Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

Extended locally monochromatic approximations of Strong-Field QED processes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 Reintroducing finite pulse bandwidth into the locally monochromatic approximation through a Gaussian interference window makes nonlinear Compton spectra match exact strong-field QED better than standard LMA and keeps them finite at…

desk verdict A mostly solid LMA re-derivation plus a useful but not fully independent LMA+ extension, held back by an apparent factor-of-two mismatch between the stated Gaussian window and the final rate. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04889 v1 pith:T2VEM66Z submitted 2025-06-05 hep-ph physics.plasm-ph

Nikita Larin , Daniel Seipt This is my paper
classification hep-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords locallymonochromaticapproximationstrong-fieldQEDnonlinearComptonscatteringfinitebandwidthcycleaveragingharmonicspectralaser-particlecollisions
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 sets out to sharpen the locally monochromatic approximation (LMA), the workhorse approximation that treats long laser pulses as locally plane waves in strong-field QED simulations, and to repair its worst known defect: divergences at the edges of the harmonic lines. Starting from the exact nonlinear Compton scattering probability, the authors derive LMA rates by cycle-averaging a sign-alternating proto-rate, which yields unambiguous rates for circular and linear polarization and removes the need for the numerical double-sum arguments of the original derivation. They then restore part of the finite pulse bandwidth that the LMA throws away by inserting a Gaussian window $W(\theta)=e^{-\theta^2/\Delta^2}$ into the interference-window integral, calibrated in the weak-field limit $a_0\ll 1$; the resulting LMA$^+$ rate replaces delta-function harmonic lines by Gaussians of width $\sim 1/\Delta$, so fully differential probabilities stay finite and agree with exact $S$-matrix calculations better than the standard LMA. The paper also derives a new validity bound, $\Delta\gtrsim 2\pi a_0$, beyond which sub-cycle radiation beaming makes the LMA$^+$ unreliable and the locally constant field approximation performs better. If correct, the work gives simulation codes a divergence-free rate with restored bandwidth for the moderate-intensity regime, plus a clearer criterion for when the LMA can be trusted.

What carries the argument

The central object is the floating average $\langle f_\perp\rangle(\varphi,\theta)$ of the background profile over the interference window, expanded as a Taylor series in $(\theta/2)^{2n}$ (Eq. 7). This expansion separates the average laser phase $\varphi$ from the interference window $\theta$, so the derivation can identify which terms are discarded by the slowly varying envelope approximation, which by the local approximation $\theta/\Delta\ll 1$, and which average to zero in the cycle-averaging that converts the proto-rate into the positive definite LMA rate. The LMA$^+$ extension replaces the $\theta$-integral's delta-producing limit by the Gaussian window $W(\theta)=\exp(-\theta^2/\Delta^2)$, which turns each harmonic resonance into a finite-width Gaussian and is the mechanism that makes the fully differential probability finite at harmonic edges.

