Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Modeling ultrarelativistic streaming plasma instabilities under the quasistatic approximation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Near an ultrarelativistic beam front, spatiotemporal current filamentation wins over oblique two-stream growth, and a quasistatic model captures both.

desk verdict Solid linear EM-QSA theory that cleanly puts CFI at the beam front and OTSI downstream; the extreme blazar runs are the real payoff, with one under-shown universality claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.24214 v1 pith:OANLEG7Z submitted 2026-07-27 physics.plasm-ph astro-ph.HE

P. San Miguel Claveria , Q. Labro , X. Davoine , A. Matheron , M. Tamburini , S. Corde , L. Gremillet , F. Fiuza This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phastro-ph.HE
keywords streaminginstabilitiescurrentfilamentationobliquetwo-streamquasistaticapproximationultrarelativisticbeamsblazarjetsparticle-in-cellspatiotemporalgrowth
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

Relativistic particle beams streaming through plasma drive instabilities that amplify fields and reshape the beam, but when the beam is tenuous and ultrarelativistic the timescales of beam and plasma differ by many orders of magnitude, making full kinetic simulation impractical. This paper shows that the quasistatic approximation yields a single linear electromagnetic equation that tracks the full unstable spectrum without assuming a slowly varying envelope. Solving that equation reveals a previously unreported hierarchy: magnetic filamentation dominates within a few plasma skin depths of the beam front, while the oblique two-stream mode takes over farther downstream. The same approximation powers a particle-in-cell code that reaches the extreme density ratios of blazar pair beams and follows the instabilities into the nonlinear filament-coalescence regime. Agreement among the analytic scalings, ordinary PIC runs, and the quasistatic code supports the claim that the front-side filaments set the wakefields that later heat the beam bulk.

What carries the argument

The quasistatic equation for the pseudo-potential Psi (Eq. 5), obtained by changing to co-moving coordinates and dropping slow laboratory-time derivatives of plasma and fields; it unifies electrostatic and inductive modes without a slowly-varying-envelope assumption and supplies both the analytic saddle-point solutions and the advance used by the quasistatic PIC code.

What would settle it

A controlled PIC or laboratory measurement in which, for a cold ultrarelativistic beam, the magnetic filaments fail to appear within a few skin depths of the front, or the front-to-downstream transition distance grows or shrinks with beam density or Lorentz factor instead of staying proportional only to the number of e-folds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the linear, fully electromagnetic quasistatic description of a cold ultrarelativistic beam that continuously meets fresh plasma, spatiotemporal current filamentation grows as exp(2 sqrt(Gamma tau k_p xi)) and dominates within a few skin depths of the front, while spatiotemporal oblique two-stream growth dominates farther back; the transition locus scales as k_p xi less than or similar to 2 Gamma tau / sqrt(27) and is independent of beam density ratio and Lorentz factor.

Load-bearing premise

The cold-fluid closure and the ordering that plasma and field profiles change much faster along the beam than in laboratory time must remain valid from linear growth all the way through deep nonlinear filament coalescence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Laboratory beams with finite length will show magnetic filamentation confined to the head and electrostatic chevron patterns farther back, even when temporal theory predicts pure OTSI dominance.
  • Quasistatic PIC can now reach blazar-relevant density ratios (alpha_b ~ 10^{-10}, gamma_b ~ 10^6) and follow the system past saturation into filament coalescence and wakefield-driven longitudinal heating.
  • Downstream bulk heating after OTSI saturation is set by wakefields driven by the short, CFI-generated filaments at the front rather than by bulk temporal CFI alone.
  • The same framework extends immediately to longitudinal modes (two-stream, self-modulation, hosing) treated in the companion paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If front-side filaments control the later wakefield spectrum, blazar-pair-beam models that omit the beam head may systematically mis-estimate the residual GeV cascade and the residual intergalactic magnetic field.
  • The density- and gamma-independent transition length suggests a simple experimental diagnostic: measure the axial extent of magnetic filaments after a fixed number of e-folds; departure from ~0.4 N_e skin depths would signal warm-beam or ion-motion corrections.
  • Once ions are mobile or an external guide field is present, the same quasistatic machinery should reveal whether the front-side CFI window shrinks or expands, offering a direct test of suppression scenarios proposed for blazar beams.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a linear, fully electromagnetic, two-dimensional cold-fluid theory of ultrarelativistic beam-plasma instabilities using the quasistatic approximation without the slowly varying envelope approximation. The central result, Eq. (5), admits two spatiotemporal regimes: an OTSI-like mode downstream, Eq. (6), and a purely growing current-filamentation mode near the beam front, Eq. (7), with a normalized transition near \(k_p\xi\simeq2\Gamma\tau/\sqrt{27}\). A full-PIC calculation at \(\alpha_b=0.03\), \(\gamma_b=2\times10^4\), an independent QS-PIC calculation, and the numerical solution of Eq. (5) are compared in amplitude, phase, and field polarization. The authors then use the QuaSSis code to follow an \(\alpha_b=10^{-10}\), \(\gamma_b=10^6\) pair beam into the nonlinear regime, interpreting saturation through beam trapping and the subsequent front-filament wakefields.

