Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 52 references

First systematic experimental 2D mapping of linearly polarized $\gamma$-ray polarimetric distribution in relativistic Compton scattering

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports the first 2D map of intensity, polarization angle, and degree of polarization across a slant Compton gamma-ray beam, with near-unity polarization at the beam core.

desk verdict A real first measurement with a plausible central result, but the DOP scale rests on an unvalidated GEANT4 normalization that the paper must document before the headline claim can be fully trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00767 v1 pith:DE36QAFM submitted 2025-06-01 nucl-ex physics.class-ph

Kaijie Chen , Xiangfei Wang , Hanghua Xu , Gongtao Fan , Zirui Hao , Longxiang Liu , Yue Zhang , Sheng Jin
show 9 more authors
Zhicai Li Pu Jiao Qiankun Sun Zhenwei Wang Mengdie Zhou Mengke Xu Hongwei Wang Wenqing Shen Yugang Ma
This is my paper
classification nucl-exphysics.class-ph
keywords inverseComptonscatteringgamma-raypolarizationdegreeofanglepolarimetryKlein-Nishinacrosssectionslantgeometry2Dbeammapping
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

Using a 1 mm collimator to scan a gamma-ray beam produced by 0.117 eV laser photons colliding at 45 degrees with 3.5 GeV electrons, the paper builds the first full two-dimensional maps of beam intensity, polarization angle, and degree of polarization. The central result is that within the beam core the scattered gamma-rays carry essentially all of the laser's linear polarization, with a measured degree of polarization $DOP \approx 1.0$ and a polarization angle rigidly fixed at $45^\circ$. Outside the core, the beam is 'pinched' along the laser's polarization direction and the polarization structure becomes non-uniform, with polarization angles tending to align tangentially and the degree of polarization fluctuating. This matters because polarized gamma-ray experiments depend on knowing exactly which part of the beam has well-defined polarization, and the result establishes 45-degree slant scattering as a practical alternative to head-on collisions for making highly polarized gamma-rays.

What carries the argument

The work uses the azimuthal asymmetry of Compton scattering of linearly polarized photons, governed by the standard differential cross section: the scattered photon intensity has a $\cos^2(\phi-\phi_0)$ modulation, where $\phi$ is the azimuthal angle around the beam and $\phi_0$ gives the polarization angle. A 1 mm aperture collimator scans the beam at discrete transverse positions, and at each position the collimated gamma-rays hit a small tantalum target; eight LaBr3 detectors arranged symmetrically around the target record the azimuthal distribution of secondary scattered photons. Fitting those counts with the modulation function yields the experimental asymmetry $A_\mathrm{exp}$ and the AOP. The DOP is obtained by dividing $A_\mathrm{exp}$ by $A_\mathrm{th}$, the asymmetry predicted by a Monte Carlo simulation of the same target, detector array, and beam geometry for a fully polarized beam: $DOP = A_\mathrm{exp}/A_\mathrm{th}$. The simulation-based normalization is what converts the measured azimuthal modulation into an absolute degree of polarization.