What would settle it

Compare exact SFQED NCS spectra for a non-Gaussian pulse envelope, for example sin-squared or hyperbolic-secant, at $a_0\sim 1$ to $5$ and $\Delta\sim 10$ to $50$, with the LMA$^+$ Gaussian-window prediction: if the harmonic edges do not broaden with width $\sim 1/\Delta$ or do not stay finite, the calibrated Gaussian window fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the LMA probability rate can be obtained directly from the full probability, rather than by approximating $S$-matrix elements, through a three-step procedure: slowly varying envelope approximation, discarding long-range interference on the pulse scale ($\theta/\Delta\ll 1$), and cycle-averaging a sign-alternating proto-rate. The paper's new bandwidth-restored result, LMA$^+$, follows from replacing the delta-producing $\theta$-integration with the Gaussian window $W(\theta)=\exp(-\theta^2/\Delta^2)$, whose width is fixed by matching the exact SFQED spectrum in the weak-field limit; the fully differential rate (Eq. 23) then has Gaussian harmonic lines of width $\sim 1/\Delta$, stays finite at the harmonic boundaries where the standard LMA diverges like $1/\sqrt{\ell-\ell_n}$, and reproduces the spreading of harmonic edges seen in exact SFQED results. The authors further provide a divergence-free analytic expression for the fully differential probability (Eq. 30) in terms of modified Bessel functions and an angular-integrated rate (Eqs. 38 and 40) in terms of complementary error functions, and they assert a new applicability condition $\Delta\gtrsim 2\pi a_0$ based on radiation beaming. In their comparison, LMA$^+$ outperforms standard LMA at moderate intensity, while for $a_0\gg 1$ with insufficient pulse length the locally constant field approximation can agree better with the full QED result.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing modeling choice is that the interference-window cutoff is the Gaussian $W(\theta)=\exp(-\theta^2/\Delta^2)$, calibrated in the weak-field limit, and if the true bandwidth window of a finite pulse is not Gaussian the claimed improvements could be artifacts of that calibration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LMA$^+$ fully differential NCS spectra stay finite at the harmonic edges where standard LMA diverges, and they follow the spreading of harmonic boundaries seen in exact SFQED calculations.
  • Angular distributions at fixed transferred momentum become computable within LMA$^+$; in the standard LMA the delta-distributions make such observables intractable.
  • The new bound $\Delta\gtrsim 2\pi a_0$ states that for high intensity and short pulses the LMA$^+$ cannot reproduce sub-cycle radiation beaming, and in that regime the locally constant field approximation agrees with full QED better than LMA$^+$.
  • The analytic integrated LMA$^+$ rates (Eqs. 30, 38, 40) provide divergence-free, approximate closed forms for use in simulations, with the standard LMA limit recovered for $\Delta\gg 1$.
  • The derivation supplies LMA rates for arbitrary polarization directly from the probability, eliminating the numerical double-sum arguments previously needed for linear polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Gaussian calibration is robust, the same windowing procedure should carry over to nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production and two-step trident processes, because the divergent delta-function structure of the interference-window integral is generic to SFQED probabilities, not specific to nonlinear Compton scattering.
  • Matching the window function to the exact weak-field spectral shape of other pulse envelopes, such as sin-squared or hyperbolic-secant profiles, would give pulse-specific bandwidth restoration and may reproduce the Airy-like side lobes that the Gaussian LMA$^+$ currently averages away.
  • The $\Delta\gtrsim 2\pi a_0$ criterion gives simulation codes an operational switch: below that ratio use LMA-class rates, above it the locally constant field approximation becomes the safer choice; testing this boundary in cascade simulations would show how much it matters for shower observables.
  • The cycle-averaging derivation suggests a systematic route to corrections: retaining the envelope-gradient terms $g'(\varphi/\Delta)/\Delta$ order by order could turn the LMA into a controlled expansion in inverse pulse length, with LMA$^+$ as the first bandwidth correction.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the locally monochromatic approximation (LMA) for strong-field QED processes, starting from the full SFQED probability for nonlinear Compton scattering. The authors derive a proto-rate, apply a slowly varying envelope approximation and a local approximation, and then explicitly cycle-average to obtain positive-definite LMA rates for arbitrary polarization, matching known results in the literature. They then introduce a Gaussian window function into the theta-integral to restore finite bandwidth, calling the result LMA+, and provide approximate analytic expressions for the phase-integrated and transverse-momentum-integrated rates. The paper compares LMA+ with standard LMA, LCFA, and exact SFQED calculations, reports improved agreement for LMA+, and states a new applicability condition Delta >~ 2*pi*a0 for LMA+.