Significance. If supported, this is a substantial and useful result: it provides a unified spatiotemporal description of CFI and OTSI at the beam front, directly challenging an earlier SVEA-based conclusion that ultrarelativistic spatiotemporal CFI is unimportant. The paper has several concrete strengths: a compact derivation avoiding the SVEA, closed-form asymptotic solutions, a one-to-one comparison against full PIC and an independently implemented QS-PIC code, and a computationally efficient route to a blazar-relevant regime inaccessible to conventional PIC. The value of the \(\Gamma\) used in the main comparison is calculated rather than freely fitted, although it depends on the measured \(k_y\). The normalized transition prediction is falsifiable and practically useful. The wide-parameter evidence for that prediction and the reproducibility of the extreme nonlinear QS-PIC run should be documented more fully.

major comments (2)
  1. [Analytical solutions] Analytical-solutions section, following Eq. (7): the claimed independence of the normalized CFI extent from \(\alpha_b\) and \(\gamma_b\), and the resulting invalidation of Ref. [32], are supported in the manuscript only by the sentence “We have further verified it through additional simulations.” Once the data are plotted against \(k_p\xi\) and \(\Gamma\tau\), Eq. (5) makes the normalized locus mathematically expected; the empirical issue is whether simulations across \(\alpha_b=10^{-10}\)–\(10^{-2}\), \(\gamma_b=10^2\)–\(10^6\) follow it. Please show a compact verification—e.g. rescaled transition/filament extent versus e-fold number for representative points—identify which runs use full PIC or QuaSSis, and state convergence. Otherwise this specific universality claim should be narrowed.
  2. [Extending the QSA to extreme blazar jet regimes] Extending the QSA section and Fig. 3: the key nonlinear demonstration at \(\alpha_b=10^{-10}\), \(\gamma_b=10^6\) gives almost no numerical information. Mesh size, time step, domain, macroparticle numbers, noise initialization, moving-window treatment, and resolution of the \(\sim k_p^{-1}\) filaments are not reported. Because direct full-PIC verification is impossible at these parameters, the conclusion that QuaSSis captures filament saturation, coalescence, and the \(E_x\) jump near \(\omega_p\tau\simeq2.4\times10^{10}\) rests heavily on numerical trustworthiness. Please add a parameter table and at least a concise resolution/particle-count convergence check for the saturation fields and the coalescence event, and state the QSA ordering after transverse heating.
minor comments (5)
  1. [PIC simulations] PIC-simulations section: explain how the dominant value \(k_y/k_p\simeq5.5\) was extracted (for example, from the early-time Fourier spectrum) and how sensitive the Fig. 1(e) comparison is to this choice. Although \(\Gamma\) is not freely fitted, it is conditional on this measured wavenumber.
  2. [Analytical solutions] Following Eq. (7): define precisely what is meant by a “temporal e-fold” \(N_e\) in the estimate that CFI extends over \(\sim0.4N_e k_p^{-1}\). The relevant local spatiotemporal growth differs from both \(\Gamma\) and the downstream ST-OTSI exponent.
  3. [Figure 1] Fig. 1(d,e): specify the normalization and color scale of \(|F_\perp|\), and state quantitatively how the dashed nonlinear-regime boundary in panel (d) was identified.
  4. [Extending the QSA to extreme blazar jet regimes] Fig. 3 and surrounding text: define whether \(n_b\) in the saturation-energy estimates denotes the density per pair species or the total pair density, and clarify why \(k_y\simeq k_p\) is appropriate for the extreme run given the different dominant wavenumber in the Fig. 1 benchmark.
