observed at petawatt-class laser facilities, and it shows that such signatures can depend sensitively on the detailed transverse beam profile.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the vacuum emission picture, which reduces the one-loop Heisenberg-Euler effective action to a space-time Fourier transform of the field configuration in the interaction region; the signal amplitude is computed numerically on an eight-parameter grid via FFT-based integration. The carrying identity is the power-law fit $\varphi_{\rm peak} = C[(w_{0,2}-w_{0,2,c})/w_{0,1}]^\beta + \pi/2$, together with the analytical formula $(w_{0,2,c}/w_{0,1})_g = \sqrt{\frac{1+\nu}{(1-1/e)(1-\nu)}\ln(1/\nu)}$ from the infinite-Rayleigh-range approximation, which locates the critical point. The dark-field probe, an annular flat-top beam with blocking fraction $\nu=1/4$ that has an on-axis focus peak and an annular far field, sets up the O(2)-symmetric collision whose Airy-ring structure determines whether the transition is smooth (Gaussian pump) or discontinuous (flat-top pump).

What would settle it

Rerun the Gaussian-pump scan at substantially higher resolution—for example 12–15 points per wavelength and larger transverse domains with boundary cutoffs at successive Airy minima—and compare the fitted $\beta$ and $w_{0,2,c}/w_{0,1}$ against the quoted values. If the extrapolated $\varphi_{\rm peak}$ does not follow the power law with an exponent in the interval 0.37–0.44, or if the flat-top pump's central and side peak coexistence vanishes under refinement, the central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the far-field main emission direction $\varphi_{\rm peak}$ of signal photons produced by an annular flat-top probe beam colliding head-on with a pump beam is an order parameter: it undergoes a phase transition as the pump-to-probe waist ratio $w_{0,2}/w_{0,1}$ is varied. For a Gaussian pump, $\varphi_{\rm peak}$ rises continuously from $90^\circ$ once the ratio exceeds the critical value, following the power law $\varphi_{\rm peak} = C\,[(w_{0,2}-w_{0,2,c})/w_{0,1}]^\beta + \pi/2$ with $\beta = 0.372 \pm 0.014$ and $(w_{0,2,c}/w_{0,1})_g = 1.9121 \pm 0.0017$; a conservative all-parameter discretization-error estimate gives $\beta = 0.417 \pm 0.083$ and $1.9065 \pm 0.0066$, and the analytical estimate from an infinite-Rayleigh-range approximation gives $\beta \simeq 0.4370$ and $1.9118$. For a flat-top pump, $\varphi_{\rm peak}$ jumps discontinuously and a coexistence region of central and side peaks exists, i.e., a first-order analog, with critical ratio $1.930 \pm 0.014$. The paper further claims that this transition does not display universality classes: the exponent varies with the annular blocking fraction $\nu$, although it approaches an approximately constant value $\beta \simeq 0.43$ for large $\nu$.