Significance. If the construction is sound, the paper makes a useful contribution: it provides a cleaner derivation of LMA rates that avoids the double sums and numerical justifications in earlier work, introduces a bandwidth-restored variant that removes the harmonic-edge divergences of the fully differential LMA rate, and offers a practically relevant applicability criterion for LMA-based simulation codes. The numerical comparisons against exact SFQED results are a valuable benchmark. However, the central LMA+ construction currently contains a concrete inconsistency in the definition of the window function, and the robustness of the improved agreement to that calibration is not established. These issues are load-bearing for the main claims and need to be resolved before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (22)-(23)] The stated window function W(theta)=exp(-theta^2/Delta^2) is inconsistent with the Gaussian rate in Eq. (23) under the Fourier convention of this paper. With W(theta)=exp(-theta^2/Delta^2), the theta-integral in Eq. (22) evaluates to -alpha*Delta/pi^{3/2} * A * sum D_n(phi) * exp[-Delta^2 (zeta-n)^2/4], not Eq. (23). To obtain Eq. (23), the window must be W(theta)=exp(-theta^2/(4 Delta^2)). The difference is not cosmetic: it changes the harmonic line width by a factor of two and is directly tied to the weak-field calibration described in the text. Please verify which convention was used to generate Figs. 4-8 and correct either the stated W(theta) or Eq. (23).
  2. [Sec. III A, paragraph on calibrating W(theta)] The Gaussian window and its width are fixed by matching LMA+ to exact SFQED spectra in the weak-field limit a0 << 1. The subsequent demonstration that LMA+ agrees better than standard LMA with full SFQED at a0 = 2 (Figs. 4 and 5) is therefore a test of this particular calibrated ansatz, not a parameter-free prediction. The authors should state this limitation explicitly and ideally test the sensitivity of the harmonic-edge behavior to alternative window shapes, for example a window derived from the Airy fold profile mentioned in Sec. III B, to show that the claimed improvement is not an artifact of the Gaussian choice.
  3. [Sec. III C 1, Eqs. (29)-(31)] The claimed recovery of the standard LMA result from Eq. (30) in the limit Delta >> 1 is not obvious and appears to fail a simple saddle-point check. Evaluating the integral in Eq. (29) for zeta''(phi*) -> 0 gives 2*sqrt(pi)/(Delta |zeta'|) when both zeros are included, which with the prefactor in Eq. (29) yields -4*alpha/(pi |zeta'|) per harmonic, matching Eq. (31). However, the asymptotic limit of Eq. (30) using I_{±1/4}(z) ~ e^z/sqrt(2*pi*z) appears to give a value differing by a factor of pi. Please provide the detailed derivation of the Bessel-function evaluation in Eq. (30) or correct the normalization.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III C 1, Eq. (30)] The notation phi* in Eq. (30) is ambiguous because phi* = ±... denotes two zeros; the summation over the two symmetric zeros should be made explicit in the formula.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. III C 1] The text states that Eq. (30) provides a divergence-free fully differential probability, but Fig. 7 shows that this analytic expression loses the bandwidth-induced spreading of the harmonic edges; the wording should make this limitation explicit in the abstract and in the main text.
  3. [Sec. IV] The phrase 'positively semi-definite probability rate' should be replaced by 'non-negative probability rate' or 'positive semi-definite' to avoid ambiguity.
  4. [Sec. II C, Eqs. (12)-(19)] The transition from the half-integer harmonics n/2 in the proto-rate Eq. (17) to the integer harmonics n in the cycle-averaged rate Eq. (19) is central but could be stated more pedagogically for readers; consider adding a sentence explaining that the odd-n terms vanish under cycle averaging.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The LMA+ bandwidth window is calibrated by matching exact SFQED spectra in the weak-field limit, so the later claim of better agreement with full SFQED is partly built from the benchmark; separately, the printed window W(θ)=exp(-θ²/Δ²) does not Fourier-transform to Eq. (23), leaving the width convention unverified.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. III A (LMA+ derivation) and abstract (claim of better agreement)]
    "To find a suitable value for the width of the Gaussian window, we match the spectra of LMA + to the exact SFQED result in the weak field limit a 0 ≪1. This prescription determines the window function as W(θ) = exp (−θ2/∆2)."

    The window width is the only free parameter introduced in the bandwidth restoration. Fixing it by matching to exact SFQED spectra means the subsequent comparison with exact SFQED is not an out-of-sample test of the linewidth: in the weak-field region the agreement is enforced by construction, and the qualitative removal of the harmonic-edge divergence is guaranteed by any finite-width window rather than derived from SFQED. The paper itself concedes that the Gaussian harmonic profile is an artifact of the chosen window. Thus the headline improvement over standard LMA partly restates the calibration input rather than being an independent prediction.

  2. other [Sec. III A, Eqs. (22) and (23)]
    "After performing the integration with respect to θ in Eq. (22), we obtain the LMA + rate as dRLMA+ dℓd2ρ⊥ = − 2α∆ π3/2 A P∞ n=1 Dn (φ) exp h −∆2 (ζ(φ)−n) 2 i ."

    Under the Fourier convention used in the paper (Eq. (17) implies ∫dθ e^{iθx}=2πδ(x)), substituting W(θ)=exp(−θ²/Δ²) into Eq. (22) gives −(αΔ/π^{3/2}) A Σ D_n exp[−Δ²(ζ−n)²/4], not Eq. (23). Eq. (23) would follow only from W(θ)=exp(−θ²/(4Δ²)). The printed calibration therefore does not produce the stated bandwidth-restored rate; the claimed agreement with exact SFQED rests on an unstated width convention. This is a missing-support gap in the derivation chain: the fitted input is not consistently connected to the predicted observable, so the prediction cannot be separated from the calibration choice as written.

