Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 27 references

Energy-resolved measurement of individual GeV muon tracks generated by electrons from a compact Laser-Plasma Accelerator

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First single-muon energy measurements from a laser-plasma accelerator

desk verdict Real first demonstration of single-muon tracking from an LPA, but the 'all muons ≥1 GeV within 1σ' claim is contradicted by their own example event and the energy scale rests on an offset fitted from the same ten tracks. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21830 v1 pith:3ZHNV6B7 submitted 2026-07-23 physics.acc-ph physics.app-ph

Davide Terzani , Luc Le Pottier , Stanimir Kisyov , Pranav Manoj , Ryan Heller , Maria Mironova , Alex Picksley , Joshua Stackhouse
show 12 more authors
Hai-En Tsai Raymond Li Timon Heim Maurice Garcia-Sciveres Carlo Benedetti John Valentine Kei Nakamura Anthony J. Gonsalves Jeroen van Tilborg Carl B. Schroeder Eric Esarey Cameron G. R. Geddes
This is my paper
classification physics.acc-phphysics.app-ph
keywords muonproductionlaser-plasmaacceleratorsingle-trackreconstructionenergy-resolvedmuonssiliconpixeltelescopemagneticspectrometeractive-sourcemuographyBethe-Heitler
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims the first single-track reconstruction and energy measurement of muons generated by a compact laser-plasma accelerator. Using a two-stack silicon pixel tracker telescope with a dipole magnet between the stacks, the authors recorded 39 muon trajectories, 10 of which passed through both stacks and yielded individual energy estimates. All 10 full-stack muons have reconstructed energies of at least about 1 GeV within one standard deviation, consistent with production by 10 GeV electrons that lose roughly 4 GeV in the intervening shielding. If true, this establishes that LPA-produced muon beams can be characterized on a track-by-track basis, a prerequisite for active-source muography in which scattering-angle and per-muon energy information shorten imaging times from months to days or hours.

What carries the argument

The central instrument is the muon telescope: two stacks of three silicon pixel detector planes, each tilted 30° to the beam axis so charge sharing across pixels gives an analog center with ~14.4 µm resolution, separated by a compact permanent-magnet dipole (mean field ~0.29 T over 151 mm). The momentum of a muon is extracted from the angular kick α between the straight incoming and outgoing tracks via the magnetic rigidity, pc ≃ 4.5×10^-2 B / sin α (GeV). The inter-stack angular offset θ_offset enters directly in α; it is calibrated from the 10 full-stack LPA muon tracks themselves using the assumption that the muon angular distribution is symmetric in the two transverse axes. The trigger r

What would settle it

Measure the inter-stack offset independently—for instance by surveying the telescope geometry after the vertical-to-horizontal rotation, or by recording cosmic-ray straight tracks with the telescope in its horizontal, LPA configuration—and recompute the momenta. If the difference from the assumed symmetric offset exceeds ~8 mrad, the energies would no longer be ≥1 GeV and the charge assignments would flip, invalidating the paper's central energy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that LPA-generated muons can be individually reconstructed and energy-resolved, rather than only detected as a statistically averaged shower excess. A muon is identified by three collinear hits in a stack of silicon planes; the magnetic bending angle α = θ_out − θ_inc − θ_offset between the incoming and outgoing stacks is converted to momentum through the rigidity relation pc ≈ 4.5×10^-2 B / sin α (GeV). The 10 full-stack events cluster at energies ≥1 GeV within one σα, with some charge-sign ambiguity, and the paper reads this as 'for the first time single track reconstruction and energy measurement of multi-GeV LPA-generated muons,' consistent with

