Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Path to a Single-Stage, 100-GeV Electron Beam via a Flying-Focus-Driven Laser-Plasma Accelerator

T0 review · 4 major / 6 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 A single laser-plasma stage could reach 100 GeV.

desk verdict A credible and honest roadmap paper whose 100-GeV headline is a scaling extrapolation, not a demonstrated result; the new hydrogen PIC and focal-spot data are the real content. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00157 v1 pith:NI2JA5CJ submitted 2025-04-30 physics.plasm-ph physics.acc-ph

J. L. Shaw , M. V. Ambat , K. G. Miller , R. Boni , I. LaBelle , W. B. Mori , J. J. Pigeon , A. Rigatti
show 4 more authors
I. Settle L. Mack J. P. Palastro D. H. Froula
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.acc-ph PACS 52.38.Kd52.65.Rr
keywords dephasinglesslaserwakefieldaccelerationflyingfocusultrafastlaser-plasmaaxiparabolaparticle-in-cellsimulation100GeVelectronbeamsingle-stageaccelerator
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

Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration (DLWFA) uses a "flying focus" to move the intense laser spot at the speed of light, so the wakefield and the electrons it accelerates stay in phase and the usual dephasing limit disappears. The paper argues that with a proposed 500-J, 20-fs laser, apodized to 375 J for a round beam, a single plasma stage less than a meter long could accelerate electrons to 100 GeV, roughly an order of magnitude beyond today's single-stage laser-plasma results. It supports that projection by scaling up a 2.1-GeV particle-in-cell simulation, by comparing DLWFA scalings with traditional laser wakefield acceleration, and by initial measurements of a round, tight focal spot over 3.7 mm on the 6-J demonstration platform. If the projection holds, laser-plasma accelerators would no longer need hundreds of 10-GeV stages to reach the TeV scale.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the ultrafast flying focus: an axiparabola (a focusing mirror with intentional spherical aberration) stretches the focus into an extended line, while a radially stepped echelon mirror delays different rings of the beam so the focal spot travels at a chosen speed, including the speed of light. A light-speed focal trajectory makes the wakefield's phase velocity match the electrons, eliminating dephasing and allowing acceleration over arbitrarily long distances limited only by laser energy. The paper's scaling relations then carry the quantitative argument: electron energy $U_e \propto L a_0^{1/2} n^{1/2}$ and required laser energy $U_{\mathrm{laser}} \propto L a_0^{5/2} n^{-1/2}$, where $L$ is stage length, $a_0$ the normalized vector potential, and $n$ the plasma density. These scalings let the paper extend the 2-cm, 6-J simulation to a 1-m, 375-J stage.

What would settle it

Run a meter-scale, 375-J simulation, for example with a quasi-static code, and compare the final electron energy to 100 GeV; an energy far below 100 GeV would disprove the extrapolation. A cheaper early check is the 30-J experiment, which the scaling puts at about 7 GeV: a measured energy much lower than that would already falsify the linear scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that dephasing, not laser energy, has been the main barrier to very high single-stage energies in laser wakefield acceleration, and that a flying-focus-driven DLWFA removes that barrier. Concretely, the paper predicts 100-GeV electrons from a 375-J, 20-fs pulse in a single stage under one meter, by extrapolating the 2.1-GeV, 25-pC result of the prior DLWFA simulation [20] linearly in laser energy while operating at higher plasma density. It also presents new simulations showing that neutral hydrogen gas, unlike helium, prevents ionization-front refraction from disrupting the accelerating structure, and it reports experimental verification of an axiparabola's extended focal range on the 6-J platform. This combination of scaling, simulation, and optics results is offered as evidence that a single-stage 100-GeV electron beam is within reach of the proposed laser facility.