  5. [Introduction / QuaSSis benchmark] The phrases “all spatiotemporal scales” in the Introduction and “identical field evolution” in the QuaSSis benchmark are broader than the evidence shown. Qualifying them by the QSA ordering and the demonstrated parameter point would make the claims more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the QSA PDE, its saddle asymptotes, and the PIC/QS-PIC comparisons are independent derivations and validations, not inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The load-bearing chain is self-contained. Eqs. (1)–(4) follow from linearized cold-fluid + Maxwell under the stated QSA coordinate change; Eq. (5) is the ky-mode reduction with the controlled neglect γ_b^{-2}∂_ξ² ≪ k_y². The ST-OTSI and ST-CFI asymptotes (6)–(7) and the transition locus k_p ξ ∼ 2Γτ/√27 are obtained by double Laplace transform and saddle-point analysis of that PDE, not by fitting simulation output. When comparing to full PIC, Γ is evaluated from the theoretical CFI formula using the measured k_y (standard one-to-one validation), and the initial/boundary data for the PDE solve are taken from the run so that amplitude and phase can be checked—this does not make the growth laws true by construction. QS-PIC (QuaSSis) is benchmarked against an independent full-PIC code (calder) at the same point before being extrapolated; the blazar nonlinear scalings are order-of-magnitude trapping estimates compared to the run, not fitted parameters re-labeled as predictions. Self-citations ([33], [34], companion [41]) supply prior OTSI context, the code, and algebraic detail, but none is a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the central CFI-near-front claim. No step reduces by definition or by fit to its own input.

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

The central linear claim rests on standard cold-fluid plasma equations plus the quasistatic ordering and the neglect of longitudinal beam inertia relative to transverse inertia. No new physical entities are postulated. The single number taken from data (ky) is used only for quantitative overlay, not to define the functional form of the instability hierarchy.

free parameters (1)
  • dominant transverse wavenumber ky/kp = ≃ 5.5
    Extracted from the PIC spectrum (ky/kp ≃ 5.5) to set the numerical value of Γ when overlaying Eq. (5) on Fig. 1; the analytic transition scaling itself does not depend on the precise ky.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cold-fluid closure for both plasma electrons and beam species (zero initial temperature, no pressure tensor).
    Stated in Quasistatic model section; required to close the linearized continuity and momentum equations that yield Eq. (3).
  • domain assumption Quasistatic ordering: plasma and field profiles vary much faster with co-moving coordinate ξ than with laboratory time τ.
    Core approximation that reduces Maxwell-fluid system to Eqs. (1)–(2) and enables the QS-PIC algorithm.
  • domain assumption Background ions immobile; beam species dilute (αs ≪ 1) and ultrarelativistic (γb ≫ 1, βb ≃ 1).
    Used throughout linearization and in the definition of Γ; standard for the targeted accelerator and blazar regimes.
  • domain assumption Longitudinal beam inertia negligible compared with transverse inertia (γb^{-2} ∂ξ² ≪ ky²).
    Invoked explicitly to reduce Eq. (4) to Eq. (5); selects the finite-ky filamentation/OTSI branch.
  • domain assumption Two-dimensional (x–y) geometry with periodic transverse boundaries.
    All analytic and numerical results are 2D3V; three-dimensional mode competition is left unaddressed.
  • standard math Linearized fluid-Maxwell system and saddle-point evaluation of the double Laplace transform furnish the time-asymptotic growth laws.
    Standard transform methods; detailed steps deferred to companion paper but the resulting Eqs. (6)–(7) are tested directly against simulation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling ultrarelativistic streaming plasma instabilities under the quasistatic approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OANLEG7Z