Load-bearing premise

The energy scale for all ten full-stack muons rests on the inter-stack angular offset θ_offset, which is estimated from those same ten tracks under the assumption that the LPA muon angular distribution is symmetric in the horizontal and vertical directions; if the true offset differs by more than the ~2.7 mrad uncertainty, the claimed energies and charge labels shift materially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Track-based active-source muography becomes practical: each muon carries its own energy and direction, so density mapping of concealed objects can be done with far shorter exposures than cosmic-ray muography.
  • The technique offers a direct way to characterize and tune LPA muon sources, since per-track energy and direction data can be compared with converter simulations.
  • Raising the laser repetition rate from ~0.1 Hz to kHz scales the muon yield linearly, promising imaging acquisition on operational timescales.
  • The demonstrated insensitivity of silicon pixel trackers to burst-like secondary radiation validates this detector class for future high-flux LPA environments.
  • Energy-resolved muon tracking enables material-sensitive radiography, because energy loss and scattering depend on the density and atomic number of the object.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the energy scale is confirmed by an independent offset measurement, the same telescope could be used to map the LPA muon spectrum in detail, separating the directional Bethe-Heitler component from the isotropic pion-decay background.
  • A testable extension is to enlarge the detector acceptance (larger sensors or more stacks) and accumulate a few hundred full-stack events; the offset would then be determined by the non-bending axis alone, sharpening the energy resolution and resolving charge-sign assignments.
  • The same two-stack-plus-magnet geometry could be applied to cosmic-ray muons as a compact field-deployable muograph, though the small angular aperture would need to be widened to be competitive.
  • An independent determination of the inter-stack offset (e.g., via mechanical survey or cosmic tracks taken in the horizontal configuration) would confirm both the energy scale and the charge assignment, making the reported 1 GeV result robust.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a campaign at the BELLA Center in which muons produced by a laser-plasma accelerator (LPA) electron beam interacting with a thick dump were detected with a telescope of two stacks of three silicon pixel trackers separated by a Halbach dipole magnet. From 361 electron-beam candidates, 39 muon tracks were recorded, of which 10 traversed both stacks. For these full-stack events the magnetic bending angle is used, via Eq. (2), to estimate the muon kinetic energy. The authors claim the first single-track reconstruction and energy-resolved measurement of LPA-generated muons, with all 10 full-stack events showing E ≳ 1 GeV within one σα, and argue that this demonstrates the feasibility of track-based active-source muography.

Significance. If the energy claims hold, this is an important experimental milestone: it moves LPA-muon detection from statistical, shot-averaged observations to individual track reconstruction and momentum measurement. The use of established silicon pixel technology (ATLAS ITkPix), a clear magnetic-deflection scheme, and raw event displays with minimal background are strengths. The paper is also transparent about the limited statistics and detector acceptance. However, the central quantitative claim is weakened by an internal inconsistency between the reported example event and the summary statement, and by the calibration of the inter-stack offset on the same ten events used for the energy measurement. These issues must be resolved before the stated conclusions can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III (Figs. 5 and 6)] The headline claim that 'within one σα, all muons had energies E≳1 GeV' is contradicted by the first full-stack event shown in Fig. 5, which is described as having an estimated kinetic energy 0.4≲E≲1.0 GeV. Since Fig. 6's caption states that each event's energy range corresponds to angular variation of ±σα from the central value, the 1σ interval for this event extends down to 0.4 GeV. Please clarify whether the Fig. 5 range is indeed the ±σα interval and, if so, revise the abstract, Section III, and Conclusions accordingly. This is a direct internal inconsistency in the central result, not merely a wording issue.
  2. [Section III.D, Eq. (2) and Fig. 4] The momentum scale is set by the inter-stack angular offset θ_offset, which is fitted from the same 10 full-stack LPA muon events under the assumption that the muon angular distribution is symmetric in the horizontal and vertical axes. The quoted uncertainty σθ_offset ≈ 2.7 mrad is a sizable fraction of the ~13 mrad deflection expected for a 1 GeV muon in this magnet, and any bias in this offset shifts all extracted energies and charge assignments. The paper should provide an independent calibration of θ_offset (e.g., from a different data set or a mechanical survey) or at least present a sensitivity scan showing how the energy distribution and the E≳1 GeV claim change for θ_offset ± 1σ. The current procedure is a legitimate limitation, but it is load-bearing for the absolute energy scale.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II.B / Fig. 3] Spelling: 'Hallbach' in the Fig. 3 caption should be 'Halbach' to match the text.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption] The track-reconstruction software is named 'Corryvreckan' in Section II.D and the references, but 'Corrywreckan' in the Fig. 5 caption; please make the spelling consistent.
  3. [Section III (Fig. 6)] The exact definition of the 'energy range' would benefit from clarification: does the ±σα interval include both the track-slope uncertainty and the θ_offset uncertainty? How are the red, charge-ambiguous events' 'minimum energy' bounds computed? A sentence specifying the error propagation would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Section I] The phrase 'multi-GeV LPA-generated muons' in the Introduction refers to muon energies at production, while the measured kinetic energies are those after ~4 GeV loss in the shielding. Please make this distinction explicit to avoid apparent inconsistency with Fig. 5.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial self-reference in the energy calibration: the inter-stack angular offset used in Eq. (2) is estimated from the same 10 full-stack LPA muon events whose GeV energies are then reported, but the muon tracking itself is externally grounded.

