Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Shallow Angle Inverse Compton Scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first observation of shallow-angle inverse Compton scattering with a 4.7 MeV electron beam crossing a 780 nm laser at 5.8°, confirming the predicted suppression of on-axis p-polarized emission near the relativistic…

desk verdict First shallow-angle ICS demonstration, with a new polarization effect, but the central cross-section reduction is misprinted and the key derivation sits in the SM. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.04621 v1 pith:O7IQV5DG submitted 2025-09-04 physics.acc-ph

B.H. Schaap , M. Lenz , P. Musumeci This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords inverseComptonscatteringshallowanglerelativisticBrewsterpolarizationdependencelaser-electroninteractioncompactX-raysourcevisibleradiationovertakinggeometry
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

Inverse Compton scattering usually collides an electron beam head-on with a laser pulse, but tilting the laser to a shallow, nearly co-propagating angle changes the emitted wavelength and can boost brightness. This paper reports the first demonstration of that shallow-angle geometry, using a 4.7 MeV electron beam crossing a 780 nm laser at 5.8 degrees and detecting the predicted 414 nm visible light. The experimental yield scales with bunch charge and laser waist as the analytical model expects, and the light is spectrally and temporally consistent with prompt Compton emission. The new result is a polarization effect absent in head-on scattering: when the laser is p-polarized near the relativistic Brewster angle, on-axis emission is suppressed and the radiation pattern becomes annular, matching the predicted differential cross-section. If the result holds, shallow-angle inverse Compton scattering becomes a viable path toward tunable, compact X-ray sources with higher electron energies.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the analytical differential cross-section Eq. (3) and its angle-integrated form Eq. (4), derived in the Supplemental Material for shallow crossing angles and small emission angles, plus the rest-frame picture of an oscillating dipole. The relativistic Brewster angle θβ ≈ γ−1 is the crossing angle at which, in the instantaneous electron rest frame, the laser wave arrives normal to the beam axis; at that angle a p-polarized laser drives the electron dipole along the rest-frame axis, so no radiation is emitted along the boosted (lab-frame) beam direction. Eq. (4) expresses the collected yield as a baseline plus a cos2φ0 term whose amplitude depends on the collection angle, and the paper uses it to fit the measured polarization scan and the p/s yield ratio vs aperture. A separate ingredient, Eq. (2), gives the yield scaling with the laser waist in the scattering plane, used to match the waist-dependence data.

What would settle it

Measure the p- and s-polarized integrated yield at a crossing angle exactly equal to the relativistic Brewster angle, with a small collection aperture (γθc ≲ 0.2): the p-polarized yield should approach zero on-axis while the s-polarized yield remains comparable to the head-on value. A failure to see this divergence would directly contradict the central claim. A second check is to re-derive Eq. (3) from first principles and compare its predicted modulation amplitude in Eq. (4) to the measured data at γθc = 0.5, since the paper does not include that derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that shallow-angle (overtaking) inverse Compton scattering has been observed for the first time, and that its radiation pattern contains a polarization-dependent feature not seen in head-on scattering. For a crossing angle θ0 = 5.8° = 0.94 θβ, where θβ = arccos β ≈ γ−1 is the relativistic Brewster angle, the differential cross-section for p-polarized laser light develops a zero along the electron-beam axis, so the on-axis intensity vanishes and the far-field pattern becomes annular; for s-polarization the familiar forward-peaked pattern remains. The integrated yield as a function of polarization angle and collection aperture fits the closed-form expression Eq. (4), derived from the differential cross-section Eq. (3). The paper takes this agreement as experimental confirmation of the predicted Brewster-like suppression and of the usefulness of the shallow-angle geometry for tuning wavelength and increasing brightness.

