Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Performance envelope of laser wakefield accelerators

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Across more than 50 published experiments, total electron beam energy in laser wakefield accelerators grows almost linearly with laser energy, making conversion efficiency nearly constant.

desk verdict Useful empirical scalings for LWFA design, but the 100 GeV projection over-extrapolates and misstates the required density. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14311 v2 pith:JEGKPFQZ submitted 2024-12-18 physics.acc-ph physics.plasm-ph

Lance Labun , Miguel Gracia-Linares , Ou Z. Labun , Stephen V. Milton This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords laserwakefieldaccelerationscalinglawsbeamenergypower-lawfitsperformanceenvelopeplasmadensityconversionefficiencyhigh-energylasers
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 assembles data from more than 50 published laser wakefield accelerator experiments and fits power laws to relate laser and plasma inputs to electron beam outputs. The central result is that the total energy in the accelerated beam, defined as centroid energy times beam charge, scales as $E_b \propto E_\ell^{0.9\pm0.05}$, almost linearly with laser energy. That makes the laser-to-beam conversion efficiency nearly constant at about 0.3% across the tested range, so larger driver lasers should pay off without diminishing returns. Using these fits, the authors project that a single 100 GeV stage would need an 87 PW laser for average performance and about 30 PW for an optimized, envelope-class performance, both at electron densities below $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is a least-squares power-law fit $y = C x^\beta$ applied to log-transformed experimental data, weighted by the number of shots reported in each experiment. The central outcome metric is the total beam energy $E_b = \int E (dQ/dE)\,dE$, approximated as $E_b \simeq E_e Q_b$ for a narrow peak, using the reported centroid energy and charge extracted from each paper. A 95% upper prediction interval on the same fits defines the 'performance envelope.' The dataset spans pulse durations from 8 to 160 fs, laser energies from 26 mJ to 130 J, and densities typically above $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, all at 800 nm or 1 $\mu$m wavelength.

What would settle it

Measure the total beam energy of a single-stage laser wakefield accelerator driven by a ~1 kJ, ~100 fs laser at a density near $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$; if the result lies well below the $E_b \simeq 1.7$ J predicted by Eq. (10), or if the conversion efficiency drops by more than a factor of two from the 0.3% seen at few-joule lasers, the near-linear scaling and its 100 GeV extrapolation would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors' core discovery is an empirical scaling law for the usable beam energy of a laser wakefield accelerator: $E_b[\mathrm{mJ}] = (3.3 \pm 0.2)(E_\ell[\mathrm{J}])^{0.9 \pm 0.05}$ for average performance, with a 95% upper prediction interval $E_b[\mathrm{mJ}] \simeq (30^{+12}_{-9})(E_\ell[\mathrm{J}])^{1.09 \pm 0.14}$. The near-unity exponent means the efficiency $E_b/E_\ell$ is almost independent of laser energy: $E_b/E_\ell \simeq 0.003\,(E_\ell[\mathrm{J}])^{-0.1}$. The paper argues this supports investment in higher-energy driver lasers, because the plasma can be adapted to the laser without a loss in conversion efficiency. It also finds that electron energy scales as $E_e \propto E_\ell^{0.65}$, closer to a 2/3 power, and that laser pulse energy predicts electron energy more accurately than laser peak power. These scalings are presented as useful engineering guidelines, not as a replacement for models.

