Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Particle collisionality in scaled kinetic plasma simulations

T0 review · 2 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 Separately scaling ion-ion, electron-electron, and electron-ion collision rates with species-dependent factors preserves both electron and ion transport in particle-in-cell simulations that use a reduced speed of light and heavy electron…

desk verdict A practical and honest recipe for scaling collisionality in reduced-parameter PIC simulations, with a validation gap at realistic mass ratios. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08495 v1 pith:U3LSEPHZ submitted 2025-06-10 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HE

S. R. Totorica , K. V. Lezhnin , W. Fox This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.HE
keywords collisionalityscalingparticle-in-cellsimulationreducedspeedoflightion-to-electronmassratioCoulombcollisionsrelaxationratesplasmatransportweaklycollisional
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

Kinetic plasma simulations often reduce computational cost by slowing the speed of light and increasing the electron mass, but these shortcuts distort Coulomb collision rates. This paper develops a method to correct that distortion by applying separate multiplicative scaling factors to ion-ion, electron-electron, and electron-ion collisions. The paper shows that choosing $K_{\nu ii}=K_c^{-4}$ and $K_{\nu ei}=K_{\nu ee}=K_c^{-4}K_m^{-1/2}$ matches the total electron and ion relaxation rates to the physical system's electromagnetic timescales and matches electron-ion energy exchange to the ion timescale. Benchmark runs against analytic relaxation rates and fluid transport theory confirm that the recipe preserves transport properties, and the method can be added to existing collisional particle-in-cell codes with negligible extra cost.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the test-particle relaxation-rate decomposition, in which the slowing, perpendicular diffusion, parallel diffusion, and energy-loss rates $\nu_s$, $\nu_\perp$, $\nu_\parallel$, $\nu_\epsilon$ for a particle of species $\alpha$ scattering off species $\beta$ are written as a characteristic collision frequency $\nu_0^{\alpha\backslash\beta}$ times functions of a normalized energy $x_{\alpha\backslash\beta}$. The paper inserts a species-pair prefactor $K_{\nu\alpha\beta}$ into $\nu_0^{\alpha\backslash\beta}$, uses the asymptotic forms of the energy-dependent functions for $x\gg1$ and $x\ll1$ to derive how each rate must scale under a reduced speed of light and heavy electron mass, and packages the result as three multipliers to be applied inside the binary Monte-Carlo Coulomb collision operator. The computational overhead is one extra multiplication per collision pair plus a lookup of the pair's species charges and masses.

