Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 61 references

Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of a double-layer target for quasi-monoenergetic TNSA protons

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-26 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Bayesian optimization locates double-layer target parameters for 64-71 MeV quasi-monoenergetic TNSA protons.

desk verdict 2D Bayesian optimization on 80 EPOCH runs locates 64-71 MeV Pareto points for the double-layer target, but the single 3D verification drops the peak to 34 MeV with earlier sheath decay, so the reported optima may not translate. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.23224 v1 pith:EP3ALSIN submitted 2026-06-22 physics.plasm-ph

Chengqi-Zhang , Yang He , Mamat Ali Bake , Bai-Song Xie This is my paper
classification physics.plasm-ph
keywords BayesianoptimizationTNSAprotonaccelerationdouble-layertargetquasi-monoenergeticprotonsParetofrontlaser-plasmainteraction
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 applies multi-objective Bayesian optimisation across six parameters of a carbon-hydrogen double-layer target for target-normal-sheath proton acceleration. Eighty two-dimensional EPOCH simulations score each proton spectrum by peak energy, charge fraction inside a ten-percent energy window, and total charge inside that window. The resulting Pareto set clusters near laser amplitude thirty, pulse duration forty-five femtoseconds, carbon thickness zero-point-three micrometres, hydrogen thickness thirty nanometres and radius zero-point-one-five micrometres, producing peaks of sixty-four to seventy-one mega-electronvolts. A selected intermediate-density case verified in three dimensions retains the quasi-monoenergetic peak, although peak energy falls to thirty-four mega-electronvolts because the rear sheath field decays earlier.

What carries the argument

Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation that scores each spectrum on three quantities: peak energy, charge fraction inside a ±10 percent window, and charge inside that window.

What would settle it

Fabricating a target with the reported optimal parameters and measuring its proton spectrum in a real laser experiment would show whether the 64-71 MeV quasi-monoenergetic peak appears at the energies predicted by the two-dimensional runs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of laser amplitude, pulse duration, carbon-layer thickness, hydrogen-layer density, thickness and radius identifies Pareto-optimal double-layer targets that deliver proton peak energies of 64-71 MeV in two-dimensional simulations; a three-dimensional run of an intermediate-density member of this set yields a lower peak of 34.1 MeV but preserves the quasi-monoenergetic feature with relative bandwidth narrowed to 7 percent.

Load-bearing premise

Two-dimensional simulations with the chosen scoring functions are sufficient to identify the physically relevant optima even though three-dimensional verification produces substantially lower peak energy.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Increasing hydrogen-layer density along the optimal branch raises in-window charge while widening bandwidth.
  • The small rear-layer radius keeps the proton source inside the flat central region of the transverse sheath field.
  • Three-dimensional effects reduce peak energy yet narrow the relative bandwidth compared with the two-dimensional result.
  • The optimisation campaign maps explicit trade-offs among peak energy, charge fraction and total charge without exhaustive sampling.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same optimisation workflow could be applied to other target geometries or acceleration mechanisms to locate high-quality operating points.
  • Experimental campaigns at facilities with comparable laser parameters could test whether the identified settings produce the predicted spectra.
  • Incorporating additional objectives such as beam divergence or emittance into the scoring would refine the Pareto front for practical applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a six-parameter multi-objective Bayesian optimization of a carbon-hydrogen double-layer target for TNSA proton acceleration, based on 80 two-dimensional EPOCH PIC simulations. Each spectrum is scored on peak energy, charge fraction within a ±10% window, and absolute charge in the window. The Pareto set clusters near a0=30, τ=45 fs, L1=0.3 μm, L2=30 nm, rp=0.15 μm (with varying N2), producing 2D peak energies of 64–71 MeV. A single 3D verification at N2=11.85 nc yields E_peak=34.1 MeV and ΔE/E=7.0% while retaining a quasi-monoenergetic feature, attributed to earlier sheath decay.

