Anomalous lepton acceleration in the radiation reaction dominated reflection regime

Christoph H. Keitel; Karen Z. Hatsagortsyan; Xiaofei Shen; Yue-Yue Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 87 references

Anomalous lepton acceleration in the radiation reaction dominated reflection regime

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radiation reaction, normally an energy drain, can halt a lepton inside an intense laser and turn it around with more energy than it started.

desk verdict First 3D PIC demonstration of radiation-reaction reflection acceleration, but the abstract's 10 PW claim is contradicted by the ~90-190 PW simulations. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18023 v1 pith:SAYKBBAQ submitted 2025-04-25 physics.plasm-ph

Xiaofei Shen , Yue-Yue Chen , Karen Z. Hatsagortsyan , Christoph H. Keitel This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.plasm-ph

keywords radiationreactionreflectionregimepositronaccelerationnonlinearBreit-Wheelerquantumelectrodynamicslaser-plasmainteractionultrahigh-energycosmicraysfastradiobursts

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 when a loosely focused ultraintense laser meets a counterpropagating relativistic electron beam, radiation reaction, normally an energy-loss mechanism, can halt the leptons near the laser peak, and the same pulse then accelerates them backward to energies far above their initial values. This turns the reflection regime, previously used for gamma-ray pulses and polarization, into an acceleration stage. Three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations show that the generated positrons form a quasimonoenergetic multi-GeV beam with a conversion efficiency reaching about 85% at a0 = 1000, about an order of magnitude higher energy than the injected electrons. The authors also derive the energy scaling $\$\Delta$ E_{\max} \approx 400\sqrt{P_w/\text{PW}}$ MeV and suggest the mechanism may explain ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays from fast radio bursts.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the reflection of a counterpropagating lepton at the laser peak: with $\gamma_{e0} \sim a_0$ and quantum parameter $\chi_e \sim 1$, radiation reaction ($\$\alpha$ a_0 \chi_e \gtrsim 1$) stops the particle inside the pulse; because the pulse is loosely focused, the lepton then leaves the focal volume after about a Rayleigh length, experiencing a net asymmetric acceleration that reverses its momentum and boosts its energy. The quantitative anchor is the scaling law $\$\Delta$ E_{\max} \approx \pi m a_0 w_L/\lambda_L = 400\sqrt{P_w/\text{PW}}$ MeV, obtained by taking the acceleration time as $t_{\text{acc}} \approx z_R/c \approx \pi $w_L^{2}$/(\lambda_L c)$ for small angles and the field strength as about $E_0/2$, together with the yield estimate $N_{e^\pm} \approx 3\times $10^{{-3}}$ N_e a_0 f(\chi_{e0}/2)$ built on the nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production probability.

What would settle it

A single-particle trajectory calculation using the same radiation reaction model for $a_0 = 550$, $\gamma_{e0} = 1000$, $w_L = 3.7\,\mu\text{m}$, and $\lambda_L = 1\,\mu\text{m}$ would settle the core claim: if a counterpropagating 0.5 GeV electron passes through the laser peak instead of being halted and reflected, the reflection-acceleration mechanism fails; likewise, a laboratory experiment producing positrons in the same collision and measuring their energy spectrum would test the predicted linear-in-$a_0$ scaling and the about 85% conversion efficiency.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the radiation-reaction-dominated reflection acceleration of leptons. In the head-on collision with a loosely focused ultraintense laser, an electron with Lorentz factor $\gamma_{e0} \approx $10^{3}$$ and $a_0 \approx 550\text{--}1000$ satisfies $\gamma_{e0} \sim a_0$ and $\chi_e \gtrsim 1$; strong radiation reaction halts the electron near the laser peak, and the finite focal geometry then supplies a net asymmetric field that accelerates the halted lepton and any pair-created companions backward. The simulations show reflected electrons and positrons reaching about 2.5 GeV (at $a_0 = 550$) and up to 6 GeV (at $a_0 = 1000$), with positron conversion efficiencies from about 12.5% to 85%. The maximum energy gain follows $\$\Delta$ E_{\max} \approx \pi m a_0 w_L/\lambda_L \approx 400\sqrt{P_w/\text{PW}}$ MeV, linear in $a_0$ and in the focal waist, a scaling confirmed for $a_0 \ge 550$ and $\gamma_{e0} \ge 1000$.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's predicted stopping, reflection, and pair production rely on the semiclassical Monte Carlo model of quantum radiation reaction and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair creation used in the simulations, a model that at the simulated field strengths has not been benchmarked against experiment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single laser-electron collision can both create and accelerate positrons, bypassing the separate injection stages and defocusing problems that complicate positron acceleration in wakefield schemes.
The predicted maximum energy scales as the square root of laser power ($P^{1/2}$), a more favorable scaling than the $P^{1/3}$ of laser wakefield acceleration.
Increasing the laser strength and the initial electron energy raises both the top energy and the pair conversion efficiency, with about 85% conversion at $a_0 = 1000$ in the simulations.
In astrophysical settings, the same reflection mechanism applied to fast radio burst emission near a magnetar light cylinder could produce leptons up to the PeV range, offering a plausible path to ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.
The reflected beams emerge with relatively small divergence, and selecting a narrow cone (e.g., 12.5° at $a_0 = 550$) yields a quasimonoenergetic positron population.

