Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 36 references

Experimental evidence of stimulated Raman re-scattering in laser-plasma interaction

T0 review · 3 major / 3 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 This paper reports the first direct experimental observation of stimulated Raman re-scattering, where Raman-scattered laser light is intense enough to scatter again through the same instability.

desk verdict First direct experimental observation of Raman re-scattering, with a coherent multi-diagnostic case; the identification has a few soft spots but the core result should go to peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02547 v1 pith:NGCL4BBU submitted 2025-05-05 physics.plasm-ph

J.-R. Marquès , F. Pérez , P. Loiseau , L. Lancia , C. Briand , S. Depierreux , M. Grech , C. Riconda This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-ph PACS 52.38.-r52.38.Bv
keywords stimulatedRamanscatteringre-scatteringlaser-plasmainteractioninertialconfinementfusionhotelectronpreheatbackwardSRSparticle-in-cellsimulationdirect-driveplasma
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 reports the first direct experimental observation of stimulated Raman re-scattering: in a laser-heated hydrogen gas jet, the light already scattered by the Raman instability is intense enough to undergo the same instability a second time. The identifying signature is a spectral component at $\omega_0 - 2\omega_p$, seen clearly near the forward direction, which is what backward Raman re-scattering of the primary backward Raman light should produce. Re-scattering has been predicted and simulated for years in inertial confinement fusion because the secondary electron plasma waves can accelerate electrons to high energies and preheat the fuel. The result matters because it validates a mechanism that could change the energy balance and hot-electron readings in direct-drive experiments, and it shows how to recognize that mechanism in ordinary scattered-light spectra.

What carries the argument

The key relation is the frequency rule $\omega_{\mathrm{Re-SRS}} \simeq \omega_0 - 2\omega_p$, obtained by applying the Raman resonance twice: primary backward SRS creates light at $\omega_0 - \omega_p$, and a second scattering of that light moves it one more plasma frequency down. That single relation is the spectroscopic fingerprint that separates re-scattering from one-step SRS ($\omega_0 - \omega_p$) and from Langmuir-wave coalescence ($2\omega_p$). The analysis is carried by angle-resolved, time-resolved, polarization-resolved spectroscopy of five scattering angles, with electron density and temperature histories supplied by radiation-hydrodynamics simulation and expected angular emission patterns supplied by particle-in-cell simulation.

What would settle it

On a shot where the electron density and temperature in the probed volume are measured directly, extract the primary backward SRS wavelength from the 180° spectrum and compare it with the wavelength inferred from the $\omega_0-2\omega_p$ signal: a mismatch beyond the ~35 nm spectral width, or a $\omega_0-2\omega_p$ signal that starts before or outlasts the backward SRS signal, would break the re-scattering interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that backward stimulated Raman scattering, once established in the plasma, produces a scattered light wave strong enough to act as a pump for a second stimulated Raman scattering. Applying the resonance condition twice gives a rescattered wave at $\omega_{\mathrm{Re-SRS}} \simeq \omega_0 - 2\omega_p$, directed preferentially forward, and this is the signal the authors find at 25° to 50° from the laser axis. The identification is supported by polarization behavior, by time histories that lock the new signal's appearance and disappearance to the primary backward SRS, and by extrapolating the plasma frequency from the $\omega_0 - 2\omega_p$ signal so that the ordinary SRS and $2\omega_p$ curves continue exactly into the late-time data. Radiation-hydrodynamic and particle-in-cell simulations reproduce the frequency evolution and the angular distribution of the three emissions. The paper concludes that both generations of the instability grow in the absolute regime, with critical lengths shorter than a speckle, so the two scatterings occur at essentially the same electron density.

