Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Virtual Pulse Reconstruction Diagnostic for Single-Shot Measurement of Free Electron Laser Radiation Power

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 Neural net reads free-electron laser pulse from one shot.

desk verdict A plausible and honest proof-of-concept for ML-based single-shot FEL pulse reconstruction, but the central accuracy claim for lasing shots is never tested against an independent FEL pulse measurement. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17644 v1 pith:QZG3OWVX submitted 2024-11-26 physics.acc-ph physics.ins-det

Till Korten , Vladimir Rybnikov , Peter Steinbach , Najmeh Mirian This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.ins-det
keywords freeelectronlasermachinelearningVPuRDvirtualdiagnosticsingle-shotpulsereconstructiontransversedeflectingstructurelongitudinalphasespace
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 a free-electron laser's photon pulse power profile can be reconstructed shot-by-shot from a single lasing-on electron-beam measurement, without ever taking a separate lasing-off shot. It does this with a machine-learning model, named VPuRD, that predicts what the electron beam's temporal power profile would have been in the lasing-off condition from 23 non-invasive machine parameters. Subtracting that predicted profile from the measured lasing-on profile yields the radiation pulse. The authors demonstrate the idea on data from a soft X-ray FEL beamline and show the learned predictor beats both the average of training shots and the immediately neighboring shot as a baseline. If correct, this removes the main practical obstacle to routine single-shot pulse characterization at high-repetition-rate FELs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the trained multi-layer perceptron mapping 23 non-invasive machine parameters to the electron bunch's temporal power profile in the lasing-off condition. The electron power profile is formed from longitudinal phase space images by projecting energy-weighted charge onto the time axis after de-jittering and cropping. Because the lasing-on electron profile is measured directly from the same phase-space image, the photon power is computed as the measured lasing-on profile minus the predicted lasing-off profile. A customized loss function, $L = \sum_i (x_i-y_i)^2 - \alpha \sum_i (x_i-\hat{y})^2$ with $\alpha=0.1$, discourages the model from regressing to the mean label $\hat{y}$, which is what makes the prediction useful for single-shot reconstruction.

What would settle it

Take a sequence of shots with lasing alternately on and off while all 23 machine parameters are held as steady as possible; for the lasing-on shots, compare the VPuRD-predicted lasing-off profile with the directly measured lasing-off profile from the paired lasing-off shots. A systematic difference in shape or peak position would show the training mapping does not fully transfer. A second check would be to retrain on lasing-off data taken by detuning the undulator instead of deflecting the beam and see whether reconstructed photon pulses change.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

VPuRD is a virtual diagnostic: instead of measuring the electron beam in the lasing-off state for every photon pulse, it learns the mapping from routinely logged machine parameters (bunch compressor monitor readings, bunch arrival times, charge, energy, and beam position) to the lasing-off electron temporal power profile. The profile is the charge per time slice weighted by slice energy, extracted from longitudinal phase space images taken with an X-band transverse deflecting structure. A multi-layer perceptron with one hidden layer is trained on 2,826 lasing-off shots, with a loss function that penalizes collapsing to the mean of the training set. At inference, the model predicts the lasing-off power for the same shot whose lasing-on phase space was measured, and the photon power is the difference. The paper reports that, on a 282-shot test set, predictions have lower mean squared error than the training mean and than neighboring shots, with differences statistically significant, and that single-shot reconstructions are consistent with the averaged lasing-off/lasing-on reconstruction that is the current standard.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the assumption that the electron power profile predicted from lasing-off training data is the same profile the electron bunch would have had in the lasing-on shot, even though lasing-off data were collected with the beam deflected at the undulator entrance, introducing betatron oscillations and an energy-axis shift that the paper only approximately corrects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Routine single-shot photon pulse reconstruction becomes possible without alternating lasing-on and lasing-off beam measurements, saving machine time and avoiding invasive changes to the beam.
  • The diagnostic is compatible with high-repetition-rate FEL operation because it uses only the standard non-invasive DAQ channels plus one lasing-on phase-space image per bunch.
  • VPuRD results suggest neighboring shots are not a reliable proxy for a given shot's electron beam profile, so ML reconstructions trained on diverse data are preferable to shot-to-shot baseline methods.
  • Reconstructed pulses show a power deficit at the bunch head that the authors attribute to FEL radiation slipping forward and being absorbed by electrons; this feature is consistent between the virtual diagnostic and the averaged standard reconstruction.
  • The method is expected to be more accurate at shorter wavelengths where slippage effects are smaller.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A further step the authors do not take is to test whether the same VPuRD training procedure transfers to other FEL facilities equipped with a transverse deflecting structure, requiring only a lasing-off training campaign.
  • A natural extension would be to predict the full two-dimensional longitudinal phase space rather than the projected power profile, which would allow pulse reconstruction to carry energy-spread information as well.
  • The largest risk not fully retired by the paper is that the lasing-off training data are taken with the beam deflected at the undulator entrance; an experiment that collects lasing-off data by detuning the undulator instead would test whether the predicted lasing-off profiles are biased.
  • One could use VPuRD's predicted lasing-off profile as a feedback signal for online tuning of bunch compression, since the model already maps BCM and BAM readings to the beam profile.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces VPuRD, a machine-learning-based virtual diagnostic for single-shot reconstruction of FEL photon power profiles at FLASH2. For each electron bunch, 23 non-invasive machine parameters and a longitudinal phase-space image from the POLARIX TDS are recorded. An MLP is trained on 2826 lasing-off shots to predict the electron-beam temporal power profile that would be measured if lasing were off; the predicted profile is subtracted from the measured lasing-on electron power profile to obtain the photon pulse profile. The lasing-off regression is validated on held-out data with MSE statistics, and the photon reconstruction is demonstrated on 574 lasing-on shots and compared qualitatively with a mean-based baseline in Figures 4 and 5.