Reading between the lines

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

If the arrest phase can be controlled by pulse shaping or by choosing the focal waist, the final lepton energy might be tuned continuously, extending the mechanism into a controlled injector for vacuum laser acceleration.
The scaling with focal waist suggests that longer Rayleigh lengths than simulated would push the maximum energy even higher at fixed laser power, a direct extension worth testing in simulations.
The paper notes ions are not reflected this way; however, if ions were born at rest near the wave peak, the same field could accelerate them to $10^{19}$–$10^{21}$ eV, which is an interesting though unproven extension.
A direct experimental test could be performed at existing 10 PW-class facilities by measuring the positron yield and the slope of the reflected spectrum, which would also calibrate the quantum radiation reaction model at $\chi \sim 1$.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The thing to know: this is a real effect, first demonstrated in 3D PIC, but the paper's headline claim about 10 PW-class lasers is not backed by its own parameters. The a0=550 run with wL=3.7 µm corresponds to ~90 PW; the a0=1000 run to ~190 PW. Their own scaling says ~1.3 GeV at 10 PW, so "multi-GeV" is a ~100 PW story, not a 10 PW one.

What is new: previous papers by this group identified the radiation-reaction reflection regime, but this is the first demonstration that reflected electrons and newly created pairs can be accelerated by the asymmetric laser field to energies well above injection. The 3D PIC setup is not trivial: they include nonlinear Compton, Breit-Wheeler pair production, radiation reaction, and a convergence check. The linear energy scaling with a0 for a0≥550 and γe0≥1000 is consistent with the mechanism.

Where it is soft: the yield formula (Eq. 4) contains a prefactor 3×10^-3 and exponents fitted to the same simulations, so the agreement between Eq. (4) and the PIC data is a fit, not a prediction. The "quasimonoenergetic" label comes from post hoc selection within 12.5° (or 4.5°) cones; the full positron spectrum is broader. The abstract claims CE ~100%, but the reported values are 12.5% at a0=550 and 85% at a0=1000. The QED model itself—semiclassical, locally constant crossed field—is unbenchmarked at χ~1, and no code or data are released, so reproducibility is limited. The UHECR/FRB extension is speculative but clearly framed as a possibility, so I would not hold it against the core result.

The 10 PW mismatch is the biggest fixable problem. The reflection condition requires γe0~a0, so with a 10 PW laser focused to wL=3.7 µm you would get a0≈180, outside the stated regime. The authors need to correct the abstract and either find a parameter set that works at 10 PW or present the scheme as ~100 PW-class.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. The physics is plausible and the first 3D demonstration is worth refereeing, but the authors must fix the power assertion, separate fitted from predictive claims, and ideally share the input files. A competent referee can check the PIC setup, but the paper as is overstates what is demonstrated.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a lepton acceleration mechanism operating in the radiation-reaction-dominated reflection regime: a counterpropagating relativistic electron beam is stopped by radiation reaction near the peak of an intense, loosely focused laser pulse, and the reflected leptons (including secondary electrons and positrons from nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production) are subsequently accelerated to energies far exceeding their initial energy. The authors support the mechanism with 3D particle-in-cell simulations using WarpX with a QED Monte Carlo implementation of photon emission and pair creation, reporting positron beams with multi-GeV energies and conversion efficiencies of about 12.5% at a0 = 550 and 85% at a0 = 1000. They derive an energy scaling DeltaEmax ~ pi m a0 wL / lambda_L ~ 400 sqrt(P/PW) MeV and a pair-yield estimate, and they speculate that the same mechanism acting on fast radio bursts could contribute to ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.

Significance. If the central simulation result is correct, the paper identifies a qualitatively distinct acceleration mechanism that is especially attractive for positron generation and acceleration in a single stage, an area where laser wakefield acceleration faces known difficulties. The 3D PIC study is substantial: it includes particle trajectories, phase-space distributions, parameter scans, a spatial-resolution convergence check, and a comparison between two Maxwell solvers, which strengthens the basic picture of reflection followed by acceleration. The energy scaling has a simple and testable form with favorable P^{1/2} behavior. However, the quantitative claims of multi-GeV positron beams at '10 PW-class' parameters are not supported by the stated simulation parameters, and the positron-yield model in Eq. (4) is partially calibrated against the same PIC runs rather than being an independent prediction. The quasimonoenergetic claim also rests on angular post-selection without a reported energy spread. These issues affect the abstract's headline claims and must be resolved before publication.

major comments (4)

