Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 43 references

Hamiltonian preserving nonlinear optics

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A beam line can be designed to preserve a chosen Hamiltonian by realizing a symplectic integrator with rotations and beta-scaled kicks.

desk verdict Genuinely new finite-h integrator-as-lattice design, sound core with a minor scaling-derivation gap; the FODO stress-test worry does not hold up under calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03520 v4 pith:2ERTRZAZ submitted 2019-08-09 physics.acc-ph

S.S. Baturin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.acc-ph
keywords nonlinearacceleratorlatticesymplecticintegratorsHamiltonianpreservationbeta-functionscalingthinmagnetsquasi-integrableopticsYoshidaintegratorphase-advancematching
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

This paper establishes that a particle-accelerator lattice can be built to preserve, to a user-chosen accuracy, any prescribed smooth Hamiltonian of the form $H=(q^2+p^2)/2+V(q)$. The construction treats one lattice period as one step of a high-order symplectic integrator: the linear optics supplies rotations in normalized phase space, and thin nonlinear magnets supply the kicks, with their strengths rescaled by the local $\beta$-function. The payoff is practical: nonlinear inserts that currently need many magnets can be replaced by as few as three nonlinear elements, and simulations show the intended Hamiltonian and its second invariant are conserved to roughly one to three percent. The method also explains why the older equidistant-magnet scaling fails: it is not the discretization of the target Hamiltonian that the new scheme realizes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rotation-kick splitting of a Hamiltonian: the linear part generates rotations $R_{\psi}$ in each canonical pair, while the nonlinear part generates kicks $K_h$ that change only momenta. The paper uses the Baker--Campbell--Hausdorff formula to turn the composition $R_{h/2}K_h R_{h/2}$ (a second-order Ruth/Strang integrator) and its fourth-order Yoshida composition (Eq. (26)) into statements about an effective Hamiltonian accurate to $O(h^p)$. The bridge to a real lattice is Eq. (33)--(34), which converts the normalized-coordinate kick into thin nonlinear magnets whose strengths are scaled by the local $\beta$-function; the only matching condition is that the phase advance in $x$ and $y$ be equal.

What would settle it

Use a tracking code that models finite-length magnets with fringe fields in the outlined Yoshida lattice, set the linear channel to the required phase advance with unequal $x$ and $y$ $\beta$-functions, and compare the drift of $H$ and the second invariant $I_2$ over $10^5$ turns with the $O(h^4)$ bound; if thick-lens terms dominate the drift or cause particle loss, the core equivalence fails in a real machine.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the dictionary between symplectic integrators and beam lines runs in both directions. In normalized coordinates, linear betatron motion is exactly a rotation $R_{\psi}$, so any linear channel with phase advance $\psi$ is the free part of an integrator; a thin nonlinear magnet whose strength is scaled by the $\beta$-function is the kick $K_h$. Composing these pieces according to a known integration scheme yields a lattice whose effective Hamiltonian is the target $H$ up to $O(h^p)$. In particular, Eq. (26) implements a fourth-order Yoshida composition with only three nonlinear elements, and the paper's tracking shows the target Hamiltonian, and for the Darboux potential also the second invariant, held to about 1--3% over up to $10^6$ turns, whereas the existing equidistant-scaling insert loses the invariant and many trajectories escape.

Load-bearing premise

The construction assumes the linear optics between kicks acts as an exact rotation in normalized coordinates and the nonlinear magnets act as ideal thin kicks with the derived beta-scaling; any real deviation, including finite magnet length, fringe fields, chromatic effects, or space charge, is not modeled.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nonlinear insert intended to realize a given Hamiltonian can be built from three thin lenses instead of the seven-to-seventeen lenses used in current designs, with invariant conservation in the few-percent range.
  • The matching condition is equal phase advance in $x$ and $y$, not equal beta-functions, so linear lattices with unequal beta-functions remain usable.
  • Higher-order symplectic compositions reduce the discretization error as a power of the phase step $h$, giving a quantitative route to arbitrary accuracy through more lenses or smaller phase advances.
  • By the backward-error-analysis theorem quoted in the paper, bounded trajectories of the ideal map remain bounded over exponentially long times, so the near-invariant survives many turns.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Read backward, the construction suggests a design workflow for existing machines: fit a symplectic-integrator skeleton to an installed linear lattice, then choose magnet strengths by inverting the beta-scaling; this turns finding the effective Hamiltonian of a lattice into choosing the integrator whose Hamiltonian one wants.
  • The same rotation-kick dictionary should transfer to any element that acts as a thin kick, such as electron lenses or higher-order multipoles, provided the phase advances are matched; the paper mentions this possibility, and the integrator interpretation makes it a direct generalization.
  • A testable extension is to measure the drift of the conserved quantity as a function of phase step $h$ for a fixed magnet count: if the drift exponent matches the integrator order $p$, discretization error dominates, while a flattening indicates that thick-lens or field errors dominate.
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