full rationale

The central LMA derivation in Sec. II is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs: it starts from the exact SFQED probability, applies SVEA and the local approximation θ/Δ≪1, and obtains the positive-definite rate by explicit cycle-averaging with Neumann-type integrals in Appendix B. The resulting CP and LP rates agree with Ref. [52] but are not derived from it, and no imported uniqueness theorem or ansatz-via-citation is load-bearing. The circularity is confined to the LMA+ extension. The Gaussian window width is calibrated to exact SFQED spectra in the weak-field limit, so the qualitative features of the LMA+ comparison—finite harmonic edges, harmonic broadening, and damping of peaks—are partly guaranteed by the calibration rather than independently predicted. The paper acknowledges this in part by noting the harmonic profile is Gaussian because of the specific window choice and that the true SFQED edge shape is Airy-like. The additional algebraic inconsistency between the stated W(θ)=exp(−θ²/Δ²) and Eq. (23) further weakens the reproducibility of the claimed benchmark agreement. However, the LMA+ is also tested at a0=1–10 and Δ=4–50, where the single calibrated width makes nontrivial predictions that are not automatically forced, so this is partial rather than total circularity. No self-citation load-bearing argument or definitional identity was found. Overall score 4 reflects one fitted-input-called-prediction element plus a missing-support inconsistency in the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on SVEA, the local approximation, cycle averaging, and the ad hoc Gaussian window calibrated in the weak-field limit. No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted element is the window width, set to Δ by matching exact weak-field spectra.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian window width parameter = Δ (pulse duration)
    The window function W(θ)=exp(-θ²/Δ²) is chosen so that LMA+ spectra match exact SFQED in the weak-field limit a0 much less than 1 (Sec. III A). This is a calibration to known exact results, not derived from first principles.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Slowly varying envelope approximation (SVEA): the pulse envelope g(φ/Δ) varies slowly over one carrier cycle.
    Used to drop local envelope gradient terms in Eq. (10) and to treat g as constant in the cycle-averaging procedure (Sec. II B, Eq. (18)).
  • domain assumption Local approximation θ/Δ much less than 1: interference effects on the envelope scale are neglected.
    Invoked to simplify the floating averages, Eq. (10), and to discard long-range interference contributions; this is the step that makes the approximation monochromatic.
  • domain assumption Cycle averaging is the correct procedure to convert the sign-alternating proto-rate into a positive probability rate.
    Defined in Eq. (18) and justified by the need to remove half-integer harmonics and restore positive definiteness; it is a modeling choice about what the LMA rate means.
  • ad hoc to paper The background pulse envelope is Gaussian and the window function is chosen as W(θ)=exp(-θ²/Δ²).
    The Gaussian window is introduced in Sec. III A to render the θ-integral finite; its form is not derived from the pulse model but selected for convenience and then calibrated.
  • ad hoc to paper The window width is set by matching LMA+ to exact SFQED spectra in the weak-field limit a0 much less than 1.
    Stated in Sec. III A: 'we match the spectra of LMA+ to the exact SFQED result in the weak field limit'. This is a calibration assumption that the improved agreement partly depends on.
  • standard math The series representation of the floating average, Eq. (A9), converges for the pulse profile.
    The derivation in Appendix A uses a Taylor expansion and term-by-term integration, which requires the profile to be analytic on the integration interval. The paper later specializes to a Gaussian envelope, where the series is convergent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extended locally monochromatic approximations of Strong-Field QED processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T2VEM66Z

@misc{pith2026250604889,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extended locally monochromatic approximations of Strong-Field QED processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T2VEM66Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04889}
}
abstract

Strong-field QED (SFQED) probability rates in the locally monochromatic approximation (LMA) have become an indispensable tool for simulations of processes like gamma-ray emission or electron-positron pair production in laser-particle collisions. We revisit the LMA derivation and explicitly demonstrate that it is based on the separation of time scales, neglection of the long-range interference effects and subsequent averaging over the cycle scale. Doing so, we obtain unambiguously LMA rates for arbitrary polarizations of the plane wave background. Additionally, we partially restore the finite bandwidth effects that are lost in the LMA derivation. The bandwidth-restored result we refer to as the LMA$^+$ and show that it agrees with the full SFQED predictions better than the standard LMA. We use LMA$^+$ to address previously inaccessible observables and formulate a new limitation on the applicability of locally monochromatic approximations in general. We provide analytical results for the angular-integrated LMA$^+$ probability rate and the fully differential probability that account for the finite bandwidth effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04889 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. SFQED Feynman diagram for Nonlinear Compton Scattering. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The first two terms of LMA proto-rate ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Fully differential LMA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fully differential NCS spectra in CP background plotted for the different values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fully differential NCS spectra in CP background for the different intensities and pulse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fully differential NCS distributions in CP case for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fully differential NCS spectra in CP background plotted for the different values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Angular-integrated spectra of NCS in CP background plotted for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The integrand, Eq

    Integration over the laser phaseφ Here we show how to obtain fully differential probability from the probability rate (23), performing approximately integration over the laser phaseφ. The integrand, Eq. (23), is suppressed, unless (ζ(φ)−n)≲1/∆≪1. Thus, the main contributions to theφintegral come from the vicinities of zeros ofζ(φ)−n. Sinceζ(φ)−nis an even...