Load-bearing premise

The headline quantitative results assume the simulation's effective discretization error shrinks at least linearly as each of the eight grid parameters is refined, an assumption the authors call plausible but in need of case-by-case verification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dark-field collision geometry converts the tiny quantum-vacuum signal into a background-suppressed angular signature whose location can be predicted to a fraction of a degree.
  • The Gaussian-pump setup yields a sharp quantitative prediction: near the critical point the main emission angle grows as the 0.372 power of the excess waist ratio over roughly two orders of magnitude.
  • The flat-top pump predicts a coexistence interval in which the central and side emission peaks are simultaneously local maxima, a signature that would distinguish beam-profile classes experimentally.
  • Because transition order depends on the transverse pump profile, the signal's angular pattern can serve as a diagnostic of the beam structure actually realized in the interaction region.
  • The absence of universality classes implies that quantitative predictions must be made beam profile by beam profile rather than transferred between setups.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The flattened-Gaussian family interpolates smoothly between Gaussian and flat-top pumps, so mapping the transition order as a function of flattened-Gaussian order—an extension the paper leaves open—would reveal where second-order behavior gives way to first-order behavior.
  • The photon number in the shadow region converges more smoothly than the peak angle (exponent about 1.38 in the appendix), so a future analysis could use that observable to locate the critical point with less oscillatory bias.
  • The approximate constancy of $\beta(\nu)$ for large blocking fractions hints at an effective scaling regime that could be probed with a dedicated scan of $\nu$, potentially sharpening the analogy to universality.
  • A simultaneous fit of all eight discretization parameters in the Richardson model would settle whether the quoted error bars cover the true discretization bias; the paper notes such a fit is currently infeasible, so this is a concrete computational target.
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 studies all-optical signatures of QED vacuum nonlinearities in the collision of an annular flat-top probe with a counterpropagating pump. Using the VacEm code, the authors find that the main emission direction of the signal, characterized by the azimuthal peak position φ_peak, undergoes a phase-transition-like change as a function of the pump-to-probe waist ratio w0,2/w0,1. For a Gaussian pump the transition is reported as continuous (second-order-like), with a fitted critical exponent β = 0.372 ± 0.014 and critical waist ratio (w0,2,c/w0,1) = 1.9121 ± 0.0017. For a flat-top pump the transition is reported as discontinuous (first-order-like), with a coexistence region and a jump in the order parameter. The authors also describe improvements to the VacEm code, including single-precision operations and multinode parallelism, and present detailed convergence and error analyses in the appendices.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides an interesting and falsifiable example of a phase-transition analog in a concrete laser-collision observable, and it sharpens the earlier analytical work in Ref. [21] by showing that the order of the transition depends on the transverse pump profile. The paper has notable strengths: the analytical estimate for the critical point, Eq. (15), is parameter-free and agrees with the numerical critical point at the 0.1% level; the qualitative single-to-double peak behavior and the first- versus second-order distinction are convincingly documented in Figs. 3–6; and the authors are unusually explicit about the residual numerical uncertainties and the assumptions entering their error estimates. However, the precise value of the critical exponent is not established at the claimed precision, because the headline error bars omit part of the discretization error and the more conservative all-parameter estimate shifts the central value substantially.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III C, Eq. (12), Fig. 5] The central quantitative result, the exponent β = 0.372 ± 0.014 from the fit model Eq. (12), is not supported at the quoted precision. The fit excludes the five right-most points without a quantitative selection criterion, and the text states that the quoted errors “account for only a part of the discretization errors.” When all eight grid parameters are included through Eq. (C4) with the assumed linear convergence rate, the authors’ own estimate is β = 0.417 ± 0.083; the central shift of 0.045 is more than three times the quoted 0.014 statistical error, and the analytical estimate Eq. (14) gives β = 0.4370 ± 0.0038. The exponent therefore depends on the error model at a level comparable to the headline uncertainty. Please report the conservative estimate as the central result, or provide a convergence study that verifies the effective convergence rate and justifies the narrower error bars.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The all-parameter error estimate in Eq. (C4) rests on the assumption of a single effective convergence rate p_eff ≥ 1 for all eight grid parameters. The paper itself flags this as “plausible but needs to be verified case by case.” Appendix C also shows that the one-parameter Richardson fits (Figs. 10 and 11) are oscillatory and that, for φ_peak, the convergence rate cannot be accurately determined (the relative error in p is greater than 1). If p_eff < 1 for any relevant parameter, Eq. (C4) would no longer provide an upper bound and the true discretization error could be larger. Because this assumption directly enters the conservative exponent and critical-point errors, it needs to be either verified or replaced by a bracketing procedure that does not rely on unverified convergence rates.
  3. [§III C, Eq. (14)] The discrepancy between the numerical exponent and the analytical infinite-Rayleigh-range estimate should be addressed more directly. The analytical estimate Eq. (14) gives β = 0.4370 ± 0.0038, and the all-parameter numerical estimate gives β = 0.417 ± 0.083, while the headline simulation fit gives β = 0.372 ± 0.014. The critical point is robust, but the exponent is not. Since the paper uses the exponent as a quantitative characterization of the second-order transition, the authors should either demonstrate that the lower value survives a conservative error treatment, or explicitly present the exponent as consistent only within the broader all-parameter uncertainty and discuss the remaining tension with the analytical estimate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III C, Fig. 4] The figure caption and text identify curves by color (“topmost dark blue”, “lowermost light blue”), which is difficult to follow, especially in black-and-white printing; labeling selected w0,2 values directly on the curves would improve readability.
  2. [Appendix C] The text states that the spherical-coordinate mapping error for φ_peak exceeds the estimated total discretization error, and that the errors in Fig. 12 are sums of Δφ at both discretizations; this important caveat should also appear in the main text where the error bars in Figs. 5 and 6 are introduced.
  3. [Appendix A] The claim that single-precision operations give “no (additional) error for φ_peak” and a relative error of 10^-5 for N_hole is based on a specific test case; the text should state explicitly that this is a spot check rather than a general validation.
  4. [§III C] The fit model Eq. (12) has three free parameters (C, β, w0,2,c), but the correlations among them are not reported; with the fit range excluding five right-most points, a short robustness study showing how β changes when the upper endpoint of the fit range is varied would strengthen the exponent claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the power-law fit is openly a fit, the analytic estimate is a parameter-free prior derivation, and the VacEm code implements the QED effective action without fitting the order parameter.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The signal amplitude in Eq. (5) follows from the one-loop Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian Eq. (1), and the VacEm code evaluates this amplitude numerically from the input field configuration; no parameter of the simulation is fitted to the target observable. The power-law fit in Eq. (12) is explicitly introduced as a fit with parameters C, beta, and w0,2,c, and the paper consistently labels the resulting exponent and critical point as fit results rather than predictions. The analytic estimates in Eqs. (13)-(15) are taken from Ref. [63], which is a prior analytic derivation from the same QED effective action under stated assumptions (infinite Rayleigh range, paraxial beams); those assumptions do not include the numerical results, and Eq. (15) contains no fitted parameter. The agreement between the numerically fitted critical point and the analytic Eq. (15) is therefore a genuine cross-check between two independent implementations, not a construction. The self-citations to the VacEm code [1] and to Ref. [63] are load-bearing in the sense that they supply the computational tool and the analytic formula, but both constitute real evidence: [1] is a publicly described code implementing a stated algorithm, and [63] is an independent derivation whose inputs do not include the target exponent or critical point. The described limitations, including the assumption p_eff >= 1 in Eq. (C4) and the statement that the quoted errors account for only part of the discretization errors, affect the reliability of the error bars and the precision of the exponent, but they are uncertainty-quantification issues rather than circularity. No step in the paper's argument equates a prediction with an input by definition, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