[Abstract; Setup; Eq. (1)] The abstract states that multi-GeV positron generation is demonstrated 'employing 10 PW-class lasers', but the simulation parameters do not correspond to 10 PW. For the a0 = 550 run with I0 ~ 4 x 10^23 W/cm^2 and wL = 3.7 um at lambda = 1 um, the Gaussian-beam power is P = (pi/2) wL^2 I0 ~ 90 PW; for the a0 = 1000 run with wL ~ 3 um it is about 190 PW. Equation (1) itself gives DeltaEmax ~ 1.3 GeV at P = 10 PW, not multi-GeV. The demonstrated outcome is therefore for ~100 PW-class lasers. Please correct the experimental framing, add a simulation at an actual 10 PW parameter set showing the claimed outcome, or remove the 10 PW claim from the abstract and introduction.
[End Matter, 'Positron yield', Eq. (4)] The yield formula Ne+ ~ 3 x 10^-3 Ne alpha a0 f(chi_e0/2) contains a prefactor obtained from the same 3D PIC runs ('According to our 3D PIC simulations'), and the exponents m in the scalings Ne+ ~ gamma_e0^m for a0 = 400, 550, 700, 850, 1000 are also fits to those runs. As presented, the formula is a fit rather than an independent analytical prediction, so it cannot by itself validate the high conversion efficiency. Please label the fitted parameters explicitly, give their uncertainties, and identify which aspects of the yield scaling are predicted versus fitted.
[Fig. 4 and accompanying text] The claim of 'quasimonoenergetic positron beams to multi-GeV energies' is not quantified. The quasi-monoenergetic spectra are obtained by selecting positrons within 12.5 degrees (or 4.5 degrees), but the text and insets do not report the FWHM or relative energy spread of the selected peaks; at a0 = 550 the selected peak is at 0.82 GeV, well below the multi-GeV maximum energy, so the phrase conflates an angular-selection-limited peak with the maximum energy. Please state the energy-spread metrics and clearly distinguish 'peak energy after angular selection' from 'maximum energy of the full distribution'.
[QED model section (Ref. [56]) and numerical setup] The quantitative results, including the stopping point, reflected energy, and pair conversion efficiency, depend on WarpX's semiclassical Monte Carlo model for radiation reaction and nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in the locally constant crossed-field approximation at chi ~ 1. The paper reports a spatial-resolution check but does not benchmark the QED implementation against an independent solver, an analytic test case, or existing experimental constraints in this parameter range. Please add a validation or at least an explicit uncertainty estimate for the QED model at the simulated chi values, since an error in the pair-production rate or photon-emission algorithm would directly change the reported multi-GeV energies and efficiencies.

minor comments (4)

[End Matter, 'Acceleration scaling'] There is a typo: 'wher at large angles' should be 'where at large angles'. In addition, the threshold conditions in Eq. (2) are not consistent: the small-angle case uses theta << sqrt(2) lambda/(pi wL) while the large-angle case is written as theta > lambda/(pi wL), leaving an unspecified intermediate interval; please harmonize the inequalities.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption says the spectra are normalized to Ne, but it is unclear whether the insets use the same normalization or are per solid angle after angular selection. Please define the normalization and state the selection cone solid angle and the resulting beam charge after selection.
[Introduction and results] The introduction says 'high number conversion efficiency (CE) ~ 100% can be obtained', while the a0 = 1000 simulation gives CE ~ 85%. If this is an extrapolation to higher a0 or gamma_e0, please state that explicitly; otherwise the text should be revised to match the simulated value.
[Eq. (4) and notation] The arguments of chi_nu and chi_e0/2 in Eq. (4) should be defined at their first use. Also, the function f(x) is written with K_{1/3}(4/3x); the standard formula from Ref. [86] contains K_{1/3}(4/(3x)), so please check the notation and the limiting behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central acceleration scaling is independently derived and benchmarked, and the only simulation-calibrated formula is explicitly labeled a fit.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, Eq. (1), is derived in the End Matter from acceleration-time estimates in a focused pulse and is explicitly traced to the external above-threshold-ionization result of Ref. [37] ('which is in accordance with Ref. [37]'), so it does not reduce to the paper's own inputs. The PIC runs are then used to test whether the simulated maximum positron energy scales linearly with a0 for a0 >= 550 and gamma_e0 >= 1000; this is a genuine benchmark, not a fit renamed as prediction. The positron-yield formula in Eq. (4) does contain a prefactor 3e-3 taken 'according to our 3D PIC simulations,' and the gamma_e0 exponents in the inset of Fig. 5(b) are likewise fitting parameters; however, the text itself calls these 'analytical fitting formulas' and presents Eq. (4) as an order-of-magnitude estimate, not as an independent prediction. That is a transparent calibration rather than a circularity. The self-citations (Refs. [49]-[52]) describe prior theoretical work on radiation-reaction reflection and polarization, but the present numerical demonstration is new and self-contained, so the prior work is context, not a load-bearing uniqueness argument. The abstract's '10 PW-class' wording appears inconsistent with the simulated a0=550, wL=3.7 um parameters, which imply roughly 90 PW, but this is a parameter-consistency issue, not a circular-derivation issue, and therefore does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced; the proposed element is a physical regime and acceleration process. The main ledger entries are simulation-model assumptions, the scaling-law assumptions inherited from prior work, and two fitted parameters in the positron-yield scaling.