Significance. If the identified parameter branch remains optimal once three-dimensional effects are fully accounted for, the work would supply concrete guidance for experimental TNSA designs aiming at higher-energy quasi-monoenergetic protons. The multi-objective Bayesian approach and the observation that a small rear-layer radius keeps protons in the uniform central sheath region constitute potentially useful methodological and physical insights for laser-plasma acceleration.

major comments (1)
  1. [3D verification paragraph] The 3D verification paragraph (and corresponding abstract statement): the single 3D run at N2=11.85 nc produces E_peak=34.1 MeV (roughly half the 2D value of 67.4 MeV) together with earlier rear-sheath decay and proton saturation. Because TNSA sheath evolution, transverse uniformity, and acceleration time are known to differ systematically between 2D and 3D, the Pareto-optimal branch located in 2D is not guaranteed to remain optimal in 3D; the retention of a narrower quasi-monoenergetic peak does not establish that the reported parameters maximize the three scoring functions under physically relevant conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. No convergence diagnostics, grid-resolution studies, or uncertainty quantification on the optimized parameters or scoring functions are provided, which would strengthen in the 80-run campaign.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the limitations of 2D optimization for TNSA and a clearer discussion of how the reported 2D Pareto front should be interpreted for experimental planning.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for highlighting the limitations in interpreting the single 3D verification run. We address the comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to avoid any implication of 3D optimality.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The 3D verification paragraph (and corresponding abstract statement): the single 3D run at N2=11.85 nc produces E_peak=34.1 MeV (roughly half the 2D value of 67.4 MeV) together with earlier rear-sheath decay and proton saturation. Because TNSA sheath evolution, transverse uniformity, and acceleration time are known to differ systematically between 2D and 3D, the Pareto-optimal branch located in 2D is not guaranteed to remain optimal in 3D; the retention of a narrower quasi-monoenergetic peak does not establish that the reported parameters maximize the three scoring functions under physically relevant conditions.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that a single 3D simulation does not demonstrate optimality of the identified parameter branch under 3D conditions, nor does it establish that these parameters maximize the three objective functions in 3D. The 2D campaign was performed due to the prohibitive computational cost of a comparable 3D multi-objective optimization. The 3D run was included solely to test whether the quasi-monoenergetic spectral feature survives the transition to 3D geometry, which it does. We will revise both the abstract and the 3D verification paragraph to state explicitly that the multi-objective optimization and Pareto front were obtained in 2D, that the 3D case provides verification of feature retention (with the observed reduction in peak energy and bandwidth), and that full confirmation of optimality in 3D would require additional 3D simulations. These changes will be made in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: all reported quantities are direct EPOCH simulation outputs with no self-referential derivations or fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper performs 80 two-dimensional EPOCH particle-in-cell runs, scores each spectrum by three explicit functions (peak energy, charge fraction in ±10% window, charge in window), and reports the resulting Pareto front and one 3D verification run. Peak energies (64–71 MeV in 2D, 34.1 MeV in 3D), bandwidths, and charge values are raw simulation outputs; none are obtained by solving equations that embed the target quantities or by fitting parameters to a subset and then relabeling the fit as a prediction. No self-citations appear in the provided text as load-bearing premises, no uniqueness theorems are invoked, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks (the EPOCH code itself).

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

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the EPOCH code and the chosen multi-objective scoring functions faithfully represent the relevant TNSA physics; no free parameters are fitted to data and no new entities are postulated.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption EPOCH particle-in-cell code accurately models the sheath-field evolution and proton acceleration in both 2D and 3D geometries for the chosen target parameters
    All numerical results are generated inside this code; the 2D-to-3D discrepancy itself is interpreted within the same modeling framework.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of a double-layer target for quasi-monoenergetic TNSA protons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EP3ALSIN

@misc{pith2026260623224,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of a double-layer target for quasi-monoenergetic TNSA protons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EP3ALSIN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.23224}
}
abstract