@misc{pith2026260724214,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling ultrarelativistic streaming plasma instabilities under the quasistatic approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OANLEG7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.24214}
}
read the original abstract

Plasma streaming instabilities excited by relativistic charged particle beams play a pivotal role in astrophysical and laboratory environments. Their numerical study, however, is challenged by the disparity in spatiotemporal scales between the background plasma and beam particles, which can differ by several orders of magnitude for tenuous, ultrarelativistic beams. Here, we exploit the quasistatic approximation (QSA) to develop a new theoretical framework capable of capturing the full unstable spectrum in the spatiotemporal regime relevant for beams that continuously encounter unperturbed plasma at their leading edge. Within this linear, fully electromagnetic model, we uncover a previously unreported spatiotemporal evolution of the current filamentation instability and elucidate its interplay with the oblique two-stream instability, predicting the dominance of filamentation in the vicinity of the beam front. The good agreement between theory, kinetic particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations, and QSA-based PIC simulations validates the robustness of the approach. By pushing QSA-based PIC simulations to extremely dilute electron-positron beams, such as those found in blazar jets, we demonstrate their unique ability to capture the rich nonlinear dynamics of streaming instabilities in parameter regimes previously inaccessible to kinetic simulations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24214 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. 2D PIC pair beam-plasma simulation with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. compares these analytical solutions (red lines) to PIC results (black lines), displaying root-mean￾squared amplitudes of the transverse electric (⟨E2 y ⟩ 1/2 ) and magnetic (⟨B2 z ⟩ 1/2 ) fields, averaged over the trans￾verse domain and longitudinal segments of width ∆ξ = 2 k −1 p . At kpξ = 20 [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 2D QS-PIC pair beam-plasma simulation with parameters relevant for blazar jets ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [32]

    V. B. Pathak, T. Grismayer, A. Stockem, R. A. Fonseca, and L. O. Silva, Spatial-temporal evolution of the current filamentation instability, New J. Phys.17, 043049 (2015)

    2015

  2. [1]

    Here,edenotes the ele- mentary charge,m e the electron mass, andcthe speed of light

    All beam species propagate at the same velocity vb =β bcˆ xwithβb ≃1, corresponding to a Lorentz factorγ b = 1/ p 1−β 2 b ≫1. Here,edenotes the ele- mentary charge,m e the electron mass, andcthe speed of light. Our model adopts the cold-fluid approximation and is restricted to thex–yplane. Equilibrium and first- order perturbed quantities are denoted with...

  3. [2]

    The agreement between theory and simulation is excellent in both amplitude and phase across the simulation window

    is taken from the simulation and the boundary value is set toF ⊥(ξ= 0, τ >0) =F ⊥(ξ= 0, τ= 0). The agreement between theory and simulation is excellent in both amplitude and phase across the simulation window. Discrepancies appear only upon transition to the non- linear regime [above the dashed line in Fig. 1(d)], which is outside the scope of our model. ...

  4. [3]

    Spitkovsky, On the Structure of Relativistic Collision- less Shocks in Electron-Ion Plasmas, Astrophys

    A. Spitkovsky, On the Structure of Relativistic Collision- less Shocks in Electron-Ion Plasmas, Astrophys. J. Lett. 673, L39 (2008)

    2008

  5. [4]

    Spitkovsky, Particle Acceleration in Relativistic Col- lisionless Shocks: Fermi Process at Last?, Astrophys

    A. Spitkovsky, Particle Acceleration in Relativistic Col- lisionless Shocks: Fermi Process at Last?, Astrophys. J. Lett.682, L5 (2008)

    2008

  6. [5]

    R. N. Sudan, Collective beam-plasma interaction, in Handbook of Plasma Physics, Vol. 2, edited by M. N. Rosenbluth and R. Z. Sagdeev (North-Holland Physics Publishing, Amsterdam, 1984) Chap. 6.3, pp. 337–382