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a method for constructing a nonlinear accelerator lattice whose effective Hamiltonian in normalized (Courant-Snyder) coordinates is a prescribed autonomous Hamiltonian H=(p^2+q^2)/2+V(q). The central idea is to identify a symplectic integrator for H (Euler, Ruth/Strang, Yoshida) with a sequence of rotations and kicks, and to realize the rotations by linear magnet channels with matched phase advances and the kicks by beta-scaled thin nonlinear lenses. The authors derive a beta-scaling relation (Eqs. (33)-(34)), state the requirement of equal phase advances in x and y, and present tracking examples: a Ruth lattice with five sextupoles or octupoles in an equal-beta T-insert that conserves a Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian to about 1%, while an equidistant five-magnet baseline fails; and a Yoshida lattice with three nonlinear elements implementing the Darboux-potential Hamiltonian, with a FODO-based linear channel, conserving the Hamiltonian and the second invariant to about 3%. A MADX cross-check with a sextupole Yoshida lattice is included. No parameters are fitted to make the Hamiltonian appear conserved.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper gives a constructive reverse-engineering recipe for nonlinear accelerator optics: instead of discretizing a smooth potential by equidistant magnets, one can use high-order symplectic integrator layouts, reducing the number of nonlinear elements (three for the Yoshida example) and providing BCH-based accuracy control. The approach is independent of the choice of nonlinear potential and is demonstrated with explicit, reproducible tracking experiments (initial conditions are tabulated, and OptiMX/MADX are used). The main idealizations, namely thin lenses, exact linear matching, and the absence of fringe fields, chromaticity, and space-charge effects, mean that the practical IOTA/UMER improvement claims are indicative rather than definitive; however, the core equivalence between integrator and lattice is convincingly supported by the numerical examples.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II.D, Eqs. (32)-(34)] The notation in Eq. (34) is confusing: the left-hand side "∂_{x,y}U" and the right-hand side "∂_{q1,q1}V" should be clarified. The intended statement appears to be that the physical kick is generated by U(x,y)=h V(x/√β_x, y/√β_y), so that ∂U/∂x = (h/√β_x) ∂V/∂q1 evaluated at q1=x/√β_x, q2=y/√β_y. Please correct the partial-derivative subscripts and include the two-line derivation from Eq. (32), since this formula fixes all lens strengths in the paper.
  2. [Section III.B and Section II.E] Please state explicitly that the 30 FODO cells are symmetric thin-lens cells with equal phase advances in x and y, or report μ_x and μ_y from OptiMX. The text says "the phase advance of one cell" without specifying the plane; the Yoshida construction requires ψ_x=ψ_y. For a standard symmetric FODO cell the x and y phase advances over a full cell are indeed equal (the transfer matrices have the same trace), so this is a clarity request rather than a correctness concern.
  3. [Section III.B] The Yoshida example would be easier to reproduce if the main text included a table of the FODO cell parameters (quadrupole strengths, drift lengths), the positions of the three nonlinear magnets, and the beta functions at those positions. The text currently refers to OptiMX and to supplemental MADX input, but the flagship demonstration should be self-contained.
  4. [Section III.A.1 and III.A.2] In the head-to-head comparisons, please specify whether the normalization in Eq. (35) is applied with the scaling law appropriate to each lattice (Eqs. (42)/(46) for the equidistant case and Eqs. (43)/(47) for the Ruth case) or with a single f(β). The wording "the amplitude scaling function that is calculated with the help of Eq.(33) and Eq.(34)" is ambiguous when the equidistant lattice deliberately uses a different scaling.
  5. [Section II.E, Theorem 2] The statement of Theorem 2 contains unclear notation: "nh≤eh0/2h" should presumably read t = n h ≤ e^{h0/(2h)} (or an equivalent form), and the constant h0 should be defined. As written, the expression is hard to parse.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos and minor wording issues: "fist proposed" in Sec. III.A.1, "usec" in Appendix D, "Ausralia" in Ref. [32], and the inconsistent rounding of the FODO cell phase advance (0.14π versus 4.208π/30 ≈ 0.1403π). These should be corrected in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lattice construction is an explicit inverse-problem derivation from BCH and standard symplectic integrators, with no fitted inputs or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is constructive: given a desired smooth Hamiltonian H=(q^2+p^2)/2+V(q), it builds a nonlinear lattice whose effective Hamiltonian approximates H. The derivation is self-contained: Eqs. (8)-(26) use the standard BCH formula and known symplectic integrator compositions (Strang/Ruth and Yoshida) to show that rotations R and kicks K approximate the desired flow to order O(h^p); Eqs. (29)-(34) derive the required beta-function scaling for the kicks by conjugating the normalized-coordinate operations with the betatron amplitude matrix. No parameter is fitted to force the tracked Hamiltonian to be conserved. The only calibration, Eq. (35), fixes an overall multiplicative strength of the nonlinear channel so that the coefficient in front of the effective Hamiltonian potential is unity; this is an a priori normalization, not a fit to simulation data. The tracking results (Figs. 6, 9, 12, 13) are validation checks of an explicit construction, not predictions extracted from fitted parameters. The paper's use of prior results, including the Danilov-Nagaitsev scaling and the Darboux potential, is external supporting material rather than self-citation, and the recovery of the continuous-limit scaling in Appendix A is a consistency check, not a load-bearing premise. The skeptic concern about unequal FODO phase advances in Sec. III.B is a potential correctness or modeling gap in the example, not a circularity in the derivation; it questions whether the example satisfies the paper's own psi_x=psi_y condition, but does not make the claimed result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on standard symplectic integration theorems, the standard Twiss parameter description of linear optics, and the thin-lens approximation for nonlinear magnets. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are design choices (phase step, tune, normalization) rather than fit parameters, so the circularity burden is low.