  1. other [Section III.D (detector calibration), Eq. (2), Figs. 4 and 6]
    "We used the 10 full-stack muon tracks from the LPA to estimate this offset under the assumption that the angular distribution is expected to be symmetric along both the horizontal and vertical axes. ... The offset on the vertical (bending) axis is θ_offset = (−3.84 ± 8.45/√10) mrad. ... where α = θ_out − θ_inc − θ_offset is the deflection angle."

    The same 10 full-stack LPA muon events supply both the estimate of θ_offset (the average vertical misalignment, obtained under a symmetry assumption) and the deflections used in Eq. (2) to derive α and hence E. Since θ_offset is estimated from the same sample whose energies are then reported, the zero-point of the bending-angle scale is effectively fixed by the sample mean of those events. Any error in θ_offset coherently shifts every energy and charge assignment, and the quoted θ_offset uncertainty is itself computed from the same 10 events. Thus the absolute GeV energy scale is partly self-referential, even though the individual track spread and the muon identification are not forced by this calibration.

full rationale

The core measurement is not a derived prediction: muon tracks are reconstructed in six silicon detectors, the magnetic field is a known Halbach array, and Eqs. (1)–(3) are standard magnetic-rigidity relations. The GeV conclusion therefore has independent experimental content. The largest circularity concern is the inter-stack angular offset θ_offset. It is a nuisance parameter estimated from the same 10 full-stack LPA muon tracks (Section III.D) and then inserted into Eq. (2) to compute α and hence E for those same events. This makes the absolute energy scale partly self-referential: the zero of the bending angle is defined by the sample mean of the events being energy-analyzed, so a biased offset coherently shifts all energies and can even alter charge assignments. The reported uncertainty (±8.45/√10 mrad) is acknowledged, and the GeV claim is not fully forced by the centering, so this is partial rather than total circularity. Self-citations to [8] (previous muon detection, 4-GeV energy-loss estimate, background negligible) are used for context and consistency but are not the sole justification for the current track reconstruction, so they are not load-bearing. Separately, there is an internal consistency problem in the manuscript: Fig. 5 gives an estimated kinetic energy 0.4≲E≲1.0 GeV for one full-stack event while the text states 'within one σα, all muons had energies E≳1 GeV.' This is a correctness/contradiction issue, not a circularity, and is flagged here for the authors. The circularity score is 3: one calibration parameter derived from the same data enters the central energy determination, but individual tracks and the muon identification are independently grounded.