Load-bearing premise

The spectral identification rests on the assumption that the first and second Raman scatterings occur at essentially the same electron density, so the final frequency is $\omega_0-2\omega_p$; that density is taken from a radiation-hydrodynamics simulation rather than measured during the shot, and the primary backward-scattered light that would serve as the rescattering pump is not directly measured.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A forward-directed component at $\omega_0-2\omega_p$ is a practical marker for Re-SRBS in any experiment with speckle intensities near $10^{15}$ W/cm² and densities around $0.05 n_c$; it should be looked for in existing inertial-confinement-fusion spectra.
  • Because the secondary plasma wave has a backward phase velocity, Re-SRBS redirects some of the scattered-light energy into backward-accelerated electrons; the simulations here show electrons up to roughly 35 keV, with the backward population tied to Re-SRBS rather than Langmuir decay.
  • Re-SRBS depletes its own pump, so measured backward SRS levels can understate the real Raman activity, especially in high-intensity, short-pulse regimes.
  • The re-scattered signal ends when Landau damping quenches the primary instability ($k_p\lambda_D>0.3$), so its disappearance tracks the end of primary SRBS rather than the end of the laser.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A reanalysis of archival direct-drive spectra taken at similar speckle intensities and densities near $0.05 n_c$ might already contain an overlooked $\omega_0-2\omega_p$ component that was previously binned as the red wing of one-step SRS.
  • The same double-resonance logic predicts a Brillouin re-scattering feature near $\omega_0-2\omega_{IA}$, where $\omega_{IA}$ is the ion-acoustic frequency; the present setup could test for it by extending the spectral window or using a gas with a stronger Brillouin response.
  • The cleanest isolated test would be a two-beam experiment in which a weak probe near $\omega_0-2\omega_p$ is sent through the plasma while primary SRS is on: the probe should be amplified only when the backward SRS pump is present.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reports time-resolved, multi-angle spectra of light scattered from a laser-heated hydrogen gas jet. It identifies a component near the forward direction at frequency ωRe-SRS≈ω0−2ωp, with polarization similar to the incident laser, and interprets it as stimulated Raman re-scattering (Re-SRBS) of primary backward SRS light. Supporting evidence is drawn from TROLL radiation-hydrodynamic simulations, from estimates that the primary and secondary Raman instabilities grow in the absolute regime with critical lengths shorter than the speckle length, and from Smilei PIC simulations reproducing the angular distribution and spectral ordering of the SRS, Re-SRBS, and 2ωp emissions. The authors claim this to be the first direct experimental evidence of Raman rescattering.

Significance. If the identification is correct, this is the first direct observation of Raman re-scattering, a process previously seen only in simulations and of direct relevance to inertial-confinement-fusion hot-electron preheat and to the interpretation of SRS diagnostics. The paper's strengths are the combination of frequency, angular, polarization, and temporal signatures; the use of two independent simulation tools (TROLL hydrodynamics and Smilei PIC); and the explicit growth-rate analysis in the supplementary material. The central limitation is that the frequency assignment relies on the unmeasured assumption ωp′≈ωp, with the in-text cross-check in Fig. 4a partially circular; the independent support from TROLL and PIC is therefore important but should be presented and scrutinized as such.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 4a and paragraph beginning 'To cross-check...'] The consistency test in Fig. 4a assumes ωRe-SRS=ω0−2ωp in order to infer the plasma frequency, then extrapolates the SRS and 2ωp trajectories. Exact continuity under this assumption demonstrates self-consistency but cannot by itself validate the frequency relation, since any signal whose wavelength tracks 2ωp(t) in the assumed way would show the same continuity. The authors should explicitly label this as a consistency check rather than a confirmation, and should add an independent test—for example, using the measured SRBS spectrum at 170–180° to infer ne(t) and predicting the Re-SRBS wavelength from it, or withholding a late-time portion of the measured Re-SRBS as a prediction.
  2. [Supplementary Fig. 4 and the growth-rate discussion in the main text] The inference that both Raman processes occur in very close regions, giving ωp′≈ωp within 5%, rests on the absolute-regime growth-rate estimates whose inputs include the assumed SRBS pump intensity fraction (1% and 10% of the laser intensity in the speckles) and the speckle peak intensity, neither of which is directly measured in the forward-scattering volume. Because ωp′≈ωp is load-bearing for the central spectral assignment, the sensitivity of the predicted Re-SRBS wavelength to these parameters should be quantified, and the uncertainty in the TROLL-provided ne(t) and Te(t) should be propagated into the quoted 5% agreement.
  3. [Discussion of the forward 850-nm component in Fig. 2] The forward component assigned to Re-SRBS could in principle also arise from forward SRS at a lower local density (a different ωp) or from an additional scattering process involving the intense 2ωp emission. The observed angular pattern, polarization, and temporal correlation with the end of SRBS narrow these alternatives but do not eliminate them without an explicit argument based on the measured spectral evolution and the TROLL density/temperature history. Please state directly why these alternative origins are excluded, or present a test that distinguishes them.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Main text, critical-density definition] The sentence containing 'Herenc(cm−3)∼ 1.1×1021/λ20(µm)' appears garbled and should be rewritten.
  2. [Fig. 4a discussion] The phrase 'in exact continuity' overstates the precision of the agreement; 'consistent within the spectral resolution and the spread of the TROLL density evolution' would be more accurate.
  3. [Conclusion of the cross-check paragraph] The sentence 'This confirms that ωRe-SRS∼ω0−2ωp' should be softened in light of the partial circularity of the Fig. 4a test, for example by saying that the data are consistent with the relation and that the relation is further supported by the TROLL-based evolution in Fig. 4b.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The forward ω0−2ωp component is identified by assuming the very relation used in the Fig. 4a cross-check and in the Fig. 4b hydro curve; independent PIC support prevents a higher circularity score.