Load-bearing premise

The fits are derived from experiments with laser energies up to about 130 J and densities mostly above $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$, and the projection to a 100 GeV stage assumes these power laws continue unchanged at 18 kJ, 87 PW, and densities below $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 100 GeV LWFA stage is projected to require an 87 PW, 18 kJ laser for average performance, or roughly a 30 PW laser if operating near the upper prediction interval, with electron density below $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$.
  • A 1 TeV stage would call for an exawatt-scale laser with about 600 kJ of pulse energy.
  • Conversion efficiency stays near 0.3% (average) as laser energy grows, so higher-energy drivers do not incur diminishing returns.
  • Observed scalings do not reproduce the 'matched' bubble-regime model; laser pulse energy is a better predictor of electron energy than peak power.
  • The upper prediction interval suggests well-designed systems can reach about 3% conversion efficiency into the usable beam component.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the near-linear scaling survives to higher energies, the cost per joule of beam energy will be set mainly by laser construction and repetition-rate costs, making high-average-power laser development the key economic lever.
  • The dataset cannot test wavelength scaling because all points are at 800 nm or 1 $\mu$m; a proposed shift to other driver wavelengths remains unvalidated by this dataset.
  • The extrapolation to 18 kJ and $n_e<10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$ is a two-order-of-magnitude leap from the fitted range; a single intermediate test at a few kilojoules would substantially stiffen the claim.
  • Because beam energy is defined from the quasi-monoenergetic peak, the scaling likely undercounts total accelerated charge and would change if injection schemes that funnel more charge into the usable peak are developed.
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. This manuscript compiles data from more than 50 published laser wakefield accelerator (LWFA) experiments, using an AI-based extraction tool, and fits power-law scalings of electron energy and total beam energy against plasma density, laser power, and laser energy. The principal in-sample result is Eq. (10): the total beam energy scales as E_b [mJ] = (3.3±0.2)(E_l [J])^{0.9±0.05}, implying a conversion efficiency that depends only weakly on laser energy. The paper also derives scalings E_e ∝ n_e^{-0.86}, E_e ∝ P^{0.81}, and E_e ∝ E_l^{0.65}, compares them with literature models, and uses them to project that a 100 GeV LWFA stage would require an 87 PW, 18 kJ laser (or ~30 PW when using the 95% upper prediction interval) at an electron density below 10^17 cm^-3.

Significance. The near-linear scaling of total beam energy with laser energy is a potentially valuable empirical result for prioritizing laser development, and the paper's systematic compilation of heterogeneous experimental data, with explicit uncertainties on the fitted exponents, is a strength. The analysis is transparent about the difficulty of charge definitions and the use of AI extraction, and it validates the extraction on a human-analyzed subset. The 100 GeV projection, however, currently goes beyond what the data can support, because it relies on the simultaneous extrapolation of two univariate fits into a regime (E_l ~ 18 kJ, n_e ~ 4×10^15 cm^-3) far outside the fitted range. The in-sample scaling is the most defensible contribution; the projection needs substantial revision or a strong out-of-sample test.

major comments (3)
  1. [VI, abstract] The 100 GeV projection combines Eq. (9) (E_e ∝ E_l^{0.65}) with Eq. (7) (E_e ∝ n_e^{-0.86}) to infer E_l ≈ 18 kJ and n_e ≈ 4×10^15 cm^-3. This operating point lies roughly 140× above the maximum fitted laser energy (130 J) and roughly 25× below the typical lower end of the fitted densities, which are mostly ≥10^17 cm^-3. The two power laws are univariate fits and are never validated as a joint model, so nothing in the dataset tests their simultaneous applicability. The abstract's statement that the stage operates 'at electron density <10^17/cm^3' is technically true but misleading, since the required density is about 4×10^15 cm^-3, an order of magnitude below the support of the data. This unvalidated joint extrapolation is the load-bearing step for the abstract's headline projection.
  2. [V.A, V.C, VI] No multivariate regression is reported. The projection in Section VI assumes that the exponents in Eqs. (7) and (9) combine multiplicatively, but it is not shown that E_l and n_e are independent in the dataset. If higher-energy laser experiments tend to run at lower plasma densities (as the need for self-guiding at lower density and the Texas Petawatt points suggest), the univariate slopes would confound the two dependencies, and the resulting 100 GeV estimate would be biased. The authors should present a joint fit E_e(E_l, n_e) or at least a correlation analysis of the inputs to justify the multiplicative combination.
  3. [II, V.E] The analysis acknowledges that beam charge is reported inconsistently (charge 'in the peak' versus total charge) and states that this 'likely introduces noise into our analysis.' However, if the reporting convention correlates with laser energy, the near-linear exponent in Eq. (10) would be biased, not merely noisy. Because Eq. (10) is the paper's central result, the authors should demonstrate the robustness of the fitted exponent to the subset of experiments with a clearly defined charge, or otherwise quantify the possible bias. Without this check, the strong conclusion that 'investment in high-power laser technology ... directly transfers to accelerator performance without diminishing returns' (Section V.E) is not fully supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the blue line is 'given in Eq. (7),' but the left panel (electron energy vs. laser peak power) corresponds to Eq. (8) and the right panel (electron energy vs. laser pulse energy) corresponds to Eq. (9).
  2. [IV, V] The paper does not report the number of data points used in each fit; provide N for Eqs. (7)-(12), as the number of points is likely substantially smaller than the 50-plus papers because charge was reported in only 72% of cases (Table I).
  3. [V.E] The prefactor in Eq. (7) is described as having 'order of magnitude uncertainty,' but the 100 GeV projection in Section VI quotes 87 PW and 18 kJ without propagating this uncertainty; the projection should be given with a range reflecting the prefactor and exponent uncertainties.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract contains typographic artifacts such as 'L WF As' (with spaces), which should be cleaned.
  5. [References] The paper cites Ref. [5] (Tau Systems website) as a general reference for laser technology; if this is intended as a commercial endorsement or as evidence of capability, consider replacing it with a neutral technical reference, or clarify the role of the citation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: fitted scalings are empirical inputs and the 100 GeV benchmark is a forward extrapolation, not a fitted target.