We carry out a six-parameter multi-objective Bayesian optimisation of a carbon--hydrogen double-layer target for target-normal-sheath proton acceleration. The campaign consists of 80 two-dimensional EPOCH simulations with the laser amplitude $a_0$, pulse duration $\tau$, carbon-layer thickness $L_1$, hydrogen-layer density $N_2$, hydrogen-layer thickness $L_2$ and hydrogen-layer radius $r_p$ as input variables. Each final proton spectrum is scored by the peak energy, the charge fraction inside a $\pm10\%$ peak-energy window and the charge in that window. Among the Pareto-set evaluations, the cases with peak energies between 64 and 71 MeV occur near $a_0=30$, $\tau=45$ fs, $L_1=0.3\,\mu{\rm m}$, $L_2=30$ nm and $r_p=0.15\,\mu{\rm m}$. Along this branch, increasing $N_2$ raises the in-window charge and increases the bandwidth. The small rear-layer radius keeps the proton source within the flat central region of the transverse sheath field, where the accelerating field is nearly uniform. A 3D calculation is performed for the intermediate-density case $N_2=11.85\,n_c$, which balances bandwidth and in-window charge along this branch. The corresponding 2D spectrum has $E_{\rm peak}=67.4$ MeV and $\Delta E/E=18.8\%$, whereas the 3D spectrum has $E_{\rm peak}=34.1$ MeV and $\Delta E/E=7.0\%$. The lower 3D peak energy and narrower bandwidth are associated with an earlier decay of the rear-sheath field and an earlier saturation of the proton peak energy, and the quasi-monoenergetic peak is retained in 3D.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.23224 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multi-objective Bayesian-optimisation workflow for the double-layer target, shown as four repeated steps. Step 1: the six-dimensional design vector. Step 2: each parameter set is evaluated with a 2D PIC simulation of a C6+ substrate and a finite-radius rear H+ layer, sketched with its fixed quantities. Step 3: the proton spectrum is scored by three maximised objectives, the peak energy Epeak, the in-window purity Qi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Representative proton spectra from the 6D multi-objective Bayesian-optimisation campaign. Twelve completed evaluations are selected from the full record after sorting by increasing spectral purity. The dominated hypervolume summarises the whole nondominated set with a single number. In the three-objective space it is the volume that the nondominated points dominate above the reference point, and it grows as the fron… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Convergence of the optimisation. The cumulative dominated hypervolume is plotted as a percentage of its final value over the 80 PIC evaluations. The three objectives are Epeak, purity and log10 Qin. The nondominated solutions, displayed in the three-dimensional objective space and in three two-dimensional projections in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three-objective Pareto front and two-dimensional projections. (a) Pareto-optimal evaluations in the objective space of peak energy Epeak, spectral purity and peak-window charge log10 Qin. Panels (b)–(d) show the corresponding two-dimensional projections. Grey points de…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gaussian-process response maps over the six-dimensional design space. Three surrogate-model corner plots show the predicted dependence of (a) peak energy Epeak, (b) spectral purity and (c) log10 Qin on the six inputs a0, τ, L1, N2, L2 and rp. For each objective, a Mat´…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Source-size dependence of the rear accelerating field for evaluation 50. (a) Transverse profile of the longitudinal field Ex across the proton layer at the sheath-formation time (t ≈ 100 fs); (b) Peak-to-valley variation of Ex across a source of radius r, increasing fr…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (c), the peak axial rear-sheath field in 3D is lower and decays earlier than in 2D, and panel (d) shows the proton peak energy saturating correspondingly earlier, whereas the 2D peak continues to gain energy for a longer time. The shorter acceleration window reduces th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. A. Snavely, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, T. W. Phillips, M. A. Stoyer, E. A. Henry, T. C. Sangster, M. S. Singh, S. C. Wilks, A. MacKinnon, A. Offenberger, D. M. Pennington, K. Yasuike, A. B. Langdon, B. F. Lasinski, J. Johnson, M. D. Perry, and E. M. Campbell. Intense high-energy proton beams from petawatt-laser irradiation of soli...