Significance. If the central accuracy claim were validated, the paper would offer a practically valuable non-invasive single-shot FEL pulse diagnostic: a single lasing-on TDS measurement plus routine machine parameters would suffice for shot-to-shot temporal power reconstruction, avoiding repeated lasing-off interludes. The paper's strengths include a clearly specified data-acquisition workflow, an honest discussion of systematic effects (trajectory deflection, betatron oscillations, slippage), and a lasing-off validation that compares the MLP against both a mean baseline and neighboring-shot baselines with statistical testing. The proposed subtraction scheme is physically motivated and, if the generalization assumption holds, would constitute a useful advance for high-repetition-rate FEL facilities.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV.B / Fig. 5] The central claim that VPuRD 'provided a more accurate reconstruction of the FEL pulses' (Sec. IV.B, Fig. 5) is not supported by any comparison against independent ground truth. The 'Mean' baseline in Fig. 5(b) shares the same measured lasing-on profile and is not a reference; the figure only shows that the ML-based lasing-off prediction differs from the mean-based one. The authors should either compare reconstructed photon pulses with an established temporal FEL diagnostic (e.g., THz-streaking or an independent TDS-based pulse reconstruction) or, if no such reference is available, explicitly re-scope the claims from 'accurate reconstruction' to 'demonstration of a self-consistent subtraction procedure with a lasing-off model validated on electron-beam profiles only.'
  2. [III / IV.B] The generalization from lasing-off training to lasing-on inference is the load-bearing assumption of the method, and the manuscript's own text (Sec. IV.B) states that the lasing-off data were taken with the beam deflected at the undulator entrance, introducing betatron oscillations and a shifted energy-axis position, corrected only approximately from nearby energy measurements. Because the MLP is trained exclusively on the lasing-off, deflected-beam condition, a residual trajectory or energy-axis bias would corrupt the predicted lasing-off profile and, in turn, the photon reconstruction. The reported electron-profile MSE of 0.009 ± 0.005 (Sec. IV.A) does not bound this extrapolation error. The authors should quantify the trajectory-induced bias, for example by comparing predictions against lasing-off data taken with the undulator detuned but the beam undeflected, or by estimating the sensitivity of the reconstructed photon profile to the energy-axis correction.
  3. [IV.A / Eq. (1)] The hyperparameter choice α = 0.1 in the loss function (Eq. 1), the single hidden layer of 295 nodes, the Gaussian smoothing kernel radius of 10 pixels, the Otsu segmentation padding of 50 pixels, and the dropout of 0.5 are reported as fixed numbers without sensitivity analysis. Given the small training set (2261 samples) relative to the output dimensionality (567) and the deliberately anti-mean loss, the reported MSE advantage over the mean baseline could depend on these choices. A brief sensitivity study, or at least a statement of how α and the architecture were selected, would strengthen the claim that the advantage is robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV.A / Fig. 3 caption] The main text (Sec. IV.A) reports a one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's HSD test, while the Fig. 3 caption reports a Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction; the authors should state which statistical test was actually used.
  2. [I] The phrase 'eliminating the need for repeated lasing-off measurements' (Sec. I) is stronger than what the method delivers, since a one-time lasing-off training dataset is still required; the conclusion states this more moderately and the introduction should be reworded for consistency.
  3. [III / Table I] Table I lists 23 input parameters, but several rows (e.g., 'CHARGE in Gun' and 'BAM3') are described without enough detail to be fully reproducible; adding units and the specific DAQ channel names would improve reproducibility.
  4. [IV.B / Figs. 4 and 5] The paper should state explicitly why the reconstructed photon power in Fig. 4(b) is plotted in GW while Fig. 5 uses arbitrary units, even though the subtraction procedure appears identical; this affects how the reader interprets the quantitative pulse energies.
  5. [II] Minor typographical and formatting issues: 'by by' in Sec. II, '10−15 seconds' is missing a caret in the typeset text, and 'Turkey's HSD test' should be 'Tukey's HSD test'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: VPuRD's photon-power reconstruction is a supervised regression of lasing-off electron power followed by a fixed subtraction, not a fit to the target photon pulse.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The MLP is trained on 2826 lasing-off electron-bunch phase-space images to predict the lasing-off electron temporal power profile from 23 machine parameters; validation and testing are performed on held-out lasing-off shots (Sec. III). The photon power is then obtained by subtracting the predicted lasing-off profile from a measured lasing-on profile (Sec. IV.B, Fig. 1b), which is the standard energy-balance reconstruction and does not introduce any parameter fitted to the photon-pulse quantity. No equation defines the prediction target in terms of the model output, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction; the comparison against a mean-of-training baseline is a weak accuracy benchmark, but it is not circular because the baseline shares only the lasing-on measurement, not the model. The trajectory-mismatch caveat (betatron oscillations and shifted energy axis in lasing-off data, corrected only approximately) and the absence of an independent FEL-pulse ground truth are validity and robustness concerns, not circularity. The only self-citation, [15], introduces the conventional transverse-reconstruction algorithm and is not load-bearing for the ML claim, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the empirical mapping from machine parameters to lasing-off electron power, which is learned from data and only validated on lasing-off shots. The subtraction interpretation relies on the standard TDS reconstruction assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • neural network weights = trained values (not reported)
    The MLP weights are fitted to 2261 lasing-off samples with an adapted MSE loss.
  • loss penalty alpha = 0.1
    Chosen by hand to penalize regression to the mean in Equation 1.
  • hidden layer size = 295
    Chosen architecture hyperparameter.
  • Gaussian smoothing kernel radius = 10 pixels
    Used in de-jittering to locate peak power; arbitrary choice.
  • Otsu segmentation padding = 50 pixels
    Chosen for cropping background in phase space images.
  • dropout rate = 0.5
    Regularization hyperparameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The machine parameters (BCMs, BAMs, charge, energy, BPM) are sufficient to predict the lasing-off electron bunch temporal power profile.
    This is the core premise of VPuRD; the model is only as good as this mapping, and its generalization to lasing-on shots is unverified.
  • domain assumption The energy-weighted charge projection onto the time axis gives the temporal power profile of the electron bunch.
    This is the standard TDS reconstruction assumption, used in both training labels and lasing-on measurement.
  • domain assumption Subtracting the predicted lasing-off power from the measured lasing-on power yields the FEL photon pulse power.
    This ignores effects like electron energy loss modification beyond the radiation, but it is the standard basis for the transverse reconstruction method.
  • domain assumption The lasing-off suppression via beam deflection at the undulator entrance does not materially change the relation between machine parameters and the lasing-off profile after the energy correction.
    The paper acknowledges this deflection introduces betatron oscillations and an energy-axis shift; the correction is described only qualitatively.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Virtual Pulse Reconstruction Diagnostic for Single-Shot Measurement of Free Electron Laser Radiation Power." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QZG3OWVX