free parameters (3)

yield prefactor C in Eq. (4) = 3 x 10^-3
The yield formula Ne+ approximately C Ne a0 f(chi_e0/2) is stated 'according to our 3D PIC simulations'; C is a fit to the simulation data, so the yield scaling is not parameter-free.
yield scaling exponents m for Ne+ proportional to gamma_e0^m = 2.82, 2.25, 1.91, 1.70, 1.56 for a0 = 400, 550, 700, 850, 1000
Reported in End Matter as fits to the simulated yield curves in Fig. 5(b); they are not derived from first principles.
cycle-averaged field factor = 1/2
End Matter Eq. (3) says 'We have assumed therein an average field strength over the optical cycle of E0/2'; this factor is chosen to make the energy estimate, not measured.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The locally constant crossed-field approximation and the semiclassical Monte Carlo emission and pair-production model used in WarpX give quantitatively correct dynamics at chi_e ~ 0.8 to 1.
The entire simulation evidence uses this QED model, with no experimental benchmark at a0 = 550 to 1000.
domain assumption A loosely focused laser with beam waist wL = 3.7 um produces a field asymmetry in the lepton rest frame sufficient to sustain acceleration for t_acc approximately z_R / c.
Used in End Matter to derive Eqs. (2) and (3); inherited from Maltsev and Ditmire, Ref. [37].
domain assumption Pairs are born with initial velocities directed backward against the laser and with transverse momentum set by the local vector potential, so they enter the accelerating part of the pulse.
Assumed in the yield estimate and in interpreting Fig. 3(a).
domain assumption The typical emitted photon energy before pair creation is h_bar omega_nu approximately gamma_e0 m / 2, from Ref. [86], so chi_nu approximately chi_e0 / 2.
Adopted in the End Matter yield estimate; it is an approximate relation at the relevant parameters.
domain assumption FRB emission can be modeled as a coherent, nearly 100 percent linearly polarized, loosely focused electromagnetic wave with source radius R_s approximately gamma_s lambda_w, and relativistic electrons with gamma_e0 approximately a0 exist near the light cylinder.
Astrophysical extrapolation; parameters such as r_LC ~ 10^4 km, n_GJ ~ 0.1 cm^-3, and I_w ~ 10^20 W/cm^2 are order-of-magnitude estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anomalous lepton acceleration in the radiation reaction dominated reflection regime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SAYKBBAQ

@misc{pith2026250418023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anomalous lepton acceleration in the radiation reaction dominated reflection regime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SAYKBBAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18023}
}

read the original abstract

Relativistic electrons colliding with intense counterpropagating laser pulses are expected to lose energy through radiation reaction. However, we reveal a counterintuitive regime where reflected leptons (including incident electrons, generated electrons, and positrons) gain significant energies when a relatively loosely focused ultraintense laser interacts with counterpropagating electrons. Because of strong radiation reaction, these particles can be halted and reflected near the laser peak. The subsequent asymmetric laser field then accelerates the reflected leptons to energies far exceeding their initial values. Using three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations, we demonstrate the generation and acceleration of quasimonoenergetic positrons to multi-GeV energies with a high number conversion efficiency employing 10~PW-class lasers. These findings not only provide a single-stage solution for positron creation and acceleration, but also offer a promising alternative explanation for the origin of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays as particularly those associated with intense fast radio bursts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18023 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Creation, reflection and acceleration of positrons. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. Energy spectra [(a), (c), normalized to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Scaling of the maximum positron energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

[1]

Esarey, E

E. Esarey, E. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators, Re- views of Modern Physics 81, 1229 (2009)

2009
[2]

Pukhov and J

A. Pukhov and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Laser wake field accel- eration: the highly non-linear broken-wave regime, Ap- plied Physics B 74, 355 (2002)

2002
[3]

Gordienko and A

S. Gordienko and A. Pukhov, Scalings for ultrarelativistic laser plasmas and quasimonoenergetic electrons, Physics of Plasmas 12 (2005). 6

2005
[4]

W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Generating multi-gev electron bunches using single stage laser wake- field acceleration in a 3d nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

2007
[5]

Steinke, J

S. Steinke, J. van Tilborg, C. Benedetti, C. G. R. Ged- des, C. B. Schroeder, J. Daniels, K. K. Swanson, A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, N. H. Matlis, B. H. Shaw, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Multistage coupling of independent laser-plasma accelerators, Nature 530, 190 (2016)

2016
[6]

A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. H. de Raadt, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanov, and e. a. van Tilborg, Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 084801 (2019)

2019
[7]

Golovanov, I

A. Golovanov, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. Pukhov, and V. Malka, Energy-conserving theory of the blowout regime of plasma wakefield, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 105001 (2023)

2023
[8]

Vieira and J

J. Vieira and J. T. Mendon¸ ca, Nonlinear laser driven donut wakefields for positron and electron acceleration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 215001 (2014)

2014

Show all 87 references

[9]

Reichwein, A

L. Reichwein, A. Pukhov, A. Golovanov, and I. Y. Kostyukov, Positron acceleration via laser-augmented blowouts in two-column plasma structures, Phys. Rev. E 105, 055207 (2022)