full rationale

The central load-bearing result, Eq. (10), is a least-squares power-law fit to more than 50 external published experiments (Refs. [3,4,11-56]); Eqs. (7)-(9) are likewise fits to external data. The 100 GeV benchmark in Section VI is obtained by inserting E_e = 100 GeV into Eq. (8), which gives P approximately 87 PW, and then taking a 210 fs pulse to get E_l approximately 18 kJ; this is a predictive extrapolation, not a quantity used to determine any fit parameter, so it does not reduce to an input by construction. Eq. (11) is the algebraic rearrangement E_b/E_l of Eq. (10), not a separately fitted prediction. The only self-citations are Ref. [4] (one published experimental data point at 10 GeV, 100 J) and Ref. [5] (company URL). Ref. [4] is peer-reviewed, externally falsifiable data, and the paper explicitly says this point "aligns with the trends ... set by experiments on lower-energy lasers," so the self-citation is not load-bearing. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper also discloses its own data limitations, e.g., "only laser wavelengths of 800 nm and 1 µm, meaning we could not check proposed wavelength scalings," and notes the empty top-left region of Fig. 5 for simultaneously narrow-spread and efficient beams; these are validity limitations, not circular steps. The extrapolation to 100 GeV lies far outside the fitted joint range (a correctness and extrapolation risk), but extrapolation risk is not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the representativeness and commensurability of published data, the chosen power-law form, the neglect of the energy-spread correction, and the validity of extrapolation. These are acknowledged partially in the text but not independently verified. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • Power-law exponent for E_e vs n_e = -0.86 ± 0.09
    Eq. (7), best fit to compiled experimental data.
  • Prefactor for E_e vs n_e = 0.83 (order of magnitude uncertainty not written out)
    Eq. (7).
  • Power-law exponent for E_e vs P = 0.81 ± 0.06
    Eq. (8).
  • Prefactor for E_e vs P = 10 MeV/TW^0.81, ~30% uncertainty
    Eq. (8).
  • Power-law exponent for E_e vs E_l = 0.65 ± 0.04
    Eq. (9).
  • Prefactor for E_e vs E_l = 170 MeV/J^0.65
    Eq. (9).
  • Power-law exponent for E_b vs E_l = 0.9 ± 0.05
    Eq. (10), the central near-linear result.
  • Prefactor for E_b vs E_l = 3.3 ± 0.2 mJ/J^0.9
    Eq. (10).
  • Efficiency exponent for E_b/E_l vs E_l = -0.1
    Eq. (11), derived from Eq. (10).
  • 95% upper prediction interval exponent and prefactor = 1.09 ± 0.14 and 30 (+12/-9) mJ
    Eq. (12), used for the performance envelope.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Published experiments are representative of LWFA performance.
    The dataset is a convenience sample of successful, published shots; publication bias and post-selection of spectral peaks may skew the inferred envelope. This is acknowledged in Sections II and IV but not corrected.
  • domain assumption The reported centroid energy and beam charge are commensurable across experiments.
    Section II details inconsistent definitions of charge and energy (e.g., charge 'in' the peak vs. total recorded), yet the fits treat these numbers as comparable measurements from a single population.
  • domain assumption A power-law functional form y = C x^beta is adequate for the scalings.
    Section IV fits this form without testing alternatives such as exponential saturation or threshold behavior, which could change the extrapolation.
  • domain assumption The beam energy is approximated as E_b = E_e Q_b, neglecting the width correction in Eq. (2).
    Energy spread data are incomplete (only 0.72 fraction extracted), so the c_rho term is not applied. This introduces systematic scatter and a small bias in E_b.
  • ad hoc to paper The power-law fits extrapolate beyond the fitted range.
    The 100 GeV projection requires extrapolating from <=130 J and n_e >= 1e17 /cm^3 to 18 kJ and n_e < 1e17 /cm^3. No data exist in that regime, and the paper provides no physical argument that the scaling remains unchanged.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance envelope of laser wakefield accelerators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JEGKPFQZ