Load-bearing premise

The estimate assumes that the energy gain per unit laser energy demonstrated in a 2-cm, 6-J simulation continues unchanged to a roughly one-meter, 375-J stage, with no new saturation from beam loading, hosing, or the meter-scale plasma.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single meter-scale stage could deliver 100-GeV electrons, about ten times the best single-stage energies demonstrated so far.
  • No external guiding structures or density tapering are needed, because the moving focus controls both diffraction and dephasing.
  • The 30-J demonstration phase would produce roughly 7 GeV, giving an early, less expensive check of the scaling before the meter-scale flagship.
  • If the flagship works, a TeV-class collider could be built from far fewer than the hundreds of 10-GeV stages currently envisioned.
  • Hydrogen gas should be used for the first experiments, since the new simulations show it avoids the ionization-front refraction seen with helium.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the measured focal range fell short of design (3.7 mm versus 7.8 mm), optimizing the laser near-field profile could recover a longer usable focus and raise the achievable energy gain beyond the conservative apodized estimate.
  • A direct comparison of hydrogen versus helium on the 6-J platform would test the simulations' central claim about ionization refraction, using measured electron charge and energy as the metric.
  • The 30-J result at roughly 7 GeV is the cheapest decisive test of the 100-GeV extrapolation before committing to meter-scale optics and a meter-long plasma source.
  • If the linear energy scaling holds to even larger lasers, the same single-stage architecture could plausibly be pushed toward the TeV range, though the paper does not quantify the laser energy that would require.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a research and development path toward a single-stage, 100-GeV electron beam driven by a flying-focus laser-plasma accelerator (DLWFA) on the proposed NSF OPAL facility. It reviews and extends scaling laws for DLWFA versus traditional LWFA, reports new experimental characterization of an axiparabola extended focal spot on the MTW-OPAL platform, and presents new particle-in-cell simulations comparing neutral hydrogen and helium as working gases. The paper outlines four phases from the current 6-J demonstration to a 375-J flagship experiment, including computational, technical, and experimental milestones.

Significance. If the 100-GeV projection is realized, it would represent roughly an order-of-magnitude increase over current single-stage laser-plasma accelerator energies and would give DLWFA a credible claim as a path toward a future TeV collider. The paper's strengths include a transparent, parameter-scaling derivation in the Appendix, a concrete multi-phase experimental plan, new focal-spot data showing a round spot over about 3.7 mm with model agreement, and new simulations indicating that ionization-front refraction is less disruptive in hydrogen than in helium. The authors are also explicit that a full-scale simulation remains a goal, which is commendable. However, the headline 100-GeV energy is an extrapolation from a 2-cm, 6.2-J simulation and is not yet validated at intermediate scales.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IVd and Appendix Eq. (A3)] The central 100-GeV prediction rests on extrapolating the 2-cm, 6.2-J OSIRIS simulation of Ref. [20] using Ue ∝ L a0^(1/2) n^(1/2) and Ulaser ∝ L a0^(5/2) n^(-1/2), extending the acceleration length from 2 cm to roughly 1 m and the laser energy from 6.2 J to 375 J. This assumes that the same physical regime persists over a 50x longer length and 60x higher energy, with no validation at an intermediate scale; the manuscript itself states that the full-scale simulation is a goal to be completed prior to the flagship. Please provide either an intermediate-scale validation (for example, QPAD quasi-static simulations at the 30-J/10-cm scale) or explicitly reframe the 100-GeV value as an extrapolated target with a quantified uncertainty and a discussion of the conditions under which it could fail.
  2. [Section IVb (Figures 9 and 10)] The new hydrogen versus helium simulations are only 7 mm long and use 3.4 J after apodization, whereas the flagship operates at 375 J over roughly one meter. The paper's own text notes that 'the possible impact of refraction due to ionization is an open question in DLWFA research' (end of Section IVb). The conclusion that hydrogen 'provides a viable focus with limited refraction from ionization fronts' is therefore not established for the meter-scale flagship; accumulated ionization-front effects could alter the focal trajectory and the wake structure over the full length. Please temper the conclusion or extend the simulations to longer distances and higher energies, or identify why the 7-mm result is representative of the meter-scale regime.
  3. [Section IVb (Figure 11)] The focal-spot measurements are reported without error bars, shot counts, or a systematic uncertainty budget. The claim that the spot is round 'to within ~1 μm' and that the measured fluence profile agrees with the model is not quantitative enough for a data-driven claim. Please add the number of measurements, error bars on the fluence and spot-size curves, and a discussion of systematic uncertainties such as alignment, camera calibration, and shot-to-shot reproducibility.
  4. [Appendix Eq. (A3) and Sections II-III] The scalings assume a constant laser amplitude and plasma density over the entire acceleration length, so they implicitly neglect pump depletion, beam loading, and transverse instabilities such as hosing. Over a meter-scale interaction with 375 J, these effects could cap the electron energy below 100 GeV. The statement in Section II that DLWFA energy is 'limited only by the available laser energy' requires a quantitative estimate of the depletion length (or a citation showing that it exceeds the planned acceleration length) and an assessment of hosing/transverse stability at the 1-m scale. Without this, the scaling-derived energies in Figures 3 and 4 and in Section IVd are optimistic upper bounds rather than robust predictions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IVb, Computation paragraph] The drive laser is described as having a 'central wavelength of 920 µm'; this should almost certainly be 920 nm.
  2. [Appendix, first line after Eq. (A2)] The phrase 'the scaling lases for a DLWFA' contains a typo; it should read 'scaling laws.'
  3. [Section IVb, Experiment paragraph] 'The findings will be compared against theory and used to inform the next design and experimental steps' is followed by 'the physical tradeoffs between energy again, total accelerated charge, and beam quality'; 'energy again' should be 'energy gain.'
  4. [Section IVa, Experiment paragraph] The phrase 'the focal region extents for more than 50 Rayleigh ranges' should use 'extends' rather than 'extents.'
  5. [Reference [21]] Reference [21] cites a Wikipedia page for the International Linear Collider cost estimate; this should be replaced by a primary or peer-reviewed source.
  6. [Section IVb, Computation paragraph] The description '90% He/10% Ar (pre-ionized to 8)' is ambiguous; please specify the charge states, for example Ar^8+ or fully ionized helium.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the 100-GeV projection is an extrapolation of a fixed-parameter prior simulation through external scalings, with no parameter fitted to the target.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain runs from the bubble-regime scalings of Ref. [19] (Eqs. A1/A2), through the DLWFA extension in Eq. A3 where L is treated as a free acceleration length, to the extrapolation in Sec. IVd of the 2.1-GeV, 2-cm OSIRIS result of Ref. [20]. I find no step in which an output is defined in terms of its own target. The 100-GeV result is computed from the stated laser energy (375 J), the chosen a0 and density, and the length L; the scaling constants are not calibrated to 100 GeV, and no data subset is fitted and then re-predicted. The self-citations to Refs. [14,20] supply the flying-focus concept and the anchor simulation, but those are published, parameter-fixed simulation results with assumptions that do not include the 100-GeV target; under the review rules these count as real evidence rather than circularity. The paper explicitly flags the outstanding validation ('Prior to the 100-GeV flagship experiment, the goal is to complete a full-scale simulation with a 375-J pulse' and 'the possible impact of refraction due to ionization is an open question in DLWFA research'), underscoring that the 100-GeV number is a projection subject to unmodeled risks rather than a conclusion forced by construction. No equation in the paper reduces to its own output.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on published bubble-regime scaling laws, a self-published 2.1-GeV PIC anchor, and the assumption that standard LWFA matching conditions carry over to flying-focus wakes. No parameters are fitted to the 100-GeV target and no new entities are introduced, so the ledger is small; the main burden is the unvalidated extrapolation to meter scale.