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

No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced. The 'phase transition' is an analogy for the angular signal pattern, not a new physical entity. The central quantitative results rest on one fitted power law plus the standard QED effective-action framework.

free parameters (4)
  • C (power-law prefactor) = not quoted
    Fitted together with beta and w0,2,c in Eq. (12) to simulated phi_peak in the critical region.
  • beta (critical exponent) = 0.372 +/- 0.014
    Slope of the power-law fit Eq. (12) to the simulated main emission direction.
  • w0,2,c (critical pump waist) = 4.1736 +/- 0.0037 um
    Location parameter of the same fit; the direct discretized scan gives w0,2,c/w0,1 = 1.902 +/- 0.014, consistent but less precise.
  • nu (blocking fraction) = 1/4
    Chosen by hand to define the annular probe in the main simulations; the paper shows in Sec. IIID that varying nu changes the transition and exponent.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption One-loop Heisenberg-Euler Lagrangian expanded to leading order in F^2 and G^2, Eq. (1).
    Underlies the signal amplitude; two-loop corrections are estimated at about 1%, below the numerical target error.
  • domain assumption Vacuum emission picture: signal amplitude is the zero-to-one-photon transition, Eq. (3).
    Neglects multi-photon signal, which the authors argue is suppressed; this is the established framework of the code.
  • domain assumption Annular flat-top probe field formula Eq. (10) valid in the interaction region, propagated by the Maxwell solver.
    This input profile defines the dark-field probe; deviations from the ideal analytic profile would alter the signal.
  • domain assumption Infinite-Rayleigh-range approximation for analytical estimates Eqs. (13)-(15).
    Used only for cross-checking the numerical critical point and exponent; the numerical simulations do not rely on it.
  • ad hoc to paper Richardson extrapolation with effective convergence rate p >= 1 for all eight grid parameters, Eq. (C4).
    Basis for the claimed upper bound on total discretization error; the authors state it is plausible but must be verified case by case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase transition analogs in laser collisions with a dark-field setup." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/23ZG4F7O