What would settle it

Independently calibrate the polarimeter with a standard source of known linear polarization and then remeasure the beam center; if the DOP at the core comes out below about 0.9, or if replacing the Monte Carlo model of the target and detectors with an independently written simulation shifts the central DOP by more than the quoted few-percent uncertainties, the claim of near-complete polarization transfer would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in 45-degree slant inverse Compton scattering, near-complete polarization transfer from the incident laser to the scattered gamma-rays occurs at the beam center, and that this is the first time the full transverse distribution of intensity, angle of polarization (AOP), and degree of polarization (DOP) has been measured rather than inferred from central or radial samples. At the beam center the AOP is strictly aligned with the short axis of the asymmetric beam spot at $45^\circ$, and the DOP is consistent with 1.0. In the surrounding low-intensity region the AOP rotates and becomes tangential to concentric rings, while the DOP shows significant fluctuations; the paper treats the peripheral behavior as consistent with QED predictions for slant geometries but explicitly notes that the current uncertainties are too large for a definitive quantitative comparison there. The central result is therefore the core: slant geometry transfers the laser's linear polarization almost perfectly along the beam axis.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Monte Carlo simulation used to compute $A_\mathrm{th}$ correctly reproduces the real gamma-ray energy spectrum, target size, detector geometry, and detection efficiencies at every scanned position; if that simulated reference asymmetry is biased, every reported DOP value is scaled by the same factor, since no measurement against an independently known polarized source is shown.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Slant scattering at 45 degrees is experimentally established as a viable route to high-DOP gamma-ray beams, matching head-on backscattering for the central core without requiring a 180-degree collision geometry.
  • The measured asymmetric, 'pinched' intensity profile confirms the QED prediction and warns users that the beam's high-intensity axis is not the same as its high-polarization axis.
  • Peripheral gamma-rays with tangential AOP and degraded DOP will bias polarization-sensitive measurements unless the beam spot is collimated to roughly the $\sim 1/\gamma$ core, an issue the paper explicitly highlights.
  • The collimator-scan plus azimuthal Compton-detector mapping method can be applied at other laser-Compton facilities to produce their own polarization maps.
  • Agreement between measured radial AOP/DOP profiles and QED calculations supports using those calculations to design future multi-GeV polarized gamma-ray sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $A_\mathrm{th}$ normalization is later validated by an independent calibration, the published 2D maps become a practical lookup table: users can correct polarization-dependent data at any off-axis position, something the paper does not explicitly propose.
  • The tangential AOP pattern at the periphery is reminiscent of a swirl or vortex structure in the polarization field; a dedicated high-statistics scan of the azimuthal phase would tell whether this is a real topological feature or a resolution effect, a question the present data cannot answer.
  • The same mapping procedure could be extended to other beam energies, other scattering angles, or circularly polarized lasers; the paper's conclusions are specific to 45-degree slant scattering of 0.117 eV photons from 3.5 GeV electrons.
  • The peripheral contamination the authors describe sets an implicit aperture tolerance for future nuclear-physics experiments: choosing the collimator size is a trade-off between photon flux and polarization purity, a trade-off that can now be made quantitatively.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the first systematic 2D mapping of the spatial polarization distribution of γ-rays produced by 45° slant inverse Compton scattering at the SLEGS beamline of SSRF. A 1 mm collimator scans 49 points along four radial directions, and at each point an eight-detector LaBr3(Ce) array records the azimuthal distribution of photons Compton-scattered from a Ta target. The azimuthal fits (Eq. 6) yield the angle of polarization (AOP), and the degree of polarization (DOP) is obtained by normalizing the measured asymmetry with the simulated asymmetry of a fully polarized beam (Eq. 7). The central result is DOP≈1.0 at beam center with AOP aligned at 45°, while peripheral regions show different AOP and DOP behavior. Comparisons are made with a QED calculation from an accompanying ChinaXiv preprint [52].