Load-bearing premise

The polarization result depends on Eq. (3), the shallow-angle differential cross-section, whose derivation is placed entirely in the Supplemental Material, and on the reliability of the measured beam and laser parameters, since no error bars are given for the yield data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shallow-angle ICS with electron energies of tens to hundreds of MeV can reach soft X-ray wavelengths (e.g., 3.3 nm in the water window) while keeping a smaller radiation opening angle, increasing source brightness.
  • The polarization dependence gives a new control knob: rotating the laser polarization from s to p near the Brewster angle turns the on-axis emission off, useful for background control or for producing annular and radially polarized beams.
  • The measured scaling with the in-plane laser waist shows that pulse duration and bandwidth can be tuned by shaping the laser focus without sacrificing flux.
  • The validated geometry supports proposals for superradiant Compton sources, where the overlap between incoherent and superradiant emission improves at higher beam energy.
  • Experimental agreement with the analytical cross-section confirms that the shallow-angle differential cross-section correctly captures the interplay of crossing angle, emission angle, and polarization in the small-angle regime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The cos2φ0 modulation depth of the integrated yield could serve as a non-invasive alignment diagnostic: a small misalignment of the crossing angle or an unexpected laser intensity would shift the modulation away from the Eq. (4) prediction.
  • If the Brewster suppression persists at X-ray wavelengths, an on-axis detector looking at a p-polarized source would see near-zero background from the main scattering, which could simplify instrumentation for future compact sources.
  • The same overtaking geometry at higher laser intensity might make field-strength effects (such as a0-dependent shifts or nonlinear harmonics) visible at lower electron energies than head-on scattering, though the paper does not test this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment at the UCLA Pegasus photoinjector in which a 4.7 MeV electron beam crosses a 780 nm, 100 fs laser pulse at a shallow 5.8° crossing angle, followed by imaging, spectral filtering, and angular characterization of the emitted radiation. The authors claim the first experimental demonstration of shallow-angle inverse Compton scattering, with the measured radiation consistent with the predicted on-axis wavelength (414 nm), prompt emission confirmed by a linac-phase time-of-arrival scan, yield scaling with charge and laser waist in agreement with analytic and GPT/Liénard-Wiechert simulations, and a polarization-dependent yield showing suppression for p-polarization near the relativistic Brewster angle. They interpret the result as a new effect absent in head-on scattering and as validation of the shallow-angle geometry for compact X-ray sources.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a timely first experimental milestone for shallow-angle ICS and a useful validation of the scaling arguments for compact, tunable X-ray sources. The paper has real strengths: the timing check via a linac phase scan, the spectral verification with filters, the use of independent diagnostics, and the parameter-free polarization modulation prediction compared against measured yields. The GPT/Liénard-Wiechert simulations provide a useful cross-check. However, the theoretical support for the central polarization claim is not reproducible from the main text: the key differential cross-section is relegated to the Supplemental Material, the one analytic reduction printed in the main text contains an algebraic inconsistency, and no error bars are reported for the yield measurements. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's central claim and require correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Quantitative polarization dependence, Eq. (3) and following reduction] The printed reduction of Eq. (3) for p-polarization at the relativistic Brewster angle is algebraically inconsistent. Setting φ0=π/2 and γθ0=1 in Eq. (3) gives dσ/dΩ = 16γ²r_e²(X−1)/X^4, where X=1+γ²θ², not the printed 4γ²r_e²(X−1)/X^3. The printed expression maximizes at γθ=1/√2, contradicting the stated θmax = 3^(−1/2)γ^(−1); the corrected expression peaks at 1/√3 and integrates to the Thomson cross-section 8πr_e²/3, while the printed one does not. Since Eq. (3) itself is only in the Supplemental Material [38], the reader cannot tell whether the Fig. 5 fits and the Brewster-suppression prediction are based on the correct kernel or on the misprinted reduction. This must be fixed and the derivation of Eq. (3) made available in the manuscript or a clearly available supplement.
  2. [Eq. (4) and the angular integral of Eq. (3)] Eq. (4) does not appear to follow from Eq. (3) by the stated small-angle integration. Integrating Eq. (3) at θ0=θβ with dΩ ≈ γ^(−2) t dt dφ, t=γθ, gives an expression proportional to 2πr_e² [4/3 − 4/X_c² + 8/(3X_c³) + (−2/X_c + 6/X_c² − 4/X_c³) cos²φ0], with X_c = 1+γ²θ_c². This contains no logarithmic term, whereas Eq. (4) contains ln(1+γ²θ_c²). The two forms differ already at small collection angles: at γθ_c=1 the direct integral gives equal p- and s-polarization yields, while Eq. (4) gives a larger p-polarization yield. The authors should provide the missing integration steps and reconcile Eq. (4) with Eq. (3); as printed, the analytical basis for Fig. 5 is not verifiable.
  3. [Figures 2, 3, and 5: experimental uncertainties] The paper repeatedly states 'good agreement' and 'matches well' without reporting error bars, shot-to-shot fluctuations, or systematic uncertainties. This is particularly important for the central polarization result: Fig. 5(a) claims agreement with the predicted modulation depth, and Fig. 5(c) claims a change from a conventional to an annular radiation pattern, but without error bars the quantitative strength of these claims cannot be assessed. The paper should add error bars to the yield measurements and report a fit statistic or residuals for the comparisons to Eqs. (2) and (4). It should also state explicitly which quantities are normalized to the data (the overall yield normalizations) and which are parameter-free predictions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The Supplemental Material [38] is cited for the derivation of Eq. (3), the OTR calibration, the EOS timing, and the GPT simulations, but it is not included in the preprint. Since the central claim depends on Eq. (3), the derivation should at minimum be added to the main text or a self-contained appendix.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states 'The blue scattered data is the photon yield for each time delay' but does not define the solid blue curves also shown in the figure; the fitting procedure and the meaning of the curves should be stated.
  3. [Experimental setup paragraph] The photocathode material is printed as 'NaSkB'; this should be 'NaKSb' (or the intended alkali-antimonide composition stated correctly).
  4. [GPT simulation description] The text says 'classical Lieneard-Wiechert fields'; the correct spelling is 'Liénard-Wiechert fields'.
  5. [Line after Eq. (1)] The phrase 'small emission angles, θ(0)≪1' is unclear; it should read 'θ, θ0 ≪ 1' or otherwise define which angles are assumed small.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the polarization prediction is a parameter-free analytic cross-section compared with measured yields; the only normalizations are fitted overall constants, and self-citations are derivation references, not inputs that force the result.

