Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Energy-optimized scaling laws for self-guided laser wakefield accelerators

T0 review · 3 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 The paper derives two power laws, depending on laser energy and wavelength alone, that fix the maximum electron energy and the shortest acceleration length of a self-guided laser wakefield accelerator.

desk verdict A competent BO+PIC study that delivers useful prefactors and optimal parameter formulas for self-guided LWFA, but the 'shortest acceleration length' claim goes beyond what was actually optimized, and the exponents merely reproduce known analytical scalings. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08903 v1 pith:374HWSHY submitted 2026-08-09 physics.plasm-ph physics.acc-phphysics.comp-ph

Petr Valenta , Marcel Lamač , Kyle G. Miller , Brandon K. Russell , Gabriele M. Grittani , Alec G. R. Thomas , Sergei V. Bulanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phphysics.acc-phphysics.comp-ph PACS 52.38.Kd52.65.Rr
keywords laserwakefieldaccelerationself-guidedpropagationscalinglawsBayesianoptimizationparticle-in-cellsimulationelectronbeamenergyplasmamatchingconditionsLorentz-boostedframe
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 aims to settle a practical question: given a laser with a certain energy and wavelength, what is the highest electron energy a self-guided laser wakefield accelerator can produce, and how long must the plasma be to reach it? It claims that, for laser energies of 0.1–1.6 J and wavelengths of 0.6–1.4 µm, both answers are power laws in the ratio $E_0/\mathcal{E}$ and in nothing else. The maximum energy scales as $E^*/m_e c^2 \approx 3.81 (E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.58}$ and the shortest acceleration length as $\ell^*/\lambda_0 \approx 0.78 (E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.84}$, with $\mathcal{E}=m_e c^2\lambda_0/r_e$. A sympathetic reader would care because these formulas turn a multidimensional optimization problem into a two-line design rule, and the paper also provides the laser amplitude, waist, pulse duration, and plasma density needed to realize the optimum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the matched self-guided regime: the two matching conditions $k_p w_0\approx2\sqrt{a_0}$ and $a_0\approx2(P_0/P_\mathrm{cr})^{1/3}$ reduce the full laser–plasma design problem to the dimensionless plane $(P_0/P_\mathrm{cr},\,\tau_0\omega_p)$. Bayesian optimization with a Gaussian-process surrogate explores that plane, each evaluation being a quasi-3D particle-in-cell simulation in a Lorentz-boosted frame, and extracts the maximum electron energy and the distance at which it is reached. The optima found for ten energy–wavelength pairs are then least-squares fitted to power laws in $E_0/\mathcal{E}$, yielding Eqs. (9); substituting the fitted optimal values of $P_0/P_\mathrm{cr}$ and $\tau_0\omega_p$ into the normalized parameter relations produces Eqs. (13)–(16). A secondary result is the cycloid relation $\ell_\mathrm{inst}/\ell_\mathrm{acc}=\alpha\arccos(1-\alpha^{-1}E_{e,\mathrm{inst}}/E_{e,\max})-\sqrt{\cdots}$, with $\alpha\approx0.58$, which describes how the electron energy grows along the acceleration length.