Significance. If correct, the measurement would be the first complete 2D experimental polarization map of an inverse-Compton γ-ray beam and would confirm near-complete polarization transfer in a slant scattering geometry, which is of practical relevance for future polarized γ-ray sources. The paper's strengths are its direct azimuthal-modulation measurement, the use of a scanning collimator with a calibrated BGO flux monitor, and the attempt to compare with QED-based calculations. However, the absolute DOP scale rests entirely on an unvalidated GEANT4 normalization A_th, and the full uncertainty budget and simulation details are deferred to supplementary sections that are not included. These issues are load-bearing for the central DOP≈1.0 claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Asymmetry and DOP distribution, Eq. (7)] The absolute DOP scale is set entirely by A_th, the asymmetry predicted by a GEANT4 simulation for a fully polarized beam, but no validation of A_th against an independently known polarized γ-ray source is presented. Because every DOP value in Fig. 5(a) is multiplied by 1/A_th, a systematic bias in the simulated asymmetry (from the incident γ energy spectrum, Ta-target multiple scattering, detector efficiency, or collimator geometry) would directly scale the central DOP≈1.0 claim. Please provide the full simulation details from S3, state the estimated systematic uncertainty on A_th, and ideally benchmark the simulation against a source of known polarization or against an independent simulation code.
  2. [Asymmetry and DOP distribution, Fig. 5(a)] The reported central DOP≈1.0 appears in tension with the quoted incident laser DOP of >93%. For a linear polarization-transfer process, the output DOP should not exceed the input DOP, so the central DOP value and its total uncertainty need to be quoted explicitly and reconciled with the measured laser polarization; if the laser DOP is consistent with ~100% within its own uncertainty, that should be stated with the actual measured value rather than only the lower bound.
  3. [Experimental setup and method, and Figs. 4(a), 5(a)] The 2D maps are reconstructed from 49 scan points on four radial spokes separated by 45°, but the interpolation or reconstruction method used to produce the smooth maps in Figs. 4(a) and 5(a) is not described. Since 'full 2D mapping' is the central novelty of the paper, the reconstruction procedure and its validity (e.g., how points between spokes are filled, and whether the four spokes give consistent radial profiles) need to be documented and tested.
  4. [Results and Discussion, Figs. 4(b) and 5(b)] The experimental AOP and DOP distributions are compared with the calculation in Ref. [52], which is an unpublished ChinaXiv preprint by the same group. The calculation details are not included in the manuscript, so the claimed 'consistent agreement' and the confirmation of QED predictions are not independently checkable. Please provide the theory calculation as supplementary material or replace it with a peer-reviewed published calculation or code.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (6)-(7)] The expression in Eq. (7) is ambiguous: 'DOP = Aexp/Ath = P1/(2P0 - P1)Ath' should be written with parentheses, e.g., DOP = P1 / [(2P0 - P1) × A_th], to avoid confusion about what is in the denominator.
  2. [Asymmetry and DOP distribution] The text states 'Among 28 experimental datasets, χ2≤10 for all eight measurement configurations' but the paper describes 49 scanning points. Please clarify the number of fitted azimuthal distributions, the number of degrees of freedom, and how the 28 datasets relate to the 49 scan points and the eight detectors; report reduced χ2 values rather than absolute values.
  3. [Introduction] There is a typo in the Introduction: 'over the pass two decades' should read 'over the past two decades'.
  4. [Intensity azimuthal distribution] The word 'relyes' in the sentence 'The γ imaging system relys on scintillator fluorescence' should be 'relies'.
  5. [AOP distribution] The phrase 'circle with pink represents the 1/γ' in the Fig. 4 caption is unclear; please define the 1/γ angular radius and describe the circle in the caption more explicitly.
  6. [Conclusion] The sentence 'with DOP measuring≈1.0 Near the beam axis' is missing a period and should be split into two sentences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No input-to-output circularity: DOP is a measured asymmetry normalized by an independent GEANT4 A_th. The only caveats are a same-group theory preprint [52] and an unbenchmarked A_th normalization, which are transparency/correctness issues, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: azimuthal detector counts are fitted with Eq. 6 to obtain P0, P1, and P2; the experimental asymmetry is P1/(2P0-P1); Eq. 7 then defines DOP = A_exp/A_th, with A_th from an independent GEANT4 simulation of a fully polarized beam using stated beam, target, and detector geometry. Nothing in this chain injects the claimed DOP about 1.0: the measured azimuthal modulation could have been zero, and the fit phase P2 (AOP) is independent of A_th. The central result is therefore a normalized measurement, not a fitted prediction or a definitional tautology. The paper's main caveats are not circularity: (i) A_th is not validated against an external source of known polarization, so a simulation bias would scale every DOP point, including the central near-1.0 value; this is an uncalibrated systematic risk, not an input-output equivalence. (ii) The QED comparison curves in Figs. 4(b) and 5(b) are taken from the authors' own ChinaXiv preprint [52]; this is a minor self-citation, but the experimental DOP and AOP values are not derived from [52], and independent QED/Monte-Carlo calculations are also cited ([18,19]). The paper itself acknowledges that peripheral DOP values cannot be definitively validated with current uncertainties, further supporting a non-circular reading. Overall, no circular step is present; the score reflects only the minor self-citation and normalization-transparency caveats.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The central result is an experimental map interpreted with standard QED; the main ledger entries are the data-reduction fits and the unvalidated simulation normalization.

free parameters (1)
  • Azimuthal fit parameters P0, P1, P2 per scan point = not listed in paper
    Fitted to the measured azimuthal count distributions via Eq. 6 to compute asymmetry, DOP, and AOP. This is standard data reduction, but all reported polarization values depend on the validity of the cos^2 modulation model.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Compton scattering of gamma rays in the Ta target follows the Klein-Nishina differential cross-section (Eqs. 1-3).
    Used to derive the azimuthal cos^2 dependence and to define PVR and asymmetry; binding effects in Ta are neglected.
  • domain assumption The GEANT4 simulation gives an unbiased theoretical asymmetry A_th for a fully polarized beam, including real beam parameters, target, and detector geometry.
    DOP is defined as A_exp/A_th (Eq. 7); no external validation of A_th is presented.
  • domain assumption The BGO detector plus unfolding provides reliable absolute flux and energy spectra at each collimated scan position.
    Intensity mapping and DOP energy dependence rely on these flux measurements; references are self-group papers.
  • domain assumption The incident CO2 laser polarization exceeds 93 percent and remains stable over the full multi-hour scan.
    The measured DOP cannot exceed the laser DOP; stability is asserted but no long-term monitoring is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper 49 points on four radial spokes separated by 45 degrees suffice to reconstruct the full 2D distributions shown in Figs. 4 and 5.
    The paper does not describe the interpolation or justify the sampling density for an asymmetric beam profile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of First systematic experimental 2D mapping of linearly polarized $\gamma$-ray polarimetric distribution in relativistic Compton scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DE36QAFM