@misc{pith2026241214311,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance envelope of laser wakefield accelerators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JEGKPFQZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14311}
}
abstract

Laser wakefield accelerator experiments have made enormous progress over the past $\sim 20$ years, but their promise to revolutionize high-energy particle sources is only beginning to be realized. To make the next step toward engineering LWFAs for different accelerator outcomes, we need more reliable and quantitative models to predict performance. Using the data from $>50$ published experiments, we estimate scalings and the performance envelope. We compare the observed scalings with several models in the literature. We find that the total beam energy (centroid energy times beam charge) scales almost linearly with laser energy, supporting the value of investment in progressively higher energy driver lasers. The dataset includes pulse durations from 8 to 160 fs, but only laser wavelengths of 800 nm and 1 \si{\micro\meter}, meaning we could not check proposed wavelength scalings for alternative laser technologies. As a benchmark next-generation case, the observed scalings suggest that achieving a 100-GeV LWFA stage will require a $\gtrsim 30$ PW laser operating at electron density $<10^{17}/$cm$^3$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14311 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Left: Scatter plot of reported beam charge versus beam energy. Symbols indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Left: Electron energy versus laser peak power. Right: Electron energy versus laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Left: Histogram of number of experiments achieving a given energy spread, separated by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Beam energy Eq. (2) versus laser energy. Blue line is a least-squares fit, given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Energy efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [41]

    A. R. Maier, N. M. Delbos, T. Eichner, L. H¨ ubner, S. Jalas, L. Jeppe, S. W. Jolly, M. Kirchen, V. Leroux, P. Messner, M. Schnepp, M. Trunk, P. A. Walker, C. Werle, and P. Winkler, Physical Review X10, 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031039 (2020)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.10.031039 2020

  2. [1]

    S. Asai, A. Ballarino, T. Bose, K. Cranmer, F.-Y. Cyr-Racine, S. Demers, C. Geddes, Y. Gershtein, K. Heeger, B. Heinemann,et al.,Exploring the Quantum Universe: Pathways to Innovation and Discovery in Particle Physics(2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Geddes, presented at AAC24

    C. Geddes, presented at AAC24

    work page

  4. [4]

    Aniculaesei, T

    C. Aniculaesei, T. Ha, S. Yoffe, L. Labun, S. Milton, E. McCary, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, O. Z. Labun, R. Sain,et al., Matter and Radiation at Extremes9, 014001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Tau Systems Inc., Www.tausystems.com

    work page

  6. [6]

    K. L. Brown and R. V. Servranckx,First- and second-order charged particle optics(1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Esarey, C

    E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Reviews of modern physics81, 1229 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. Tsung, W. Mori, J. Vieira, R. Fonseca, and L. Silva, Physical Review Special Topics-Accelerators and Beams10, 061301 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Brunetti, R