full rationale

The central claims are tested against data rather than derived from the data. Equation (1) uses measured beam and laser parameters as inputs and predicts the observed wavelength lambda_rad = 414 nm; Equation (3) is a stated analytic differential cross-section and Equation (4) is its integral; neither the cos(2*phi0) polarization modulation nor the collection-angle dependence is fitted to the measurements. The only fitted quantities in the figures are overall normalization constants in the plotted curves, which do not determine the predicted shapes or modulation depth. Equation (2) is derived in the text from the interaction-time geometry and is validated by the waist-scaling data, not used to construct those data. The relativistic Brewster angle is defined from the Lorentz-transformed incidence angle and evaluated independently of the observed suppression. Self-citations [30] and [38] provide background or derivation references, but the main text states the formulas and the experimental data provide an external check; there is no reduction of a prediction to a fitted parameter or to a self-citation chain. A separate correctness/verifiability concern exists: the printed reduction of Equation (3) for p-polarization at the Brewster angle appears algebraically inconsistent (the first two numerator terms cancel, giving 16*gamma^2*r_e^2*(X-1)/X^4 rather than 4*gamma^2*r_e^2*(X-1)/X^3), and Equation (3) is delegated to Supplemental Material [38] not included in the preprint. However, that is an error or omission issue, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on classical radiation theory in the Lorentz-boosted frame, a0 << 1 plane-wave assumptions, measured beam and laser parameters, and small-angle expansions for the cross-section. No new physical entity is introduced; the relativistic Brewster angle is a new label for a standard kinematic condition. Two overall normalization factors are effectively fitted to data when comparing theory curves, leaving the shape predictions as the actual tests.