  1. self definitional [Main text, 'To cross-check...' paragraph and Fig. 4a, p. 4]
    "To cross-check the origin of the signals and their correlation, assuming ωRe-SRS =ω0− 2ωp, we retrieved the plasma frequency from the Re-SRBS signal as it enters the detection window and extrapolated the wavelength of the SRS and 2ωp signals at late times ... This confirms that ωRe-SRS∼ω0− 2ωp, meaning that the primary and secondary Raman processes occur at the same plasma density, ω′p∼ωp"

    The check assumes the relation it claims to validate: the plasma frequency is recovered from the Re-SRBS wavelength through ωRe-SRS = ω0−2ωp, so the extrapolated SRS and 2ωp trajectories are not independent of that hypothesis. Continuity with earlier measured signals demonstrates internal consistency, but it cannot establish ωp'≈ωp, which is precisely the equal-density assumption needed to identify the third component as Re-SRBS rather than another forward-scattered or frequency-shifted emission.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Main text, Fig. 4b paragraph, p. 4; Supplementary Material 'Hydrodynamic simulations']
    "Figure 4-b) shows the calculated wavelength evolution of the EM emissions under the same conditions as in figure 4-a) and taking ωRe-SRS = ω0− 2ωp. It shows very good agreement for the three emissions."

    The Re-SRBS branch displayed as agreement is not independently predicted: the relation ωRe-SRS = ω0−2ωp is inserted by hand into the dispersion calculation, so the match of that branch with the observed forward signal is built in rather than derived. Only the SRS and 2ωp branches are independently computed from the hydrodynamic ne(t), Te(t); the Re-SRBS branch therefore does not test the ωp'≈ωp hypothesis.

full rationale

The central claim is not globally circular. The paper presents a distinct forward-directed spectral component at a frequency close to ω0−2ωp with polarization and angular behavior consistent with Raman rescattering, and a Smilei PIC simulation, in which the ω0−2ωp component emerges from kinetic dynamics rather than being imposed, reproduces the angular distribution; this is genuine independent support. The circularity is localized to two interpretive steps. First, the Fig. 4a cross-check explicitly assumes ωRe-SRS = ω0−2ωp to infer the plasma frequency and then states that the continuity 'confirms' the relation; because the inferred plasma frequency is generated by the assumed relation, that confirmation is self-definitional. Second, the hydrodynamic wavelength evolution in Fig. 4b is computed 'taking ωRe-SRS = ω0−2ωp', so the Re-SRBS branch is an input rather than a prediction, while only the SRS and 2ωp branches are independently calculated from TROLL ne(t),Te(t). The remaining dependence of the identification on ωp'≈ωp is a modeling assumption supported by absolute-growth-rate estimates, not a circular reduction. Self-citations to the authors' earlier 2ωp observations [27,28] and to the TROLL and Smilei codes are normal and not load-bearing for the new claim. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in the confirmation language, while the core observational identification retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard SRS dispersion relations and on the assumption that the hydrodynamic and PIC simulations faithfully represent the experiment. No new physical entities are introduced and no constants are fitted to the measured spectra; the main modeling inputs are the TROLL initial conditions, the single-speckle PIC geometry, and the pump-intensity fraction used for growth-rate estimates.