    1984

  7. [6]

    A. Bret, L. Gremillet, and M. E. Dieckmann, Multidi- mensional electron beam-plasma instabilities in the rela- tivistic regime, Phys. Plasmas17, 120501 (2010)

    2010

  8. [7]

    Lemoine, L

    M. Lemoine, L. Gremillet, G. Pelletier, and A. Van- thieghem, Physics of Weibel-Mediated Relativistic Col- lisionless Shocks, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 035101 (2019)

    2019

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    M´ esz´ aros, D

    P. M´ esz´ aros, D. B. Fox, C. Hanna, and K. Murase, Multi- messenger astrophysics, Nat. Rev. Phys.1, 585 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Sironi and A

    L. Sironi and A. Spitkovsky, Particle Acceleration in Rel- 6 ativistic Magnetized Collisionless Pair Shocks: Depen- dence of Shock Acceleration on Magnetic Obliquity, As- trophys. J.698, 1523 (2009)

    2009

  3. [10]

    S. F. Martins, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Ion Dynamics and Acceleration in Relativistic Shocks, Astrophys. J. Lett.695, L189 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    Vanthieghem, V

    A. Vanthieghem, V. Tsiolis, A. Spitkovsky, Y. Todo, K. Sekiguchi, and F. Fiuza, Electron Heating in High Mach Number Collisionless Shocks, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 265201 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    Marcowith, A

    A. Marcowith, A. J. van Marle, and I. Plotnikov, The cosmic ray-driven streaming instability in astrophysical and space plasmas, Phys. Plasmas28, 080601 (2021)

    2021

  6. [13]

    J. R. Peterson, S. Glenzer, and F. Fiuza, Magnetic field amplification by a nonlinear electron streaming instabil- ity, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 215101 (2021); Magnetic Field Amplification by a Plasma Cavitation Instability in Rel- ativistic Shock Precursors, Astrophys. J. Lett.92...

    2021

  7. [14]

    Groˇ selj, L

    D. Groˇ selj, L. Sironi, and A. M. Beloborodov, Micro- physics of Relativistic Collisionless Electron-ion-positron Shocks, Astrophys. J.933, 74 (2022); D. Groˇ selj, L. Sironi, and A. Spitkovsky, Long-term Evolution of Rel- ativistic Unmagnetized Collisionless Shocks, Astrophy...

    2022

  8. [15]

    Sironi and D

    L. Sironi and D. Giannios, Relativistic Pair Beams from TeV Blazars: A Source of Reprocessed GeV Emission rather than Intergalactic Heating, Astrophys. J.787, 49 (2014)

    2014

  9. [16]

    L. O. Silva, R. A. Fonseca, J. W. Tonge, W. B. Mori, and J. M. Dawson, On the role of the purely transverse Weibel instability in fast ignitor scenarios, Phys. Plasmas 9, 2458 (2002)

    2002

  10. [17]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk, Evidence for Strong Extra- galactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars, Science328, 73 (2010)

    2010

  11. [18]

    A. E. Broderick, P. Chang, and C. Pfrommer, The Cos- mological Impact of Luminous TeV Blazars. I. Implica- tions of Plasma Instabilities for the Intergalactic Mag- netic Field and Extragalactic Gamma-Ray Background, Astrophys. J.752, 22 (2012)

    2012

  12. [19]

    A. P. L. Robinson, D. J. Strozzi, J. R. Davies, L. Gremil- let, J. J. Honrubia, T. Johzaki, R. J. Kingham, M. Sher- lock, and A. A. Solodov, Theory of fast electron transport for fast ignition, Nucl. Fusion54, 054003 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Schoenwaelder, A

    C. Schoenwaelder, A. Marret, S. Assenbaum, C. B. Curry, E. Cunningham, G. Dyer, S. Funk, G. D. Glenn, S. Goede, D. Khaghani, M. Rehwald, U. Schramm, F. Tr- effert, M. Vescovi, K. Zeil, S. H. Glenzer, F. Fiuza, and M. Gauthier, Time-resolved X-ray imaging of the current filamen...