What would settle it

Take the predicted optimum for a 1 J, 1 µm laser ($a_0\approx3.5$, $w_0\approx12.8\,\mu$m, $\tau_0\approx22.2$ fs, $n_e\approx2.7\times10^{18}$ cm$^{-3}$) and measure the maximum electron energy in a high-resolution simulation or experiment: if it is not close to the predicted 833 MeV, or if any parameter combination outside the box $2\le P_0/P_\mathrm{cr}\le8$, $1\le\tau_0\omega_p\le5$ beats that energy, the scaling law fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, within the matched self-guided regime and for the stated ranges, the performance limit of a laser wakefield accelerator is controlled by a single dimensionless combination, $E_0/\mathcal{E}$, where $\mathcal{E}=m_e c^2\lambda_0/r_e\approx 29\,\mu$J for $\lambda_0=1\,\mu$m. The paper obtains $E^*/m_e c^2\approx 3.81 (E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.58}$ and $\ell^*/\lambda_0\approx 0.78 (E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.84}$ from Bayesian optimization over $(P_0/P_\mathrm{cr},\tau_0\omega_p)$ guided by 128 particle-in-cell simulations per laser energy–wavelength pair. It further gives the optimal input parameters $a_{0,\mathrm{opt}}\approx1.85(E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.06}$, $w_{0,\mathrm{opt}}/\lambda_0\approx0.62(E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.29}$, $\tau_{0,\mathrm{opt}}/T_0\approx0.29(E_0/\mathcal{E})^{0.3}$, and $n_{e,\mathrm{opt}}/n_\mathrm{cr}\approx0.49(E_0/\mathcal{E})^{-0.51}$. The stated scaling exponents match the exponents of the classic analytical model once the optimal parameters are inserted, while the prefactors are set by the simulations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the true performance optimum lies inside the matched self-guided regime with fixed search bounds $2\le P_0/P_\mathrm{cr}\le 8$ and $1\le\tau_0\omega_p\le5$; the paper itself says the identified maximum 'does not necessarily represent the global maximum.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a 1 J, 1 µm driver the formulas predict a maximum electron energy of about 833 MeV reached in about 5.1 mm.
  • Doubling the laser energy raises the maximum energy by a factor of about 1.5 and the required acceleration length by about 1.8.
  • Halving the laser wavelength gives the same energy gain while actually shortening the acceleration length by a factor of about 0.9.
  • Electrons reach half their maximum energy after only 26% of the acceleration length and 75% after 53%, so a compact source can be shorter than the full design length.
  • The optimal input parameters in Eqs. (13)–(16) give a concrete experimental recipe at any energy–wavelength pair in the stated range.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the optimization was confined to the box defined by Eq. (8), the scaling laws describe the best configuration inside that box; more exotic pulse shapes, tailored plasma profiles, or staged schemes could plausibly push the limits higher.
  • The surrogate models reveal a broad near-optimum ridge in parameter space, which suggests that small deviations from the optimal parameters cost little energy—useful for real lasers with imperfect control.
  • The deviations seen at 0.1 J hint that few-cycle effects and pump-depletion dynamics change the optimum at low energies, so extending the laws below 0.1 J or to very short pulses would need fresh simulations.
  • If the same optimization were done for externally guided acceleration or for beam-quality metrics, the exponents would likely shift; the energy-only law is a first piece of a broader design map.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper combines Bayesian optimization with quasi-3D OSIRIS particle-in-cell simulations, run mostly in a Lorentz-boosted frame, to maximize the electron energy in self-guided laser wakefield accelerators. For laser energies 0.1–1.6 J and wavelengths 0.6–1.4 μm, under the matched self-guided regime and fixed search bounds 2 ≤ P0/Pcr ≤ 8 and 1 ≤ τ0ωp ≤ 5, the authors extract the maximum electron energy E* and the associated acceleration length l* from surrogate models. Their central result is Eq. (9): E*/m_ec^2 ≈ 3.81 (E0/E)^0.58 and l*/λ0 ≈ 0.78 (E0/E)^0.84, with E = m_ec^2 λ0/r_e. They also provide optimized input parameters in Eqs. (11)–(16) and a cycloid relation between instantaneous energy and distance in Eq. (10). The scaling exponents are checked against the analytical model of Ref. 49, and higher-fidelity lab-frame simulations are used to assess the accuracy of the fitted formulas.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper delivers compact, practical scaling laws for self-guided LWFA that depend only on laser energy and wavelength, which would be genuinely useful for experiment design. The strengths of the work include a systematic Bayesian optimization over 128 trials per energy–wavelength pair, explicit surrogate-model fits, consistency of the fitted exponents with the analytical scaling of Ref. 49, and additional higher-fidelity simulations to quantify frame effects. The prefactors are determined from PIC simulations and therefore incorporate nonlinear physics beyond simple analytical models. The main weaknesses are that the 'shortest acceleration length' assertion is not supported by the energy-only optimization, and that the results are presented as fundamental performance limits despite being maxima within a fixed, matched-parameter box. These issues are fixable by refined wording or additional analysis and do not invalidate the scaling-law structure itself.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, paragraph before Eq. (9)] The inference that l* represents the shortest acceleration length required to attain E* is not supported by the optimization procedure. The single optimization objective is Ee,max; as stated in the Methods, the acceleration length is recorded for post-analysis but is not included in the optimization objective. For the parameter set that maximizes energy, l* is the distance at which that parameter set reaches E*, but nothing in the optimization rules out another point within the same box reaching the same E* in a shorter distance. The abstract's phrase 'highest electron energy over the shortest acceleration length possible' and the l* relation in Eq. (9) therefore overstate what was actually optimized. Please either rephrase these claims as 'the acceleration length of the energy-optimized configuration' or support the 'shortest' claim with a genuine Pareto or multi-objective optimization.
  2. [Introduction, assumptions (i)–(iv); Methods, Eq. (8)] The E* and l* values are maxima only within the matched self-guided regime and within the fixed bounds 2 ≤ P0/Pcr ≤ 8 and 1 ≤ τ0ωp ≤ 5. The introduction correctly acknowledges that the identified maximum does not necessarily represent the global maximum, but the abstract and Discussion use stronger language, including 'fundamental performance limits' and 'highest electron energy over the shortest acceleration length possible.' These statements exceed the evidence. Please limit all performance-limit claims to the specified regime, parameter ranges, and bounds, or provide additional optimizations that test whether the optimum moves outside the current box.
  3. [Discussion, higher-fidelity simulations] The lab-frame verification simulations at each identified optimum show that the boosted-frame results used to construct Eq. (9) underestimate E* by factors of 1.08–1.16 and overestimate l* by factors of 0.91–0.97. These systematic differences are reported but are not incorporated into the fitted constants of Eq. (9); the heuristic exponent and prefactor corrections given in the Discussion are order-of-magnitude estimates rather than a revised fit. Because Eq. (9) is presented with two significant figures, the unquantified systematic errors of roughly 8–16% in energy and 3–9% in length should be addressed. Please either refit Eq. (9) to the lab-frame values or report the scaling laws with explicit systematic uncertainties and discuss the resulting uncertainty in the exponents and prefactors.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] The phrase 'arbitrary energy and wavelength' in the summary statement conflicts with the restricted ranges given in Eq. (7); please revise to 'within the studied ranges of laser energy and wavelength.'
  2. [Figures 2 and 3] The captions refer to the red star as 'the point corresponding to the highest electron energy predicted by the surrogate model,' but in the lower panels the red star marks l* at that energy-optimal point; please clarify this distinction in the captions.
  3. [Eq. (10)] Please state the range of Ee,inst/Ee,max over which the cycloid fit is valid and provide the uncertainty on the fitted parameter α≈0.58, since the figure shows a mean over trials but no scatter.
  4. [Table 1] The tabulated E* and l* values are given without uncertainties; please add error bars or state explicitly that these are surrogate-model point predictions with no quantified fit uncertainty.
  5. [Methods, acceleration length definition] Please define precisely how the acceleration length is measured, including whether the 10 μm density ramp is included in the propagation distance and how the moving window affects the recorded length; this matters for the absolute prefactors in Eq. (9).
  6. [Eq. (12)] The fit for τ* excludes the 0.1 J case, and the text notes a reversal at low energies; please quantify how much the exponent and prefactor change if the 0.1 J point is included, since the resulting discontinuity affects the claimed generality of Eq. (12).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The E* energy scaling and optimal parameters are independent PIC-surrogate fits, but the claimed 'shortest acceleration length' l* is the post-hoc distance at the energy-optimum trial, renamed as a length-optimized prediction.