@misc{pith2026241117644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Virtual Pulse Reconstruction Diagnostic for Single-Shot Measurement of Free Electron Laser Radiation Power},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QZG3OWVX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17644}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate characterization of radiation pulse profiles is crucial for optimizing beam quality and enhancing experimental outcomes in Free Electron Laser (FEL) research. In this paper, we present a novel approach that employs machine learning techniques for real-time virtual diagnostics of FEL radiation pulses. Our advanced artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostic tool utilizes longitudinal phase space data obtained from the X-band transverse deflecting structure to reconstruct the temporal profile of FEL pulses in real time. Unlike traditional single-shot methods, this AI-driven solution provides a non-invasive, highly efficient alternative for pulse characterization. By leveraging state-of-the-art machine learning models, our method facilitates precise single-shot measurements of FEL pulse power, offering significant advantages for FEL science research. This work outlines the conceptual framework, methodology, and validation results of our virtual diagnostic tool, demonstrating its potential to significantly impact FEL research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17644 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic layout of the FLASH0 (injector and accelerator) and the FLASH2 beamline at DESY. Data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. De-jittering. (a) Electron beam phase space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. MLP model training performance. (a) Training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Single shot photon power reconstruction. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Multiple examples of single shot photon power [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    J. Zhu, N. M. Lockmann, M. K. Czwalinna, and H. Schlarb, Frontiers in Physics 10 (2022), ISSN 2296-424X, publisher: Frontiers, URL https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10. 3389/fphy.2022.903559