@misc{pith2026241112495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase transition analogs in laser collisions with a dark-field setup},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/23ZG4F7O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12495}
}
read the original abstract

Laser pulse collisions are a promising tool for the investigation of light-by-light scattering phenomena induced by quantum vacuum fluctuations. Using the numerical code based on the vacuum emission picture and put forward in Blinne et al. (2019), we observe a strong dependence of the signal features on the transverse profiles of the colliding laser pulses in the interaction region. For a probe beam tailored such as to feature an annular far-field profile and a pronounced on-axis focus peak counterpropagating a pump beam at zero impact parameter, the signal's main emission direction can undergo the analog of a phase transition with the beam-waist ratio of the pulses serving as a control parameter. Depending on the pump's beam profile, this phase transition can be first order (e.g., for a pump with a flat-top far-field profile) or second order (e.g., for a Gaussian pump). From the simulation data, we determine the critical point and extract the corresponding critical exponent for the second-order transition of the main emission direction of the signal in the far field. For this, we improve the performance of the above numerical code, using the phase transition analogs as an example to illustrate the capabilities and limitations of the code and current workflows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the collision setup showing the annular flat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Transverse profile of the probe amplitude (aft) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Differential number of signal photons in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Differential number of signal photons in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Main emission direction of the far-field signal-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Main emission direction of the far-field signal-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: displays the value of the critical point in the beam waist ratio as a function of ν. We observe that the critical point indeed tends to infinity for ν → 0, implying that the phase transition disappears as expected for ν = 0. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ν 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.5…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Analytical estimate based on Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Spectral leakage is reduced by a suitable adjustment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: = (94.631 ± 0.038)◦ . In view of these difficulties in model fitting, we use φ ∗ peak only for error estimation, ∆φpeak = |φpeak − φ ∗ peak| . (C2) Equations (C1) and (C2) can be analogously used for other observables and their corresponding discretiza- [PITH_FULL_IM…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: = 1.38 ± 0.21. The oscillatory convergence behavior can be understood as an artifact of the discretization—primarily in the context of the FFT3 but also regarding the construction of a given observable. Increasing Lx,z does not just add points to the k space grid but,…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Main emission direction of the far-field signal-photon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Back-reflection in dipole fields and beyond

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Back-reflection in dipole fields is dominated by a four-wave-mixing channel; an optimized three-pulse planar setup gives ~1.5 discernible signal photons per shot with signal-to-background ~10^5.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [21]

    Karbstein and E

    F. Karbstein and E. A. Mosman, Phys. Rev. D 101, 113002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  2. [63]

    Karbstein, Quantum Vacuum Nonlinearities in Strong Electromagnetic Fields , Habilitation thesis, Friedrich- Schiller-Universit¨at Jena (2023)

    F. Karbstein, Quantum Vacuum Nonlinearities in Strong Electromagnetic Fields , Habilitation thesis, Friedrich- Schiller-Universit¨at Jena (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [1]

    Blinne, H

    A. Blinne, H. Gies, F. Karbstein, C. Kohlf ¨urst, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. D 99, 016006 (2019)

    2019

  4. [2]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  5. [3]