    2000

  2. [2]

    Hatchett, Curtis G

    Stephen P. Hatchett, Curtis G. Brown, Thomas E. Cowan, Eugene A. Henry, Joy S. Johnson, Michael H. Key, Jeffrey A. Koch, A. Bruce Langdon, Barbara F. Lasinski, Richard W. Lee, Andrew J. Mackinnon, Deanna M. Pennington, Michael D. Perry, Thomas W. Phillips, Markus Roth, T. Craig Sangster, Mike S. Singh, Richard A. Snavely, Mark A. Stoyer, Scott C. Wilks, a...

  3. [3]

    Borghesi, D

    M. Borghesi, D. H. Campbell, A. Schiavi, M. G. Haines, O. Willi, A. J. MacKinnon, P. Patel, L. A. Gizzi, M. Galimberti, R. J. Clarke, F. Pegoraro, H. Ruhl, and S. Bulanov. Electric field detection in laser-plasma interaction experiments via the proton imaging technique.Physics of Plasmas, 9(5):2214–2220, 2002

    2002

  4. [4]

    Patel, A

    P. Patel, A. Mackinnon, M. Key, T. Cowan, M. Foord, M. Allen, D. Price, H. Ruhl, P. Springer, and R. Stephens. Isochoric heating of solid-density matter with an ultrafast proton beam.Physical Review Letters, 91(12):125004, 2003

    2003

  5. [5]

    M. Roth, T. E. Cowan, M. H. Key, S. P. Hatchett, C. Brown, W. Fountain, J. Johnson, D. M. Pennington, R. A. Snavely, S. C. Wilks, K. Yasuike, H. Ruhl, F. Pegoraro, S. V. Bulanov, E. M. Campbell, M. D. Perry, and H. Powell. Fast ignition by intense laser-accelerated proton beams.Physical Review Letters, 86(3):436–439, 2001

    2001

  6. [6]

    S. V. Bulanov and V. S. Khoroshkov. Feasibility of using laser ion accelerators in proton therapy.Plasma Physics Reports, 28(5):453–456, 2002

    2002

  7. [7]

    What will it take for laser driven proton accelerators to be applied to tumor therapy?Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams, 10(9):094801, 2007

    Ute Linz and Jose Alonso. What will it take for laser driven proton accelerators to be applied to tumor therapy?Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams, 10(9):094801, 2007. 10

    2007

  8. [8]

    K. Zeil, M. Baumann, E. Beyreuther, T. Burris-Mog, T. E. Cowan, W. Enghardt, L. Karsch, S. D. Kraft, L. Laschinsky, J. Metzkes, D. Naumburger, M. Oppelt, C. Richter, R. Sauerbrey, M. Sch¨ urer, U. Schramm, and J. Pawelke. Dose-controlled irradiation of cancer cells with laser-accelerated proton pulses.Applied Physics B, 110(4):437–444, 2013

    2013

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Flash radiotherapy: A promising new method for radiotherapy (review).Oncology Letters, 24(6):419, 2022

    Yinghao Lv, Yue Lv, Zhen Wang, Tian Lan, Xuping Feng, Hao Chen, Jiang Zhu, Xiao Ma, Jinpeng Du, Guimin Hou, Wenwei Liao, Kefei Yuan, and Hong Wu. Flash radiotherapy: A promising new method for radiotherapy (review).Oncology Letters, 24(6):419, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Florian Kroll, Florian-Emanuel Brack, Constantin Bernert, Stefan Bock, Elisabeth Bodenstein, Kerstin Br¨ uchner, Thomas E. Cowan, Lennart Gaus, Ren´ e Gebhardt, Uwe Helbig, Leonhard Karsch, Thomas Kluge, Stephan Kraft, Mechthild Krause, Elisabeth Lessmann, Umar Masood, Sebasti...

    2022

  3. [11]

    International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2005

    International Atomic Energy Agency.Radiation Oncology Physics: A Handbook for Teachers and Students. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 2005

    2005

  4. [12]

    Cowan, Leonhard Karsch, Stephan Kraft, Leoni A

    Florian-Emanuel Brack, Florian Kroll, Lennart Gaus, Constantin Bernert, Elke Beyreuther, Thomas E. Cowan, Leonhard Karsch, Stephan Kraft, Leoni A. Kunz-Schughart, Elisabeth Lessmann, Josefine Metzkes-Ng, Lieselotte Obst-Huebl, J¨ org Pawelke, Martin Rehwald, Hans-Peter Schlenv...