  1. self definitional [Results, 'Energy-optimized scaling laws' (before Eq. 9); Methods, 'Bayesian optimization']
    "This quantity is not an independent optimization objective but an analyzed parameter associated with the optimized electron energy E*. Because E* is reached at this distance, l* also represents the shortest acceleration length required to attain the optimized energy under the imposed assumptions. ... the acceleration length, defined as the propagation distance in plasma at which the maximum electron energy is attained, is recorded for post-analysis but is not included in the optimization objective."

    The only optimization objective is Ee,max; lacc is recorded post hoc. l* is therefore by construction the distance at which the selected energy-maximizing parameter set reaches E*, not the minimum over the (P0/Pcr, tau0*omega_p) box. The claim that 'l* also represents the shortest acceleration length' adds a length minimization that was never performed. The l* relation in Eq. (9) is presented as a prediction of the shortest possible length, but it is the post-hoc length of the energy-optimized trial, so the 'shortest' predicate is a label on the input (the E* trial) rather than a derived result. The abstract's 'shortest acceleration length possible' inherits this construction.

full rationale

The maximum-energy scaling E*/m_e c^2 ~ 3.81 (E0/E)^0.58 and the optimal parameter scalings Eqs. (13)-(16) are obtained from Gaussian-process surrogate fits to independent PIC simulations; they are not defined in terms of the target results, and the consistency check against Ref. 49 is an external analytical comparison, not a derivation from the target. The self-citations to Refs. 39 and 40 supply the search box and matching conditions, but those are prior published, externally falsifiable results and are explicitly acknowledged as restricting the search, so they do not make the energy scaling circular. The remaining circularity is in the length claim: the paper optimizes only energy, then renames the recorded distance at the energy optimum as 'shortest acceleration length.' Eq. (9)'s l* relation therefore reduces by construction to the post-hoc distance of the energy-optimized trial, and the 'shortest' wording in the abstract is not supported by any length optimization.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling laws rest on a small number of simulation-based fits plus three domain assumptions: the matched self-guided regime, passive test electrons, and the accuracy of the quasi-3D boosted-frame simulations. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the fitted prefactors and exponents of the scaling laws and the a priori optimization bounds.

free parameters (8)
  • E* prefactor (Eq. 9) = 3.81
    Fitted by least squares to the peak electron energies predicted by the Bayesian-optimization surrogate models across laser energies and wavelengths.
  • E* exponent (Eq. 9) = 0.58
    Fitted to the same surrogate maxima; consistent with the analytical exponent 0.57 from Ref. 49.
  • l* prefactor (Eq. 9) = 0.78
    Fitted to the acceleration lengths at which the optimized energies are reached.
  • l* exponent (Eq. 9) = 0.84
    Fitted to the same lengths; close to the analytical exponent 0.8 from Ref. 49.
  • P* prefactor and exponent (Eq. 11) = 0.79, 0.19
    Least-squares fit to the optimal P0/Pcr values; the exponent differs from the analytical 2/7 ~ 0.29.
  • tau* prefactor and exponent (Eq. 12) = 1.29, 0.05
    Least-squares fit to the optimal tau0*omega_p values, excluding the 0.1 J case.
  • Cycloid alpha (Eq. 10) = 0.58
    Fitted to the mean instantaneous-energy versus acceleration-length trajectories from all PIC trials.
  • Optimization bounds P0/Pcr and tau0*omega_p = P0/Pcr in [2,8], tau0*omega_p in [1,5]
    Chosen a priori from prior work by the same group (Refs. 39,40); if the true optimum lies outside, the scaling laws would miss it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Matching conditions (Eq. 2) describe the optimal operating point for self-guided LWFA.
    The optimization is restricted to pulses satisfying kp*w0 ~ 2*sqrt(a0) and a0 ~ 2*(P0/Pcr)^(1/3), based on Refs. 48,49 and the authors' prior work Ref. 40. Under this assumption, the search reduces to two dimensionless parameters.
  • domain assumption Test electrons act as passive tracers with no beam loading.
    Electrons are externally injected and do not contribute current to the plasma; valid 'well below the beam-loading threshold' (Methods). If beam loading were significant, the optimized parameters and energies would change with charge.
  • domain assumption Quasi-3D PIC with two azimuthal modes and Lorentz-boosted frame accurately captures the acceleration dynamics.
    The bulk of simulations use OSIRIS quasi-3D with two modes and an optimally chosen boosted frame. The authors validate at the optima with higher-fidelity lab-frame runs, which show 8-16% energy differences, indicating residual frame/numerical effects.
  • domain assumption Cold, collisionless plasma with uniform density and Gaussian laser pulse with constant spectral phase.
    These are the stated assumptions (i)-(iv) in the Introduction that reduce the parameter space; more complex configurations could yield higher energies.
  • domain assumption The maximum electron energy in the top 1% of test-particle energies defines the objective.
    The single objective is the maximum energy of the top 1% of test electrons in the first plasma-wave period; other beam qualities (charge, spread, divergence) are explicitly left out.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-optimized scaling laws for self-guided laser wakefield accelerators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/374HWSHY

@misc{pith2026260808903,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-optimized scaling laws for self-guided laser wakefield accelerators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/374HWSHY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08903}
}
read the original abstract