free parameters (3)
  • Initial plasma temperature in TROLL = not stated in text
    TROLL is initialized with uniform ion and electron temperatures; this is a modeling input selected from gas-jet conditions, not fitted to the Raman spectra.
  • Speckle peak intensity in PIC = 1e15 W/cm2
    Chosen as the typical maximum speckle intensity from the measured focal spot (Fig. 1); it sets the pump strength for SRS in the simulation.
  • SRBS pump intensity fraction for growth-rate estimates = 1% to 10%
    Used in the supplementary material to estimate Re-SRBS growth rates; the range comes from PIC results, not from a fit to the observed spectra.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math SRS satisfies energy and momentum conservation with the Bohm-Gross electron plasma wave dispersion.
    Used throughout to relate the measured frequencies to plasma density and to define the Re-SRS frequency.
  • standard math Electromagnetic waves can only propagate in plasma when their frequency exceeds the local plasma frequency.
    Determines the detection window and the density ranges where SRS and Re-SRS can be observed.
  • domain assumption Landau damping strongly inhibits SRS when the plasma wave satisfies k_p lambda_D > 0.3.
    Used to explain the termination of the primary SRS and therefore of Re-SRBS; cited to Ref. 29.
  • domain assumption The TROLL radiation-hydrodynamics simulation accurately reproduces the time evolution of ne and Te in the probed volume.
    All frequency-vs-time comparisons in Fig. 4b and the Landau-damping termination arguments depend on these simulated plasma parameters.
  • domain assumption A single-speckle 2D PIC simulation with Smilei captures the dominant physics of the experiment.
    The experimental beam contains many speckles, but the paper argues the most intense speckles dominate; the PIC domain is one 4.2 micron speckle.
  • domain assumption The absolute SRS instability criterion (Pesme, Laval, Pellat) applies to the speckle conditions.
    Used to argue that primary and secondary Raman processes occur in close regions so that omega_p prime is approximately omega_p.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Experimental evidence of stimulated Raman re-scattering in laser-plasma interaction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGCL4BBU

@misc{pith2026250502547,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Experimental evidence of stimulated Raman re-scattering in laser-plasma interaction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGCL4BBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02547}
}
abstract

We present the first experimental evidence of stimulated Raman re-scattering of a laser in plasma: The scattered light produced by the Raman instability is intense enough to scatter again through the same instability. Although never observed, re-scattering processes have been studied theoretically and numerically for many years in the context of inertial confinement fusion (ICF), since the plasma waves they generate could bootstrap thermal electrons to high energies [Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{110}, 165001 (2013)], preheating the fuel and degrading ignition conditions. Our experimental results are obtained with a spatially smoothed laser beam consisting of many speckles, with an average intensity around $10^{14}$ W/cm$^2$ and close to $10^{15}$ W/cm$^2$ in the speckles, such as those usually used in direct-drive ICF. Kinetic and hydrodynamic simulations show good agreement with the observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02547 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: figure 5. The SRS and 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows two-dimensional profiles of the density (ne/nc), temperatures (Te and Ti) and laser intensity at four different times in the laser pulse. The time evolution of these quantities at the plasma (gas jet) center are presented in figure 2. These extracted ne and Te va…
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    W. L. Kruer, The Physics of Laser Plasma Interactions (Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, 2003)

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    Michel, Introduction to Laser-Plasma Interactions (Springer Cham, 2023), URL https://doi.org/10

    P. Michel, Introduction to Laser-Plasma Interactions (Springer Cham, 2023), URL https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-031-23424-8

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    The other two signals are observed for both ori- entations of the polarizer