    2020

  5. [13]

    Hegelich, S

    M. Hegelich, S. Karsch, G. Pretzler, D. Habs, K. Witte, W. Guenther, M. Allen, A. Blazevic, J. Fuchs, J. C. Gauthier, M. Geissel, P. Audebert, T. Cowan, and M. Roth. Mev ion jets from short-pulse-laser interaction with thin foils.Physical Review Letters, 89(8):085002, 2002

    2002

  6. [14]

    Schwoerer, S

    H. Schwoerer, S. Pfotenhauer, O. J¨ ackel, K.-U. Amthor, B. Liesfeld, W. Ziegler, R. Sauerbrey, K. W. D. Ledingham, and T. Esirkepov. Laser-plasma acceleration of quasi-monoenergetic protons from microstructured targets.Nature, 439(7075):445–448, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Fonseca, Luis O

    Dan Haberberger, Sergei Tochitsky, Frederico Fiuza, Chao Gong, Ricardo A. Fonseca, Luis O. Silva, Warren B. Mori, and Chan Joshi. Collisionless shocks in laser-produced plasma generate monoenergetic high-energy proton beams.Nature Physics, 8(1):95–99, 2012

    2012

  8. [16]

    Pirozhkov

    Hiroyuki Daido, Mamiko Nishiuchi, and Alexander S. Pirozhkov. Review of laser-driven ion sources and their applications.Reports on Progress in Physics, 75(5):056401, 2012

    2012

  9. [17]

    Ion acceleration by superintense laser-plasma interaction.Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(2):751–793, 2013

    Andrea Macchi, Marco Borghesi, and Matteo Passoni. Ion acceleration by superintense laser-plasma interaction.Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(2):751–793, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Esirkepov, M

    T. Esirkepov, M. Borghesi, S. V. Bulanov, G. Mourou, and T. Tajima. Highly efficient relativistic-ion generation in the laser-piston regime.Physical Review Letters, 92(17):175003, 2004

    2004

  11. [19]

    Fiuza, A

    F. Fiuza, A. Stockem, E. Boella, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, D. Haberberger, S. Tochitsky, C. Gong, W. B. Mori, and C. Joshi. Laser-driven shock acceleration of monoenergetic ion beams.Physical Review Letters, 109(21):215001, 2012

    2012

  12. [20]

    L. Yin, B. J. Albright, B. M. Hegelich, K. J. Bowers, K. A. Flippo, T. J. T. Kwan, and J. C. Fern´ andez. Monoenergetic and gev ion acceleration from the laser breakout afterburner using ultrathin targets.Physics of Plasmas, 14(5):056706, 2007

    2007

  13. [21]

    Bulanov, Timur Zh

    Tatsufumi Nakamura, Sergei V. Bulanov, Timur Zh. Esirkepov, and Masaki Kando. High-energy ions from near-critical density plasmas via magnetic vortex acceleration.Physical Review Letters, 105(13):135002, 2010

    2010

  14. [22]

    S. C. Wilks, A. B. Langdon, T. E. Cowan, M. Roth, M. Singh, S. Hatchett, M. H. Key, D. Pennington, A. MacKinnon, and R. A. Snavely. Energetic proton generation in ultra-intense laser-solid interactions.Physics of Plasmas, 8(2):542–549, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    P. Mora. Plasma expansion into a vacuum.Physical Review Letters, 90(18):185002, 2003. 11

    2003

  16. [24]

    Target normal sheath acceleration: Theory, comparison with experiments and future perspectives.New Journal of Physics, 12(4):045012, 2010

    Matteo Passoni, Luca Bertagna, and Alessandro Zani. Target normal sheath acceleration: Theory, comparison with experiments and future perspectives.New Journal of Physics, 12(4):045012, 2010

