Acceleration rate enhancement by negative plasma density gradient in multi-bunch driven plasma wakefield accelerator

K. V. Lotov; N. V. Okhotnikov

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 12 references

Acceleration rate enhancement by negative plasma density gradient in multi-bunch driven plasma wakefield accelerator

T0 review · 2 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 Negative plasma density gradient can raise witness energy gain by 33% in a multi-bunch plasma wakefield accelerator.

desk verdict A clean simulation study reporting a new negative-density-gradient regime that boosts witness energy by ~33% in a fixed-length AWAKE-like section, but the headline number is computed from a test-charge estimator and needs a self-consistent witness before I'd trust the magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09581 v1 pith:SAPL7CAI submitted 2024-11-14 physics.acc-ph physics.plasm-ph

N. V. Okhotnikov , K. V. Lotov This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.acc-phphysics.plasm-ph

keywords plasmawakefieldaccelerationmulti-bunchdrivernegativedensitygradientprotonbeamself-modulationAWAKEwitnessenergygainphasecontrol

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a small negative gradient of the plasma density in the acceleration section of a proton-driven plasma wakefield accelerator can increase the maximum energy gain of a witness electron bunch by about 33% compared with a uniform-density plasma of the same length. The gradient shifts the wakefield phase relative to the driver bunches, so that tail bunches fall into a stronger decelerating phase and drive a larger-amplitude wave, while the wave phase at the witness location remains suitable for acceleration. The result is obtained with axisymmetric quasistatic simulations for a two-section layout with parameters typical of the AWAKE Run 2c experiment. The authors show that this phase-flattening mechanism works despite the partial destruction of the driver, and they conclude that a negative density gradient is a practical way to boost energy gain in short plasma sections.

What carries the argument

The central control element is the longitudinal plasma density profile in the second (acceleration) section, specifically a negative gradient with the density at the entrance nL higher than at the exit nR. This gradient acts on the relative phasing of the driver bunches and the wakefield: because the wakefield period grows as the local plasma density drops, the wave shifts backward with respect to the bunches, moving tail bunches into a stronger decelerating phase. The resulting increase in wave amplitude is accompanied by a flattening of the constant-phase lines in the accelerating region, which keeps the phase velocity at the witness close to the speed of light. The paper tracks zero-field points on axis to quantify the phase evolution and shows that the negative gradient tunes the transition between subluminal and superluminal parts of the wave.

What would settle it

A full three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulation of the optimum negative-gradient variant versus the uniform baseline: if the on-axis-field approximation deviates by more than about 10% from the self-consistent witness energy gain, or if a real experiment does not see a roughly 33% higher gain, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a multi-bunch plasma wakefield accelerator driven by a self-modulated proton beam, a negative plasma density gradient in the acceleration section can increase the maximum witness energy gain by 33% relative to a uniform plasma of the same length. The mechanism is that the density gradient changes the relative phasing of the driver bunches and the wake: a lowered density lengthens the wakefield period, shifting the wave backward so that tail bunches sit in a stronger decelerating field and drive the wave more efficiently. At the same time, the line of constant phase flattens at the witness location, preserving a phase velocity close to the speed of light and enabling acceleration. The paper demonstrates this for AWAKE-like parameters using on-axis wakefield distributions to estimate witness energy gain, and notes that the phase shift that initiates driver destruction does not spoil the accelerating structure.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted 33% improvement rests on estimating witness energy gain from on-axis wakefields without self-consistently including the witness beam's loading of the wave.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In a plasma section of fixed length, a negative density gradient can replace a stronger flat density as a means to increase witness energy gain.
The witness energy gain vs density-gradient scan provides a direct experimental diagnostic for the understanding of wakefield phase dynamics.
The optimum gradient depends on the bunch train structure and can be found numerically for other parameters, not just the AWAKE case.
The effect is only beneficial when the acceleration distance is much shorter than the dephasing length; for optimally designed long accelerators it is not advantageous.
Because the reported gains rely on an on-axis field approximation accurate to about 10%, real-witness experiments should expect quantitative but not qualitative differences.

Reading between the lines

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

A similar phase-shaping approach might be applied to other wakefield drivers, such as laser pulses or electron trains, to counteract dephasing over finite acceleration sections.
The controlled destruction of tail driver bunches could be used as a tool to tailor longitudinal wakefield profiles, not just to boost peak energy.
The 33% improvement likely depends on the ratio of bunch spacing to plasma wavelength; scanning beam charge and density would reveal how robust the enhancement is.
If the phase-flattening mechanism is confirmed experimentally, it would support the use of density profiling as a general method for wakefield phase control in plasma accelerators.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a simulation paper with a concrete, new claim – a negative plasma density gradient in the second AWAKE plasma section raises the maximum witness energy gain by about a third relative to a uniform plasma of the same length, by shifting the wakefield phase so that tail driver bunches drive harder while the phase at the witness location remains flat. The effect is absent from the cited literature, which has focused on positive gradients. The paper is worth reading.