@misc{pith2026250600767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: First systematic experimental 2D mapping of linearly polarized $\gamma$-ray polarimetric distribution in relativistic Compton scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DE36QAFM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00767}
}
abstract

The interaction of photons with relativistic electrons constitutes a fundamental electromagnetic process whose polarization transfer mechanics remain incompletely characterized. We report the first systematic measurement of spatial polarization distribution for $\gamma$-rays generated via \SI{45}{\degree} slant inverse Compton scattering (ICS) between linearly polarized \SI{0.117}{\eV} photons and \SI{3.5}{\GeV} electrons, performing full 2D mapping of intensity, polarization angle (AOP), and degree of polarization (DOP). Measurements reveal an asymmetric beam profile along the laser's polarization direction that resembles \SI{180}{\degree} backward ICS observations. The central beam region exhibits DOP $\approx$ 1.0 with AOP rigidly aligned at \SI{45}{\degree}, while peripheral regions display complex non-uniform polarization distributions. These findings confirm quantum electrodynamics predictions of near-complete polarization transfer along the beam axis in slant geometries, thus establishing slant scattering as a viable alternative to head-on configurations for generating high DOP $\gamma$-rays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.00767 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a), the experiment setup, where the Compton process between the incident [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: (a) The measured spatial distributions of scattered polarized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The profile of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) the polarization direction (AOP) for each measurement point, where the circle with pink represents the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The experimental DOP distribution is shown in (a), where the blue line in the shape of peanut indicates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [52]

    X. F. Wang, K. J. Chen, H. H. Xu,et al., Polariza- tion properties of laser Compton slant scattering gamma beam at SLEGS, ChinaXiv 10.12074/202504.00097 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    A. H. Compton, A quantum theory of the scattering of X-rays by light elements, Physical Review21, 483 (1923)

    work page 1923

  3. [2]

    A. H. Compton and Y. H. Woo, The wave-length of molybdenum kαrays when scattered by light elements, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences10, 271 (1924)

    work page 1924

  4. [3]

    J. Choi, S. Y. Choi, S. H. Ie,et al., Final-photon polariza- tion in the scattering of photons by high-energy electrons, Physical Review D36, 1320 (1987)

    work page 1987

  5. [4]

    L. D. Landau,The Classical Theory of Fields, 4th ed., Vol. 2 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [5]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (1998)

    work page 1998

  7. [6]

    Greiner and J

    W. Greiner and J. Reinhardt,Quantum Electrodynamics, 4th ed. (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    W. H. McMaster, Matrix Representation of Polarization, Reviews of Modern Physics33, 8 (1961)

    work page 1961

Show all 52 references
  1. [8]

    Hamzawy, Compton scattering I: Angular distribution and polarization degree, Radiation Physics and Chem- istry119, 103 (2016)

    A. Hamzawy, Compton scattering I: Angular distribution and polarization degree, Radiation Physics and Chem- istry119, 103 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    S. Go, Y. Tsuzuki, H. Yoneda,et al., Demonstration of nuclear gamma-ray polarimetry based on a multi- layer CdTe Compton camera, Scientific Reports14, 2573 (2024)

    2024

  3. [10]

    A. J. Dean, D. J. Clark, J. B. Stephen,et al., Polarized gamma-ray emission from the Crab, Science321, 1183 (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    Laurent, J

    P. Laurent, J. Rodriguez, J. Wilms,et al., Polar- ized gamma-ray emission from the Galactic Black Hole Cygnus X-1, Science332, 438 (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    Taverna, R

    R. Taverna, R. Turolla, F. Muleri,et al., Polarized x-rays from a magnetar, Science378, 646 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    Y. Li, R. Shaisultanov, Y. Chen,et al., Polarized ul- trashort brilliant multi-GeVγrays via single-shot laser- electron interaction, Physical Review Letters124, 14801 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Sun and Y