    As expected and already observed [27], the 2 ωp EM emission is polarized in the plane of observation (hori- zontal). The other two signals are observed for both ori- entations of the polarizer. This is expected from Raman scattering processes which mainly follows the polariza- tion of the laser, linear at an angle of 45◦ with respect to the horizontal pla...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    B. B. Kirkwood, R. K. andAfeyan, W. L. Kruer, B. J. MacGowan, J. D. Moody, D. S. Montgomery, D. M. Pen- nington, T. L. Weiland, and S. C. Wilks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 2065 (1996), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.76.2065

    work page 1996

  5. [5]

    D. J. Strozzi, D. S. Bailey, P. Michel, L. Divol, S. M. Sepke, G. D. Kerbel, C. A. Thomas, J. E. Ralph, J. D. Moody, and M. B. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 025002 (2017), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.118.025002

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    E. L. Dewald, C. Thomas, S. Hunter, L. Divol, N. Meezan, S. H. Glenzer, L. J. Suter, E. Bond, J. L. Kline, J. Celeste, et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 81, 10D938 (2010), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3478683

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3478683 2010

  7. [7]

    A. R. Christopherson, R. Betti, C. J. Forrest, J. Howard, W. Theobald, J. A. Delettrez, M. J. Rosenberg, A. A. Solodov, C. Stoeckl, D. Patel, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 055001 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.127.055001

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    B. J. Winjum, J. E. Fahlen, F. S. Tsung, and W. B. Mori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 165001 (2013)

    2013

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    E. L. Dewald, F. Hartemann, P. Michel, J. Milovich, M. Hohenberger, A. Pak, O. L. Landen, L. Divol, H. F. Robey, O. A. Hurricane, et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 116, 075003 (2016), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.075003

    2016

  2. [10]

    Speziale, J

    T. Speziale, J. F. McGrath, and R. L. Berger, Phys. Flu- ids 23, 1275 (1980), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 863127

    1980 doi

  3. [11]

    Montes, Phys

    C. Montes, Phys. Rev. A 31, 2366 (1985), URL https: //doi.org/10.1103/physreva.31.2366

    1985 doi

  4. [12]

    A. B. Langdon and D. E. Hinkel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 015003 (2002), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.89.015003

    2002

  5. [13]

    D. E. Hinkel, S. W. Haan, A. B. Langdon, T. R. Dittrich, C. H. Still, and M. M. Marinak, Phys. Plasmas 11, 1128 (2004), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1640625

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    D. E. Hinkel, M. B. Schneider, H. A. Baldis, and et al., Phys. Plasmas 12, 056305 (2005), URL https://doi. org/10.1063/1.1880012

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    G. N. Hall, O. S. Jones, D. J. Strozzi, J. D. Moody, D. Turnbull, J. Ralph, P. A. Michel, M. Hohenberger, A. S. Moore, O. L. Landen, et al., Phys. Plasmas 24, 052706 (2017), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/ 1.4983142. 6

    2017

  8. [16]

    L. Hao, W. Y. Huo, Z. Liu, J. Li, C. Zheng, and C. Ren, Nucl. Fusion 61, 036041 (2021), URL https://doi.org/ 10.1088/1741-4326/abd921

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    S. A. MacLaren, M. B. Schneider, K. Widmann, J. H. Hammer, B. E. Yoxall, J. D. Moody, P. M. Bell, L. R. Benedetti, D. K. Bradley, M. J. Edwards, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 105003 (2014), URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.105003

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Y. Zhao, Z. Sheng, S. Weng, S. Ji, and J. Zhu, High Power Laser Science and Engineering 7, e20 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1017/hpl.2019.5

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    Betti, C

    R. Betti, C. D. Zhou, K. S. Anderson, L. J. Perkins, W. Theobald, and A. A. Solodov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 155001 (2007), URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.98.155001

    2007

  12. [20]

    X. T. He, J. W. Li, Z. F. Fan, L. F. Wang, J. Liu, K. Lan, J. F. Wu, and W. H. Ye, Phys. Plasmas 23, 082706 (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4960973