What I like: they use LCODE, a quasistatic code that has been benchmarked against AWAKE data, and they run a clean two-parameter scan over entrance/exit densities. The diagnostics – phase lines, effective current, and the subluminal/superluminal transition – actually explain the mechanism rather than just presenting a number. They are also honest about scope: they say up front that the effect is unlikely to help an optimally designed accelerator, and they approximate the witness as a test charge, citing ~10% accuracy from earlier work.

The soft spot is exactly that approximation. The optimum variant places the witness at the point where lines of constant phase flatten, i.e., where the phase velocity is pulled to c. That is a delicate balance. A real witness with finite charge and emittance will beam-load the wake, reducing its amplitude and shifting the phase; the optimized window could move or close. The 10% accuracy estimate comes from other regimes, not from this one. So the direction of the effect is plausible, but the 33% number should not be quoted without a self-consistent witness simulation or an experimental check. I also note the absence of a convergence study and error bars, though the code is well-established, and the scan covers only one AWAKE parameter set.

In proportion, these are addressable, not fatal. The mechanism is read off the simulations and makes physical sense; I don't see a logical flaw. The paper itself flags the main caveats.

For whom: plasma-wakefield specialists, especially people working on AWAKE Run 2c, will want to know this. It is also a nice example of using density gradients to control wake phase in multi-bunch drivers. I would give it a serious referee: it is new, reproducible in principle, and honest. My main ask for the authors would be a self-consistent witness run (even one case) to show the 33% survives beam loading.

I'd mention it at our next group meeting, but I'd hold off citing it until the witness is treated self-consistently.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies, with the quasistatic axisymmetric code LCODE, a two-section AWAKE Run 2c configuration in which a long proton bunch is first self-modulated in a 10 m plasma section and then drives a wakefield in a second 10 m section with independently controllable plasma densities n_L and n_R at its entrance and exit. By scanning n_L and n_R, the authors find that a mildly negative density gradient (n_L=1.046n_0, n_R=1.039n_0) yields a maximum witness energy gain about 33% higher than the baseline uniform-density case (n_L=n_R=n_1). They explain the enhancement as follows: the lower density and negative gradient shift the wakefield phase so that the tail driver bunches land in stronger decelerating phases, increasing the wake amplitude, while the wave phase at the witness location flattens, keeping the accelerating region near a local optimum over a longer distance. The witness energy gain is evaluated from on-axis accelerating and focusing fields, without a self-consistently loaded witness bunch.

Significance. If the quantitative result is robust, the paper reports a practically useful and non-obvious effect: a small negative plasma density gradient can increase the acceleration rate in a fixed-length plasma section without immediately destroying the acceleration phase for the witness. The work is grounded in a well-established, experimentally benchmarked code (LCODE) and isolates the gradient effect by comparing baseline, flat, and optimum variants, which is a methodological strength. The phase-line diagnostics in Figs. 3-5 give a clear mechanistic picture. The main significance is for the design of experiments and short-plasma facilities like AWAKE Run 2c, where the acceleration distance is limited and the target is maximum witness energy rather than long-term stability.

major comments (2)

[Witness-energy approximation (paragraph after Fig. 1; Figs. 2-3)] The central 33% energy-gain claim is obtained by evaluating on-axis wakefields from simulations that contain only the proton driver and the seed beam; the witness is effectively a test particle. The authors correctly state that this method can typically predict the maximum energy gain with an accuracy of about 10%, but the optimum variant is not a typical case: it deliberately places the witness at the subluminal/superluminal transition where the phase lines flatten (Fig. 4(c), |kpξ|≈700). A real witness with the parameters of Table I (Ne≈3e9) will beam-load the wake, reducing its amplitude and shifting its phase at exactly the location where the field is intended to be most favorable. The approximation error may therefore not cancel when comparing the baseline and optimum variants, so the 33% ratio is not protected by a common-mode error. I request a self-consistent witness simulation for at least the baseline and optimum variants, or a quantitative estimate of the beam-loading-induced phase shift, before the quantitative claim can be accepted.
[Simulation setup and parameter scan (Table I, Fig. 2)] The quantitative result rests on a single parameter scan at a single numerical resolution, with no convergence study and no estimate of numerical uncertainty. The authors report grid steps of 0.01k_p^{-1} and about 300 CPU hours per variant; these may be adequate, but the flat maximum in Fig. 2 and the sensitivity of the phase-flattening mechanism to density variations of order 0.1% of n_0 make a resolution check important. At minimum, a comparison at 0.005k_p^{-1} or a local refinement around the optimum for one or two variants would show that the 33% improvement is not a numerical artifact.