free parameters (3)
  • integrator phase step h = 0.42 (Ruth sextupole), 0.28 (Ruth octupole), 0.208π (Yoshida)
    Controls truncation error; chosen to fit the desired number of magnets into the T-insert or FODO cell phase budget. Not fitted to tracking data.
  • linear tune ν = 0.3344 (sextupole), 0.2234 (octupole), 0.07 per FODO cell
    Chosen near the 1/3 and 1/4 resonances to stress the lattices; not fitted.
  • total integrated nonlinear strength = 1
    Eq.(35) sets the sum of scaled strengths to unity so the effective nonlinear potential amplitude is normalized; a convention, not a fit.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math BCH formula and order conditions for symplectic composition (Theorem 1)
    Used in Sec. II B to establish the preservation order of the Ruth and Yoshida integrators.
  • standard math Theorem 2 (Benettin-Giorgilli): bounded trajectories of a symplectic order-p integrator preserve H to O(h^p) for exponentially long times
    Invoked in Sec. II E to claim long-term stability; requires a bounded compact set and analytic H.
  • domain assumption Transverse linear lattice can be described by block-diagonal transfer matrices with Twiss parameters (Eq.29-30)
    Standard accelerator optics; assumed no coupling and equal x/y phase advance in Sec. II D.
  • domain assumption Nonlinear elements are thin lenses; their kicks are position-dependent impulses in momentum with the beta-scaled potential Eq.(33)-(34)
    Used throughout the examples; ignores finite length and fringe fields.
  • domain assumption The T-insert yields equal transverse beta-functions and the specified phase advance Eq.(36)-(38)
    From Ref.[2], needed for the IOTA/UMER Ruth lattice examples.
  • standard math Darboux potential Eq.(49) with second invariant Eq.(50) is exactly integrable
    Taken from Ref.[2] and [8], used for the Yoshida lattice example.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hamiltonian preserving nonlinear optics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2ERTRZAZ