free parameters (1)
  • Normalized vector potential a0 = 2
    Chosen for all scaling plots and stated as matched for LWFA in Appendix Eq. A1. It is a design choice controlling all derived curves, not fitted to target data, but the paper's quantitative comparisons depend on it.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Lu et al. bubble-regime scalings (Ref. [19]) apply to DLWFA with the same a0 and spot-size matching conditions.
    Appendix Eq. A1 sets kp w0 = kp R = 2 sqrt(a0) and omega_p tau = pi sqrt(a0) for both traditional LWFA and DLWFA, but no derivation shows that a flying-focus-driven wake satisfies these relations.
  • ad hoc to paper The 2.1-GeV OSIRIS result at 6 J (Ref. [20]) provides a valid anchor for linear energy-gain extrapolation to 375 J.
    Section IVd extrapolates from a 2-cm, 6-J simulation to roughly a 1-m, 375-J stage without accounting for possible saturation, instability, or beam-loading limits.
  • standard math Particle-in-cell codes OSIRIS and the planned QPAD runs are reliable for these regimes.
    The paper uses established PIC codes validated in prior publications; no new code validation is presented here.
  • ad hoc to paper The three Grand Challenges listed in Section IVd, meter-scale optics, a meter-scale plasma source, and a 100-GeV energy diagnostic, will be solvable.
    The flagship result depends on these technologies, but the paper states they are not yet demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Path to a Single-Stage, 100-GeV Electron Beam via a Flying-Focus-Driven Laser-Plasma Accelerator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NI2JA5CJ