Laser wakefield acceleration promises compact electron accelerators for applications in medicine, industry, and fundamental science. Yet, despite rapid progress, accurately predicting the electron energy attainable in a given experimental configuration and the acceleration length required to reach it remains an open challenge. Here we use Bayesian optimization combined with advanced particle-in-cell simulation techniques to determine the maximum electron energy that a self-guided laser wakefield accelerator driven by a laser of a given energy and wavelength can produce. By systematically optimizing the accelerator performance across a range of laser energies and wavelengths, we derive energy-optimized scaling laws. These scaling laws yield the highest electron energy over the shortest acceleration length possible, are expressed solely in terms of laser energy and wavelength, and are accompanied by the complete set of laser and plasma parameters required to enable the scaling. The resulting scaling laws provide practical guidance for designing state-of-the-art laser wakefield acceleration experiments operating at their fundamental performance limits.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08903 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. | Snapshot of a representative PIC simulation. Spatial distributions of the laser intensity, I, electron density, ne, and energy of accelerated electrons, Ee, at the time instant t ≈ 300 T0, obtained from the simulation with input parameters closest to the optimum identified by BO for a laser pulse with energy E0 = 0.4 J and wavelength λ0 = 1 µm. Only test-electron macroparticles with energies within the upper 10% o… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. | Optimization with respect to laser energy. Mean functions of the surrogate models for the maximum electron energy, Ee,max, (upper plots) and the acceleration length, lacc, (lower plots), each constructed from 128 PIC simulations at fixed laser wavelength, λ0 = 1 µm, and varying laser energy E0; (a) E0 = 0.1 J, (b) E0 = 0.2 J, (c) E0 = 0.4 J, (d) E0 = 0.8 J, and (e) E0 = 1.6 J. In each panel, the dots indicate the … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. | Optimization with respect to laser wavelength. Mean functions of the surrogate models for the maximum electron energy, Ee,max, (upper plots) and the acceleration length, lacc, (lower plots), each constructed from 128 PIC simulations at fixed laser energy, E0 = 0.4 J, and varying laser wavelength λ0; (a) λ0 = 0.6 µm, (b) λ0 = 0.8 µm, (c) λ0 = 1 µm, (d) λ0 = 1.2 µm, and (e) λ0 = 1.4 µm. In each panel, the dots indic… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: | Energy-optimized scaling laws. (a) Maximum electron energy, E ∗ , and (b) the corresponding shortest acceleration length, l ∗ , in self-guided LWFA as functions of laser energy, E0, and wavelength, λ0 given by Eqs. (9). In panels (a) and (b), the upper plots show lin…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Dawson, J

    Tajima, T. & Dawson, J. M. Laser electron accelerator.Phys. Rev. Lett.43, 267–270, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.43.267 (1979)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.43.267 1979

  2. [2]

    Phys.4, 447–453, DOI: 10.1038/nphys966 (2008)

    Malka, V .et al.Principles and applications of compact laser–plasma accelerators.Nat. Phys.4, 447–453, DOI: 10.1038/nphys966 (2008)

    doi:10.1038/nphys966 2008

  3. [3]

    Esarey, E., Schroeder, C. B. & Leemans, W. P. Physics of laser-driven plasma-based electron accelerators.Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 1229–1285, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1229 (2009)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.1229 2009

  4. [4]

    V .et al.On some theoretical problems of laser wake-field accelerators.J

    Bulanov, S. V .et al.On some theoretical problems of laser wake-field accelerators.J. Plasma Phys.82, 905820308, DOI: 10.1017/S0022377816000623 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022377816000623 2016

  5. [5]

    & Bulanov, S.High Power Laser and Plasma Science, vol

    Kato, Y ., Mima, K. & Bulanov, S.High Power Laser and Plasma Science, vol. 130 ofSpringer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics(Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2026)

    2026

  6. [6]

    J.et al.Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide.Phys

    Gonsalves, A. J.et al.Petawatt Laser Guiding and Electron Beam Acceleration to 8 GeV in a Laser-Heated Capillary Discharge Waveguide.Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 084801, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.084801 (2019)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.122.084801 2019

  7. [7]

    at Extrem.9, 014001, DOI: 10.1063/5.0161687 (2023)

    Aniculaesei, C.et al.The acceleration of a high-charge electron bunch to 10 GeV in a 10-cm nanoparticle-assisted wakefield accelerator.Matter Radiat. at Extrem.9, 014001, DOI: 10.1063/5.0161687 (2023)

    doi:10.1063/5.0161687 2023

  8. [8]

    Picksley, A.et al.Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark-Current-Free, 10-GeV-Class, Channel-Guided Laser-Plasma Accelerators.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 255001, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.255001 (2024)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.255001 2024

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    P.et al.Demonstration of a beam loaded nanocoulomb-class laser wakefield accelerator.Nat

    Couperus, J. P.et al.Demonstration of a beam loaded nanocoulomb-class laser wakefield accelerator.Nat. Commun.8, 487, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-00592-7 (2017)

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Plasmas32, 053102, DOI: 10.1063/5.0265640 (2025)

    Rockafellow, E.et al.Development of a high charge 10 GeV laser electron accelerator.Phys. Plasmas32, 053102, DOI: 10.1063/5.0265640 (2025)

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    Photonics11, 293–296, DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2017.46 (2017)

    Guénot, D.et al.Relativistic electron beams driven by kHz single-cycle light pulses.Nat. Photonics11, 293–296, DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2017.46 (2017)

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Faure, J.et al.A review of recent progress on laser-plasma acceleration at kHz repetition rate.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion61, 014012, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6587/aae047 (2018)

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    & Milchberg, H

    Salehi, F., Le, M., Railing, L., Kolesik, M. & Milchberg, H. M. Laser-Accelerated, Low-Divergence 15-MeV Quasimo- noenergetic Electron Bunches at 1 kHz.Phys. Rev. X11, 021055, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021055 (2021)

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    M.et al.Ultrarelativistic electron beams accelerated by terawatt scalable kHz laser.Phys

    Lazzarini, C. M.et al.Ultrarelativistic electron beams accelerated by terawatt scalable kHz laser.Phys. Plasmas31, 030703, DOI: 10.1063/5.0189051 (2024)

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Grüner, F.et al.Design considerations for table-top, laser-based VUV and X-ray free electron lasers.Appl. Phys. B86, 431–435, DOI: 10.1007/s00340-006-2565-7 (2007)

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Corde, S.et al.Femtosecond x rays from laser-plasma accelerators.Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 1–48, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys. 85.1 (2013). 17.Bulanov, S. V ., Esirkepov, T. Zh., Kando, M., Pirozhkov, A. S. & Rosanov, N. N. Relativistic mirrors in plasmas. Novel results and perspectives.P...