    2010

  17. [25]

    Multiphoton 3d lithography.Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 5:15, 2025

    Edvinas Skliutas, Greta Merkininkaite, Shoji Maruo, Wenxin Zhang, Wenyuan Chen, Weiting Deng, Julia Greer, Georg von Freymann, and Mangirdas Malinauskas. Multiphoton 3d lithography.Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 5:15, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Liang Yang, Frederik Mayer, Uwe H. F. Bunz, Eva Blasco, and Martin Wegener. Multi-material multi-photon 3d laser micro- and nanoprinting.Light: Advanced Manufacturing, 2:1, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Robinson, Pulickel M

    Xiewen Wen, Boyu Zhang, Weipeng Wang, Fan Ye, Shuai Yue, Hua Guo, Guanhui Gao, Yushun Zhao, Qiyi Fang, Christine Nguyen, Xiang Zhang, Jiming Bao, Jacob T. Robinson, Pulickel M. Ajayan, and Jun Lou. 3d-printed silica with nanoscale resolution.Nature Materials, 20(11):1506–1511, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    P. Mora. Thin-foil expansion into a vacuum.Physical Review E, 72(5):056401, 2005

    2005

  21. [29]

    Fuchs, P

    J. Fuchs, P. Antici, E. d’Humi` eres, E. Lefebvre, M. Borghesi, E. Brambrink, C. A. Cecchetti, M. Kaluza, V. Malka, M. Manclossi, S. Meyroneinc, P. Mora, J. Schreiber, T. Toncian, H. P´ epin, and P. Audebert. Laser-driven proton scaling laws and new paths towards energy increa...

    2006

  22. [30]

    Robson, P

    L. Robson, P. T. Simpson, R. J. Clarke, K. W. D. Ledingham, F. Lindau, O. Lundh, T. McCanny, P. Mora, D. Neely, C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, M. Zepf, and P. McKenna. Scaling of proton acceleration driven by petawatt-laser-plasma interactions.Nature Physics, 3(1):58–62, 2007

    2007

  23. [31]

    Wagner, O

    F. Wagner, O. Deppert, C. Brabetz, P. Fiala, A. Kleinschmidt, P. Poth, V. A. Schanz, A. Tebartz, B. Zielbauer, M. Roth, T. St¨ ohlker, and V. Bagnoud. Maximum proton energy above 85 mev from the relativistic interaction of laser pulses with micrometer thick ch 2 targets.Physic...

    2016

  24. [32]

    Higginson, R

    A. Higginson, R. J. Gray, M. King, R. J. Dance, S. D. R. Williamson, N. M. H. Butler, R. Wilson, R. Capdessus, C. Armstrong, J. S. Green, S. J. Hawkes, P. Martin, W. Q. Wei, S. R. Mirfayzi, X. H. Yuan, S. Kar, M. Borghesi, R. J. Clarke, D. Neely, and P. McKenna. Near-100 mev p...

    2018

  25. [33]

    Malte Kaluza, J¨ org Schreiber, Markus I. K. Santala, Georg D. Tsakiris, Klaus Eidmann, J¨ urgen Meyer-ter Vehn, and Klaus J. Witte. Influence of the laser prepulse on proton acceleration in thin-foil experiments.Physical Review Letters, 93(4):045003, 2004

    2004

  26. [34]

    Laser ion acceleration using a solid target coupled with a low-density layer.Physical Review E, 85(3):036405, 2012

    Andrea Sgattoni, Pasquale Londrillo, Andrea Macchi, and Matteo Passoni. Laser ion acceleration using a solid target coupled with a low-density layer.Physical Review E, 85(3):036405, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    Passoni, A

    M. Passoni, A. Sgattoni, I. Prencipe, L. Fedeli, D. Dellasega, L. Cialfi, Il Woo Choi, I Jong Kim, K. A. Janulewicz, Hwang Woon Lee, Jae Hee Sung, Seong Ku Lee, and Chang Hee Nam. Toward high-energy laser-driven ion beams: Nanostructured double-layer targets.Physical Review Ac...