minor comments (4)

[Section III (text following Fig. 3)] The phrase '33% higher that in the baseline variant' should read '33% higher than in the baseline variant'.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption refers to 'the almost invisible slope of thin dashed lines' but does not explicitly state what those dashed lines represent; a brief explanation in the text or caption would help the reader associate them with the phase velocity of the 400 GeV proton beam.
[Witness-energy approximation (paragraph after Fig. 1)] The claim that the field-based witness-energy estimate is accurate to about 10% would be easier to assess if the authors briefly indicated why the referenced regimes (Refs. 13, 58, 59) are comparable to the present case in terms of witness charge, beam loading, and transverse dynamics.
[Abstract and conclusion] The abstract and concluding paragraph state the effect as a general possibility, but the quantitative evidence is for one parameter set (AWAKE Run 2c); adding one sentence on the expected range of validity and on the witness-loading caveat would make the claim more precise without weakening it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 33% gain is a parameter-scan result from benchmarked simulations; the beam-loading approximation is a physical limitation, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central claim—that a negative plasma-density gradient in the AWAKE Run2c second plasma section can increase the maximum witness energy gain by about 33% over the uniform baseline—is obtained by direct numerical simulation with LCODE, which the paper cross-benchmarks against AWAKE measurements (Refs. 30–33). The optimum densities nL and nR are selected by scanning the (nL, nR) plane in Fig. 2, not by fitting a parameter to the target result; the 33% figure is the ratio of two simulation outputs evaluated with the same on-axis-field estimator for the baseline and optimum variants. The explanatory mechanism (tail bunches moving into a stronger decelerating phase, increased wave amplitude, and flattening of constant-phase lines near |kpξ|≈700) is diagnosed from the simulation fields after the fact and is not an input assumption. The self-citations to LCODE and to earlier phase-locking studies are supported by external AWAKE benchmarking and are not used to forbid alternatives or to import a uniqueness theorem. The acknowledged approximation of neglecting self-consistent beam loading is a physical limitation that could change the quantitative ratio in a real experiment, but it is not circular: the same estimator is applied to both variants, and neither variant is constructed to force the quoted improvement.

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

The central claim rests on the fidelity of LCODE simulations, the on-axis witness-energy estimator, and the realizable density-gradient profile. Two endpoint densities are optimized by scan; all other parameters are taken from the AWAKE Run2c design. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)

nL (plasma density at entrance of second section, optimum variant) = 1.046 n0
Chosen from a 2D scan over nL and nR to maximize the simulated witness energy gain (Fig. 2). The central 33% claim depends on this optimum.
nR (plasma density at exit of second section, optimum variant) = 1.039 n0
Same scan; the negative gradient nL > nR is the effect being demonstrated.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption LCODE, an axisymmetric quasistatic code, accurately models the beam-plasma interaction for AWAKE-like parameters, including ion motion and finite-radius effects.
Invoked in "We simulate the beam dynamics with axisymmetric quasistatic code LCODE..."; validation rests on cited benchmarking against AWAKE experiments (Refs 30-33), not on a proof in this paper.
domain assumption The witness energy gain can be estimated from on-axis accelerating and focusing wakefields without self-consistent beam loading.
Stated in the text: "we approximate the witness energy gain using the distributions of accelerating and focusing wakefields on the axis. This method can typically predict the maximum energy gain of a real witness with an accuracy of about 10%."
domain assumption The AWAKE second plasma section can realize a constant density gradient with independently set endpoint densities.
Based on the cited capability in Ref 57; the paper does not model the plasma source or gradient formation in detail.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Acceleration rate enhancement by negative plasma density gradient in multi-bunch driven plasma wakefield accelerator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAPL7CAI

@misc{pith2026241109581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Acceleration rate enhancement by negative plasma density gradient in multi-bunch driven plasma wakefield accelerator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAPL7CAI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09581}
}

read the original abstract

In a plasma wakefield accelerator driven by a train of short particle bunches, it is possible to locally increase the acceleration rate by introducing a small negative gradient of the plasma density. A regime is possible in which the gradient affects only the relative phasing of the driver bunches and the wave, keeping the wave phase behind the driver stable. With this technique, it is possible to increase the energy gain of the accelerated witness bunch in a plasma section of limited length.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09581 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Maximum witness energy gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. (a) Dependence of the witness energy gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Lines of constant wave phase for the baseline (a), flat (b), and optimum (c) variants in the 2nd plasma section. Only [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Lines of constant wave phase that correspond to local [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Effective current averaged over the wakefield period [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Joshi, S