    E. Brunetti, R. N. Campbell, J. Lovell, and D. A. Jaroszynski, Scientific Reports12, 10.1038/s41598-022-10160-9 (2022)

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    Elicit: The AI Research Assistant, (2024), https://elicit.com, Accessed: 2024-03-24

    2024

  3. [11]

    S. P. Mangles, C. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, A. G. R. Thomas, J. Collier, A. E. Dangor, E. Divall, P. Foster, J. Gallacher, C. Hooker,et al., Nature431, 535 (2004)

    2004

  4. [12]

    Geddes, C

    C. Geddes, C. Toth, J. Van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. Schroeder, D. Bruhwiler, C. Nieter, J. Cary, and W. Leemans, Nature431, 538 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Faure, Y

    J. Faure, Y. Glinec, A. Pukhov, S. Kiselev, S. Gordienko, E. Lefebvre, J.-P. Rousseau, F. Burgy, and V. Malka, Nature431, 541 (2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    W. P. Leemans, B. Nagler, A. J. Gonsalves, C. T´ oth, K. Nakamura, C. G. Geddes, E. Esarey, 18 C. B. Schroeder, and S. M. Hooker, Nature Physics2, 696 (2006)

    2006

  7. [16]

    Brunetti, R

    E. Brunetti, R. P. Shanks, G. G. Manahan, M. R. Islam, B. Ersfeld, M. P. Anania, S. Cipic- cia, R. C. Issac, G. Raj, G. Vieux, G. H. Welsh, S. M. Wiggins, and D. A. Jaroszynski, Physical Review Letters105, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.215007 (2010)

    2010 doi

  8. [17]

    Schmid, A

    K. Schmid, A. Buck, C. M. Sears, J. M. Mikhailova, R. Tautz, D. Herrmann, M. Geissler, F. Krausz, and L. Veisz, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams13, 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.13.091301 (2010)

    2010 doi

  9. [18]

    Cipiccia, M

    S. Cipiccia, M. R. Islam, B. Ersfeld, R. P. Shanks, E. Brunetti, G. Vieux, X. Yang, R. C. Issac, S. M. Wiggins, G. H. Welsh, M. P. Anania, D. Maneuski, R. Montgomery, G. Smith, M. Hoek, D. J. Hamilton, N. R. Lemos, D. Symes, P. P. Rajeev, V. O. Shea, J. M. Dias, and D. A. Jaro...

    2011

  10. [19]

    Weingartner, S

    R. Weingartner, S. Raith, A. Popp, S. Chou, J. Wenz, K. Khrennikov, M. Heigoldt, A. R. Maier, N. Kajumba, M. Fuchs, B. Zeitler, F. Krausz, S. Karsch, and F. Gr¨ uner, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams15, 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.15.111302 (2012)

    2012 doi

  11. [20]

    Albert, B

    F. Albert, B. B. Pollock, J. L. Shaw, K. A. Marsh, J. E. Ralph, Y. H. Chen, D. Alessi, A. Pak, C. E. Clayton, S. H. Glenzer, and C. Joshi, Physical Review Letters111, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.235004 (2013)

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    A. Buck, J. Wenz, J. Xu, K. Khrennikov, K. Schmid, M. Heigoldt, J. M. Mikhailova, M. Geissler, B. Shen, F. Krausz, S. Karsch, and L. Veisz, Physical Review Letters110, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.185006 (2013)

    2013 doi

  13. [22]

    H. T. Kim, K. H. Pae, H. J. Cha, I. J. Kim, T. J. Yu, J. H. Sung, S. K. Lee, T. M. Jeong, and J. Lee, Physical Review Letters111, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.165002 (2013)

    2013 doi

  14. [23]

    X. Wang, R. Zgadzaj, N. Fazel, Z. Li, S. Yi, X. Zhang, W. Henderson, Y.-Y. Chang, R. Korzekwa, H.-E. Tsai,et al., Nature communications4, 1988 (2013). 19

    2013

  15. [26]