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [1]

    Introduction to Machine Learning for Accelerator Physics

    D. Ratner, Introduction to machine learning for ac- celerator physics (2020), 2006.09913, URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2006.09913

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  3. [2]

    Kaiser, C

    J. Kaiser, C. Xu, A. Eichler, A. Santamaria Garcia, O. Stein, E. Bründermann, W. Kuropka, H. Dinter, F. Mayet, T. Vinatier, et al., Scientific Reports14, 15733 (2024), ISSN 2045-2322, URL https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-024-66263-y

    doi:10.1038/s41598-024-66263-y 2024

  4. [3]

    Kaiser, C

    J. Kaiser, C. Xu, A. Eichler, and A. Santa- maria Garcia, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27, 054601 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.27.054601

    work page 2024

  5. [4]

    Fujita, IEEE Access9, 164017 (2021)

    K. Fujita, IEEE Access9, 164017 (2021)

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Cropp, L

    F. Cropp, L. Moos, A. Scheinker, A. Gilardi, D. Wang, S. Paiagua, C. Serrano, P. Musumeci, and D. Filippetto, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 26, 052801 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.26.052801

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    Behrens, F.-J

    C. Behrens, F.-J. Decker, Y. Ding, V. A. Dolgashev, J. Frisch, Z. Huang, P. Krejcik, H. Loos, A. Lutman, T. J. Maxwell, et al., Nature Communications5, 3762 (2014), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1038/ncomms4762

    work page 2014

  8. [9]

    R. Akre, L. Bentson, P. Emma, and P. Krejcik, in PACS2001. Proceedings of the 2001 Particle Acceler- ator Conference (Cat. No.01CH37268)(2001), vol. 3, pp. 2353–2355 vol.3

    work page 2001

Show all 33 references
  1. [10]

    Christie, A

    F. Christie, A. A. Lutman, Y. Ding, Z. Huang, V. A. Jhalani, J. Krzywinski, T. J. Maxwell, D. Ratner, J. Rönsch-Schulenburg, and M. Vogt, Scientific Re- ports 10, 9799 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-020-66220-5

    2020

  2. [11]

    Hanuka, C

    A. Hanuka, C. Emma, T. Maxwell, A. S. Fisher, B. Jacobson, M. J. Hogan, and Z. Huang, Scien- tific Reports 11, 2945 (2021), ISSN 2045-2322, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82473-0

    2021 doi

  3. [12]

    Rossbach, J

    J. Rossbach, J. R. Schneider, and W. Wurth, Physics reports 808, 1 (2019)

    2019

  4. [13]

    Beye and S

    M. Beye and S. Klumpp, eds.,FLASH2020+ - up- grade of FLASH: conceptual design report (Verlag Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, Hamburg, 2020), ISBN 9783945931301, URL https://bib-pubdb1. desy.de/record/434950

    2020

  5. [14]

    Christie, J

    F. Christie, J. Rönsch-Schulenburg, and M. Vogt, in 39th International Free Electron Laser Conference (2019), p. WEP006

    2019

  6. [15]

    N. S. Mirian,longitudinal phase space of the electron beam and pulse reconstruction at FLASH(2023)

    2023

  7. [16]

    Marchetti et al., in8th International Particle Ac- celerator Conference(2017)

    B. Marchetti et al., in8th International Particle Ac- celerator Conference(2017)

    2017

  8. [17]

    Craievich et al., in9th International Particle Ac- celerator Conference(2018)

    P. Craievich et al., in9th International Particle Ac- celerator Conference(2018)

    2018

  9. [18]

    Craievich, M

    P. Craievich, M. Bopp, H.-H. Braun, A. Citterio, R. Fortunati, R. Ganter, T. Kleeb, F. Marcellini, M. Pedrozzi, E. Prat, et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 112001 (2020), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.23.112001