free parameters (2)
  • Overall yield normalization for Eq. (2) spot-size scaling = normalized to measured yield at w = 100 um
    The theory gives the yield up to an overall scale; comparing the measured trend with Eq. (2) only tests the shape of the curve, not the absolute scattering efficiency.
  • Overall yield normalization for Eq. (4) polarization curve = matched to the data amplitude in Fig. 5(a)
    The paper says the red curve 'fits well' with Eq. (4); the comparison is over the modulation shape and depth, while the absolute vertical scale is set by the data.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Classical Liénard-Wiechert radiation from an accelerated charge describes the scattering at gamma ~ 10 and 780 nm laser wavelengths.
    Used for Eq. (3) and the GPT post-processed radiation calculations; quantum recoil in the electron rest frame is small but not explicitly quantified in the text.
  • domain assumption The laser-electron interaction is in the a0 << 1 regime, so ponderomotive redshifts are negligible.
    Stated after Eq. (1); the quoted peak intensity of 3.5e14 W/cm2 at 780 nm gives a0 ~ 0.01, so the assumption is reasonable.
  • domain assumption The small-angle and shallow-crossing expansions used for Eq. (3) and Eq. (4) hold for gamma theta up to about 0.8.
    The formulas are quoted for gamma >> 1 and small theta; data are collected at gamma theta_c = 0.5 and 0.8, and the derivation is not fully shown in the text.
  • domain assumption The electron beam energy, bunch length, and laser waist are known from diagnostics and can be treated as fixed inputs to the theory.
    The polarization comparison uses the measured 4.7 MeV beam, 300 fs rms bunch, and 100 um laser waist as inputs rather than fitting them.
  • standard math Lorentz transformations and the angle transform tan(theta0') = sin(theta0) / [gamma (beta - cos theta0)] follow from special relativity.
    Inherited from ref. [17] (Einstein) and used to define the relativistic Brewster angle and to boost the radiation pattern.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shallow Angle Inverse Compton Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7IQV5DG

@misc{pith2026250904621,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shallow Angle Inverse Compton Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7IQV5DG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.04621}
}
abstract

Inverse Compton Scattering at shallow angles can be used to tune the spectrum and increase the brightness of the emitted radiation. Here, we report on the demonstration of emission of visible light by a 4.7 MeV $e$-beam crossing a 780 nm laser at 5.8$^{\rm o}$ angle. Angular and spectral measurements of the radiation are in agreement with analytical and numerical predictions. We observe a characteristic dependence on the incoming polarization, not present in conventional head-on scattering, with suppression of the emission for $p$-polarization at condition equivalent to relativistic Brewster reflection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.04621 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the beamlines used in the experiment. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Intensity measured on the iCCD averaged over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Photon yield in black and peak current in red ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic of Compton scattering with laser (red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Collected yield for polarization angle at col [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Optimizing the interaction geometry of inverse Compton scattering x-ray sources

    physics.acc-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An analytic optimization framework for inverse Compton x-ray sources shows a grazing-angle geometry with an elliptical laser focus can improve soft-x-ray brilliance by about an order of magnitude over head-on scattering.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [38]

    Maxson, L

    J. Maxson, L. Cultrera, C. Gulliford, and I. Bazarov, Applied Physics Letters 106, 234102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Aidukas, N

    T. Aidukas, N. W. Phillips, A. Diaz, E. Poghosyan, E. M¨ uller, A. F. Levi, G. Aeppli, M. Guizar-Sicairos, and M. Holler, Nature 2024 632:8023 632, 81 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [2]

    Egawa, K

    S. Egawa, K. Sakurai, Y. Takeo, K. Yoshinaga, M. Takei, S. Owada, G. Yamaguchi, S. Yokomae, H. Mimura, Y. Yamagata, et al. , Optica, Vol. 11, Issue 6, pp. 736- 743 11, 736 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [3]

    Q. Li, C. J. Pollock, J. Soto, A. M. Villarino, Z. Shi, M. R. Krumov, D. A. Muller, and H. D. Abru˜ na, Nature Communications 2025 16:1 16, 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    G. Wang, P. Dijkstal, S. Reiche, K. Schnorr, and E. Prat, Physical Review Letters 132, 035002 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    J. Yan, W. Qin, Y. Chen, W. Decking, P. Dijkstal, M. Guetg, I. Inoue, N. Kujala, S. Liu, T. Long, et al. , Nature Photonics 2024 18:12 18, 1293 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Franz, S

    P. Franz, S. Li, T. Driver, R. R. Robles, D. Cesar, E. Isele, Z. Guo, J. Wang, J. P. Duris, K. Larsen, et al. , Nature Photonics 18, 698 (2024)