What would settle it

Compute the full, non-limiting electron-ion and ion-electron relaxation rates for parameters with $m_i T_e/(m_e T_i)$ near unity and compare the proposed scaled rates with the physical rates; agreement would mean the limiting-form assumption is unnecessary, while disagreement would mark the true boundary of the method. A direct numerical version is to run the paper's relaxation-rate benchmark at a mass ratio of 25 with $T_i=T_e$, a condition that only marginally satisfies the scaling requirement, and inspect the ion high-energy tail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that collisionality distortion from a reduced speed of light and an artificial ion-to-electron mass ratio can be compensated by species-pair prefactors without changing the collisionless dynamics. In the regime $m_i T_e / (m_e T_i) \gg 1$, the limiting forms of the classical test-particle relaxation rates give $K_{\nu ii}=K_c^{-4}$ for ion-ion collisions and $K_{\nu ei}=K_{\nu ee}=K_c^{-4} K_m^{-1/2}$ for electron-electron and electron-ion collisions. With these choices, collision frequencies and mean free paths are matched to the cyclotron frequency, skin depth, and gyroradius of each species, and the electron-ion energy equilibration time is matched to the physical system's ion timescale. The paper verifies the recipe in a collisional particle-in-cell code by measuring energy-resolved relaxation rates and temperature equilibration, and it shows that the standard practice of scaling all collision types uniformly would substantially underestimate ion collisionality.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation relies on the separation of scales $m_i T_e/(m_e T_i) \gg 1$, so that the limiting forms of the relaxation rates apply to most collisions; if that separation fails, the species-dependent prefactors will not preserve the rates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Simulations that adopt the recipe can match both electron and ion collisional transport simultaneously, rather than sacrificing one species to match the other.
  • Electron-ion temperature equilibration times are preserved, so artificially heavy electrons do not change the rate at which the species exchange energy.
  • The Lundquist number and Prandtl number of the modeled plasma remain approximately invariant under the scaling, keeping large-scale magnetohydrodynamic behavior intact.
  • Existing collisional PIC codes can implement the method by multiplying the collision rate by one prefactor per species pair, with negligible performance impact.
  • The recipe is useable only for nonrelativistic temperatures with $m_i T_e/(m_e T_i) \gg 1$; outside that regime the simplified limiting forms do not hold.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension of the paper's logic suggests that a relativistic version of the scaling is within reach once relativistic test-particle relaxation rates are used; the limiting-form argument would need to be redone because the speed of light enters the relativistic rates explicitly.
  • The paper's formulas for the Dreicer field imply that even with the new scaling, runs with a heavy electron mass will artificially lower the bulk runaway threshold by a factor $K_m^{-1/2}$, so studies of runaways should check whether that shift changes their conclusions.
  • The stated generalization to multiple ion species is plausible but unbenchmarked; a targeted test with two ion species would confirm whether the same prefactors remain valid when ion-ion and electron-ion collisions both matter.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a scheme for rescaling Coulomb collision rates in kinetic plasma simulations that use a reduced speed of light (K_c) and an artificially heavy electron mass (K_m). Starting from the Trubnikov test-particle relaxation rates, the authors derive species-dependent prefactors: K_{\nu ii}=K_c^{-4}, K_{\nu ei}=K_{\nu ie}=K_c^{-4}K_m^{-1/2}, and K_{\nu ee}=K_c^{-4}K_m^{-1/2}, using asymptotic limits appropriate to m_iT_e/(m_eT_i)\gg 1. With these choices, intra-species rates and the dominant inter-species rates are matched to the relevant electromagnetic timescales, while electron-ion energy exchange is matched to the ion timescale. The paper connects the scaling to Braginskii fluid transport and MHD dimensionless numbers, discusses runaway-electron fields and parameter limitations, describes a simple implementation in the PSC code, and presents benchmarks against theoretical relaxation rates and temperature equilibration.