    Mirzaie, S

    M. Mirzaie, S. Li, M. Zeng, N. A. Hafz, M. Chen, G. Y. Li, Q. J. Zhu, H. Liao, T. Sokol- lik, F. Liu, Y. Y. Ma, L. M. Chen, Z. M. Sheng, and J. Zhang, Scientific Reports5, 10.1038/srep14659 (2015)

    2015 doi

  16. [27]

    Thaury, E

    C. Thaury, E. Guillaume, A. Lifschitz, K. T. Phuoc, M. Hansson, G. Grittani, J. Gautier, J. P. Goddet, A. Tafzi, O. Lundh, and V. Malka, Scientific Reports5, 10.1038/srep16310 (2015)

    2015 doi

  17. [28]

    W. T. Wang, W. T. Li, J. S. Liu, Z. J. Zhang, R. Qi, C. H. Yu, J. Q. Liu, M. Fang, Z. Y. Qin, C. Wang, Y. Xu, F. X. Wu, Y. X. Leng, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, Physical Review Letters117, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.124801 (2016)

    2016 doi

  18. [29]

    J. P. Couperus, R. Pausch, A. K¨ ohler, O. Zarini, J. M. Kr¨ amer, M. Garten, A. Huebl, R. Gebhardt, U. Helbig, S. Bock, K. Zeil, A. Debus, M. Bussmann, U. Schramm, and A. Irman, Nature Communications8, 10.1038/s41467-017-00592-7 (2017)

    2017 doi

  19. [30]

    K. K. Swanson, H. E. Tsai, S. K. Barber, R. Lehe, H. S. Mao, S. Steinke, J. V. Tilborg, K. Nakamura, C. G. Geddes, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams20, 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.20.051301 (2017)

    2017 doi

  20. [31]

    Ekerfelt, M

    H. Ekerfelt, M. Hansson, I. G. Gonz´ alez, X. Davoine, and O. Lundh, Scientific Reports7, 10.1038/s41598-017-12560-8 (2017)

    2017 doi

  21. [32]

    Y. Li, D. Li, K. Huang, M. Tao, M. Li, J. Zhao, Y. Ma, X. Guo, J. Wang, M. Chen,et al., Physics of Plasmas24(2017)

    2017

  22. [33]

    Delbos, C

    N. Delbos, C. Werle, I. Dornmair, T. Eichner, L. H¨ ubner, S. Jalas, S. W. Jolly, M. Kirchen, V. Leroux, P. Messner, M. Schnepp, M. Trunk, P. A. Walker, P. Winkler, and A. R. Maier, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research, Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, De...

    2018

  23. [34]

    Irman, J

    A. Irman, J. P. Couperus, A. Debus, A. K¨ ohler, J. M. Kr¨ amer, R. Pausch, O. Zarini, and U. Schramm, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion60, 10.1088/1361-6587/aaaef1 (2018)

    2018 doi

  24. [35]

    H. E. Tsai, K. K. Swanson, S. K. Barber, R. Lehe, H. S. Mao, D. E. Mittelberger, S. Steinke, K. Nakamura, J. V. Tilborg, C. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. G. Geddes, and W. Leemans, Physics of Plasmas25, 10.1063/1.5023694 (2018)

    2018 doi

  25. [36]

    Aniculaesei, V

    C. Aniculaesei, V. B. Pathak, H. T. Kim, K. H. Oh, B. J. Yoo, E. Brunetti, Y. H. Jang, C. I. Hojbota, J. H. Shin, J. H. Jeon, S. Cho, M. H. Cho, J. H. Sung, S. K. Lee, B. M. Hegelich, and C. H. Nam, Scientific Reports9, 10.1038/s41598-019-47677-5 (2019)

    2019 doi

  26. [37]

    Aniculaesei, V

    C. Aniculaesei, V. B. Pathak, K. H. Oh, P. K. Singh, B. R. Lee, C. I. Hojbota, T. G. Pak, E. Brunetti, B. J. Yoo, J. H. Sung,et al., Physical Review Applied12, 044041 (2019)

    2019

  27. [38]