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    Fiocco and E

    G. Fiocco and E. Thompson, Physical Review Letters 10, 89 (1963)

    work page 1963

Show all 41 references
  1. [8]

    S. K. Ride, E. Esarey, and M. Baine, Physical Review E 52, 5425 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    W. P. Leemans, R. W. Schoenlein, P. Volfbeyn, A. H. Chin, T. E. Glover, P. Balling, M. Zolotorev, K. J. Kim, S. Chattopadhyay, and C. V. Shank, Physical Review Letters 77, 4182 (1996)

    1996

  3. [10]

    Albert, S

    F. Albert, S. Anderson, D. Gibson, C. Hagmann, M. Johnson, M. Messerly, V. Semenov, M. Shverdin, B. Rusnak, A. Tremaine, et al. , Physical Review Special Topics—Accelerators and Beams 13, 070704 (2010)

    2010

  4. [11]

    N. D. Powers, I. Ghebregziabher, G. Golovin, C. Liu, S. Chen, S. Banerjee, J. Zhang, and D. P. Umstadter, Nature Photonics 2013 8:1 8, 28 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Sakai, M

    Y. Sakai, M. Babzien, M. Fedurin, K. Kusche, O. Williams, A. Fukasawa, B. Naranjo, A. Murokh, R. Agustsson, A. Simmonds, et al. , Scientific Reports 14, 18467 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    W. S. Graves, J. Bessuille, P. Brown, S. Carbajo, V. Dol- gashev, K. H. Hong, E. Ihloff, B. Khaykovich, H. Lin, K. Murari, et al. , Physical Review Special Topics - Ac- celerators and Beams (2014)

    2014

  7. [14]

    K. E. Deitrick, G. A. Krafft, B. Terzi´ c, and J. R. Delayen, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 21, 080703 (2018)

    2018

  8. [15]

    Petrillo, I

    V. Petrillo, I. Drebot, M. Ruijter, S. Samsam, A. Bacci, C. Curatolo, M. Opromolla, M. R. Conti, A. R. Rossi, and L. Serafini, Applied Sciences 13, 752 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Alkadi, L

    M. Alkadi, L. Amoudry, D. Auguste, J. L. Babigeon, M. Baltazar, A. Benoit, A. Blin, M. Bonanzingamarco, J. Bonenfant, J. Bonis, et al. , Physical Review Accelera- tors and Beams (2025)

    2025

  10. [17]

    Einstein, Annalen der Physik 322, 891 (1905)

    A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 322, 891 (1905)

    1905

  11. [18]

    significantly restricts the source brightness compared to large scale facilities. The crossing angleθ0 of the laser pulse with thee-beam allows for additional tuning of the radiation wavelength, which is given by [19] λrad = λ0 2γ2 (1−β cosθ0) 1 +γ2θ2 + a2 0 2 , (1) where λ0 i...

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    A. D. Debus, M. Bussmann, M. Siebold, A. Jochmann, U. Schramm, T. E. Cowan, and R. Sauerbrey, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics 100, 61 (2010)

    2010

  13. [20]

    Klein and Y

    O. Klein and Y. Nishina, Nature 122, 398 (1928)

    1928

  14. [21]

    Fuchs, R

    M. Fuchs, R. Weingartner, A. Popp, Z. Major, S. Becker, J. Osterhoff, I. Cortrie, B. Zeitler, R. H¨ orlein, G. D. Tsakiris, U. Schramm, T. P. Rowlands-Rees, S. M. Hooker, D. Habs, F. Krausz, S. Karsch, and F. Gr¨ uner, Nature Physics 5, 826 (2009)

    2009

  15. [22]

    Faillace, R

    L. Faillace, R. Agustsson, M. Behtouei, F. Bosco, D. Bruhwiler, O. Camacho, M. Carillo, A. Fukasawa, I. Gadjev, A. Giribono, et al. , Physical Review Accel- erators and Beams 25, 063401 (2022)

    2022

  16. [23]