    2026

  14. [21]

    Sentoku, K

    Y. Sentoku, K. Mima, P. Kaw, and K. Nishikawa, Anomalous Resistivity Resulting from MeV-Electron Transport in Overdense Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 155001 (2003)

    2003

  15. [22]

    J. C. Adam, A. H´ eron, and G. Laval, Dispersion and Transport of Energetic Particles due to the Interaction of Intense Laser Pulses with Overdense Plasmas, Phys. Rev. Lett.97, 205006 (2006)

    2006

  16. [23]

    Benedetti, M

    A. Benedetti, M. Tamburini, and C. H. Keitel, Giant col- limated gamma-ray flashes, Nat. Photon.12, 319 (2018)

    2018

  17. [24]

    Z. Gong, K. Z. Hatsagortsyan, and C. H. Keitel, Electron Polarization in Ultrarelativistic Plasma Current Filamen- tation Instabilities, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 015101 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    C. M. Huntington, A. G. R. Thomas, C. McGuffey, T. Matsuoka, V. Chvykov, G. Kalintchenko, S. Kneip, Z. Najmudin, C. Palmer, V. Yanovsky, A. Maksimchuk, R. P. Drake, T. Katsouleas, and K. Krushelnick, Current filamentation instability in laser wakefield accelerators, Phys. Rev....

    2011

  19. [26]

    Pukhov, N

    A. Pukhov, N. Kumar, T. T¨ uckmantel, A. Upadhyay, K. Lotov, P. Muggli, V. Khudik, C. Siemon, and G. Shvets, Phase Velocity and Particle Injection in a Self- Modulated Proton-Driven Plasma Wakefield Accelerator, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 145003 (2011)

    2011

  20. [27]

    This prediction is consistent with Fig

    suggests that after a given number of temporale-foldsN e (as ap- plies at the transition point), the CFI modes extend over a distance∼0.4N ek−1 p from the front, independent of the beam density ratio and Lorentz factor. This prediction is consistent with Fig. 1(c), which shows...

  21. [28]

    C. D. Arrowsmith, P. Simon, P. J. Bilbao, A. F. A. Bott, S. Burger, H. Chen, F. D. Cruz, T. Davenne, I. Efthymiopoulos, D. H. Froula, A. Goillot, J. T. Gud- mundsson, D. Haberberger, J. W. D. Halliday, T. Hodge, B. T. Huffman, S. Iaquinta, F. Miniati, B. Reville, S. Sarkar, A....

    2024

  22. [29]

    Allen, V

    B. Allen, V. Yakimenko, M. Babzien, M. Fedurin, K. Kusche, and P. Muggli, Experimental Study of Cur- rent Filamentation Instability, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 185007 (2012)

    2012

  23. [30]

    Verra, C

    L. Verra, C. Amoedo, N. Torrado, A. Clairembaud, J. Mezger, F. Pannell, J. Pucek, N. van Gils, M. Berga- maschi, G. Zevi Della Porta, N. Lopes, A. Sublet, M. Turner, E. Gschwendtner, P. Muggli, R. Agnello, C. C. Ahdida, Y. Andrebe, O. Apsimon, R. Apsimon, J. M. Arnesano, V. Be...

    2024

  24. [31]

    Yakimenko, L

    V. Yakimenko, L. Alsberg, E. Bong, G. Bouchard, C. Clarke, C. Emma, S. Green, C. Hast, M. J. Hogan, J. Seabury, N. Lipkowitz, B. O’Shea, D. Storey, G. White, and G. Yocky, F ACET-II facility for advanced accelerator experimental tests, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 22, 101301 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    C. D. Arrowsmith, F. Miniati, P. J. Bilbao, P. Simon, A. F. A. Bott, S. Burger, H. Chen, F. D. Cruz, T. Dav- enne, A. Dyson, I. Efthymiopoulos, D. H. Froula, A. Goil- lot, J. T. Gudmundsson, D. Haberberger, J. W. D. Halli- 7 day, T. Hodge, B. T. Huffman, S. Iaquinta, G. Marsha...