@misc{pith2026190803520,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hamiltonian preserving nonlinear optics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2ERTRZAZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03520}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper we present a method of constructing a nonlinear accelerator lattice that has an approximate integral of motion that is given upfront. The integral under consideration is a Hamiltonian in normalized (canonical) coordinates that is preserved by a lattice with a given accuracy. We establish a connection between the integrator of a Hamiltonian in normalized coordinates and a real lens arrangement. We apply known algorithms of high-order symplectic integrators, to produce several nonlinear lattices and show that this approach could improve the design of the nonlinear insert considered at the IOTA and UMER facilities. We also suggest new lattice design based on the Yoshida integrator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03520 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic diagrams: one step of the symplectic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of the one step of symplectic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic diagrams of the nonlinear magnet layout for one period of the lattice: (a) equidistant placing as introduced [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic diagram of one period of the linear lat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Poincare surface of section q2 = 0 for the smooth Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian Eq.(41) (left panel) and equidis￾tant lattice introduced in Ref.[6] Fig.3(a) with the sextupole magnet as a nonlinear element (right panel). Hamiltonian Eq.(41) as a function of the iteration nu…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fig.6. From the upper plots in Fig.6 it is apparent that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Poincare surface of section q2 = 0 for the smooth Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian Eq.(41) (left panel) and Ruth lat￾tice with the sextupole magnet as a nonlinear element (right panel). Hamiltonian Eq.(41) as a function of the iteration number n (lower panel). Blue line - trac…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Projection of the trajectory on the (q1, q2) plane for the equidistant lattice with the sextupole magnet as a non￾linear element (upper right panel) and Ruth lattice with the sextupole magnet as a nonlinear element (upper left panel). Hamiltonian Eq.(41) as a function …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Poincare surface of section q2 = 0 for the smooth Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian Eq.(45) (left panel) and Ruth lat￾tice with the octupole magnet as a nonlinear element (right panel). Hamiltonian Eq.(45) as a function of the iteration number n (lower panel). Blue line - track…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Projection of two trajectories on the (q1, q2) plane for the equidistant lattice with the octupole magnet as a non￾linear element (upper right panel) and Ruth lattice with the octupole magnet as a nonlinear element (upper left panel). Hamiltonian Eq.(45) as a function…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Schematics of the Yoshida lattice layout (upper panel) and corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Poincare surface of section q1 = 0 for the smooth Hamiltonian (48) with the Darboux potential (49) (upper left panel) and Yoshida lattice shown on Fig.12 tracked for 5 × 105 iterations (upper right plane). Hamiltonian Eq.(48) and second integral of motion Eq.(50) (low…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Poincare surface of section q2 = 0 for the smooth Henon-Heiles Hamiltonian Eq.(41) (left panel) and MADX tracking of the Yoshida lattice with the sextupole magnet as a nonlinear element (right panel). Hamiltonian Eq.(41) as a function of the iteration number n (lower …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    On the construction and comparison of dif- ference schemes,

    G. Strang, “On the construction and comparison of dif- ference schemes,” SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis , vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 506–517, 1968

    work page 1968

  2. [1]

    Sextupole channel For the first illustration of the Ruth lattice Fig.3(b) based on the second order integrator, we consider the sextupole magnet as a nonlinear element. This type of nonlinear insert was fist proposed in Ref.[30] where au- thors suggested experiment for real world testing of reg- ular and chaotic motion at IOTA ring based on Henon- Heiles sy...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Octupole channel Next, we move to a more practical application and con- sider an octupole as the nonlinear element. It is stated in Ref.[6] that implementation of an octupole channel with one invariant of motion could provide large betatron fre- quency spread, and thus paves the way to overcome fast coherent beam instabilities. As a suitable invariant, pe...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Chromatic and Space Charge Ef- fects in Nonlinear Integrable Optics,