    2013

  9. [18]

    Albert, F.et al.Laser wakefield accelerator based light sources: Potential applications and requirements.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion56, 084015, DOI: 10.1088/0741-3335/56/8/084015 (2014)

    2014 doi

  10. [19]

    Kurz, T.et al.Demonstration of a compact plasma accelerator powered by laser-accelerated electron beams.Nat. Commun. 12, 2895, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-23000-7 (2021)

    2021 doi

  11. [20]

    J., Pollock, B

    Williams, G. J., Pollock, B. B., Albert, F., Park, J. & Chen, H. Positron generation using laser-wakefield electron sources. Phys. Plasmas22, 093115, DOI: 10.1063/1.4931044 (2015). 10/14

    2015 doi

  12. [21]

    Streeter, M. J. V .et al.Narrow bandwidth, low-emittance positron beams from a laser-wakefield accelerator.Sci. Reports 14, 6001, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-56281-1 (2024)

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    Zhang, F.et al.Proof-of-principle demonstration of muon production with an ultrashort high-intensity laser.Nat. Phys. 21, 1050–1056, DOI: 10.1038/s41567-025-02872-2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  14. [23]

    D.et al.Laser based 100 GeV electron acceleration scheme for muon production.Sci

    Ludwig, J. D.et al.Laser based 100 GeV electron acceleration scheme for muon production.Sci. Reports15, 25902, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-95440-w (2025)

    2025 doi

  15. [24]

    Terzani, D.et al.Measurement of directional muon beams generated at the berkeley lab laser accelerator.Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams28, 103401, DOI: 10.1103/kxjr-h7zs (2025)

    2025 doi

  16. [25]

    Calvin, L.et al.Experimental evidence of production of directional muons from a laser-wakefield accelerator.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion68, 035015, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6587/ae4d05 (2026)

    2026 doi

  17. [26]

    Photonics11, 514–520, DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2017.100 (2017)

    Yan, W.et al.High-order multiphoton Thomson scattering.Nat. Photonics11, 514–520, DOI: 10.1038/nphoton.2017.100 (2017)

    2017 doi

  18. [27]

    M.et al.Experimental Evidence of Radiation Reaction in the Collision of a High-Intensity Laser Pulse with a Laser-Wakefield Accelerated Electron Beam.Phys

    Cole, J. M.et al.Experimental Evidence of Radiation Reaction in the Collision of a High-Intensity Laser Pulse with a Laser-Wakefield Accelerated Electron Beam.Phys. Rev. X8, 011020, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.011020 (2018)

    2018 doi

  19. [28]

    Poder, K.et al.Experimental Signatures of the Quantum Nature of Radiation Reaction in the Field of an Ultraintense Laser.Phys. Rev. X8, 031004, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031004 (2018)

    2018 doi

  20. [29]

    G., Marklund, M

    Gonoskov, A., Blackburn, T. G., Marklund, M. & Bulanov, S. S. Charged particle motion and radiation in strong electromagnetic fields.Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 045001, DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.94.045001 (2022)

    2022 doi

  21. [30]

    K.et al.Ultrafast relativistic electron probing of extreme magnetic fields.Phys

    Russell, B. K.et al.Ultrafast relativistic electron probing of extreme magnetic fields.Phys. Plasmas30, 093105, DOI: 10.1063/5.0163392 (2023)

    2023 doi

  22. [31]

    Photonics18, 1212–1217, DOI: 10.1038/s41566-024-01550-8 (2024)

    Mirzaie, M.et al.All-optical nonlinear Compton scattering performed with a multi-petawatt laser.Nat. Photonics18, 1212–1217, DOI: 10.1038/s41566-024-01550-8 (2024)

    2024 doi

  23. [32]

    K.et al.Measuring signatures in photon angular spectra to distinguish nonlinear Compton scattering models

    Russell, B. K.et al.Measuring signatures in photon angular spectra to distinguish nonlinear Compton scattering models. Phys. Rev. A110, 062822, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.110.062822 (2024)

    2024 doi

  24. [33]

    J.et al.Automation and control of laser wakefield accelerators using Bayesian optimization.Nat

    Shalloo, R. J.et al.Automation and control of laser wakefield accelerators using Bayesian optimization.Nat. Commun. 11, 6355, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20245-6 (2020)

    2020 doi

  25. [34]

    Jalas, S.et al.Bayesian Optimization of a Laser-Plasma Accelerator.Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 104801, DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.104801 (2021)

    2021

  26. [35]

    Kirchen, M.et al.Optimal Beam Loading in a Laser-Plasma Accelerator.Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 174801, DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.126.174801 (2021)

    2021

  27. [36]

    Döpp, A.et al.Data-driven science and machine learning methods in laser–plasma physics.High Power Laser Sci. Eng. 11, e55, DOI: 10.1017/hpl.2023.47 (2023)

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Roussel, R.et al.Bayesian optimization algorithms for accelerator physics.Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams27, 084801, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.27.084801 (2024)