@misc{pith2026250500157,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Path to a Single-Stage, 100-GeV Electron Beam via a Flying-Focus-Driven Laser-Plasma Accelerator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NI2JA5CJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00157}
}
read the original abstract

Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration (DLWFA), a novel laser wakefield acceleration concept based on the recently demonstrated "flying focus" technology, offers a new paradigm in laser-plasma acceleration that could advance the progress toward a TeV linear accelerator using a single-stage system without guiding structures. The recently proposed NSF OPAL laser facility could be the transformative technology that enables this grand challenge in laser-plasma acceleration. We review the viable parameter space for DLWFA based on the scaling of its performance with laser and plasma parameters, and we compare that performance to traditional laser wakefield acceleration. These scalings indicate the necessity for ultrashort, high-energy laser architectures such as NSF OPAL to achieve groundbreaking electron energies using DLWFA. Initial results from MTW-OPAL, the platform for the 6-J DLWFA demonstration experiment, show a tight, round focal spot over a distance of 3.7 mm. New particle-in-cell simulations of that platform indicate that using hydrogen for DLWFA reduces the amount of laser light that is distorted due to refraction at ionization fronts. An experimental path, and the computational and technical design work along that path, from the current status of the field to a single-stage, 100-GeV electron beam via DLWFA on NSF OPAL is outlined. Progress along that path is presented.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Laser Wakefield Acceleration Driven by a Discrete Flying Focus

    physics.acc-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A discrete flying focus laser pulse train can drive a wakefield that stays locked to an electron beam, eliminating dephasing and allowing 40 GeV gain in a single 30-cm stage in simulation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [20]

    Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bubble regime,

    K. G. Miller, J. R. Pierce, M. V. Ambat, J. L. Shaw, K. Weichman, W. B . More, D. H. Froula, and J. P. Palastro . “Dephasingless laser wakefield acceleration in the bubble regime,” Sci. Rep. 13, 21306 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-48249-4

    doi:10.1038/s41598-023-48249-4 2023

  2. [1]

    https://www.usparticlephysics.org/2023-p5-report/executive-summary

    Executive Summary of 2023 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) . https://www.usparticlephysics.org/2023-p5-report/executive-summary

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Laser Electron Accelerator,

    T. Tajima and J.M. Dawson. “Laser Electron Accelerator,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 267-270 (1979)

    work page 1979

  4. [3]

    Ultrahigh-Gradient Acceleration of Injected Electrons by Laser -Excited Relativistic Electron-Plasma Waves,

    C. E. Clayton, K. A. Marsh, A. Dyson, M. Everett, A. Lal, W. P. Leemans, R. Williams, and C. Joshi. “Ultrahigh-Gradient Acceleration of Injected Electrons by Laser -Excited Relativistic Electron-Plasma Waves,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 37-40 (1993)

    work page 1993

  5. [4]

    Trapped Electron Acceleration by a Laser-Driven Relativistic Plasma-Wave,

    M. Everett, A. Lal, D. Gordon, C.E. Clayton, K.A. Marsh, and C. Joshi . “ Trapped Electron Acceleration by a Laser-Driven Relativistic Plasma-Wave,” Nature 368, 527-529 (1994)

    work page 1994

  6. [5]

    High-Quality Electron Beams from a Laser Wakefield Accelerator Using Plasma-Channel Guiding,

    C. G. R. Geddes, Cs. Toth, J. van Tilbog, E. Esarey, C. B. Schroeder, D. Bruhwiler, C. Nieter, J. Cary, and W. P. Leemans . “High-Quality Electron Beams from a Laser Wakefield Accelerator Using Plasma-Channel Guiding,” Nature 431, 538-541 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [6]

    Monoenergetic Beams of Relativistic Electrons from Intense Laser–Plasma Interactions,

    S. P. D. Mangles, C. D. Murphy, Z. Najmudin, A. G. R. Thomas, J. L. Collier, A. E. Dangor, E. J. Divall, P. S. Foster, J. G. Gallacher, C. J. Hooker et al. “Monoenergetic Beams of Relativistic Electrons from Intense Laser–Plasma Interactions,” Nature 431, 535-538 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [7]