    B. H. Schaap, C. W. Sweers, P. W. Smorenburg, and O. J. Luiten, Physical Review Accelerators and Beams 26, 074401 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    A. W. Chao, M. Tigner, H. Weise, and F. Zimmer- mann, Handbook of Accelerator Physics and Engineering (2023), 10.1142/13229

    2023 doi

  18. [25]

    J. P. Duris, P. Musumeci, and R. K. Li, Physical Re- view Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams 15, 061301 (2012)

    2012

  19. [26]

    Y. Liu, X. J. Wang, D. B. Cline, M. Babzien, J. M. Fang, 6 J. Gallardo, K. Kusche, I. Pogorelsky, J. Skaritka, and A. Van Steenbergen, Physical Review Letters 80, 4418 (1998)

    1998

  20. [27]

    B. H. Schaap, T. D. De Vos, P. W. Smorenburg, and O. J. Luiten, New Journal of Physics 24, 033040 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    Sudar, P

    N. Sudar, P. Musumeci, I. Gadjev, Y. Sakai, S. Fabbri, M. Polyanskiy, I. Pogorelsky, M. Fedurin, C. Swinson, K. Kusche, et al. , Physical Review Letters 120, 114802 (2018)

    2018

  22. [29]

    D¨ opp, K

    A. D¨ opp, K. Ta Phuoc, and I. A. Andriyash, Journal of Plasma Physics 89, 965890501 (2023)

    2023

  23. [30]

    W. S. Graves, F. X. K¨ artner, D. E. Moncton, and P. Piot, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 263904 (2012)

    2012

  24. [31]

    J. E. Lawler, J. Bisognano, R. A. Bosch, T. C. Chiang, M. A. Green, K. Jacobs, T. Miller, R. Wehlitz, D. Yavuz, and R. C. York, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 46, 325501 (2013)

    2013

  25. [32]

    Schaap, A

    B. Schaap, A. Murokh, and P. Musumeci, Nuclear In- struments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 1066, 169576 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    R. W. Schoenlein, W. P. Leemans, A. H. Chin, P. Volf- beyn, T. E. Glover, P. Balling, M. Zolotorev, K. J. Kim, S. Chattopadhyay, and C. V. Shank, Science 274, 236 (1996)

    1996

  27. [34]

    Steiniger, M

    K. Steiniger, M. Bussmann, R. Pausch, T. Cowan, A. Ir- man, A. Jochmann, R. Sauerbrey, U. Schramm, and A. Debus, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 47, 234011 (2014)

    2014

  28. [35]

    Alesini, A

    D. Alesini, A. Battisti, M. Ferrario, L. Foggetta, V. Lollo, L. Ficcadenti, V. Pettinacci, S. Custodio, E. Pirez, P. Musumeci, and L. Palumbo, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 18, 092001 (2015)

    2015

  29. [36]

    Taira, S

    Y. Taira, S. Endo, S. Kawamura, T. Nambu, M. Okuizumi, T. Shizuma, M. Omer, H. Zen, Y. Okano, and M. Kitaguchi, Phys. Rev. A 107, 063503 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    A PM dipole is used to separate the e-beam from the Compton radiation and minimize the radiation noise on the camera

    located 8 cm upstream of the IP strongly focuses the electrons to a waist of about 150 µm at the interaction point. A PM dipole is used to separate the e-beam from the Compton radiation and minimize the radiation noise on the camera. The infrared (IR) line that delivers the 78...

  31. [39]

    Focusing of relativistic electron beams with permanent magnetic solenoid,

    T. Xu, C. J. R. Duncan, P. Denham, B. H. Schaap, A. Kulkarni, D. Garcia, S. D. Anderson, P. Musumeci, and R. J. England, “Focusing of relativistic electron beams with permanent magnetic solenoid,” (2025), arXiv:2504.21121 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Supplemental material to shallow angle inverse compton scattering,

    B. H. Schaap, M. Lenz, and P. Musumeci, “Supplemental material to shallow angle inverse compton scattering,”

  33. [41]

    Petrillo, A

    V. Petrillo, A. Bacci, C. Curatolo, I. Drebot, A. Giri- bono, C. Maroli, A. R. Rossi, L. Serafini, P. Tomassini, C. Vaccarezza, and A. Variola, Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams 18, 110701 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.