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    Irshad, F.et al.Pareto Optimization and Tuning of a Laser Wakefield Accelerator.Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 085001, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.085001 (2024)

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    Zh., Ludwig, J

    Valenta, P., Esirkepov, T. Zh., Ludwig, J. D., Wilks, S. C. & Bulanov, S. V . Bayesian optimization of electron energy from laser wakefield accelerators.Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams28, 094601, DOI: 10.1103/knh7-hbr3 (2025)

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    Valenta, P.et al.Optimized matching conditions for self-guided laser wakefield accelerators.Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol. 7, 025030, DOI: 10.1088/2632-2153/ae51e0 (2026)

    2026 doi

  32. [41]

    Maslarova, D.et al.Batch Bayesian optimization of attosecond betatron pulses from laser wakefield acceleration. Commun. Phys.9, 92, DOI: 10.1038/s42005-026-02542-6 (2026)

    2026 doi

  33. [42]

    Sun, G.-Z., Ott, E., Lee, Y . C. & Guzdar, P. Self-focusing of short intense pulses in plasmas.Phys. Fluids30, 526, DOI: 10.1063/1.866349 (1987)

    1987 doi

  34. [43]

    M., Bulanov, S

    Naumova, N. M., Bulanov, S. V ., Nishihara, K., Esirkepov, T. Zh. & Pegoraro, F. Polarization effects and anisotropy in three-dimensional relativistic self-focusing.Phys. Rev. E65, 045402, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.65.045402 (2002)

    2002 doi

  35. [44]

    M., Lazzarini, C

    Valenta, P., Grittani, G. M., Lazzarini, C. M., Klimo, O. & Bulanov, S. V . On the electromagnetic-electron rings originating from the interaction of high-power short-pulse laser and underdense plasma.Phys. Plasmas28, 122104, DOI: 10.1063/5.0065167 (2021). 11/14

    2021 doi

  36. [45]

    V ., Lontano, M., Esirkepov, T

    Bulanov, S. V ., Lontano, M., Esirkepov, T. Zh., Pegoraro, F. & Pukhov, A. M. Electron vortices produced by ultraintense laser pulses.Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 3562–3565, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.3562 (1996)

    1996 doi

  37. [46]

    V ., Esirkepov, T

    Bulanov, S. V ., Esirkepov, T. Zh., Naumova, N. M., Pegoraro, F. & Vshivkov, V . A. Solitonlike electromagnetic waves behind a superintense laser pulse in a plasma.Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 3440–3443, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3440 (1999)

    1999 doi

  38. [47]

    Zh., Nishihara, K., Bulanov, S

    Esirkepov, T. Zh., Nishihara, K., Bulanov, S. V . & Pegoraro, F. Three-dimensional relativistic electromagnetic subcycle solitons.Phys. Rev. Lett.89, 275002, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.275002 (2002)

    2002 doi

  39. [48]

    Lu, W., Huang, C., Zhou, M., Mori, W. B. & Katsouleas, T. Nonlinear theory for relativistic plasma wakefields in the blowout regime.Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 165002, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.165002 (2006)

    2006 doi

  40. [49]

    Lu, W.et al.Generating multi-GeV electron bunches using single stage laser wakefield acceleration in a 3D nonlinear regime.Phys. Rev. Special Top. - Accel. Beams10, 61301, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.10.061301 (2007)

    2007 doi

  41. [50]

    & Kiselev, S

    Kostyukov, I., Pukhov, A. & Kiselev, S. Phenomenological theory of laser-plasma interaction in “bubble” regime.Phys. Plasmas11, 5256–5264, DOI: 10.1063/1.1799371 (2004)

    2004 doi

  42. [51]

    & Pukhov, A

    Gordienko, S. & Pukhov, A. Scalings for ultrarelativistic laser plasmas and quasimonoenergetic electrons.Phys. Plasmas 12, 043109, DOI: 10.1063/1.1884126 (2005)

    2005 doi

  43. [52]

    Plasmas16, 056705, DOI: 10.1063/1

    Tzoufras, M.et al.Beam loading by electrons in nonlinear plasma wakes.Phys. Plasmas16, 056705, DOI: 10.1063/1. 3118628 (2009)

    2009 doi

  44. [53]

    B., Esarey, E., Geddes, C

    Schroeder, C. B., Esarey, E., Geddes, C. G. R., Benedetti, C. & Leemans, W. P. Physics considerations for laser-plasma linear colliders.Phys. Rev. Special Top. - Accel. Beams13, 101301, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevSTAB.13.101301 (2010)

    2010 doi

  45. [54]

    A., Khudik, V ., Siemon, C

    Yi, S. A., Khudik, V ., Siemon, C. & Shvets, G. Analytic model of electromagnetic fields around a plasma bubble in the blow-out regime.Phys. Plasmas20, 013108, DOI: 10.1063/1.4775774 (2013)

    2013 doi

  46. [55]

    1805.08761

    Davidson, A.et al.Optimizing Laser Wakefield Acceleration in the Nonlinear Self-Guided Regime for Fixed Laser Energy, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1805.08761 (2019). 1805.08761

    2019 doi arXiv

  47. [56]

    N.et al.A multi-sheath model for highly nonlinear plasma wakefields.Phys

    Dalichaouch, T. N.et al.A multi-sheath model for highly nonlinear plasma wakefields.Phys. Plasmas28, 063103, DOI: 10.1063/5.0051282 (2021)

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    Yu., Pukhov, A

    Golovanov, A., Kostyukov, I. Yu., Pukhov, A. & Malka, V . Energy-Conserving Theory of the Blowout Regime of Plasma Wakefield.Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 105001, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.105001 (2023)

    2023 doi

  49. [58]

    F.et al.Particle-in-Cell modelling of laser–plasma interaction using Fourier decomposition.J