    A Laser-Plasma Accelerator Producing Monoenergetic Electron Beams,

    J. Faure, Y. Glinec, A. Pukhov, S. Kiselev, S. Gordienko, E. Lefebvre, J.-P. Rousseau, F. Burgy, and V. Malka. “A Laser-Plasma Accelerator Producing Monoenergetic Electron Beams,” Nature 431, 541-544 (2004)

    work page 2004

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Multi-GeV Electron Bunches from an All-Optical Laser Wakefield Accelerator

    B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, L. Feder, R. C. Hollinger, J. Morrison, R. Nedbailo, A. Picksley, H. Song, S. Wang, J. J. Rocca et al. “Multi-GeV Electron Bunches from an All-Optical Laser Wakefield Accelerator” Phys Rev X, 12(3), 031038 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide,

    A. J. Gonsalves, K. Nakamura, J. Daniels, C. Benedetti, C. Pieronek, T. C. H. de Raadt, S. Steinke, J. H. Bin, S. S. Bulanova, J. van Tilborg et al . “Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide,” Phys. Rev. Le...

    2019

  3. [10]

    The acceleration of a high-charge electron bunch to 10 GeV in a 10- cm nanoparticle-assisted wakefield accelerator,

    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. “The acceleration of a high-charge electron bunch to 10 GeV in a 10- cm nanoparticle-assisted wakefield accelerator,” Matter Radiat. Extremes 9, 014001 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark- Current-Free, 10-GeV-Class, Channel-Guided Laser-Plasma Accelerators,

    A. Picksley, J. Stackhouse, C. Benedetti, K. Nakamura, H. E. Tsai, R. Li, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock , E. Rockafello, H. M. Milchberg et al ., “Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark- Current-Free, 10-GeV-Class, Channel-Guided Laser-Plasma Accelerators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. ...

    2024

  5. [12]

    Laser-driven plasma-wave electron accelerators,

    W. Leemans, and E. Esarey . “Laser-driven plasma-wave electron accelerators,” Physics Today, 62, 44-49 (2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    Spatiotemporal control of laser intensity,

    D. H. Froula, D. Turnbull, A. S. Davies, T. J. Kessler, D. Haberberger, J. P. Palastro, S.-W. Bahk, I. A. Begishev, R. Boni, S. Bucht et a l. “Spatiotemporal control of laser intensity,” Nature Photonics 12, 5 (2018)

    2018

  7. [14]

    Dephasingless Laser Wakefield Acceleration,

    J.P. Palastro, J.L. Shaw, P. Franke, D. Ramsey, T.T. Simpson, and D.H. Froula. “Dephasingless Laser Wakefield Acceleration,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 13 (2020)

    2020

  8. [15]

    NSF OPAL: Laser System Design and Critical Technologies

    J. Bromage, S.-W. Bahk, B. Barczys, A. Bolognesi, C. Dorrer, N. Ekanayake, C. Feng, E. Hill, C. Jeon, M. Krieger et al. "NSF OPAL: Laser System Design and Critical Technologies." Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2024)

    2024

  9. [16]

    Self-Guiding of Ultrashort, Relativistically Intense Laser Pulses through Underdense Plasmas in the Blowout Regime,

    J. E. Ralph, K. A. Marsh, A. E. Pak, W. Lu, C. E. Clayton, F. Fang, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, “Self-Guiding of Ultrashort, Relativistically Intense Laser Pulses through Underdense Plasmas in the Blowout Regime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 175003 (2009)

    2009

  10. [17]

    Interaction of ultrahigh laser fields with beams and plasmas,

    P. Sprangle and E. Esarey, “Interaction of ultrahigh laser fields with beams and plasmas, ” Phys. Fluids B 4, 2241 (1992)

    1992

  11. [18]

    Light pipe for high intensity laser pulses,

    C. G. Durfee and H. M. Milchberg, “Light pipe for high intensity laser pulses,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2409 (1993). 18 of 20

    1993

  12. [19]

    Generating multi-GeV electron bunches using single stage laser wakefield acceleration in a 3D nonlinear regime,

    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 wakefield acceleration in a 3D nonlinear regime,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 10, 061301 (2007)

    2007

  13. [21]

    2007; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linear_Collider#Cost

    The International Linear Collider – Gateway to the Quantum Universe . 2007; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Linear_Collider#Cost

    2007

  14. [22]

    Axiparabola: a long-focal-depth, high-resolution mirror for broadband high-intensity lasers,