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

The central claim rests on standard accelerator physics plus several experimental assumptions. The main load-bearing free parameter is the inter-stack angular offset fitted from the same events used for the energy claim. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Inter-stack angular offset θ_offset (vertical/bending axis) = -3.84 ± 8.45/√10 mrad
    Used to define α = θ_out − θ_inc − θ_offset in Eq. (2); fitted from the same 10 full-stack LPA muon tracks by assuming the angular distribution is symmetric in horizontal and vertical axes (Section III.D, Figure 4). Directly sets the energy scale; if biased, all reported energies and charge assignments shift.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Magnetic rigidity relation Bρ = 3.36·pc (Eq. 1) relates bending angle to muon momentum.
    Standard accelerator physics used to extract momentum from the measured deflection in the known dipole field.
  • standard math Bethe-Heitler pair production and meson photoproduction are the muon production mechanisms in the beam dump (Section II.A).
    Standard QED/particle physics; not derived in this paper, but well-established background.
  • domain assumption The angular distribution of LPA-generated muons is symmetric along the horizontal and vertical axes (Section III.D).
    Used to fit θ_offset from the 10 LPA tracks. If this symmetry is violated, the calibration offset is biased and all energy estimates change.
  • domain assumption Muons lose approximately 4 GeV in traversing the dump and shielding (Section III, based on prior work [8]).
    Sets the electron-energy threshold for detectable muons and is used to assess consistency of measured energies with 10 GeV electrons.
  • domain assumption Cosmic-ray muon contribution is negligible when the telescope is horizontal (Section III).
    Used to attribute all full-stack tracks to LPA-generated muons; no quantitative cosmic-veto measurement is shown.
  • domain assumption A straight track through three planes in a stack uniquely identifies a muon against photon and secondary background (Section II.D).
    Plausible in the low-occupancy regime, but relies on shielding and trigger choices; background hits are identified by cluster size and lack of collinearity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy-resolved measurement of individual GeV muon tracks generated by electrons from a compact Laser-Plasma Accelerator." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ZHNV6B7

@misc{pith2026260721830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy-resolved measurement of individual GeV muon tracks generated by electrons from a compact Laser-Plasma Accelerator},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ZHNV6B7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21830}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, the possibility of LPA-produced muon beams has gained significant interest within the accelerator application community. Directional, multi-GeV muons can be produced via Bethe-Heitler interactions when multi-GeV electrons hit solid targets. They are highly penetrating and, thanks to the compactness of the LPA, offer a path toward a deployable, active muon source. At the BELLA Center of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, we previously unambiguously detected muons generated during the interaction of multi-GeV electron beams with a 4 meter-thick electron beam dump. A new campaign has now extended our diagnostic capabilities to single-muon trajectory reconstruction and energy measurements. The setup allowed us to individually reconstruct each muon trajectory, defined by us as a muon passing through three detectors used for the reconstruction. For a subset of events, we extracted the muon energy from the magnetic-field bending angle, demonstrating production of GeV-scale muons. This work provides a key demonstration of track-based active-source muography, which enables non-invasive 3D density mapping of concealed or inaccessible samples, and it will accelerate the development of active LPA-based muon sources where compactness, controlled directionality, low divergence, and deep penetration are required.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21830 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. With this system, we generated electron beams [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the apparatus used to generate and detect muons. A channel forming beam [18–23], and a drive laser beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Average electron beam spectrum derived from all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (Top) Picture of the muon telescope with the two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Histogram of the angular deflection ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two examples of muon tracks, one passing through both stacks the other passing through only one. The top two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Muon energies and uncertainties for the 10 full-stack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references

  1. [1]

    D. E. Groom, N. V. Mokhov, and S. I. Striganov, Muon stopping power and range tables 10 MeV–100 TeV, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables78, 183 (2001)

    2001

  2. [2]

    Tanaka, K

    H. Tanaka, K. Nagamine, N. Kawamura, S. N. Naka- mura, K. Ishida, and K. Shimomura, Development of a two-fold segmented detection system for near horizon- tally cosmic-ray muons to probe the internal structure of a volcano, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment507, ...

    2003

  3. [3]

    Morishima, M

    K. Morishima, M. Kuno, A. Nishio, N. Kitagawa, Y. Manabe, M. Moto, F. Takasaki, H. Fujii, K. Satoh, H. Kodama, K. Hayashi, S. Odaka, S. Procureur, D. Atti´ e, S. Bouteille, D. Calvet, C. Filosa, P. Magnier, I. Mandjavidze, M. Riallot, B. Marini, P. Gable, Y. Date, M. Sugiura, Y. Elshayeb, T. Elnady, M. Ezzy, E. Guer- riero, V. Steiger, N. Serikoff, J.-B. ...