  2. [2]

    Integration over the transverse momentumρ⊥ Applying the same reasoning as above, we can approximately integrate the LMA+ proba- bility rate (23) over the transverse momentum magnitude|ρ ⊥|. Further, we consider the CP case, since it also permits analytical integration over the azimuthal angleϑin the transverse momentum plane (d 2ρ⊥ =|ρ ⊥|d|ρ⊥|dϑ) due to t...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Fedotov, A

    A. Fedotov, A. Ilderton, F. Karbstein, B. King, D. Seipt, H. Taya, and G. Torgrimsson, Advances in QED with intense background fields, Physics Reports Advances in QED with intense background fields,1010, 1 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    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, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 1177 (2012)

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Gonoskov, T

    A. Gonoskov, T. G. Blackburn, M. Marklund, and S. S. Bulanov, Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields, Reviews of Modern Physics94, 045001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    W. Yan, C. Fruhling, G. Golovin, D. Haden, J. Luo, P. Zhang, B. Zhao, J. Zhang, C. Liu, M. Chen, S. Chen, S. Banerjee, and D. Umstadter, High-order multiphoton Thomson scatter- ing, Nature Photonics11, 514 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. Boege, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissi- nos, D. D. Meyerhofer, W. Ragg, D. L. Burke, R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, A. C. Odian, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, and A. W. Weidemann, Observation of Nonlinear Effects in Compton Scattering, Physical Review Letters76, 3116 (1996)

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    S.-y. Chen, A. Maksimchuk, and D. Umstadter, Experimental observation of relativistic non- linear Thomson scattering, Nature396, 653 (1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 82 references
  1. [9]

    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 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mirzaie, C

    M. Mirzaie, C. I. Hojbota, D. Y. Kim, V. B. Pathak, T. G. Pak, C. M. Kim, H. W. Lee, J. W. Yoon, S. K. Lee, Y. J. Rhee, M. Vranic, O. Amaro, K. Y. Kim, J. H. Sung, and C. H. Nam, All-optical nonlinear Compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser, Nature Photonics18...

    2024

  3. [11]

    J. Cole, K. Behm, E. Gerstmayr, T. Blackburn, J. Wood, C. Baird, M. Duff, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, A. Joglekar, K. Krushelnick, S. Kuschel, M. Marklund, P. McKenna, C. Murphy, K. Poder, C. Ridgers, G. Samarin, G. Sarri, D. Symes, A. Thomas, J. Warwick, M. Zepf, Z. Najmudin, and...

    2018

  4. [12]

    A. R. Bell and J. G. Kirk, Possibility of prolific pair production with high-power lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 200403 (2008)

    2008

  5. [13]

    T. G. Blackburn, Radiation reaction in electron–beam interactions with high-intensity lasers, Reviews of Modern Plasma Physics4, 5 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Sikorski, A

    P. Sikorski, A. G. R. Thomas, S. S. Bulanov, M. Zepf, and D. Seipt, Novel signatures of radiation reaction in electron–laser sidescattering, New J. Phys.26, 063011 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    Zhang, S

    P. Zhang, S. S. Bulanov, D. Seipt, A. V. Arefiev, and A. G. R. Thomas, Relativistic plasma physics in supercritical fields, Physics of Plasmas27, 050601 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    C. N. Danson, C. Haefner, J. Bromage, T. Butcher, J.-C. F. Chanteloup, E. A. Chowdhury, A. Galvanauskas, L. A. Gizzi, J. Hein, D. I. Hillier, N. W. Hopps, Y. Kato, E. A. Khazanov, R. Kodama, G. Korn, R. Li, Y. Li, J. Limpert, J. Ma, C. H. Nam, D. Neely, D. Papadopoulos, R. R. ...

    2019

  9. [17]

    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 intensity over 10 23 W/cm2, Optica8, 630 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bamber, S

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

    1999

  11. [19]

    Slade-Lowther, D

    C. Slade-Lowther, D. Del Sorbo, and C. P. Ridgers, Identifying the electron–positron cascade regimes in high-intensity laser-matter interactions, New Journal of Physics21, 013028 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    F. Cruz, T. Grismayer, A. Y. Chen, A. Spitkovsky, and L. O. Silva, Coherent Emission from 30 QED Cascades in Pulsar Polar Caps, ApJL919, L4 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Z. Chen, S. Meuren, E. Gerstmayr, V. Yakimenko, P. H. Bucksbaum, and D. A. Reis, Prepa- ration of strong-field qed experiments at facet-ii, inOptica High-brightness Sources and Light- driven Interactions Congress 2022, Technical Digest Series (Optica Publishing Group, Bu- dape...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Abramowicz, U