    S. Webb, D. Bruhwiler, A. Valishev, S. Nagaitsev, and V. Danilov, “Chromatic and Space Charge Ef- fects in Nonlinear Integrable Optics,” in Proceedings of the ICFA Advanced Beam Dynamics Workshop on High-Intensity and High-Brightness Hadron Beams (54 th ICFA, HB2014), November 10-14, 2014, p. 216, JACoW, East-Lansing, MI, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    Beam Physics of Inte- grable Optics Test Accelerator at Fermilab,

    S. Nagaitsev and A. Valishev, “Beam Physics of Inte- grable Optics Test Accelerator at Fermilab,” in Proceed- ings of the 3rd International Particle Accelerator Con- ference (IPAC’12), New Orleans, LA, May 20-25, 2012 , p. 1371, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2012

    work page 2012

  6. [5]

    According to the prescription of Ref.[2, 6], the octupole strength now should be scaled with the β-function ac- 9 ���� ���� ���� ���� ��� ��� � Figure 8

    (45) Using the same reasoning as for the original Henon-Heiles system, one may show that due to the fact that all equipotential lines are closed up to the level set H = 1 /4 motion remain bounded, however as before it may be also chaotic. According to the prescription of Ref.[2, 6], the octupole strength now should be scaled with the β-function ac- 9 ����...

    work page

  7. [6]

    The linear part of the lattice consists of the so called T-insert introduced in [2], and a drift of length L

    and UMER [7] for the quasi-integrable and integrable optics experiments. The linear part of the lattice consists of the so called T-insert introduced in [2], and a drift of length L. The T-insert is an arrangement where part of the linear optics effectively acts as a focusing matrix in both x and y directions, leading to a degenerate case of equal transver...

    work page

  8. [7]

    We observe, that as before lat- tice indeed conserves given Hamiltonian as prescribed

    for the smooth Hamiltonian Eq.(41) and Yoshida lat- tice with sextupoles. We observe, that as before lat- tice indeed conserves given Hamiltonian as prescribed. For the MADX input initial conditions that are listed in Table I were transformed to the real coordinate space with the help of the betatron amplitude matrix given by Eq.(30) and linear lattice fu...

    work page

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Practical solutions for nonlinear accelerator lattice with stable nearly regular motion,

    V. Danilov, “Practical solutions for nonlinear accelerator lattice with stable nearly regular motion,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, vol. 11, p. 114001, Nov 2008

    2008

  2. [9]

    Nonlinear accelerator lat- tices with one and two analytic invariants,

    V. Danilov and S. Nagaitsev, “Nonlinear accelerator lat- tices with one and two analytic invariants,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, vol. 13, p. 084002, Aug 2010

    2010

  3. [10]

    A normal form approach to the theory of nonlinear beta- tronic motion,

    A. Bazzani, E. Todesco, G. Turchetti, and G. Servizi, “A normal form approach to the theory of nonlinear beta- tronic motion,” CERN Yellow Reports, vol. 94-02, 1994

    1994

  4. [11]

    IOTA (integrable optics test accelerator): facility and experimental beam physics program,

    S. Antipov, D. Broemmelsiek, D. Bruhwiler, D. Ed- strom, E. Harms, V. Lebedev, J. Leibfritz, S. Nagaitsev, C. Park, H. Piekarz, P. Piot, E. Prebys, A. Romanov, J. Ruan, T. Sen, G. Stancari, C. Thangaraj, R. Thurman- Keup, A. Valishev, and V. Shiltsev, “IOTA (integrable optics ...

    2017

  5. [12]

    Single- particle dynamics in a nonlinear accelerator lattice: at- taining a large tune spread with octupoles in IOTA,

    S. Antipov, S. Nagaitsev, and A. Valishev, “Single- particle dynamics in a nonlinear accelerator lattice: at- taining a large tune spread with octupoles in IOTA,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 12, pp. P04008–P04008, apr 2017

    2017

  6. [13]

    Single-invariant nonlinear optics for a small electron recirculator,

    K. Ruisard, H. B. Komkov, B. Beaudoin, I. Haber, D. Matthew, and T. Koeth, “Single-invariant nonlinear optics for a small electron recirculator,”Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, vol. 22, p. 041601, Apr 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    Complex representation of potentials and fields for the nonlinear magnetic insert of the Integrable Optics Test Accelerator,