    2017

  4. [4]

    Nishiyama, A

    R. Nishiyama, A. Ariga, T. Ariga, S. K¨ aser, A. Lech- mann, D. Mair, P. Scampoli, M. Vladymyrov, A. Ered- itato, and F. Schlunegger, First measurement of ice- bedrock interface of alpine glaciers by cosmic muon radio- graphy, Geophysical Research Letters44, 6244 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Fujii, K

    H. Fujii, K. Hara, K. Hayashi, H. Kakuno, H. Ko- dama, K. Nagamine, K. Sato, S.-H. Kim, A. Suzuki, T. Sumiyoshi, K. Takahashi, F. Takasaki, S. Tanaka, and S. Yamashita, Investigation of the Unit-1 nuclear reac- tor of Fukushima Daiichi by cosmic muon radiography, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2020, 043C02 (2020)

    2020

  6. [6]

    Vanini, P

    S. Vanini, P. Calvini, P. Checchia, A. Rigoni Garola, J. Klinger, G. Zumerle, G. Bonomi, A. Donzella, and A. Zenoni, Muography of different structures using muon scattering and absorption algorithms, Philosoph- ical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences377, 20180051 (2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    S. Procureur, Muon imaging: Principles, technologies and applications, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in 8 Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment Radiation Imaging Techniques and Applications,878, 169 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Terzani, S

    D. Terzani, S. Kisyov, S. Greenberg, L. Le Pottier, M. Mironova, A. Picksley, J. Stackhouse, H.-E. Tsai, R. Li, E. Rockafellow, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, T. Heim, M. Garcia-Sciveres, C. Benedetti, J. Valentine, H. M. Milchberg, K. Nakamura, A. J. Gonsalves, J. van Tilborg, C. B. Schroeder, E. Esarey, and C. G. R. Geddes, Mea- surement of directional muon bea...

    2025

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Zhang, L

    F. Zhang, L. Deng, Y. Ge, J. Wen, B. Cui, K. Feng, H. Wang, C. Wu, Z. Pan, H. Liu, Z. Deng, Z. Zhang, L. Chen, D. Yan, L. Shan, Z. Yuan, C. Tian, J. Qian, J. Zhu, Y. Xu, Y. Yu, X. Zhang, L. Yang, W. Zhou, Y. Gu, W. Wang, Y. Leng, Z. Sun, and R. Li, Proof- of-principle demonstr...

    2025

  2. [10]

    A. W. Chao, K. H. Mess, and others,Handbook of accel- erator physics and engineering(World scientific, 2013)

    2013

  3. [11]

    A. I. Titov, B. K¨ ampfer, and H. Takabe, Dimuon pro- duction by laser-wakefield accelerated electrons, Physi- cal Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams12, 111301 (2009)

    2009

  4. [12]

    B. S. Rao, J. H. Jeon, H. T. Kim, and C. H. Nam, Bright muon source driven by GeV electron beams from a com- pact laser wakefield accelerator, Plasma Physics and Con- trolled Fusion60, 095002 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Calvin, P

    L. Calvin, P. Tomassini, D. Doria, D. Martello, R. M. Deas, and G. Sarri, Laser-driven muon production for material inspection and imaging, Frontiers in Physics11, 10.3389/fphy.2023.1177486 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Calvin, E

    L. Calvin, E. Gerstmayr, C. Arran, L. Tudor, T. Foster, K. Fleck, B. Bergmann, D. Doria, B. Kettle, H. Maguire, V. Malka, P. Manek, S. P. D. Mangles, P. McKenna, R. E. Mihai, S. Popa, C. Ridgers, J. Sarma, P. Smolyan- skiy, R. Wilson, R. M. Deas, and G. Sarri, Experimental evi...

    2026

  7. [15]

    Dreesen, J

    W. Dreesen, J. A. Green, M. Browder, J. Wood, D. Schwellenbach, T. Ditmire, G. Tiwari, and C. Wag- ner, Detection of petawatt laser-induced muon source for rapid high-Z material detection, in2014 IEEE Nu- clear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Confer- ence (NSS/MIC)(2014) pp. 1–6

    2014

  8. [16]

    Kiani, T

    L. Kiani, T. Zhou, S.-W. Bahk, J. Bromage, D. Bruh- wiler, E. M. Campbell, Z. Chang, E. Chowdhury, M. Downer, Q. Du, E. Esarey, A. Galvanauskas, T. Galvin, C. H¨ afner, D. Hoffmann, C. Joshi, M. Kan- skar, W. Lu, C. Menoni, M. Messerly, S. B. Mirov, M. Palmer, I. Pogorelsky, M...