1C. Joshi, S. Corde, and W.B. Mori, Perspectives on the gen- eration of electron beams from plasma-based accelerators and their near and long term applications. Phys. Plasmas27, 070602 (2020). 2F. Albert, M.E. Couprie, A. Debus, M.C. Downer, J. Faure, A. Flacco et al, 2020 roadmap on plasma accelerators. New J. Phys. 23, 031101 (2021). 3A.Pukhov, J. Meyer...

work page 2020
[2]

JETP Lett

Kiselev, Experimental investigation of the interaction of mod- ulated relativistic beams with a plasma. JETP Lett. 13, 354 (1971). 6T. Tajima and J.M. Dawson, Laser Electron Accelerator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979). 7P. Chen, J.M. Dawson, R.W. Huff, and T. Katsouleas, Accelera- tion of Electrons by the Interaction of a Bunched Electron Beam with a Pla...

work page 1971
[3]

Limpert et al, Multi-pulse laser wakefield acceleration: a new route to efficient, high-repetition-rate plasma accelerators and high flux radiation sources

Corner, J. Limpert et al, Multi-pulse laser wakefield acceleration: a new route to efficient, high-repetition-rate plasma accelerators and high flux radiation sources. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 234003 (2014). 9N. Kumar, A. Pukhov, and K. Lotov, Self-modulation instability of a long proton bunch in plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 255003 (2010). 10E...

work page 2014
[4]

16G.Xia, A

BC, Canada), p.4542–4544. 16G.Xia, A. Caldwell, Producing Short Proton Bunch For Driving Plasma Wakefield Acceleration. Proc. IPAC2010 (Kyoto, Japan), p.4395–4397. 17A. Caldwell, K. Lotov, A. Pukhov and G. Xia, Plasma wakefield excitation with a 24 GeV proton beam. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 014003 (2011). 18I. Sheinman, A. Petrenko, High-energy mic...

work page 2011
[5]

Petersburg, Russia), p.303–306. 19E. Gschwendtner et al. (The AWAKE Collaboration), AWAKE, The Advanced Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Ex- periment at CERN. Nuclear Instr. Methods A829, 76 (2016). 20E. Adli et al. (The AWAKE Collaboration), Acceleration of elec- trons in the plasma wakefield of a proton bunch. Nature561, 363 (2018). 21P. Mugg...

work page 2016
[6]

Balakirev et al, Excitation of wake fields in plasma by relativistic electron pulse with controlled number of short bunches

Uskov, V.A. Balakirev et al, Excitation of wake fields in plasma by relativistic electron pulse with controlled number of short bunches. Plasma Physics Reports20, 596 (1994). 23K. Nakajima, A. Enomoto, H. Kobayashi, H. Nakanishi, Y

work page 1994
[7]

Ogata et al, Plasma wake-field accelerator experi- ments at KEK

Nishida, A. Ogata et al, Plasma wake-field accelerator experi- ments at KEK. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A292, 12 (1990). 24E. Adli, V.K. Berglyd Olsen, C.A. Lindstrom, P. Muggli, O

work page 1990
[8]

Vieira et al, Progress of plasma wakefield self- modulation experiments at FACET

Reimann, J.M. Vieira et al, Progress of plasma wakefield self- modulation experiments at FACET. Nucl. Instr. Meth. A829, 334 (2016). 25P. Manwani, N. Majernik, M. Yadav, C. Hansel, and J.B. Rosen- zweig, Resonantexcitationofveryhighgradientplasmawakefield accelerators by optical-period bunch trains. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 051302 (2021). 26Y. Fang, V....

work page 2016

Show all 12 references

[9]

Malone et al, Seeding of Self-Modulation Instabil- ity of a Long Electron Bunch in a Plasma

Kusche, R. Malone et al, Seeding of Self-Modulation Instabil- ity of a Long Electron Bunch in a Plasma. Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 045001 (2014). 27M. Gross, J. Engel, J. Good, H. Huck, I. Isaev, G. Koss et al, ObservationoftheSelf-ModulationInstabilityviaTime-Resolved Measurements....

2014
[10]

Kusche, Generation of Trains of Electron Microbunches with Ad- justable Subpicosecond Spacing. Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 054801 (2008). 38P. Muggli, B. Allen, V.E. Yakimenko, J. Park, M. Babzien, K.P. Kusche, and W.D. Kimura, Simple method for generating ad- justable trains of pico...