    H. Abramowicz, U. Acosta, M. Altarelli, R. Aßmann, Z. Bai, T. Behnke, Y. Benhammou, T. Blackburn, S. Boogert, O. Borysov, M. Borysova, R. Brinkmann, M. Bruschi, F. Burkart, K. B¨ ußer, N. Cavanagh, O. Davidi, W. Decking, U. Dosselli, N. Elkina, A. Fedotov, M. Firlej, T. Fiutow...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Abramowicz, M

    H. Abramowicz, M. Almanza Soto, M. Altarelli, R. Aßmann, A. Athanassiadis, G. Avoni, T. Behnke, M. Benettoni, Y. Benhammou, J. Bhatt, T. Blackburn, C. Blanch, S. Bonaldo, S. Boogert, O. Borysov, M. Borysova, V. Boudry, D. Breton, R. Brinkmann, M. Bruschi, F. Burkart, K. B¨ uße...

    2024

  16. [24]

    I. V. Sokolov, N. M. Naumova, J. A. Nees, and G. A. Mourou, Pair Creation in QED-Strong Pulsed Laser Fields Interacting with Electron Beams, Physical Review Letters105, 195005 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    S. V. Popruzhenko, Keldysh theory of strong field ionization: history, applications, difficulties and perspectives, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics47, 204001 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    V. I. Ritus, Quantum effects of the interaction of elementary particles with an intense elec- tromagnetic field, Journal of Soviet Laser Research6, 497 (1985)

    1985

  19. [27]

    Pouyez, A

    M. Pouyez, A. A. Mironov, T. Grismayer, A. Mercuri-Baron, F. Perez, M. Vranic, C. Ri- conda, and M. Grech, Multiplicity of electron- and photon-seeded electromagnetic showers at multipetawatt laser facilities, Phys. Rev. E110, 065208 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    S. S. Bulanov, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and W. P. Leemans, Electromagnetic cascade in high-energy electron, positron, and photon interactions with intense laser pulses, Physical Review A87, 062110 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    T. G. Blackburn, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and C. P. Ridgers, Reaching supercritical field strengths with intense lasers, New Journal of Physics21, 053040 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    S. S. Bulanov, T. Z. Esirkepov, A. G. R. Thomas, J. K. Koga, and S. V. Bulanov, Schwinger Limit Attainability with Extreme Power Lasers, Physical Review Letters105, 220407 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Pouyez, T

    M. Pouyez, T. Grismayer, M. Grech, and C. Riconda, Kinetic Structure of Strong-Field QED Showers in Crossed Electromagnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 135001 (2025). 32

    2025

  24. [32]

    A. M. Fedotov, N. B. Narozhny, G. Mourou, and G. Korn, Limitations on the Attainable Intensity of High Power Lasers, Physical Review Letters105, 080402 (2010)

    2010

  25. [33]

    Seipt, M

    D. Seipt, M. Samuelsson, and T. Blackburn, Nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair production using polarized photons from inverse Compton scattering, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion67, 035002 (2025)

    2025

  26. [34]

    Mercuri-Baron, A

    A. Mercuri-Baron, A. Mironov, C. Riconda, A. Grassi, and M. Grech, Growth Rate of Self- Sustained QED Cascades Induced by Intense Lasers, Phys. Rev. X15, 011062 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    Seipt, C

    D. Seipt, C. P. Ridgers, D. Del Sorbo, and A. G. R. Thomas, Polarized QED cascades, New Journal of Physics23, 053025 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    Torgrimsson, Loops and polarization in strong-field QED, New Journal of Physics23, 065001 (2021)

    G. Torgrimsson, Loops and polarization in strong-field QED, New Journal of Physics23, 065001 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Dinu and G

    V. Dinu and G. Torgrimsson, Single and double nonlinear Compton scattering, Physical Re- view D99, 096018 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Dinu and G

    V. Dinu and G. Torgrimsson, Approximating higher-order nonlinear QED processes with first- order building blocks, Physical Review D102, 016018 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Di Piazza, M

    A. Di Piazza, M. Tamburini, S. Meuren, and C. H. Keitel, Implementing nonlinear Comp- ton scattering beyond the local-constant-field approximation, Physical Review A98, 012134 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    Nikishov and V

    A. Nikishov and V. Ritus, Quantum processes in the field of a plane electromagnetic wave and in a constant field. i, Sov. Phys. JETP19, 529 (1964)