    2025

  26. [34]

    Bers, Space-Time Evolution of Plasma Instabilities - Absolute and Convective, inHandbook of Plasma Physics, edited by M

    A. Bers, Space-Time Evolution of Plasma Instabilities - Absolute and Convective, inHandbook of Plasma Physics, edited by M. N. Rosenbluth and R. Z. Sagdeev (North-Holland Physics Publishing, Amsterdam, 1983) Chap. 3.2, pp. 451–517

    1983

  27. [35]

    Shukla, S

    N. Shukla, S. F. Martins, P. Muggli, J. Vieira, and L. O. Silva, Interaction of ultra relativistice −e+ fireball beam with plasma, New J. Phys.22, 013030 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Sprangle, E

    P. Sprangle, E. Esarey, and A. Ting, Nonlinear interac- tion of intense laser pulses in plasmas, Phys. Rev. A41, 4463 (1990)

    1990

  29. [37]

    San Miguel Claveria, X

    P. San Miguel Claveria, X. Davoine, J. R. Peterson, M. Gilljohann, I. Andriyash, R. Ariniello, C. Clarke, H. Ekerfelt, C. Emma, J. Faure, S. Gessner, M. J. Hogan, C. Joshi, C. H. Keitel, A. Knetsch, O. Kononenko, M. Litos, Y. Mankovska, K. Marsh, A. Matheron, Z. Nie, B. O’Shea...

    2022

  30. [38]

    Labro, X

    Q. Labro, X. Davoine, L. Gremillet, and L. Berg´ e, Sim- ulating ultrarelativistic beam-plasma instabilities with a quasistatic particle-in-cell code, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.324, 110140 (2026)

    2026

  31. [39]

    P. Chen, J. J. Su, T. Katsouleas, S. Wilks, and J. M. Dawson, Plasma Focusing for High-Energy Beams, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.15, 218 (1987)

    1987

  32. [40]

    C. A. Lindstrøm, S. Corde, R. D’Arcy, S. Gess- ner, M. Gilljohann, M. J. Hogan, and J. Oster- hoff, Beam-driven plasma-wakefield acceleration (2025), arXiv:2504.05558 [physics.acc-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Mora and T

    P. Mora and T. M. Antonsen, Jr., Kinetic modeling of in- tense, short laser pulses propagating in tenuous plasmas, Phys. Plasmas4, 217 (1997)

    1997

  34. [42]

    Huang, V

    C. Huang, V. Decyk, C. Ren, M. Zhou, W. Lu, W. Mori, J. Cooley, T. Antonsen, and T. Katsouleas, QUICKPIC: A highly efficient particle-in-cell code for modeling wake- field acceleration in plasmas, J. Comp. Phys.217, 658 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Diederichs, C

    S. Diederichs, C. Benedetti, A. Huebl, R. Lehe, A. My- ers, A. Sinn, J.-L. Vay, W. Zhang, and M. Th´ evenet, HiPACE++: A portable, 3D quasi-static particle-in-cell code, Computer Phys. Commun.278, 108421 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Walter, J

    E. Walter, J. P. Farmer, M. S. Weidl, A. Pukhov, and F. Jenko, Wakefield-driven filamentation of warm beams in plasma, Phys. Rev. E110, 035208 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    San Miguel Claveria, L

    P. San Miguel Claveria, L. Gremillet, X. Davoine, Q. Labro, A. Matheron, M. Tamburini, F. Fiuza, and S. Corde, Quasistatic modeling of ultrarelativistic beam- plasma instabilities (2026), Companion paper submitted to Phys. Rev. E

    2026

  38. [46]

    Keinigs and M

    R. Keinigs and M. E. Jones, Two-dimensional dynamics of the plasma wakefield accelerator, Phys. Fluids30, 252 (1987)

    1987

  39. [47]