Significance. The proposed scaling is simple to implement and addresses a genuine need: collisional PIC simulations with artificial mass ratio and speed of light are common, and earlier approaches that scaled all collision types uniformly distorted ion collisionality. The derivation is internally consistent, and the manuscript includes a welcome, explicit discussion of the limitations of the method (low-energy electrons, high-energy ions, runaway physics). The benchmark suite, while not exhaustive, checks both energy-resolved relaxation rates and global temperature equilibration, and the theory-theory comparison in Figures 1-2 supports the scaling at mass ratio 100. If the requested regime-of-validity quantification is added, the method should be broadly useful to the kinetic plasma simulation community.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III.B.2 and Section VIII] The scaling factors are derived from the asymptotic limits x_{e\i}\gg1 and x_{i\e}\ll1, and the only kinetic-simulation benchmark in Section VIII uses (m_i/m_e)_{sim}=25, for which the thermal x_{e\i} is only 25 and x_{i\e} is 0.04. Figures 1-2 provide a useful theory-theory comparison at mass ratio 100, but the paper does not quantify how the accuracy of the proposed scalings varies with mass ratio or estimate the finite-x corrections to Eqs. (21)-(28). Because the K_m^{-1/2} exponents in Eqs. (29)-(36) are the central result, please add a quantitative cross-check, for example the relative error of the exact scaled relaxation rates versus the physical rates as a function of energy for several mass ratios (e.g., 25, 100, 400, 1836), and state the range of m_iT_e/(m_eT_i) for which the recipe is accurate to a given tolerance.
  2. [Section VIII, Figures 3-4] The kinetic benchmarks are a single set of parameters with no error bars and no convergence study. The scatter of the measured relaxation rates is not quantified, and it is not demonstrated that the results are converged with respect to particles per cell, timestep, or number of timesteps. Since the purpose of these figures is to validate the implementation of the \Gamma_{\alpha\beta} factors, please add at least one convergence test or provide error estimates from the binning and averaging procedure so that the claim of good agreement is quantitatively supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section I] There is a typo in 'nonequilibirum' in the first paragraph of the introduction.
  2. [Section III] The sentence 'Different types of inter- and intera-species collisions' contains a typo; it should read 'inter- and intra-species collisions'.
  3. [Section VI] The notation '(T_e/mc^2)_{phys}' is ambiguous; the mass should be identified explicitly as the electron mass, e.g., '(T_e/m_e c^2)_{phys}'.
  4. [Section IX, Figure 6] The relativistic benchmark in Figure 6 is presented without simulation parameters or error bars. Since it is explicitly preliminary and outside the central nonrelativistic scope, it should either be removed or clearly marked as a preliminary result with a description of the setup.
  5. [Section IV] The statement that all transport coefficients except electron viscosity and the inertial term depend only on \tau_e/m_e is asserted rather than derived; a brief summary of the relevant Braginskii coefficients and their scaling would make the fluid-theory connection more self-contained.
  6. [Section VIII, Eq. (75)] The formula for \nu_{eq,e} appears garbled in the typeset text; please ensure the equation is formatted correctly and that all symbols (n_e, d_e, \lambda_{ei}) are defined in the caption or surrounding text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the scaling factors are explicit design choices, and the benchmarks verify the implementation rather than an independently fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation in Section III.B starts from the standard test-particle relaxation rates (Eqs. 1-6, from Refs. [12,13]) and the explicit Ansatz of a multiplicative prefactor K_nu_alpha_beta in Eq. (12). It then takes the stated asymptotic limits (Eqs. 21-28), computes how each rate transforms under K_c and K_m (Eqs. 29-36), and selects K_factors to make those ratios unity where possible. The statement that the selected rates 'will be matched' is therefore a restatement of the design condition, not a hidden empirical prediction; the paper openly identifies the rates that cannot be simultaneously matched (e.g., electron-ion nu_parallel and nu_epsilon are placed on the ion scale) and the altered runaway fields (Eqs. 65-67). The benchmarking tests in Section VIII compare PIC measurements to the same theoretical relaxation rates that define the scaling; this is an implementation check, but no parameter is fitted to the benchmark data, and the benchmarks are not the source of the scaling law. The stated validity condition m_i T_e/(m_e T_i) >> 1 (Section III.B.2) and the moderate mass ratio m_i/m_e=25 in the benchmark are correctness and validation concerns, not circularity. Self-citations to the PSC code and prior reconnection simulations are contextual and do not carry the derivation, which rests on textbook collision theory. The paper is therefore self-contained in its derivation chain and contains no circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on standard nonrelativistic Coulomb collision theory and the stated domain assumptions. The only user-chosen inputs are the simulation scaling factors K_c and K_m. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • K_c (speed of light scaling factor) = user-selected, e.g., 0.01 in benchmarks
    Input parameter chosen by the user to reduce computational expense; the derived collision scaling factors depend on it.
  • K_m (electron mass scaling factor) = user-selected, e.g., 73.44 in benchmarks
    Input parameter chosen by the user to reduce the mass ratio; the derived collision scaling factors depend on it.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Nonrelativistic Coulomb collision theory is valid for the physical system
    Used throughout Section III; the test-particle relaxation rate formulas (Eqs. 1-6) are nonrelativistic.
  • domain assumption The condition m_iTe/meTi >> 1 holds, so that x_e\i >> 1 for electron scattering and x_i\e << 1 for ion scattering
    Stated in Section III.B.2; enables the limiting forms (Eqs. 21-28) used to derive the scaling factors.
  • domain assumption Coulomb logarithms in the scaled system are equal to those of the physical system
    Stated in Section III.A: 'we assume for simplicity that the Coulomb logarithms are equivalent to those of the physical system'.
  • domain assumption The scaled system keeps densities, temperatures, and characteristic length L unchanged
    Stated in Section II: 'electron and ion temperatures, bulk plasma flow velocities, initial magnetic fields, densities, and characteristic length scale L are assumed to be unchanged'.
  • standard math Standard asymptotic limits of the psi function are applicable
    Used in Section III.B.2 to derive the scaling of relaxation rates in the limits x << 1 and x >> 1.
  • domain assumption Electromagnetic scales (gyroradius, skin depth, cyclotron frequency) are the relevant normalization for matching collisionality
    The paper chooses to match collisional dynamics at electromagnetic scales rather than electrostatic scales, as discussed in Section III.A.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle collisionality in scaled kinetic plasma simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U3LSEPHZ