    Gilljohann, H

    M. Gilljohann, H. Ding, A. D¨ opp, J. G¨ otzfried, S. Schindler, G. Schilling, S. Corde, A. De- bus, T. Heinemann, B. Hidding,et al., Physical Review X9, 011046 (2019)

    2019

  28. [39]

    Y. Wu, C. Yu, Z. Qin, W. Wang, Z. Zhang, R. Qi, K. Feng, L. Ke, Y. Chen, C. Wang, et al., Applied Sciences9, 2561 (2019)

    2019

  29. [40]

    R. J. Shalloo, S. J. Dann, J. N. Gruse, C. I. Underwood, A. F. Antoine, C. Arran, M. Backhouse, C. D. Baird, M. D. Balcazar, N. Bourgeois, J. A. Cardarelli, P. Hatfield, J. Kang, K. Krushelnick, S. P. Mangles, C. D. Murphy, N. Lu, J. Osterhoff, K. P˜ oder, P. P. Rajeev, C. P. ...

    2020 doi

  30. [42]

    G¨ otzfried, A

    J. G¨ otzfried, A. D¨ opp, M. F. Gilljohann, F. M. Foerster, H. Ding, S. Schindler, G. Schilling, A. Buck, L. Veisz, and S. Karsch, Physical Review X10, 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041015 (2020)

    2020 doi

  31. [43]

    Jalas, M

    S. Jalas, M. Kirchen, P. Messner, P. Winkler, L. H¨ ubner, J. Dirkwinkel, M. Schnepp, R. Lehe, and A. R. Maier, Physical review letters126, 104801 (2021)

    2021

  32. [44]

    L. Ke, C. Yu, K. Feng, Z. Qin, K. Jiang, H. Wang, S. Luan, X. Yang, Y. Xu, Y. Leng, 21 et al., Applied Sciences11, 2560 (2021)

    2021

  33. [45]

    L. T. Ke, K. Feng, W. T. Wang, Z. Y. Qin, C. H. Yu, Y. Wu, Y. Chen, R. Qi, Z. J. Zhang, Y. Xu, X. J. Yang, Y. X. Leng, J. S. Liu, R. X. Li, and Z. Z. Xu, Physical Review Letters 126, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.214801 (2021)

    2021 doi

  34. [46]

    W. Wang, K. Feng, L. Ke, C. Yu, Y. Xu, R. Qi, Y. Chen, Z. Qin, Z. Zhang, M. Fang, J. Liu, K. Jiang, H. Wang, C. Wang, X. Yang, F. Wu, Y. Leng, J. Liu, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Nature595, 516 (2021)

    2021

  35. [47]

    F. M. Foerster, A. D¨ opp, F. Haberstroh, K. V. Grafenstein, D. Campbell, Y. Y. Chang, S. Corde, J. P. C. Cabadaˇ g, A. Debus, M. F. Gilljohann, A. F. Habib, T. Heinemann, B. Hidding, A. Irman, F. Irshad, A. Knetsch, O. Kononenko, A. M. D. L. Ossa, A. Nutter, R. Pausch, G. Sch...

    2022 doi

  36. [49]

    X. Zhu, B. Li, F. Liu, J. Li, Z. Bi, X. Ge, H. Deng, Z. Zhang, P. Cui, L. Lu, W. Yan, X. Yuan, L. Chen, Q. Cao, Z. Liu, Z. Sheng, M. Chen, and J. Zhang, Physical Review Letters130, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.215001 (2023)

    2023 doi

  37. [50]

    T. Pak, M. Rezaei-Pandari, S. B. Kim, G. Lee, D. H. Wi, C. I. Hojbota, M. Mirzaie, H. Kim, J. H. Sung, S. K. Lee, C. Kang, and K. Y. Kim, Light: Science and Applications 12, 10.1038/s41377-022-01068-0 (2023)

    2023 doi

  38. [51]

    J. Liu, H. Lu, H. Lu, H. Zhang, X. Wu, D. Wu, H. Lan, J. Zhang, J. Lv, Q. Ma, Y. Xia, Z. Wang, J. Cai, Y. Zhao, Y. Geng, X. Xu, and X. Yan, Physics of Plasmas 30, 10.1063/5.0161811 (2023)