    Weisskopf, Kong

    V. Weisskopf, Kong. Dans. Vid. Selsk. Mat. Fys. Medd 14, 24 (1936)

    1936

  6. [4]

    Dittrich and H

    W. Dittrich and H. Gies, Probing the Quantum Vacuum: Perturbative Effective Action Approach in Quantum Elec- trodynamics and Its Application, Springer Tracts in Mod- ern Physics, Vol. 166 (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    2000

  7. [5]

    G. V. Dunne, in From Fields to Strings: Circumnavigat- ing Theoretical Physics: Ian Kogan Memorial Collection (In 3 Volumes) (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005) pp. 445–522

    2005

  8. [6]

    Di Piazza, K

    A. Di Piazza, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 010403 (2008)

    2008

Show all 89 references
  1. [7]

    Battesti and C

    R. Battesti and C. Rizzo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 76, 016401 (2013)

    2013

  2. [8]

    King and T

    B. King and T. Heinzl, High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 4 (2016), 10.1017/hpl.2016.1

    2016 doi

  3. [9]

    Karbstein, Particles 3, 39 (2020)

    F. Karbstein, Particles 3, 39 (2020)

    2020

  4. [10]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rep. 1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  5. [11]

    Euler and B

    H. Euler and B. Kockel, Naturwissenschaften 23, 246 (1935)

    1935

  6. [12]

    Karplus and M

    R. Karplus and M. Neuman, Phys. Rev. 80, 380 (1950)

    1950

  7. [13]

    Karplus and M

    R. Karplus and M. Neuman, Phys. Rev. 83, 776 (1951)

    1951

  8. [14]

    De Tollis, Nuovo Cimento 35, 1182 (1965)

    B. De Tollis, Nuovo Cimento 35, 1182 (1965)

    1965

  9. [15]

    Lundstr ¨om, G

    E. Lundstr ¨om, G. Brodin, J. Lundin, M. Marklund, R. Bingham, J. Collier, J. T. Mendon¸ ca, and P. Nor- reys, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 083602 (2006)

    2006

  10. [16]

    B. King, A. Di Piazza, and C. H. Keitel, Nat. Photonics 4, 92 (2010)

    2010

  11. [17]

    King and C

    B. King and C. H. Keitel, New J. Phys.14, 103002 (2012)

    2012

  12. [18]

    Karbstein, H

    F. Karbstein, H. Gies, M. Reuter, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. D 92, 071301 (2015)

    2015

  13. [19]

    Ataman, Phys

    S. Ataman, Phys. Rev. A 97, 063811 (2018)

    2018

  14. [20]

    Aboushelbaya et al

    R. Aboushelbaya et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 113604 (2019)

    2019

  15. [22]

    C. K. Dumlu, Y. Nakamiya, and K. A. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 106, 116001 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    Karbstein, D

    F. Karbstein, D. Ullmann, E. A. Mosman, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 061802 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Sundqvist and F

    C. Sundqvist and F. Karbstein, Phys. Rev. D 108, 056028 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Formanek, J

    M. Formanek, J. P. Palastro, D. Ramsey, S. Weber, and A. Di Piazza, Phys. Rev. D 109, 056009 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    A. J. Macleod and B. King, Phys. Rev. A 110, 032216 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Sch ¨utze, L

    F. Sch ¨utze, L. Doyle, J. Schreiber, M. Zepf, and F. Karb- stein, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096009 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Peatross, J

    J. Peatross, J. L. Chaloupka, and D. D. Meyerhofer, Opt. Lett. 19, 942 (1994)

    1994

  22. [29]

    M. Zepf, G. D. Tsakiris, G. Pretzler, I. Watts, D. M. Chambers, P. A. Norreys, U. Andiel, A. E. Dangor, K. Eidmann, C. Gahn, A. Machacek, J. S. Wark, and K. Witte, Phys. Rev. E 58, R5253 (1998)

    1998

  23. [30]

    Ahmadiniaz et al

    N. Ahmadiniaz et al. , (2024), arXiv:2405.18063 [physics.ins-det]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045001 (2022)