  9. [17]

    Picksley, J

    A. Picksley, J. Stackhouse, C. Benedetti, K. Naka- mura, H. E. Tsai, R. Li, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, E. Rockafellow, H. M. Milchberg, C. B. Schroeder, J. van Tilborg, E. Esarey, C. G. R. Geddes, and A. J. Gonsalves, Matched Guiding and Controlled Injection in Dark-Current-Free, ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    R. J. Shalloo, C. Arran, L. Corner, J. Holloway, J. Jon- nerby, R. Walczak, H. M. Milchberg, and S. M. Hooker, Hydrodynamic optical-field-ionized plasma channels, Physical Review E97, 053203 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Shalloo, C

    R. Shalloo, C. Arran, A. Picksley, A. von Boetticher, L. Corner, J. Holloway, G. Hine, J. Jonnerby, H. Milch- berg, C. Thornton, R. Walczak, and S. Hooker, Low- density hydrodynamic optical-field-ionized plasma chan- nels generated with an axicon lens, Physical Review Ac- cele...

    2019

  12. [20]

    Smartsev, C

    S. Smartsev, C. Caizergues, K. Oubrerie, J. Gautier, J.-P. Goddet, A. Tafzi, K. T. Phuoc, V. Malka, and C. Thaury, Axiparabola: a long-focal-depth, high-resolution mirror for broadband high-intensity lasers, Optics Letters44, 3414 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Morozov, A

    A. Morozov, A. Goltsov, Q. Chen, M. Scully, and S. Suck- ewer, Ionization assisted self-guiding of femtosecond laser pulses, Physics of Plasmas25, 053110 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Picksley, A

    A. Picksley, A. Alejo, R. J. Shalloo, C. Arran, A. von Boetticher, L. Corner, J. A. Holloway, J. Jonnerby, O. Jakobsson, C. Thornton, R. Walczak, and S. M. Hooker, Meter-scale conditioned hydrodynamic optical- field-ionized plasma channels, Physical Review E102, 053201 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    Feder, B

    L. Feder, B. Miao, J. E. Shrock, A. Goffin, and H. M. Milchberg, Self-waveguiding of relativistic laser pulses in neutral gas channels, Physical Review Research2, 043173 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Nakamura, H.-S

    K. Nakamura, H.-S. Mao, A. J. Gonsalves, H. Vincenti, D. E. Mittelberger, J. Daniels, A. Magana, C. Toth, and W. P. Leemans, Diagnostics, Control and Perfor- mance Parameters for the BELLA High Repetition Rate Petawatt Class Laser, IEEE Journal of Quantum Elec- tronics53, 1 (2...

    2017

  17. [25]

    Alimonti, A

    G. Alimonti, A. Andreazza, F. Arteche, M. Barbero, P. Barrillon, R. Beccherle, G. Bonomelli, G. Bilei, W. Bialas, D. Bortoletto, G. Calderini, A. Caratelli, A. Cassese, J. Christiansen, E. Conti, F. Crescioli, M. Daas, L. Damenti, S. D’Auria, F. De Canio, G. De Robertis, N. De...

  18. [26]

    M. A. A. Samy, G. Calderini, T. Carcone, J. Car- lotto, P. Chabrillat, C. Gemme, A. Grigorev, T. Heim, L. Meng, M. Miranova, S. Ravera, M. Ressegotti, A. Rummler, A. Skaf, and C. Krause, Recent test beam results of ATLAS ITk pixel modules, Journal of Instru- mentation20(06), C06025

  19. [27]

    Dannheim, K

    D. Dannheim, K. Dort, L. Huth, D. Hynds, I. Kremas- tiotis, J. Kr¨ oger, M. Munker, F. Pitters, P. Sch¨ utze, S. Spannagel, T. Vanat, and M. Williams, Corryvreckan: a modular 4D track reconstruction and analysis software for test beam data, Journal of Instrumentation16(03), P03008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.