    S. Smartsev, C. Caizergues, K. Oubrerie, J. Gautier, J.-P. Goddet, A. Tafzi, K. T. Phuoc, V. Malka, and C. Thaury. “Axiparabola: a long-focal-depth, high-resolution mirror for broadband high-intensity lasers,” Opt. Lett. 44, 3414-3417 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Stable Laser-Pulse Propagation in Plasma Chanels for GeV Electron Ac celeration,

    P. Sprangle, B. Hafizi, J. R. Penano, R. F. H ubbard, A. Ting, A. Zigler, and T. M. Antonsen, J r. “Stable Laser-Pulse Propagation in Plasma Chanels for GeV Electron Ac celeration,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5110 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    GeV acceleration in tapered plasma channels,

    P. Sprangle, J. R. Penano, B. Hafizi, R. F. Hubbard, A. Ting, D. F. Gordon, A. Zigler, and T. M. Antonsen, Jr . “GeV acceleration in tapered plasma channels,” Phys. Plasmas 9, 2364- 2370 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    Quasi -Phase-Matched Laser Wakefield Acceleration,

    S. J. Yoon, J. P. Palastro, and H. M. Milc hberg, “Quasi -Phase-Matched Laser Wakefield Acceleration,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 134803 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Overcoming the dephasing limit in multiple-pulse laser wakefield acceleration,

    J. D. Sadler, C. Arran, H. Li, and K. A. Flippo. “Overcoming the dephasing limit in multiple-pulse laser wakefield acceleration,” Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 021303 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Circumventing the Dephasing and Depletion Limits of Laser -Wakefield Acceleration,

    A. Debus, R. Pausch, A. Huebl, K. Steiniger, R. Widera, T. E. Cowan, U. Schramm, and M. Bussmann. “Circumventing the Dephasing and Depletion Limits of Laser -Wakefield Acceleration,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 031044 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Phase-locked laser -wakefield electron acceleration,

    C. Caizergues, S. Smartsev, V. Malka, and C. Thaury “Phase-locked laser -wakefield electron acceleration,” Nat. Photonics 14, 475 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Use of spatiotemporal couplings and an axiparabola to control the velocity of peak intensity,

    A. Liberman, R. Lahaye, S. Smartsev, S. Tata, S. Benracassa, A. Golovanov, E. Levine, C. Thaury, and V. Malka. “Use of spatiotemporal couplings and an axiparabola to control the velocity of peak intensity,” Opt. Lett. 49, 814-817 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    First Direct Observation of a Wakefield Generated with Structured Light,

    A. Liberman, A. Golovanov, S. Smartsev, S. Tata, I. A. Andriyash, S. Benracassa, E. Y. Levine, E. Kroupp, and V. Malka. “First Direct Observation of a Wakefield Generated with Structured Light,” arXiv:2503.01516v1 [physics.acc-ph] 3 Mar 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Linear colliders based on laser -plasma accelerators

    C.B. Schroeder , F. Albert, C. Benedetti, J. Bromage, D. Bruhwiler, S. S. Bulanov, E. M. Campbell, N. M. Cook, B. Cros, M. C. Downer, et al., “Linear colliders based on laser -plasma accelerators” JINST 18, T06001(2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    https://www.clf.stfc.ac.uk/Pages/Vulcan-2020.aspx

    2020

  25. [33]

    Progress Report on the Commissioning of the ZEUS Facility

    A. M. Maksimchuk , J. Nees , B. Hou, R. Anthony, F. Bayer, M. Burger, P. T. Campbell, G. Kalinchenko, S. R. Klein, Y. Ma et al. " Progress Report on the Commissioning of the ZEUS Facility." Bulletin of the American Physical Society (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    4.2 PW, 20 fs Ti:sapphire laser at 0.1 Hz,

    J. H. Sung, H. W. Lee, J. Y. Yoo, J. W. Yoon, C. W. Lee, J. M. Yang, Y. J. Son, Y. H. Jang, S. K. Lee, and C. H. Nam, "4.2 PW, 20 fs Ti:sapphire laser at 0.1 Hz," Opt. Lett. 42, 2058-2061 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    https://www.eli-beams.eu/facility/lasers/laser-3-hapls-1-pw-30-j-10-hz/

  28. [36]

    Ultrabroadband flying-focus using an axiparabola-echelon pair,

    J. J. Pigeon, P. Franke, M. Lim Pac Chong, J. Katz, R. Boni, C. Dorrer, J. P. Palastro, and D. H. Froula, "Ultrabroadband flying-focus using an axiparabola-echelon pair," Opt. Express 32, 576- 585 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Measurements of THz produced by a two- color flying focus,