2022
[10]

Shen and J

B. Shen and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Pair and γ-photon pro- duction from a thin foil confined by two laser pulses, Phys. Rev. E 65, 016405 (2001)

2001
[11]

Sugimoto, Y

K. Sugimoto, Y. He, N. Iwata, I. Yeh, K. Tang- tartharakul, A. Arefiev, and Y. Sentoku, Positron gener- ation and acceleration in a self-organized photon collider enabled by an ultraintense laser pulse, Physical Review Letters 131, 065102 (2023)

2023
[12]

Silva, L

T. Silva, L. Amorim, M. Downer, M. Hogan, V. Yaki- menko, R. Zgadzaj, and J. Vieira, Stable positron accel- eration in thin, warm, hollow plasma channels, Physical review letters 127, 104801 (2021)

2021
[13]

Silva and J

T. Silva and J. Vieira, Positron acceleration in plasma waves driven by non-neutral fireball beams, Physical Re- view Accelerators and Beams 26, 091301 (2023)

2023
[14]

Z. Xu, C. Xiao, H. Lu, R. Hu, J. Yu, Z. Gong, Y. Shou, J. Liu, C. Xie, S. Chen, et al., New injection and ac- celeration scheme of positrons in the laser-plasma bub- ble regime, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 23, 091301 (2020)

2020
[15]

H. Chen, S. Wilks, D. Meyerhofer, J. Bonlie, C. Chen, S. Chen, C. Courtois, L. Elberson, G. Gregori, W. Kruer, et al., Relativistic quasimonoenergetic positron jets from intense laser-solid interactions, Physical review letters 105, 015003 (2010)

2010
[16]

Zhao, Q.-N

J. Zhao, Q.-N. Li, Y.-T. Hu, H. Zhang, Y. Cao, R. Sha, F.-Q. Shao, and T.-P. Yu, Terahertz-driven positron ac- celeration assisted by ultra-intense lasers, Optics Express 31, 23171 (2023)

2023
[17]

Martinez, B

B. Martinez, B. Barbosa, and M. Vranic, Creation and di- rect laser acceleration of positrons in a single stage, Phys- ical Review Accelerators and Beams 26, 011301 (2023)

2023
[18]

L. I. I. Gamiz, R. Babjak, B. Martinez, and M. Vrani´ c, Improved Bethe-Heitler positron creation and reten- tion by combining direct laser acceleration and solid target interaction within a gas jet, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17455 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[19]

Esarey, P

E. Esarey, P. Sprangle, and J. Krall, Laser acceleration of electrons in vacuum, Physical Review E 52, 5443 (1995)

1995
[20]

Y. I. Salamin and C. H. Keitel, Electron acceleration by a tightly focused laser beam, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 095005 (2002)

2002
[21]

Marceau, A

V. Marceau, A. April, and M. Pich´ e, Electron accelera- tion driven by ultrashort and nonparaxial radially polar- ized laser pulses, Optics Letters 37, 2442 (2012)

2012
[22]

Powell, S

J. Powell, S. W. Jolly, S. Valli` eres, F. Fillion- Gourdeau, S. Payeur, S. Fourmaux, M. Lytova, M. Pich´ e, H. Ibrahim, S. MacLean, and F. L´ egar´ e, Relativistic Elec- trons from Vacuum Laser Acceleration Using Tightly Fo- cused Radially Polarized Beams, Physical Review Let...

2024
[23]

Th´ evenet, A

M. Th´ evenet, A. Leblanc, S. Kahaly, H. Vincenti, A. Vernier, F. Qu´ er´ e, and J. Faure, Vacuum laser ac- celeration of relativistic electrons using plasma mirror injectors, Nature Physics 12, 355 (2016)

2016
[24]

P. K. Singh, F. Y. Li, C. K. Huang, A. Moreau, R. Hollinger, A. Junghans, A. Favalli, C. Calvi, S. Wang, Y. Wang, H. Song, J. J. Rocca, R. E. Reinovsky, and S. Palaniyappan, Vacuum laser acceleration of super- ponderomotive electrons using relativistic transparency injection, ...

2022
[25]

De Andres, S

A. De Andres, S. Bhadoria, J. T. Marmolejo, A. Muschet, P. Fischer, H. Reza Barzegar, T. Blackburn, A. Gonoskov, D. Hanstorp, M. Marklund, and L. Veisz, Unforeseen advantage of looser focusing in vacuum laser acceleration, Communications Physics 7, 1 (2024)

2024
[26]

P. H. Bucksbaum, M. Bashkansky, and T. J. McIlrath, Scattering of Electrons by Intense Coherent Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 349 (1987)

1987
[27]

F. V. Hartemann, S. N. Fochs, G. P. Le Sage, N. C. Luhmann, J. G. Woodworth, M. D. Perry, Y. J. Chen, and A. K. Kerman, Nonlinear ponderomotive scattering of relativistic electrons by an intense laser field at focus, Physical Review E 51, 4833 (1995)

1995
[28]