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Ji, C.-W

    Y. Ji, C.-W. Lian, R. Yan, C. Ren, D. Yang, Z.-H. Wan, B. Zhao, C. Wang, Z.-H. Fang, and J. Zheng, Matter Radiat. Extremes 6, 015901 (2021), URL https://doi. org/10.1063/5.0026379

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    Depierreux, C

    S. Depierreux, C. Neuville, C. Baccou, V. Tassin, M. Casanova, P.-E. Masson-Laborde, N. Borisenko, A. Orekhov, A. Colaitis, A. Debayle, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 235002 (2016), URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.235002

    2016

  15. [23]

    Michel, M

    P. Michel, M. J. Rosenberg, W. Seka, A. A. Solodov, R. W. Short, T. Chapman, C. Goyon, N. Lemos, M. Ho- henberger, J. D. Moody, et al., Phys. Rev. E 99, 033203 (2019), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.99. 033203

    2019 doi

  16. [24]

    Glize, X

    K. Glize, X. Zhao, Y. H. Zhang, C. W. Lian, S. Tan, F. Y. Wu, C. Z. Xiao, R. Yan, Z. Zhang, X. H. Yuan, et al., Phys. plasmas 30, 122706 (2023), URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/5.0180607

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Hironaka, J

    S. Hironaka, J. Sivajeyan, J. Wang, M. J. Rosenberg, A. Solodov, T. Filkins, C. Z. Xiao, Q. Wang, W. Seka, and J. F. Myatt, Phys. plasmas 30, 022708 (2023), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0134000

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    S. Tan, Q. Wang, Y. Chen, W. B. Yao, C. Z. Xiao, and J. F. Myatt, Matter Radiat. Extremes 9, 057402 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0206740

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Barth and P

    I. Barth and P. Michel, Phys. Plasmas 31, 012109 (2024), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0175539

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Marqu` es, C

    J.-R. Marqu` es, C. Briand, F. Amiranoff, S. Depierreux, M. Grech, L. Lancia, F. P´ erez, A. Sgattoni, T. Vinci, and C. Riconda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 055001 (2020), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.135001

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    P´ erez, F

    F. P´ erez, F. Amiranoff, C. Briand, S. Depierreux, M. Grech, L. Lancia, P. Loiseau, J.-R. Marqu` es, and T. Riconda, C.and Vinci, Phys. Plasmas 28, 043102 (2021), URL https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0037028

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    La Fontaine, D

    B. La Fontaine, D. M. Villeneuve, H. A. Baldis, R. P. Drake, and K. Estabrook, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 484 (1992), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 68.484

    1992 doi

  23. [31]

    Lefebvre, S

    E. Lefebvre, S. Bernard, C. Esnault, P. Gauthier, A. Grisollet, P. Hoch, L. Jacquet, G. Kluth, S. Laffite, S. Liberatore, et al., Nucl. Fusion 59, 032010 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. A.Grassi, M. Fl´ e, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 222, 351 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpc.2017.09.024

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    Pesme, G

    D. Pesme, G. Laval, and R. Pellat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 203 (1973), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.31.203. Experimental evidence of stimulated Raman re-scattering in laser-plasma interaction Supplementary material J.-R. Marqu` es,1, ∗ F. P´ erez,1 P. Loiseau,2, 3 L. ...

    1973 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Lefebvre, S

    E. Lefebvre, S. Bernard, C. Esnault, P. Gauthier, A. Grisollet, P. Hoch, L. Jacquet, G. Kluth, S. Laffite, S. Liberatore, 4 FIG. 6: Electron velocity distribution in the direction perpendicular ( y, a) and c)) and along the laser axis ( x, b) and d)). Simulations in c) and d) ...

    2019

  27. [35]

    Michel, Introduction to Laser-Plasma Interactions (Springer Cham, 2023), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-23424-8

    P. Michel, Introduction to Laser-Plasma Interactions (Springer Cham, 2023), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-031-23424-8

    2023

  28. [36]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. A.Grassi, M. Fl´ e, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 222, 351 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2017.09.024

    2018 doi

Pith tools

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