    2016

  28. [36]

    J. H. Bin, W. J. Ma, H. Y. Wang, M. J. V. Streeter, C. Kreuzer, D. Kiefer, M. Yeung, S. Cousens, P. S. Foster, B. Dromey, X. Q. Yan, R. Ramis, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, M. Zepf, and J. Schreiber. Ion acceleration using relativistic pulse shaping in near-critical-density plasmas. Phys...

    2015

  29. [37]

    T. Zh. Esirkepov, S. V. Bulanov, K. Nishihara, T. Tajima, F. Pegoraro, V. S. Khoroshkov, K. Mima, H. Daido, Y. Kato, Y. Kitagawa, K. Nagai, and S. Sakabe. Proposed double-layer target for the generation of high-quality laser-accelerated ion beams.Physical Review Letters, 89(17...

    2002

  30. [38]

    Neely, P

    D. Neely, P. Foster, A. Robinson, F. Lindau, O. Lundh, A. Persson, C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, and P. McKenna. Enhanced proton beams from ultrathin targets driven by high contrast laser pulses.Applied Physics Letters, 89(2):021502, 2006. 12

    2006

  31. [39]

    McKenna, D

    P. McKenna, D. C. Carroll, O. Lundh, F. N¨ urnberg, K. Markey, S. Bandyopadhyay, D. Batani, R. G. Evans, R. Jafer, S. Kar, D. Neely, D. Pepler, M. N. Quinn, R. Redaelli, M. Roth, C.-G. Wahlstr¨ om, X. H. Yuan, and M. Zepf. Effects of front surface plasma expansion on proton ac...

    2008

  32. [40]

    Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J

    Donald R. Jones, Matthias Schonlau, and William J. Welch. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions.Journal of Global Optimization, 13(4):455–492, 1998

    1998

  33. [41]

    Carl Edward Rasmussen and Christopher K. I. Williams.Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006

    2006

  34. [42]

    Jasper Snoek, Hugo Larochelle, and Ryan P. Adams. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 25, pages 2951–2959, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Adams, and Nando de Freitas

    Bobak Shahriari, Kevin Swersky, Ziyu Wang, Ryan P. Adams, and Nando de Freitas. Taking the human out of the loop: A review of bayesian optimization.Proceedings of the IEEE, 104(1):148–175, 2016

    2016

  36. [44]

    Kakade, and Matthias Seeger

    Niranjan Srinivas, Andreas Krause, Sham M. Kakade, and Matthias Seeger. Gaussian process optimization in the bandit setting: No regret and experimental design. InProceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1015–1022, 2010

    2010

  37. [45]

    R. J. Shalloo, S. J. D. Dann, J.-N. Gruse, C. I. D. Underwood, A. F. Antoine, C. Arran, M. Backhouse, C. D. Baird, M. D. Balcazar, N. Bourgeois, J. A. Cardarelli, P. Hatfield, J. Kang, K. Krushelnick, S. P. D. Mangles, C. D. Murphy, N. Lu, J. Osterhoff, K. P˜ oder, P. P. Rajee...

    2020

  38. [46]

    S¨ oren Jalas, Manuel Kirchen, Philipp Messner, Paul Winkler, Lars H¨ ubner, Julian Dirkwinkel, Matthias Schnepp, R´ emi Lehe, and Andreas R. Maier. Bayesian optimization of a laser-plasma accelerator.Physical Review Letters, 126(10):104801, 2021

    2021

  39. [47]

    Smith, Chris Orban, John T

    Joseph R. Smith, Chris Orban, John T. Morrison, Kevin M. George, Gregory K. Ngirmang, Enam A. Chowdhury, and W. Mel Roquemore. Optimizing laser-plasma interactions for ion acceleration using particle-in-cell simulations and evolutionary algorithms.New Journal of Physics, 22(10...