2008
[11]

Spitsyn et al, Laser Wakefield Acceleration in a Plasma Channel

Minakov, R.I. Spitsyn et al, Laser Wakefield Acceleration in a Plasma Channel. Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute50, S715 (2023). 59D.D. Kutergin, I.K. Lotov, V.A. Minakov, R.I. Spitsyn, P.V. Tuev, and K.V. Lotov, Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Driven by XCELS Laser Puls...

2023
[12]

Leemans, Growth and Phase Velocity of Self-Modulated Beam- Driven Plasma Waves. Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 145002 (2011). 64J.Vieira, R.A.Fonseca, W.B.Mori, and L.O.Silva, Ion Motion in Self-Modulated Plasma Wakefield Accelerators. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 145005 (2012). 65J. Vieira, R...

2011

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Joshi, S

1C. Joshi, S. Corde, and W.B. Mori, Perspectives on the gen- eration of electron beams from plasma-based accelerators and their near and long term applications. Phys. Plasmas27, 070602 (2020). 2F. Albert, M.E. Couprie, A. Debus, M.C. Downer, J. Faure, A. Flacco et al, 2020 roadmap on plasma accelerators. New J. Phys. 23, 031101 (2021). 3A.Pukhov, J. Meyer...

work page 2020

[2] [2]

JETP Lett

Kiselev, Experimental investigation of the interaction of mod- ulated relativistic beams with a plasma. JETP Lett. 13, 354 (1971). 6T. Tajima and J.M. Dawson, Laser Electron Accelerator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267 (1979). 7P. Chen, J.M. Dawson, R.W. Huff, and T. Katsouleas, Accelera- tion of Electrons by the Interaction of a Bunched Electron Beam with a Pla...

work page 1971

[3] [3]

Limpert et al, Multi-pulse laser wakefield acceleration: a new route to efficient, high-repetition-rate plasma accelerators and high flux radiation sources

Corner, J. Limpert et al, Multi-pulse laser wakefield acceleration: a new route to efficient, high-repetition-rate plasma accelerators and high flux radiation sources. J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 47, 234003 (2014). 9N. Kumar, A. Pukhov, and K. Lotov, Self-modulation instability of a long proton bunch in plasmas. Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 255003 (2010). 10E...

work page 2014

[4] [4]

16G.Xia, A

BC, Canada), p.4542–4544. 16G.Xia, A. Caldwell, Producing Short Proton Bunch For Driving Plasma Wakefield Acceleration. Proc. IPAC2010 (Kyoto, Japan), p.4395–4397. 17A. Caldwell, K. Lotov, A. Pukhov and G. Xia, Plasma wakefield excitation with a 24 GeV proton beam. Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 53, 014003 (2011). 18I. Sheinman, A. Petrenko, High-energy mic...

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Petersburg, Russia), p.303–306. 19E. Gschwendtner et al. (The AWAKE Collaboration), AWAKE, The Advanced Proton Driven Plasma Wakefield Acceleration Ex- periment at CERN. Nuclear Instr. Methods A829, 76 (2016). 20E. Adli et al. (The AWAKE Collaboration), Acceleration of elec- trons in the plasma wakefield of a proton bunch. Nature561, 363 (2018). 21P. Mugg...

work page 2016

[6] [6]

Balakirev et al, Excitation of wake fields in plasma by relativistic electron pulse with controlled number of short bunches

Uskov, V.A. Balakirev et al, Excitation of wake fields in plasma by relativistic electron pulse with controlled number of short bunches. Plasma Physics Reports20, 596 (1994). 23K. Nakajima, A. Enomoto, H. Kobayashi, H. Nakanishi, Y

work page 1994

[7] [7]

Ogata et al, Plasma wake-field accelerator experi- ments at KEK

Nishida, A. Ogata et al, Plasma wake-field accelerator experi- ments at KEK. Nucl. Instr. and Meth. A292, 12 (1990). 24E. Adli, V.K. Berglyd Olsen, C.A. Lindstrom, P. Muggli, O

work page 1990

[8] [8]

Vieira et al, Progress of plasma wakefield self- modulation experiments at FACET

Reimann, J.M. Vieira et al, Progress of plasma wakefield self- modulation experiments at FACET. Nucl. Instr. Meth. A829, 334 (2016). 25P. Manwani, N. Majernik, M. Yadav, C. Hansel, and J.B. Rosen- zweig, Resonantexcitationofveryhighgradientplasmawakefield accelerators by optical-period bunch trains. Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 051302 (2021). 26Y. Fang, V....

work page 2016