    2022

  25. [32]

    H. Gies, F. Karbstein, and C. Kohlf ¨urst, Phys. Rev. D 97, 036022 (2018)

    2018

  26. [33]

    B. King, H. Hu, and B. Shen, Phys. Rev. A 98, 023817 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Karbstein, C

    F. Karbstein, C. Sundqvist, K. S. Schulze, I. Uschmann, H. Gies, and G. G. Paulus, New J. Phys. 23, 095001 (2021)

    2021

  28. [35]

    Grismayer, R

    T. Grismayer, R. Torres, P. Carneiro, F. Cruz, R. Fon- seca, and L. O. Silva, New J. Phys. 23, 095005 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Lindner, B

    A. Lindner, B. ¨Olmez, and H. Ruhl, Software Impacts 15, 100481 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    A. M. Lindner, Simulating the nonlinear QED vacuum , Ph.D. thesis, Munich U. (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Galtsov and V

    D. Galtsov and V. Skobelev, Phys. Lett. B 36, 238 (1971)

    1971

  32. [39]

    Karbstein and R

    F. Karbstein and R. Shaisultanov, Phys. Rev. D 91, 113002 (2015)

    2015

  33. [40]

    Sainte-Marie, L

    A. Sainte-Marie, L. Fedeli, N. Za ¨ım, F. Karbstein, and H. Vincenti, New J. Phys. 24, 065005 (2022)

    2022

  34. [41]

    A. V. Berezin and A. M. Fedotov, Phys. Rev. D 110, 016009 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    Karbstein, A

    F. Karbstein, A. Blinne, H. Gies, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 091802 (2019)

    2019

  36. [43]

    Valialshchikov, F

    M. Valialshchikov, F. Karbstein, D. Seipt, and M. Zepf, Phys. Rev. D 110, 076009 (2024)

    2024

  37. [44]

    Maiwald, All-Optical Signatures of Quantum Vacuum Nonlinearities in Numerical Simulations of Unexplored Regimes, M.Sc

    L. Maiwald, All-Optical Signatures of Quantum Vacuum Nonlinearities in Numerical Simulations of Unexplored Regimes, M.Sc. thesis, Friedrich-Schiller-Universit ¨at Jena, Jena (2023)

    2023

  38. [45]

    L. P. Kadanoff, in From Order To Chaos: Essays: Criti- cal, Chaotic and Otherwise (World Scientific, Singapore,

  39. [46]

    K. G. Wilson and J. B. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12, 75 (1974)

    1974

  40. [47]

    Zinn-Justin, Int

    J. Zinn-Justin, Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys. 113, 1 (2002)

    2002

  41. [48]

    M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 9 (1993)

    1993

  42. [49]

    Gundlach and J

    C. Gundlach and J. M. Martin-Garcia, Living Rev. Rel- ativity 10, 5 (2007)

    2007

  43. [50]

    Gies and G

    H. Gies and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 090406 (2016)

    2016

  44. [51]

    Gies and G

    H. Gies and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rev. D 95, 016001 (2017)

    2017

  45. [52]

    Ilderton, G

    A. Ilderton, G. Torgrimsson, and J. W ˚ ardh, Phys. Rev. D 92, 065001 (2015)

    2015

  46. [53]

    S. P. Gavrilov, D. M. Gitman, and A. A. Shishmarev, Phys. Rev. D 99, 116014 (2019)

    2019

  47. [54]

    T. C. Adorno, Z.-W. He, S. P. Gavrilov, and D. M. Gitman, J. High Energy Phys. 12, 046 (2021)

    2021

  48. [55]

    T. W. Baumgarte, B. Br ¨ugmann, D. Cors, C. Gundlach, D. Hilditch, A. Khirnov, T. Ledvinka, S. Renkhoff, and 16 I. S. Fern´ andez, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 181401 (2023)

    2023

  49. [56]

    D. Cors, S. Renkhoff, H. R. R ¨uter, D. Hilditch, and B. Br¨ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124021 (2023)