    2020 doi

  10. [19]

    Wilksen, A

    T. Wilksen, A. Aghababyan, L. Fröhlich, O. Hensler, R. Kammering, K. Rehlich, and V. Rybnikov, in 16th International Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems(2018), p. TUPHA210

    2018

  11. [21]

    Otsu, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 9, 62 (1979), ISSN 2168-2909, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cy- bernetics

    N. Otsu, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 9, 62 (1979), ISSN 2168-2909, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cy- bernetics

    1979

  12. [22]

    Ansel, E

    J. Ansel, E. Yang, H. He, N. Gimelshein, A. Jain, M. Voznesensky, B. Bao, P. Bell, D. Berard, E. Burovski, et al., in29th ACM International Con- ference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2 (ASP- LOS ’24)(ACM, 2024), URLhttps://pyt...

    2024

  13. [23]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization(2017), arXiv:1412.6980 [cs], URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  14. [24]

    J. W. Tukey, Biometrics 5, 99 (1949), ISSN 0006- 341X, publisher: [Wiley, International Biomet- ric Society], URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3001913

    1949

  15. [25]

    Wilcoxon, Biometrics Bulletin1, 80 (1945), ISSN 0099-4987, publisher: [International Biometric Soci- ety, Wiley], URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3001968

    F. Wilcoxon, Biometrics Bulletin1, 80 (1945), ISSN 0099-4987, publisher: [International Biometric Soci- ety, Wiley], URL https://www.jstor.org/stable/ 3001968

    1945

  16. [26]

    Bonferroni, Pubblicazioni del R istituto superi- ore di scienze economiche e commericiali di firenze 8, 3 (1936), URL https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/ 1570009749360424576

    C. Bonferroni, Pubblicazioni del R istituto superi- ore di scienze economiche e commericiali di firenze 8, 3 (1936), URL https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/ 1570009749360424576

    1936

  17. [27]

    Roling, B

    S. Roling, B. Siemer, M. Wöstmann, H. Zacharias, R. Mitzner, A. Singer, K. Tiedtke, and I. A. Var- tanyants, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 14, 080701 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevSTAB.14.080701

    2011

  18. [28]

    Haase, A

    R. Haase, A. Jain, S. Rigaud, D. Vorkel, P. Ra- jasekhar, T.Suckert, T.J.Lambert, J.Nunez-Iglesias, D. P. Poole, P. Tomancak, et al.,Interactive design of GPU-accelerated Image Data Flow Graphs and cross- platform deployment using multi-lingual code genera- tion (2020), pages:...

    2020 doi

  19. [29]

    Rigaud, R

    S. Rigaud, R. Haase, C. Latechre, J. Soltwedel, M. Albert, P. Rajasekhar, and G. Ross, clEsperanto/pyclesperanto (2024), original- date: 2022-03-31T11:00:44Z, URL https: //github.com/clEsperanto/pyclesperanto

    2024

  20. [30]

    Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team, Py- Torch Lightning (2019), URL https://github.com/ Lightning-AI/lightning

    W. Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team, Py- Torch Lightning (2019), URL https://github.com/ Lightning-AI/lightning

    2019

  21. [31]

    J. Zhu, Y. Chen, F. Brinker, W. Decking, S. Tomin, and H. Schlarb, Physical Review Applied 16, 024005 (2021), publisher: American Physical So- ciety, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevApplied.16.024005

    2021

  22. [32]

    J. Zhu, N. M. Lockmann, M. K. Czwalinna, and 9 H. Schlarb, Frontiers in Physics 10 (2022), ISSN 2296-424X, URL https://www.frontiersin.org/ journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022. 903559

    2022 doi

  23. [33]

    Convery, L

    O. Convery, L. Smith, Y. Gal, and A. Hanuka, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 24, 074602 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.24.074602

    2021

  24. [34]

    Marchetti, A

    B. Marchetti, A. Grudiev, P. Craievich, R. Ass- mann, H.-H. Braun, N. Catalan Lasheras, F. Christie, R. D’Arcy, R. Fortunati, R. Ganter, et al., Scien- tific Reports 11, 3560 (2021), ISSN 2045-2322, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82687-2

    2021 doi

  25. [35]

    González Caminal, F

    P. González Caminal, F. Christie, R. D’Arcy, S. M. Jaster-Merz, R. Assmann, F. Burkart, B. Conrad, H. Dinter, M. Foese, J. Herrmann, et al., Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 27, 032801 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.27.032801

    2024

Pith tools

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