    C. Mitchell, “Complex representation of potentials and fields for the nonlinear magnetic insert of the Integrable Optics Test Accelerator,” arXiv:1908.00036, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Normal forms for hamiltonian maps and nonlinear ef- fects in particle accelerators,

    A. Bazzani, G. Turchetti, P. Mazzanti, and G. Servizi, “Normal forms for hamiltonian maps and nonlinear ef- fects in particle accelerators,” Nuovo Cimento, vol. B102, no. 51, 1988

    1988

  9. [16]

    Hairer, C

    E. Hairer, C. Lubich, and G. Wanner, Geometric numeri- cal integration : structure-preserving algorithms for ordi- nary differential equations . Bernil; New York: Springer, 2006

    2006

  10. [17]

    Turchetti and F

    G. Turchetti and F. Panichi, Nonlinear Dynamics and Collective Effects in Paricle Beam Physics , pp. 47–70. Proceedings of the NOCE 2017 Workshop, Arcidosso, Italy 19-22 September 2017, World Scientific Publishing, 2019

    2017

  11. [18]

    A. J. Dragt, Lie Methods for Nonlinear Dynamics with Applications to Accelerator Physics. University of Mary- 14 land, College Park, 2019

    2019

  12. [19]

    Forest, Beam Dynamics: A New Attitude and Frame- work, vol

    ´E. Forest, Beam Dynamics: A New Attitude and Frame- work, vol. 8 of The Physics and Technology of Particle and Photon Beams. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hard- wood Academic / CRC Press, 1998

    1998

  13. [20]

    High-order control for symplectic maps,

    M. Sansottera, A. Giorgilli, and T. Carletti, “High-order control for symplectic maps,” Physica D: Nonlinear Phe- nomena, vol. 316, pp. 1 – 15, 2016

    2016

  14. [21]

    Method for enlarging the dy- namic aperture of accelerator lattices,

    W. Wan and J. R. Cary, “Method for enlarging the dy- namic aperture of accelerator lattices,” Phys. Rev. ST Accel. Beams, vol. 4, p. 084001, Aug 2001

    2001

  15. [22]

    Some application of splitting-up meth- ods to the solution of mathematical physics problems,

    G. I. Marchuk, “Some application of splitting-up meth- ods to the solution of mathematical physics problems,” Aplikace matematiky, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 103–132, 1968

    1968

  16. [23]

    V. I. Arnold, Ordinary Differential Equations. Springer, 1992

    1992

  17. [24]

    Arnold, Geometrical Methods in the Theory of Ordi- nary Differential Equations

    V. Arnold, Geometrical Methods in the Theory of Ordi- nary Differential Equations . Springer, 1988

    1988

  18. [25]

    Die symbolische Exponentialformel in der Gruppentheorie,

    F. Hausdorff, “Die symbolische Exponentialformel in der Gruppentheorie,” Ber. Verh. Saechs. Akad. Wiss. Leipzig, vol. 58, pp. 19–48, 1906

    1906

  19. [26]

    Tabor, Chaos and integrability in nonlinear dynamics : an introduction

    M. Tabor, Chaos and integrability in nonlinear dynamics : an introduction . New York : Wiley, 1989

    1989

  20. [28]

    with the block of the type Mx,y(s1|s0) = Bx,y(s1) [ cos(ψx,y) sin( ψx,y) − sin(ψx,y) cos( ψx,y) ] B−1 x,y(s0). (29) Here, the lower index denotes coordinate pair (either {x,Px} or{y,Py});ψx,y = s1∫ s0 ds βx,y(s) is the phase advance between position s0 ands1; Bx,y(s) is the co...