    2023

  50. [57]

    Marouda, D

    K. Marouda, D. Cors, H. R. R ¨uter, F. Atteneder, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124042 (2024)

    2024

  51. [58]

    Degli Esposti and G

    G. Degli Esposti and G. Torgrimsson, Phys. Rev. D 110, 076017 (2024), arXiv:2312.17186 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Schwinger, Phys

    J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  53. [60]

    V. I. Ritus, Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 774 (1975)

    1975

  54. [61]

    Dittrich and M

    W. Dittrich and M. Reuter, Effective Lagrangians in Quantum Electrodynamics, Vol. 220 (Springer, New York, 1985)

    1985

  55. [62]

    Gies and F

    H. Gies and F. Karbstein, J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 108 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    Efnusheva, A

    D. Efnusheva, A. Cholakoska, and A. Tentov, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol. 9, 151 (2017)

    2017

  57. [65]

    “FFTW,” https://www.fftw.org/

  58. [66]

    Frigo and S

    M. Frigo and S. Johnson, Proc. IEEE 93, 216 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    Karbstein and E

    F. Karbstein and E. A. Mosman, Phys. Rev. D 100, 033002 (2019)

    2019

  60. [68]

    Di Piazza, K

    A. Di Piazza, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. D 72, 085005 (2005)

    2005

  61. [69]

    A. M. Fedotov and N. B. Narozhny, Phys. Lett. A 362, 1 (2007)

    2007

  62. [70]

    H. Gies, F. Karbstein, and R. Shaisultanov, Phys. Rev. D 90, 033007 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    B¨ohl, B

    P. B¨ohl, B. King, and H. Ruhl, Phys. Rev. A 92, 032115 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    H. Gies, F. Karbstein, and N. Seegert, Phys. Rev. D 93, 085034 (2016)

    2016

  65. [73]

    P. V. Sasorov, F. Pegoraro, T. Z. h. Esirkepov, and S. V. Bulanov, New J. Phys. 23, 105003 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Gori, Opt

    F. Gori, Opt. Commun. 107, 335 (1994)

    1994

  67. [75]

    L. F. Richardson, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 210, 307 (1911)

    1911

  68. [76]

    Blinne, S

    A. Blinne, S. Kuschel, S. Tietze, and M. Zepf, J. Comput. Phys. 1, 100019 (2019)

    2019

  69. [77]

    “Python,” https://www.python.org/

  70. [78]

    “pyFFTW,” https://github.com/pyFFTW/pyFFTW

  71. [79]

    “Mpi4py,” https://github.com/mpi4py/mpi4py ()

  72. [80]

    Mpi4py-fft,

    “Mpi4py-fft,” https://github.com/mpi4py/mpi4py-fft ()

  73. [81]

    Fast parallel multidimensional FFT using advanced MPI,

    L. Dalcin, M. Mortensen, and D. E. Keyes, “Fast parallel multidimensional FFT using advanced MPI,” (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    “PFFT,” https://github.com/mpip/pfft

  75. [83]

    Pippig, SIAM J

    M. Pippig, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 35, C213 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    P3DFFT++,

    “P3DFFT++,” https://github.com/sdsc/p3dfft.3

  77. [85]

    Pekurovsky, SIAM J

    D. Pekurovsky, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 34, C192 (2012)

    2012

  78. [86]

    FluidFFT,

    “FluidFFT,” https://github.com/fluiddyn/fluidfft

  79. [87]

    A. V. Mohanan, C. Bonamy, and P. Augier, J. Open Res. Software 7, 10 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    “HeFFTe,” https://github.com/af-ayala/heffte

  81. [89]

    Ayala, S

    A. Ayala, S. Tomov, A. Haidar, and J. Dongarra, in Computational Science – ICCS 2020 , edited by V. V. Krzhizhanovskaya, G. Z´ avodszky, M. H. Lees, J. J. Don- garra, P. M. A. Sloot, S. Brissos, and J. Teixeira (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2020) pp. 262– 275

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.