    1964

  33. [41]

    H. R. Reiss, Absorption of light by light, Journal of Mathematical Physics3, 59 (1962)

    1962

  34. [42]

    King, Uniform locally constant field approximation for photon-seeded pair production, Physical Review A101, 042508 (2020)

    B. King, Uniform locally constant field approximation for photon-seeded pair production, Physical Review A101, 042508 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Di Piazza, M

    A. Di Piazza, M. Tamburini, S. Meuren, and C. H. Keitel, Improved local-constant-field ap- proximation for strong-field QED codes, Physical Review A99, 022125 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Ilderton, B

    A. Ilderton, B. King, and D. Seipt, Extended locally constant field approximation for nonlinear Compton scattering, Physical Review A99, 042121 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    V. Dinu, C. Harvey, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, and G. Torgrimsson, Quantum radiation reaction: From interference to incoherence, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 044801 (2016)

    2016

  38. [46]

    Gelfer, A

    E. Gelfer, A. Fedotov, A. Mironov, and S. Weber, Nonlinear Compton scattering in time- dependent electric fields beyond the locally constant crossed field approximation, Physical 33 Review D106, 056013 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Q. Z. Lv, E. Raicher, C. H. Keitel, and K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, Anomalous violation of the local constant field approximation in colliding laser beams, Physical Review Research3, 013214 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Gonoskov, S

    A. Gonoskov, S. Bastrakov, E. Efimenko, A. Ilderton, M. Marklund, I. Meyerov, A. Mu- raviev, A. Sergeev, I. Surmin, and E. Wallin, Extended particle-in-cell schemes for physics in ultrastrong laser fields: Review and developments, Physical Review E92, 023305 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    T. G. Blackburn, D. Seipt, S. S. Bulanov, and M. Marklund, Benchmarking semiclassical approaches to strong-field qed: Nonlinear compton scattering in intense laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas25, 083108 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    C. P. Ridgers, J. G. Kirk, R. Duclous, T. G. Blackburn, C. S. Brady, K. Bennett, T. D. Arber, and A. R. Bell, Modelling gamma-ray photon emission and pair production in high-intensity laser–matter interactions, Journal of Computational Physics260, 273 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Derouillat, A

    J. Derouillat, A. Beck, F. P´ erez, T. Vinci, M. Chiaramello, A. Grassi, M. Fl´ e, G. Bouchard, I. Plotnikov, N. Aunai, J. Dargent, C. Riconda, and M. Grech, Smilei : A collaborative, open- source, multi-purpose particle-in-cell code for plasma simulation, Computer Physics Com...

    2018

  44. [52]

    Vranic, T

    M. Vranic, T. Grismayer, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Quantum radiation reaction in head-on laser-electron beam interaction, New Journal of Physics18, 073035 (2016)

    2016

  45. [53]

    Lobet, E

    M. Lobet, E. d’Humi` eres, M. Grech, C. Ruyer, X. Davoine, and L. Gremillet, Modeling of radiative and quantum electrodynamics effects in PIC simulations of ultra-relativistic laser- plasma interaction, Journal of Physics: Conference Series688, 012058 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    Tang, Fully polarized nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in pulsed plane waves, Phys- ical Review D105, 056018 (2022)

    S. Tang, Fully polarized nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair production in pulsed plane waves, Phys- ical Review D105, 056018 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Heinzl, B

    T. Heinzl, B. King, and A. J. MacLeod, Locally monochromatic approximation to QED in intense laser fields, Physical Review A102, 063110 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    T. G. Blackburn, A. J. MacLeod, and B. King, From local to nonlocal: higher fidelity simu- lations of photon emission in intense laser pulses, New Journal of Physics23, 085008 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    T. G. Blackburn, B. King, and S. Tang, Simulations of laser-driven strong-field QED with Ptarmigan: Resolving wavelength-scale interference andγ-ray polarization, Physics of Plasmas 30, 093903 (2023)

    2023

  50. [58]

    C. F. Nielsen, R. Holtzapple, and B. King, High-resolution modeling of nonlinear Compton 34 scattering in focused laser pulses, Physical Review D106, 013010 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    T. G. Blackburn and B. King, Higher fidelity simulations of nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation in intense laser pulses, The European Physical Journal C82, 44 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    Boca and V

    M. Boca and V. Florescu, Nonlinear Compton scattering with a laser pulse, Physical Review A80, 053403 (2009)

    2009

  53. [61]

    Tang and B

    S. Tang and B. King, Locally monochromatic two-step nonlinear trident process in a plane wave, Physical Review D107, 096004 (2023)