    2020

  40. [48]

    E. J. Dolier, M. King, R. Wilson, R. J. Gray, and P. McKenna. Multi-parameter bayesian optimisation of laser-driven ion acceleration in particle-in-cell simulations.New Journal of Physics, 24(7):073025, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Loughran, M

    B. Loughran, M. J. V. Streeter, H. Ahmed, S. Astbury, M. Balcazar, M. Borghesi, N. Bourgeois, et al. Automated control and optimization of laser-driven ion acceleration.High Power Laser Science and Engineering, 11:e35, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Bayesian optimization of double-pulse temporal shaping for enhanced target-normal-sheath proton acceleration under fixed laser energy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.15687, 2026

    Cheng-Qi Zhang, Yang He, Mamat Ali Bake, and Bai-Song Xie. Bayesian optimization of double-pulse temporal shaping for enhanced target-normal-sheath proton acceleration under fixed laser energy.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.15687, 2026

    2026

  43. [51]

    Multi-objective and multi-fidelity bayesian optimization of laser-plasma acceleration.Physical Review Research, 5(1):013063, 2023

    Faran Irshad, Stefan Karsch, and Andreas D¨ opp. Multi-objective and multi-fidelity bayesian optimization of laser-plasma acceleration.Physical Review Research, 5(1):013063, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Foerster, Kilian von Grafenstein, Florian Haberstroh, Elodie Travac, Niklas Weisse, Stefan Karsch, and Andreas D¨ opp

    Faran Irshad, Christoph Eberle, Florian M. Foerster, Kilian von Grafenstein, Florian Haberstroh, Elodie Travac, Niklas Weisse, Stefan Karsch, and Andreas D¨ opp. Pareto optimization and tuning of a laser wakefield accelerator.Physical Review Letters, 133(8):085001, 2024

    2024

  45. [53]

    T. D. Arber, K. Bennett, C. S. Brady, A. Lawrence-Douglas, M. G. Ramsay, N. J. Sircombe, P. Gillies, R. G. Evans, H. Schmitz, A. R. Bell, and C. P. Ridgers. Contemporary particle-in-cell approach to laser-plasma modelling.Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 57(11):113001, 2015. 13

    2015

  46. [54]

    Danson, Constantin Haefner, Jake Bromage, et al

    Colin N. Danson, Constantin Haefner, Jake Bromage, et al. Petawatt and exawatt class lasers worldwide.High Power Laser Science and Engineering, 7:e54, 2019

    2019

  47. [55]

    Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization

    Samuel Daulton, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Differentiable expected hypervolume improvement for parallel multi-objective bayesian optimization. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 9851–9864, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement

    Samuel Daulton, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Parallel bayesian optimization of multiple noisy objectives with expected hypervolume improvement. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 2187–2200, 2021

    2021

  49. [57]

    Unexpected improvements to expected improvement for bayesian optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20708, 2023

    Sebastian Ament, Samuel Daulton, David Eriksson, Maximilian Balandat, and Eytan Bakshy. Unexpected improvements to expected improvement for bayesian optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.20708, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    Jiang, Samuel Daulton, Benjamin Letham, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Eytan Bakshy

    Maximilian Balandat, Brian Karrer, Daniel R. Jiang, Samuel Daulton, Benjamin Letham, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Eytan Bakshy. BoTorch: A framework for efficient monte-carlo bayesian optimization. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 21524–21538, 2020

    2020

  51. [59]

    Spencer, K

    I. Spencer, K. W. D. Ledingham, R. P. Singhal, T. McCanny, P. McKenna, et al. Laser generation of proton beams for the production of short-lived positron emitting radioisotopes. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and...

    2001

  52. [60]

    D. J. Stark, L. Yin, B. J. Albright, and F. Guo. Effects of dimensionality on kinetic simulations of laser-ion acceleration in the transparency regime.Physics of Plasmas, 24(5):053103, 2017

    2017

  53. [61]

    Stefano Sinigardi, Javad Babaei, and Giorgio Turchetti. Tnsa proton maximum energy laws for 2d and 3d pic simulations.Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment, 909:438–440, 2018. 14

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed June 26, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.