    Lifschitz, A. F.et al.Particle-in-Cell modelling of laser–plasma interaction using Fourier decomposition.J. Comput. Phys.228, 1803–1814, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2008.11.017 (2009)

    2009 doi

  50. [59]

    Davidson, A.et al.Implementation of a hybrid particle code with a PIC description in r–z and a gridless description in φ into OSIRIS.J. Comput. Phys.281, 1063–1077, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.10.064 (2015)

    2015 doi

  51. [60]

    Noninvariance of Space- and Time-Scale Ranges under a Lorentz Transformation and the Implications for the Study of Relativistic Interactions.Phys

    Vay, J.-L. Noninvariance of Space- and Time-Scale Ranges under a Lorentz Transformation and the Implications for the Study of Relativistic Interactions.Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 130405, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.130405 (2007)

    2007 doi

  52. [61]

    Yu, P.et al.Enabling Lorentz boosted frame particle-in-cell simulations of laser wakefield acceleration in quasi-3D geometry.J. Comput. Phys.316, 747–759, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.04.014 (2016)

    2016 doi

  53. [62]

    G., Rykovanov, S

    Nedorezov, V . G., Rykovanov, S. G. & Savel’ev, A. B. Nuclear photonics: Results and prospects.Physics-Uspekhi64, 1214–1237 (2021)

    2021

  54. [63]

    Kolenatý, D.et al.Electron-positron pairs and radioactive nuclei production by irradiation of high-Z target with gamma-photon flash generated by an ultra-intense laser in the lambda^3 regime.Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023124, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023124 (2022)

    2022 doi

  55. [64]

    Beaurepaire, B.et al.Effect of the Laser Wave Front in a Laser-Plasma Accelerator.Phys. Rev. X5, 031012, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031012 (2015)

    2015 doi

  56. [65]

    Reports13, 18466, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45737-5 (2023)

    Oumbarek Espinos, D.et al.Notable improvements on LWFA through precise laser wavefront tuning.Sci. Reports13, 18466, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-45737-5 (2023)

    2023 doi

  57. [66]

    Y ., Beck, A., Davoine, X., Lefebvre, E

    Kalmykov, S. Y ., Beck, A., Davoine, X., Lefebvre, E. & Shadwick, B. A. Laser plasma acceleration with a negatively chirped pulse: All-optical control over dark current in the blowout regime.New J. Phys.14, 033025, DOI: 10.1088/ 1367-2630/14/3/033025 (2012)

    2012

  58. [67]

    T.et al.Stable multi-GeV electron accelerator driven by waveform-controlled PW laser pulses.Sci

    Kim, H. T.et al.Stable multi-GeV electron accelerator driven by waveform-controlled PW laser pulses.Sci. Reports7, 10203, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-09267-1 (2017). 12/14

    2017 doi

  59. [68]

    V ., Kirsanov, V

    Bulanov, S. V ., Kirsanov, V . I., Pegoraro, F. & Sakharov, A. S. Charged particle and photon acceleration by wake field plasma waves in nonuniform plasmas.Laser Phys.3, 1078 (1993)

    1993

  60. [69]

    V .et al.Laser acceleration of charged particles in inhomogeneous plasmas I.Plasma Phys

    Bulanov, S. V .et al.Laser acceleration of charged particles in inhomogeneous plasmas I.Plasma Phys. Reports23, 259–269 (1997)

    1997

  61. [70]

    Sprangle, P.et al.Wakefield generation and GeV acceleration in tapered plasma channels.Phys. Rev. E63, 056405, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.63.056405 (2001)

    2001 doi

  62. [71]

    Guillaume, E.et al.Electron Rephasing in a Laser-Wakefield Accelerator.Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 155002, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.155002 (2015)

    2015 doi

  63. [72]

    Steinke, S.et al.Multistage coupling of independent laser-plasma accelerators.Nature530, 190–193, DOI: 10.1038/ nature16525 (2016)

    2016

  64. [73]

    Luo, J.et al.Multistage Coupling of Laser-Wakefield Accelerators with Curved Plasma Channels.Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 154801, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.154801 (2018)

    2018 doi

  65. [74]

    U.et al.Multi-GeV electron beam generation via two-stage laser wakefield acceleration.Sci

    Haq, R. U.et al.Multi-GeV electron beam generation via two-stage laser wakefield acceleration.Sci. Reports15, 42290, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-22766-w (2025)

    2025 doi

  66. [75]

    V ., Yamagiwa, M

    Esirkepov, T., Bulanov, S. V ., Yamagiwa, M. & Tajima, T. Electron, Positron, and Photon Wakefield Acceleration: Trapping, Wake Overtaking, and Ponderomotive Acceleration.Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 014803, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett. 96.014803 (2006)

    2006 doi

  67. [76]

    P.et al.Plasma guiding and wakefield generation for second-generation experiments.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci.24, 331–342, DOI: 10.1109/27.509997 (1996)

    Leemans, W. P.et al.Plasma guiding and wakefield generation for second-generation experiments.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci.24, 331–342, DOI: 10.1109/27.509997 (1996)

    1996 doi

  68. [77]

    Nerush, E. N. & Kostyukov, I. Yu. Carrier-envelope phase effects in plasma-based electron acceleration with few-cycle laser pulses.Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 035001, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.035001 (2009)

    2009 doi

  69. [78]

    Valenta, P.et al.Polarity reversal of wakefields driven by ultrashort pulse laser.Phys. Rev. E102, 53216, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.102.053216 (2020)

    2020 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Rovige, L., Vernier, A

    Huijts, J., Andriyash, I. A., Rovige, L., Vernier, A. & Faure, J. Identifying observable carrier-envelope phase effects in laser wakefield acceleration with near-Single-Cycle pulses.Phys. Plasmas28, 043101, DOI: 10.1063/5.0037925 (2021)