    C. Sun and Y. K. Wu, Theoretical and simulation studies of characteristics of a Compton light source, Physical Re- view Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams14, 044701 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    Y. Ma, J. F. Hua, D. X. Liu,et al., Compact Polarized X- Ray Source Based on All-Optical Inverse Compton Scat- tering, Physical Review Applied19, 014073 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    H. Z. Zhang, Y. C. Du, Z. J. Chi,et al., Experimental demonstration of polarization control in Thomson scat- tering X-ray sources, Nuclear Instruments & Methods in Physics Research Section a-Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment1064, 6 (2024)

    2024

  10. [17]

    H. Z. Zhang, Z. J. Chi, Y. C. Du,et al., Monte carlo simulation code for polarized inverse Compton scatter- ing sources, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams27, 103401 (2024)

    2024

  11. [18]

    D. Filipescu, Monte carlo simulation method of polariza- tion effects in Laser Compton Scattering on relativistic electrons, Journal of instrumentation17, 10.1088/1748- 0221/17/11/p11006 (2022)

    2022 doi

  12. [19]

    Z. J. Chi, Polarization transfer from a laser to X rays via Thomson scattering with relativistic electrons: A dipole radiation perspective, Journal of Applied Physics128, 244904 (2020)

    2020

  13. [20]

    Petrillo, A

    V. Petrillo, A. Bacci, C. Curatolo,et al., Polarization of X-gamma radiation produced by a Thomson and Comp- ton inverse scattering, Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams18, 110701 (2015)

    2015

  14. [21]

    Miyamoto, Y

    S. Miyamoto, Y. Asano, S. Amano,et al., Laser compton back-scattering gamma-ray beamline on NewSUBARU, Radiation Measurements41, S179 (2006)

    2006

  15. [22]

    J. Yan, J. M. Mueller, M. W. Ahmed,et al., Precision control of gamma-ray polarization using a crossed helical undulator Free-Electron Laser, Nature Photonics13, 629 (2019)

    2019

  16. [23]

    Taira, S

    Y. Taira, S. Endo, S. Kawamura,et al., Measurement of the spatial polarization distribution of circularly polar- ized gamma rays produced by inverse Compton scatter- ing, Physical Review A107, 63503 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Taira, Spatial distribution of gamma rays produced by axially symmetric polarized and optical vortex lasers, Physical Review A110, 043525 (2024)

    Y. Taira, Spatial distribution of gamma rays produced by axially symmetric polarized and optical vortex lasers, Physical Review A110, 043525 (2024)

    2024

  18. [25]

    Pietralla, Photons and nuclear structure, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A60, 108 (2024)

    N. Pietralla, Photons and nuclear structure, The Euro- pean Physical Journal A60, 108 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Pietralla, Z

    N. Pietralla, Z. Berant, V. N. Litvinenko,et al., Par- ity measurements of nuclear levels using a Free-Electron- Laser generatedγ-ray beam, Physical Review Letters88, 012502 (2001)

    2001

  20. [27]

    T. Beck, V. Werner, N. Pietralla,et al., ∆K = 0 M 1 exci- tation strength of the well-deformed nucleus 164Dy from K mixing, Physical Review Letters125, 92501 (2020)

    2020

  21. [28]

    T. Beck, J. Beller, N. Pietralla,et al., E2 decay strength of the M1 scissors mode of156Gd and its first excited rota- tional state, Physical Review Letters118, 212502 (2017)

    2017

  22. [29]

    Beller, N

    J. Beller, N. Pietralla, J. Barea,et al., Constraint on 0νββmatrix elements from a novel decay channel of the scissors mode: The case of 154Gd, Physical Review Let- ters111, 172501 (2013)

    2013

  23. [30]

    Kohri, S

    H. Kohri, S. H. Shiu, W. C. Chang,et al., Differen- 8 tial cross section and photon-beam asymmetry for the γp→π −∆++(1232) Reaction at Forwardπ − Angles for Eγ=1.5-2.95 GeV, Physical Review Letters120, 202004 (2018)

    2018

  24. [31]

    R. G. T. Zegers, T. Adachi, H. Akimune,et al., Extrac- tion of weak transition strengths via the (3He,t) reaction at 420 MeV, Physical Review Letters99, 202501 (2007)

    2007

  25. [32]

    R. G. T. Zegers, M. Sumihama, D. S. Ahn,et al., Beam-polarization asymmetries for thep( → γ , K+)Λ and p( → γ , K+)Σ0 reactions forE γ = 1.5−2.4 GeV, Physical Review Letters91, 092001 (2003)