@misc{pith2026250608495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle collisionality in scaled kinetic plasma simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U3LSEPHZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08495}
}
read the original abstract

Kinetic plasma processes, such as magnetic reconnection, collisionless shocks, and turbulence, are fundamental to the dynamics of astrophysical and laboratory plasmas. Simulating these processes often requires particle-in-cell (PIC) methods, but the computational cost of fully kinetic simulations can necessitate the use of artificial parameters, such as a reduced speed of light and ion-to-electron mass ratio, to decrease expense. While these approximations can preserve overall dynamics under specific conditions, they introduce nontrivial impacts on particle collisionality that are not yet well understood. In this work, we develop a method to scale particle collisionality in simulations employing such approximations. By introducing species-dependent scaling factors, we independently adjust inter- and intra-species collision rates to better replicate the collisional properties of the physical system. Our approach maintains the fidelity of electron and ion transport properties while preserving critical relaxation rates, such as energy exchange timescales, within the limits of weakly collisional plasma theory. We demonstrate the accuracy of this scaling method through benchmarking tests against theoretical relaxation rates and connecting to fluid theory, highlighting its ability to retain key transport properties. Existing collisional PIC implementations can be easily modified to include this scaling, which will enable deeper insights into the behavior of marginally collisional plasmas across various contexts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08495 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Ion relaxation rates as a function of energy. The semi-transparent thick lines show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Electron relaxation rates as a function of energy. The semi-transparent thick lines show [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Electron relaxation rates. Solid red line shows rates for the physical plasma, solid blue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ion relaxation rates. Solid red line shows rates for the physical plasma, solid blue line shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Electron-ion temperature equilibration. Solid red and blue lines show the evolution of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Benchmarking the relativistic collision algorithm of [26] against the full relativistic exten [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In the typical use case of matching the simulated and physical systems at ion scales, this means the electron mass is effectively increased asK m = (me)sim/(me)phys

    Ion-ion and electron-electron collisions Another commonly used approximation for reducing the computational expense of PIC simulations is using an artificially reduced ion to electron mass ratio. In the typical use case of matching the simulated and physical systems at ion scales, this means the electron mass is effectively increased asK m = (me)sim/(me)p...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Electron-ion and ion-electron collisions For collisions between electrons and ions, the dependence of the collision rates on the mass ratio is complex due to the functionsψ(x α\β) andψ ′(xα\β). However, for conditions where the majority of the collisions satisfyx α\β ≪1 orx α\β ≫1, one can consider the limiting forms of the relaxation rates which are amen...