    2021 doi

  71. [80]

    M., Chen, P

    Wilks, S., Katsouleas, T., Dawson, J. M., Chen, P. & Su, J. J. Beam Loading in Plasma Waves.IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci.15, 210–217, DOI: 10.1109/TPS.1987.4316687 (1987)

    1987

  72. [81]

    Katsouleas, T., Wilks, S., Chen, P., Dawson, J. M. & Su, J. J. Beam loading in plasma accelerators.Part. Accel.22, 81–99 (1987)

    1987

  73. [82]

    A.et al.OSIRIS: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators

    Fonseca, R. A.et al.OSIRIS: A three-dimensional, fully relativistic particle in cell code for modeling plasma based accelerators. Computational Science — ICCS 2002, 342–351 (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002)

    2002

  74. [83]

    A.et al.One-to-one direct modeling of experiments and astrophysical scenarios: Pushing the envelope on kinetic plasma simulations.Plasma Phys

    Fonseca, R. A.et al.One-to-one direct modeling of experiments and astrophysical scenarios: Pushing the envelope on kinetic plasma simulations.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion50, 124034, DOI: 10.1088/0741-3335/50/12/124034 (2008)

    2008 doi

  75. [84]

    F., Fonseca, R

    Martins, S. F., Fonseca, R. A., Lu, W., Mori, W. B. & Silva, L. O. Exploring laser-wakefield-accelerator regimes for near- Term lasers using particle-in-cell simulation in Lorentz-boosted frames.Nat. Phys.6, 311–316, DOI: 10.1038/nphys1538 (2010)

    2010 doi

  76. [85]

    Yu, P.et al.Modeling of laser wakefield acceleration in Lorentz boosted frame using EM-PIC code with spectral solver.J. Comput. Phys.266, 124–138, DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2014.02.016 (2014)

    2014 doi

  77. [86]

    & Cros, B

    Massimo, F., Benedetti, C., Terzani, D., Beck, A. & Cros, B. Modeling laser-wakefield accelerators using the time- averaged ponderomotive approximation in a Lorentz boosted frame.Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion67, 065032, DOI: 10.1088/1361-6587/addc97 (2025)

    2025 doi

  78. [87]

    Boris, J. P. Relativistic plasma simulation - Optimization of a hybrid code. In Boris, J. P. & Shanny, R. A. (eds.) Proceedings of the F ourth Conference on Numerical Simulation of Plasmas, 3–67 (Naval Research Laboratory, 1971)

    1971

  79. [88]

    Li, F.et al.Controlling the numerical Cerenkov instability in PIC simulations using a customized finite difference Maxwell solver and a local FFT based current correction.Comput. Phys. Commun.214, 6–17, DOI: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.01.001 (2017)

    2017 doi

  80. [89]

    & Wild, S

    Hudson, S., Larson, J., Navarro, J.-L. & Wild, S. M. libEnsemble: A Library to Coordinate the Concurrent Evaluation of Dynamic Ensembles of Calculations.IEEE Transactions on Parallel Distributed Syst.33, 977–988, DOI: 10.1109/TPDS. 2021.3082815 (2022). 13/14

    2022

  81. [90]

    Ferran Pousa, A.et al.Bayesian optimization of laser-plasma accelerators assisted by reduced physical models.Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams26, 084601, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevAccelBeams.26.084601 (2023)

    2023 doi

  82. [91]

    Jalas, S.et al.Tuning curves for a laser-plasma accelerator.Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams26, 071302, DOI: 10.1103/ PhysRevAccelBeams.26.071302 (2023)

    2023

  83. [92]

    & Döpp, A

    Irshad, F., Karsch, S. & Döpp, A. Multi-objective and multi-fidelity Bayesian optimization of laser-plasma acceleration. Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013063, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.013063 (2023)

    2023 doi

  84. [93]

    S.et al.Bayesian optimization of laser wakefield acceleration in the self-modulated regime (SM-LWFA) aiming to produce molybdenum-99 via photonuclear reactions.Phys

    Nunes, B. S.et al.Bayesian optimization of laser wakefield acceleration in the self-modulated regime (SM-LWFA) aiming to produce molybdenum-99 via photonuclear reactions.Phys. Plasmas32, 033101, DOI: 10.1063/5.0244268 (2025). 94.Djordjevi ´c, B. Z.et al.Bayesian optimization o...

    2025 doi

  85. [96]

    Powell, M. J. D. Restart procedures for the conjugate gradient method.Math. Program.12, 241–254, DOI: 10.1007/ BF01593790 (1977)

    1977

  86. [97]

    & Fischer, P

    Auer, P., Cesa-Bianchi, N. & Fischer, P. Finite-time Analysis of the Multiarmed Bandit Problem.Mach. Learn.47, 235–256, DOI: 10.1023/A:1013689704352 (2002)

    2002 doi

  87. [98]

    T., Moriconi, R., Hutter, F

    Wilson, J. T., Moriconi, R., Hutter, F. & Deisenroth, M. P. The reparameterization trick for acquisition functions. arXiv:1712.00424DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1712.00424 (2017). 1712.00424

    2017 doi arXiv

  88. [99]

    & Hempel, R

    Clarke, L., Glendinning, I. & Hempel, R. The MPI Message Passing Interface Standard. In Decker, K. M. & Rehmann, R. M. (eds.)Programming Environments for Massively Parallel Distributed Systems, 213–218, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-0348-8534-8_21 (Birkhäuser, Basel, 1994)

    doi

  89. [100]

    Sobol’, I. M. On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals.USSR Comput. Math. Math. Phys.7, 86–112, DOI: 10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9 (1967). Acknowledgements This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the C...

    1967 doi

Pith tools

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