    2003

  26. [33]

    L. W. Fagg and S. S. Hanna, Polarization Measurements on Nuclear Gamma Rays, Reviews of Modern Physics31, 711 (1959)

    1959

  27. [34]

    Moreh and J

    R. Moreh and J. Rajewski, Polarization Measurements of Resonantly Scattered Capture Gamma-Rays, Nuclear Instruments and Methods98, 13 (1972)

    1972

  28. [35]

    H. Wang, G. Fan, L. Liu,et al., Commissioning of laser electron gamma beamline SLEGS at SSRF, Nuclear Sci- ence and Techniques33, 87 (2022)

    2022

  29. [36]

    L. X. Liu, H. W. Wang, G. T. Fan,et al., The SLEGS beamline of SSRF, Nuclear Science and Techniques35, 111 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Z. R. Hao, H. H. Xu, G. T. Fan,et al., Gamma spot moni- tor at SLEGS beamline, Nuclear Instruments and Meth- ods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spec- trometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment1068, 169748 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    F. A. Beck, T. Byrski, A. Knipper,et al., Angular corre- lation and gamma ray linear polarization measurements in 29Al, Physical Review C13, 1792 (1976)

    1976

  32. [39]

    J. R. Williams, R. O. Nelson, C. R. Gould,et al., Gamma ray linear polarization measurements for 29Al, Physical Review C11, 1111 (1975)

    1975

  33. [40]

    K. A. Hardy and Y. K. Lee, Linear-polarization mea- surements of the gamma-ray transitions in 20F, Physical Review C7, 1441 (1973)

    1973

  34. [41]

    von der Werth, F

    A. von der Werth, F. Becker, J. Eberth,et al., Two compton polarimeter constructions for modern standard γ-spectroscopy, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment357, 458 (1995)

    1995

  35. [42]

    P. G. Bizzeti, P. Sona, C. Michelagnoli,et al., Analyzing power of AGATA triple clusters for gamma-ray linear polarization, The European Physical Journal A51, 49 (2015)

    2015

  36. [43]

    Agostinelli, J

    S. Agostinelli, J. Allison, K. Amako,et al., GEANT4-a simulation toolkit, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section a-Accelerators Spectrometers Detectors and Associated Equipment506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  37. [44]

    Y. B. Christy, H. Li, H. Xu,et al., Luminescence and scintillation properties of LYSO:Ce powder via Co- precipitation method for low dose gamma radiation, Op- tical Materials149, 115105 (2024)

    2024

  38. [45]

    Chewpraditkul, L

    W. Chewpraditkul, L. Swiderski, M. Moszynski, T. Szczesniak, A. Syntfeld-Kazuch, C. Wanarak, and P. Limsuwan, Scintillation properties of LuAG:Ce, YAG:Ce and LYSO:Ce crystals for gamma-ray detection, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science56, 3800 (2009)

    2009

  39. [46]

    R. Mao, L. Zhang, and R.-Y. Zhu, Optical and scintil- lation properties of inorganic scintillators in high energy physics, IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science55, 2425 (2008)

    2008

  40. [47]

    L. X. Liu, H. Utsunomiya, G. T. Fan,et al., Energy pro- file of laser Compton slant-scatteringγ-ray beams de- termined by direct unfolding of total-energy responses of a BGO detector, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrome- ters,...

    2024

  41. [48]

    M. D. Zhou, Z. R. Hao, Q. K. Sun,et al., Measurement of 59Co(γ,n) 58Co using a new flat-efficiency neutron de- tector at the Shanghai Laser Electron Gamma Source, Physical Review C111, 54612 (2025)

    2025

  42. [49]

    Q. K. Sun, Y. Zhang, Z. R. Hao,et al., Enhancing relia- bility in photonuclear cross-section fitting with bayesian neural networks, Nuclear Science and Techniques36, 52 (2025)

    2025

  43. [50]

    Y. X. Yang, Y. Zhang, Z. C. Li,et al., Beam flux measure- ment using a photon activation analysis method at the SLEGS, Nuclear Science and Techniques36, 80 (2025)

    2025

  44. [51]

    P. Jiao, Z. R. Hao, Q. K. Sun,et al., Measurements of 27Al(γ, n) reaction using quasi-monoenergeticγbeams from 13.2 to 21.7 MeV at SLEGS, Nuclear Science and Techniques36, 66 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.