  21. [29]

    A canonical integration technique,

    R. D. Ruth, “A canonical integration technique,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 30, pp. 2669–2671, Aug 1983

    1983

  22. [30]

    Canonical integrators as tracking codes (or how to integrate perturbation theory with tracking),

    E. Forest, “Canonical integrators as tracking codes (or how to integrate perturbation theory with tracking),” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 184, no. 1, pp. 1106– 1136, 1989

    1989

  23. [31]

    Fractal decomposition of exponential opera- tors with applications to many-body theories and monte carlo simulations,

    M. Suzuki, “Fractal decomposition of exponential opera- tors with applications to many-body theories and monte carlo simulations,” Physics Letters A , vol. 146, no. 6, pp. 319 – 323, 1990

    1990

  24. [32]

    Construction of higher order symplectic in- tegrators,

    H. Yoshida, “Construction of higher order symplectic in- tegrators,” Physics Letters A , vol. 150, no. 5, pp. 262 – 268, 1990

    1990

  25. [33]

    Numerical discretization of completely integrable nonlinear hamiltonian systems,

    S. Rexford and B. Erdelyi, “Numerical discretization of completely integrable nonlinear hamiltonian systems,” Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams, vol. 21, p. 114601, Nov 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    S. Y. Lee, Accelerator Physics. World Scientific Publish- ing, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    On the hamiltonian in- terpolation of near-to-the identity symplectic mappings with application to symplectic integration algorithms,

    G. Benettin and A. Giorgilli, “On the hamiltonian in- terpolation of near-to-the identity symplectic mappings with application to symplectic integration algorithms,” Journal of Statistical Physics , vol. 74, pp. 1117–1143, Mar 1994

    1994

  28. [36]

    H´ enon-Heiles Sin- gle Particle Dynamics at IOTA,

    S. A. Antipov and S. Nagaitsev, “H´ enon-Heiles Sin- gle Particle Dynamics at IOTA,” in Proc. of In- ternational Particle Accelerator Conference (IPAC’17), Copenhagen, Denmark, 14-19 May, 2017 , no. 8 in In- ternational Particle Accelerator Conference, (Geneva, Switzerland), p...

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    The applicability of the third integral of motion: Some numerical experiments,

    M. Henon and C. Heiles, “The applicability of the third integral of motion: Some numerical experiments,” Astro- nomical Journal, vol. 69, p. 73, Feb. 1964

    1964

  30. [38]

    Experimental Demonstration of the Henon-Heiles Quasi-Integrable System at IOTA,

    N. Kuklev, Y. Kim, S. Nagaitsev, A. Romanov, and A. Valishev, “Experimental Demonstration of the Henon-Heiles Quasi-Integrable System at IOTA,” in Proc. 10th International Particle Accelerator Confer- ence (IPAC’19), Melbourne, Ausralia, May 19-24, 2019 , no. 10 in Internation...

    2019

  31. [39]

    Synchrotron Ra- diation Beam Diagnostics for the Integrable Optics Test Accelerator,

    N. Kuklev, Y. Kim, and A. Romanov, “Synchrotron Ra- diation Beam Diagnostics for the Integrable Optics Test Accelerator,” in Proc. 9th International Particle Accel- erator Conference (IPAC’18), Vancouver, BC, Canada, April 29-May 4, 2018 , no. 9 in International Particle Ac- c...

    2018

  32. [40]

    OptiMX: Accelerator Optics Design Software

    “OptiMX: Accelerator Optics Design Software.” http: //home.fnal.gov/~ostiguy/OptiM/, July 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Landau damping of beam instabilities by electron lenses,

    V. Shiltsev, Y. Alexahin, A. Burov, and A. Vali- shev, “Landau damping of beam instabilities by electron lenses,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 119, p. 134802, Sep 2017

    2017

  34. [42]

    Tevatron electron lenses: Design and operation,

    V. Shiltsev, K. Bishofberger, V. Kamerdzhiev, S. Kozub, M. Kufer, G. Kuznetsov, A. Martinez, M. Olson, H. Pfef- fer, G. Saewert, V. Scarpine, A. Seryi, N. Solyak, V. Syt- nik, M. Tiunov, L. Tkachenko, D. Wildman, D. Wolff, and X.-L. Zhang, “Tevatron electron lenses: Design and ...

    2008

  35. [43]

    MADX: Methodical Accelerator Design Software

    “MADX: Methodical Accelerator Design Software.” http://cern.ch/madx, July 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.