    2023

  54. [62]

    Dinu, Exact final-state integrals for strong-field QED, Physical Review A87, 052101 (2013)

    V. Dinu, Exact final-state integrals for strong-field QED, Physical Review A87, 052101 (2013)

    2013

  55. [63]

    Mackenroth and A

    F. Mackenroth and A. Di Piazza, Nonlinear Compton scattering in ultrashort laser pulses, Physical Review A83, 032106 (2011)

    2011

  56. [64]

    Seipt and B

    D. Seipt and B. K¨ ampfer, Nonlinear Compton scattering of ultrashort intense laser pulses, Physical Review A83, 022101 (2011)

    2011

  57. [65]

    Krajewska and J

    K. Krajewska and J. Z. Kami´ nski, Compton process in intense short laser pulses, Physical Review A85, 062102 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Narozhnyi and M

    N. Narozhnyi and M. Fofanov, Photon emission by an electron in a collision with a short focused laser pulse, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics83, 14 (1996)

    1996

  59. [67]

    Seipt and B

    D. Seipt and B. K¨ ampfer, Nonlinear Compton scattering of ultrahigh-intensity laser pulses, Laser Physics23, 075301 (2013)

    2013

  60. [68]

    Seipt, V

    D. Seipt, V. Kharin, S. Rykovanov, A. Surzhykov, and S. Fritzsche, Analytical results for nonlinear Compton scattering in short intense laser pulses, Journal of Plasma Physics82, 655820203 (2016)

    2016

  61. [69]

    with respect to the interference windowθ. We find dRLMA (φ) dℓd2ρ⊥ =− α π2 A +∞X n=−∞ Dn (φ) +∞Z −∞ exp h iθ ζ(φ)− n 2 i dθ ,(12) with ζ(φ) =ℓ+ ℓ(1 +δ 2) 2 (1 +ρ 2 ⊥) a2 0g2 φ ∆ (13) and Dn (φ) =J n (X, Y) +a2 0 2 g2 φ ∆ B 1 +δ 2 − 1−δ 2 cos 2φ (2Jn − Jn−2 − Jn+2).(14) The fun...

  62. [70]

    King, Interference effects in nonlinear Compton scattering due to pulse envelope, Physical Review D103, 036018 (2021)

    B. King, Interference effects in nonlinear Compton scattering due to pulse envelope, Physical Review D103, 036018 (2021)

    2021

  63. [71]

    Tang and B

    S. Tang and B. King, Pulse envelope effects in nonlinear Breit-Wheeler pair creation, Physical Review D104, 096019 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Dattoli, L

    G. Dattoli, L. Giannessi, L. Mezi, and A. Torre, Theory of generalized Bessel functions, Il Nuovo Cimento B (1971-1996)105, 327 (1990)

    1990

  65. [73]

    H. J. Korsch, A. Klumpp, and D. Witthaut, On two-dimensional Bessel functions, Journal of 35 Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 14947 (2006)

    2006

  66. [74]

    King and S

    B. King and S. Tang, Feasibility of measuring nonanalytic qed coupling from pair creation in strong fields, Phys. Rev. A109, 032823 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Seipt, A

    D. Seipt, A. Surzhykov, S. Fritzsche, and B. K¨ ampfer, Caustic structures in x-ray Compton scattering off electrons driven by a short intense laser pulse, New Journal of Physics18, 023044 (2016)

    2016

  68. [76]

    V. Y. Kharin, D. Seipt, and S. G. Rykovanov, Higher-Dimensional Caustics in Nonlinear Compton Scattering, Physical Review Letters120, 044802 (2018)

    2018

  69. [77]

    Y. A. Kravtsov and Y. I. Orlov, Caustics, catastrophes, and wave fields, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 26, 1038 (1983)

    1983

  70. [78]

    Seipt, S

    D. Seipt, S. G. Rykovanov, A. Surzhykov, and S. Fritzsche, Narrowband inverse compton scattering x-ray sources at high laser intensities, Phys. Rev. A91, 033402 (2015)

    2015

  71. [79]

    T. G. Blackburn, D. Seipt, S. S. Bulanov, and M. Marklund, Radiation beaming in the quan- tum regime, Physical Review A101, 012505 (2020)

    2020

  72. [80]

    V. Y. Kharin, D. Seipt, and S. G. Rykovanov, Temporal laser-pulse-shape effects in nonlinear Thomson scattering, Physical Review A93, 063801 (2016)

    2016

  73. [81]

    G. N. Watson,A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1966)

    1966

  74. [82]

    F. W. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, The NIST Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions, NIST (2010). 36

    2010

Pith tools

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