    2023 doi

  39. [52]

    Z. Lei, Z. Jin, A. Zhidkov, N. Pathak, Y. Mizuta, K. Huang, N. Nakanii, I. Daito, M. Kando, and T. Hosokai, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2023, 10.1093/ptep/ptad030 (2023)

    2023 doi

  40. [53]

    Rezaei-Pandari, M

    M. Rezaei-Pandari, M. Mirzaie, C. I. Hojbota, T. G. Pak, S. B. Kim, G. W. Lee, R. Mas- sudi, A. R. Niknam, S. K. Lee, K. Y. Kim, and C. H. Nam, Physical Review Applied20, 22 10.1103/PhysRevApplied.20.034026 (2023)

    2023 doi

  41. [54]

    C. M. Lazzarini, G. M. Grittani, P. Valenta, I. Zymak, R. Antipenkov, U. Chaulagain, L. V. Goncalves, A. Grenfell, M. Lamaˇ c, S. Lorenz, M. Nevrkla, A. ˇSpaˇ cek, V.ˇSobr, W. Szuba, P. Bakule, G. Korn, and S. V. Bulanov, Physics of Plasmas31, 10.1063/5.0189051 (2024)

    2024 doi

  42. [55]

    I. Nam, M. Kim, M. H. Cho, D. Jang, M. S. Hur, and H. Suk, Physica Scripta99, 10.1088/1402-4896/ad1452 (2024)

    2024 doi

  43. [56]

    J. E. Shrock, E. Rockafellow, B. Miao, M. Le, R. C. Hollinger, S. Wang, A. J. Gonsalves, A. Picksley, J. J. Rocca, and H. M. Milchberg, Physical Review Letters133, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.133.045002 (2024)

    2024 doi

  44. [57]

    Spillias, K

    S. Spillias, K. Ollerhead, M. Andreotta, R. Annand-Jones, F. Boschetti, J. Dug- gan, D. Karcher, C. Paris, R. Shellock, and R. Trebilco, Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4922498/v1 (2024), preprint

    2024 doi

  45. [58]

    M. C. Downer, R. Zgadzaj, A. Debus, U. Schramm, and M. Kaluza, Reviews of Modern Physics90, 035002 (2018)

    2018

  46. [59]

    C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, C. Geddes, C. Benedetti, and W. P. Leemans, Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams13, 101301 (2010)

    2010

  47. [60]

    C. W. Siders, T. Galvin, A. Erlandson, A. Bayramian, B. Reagan, E. Sistrunk, T. Spinka, and C. Haefner, Instruments3, 44 (2019)

    2019

  48. [61]

    Wenz and S

    J. Wenz and S. Karsch, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.04622 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  49. [62]

    H. Suk, N. Barov, J. B. Rosenzweig, and E. Esarey, Physical review letters86, 1011 (2001)

    2001

  50. [63]

    Tomassini, M

    P. Tomassini, M. Galimberti, A. Giulietti, D. Giulietti, L. Gizzi, L. Labate, and F. Pegoraro, Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams6, 121301 (2003)

    2003

  51. [64]

    Faure, C

    J. Faure, C. Rechatin, A. Norlin, A. Lifschitz, Y. Glinec, and V. Malka, Nature444, 737 (2006)

    2006

  52. [65]

    Kotaki, I

    H. Kotaki, I. Daito, M. Kando, Y. Hayashi, J. Ma, L.-M. Chen, T. Z. Esirkepov, Y. Fukuda, T. Homma, A. Pirozhkov,et al., IEEE transactions on plasma science36, 1760 (2008)

    2008

  53. [66]

    Esarey and M

    E. Esarey and M. Pilloff, Physics of Plasmas2, 1432 (1995)

    1995

  54. [67]

    Irshad, C

    F. Irshad, C. Eberle, F. Foerster, K. v. Grafenstein, F. Haberstroh, E. Travac, N. Weisse, S. Karsch, and A. D¨ opp, Physical Review Letters133, 085001 (2024). 23

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.