    S. A. Bludman, K. M. Watson, and M. N. Rosenbluth, Statistical Mechanics of Relativistic Streams. II, Phys. Fluids3, 747 (1960)

    1960

  40. [48]

    Mehrling, C

    T. Mehrling, C. Benedetti, C. B. Schroeder, and J. Oster- hoff, HiPACE: a quasi-static particle-in-cell code, Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion56, 084012 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Lefebvre, N

    E. Lefebvre, N. Cochet, S. Fritzler, V. Malka, M.- M. Al´ eonard, J.-F. Chemin, S. Darbon, L. Disdier, J. Faure, A. Fedotoff, O. Landoas, G. Malka, V. M´ eot, P. Morel, M. Rabec LeGloahec, A. Rouyer, C. Rubbe- lynck, V. Tikhonchuk, R. Wrobel, P. Audebert, and C. Rousseaux, Ele...

    2003

  42. [50]

    Vanthieghem, M

    A. Vanthieghem, M. Lemoine, and L. Gremillet, Origin of intense electron heating in relativistic blast waves, As- trophys. J. Lett.930, L8 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    C. D. Decker, W. B. Mori, T. Katsouleas, and D. E. Hinkel, Spatial temporal theory of Raman forward scat- tering, Phys. Plasmas3, 1360 (1996)

    1996

  44. [52]

    R. C. Davidson, D. A. Hammer, I. Haber, and C. E. Wagner, Nonlinear Development of Electromagnetic In- stabilities in Anisotropic Plasmas, Phys. Fluids15, 317 (1972)

    1972

  45. [53]

    A. P. Sosedkin and K. V. Lotov, LCODE: A parallel quasistatic code for computationally heavy problems of plasma wakefield acceleration, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A829, 350 (2016)

    2016

  46. [54]

    tok pw∼2–3 [Fig. 3(c)]. One such event at ωpτ≃2.4×10 10 explains the approximate doubling in downstreamE x energy seen in Fig. 3(e). Interaction with these wakefields progressively broadens the longitudinal beam momentum spread as ∆p x/mec∼ |ρb/en(0) p |ωpτ, consistent with Fi...

    2023

  47. [55]

    A. E. Broderick, P. Tiede, P. Chang, A. Lamberts, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, M. Shalaby, and M. Wer- hahn, Missing Gamma-Ray Halos and the Need for New Physics in the Gamma-Ray Sky, Astrophys. J.868, 87 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    Vafin, I

    S. Vafin, I. Rafighi, M. Pohl, and J. Niemiec, The Elec- trostatic Instability for Realistic Pair Distributions in Blazar/EBL Cascades, Astrophy. J.857, 43 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    Bresci, L

    V. Bresci, L. Gremillet, and M. Lemoine, Saturation of the asymmetric current filamentation instability under conditions relevant to relativistic shock precursors, Phys. Rev. E105, 035202 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    M. V. Medvedev, M. Fiore, R. A. Fonseca, L. O. Silva, and W. B. Mori, Long-Time Evolution of Magnetic Fields in Relativistic Gamma-Ray Burst Shocks, Astrophys. J. 618, L75 (2004)

    2004

  51. [59]

    Chang, A

    P. Chang, A. E. Broderick, C. Pfrommer, E. Puchwein, A. Lamberts, and M. Shalaby, The Effect of Nonlinear Landau Damping on Ultrarelativistic Beam Plasma In- stabilities, Astrophys. J.797, 110 (2014)

    2014

  52. [60]

    Vafin, P

    S. Vafin, P. J. Deka, M. Pohl, and A. Bohdan, Revisit of Nonlinear Landau Damping for Electrostatic Instability Driven by Blazar-induced Pair Beams, Astrophys. J.873, 10 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Alawashra and M

    M. Alawashra and M. Pohl, Suppression of the TeV Pair- beam–Plasma Instability by a Tangled Weak Intergalac- tic Magnetic Field, Astrophys. J.929, 67 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Perry and Y

    R. Perry and Y. Lyubarsky, The role of resonant plasma instabilities in the evolution of blazar-induced pair beams, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.503, 2215 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.