Malka, E

V. Malka, E. Lefebvre, and J. L. Miquel, Experimen- tal Observation of Electrons Accelerated in Vacuum to Relativistic Energies by a High-Intensity Laser, Physical Review Letters 78, 3314 (1997)

1997
[29]

experimental ob- servation of electrons accelerated in vacuum to relativis- tic energies by a high-intensity laser

P. Mora and B. Quesnel, Comment on “experimental ob- servation of electrons accelerated in vacuum to relativis- tic energies by a high-intensity laser”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1351 (1998)

1998
[30]

Quesnel and P

B. Quesnel and P. Mora, Theory and simulation of the interaction of ultraintense laser pulses with electrons in vacuum, Physical Review E 58, 3719 (1998)

1998
[31]

G. V. Stupakov and M. S. Zolotorev, Ponderomotive laser acceleration and focusing in vacuum for generation of attosecond electron bunches, Physical review letters 86, 5274 (2001)

2001
[32]

F. He, W. Yu, P. Lu, H. Xu, L. Qian, B. Shen, X. Yuan, R. Li, and Z. Xu, Ponderomotive acceleration of electrons by a tightly focused intense laser beam, Phys. Rev. E 68, 046407 (2003)

2003
[33]

C. I. Moore, A. Ting, S. J. McNaught, J. Qiu, H. R. Bur- ris, and P. Sprangle, A Laser-Accelerator Injector Based on Laser Ionization and Ponderomotive Acceleration of Electrons, Physical Review Letters 82, 1688 (1999)

1999
[34]

S. X. Hu and A. F. Starace, GeV Electrons from Ul- traintense Laser Interaction with Highly Charged Ions, Physical Review Letters 88, 245003 (2002). 7

2002
[35]

Di Piazza, C

A. Di Piazza, C. M¨ uller, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Extremely high-intensity laser interactions with fundamental quantum systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1177 (2012)

2012
[36]

I. Y. Dodin and N. J. Fisch, Relativistic electron accel- eration in focused laser fields after above-threshold ion- ization., Physical review. E 68, 056402 (2003)

2003
[37]

Maltsev and T

A. Maltsev and T. Ditmire, Above Threshold Ionization in Tightly Focused, Strongly Relativistic Laser Fields, Physical review letters 90, 053002 (2003)

2003
[38]

D. F. Gordon, J. P. Palastro, and B. Hafizi, Superpon- deromotive regime of tunneling ionization, Physical Re- view A 95, 033403 (2017)

2017
[39]

Yandow, T

A. Yandow, T. Toncian, and T. Ditmire, Direct laser ion acceleration and above-threshold ionization at intensities from 1021 W/cm2 to 3 × 1023 W/cm23, Physical Review A 100, 053406 (2019)

2019
[40]

Yandow, T

A. Yandow, T. N. Ha, C. Aniculaesei, H. L. Smith, C. G. Richmond, M. M. Spinks, H. J. Quevedo, S. Bruce, M. Darilek, C. Chang, D. A. Garcia, E. Gaul, M. E. Donovan, B. M. Hegelich, and T. Ditmire, Above- threshold ionization at laser intensity greater than 1020W/cm2, Phys. Rev...

2024
[41]

J. W. Yoon, Y. G. Kim, I. W. Choi, J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, Realization of laser in- tensity over 1023 W/cm2, Optica 8, 630 (2021)

2021
[42]

A. M. Fedotov, N. V. Elkina, E. G. Gelfer, N. B. Narozhny, and H. Ruhl, Radiation friction versus pon- deromotive effect, Phys. Rev. A 90, 053847 (2014)

2014
[43]

Poder, M

K. Poder, M. Tamburini, G. Sarri, A. Di Piazza, S. Kuschel, C. D. Baird, K. Behm, S. Bohlen, J. M. Cole, D. J. Corvan, M. Duff, E. Gerstmayr, C. H. Keitel, K. Krushelnick, S. P. D. Mangles, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, D. R. Symes, A. G....

2018
[44]

J. M. Cole, K. T. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. G. Black- burn, J. C. Wood, C. D. Baird, M. J. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. S. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. D. Murphy, K. Poder, C. P. Ridgers, G. M. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. R. Symes, A. G. R. Thom...

2018
[45]

V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of ele- mentary particles with an inense electromagnetic field, J. Sov. Laser Res. 6, 497 (1985)

1985
[46]

D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, A. W. Weidemann, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis, and W. Ragg, Po...