    J. J. Pigeon, H. S. Markland, R. Boni, J. Kendrick, M. Lim Pac Chong, A. I. Elliott, K. G. Miller, J. P. Palastro, and D. H. Froula, “Measurements of THz produced by a two- color flying focus,” Submitted to 2025 Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics, Optica Technical Digest

    2025

  30. [38]

    Programmable-trajectory ultrafast flying focus pulses,

    M. V. Ambat, J. L. Shaw, J. J. Pigeon, K. G. Miller, T. T. Simpson, D. H. Froula, and J. P. Palastro. "Programmable-trajectory ultrafast flying focus pulses," Opt. Express 31, 31354-31368 (2023). 19 of 20

    2023

  31. [39]

    Arbitrary-velocity laser pulses in plasma waveguides,

    J.P. Palastro, K.G. Miller, M.R. Edwards, A.L. Elliott, L.S. Mack, D. Singh, and A.G.R. Thomas, “Arbitrary-velocity laser pulses in plasma waveguides,” arXiv:2503.15690 [physics.plasm -ph] 19 Mar 2025

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Measurements of a tunable- trajectory ultrabroadband flying -focus pulse using adaptive optics and an axiparabola,

    H. S. Markland, J. Rosenbluth, R. Boni, M.V. Ambat, C. Dorrer, J. P. Palastro, D. H. Froula, and J. J. Pigeon, “Measurements of a tunable- trajectory ultrabroadband flying -focus pulse using adaptive optics and an axiparabola,” Submitted to 2025 Conference on Lasers and Electr...

    2025

  33. [41]

    R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, F. S. Tsung, V. K. Decyk, W. Lu , C. Ren, W. B. Mori, S. Deng, S. Lee, T. Katsouleas et al., Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. (Springer, Berlin, 2002), p. 342, Vol. 2331

    2002

  34. [42]

    Arbitrarily structured laser pulses,

    J. R. Pierce, J. P. Palastro, F. Li, B. Malaca, D. Ramsey, J. Vieira, K. Weichman, and W. B. Mori, “Arbitrarily structured laser pulses,” Phys. Rev. Research 5, 013085 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    A. Pak, K. A. Marsh, S. F. Martins, W. Lu, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 025003 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    McGuffey , A

    C. McGuffey , A. G. R. Thomas, W. Schumaker, T. Matsuoka, V. Chvykov, F. J. Dollar, G. Kalintchenko, V. Yanovsky, A. Maksimchuk , V. Yu. Bychenkov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 025004 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    MTW -OPAL: a technology development platform for ultra -intense optical parametric chirped-pulse amplification systems,

    J. Bromage, S.-W. Bahk, M. Bedzyk, I. A. Begishev, S. Bucht, C. Dorrer, C. Feng, C. Jeon, C. Mileham, R. G. Roides, K. Shaughnessy, M. J. Shoup III, M. Spilatro, B. Webb, D. Weiner, and J. D. Zuegel. “MTW -OPAL: a technology development platform for ultra -intense optical para...

    2021 doi

  38. [46]

    Validation of a simple block model for permanent magnet electron spectrometers

    M. V. Ambat, I . A. Settle, J. Shamlian, R. Boni, and J. L. Shaw, “Validation of a simple block model for permanent magnet electron spectrometers” To be submitted to Review of Scientific Instruments

  39. [47]

    A quasi-static particle-in-cell algorithm based on an azimuthal Fourier decomposition for highly efficient simulations of plasma-based acceleration: QPAD,

    F. Li, W. An, V. K. Decyk, X. Xu, M. J. Hogan, and W. B. Mori. “A quasi-static particle-in-cell algorithm based on an azimuthal Fourier decomposition for highly efficient simulations of plasma-based acceleration: QPAD,” Computer Physics Communications 261 , 107784 (2021). http...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Radiation reaction-dominated regime of wakefield acceleration ,

    A. A. Golovanov, E. N. Nerush, and I. Yu Kostyukov. “ Radiation reaction-dominated regime of wakefield acceleration ,” New J. Physics 24, 033011 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367- 2630/ac53b9 Appendix: Derivation of Scalings for Figures 3 and 4 To derive the scalings shown ...

    2022 doi

Pith tools

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