    work page

  3. [3]

    gives: Electrons (xe\i ≪1) : (37) (νe\i s )sim/(νe\i s )phys =K νeiK 4 c K −2 m (38) (νe\i ⊥ )sim/(νe\i ⊥ )phys =K νeiK 4 c K −1 m (39) (νe\i ∥ )sim/(νe\i ∥ )phys =K νeiK 4 c K −1 m (40) (νe\i ϵ )sim/(νe\i ϵ )phys =K νeiK 4 c K −1 m (41) Ions (xi\e ≫1) : (42) (νi\e s )sim/(νi\e s )phys =K νeiK 4 c K −1 m (43) (νi\e ⊥ )sim/(νi\e ⊥ )phys =K νeiK 4 c (44) (ν...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Cosmic ray origins: An introduction.Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, 256-257:9–22, 2014

    Roger Blandford, Paul Simeon, and Yajie Yuan. Cosmic ray origins: An introduction.Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements, 256-257:9–22, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Birdsall and A.B

    C.K. Birdsall and A.B. Langdon.Plasma Physics via Computer Simulation. McGraw-Hill, 1985

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    A binary collision model for plasma simulation with a particle code.Journal of Computational Physics, 25(3):205–219, 1977

    Tomonori Takizuka and Hirotada Abe. A binary collision model for plasma simulation with a particle code.Journal of Computational Physics, 25(3):205–219, 1977

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    P. L. Pritchett. Geospace Environment Modeling magnetic reconnection challenge: Simu- lations with a full particle electromagnetic code.Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 106(A3):3783–3798, 2001

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    Collisionless magnetic reconnection: Electron processes and transport modeling.Journal of Geophysical

    Michael Hesse, Joachim Birn, and Masha Kuznetsova. Collisionless magnetic reconnection: Electron processes and transport modeling.Journal of Geophysical . . ., 106:3721–3735, 2001

    work page 2001

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    W. Fox, J. Matteucci, C. Moissard, D. B. Schaeffer, A. Bhattacharjee, K. Germaschewski, and S. X. Hu. Kinetic simulation of magnetic field generation and collisionless shock formation in expanding laboratory plasmas.Physics of Plasmas, 25(10), 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Daughton, V

    W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, B. J. Albright, H. Karimabadi, L. Yin, and Kevin J. Bowers. Influence of Coulomb collisions on the structure of reconnection layers.Physics of Plasmas, 16(7), 2009

    2009

  3. [11]

    Daughton, V

    W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, B. J. Albright, H. Karimabadi, L. Yin, and Kevin J. Bowers. Transition from collisional to kinetic regimes in large-scale reconnection layers.Physical Review Letters, 103(6):1–4, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    W. Fox, A. Bhattacharjee, and K. Germaschewski. Fast magnetic reconnection in laser- produced plasma bubbles.Physical Review Letters, 106(21):1–4, 5 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    W. Fox, A. Bhattacharjee, and K. Germaschewski. Magnetic reconnection in high-energy- density laser-produced plasmas.Physics of Plasmas, 19(2012):056309, 2012

    2012

  6. [14]

    A. Le, J. Egedal, W. Daughton, V. Roytershteyn, H. Karimabadi, and C. Forest. Transition in electron physics of magnetic reconnection in weakly collisional plasma.Journal of Plasma Physics, 81(01):305810108, 2015. 25

    2015

  7. [15]

    B. A. Trubnikov. Particle Interactions in a Fully Ionized Plasma.Reviews of Plasma Physics, 1, 1965

    1965

  8. [16]

    NRL PLASMA FORMULARY.Plasma Physics, 2013

    J D Huba. NRL PLASMA FORMULARY.Plasma Physics, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    S. I. Braginskii. Transport Processes in a Plasma.Reviews of Plasma Physics, 1:205, 1965

    1965

  10. [18]

    H. Dreicer. Electron and ion runaway in a fully ionized gas. I.Physical Review, 115(2), 1959

    1959

  11. [19]

    Electron and

    H Dreicer. Electron and. Ion Runaway in a Fully Ionized Gas. II*. Technical report, 1960