1997
[47]

Z. Bu, L. Ji, S. Lei, H. Hu, X. Zhang, and B. Shen, Twisted Breit-Wheeler electron-positron pair creation via vortex gamma photons, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 043159 (2021)

2021
[48]

Eckey, A

A. Eckey, A. Golub, F. C. Salgado, S. Villalba-Ch´ avez, A. B. Voitkiv, M. Zepf, and C. M¨ uller, Impact of laser focusing and radiation reaction on particle spectra from nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in the nonper- turbative regime, Phys. Rev. A 110, 043113 (2024)

2024
[49]

Di Piazza, K

A. Di Piazza, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Kei- tel, Strong signatures of radiation reaction below the radiation-dominated regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 254802 (2009)

2009
[50]

J.-X. Li, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, B. J. Galow, and C. H. Kei- tel, Attosecond gamma-ray pulses via nonlinear compton scattering in the radiation-dominated regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 204801 (2015)

2015
[51]

Li, Y.-Y

J.-X. Li, Y.-Y. Chen, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Single-shot carrier-envelope phase determination of long superintense laser pulses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 124803 (2018)

2018
[52]

Zhuang, Y.-Y

K.-H. Zhuang, Y.-Y. Chen, Y.-F. Li, K. Z. Hatsagort- syan, and C. H. Keitel, Laser-driven lepton polarization in the quantum radiation-dominated reflection regime, Phys. Rev. D 108, 033001 (2023)

2023
[53]

Zhang, The physics of fast radio bursts, Rev

B. Zhang, The physics of fast radio bursts, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 035005 (2023)

2023
[54]

Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts, Rev

T. Piran, The physics of gamma-ray bursts, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1143 (2005)

2005
[55]

Letessier-Selvon and T

A. Letessier-Selvon and T. Stanev, Ultrahigh energy cos- mic rays, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 907 (2011)

2011
[56]

J.-L. Vay, A. Almgren, J. Bell, L. Ge, D. Grote, M. Hogan, O. Kononenko, R. Lehe, A. Myers, C. Ng, J. Park, R. Ryne, O. Shapoval, M. Th´ evenet, and W. Zhang, Warp-X: A new exascale computing platform for beam–plasma simulations, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Rese...

2018
[57]

B. M. Cowan, D. L. Bruhwiler, J. R. Cary, E. Cormier- Michel, and C. G. R. Geddes, Generalized algorithm for control of numerical dispersion in explicit time-domain electromagnetic simulations, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 16, 041303 (2013)

2013
[58]

Numerical convergence has been checked by doubling the resolution in both longitudinal and trans- verse directions

To improve accuracy and suppress numerical Cherenkov radiation, we employed the modified finite-difference Maxwell-equations solver CKC, and the pseudo-spectral Maxwell equations solver PSATD, which gave compara- ble results. Numerical convergence has been checked by doubling ...
[59]

J. M. Cordes and S. Chatterjee, Fast radio bursts: an extragalactic enigma, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 57, 417 (2019)

2019
[60]

Zhang, The physical mechanisms of fast radio bursts, Nature 587, 45 (2020)

B. Zhang, The physical mechanisms of fast radio bursts, Nature 587, 45 (2020)

2020
[61]

Lyne and F

A. Lyne and F. Graham-Smith, Pulsar astronomy, 48 (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

2012
[62]

Zhang, Fast radio burst energetics and detectability from high redshifts, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 867, L21 (2018)

B. Zhang, Fast radio burst energetics and detectability from high redshifts, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 867, L21 (2018)

2018
[63]

Nimmo, J

K. Nimmo, J. Hessels, F. Kirsten, A. Keimpema, J. Cordes, M. Snelders, D. Hewitt, R. Karuppusamy, A. Archibald, V. Bezrukovs, et al., Burst timescales and luminosities as links between young pulsars and fast radio bursts, Nature Astronomy 6, 393 (2022)

2022
[64]

Kumar, W

P. Kumar, W. Lu, and M. Bhattacharya, Fast radio burst source properties and curvature radiation model, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 468, 8 2726 (2017)

2017
[65]

Gajjar, A

V. Gajjar, A. Siemion, D. Price, C. Law, D. Michilli, J. Hessels, S. Chatterjee, A. Archibald, G. Bower, C. Brinkman, et al., Highest frequency detection of frb 121102 at 4–8 ghz using the breakthrough listen digital backend at the green bank telescope, The Astrophysical Journ...

2018
[66]

Lyubarsky, Fast radio bursts from reconnection in a magnetar magnetosphere, The Astrophysical Journal 897, 1 (2020)

Y. Lyubarsky, Fast radio bursts from reconnection in a magnetar magnetosphere, The Astrophysical Journal 897, 1 (2020)

2020
[67]

Popov, A

M. Popov, A. Rudnitskii, and V. Soglasnov, Giant pulses of the crab nebula pulsar as an indicator of a strong elec- tromagnetic wave, Astronomy Reports 61, 178 (2017)

2017
[68]

Yang and B

Y.-P. Yang and B. Zhang, Fast radio bursts as strong waves interacting with the ambient medium, The Astro- physical Journal Letters 892, L10 (2020)

2020
[69]

Lyutikov, Magnetic loading of magnetars’ flares, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509, 2689 (2021)

M. Lyutikov, Magnetic loading of magnetars’ flares, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509, 2689 (2021)

2021
[70]

Goldreich and W

P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Pulsar Electrodynamics, Astrophys. J. 157, 869 (1969)

1969
[71]

Katz, Physical processes in gamma-ray bursts, Astro- physical Journal, Part 1, vol

J. Katz, Physical processes in gamma-ray bursts, Astro- physical Journal, Part 1, vol. 260, Sept. 1, 1982, p. 371-

1982
[72]

R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Formation of very strongly magnetized neutron stars-implications for gamma-ray bursts, Astrophysical Journal, Part 2-Letters (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 392, no. 1, June 10, 1992, p. L9- L13. Research supported by NSERC. 392, L9 (1992)

1992
[73]

S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca, and A. Philippov, Inclined pul- sar magnetospheres in general relativity: polar caps for the dipole, quadrudipole, and beyond, The Astrophysical Journal 851, 137 (2017)

2017
[74]

Kalapotharakos, Z

C. Kalapotharakos, Z. Wadiasingh, A. K. Harding, and D. Kazanas, The multipolar magnetic field of the millisec- ond pulsar psr j0030+ 0451, The Astrophysical Journal 907, 63 (2021)

2021
[75]

Petri, Multipolar electromagnetic fields around neu- tron stars: exact vacuum solutions and related proper- ties, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 450, 714 (2015)

J. Petri, Multipolar electromagnetic fields around neu- tron stars: exact vacuum solutions and related proper- ties, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 450, 714 (2015)

2015
[76]

P´ etri, Radiation from an off-centred rotating dipole in vacuum, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 463, 1240 (2016)

J. P´ etri, Radiation from an off-centred rotating dipole in vacuum, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 463, 1240 (2016)

2016
[77]

Philippov and M

A. Philippov and M. Kramer, Pulsar magnetospheres and their radiation, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics 60, 495 (2022)

2022
[78]

Zhang, Coherent inverse compton scattering by bunches in fast radio bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 925, 53 (2022)

B. Zhang, Coherent inverse compton scattering by bunches in fast radio bursts, The Astrophysical Journal 925, 53 (2022)

2022
[79]

V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Magnetars, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 55, 261 (2017)

2017
[80]

W. Lu, P. Kumar, and B. Zhang, A unified picture of galactic and cosmological fast radio bursts, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society498, 1397 (2020)

2020
[81]

Wadiasingh and A

Z. Wadiasingh and A. Timokhin, Repeating fast radio bursts from magnetars with low magnetospheric twist, The Astrophysical Journal 879, 4 (2019)

2019
[82]

Archer, W

A. Archer, W. Benbow, R. Bird, R. Brose, M. Bu- chovecky, J. Buckley, V. Bugaev, M. Connolly, W. Cui, M. Daniel, et al., Measurement of cosmic-ray electrons at tev energies by veritas, Physical Review D 98, 062004 (2018)

2018
[83]

Recchia, S

S. Recchia, S. Gabici, F. Aharonian, and J. Vink, Lo- cal fading accelerator and the origin of tev cosmic ray electrons, Physical Review D 99, 103022 (2019)

2019
[84]

A. Aab, P. Abreu, M. Aglietta, J. M. Albury, I. Allekotte, A. Almela, J. A. Castillo, J. Alvarez-Mu˜ niz, R. A. Batista, G. A. Anastasi, et al., Features of the energy spectrum of cosmic rays above 2.5 × 10 18 ev using the pierre auger observatory, Physical review letters 125,...

2020
[85]

L. O. Drury, Acceleration of cosmic rays, Contemporary Physics 35, 231 (1994)

1994
[86]

Blackburn, A

T. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, C. Murphy, and M. Marklund, Scaling laws for positron production in laser–electron- beam collisions, Physical Review A 96, 022128 (2017)

2017
[385]

Research supported by the University of California 260, 371 (1982)

1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Esarey, E

E. Esarey, E. B. Schroeder, and W. P. Leemans, Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators, Re- views of Modern Physics 81, 1229 (2009)

2009

[2] [2]

Pukhov and J

A. Pukhov and J. Meyer-ter Vehn, Laser wake field accel- eration: the highly non-linear broken-wave regime, Ap- plied Physics B 74, 355 (2002)

2002

[3] [3]

Gordienko and A

S. Gordienko and A. Pukhov, Scalings for ultrarelativistic laser plasmas and quasimonoenergetic electrons, Physics of Plasmas 12 (2005). 6

2005

[4] [4]

W. Lu, M. Tzoufras, C. Joshi, F. S. Tsung, W. B. Mori, J. Vieira, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Generating multi-gev electron bunches using single stage laser wake- field acceleration in a 3d nonlinear regime, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

2007

[5] [5]

Steinke, J

S. Steinke, J. van Tilborg, C. Benedetti, C. G. R. Ged- des, C. B. Schroeder, J. Daniels, K. K. Swanson, A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, N. H. Matlis, B. H. Shaw, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Multistage coupling of independent laser-plasma accelerators, Nature 530, 190 (2016)

2016

[6] [6]

A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. H. de Raadt, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanov, and e. a. van Tilborg, Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 084801 (2019)

2019

[7] [7]

Golovanov, I

A. Golovanov, I. Y. Kostyukov, A. Pukhov, and V. Malka, Energy-conserving theory of the blowout regime of plasma wakefield, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 105001 (2023)

2023

[8] [8]

Vieira and J

J. Vieira and J. T. Mendon¸ ca, Nonlinear laser driven donut wakefields for positron and electron acceleration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 215001 (2014)

2014