    1960

  12. [20]

    RELATIVISTIC LIMITATIONS ON RUNA W AY ELECTRONS

    J W Connor and R J Hastie. RELATIVISTIC LIMITATIONS ON RUNA W AY ELECTRONS. Technical report, 1975

    1975

  13. [21]

    The Plasma Simulation Code: A mod- ern particle-in-cell code with patch-based load-balancing.Journal of Computational Physics, 318:305–326, 2016

    Kai Germaschewski, William Fox, Stephen Abbott, Narges Ahmadi, Kristofor Maynard, Liang Wang, Hartmut Ruhl, and Amitava Bhattacharjee. The Plasma Simulation Code: A mod- ern particle-in-cell code with patch-based load-balancing.Journal of Computational Physics, 318:305–326, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    W. Fox, J. Park, W. Deng, G. Fiksel, A. Spitkovsky, and A. Bhattacharjee. Astrophysical particle acceleration mechanisms in colliding magnetized laser-produced plasmas.Physics of Plasmas, 24(9):092901, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Matteucci, W

    J. Matteucci, W. Fox, A. Bhattacharjee, D. B. Schaeffer, C. Moissard, K. Germaschewski, G. Fiksel, and S. X. Hu. Biermann-Battery-Mediated Magnetic Reconnection in 3D Colliding Plasmas.Physical Review Letters, 121(9):1–6, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Lezhnin, Jack Matteucci, and Amitava Bhattacharjee

    Peera Pongkitiwanichakul, William Fox, David Ruffolo, Kittipat Malakit, Kirill V. Lezhnin, Jack Matteucci, and Amitava Bhattacharjee. Ion Acceleration in Driven Magnetic Recon- nection during High-energy–Density Plasma Interaction.The Astrophysical Journal, 907(2), 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    K. V. Lezhnin, W. Fox, D. B. Schaeffer, A. Spitkovsky, J. Matteucci, A. Bhattacharjee, and K. Germaschewski. Kinetic Simulations of Electron Pre-energization by Magnetized Colli- sionless Shocks in Expanding Laboratory Plasmas.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908(2), 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    D. B. Schaeffer, W. Fox, J. Matteucci, K. V. Lezhnin, A. Bhattacharjee, and K. Ger- maschewski. Kinetic simulations of piston-driven collisionless shock formation in magnetized laboratory plasmas.Physics of Plasmas, 27(4):042901, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Sentoku and A

    Y. Sentoku and A. J. Kemp. Numerical methods for particle simulations at extreme densities and temperatures: Weighted particles, relativistic collisions and reduced currents.Journal of 26 Computational Physics, 227(14):6846–6861, 2008

    2008

  20. [28]

    Peano, M

    F. Peano, M. Marti, L. O. Silva, and G. Coppa. Statistical kinetic treatment of relativistic binary collisions.Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 79(2):2– 5, 2009

    2009

  21. [29]

    P´ erez, L

    F. P´ erez, L. Gremillet, A. Decoster, M. Drouin, and E. Lefebvre. Improved modeling of relativistic collisions and collisional ionization in particle-in-cell codes.Physics of Plasmas, 19(8):083104, 2012

    2012

  22. [30]

    O. J. Pike and S. J. Rose. Dynamical friction in a relativistic plasma.Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 89(5), 2014

    2014

  23. [31]

    O. J. Pike and S. J. Rose. Transport coefficients of a relativistic plasma.Physical Review E, 93(5), 2016

    2016

  24. [32]

    Exploit- ing multi-scale parallelism for large scale numerical modelling of laser wakefield accelerators

    R A Fonseca, J Vieira, F Fiuza, A Davidson, F S Tsung, W B Mori, and L O Silva. Exploit- ing multi-scale parallelism for large scale numerical modelling of laser wakefield accelerators. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 55(12):124011, 12 2013. 27

    2013

Pith tools

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